前5世紀アッティカ碑文の成立年代決定法に関する検討

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In this paper, I explored some valid criteria for dating controversial fifth century Attic inscriptions The appearance of some key letter forms such as the three-bar sigma and the tailed rho has been widely thought to be the only non-historical dating criterion of any value However, confidence in this criterion has been undermined by a recent work by Mortimer Chambers redating the Egesta decree from 458/7 to 418/7 Thus other statistically and objectively valuable criteria are required The criteria I have suggested result from the analysis of two incidents the appearance of superscripts (headings for official documents) and its stylistic characters, the infiltration of Ionic letters and orthography into Attic texts Both incidents are accompanied by visual effect, so they would seem to show a certain tendency of a given period and would seem to have been easily shared by people involved in writing and inscribing official documents Analyzing the appearance of superscripts is effective and perhaps most fruitful for dating undated or controversial Attic inscriptions if the tops of the inscriptions remain Superscripts occasionally appear in Attic inscriptions and are usually inscribed in slightly larger letters than those of the main texts Three types of superscripts are used in Attic inscriptions (1) theoi and/or other relevant words, (2) the words indicating the title or subject matter, and (3) the name(s) of the official(s) who passed the decree The earliest known examples of a simply written theoi as a superscript in dated or approximately dated inscriptions are IG I^3 50 from the mid 430s and IG I^3 292 from 434/3 Theoi constantly appears after this period From this evidence, IG I^3 34, 186, 190 and 418 can be dated in or after 430s respectively The earliest occurrence of (2) is IG I^3 65, dated ca 427/6, and there are 15 later examples in dated or approximately dated inscriptions Using this evidence for IG I^3 17, 18, 21, 28 and 31, low dates would be suggested, and for IG I^3 190 the last two decades of the fifth century The earliest known appearance of (3) is 427/6 (IG I^3 66) There are 18 examples in dated or approximately dated inscriptions, and 14 examples in undated or controversial inscriptions From the evidence, the latter examples could be dated to around 430 or after 430 This means that low dates are suggested for the particularly controversial decrees, IG I^3 31, 35 and 40 Concerning the infiltration of Ionic letters and orthography into Attic texts, I examined the following four phenomena (1) the infiltration of Ionic letters, (2) the appearance or disappearance of aspirate signs, (3) the orthography of syn-compounds, and (4) the forms of the first declension dative plural Though attention has been paid to each of these phenomena, no systematic and statistic examination has ever been attempted While evidence suggests that the use of this criterion is not as conclusive for the dating of undated inscriptions as the criterion of superscripts, it still offers some good clues for dating The analysis of phenomena (1) and (2) is more effective because their occurrence is less accidental than that of (3) and (4), and this is particularly useful when there is difficulty dating a decree between 440s and 420s The earliest known examples of (1) in dated inscriptions are IG I^3 521, dated at 427 and IG I^3 61, dated at 424/3 Concerning (2), I paid particular notice to inscriptions written in Attic orthography without aspirate signs The earliest example of this is IG I^3 383, dated at 429/8, and 9 other examples are from the last two decades As for controversial inscriptions, we can deduce low dates as more plausible ones using this criterion The two criteria presented here are far from absolute However, if they are used in combination with other criteria, they will assist in the more confident dating of some undated inscriptions It is true that, using the above criteria, low dates are favored for some very controversial decrees such as IG I^3 17(Sigeion), 21(Miletos), 31(Hermione), 34 (Kleinias), 35 (Athena Nike), 37 (Kolophon), 38 (Aigina), and 40 (Chalkis) Of course we should not ignore the fact that the materials are limited and only a small number of them are securely dated Nevertheless, we should respect the evidence to be found on the stones themselves
2004-03-05

著者

師尾晶子
千葉商科大学商経学部

前5世紀アッティカ碑文の成立年代決定法に関する検討

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク