ak schiller multiple gentile affiliation

MULTIPLE GENTILE AFFILIATIONS AND THE ATHENIAN RESPONSE TO ROMAN DOMINATION'

I.

We find dated to the second century B.C. and later several examples of Athenians with multiple gentile affiliations. These examples call for an explanation. Our concern over Athenians affiliated with more than one genos arises from the assumption widely held by historians of the ancient Athenian gene, those aristocratic2 clans responsible for certain public cults and the cults' priesthoods, that a citizen could be a member of only one genos.3 An explanation of how this rule was upheld is given below. The subject of multiple gentile affiliations on its own accord has not been investigated thoroughly.4 The findings of this inquiry should add finer details to the latest portrait of late Hellenistic Athens. In the debate over the fate of the Athenian constitution before and after Sulla's sack of Athens, both types, democratic and oligarchic, are well represented by the remaining evidence. But what has been left out for the most part has been the analysis of the changed nature of the Athenian aristocracy. By placing our inquiry about multiple gentile affiliations in historical context, we shall gain a finer understanding of exactly how much Rome influenced Athenian society in the second century. In response to Roman desires to deal directly with aristocracies, not democracies, Athenian gentilitas became a hot commodity. By the middle of the second century, in connection with the Roman handover of Delos to Athens and subsequently, the Athenian aristocracy incorporated many nouveaux riches, permitting matrilineal inheritance and other means for the transmission of gentilitas.

As for our assumptions about gentile membership and transmission of gentilitas,

Prosopographical references often cited in the text and notes are as follows: APF: J. K. Davies,

Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971); NPA: J. Sundwall, Nachtrage zur Prosopographia Attica (Ofversigt af Finska Vetenkaps Societetens Forhandlinger 52 [1909/1910] Helsinki 1910); PA: J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols. (Berlin 1901-1903). The author would like to thank Frank Clover, Stephen Tracy, Sarah Pomeroy, Robert Parker, Michael

Hoff, Kai Brodersen, and the readers of Historia for their contributions. 2 Regarding the Eupatridai and their identification with the gene and altogether the Athenian aristoc-

racy, see D. Feaver, "Historical Development in the Priesthoods of Athens," YCS 15 (1957) 123-158,

especially 128; M. T. W. Arnheim, Aristocracy in Greek Society (London 1977) 46-5 1; and R. Parker, Athenian Religion. A History (Oxford 1996) 63-63. The gene analyzed for this paper are those listed

in Parker's "A Checklist," ib. 285-318. 3 Assumed by Parker (as in note 2) 66, 287, 291-292; J. H. Oliver, "From Gennetai to Curiales," in

Id., The Civic Tradition and Roman Athens (Baltimore 1983) 1-33, especially 12; K. Clinton, The

Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Transactions of the American Philological Society, 64.3 (Philadelphia 1974) 116; Feaver (as in note 2) 128; and W. S. Ferguson, "The Salaminioi of

Heptaphyla and Sounion," Hesperia 7 (1938) 1-76. 4 Ferguson (as in note 3) 50-52 details several, but not all, the cases assessed here. His analysis forms

part of his investigation regarding the selection by lot of priests and priestesses of the Salaminioi genos. He concludes that from the last half of the second century on gentilitas could be transferred

matrilineally.

Historia, Band 55/3 (2006) C) Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart

Multiple Gentile Affiliations and the Athenian Response to Roman Domination 265

without other knowledge we must depend on known ancient Athenian rules of familial transmission, such as laws of intestate and adoption. Patterson refers to the Athenian gene as "clearly fictive groups... with specific social and religious roles... [that] had no claim to property of their members." Such claims true kinship clans would have had. But as it is beyond the scope of her subject, Patterson nowhere addresses what rules of membership the Athenian gene employed.5 We can only presume the genos, even as a fictive family-like group, followed similar laws for the familial transmission of gentilitas.

When we see examples of gentile affiliation transmitted along the matriline, we may find cases of multiple gentile affiliations. If an aristocratic woman married a member of another genos, her children could have held multiple gentile affiliations. The Athenian gene traditionally continued through patrilineal transmission of gentilitas. In some cases, as explained by Aleshire regarding Eteoboutad priesthoods,6 the gentile priesthood could pass from the priestess to her eldest brother's eldest daughter. We shall call this other rule patrilateral transmission, because the pattern is not lineal but gentilitas is transmitted laterally back to the father's oikos. Patrilateral transmission prevented multiple gentile affiliations by keeping the priesthood, and so presumably gentilitas, within the father's family, so long as the rule was enforced. We can now understand how from this rule an Athenian was a member of one genos only - an Athenian woman could not transmit gentilitas to her own children.7 Clearly, then, one possible explanation for cases of multiple gentile affiliations is that the patrilateral or patrilineal rule had been broken at some time by members of at least one genos and gentilitas had been transmitted along the matriline.

Before we can proceed with our investigation, we must consider the scanty evidence of matrilineage. We know that as a brotherless female heir, an epikleros could transmit her father's property through her sons, albeit her husband was supposed to be one of her father's kin.8 Where indeed the epikleros married a paternal kin, this manner of continuation was a derivation of the patrilateral pattern. Nonetheless, when we have detailed information regarding a family's legacy of property, we can see examples of transmission along the female side of the family. For example, Pomeroy has detailed the familial history of Demosthenes, the orator. Not only did his sister's son inherit Demosthenes' wealth, but his sister's husband Laches was the son of Demosthenes' mother's brother-in-law. The importance of continuing the oikos was paramount. But as Pomeroy asserts, "despite the legal bias favoring the agnatic bond, and patrilocal marriage and burial, connections to the maternal line were effective and sometimes

5 C. Patterson, The Family in Greek History (Cambridge [Mass.] 1998) 86-87. 6 S. B. Aleshire, "The Demos and the Priests: The Selection of Sacred Officials at Athens from

Cleisthenes to Augustus," in Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, eds. R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (Oxford 1994) 325-337, especially, 332-333, and 333, note 42 about this pattern of transmission practiced elsewhere among the ancient Greeks.

7 See also S. Pomeroy, "Women's Identity and the Family in the Classical Polis," in Women in Antiq- uity: New Assessments, eds. R. Hawley and B. Levick (New York 1995) 111-12 1, regarding phratry membership, which may not have been stipulated any differently than that of the gene.

8 About the epiklerate, see Patterson (as in note 5) 83f. and 97f. for a scheme of sequence of claim of intestate estate; and S. B. Pomeroy, Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: Representations and Realities (New York 1997) 19, 34, 37-38 and 122-123. About atimia at least, if not also curses, transmitted through the matriline, see Pomeroy, 83-85, 167.

266 ALEX K. SCHILLER

powerful forces in the choice of spouses, adoptees, and names and in the transmission of professions."9 The point here is that a claim of matrilineal transmission of gentilitas is not necessarily specious.

Our sources of gentile affiliation come mainly from inscriptions naming gentile priests and priestesses, archons and other officers of a genos, and decrees honoring gentile members. 1 For the reason that some of our examples include women or their offspring, and we know so little about gentile membership, e.g., whether women were gennetai or simply the daughters of gennetai, we are best off referring to gentile affili-

ation. 1I Our inquiry focuses on the earliest examples and so ends with the first century B.C., although we can find later examples.12 Unless otherwise specified, all dates provided are B.C.

It will become very apparent that we have so few cases. Most of the examples we do have date to the end of the second century and throughout the first century. In addition, there exists the possibility that what we know of these two centuries is the result in great part of the epigraphical remains. We have a number of inscriptions from these late Hellenistic centuries rivaling that of the fourth century. 13 Nonetheless, what evidence we have suggests some change occurred by the end of the second century among several, if not all, the gene. If we maintain that if we had more evidence from prior centuries, there would be no hint of change in gentilitial admission, we argue e silentio. Thus, we are granted to hypothesize on what history has given us to date.

II.

This section details individuals and their families that clearly demonstrate multiple gentile affiliations. In this way, we can see means other than inheritance by which one would have acquired multiple gentile affiliations. The several means are examined later.

Our earliest example comes from Habryllis Mikionos IV of Kephisia, Eteoboutad priestess of Athena Polias, c. 150-130.14 An inscription discovered in the Roman Agora at Athens records Habryllis' priesthood of the cult of Demeter and Kore. 15 Priestesses of

this Eleusinian cult came from the Philleidai and at least one other Eleusinian genos. 16 Because we cannot specify a genos, we shall refer henceforth to those affiliated with

9 Pomeroy, Families (as in note 8) 159-160, see also 121 f. and 192.

10 P. McKendrick, The Athenian Aristocracy 339 to 31 B.C. (Cambridge [Mass.] 1969), includes among

his list of Athenian aristocrats mint magistrates, eponymous archons and strategoi based on his as-

sumption that most of these officials came from the aristocracy.

11 Somewhat related, an Athenian woman's affiliation with a phratry and her family's citizenship were

typically confirmed through the status of her male kin. See Pomeroy, Families (as in note 8) 76f.

