Ethnos and Koinon: Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism 3515122176, 9783515122177

Citation preview

Ethnos and Koinon Alte Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag

Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism Edited by Hans Beck, Kostas Buraselis and Alex McAuley

HABES 61

Ethnos and Koinon Edited by Hans Beck, Kostas Buraselis and Alex McAuley

habes Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien Begründet von Géza Alföldy Herausgegeben von Angelos Chaniotis und Christian Witschel Beirat: François Bérard, Anthony R. Birley, Kostas Buraselis, Lucas de Blois, Ségolène Demougin, Elio Lo Cascio, Mischa Meier, Elizabeth Meyer, Michael Peachin, Henk Versnel und Martin Zimmermann

Band 61

Ethnos and Koinon Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism

Edited by Hans Beck, Kostas Buraselis and Alex McAuley

Franz Steiner Verlag

Umschlagabbildung: Foundations of the so-called Treasury of the Boiotians in Delphi, Photo: Hans Beck Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2019 Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-12217-7 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-12245-0 (E-Book)

CONTENTS List of Illustrations ................................................................................................... 7 Hans Beck, Kostas Buraselis, & Alex McAuley Preface ..................................................................................................................... 9 Emily Mackil Ethnic Arguments .................................................................................................. 11 Giovanna Daverio Rocchi Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study ........ 29 Nikolaos Petrochilos The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians ................................................................................................................. 45 Albert Schachter The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina ............................................................. 65 Angela Ganter Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellenistic and Roman Times ....................................... 83 Ruben Post Integration and Coercion: Non–Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League ..... 99 Nikos Giannakopoulos Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos: The Limits of Roman–Sponsored Greek Federalism..................... 113 Alex McAuley Sans la lettre: Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria ................ 131 Claudia Antonetti Spearhead and Boar Jawbone – An Invitation to Hunt in Aitolia: ‘Foreign Policy’ within the Aitolian League ....................................................... 149

6

Contents

Jacek Rzepka Federal Imperialism: Aitolian Expansion between Protectorate, Merger, and Partition ................................................................................................................ 167 Sheila Ager The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League .................................... 175 Catherine Grandjean Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach ..................................................................................... 193 Kostas Buraselis Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues ............................................................................. 205 Athanassios Rizakis Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions ............................ 219 James Roy The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon ......................... 243 Cinzia Bearzot The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League: From Lykomedes of Mantineia to staseis among homoethneis ........................... 257 Maria Mili Ἄπιστα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν: The Dubious Thessalian State .................................. 271 Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda Ethnic Constructs from Inside and Out: External Policy and the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. ............................................ 285 Selene E. Psoma The League of the Chalkideis: Development of its External and Internal Relations and Organization ............... 321 Adolfo J. Domínguez The ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations .. 339 Katerina Panagopoulou Between Federal and Ethnic: The koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited .............................................................................................................. 363 Hans Beck The Aiolians – A Phantom ethnos? ..................................................................... 385 Index ................................................................................................................... 405

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1) 2) 3) 4)

5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14)

15)

16)

17)

18) 19) 20) 21)

Grandjean, Figure 1: LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. © With permission. p. 200 Grandjean, Figure 2: CNG Electronic Auction 375, 341 2016 June 1. 16,18g. Price 736. Argos silver tetradrachm of attic standard. © With permission. p. 201 Grandjean, Figure 3: LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. 5,31g, Pagai/Achaian; ΧΑΡΜΙΔΑΣ , ΑΧΑΙΩΝ ΠΑΓΑΙΩΝ ; bronze coin. © With permission. p. 201 Grandjean, Figure 4: Dr Busso Pius Nachfolger Auction 378, 177, 2004 April 28. 2,21g. Elis/Achaian – silver tribal of reduced aeginetic (= symmachic) standard. © With permission. p. 201 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 1: Map of Achaia Phthiotis. © the authors. p. 307 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 2: Plan of Classical settlement at Grintja (possibly Karandai). © the authors. p. 308 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 3: Plan of Classical settlement at Kastro Kallithea. © the authors. p. 308 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 4: Plan of Classical settlement at Magoula Plataniotiki (Old Halos). © the authors. p. 309 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 5: Plan of Classical settlement of Karatsagdali (unknown settlement). © the authors. p. 309 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 6: Map of Hellenistic Settlements in Achaia Phthiotis. © the authors. p. 310 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 7: Plan of the Hellenistic City of New Halos. © With permission of H. R. Reinders. p. 310 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 8: Plan of the city of Kastro Kallithea in the Hellenistic Period. © the authors. p. 311 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 9: The region of Achaia Phthiotis with cities minting coins with monogram AX. © the authors. p. 311 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 10: Coin from Larisa Kremaste with the image of Thetis on a hippocamp holding a shield with the monogram AX (Axaion) found at Halos. © With permission of H. R. Reinders. p. 312 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 11: Coin from Peuma with the AX monogram (Axaion) on the reverse and a male head on the obverse. Found at Kastro Kallithea. © the authors. p. 312 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 12: Terracotta figurine depicting Phrixos or Helle on a ram. From the House of the Coroplast at New Halos. © With permission of H. R. Reinders. p. 312 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 13: Figure of ΑΘΑΜΑΣ on a mould made bowl from the Southeast Gate at New Halos. Published in: Zoï Malakasioti, Reinder Reinders [Halos, SE gate, ArchDelt 56–59 (2001–2004) [2011], Chronika II. 2, p. 467f and 489f (fig. 27). © With permission from the authors. p. 313 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 14: Mouldmade jug with labeled images of Sisyphos and Autolykos from Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. © the authors. p. 313 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 15: Stone block with protrusions found in Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. © authors’ photo. p. 314 Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 16: Terracotta bread stamps with images of a leaf, lighting bolt and barley found in Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. © the authors. p. 314 Domínguez, Figure 1: Map of Thesprotia. © the author. p. 358

8 22) 23) 24) 25)

List of Illustrations Panagopoulou, Plate 1: Early Antigonid coins and their monograms. © With permission. p. 379 Beck, Figure 1: Aiolian migrations from Central Greece to Asia Minor: the orthodox picture. © With permission. p. 386 Beck, Figure 2: The corridor from the Lelantine plain into Boiotia according to the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. Map after Schachter 2016: xxi. © With permission of A. Schachter. p. 393 Beck, Figure 3: Suggested direction of Aiolian migration movements, 8 th to 6th centuries BCE. © With permission. p. 395

PREFACE The traditional view of Greek history has long held that the polis was the fundamental unit and institution around which other social and political structures revolved. The Greek world was seen as a mosaic of these citizen-communities interacting with one another in war and peace, and it was the autonomous community of the polis that made the Greek world unique. While the importance of the polis to communal life in the Greek world cannot be overlooked, various research projects over the past decades have shown that it was not the only source of identity and community in Greek antiquity. The ‘ethnic turn’ that has developed since the 1990s demonstrates more and more the important role played by ethnic allegiance as a tie that suffuses polis structures and connects communities that were otherwise politically separate. Recent advances in the study of federalism have shown how these perceived ethnic relationships contributed to – and were in turn influenced by – the elaboration of federal structures comprising many poleis in a given region. The editors of this volume along with many of its contributors were involved in the recent project Federalism in Greek Antiquity published by Cambridge University Press in 2015, whose various systematic and case studies demonstrated in striking detail how these latent ethnic attachments produced vastly different forms of federal collaboration, though all were united by their foundation on a sense of common descent. These new avenues of inquiry have produced as many questions as they have answered regarding this fascinating interplay between ethnicity and politics, and much work remains to be done. An aspect of this that has been relatively neglected so far, however, is an examination of the interior composition of Greek ethne and the ways in which they managed to relate – and often synthesize – with one another. The process of negotiation and inclusion played out in response to social and environmental factors unique to each particular region and ethnos, and some of these aggregative trends – but not all – gradually morphed into confederate structures. Neither did these processes occur in isolation: the influence one ethnos had on another and the mutual awareness of various ethne and the federal structures with which they organised themselves has likewise been under-explored. The world of a given community, region, or federation was never a vacuum. The interplay between and mutual consciousness of parallel developments throughout the Greek world is equal parts fascinating and underexplored. More than perhaps anywhere else in the Greek World, Delphi embodies the overlap among these various tiers of Greek history, as it was a place of devotion to ethnic groups, cities, and federations alike. All of these quite literally met together in the sanctuary of Apollo in the hills above the village. The place thus provided the ideal location for an international colloquium aimed at filling some of the gaps

10

Preface

in our understanding of the relationship between ethnos and koinon. This colloquium took place at the European Cultural Centre of Delphi from 24 to 27 May 2015, and the harvest of this meeting and its findings have been collected, edited, and presented here. We hope that it will shed further light on these different corners of a Greek world that was constantly trying to overcome its narrow borders. It is amusing, if not perhaps sobering, to think of the relevance of such an avenue of inquiry to the Europe of our age, which seems to find itself torn between local and general interests, identities, and priorities. If the editors and contributors to this volume can come together in the decoding of this phenomenon, perhaps it can too. History does not repeat itself as a facsimile, but it also never fails to recall its past in its own present. The colloquium in Delphi was sponsored by the Anneliese Maier Research Prize which the Humboldt Foundation awarded to Hans Beck. The editors wish to thank Angelos Chaniotis for his comments and for guiding us through the peer review process. Chandra Giroux offered more than one helping hand throughout the editorial process for which we are genuinely grateful. Our sincere thanks as well go to Andrew Lepke for his careful reading of the final typescript. May 2018

Hans Beck Montreal

Kostas Buraselis Athens

Alex McAuley Cardiff

ETHNIC ARGUMENTS Emily Mackil University of California, Berkeley Just inside the entrance to the Sacred Way in the precinct of Apollo in Delphi are situated the fragmentary blocks that once comprised the base of perhaps the most ethnically charged monument in the entire sanctuary: a series of nine statues depicting Apollo, Nike, and the tribal heroes of Arkadia. The group was dedicated in the heady aftermath of the Theban-led invasion of Lakonia in the winter of 370/69, which led to the liberation of the helots, the establishment of two massive new cities, Messene and Megalopolis, and the foundation of an Arkadian koinon. The monument is situated directly opposite the huge Spartan nauarchs’ monument, which celebrated the victory at Aigospotamoi, a location certainly chosen as a deliberate snub to their Spartan enemies.1 The Arkadians presented themselves to Apollo and the Hellenes, in an epigram inscribed on this massive base, as αὐτόχθων ἱερᾶς λαὸς [ἀπ’ Ἀρκαδί]ας, the ‘autochthonous people of holy Arkadia,’ and recorded a genealogy apparently designed not so much to describe as to enact and promulgate the kinship of Azanians, Triphylians, and Arkadians, all descendants of Arkas himself.2 Dedicated in the early years of the Arkadian state, the monument carefully implies a coincidence of ethnic identity and political action that might be taken as the result of a policy of ethnic exclusiveness.3 We should not find this especially surprising. Ethnic identity, even as a social construct, is widely believed to have had a powerful integrative force, driving the formation of ethnically defined regional states like those of the Phokians, Boiotians, Achaians, and Arkadians to name just a few. Self-categorization, the assertion of a claim about collective identity, has been highlighted by Hans–Joachim Gehrke as one of the major purposes of what he calls intentional history, the purposive retrojection of claims into the deep, especially the mythic, past. But the intention behind such acts of intentional history as the Arkadian monument at Delphi was not simply to assert a group identity. The intention was also to justify present arrangements or 1 2

3

On the spatial politics of the monument see Scott 2008. FD III.1.3 l. 2. The important distinction between dedications as contributing to an identity, rather than simply displaying an existing identity, has recently been made by Giangiulio 2010, 121: ‘When discussions of state dedications at Delphi take into account corporate identity, polis or group identity is often presupposed, and seen as a factual given, or an object, in a sense something one can put on display. Instead, the evidence shows that this type of dedication contributed to shaping, rather than simply to displaying the self-awareness of the relevant community…’. On the claim to autochthony in this epigram see Roy 2014, 247f. Although not applied directly to the Delphic monument, the principle is upheld by Nielsen 2002, 23f; Ruggeri 2009, 61.

12

Emily Mackil

to argue for recent changes by situating them in the deep past. The Arkadians claimed a kinship bond that enveloped the communities that were then members of the new Arkadian koinon, and in so doing they simultaneously justified the boundaries of their new state and imposed on its members an obligation to future loyalty, for kinship in Greek thought, as Gehrke has emphasized, entails reciprocal obligation.4 This perspective takes us a long way from the old explanations of Greek federal states as mere elaborations of a primordial tribal belonging, and it also helps us to avoid the value judgment implicit in terms like ‘forgery’ or ‘fiction,’ which are often used by those who ascribe to an instrumentalist view of ethnicity to describe ethnic heroes like the ones depicted on the Arkadians’ monument.5 In what follows I would like to explore the specific contexts in which ethnic identity was deployed as an argument for political purposes among the ethnos states of mainland Greece in the Classical period, the ways in which those arguments were resisted, and some of the places where we might have expected to find ethnic arguments being deployed but instead find non-ethnic contestations of disputes. Limitations of both space and expertise prohibit me from attempting a comprehensive analysis, but I have tried to draw on a wide enough array of cases as to provide at least a basic typology of ethnic arguments, which might serve as a point of reference for future discussions of the relationship between ethnic identity and political cooperation. In analyzing ancient ethnic arguments, I hope to build a bridge between the two sides of a modern ethnic argument; that is, between those who have been emphasizing identity and integration as the foremost issues to be addressed in current studies of Greek federal states and those, like myself, who have placed the spotlight on interactions and institutions as the distinctive constituents of regional identities and regional states.6 I will first consider ethnic arguments marshalled to encourage participation in an ethnos state, and then look at several cases in which ethnic identities were patently constructed or redefined in order to justify political change; this will bring us back, of course, to the Arkadian monument, which deserves much more attention than I have just given it. I will then turn to rejections of these ethnic arguments, both by individual poleis subjected to them as well as by ethnos states themselves,

4 5

6

Gehrke 2001; cf. Gehrke 2003, 2005; Gehrke 2010. Primordialist explanations: Gschnitzer 1955; Larsen 1968. Ethnic identity as fiction: McInerney 1999, 148; Beck 2003, 181; V. Parker in BNJ 70 F 122a commentary. Cf. Gehrke 2001, 298. Emphasis on identity and integration: Beck 2003, 179–183; Beck and Funke 2015, 9 (describing ‘studies that disclosed the mechanics of ethnic identity formation at the regional level’ as ‘[t]he great thematic shockwave’ in studies of Greek federalism); Funke 2013. Emphasis on interactions and institutions: Mackil 2013. In a paper dedicated to the relationship between ethnic identity and federation, Hall 2015, 48 suggests that ethnic identity was ‘not simply a prerequisite for federalization, but rather one of the means by which it was accomplished.’ His suggestion that identity could have established trust networks that supported federative political and economic developments is very useful, but it is only a beginning.

Ethnic Arguments

13

before considering conflicts within an ethnos to fully expose the rift between identity and political behavior. In pursuit of a more positive argument I will consider briefly some non-ethnic arguments made in favor of a politics of cooperation. I. ETHNIC IDENTITY AS AN ARGUMENT FOR PARTICIPATION The most obvious purpose behind the deployment of an ethnic argument by advocates of an ethnos state was to persuade communities to join. In 519 the Plataians were, according to Herodotus, “being pressed by the Thebans” (πιεζεύμενοι ὑπὸ Θηβαίων οἱ Πλαταιέες) but were not willing ἐς Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν (Hdt. 6.108.2–5). The precise meaning of this phrase is difficult to understand. It is usually translated “become members of the Boiotian League” but there is no independent evidence for anything like a developed Boiotian koinon at this early date, and I have suggested that teleein here has a fiscal connotation.7 But whether the Thebans were asking the Plataians simply to contribute to a joint fund by which they might make war on common enemies, or whether they were pressuring them to join a state with more elaborate formal institutions, they were pressing them in the name of the Boiotians, and in so doing they were implicitly making an ethnic argument – one that the Plataians rejected out of hand, sitting as suppliants at Athenian altars and seeing the protection of their closest non–Boiotian neighbor to ensure their ongoing autonomy. The dispute, of course, continued, and although it is possible that Plataia had joined the Boiotian koinon in the years after 446, if it did so the city withdrew again and in 431 was attacked by the Thebans, being encouraged, according to Thucydides, by some Plataians who wished to align their city with the koinon ‘for the sake of personal power’ (Thuc. 2.2.2–3). A herald announced that any Plataian who wished “to join the alliance in accordance with the ancestral customs (κατὰ τὰ πάτρια) of all the Boiotians” should lay down his arms.8 The Plataians, with some Athenian support, resisted for three years, until the last defenders surrendered. In the sham trial of Plataians that followed before a Spartan jury, the Thebans first claimed responsibility for the settlement of all Boiotia, conceding that they had settled “Plataia together with some other places later than the rest of Boiotia,” after “having driven out a mixed population.” They implicitly claimed that the region widely recognized as Boiotia was ethnically unified, a territory occupied by a group of people of common descent. They then accused the Plataians of “contravening the ancestral customs of the other Boiotians” by making an alliance with the Athenians, and defend the Plataian citizens who had opened the gates to them as men who 7 8

Mackil 2013, 27, 295; Mackil 2014, 272. For the traditional view, e.g., How and Wells 1912, II.110; Waanders 1983, 111; Scott 2005, 375–377. Thuc. 2.2.4. Hornblower 1991, 241 glosses this phrase as ‘to become their ally and return to the ancestral constitution of Boiotia’ and remarks that although the meaning of ta patria here is ‘very vague indeed, [it is] apparently … no more than a reference to membership of the Boiotian confederacy.’

14

Emily Mackil

wished that the polis would no longer be estranged but would again live in kinship (ξυγγένεια).9 These claims amount to a robust argument that the Boiotians, a shared descent group with a common territory, had a custom of political cooperation that should not be contravened. It is impossible to know whether the Thebans in fact made these ethnic arguments either in 431 or in 427. What matters is that Thucydides seems to have known that ethnic identity could at least be viewed as a strong inducement to a politics of cooperation; this may, in fact, have been one of the Thebans’ favorite lines, and Thucydides may have known that. It appears again, in more positive terms, in the speech he puts in the mouth of Pagondas of Thebes, one of the eleven boiotarchs in office in 424, when the Boiotian army mustered at Tanagra to drive the Athenians out of Delion. The only boiotarch to favor pursuit of the Athenian army after it had crossed into Attic territory, Pagondas exhorted his colleagues to engage, telling them that “it is your ancestral custom to oppose a foreign army (πάτριόν τε ὑμῖν στρατὸν ἀλλόφυλον ἐπελθόντα) regardless of whether he is in your country or not.”10 Pagondas’ harangue placed equal emphasis on territory and common descent. For the Thebans, arguments made in terms of ‘ancestral custom’ were expected to be compelling, charged as they were in both an ethnic and political sense. Pagondas’ fellow boiotarchs, and the army assembled by them, were more receptive to Theban ethnic arguments than the Plataians had been: having been persuaded by Pagondas, the Boiotian army pursued and routed the Athenians at Delion, winning an important victory in the Peloponnesian War. While we have to read Herodotus and Thucydides at an angle in order to perceive the ethnic arguments being advanced by the Thebans in the late sixth and fifth centuries, evidence for a parallel argument being made in fourth-century Arkadia is much clearer. As Xenophon tells it, the movement for Arkadian political unification began in Tegea in 370, where two leaders, Kallibios and Proxenos, “were urging that all of Arkadia should unite and that the poleis should agree to abide by whatever was decided in common.”11 Despite gaining the upper hand in an armed conflict with fellow citizens committed to the ongoing autonomy of the polis, a position justified by appeal to Tegea’s ‘ancestral laws,’ further steps were taken toward political unification only after the Boiotian invasion of Lakonia.12 According to Xenophon, the Arkadians were encouraged in 369 to stop following the Thebans and assume a leadership of their own. In a speech that has justifiably received a great deal of attention, one Lykomedes of Mantineia makes a series of ethnic arguments in favor of this proposal: the Arkadians alone of the Peloponnesians were autocthnous as well as being the most numerous of all the Greek ethnē, not to mention 9

Thuc. 3.61.2, with a paraphrase of Thuc. 3.65.3. Larson 2007, 181 remarks that ‘Thebes is now using older ethnic ties to emphasize further the newer federal obligations.’ 10 Thuc. 4.92. 11 Xen. Hell. 6.5.6. Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1, who attributes the innovation to Lykomedes of Tegea and gives a more purely institutional account. As Beck 2000, 340–343 notes, the fact that this proposal was advanced prior to the Theban invasion suggests that we should not chalk the innovation of Arkadian federalism up to Theban policy. 12 Xen. Hell. 6.5.7–10 with Gehrke 1985, 154f.

Ethnic Arguments

15

their physical and military prowess, proven simply by appeal to the excellent reputation of Arkadian mercenaries.13 The claim of autochthony is simultaneously a claim about shared territory and consanguinity; these are the terms with which Lykomedes justifies the new politics of cooperation in Arkadia. But the ethnic claims themselves are not new: the myth of Arkadian autochthony almost certainly goes back to the Archaic period.14 To our knowledge, the opposition at Tegea in the previous year was the only significant opposition faced by the authors of political unification in Arkadia. In fact, the new state was so attractive that it immediately attracted non-Arkadians as members. I am alluding, of course, to the Triphylians, who were in the early 360’s, according to Xenophon, “held … in high regard because they claimed to be Arkadians.”15 Thomas Heine Nielsen has shown that the Triphylians, erstwhile perioikoi of Elis, only forged an ethnic identity of their own after their liberation by the Lakonians in 400.16 Now, chameleon-like, they have changed their identity again in the interest of safety, saying that they too are Arkadian. Both Nielsen and Claudia Ruggeri have suggested that the Triphylians adopted an Arkadian identity because it was the only way for them to participate in a koinon predicated on ‘ethnic exclusiveness.’17 This reading of the evidence is too literal. The Triphylians heard the ethnic arguments being made in favor of participation, like those put in the mouth of Lykomedes, and responded in the same idiom. It was surely as a result of both Arkadian argument and Triphylian response that Triphylos himself, eponymous hero of the recently-defined group known as Triphylioi, appears on the Arkadian monument at Delphi with which I began, one of the sons of Arkas to be sure, but born to a different mother – not Erato but Laodameia, the daughter of the Spartan king Amyklas.18 13 Xen. Hell. 7.1.23–26. 14 The earliest probable reference to it is in a fragment of Asios quoted by Paus. 8.1.4. On Asios see West 1985, 4. Hdt. 8.73.1 includes the Arkadians in a list of the seven ethnē that inhabit the Peloponnese; of those seven, the Arkadians and Kynourians (a ‘tribe’ on a par with the Mainalians, both of which become part of the Arkadian koinon) are autochthonous. Nielsen 2000, 32– 35 discusses the Arkadian origin myth and the claim of autochthony. On the speech of Lykomedes, see the detailed examination of Bearzot in this volume. 15 Xen. Hell. 7.1.26. 16 Nielsen 1997; cf. Ruggeri 2009. 17 Nielsen 2002, 23f; Ruggeri 2009, 61: ‘the Arcadian federal state was ‘ethnically exclusive’, which means that no-one [sic] who did not share the same ethnic identity could become a member of the federation.’ But Nielsen (2000, 54f) notes that ‘[t]he Arkadian ethnos was not a closed unit: it was, on the contrary, capable of expansion’ and cites the inclusion of the Triphylians and the independent polis Lasion as evidence. Yet he concedes, a page later, that ‘[t]here is no doubt that the fourth-century Confederacy was to a large extent built upon Arkadian ethnicity. All communities that were allowed to join the Confederacy were considered to be Arkadian. True, some of the members, such as the Triphylians and Lasion, may have been ‘new’ Arkadians, but they were, nevertheless, considered Arkadians by 370. The basis upon which the Confederacy was built was thus at least in part a common feeling of Arkadian ethnicity.’ 18 FD III.1.3 l. 7: Λαοδάμεια δ’ ἔτικτε Τρίφυλον, παῖς Ἀ[μύκλαντος]; cf. Paus. 10.9.5 for Laodameia as daughter of Amyklas. Stesichoros (Σ Aesch. Cho. 733) knows Laodameia as the nurse of Orestes.

16

Emily Mackil

As exciting as this dedication is for those interested in the relationship between ethnic identity and political practice, a note of caution is in order. We know very little about the political position of Triphylia or its member poleis within the Arkadian koinon. Only one decree of the Arkadian koinon survives in a tolerably complete state: a proxeny decree for an Athenian, belonging to the 360s.19 It includes an apparently complete list of 50 damiorgoi, officials who clearly served as representatives of member communities to the koinon. These officials are clustered by their representative units, which include poleis large and small-Megalopolis and Kleitor, for example-as well as smaller ethnic groups, Nielsen’s Arkadian ‘tribes,’ like the Mainalians and Kynourians. The Triphylians do not appear as a group, and the only hint that they may be represented at all is the presence of two damiorgoi under the heading Lepreatai. Nielsen regards it as possible that this signifies a hegemonic role for Lepreon over all the other Triphylian poleis, whereby they controlled the group’s representation to the koinon, or that Lepreon was not considered a Triphylian community for the purposes of the Arkadian koinon.20 Neither possibility, however, sheds a particularly favorable light on the way in which the Arkadian koinon integrated ethnic outsiders.21 But with a sample size of precisely one decree from the koinon in this period, it would be rash to draw any firm conclusions on the matter. It remains possible, however, that the Arkadian monument at Delphi, a brash display of the rewards of political unification for an ethnos, occludes practical inequalities that existed within that new state. Let me return, however, to the broader issue I am pursuing. The Thebans on several occasions in the late sixth and fifth centuries, and some Arkadians in 370 and 369, were advancing the claim that ethnic identity ought to be politicized, that members of an ethnic group were well poised, perhaps in some sense morally obligated, to participate in a regional state governed by and for the ethnos. Yet none of the speakers on these occasions spells out exactly why they suppose that a common ethnic identity ought to be enough to justify a politics of cooperation, even though an answer to this question seems to me imperative. In two speeches imputed by Thucydides to Athenian leaders during the Peloponnesian War, I think we can find a more explicit articulation of the logic of political ethnicity, although in both cases it is expressed in negative terms. On the eve of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (1.141.6) has Perikles exhort the Athenians by describing the weaknesses of their Peloponnesian opponents.

