1. 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 anexplanation. Ourconcern
over Athenians affiliated with more thanone genos arises from the assumptionwidely
held by historiansof the ancientAtheniangene, those aristocratic2clans responsiblefor
certainpublic cults andthe cults' priesthoods, thata citizen could be a memberof only
one genos.3 An explanation of how this rule was upheld is given below. The subjectof
multiplegentile affiliationson its own accordhasnotbeen investigatedthoroughly.4The
findings of this inquiryshould add finerdetails to the latest portraitof late Hellenistic
Athens. Inthe debateover the fate of the Athenianconstitution before andafterSulla's
sack of Athens, both types, democratic and oligarchic, are well representedby the re-
maining evidence. But what has been left out for the most parthas been the analysis of
the changed natureof the Athenian aristocracy.By placing our inquiryaboutmultiple
gentile affiliations in historical context, we shall gain a finerunderstandingof exactly
how much Rome influenced Athenian society in the second century. In response to
Roman desires to deal directly with aristocracies, not democracies, Atheniangentilitas
became a hot commodity. By the middle of the second century,in connection with the
Roman handoverof Delos to Athens and subsequently,the Athenianaristocracyincor-
poratedmany nouveaux riches, permittingmatrilinealinheritanceand othermeans for
the transmissionof gentilitas.
As for our assumptions about gentile membership and transmissionof 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 authorwould like to thankFrankClover, Stephen Tracy,SarahPomeroy, Robert Parker,Michael
Hoff, Kai Brodersen, and the readers of Historia for their contributions.
2 Regarding the Eupatridaiand their identification with the gene and altogether the Athenian aristoc-
racy, see D. Feaver, "Historical Development in the Priesthoods of Athens," YCS15 (1957) 123-158,
especially 128; M. T.W.Arnheim, Aristocracy in GreekSociety (London 1977) 46-5 1;andR. Parker,
Athenian Religion. AHistory (Oxford 1996) 63-63. The gene analyzed for this paperare 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,Band55/3 (2006)
C)FranzSteinerVerlag,Stuttgart

2. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 265
without other knowledge we must depend on known ancientAthenian rules of familial
transmission, such as laws of intestate and adoption. Pattersonrefers 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 affiliationtransmittedalong the matriline,we may
findcases of multiple gentile affiliations. If an aristocraticwoman marrieda memberof
anothergenos, 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 regardingEteoboutadpriesthoods,6the gentile priest-
hood could pass from the priestess to hereldest brother'seldest daughter.We shall call
this other rule patrilateraltransmission, because the patternis not lineal but gentilitas
is transmittedlaterally back to the father's oikos. Patrilateraltransmission 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 ruleanAthenianwas a memberof one genos only - anAthenianwoman
could not transmitgentilitas to her own children.7Clearly, then, one possible explana-
tion for cases of multiple gentile affiliations is that the patrilateralor patrilineal rule
hadbeen brokenat some time by membersof at least one genos andgentilitas hadbeen
transmittedalong the matriline.
Before we can proceedwithourinvestigation, we mustconsiderthe scantyevidence
of matrilineage.We know thatas a brotherlessfemale heir, an epikleros could transmit
her father's propertythrough her sons, albeit her husband was supposed to be one of
her father's kin.8 Where indeed the epikleros marrieda paternal kin, this manner of
continuation was a derivation of the patrilateralpattern.Nonetheless, when we have
detailed information regardinga 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 importanceof 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,"TheDemos and the Priests:The Selection of SacredOfficialsat Athensfrom
CleisthenestoAugustus,"inRitual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to
David Lewis, eds.R.OsborneandS. Hornblower(Oxford1994)325-337, especially,332-333, and
333, note42 aboutthispatternof transmissionpracticedelsewhereamongtheancientGreeks.
7 See alsoS. Pomeroy,"Women'sIdentityandtheFamilyintheClassicalPolis,"in Womenin Antiq-
uity: New Assessments, eds.R.HawleyandB. Levick(NewYork1995)111-121, regardingphratry
membership,whichmaynothavebeenstipulatedanydifferentlythanthatof thegene.
8 Abouttheepiklerate,see Patterson(as innote5) 83f. and97f. fora schemeof sequenceof claimof
intestateestate;andS. B. Pomeroy,Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: Representations
and Realities (NewYork1997)19,34, 37-38 and122-123.Aboutatimia atleast,if notalsocurses,
transmittedthroughthematriline,see Pomeroy,83-85, 167.

3. 266 ALEXK. SCHILLER
powerful forces in the choice of spouses, adoptees, and names and in the transmission
of professions."9The point here is thata claim of matrilinealtransmissionof 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 aboutgentile membership,e.g., whetherwomen were
gennetai or simply the daughters of gennetai, we are best off referring to gentile affili-
ation.1I Ourinquiryfocuses on the earliest examples and so ends with the firstcentury
B.C., although we can find laterexamples.12Unless otherwise specified, all dates pro-
vided are B.C.
It will become very apparentthat we have so few cases. Most of the examples we
do have date to the end of the second century andthroughoutthe firstcentury.In addi-
tion, thereexists the possibility thatwhatwe know of these two centuriesis the resultin
greatpartof the epigraphicalremains.Wehave a numberof inscriptionsfromthese late
Hellenistic centuriesrivalingthatof thefourthcentury.13Nonetheless, whatevidence we
have suggests some change occurredby the end of the second century among several,
if not all, the gene. If we maintainthat if we had more evidence from priorcenturies,
therewould be no hintof change in gentilitial admission, we arguee silentio. Thus, we
aregrantedto hypothesize on what history has given us to date.
II.
Thissectiondetailsindividualsandtheirfamiliesthatclearlydemonstratemultiplegentile
affiliations. In this way, we can see means other than inheritanceby which one would
have acquiredmultiple gentile affiliations. The several means areexamined later.
Ourearliest example comes from Habryllis Mikionos IV of Kephisia, Eteoboutad
priestess of AthenaPolias, c. 150-130.14An inscriptiondiscovered in the RomanAgora
atAthens recordsHabryllis'priesthoodof thecult of DemeterandKore.15Priestessesof
this Eleusinian cult came from the Philleidai and at least one otherEleusiniangenos. 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 121f. and 192.
10 P.McKendrick, TheAthenian 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 phratryand 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 1122954 (IS' century A.D.).

4. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 267
this priesthoodas Eleusinian aristocrats.Habryllisat least, if not herprestigious family,
held affiliation to two gene. Herfather,uncle andbrothercan be found in an inscription
listed among several others affiliated with the Eleusinian aristocracy(IG II22452, dis-
cussed below); so perhapsthefamily held membershipto anEleusiniangenos. Although
Habryllisprovides ouronly evidence of herfamily's association with the Eteoboutadai,
the name of Habryllis' grand-niece, Lysistrate(IG 1121036), harkensto a famous fifth-
centurypriestessof AthenaPolias,17therebysuggesting thatthe family probablycarried
on a traditionthatthey descended fromthefamily of Drakontidesof Bate. ThatBatethen
family supplied several of the priestesses in the Classical era.18
Anotherof theearliestexamples comes fromtheLysandros-Glaukos-Medeiosfamily
of Peiraieus. By the end of the second century,this family became one of Athens' elite,
financedby theirclose economic ties with Delos. According to the Ps.-Plutarch'sLives
of TenOrators 843, LysandrosI marriedPhilippe 1, who could trace her lineage back
to the EteoboutadoratorLykourgos;Lysandros'son Medeios I was the exegete of the
Eumolpidaigenos; andhis grandsonMedeios II was the Eteoboutadpriest of Poseidon
Erechtheus.Medeios IIIMedeiou IIheld the Eumolpidexegete office sometime in mid-
first century,19thereby indicating that the family most likely had been Eumolpid for
some time. Because we have no evidence of the Eteoboutadpriesthood undertakenby
an immediate descendant, we should infer thatthe family's affiliation with this genos
was relatively new.
Related by marriageto Medeios' family was Themistokles II Hagnousios, Kerykes
dadouchos and once thought to have been Eteoboutadpriest of Poseidon Erechtheus.
Aleshire hasnow shown correctlythataccordingto thetermPs.-Plutarchuses, dietaxato,
Themistokles IImost likely "arranged,"not "undertook,"the Eteoboutadpriesthood.20
This translationis in accordance with one of Themistokles' II endeavors for which he
was honored. Themistokles accomplished some sort of recovery of the patria in con-
nection with his investigation of the genos' apographai. One such apographe may have
been the recordsof genos members.21Thus, we cannotsay forcertainthatThemistokles
II held membershipin both gene, but we must wonder by what way he was allowed to
work on behalf of the Eteoboutadai.
WefindanothermaritalconnectionamongtheKerykesandEteoboutadaibetweenthe
EteoboutadPhilippeII,Medeios' IIsister,andDiokles I Meliteus. Diokles' sons Diokles
IIandSarapionIV were among those listed inThemistokles' honorarydecree of 20/19;
hence, they andpresumablytheirfatherwere Kerykes. Diokles' I grandfatherSarapion
I Meliteus adoptedEudemos Gorgippou, whose own lineal descendant, Gorgippos Eu-
demou Meliteus, is also found on Themistokles' decree. If patrilinealtransmissionhad
been at workhere, then the Kerykes gentile affiliation could be tracedback to Sarapion
I. The family of his son Sarapion II shined during the last quarterof the firstcentury.
His three daughtersparticipatedas kanephoroiin 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) 119.
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.

5. 268 ALEX K.SCHILLER
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 IIwas anEteoboutadpriestessof Athena.Hence, thereis thepossibility thather
sons, Diokles IIandSarapionIV,could claim affiliationalso to the Eteoboutadaigenos.
Diokles' familial connection with the Eteoboutadaidid not go unnoticed. Taking into
considerationLewis' down-datedchronology of theAthenianNew Style silver coinage,
most likely it was Diokles II,mintmagistrateof 56/55, andnothis fatherDiokles I, who
alluded to the genos of his motherwith the symbol of Athena placed on his mint.23
Another possible connection between the Kerykes and Eteoboutadai, Megiste
Asklepiadou of Halai, an Eteoboutadpriestess of Athena Polias (IG 1123173) some-
time around27-18/17, may have been closely related to Seleukos Demeou Halaieus,
a Kerykes celebrant of Themistokles' II honorarydecree. Seleukos is the only family
memberknown to be a Keryx, as Megiste is the only known Eteoboutadin herfamily.
We know of two brothersat the startof the firstcentury, Demeas andAsklepiades of
Halai.Anotherfamily with Delian ties, theyexhibited severalexamples of cultic partici-
pation andcontributions,but none gentile, until later.Because we do not know exactly
the relationshipbetween Megiste's fatherAsklepiades andSeleukos' fatherDemeas, the
latergeneration's multiple gentile affiliations must be left as conjectural.24
Geagan'sstudyof one ambitiousextendedfamily provesthatby themid-firstcentury
an Athenian citizen could hold membershipin several geni. The Marathonianbranch
of this extended family most likely acquired its wealth as cleruchs on Delos, having
migratedto the islandsoon afterthecleruchywas established.25PammenesI1ZenonosI1
Marathoniosheld a priesthoodof the Erysichthonidai,which his son ZenonV held later.
Pammenes'otherson, PammenesIII,became anexegete of the Eumolpidaiattheend of
the century.An Athenian inscriptiondated to 37/6 records letters from the Gephyraioi
to the Delphians and the Delphian response to the genos and lists Pammenes II with
Theophilos 11Diodorouof HalaiAixonides. These two soughtto renewancientties with
Delphi and to consult the oracle on behalf of a Bouyzges and priestof Zeus Palladion,
Diotimos Diodorou Halaieus, Theophilos' brother.From a grave inscription (IG 112
5477) we know thatDiotimos' fatherDiodoros, adoptedby Theophilos I Halaieus, was
the son of Pammenes I Marathonios,Pammenes' II grandfather.According to another
inscription, the Eumolpid hierophantselected the two brothersof Halai Diotimos and
Theophilos along with the MarathonianbrothersZenon IV and Pammenes II to make
up Pluto's couch. Geagan finds enough circumstantialevidence to make a strongcase
thatboth families became associated with one anotherthroughtheir mutualEumolpid
affiliations.26Primafacie, the Marathonianfamily 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 1122336 (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.

6. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 269
Erysichthonidai27(at least by Pammenes' IItime andpossibly only he andhis descend-
ants), andGephyraioi. Diotimos not only was a memberof the Bouzygai, but also held
considerable standingamong the Kerykes. Diotimos was the proposerof Themistokles'
II honorarydecree.28If he inheritedthese 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
thatthe Gephyraioi acted on the Bouzyges' behalf.29Albeit a strainon the evidence, it
is even feasible thatno memberof the family was Gephyraios, but thatthe two family
members were sent to escort their kin. We must wonder then why the letter failed to
mention any Gephyraios gennetes.
Anotherpossible example, previously conjectured,30should 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 Erysichthonidaiand the Kerykes. A Dionysios Dionysodorou
was an Erysichthonidpythaist in the year 98/7.31 He is listed, nonetheless, without a
demotic; and so he need not have been related to Dionysodoros Deiradiotes, gymna-
siarchof 100/99. Two generations latera Dionysodoros Dionysodorou Deiradiotes and
his brothers Iophon Deiradiotes and Sophokles Sounieus (demotic changed by adop-
tion) were listed among the Kerykes honoringThemistokles II. These threewere lineal
descendants of the gymnasiarch.32
The Claudii family of Melite mayhave been affiliatedwithboththe Kerykesandthe
Amynandridai,albeit this example takes us into the Common Era. Leonides V and his
brothersPhaidrosandTimotheosarelisted amongtheAmynandridgennetai in a latefirst
century inscription, IG 1122338. Claudius Leonides VII, grandsonof Leonides V, was
the first(duringthe second half of the firstcenturyA.D.) of several subsequent family
members to hold the Kerykes dadouchia.33By our patrilinealinheritanceassumption,
Leonides VII should have hadboth Kerykes andAmynadridaiaffiliations, althoughwe
have no recordthathe claimed any such membershipto the lattergenos.
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 agenos predicatedmembershipto theEupatridcaste, andfor thatreason
these Eupatridaishould be considered as partof 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.

7. 270 ALEXK. SCHILLER
since all three types of exegetai were selected from the Eupatridaicaste, we can add
those known to our catalogue of late Hellenistic gennetai.35
III.
Several explanations for these cases are available. Although matrilinealtransmission
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.
Forhis workonAthenianaristocracyMcKendrickoffers adoptionas anexplanation
for individuals with multiple gentile affiliations. PresumablyMcKendrick'shypothesis
is based on Diotimos Diodorou Halaieus and Sophokles Philotou Sounieus,36 with
the assumptionthatthe adoptee could carryhis 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 continuationof the oikos.37We should
not be surprisedif adoptionhadbeen one of several meansby which gentilitas could be
transmittedto anotherfamily. Adoption occurredamong at least two of our examples.
We must wonder if Sarapion'sI family acquiredaffiliation 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 patternof
inheritanceas his sole means of acquiringgentilitas of anothergenos. Diotimos' pur-
pose in seeking the Delphic oracle presumablyhad something to do with his statusas a
priestof the Bouzygai. Consideringhe 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).
EupatridaiOphelas, 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 pos-
sibly 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 surroundingmultiple gentile affiliations, it
is feasible that the sons of Dionysodoros Deiradiotes became Kerykes because the family was con-
nected through adoption to a Sounion family that may have been Kerykes. The brother Sophokles
Sounieus was adopted by Philotas Sounieus (Clinton [as in note 3151, lines 27-28, also IG 1124457),
himself the son of [-Ikles Thriasios (IG 1123540 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 1123540 to the last quarterof
the 1st century. The PA stemma needs to be brought down at least one generation, if not two, if IG
I123450 records the death of the polemarchos Philotas Sounieus.
37 Pomeroy, Families (as in note 8) 122-123.

8. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 271
that the legitimacy of his priesthood came underscrutiny.This hypothesis leads us to
at least three explanations for his multiple gentile affiliations. EitherTheophilos I was
a Bouzyges and his grandsonby adoption Diotimos inheritedthe gentilitas, which the
genos probablyhadquestioned, andso sought the Delphic oracle's advice; PammenesI
was a Bouzyges, his son Diodoros inheritedthe gentile affiliation and,despite adoption
into anotherfamily, passed on the gentilitas to his son, Diotimos; or Diotimos married
or bought his way into the genos and priesthood.
The problem with adoptionas a means to gaining gentilitas is thatthe adoptee was
expected to abandonhis naturalfather'sdeme andphratrymembershipsfor his adopted
father's. For adoption to work in our cases, either the gene altogether had become
divorced from the phratriesin the Hellenistic era, a possibility after c. 135,38or rules
regardingadmission into a phratrychanged as well.39 But the notion of gentilitas re-
tained from the original family despite adoption into the new aristocraticfamily seems
not far-fetched. We know that an adoptee could keep ties with and even returnto his
naturalfather's oikos, so long as he left a son to the adoptedfather.
Regarding adoption, we find a new Athenian trendconcurrentwith 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
thinkthatin a time of loose standardsregardingcitizenship qualificationsthis 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 advertisementsof adoption among
the gennetai served a similar purpose:to show the public the gennetes in question was
at least born an Athenian citizen. Otherpoleis, especially in Asia Minor and Rhodes,
whereforeign residentstypically outnumberedthe citizens,40also experienced a similar
trend.But the evidence outside Attica dates to the late thirdcentury,before the Romans
became heavily involved the GreekEast.Once we place theAtheniantrendin the larger
context of the Hellenistic era, we can safely conclude thatthese advertisementsreflect
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.
Gentileaffiliationmayhave also beenacquiredatthistimethroughthe mother'sside,
eitherthroughmatrilinealinheritanceor moredirectlythroughmarriageto an aristocratic
woman.TheMedeiosfamilyprovidesaclueregardingwhentheruleof matrilinealtransmis-
sion became acceptableat least with regardsto the transmissionof Eteoboutadgentilitas.
Medeios II and his sister Philippe II provide our first and only known instance where
the priest of Poseidon Erechtheusand priestess of Athena Polias came from the same
Eteoboutadfamily.4'Otherwise,we have always consideredthatthe Eteoboutadaigenos
had been bifurcatedand the families of the two branchessomehow kept separatewith
regardsto theircult duties.42With that in mind Philippe II may have been named after
herEteoboutadancestor,buthergrandmotherPhilippeI was a memberof theEteoboutad
38 The latestevidenceforAthenianphratriesis datedto approximately135.See S. D. Lambert,The
Phratriesof Attica(AnnArbor1993)273-275 fordiscussionof theHellenisticphratries.
39 L. Rubinstein,Adoptionin IV.CenturyAthens(Copenhagen1993)36f, 114f.
40 R. Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age (Ithaca 1984) 54-57.
41 Aboutdatingsee Aleshire(as in note6) 336-337.
42 APF 172-173, regardingthestemmaof DrakontidesBatethenandhis family;Parker(as in note2)
290-293.