12 For example, Polemon Philonos Marathonios, c. 84-92, FD III (2) 65, 6; 66, 26.

13 S. V. Tracy, Attic Letter-cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. (Berkeley / Los Angeles 1990) 226-227, regarding

inscription production after the year 229.

14 Aleshire (as in note 6) 336-337. 15 Aleshire (as in note 6) 337 note i. The unpublished inscription is reported in J. S. Traill, Persons of

Ancient Athens, vol. I (1994) 24 (101405) and vol. 10 (2001) 349 (570353).

16 Clinton (as in note 3) 68-76, especially 74-75, based on IG 112 2954 (IS' century A.D.).


this priesthood as Eleusinian aristocrats. Habryllis at least, if not her prestigious family, held affiliation to two gene. Her father, uncle and brother can be found in an inscription listed among several others affiliated with the Eleusinian aristocracy (IG II2 2452, discussed below); so perhaps the family held membership to an Eleusinian genos. Although Habryllis provides our only evidence of her family's association with the Eteoboutadai, the name of Habryllis' grand-niece, Lysistrate (IG 112 1036), harkens to a famous fifth- century priestess of Athena Polias,17 thereby suggesting that the family probably carried on a tradition that they descended from the family of Drakontides of Bate. That Batethen family supplied several of the priestesses in the Classical era.18

Another of the earliest examples comes from the Lysandros-Glaukos-Medeios family of Peiraieus. By the end of the second century, this family became one of Athens' elite, financed by their close economic ties with Delos. According to the Ps.-Plutarch's Lives of Ten Orators 843, Lysandros I married Philippe 1, who could trace her lineage back to the Eteoboutad orator Lykourgos; Lysandros' son Medeios I was the exegete of the Eumolpidai genos; and his grandson Medeios II was the Eteoboutad priest of Poseidon Erechtheus. Medeios III Medeiou II held the Eumolpid exegete office sometime in mid- first century,19 thereby indicating that the family most likely had been Eumolpid for some time. Because we have no evidence of the Eteoboutad priesthood undertaken by an immediate descendant, we should infer that the family's affiliation with this genos was relatively new.

Related by marriage to Medeios' family was Themistokles II Hagnousios, Kerykes dadouchos and once thought to have been Eteoboutad priest of Poseidon Erechtheus. Aleshire has now shown correctly that according to the term Ps.-Plutarch uses, dietaxato, Themistokles II most likely "arranged," not "undertook," the Eteoboutad priesthood.20 This translation is in accordance with one of Themistokles' II endeavors for which he was honored. Themistokles accomplished some sort of recovery of the patria in connection with his investigation of the genos' apographai. One such apographe may have been the records of genos members.21 Thus, we cannot say for certain that Themistokles II held membership in both gene, but we must wonder by what way he was allowed to work on behalf of the Eteoboutadai.

We find another marital connection among the Kerykes and Eteoboutadai between the Eteoboutad Philippe II, Medeios' II sister, and Diokles I Meliteus. Diokles' sons Diokles II and Sarapion IV were among those listed in Themistokles' honorary decree of 20/19; hence, they and presumably their father were Kerykes. Diokles' I grandfather Sarapion I Meliteus adopted Eudemos Gorgippou, whose own lineal descendant, Gorgippos Eu- demou Meliteus, is also found on Themistokles' decree. If patrilineal transmission had been at work here, then the Kerykes gentile affiliation could be traced back to Sarapion I. The family of his son Sarapion II shined during the last quarter of the first century. His three daughters participated as kanephoroi in public cultic functions, his two sons

17 Aleshire (as in note 6) and D. M. Lewis, "Notes on Attic Inscriptions (II): XXII. Who was Lysis- trata?" BSA 50 (1955) 1-12.

18 Aleshire (as in note 6) 332. 19 J. H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Baltimore 1950) 1 19. 20 Aleshire (as in note 6) 331, note 29. 21 Clinton (as in note 3) 51, line 54; also Clinton, 56; but see Oliver (as in note 3) 13-20, about items

related to records of landed estates.


as Pythaists, evidencing the family's high social standing. This family, like Medeios' II, had strong economic ties with Delos.22 What is significant for this example is that Philippe II was an Eteoboutad priestess of Athena. Hence, there is the possibility that her sons, Diokles II and Sarapion IV, could claim affiliation also to the Eteoboutadai genos. Diokles' familial connection with the Eteoboutadai did not go unnoticed. Taking into consideration Lewis' down-dated chronology of the Athenian New Style silver coinage, most likely it was Diokles II, mint magistrate of 56/55, and not his father Diokles I, who alluded to the genos of his mother with the symbol of Athena placed on his mint.23

Another possible connection between the Kerykes and Eteoboutadai, Megiste Asklepiadou of Halai, an Eteoboutad priestess of Athena Polias (IG 112 3173) sometime around 27-18/17, may have been closely related to Seleukos Demeou Halaieus, a Kerykes celebrant of Themistokles' II honorary decree. Seleukos is the only family member known to be a Keryx, as Megiste is the only known Eteoboutad in her family. We know of two brothers at the start of the first century, Demeas and Asklepiades of Halai. Another family with Delian ties, they exhibited several examples of cultic partici- pation and contributions, but none gentile, until later. Because we do not know exactly the relationship between Megiste's father Asklepiades and Seleukos' father Demeas, the later generation's multiple gentile affiliations must be left as conjectural.24

Geagan's study of one ambitious extended family proves that by the mid-first century an Athenian citizen could hold membership in several geni. The Marathonian branch of this extended family most likely acquired its wealth as cleruchs on Delos, having migrated to the island soon after the cleruchy was established.25 Pammenes I1 Zenonos I1 Marathonios held a priesthood of the Erysichthonidai, which his son Zenon V held later. Pammenes' other son, Pammenes III, became an exegete of the Eumolpidai at the end of the century. An Athenian inscription dated to 37/6 records letters from the Gephyraioi to the Delphians and the Delphian response to the genos and lists Pammenes II with Theophilos 11 Diodorou of Halai Aixonides. These two sought to renew ancient ties with Delphi and to consult the oracle on behalf of a Bouyzges and priest of Zeus Palladion, Diotimos Diodorou Halaieus, Theophilos' brother. From a grave inscription (IG 112 5477) we know that Diotimos' father Diodoros, adopted by Theophilos I Halaieus, was the son of Pammenes I Marathonios, Pammenes' II grandfather. According to another inscription, the Eumolpid hierophant selected the two brothers of Halai Diotimos and Theophilos along with the Marathonian brothers Zenon IV and Pammenes II to make up Pluto's couch. Geagan finds enough circumstantial evidence to make a strong case that both families became associated with one another through their mutual Eumolpid affiliations.26 Primafacie, the Marathonian family was affiliated with the Eumolpidai,

22 S. V. Tracy, IG l/2 2336: Contributors of First Fruits for the Pythais (Meisenheim 1982) 215-216. 23 M. Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens (New York 1961) 604, interprets the allu-

sion to Philippe II, Diokles' I wife. For the down-dated chronology (starting at 164/3) of the New Style coinage see D. M. Lewis, "The Chronology of the Athenian New Style Coinage," NC ser. 7. 2 (1962) 275-300.

24 Clinton (as in note 3) 51, line 30. Cf. Tracy, IG 112 2336 (as in note 22) 193, 196-197 (stemma). 25 D. J. Geagan, "A Family of Marathon and Social Mobility in Athens of the First Century B.C.,"

Phoenix 46 (1992) 29-44, especially 37. 26 Geagan (as in note 25) 42.


Erysichthonidai27 (at least by Pammenes' II time and possibly only he and his descendants), and Gephyraioi. Diotimos not only was a member of the Bouzygai, but also held considerable standing among the Kerykes. Diotimos was the proposer of Themistokles' II honorary decree.28 If he inherited these affiliations, his family was affiliated with the Eumolpidai, Gephyraioi, Bouzygai and Kerykes.

The two families' connection with the Gephyraioi is troublesome due to the in- explicable relationship between that genos and the Bouzygai. It is possible that the Gephyraioi acted only as escorts to the Bouzyges priest, although the letter specifies that the Gephyraioi acted on the Bouzyges' behalf.29 Albeit a strain on the evidence, it is even feasible that no member of the family was Gephyraios, but that the two family members were sent to escort their kin. We must wonder then why the letter failed to mention any Gephyraios gennetes.

