KLEROTERION. simulation of the allotment of dikastai

CHAPTER TWO The objective of this chapter is to try to shed light on the length and the practical aspects of the allotment process , through several simulations. Before describing the tests carried out, I will explain: 1) my choices and the methods I used to rebuild the pinakia and Kleroterion 2) how I decided to analyze some of the passages from Ath. Pol. 3) how I carried out the simulations and how I calculated the timings. Instruments rebuilding In order to build the kleroterion I used two panels in polystyrene (each of: 60 length, 6 deep, 125 high cm) [pic. 1]. There are 300 slots (60 each kanonis), each of which has these sizes: 3(L)x1.4(W)x0.4(H) cm; the interslot is about 1,5/2 cm. The sizes I decided to use for the slots and the interslots are the average of those of the fragments of kleroteria I had the opportunity to analyze at the Agora Museum in Athens, together with Professors A. Smith and A. Blanshard. The opening has a bottleneck shape, it is on the top left side and it is 9 cm wide and 6 cm deep. [pic. 2] The pinakia have initially been reproduced imitating the shape and the sizes (11x2x0.3 cm) of the bronze ones [pic. 3]; but, after realizing that the bronze pinakia could even weight 40 gr [pic. 4], I concluded that such an important weight made it impossible to use these bronze pinakia for slots no deeper than 1,2/1,4 cm, since they could have easily fallen out from there or they could have made it difficult to insert the pinakia below [pic. 5]. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the slots from fragment IG II2 2864 [pic. 6], which had been surely built for bronze pinakia, being it used to draw public officials, have an average depth of 3 cm, !1 which made it suitable for the weight of bronze pinakia (shown in [pic. 7]). This proves that the fragments of kleroteria with a slots depth of about 1,2/1,4 cm were built only for wood pinakia1 which were less heavy, as I will show later on. After the above observations and following professor Kroll’s advice, I reproduced 270 pinakia (10x4x0.4 cm) imitating the design shown in the pediment of the kleroteria IG II2 2864 b [pic. 8] e IG II2 2864 c [pic. 9]: rectangular shape with a short narrow tongue at one end, used for the wooden pinakia. Then I took in consideration two further aspects: the kinds of wood and their weights. I opted for the plywood, while Aristotle says that the pinakia were in boxwood, which I used only to build a sample. Plywood has a specific weight of 0.400 gr/cm3, while boxwood of about 0,900 gr/ cm3. This means that a 10x4x0.4 cm pinakion has a weight of 6 gr [pic. 10] if it is in plywood, while it has a weight of 12 gr [pic. 11] if in boxwood. The use of one wood or the other doesn’t affect the timings calculation. In order to reproduce the kyboi ballot mechanism, I relied on the work of Bishop, who studied and corrected Dow’s one in 1970. Bishop maintains that the pipe the spheres fell through, was characterized by the presence of two parallel nails perpendicularly cutting the pipe at two different heights, far enough one from the other to allow a kybos to fit between the two of them. If you pull the nail above out, the spheres fall and are blocked by the second nail. Then the first nail is inserted again and pulling the second out, the kybos comes out of the pipe [pic. 12]. 1 On the use of wood and bronze pinakia see pag. ? !2 This system looks less complicated and more plausible than the one speculated by Dow, in which there was a mechanism based on a crank, with the function of making a kind of cup turning inside the pipe, so that the sphere could fall out one by one. In order to recreate the kyboi, I used marbles with the same diameter of those used in the IV century. The white marbles are in a porous light material [pic. 13], while the black ones are in a heavier glass [pic. 14]. This choice is supported by the fact that the white kyboi were made in marble and so resulted to be lighter than the black ones made in bronze. Professor Blanshard highlighted that using spheres of different weights, could be an issue, since the heaviest ones were more likely to remain on the bottom of the vase used to mix them. This issue could in my opinion be sorted mixing the kyboi up in a container different from a vase (for example a bowl), in which the difference in weight would less affect the distribution of the spheres. I replaced the acorns with plastic tokens [pic. 15], the baskets with paper boxes and the hydriai with bottle bottoms [pic. 16]. I opted for recycling materials which wouldn’t affect the timings calculation. Athenaion Politeia interpretation Reading through Aristotle text, it is clear that some passages about the allotment are just implied or, as Rhodes underlines, “The reader is pushed to look beyond”. I already discussed the problem of the two hydriai in the previous chapter2. 