Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:16:42.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Kerameikos Inv. I 388 (SEG xxii, 79): A Note on the Formation of the Athenian Metic-status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Keiji Baba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An emended text of this inscription is presented. The evidence it affords for the development of Athenian metic-status is discussed, in the light of its reattribution to the time of the Kleisthenic reforms. The role of Kleisthenes in establishing the metic-status is confirmed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 79 , November 1984 , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful to the University of Meiji (in Tokyo) for sabbatical leave in 1983 and to the British School of Archaeology for accepting me as a readmitted student. I should also like to thank Professor P. Warren for a warm encouragement to prepare this small article for the Annual; Professor R. Tomlinson for reading the original drafts and correcting my English. Heartfelt thanks are due to many Greek and Japanese friends in Athens, who made my metic-life in Greece easy and comfortable, especially to Mr. Ch. Douvis, Mrs. K. Papayiannopoulou, and Mr. M. Iwai. Lastly, Mr. S. Yasunaga and Mr. M. Katsura, who assisted in typing the final drafts and taking photographs in the museum, should be thanked.

1 Whitehead, , The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (1977) 64 n. 44, cf. 168 n. 24Google Scholar. He is a little unfair citing only the first two of the three couplets when he says ‘who put up the stone we are not told’. In reality, the third couplet tells us clearly that one Timomachos erected the monument for Ariston's son (i.e. Anaxilas). Who was Timomachos? Was he an Athenian citizen (if so, a prostates?) or a Naxian resident in Athens? On these questions we completely lack informations. Neither J. Kirchner, PA nor J. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (1971) contains a Timomachos of the sixth century B.C.

2 Willemsen, , Ath. Mitt. 78 (1963) 142.Google Scholar

3 Ibid. 144.

4 Ibid. 143.

5 Cf. IG ix, I2, 717 (Tod No. 34, treaty between the Chaleans and the Oeanthians) 1. 6:

6 Here one may bring in a problem of metre and criticize the present author as simple-minded. But the author is not persuaded at the present stage.

7 Whitehead, op. cit. 141.

8 On the exclusiveness of the Athenian polis-community, see Baba, K., ‘Attika ni okeru hi-shimin no fudosan shoyu [Non-citizens and Real Property in Attica]’, Shigaku-zasshi, 71–8 (1962) 1–34Google Scholar (a study on grants of ‘Atenai no shimin to metoikoi [Athenian citizens and metics]’, Kodaishi-koza 7 (1963) 48–79.

9 Hommel, , RE xv. 2 (1932) 1427.Google Scholar

10 Demosthenes 57. 32 (E. Ruschenbusch, F. 117).

11 Aristotle, , AP 58. 3.Google Scholar

12 Whitehead, op. cit. 145.

13 Baba, ‘Athenian citizens and metics’ 50.

14 Cf. Gauthier, P., ‘Les ΞΕΝΟΙ dans les textes athéniens de la seconde moitié du ve siècle av. J.-C’, RÉG 84 (1971) 44–79.Google Scholar

15 Balcer, J., ‘The Athenian Regulations for Chalkis’, Historia–Einzelschriften 33 (1978) 68.Google Scholar

16 Baba, , Perusha Senso [The Persian Wars] (1982) 153, 163 f.Google Scholar

17 Whitehead, op. cit. 152 f., dates its introduction in the years of the Peloponnesian war, but that seems too late.