APC Image: AK 1050: E.M. 12751; new fragment m joined to i. Small fragment of white marble which belongs to an important inscription of which several larger pieces have been found on the Acropolis. Nine of these were published by von Premerstein in 1913 (see brief citation). There are two other fragments in the Epigraphical Museum, which he overlooked, although their inventory numbers show that they were there at the time of his publication, and a small piece found in the excavations on the North Slope was published by Broneer (see brief citation). Thus there are in all four additional pieces, which will be numbered j-m, following the numbering of the published fragments a-i. (This numbering of the fragments is that used in I.G., II 2, 1076, which differs from that of von Premerstein.) One of the new pieces, j (E.M. 4646), which joins with fragment a, contains parts of six lines (AK 1056). The new fragment m joins with fragment I as shown in this photograph (I is on the Left. M is on the Right). Although neither of these make contact with any of the larger fragments, their place in the stele, which was determined by von Premerstein, is practically certain from the contexts. The beginning of the inscription containing the main decree is lost and the preserved part belongs to a rider. (It is, of course, possible that the principal decree was recorded on a separate stone.) The original height was probably between two and three meters. At one time the stele was broken up and the pieces recut, apparently to be used as paving slabs. At that time a kind of anathyrosis was made along the uninscribed smooth side of the slabs and the inscribed side seems to have been buried in lime mortar. This secondary anathyrosis is preserved along the left edge of fragments g and d, on the right edge of g, at the top of j and at the bottom and left ede of i. The original left edge of the stele is preserved in fragment b and in the small unplaced fragment k. The right edge of the insribed surface must have been rather irregular, since the words were as a rule divided by syllables. In some of the lines the last letters may have been crowded, and possibly ligatures were used, as is commonly the case with inscriptions from the same period. The original decree was proposed by a certain Elpidephoros of the deme Pallene during the absence of the unknown author of the rider. The latter, who seems to have held the office of epimelites (the epimelitia in lines 9 and 10 - if this is the correct restoration - is probably the office in charge of certain religious festivals at Athens), apparently headed an embassy sent to the Emperor for the purpose of obtaining some favors for the Athenians. The motivation for the amendment (II. 1-8) seems to contain references to such a commission at which Julia Domna successfully interceded with the Emperor in behalf of the Athenians. In addition to other changes made possible in the reconstruction of the text through the addition of the new fragments, in line 11 the word apoth [ imian, which is pratically certain, gives us the new information that the proposer was absent during the passing of the original decree. It is natural to suppose that his absence from Athens at this time was caused by his mission to the Emperor. Possibly the Athenians had already before his arrival received news about the the success of his mission and thus hastened to pass the decree, perhaps inhonor of the Emperor himself and his sons. (Since the full name and titles of Julia are nowhere given in the preserved part of the decree there is no reason for dating the inscription before the accession of Caracalla to the throne because of the omission of her new title mitir sevaston.) The amendment itself, which deals with certain divine honors to Julia Domna, falls into two sections, unless our restoration of line 13 is altogether wrong. The first deals with various celebrations decreed for the birthday of the Empress; the second has to do with annual offerings on the first day of the Roman year. The new cult of Julia was to be added to the state cult of Athena Polias. Some changes such as those made in lines 12 and 13 are necessary because of the spacing. The word eg [ennithi] restored by von Premerstein at the end of line 13 is our only evidence for a festival on the birthday of the Empress. It is perhaps possible that this should be restored in some other way and that the whole decree deals with a single festival. In lines 17-21 it seems preferable to omit the restoration altogether. Whatever were the contents of this sentence, the restoration proposed by von Premerstein cannot stand, and it is highly questionable whether it expresses the correct idea at all. The most important changes from von Premerstein's text have been made in lines 22-27, where the new fragment j has made it possible to complete the lines with greater certainty. The new reading of this document, which it has been possible to establish with the aid of the unpublished fragments, has added some points of interest, without, however, altering the general trend of the decree. Unfortunately, some important matters still remain in doubt. Repeated attempts at placing the remaining two fragments in the stele have convinced Broneer that a variety of possible readings can be suggested which, without too great violence to the language, will complete the lines so as to include all the fragments.