The author wishes to thank Professor J. Tate, Dr. M. N. Tod, Mr. J. Cook, and Mr. V. Kiernan for their great kindness in assisting him with information, criticism, and corrections, and the Research Fund Committee of the University of Sheffield for its generous financial assistance to him.

¹ The inscriptions are hereafter referred to by number, e.g. Crosby 1. Additional references to Hesperia XIX, V (for the new fragment of IG II² 1582), X (for the text of Crosby 1), and IG II² are given when necessary.

^1a Ardaillon, , Les Mines du Laurion (Paris, 1897)Google Scholar, which remains the chief work on the archaeological and technical side. More recent works draw their material on these aspects of the mines from Ardaillon or earlier writers whom he uses. Orth's, article ‘Bergbau’ (RE Suppl. Bd. IV (1924), 108–55)Google Scholar contains a useful summary of technical matters, based mainly on Ardaillon. Other aspects of Attic mining are treated less well and not without the quotation of irrelevant passages. Blümner's, article ‘Silber’ (RE III (2nd Series), 13–23)Google Scholar also provides a useful summary of material on the sources, working (cf. the same author's Technologie IV), and use of silver. It is not without errors of detail, especially on the administration of the Laurion mines. Blümner certainly underestimates (18) the importance of sources of silver other than Laurion, and yet depreciates the importance of Laurion (20). Forbes, R. J., Metallurgy in Antiquity (Leiden, 1950)Google Scholar, has a long bibliography of works on silver and lead (219–30), mainly technical. He is not concerned with the organisation and administration of mining, and refers only very briefly to the Laurion mines. Another recent work of very wide scope, Wilsdorf, H., Bergleute und Hüttenmänner im Altertum bis zum Ausgang der römischen Republik (Berlin, 1952)Google Scholar, is a compilation of some technical interest, in which, however, it is difficult at times to discover the writer's sources or the period and region of which he is writing. Laurion is dealt with 119 ff. Andreades, A. M., A History of Greek Public Finance (Cambridge, Mass., 1933), I 269–73Google Scholar, gives a brief and somewhat muddled summary.

² Ardaillon 13 ff.

³ Ibid. 14, 24–7.

⁴ Ibid. 27 ff.

⁵ See in LS⁹ under κατατὲμνω (4) for the sense ‘cut into the ground’, and the reference to Xen. Vect. IV 27, in which κατατετμημὲνα is taken in this sense, and so meaning ‘worked, opened up’ as opposed to ἂτμητα ‘not worked or opened up’. It could mean ‘cut up’ with a more technical sense, following the meaning of κατατὲτμηται in Hdt. I 193.

⁶ Crosby 1, Hesperia X 14 ff., ll. 53, 72; Crosby 16, IG II² 1582. 70.

⁷ Crosby 2. 18–19.

⁸ Crosby 5. 75–6.

⁹ IG II² 1582. 70.

¹⁰ It appears in Crosby 6. 5 and 14. Both passages are very defective, but it is very clear that the ὲπικατατομὴ is associated with, but distinct from, a metallon which (to judge from the letter spaces) is almost certainly palaion anasaximon, as it is in IG II² 1582. 136 and 137 (reading of Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 250)Google Scholar, and (though defective) fairly certainly in Crosby 16, Face A, Col. II (ibid. p. 247), l. 50.

¹¹ LS⁹ on the authority of IG II² 1587. 15.

¹² Or. XXXVII 36.

¹³ Ibid. 38.

¹⁴ 47, 2.

¹⁵ Kenyon observes (op. cit., ad loc.) ‘numerusγ̄aut ī esse videtur, hic e re ipsa probabilior’. Some specific number is required rather than the [ὲς ἀεὶ] of van Herwerden and van Leeuwen.

¹⁶ See LS⁹; the general fourth-century meaning is potential, cf. ἐργὰσιμα χωρὶα in Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon; the sense of ‘active’, ‘in operation’ is not so well supported, but is clear enough from the fourth-century inscription IG II² 2498. 17: (τὰ τεμἐνη) ὂσα οὶὸν τε καὶ θεμιτὸν ὲστιν ὲργἀσιμα ποεῑν It is worth pointing out (with Sandys, , Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (1912)Google Scholar, on Ἀθπ 47, 2) that in Plato Lg. 824 it is opposed to ἀργὸς and indeed in Crosby 5. 84 occurs the curious term ὴργηκὸς applied to a mine, apparently meaning ‘idle’; Crosby, ad loc., aptly quotes Dem. XXVII 19: ἀλλ᾿ἐνὶοτε μὲν φησὶν ἀργἢσαι τὀ ἐργαστἠριον

¹⁷ It is interesting to note the use of this word in a metaphorical sense, which seems likely, though not necessarily, to have taken its origin from mining. LS⁹ cites an isolated fifth-century example in Aristophanes, Vesp. 876Google Scholar; Eccl. 584 (391 B.C.), Plato Euth. 3b, 5a, 16, Lg. 709a, 797b, c, Aristotle Pol. 1266a35, 1305b41, 1316b19, all καινοτομει̑ν; Plato, Lg. 715d, 950a, καινοτομἱα Aristotle Pol. 1265a12, καινοτὁμος The relatively frequent use by Plato and Aristotle, in certain of their works, of this metaphor might be due to mining activity in the period of composition.

¹⁸ Kirchner, in IG II ²1582Google Scholar (following Oikonomos) takes this view in a note to l. 60: ‘atque v. 60, 64, 77 sub voce ἐργἁσιμα intellegendas esse καινοτομἱασ inde apparet, quod in hac parte tabulae veterum metallorum mentio omnino non fit. Cf. ad n. 1587. 13. Quodsi Arist. Ἀθπ. XLVII 2 commemorat τἀ πραθἐντα μἐταλλα, τἀ τ᾿ ἐργἀσιμα τἀ τρὶα ἒτη πεπραμἐνα καὶ τὰ συγκεχωσμὲνα (pap. συγκεχωρσμἐνα) τἀ εἰς. ἒτη πεπραμὲνα consentaneum est τἀ ἐργἀσμα esse metalla nova, τἀ συγκεχωαμἐνα vetera’. The basic assumption here is that there must somewhere be a record in this passage of kainotomiai.

¹⁹ See below for the essential differences likely to be reflected in administration.

²⁰ See LS⁹; the sense ‘demolish’, as used in the examples cited, seems unsuitable for mines, but ‘fill up’ as in Hdt. IV 120, 140, and Xen. Hell. III 1, 18 seems a better meaning.

²¹ Dr. M. N. Tod makes the attractive suggestion to me that συγκεχωσμὲνα might mean ‘blocked up’ by the collapse of the galleries.

²² This is Sandys' second suggestion (op. cit. 184), in discussing this problem, but attached to the emendation συγκεχωσ- μὲνα. Συγκεχωρημὲνα he would interpret as possibly mines ‘let under a special agreement’. Professor J. Tate lends his support to the interpretation given in the text.

²³ Ten years need not be taken as certain. See below, pp. 226–7. On stylistic grounds, as Dr. M. N. Tod points out to me, ί (=δὲκα) is preferable to γ̄ since if the latter were adopted the sentence would become extremely ugly with its repetition of τἀ εἰς τρὶς ἒτη πεπραμὲνα

²⁴ Vect. IV 10–11.

²⁵ As will be seen below, it is not quite clear how the prices paid were determined, but when once in a συγκεχωρημἑνον mine a lucky strike had been made, others would be willing to replace the lessee even at a higher rate of payment. Even if there were no outside competition, it would be a poor reward for the lessee's enterprise if at the end of only a short period (say three years) the concession was subject to renewal at a higher price determined by the State (see below for the question of renewals of leases from time to time as against the idea of a perpetual lease). This, of course, presupposes the imposition of a higher price in such renewals, a problem which remains to be discussed below with the question of the manner in which this higher price was determined. But if none of these things happened, the distinction in period of lease between ἐργἀσιμα and συγκεχωρημἑνα is meaningless, as is the distinction between different types of mine.

²⁶ As Kirchner, , in IG II ²1582Google Scholar, in the note on l. 20, points out.

²⁷ See LS⁹. σἀττειν seems to possess the meanings (i) ‘fill, pack, stuff’; (ii) ‘equip, provide with a store’. For the sense ‘equip’, cf. Hdt. VII 62, Theocritus XVII 94. ᾿Ανασἁττειν in pf. part. pass, ἁνασεσαγμἑνος Plb. XII 25h, 2 only. ᾿Ανασὰξιμος appears only in connection with the mines. IG II² on 1582. 20 leaves the meaning and derivation uncertain: derivatum est vocabulum a σἀττειν = refercire. Antiquus enim modus egerendi erat saccaria. Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 681. Poll. X 149. Itaque ea vena, unde saccarii iterum atque iterum fragmina ad saccos farciendos utilia peterent, nomine ἀνασἀξιμον notabatur. Sic rem explanavit Han (sen) 13 adversatus Boeckhio CIG I p. 289, qui σἁττειν ad metalla derelicta scoria et egerie completa rettulerat, ἀνασὰττειν ad materiam ex metallis egerendam, si cui de integro illa exercere placuerat. At egerere = ἀνασὰττειν non ἀνασὰττειν> Cf. Ditt. ³ 1202. 2. Voci ἀνασὰξιμον ferme additur παλαιὸν: . . . . . . . E rerum nexu colligitur ἀνασἁξιμα fuisse metalla vetusta, iam instituta, quae plerique continuare malebant quam intacta aperire.

²⁸ Though the ore-washing establishments may have needed more localised organisation in relation to the cisterns, unless water was sold from them and carried by donkey to the ergasteria.

²⁹ Discussed by Boeckh, in Abhandlungen der Berl. Akad. der Wissenschaft, 1815Google Scholar, republished as ‘Abhandlungen über die Laurischen Bergwerke’ in Kleine Schrifen V, 1 ff. Here use is made of the translation appended to Public Economy of Athens II (London, 1828), the English version of Staatshaushaltung der Athener ¹ (Berlin, 1817). The later and fuller third edition, Berlin, 1886, adds nothing (cf. ibid. I 378, note a) except a few references to the lists of the poletai.

³⁰ The principal explanations of the lexicographers are here given (of which Boeckh says (op. cit. 446), ‘The explanations of the grammarians are so indefinite and obscure that they appear to have had little knowledge of its import’). Lex. Seg. 271: Κεγχρεὼν τὸπος ᾿Αθὴνησιν ουτω καλοὺμενος ὂπου ὲκαθαἱρετο ὴ ἀργυριτις κἑγχρος καὶ ψὰμμος ἡ ἀπὀ τῶν ἀργυρὶων ἀναφερομὲνη Pollux VII 99: Ταὑτης δἐ (γῆς σιδηρἰτιδος) τὀ κἀθαρμα σκωρὶαν ὠνὸμαзον, ὢσπερ τοῦ τὸ ἂνθος ἀδἀμαντα καἰ τὀν τῶν ἀργυρἱων κονιορτὀν κἑρχυον Harpocration, s.v. κεγχρεὼν τὁ καθαριστἡριον ὃπου τὴν ἐκ τῶν μετἀλλων κἑγχρον διἑψυχον, ὢς ὑποσημαὶνει Θεὸφραστος ἐν τῷ περἰ μετἀλλων

³¹ See Boeckh, op. cit. 449. Usually equipment for pounding the ore, and sorting tables, would be at the mine head (RE Suppl. Bd. IV 135–6), and mills and washing tables in separate ergasteria—a natural division of labour. There could, in fact, be three separate types of establishment: (i) the mine; (ii) the ore-preparing establishment; (iii) the smelting place. (ii) and (iii) were sometimes, at any rate, separate, as the distinction of ergasterion and κἀμινος in the lease lists shows, as is also the case with (i) and (ii), shown by the distinction of metallon and ergasterion. How exactly, in terms of business relations, (ii) and (iii) were related to the mine operator is obscure.

³² The issue is summarised by Finley, M., Studies in Land and Credit 32–7Google Scholar, and discussed passim. See also Fine, J. V. A., Horoi, Hesperia Supplement IX, Index 211.Google Scholar Finley op. cit. 259 n. 110 properly points out the common confusion of mine and ergasterion.

³³ Dem. XXXVII 28: Καὶ κατεργασὰμενος τὴν ἀργυρῑτιν, η̄ν οὶ ἐμοὶ οἰκὲται ὴργὰσαντο, καὶ ἒχων τὸ ὰργὺριον τὸ ἐκ ταὺτης τῆς ἀργυρὶτιδος. . . . . . There seems to be no good reason for not accepting the ‘documents’ quoted ibid., 22, 25, 26, and 28. Pantainetos also engaged in mining, cf. ibid., 22, but this metallon is not to be confused with the ergasterion.

³⁴ Cf. Crosby 5. 78–9 (two workshops). In IG II² 1582. 155 ff. sufficient is preserved to show three of these establishments as boundaries to one mine. Orth, RE Suppl. Bd. IV 138–9, comments on the numbers of ergasteria (i.e. ore-washing establishments; note that the cisterns may have been separately owned, and water from them sold to the ore-washers) of which remains survive in close concentration. Many are surrounded by walls, and were therefore separate undertakings. It seems, then, that no large-scale organisation existed of this aspect of the mining industry.

³⁵ Crosby 1 (Hesperia X 14 ff.), l. 54; 5.85; 13. 11, 57, both fairly certainly restored; 19.25; 32b = IG II² 1588. 6. Mortgage stone at Laurion, , IG II ²2750Google Scholar: ὂρος κ̣[α]μὶνου καὶ ἐδαφῶν πε [πραμὲ νων ὲπὶ λὺ σει] (= Finley, , Land and Credit 143Google Scholar, no. 92; cf. AM LXVII 36, no. 42). RE Suppl. Bd. IV 139. Traces of furnaces are rare, which is perhaps due to their destruction by the great heat of the smelting process.

³⁶ Boeckh, op. cit. 467; lately in Hermathena LXXVIII (1951), 50–66, by Sir John Miles.

^36a Here used as a convenient general term, though the writer is in full agreement with Finley's, condemnation (Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens (New Brunswick, 1952), 9)Google Scholar of the use of this term in relation to the hypothecation practices of ancient Athens.

³⁷ Ζενοκλῆς τοὶνυν Βὴσαзε μὲν ὶὼν εἰς τὸ ἐργαστὴριον τὸ ὴμὲτερον εἰς τἀ ἒργα. . . . In the lease inscription IG II² 1587. 7 we have τὀ ἐργαστὴριον τὸ Δ[ιφὶλειον καλοὑμενον (cf. ibid. 11), but this need not be a mine.

³⁸ Where, indeed, it almost looks as if all property in the mining region (τἀ ἐν τοις ἒργοις) were ἀτελῆ See below, n. 376.

³⁹ The view that ergasterion cannot mean ‘concession’ in the mines seems to be clinched by the evidence of mortgage-stones, though too much stress cannot be laid upon them because of their limited number. Whereas metallon appears in boundary-stones, IG II² 2636–8, the term does not appear on mortgage-stones, though we have mortgage-stones relating to ergasteria, slaves and a κἀμινος in the mining area, IG II² 2747 (see n. 148), 2748, 2750, comparable to the mortgage-stones of ergasteria found elsewhere in Attica, Ibid. 2746, 2749 (Finley, , Land and Credit in Ancient Athens 143 nos. 91 and 90Google Scholar).

⁴⁰ Op. cit. 453.

⁴¹ Op. cit. 454. On the question of preliminary payment, he says, ‘this sum (i.e. the ninety minae of Pantainetos' “purchase” in Dem. XXXVII 22) cannot have been an annual rent, for as its amount depended upon the produce of the mine, it could not have been definitely stated beforehand’. But this would depend on the type of mine, for which question see below, pp. 235–6.

⁴² In speaking here (455) of ‘the purchase of the soil’ Boeckh presupposes vacant land, and thus avoids the difficulty of publicly leased mines under private land.

⁴³ On this question of a proportional payment, see below, pp. 229–30, 238.

⁴⁴ In Hermathena LXXVIII (1951), 52.

⁴⁵ For terms of buying and selling cf. Aristophanes Equ. 362: ἀλλὰ σχελὶδας ἐδηδοκὼς ὠνὴσομαι μἑταλλα. ᾿Αθπ 47, 2. Dem. XIX 293 of Moirokles' extortion παρἀ τῶν τἀ μἑταλλα ἐωνημἐνων Dem. XXXVII 22. Deinarchos (Baiter and Sauppe II 325), πρὸς Μὴκυθον (Blass, , Attische Beredsamkit III 2, 305Google Scholar: Μὶκυθον) μεταλλικὁς πριἁμενοι μὲταλλον. . . . Harpocration and ‘Suidas’ s.v. διαγραφἡ: ἡ διατὺπωσις τῶν πιπραοκομἑνων μετἁκκων δηλοῦσα δια γραμμὰτων ἀπὸ ποἱας ἀρχῆς μἑχρι πὸσου πἑρατος πιπρἁσκεται Harpocration s.v. πωληταὶ on the other hand, seems to make a finer and obviously baseless distinction, if the distinction of terms is insisted upon: διοικοῦσι δὲ τἀ πιπρασκὸμενα ὑπὸ τῆς πὸλεως πἀντα, τἐλη καὶ ,ἐταλλα καἰ μισθὼσεις καὶ τἀ δημευὸμενα Ps-Ulpian 685G (Wolf), quoted by Boeckh, for what it is worth, says of Meidias: Μεμὶσθωτο γἀρ τἀ μἐταλλα παρἀ τῆς πὸλεως ἂ η̄ν τοῦ ἀργυρὶου On this question of terms, see below.

⁴⁶ Relative to the mine in Dem. XXXVII 22: τὸ ἀρδὺριον . . . . . . δ ἒφεπεν καταβολὴν τῆ πὸλει τοῦ μετὰλλου ὂ ἐγὠ ἐπριἀμην ἐνενὴκοντα μνῶν. . . . .

⁴⁷ It has, indeed, been argued (with the interpretation of ἲδιον as ‘own property’) that ἐντὸς τῶν μἑτρων means within the boundaries of a state mining area as opposed to a private one. On this and the offences of Philippos and Nausikles, ibid. 34: ὠς ἐξ ἀναπογρἀφων μετἁλλων πεπλουτὴκασι and that of Epikrates of Pallene, ibid. 35–6, which was not greatly different, see below pp. 220–1.

⁴⁸ de Myst. 133: ἑπρὶατο τριἀκοντα ταλὰυτων 134 ἐωνοῦντο πἀλιν τριἁκοντα ταλἀντων Ibid., ἐπριἁμην Note in 134 the curious phrase ἀντεωνεῖτο οὑδεἱς. . . . . . Some new light is thrown on this practice of purchasing the right to collect a tax by the new portion of IG II² 1582, published in Hesperia V (1936), 393 ff., no. 10, ll. 115–90. This gives a list of δημιὀπρατα including property publicly sold which belonged to one who had acted as guarantor for the purchasers of the right to collect various taxes (date probably 342/1 B.C.). The sale took place when both purchaser and guarantor had defaulted. The taxes named are μετοἱκιον (126), ἐν τοῖς ἐ~ργοις ἡ πεντεδραχμυὶα (129–30), ἡ πεντεδραχμἱα ἡ τῶι Θησε[ῑ] (134–5), the purchase price being payable in ten instalments (καταβολαὶ cf. ᾿Αθπ 47, 3) of what is called in 1. 148 ἡ ὡνἡ Payment for mines must have been administered in a similar fashion.

⁴⁹ Op. cit. 52.

⁵⁰ Pp. 204–06. Dem. XXXVII passim, Aeschines I 101, Isaeus III 22.

⁵¹ See below pp. 220 ff. Meier-Schömann-Lipsius, , Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren 311Google Scholar, n. 8 regards ι̇διον of the Hypereides passage as indicating a ‘private mine’, not ἐντὀς τῶν μἐτρων which he takes to mean the bounds of a state mining area.

⁵² It seems entirely against the evidence that it was offered as a security. It may be an illegal mine; see below, and Lipsius, op. cit., 311, n. 8.

⁵³ IG II² 411, Roberts-Gardner 46, Ziebarth, , Beiträge 121.Google Scholar See Schulthess, , RE XV 2105Google Scholar, s.v. ῾μὶσθωσις ᾿

⁵⁴ Commentary by Wilhelm, A., Attische Pachturkunden III, Archiv für Papyrusforschung XI 206 ff.Google Scholar Wilhelm's restorations are approved by Schönbauer, E., ‘Vom Bodenrecht zum Bergrecht. Studien zur Geschichte des Bergbaurechtes’, Zeit. Sav. Stift., R.A. LV (1935), 183 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Sokles seems to have taken the initiative, and there is a suggestion of a long-term prospect of profit in the words (1. 7): ὂθεν φησὶν τὴμ π[ρὸσοδον ἓσεσθαι τῶι] δὴμωι

⁵⁶ Staatsgebiet und Staatsangehörige 25.

⁵⁷ Staatsgebiet und Staatsangehörige 26. The connection of Peisistratos with mining he takes for granted.

⁵⁸ As inferred by Kahrstedt and asserted by Young, in Hesperia X (1941), 29.Google Scholar See below, pp. 217 ff.

⁵⁹ Crosby 1. 42, 52, 61; IG II² 1582 passim. In 1582. 63–4 the double occurrence might mean the place of registration in the case of the first ἐπὶ Λαυρἑωι (but this double reference occurs elsewhere, cf. 1582. 135–7); other cases in 1582 must represent the location of the mine.

⁶⁰ Op. cit. 28–9. ‘…dass wir hier eine echte Staatsdomäne haben, das alte Gut der Peisistratiden, das konfisziert ist und keinen anderen Oberflächeneigentümer haben kann als den Staat.’

⁶¹ Op. cit. 29: ‘Aber ἐπὶ Θρασὺμω̣ ist so häufig ohne zusatz genannt, dass es neben den Demen gestanden haben muss, wie Laurion ein exemtes Gebiet, aber nicht Domäne im Sinne restlosen privatrechtlichen Eigentums an Oberfläche und Untergrund gleichmässig’. For the suggested location of ῾ἑπὶ Θρασὺμῳ ᾿ in the Maroneia (Kamareza) region, see Oikonomos, , AM XXXV (1910), 299Google Scholar, on the authority of ‘Suidas’ and Dem. XXXVII 4 and 25.

⁶² Op. cit. 31: ‘Der Staat hat ausser dem Eigentum an der echten Domäne Laurion das Bergbaurecht auf einer grossen zahl von Grundstücken rings um diese herum in den Demen Sunion, Anaphlystos, Amphitrope, Bessa, Thorikos. Auf diesen Grundstücken—nicht etwa: in diesen Demen—darf weder der Eigentümer der Oberfläche noch sonst ein Privater auf eigene Faust Bergbau betreiben’.

⁶³ Ibid. 29–31: ‘Ich möchte mir die Entwicklung folgendermassen vorstellen: die Peisistratiden besassen ein Familiengut mit Bergwerksbetrieb, Laurion, in der Zeit ihrer politischen Macht haben sie auf benachbarten Landstrecken Bergbaurechte erworben, ohne die privaten Eigentümer von der Oberfläche zu verdrängen. Dies ist das Areal ἑπὶ Θρασὺμῳ eventuell zuzüglich des Hügels Bambides. In diesem Umfang hat die Republik das Eigentum der Tyrannenfamilie geerbt, also als einfacher Eigentümer für das eine, als Inhaber des Bergbaurechtes für das andere Areal, in diesem Umfang ist es bei der Einteilung des Staatsgebietes in Demen als eigene Einheit neben diesen konstituiert worden. Der Staat hat dann die Bergbaupolitik der Tyrannen fortgesetzt und schrittweise auf die benachbarten Demen übergreifend das Bergbaurecht unter bestimmten Grundstücken erworben, ohne die Eigentümer der Oberfläche zu verdrängen' … ‘Wo der Staat dies Recht nicht erworben hatte, war der Bergbau frei, aber steuerpflichtig mit 1/24 des Bruttoertrages.’

⁶⁴ See below.

⁶⁵ Not a deme, see above, and cf. ἑν Αὐλῶνι etc.

⁶⁶ Crosby 5. 10, 33 and 35; cf. 6. 11; 8 (IG II² 1584). 4; 16 (IG II² 1582). 6, 48–9, 68, 111, 117; Crosby 16, Face A, Col. II, Hesperia XIX (1950), 248, 1. 75; 25. 19.

⁶⁷ Crosby 1. 77 (one boundary, but not unique, cf. ibid. 59–60, 61–2); 2. 9–10; 13. 55–6 (restored); IG II² 1582. 15–16: ἐπὶ] Θρασὺμωι ἐν τοῖς [ὲδὰφεσι τοῖς . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] 1582. 140–44 (restored), 159–62 (restored), 180–82 (restored) (Crosby, op. cit. 250); 1587. 5–6.

⁶⁸ See Busolt-Swoboda, , Gr. Staatskunde (II) 1141.Google Scholar They are also mentioned ᾿Αθπ 7, 3 in connection with the Solonian organisation. See Busolt, , Gr. Staatskunde (I)³366.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ IG I² 24. 9 (448 B.C.); 36. 7 (c. 447/6 B.C.); 44. 11 (c. 445 B.C.); 63. 25 (425/4 B.C.); 73. 22 (period of Pericles); 76. 51; 94. 5, 12 (418/17 B.C.); 115. 8 (409/8 B.C.); 128. 6 (before 428/7 B.C.?).

⁷⁰ Miss Crosby comments on and suggests restorations to inscriptions already published in IG II²: 1583 (Crosby 7), 1584 (Crosby 8), 1585 (Crosby 10), 1586 (Crosby 38), 1587 and 1588 (Crosby 32), or published in part ibid.: IG II² 1582 + Hesperia V (1936), 393 ff., no. 10 = Crosby 16; 1589 + Agora Inv. I 1723 = Crosby 34.

⁷¹ Discussed below pp. 224 ff. See also DA, s.v. ‘Polétai’ also ibid.s.v. ‘Demioprata’.

⁷² It is, however, worth pointing out here the reference (᾿Αθπ 47, 2) to the λελευκωμἑνα γραμματεια which seem to have been transmitted to the Council, with a statement of the purchaser and price of confiscated property and the taxes, as a record. Then there appears to have been another document in which there were listed separately: (i) on ten γραμματεῑα those who have to make a payment each prytany (see Sandys, ad loc. for these), (ii) on three γραμματεῖα those who have to make three payments in the year, (iii) those who have to pay once, on the ninth prytany. The γραμματεῖα are not expressly mentioned for this third group, nor are the mines mentioned in these arrangements. Noteworthy in ᾿Αθπ 47, 3 is the diverse instalment purchase of houses and land: εστι] δὲ τῶν μὲν οἰκιῶν ἐν πὲντε ἒτεσιν ἀνἀγκη τὴν τιμὴν ἀποδοῦναι, τῶν δὲ χωρὶων ὲν δὲκα καταβὰλλουσι δὲ ταῦτα ὲπὶ τῆς ὲνὰτης πρυτανεὶας

⁷³ Harpocration s.v. ῾πωληταὶ ᾿ See above, note 45. Cf. ibid., s.vv. ῾διαγραφὴ ᾿ and ῾ἀγρὰφου μετὰλλου δὶκη ᾿ Busolt-Swoboda, , Griechische Staatskunde (II) 1141, 1222 n. 3Google Scholar, for the correct form ἀναπογρὰφου

⁷⁴ For the term, cf. Harpocration and ‘Suidas’ s.v. ῾διαγραφὴ ᾿ in note 45 above.

⁷⁵ The form of the preamble is best represented by Crosby 1. 1: ᾿Επὶ Πολυзὴλο ἂρχοντος πωληταὶ .. . . . .; l. 40: μὲταλλα ὲπρὰθη. . . . . Crosby 34.1–2: πωληταὶ οὶ ὲπὶ ᾿ Αναξικρ[ὰτους ᾶρχοντος ουυυ] μὲταλλα τὰδε ἀπὲδοντο. . . . .

⁷⁶ So Crosby nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, some being very small fragments.

⁷⁷ There seems to be little prospect of calculating the height from the thickness of the slab where this is preserved. Apart from the cases where the slab tapers downwards (cf. nos. 7 and 15, and also the odd shape of 18 (recent?)), the thickness appears to give no reliable indication of the height. The varying thickness of No. 1 seems to represent the range of the other slabs (except nos. 28 and 32, which are noticeably thinner), but this is no indication of similar height, since e.g. IG II² 1533, of thickness 0·10 m., has a height of 1·40 m., while Crosby 1, thickness 0·097–0·132 m. is only 0·922 m. high.

⁷⁸ Op. cit. 245.

⁷⁹ See below, pp. 217 ff.

⁸⁰ Crosby nos. 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26.

⁸¹ Twenty-two; Crosby nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38.

⁸² Crosby nos. 32, 33, 35, 37.

⁸³ Also discussed below (pp. 25 ff.) in connection with the delimitation of boundaries. See in general Finley, M. I., Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 1 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ IG II² 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638. If they are referred to in the phrase στὴλην ἒχον there was only one to each mine, and it is not clear how they served as boundary markers.

⁸⁵ See Kirchner, PA 7891 and 13964Google Scholar, Hesperia XIX (1950), 235.

⁸⁶ Now see also Finley, M. I., Land and Credit, 155, no. 129.Google Scholar

^86a Roberts-Gardner 350, Peek, W., AM LXVII 35, no. 37.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Crosby 20. 8–9. A mine Artemisiakon bounded by another of the same name but characterised as ὂ ὲ[ργὰзεται. . . . For the appearance of the same names several times, see Hesperia X (1941), 25 n. 11.

⁸⁸ Plutarch, Mor. (Vit. X Or.) 843 D (Bernardakis), Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 258.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ For Diphilos, cf. Crosby 13. 64 (restored as registrant), IG. II² 1582. 125–6 (property owner). See Hesperia XIX (1950), 235; and IG II² 1587. 11 for a Διφὶλειον

⁹⁰ Hypereides IV (III) 34 (O.C.T.).

⁹¹ Sosias, , Xenophon, , Vect. IV 14.Google ScholarThiel, J. H., πόροι (Amsterdam, 1922), 20Google Scholar, and Wilhelm, A., ‘Untersuchungen zu Xenophons πόροι’ Wiener Studien LII (1934), 19–20Google Scholar, identify him with the ἒπιστὰτης of Nikias’ mines mentioned by Xenophon, , Mem. II 5, 2.Google Scholar Wilhelm compares with Sosias ᾿Ατὼτας μεταλλεὺς a Paphlagonian, whose gravestone (IG II² 3260 b) was found in the Laurion region.

⁹² Xenophon, , Vect. IV 14Google Scholar, Mem. II 5, 2. Plutarch, , Nicias 4, 2.Google Scholar

⁹³ Xenophon, , Vect. IV 15.Google Scholar It is not absolutely clear whether this is Hipponikos II (PA 7658), as assumed by Kirchner, ibid, (see p. 245 below) or Hipponikos III (PA 7659).

⁹⁴ Crosby 1. 64, and Hesperia X (1941), 27, probably Kallias IV, father of Hipponikos IV, appearing in Hesperia V (1936), 400 line 110, now known to be of Alopeke, not of Ankyle as in PA 7660, 7842 (cf. Meritt, , Hesperia V (1936), 410).Google Scholar See below p. 245.

⁹⁵ Xenophon, , Vect. IV 15Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ A mine-operator in the vicinity?

⁹⁷ See Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 260Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ The Μὴκυθος of Deinarchos LXXVIII (Baiter and Sauppe II 325) might be included. The name in Deinarchos is wrongly read as Σμὶκυθος by Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 304Google Scholar, on the basis of PA 12798. Mekythos is, to be sure, probably an error for Smikythos, but in the absence of a demotic it is impossible to identify him with the Σμὶκυθος [Π]α[ιαν]ὶευς of IG II² 2748 (Finley, , Land and Credit 143Google Scholar, no. 89) or with the Σμὶκυθος Συπαλὴττιος of PA 12798. Kirchner's 12798 seems to refer to one who appears ‘in decreto in honor, Zenonis philosophi facto a. 264/3, Laer. Diog. VII 12’, but the character in the speech of Deinarchos purchases a mine in 345/44 B.C and is involved in litigation in 341/40 B.C. (a period of considerable mining activity). See note 284a below.

⁹⁹ Crosby, op. cit. 286–92.

¹⁰⁰ See below, pp. 231 ff.

¹⁰¹ Nikias and Charmylos (or wife) appear three times; Exopios, Leukios, Diokles, Alypetos (or wife) appear twice, Diopeithes twice or thrice, and Kallias of Lamptrai possibly twice.

¹⁰² Pheidippos himself as lessee of mines, and in the listing of mine boundaries, while certain members of his family appear (restored) as mine lessees.

¹⁰³ There is one uncertain case of the recurrence of a name (Telesarchos). In four cases relatives are certainly known as lessees of mines (one restored), and there are two probable cases of relatives as lessees (one restored). Two are elsewhere conjecturally concerned in mine boundaries (Philinos and Kallias of Lamptrai).

¹⁰⁴ Charmylos (45, 68, 79) also 5. 4–5; Pheidippos of Pithos (46–7, 81) also 15. 44–5, 18. 70 and 72, 20. 25–8, IG II² 1582. 43 (see Crosby, op. cit. 249), 19. 4–9; Diophanes of Sounion (59–60) also 13. 68.

¹⁰⁵ Epikrates of Pallene (70–1), also 20. 5–11; Exopios (43–4, 62) also 28. 10–11; Kallias of Lamptrai (62, 73, 74) also 5. 70; Leukios of Sounion (46, 80) also 5. 5–6; Nikias of Kydantidae (41–2, 58, 64–5) also 8. 5; Philinos of Sounion (60) also 14. 2 and IG II² 1582. 47, 50; Teleson of Sounion (69, 70), also 20. 11.

¹⁰⁶ Of these (and there is one doubtful, Timesios) the sons of two (Diokles of Pithos, 48–9, 58, and Diopeithes of Euonymon, 53–4, 78) are restored with more or less certainty as (i) registrant and (ii) purchaser of a mine: Diochares, Crosby 14. 15–21, 15. 23–9; Diotimos, Crosby 26. 1 and 6. Likewise Phaidros, son of Kallias of Sphettos, is restored, Hesperia XIX (1950), 251, IG II² 1582. 180–1, as registrant of a mine; it is very uncertain whether the same son appears Crosby 13. 94. Kephisodotos of Aithalidai also appears to be the father of a lessee in Crosby 15. 23.

¹⁰⁷ Crosby 1. 70–1 and Hypereides IV (III) 35. There is, however, some difficulty about the chronology, see below n. 113. Leukios of Sounion (46, 80) is also restored as a lessee in Crosby 16, Face A Col. II, 70 (IG II² 1582. 22), and in 20. 5–6.

¹⁰⁸ See below, pp. 237 ff.

¹⁰⁹ Accepting the abbreviation ἄρχο (anything else is not likely).

¹¹⁰ This archon-name might be used as evidence if no other archon can be fitted in, which seems to be the case, if the full-length demotic is accepted in 11. 9–10 (note the abbreviated form in 1. 13). The abbreviated form of demotic (11. 9–10: Φιλα) would give far more spaces, an archon-name of ten letters (vowel initial) or nine (consonant initial). There are no suitable examples of the former, but Pythodotos (343/2 B.C.) or Nikomachos (341/0 B.C.) suit the latter. Crosby's restoration depends on her theory of a long-term lease here, with ἀπεγρὰψατο as the verb.

¹¹¹ See Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 283Google Scholar; the length of line is uncertain, and Demogenes (317/16 B.C.) restored in II. 13–14, as Crosby points out, would make a renewal period often years.

¹¹² The archon name Theophilos (348/7 B.C.) appears to apply to one lease alone. See below for the question of the use of εἰσὴνενκε The actual date of the inscription is probably 342/1 B.C. See n. 291 below.

¹¹³ There are only two cases where comment seems necessary. The Epikrates of Pallene in Crosby 1. 70–71 (of 367/6 B.C.) could just be the Epikrates of Hypereides IV (III) 35–6 (date 330–24 B.C.), but the identification with Epikrates son of Menestratos (PA 4909), amphiktyon at Delos in 377 B.C., trierarch c. 342 B.C. is very dubious. The Epikrates of Crosby 20. 5 and 11 could be identified with either E. of Crosby 1 or E. of Hypereides IV (III) according to the date assigned to Crosby 20, but not with both. The other possibility is that of the grandfather appearing in Crosby 1 and the grandson in Hypereides. Cf. Demostratos I, Aspetos, and Demostratos II: Demostratos II, Crosby 1. 54; Aspetos, IG II² 1582. 55 and Crosby 15.21; Demostratos II, PA 3623.

The only other case is that of Lysitheides of Kikynna (Crosby 6. 10, Hesperia XIX (1950), 220), a relatively well-known figure, mediator in 369/8 B.C., trierarch in 355/4 B.C. (PA 9395). His son Lysikrates is on record (PA 9461) as choregos in 335/4 B.C. and as trierarch in 325/4 B.C. The name of Lysitheides appears preserved or restored in Crosby nos. 5, 6, 4, 19, 20. Crosby 29, in which his children appear as owners of ἐδάφη is dated too late at ‘post-mid 30's’ unless the children here exclude Lysikrates.

^113a Reference to p. 237 will show how these dates are obtained.

¹¹⁴ In the long list of confiscation sales appearing in the new fragment of IG II² 1582 (Hesperia V 393 ff., no. 10, see above, note 48), one of the persons mentioned had defaulted in connection with ῾ὲν τοις εργοις τὴν πεντεδραχμὶαν ᾿ (lines 129–30). He is three instalments in default at 125 drs. per instalment (prytany instalments), that is, the total yearly payment is 1250 drs. If he was the sole collector of this tax, and it was paid on each mine irrespective of size or class, this would give 250 mines active in 343/2 B.C. It is, however, very uncertain what the nature of this πεντεδραχμὶα is, and how it was calculated. It seems a very small sum, hardly worth collecting, if it represents 5 drs. per mine. Note that, unlike some of the other levies mentioned, it was not shared by more than one collector.

¹¹⁵ For organisation by localities, see n. 321.

¹¹⁶ As seen above, the only complete example of a διαγραφή and the earliest as far as the present evidence goes.

¹¹⁷ On this point see Crosby, and Young, in Hesperia X 25.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Hesperia X (1941), 29.

¹¹⁹ See above pp. 208–09, for a discussion of the significance of Laurion and ἐπὶ Θρασὺμωι

¹²⁰ Crosby 1. 63.

¹²¹ Crosby 1. 77.

¹²² IG II² 1582. 71.

¹²³ Crosby 1. 77, IG II² 1582. 15, 19, 24; 1587. 5. See above pp. 208–09.

¹²⁴ In the ἒγκλημα unless it is assumed that this document is late and spurious, with ⊖ρασύλλῳ (which is unknown in the διαγραφαὶ) borrowed from Aeschines I 101, though this might equally well be a corruption of ⊖ρασύμῳ

¹²⁵ Cf. AM XXXV (1910), 298–300. Maroneia (the region or site of the mining activity of 484 B.C. (Ἀθπολ 22, 7) and of Pantainetos' ergasterion (Dem. XXXVII 4)) also appears in the lease inscriptions, cf. Crosby 19. 18, the location of a mine called τὀ ἂντρου (recalling the ‘énormes vides’, mentioned by Ardaillon, , Les Mines 139Google Scholar, as existing at Kamareza); also in Crosby 1. 59, 2. 17, 19. 23–4. It is interesting to note that Nikeratos of Kydantidai (PA 10742), great-grandson of the general, seems to have owned property in this region, as his father Nikias did at Nape (Crosby 1). See n. 142.

¹²⁶ For the meaning of ‘Sounion’ (and for a limited use of ἐπὶ Σουνὶωι) cf. Hesperia X 165–6. In any case ἐπὶ need not have only this meaning, cf. ἐπὶ Θρασὺμωι meaning ἐν or ‘in the region of’, and ἐπὶ Σκοπιᾶι (Crosby 1. 77 and 41 respectively). There are other forms: ⊖ορικοῖ (Crosby 1. 65), Βήσησιν (ibid., 73 and 82–3, and ἐν Νἀπηι (or -ει) (ibid., 41, 47, 57, 63, 67, 79). In the case of ὲπὶ Λαυρεὶωι (note the apparent definition in Crosby 1. 44 as the ῾ὂρος ᾿) the meaning is not clear. It may be intended to indicate the location. For Sounion as a very wide area, from Thorikos to Anaphlystos, cf. Hdt. IV 99, ‘the high land of Sounion’.

¹²⁷ Cf. Crosby 18. 7–8, though the unknown length of the lines makes judgement difficult here.

¹²⁸ Lines 59, 62, 78.

¹²⁹ Crosby 1. 64–5; cf. 66 for north and south boundaries owned by the same man, and IG II² 1582. 56.

¹³⁰ Cf. IG II² 1582. 52.

¹³¹ Ibid., 155 ff.

¹³² On ergasteria, see below, pp. 241 ff.

