List of inscriptions
+ IG II2 304 + 604 lines 1-16 | R. O. Hubbe, "Decrees from the Precinct of Asklepios at Athens," Hesperia 28 (1959) 169-171; Schwenk no. 14; photographs in Hesperia 28 (1959) pl. 35. |
IG II2 358 | Archon [Anaxikrate]s (307/6). Dow's establishment of the date as 307/6 (archon Anaxikrates) depended on the calculation that only the archon and secretary of that year suited the spatial requirements. By moving this text to the period of twelve tribes he also removed the troubling problem of the calendar date[1] —for it, see Kirchner ad loc . in IG II2 . Schwenk, although she accepts the restoration of Anaxikrates as archon, includes this text as no. 62 in her collection. |
IG II2 372 | Archon [Philokles] (322/1). Schwenk no. 87; photograph in Hesperia 8 (1939) 174 fig. 3.[2] |
IG II2 483 | Archon Pherekles (304/3). |
+ IG II2 489 | Archon Leostratos (303/2). The height of the letters of this text is erroneously reported in IG as 0.008 m; it is 0.005 m or a bit smaller. |
Osborne, Naturalization II 122-123, has pointed out that the tribe to be restored in lines 1-2 is not Kekropis, but rather Erechtheis or Antiochis.[3] | |
+IG II2 498 | Archon [Leostratos] (303/2). The chairman's name in line 7, |
, was first restored by the editor of[1] HSCP 67 (1963) 58-60. In an otherwise quite critical article, B. D. Meritt ("The Year of Neaichmos," Hesperia 32 [1963] 425-438) accepted Dow's date as a "most noteworthy achievement" (p. 435).
[2] E. Schweigert, Hesperia 8 (1939) 173-175, was wrong to associate IG II 289 with this text. It is not by this hand; the writing is very different. J. Peçirka, Enktesis 57, saw this and rejected the association already in 1966. SEG 32 (1982) 93, however, still apparently accepts it. M. B. Walbank, Hesperia 58 (1989) 85-86, has now suggested the association of Agora I 4421 with this text. However, the single omega preserved on the Agora fragment has a wide opening at the bottom and very small finials. This shape sharply differs from the omegas made by this cutter. The Agora fragment, therefore, was not inscribed by this cutter and is not part of IG II 372.
[3] M. B. Walbank, ABSA 85 (1990) 446, claims that IG II 532 is by the same hand as IG II 489 and part of the same inscription. IG II 532 is worn and has few well-preserved letters. The lettering is similar in style, but I cannot affirm that it is the same hand. Without more to go on, I think the proposed association has little to recommend it.
Hesperia Index 1-10 p. 180; for his name fully preserved see Agora XV no. 62 line 80. | |
IG II2 555 |