HS14 - Political Organisation of Attica

HESPERIA SUPPLEMENT XIV
THE
POLITICAL ORGANIZATI
OF ATTICA
A STUDY OF THE DEMES, TRITTYES, AND PHYLAI,
AND THEIR REPRESENTATION IN THE ATHENIAN COUNCIL
BY
JOHN S. TRAILL
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
I975
This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLISHED WITH THE HELP OF GRANTS FROM THE HUMANITIES
RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA, USING FUNDS PROVIDED BY
THE CANADA COUNCIL, AND FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
CLASSICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Traill, John S 1939-
The Political Organization of Attica.
(Hesperia. Supplement 14)

Bibliography: p.
1. Attica-Politics and government. I. Title.
II. Series: Hesperia; journal of the American School
of Classical Studies at Athens. Supplement 14.
DF261 .A8T7 320.9'38'5 74-17324
ISBN 0-87661-514-0
Printed in Great Britain by

William Clowes & Sons, Limited, London, Beccles and Colchester

FOR PROFESSOR H. GRANT ROBERTSON
TOUVPKac /Le 7poEKEK8 S&SaUKcL'.vaL raSe rTav'ra

PREFACE
The research for the present volume was initiated during the preparation for
publication of three Agora bouleutic lists.1 Their study encouraged, indeed de-
manded, a re-examination of the whole body of prytany and bouleutic material.
These interests, in part, complemented the plans for a final publication in corpus
form of the inscriptions from the Athenian Agora Excavations, and the first volume
of this series, entitled Athenian Agora, XV, The Athenian Councillors, Princeton,
1974, was duly completed by Benjamin D. Meritt and myself. Not all the material of
my researcheshe, however, seemed suitable for inclusion in Agora, XV, which, with the
nearly five hundred known Athenian prytany and bouleutic texts, was already a
considerable volume. It was therefore decided to publish separately my studies of
the organization and composition of the phylai and of the locations, number, and
representation of the Attic demes. Since much of the preliminary work had been
done during the four years between 1965 and 1970 in which I was a member of the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, publication of The Political
Organizationof Attica as a supplemental volume to Hesperia, Journal of the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens seemed appropriate.
Of the many persons who have assisted this work I would like especially to
mention Sterling Dow and Harry J. Carroll, Jr. Dow's fundamental study,
Prytaneis, A Study of the Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors (Hesperia,
Supplement I, 1937), has provided an important basis both for the present study
and also for Agora, XV. Carroll's unpublished dissertation, Bouleutai, An Epi-
graphical and Prosopographical Study of the Lists of Athenian Councillors ...
(Harvard University, 1954), included new texts of many fourth century prytany
and bouleutic inscriptions, together with tables of representation which served as
models for the tables published in the present work.
It is a pleasure also to record my warm thanks to the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens and its successive directors, Henry S. Robinson and
James R. McCredie, to the Agora Excavations, especially the Field Director, T.
Leslie Shear, Jr., and the past Secretary of Records, Mrs. Andreou Demoulini, to
members of the Greek Archaeological Service, and to the staff of the Epigraphical
Museum, especially Markellos Th. Mitsos and Mrs. Dina Peppa-Delmouzou, past
1 Hesperia, XXXV, 1966, pp. 205-240; XXXVII, 1968, pp. 1-24; XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 459-494,
and 530. A number of the ideas published in this volume were presented in a preliminary form in the
author's dissertation, Representationin the Athenian Council (Harvard, 1967, unpublished).

vi PREFACE
and present director respectively. My gratitude is also due the Canada Council and
the Department of the Classics, Harvard University, for fellowships to attend the
American School of Classical Studies in Athens and for grants to aid the publication
of this volume. I would express special thanks to C. W. J. Eliot for much help and
kind criticism, to Marian H. McAllister for skillful editing and careful proofreading,
and to the Meriden Gravure Company and William Clowes and Sons, Limited for
superior engraving and masterly printing of a most difficult manuscript.
Finally, I would acknowledge an enormous debt to Eugene Vanderpool, who
has given me constant help and encouragement and saved me from an untold
number of errors, to Homer A. Thompson, who put at my disposal both his own vast
knowledge of Attica and the magnificent facilities of the Institute for Advanced
Study at Princeton, to Benjamin D. Meritt and Lucy Shoe Meritt, whose interest,
knowledge, and kindness have been unfailing in correcting manifold errors in the
manuscript and in persistent encouragement of the volume through the many
stages to final publication, and to Terry-Ellen Cox Traill, who has contributed,
directly and indirectly, to almost every page of this study. Utinam melius esset opus.
JOHN S. TRAILL
INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY, PRINCETON

MAY, 1972

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE V
TABLES IN TEXT ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. x
INTRODUCTION . . . . . xiii
The Subject . xiii
X1V1
xiv*
The Evidence . . . .
I. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEN PHYLAI. 1
Introduction to Tables of Representation 1
Commentary on Tables of Representation I-X 5
Notes to Tables of Representation . 23
II. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE FIVE LATER PHYLAI 25
Introduction to Tables of Representation XI-XV 25
Commentary on Tables of Representation XI-XV 26
III. THE BOULEUTIC ORGANIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEN PHYLAI 35
Introduction to Maps and to Conspectus of Deme Locations 35
Conspectus of Deme Locations (Topographical Tables) 37
IV. REPRESENTATION IN THE ATHENIAN COUNCIL, CONCLUSION. 56
The Periods of Fixed Quotas...... 56
The Reapportionment of 307/6 B.C. . . 58
The Reapportionment of 224/3 B.C. 61
The Quotas After 200 B.C.. . . 61
The Relative Sizes of the Demes and Trittyes . 64
V. THE ATTIC DEMES . . . . 73
The Constitutional Demes . . 73
The Spurious Demes . . . 81
The Late Roman Demes . . 87
Conclusion . . . . . 95
APPENDIX A: Prytany Inscriptions with little or no Evidence for Represen-
tation . 104

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX B: Alphabetical List of the Constitutional Demes and Assignment

to their Phylai ... 109
APPENDIXC: Alphabetical List of Spurious and Late Roman Demes and their
Sources . . . .113
APPENDIX D: The Homonymous and Divided Demes . 123
APPENDIX E: Two Emended Inscriptions .. . 129
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO MAPS AND TABLES OF REPRESENTATION .133
EPIGRAPHICAL INDEX . . . . .135
TABLES OF REPRESENTATION I-XV
MAPS 1-3

TABLES IN TEXT
Table to illustrate the distribution of texts by phyle and by period . .xvii
Table illustrating the organization of the Macedonian phylar . . . 28
Topographical Table I Erechtheis . . . . . . . . 37
II Aigeis . . . . . . . . . 39
III Pandionis . . . . . . . . 42
IV Leontis . . . . . . . . 43
V Akamantis . . . . . . . . 47
VI Oineis . . . . . . . . 48
VII Kekropis . . . . . . . . 50
VIII Hippothontis . . . . . . . 51
IX Aiantis . . . . . . . . 53
X Antiochis . . . . . . . . 53
Table to illustrate the consistency of deme quotas . . . . . 57
Table of quota changes, the reorganization of 307/6 B.C. . . . . 59
Table of known quotas, the reorganization of 224/3 B.C. . . . . 62
Table: The relative sizes of the demes . . . . . . . 67
The relative sizes of the trittyes: Table 1. . . . . . . 71
Table 2. . . . . . . 72
Table: The number of Athenian constitutional demes . . . .102

ABBREVIATIONS AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agora, XV = Meritt, B. D., and Traill, J. S., AthenianAgora, XV, Inscriptions, The AthenianCouncillors,
Princeton, 1974;figuresin bold face in the text (and in parentheses above the Tables of Represen-
tation) refer to the inscription numbers of Agora, XV
Agora, XVI = Woodhead, A. G., Athenian Agora, XVI, The Athenian Decrees,publication forthcoming
A .J.A. = AmericanJournal of Archaeology
'Apx. 'E . = 'ApXatoAoyLK 'EO,7Epts
Ath. Mitt. = Mitteilungen des deutschenarchdologischenInstituts,
AthenischeAbteilung
B.C.H. = Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellenique
Bradeen, D. W., "The Trittyes in Cleisthenes' Reforms," T.A.P.A., LXXXVI, 1955, pp. 22-30
B.S.A. = The Annual of the British School at Athens
EA-r. = 'ApXaiotoyLKov e A-Arov
Dinsmoor, Archons= Dinsmoor, W. B., The Archonsof Athens in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge,Mass.,
1931
Eliot, Coastal Demes=Eliot, C. W. J., Coastal Demes of Attika, A Study of the Policy of Kleisthenes,
Phoenix, Supplement V, Toronto, 1962
Frazer, Pausanias= Frazer, J. G., Pausanias's Description of Greece,2nd ed., London, 1913
Geagan, Athenian Constitutionafter Sulla=Geagan, D. J., Hesperia, Supplement XII, The Athenian
ConstitutionAfter Sulla, Princeton, 1967
Gomme, Population=Gomme, A. W., The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth CenturiesB.C.,
Oxford, 1933
Hesperia (H, in Tables) = Hesperia, Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Hesperia, Suppl. I (H SI, in Tables) = Dow, S., Hesperia, Supplement I, Prytaneis, A Study of theInscrip-
tions Honoring the Athenian Councillors,Athens, 1937
Hesperia, Suppl. VIII (H SVIII, in Tables) = Hesperia, Supplement VIII, CommemorativeStudies in
Honor of TheodoreLeslie Shear, Princeton, 1949
I.G. (IG, in Tables) =Inscriptiones Graecae,Inscriptiones Atticae, Editio Minor, volume I edited by F.
Hiller von Gartringen, Berlin, 1924; volumes II-III edited by J. Kirchner, Berlin, 1913-1940;
also referred to as Corpus
Judeich, Topographie2= Judeich, W., Topographievon Athen, 2nd ed., Munich, 1931
Karten von Attika=Curtius, E., and Kaupert, J. A., Karten von Attika, Berlin, 1881-1891
Karten von Attika, Text = Milchh6fer,A., Erlauternder Text to Curtius, E., and Kaupert, J. A., Karten
von Attika, Berlin, Heft II, 1883, Heft III-VI, 1889, Heft VII-VIII, 1895, Heft IX, 1900
Kirsten, Atti terzocongr.= Kirsten, E., "Der gegenwartige Stand der attischen Demenforschung," Atti
del terzocongressointernazionaledi epigrafiagreca e latina (Roma, 4-8 Settembre 1957), Rome,
1959, pp. 155-171
Larsen, J. A. O., "A Note on the Representation of Demes in the Athenian Boule," Cl. Phil., LVII,
1962, pp. 104-108
Larsen, J. A. O., RepresentativeGovernmentin Greekand Roman History, Sather Classical Lectures,
vol. 28, Berkeley, 1955
Lewis, D. M., "Cleisthenes and Attica," Historia, XII, 1963, pp. 22-40
L6per, R., "Die Trittyen und Demen Attikas," Ath. Mitt., XVII, 1892, pp. 319-433
L.S.J.9=Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., augmented by H. S. Jones
assisted by R. McKenzie, Oxford, 1940

ABBREVIATIONS AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY xi
McCredie,J. R., Hesperia, Supplement XI, Fortified Military Camps in Attica, Princeton, 1966
Milchhofer, Demenordnung= Milchhofer, A., Untersuchungeniiber die Demenordnungdes Kleisthenes,
Abhandlungender Kdniglich preussischenAkademie der Wissenschaftenzu Berlin, Berlin, 1892
Notopoulos, J. A., "Studies in the Chronology of Athens Under the Empire," Hesperia, XVIII, 1949,
pp. 1-57
O.C.D.= The OxfordClassical Dictionary, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1970
P.A. =Kirchner, J., ProsopographiaAttica, Berlin, vol. I, 1901, vol. II, 1903
Philippson, Griech. Landschaften= Philippson, A., Die griechischenLandschaften,I, Der Nordostender
griechischenHalbinsel, Teil III, Attika und Megaris (with appendix and notes by E. Kirsten),
Frankfurt, 1952
Pouilloux, J., La Forteressede Rhamnonte,Paris, 1954
JpaKroc&Ka rs
pcaKTcLK := e'v 'AO 'vats 'ApxaLoAoy7K:s 'ETatpeias
Pritchett, Five Tribes= Pritchett, W. K., The Five Attic Tribes After Kleisthenes, Baltimore, 1943
Pritchett, W. K., "An Unfinished Inscription, IG II2 2362," T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pp. 159-167
Raubitschek, A. E., "Note on the Post-Hadrianic Boule," Jpas 'AvroJvtov KepaiLo7rov'Aov,'ETrapda
MWKE0OVtK63V 7Srrov&wv,'E7TLUrT?^qOViLKaL
H7payiaTEcZac, 2Elpa PtAOAOylKU Ka 9EOAOAy/KC7,Athens,
1953, pp. 242-255
R.E. J3Auot=Schoffer, V. von, Paulys Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, s. v.
AikT,ot,vol. V, 1905, cols. 1-131
S.E.G. =Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
T.A.P.A. = Transactionsand Proceedingsof the American Philological Association
Thompson, W. E., "The Deme in Kleisthenes' Reforms," SymbolaeOsloenses,XLVI, 1971, pp. 72-79
Thompson, W. E., "Kleisthenes and Aigeis," Mnemosyne, XXII2, 1969, pp. 137-152
Thompson, W. E., "Notes on Attic Demes," Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, pp. 64-67
Thompson, W. E., TpLrrTvsr-v7Tpvrdvecov, Historia, XV, 1966, pp. 1-10
Vanderpool, E., "The Acharnian Aqueduct," Xaptor4ptov els 'Avaurdatov K. 'OpAdvSov,I, Athens, 1965,
pp. 166-175
Vanderpool, E., "A Lex Sacra of the Attic Deme Phrearrhioi," Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, pp. 47-53
Vanderpool, E., "The Location of the Attic Deme Erchia," B.C.H., LXXXIX, 1965, pp. 21-26
Young, J. H., "Studies in South Attica," Hesperia, XXV, 1956, pp. 122-146
Young, R. S., "An Industrial District of Ancient Athens," Hesperia, XX, 1951, pp. 135-288
Addendum: Only the briefest reference to P. J. Rhodes, Tpirivs T6v 7TpVraveWV(Historia, XX, 1971,
pp. 385-404), which arrived after this manuscript had been completed, could be added to several of the
notes. Although The Athenian Boule, Oxford, 1972, by the same author, had not yet appeared when the
present study went to press, I am indebted to Dr. Rhodes for sending me in advance of publication a
synopsis of the contents of his book.

INTRODUCTION
THE SUBJECT
In the twenty-first chapter of the 'AOrvawcov HoAtretaAristotle describes the
four elements essential to Kleisthenes' political organization of Attica:
(1) 7rp~ov uEV oVv ' , , , ,3EKa , '
(1) -TpO)TOV 7ravTas ElS
oVVEVEtL1E aTv Tiv Tov .... rvAasa ETTrapov
(2) ET7rELrarT7jv OVA'v TrevTaKoaltovs avtl rETpaKocltwv KaTreUr-qcEV, 7TEVT-qKOVTa E(
EKaCFT-qa V .. . .
(3) OlIEVEtlE Of Kat TrTV XC)paV KarTa 7qhoVSg TptaKOVTa 1LEp7, OKEKa 1EV TWV 7TrEpt TO
arTrv, oeKa oE TrS 7TrapaAas, eKa E Tr77S /LEaoyetov, Kat raVTas ETrovouaaas TptTTVS,
EKA)p&()Ev aTpeLS ELSET7oV 'vAv EKaUrTV, O7TOS eKa.CrT) LETEX vrTvTv orTCov.
(4) Kat or7floTas ETro077acEVaAXXAav TOVS' oLKovvTas ev EcKar4TW TOJV riJlOcov ....
These four elements, the Phylai, the Council, the Trittyes, and the Demes,
were combined by Kleisthenes to provide perhaps the most important, certainly the
most enduring, feature of ancient Athenian democracy, representative government.1
Representative government in ancient Athens, more precisely representation in
the Athenian Council, is the subject of the present study. While it is the hope that
some elucidation of the descriptions by Aristotle and by other ancient authors
concerning the Athenian system of representation will emerge from this work, its
sources are not these authors but rather the nearly five hundred inscriptions per-
taining to the prytaneis and bouleutai. These texts, now gathered in Agora, XV,2
provide a documented account over a period of some seven centuries of an extremely
stable and regular system. Year after year the various phylai were honored, or
honored themselves, by the setting up of lists of their prytaneis. Occasionally the
whole Council was so commemmorated and lists of all 500, or in the time of the
twelve phylai 600, bouleutai were erected. The names themselves, more than 4,000
councillors, or with patronymics (which were usually inscribed) more than 8,000
persons, represent a considerable cross-section of Athenian prosopography and
1 For convenience the author of the 'AO-qvalWov
HoAti-E'ais referredto in this study as Aristotle. On
the subject of representation in antiquity the reader is referred to J. A. 0. Larsen, Representative
Governmentin Greekand Roman History, Berkeley, 1955, with references to other works in the notes,
especially pp. 191-192, notes 8 and 9.
2
Above, p. v.

xiv INTRODUCTION
constitute a subject worthy of special separate treatment.3 Of concern here, how-

ever, are the statistics which these texts provide for the representation of the various
demes and trittyes in the Council. It is of great importance that, although the
purpose and general format of the monuments might vary somewhat from period to
period, the arrangement of the register, that is the section devoted to the lists of
names, remained constant. All the representatives of a particular deme were listed
together under the respective demotic, thus making readily apparent the quota of
representation of a deme on any list.4 There are a few texts, admittedly, chiefly
from the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries after Christ in
which the demotics did not appear, or if they did appear, they were inscribed in
curtailed form beside the individual names, but these are a small exception from a
particular period in which there is considerable other evidence for the decline of a
long-established system.
THE EVIDENCE
The nearly five hundred prytany and bouleutic inscriptions which appear in
Agora, XV have been assigned to five periods of Athenian government (see below,
p. xvii, Table to Illustrate the Distribution of Texts by Phyle and by Period). Some
fifty-six texts have been assigned to the time of the original ten phylai, that is the
two-hundred-year period from the institution of Kleisthenes' system at the end of
the sixth century to the time of the Macedonian reorganization in 307/6. In reality,
however, there are no texts from either the first hundred years or the last ten years
(i.e. the regency of Demetrios of Phaleron) of this period, so that the fifty-six
inscriptions cover a period of less than one hundred years. The monuments were for
the most part private dedications, set up often on the Acropolis. They usually listed
3 The social and economic background of the fourth-century councillors was the subject of a
"
published study by J. Sundwall, Epigraphische Beitrage zur sozial-politischen Geschichte Athens im
Zeitalter des Demosthenes," Klio, Beiheft IV, 1906, pp. 1-18, and an unpublished dissertation by H. J.
Carroll, Jr. (above, p. v). A limited prosopographicalcommentary for all periods was included in the
Index of Agora, XV. A considerablenumber of councillors appear in J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied
Families 600-300 B.C., Oxford, 1971.
4 The deme decree in honor of the bouleutai of Teithras (Hesperia, XXXI, 1962, pp. 401-403,
no. = 45) and the private dedication on Salamis by prytaneis of Peiraieus (I.G., II2, 1811=479) are
3
special cases and, of course, exceptions to this rule. The prytany registers as a whole differ markedly
from other lists of names, such as lists of fallen, ephebes, diaitetai, etc., by their general consistency in
format over a long period of time. The Athenian casualty lists have a reasonably regular format with
names listed in columns by phylai (and never by their demes), but they belong to only a short period of
Athenian history (see D. W. Bradeen, Athenian Agora, XVII, Inscriptions, The Funerary Monuments,
Princeton, 1974, pp. 3-34). The ephebic lists, though numerous and covering a period of time roughly
equal to that of the prytany monuments (but with not as even a distribution), vary widely in format
even within so limited a period as the fourth century B.C. (see 0. W. Reinmuth, The EphebicInscriptions
of the Fourth Century B.C., Mnemosyne, Supplementum XIV, Leiden, 1971). Other types of lists, e.g.
diaitetai, klerouchs, etc., are too rare to allow generalizations on format and usually date from a very
limited period of Athenian history (for examples, see the Corpus).

INTRODUCTION xv
all fifty prytaneis, although there are a few such dedications which did not include a
register of the prytaneis, several others, including the earliest preserved list, of
408/7, which were only partial rosters, and a few which included rosters of all ten
tribes or the entire Council. The brief heading on the prytany lists of this period
usually records that a particular tribe, or the prytaneis of that tribe, won (&viKa,
vtKrjravres, etc.) in the contest of prytanies; presumably it excelled the other tribes
in the performance of its duties.
In this period the number of texts assigned to a particular phyle varies from as
few as three, all of them fragmentary, for Aiantis, to as many as eight, four of them
virtually complete, for Pandionis. On the whole the first five phylai are better served
in this period than the last five; there are thirteen complete, or nearly complete,
rosters of the former, but only two of the latter. The imbalance is probably due only
to chance and is to be explained, in part, by the accidental preservation of the first
half of one bouleutic list.
In 307/6 the political system of Attica was reorganized following the creation
of the two Macedonian phylai. The Council was increased from 500 to 600 members
and the setting up of the prytany monuments now became a public concern,
funded from the public treasury. The decrees of the Boule and the Demos which
voted both the honors to the prytaneis and their officers and the payments to
cover the cost of these honors became a regular part of the texts, and henceforth it
was not uncommon for several tribes to be so distinguished in the same year. The
location of the monuments also was changed and at this time they were placed
almost without exception in the Agora, first in the section adjoining the Tholos
designated the Prytanikon,s5and much later, when the monuments had regularly
assumed the form of inscribed herm shafts, in the area in front of the Stoa Basileios
known as The Herms.6
We have assigned some sixty-nine texts to the eighty-four years belonging to
the first period of twelve phylai. Although large sections of three bouleutic lists,
apparently the last of this type of monument to be erected in Athens, have been
preserved, the majority of the inscriptions are very fragmentary (as many as
twenty-two cannot even be identified by phyle) and the distribution both in date
and in tribal affiliation is extremely irregular (see Table below, p. xvii). A spate of
prytany and bouleutic monuments followed the expulsion of Demetrios of Phaleron;
we have one text from 305/4, three, including a bouleutic catalogue, from the
following year, and another from 303/2. The number of prytany inscriptions assigned
to a single tribe varies from as many as seven (Akamantis and Oineis) to as few as
one (Hippothontis, and possibly Demetrias), but again the imbalance is probably
due only to the chance of preservation.
S Agora, XV, p. 3, note 13.
6 T. L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia, XL, 1971, pp. 255-256.

xvi INTRODUCTION
With the creation of Ptolemais in 224/3 the Council was once more expanded,
this time to 650 members, but there were no changes in the now well-established
routine of honoring the prytaneis and their officers. We have assigned some twenty-
seven texts to this brief period of twenty-three years in which thirteen phylai
existed.
In 201/0 the tribal organization of Kleisthenes passed through the most drastic
changes since the inception of the system more than three hundred years earlier.
First the two Macedonian phylai were dissolved and the demes which were then
affiliated with them returned to their original tribes. The number of phylai now
briefly stood at eleven, but there anoare prytany documents from the few tumultuous
monthsths of this tribal situation, although the important deme-catalogue I.G., II2,2362
has been dated tothis period.7 The creation of Attalis, however, in the spring of
200 B.C. returned the number of tribes to twelve once again and the Council to 600
members, a tribal arrangement which was to last more than three centuries and
endure even the momentous changes in Athenian political life following the conquest
of Athens by Sulla in 86 B.C.8
As many as one hundred and seventy prytany texts have been assigned to the
long second period of twelve phylai. They are not, however, distributed evenly
throughout the period; one hundred and ten, or nearly two-thirds of the inscriptions,
belong to the one hundred and fourteen years preceding the sack of Sulla, whereas
only sixty, or about one-third of the texts, are assigned to the succeeding two
hundred and thirteen years. Erechtheis was the most popular phyle and Akamantis
the least popular, but again no special significance should be attached to the figures.
In 126/79 of this era the tribal organization of Attica underwent its last trans-
formation with the creation of Hadrianis. The number of phylai now became
thirteen, but the individual contingents of prytaneis were reduced from fifty to forty
members and the Council itself was regarded as a nominal 500.10 After a short
period in which the monuments were paid for out of an endowment by Claudius
Atticus1' private prytany dedications, paid for by a wealthy member of the tribe,
once again became the rule and many of these monuments, as mentioned above,
took the form of inscribed herms.
7 On the
sequence of events in this year and the dating of I.G., II2, 2362 in particular, see WV.K.
Pritchett, T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pp. 159-167.
8
Geagan, Athenian ConstitutionAfter Sulla, passim.
9 On the date of the creation of Hadrianis, see J. A. Notopoulos, T.A.P.A., LXXVII, 1946, pp. 53-
56.
10On the size of the individual contingents I follow A. E. Raubitschek (FE'pas'Avrwovov Kepaciuo-
pp. 242-255) and D. J. Geagan (AthenianConstitutionAfter Sulla, pp. 95-96), but see now P. J.
rouAAov,
Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, Table A, "The Size of the Post-Hadrianic Lists of Prytanes" (I am
indebted to Dr. Rhodes for this reference in advance of the publication of his book).
11Geagan, Athenian ConstitutionAfter Sulla, pp. 99-100.

TABLE TO ILLUSTRATE THE DISTRIBUTION OF TEXTS BY PHYLE
X PIIYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII PHYLAI XII P
t _
0 0
* V
i
: ? .' o 0 r _in - : n
, p, I
1- I
r
b 4- Ii
g
^ ^ .-
PHYLE (3 ? '^
11-
ErecllSlCi 0 v-1
v O 0
PHYLE U H H
Erechtheis 1(1) 3(2) 0 4(3) 1(0) 1(2) 1 3(2)
Aigeis 2(1) 1(1) 0 3(2) 2(0) 3(2) 0 5(2)
Pandionis 4(1) 2(1) 0 6(2) 0(0) 3(3) 0 3(3)
Leontis 0 0
01 1 2 00 ~~~~
7
1(1) 3(1) 4(2) 1(0) 1 (3) 2(3) 0 00 0 5
Akamantis 0 3 0102 _ 0 0, _21 *1 0 62
0(1) 3(1) 3(2) 1(1) 3(2)
Oineis 1 4
7(3) 0 0 01
0 1 2 302 7
1(0) 2(1) 4(1) 0(1) 3(2) 7(3) 1 0 0
1 1
1 0 6
Kekropis 0(0) 3(3) 4(3) 0(0) 3(3) 4(3)
0 0 000 0 24
Hippothontis 0(0) 2(2) 2(2) 0(0) 1(3) 1(3)
Aiantis 2 01 1 2 0--
0(0) 0(1) 2(1) 0(0) 2(3) 22 4(3)
Antiochis 1(0) 2(2) 2 5(2) 0(2) 3(1) 0 3(3)
Antigonis 0(1) 1(1) 3 16 4 16(2)
0 0 0 0 0 4
Demetrias 16
1 16(2) 0
0-1 2 01 22
0(0) 1(2) 0
-- -
Ptolemais
Attalis
Hadrianis
Unidentified
by Phyle 14 14 22 22 -- 11 11 - -
TOTAL 10(5) 21(15) 20 51(20) 5(5) 25(27) 36 66(32) 5 7 15 27 11 51
12See Appendix A, below,
pp. 104/108.
13The totals for Oineis and/or
Kekropis may be one higher and for Aigeis one or two lower (below, pp. 105/106
14The totals for Ptolemais may be one
higher and for Pandionis one lower (below, pp. 105/107).
15The totals for Attalis may be one higher and for Leontis one lower (below, pp. 105/107).
16The totals for Demetrias may be one
higher and for Antigonis one lower (below, p. 107).

xviii INTRODUCTION
We have assigned one hundred and sixty-nine texts to the second period of
thirteen phylai and they form a fairly regular series from the beginning of the period
until about A.D. 231/2. One or two prytany lists may belong after that year but they
probably date no later than the middle of the third century after Christ. By the
time of the sack of Athens by the Herulians in A.D. 267 the prytany monuments,
like so much of the political activity in Athens, had come to an end.

CHAPTER I
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL

TEN PHYLAI
INTRODUCTION TO TABLES OF REPRESENTATION
The ten Tables of Representation for the original ten phylai (Tables I-X) as
well as the five additional tables (Tables XI-XV) for the five tribes created after
Kleisthenes present the inscriptional record1 for the representation of the Attic
demes in the five documented periods2 of ancient bouleutic government. The
material is listed approximately in chronological order with the earliest inscriptions
on the left and the latest on the right. In addition, summaries are given at the right-
hand side of each section (separated from the next section by a double line) for the
deme-quotas in the periods of the original ten phylai, i.e. from the end of the sixth
century to 308/7 B.C., the first period of twelve phylai, i.e. 307/6 to 224/3, and,
where there is sufficient evidence,3 also for the first period of thirteen phylai, i.e.
from 223/2 to 201/0. Estimated and doubtful quotas are designated in the sum-
maries, as in the body of the tables, with a question mark and variant quotas in the
summaries are shown in parentheses, usually modified with a small superscript
letter c which refers to a discussion of the individual problems in section C of the
accompanying Commentary (below, pp. 14-23). After 200 B.C. the system of
regular fixed quotas ceased to function and consequently no summary of quotas can
be given for either the second period of twelve phylai, i.e. from 200/199 B.C. to
A.D. 126/7, or for the second period of thirteen phylai, i.e. from A.D. 127/8 until the
middle of the third century after Christ when the prytany lists come to an end.
Several texts, which were included by Kirchner in the section assigned to
bouleutic lists in the Corpus, are listed in a special column beside the quota summary
for the period of the original ten phylai. One of these inscriptions, I.G., II2, 1699
1 For some slight additional evidence see Appendix A. Other councillors, known usually from their
appearance as cEr7taoTa1S rpoESpWv or as Uav/L7TrpoESposin the regular Athenian decrees, but also from
their occurrence in literary sources, have extremely limited value for the study of representation and
no attempt has been made to incorporate this evidence here.
2 As mentioned above (p. xvi), there are no prytany or bouleutic
inscriptions from the brief
transitional period of eleven phylai.
3 The
quotas of only four phylai, Erechtheis (Table I), Pandionis (Table III), Leontis (Table IV),
and Aiantis (Table IX), are well attested in the short first period of thirteen phylai.

2 THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF ATTICA
(= 493), resembles no other regular bouleutic catalogue by listing name and demotic
in the same line and has been rejected from consideration as a roster of councillors.
Another inscription, which is composed of I.G., II2, 1697, 1698, and 2372 (=492),4
cannot strictly speaking be a bouleutic list, but it must be closely related, for of the
seventeen quotas preserved all are either identical with, or larger than, the attested
bouleutic quotas. Indeed, considering that the total representation of these seven-
teen demes is fifty per cent higher than the corresponding bouleutic total, it is
obvious that the original text must have contained approximately seven hundred
and fifty names.5 A few other texts, whose quotas differ from the bouleutic repre-
sentation by more than the normal small variations, but not to such a degree as to
rule out categorically identification as prytany lists, have been included in the same
column and designated probably not prytaneis, etc.6
The squared brackets, [], surrounding a quota usually signify that the demotic
has been completely, or very nearly completely, restored. Sometimes they indicate
the restoration of the quota itself, and occasionally of both demotic and quota, but
in every case there is supporting evidence, usually physical considerations, etc., for
the restoration.7 A small superscript plus-sign, +, following a quota indicates that
the stone breaks off and that the full quota may have been higher than the number
shown. (For the periods in which fixed quotas existed a comparison with the other
4 In this discussion I am particularly indebted to the unpublished notes of S. Dow and H. J. Carroll,
Jr.
5 The relationship between the seventeen quotas attested in the unidentified list and the regular
bouleutic quotas is almost strictly proportional. The five demes with one representative in I.G., II2,
1697, etc., also have one bouleutes (Sybridai, however, occasionally went unrepresentedin the Council;
see below, p. 14); the two demes with two representatives either have one bouleutes (Otryne) or two
bouleutai (occasionally Kydantidai); the six demes with three representatives in the unidentified list
have, in every case, a bouleutic quota of two; the single deme with four, Kollytos, has a bouleutic quota
of three; Phegaia, with six demesmen in I.G., II2, 1697, etc., varies between three and four bouleutai;
and Halai's eight representatives and Anagyrous' nine compare with bouleutic quotas of five and six
respectively. The close relationship between the quotas in I.G., II2, 1697, 1698, and 2372 and the
bouleutic quotas, then, suggests that this catalogue of about 750 demesmen should be identified as a
roster of bouleutai and alternates.Admittedly, nowhere else are alternates (E7tAaXo'vrcEs) known to have
been listed with the regular members of the Council, and the number of such alternates, based on a
remark by Aeschines (III, 62), is stated by Harpokration (s. v. ErXAax(w'v) to have been equal to the
number of councillors. J. A. 0. Larsen, however, has pointed out the weakness of Haropkration's
argument (RepresentativeGovernment,pp. 194-195, note 23) and concluded " it seems very unlikely that
the number of alternates chosen numbered 500." Clearly the number of bouleutic alternates may well
have been of the order of half the enrollment of the Council. That the figures should be almost precisely
proportional to the bouleutic quotas is to be expected. See also below, pp. 78-79, note 16.
6 Several of these texts may have been private dedications by a group of phyletai, or partial rosters
of prytaneis (wherethe figures are smaller than the correspondingbouleutic quotas), or lists of prytaneis
and others who were not members of the Council (where the figures are larger than the bouleutic
quotas).
7 One quota, Tyrmeidai's, has been given in anlgledbrackets,indicating that the demotic has been
corrected by the author (see below, p. 89).

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEN PHYLAI 3
attested quotas for the same deme will usually indicate whether the figure is
complete.) An asterisk to the left of such a figure (always one), *1+, signifies that the
demesman appears in the decrees or citations of the text, but that his official
position, usually either secretary or treasurer of the prytaneis, guarantees his
membership in the Council and his appearance in the register, were it completely
preserved. A double asterisk, *, indicates that the roster was not arranged by
demotics according to the usual fashion, but that the demesmen have been identified
on prosopographical grounds alone. Almost all such rosters have been dated after
the creation of Hadrianis and belong to the second period of thirteen phylai.
References at the top of the Tables are to the publications, usually the Corpus
or Hesperia (IG, H, etc.; for the abbreviations, see "Abbreviations and Selected
Bibliography," above, p. x), followed, in parentheses, by the inscription number
in Agora, XV. The Hesperia inscriptions are cited by volume and page, but not by
the inscription number within each volume. The dates assigned to the texts are
generally those which appear in Agora, XV. All are B.C., unless designated p.
(= A.D.). Many of the dates for texts from the Roman period are based on studies
by J. A. Notopoulos,8 J. H. Oliver,9 and A. E. Raubitschek,10 and differ, sometimes
considerably, from those proposed in earlier publications.
At the bottom of each of the tables devoted to the original ten phylai totals are
given for the representation of the three trittyes.11 Also listed at the bottom of the
tables are figures for the number of councillors and number of demes represented in
the complete rosters. The total for councillors is usually fifty, or, in the second
period of thirteen phylai, forty,12but occasionally in the first two periods of bouleutic
government the roster is defective and contains fewer than the expected fifty
names. In these few instances (designated with a small superscript letter a, and
discussed in the Commentary below, section A, pp. 5-6) the register commonly
lacks just one councillor, but there are cases in which
theres deficiency is two, three, or
even four bouleutai. For several of the large bouleutic inscriptions, only the bottom
of some columns, and not the whole text, has been preserved, but the relative
lengths of the columns are readily apparent and from this the general composition
of the individual rosters, i.e. the number of councillors and demotics originally
present, may be deduced (see below, pp. 77-81). These totals appear in
8 "Studies in the Chronology of Athens Under the Empire," Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, pp. 1-57.
9 " On the Orderof the Athenian Catalogues of Aiseitoi," Harv. Th. Rev., XLIII, 1950,
10 "Note on the Post-Hadrianic
pp. 233-235.
Boule," rFpas 'AvrwViov KepauorrovAAov, Athens, 1953, pp. 242-255.
11The names of the trittyes are from C. W. J. Eliot, Coastal Demes, p. 157 (Professor Eliot has
kindly supplied two corrections:Epakria should be in bold-face type and Dekeleia in italics); see also the
discussion by D. M. Lewis, Historia, XII, 1963, pp. 27-34. A complete table showing the representation
of all thirty trittyes is presented below, p. 72.
12 See above, p. xvi, note 10. The eponymous has been included in, or excluded from, the figures
according to A. E. Raubitschek's argument (op. cit.).

parentheses, (), in the tables. Totals, usually modified with a plus-sign, are also
given for the number of councillors in the Late Roman rosters which did not include
demotics, but totals are not given for other fragmentary lists.
The demes in the first ten charts have been arranged by trittys, with doubtful
trittys affiliations denoted by question marks (for a discussion of some of these
problems see below, pp. 37-54) and the new tribal affiliations of transferred demes
indicated in large Roman letters. The list on the left-hand side of each table comprises
the regular constitutional demes of the Kleisthenic political organization. The same
list is repeated at the right-hand side of each chart, with the addition, for Akamantis
(Table V) and Antiochis (Table X), of several irregular Late Roman demes. The
latter were apparently never normal constitutional demes and have not been
included in the totals for the number of demes in the period summary column at the
bottom of the charts. Problems relating to the numbers and affiliations of the demes,
indicated with a small superscript letter b in the charts, are discussed in section B of
the accompanying Commentary (below, pp. 6-14).
Gomme's figures for the number of known Athenians bearing a particular
demoticl3 are given in parentheses following each deme name at the right-hand side
of the tables. No attempt has been made to bring these figures up-to-date by in-
corporating more recently discovered material,l4 but in one case, Kikynna (where
the figure for the spurious Kekropid deme has been combined with that of the well-
known Akamantid deme), a correction has been entered. In a few instances, usually
involving demes of the same name in separate phylai, where Gomme's figures appear
to be quite misleading, they have been specially designated, a plus-sign for figures
obviously too high, a minus-sign for figures too low.
The small superscript numbers refer to the notes which appear on pp. 23-24
and deal with specific problems involving individual texts and not relating to the
general problems, viz. defective lists, deme affiliations, and quota variations,
discussed in sections A, B, and C, respectively, of the Commentary.
Finally, the Map Reference at the extreme right-hand side of Tables I to X
refers to the trittys designation on Maps 1-3 at the end of the volume.
13 Population, pp. 56-65.
14 A series of figures was in fact preparedusing the material from the Agora Excavations and other
Attic inscriptions published in Hesperia, but it was decided to postpone the publication of such figures
until the five volumes of the Agora series devoted to inscriptions (Athenian Agora, volumes XV-XIX)
had been completed.

COMMENTARY ON TABLES OF REPRESENTATION I-X
A. THE DEFECTIVELISTS
TABLE I, ERECHTHEIS
The earliest list of Erechtheis (I.G., I2, 398 = 1) was only a partial roster. The
total space available for the inscribing of names would accommodate either 38
prytaneis and 13 demotics or 37 prytaneis and 14 demotics (cf. Agora, XV, No. 1,
comment).
TABLE II, AIGEIS

Aigeis has more defective rosters in the first two periods of bouleutic govern-
ment than any other phyle. Allowing that the two sections of Ankyle were listed
together in the bouleutic list of 335/4 the Aigeid roster is still short two lines, i.e. one
name and patronymic (see below, p. 7). Of the four defective prytany rosters, two,
viz. I.G., II2, 1749 (= 38) and Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 32 (= 42), lack one demesman
each. On the former text the blank line under the single prytanis of Ionidai at the
bottom of the first column and on the latter the uninscribed line betwveenthe sixth
councillor of Erchia and the succeeding demotic make these two demes the most
likely candidates respectively for the missing names. One of the defective lists from
the Macedonian period, I.G., II2, 678 (= 85), now lost, had apparently only forty-
five names, although the blank line in Pococke's transcript between the demotic of
Kolonos and its single representative may account for a forty-sixth. The other
defective Macedonian list, Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 418-420, no. 1 (= 89), has
just forty-eight names. A comparison of the quotas on these two inscriptions, how-
ever, suggests that the missing demesmen in the former belong one each to Bate,
Erchia, Halai, and Ionidai and in the latter to Phegaia and Teithras (cf. Hesperia,
XXXVIII, 1969, p. 422).
TABLE III, PANDIONIS

The transcripts of Spon and Wheler suggest that I.G., II2, 1753 (= 47) may have
listed only forty-six prytaneis, but, because the stone has been lost, it is possible
that the explanation for this deficiency lies in faulty copying by the original editors
(see below, section C).
TABLE IV, LEONTIS

The Leontid roster in the bouleutic list of 336/5 contains just forty-nine names.
The missing councillor, however, belongs very probably to Phrearrhioi, for the last
four representatives of this deme were erased and re-inscribed closer together to

allow room for a ninth bouleutes whose name was never inscribed (cf. Hesperia,
XXX, 1961, p. 47). The register belonging to the prytany list of 222/1 B.C. also is
defective. The text, first corrected in Hesperia, IX, 1940, p. 78 and revised again in
Agora, XV, No. 129, could, at most, have contained the names of only forty-seven
prytaneis. Comparing the quotas on this inscription with those attested in the
preceding period and allowing for an increase in the representation of Phrearrhioi
from nine to ten councillors to offset the loss of Hekale to Ptolemais, it becomes clear
that the three missing demesmen belong one each to Sounion, Kolonai, and Hybadai.
TABLE VIII, HIPPOTHONTIS

The disposition of the ends of the columns in the bouleutic list of 335/4 in-
dicates that the roster of Hippothontis was two lines short, i.e. either two demes
failed to provide their single representatives or, more likely, the roster contained
just forty-nine councillors (see below, p. 78). The Hippothontid prytany list dated
about 155 B.C. contains only forty-nine names, but the disappearance of fixed quotas
in the period after the creation of Attalis does not allow us to identify the deme
from which the single prytanis is missing.14bis
B. THE DEMES OF THE ORIGINALTEN PHYLAI

TABLE I, ERECHTHEIS
Erechtheis in the period of the original ten phylai had fourteen demes, including
three split or divided demes, viz. Upper and Lower Agryle, Upper and Coastal or
Lower Lamptrai, and Upper and Lower Pergase. Not all fourteen, however, were
represented in every year during this first period. Sybridai and Pambotadai, in fact,
appear to have taken turns prior to 307/6 in sending one representative to the
Council (cf. also section C, below). With the creation of the Macedonian phylai one
section of each of Erechtheis' three divided demes was transferred to Antigonis;
Lamptrai's contribution was the Upper section, but it is not yet known which parts
of Agryle and Pergase were transferred. In 281/0 again an Erechtheid deme,
probably Pambotadai, may have been absent from the Council (see section C,
below). The transfer of Themakos to Ptolemais in 224/3 brought the number of
demes in Erechtheis to ten. In 201/0, however, the total rose briefly to thirteen
with the return of the demes which had been transferred to Antigonis. Later in the
same year one section of Agryle, again it is uncertain whether Upper or Lower
Agryle, went to Attalis, and the number of demes in Erechtheis became twelve.
This figure includes Upper and Coastal Lamptrai and Upper and Lower Pergase,
14bis The first column is one line shorter than the others and the missing prytanis may belong to
Hamaxanteia, or possibly Dekeleia.

although the two sections of these divided demes are no longer distinguishable, and
on the Erechtheid prytany list of ca. 40-30 B.C. Pergase and Agryle, as well as
Kedoi, had no representation. Like the other phylai, Erechtheis gave one deme,
Pambotadai, to Hadrianis.
TABLE II, AIGEIS

Counting separately the two sections of Ankyle, Aigeis had twenty-one demes
in the period of the original ten phylai. This is the figure attested by the prytany
list of 341/0, although in 343/2 (?), 336/5, and apparently also in 335/4 the two
sections of Ankyle were listed together. In fact, the last roster may have had only
eighteen demes (see below, p. 78). In addition to Ankyle, Ikarion was also formerly
considered a divided deme, but the evidence for the section assigned to Ptolemais is
extremely weak and it is better now to leave this deme undivided (see pp. 83-84).
With the establishment of the Macedonian tribes three Aigeid demes, comprising
one section of Ankyle, perhaps Upper Ankyle (see p. 88, note 54), Gargettos, and
Ikarion, were transferred to Antigonis at the same time as Diomeia went to De-
metrias. The number of demes remaining in the original phyle now stood at seven-
teen, i.e. the figure attested by the prytany list of 254/3, although Bate does not
appear in the defective roster two years earlier (see section A, above). Kydantidai
was transferred to Ptolemais in 224/3 and the number of demes remaining in Aigeis
dropped to sixteen. With the dissolution of the Macedonian phylai in 201/0 the
four Aigeid demes transferred to Antigonis and Demetrias returned, of course, to
their original tribe, but Ikarion after a few months was given to Attalis. The
number of demes in Aigeis during the second period of twelve phylai thus totalled
nineteen, counting separately Upper and Lower Ankyle, although the two sections
are henceforth indistinguishable. With the creation of Hadrianis one Aigeid deme,
Phegaia, was transferred to the Roman phyle and the total number of demes
remaining in the original tribe fell to eighteen. On the two fully preserved Aigeid
prytany lists from this last period, viz. of A.D. 138/9 and 182/3, however, only seven
and nine demes respectively had representation.

Pandionis in the period of the original ten phylai was composed of eleven
demes, counting the two sections of Paiania which are listed separately on at least
four of the eight prytany and bouleutic rosters from that period. Three additional
demes, viz. Graes, Phegaia, and Kaletea, none of which ever appears in a list of
councillors, have been attributed to Pandionis. Each affiliation depends on a single
piece of evidence; both Graes and Phegaia occur in the deme-catalogue of 201/0 B.C.
and Kaletea depends on two early, and probably faulty, transcripts of an ephebic

list. All three are spurious demes, the first two arising perhaps from an error by a
mason, the last from mistaken readings by epigraphists (see below, pp. 82-83/115 and
120, Nos. 14, 31, 17). With the creation of the Macedonian phylai three Pandionid
demes, viz. Kydathenaion, Kytheros, and tiny Upper Paiania, were transferred to
Antigonis, leaving eight demes, confirmed indirectly by the bouleutic lists of 304/3,
303/2, and 281/0 (see below, p. 79), in the original phyle. This total dropped to
seven, i.e. the total attested on the prytany list of 220/19, when Konthyle was given
to Ptolemais. The demes presented to Antigonis returned to Pandionis in 201/0 and
later that same year Probalinthos was transferred to Attalis. The total number of
Pandionid demes now stood at nine. Probably eight demes appeared in the prytany
list of 155/4, the two sections of Paiania being henceforth indistinguishable, but only
six occurred in the roster of ca. 20 B.C. Like the other phylai, Pandionis gave one
deme, Oa, to Hadrianis, reducing its total complement to eight demes, six of which
(or seven, allowing for two demes Paiania) are attested in the complete list of
A.D. 169/70.
TABLEIV, LEONTIS
The number of demes affiliated with Leontis in the period of the original ten
phylai totalled twenty, all of which, including three demes named Potamos, viz.
Upper Potamos, Lower Potamos, and Potamos Deiradiotes, appear in the prytany
list tentatively dated 370/69 B.C. All the Potamioi were grouped together in the
bouleutic list of 336/5, but were recorded separately in the catalogue of the following
year. Leontis gave three demes, viz. Deiradiotai, the related Potamos Deiradiotes,
and Aithalidai, to Antigonis, and two demes, viz. Oion Kerameikon and Lower
Potamos, to Demetrias, leaving fifteen demes in the original phyle. This figure is
confirmed indirectly by the bouleutic lists of 304/3, 303/2, and 281/0 (see below,
p. 79). Hekale went to Ptolemais in 224/3 and the total fell to fourteen, all of which
appeared in the prytany roster of 222/1. With the dissolution of the Macedonian
phylai and the creation of Attalis the deme figures for Leontis went to nineteen
briefly, then eighteen. After 200 B.C. the three Potamos demes were not distinguished
and neither they nor Deiradiotai appeared in the prytany list of ca. 168 B.C. With
the transfer of Skambonidai to Hadrianis the total of Leontid demes, counting
three sections of Potamos, fell to seventeen.
TABLE V, AKAMANTIS
The original deme complement of Akamantis numbered thirteen, all of which
were present in the bouleutic list of 336/5 and apparently also in the catalogue of the
following year. This figure does not include Rhakidai and Kyrteidai, two additional
demes attributed to Akamantis. The former is known only from a single citation by

Photios and is almost certainly spurious (see below, pp. 87 and 120, No. 35).
Kyrteidai, on the other hand, is very well attested, especially in the ephebic
inscriptions of the Late Roman period, but there is no evidence for its existence
prior to the middle of the second century after Christ and even then it may not have
been a regular Attic deme (see below, pp. 93 and 116, No. 21). Akamantis gave
three demes to the Macedonian phylai, Eitea to Antigonis, and Poros and Hagnous
to Demetrias, leaving ten demes in the original phyle. This figure is attested in-
directly by the prytany list of 305/4 and the bouleutic catalogues of 303/2 and 281/0.
With the transfer of Prospalta to Ptolemais, the return of the demes which had been
relinquished to Antigonis and Demetrias, and the subsequent donation of one of
them, Hagnous, to Attalis, the deme-total for Akamantis went to nine, twelve
briefly, finally eleven. Like the other tribes Akamantis surrendered one deme,
Eitea, to Hadrianis, bringing the final total, not including Kyrteidai, of constitu-
tional demes in the original phyle to ten. As many as eight of these appear in the
prytany list of 167/8, although the roster of the following year contains only five
regular demes, or, counting Kyrteidai which occurs only here on a prytany inscrip-
tion, six Akamantid demes.
TABLE VI, OINEIS
Oineis was composed originally of thirteen demes. Small Tyrmeidai did not have
any representation in the Council during 360/59 and either it or one of the numerous
other small Oineid demes apparently failed to provide its single bouleutes also in
335/4 (see below, p. 78). To this total of thirteen, scholars have added two additional
demes, a second deme Phyle and Perrhidai. The evidence for Phyle B, however, has
now been removed by a new restoration and dating of Hesperia, IX, 1940, p. 80,
no. 13 (see below, pp. 85 and 120, No. 30) and the appearance of Perrhidai, in a
unique form, on an Oineid prytany list of the early third century is to be explained,
I suggest, by the mason's confusing it with the very small, but legitimate deme
Tyrmeidai (see pp. 89, 119, No. 28). Oineis surrendered Hippotomadai, Kothokidai,
and Phyle to Demetrias, leaving ten demes in the original tribe during the first
period of twelve phylai. This figure is attested directly by the bouleutic list of 303/2
and indirectly by the catalogue of 281/0 (below, p. 79). The transfer of Boutadai
to Ptolemais, the return of the three demes given to Demetrias, and the surrender
of Tyrmeidai to Attalis and Thria to Hadrianis, left Oineis with deme-totals of nine,
twelve briefly, eleven, and ten for the respective periods.
TABLE VII, KEKROPIS

Eleven demes are known with certainty to have been affiliated with Kekropis
during the period of the original ten phylai. The relative lengths of the columns in
the bouleutic list of 335/4, however, suggest that twelve demes may have had

representation in that year (see below, p. 78). The existence of a second deme
Kikynna, homonymous with the well-known deme in Akamantis, would account
for this discrepancy, but the evidence for such a deme, a single letter recorded by
Chandler in a now lost inscription, is highly insubstantial and Kikynna B has been
rejected as spurious (below, p. 115, No. 18). Two additional Kekropid demes are
furnished by the possible division of either Trinemeia or Sypalettos. The case for the
former, based solely on the appearance of Trinemeia at the bottom of the ephebic
roster of Attalis in I.G., II2, 1028, at a time, 101/0 B.C., when it was still a well-
attested member of Kekropis, is extremely weak and the entry in the ephebic list is
now generally regarded by scholars as an addendumto the text (see below, pp. 85
and 112, No. 43).
A stronger case may be compiled for a second Sypalettos, utilizing as the
primary evidence the fact that the secretary of 146/5 belonged to this deme in a year
for which the tribal cycles require a demotic affiliated with Attalis. One deme
Sypalettos had a regular and continuous history in Kekropis, and no deme is known
to have been divided deliberately after the constitution of Kleisthenes; hence, a
divided Sypalettos in 146/5 implies a divided Sypalettos also in the period of the
original ten phylai and in the succeeding periods. Scholars, however, have generally
rejected Sypalettos as a split deme, preferring to assume an irregularity in the
tribal rotation of the secretaries during 146/5 B.c.15 Their primary evidence,
especially the absence of Sypalettos from the complete prytany list of Attalis in
173/2, has hitherto been negative.16 A more positive argument against the theory of
a divided Sypalettos is the manner in which Attalis was formed. Like Ptolemais
earlier and Hadrianis later, the Pergamene phyle was organized by taking one deme
from each of the tribes existing in 200 B.C., at the time of its formation. Kekropis'
contribution was the deme Athmonon and the additional contribution of a section
of Sypalettos would upset this regular scheme of composition.
Admittedly, some support for a divided Sypalettos may be derived from a
catalogue of names and demotics published as Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 201-
209, no. 53 (=494). The list includes the demes Melite, Xypete, Daidalidai, Koile,
and Sypalettos. The first three of these were affiliated originally with Kekropis and
later with Demetrias, the fourth with Hippothontis and later also with Demetrias,
and the last has a positive, known affiliation only with Kekropis. If this text is
dated after 307/6, then Sypalettos was definitely a divided deme, the Demetriad
15See below, p. 85, and note 41.

16The statement of the editor of the Attalid prytany list, published as Hesperia, XXVI, 1957,
pp. 33-47, no. 6 (= 206), that " the absence of Sypalettos from the register makes the assumption that it
was a divided deme now well-nigh untenable" is perhaps too strong, for the prytany lists after 200 B.C.
were seldom complete tribal rosters: the Hippothontid roster of circa 155, for instance, gave no repre-
sentation to Thymaitadai, Auridai, Anakaia, and Eroiadai.

section presumably being transferred later to Attalis. The original editor, B. D.

Meritt, however, dated the inscription circa 321 B.C. and identified it as a list of
councillors and identified the demesman of Koile as an officer of the Council.
Although we now know from the quotas and other evidence that the list cannot be
councillors and we must therefore accept an alternate identification, the dating
circa 321, based on letter-forms and prosopographical evidence,17 is probably still
sound.
In view of the foregoing argument, then, it would seem best for the present to
reject the theory of a divided Sypalettos and to assume an irregularity, perhaps due
to an uninscribed line, in the vertical spacing of the Kekropid roster of I.G., II2,
1700.18
With the creation of the Macedonian phylai the entire city trittys of Kekropis,
viz. Daidalidai, Melite, and Xypete, was transferred to Demetrias, leaving a total of
eight demes in the original tribe. The column lengths in the bouleutic lists of 303/2
and 281/0 indicate that the roster of Kekropis was short either one councillor or one
demotic during those years (see below, pp. 79-80). If the deficiency is a demotic,
then the small deme Epieikidai was almost certainly the unrepresented deme. It
cannot have been transferred to one of the Macedonian phylai if Dow's dating of
Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 77-79, no. 31 (= 132) is correct. Like all the other phylai,
Kekropis surrendered one deme to each of Ptolemais, Attalis, and Hadrianis,
leaving, in the final period of thirteen phylai, eight demes in the original tribe. Only
six of them, however, are attested in the complete prytany roster of 177/8.