¹³³ cf. IG II² 1582. 63, Crosby 5. 17–19 (restored); there seem to be plenty of defective examples.

¹³⁴ Crosby 4. 2–4, 5. 75, 6. 1, 7. 19, 21 (IG II² 1583), 8. 12 and 14 (IG II² 1584); 10. 4 and 10–11 (IG II² 1585); 20. 24.

¹³⁵ cf. IG Crosby 9. 7–8.

¹³⁶ See LS⁹ for the broad scope of its meanings.

¹³⁷ Isaeus XI 42 shows that it can mean houses also, cf. French ‘fonds’.

¹³⁸ cf. Crosby 1. 48, 57–8, 79–81; 67 ff. is a curious example: ἐν τοῖς χωρὶοις τῆς Χαρμὺλο{σ}υ γυναικὸς ῶι γεὶ: τὸ χωρὶο τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς ᾿Αλυπὴτο, βοππᾶ Τελὲσων Σο<u>νι πρὸς ὴλὶο ὰνιὸν: χωρὶον Τελὲσωνος Σουνι δυομὲο ᾿Επικρὰτης Παλλη: Note IG II² 1582. 45–51 where no ‘edaphos’ is mentioned, but boundaries are given on every side; cf. Crosby 1. 41–2.

¹³⁹ Cf. 7. 25–7 (IG II² 1583) (restored), Crosby 8.5–6 (IG II² 1584), two ergasteria boundaries. Cf. IG II² 1582. 95 ff., 130 ff., 148–9; Crosby 14. 12–14, 20–1, 26–7. For closeness of ergasteria, as far as their remains are concerned, see RE Suppl. Bd. IV 138–9.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Crosby 4. 26; 5. 16, 48, 73; 6. 9. There are many other examples.

¹⁴¹ On the persons whose names appear in these inscriptions, see above, pp. 212–13. See also n. 84.

¹⁴² Kamareza is suggested by Ardailon, , Les Mines 138–40Google Scholar, as the probable site of Maroneia (see above n. 125) in the deme Besa, the site of mining activity in 484 B.C. For the North Greek association, cf. also Pangaion appearing Crosby 18. 6–7 in the Besa deme, apparently also a rich mining area. In Crosby 2. 17–18 it is possible that both are connected. See also n. 61.

¹⁴³ Possibly also mentioned Crosby 15. 47 (more probably purchaser's deme). Kahrstedt, , Staatsgebiet 31 n. 2Google Scholar suggests this mine belongs to a deme, and so gets its name. It may well be so, since demes could own property, but it tells us nothing of the general position.

¹⁴⁴ At Kypriano. See AM XII (1887), 300 ff.

¹⁴⁵ No note 145.

¹⁴⁶ IG II² 2653 is a marker stone on property guaranteeing the estate of minors. For ἀποτιμημα, cf. IG II² 2642 ff., termini fundorum pigneratorum (cf. Fine, , Horoi 116–41Google Scholar, and the literature there quoted, and Finley, M., Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens 38–52Google Scholar; IG II² 2653 = Finley 155, no. 129; 2642 = Ibid., 152, no. 121. The text of 2653 is ὂρος ἀποτιμ ὴματος Εὺβοὶο παὶ[δ]ων ᾿Οῆ[θεν] Several such estates appear in the accounts of the poletai.

¹⁴⁷ See above pp. 203–04.

¹⁴⁸ 2747, Finley, , Studies in Land and Credit 142Google Scholar, no. 88; Meletopoulos, I. A., Πολέμων IV 63–4.Google Scholar 2748, Finley 143, no. 89.

¹⁴⁹ It was probably somewhat smaller than the ergasterion of Pantainetos, Dem. XXXVII 4.

¹⁵⁰ No note 150.

¹⁵¹ See below, p. 246, for the purchase of land in the mining region and pp. 227 ff. for Schönbauer's view of divided ownership between the State and private persons. For the question of the demes of landowners in the mine region see p. 246. For the sacred domains, cf. that of Zeus, IG II² 2606, found at Thorikos, ὸρος ὶεροῦ Διὸς Α̣ὒαντῆ ροσ Ibid. 2493, 2494. 2493 (cf. Wilhelm, , Arch. Pap. XI 203–5Google Scholar; Finley, Land and Credit, 250 n. 38) records the leasing of a temple domain, whereon are cultivated πυροί and κριθαί, with vines, figs; 2494 (cf. Wilhelm, op. cit.; Finley, op. cit., 261 n. 117, 283 n. 37) is the lease of a similar estate of Apollo Lykeios, and contains references to trees, including olives and figs (and other ἀκρόδρυα), and provision for irrigation. 2494 was found at Sounion.

¹⁵² No surviving mine horoi give measurements and distances, as the horoi of burial places sometimes do, IG II² 2562–6.

¹⁵³ It is to be noted that the μεταλλικὸς νὸμος as here defined was concerned with the actual working of the mines ἂν τὺφη τις ἂν ὂπλ᾿ ὲπιφὲφη ἂν ὲπικατατὲμνη τῶν μὲτρων ὲντὸς. ταῦτ᾿ ὲστιν τἂλλα, . . . . . . . . . . together with dispossession: ὲὰν τις ὲξὶλλῃ τινἀ τῆς ἐργασὶασ) and to a large extent involved activities underground. The cases were ἔμμηνοι, and therefore such as were likely to hold up work. The offences of one τοὺς κοινοὺς παρελθὼν νὸμους are clearly distinguished.

¹⁵⁴ As noted above, p. 201.

^154a Dr. M. N. Tod observes to me, ‘But I wonder if this does not mean simply “both in extent and in location”.’

¹⁵⁵ The terms ὺπισχνεῖτο, ὺποσχὲσεις indeed, are repetitions of the ὺπισχνουμὲνου referring to Teisis, but note φὴναντος . . . Λυαἀνδρου as opposed to the ἀπογρἀψαντος of Teisis. For the application of the φάσις cf. Lipsius, , Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren 309–16Google Scholar, and Harpocration s.v. ῾φἀσις ᾿· λἐγεται μὲν καὶ ὲπὶ δημοσὶου ἐγκλὴματος ὂταν τις ἀποφαὶνη τῶν δημοσὶων χοντἀ τινα μὴ πριὰμενον . . . . and Lex. Cantabr. p. 667. 23: Καικὶλιος δὲ φὰσιν φησὶν εὶναι ῆν κατὰ τῶν τὰ δημὸσια μὲταλλα ὺπορυττὸντων ἀποφὲρουσι καὶ καθὸλου τῶν τἀ κοινἀ κλεπτὸντων. φὰσιντὰ δημὸσια μὲταλλα ὺπορυττὸντων ἀποφὲρουσι καὶ καθὸλου τῶν τἀ κοινἀ κλεπτὸντων. <φὰσιν> suppl. Lipsius.

¹⁵⁶ Such as Epikrates' mine was ultimately ruled to be (ἴδιον IV (III) 36). See above, p. 206.

¹⁵⁷ See Boeckh, op. cit. (note 29 above) 482–3.

¹⁵⁸ See Ardaillon, , Les Mines 41–2.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ To some extent the question would arise of agreement with the owners of surface property adjacent to the ‘edaphos’ in which the mine was sunk (cf. Crosby 1. 67–71).

¹⁶⁰ Hypereides IV (III) 35.

¹⁶¹ ἐντὸς ἀπἑπἑργουσαι of Hdt. III 116, cited by Boeckh, seems to have no application here.

^161a Hesperia V (1936), 397–8.

^161b The mine is expressly stated to be in the land of both.

¹⁶² Ardaillon, , Les Mines 138–9.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Cf. the timber imported by Meidias, Dem. XXI 167.

¹⁶⁴ So LS⁹, though it goes on to the explanation μεσοκρινὴς (sc. κὶων ) a ‘pillar left as a support in working mines’, a definition obviously influenced by that of the Lex. Seg.

¹⁶⁵ The relevant passages are set out by Boeckh, op. cit., 439: Vit. X. Or. 843 D, on Lycurgus' speech against Diphilos; Pollux III 87, VII 98; Lex. Seg. 280; Photius, s.v. ῾μεσοκρινεῑς ᾿

^165a Cf. the great complex of workings, given in plan by Ardaillon, , Les Mines 42Google Scholar, pl. II, which must have been commenced from different points and as separate sections, later joined together.

¹⁶⁶ Dem. XXXVII 38, τοῐς κοινωνοῦσι μετὰλλου

¹⁶⁷ Ibid. 37.

¹⁶⁸ Bekker τύφῃ, for MSS., τυφῇ A: ὑφῇ S: ὑφάψῃ vulg.

¹⁶⁹ Such a case of trespass could have been the background of the speech falsely attributed to Deinarchos, Πρὸς Μὴκυθον μεταλλικὸς (Baiter and Sauppe II 325). Cf. what is said of it in Dionysius' Index to the speeches of Deinarchos: ἐπὶ Νικομὰχου ἂρχοντος ἒρηται ὁ λὸγος οῡ̇τος (341/40 B.C., a period of considerable mining activity). φησὶ γὰρ ὁ λὲγων ἐπ᾿ Εὐβοὺλου μὲν μιοθὼσασθαι τὸ μὲταλλον, τρὶα δὲ ἒτη ἐργασὰμενος , ὺπὸ τοῦ πλησὶον ἒχοντος μὲταλλα, λαχεῖν αὐτῶ̣ τὴν δὶκην κατὰ Νικὸμαχον ᾶρχοντα There is, however, another possible interpretation. See note 284a below.

¹⁷⁰ Perhaps the μερίδες of Lex. Seg. 205 and μέρη of Lex. Seg. 286. The subdivision of mines in this fashion might also suggest an explanation of the word ὅρμος otherwise obscure (see LS⁹; it is difficult to connect the primary meaning of ὅρμος = chain (as given by LS⁹) and its derived meanings, with ὅρμος = a pillar (not quoted in LS⁹)). Could it mean a ‘chain’ or ‘series’ formed of a number of uniform divided yet similar elements (cf. a necklace), applicable to the development of an ore-bearing seam because of its division into ‘stalls’ or sections (to which Boeckh, 420, 467–8, was inclined to attach the term ergasterion) divided by μεσοκρινεῑς A ‘string’ of them in fact! These separate μερίδες might be worked by partners or by unassociated individuals. In this case there arose the need to protect them from danger and injustice. Cf. the observation above (p. 222) on Crosby 20. 6–12 for the possible division of a mine.

¹⁷¹ Pp. 205 ff.

¹⁷² Note that ‘purchase’ is not inappropriate, since the ore was removed and the state of the concession was radically affected.

¹⁷³ Harpocration and ‘Suidas’, s.v. διαγραφή

¹⁷⁴ Hypereides IV (III) 34: λὲγοντος ὡς ἐξ ἀναπογρὰφων μετὰλλων πεπλουτὴκασι

¹⁷⁵ Ibid.; see n. 155 above.

¹⁷⁶ ‘Suidas’ and Zonaras s.v. ῾ἀγρὰφου μετὰλλου δὶκη ᾿

¹⁷⁷ Harpocration and ‘Suidas’ s.v. ῾ἁγρὰφου μετὰλλου δὶκη ᾿

¹⁷⁸ ‘New’ here must mean ‘fresh, additional, just started’ rather than new in the sense of a kainotomia.

¹⁷⁹ Pp. 238–9 below.

¹⁸⁰ Hesperia V 401, 405–6, 411–12.

¹⁸¹ I.e. the ἐγγραφῆναι τὸ διπλοῦν τῶ̣ δημοσὶω̣ of XXXVII 22.

¹⁸² This seems clear enough from Ibid. 3: μετὲσχου γὰρ, γὰρ, ὠς μὴ ποτ᾿ ὢφελον κἀγὼ τοῦ δημευθὲντος μετὰλλου For partnership, cf. Xenophon, , Vect. IV 32Google Scholar: οΙὸν τε (οιονται see n. 207 below) δὴ οῦτω ὶδιὼτας συνισταμὲνους καὶ κοινουμὲνους τὴν

¹⁸³ Blass, , Attische Beredsamkeit III ² i, 505Google Scholar; Kirchner, PA 13978 and 14734.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Date generally given is between 330 and 324 B.C., RE IX i 284; Christ, , Gesch. Gr. Lit. ⁴422.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ See Meier-Schömann-Lipsius 311 n. 8 for certain points on XLII.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. μετεῑχον with μετέσχον of (Dem.) XLII 3.

¹⁸⁷ Hypereides IV (III) 35.

¹⁸⁸ Plutarch, , Mor. (Vit. X Or.) 843DGoogle Scholar, on Lycurgus.

¹⁸⁹ Dem. XL 52.

¹⁹⁰ Dem. XIX 292–3.

¹⁹¹ Kirchner, , PA 10400Google Scholar ‘Ab Eubulo Probalisio δὶσῃ μεταλλικῇ reus factus Dem. XIX 293’ seems to rest on a misunderstanding.

¹⁹² See possible parallels given by Sandys ad loc. from other sources.

¹⁹³ See Calhouns 354–5.

¹⁹⁴ Ἀ00θπ. 47, 3. cf. the episode in Andocides I 133–4, which mentions a bid in the form of a lump sum, outbidden in the Council for 36 talents.

^194a See note 29 above.

¹⁹⁵ RE and DA add little or nothing. See n. 1 above. Davies, , Roman Mines in Europe 246–51Google Scholar, has little to say on Laurion. Forbes, , Metallurgy in Antiquity (Leiden, 1950)Google Scholar, is concerned mainly with the technological aspects.

¹⁹⁶ In the question of the references in the διαγραφαί to mine locations ἐν τοῖς ἐδὰφεσι coupled with the name of a person, Schönbauer, Beiträge 28 and Studien 203 produces the unsatisfactory explanation that these are mere place-names (Ortsangaben) and ‘juristisch farblose Bezeichnungen zum Zweck der Lokalisierung’; but he does not explain how these areas got these names (they would hardly be those of people renting them from the State); the example of Diphilos (the Diphileion) is not a normal one. In any case fathers and sons hold property not necessarily the same.

