7

SocialDialect in

StephenColvin

r Social Dialect Socialvarieties of speechare conlrnonly designatedsocial dialects or so- ciolects.The terms refer to speechvariation that is correlatedwith social distinctions:irnmediatelythe term is more complicatedthanthe unmarked tenn dialect,which refersof courseto regionaldialect. To identift r:egional dialectwe haveto know somebasic facts about the geographyof the speech community; but in the caseof socialdialect we arc comnritting ourselves to a rangeof interlockingtheorie.s about the socialstructure of the conr- muniw, which-at leastin the caseof a corpuslanguage, and probabli'also in other cases-cannot be merely observecl,but must be abstractedfrorn whatever data are availableto the investigator. The distinction betweendialect and socialdialect is not necessarilyas fundamentalas the de{initions might imply. The disciplineswhich both termspertain to develope

(r) Aristophanes(PC(i Zo0) ?' doret . rco.itiy i1 airil p'irt rin' xc.td" tilv dypotxkt'', f1 airil t5i rcirr Erarptpirr*rt. nc,pd xoi 6 xoptxig 'll7er Aptorocl"i"Ts or contrnunities, I Seeespecially the work of I. and L. Milroy for smaller-scalcne lworks, which are'lessabstract than socialclasses' (lvlilroy t98o: t4)' SocialDialect in Attica 97

[,tripos?] 8rd,\exror'{yovra pdorlvrt5Ae<'ts oitr' d.oreiaviro9qAurlpau oiir' tu'd,ed|epov ir aypo, xory'. pav.

fthc grammarianssay thatJ . . . the idiom of those who live in rural areas is cliffcrentfrom that of city dwellers.Concerning which Ari.stophanesthe 'lhisl comic poet says: languageis the normal dialectof the cit,v-not the fhncy high-s

The question to be considered for my purPoses is whether there is evidencc tbr a prestige variety within Attica, or simply for the recognition that dif- fbrent social groups speak in different ways. We are used to the notion that there was uo standard language in ancient ; whether this was true for the individual citv-states is a separate question, ancl is likely, in my view, t6 have a differelt answer in each case, fbr it seems clear that sociolinguistic culture was no more uniform across the Greek world than the language it.self.My answer to this question is that we have some evidence that certain idioms within Attica were disparaged,and for the corollary that others were approved. It is true that some of the evidence conrprises what we might consicler stylistic features: but sonte of it also ciearly pertains to phonology-for example,we have attacks on populardemagogues for allegedinability to articulateAttic correctly:

(z) Plato,I-Iyperbohs (PCGtSf)

fl)d.rcovl,.ivrot iv'YnepBltAq 6'1rat{er}v dveuroi y lpfiou' ,is papSopol, ),ly

Plato, however,in his Hyperbolusmocked the dropping of g as barbarous,as 'He fbllows: didn't spcakAttic, yc gods,but wheneverhe had to saydiefimal he said djetoman,and when he had to sayoligos he came out rvith olios . ' .'

Evidence for disfavoured morphological forms is lessdirect: but the fact of 'chancellery an Athenian language which retained forms such as c-stem dative plurals in -aorl-rlorLtntil the late fifth centurt' at least indicates what we would have expected, that morphological difference played a role in linguistic variation within Attic:a. What is interestjng is that some of the evidence connects the disparaged 2 SecDover (rq8r:$z). q8 StephenColvin

of f'eaturesof Attic with a foreign idiom: either rvith the vaguecharge lonic barbarism,or with other dialectsof Greck.F'or example, perceived 'chatteringclasses' characteristicsin the speechof what would be calledthe that in the Murdoch pressare the objectof comic attention'3The evidence and the I wish to pr.r..rt here concernsthe relationshipbetween Attic irleologicalconverse of lonic, namelyBoeotian'

z Ostracism is we have alreadynoted one of the ways in which epigraphiclanguage governed by ruies which do not necessarilyapply to the Umgangssprache' in a and this is the greatparadox in looking for colft:quialspeccir varicties tablets, corpuslanguag"e. In ihe caseof Attic we can examinegraffiti, curse of infor- "nd ul,,uri*tyof privateinscriptions. A potentiallyvaluable source mation is piovided by ostraca'since there is a high likelihoodthat-ostracon voteswere in many casescast by peoplewho did not in generalpractise the epigraphichabit, and it is preciselyby virtuc of being semi-lettered evidence that suchwriters may provideevidence fr:r socialdialect. In fhct, provided that many ostracon-wielclingcitizens were wholly unletteredis pre- both by anecdote'rancl by the discoveryof a cacheof nearly 'oo slopeof inscribedostraca bearing ih. .tu-. of Themistocleson the north either the Acropolis.sOstracism was introduced by thc radicaldemocracy, before under Cfeisthenesin 5o8(accorcling to the 416, Pol.,zz. r) or shortly the tirst ostracismin 481.The decisionwhether to hold an ostrakoplnria vote was macleeach year by a full meeting of the popular assembly:the were cast itselfwas held perhapsaround ten weekslater. lf sulficientvotes in for an indiviclual,he wasbanisired for ten years.6Ostraca do therefore 'texts' generally some senserepresent the vox pttp;the problem is that are (that name restrictedto the designationof a single individual is t0 say, and low- 3 seecassio (rq8r) and Brixhe (rqS8)for the similaritiesbetween'barbarized' classAttic. 4 the name of that citizen plut. Arirtides 7:'F.ach voter took an crstracon,wlote on it agora which rvas whom he wished t6 remo\€ frorn the city, anclbrought it to a placc in the rvasspcaking,.as the voters all tfnced about rvith railings . . . Now at the time ol'wlrich I fellow handed were inscribing their ostraca',it is saiclthat an unlettered and utterly boorish and askedhirn his ostraconto Aristicles,whom he took to be one of the ordinary crowd' had to write Aristicleson it' lle' astonishecl'askecl the man rvhat possible,rvrong-Aristidcs "None "I fellow, but I arn tired done him. whatever,"was the ar]swer' don't cven know the oir,.oti"ghirreverywherecallecl'fhelust"'(trals'[3.Perrin,LoebciassicalLibrary,reot)' 5 Broneer(1918); l.ang (1990:161). and Garland 6 Detailsu..j,lirput.dl Sources(in translation)with bibliographyin Dillon (rqg+:rjo-z); generaldiscussion in Thomsen(r97r)' Sociall)ialect in Attica 99 with patronym and/or deme).There are, however, some exceptiuus to this, particularly in some recentlypublished ostraca from the so-calleclgreat Kerameikosdeposit. Bv the mid-r96osa total of arr:unclr,65o ostraca had beenfound; in 1968 a further tl,5oowere discovered in the Kerameikosexcavations conducted by the German Archaeologicallnstitute. A selectiotrof vcry interesting texts ilom the collection was recently publishcd by StefanBrenne, wiro is preparingthe lind for publication.TMany of the textswhich he publishes, in addition to the obligatory name, contzrinabuse directeci against the individual, his family, or his social class(in this case,the higher social echelonsfrom which the political 6litc was drawn in the lirst part of the fifth century).As Brennehas pointed out, tirereare interesting sinrilarities between the abusivelanguage of the ostracaand the abusc of political figuresin Old (bmedys However, the text which is of central interest in the present paper is quoted merelyfor its interestas a spoilt ballot: 'I (3) Brenne(994: zt)- SEGxlvi. 93; Brenne (rocir: 97) no. ri79. td, .4qrdvdatpori66 (Fig. 7.r) 'fhomsen This text rvasknown about asearly as 1972, when publishecla list of nameswhich appear on ostracain his Ongirr of Ostracisrn.He ref'ersto lbur unpublishedtexts which designateLimosas a candidatefbr ostracism, renrarkingthat on three ostracaLimos has no patronymic or demotic;on a fourth (now published)Limos Eupatrides is read: 'l'honrsen 'I Q) MDAI IA] ro6(r99r), r53; (t972:to$; Brcnne(zooz: 97) no. rf5 .l,p6sEJnlplnrpi8€s 'hunger'. Thomsensuggested that this is not in facta name,but the noun fbr He wasnot able to publish the verbalform which accompaniesthe noun, and wirich is of central interestto linguists.The now-publishcdostracon is rather poignant,standing as a comment on the dynasticf'cuding of tire 6lite Athenian firmilieswhich l'radin fact been the driving force in the introduction of ostracismto Attica. The comment comesfrom a different socio-economicperspective and articulatesthe perennialcornplaint that feuding among the political elite doesnot addressthe materialproblems of the demos.The context(other tabletsfrom the clepositrvhich have been

'' 7 Brcnne(rq94); Willernsen (r96s) and (1968),See norv Brcnne (:ooz: 97-roo), n Brenrre(1994: rr-r4); seeal-sr: Brenne (r9gz). loo StephenColvitt