2 See pag. ? !3 Next passage to be clarified is the 64.3: “Ἐπειδὰν δ’ἐ[ξαιρῇ] τοὺς κύβους, καλεῖ τοὺς εἰληχότας ὁ κ[ῆρυξ]…” (When the archon pulls the spheres out, the herald calls the dikastai drawn). Rhodes, agreeing with Oppermann and Hommel’s opinions, accepts the idea, suggested by Blass, to restore the present subjunctive ἐξαιρῇ. He supports this theory explaining that, in case of extraction of a white sphere, the herald would immediately start to call the dikastai to assign the courts to them. On the other hand Kenyon, followed by Haussoullier, suggests to restore the aorist subjunctive ἐξέλῃ. This would create a posteriority connection between the main and the subordinate clauses, which would imply that the herald could start to call the judges only once the archon had concluded the extraction of all the spheres. This second option, supported also by Colin, is in my opinion more convincing, since it is very unlikely that the two actions (of the herald and the archon) could be carries out at the same time. Before explain in details the reasons of my opinion about the restoration of the aorist ἐξέλῃ, I think it is necessary to discuss the followings: the criteria I followed to analyze the Ath. Pol., and the different hands the pinakia passed through during the allotment. Regarding the first topic, my interpretation will try to respect as far as possible Aristotle text, avoiding to add any elements not mentioned by the author and, at the same time, I will do my best to make it simple and clear. About the second topic I want to investigate, it is probably one of the hardest to focus on, since Aristotle never openly mentions the movements of the pinakia from hand to hand although it is clear that they used to happen. The only pieces of information we can get from the text are: the action of the herald to call the dikastai and the one of the inserters giving the pinakia back to the judges who hadn’t been drawn. Since it was the herald to call the dikastai, we can infer that the pinakia were in his hands so that he could read them. Putting together this statement with the passage (Ath. Pol., 65.3) in which !4 Aristotle says that the empektai would give the pinakia back to the judges not drawn, we can suppose a system in which, when the sphere extracted was white the herald would take the pinakia from the kleroterion; while, if the sphere was black, the empektai would take the pinakia from their kanonis. Once all the spheres had been extracted from the machine, the herald would start to call the judges drawn, and these would take from the vase the acorn showing the court they were assigned to. Then the herald would give the pinakion to the archon to be put in the box of the court assigned. While this second phase was being carried out, the empektai gave back the pinakia to the judges not chosen on that day. It is in my opinion hard to believe that the herald started to call the dikastai while the archon was still pulling the spheres out, because this would mean that the kerux was supposed to call the judges and pay attention to the spheres extracted at the same time. What’s more, the archon would have been in the position of stopping the spheres extraction whenever the judges would go to collect their acorns. This would have generated confusion and a high risk of committing mistakes. We could even think of a system in which the archon, after extracting the white kybos, interrupted the procedure and called the first five judges to their courts. This would have made the process longer and, between the allotment of the first and of the last judge, about an hour would have passed, with the risk that someone from outside could corrupt the judges already assigned to the courts. We must also consider the use of plural kyboi. If, in fact, Aristotle wanted to indicate that, after the extraction of each white sphere, the five dikastai were immediately assigned to the courts, it is logical to think that he would have used the singular kybos. If we consider valid the hypothesis that provides a posteriority connection between the two actions, the text should be restored with !5 the aorist ἐξέλῃ and consequently epaidan translated “after that” and not “when”. The only object that I believe we should add — compared to the description of Aristotle — is a basket, that was used by the herald to put the pinakia before starting to call the dikastai, since it is impossible to hold a hundred pinakia in hand. It is also possible — without the presence of a further basket — that the pinakia were temporarily placed on the ground, but with the risk of losing them. As regards the inserters, it is easy to think that they put the discarded pinakia in the same baskets in which the candidates put their. Technical aspects of the simulation This section is dedicated to clarifying the criteria with which I have implemented the allotment and how I have calculated the times. The tests were carried out taking into consideration only one of the two allotment machines provided for each entry. The use of a single kleroterion implies the doubling of the times of each operation that could not be done simultaneously for the two machines. I also considered the number of participants in the simulations compared to that of the judges required. In all tests I involved 100 people, each of which — if we needed to simulate the presence of more than 100 dikastai — was provided with more pinakia that were deposited one by one, always passing through the starting point. In the phase in which the herald called the drawn dikastai, the participants were placed at a distance of about 30 