9. 272 ALEXK. SCHILLER
families thatprovidedpriestsof Poseidon Erechtheus,not priestesses of AthenaPolias.
We may suspect thatsometime priorthe genos removedsomehow whateverdividedthe
two branches;43butthe realityof this bifurcationor any unionis beyondourscope here.
Instead,we should take notice of Nikostrate'sclaimed descent from the famous fourth-
centuryEteoboutadorator,Lykourgos.Not only was she Eteoboutadby hergrandmother
Philippe II, but Philippe II was presumablyEteoboutadby her grandmotherPhilippe I,
since hermotherTimotheawas herfather'sfirstcousin andso a memberof theEumolpid
family. Philippe's I gentile affiliationtracesall the way backto herdistantancestorKa-
llisto, thewife of a Sokrates(Kroieus?)anddaughterof LykophronII,apriestof Poseidon
Erechtheus.44Unless SokrateswasEteoboutad,forwhichwe havenoevidence,thegentile
affiliation- no matterfrom which branch- might have passed from Kallisto to her son
Symmachos. Based on whatlittle we know,the patrilateralruleof transmittinggentilitas
may have been brokenas early as around300.
We now face the question about what exactly was transmitted.Kallisto's husband
may have been Eteoboutadand all we see here is an example of matrilinealtransmis-
sion 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 EuthykratousIV Alpokethen, was named after his maternal
grandfather,Polyeuktos II Polyeuktou I Batethen, himself the fatherof a priestess of
Athena Polias in the 250's.45 Clearly the patrilateralrule was broken before 200, as
there was a matrilineal transferof the priesthood to a descendant of ArchestratosII
EuthykratousII Alpokethen, Theodote's great-grandfather.Another possible example
of matrilinealtransferof the priesthoodcomes from the marriagebetween Lysimache I
DrakontidousBatethen and a Phlyeus in the Classical era. Later,Penteris Hierokleous
Phlyea, a conjectureddescendant, became priestess of Athena Polias sometime either
just before or afterTheodote. Most likely ArchestratosandLysimache's husbandwere
Eteoboutadai.46
These examples of matrilineageshouldprecludeanalternativeexplanationforNiko-
strate'sclaims, thatby theendof the second centuryMedeios IIandPhilippeIIhadbeen
allowed to claim gentile affiliation from either side of the family.47Even such a claim,
nonetheless, presupposes an accepted patternof matrilineal transmission. Moreover,
we know that Philippe I passed on her gentile affiliation to her grandchildrenthrough
her son. Philippe II also was able to pass on hergentile affiliationto hergranddaughter
Nikostrate throughher 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
around130, the approximatetime of Philippe's I marriageto LysandrosI andHabryllis'
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 regardingthe Erysichthonidai and the "antiquarianspirit"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.

10. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 273
As fortheallowanceformatrilinealtransmissionof gentilitas atthis time, thatshould
not come as a surpriseto us. In a study regardingAthenian women's identity,Pomeroy
points out thatamong the funerarymonumentsfrom the AthenianAgora, women were
identified by their family role, as wife or daughterof a man, but, save for two cases,
neveras mother.No Athenianchild, son ordaughter,would wantto 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 rangeof documents."50
But Pomeroy is referringto the epigraphicalevidence. The case of Nikostrate supports
Pomeroy's claim thatwhere literaryremainsprovidedetails, we findcases of matriline-
age. Whenwe considerNikostrate'stracingof hergentile ancestrythroughthe matriline,
herclaim speaks volumes forother,similarinstances.Any gennetes whose membership
came from the mother (or wife) could have found himself at risk of ridicule by ap-
pearing to be underthe sway of a woman.51But that is indeed what this acceptance of
matrilinealtransmissionsuggests. Onthe otherhand,with theAtheno-Delian economic
boon came also a significant influx of non-Attic culture, such as the non-Greek cult of
Sarapisandnew names like Sarapion.PerhapsAthenianculturehadchanged enough to
the point where Fergusoncould claim thattheAthenianshadfinally participatedin "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 accountfor several of ourcases. By this ruleof transmissionone could gain
a particulargentilitas simply by marryingthe daughterof a gennetes. The timing of our
evidence regarding Habryllis' dual priesthoods raises suspicion that Mikion's family
had recently acquiredaffiliation to at least one of the two gene and most likely through
marriage.PerhapsMikion IV marriedinto an Eteouboutadfamily, thereby giving his
daughter access to a priesthood of Athena Polias.53Only because her immediate kin
shows connections with the Eleusinian aristocracyanda laterfamily memberholds an
old Eteoboutadname (Lysistrate)should we hypothesize Habryllis'family as long-time
Eleusinian aristocracyand recent Eteoboutad.
The maritalunion 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 Womenin 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 Ist 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.

11. 274 ALEXK. SCHILLER
genos. Eitherhis marriageprovidedhim access to membership,orhe actedon his wife's
and her family's behalf. PerhapsThemistokles II was entrustedto performgentilitial
reorganizationtasks for the state, and his own aristocraticfamily and marriagemade
him an appropriatecandidateto do so for both the Kerykes and the Eteoboutadai.
Marriageties may accountfor at least two examples fromthe Pammenes-Diotimos
extended family and for Leonides VII gaining access to the Kerykes dadouchia. Re-
gardingPammenesII,Geagan conjecturesthata marriageinto an Erysichthonidfamily
explainshow his eldest son was ableto gaintheEumolpidexegete office, whichhis father
hadpreviously held,54andtheyoungerson received perhapsby matrilinealtransmission
the Erysichthonidpriesthood.As for Diotimos, whereas his Eumolpid andGephyraios
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-
petanopouloshas suggested a possible, butnot proven, scenario, in which Leonides VII
marriedthe daughterof a Themistokles IV, a descendant of the dadouchos Themisto-
kles II.Although the suggestion has its own problems- both Themistokles IV and his
daughterarepostulatedentities - Leonides VII hada son by the nameof Themistokles,
a name thatwould appearagain later in the family. But we take Leonides' connection
to the Eleusinian aristocracyeven furtherback. Leonides' family marriedinto the fam-
ily of the Epicureanphilosopher PhaidrosBerenikides, who was Eupatrid.One of his
ancestors, Kallistheos Lysiadou, is listed among several late second-century Eleusin-
ian aristocrats(see below regardingIG 1122452), thus providing at least a suggestion
thatthe Berenikides family could have been Kerykes as well.55Leonides' Amynandrid
family may have gained access to the Kerykes throughmarriageconducted before the
Common Era.
Payment for membership is anotherpossible way, considering how many of our
examples held economic ties to Delos and Peiraieus. By the end of the second century
Athenian society was dominatedby nouveaux riches whose wealth came mostly from
maritimebusiness 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 aristocraticstatus, almost by definition of the group an aristocratcould tracethe
family's statusfor atleast threegenerations.We shouldbe surprisedthento findseveral
of these new men listed as gennetai. By the end of the firstcenturythe Kerkyesgenos
looks more like a political club thana sacerdotalclan. Of the thirtyKerkyes members
listed in Themistokles' II honorarydecree, 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.56Fromthis we may surmisethatthe genos had in-
corporatedseveral newly wealthy families priorto 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 Eupatridexegete.
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, Athensfrom Alex-
ander to Antony, trans. by D. L. Lucas Schneider (Cambridge [Mass.] 1997) 321-328.

12. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 275
the Augustan era.57The question then becomes whetheror not these gennetai became
membersthroughpurchase.Although we have no directevidence of any such purchase,
we do have suggestions of gentile reactionto possible venal memberships.Oliver, fol-
lowed by Aleshire, postulates a reorganizationof the gene in theAugustanera, andthat
reliable registers were called for such a task. The hypothesis is supported in partby
Augustus' own reaction to Athenian society. He forbadeAthenians to sell citizenship.
Mentioned above, the case of Diotimos Halaieus suggests purchased membership to
either the Kerykes or Bouzygai genos.
Besides the manynew men listed inThemistokles'honorarydecree, we haveanother
reason to suspect thatthe Kerykes genos expanded its pool of members.There is good
reason to suspect thatthe genos took up more priestly offices when the Delian cleruchy
was organized in 167/6. Tracyhas alreadymade the suggestion thatthe keryx of Delos
was a priestly office.58We have nothing prosopographicallyto supportthis hypothesis,
but such process of a genos taking on other priestly duties was not unknown.59If this
indeed occurred, we may conjecture furtherthat during the creation of the cleruchy
certain offices were designated as gentilitial and so filled by gennetai only.
One final explanation remains,thatby the firstcenturythe gentile priesthoods nor-
mally controlledby Eteoboutadfamilies becamedivorcedfromgentilitialadministration
and that is how members of the Eumolpidai and Kerykes became Eteoboutad priests
and priestesses.60But Nikostrate's ability to trace back her Eteoboutadheritage would
indicate some sortof familial continuance of Eteoboutadaffiliation.61We do, nonethe-
less, see examples of priesthoodspassed on to family membersamong the Kerykes and
Eumolpidai.62This 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 1122336 (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.

13. 276 ALEX K.SCHILLER
IV.
As for timing this change, Habryllis' priesthoods by the 130's provides us a roughter-
minusante quem.63By 138/7 the aristocracyrevived theAthenianPythais theoria, that
cultic pilgrimage to Delphi made by mostly Atheniangennetai. In this second century
also there seems to have been an increased interest in genealogy, especially among the
aristocracy.Several of the geni hadreworkedtraditionsto provide among themgenea-
logical connections.Suchconnectionsreflect"somethingof therelationsof thesedescent
groups at the time," according to Broadbent.64Reflecting the interests of the time at
Athens, one of the Athenian epimeletai of Delos, EupatridDrakonOphelou Batethen
(PA4555), may have been the authorof Peri Geno#n. It is at this time thatwe also find
with the family of Philippe I our firstprobableexample of matrilinealtransmissionof
gentilitas. Ourbest guess pinpointsthe change to the second half of the second century,
probablyclose to the time of the Delian cleruchy and the Pythais revival.65
If,however,by thistimetheEteoboutadailostcontrolovertheircultsandso members
of othergeni were selected for those priesthoods,66then we cannot time the change to
ourearliest examples. Insteadwe must look to the family of PammenesIIMarathonios
and Diotimos Halaieus, whose exempla of multiple gentile affiliations can be dated as
early as 37/6. Thechange thenwouldbe tied to Sulla's orCaesar'sworkinGreece. If we
need to settle on a terminuspost quemforchanges to gentilitialadmission,we haveclear
evidence of accepted matrilinealtransmissionof gentilitas in the Imperialera. Marcus
Aurelius denied the requestof the EumolpidM. ValeriusMamertinusto become sacred
herald,a Keryxoffice, because "heobtainedneitherof his parentsfromthe Kerykes."67
But if we wantto findevidence of definiteAtheniancapitulationtowardRomandesires,
if not Roman interferencein Athenian politics and society, we need look no laterthan
the first archonshipselected after Sulla's revenge on Athens. That eponymous archon
was listed only as Hierophant- an Eumolpid aristocrat.68
An exception to this assertionof timing restsuponthequestionableidentificationof
the Mesogeioi, a cult association focused on the HerakleionatCholargos, 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 treasurersmuch like any genos. If the Mesogeioi was
a genos, we have an example of multiple gentile affiliations as early as the thirdcen-
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.

14. Multiple Gentile Affiliations and the Athenian Response to Roman Domination 277
tury.Dated to the year 275/4 an inscription from the Mesogeioi (IG 1121245) records
as its archonPolyeuktos II LysistratouBatethen. Polyeuktos' daughterwas a priestess
of Athena Polias. The family was Eteoboutad.At the risk of circularreasoning - other-
wise Polyeuktos becomes our firstmultiple gentile member with over 140 years lapse
between him andour next example - we should suggest thatthe Mesogeioi were not a
genos or at least a genos of Hellenistic origins70 and not subject to the traditional rules
of gentile membership.
GiventhatanEteoboutadwas amemberof theMesogeioi, we needto reassessourpre-
vious conclusions abouttheEteoboutadai.PerhapstheEteoboutadaipermittedmatrilineal
transmission of gentilitas, and so a son could inherit membership to two gene through
bothparents,one of whom would have been anEteoboutad.Wehave shown above early
Hellenistic examples of the patrilateralrule broken;therefore,our previous conjecture
thatin those cases the Eteoboutadaitransmittedonly the priestly office runsthe risk of
circularreasoning by precluding not only the gentile status of the Mesogeioi, but also
the possibility thatindeedwe have third-centuryexamples of matrilinealtransmissionof
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 admittedhere.
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? Circumstantialevidence
points to Athenianacquiescence to Romandesires to deal with aristocraciesas soon as,
if not even as a condition for, the handoverof Delos. In his analysis of second-century
Athenianepimeletai of Delos, Habichtconcludes thatthe 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' unprecedentedrunof archonshipsandSulla's arrival.Duringthe 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 Kydathenaieuswas 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 hierophantTheophemos Kydathenaieus. Habicht
also remarkedon how many of the same families thatprovided such officials also sup-
plied the mint magistratesand Pythaists. In his own words, "dieAnnahme liegt mithin
von vornhereinsehr nahe, dass alle Amtsinhaberden Kreisen der fuhrendenFamilien
Athens entstammten."71
In his survey history of Hellenistic Athens, Ferguson theorized that a class of
businessmen overtook the traditionaldemocracy 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, TheSacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade
Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos, 166-87 B.C. (Amsterdam 1993).