Another possible example, previously conjectured,30 should be dismissed based on a suspect stemma; but it is included in our analysis for the discussion below regarding adoption as a means of acquiring gentilitas. The family of this example did not have affiliation with both the Erysichthonidai and the Kerykes. A Dionysios Dionysodorou was an Erysichthonid pythaist in the year 98/7.31 He is listed, nonetheless, without a demotic; and so he need not have been related to Dionysodoros Deiradiotes, gymnasiarch of 100/99. Two generations later a Dionysodoros Dionysodorou Deiradiotes and his brothers Iophon Deiradiotes and Sophokles Sounieus (demotic changed by adoption) were listed among the Kerykes honoring Themistokles II. These three were lineal descendants of the gymnasiarch.32

The Claudii family of Melite may have been affiliated with both the Kerykes and the Amynandridai, albeit this example takes us into the Common Era. Leonides V and his brothers Phaidros and Timotheos are listed among the Amynandrid gennetai in a late first century inscription, IG 112 2338. Claudius Leonides VII, grandson of Leonides V, was the first (during the second half of the first century A.D.) of several subsequent family members to hold the Kerykes dadouchia.33 By our patrilineal inheritance assumption, Leonides VII should have had both Kerykes and Amynadridai affiliations, although we have no record that he claimed any such membership to the latter genos.

Some members of the Eupatridai, what should not be considered a true genos,34 held affiliation with other gene, cases that only look like multiple gentile affiliations. Affiliation with a genos predicated membership to the Eupatrid caste, and for that reason these Eupatridai should be considered as part of the Athenian aristocracy. In addition,

27 Parker (as in note 2) 289-290, suggests that the genos, whose cult was associated with Delos and appears no earlier than the first century, may have been added among the traditional gene "in an antiquarian spirit." It is possible, therefore, that rules of membership to this genos did not match those of the older Athenian gene.

28 Clinton (as in note 3) 5 1, lines 7, 20. 29 Parker (as in note 2) 287 provides example of another genos (the Praxiergidai) that served as escort

of Bouzygai. 30 McKendrick (as in note 10) 85, note 45 and 89, note 46. 31 Traill, Persons (as in note 15) vol. 5 (1996) 459 (339000 and perhaps 338995). 32 Traill, Persons (as in note 15) vol. 6 (1997) 17 (361820 and grandson, 362445). 33 Clinton (as in note 3) 57ff. See also E. Kapetanopoulos, "Leonides VII of Melite and his Family,"

BCH 92 (1968) 493-518, about the extended family. 34 For bibliography, see Oliver (as in note 19) 34.


since all three types of exegetai were selected from the Eupatridai caste, we can add those known to our catalogue of late Hellenistic gennetai.35

III.

Several explanations for these cases are available. Although matrilineal transmission of gentilitas may explain at least one of our cases, that means cannot account for all our cases, most notably the multiple gentile affiliations held by Diotimos Diodorou Halaieus. The following presents analysis of several possible explanations for this phenomenon.

For his work on Athenian aristocracy McKendrick offers adoption as an explanation for individuals with multiple gentile affiliations. Presumably McKendrick's hypothesis is based on Diotimos Diodorou Halaieus and Sophokles Philotou Sounieus,36 with the assumption that the adoptee could carry his gentile affiliation with him to his new gentile family. Although this explanation cannot account for our earliest examples, adoption was a common means of ensuring the continuation of the oikos.37 We should not be surprised if adoption had been one of several means by which gentilitas could be transmitted to another family. Adoption occurred among at least two of our examples. We must wonder if Sarapion's I family acquired affiliation to the Kerykes by adopting Eudemos Gorgippou, if the Eudemos' family were gentile and Sarapion, a nouveau riche, not. Diotimos' affiliation with four gene would seem to preclude any pattern of inheritance as his sole means of acquiring gentilitas of another genos. Diotimos' purpose in seeking the Delphic oracle presumably had something to do with his status as a priest of the Bouzygai. Considering he was the son of an adoptee, we may hypothesize

35 About exegetai, see Oliver (as in note 19). Charikles Theodorou Phalareus (NPA, 171), whose late 4th-century ancestor performed with the hierophant services to the cult of Pluto (Clinton [as in note 31 22), was probably Eumolpid; also aristocratic, Diotimos Diodorou Halaieus (Oliver, I 21 - I 26, Clinton, 88) and perhaps Polykritos Polycharmos Azenieus (whose granddaughter was hearth-initiate at the Eleusinian Mysteries around the start of the first century A.D., Clinton, 101). Eupatridai Ophelas, Kallias and Drakon Batethen (Oliver, I 8, I 13, I 17 - a relation) also may have been Eteoboutadai. Aleshire (as in note 6) 332 and 337 note g, alludes to an earlier stage when two Eteoboutad families, one of the orator Lykourgos, the other of Habron Batethen, may have united the two branches of this genos. Her suggestion is based on a hopeful restoration of Kalli[sto] for a late third-century Eteoboutad priestess (IG II2 3461.6), a name found in the families of Habron and Lykourgos, and the marital connection between the families of Habron and Drakontides. See APF Table IV for stemma. By Aleshire's suggestion, the uniting of this bifurcated genos occurred possibly as early as the late fourth century, with the marriage of Lykourgos III and Kallisto Habronos.

36 McKendrick (as in note 10) 60f. Leaving aside questions surrounding multiple gentile affiliations, it is feasible that the sons of Dionysodoros Deiradiotes became Kerykes because the family was connected through adoption to a Sounion family that may have been Kerykes. The brother Sophokles Sounieus was adopted by Philotas Sounieus (Clinton [as in note 31 51, lines 27-28, also IG 112 4457), himself the son of [-Ikles Thriasios (IG 112 3540 c.25-1), but adopted by a Sophokles Sounieus (IG 112 1714, 88/7). The fact that the Deiradiotai Kerykes had a brother named Sophokles suggests a marital connection between the two families before the adoption. SEG 42.193: lophon's daughter Kleopatra marries a Dionysodoros Sounieus. E. Badian, "Rome, Athens and Mithridates," AJAH I ( 1976) 105-128, especially 125, based on Dow's judgment, dates IG 112 3540 to the last quarter of the 1 st century. The PA stemma needs to be brought down at least one generation, if not two, if IG I12 3450 records the death of the polemarchos Philotas Sounieus.

37 Pomeroy, Families (as in note 8) 122-123.


that the legitimacy of his priesthood came under scrutiny. This hypothesis leads us to at least three explanations for his multiple gentile affiliations. Either Theophilos I was a Bouzyges and his grandson by adoption Diotimos inherited the gentilitas, which the genos probably had questioned, and so sought the Delphic oracle's advice; Pammenes I was a Bouzyges, his son Diodoros inherited the gentile affiliation and, despite adoption into another family, passed on the gentilitas to his son, Diotimos; or Diotimos married or bought his way into the genos and priesthood.

The problem with adoption as a means to gaining gentilitas is that the adoptee was expected to abandon his natural father's deme and phratry memberships for his adopted father's. For adoption to work in our cases, either the gene altogether had become divorced from the phratries in the Hellenistic era, a possibility after c. 135,38 or rules regarding admission into a phratry changed as well.39 But the notion of gentilitas re- tained from the original family despite adoption into the new aristocratic family seems not far-fetched. We know that an adoptee could keep ties with and even return to his natural father's oikos, so long as he left a son to the adopted father.

Regarding adoption, we find a new Athenian trend concurrent with our examples of multiple gentile affiliations. Starting in the second century priests, priestesses and high office holders showed off their adopted status in inscriptions. Rubinstein et alii think that in a time of loose standards regarding citizenship qualifications this advertis- ing of adoption served to prove the office holder's superiority over those naturalized citizens, those who should not have been allowed to hold such offices. If adoption had become a viable means to gain gentilitas, then such advertisements of adoption among the gennetai served a similar purpose: to show the public the gennetes in question was at least born an Athenian citizen. Other poleis, especially in Asia Minor and Rhodes, where foreign residents typically outnumbered the citizens,40 also experienced a similar trend. But the evidence outside Attica dates to the late third century, before the Romans became heavily involved the Greek East. Once we place the Athenian trend in the larger context of the Hellenistic era, we can safely conclude that these advertisements reflect a society's concerns over citizenship legitimacy and not any sort of "Romanization" of Athenian society. Overall, the explanation of adoption remains a possibility, but it leaves several questions unanswered.

Gentile affiliation may have also been acquired at this time through the mother's side, either through matrilineal inheritance or more directly through marriage to an aristocratic woman. The Medeios family provides a clue regarding when the rule of matrilineal transmission became acceptable at least with regards to the transmission of Eteoboutad gentilitas. Medeios II and his sister Philippe II provide our first and only known instance where the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus and priestess of Athena Polias came from the same Eteoboutad family.4' Otherwise, we have always considered that the Eteoboutadai genos had been bifurcated and the families of the two branches somehow kept separate with regards to their cult duties.42 With that in mind Philippe II may have been named after her Eteoboutad ancestor, but her grandmother Philippe I was a member of the Eteoboutad

38 The latest evidence for Athenian phratries is dated to approximately 135. See S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor 1993) 273-275 for discussion of the Hellenistic phratries.