Frc;.7.r. ostracorr horrr the Kerarneikos.photograph courtesy'f thc German ArchaeologicalInstilute, negativenr. Kerameikos36'6 published)and the letter forms point to a date in the early fi{th century (Rrennezaoz: 97 suggests47rvc). The questionthat needstn be addressedis thc linguistic and sociolin- guisticinterpretation o{'the writing do.qo,xiio.'t'hecditors ot' (.xlvi. 'new s.EG 93)comment on the verb':what we aredealing with is surely. rnere phonologicalvaria't ol'the familiar ttorpaxi.{ut(t.e. dorpax,,o(D)o).The interchange of 6 and i in Attic insr:riptionsis extrernel,vrare (l shallcorne backt'the instances),so this is not an obviousspelling nristakc. 1'here is, .f course,a neighbouri.gdialect that hasD or doubrc.6ice-,rrerpondine to r\ttic {, nanrelyl}oeotiarr. I'here is reallvno possibilirvthat the ostrairn could havetreen lvrittcn by a l3oeotian.since votjng u,asrestrictecl to citi- zensand policedby tribes;also, the D-shapeclrho in thc i'scription seenr.s to be characteristicof Attic rather than }Joeotjanscript (although Jeffcr:,v t99o:67 clates this letter-fcrrn"l to 550-525,Immenvahr r99o; r55*e lirings the datedown and quotesan exampleirom +go),'lire'otion that a lJoeotian metic sat near the voting areaand wrcrteout ostracasec.rns inrplausible. I believethat we now haveenough evidence to posit tireexistence of a varie-ty o{'Attic,markcd by a gerninateapical stop (singlein initial position) u,here Attic has the cluster [sd] = 6. T'hisvariet_v ]vas not thc.ianguage of Attic epigraphy,but it r,vasa variet,vwhich coexisteclrvith it, unj ,"i can latrei SocialDialect in Attica 101

it a socialdialect. ily this rve mean that it was spokenby a sectionof the population Lrutwas not usedin epigraphy;it may havehacl a regionalor socialimplication in Attica.

S The Odd Couple: Attic and Boeotian

If this hypothesisis correct,let usconsider wh,v we have so little evidencefbr this Boeotian-lookingvariant in Attic. we mentionedearlier the questionof prestigedialect in ancientclreece: we cannow askourselves r.vhether there is any e'r.idencethat the Athenians(say, in the post-persian\A/ar periocl) felt good about the way they spoke.Did they fbelprourl of Attic?\t/c have enough evidencefrom variouslitcrary sourcesto suggestthat they clid. lt clocsnot fbllow from this that they felt disparagingabout all other rlialecrs: but thcrreis alittle evidencethat their attitudetowarcls Boeotian was bound up with more generalfeelings of irostility and scorn towarclsBoeotia. ln thc {blkrwing fragment of strattis, for example,the Boeotianidionr rs an objectof c:itical attenticrn:

(5) Strattis,Phonricion tr\brnen(P(lG +q)

(u,[er' rtiS{r,, r[toa Orlfiait^t, na,tts, oi'6/v mtr'il),\'. oi' np

Ybu r.inclerstandnothing, all you people of T'hebes,nothirrg whatsoever. Iiirst ,back-fouler'l of all, thev sav thar you cal.la cuttiefish opinhot:ih | . . .

rhis was partly orving,no doubt, to sheercontiguity (conrparerelations with ll'legara);u,zs compoundecl b,v l3oeotian behaviour during the persian anclPeloponnesian \&hrs ( rhebesespecially was iletestecl by;ithcns); and seernsalso to havebeen aggravatecl bv generalcuitural diltbrcr:ceswhich resuitedin an Athenianstereoq?e of Boeotiansas gluttonous,.stupicl, and boorish.The Boeotianpig, in fhct.e tlnhappily lbr the Athenians,tireir orvndialect rryas markecj rvith at least ane striking isogk:rsswith Roeotianrvhich separated thcm offfi:om the o ther djalectsof mainlandand Asian Greece, namclythe dor,rblc rr iri plar:er.if oo. it doesnot seenlto nIeto bea coincidencethat this is thc {'eaturcrif staridarrl ;\ttic rvhichdre Athenians \{.,ere most embarrassedatrout. one could ascribe this shi,'rrc'ssto tire ibeling rhat the featurewas iln Attic provincialisrrr:but 'provincial' terms suchas refiectan clementin nroclernthinking abcut riialrctrather lhan an importantpart of Athenianattitudes on thesrrbject. " Frind. O/, 6. go; Itlr-rt.l)r €siltnrrmutt1.6. to2 StephenColvht