Seventeen demes are known with certainty to have been affiliated with
Hippothontis during the period of the original ten phylai. Two of the small demes,
perhaps Auridai and Korydallos, may have been absent from the Hippothontid
17 See Meritt, op. cit., pp. 203-205.
18 An additional piece of evidence may be interpreted as supporting a divided Sypalettos, if I.G.,
II2, 2375 (= 16) is identified as a list of prytaneis. The representation of Sypalettos, four demesmen, in
this text shows an unusual variation for this period from its quota of two bouleutai in I.G., II2, 1700
(=43) of 335/4. In the latter text, however, the sections of each divided deme (with the possible
exception of Ankyle, see above, p. 7) were listed separately, for example, naLavLets KaOV(7TrepEV)in
line 71 and t Vi'7E'V(pOv)
HoTLLO L in line 99, and it is possible that the entry for Sypalettos in lines 152-
155 represents only one section, the other section, with two bouleutai, being inscribed presumably in the
upper part of the column. The demotic of Sypalettos is longer than the demotic of either Paiania or
Potamos and fills the width of the column leaving no room for a possible "upper/lower" designation
the two sections of Pergase in lines 10 and 15 were listed without further specification). Accordingly,
the hypothetical two sections of Sypalettos would have been listed together in I.G., II2, 2375 (= 16),
but separately in I.G., II2, 1700 (= 43). Parallels for such a treatment may be found in the other phylai
which possess divided demes, viz. Erechtheis, Aigeis, Pandionis, and Leontis.
For additional slight evidence against a divided Sypalettos see below, pp. 78-79, note 16.

roster of 335/4, which is two lines short, but the discrepancy is probably better
explained by the absence of one demesman and patronymic (see section A, above,
and p. 78, below).
Scholars, however, have assigned five additional demes to Hippothontis:
Agriadai, Pol(--), Anakaia B, Amymone, and Sphendale. The first three depend
each on a single reading and are almost certainly spurious: Agriadai, which appears
in Bekker's edition of A lecdota Graeca,is surely in error for Auridai; Pol(--) occurs
in a Late Roman ephebic roster of Hippothontis, but it is not clear which regular
demotic was intended; and I suggest that Anakaia, the demotic of a thesmothete in
Menekrates' year was cut by mistake for Anagyrous (see below, pp. 82 and 113,
No. 1, pp. 82 and 120, No. 33, and pp. 81-82 and 113, No. 5). Both Amymone and
Sphendale, on the other hand, are well attested, especially in ephebic lists of the
second and third centuries after Christ, but neither was probably ever a regular
Attic deme, and certainly not before the creation of Hadrianis (see below, pp. 93
and 113, No. 4, and pp. 91-92 and 121, No. 38).
The bouleutic lists of 303/2 certainly, and 281/0 probably, indicate the presence
in Hippothontis of fourteen demes. Koile is known positively and Oinoe is shown
from indirect evidence (below, p. 27) to have been transferred to Demetrias. A
third deme, Auridai or Korydallos, I propose, was transferred to Antigonis (below,
p. 27). The formation of Ptolemais drew Oion Dekeleikon from Hippothontis and
the number of demes remaining in the latter dropped to thirteen. The Hippothontid
Oinoe also passed to Ptolemais, but via Demetrias apparently. With the dissolution
of the Macedonian phylai Koile and Auridai or Korydallos (whichever had been
transferred) returned to their original tribe and the number of demes in Hippothontis
stood briefly at fifteen. The creation of Attalis soon lowered this total to fourteen,
all of which appear in the prytany list of 178/7. The complete rosters from about 155
and 135/4 B.C., however, attest only ten and twelve demes respectively. Hippo-
thontis, of course, gave one deme, little Elaious, to Hadrianis.
TABLE IX, AIANTIS
Aiantis in the period of the original ten phylai had a well-known total of six
demes: Phaleron, Marathon, Oinoe, Rhamnous, Trikorynthos, and Aphidna. Indeed,
this figure seems so certain that it has been taken as the standard for ascertaining
the number of demes which were originally present in the other tribal rosters of the
great bouleutic lists (below, pp. 78-79).
In addition to these six, however, six other demes, viz. Kykala, Perrhidai,
Thyrgonidai, Titakidai, Petalidai, and Psaphis, have been assigned by scholars at
various times to Aiantis. Kykala is attested only twice, once as a place name in a
fifth-century B.C. poletai inscription and again, six centuries later, in the Aiantid
roster of an ephebic list, but it is virtually certain that it was never a regular Attic

deme (see below, pp. 93 and 116, No. 20). Perrhidai, Thyrgonidai, and Titakidai are
all mentioned by the lexicographers, usually as being affiliated with Aiantis or as
demes which were transferred to Ptolemais. Thyrgonidai certainly, and Perrhidai
probably, also appear in the deme-catalogue of 201/0 B.C., and Titakidai is known
from two Late Roman ephebic registers and one prytany text. All three so-called
demes, however, were probably never regular members of the Athenian political
organization (see below, pp. 88-90 and 119, No. 28, pp. 88 and 121, No. 41, and
pp. 88 and 122, No. 42). Petalidai, authenticated as a place name associated with
Aphidna in two fourth-century B.C. property inscriptions, may be restored in the
deme-catalogue of 201/0, and reappears as a demotic of Ptolemais on an ephebic list
of the second century after Christ, but it too was probably not a regular deme (see
below, pp. 90 and 119, No. 29). Finally, Psaphis, the well-known Boeotian town,
appears as the demotic of Aiantis in one Late Roman ephebic list and as a demotic
or ethnic in two other Attic inscriptions, but again I suggest that it was not a
legitimate Athenian deme (below, pp. 92 and 120, No. 34).
Aiantis was the exception of the phylai and provided no demes in 307/6 to
either Antigonis or Demetrias. The original figure of six demes is attested directly
by the Macedonian councillor lists taken as a whole, and indirectly by the individual
lists of 304/3, 303/2, and 281/0. Aiantis, of course, was no exception in the later
tribal reorganizations and, like the other phylai, provided one deme to each of
Ptolemais, Attalis, and Hadrianis. Its totals of five, four, and three demes in these
respective periods are attested by prytany registers from 223/2, ca. 190/89, and the
middle of the second century after Christ.
TABLE X, ANTIOCHIS
Antiochis in the period of the original ten phylai is known to have been composed
of thirteen demes, all of which are attested in the complete prytany roster of 334/3.
The disposition of the column-ends in the bouleutic catalogue of the preceding year,
however, indicates that the roster of Antiochis is two lines too long, i.e. that it may
have contained two additional demes. Both Amphitrope and Semachidai have been
proposed by scholars as possible divided demes, but the case for neither is very
strong. The evidence for a second Amphitrope is based on a single text in which a
series of accounts is assumed to have been inscribed in a regular sequence, but it
may be that in this particular inscription one of the accounts was listed out of
chronological order (see below, pp. 84-85 and 113, No. 3). The second Semachidai is
not known before the late second and the beginning of the third centuries after
Christ and is unlikely ever to have been a regular Attic deme (see below, pp. 94-95
and 121, No. 37).
Eight other demes, a second Atene, De(--), Lekkon, Leukopyra, Ergadeis,
Phyrrhinesioi, Melainai, and Pentele, have also been associated with Antiochis, but

14 THE POLITICALORGANIZATIONOF ATTICA
none has any real claim for consideration as a regular deme belonging to the
Kleisthenic political organization. Indeed, the first two are now proved non-
existent, the result of erroneous readings of inscriptions (see below, pp. 82-83 114,
Nos. 6 and 9), and the third, which is known only from a single referencein Hesychios,
is also almost certainly spurious (below, pp. 87 and 117, No. 22). Leukopyra,
Ergadeis, and Phyrrhinesioi appear only on inscriptions from the second and third
centuries after Christ and certainly were not regular demes, if ever, before that
time (below, pp. 94 and 117, No. 24, pp. 93 and 114, No. 11, and pp. 94 and 120,
No. 32). Melainai and Pentele are known as place names earlier, but they too occur
as demotics only in the Late Roman period (below, pp. 91 and 118, No. 25, and
pp. 92 and 119, No. 27). The extra length of the Antiochid roster in the 335/4
bouleutic list, therefore, probably depends either on an error in the vertical spacing
or on the inclusion, within the column, of an additional phyletes or hyperetes.
With the Macedonian reorganization Antiochis surrendered three demes, Atene
and Thorai to Demetrias, and Kolonai (see pp. 26-27) to Antigonis, leaving ten
demes in the original phyle. This figure is attested directly by the bouleutic list of
303/2 and indirectly by the lists of 304/3 and 281/0. Antiochis contributed one deme,
Aigilia, to Ptolemais, the Antiochid Kolonai passing to the same tribe, I believe
(below, pp. 26-27), via Antigonis. The return, in 201/0, of Atene and Thorai to their
original tribe brought the number of demes in Antiochis briefly to eleven. Later in
the same year Atene was transferred to Attalis and the number of demes fell to ten,
precisely those ten attested on the prytany register of 169/8. Finally, Besa was
surrendered to Hadrianis with the creation of the Roman phyle and Antiochis'
complement of Kleisthenic demes decreased to nine. Only five of these appear in the
complete prytany register I.G., II2, 1783 (=472), but that list also contains two
Late Roman demes, Ergadeis and Phyrrhinesioi, not counted in our figure for the
period.
C. THE QUOTASOF THE ORIGINALTEN PHYLAI

TABLE I, ERECHTHEIS
Apart from the earliest list, which shows wide variations from the regular later
quotas, the bouleutic material of Erechtheis is remarkably consistent. There are,
however, several small quota variations. Pambotadai had one representative and
Sybridai none in 336/5, whereas the reverse was true apparently in 367/6, and the
relative lengths of the columns in the bouleutic list of 335/4 suggest that one of these
demes went unrepresented in that year also. Similarly in the Macedonian period,
Pambotadai had one representative in 256/5, but none apparently in 281/0 (Hesperia,
XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 471-472), although here the deficiency may have been
accounted for by one of the larger demes. The same explanation, of course, is possible

for the quota variations in the earlier period, but since no list preserves all fourteen
demes and since the attested quotas of the larger demes are entirely consistent,
there is no way to tell which larger deme may have accounted for the deficiencies.
It is even less certain whether pairs of demes with variant quotas belonged to the
same trittys.
The loss of ten bouleutai, occasioned by the transfer of demes from Erechtheis
to Antigonis, was offset by increasing the representation of the remaining large
demes, viz. Euonymon, Anagyrous, Coastal Lamptrai, and Kephisia. The loss of
Themakos' one representative to Ptolemais in the next reorganization was accounted
for by increasing the quota of Pambotadai to two bouleutai. After 200 B.C. the
prytany registers of Erechtheis show no consistency either within the same period or
with reference to the earlier periods in which an orderly system is everywhere
apparent.
TABLE II, AIGEIS

In the first two periods of bouleutic government Aigeis shows more variations
in the quotas of its demes than any other phyle. The demes and the variant quotas
(not all included for the Macedonian period) are as follows:
PERIODOF X PHYLAI PERIODOF XII PHYLAI
343/2 ? 341/0 336/5 335/4 281/0 256/5 254/3
Bate 2 1 1 1 1
Phegaia 4 3 3 4 3 2+?
Erchia 6 6 6+v 10 11
Ionidai 2 1+? 1 1 2
Ikarion 4 5 5
Kydantidai 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Hestiaia 1 1 1 v 1 1
The few variations in the quotas of Erechtheis for the period prior to 307/6 may
be explained by theorizing that the smallest demes occasionally, or regularly,
shared a seat on the Council. With Aigeis, however, the quota variations clearly
involve also several of the larger demes, viz. Phegaia, Erchia, and Ikarion. More
significantly perhaps, all the lists so affected in Aigeis are defective (see section A).
These considerations suggest that the explanation for the variations in representation
is to be found in the inability of a few small demes in certain years to fulfill their
quotas, the deficiencies sometimes being ignored, and at other times being counter-
balanced by increasing the quotas of the larger demes.19 Ionidai, for instance,
supplied only one councillor in 341/0 and also in 336/5, but provided two in 343/2(?);
19If the numbers and distribution of bouleutic alternates is as
suggested above (p. 2, note 5),
then there is further support for this theory. The small deme Sybridai, which failed to send a representa-
tive to the Council in at least one year, has no "alternate" in the list of circa 370 B.C.(I.G., II2, 1697,
etc. = 492).

the first deficiency was ignored and the register contained

onaily forty-nine prytaneis,
but in the second case a space was allotted for an increase in the representation of
Erchia, although no additional name was actually inscribed. The other pairs of
variant Aigeid demes during the period of the original ten phylai would be Ikarion-
Bate and Phegaia-Kydantidai, assuming that each pair consisted of one large and
one small deme. It is not necessary, however, to assume that the pairs were so
drawn up as to consist always in one larger and one smaller deme, nor is it mandatory
that the missing prytanis in the
s341/0 list be assigned to onidai. He could alterna-
tively belong to Erchia (or Phegaia or Bate, etc.), although no space was left here
for the name.20Any combination, therefore, of Erchia, Ikarion, and Kydantidai with
Bate, Ionidai, and Phegaia would form satisfactory variant pairs.
Less material and fewer discrepancies obtain in the Macedonian period, but
several of the same demes are again involved. Phegaia and Kydantidai each seem to
have an additional representative in 281/0, one of them perhaps offsetting the
apparent deficiency in Hestiaia's quota. The other quota variations in this period
may be explained by the defective registers (see section A). In addition, there is a
strong general indication that deme-quotas did not decrease with the Macedonian
reorganization (see, pp. 59-60). This suggests for Aigeis that the correct representa-
tion of Bate, Kydantidai, Ionidai, and Phegaia during the period of the original ten
phylai was one, one, two, and three bouleutai respectively. It follows that the normal
quotas of Erchia and Ikarion for the same period were seven and five bouleutai
respectively. One of the pairs of variant demes prior to 307/6 probably belonged to
the inland trittys, but if Bate has been correctly assigned to the city and Ionidai and
Kydantidai do not belong one each to the city and coastal regions (very unlikely),
then the other two pairs each involved two trittyes.
The losses in representation, eleven bouleutai, brought about by the transfer of
demes from Aigeis in 307/6 B.C. were offset by the addition of four councillors, it
appears, to the quotas of its two largest demes, Halai and Erchia, and of one
councillor each to the medium-sized Kollytos and the small demes Erikeia and
Plotheia. Subsequent to 200 B.C. the figures for a few Aigeid demes, e.g. Diomeia,
Erikeia, Araphen, and Otryne, bear some resemblance to their earlier quotas, but
20
J. A. 0. Larsen (Cl. Phil., LVII, 1962, pp. 104-108) would reserve judgment on the missing
prytanis in both I.G., II2, 1749 (=38) and Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 32 (=42). His theory of a reappor-
tionment of quotas between 350 and 341 B.C. finds some support in the statistics for Oineis, but
the material for Erechtheis, Leontis, and Antiochis offers strong argument against any general
reapportionment. Even limited to the phyle Aigeis, the theory encounters difficulty in the redating of
the Hesperia bouleutic list (cf. F. W. Mitchel, "Lycourgan Athens 338-322," Louise Taft Semple
Lectures, Cincinnati, 1970, p. 17) and, in my opinion, fails to take account of the most obvious
reason for blank lines in prytany and bouleutic registers, viz. to indicate the absence of a name.
The only general redistributionsof quotas evidenced in our tables were those occasioned by the creation
of Antigonis and Demetrias and Ptolemais.

this is likely due to chance, for other figures, e.g. of Erchia, Gargettos, and Myr-
rhinoutta, show wide variations both within a single period and with relation to the
earlier periods of stable representation.
There are a number of single-representative variations in the quotas of the
Pandionid demes during the period of the original ten phylai. Kydathenaion had
eleven prytaneis in S.E.G., XXIII, 87 (= 10) and I.G., II2, 1751 (= 32) (both very
probable restorations) and twelve bouleutai in the great catalogue of 336/5, whereas
Angele had a complementary variation from three representatives on the first two
of these lists to two bouleutai on the last. Kydathenaion and Angele, it may be
noted, belonged to different trittyes.
The remaining Pandionid variations come from two stones, I.G., II2, 1740
(=12) and 1753 (=47), both now lost. Some, perhaps even all, of these differences
may be due to faulty transcripts by early epigraphers or to incorrect restorations by
subsequent editors. I.G., II2, 1740 was copied by S. A. Koumanoudes more than a
century ago. His text, as revised by L6per (whom Kirchner follows closely) gives
Myrrhinous an additional demesman over its customary quota of six and omits
Kytheros, which normally had two representatives, entirely. Gomme21attempts to
alleviate some of these difficulties by restoring Kytheros with one demesman at the
bottom of the middle column below four, instead of the usual five, prytaneis from
Probalinthos. Gomme's arrangement is slightly more faithful to Koumanoudes'
transcript for the number of lines in this column and thus is preferable to the Corpus
text, but neither solution removes entirely the quota anomalies. The possible pairs
of variant demes here would be Kydathenaion-Probalinthos (both large demes and
both from the same rptr7VS r6v rrpvT7veOv, see below, p. 42) and Myrrhinous-
Kytheros (one large and one small deme, but from different trittyes, unless Kytheros
belongs to the coast) or Kydathenaion-Kytheros (large and small, but probably
not the same trittys) and Myrrhinous-Probalinthos (both large, but from the same
geographical trittys).
I.G., II2, 1753, copied by Spon and Wheler almost three centuries ago, also
presents quota problems, some of which have been resolved recently by S. N.
Koumanoudes22who has studied Wheler's unpublished notes in the British Museum.
Koumanoudes' figures, with the exception of the quotas of Oa and Paiania, for
which his corrections of the Spon transcript seem too drastic, are given in the Tables
of Representation. Oa, regularly with four representatives, has only one in the Spon
transcript, and Paiania ten instead of eleven (Lower Paiania alone) or twelve (the
two Paiania demes listed together). Kydathenaion has been restored here with
21
Population, pp. 51-52.
22
IToAuOV, VIII, 1965/6, pp. 43-47; cf. S.E.G., XXIII, 89.

twelve representatives, the same quota as in I.G., II2, 1740, Hesperia, XXX, 1961,
p. 32, and in the Macedonian period; Angele has three prytaneis here, and either it or
Kydathenaion may have supplied one of the representatives missing from Oa or
Paiania.
The quotas of Angele, Myrrhinous, Oa, and Lower Paiania are not directly
attested for the first period of twelve phylai, but are based on those quotas known
for the short succeeding period of thirteen phylai. Since Pandionis surrendered
only the little deme Konthyle to Ptolemais and the resulting loss in representation,
probably one bouleutes, was offset evidently by increasing the quota of Steiria from
three to four councillors, it seems very likely that the quotas of the other Pandionid
demes remained the same before and after the creation of the Egyptian phyle.23
It follows that Pandionis' loss in representation, approximately fifteen bouleutai,
occasioned by the establishment of the Macedonian phylai, was counterbalanced by
doubling the quota of Lower Paiania, the largest deme in the tribe, from eleven to
twenty-two councillors, and by increasing also the quotas of Angele from two (or
three) bouleutai to four, and of Myrrhinous from six to eight. After 200 B.C. the
prytany registers of Pandionis show no consistency in their deme representation
either within the same period or with reference to the earlier regular quotas.
TABLE IV, LEONTIS

If we allow that the missing demesman in the Leontid roster of 336/5 belongs, as
seems likely (section A, above), to Phrearrhioi, then there is only one attested
variation in the quotas of this tribe during the period of the original ten phylai.
Deiradiotai had one representative in a fragmentary prytany list from the early
fourth century B.C. (EATr.,XXV, 1970, p. 84= 13a) but two representatives in a
prytany list of 370/69(?) and in the bouleutic catalogue of 336/5. There must have
been a complementary variation in the quota of another Leontid deme, unless of
course the list was defective, but we cannot tell which particular deme.
In the Macedonian period there are a pair of quota variations. Kettos, accord-
ing a very probable restoration, had four councillors in a list dated after 255 B.C.,
to
but only three in I.G., II2, 2382 (= 74) dated a little earlier in the same century,
whereas Hybadai had only one representative in the former list, but two in the
bouleutic catalogue of 304/3 B.C. (it does not appear in the small fragment I.G., II2,
2382). The trittys assignment of both these small demes is uncertain, but to the
best of my knowledge they belonged to different sections.
Leontis' surrender of eight bouleutai to the Macedonian phylai was offset by
increasing the quotas of four medium-sized demes, viz. Leukonoion, Skambonidai,
Sounion, and Cholleidai. The last-mentioned deme more than doubled its representa-
23 Cf.
Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 428-429 (= 130), and below, p. 62.

tion, increasing its quota from two to five bouleutai. As discussed above (section A),
the loss of Hekale's one councillor to Ptolemais was counterbalanced apparently by
increasing the quota of Phrearrhioi.
TABLE V, AKAMANTIS
There is one quota variation in Akamantis during the period of the original ten
phylai. Thorikos had six representatives on a prytany fragment dated about
340 B.C., but only five in the bouleutic list of 336/5. There is not enough of the
prytany inscription preserved to indicate which deme compensated for this change.
As many as six Akamantid demes, viz. Kephale, Sphettos, Cholargos,
Thorikos(?), Kikynna, and Eiresidai, increased their representation (all of them
more or less in proportion to their size) to counterbalance the loss of ten bouleutai to
the Macedonian phylai. In the periods after 200 B.C. the rosters of Akamantis show
wide variations in deme representation from year to year, e.g. A.D. 167/8 and 168/9,
and few of the figures bear any resemblance to the regular quotas of the earlier
periods.
TABLE VI, OINEIS

Tyrmeidai sent no representative to the Council in 360/59 B.C.and either it or
one the other minute Oineid demes was probably missing also from the Council in
of
335/4 (section B, above). As was suggested as a possible explanation for the varying
quotas of Sybridai and Pambotadai, Tyrmeidai may have shared a councillor,
possibly with Epikephisia, which had two representatives in 360/59 but only one
about 330 B.C. and also in the lists from the Macedonian period, or with Hippoto-
madai, which obviously numbered among the smallest Attic demes. In fact, that the
three councillors of Tyrmeidai on the Hellenistic bouleutic lists all belonged to the
same family24 suggests either that one family exercised a considerable control over
the representation of its deme or, more likely, that there was a shortage of candidates
in Tyrmeidai during this period.25 Epikephisia, Hippotomadai, and Tyrmeidai, it
may be noted, probably all belonged to the city trittys.
If the Oineid list of about 330 B.C. (I.G., II2, 2438=48) has been correctly
identified as a prytany roster, then, in addition to the variation in the quota of
Epikephisia just mentioned, there were complementary variations in the quotas of
Oe and Kothokidai (one large and one small deme, but both probably from the same
trittys). The variant pairs in this list, of course, might alternatively be Oe-Epike-
24 Cf. Hesperia, XXXV, 1966, p. 228, line 235, and comment, p. 237; XXXVII, 1968, p. 13, line
125h, who probably = KaAAlarparos who was husband of AVKE'paTXArawvosTvpJeiSov Ovyadrp (I.G., II2,
7578=P.A., 8183, cf. 3038); and XXXVIII, 1969, p. 477, line 123, and comment, p. 488.
25 Cf. Eitea in Antiochis, below, p. 22, with note 30.

phisia (again one large and one small deme, but from different trittyes) and Kotho-
kidai-unidentified deme. And, if Perrhidai was really intended in the Oineid list of
the early third century (above, section B), there must have been a complementary
variation in the quota of another deme of this phyle during the Macedonian period,
for Perrhidai certainly had no representation in 303/2 and 281/0.
In addition to an increase in the quota of Lakiadai from two to three councillors,
the two largest demes in Oineis, Acharnai and Thria, both apparently increased
their representation in 307/6 to offset the loss of five bouleutai to Demetrias. The
individual representation of the last two demes is not known precisely for the period
after 307/6, but the spacing in the bouleutic list of 303/2 indicates that combined
they had a total of thirty-three bouleutai and the division was probably twenty-
five and eight or twenty-four and nine.26
TABLE VII, KEKROPIS

Due to the sparsity of evidence for Kekropis the quotas of the three large
demes, Aixone, Athmonon, and Phlya, in the period of the original ten phylai and in
the succeeding Macedonian period, must depend on estimates. Even the quota of
Melite is not absolutely certain. It had seven bouleutai regularly in the first period of
twelve phylai and, since no deme is known positively to have decreased its repre-
sentation with the creation of Antigonis and Demetrias and since the large city
deme Melite would hardly have had less than seven bouleutai originally, this was
probably its quota also prior to 307/6. New, albeit tentative, readings in I.G., II2,
2377 (see Agora, XV, No. 20) would tend to confirm this judgment, and would
suggest a quota of one representative for Epieikidai.
Two quota variations, one from each of the first two periods, are apparent in
Kekropis. Pithos had two representatives in a prytany list from the middle of the
fourth century B.C., but three councillors in the bouleutic catalogue of 335/4. And
Epieikidai, as noted above (section B), may have varied between zero and one
representative in the Macedonian period. There must, of course, have been comple-
mentary variations in the quotas of two other demes to counterbalance these
differences. If Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, no. 53 (=494) is, in fact, to be identified as
a list of councillors, then it presents serious discrepancies in three of the four quotas
attested, but, in view of other manifest difficulties in this text, it seems preferable
either to identify it as a list of ephebes or to leave it among the unassigned inscrip-
tions of Kekropis (section B, above).
Halai is known to have increased its representation by four bouleutai and
Pithos by one with the reapportionment in 307/6, and the quotas of the other small
Kekropid demes appear to have passed into the Macedonian period unchanged.
26 Cf. Hesperia, XXXVII, 1968, p. 9.

Consequently, the remaining ten bouleutai which this phyle lost due to the transfer of
demes to Demetrias must have been offset by increasing the representation of the
three large demes, Aixone, Athmonon, and Phlya, and I suggest that the increases
were four, four, and two bouleutai respectively. After 200 B.C. the representation of
the Kekropid demes shows little consistency either within the same period or with
reference to the quotas of the earlier periods.

The bouleutic material relating to Hippothontis is extremely sparse for the
period of the original ten phylai and many of its quotas can be given only as
estimates. Fortunately, however, the new Agora bouleutic inscriptions have supplied
a fairly complete picture of the Hippothontid quotas in the Macedonian period.
Further, inasmuch as this tribe suffered few losses (perhaps six bouleutai) in 307/6
(during which reorganization there were only minimal quota changes) the figures
from the first period of twelve phylai appear to furnish a good indication of the
quotas in the preceding period. Eroiadai is known positively to have increased its
representation from one to two bouleutai in 307/6, and, if we may judge from the
treatment of similar situations in the other phylai, the remaining quota increases
were probably confined to the larger demes, Peiraieus, Eleusis, and Dekeleia. The
quotas then of Koile, Peiraieus, Thymaitadai, Acherdous, Eleusis, Kopros,26bis
and Oion in the period of the original ten phylai are based on their respective
representation in the following period. For Dekeleia the reverse is true and the
quota prior to 307/6 has been used to estimate its representation in the Macedonian
period.
There is one possible quota variation in Hippothontis during the periods of
proportional representation. Dekeleia had four councillors in I.G., II2, 2377 (= 20)
from about the middle of the fourth century B.C., but as many as six or more in
Kirchner's edition of I.G., II2, 1700, the bouleutic list of 335/4. In the latter case the
demotic was restored on what seemed a plausiblepe rosopographical identification,
viz. Thrasykles in line 172 as brother of Thrasyllos of Dekeleia who was choregos in
320/19 (I.G., II2, 3056), but Thrasykles is also known in Eleusis at this time, as
trierarch before 325/4 B.C.,27 and Euthydemos in the preceding line may just as
easily be identified with Euthydemos of Eleusis who was priest of Asklepios in
355/4.28 Phokiades, the next entry after Thrasykles, also is a name known in Eleusis
26bisThe
representation of Kopros in I.G., II2, 1698, etc. would confirm a bouleutic quota of two
during the first period of ten phylai (see above, p. 2, note 5).
27
I.G., II2, 1629, line 821, and 1631, lines 156-157, 181 = P.A., 7322. The father's name, Thrasyllos,
also is known in Eleusis (P.A., 7342, and S.E.G., XXI, 754).
28I.G., II2, 47, line 24; 4962, lines 11-12. For other members of the same
family see Hesperia, VIII,
1939, pp. 178-180. For the date of the priesthood see Chronologyof Hellenistic Athens, p. 74.

(I.G., II2, 6051 =P.A., 15065). On this basis, then, lines 178-189 of Agora, XV,
No. 43 (=I.G., II2, 1700, lines 166-177) have been assigned to Eleusis and the
apparent anomaly in the quota of Dekeleia removed.
The material belonging to the period immediately after 200 B.C.is extensive and
illustrates convincingly the complete breakdown in the system of regular fixed
quotas.
TABLE IX, AIANTIS
None of the six Aiantid quotas is directly attested in the period of the original
ten phylai,29 but the fact that this phyle lost no bouleutai to either Antigonis or
Demetrias, coupled with the general conservatism of the Athenian system of
representative government, assures one that the quotas for the Macedonian period
hold true also for the time previous to 307/6. Admittedly, even in the Macedonian
period only five of the six quotas are directly attested, but their total of forty
bouleutai leaves no doubt but that the quota of the remaining deme, Marathon, was
indeed ten.
The loss to Aiantis of sixteen bouleutai when Aphidna was transferred to
Ptolemais was counterbalanced by increasing, more or less proportionately, the
quotas of all five remaining demes. After 200 B.C. there is only a small amount of
material, but it is sufficient to indicate little consistency in deme representation and
only the slightest resemblance to quotas of the earlier periods of bouleutic
government.
TABLE X, ANTIOCHIS
There is one obvious variation in the Antiochid deme quotas for the period of
the original ten phylai. Eitea had two representatives in 335/4, but only one in the
following year, whereas Pallene had a complementary variation from six to seven
councillors in the same two years. The inconsistency is perhaps to be explained by an
insufficiency of Eiteans available to hold the office of councillor. Such a theory may
derive some support from the fact that the same man or members of the same family
repeatedly held Eitean councillorships on the bouleutic lists of the Macedonian
period.30 Both the large deme Pallene and the very small deme Eitea, it should be
noted, belonged to the same trittys.
There is an additional variation in the deme quotas of Antiochis if I.G., 112,
2407 (= 55) is correctly identified as a list of prytaneis and correctly dated to the
29I.G., II2, 2423 (=46) has nine councillorsunder the demotic of Phaleron, but the stone breaks off
at this point leaving the complete quota in doubt.
30 Cf. Hesperia, XXXV, 1966, p. 229, line 314; XXXVII, 1968, p. 15, lines 234-235, and comment,
p. 22; XXXVIII, 1969, p. 481, lines 271-272, and comment, p. 492. On the parallel of Tyrmeidai see
above, p. 19, with note 24. The two demes named Eitea (the other was originally assigned to Akamantis)
were both very small judging from their total number of known citizens, fifty-two, in Gomme.

period of the original ten phylai,31 for Alopeke in this text32 has its Macedonian
quota of twelve representatives, whereas in 334/3 B.C.it had only ten.
The losses, probably nine bouleutai, occasioned by the transfer of three
Antiochid demes to the Macedonian phylai, were offset by increasing the quotas of
the four large demes, Alopeke, Aigilia, Anaphlystos, and Pallene, and of the two
small demes, Amphitrope and Krioa.
The material from after 200 B.C. is extensive for Antiochis and once again
illustrates the complete cessation of the regular fixed quotas.
NOTES TO TABLES OF REPRESENTATION33

1 TABLEI, ERECHTHEIS: The full quota of Euonymon in Hesperia, XXX, 1961, pp. 218-219, no. 15
(=141) was almost certainly twelve councillors, see Agora, XV, No. 141.
2 TABLEII, AIGEIS:The single representative of Erchia was inscribed, with his demotic in the same
line as his name, within the roster of Gargettos in I.G., II2, 1765 (=331).
3 The four lines erased from the top of the roster of Gargettos in Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 48-49, no. 11
( = 406) are counted in the figuresas two names and two patronymics. The Secretaryof the Bouleutai,
who appears at the end of the register, is also included in the figure for Gargettos.
4 TABLEIII, PANDIONIS: The restorations of the quota of Kydathenaion and the demotic and quota
of Angele in Hesperia, Supplement I, pp. 186-191, no. 116 (=293) are uncertain. The demotic of
Oa may be substituted for that of Angele, and Kydathenaion may have had eight representatives
and Angele (or Oa) one, see Hesperia, Supplement I, p. 188, lines 71-72.
5 The Secretary of the Bouleutai is included in the figure for Paiania in I.G., II2, 1773 (=369); his
demotic is known from I.G., II2, 1776 (=378), line 19.
6 The Secretary of the Bouleutai, who appears under the two representatives of Myrrhinous, has
arbitrarilybeen included in the figure for this deme in I.G., II2, 1776 (= 378). Since it was customary
in this period to list this official, when he was a prytanis, at the bottom of the register irrespective
of demotic, he may well belong to a Pandionid deme other than Myrrhinous, viz. Paiania (cf.
[Ai]ovvao't8poso Ia7c[tavEts],ephebe ca. A.D. 160, I.G., II2, 2081, line 24).
7 TABLE IV, LEONTISAND TABLE XV, HADRIANIS:The demotic in I.G., II2, 1833 (=487) may be
restored as either Aithalidai (Leontis) or Daidalidai (Hadrianis).
8 TABLEV, AKAMANTIS: The figure for Kerameis in I.G., II2, 1774 (=371) includes the Secretary of
the Bouleutai, Zenon, son of Zenon, who is now better assigned to Kyrteidai (below, p. 93).
9 TABLEVI, OINEIS:The restoration of the demotic of Acharnai in Hesperia, XXX, 1961, pp. 260-
261, no. 69 (=54) is very uncertain. The inscription may alternatively be assigned to Demetrias
(with some demotic other than Acharnai) and be dated post 307/6.
10 The roster of I.G., II2, 1801 (=482) appears to be complete with seven names. The remaining
thirty-three prytaneis, including possibly additional Phylasioi, may have been inscribed on
another face of the monument.
11 TABLEVII, KEKROPIS: The quotas of Daidalidai, Pithos, and Trinemeia in I.G., II2, 2384 (=18)
have been derived from an unpublished fragment (E.M. 12431) belonging to the same inscription.
31Cf.
Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 530, but the prosopography, lettering, orthography and
appearance of the deme Kolonai forbid a dating after 307/6 B.C., as suggested there (cf. Agora, XV,
No. 55, comment).
32 For the restoration of this demotic see D. M.
Lewis, B.S.A., L, 1955, pp. 13-14.
33These Notes, intended as
ancillary to the Tables of Representation, could not for technical
reasons be included in the same plates as the Tables.

12 The Secretary of the Bouleutai, who appears at the end of the register below the second representa-
tive of Sypalettos, has been included in the figure for this deme in I.G., II2, 1782 (=398). He could
well belong to a different deme, see Note 6, above.
13 TABLE VIII, HIPPOTHONTIS:Eleusis in the Macedonian period may have had a quota several
higher than the ten representatives suggested for it in Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 489. There is
a misprint in the quota summary column for the period 307/6-224/3. The figure for Eleusis should
read: 13? (not 12).
14 TABLE X, ANTIOCHIS:The roster of I.G., II2, 1817 (=466) is complete, but since demotics were
not used in this list (see above, p. xiv) I cannot tell the precise representation of the various demes.
The total figure for Pallene was undoubtedly much higher than the four listed here, which have
been identified from other prosopographicalreferences.
15 The Secretary of the Bouleutai, who appears under the single representative of Krioa, has been
arbitrarily included in the figure for this deme in I.G., II2, 1783 (=472). He may well belong to
another Antiochid deme, see Note 6, above.
16 TABLE XIV, ATTALIS:The Secretary of the Bouleutai, Hagnos, son of Hagnos, the Younger,
appears under the single representativeof Tyrmeidaiin I.G., II2, 1794 (= 402), but he is undoubtedly
the son of Hagnos who was a prytanis for Athmonon in the same list (line 51) and he has been
included in the figure for this deme.

CHAPTER II
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE FIVE

LATER PHYLAI
INTRODUCTION TO TABLES OF REPRESENTATION XI-XV
The format of the Tables of Representation for the five later phylai (below)
follows closely that used for the original ten phylai; for details see above, pp. 1-
4. There are, however, a few changes. After 307/6 the significance of the trittys, at
least in respect to the new phylai, declined enormously and it appears to have been
of no consideration in the formation of these later tribes.' Accordingly, the section
dealing with trittys-totals has been deleted from the Tables of Representation XI-
XV and the demes have been listed not by trittys, but by the official order of the
phylai to which they were formerly affiliated, and two columns for this purpose have
been added to the charts. The former quota, or quotas, have also been listed in a
special column beside the deme names.
The column of Map References has also been omitted from these tables. For
demes which were transferred to the later phylai these references may be found in
Tables I to X and the three specially created later demes, viz. Berenikidai, Apol-
lonieis, and Antinoeis, do not appear on the Maps. As in Tables I-X, Gomme's
figures have been used for the number of known citizens in the various demes. For
the divided demes transferred to the later phylai, however, the figures cited have
been determined arbitrarily on the basis of the relative bouleutic quotas of the two
sections prior to 307/6 B.C. They have, of course, no value as an independent
criterion for judging the relative sizes of the sections.
The format of the Commentary has been altered slightly from that of Chapter I
because there are no defective lists from the five later phylai to discuss. Section A
has therefore become The Organization and Composition of the Five Later Phylai.
Section B becomes The Quotas of the Five Later Phylai.
1 See W. K. Pritchett, Five Tribes, pp. 27-29, with references cited in notes 56-63. On the purpose
of the trittyes, see, more recently, D. M. Lewis, Historia, XII, 1963, pp. 34-36.

COMMENTARY ON TABLES OF REPRESENTATION XI-XV

A. THE ORGANIZATIONAND COMPOSITIONOF THE FIVE LATER PHYLAI
TABLES XI AND XII, ANTIGONIS AND DEMETRIAS

It has long been known that in 307/6 no new demes were created, but rather
that Antigonis and Demetrias were composed entirely of demes transferred from
the original ten phylai.2 The bouleutic list of 281/0 suggests further that each of
these new tribes consisted very probably of fifteen demes (see below, p. 79). It was
also demonstrated some years ago that Antigonis was formed of demes taken
primarily from the first four of the original ten phylai, while Demetrias' demes came
mostly from the last six, Aiantis excepted.3 From the new inscriptions it appears
that the proportion for both groups was twelve-out-of-fifteen, i.e. twelve of Antigonis'
demes came from the first four phylai and three came from the last six, and vice
versa for Demetrias (see below, p. 28, Table Illustrating the Organization of the
Macedonian Phylai).
Of even greater significance, however, is the clear record which is now evident
of the elaborate design conceived in the bouleutic reorganization of 307/6. The
Macedonian phylai were created by taking three demes from each of the original ten
phylai, with the exception of te smallest tribe, Aiantis, which provided no demes,
and the two largest (in respect to the number of demes), Aigeis and Leontis, which
together made up for Aiantis by giving four and five demes respectively. This rule-
of-three4 appears to have been one of the basic principles in the organization of
Antigonis and Demetrias. Erechtheis, Aigeis, Pandionis, and Leontis each sur-
rendered three demes to the first Macedonian phyle; Oineis and Kekropis each gave
three demes to the second; and Akamantis, Antiochis, and apparently also Hippo-
thontis, each provided three demes, one for Antigonis and two for Demetrias.
The assignments of Kolonai and Auridai or Korydallos to Antigonis and Oinoe
to Demetrias are new. Kolonai's absence from the roster of Antiochis in 303/2
indicated that it might have been transferred to one of the Macedonian phylai,5 and
2
Dinsmoor, Archons,p. 450.
3 Ibid.
4 This
phrase and several points in the following discussion I owe to the unpublished notes of S.
Dow. The choice of three demes per phyle appears to have been rooted, at least in theory, to the idea of
the trittys; that is, the intention may have been to organize the two Macedonianphylai by taking one
deme from each of the thirty Attic trittyes. But if this were the theory, the practice was far otherwise,
for Erechtheis was the only phyle which certainly provided one deme from each of its three trittyes.
Pandionis, Akamantis, and Hippothontis may also have done so, since our knowledge of the trittys
affiliations of Kytheros, Eitea, and Auridai (if this deme were transferred) is most uncertain, but the
other phylai clearly did not.
5 See Hesperia, XXXVII, 1968, p. 8.

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE FIVE LATER PHYLAI 27
this indication was confirmed both from a study of the principle by which Ptolemais
was formed and, more important, from the identification of Hesperia, Suppl. I, no. 12
(= 91) as belonging to a prytany list of Antigonis. The treasurer in this text came
from Kolonai6 and the secretary (he may now be so identified) from Lamptrai. That
the Antiochid Kolonai should now be assigned positively to Ptolemais is instructive,
for it indicates that the Egyptian phyle did indeed take deme(s) from the Mace-
donian.7 Furthermore, the manner in which Attalis and Hadrianis were formed, i.e.
by taking one deme from each of the tribes existing at the time (below, pp. 30-31),
suggests that Ptolemais may have been formed in an identical fashion. As it stands,
Ptolemais was composed of one regular deme from each phyle with two exceptions:
apparently Demetrias provided none and Hippothontis two demes, Oion and
Oinoe. Oion has a well-established affiliation with Hippothontis during the first
period of twelve phylai,8 but nothing is known concerning the tribal affiliation of
Oinoe in the same period, and I suggest that it may have belonged to Demetrias.
The relative lengths of the columns in the bouleutic lists of 303/2 and 281/0 B.C.
indicate that the roster of Hippothontis had only fourteen demes. The transfer of
Koile and now Oinoe to the Macedonian phylai still leaves Hippothontis with
fifteen demes, but the tribal affiliations of Auridai, Korydallos, and even Dekeleia
in this period are as yet unknown, and I suggest that either Auridai or Korydallos
was transferred to Antigonis. It may be, of course, that one of them simply failed to
send a representative to the Council in 303/2 and also in 281/0, as I suspect was the
case with Epieikidai (cf. above, p. 11), but the transfer of an additional deme from
Hippothontis suits the apparent pattern of a three-deme contribution per phyle.
That the additional deme should go to Antigonis is necessary, for Demetrias already
has fifteen demes, while Antigonis has only fourteen.
Five other demes, four of them divided demes, have been suggested as possible
members of either Antigonis or Demetrias. The evidence for the assignment is in
every case weak and I have rejected all five from affiliation with the Macedonian
phylai: Epieikidai (above, p. 11) appears to have remained in Kekropis, and the
other four, Sypalettos B (see pp. 10-11), Anakaia B (see pp. 81-82), Amphitrope
B (see pp. 84-85), and Semachidai B (see pp. 94-95), I suggest are all spurious.9
6
Epicharmos, son of Kallistratides, appears to be related to Epicharinos, who was representative of
the Antiochid Kolonai in 334/3 B.C. (I.G., II2, 1750, line 68 =44, line 63).
7 This contravenes a long-accepted view that the Macedonianphylai gave no demes to Ptolemais;
cf. Dinsmoor, Archons,p. 451, where the origin of this theory is traced to W. Dittenberger, Hermes, II,
1875, p. 398.
8 The secretary KaTa rpvTravefav in 228/7 (Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 74, no. 29 = 120), a symproedros
in 305/4 (I.G., II2, 797; cf. Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, p. 358), and an ephebe in 258/7 (Hesperia,VII, 1938,
p. 112, no. 20, line 59) all bore this demotic and belonged to Hippothontis.
9 I do not even discuss the possible assignment of Phegaia B, which has long been rejected both as
a member of one of the Macedonianphylai (Pritchett, Five Tribes, p. 8) and even as a legitimate Attic
deme (see below, p. 120, No. 31).

TABLE ILLUSTRATING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MACEDONIAN PHYLAI
GOM
FIGU
DEMES TRANSFERRED BOULEUTAI TRANSFERRED AFT
ORIGINAL TO TO TO TO GOMME'S DEM
PHYLE ANTIGONIS DEMETRIAS TOTAL ANTIGONIS DEMETRIAS TOTAL FIGURES TRANSFE
Erechtheis 3 - 3 10 - 10 1312 1087
Aigeis 3 1 4 10/9 (*14) 1 11/10 (*15) 1540 118
Pandionis 3 3 15/14 (*15) -15/14 (*15) 1223 83
Leontis 3 2 5 6 2 (*3) 8 (*9) 1502 116
Akamantis 1 2 3 2 8 10 1149 98
Oineis - 3 3 3 5 (*9) 5 (*9) 1125 97
Kekropis - 3 3 15 15 1314 932
Hippothontis 1 2 3 1? 5? 6? 1077 90
Aiantis - 0 - - 0 979 979
Antiochis 1 2 3 2 7 (*9) 9 (*11) 1058 933
-1192**
-1117**
TOTAL 15 15 30 46/44 (*50) 43 (*50) 89/87 (*100) 12279 1227

* = Quota increas( ed in according to original bouleutic quotas. /=Vari
307/6. ** = Figures for divided demes estimated

Of the six legitimate divided demes (see below, Appendix D, pp. 123-128) one
section of each was transferred to Antigonis, viz. the upper sections of Paiania and
Lamptrai, Potamos Deiradiotes, one section of Ankyle, presumably the upper part,
and one section, again perhaps upper, of Agryle and Pergase. Potamos was a special
divided deme with three sections, so that, in addition to the portion identified as
Potamos Deiradiotes, which was transferred to Antigonis, Lower Potamos was
assigned to Demetrias.10
With the dissolution of the Macedonian phylai in 200 B.C.all demes, except of
course the two which were transferred to Ptolemais, returned, at least briefly, to
their original tribes.
TABLEXIII, PTOLEMAIS
Ptolemais was formed in 224/311 by taking one regular deme from each pre-
existing phyle and by then adding a thirteenth member, the new deme Berenikidai,
created in honor of Berenice, wife of Ptolemy III Euergetes after whom the phyle
itself was named.12That each of the twelve phylai, including Antigonis and Deme-
trias, should have contributed one, and only one, deme to Ptolemais appears to be
contrary, in one respect, to the generally accepted scholarly opinion on the subject,13
and in another, to the facts themselves. Pritchett,l4 relying on his thorough study of
the deme-catalogue I.G., II2, 2362, but citing other material as well, suggested that
Ptolemais may have been composed of as many as twenty-four demes (to which
figure we may now add a twenty-fifth, Oion Dekeleikon from Hippothontis15) with
original tribal affiliation as follows: one deme from each of Erechtheis, Pandionis,
10We learn from the prosopography that the section which remained in Leontis was Upper
Potamos, for Laches, a representative of Leontis in 303/2 (Hesperia, XXXVII, 1968, p. 11, line 17 =62,
line 26) certainly belongs to the same family (he is probably a son) as the prytanis for Upper Potamos
in I.G., II2, 1742, line 18 (= 13, line 18; cf. Hesperia, XXXVII, 1968, p. 17, comment on lines 15-17,
where Lower Potamos should be read for Upper Potamos). Kirchner had long pointed out that the
prosopographyalso indicated that the Potamos deme in Antigonis was Potamos Deiradiotes (Rh. Mus.,
LXI, 1906, p. 350; cf. I.G., II2, 488, with note to line 5). The deme transferred to Demetrias thus can
only be Lower Potamos. To Dinsmoor's argument (Archons,p. 448) that Deiradiotai should be assigned
to the same phyle as the closely related Potamos Deiradiotes, viz. Antigonis, we may add the observation
that by our own count we have already assigned fifteen demes to Demetrias, thus making it very
unlikely that Deiradiotai also belongs to the same tribe.
11The most recent discussion of this date is by B. D. Meritt, Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 441.
12 BepevtLKt
L' o' r8tos 0&rOBepevlKrJs r7jsrov IHroAeftaov ro0EVEpye'rov yvvaLKo. Trv pEV <yap> av8pa
rj (bvXi, 77Yv 8E yvvatKa Tr 8jpco Ewvv'iovS Efroluaav, Cramer, Anecd. Par., IV, p. 180, reference
cited by J. Kirchner, P.A., II, p. 526, note 1. For the location of Berenikidai see W. K. Pritchett, Five
Tribes, p. 30, note 64. More significant, probably, than the finding places of I.G., II2, 5868 and 5888
(Mandraand Eleusis respectively) is the fact that I.G., II2, 1221, apparently a deme-decree and also
found at Eleusis, has a spokesman who belonged to Berenikidai. (Sponsors,without exception, belonged
to the deme passing the decree.)
13 See above, p. 27, note 7. 14 Five Tribes, pp. 23-32.
15See Hesperia, XXXIV, 1965, p. 91.

Leontis, Akamantis, Oineis (two demes, if Perrhidai is included), Kekropis, and

Hippothontis; two demes from Aigeis; four demes (three, if Perrhidai is excluded)
from Aiantis; five from Antiochis; and six demes with unknown previous tribal
affiliation. One of these, Ikarion, may quickly be dismissed, for it is now virtually
certain that no such deme was ever affiliated with Ptolemais and the traces in line 53
of I.G., II2, 2362 which Pritchett restored as Ikaria I interpret as belonging to
Perrhidai (see below, p. 84). Although it may be granted that many, or even all, of
the remaining twenty-three or twenty-fourl6 demes once appeared in the Ptolemaid
roster of the great deme-catalogue, I deny that all necessarily were regular Attic
demes in the year 201/0 B.C. In fact, two of the demes attributed to Ptolemais,
Akyaia and Semachidai B, are unknown prior to about the middle of the second
century after Christ and are unlikely to have been regular members of this phyle
four centuries earlier (see below, pp. 93 and 94-95). Five others, viz. Hyporeia,
Petalidai, Thyrgonidai, Perrhidai, and Titakidai, are known to have been located in,
or associated with Aphidna and, despite the appearance of several of them in
I.G., II2, 2362, are unlikely to have been regular independent demes, if ever, prior
to the Late Roman period (see below, pp. 88-90). An additional four, viz. Melainai,
Pentele, Klopidai, and Eunostidai, occur as early place names, but again I suggest
they were not legitimate Athenian demes before the creation of Hadrianis in the
second century after Christ (see below, pp. 90-92); their appearance in thedeme
list-and Klopidai and Eunostidai have both been read in the preserved fragment-
was probably through association with regular constitutional demes (see below,
p. 87). The removal of these eleven irregular demes leaves a total roster in Ptolemais
of thirteen legitimate demes, twelve of which are well known and well attested from
the fifth century B.C. on, and the thirteenth is the obviously recent and specially
created Berenikidai. The twelve regular demes were affiliated one with each of the
twelve phylai existing at the time when Ptolemais was created, Kolonai and Oinoe
passing to the Egyptian phyle from Antigonis and Demetrias respectively (see
above, pp. 26-27). The organization of Ptolemais thus forms an exact parallel
with the later and better known formations of Attalis and Hadrianis (see following
sections). Like the other tribes, the Egyptian phyle, of course, gave one deme to
each of these later phylai when they were formed.
TABLE XIV, ATTALIS

Now that Ankyle and Sypalettos have been rejected from belonging to Attalis
and Oion is seen to have been transferred from Ptolemais and not taken directly
16 If we allow the substitution of Oion Dekeleikon for Ikaria B we
may still keep Pritchett's total
of twenty-four demes in the roster of Ptolemais. It may be, however, that several of the demes originally
listed in I.G., II2, 2362 were different from those which have later been ascribed to Ptolemais (see
below, pp. 98-100, and p. 132, Appendix E).

from Hippothontis,l7 it becomes clear that Attalis was formed by taking one deme
from each of the phylai existing in the spring of 200 B.C.and by then adding one new
deme, Apollonieis, created in honor of Apollonis, wife of Attalos I of Pergamum.
More than three centuries later when Hadrianis was created Attalis furnished one
deme to the Roman tribe.
TABLE XV, HADRIANIS

The organization of Hadrianis was similar to that of Ptolemais and Attalis: one
deme was taken from each of the pre-existing twelve phylai, to which a thirteenth
deme, Antinoeis, established in honor of Hadrian's favorite, Antinoos, was shortly
after added.18
B. THE QUOTAS OF THE FIVE LATER PHYLAI

Along with the choice of demes transferred to Antigonis and Demetrias the
bouleutic representation seems also to have received careful consideration. The
number of bouleutai surrendered by each of the original ten phylai (see above, p. 28,
Table Illustrating the Organization of the Macedonian Phylai) evidently formed
units of approximately five, ten, or fifteen (orzero for Aiantis). The deme contingents
of two of the phylai, Aigeis and Oineis, are known with certainty to have increased
their representation on being transferred, but even these increases, viz. approxi-
mately five bouleutai each, accord with the units just mentioned. Of more impor-
tance, however, is the observation that the phylai appear to have provided bouleutai
roughly according to their population. Just as the two tribes with the largest
number of demes were observed to have made an extra contribution above the
normal three demes to account for Aiantis' deficiency, so the phylai which we judge,
on the basis of Gomme's figures19 (supported, in part, by several fourth-century
17 For the rejection of Ankyle see G. A. Stamires, Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, p. 47. On Sypalettos,
Trinemeia, and Oion Dekeleikon, see above, pp. 10-11 and 30-31, notes 16 and 18.
18 It was added
presumably after the death and apotheosis of Antinoos, i.e. A.D. 130 (cf. P. Graindor,
Athenes sous Hadrien, pp. 80-81, and W. K. Pritchett, Five Tribes, p. 37). Antinoeis may have been
located in the new section of Athens founded by Hadrian (cf. P. Graindor,loc. cit., and W. K. Pritchett,
op. cit., p. 38, note 8).
19The order of the phylai according to Gomme's figures: Aigeis (1540), Leontis (1502), Kekropis
(1314, with no Kikynneis), Erechtheis (1312), Pandionis (1223), Akamantis (1149, with all demesmen of
Kikynna), Oineis (1125), Hippothontis (1077), Antiochis (1058), and Aiantis (979). Leontis undoubtedly,
and Aigeis and Erechtheis probably, appear higher in this list than they should (see below, p. 65) and
Antiochis and Pandionis may occur too low, but even disregarding these considerations the general
relationship between the figures for the number of known citizens in the phylai and the bouleutic
contributions to Antigonis and Demetrias is, I believe, still clear.

ephebic lists20), to have been among the largest, viz. Kekropis and Pandionis, and
hence probably over-represented in 308/7, appear to have made the largest contribu-
tions, i.e. approximately fifteen bouleutai each. Erechtheis, Aigeis, Leontis,
Akamantis, and Antiochis, which apparently were among the medium-sized phylai
in 308/7, surrendered about ten bouleutai each. The slightly smaller Oineis and
Hippothontis provided about five bouleutai each, while Aiantis, obviously the
smallest tribe in every sense, of course gave none. In general, the adjustments of
307/6 appear to have made the phylai more nearly equal in size.21Although we have
no direct information concerning this aspect of the Kleisthenian organization, it is
the general belief of scholars that for the efficient working of government roughly
20
Estimating the ephebic enrollments in the fourth century B.. is a notorious problem. The most
recent discussion, by 0. W. Reinmuth (The EphebicInscriptions of the FourthCenturyB.C., Mnemosyne,
Suppl. XIV, Leiden, 1971, passim), is not, in my opinion, entirely successful. Reinmuth's argument
that the profile sketched on I.G. , 2976 indicates Pandionis had an enrollment of 30-32 ephebes in
333/2 (op. cit., pp. 22-23) seems particularly suspect: "The outline of the chin, neck and shoulders for
a bust sketch continued on the same scale would roughly yield space for 19-20 lines above the lower
edge of the uninscribedlines. This would provide space for a prescript of one line and for a total of 30-32
names with deme captions. ..." But (1) there is no evidence that it was a sketch of a bust: it may have
been only the head, or the entire body, or part of the body (Meritt, A.J.P., LXVI, 1945, p. 236, note 5,
a reference cited by Reinmuth, says only . . . there may have been more (i.e. than the head) of the
human form portrayed"); (2) even if it were such a sketch, there is no evidence that the bottom of it
rested on the topmost preserved part of the stele; and (3) even assuming that it was a sketch of a bust
and that it rested on the topmost preserved part of the stele, there is no evidence that the stele's full
height was preserved at the time the sketch was incised. Reinmuth's figure for the enrollment of
Kekropis in the same year (from an unpublished inscription) is also suspect: lie gives the number as 52
(p. 16), but 48 (p. 107), but this is only a minor discrepancy. If we disregardthis obviously questionable
total for Pandionis, the other figures for ephebic enrollments in the fourth century afford some support
for my judgment concerning the relative sizes of the phylai prior to the formation of Antigonis and
Demetrias (numbersin parentheses are from Ch. Pelekidis, Histoire de l'ephebieattiquedes origines a 31
avantJesus-Christ,Paris, 1962). I.G., II2, 1156 lists the total contribution of Kekropis in 334/3 as about
42 ephebes (43-45). Hesperia, IX, 1940, pp. 59-66, no. 8, and HpacrKucta,1954 (1957), p. 69 from the
following year give Leontis and Kekropis about 44 (35) and 48 or 52 (45) ephebes respectively. Two
other texts, Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, pp. 273-278 and 'Apx. 'E+., 1918, pp. 73-100, list the number of
ephebes in Oineis ca. 330 as about 56 (55) and in Leontis in 324/3(?) as 62 (62). If we accept Pelekidis'
suggestion (op. cit., p. 284) that the low figure for Leontis in the earlier list is to be explained both by a
fallen birth rate, due to extensive Athenian military maneuvers abroad in the years 353-351, and by the
fact that 352/1 was a hollow year, and if we pro-rate the earlier lists on the basis of 62 ephebes for
Leontis in 324/3(?) we arrive at a figure of about 59-73 (76-80) ephebes annually for Kekropis. The
figures thus obtained, viz. Leontis 62, Oineis ca. 56 (55), and Kekropis 59-73 (76-80) are in accord with
my judgment concerning the relative sizes of these phylai on the basis of the reorganization of 307/6.
According to Reinmuth's figures (op. cit., pp. 103-105), incidentally, the ephebic enrollments of
Erechtheis, Akamantis, and Aigeis immediately after 307/6 appear to have been nearly equal.
21 Sundwall employs this argument in reverse, judging the relative sizes of the phylai on the
assumption that the reorganization of 307/6 made the phylai more nearly equal in size (cf. Klio,
Beiheft IV, pp. 90-91). On the reapportionmentsrelative to the demes and trittyes, see below, pp. 64-
72.

equal phylai were necessary,22and it seems clear that there would be little point in
attempting to render them more nearly equal in 307/6 if they had not been so
created two centuries earlier.
Of the thirty demes transferred to the Macedonian phylai, only Gargettos,
Ikarion, Lower Potamos, and Phyle positively, and Atene and Thorai possibly,
increased their quotas of representation. Since about a third of all Attic demes
increased their representation in 307/6 (below, p. 58), a slightly smaller proportion
of the demes transferred than of those which remained in their original phylai appear
to have been affected by the reapportionment of quotas, but the difference is
probably of no significance.
There are no observable variations in the quotas of the demes assigned to the
Macedonian tribes within the first period of twelve phylai.
TABLE XIII, PTOLEMAIS

No prytany or bouleutic lists are preserved from the first period of thirteen
phylai to illustrate directlythe quotas of the Ptolemaid demes. There is, however, an
important piece of indirect evidence: it is the observation that the quotas of the
twelve regular demes transferred to Ptolemais appear to total, for the period prior
to 224/3, forty-nine bouleutai, allowing apparently a quota of one bouleutes for the
new deme Berenikidai. If this figure is not simply a coincidence,23 it indicates a
close parallel between the formation of Ptolemais and the earlier formation of the
Macedonian phylai, viz. that, in being transferred, no demes suffered a loss in
representation and few (none in Ptolemais) increased their representation (see
below, pp. 59-60). It also constitutes a further proof that the eleven irregular demes
of Ptolemais were indeed irregular, i.e. unconstitutional, at least in the first period
of thirteen phylai, for they appear to have had no representation in the Council.
Where there is evidence the representation of the Ptolemaid demes in the
second periods of twelve and thirteen phylai shows little consistency from year to
year and only the slightest resemblance to quotas of earlier periods.24
TABLE XIV, ATTALIS
Although the quotas of many of the future Attalid demes in the first period of
thirteen phylai, prior to their transfer, must depend on estimates, these estimates
22 But see W. E. Thompson, "Three Thousand Acharnian Hoplites," Historia, XIII, 1964, pp. 400-
413.
23 The
quotas of Phlya and Oinoe, it should be noted, are based on estimates, and Kydantidai's
quota varied between one and two bouleutai both in the period of the original ten phylai and also in the
Macedonianperiod. (The last had two demesmen, however, in the unidentified list I.G., II2, 1697, etc.,
a representation which would correspond to a bouleutic quota of one; see above, p. 2).
24 Kydantidai's
representation of one demesman in 97/6 is probably only a coincidence, for the
system of fixed regular quotas had long broken down by this period.

suggest a total representation of about fifty bouleutai. If this total is again not
merely a coincidence,25it offers a close parallel with the formation of Ptolemais, viz.
that the quotas of the demes transferred were neither increased nor decreased but
were taken over unchanged from the preceding period. If true, this is significant
for two reasons. It would indicate that the demes were chosen to form Ptolemais and
Attalis almost solely on the basis of their quotas, and it would show that the system
of fixed quotas ended after, and not simultaneously with, the reorganization of
200 B.C. The breakdown, however, could not have taken place much later than 200,
for the representation of the Erechtheid demes by 193/2 bears little resemblance to
the third-century quotas.
TABLE XV, HADRIANIS

The system of proportional representation had ended long before the creation of
Hadrianis and we cannot therefore speak of quotas with reference to the representa-
tion of demes in the second period of thirteen phylai. What evidence we do have for
the representation of the Hadrianid demes, and there is only a meager amount,
shows little resemblance to the earlier established quotas and no consistency within
the period, i.e. the second period of thirteen phylai.
25 Cf. above,
p. 33. Because of the number of estimated quotas there is a greater chance of
coincidence in the total for Attalis than for Ptolemais.