39 L. Rubinstein, Adoption in IV. Century Athens (Copenhagen 1993) 36f, 114f. 40 R. Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age (Ithaca 1984) 54-57. 41 About dating see Aleshire (as in note 6) 336-337. 42 APF 172-173, regarding the stemma of Drakontides Batethen and his family; Parker (as in note 2)

290-293.


families that provided priests of Poseidon Erechtheus, not priestesses of Athena Polias. We may suspect that sometime prior the genos removed somehow whatever divided the two branches;43 but the reality of this bifurcation or any union is beyond our scope here. Instead, we should take notice of Nikostrate's claimed descent from the famous fourth- century Eteoboutad orator, Lykourgos. Not only was she Eteoboutad by her grandmother Philippe II, but Philippe II was presumably Eteoboutad by her grandmother Philippe I, since her mother Timothea was her father's first cousin and so a member of the Eumolpid family. Philippe's I gentile affiliation traces all the way back to her distant ancestor Ka- llisto, the wife of a Sokrates (Kroieus?) and daughter of Lykophron II, a priest of Poseidon Erechtheus.44 Unless Sokrates was Eteoboutad, for which we have no evidence, the gentile affiliation - no matter from which branch - might have passed from Kallisto to her son Symmachos. Based on what little we know, the patrilateral rule of transmitting gentilitas may have been broken as early as around 300.

We now face the question about what exactly was transmitted. Kallisto's husband may have been Eteoboutad and all we see here is an example of matrilineal transmission of a priestly office, not gentilitas. The same could be said for two other families of priestesses of Athena Polias. The father of Theodote, a priestess of Athena Polias around 200, Polyeuktos Euthykratous IV Alpokethen, was named after his maternal grandfather, Polyeuktos II Polyeuktou I Batethen, himself the father of a priestess of Athena Polias in the 250's.45 Clearly the patrilateral rule was broken before 200, as there was a matrilineal transfer of the priesthood to a descendant of Archestratos II Euthykratous II Alpokethen, Theodote's great-grandfather. Another possible example of matrilineal transfer of the priesthood comes from the marriage between Lysimache I Drakontidous Batethen and a Phlyeus in the Classical era. Later, Penteris Hierokleous Phlyea, a conjectured descendant, became priestess of Athena Polias sometime either just before or after Theodote. Most likely Archestratos and Lysimache's husband were Eteoboutadai.46

These examples of matrilineage should preclude an alternative explanation for Niko- strate's claims, that by the end of the second century Medeios II and Philippe II had been allowed to claim gentile affiliation from either side of the family.47 Even such a claim, nonetheless, presupposes an accepted pattern of matrilineal transmission. Moreover, we know that Philippe I passed on her gentile affiliation to her grandchildren through her son. Philippe II also was able to pass on her gentile affiliation to her granddaughter Nikostrate through her son.48

For the other cases, we do not have such detailed stemmata that provide names of wives and daughters. For that reason we cannot test our hypothesis that sometime around 130, the approximate time of Philippe's I marriage to Lysandros I and Habryllis' priesthoods, other gene allowed matrilineal transmission of gentilitas.49

43 See note 35. 44 Based on APF 4549 stemma. 45 Aleshire (as in note 6) 336-337. 46 Echoing Pomeroy, Families (as in note 8) 149-151; APF 4549. 47 See note 29 about Parker's suggestion regarding the Erysichthonidai and the "antiquarian spirit" that

may have been applied for its inclusion among the traditional gene. Likewise, Medeios' I family may have applied similar antiquarianism to justify gentile affiliation.

48 See note 23 regarding Diokles II and his symbol of Athena on his mint. 49 See Pomeroy (as in note 7) regarding reasons why aristocratic women were "invisible" and thus

difficult to be found on inscriptions.


As for the allowance for matrilineal transmission of gentilitas at this time, that should not come as a surprise to us. In a study regarding Athenian women's identity, Pomeroy points out that among the funerary monuments from the Athenian Agora, women were identified by their family role, as wife or daughter of a man, but, save for two cases, never as mother. No Athenian child, son or daughter, would want to be socially compro- mised by being identified for eternity with the female. In Pomeroy's own words, "the fantasy of descent from male to male found its way into a wide range of documents."50 But Pomeroy is referring to the epigraphical evidence. The case of Nikostrate supports Pomeroy's claim that where literary remains provide details, we find cases of matrilineage. When we consider Nikostrate's tracing of her gentile ancestry through the matriline, her claim speaks volumes for other, similar instances. Any gennetes whose membership came from the mother (or wife) could have found himself at risk of ridicule by ap- pearing to be under the sway of a woman.51 But that is indeed what this acceptance of matrilineal transmission suggests. On the other hand, with the Atheno-Delian economic boon came also a significant influx of non-Attic culture, such as the non-Greek cult of Sarapis and new names like Sarapion. Perhaps Athenian culture had changed enough to the point where Ferguson could claim that the Athenians had finally participated in "the emancipation of women which went on apace in the Hellenistic world....''52

The acquisition of a new gentile affiliation through marriage into an aristocratic family may account for several of our cases. By this rule of transmission one could gain a particular gentilitas simply by marrying the daughter of a gennetes. The timing of our evidence regarding Habryllis' dual priesthoods raises suspicion that Mikion's family had recently acquired affiliation to at least one of the two gene and most likely through marriage. Perhaps Mikion IV married into an Eteouboutad family, thereby giving his daughter access to a priesthood of Athena Polias.53 Only because her immediate kin shows connections with the Eleusinian aristocracy and a later family member holds an old Eteoboutad name (Lysistrate) should we hypothesize Habryllis' family as long-time Eleusinian aristocracy and recent Eteoboutad.

The marital union between the Keryx Themistokles II and Philippe's I descendant Nikostrate probably provided Themistokles II some sort of access to the Eteoboutad

50 Pomeroy (as in note 7) 119. Compare conclusions by F. Zeitlin, "Signifying Difference: the Myth of Pandora," in Women in Antiquity (as in note 7) 58-74, esp. 69-70. Zeitlin finds in Hesiod's pres- entation of Pandora a symbol of women, even as alien creatures and barely recognized for their procreative powers.

51 Pomeroy (as in note 7) 115, 119. 52 W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London 1911) 421-425 regarding cultural "contamination"

from foreign influences, especially from Delos. Ferguson makes much of several archaeological and epigraphical findings, such as the late 2nd/early I st century lists of ergastinai, the fact that women were not only listed among the Pythaists, but were able to travel and spend a week abroad, and a life-size statue of a woman in a Delian courtyard.

53 See note 15; see also Lewis (as in note 17) 9, about Mikion's family having married into the Eteo- boutad genos. The inscription that records Habryllis' Eleusinian priesthood of Demeter and Kore (note 15) also indicates a marriage between her and Kichesias Leontios Aixoneus, whose lineal descendant can be found listed among the Kerykes of Themistokles' II honorary decree (Clinton [as in note 31 51, line 24). We have no evidence to indicate that Habryllis' children carried the gentile affiliation with either the Eteouboutdai or Kerykes. In addition, Kichesias' descendants may have acquired Kerykes membership by means other than inheritance. It is even feasible that Kichesias' family gained access to the Kerykes through his marriage to Habryllis, although more likely the marriage was between Eleusinian aristocratic families.


genos. Either his marriage provided him access to membership, or he acted on his wife's and her family's behalf. Perhaps Themistokles II was entrusted to perform gentilitial reorganization tasks for the state, and his own aristocratic family and marriage made him an appropriate candidate to do so for both the Kerykes and the Eteoboutadai.

Marriage ties may account for at least two examples from the Pammenes-Diotimos extended family and for Leonides VII gaining access to the Kerykes dadouchia. Re- garding Pammenes II, Geagan conjectures that a marriage into an Erysichthonid family explains how his eldest son was able to gain the Eumolpid exegete office, which his father had previously held,54 and the younger son received perhaps by matrilineal transmission the Erysichthonid priesthood. As for Diotimos, whereas his Eumolpid and Gephyraios affiliations seem inherited, his affiliation to the Bouzygai, the Kerykes, or both, seem recently acquired, since he alone of his family can exemplify such memberships. As for Leonides VII, no evidence reveals any Kerkyes affiliation until his dadouchia. Ka- petanopoulos has suggested a possible, but not proven, scenario, in which Leonides VII married the daughter of a Themistokles IV, a descendant of the dadouchos Themisto- kles II. Although the suggestion has its own problems - both Themistokles IV and his daughter are postulated entities - Leonides VII had a son by the name of Themistokles, a name that would appear again later in the family. But we take Leonides' connection to the Eleusinian aristocracy even further back. Leonides' family married into the family of the Epicurean philosopher Phaidros Berenikides, who was Eupatrid. One of his ancestors, Kallistheos Lysiadou, is listed among several late second-century Eleusin- ian aristocrats (see below regarding IG 112 2452), thus providing at least a suggestion that the Berenikides family could have been Kerykes as well.55 Leonides' Amynandrid family may have gained access to the Kerykes through marriage conducted before the Common Era.