¹⁹⁷ Studien 206.

¹⁹⁸ S. makes the idea of a state domain thus ‘freed’ (the Oros or Laurion) the basis of his theory. In Studien 194 he clearly does not like Kahrstedt's awkward view of: (i) the ex-Peisistratid domain taken over by the following régime, (ii) the area ἐπὶ Θρασὺμῳ of the same status, and (iii) the acquisition of mining rights under some private land but not under all: but in his turn he is forced to extend the ex-Peisistratid domain from the commonly accepted north and south areas (Studien 205) to the central area as well, and further to make a technical distinction between χωρία in private possession in the less mountainous area, and the Oros.

No note 199.

²⁰⁰ Cf. Studien 221–2.

²⁰¹ Ibid. 199.

²⁰² See Studien 204 ff. for valuable points on the appearance of private property in the mining area; Ibid. 193 ff., 200, 201–03 for the views of Kahrstedt, Ardaillon, Momigliano, and Calhoun.

²⁰³ Unless it be assumed that there were mines in private property (and no ‘Bergregal’), and the tax was levied on them which is mentioned in the new fragment of IG II² 1582, Hesperia V (1936), 401, 11. 129 ff.: καὶ ἐτἐραν ἐλλὺην ἐν τοῖς ἒργὶοις τὴν πεντεδραχμὶαν ἒκτην καὶ ὲβδὸμην κ αὶ ὀγδὸην τρεῖς ἑκἀστην τὴν καταβ[ο] λὴν ΗΔΔΓ δραχμἀς . . .

²⁰⁴ And, according to Boeckh (453), transferable to a third party by inheritance or sale, and yet free from liability to liturgies and open to foreigners on equal footing with citizens. The first of these ideas is based on a confusion of metallon and ergasterion. The second and third could hardly apply in such a case.

²⁰⁵ Beiträge 16–18, 19.

²⁰⁶ He asserts, on the authority of Xenophon, Vect., ‘dass die Gruben damals nicht mehr an Zeitpächter vergeben waren. Wahrscheinlich war es unmöglich in jenen gefährlichen Zeitläufen kapitalskräftige Grosspächter zu finden’. Note the rather different type of change from the direct exploitation assumed to prevail before the fall of Athens proposed by Fitzler, , Steinbrüche u. Bergwerke im ptolem. u. röm. Ägypten (Leipz. histor. Abhandlungen, 1910, 14)Google Scholar, who suggests that in the fourth century the State no longer exercised this right based on ownership, but it remained the basis of the State's control over the mineral rights even in land in private possession.

²⁰⁷ Cf. Beiträge 19. Note his reading of τὴν πεντεδραχμὶαν ἒκτην καὶ ὲβδὸμην κ αὶ ὀγδὸην τρεῖς ἑκἀστην τὴν καταβ[ο] λὴν ΗΔΔΓ δραχμἀς . . . in Xenophon, , Vect. IV 32Google Scholar, for οῖὸν τε δὴ . . . . . . and comment.

²⁰⁸ Not the net product, as it was felt that this would be too small. But it is difficult to see the difference, since the calculation would come ultimately to one of value per unit of ore. Both would be difficult to control, but the gross would be more difficult to measure and evaluate.

²⁰⁹ This Boeckh somehow identifies with the revenue mentioned by Xenophon, (Vect. IV 49)Google Scholar from furnaces and other publicly provided facilities in the mining region. It is quite clear, however, from the passage in general, and from the reference to the public ownership of slaves, that this was a different type of revenue altogether.

²¹⁰ See below, pp. 230, 235–6, on this difficulty.

²¹¹ Op. cit. 196: not an average, for if it were, he argues that it would be low in comparison with the return on landed property, even having regard to the risks (195).

²¹² See p. 236 below.

²¹³ Ardaillon suggests (192) that the famous 100 talents obtained from the mines in 484 B.C. was the sum of the ‘fermages’ inflated to a high figure by great expectations, and collected even from those whose hopes were disappointed, rather than a proportional payment, i.e. a ‘fermage établi el peut-être même payé d'avance’, which ‘écarte toute nécessité de contrôle sur le produit brut ou net des concessions’. Cf. Schönbauer (Beiträge 16–17): ‘Dann ist es verständlich dass man mit einer festen Summe rechnete’. This gets rid of the difficulties which arise if the 100 talents are taken as 1/24 of the total silver produced, but raises other difficulties.

It is to be noted that Ardaillon involves himself in a contradiction, calling the 1/24 first a limit (191): ‘Je comprends donc que le fermage était fixé d'avance pour chaque lot de mines, entre les Polètes et le concessionaire de telle sorte qu'il ne dépassât point la vingtquatrième partie des profits que le concessionaire espérait retirer’ and then a beginning for bidding (196): ‘Ce tarif n'est raisonnable que s'il est le point de départ des enchères. Il était sans doute dépassé le plus souvent, grâce à l'affluence des concurrents.’

²¹⁴ Which disposes of Boeckh's objection (see above, p. 229), and does not contradict Dem. XXXVII 22, where the καταβολὴ coming from the silver of the mine itself, would be a later payment, not the initial one.

²¹⁵ ἡ ἀπὸμοιρα ὠς μἑρος τι τῶν περιγιγνομἑνων ἐκ τῶν μετὰλλων λαμβανοὺοης τῆς πὸλεως ἢ ὼς διαιρουμὲνων εἱς πλεὶους μιοθωτοὺς ἲν᾿ ἒκαστος λἀβῃ τι μἐρος. Δεὶναρχος ἐν τῶ̣ πρὸς τοὺς Λυκοὺργου παὶδας πολλὰκις Ardaillon claims that the figure would be such that it could be divided into several lots called ἀπονομαί. He translates μισθωτούς (tax-collection purchasers?), while reading μισθωτάς, tenants in fee-farm, which Boeckh would prefer. Ardaillon's interpretation seems to come from Rangabé, , Laurion 19.Google Scholar But it is not clear that the second element in this definition (after ἢ ὡς. …), whatever it means, refers also to the mines mentioned in the first.

²¹⁶ Op. cit. 247–58, where he also suggests direct exploitation by the State down to 483 B.C. (with periodic distributions), and the leasing of mine concessions thereafter.

²¹⁷ A sensible conclusion, though the comparison with the mines of Saxony seems quite unsound, as are his further calculations of production based on on Beloch's, assessment (Gr. Gesch. ² III 1 274)Google Scholar of the number of slaves in the mines.

²¹⁸ Op. cit. 258: ‘trasformando il canone di pagamento in percentuale, meglio adatta alle precarie situazioni della industria mineraria ateniese da Alessandro e più della conquista romana in poi’.

²¹⁹ Beiträge 20–25, Studien 207–10; 193–202 contains a summary and criticism of the views of Ardaillon, Kahrstedt, Momigliano, and Calhoun.

²²⁰ The ‘freeing’ is certainly not proved by Schönbauer's arguments. See above pp. 228–9. In Beiträge 17 he accepts ‘Verpachtung’.

²²¹ Beiträge 22, 24; cf. the case of the κατατομή in IG II² 1582. 70, Beiträge 24–5: ‘die Grube ist noch nicht in Ertrage. Der ὠνητής erneuert nun sein Recht um die Arbeit fortsetzen zu können’. For the special case of Lysanias (IG II² 1582. 76–7, 82–3), see Beiträge 21–2. On this question of renewal it is worth noting Schönbauer's interpretation of the terms used in Ἀθπ. and the διαγραφαἰ (Beiträge 25): ἀνασἀξιμα (in the leases) is the equivalent of συγκεχωρημἐνα (Ἀθπ. 47, 2) and represent a renewal with a different ὠνη τὴς ἐργἀσιμον represents a renewal by the same operator, whether working continuously or intermittently. Schönbauer also makes the suggestion that the three years in Ἀθπ. for ergasima is not a limit of exploitation by one individual (to be followed by a re-auctioning), but a period to be followed by a registration by same operator again.

²²² ‘Pauschalbeträge’: to which he is perhaps inclined by interpreting IG II² 411 with certainty as referring to a mine worked on some form of ἀπὸμοιρα- system.

²²³ Studien 209–10: ‘es wäre theoretisch möglich dass die genannten Gebühren die Pauschalablöse für das Vierundzwanzigstel bedeuteten. Es scheint mir aber wahrscheinlicher dass neben den an die Poleten gezahlten Beträgen eine Abgabe zu leisten war, die Suidas meint’.

²²⁴ ‘Sehe ich dabei richtig, so dürfen wir uns also keine einheitliche starre Ordnung vorstellen’, ibid. 210.

²²⁵ Crosby 1 (Hesperia X (1941), 14 ff.), ll. 47 ff., 50 f., 51 f., 61 f., 82 f.

²²⁶ Cf. the distinction made in IG II² 1582. 60–3: τὰδε αὺτοὶ ἀπεγρὰψαντο ἐργἀσιμα ἐκ τῶν στηλῶν (i.e. the marker stones) ἐπὶ τῆς Κεκροπὶδος πρὼτης πρυτανεὶας ἐκ τῆς στὴλης (i.e. the lease list) τῆς ἐτὶ Καλλιμὰχο: ἂρχο:, though an archon's name, which usually follows, is here omitted. It is much less likely that ἐκ τῆς στὴλης here means the equivalent of στὴλην ἒχον

²²⁷ L. 3, ἀπ]εγρἀψατ[ο]

²²⁸ See below pp. 237 ff. Francotte, , L'Industrie 192Google Scholar, seems quite in error in supposing that ἀπεγρὰψατο refers to the informer against an illegal mine operator who, in Francotte's opinion, is represented by ἀπηργἁзετο This is apparently on the analogy of the confiscation sales of Crosby 16, cf. Hesperia V (1936), 400–3, where, however, the active ἀπἑγραψεν appears to be used; cf. Hypereides IV (III) 34. Francotte also explains the recurring sum of 150 drs. (observing incorrectly ‘ce qu'il y a de plus frappant c'est identité du prix dans le cas ou il a été conservé’) as a special cut price for the informer, who also takes over the mine.

²²⁹ See below p. 237. It appears in Crosby 16, IG II² 1582. 77, Crosby 18. 18–19, 19. 4, 37. 2. The first of these seems to be an exceptional and irregular transfer of a lease. The other cases all seem to concern ergasima, though ergasima also appear with ἀπογρἁφεσθαι; cf. Crosby 20. 7 and 18. 65 (restored).

²³⁰ Ll. 21 and 28.

²³¹ Crosby 2 and 3 perhaps belong to the period after Crosby 1 but before mid-fourth century (see Hesperia XIX (1950), 207, 209); 4 is likely to be of much the same date. The common terminology therefore probably came in pretty soon.

²³² Crosby 5. 21; 7. 17 (IG II² 1583); 8. 2, 9–10 (IG II² 1584); 9. 4, 11, 18; 10. 7, 16 (IG II² 1585), and idle mines seem indicated by ἠργάσατο (4. 8), ἠργηκός (5. 84), δ ἠργἁзετο (10. 11 (IG II² 1585)). See references below n. 236.

²³³ (^* = certain restoration; ^** = less certain) Crosby 13. 4^**; 13. 8^*; in l. 30, if this is correctly restored, at least one ergasimon is likely to have followed; Crosby 16, Face A, Col. III, IG II² 1582. 63–9 and 75–83 (in some way an unusual case), 69–75 (μἑταλλον καὶ κατατομἡ) is almost certainly ergasimon though not thus described; Crosby 18. 17–22,^* 60–4,^* 65–9^*; Crosby 19. 4–9,^* 9–13,^** 13–18^**; Crosby 20. 5–13. Crosby 16, Hesperia V 404, l. 299, is a possible case. A total of fourteen.

²³⁴ Crosby 32a, IG II² 1587. 5–6, with a name, and one of a group seemingly apart from anasaxima; Crosby 38. 1 and 8, IG II² 1586 (the poor copy of Fourmont).

²³⁵ Crosby 28. 5–6: κα[ι]νοτομὶα ἣν ἑργἁзεται 33. 2: καιϝο]τομὶα ῆν ἀ[πεγρἁψατο and 35. 3.

²³⁶ Crosby nos. 1–20 record 83 palaia anasaxima, anasaxima and ergasima (fully recorded or restored) as compared with 12 kainotomiai, all in Crosby 1, if these belong to this category. There are also the cases where in boundaries mines are named (28) and references to previous activity are expressed by ἡργἁσαιο, ἡργἁзετο as contrasted with ἑργἁзεται (for which cf. Crosby 4. 25, 20. 9, 24, 56, coupled in the last three cases with a name present or to be restored), which seems to indicate contemporary activity. The following are references to previous activity (^* coupled with a mine mentioned as boundary), most of which seem pretty certain: Crosby 4. 8; 5. 84 (ἠργμηκός); 10. 4, 10–11 (includes a λόφος); 13. 20 (includes a λόφος), 27,^* 51, 74–5^*; Crosby 16, IG II² 1582. 98; 18. 7, 53–4^*; 22. 10^*; 32a. 8; 38. 4; some of these are coupled with the mines named as boundaries, but there are 14 others. Cf. for mines as boundaries: 7. 19, 21; 4. 3–4 (?2); 5. 75; 6. 1; 8. 12 and 14 (2); 10. 4 and 10–11 (2); 13. 10, 74–5 (?); 15. 47; Crosby 16, IG II² 1582. 2–3 (differently read and restored by Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 247Google Scholar), 1582. 17–18, Crosby Ibid. 248, lines 65–6?; 1582. 38–9?, 43–4, 58–9 (2), 81, 120–1 (2); 20. 9, 24, 56; 32b, 1–2 (?2), 7, 11–12, but see Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 221.Google Scholar

²³⁷ See below n. 321 for the question of grouping.