CHAPTER III
THE BOULEUTIC ORGANIZATION OF THE

ORIGINAL TEN PHYLAI
INTRODUCTION TO MAPS AND TO CONSPECTUS OF DEME
LOCATIONS
The Maps' (Maps 1 and 2) attempt to indicate schematically the political
organization of Attica in the period of the original ten phylai. The basic scheme is as
follows: demes are indicated by circles on the map, each circle being drawn of a size
roughly corresponding to its quota of representation in the Council.2Demes belong-
ing to the same trittys are connected by lines, usually to the largest member of the
trittys, but sometimes, where the demes are more nearly equal in size, drawn to the
most central or most conveniently located member. The quotas of representation,
i.e. the number of bouleutai a particular deme sent annually to the Council in the
period of the original ten phylai, are shown within the circles (a question mark
following the figure means the quota is estimated or uncertain). These quotas and
the evidence for them are given in the Tables of Representation I-X together with
other pertinent information. The trittyes are numbered according to the official
order of the phylai, small Roman numerals for the ten city trittyes, capital Roman
numerals for the ten coastal members, and large Arabic numerals for the ten
trittyes belonging to the inland area. In addition, to illustrate more clearly the
tribal arrangement the demes of each phyle in Map 1 have been assigned a different
color, and the three Attic sections in Map 2 have been shaded differently, the city
trittyes left white, the coastal trittyes shaded lightly, and the inland trittyes shaded
heavily.3
1 The maps were begun at the suggestion of E. Vanderpool and follow a scheme originated and tried
on an earlier unpublished version by J. H. Young.
2
Particularly apparent here is the schematic nature of the maps whose format, per se, eschews the
difficult, or rather impossible, task of defining precise deme and trittys boundaries. Accordingly, the
area defined by a circle bears little relation to the total territory administered by a deme or to the
definitive boundaries of its province. On the basic question of the geographical significance of the demes
see below, pp. 73-74.
3
Again the lines of demarcation are purely schematic and not geographic, although Hymettos and
Aigaleos obviously formed the western and eastern (or northeastern) boundaries respectively of the city
section.

The Maps are served by a Conspectus of Deme Locations divided by phyle into
ten Topographical Tables (pp. 37-54) which list the trittyes, the locations accord-
ing, where possible, to the modem place names,4 and a brief summary of the
evidence for the locations with references to works in which that evidence has been
presented.5 Accompanying each table are notes on some of the topographical
questions involved.
Not all the Attic demes have been located with the same degree of certainty.
The locations, therefore, have been classified into four general categories, both on
the Maps and in the Topographical Tables, according to these criteria:
= No Question Mark on Map (76 demes)

1. CERTAINOR PROBABLELOCATION
This usually means a deme-site,6 i.e. considerable ancient remains and epi-
graphical (especially a deme-decree) or literary evidence to identify it. Sometimes
the ancient remains are slight, but there is sufficient literary or epigraphical evidence
to define the location fairly closely. Occasionally the general location is known with
certainty, e.g. Sounion or Marathon, but there is an embarrassment of remains; in
these cases what seems the most probable place for the deme center has been
suggested.
2. GENERAL OR APPROXIMATE LOCATION= Question Mark Following Circle but not

the Name (21 demes)
In these instances there are usually few archaeological remains, i.e. no deme-site,
but there is evidence from a literary source to give a general or approximate
location. Sometimes there is slight supporting evidence, e.g. the survival of the
name in a nearby region. For all the demes in this category, the modern place name
given in the tables must be treated, if it is not already apparent from the designation,
as only the general area to which the deme should belong.
4 Almost all these
place names appear on the Kartenvon Attika. The few which do not, e.g. Kallistiri,
may be found on the Xdpr7js 'ArrLK7S('O8rYOS rtiS 'ATrtKrlS), 'EAev8epovatK1Ts, Athens, 1923. Pan-
epistemioupolis [see Upper and Lower Potamos] is of too recent date to appear on either map.
5 This is intended only as the briefest reference,usually to a familiar work such as I.G., the R.E., or
to the Text of the Kartenvon Attika. The referencespoint to evidence for the deme-site, for the identifica-
tion, and, occasionally, for both.
6 The
majority of the demes in the city trittyes, including probably some within the city walls,
were geographically separated communities and hence easily discernible deme-sites. Even, however,
those non-separate, adjacent communities (i.e. most demes within the walls or immediately outside
them), which had contiguous habitation (e.g. Kollytos and Melite, see Strabo, I, 4, 7), and for which it is
difficult to speak of specific deme-sites, must nevertheless be regardedas being located with certainty or
a large degree of probability.

THE BOULEUTIC ORGANIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEN PHYLAI 37
= Question Mark Following Name but not the Circle (18

3. POSSIBLELOCATION
demes)
This usually means a deme-site, but there is little evidence, either literary or
epigraphical, to identify it. Several criteria have been employed, however, in pairing
name and site: (a) the deme is usually known to belong either certainly or probably
to the trittys in question;7 (b) the relative size of the deme as evidenced by the
bouleutic quota compares well with the preserved archaeological remains; and
(c) occasionally a very slight suggestion has been offered by the literary sources.
Obviously, the probability of the correct association of deme and deme-site is
increased where the trittys has few unlocated demes and also few available deme-
sites, e.g. Akamantis inland (5), and is decreased where the trittys possesses a large
number of unlocated demes and available deme-sites, e.g. Hippothontis coast (VIII).
4. UNKNOWN LOCATION=Demes Listed According to Phyle in Box at Bottom of

Map (24 demes)
In these cases there is little or no evidence for the location of the deme. Occa-
sionally the trittys affiliation may be known and/or there may even be a slight
suggestion, either from literature or archaeology, for the location. Some of these
demes might have been placed on the map and their locations specially marked as
tentative, i.e. with a question mark following both name and circle. In the majority
of cases, however, even the trittys affiliation, based, where all else fails, on the deme
groupings in the prytany registers (see the notes to Topographical Tables), must
be considered tentative. The provisional nature of these affiliations has been
indicated by a question mark beside the trittys designations. The bouleutic quotas,
however, of all these demes are known or may be estimated and they have been
recorded beside the deme names in circles of the appropriate size.
CONSPECTUS OF DEME LOCATIONS

TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE I ERECHTHEIS
TRITTYS DEME LOCATION EVIDENCE FOR LOCATION
City Upper Agryle Both SW of Probable location, based on literary evidence
City Lower Agryle Ardettos (Harp. s.v. 'Aprro's-, Strabo, IX, 1, 24) and the
property-inscription I.G., II2, 2776 (lines 58-
59=Hesperia, XLI, 1972, p. 70); cf. R.E., s.v.
Agryle and Karten von Attika, Text, II, pp. 23,
28.
7 A knowledge of the trittys affiliations of the demes is
obviously not so important in the few cases
in which there exists the possibility of contiguous trittyes within the same phyle, viz. the coastal and
inland sections of Aigeis, Pandionis, and perhaps also of Akamantis and Aiantis, as in the majority of
cases in which the trittyes were not contiguous.


City Euonymon Trachones Probable location, based chiefly on the findspots
of I.G., II2, 6195, etc.; cf. Milchh6fer,Demenord-
nung, pp. 11-12, and R.E., s.v. Halai.
City8 Themakos Kara Deme-site (findspot of deme-decree I.G., II2,
1212), name uncertain, possibly to be identified
as Themakos, the general location of which is
suggested by Andokides (De Myst., I, 17); cf.
Kirsten, Atti terzocongr., p. 166.
Coast Anagyrous Vari Deme-site, identified with virtual certainty as
Anagyrous from Strabo (IX, 1, 21) combined
with other evidence; cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes,
pp. 35-46.
Coast?9 Kedoi Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from the findspot of I.G., II2, 6383
(Lambrika);cf. Eliot, CoastalDemes, pp. 58-59,
note 31.
Coast Upper Lamptrai Lambrika Both deme-sites, almost certainly to be identified
Coast Coastal Lamptrai Kitsi as Upper and Coastal (or Lower) Lamptrai
respectively; cf. Eliot, CoastalDemes, pp. 47-61.
Coast ?9 Pambotadai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative.
Inland Kephisia Kephisia Deme-site, identified with certainty as Kephisia
from literary sources, the survival of the name,
and a recently discovered deme-decree (cf.
eA-r., XXI, 1966, Xpov., p. 106, and XXIV,
1969, MEA.,pp. 6-7).
Inland Upper Pergase Both near General location, suggested from reference in
Inland Lower Pergase Chelidonou Aristophanes (Equites, 321); cf. Kirchner, I.G.,
II2, 7205, and R.E., s.v. Pergase.
Inland? 9 Phegous Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative.
Inland ?9 Sybridai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from association with Siberus (or
Syverus) river (cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., XXXVII,
114, where the text may be corrupt) the location
of which is also unknown but most likely belongs
to the inland trittys (cf. R.E., Suppl. X, s.v.
Sybridai).
8 The
city section of Erechtheis may represent a compact trittys; the supposition would receive
further support were Themakos assigned with more certainty to the deme-site of Kara.
9 There is very little evidence for the trittys affiliation of most of the small demes of Erechtheis.
Even the councillor and deme lists, which usually offer some suggestions in this respect, totally fail us
for this phyle. A recent attempt by W. E. Thompson (Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, p. 66) to find a pattern
in one of these lists, the bouleutic catalogue of 336/5(?), does not appear entirely convincing for
Erechtheis. The assumed scheme, i.e. that the seven lines of the coastal trittys at the bottom of the

TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE II AIGEIS

City Upper Ankyle Both NE of Probable location, based on literary evidence
City Lower Ankyle Ardettos (Alkiphron, III, 43) and the property inscrip-
tion I.G., II2, 2776, lines 57-59=Hesperia,
XLI, 1972, p. 70; cf. R.E., s.v. Ankyle; Karten
von Attika, Text, II, p. 28.
City1? Bate Ambelokipi Deme-site (for remains cf. JeA., XX, 1965,
Xpov., pp. 103-107; B.C.H., XVIII, 1894, pp.
483-490; XCII, 1968, pp. 72-75), name uncer-
tain, possible location for Bate; cf. Philippson,
Griech.Landschaften,I, part 3, p. 889.
City Diomeia Near Diomeian Probable location, based on association with
gate, SE of city Herakleion in Kynosarges (cf. Stephanos Byz.,
walls s.v. Kvvoaapyes!;cf. J. Travlos, 'Apx. 'AvaA.
'AO.,III, 1970, pp. 6-13.
City? 0 Erikeia Kypseli Deme-site (findspot of deme-decree I.G., II2,
1215), name uncertain, possible location for
Erikeia, assigned to the city tentatively from
the evidence of the prytany lists; cf. R.E., s.v.
Erikeia.
City Hestiaia Tsako Deme-site (cf. Leake, Demi, p. 47), name un-
certain, possible location for Hestiaia, which is
associated with Ankyle by Harpokration (s.v.
TpLK&E,aAos)).
first column belong with the fourteen lines of the same trittys at the bottom of the second, is contrary
to the usual custom, both ancient and moder, of reading to the bottom of one column and continuing
with the top of the next. That the columns of the various rosters on this inscription are unequal in
length is better explained by the fact that the masons, as a rule in this early period, began each column
with a demotic. Nor do any other lists of this phyle (viz. I.G., I2, 398= 1; Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 233,
no. 43= 14; XXXV, 1966, p. 228=61; XXXVIII, 1969, p. 474=72; Suppl. I, pp. 44 and 46, no. 9 = 86;
etc.), taking into consideration the trittys assignments of the already well-located demes, show a
consistent pattern of arrangement in this respect. The list seemingly most reliable, viz. the deme-
catalogue of 200 B.C., has Euonymon obviously out of place. Even more disconcerting, the earliest
prytany register, I.G., I2, 398, in which one might expect greater attention to grouping according to
trittys, has the largest number of apparent exceptions. Only the Erechtheid roster on I.G., II2, 1700= 43,
an inscription which W. E. Thompson has shown (Mnemosyne,XXII, 1969, pp. 137-138, note 2) pays
little regard to trittys groupings, may show a consistent pattern, but this list preserves only four
demotics and the trittys affiliation of one of them is still very tentative.
10Erikeia and Bate have both been assigned to the city because of the apparent trittys groupings
on the councillor and deme lists (viz. Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 32=42; XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 419-420=
89; I.G., II2, 2362; and, for Bate only, I.G., II2, 1749= 38), and, in addition for the latter, because of the
supposed survival of the name in a modern area of Athens known as BdOELa.(Cf. K. E. Bires, Tor7rvvtLKa&
rCov'AqvCov,Athens, 1945, p. 245, s.v. BadLa.[I owe this referenceto C. W. J. Eliot.]) While questioning
the connection between Bar) and BadOLaand rejecting the latter as a possible site, I have kept both
Bate and Erikeia tentatively in the city trittys, placing them provisionally at Ambelokipi and at
Kypseli. Both these places have greater claim than BdOELa (despite the contention of A. A. Papagian-
nopoulos-Palaios, nloAwcov,IV, 1949, pp. 80, and 139-140) as ancient centers of habitation.


City Kollytos S of Acropolis and
General location known with certainty from
Areopagus Strabo (I, 4, 7), specific location indicated by a
boundary reference in the Attic Stelai; cf.
Hesperia, XXII, 1953, p. 271, and B.S.A., L,
1955, p. 16, with note 40.
City Kolonos Kolonos Deme-site, identified with certainty from abun-
dant literary evidence; cf. B.S.A., L, 1955,
pp. 12-17.
Coast Araphen Site W of Raphina Deme-site, identified with certainty from associ-
ation with Halai Araphenides; cf. R.E., s.vv.
Araphen, Halai.
Coast Halai Araphenides Loutsa, W of Deme-site, identified with certainty from deme-
Tauropolos decrees; cf. H7paKTLKa, 1956, pp. 87-89; 'Apx. 'E+.,
Temple 1925-26, pp. 168-177, and 1932, Xpov., pp. 30-
32; "Epyov, 1957, pp. 24-25; HpaKTrKa, 1957,
pp. 45-47.
Coast11 Otryne Unknown Little evidence for location; generally assigned
to coast from a passage in Athenaios (VII, 309e)
where fish are discussed.
Coast Phegaia Ierotsakouli12 General location suggested from a reference in
Stephanos of Byzantium (s.v. 'AAal), a more
certain location indicated by the findspots of
two gravestones listing Phegaians, see note 12,
below.
11Those councillor and deme lists which appear to pay some attention to trittys grouping place
Otryne either obviously with the city demes (Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 420=89, which may have
been arranged according to trittys, if we allow that the demes at the bottom of the third column were
left over from columns one and two) or between the city and inland demes (I.G., II2, 2362; and Hesperia,
XXX, 1961, p. 32 = 42). Hence, it could belong to either trittys, but not to the coast, to which it has been
assigned from the reference to fish in Athenaios. W. E. Thompson (Mnemosyne,XXII, 1969, pp. 144-
145, note 13) has attempted to resolve the difficulty by suggesting that the fish in question, the K/coJOS,
may be a fresh-water species, allowing a location for Otryne in the city, but, though possible, this is
hardly the natural or obvious interpretation of the passage. Moreover,by Thompson's own theory for
the shifting of contingents to form TpLTrvesrTv rTpvrvcov (ibid., p. 147) a city location is unnecessary,
for Otryne may just as easily have been a coastal enclave which lent its membership to the city.
12 Of these two
gravestones listing Phegaians, one, the crown of a naiskos, was found Elt "Ay.
'AvSpeavN. MdKprqs (M. Th. Mitsos, 'ApX.'E+., 1950-51, p. 51, no. 39). The other, a stele bearing the
name [17]vOdyyeAos[Hl]vOooSpovr-yaLte's (G. Soteriades, 1IpaKTLKa, 1935, pp. 122-124; cf. HvOo8Swpos
PI7ya?ev's, councillor in 336/5 B.C., Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 32, line 76=42), was found at a place
Kal PopELtTepa oAlyov roi AeyopevovMeyaAov MEroXL,ELs
called Kako Melissi by Soteriades, rrapa7rAXEvpcos
r7rs ES 'AOrviv a/latTr77 KCar eveLav Tpos SvcrUIas 7rpos TO
o ,uETafla3vewTLs aTro 3T 300^ XtALtoXpepov
fovvov.More recently, the discovery at Draphi of a third grave marker belonging to a demesman of
Phegaia led to the suggestion that Draphi was Phegaia (B.C.H., LXXX, 1956, pp. 246-247), but the
remains at that site seem too slight to belong to a deme with three representatives (B.C.H., LXXXIX,
1965, p. 26). On the other hand, the identification of Draphi as Ionidai, like the association of two other
deme-sites, Kato Charvati and Vouvra, with Kydantidai and Myrrhinoutta, must be considered very
provisional, since even the trittys affiliation of these demes, determined from the councillor lists, is
unsure. The probability of the correct identification of the sites, however, is increased somewhat from


Coast13 Philaidai Site W of General location known from literary sources
Brauron (cf. Suda, s.v. dpKros0; Schol. Aristophanes, Aves,
873, etc.); probable location at the deme-site
near the Christian basilica (cf. lpaKCLKca,1951,
pp. 53-76).
Inland Erchia Site S of Spata Deme-site, identified with certainty by the dis-
covery of a lex sacra belonging to Erchia; cf.
B.C.H., LXXXIX, 1965, pp. 21-26.
Inland Gargettos Ieraka Deme-site, identified with certainty by discovery
of a deme-decree; cf. Ath. Mitt., LXVII, 1942,
pp. 7-8, no. 5; HoXAwov,IV, 1949, pp. 10-16.
Inland Ikarion Dionyso Deme-site, identified with certainty from dis-
covery of deme-decrees (I.G., I2, 186, 187; II2,
1178, 1179).
Inland? Ionidai Draphi12 Deme-site, name uncertain, possible location for
Ionidai; cf. B.C.H., LXXXIX, 1965, pp. 24-26;
R.E., Suppl. X, s.v. Ionidai.
Inland? Kydantidai Kato Charvati12 Deme-site, name uncertain, possible location for
Kydantidai; cf. B.C.H., LXXXIX, 1965,
pp. 24-26.
Inland? Myrrhinoutta Site near Vourva Deme-site, name uncertain, possible location for
Myrrhinoutta; cf. B.C.H., LXXXIX, 1965,
pp. 24-26.
Inland Plotheia Site S of Stamata Deme-site, identified with certainty from dis-
covery of dedications belonging to Plotheians;
cf. I.G., II2, 4607, 4885, etc.; R.E., s.v. Plotheia.
Inland13 Teithras Pikermi Deme-site, identified with certainty from dis-
covery of deme-decrees and dedications of
Teithrasians; cf. Ath. Mitt., XLIX, 1924, pp. 1-
13; Hesperia, XXXI, 1962, pp. 401-402.
the fact that the coastal and inland sections of Aigeis were contiguous, the obvious geographicaldivision
being between the two sections of the inland area which were clearly separated by Mount Pentelikon.
See now E. Vanderpool, "The Attic Deme Phegaia," Melanges Daux, 1974.
13 W. E.
Thompson has recently questioned the traditional assignments of Philaidai to the coast
and Teithras to the inland trittys (Mnemosyne, XXII, 1969, pp. 145-149, cf. D. M. Lewis, Historia,
XII, 1963, p. 28). The former deme appears in two lists (I.G., II2, 1749= 38, and Hesperia, XXX, 1961,
p. 32=42) in the company of inland demes, and on one list (Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 420=89)
between inland and city demes, while the latter appears on the same three lists respectively as follows:
between two coastal demes, between a coastal and a city deme, and with inland demes. Admittedly,
for some Aigeid sites there is little to choose topographically between the inland and coastal trittyes
(since the two sections were contiguous), but W. E. Thompson's attempts to relocate Philaidai seem
both desperate (the most likely site is neither of the two he discusses), and, by his own theory of
7rpLrrTTves v TrpTaveoWv, unnecessary. Moreover, the topographical suggestions of the councillor lists,
obviously ambiguous for Teithras, and only provisional at best for other demes (see Probalinthos,
below), are particularly suspect for this phyle, since there is no list which does not have at least one deme
obviously out of topographical order.

TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE III PANDIONIS

TRITTYS14 DEME LOCATION EVIDENCE FOR LOCATION
City Kydathenaion N of Acropolis Assigned with certainty to the city (cf. I.G., II2,
1748=26, etc.), generally placed north of the
Acropolis; cf. Judeich, Topographie2,p. 172;
R.E., s.v. Kydathenaion.
Coast Angele Angelisi General location known with certainty from
the survival of the name, and the discovery of
the grave marker I.G., II2, 5230; cf. Karten von
Attika, Text, III-VI, p. 11.
Coast Myrrhinous Merenda Deme-site, identified with certainty from dis-
covery of deme-decrees (I.G., II2, 1182, 1183);
cf. J. G. Frazer, Pausanias, II, pp. 412-413;
XapiajpLov 'OpAdvvov,III, pp. 281-299.
Coast Prasiai Prasas General location known with certainty from
literary sources (Strabo, IX, 1, 22; Thucydides,
VIII, 95, 1; etc.), the survival of the name, and
the discovery of grave and mortgage stones of
Prasians (I.G., II2, 2497, 7286); cf. R.E.,
s.v. Prasiai; Frazer, Pausanias, II, pp. 403-405;
and Hesperia, Suppl. XI, p. 2, with note 10.
Coast Probalinthos Near Nea Makri General location known with certainty from
literary sources and the findspots of a number of
grave markers of Probalinthians; cf. R.E., s.v.
Probalinthos; A.J.A., LXX, 1966, p. 321,
note 7.
14 As W. E. Thompson has recently pointed out (Historia, XV, 1966, pp. 4-5, 7), the councillor lists
of Pandionis do appear to pay attention to the trittys affiliations of the demes. One of these registers,
viz. I.G., II2, 1748= 26, in fact, actually preserves two trittys headings, the only known appearance of
such designations on these lists. There are, however, some serious qualifications to the generally
consistent pattern on the Pandionid registers. Probalinthos, for instance, located near Nea Makriin an
obviously divided coastal trittys, generally appears (or is restored) on the prytany inscriptions in the
company of Kydathenaion, which was very probably the only member of the Pandionid city trittys (cf.
S.E.G., XXIII, 87= 10; I.G., II2, 1751=32; Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 32=42; the only exception being
I.G., II2, 1753= 47, where it appears, as it should, with the other coastal demes). It may have lent its
membership to the city section in order to make up more nearly equal rpLtTrr7TCrV TrpVrdaEWv (Thomp-
son, op. cit., p. 7), but there is no question that this original member of the Marathoniantetrapolis ever
belonged to the city topographically. A more serious violation, however, comes from the usually (in this
respect) reliable deme-catalogue of 200 B.C.(I.G., II2, 2362), which preserves the last part of the roster of
Pandionis, where Oa, unless it is an addendum,is obviously out of place, being separated from the other
members of the inland trittys (see below, pp. 82, note 26, and 99, note 92). In fact, even the Pandionid
roster in the Hesperia bouleutic list of 336/5 makes topographical sense only to a very understanding
reader, for, as in the case of Erechtheis (see above, pp. 38-39, note 9), one is asked to read the two
columns together, i.e. thirteen lines at the top of column one go with seventeen lines at the top of
column two to form Pandionis inland, while six lines at the bottom of column one and twenty-one at
the bottom of column two belong to the coastal trittys. If this is grouping the demes accordingto trittys,
the arrangementis hardly normal, natural, or obvious.


Coast Steiria W of Porto General location known with certainty from
Raphti Strabo (IX, 1, 22) and the findspots of a number
of grave markers of Steirians (cf. Kirchner,
I.G., II2, 7464); a more precise location may be
suggested from the findspot of some ancient
architectural fragments, cf. Ath. Mitt., LII,
1927, pp. 163-165.
Inland Konthyle SE of Spata Generallocation, suggested by the findspot of the
Kallisto stele (I.G., II2, 6533; cf. Ath. Mitt., XII,
1887, p. 91).
Inland?15 Kytheros Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative.
Inland Oa Papangelaki General location suggested from the findspot of
the grave monument I.G., II2, 7820 (cf. Ath.
Mitt., XVII, 1892, p. 370).
Inland Upper Paiania Site N of Liopesi Deme-site, almost certainly to be identified as
Upper Paiania; cf. Karten von Attika, Text, II,
p. 31; A.J.A., LXXI, 1967, p. 311 (Map).
Inland Lower Paiania Site at E outskirts Deme-site near the Christian basilica, very
of Liopesi probably to be identified as Lower Paiania; for
location cf. 'Apx. 'Eqb.,1956, Xpov., pp. 27-31.
TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE IV LEONTIS

City Halimous Site N of Ag. Deme-site, identified with certainty from dis-
Kosmas covery of a deme-decree; cf. B.S.A., XXIV,
1919-21, pp. 151-160.
City? Kettos Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from prytany inscriptions; sometimes
assigned to inland trittys; cf. R.E., Suppl. X,
s.v. Kettos.
15 Gomme (Population, p. 53, note 2) assigns Kytheros provisionally to the city trittys on the
evidence of I.G., II2, 1753 (=47), where it and Kydathenaion ought to belong to the missing column,
and on the evidence of his own restoration of I.G., II2, 1740 (= 12), in which he assumes Kytheros
appeared at the bottom of the second column below Kydathenaion and Probalinthos. By the same
reasoning, however, the lists S.E.G., XXIII, 87 (= 10), I.G., II2, 1751 (= 32), and Hesperia, XXX, 1961,
p. 32 (=42) might suggest a coastal affiliation.
16 Among the original ten phylai Leontis appears to have been
distinguished in having all three of
its trittyes divided. Admittedly, of the Leontid city demes only Halimous and Skambonidai are located
with great probability and Upper and Lower Potamos (see note 18, below) with considerably less
probability, but their widely separatedlocations definitely indicate a divided trittys. If Oion Kerameikon
and Leukonoion were located with more certainty near the Kerameikos and at Peristeri respectively
(see following note), the trittys would appear even more divided. The coastal trittys was obviously
divided with demes located near Olympos, Sounion, and Daskalio. The widely flung inland trittys,
stretching along the foot of Pares from at least as far east as Mygdaleza to Kropidai in the west, is very
strange in appearance and can scarcely be considered compact (see now W. E. Thompson, "The Deme
in Kleisthenes' Reforms," Symbolae Osloenses, XLVI, 1971, pp. 77-78).


City? Leukonoion Unknown, possibly Trittys assignment tentative from slight literary
Peristeri evidence, supported by prytany inscriptions
and perhaps I.G., II2, 2818; possible location at
Peristeri suggested by the finding place of a
base (I.G., II2, 4674) and a marble lekythos
(AEAr.,XX, 1965, XpoVLKd,p. 121); for name cf.
A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications, no. 112.
City?17 Oion Kerameikon Near Kerameis General location suggested from the association
of the names Kerameis/Kerameikon and the
analogy of other modified demotics, e.g. Oion
Dekeleikon.
City Skambonidai N part of city Probable location, based chiefly on the finding
place of the deme-decree I.G., I2, 188; cf. R.E.,
s.v. Skambonidai;Judeich, Topographie2,p. 172.
Coast Deiradiotai Daskalio Deme-site, probably to be identified as Deira-
diotai from the grave and mortgage stones
found in the area (I.G., II2, 2650, 5965) and the
obvious connection with Potamos; cf. R.E., s.v.
Deirades.
Coast Potamos River valley N of General location of at least one Potamos deme
Deiradiotes Thorikos known with certainty from Strabo (IX, 1, 22);
for identification of the deme as Potamos
Deiradiotes cf. Deiradiotai, above, and R.E.,
s.v. Potamos.
Coast 8 Upper Potamos Both Spiliazeza on Once generally assumed to have been included
17 Oion Kerameikon is usually assigned to the city from the obvious association in name with the
Kerameikos. The arrangement of some deme and councillor lists of Leontis (I.G., II2, 1742= 13; I.G.,
II2, 2362; Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 33=42; but not I.G., II2, 1700=43), however, indicates that Oion
belongs with the inland demes. Hence, it has been argued that Kerameikon is a general modifier with
little or no connection with Kerameis/Kerameikos (see W. E. Thompson, Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970,
p. 65). Some support for this interpretation may be derived from the reference in Harpokration,
s.v. Otov, where the sites of the demes Oion are described as /,7/8acJLCs On the
OiKr7roVTO7TOVE'XE?v.
other hand, while the name Kerameikon could be a general modifier, unlike Dekeleikon, Aixonides,
Araphenides, and Deiradiotes (the other four known "modified" demes), and while in the case of each
of these parallels the associated deme, i.e. Dekeleia, Aixone, Araphen, and Deiradiotai, belongs to the
same phyle as the modified one (whereas Kerameis was affiliated with a different phyle, viz. Akamantis,
from that of Oion Kerameikon), still the analogy, particularly of Oion Dekeleikon, is extremely cogent
and a close connection between Oion Kerameikon and Kerameis appears inevitable. Oion Kerameikon,
located near Kerameis and the Kerameikos,would of course present another obvious enclave (a common
occurrence, especially in the city and especially in this phyle) and as such could have lent its member-
ship to another trittys (see above, p. 42, note 14), thereby providing an explanation for its inclusion
with the inland demes in some of the councillor lists.
18Upper and Lower Potamos, along with Potamos Deiradiotes, have been assigned to the coastal
trittys in the Tables of Representation and located in the valley north of Thorikos on the Maps. The
grave and mortgage stones of Deiradiotans found at Daskalio and the remark of Strabo that the deme
of the Potamioi was located between Thorikos and Prasia fixes the site of Potamos Deiradiotes some-
where in the river valley north of Thorikos. Scholars, however, have generally assumed that Strabo was
referringto all three Potamos demes and two items may be cited in support of this interpretation. The


Coast18 Lower Potamos maps, now better with Potamos Deiradiotes by Strabo in his
in city trittys at reference to Potamioi (IX, 1, 22), hence the
Panepistemiou- location in the fertile valley north of Thorikos,
polis cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI, pp. 25-26;
preferably located now in the city from
prytany inscriptions and the finding place of one
gravestone, cf. R.E., s.v. Potamos, and deAr.,
XXV, 1970, XpoVLKd,p. 123.
Coast Phrearrhioi Olympos Deme-site, probably to be identifiedas Phrearrhioi
from the discovery of a lex sacra mentioning
Phrearrhians; cf. Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970,
pp. 50-53.
Coast Sounion Upper Agrileza Extensive remains and abundant evidence for
valley general location; probable location of the deme
center based on the findspot of the deme-decree
I.G., II2, 1180 (cf. Ath. Mitt., XIX, 1894,
p. 241).
Inland? Aithalidai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from prytany lists and perhaps I.G.,
II2, 2818.
first item is an argument from analogy. While homonymous demes belonged to different phylai and,
where locations are known, were widely separated, divided demes without exception belonged to the
same phylai and had close geographicallocations (seeAppendix D). The three Potamos demes all belonged
to the same phyle and as such might naturally be considered a divided deme of three parts, all of which
should be located in the same area. The second and more important item in support of a coastal location
for Upper and Lower Potamos is furnished by the bouleutic list of 336/5 in which the combined repre-
sentation of the three Potamos demes, five bouleutai, was arranged under a single demotic (Hor7aLtot)
and listed in the company of the other coastal demes (cf. W. E. Thompson, Historia, XV, 1966, p. 10).
The prytany list published in AeATLov, XXV, 1970, p. 84, no. 1 (= 13a), however, cannot at this point be
used as corroborativeevidence, for the stone seems to have been broken just at the end of the last iota of
oioraTmoLand below the first representative of this deme.
On the other hand, the prytany register I.G., II2, 1742 (= 13) separates Upper and Lower Potamos
from Potamos Deiradiotes, grouping the latter with the coastal demes and the former with five demes
all of which, with the exception of Cholleidai (generally assigned to the inland area-see following note),
have been located with varying degrees of certainty in the city. Two Potamos demes appear in I.G., II2,
2362 in a series commencing with Skambonidai and terminating with Halimous (both belonging to the
city), but the modifier of neither Potamos deme is preserved. To be sure, one deme has to be either
Upper or Lower, and the pair is most naturally interpreted as Upper and Lower. (I have examined the
stone in line 36 [Corpusnumeration], but cannot confirm the traces of delta seen by D. Laing and W. E.
Thompson as reported by the latter in Mnemosyne, XXII, 1969, pp. 138-139, note 1.) In any case,
there is a problem in the Leontid register of I.G., II2, 2362, for one of the coastal demes, either Sounion
or Potamos Deiradiotes, has been separated from the other demes of its trittys (Kirchner restores
Sounion in line 41 of his text, but he could just as easily have inserted Potamos Deiradiotes). Thus, the
deme and councillor lists, though not unanimous, do favor a city assignment for Upper and Lower
Potamos. The Leontid city demes, with locations near Agios Kosmas, in the northern part of the city
proper, and perhaps near Peristeri and the Kerameikos, were obviously widely scattered (see note 17,
above) and offer no impediment to the most probable city location for the Potamioi, viz. the upper

TRITTYS DEME LOCATION EVIDENCE FORLOCATION

Inlandl8bis Cholleidai Site S of Tatoi Deme-site (cf. Xapprrjptov'OpAcvSov, I, pp. 174-
airport 175), possibly to be identified as Cholleidai, the
general location of which is known from Aristo-
phanes, Acharnians, 406.
Inland Eupyridai Near Kamatero General location suggested from reference in
Stephanos Byz. (s.v. EvrrvplTa)and the find-
spot (Churchof the Forty Martyrs) of I.G., II2,
6146; cf. R.E., s.v. Eupyridai.
Inland Hekale Mygdaleza19 Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
58), possibly to be identified as Hekale, the
general location of which is known from literary
sources.
Inland? Hybadai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from prytany lists; cf. R.E., Suppl.
X, s.v. Hybadai.
Ilissos valley (cf. E. Meyer, R.E., s.v. Potamos). That at least one Potamos deme belonged to the city
finds corroboration in a passage of Pausanias (I, 31, 3) in which the location of the grave of Ion is
described as ev IHoraptoZsE'aL rjsT Xpas; this phrase rijs Xpoas, as pointed out by C. W. J. Eliot
(CoastalDemes, p. 149, note 26) implies a natural contrast with Potamioi not in the country, i.e. city
Potamioi. (This interpretation has been countered by W. E. Thompson [Historia, XV, 1966, pp. 9-10]
who, in discussing this passage and Pausanias' use elsewhere of C js xpas, contends that the phrase has
no such implication, but Thompson's argument seems weak and his interpretation unnatural.) Of more
importance, however, in corroboratinga city location for Upper and Lower Potamos has been the recent
discovery at Panepistemioupolis in the upper Ilissos valley of the gravestone of one Potamian (cf.
aeAT., XXV, 1970, XpovtKd,p. 123).
Returning to the Strabo passage referredto at the beginning of this note, it may be observed that
strictly speaking Strabo makes reference to a single deme, viz. Potamos Deiradiotes, and not to all
three Potamos demes, although it must be admitted that by this author's time divided demes were not
apparently distinguished. Finally, Harpokration'sremark (s.v. Ilorap's) that the Potamioi were known
for the ease with which they enrolled new citizens (EcKwCpSovbvro8e WspaCslwsEXot/EvoL roVSrrapeyyprOr-
rovS, wS aAAo Tre87AoV I Kai MevavSpos ev ZJLlv'LaL), far from revealing which of the three Potamos
demes was in question, might apply equally well to a coastal as to a city location.
18bis I have followed the traditional assignment of Cholleidai to the inland trittys despite the
contention of Loper and Gomme that on the basis of the groupings of the councillor lists it should be
assigned to the city (Population, p. 59; cf. Historia, XV, 1966, p. 9). In I.G., II2, 1742 (= 13) Cholleidai
appears at the bottom of the first column which contains the city demes (cf. preceding note), but it may
have been deliberately placed there by the mason in order to provide a more symmetrical arrangement
of the register. In Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 33 (=42) Cholleidai occurs between the city and inland
demes (accepting Aithalidai as one of the latter) and might of course belong to either group. In I.G., II2,
2382 (= 74) Cholleidai appears after Kettos and Leukonoion and before Skambonidai, but too little of
this text is preserved to be certain that it was arrangedaccording to trittyes and inscriptions from this
period generally were not so arranged. In the deme-catalogue I.G., I12, 2362 Cholleidaiwas not listed
with the "city" demes.
19Koukounari, an alternate suggestion for the location of Hekale, really ought to belong to a
member of the MarathonianTetrapolis, judging from the discovery there of the cult inscription I.G.,
112,1358.


Inland? Kolonai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from prytany lists; for a possible
general location cf. Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970,
pp. 64-65.
Inland Kropidai Site W of Ano Deme-site (some sherds, unpublished), suitable
Liosia to description in Thucydides (II, 19) and to be
identified very probably as Kropidai.
Inland Paionidai At foot of Parnes, General location known with certainty from
N of Menidi20 literary sources (Herodotos, V, 62; Aristotle,
Ath. Pol. 19, etc.); cf. Karten von Attika, Text,
VII-VIII, p. 7.
Inland Pelekes Site near Chasia Deme-site (cf. Ath. Mitt., XLIX, 1924, pp. 157-
159), possible location for Pelekes, the general
location of which is suggested from a reference
in Stephanos Byz. (s.v. Ev7rvpi'aL);cf. Kirsten,
Atti terzocongr., p. 170.
TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE V AKAMANTIS

City Cholargos Near Kato Liosia General location suggested from literary sources
(Menander,Dyskolos, 33, etc.) and the findspot
of the grave marker I.G., II2, 7768; cf. R.E.,
s.v. Cholargos.
City Eiresidai W of Kolonos General location suggested from a reference in
Diogenes Laertius (III, 41) and the findspot of
one grave marker (cf. HpaKTuKa, 1963, p. 8).
City Hermos Chaidari Probable location, based on literary evidence
(Plutarch, Phocion, 22, etc.) and the findspots
of a number of grave markers (cf. Kirchner,
I.G., II2, 6072); cf. R.E., s.v. Hermos.
City Iphistiadai Site SW of Deme-site, identified with certainty from a
Herakleion reference in Diogenes Laertius (III, 41) and the
discovery of a boundary stone belonging to the
Herakleion (cf. Ath. Mitt., LI, 1926, pp. 21-25).
City Kerameis NW of Dipylon General location known with certainty from
association with the Kerameikos; for Kera-
meikos, cf. R. E. Wycherley, Athenian Agora,
III, pp. 221-224.
Coast Kephale E of Keratea Deme-site, with extensive remains in the region
of Keratea (cf. Arch. Anz., 1963, cols. 455-498),
identified with certainty as Kephale; probable
location of deme center east of Keratea.
20
The best discussion of the location of Paionidai is by C. W. J. Eliot in an unpublished paper
(1953) at the American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, " Leipsydrion-An Attic Fort on Parnes;"
referred to by J. R. McCredie, Fortified Military Camps of Attica, Hesperia, Suppl. XI, 1966, p. 58,
note 103.


Coast?21 Poros Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from prytany lists and Thorikos, V,
1968, pp. 149-150; often assigned to the city
trittys.
Coast Thorikos Thorikos Deme-site, extensive remains and abundant
evidence for certain identification; cf. R.E., s.v.
Thorikos.
Inland ?21 Eitea Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
very tentative.
Inland Hagnous Dankla Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
pp. 10-11), to be identified very probably as
Hagnous (cf. Ath. Mitt., XVII, 1892, p. 399),
which is known to belong to this region from
the findspots of a number of grave markers (cf.
Kirchner, I.G., II2, 5259); cf. R.E., s.v. Agnus.
Inland Kikynna Chalidou Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, II, p. 32),
possible location for Kikynna, assigned to the
inland trittys from slight literary evidence; cf.
R.E., s.v. Kikynna.
Inland Prospalta Site NW of Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
Kalyvia p. 12), identified with certainty from a number
of grave markers (cf. Kirchner, I.G., II2, 7306);
cf. R.E., s.v. Prospalta.
Inland Sphettos NW of Koropi, Deme-site, identified with certainty from the
below Christos discovery of a dedication by Sphettians (cf.
Chapel B.C.H., XCIII, 1969, pp. 56-71).
TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE VI OINEIS

City Boutadai NW of Kerameis Assigned to the city on the basis of the literary
connection with Eteoboutadai (cf. Harpokra-
tion, s.v. zKipov, etc.), generally placed along
the SacredWay near Lakiadaiand the Kephisos;
cf. R.E., s.v. Butadai; Judeich, Topographie2,
p. 174.
In both the bouleutic catalogue of 336/5 and the deme list I.G., II2, 2362 Eitea appears between
21
the city and inland demes and might well belong to either section. Poros, on the other hand, occurs
between the coastal and city demes in the first of these two lists, but does not appear on the preserved
part of the second, which presumably contains all the city demes. Unfortunately, both of these demes
were transferredto the Macedonianphylai, with the result that the prytany list of 305/4 B.C.(Hesperia,
Suppl. I, pp. 31-36, no. 1 =58), arrangedaccording to trittys, is of no help in determining their trittys
affiliation.

City Epikephisia Kephisos valley, General location, determined from patent ety-
near Lakiadai mology of the name and the findspot (Dipylon)
of the deme-decree I.G., II2, 1205; cf. R.E., s.v.
Epikephisia.
City ?22 Hippotomadai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
very tentative; cf. R.E., Suppl. X, s.v. Hippoto-
madai.
City Lakiadai Sacred Way, E of Location known with certainty from Pausanias
Kephisos (I, 37, 2); cf. Karten von Attika, Text, II, p. 16;
R.E., s.v. Lakiadai.
City Lousia Kephisos valley, General location, suggested from slight literary
W of Athens evidence and the findspot of the grave marker
I.G., II2, 6756 and the reference in I.G., II2,
1672, line 195; cf. R.E., s.v. Lusia; Judeich,
Topographie2,p. 174.
City Perithoidai Kephisos valley, General location, suggested from slight literary
W of Athens evidence and the findspot of the grave marker
I.G., II2, 7219; cf. R.E., s.v. Perithoidai; Karten
von Attika, Text, II, p. 16.
City Ptelea Kephisos valley, General location, tentatively suggested from the
W of Athens findspot of a grave marker (cf. Hesperia, XXXV,
1966, p. 280, no. 7); cf. R.E., s.v. Ptelea 2.
City? Tyrmeidai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative; cf. R.E., Suppl. X, s.v. Tyrmeidai.
Coast Kothokidai Ag. Ioannes, N of Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, VII-
Aspropyrgos VIII, p. 23), possible location for Kothokidai,
the general location of which is suggested by the
findspot (Goritsa) of the gravestone I.G., II2,
6481.
Coast Oe Site NE of Deme-site (cf. Philippson, Griech. Landschaften,
Aspropyrgos, at I, part 3, p. 861, note 123), suitable for Oe, the
foot of Kalistiri general location of which is suggested by
Sophocles (Oedipusat Kolonos, 1059ff.).
22 The
compact appearance of the city trittys discernible from Map 1 may be somewhat deceptive,
since only a very few of the Oineid city demes have been located with any certainty. The slight evidence
we have, however, suggests that most (if not all) of these small communities belong in the Kephisos
valley, west of Athens. Hippotomadai has also been assigned very tentatively to the city trittys, but the
evidence for this affiliation is very slight; it appears on I.G., II2, 1745 (= 17) in the company of the small
demes which certainly or probably belong to the city, but it must be added, in caution, that the deme
Phyle, a member of the coastal trittys, also appears in the same group. Indeed, there was a tendency in
the prytany lists, perhaps for convenience, to group together the tiny demes irrespective of trittys.
23 Kirsten's location of Oe is in accord with the remains shown on the Karten von Attika, Blatt VI
(no description in text), but his reference to Wrede's article in R.E. is entirely misleading (Philippson,
loc. cit.).


Coast Phyle Phyle Deme-site NE of fortress, identified with cer-
tainty; cf. R.E., s.v. Phyle 2.
Coast Thria Site SE of Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, II, p. 48;
Aspropyrgos VII, pp. 22, 24), probably to be identified as
Thria, the general location of which is known
from gravestones (cf. Kirchner, I.G., II2, 6266)
and abundant literary evidence; cf. R.E., s.vv.
Thria, Opcatov Tre&lov.
Inland Acharnai Menidi or site SW Abundant literary evidence for the general
of Menidi location, supported by strong epigraphical
evidence, i.e. the deme-decree I.G., II2, 1207
and a number of grave markers (cf. Kirchner,
I.G., II2, 5787); for two possible precise loca-
tions cf. Xaptarjptov 'OpAdvsov, I, pp. 172-173,
note 9.
TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE VII KEKROPIS

City24 Daidalidai N of Alopeke General location suggested with reference to
Alopeke (cf. Topographical Table X, below) in
poletai inscription (Hesperia, X, 1941, pp. 14ff.,
no. 1, lines 10-12); cf. also R.E., s.v. Daidalidai.
City24 Melite W of Agora General location known with certainty from
literary sources (e.g. Strabo, I, 4, 7, etc.), sup-
ported by strong archaeological evidence for a
more exact location; cf. LEAr.,XIX, 1964, MEA.,
pp. 26-36.
City24 Xypete NE of Peiraieus Location known with certainty from the dis-
covery of dedications by members of Xypete
and other material from the sanctuary of
Herakles Tetrakomos; cf. IIoAtEwcv, I, 1929,
pp. 44-52, 107-111, 232-237; III, 1947-48,
pp. 17-21; VII, 1958-59, pp. 62-64.
Coast Aixone Glyphada Deme-site, identified with certainty as Aixone
from the discovery of the deme-decrees I.G., II2,
2492, etc.; cf. 1196, 1198, 1200; Eliot, Coastal
Demes, pp. 6-24.
Coast Halai Aixonides Palaiochori, near Deme-site, identified with certainty from the
Voula discovery of the deme-decree I.G., II2, 1174,
etc.; cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes, pp. 25-34.
Inland Athmonon Amarousion Deme-site, identified with certainty from the
discovery of the deme-decree I.G., II2, 1203 and
a number of grave markers (cf. Kirchner, I.G.,
II2, 5338); cf. R.E., s.v. Athmonon and Frazer,
Pausanias, II, pp. 413-414.
24 The locations of
Melite and Xypete are certain and show per se that the city trittys of Kekropis
was not compact. The probable location of Daidalidai confirms this conclusion.


Inland? Epieikidai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
very tentative; possibly belongs to the city; cf.
R.E., s.v. Epieikidai.
Inland Phlya Chalandri General location suggested from reference in the
property inscription I.G., II2, 2776, lines 48-49
(=Hesperia, XLI, 1972, p. 70) and the findspot
(Chalandri) of the grave monument I.G., II2,
7716; cf. R.E., s.v. Phlya; Frazer, Pausanias, II,
pp. 411-412.
Inland Pithos NE of Chalandri General location suggested from reference in
near Frankish Athenaios (VI, 234ff.); remains near the
monastery Frankish monastery (cf. Karten von Attika,
Blatt V) indicate tentative location for Pithos;
cf. Milchh6fer, Demenordnung,p. 31; R.E., s.v.
H17os2.
Inland Sypalettos Kukuvaones Deme-site, identified with certainty by the dis-
covery of the deme-decreeI.G., I2, 189; cf. R.E.,
s.v. Sypalettos.
Inland Trinemeia Kokkinaras General location at the source of the Kephisos
known from Strabo (IX, 1, 24); possible location
at Kokkinaras, cf. Ath. Mitt., XVII, 1892,
p. 413.
TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE VIII HIPPOTHONTIS
City ? Hamaxanteia Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
very tentative.
City Keiriadai W of Pnyx, out- Location known with certainty from literary
side city walls sources (cf. Bekker, AnecdotaGraeca,I, p. 219,
s.v. B(cpaOpov);cf. R.E., s.v. Keiriadai.
City Koile SW of Pnyx Location known with certainty from literary
sources (Marcellinus,vit. Thucy., 17, 55, etc.) and
the obvious topographical meaning of name; cf.
R.E., s.v. Koile.
25
The prytany and bouleutic lists, sometimes helpful in suggesting trittys affiliations, are too
fragmentary in the case of Hippothontis to be of any use for its seven unlocated demes. Both Hesperia,
IX, 1940, pp. 56-57, no. 5 (= 11) and Suppl. I, p. 61, no. 19 (=109) group Eroiadai with city demes, but
neither inscription is well enough preserved to offer any certainty that it was strictly arrangedaccording
to trittyes and the latter dates from a period when prytany lists were not usually so arranged. The city
is the best known area of the three Hippothontid trittyes and the locations of the five well-established
demes of this phyle which belong here show that this section was clearly divided. The coastal trittys,
stretching from Eleusis to Oinoe, is extremely large in area and possesses a number of possible deme-
sites in addition to the one east of Magoula,which has been provisionally identified as Elaious. Mandra,
Erineia (Ag. Georgios, see J. R. McCredie,Hesperia, Suppl. XI, pp. 85-87), Kokkini, the site north of
Plakoto, and Palaiokoundoura are all suitable for a small deme and it is probable that the majority of
the unlocated Hippothontid demes belong to this trittys, although I hesitate to make specific assign-
ments. The inland section, to which Dekeleia and Oion Dekeleikon are assigned with certainty, is both
large and fertile enough to have supported several additional small communities and it is probable that
one or two of the remaining unlocated Hippothontid demes belong here.


City Korydallos SE of Aigaleos General location known with certainty from
Strabo (IX, 1, 14); for the remains and their
probable identification as the site of Korydallos
cf. Karten von Attika, Text, II, pp. llff.
City Peiraieus Munychia Deme-site, extensive remains and abundant
evidence, both literary and archaeological, for
identification.
City Thymaitadai Keratsini Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, II, p. 10),
identified with certainty from literary sources;
cf. R.E., s.v. Thymaitadai.
Coast? Acherdous Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative.
Coast? Auridai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
very tentative.
Coast? Azenia Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative; often assigned to the coast from the
reference in Strabo, IX, 1, 21, but the reading
there is certainly in error for Atene (for refer-
ences, cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes, pp. 125-126).
Coast? Elaious Site E of Magoula Deme-site, name uncertain, provisionally sug-
gested as possible location for Elaious on basis
of patent etymology of name; cf. AJAr.,XXIII,
1968, MeA.,pp. 6-7.
Coast Eleusis Eleusis Deme-site, extensive remains and abundant
evidence, both literary and archaeological, for
identification.
Coast Kopros E of Eleusis General location, suggested from the findspot of
the grave monument belonging to members of
Kopros; cf. Hesperia, XXII, 1953, pp. 175-176.
Coast Oinoe Myopolis Deme-site, identified with great probability as
Oinoe from abundant literary evidence (e.g.
Thucydides, II, 18; Strabo, VIII, 6, 16, etc.);
cf. Karten von Attika, Text, VII-VIII, pp. 16-
17, IX, p. 35; R.E., Suppl. VIII, s.v. Oinoe, and
A. Gallina, Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica V
(Rome, 1963), p. 628, s.v. Oinoe.
Inland ? Anakaia Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative.
Inland? Eroiadai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
very tentative; sometimes assigned to the city.
Inland Dekeleia Near Tatoi Abundant literary and archaeological evidence
for general location; a more precise probable
location in the vicinity of the stables of the
Royal Estate at Tatoi is suggested by the find-
spot of the phratry inscription I.G., II2, 1237;
cf. 'Apx. 'E+., 1883, p. 68.
Inland Oion Dekeleikon Bogiati Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
pp. 58-59), very probably to be identified as
Oion Dekeleikon; cf. Kirchner, I.G., II2, 6990.

TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE IX AIANTIS
City26 Phaleron Near Old Abundant literary evidence for general location
Phaleron (e.g. Strabo, IX, 1, 21, etc.); precise location
unknown, but probably somewhat inland from
the coast.
Coast Marathon SE of Vrana Abundant literary evidence for general location
and extensive remains at several points in the
plain; probable location of deme center sug-
gested by the discovery of walls of ancient
houses, cf. A.J.A., LXX, 1966, pp. 319-323.
Coast Oinoe Ninoi Deme-site, identified with certainty from literary
sources and the survival of the name; cf. R.E.,
Suppl. VIII, s.v. Oinoe.
Coast Rhamnous Rhamnous Deme-site, extensive remains and abundant
evidence for certain identification.
Coast Trikorynthos NE of Kato Souli Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
p. 49), probable location for Trikorynthos, the
general location of which is known with
certainty from abundant literary evidence
(Strabo, IX, 1, 22, etc.); cf. Hesperia, XXXV,
1966, p. 104 (Map).
Inland26 Aphidna Kotroni Deme-site (cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
p. 60), identified with certainty from abundant
literary evidence; cf. R.E., s.v. Aphidna.
TOPOGRAPHICAL TABLE X ANTIOCHIS

City27 Alopeke Katsipodi General location known from literary sources,
i.e. Herodotos, V, 63 (cf. above, Topographical
Table II, s.v. Diomeia) and Aeschines, con.
Timarch.,99; probablelocation at Katsipodi, cf.
Ath. Mitt., XX, 1895, p. 507, etc.
Coast Aigilia Ag. Panteleimon Deme-site (cf. Eliot, CoastalDemes, pp. 106-107),
probably to be identified as Aigilia, cf. Hesperia,
XXXIX, 1970, pp. 50-53.
26Both Phaleron and Aphidna were
single-deme trittyes. The latter, located at Kotroni, appears to
have contained within its territory a number of small settlements which may have become independent
demes in the later periods of Athenian history (see below, pp. 87-91).
27 Alopeke apparently was the only deme belonging to the city trittys. Krioa is sometimes assigned
to the city (e.g. Gomme, Population, p. 65, with a question mark), but it seems slightly more probable
that it belonged to the inland trittys. In the prytany list I.G., II2, 1750 (=44) Krioa appears, separated
by one uninscribed line, under the roster of Alopeke, but above the group of small demes, Kolonai,
Eitea, Eroiadai, and Semachidai, two of which definitely, and the others possibly, belonged to the
inland section. Though it is by no means certain that every deme on this inscription was arranged
according to trittys (small demes appear often to have been grouped together for convenience and


Coast Amphitrope Metropisi27bis Approximate location, based primarily on appar-
ent survival of name; cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes
pp. 110-116.
Coast Anaphlystos Ag. Georgios Deme-site, identified from references in literary
sources and mining leases very probably as
Anaphlystos, cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes, pp. 75-
109.
Coast Atene Charaka Deme-site, identified very probably as Atene
from the emended text of Strabo (IX, 1, 21; cf.
above, Topographical Table VIII, s.v. Azenia);
cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes, pp. 125-131.
Coast Besa Synterina Deme-site, identified from references in literary
sources and mining leases very probably as
Besa, cf. Eliot, CoastalDemes, pp. 117-124.
Coast Thorai Phoinikia Deme-site, identified from Strabo very probably
as Thorai; cf. Eliot, Coastal Demes, pp. 65-68.
Inland28 Eitea Grammatiko Deme-site, identified with certainty as Eitea
from discovery of deme-decree; cf. eArr.,XXV,
1970, pp. 204-216.
Inland? Eroiadai Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative from prytany inscriptions.
Inland ? Kolonai Near Mendeli Tentative location; cf. Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970,
Monastery pp. 64-65, and below, p. 92; for the ancient
remains cf. Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI,
pp. 33-34.
Inland? 27 Krioa Unknown Little evidence for location; trittys assignment
tentative; sometimes assigned to the city.
Inland Pallene Stavros Deme-site, identified with certainty as Pallene
from the discovery of a cult inscription; cf. Ath.
Mitt., LXVII, 1942, pp. 24-29.
Inland28 Semachidai Kalenzi Deme-site, suitable location for Semachidai, said
to be in the Epakria by Philochoros (Stephanos
Byz., s.v. ZrnaxXlSat);cf. ZeAr., XXV, 1970,
pp. 204-216.
TOPOGRAPHICAL CONCLUSION
Although the compact trittys was obviously the general rule of the Kleisthenic
political organization, there is now no question but that the divided trittys did
irrespective of trittys, especially at the bottom of the last column in prytany lists, see above, p. 49,
note 22), I have tentatively assumed so and assigned all these small demes to the inland section.
27bis The location of
Amphitrope at Ari on the maps should be corrected.
28 The recent
discovery of a deme-decree of Eitea at Grammatiko (see A. G. Kalogeropoulou and
E. Vanderpool, AJAr.,XXV, 1970, pp. 204-216), supported by Philochoros' remark in Stephanos of
Byzantium that Semachidai was located in tthe Epakria, makes the inland section of Antiochis one of
the most obviously divided of the trittyes. Most, or perhaps even all, of the other small demes of this
phyle, for which the trittys assignment has been made provisionally to the inland area (see note 27,
above), could well belong to the same region as Eitea and Semachidai.

exist.29 In fact, all three sections show examples: Pandionis (III) and Leontis (IV)
in the coastal region; Aigeis (2), Leontis (4), and Antiochis (10) among the inland
trittyes; and at least Leontis (iv), Kekropis (vii), and Hippothontis (viii) in the city
area were certainly or probably divided. And it is very likely, especially in the city
section, where the trittyes were obviously much more artificial arrangements than
in either of the other two regions, that there would be additional examples if the
precise location of more demes were known.
In fact, the city trittyes, admittedly less studied and less well known than
either their coastal or inland counterparts,30appear to have been treated in an even
more special manner. Whereas in the latter two regions no topographical pattern is
at all apparent in the relationship of trittys to phyle, i.e. coastal Erechtheis (I) is
located between coastal Kekropis (VII) and Antiochis (X), and inland Leontis (4) is
located far from inland Pandionis (3) and Akamantis (5), but close to inland
Erechtheis (1), Oineis (6), and Hippothontis (8), etc., the city trittyes, on the other
hand, examined from the official order of the phylai, appear to follow roughly a
counter-clockwise arrangement around the city (I consider only the major deme or
group of demes in the case of a divided trittys).31 Erechtheis (i) is located to the
southeast of the city, Aigeis (ii) to the east and northeast, Pandionis (iii) and
Leontis (iv, considering only Skambonidai) to the north of the Acropolis, Akamantis
(v, omitting Iphistiadai) and Oineis (vi) to the northwest, Kekropis (vii, omitting
Daidalidai) to the west, Hippothontis (viii) and Aiantis (ix) to the southwest, and
Antiochis (x) to the south. One factor which facilitated such an organization of the
city region was the number of single-deme trittyes in the area. Phaleron (Aiantis, ix)
certainly was one, and Kydathenaion (Pandionis, iii), and Alopeke (Antiochis, x)
probably were others. Outside the city there were only two such trittyes, both
inland: Acharnai (Oineis, 6) and Aphidna (Aiantis, 9).
29 See also D. M.
Lewis, Historia, XII, 1963, pp. 35-36, and W. E. Thompson, Historia, XIII, 1964,
pp. 405-406.
30 R. S. Young (Hesperia, XX, 1951, pp.
140-143) has provided some evidence to show that the
main roads formed boundaries for several of the city demes.
31 The scheme was
outlined by A. Milchh6fer (Demenordnung,p. 45, with references) and has been
discussed most recently by E. Kirsten (Atti terzocongr., p. 159).

CHAPTER IV
REPRESENTATION IN THE ATHENIAN

COUNCIL, CONCLUSION
THE PERIODS OF FIXED QUOTAS
The original system of representative government, as established by Kleisthenes,

continued to function for some three hundred years on a broad general basis of
representation according to population.1 There are nonetheless, according to con-
temporary ideas on representative government, a number of apparent anomalies in
the Athenian system. The conservative nature of the Kleisthenic organization is
apparent not only from the long period during which the demes and phylai, and to a
lesser extent trittyes, continued to fulfill their important role in Athenian govern-
ment, but also from the more detailed system of fixed quotas which may now be
seen to have remained unchanged throughout each of the first three periods of
bouleutic government. There is no evidence for a single general reapportionment of
quotas within the period of the original ten phylai, within the first period of twelve
phylai, or within the first period of thirteen phylai,2 although there are, admittedly,
a number of small quota-variations within the first two of these periods. Most of
these variations have been discussed individually in Section C of the Introduction to
the Tables of Representation (above, pp. 14-23), but their numbers, including
variations in the later periods, are tabulated below (see columns designated V=
variations, in Table to Illustrate the Consistency of Deme Quotas, p. 57). The
number of concurrences, i.e. occasions in which a particular quota is confirmed, are
also listed in the same table (columns designated C). The totals are most convincing.
Of the more than two-hundred and fifty instances in which there is an opportunity to
compare a quota within the first three periods, there are only thirty-seven examples
of a variation. Moreover with one exception, Alopeke, which may have varied by
1 This is the opinio communisof scholars (see references,W. K. Pritchett, Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 235,
note 25).
2 On the
possible reapportionment circa 340 B.c. recently proposed by J. A. O. Larsen, see above,
p. 16, note 20.

REPRESENTATION IN THE ATHENIAN COUNCIL, CONCLUSION 57
TABLE TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONSISTENCY OF DEME QUOTAS

X PHYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII PHYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII PHYLAI
fin. s. VI- 307/6- 223/2- 200/199- 127/8 p.-
PHYLE 308/7 224/3 201/0 126/7 p. S. III p.
C V C V C V C V C V
Erechtheis 163 2 7 04 6 0 4 12 0 0
Aigeis 43 6 205 45 0 0 0 0 3 13
Pandionis 36 7 1 0 0 0 1 7 5 11
Leontis 28 26 12 26 0 0 0 5 1 2
Akamantis 7 27 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 15
Oineis 1 48 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Kekropis 0 29 3 210 0 0 1 3 3 9
Hippothontis 1 0 8 0O 0 0 6 31 0 211
Aiantis 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 5 0 0
Antiochis 5 412 10 0 0 0 2 12 7 12
Antigonis 1 0 0 0
Demetrias - 4 0 2 0 - -
Ptolemais - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0
Attalis -- - - - - 0 0 0 1
Hadrianis 137 29 84 8 8 0 15 75 213 5
TOTAL 137 29 84 8 8 0 15 75 23 72
CONCURRENCES (C)= Total number of times quotas are confirmed, i.e. doubly attested (exceptions: (1)
prytany and bouleutic lists of same year and (2) quotas of zero are not recorded).
VARIATIONS (V) = Total number of instances a differing representation is attested.
3 The evidence from the

incomplete list of 408/7 has not been included under either Concurrencesor
Variations.
4 If the bouleutic list of
281/0 is short one demotic and not simply one representative in the
Erechtheid roster, then two additional Variations should be included here.
5 The
missing prytaneis from the lists of 256/5 and 254/3 should probably be assigned as outlined in
Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 422 (cf. above, p. 5), but, with the exception of Kolonos, the quota of
which seems certain, the evidence has not been included here. Two possible Variations in the Aigeid
quotas of 281/0 (below, p. 81), on the other hand, are included.
6 Two additional Variations have been included to account for the variant quotas of Kettos in
I.G., II2, 2434 (=88), and Deiradiotai in zEAr., XXV, 1970, p. 84 (= 13a).
7 An additional Variation has been included to account for the variant
quota of Thorikos in the
prytany list of ca. 340 B.C.
8 An additional Variation has been included for
Tyrmeidai, which probably had a quota of one.
9 One additional Variation has been included to account for the variant
quota of Pithos in I.G., II2,
1700 (=43) and 2384, etc. (=18).
10 The two Variations are based on the assumption that Epieikidai normally had a quota of one
representative in the Macedonian period (see below, p. 80).
11These Variations depend on the assumption that the list of Peiraieus in I.G., II2, 1811 (=479) is
complete.
12 One additional Variation has been included here to
compensate for the possible variation in the
quota of Alopeke from ten to twelve representatives.
13 The uninscribed lines in
I.G., II2, 1793 (= 397) may have been intended for additional representa-
tives, one to each of Elaious and Eitea, but the evidence has been included here under Concurrences.

two bouleutai,l4 every variation involves only a single bouleutes. The majority of
these fluctuations appear to have been ad hoc adjustments to particular situations,
i.e. the occasional failure of some small demes to fulfill their quotas. Others may be
due to a pre-arranged and more regular scheme whereby a small deme shared a
seat on the Council with another deme (see above, pp. 14 and 19). It is true that
our evidence is stronger for the first two periods than for the third, but throughout
the years from the time of the earliest texts until the end of the third century B.C.
the picture is consistent; a quota once established remained fixed until the phylai
themselves were reorganized. Since the population of a number of demes clearly
varied, and for some demes varied considerably,15over the years, then, clearly, if
this system ran solely on the basis of representation according to population, there
ought to be attested in each period numerous, and occasionally large, changes,
rather than the few, invariably small, and temporary fluctuations in the deme-
quotas.16
THE REAPPORTIONMENT OF 307/6 B.C.

The inconsistency between fixed quotas and representation according to
population does not appear to have been alleviated to any great extent on the two
occasions in which there were general reapportionments, viz. 307/6 and 224/3.
Indeed, the quota changes in these two years show curious anomalies of their own.
The quotas of nearly fifty demes, or more than one-third of those in existence
at the time, were altered in the reorganization of 307/6. Almost every trittys, with
the exception of the three in Aiantis and the large single-deme city trittys of
Pandionis, was involved (Map 3, Political Reorganization of Attica in 307/6). Yet in
what would seem prima facie an obvious occasion to remedy abuses in the ratio of
representation to population which had crept into the system over a period of two
14 See
above, pp. 22-23. There are two additional exceptions if I.G., II2, 2375 (=16) is identified
positively as a prytany list and the six bouleutai assigned to Eleusis in Agora, XV, No. 43 belong in fact
to Dekeleia (as restored by Kirchner, I.G., II2, 1700; cf. above, pp. 21-22), but neither of these texts
need necessarily involve a variation of more than two representatives.
15 Such variations would occur, for example, because of losses during a plague or a war (Gomme,
Population, p. 50). Judging from the number of known citizens, demes such as Amphitrope, Ankyle,
Atene, Kerameis, Kolonos, Pergase, Plotheia, Poros, Teithras, and Thorai show a sharp decline in
population during the Roman period. Azenia, on the other hand, increased enormously in population
during the second and first centuries before Christ, and by the Roman period Berenikidai, Besa,
Gargettos, Kephisia, Pallene, and Phlya (to take only a few examples) had also shown large population
increases. Changes in the relative populations of the Attic demes, though perhaps not always of the
magnitude of the examples just cited, undoubtedly occurred also in the earlier periods.
16 The alternative, a regular
reassignment of citizens to demes, is a theory absolutely without
support, though I have suggested below (p. 75) that small demes must have found some means to
maintain a minimal citizen-body.

centuries, ninety demes, or about two-thirds of the total, remained with quotas
unchanged.
TABLE OF QUOTA CHANGES, THE REORGANIZATION OF 307/6 B.C.

ORIGINAL INCREASE OF INCREASE OF INCREASE OF INCREASE OF INCREASE OF
QUOTA 1 BOULEUTES 2 BOULEUTAI 3 BOULEUTAI 4 BOULEUTAI 11 BOULEUTAI
1 Pambotadai/
Sybridai I
Erikeia II
Plotheia II
Lower Potamos
IV, XII
Eiresidai V
Eroiadai VIII
Krioa X
2 Upper? Agryle I Angele III Cholleidai IV Phyle VI, XII
Upper? Pergase I
Kikynna V
Lakiadai VI
Amphitrope X
3 Kollytos II Leukonoion IV
Skambonidai IV
Pithos VII
Atene? X, XII
4 Thorai? X, XII Sounion IV Gargettos II, XI
Cholargos V
Dekeleia? VIII
5 Ikarion II, XI Sphettos V Halai II
Thorikos V
6 Aigilia X Anagyrous I Pallene X Erchia II
Kephisia I Athmonon ? VII
Myrrhinous III Halai VII
7 Thria? VI Phlya? VII
8 Aixone ? VII
9 Lower Lamptrai I Kephale V
Peiraieus? VIII
10 Anaphlystos X Euonymon I
Alopeke? X
11 Eleusis ? VIII Lower Paiania III
22 Acharnai ? VI
TOTAL DEMES 24 13 5 6 1
TOTAL INCREASE IN
BOULEUTAI 24 26 15 24 11
In fact, when the actual changes of 307/6 are subjected to scrutiny an even
more blatant inconsistency appears. Of the nearly fifty demes which altered their
quotas with the creation of Antigonis and Demetrias there is not a single certain

example of a decreasedquota.17 While it would be unreasonable to expect a large

number of quota decreases at a time when the Council itself was enlarged by one
hundred members, still it is difficult to comprehend why there are not at least a
few well-attested examples of decreased quotas. Attempts to enroll new citizens
notwithstanding,18 some demes certainly declined in population over the years,19
and if, as I have suggested (above, pp. 31-33), the reapportionments of 307/6 were
made according to population in respect at least to the phylai (and perhaps also in
respect to a number of demes, see below, p. 66), there ought then to have been others
which decreased their representation in the Council. Although our knowledge is weak
on such questions as when, how, why, and to what extent demes might enroll new
citizens, still it seems clear that in 307/6, and probably also in 224/3, the quota
changes were not made solely for the purpose of correcting imbalances in the
proportion of representation to population (see below, p. 66).
Those changes which did take place in 307/6 were not on the whole radical.
Twenty-four demes, i.e. about half the total number affected, increased their
representation by a single bouleutes (see above, p. 59, Table of Quota Changes, The
Reorganization of 307/6 B.C.). Another thirteen demes increased their quotas by two
representatives; five demes by three, six demes by four, and one deme, Lower
Paiania, evidently by as many as eleven bouleutai, thus doubling its original
representation. Several of the smaller demes, e.g. Plotheia, Krioa, and perhaps
Angele, also appear to have doubled their representation, and a few of the medium-
sized demes, e.g. Gargettos, Halai Araphenides, and Erchia, increased their quotas
substantially, but the most remarkable changes were the increases recorded by
Cholleidai (from two to five bouleutai) and Phyle (from two to six bouleutai).
MAP ILLUSTRATING CHANGES IN 307/6 B.C.
The Map (Map 3) presents schematically the changes the political organization
of Attica underwent in 307/6. While it is well known that many Athenian citizens
by 307/6 no longer lived in the demes of their forefathers, it still seems pertinent to
illustrate the changes with reference to the topography. The demes which increased
their representation are underlined on the Map and the quota increases are recorded
beside the deme names, e.g. + 2 for Sounion. The demes which were transferred to
17Three demes, Bate, Kydantidai, and Epikephisia, may have decreased their quotas from two to
one bouleutes, but the possible decrease in each case is probably better explained as a quota variation.
All three varied between one and two bouleutai during the period of the original ten phylai, and, in
addition for Kydantidai, also during the Macedonian period (see above, pp. 2, note 5, 15-16, and
19-20).
18 Such
may be the explanation of the remark in Harpokration directed against the Potamioi
(above, p. 46, note 18).
19See note 15, above,
p. 58.

the Macedonian phylai are also indicated on the Map, by super-imposing squares on
the circles for Antigonis and triangles on the circles for Demetrias.
THE REAPPORTIONMENT OF 224/3 B.C.

Our knowledge of the quota changes in 307/6, with the exception of several
demes in Kekropis, is fairly complete, but for 224/3 we have only a partial picture.
The changes, so far as known, substantiate and parallel the changes of the earlier
reorganization. Nine demes are known to have increased their quotas during the
reapportionments of 224/3 accounting for twenty-four new bouleutai, a ratio which
suggests that probably less than twenty-five demes accounted for the increase of
fifty representatives on the Council. And, just as in 307/6, no deme is known to have
decreased its representation in 224/3. Thirty-four demes are attested as not chang-
ing their quotas when Ptolemais was created, and another thirteen, i.e. those demes
transferred to Ptolemais and Epieikidai, probably did not change either (see above,
p. 33). Furthermore, the treatment of the demes in Erechtheis and Leontis suggests,
by analogy, that the other phylai which surrendered only a few bouleutai to
Ptolemais, viz. Antigonis, Demetrias, Aigeis, Oineis, and Hippothontis, also under-
went only the minimal amount of change, probably just one or two deme-quotas, in
this reorganization. It is interesting also to note that of the nine demes attested as
increasing their quotas in 224/3, the majority (seven) underwent no change in 307/6.
In fact, of the total of fifty-six demes whose quotas in the period 224/3-201/0 are
known, thirty or more than half, maintain their same quota throughout the first
three periods of representative government. If these quotas remained without
change for some two hundred years despite two reorganizations of the phylai it
seems highly probable that the quotas we have for the fourth century are indeed
those of the original organization of Kleisthenes.
THE QUOTAS AFTER 200 B.C.

The greatest anomaly in the Athenian method of representation is the complete
collapse of the quota-system following the creation of Attalis. If my judgment that
the attested and estimated quotas of the demes about to be transferred to Attalis
totaled fifty bouleutai is valid, then it is reasonable to suggest that the system of
fixed quotas did not deteriorate until after Attalis was created (see above, p. 34).
Admittedly, it was very shortly after, for the quotas of Erechtheis in 193/2 bear
little resemblance to those attested prior to 200 B.C. and there is ample documentation
later in the second century to show how widely the quotas of the Hippothontid
demes varied from year to year.21There are a few concurrences in the quotas both
21 Cf. W. K. Pritchett, Hesperia, IX, 1940, pp. 125-126.

TABLE OF KNOWN QUOTAS, THE REORGANIZATION OF 224/3 B.C.
QUOTAS CHANGED QUOTAS UNCHANGED
CERTAIN PRO
QUOTA QUOTA
XII (X XII (X
INCREASE DEME PHYLAI PHYLAI) DEME PHYLAI PHYLAI) DEME
1 Pambotadai I 1 (1/0) Phegous I 1 (1)* Themakos I
1 Steiria III 3 (3)* Kropidai IV 1 (1)* Kydantidai II
1 PhrearrhioiIV 9 (9)* Sybridai I 1 (1/0) Konthyle III
1 Pithos VII 4 (3/2) Diomeia II, XII 1 (1)* Hekale IV
Oion Kerameikon Boutadai VI
2 Oinoe IX 4 ([4])* IV, XII 1 (1)* Epieikidai VII
Hippotomadai
3 Marathon IX 110 ([10])* VI, XII 1 (1)* Kolonai X, XI
Oinoe VIII, XII
3 Trikorynthos IX 3 ([3])* Kedoi I 2 (2)*
Hybadai IV 2 (2)* Oion VIII
Eupyridai IV 2 (2)*
4 Phaleron IX 9 (9)* Kolonai IV 2 (2)* Prospalta V
4 Rhamnous IX 8 ([8])* Pelekes IV 2 (2)*
Upper Potamos IV 2 (2)* Aigilia X
Lower Potamos
TOTAL DEMES AFFECTED: 9, 7 o f them (*) un- IV, XII 2 (1) Phlya VII
changed in reorganizationof 30'7/6 Kothokidai
VI, XII 2 (2)* Aphidna IX
TOTAL INCREASE IN BOULEUTAI: 20
Prasiai III 3 (3)* TOTALDEMES: 1
Halimous IV 3 (3)* changed in reo
Kettos IV 3 (3)*
Paionidai IV 3 (3)*
Upper? Agryle I 3 (2)
Upper? Pergase I 3 (2)
Angele III [4] (2/3)

OaIII 4 (4*)
Skambonidai IV 4 (3)

Probalinthos III 5 (5*)
Leukonoion IV 5 (3)
CholleidaiIV 5 (2)
Sounion 6 (4)
Kerameis V 6 (6*)
Anagyrous I 8 (6)
Kephisia I 8 (6)
MyrrhinousIII [8] (6)
Coastal Lamptrai I 10 (9)
Euonymon I 12 (10)
Lower Paiania III [22] (11)
TOTAL DEMES: 34,19 of them (*) un-
changed in reorganization of 307/6
20It is very likely that a large number of other demes, especially from Antigonis, Demetrias, Aigeis,
Akamantis, Oineis, Kekropis, Hippothontis, and Antiochis, also passed into the Ptolemaic period with
quotas unchanged (see above, p. 61).

of the period immediately following 200 B.C.and also in the succeeding second period
of thirteen phylai (see Table, above, p. 57) which may be vestiges of the earlier
system but are more likely due only to chance. In the second period of twelve phylai
fifteen concurrences correspond to seventy-five variations, and in the following
period, twenty-three concurrences correspond to at least seventy variations. More-
over, the variations in representation after 200 B.C.are of a totally different nature
from those prior to that year. Of the one hundred and forty-seven variations attested
in the second periods of twelve and thirteen phylai, forty-six, or less than one-third,
are (or could be) by one bouleutes. The others are (or must be) by a larger number,
some by as many as ten, twelve, fourteen, fifteen, and one apparently by twenty-
nine bouleutai. Compare this with the thirty-six variations by a single bouleutes
and one by two bouleutai in the three periods prior to 200 B.C! The average variation
in the second period of twelve phylai is greater than four bouleutai, and in the
second period of thirteen phylai, greater than three. The reader is referred to the
individual charts, at the end of this volume, which will illustrate how radically quotas
varied from year to year and from one period to another during these last centuries
of bouleutic government. Possibly in these periods the councillors were simply
chosen by lot from the whole phyle. Whatever may be the reason, many demes,
including even large ones such as Kephale (twelve representatives in the Macedonian
period) occasionally went unrepresented, whereas other demes which were formerly
small, such as Azenia (two representatives prior to 200 B.C.), have twenty-one or
even more councillors in a single year.
Whatever the method employed in selecting the prytaneis, the elaborate
system of demes and phylai22 continued uninterrupted through these later periods,
although membership in the Council itself was reduced and a number of semi-
official new demes made their appearance after the creation of Hadrianis (see below,
pp. 87-95).
THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE DEMES AND TRITTYES

We turn now to consider one further question relating to representation in the
Athenian Council: the relative sizes of the demes, trittyes, and phylai.
The bouleutic quotas have long been accepted as the best indication of the
general relative sizes of these political units, but even the system of bouleutic
representation, as I have attempted to point out, was subject to strange incon-
sistencies. An independent criterion is provided by Gomme's figures for the number
By 307/6 the trittyes had lost most political significance and they were of no concern in the
22
formation of the later phylai (see above, p. 25, with note 1, and below, p. 99). On the change in the
method of selecting prytaneis in the Roman period see P. Graindor, Athenes sous Auguste, p. 109 and
Geagan, Athenian ConstitutionAfter Sulla, p. 75.

of known Athenian citizens in the various demes, trittyes, and phylai. These figures,
based primarily on Kirchner's Prosopographia Attica, encompassing a period of
some six centuries, and subject of course to all the vagaries of chance preservation,
are obviously inferior to the bouleutic quotas as a reflection of the relative sizes of
the Athenian political units, but they do nevertheless provide an important con-
firmation23 of the conclusions I have drawn from the prytany and bouleutic
material, particularly with respect to the reapportionments of 307/6 and 224/3.
THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE DEMES

There is an obvious and reasonably close general relationship between Gomme's
figures and the bouleutic quotas of the Attic demes (see below, pp. 67-70, Table,
The Relative Sizes of the Attic Demes). The largest deme in representation, Acharnai,
has the largest number of known citizens, and the smallest demes in number of
known citizens, viz. Tyrmeidai, Daidalidai, Epieikidai, Korydallos, and Hippoto-
madai, have the minimal bouleutic representation of one councillor.
There are, however, a number of discrepancies, the most serious of which
involve the homonymous demes Oion.24 Gomme assigned one hundred and forty
names to the tiny Oion Kerameikon (one representative in the Council), but only
eighteen names to the medium-sized Oion Dekeleikon (three bouleutai). In such
cases his rule was to distribute " the whole number between the phylae in the same
proportion as the known numbers,"25 but the distribution sometimes depends on
considerable chance. Sixty-eight demesmen (counting patronymics) of Oion Kera-
meikon are listed in I.G., II2, 2461, a fragment of what was probably once a complete
roster of Leontid phyletai dating just prior to the time of Augustus (near the end of
the period covered by Prosopographia Attica).26Although the figures for Eupyridai,
and, to a lesser extent, Cholleidai and Aithalidai as well as the whole tribal roster of
Leontis itself (above, p. 31, note 19), are disproportionately large because of this text,
none is affected so much as Oion and no such similar document exists for any other
phyle. Disregarding the evidence of I.G., II2, 2461, there are four known demesmen
of Oion Kerameikon in P.A. and five of Oion Dekeleikon, figures which are at least
a good deal more in keeping with the relative bouleutic representation of these two
23Thucydides, II, 20, gives us an independent basis for judging Acharnai the
largest of the Attic
demes (see W. E. Thompson, op. cit., below, p. 71, note 31). The only other independent evidence
for the size of an Attic deme is Demosthenes' client's statement (LVII, 9) that Halimous had seventy-
three citizens at a SiLaC7iLotLSheld in Athens, a figurewhich may reflect understatement on Demosthenes'
client's part (cf. Gomme, Population, p. 55) but is not totally inconsistent with a figure of seventy-nine
known demotaiand a representation of three councillors.
24 Cf.
Hesperia, XXXV, 1966, p. 221.
25
Population, p. 56.
26
For the date of I.G., II2, 2461, see S. Dow, Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 191, note 1. 0. W. Reinmuth
suggests a date slightly earlier, about 50/49 B.C. (B.C.H., XC, 1966, pp. 96-97 =S.E.G., XXIII, 92).

demes. The figures for the two demes Halai and the two Oinoe also seem to have
been distorted similarly, although not to the same extent as the Oion demes (see
above, p. 4). The peculiarities of chance undoubtedly account for a number of
other discrepancies between Gomme's figures and the bouleutic quotas, but it is
relatively certain that they do not account for all such abnormalities.27
A number of demes show a considerably higher rank according to Gomme's
figures than according to their bouleutic quotas. Some of these, e.g. Paiania,
Alopeke, Kephisia, Pallene, Sphettos, Cholleidai, Phyle, Krioa, and Plotheia, may
have become under-represented even by 307/6, or, e.g. Marathon and Rhamnous, by
224/3, and this under-representation presumably was the reason for their increased
quotas (for further possible instances see Table, below, pp. 67-70; ostensibly
under-represented demes are listed at the top of the quota groupings). Two of the
examples just cited, Paiania and Phyle, however, increase their quotas out of all
proportion to their size according to Gomme's figures. Other demes which appear to
have been under-represented according to the "population" totals, e.g. Melite,
Ankyle, Sypalettos, Otryne, Myrrhinoutta, Acherdous, Iphistiadai, etc., record no
increases either in 307/6, or, where known, in 224/3. On the other hand, a number of
demes whose bouleutic rank compares favorably with Gomme's figures (these appear
in the middle of the quota groupings in the Table, below) unexpectedly increase
their representation in 307/6, e.g. Euonymon, Ikarion, Pergase, Erikeia, the
Hippothontid Eroiadai, and Eiresidai, or in 224/3, e.g. Phrearrhioi and Phaleron.
The very fact that no demes decreased their quotas in 307/6, and probably also
in 224/3, indicates that the demes which were over-represented at the end of the
period of the original ten phylai or the first period of the twelve phylai remained so
in the succeeding period(s). A number of the demes which show a higher rank
according to their bouleutic quota than according to Gomme's figure may belong to
this class, e.g. Aphidna, Teithras, Anakaia, Poros, Trinemeia, Besa, Thymaitadai,
and Pelekes (for additional examples see Table, below; apparently-over-represented
demes appear at the bottom of the quota groupings). The most anomalous among
these are the demes which increase their quotas, even though from Gomme's figures
we should judge them already to have been over-represented, for example, Kephale,
Aigilia, and Agryle.
27 Instancesin which there is some questionconcerningeither Gomme'sfigureor the bouleutic
quota are not generally considered in the discussion which follows.

TABLE: THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE DEMES

GOMME'S28 DEME 29 PHYLE30 CHANGE CHANGE
QUOTA RA,NK DEME FIGURE RANK RATIO RATIO 307/6 224/3
22 1 Acharnai 452 1 20.5 22.5 +3?
16 2 Aphidna 229 11 14.3 19.6 0 0
14 Lamptrai (both) 391 (see Coastal and Upper Lamptrai)
12 Paiania (both) 377 (see Lower and Upper Paiania)
12? 3 Kydathenaion 295 3 24.6 24.5 0 ?
11 4 Lower Paiania (346) 2 31.5 24.5 +11 0
11? 4 Eleusis 198 16 18.0 21.5 +2? ?
10 6 Alopeke 255 5 25.5 21.2 +2? ?
10 6 Euonymon 227 12 22.7 26.2 +2 0
10 6 Anaphlystos 172 21 17.2 21.2 +1
9 9 Coastal Lamptrai (251) 6 27.9 26.2 +1 0
9 9 Marathon 247 8 27.4 19.6 0 +3
9? 9 Peiraieus 235 10 26.1 21.5 +1? ?
9 9 Phrearrhioi 191 18 21.2 30.0 0 +1
9 9 Phaleron 168 22 18.7 19.6 0 +4
9 9 Kephale 130 33 14.4 23.0 +3
8? 115 Aixone 237 9 29.6 26.3 + 4?
8 15 Rhamnous 203 14 25.4 19.6 0
7 17 Melite 257 4 36.7 26.3 0 +4
7? 17 224 13 32.0 26.3 +2? ?
Phlya 0
7? L7 Erchia 202 15 28.9 30.8 +4
7 17 Xypete 108 38 15.4 26.3 0 ?
7 117 Thria 101 41 14.4 22.5 +1?
6 22 Kephisia 250 7 41.7 26.2 +2
6 !2 Pallene 187 19 31.2 21.2 +3
6 Kerameis 0
22 151 25 25.2 23.0 0
6 22 Anagyrous 142 26 23.7 26.2 +2 0
6? 2 Athmonon 141 27 23.5 26.3 0?
+4?
6 2 Myrrhinous 136 31 22.7 24.5 +2 0
r
6 2 Halai Aixonides 119- 36- 19.8- 26.3 +4
6 2 Oe 105 40 17.5 22.5 0
6 2 Aigilia 93 47 15.5 21.2 +1 0
5 1 Halai Araphenides 195 + 17 + 39.0+ 30.8 +4
5 1 Sphettos 178 20 35.6 23.0 +2 ?r
5 1 Upper Lamptrai (140) 28 28.0 26.2 0
5 31 Thorikos 134 32 26.8 23.0 +1
5? 31 Ikarion 128 34 25.6 30.8 +1?
5 1 Hagnous 99 42 19.8 23.0 0
5 1 Probalinthos 91 48 18.2 24.5 0
5 1 Prospalta 90 50 18.0 23.0 0
5 Agryle (both) 83 (see Lower and Upper Agryle)
4 39 Sounion 154 23 38.5 30.0 +2 0
28 The figures for the divided demes (indicated in parentheses) have been computed arbitrarily on
the basis of the relative bouleutic quotas of the two sections. For an explanation of the plus and minus
signs beside Gomme's Figure, Rank, and Deme Ratio see above, p. 4, and discussion, pp. 65-66.
29 Deme Ratio = Gomme's
Figure divided by Bouleutic Quota.
30 Pllyle Ratio = Gomme's Figure for the Phyle divided by the Phyle Quota, i.e. 50.

TABLE: THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE DEMES-(contd.)

GOMME'S28 DEME29 PHYLE30 CHANGE CHANGE
QUOTA RANK DEME FIGURE RANK RATIO RATIO 307/6 224/3
4 39 Gargettos 138 30 34.5 30.8 + 3? ?
4 39 Cholargos 123 35 30.8 23.0 +2 ?
4 Pergase (both) 71 (see Upper and Lower Pergase)
4 39 Oa 67 63 16.8 24.5 0 C
4 39 Dekeleia 64 64 16.0 21.5 +2?
4 39 Teithras 55 73 13.8 30.8 0
4 39 Thorai 55 73 13.8 21.2 +1?
4 39 Oinoe (IX) 36 - 99- 9.0- 19.6 0 +' 2
3 47 Leukonoion 153 24 51.0 30.0 +2 (3
3 47 Kollytos 106 39 35.3 30.8 +1
3 47 Trikorynthos 96 45 32.0 19.6 0 +' 3
3 47 Philaidai 91 48 30.3 30.8 0 ?
3 47 Pithos 82 53 27.3 26.3 +1 +1
3 47 Skambonidai 79 54 26.3 30.0 +1 0
3 47 Halimous 79 54 26.3 30.0 0 0
3 47 Koile 78 56 26.0 21.5 0
3 47 Steiria 74 57 24.7 24.5 0 +1
3 47 Perithoidai 69 61 23.0 22.5 0 ?
3? 47 Phegaia 68 62 22.7 30.8 0 3?
3 47 Paionidai 59 69 19.7 30.0 0 0
3 47 Kettos 55 73 18.3 30.0 0 0
3 Potamioi (U. & L.) 51 (see Upper Potamos and Lower Potamos)
3 47 Lower Agryle (50) 78 16.6 26.2 0 ?
3 47 Atene 47 81 15.7 21.2 + 1? ?
3 47 Anakaia 39 93 13.0 21.5 0 ?
3 47 Poros 38 96 12.7 23.0 0 ?
3 47 Prasiai 35 103 11.7 24.5 0 0
3 47 Oion DekeleikonL 18- 133i- 6.0- 21.5 0 0
2 66 Cholleidai 110+ 37+ 55.0+ 30.0 +3 0
2 Ankyle (both) 98+ (see Upper Ankyle and Lower Ankyle)
2 66 Eupyridai 97+ 43 + 48.5+ 30.0 0 0
2 66 Lakiadai 97 43 48.5 22.5 +1 ?
2 66 Aithalidai 94+ 46+ 47.0+ 30.0 0
2 66 Phyle 83 51 42.5 22.5 +4 ?
2 66 Sypalettos 83 51 42.5 26.3 0
2 66 Amphitrope 73 58 36.3 21.2 +1 ?
2? 66 Oinoe (VIII) 72+ 59+ 36.0+ 21.5 0?
2 66 Azenia 71 60 35.5 21.5 0 ?
2 66 Hamaxanteia 64 64 32.0 21.5 0
2 66 Kytheros 63 66 31.5 24.5 0
2? 66 Angele 61 67 30.5 24.5 +2 0
2 66 Kikynna 59 69 29.5 23.0 +1 ?
2 66 Kolonos 58 71 29.0 30.8 0
2 66 Kothokidai 57 72 28.5 22.5 0
2 66 Deiradiotai 55 73 27.5 30.0 0? ?
28 The
figures for the divided demes (indicated in parentheses) have been computed arbitrarily on
29 Deme Ratio= Gomme's
30
Phyle Ratio=Gomme's Figure for the Phyle divided by the Phyle Quota, i.e. 50.


2 66 Hermos 54 77 27.0 23.0 0?
2 66 Araphen 47 81 23.5 30.8 0 ?
2 66 Kedoi 44 87 22.0 26.2 0 0
2 66 Kopros 41 91 20.5 21.5 0 ?
2 66 Keiriadai 39 93 19.5 21.5 0 ?
2 66 Hybadai 36 99 18.0 30.0 0 0
2 66 Upper Pergase (36) 99 18.0 26.2 +1 0
2 66 Lower Pergase (35) 103 17.5 26.2 0 ?
2 66 Potamioi Deiradiotai 35 103 17.5 30.0 0? ?
2 66 Upper Potamos (34) 107 17.0 30.0 0 0
2 66 Upper Agryle (33) 108 16.5 26.2 +1 0
2 66 Eitea (V) 32 109 16.0 23.0 0? ?
2? 66 Ionidai 30 111 15.0 30.8 0 ?
2 66 Trinemeia 29 114 14.5 26.3 0? ?
2 66 Besa 28 115 14.0 21.2 0?
2 66 Thymaitadai 26 117 13.0 21.5 0 ?
2 66 Pelekes 24 119 12.0 30.0 0 0
2 66 Kolonai (IV) 23 122 11.5 30.0 0 0
2 66 Kolonai (X) 23 122 11.5 21.2 0 0
2 66 Eitea (X) 20 132 10.0 21.2 0 ?
1 102 Oion Kerameikon 140+ 28 + 140.0+ 30.0 0 0
1 102 Otryne 60 68 60.0 30.8 0?
1 102 Pambotadai/ 3456 106 6.0+ 26.2 +1+ +1
Sybridai 221 127
1 102 Upper Ankyle (49) + 79 + 49.0 + 30.8 0 ?
1 102 Lower Ankyle (49)+ 79 + 49.0+ 30.8 0 ?
1 102 Myrrhinoutta 47 81 47.0 30.8 0 ?
1 102 Krioa 47 81 47.0 21.2 +1 ?
1 102 Plotheia 46 85 46.0 30.8 +1 ?
1? 102 Bate 45 86 45.0 30.8 0 ?
1? 102 Kydantidai 44 87 44.0 30.8 0 0?
1 102 Acherdous 43 89 43.0 21.5 0 ?
1 102 Epikephisia 42 90 42.0 22.5 0 ?
1 102 Iphistiadai 40 92 40.0 23.0 0?
1 102 Kropidai 39 93 39.0 30.0 0 0
1 102 Diomeia 37 97 37.0 30.8 0 0
1 102 Semachidai 37 97 37.0 21.2 0 ?
1 102 Boutadai 36 99 36.0 22.5 0 0
1 102 Upper Paiania (31) 110 31.0 24.5 0 ?
1 102 Elaious 30 111 30.0 21.5 0 ?
1 102 Lousia 30 111 30.0 22.5 0?
1 102 Hekale 28 115 28.0 30.0 0 0
1 102 Themakos 25 118 25.0 26.2 0 0
1 102 Konthyle 24 119 24.0 24.5 0 0
28 The
Figure divided by the Bouleutic Quota.
30
Phyle Ratio = Gomme's Figure for the Phyle divided by the Phyle Quota, i.e. 50.


1? 102 Auridai 24 119 24.0 21.5 0? ?
1 102 Erikeia 23 122 23.0 30.8 +1 0
1 102 Phegous 23 122 23.0 26.2 0 0
1 102 Ptelea 23 122 23.0 22.5 0 ?
1 102 Hestiaia 22 127 22.0 30.8 0 ?
1 102 Eroiadai (VIII) 21 129 21.0 21.5 +1 ?
1 102 Eiroiadai (X) 21 129 21.0 21.2 0 ?
1 102 Eresidai 21 129 21.0 23.0 +1 0
1? 102 Tyrmeidai 18 133 18.0 22.5 0? ?
1 102 Lower Potamos (17) 135 17.0 30.0 +1 0
1 102 Daidalidai 17 135 17.0 26.3 0 ?
1 102 Epieikidai 17 135 17.0 26.3 0 0?
1? 102 Korydallos 14 138 14.0 21.5 0? ?
1 102 Hippotomadai 12 139 12.0 22.5 0 0
All that I may say in summary is that the reapportionments occasioned by the
creation of Antigonis and Demetrias, and later by the creation of Ptolemais, appear
to have remedied, to a degree, imbalances in the ratio of representation to apparent
relative size of some demes, but they were not executed solely with this intent, for
all instances of over-representation certainly, and a number of cases of under-
representation probably, were totally ignored, and a few instances of over-repre-
sentation may have been aggravated by further increasing the quotas.
THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE TRITTYES

There can be no doubt that many of the trittyes, as created by Kleisthenes,
were unequal in representation, as well as size. Coastal Antiochis (see Tables of
Representation and Maps 1 and 2) had at least twenty-seven rpresentatives, coastal
Aiantis and perhaps also inland Aigeis twenty-five, and Oineis inland twenty-two,
whereas the city section of Aiantis was represented by only nine councillors, and
Hippothontis inland and d Antiochis in the city probably had only one or two more.
Admittedly the trittys assignment of about twenty-five Attic demes must be
considered only tentative and the quotas of some others, with known locations, are
based only on estimates, but fortunately the quotas of the former are all small (one
to three representatives) and the number of the latter are few (about a dozen).
28 The
30 Phyle Ratio= Gomme's Figure for the Phyle divided by the Phyle Quota, i.e. 50.

Consequently the margin of error in the figures for the representation of the trittyes
in the Tables below is smaller than at first may seem apparent.31
The three sections, city, coast, and inland, as a whole were obviously far from
equal in representation. The city had considerably less representation in the Council
than either of the other two regions and the coastal section apparently had slightly
more representation than its inland counterpart. The changes in 307/6 did little to
alleviate, indeed they seem to have aggravated the imbalance between the repre-
sentation of the city and the representation of the other two regions, although by
favoring the inland area slightly more than the coast, they did diminish the difference
in representation between these two sections.
THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE TRITTYES: TABLE 1

CITY COAST INLAND
DEMES BOULEUTAI DEMES BOULEUTAI DEMES BOULEUTAI
Erechtheis 4 16 5 23 (22) 5 11 (12)
Aigeis 8 11 5 14 8 25 132
Pandionis 1 12 (11) 5 19 (20) 5 19
Leontis 5 13 6 20 9 17
Akamantis 5 14 3 17 5 19
Oineis 8 11 4 17 1 22
Kekropis 3 15 2 14? 6 21?
Hippothontis 6 19 7? 20? 4? 11?
Aiantis 1 9 4 25 1 16
Antiochis 1 10 6 27 6 13
TOTAL 42 130 (129) 47 196 50 174 (175)
31 The implication of the differing sizes of the

trittyes with reference to Aristotle's statement that
Kleisthenes assigned the trittyes to the phylai by lot has been the subject of much recent discussion,
particularly by C. W. J. Eliot (CoastalDemes, pp. 136-147, and Phoenix, XXII, 1968, pp. 3-17) and
W. E. Thompson (Historia, XIII, 1964, pp. 400-413). Eliot questions the validity of Aristotle's state-
ment, on the grounds that the unrestricted use of the lot by Kleisthenes would have allowed the
possibility of phylai unequal in size. Thompson defends Aristotle, arguing that a certain amount of
inequality in the sizes of the phylai would have been tolerated. Certainly, precisely equal phylai were
neither demanded by nor necessary to the Athenian governmental system. Still, the possibility of one
phyle being forty-two per cent larger or thirty-two per cent smaller than the norm, as our figures allow
(a 1/100 probability for each), would appear intolerable. On the other hand, Aristotle does not state that
the use of the lot was unrestricted.Indeed, it was restricted,at least to the extent that the trittyes were
selected from three groups, and there may have been additional restrictions not mentioned by Aristotle.
It is also possible that there were some complementary adjustments in the relative sizes and compositions
of the trittyes after they had been assigned to their phylai.
32 The
figures enclosed in the box are from the two contiguous trittyes for which there is some
doubt concerning the affiliations of the demes, and therefore the apportionment of the quotas of
representation. If Upper and Lower Potamos are assigned to the city (above, p. 45, with note 18) the
figures will read: Leontis city 7 demes, 16 bouleutai, Leontis coast 4 demes, 17 bouleutai. The totals
will read: city, 44 demes, 133 (132) bouleutai, coast, 45 demes, 194 bouleutai.

The trittyes, being composed of demes, naturally reflect, although less distinctly,
the general relationships discussed above with respect to the demes. The larger
trittyes in representation generally have the larger numbers of known citizens and
the smaller trittyes the lesser numbers of citizens, although there are many ex-
ceptions, including the very largest trittys, which ranks only tenth in "population."
The trittyes were admittedly of sharply diminished importance after 307/6 and
while it is possible several apparently-under-represented sections enjoyed an increase
in representation, no overall pattern is discernible in the changes either of that year
or of 224/3.
THE RELATIVE SIZES OF THE TRITTYES: TABLE 2
ORIGINAL GOMME'S TRITTYS 33 PHYLE 34 CHANGE 35 CHANGE 35
QUOTA RANK TRITTYS FIGURE RANK RATIO RATIO 307/6 224/3
27 1 X Coast 468 10 17.3 21.2 +5?
25 2 II Inland 690 1 27.6 30.8 +9
25 2 IX Coast 600 3 24.0 19.6 0 +12
23 (22) 4 I Coast 611 2 26.6 26.2 +3 +1
22 5 VI Inland 452 14 20.5 22.5 +3 ?
21? 6 VII Inland 576 4 27.4 26.3 +7?
20 7 IV Coast 486 8 24.3 30.0 +3 +1
20 7 VIII Coast 479 + 9 24.0+ 21.5 +2?
19 (20) 9 III Coast 397 15 20.9 24.5 +4 +1
19 10 III Inland 531 5 27.9 24.5 +11 0
19 10 V Inland 458 12 24.1 23.0 +3
19 10 VIII City 456 13 24.0 21.5 +1?
17 13 IV Inland 510 6 30.0 30.0 +3 0
17 13 VI Coast 346 21 20.4 22.5 +5
17 13 V Coast 302 25 17.8 23.0 +4
16 16 I City 335 22 20.9 26.2 +3 0
16 16 IX Inland 229 28 14.3 19.6 0 0
15 18 VII City 382 18 25.5 26.3 0
14 19 II Coast 461 + 11+ 32.9+ 30.8 +4
14 19 V City 389 16 27.8 23.0 +3
14? 19 VII Coast 356- 20- 25.4- 26.3 +8?
13 22 IV City 506 + 7+ 38.9+ 30.0 +3 0
13 22 X Inland 335 22 25.8 21.2 +4
12 (11) 24 III City 295 26 24.6 24.5 +0 0
11 (12) 25 I Inland 366 19 33.3 26.2 +4
11 26 II City 389 + 1+6 35.4+ 30.8 +2
11 26 VI City 327 24 29.7 22.5 +1 +4
11 26 VIII Inland 142- 30- 12.9- 21.5 +3?
10 29 X City 255 27 25.5 21.2 +2
9 30 IX City 168 29 18.7 19.6 0 +4
33Trittys Ratio = Gomme's Figure divided by the Original Quota.

34
Phyle Ratio= Gomme's Figure for the phyle divided by the Phyle Quota, i.e. 50.
35 Figures are given as if the demes which were transferred to Antigonis, Demetrias, and Ptolemais
had remained in their original phylai. For the significance of the signs + and - beside the figures, see
above, pp. 4 and 65-66. The figures for IV Coast and IV City should probably be adjusted (see note 32
above).