19 Rhodes and Osborne 2003 no.32 (IG V.2.1) from Tegea, topped with a relief depicting Tyche holding a helmet and touching a trophy. On the date see Roy 1971, 571 (368–361) and Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 160 (‘c. 367 or slightly earlier’). 20 If Lepreon is supposed to represent all the Triphylian cities, they seem rather under-represented, given that for example the small city of Kleitor on its own has five damiorgoi. See Roy 2000, 312f; Nielsen 1997, 153–155 for a full discussion of the difficulty of understanding the implications of the Leprean damiorgoi in this text. 21 A third, more neutral, possibility is that the Triphylian communities rotated the responsibility for sending damiorgoi each year, but we would still have expected the heading to read Triphylioi in that case.

Ethnic Arguments

17

μάχῃ μὲν γὰρ μιᾷ πρὸς ἅπαντας Ἕλληνας δυνατοὶ Πελοποννήσιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἀντισχεῖν, πολεμεῖν δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὁμοίαν ἀντιπαρασκευὴν ἀδύνατοι, ὅταν μήτε βουλευτηρίῳ ἑνὶ χρώμενοι παραχρῆμά τι ὀξέως ἐπιτελῶσι πάντες τε ἰσόψηφοι ὄντες καὶ οὐχ ὁμόφυλοι τὸ ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν ἕκαστος σπεύδῃ· In a single battle against all the Hellenes the Peloponnesians and their allies might be able to prevail, but they are not capable of waging war against a different kind of opponent, for they lack a single council in which to resolve on swift and vigorous action, but they all have an equal vote and yet are not homophyloi, with each one devoted to his own interest.

And in 415, as the Athenians debated whether or not to embark on an expedition to Sicily with rather unclear goals, Thucydides (6.17.2–4) has Alkibiades encourage them, again by describing the weakness of their opponents. The cities of Sicily, he tells them, have “large populations comprised of motley rabbles” (ὄχλοις τε γὰρ ξυμμείκτοις πολυανδροῦσιν αἱ πόλεις); citizenship is highly unstable. As a result, they are not equipped with arms nor do they have landed property. Stasis is rife. And from such a mob, Alkibiades reassures the Athenians, unanimity and cooperative action are not to be expected. There is, in the Sicilian cities, no common interest. On this Thucydidean view, ethnic diversity – being allophyloi or xummeiktoi – correlates strongly to a failure of cooperative political behavior and to military defeat. The underlying assumption is that kinship makes political cooperation possible by creating “a basis for mutual identification that supports social cohesion and collective action.”22 The same idea is implicit in Aristotle’s remark that “stasis also arises among those who are not homophyloi, until they accomplish unity of spirit.”23 But these critical passages imply other reasons for supposing that an ethnically homogeneous state will be most successful: it leads to stability in the citizen body, and a strong sense of commitment fostered by the receipt of arms from the state and possession of landed property in its territory. Having been given a personal stake in the flourishing and independence of the community, individual and communal interests are successfully aligned. Hindsight of course presents a direct challenge to these arguments, and Thucydides certainly knew it. The mixed rabble of Sicilians inflicted on the Athenians their worst defeat in the war until that time, acting with both homonoia and common resolve, and the Peloponnesians finally defeated the Athenians and their allies despite not being homophyloi. Does this mean that ethnic arguments in favor of a politics of cooperation in the ancient Greek world were purely specious? Perhaps not, given that they seem in some cases to have contributed to cooperative outcomes, as in fifth-century Boiotia, a case Thucydides knew very well, and fourthcentury Arkadia, which of course he did not. However, I will suggest that such arguments were largely instrumental, that they could easily be dismissed by those 22 Lape 2010, 169. 23 Arist. Pol. 1303a 25–26: στασιωτικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὁμόφυλον, ἕως ἂν συμπνεύσῃ. He gives as examples of ethnic stasis colonies founded by multiple groups, who later fight, with one group expelling the other(s). The only non-colonial example is Antissa on Lesbos, which accepted a group of Chian exiles; they later fought with these Chians and expelled them. See Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 129.

18

Emily Mackil

toward whom they were directed or simply rejected if other enabling conditions were not met, and that other arguments – mutual advantage and shared mistrust among them – were at least as persuasive among the ethnos states of the Classical Greek world. II. CONSTRUCTING AND REDEFINING ETHNIC IDENTITY IN TANDEM WITH POLITICAL CHANGE In his exhortation to the Athenians Alkibiades associated ethnic diversity with political instability; the implicit contrast is with the steady course steered by an ethnically homogeneous crew at the helm of the ship of state. Resting as it does on notions of shared descent and common territory, ethnicity is, in the Greek imaginary, as stable and unchanging a social force as one could hope for. Yet the ease with which new claims about the past were made and readily accepted made ethnic identity a valuable instrument for those undergoing political change. Its capacity to create an appearance of long-standing solidarity is precisely what made it so useful in the constantly changing political landscape of the Greek world. In other words, ethnic arguments evolved in tandem with political change. The best illustration of this dynamic comes, of course, from the case of Triphylia, mentioned briefly above. But their protean ethnic identity can only be fully appreciated by considering their earlier commitments. Herodotus lists six cities in the region that was later called Triphylia – Lepreon, Makiston, Phrixa, Pyrgos, Epeion, and Noudion – and tells us that they were settled by Minyans, descendants of the crew of the Argo who had for a time resided in Sparta but were later expelled when they ‘became arrogant,’ asking for a share of the kingship and doing other things that were ‘not sacred.’24 It was at this juncture, according to Herodotus, that they went to the northwestern Peloponnese. But Herodotus (4.148.4) hastens to add what was certainly the most salient fact about these cities in his time: “Most of these in my time the Eleians have sacked.” They had, in other words, been subjugated by the Eleians who counted them among their perioikoi. Whether these communities actively nurtured a Minyan or some other group in the early Classical period is unclear. In the fifth century Pherekydes identified Phrixa as an Arkadian polis; insofar as the others are attested in Classical sources other than Herodotus, they appear as perioikic poleis of Elis.25 Strabo mentions a sanctuary of Poseidon Samios, administered by the Makistioi, where all Triphylians worshipped, and though a cult like that could serve as a center for the articulation and performance of group identity,

24 Hdt. 4.148.3–4. 25 Phrixa: Pherekydes, FGrH 3 fr. 161 (Steph.Byz. s.v. Φρίξα· πόλις· Φερεκύδης δὲ Ἀρκαδίας αὐτὴν γράφει). For these cities as perioikic poleis of Elis: Thuc. 5.31.4 and Xen. Hell. 3.2.25 with Roy 1997.

Ethnic Arguments

19

there is no certainty that Strabo’s report addresses a period before the fourth century.26 When these communities were freed from Eleian rule by the Spartans around 400 they, along with other communities in the area not listed by Herodotus, protected themselves by creating a regional state with a name that was patently new: the Triphylioi.27 Initially loyal to their Spartan benefactors, the Triphylians seem to have advertised their ethnic hybridity to create a new identity that would embrace all members of the new state.28 It is intriguing that the only public documents we have from this Triphylian state (SEG 35.389, 40.392) are records of the bestowal of citizenship on outsiders, and it is tempting to infer that they integrated foreigners in a way that was rather atypical for the early fourth century. The fact that these two inscriptions also reflect significant dialectal variations attests to the construction of this new state from a group of people who were clearly, to borrow a phrase from Thucydides, not homophyloi.29 The appearance of the eponymous ancestor Triphylos on the Delphic monument is the only evidence we have for an expression of this identity in ancestral terms, but as we have already seen, that appearance was embedded in an attempt to integrate the Triphylians into the new Arkadian koinon. As Thomas Nielsen has shown so clearly, the Triphylian identity did not disappear, persisting at least into the second century, but was expertly grafted onto the Arkadian one.30 The apparently sudden articulation of a group identity in the early fourth century reflects an attempt by the Triphylians not so much to find a place of belonging as to become part of a state that would protect them from Eleian encroachments, for we know that immediately after Leuktra, the Eleians refused to sign a renewal of the common peace because they would not recognize the autonomy of Marganeis, Skillous, or the Triphylians.31 The Triphylians, then, illustrate the way in which ethnic identity could be crafted and changed in very short periods of time. What I wish to empha26 Str. 8.3.13. Ruggeri 2004, 96–102 (see also Ruggeri 2001, 173–175; Ruggeri 2009, 54f) and Tausend 1992, 19–21 believe this amphiktyony of Poseidon Samikos, attested only by Strabo, was Archaic. It is thought that Strabo is relying here on Artemidorus of Ephesos (late second/early first century BCE), but his source is unclear. Nielsen 1997, 147 n.115 exercises prudent caution: ‘It seems … safe to assume that the cult must have existed in the Classical period, if it was administered by Makiston, a city which presumably did not survive into the Hellenistic period. But it may … have existed earlier as well.’ 27 Xen. Hell. 3.2.30–31 for the negotiations between Sparta and Elis that leave the cities in the region autonomous. 28 Initial loyalty to Spartans: Xen. Hell. 4.2.16, contributing troops to the Spartan side at Nemea in 394. 29 Ruggeri 2000, 120 n. 22; Ruggeri 2004, 134–137. SEG 35.389 was found in the temple of Athena at Mazi; SEG 40.392 may be from Krestena (Hallof 1990, on the basis of letters in the IG archive from Hans von Prott, who saw the piece in 1897 and 1898 in the hands of a ‘sehr verdächtig’ Athenian art dealer), a mere 6 km west of Mazi. Both date to the period c. 400– 369. 30 Polyb. 4.77.8 knows the Triphylioi as descendants of Triphylos, one of the sons of Arkas. In 219 they were again subordinated to Elis, which at the time was an ally of the Aitolian koinon (Polyb. 4.77.10). 31 Xen. Hell. 6.5.2–3.

20

Emily Mackil

size is the fact that in each stage of this development we see the change being effected in the service of political and strategic concerns. The perioikic communities of Elis were aware of the ethnic idiom in which regional states were speaking, and readily adopted it for their own in order to secure protection from their erstwhile overlords. The Eleians were, of course, not oblivious to any of this, and they provide us with a second illustration of the advancement of ethnic claims in shifting political circumstances. In the early fourth century the Eleians and Aitolians seem to have been vigorously re-activating and elaborating upon a claim of kinship that certainly goes back to the first quarter of the fifth century, if not earlier. Scholars of both Elis and Aitolia have written about this interesting dynamic, but they have tended to focus on one side or the other in the kinship claim, whereas both sides seem to have been actively interested in promulgating the relationship. This means that in order to understand what was happening we need to take a broader perspective. In Olympian 3, composed in 476 for Theron of Akragas, Pindar, in a characteristically elusive fashion, describes one of the Hellanodikai, the Eleian judges of the Olympic Games, as an Αἰτωλὸς ἀνήρ (Ol. 3.12). And a bit later, Herodotus (8.73.2– 3) says that Elis is the only city in the Peloponnese that is part of the Aitolian ethnos. But explicating these hints would be virtually impossible if we did not have fragments of several fourth-century historians who dilate on the theme of kinship between Aitolians and Eleians. And that pattern may be significant: the sudden interest in the theme in the early fourth century suggests that it received elaboration because it was suddenly powerful – not just to Eleians but also to Aitolians. Ephoros, writing in the mid-fourth century, describes what must be regarded as a pair of statues, one at the sanctuary of Apollo at Thermon and one in the agora of Elis. Both sat on bases inscribed with dedicatory epigrams, which Ephoros appears to quote verbatim. παρατίθησι δὲ τούτων μαρτύρια τὰ ἐπιγράμματα, τὸ μὲν ἐν Θέρμοις τῆς Αἰτωλίας, ὅπου τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας ποιεῖσθαι πάτριον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ἐγκεχαραγμένον τῆι βάσει τῆς Αἰτωλοῦ εἰκόνος· Χώρης οἰκιστῆρα, παρ᾽ ᾽Αλφειοῦ ποτε δίναις θρεφθέντα, σταδίων γείτον᾽ ᾽Ολυμπιάδος, ᾽Ενδυμίωνος παῖδ᾽ Αἰτωλοὶ τόνδ᾽ ἀνέθηκαν Αἰτωλόν, σφετέρας μνῆμ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἐσορᾶν. τὸ δ᾽ ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι τῶν ᾽Ηλείων ἐπὶ τῶι ᾽Οξύλου ἀνδριάντι· Αἰτωλός ποτε τόνδε λιπὼν αὐτόχθονα δῆμον κτήσατο Κουρῆτιν γῆν, δορὶ πολλὰ καμών· τῆς δ᾽ αὐτῆς γενεᾶς δεκατόσπορος Αἵμονος υἱὸς ᾽Οξύλος ἀρχαίην ἔκτισε τήνδε πόλιν. As evidence for this he (i.e. Ephoros) quotes inscriptions, one of which is at Thermon in Aitolia, where the Aitolians by custom conduct the elections of their officials. The inscription is engraved on the base of the statue of Aitolos: ‘The Aitolians dedicated this statue of Aitolos, son of Endymion, the founder of this land, who as a neighbour of Olympia’s track once grew up beside Alpheios’ eddies, as a monument of their valour for all to see.’ But the other inscription stands on the statue of Oxylos in the marketplace of Elis: ‘Aitolos once left this autochthonous people and in war with many hardships won the land of Kouretis. Oxylos, the son of Haimon, the tenth seed of the same lineage, founded this ancient city. 32

32 Ephoros BNJ 70 F 122a 1–2 (trans. V. Parker).

Ethnic Arguments

21

The two statues and their epigrams together attest a vigorous assertion by both Aitolians and Eleans of their kinship with one another: the Aitolian epigram focuses on the founding hero represented by the statue, proudly asserting his Eleian origin, while the Eleian statue nods at the same tradition but describes the Eleians as autochthonous and adds the local detail that Elis was founded by Oxylos, a tenthgeneration descendant of Aitolos. This is our only evidence for an Eleian claim to autochthony.33 The Eleians must have been engaging in an act of intentional history with the aim of providing a basis for their claim to their territory. And as Gehrke has noted, the Greeks’ intentional histories were most successful when they reached “as far back into the past as possible.”34 On this logic, the claim of autochthony trumps all other claims intended to demonstrate the right to a territory. The consensus view now seems to hold that these statues with their epigrams must have been dedicated in the early fourth century: the Eleians had suffered significant territorial losses with the liberation of their perioikoi — including the Triphylians — in the war with Sparta around 400, and a robust assertion of the right to control that territory makes sense in the aftermath of that conflict.35 It also makes sense from the Aitolian perspective, but this has not been much discussed. When the Eleians were being attacked by the Spartans in 400, they received help from the Aitolians, “their allies, who sent a force of 1,000 picked men” deployed to guard an area of the city.36 Shortly before 389, the Aitolians had lost control of their ancient polis Kalydon when it was taken by the Achaians, who had also by this time gained control of Lokrian Naupaktos, long a Messenian-Athenian stronghold. The Aitolians and Eleians, both suffering significant territorial losses and being faced with the rising efficacy of regional states on their borders, fell into one another’s arms, distant relatives who needed now to become reacquainted. It seems to me that it is possible to understand the pair of statues described by Ephoros — and we must see them as a deliberate pair — only as an act of reacquaintance. In this act of reacquaintance, the bond appears to have been strengthened not by simply repeating old stories but by improving on them. Here Strabo’s coda to Ephoros’ description of the statues is quite interesting: τὴν μὲν οὖν συγγένειαν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῶν τε ᾽Ηλείων καὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ὀρθῶς ἐπισημαίνεται διὰ τῶν ἐπιγραμμάτων, ἐξομολογουμένων ἀμφοῖν οὐ τὴν συγγένειαν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἀρχηγέτας ἀλλήλων εἶναι· δι᾽ οὗ καλῶς ἐξελέγχει ψευδομένους τοὺς φάσκοντας τῶν μὲν Αἰτωλῶν ἀποίκους εἶναι τοὺς ᾽Ηλείους, μὴ μέντοι τῶν ᾽Ηλείων τοῦς Αἰτωλούς. With these inscriptions Ephoros rightly attests the Eleians’ and the Aitolians’ kinship with each other since both inscriptions agree not only in the matter of kinship, but also in regard to each people’s being the other’s founders. In this way he skilfully refutes as liars those who say that the Eleians are colonists [apoikoi] of the Aitolians, but that the Aitolians are not colonists of the Eleians.

33 34 35 36

Roy 2014, 248f. Gehrke 2001, 304. Antonetti 1990, 60; Sordi 1994; Roy 2014, 249. Diod. Sic. 14.79.9–10.

22

Emily Mackil

The liars to whom Ephoros and Strabo allude here must be those, like Herodotus, who ascribed to the view that the Aitolians had settled Elis and believed that was the end of the matter.37 We can, I think, glimpse here a vigorous ethnic argument, a claim that the Aitolians and Eleians were not related to one another merely as metropolis to apoikia, as was claimed in the fifth century, but were more closely bound together by both kinship and reciprocal settlement. This elaboration of the Eleian-Aitolian tie is perhaps in part a response to the deterioration of the simple tie between metropolis and apoikia that was so fully exposed at the start of the Peloponnesian War; in the early fourth century, that bond was no longer particularly robust. There are several other hints that this ethnic argument was being made in precisely the first half of the fourth century. Ephoros, once again, in a long fragment devoted to the history of Elis, recounts the reciprocal settlement of Aitolia by the Eleian Aitolos and of Elis by his Aitolian descendant Oxylos, and then adds that when Oxylos and his men achieved their victory, “they also took over the management of the sanctuary at Olympia, which the Achaians had been governing.”38 A strange claim from a purely Eleian perspective, it perfectly integrates the concerns of their Aitolian kin in the early fourth century and draws the battle lines clearly, asserting the ancient pre-eminence of the Aitolians and Eleians while diminishing any Achaian claims or presumptions to Peloponnesian leadership.39 The vigor of this new argument in the first half of the fourth century, and Aitolian interest in it, is further attested by its appearance in a fragment of the fourth-century historian Daimachos of Plataia.40 The other reason to date this development to the early fourth century is a purely negative one, which could of course be chalked up to the choices made by our extant sources. But for what it is worth, Thucydides twice describes major Athenian attacks on Aitolian territory — once in 456 and again in 426 — and though he goes into great detail about the latter invasion, on neither occasion do we hear about Aitolian appeals to Eleian kin. Indeed, at this time it is likely that the Aitolians, or at least some group of Aitolians, had made an alliance with the Spartans.41 In short, in the early fourth century, surrounded by neighbors 37 Parmeggiani 2011, 651f. 38 Ephoros BNJ 70 F 115 (trans. V. Parker). 39 The only surviving trace of an Achaian provocation to which the Eleans could have been responding is the early fifth-century dedication by the Achaiaoi of a statue group depicting Nestor and the Homeric Achaian heroes drawing lots for a duel with Hektor (Paus. 5.25.6–8). The bases survive in situ: Eckstein 1969, 27–32; Dörig 1977, 20f. There is otherwise no surviving evidence for Achaian claims to Olympia or to Peloponnesian leadership, but there is much that we do not know. 40 Daimachos BNJ 65 F 1 reports that Aitolos, son of Endymion, the Elean, fled across the gulf after having committed involuntary manslaughter, became eponymous ancestor of Aitolia, and had three sons, after whom cities in Aitolia were named: Pleuron, Koures, and Kalydon. Jacoby (FGrH 65 F 1) associated Daimachos of Plataia with the period of the Theban hegemony; he is largely followed by Zecchini 1997, 193 and, cautiously, by Engels in BNJ. 41 Invasion of 456: Thuc. 1.108.5 and SEG 32.550; invasion of 426: 3.94.1–98.5. Spartan alliance depends on the date of the inscribed treaty SEG 51.449 with Mackil 2013, 483–488. These invasions are discussed by Mackil 2013, 52–57.

Ethnic Arguments

23

whose regional states were growing in power at their expense, the Eleians and Aitolians invigorated an old tradition of kinship, elaborated upon it, and promulgated their new, intertwined ethnic identity in their respective political centers. As with the Triphylians, so too with the Eleians and Aitolians: ethnic identity was very much in the service of political need. III. DIVISIONS AMONG HOMOPHYLOI But when ethnic arguments had to be made, if their claims were not self-evident, they cannot have been seen as either inevitable or binding. However much Perikles and Alkibiades wanted to claim that ethnic diversity severely inhibited collective action, the Greeks — and Thucydides himself — knew that ethnic unity was no guarantor of political cooperation. Let me be clear: I do not wish to assert that the Greeks themselves dismissed such claims out of hand as ‘fictions’ or ‘forgeries,’ but rather that the narratives of these intentional histories, precisely because they were so deeply embedded in presentist concerns, were subject to intense debate. We have already seen that the Plataians twice rejected the Thebans’ ethnic argument for participation in the Boiotian koinon, and though our sources never make explicit the reasons they gave for their refusal to participate, it is fairly clear that in practice they hated the Thebans and feared being subordinated to them.42 The Thebans appear to have been drawing on a widespread view that Plataia was a Boiotian community; so at least it appears in the Homeric catalogue of ships.43 At some point — and one would dearly love to know when — they rejected this view and the Thebans’ ethnic argument for political cooperation with a countervailing claim: according to Pausanias (9.1.1–3), who is certainly reporting a local claim, the Plataians were autochthonous and were named after Plataia herself, who was either a nymph, the daughter of the River Asopos that roughly delimited the border between Theban and Plataian territory, or the daughter of a King Asopos after whom the river was named.44 By the third century, when the Plataians had actually become members of the Boiotian koinon, they had forged a hybrid identity that was a product of historical experience rather than mythologizing: Herakleides Kritikos, writing in the second quarter of the third century, reports that “the citizens themselves say that they are colonists (apoikoi) of the Athenians, and that they are ‘Athenian Boiotians.’”45 The claim of autochthony was cast in the teeth of the Thebans and other Boiotians, who at least by the fifth century claimed to have migrated into their territory from Thessalian Arne. With the assertion that they were apoikoi of the 42 Oddly, the Plataian speech focuses on the Plataians’ own services to the Hellenes (Persian Wars) and to the Spartans (sending citizens to assist at Ithome); reminding the Spartans that it was they who advised the Plataians to make an alliance with Athens; and reminding the Spartans of Theban medism. They call the Thebans ἐχθιστοί (Thuc. 3.59.2). 43 Hom. Il. 2.494–510 (Boiotian contingent) at 504 (Plataia). 44 Paus. 9.1.3. Prandi 1988, 16 mentions the passage but makes nothing of it. 45 Evidence for membership in the koinon in the third century: IG VII.2723 inter alia. Herakleides Kritikos BNJ 369A F 1.11. For the date see Arenz 2006.

24

Emily Mackil

Athenians, the Plataians implicitly rejected the claim that ethnic identity is inherited, not made, and that it should control one’s political destiny. The Plataians argued instead that they had crafted their own identity by a series of active political choices. This is, perhaps, what gave them the ideological room to become full members of the koinon in the Hellenistic period despite a long history of opposition to it. They participated by choice, in response to the radically changed political circumstances of Boiotia in the Hellenistic period, rather than by succumbing to some purported ethnic destiny. Achaia affords us another set of illustrations of the limited power of ethnic arguments for political cooperation. Despite an Achaian identity that may, in the view of Catherine Morgan and Jonathan Hall, go back to the Iron Age, and the gradual establishment of a territory that was perhaps complete by the fifth century, the emergence of a regional state occurred only in the early fourth century, and even as that state emerged it failed to capture the participation of all ethnically Achaian poleis. Two detailed accounts of the Boiotian invasions of the Peloponnese in 370 and 369, from Xenophon and Diodorus, make it clear that Pellene, the easternmost of the Achaian poleis, was allied with Sparta and had not joined the Achaian koinon.46 In 367, we learn that the Achaian polis Dyme was held by an Achaian garrison, and that it was ‘liberated’ by the Boiotians after they failed to secure a lasting alliance with the Achaian koinon in that year.47 Dyme was, of course, the westernmost of the Achaian poleis and the garrison may have been stationed there not so much to hold the polis down as to protect the border with Elis; the other possibility, recently suggested by Klaus Freitag, is that Dyme was fortified only in anticipation of the Boiotian attack and that the language of liberation is a product of Theban propaganda.48 But the other way to read this incident is to infer that Dyme was resisting the political integration of Achaia. We know that in these years there was stasis that affected not just one polis but the entire region, and in that context it is reasonable to suppose that Dyme had been garrisoned for resistance.49 We do not know whether the Pelleneans or the Dymaians had articulated their separatist positions in ethnic terms, but it is clear that they did not view their shared Achaian identity as a powerful inducement to participate in an Achaian politics of cooperation. But we may be justified in concluding that not even the Achaians who were most eagerly promoting the political integration of the region in these years thought about it in ethnic terms, for the first incontrovertible evidence we have for the existence of an Achaian koinon is its annexation of two decidedly non-Achaian poleis — Lokrian Naupaktos and Aitolian Kalydon — and its bestowal of Achaian citizenship on their inhabitants sometime before 389. I leave aside as self-evident the rapid growth of the Achaian koinon in the Hellenistic period beyond its ethnic borders, while readily acknowledging that the Hellenistic state, at least on Polybios’ telling, did emerge within the boundaries of the ethnos. The same is true, of course, 46 47 48 49

Xen. Hell. 7.1.15–18; Diod. Sic. 15.68.2. Diod. Sic. 15.75.2 with Mackil 2013, 75. Freitag 2009, 105. Xen. Hell. 7.1.42.