The variantwas suppressed because it wasa'provincialism' that Attic shared with Boeotian.to This common developmentof palatalizedvoiccless geminates has long been recognizecl,and sincethe r95osa partial phonological.Sprachbund 1 betweenAttic and lloeotia hasbeen positecl to accountftrr it.r An invisible third rnemtrerof this group is ,invisible sincewe classEuboean with Ionic as though the strait of Euboeaconstituted an important phy- sicalbounclary between Eretria and the mainland. Bartonik was moved to proposea changein the traditional terminology,replacing'Attic-Ionic' wiih the tripartite'Attic-iluboean-Ionic',and I think that Eretriaand facing Oropusare a usefulsymbol of the generalpicture of arealdevelopment that is necessaryfor my argument.l2'I'hereis anotherdiaiect which hasa parallel developmentof palatalizedgerrinates to tt and dd, that of central . This is not, of course,relevant to our ostracoll,but there is a theoretical connectionif we acceptthe idea that this developmentwas particularly characteristicof WestGreek (slightlyparadoxical in the caseof rr, which is thonght of asthe markerof Attic par excellence),and that WestGreek influ- .r.,.. .un be seenin the developmentof the lJoeotianand Attic consonant systems. My suggestionis, then, that the doubledd retTexwhich is associatedwith Boeotianwas heard within the bordersof Attica: to put it another rvay, therewas a varietyof Attic which contirinedthis feature,a varictywhich we rnight call a socialdialect. Recaiiing the divisionof Attic territoryirrto three brtiaclareas (the City, the Coast,and the Inland), we couid specr"rlatethat this varietywasassociated with the Inland or the Coastalregiorrs, while the other basilectfor which we haveevidence. thc proto-Koinervhich the Old Oligarchc

r0 "I'he rviclelvregnrded as cliagnosticof the irp tn d.pp,vetc. is another f'eatureof Attic 6ialect,bui in faci tire distribution of this assimilationis so messyacross the Greekworicl that it can harrilyhave been as marked a {'eatureas rz {c1.Buck l95s:$8i:). rr Alletr (1958:176), folklwed by Divcr {1958)and others' 12 (1993)' Bartonik (ro7z:9). For tire lluicl clialectof Oropussec Morpureo l)avies 'r Old Oliga..'h:ps.-Xcn. Ath. Pol.2.7-8 (.c.4r.snr:'?). SocialDialea in Attica 103 is the standardor'original'reflex.ra The evidencefor Corinthian,qtroted by Bartondk and Schwyzer,is an isolatedform zl{p}

Tanrr lt. Palat:alizedAricals and Dorsals

Boeotia *t'r'(with *ts) and "k'k'tall together(probably as *t'l'): mergewith rt Attica, Eretria *t't' .k'k'fhll (+ boundary) and together:merge with /l Itpdno type\ A "t?'(with nh^) (- boundary) > s Ig1oostypel V Clclades, Ionia v "r'r' *rr) (- boundary) (with > s [p/oos typel v *f't'and "k'k'> (r boundary) ss Idpe/orrc,.'type]

Boeotia * d'd' and *g'g' fall together and mergervith r/rJ Attica,Erctria 1'hessaLly?ivlcgara?C.orinthi *gg'fall [*diC'and together:merge with drl] "d'd'and *g'g'fall togetheras" d'd'> zd V Cyclades,Ionia *d'd' and *gg' fall together as "d'd' > zd * -gg'fall *d'd'> d'd'and togetheras dz> zz 12.1^

' For rvhichsee Nagy (tgzo: pl). The detailsof depalatalizationin Greekare complex anddisputed: the outline herebroadly follows Diver (rqs8). ra Bliinrel(rs8r: uo): cantraGarcltRarn6n bgSi:t,+z). r5 BartonEk(r9zz: rsr) andSchwyzer (gSg: S16) on z1[B]eus (Beaziey, ,4IJlr 9tr, no. l4l, contraNl|.ndezl)osuna (1993: 9o); see now Wachter (zoor: r49, # COP7Sa). rc)4 StephenColvin