CHAPTER V
THE ATTIC DEMES
THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMES1

Two important questions may now be considered: How should an Attic deme
be defined? How many Attic demes were there?
The Greek word demos can, of course, refer simply to a township or village,2
but it has a technical and specific reference in Attica3 to the political unit associated
with the reforms of Kleisthenes. Strangely enough, it is often (we might say usually)
the former sense which the ancient writers have in mind, even when they refer in
particular to the Attic demoi. Stephanos of Byzantium, for example, calls Brauron
and Kynosarges, both of which were never special units of Kleisthenes' political
organization, demoi and he even cites a demotic for the latter. "When Herodotus
uses the term SWrjos,"writes C. W. J. Eliot,4 "he usually means 'a village' rather
than a political division." We must be extremely wary, then, of accepting as
Kleisthenes' demes every name which the ancient authors, particularly the lexi-
cographers, designate an Attic deme.5
Although the demes in most cases were probably natural geographical units
(for possible exceptions see below, p. 101) and in every case must have had some
topographical reference point for the centering of local government and the keeping
of the official deme register (rd AXfLapXLKov ypaI.arEcov), in the political or con-
stitutional sense (a subject on which the ancient authors are generally silent) the
demes were in fact defined by a single technical and non-topographical criterion:
the sharing by a group of people (we need not say citizens, for their citizenship
depended on it) of a common demotic.6 After the time of Kleisthenes every Athenian,
1 I owe this phrase to a referencein C. W. J. Eliot, Coastal Demes, p. 152, but as will be seen below
my definition and use of it are quite different from his.
2 Cf.
L.S.J.9, s.v. 8&,~uosIV.
3 Next to Attica, the demes of Eretria are
probably best known (see W. Wallace, "The Demes of
Eretria," Hesperia, XVI, 1947, pp. 115-146), but demes were also employed in the political organization
of Keos, Kalymna, Kos, Rhodes, and other states (see R.E., Arjol, cols. 34, 123-131).
4 Coastal Demes,
p. 79.
5 In the discussion which follows in this chapter I have italicized the word deme(s) when I feel it
refers specifically to, or includes, non-constitutional demes.
6 Both D. M. Lewis (Historia, XII, 1963, pp. 22-40, and Gnomon,XXXV, 1963, p. 724) and W. E.

regardless of his domicile, bore one and only one demotic, almost invariably his
father's,7 which he obtained on being enrolled in the deme register after completing
his eighteenth year. Though a citizen might move from deme to deme, residence, or
even the ownership of property in a deme, did not qualify him for service either in
the local government8 or in the common Council. Only the possession of the
demotic, which had no residence requirement, conferred these privileges.
The functions of the constitutional deme were both regional, in the policing
and administering of its locality, and national, in providing representatives (among
other responsibilities) to attend the Athenian Council.9 Both of these functions
necessitated a body of demotai.
Evidence for the local functioning of the demes, e.g. deme-decrees, though
extremely important, is unfortunately very limited,10 but evidence for representa-
Thompson (SymbolaeOsloenses,XLVI, 1971, pp. 72-79), in opposition to Eliot, have stressed the non-
topographical aspects of Kleisthenes' demes, but in support of Eliot's contention concerning deme
boundariesit may be pointed out that property is often listed in inscriptions with referenceto the demes
and that all the territory of Attica, with a few exceptions, must have been associated theoretically, if
not actually, with one deme or another.
7
Adoption was rare and naturalization, at least prior to Late Roman times, apparently rarer still.
On the latter, see A. Billheimer, Naturalizationin Athenian Law and Practice, Gettysburg, 1922. On the
former see references in O.C.D.2, s.v. Adoption, Greek.
8
The listing of KaC TrosoliKovVartvTorV rotTrv 'PaEcLvoivVT along with 'PacvovaloLs in J. Pouilloux,
La Forteressede Rhamnonte,p. 208, no. 17 (cf. p. 120, no. 8, and p. 130, no. 15, lines 48-51) should be
regardedas a special case, for Rhamnous was one of the few demes to include a fortified acropoliswithin
its borders, and in addition to numerous deme-decrees, it was the finding place of many decrees by
soldiers in garrison (cf. Pouilloux, op. cit., pp. 118-119, no. 7; p. 123, no. 10; p. 124, no. 11; p. 128,
no. 13, etc.). Compare also the parallel for Eleusis: ['8]oE:v [rt
'EAEvcr[Lvi]wv S&
~tW Ka]t 'AOrqvaco[C]s
[roZS EvT-f qVAa]]K4[L](I.G., 112,1191, lines 3-5).
That many Athenians in the fourth century still lived in the demes of their forefathers is attested
time and again in the orators and for Halimous is specifically stated by Demosthenes (LVII, 10; cf.
Gomme, Population, pp. 45-47, and R. V. Cram, De Vicis Atticis, summary in Harv. Stud. Clas. Phil.,
XXVIII, 1917, p. 225). The enktetikontax was a deterrent to the ownership of property in another deme
and would reinforce Athenian conservatism in this respect (see W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens,
p. 375, note 1, but cf. Gomme, Population, pp. 45-47).
9 On both the local and national functions of the Attic demes, see R.E., ,;ilot, cols. 9-27, and
27-30, respectively.
10 There are decrees extant for about
twenty-five demes. A partial list (for many entries I am
indebted to E. Vanderpool) would include: Acharnai (I.G., II2, 1207; S.E.G., XXI, 519); Aixone (I.G.,
II2, 1196-1202, 2492; Ath. Mitt., LXVI, 1941, p. 218); Athmonon (I.G., II2, 1203); Berenikidai? (I.G.,
II2, 1221); Cholargos (I.G., II2, 1184); Eitea in Antiochis (JEAr., XXV, 1970, pp. 204-216); Eleusis
(I.G., I2, 183-185; II2, 1185-1194, 1218, 1219, 1220?; Hesperia, VIII, 1939, p. 177); Epikephisia (I.G.,
II2, 1205); Gargettos (Ath. Mitt., LXVII, 1942, pp. 7-8, no. 5=7oA/cwUv,IV, 1949, pp. 10-16); Halai
Aixonides (I.G.,II2, 1174-1175;S.E.G., XII, 52; JEAr.,XI, 1927-8, pp. 40-43, nos. 4-7, cf. Ath. Mitt.,
LXVII, 1942, pp. 8-10, nos. 6-8); Halai Araphenides ('Apx. 'E+., 1925-6, pp. 168-177, cf.lpapcKclKa,
1956, pp. 87-89; HoAcuvv, I, pp. 227-232='Apx. 'Eb., 1932, XpOVLKa,pp. 30-32, cf.I1paKTLKa, 1956,
pp. 87-89; "Epyov, 1957, pp. 24-25=I7paKcrLKKa, 1957, pp. 45-47); Halimous (B.S.A., XXIV, 1919-21,
pp. 151-160=S.E.G., II, 7); Ikarion (I.G.,
I2, 186-187; II2, 1178-1179); Kephisia (JeAr., XXI, 1966,

THE ATTIC DEMES 75
tion in the Council and for bodies of demotai is more prevalent and I apply these two
elements as criteria in determining which were the constitutional demes and how
many they were.
FIRST REQUISITE: A MINIMAL BODY OF CITIZENS

Any deme simply to exist and perpetuate itself, not to mention the more
important factors of executing the business of local government and of providing
representatives (and alternates11) for the common Council (one must bear in mind
the limitation, rigorously enforced except in the Late Roman period, of tenure to
two non-consecutive terms per citizen in his lifetime), required a citizen-body of a
minimal size. We do not know how small demes continued to function (some, such
as Eitea in Antiochis, may have had difficulty, above, p. 22), but they did, even
into Late Roman times. That every such citizen-body should be known to us
seems guaraneed both by the nature and also by the quantity of the evidence
preserved. Kirchner, in his Prosopographia Attica, which is based on both the
literature and the inscriptions, lists the names of all Athenians known to him for the
period from the ten-year archons until the time of Augustus, a total, including
Addenda, of more than 16,000 names. A large proportion of these people are
identified by demotic and have been grouped into one hundred and twenty-seven
deme classifications in the Conspectus Demotarum at the end of volume II. The
smallest group of names numbers ten and belongs to Hippotomadai, a deme which
judging also from its representation of one bouleutes annually was among the
smallest (see above, p. 70). With a sample of such magnitude and from such
varied sources the assumption seems justified that every deme which was in reality
a constitutional deme ought to have a body of known demotai. Indeed, the fairness
of this judgment is confirmed by the fact that although Sundwall in his Nachtrdge
XPOVLK, . 106, f. XXIV, 1969, pp. 6-7); Kollytos (I.G., II2, 1195); Kydathenaion (see Agora, XVI=
I 5212); Lamptrai (I.G., II2, 1204); Melite (S.E.G., XXII, 116; see Agora, XVI); Myrrhinous (I.G.,
II2, 1182-1183); Peiraieus (I.G., II2, 1176-1177, 1214; Hesperia, III, 1934, pp. 44-46, no. 33); Plotheia
(I.G., II2, 1172); Rhamnous (I.G., II2, 1217-1218; 'ApX.'E., 1953, pp. 131-136=Pouilloux, no. 17;
'EMAAVLKd, III, 1930, pp. 153-162=Pouilloux, no. 15; S.E.G., XXII, 120; XXIV, 154); Skambonidai
(I.G., I2, 188); Sounion (I.G., II2, 1180-1181; Ath. Mitt., LIX, 1934, pp. 35-39=S.E.G., X, 10);
Sypalettos (I.G., I2, 189); Teithras (Ath. Mitt., XLIX, 1924, pp. 1-13=S.E.G., XXIV, 151-153;
Hesperia, XXXI, 1962, pp. 401-403=S.E.G., XXI, 520); unidentified: I.G., II2, 1212 (perhaps
Themakos?); I.G., II2, 1215 (perhapsErikeia?); I.G., II2, 1173, 1208-1209, 1210 (perhapsAnagyrous?),
1211, 1213, 1216; S.E.G., XXI, 521; S.E.G., XIV, 81. Leges sacrae are known for Erchia (B.C.H.,
LXXXVII, 1963, pp. 603-634), Pallene (Ath. Mitt., LXVII, 1942, pp. 24-29, no. 26), and Phrearrhioi
(Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, pp. 50-53); dedications for Plotheia (I.G., II2, 4607, 4885), Sphettos (B.C.H.,
XCIII, 1969, pp. 56-71), and Halai Aixonides (I.G., II2, 3091) are also extant. It is worth noting that
deme-decrees are comparatively rare after the end of the fourth century B.C.and virtually unknown
after the end of the following century.
11See above, p. 2, and note 5.

zur ProsopographiaAttica, published in 1910, and the Excavations of the Athenian

Agora, conducted by the American School from 1931 to the present, have given us
the names of thousands of Athenians (the Excavations alone have given us over
8,000 names, including incidentally, seven additional Hippotomadians), they have
not added, for the period covered by P.A., a single demotic to those listed by
Kirchner.12The one hundred and twenty-seven classifications in Kirchner's Con-
spectus, allowing that eleven demotics, i.e. the homonymous and divided demes (see
pp. 123-128), do double service, and one demotic, Potamios, does triple service, and
that the deme Kolonos has been grouped with the two demes Kolonai, make a total
of one hundred and forty-one different demes: one hundred and thirty-nine (shown
in Maps 1, 2, and 3) for the period of the original ten phylai, plus two specially
created later demes, Berenikidai, established with the new tribe Ptolemais in 224/3,
and Apollonieis, formed at the same time as the new phyle Attalis in 201/0. Kirchner
does not include material from the period after Augustus, but if he had, there would
be one additional later deme, Antinoeis, established as a special honorary deme in
the last phyle, Hadrianis. Thus, a total of one hundred and thirty-nine, or, including
the three later demes, one hundred and forty-two demes (listed in Appendix B,
below, pp. 109-112) fulfill the first requisite, a body of known citizens.13
12 There isone doubtful exception, Perrheidai (Hesperia, Supp. I, p. 36, no. 3, line 1,
nobut even it
disappears, if we adopt the suggestion discussed below (p. 89), that it was inscribed here in error for
Tyrmeidai.
13 The indices of the Corpusmay be considered here. I.G., I2 (the only Attic volume of the editio
minor for which an Index has yet been published) lists a total of ninety-six Attic demes,one of which,
Kykala, should be rejected, for it was a place name and not a constitutional deme. At least another
seven appear in the texts but are omitted from the index which is not exhaustive. The possibility of
homonymous and divided demes raises the total to one hundred and fifteen candidates, leaving only
twenty-four (fromwhat I presume to have been the original total of one hundred and thirty-nine demes)
unaccounted for. The omission of these is probably due only to the sparseness of the epigraphical
material, for in the first volume of the Corputsthere are less than five hundred citizens identified by
demotic. Moreover, a number of the missing demes are attested either in literary references which
probably or certainly depend on fifth-century sources or in fifth-century inscriptions discovered since
the publication of I.G., I2. The index of I.G., II (fasc. 4) attests, allowing for the divided demes, all one
hundred and forty-one demes which I define as constitutionalfor this period (only Antinoeis, which was
created after the period covered by this volume, is absent), but it also includes a number of demeswhich
I regard as non-constitutional. The index of I.G., II, 5 fails to attest less than ten of my Athenian con-
stitutional demes, which seems remarkablein view of the small number of texts included in the volume.
From my total of one hundred and forty-two constitutional demes for the Late Roman period, the
index of I.G., III (fasc. 2) leaves unattested only Kydantidai, the Aigeid Halai, Ptolemaid Oinoe,
Hippothontid Eroiadai, and Attalid Agryle (Kolonos in Aigeis appears with the Leontid and Ptolemaid
demes Kolonai), but Kydantidai has subsequently been discovered on an Agora inscription dated
A.D. 168/9 (cf. Hesperia, XII, 1943, p. 78=372) and a number of the references grouped with the
Kekropid Halai, Hadrianid Oinoe, Antiochid Eroiadai, and Erechtheid Agryle, though not tribally
identified, may in fact referto their homonymous and as then unattested (with tribal affiliation)counter-
parts. The index of I.G., III, however, also includes a number of additional demes which I would
classify as Late Roman, but not constitutional,demes (cf. below, p. 87).

THE ATTIC DEMES 77
SECOND REQUISITE: REPRESENTATION IN THE COUNCIL
(a) DIRECT EVIDENCE

More essential to my definition of a constitutional deme, however, is evidence
that it functioned in government, or, specifically, that it had representation in the
Council. The sample of material here is not so large as for the previous criterion;
there are about forty complete, or nearly complete, and about one hundred and fifty
partially preserved registers for the period covered by Kirchner (see above, p. xvii,
Table to Illustrate the Distribution of Texts by Phyle and by Period). Nor is the
sample so varied as I should like; lists for Kekropis and Ptolemais are particularly
scarce. Still, and this is most important, the results obtained by applying this
criterion are identical to those determined in the preceding section; the prytany and
bouleutic lists attest directly one hundred and twenty-eight demotics for the period
covered by Prosopographia Attica.4 The one hundred and twenty-eight demotics
(allowing that Kolonos in P.A. is listed with Kolonai) are precisely those, and no
others, of Kirchner's Conspectus. Further, because of the special designations
Upper (KaOv'repOEv), Lower (vTrrEveppEv), etc., and double listings, either within the
same roster or in different rosters,15 may be ascertained that there were six pairs
it
of homonymous demes and six sets of divided demes (see below, Appendix D,
pp. 123-128; Potamos was divided three ways), in all a total of one hundred and
forty-one, that is, the one hundred and thirty-nine original demes, plus Berenikidai
and Apollonieis. The prytany lists also attest Antinoeis, but it belongs to a period
after that covered by P.A. and must, accordingly, be excluded from the comparison
here.
(b) INDIRECT EVIDENCE

The indirect evidence pertains only to the question of the number of demes and
not to their identification. It is of two varieties: (1) the regular manner in which the
five later phylai were formed reveals the number of constitutional demes which
composed each of these tribes; and (2) even when a bouleutic list is not completely
preserved the relative lengths of the columns may provide an indication of the total
number of demotics present in the complete list (Aiantis, with a well-known roster
of six demes, is usually taken as the reference for comparing the other rosters). The
14 Because of the virtual non-existence of Ptolemaid
prytany lists from the first period of thirteen
and the second period of twelve phylai Berenikidai is not actually attested as providing councillors
prior to the creation of Hadrianis, but it is well known from the year 222/1 B.C.on as the demotic of
many government officials, including the herald and the flutist in prytany inscriptions and the spokes-
man of one deme-decree, almost certainly of Berenikidai (cf. above, p. 74, note 10, and p. 29, note 12). It
was obviously, from the time Ptolemais was established, a regular Athenian constitutional deme.
15 An example of the former:I.G., II2, 1749 = 38, lines 68 and 72; an example of the latter: Hesperia,
XXXV, 1966, p. 224, line 34, and p. 226, line 145 =61, lines 34 and 185.

evidence for (1) has been set forth fully above (pp. 26-34), but for (2) has been
presented only passim in the Commentaries on the Tables of Representation and I
therefore provide a more comprehensive treatment here.
The relative lengths of the columns in the bouleutic list of 335/4 (I.G., II2,
1700=43) suggests a composition as follows:
PHYLE I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
NAMES 50 49? 50 50 50 50 50 49? 50 50
PATRONYMICS 50 49 ? 50 50 50 50 50 49 ? 50 50
DEMOTICS 13 20? 11 20 13 12 11+1 vacat? 17? 6 13+2vacat?
TOTAL 113 118 111 120 113 112 112 115 106 115
There are several small discrepancies between these figures and the totals for the
numbers of demes indicated by requisites one and two (a). All are probably due to
special circumstances either in the arrangement of this text or in the composition
of the Council in 335/4. One very small deme from Erechtheis (I) and Oineis (VI)
(cf. above, pp. 14-19) apparently failed to send a representative in this year. Pam-
botadai and Sybridai in the former and Tyrmeidai in the latter are known from
other lists to have been absent occasionally from the Council. Their representation,
in these instances, was shared with other demes in their phylai. The rosters of
Hippothontis (VIII) and Aigeis (II) are two and three lines short respectively (see
above, pp. 11-12 and 17), but it is unlikely that as many as two or three demes
failed to send a representative in a single year (we have no parallel for the absence of
more than one demotic from a tribal roster prior to 200 B.C.).Probably both rosters
lack one name and patronymic (= two lines, the father's name being inscribed in a
separate line from the bouleutes'), and, in addition for Aigeis, the two sections of
Ankyle may have been listed together. There are a number of parallels both for the
omission of names from prytany and bouleutic lists (cf. above, pp. 3 and 5-6)
and also for the grouping of the several sections of the divided demes under a single
demotic (above, p. 11, note 18), but, generally, uninscribed lines were left for the miss-
ing names, and in this inscription in particular the other divided demes were listed
individually by their separate sections. More anomalous are the additional lines
indicated in the rosters of Kekropis (VII) and Antiochis (X) (see above, pp. 9-11 and
13). Perhaps uninscribed spaces (not intended for missing bouleutai) were left in
these columns, or officials of the phylai were included with the fifty councillors, but
the circumstances are most unusual. The total number of demes recorded in I.G.,
II2, 1700, therefore, may have been as high as 136, with only three small demes
failing to have individual representation.16
16 In the list of names which I have tentatively identified as a catalogue of bouleutai and alternates
from about 370 B.C. (I.G., II2, 1697, etc. = 492; see above, p. 2, with note 5) column II ended apparently
six lines below column III. These two columns, with the rosters of Pandionis and Leontis (II) and

THE ATTIC DEMES 79
The bouleutic lists from the Macedonian period also provide some indication of
the number of constitutional demes composing the various phylai. The catalogue of
304/3 shows that the roster of Leontis had seven demes more than the roster of
Pandionis, confirming what we know from the direct evidence, viz. that Pandionis
and Leontis had eight and fifteen demes respectively in this period.
The more informative bouleutic list of 303/2 suggests the following compositions
for the phylai:
STELEI STELEII
PHYLE I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
BOULEUTAI Not Preserved 50 50 50 50 50f 849 50 50 50
DEMOTICS 8 15 10 10 7 orYl 8 14 6 10
TOTAL 58 65 60 60 57 57 64 56 60
The one discrepancy with the known number of regular demes arises in the roster of
Kekropis (IX), indicating that either Epieikidai sent no representative or the
column contained only forty-nine bouleutai.
The catalogue of 281/0 is the most informative of the three from the Macedonian
period. It prescribes the following tribal compositions:17
PHYLE I II III IV V VI
HEADING Antigonis Demetrias Erechtheis Aigeis Pandionis Leontis
BOULEUTAI 50 50 50h f49 50 + i vacat 50 50
DEMOTICS 15 15 10}r 11 17 8 15
SERVANT 1 1 1 1
SPACE
BETWEEN 1 1 I I
ROSTERS
PHYLE VII VIII IX
IX X XI XII
HEADING Akamantis Oineis Kekropis Hippothontis Aiantis Antiochis
BOULEUTAI 50 50 50)or r49 50 50 50 +1 vacat
DEMOTICS 10 10 7 8 14 6 10
SERVANT 1? 1 1 1
TOTAL 127? 127 118? 132? 116+ 127+
Akamantis and Oineis (III), should have contained thirty-one and twenty-six (a difference of five)
demotics respectively, but there are too many uncertainties concerning this text to attach great
significance to this observation or this discrepancy. It is worth noting, however, in the same list that if
Anaphlystos, which should appear immediately under the tribal heading of Antiochis in column V,
contained its expected (for this text) complement of fifteen representatives (i.e. its regular quota of ten,
plus five alternates), then the differencein the lengths of the rosters of Kekropis and Aiantis amounts to
five lines or precisely the difference in the number of known demes in the two phylai.
17The table is a revised version of that published in Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 471. The
corrections, based on more recently discovered material, affect the rosters of Aigeis, Hippothontis, and
Antiochis. The prytany list of 254/3 B.C. (Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, pp. 419-420=89) has shown

The rosters of Kekropis (again in the Macedonian period) and Erechtheis were
apparently each short of either one demotic (probably Epieikidai in the former and
Sybridai or Pambotadai in the latter)or one bouleutes. Since the roster of Aigeis
appears to end six lines below that of Erechtheis (assuming the quota of Erikeia
was complete with its normal complement of two representatives and the un-
inscribed half-line below Hestiaia was intended for a single councillor from this
deme), one might naturally deduce that these two phylai had their expected
contingents of seventeen and eleven demes respectively (and, because the rosters of
Antigonis and Demetrias end five lines below Erechtheis, that these two tribes had
sixteen demes each), but the arrangement of the rosters dictated by the preservation
of the bottoms of columns two through six will not allow such a deduction. The
second column ended eight and one-half lines below the third column and one-half
line above the sixth. The rosters of Erechtheis and Kekropis in column three,th,tere-
fore, must each be lacking one line; and the Macedonian phylai in the upper first
and second columns must each be composed of fifteen demes. Moreover, in order to
account for the length of column six we must assume one uninscribed line (not
intended for a bouleutes) in the roster of either Leontis or Antiochis. One un-
inscribed line appears above the demotic of Anaphlystos, and, although on another
occasion I have suggested that it probably was intended for a ninth representative
of Pallene,18 it is possible that Pallene's quota was already complete at eight and
that an additional demesman should be assigned, in 281/0, to the quota of either
Alopeke or Aigilia.
Because of the uncertainty concerning the termination of both the Aigeid and
Hippothontid rosters in the same bouleutic list the fourth column forms a special
problem. If, as suggested, Erechtheis had either just ten demotics or forty-nine
bouleutai in 281/0, and Aigeis had its expected representation of fifty bouleutai and
seventeen demotics, then the tribal roster of the latter must be one line longer than
the last line preserved on fragment I-K-O. A single additional line, however, is
unlikely, for the quota of Erikeia is complete with two representatives and the
minimal supplement would be one demotic and one bouleutes. The roster of Aigeis,
then, probably contained one uninscribed line (not intended for a councillor). An
uninscribed line (in reality a half-line, but the significance is the same) is evident
under the demotic of Hestiaia, and although it has been assumed that this line was
intended for the normal one representative of this deme,19it may be that Hestiaia's
conclusively that Bate was not transferred to one of the Macedonianphylai (once proposed because of
its absence from the defective register of I.G., II2, 678 = 85) and that Aigeis had, in fact, a full comple-
ment of seventeen demes in the period after 307/6. It is also now known that Antiochis had ten demes
and Hippothontis very probably fourteen in the Macedonianperiod (see above, pp. 12 and 14).
18 Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969,
pp. 491-492.
19Ibid., p. 484.

THE ATTIC DEMES 81
quota was already accounted for by one of the other Aigeid demes, viz. perhaps
either Kydantidai or Phegaia, both of which had in 281/0 one additional bouleutes
over their usual representation. The complete list, then, must have contained at
least 137 demes, and all 139 may even have been recorded.
THE STANDARD LISTSOFDEMES

There is one problem, however. If each of these 139 demes (or 142, with the
three later demes) meets the two criteria of a body of known citizens and evidence
of functioning in the Athenian government, how is one to explain those additional
demes which appear in the standard lists but do not satisfy these requisites?
Two deme lists are now commonly cited: that of V. von Schoffer20 in the
Pauly-Wissowa and that of W. B. Dinsmoor in The Archons of Athens.21 Von
Schoffer included 166 separately numbered demes, with four dependent listings, all
170 attested on inscriptions, and nine supplemental demes for which there is no
inscriptional evidence; a total of 179 demes. Dinsmoor has 177, four of which, all
divided demes, are not in the R.E. lists, and since the publication of Archons two
additional divided demes have been proposed. The grand total of all possible candi-
dates from these sources comes to 185, that is, the original 139, the three later
constitutional demes,22 plus 43 other names which have, at one point or another,
been considered by scholars as Attic demes. None of these forty-three should, in my
opinion, be included among the constitutional demes of Kleisthenes' political
organization and I propose to dispose of them as follows.
THE SPURIOUS DEMES
NON-EXISTENT, OCCURRENCEDUE SOLELY TO ERROR (16 demes)
(a) ERROR IN ANTIQUITY

Anakaia B (p. 113, No. 5). The existence of a second deme Anakaia, affiliated
with Demetrias, is based on the appearance of this demotic in the list of thesmo-
thetai for the year 220/19 (I.G., JJII2,1706, line 76). Affiliation with Hippothontis,
to which one section of Anakaia is known with certainty to have belonged in this
period, would necessitate both double representation on the Board of Archons and a
violation of the rule requiring the rotation of the phylai of the thesmothetai. But the
thesmothetes in question, Elpistos, bears an extremely rare name, known otherwise
only twice in Attica, once as an ephebe of Akamantis in A.D. 254/5 and on another
20 R.E., 4Jiot, cols. 35-122.
21 Appendix B, pp. 114
4 4 4 47.
22
Antinoeis does not appear in Dinsmoor's list which ostensibly ends with the second period of
twelve phylai, although several demes such as Akyaia, unknown until even later than Antinoeis in the
second century after Christ, are included.

occasion as a demesman of Anagyrous in an undated gravestone (I.G., II2, 5620).

I suggest that the thesmothetes is related to, if he is not identical with, the latter,
Elpistos of Anagyrous. The demotic of Anagyrous, which belonged to Erechtheis
in 220/19 (phyle III), is precisely what is required in the thesmothetic list and it is
very possible that the mason cut the letters ANAKAI by mistake for ANArYP.23
Phegaieis B (p. 120, No. 31) and Graes (p. 115, No. 14) occur in the Pandionid
roster of the deme-catalogue I.G., II2, 2362 (lines 29 and 30) probably also owing to
errors in antiquity. The deme Phegaia is known otherwise only in Aigeis,24 and
Graes, whether or not it be identified with the Boeotian town Graia, has no other
association with the deme structure of Attica. It is now well established that this
deme-catalogue was never completed,25 and it is possible that both of these
readings represent uncorrected errors by the ancient mason or secretary.26
Pol(--) (p. 120, No. 33), which appears as a curtailed demotic in a Late Roman
list of Hippothontid ephebes, probably also represents some form of error, although,
at first sight, it would not seem to be the obvious confusion, i.e. with rTEIP, for
epsilon in this inscription has the straight-line archaizing form and would not easily
be confused with omikron (one cannot, of course, speak for the mason's copy).
(b) ERROR IN TRANSMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

Agriadai (p. 113, No. 1) occurs in a list of demes, described as belonging to
Hippothontis, in Bekker's AnecdotaGraeca,but it is almost certainly a corruption of
Auridai.27
(C) ERROR OF SCHOLARSHIP, MISREADING OF TEXT

De(--) (p. 114, No. 9). The reading of this demotic in an ephebic roster of
Antiochis was subsequently corrected by Kirchner to the more regularAE(VKO0rvpEVS)
(I.G., II2, 2103, line 162.
Salamis (p. 120, No. 36). Salamis was tentatively proposed by Schoffer as a
restoration of one of the Ptolemaid demes in the great catalogue of 201/0 (I.G., II2,
23The error may have originated in cursive script in the mason's copy. On other such errors
attributable to the use of cursive script in the copy see, most recently, B. D. Meritt, Epigraphica,
XXXII, 1970, pp. 3-6.
24 Cf. S. Dow,
Hesperia, III, 1934, p. 189, and E. Vanderpool, B.C.H., LXXXIX, 1965, p. 26.
25 W. K. Pritchett, T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pp. 159-167.
26Graes may have been inscribed in error for Prasies, as suggested by Loper (Ath. Mitt., XVII,
1892, p. 372), or because of confusion with Oaes in the following line (i.e. the mason's copy may have
contained omikron, subsequently corrected to omega, the latter letter perhaps resembling pi-rho in
careless cursive script). Phegaieis is even more difficult to explain. If it was not simply transferred
from the roster of Aigeis, one may speculate that it may have arisen from confusion with the last part of
Kydathenaieis.
27 Cf. R.E., fJloL, col. 122.

THE ATTIC DEMES 83
2362, line 51), but the reading as sigma of the first of the two letters preserved was
rejected by Pritchett.28 The letters SAAA,it should also be noted, appear within a
group of regular demotics (although the text is not arranged by phylai) in one Late
Roman ephebic list (I.G., II2, 2020, line 32), but other non-constitutional demes, in
addition to a number of ethnics, are well known particularly in the ephebic catalogues
of this period.
Kaletea (p. 115, No. 17). The existence of this deme depends on a single source,
Pococke's reading of line 57 in I.G., II2, 1077 (=460), a prytany list of Pandionis
dated 209/10. Fourmont read only the first and last parts of the demoticand provided
a slightly different spacing for the missing internal letters, but Kaleteeus was kept by
both A. Boeckh (C.I.G., 353) and W. Dittenberger (I.G., III, 10). Kirchner corrected
the line, somewhat violently perhaps, from the earlier editions to read a prytanis'
name, and while we may not accept his particular restoration (which he set in
question marks), we may assume that the original transcripts represent an error.29
Kikynna B (p. 115, No. 18). Kikynneis is the obvious restoration of the demotic
in Chandler's copy of I.G., II2, 1927 (line 37), but, although one deme Kikynna is
well known in Akamantis, no such homonymous deme is otherwise attested in
Kekropis. Dow has suggested very plausibly that the demotic of Athmonon was
intended here.30The errorerror, whichthe involves the first preserved letter only, is more
probably due to Chandler than to the ancient mason.
Atene B (p. 114, No. 6). A divided Atene, with one section (well attested) in
Demetrias and another (only here) remaining in Antiochis, was posited to obviate
double representation in the Board of Archons during Menekrates' year (I.G., II2,
1706, line 73=Hesperia, II, 1933, pl. XIV, line 93), but Meritt's reading in this text
of the polemarch's deme as Azenia (and not Atene) has resolved the difficulty and
removed the
thevidenc fore the existence of Atene B.31
Ikarion B (p. 115, No. 16). One deme of this name32was a well-attested member
of Aigeis, later Antigonis, and afterwards Attalis. A second deme Ikarion was
assigned to Ptolemais on the basis of three readings: (1) IKAin I.G., 2II, 2107, line 24,
later corrected by Mitsos to EKA;33 (2) <'IK>ap<>EVSv in I.G., II2, 2442, line 5, a
highly questionable correction by Koehler of Fourmont's TapaEvs;34and (3) ['IKa]-
28
T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pp. 165-166.
29 I can make out only traces of letters in this line on the Princeton squeeze and I read nothing
with certainty. K[Ca 13] Eva[---] (the text of Agora, XV, No. 460, line 79) is close to Fourmont's
transcript.
30Hesperia, III, 1934, p. 188. The prosopographicalevidence, as yet, has provided no help.
31 Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 21.
32 On the form of the name see D. M. Lewis, B.S.A., LI, 1956,
p. 172. Part of Lewis' remark was
anticipated by Frazer, Pausanias, II, p. 461.
33 B.C.H., LXXIII, 1949,
p. 356=S.E.G., XII, 120, line 23.
34 R.E.,
A,uot, cols. 69-70; D. M. Lewis, B.S.A., LI, 1956, p. 172.

pi[a] in I.G., II2, 2362, line 53, as read by W. K. Pritchett,3s but whereas Pritchett's
reading of rho followed by "the upper part of a vertical stroke which may be
original" is probably correct, his restoration, in my opinion, is incorrect, for
Perrhidai also suits these traces,36has been assigned with certainty to Ptolemais,
and is more naturally associated with a group of names which include Thyrgonidai
and Hyporeia (see below, p. 98). Ikarion B can safely be rejected from consideration
as an Attic deme.
(d) ERROR IN SCHOLARSHIP, MISINTERPRETATION OF TEXT

AmphitropeB (p. 113,No. 3). Amphitrope occurs as the demotic of the erarrajsT
7TrpvravE?vin I.G., II2, 1492, line 96. The succeeding entries in this text (lines 97-
125) belong to the tenth and twelfth prytanies in 306/5, held by Oineis and Antiochis
respectively. Consequently, it has been argued that the demotic in line 96 cannot
belong to Antiochis, but rather that Amphitrope was a divided deme, one section
remaining in Antiochis (well attested) and the other section being transferred (only
here) either to Antigonis (Kirchner, et al.), which held the ninth prytany in 306/5,
or to Demetrias (Dinsmoor37), which held the seventh in the same year. The
alternative proposed by Bates, that the entry which ends in line 96 should be assigned
to 307/6 (when Antiochis held the sixth prytany), is unlikely, for although that year
was one of considerable disruption in the regular processes of Athenian government
this disturbance will scarcely explain an interval of sixteen prytanies extending well
into the following year. There is another possible explanation, however. Dinsmoor,
in The Archons of Athens, noted that the accounts in I.G., JJII2,1492 did not follow
each other prytany by prytany. We may pursue this argument further and suggest
that the entry for Oineis, i.e. the tenth prytany (lines 97-112, which includes a
reference to, but not a regular entry for, Akamantis, which held the eleventh
prytany), is listed out of order. Although not common, there are parallels for such
irregularities in the listing of Athenian accounts, e.g. I.G., I2, 302, lines 56-58, and
304, lines 8485.38 The entry for Antiochis in lines 112-124 of I.G., II2, 1492, it
35 T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pp. 166-167.
36 It also suits the
pi reported in the first letter-space by Rangabe and Ross and "the diagonal
of what may be an alpha" reported by Pritchett in his earlier discussion of this inscription (Five
Tribes, p. 25). Pritchett's restoration of Ikaria cannot, in any case, be right, since we now know that
the deme was properly called Ikarion. I note also that a trace of the first rho may be visible on the
photograph of the squeeze published by Pritchett (T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pl. II).
37 Archons,
p. 447. Pritchett (Five Tribes, p. 10) argued that the evidence did not admit a decision
between Antigonis and Demetrias and this conclusion was accepted by Dinsmoor (A.J.P., LXI, 1940,
pp. 460-461, note 5).
38 I am indebted to B. D. Meritt for pointing out to me these two parallels. Another possibility is
that Antiochis in 306/5 was listed for both prytany IX and prytany XII: cf. the parallels in 329/8 when
Antiochis was recorded as holding prytanies I and II (I.G., II2, 1672, lines 1-2, 37) and in 303/2 when
Kekropiswas named for both prytany VIII and prytany IX (B. D. Meritt, 'ApX.'Av&A. E' 'AO.,V, 1972,
pp. 292-293).

THE ATTIC DEMES 85
should be noted, mentions no epistates and appears to be incomplete. Some con-

firmation of the theory that Amphitrope was an undivided deme may be derived
from the prosopography. Of names ending in -lides (the lambda seems assured from
Koehler's majuscule text)-and surprisingly there were not many such which were
common in Attica-only Euboulides is known in Amphitrope, as father of Arkesilas,
councillorfor Antiochis in 281/0.39 If we accept this tentative restoration, then the
epistates in I.G., II2, 1492, line 96 must belong to the same family as, if he is not
identical to, the father of the councillor some twenty-five years later and Amphi-
trope B at once disappears as a separate deme.
Phyle B (p. 120, No. 30) was posited by B. D. Meritt on the basis of the inscrip-
tion published as Hesperia, IX, 1940, no. 13, where the first letter, phi, of the
secretary's demotic is preserved and the tribal cycles require a deme from Oineis.
This text, however, does not belong to 298/7, as proposed by the original editor, but
to 295/4, and the secretary's deme is Phaleron, appropriate, as phyle XI in this
period, for the regular tribal cycles (see below, pp. 129-132, Appendix E).
Sypalettos B (p. 121, No. 40). Sypalettos was considered, but immediately
rejected, by W. B. Dinsmoor40 as a possible divided deme in order to allow the
secretary of 146/5 to belong to the phyle Attalis, as demanded by the secretary
cycles. Some support for such a suggestion may be derived indirectly from two
fourth-century prytany and bouleutic lists, but the overwhelming evidence is
against a divided Sypalettos (see above, pp. 10-11).41
Trinemeia B (p. 122, No. 43). One deme Trinemeia had a well-established
history in Kekropis throughout the known periods of Athenian bouleutic govern-
ment. The case for a second deme of this name, i.e. a divided Trinemeia, is based on
the appearance of this demotic at the bottom of an ephebic roster of Attalis (I.G.,
II2, 1028, line 143). It has long been pointed out,42 however, that this is the last
Athenian name in the list and it may have been omitted from the Kekropid roster
and inserted here as an addendum. The slight support that the theory of a divided
Trinemeia might receive from the relative lengths of the columns in the bouleutic
list of 335/4 (see above, p. 10) is more than offset by the clear principle of the
organization of Attalis, which unquestionably denies the presence of the deme
Trinemeia.
39 Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 481, line 266 (=72, line 255).
40 The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries,p. 177, note 39.
41 The
argument that Attalos II, who was a known Sypalettian, should belong to the phyle
established in his honor (Hadrian was a demesman of Besa in Hadrianis and Ptolemy V Epiphanes,
grandson of Ptolemy III Euergetes, was a member of Ptolemais) was refuted by Pritchett (Five Tribes,
p. 36, note 13), who pointed out that Ariarathes, a close relative of Attalos, belonged to Sypalettos in
Kekropis. Scholars generally have denied a split Sypalettos, see W. B. Dinsmoor, loc. cit., B. D. Meritt,
Athenian Year, p. 228, and G. A. Stamires, Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, p. 47.
42 See references in W. K.
Pritchett, Five Tribes, pp. 35-36.

Coastal Lamptrai (p. 117, No. 23). That Coastal Lamptrai was merely an
alternate name for Lower Lamptrai is made clear by Harpokration43and is accepted
by all modern scholars. If further confirmation were needed, it may be found in the
quotas: Upper Lamptrai had five representatives, Coastal Lamptrai nine, and all
demes named Lamptrai together fourteen (see Table of Representation I, below).
EXISTENT, PLACE NAMES BUT NOT CONSTITUTIONAL DEMES (8 demes)

In addition to Agriadai, which I have discussed above (p. 82), Schoffer lists
eight demes which are unattested on the inscriptions but were known to the lexi-
cographers.44At least one certainly, and others probably, were Attic place names,45
but none has any known citizens, viz. demotai. Not only the lexicographers, but also
the inscriptions, especially the poletai texts, mention a large number of Attic place
names. Many were mining communities,46 tiny isolated villages, etc., too small no
doubt for independent representation in the Council. Although none of these names
is ever designated a deme in the inscriptions, it is possible that they might be so
regarded, especially by later writers. One of the names in the R.E. list, Gephyreis,
bears a striking resemblance to the well-known Athenian genos, Gephyraioi,47and
at least two of the others, viz. Rhakidai and Echelidai, may have been names of
hitherto unknown Athenian gene.48 The fact that the last name has a well-defined
location is not surprising, for the gene were regularly attached to cults, and in this
respect at least had a fixed topographical reference point.49All the names in this list,
however, may safely be removed from consideration as Athenian constitutional
demes.
Chastieis (p. 114, No. 7) and Chelidonia (p. 119, No. 8) are both not necessarily
even Attic.
43 S.v. AaTurrpels.
44The list is far from complete, for, as mentioned above (p. 73), Brauron and Kynosarges were
called demesby Stephanos of Byzantium and there are a number of others.
45 As pointed out, several of them may not necessarily have been Attic, but it is likely that they
all were, for although the lexicographers and ancient authors may not have been referring to the
political units when they mentioned demoi (above, p. 73) they were almost invariably referringat least
to Attica.
46
See, for example, the list in M. Crosby, "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesperia, XIX,
1950, pp. 308-310.
47 The reference is supported by a passage in Suda, see Appendix C, p. 115, below.
48 On the Athenian gene see J. Toeppfer, Attische Genealogie,passim. The list provided by P.
MacKendrick, The Athenian Aristocracy 399 to 31 B.C. (Martin Classical Lectures, XXIII, Oberlin
College, 1969), pp. 97-105, is quite incomplete. Pyrrhakidai was an Athenian genos, see note 52, below.
49 Cf., for example, the well-established centers of the two branches of the Salaminioi in the decrees
published by WV.S. Ferguson, Hesperia, VII, 1938, pp. 1-76.

THE ATTIC DEMES 87
Echelidai (p. 114, No. 10) has a location, closely defined by Stephanos of
Byzantium, within the constitutional deme of Xypete.50
Gephyreis (p. 115, No. 13) has a general location known from the Etymologicum
Magnum.
Lekkon (p. 117, No. 22) is assigned to Antiochis by Hesychios.51
Oisia (p. 118, No. 26) is grouped with Kephisia and Lousia in Arcadius as an
example of an oxytonic name ending in alpha. No other oxytonic Attic deme name
ending in alpha, viz. I7panat, Z2eLpLa,AlyAcLdand 'IKapta,52indeed no other Attic
deme name, bears any resemblance to Oisia.
Rhakidai (p. 120, No. 35) is assigned to Akamantis by Photios.
Sporgilos (p. 121, No. 39) also appears as a demotic, Sporgilios, in Stephanos of
Byzantium.
THE LATE ROMAN DEMES52bi

LATE ROMANDEMES ASSOCIATEDWITH CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMES (11 demes)
(a) ASSOCIATIONWITH APHIDNA

By far the most common association of the Late Roman demes was with
Aphidna. I attribute to the administration of this large Attic deme as many as
seven (there undoubtedly were more) small communities, a number of which had
attained, at least by the second century after Christ, a measure of independent deme
status.
Hyporeia (p. 115, No. 15) occurs a number of times in a fourth-century B.C.
inscription (I.G., JJII2,1594) where property is described as being located 'Aqisv ev
YrcpdEac. Later it appears in the Ptolemaid roster of the great deme-catalogue of
200 B.C. and, much later, as the demotic of two ephebes on an inscription dated
A.D. 155/6. Hyporeia has also been suggested by B. D. Meritt as the demotic of the
secretary in 246/5,53 whose tribal affiliation must be Aigeis. There are great diffi-
culties, however, in Meritt's proposal, chief among them the facts that (1) Hyporeia
was probably never a legitimate constitutional deme, certainly not in this period,
50 For the location of the sanctuary of Herakles Tetrakomos see references, above, p. 50, s.v.
Xypete, and I. Papademetriou, Iepcca 'A. KepapoorovAov, pp. 294-302.
51The reading is daggered in M. Schmidt's edition. Lekkon may be related to Leukopyra, also
listed by Hesychios.
52 The feminine and neuter
plural demes are discussed by D. M. Lewis, B.S.A., L, 1955, p. 13, and
LI, 1956, p. 172. Rhakidai may be in error for Pyrrakidai, see Hermes, XXVIII, 1893, pp. 627-628.
52bis Late Roman
may appear a misnomer in some instances, especially when applied to names
attested in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.I use the term, however, to emphasize the period of their
prominence, see below, p. 95, with note 78.
53 The Classical Tradition,
Literaryand Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, Cornell, 1966,
pp. 31-42, with references to the earlier publications, especially Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 11, where the
suggestion was first advanced.

when it was apparently a dependent community of Aphidna, and (2) Hyporeia, like
Aphidna, undoubtedly had a tribal affiliation with Aiantis, and later Ptolemais, but
not with Aigeis. The second point is strengthened, if, as proposed below, we remove
the analogy of the triple transfer of Perrhidai.54
Thyrgonidai (p. 121, No. 41), described by Harpokration as being transferred,
along with Aphidna, Perrhidai, and Titakidai, from Aiantis (quoting Nicander), and
as belonging to Ptolemais (quoting Demetrios Skepsios), also appears in the Ptolemaid
roster of I.G.,JJII2,2362, in a group which includes Hyporeia, Eunostidai, Klopidai,
and Perrhidai. Like Hyporeia, Petalidai, and probably the other demes in the
group, Thyrgonidai was no doubt a very small community within the constitu-
tional deme Aphidna.
n
Titakidai (p. 122, No. 42). I addition to the reference by Harpokration in the
passage just cited, Titakidai is also mentioned by Stephanos of Byzantium, who
assigns it to Antiochis, but Stephanos is not at all reliable in such assignments
generally and confirms our suspicion of error in this particular instance by connect-
ing the eponymous founder of Titakidai with Aphidna. Titakidai occurs as a demotic
in one Ptolemaid prytany register, in two ephebic rosters (both of Ptolemais) and in
three gravestones, all six of these inscriptions dating from the second and third
centuries after Christ. Undoubtedly Titakidai also was a small community within
the regular deme Aphidna.
Perrhidai (p. 119, No. 28). In addition to the reference by Harpokration in the
passage cited above, Perrhidai is mentioned by both Stephanos of Byzantium, who
54The alternatives to Hyporeia (for the demotic of the secretary in 246/5) hitherto proposed have
been either to assume a stonecutter's error or to restore the demotic Hybades. Hybadai belonged to
Leontis and itsits restoration
restoration here necessitates aa second break, within two years, in the secretary cycles.
necessitats
heresecond
Moreover, as Meritt has shown (op. cit., pp. 38-41), Hybades provides a far less suitable length of line
than Hyporeieus (of course, Hybades followed by an interval of three spaces would also give the longer
line, and Meritt himself has argued that such an uninscribed space is possible in decrees of this period,
XXXII, 1963, p. 427). There is another possibility, however, which deserves consideration,
Heseria, XXXII,
and that is the restoration of the demotic as Lower Ankyle. Lower Ankyle (like its twin, Upper Ankyle,
which I assume was the section transferred to Antigonis in 307/6) was at least a legitimate con-
stitutional deme belonging to Aigeis, the phyle required by the regular tribal cycles for the secretary in
246/5. Admittedly, the special designations KaOv'Tepof(v) and v7revepOE(v) were not regularly used
when these demotics were cited in inscriptions, but they do appear on a number of prytany, bouleutic,
and ephebic lists from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. and also in the deme-catalogue of 201/0 (see
Appendix D, below, pp. 123-128). On these occasions it was obviously felt necessary to keep the in-
divided demes distinct (they were, after all, like the homonymous demes,
independent constitutional demes, each section having its own specific quota of representation in the
I
Council). suggest that similar circumstances might account for such a specific designation here, viz.
that it was felt necessary, near the beginning of this third-century tribal cycle, at a time when one
section of Ankyle belonged to Antigonis, to mark clearly that the secretary came from Aigeis. We know
also fromn Harpokration (s.v. AarrTpEZS) that Athenians occasionally specified which section of a
divided deme they belonged to, and there exists in the same author a parallel for the inverted order
posited here: 'Ap8qTrOS... iTposTr) 8ifpo TrCVTrfVEpOEV 'AypvAEwv.

THE ATTIC DEMES 89
describes it as a demein Aphidna, and Hesychios, who attributes it to Antiochis. But

Stephanos cannot be referring to Perrhidai as a constitutional deme, since no
regular Attic deme was located within another,55 and Hesychios is certainly in-
correct in his tribal affiliation, for there is no other evidence that Perrhidai was ever
connected with Antiochis. The lexicographers, as I have already noted, often made
such errors of deme identification and/or tribal affiliation. Perrheidai (the first letter
is not preserved, and the spelling of the vowel is epsilon-iota in contrast to the
regular iota elsewhere) appears as a demotic in a list of names identified by Dow as
prytaneis (Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 36, no. 3, line 11=68, line 25). A number of
difficulties in this text have already been pointed out by Dow himself and by other
scholars,56but the chief problem, I believe, is that Perrhidai had no known citizens,
other than the prytanis and his father in this text, and was therefore never a regular
Attic deme, certainly not in this period when it was obviously a dependent com-
munity within the constitutional deme Aphidna. The appearance of such a deme on
a prytany list would be unparalleled, at least prior to the second century after Christ.
Moreover, its proposed association with Oineis is out of all order, for Perrhidai, as far
as we know, was transferred directly, like its associated communities and the parent
deme Aphidna, from Aiantis to Ptolemais. C. W. J. Eliot has suggested the possibility
of restoring a demotic of Oineis in the Hesperia prytany list, and although one
should never lightly invoke the theory of a stonecutter's error, this is surely the
most likely solution here.57The mason, or the secretary who prepared the mason's
copy, might easily have confused the small and relatively unknown deme of
Tyrmeidai with the tiny community located within Aphidna but known separately
as Perrhidai. In cursive script the two names could appear very similar. This, of
course, is only a theory, but there is one additional piece of evidence which may be
presented in its support. In discussing the deme Ikarion B (above, p. 84) I pointed
out that I.G., JII2, 2362, line 53 should be read as Perrhidai and not Ikaria, as
Pritchett had proposed. Furthermore, the preserved letters and traces, as reported
by Pritchett and other epigraphers,58indicate that the spelling was the Perrhidai
55 Kirchner logically deduced that Aphidna in this phrase must be the trittys name. Eliot (Coastal
Demes, pp. 152-153) rightly rejected the basic assumption of Kirchner's argument, viz. that Perrhidai
was an independent deme in the fourth century B.C., but he was incorrect, in my opinion, in dating this
deme's formation to 307/6, for we now know that no demes were created in that year (and only one,
Berenikidai, was established in the reorganization of 224/3). I think it very possible (contrary to Eliot,
ibid., note 43) that Hesychios, in referring to Perrhidai, is using S&ios in a non-Kleisthenic sense.
56 S. Dow, Hesperia,
Suppl. I, p. 38; W. K. Pritchett, A.J.P., LX, 1939, pp. 258-259; B. D. Meritt
in The Classical Tradition, Ithaca (New York), 1966, p. 33; Eliot, Coastal Demes, p. 152, note 37.
57 Coastal Demes, p. 152, note 37. For even more blatant confusion of demotics see S. Dow,
Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 100, with note 1, and Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, p. 427 (= 130), lines 132-133,
where Krotate'a was cut in error for TkaAqpe'a.
58 I believe I can make out on the Princeton squeeze (but it may be only my "mind-driven eye")
the slanting stroke once read by Pritchett, as well as traces of what would be the first rho of Perrhidai.
I note that Gell's transcript of I.G., II2, 6481, line 2 could be restored [IH]fppiov, cf. Kirchner, loc. cit.

(iota alone) known from the lexicographers, not the supposed [P]errheidai (epsilon-
iota) from the Hesperia prytany inscription. I conclude, therefore, that there was no
deme Perrheidai, that the community was called Perrhidai, and that the text of
Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 36, no. 3, line 11 was cut in error for Tyrmeidai.
Petalidai (p. 119, No. 29). Two inscriptions from the middle of the fourth
century describe property as being located 'AtS e'v HIeraAS&cuand 'AqiSv3rmlev
H1eraASCLv.These phrases immediately invite comparison with Hyporeia (see above,
p. 87), and no doubt Petalidai, Hyporeia, Perrhidai, etc., were all small communities
within Aphidna. With Perrhidai restored in line 53 of I.G., II2, 2362, only Pentele
and Petalidai, which begin pi-epsilon, are available in Ptolemais for the restoration
in line 52. Pentele was affiliated originally with Antiochis, but Petalidai, as just
mentioned, was located in Aphidna and would naturally belong with Thyrgonidai,
Hyporeia, Perrhidai, etc. which appear in this very section of the deme-catalogue.
On this basis, then, I suggest the restoration of Petalidai in line 52 of I.G., II2,
2362.59 Two ephebes of Ptolemais, both obviously from the same family, bear this
demotic near the middle of the second century after Christ.
Eunostidai (p. 114, No. 12) first occurs in the Ptolemaid roster of the deme-
catalogue, inscribed immediately below Hyporeia and in the same group as Perrhidai
and Petalidai (if my restorations are correct). It next appears nearly a century later,
in 108/7, as the demotic of Xenokleides, father of one Pamphile who helped prepare
the peplos for Athena.60 In Late Roman times it reappears as the demotic of two
ephebes belonging to Ptolemais. It is only an inference, based mainly61 on the
grouping in the deme-catalogue, but it is at least possible that Eunostidai was also a
small community associated with the constitutional deme Aphidna (see below,
p. 98).
Klopidai (p. 116, No. 19) makes its first appearance in the Knights of Aristo-
phanes (line 79) where it is generally explained by scholiasts and commentators, on
the basis of the well-known Attic demotic Kropidai, as a deliberate humorous
invention by the author. KAQrIA[--] occurs as a place name in the fourth-century
property inscription I.G., II2, 1602,62 and is assumed by scholars to be the earliest
inscriptional reference to Klopidai. The name has also been read by Pritchett in the
deme-catalogue of 201/0,63 in which it appears immediately below Thyrgonidai.
More than three centuries later it reappears as the demotic of two ephebes, of two
59 There may be a trace of the vertical stroke which could belong to tau still preserved in the third
letter-space in this line, but again I cannot be sure of the reading.
60 I.G., 112,1036, line 37; the reading is by C. A. Hutton, B.S.A., XXI, 1914-16, p. 159.
61 See pp. 98-100, for a discussion of the arrangement of the deme-catalogue.The father of one of
the ephebes, it may be pointed out, bore the name Onasos, which is known a little earlier in Aphidna
(I.G., 112, 1755, line 14=Agora, XV, No. 275; I.G., II2, 8178).
62 The lambda in the text (cf. S.E.G., XXI, 577) is assumed to be an uncompleted delta.
63T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, p. 167.

THE ATTIC DEMES 91
prytaneis of Ptolemais,64 and of the exegete of Pythian Apollo. On the basis of its
appearance in I.G., II2, 2362 in the company of several other communities which
certainly or probably were associated with Aphidna, Klopidai also is tentatively
affiliated with this constitutional deme and is assigned to Aiantis for the period
prior to 224/3.
(b) ASSOCIATIONWITH OINOE

Melainai (p. 118, No. 25) is mentioned in the fourth-century property inscrip-
tion I.G., II2, 1602 (in the same text with Klopidai), but does not reappear on
inscriptions until the Late Roman period, when it occurs on a gravestone and in a
Ptolemaid ephebic list. In contrast, however, to the meager referencesin inscriptions,
there is a rich source of material concerning Melainai in the lexicographers and
ancient authors. The name, despite slight variations in spelling, has an assured
legendary connection with Melanthos and the festival of the Apatouria and a
geographical association with Oinoe nd Panakton.65 and inoe d Melainai were both
. Oie
members of Ptolemais, transferred to that phyle apparently from Demetrias (see
above, p. 27), and since each phyle contributed only one constitutional deme to
Ptolemais, and Oinoe was the contribution of its phyle Hippothontis, it is virtually
certain that Melainai was not a regular Kleisthenic deme, but rather probably a
dependent community within the territory of Oinoe. Stephanos' attribution of
Melainai to Antiochis is clearly in error.
(c) POSSIBLE ASSOCIATIONWITH DEKELEIA

Sphendale (p. 121, No. 38) is mentioned by Herodotos as one of the points along
Mardonios' march from the Megarid to Tanagra via Dekeleia; presumably it was
located between the last two.66 Sphendale is also described by Stephanos of Byzan-
tium as a deme belonging to Hippothontis and it appears on two Late Roman
inscriptions, on one as the demoticof a Hippothontid ephebe,66bis8and on the other as
the demotic of two protengraphoi who bear the unusual and non-Attic names
Sotimianos and Seilianos. Clearly Sphendale was a small community near the
64 Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, p. 211, no. 66; the text has been restudied and redated to about
A.D. 175, see Agora, XV, No. 392.
65 Fora discussion of the literary evidence concerning the location of Panakton, see Karten von
Attika, Text, VII-VIII, pp. 15-18; on the identification see L. Chandler,J.H.S., XLVI, 1926, pp. 6-8.
The fort of Korynos was suggested by Sarres as the location of Melainai, but see J. R. McCredie,
Hesperia, Suppl. XI, 1966, pp. 83-84.
66On the location of Sphendale see Karten von Attika, Text, IX, p. 27, and J.H.S., XLVI, 1926,
pp. 3-4.
66bis In a fragment of I.G., II2,2061, etc. (see M. Th. Mitsos, 'Apx. 'E., 1950-51, pp. 33-37, no. 17),
as yet unpublished.

Boeotian border associated with one of the constitutional demes in the trittys to
which Dekeleia, Oion Dekeleikon, and possibly also Anakaia, belonged.
(d) POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION WITH KOLONAI

Pentele (p. 119, No. 27), the well-known quarrying center, occurs on a large
number of fifth-century inscriptions as a place name, but is rejected by most scholars
as a Kleisthenic deme.67Although Stephanos of Byzantium assigns it to Antiochis,
it appearasas a demotic of Ptolemais on three Late Roman ephebic catalogues. It
also occurs on two other Late Roman ephebic lists in which the phyle is not specified.
If we are to trust Stephanos' attribution, then Pentele ought to have been associated
with one of the two constitutional demes from Antiochis which were later affiliated
with Ptolemais, viz. Aigilia and Kolonai, the latter having been transferred first
to Antigonis and then to the Egyptian phyle. Any topographical connection between
Pentele, located at the monastery Mendeli,68and Aigilia is out of the question, but
the location ofKolon ai is uncertain and it has been assigned, at least by one scholar,69
to the region of Pentele. On this basis, then, I would advance the suggestion that
Pentele was originally a dependent community within the area of the constitutional
deme Kolonai, and that by Late Roman times it had attained a measure of autonomy
as an independent deme.
(e) POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION WITH RHAMNOUS

Psaphis (p. 120, No. 34), the well-known Boeotian town located near Oropos,70
appears on three Late Roman inscriptions, once as the demoticof an Aiantid ephebe,
and on the other two occasions as the demoticor ethnic of two protengraphoi and a
dedicator to Apollo Gephyraios.7l Undoubtedly Psaphis was never a regular Attic
deme, but its inclusion in the Athenian tribal organization, as indicated by the
single Aiantid ephebic list, suggests that it may have been associated unofficially
with the nearest constitutional deme, viz. Rhamnous.
LATE ROMAN DEMES WITH UNKNOWN CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION (8 demes)

There are eight additional Late Roman demes, all of which have no known
location and, as yet, no association with any of the constitutional demes. Only one,
Kykala, is attested (as a reference in a property inscription) prior to the second
century after Christ, and only one, Leukopyra, is mentioned by the lexicographers.
For references see Pritchett, Five Tribes, p. 31, note 68.
67
68 On thelocation see Karten von Attika, Text, III-VI, pp. 33-34.
69 WV. E. Thompson, Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, p. 65. I take issue with one point of Thompson's
reasoning: Pallene did not lie at the foot of Pentelikon, but at the northern tip of Hymettos.
70
See, for example, Strabo, IX, 1, 22, and, on its location and history, E. Meyer, R.E., s.v. Psaphis.
71 The choice of
Apollo Gephyraiosmay have topographical significance, see below, p. 115, No. 13.