15. 278 ALEX K. SCIiILLER
to dismiss Ferguson's oligarchic revolution we have overlooked an importantsocial
change to the Athenianaristocracy.The greatestRoman influenceon Athenian society
at the time was the handoverof Delos to Athens, which createdan economic boon for
many Athenians.72The close Athenian-Roman relations that grew during the second
centuryconcur with several social changes in Athens at thattime.73Remarkingon so-
cial changes at Hellenistic Athens afterthe polis' acquisition of control over Delos by
166, Habichtstates, "while older families continuedto be representedin the priesthood
and some otheroffices, by the end of the [second] centurythe most importantpolitical
posts, such as hoplite general, were occupied by the newly rich class."74But by this
time some newly wealthy were somehow occupying the aristocraticpriesthoods.After
130, when the Delian cleruchy hadchangedto reflectits internationalcommunity,75the
most importantAthenian offices at the time, the hoplite general, epimeletes of Delos,
and heraldof the Areopagos, were consistently filled by aristocratswho had dealings
on Delos. Both changes to the aristocracyandAtheniansociety as a directof theDelian
cleruchy seem to be closely tied to one another.
We shouldsuspect, therefore,thatthe Romans'desireto dealdirectlywitharistocra-
cies persuadedtheAtheniansto createtheirown nobiles-like class, an aristocraticclass
mixed with many non-gentile social elites. The revitalizationof some aristocratic-spe-
cific activities at this time reflects an overall revitalized interest among the Athenians
in their own aristocraticclans. This revitalized interest in the gene would have meant
a revived interestin gentilitas. Subsequently,the aristocraticmonopoly over gentilitas
would presumably have been challenged, and it is this challenge that led to changes
implemented regardingmeans to acquiring gentilitas. The evidence that led McKen-
drick to envision an Eupatridrevival from 129/8 to 87/6 was in fact a reflection of an
enlargedandsubsequentlyalteredaristocracy.76Ourinquirythenturnsits focus toward
evidence of Roman persuasion for Athenians to change their society and indications
thatthe Athenianaristocracydid indeed make such alterations.
Placed in the widercontext of the Hellenistic era,we findtheAtheniansreactingno
differently than most other Greekpoleis. Regardingthe events of 146 andthe 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 atAthens. The "migration"of letter cutters to the island may even account for
the statistical bias towardAthenians 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 "Thegens in the mirror:Ro-
man gens andAttic genos," may have more to say on comparisons between the Roman andAthenian
clans.
74 Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 287-88.
75 Rauh (as in note 71) 22-27, following the most partRoussel'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.

16. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 279
latitude."77The destructionof Carthageand Corinthclearly became a wakeup call for
the Greeksregardingthe coming of Romans into the East, whattheAtheniansmayhave
come to understandbefore otherpoleis, ever since the handoverof Delos to the polis.
As early as 155/4 the Athenians made sacrifices to honor the Roman Demos. Several
Greek poleis consciously markedthe 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.79No one could have predicted the Romans would have stayed in the
East for long, but Rome's destructionin the wake of theAchaeanWarmust 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 manyof the epimeletai of Delos show no signs of being aristocratic,sev-
eral do. But what is most strikingconcerns those families able to have multiple mem-
bers elected epimeletes. Of these families only Byttikos (153/2) and Pyrrhos (105/4)
of Lamptrai,Sokrates (117/6) andAristion (95/4) of Oion, and Polykleitos (98/7) and
Alexandros (54/3) of Phlya show no affiliationwith anygenos.82If 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 Worldand 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 theirlack of gentile statusor perhapsour lack of knowledge of such status, these threefamilies
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 thathis grandson
Menedemos IIwas a gennetes. Ophelas Habronos Batethen (148/7) 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) andhis 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 de-
scendant 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 1123488; see also
IG 1123478).

17. 280 ALEX K. SCHILLER
of Delos, especially after 130, influencedthe election of theepimeletai, we can see how
indeed the Romans had a hand in the skewing of the Atheniandemocracy in favor of
aristocraticdomination.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 strikingtrendamong the list of hoplite gener-
als. So far as we know, those epimeletai who we know were gennetai were Eleusinian
aristocrats.84We findthis same selection among the earliestAthenianpriestsof the cult
to the Romanimperialfamily. By the end of the firstcenturythey were predominantely,
if not exclusively, membersof the Kerykes andEumolpidai,a selection thatreflectsthe
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., AntipatrosAntipa-
trouPhlyeus, seven times; PyrrhosLamptreus,two times; and Xenokles Theopompou
Rhamnousious,four times) in morecases thannot show no gentile affiliation,probably
because concerns over military skills and talent overrode any other consideration.As
Geagan has alreadypointed out, "Romanization"was a reciprocalprocess. The Roman
Senate supportedthe local elite, who in turndid their best to supportRoman causes
and quell local disturbances.After Sulla, the hoplite generals seem to have held close
relations with the Romans.86
Due to thecomparativelysmall list of knownpre-firstcenturyheraldsof theAreopa-
gos, it is difficult to perceive any pattern,althoughwe see thatmost hadconnections to
83 Rauh(as innote72) 5, note4, supportedinpartbyRauh'shistory(5-22) of theRoman-Italianbusi-
nessmenside-steppingAthenianmagistratesandseekingjusticethroughvisitingRomanmagistrates
performingconvectus.Moreover,by 129,Atheniansseemto havetakena laissezfaire approachto
runningDelosandcertainlyRomans'/Italians'appreciationofthoseepimeletaiwiseenoughtokeep
disputestoprivate,notpublic,arbitrationareexemplifiedbyseveraldedicationshonoringAthenian
officialsorforeignersfortheirdikaiosynes.
84 XenoklesApollodorouOtryneus(mid-2ndcentury)mayhavebeenanEleusinianaristocrat,because
hecanbe foundlistedamongmanyotherEleusinianaristocratsinIG1122452.4.PossibleKerykes
members(descendantslistedinClinton[asinnote3]51) includeDionysiosDemetriouAnaphlystios
(106/5),AmmoniosDemetriou(103/2),andSarapionSarapionouMeliteus(102/1,98/7);Eumolpid
MedeiosMedeiouPeiraieus(99/8);EupatridPolycharmosPolykritouAzenieus(before51/0);definite
Kerykesmembersinclude(Clinton,51, lines9, 12,22-23, 27) DioklesDiokleousMeliteus(39/8),
EpikratesKallimachouLeukonoeus(aet.Aug.),DioklesThemistokleousHagnousios(37-41), Di-
onysodorosSophokleousSounieus(41-54) andDemostratosDionysiouPalleneus(45/6);Eumolpid
MetrodorosXenonosPhylasios(aet.Aug.);EumolpidPammenesZenonosMarathonios(27/6-18/7);
andEumolpid(Clinton,29-30) KallikratidesSyndromouTrikorysios(endof 1Stcentury).Perhaps
TheophilosTheopeithesBesaieus(beginningof IS'centuryA.D.)wasof theEleusinianaristocracy,
sincehisgrandfatheris listedinIGII22452.40.Thefamilyprovidedseveralotherhoplitegenerals
intheCommonEra,includingTheophilos'sonDioteimos(41/42).Thefamilyof theKeryx(Clinton,
61-64) HerodesAtticusprovidedhoplitegeneralssix generationsprior,suchas HerodesEukleous
Marathonios(before60/59) andEuklesHerodou(10/9-2/3), buttheirgentileaffiliationcannotbe
guaranteed.Forthelistof knownhoplitegenerals,see T.Sarikaris,TheHopliteGeneralinAthens
(diss.PrincetonUniversity1951)22-35. Abouttheoffice,seeD.J.Geagan,TheAthenianConstitu-
tionAfterSulla,HesperiaSupplement12(Princeton1967)18-31 andTracy,IGI122336(as innote
22) 113-116.
85 K. Clinton,"EleusisandtheRomans:LateRepublicto MarcusAurelius,"in TheRomanizationof
Athens: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996), eds.
M.C. HoffandS. I.Rotroff,OxbowMonograph94 (Oxford1997) 161-183, especially174.
86 D. J. Geagan,"TheAthenianElite:Romanization,Resistanceandthe Exerciseof Power,"in The
Romanization of Athens (as in note 85) 19-32.

18. MultipleGentileAffiliationsandtheAthenianResponseto RomanDomination 281
Delos. Presumablythese heraldswere the elected leadersof the ex-archons andso they
too came from the same pool thatprovided the epimeletai of Delos and hoplite gener-
als. Those who we know came from aristocraticfamilies date to the late firstcentury,
a reflection of the growing political dominance of the Athenian aristocracyafter Sulla.
But once again we find thatthese aristocratswere parvenus, a reflection of the overall
change to the Athenian aristocracy.87
The emergence of this amplified aristocracyshould be seen in the numismaticevi-
dence. The notion thatthe Romans influenced theAthenian"New Style" silver coinage
has recently resurfaced.88MargaretThompson long ago had given a cogent dismissal
of the hypothesis that the Athenian and Roman minting administrationand types had
parallels.89ButDreyerthinkstheRomans'requirementof AntiochusandtheAetolians to
pay indemnity inAtheniansilver for theirroles in the firstRoman-SyrianWarprovided
the basic conditions that would allow for "die Initialzundungfur den Beginn mit der
Neustilsilber-Pragung."90Based on the coincidence of startdates Habichtcorrelatesthe
beginning of the New Style with Athens' assumptionof control over Delos.91Although
we have no reason to follow the hypothesis thatthe New Style coinage was createdand
administeredby theAthenianaristocracy,Ferguson'scomparisonof themintmagistrates'
names and symbols with the coin symbols of the Peisistratidtyrants, who priorto 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 pageantrysimilar
to medieval Europeanheraldry.92
Wehave atleast one Athenianinscriptionthatexemplifies this enlargedaristocracy.
The purposeof IG 1122452 is not known, althoughMcKendrick'sidea thatit has some-
thingto do withtheEleusinianaristocracyis notfar-fetched.Whatwe have is acatalogue
of over 50 individuals, most, if not all, of whom were aristocratic,andof those almost
all were membersof theEleusinianaristocracy.Several listed also heldconnections 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 I122336); Athenodoros
Athenodorou Aixoneus (99/8, IG 1122336); Pyrrhos PyrrhouLamptreus(98/7, IG 1122336); Andreas
Andreou Peiraieus (97/6, IG I12 2336); Democharis MenandrouAzenieus (early 1stcentury, PA371 1,
stemma: PA9864, Habicht, Athens [as in note 561 326); Eirenaios Eirenaiou Skambonides (88/7, IG
1121714.12-13, see also IG 1122452.9); Eumolpid Theophemos Metrodorou Kydathenaieus (56/5, IG
1121717.15-16); Euthydemos Heliodorou (18/7, IG 1121718.14-15); Keryx Epikrates Kallmachou
Leukonoeus (14/3, IG 1121721.14-15); Amyndandrides and perhaps Keryx Leonides Leonidou (post
9/8, IG 112 1722.15-16); Polycharmis Eukleous Marathonios (end of IStcentury, IG 112 1728.5-6);
Lysiades Leonidou Meliteus (late Istcentury B.C./early 1 tcentury 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,

