Unlocated Epeirote toponyms in theorodokos-list evidence

Epistemic status

Inferred L3 evidence-packet article.

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested. It is an inference from the evidence listed below.

Summary

Source-backed inferon for a cluster of weakly located or uncertain ancient Epeirote settlement names.

What is being inferred

The prosopographical inference this article draws concerns a bounded set of ancient Epeirote place-names (Artichia, Poionos, and Zmaratha specifically) known only from theorodokos-list evidence and not yet located on the ground: the claim is limited to these three toponyms as a distinguishable unlocated-name problem, deliberately excluding other similarly-named but differently-attested cases like Baiake.

What is attested

• Evidence 1163 records: Artichia, Poionos, and Zmaratha are unlocated Epeirote cases known mainly from fourth-century BCE theorodokos-list evidence.
• Evidence 4191 records: Offline judge treated existing inferon 206 (source_dependence) as support for Unlocated Epeirote toponyms in theorodokos-list evidence. Evidence strength: bounded but below-publication structural/source inferon; sufficient for L2 review, not for article promotion. The accountable path is EvidencePath 1255.

Why infer this entity

Hansen and Nielsen's Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Evidence 1163) is the primary support, identifying Artichia, Poionos, and Zmaratha specifically as unlocated Epeirote cases known mainly from fourth-century BCE theorodokos-list evidence, which is the direct basis for both the toponym set and its fourth-century BCE dating. The same Inventory (Evidence 1164) supplies the counterevidence that shapes the claim's boundary: it treats Baiake as a pre-Hellenistic settlement not securely attested as a polis, which is why this article's claim explicitly excludes Baiake rather than folding it into the same unlocated-toponym set — the theorodokos-list evidential basis does not extend to it in the same way. Wikipedia's list of cities in ancient Epirus (Evidence 1165) is used only as lead context, showing that a broader missing-list surface already exists as a reference target, without itself supplying independent evidence for any specific toponym's status. Because the claim here is scoped narrowly to three named toponyms with one specific evidence type (theorodokos lists) behind them, the packet's own internal distinction between securely-poleis-attested cases and Baiake's more ambiguous status is treated as load-bearing, not incidental.

Evidence ledger

• Evidence 1163: Hansen and Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Epeiros entries. Artichia, Poionos, and Zmaratha are unlocated Epeirote cases known mainly from fourth-century BCE theorodokos-list evidence. Role: Supporting evidence.
• Evidence 1164: Hansen and Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Epeiros entry. Baiake is treated as a pre-Hellenistic settlement not securely attested as a polis, limiting a uniform missing-city claim. Role: Counterevidence.
• Evidence 1165: Wikipedia, List of cities in ancient Epirus, regional list. The broad missing-list target already exists as an article/list surface. Role: Lead context.
• Evidence 4191: Offline existing-inferon judge ledger control source, existing_inferon_judge_promote:inferon:206. Offline judge treated existing inferon 206 (source_dependence) as support for Unlocated Epeirote toponyms in theorodokos-list evidence. Evidence strength: bounded but below-publication structural/source inferon; sufficient for L2 review, not for article promotion. The accountable path is EvidencePath 1255. Role: Noetic interpretation.

Counterarguments

• Evidence 1164 weakens or qualifies the inference: Baiake is treated as a pre-Hellenistic settlement not securely attested as a polis, limiting a uniform missing-city claim.
• Evidence 1165 weakens or qualifies the inference: The broad missing-list target already exists as an article/list surface.

Confidence scores

• Direct attestation: 15
• Existence warrant: 72
• Specificity confidence: 58
• Reconstruction dependence: 70
• Counterevidence pressure: 0

What would change the score

• A direct attestation would move this out of the inferred catalogue.
• Stronger independent evidence would raise the warrant or specificity.
• Better counterevidence would lower the warrant or force retirement.