THE ATTIC DEMES 93
Akyaia (p. 113, No. 2). Three ephebes of Ptolemais, two of them obviously from
the same family, bear this demotic about the middle of the second century after
Christ; one of the ephebes reappears about a half dozen years later as a hypo-
sophronistes. Another demesmanwas Secretary of the Boule and Demos in A.D. 168/
9. One may speculate on the earlier history of Akyaia, as also on the earlier histories
of the other seven demes treated in this section, but that it was not a regular con-
stitutional deme is clear.
Amymone (p. 113, No. 4) appears as a demoticon three ephebic lists, on two of
which it is identified with the phyle Hippothontis, and also on one gravestone, all
dating from the second or third centuries after Christ.
Ergadeis (p. 114, No. 11) occurs as a demotic of Antiochis in one prytany
catalogue, in one unidentified list, and in three ephebic rosters. The earliest of the
ephebic inscriptions is dated to the year A.D. 126/7, just at the time the phyle
Hadrianis was being established; another belongs about A.D. 166/7 and lists as
belonging to Ergadeis two unusual and non-Attic names, Bakchylos and Beithynikos.
Etymology is sometimes employed to suggest a Laureion location for this deme,72
but Epyaar4pta, if this indeed provides the correct derivation for Ergadeis, could
also belong to the city as well as to a mining area, and both the inland and coastal
trittyes of Antiochis included mines or quarries.
Kykala (p. 116, No. 20) occurs only twice, once as a place name in a property
inscription dating from the fifth century B.C., and a second time, nearly six centuries
later, as the demotic of an Aiantid ephebe in A.D. 163/4. The tribal affiliation with
Aiantis in the second century after Christ precludes any possible association with
Aphidna, to which we have assigned so many other small communities.
Kyrteidai (p. 116, No. 21). Described (with slightly differing spelling73) by
Hesychios as a deme belonging to Akamantis, Kyrteidai is well known from the
Late Roman inscriptions, chiefly the ephebic lists, but also one prytany catalogue,
I.G., II2, 1775 (=373), in which it has two representatives. The second of these
councillors, Zenon, son of a homonymous father, is almost certainly to be identified
with the Secretary of the Bouleutai in the Akamantid prytany list of the preceding
year (I.G., JJII2,1774= 371, A.D. 167/8), in which he appears at the end of the register
(the regular position for this officer in this period) below the single representative of
Kerameis. It may be noted in passing that Kyrteidai does not appear in the earlier of
these prytany lists, nor Kerameis in the later, and it is possible (following the parallel
72 R. Loper, Ath. Mitt., XVII, 1892, p. 422; A. Milchhofer, R.E., s.v. Ergadeis. On the meaning of
Epyaa9rrptov as "cistern/washing-table complex" see R. J. Hopper, B.S.A., LXIII, 1968, p. 324.
Alternately, it may be derived from 'ApyaSxs, one of the four Ionic phylai (cf. L.S.J.9, s.v. E'py'8es,
citing manuscript readings from Plutarch, Solon, 23).
73KvpTcX'Sat;
the curtailed form KYPTIin the ephebic list I.G., II2, 2086, line 87, however, probably
stands for Kvp-rZSat.

of the demes discussed in the preceding section) that Kyrteidai was originally a
dependent community of Kerameis or of another Akamantid deme.74
Leukopyra (p. 117, No. 24). Described by Hesychios as a deme of Antiochis,
Leukopyra is also well known as a demotic from one occurrence in an Antiochid
prytany list (I.G., II2, 1781, line 33=380; the reading and interpretation of the
letters lambda-epsilon-sigma, however, are open to question and these letters may
in fact belong to a name) and six occurrences, representing at most three families, in
ephebic rosters of Antiochis. All of the inscriptions have been dated later than the
middle of the second century after Christ.
Phyrrhinesioi or Phyrhnesioi (p. 120, No. 32) appears as a demoticin as many as
four prytany registers of Antiochis, all of them dating from either the second or
third century after Christ. One of the prytaneis, Eulogos, son of Kleonymos, from
the text dated after A.D. 216, occurs in an ephebic list of about twenty-five years
earlier in which the ephebes were not given demotics although they were arranged
by phylai.75The demoticof Phyrrhinesioi, however, does occur in two other ephebic
lists, both dating from the Late Roman period. In one of these the Antiochid tribal
affiliation is made clear.
Semachidai B (p. 121, No. 37). One Semachidai had a well-known continuous
history in Antiochis and has at last been located with much probability in the
"Epakria," as suggested by Philochoros.76A second Semachidai (the ending is not
actually preserved, but it is naturally assumed to have been identical with the
Antiochid demotic) is known only from the Late Roman period, as the demotic of
two Ptolemaid ephebes, one of whom bears the unusual name Dareios. The two
Semachidai (if indeed there were two such demes, and the evidence for the Ptolemaid
section is not simply the result of error in the inscribing of the ephebic lists) are
generally assumed to have been sections of a divided deme. If this is true, then the
division, like that of the other divided demes, ought to date from the original
organization of Attica by Kleisthenes, but whereas each section of Agryle, Pergase,
Ankyle, Lamptrai, Paiania, and Potamos (the other divided demes) has a long and
well-attested individual history and the two sections together have at least two
representatives in the Council, only one deme Semachidai, and that with a single
74 Kirsten, I note,
assigns Kyrteidai to the city (Atti terzocongr., p. 166), but on what grounds I
do not know; he classifies the assignment as unsicher. It is more commonly placed in the coastal trittys
(cf. R.E., s.v. KvpreZSat,and H.-G. Buchholz, Arch. Anz., 1963, col. 497), but the evidence for this
assignment, the supposed etymological connection with KVptrev and KV'pTO, is weak.
75 On the circumstances and significance of the omission of demotics in the ephebic texts there has
been much discussion and wide difference of opinion; cf. J. A. Notopoulos, A.J.P., LXIX, 1948,
pp. 415-417; 0. W. Reinmuth, T.A.P.A., LXXIX, 1948, pp. 211-231; XC, 1959, pp. 209-223; XCIII,
1962, pp. 374-388; and S. Dow, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil., LXIII, 1958, pp. 423-436; T.A.P.A., XCI, 1960,
pp. 381-409. These discussions, however, deal largely with isolated omissions, and not, as in the present
case, with texts in which all names are listed without demotic.
76 Above, p. 54.

THE ATTIC DEMES 95
councillor, is attested prior to the Late Roman period. Moreover, the manner in
which Ptolemais was organized indicates very strongly that Semachidai B was not
a regular constitutional deme, at least not in 224/3 B.C. The theory of a divided
deme is therefore rejected and Semachidai B is assumed to be another Late Roman
deme.77
CONCLUSION
THE SPURIOUS AND LATE ROMAN DEMES
In conclusion, I suggest that a large number of names which have previously
been considered by Schoffer, Dinsmoor, and other scholars as Attic demes have no
basis for inclusion in the class of Kleisthenic or later constitutional demes. Of the
forty-three additional demes I have discussed, twenty-four, or more than half, may
be rejected outright; they appear on no prytany or bouleutic list and they have
nothing even approaching what could be called a body of known citizens. Indeed, a
significant number of the demes in this class are purely fictitious, the result of error,
ancient or modern, or of misinterpretation. A sizable number of others, however,
nineteen to be precise, are reasonably well known, chiefly from inscriptions of the
second and third centuries after Christ,78 i.e. subsequent to the formation of
Hadrianis, but also occasionally from citations in the authors. None has a large
body of citizens, but several have a half dozen, and one, Kyrteidai, has perhaps as
many as two dozen (counting patronymics) known members. Six of these demeseven
occur as demoticsin prytany catalogues, indicating that they had representation in
the Athenian Council and thereby fulfilled, in the second period of thirteen phylai,
the second of my criteria for consideration as constitutional demes. The majority
of these Late Roman demes are attested, either from property inscriptions or
references in the lexicographers and other authors, formerly as place names, and it
is probable that if we had more evidence all would turn out to have had earlier
histories. The tribal affiliations are mainly with Hippothontis, Antiochis, and
especially Aiantis and, later, Ptolemais; where locations are known, they are
77The reference to a Semacheion in the mining inscription I.G., II2, 1582 (lines 53-54; n 0o'
?7 eco
7Ov 'Payo6vos Vt Aavpcov qE'pova Ka Z'pa I etov)has been taken by Solders and Gomme (references:
W. K. Pritchett, Five Tribes, p. 32, note 71) as evidence for the location of the Antiochid deme
Semachidai in the Laureion region. If Semacheion were more certainly identified as a place name (see
Pritchett, loc. cit.), this location would be most attractive, since it would leave Semachidai-in-the-
Epakria to be identified with the Late Roman deme Semachidai B and to belong to the same region,
near Aphidna, and to the same phyle, Ptolemais, as the other Late Roman demes,Thyrgonidai,Titakidai,
Perrhidai, etc.
78 All of the demes classified as
"Late Roman," with two exceptions, are attested in inscriptions
from the second and third centuries after Christ. Perrhidai and Thyrgonidai are not directly attested
in this period, but because of their obviously close associations with other "Late Roman demes" they
have been so classified.

generally in northern Attica near the Boeotian border (one certainly, and several
others possibly, were Boeotian towns). In a number of cases, it is known or suspected
that they were located within a regular constitutional deme, particularly Aphidna;
in a few other instances I have hypothesized or suggested such affiliations; but in
all cases I conclude that for political purposes they were originally dependent on
the legitimate Kleisthenic demes. Their appearance, chiefly in the Late Roman
ephebic rosters, but also on prytany catalogues, on dedications, and on grave
monuments, was probably a matter of local pride and their status as constitutional
demes never official. By the second and third centuries after Christ the long-estab-
lished system of Kleisthenes was perceptibly weakening, as evidenced by the
reduction of tribal membership in the Council from fifty to forty representatives,79
by the waiving of the rule on the number of councillorships a citizen might hold,80by
the decline, or even disappearance, of several Kleisthenic demes,81 and by the
absence of demotics from a significant number of the prytany and ephebic lists.82 It
is possible, indeed it is to be expected, in these late and declining days of Athenian
history that some communities, which in earlier years would have been assigned to
one of the constitutional demes, attained a measure, either officially or, more likely,
unofficially, of independent deme status.83 Just as the breakdown in the system of
fixed bouleutic quotas had come many centuries earlier, shortly after the establish-
ment of the second period of twelve phylai, now, shortly after the initiation of the
second period of thirteen phylai, a more serious breakdown occurred in the political
organization of Attica.
THE NUMBER OF ATTIC DEMES: THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Two ancient sources are commonly quoted with respect to the number of Attic
demes. Herodotos (V, 69) states:
8EKa rTe8 e'Trodtr7e [o KAetecrevris], E'Kca
cvAatpxovs avrnt reacrepcov be KcaUrovs itiLovs
KarEVeqLE Es- -ra&g bvAcas.
wordswere once employed as evidence for a total of one hundred Attic demes,
These words
ten in each phyle, but with the studies of Milchhofer and Loper came the realization
79See above, p. xvi, and note 10.
80 SeeD. J. Geagan, Athenian ConstitutionAfter Sulla, p. 75.
81 See above, p. 58, note 15.
82 See above, pp. xv and 3 for the omission of demotics in the prytany lists; for the ephebic
texts see references, above, note 77.
83 Shifts in
population cannot have been the only cause, for the population composition of Attica
must have been changing throughout history. Certainly fashion, as indicated by the rapidly rising
number of Athenians in the second and third centuries after Christwho obtained Roman citizenship and
imitated Roman ways, played an important role in the decline of the traditional Athenian bouleutic
organization. The decline in the Kleisthenic system was matched by an increasing interest in the pre-
Kleisthenic phratries and gene, see J. H. Oliver, Hesperia, Suppl. XIII, 1970, p. 47 and passim.

THE ATTIC DEMES 97
that the system of Kleisthenes embodied more than one hundred demes and that
one of the phylai, Aiantis, had significantly fewer than ten. Consequently, Herodotos'
use of 8E'Ka in reference to the number of demes has for some time now been generally
accepted as distributive, i.e. Kleisthenes assigned the demes to the phylai in ten
groups.84
The other ancient author generally referred to on the subject, Strabo (IX, 1, 16),
provides a less ambiguous answer. Strabo cites Hegesias:
oIroS [O' Ev oVv evos EcvraOQr Tco)V Elv aKpoTro'AEt
'Hyaolas] E
OAErL JLov 1oXHoAEcvy' o TEpLI-
y^r?7 reTrapa p3tfAla avveypabe Treprr av vaOrqarwcov rTv- Ev
vaKpoTroAEt. rO S' avaAoyov
rv aAAov r^ T0'roAECS0
aTvfIatvEL Kat E7iTL /.Ep3^V Kal r^ xco)pap 'EAXEvalva -EITV
Ee Eva ToV
EKarTv cEo/3u o/vTa 8&r4xov, 776
l Kat errrapcov, u baatv, ovSeva T6v Awcov ovo6laKEV.
To Strabo and his source the total number of Attic demes was one hundred and
seventy, or one hundred and seventy-four. The differing totals likely reflect two
traditions and are particularly significant in indicating that even in antiquity there
was some uncertainty concerning the number of Attic demes.85 By Strabo's time
(and also by Polemon's, but not Hegesias'86) two new constitutional demes, viz.
Berenikidai and Apollonieis, had, of course, been added to Kleisthenes' total, but a
large discrepancy still remains between my figure of one hundred and forty-one and
Strabo's total of one hundred and seventy (or one hundred and seventy-four). This
discrepancy is to be explained, I believe, only by the assumption that Strabo and
his source were referring to Attic demes as villages and not as the political units of
Kleisthenes' organization.87
Support for this interpretation may be found in the use of Sq-ot not only by
84 See, for
example, the discussion by J. E. Sandys, Aristotle, 'AO-qvacwv HIoAirela,ed. 2, 1912, p. 84.
The emendation 84KaXaby Lolling has been accepted by many editors.
85 The uncertainty undoubtedly was derived from the fact that the number itself was not significant
(cf. Sandys' remark, loc. cit., "To Cleisthenes, however, the exact number of the demes was immaterial;
the unit of his reorganisation of the tribes was not the deme but the group of demes, the Trittys.").
The demes were the most natural, but least noteworthy aspect of the Kleisthenic system. The trittyes
and the phylai, on the other hand, were the more artificial and significant features of the organization,
and their numbers were of course all-important. For discussions of the number of fifth-century demes
see references, Pritchett, Five Tribes, p. 27, note 55. On the dates of these sources see R.E., s.vv.
Polemon 8 and Hegesias 13.
86 The passage quoted, however, requires some elucidation. The reference to Polemon must be
complete with ev a&KpoWO'AEl, for the following sentence can refer logically only to Hegesias' cursive
account of Attica; the introductory Se, as well as the repeated mention of Eleusis, confirms this. There
is nothing in the words of Strabo, however, to compel the attribution of the figure for the number of
demes to Hegesias, and the source of the additionalfour is certainly general, as the words Wc#oaatv
naturally imply. Addendum:I note that I have been anticipated in this interpretation by G. C. Richards,
Class. Rev., X, 1896, pp. 383-384.
87A corruption of the figure in the tradition is, of course, possible, but this should not be the first
assumption here.

the ancient authors in general (see above, p. 73) but also by Strabo himself, who
completes his summary of the Attic demes (which began with the passage quoted
above) as follows:88
KapLZav-t SE r2qv Kara TO 2ovvtov a'Kpav aJ6oAoyog 8-f1L,OSzOVVlOV, Etra o90'ptKOS, EtIra
Horaos rIos ov'rC KaAov'evos, E' oo' oo' e
oro, a Hpacra, ZreIpLa,
Bpavptav, o'"rov rO rrrjg Bpavpwvtas' 'Ap-rEtd8os tEpov, ['AAat 'Apafrq]vtiEs?, o'TOVTO
Trs- Tavpo7roAov, Mvpptvovs, IpoflaAtvOos, Mapa0awv, KTrA.
The appearance of Brauron, never a Kleisthenic deme, in a list which includes

Prasiai, Steiria, Halai, Myrrhinous, Probalinthos, etc., all regular Athenian con-
stitutional demes, is a strong confirmation that Strabo certainly, and his source
probably, were considering demes only in the general sense of towns or communities
and not in the technical sense of political units.89
THE DEME-CATALOGUEI.G., 112, 2362

I turn now to consider the great demelist I.G., II2, 2362, which is probably the
chief evidence supporting Strabo's figure of one hundred and seventy, or one hundred
and seventy-four, Attic demes. In 201/0 B.C., after the dissolution of the Macedonian
phylai and before the creation of Attalis and the initiation of the long second period
of twelve phylai, a list was drawn up which was intended (it was never completed)
to include all the demes which I have defined as constitutional, and, in addition,
in the roster of Ptolemais at least, a number of other names which I have char-
acterized as Late Roman demes.90
This roster of Ptolemais merits closer scrutiny. The last three lines, above the
tribal heading of Akamantis, cannot now be read, but traces of the preceding seven
lines are still clearly in evidence. The first of these, Thyrgonidai, the second last,
Hyporeia, and also the line immediately above Hyporeia, Perrhidai (according to
my restoration), were names affiliated with, or actually located within, Aphidna,
and it is reasonable to assume that the remainder of these place names were also
associated with Aphidna.91 Indeed, Aphidna probably headed this section of the
list.
88 IX, 1, 22.
89Strabo, as the narrative makes clear, was interested in the demes as villages and not as political
units; his discussion relates to their historical, topographical, and mythological, but not their con-
stitutional, significance.
90For the appearanceof Graes and Phegaieis in the roster of Pandionis, which I have attributed to
error, see above, p. 82.
91The chief objection to this theory is the restoration by Pritchett and Schebelew of Phlya in line
51 (see T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954, pp. 165-166), but the traces in the third letter-space in this line do
not, in my opinion, resemble upsilon. Nicander's list in Harpokration was, after all, probably far from
complete, and this name may belong to a community as yet unknown in Aphidna. Phaneros may have

THE ATTIC DEMES 99
Such an arrangement is reasonable in the deme-catalogue of 201/0, for it is

obvious that the demes of several of the phylai in this inscription have been grouped
with some care, apparently by rTplrrTVErv rrpvravewv.92 This no doubt was also the
official or semi-official scheme of listing the demes in some of the fourth- and third-
century registers.93For the post-Kleisthenic phylai, on the other hand, if we may
judge by the bouleutic list of 304/3 and several of the prytany lists belonging to the
early years of Antigonis and Demetrias, the general rule was to list the demes
according to the official order of the tribes from which they had been transferred.
For example, the roster of Antigonis in the bouleutic list just cited begins with the
three demes contributed by Erechtheis, continues with the three from Aigeis and
Pandionis respectively, then several of the Leontid demes, before the stone breaks
off. The roster of Demetrias in the same inscription is arranged in a similar manner,
with the exception of
exceptionXypee
of Xypete and several of the small demes transferred from the
last phylai, which must have been listed out of place.94A similar arrangement for
the demes of Ptolemais seems probable onthe great catalogue of 201/0: Aphidna and
its dependent communities, which appear near the bottom of the Ptolemaid roster
inI.G., II2, 2362, originally belonged to Aiantis, the second-last phyle, prior to 224/3.
Furthermore, if we trust Lolling's readings (and they are generally reliable95),then
we, with Kirchner, should restore Aigilia in line 56 of the deme-catalogue. The last
been just such a community: see I.G., II,JJ2, 1594

1594, line 40, [eepc EaX]aTLa 'Ait VTOTa OaVE[p]ct. I.G., II 2,
2362, line 51 might thus be restored: [0]a[vepo'?] . More probably, however, Phaneros is simply a
topographical reference and not a community.
92 On
TrptTrvs ToV iTpvTacvewvsee W. E. Thompson, Historia, XV, 1966, pp. 1-10. The Akamantid
roster in I.G.,II2, 2362 (as far as preserved) makes perfect sense according to Thompson's theory: the
first five names belong to the city and are followed by Eitea (the location of which is unknown but
could be either city or inland) and two inland demes. The Leontid roster also can be construed to make
good sense, if we allow (1) that one of the coastal demes has been listed out of order (only one deme,
either Potamos or, as in Kirchner's text, Sounion, can be restored in line 41), (2) two Potamos demes
were assigned to the cityTpTnTVs Trov TpVTraVEW, and (3) Oion Kerameikon wasas assigned to the inland
TpLTTVs TCV ,rpVTaV(V (see above, pp. 44-46). In the Pandionid roster Oa is obviously out of place, regard-
less of what was intended in lines 29 and 30. The roster of Aigeis also appears to be arrangedby trittys,
granted that Otryne belongs with the city demes, either from its location or from the lending of its
membership to the city rpgtrvs r irpv-raveov. Only one roster, Erechtheis, fails to accord with
Thompson's theory, unless the composition of theTpLTTves Trv 7rpvVTaveWv for this phyle varied widely
from year to year; Euonymon, Pergase, and probably Kephisia, at least, were listed out of order in
I.G., II2, 2362. See above, pp. 38-39, note 9, 40-41, notes 11, 13, and 42, note 14, and now P. J. Rhodes,
Historia, XX, 1971, p. 403.
93 See W. E.
Thompson, locc. citt., and now, P. J. Rhodes, loc. cit.
94 It should also be
pointed out, however, that, in contrast to the treatment of the rosters of
Antigonis and Demetrias, the rosters of the original phylai in the lists of 304/3, 303/2, and 281/0 were
not arrangedaccording to any obvious scheme; they were certainly not arrangedby trittys.
95 Pritchett, who accepts none of the readings in this line (T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954,
p. 167), has,
on other occasions, stoutly defended the general reliability of Lolling's readings.

two lines,96below Aigilia, in the roster of Ptolemais might belong to Semachidai B

(accepting the suggestion above, p. 95, note 77) and Berenikidai, or to Kolonai and
Pentele, if Kolonai, in 201/0, was regarded as a contribution of Antiochis to which
it was originally affiliated, and not as a direct donation of Antigonis to Ptolemais.
It appears, then, that the small communities associated with Aphidna (and
perhaps some communities affiliated with other Attic demes) were considered by the
year 201/0 as deserving individual listing in the deme-catalogue, although this, in
itself, does not indicate their existence as separate constitutional demes. The total
number of entries in I.G., II2, 2362, if it had been completed, would obviously have
been greater than the one hundred and forty constitutional demes then in existence,
but it is unlikely to have been as high as the one hundred and seventy (or one
hundred and seventy-four) recorded by Strabo, for, with the exception of the
Ptolemaid communities just mentioned and Graes and Phegaieis in Pandionis, the
rosters include only the regular Kleisthenic demes. The deme-catalogue thus offers
only slight support for Strabo's figure for the number of Attic demes and no support
for considering as consttional those demes over and above my total (for this
period) of one hundred and forty (see below, Appendix E, p. 132, note 3).
The catalogue I.G., II2, 2362 gives rise to another field of inquiry which concerns
deme nomenclature. Some demes (Pergase, Bate, Potamos, Kettos, etc.) appear in
the list as proper nouns, while others (Pambotadai, Paionidai, Pelekes, Koloneis,
Cholargeis, etc.) appear in the plural form of the adjective, i.e. the plural of the
demotic, even though several of them, Cholargeis for instance, have a well-known
nominal form. The particular choice, where there is one, is probably of no significance
in the deme-catalogue, but it is significant, I think, that in the inscriptions generally,
in the lexicographers, and in the ancient authors, only one form, usually the
familiar plural patronymic ending in -idai,97 is chosen for some demes. The often
obvious connection of such demes with early Athenian history and legend is not
necessarily an argument for their early origin (the tribal names, after all, imply an
ancient existence, but all ten, as is well known, were instituted in the time of
Kleisthenes), still, a number of them must belong to the distant Athenian past, for
they are identical with, or closely related to, well-established Athenian gene with
long pre-Kleisthenic histories; Philaidai, Paionidai, Ionidai, and Boutadai are
several examples,98 and there would undoubtedly be more, were our knowledge
96 Pittakys' reading of npo'[UfTara] in line 57 has been accepted by no recent editor.

97 Some of the demes in -idai have, of course, nominal forms, e.g. Konthyle and Konthylidai. A
few others ending in -oi, e.g. Phrearrhioi,appear to be plurals, but may in fact be derived from locatives,
(cf. pe'appot,Stephanos Byz., Hesychios). Kerameis, and the two later demes Apollonieisand Antinoeis,
are the only constitutional demes ending in -eis for which no properdeme name is known. It is significant
that all three legitimate later demes exist as deme names only in the plural form of their demotic.
98 Cf.
J. Toepffer,Attische Genealogie,s.vv.

THE ATTIC DEMES 101
greater concerning the early Athenian gene.99The majority of the Athenian demes,
places such as Marathon, Sounion, Trikorynthos, Probalinthos, Sphettos, Peiraieus,
and Eleusis, have a long history as Attic communities (several of them, from their
names and the evidence of archaeology, undoubtedly date from the earliest periods
of habitation in Attica). These demes, of course, were, where possible, undoubtedly
taken unchanged into the Kleisthenic system. But a number of others, perhaps as
many as thirty, i.e. the -idai demes (all of them, judging from their representation,
very small communities often with unknown or very tentative locations, e.g.
Sybridai, Pambotadai, Tyrmeidai, and Hippotomadai), surely represent demes
specially organized by Kleisthenes.100 Many of them undoubtedly were adopted
from gene and other associations whose resident members perhaps were concentrated
in particular areas.101Outside the city these demes could be used to unite groups of
very small and perhaps isolated communities into political units of minimal size so
as to facilitate a regular form of representation, while inside the city they might
serve to break up the more densely populated areas into distinct citizen-bodies. All,
even the latter, of course must have had a geographical reference point for the
centering of deme government, for which purpose the well-established cult centers
associated with the gene and other societies would be ideal.
Some support for this theory may be derived from the well-known passage in
Aristotle's 'AOrvatcovHoATrela(XXI, 5) 102which describes the naming of Kleisthenes'
demes:
7po0r77nyopEva E ToWv &7J,luv TovS Ev arLTOTWV TO7TOV, TOVS SE arTO TWOV KTtCravTCTV 0V
yap a7ravTes vTrrjpXov ETL TOlS To0T0S.
Tovs uE.Vd7ro rv Trncldv were the well-known demes, such as Marathon, Sounion,
Eleusis, etc., already long in existence. For what other reason would Kleisthenes
have kept both the confusing homonymous demes and probably also the divided
demes? To(vs SEo dori (r1cvKTEicaVTov were the newly constituted demes, i.e. the
majority of the demes with the patronymic ending, most of which, like the Kleisthenic
tribal names, had an eponymous
KTeaeU7S. A number of these no doubt were artificial
99Ibid., pp. 315-316.
100A version of this theory was advanced at least as early as George Grote (long before the dis-
covery of Aristotle's 'AOqvacwcovHIoAvirea);see his History of Greece,London, 1846-56, vol III, part II,
ch. X. The list should include (bouleutic representation in parentheses; demes with unknown or un-
certain location in italics): Pambotadai (1/0); Sybridai (1/0); Philaidai (3); Ionidai (2/1); Kydantidai
(1/2); Skambonidai (3); Aithalidai (2); Cholleidai(2); Eupyridai (2); Hybadai (2); Kropidai (1); Paionidai
(3); Eiresidai (1); Iphistiadai (1); Boutadai (1); Hippotomadai (1); Lakiadai (2); Perithoidai (3);
Tyrmeidai (1/0); Kothokidai (1/2); Epieikidai (1); Daidalidai (1); Keiriadai (2); Thymaitadai (2);
Auridai (1?); Eroiadai VIII (1); Eroiadai X (1); Semachidai (1).
101Note, however, the obstacles which the largerreligious organizationspresented to the Kleisthenic
reforms, see D. M. Lewis, Historia, XII, 1963, pp. 33-34.
102 See D. M.
Lewis, ibid., pp. 26-27.

TABLE: THE NUMBER OF ATHENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL DEMES
X PHYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII PHYLAI XI PHYLAI XII PHYLAI
fin. s. VI-308/7 307/6-224/3 223/2-201/0 200 B.C. 200/199-126/7
Erechtheis 14 11 10 13 12
Aigeis 21 17 16 20 19
Pandionis 11 8 7 10 9
Leontis 20 15 14 19 18
Akamantis 13 10 9 12 11
Oineis 13 10 9 12 11
Kekropis 11 8 7 10 9
Hippothontis 17 14 13 15 14
Aiantis 6 6 5 5 4
Antiochis 13 10 9 11 10
Antigonis 15 14
Demetrias 15 14
Ptolemais -- 12+1 13 12
Attalis 11+1
Hadrianis
TOTAL 139 139 140 140 141

THE ATTIC DEMES 103
entities, not natural geographical communities: as stated in the 'A6rqva'cvHoA&rea,

c't
ov yap arTavTrevrr-rpXov TOos TOrTOLS, "for no longer did all the demes correspond
to the places."
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMES, A SUMMARY
Just as I argued that the conservatism of the system of representation expressed
in the regularity of the fourth- and third-century B.C. quotas suggested strongly that
these quotas belonged to the original political organization of Kleisthenes, so I think
the manner in which the later phylai were created, a further indication of the same
Athenian conservatism, confirms the definition of the Athenian constitutional
demes just offered. Antigonis, established in honor of Antigonos Monophthalmos,
and Demetrias, created in honor of Antigonos' son, Demetrios Poliorketes, were
formed by taking three demes from each of the existing phylai, with the exception of
the smallest, Aiantis, which provided none, and the largest of the phylai (in demes),
Aigeis and Leontis, which provided four and five respectively to make up for Aiantis.
But no new demes were created in 307/6. Ptolemais, established in honor of Ptolemy
III Euergetes, was formed by taking one deme from each of the twelve phylai
existing in 224/3 and adding one new deme, Berenikidai, created in honor of the
ruler's consort, Berenice. Attalis, established in honor of Attalos I of Pergamum,
was formed in a similar fashion, viz. by taking one deme from each of the twelve
phylai existing in 200 B.C., and adding one new deme, Apollonieis, named after the
ruler's consort. Similarly, the last phyle, Hadrianis, was formed by taking one deme
from each of the twelve phylai existing in 126/7 and adding, shortly after, a new
deme, Antinoeis, established in honor of the ruler's favorite, Antinoos. These three
demes, Berenikidai, Apollonieis, and Antinoeis, were the only constitutional demes
deliberately created after the original political organization of Kleisthenes and
each was established only under the special circumstances of the creation of a new
tribe. It is likely that we shall yet discover more unofficial Late Roman demes and
perhaps even additional divided demes will be proposed by scholars, but it is very
improbable that we shall discover yet a new deme from the political organization of
Kleisthenes.

APPENDIX A
PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS WITH LITTLE OR NO

EVIDENCE FOR REPRESENTATION
INSCRIPTIONS IDENTIFIED BY PHYLE
The following one hundred and three prytany inscriptions, although identified by phyle, preserve
little evidence for representation and have not been included in the Tables of Representation (below,
I-XV).1
TABLE I ERECHTHEIS
Agora, XV
98=Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 171-173, no. 26; S.E.G., XXI, 384; ca. a. 250 a.; (*1+
Kephisia)
133=Hesperia, III, 1934, pp. 10-11, no. 13; ca. a. 215 a.; (*1+ Kephisia)
162=Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 184-185, no. 35; S.E.G., XXI, 423; init. saec. II a.; (*1+
Kephisia)
220 =Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 142-146, no. 79; XV, 1946, pp. 140-142, no. 3; XXVI, 1957, pp. 74-
77; S.E.G., XVI, 96; a. 164/3 a.
231=Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 191-192, no. 40; S.E.G., XXI, 462; ca. med. saec. II a.; (*1+
Lamptrai)
238= I.G., II2, 967; Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 153, no. 85; a. 145/4 a.
239=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 153-155, no. 86; a. 145/4 a.
249=Hesperia, II, 1933, pp. 163-164, no. 9; a. 125/4 a.
252=I.G., 112, 1004; a. 122/1 a.
254=I.G., II2, 989; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 162-165, no. 96; XXVI, 1957, pp. 25-28, no. 1; S.E.G.,
XVI, 100; a. 104/3 a.; (*1+ Pergase)
344=Hesperia, XXI, 1952, p. 376, no. 29; S.E.G., XII, 103; saec. II p.
TABLE II AIGEIS
Agora, XV
153=Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 189-190, no. 38; S.E.G., XXI, 425; init. saec. II a.; (*11
Erchia)
160=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 93-94, no. 43; init. saec. II a.; (*1+ Philaidai)
180 =Hesperia, XL, 1971, pp. 308-311, no. 9; a. 184/3 a.; (or Oineis)
222=I.G., 112, 952; a. 161/0 a.; (*1+ Kolonos, *1+ Philaidai)
235, saec. II a.; (1 + Gargettos); (or Kekropis, 1 + Sypalettos)
266=Hesperia, XVII, 1948, pp. 30-31, no. 14; a. 64/3 a. (?); (*1+ Plotheia)
335=I.G., II2, 1771; Hesperia, XVII, 1948, pp. 37-38, no. 22; a. 138/9-150/1 p.
1 For precise figures on the distribution of texts by phyle see above, p. xvii, Table, and for the
symbol *1+, p. 3.

PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS 105
TABLEIII PANDIONIS
Agora, XV
208 =Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 233-234, no. 43; S.E.G., XXIV, 174; a. 172/1 a.; (or Ptolemais)
253=Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, pp. 22-23, no. 23; S.E.G., XXI, 478; a. 118/7 a.
265 =Hesperia, XVII, 1948, pp. 26-30, no. 13; a. 74/3-63/2 a., but not 64/3; (*1+ Paiania)
277=Hesperia, XV, 1946, pp. 226-228, no. 54A; Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, p. 197, no. 48; S.E.G.,
XXI, 491; ca. med. saec. I a.
361=Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 48-49, no. 16; ca. a. 159/60 p. vel paullo ante
363=Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 49, no. 17; ca. a. 160/1 p.
381 =Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 31, no. 1; a. 169/70 p. vel paullo post
385 = I.G., 112, 1777; paullo post a. 170/1 p.
TABLE IV LEONTIS
Agora, XV
167=Athenian Year, pp. 195-200, no. 3; S.E.G., XXI, 440; a. 193/2 a.
282=I.G., 112,3502; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 175-176, no. 107; ca. a. 45-30 a.; (*1+ Oion)
317=Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 240-241, no. 50; S.E.G., XXIV, 186; aet. Rom.; (1+ Oion);
(or Attalis)
TABLE V AKAMANTIS
Agora, XV
70=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 38-39, no. 4; ca. a. 290-275 a.
77=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 39-42, no. 5; a. 280-275 a.; (*1+ Iphistiadai)
81 =Hesperia, XVII, 1948, pp. 2-3, no. 2; XXXII, 1963, p. 7, no. 7; S.E.G., XXI, 372; a. 267/6 a.
131 =Hesperia, XV, 1946, pp. 146-147, no. 7; ca. a. 220 a.; (assignment to Akamantis uncertain)
184=Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 246-247, no. 49; XXVI, 1957, pp. 66-67, no. 18; S.E.G., XVI, 86;
a. 182/1 a.
186= I.G., II2, 864; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 95-96, no. 46; Chronologyof Hellenistic Athens, pp. 111-
113; a. 181/0 a.; (*1+ Sphettos)
269=Hesperia, XII, 1943, pp. 64-66, no. 17; a. 53/2 a.
270=Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 40-41, no. 8; a. 53/2 a.
379 =I.G., II2, 1778; a. 169/70p.
433=Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, p. 38, no. 35B; S.E.G., XXI, 676; fin. saec. II p.; (assignment to
Akamantis uncertain)
475 =I.G., 112, 1823; post ca. a. 217p.
TABLEVI OINEIS
Agora, XV
41=I.G., II2, 2833; a. 339/8 a.
80=Athenian Year, pp. 192-194, no. 1; S.E.G., XXI, 369; a. 271/0 a.
83=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 52-54, no. 11; ca. a. 260 a.; (*1+ Lousia, *1+ Thria)
87=I.G., II2, 702; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 63-64, no. 21; a. 256/5 a.
110=Hesperia, II, 1933, pp. 500-503, no. 15; Suppl. I, pp. 65-66, no. 22; ca. a. 243-237 a.
147=I.G., 112,915; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 89-91, no. 40; XVII, 1948, pp. 14-16, no. 6; XXVI,
1957, pp. 243-246, no. 96; S.E.G., XVII, 29; Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, p. 180, no. 30;
S.E.G., XXI, 405; a. 203/2 a.; (*1+ Oe, *1+ Acharnai)
180 =Hesperia, XL, 1971, pp. 308-311, no. 9; a. 184/3 a.; (or Aigeis)
215 =Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 133-135, no. 72; a. 167/6 a.
268=I.G., 112, 1049; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 170-171, no. 101; a. 57/6 a.; (*1+ Phyle)

394= I.G., 112, 1787; a. 175/6 p.

404=Hesperia, XVI, 1947, p. 179, no. 83; ca. a. 180 p.
444=I.G., 112, 1804; Hesperia, XX, 1951, pp. 64-65; ca. a. 197/8-199/200 p.
TABLEVII KEKROPIS
Agora, XV
35=Hesperia, X, 1941, p. 40, no. 7; a. 343/2 a.
120=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 73-76, no. 29; a. 228/7 a.; (*1+ Phlya)
173=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 91-92, no. 41; XXVI, 1957, pp. 63-64, no. 17; S.E.G., XVI, 81;
a. 189/8 a.; (*1+ Pithos)
181=Hesperia, X, 1941, pp. 277-279, no. 74; a. 184/3 a.; (*1+ Sypalettos)
199=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 126-127, no. 69; XXVI, 1957, pp. 68-69, no. 20; S.E.G., XVI, 89;
a. 175/4 a.
235, saec. II a.; (1 + Sypalettos); (or Aigeis, 1 + Gargettos)
315=Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 239-240, no. 49; S.E.G., XXIV, 182; saec. I/II p.; (*1+
Melite)
429 = Hesperia, XXIX, 1960, pp. 34-36, no. 42A, antefin. saec. II p. (the assignment to Kekropis
is uncertain)
461 = Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 67-68, no. 33; a. 213/4-219/20 p.
462= Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 69, no. 34; a. 213/4-219/20 p.; (the assignment to Kekropis is
uncertain)
TABLEVIII HIPPOTHONTIS
Agora, XV
219= Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, pp. 72-77, no. 22; S.E.G., XVI, 95; a. 164/3 a.
250 =I.G., II2, 1003; Hesperia, II, 1933, p. 165; a. 125/4 a.
251 = Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 158-160, no. 92; a. 124/3 a.; (assignment to Hippothontis uncertain)
327=Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, pp. 73-74, no. IA; S.E.G., XXI, 604; a. 132/3-137/8 p.
TABLE IX AIANTIS
Agora, XV
40=Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 461-464, no. 9; a. 339/8 a.
51 =Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 39, no. 25; a. 325/4 a.
71=Hesperia, IX, 1940, pp. 84-85, no. 15; a. 283/2 a.
121=A.J.P., LXIII, 1942, p. 422; a. 226/5 a.
202=Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, pp. 71-72, no. 21; S.E.G., XVI, 90; a. 174/3 a.
289a=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 183-185, no. 114, frag. B; ca. a. 25 a.; (1+ Phaleron)
324=Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, pp. 213-214, no. 61; S.E.G., XVII, 35; ante a. fere 138 p.
328=Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, pp. 73-74, no. IB; S.E.G., XXI, 604; a. 132/3-137/8p.
TABLEX ANTIOCHIS
Agora, XV
2=Hesperia, XXIX, 1960, pp. 36-37, no. 44; S.E.G., XIX, 150; a. 393/2 a.
28=Hesperia, VII, 1938, p. 93, no. 13; saec. IV a.
171=Chronologyof Hellenistic Athens, pp. 121-123; a. 190/89 a.; (*1 + Alopeke)
177; a. 188/7 a.

PRYTANY INSCRIPTIONS 107
204=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 127-129, no. 70; ca. a. 176/5-170/69 a.; (*1+ Semachidai) (assign-
ment to Antiochis not certain)
301 =Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 198-199, no. 50; S.E.G., XXI, 497; fin. saec. I a.; (*1 + Besa)
Tribute to Benjamin D. Meritt,
390 =I.G., JJII2,1831; a. 174/5 p.(?) (dated now 182/3, see o0'pos,
1974, pp. 150-155, with Addendum)

Agora, XV
57=Hesperia, XXVI, 1957, p. 208, no. 55; S.E.G., XVII, 64; post a. 307/6 a.; (Antigonis or
Demetrias)
84=Hesperia, XXXII, 1963, pp. 7-10, no. 8; S.E.G., XXI, 376; a. 257/6 a.; (*1+ Gargettos);
(Antigonis)
91=Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 54-55, no. 12; med. saec. III a.; (*'1+ Lamptrai, *1+ Kolonai);
(Antigonis)
135=Hesperia, XXIII, 1954, pp. 236-239, no. 7; S.E.G., XIV, 68; a. 214/3 a.; (*1+ Paiania);
(Antigonis)
TABLE XIII PTOLEMAIS
Agora, XV
172=Chronology of Hellenistic Athens, pp. 123-125; a. 190/89 a.
185 =Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 148, no. 83; ca. a. 181/0 a.
208 =Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 233-234, no. 43; S.E.G., XXIV, 174; a. 172/1 a.; (or Pandionis)
221= I.G., 112, 972; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 146-147, no. 80; a. 164/3 a.; (*1 + Aigilia)
325=Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, pp. 219-220, no. 64; S.E.G., XXI, 744; post a. 126/7 p.; (*1+
Phlya)
326=I.G., 112, 1762; a. 131/2 p.
360 =Hesperia, XVI, 1947, p. 175, no. 77; ca. a. 160-170 p.
TABLE XIV ATTALIS

Agora, XV
176= Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 109-110, no. 53; a. 188/7 a.; (*1+ Atene)
183= I.G., II2, 902; Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 111-112, no. 55; a. 182/1 a.
213= Hesperia, Suppl. I, pp. 141-142, no. 78; a. 168/7 a.; (*1+ Sounion, *1+ Atene)
232= I.G., II2, 921; Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 126, no. 68; ca. med. saec. II a.; (*1+ Probalinthos)
246=I.G., 112,977; Hesperia, X, 1941, pp. 282-283, no. 77; a. 131/0 a.; (*1+ Probalinthos, *1+
Sounion)
313=Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 37-40, no. 8; saec. I/II p.; (*1+ Sounion, *1 + Hagnous)
314=Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 40, no. 9; saec. I/II p.
317=Hesperia, XXXVI, 1967, pp. 240-241, no. 50; S.E.G., XXIV, 186; aet. Rom.; (1+ Oion);
(or Leontis)
329 =I.G., 112, 1763; ca. a. 132/3 p.
367= Hesperia, XII, 1943, pp. 76-78, no. 23; a. 165/6 p.; (*1 + Athmonon)
405 =I.G., 112, 1791, a. 181/2 p.
455= Hesperia, XXX, 1961, pp. 288-289, no. 181; S.E.G., XXI, 615; Hesperia, XXXIV, 1965,
p. 97, no. 7; S.E.G., XXII, 140; fin. saec. II p.
TABLE XV HADRIANIS
Agora, XV
353= I.G., 112, 1773a; post med. saec. II P.

INSCRIPTIONS NOT IDENTIFIED BY PHYLE

The reader is referred to Agora, XV, fiassim, for the one hundred and thirty-seven prytany and
bouleutic inscriptions which have not been identified by phyle and preserve little or no evidence for
representation.2
2
Thyhave been included above, p. xvii, in the Table to Illustrate the Distribution of Texts by
Phyle and by Period.

APPENDIX B
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEM

ASSIGNMENT TO THEIR PHYLAI1
X PHYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII PHYLAI XI PHYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII
No. DEME fin. s. VI-308/7 307/6-224/3 223/2-201/0 201-200 200/199-126/7 127/
1 Acharnai Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
2 Acherdous Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
3 Upper Agryle Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
4 Lower Agryle Erechtheis Antigonis id. Erechtheis Attalis id.
5 Aigilia Antiochis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
6 Aithalidai Leontis Antigonis id. Leontis id. id.
7 Aixone Kekropis id. id. id. id. id.
8 Alopeke Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
9 Amphitrope Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
10 Anagyrous Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
11 Anakaia Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
12 Anaphlystos Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
13 Angele Pandionis id. id. id. id. id.
14 Upper Ankyle Aigeis Antigonis id. Aigeis id. id.
15 Lower Ankyle Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
16 Antinoeis - - - Hadria
17 Aphidna Aiantis id. Ptolemais id. id. Hadria
18 Apollonieis Attalis id.

19 Araphen Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
20 Atene Antiochis Demetrias id. Antiochis Attalis id.
21 Athmonon Kekropis id. id. id. Attalis id.

22 Auridai Hippothontis Antigonis2 id. Hippothontis id. id.
23 Azenia Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
24 Bate Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
25 Berenikidai Ptolemais id. id. id.
26 Besa Antiochis id. id. id. id. Hadria
27 Boutadai Oineis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
28 Cholargos Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
29 Cholleidai Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
30 Daidalidai Kekropis Demetrias id. Kekropis id. Hadria
1 This table is based on W. B. Dinsmoor, The A rchons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age, Appendix B, pp. 111 117, but the La
Demes have been treated separately, below, pp. 113-122.
2 Either Auridai or
Korydallos was in all likelihood transferred to Antigonis (see above, pp. 26-27).

APPENDIX B-(contd.)
No. DEME fin. s. VI-308/7 307/6-224/3 223/2-201/0 201-200 200/199-126/7 127/8
31 Deiradiotai Leontis Antigonis id. Leontis id. id.
32 Dekeleia Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
33 Diomeia Aigeis Demetrias id. Aigeis id. id.
34 Eiresidai Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
35 Eitea Akamantis Antigonis id. Akamantis id. Hadria
36 Eitea Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
37 Elaious Hippothontis id. id. id. id. Hadria
38 Eleusis Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
39 Epieikidai Kekropis id. id. id. id. id.
40 Epikephisia Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
41 Erchia Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
42 Erikeia Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
43 Eroiadai Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
44 Eroiadai Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
45 Euonymon Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
46 Eupyridai Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
47 Gargettos Aigeis Antigonis id. Aigeis id. id.
48 Hagnous Akamantis Demetrias id. Akamantis Attalis id.
49 Halai Aixonides Kekropis id. id. id. id. id.

50 Halai Araphenides Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
51 Halimous Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
52 Hamaxanteia Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
53 Hekale Leontis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
54 Hermos Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
55 Hestiaia Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
56 Hippotomadai Oineis Demetrias id. Oineis id. id.
57 Hybadai Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
58 Ikarion Aigeis Antigonis id. Aigeis Attalis id.
59 Ionidai Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.

60 Iphistiadai Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
61 Kedoi Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
62 Keiriadai Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
63 Kephale Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
64 Kephisia Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
65 Kerameis Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
66 Kettos Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
67 Kikynna Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
68 Koile Hippothontis Demetrias id. Hippothontis id. id.
69 Kollytos Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
70 Kolonai Leontis id. id. id. id. id.

APPENDIX B-(contd.)
X PHYLAI XII PHYLAI XIII I X PHYLAI XI XI PHYLAI XIII
No. DEME fin. s. VI-308/7 307/6-224/3 223/2-201/0 201-200 200/199-126/7 127/8
71 Kolonai Antiochis Antigonis Ptolemais id. id. id.
72 Kolonos Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.

73 Konthyle Pandionis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
74 Kopros Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
75 Korydallos Hippothontis id.2 id. id. Attalis id.
76 Kothokidai Oineis Demetrias id. Oineis id. id.
77 Krioa Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
78 Kropidai Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
79 Kydantidai Aigeis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
80 Kydathenaion Pandionis Antigonis id. Pandionis id. id.
81 Kytheros Pandionis Antigonis id. Pandionis id. id.
82 Lakiadai Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
83 Upper Lamptrai Erechtheis Antigonis id. Erechtheis id. id.
84 Coastal Lamptrai Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
85 Leukonoion Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
86 Lousia Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
87 Marathon Aiantis id. id. id. id. id.
88 Melite Kekropis Demetrias id. Kekropis id. id.
89 Myrrhinous Pandionis id. id. id. id. id.
90 Myrrhinoutta Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
91 Oa Pandionis id. id. id. id. Hadria
92 Oe Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
93 Oinoe Hippothontis Demetrias Ptolemais id. id. id.
94 Oinoe Aiantis id. id. id. Attalis Hadria
95 Oion Dekeleikon Hippothontis id. Ptolemais id. Attalis id.
96 Oion Kerameikon Leontis Demetrias id. Leontis id. id.

97 Otryne Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
98 Upper Paiania Pandionis Antigonis id. Pandionis id. id.
99 Lower Paiania Pandionis id. id. id. id. id.
100 Paionidai Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
101 Pallene Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
102 Pambotadai Erechtheis id. id. id. id. Hadria
103 Peiraieus Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
104 Pelekes Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
105 Upper Pergase Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
106 Lower Pergase Erechtheis Antigonis id. Erechtheis id. id.
107 Perithoidai Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
108 Phaleron Aiantis id. id. id. id. id.

APPENDIX B-(contd.)
No. DEME fin. s. VI-308/7 307/6-224/3 223/2-201/0 201-200 200/199-126/7 127/8
109 Phegaia Aigeis id. id. id. id. Hadria
110 Phegous Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
111 Philaidai Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
112 Phlya Kekropis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
113 Phrearrhioi Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
114 Phyle Oineis Demetrias id. Oineis id. id.
115 Pithos Kekropis id. id. id. id. id.
116 Plotheia Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
117 Poros Akamantis Demetrias id. Akamantis id. id.
118 Upper Potamos Leontis id. id. id. id. id.
119 Lower Potamos Leontis Demetrias id. Leontis id. id.
120 Potamos
Deiradiotes Leontis Antigonis id. Leontis id. id.
121 Prasiai Pandionis id. id. id. id. id.
122 Probalinthos Pandionis id. id. id. Attalis id.
123 Prospalta Akamantis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
124 Ptelea Oineis id. id. id. id. id.
125 Rhamnous Aiantis id. id. id. id. id.
126 Semachidai Antiochis id. id. id. id. id.
127 Skambonidai Leontis id. id. id. id. Hadria
128 Sounion Leontis id. id. id. Attalis id.
129 Sphettos Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
130 Steiria Pandionis id. id. id. id. id.
131 Sybridai Erechtheis id. id. id. id. id.
132 Sypalettos Kekropis id. id. id. id. id.
133 Teithras Aigeis id. id. id. id. id.
134 Themakos Erechtheis id. Ptolemais id. id. id.
135 Thorai Antiochis Demetrias id. Antiochis id. id.
136 Thorikos Akamantis id. id. id. id. id.
137 Thria Oineis id. id. id. id. Hadria
138 Thymaitadai Hippothontis id. id. id. id. id.
139 Trikorynthos Aiantis id. id. id. id. Hadria
140 Trinemeia Kekropis id. id. id. id. id.
141 Tyrmeidai Oineis id. id. id. Attalis id.
142 Xypete Kekropis Demetrias id. Kekropis id. id.

APPENDIX C
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SPURIOUS AND LATE RO

DEMES AND THEIR SOURCES
No. DEME SOURCE PHYLE DATE CLASS
R
1 Agriadai 'AlcIvreo
'Arjvila KaOKIa 'AvcKa,
AV K?
r Hippothontis Spurious S
'AXEpSoVKal AypteSat, 8jpot. Trava rravra
'IT7rroowovrTios, I. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca,
I, p. 348
2 Akyaia EVTVXlrSnD 'AKVa[iLEV] [ KpcaTepos) 'AKv- Ptolemais 142/3 Late
[aev'g], ephebes, I.G., II2, 2049, lines 52-53 Roman
KparepoS ) 'AKVtCtVS', hyposophronistes, I.G., 147/8 vel
II2, 2059, line 68 paullo post
'E,7ra0p68tTos3Kpare'pov'AKV,ephebe, I.G., II2, Ptolemais 154/5
2067, line 75
"Ayvo0sZvu,0opov 'AK[vaLeC'.s], Secretary of the 168/9
Bouleand Demos, I.G., II2,1775, line 44 =373,
cf. Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 50, no. 18, line 16
3 Amphitrope B TrT[1r] T[p]VT[a']V[[WV -- - ........] Antigonis or 306/5 Spurious
I.G., II2, 1492, lines
Ai&ov 'A,btr[p]o0r7E0v, Demetrias
95-96 (97-112 belong to Oineis, prytany X,
and 112-124 to Antiochis, prytany XII in
306/5)
4 Amymone [---'A&,v].cwvEE?Vs I [--- -'A]pvLcoVeeVs, Hippothontis 221/2 Late
ephebes, I.G., II2, 2226, lines 50-51; [- - ] Roman
'A.uvp,wcve[ev's, IeAr., XXV, 1970, p. 185,
no. 1, line 29
Tp6oLtp.os Atodavrov 'A,uv, protengraphos, I.G., paullo ante
II2, 2046, line 17 140 p.
[--- -] IpoTo[- - 'AJvvv]ovaev's, I.G., II2, s. IIp.
5604, gravestone
'ErrlyovosD 'Auttvi, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2207, line Hippothontis init. s. III p.
25
5 Anakaia B ["E]A7rtaTOS 'AlaKat, thesmothetes, I.G., II2, Demetrias 220/19 Spurious
1706, line 76

APPENDIX C-(contd.)
No. DEME SOURCE PHYLE DATE CLASS R.E

6 Atene B [7r]oAKAEOp,iWov 'AT?,v,I.G., II2, 1706, line 73 Antiochis 220/19 Spurious -
(corrected to 'AZgv, Hesperia, XVII, 1948,
p. 21)
7 Chastieis XacaTL' T'Ov d7ro or8,tov. XacTrtEs-, ovo'oa Unknown Spurious S
8&rtov, Hesychios
8 Chelidonia TOXEAt8ctvta 8uJOS-,Arcadius, ed. Barker, p. 99 Unknown Spurious S
9 De -- - 'TpoTXptXos AE, ephebe, I.G., III, 1138, line 41, Antiochis 173/4 Spurious 3
corrected by Kirchner to w'oTptXos D)Ae(vKo-
7TVpev's ), I.G., II2, 2103, line 162
10 Echelidai 'EXEA18at, 8Pos9 Ts ^'ATTKs ...... a7ro Unknown Spurious
"EAovs To'rov TOV HeLpatc'(0S
P1?ETacV ovroS
Kal roV TErTpaKWCtOV 'HpaKAEIov .... o
8O'T.Sr,rs 'ExeA(?s,i8, Stephanos Byz., ed.
Meineke (cf. Etym. Magnum, "EXEAos 'jpcos
'
trap 'AOTqvaiog
LspoSi evos :alt$i!os' 'ATT:KI7
'EXeSata7lTO TOV)
KaErVOV Aov r Tr rTw,).
1 Ergadeis LZ7wrpZwmcouv
o'Epya8, ephebe, I.G., 112, 2076, Antiochis 126/7 Late
line 17 Roman
BaKXv'Ao[ -- -] 'Epya&ev's BeLOvvKos Antiochis ca. 166/7
'Y,evacov 'EpyaSevs',ephebes, I.G., II2, 2094,
lines 19, 21
Evoaos D 'Epyaocevs, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2097, Antiochis 169/70
line 240
'EpyaSeZs | 'AOrvo'8wpos .E////eE, prytanis, Antiochis 221/2
I.G., II2, 1783, lines 47-48 =472
'Epya8els I [----], I.G., 112, 2486, line 62 Antiochis med. s. III
p.
12 Eunostidai E3vvoamoa't, I.G., II2, 2362, line 55 Ptolemais 201/0 Late
Roman
HajlAxl SevoKA[?Cò]v EvvoarLrrov, prepared Ptolemais 108/7
peplos for Athena, I.G., II2, 1036, line 37, as
read by C. A. Hutton, B.S.A., XXI, 1914-16,
p. 159
D
Atovvaodowpos EDvv, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2067, Ptolemais 154/5
line 76
AItovVòs 'Ovoaov EV, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2103, Ptolemais 173/4
line 113

APPENDIX C-(contd.)
No. DEME SOURCE PHYLE DATE CLASS R.