Ethnic Arguments

25

of the Aitolian and to a more limited extent the Boiotian koina in the Hellenistic period.50 The limited power of ethnicity to induce cooperative political behavior is further illustrated by cases of stasis within a regional state defined nominally by its ethnic homogeneity. The example of Classical Boiotia is instructive. Stasis in Plataia between democrats who favored independence and an ongoing allegiance to Athens on the one hand, and oligarchs who sought to integrate (or reintegrate) Plataia into the Theban-led koinon on the other, was what led to the Theban attack on the city in 432, mentioned above.51 In 414 stasis in Thespiai erupted between oligarchs and democrats; the putsch was quickly suppressed by the Thebans and the surviving democrats took refuge in Athens.52 In both cases there was a clear concern among Thebans that a regime change within a member polis could lead to either integration in or secession from the koinon. In 395 Thebes itself was beset by stasis between pro-Spartan and pro-Athenian parties; the Oxyrhynchos Historian tells us that because both groups (hetaireiai) were influential, “many came forward from the cities in Boiotia and joined one or other of the factions.”53 A stasis that originated in one polis soon enveloped the whole region. Sometime before 378 similar tensions erupted again at Thespiai, which played into the Spartan presence in the region and led within seven years to the destruction of the city by their Boiotian kin, the Thebans.54 The alacrity with which Thespians, Plataians, and Orchomenians joined the Makedonians in attacking and destroying Thebes in 335 is perhaps the clearest illustration one could want of deep hostility between members of the same ethnos.55 IV. COOPERATIVE POLITICS BEYOND ETHNICITY So if ethnic identity was offered as an argument for a politics of cooperation, but articulations of identities could shift rapidly in response to strategic and political needs and opportunities, and the ethnic argument could be, and often was, simply rejected out of hand, where do we stand? Ethnic identity appears to have been only one weapon in a much larger arsenal built up by those advocating the formation of 50 Oropos, on the Attic-Boiotian border, shows no evidence of Boiotian ethnicity but was integrated into the koinon as early as 402 (Diod. Sic. 14.17.1–3) and again in the Hellenistic period (IG VII.3207). Non-Boiotian poleis that became members of the Boiotian koinon in the Hellenistic period: Megara (Polyb. 20.6.8); Opous (Petrakos 1997, no. 21 l. 1–2); Chalkis (IG VII.2724b). 51 Thuc. 2.2.2; 3.65.2–3. 52 Thuc. 6.95.2; Gehrke 1985, 172. 53 Hell. Oxy. XVII.2. 54 In 378 the democratic faction from Thespiai was living in exile in Thebes (Xen. Hell. 5.4.46), while a dynasteia was in control in Thespiai, supported by a Spartan garrison. By 372 the Thebans had forced Thespiai to rejoin the koinon (Isocr. 14.9), but before autumn 371 the city was sacked and depopulated by the Thebans (Diod. Sic. 15.46.6; Isoc. 6.27; Dem. 16.4.25, 28). 55 Arr. Anab. 1.8.8 with Hurst 1989; Diod. Sic. 17.13.5; Justin 11.3.8.

26

Emily Mackil

regional states in the Greek world. Others included long histories of participation in common cults (experienced by virtually every ethnos state), the promise of greater access to economic resources (which seems to have been made explicitly by the Chalkidians), of equitable access to and protection under law (a major emphasis in Lokrian inscriptions of the Classical period), of equitable political representation and the mutual enforcement of contractual obligations (made emphatically in the Hellenistic and Achaian Boiotian states), as well as shared mistrust of hostile neighbors (notable in the cases of Phokis, Boiotia, Arkadia, and Aitolia in the Classical period).56 These are arguments I have made at length elsewhere, and I cannot repeat them here. But it seems to me that we will have the best chance of grasping the full complexity of ethnos states if we can integrate the arguments we detect in the ancient sources about the relevance of ethnic identity to political participation with a study of the many other considerations weighed by communities who contemplated membership. This will require that we study the presence and the absence of ethnic identity in the institutions of these states, its relevance and its irrelevance to internal organization and external relations, its stability and its dynamism in the intentional histories of ethnos states. BIBLIOGRAPHY Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens: Image et religion, Paris. Arenz, A. (2006) Herakleides Kritikos ‘Über die Städte in Hellas.’ Eine Periegese Griechenlands am Vorabend des Chremonideischen Krieges, Munich. Beck, H. (2000) Thebes, the Boeotian League and the ‘Rise of Federalism’ in Fourth Century Greece, in P.A. Bernardini (ed.), Presenza e funzione della città di Tebe nella cultura greca: Atti del convegno internazionale, Urbino 7–9 iuglio 1997, Pisa/Rome, 331–344. Beck, H. (2003) New Approaches to Federalism in Ancient Greece: Perceptions and Perspectives, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History 2. Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethnē in Ancient Greece, Athens, 177–190. Beck, H. and P. Funke (2015) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29. Dörig, J. (1977) Onatas of Aegina, Leiden. Eckstein, F. (1969) ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ. Studien zu den Weihgeschenken strengen Stils im Heiligtum von Olympia, Berlin. Freitag, K. (2009) Achaea and the Peloponnese in the Late Fifth–Early Fourth Centuries, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Cambridge, 15–29. Funke, P. and M. Haake (eds.) (2013) Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart. Gehrke, H.-J. (1985) Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Vestigia, 35), Munich. Gehrke, H.-J. (2001) Myth, History and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, 286–313.

56 Common cults: Mackil 2013, 147–236 (focusing on the work of ritual) and the papers in Funke 2013 (focusing on sanctuaries and their uses). Economic resources: Mackil 2013, 237–325. Law and the enforcement of contractual obligations within the state: Mackil 2013, 347–370, 390–397.

Ethnic Arguments

27

Gehrke, H.-J. (2003) Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man intentionale Geschichte? Marathon und Troja als fundierende Mythen, in G. Melvile and K.–S. Rehberg (eds.), Gründungsmythen, Genealogien, Memorialzeichen: Beiträge zur institutionellen Konstruktion von Kontinuität, Cologne, 21–36. Gehrke, H.-J. (2005) Die Bedeutung der (antiken) Historiographie für die Entwicklung des Geschichtsbewußtseins, in E.-M. Becker (ed.), Die antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung, Berlin/New York, 29–51. Gehrke, H.-J. (2010) Representations of the Past in Greek Culture, in L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart, 15–34. Giangiulio, M. (2010) Collective Identities, Imagined Past, and Delphi, in L. Foxhall, H.–J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart, 121– 136. Gschnitzer, F. (1955) Stammes und Ortsgemeinden im alten Griechenland, Wiener Studien 68, 120– 144. Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48. Hallof, K. (1990) Zur Herkunft des Bronze-Diskos mit dem Beschluß der Triphylier, Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 36, 43–44. Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen (eds.) (2004) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford. Hornblower, S. (1991) A Commentary on Thucydides, Oxford. How, W.W. and J. Wells (1912) A Commentary on Herodotus, Oxford. Hurst, A. (1989) La prise de Thèbes par Alexandre selon Arrien, in H. Beister and J. Buckler (eds.), Boiotika. Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien–Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer, Munich, 183–192. Lape, S. (2010) Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy, Cambridge. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Larson, S.L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods. Historia Einzelschriften 197, Stuttgart. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. (2014) Ethnos and Koinon, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 270–284. McInerney, J. (1999) The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis, Austin. Nielsen, T.H. (1997) Triphylia: An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Political Organisation, in T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 129–162. Nielsen, T.H. (2000) The Concept of Arkadia – the People, Their Land, and Their Organisation, in T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia, Copenhagen, 16–79. Nielsen, T.H. (2002) Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Göttingen. Parmeggiani, G. (2011) Eforo di Cuma: studi di storiografia greca, Bologna. Petrakos, V.H. (1997) Οἱ ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ, Athens. Prandi, L. (1988) Platea: Momenti e problemi della storia di una polis, Padua. Rhodes, P. and R. Osborne (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323BC, Oxford. Roy, J. (1971) Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian Affairs, 370–362BC, Historia 20, 569–599. Roy, J. (1997) The Perioikoi of Elis, in M.H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City– State, Copenhagen, 282–320. Roy, J. (2000) Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370–362 BC, in R. Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 308–326. Roy, J. (2014) Autochthony in Ancient Greece, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Malden, Ma./Oxford, 241–255.

28

Emily Mackil

Ruggeri, C. (2000) Note sulle divergenze nel dialetto e nella forma delle lettere tra le iscrizioni del centro-Sud della Trifilia e quelle dell’Elide, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133, 117–121. Ruggeri, C. (2001) L’état fédéral de la Triphylie: remarques sur l’histoire politique et constitutionelle, in Πρακτικά του ς´Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Τρίπολις 24–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000 2, 165–176. Ruggeri, C. (2004) Gli stati intorno a Olimpia: Storia e costituzione dell’Elide e degli stati formati dai perieci elei, Stuttgart. Ruggeri, C. (2009) Triphylia from Elis to Arcadia, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, 49–64. Scott, L. (2005) Historical Commentary on Herodotus Book 6, Leiden. Scott, M.C. (2008) Constructing Identities in Sacred Inter-State Space: The Case of the Arcadian Monument at Delphi, in O. Menozzi, M. Di Marzio, and D. Fossataro (eds.), SOMA 2005: Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Oxford, 431–438. Sordi, M. (1994) Strabone, Pausania, e la viende di Oxilo, in A.M. Biraschi (ed.), Strabone e la Grecia, Naples, 137–144. Tausend, K. (1992) Amphiktyonie und Symmachie. Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland, Historia Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart. Waanders, F.M.J. (1983) The History of ΤΕΛΟΣ and ΤΕΛΕΩ in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam. West, M.L. (1985) The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Its Nature, Structure, and Origins, Oxford. Zecchini, G. (1997) Rassegna di storiografia beotica, in J. Bintliff (ed.), Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece. Proceedings of the 6th International Boeotian Conference, Oxford, 189–200.

LOKRIAN FEDERAL AND LOCAL PROXENIES IN INTERSTATE RELATIONS: A CASE STUDY Giovanna Daverio Rocchi Università degli Studi di Milano I. PROXENY AS A TOOL OF INTERMEDIATION Proxeny is one of the most copiously documented institutions of ancient Greece, primarily by a vast body of inscriptions. The institution was systematically employed throughout the entire Greek world over a vast period of time spanning from the seventh century BCE to the second century CE. Such broad chronological and geographical diffusion, along with remarkable consistency in formulae and procedures, leads us to recognize the expression of a common political culture in this institution. To a certain extent, in modern state systems a shared political culture is considered as a prerequisite for the establishment of international relations, and we can consider proxeny as the ancient equivalent of this commonly-accepted contemporary political grammar. In the ancient Greek world guest friendship was a fil rouge linking the patchwork of large and small states, which themselves were variably organized in terms of equality, integration, or dependency, with all of this at different levels of scale. Proxeny provided a tool of mediation for managing relations with outsiders in the context of official relationships; it differs from other forms of interstate relations in that it is the product of both personal and official interactions, providing the framework for a triangular system that included three principal players: the bestowing state, the individual being bestowed with this status, and his home city. II. MULTIPLE PROXENIES In some federal states, one particular form of proxeny is attested which I would define as “multiple” in the sense that both the koinon and poleis possessed the authority of conferring it. In other words, proxeny was the outcome of a triangulation in which one of the parties involved was a variable subject. Current debate – as P. Funke and H. Beck have recently illustrated1 – has come to the conclusion that the koinon was a dynamic and flexible system. Its success over time emerged from its ability to negotiate a complex set of interactions, by virtue of an expanded concept of inside that was shared by multiple constituents. Therefore, this extended inside

1

Beck and Funke 2015, 1–29.

30

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

reconfigures the affairs of multiple constituent insides with the outside. The existence of an intermediary (i.e. the koinon) created a greater divide between the domestic and foreign domains. But to these dynamics I would also add the observation that a single member polis was able to define its own external relations to a certain degree through institution of proxeny. Accordingly, when we examine proxenies in the context of the interstate relations of a federal state, the fundamental issue at stake becomes the mediating role that proxeny played in the two domains of the koinon and the polis. In this paper, I aim to consider if proxeny should be taken as evidence for a loose central power, or if it was rather the outcome of complementary initiatives which were the product of an equitable distribution of power throughout the federal state in the interests of consensus and co-operation. Did proxeny indicate a weak federal power, or was it a common tool used by many member states? Moreover, a preliminary enquiry into the topic should consider the meaning of ethnic belonging and civic identity in the context of these links. In other words, we should consider several factors ranging from a group’s awareness of (real or fictive) common ancestry, of shared history, and of cultic heritage, to its association with a specific territory, and in the process seek to understand the extent to which these features could orient the construction of a guest-friendship network, as manifested by multiple proxenies. III. A CASE STUDY: THE LOKRIAN PROXENIES The geographic and diachronic changes through which the history of each koinon developed necessarily influence the character of their resultant institutions, giving them meanings and functions that must be understood within specific historical environments and in relation to certain circumstances and situations. The case study I propose here focuses on Lokrian proxenoi, i.e. the proxenoi nominated by Lokrian political institutions. Some preliminary clarifications are in order. An examination of this case study must consider the two levels of civic belonging within which the proxenoi were engaged, shifting between the member-states and the koinon. Moreover, we must deal with the separation of the region and its groups into two, and in certain periods, three, distinct Lokrian federal states. I will take into account the evidence both from Eastern Lokris (in its various qualifications of Opuntian, Hypoknemidian, and Epiknemidian) and Western Lokris (Ozolian). I am driven to outline such a broad geopolitical framework by virtue of a set of common features that I have discussed at length in other works,2 and I will examine how our understanding of proxeny feeds back into our understanding of this substantial and complex case study.

2

Daverio Rocchi 2013, 139–161; 2015, 179–198.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

31

IV. THE EVIDENCE Lokrian awards of proxeny are epigraphically attested by eleven decrees from Eastern Lokris – specifically from Opus, Thronion and Skarphea – and six decrees from Western Lokris – from Physkos, Chaleion, Amphissa. This evidence is not as substantial as one would hope, but it is nevertheless adequate in providing an outline of proxeny grants issued by the Lokrian leagues from the second quarter of the third to the end of the second centuries BCE.3 V. LOKRIAN DISTINCTIVENESS The formulae employed in the grants are generally consistent with the standard repertoire for proxenia elsewhere, yet they also bear some distinctive features with regards to both form and content. It is precisely these particularities that I wish to highlight in this paper. Formal aspects First we must examine the formal aspects of these decrees. Lokrian proxenies use a repertoire of formulae that is common throughout cities and leagues of Central Greece, but unknown in other regions of Hellas.4 The granting authorities are both the koinon and the polis.5 The definition of the federal authority differs between the Eastern and the Western koinon. In the Eastern decrees it is referred to as “the Opuntians and the Lokrians with the Opuntians” and in the Western decrees as simply the “koinon”. This different formulation seems to reflect the separation between two distinct state-systems in the east and the west, each with its own institutions and relative nomenclature. Among the cities mentioned in the documents of the Eastern koinon are Thronion and Skarphea, yet none of the attestations of proxenia make any reference to the koinon of the Lokroi Epiknemidioi, established for a certain period, in spite of the fact that these two cities were its centres of gravity. 6 Despite their variety in identifying the federal authority, the modes and vocabulary of the awards show substantial similarities among the Western and Eastern koina, and there are no formal differences between local and federal grants. Modes of bestowing this status and its relevant procedures in Eastern Lokrian proxeny decrees are governed by the nomos7 of proxenia. According to the formulae of the documents, the grant is bestowed kata ton nomon (according to the law), 3

4 5 6 7

Eastern Lokris: IG IX.12 5 1908, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 (Opus); 2932 (Thronion), 2038 (Skarphea). Western Lokris: IG IX.12 3 667, 668 (Physkos); 721, 740 (Chaleion) 750 (Amphissa). See Monceaux 1886, 35; Gschnitzer 1973, 710–721; Marek 1984, 142–149. T 1–7. See Daverio Rocchi 2015, 179–198. Nomos: T1. See IG IX 12 5 1909, 1912 (Eastern Lokris). In Chaleion (Western Lokris, T5), the proxenia is deliberated in the ennomoi ekklesiai. We do not know whether this is the regular assembly of the polis, or it was an assembly specially convened by the proxeny law. Lokrian eunomia

32

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

though the specific content of this law is never clarified. The grant is officially formalized by appointing engyoi, i.e. guarantors of the proxeny.8 Both the nomos proxenikos and the role of the guarantors are features of the regional specificities I have mentioned above.9 Contents: accessory awards Among these regional features are also accessory measures, providing for the granting of citizenship and pasture rights.10 VI. POLITEIA AND ISOPOLITEIA Granting of (iso-)politeia is attested in decrees of both the Eastern and Western leagues, thus both the koinon and individual city-states awarded (iso-)politeia. In the cases attested in Eastern Lokris, the federal authority granting politeia is always expressed with the formula hoi Opountioi kai hoi Lokroi meta Opountion, which seems to be an alternative formulation for referring to the federal Opuntian system.11 The only evidence of a proxeny granted by a polis, is a decree by the polis of Opus (l. 2 [Ὀ]πούντιοι ἔδωκαν) but this does not include the associated award of politeia.12 The Skarpheians (l. 1 Σκ[αρφεῖς…]) granted isopolitieia to a citizen of Phtiotic Thebes.13

8 9

10 11 12 13

was celebrated, and the Greeks acknowledged its antiquity and value. See Pind. Ol. 9.16. Strabo 9.4.2 thought of the polis of Opus as μητρόπολις Λοκρῶν εὐθυνόμων Ael. VH 2.22: the Lokrians are included in a list of peoples who have good laws, together with Mantineans, Cretans, Spartans, and Athenians. See IG IX.12 5 1911, c. 230 BC.. l. 8: this epigram attributed to Poseidippos praises the θέσμια εὐνομίας, confirming that eunomia was rooted also in the public opinion. The letter sent to citizens of Naryka (a. 138) by the emperor Hadrian, confirming their status of polis, included among the merits of the Narykians the fact that they had preserved the nomoi of Opuntians. For the proxenikoi nomoi see Gschnitzer 1973, 705–707; Marek 1984, 142–149. For Aetolian proxenoi see Funke 2015, 86–117. T 1. Cf. IG IX.12 5 1912, 1913, 1914, 1917 (Eastern Lokris). T 4. Cf. IG IX 12 3, 668. Gschnitzer 1973, 705–707; Marek 1984, 142–149. For the Aitolian koinon see Funke 2015, 86– 117. There are no attestations in the region of Lokris of proxenies honoring Lokrian citizens, unlike in the Aitolian League, where both the League and the single member-states could grant proxeny to Aitolian citizens. The only case could be the one of the agreement between Chaleion and Oiantheia, two centuries earlier, by which the two cities nominated reciprocal proxenoi. See E&R I no. 53 and Daverio Rocchi 2015, 183, 193–198 with bibliography. Relative to the proxenies within the Aitolian League, evidence is found in the Kallipolis inscriptions edited by D. Rousset 2006, 381– 433. Until this date proxenies conferred to members of the Aitolian League were unknown. Gschnitzer 1973, 705–707; Marek 1984, 142–149. However, the word koinon appears in contemporary documents. See IG IX 12 5, 1920, l. 4: treaty between Eastern Lokrians and Thessalians. IG IX 12 5, 1908. T 3.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

33

In Hesperian Lokris, politeia is granted by the koinon ton Lokron, and also by the polis (?) of Physkos;14 at Chaleion the polis in the ennomos ekklēsia deliberates granting isopoliteia to Kleogenes of Aigion, and again the polis tout court grants the privilege to the brother of the Smyrnean poetess Aristodama;15 at Amphissa the damos deliberates awarding isopoliteia to Makedonian Menophantos, the physician (iatros) of Hyrcanis, adding the decision to send copies of the act granting the proxeny to the polis of the Skarpheians and of the Opuntians.16 The general picture we may gather from this evidence is of an inclusive use of politeia towards the proxenoi. The propensity for granting citizenship to the proxenos, among most of the states of Central Greece, led Monceaux and Marek to speak of a geographically circumscribed, regional phenomenon, which is “incomprehensible” in Marek’s view.17 The complete list reconstructed by Marek counts 23 localities (we may here recall the koinon of the Aitolians, the Thessalians, the koinon of the Ainianes, the koinon of the Dorians, and among the poleis Lamia, Hypata, Halos, Phtiotic Thebes, Ambryssos).18 Scholarship on guest-friendship has pointed out that granting politeia in combination with proxeny does not seem to have been a practice in other areas of Greece: in the five-century span of the epigraphic record of Athenian proxenies, merely six grants of citizenship are known.19 In the specific case of the proxenies by the Lokrian koina, it is certainly worthwhile to consider the purpose of this grant, or at least look into the scale of its priorities. Was there a desire to make Lokrian guest-friendship particularly appealing and, if so, what was the reason? Was this done by attaching an honorary title, but one with no consequences on the legal status of the proxenos? Or was the grant of politeia meant to foster the inclusion of new citizens, favouring a specific category of foreigners? What was the relationship between local and federal grants? A policy of openness to new citizens is consistent with the social mobility that marked Greece in the Hellenistic age and with the general demographic crisis which is believed to have affected the regions of the Peloponnese and North–Central Greece with particular intensity. Indeed, such a demographic crisis even led, in certain cases, to the sale of citizenship rights or the mass inclusion of new citizens into the state.20 It is by no means unusual that, in a mainly mountainous region such as Lokris, there could be localized population shortages, which would have prompted 14 T 4: koinon. IG IX 12 3, 668: according to Klaffenbach, on the basis of prosopographical analysis, the decree is issued by the polis because the archontes (ll. 5–8) bear Physkean names. 15 T 5 and 6. 16 T 7. 17 Monceaux 1886, 35; Marek 1984, 142–149. 18 Marek 1984, 146: 23 koina and poleis. 19 Herman 1987; Mitchel 1997, 37–40: a fourth-century example of the compatibility between citizenship and proxeny is provided by an Athenian inscription (IG II2 19, Osborne 1981–83 D7): in the main body of the decree the man is awarded proxeny, while in a rider to the decree he is awarded citizenship. Contra Larsen, OCD s.v. Proxenos: proxeny and citizenship were incompatible because a proxenos, by definition, could not be a citizen of the state he was representing. 20 By way of example, I mention the Achaian case, analyzed by A. Rizakis and E. Mackil. See Rizakis 1990, 109–134; 2008, 44–49, no.3; Mackil 2013, 450–455.

34

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

programs aimed at broadening the citizen body. Economic mobility in Lokris is well illustrated by the case of the ancient population movement documented in the colonial legislation of Naupactus, and by the case of populating borderland areas by an unknown polis of Western Lokris.21 In another perspective, grants of citizenship cannot be separated from the element of prestige gained by the proxenos or from the purpose of conferring a privilege within a reciprocal network that, in any time and place, governed the laws of hospitality. The exiguous number of cases attested and the parsimony with which citizenship was granted in Greek history overall point to the fact that such politeia was rather a virtual kind of citizenship, unlike the other privileges that involved practical benefits to the proxenos – e.g. rights of property ownership, marriage, tax exemptions, and the like. Nonetheless, the unique characteristics of the proxenies issued in central Greece, with respect to the ordinary practices elsewhere, do prompt the question of what actual repercussions the grant of citizenship rights had on the legal status of the proxenos. In certain local environments there was a level of operative, practical politeia, which allowed the recipient the concrete faculty of activating his citizenship rights. Attention should be given to the evidence provided for the poetess from Lesbos and her brother, which, I argue, provides a good case in point to demonstrate the legal value of politeia and its actual fruition.22 Aristodama, named proxenos of Chaleion, likely belonged to that class of itinerant artists that flourished during the Hellenistic age, as demonstrated by her receiving similar honors from the city of Lamia.23 Although she was the foremost recipient of the honors decided by the decree, evidenced by the many and notable privileges granted to her, she did not receive citizenship because being a woman automatically excluded her from the legal requirements for civic rights. That honor was instead awarded to her brother. With respect to the relationship between local and federal citizenship, I wish to share the relevant considerations expounded by P. Funke about Aitolian proxenia decrees, which amply testify to grants of local and federal (iso-)politeia.24 According to Funke, both the koinon and the member-states were entitled to grant Aitolian citizenship to foreigners. Funke draws attention to the frequent use of the formula kata nomon in the decrees of the Aitolian League and remarks on the function of the proxenikoi nomoi25 which – he argues – served to govern the potential overlap of competences, and avert conflicts of interest between the League and its memberstates in granting citizenship. The limited, yet by no means insufficient, evidence from the region of Lokris calls for an examination of what might have been the aims and the content of the nomos proxenikos in the Lokrian koina. Did it contain precise regulations that de-

21 E&R 1 no. 43, no. 44. See Daverio Rocchi 2015, 179–198 with bibliography. See also Mackil 2013, 258–264. 22 T 6. 23 IG IX.2. 62; Syll.3 532. See Marek 1984, 295. 24 See IG IX.12. 5–50. See also the proxenies of Kallipolis edited by Rousset 2006, 381–433. 25 Funke 2015, 104–108.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

35

termined the legal effects and obligations for member-states as well as the procedures in case the recipients chose to make actual use of the award? The evidence does not allow us to confirm that the same kind of reciprocity that P. Funke observes in the Aitolian system is at work here among the Lokrians,26 but the similarities in content and procedures between Aitolian and Lokrian proxenies encourage us not to rule out such a possibility a priori. We should certainly take into consideration the specific kind of citizenship with respect to the affiliation within the Eastern or the Western koinon, and we cannot ignore the distinct federal systems in the East and West within which the proxeny decrees, local or federal, were issued. After the first quarter of the second century BCE. Amphissa was an autonomous polis,27 hence we should assume that its grant of proxeny and politeia to the Makedonian Menophantos, physician of Hyrkanis, did not involve the mechanisms of the federal level. The decision to give the proxenos freedom of movement, the guarantee ensuring his personal safety within the city’s territory (separate from safety in peace and war, which was also provided for in the decree according to the usual proxeny formula), as well as the faculty of establishing contacts with cities of Eastern Lokris, altogether bear testimony to the autonomy of Amphissa in its decisions over public issues and foreign relations.28 VII. EPINOMIA Among the additional provisions of the proxeny the Amphisseis bestowed on the Makedonian Menophantos, doctor of Hyrkanis, is the right of pasture (epinomia).29 This is a commonplace award in proxenia in northern parts of central Greece, and Chr. Marek30 has noticed an erstaunliche Deckung among the regions of the epinomiai and those of the politeiai. As I have discussed elsewhere, long- and shortrange mobility was essential to pastoral practices. However, such mobility might also provoke friction both within the territory of the league, when the koinon opposed the free movement of shepherds and sedentary farmers, and within neighbourhood affairs, when they crossed into other cities.31 Thus epinomia saved the proxenos from eventually violating the dispositions set out by the poleis or the koinon to protect their pasturelands, and thus from incurring the resulting sanctions. In 26 Funke 2015, 104–108: ‘Both the koinon and each individual member-state were able to award unrestricted Aetolian citizenship to foreigners. The corresponding decrees of the league or of memberstates had the same consequences’. 27 Lérat 1952 II, 95–112. 28 T 7. The hiatros is granted an escort of citizens to guarantee his safe circulation across the territory of the city (ll. 25–26); in subsequent lines (ll. 32–32) the decree guarantees safety (asphaleia) in times of peace and war; a copy of the proxeny decree is sent to the cities of Skarphea and Opus (l. 27–29). On the special position of Amphissa in the political context of the region of Lokris see Daverio Rocchi 2015, 195. 29 T 7, l. 31. 30 Marek 1984, 147. 31 For an updated discussion on this topic see Daverio Rocchi 2016, 58–77.

36

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

this perspective I think it is noteworthy that the decree of Amphissa honoring the doctor of Hyrcanis mandates providing him with an escorting retinue composed of citizens.32 The network of peaceful relations created by proxenies seems to suggest a picture that is the opposite of the situation of local conflicts, or borderland disputes, that were so commonplace across Central Greece. In the Lokrian regions livestock was a major form of wealth and a primary source of profit; it was integral to agriculture in the autarkic economic organization. For this reason the right of pasture was of the utmost importance, to the point that Marek considered it a high privilege and saw in the politeia a preliminary condition to guarantee the proxenos the possibility of practicing husbandry.33 There are reasons to believe that, in a context of resource complementarity on a regional scale, we may read in the binomial of politeia/epinomia the aims and expectations of the conferral of proxeny, which responds to local economic and social programs. VIII. THE GEOGRAPHY OF PROXENIES: A NATURAL-ANTHROPIC ECOSYSTEM. Each koinon, and – within it – each polis were the termini of inbound and outbound vectors of relations involving the state of the proxenos and the state granting it to citizens of the koinon. Geography thus outlines the territorial extension of these interstate relations created by proxeny, which depended on this network of reciprocity. This network in turn must be measured in relation to the spaces of war, peace, and alliances, but also of economy and trade; in other words, in relation to all of the diverse issues concerning interactions with foreign powers. These Lokrian proxenia decrees generally concerned the central belt of Greece (Aitolia, Hypata, Tralleis, Phtiotic Thebes, Hyrkanis), and extended westwards into the Gulf of Corinth (Aigion and Achaia) and the western coastal regions. With respect to the attested cases, the koinon of the Opuntioi granted proxeny to the citizens of Krane/Kephallenia, Hypata, Tralleis, Aitolia.34 The cities of Opus, Thronion, and Scarphea – respectively – nominated proxenoi in Krane/Kephallenia, Phytaea in Aitolia, and Thebes in Achaea Phthiotis.35 In the west, the koinon of the Hesperian Lokrians granted proxeny to a citizen of Aigion in Achaea, and also the city of Chaleion granted proxeny to a citizen of Aigion, as well as to the poetess Aristodama of Smyrna and her brother, while Amphissa as we have seen granted proxeny to the Makedonian Menophantos, hiatros of Hyrkanis.36 These latter cases –

32 33 34 35

T 7, l. 25–26. Marek 1984, l.c. IG IX.12 5 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913. IG IX.12 5 1908, 2032, 2038. For the reading Krane/Kephallenia in the inscription no. 1908 I follow the IG edition (l. 2–3, [— — — Κεφαλλᾶνι ἐκ Κρα|ν]ίων), in preference to the integration Krannon. Contra Moreno Hernández-Pascual Valderrama 2013, 507–535. 36 IG IX.12 3 667, 721, 740, 750.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

37

the proxenies granted to Aristodama and her brother, in Smyrna, and to the Makedonian physician of Hyrkanis – representing far-reaching relations seem to constitute an exception that proves the general rule: proxenia was generally granted on a somewhat smaller scale. As I have mentioned above, the poetess from Smyrna must be understood within the context of those itinerant artists who contributed to a high degree of lively professional mobility in the Hellenistic age. With respect to the hiatros from Hyrkanis, the text of the inscription explains that he had come to Amphissa with an embassy and his professional services were subsequently needed.37 These networks of relations may be compared with the trajectories of the Lokrian recipients of proxeny. In the third to the first centuries BCE we can reconstruct grants to Opuntian Lokrians, from Pherae, Eretria, and Lamia, and to a citizen of Alope from Tithronion. Proxenies granted to Hesperian Lokrians, were issued from Korkyra, Kassandreia, Histiaia, Thisbe, Aigosthena, principally to citizens of Naupaktos and – in a minor degree – of Chaleion. To this evidence we must add the overwhelming number of Delphic proxenies granted to Lokrians, both eastern and western.38 While the proxenoi of Eastern Lokris are from a broad set of poleis, in the West the grantees are concentrated in Naupaktos and Chaleion. These Delphic proxenies support the central role of Delphi in interregional relations, as modern historiography has not failed to stress. I must limit myself to briefly mentioning the issue here, as it lays beyond the scope of this contribution. When we observe the overall locations of the proxenies granted by the Eastern and by the Western Lokrians – with the exceptions of the two cases of the Smyrnean poetess and of the hiatros of Hyrkanis – as well as the distribution of the poleis of the Lokrian proxenoi, we see that their geographic extensions overlap. Essentially the decrees concern a well-defined territory, which runs east to west along the central belt of Greece. The homogeneous natural environment and the similar ways of life foster a natural-anthropic eco-system. What emerges is a micro-region, closely inter-connected, with complementary resources and a high degree of economic interdependence. The region features an economy based on agriculture, forestry, and pastoralism, integrated by sea-trade eastward with Euboia (and occasionally to the northern Aegean) and westward in the Gulf of Corinth.39 In other words, the decrees present the case of an institutionalized solution to interstate relations for societies in a small scale world of forest – and maritime – economy.40 Precisely by virtue of this closely-bound system of neighboring communities, the privileges associated with proxeny – among them also politeia – could here gain concrete value on a level not seen in other regions. This network of relationships outlines how proxenia was

37 IG IX 12 3 750, ll. 10–15. Cf. T 7. 38 The survey is based on data from Fasti in IG IX 12 3; IG IX 12 5. 39 For the communications over land and sea see Sánchez-Moreno 2013, 279–335, 337–359; Arjona 2013, 361–392. 40 In Aitolia, the city of Kallipolis granted proxenies to citizens from across the regions of central Greece. The editor of these inscriptions, D. Rousset, remarks that the origin of the foreigners honored in Kallipolis defines the circle of connections of a small polis of central Greece. See Rousset 2006, 381–434.

38

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

interwoven with informal regional networks which do not seem to have been affected by the political and military strategies of the great powers that, over time, extended their control over Central Greece. IX. PROXENY, NEIGHBORING RELATIONS, ETHNOGENESIS The territorial distribution of these proxenia decrees reflects the geography of the region’s ethnogenesis. This map, as it were, is drawn by genealogies and territorialisation myths, in which the names of ancestors (archegetai) and founders (ktistai) are closely intertwined:41 from Amphiktyon came Malos, Itonos, Physkos, Ainias(?); from Physkos came Lokros, and from the latter Opus. J. Hall defines this genealogy as “amphictyonic” and he sees in it the attempt to forge a proto-ethnicity in the region around Thermopylai.42 The descent from Amphiktyon expresses the idea that Malians, Phtiotic Achaians, Lokrians, and probably the Ainianes, were among the original members of the Pylean Amphictyony, centered at the sanctuary of Anthela.43 According to a complementary tradition, Amphiktyon was responsible for the synoikism of the region of Thermopylai and ruled over its unified populations.44 Although this genealogy seems to articulate diachronic stages in the membership of the Pylian Amphictyony,45 at the same time the myth associates Amphiktyon with a group of neighboring communities linked by common cult that later came to coincide with a political system and, over time, was sub-divided into distinct political communities. Thus, it does not seem out of place to examine these regions’ ethnicity and how the construction of these genealogical trees intersects with subsequent political affiliations. Other traditions link this genealogy with Aitolian kinship: the father of Physkos, Amphiktyon, was Aitolian, or else Physkos was the son of Aitolos.46 I share Hall’s conclusions that this tradition dates to after the annexation of Lokris by the Aitolians, in the third century BCE, but we may also consider the possibilities of a broader context of social and cultural affinity, and of regional economy in Central Greece.47 The sense of communal belonging and participation in common cult places, the myths elaborating shared memory and identity, the perception of a common descent, and co-territoriality, were altogether elements of a collective consciousness that could provide the grounds to facilitate a network of guest-friendship on a regional scale. To illustrate the point I cite the ties of guest-friendship between Opuntioi and the citizens of Thebes of Achaia Phtiotis: it is possible to discern a mythical

41 For a commentary see Hall 2002, 150–153. 42 Hall 2002, 153. 43 See Steph. Byz. s.v. Μαλιεύς; Paus. 5.1.4; Paus. 9.1.1; Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1.551; Eusth. ad Hom. 272.19. 44 Theop. FGrH 115 F 63; Mar. Par. FGrH 239 A 5. 45 Hall 2002, 150. 46 Steph. Byz. s.v. Φύσκος, Skymn. 589. See DaverioRocchi 2013, 142–145. 47 Hall 2002, 150–154.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

39

counterpart in the tradition of the philia between Achilles and the Opuntian Patroklos.48 Proxeny was interwoven in a patchwork of poleis and communities which all related to an amphiktyonic identity;49 they were scattered in and about the region of Thermopylai and extended into the borders of the neighboring territories as well as reaching towards the sea. In this process of expansion, the Gulf of Corinth became a channel of ethnicity – according to Klaus Freitag’s fitting definition.50 This interconnection to neighboring regions bonded the Lokrian proxenoi to a geographically-delineated territory as well as to a homogeneous cultic space. According to the tradition preserved by Theopompos and the Marmor Parium, as mentioned above, the people that Amphiktyon unified and over which he ruled are called perioikoi – i.e. the surrounding inhabitants – of Thermopylai. To a certain extent, notwithstanding the chronological distances and diverse historical contexts, I would compare the Lokrian local proxenies to the Theban proxeniai, which Pindar mentions in the poem written for the festival of the Daphnephoria led by the Theban Agasikles.51 At lines 41–44 the poet praises Agasikles and his noble family on account of their proxeniai and says that, by virtue of such merits, they have been honored by the amphiktiones.52 In this perspective I find the translation by E. Mackil noteworthy: she renders the latter term as “by those who live around them”, because – she explains – “this sentence is an expansion of the earlier assertion that the noble parents of Agasikles have rendered service to their neighbors as proxenoi”.53 According to E. Mackil, “this elite household could have served as witness, protectors, hosts, and promoters of the interests of neighboring communities in Thebes”. But “the Pindarian amphiktiones”– she stresses – “here are not ordinary neighbors; they are people who live in the region and participate in the same cult”. In line with this I believe that in the Lokrian region these cultic and interpersonal traditions helped to promote a kind of coexistence within a framework of neighboring relations, i.e. amphiktyonic, guest-friendship. The Lokrian proxenia decrees that we have examined here are part of a system of interstate relations in which the outside does not refer to a removed sphere of long-distance contacts, but rather it involves neighboring cities and communities with whom relationships were often borderland contacts.54 The major problems being addressed, in this fairly intimate geographical context, involved striking some sort of balance among a cluster of territorially organized settlements within a relatively limited space, in order to avert situations of conflict – which were otherwise

48 49 50 51

T 3. Hom. Il. 9. 666–669, 23, 23–25, 84–85. See Daverio Rocchi 2013, 139–161; 2015, 179–198. For the amphiktyonic identity see Funke 2013, 11. Freitag 2011, 19–28. Pind. fr. 94b Maehler. The Daphnephoria was a ritual procession in honor of Apollo Ismenias in Thebes. The date for the composition and the performance of the poem is ca. 445–440. 52 The spelling with iota is employed by Pindar. 53 Mackil 2013, 160–163. 54 For the neighboring relationships as category of interstate relations see Daverio Rocchi 2016, 58– 77.

40

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

attested – and to provide solutions to contemporary demographic shortages. On account of these geographic and environmental specificities we may explain the inclusive attitude of the centers of region, namely their readiness to admit and solicit the addition of new citizens, by providing economic incentives and justifying this attitude by recourse to common heritage thanks to the ethnogenesis of the region’s inhabitants. X. A CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT Following up on my initial proposition, we may consider proxeny, in the Lokrian koina, as the outcome of a variable triangulation. The proxenos interacted with different authorities, namely the koinon and the member-states, in a flexible context beyond the institutionally formalized division of powers and responsibilities. The mediating role of proxeny did not concern the balance of political and military alliances. The Lokrian multiple proxenies seem to point to a distribution of functions, expressing a multi-directional and horizontal articulation of power, which was shared across the koinon and member-states, rather than simply in a vertical hierarchy. Just as the koinon itself, each member-state, both in the east and the west, enjoyed the faculty of granting citizenship to foreigners – in addition to the usual legal, economic, and fiscal awards. This guest-friendship was negotiated within the specific sphere of interstate relations developed in a contiguous environment. It was based on geographic proximity, but also shared in ways of living, cultic bonds, and traditions rooted in local and regional ethnogenesis. Regional vicinity, its geographical specificities, and the environment itself bonded the communities in their needs and economic goals. This, in turn, could shape shared attitudes towards the granting of proxenia, especially in their accessory privileges. These conditions provided the background to an inclusive attitude towards citizenship and towards the conferral of rights of pasture. APPENDIX EASTERN LOKRIS T 1. IG IX 12 5 1909 Second half oft he second century BCE. Proxeny decree of the Opuntioi and of the Lokroi hoi meta Opountion for three citizens of Krane/Kephallenia ll. 1–2, 4–5, 7 Ὀπούντιοι καὶ Λοκροὶ [οἱ μετὰ Ὀπουντίων ἔδω]καν… προξενίαν, πολιτείαν, ἱσοτέλειαν… πάντα κατὰ τὸν νόμον…ἔγγυοι… The Opuntians and the Lokrians along with the Opuntians granted … proxeny, citizenship, fiscal equality … everything according to the law … the guarantors …

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

41

T 2. IG IX 12 5 1913 Second half of the second century BCE. Proxeny decree of the Opuntioi and of the Lokroi hoi meta Opountion for the Aetolian citizen Antiphilos ll. 2–4, 8 Ὀπούντιοι καὶ Λοχροὶ οἱ μετὰ Ὀπουντίων ἔδωκαν Ἀντιφίλωι Αἰτωλῶι καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις αὐτοῦ προξενίαν, πολιτείαν … ἔγγυ[ο]ι … The Opuntians and the Lokrians along with the Opuntians granted to Aitolian Antiphilos and his descendants proxeny, citizenship …The guarantors … T 3. IG IX 12 5 2038 End of the third century BCE. Proxeny decree of the Skarpheis for two citizens of Thebes of Phtiotic Achaia ll. 1–5 Σκ[αρφεῖς ἔδοσαν] Κλεάδαι Διοδό[του, — — —] Τιμοκλέος Θηβ[αίοις ἐξ Ἀχαΐας … προξε]νίαν, ἰσοπολι[τείαν …] Skarpheis granted to Kleadas son of Diodotos … and … son of Timokles, both Theban from Achaia … proxeny, equality of citizenship … 1st WESTERN LOKRIS T 4. IG IX 12 3 667 Mid-second century BCE. Proxeny decree of the koinon ton Lokron for a citizen of Achaian Aigion ll. 3–5, 11–12 … τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Λοκρῶν ἔδωκε Ἀριστοβο[ύ]λωι Εὐαγόρα Ἀχαιῶι ἐξ Αἰγίου προξενίαν … καὶ πολιτείαν … ἔνγυοι τᾶς προξενίας … The league of Lokrians granted to Achaian Aristoboulos son of Evagoras from Aigion, proxeny … and citizenship… The guarantors of the proxeny … T 5. IG IX 12 3 721c. Mid second-century BCE. Proxeny decree of Chaleion for a citizen of Aigion ll. 6–8, 10–11 … ἔδοξε τᾶι πό λει ἐν ἐννόμωι ἐκκλησίαι· πρόξενον εἶμεν … τᾶς πόλιο[ς] τῶν Χαλειῶν Κλεογένη Ἀλκιθόου Αἰγ[ιῆ] … καὶ εἶμεν αὐ̣τ̣ῶι̣ ἰσο[πο]λιτείαν … Resolved by the city in the legal assembly. Kleogenes son of Alkithoos from Aigion shall be proxenos ... of the city of Chaleion … and he shall have the equality of citizenship … T 6. IG IX 12 3 740

42

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

218/7 (?). Proxeny decrees of Chaleion for the Smyrnean poetess Aristodama and her brother ll. 2, 21–27, 29–30 … [ἔδοξε] τᾶι πόλει τῶν [Χαλειῶ]ν … εἶμεν δὲ αὐτὰν [πρόξενον καὶ εὐεργέτιν] τᾶς πόλιος· δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐ[τᾶι παρὰ τᾶς πόλιος] … καὶ γ[ᾶς καὶ οἰκίας] ἔγκτησιν καὶ ἀτέλειαν κα[ὶ ἀσυλίαν] … καὶ τἆλλα πάντ[α, ὅσα καὶ τοῖς] ἄλλοις προξένοις καὶ εὐεργέτ[αις ὑπάρχει] … ὑπαρχέτω δὲ καὶ Διον[υσίωι τῶι] ἀδελφεῶι αὐτᾶς προξενία, πολιτεία… Resolved by the city of Chaleion … She shall be proxenos and benefactor of the city. Let her have by the city … and the right to own land and houses, immunity from taxation, and immunity from seizure … and all the other things that occur for the other proxenoi and benefactors. Also let Dionysos, her brother, have proxeny, citizenship … T 7. IG IX.12, 3, 750 First half of the second century BCE. Proxeny decree of Amphissa for the hiatros of Hyrcanis Menophantos ll. 24–31 δεδόχθαι τῷ δάμῳ· … καὶ δόμεν αὐτῷ συμπαραπομ[πο]ὺς ἀσ[τούς], [ἵνα κομισθῇ(?) μ]ετ’ ἀσ[φ]α[λ]είας, ἐν οὕς κα προαι[ρ]ῆται τόπους· [ἐξαποστεῖλ]αι δὲ καὶ τᾶς δεδομένας αὐτῷ προξενίας τὸ ἀντίγρ[αφον τύχ]αι ἀγαθᾷ ποτὶ τὰν πόλιν τῶν Σκαρφέων … ἔ[τι δ]ὲ καὶ ποτὶ τὰ[ν] τῶν Ὀπουντίων … Ἀμφισσεῖς ἔδωκαν Μην[οφ]άντῳ Ἀρτεμ[ιδ]ώρου Μακεδόνι Ὑρκανίῳ … προξενίαν, ἰσο[πολι]τείαν, … ἐπινομία[ν] … ἔ[γγυος…] Resolved by the people … and to give him some citizens who will escort him, so that he can travel in safety to every place he wants to. … to send a copy of the proxeny granted to him to the city Skarphea, and also to the city Opus …The citizens of Amphissa granted to Macedonian Menophantos, son of Artemidoros, from Hyrkanis …. proxeny, equality of citizenship … right to pasture…. The guarantor … BIBLIOGRAPHY Beck, H., and P. Funke (2015) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2013) Ethnic Identity, Cults and Territorial Settlement: East and West Locrians, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries. Identity and Integration, Stuttgart, 139–161. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2015) The Lokrians and their Federal Leagues, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 179–198. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2016) Systems of Borders in Ancient Greece, in S. Bianchetti, M.R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography. The Inhabited World in Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 58–77.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study

43

Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2013) The Late Archaic Period, in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 445– 470. Freitag, K. (2011) A channel for Ethnicity. Zur Rolle des Korinthischen Golfes im Spannungsfeld zwischen Raumgestalt und der Ausbildung von Staatlichkeit im antiken Griechenland, in L. Breglia, A. Moleti, and M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la “terza” Grecia e l’Occidente, Pisa: 19–28. Funke, P. (2015) Aitolia and the Aitolian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 86–117. Gschnitzer, F. (1973) Proxenos, RE. Suppl. XIII, 629–730. Hall, J.M. (2002) Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago/London. Herman, G. (1987) Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity. Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek koinon, Berkeley. Marek, C. (1984) Die Proxenie, Frankfurt/Bern/New York. Mitchell, L.G. (1997) Greeks bearing Gifts, Cambridge. Monceaux, P. (1886) Les proxénies grecques, Paris. Moreno Hernández J. J. and I. M. Pascual Valderrama (2013) The Hellenistic Period (323–146), in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 507–535. Pascual, J. and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.) (2013) Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston. Rizakis, A. (1990) La politeia dans les cités de la confédération achéenne, Tyche 5, 109–134. Rizakis, A. (2008) Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens/Paris. Rizakis, A. and Y. Tourartsoglou (2008) L’économie du Péloponnèse hellénistique: un cas régional, in C. Grandjean (ed.), Le Péloponnèse d’Epameinondas à Hadrien, Paris, 69–82. Rousset, D. and R. Kolonia (2011) Monuments funéraires de Locride occidentale, Chiron 41, 181– 216. Zachos, G. (2013) The Roman Period from 146 BC to Justinian, in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 537–548.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHIC TESTIMONIES FOR THE ETHNOS OF THE WESTERN LOKRIANS Nikolaos Petrochilos Ephorate of Antiquities, Phokis Only rarely do ancient authors refer to Hesperian or Ozolian1 Lokris, a region spreading along the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf between Phokis to the East and Antirrhion to the West.2 The people living in this region, known as Ἑσπέριοι or Ὀζόλαι Λοκροί, constituted the western branch of the Lokrians, an ethnos whose eastern branch, Ὀπούντιοι or Ἑῷοι Λοκροί, established their presence in the region opposite Euboia. The complete absence of any reference to Hesperian Lokris, either in its geographical sense or as the fatherland of mythical or Homeric heroes,3 has been interpreted to mean that the formation of the local Hesperian identity did not occur. Furthermore, any attestation of this particular ethnos in the literary tradition is indirect and appears in relation to the historical developments in the wider region. Hesperian Lokrians are mentioned for the first time in the literary sources by Thucydides, who, while describing Demosthenes’ campaign against the Aitolians in 426 BCE,4 mentions a series of people’s names,5 which are rightfully considered to refer to people living in the correspondent Lokrian sites cited in geographical order. Other references focus mainly on popular attempts to interpret their tribal name, Ὀζόλαι, from the ancient Greek verb ὄζειν, to give off a scent, or ὄζος, knot,6 indicating their backwardness7 as well as their descent from Opountian Lokris in the period following the Trojan War and the Dorian invasion.8 Nevertheless, 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

For the name Ozolia and its derivatives Paus. 9.38.1–3 suggests various interpretations which give the impression that these were later inventions. In this paper the term is used indiscriminately with the official term Hesperioi. Str. 10.2.21. On the contrary, the Homeric Poems Il. B. 529–535 praise Ajax, the son of Oileus, a renowned offspring of Opountian Lokrians, who dwell beyond Euboia. Thuc. 3.94–98. Thuc. 3.101–102. Daverio Rocchi2013, 140 n. 8 ascertains forestry and pastoral traditions in the etymology of Lokros, the eponym of the ethnos. Thuc. 1.5.3–6.2. Antonetti 1990, 72–74. An inscription reminiscent of the fallen against the Medes at Thermopylae, Opous is designated as the metropolis of the Lokrians; Str. 9.4.2 τούσδε ποθεῖ φθιμένους ὑπὲρ ῾Ελλάδος ἀντία Μήδων, μητρόπολις Λοκρῶν εὐθυνόμων ᾿Οπόεις; cf. also Dominguez 2013b, 467. Likewise, in honoring the doctor Menophantos the Amphissaeans vote in the early 2 nd cent. BCE to send honors not just to the man’s city of birth, Skarpheia, but also to Opous, while the citizens of Naupaktos, in the vote concerning their colony, invoke Opous as their metropolis. Furthermore,

