<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The inscription contains, in boustrophedon script, the text of an ancient law from the small Cretan city of Dreros, dating to the mid-7th century BCE. Although the syntactic structure leaves no doubt as to its eminently legislative character (see Demargne \u2013 van Effenterre 1937, 334\u2013335), the ratification formula \u1f06\u03b4\u2019\u1f14Fa\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9 (on which see Nomima<\/em> I, 64) clearly recalls that of a decree. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, from a formal point of view, the text should be identified as a decree containing a law (Koerner 1993, 334). The subject of the law is the prohibition against holding the office of kosmos<\/em> more than once before an interval of ten years has elapsed (cf. I.Cret. IV.14, g-p\u00b2), or, according to an alternative interpretation (Seelentag 2009; 2015, 148\u2013152), the prohibition on former kosmoi<\/em> continuing to exercise the functions of the office (in particular judicial functions) even after the end of their term. However, as Gagarin \u2013 Perlman (2016, 203\u2013204) rightly object, the verb \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in the text almost certainly means \u201cto serve as kosmos<\/em>\u201d (cf. I.Cret. IV.72 col. V, ll. 5\u20136; I.Cret. I, V.4, ll. 3\u20139), which supports the first interpretation. If this is accepted, it is not implausible that the city of Dreros maintained official lists recording those who had already held the office (Camassa 2004, 48\u201349; Marginesu 2006, 110\u2013114; Faraguna 2021, 71\u201372).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the event of a violation, among other penalties, the \u201cillegal\u201d kosmos<\/em> would be declared akr\u0113stos<\/em>, an adjective whose meaning is highly debated. Some scholars have understood it to indicate total deprivation of political rights (Demargne \u2013 van Effenterre 1937, 343; Jacoby 1944; Youni 2010, 152; Camassa 2011, 83; Gagarin \u2013 Perlman 2016, 205; Genevrois 2017, 361\u2013362), while others have seen it as implying the loss of only part of the prerogatives of the offender, in particular the eligibility for the office of kosmos<\/em> or for any other magistracy (Ehrenberg 1943, 16; Koerner 1993, 336; Braun 1994; H\u00f6lkeskamp 1999, 93).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Closely connected to the problem of interpreting akr\u0113stos<\/em> is the question of the body from which the law emanated\u2014namely, the \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 mentioned in line 1. It is unclear whether this term should be understood as referring to the political community, i.e., the citizen body gathered in some form of assembly (Willetts 1955, 168\u2013169; Koerner 1993, 334\u2013335; H\u00f6lkeskamp 1999, 90; Grote 2014, 69; 2016, 139\u2013140, who interprets the polis<\/em> as a civic assembly without decision-making power, acting only to ratify by acclamation), or to a more restricted organ representing the citizens (Ehrenberg 1943, 14; Beattie 1975, 14; see also Youni 2010, 156\u2013157, who argues that in Archaic Crete polis<\/em> could designate any collegial body exercising political authority and thus capable of representing the political community). The reference in line 4 to the board of the Twenty of the polis<\/em> (\u03bf\u1f30 \u1f34\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) among the magistracies required to swear an oath alongside the kosmos<\/em> and the d\u0101mioi<\/em> suggests that the law was enacted and approved by the political community\u2014likely comprising all male residents of the urban centre (or perhaps property owners?)\u2014and that the Twenty of the polis<\/em> represented them at the oath-taking ceremony, in contrast to the d\u0101mos<\/em>, which probably represented the rural component of the population (or non-landowners?). On the composition of polis<\/em> and d\u0101mos<\/em> in Archaic Dreros see Gagarin \u2013 Perlman 2016, 57\u201358; cf. Grote 2014, 71\u201373; 2016, 142\u2013143, who considers the Twenty to have been members of the civic council representing Dreros\u2019 supposed twenty tribes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever the interpretation of polis<\/em>, it seems beyond doubt that the law emanated from a clearly defined political body, aware of its role and prerogatives, and, above all, of the minimum requirements for those wishing to hold the office of kosmos<\/em>\u2014and, by extension, for anyone aspiring to play a significant role in the political life of the community. Even if the concept of citizenship had not yet been sharply, abstractly, and formally defined at this early date (cf. Seelentag 2015, 155), some of the prerogatives that would later constitute the criteria for determining membership in the political community\u2014and hence the possession and exercise of citizen rights\u2014were already taking shape. For this reason, it is not unreasonable to maintain that the adjective akr\u0113stos<\/em> was, at least partially, connected to an incipient notion of citizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n