Payment for membership is another possible way, considering how many of our examples held economic ties to Delos and Peiraieus. By the end of the second century Athenian society was dominated by nouveaux riches whose wealth came mostly from maritime business connected with Delos. In addition, we can trace back into the third century the families of only a few of Athens' social and political elite from the end of the second century and the next century. Although wealth was not a necessary indica- tor of aristocratic status, almost by definition of the group an aristocrat could trace the family's status for at least three generations. We should be surprised then to find several of these new men listed as gennetai. By the end of the first century the Kerkyes genos looks more like a political club than a sacerdotal clan. Of the thirty Kerkyes members listed in Themistokles' II honorary decree, at least seven, if not more, once held the eponymous archonship, and at least six families have known ties to Delos for as long as at least one previous generation.56 From this we may surmise that the genos had incorporated several newly wealthy families prior to any possible gentile "revolution" of

54 See the study in Aleshire (as in note 6) 325-335, on selection of gentilitial priests either by lot,

inheritance or election. 55 Clinton (as in note 3) 57-58 and note 81 on 58; Kapetanopoulos (as in note 33) 494-496; and Oliver

(as in note 19) 1 13 and I 20, about Lysiades as Eupatrid exegete. 56 See Clinton (as in note 3) 51 and C. Habicht, "Zu den Epimeleten von Delos 167-88," Hermes 119

(1991) 194-216. For summary of the "ruling circles" of the era, see C. Habicht, Athens from Alex-

ander to Antony, trans. by D. L. Lucas Schneider (Cambridge [Mass.] 1997) 321-328.


the Augustan era.57 The question then becomes whether or not these gennetai became members through purchase. Although we have no direct evidence of any such purchase, we do have suggestions of gentile reaction to possible venal memberships. Oliver, followed by Aleshire, postulates a reorganization of the gene in the Augustan era, and that reliable registers were called for such a task. The hypothesis is supported in part by Augustus' own reaction to Athenian society. He forbade Athenians to sell citizenship. Mentioned above, the case of Diotimos Halaieus suggests purchased membership to either the Kerykes or Bouzygai genos.

Besides the many new men listed in Themistokles' honorary decree, we have another reason to suspect that the Kerykes genos expanded its pool of members. There is good reason to suspect that the genos took up more priestly offices when the Delian cleruchy was organized in 167/6. Tracy has already made the suggestion that the keryx of Delos was a priestly office.58 We have nothing prosopographically to support this hypothesis, but such process of a genos taking on other priestly duties was not unknown.59 If this indeed occurred, we may conjecture further that during the creation of the cleruchy certain offices were designated as gentilitial and so filled by gennetai only.

One final explanation remains, that by the first century the gentile priesthoods nor- mally controlled by Eteoboutad families became divorced from gentilitial administration and that is how members of the Eumolpidai and Kerykes became Eteoboutad priests and priestesses.60 But Nikostrate's ability to trace back her Eteoboutad heritage would indicate some sort of familial continuance of Eteoboutad affiliation.61 We do, nonetheless, see examples of priesthoods passed on to family members among the Kerykes and Eumolpidai.62 This explanation, therefore, cannot account for all our cases.

57 Oliver (as in note 3) followed by Aleshire (as in note 6) 335. About Augustus' visit to Athens in the year 21 and the corresponding flurry of epigraphical documentation by the polis and at least two gene, see G. C. R. Schmalz, "Athens, Augustus, and the Settlement of 21 B.C.," GRBS 37 (1996) 38 1-398.

58 Tracy, IG 112 2336 (as in note 22) 127-128. 59 For example, the Praxiergidai in the fifth century may have taken up duties regarding the dressing

of the Athena Polias statue. See N. Robertson, "The Praxiergidai Decree (IG I3 7) and the Dressing of Athena's Statue with the Peplos," GRBS 44 (2004) 111-161. According to Clinton (as in note 3) 68, 115-116, unlike the Eumolpidai, Kerykes members were allowed to hold priesthoods outside the genos.

60 According to Clinton (as in note 3) 56, following J. Toepffer, Attische Genealogie (Berlin 1889) 125-127.

61 Cicero's testimony (De Natura Deorum, 3.19) provides nothing concrete - he saw priests of Poseidon Erechtheus but does not tell who supplied them. Although the Eteoboutadai provided the priests of the Erechtheis tribe, the extant prytany lists also provide no evidence at this time. Cf. B. D. Mer- ritt and J. S. Traill, Athenian Agora XV; Inscriptions: The Athenian Councillors (Princeton 1974) 12-14.

62 Medeios' exegete, Themistokles' dadouchia, Leonides' dadouchia, Pammenes' exegete.


IV.

As for timing this change, Habryllis' priesthoods by the 130's provides us a rough terminus ante quem.63 By 138/7 the aristocracy revived the Athenian Pythais theoria, that cultic pilgrimage to Delphi made by mostly Athenian gennetai. In this second century also there seems to have been an increased interest in genealogy, especially among the aristocracy. Several of the geni had reworked traditions to provide among them genea- logical connections. Such connections reflect "something of the relations of these descent groups at the time," according to Broadbent.64 Reflecting the interests of the time at Athens, one of the Athenian epimeletai of Delos, Eupatrid Drakon Ophelou Batethen (PA 4555), may have been the author of Peri Geno#n. It is at this time that we also find with the family of Philippe I our first probable example of matrilineal transmission of gentilitas. Our best guess pinpoints the change to the second half of the second century, probably close to the time of the Delian cleruchy and the Pythais revival.65

If, however, by this time the Eteoboutadai lost control over their cults and so members of other geni were selected for those priesthoods,66 then we cannot time the change to our earliest examples. Instead we must look to the family of Pammenes II Marathonios and Diotimos Halaieus, whose exempla of multiple gentile affiliations can be dated as early as 37/6. The change then would be tied to Sulla's or Caesar's work in Greece. If we need to settle on a terminus post quem for changes to gentilitial admission, we have clear evidence of accepted matrilineal transmission of gentilitas in the Imperial era. Marcus Aurelius denied the request of the Eumolpid M. Valerius Mamertinus to become sacred herald, a Keryx office, because "he obtained neither of his parents from the Kerykes."67 But if we want to find evidence of definite Athenian capitulation toward Roman desires, if not Roman interference in Athenian politics and society, we need look no later than the first archonship selected after Sulla's revenge on Athens. That eponymous archon was listed only as Hierophant - an Eumolpid aristocrat.68

An exception to this assertion of timing rests upon the questionable identification of the Mesogeioi, a cult association focused on the Herakleion at Cholargos, as a genos.69 The identification is based on the fact that all known Mesogeioi members had urban demotics and so the cult association seems not to have been a local one, and that the association elected archons and treasurers much like any genos. If the Mesogeioi was a genos, we have an example of multiple gentile affiliations as early as the third cen-

63 Regarding the dating of her priesthood and tombstone, see Tracy, Attic (as in note 13) 141, 179-

180. 64 M. Broadbent, Studies in Genealogy (Leiden 1968) 243-289, especially 289, about late Hellenistic/

early Roman era genealogies that connect the Eteoboutadai, Kephelidai, Medontidai and perhaps

the Salaminioi. 65 This timing concurs with that suggested by Ferguson (as in note 4).

66 The explanation of Clinton (as in note 3) 56. 67 The inscription (EM 13366) is published and discussed in J. H. Oliver, Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of

Civic and Cultural Policy in the East, Hesperia Supplement 13 (Princeton 1970). The translation of

lines 9-10 of Plaque II (his page 4) is Oliver's (his page 29).

68 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 325 identifies this archon as Theophemos Kydatheneus, hierophant

no. 15 of Clinton (as in note 3) 28-29. 69 R. Schlaifer, "The Attic Association of the MESOGEIOI," CPh 39 (1944) 22-27.


tury. Dated to the year 275/4 an inscription from the Mesogeioi (IG 112 1245) records as its archon Polyeuktos II Lysistratou Batethen. Polyeuktos' daughter was a priestess of Athena Polias. The family was Eteoboutad. At the risk of circular reasoning - otherwise Polyeuktos becomes our first multiple gentile member with over 140 years lapse between him and our next example - we should suggest that the Mesogeioi were not a genos or at least a genos of Hellenistic origins70 and not subject to the traditional rules of gentile membership.

Given that an Eteoboutad was a member of the Mesogeioi, we need to reassess our previous conclusions about the Eteoboutadai. Perhaps the Eteoboutadai permitted matrilineal transmission of gentilitas, and so a son could inherit membership to two gene through both parents, one of whom would have been an Eteoboutad. We have shown above early Hellenistic examples of the patrilateral rule broken; therefore, our previous conjecture that in those cases the Eteoboutadai transmitted only the priestly office runs the risk of circular reasoning by precluding not only the gentile status of the Mesogeioi, but also the possibility that indeed we have third-century examples of matrilineal transmission of gentilitas. Given the greater number of cases dated to the late second century and later, some of which do not involve the Eteoboutadai, these denials are admitted here.