I have tried to er.plain on general grounds why we need not exPectthat eachof our conventionallydelineated Greek dialects would haveonly one reflex of a depalatalizedgeminate, and why it might not be surprisingif a gerninatestol'r were heard in Atticain placeof the lamiliar clusterIzd]' Now we can considerwhat cvidencethere might be besidesthe new ostracon. We noted abovethat the interchangeof t\ and ( in Attic insriptions is rare:those instances that existcome, perhaps unsurprisingly, from Lang's Athenian Agorapublication of gr:a{fitiand dipinti. The hrst exampleis a graffito on a black skyphos:

(o) Lang(rgz6: t)t no' C 33,mid-fourth century BC (a) @eto}ooiaiarrd6eIr] er) (h) A(amaorprn)

The obsceneverb lnrr

(z) Lang(rg76: ro): no. B t3,fourth century nc ir tr par./3 rlr-]'tableware'

These two exampleshardly prove the argun-Ient,although it should be rememberedthatstatistically ( is a rareletter. There mayl"re a further pointer to a non-standardpronunciation in a curious snippet of Old Comedy which 6 ,tsEe'is quoted for preserved'd, by an ancient commentator,in Zei.t6 Here the playwright has substitutedthe phonaestheticallyof- fensivecluster (FS) for the initial (O of Zeus:added point comesfrom 'brcak the echo of the verb p$i.o wind'; and if the comment dgesrelate to Lysistrdtctg4o(as c6mmonly assumed),then this meaningwill fit well with Kinesias'irritation at his rvife'smessing around with perfumewhen he has more urgent concefns.Allen (1987:56) seesthis as support for an Attic joke pronunciationof ( as [zd] ratherthan [dz], if anywere leeded: but the works better,ir: my view, if the underlying for:mthat resonatesis /e0 (in this caseKinesias starts olf with rude protestat the perfurneand changes it half-way through to a standard expletive,one however associatedwith substandardregister). ,u IrCG viii.83 (Anon, Decom.,proleg. de com.vl) d 7r1,\,rsrils xa7'qt6k,slx r< Al.f<<,tv xai rpoypdrcov-lyet,rlv o6rrrrrorr',i* ptrl z{s ilJeds xctti rlt'inorts izrra ' ' ' €xrov xor' t{alAayi1v,,,is"ri <1,B6eri 6/oaotc,, d"tri 'o^ <"Ze^-' SocialDialect in Attica lo5

Tlrereis, finally, a passagefrom Plato'sCnstylus which might appearto lend support to the theory of a competingrl-variant in the fifth century:r7

(8) Plato,Cratylus 4r8n-n

(.!-r.) o[o1a 6rt of ro,)aroi of fiy"lrepotrQ itira xai rQ 6'!Ma e3 pdla iyp

The evidence from the Cratylus is' however, dubious: for one thing, all remarks in this diaiogue need to Lretreated with a great deal of cautiort; 'old'pronunciation and secondly, it might be that the that Plato refers to is in fact the orthodox Attic [zd] as opposed to the voiced fricative [z] which spreadquite rapidly in the fourth century.

4 SummaryandConclusion The new ostracon is the best piece of evidencethat has corne to liglit tbr a situation which is not a prior:i unlikely, namely the existenceof a variety of Attic which shareda d-rellex with lloeotian as the result of an earlier depalatalization.l'he ostraconwas a protest vote by a citizen who was not eupatrid,and whoselinguistic repertoirereflected this. We have some reason to think that this feature,if it existed in Attic, will have been stigmatized.Firstly, it is characteristicof Boeotian, a dialect which the Athenianswished to dissociatethemselves from, in spiteof some inescapableisoglosses.ls We canspeculate that this maybea reasonwhy the chancellerylanguage took sucha long time to let go of the disyllabicdativc plural that we mentionedabove. This phenomenonhas many parallelsin " Teodorsson(rg7g:3zg), arguing against ( = [zd] in Attic. rs Intheostraconthesecondletterofdorpari66seemstohavebeencorrectedfrom(7). 'I'his is interestingin vielv of the lact that zr for oz is fbund in literary (not cpigraphic) sourcesfor Boeotian:c{. 6nn0otilu (6nw0o-) in passage(5) from Strattis (Lejeuner97z: Srro). It suggeststhat the Atheniansheard somethingwhich the lloeotianschose not to systematizein the writing system.lror the possibleimplications of the reversca-bar sigma seeLang (tg8z:Bt-z). ro6 St:ephenCoh,in modern sociolinguisticresearch: in a language-attitudestudy in Indiana, for example,Preston (rg88) found that respondentstried to dissociate themselvesfiom Kentucky,where the languagevariety is almost identical, butwhich is considered'southern'.Secondly, the Athenianshad a certaitr pride in their dialect,and this seemsto havebeen extendedto their zeta if we can trust the report of Dionysiusof Halicarnassus( first century Bc), who describesit asa sweetsound, and the noblestof the doubleconsonants: (q) D.I-t.De contpositione verborumt4 Srz'l,i6d A(youorv orir,i Isc. ro rc ( xlo,i"d ( ral zdll i)ro,"3rr). rd o{v9eraeh'at rd pdu { Sid rorl o rai 5 . . . { Errird y

REFERENCES 'Sorne Allerr,W. S.1958: Problemsof Palatalizationin Greek',Lingua,T :n3*33. ---- t987:Vox Graeca,3rd edn. (Cambridge:Cambridge Universitv Press). Barton€k, A. t97z: Classilicationof the WestGreek Dkile.cts at the Time aboutj5o nt: (Prague:Acadernia). Bliimel, W. r98z: Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie rnd Morphologie der in' sclviftlichen Texte nus generativer Sicht (ZeitschriJtfiir vergleichendeSprach- fo rschung,suppl, 3o; G

'Attico "volgare" Cassio,A. C. r98r: e Ioni in Atene alla line clcl 5 secoloA.C.', AION, 3t 79-93. - (ed.). t999:Katit Diitlckton: atti delIII colktquiointennzional.e di dinlettologia greca{Napoli-Fininw d'Ischin, z5-:8 setten*trery96 (AION' Sez.filologica- Lcttcraria,rg lrggzl; Naples:istituto UniversitarioOrientale). Colvin,S.1999:DialectinAristophuresandthePolitiuofLanguageint\ncientG'eek Literature (Oxford: Clarentlon Press). Coulson,w. (ed.). rgg4:The Arclraeology of Athens and Atti.ca under lhe I)ernocracy (Oxlbrd: Oxbow). Crespo,8' et aI. (eds.).rgg3: Diolectologicn Groeca: Actas del II Col' Iut' de Dialec- tologiaGriega ryy (Madrid: UniversidadAut6norna de Madrid). Dillon, M., and Garland, 1,. (eds.)' tgg4t Ancienl Greece:Sttcial afld Historic:al 'l'hne Documentsfrom Archaic s to the Death of Socrates(London: Routleclge)' 'On Diver,\{, 1958: the Pre-l{istoryof GreekConsonantis m', Worcl,l4;r-25. 'The [)over, K. I. rg8r: Languageof ClassicalAttic l)ocumentary Inscriptions', Transactionsaf lhe Phiklogical Socitty, r-14; repr. in ic1.,Greek ad the Greeks (Oxford: Blackwell,1987), 3r-4r. Fisiak,J. (ed.). rg88: Internationalcon.ference onHistoricalDislectology (llerlin: de Gruyter). 'Geografla GarclaRam6n, l.-L. tgSz: intradialectaltesalia: la fon6tica',Verbum,vs'. .r(rr-)J. Irrrmerwahr,H. I. r99o: Attic Script:A Survey(Oxford: OxforclUniversity Press). leffery,L.H. r99o: TheL,tcalsdpts ofArchaicGreece,zndedn, rev. A. \{t. lohnston (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress). Lang, lv{. 1976:Grafiti and Dipitrti (Athenian Agora, 2r; Princ:cton:Princeton UniversityPress). 'Writing - rglJz: and Spellingon Ostraka',Hesperin,suppl' 19 (Sttuliu Presented t

Schwyzer,E. 1939:Griechische Grammatik, vol. i (Munich: Beck)' siewert, P. (ed.). zooz: ostrakismos-Testimonien,voL i (Historia Einzelschriften, r55:Stuttgart). Teodorsson,S.-T. 1979:'On the Pronunciationof Ancicttt GreekZeta', Lingua,47: 34-32. 'fhe Thomsen, R. r97z: Arigin of Ostracism(Copenhagen: Gyldendai)' Wachter. R. zoor; Non-Attic Greek \hse Inscriptions (Oxford: Oxforcl University Press). 'Ostraka', Willernsen,F. l96j: Mixeilungen desDetttschen Archiiologischen Instituts (Athen.Abt.), 8o: roo-e6. 'Die , --- (196g), Ausgrabungenim Kerameikost966" ArchaiologikonDeltion, z3: chron. z4-32.