²³⁸ Only anasaxima might be considered, but a study of the lists shows that anasaxima could not be the equivalent if price is any indication. Cf. Crosby 16, Face A, Col. II, 50–5: 400? + drs. for a concession ἀ]νασὰξιμ[ον καὶ ἐπικα]τα- τομ[ὴν where the ἐπικατατομἡ seems to make it clear that this is no kainotomia. Anasaxima also occur with registrants as well as purchasers (see below); cf. Crosby 5. 48–52, 68–73, with different persons in each capacity.

²³⁹ To be discussed below, pp. 235–6.

²⁴⁰ R. = registrant (ἁπεγρἁψατο) L. = lessee (ὠνητής).

²⁴¹ Also owner of a boundary ergasterion.

²⁴² Cf. Crosby 19. 19–20: σιἡλη<ν> οὑ [κ ε῀χον

²⁴³ ᾿Επἱ Λαυρἑωι in 63 is repeated as the location in 64; cf. 135 and 138 (Thorikos) for a similar repetition. Though named at the beginning of a lease these seem not to be registration centres; as Crosby suggests (Hesperia XIX (1950) 250), they may mark the transition from one local group to another, but other details are also repeated, e.g. the archon name in 75–9.

²⁴⁴ Recorded as: μἑταλλον εἱσὴνενκεν ἐργἁσιμον from the stele of Theophilos [ε]ἱργαзμἑνο[ν ὃ εἱχεν?]᾿Αντἱ[ξ]ενος Εὺω

²⁴⁵ See Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 250–1.Google Scholar Crosby's conclusion doesn't follow; cf. lines 175 ff.

²⁴⁶ Owner of an ergasterion on one of the boundaries.

²⁴⁷ In the latter the mine is not called ergasimon, perhaps because of the κατατομή, but it must have been such, as renewed from another stele.

²⁴⁸ Crosby 18. 60–4, 65–9; 19. 9–13; 20. 6–13 are restored on this principle, but are of no use as evidence; the position in 37. 3 is not clear.

²⁴⁹ In 18. 18–22 this appears as well, apparently of an earlier lessee.

²⁵⁰ Crosby 16, Hesperia V (1936), 398, l. 10; Crosby 16, Face A, Col. IV, IG II² 1582. 123.

²⁵¹ IG II² 1582. 129.

²⁵² Crosby 14. 9 and 21.

²⁵³ Crosby 16, Face A, Col. III, IG II² 1582. 51, 60.

²⁵⁴ IG II² 1582. 56.

²⁵⁵ Crosby 1. 52 and 83; IG II² 1582. 69, 75, 83; Crosby 18. 22; 19. 9, 13, 18; 20. 13.

²⁵⁶ Crosby 2. 21; 4. 7; 5. 36, 87; 10. 6; 15. 12, 29, 66; IG II² 1582. 12; Crosby 16, Face A, Col. II 60; IG II² 1582. 45; Crosby 16, Face A, Col. III, IG II² 1582. 36 (Crosby p. 249); Crosby 19. 37; 20. 58; 32b. 19; anasaximon 5. 11.

²⁵⁷ Crosby 1. 62, ergasimon (?), 50 drs.

²⁵⁸ Hesperia V (1936), 404, l. 299.

²⁵⁹ It is not clear that this is a price (what does φηγα stand for?), though it is in the appropriate place. As Crosby points out, it might be the last of a group of ergasima. It is followed by two palaia anasaxima.

²⁶⁰ Crosby 18. 3, 13.

²⁶¹ Crosby 20. 37 (800 drs.); 5. 15 (500 + 100? + 100?; anasaximon?); 3. 10 (500 drs.); 6. 8 (500 drs.); 13. 100 (500? + drs.); 16, Face A, Col. II 55 (between 400 and 500 drs.; anasaximon); 13. 108 (250? + drs.).

²⁶² Crosby 6. 5 and 16, Face A, Col. II 55.

²⁶³ Crosby 5. 68 (200 drs.); 20. 6 (200 drs.,palaion anasaximon?); 20. 20 (200 drs., possibly anasaximon); 27. 1 (170? + drs.); 18. 8 (160? + drs., anasaximon?); 20. 17 (160 drs., anasaximon); Crosby 16, Face A, Col. IV, IG II² 1582. 135 (130 drs., anasaximon); 36. 3 (120? + drs.). 5. 68 could also be either 700 or 300 drs.

²⁶⁴ IG II² 1582. 123–9.

²⁶⁵ IG II² 1587. 17–19; 1582. 69–75 (with κατατομἡ technically this might be either ergasimon or anasaximon).

²⁶⁶ 130 drs. (IG II² 1582. 129–35); 200 drs. (Crosby 20. 17–20; this is probably, not certainly, anasaximon).

²⁶⁷ IG II² 1582. 51–6. To judge from the practice with ergasima, this might be taken to mean the same registrant and lessee.

²⁶⁸ IG II² 1582. 63–8, 69–75 (but see above under anasaxima), 76–83; Crosby 19. 4–9, 9–13 (probable), 13–18 (restored); 20. 6–13 (restored).

²⁶⁹ See above. This seems to be an exceptional case (18. 18–22).

²⁷⁰ Crosby 1. 49 and 51, 52 and 83, and 62.

²⁷¹ Crosby 14. 15–21 (restored, no ὡνητἡς mentioned); Crosby 16, Hesperia V (1936), 398, l. 10 (restored); IG II² 1582. 106–12, 118–23.

²⁷² IG II² 1582. 45–51.

²⁷³ Crosby 14. 3–9 (restored); IG II² 1582. 56–60.

²⁷⁴ Crosby 20. 2–6 (restored), purchaser, Leukios of Sounion, registrant lost.

²⁷⁵ Crosby 5. 84.

²⁷⁶ Care must be taken in the use of the term ‘abandoned’: Crosby 14. 3–7 with no registrant might be such a case, but IG II² 1582. 45–51 with different registrant and lessee can hardly be called such, unless the ‘registration’ is a formal term and the name of the previous operator was got from the marker stone. For palaia anasaxima at 150 drs., with or without a registrant, see below p. 236.

²⁷⁷ Note the appearance of a kainotomia as a boundary, above n. 235.

²⁷⁸ Cf. IG II² 1582. 123–9, same registrant and lessee.

²⁷⁹ IG II² 1587. 17–19, which must represent some form of average.

²⁸⁰ Crosby 20. 17–20 (200 drs., though here (with different registrant and lessee) the type of mine is not specified); to this category probably belong the following (where we know nothing of registrant and lessee): 5. 6 (1210 drs.), 18. 3 (2000 drs.), 18. 9–13 (1400 drs.), 20. 13–17 (160 drs.), though 18. 3 and 18. 9–13 may be ergasima.

²⁸¹ Cf. probable restoration of Crosby 6. 5–8 at 500 drs., with ἑπικατατομἡ; also restored by Crosby 1n 16, Face A, Col. II 55 at 400? + drs.

²⁸² In IG II² 1582. 69–75.

²⁸³ Cf. IG II² 1582. 129–135, different registrant and lessee at 130 drs.

²⁸⁴ Where no registrant is given in IG II² 1582. 51–6 (anasaximon at 150 drs.), the best explanation is that the lessee is to be understood; cf. the omission of the registrant in Crosby 1. 49, 51, 52, 83, and omission of the lessee in 14. 15–21; it is difficult to explain Crosby 1. 62, ἐκ τῆς στὴλης at 50 drs.

^284a The case in which Mekythos or Smikythos (see above note 98) was involved in Deinarchos LXXVIII (Baiter and Sauppe II 325) may have something to do with an ergasimon mine and this period of three years. The speaker has ‘purchased’ a mine in the archonship of Euboulos (345/4) and instituted an action against Smikythos in the archonship of Nikomachos (341/40): as pointed out above, in a period of mining activity. If he purchased the mining rights in 344, a period of three years would terminate in 342, the year before the case was brought. The plaint is given as: ἐκβαλλὁμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ πλησὶον ἒχοντος μἐταλλα At first sight the offence might seem to be trespass by a neighbour mine operator, but the mention of the three years could also suggest that the plaintiff was outbidden by Smikythos, and sought to upset the leasing of the mine to him. Litigation between neighbours was likely enough as Crosby points out, Hesperia XIX ( 1950), 260.

²⁸⁵ Cf. Crosby 18. 18–22, ergasimon, different registrant and lessee, but clearly an exceptional case.

²⁸⁶ Crosby 18. 3 (2000? + drs.) and 18. 13 (1400? + drs.).

²⁸⁷ Crosby 14. 15–21 (restored); Hesperia V (1936), 397–8, l. 10 (restored); IG II² 1582. 106–12, 118–23.

²⁸⁸ IG II² 1582. 45–51.

²⁸⁹ Crosby 20. 2–6, purchaser, Leukios of Sounion, registrant lost.

²⁹⁰ IG II² 1582. 56–60 and 20. 25 ff.

²⁹¹ See Crosby, , Hesperia V (1936), 409, 412.Google Scholar

²⁹² The other ergasimon lease renewed (here εἱσὴνενκε) from the year 348/7 B.C. is an irregular case, as noted above, and may be neglected here.

²⁹³ Hesperia XIX (1950), 201.

²⁹⁴ Therefore no change in category. It is a little odd that the price remained at 150 drs.

²⁹⁵ That provided by Crosby 13 (see Hesperia XIX (1950), 233) is insufficient for such a test.

²⁹⁶ Crosby 32a = IG II² 1587. 5–6 and Crosby 38. 1 and 8 = IG II² 1586; in Crosby 38 both are restored, but it is not easy to dispose of the case in 32a.

²⁹⁷ For the difficulties arising from the lexicographers' evidence see above, pp. 224–5.

²⁹⁸ See Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 192.Google Scholar Prytany payments would make it easier to lease a mine at any time in the year.

²⁹⁹ Cf. ᾿Αθπ 47, 4 and ATL III 15; for the καταβολἠ see above (p. 226) on Dem. XXXVII 22, and cf. (Dem.) LIX 27: ἐωνημὲνος τὴνπεντηκοστὴν τοῦ σὶτου ὲν εἱρὴνῃ, καὶ δὲον αὺτὸν καταβὰλλειν τἁς καταβολἁς εἱς τὸ βουλευτὴριον κατἀ πρυτανεὶαν . . . . .

³⁰⁰ For defaulters on prytany payments, cf. Hesperia V (1936), 401, ll. 123–45.

³⁰¹ IG II² 2496–8 (twice a year), 2500 (four times a year).

³⁰² See Crosby, , Hesperia XIX (1950), 203Google Scholar, n. 46.

³⁰³ See above, p. 234.

³⁰⁴ See above, p. 230; see also Hesperia XIX (1950), 202.

³⁰⁵ See above, p. 230, n. 213 on Ardaillon's view of what happened in 484 B.C.

³⁰⁶ On this problem, see Andreades, , History of Greek Public Finance 353 and n. 9, 354Google Scholar, where Andreades points out that Theopompos quoted by Didymos seems to confirm (Dem.) X.

³⁰⁷ See also Xenophon, , Vect. V 12.Google Scholar

³⁰⁸ This cannot apply to the supposed great increase under Lycurgus, for which, however, the evidence is less good. See below n. 379.

³⁰⁹ P. 214.

³¹⁰ See note 102 above.

³¹¹ See note 103 above and the prosopographical list below.

³¹² See note 105 above.

³¹³ No. 2 ‘not much later than 367/6 B.C.’ and no. 3 ‘before mid-fourth century’.

³¹⁴ See Hesperia XIX (1950), 286–92.

³¹⁵ Figures in parentheses here and elsewhere indicate certain cases or those restored with reasonable probability.

³¹⁶ Twenty seven of these are restorations. Divided by groups of leases which seem to go together they are: nos. 1–3: 8 (+9 restored); nos. 4–12: 18 (+9 restored); nos. 13–15: 6 (+6 restored); nos. 16–28: 32 (+9 restored); nos. 29–38: 10 (+1 restored); there are nine cases where it is doubtful whether the individual appears again or not; six persons (4 doubtful) appear again in boundary details.

³¹⁷ Aleximachos, (PA 545)Google Scholar; Diopeithes, (PA 4329)Google Scholar, trierarch 325/4 B.C.; Diotimos of Acharnai, father, choregos in early fourth century, see Hesperia XIX 218 for other possible connections; Diphilos of Gargettos (PA 4477)Google Scholar, choregos beginning fourth century; Euetion (PA 5463), diaitetes 329/8, trierarch? 323 B.C.; Hippiskos, (PA 7607)Google Scholar, trierarch 356/5 B.C., son Aischylos, (PA 450)Google Scholar, trierarch 323/2 B.C.; Kallias of Lamptrai (PA 7873)Google Scholar, trierarch? 353/2 B.C.; Kallikrates, (PA 7966)Google Scholar; Kallimedon (PA 8032; see also PA 179 Agyrrhios; K. purchases a mine near (?) the Diphileion, (IG II ²1587. 12)Google Scholar, frequently taken to be the mine of Diphilos confiscated by Lycurgus); Hypereides can also be restored as a lessee: ῾Yπερεἱδη[ς Γλαυκἱππου Κολλυτ(εὐς) (IG II² 1585. 12–13); Mnesistratos, (PA 10368/9, see 10337)Google Scholar; Onetor, related to the trierarchic family of PA 11471–3; Polyeuktos, (PA 11950)Google Scholar; Theodoros, (PA 6861)Google Scholar, see Hesperia XIX 269 (and on Ekphantides or Euphantides, Crosby 21. 11 and 17), priest of Zeus Phratrios 396/5 B.C.

