Julia Shear (University of Glasgow), “Herakleitos of Athmonon, Antigonos Gonatas, and the Panathenaia”, discussed the Athenian decree honouring Herakleitos of Athmonon, IG II(2) 677 (early 250’s BC). She argued, not entirely convincingly, that while most Hellenistic kings were allowed to contribute gifts personally to the Panathenaia, Antigonos Gonatas was unable to do so at the time of this decree and thus had Herakleitos make a donation on his behalf. Since only citizens and allies of Athens were allowed to participate in the festival, it would seem that Antigonos did not have such a status until ca. 255 BC, at which time he was granted citizenship according to Shear (using the evidence of I. Rhamnous 7.2-10 and IG II(2) 793.8-11, both decrees honouring Antigonos).
Delphine Ackermann (Université de Neuchâtel) presented a paper entitled “Le règlement religieux d’Aixonè: quelques réflections sur l’organisation du culte et le panthéon d’un dème de l’Attique”, a preliminary version of a new edition that will be included as an appendix in her dissertation on the deme of Aixone. The fascinating sacred law from Aixone (mod. Glyphada) has most recently been edited, with new fragments, by G. Steinhauer “Hieros Nomos Aixoneon”, in A.P. Matthaiou and G.E. Malochou (eds.) Attikai Epigraphai: Praktika Symposiou eis mnemen Adolf Wilhelm (1864-1950), Athens 2004, 155-173. Ackermann offered a synopsis of the various offerings to numerous deities which are catalogued in this sacred law and convincingly argued that this variety demonstrates that the inscription is a deme document, almost certainly from Aixone itself, and not the product of a phratry or genos, groups which had narrower pantheons. She proposed a few new interpretations of the context of the inscription, most notably, that the 5 drachmai allotted to each priest and priestess cannot be considered a sacrificial tariff since the amount largely exceeds all other known tariffs, and that this amount must instead be thought of as a ‘base salary’ for the priests (similarly the sum of 3 drachmai, which is granted in some cases for the sacrifice of a heuston teleon, would have been a supplement to this base salary).
Marietta Horster (Humboldt University, Berlin) in a paper entitled “(Self-)Representation of Priests and Priestesses in Fourth-Century Athens” catalogued the public recognition of priests and priestesses: known decrees honour almost exclusively foreigners in the fourth century. She also surveyed the evidence for private representation: votive offerings and funerary momuments, which were set up by Athenian priests and priestesses, not foreigners, but very few of them issue from a known cultic family or gene. Further implications of these findings remained unclear for the time being.
Catherine Keesling (George Washington University) delivered a very interesting paper entitled “Syeris, Diakonos of the Priestess Lysimache on the Athenian Acropolis (IG II 3464)”. Through detailed comparison with other examples, she clearly demonstrated that this inscription must be a pillar type A base for a statue (using Raubitschek’s classification), with the capital of the pillar base missing. This usefully accounts for the difference in letterforms found on the inscription which had confused some of the earlier editors: lines 1-4 could have been originally inscribed on the capital and then reinscribed in the 3rd century BC or later, after the loss of the capital. The remaining lines seem to date to the 4th century BC, as is also confirmed by comparing the sculptor of the statue, Nikomachos, with other signatures of the same name: IG II(2) 4274 (4th century) and IG II(2) 3038 (a choregic monument dated to 364/3). Keesling is thus able to convincingly conclude that the Syeris honoured in IG II(2) 3464 must have been the diakonos of the famous Lysimache, the long-serving priestess of Athena Polias (IG II2 3453), whom David Lewis identified as the inspiration for Lysistrata (Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History, ed. P.J. Rhodes, Cambridge 1997, 187-202).