V.

Why the change of rules of gentile admission? What exactly are we seeing by these examples of Athenians affiliated with more than one genos? Circumstantial evidence points to Athenian acquiescence to Roman desires to deal with aristocracies as soon as, if not even as a condition for, the handover of Delos. In his analysis of second-century Athenian epimeletai of Delos, Habicht concludes that the epimeletai were elected, and not chosen by lot in good democratic fashion. The oligarchic element, election rather than lottery choice of office, found its way into the Athenian constitution long before Medeios' unprecedented run of archonships and Sulla's arrival. During the constitution of the Athenian cleruchy on the island, gene such as the Kerykes may have become involved, taking on specialized roles that would consequently become gentilitial. If indeed Menedemos Kydathenaieus was aristocratic, the selection of the earliest known epimeletes of Delos ran along similar lines of logic as to the selection of the first eponymous archon after Sulla, the hierophant Theophemos Kydathenaieus. Habicht also remarked on how many of the same families that provided such officials also supplied the mint magistrates and Pythaists. In his own words, "die Annahme liegt mithin von vornherein sehr nahe, dass alle Amtsinhaber den Kreisen der fuhrenden Familien Athens entstammten." 71

In his survey history of Hellenistic Athens, Ferguson theorized that a class of businessmen overtook the traditional democracy and at the end of the second century made political reforms that constituted an oligarchy. Subsequent revisions by other historians have proven that there were few constitutional changes and many offices were still open to the citizen body at large. The democracy continued. But in efforts

70 S. Humphrey's "Genos" through Parker (as in note 2) 306-307. 71 About epimeletai of Delos, see Habicht, "Epimeleten" (as in note 56). About Delian commerce and

Roman business there, see N. Rauh, The Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos, 166-87 B.C. (Amsterdam 1993).

278 ALEX K. SCIiILLER

to dismiss Ferguson's oligarchic revolution we have overlooked an important social change to the Athenian aristocracy. The greatest Roman influence on Athenian society at the time was the handover of Delos to Athens, which created an economic boon for many Athenians.72 The close Athenian-Roman relations that grew during the second century concur with several social changes in Athens at that time.73 Remarking on social changes at Hellenistic Athens after the polis' acquisition of control over Delos by 166, Habicht states, "while older families continued to be represented in the priesthood and some other offices, by the end of the [second] century the most important political posts, such as hoplite general, were occupied by the newly rich class."74 But by this time some newly wealthy were somehow occupying the aristocratic priesthoods. After 130, when the Delian cleruchy had changed to reflect its international community,75 the most important Athenian offices at the time, the hoplite general, epimeletes of Delos, and herald of the Areopagos, were consistently filled by aristocrats who had dealings on Delos. Both changes to the aristocracy and Athenian society as a direct of the Delian cleruchy seem to be closely tied to one another.

We should suspect, therefore, that the Romans' desire to deal directly with aristocracies persuaded the Athenians to create their own nobiles-like class, an aristocratic class mixed with many non-gentile social elites. The revitalization of some aristocratic-specific activities at this time reflects an overall revitalized interest among the Athenians in their own aristocratic clans. This revitalized interest in the gene would have meant a revived interest in gentilitas. Subsequently, the aristocratic monopoly over gentilitas would presumably have been challenged, and it is this challenge that led to changes implemented regarding means to acquiring gentilitas. The evidence that led McKen- drick to envision an Eupatrid revival from 129/8 to 87/6 was in fact a reflection of an enlarged and subsequently altered aristocracy.76 Our inquiry then turns its focus toward evidence of Roman persuasion for Athenians to change their society and indications that the Athenian aristocracy did indeed make such alterations.

Placed in the wider context of the Hellenistic era, we find the Athenians reacting no differently than most other Greek poleis. Regarding the events of 146 and the coming of Rome into the Hellenistic world, Habicht states, "Rome's allies in the Greek world must have felt a chill as they observed the fate of Corinth and Carthage. Athens had emerged from events intact, but the Athenian state now had noticeably less political

72 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 288f.; Rauh (as in note 71); and P. Roussel, Delos colonie athinienne

(Paris 1916). Tracy, Attic (as in note 13) 223-225, discuses how the acquisition of Delos affected

inscription production at Athens. The "migration" of letter cutters to the island may even account for

the statistical bias toward Athenians with Delian connections but should not affect our knowledge of

gennetai discovered from epigraphical evidence, since the gene and their cults were based in Attica,

not on Delos. 73 Regarding Athenian social changes post 167/66, see Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 254-258 and post

Sulla, 315-321. For examples of Roman decisions that affected Athens directly and indirectly, see

Habicht, Athens, 272ff. C. J. Smith, The Roman Clan: The Gensfrom Ancient Ideology to Modern

Anthropology (Cambridge [U.K.] 2006), especially his chapter entitled "The gens in the mirror: Ro-

man gens and Attic genos," may have more to say on comparisons between the Roman and Athenian

clans. 74 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 287-88. 75 Rauh (as in note 71) 22-27, following the most part Roussel's (as in note 72, 57f.) notion of a gradual

dominance of foreigner residents over the original Athenian cleruchy, starting from around 145.

76 McKendrick (as in note 10) 54f.


latitude."77 The destruction of Carthage and Corinth clearly became a wakeup call for the Greeks regarding the coming of Romans into the East, what the Athenians may have come to understand before other poleis, ever since the handover of Delos to the polis. As early as 155/4 the Athenians made sacrifices to honor the Roman Demos. Several Greek poleis consciously marked the new era of Roman domination in the East. The Athenians also signaled the new era with a new tablet of eponymous archons, starting with the year 146/5.78

It is at also at this time that there grew the legend of Rome as the fourth and last world empire.79 No one could have predicted the Romans would have stayed in the East for long, but Rome's destruction in the wake of the Achaean War must have given the legend weight.80 Even Athens did not come out unscathed, as it lost control over Oropus. In addition, analysis of the Greek point of view on imperialism and conquest leads us to believe that many Greeks after Pydna did assume Rome would take direct control over them, as the Macedonians had done previously.8'

Although many of the epimeletai of Delos show no signs of being aristocratic, several do. But what is most striking concerns those families able to have multiple members elected epimeletes. Of these families only Byttikos (153/2) and Pyrrhos (105/4) of Lamptrai, Sokrates (117/6) and Aristion (95/4) of Oion, and Polykleitos (98/7) and Alexandros (54/3) of Phlya show no affiliation with any genos.82 If indeed the residents

77 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 274. 78 New era chronologies, see Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 270f. Athenian sacrifices to Roman Demos

and honors paid to Roma in 149/8, Habicht, Athens, 273f. 79 E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 vols. (Berkeley / Los Angeles 1984)

327-329, 335-343. See for example the early second-century Roman Aemilius Sura, quoted in Vel- leius Paterculus 1.6.6.

80 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 274. 8 1 Gruen (as in note 79) 145-151, 318-356. 82 Despite their lack of gentile status or perhaps our lack of knowledge of such status, these three families

were nonetheless extensively involved in Athenian religious festivities. The first epimeletes, Mene- demos Archontos Kydathenaieus (167/66?) may have been an aristocrat. His great-granddaughter Glauke was an Eleusinian priestess of Demeter and Kore; but this fact only assures that his grandson Menedemos II was a gennetes. Ophelas Habronos Batethen (1 48/7) and son Drakon Ophelou (1 12/1) were Eupatridai (PA 11). Lysiades Phaidrou Berenikides (136/5) also was Eupatrid (Oliver [as in note 19] I 13, I 20). His family held marital ties with the Amynandrid brothers Leonides V, Phaidros and Timotheos Meliteis (see Kapetanopoulos [as in note 33] stemma "A"). Xenon's Asklepiadou Phylasiou (1 18/7) first cousin's daughter Ameinokleia was an Eleusinian priestess of Demeter and Kore (Clinton [as in note 3] 72). Some, but not necessarily all, of the following were Kerykes as well, as their descendants can be found listed in Themistokles' II Hagnousios honorary decree (Clinton, 51). They include Ammonios Ammoniou Anaphlystios (128/7) and his kin, Dionysios Demetriou (111/0), Ammonios Demetriou (107/6) and N. Ammoniou (96/5); as first mint magistrate (118/7) Ammonios Ammoniou used the symbol of two torches, possibly signifying his family's affiliation with the dadouchos of the Kerykes; Dionysious Nikonos Palleneus (1 10/09) and his son Hermaphilos Hermaphilou (c. 80), who was adopted by his uncle, and grandson Agathostratos Dionysiou (48/7); Sarapion Sarapionos Meliteus (100/99); Demeas Hikesiou Halaieis (90/89), whose Eteoboutad descendant Megiste is discussed above; and Kallimachos Epikratou Leukonoeus (c.80-60). Several members of an extended family held the office. The family of Diogenes Aropos Peiraieus (1 15/4) married into the family of Eumolpid Aropos Glaukos Peiraicus and Eumolpid-Eteoboutad Medeios Medeiou (98/7). Diogenes' gentile status is unknown. Another Eupatrid, Polycharmos Polykritou Azenieus (Oliver, I 21 - 1 26) held the office sometime in middle of the first century. Related by marriage to gennetai, the family of Protimos Dosistheou ek Myrhinouttes (c. 80) married into the Keryx family of Dosistheos Kleomenous Marathonios (Clinton, 90, stemma: IG 112 3488; see also IG 112 3478).