13 Gephyreis Fe9vpElSf, 8 OSg'ATTlKOS'... elpirlc ai o TOV Unknown Spurious
EXEWye?vpav, &' 7r 'EAevclva Ka'TcalV'
oti IV'ara, Etym. Magnum, ed. Gaisford (cf.
Suda, FepLSvps,eev-7 Kal e7rEcaKT0ro' ol yap
rIEvpalot, KTA.)
14 Graes rpam, I.G., JI2, 2362, line 30 Pandionis 201/0 Spurious
15 Hyporeia [aCreSoro E'oxa]Ttav 'ALSav ev 'Y7Twpda[] I Aiantis med. s. IV Late
[&epa eax7a]la ev 'Yrwpelat | [erApa faxa] a. Roman
T'n 'A&ASvev 'YTcpedcu | [eVrepav?]uracrtav
'Adf) ev 'Y7rcwpealtI[&repav]eaXartiav 'AloSv
Ev 'YvwpetatI[erepa acrXjarTa'Abi? ev
'Y'rTopedaL,I.G., II2, 1594, lines 29, 31, 33,
35, 37, 39
'YrrtpeL[a], I.G., II2, 2362, line 54 Ptolemais 201/0
[- - - - - -]8,OV 'YTr[WpeiLS ?], secretary Aigeis 246/5
Kara 7rpvtravetav, as restored by B. D. Meritt,
Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 11, line 2
c
[...... 9]vtKosD Yrc [...... 'E]Arrved 155/6
protengraphoi, I.G., II2,2068, lines46, 47
'Yrcow,
16 Ikarion B ['IKa]pI[a], I.G., 12, 2362, line 53, as read by Ptolemais 201/0 Spurious
W. K. Pritchett, T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954,
pp. 166-167, corrected here to [7ce]p.L'[at]
['A]qpoSimaos,'AOrqvo&opov 'IKa, ephebe, I.G., Ptolemais paullo ante
II2, 2107, line 24, corrected to 'EKa by M. Th. 180p.
Mitsos, B.C.H., LXXIII, 1949, p. 356
[Ho]A,Utov //oAXepvos <'IK>ap<, >E', I.G., Ptolemais ? post a.
II2, 2442, line 5, as emended by Koehler 200 a.
17 Kaletea KAAETEEYE, Pococke; KAA .... EYE, Pandionis 209/10 Spurious
Fourmont, corrected to KdA[At]aT[o]s? Ev}a
[efliov] ? by Kirchner, I.G., II2, 1077, line 57
18 Kikynna B K[iKVV]V?lS | NLKoarpros- | @EO < >on'[8]ov I Kekropis post med. Spurious
EVKpdrrs | II7oAvKpdrovs,I.G., II2, 1927, lines s. IV a.
37-41, as read by Chandler; the text probably
should be corrected to 'A[ptto]veZs,see Ath.
Mitt., XVII, 1892, p. 409, note 2, p. 414, note 1
and Hesperia, III, 1934, p. 188.

APPENDIX C-(contd.)

19 Klopidai o SE vovs ev KAwrrt8,i6v,
Aristophanes, Equites, 424/3 Late
79 (cf. schol. EvaAAay), cr otxeLov, ro p es Roman
A. Kpwardàt y&p 8o os r-js AeOVTi'3OS qvAj~s.
E1Tratev'ovv 7rpaT o KAeTTEWV)
KArT<8 >[v ---] I Avi[---] I air[EoOTo fin. s. IV a.
--], I.G., II2, 1602, lines 18-20; lapis
KAQHIA,S.E.G., XXI, 577
[K].Xaw[rmL], I.G., II2, 2362, line 50, asrestored Ptolemais 201/0
by W. K. Pritchett, T.A.P.A., LXXXV,
1954, p. 167
A7L,r)TpLos Mait KAro, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2041, Ptolemais 128/9
line 14; cf. (bLAOV'peEvos
Magi, ibid., line 15
MdctfLosIHpoaoK'lLov KAwo,ephebe, I.G., II2, Ptolemais 154/5
2067, line 64
KAw7rio'S | [A]vp Mdatpos I[At]KiV 9pC76Os, Ptolemais ca. 175 p.
prytaneis, Hesperia, XXXIII, 1964, p. 221,
no. 66, lines 19-21 =392
TI'A6ovtov [............ exegete
K]jAco7wm&qv, ca. 175-
of Pythian Apollo, Hesperia, XXVIII, 1959, 185 p.
p. 284, no. 12, line 8
20 Kykala opyo[80s] To hewav
rEs E[VTOSr \ Jv[to 414/3 Late
K]}XL 8avo'to r60[--0 -] |] [To SE AA]o Roman
I.G., I2, 325, lines 18-20
he',uav Ey KvKacAEL,
KA 'AOwviwv KvKaAEV'S,ephebe, I.G., II2, 2086, Aiantis 163/4
line 169
21 Kyrteidai KvpTraSaCt8pkos Trjs- 'AKaawVT18OSg VuAS, Akamantis Late
Hesychios Roman
KaA,Lia(XOs ZwucF[po]v KvpTed I EVKaprros D Akamantis 145/6
Kvp[Tre],ephebes, I.G., II2, 2052, lines 66-67
Zr4vwv D Kvp-r[de?s], I.G., II2, 2474, line 10, med. s. II p.
as read by M. Th. Mitsos, B.C.H., LXXIV,
1950, p. 222 =S.E.G., XII, 141
KvpTrlEZa I 'AydQOCvloi'/ov I Z,rvoYvD, pry- Akamantis 168/9
taneis, I.G., II2, 1775, lines 54-56=373 (for
Zvcvwvsee above, I.G., II2, 2474, and 1774,
line 59 =371)
'EAeV'OeposD KvpTE{`, gymnasiarch, I.G., II2, 163/4
2086, line 13; 'EAeVOepoS D Kvprei8)7S,

APPENDIX C-(contd.)

21 Kyrteidai- sophronistes, ibid., line 118; 'EAEV'OeposD
(contd.) Kvp, systremmatarch, I.G., JJII2, 2087, lines 6
and 26; 'EAEv'0Opos
D Kvp, sophronistes, ibid.,
line 60
'Av-rvos 9aOdAosKvp-r, ephebe, I.G., JJII2, Akamantis 163/4
2086, line 87
[-- - -]ov Kvp [- - - Mrjvoy]&ovs Kv, Akamantis fin. s. II p.
ephebes, I.G., II2, 2212, lines 3-4 (part
of I.G., JJII2,2134, cf. HoA'twov, IV, 1949, p. 24,
no. 4)
'AptiarLTrros D Kvpretirqs I 'Ayacov D Kvp- Akamantis 205/6
,eLt ?S, ephebes, I.G., II2, 2193, lines 80-
81; ['Ap`to,r]Tros [D] Kvp I['AycO]cov3 Kvp,
I.G., 112, 2194, lines 22-23
'ETrrvo8oSKal IIrTo[s] otl Mwqvoye'vovs Kvp- 212/3
e?Samt,.... EvraKTro Mrqvoyevovs, ... 'Ap-
Te.Ldas Mwrvoyevovs9 Kvpe- t 'IEpoKA27s
Mr1voyevovs KvprTl, ephebes and synstrem-
matarchs, I.G., II2, 2208, lines 97-98, 108,
111-112
EveATtnarTos Kv[pre?'r1s,] I Aito6avVTos Kv[p- Akamantis ca. 220 p.
TE7rsn], ephebes, I.G., JJII2,2229, lines 5-6
22 Lekkon AC'KKOV' 8posg 'AvTrtoxtosog ,vA s, Hesychios Antiochis
23 Coastal 8v'o ' Eltrl Aalrrrpal, atl pv rrapaAtaL, atl 8 = Lower 9
'
Lamptrai KaOv'T?pO0Ev 'ApLTaro0dvYrS 'A,4Lpe"AcJLau- Lamptrai
TpEVS EyEoyE TCOV KOaTo", Harpokration, s.v.
Aap7rrpels
Aa.Trrp w
rrdpaAot, Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 233, Erechtheis 367/6
no. 43, line 34 = 14
[Aa7-r-rp] 7s TrdpaAoL, I.G., II2, 1952, line 12 Erechtheis ante med.
s. IVa.
24 Leukopyra AevKorrTpa' Trs 'Avrtoxi`8os- qOvAXrs
8jos, Antiochis Late
Hesychios Roman
r
EVTVX'8rjs Zw'7qpiXOV AEVKO 'EA7rlVlKoS Antiochis 154/5
Zc2wrqptxovAEVKO7T, ephebes, I.G., II2, 2067,
lines 177-178
Zcorpltos' 3 Ae, ephebe, I.G., 112, 2103, line Antiochis 173/4
162

APPENDIX C-(contd.)

24 Leukopyra- [--- H]apotAov A?VKO I [--- -
c7]a&Aov Antiochis 190-192
(contd.) A?VKO,ephebes, I.G., II2, 2119, lines 75-76
[.. ..]wv D A?VK,ephebe, I.G., II2, 2128, line Antiochis 197-200
105
[...6...] Aev[Ko](7TvpCvs), prytanis, as re- Antiochis 169/70
stored by Kirchner, I.G., II2, 1781, line 33=
380
25 Melainai MEAa&tV,frlo, . T,S 'AvnrmoXSos /,vAfis. KaA- Antiochis Late

A'lLaxos Se McAatva'sSt'qrt TOV8L,ov KEKAjfa)at. Roman
o,torws MEAaXv{S . . ., Stephanos
O &r?,or17s
Byz.
.... 'AOrvalwv iroA,EpotvMov7rpos BotiTroUv
vrrep trns MeAavias xcopas MeAavOos'o r&-v
'AOrqvalv faafAeOs SdvOov rov Orfi3acwv
LuoYo/oap,cv oTrraT,7aa saITEKT?E?VEv, Harpo-
kration, s.v. 'Akra-rov'pta(from Ephoros)
.... 'AOrvalwv -rpos BowrTovs iroAqwovexo6v- Hippothontis?
TCTV irep&Olvo)s KacMeAwvw . .. , Etym. Mag-
num, ed. Gairsford, s.v. KovpedcTs
.... roA'E;oS lv 'AOf)vacots orposBoorrovs
Trep&KeAacv -v (=MeAawv6v), o fv XCwpov

p v
t?oplots...., schol. Aristophanes, Achar-
nians, 146
cf. also Polyainos, I, 19; Anth. Gr., ed. Bekker,
I, pp. 416-417, s.v. 'ATrarov'pta
Meave'[wov - --] I Awp6Oe[os - - -] ar- fin. s. IV a.
o'r[o ---] I| v OvAis [--], I.G., II2,
1602, lines 14-17
[---)] vac McAaxt, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2119, Ptolemais 190-192
line 55
0,,Ad[os] I'ETnKM[,os] I MeAa[wev'g], grave- aet. Rom.
stone, I.G., II2, 6823
26 Oisia TOSe Kr-()aia' Kat Otlat Kal Aova&a ovo#ata Unknown Spurious
8/Iwcov,Arcadius, ed. Barker, p. 99

APPENDIX C- (contd.)

27 Pentele 17eVTeA, .to! 'AvTt.oXt8oso vA-
oV f. SO u0T7OS Antiochis Late 1
EeveA,qOevs...., Stephanos Byz. Roman
AForTOuots 11[VTEEAs0ev] I AOayoyias IlHe- 439/8
[VTEAOEv],I.G., I2, 347, lines 36-37
[AXto]r6o'1ots HEVTE[XA0EV] .... II ... [At- 438/7
Oayoytias IlevTEA[Oev], I.G., 12, 348, lines 70,
74
cf. also I.G., I2, 349, lines 20, 23, etc. 437/6 etc.
Ev7'Arn,ros DJEv, protengraphos, I.G., II12, 139/40
2044, line 88
EtveArr'raov IHevre,
EjLcrawv ephebe, I.G., II2, Ptolemais 169/70
2097, line 77
AOVKKopv TEAEco0'poSIHvYT,hyposophronistes, 212/3
I.G., 112, 2208, line 24
"
28 Perrhidai NLKav8pos... EV Tr 7TEpl
8&)7pLW}V /fT?ET7'CaV" Aiantis Late
q)atLv "de AtavrTioso 'Aq8vacot, IEppISat, Roman
TLiTCKL'Sat,vpywviat .........," Harpokra-
tion, s.v. Ovpycovliat
HICppL'Sat.rT, 'ATTWKr 8rjLoSSv 'AE vaP,, Aiantis
Hesychios.
IIeppL'Sa, 8 [ios' rT 'APTLOXLSOS9 VA)S;. O Antiochis
K I7Eppt&3v, ELSH17ppLStv, EV HIEp-
87TJL40'Tr7S
p8a&v,Stephanos Byz.
[H]Epp?E8aL I [. . ...]ps Ka.tLKAI, prytanis, Oineis ca. 290-280
Hesperia, Suppl. I, p. 36, no. 3, lines 11-12=
68, corrected here to [T]<v >p <t >EZct ?
[I7E]pp.8[at], I.G., II2, 2362, line 53, as read Ptolemais 201/0
here (see Appendix E)
29 Petalidai [a&rgSo]roeXarntav 'A~t4 v TeraAI3[co] | Aiantis ined. s. IV Late

[&repo]v xcopiov 'Ajt$ ev I?EraXAScot,I.G., II2, a. Roman
1594, lines 46, 48
xwc[pt]lov 'At%v'qa e'v 7ETrcAt8ov, Hesperia, Aiantis paullo post
V, 1936, p. 402, no. 10, lines 154-155 348/7
'E&rVTr7roSHcraAt' i Ev3/ovAt&RsW 'Ern1Tcrov Ptolemais 143/4 or
HeZra, ephebes, I.G., 112, 2050, lines 75-76 144/5

APPENDIX C-(contd.)

30 Phyle B [C7r Mv'qa,$ ,!ov apXovros Ert,s *] Oineis 298/7 Spurious -
[. v,-Sos vdaT7ls]Tp[vTavEwas ....]
[........... ]yovs 0[vAados Eypap],
as restored in Hesperia, IX, 1940, p. 80,
no. 13, lines 1-3; corrected here to
[Cm N aKoavpdroVpXOVros;r rrlS A]
[rprfPrpd8osevcar1s] 7rp[vrravw'aS ^ 4]
[wpo'Oeos'Aparro. :]vovs 0[aXvpevsOEy]
31 Phegaia B 0PyatelZs, I.G., 112, 2362, line 29 Pandionis 201/0 Spurious
32 Phyrrhinesioi Ovpvi7aiot I| A AitOvvCrtO,prytanis, I.G., II2, Antiochis 138/9 Late 1
1764A, lines 33-34=333 Roman
vp4aL7ot | 'YyeZvos 'ApXqp'Sovs, I.G., II2, Antiochis ca.
1792, lines 50-51 = 423 192/3
'Ep,ueas KAeoVV'l,ovPvpv, ephebe, I.G., II2, Antiochis 192/3
2130, line 195
KAEoro'arpos KAEwvv'JLOv vpv atos, agono- paullo post
thetes, I.G., II2, 2133, line 12 192/3
[>PvppLv]jacOL! [--]XKAEa[- -], prytanis, I.G., Antiochis paullo ante
II2, 1818, lines 23-24=467 220 p.
|
(Pvppvr,arot EIAoyos KAowv[vupov],prytanis, Antiochis post 216 p.
I.G., 112, 1783, lines 49-50=472 (cf. I.G., I12,
2132, line 58)
33 Pol - - - Ko&vwos Z4Oov H7oA.,ephebe, I.G., II2, 2067, Hippothontis 154/5 Spurious
line 147
34 Psaphis [.... ]os 3 fa1 [. . 5. .]pos 0aA FWa/ , proten- 155/6 Late
graphoi, I.G., II2, 2068, lines 43-44 Roman
'Ap'alrwv ) Facit, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2130, line Aiantis 192/3
191
'AiToAAwvt reovptf I\ KA- eracevs s. II-III p.
Waotd?r7~S,I.G., II2, 4813
35 Rhakidai 'PaKIaS 8tp,os 'AKacLavTr1os, Photios, Akamantis Spurious
Lexicon, ed. Porson
36 Salamis ea[Aa/uts?], I.G., II2, 2362, line 51, as restored Ptolemais 201/0 Spurious
by V. von Schoffer (R.E., loc. cit.); restored
as [Z]X[vels] by W. K. Pritchett (T.A.P.A.,
LXXXV, 1954, pp. 165-166), and left un-
restored here as ['][-- -]
KvUKAijs ZwoZaAa, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2020, line ca. 10p.
32 vel paullo p.

APPENDIX C-(contd.)

37 Semachidai B Aa[pEZ]os <Ev >v6toov 2,llua, ephebe, I.G., 112, Ptolemais 163/4 Late 1
2086, line 82 (cf. Aapeos' Eivvo'povZ7rLax,I.G., Roman
112, 2087, line 53)
EqeoilAos 7-qpapc'v'rjia, ephebe, I.G., 112, Ptolemais 205/6
2193, line 73
[9E0'f]LAos. @r9pcqa' 2J-, ephebe I.G., 112, Ptolemais ca. 200 p.
2194, line 14
38 Sphendale ovrC 8r or. EopEVETO
[o MapSovios 0 T-rs Hippothon tis(?) a. 479 a. Late
Meyapt'os] aa eKe2EKA6r/' ot yap PoL)rdpXat, Roman
LTereT7rEtl,bavo TOVS 7rpoaxwpovs 'TrZv'Aacw-
TLMWV, oVTroL E aVrW T77V0 ov yfOYTO v e
C?EvSeAeX'asv, EVOV-reV ~8 Cg Tdvaypav, Herodo-
tos, IX, 15
SevSaA?,vr.Spos -to^s 'ArTrtKjS-, Hesychios
2kev&aA7', JrLos- 'Irz7TrOoxwvri8osovAXs. o 8r,- Hippothon ltis
ftoTns S(7?v8aAevs-. Ta TOTLKa f!?V8aAX7O?V,
2?evSaAXqvSE, E2JEv8ScAAatv,Stephanos Byz.
?wETitLLavos KaA E2ce Ij ZeAavos KcA 2oe, 155/6
protengraphoi, I.G., II2, 2068, lines 97-98
39 Sporgilos ZTropytAos', rpos- 'ArTTtKo'. o StxoTns SrropyI- Unknown
Atos, Stephanos Byz.
40 Sypalettos B ErT 'EriKpcrov
E K pTovlos EI Tr njsg Aewvcrcos Attalis 146/5 Spurious
EKTIs. TrpvTaVEitas.p(o) SE4V - - -] | vTraXqr-
TiOS! eypa4LCraTEVEv, KTA., Insc. de Delos, 1504,
lines 50-51; deme of secretary KarTarTpVTaveav
should be phyle XII
41 Thyrgonidai Ovpywvi8cat 'Ioatos C'V TO' 7Trpos NtKOKAE'a. Aiantis Late
NlKavSpos" O 9vaTrepTvos- Ev Tr' 7TEpt TWV Roman
87,tLWv ETereOrCTaav"/qaCLtv "e Alavr8os
'Aq3valZot,HpplSaL, T-raKL'Sac, evwpyWowat.
br7aF 8E Kat A )7L7/TpPLOs6 O zK2 LOS -v f/'
AlaKoalov rTS' IlTroAepJa`Sos-OvAXisrTOv8$Tiov Ptolemais
etvai, Harpokration, ed. Dindorf
Ovpywvr`-qs' $ Pos rsT- 'ATTlrrKS, Hesychios
Ov[pywwvA'Va], I.G., II2, 2362, line 49 Ptolemais 201/0
.... ol 3? TrcTKtIaL Kal OvpywwV'aL ( a.paTplaI
tLVEsKat yiEV7 C&oea, Etym. Magnum, s.v.
TtiraK8aOt

APPENDIX C-(contd.)

42 Titakidai INtKav8pOg . .. Er(VTC 7rov
ept TC8)V ft)V fLiererevo- Aiantis Late 1
aav" avuw"?e' AtavT8ios 'A#tavaZot, Hep- Roman
p[SaL, TITracK$at, Ovpywv[act,"Harpokration,
s.v. Ovpywv[Sat
TiraKcSat, 871os1 TS- 'AvTmoX[$os ,vA,Xs, rrgo Antiochis
TLTrCKOV TOV 7Tpo8OvroS A0qL[vas ToS Zlao-
0CKOVpOLS. 0 8,6T7S Tt1-raiSK`l ......
Stephanos Byz.
TLiaKLcSart 8/o's eanr Tr?s Alavrioso qvArs' Aiantis
,U7TroTe 8E' TO TOO V TLTraKOVdVO4XTCrraT, o6
V7LY,ovEVEt wHpoOTros. (Tra ['A0>i8vaS] 8,
TLtaKogSE'V avrTOX6OwV KaTarTpo&8oZ& Tw8a-
pifcnFt, IX, 73.) TrO 8 TLTraKatl K0al
9VpyCwvLxSa, cbparTptcCrTWs' Kal yevr7q 48oa.
ELSyap evTEAeCLv EKw)L)OOVvTO' Ovx 86
8OjiLOt,
WS rwvES otovrat, Etym. Magnum
'Eracyaoso D TTraKi, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2050, Ptolemais 143/4 or
line 74 144/5
'Appwos ZeUvs T~tra, ephebe, I.G., II2, 2067, Ptolemais 154/5
line 63
Tf.raKat | '"Ap[p]ioS Zeovts, prytanis, Ptolemais 168/9
Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 50, no. 18, lines 13-14
(cf. XII, 1943, pp. 78-79, no. 24) =372
'Ap <>arapXos 'AyaOcadpov TtTTaKL'8qS,I.G.,
112, 7540, gravestone
OPtAoKpacT7rs'AptaTroAov TLTTaKi`8s$,I.G., 112,
7541, gravestone
[- ... TEL]TaKL`'qs, [H1ap]OeVtov Aeovros s. II-1II p.
Tet(raKi8ov), Agora, XVII, no. 319, grave-
stone
43 Trinemeia B ZrAlto0(bv AnrpflfTplov TpLveWe, ephebe, I.G., Attalis? 101/0 Spurious
112, 1028, col. III, line 143; probably adden-
dum to list, belongs to Kekropis

APPENDIX D
THE HOMONYMOUS AND DIVIDED DEMES

Among the regular constitutional demes belonging to the original political
organization of Attica there were six pairs of homonymous and six sets of divided
demes. Five ofthe latter also consisted of pairs, but the sixth, Potamos, was composed
of three parts.1 The two demes of each homonymous pair merely bore the same name
and had no political or geographical connection; they belonged to different phylai
and their locations were usually widely separated (for actual locations see above,
pp. 40-54). The distribution of the twelve homonymous demnesfor the period of
the original ten phylai was as follows: Aigeis 1, Leontis 2, Akamantis 1, Kekropis 1,
Hippothontis 3, Aiantis 1, and Antiochis 3. Eacl set of divided demes, on the other
hand, belonged to the same phyle, and where their precise locations are known, i.e.
for Lamptrai, Paiania, and Potamos (see above, pp. 38, 43, 44), they were obviously
very closely related geographically. They had individual fixed bouleutic quotas,
however, and were, to all intents, independent constitutional demes dating from
the Kleisthenic political organization of Attica. The original tribal distribution,
which may not be due to chance, was as follows: Erechtheis, 3 pairs, Aigeis, Pandionis,
and Leontis, 1 pair each. With the Macedonian reorganization one section of each
divided deme was transferred to Antigonis. Potamos, which had three parts,
surrendered a second section to Demetrias. These changes were undoubtedly
deliberate (see above, p. 29). In 201/0 the transferred divided demes all returned to
their original phylai, but later in that same year, with the formation of Attalis, one
section of Agryle was assigned to the Pergamene phyle. Prior to 307/6 the separate
sections of the divided demes could be distinguished by the addition (common only
in the prytany and bouleutic lists) of special modifiers, "Upper" (KafOV7TEpOEV),
"Lower" (v7revepOev),or in the case of Lamptrai, "Coastal" (7rapaAot)and Potamos,
" Deiradiotes "; occasionally they may be detected by the obvious duplication of a
demotic in a prytany or bouleutic register. In the Macedonian period (and for
Agryle also after 200 B.C.) the divided demes, like the homonymous demes in all
periods, make themselves apparent only by their simultaneous affiliation with two
(or in the case of Potamos, three) different phylai. Several additional divided demes
1 With Upper and Lower Potamos assigned to the city, as now seems preferable (above, p. 44,
with note 18) there are seven sets of homonymous demes (i.e. [Upper/Lower] Potamos are homonymous
with Potamos [Deiradiotes]).

have been proposed, on similar grounds, but the evidence in every case is wveak,and
all have been dismissed as spurious or Late Roman demes (see pp. 81-86 and 94-95).
THE HOMONYMOUS DEMES

1. HALAI
There were two demes of this name, Halai Araphenides and Halai Aixonides;
cf. Stephanos of Byzantium s.vv. 'AAat 'AparfvièsE Kat 'AAal Alev1Ses- S ijLo, o V
i7rS Aly7iSos-, o o' AlWcovevs- ris KEKpO7Tr`SoSOvAXs. EKa-EpOv O S)?7LOT7)S avev TOV t
AAaevs, . . . e'Um Se o' S/ rros 'AparnjvSos' Lraev Pqrye'w (Orqyarepswcorrexit 0.
Miiller) rov 7rpo3sMapacO6vt Kat Bpavp6vos, ai 5' Al avlès
oEyyvs. rovy a`crrEos. E'rt Kat
Alpv'r E'K 6aXAaoros.... Strabo also gives the full forms: 'AAEEts oi AlWVLKo0(IX,
1, 21) and ['AAat 'ApafrIvi8es (IX, 1, 22). Throughout their history Halai Aixonides
(B 49)2 remained in Kekropis and Halai Araphenides (B 50) in Aigeis.
2. OION
The two demes of this name were Oion Dekeleikon and Oion Kerameikon; cf.
Harpokration s.v. Otov 'Icralos ev rT 7TEptLITOL?areW. Srtoi ElUtV EV ATTpKprStirro
ovSerepcS' AEyo/ievo,
KaAovvlaL
(itAoKoposr7a Se Olov. KEKAXqcT0aL itdovrTW
Se (/r]aflv ev y'
TO jurjSa,iusOL'Kr7TOVTO7OV EXELV)aLAAaL /EpovcOcava TO yap LovOV otlov EKaAovv Ol apXalot.
Tl SC oTO pLV KEpafLELKOv Olov Tis AEOVrtiSoS /vAXs, TO SE iEKEAEtKov Tr7s IITTrOOVTLSos,
Us' ZltoSwpos'. Ol SE SrjLoTaL EKaTepWOev AEyOVTO E'c Olov. ... . Oion Dekeleikon (B 95)
belonged originally to Hippothontis, but was later transferred to Ptolemais, and
later still, to Attalis. Oion Kerameikon (B 96) was affiliated with Leontis in all
periods except those of the Macedonian phylai, when it was assigned to Demetrias.
3. EITEA
There were two demes of this name, although the modifiers are not known and
the lexicographers mention only Eitea in Akamantis. The Akamantid deme (B 35)
was transferred to Antigonis during the periods of the Macedonian phylai, after
which it returned to its original tribe and much later was assigned to Hadrianis. The
Antiochlid deme (B 36) has a continuous history in its original phyle.
4. OINOE
Again the modifiers are unknown and the lexicographers mention only the
Hippothontid deme. Oinoe in Hippothontis (B 93) was transferred to Dernetrias and
later, according to the suggestion above (pp. 26-27), to Ptolemais. The Aiantid deme
of the same name (B 94) went first to Attalis and afterwards to Hadrianis.
2 Numbers in parentheses refer to Appendix B.

THE HOMONYMOUS AND DIVIDED DEMES 125
5. KOLONAI
Even the basic name is uncertain, but probably both the Leontid and Antiochid
demes were called Kolonai (cf. D. M. Lewis, B.S.A., L, 1955, pp. 12-17, and W. E.
Thompson, Hesperia, XXXIX, 1970, pp. 64-65); cf. Kallimachos, Hekale, frag. 300,
ed. Pfeiffer: E'K LE KoAvadvov TLSo0LEOaTov 'yayE
7 iLE ov j r&v 1rEpWV. The Leontid
deme (B 70) had a continuous history in its original phyle, but the Antiochid
Kolonai (B 71) was transferred to Antigonis (see above, pp. 26-27), and thence
to Ptolemais.
6. EROIADAI
There were two demes of this name, although again the modifiers are not
known and the lexicographers mention only Eroiadai in Hippothontis. Both the
Hippothontid (B 43) and Antiochid (B 44) demes have continuous histories in their
original phylai.
THE DIVIDED DEMES

7. AGRYLE
The two sections were named Upper (B 3) and Lower (B 4); for Upper Agryle
cf. I.G., I2, 398, line 6 (= 1, line 11) of 408/7, 'AypvAXEsKa0v7r, and Hesperia, XI,
1942, p. 233, no. 43, line 28 (=14, line 28) of 367/6, 'AypvAEt-rsKaOv'7TEpOEv(the
Lower section in the same text, line 46, is listed simply 'AypvAErso);for Lower Agryle
cf. Harpokration, s.v. 'Ap8rrorc TO7OS 'AO-qvatLv VTrEpTo araStov TrOIavaOvacKov, 7Trpos
T LJo r -cT 'AypvAECov, I.G., I2, 398, line 16 (=1, line 24) of 408/7,
v7TEVEpOEV
'AypvAf^ vrevE[pOEv], and I.G., II2, 2362, line 5 of 201/0, ['AypvAq'V7TE']vE[p].
It is
not known which section was listed in I.G., II2, 1697, line 23 (=492, line 24), but it
was undoubtedly one or the other, since the divided demes were listed individually
in this text (cf. I.G., II2, 1697, line 5=492, line 6). The two sections, with a total
representation of five bouleutai, were listed together in Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 31,
lines 16-21 (= 42). One section of Agryle was transferred to Antigonis in 307/6,
although prosopographical information has, as yet, been of no help in identifying
the deme as Upper or Lower Agryle. This deme returned, at least briefly, to Erechtheis
in 201/0, but later that year part of Agryle (again it is uncertain which section) was
transferred to Attalis. Agryle is the only deme which remained obviously divided,
i.e. with each section in a different phyle, after 200 B.C.: cf. Hesychios, s.v. 'AypvAi.
&8qtios rTsg'EpexOrqt#os qbvA)s, Kat 7r7sg'ArraA30os.
8. LAMPTRAI
The two sections were named Upper Lamptrai and Coastal, or Lower Lamptrai;
cf. Harpokration, s.v. Aa/7rrpeEs. ... vo8o 'ât Aalxrrpai, attiev 7rapaiAat, at 8e Ka0VTrEp-

0EV 'Aptaurofa'vr. 'AjtbL4tapcoC"Aa/ljTrpE' E'ycoyE rcov Karco" and Hesychios, s.v.

Aa/mrTpa Ka0vTEp0EVKOaL Aa[TApa v7TevepOev fjiLot AaipLTpat 'A04vrcUtvc
at v rrapa'Atol,
at SE Ka0v7TEpOEv. For the upper section cf. I.G., I2, 398 (=1), line 3 from 408/7
B.C., Aa[rrTpirs] Ka[0]v7r,Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 233, no. 43 (= 14), line 53 from 367/6
B.C., Aa7TrTpiS KaOVu7TEpOEV,I.G., II2, 1877, from before 350 B.C., &oVKoVS8lSs AaLJ7TT
Ka0tv, and I.G., II2, 2362, line 7, from 201/0 B.C., [Aatxr]rpat KaOv7rEp.For the
coastal or lower section cf. Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 233, no. 43 (= 14), line 34,
Aatc-rrrprjg 7rapaAot, I.G., II2, 1952, line 12, [AaptTrrp]-gs 7rdpaAot, and I.G., II2,
2362, line 8, [Aax7Tr]rpat v,7rEvp. The two sections, with a total representation of
fourteen bouleutai, were listed together in Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 31 (=42) and
perhaps also in Hesperia, XLI, 1972, p. 428, no. 60 (= 21), but were listed individually,
apparently, in I.G., II2, 1700 (=43). Upper Lamptrai (B 83) was transferred to
Antigonis in 307/6 but returned to its original phyle in 201/0 B.C. Coastal Lamptrai
(B 84) had a continuous history in Erechtheis.
9. PERGASE
The two sections were named Upper (B 105) and Lower Pergase (B 106). For
Upper Pergase cf. I.G., 12, 398, line 21 (=1, line 30), TI7pyaaet^Ka0v'[7Te]p0f[v],
Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 233, no. 43 (= 14), line 31, H7EpyaojsrKa0v7TEp0EV, and I.G., II2,
2362, line 12, [Hl]epyaa) KaOV'7TEp. For Lower Pergase, cf. I.G., JJII2,1697, line 5
(=492, line 6), FIepyaaor V[{rvepOev], and I.G., II2, 2362, line 13, IlEpya7r?V7TEvEp0. The
two sections were listed separately in I.G., II2, 1700 (lines 10 and 15=43, lines 11
and 16), but without the special designations "Upper" and "Lower". Prosopo-
graphical information, however, indicates that the first was Lower Pergase and the
second Upper Pergase, but the evidence will not yet allow us to identify which
section was transferred to Antigonis in 307/6. That part, of course, returned to
Erechtheis in 201/0, and was not distinguished in the succeeding periods from the
other section which remained throughout its history in its original phyle.
10. ANKYLE
It has been tentatively suggested (above, p. 88, note 54) that the initial
upsilon from the demotic of the secretary in 246/5 may belong to the first letter of
Lower (vrvEVp0Ev) Ankyle. Nowhere else are the special designations of either
section of this deme actually preserved, although they are presumed to have been
the regular "Upper" and "Lower" forms and are so restored in I.G., II2, 2362,
lines 18 and 19. The two sections of Ankyle Nere also listed separately, both being
in I.G., 112, 1749 (= 38), lines 68 and 72, but they
designated simply 'AyKVAj7OEV,
were grouped together apparently in I.G., II2, 1700 (see above, p. 78). We cannot
tell which section appeared in I.G., II2, 1697, line 38 (=492, line 39), wvherethe

THE HOMONYMOUS AND DIVIDED DEMES 127
stone has been broken off, but that it was a single section is clear both from the
analogy of the treatment of Pergase in the same text and also from the quota
preserved (cf. above, p. 2, note 5). After 307/6 one section of Ankyle, perhaps
Upper Ankyle (B 14), was assigned to Antigonis, where it kept its original quota of
a single representative; the other section (B 15) remained throughout its history in
Aigeis.
11. PAIANIA
The two sections were named Upper Paiania and Lower Paiania, cf. Harpo-
kration, s.vv. IHaavLelS KaC HIaLoviSa' .... Elort 8'e trroTl8LOt H7atavEv a TS
HavLov1tos-/vA^, ovs Jo8Copos' KaAElarOat' +rjat Hatavtav Kaov7Treppev Kat ruatavav
V7TEVEpOEVotoiw@S'8EKarE'pov Tr-VSi/CwV-rov8qxOTrqV KaAELcaOal b)Hal 7alavlE'a. 8lafEpOvcrt
8E OVTO T aVv HaLovL&v.... For the upper section cf. I.G., I2, 1740, line 44 (=12,
line 55) from the first half of the fourth century B.C., [HI]uavLra s KaO (the lower sec-
tion in the same inscription is designated only Ilavtav ), I.G., II2, 1748, line 15
(=26, line 7) from 348/7 B.C., [Il]atavitE Ka0v7rTEpOE, and I.G., II2, 1700, line 71 (=43,
line 75) from 335/4 B.C., HaLLavLtESKa0V. The designation is restored in 15, line 22 (a
new reading of I.G., JI2, 2370, line 13). For the lower section cf. I.G., II12,1748,
line 17 (=26, line 9), [7atavL]E^sv7r[E']VEp0E.The two sections, wvith a total repre-
sentation of twelve bouleutai, were listed together in S.E.G., XXIII, 87, lines
2-14 (= 10, lines 1-13), Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 32, lines 134-146 (=42, lines 135-
147), and I.G., JJII2,1751, ls ines
3-15 (=32, lines cas16).eIn the last in-
scription prosopographical evidence indicates that Autokrates, son of Aischias,
the last Paianian listed, was the single representative of the upper section, so that,
although the two demotics wverenot inscribed separately, some distinction was ob-
served in the listing of the members of the two sections. It is uncertain whether
Upper and Lower Paiania were listed together also in I.G., II2, 1753 (= 47), but the
arrangement cannot have been identical to that in I.G., 112, 1751, since the
prosopographical evidence indicates that the last Paianian in the former list
belonged to Lower Paiania. For the period from 307/6 to 201/0 Upper Paiania
(B 98) belonged to Antigonis; Lower Paiania (B 99) remained thlroughoutits history
in Pandionis.
12. POTAMOS
There were three sections of this deme, named Upper Potamos, Lower Potamos,
and Potamos Deiradiotes. For the upper deme cf. I.G., II2, 1742 (= 13), line 17 from
370/69(?) B.C., Horca4ot KaOv, Hesperia, IX, 1940, p. 63, lines 30-31, [Hlora'tot] KaO-
v7TEpOEv,and 'ApX. 'E+., 1918, p. 75 (= 0. W. Reinmuth, Ephebic Inscriptions of the
Fourth Century B.C., p. 58, no. 15), col. II, line 13, of ca. 324/3, 17orautot Ka0v7TEpOEv.

For the lower deme cf. I.G., II2, 1742 (= 13), line 22, [II]oracUot Vrev, I.G., II2, 1700,
line 99 (=43, line 104) from 335/4 B.C., T1ora,uot iVEv, and 'ApX. 'Eb., 1918, p. 75,
col. II, line 7, Hor0ac4ot vTrevepOev,Hesperia, IX, 1940, p. 63, line 32, Horacuot
v7Te[vE]pO[Ev], Agora Inv. 7447, from ca. 335 B.C., orTJuLoLvTrevepOev. For Upper and
Lower Potamos cf. Schol. Hom. Iliad, XXIV, 545, ... Kal -rap' 'AOTva'lots yap elm
v'o SqjJOl HoT7a'lot WV 0 JEV KaOVTrepOev, O 8e VTrevepOev ovopaerat. For Potamos
Deiradiotes cf. 'Apx. 'Es., 1918, p. 75, col. II, line 17, Hordtaot JEtLpa8tSTrat,
Agora Inv. 7447, H1orra/uoLZ[E]tpat&3rat, and I.G., II2, 1752, line 26 (=52, line 28)
from ca. 325 B.C., Horatupo[ zJ]eLpaSt&rat. The Deiradiotid Potamos is listed
separately in I.G., II2, 1742, line 71 (=13, line 71) following Deiradiotai, but
without special designation. Two Potamos demes appear in I.G., II2, 2362, lines 35
and 36, but the modifiers apparently were not given (see above, p. 45). All
three Potamos demes, with a total representation of five bouleutai, were listed
together in Hesperia, XXX, 1961, p. 33, lines 203-208 (=42, lines 204-209) and
perhaps also in JeAr., XXV, 1970, p. 84, no. 1 (= 13a, line 18.) For the period
from 307/6 to 201/0 B.C. Potamos Deiradiotes belonged to
Deiradiots (B 120) Antibelgotnis and
Lower Potamos (B 119) to Demetrias; Upper Potamos (B 118) remained through-
out its history in Leontis.

APPENDIX E
TWO EMENDED INSCRIPTIONS

1 Fragment of Hymettian marble (I 4812; see also Agora, XVI), broken on
all sides, found on May 6, 1937 near the surface under Acropolis Street and east of
the Post-Herulian wall (T 24-25). The fragment was associated by E. Schweigert
with I.G., II2, 643 and the combined text published by B. D. Meritt in Hesperia, X,
1941, pp. 80-82, no. 13. Meritt restored the secretary's demotic, from which only
one letter, initial phi, was preserved, as t[vAacLos], and dated the inscription on the
basis of the secretary cycles to 298/7, i.e. the archonship of Mnesidemos. The
calendar equation was restored as for an ordinary year, although the sequence of
ordinary and intercalary years from 299/8-295/4 (the beginning of the eighth
Metonic cycle) OOIOI required a deviation in 298/7 and 297/6 from the regular pattern
OIOOI.The anomaly was later discussed by Meritt in Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969,
pp. 107-113 ("Metonic Intercalations in Athens") and a new calendar equation
was offered which rendered 298/7 an intercalary year and established a regular
sequence of years for the beginning of the Metonic cycle (nothing being known
concerning the calendrical nature of 297/6, it was presumed to have been an ordinary
year). The basis of the revised restoration of Agora I 4812 and interpretation of
298/7 as an intercalary year was the observation that "three years later, in
Elaphebolion of 295/4, precisely the same equation occurs... ." The equations in
I.G., II2, 646 and 647, the only evidence for the calendrical nature of 295/4, had
already been studied by Meritt (Athenian Year, pp. 26-33, where the restorations,
reprinted in Hesperia, XXXVIII, 1969, were first advanced). But, in addition to the
coincidence that decrees should be preserved which were proposed on precisely the
same day three years apart in years with precisely the same calendrical abnor-
malities, there was an even greater anomaly, the division of the deme Phyle. The
argument, as logically proposed by Meritt, ran as follows: the secretary in 298/7
must belong to Oineis; Phyle was the only Oineid deme beginning with phi; but
Phyle was transferred to Demetrias in 307/6; hence, Phyle must have been a divided
deme in the Macedonian period. I have already noted, however, that no deme was
divided specially in 307/6. Further, there was no other evidence for two demes of
this name either before or after the creation of the Macedonian tribes; indeed, the
great bouleutic lists from the first period of twelve phylai indicated that Phyle was

not a member of Oineis. Of more significance, the demotic and several letters from
the name of the EiTar4rars 7rpoE'Spcov
in I.G., II2, 646 were found to be identical with
those preserved in Hesperia, X, 1941, no. 13 and the whole name may now be
restored from I.G., II2, 1623, lines 249-250, viz. Antimachos, son of Antinos, of
Acharnai (P.A., 1122), who was trierarch ante 334/3 B.C.
Hesperia, X, no. 13, then, belongs to 295/4 and was a decree proposed on the
same day (and perhaps by the same spokesman; we have traces of only one letter
of his name in the Agora inscription) as I.G., II2, 646 and 647. The secretary's
demotic, of course, was Phaleron, from tribe XI in this period, correct for the
secretarial cycles. That his father's name, viz. probably Aristophanes, Aristomenes,
or Aristogenes (prosopographical evidence offers no assistance for identification,
but Kirchner's Aristomachos is certainly wrong), in the genitive should have ended
in omikron-upsilon-sigma in the Hesperia text, but simply omikron-upsilon in I.G.,
II2, 647 is of little concern, for the interchange of second- and third-declension
endings was extremely common, especially in inscriptions of this period.' The
prytanizing tribe in these three decrees of 295/4 was of course Demetrias, although
the restoration in line 2 of I.G., II2, 643 (Hesperia, X, 1941, p. 81, and below, line 12)
at first created a slight problem, for the spacing appeared to require the restoration
of either Leontis or Aiantis.2
a. 295/4 a. ?TOIX. 29
[rM N,Koarrparov apXovros e7r TrS A]
evarqs] 7Tp[vravEtas -7L a]
[rqJurqTptaSos
[cpopOeos 'Apcrro. ']vovs 0[aAqpevsg Ey]
[paju,uarEvEv, 'EAafrq]foAXiav[o]s Eva[TEti]
5 [ItTra[Evov TreITrrEt] Kat EKOcrETT[
lrj]
[s rrpTravelas' EKKAr7]crla KVpta' rc-[v 7rp]
[oESpcwv E7TE077r0tEV 'A]vrLgaxoog 'A[vrl]
[yov 'AXapvevE Kai avt7rp]o'?Epod' [ebof]
'
[ev r6Sa%
t cot ............]. [ ......]
10 [.... Et7TrV -]
lacuna
[ - 3- ovvat Se roVs]
[TpvTar]vEt[s] ro[vso Ji-7r)TptWSos 7TEpl7]
oALTrEas'avr[Cwv rr)v /f,b)ov rTia 877Lt]
EL Tr7]v eTrtovarav (K^[KA7qiav: avaypa
1 Meisterhans, Grammatikder attischenInschriften3,p. 135.
2 I am indebted to B. D. Meritt for the solution
proposed here.

TWO EMENDED INSCRIPTIONS 131
15 ObatS[E] TooE rO O/nfOtat[a rov ypa/,tkarE]

a TOV[Ka]ra rpvravetav ev [orUTAEtAtO]
7V crr\Arv [ev apo07Tr]
[i]vEt Kat ar'iaau rr
[o']AE[t] vTaparv)v Erepav or4-AT)[v ev rft ol]
[lrp]OT[E]pov rTv 7ToALTELàvAa[fl3vres r]
20 [Jiv ... ]l'ov avayeypaHjEvot [Eit'r EL]
[S &]E T[)]iv avaypa()v rT'4A-s 8[ovât r]T]
[dv d]e?[T]aar'v Kca rovs TprTr[vdpxov]
[s AA]ApSpaXtzaC
in corona in corona
'o orAaosv
'ApLCrToAav 2t(carpaTov
la I.G., 112, 646, lines 1-8 may accordingly be restored:

a. 295/4 a. STOIX. 30
[e E] o [l]
[m Nucou-rpar]ov apXovros cEm r[s Zh]
[/rjrpad8os. Eva]rr,s irpvravelwa 'EA[a-rq]
[f3oALXvos EvaTr]Et IraTaLEvov, 7rLt7ETr[]E[]
5 [Kat ECIKCOUTEL
rTj]S 7rpvTavelas EKKA[?7]oL
[a Kvp.a rTCv ;,bT?7EqtEv
=rpo]E'Spcov ['A]vT
[[tIaXos 'AvTlvo]v 'AXapvE1sKa' v[7r]po
[Ecpol '8O0EV r]A)t 8qtw@t Fopyos 5p[V]Vi
[............] S E77EV E7TElt8 Hpo8&p
see Corpus]
[os KTrA
lb I.G., 112, 647 may be restored:

a. 295/4 a. STOIX. 23
[crI Nc]KoarpaTov a"pXovros [E]
[7,T T7r~] JI,i'qr[p]ta3os Evar'q[s' 7r]
[pvrav]dEas, 7[t] cI popcoso 'Ap[tcr]
[ro. vi]ov (aA-rpevs dypa[iHa'r]
5 [EvEv 'E]Aa7 [/3o]AtJivos E[VaTEL]
[ltratk]Evo[v, 7Tc47r]TELK[ap ELTKO]
[o(TEC T-1S 7TpVTa]v[E]4[as- EKKA7cYr]
[La Kvpia rTcv 7po]7S[p7v
PO 7TE-]

[L[Ev 'Avrteaxosg 'Avr'vov 'Axa]

[pVEVs Kat avrTrpoESpoL KrA]
lacuna
2 Large fragment from a Pentelic marble stele (E.M. 8037), broken on the right
and at the bottom,3 published by Kirchner as I.G., 112, 2362. Lines 49-56,
which were also treated by W. K. Pritchett,4 are given here with revised readings
and/or restorations in lines 51, 52, 53, and 56 (see above, pp. 84, 89, 90, and
98-100).
a. 201/0 a. Cols. I and II Col. III

(lines 1-48): lacuna
[HroAc,pa/oos']
lacuna
["At,ava]?
see Corpus lacuna
49 Ov[pyovlmat]
50 [K]A.w[rdSa&]
[.]a[-
]4
H7e[raAtl at?]
[7E]p p8[at]
' Y7rrp?i[a]
55 EvvocTrLa
Al[ytAt]et
['AKat/av]rT1os'
lines 57-65:
see Corpus
3For a description of the surface of the stone, see W. K. Pritchett, T.A.P.A., LXXXV, 1954,
pp. 160-161. I do not understand Pritchett's (Five Tribes,p. 24) estimate of the number of lines in eachl
column as forty-two. A heading probably appeared across the top of the inscription, but the roster of
Erechtheis would be complete with the addition of one deme, Kephisia, underthe tribal rubric (Kirchner,
line 2) and the other tribal rubrics surely would not have been repeated at the top of the continuing
columns. Four columns of forty-one lines each would allow for the inscribing of: 11 tribal headings,
140 regular demes, the 2 spurious demes, Phegaia and Graes, in Pandionis, and 11 irregular "Late
Roman" demesin the roster of Ptolemais, in all a total of 153 demes.
4 Ibid., pp. 159-167. For a possible restoration of line 51, see above, pp. 98-99, note 91.

TWO EMENDED INSCRIPTIONS 133
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO MAPS AND TABLES OF

REPRESENTATION
Due to delays with the original printer more than two years elapsed betwveen
the time of the printing of the plates (Maps and Tables of Representation) and the
printing of the text. This interval has occasioned a number of addendaand corrigenda.
TABLE I ERECHTHEIS: H 41.4 No. 60 (21), for No. 60 read now p. 429.
TABLE II AIGEIS: H 4, p. 48 (406) should now be dated 171/2 (see 'o'pos,
Tribute to Benjamin D. Meritt, 1974, pp. 150-155, with Addendum).
TABLE III PANDIONIS: H 33, p. 223 (437), read 4+ for Kydathenaion
(rather than 5+).
TABLE IV LEONTIS: Upper and Lower Potamos should now probably be
classed with the city demes (see above, pp. 44-46, with note 18) and the "population"
and trittys totals changed accordingly.
The discovery on April 12, 1973, in the Agora Excavations of a prytany decree
and list of Leontis dating from about 335 B.C. adds the following statistics to
TABLE IV: Kettos 3, Oion Kerameikon 1, Upper Potamos 2, Lower Potamos 1,
Skambonidai 3, Potamioi Deiradiotai 2, Phrearrhioi 9, Sounion 4, Aithalidai 2,
Eupyridai 2, Hekale 1, Hybadai 2, Kropidai 1, Pelekes 1+. The arrangement of the
register, which is clearly not according to trittys, is as follows: in column I, Skam-
bonidai, Lower Potamos, Kropidai, Oion, Eupyridai, Potamioi Deiradiotai,
Aithalidai, Hybadai, and the demotic and one name from Phrearrhioi, in column II,
the rest of Phrearrhioi, Upper Potamos, Sounion, Hekale, Kettos, and Pelekes.
The new figures add 13 additional concurrences and no variations to the first
column of statistics in the table on p. 57. I am grateful to J. H. Kroll for drawing
my attention to this inscription and to T. Leslie Shear, Jr., Field Director of the
Agora Excavations, for permission to make these references in advance of the
publication.
H 26, p. 213 (408) should be dated 180/1 (loc. cit., above, note on TABLE II
AIGEIS).
H 40, p. 316 (399) is now better dated fin. s. II vel init. s. III p. (see
E. Kapetanopoulos, JeAr., XXVI, 1971, pp. 289-290, note 26).
TABLE V AKAMANTIS: Text and date should read: H_11, pp. 43-44 (359),
ca. 160-170 p.
TABLE VI OINEIS: IG, 112, 1812, H 11, p. 65 (452) should be dated 183/4
(loc. cit., above, note on TABLE II AIGEIS).
TABLE VII KEKROPIS: H 33, p. 201 (494), quotas should read: Daidalidai
1", Melite 9+4V, Sypalettos 1+3v.
IG, II2, 2467, H SI No. 110 (290), the representation of Melite should read:
?30+ (instead of 31?).

Quota of Pithos in summary column for first period of ten phylai should read:
3(2).
IG, .II2, 1788, H 4, p. 44, H 11, p. 55 (387) should be dated 182/3 (loc. cit.,
above, note on TABLE II AIGEIS).
TABLE VIII HIPPOTHONTIS: Quota of Eleusis in summary column for
first period of twelve phylai should read: 13? (not 12).
TABLE X ANTIOCHIS: H 30, p. 253 (321) should now be dated ca. 138 p. (see
E. Kapetanopoulos, heAr., XXVI, 1971, p. 295, note 60).
H 16, p. 179 (383) should be dated 174/5 (loc. cit., above, note on TABLE II
AIGEIS).
TABLE XI ANTIGONIS: Gomme's figure for Upper Ankyle should read:
(49). The " Lower " designation of botl Agryle and Pergase deserves a question mark.
TABLE XIII PTOLEMAIS: Phyla, Former Quota, fin. s. VI 308/7 should
read: 7? (not 6?).
TABLE XIV ATTALIS: Former Phyle, Order 223/2-200 should read: Order
201-200.
IG, II2, 1794 (402) should be dated 181/2 (loc. cit., above, note on TABLE II
AIGEIS).
H 40.4 No. 62 (402a) should read: H 41, p. 431 (402a).
TABLE XV HADRIANIS: IG, II12,1833 (487), read [2+] for the representation
of Daidalidai.
IG, II2, 1795 (407) should be dated 180/1 (loc. cit., above, note on TABLE II
AIGEIS).
MAPS 1-3: Upper and Lower Potamos are now probably better located in the
upper Ilissos valley at Panepistemioupolis (see above, pp. 44-46, with note 18).
Leukonoion should be located tentatively at Peristeri (above, p. 44) and Amphlitrope
should be moved north from Ari to Metropisi (above, p. 54). These changes, to-
gether with the assignment of Oion Kerameikon to the class of unlocated demes in
the box at the bottom of the maps, have been incorporated in a revised version of
Map 2 which is to be distributed separately from this volume by the Publications
Committee of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. This revised
version of Map 2 employs three colors for the deme circles of the three sections and
obviates thereby the suggestion of regional boundaries in the version published in
this volume. Again (see above, p. 35, note 3) I stress that the lines of demarcation
on Map 2 below are purely schematic and have no reference to what may or may
not have been the actual regional boundaries in antiquity.
For consistency with the text, Peiraeus in the Maps and Table VIII of the
Tables of Representation should be spelled Peiraieus.

INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONS STUDIED OR EMENDED
Agora, XV
12 17 Inscriptiones Graecae,112
43 11, 78 643 . 129-131
47 17-18 646 . 129-131
55 22-23 647 . 129-132
61 79 1492 . 84-85
62 79 1697 . 2
68 89-90 1698 . 2, 78-79
72 79-81 1700 . 11, 21-22, 78
91 ? 27 1706 . 81-82
492 2, 78-79 1740 . . 17
494 10-11 1753 . 17-18
2362 . ? . 45
82, 84, 88-90,
98-100, 132
Hesperia
X, 1941, 80-82 (13) .85,129-131
XVII, 1948, 7-11 . . 87-88 2372 . . . . 2
XXXIII, 1964, 201-209 (53) 10-11 2407 .... 22-23
XXXV, 1966, 205-240 . . 79 2976 . . . . 32
XXXVII, 1968, 1-24 . . 79 5620 . . . . 82
XXXVIII, 1969, 459-494 79-81 6481 . . . . 89
XXXVIII, 1969,530 . . 79
Suppl. I, 36-38 (3). . 89-90 Pritchett and Meritt, Chronology
Suppl. I, 54-55 (12) . . 27 22-23 .... 87-88

TABLES OF REPRESENTATION
NOTE: The small superscriptletters, a, b, and c, refer to the

correspondingsections of the Commentary,A, B, C in Chap-
ter I, and A and B in Chapter II. The superscriptnumerals
refer to Notes to Tables of Representationin ChapterI.

TABLE I ERECHTHEIS
0
X Phylai ?r3
XII Phylai
c--
0
o
-N. > ^0 i OJ 4P
- ?r= (10O co
Ini
0 P
0 In
$4 01. N
r-4
04 _ 44 A eO
q4
In o tNl
cI Od 4 _% H4
U4 CY r- 0 Cu
CY st.
^rC H
%O
r- *-
I. 04 in
cu t
C, cx
Cu: 44
(1 %0 0 1 CQ (0 ^ a
CY I
Trittys Dene ml <t
x| <,
W.I H ?l 9 In| | wU) \
City Upper Agryle (83)

City Upper Agryle (83) 2 2 2 (3] 3 3
Lower Agryle 1 )5 2+
City 3 3 AlNIOOTNIe
City Euonymon (227) 2+ 2+ [10] 2+ 10 10 12 12 74' 12
City Themakos (25) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Coast Anagyrous (142) 3Y 6 6 0 9 6 8 8 8

Coast Kedoi (44) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Coast Upper Lamptrai 1 3+ 5 5 ANTICM)OIS
Coast Coast Lamptrai 4+ )14 10 10
(391) 9 9 3+
Coast? Pambotadai (34) [of 1 [1] 1(0f 1 1
Inland Kephisia (250) 2+Y 6 6 [3+] 6 8 8

Inland Upper Pergase 1 lv 2 )4 2 3 2 3
Inland Lower Pergase (71) lv+ [2] 2 2 ANTIa
Inland? Phegous (23) [1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Inland? Sybridai (22) [1]? 0 [of 1 0(1) 1 1 1
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Name? (335) 16 16 16 16 16

Coast Name? (611) 22 23 23(22 21 21
Inland Kephisia? (366) 12 11 11(12 13 13
ERECHTHEIS (1312)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS (38) 50 50 (50) 50 (50) 50 50

TOTAL DEMES (13 13C 13 (13 14 (10) 11 11

TABLE I ERECHTHEIS
XIII Phylal XII Phylal XIII Phylal
1 - 0.a
o H
P-4 cw H
oIN H H . cu cu H
4n 0
V4
q-4 a.of 0
0,I *I "'
Oo ; u
0* CrJ <n Cu
_l
=| 0 _- , 1 (7
Os: (n
l~
8 r-
0.
ci
0,%
N "cn _4 ^ I-
0%
H- Cm
?q o o^ ( cn <a^ t
f-
CuY (Y)
AOH
CM
Cn m
0. t-
de 0
H H cu D cu \0
2 1cr
H ftH ci 04H oc f
Hq m
0 H
U8 WH H O H cu H
t; :M Co -. H 9.
Cv)1 aI
ml1 or ml ?| ?l I Dome
1~~~~*1+ Upper Agryle~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
3 3 3 1+ *1+ 2 0 2 Upper Agryle i
ATTALIS Lower Agryle i
12 lI+ 12 [7] 3 1+ 2 Euonymon i
PTOLEMAIS Themakos i
8 8 8 2 2 5 1+ Anagyrous I
2 2 1 3 3+ 0 Kedoi I
10 10 10
II[13] 3 '1 113 )8 Upper Lamptraib
Coast Lamptrai
I
I
2 2 2 1 [8+] 6 HADR:
;ANIS Pambotadai I?
8 21 13 Kephisia 1
3 3 13 0 Upper Pergaseb 1
Lower Pergase 1
1 1 1 1 Phegous 1?
1 1 1 3 1+ 1 1 Sybridai 1?
15 15 3 City i
22 22 24 Coast I
13 13 23 Inland 1
50 (50) 50 50 50 40 COUNCILLORS
10 (10) 10 7 le l.P DBMES

TABLE I AIGEIS
X Phylai XII Phylai
0O In
N
0o
Co) a) c\j
CY) CM
0
r-i| 43CM
43
a)
C-.
Cuj 0 -.1'
4 O on _ O
in 0, ) *T,- a- 0
CV')
-41 -:t ON
CC) on Co) 0coj 4 CO C
(Y)
Cu4- 0 0
CO
H
41) a)
Cr) x0 t)
0- -s 0 0 " -Ou
4 CY) 4C
Ha
-'-4 Cu O
CY' CY)
O
nY
0
0H
I -" H
M
WI
H- ^ H 0 0H ,-I Cr)O H (
cn 5!
P4 ,0 .0 1 ,,oI,.
Cuj CM
H H H HO H
H
H 0 H
H r-I H Hn M cu Cl
, S.
Trittys Deme H ?|
1
Hlc ~H1l
12 1
- - 4 I A I I-
-
-~~ 8 ~ ~~~~~
.
City Upper Ankyle (98)+ 1 1 ANTIGONISb

Lower )2 1 12 [2]?b 1 1
City Ankyle (-9 1 [1]
2 1
City Bate (45) 1 1 1(42f [1]DEMETRIAS 1
City Diomeia (37) [1] 1 1 1 1 DEMETRIAS

City? Erikeia (23) [1] 1 1 1 1+ 1 2+ 2 2
City Hestiaia (22) [1] 1 1 1 1 [1] lv 1 1
City Kollytos (106) 3 3 3 [4] 2 3 4 4
City Kolonos (58) 2 2 2 2 2 1tY 2
Coast Araphen (47) 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2

Coast Halai Araphenides (195)4+ 5 5 5 [8] 5 8 9
Coast Otryne (60) [1] 1 1 1 2 1 [1] 1 1 1
Coast Phegaia (68) 4 3 3 6 3(4f [2']? 4 3 2
Coast Philaidai (91) 3 3 3 3 3 3
Inland Erchia (202) [6] 6 7(6f 10 11

Inland Gargettos (138) 4 4 4 4+ 4 ANTIGONIS
Inland Ikarion (128) [4] 5 5 64- 1 5(4f ANTIGONISb
Inland? Ionidai (30) 2 1 2(lf 1 2
Inland? Kydantidai (44) 1 2 2 2 2 1(21 2 1 1
Inland? Myrrhinoutta (47) [1] 1 1 1 1 1
Inland Plotheia (46) 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

Inland Teithras (55) [4] 4 4 4 4 4 3
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Name? (389) 12 11 11 11(12) 9+v 11
Coast Name? (461) 15 14 14 14(15) 17 17

Inland Epakria (690) 23 24tY? 24+Y 25(23) 19 20
. vi.%s
This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42
- AM
. . Z o .
AIGEIS (1540)
TABLEIE AIGEIS
XIII XII Phylai XIII Phylai

I Phylai
H! H
H H . .
0^
H
1-- C1, H o p4
Q < o
0 I1 1 -) 0 H
H* m IoO ? 1 ~1
?r ,-
u.
CM o
4.) o11
4) <o N..
H*| oo H CU
N..
0 - | ^ ^ "- C
c
^ ^r
Cm oj
CU O
O --^ ^T
CU ^H -^ -^ <o
' cP? mu^ oo m U*
cr *> -4"
4
m
-\ mU)
l c
0c
CU 4 rl 0 4
O .4 .- 'O ^. 0,.
O HI
H Co, CmU
0 cU ) CH c Iu m
Cr) .4 '? .4 4 N
- H O , - -~ .0 t--
? I0 c-- -,n 0~
0o _- _ 0I 4 CU u
-4
Hr-4 c0 o
N N .-4
Cu uc-
'
k0 I 0
t-
.4 '0 a) 4 (c- -
C H
H
,m -H nCY) @
Ci Cl c H CM c CU rH O)
tH- t-IH H-,C" CN )
m m ^ r
<H0 ? * o H H| P '
M 0 r Hc-|?
o M.|4 o D _ m
n O
m0
Upper A
|0 K{v) E E| 0| C3)| ?
0|H _ I H1 H" H1" 0| | C| H
MI l
t| K co |1 | I kyHIle H wper An ? -, Deme ii

1 0 0 Lower Ankyle ii
1 0 0 > Bate ii
2 1 1 Diomeia ii
2 2 2 1 1 Erikeia ii?
' 1 1 4 Hestiaia ii
1 2
4 4 0 6+ 1 2+ 4 Kollytos ii
2 0 0 Kolonos ii
2 2 1 Araphen II
9 0 0 Halai Araphenides II
1 1 . 1 0 0 , Otryne II
3(4r HADRIANIS Phegaia II
3 , 3 2+ 3 5 Philaidai II
. 11 > 52 12 2 4+ 2 Erchia 2
22 [6+] 2 1t [10+] 203 [10+] Gargettos 2
ATTALI; Ikarion 2
2 0 0 Ionidai 2?
1(2 PTOLEMAIS Kydantidai 2?

'
1 6 2 4+ Myrrhinoutta 2?
2 2 0 0 Plotheia 2
3+ [4] 4 0 0 Teithras 2
I
1I I
11 6 10 b City ii
18 5 6 Coast II
21 s 29 24 Inland 2
. All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE ] PANDIONIS
X Phylai XII Phylai
H
H 4
In tl- 0
Ln N
n
a) BB cu
Cu cO
O
In
0 0
(C)
1 -4 n- 0
0- P-4 N Cu Cu C\OH
cJ
N
I cJ
Cu In 'IO
t
#... Hf In Cu 4 4
- N rH- 0
4
a. PI
H H
t- 0 H
H
WI C\ 3?
LA
In In
O r-I
Trittys Deme C, m1 ml W 1 I
City Kydathenaion (295) [11] 12 8 ["11] 12 [12?] 12(11) ANTIGONIS
C
Coast Angele (61) 3 3 3 2 3 2(3f 4
Coast Myrrhinous (136) [6] 7? [6] 6 6 6 [5+] 3+ 6
Coast Prasiai (35) [3] [3] [3t] 3 3 [3] 3 (3] 3+ 3
Coast Probalinthos (91) 5 [4]? 5 5 5 [5] 5 5 5
Coast Steiria (74) 3 [3] 3 3 3 3 3 3 [3] 3
Inland Konthyle (24) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Inland? Kytheros (63) 2 [1] 2 2 2 2(1) ANTIGONIS
Inland Oa (67) 4 4 3+ 4 4 1+? 4

Inland Upper Paiania (377) )(12]
1 1 4+ )[12] )12 1 1 ANTIGONIS C
Inland Lower Paiania ? 11 10 11 4+ 22
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Kydathenalon? (295) 11 12 11 12 12? 12(11) 0
Coast Myrrhinous (397) - 20 20 20 19 20 19(20) 23
Inland Paiania (531) 19 18 19 19 14k? 19(18) 27
PANDIONIS (1223)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 50 50 50 50 (50) 46' 50 (50) (50) (50)
TOTAL DEMES 10 11 10 10 (11) 10 11 (8) (8) (8)

TABLE IE PANDIONIS
XIII XII Phylai XIII Phylai 01
| 0 Ut
0 1'0 r-1
Cu
cxi
H
0
al 8 f1 Hl -P
0 0 Cy CD
0
C\J HP:
Cd I uI
r-
-^ c I I Q
Cu o0 P4
Co -t
En rI
In"
UG CC C\ I
r-i CM 0 S
Cu Y D
C -o m Cu
in tlx, a
CM '0
C\u
a0
Lfl HCul- ?-
'0 (Y) %.
?'
co0 en 'OJ
N
(\I V3
5: 404 t- _ 0 < 0 Q 0
1 04
.- C\u Cu N
H H
-4 r-H H H H 0
0 Ht? 4 r4Cn Ho Cl
cn lx, Cr) H-
m~I x I I K|1 H| :| ?\ Sl Deme
d
13 Bt 9+ 14 [8*] 10 5+ 4 1+ Kydathenalon iii
4 2 1 1 2 Angele III
8 [7] 1 f 4+ Myrrhinous III
3 (1] 1 1 Prasiai III
5 ATTALIS Probalinthos III
4 2 12+ 12 4+ 4 4 9 4 9+ Steiria III
Konthyle 3
6 2 1 Kytheros 3?
(31 HADRIANIS Oa 3
Upper Paianiab 3
}26 )8+ )205 )20 )]) 32]? )15+ Lower Paiania 3
13 7? 14 10 4 City iii
12 15? 6 10 4 Coast III
25 28 20 20 32 Inland 3
50 50 50 40 40 40 COUNCILLORS
7 8 6 5 6 3 DEMES

TABLE IV LEONTIS
X Phylai XII Phylai
0
H
C-) H
o in H 0
I -t Cu
in
C0 - H
Cr
t- 0| '.0 on <a OC O
0oC O
^' r ?1 CY) o
03 N
Cr) 0OC CN 014
C\ U, CM
Cr) 43
I- 0 CY) C- O|
t--
_ n Cu
0) 0- n CM C4
04
CM -- in- 1
o
*H CM o CM 0 N
oCr o in OJ r- t.- 0c30
-o CM r-4 - mY -. -.
cD ^ ,1 I- CM CM 0
W.I -) p P P4 CY) o0
CM u u )
CM CM Cu H
H H H cM
H H -3 H Hr-H
0 H 0o H H H ) 0 1n t- o) H H E-
Cr)
Trittys Deme
0
<3 H a1
Hl Hl H ml 1
ml
r:
0
Hi
HII
HI Hl g
c~
City Halimous (79) 3 3 3 1+ 3 3 3
City? Kettos (55) 3 3 3 3 3 [4]? 3(4)

City? Leukonoion (153) 3 3 3 5 5 5
City Oion Kerameikon (140)+ 1 1 1 1 DEMETRIAS
City Skambonidai (79) 3 3 3 [1+] 4
Coast Deiradiotai (55) 1 2 2 1+ 2 ANTIGONIS
Coast Potamioi Deiradiotai (35) 2 2 ANTIGONIS

21+ 35
Coast Upper Potamos (51) 2 2 2 2
Coast Lower Potamos 1 1 1 1 DEMETRIAS
Coast Phrearrhioi (191) 84 9 6+ 8tv 7+ 9 [1+] 5+ 9
Coast Sounion (154) 4 4 4 4 4 6 6
Inland? Aithalidai (94) 2 2 2 ANTIGONIS
Inland Cholleidai (110) 2 2 2 6? 2 5 4+ 5

Inland Eupyridai (97) 2 2 2 [2] 2 2 2 2
Inland Hekale (28) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Inland? Hybadai (36) 2 2 2 2 1 2(1)
Inland? Kolonai (23) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Inland Kropidai (39) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Inland Paionidai (59) 3 3 3 3 3
Inland Pelekes (24) 2 2 2 2 [2] 2 2
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Skambonidai (506) 13 13 13 15
Coast Phrearrhioi (486) 20 19g 20 17
Inland Hekale?(510) 17 17 17 18
LEONTIS (1502)
This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38
a on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM
TOTAL COUNCILLORS All50
use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 50 (50) (50) 50
(50)
TABLE 1V LEONTIS
XIII Phylai XII Phylai XIII Phylai
O
c\j
0 ^c cu
C? aH 4 C\J o o. ~1
Ci p41
1-1 H .| c\j H -. -4 I H
I
J 0?0 _ 03 Ir 03 ?^ -I , I
H H
(H C'- H
H =-H H H +- Or 0 4, . on H
or N Cm H co H -
0 CQ UI
01
0 cO3 aco
I4 a 1 H
0 0M M O
A-
H 0 0 O cO H Ci
CO C\ 4 CM CO
LM C'- ril Oh a)CO
H H H H 0
H 4 - -- -4 01
\\ 0
0 ?C O34 . co
C\ H H V-DI H H .-
CY) O'iH OD Cy) t PH H O 0 HI CM
OC :D| H -H Ir- C\ | C- lU\ $4
aHi C\ o H H H M3
0 (J1 kO 4)
CJ p4 p441J o
H :D
H CU E4 1
HOJ
CM 0 iC1 CJ C IH 4 p4
0 cf
SH =I| =|HI | =| Deme
[3] 3 2+ 2 2" [1+] 3+ Halimous iv
[3] 3 [2] 1 Kettos iv?
5 5 5 8 Leukonoion iv?
1+ 4 #1+ 7 ?1+ Oion Kerameikon iv
4 4 [1+] 1 HADRIANIS Skambonidai iv
1 Deiradiotai IV
b
0 Potamioi Deiradiotai IV
Upper Potamosb
2 2 )o 3[1+6 ] Lower Potamos
IV
IV
10 10 3 6+ 1 2 :ll Phrearrhioi IV
5 6 ATTALIS Sounion IV
7
1+ 5 4 1 1 [2*] Aithalidai 4?
5 5 9 4 1+ Cholleidai 4
2 2 3 [1+] *2+ 6+ 1 Eupyridai 4
PTOL 4AIS Hekale 4
1 2 1 Hybadai 4?
1 2 1 Kolonai 4?
1 1 2 Kropidai 4
3 3 10 Paionidai 4
[2] 2 2 1 Pelekes 4
15 15 14 City iv
17 18 4 Coast IV
15 17 32 Inland 4

47a 50 50 13+ 50All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20+ 40 COUNCILLORS
TABLE ' AKAMANTIS
X Phylai XII Phylai
al)
0 H
H
0 4,) I 0
on $4.
LN N C)
Ln p
or) O0 (r)
0 r
CY
I
t ^H
_ H CU
~4 l- CU C\ LO C\
oo\ s Hc H C\
o4 o N H H, oC
n- .)
-
HO H < o
or) O H
4-4 OJ
1 5 OE4
H CM 0
H HO 0 Q O4 0 Q
O4 on
H
04
C) H &L - aO
(Of) H kO
CC or) 0 U)o m () C) U) m (nCU
Trittys Deme 0 ID
:o1 1 f 1I
ml a| ml a1 ?1 Cy
City Cholargos (123) 4 4 [3+] [5L1 6 [6+] 1+ 6

City Eiresidai (21) 1 1 1 2 2
City Hermos (54) 2 2 2 2 2
City Iphistiadai (40) 1 1 1 [1] 1

City Kerameis (151) 6 7+? 6 6
Coast Kephale (130) 9 9 12 10+ 11* 8+ 12

Coast? Poros (38) 3 3 3 DEMETRIAS
Coast Thorikos (134) [3*] 6 5 3? 5(6) 6 1+ 6
Inland? Eitea (32) 2 2 ANTIGONIS
Inland Hagnous (99) 4+ 5 5 DEMETRIAS

Inland Kikynna (59) 2 2 2 [3] 3 3 3 3
Inland Prospalta (90) [5]? 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Inland Sphettos (178) 5 5 [7] 7 7 7 5+ 7
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Cholargos (319) 14 14 [17] 17

Coast Thorikos (30) 17 17 18 18
Inland Sphettos (458) 19 19 [15] 15
AKAMANTIS(114:)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 50 (50) 50 (50) (50) (50) 50
TOTAL DEMES This content downloaded from1384.205.227.38
(13) 13 06:53:42
on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 (10) AM (10) (10) 10
TABLE Y AKAMANTIS
XIII
XII Phylai XIII Phylai
Phylai
04 A 4
I H H
H H
0.1
8C%j UN
m cl.
0
1
01
1
H H
c- to1
of
tl- H 0|
CU)
's I^ oI ro WI
el a|
CU j
t) r-i CIu
H 0)
4% ft
oa) 0 I C\ %-
o|
C\J 0
Cu I-
0 04
t- -t 0
0 CO
Cu Cut -IH
- t _- H a) CM H ,1 C1
r- Co) Cr) 0| a0
o-I. 4 0H o 0 O
0
"I 0o cM 0,
of I
*^.0
Cu
H1
CU
H
Cu Cu C\
C0 oD|0 H H H U
0)I
-H
=a I
)H
I. HH- Hl H
to
1I
Cr)
mI
H H HO
C\
=1 =1 1HHI I Deme
? 1+ [71 7 4 5 Cholargos V
[5] 4 1 4+ Eiresidai V
*1* 4 2 Hermos V
Iphistiadai
6 6 Kerameis
4 3 Kephale
Poros
1+ 1 1+ V17
[3] 3 Thorikos
5 ?1+ HADRIANIS Eitea

ATTALI' 5?
Hagnous
14 1 2 2+ 5
Kikynna
PTCLEMA:S 5
Prospalta
*1+ 12 17 28 4+ #1+
5
[29'] Sphettos
b
Kyrteidal
17 9? Cityv
4 3 Coast v
19 29 Inland 6
50 50 40 40 40 COUNCILLORS
b1
9 11 8 6 b10
10 AM DEMES
This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42
TABLE 1 OINEIS
X Phylai XII Phylai XIII Phylai
0
t-
0
CJ. 0
00
Ca) 0 CM
O H
n Cr) C\l
OJ
C) C) ^ c. O
C\
L e C\j
10 Od fNf
ar. 0
Cr) en 6\O CM) 0o 0 0\.1 01 CU)
1
(C)
* ?Q1
) o0
.-I C) 01
C\
0 Cn Ca) 4 4) r- o1
1- H _H \0
0 Cr) _
Ct <1- O0 r-4
a) a) a 01 0C\
0 - 01
01-.
H
Ht
H
---
OH
1m ,-I
(l| 01 ?1 t-- :- r-- CY)
OJ
C\
,-- MY' --- , I c (3
04 CO
H H H| C H ,r- <- H
H H 0 H Eq H
w|
C) E-
0 0 o O
Trittys Deme . H mI Wl =I =I =I
0- ,- S. I ,- ir
r
City Boutadai (36) 1 1+ 1 1 1 1 PTOLEMAIS
t I
City Epikephisia (42) 2 1 1(2) 1 1+ 1
City? Hippotomadai (12) 1 1 DEMETRIAS
City Lakiadai (97) 2 2 3 3 3

City Lousia (30) 1 1 1 1 1 1
City Perithoidai (69) 3 3 3 3 3

City Ptelea (23) 1 1 1 1 1
City? Tyrmeidai (18) 0 1(04 <1> 1 1
Coast Kothokidai (57) 2 1 2(1) DEMETRIAS
Coast Oe (105) 6 7 6(7) 2+ 6 [6*] 6

Coast Phyle (83) 2 1+ 3 2 DEMETRIAS
Coast Thria (101) 7 4+ 7 [8] [2+] 8 B+

9
Inland Acharnai (452) 22 [24- ]", 174 22 [25] [10+] 25
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Lakiadai (327) 11 11 11 11
Coast Thria (346) I 17 17 14 14
Inland Pedion (452) 22 22 25 25

* ~ ~I ~ - I , 0
OINEIS (1125)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 50 (50) 50 50 (50) 50 50
TOTAL DEMES 12 (12) 13 10 (10) 10 9

TABLE '2 OINEIS
P4l
? , H -- ao ao
tC, uOJ
a o 0
fu
. H H o 4
O P0 PA'
0 0 I 0
?. cj 0 oi.
H- 0 *P 0+ 1 H
4 H
H Cu _ U l H
rH ^ C)CO H 0
o Cu P c:n 1
o .,
O Ha) 0 H;n
C c0
Co 0O -.l
ko o 0 0 a) a) 0
M
HO in O~
0) O t-t--
U
ON 0 t.-- ' ) H . ^ I 4
rOOJ r-l M1 OJ - Cu 0
* r-i
^ O to
O CU 0 00
D cxo ol H CU CY) 0
c | n -0 0 0 0 C\O
P4 oaf) a) a) a)
in oC\ H H H Cj j H 0)
0
?|t
Ho
o
St -I -
P4 tr-O 3J 40M Cu Cu Cu Cu au
H )uH Cu CU Cu
r-H HH> ? r- O H H 0
oo *s I'D H41| C)' H H H H PA
O|04 ?|
Q| P4
?| Ml04 Hl Z H| H |
Deme
I I -
L J t VP A *
Boutadai vi
Epikephisia vi
4+ Hippotomadai vi?
3+ Lakiadai vi
3 Lousia vi
Perithoidai vi
1+ Ptelea vi
ATTALIS Tyrmeidai vi?
Kothokidai VI
1+ 3 1+ 1+ Oe VI
5+ '4- [5+] 8 34- Phyle VI
9+ HADRIANIS Thria VI
10
2+ 7+ [2+] 1+ [10] 6 v 74 24 Acharnai 6
I - -
-
- I - k I I - I
I- ;
City vi
Coast VI
Inland 6
k
50 40 COUNCILLORS
11 10 DEMES

TABLE VII KEKROPIS
X Phylai XII Phylai
H 0
0
or
go H^ H
0 0 Cr) 0 co
a\ tc
00 *01 .n N
? 4-) 0 Cd
o1 o C) 0^ C
vH m0 01 o
H orC
-
^. 0_ , 0
() iH H Co _- H
t -
H
o ko
00 0 *H OJ
cu
t.- _ -t P.0 a) %-
t -
01
I m C%
0 2:> Cu t-
M-1 ,-J crs
00 H, OJa
!-i () t- N I . H Cu
00
CY)
o
>?
Ir ?t cu r1
cv
_
H _ 0
g.
Itl- C o
CQ Co X:l
04
HM WI m:l M:t =: "lo
i H H H IL, 00
0o Hl
Trittys Deme c!
:=:
1 Hl:: Hl ?| vI %
I0 I I 001 :':
-06
City Daidalidai (17) [l+]11 1 1 1 DEMETRIAS
City Melite (257) 5+ [7] 9 7 DEMETRIAS
City Xypete (108) [3+] [6+]? 7 3 7 DEMETRIAS
Coast Aixone (237) 8? 1+ 12? IpI
Coast Halai Aixonides (119)- 4+ 6 6 10 [10] [10+] 10
Inland Athmonon 6? 10? I

(141)
b b
1 [0]? [0? 1(0)
Inland? Epieikidai (17) [1]?
Inland Phlya (224) 5+ 7? 9+ 9?I
Inland Pithos (82) 211 3 2(3) 4 4
Inland Sypalettos (83) 2+ 2 4 1 2 2 1+ 2
Inland Trinemeia 14.11 2? 2 2 2 2

(29)
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Melite? 15 0
(382)
Coast Aixone? (356) 14? 22? I
Inland Nrne? (576) 21? 28? I

?
KEKROPIS (1314)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS (50) 50 (50) (50) 50
TOTAL DEMES
+,, V?9b
11 (7)b (7)b 8

TABLE VII KEKROPIS
XIII Phylai XII Phylai XIII Phylai
21
P.1 P.1 P4
Cu
LAN
H- 0H
_
O0 o o I O0 1
0o
a-i CFN 1 Mn
H
Cu CO -H 0 "" H 4 H
H
a a-) N a) 1 0H
H 0<
o1
CM N 1
a, 1 aw o| 4g
0 ON
0d *- UC0
C
M
0 0d
0 c1 c1 CuJ a,l 0
co a) 0 0
'0 C CM (H - .- H- U
N ? Cu 0<i v a) L 0
%CO CU o 0J I- a,
O
Cu a) o s- ca H 0
00
o an 54
Cu
Cu o~~~~Cu ^ Cu
a) - CO
0
Ci O ^ P\ 0 P. P.
0 a nCM
a) LA C
CM 0
CM _ ? H
: HLA H H
H 0 H H Cd| H HCt CM co P.
CIO CY C) Cu C) P. Cu I--I
HI
MN1 H I M :: (3 Ml
0
ml4 0 a,
mls cv ?( o| :=1 Deme
s - -
2 HADRIANIS Daidalidai vii
12+ 31? 3 *1+ 27 [1+] Melite vii
7 2+ 3 Xypete vii
*1+ [10+]? 1+ 6 1 3 [1] 4 Aixone VII
[6+]? 2 5 5 tl2+] Halai VII
ATTALIS Athmonon 7
1 [2] 2 1 1 Epieikidai 7?
PTOLENAIS Phlya 7
5 5 1 3 3+ 2 Pithos 7
1+ *1+ 1 1+ 32 2+ 3+ Sypalettos 7
1 Trinemeia 7
27 City vii
6 Coast VII
7 Inland 7
50 50 40 12+ 40 COUNCILLORS
b >
7 9t 6 8 DEMES

TABLE VEnHIPPOTHONTIS
X Phylai o XII Phylai XIII
Phylai
4-
0 o 4
-_-
) 61 1
CY) Lf% I o
I orn
o , I
0 0 C IN' ("' 0
4.~ 0 4^ '43
C.
^ *0cs\HC-p 4- cM)
> , o (')
o0 o%
or) (N
C) 0
0 I
on
COr) CY)
C|
,-I _ - 1 C
0 )c U)1 \ oH 0
'O
D '- 0- 0
0
) n o) e ' CI
=
)| o0 -j C
Cn
OC C= t- ir
C/ ~- (. or)
0 C\
'-4 ,,-4 o o. 4a a (C)
H Mr
r.D
U, (.'j _
HM
o 0H
*N
H O:
C
H
q < oD <
?
'3,
H
H H H
0
Ln o) Ln1
0
cr (C)
0-
Deme ad ?| 0 HI H C~ W.nI MI
Trittys Ml H| I =1
City? Hamaxanteia 2+ 2 2 2 2 2
(64)
Keiriadai 2 3 2 2 2 2
City (39)
City Koile (78) 3c DEMETRIAS
City Korydallos (14) 1? 1?
Peiraeus (235) 10 [6] 10

City
Thymaitadai (26) 1+ [2] 2 2
City
19 1 1 1
Coast? Acherdous (43) 2
b
Coast? Auridai 1?
17 ANTIGONIS?
(24)
Coast? Azenia 2 [3]? 2 2 2 2
(71)
Elaious 1 1 1 1+ 1
Coast? (30)
Coast Eleusis [6]? 3+ [10+-] 12
(198)
Coast Kopros 3 2 2 2 2
(41)
Oinoe 2? DEMETRIASb PTOLEMJ
Coast (72)+
Inland? Anakaia (39) 3 3 4+ 3 3 [3]I 3
Inland? Eroiadai 1 1+ 1 2 2 2
(21) c
Inland Dekeleia 4 4+ 4 6
(64)
3c 3+ 3 PTOLEM.
Inland Oion Dekeleikon (18)-
TRITTYS TOTALS
Peiraeus 19 17
City (456)
Coast Eleusis (479) 20 19
Dekeleia? 11 14
Inland (142)
HIPPOTHONTIS (1077)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS (49? ) 50 06:53:42 AM(50) (50) 50 50

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions17 14 13
TOTAL DEMES (17 ) (14) ?(14)
>
TABLE IEZIHIPPOTHONTIS
(D Os '
H t- t-1 H
H on N- H C
o ' I H t-
O
0M C a) (10 0 0 H
H 0r) b- Ln H O r
H S-
Ecn tJ| ('j H
H- I H H H
,-i H
U-' b-
uo Oc 0
O N- H
,-I
) .0 O0
a C)
O m ON
tl- o o
a) o (0 I N: 0 -IH1
m _' O ln cn
,H -o 4 '0a) a)
U-' OJ (. 0- (.'1 N
0 kO
_on Os\s b-a\ O iF o<- 0
0 -0 - CC) 0 4 C) CO
O ', a' CII A. Ci P C a)
r O\ (0 H 0
t- 0 0 H - 0
C1 ,- CJ 0- C OL[Z CI[ CV) 0C) H H
04
CI
PII 54-
O Po 0
- \H I-I H
:p1t1t a4)H) PH H H ('J 04
CY)
C n O
H ( 0? OJ H H H i
O
ml (v
0 -:d- 0 Deme Cd
ml I HI HI HIl ?I
1 5 [5+] 8 5 Hamaxanteia viii?
1 2 4 Keiriadai viii
[1+] 4 6 4 4 1+ 2+ [1+] 2+ Koile viii
ATTALIS Korydallos viii
7z 8 4 15 10 24 10+ [1+] 7+ 6+? ?[1+]#3+ Peiraeus viii
3 1 Thymaitadai viii
8 6+ 3 2 Acherdous VIII?
4 5 Auridai VIII?
2 6 5 6 16+ 21+ 14 5+ 10+ Azenia VIII?
5 1 4 HADRIANIS Elaious VIII?
6 8 6 5 Eleusis VIII
2 1 1 Kopros VIII
ES Oinoe VIII
1 3 2 Anakaia 8?
1 2 Eroiadai 8?
1 Dekeleia 8
IS ATTALIS Oion Dekeleikon 8
21 29 24 City viii
26 16 22 Coast VIII
3 4 4 Inland 8
50 49 50 50 6+ 25 40 COUNCILLORS
bI
14 10 12 All use
14bsubject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 13 DEMES
TABLE IX AIANTIS
X Phylai XII Phylai XIII Phylai
4- Cor
-
on 0 4 Cu
10 Cu
ON Cu
r-1
CY) (4 aC) 0 CY) O4
Cu
C\u
0 C) 0
CY)
on
0
N CM 0
O
C! J
C Cu
vo Co C)
-
OCJ
t-- o Io cO oN
ci -t
HC) mt OC
C\ H CM
4 CM CU)
0
04 - Cu
0
bv 4 CU oO on 0
04 0 C<)
.10 Ln
H Cr) H
o on W< U)
Trittys Deme o on
M Hi "I =Iz K| :x1 OF II I~
City Phaleron (168) 9+ 9c [9] 9 9 [6+] 9 13 13
Coast Marathon (247) 1Cf 3+ [3+] [2+] 1+ 10 13 13

Coast Oinoe (36)- 4 4 [4] 4 4 6 6
Coast Rhamnous (203) 6~ [3+] [3+] 8 8 8 [12] 12
Coast Trikorynthos (96) f [3] 3 6 6
Inland Aphidna (229) 16 16 16 [10~] 16 PTOE_MAIS
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Phaleron? (168) 9 9 9 13 13
Coast Tetrapolis (582) 25 (25) 25 37 37
Inland Aphidna? (229) 16 16 16 0 0
AIANTIS (979)
TOTAL COUNCILLORS (50) 50 (50) (50) (50) (50) 50 50 50
TOTAL DEMES (6) 6 (6) (6) (6) (6) 6 5 5

O
TABLEIX AIANTIS
XII Phylai XIII Phylai I
H %41
041 I -o' 041
010 4
P<1 H
CMD C C 0 H
CY' H o CO Cu CO H
0
C~
H 4H
CM
O,4 0
ON0 Hh CM
0 04 CI0u O Cl
0 H H 0 4 J
|
=: Co1Co u H OI 0 t-
' r-iO
C hrLr-I 1 0o
I dl 4 CY- I N N
N<M -4 Nn C
O) a) ; O- f H O- \ CM 0a)
N -t 0 o- '
r- 0 M 0 0 C\o
cu oico
0o Co 0 cn 14
4:
Pu 041 0P q4)
0 04(Cr1) : C 0
'O 4 H rC-H H -I Hl I-
H H H HHr 04
HH +. cG H C
HYH H H O
H Cu o
H
H S' ?
\^ Î HI H HI C H @5
0
Deme
:o| :K| | H| ?| M|
17 *1+ 8 8 [5+ ] 9+ 4 Phaleron ix
1+ [29] [7+-] 6+ [13+] [15+] [13+] 9+ Marathon IX
ATTALIS HADRIANIS Oinoe IX
[16+ ] [21+] 4+ 7 3 Rhamnous IX
8 7 [7+ ]? HADRIANIS Trikorynthos IX
HADRIANIS Aphidna 9
City ix
Coast IX
Inland 9
50 40 COUNCILLORS
4 3b DEMES

TABLE X ANTIOCHIS
X Phylai 0
XII Phylai XIII
Phylai
,-I ,
O0
o Ln
CY) CY)
04 C 0 Cu CO
C)
*O 0
m H -I .'5
43 0 CJ a) N
CY)
0 _O
Cr) ) -- d<Y6 4) 0 tI- C)
V r-J CY) C\-
.H H
Cr) (-
C C J I .-4 4) _ H
0
0 04 4 CU
OJ o 0
Lf:tn t- 04
C\ 04
cu
Cu
_ 0_ S.O
04 0 _2 M| C\J H 0
,-I
-t 0 cu
-t O a) 0 O
O'
o,) C MH 0
CuH CM cn
r- CO M A 4 0
P p. CY
0o s.4
CY
0
0 a) -H
Ml C-\
\| H
H 01 04 H t^- 04
oo 0P
0E<
H H 4 ml - Or a) H H
H- H4 I-, a) rK
Deme .- \10 0 O? CH|
Trittys H| H H) :a| t Hl mrl o1
c
City Alopeke (255) 10 [9+] [12]? 12 5+ 12
Coast Aigilia 6 7 [4+] 7 PTOL

(93)
Coast Amphitrope (73) 2 1+ 3 3 3 2+ 3
Coast Anaphlystob (172) 10 10+ [103I? [1+] 11 1+ 11
[3+] 11
Coast Atene (47) 3 [3]? DEMETRIAS
Coast Besa (28) 2 2 2
Coast Thorai (55) 4 4 DEMETRIAS

c
Inland Eitea (20) 1+ 2 1 [2]? 2(1) 2 2 2
Inland? Eroiadai (21) 1 [1]? r-+ I 1 1 1 1 1

b
Inland Kolonai [3] 2 1+ 2 ANTIGONIS PTOI
(23)
Inland? Krioa 1 1 2 2 2
(47)
Inland Pallene (187) 6 7 6(7) 8+y [3+]
9
Inland Semachidai (37) 1 [ J? 1 .1 1 1 1
TRITTYS TOTALS
City Alopeke 10 12 12
(255)
Coast Anaphlystos 27 23? 23
(468)
Inland Pallene 13 15? 15
(335)
ANTIOCHIS (1058)
b
TOTAL COUNCILLORS ( 50o2s?)50 50 (50)(50) 5C 50

b
TOTAL DEMES (13)
All use subject
13 to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
13 ( 10) (10) 1C 9
TABLE X ANTIOCHIS
0 Q4
1
,I
I
a1
P4J 4
;1 0 (%0 0 0 C0 H
01 0r o4 t- r-0
cNJ i H
--I H N
.3 H
- (
,' ,'-I H\j co \ \ n(
ko 1
H a) c
o-- 0
M O H H 0
00 i4 a)cn I n H _Cnr 0CYo )s (a)
0 ( a) a) cu (J Cu Cr) ~ . .I- ' ar
H C) 4 Cr) Cr) C m\0
Ct- 0)
-
C'U H iN CJ LN 0 CJH .0O r a) k6 H
H OJ OJ cu " a) t- o0 O
r./ H 0 H - - oj1 H0 H H 1
CM C CU1
00 _r1 (m r r-ia)
oO 0p O
M P - P P
00 O:
O
r4-
o~ H
Hr:
H^ H
Hn
I
H
o
H
Hl
o
:<1
H
H
H
HI
H
H
o
H
o
o
H C.U .. i-i%-')
0
0~
H
* 1 I C 1 0 Deme
fIl ff| (
a|=1 w1 ::
? z t | H H| H |
14 12 [8+] 8 4 3+ 4 Alopeke x
MAIS Aigilia X
4 6 0 Amphitrope X
5 2 11+ 11 B 9 4+ 1+ 4 7 7 2 2 Anaphlystos X
ATTALIS Atene X
1 7 *1+ 12 HADRIANIS Besa X
2 3 1 0 Thorai X
2 3+ 0 Eitea 10
1 1 $1+ 3- o j3+ Eroiadai 10?
MAIS Kolonai 10
4 3 4 t1+ 1 215 Krioa 10?
15+ 9+ 23" 19+ t5+ 15" [8+] 2+ [11+] 24+ 5 28 6-1 Pallene 10
9 [1+]? 1+ 1 5+ 5 2 2 1+ Semachidai 10
1 Ergadeis b
?1+ Leukopyrab
1 1l-V 1 1 Phyrrhinesioi
14 4*? City x
12 2 Coast X
24 32 Inland 10
50 50 31+ 40 40 21+ 40b COUNCILLORS

10 lOb All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DEMES
7 9b
TABLE X' ANTIGONIS
Former XII Phylai XIII Phylai
Quota
ON
0\
0 r-i
a-
C-) m
0 a)
o 0 0o C\ cu
om N
~~~~~~~~~a)~~) _4 0
Is CJ 0
Cr- OJ o CM
'-0 t-
. ,- o
?QI "v
1O-1 C~~~~~~~~~bO 0%
a
OJ
04
11- 04
01 0o OJ
a o C\
a)
0 I Ml a) ko 0 E
O
Former *2 Trittys Deme 0 O0 Ml 0o De
o0 =I ?1
Phyle
Erechtheis I City Lower Agryle (50) 3 3 3 Low
Erechtheis I Coast Upper Lamptrai (140) 5 5+ 5 5 Upp
Erechtheis I Inland Lower Pergase (35) 2 [2] 2 2 Low
Aigeis II City Upper Ankyle (40) 1 1 1 Upp
Aigeis II Inland Gargettos (138) 4 64 77 3+ Gar
Aigeis II Inland Ikarion (128) 5(4) 6 6 1+ Ika
Pandionis III City Kydathenaion (295) 12(11) 12 12 Kyd
Pandionis III Inland? Kytheros (63) 2 2 2 Kyt
Pandionis III Inland Upper Paiania (31) 1 1 1 Upp
Leontis IV Inland? Aithalidai (94) 2 2 2 Aith
Leontis IV Coast Deiradiotai (55) 2 2 Dei
Leontis IV Coast Potamos Deiradiotes (35) 2 I1+ 2 Pot
Akamantis V Inland? Eitea (32) 2 2 Eite
Hippothontis VIII Coast? Auridai? (24) 1? 1 Aur
Antiochis X Inland Kolonaia (23) 2 2 PTOLEMAIS Kol
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 44-46 (50) 50 50 CO

ai
TOTAL DEMES 15 (15) 15 14 DEM

TABLE XI DEMETRIAS
Former XII Phylai XIII Phylai
Quota
H
H
H OJ H
Ci H
H
Cr) 0 -P
t- t- 0I 021
0) 0
C0 cO COU
OJ
0 0
1 0
r-- CU- N COJ
41 'O t H 0
CY' t-f
t- r:-1
in - CU
C\ 0
04 CY)
P4
0
Q) Cj
00 H
E- U.' aD
CY) r-I 0 (I 0
Former &2 Trittys Deme o mrl Op
Phyle 0o W.1 ac H
Aigeis II City Diomeia (37) 1 1 1
Leontis IV City Oion Kerameikon (140)+ 1 1 1 1 1 1
Leontis IV Coast Lower Potamos (17) 1 2 2 2
Akamantis V Inland Hagnous (99) 5 5 [5+] 5 4+

Akamantis V Coast? Poros (38) 3 [3] 3
Oineis VI City? Hippotomadai (12) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Oineis VI Coast Kothokidai (57) 2 2 2 2 2

Oineis VI Coast Phyle (83) 2 6 [6] 6 4+
Kekropis VII City Daidalidai (17) 1 1 1 1
Kekropis VII City Melite (257) 7 7 7 7

Kekropis VII City Xypete (108) 7 7
Hippothontis VIII City Koile (78) 3 2+ 3 3

Hippothontis VIII Coast Oinoe?a (72)+ 2? 2? PTOLEMAIS
Antiochis X Coast Atene (47) 3 4?

Antiochis X Coast Thorai (55) 4 5?
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 44 (50) 50 50

a
TOTAL DEMES 15 (15) 15 14a

TABLE XI: PTOLEMAIS
Former XIII XII Phylai XIII Phylai
Quotas Phylal
0 P41
u%
cs^-o .co C|O 04-I 04(
ON
I- H cc H
H t- C)
10
0 co
Cr)
H I CMP4| O 0\
0 n C4
O OJ CU0 ON- CU CU 0 _
I-
0l k CMs
O H
S{ no H
1\ L
EI a) ,r 0 r-t 0
C4 _ n Cj
O a Tl 0 \0 0- r OJ
cO
Om P4t- P
H 0 M
H H
M 0CO
0 oen =1
Former t
oo-
Trittys Deme 0o
_
I
H
N
3?
0H
C I t1 CtI
ON
C| C\ Hr|
HH _- Cr)
n
:a|
Phyle
Antigonis I Inland Kolonai (23) 2 2? 2?
Demetrias II Coast Oinoe (72)+ 2? 2? 2?
Erechtheis III City Themakos (25) 1 1 1
IV Inland? Kydantidai (44) 1(2) 1(2) 1? 1 I1+

Aigeis
Pandionis V Inland Konthyle (24) 1 1 1 2
Leontis VI Inland Hekale (28) 1 1 1 2
Akamantis VII Inland Prospalta (90) 5 5 5

Oineis VIII City Boutadai (36) 1 1 1 1+
Kekropis IX Inland Phlya (224) 6? 9? 9? 13+ 1+ [7+] [16+] 7+
Hippothontis X Inland Oion Dekeleikon (18)- 3 3 3 ATTALIS
Aiantis XI Inland Aphidna (229) 16 16 16 *1+ HADRIANIS
Antiochis XII Coast Aigilia 6 7 7 *1+ 4?

(93)
? Berenikidai 1? 13 4+
New (32)
2
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 50b 50
13 12 {t
TOTAL DEMES

TABLE xlV ATTALIS
Former Quotas XII Phylai XIII
OC
NI P<| P<|on? *|1

0 0
I-
H HaU1
+ 4ol
4- 44
IN 0H cl m
% )
0a OJ
o C H C
0 _? * I
0 Cu 0
o8 _%C O 0fiO
Cu H
O 0 0- H4 b- ?0 - bC -
-4 0 ^
-t ^
rH %0t0t
Cu CM 0
0 _ N
CO U))1 I
'0 I
CU =l-?so
e4 cm
r-1 - CO
- o ,
04
Cu Cv c (c E4 M .~o H M \OJ
H
O4 0 0
-
o\H o
>?* m) O P4 P4 H H H
r- H 0
< *< < Cu CU HHHHl O HMH HMl
Former 4 Trittys Deme 00
c0 0
Phyle
I
Erechtheis I City Lower Agryle (50) 3 3 3? 2
Aigeis II Inland Ikarion (128) 5(4) 6 6? 1

Pandionis III Coast Probalinthos (91) 5 5 5 3 1
Leontis IV Coast Sounion (154) 4 6 6 10 15 2+ $11+

Ptolemais V Inland Oion Dekeleikon (18)- 3? 3 3? 3 ?1+
Akamantis VI Inland Hagnous (99) 5 5 5? 4 4+ 3 *1+ *1
Oineis VII City? Tyrmeidai (18) 1(0) 1 1? 2 1 11+
Kekropis VIII Inland Athmonon (141) 6? 10? 10? 8 1+ 19" $1+ t 1+
Hippothontis IX City Korydallos (14) 1? 1 1? 2 1

Aiantis X Coast Oinoe (36)- 4 4 6 4 HADRIANIS
Antiochis XI Coast Atene (47) 3 4? 4? 6
New ? Apollonieis (14) 5
TOTAL COUNCILLORS 50? 50 50 40 19+ 40 10

TOTAL DEMES 11 12 12 6

TABLE XS HADRIANIS
Former Quotas XIII Phylai

_% H
1 H ? 0
X co g fi?-i
e ir\ -of ^ H
o
H '1 *O +>i n
O-^ ao 0
Cc
C)0
ti| or')0~ CO 0 0H b.-O
041 0 0 0 03 ^
t>- 0 CY
N o- 0
I C
I 0o CY)
CVn) 0\ C u-0 - 0 n
OJ
CU 4H H H Ho
H
r-I N N
jQ _ *?i^f^J{E}( 0 ?
031 0 0 to CV) C
__ t-o
El)
E^(M tN- c^- a\o0 _o a ^r-< o<0
0o V4 s - s c- H-t H- -a)co -
cm a)
0 o 00 C
CJ r-r 34 ar-) 0? OJC4r-i < <00 r-I
Cu C\ CUH Cu H HH C- C\l p4HrCU
C, -H
'4
H H H H H H H4) H H
0
H H H t- I H H H C'0H
?y
Former '4
O? a? 0c H| H| HI~~~~~~~~~~
M|M
H|t |
HW| 1M H||
HH M W [M|
I| H||
Phyle
0
Trittys Deme
Erechtheis I Coast? Pambotadai (34) 1(0) 1(0) 2
Aigeis II Coast Phegaia (68) 3(4) 3(4) 4? 2
Pandionis III Inland Oa (67) 4 4 4 10 3

Leontis IV City Skambonidai (79) 3 4 4 3
Ptolemais V Inland Aphidna (229) 16 16 16
Akamantis VI Inland? Eitea (32) 2 2? 2? 2+v
Oineis VII Coast Thria (101) 7 8? 8?
Kekropis VIII City Daidalidai (17) 1 1 1?
Hippothontis IX Coast? Elaious (30) 1 1 1? 4+ 1V 1
Aiantis X Coast Trikorynthos (96) 3 3 6 4
Antiochis XI Coast Besa (28) 2 2 2? 1* [2+] 8+ [8+] 5* 11
Attalis XII Coast Oinoe (36)- 4 4 6 14 3
New City? Antinoeis 4
TOTAL COUNCILLORS
TOTAL DEMES

MAPS 1 - 3

MAP 1
'
.E - - 'X X 7-
CZ
O.0 I
c
~ J:
6Jk.", ^ '5 ,,,Oi l.
.,\ .I : .%
"\",.g",
"
4-'
p /
L^^~~~~~~~" ' 5,
(: .
.li\J
r n-,- e
p a
j1..$
11.
'ii,"',
2
I
~
I7
-1
1? I.
PHYLE
I j :I
\
2
1 1%
7 ERCHIA
3
11
LOWER
PAIANIA KONTHYLE
KONTHYLE
2 KIKYNNA ?
I
5 SPHETTOS
ANGELE 2

,./ 5 ea
MYR
HAGNOUS
PROSPALTA
/ -/
V- .: \
4 THORAI
0 5 km.
Scale: ca __ .. ,
__a
ATTICA
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
CITY TRITTYES i, ii, iii,... X
COAST TRITTYES I, , JII,... X
INLAND TRITTYES 1,2, 3,...10
Bouleutic quotas are shown within the circles.
Demes of the same trittys are joined by lines.
O? NAME = Approximate location; few remains
NAME? =Deme-site; name uncertain. 0c-

0
For the corresponding modern locations see text
NOTE: The location of the following demes is not known and no attempt has been made to place them on
Erechtheis Aigeis Pandionis Leontis Akamantis Oineis Kekropis Hippothontis
KEDOI I 1 OTRYNE i 2 KYTHEROS 3? 3 KETTOS

iV? 3 POROS ? I.TYRMEIDAI Vi? 1 EPIEIKIDAI 7? 2 HAMAXANTEIA
3 LEUKONOON iV? 2 EITEA 5? 1 1 ACHERDOUS

* PAMBOTADAI I? HIPPOTOMADAIVi?
a PHEGOUS 1? 2 AITHALIDAI 4? 1 AURIDAI

7 ?I'
* SYBRIDAI 1? 2 HYBADAI 4? 2 AZENIA ?
2 KOLONAI 4? 3 ANAKAIA 8?
1 EROIADAI 8?

.....
MAP 2
I
.,5 sq 4 I,/ ic
.
f
..
- ''
-.'C
':'=i?
^ V'-r" jG 59PHE
\C7RHINOUTTA? / -UHAMNOUS 6
^
.
2?OIO aS,, ..5 J'X,1^
p?. ' -
^ SEMACHIDAI TIKORYN
!''....:~' . . . .... 10
v-' IPLOTHEIA
EONO
\ ^*-* /,; * *^*^ .*(i)7 ! . ^^ ' ?MAR
ACHAR NA NTfAI?
'"\
, ~ *T M..L ::. AIONID PJS XN
E" (
.... e / l IDAI? DR LN
KERAMEIN
?AOUS- PI--3 . OS I
HERMOS 2 6? PNLYA
CHOLAOS TICS TEITHRAS 2 RASIAI
N
ANKY
LE :::<% > KTY
,,TP
.. ='NA? ?.' =Dee - sit;
-LEKLE
COAGETTOS \E 2 STEIRA
K? R OTHORI
LO R,
VI
HYt1 AVL
FAN 3 7 E RCHI A
6
KEAES /W
LOWER<
1 P L MYRRHI
r,/gg V611\ g/ ANKYLE
\ATPIDAIENO IN AIXTRTNE 0
- - -- -' -
\ \_// J s~~~~KEPHALE 2AP EIRADIOTAI'E
2 IRADAJ KY
_L x|
ATHENS
... E CITYTR.TTYES 1 i, . I,.. X .
R Aants &
E:ehheis
anionis Aieis Loni s A 3kLEa
m:ntiUPPEi ekropHpohotis
-
KRMIO
ON AI XONE65) ANAGYROUSS~^?NU
5^LA^^-PRA^ ?DAI
--KOBON
AGRYLE H HREARRHIOI
..OUTADA... . . .. :POTAMS .
1 DAIDALDAI DeAes of the same trittys arePAjoined by ,ines. Ti
.....A?l.......
R , ~ "(
IAANKYLE [
COAST
KOILE TRITTYEAS?
~
KO
DALLYT
Y
R
^^-///^F ^^ DIOMEIA 2 ^ PEPouleutic
YLEOKU&
R
quotas are shown within the circles. "'
OION?? -.7/": IV'~

ALOPEINA
'KON.
0^ ATkmCA AIG IA
THYL .
THNAMAEKO?Deme..ite,- name"uncertain.
ALPEKE~ 10 0? NAME =Approximate few remainsIA

~o~~cation;KE TI
For\the correspondingmodernlocationssee tS e xtTO
X 0 NAME? =Deme-site name uncertain
IU OWER KYLE INLANDTRITTYES1,2, 3,I N10

MAP 3
INOS
E' , ,^ - t
P
< '";~......"'
;
"
-
'U)TRIKORYN SEMACHIDAI/
/
(TRIKORYNT
II
K , TK"
\ IA| 1 PALLFN.. 6 . 4. \ t
K/ / P(1 '
"lliiI LO-THE
STIADAINONÛ
OLNEUONYM 0AION \I
VIII y*2?
J^ )\ - (^\3ES _
-EE /3NIDAI ^ RIO
e^ EOUTAHOKID~ IAU
1j X J ^- ? AEPRI R D
. 1 , KIKYNNA^?'
G-
\AHE7 HERMOS ^ ..,.o, ^^ \. A^
~/ L 2 V
1
'^\^^^@i^DAiPHAW~ON^ HEIY
)11E(2PH \
2?K
InA OF \i A A 6? IN3r
/?THEJ~MA^KO,S
~
KO2NT3~L EV
R IAI I
NOE . TH-o u E E
5) \ ^(^ 1AYHIDAI?
MELAOUS I, / OA 4 () A\
ALIMOUS *2 \\ ANGELE( S
VKALRORYDALSTON OS)J
K!1 o 2
11s\
>OIME.AU~ ( Demes transferred to
DemetriasI
`_ SRAPHENI
UONY N D
3O 5
OUI /
ix ) A
LOWER
KONTHYLE
\v AIXpAIN
N LM tOAI NKDA?EAO
2 i
^ oe, n o i c.
.-,,^ IKYNNA
THMON \ \ M
-T\
~AIXONEMON 5 IS T THR
-^^. \ 1(9g )LOWER

LOWER v .. '
KERLAMPTRAI K PAMPTRAI P 1
HAH
*41UPPEI
5 U
ATHENS RE RGANiATIONNAYTO
UUPPER &
vi ,AN LE!
eO
~ONM Deme ;ranf-red o De ket ias
1 +1
/ ^^ ^^ ANKYLE . ^= A
transferred
DemesntigonisKL to/E/ 4 \
((OLLYTOS'i^'^K, j^/^ *ffllLoWER
ODEME NAME'1-- Quota Increase

P of One Bouleutes, etc.
A2 /

known and no attempt has been made to place them on the map.
NOTE: The location
All use demes
of the following
subjectis tonotJSTOR Terms and Conditions
Pandionis Leontis Akamantis Oineis Kekropis Hippothontis Aiantis Antiochis
Erechtheis Aigeis

HS14 - Political Organisation of Attica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS14 - Political Organisation of Attica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS14 - Political Organisation of Attica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HESPERIA SUPPLEMENT XIV

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

(Hesperia. Supplement 14)

Printed in Great Britain by

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

TOUVPKac /Le 7poEKEK8 S&SaUKcL'.vaL raSe rTav'ra

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY, PRINCETON

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

APPENDIX B: Alphabetical List of the Constitutional Demes and Assignment

EPIGRAPHICAL INDEX . . . . .135

TABLES OF REPRESENTATION I-XV

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

(2) ET7rELrarT7jv OVA'v TrevTaKoaltovs avtl rETpaKocltwv KaTreUr-qcEV, 7TEVT-qKOVTa E(

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

constitute a subject worthy of special separate treatment.3 Of concern here, how-

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

COMMENTARY ON TABLES OF REPRESENTATION I-X

TABLE II, AIGEIS

TABLE III, PANDIONIS

TABLE IV, LEONTIS

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

TABLE VIII, HIPPOTHONTIS

B. THE DEMES OF THE ORIGINALTEN PHYLAI

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

TABLE II, AIGEIS

TABLE III, PANDIONIS

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

TABLE VII, KEKROPIS

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

15See below, p. 85, and note 41.

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

section presumably being transferred later to Attalis. The original editor, B. D.

TABLE VIII, HIPPOTHONTIS

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

C. THE QUOTASOF THE ORIGINALTEN PHYLAI

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

TABLE II, AIGEIS

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

the first deficiency was ignored and the register contained

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 06:53:42 AM

TOTAL 15 15 30 46/44 (50) 43 (50) 89/87 (*100) 12279 1227