46

Nikolaos Petrochilos

the unity of the Lokrian nation, with its two population groupings settled in two remote geographical regions9 to which had been granted two seats in the Amphiktyonic League,10 was widely accepted in antiquity and lingered until the Imperial Period. The particularity of the unified character of the Lokrian ethnos has intrigued modern scholars, who have delved into the perplexed nature of the ethnic identity even though archaeological testimonies are not sufficient – if indeed there are any at all. This paper aims at offering a contribution to the subject by presenting the archaeological material available, and by reconsidering some questions concerning their origin and their identity.11 The historical development of West Lokris since prehistoric times was determined in large part by its geography, as well as by its cultural heterogeneity. While throughout most of the territory no burial monuments and settlements dated to the Mycenaean period have been found thus far, and the Mycenaean presence in general seems to be hardly noticeable at all,12 the eastern part of the region offers a great deal of material.13 One of the most important elements in this aspect is the so-called “Doric Corridor”, a stretch of lowland lying between mountains along its eastern edges. It is a road that has been a commercial and cultural artery from prehistoric times until the present day, as it led from Kirra and the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf through the narrow fields between Parnassus and the slopes of Mt. Giona

9 10

11 12

13

the mythical genealogy invokes the beliefs on the common origins of all the Lokrians; Lokros, is referred to as the son of Physkos and the father of Opous (Steph. Byz. s.v. Φύσκος), and Locros as founder of the cities of Physkeis and of Oeantheia (Plut. Qu. Gr. 15), whereas according to the Parian Marble Lokrians where related to the Delphic Amphiktyony, since Physkos is mentioned as the son of Amphiktyon (Theop. FGrH 115 fr. 63; Marm. Par. FGrH 239 A 5); cf. Daverio Rocchi 2013, 142-5 with updated bibliography. For the theories on the origins of the West Lokrians, see Oldfather 1926, 1183–1190; Lerat 1952 II, 5–11; Kase et al. 1991, 89–98; Sakellariou 2009, 664–666. Aesch. 2.116; Paus. 10.8.2. The two seats for the Lokrians in the Amphiktyonic League were given one to the East and one to the West Lokrians, according to geographic criteria and the ethnic contribution that was envisaged during the early development of the Amphiktyony; Lefèvre 1998, 17–20; Sánchez 2001, 37–41, 515; Jacquemin et al. 2012, 18; Daverio Rocchi 2013, 144. On the genealogies and the mythical origins the Lokrians: Daverio Rocchi 2013, 142; Dominguez 2013a, 412–43; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 179–182, with previous bibliography. Apart from Galaxidi there is one certain find, a chamber tomb at which were found only two stirrup jars; further a plundered chamber tomb is reported at the site Gouva, to the east of Monastiraki (Petronotis 1973, 101 n. 4 with previous references) as well as at the vicinity of Malandrino, where a likewise plundered chamber tomb has been noticed (report in the archives of the Archaeological Service of Phokis). At two other sites, at Marathias, near the present-day village of Vitrinitsa (Lerat 1952 I, 122; Petronotis 1973, 101 no. 107; Bommeljé et al. 1987, 95–96), and Paliokastro in Kokovitsa (Petronotis 1973, 103 no. 120), the settlements can be dated back to the Mycenaean period, but the lack of any ceramic findings at either location, as well as the exclusive reliance for dating purposes upon the type of wall that resembles Cyclopean, render these identifications exceptionally precarious. Decades of archaeological research in the region surrounding the Valley of Hylaithos has brought to light important archaeological sites of the Bronze Age at Kirrha, Glas in the vicinity of Itea, Amphissa, Krissa (modern Chrysso). For Kirrha and the wider region, cf. Skorda 2003, 2–5; Orgeolet, Skorda, Zurbach et al., forthcoming.

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

47

up to the coast of the Malian and Euboian Gulfs. The use of the “Doric Corridor” among the nearby settlements is well attested, as is its significance in the cultural and economic prosperity at both of its ends. Remains from commercial items bought and sold, mainly ceramic objects and other artifacts which travelled between southern and central Greece, constitute evidence that this system was in operation from prehistoric times onwards, and that its southern end in the Hylaithos valley was a center of commercial exchange and influence since the second millennium.14 One of the most important finds that demonstrates the relations between the two regions is the vaulted tomb that was unearthed during the summer months of 2014 in the vicinity of Amphissa. This monument had a life span of approximately three centuries, from about the middle of the 14th until the middle of the 11th century BCE. The pottery found at the site, the burial offerings, bronze weapons, necklaces of precious stones, glass artifacts and amber, the large number of engraved stones, the bronze rings and the gold jewelry, especially the gold signet ring with the depiction of grazing cattle, all make it certain that among the dead there was a local ruler or the members of a family or class which would have held a leading role in the governance of the area, and, in any case, had the means of exchanging goods with distant areas. The grave offerings from within the burial chamber, as well as from a deposit where objects that had been used in the burial ceremony were cast, testify to contacts with neighboring Krissa and Delphi, as well as with the southeastern Peloponnese and central Greece.15 The vaulted tomb of Amphissa contributes not only to our understanding of the area in the center of the Mycenaean world and across the passages leading to the periphery, but also fills a gap between the earlier periods -which are well documented in the region– and the ensuing periods. In the area surrounding Amphissa where the vaulted tomb was discovered, habitation seems to have continued without interruption into the Iron Age.16 Already from the 8th century BCE onwards, Amphissa began to show signs of developing into a highly-populated region, as can be deduced from the two cemeteries discovered so far, one next to the classical acropolis in the district of Charmaina and the other just outside the southern stretch of the wall at the modern plot of the Greek Telecommunications Organization.17 Perhaps even more likely is the possibility that there were village-type settlements (komai)18 from which the district, and later 14 Kase 1973; Kase, Szemler 1979/1983, 520–527; Kase et al. 1991, 21-45; 65-69. 15 N. Petrochilos, AD 2014 (forthcoming). 16 Near Itea, at Moulki, several chamber tombs have been excavated containing gave offerings of the Sub-Mycenaean period; Lerat 1952 I, 163–167. 17 For the cemetery at the foothill crowned on top by the later defensive wall (modern district Charmaina cf. Perdrizet 1899, 344–348; I. Konstantinou, AD 18, 1963, 130, pl. 164, 165a; ΑD 27, 1972, 384–388; Themelis 1984, 228. For the cemetery at the Telecommunications Center that was used a burial ground from the 8th until the 4th cent. BCE, Themelis 1984, 228–232; Kourachanis 1992, 99. In general, Tsaroucha 2006, 855f; Tsaroucha (forthcoming). On Archaic inscriptions found in Amphissa, Rousset-Kolonia 2011, 181–189. 18 For this characteristic as well as for the primitive way of living contemned Thucydides 1.5.3; 3.94.3–4 not only the Lokrians but also the Aitolians and the Akarnanians who shared the same habits.

48

Nikolaos Petrochilos

the well-known city of the Classical and modern times, developed. During the Dark Ages and the Archaic period, the Amphissaeans continued to maintain commercial relations with distant areas, especially with the Peloponnese, central, and northern Greece,19 and it is certain that the ‘Doric Corridor’ continued to be utilized as it was during the second millennium. It also seems that the size of the district, in addition to its contacts with other areas, contributed to the rather quick development of the city. A manifestation of this development is the construction of defensive walls around its acropolis from early on, perhaps even the 6th century.20 It cannot be determined whether the settlement was restricted within the bounds of the walls or if the latter functioned merely as an acropolis, as the last recourse in case of eminent danger; if the komai in the plain of Amphissa had outlived the Archaic period, then this assumption could hold ground. It seems possible that the development of the settlement in present-day Galaxidi was somewhat similar. Northeast of the present-day city, restricted settlements were developed during the Mycenaean Period,21 which appear to have continued until the Geometric Period, since the foundations of those from the Dark Ages and the Archaic Period were laid upon those of prehistoric times.22 The burial practices at the site are noteworthy, especially the contracted position of the dead within cist graves at the site of Agios Athanasios, dating from the 8th century BCE.23 This practice finds parallels in Opountian24 and Epiknemidian25 Lokris also during the Early Iron Age. Just as in the case of Amphissa, the settlements throughout the area of Galaxidi display a notable extroversion during the Archaic Period. In the region of Agios Vlassis the remains of ancient structures, the shaping of the ground into levels by means of polygonal masonry walls, the location of a cemetery from the Archaic period at a somewhat lower altitude on the side of a hill, as well as a testimony concerning two exceptionally significant bronze inscriptions – which are today displayed in the British Museum26 – all allow us to assume that an important settlement and probably an adjacent sanctuary existed at the site, a point of reference for other settlements in the area.27 The findings point to commercial relations with Corinth, the northern Peloponnese, Phokis and other more distant places such

19 Kourachanis 1992. 20 Part of the polygonal wall can be seen in the north-western part of the wall; Lerat 1952, pl. LX. Papakonstantinou 2014, 23. 21 Two sites are reported to have produced Late Bronze material so far; cf. Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 16f. 22 Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 17–20 (with previous references). 23 Threpsiadis 1972, 201–205. 24 At the cemetery of Tragana, for which see Dominguez 2013a, 408 with previous notes. 25 Ph. Dakoronia, AD 32, Chronicles B1, 104. Papakonstantinou and Sipsi 2009, 1031. Dominguez 2013a, 407–408. 26 Threpsiadis 1972, 288. Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 20–22. For the inscriptions cf. n. 54 and 62. 27 Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 21–22.

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

49

as Etruria, from which a bronze vessel was imported.28 The identification of this religious center with the sanctuary of Apollo Nasiota29 is convincing. The region shares one more trait with Amphissa: the existence of an early defensive structure, similar to the former. The wall is found not far from Galaxidi, at Elaphokarto or Palaiogalaxido, a conspicuous site oriented towards the interior, maintaining an overview of the wider region from the coast of the Krissaean Gulf, and the olive grove up until the passages leading to Myonia and northwestern Lokris.30 It is an exceptionally well preserved defensive wall that protected the northern, easily accessible side of the plateau, measuring approximately 3 m. in width, with a height at some points exceeding 4 m. Like that in Amphissa, the wall at Palaiogalaxido is built in polygonal or “lesbian” masonry, finally dressed on the exterior but less on the interior.31 The wall measures approximately 80 m. in length on the northern side, while at both ends it turns vertically, extending for less than 30 m. to the eastern side, ending at some form of structure, probably a tower. The corresponding end of the wall on the western side is not preserved apart from a few rows of stones. It is estimated that the plateau contained within the wall occupied an area of c. 5 acres. Despite the meticulous survey conducted on the plateau, which is circumscribed by the wall on the northern side and the precipitous cliffs on the other sides, neither pottery sherds nor any other artifacts were found. Nevertheless, the masonry of the wall is, in any case, not misleading for dating the structure to the Archaic or, at the latest, to the Early Classical period. Taking into account the total absence of any indication as to the usage of the site, it could be considered the acropolis, the ultimate site of refuge in the case of a threat to the population living in the surrounding area. In addition, at a relatively short distance from Galaxidi and Amphissa, a rather early settlement at present-day Tritaia has been found, which was known until the beginning of the 20th century as Kolopetinitsa. A small scale archaeological excavation conducted by Vassilios Petrakos in the area in the early 1970’s has led to the collection of ceramic finds showing the lifespan of the settlement from the 12th century BCE down to the Hellenistic Period.32 The settlement can be identified as the seat of the Hypnians, the community that, among others, assisted in Eurylochus’ campaign against Naupaktos in 426 BCE.33 The formation of the settlement and the walls of rubble masonry would allow us to characterize the settlement as a villagetype settlement, a kome, the typical form of settlement during the Classical period, which led Thucydides to make his famous comment upon the primitive way of life of the Lokrians. This particular settlement developed into a political community, which allied itself with other cities. It is known that there was an alliance between Hypnia and Myania in c. 167 BCE for the purpose of designating guards for the 28 Zymi and Sideris 2003, 35. 29 As proposed by Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 22f. 30 R. Kolonia, Ph. Ntasios, ΑD 56–59, 2001–2004, 438, dated the wall to the Hellenistic period; this dating is highly improbable. 31 For the polygonal masonry, cf. Scranton 1941, 25–44; Martin 1965, 379f. 32 Report in the archives of the Archaeological Service of Phokis. 33 Cf. n. 4.

50

Nikolaos Petrochilos

fields and flocks, dividing fields and pastures, as well as for participation in the sacrifices of public worship.34 Although in the eastern part of West Lokris settlements show durability from early periods onwards,35 in all likelihood without interruption, as it seems that for the rest of West Lokris there are no signs of organized habitation long before the Classical period. From then onwards, the settlements seem to have been particularly numerous. The documentation is lacking, since in Hesperian Lokris no extensive surveys have been conducted so far, even though on this issue the contributions of Lerat, Philippson and Petronotis36 are highly significant. However, the western part of the land has been thoroughly surveyed within the context of the Aitolian Studies Project, and so we can reconstruct a similar image of the settlement distribution over the rest of the Lokrian territory. The Aitolian Studies Project has documented that in the area under examination the habitation apart from limited settlements rarely predated the Classical period, as attested by the surface finds37 and the similar results of the survey in the adjacent Aitolian territory. This pattern of settlement – restricted komai without fortification walls – must have been prevalent in the rest of the Lokrian territory as well.38 In each of them a small number of families were settled, earning their living by means of agriculture, as can be seen from the terrace walls with which the territories surrounding the komai were constructed. In the vicinity of these settlements were the cemeteries, where the most distinctive burial practice was performed until the Classical period: the inhumation of adults in jars, a practice that in other areas – with the exception of Opountian Lokris – is seldom encountered.39 It seems that the archaeological documentation corroborates Thucydides’ description of Hesperian Lokrians as a backward people – or at the very 34 Jacquemin et al. 2012, 219–223, no 121. 35 Dominguez 2008, 322f clearly recognizes the bonds between the eastern part of Ozolian Lokris and Opountian Lokris since the geometric period. 36 Lerat 1952; Petronotis 1973. 37 Bommeljé et al. 1987, 124 (Eparchy of Naupaktia, demos of Naupaktos); 129 (Eparchy of Doris, demos of Oineon [former name of the municipality of Eupalion, today municipal unity of Eupalion, part of the municipality of Doris]; demos of Tolophon [belonging to the municipality of Doris]); 129 f., s.v. Nerantzis n.d., 192–200. 38 Some of these people, named by Thucydides 3.101.2 and attested in inscriptions (the catalogue of the thearodokoi), must have been living in these komai, cf. n. 89–90. If the description of the komai by the Athenian historian as small settlements destitute of any kind of urban ambience without defensive walls is conceived correctly, then such komai can be recorded in several places: at Makrini (A)-Mt Gyros, Bommeljé et al. 1987, 94, s.v.; at Lidoriki, Bommeljé et al. 1987, 92 (s.v. Lidoriki B, C); at Kallithea, Bommeljé et al. 1987, 86 (s.v Kallithea B, C); at Kisseli, Lerat 1952 I, 114f. Bommeljé et al. 1987, 110 (s.v. Tolophon F, G). Portelanos 1998, 621–738. 39 So far jar-burials have been found in Hesperia Lokris at the following places: a) at Louza, adult jar-burial positioned slanted on the ground and with its mouth covered with rocks, while on the inside there were a few vessels and some jewelry that have been dated to the 5 th century BCE. At some distance from the previous grave, to the North of the present-day village of Eratini, a jar-burial was found, inside which were found four coins: one silver obol of the Opountian Lokrians minted in 369–338 BCE and three bronze coins of Philip II and from Elateia dated to the 2nd cent. BCE, Ph. Zaphiropoulou, AD 31, 1976, Chronicles, B1, 165. The oldest jar-burial

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

51

least as a unique people. However, at the same time in Hesperian Lokris during the Archaic period we have evidence of elaborate arrangements40 to say nothing of the observance of regulations put forward in decrees that will be discussed later. This last contrast between the living standards and the advanced institutions attested in Hesperian Lokris requires the examination of similar evolutions in Opountian Lokris. At the other end of the “Doric Corridor”, in Eastern Lokris, many fortified settlements dated to the Archaic period have been documented,41 and the program of fortifying settlements has been envisaged as the result of the fresh acquisition of Lokrian independence from the Thessalian yoke.42 Besides, in Opountian Lokris the most common method of burying the dead, even adults, during the Archaic and Classical periods and even as late as the early Hellenistic period was jar-burial,43 thus making both areas inhabited by the Lokrians the only places where this burial practice was performed. The connection of these places by means of funerary practices is vivid, even though these kinds of approaches are viewed with a certain degree of reservation.44 The relations between the two Lokrian branches also extends to the realm of economics and the circulation of ancient coins throughout the area serves to further support the conclusion that the Western Lokrians had especially close relations with the Opountian Lokrians even up to the late Classical period. During the 4th century BCE, cities in Eastern Lokris minted coins that displayed their common past by means of decoration on the obverse of the coin.45 In Western Lokris, on the other hand, coins were not minted except in very small quantities, beginning from the period of the Aitolian occupation, since the early 3rd century46 and the lack of local coinage throughout the entire previous period was covered by coins minted mainly by the Opountian, the Epiknemedian and the Hypoknemidian Lokrians that circulated in West Lokris. These observations are supported by sporadic finds and mainly by the coin hoard that was found in 1984 during a rescue excavation in Amphissa. Eastern Lokrian coins constitute 51% percent of the total, whereas for

40 41 42 43 44

45 46

is that found at Marathias, which can be dated to the first third of the 7 th century, based upon burial offerings found inside, at Amphissa, R. Kolonia, AD 44, 1989, Chronicles B1, 190 and at Naupaktos, I. Dekoulakou, AD 28, 1973, Chronicles B2, 390–393; M. Petritaki, AD 42, 1987, Chronicles B1, 172. From Oeantheia comes the most ancient – middle of the 6th century – attestation of a proxeny (IG IX.1 867). Archaic fortifications in Opountian Lokris, Bouyia 2000. Fossey 1990, 140f. Dominguez 2013b, 453. For an updated evaluation of the relations between East Lokrians and Thessalians, cf. Dominguez 2015. At Kynos (mod. Pyrgos, Livanates) and its environs, Onassoglou 1988; Fossey 1990, 82, 85; at Tragana, s.v. n. 24. O’Shea 1984, 299, where the disadvantages of the association between mortuary practices and ethnic group affiliation are pointed out; nevertheless, in the case of the two Lokrians, the argument of the mortuary practice is an addition to the documentation of their affinity, let alone the fact that their common funerary rites were practiced as long as they maintained their tight bonds and were gradually changed during the Hellenistic period. Daverio 2013, 148–9; Pascual 2013, 502–3, both with previous bibliography. Liampi 1995–1996.

52

Nikolaos Petrochilos

the 4th and 3rd centuries the percentage of coins minted in Opountian Lokris increases.47 The lack of minted coins in Hesperian Lokris is related to the belated activity that led to the political unification of the area. During the 5th century BCE the Lokrians held diverging stances as to their preferences towards the major political coalitions of the time, a behavior that should be ascribed to the overwhelmingly persuasive effect of the actual presence of the Persian, Athenian, and later, of the Spartan, armies in their land.48 The data rather exclude the possibility that in the 5th century there existed any mechanism of collective decision-making among the Hesperian Lokrians. Their stance throughout the second half of the century casts light on the lack of political unanimity. At the beginning of the Peloponnesian War the Western Lokrians were allies of the Athenians, and appeared eager to support Demosthenes with all their military strength, so that he might be able to attack the Aitolians. In the end, their assistance was futile, most likely due to haste on the part of the Athenians, causing a heavy defeat for Athens at the hands of the Aitolians. In response, the Spartans began to attack Naupaktos during the same summer, having first made their way through Hesperian Lokris. During this operation, they found the Amphissaeans to be fervent supporters of their efforts, while among the rest of the Lokrians some supported the Spartan force, but without the same fervor, φοβουμένους τὸν ἐπιόντα στρατόν, “for fear of the oncoming army”, while others did not approve at all. It is particularly likely that the conditions for the creation of a unified confederacy in Hesperian Lokris began to bear fruit no earlier than the second quarter of the fourth century. During the archonship of Argilius, between the years 360–357 BCE., a list was drawn up of supporters for the restoration of the temple of Apollo that had been destroyed in 373 BCE. Among the financial contributors of the Hesperian Lokrians a name is mentioned, which we ought to understand, not in terms of geography, but in a political sense. An even more certain testimony is found in the form of an inscription in present-day Malandrino, ancient Physkeis, in which there is an explicit reference to the koinon of the Hesperian Lokrians.49 Taking this inscription as a firm basis, some scholars have interpreted Thucydides’ collective reference to the Ozolian Lokrians as allies of the Athenians, as indirect testimony that already from the 5th century there existed a centralized mechanism for decision-

47 The dating of several published coins, especially those from rescue excavations, would be welcomed; e.g. AD 31, 1976, Chronicles B1, 161, where it is reported that a jar burial contained a coin of Lacedaemon dated prior to 250 BCE and one of the Aitolian Koinon, dated to 179–168 BCE. Taking into consideration Liampi 1995–1996, the latter could be contemporary to the former. 48 Daverio Rocchi 2013, 151. 49 Lerat 1952 I, 133f; II, 55–60. IG IX I2 3 665. Daverio Rocchi 2000; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 192.

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

53

making within the area,50 in which the most advanced and populated city of Hesperian Lokris, Amphissa, most probably did not participate.51 This kind of development could have taken place within the context of the policies that were formed through the Peace of Antalcidas and the pursuits of Epameinondas shortly after 367 BCE.52 The most important information concerning Hesperian Lokris is derived from the ancient sanctuary of Agios Vlassis, in the vicinity of Chaleion, which has already been discussed. The significance of the sanctuary for the surrounding area must have been quite substantial. If the location had not been subject to such a large degree to looting by illicit dealers of antiquities, it might have been able to provide us with valuable information concerning the function of the sanctuary in the surrounding area, or even in Hesperian Lokris in general, as can be assumed by the deposition of the two bronze tablets dated to the 5th century, which are said to have been found at the site. The first of these is the bronze tablet, in which a τεθμός is recorded, a law probably dated to the early fifth century, judging by the shape of the letters,53 and in any case prior to the occupation of Naupaktos by the Athenians in approximately 458 BCE, after the conclusion of the 3rd Messenian war.54 With the law that was approved by the Eastern Lokrians, a certain number of citizens from Hypoknimidian Lokris and Chaleion was designated to be dispatched to Naupaktos, with the participation of a group of Chaleians, whose leader was a certain Antiphatas.55 Naming the place where the settlers had to arrive (ll.1–2) is an indication that there was a pre-existing community there, even though the latter was most likely not very populous,56 and his campaign should have aimed at the reinforcement of the local Lokrian element.57 The law of Chaleion must have set the legal framework for the arrangements needed to dispatch fresh settlers to an already extant Lokrian settlement, which itself was located in an especially strategic geographical position. On the other hand, the terms indicate that privileges were granted to the future settlers in order to encourage their relocation (ll. 4–6; 32–36), to discourage their precocious return to Eastern Lokris without leaving behind (in Naupaktos) a son or a brother (ll.6–8). But at the same time other stipulations of the document express the precautions taken by the issuing authorities to prevent any secession of these settlers from the control of the Opountians (l. 12–14; 15–16). In 50 Lerat 1952 II, 55f. Many scholars presume that this koinon pre-existed, probably since the 5th c.; Dominguez 2008, 323. 51 Lerat 1952 II, 56–60; Dominguez 2008, 323. 52 Diod. 15, 75, 2; Lerat 1952 II, 55–57; Daverio Rocchi 2013, 146. 53 Jeffery 1990, 104–106. 54 Thuc. 1.103; Tod 1933, no 24; Lerat 1952 II, 29–32; IG IX.I2 3, 718; Graham 1964, 44–68; Larsen 1968, 45–58; Effenterre, Ruzé 1994, 178–185, nr. 43; Beck 1999; Dominguez 2008, 324–345; Dominguez 2013b, 457–461; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 186–190. 55 Cf. previous n. 56 At Naupaktos with the exception of scant archaeological findings which are dated to the geometric period (Saranti 2006, 501 n. 12), the human presence does not antedate the decree, as the finds – at least all that have been discovered and published up to the present – are mainly dated to the 5th century and later. 57 Dominguez 2013b, 457.

54

Nikolaos Petrochilos

addition, hints are given as to the legal status, not just of the settlers to Naupaktos, but to the Hesperian Lokrians collectively: at lines 10–11 it is stated that the colonists are exempted from the obligation to pay taxes except in common with the Western Lokrians.58 This last reference is often considered an indirect reference to a loose federal organization in Hesperian Lokris,59 as opposed to that in Eastern Lokris, where the cities are thought to have constituted a federal assembly of delegates aristocratic in origin, the “Thousand Opountians”.60 Another source of information on the movement and relations of populations in West Lokris during the Archaic period is an inscription found at the fringes of the Hesperian Lokrian territory61 dated to the transition from the sixth to the fifth century. It records the activity of two councils, the πρείγα and the ἀποκλεσία, the latter of which probably consisted of one hundred and one members, as well as the πόλις, seemingly the assembly of the citizens.62 The sanctuary of Chaleion is reported to have produced yet another inscription describing the relations between the Oianthians and the Chaleians.63 The inscription is most likely near in date to the previous one found at Chaleion, from the middle of the 5th century or earlier. The text is composed of two parts; in the first part the seizure of citizens’ property in the territory of the other city is regulated, as well as the legal status of citizens resident in the other city. In the second part provisions on diplomatic relations and legal procedures are recorded. It is, in other words, a treaty with which the two interested parties drew up the nature of their diplomatic relations. The context of the regulations does not leave much room to support the view that the two contracting parties had very close ties, as if they were parts of a federal state or even that they shared consciousness of a common descent. The law regulates the attitude towards citizens’ private property of two distant, yet neighboring, communities that in no case had developed any sense of sharing any common interests or traditions. The treaty could have literarily been signed by any two communities whatsoever.64 When all the above is taken into consideration, it can be deduced that, with the exception of Amphissa and the eastern part of the region in general, the gradual development of the Lokrian element originating from Opountia occurred during the Archaic Period.65 The fact that this settlement took place very early on is most likely responsible for the similarities between the two branches of the Lokrian ethnos such 58 We prefer the translation of ll. 10/11 ότι μὲ ετὰ Λοϙρο͂ν το͂ν Ϝεσπαρί |ον as in common (as Tod 1933, 34) with rather than among the Hesperian Lokrians. 59 Larsen 1968, 55; Dominguez 2008, 324; Daverio Rocchi 2013, 140; Lerat 1952 II, 31 did not consider this reference decisive for the existence of a Hesperian Lokrian confederation. 60 Larsen 1968, 52–54; Beck 1999; Dominguez 2013b, 459. 61 There are reservations whether this inscription should be ascribed to an Aitolian or Lokrian territory, since the circumstances under which it was discovered are vague; for a constructive summary of the views, Gschnitzer 1991, 81–84. 62 Effenterre, Ruzé 1994, 186–193, n. 44; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 184–185. 63 Tod 1933, 63–66, nr. 34; IG IX.1², 3 717; Larsen 1968, 54f; Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, 216– 221 no. 53. 64 Larsen 1968, 52, 55–56, 58. 65 Gschnitzer 1991, 89.

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

55

as the patterns of habitation, the fact that the sources refer to the Lokrians as a unified group, with no distinction into branches, the mortuary practices, even the structure of the local aristocracy. The one hundred families at the top of the social pyramid in Opountian Lokris, known from ancient authors, find their parallel in the one hundred and one select citizens that would decide to call upon two hundred additional soldiers in case of a conflict, as we learn from the inscription dated to the end of the sixth century from the vicinity of Naupaktos.66 In the inscription regulating the colony of Naupaktos it is designated that one hundred Naupactian men may impose the oath upon the Opountians thirty years from the time of the original oathtaking, and the Opountians upon the Naupaktians. A crucial point in the historical evolution of Hesperian Lokris was the emergence and the expansionistic policy of the Aitolians, as early as the 5th century. During the Peloponnesian War, the Aitolians were fervent supporters of the Spartans, and the outcome of the confrontation resulted in the strengthening of their presence in the area. After Demosthenes’ disastrous campaign, the Aitolians laid their hands on the western part of the Lokrian region, and as a result they occupied Molykreion, Makyneia, and the suburbs of Naupaktos,67 an area that constituted a territory hence named as Αἰτωλία ἐπίκτητος, as distinct from ἀρχαία Αἰτωλία,68 designating the western end of Hesperian Lokris that was acquired earlier than the rest of Lokris, which in its entity would constitute the Λοκρικὸν τέλος69. Due to the lack of documentation we cannot confirm or deny whether the city of Naupaktos itself was integrated into the Aitolian state towards the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century, since the city was delivered by Philip to the Aitolians in 338 BCE only to be lost two years later, perhaps by the same king’s intervention.70 The Aitolians’ ambitions for territorial expansion to the east were revealed when in 321 BCE they invaded Western Lokris and plundered the territory of Amphissa, before they were forced by the Akarnanians to withdraw.71 The consolidation of the Aitolian presence in Lokrian territory must have been accomplished gradually by the end of the 280’s, reaching completion perhaps as late as the beginning of the 260’s, as can be assumed by the proxeny decrees of Lokrian cities.72 The Aitolian conquest would have brought on the weakening of relations between

66 See n. 58 – 61. 67 Thuc. 3.94; Plut. Nic. 6; Diod. 12.60; Grainger 1999, 94f; Freitag 2001, 64. 68 Str. 10.2.3 (= C 450). For the gradual acquisition of West Lokrians’ lands by the Aitolians, cf. Grainger 1999, 87–104; Scholten 2000, 16–25. 69 Corsten 1999. 70 Bosworth 1976; Grainger 1999, 94; Freitag 2001, 87. On the issue of Philipp’s intervention in Naupaktos, cf. Rzepka 2004. 71 Grainger 1999, 96. 72 IG IX.1.5 (for a citizen from Chaleion, issued on the first strategy of Charixenos I, early 280’s); IG IX.1.12a (for a family from Amphissa, late 270’s); to this is added the dispatch of two Lokrian hieromnemones in 269/8 and 268/7, (Flacelière 1937, 391 no. 11) and the fact that among the Lokrians only the Amphissaeans are explicitly named as fighting by the side of the Aitolians against the Celts in 279 BCE. Cf. Grainger 1999, 95.

56

Nikolaos Petrochilos

Hesperian and Opountian Lokris, even though Eastern Lokris was occupied by the Aitolians as well in the ensuing years.73 Hesperian Lokrians themselves held Opous to be their ultimate fatherland.74 Numerous other testimonia lead us to understand the close relations between the eastern and Western Lokrians, which also explains why the latter share a hereditary sin with the former. In beginning of the 3rd century,75 an inscribed stele was erected in Vitrinitsa, with an agreement between the citizens of Naryka in eastern Lokris and a local tribe, the Aianteians of Naryka.76 The agreement refers to their commitment to send young girls to Ilion as expiation for the sacrilege that Ajax committed in the sanctuary of Athena Troas after the capture of Troy, in exchange for economic and political privileges. Despite the fact that neither the Western nor the Eastern Lokrians are mentioned in what has been preserved of the inscribed stele, the discovery of the inscription in Western Lokris — provided that its size would have made transporting the stone impossible — along with the invocation of all Lokrians collectively, and the subject of the regulation that dates back to a common ancestral sin, whose consequences were borne by all the descendants of Lokrian Ajax, all together point to the conclusion that all Lokrians, regardless of the place they lived, must have been also involved in the expiation. Furthermore, the fact that in all probability the regulations are meant to increase the consequences of the chastisement can be considered as the conclusion of a religious pendency77 within the Aitolian territory, perhaps after the intervention of the Aitolians themselves. There would be no better place to erect the decree that settled the protracted issue than right in the middle of Hesperian Lokris, where according to Oldfather a sanctuary was erected.78 This longstanding tradition between the Lokrians and the city of Ilion, where the sacrilege took place, could probably explain the institution of the worship of Athena Ilias among the Physkeis79 where later the Hesperian Lokrians later had the seat of their koinon. It is perhaps noteworthy that the inscription is dated after the annexation of Opountian Lokris by the Aitolians, when both branches of the Lokrian ethnos were combined under one political framework. 73 Grainger 1999, 122–129, esp. 124. 74 Cf. n. 8. 75 The date of the inscription is not undisputable, since there are no internal references and it is primarily based on the form of the letters. We would not exclude the possibility that the inscription would not postdate the acquisition of Hesperia Lokris by the Aitolians, thus it would not be later than the 2nd decade of the 3rd cent. BCE, as indeed is suggested by the form of the letters. 76 IG IX.12. 3. 706. 77 Leaf 1914/1915, 150f. Leaf follows Wilhelm’s dating of the inscription in the period 275–240 BCE. 78 Oldfather 1926, 1146. The temple’s foundations that were seen by Oldfather were not visible even at the time when Lerat visited the site in 1949: Lerat 1952 I, 110. Daverio Rocchi 2013, 153, relates the finding place of the inscription with the tradition recorded by Plutarch, Qu. Gr. 15, according to which Oeantheia and Physkeis descendent from Lokros, thus the two cities were related and the choice for the erection of the stele is owed to cultic traditions. 79 As Daverio Rocchi 2013, 147. For the function of the sanctuary of Athena Ilias as the federal religious center, cf. Lerat 1952 II, 119–123, 156–158.

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

57

What is more evident in Lokrian territory after the Aitolians had absorbed their land is the widespread change in the pattern of habitation. Some of the settlements already discussed were increased in the Hellenistic Period to small or medium-sized fortified cities, thus introducing the pattern of walled settlements in this area. 80 As far as the question of whether the village-like settlements were abandoned in favor of walled cities or if the latter were organized independently, the present state of our knowledge does not leave room for answers. Nevertheless, surveys report that the komai were still inhabited during the Hellenistic Period, as was also the case in Aitolia until the second century.81 The role of the Aitolians in the emergence of walled cities in the area must have been decisive. Lerat, to whom we owe the most complete study on Hesperian Lokris, believed that the defensive walls of the Lokrian cities must be dated back to the period of the Aitolian domination.82 This development can be supported in certain cases with rather convincing evidence. Place-names, which were probably assigned to komai, are no longer mentioned after this period; this is the case with the Messapians83 as well as with the Hessioi,84 the Hyaioi85 and the Olpaioi,86 names which are only referred to by Thucydides.87 It is noteworthy that later inscriptions also mention the names of communities, which probably inhabited similar komai, some of which are known to have been dependent upon certain poleis.88 In any case, these komai must have been rather exceptions to the normal habitation pattern. The settlements in the area of Galaxidi – which were discussed earlier in connection with the ancient sanctuary at Agios Vlassis – did not outlive the Classical period, according to our available documentation. Rather, it can be said with relative certainty that the only settlement that existed in the area 80 I am reluctant to use the term ‘urbanization’, which is frequently used for other areas in Central Greece, since no archaeological excavations have been conducted in any of the cities of Hesperian Lokris and thus the elements that show the ‘urban’ character of a site are not evident. Whether the Aitolians triggered the evolution of gathering into walled settlements or this evolution would have taken place any way even without the intervention of the Aitolians cannot be decided. It is nevertheless worth mentioning that in Aitolia the development of ‘städtische Siedlungszentren’, as Funke 1977, 169 aptly describes it, can be recorded as early as the classical period. For Aitolia’s emergence of poleis, cf. Funke 1987; Funke 1987; 1991, esp. 328– 332, and 1997, 169–172; Rzepka 2009, 16; cf. also Scholten 2000, 2 (by the end of the 4 th century BCE, as a result of contacts with other Greeks). 81 Funke 1997, 156. 82 Lerat 1952 II, 69; Valavanis 1980, 339f; Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2003, 26 n. 65. On the contrary, Portelanos 1998, 659, 846, 902–906 states that the walls must predate the Aitolian domination, in the 4th c. BCE. 83 Oldfather 1931, 1207f; Lerat 1952 I, 210; II, 85. According to Lerat 1952 I, 35 the Messapians were the people who, since the 3rd cent. BCE, bore the name Physkeis, a view disproved by subsequent studies, cf. Rousset 2002, 18. 84 Lerat 1952 I, 32–34, 212f. 85 Lerat 1952 I, 31f, 97. 86 Lerat 1952 I, 13–15, 212. 87 These observations should probably be taken with some reservation, since future epigraphic finds might bring significant reconsiderations. 88 Stieis and Peleoi, people living in a kome near Amphissa: Lerat 1952 I, 50, 60–63; Phalika, Lerat 1952 I, 63; Axia, Lerat 1952 I, 18. Kase et al. 1991, 92f. Rousset 2004.

58

Nikolaos Petrochilos

during this period was Chaleion, present-day Galaxidi. The time at which the settlement was established cannot be ascertained with certainty, but it is very probable that it was founded in the closing years of the fourth century or at the beginning of the third century BCE,89 when the walls of the city were erected. We can see analogous developments in locations throughout the length of the coastal area, where important and extensive cities arose. On the present-day Coast of Tolophon (Παραλία Τολοφῶνος) archaeological excavations have brought to light parts of residences dated to the third and second centuries.90 It is not impossible that at least some of these settlements could be related to some sanctuary. Apart from the one in the region of Chaleion already discussed, other sanctuaries are known from later sources: a sanctuary of Apollo Phaistinos at Oeantheia, modern Panormos,91 one dedicated to Athena Ilias in Physkeis, the sanctuary of Nemean Zeus, well-known from the campaign of Demosthenes, located near the site where the Athenian army disembarked, at Oeneon, present-day Klima, as well as the infamous sanctuary of Asclepius near Naupaktos.92 After the Aitolians absorbed their land, the Lokrians participated to the fullest in the political conditions that were shaped by the Aitolian order. Lokrians participated in the Aitolian political life, while at the same time the maintenance of their distinctive local identity would be facilitated by the division of the Aitolian state in τέλη, to which the ethnic character was significant.93 Having occupied the land of the ethne participating in the Amphiktyony, the Aitolians took over their seats at the congress as well, and, as a result, by 262 BCE the Aitolians had acquired nine seats. Likewise, it seems that the Aitolians fully re-oriented the area’s defense system, from Delphi to Aitolia. During the Hellenistic period towers were erected throughout the length of the public pathways, as well as at certain strategic locations.94 In this way the Aitolians exercised control over communications and traffic, while also securing the fortified cities. 89 The archaeological research at Galaxidi has been conducted within the limited bounds of rescue excavations and therefore no decisive conclusions can be drawn on the foundation of the city and its historical evolution. The most extensive research was that of Threpsiadis in 1940, during which a monumental burial construction was unearthed; unfortunately, the documentation and the results of that research is lacking. Nevertheless, Threpsiadis 1972, 200f dates the circuit wall in the 4th c. BCE, whereas Themelis, AD 33, 1978, Chronicles, B1, 146–148, in the period 320–290 BCE. Also cf. Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2003, 25f n.62 and 64, where all the references are collected. 90 Ground plan of the fortification wall, ap. R. Kolonia, D. Skorda, AD 46, 1991, Chronicles B1, 200. R. Kolonia, AD 52, 1997 Chronicles B2, 448. 91 For the identification of Panormos with Oeantheia, cf. Themelis 2003, 33. For the location of Oeantheia at Glyfa cf. Raptopoulos and Tsaroucha 2012. 92 For the cults in Hesperian Lokris, Lerat 1952 II, 143–169. 93 Sordi 1953, 444 (= Gschnitzer 373f); Larsen 1968, 197f; Funke 1997, 158. Corsten 1999, 132– 159 favors the opinion that τέλη were not ethnic entities but organizational districts based on the proportionality. 94 Plut. Demetr. 40.7 …Τῶν δὲ Πυθίων καθηκόντων, πρᾶγμα καινότατον ἐπέτρεψεν αὑτῷ ποιεῖν ὁ Δημήτριος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ Αἰτωλοὶ τὰ περὶ Δελφοὺς στενὰ κατεῖχον…; cf. Flacelière 1937, 68–80, esp. 76, who accepts that Aitolians also controlled Delphi since 290/289 BCE; Grainger 1999,

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

59

We find ourselves on more solid ground, in relation to the image of Hesperian Lokris, after the recovery of their independence from the Aitolians in the aftermath of the battle of Pydna.95 It is certain that the cities at the western edge of West Lokris up to Naupaktos would not have participated in the re-established koinon.96 The same applies for the Amphissaeans and it is also probable that this was the case for Chaleion.97 As a result, the revived Κοινὸν τῶν Λοκρῶν, the Lokrian koinon, as seems to be its official name,98 consisted merely of the central part of the Hesperian Lokris of the early Classical period, and more specifically of the six cities Oiantheia, Tolophon, Phaistinos, Tritaia,99 Myonia and Physkeis, the seat of the koinon. The reference point for the koinon headed by the agonothetēs100 was probably the sanctuary of Athena Ilias, where fifteen manumission decrees were found. 101 Despite the fact that the Amphissaeans did not participate in the koinon,102 they do not seem to have given up their Lokrian heritage. In a decree issued at Delphi between the years 135–128 BCE,103 certain judges receive honors for having solved judicial contests, not necessarily based on land claims, which had arisen between the city and certain opponents who in the decree are named Lokrians and could have been none other than Amphissaeans, the only Lokrian people sharing borders with Apollo’s land. In any case, it is significant that during the 2nd century it is possible to see that ethnic identity is much broader than simply participating in the koinon.

95 96 97

98 99 100

101 102 103

89–100 observes that the control of the passages leading to Delphi is not the same as to control the sanctuary itself. This notice does not weaken the argument that holding the passages equaled the total control over Hesperia Lokris. The network of the towers is especially dense in the area of modern Galaxidi as well as that of Delphi. In the area between Galaxidi and Itea two towers (at Tsitome and Kamniotissa) were described by Lerat 1952 I, 150, 167 and in the past few years their number has increased significantly in the area around Delphi (for which cf. Skorda 1992, 53–59) and in the region of Galaxidi (for which cf. Raptopoulos, Pilalas 2015); they all either occupy prominent places or are situated next to paths, let alone the towers found earlier by Lerat in the coastal and the continental regions of Lokris, Lerat 1952 I, 84, 113, 115, 173f. All these towers will be systematically presented and discussed in a future study. Flamininus’ policy left West Lokris unaffected as part of the Aitolian state; cf. Lerat 1952 II, 72. Lerat 1952 II, 95–99 who takes account of the nationality of the officials, mentioned in the manumission inscriptions. Between the years 166/5 BCE and 122/1 BCE, out of the twenty-five manumission acts in which Amphissaeans are mentioned – 45 in all from Lokris – not even one has been dated by an official of the koinon, while in Amphissa they even use their local calendar. Perhaps the Chaleians did not participate in the koinon for this very same reason as the Amphissaeans did not. IG IX2.1. 667. Funke 1997, 158 puts forward the assumption that the Lokrian koinon as well as the other koina revived or created for the first time after 168 BCE. Modern Penteoria, not to be confused with the modern name place Tritaia, ancient Hypnia. The title denotes that he mainly had religious obligations; the Rhieia, a festival attested in West Lokris in the late 1st cent. CE, hardly could be considered as the federal festival, since there are no other testimonies but the reference of Plutarch Mor. 162, C-E. Rousset 2006, 350–369 with previous references. Lerat 1952 II, 117. FD III.4. 169.

60

Nikolaos Petrochilos

To name one example, a contemporary amphiktyonic catalogue presents an Amphissaean hieromnemon as representative of the Hesperian Lokrians. Whatever the case may be, during the period after 167 BCE the western Lokrians seem to have maintained only a weak recollection of their lineage from the Opountian Lokris. Can the aforementioned observations offer insights into the ethnic identity of the Hesperian Lokrians? There seems to be a stratification of facts and conditions that all contribute to the non-formation of a distinctive, local Lokrian identity. With the exception of the eastern part of Lokris, the land where the Lokrians were settled was not uninhabited, but perhaps was not as densely populated as other regions in central Greece. It is known that even during the 4th century in Naupaktos Achaians were present,104 whereas Molykreion was colonized by Corinthian settlers by the time Cypselus was tyrant. The extent to which the Lokrians have come to terms with other populations cannot be underestimated. The infiltration of the Lokrians originating from Opountian Lokris must have been completed over a period of several centuries through the region of Amphissa, a place with which the ties were never disrupted.105 Another stratification element was added with the Aitolian occupation; the Lokrians were henceforth politically considered Aitolians but maintained their distinctive Lokrian identity. In this paper the archaeological documentation has served to approach the region and to re-examine the epigraphical and philological testimonies concerning Hesperian Lokris. The observations made lead to the confirmation of the ancient tradition, according to which Lokrians originating from Eastern Lokris settled to Hesperian Lokris gradually since the Late Bronze Age until this movement’s completion as late as the Archaic Period. The basic channel of communication was an ancient road that brought the plain of Pleistos into contact with central and southern Greece even since the 2nd millennium, the so-called ‘Doric Corridor.’ Perhaps these recollections are depicted in the tradition preserved by Plutarch, according to which Lokros, the son of Physkos and descendant of Deukalion, crossed over to the other side of the sea ὑπερβαίνων εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν θάλασσαν106, obviously by crossing over the mountainous ridge of Ghiona. Plutarch’s tradition clearly constitutes an echo of this journey. The consciousness of a common reference point and solidarity between the two populations may have been multidimensional and multi-faceted, and exercised a formative influence on the construction of the Western Lokrians’ identity. The latter, especially during the Classical period, held the memory of their heritage vividly in mind, which allowed them to maintain strong bonds with the Opountians – before travelling on the path that would lead to their development as a distinct collectivity. In a sense, these thoughts stretch the schema, according to 104 They were expelled from the Boiotians under Epameinondas (Diod. 15.75), but later, in 343/2 BCE, they were anew present at Naupaktos (Dem. Phil. 3.34). Lerat 1952 II, 49. 105 In Opountian Lokris during the period following the Late Bronze Age, since the Late Helladic IIIB period (12th cent. BCE) until the Protogeometric period (10th cent. BCE), the number of sites seem to have been reduced significantly, an observation that has been rightly connected with the traditions on the colonization of West Lokris. Lerat 1952 II, 12–16; Fossey 1990, 105– 107, and n. 4, with further references. 106 Op.cit. n. 78.

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

61

which in the Archaic period there existed different levels of the feeling of membership in major unities and channels of self-designation, especially in the poleis and the ethnos.107 This latter notion should have been exceptionally intense and influential among the Lokrians, who chose to name their only colony, founded probably on the initiative of the Opountians as early as the last quarter of the eighth century, by the name of their ethnos, Lokroi, a choice associated with the importance of that collectivity prior to and independently from the formation of the poleis.108 This consciousness of their origins was not disrupted even after Hesperian Lokris was subjected to the Aitolians, and the belief that they descended from Eastern Lokris would linger on even well into the Imperial Period. BIBLIOGRAPHY Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens. Image et religion, Paris. Beck, H. (1999) Ostlokris und die “Tausend Opuntier”. Neue Überlegungen zum Siedlergesetz für Naupaktos, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 124, 53–62. Bommeljé, S. et al. (1987) Aetolia and the Aetolians: towards the interdisciplinary study of a Greek region, Utrecht. Bosworth, A.B. (1976) Early Relations between Aetolia and Macedon, American Journal of Ancient History 1, 164–181. Bouyia, P. (2000) Archaische Befestigungen in Polygonalmauerwerk in der Opuntischen Lokris, in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v.Chr. Akten des Symposions, Wien 24. bis 27. März 1999, Vienna, 67–75. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2000) Physkos [2], Der Neue Pauly 8, Stuttgart/Weimar, 1000. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2013), Ethnic Identity, Cults and Territorial Settlement: East and West Lokrians, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries. Identity and Integration, Stuttgart, 139–161. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2015) The Lokrians and their Federal Leagues, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 179–198. Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2008) Ethnos, koinon and polis among the Lokrians, in M. Lombardo (ed.), Forme sovrapoleiche e interpoleiche di organizzazione nel mondo greco antico, atti del convegno internazionale, Lecce, 17–20 septembre 2008, Lecce, 322–334. Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2013a) Early Settlement and Configuration of the Archaic Poleis, in J. Pascual and M.–F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Locris, Leiden/Boston 405–443. Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2013b) The Late Archaic Period, in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 445– 470. Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2015) Eastern Lokris between Thessaly and Phokis, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), Archaiologiko ergo Thessalias kai Stereas Helladas, Volos, 883–892. Effenterre, H.v., and F. Ruzé (1994) Nomima : recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaisme grec I, Rome. Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aetoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe siècle av. J.-C., Paris.

107 Morgan 2003, 113; Dominguez 2013a, 417. 108 Musti 1977, 25–27; Dominguez 2013a, 416.

62

Nikolaos Petrochilos

Fossey, J.M. (1990) The Ancient Topography of Opountian Lokris, Amsterdam. Freitag, K. (2001) Der Golf von Korinth. Historisch-topographische Untersuchungen von der Archaik bis in das 1. Jh. v. Chr., Münster. Funke, P. (1987) Zur Datierung befestigter Stadtanlagen in Aetolien: Historisch-philologische Anmerkungen zu einem Wechselverhältnis zwischen Siedlungsstruktur und politischer Organisation, Boreas 10, 87–96. Funke, P. (1991) Zur Ausbildung städtischer Siedlungszentren in Aetolien, in E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend (ed.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 2, 1984 und 3, 1987, Bonn, 313–332. Funke, P. (1997) Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aetolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr., in M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 145–188. Funke, P. and M. Haake (eds.) (2013) Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart. Graham, A.J. (1964) Colony and mother city in ancient Greece, New York. Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aetolians, Leiden. Gschnitzer, F. (1991) Zum Vorstoß von Acker- und Gartenbau in die Wildnis: Das “Westlokrische Siedlungsgesetz” (IG. IX, 12. 609) in seinem agrargeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, Ktema 16, 81–91. Jacquemin, A. et al. (2012) Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et commentées, Athènes. Jeffery, L.H. (1990) The local scripts of archaic Greece. A study of the origin of the Greek alphabet and its development from the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C., Oxford. Kase, E.W. and G. Szemler (1979/1983) The Amphiktyonic League and the First Sacred War: a New Perspective, in J. Harmatta (ed.), Proceedings of the VIIth International Federation of the Societies of Classical Studies I, Budapest, 109–116. Kase, E.W. (ed.) (1991) The Great Isthmus Corridor route, explorations of the Phokis–Doris expeditions, Dubuque. Kourachanis, P. (1992) Η αρχαία Άμφισσα στο φως της αρχαιολογικής έρευνας, Φωκικά Χρονικά 4, 98–115. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States, their institution and history, Oxford. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes. Lerat, L. (1952) Les Locriens de l’Ouest, Paris. Liampi, K. (1995–1996) On the chronology of the bronze Coinages of the Aetolian League and its Members (Spearhead and Jawbone Types), Αρχαιογνωσία 9, 83–109. Martin, R. (1965) Manuel d’architecture grecque I. Matériaux et techniques, Paris. Mazarakis Ainian, A. (ed.) (2015) Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 4, Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος, 15.3–18.3–2012 Τόμος ΙΙ: Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos. Nerantzis, I.G. (2001) Η χώρα των Αιτωλών, συμβολή στη γεωπολιτική της οργάνωση, Crete. Oldfather, W.A. (1926) Lokris, RE XIII, 1135–1288. Oldfather W.A. (1931), RE XV, 1207–8. Onassoglou, A. (1988) Ein Klappspiegel aus einem Grab in der Ostlokris, Archäologischer Anzeiger 25, 439–459. O’Shea, J.M. (1984) Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation, Orlando. Orgeolet, R., Skorda, D., Zurbach, J, & alii (2017) ‘un bilan d’étape, 1. La fouille et les structures archéologiques’, BCH 141.2 Papakonstantinou, M.-F. (2014) Ex Umbra in Solem: το Κάστρο της Άμφισσας και η προοπτική ανάδειξής του, in M.–F. Papakonstantinou (ed.), Το Κάστρο των Σαλώνων ('Αμφισσας), Amphissa, 19–32. Papakonstantinou, M.-F. and E. Karantzali (2013) The Nekropoleis of Epicnemedian Lokris and Dipotamos Valley, in J. Pascual and M.–F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemedian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 225–262. Papakonstantinou, M.-F. and M. Sipsi (2009) Το γεωμετρικό νεκροταφείο στη θέση Άγιος Δημήτριος Καινούργιου Νομού Φθιώτιδος, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 2ο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο

The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians

63

Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης. Βόλος, 16.3–19.3.2006. Τόμος ΙΙ, Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, 1029–1042. Pascual, J. and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.) (2013) Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston. Pascual, J (2013), The Classical period (480–323 BC), in J. Pascual and M.–F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 471–505. Perdrizet, P. (1899) Notes ď épigraphie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 23, 344–348. Petronotis, A. (1973) Αρχιτεκτονικά και οικιστικά μνημεία και ιστορικές θέσεις του Νομού Φωκίδος, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Στερεοελλαδικών Μελετών 4, 93–132. Portelanos, A.K. (1998) Οι αρχαίες αιτωλικές οχυρώσεις, Athens. Raptopoulos, S. and A. Tsaroucha (2012) Κάστρο Γλύφας – Δυτική Λοκρίδα: προβλήματα ταύτισης και νέες προτάσεις, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 3ο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης. Βόλος, 12.3–15.3.2006. Τόμος ΙΙ, Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, 1113–1119. Raptopoulos, S. and I. Pilalas (2015) Πύργοι και αμυντικό δίκτυο στην Δ. Λοκρίδα των ελληνιστικών χρόνων, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 4, Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος, 15.3–18.3–2012 Τόμος ΙΙ: Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, 785–792. Rousset, D. (2004) West Lokris, in M. H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 381–398. Rousset, D. (2006) Affranchissements de Physkeis en Locride occidentale, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 130, 349–379. Rousset, D. and R. Kolonia (2011) Monuments funéraires de Locride occidentale, Chiron 41, 181– 216. Rzepka, J. (2004) Phillip II of Macedon and the ‘Garrison of Naupaktos’: a Re–Interpretation of Theopompus FGrHist 115 F 234, Tyche 19, 157–166. Rzepka, J. (2009) The Aetolian Elite Warriors and Fifth-Century Roots of the Hellenistic Confederacy, Akme 4, 7–34. Sakellariou, M.B. (2009) Ethnè grecs à l’âge du Bronze, II Etoliens–Thessaliens, conclusions, Athènes. Sánchez, P. (2001) L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes : Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au 2e siècle de notre ère, Stuttgart. Saranti, E. (2006) Η αρχαία Ναύπακτος και η ευρύτερη περιοχή της, in Α΄ Αρχαιολογική Σύνοδος Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, ΣΤ’ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων, 6 η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων, Πάτρα, 9–12 Ιουνίου 1996, Πρακτικά, Athens, 499–510. Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder. Aetolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley. Scranton, R.L. (1941) Greek Walls, Cambridge. Skorda, D. (1992) Recherches dans la vallée du Pléistos, in J.-F. Bommelaer (ed.), Delphes: Centenaire de la “grande fouille” réalisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes, 1892–1903: actes du colloque Paul Perdrizet, Strasbourg, 6–9 novembre 1991, Leiden, 39–66. Skorda, D. (2003) Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην περιοχή της Ιτέας και του Γαλαξειδίου, in P.C. Themelis and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 1–9. Sordi, M. (1953) Le origini del koinon etolico, Acme 6, 419–445. Themelis, P. (1984) Δελφοί και περιοχή τον 8ο και 7ο π. Χ. αι. (Φωκίδα-Δυτική Λοκρίδα), ASAtene LXI N.S., XLV 1983, Athens, 213–245. Themelis, P. (2003) Ο Δαμοφών στην Οιάνθεια, in P.C. Themelis and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 27–33. Themelis, P. and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.) (2003) Το Γαλαξείδι από την αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα, Athens. Threpsiadis (1972): Ι. Threpsiadis, Ανασκαφή Γαλαξιδίου, ΑΕ (1972) 184–217.

64

Nikolaos Petrochilos

Tod, M.N. (1933) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century B.C., Oxford. Tsaroucha, A. (2006) Τα νεκροταφεία της Άμφισσας, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 1o Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2– 2.3.2003. Τόμος 1, Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, 855–867. Tsaroucha, A. (forthcoming) Η πορεία της Φωκίδας μέσα από τα νεκροταφεία των ιστορικών χρόνων, in 1ος Θεματικός Τόμος Δημοσίευσης Αποτελεσμάτων Σωστικών Ανασκαφικών Ερευνών με Θέμα τα Νεκροταφεία. Valavanis, P. (2003) “Μετακινήσεις” του Γαλαξειδιού στην Αρχαιότητα, in P.C. Themelis and R. Stathaki–Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 11–26. Zymi, E. and A. Sideris (2003) Χάλκινα σκεύη από το Γαλαξείδι: πρώτη προσέγγιση, in P.C. Themelis and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 35– 60.

THE BOIOTIANS: BETWEEN ETHNOS AND KOINA Albert Schachter McGill University In Herodotus’ account of the events at Plataia in 519, the Thebans were advised by the Corinthians to leave those of the Boiotians, who were unwilling to throw their lot in with the Boiotoi, alone (ἐᾶν Θηβαίους Βοιωτῶν τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους ἐς Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν: 6.108). Here we have, explicitly stated, the clear distinction between ‘Boiotoi’ as an ἔθνος, ‘a people’, and ‘Boiotoi’ as a political entity. It is the object of this paper to investigate the differences between the Boiotoi as a people — an ἔθνος — and the Boiotoi as a state, with a view to seeing how they interacted with each other and with others, and how these relationships altered over time. The unique aspect of Boiotia is that the evidence available makes it possible to do a diachronical survey virtually from one end of antiquity to the other. I. THE ETHNOS1 We can begin by asking who the Boiotoi were. The obvious answer, that they were the people who lived in the territory known as Boiotia, and who spoke a dialect of Greek peculiar to themselves, is true enough, but only up to a point. The population of Boiotia was made up of several elements and the limits of the territory fluctuated over time, as a result of which there were times when not all so-called “Boiotians” spoke in the Boiotian dialect. The Boiotian ethnos was made up of several distinct groups of people. First, there were the Boiotoi proper, who had migrated from the North and settled first at Koroneia where they set up a sanctuary of their chief deity, Athena Itonia. Adjoining them were the so-called Minyans, who also came from the North, and were based at Orchomenos; their territory covered the western and northern fringes of the Kopaic basin. Their chief god was Zeus. In addition, there were groups who had migrated from other places: the East, the Argolid; and a pocket of people in the 1

The earliest surviving reference to the Boiotian ethnos, in the sense of a ‘Boiotian people’ is Pindar’s statement in one of his dithyrambs that ἦν ὅτε σύας Βοιώτιον ἔθνος ἔνεπον –– Fr. 83 – ‘there was a time when they called the Boiotian people ‘pigs’’. In the inscription which celebrates the victory of the Athenians over the Boiotoi and Chalkidians in 506 BCE, the defeated enemies are identified as ἔθνεα Βοιοτõν καὶ Χαλκιδέον: CEG 1.179 (IG I3.501). Here, however, ἔθνος does not mean ‘a people’; on the contrary, it carries the word’s original meaning of an ‘organized group’, such as a swarm of insects, or a band of men: the expression therefore means the ‘armies of the Boiotoi and of the Chalkidians’.

66

Albert Schachter

south-eastern part of the region’s territory who were ethnically linked to the Eretrians across the Euboian Strait. Underlying all of these groups were the descendants of the Bronze Age population. It is unlikely that the mass of population, the lower classes and slaves, vanished when the Mycenaean palace régimes collapsed. They had no alternative but to stay where they were. These people may very well have formed the largest single element in the population of what came to be known as Boiotia. Traces of their presence survived into the Hellenic period in their place names, the gods they worshipped, and no doubt the language they spoke.2 Their communities, leaderless and isolated, were forced to develop independently in their own relatively small territories. Unity returned with the introduction of new ruling elites, whom we know as the Minyai and the Boiotoi. They were in a sense the Normans or Vikings of the Greek Dark Age, relatively small groups of people in search of some place to live, who took advantage of the disorganized state of affairs they found. The territory which we know as Boiotia was limited on the southwest by the Gulf of Corinth, on the northeast by the Euboian Strait. To the west, the territory of the so-called ‘Minyans’ of Orchomenos was squeezed in between the Phokians and the Boiotoi proper. It was open to contact, and by the same token vulnerable to pressure from both sides. Fitting the Orchomenians into Boiotia was a recurring problem. In the south, Kithairon and Parnes formed a natural boundary, but one which was disputed until at least late in the sixth century. In the case of the Skourta Plain, a no-man’s land was agreed upon formally by the Boiotians, Athenians, and Corinthians: all of these people used this plain as an upland pasture. In the southeast were the Oropians and their territory, who had close ties with the Eretrians across the Euboian Strait with whom they shared at the least a common dialect.3 Finally, in the north, the northern coastal fringes of the Kopais were always Boiotian, but the regions beyond Hyettos and Kopai were for most of antiquity Lokrian, but occasionally part of Boiotia in a political sense. The Boiotian dialect probably developed on the spot from the form of Greek spoken during the Bronze Age, with an admixture of North-West Greek elements, which together gave it its special characteristics.4 In sum, the Boiotian ἔθνος was a combination of peoples who inhabited the same space, and who by and large spoke the same language. II. THE BEGINNINGS OF A STATE One might be permitted to think that, with a more or less clearly defined territory and a distinctive dialect shared by almost all the inhabitants, it would have been a

2 3 4

Schachter 2016a, 3–21. See too Schachter 1996a and 2000. The Skourta Plain: Schachter 2016a, 91–94. Vottéro 2006.

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

67

simple matter for the Boiotian ἔθνος to transform itself into a single viable political state. But it was not. There are no doubt several reasons why this was so, but for me one stands out. Unlike the successful unitary states of Athens and Sparta, Boiotia was full of small, independent poleis, at least four of which — Thebes, Orchomenos, Thespiai, Plataia — had their own circle of dependent communities. There were internal tensions, and outsiders regularly played upon the basic instability of the Boiotian state by supporting separatist interests in Plataia, Thespiai and Orchomenos. The will to unite under the leadership of a single polis — in this case, Thebes — was not strong. As mentioned above, the migrations of the so-called Dark Age saw the arrival of two tribes from central Thessaly, whom we know as Boiotoi and Minyans. They appear in the record first in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships, at the time of whose composition they were still split into groups – the first under five chieftains, the second under two. Together they would eventually provide the seven regions into which Boiotia was later divided. There is no overall leader in the Catalogue, and no obvious contender for the position, although Hypothebai, like the sanctuary of Onchestos, gets a line to itself. One of the major components in the Boiotian mosaic, the Minyans of Orchomenos, were hemmed in by their neighbours on all sides. The Boiotoi themselves were based, as we know — but not from Homer — at the sanctuary of Athena Itonia at Koroneia. They had room to expand, eastwards and southwards, and they did so. It was inevitable that the Minyans would one day wish to break out of the strict boundaries which constrained them. There are signs that this happened during the first half of the sixth century, but any further expansion was blocked by the ambitions of a relatively new player: Thebes. Hellenic Thebes had begun to take shape in the eighth century: its founding population — it is one of the few poleis in mainland Greece to have a foundation legend (two, in fact), in much the same way as an ἀποικία – was made up of local peoples from the original townsite and surrounding countryside, and migrants from other parts of Greece, notably the Argolid, and from Asia Minor. These were the so-called Spartoi, the ‘Sown Men’, or rather the people of diverse origins. The polis of Thebes, beginning as Hypothebai (the town below Thebai) and focussed on the adjacent sanctuaries of Apollo Ismenios and Herakles, had, by the middle of the sixth century, extended its influence over eastern Boiotia. Either at the same time or during the third quarter of the sixth century, it arrived at some sort of rapprochement with the Thespians, whom they protected at the siege of Keressos. From there their ambitions spread to the Kopais where they collided with the Orchomenians, who were at the time the principal power in the area. The result was a defeat for Orchomenos and the absorption of the cities of the Kopais into the Theban sphere of influence. Their subsequent attempt to bring the Plataians into line failed, as we all know, in 519, and the southern boundary of Boiotia was effectively fixed at the Asopos.5

5

The developments outlined here are dealt with in Schachter 2014 and Schachter 2016a, chapters 1 to 4 and 11.

68

Albert Schachter

I have already alluded to Herodotus’ account of the events of 519 BCE. The theme is reprised by Thucydides, who has the Thebans trace their problems with the Plataians back to the time when, after having secured the rest of Boiotia and subsequently done the same for Plataia and other regions from which they had driven out ‘peoples who did not belong here’ (ξυμμεικτοὺς ἀνθρώπους), they found that the Plataians had gone back on their word and were now refusing to submit to their leadership.6 Although neither historian was a witness to the events of 519, the gist of what they report – that it was the Thebans who were the prime movers in creating a Boiotian state out of the Boiotian people, and that they were the leaders of that state – is supported by inscriptions, which show that the Boiotoi possessed a formally constituted government, as opposed to being a collective based on ethnic identity. Three inscriptions from about the end of the sixth century or early in the fifth record dedications at Thebes by citizens of other Boiotian poleis to Apollo, who is identified twice as Hismenios. Apollo Hismenios was the chief god of the Theban polis: a dedication made to him by the people of other poleis may legitimately be regarded as an act of homage to the Thebans. To this degree it is fair to say that their fellow Boiotians regarded the Thebans as their leaders. Collectively, the Boiotoi made dedications at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoieus, to Athena Pronaia, and at the sanctuary of the Hero Ptoios of Akraiphia. Although these were small objects, the decision to have them made and dedicated will have been made by a body competent and empowered to do so, and moreover, one with a treasury, however small, at its disposal. From the same period, two texts found at Delphi refer to what seems to have been either an alliance or the settlement of a dispute with Lokris and one of its poleis. Here too the Boiotoi were acting with powers which one would normally associate with a formally constituted and recognized government. And once again, as in the case of the dedications at the Ptoion, the very existence of the dedications to which these texts refer requires an agency which had the right and the resources to decide to make them and then to do it.7 An inscription found at the Theban Herakleion dated to the first half of the fifth century and published by Vassilis Aravantinos is dated by a boiotarch (A – – – βοιοταρχίοντος). Until the discovery of this text, the only reference to boiotarchs before the foundation of the first federation after the Battle of Koroneia was the report by Herodotus (9.15.1) that, in 479, “the boiotarchs sent for the inhabitants of the land around the Asopos” (οἱ γὰρ βοιωτάρχαι μετεπέμψαντο τοὺς προσχώρους τῶν Ἀσωπίων) who guided Mardonios and his army back to Boiotia from northern Attica. Some have taken this as an anachronism, but the inscription from Thebes makes it clear that there can be no doubt that the office of boiotarch existed during 6

7

Thuc. 3.61.2: Ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς διάφοροι ἐγενόμεθα τὸ πρῶτον ὅτι ἡμῶν κτισάντων Πλάταιαν ὕστερον τῆς ἄλλης Βοιωτίας καὶ ἄλλα χωρία μετ’αὐτῆς ἃ ξυμμεικτοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐξελάσαντες ἔσχομεν, οὐκ ἠξίουν οὗτοι, ὠσπερ ἐτάχθη τὸ πρῶτον, ἡγεμονεύεσθαι ὑφ’ ἡμῶν. (We first fell out with them for this reason: we settled Plataia later than the rest of Boiotia, as well as other regions with it, of which we gained possession by driving out alien elements; but the Plataians refused to be led by us, as had been previously agreed). Schachter 2016a, 56–59.

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

69

the first half of the fifth century BCE, and perhaps even before. Indeed, since the Boiotians came under the sway of the Athenians in 458, it is probably fair enough to give that year as a terminus ante quem for the boiotarchy. The boiotarchy existed before the first federation, and, accordingly, this magistracy testifies to the existence of a formally constituted Boiotian government.8 It is therefore safe to say that by late in the sixth century most of the ethnic Boiotoi, with the exclusion of the Plataians, the so-called Minyai, and perhaps people of non–Boiotian stock in the Oropia,9 were united politically – as Boiotoi – under the leadership of the Thebans. This patching together of a single political entity from diverse components is reflected in the conversion of two tribal gods, Athena of the Boiotoi and Zeus of the Minyai, into the national deities of Boiotia, who were worshipped jointly throughout the region as Athena Itonia and Zeus Karaios. The sanctuary of Athena at Koroneia, which contained cult images of both gods, became the national sanctuary and functioned as such throughout the rest of antiquity. The choice of the sanctuary at Koroneia over the older and more centrally located sanctuary of Poseidon at Onchestos would have made it a constant reminder to the Orchomenians of the supremacy of Thebes in Boiotia. The Thebans did something similar after the Battle of Leuktra, when they established the Basileia to commemorate their victory and located the new sanctuary of Zeus as Basileus on a hilltop just outside Lebadeia. From here it would be visible not only to the Orchomenians across the way, but also to anybody who passed by enroute to Delphi. A later attempt to use a regional god as a national symbol was the elevation of Hera Teleia, the major deity of southern Boiotia, to pan–Boiotian status, thereby bringing the Plataians and their neighbours into the Boiotian political mainstream. The festival known later as Daidala – ‘Dolls’ – which seems previously to have been limited to the various sub-regions of the Plataiïd, was now expanded to take in all of the regions of Boiotia – the τέλη – which would henceforward participate in its celebration. What had originally been a ritual to declare ownership of the territory of Plataia, stretching from the Asopos to the top of Kithairon, was now to become a celebration of the possession of all of Boiotia. This may have happened when the first federation was organized. In the event, Plataia, did not remain long in this federation: it was destroyed, and the communities along the Parasopia dependent on it were absorbed into Thebes. The festival, however, continued to be celebrated, but at irregular intervals — more or less whenever it was felt that some show had to be made of Boiotian unity, as, for example, during the Theban hegemony, then again when the Hellenistic koinon was instituted, and later still, under the Empire.10 A symptom of the fundamental disunity of the Boiotoi is the fact that there was no single god who could be identified as truly pan-Boiotian, in the way that Athena 8 9

Aravantinos 2014b, 199–202; Schachter 2016a, 53. On the possibility of Theban control of the Oropia before the Persian Wars, see Papazarkadas 2014a, 242, 245f and Schachter 2016a, 40 n.19 and 94. 10 See Schachter 2016a, 117f, 143, 184.

70

Albert Schachter

was the patron god of all the Athenians. Athena Itonia and Zeus Karaios were at home in the northwest quarter of Boiotia, in the region of the Kopais. The poleis of central and eastern Boiotia had different patron deities: Hera as we have seen at Plataia, the Parasopia and Thespiai as well; Hermes at Tanagra; Demeter, Dionysos, and Herakles at Thebes. Most of these were survivals from the Bronze Age.11 The god who was most widely worshipped in Boiotia was Apollo, who might be said to have represented the interests of the ruling elites in the various poleis. These people had more in common with each other than with their fellow citizens of the lower orders. No matter what differences existed among the poleis, there was, in each one of them, an aristocratic faction with ties of xenia to its opposite numbers elsewhere. Even in Plataia there were partisans of the Theban cause. III. THE CHANGING STATE OF THE STATE (TO KOINON, HEGEMONY, AND KOINON) It is impossible to tell how things might have played out in Boiotia had it not been for the traumatic events of the Persian Wars. Would the Thebans have been able to maintain their hegemony and turn all of Boiotia into what would have been effectively a Greater Thebes, powerful enough to rival Athens and Sparta? It is idle to speculate; what seems to have happened was that after the Persian Wars Thebes was no longer the hegemon of the Boiotoi, although in fact the Thebans came out of it well enough. They regained (or still had) control of the eastern part of Boiotia by 470 at the latest, and before that one of their number had been victorious at the Pythian Games of 474. Pindar’s ode celebrating the victory (Pyth. 11) begins with a roll call of the major heroines/goddesses of Thebes, and ends with a joint reference to Iolaos of Thebes and Polydeukes of Therapne. It is as if the poet were announcing the return of the Thebans to the community of the Hellenes. The Boiotoi were still recognized as a political community: it was as such that they were penalized at Olympia for an unspecified crime, no doubt connected with the Persian Wars. Some time later on, the Thespians – ‘and those with them’, that is, their dependent poleis (Eutresis and Thisbe) – were absolved of the penalty levied against the Boiotoi as a whole. This must have been because they alone of the Boiotoi had not medized. The Plataians of course were not politically ‘Boiotoi’ at the time, but a dependency of the Athenians.12 Boiotian poleis continued to issue coins (if the dates assigned are correct) and some of the Tanagran issues were identified as ‘Boiotian’ as well as Tanagran. Presumably there was some sort of regional treasury, which used the Tanagran mint. This is, incidentally, the earliest Boiotian coinage to be identified as such. It does not mean that Tanagra was the leader of the state, but merely that its mint provided

11 Schachter 2016a, 9–11. 12 NIO 5; see Schachter 2016a, 59f.

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

71

the facility.13 This could be regarded as a first step to a federation, namely a Boiotian government not led by the Thebans.14 But once again events intervened to stop any further development. This time it was the battles of Tanagra and Oinophyta which resulted in Boiotia becoming an Athenian vassal, or rather a collection of vassals, for ten years. It is remarkable when one thinks how quickly and how easily Boiotia simply fell apart after the battle of Oinophyta. This calls to mind Perikles’ remark that the Boiotians, by fighting with each other, were like holm-oaks, which are the cause of their own destruction.15 If nothing else, this shows how weak the ties of a common ethnos really were, at least in this region of Greece. We know very little of what went happened in Boiotia during the ten years of Athenian control. There is some evidence that two poleis – Akraiphia and Orchomenos – might have become members of the Delian League. Attempts were made, without great success, to install democratic régimes in various poleis. We do know that a fair number of disaffected Boiotians, of the aristocratic class, went into exile. It was they who, gathering at Orchomenos with others of their persuasion from Euboia, Lokris, and elsewhere, caused the Athenians to send out a force under Tolmides to restore order. The result was utter defeat for the Athenians at the battle of Koroneia in 446, and the res\toration of all of Boiotia to the Boiotians.16 The victors set about organizing a Boiotian government in their own image, which ensured that the franchise rested only with the propertied classes. The constitution as described by the Oxyrhynchos Historian is full of checks and balances which were intended to ensure that this would be the case. The territory was divided into eleven μέρη, or to use the appropriate Boiotian term, τέλη, based partly on population. Each was entitled to one boiotarch and was obliged to contribute troops and money to the common government. The boiotarchies were allocated in such a way as to make it hard for any single polis to have undue influence. None of the larger poleis had more than two boiotarchies. Tanagra, long a dependency of Thebes, was given a boiotarchy of its own, leaving Thebes with two; while Chaironeia and Lebadeia, originally dependencies of Orchomenos were, for the purposes of equitable distribution, removed from Orchomenos and put together with the other Kopaic poleis to share two boiotarchies in rotation. Clearly this arrangement was the result of compromises among the major players. It appears to be a fair distribution, but on closer inspection we can detect a bias on the one hand against Orchomenos, and in favour of Thebes on the other. Lebadeia and Chaironeia, both carved out of the original territory of the Orchomenians, were removed from their direct control. At the very least, the arrangement among

13 Schachter 2016a, 61f. 14 That there was some form of pan-Boiotian infrastructure is suggested also by the fact that it was the Boiotians who fought in the battle of Oinophyta. There is no indication that there were only Thebans involved on the Boiotian side: Thuc. 1.108: the Athenians marched ἐς Βοιωτούς and μάχῃ ἐν Οἰνοφύτοις Βοιωτοὺς νικήσαντες. 15 Arist. Rhetoric 3.4. 16 See Schachter forthcoming, and Schachter 2016a, 71f.