meters from the vase with the tokens, so that I could replicate the time necessary for a judge, placed in the crowd, to arrive at the hydria. During the tests I assigned to each column a different number of pinakia, with the intent to replicate the differences in participation in the sections. This aspect is connected with that of the calculation of black kyboi. Without any doubt, in fact, the archon — before starting — knew the amount of white spheres to be !6 inserted into the pipe, while the black ones would have to calculate them based on the number of complete rows. Aristotle says that the archon puts the pinakia (Ἐµβάλλει τὸ πινάκιον) in the baskets (Ath. Pol., 64.4). In my simulations, instead, the herald3 puts the pinakia in the baskets that designate the courts; this is my voluntary choice to show that, if the herald had called dikastai without holding the pinakia, the archon would have had difficulty managing alone the judges who came to take the acorn. If, instead, we imagine a system in which the herald, after having called the first judge, passed the pinakion to the archon and prepared himself to call the second dikastes, it is clear that the operation would be faster and more orderly4. In my simulation the herald does the archon's taks and not the reverse, only for a functional choice for the video. 3 I advice to see the video to understand this passage better. 4 !7 The simulations In the tests I simulated the convocation of 4 courts of 800, 2000 or 4000 judges in total. Allotment of 800 dikastai (80 for tribe; 40 for kleroterion) In the first simulation I used: 139 pinakia (A: 31; B: 24; Γ: 26; Δ: 30; E: 28); 23 kyboi (16 blacks e 7 whites); 40 tokens (Λ: 10; M: 10; N: 10; Ξ: 10). Discarded pinakia: 99. Allotment of 2000 dikastai (200 for tribe; 100 for kleroterion) In the second simulation I used: 217 pinakia (A: 40; B: 45; Γ: 42; Δ: 47; E: 43); 39 kyboi (16 blacks e 7 whites); 100 tokens (Λ: 25; M: 25; N: 25; Ξ: 25). Discarded pinakia: 117. Allotment of 4000 dikastai (400 for tribe; 200 for kleroterion) In the third simulation I used: 256 pinakia (A: 50; B: 52; Γ: 51; Δ: 50; E: 53); 49 kyboi (10 blacks e 39 whites); 200 tokens (Λ: 50; M: 50; N: 50; Ξ: 50). Discarded pinakia: 56. In Table chart 1 I reported the average5 of the partial times of each simulation and the total estimated time needed to draw the judges: 5 For each simulation I have carried out more tests. !8 Table chart 1 Time to deposit pinakia Time to draw empektai Time to insert pinakia Time to calculate and insert kyboi Time to draw pinakia time to assign dikastai to the courts tempo to give back discarded pinakia* TOTAL 800 2000 4000 1 min. 1.50 min. 3.30 min. 53 sec. (X2) = 1.46 min. 52 sec. (X2) = 1.44 min. 50 sec. (X2) = 1.40 min. 2.06 min. 2.31 min. 3.11 min. 35 sec. (X2) = 1.10 min. 36 sec. (X2) = 1.12 min. 37 sec. (X2) = 1.14 min. 3 min. (X2) = 6 min. 5.53 min. (X2) 7.14 min. (X2) = = 11.46 min. 14.28 min. 3.37 min. (X2) 8.21 min. (X2) 14.58 min.(X2) = = = 7.14 min. 16.42 min. 29.56 min. 1.50 min. 2 min. 47 sec. 18.16 min. 33.55 min. 50.29 min. * I have not counted in the total time what the empektai used to give back the pinakia because this operation took place simultaneously with the assignment of the dikastai to the courts. !9 Results If we look at the results of the simulations it is evident that the draw, on average, did not last more than 30/35 minutes, since in most days the Athenians drew about 2000/2500 dikastai. We, also, must take into account for the timing that: 1) the Athenians were more familiar with the procedure than test participants; 2) I voluntarily slowed down the allotment of judges to the courts6. It is interesting to note that, as long as they convicted courts of 2000 judges in all, the number of discarded pinakia (for kleroterion) is always greater than those allotted, but above that threshold there was a sharp reversal of trends [chart 1]. 6 As I said, the exclusion of the archon in the simulations makes this phase slower. !10 Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 Picture 4 !11 Picture 5 Picture 6 Picture 7 Picture 8 !12 Picture 9 Picture 10 Picture 11 Picture 12 !13 Picture 13 Picture 14 Picture 15 Picture 16 !14 Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who allowed me to realize this project. First of all, I thank my supervisor, Professor Teresa G. Alfieri, for her support in writing this chapter. I also thank Professor Peter J. Rhodes for the interest shown in my work; Professor Amy Smith and Professor Alastair Blanshard who gave me the opportunity to access the deposits of the Agora museum in Athens; Professor John H. Kroll for the reconstruction of pinakia; Professor Cinzia Bearzot and Professor Andrea P. Tucci for the great availability the invaluable advice. A special thanks goes to Federico for his help in the construction of objects; at my high school, N. Machiavelli, who allowed me to try the simulations and in particular to Professors Piga, Piano and Professor Terzi for organizing and taking part in the tests. Finally, I thank all the guys who took part in the simulations, but above all Alessandro, Camilla B., Camilla Q., Carolina, Cristian, Luca and Paola for the diligence, availability and passion shown in playing the main roles. !15