Journal of Hellenic Studies 135 (2015) 110–131 © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2015 * philomen.probert@wolfson.ox.ac.uk and e.dickey @reading.ac.uk. To view supplementary figures for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0075426915000099. So many people have offered us indispensible help with this article that they are acknowledged at the end. A preliminary version of this article has inspired that of Enrique Nieto Izquierdo (2015). For the avoidance of misunderstanding we would like to specify that Nieto Izquierdo was kind enough to show us his forthcoming article, but this occurred at a very late stage in the finishing of our piece. The only change we have made as a result is to mention and respond briefly to his readings in our note on line 12. 1 The find is recorded on 16 June 1928 in Vollgraff’s excavation diary, which is now available online at http://intranet.efa.gr/Vollgraff/. 2 Vollgraff (1929); the inscription is not in IG and is variously known as Argos inventory number E274; SEG 11:314; Buck (1955) no. 83; Sokolowski (1962) no. 27; Fornara (1983) no. 36; Jeffery (1990) 168, no. 8; Koerner (1993) no. 25; van Effenterre and Ruzé (1994) no. 88; Colvin (2007) no. 37. It is also discussed by Boissevain (1930); Bourguet (1930); Roussel (1930) 193; Schwyzer (1930); Levi (1945) 301; Guarducci (1951) 339–41; Murakawa (1957) 392; Wörrle (1964) 61–70; Jeffery (1973–1974) 325–26; Kelly (1976) 131–33; Beaufils (2000) i.86–87; Lupu (2009) 30. 3 Archaic Argos was governed by damiorgoi, and another Archaic inscription (SEG 11:336) tells us that there were nine damiorgoi, a number that nicely matches the nine archons at Athens. This inscription, however, lists six damiorgoi. Concise discussions of the issue include Jeffery (1990) 156–58, making the point that the nine may not have been in office simultaneously; Robinson (1997) 83–84; Kelly (1976) 131–32; but note that IG IV 506 (= van Effenterre and Ruzé (1994) no. 100), which is traditionally treated as an Argive text and raises additional complications by envisioning a situation in which no damiorgos is in office, is not actually from Argos but from the Argive Heraion, and Hall (1995) argues that the Heraion was not controlled by Argos at the relevant period, whence it would follow that the polit- ical structure to which it refers is not that of Argos itself. Not everyone accepts Hall’s argument (for example Nieto Izquierdo (2008) 28, 74–75); we do not enter into this debate. 4 Athena was a key deity in Argos, where she had four distinct sanctuaries: funds belonging to Hera were deposited in Athena’s treasury, and her temple on the Larissa was kept up even in the Roman period when the neighbouring temple of Zeus was allowed to fall into ruin. For more information, see Billot (1998) especially 17–28; Kritzas (2006) 409; as well as Pausanias 2.24.3; Callimachus Hymn 5. 5 See Boissevain (1930); Schwyzer (1930). I. Introduction In 1928 1 Carl Wilhelm Vollgraff discovered a large Archaic inscription from the acropolis of Argos, which he published the following year in considerable detail and with a high-quality photograph. 2 This inscription is of key importance for understanding the political structure of Archaic Argos 3 and the organization of its cults, 4 but its interpretation is difficult, in part because, despite the photograph, later scholars have not always agreed with Vollgraff’s readings. Already in 1930 several scholars had objected to various aspects of them 5 and debate has continued since, usually relying on Vollgraff’s photograph. Exceptionally, L.H. Jeffery asked a colleague to look at the doi:10.1017/S0075426915000099 THE ‘ϝhεδιέστας’ INSCRIPTION FROM ARCHAIC ARGOS (SEG 11:314): A RECONSIDERATION PHILOMEN PROBERT AND ELEANOR DICKEY University of Oxford and University of Reading* Abstract: This article offers a re-edition of SEG 11:314, Argos inventory number E274, based on re-examination of the stone and of recently rediscovered squeezes preserving material now lost from the stone; these allow improved read- ings in numerous places. We also offer a reinterpretation of the disputed syntax of the last three lines, which we translate ‘As for the things with which a δαμιοργός is to compel (him to make amends), the ἀμφίπολος is to give thought to these things’. Keywords: Argos, relative clauses, Athena Polias, δαμιοργός, ἀμφίπολος, SEG 11:314, E274