³¹⁸ This, in view of the long series of naval accounts available (IG II² 1604–32, 377/6 to 323/2 B.C., but note the gap between 1610 and 1611, i.e. between c. 370 B.C. and 357/6 B.C.), is not merely due to the coincidence of these lists with the longest of the lease lists.

³¹⁹ Epikrates of Euonymon (PA 4891), IG II² 1582. 123, 129, Crosby 20. 19–20 (restored); Eudraon of Thorikos (Hesperia, Suppl. I 31, PA 5444), trierarch 342/1, and c. 323 B.C., Crosby 5. 52–3, 20. 17 (restored), 20. 19^*; Euthydikos of Sphettos, IG II² 1585. 4–5, Crosby 18. 20–1; Euthykrates II of Amphitrope (PA 5599), trierarch 334/3 B.C., see PA 2419 (Archestratos I), Crosby 18. 3 and 19. 31 (both restored), the same man( ?) owner of an ergasterion IG II² 1582. 73^*; Euthykrates of Kropidai, IG II² 1582. 59–60, Crosby 18. 65; Leukios of Sounion (PA 9057, see Hesperia X 288), 16 a + b = Face A, Col. II 70 (restored and dubious), Crosby 20. 5–6 (restored), property, Crosby 1. 46, 80, 5. 5^*; son of Theokles, one of the heroes of Phyle? (Hesperia II 155 and X 284 ff.), he appears in liturgy list not earlier than 330 B.C. (IG II² 417), and gave an agora to his deme about mid-fourth century (IG II² 1180); Lysanias of Kephale, IG II ²1582.Google Scholar 76–7, 82–3, Crosby 13. 46–7 (restored and dubious); Telesarchos of Aixone, Crosby 1. 50, 3. 12 (restored); Theodoros of Melite, trierarch IG II² 1609. 111 (not after 370/69 B.C.), 1582. 99, 106, Crosby 5. 79–80 (restored and dubious); - -]ὼρο Πὸρι(ος) 5. 73, 18. 22 (restored and dubious). In a rather different category is Dropides of Aphidna, Crosby 19. 22 and IG II² 2636. There are certain dubious cases of identification, where patronymic and demotic are lacking: Hagnotheos, IG II² 1587.4 and Crosby 13. 63; Androkles, Crosby 18. 5 and 18. 22; Antimachos, Crosby 4. 8 (restored), IG II² 1584. 8; Timokles, Crosby 23. 2 and IG II² 1582. 135. ^* indicates owner of property.

³²⁰ Fewer than might be expected in comparison with the registrants and lessees, but it should be noted that the number of boundaries named is most frequently less than four, and natural features and roads commonly appear for at least one boundary; also the owner of the ‘edaphe’ in which the mine is situated is frequently unnamed.

³²¹ Cf. groups of mines, IG II² 1582. 140–87, ἐπὶ Θρασὺμωι Crosby 18. 4–39 at Besa, 45–69 at Amphitrope (in part corresponding, as in sections of 1582, to a deme grouping); 19. 6–18 at Thorikos, 19. 18 ff. at Maroneia; cf. the appearance of Nape (1. 41, 47 ff., 57, 63, 67, 79: one of these mines (47) is ‘sold’ at a high price, the others may well be close together, and, it may be suggested, opened in view of the success of the Poseidoniakon (47); the name Nape occurs again only in 20. 8 and 10) and Pangaion. For Maroneia, cf. 1. 59, 19. 23–4 (property owned by Nikeratos); note that Nikias owns property at Nape, 1. 41–2: in the same area? The very fragmentary reference to Maroneia and Pangaion in 2. 17–18 also connects Maroneia and Besa through 18. 6–7, where in a group of rich mines Pangaion and Besa are clearly associated. The appearance of Maroneia and Pangaion in the mine leases in an important area recalls the opening of the ‘Maroneia vein’ (᾿Αθπ 22, 7) and the public profit accruing in 484/3 B.C. Pangaion in S.E. Attica might indeed represent a survival of the name from the time of Peisistratos (᾿Αθπ 15, 2, Hdt. 164), but hardly Maroneia. It may be suggested that the ‘Maroneia vein’ was discovered and developed as a sequel to the advance of Persia into Thrace either in the period of Hippias (cf. Ure, , Origins of Tyranny 59Google Scholar; the advance might account for Hippias' financial difficulties, -Aristotle, Ps., Oeconomica II 1347aGoogle Scholar, Ure, Ibid. 63–4) or prior to Marathon, in either case leading to the flight of Greeks experienced in mining from the Thracian region (cf. the later Thracian Sosias, below n. 342) and the increased development of Laurion. If the Siphnian mines became unworkable at much the same time, there would be an additional incentive to development at Laurion.

³²² Can we conclude, without a close topographical study, that mining went on over a considerable area, and was intensively conducted only in a few places, as e.g. Besa and Maroneia?

³²³ Epikrates of Pallene (PA 4909), Delian amphiktyon 377/6–374/3 B.C., trierarch c. 342 B.C.: or father and son, see above n. 113; Euthykrates of Amphitrope (PA 5596); Kallaischros of Siphnos (? PA 7754, see Dem. XXI 157); Kallias of Alopeke (Hesperia XII 19, n. 35)Google Scholar; Lysikrates of Kikynna (PA 9461), choregos 335/4, trierarch 325/4 B.C.; see also his father PA 9395.

³²⁴ Aischines of Thorikos, IG II ²1582. 73–4, Crosby 19. 17–18 (restored)Google Scholar; Charmylos, Crosby 1. 45, 68, 79, 5. 4–5; Diophanes of Sounion, Crosby 1. 59, 13. 68: see Hesperia XIX 235 for possible relations; Epameinon of Thorikos, IG II ²1587.Google Scholar 18, Crosby 28. 1, 6–7; Nikeratos of Kydantidai (PA 10742), Crosby 19. 24, 26, 15. 46; Philinos, Crosby 14. 2, IG II² 1582. 47, 50; Smikythos of Thorikos, Crosby 9. 13, 20. 50. Less certain, Autophantos of Kytherron, Crosby 14. 5 and 7, 5. 55; 56–7 (less certain, restoration from no. 14); Epizelos of Phrearrhioi, Crosby 5. 75 and 79, 21. 14 (restored and dubious); Exopios, Crosby 1. 43–4, 62, 28. 10–11 (restored and dubious); Nikias of Thorikos, Crosby 9. 12, 20. 49 (restored and conjectural); Philokrates of Euonymon, Crosby 5. 78, 18. 21 (restored and dubious); Pyrrhakos of Aigilia, Crosby 1. 80, 5. 5 (restored and conjectural; Teleson of Sounion, Crosby 1. 69, 70, 20. 11 (restored and dubious). There are certain cases where, from lack of patronymic and demotic, identification is not possible: Andrios, Crosby 5. 71 and 85; Demophilos, Crosby 1. 66–7, 5. 45, IG II² 1588. 6; Epikrates, , IG II ²1582.Google Scholar 143–4, Crosby 20. 11; Euthykrates (see Hesperia XIX 260), IG II² 1582. 73, Crosby 19. 12, 12–13; Konon, Crosby 11. 8, IG II² 1582. 58, 133, 1587. 14, Crosby 13. 89. Konon, son of Timotheos, appears as trierarch IG II² 1624. 43 (336/5–331/O B.C.); Lysikrates, , IG II ²1584.Google Scholar 11, Crosby 5. 49; Nikeratos, Crosby 15. 15, 16b = Hesperia V 397, no. 10, 1–2, genitive incorrectly restored as Νικη [ρατους; Nikias of Kydantidai (PA 10809, Hesperia IV 167, X 26), Crosby 1. 41–2, 58, 64–5, IG II² 1584. 5; Timesios, Crosby 1. 57, 14. 11.

³²⁵ Antisthenes of Kytherron (PA 1196, Hesperia XI 304), and Diokles of Sounion.

³²⁶ In one instance bordered on the west by land of Nikias of Kydantidai, in the other surrounded by it. The owner of the ‘edaphe’ is not mentioned. Do we infer that it was Nikias or Kallias? In any case we have a curious example of the marking out of a mine comparable to those examples where either a mine is in the ‘edaphe’ of the lessee, whose land is also named as a boundary, or an ergasterion of the lessee is named as a boundary, presumably on land of his. See above pp. 221–2.

³²⁷ Cf. Kallaischros of Siphnos (Hesperia XIX 265)Google Scholar, Phanostratos of Gargettos (to judge from his workshop boundary), Pheidippos of Pithos.

³²⁸ Diokles of Pithos is property owner and father of Diochares, property owner, registrant and lessee. Diophanes of Gargettos is owner of an ergasterion and father of Aisimides (?), registrant and lessee.

³²⁹ To the principal section, relating to land-owning and mining, are added those family instances of either one or the other, and cases where families seem to be represented in literature and in the leases.

³³⁰ References to Crosby's list in Hesperia XIX, thus: 13. 5, and to IG II².

^330a Indeed the question is not quite settled, since a Kallias-Hipponikos family is clearly indicated by IG II², 2407 as belonging to Ankyle and the Aegeis tribe; unless, following the comment of Meritt, , Hesperia V (1936), 410Google Scholar, drastic changes be made to the restoration in IG II².

³³¹ The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (1933), 46.

³³² Aigilia, Amphitrope, Anaphlystos, Hagnous, Kephale, Myrrhinous, Phrearrhioi, Sounion, Thorikos.

³³³ Atene, Besa, Prasiai, Prospalta, Steiria, Thoraia.

³³⁴ Note that a considerable number of names have no demotic: registrants 12 (+?4), lessees 21 (+?3), propertyholders in land and houses 38 (+?3), ergasterion owners 20 (+?1).

³³⁵ From mining demes (as far as these are known): registrants 7 (+ ?2), lessees 17 (+?6), property owners 19 (+?4), ergasterion owners (?3); from non-mining demes: registrants 28 (+?11), lessees 52 (+?17), property owners 30 (+?6), ergasterion owners 17 (+?3). In the case of mining demes four cases of landowners occur who also go in for mining (one an ergasterion owner); in the case of non-mining demes there are ten cases of landowners going in for mining; in five or seven cases they own ergasteria.

³³⁶ The others: Aithalidai, Alopeke, Athmonon, Gargettos, Euonymon, Kydantidai, Kikynna, Kytherron, Paiania, Pithos, Sypalettos, Sphettos, Themake.

³³⁷ It occurs only in Crosby 1: 42 and 65 (Kallias of Sphettos), 46 and 81 (Pheidippos of Pithos), 56 and 76 (Kephisodotos of Aithalidai), 49 and 51 (Thrasylochos of Anagyrous).

³³⁸ Cf. the relative rarity of references to mining activity in Isaeus (one reference only to an ergasterion at Besa (III 22)), though it must in fairness be admitted: (i) that there is no reference in Isaeus IV to the mining activities of Hagnon, and (ii) that there are 44 other speeches preserved in fragments or titles, which might have corrected this impression. But cf. also the Demosthenic corpus, in which there is only one speech on a mining issue and one other in which it is incidental, while in Lysias there are no references to the mines.

³³⁹ Vect. III 2.

³⁴⁰ Vect. IV 7–9, though here there seems to be a play on the two meanings ‘silver’ and ‘money’.

³⁴¹ Vect. IV 28: τἱ δῆτα, φαὶη ἂν τις οὓ καὶ νῦν ὣσπερ ἓμπροσθεν πολλοὶ καινοτομοῦσι; ὃτι πενἑστεροι μἑν εὶσιν οὶ περὶ τἁ μὲταλλα νεωστὶ γὰρ πὰλιν κατασκευἁзονται Note that κατασκευἀзονται here may well mean not kainotomiai but the restoration of palaia anasaxima.

³⁴² Fifth-century examples, especially Nikias I (cf. Thucydides VII 86, 4 for his rating as a wealthy man), are given in Xenophon, , Vect. IV 14–15.Google Scholar Note that Plutarch (Nicias 4, 2) regards Nikias as directly participating in mining: καὶ πλῆθος ἀνδραπὸδων ἓτρεφεν αὑτὸθι cf. Xenophon, , Memorabilia II 5, 2Google Scholar on the epistates purchased by Nikias, identified, against Schwahn, (RhMus LXXX (1931), 257)Google Scholar, by Thiel, , Πόροι (Amsterdam, 1922)Google Scholar, and Wilhelm, (WS LII (1934) 19–20)Google Scholar with the Sosias of Vect. IV 14 (comparable to Pasion's freedman Phormio). Xenophon discusses fully the use of slaves in the mines (Vect. IV 17, 22), and deals with the ἀποφορἀ system (IV 19, 23). Boeckh regarded the obol per day ἀτελὴς as an excessive net income from slave owning, but cf. Hypereides I, col. 2, 1–2 (O.C.T.) (note the date of this speech in a period of active mining, c. 340 B.C.), where a similar sum is mentioned for mining slaves. The profit in thus hiring out slaves (and so the relative advantage of this over other forms of capital investment) would depend on the cost and working life of the slave. If the slave cost 150 drs. (see RE Suppl. Bd. IV 144; but some slaves cost only halfa mina, Xenophon, , Mem. II 5, 2Google Scholar) and his working life was ten years (yearly depreciation of 15 drs.), there would be a yearly return of 45 drs. (60–15) on 150 drs., that is 30 per cent., a very good return, though suffering from the disadvantages of οὐσὶα φανερἁ In a working life of five years the return would be 20 per cent. But we lack the vital statistics. The ἀποφορἁ system could be applied to single slaves (cf. Andocides, , de Myst. 38Google Scholar, of the late fifth century), and it was probably the simplest way for poor persons to share in mining activity.

³⁴³ Important contributors to such a ‘pool’ would be Nikias I. Hipponikos II, and Philemonides (Xenophon, , Vect. IV 15Google Scholar).

³⁴⁴ The proposed direct employment of slaves (Vect. IV 30) for the opening of kainotomiai (which would not compete with private persons, IV 32) is not to be taken as indicating either two separate areas of mining activity or direct state participation.