of Delos, especially after 130, influenced the election of the epimeletai, we can see how indeed the Romans had a hand in the skewing of the Athenian democracy in favor of aristocratic domination.83

By extension of this selection of epimeletai, the office of hoplite general was filled more often than not by an aristocrat. Typically that official came from the same pool of epimeletai of Delos. Again, we find a striking trend among the list of hoplite generals. So far as we know, those epimeletai who we know were gennetai were Eleusinian aristocrats.84 We find this same selection among the earliest Athenian priests of the cult to the Roman imperial family. By the end of the first century they were predominantely, if not exclusively, members of the Kerykes and Eumolpidai, a selection that reflects the Romans' preferences among the Athenian genj.85 Also, opposite to the trend among epimeletai of Delos, those who filled the office several times (e.g., Antipatros Antipa- trou Phlyeus, seven times; Pyrrhos Lamptreus, two times; and Xenokles Theopompou Rhamnousious, four times) in more cases than not show no gentile affiliation, probably because concerns over military skills and talent overrode any other consideration. As Geagan has already pointed out, "Romanization" was a reciprocal process. The Roman Senate supported the local elite, who in turn did their best to support Roman causes and quell local disturbances. After Sulla, the hoplite generals seem to have held close relations with the Romans.86

Due to the comparatively small list of known pre-first century heralds of the Areopa- gos, it is difficult to perceive any pattern, although we see that most had connections to

83 Rauh (as in note 72) 5, note 4, supported in part by Rauh's history (5-22) of the Roman-Italian businessmen side-stepping Athenian magistrates and seeking justice through visiting Roman magistrates performing convectus. Moreover, by 129, Athenians seem to have taken a laissez faire approach to running Delos and certainly Romans'/Italians' appreciation of those epimeletai wise enough to keep disputes to private, not public, arbitration are exemplified by several dedications honoring Athenian officials or foreigners for their dikaiosynes.

84 Xenokles Apollodorou Otryneus (mid-2nd century) may have been an Eleusinian aristocrat, because he can be found listed among many other Eleusinian aristocrats in IG 112 2452.4. Possible Kerykes members (descendants listed in Clinton [as in note 3] 51) include Dionysios Demetriou Anaphlystios (106/5), Ammonios Demetriou (103/2), and Sarapion Sarapionou Meliteus (102/1, 98/7); Eumolpid Medeios Medeiou Peiraieus (99/8); Eupatrid Polycharmos Polykritou Azenieus (before 51/0); definite Kerykes members include (Clinton, 51, lines 9, 12, 22-23, 27) Diokles Diokleous Meliteus (39/8), Epikrates Kallimachou Leukonoeus (aet. Aug.), Diokles Themistokleous Hagnousios (37-41), Di- onysodoros Sophokleous Sounieus (41-54) and Demostratos Dionysiou Palleneus (45/6); Eumolpid Metrodoros Xenonos Phylasios (aet. Aug.); Eumolpid Pammenes Zenonos Marathonios (27/6-18/7); and Eumolpid (Clinton, 29-30) Kallikratides Syndromou Trikorysios (end of 1St century). Perhaps Theophilos Theopeithes Besaieus (beginning of IS' century A.D.) was of the Eleusinian aristocracy, since his grandfather is listed in IG II2 2452.40. The family provided several other hoplite generals in the Common Era, including Theophilos' son Dioteimos (41/42). The family of the Keryx (Clinton, 61-64) Herodes Atticus provided hoplite generals six generations prior, such as Herodes Eukleous Marathonios (before 60/59) and Eukles Herodou (10/9-2/3), but their gentile affiliation cannot be guaranteed. For the list of known hoplite generals, see T. Sarikaris, The Hoplite General in Athens (diss. Princeton University 1951) 22-35. About the office, see D. J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitu- tion After Sulla, Hesperia Supplement 12 (Princeton 1967) 18-31 and Tracy, IG I12 2336 (as in note 22) 113-116.

85 K. Clinton, "Eleusis and the Romans: Late Republic to Marcus Aurelius," in The Romanization of Athens: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996), eds. M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, Oxbow Monograph 94 (Oxford 1997) 161-183, especially 174.

86 D. J. Geagan, "The Athenian Elite: Romanization, Resistance and the Exercise of Power," in The Romanization of Athens (as in note 85) 19-32.


Delos. Presumably these heralds were the elected leaders of the ex-archons and so they too came from the same pool that provided the epimeletai of Delos and hoplite generals. Those who we know came from aristocratic families date to the late first century, a reflection of the growing political dominance of the Athenian aristocracy after Sulla. But once again we find that these aristocrats were parvenus, a reflection of the overall change to the Athenian aristocracy.87

The emergence of this amplified aristocracy should be seen in the numismatic evidence. The notion that the Romans influenced the Athenian "New Style" silver coinage has recently resurfaced.88 Margaret Thompson long ago had given a cogent dismissal of the hypothesis that the Athenian and Roman minting administration and types had parallels.89 But Dreyer thinks the Romans' requirement of Antiochus and the Aetolians to pay indemnity in Athenian silver for their roles in the first Roman-Syrian War provided the basic conditions that would allow for "die Initialzundung fur den Beginn mit der Neustilsilber-Pragung."90 Based on the coincidence of start dates Habicht correlates the beginning of the New Style with Athens' assumption of control over Delos.91 Although we have no reason to follow the hypothesis that the New Style coinage was created and administered by the Athenian aristocracy, Ferguson's comparison of the mint magistrates' names and symbols with the coin symbols of the Peisistratid tyrants, who prior to the New Style "alone had put their names on the Athenian coinage," has been left out of the analysis since Thompson's dismissal. Whatever the symbols' supposed meanings and purposes, clearly they reflect a society's acceptance of familial pageantry similar to medieval European heraldry.92

We have at least one Athenian inscription that exemplifies this enlarged aristocracy. The purpose of IG 112 2452 is not known, although McKendrick's idea that it has something to do with the Eleusinian aristocracy is not far-fetched. What we have is a catalogue of over 50 individuals, most, if not all, of whom were aristocratic, and of those almost all were members of the Eleusinian aristocracy. Several listed also held connections with Delos.93 Tracy has down-dated the inscription to approximately 105-100, placing its

87 About the herald of the Areopagos, see Geagan (as in note 86) 57-60. Heralds of the Areopagos B.C.: Mnasikles Mnasikleous (128/7, NPA, 129); Dioskourides [Marathonios?] (106/5? NPA, 64; possible stemma: PA 10837); Theocharis Hestaiou ek Kerameon ( 101/00, IG I12 2336); Athenodoros Athenodorou Aixoneus (99/8, IG 112 2336); Pyrrhos Pyrrhou Lamptreus (98/7, IG 112 2336); Andreas Andreou Peiraieus (97/6, IG I12 2336); Democharis Menandrou Azenieus (early 1 st century, PA 371 1, stemma: PA 9864, Habicht, Athens [as in note 561 326); Eirenaios Eirenaiou Skambonides (88/7, IG 112 1714.12-13, see also IG 112 2452.9); Eumolpid Theophemos Metrodorou Kydathenaieus (56/5, IG 112 1717.15-16); Euthydemos Heliodorou (18/7, IG 112 1718.14-15); Keryx Epikrates Kallmachou Leukonoeus (14/3, IG 112 1721.14-15); Amyndandrides and perhaps Keryx Leonides Leonidou (post 9/8, IG 112 1722.15-16); Polycharmis Eukleous Marathonios (end of ISt century, IG 112 1728.5-6); Lysiades Leonidou Meliteus (late I st century B.C./early 1 t century A.D., IG I12 1736.12-13, nephew of Leonides Leonidou).

