PHRATRY SHRINES OF ATTICA AND ATHENS (PLATE 80) Yj ANY HISTORIANS hold that the organization of ancient Greek society was in origin an essentially tribal system.' The elements of society in this prehistoricform, the tribes, phratries, and gene, were supposedly based purely and uniquely on kinship. So membershipin these earliest groups dependedsolely on birth;they were not defined,nor did they exist in the real space, or territory,of the state. This charactersupposedly corresponds to the situation of the Greeks in some prehistoricage, when they were a nomadic,migratory people. We are asked to imagine that such a people, living without fixed geographicresi- dence, could only be organizedalong purely tribal lines; they could have no conceptionof or use for geographicorganization and institutions.2As sedentarystates developed,this tribal system came to be replacedby a more modern,territorial system of organization. This constructionof the history of the organizationof the ancient Greek city states has been demolished by D. Roussel.3 As Roussel pointed out, tribal organizations are found I Works frequently cited are abbreviatedas follows: Andrewes, 196 1 = A. Andrewes, "Philochoroson Phratries,"JHS 81, 1961, pp. 1-1 5 Andrewes, 1982 = A. Andrewes, "The Growth of the Athenian State,"in The CambridgeAncient History, 3rd ed., III, iii, Cambridge 1982, pp. 360-391 Bull. ep. = J. and L. Robert, "Bulletinepigraphique," published annually in the REG. It is cited by the last two digits of the year and the number of the lemma. Davies, APF = J. K. Davies, Athenian PropertiedFamilies, Oxford 1971 Ferguson, 1910 = W. S. Ferguson, "The Athenian Phratries,"CP 5, 1910, pp. 257-284 Ferguson, 1938 = W. S. Ferguson, "The Salaminioi of Heptaphyle and Sounion," Hesperia 7, 1938, pp. 1-74 Finley = M. I. Finley, Ancient History, Evidence and Models, New York 1987 Kyparissisand Thompson = N. Kyparissis and H. A. Thompson, "A Sanctuaryof Zeus and Athena Phra- trios Newly Found in Athens,"Hesperia 7, 1938, pp. 612-625 Hignett = C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitutionto the End of the Fifth Cen- tury B.C., Oxford 1952 Labarbe = J. Labarbe, "L'age correspondentau sacrificedu KOVpELOV et les donnees histo- riques du sixieme discoursd'Isee," BABesch 39, 1953, pp. 358-394 PA = J. Kirchner,Prosopographia attica, 2 vols., Berlin 1901-1903 Rhodes = P. J. Rhodes, A Commentaryon the AristotelianAthenaion Politeia, Oxford 1981 Roussel = D. Roussel, Tribu et cite'(Annales litte'rairesde l'Universite'de Besanqon193), Paris 1976 Toepifer = J. Toepffer, Attische Genealogie, Berlin 1889 Traill = J. Traill, The Political Organizationof Attica:A Study of the Demes, Trittyes and Phylai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council (Hesperia Suppl. 14), Princeton 1975 Whitehead = D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica, 508-ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study, Princeton 1986 Phratries and testimoniawill be designatedaccording to cataloguenumber. So, for example, 1.3 refers to IG 112, 1237 or the phratry attestedin that inscription,the Demotionidai;11.3 refers to the phratry attestedin Demosthenes 39. I have footnotedthe locations of demes only in controversialcases. For all other deme sites, see Traill. 2 For a review of the scholarshipon Greek "tribalsocieties" see Roussel, pp. 3-25, 109-115. 3 Roussel. For an evaluation of Roussel's book, see Finley, pp. 90-93. American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org 242 CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR. only in the Greek city states. They are not found at all among the less "civilized"f'Ovij of the ancient Greek world.4"The implicationsare staggering:we are left to believe the improba- bility that the evolutionary path proceededfrom a kinship basis to a territorial basis, but that in those communities which failed to take that step the subordinate [kinship-based] units somehowdisappeared."5 Roussel's observationsuggests that tribal subdivisionsdo not date to some Greek nomadic,tribal period but are paradoxicallycreations of the sedentary, "civilized"7roAXtsT6 It also calls into question the traditional evaluation of the characterof tribal organizationsin the historical period. Many modernscholars understand the phratryof the historicalperiod as a purely tribal organization:that is, as a group which is exclusively organizedand definedaccording to the principles of patrilinear kinship and descent.7This representationof the group's character is explained and justified with referenceto its putative origins. The propositionthat the Classical Attic phratrywas an exclusively tribal entity cannot be proven. This notion probablyarose out of the schematicinterpretation of the Kleisthenic reforms. Kleisthenes, the dogma has it, reformed-the