³⁴⁵ On no very satisfactory evidence: in the main it is the reference of Thucydides (VII 27) to the flight of slaves to Deceleia, the references to the employment of slaves by Nikias, Hipponikos, and Philemonides in the mines, and one or two other isolated references: Aristophanes, , Equit. 362Google Scholar (purchase of mines), Aves 593 (birds to help in mines and trade), 1106 (Laureotic owls); Hesperia XIV (1945), 119 ff., an inscription with an obscure reference to the administration of the mines. We have, in fact, no certain or fairly sound basis on which to assess the importance of the Laurion mines in the fifth century. The period in which we hear most of them is the second half of the fifth century, and this cannot altogether be due to the absence of earlier inscriptions and primary authorities. It might be suggested that the loss of Amphipolis occasioned a development of the Laurion mines.

³⁴⁶ It seems doubtful if they could be defended. Xenophon, (Vect. IV 43 ff.)Google Scholar envisages no more than making things difficult for an invader, i.e. an invasion of the Archidamian War type. It is uncertain how far the Spartan invasions during the Archidamian War damaged the mines (Thuc. II 55), probably not to any great degree, since the invasions seem to have been directed mainly against cultivated land.

³⁴⁷ There was also a grave lack of funds after the defeat of Notion (407 B.C.), SO that in the archonship of Kallias (406/5 B.C.) it was decided to convert the dedications into special issues (406/5 and 405/4 B.C.) including gold (cf. Aristophanes, , Ranae 717 ff.Google Scholar), followed by an issue of silver-covered bronze (Ranae 725 ff. and Schol.). They were recalled after the battle of Knidos, , Eccl. 815Google Scholar and Schol.

³⁴⁸ At this juncture, either under the oligarchs or the restored democracy, any change is most likely to have taken place from state direct operation of the mines to the practice of leasing them to private individuals, with retention of mineral rights by the State.

³⁴⁹ Lysias XXXII 4 and 25; Xen. Hell. I 1, 22 and 35.

³⁵⁰ Lysias XIX 42 ff., XXI 1, Isocrates XV 160 ff.

³⁵¹ Lysias XIX 45 ff.

³⁵² Lysias VII 6, Aeschines II 147.

³⁵³ If this is the meaning of Aristophanes Eccl. 815 ff., date 393 B.C. (Rogers), 391 B.C. (Platnauer). See above n. 347.

³⁵⁴ Speech dated by Blass, , Attische Beredsamkeit III i 505–6Google Scholar, to c. 330 B.C.

³⁵⁵ Cf. Lysias VII 4–10: speculation seems in part to be the reason for the changes of cultivator.

³⁵⁶ Cf. the 16 drs. per medimnus of (Dem.) XXXIV 39.

³⁵⁷ Five drs. ((Dem.) XXXIV 39) as compared with 3 drs. (Aristophanes, Eccl. 547) per medimnus. Cf. also IG II² 1672. 282 (329/8 B.C.), 6 drs. per medimnus.

³⁵⁸ No note 358.

³⁵⁹ Cf. the effect of the Σικελικὸς κατἁπλους in Dem. LVI 9.

³⁶⁰ Cf. for its great extent the number of states, among which Athens figures first, which received a distribution of corn from Cyrene (330–26 B.C.), SEG IX 2 (where the literature is listed). The Athenian difficulties can be gauged from the honours accorded to merchants who assisted in bringing corn to Athens, (Dem.) XXXIV 38–9, IG II² 342, 407, 408, 409, 416, 423.

³⁶¹ See Demosthenes' mercantile speeches, passim.

³⁶² (Dem.) XXXIV 36–7.

³⁶³ (Dem.) XXXIV 8.

³⁶⁴ (Dem.) XLII 21.

³⁶⁵ Crosby nos. 2–12: nos. 4–5 with 14 and 20 leases, date before or near mid-century; nos. 6–12, just before midcentury.

^365a The drought of c. 362 B.C. ((Dem.) L 61), when ‘the water failed in the wells’, would affect both agriculture and mining.

³⁶⁶ Cf. the law against cutting down olive trees, (Dem.) XLIII 69–72 (? 342 B.C.), and the leasing of land with a view to such development or replacement of old stocks, IG II² 2492 (Kahrstedt, , Forschungen 211–12Google Scholar; Bleckmann 27; Roberts-Gardner 129; Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, passim (see Index, p. 320)).

³⁶⁷ Dem. IV 34, XVIII 72–3, 87; Dem. V 25; Dittenberger, , SIG ³, 212Google Scholar (c. 350 B.C.); Aeschines II 12; Aeschines II 71–2, Dem. II 28, VIII 24–5.

³⁶⁸ Dem. XIX 218. Cf., for what the speech is worth, Dem. X 49 for stress on market plenty (341 B.C.?): . . . . τὀ τῶν ὡνὶων πλῆθος ὁρῶντες κα πὴν εὐετηρὶαν τὴν κατἀ τὴν ἀγορἀν, . . .

³⁶⁹ CAH VI 228.

³⁷⁰ The exact date of the work is impossible to determine: after the end of the Social War, V 12; perhaps in the course of the events which led up to the destruction of Olynthos (348 B.C.) if V 13 is a reference to Philip; during the course of the Sacred War, V 9, clearly before the Peace of Philokrates.

³⁷¹ Vect. IV 40, V 12.

³⁷² Vect. IV 28 (Teubner); O.C.T., μἐν νῦν εἱσιν

³⁷³ Isocrates VIII 19, Dem. XX 24 (354 B.C.), XXIII 209 (352/1 B.C.), all doubtless exaggerated (Jones, A. H. M., The Athens of Demosthenes (1952), 10–11Google Scholar); Demosthenes incidentally contrasts public poverty with private wealth (XX is of the same year as Demosthenes' speech on the Naval Boards (XIV)).

³⁷⁴ Isocrates VIII 20–1; cf. the references to war and small income, and succeeding peace and increased revenues in (Dem.) X 37–8.

³⁷⁵ Cf. Dem. XLV 66, Aeschines I 101.

³⁷⁶ (Dem.) XLII 17–19. The question of the date of this relief is an obscure one and is bound up with its precise meaning. It is not easy to discover from (Dem.) XLII the extent of the ateleia accorded to τἀ ἐν τοῖς ἒργοις τοῖς ἀργυρεὶοις ὃσα οὶ νὸμοι ἁτεκῆ πεποιὴκασι . . . . . . . . . . (XLII 18, cf. 17, and 23: . . . . . . . . . . . . τὸν νὸμον ἐκεινον ἀνἀγνωθι τὸν οὑκ οὑδἐν . . . . . . . . It is difficult to believe that income was exempt. XLII 23 with τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἒργοις οὐδὲν . . . . . . . . would seem to indicate all property in the mining region concerned with the mines, which would encourage ergasterion owners as well as mine operators (indeed it must mainly have concerned ergasteria and slaves where these were not hired, and little other property of the mine operator would be assessable, which is perhaps why the speaker of (Dem.) XLII so generously says: καὶ ἀφὶσταμαι μετἀ τῆς ἂλλης οὐαἱας καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἓργοις) On the other hand, in Aeschines I 101 the father of Timarchos, who owned ἐργαστἡρια δὺο ἑν τοῖς ἀργυρεὶοις ἒν μὲν ἐν Αὑλῶνι ἑτερον δ᾿ ὲπὶ Θρασὑλλω̣ . . . . . . (i.e. probably the Θρἀσυμον of the lease lists), is said to have sold these with other property φοβηθεὶς τἀς λειτουργὶας (These ergasteria must be referred to again Ibid. 105, where the suggestion is made that Timarchos may have imitated his father and after selling his other property εἰς τἀργὺρειἀ τι κατεσκευἁσατο ὣσπερ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ πρὁτερον) This seems to indicate that ergasteria at some time before the date of the speech against Timarchos (345 B.C. ?) were not ἁτελῆ Certainly in 354 B.C. Demosthenes (XIV 16) makes no mention of such exemption. It is possible that the granting of ateleia helped with the development of mining activity in the forties, and was part of the policy of Euboulos, or it may have been a later innovation not long before the date of (Dem.) XLII, and part of that assistance to those engaged in mining activity which is mentioned Ibid. 31.

³⁷⁷ See n. 342 above, on the ἀποφορἀ system.

³⁷⁸ (Dem.) XXXIV 23, 16⅔ per cent.

³⁷⁹ Andreades, , History of Greek Public Finance 354Google Scholar: a large increase from c. 340 B.C. is inferred where Lycurgus (Plutarch, , Vit. X Or. 841 BGoogle Scholar) is said to have controlled (ταμὶας ἐγὲνετο) in twelve years 14,000 or 18,650 talents: Ibid., making available to the city a revenue of 1200 talents, ‘being formerly 60’ (for 600?); and Demetrios of Phaleron (Athenaeus 542c, from Douris) is said to have been master of (κὑριος γενὁμενος) 1200 talents per year. Neither source inspires confidence or justifies the conclusions often drawn from them.

³⁸⁰ If the Diphileion is in fact Diphilos' confiscated mine, it is very possible that it was purchased by Kallimedon the oligarch (IG II² 1587. 12). Crosby dates the lease 320/19 B.C.; could it be somewhat earlier in the 320's, under Lycurgus' régime?

³⁸¹ III (IV) 36. See n. 184 for date.

³⁸² Crosby nos. 29 and 31 of ‘post mid-30's’ and nos. 32–8, from 320/19 B.C. to the end of the century and beyond.

³⁸³ Quoted by Strabo (III 2, 9) from Poseidonios. Cf. Diodoros V 37 for the ‘riddle’, and unfavourable comparison of Attica with Spain. Information on Laurion was probably derived originally from Theophrastos' work On the Mines.

³⁸⁴ Cilicia might be a new source of silver made accessible by Alexander's conquest, cf. AJA LVI (1952), 203 and 228. In any case the development of the Pangaion deposits by Philip at an earlier date does not seem to have had this effect; the same seems to be true of other sources, such as Damastion. Indeed, it has been suggested that there was only a temporary boom at Philippi (Martin, V., ‘La Durée d'Exploitation des Gisements Aurifères de Philippes en Macédoine’, 21, in Études dédiées à la mémoire d'André M. Andréades (Athens, 1940)Google Scholar).

³⁸⁵ Especially the expense on wood, which was costly, as is apparent from IG II² 1672, 62–3, and passim.

³⁸⁶ There was a tendency in ancient times to exaggerate the importance of Laurion in the late period. Strabo (IX 1, 23) mentions the workings and the resmelting of the earlier slag; Pausanias (I 1, 1) speaks of the mines as belonging to a former day. On the other hand, Athenaeus (272e) mentions the ‘many myriads of chained slaves who worked in the mines’, and since he has just previously given the slave population of Attica under Demetrios of Phaleron as 400,000, there is a strong inference that the mines were very active in the late fourth century. But all the figures of slaves given by Athenaeus are doubtful. He then mentions the Attic slave-rising contemporary with the Second Slave War (103–99 B.C.), for which Poseidonios is quoted as the source, but his authority is not to be extended to the figures given earlier. Sundwall, (Unters, über die attischen Münzen des neueren Stils (1908), 110Google Scholar n. 2) and Oikonomos, (AM XXXV (1910), 296–7Google Scholar) suggest that the abbreviations on some new-style Attic tetradrachms represent the names of mines such as appear in the leases. It is an attractive but doubtful suggestion, and would indicate some form of reorganisation of the administration.

_386a Yet a yearly period of renewal, if combined with some form of counterbidding, would clearly be disadvantageous to mine operators. On the other hand, ἡ στἡλη (as being undated by an archon) seems most likely to be of the year before (on various grounds it could not be of the same year). An explanation, purely conjectural, it must be stressed, which would cover this and at the same time take account of a change of administration, might be given thus: mining operations had not been especially successful nor yet strictly supervised, until, in 368/7 B.C. or one or two years earlier, a few mines yielded rich supplies of silver, and attracted the attention of the State officials and or other speculators, ἡ στἡλη would then represent the decree establishing the system of tenure and payments to be followed thereafter, and listing the rich mines, which, as ἐργἀσιμα must contribute a higher sum from the next year or at any rate be subject to counterbidding.

³⁸⁷ See PA 8157 and Andreades, , History of Greek Public Finance 206 n. 7.Google Scholar

³⁸⁸ Cf. c. 395 B.C., Lysias VII passim, Xenophon, , Oec. XX 22–3Google Scholar, Pöhlmann, , Soziale Frage I 189.Google Scholar

³⁸⁹ CAH VIII 566–7, due to preference given to Athens in South Russia even in a corn shortage, Isocrates XVII 57; corn 3 drs. per medimnus, Aristophanes, , Eccl. 547 ff.Google Scholar

³⁹⁰ A difficult winter 387/6 B.C., Xen. Hell. V 1, 28.

³⁹¹ Lysias XXII 8, 14, 16, 18.

³⁹² Dem. XXII 15 probably refers to this period; cf. Xen. Hell. V 4, 61.

³⁹³ For trade and threats to it, cf. Lysias XIX 50; piracy, Xen., Hell. V 1, 2 (388 B.C.), V 1, 21, Polyaenus VI 2, 2, Isocrates IV 133; piracy from Aegina, , Hell. VI 2, 1.Google Scholar

³⁹⁴ Lysias XIX 11 (of 388 or 387 B.C.).

³⁹⁵ ‘Oid rich’, Lysias XXI 1, Isocrates XV 160 (πολὺ γἁρ δεινὸτερον καθὲστηκω τὁ δοκεῖν εὑπορεῖν ἣ τὸ φανερῶς ἀδικεῖν) cf. Xenophon, , Oec. II 6–7Google Scholar; ‘new rich’, Lysias XXVII 9–12 (395–86 B.C.), XXVIII 7.