19. 282 ALEX K. SCHILLER
historical context before the Athenians in majoritysided with Mithridatesagainst Ro-
mandesires.94Membersof old families whose ancestrywe cantracebackto at least the
thirdcenturyincludearistocratsMikionandEurykleidesKephisieis (stemma:PA5966),
MnesitheosMneisitheouKydathenaieus(stemma:PA6165),95Eumolpid-EupatridTheo-
dorosCharikleousPhalereus,96KeryxXenokles SophokleousAcharneus,97Ophelasand
Miltiades Lakiadeis(APF 8249),98EupatridKallistheosLysiadouBerenikides(stemma:
NPA, 121), ArchiasApolloniou Marathonios(stemma:PA2470), Asklepiades Xenonos
Phylasios (stemma:NPA,39),99Leon KichesiouAixoneus (stemma:PA8445),10 Theo-
peithes Theophilos Besaieus (stemma:NPA,95), Eumachos Pausimachouek Kolonou
(stemma:NPA,142), EumolpidDiodorosTheophilouHalaieus(APF 3933), andDiokles
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 GlaukouPeiraeus,Menedemos ArchontosKyda-
thenaieus, whose daughterGlauke was priestess of Demeter and Kore,101the priestof
Apollo LysiasArtemonosPaianieus,102EumolpidLakrateidesSostratouIkarieus,103and
possible KerykesI04SarapionSarapionos Meliteus, Apolexis Aristotelou ex Oiou and
[... sitratosApolexidos ex Oiou.Eventheancestryof thehierophantslisted,Menekleidos
andTheophemos Kydathenaieisand the son of EustrophosPeiraieus,cannot be traced
back to the thirdcentury.Moreover, a similar catalogue from the end of the next cen-
tury,IG 1122464, also lists Eleusinian aristocratsof old and new social standing,some
with Delian connections.105Fromthe remainingnames we see a few examples of both
andthe EupatridaiOphelasMiltiadouandMiltiadesOphelouLakiadeis(Habicht,"Epimeleten,"
197-198), AristeidesLysimachouHestalothen(Tracy,IG 112 2336 [as in note 22] 209), Aropos
GlaukouPeiraieus(Habicht,"Epimeleten,"200), MenedemosArchontosKydatheneus(Habicht,
"Epimeleten,"197),MnsasagorasAdeimantouIkarieus(son of an epimeletesof Delos, Habicht,
"Epimeleten,"197), SarapionSarapionouMeliteus (Habicht,"Epimeleten,"199), Kallisthenes
TimotheouAcharneusandMenodorosGnaiouPalleneus(see notesof IG1122452. 36, 43).
94 Tracy,Attic (as innote 13)214-15.
95 McKendrick(as in note 10)78, note65, ascribesMnesistheos'familyto the Kephalidai,dueto a
possibleconnectionwiththecultof ApolloPythios.Thepriestsof ApolloPythioscouldhavejust
as well beenassociatedwiththeKerykes(e.g., Clinton[asin note3151, line 15,andClinton,89).
96 Clinton(as in note3) 22.
97 StemmainClinton(as in note3) 58.
98 Presumablythesetwo weremembersof thePhilaidaigenos andof theold Miltiades-Kimonoikos,
althoughhowexactlynoonehasyettoprovidea satisfactorystemma.ThePhilaidaigenos seemsto
havesurvivedthislate,exemplifiedbytheeponymousarchon(100/99)TheodosiosLakiadesorhis
father,whowaspriestof themystichouseof hisgenos (IG 1122871).Agenos inchargeof mysteries
witha gennetes fromLakiadaiis mostlikelythePhilaidai.
99 Clinton(as in note 3) 72: Asklepiadesis relatedto Ameinokleia,priestessof DemeterandKore
eitherrightbeforeorafterGlaukeMenedemou.Dueto thelaterdateof theinscription,thisshould
beAsklepiadesV Xenonos(NPA, 38), notAsklepiadesIIIXenonos(PA2619, stemma:NPA,39)
100KeryxdescendantfoundlistedinClinton(as in note3) 51, line4.
101 Clinton(as in note3) 72.
102 SeeClinton(asinnote3) 100aboutLysias'grandsonasahearthinitiateof theEleusinianMysteries.
SeealsoIGII23478,whichshowsLysias'associationwiththefamilyof DosistheosekMyrrhinouttes,
himselfby his daughter'smarriageassociatedwiththeKeryxfamilyof MantiasMarathonos.
103 Clinton(as in note3) 97.
104 KeryxdescendantfoundlistedinClinton(as in note3) 51, lines21-22.
105 E.g., DiotimosandTheophilosDiodorouHalaieis,PammenesZenonosMarathonios,andKerykes
memberEpikratesKallimachosLeukoneus.

20. Multiple Gentile Affiliations and the Athenian Response to Roman Domination 283
old (Keryx EpikratesKallimachou Leukoneus - NPA, 105, as farback as early second
century - and the Eumolpidai Diotimos and Theophilos Diodorou Halaieis) and new
(Eumolpidai Pammenes and Zenon Zenonos Marathoniiand Eumolpidai Kallikratides
and Oinophilos Syndromou Steireis106) families.
The Eleusinian aristocracy and Eteoboutadai were not the only ones demonstrat-
ing the incorporationof new men. A late first-centuryinscription (IG 1122338) lists
fifty-one membersof theAmynandridai,the genos in chargeof the cult of Kekrops. Of
these only four, three of whom were brothers,we know for certain had an ancestor of
significant social position. SostratosAlexandrou Sphettios probably was a descendant
of the namesake theoros of the Apollo cult in 128/7 (NPA, 157), and perhapsSostratos
Telestou Sphettios (PA 13368) the ephebe of ca. 84-79 was related. The family of the
threebrothersLeonides, Timotheos, andPhaidrosMeliteis extends backinto the second
century,but, known as the Claudii of Melite, becomes more illustrious in the Imperial
era and is associated with the Kerykes.107Despite the inscription's great value in pro-
viding such a largenumberof fellow gennetai, the list can say almost nothing aboutthe
geographic origins of the gennetai from the Classical era. With so many "new men,"
as well as a few naturalizedforeigners, registered, the inscriptionreflects only its own
era.108
It was this rush of newly wealthy to gain gentile memberships and fill gentilitial
priesthoods thathelped facilitate a divided Athenianelite. 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 incorporatedseveral non-gentile wealthy
families from the end of the second century and onward, we can understandhow by
this dilution from additiontherecould not have been any aristocraticdominationof the
state.As the democracy was divided in its position regardingRome andMithridates,so
the aristocracywould have beendivided. Wecanhardlyaccuse this enlargedaristocracy
of any labefaction.109
Ourexamples of gennetai affiliated with more thanone genos, few as they are, but
collectively concentratedover a little morethana century,should be seen as a reflection
of an amplifiedAthenian aristocracy.The Romans preferredto deal with aristocracies,
the Athenians preferredtheir democracy, a political organization that spreadout civic
responsibility through lottery.The latterfound ways to accommodate both wishes. In
addition,the Romansandotherson Delos promotedelection to offices andconsequently
aristocratsto 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, matrilinealinheritance,marriage,or purchaseto those enriched for the most
partby the Athenian control over the island of Delos. The Athenian amplification of
theiraristocracyexplains how one scholarcan reada long list of Pythiasts(IG I122336)
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 thepoliteia became defacto more oligarchic
by the end of the first century.

21. 284 ALEX K. SCHILLER
as a testament to the continuation of democracy, but anotherthe growing dominance
of the aristocracy.The aristocracyby the firstcentury's end indeed came to dominate
Athenian politics, but we need to recognize its enlargednature.110
Chicago, Illinois Alex K. Schiller
110 Tracy, IG 1122336 (as in note 22) 129f; Habicht, Athens (as in note 56) 288, note 37, 315-328, es-
pecially 316, note 3. Habicht, Athens, 327f., sees Themistokles' II honorary decree as evidence of
aristocratic domination of politics and questions any returnto democracy by Caesar or Brutus and
Cassius. Oliver (as in note 3) 13-20 theorizes thatThemistokles' 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.