Demes, AtticNICHOLAS F. JONES

Previously existing settlements of Attica became

“demes” (demoi, singular demos) when, upon

the creation of the democracy in 508/7 BCE,

Kleisthenes imposed on the land of Attica an

elaborate territorial organization of which the

demes were the basic units. By reliable count

139 in number, the demes fell into three

regions, City, Inland, and Coast, and, within

each region, were grouped into tenmore or less

contiguous clusters called trittyes (singular

trittys, “one of three”). Kleisthenes then cre-

ated the principal units of his new government,

the ten phylai, by combining one trittys of

demes from each of the three regions. The

phylai served as the administrative apparatus

for virtually every branch of the democratic

government – legislature, military, judiciary,

magistracies, and so on. But the key to a

citizen’s participation was his deme-affiliation

(the demotikon), since upon it depended his

membership in a trittys and phyle.

The statewide functions of the demes were

slight, being confined to such non-essential

matters as the tabulation of taxpayers, the

administration of oaths, the organization of

religious festivals, and the mustering (but not

deployment) of soldiers. Normally, only the

ten principal units, but not their constituent

trittyes and demes, were directly represented

in the numerous divisions of governmental

activity. A major exception, however, was the

council of 500, the membership of which was

renewed each year through the selection of

citizens representing all 139 demes on the

basis of quotas keyed to population. Ranging

between 1 and 16, the quotas give an initial

impression of a proportional representation of

all of Attica, but the fact that the deme-

affiliation was both portable and inheritable

allowed for the possibility that, with the docu-

mented relocation from rural to urban spaces,

councilors representing extramural demes

were actually residents of the town or PIRAEUS.

Thus over time, the typical deme, though still

territorially bounded, came to resemble a per-

sonal association. Meanwhile, a countervailing

effect was exerted by the deme’s own at-home

functions, by the annual celebration of the

Agrarian Dionysia in many demes, and by

the periodic meetings of phratries or regional

associations with bases throughout rural Attica

(see PHRATRY).

Contemporary inscriptions from the demes

explicitly indicate infrastructure, administrative

structures, and activities in and around a center.

Excluding the anomalous pan-Attic installations

at Eleusis, RHAMNOUS, Sounion, and Piraeus,

where documentation and architecture do

not reflect the nature or scale of the typical

local deme-organization, we have records

from about one-third of the demes. These

(and a few literary sources) demonstrate, in

the aggregate, the independent operation of an

association of adult male demotai,

supplemented by more inclusive cultic activi-

ties in which “the women of the demotai” play

a conspicuous role. Of special interest are the

meetings of the membership, which,

sometimes convened in the deme’s theater,

produced decrees that were subsequently

recorded on stone stelae. Notwithstanding,

however, the presence of the demarch, who

simultaneously represented the policies and

interests of the state of Athens, these arrange-

ments, when considered in all their dimen-

sions, generally fail (as often asserted) to

replicate the Big City of Athens town. For one

thing, the content of the honorary decrees

reveals a preoccupation with the affairs of

a farming community; for another, a large dos-

sier of so-called “mortgage stones” seems to

indicate that members did not reside in the

deme’s monumental, administrative, and cer-

emonial center, but rather, as expected, on

their farms. Nor did this insularity pertain

only to the town, for the documents are virtu-

ally silent on the subject of deme-to-deme

relations.

Since about ninety of the demes had a

bouleutic quota of three or fewer, and since

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,

and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 1991–1992.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04079

1

most of these were sufficiently removed from

town and port to discourage urban contact

except for the occasional trip to purchase

goods or sell a surplus, to attend the assembly

or theater, or in response to a military mobili-

zation, it is not surprising that we find evi-

dence of a distinctively rural cultural regime.

ARISTOPHANES (Acharnians, Peace, Clouds)

and THEOPHRASTUS (Characters, especially

Agroikia), followed later by MENANDER

(Dyskolos) and other Middle and New Comedy

writers (see COMEDY, NEW), give us the urban take

on rural ways, and it may well be that, once

stripped of their distorting stereotyping, these

literary portraits preserve much of the truth.

SEE ALSO: Boule; Democracy, Athenian; Ionian

tribes; Kleisthenes of Athens; Trittys, trittyes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Jones, N. F. (1999) The associations of Classical

Athens: the response to democracy. New York.

Jones, N. F. (2004) Rural Athens under the

democracy. Philadelphia.

Osborne, R. (1985) The discovery of Classical

Attika. Cambridge.

Traill, J. S. (1975) The political organization of

Attica. Princeton.

Traill, J. S. (1986) Demos and trittys. Toronto.

Whitehead, D. (1986) The demes of Attica, 508/7–ca.

250 BC: a political and social study. Princeton.

2