old tribal Athenian constitution by establishing its opposite:a purely geographicalsystem of political organization.The Kleis- thenic demes, trittyes, and tribes have a real, mappable existence in the Attic countryside. The Archaic institutionswhich they replacedare accordinglyrepresented as opposite coup- lets of these: tribal corporations,which can only exist outside of physical space.8 This schematiccontrast between Classical and Archaic constitutionsis, in my opinion, inaccurate. The deme was not so completely geographical in character as is commonly stated, nor was the phratry so purely tribal. As is well known, the names of the Kleisthenic units of organization,particularly the tribes, suggest some underlying principle of kinship. Although membershipin the Kleisthenicdeme was originallydetermined according to place of residence, later generations of demesmen were enrolled in the same deme as their male forebears,without regard to domicile. Although the majorityof Attic demesmen probably continued to reside in the immediate vicinity of their deme-centersin the 5th and 4th cen- turies B.C., it was certainly conceivable,and indeed happened, that members of the same deme might reside in very different parts of the Attic countryside.9 The evidence for the geographical character of the phratry is less familiar to most: phratries were defined in a manner very similar to that of demes. Several scholars have touched on the territorial character of the phratry in passing, yet the evidence for it has 4 Pace T. J. Cadoux, OxfordClassical Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. phratriai. In this, Roussel is following Max Weber (The Agrarian Sociologyof Ancient Civilizations, London 1976, pp. 149-151 [English translation of "Die sozialen Gruende des Untergangs der antiken Kultur,"in Die Wahrheitfor May 1896 and "Agrarver- haeltnisse im Altertum"in Handwoerterbuchder Staatswissenschaften,Jena 1909]). Finley, p. 90. 6 Roussel's conclusionswere anticipatedin certain respectsby A. Andrewes' famous article, "Phratriesin Homer,"Hermes 89,1961, pp. 129-140. Cf. Finley, p. 91. 7 See, for example, Andrewes, 1982, p. 367. 8 It would be tedious (and, I believe, unnecessary)to make a lengthy list of examples of this commonplace. Some version of it can be found in almost every basic Greek history text: see, e.g., J. B. Bury and R. Meiggs, A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great, 4th ed., New York 1978, pp. 136-137. Cf. further Rhodes, pp. 251-253; Whitehead, p. 352. 9 For further discussionof deme membershipand place of residence,see below, pp. 262-266. PHRATRYSHRINES OF ATTICAAND ATHENS 243 never been collectedand discussed.I0 In this paper I focus on two varietiesof evidencefor the geographicalcharacter of the phratry:first, the phratry shrine;second, the deme affiliations of phratry members. CATALOGUE OF ATTIC PHRATRIES It will be convenient to begin by listing the citations relevant to the problem. In the fol- lowing catalogue I have collected all referencesin the ancient sources (literary, epigraph- ical, and papyrological) to specific Attic phratries. In each case I have provided a brief summaryof the evidencelinking the phratry with a particularregion of Attica. I have tried to be conservative,including, with rare and clearly noted exceptions,only referencesto such groups as are explicitly identifiedas phratries.The citations in the catalogue are dividedin three parts: I. Referencesto specific phratrieswhose shrines, in my opinion, can be located with some degree of certainty (usually by means of an inscription'sfindspot, rarely through the specific statement of an ancient source). II. References to specific phratries whose shrines I cannot with confidencelocate but which have an attested connectionwith some deme (a link usually manifested by the demotic of a phratry member). III. References to specific phratries whose shrines cannot be located and which have no attested association with any deme. I. PHRATRY SHRINES OF KNOWN LOCATION 1. The phratryof the ACHNIADAI kept their shrineat or near the ancientdeme of Kephale, modernKeratea, as is determinedby the findspotsof the two inscriptionsof the phratry,both boun- darystones, which have so far beendiscovered: A. IG 112, 2621; B. IG 112, 4974. No memberof the phratryis attested. 2. The GLEONTIANPHRATRY kept a sanctuaryof the riverKephissos, attested in a boundary stonefound near the AthenianAgora: Hesperia17, 1948,p. 35, no. 18. No memberof the phratryis attested. 3. The shrineof the DEMOTIONIDAIwas locatedin or nearthe demeof Dekeleia,where an inscriptionrecording religious dues and three decrees of the phratrywas found: IG 112, 1237. The inscriptionrigourously insists upon the geographic primacy of Dekeleiafor the phratry: it is "tobe erectedin frontof the