88 B. Dreyer, "Roms Ostpolitik, Athen und der Beginn der Neustil-Silberpriigung," ZPE 129 (2000) 77-83.

89 Thompson (as in note 23) 584-587. 90 Dreyer (as in note 88) 80. 91 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 242-245. 92 Ferguson (as in note 52) 287-88, note 4. 93 Aropos Aphrodisiou Azenieus, if related to Aropos Leontos Azenieus (NPA, p. 32; Habicht, "Epime-

leten" [as in note 561 200), Kallistheos Lysiadou Berenikides (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 197), Lysias Artemonos Paianieus (NPA, 34, 121-122), Asklepiades Xenonos Phylasios (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 198), Eumachos Pausimachou ek Kolonou (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 197), Medeios Medeiou Peiraius,


historical context before the Athenians in majority sided with Mithridates against Ro- man desires.94 Members of old families whose ancestry we can trace back to at least the third century include aristocrats Mikion and Eurykleides Kephisieis (stemma: PA 5966), Mnesitheos Mneisitheou Kydathenaieus (stemma: PA 6165),95 Eumolpid-Eupatrid Theo- doros Charikleous Phalereus,96 Keryx Xenokles Sophokleous Acharneus,97 Ophelas and Miltiades Lakiadeis (APF 8249),98 Eupatrid Kallistheos Lysiadou Berenikides (stemma: NPA, 121), Archias Apolloniou Marathonios (stemma: PA 2470), Asklepiades Xenonos Phylasios (stemma: NPA, 39),99 Leon Kichesiou Aixoneus (stemma: PA 8445), 10 Theo- peithes Theophilos Besaieus (stemma: NPA, 95), Eumachos Pausimachou ek Kolonou (stemma: NPA, 142), Eumolpid Diodoros Theophilou Halaieus (APF 3933), and Diokles Dromeou Erchieus (APF 126). They are listed along with the new aristocrats, whose ancestry we cannot trace back before the second century, such as Eumolpid Medeios Medeiou Peiraeus, his cousin Aropos Glaukou Peiraeus, Menedemos Archontos Kyda- thenaieus, whose daughter Glauke was priestess of Demeter and Kore,101 the priest of Apollo Lysias Artemonos Paianieus,102 Eumolpid Lakrateides Sostratou Ikarieus,103 and possible KerykesI04 Sarapion Sarapionos Meliteus, Apolexis Aristotelou ex Oiou and [ ... sitratos Apolexidos ex Oiou. Even the ancestry of the hierophants listed, Menekleidos and Theophemos Kydathenaieis and the son of Eustrophos Peiraieus, cannot be traced back to the third century. Moreover, a similar catalogue from the end of the next century, IG 112 2464, also lists Eleusinian aristocrats of old and new social standing, some with Delian connections. 105 From the remaining names we see a few examples of both

and the Eupatridai Ophelas Miltiadou and Miltiades Ophelou Lakiadeis (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 197-198), Aristeides Lysimachou Hestalothen (Tracy, IG 112 2336 [as in note 22] 209), Aropos Glaukou Peiraieus (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 200), Menedemos Archontos Kydatheneus (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 197), Mnsasagoras Adeimantou Ikarieus (son of an epimeletes of Delos, Habicht, "Epimeleten," 197), Sarapion Sarapionou Meliteus (Habicht, "Epimeleten," 199), Kallisthenes Timotheou Acharneus and Menodoros Gnaiou Palleneus (see notes of IG 112 2452. 36, 43).

94 Tracy, Attic (as in note 13) 214-15. 95 McKendrick (as in note 10) 78, note 65, ascribes Mnesistheos' family to the Kephalidai, due to a

possible connection with the cult of Apollo Pythios. The priests of Apollo Pythios could have just as well been associated with the Kerykes (e.g., Clinton [as in note 31 51, line 15, and Clinton, 89).

96 Clinton (as in note 3) 22. 97 Stemma in Clinton (as in note 3) 58. 98 Presumably these two were members of the Philaidai genos and of the old Miltiades-Kimon oikos,

although how exactly no one has yet to provide a satisfactory stemma. The Philaidai genos seems to have survived this late, exemplified by the eponymous archon (100/99) Theodosios Lakiades or his father, who was priest of the mystic house of his genos (IG 112 2871). A genos in charge of mysteries with a gennetes from Lakiadai is most likely the Philaidai.

99 Clinton (as in note 3) 72: Asklepiades is related to Ameinokleia, priestess of Demeter and Kore either right before or after Glauke Menedemou. Due to the later date of the inscription, this should be Asklepiades V Xenonos (NPA, 38), not Asklepiades III Xenonos (PA 2619, stemma: NPA, 39)

100 Keryx descendant found listed in Clinton (as in note 3) 51, line 4. 101 Clinton (as in note 3) 72. 102 See Clinton (as in note 3) 100 about Lysias' grandson as a hearth initiate of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

See also IG II2 3478, which shows Lysias' association with the family of Dosistheos ek Myrrhinouttes, himself by his daughter's marriage associated with the Keryx family of Mantias Marathonos.

103 Clinton (as in note 3) 97. 104 Keryx descendant found listed in Clinton (as in note 3) 51, lines 21-22. 105 E.g., Diotimos and Theophilos Diodorou Halaieis, Pammenes Zenonos Marathonios, and Kerykes

member Epikrates Kallimachos Leukoneus.


old (Keryx Epikrates Kallimachou Leukoneus - NPA, 105, as far back as early second century - and the Eumolpidai Diotimos and Theophilos Diodorou Halaieis) and new (Eumolpidai Pammenes and Zenon Zenonos Marathonii and Eumolpidai Kallikratides and Oinophilos Syndromou Steireis106) families.

The Eleusinian aristocracy and Eteoboutadai were not the only ones demonstrat- ing the incorporation of new men. A late first-century inscription (IG 112 2338) lists fifty-one members of the Amynandridai, the genos in charge of the cult of Kekrops. Of these only four, three of whom were brothers, we know for certain had an ancestor of significant social position. Sostratos Alexandrou Sphettios probably was a descendant of the namesake theoros of the Apollo cult in 128/7 (NPA, 157), and perhaps Sostratos Telestou Sphettios (PA 13368) the ephebe of ca. 84-79 was related. The family of the three brothers Leonides, Timotheos, and Phaidros Meliteis extends back into the second century, but, known as the Claudii of Melite, becomes more illustrious in the Imperial era and is associated with the Kerykes.107 Despite the inscription's great value in providing such a large number of fellow gennetai, the list can say almost nothing about the geographic origins of the gennetai from the Classical era. With so many "new men," as well as a few naturalized foreigners, registered, the inscription reflects only its own era. 108

It was this rush of newly wealthy to gain gentile memberships and fill gentilitial priesthoods that helped facilitate a divided Athenian elite. Badian has long ago pointed out the political division before 88/7 among the oligarchic families, at least one of whom was aristocratic. If indeed several gene incorporated several non-gentile wealthy families from the end of the second century and onward, we can understand how by this dilution from addition there could not have been any aristocratic domination of the state. As the democracy was divided in its position regarding Rome and Mithridates, so the aristocracy would have been divided. We can hardly accuse this enlarged aristocracy of any labefaction.109

Our examples of gennetai affiliated with more than one genos, few as they are, but collectively concentrated over a little more than a century, should be seen as a reflection of an amplified Athenian aristocracy. The Romans preferred to deal with aristocracies, the Athenians preferred their democracy, a political organization that spread out civic responsibility through lottery. The latter found ways to accommodate both wishes. In addition, the Romans and others on Delos promoted election to offices and consequently aristocrats to the top offices, making gentilitas a precious commodity. The aristocracy opened its doors, so to speak, by allowing for the transmission of gentilitas through adoption, matrilineal inheritance, marriage, or purchase to those enriched for the most part by the Athenian control over the island of Delos. The Athenian amplification of their aristocracy explains how one scholar can read a long list of Pythiasts (IG I12 2336)

106 Clinton (as in note 3) 29-30. 107 Kapetanopoulos (as in note 33), including his stemma "A". 108 Contra K. Walters, "Geography and Kinship as Political Infrastructures in Archaic Athens," Flori-

legium 2 (1980) 1-31, following the likes of W. Dittenberger and H.T. Wade-Gery. 109 See the works of Badian (as in note 36); S. V. Tracy, "Athens in 100 B.C.," HSCP 83 (1979) 213-235;

and Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 315-321, about how the politeia became defacto more oligarchic by the end of the first century.


as a testament to the continuation of democracy, but another the growing dominance of the aristocracy. The aristocracy by the first century's end indeed came to dominate Athenian politics, but we need to recognize its enlarged nature.110

Chicago, Illinois Alex K. Schiller

1 10 Tracy, IG 112 2336 (as in note 22) 1 29f; Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 288, note 37, 315-328, especially 316, note 3. Habicht, Athens, 327f., sees Themistokles' II honorary decree as evidence of aristocratic domination of politics and questions any return to democracy by Caesar or Brutus and Cassius. Oliver (as in note 3) 13-20 theorizes that Themistokles' honorary decree and the decree of the Amynandridai reflect a reinstitution of archaic military gene. The hypothesis of military gene is not followed by this author. Moreover, Oliver explains the smallish circle of ruling Athenian elite, which Habicht sees, by postulating a Roman imposition of destinatio, a prohairesis of candidates.

ak schiller multiple gentile affiliation

Documents

athenian aristocracy

athenian society

athenian response

priesthoods of athens

athenian religion

roman athens baltimore

athenian aristoc racy

gentile membership