72

Albert Schachter

the Kopais poleis neutralized the potential influence of the Orchomenians. The Thebans, on the other hand, could count on the Tanagrans regularly, as they could most of the time on the cities of the Kopais. But what weighted the arrangement in the Thebans’ favour from the very beginning, and sowed the seeds for the destruction of the federation, was that the seat of the federal government was placed at Thebes. Theoretical considerations aside, in practical terms this meant that federal decisions were most likely to have been influenced by the Thebans, who had the advantage of already being on hand whenever federal business was transacted. The effects of this were not lost upon those who later organized the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon. Still, it was an attempt to create a pan–Boiotian government in which every section of the country participated. This situation lasted until the spring of 431, when the Thebans – at the behest of their friends inside the town – invaded Plataia with the intention of eliminating the opposition and handing the polis over to the Thebans (τὴν πόλιν Θηβαίοις προσποιῆσαι: Thuc. 2.2.2), and allying themselves in accordance with the ancestral traditions of all the Boiotoi (κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν ξυμμαχεῖν: Thuc. 2.2.4). It is assumed by some that Plataia had not been a member of the Boiotian federation set up in 446, but this is not likely. The constitution of the Boiotians as described by the Oxyrhynchos Historian had originally allocated two boiotarchies to Plataia and its dependent towns, but these were now (in 395) in the hands of the Thebans, who in this way controlled four boiotarchies out of the eleven. There must have been a time when the Plataiïd belonged to the federation in its own right, and this can only have been at the outset, from 446 to 431. From then until the end of the Peloponnesian War, the Thebans were clearly the dominant power in Boiotia again. It was one of their boiotarchs, Pagondas, who led the Boiotian forces at the battle of Delion in 424 BCE. A year after this battle, in which the Thespians had suffered great losses, the Thebans tore down the city wall of Thespiai, accusing the Thespians of ἀττικισμός. They must have been reacting to events inside Thespiai after the battle of Delion. The loss of so many men of the hoplite class would have weakened the pro-Theban and pro-Spartan elite of the polis to the point where the pro-Athenian faction felt free to try to take control of the polis. Tearing down the walls was not so much an act of war against Thespiai as one of support for the hard-pressed hoplite class. And indeed in the summer of 414 the Thespian δῆμος rose up against its rulers. The Thebans came to the rescue again; some members of the δῆμος were arrested, others fled to Athens, and Thespiai was once more in the hands of the men of property, friendly to the Thebans, friendly to the Spartans. At the end of the Peloponnesian War the Thebans fell out with the Spartans over the matter of whether or not to destroy Athens. The failure of the Theban leadership to get their way led to their being replaced by a faction not wedded to the Spartan cause, and gave rise to the situation described by the Oxyrhynchos Historian. Accordingly there were two factions, one pro–Spartan, and the other accused of ἀττικισμός. It is probably more correct to regard the latter faction not as proAthenian, but as Theban or Boiotian nationalists. They made use of their Athenian connections, certainly, but they were not necessarily ‘democratic’ themselves. The

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

73

oligarchic constitution was still in force and remained that way until the dissolution of the Boiotian league by the King’s Peace. The League, led as it was by Thebans, was now hostile to its erstwhile allies, the Spartans, and moving gradually closer to the Athenians. It was still ostensibly a federation, issuing its own coinage, although more and more it was the Thebans who took the lead in Boiotian affairs. There was disaffection on the part of the Thespians and the Orchomenians, who found themselves moving closer to Sparta, but generally it seems that the Thebans were able to command the loyalty of most Boiotians — a situation which remained more or less unchanged until the destruction of Thebes in 335.17 Under the terms of the King’s Peace of 386, the Boiotian federation was dissolved, and so it remained until the liberation of Thebes at the end of 379. At that time, the Thebans revived the federation – the κοινόν – but it was a federation in name only.18 The Thebans kept control of the government of the country, naming most if not all of the boiotarchs, and negotiating with foreign powers in the name of all Boiotians. Proxeny decrees were issued in the name of the Boiotoi, but when it came to serious business it was the Thebans who signed the documents. This will explain the confusion before the Battle of Leuktra, when the Thebans insisted on ensuring that when they signed the proposed treaty, they were doing so on behalf of the Boiotoi. We see this process operate also in a recently published treaty, according to which the Histiaians agreed to submit to the military hegemony of the Thebans, not the Boiotians.19 The common opinion is that the Theban Hegemony ended at the battle of Mantineia in 362.20 To be sure, the death of Epameinondas marked a turning-point, for it deprived Thebes of its most capable leader. But for at least five years after the battle of Mantineia the Boiotians, that is, the Thebans, were the main land power in Greece, giving way to Philip of Makedon only after a series of setbacks which were matched by the steady growth in the powers of the Makedonians and their king. The Thebans exercised their leadership in Boiotia by a mixture of coercion and diplomacy. Dissident elements were dealt with by force. The Plataians, who had been hostile to the Thebans since at least 519, were driven out in 373, their city destroyed and their lands distributed among Thebans. Plataia no longer existed as a polis. Orchomenos, which had provided a base for the enemies of Thebes during the Corinthian War (and was to do the same later during the Third Sacred War), and remained a centre of the disaffected aristocracy during the Theban Hegemony, was taken in 364, when at least some of its citizens were put to the sword and their womenfolk and children enslaved. Orchomenos continued to function as a polis, 17 Schachter 2016a, chapter 7, esp. 115f. 18 See for now Robinson 2011, 56f. 19 Aravantinos and Papazarkadas 2012. For the period between 431 and 371 in general, see Buck 1994. 20 This opinion owes much to Xenophon, who ended his Hellenika at this point, and to Ephoros, who stated it explicitly: τελευτήσαντος γὰρ ἐκείνου (sc. τοῦ Ἐπαμεινώνδου) τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἀποβαλεῖν εὐθὺς τοὺς Θηβαίους γευσαμένους αὐτῆς μόνον (FGrH 70 F 119 = Str. 9.2.2 [401]) (For at his death, the Thebans immediately lost the hegemony, having had only a taste of it), and cf. later in the passage at Str. 9.2.5 (402).

74

Albert Schachter

however, as in 359 an Orchomenian was appointed theōrodokos for an Epidaurian theōros. It is possible, therefore, that the punishment meted out to the Orchomenians was limited to members of the faction opposed to the Thebans.21 This must also have been the case with Thespiai. Beyond tearing down the city walls the Thebans seem to have left the Thespians alone. Probably they supported the pro-Theban faction there and used them to keep their fellow citizens under control. And, whatever Isokrates says about the Thebans having obliged the Thespians to join them, their behaviour cannot have been very oppressive. Thespiai not only prospered, but maintained its own contacts with the outside world. 22 The Thebans treated those loyal to them well: it was at this time that the territory of Tanagra was greatly enlarged by the addition of the tetrakomia and its lands to the north.23 The defection of the Euboians from Thebes in 357 did not turn the people of Oropos — which had been ceded to the Thebans in 366 — away from Thebes, and, even after the battle of Chaironeia, they remained independent, and were handed over to Athens by Alexander only in 335 (perhaps he suspected that they still had pro–Theban sympathies). Nor is there any sign at all of disaffection at two other important poleis of Boiotia, Haliartos and Akraiphia. What we have is silence, but here it speaks loudly enough. Furthermore, the people of Chaironeia and Lebadeia, even though they were surrounded by elements hostile to Thebes, also remained loyal throughout the Third Sacred War (although the Koroneians wavered in their allegiance).24 It seems that the aim of the Theban leadership during this period was to concentrate control of external affairs, military matters, and the treasury, in their own hands. The federal assembly was based at Thebes. Federal documents were dated by the archon of Thebes, and the coins of Thebes, while not necessarily the only issue, appear — to judge from the sheer number of coins which have survived — to have served as a quasi-federal coinage.25 Nevertheless, individual poleis probably retained control of purely local matters. The relationship of the other poleis to Thebes is described by the expressions Θηβαίοις συντελεῖν or συντελεῖν εἰς τὰς Θήβας, a status held certainly by Thespiai and Tanagra. These were bi-lateral arrangements, whereby a polis consented to merge its affairs with those of the Thebans, giving up its αὐτονομία, which had been restored by the King’s Peace.26 Συντέλεια is contrasted by Isokrates with the disappearance of the polis of the Plataians, and the absorption of their territory into that of Thebes. In practical terms,

21 On the fate of Plataia and Orchomenos, see the summaries in Hansen 2004, 449–451.216 (Plataia) and 446–448.213 (Orchomenos). 22 See Hansen 2004, 457f.222, and Schachter 1996b, 120–122. 23 Schachter 2016a, chapter 6, passim, 114f. 24 Schachter 2016a, 115 and notes 5–6 (Oropos), note 7 (Chaironeia and Lebadeia), note 8 (Koroneia). 25 See Hepworth 1998 and Schachter 2016b. 26 Θηβαίοις συντελεῖν: Isocr. 14 (Plataiikos) 8; συντελεῖν εἰς τὰς Θήβας: idem 9, and Hell. Oxy. = FGrH 66 fr. 1.265 (referring to an earlier occasion). Diod. Sic. 12.41, 15.38–39, 50, 70.

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

75

συντέλεια means that the polis in question had ceded to Thebes its right to conduct foreign policy, in times of both peace and war.27 Outside Boiotia, the Thebans followed more or less the same procedure. They made separate alliances with individual states, the terms of which seem to have varied from case to case. The Achaians and Histiaians, for example, accepted the Thebans as their leaders. The Phokians on the other hand undertook only a mutual defence pact, which did not oblige them to follow the Thebans wherever they led.28 The Thebans’ alliance with Athens in 378 was also a special arrangement, or so it would seem from the despatch of a delegation to Thebes, who were to persuade the Thebans ὅ [τ]ι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαθόν, ‘of whatever good thing they can’. Aside from these cases, the terms of engagement remain hidden, although one may guess that most of the alliances with Peloponnesian states were based on mutual defence in the event of invasion. The Theban network of alliances extended from Akarnania to Byzantion, and from Thessaly to the Peloponnese. It was never a full-scale league in the manner of the Second Athenian League, for example. The nature of Theban involvement with their allies can be seen in the inscription which lists contributions to the Boiotian war effort in the middle of the Third Sacred War: the money came not as a fixed tribute, but as individual donations from two poleis in Akarnania, Byzantion, and from a Boiotian proxenos of Tenedos.29 Although the Thebans were able to collect a large number of allies on a one-toone basis, they were not able to impose their leadership over the other Hellenes as a whole. When, in 366, they tried to organize a general peace, nobody took them seriously and the enterprise foundered. The Thebans lacked the will, the ability, the prestige, or all of these, to impose themselves. And in truth, Theban policy outside Boiotia was defensive rather than aggressive. They had no ambitions other than to protect their position and their territory. They sought to neutralize their enemies by helping their allies, and engaged themselves abroad primarily in police actions. Even their disastrous foray against Phokis, which set off the Third Sacred War, may be seen in this light. IV. A REAL ΚΟΙΝΌΝ All of this came to an end with the destruction of Thebes in 335. The removal of the Thebans from the scene left the way open for the creation of a true confederacy, 27 Συντελεῖν εἰς Θήβας: see Isokrates 14 (Plataikos), 9. See too Bakhuizen 1994, and Gonzalez 2006, 34–38, and on Thebes and Boiotia in the Classical period in general, Hammond 2000. The occasional appearance abroad in official contexts of a polis-ethnic shows that the individual poleis were not swallowed up into a single state: IG IV2.1.94/95 theorodokoi from Thebes, Thespiai, Koroneia, Orchomenos, Lebadeia; for the date (mid-fourth century BCE) see Sève 1993, 207. IG XII.3. 542. 6.25: a Lebadeian proxenos of Karthaia (mid-fourth century). 28 Xen. Hell. 7.5.4–8. 29 Achaians: Xen. Hell. 7.1.42. Histiaia: Aravantinos and Papazarkadas 2012. Phokians: Xen. Hell. 7.5. 4–8. Athens: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 92–105 no.22 ll. 72–75). Contributions for the Sacred War: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 268–271 no. 57.

76

Albert Schachter

the only Boiotian κοινόν which deserves this definition. Care was taken to ensure that no single polis had undue influence. Individual poleis retained a great deal of autonomy but ceded interstate relations with each other and with external powers to the central, Boiotian, government. The seat of this government was at Onchestos, near the sanctuary of Poseidon at the southeast corner of the Kopais. The foundations of the federal capital buildings have been found just west of the pass. The symbolic importance of locating the federal capital in neutral territory, which belonged to no individual polis, cannot be overestimated. It is a principle which still operates today in several countries.30 The Boiotians of the Hellenistic koinon were divided into regions as before, seven of them, some comprising one polis, others grouping several small ones together. On the occasions when the koinon was expanded to include poleis from outside Boiotia proper (East Lokris, Oropos, Megara, Aigosthena), an eighth region was created. Each provided representatives to the federal government, some to serve as magistrates, others to be what we would call civil servants. Over all of these, but with no power other than to date the activities of his year, was the federal archon, whose name, as a symbol of his neutrality, was not accompanied by an ethnikon. The occasional extension of the koinon beyond the normal boundaries of ‘Boiotia’ shows that by this time at least, ethnicity was not a primary characteristic of being ‘Boiotian’: what mattered more was political expediency.31 This state of affairs lasted until early in the second century BCE, when meetings of the koinon came to be held, not at Onchestos any more, but at Thebes. This could have reflected a shift in the balance of power towards the direction of the Thebans.32 V. FROM ΚΟΙΝΌΝ TO ΚΟΙΝΌΝ Towards the end of the 170s, possibly in 173, the Boiotian koinon formed an alliance with King Perseus of Makedon.33 In 17234 the Romans sent a delegation to Greece, whose leaders let it be known that, in Boiotia, they would deal only with individual poleis, and openly spurned the advances of Ismenias, head of the koinon, who had offered to put the whole of the country at the disposal of Rome.35 In short, the Romans no longer recognized the koinon as the legitimate representative of the Boiotians; in this they were aided and abetted by those Boiotians who had been opposed to the koinon’s pro–Makedonian policy. The result of this was that the federal government simply disappeared from the scene. The Romans were very pleased with themselves for having brought about the collapse of the koinon at 30 On the site, see Schachter 1986, 208, 220f. 31 On the Hellenistic koinon in general, see Roesch 1965. On the districts (τέλη) see Corsten 1999, 27–60 and Knoepfler 2001 (one of several articles dealing with this subject). For an overview see Beck and Ganter 2015. 32 Roesch 1982, 275–282. 33 Mackil 2013, 135. 34 For the date see Wiemer 2004, 36f. 35 Polyb. 27.1.

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

77

arm’s length, as it were, and with no armed intervention.36 Not all Boiotians were happy with the outcome, and it took a few months to bring the people of Koroneia, Thisbe, and Haliartos to heel. Matters were sealed by the siege and destruction of Haliartos in 171, whose territory was allotted to the Athenians in 167, and the suppression of anti–Roman elements in Koroneia and Thisbe.37 Dissident elements were still active in Thebes, however, and it was not until 146 that the Romans managed to settle matters there.38 What happened in 172/171 was not a formal ‘dissolution’. The Romans took advantage of what, in an earlier day, would have been called stasis to bring about the collapse of the koinon by favouring one of the two sides, the pro–Roman one, over the pro–Makedonian elected government. Formal dissolution was ratified, more or less in retrospect, by Mummius in 146.39 It is not easy to reconstruct what went on in Boiotia between the collapse of the koinon in 172/171 and the emergence of a κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν known to be in existence by the third quarter of the first century BCE. The evidence is sparse and open to a variety of interpretations.40 It is widely believed that the koinon was revived at some time after 172/171, although there is disagreement about the date, duration, and even the number, of revivals. However, I would suggest it is more likely that, just as there was no formal dissolution of the koinon in 172/171, so there may never have been a conscious/formal ‘revival’ before the formation of the last κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν.41 Although the central authority and its institutions ceased to exist in 172/171, the poleis and τέλη and the people who comprised them were still very much present. It was in some respects similar to what happened when the palatial governments collapsed at the end of the Myceanean period, except that after 172/171 those throughout Boiotia who had supported the Romans and were now, because of their loyalty to Rome, the men in authority, formed a network of ‘poleis’ which can be seen in the operation of two festivals, the Delia and the Basileia. It is to be sure by no means a full-blown federation, but, as far as these two festivals are concerned, the ‘poleis’ behaved very much like a pan–Boiotian government. They passed decrees, issued laws, had a civil service of sorts, and a central treasury; moreover, in the case of the Basileia at least, they had the power to require member states to help pay for the festivals.42 36 37 38 39 40

Livy 42.47. Excellent summary of events in Mackil 2013, 135–137. The story in outline in Paus. 7.14.6–16.9. Cf. Polyb. 39.4–6 and Livy Epitome 52. Paus. 7.16.9. Repeated attempts to clarify the situation, most recently by Denis Knoepfler and Christel Mueller, have made much progress, but we are still a long way from certainty. See Mueller 2014 and Knoepfler 2015, 448–450 (no. 449) for recent assessments. See too Mackil 2013, 136 n. 276. 41 I hope to deal with this matter at a later date. 42 The apologia of Damon son of Ariston of Orchomenos, agonothete of the Delia (SEG 57.452; cf. Bull. épigr. 2010.311, late second century BCE) refers to payments required ἐκ τοῦ νόμου (ll. 19–20 and 21: the original editors of the inscription –– Brélaz, Andreiomenou, and Ducrey

78

Albert Schachter

The formal creation of the last version of the κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν, whenever it happened, would have been based on this existing system. The earliest reference to this koinon, dated 33 or 32 BCE, is a dedication in Athens of (a statue of?) the proquaestor M. Junius Silanus, as their benefactor, by τὸ κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν | Εὐβοέων Λοκρῶ̣ν | Φωκέων Δωριέων.43 It can be assumed that at least some of the individual components of this central Greek global association were already in existence by this time. The koinon was based at the ancestral federal sanctuary of the Boiotoi, that of Athena Itonia at Koroneia. Its governing body was the college of naopoioi, whose secretary fulfilled the rôle of agonothetēs of the Pamboiotia, and was the de facto archon of the association.44 It must have been this body which organized the occasional celebrations of the Daidala: from Pausanias’ account of this festival it is clear that the division of the territory into τέλη as well as πόλεις was still maintained. As in the latter years of the Hellenistic koinon and afterwards, membership was not restricted to poleis or individuals of Boiotia proper. Boiotarchs reappear on the scene, but now they came not only from old Boiotia, but also from Megara, Phokis,

2007, 287 –– suggest that this was a law of Tanagra, but concede that ‘la participation des cités béotiennes à l’élaboration de ce réglement est cependant probable compte tenu du rôle que celles-ci jouent dans l’organisation du concours’). Mention is also made of a decree by the poleis (ll. 26–27: καθὼς ἔδοξε ταῖς πόλε|[σι] and of an under-secretary (ll. 20–21: Εὐκλείδηι̣ ὑπογραμμ[α|τεῖ]: it is the view of the editors that this functionary, who was paid for his services, ‘n’est pas un magistrat . . . La présence d’un sous-secrétaire, dont le titre sert à montrer l’infériorité hiérarchique par rapport à un magistrat, n’implique pas qu’un secrétaire de plein droit ait participé à l’organisation des Delia’ [p. 295 n. 184]. I find it difficult to agree with this: if there is an undersecretary, then there must be a secretary under whom he is ranked). The inscription dealing with the Basileia is not published in its entirety in any single source (the most complete version of the text is given by Manieri 2009, 156–163, Leb. 11, who omits lines 1–28 of part C. These lines are to be found in Vollgraff 1901, 375–378 no. 20, and Holleaux 1938, 131–142). The document probably dates to ca. 58–55 BCE (the years of exile of Ptolemy XII, whose chariot won the race ἅρματι τελείωι, ll. 18–19), and comprises the end of an athletic/hippic victors’ list (A 1–19), the apologia of Xenarchos son of Sokrates of Hyettos, agonothete of the Basileia (A 20–37), the partial list delegates from poleis (B 1–39: from Anthedon, Akraiphia, Boumelitaia, Larymna, Kopai, Plataia), partial inventory of phialai deposited by a succession of agonothetes (C 1–28), and a complaint by Xenarchos against his predecessor for his failure to present his accounts (C 29–71). The document refers to (1) contributions required from the poleis (A 23–24: they are waived by Xenarchos [ἀφῆκα δὲ τἀς πόλεις τὴν γινομένην | αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰσφορὰν πᾶσαν]), (2) an under-secretary (A 26), (3) decrees (A 28), (4) a common treasury at the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus (A 29–31; cf. C 1– 28 [the inventory] and A 21: income from the rental of the stadion and its environs), (5) active participation by the poleis (B; C 39 and 44–47: they send ἐγκριταί), (6) laws (A 35–37, C 36), and τέλη (C 36–37). 43 IG II2.4114. For the date, see Geagan 2011, 225f no. H413. 44 IG VII.2871, ll. 2–4 (γραμματεύοντος τῶν ναοποιῶν | Μνασάρχου τοῦ Χαρίτωνος, τοῦ δὲ αὐτοῦ | [κ]αὶ ἐπιμελητοῦ τῆς πανηγύρεως). Fragments of other victors’ lists: IG VII.1764, Pritchett 1969, 88B. See Schachter 1981, 124–126 (slightly out of date, but not entirely without merit).

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

79

Naryka, possibly even Karystos.45 An individual magistrate could hold office in, and any member polis could belong to, more than one koinon.46 Despite its grand titles and pious references to the Boiotian ἔθνος,47 this koinon was little more than a club which offered occasions for the elite to intermingle. It was a body with few if any powers: it could not even prevail upon its own member communities to take part in the delegation to the Emperor in 37 CE,48 although it is hard to imagine it being unable to require contributions to the cost of producing the Pamboiotia, for example, and the simple upkeep of the sanctuary at Koroneia. It almost certainly had no political standing. The Romans, as they had done since 172/171, dealt with individual poleis directly. Such matters as the engineering projects in the Kopais, and settling disputes between neighbouring poleis were referred to the source of real power, the Emperor and his officials. In the same vein, when men had to be recruited in a time of crisis, the Romans negotiated directly with individual poleis, as happened in Thespiai.49 The only instance where Boiotia is mentioned as an official entity is in the case of the έπίτροπος Βοιωτίας, the imperial freedman who looked after the emperor’s personal interests in the region.50 For the individual ‘Boiotian’, what conferred real status — as it did throughout the Empire — was not belonging to an ethnos or other regional community; it was, rather, the possession of Roman citizenship. To sum up: the Boiotian ethnos was not monolithic, but was from the start an amalgam of different peoples who lived in the same space and spoke the same form of Greek. Welding them into a political state was not easy. It did not come about because the Boiotians wanted it, but because the Thebans did. And, until the creation of the Roman province of Achaia the single factor dominating internal politics in Boiotia was whether or not the Thebans could impose themselves on their Boiotian neighbours. Other Greek states, notably Athens and Sparta, exploited the basic disunity of the Boiotians, in order to ensure that they did not pose a serious threat to their own interests. Later, after the destruction of Thebes, the Boiotians were able to set up a true confederacy. By this time, however, Boiotia was a backwater within a backwater. Later still, when Boiotia was a minor administrative unit of the province of Achaia, the regional elite revived for one last time the Boiotian koinon, but this was a body possessed neither of political power nor territorial integrity nor a common ethnicity. And as far as the last of these is concerned, almost from the beginning being ethnically Boiotian did not make a community a member of the Boiotian state, nor was it a requirement for membership.

45 IG VII.106 (Megara), IG IX.1.218 (Phokis), SEG 51.641 (Naryka). For a possible boiotarch from Karystos, see Schachter 2016, 143, n.22 (on p. 144). See too Knoepfler 2012. 46 See for example IG VII.3426, IG IX.1.218, SEG 51.641. 47 See IG VII.2711 passim. 48 IG VII.2711 passim. 49 Works in the Kopais, and the settlement of inter-polis disputes: Oliver 1989, 253–273. Raising troops from Thespiai: IThesp 37. 50 Ἐπίτροπος Βοιωτίας: FD 3.4.445: P. Aelius Myron, freedman of the Emperor (PIR2 A.224).

80

Albert Schachter

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aravantinos, V. (2014) The Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of Herakles at Thebes: An Overview, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 149–210. Aravantinos, V. and N. Papazarkadas (2012) hαγεμονία: A New Treaty from Classical Thebes, Chiron 42, 239–254. Bakhuizen, S. C. (1994) Thebes and Boeotia in the Fourth Century, Phoenix 48, 307–310. Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157. Brélaz, C., A. K. Andreiomenou, and P. Ducrey (2007) Les Premiers comptes du sanctuaire d’Apollon à Délion et le concours pan-béotien des Delia, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 131, 235–308. Buck, R. J. (1994) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, 432–371 B.C., Edmonton, Alberta. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Geagan, D. J. (2011) Athenian Agora 18. Inscriptions: the dedicatory monuments, Princeton. Gonzalez, J. P. (2006) Poleis and Confederacy in Boiotia in the Early Fourth Century BC, The Ancient World 36, 22–45. Hammond, N. G. L. (2000) Political Developments in Boeotia, The Classical Quarterly 50, 80–93. Hansen, M. H. (2004) Boiotia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 431–461. Hepworth, R. G. (1998) The 4th Century BC Magistrate Coinage of the Boiotian Confederacy, Νομισματικά Χρονικά 17, 61–96. Holleaux, M. (1938) Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques I, Paris. Knoepfler, D. (2001) La Fête des Daidala de Platées: une clef pour l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique, in D. Knoepfler and M. Piérart (eds.), Éditer, traduire, commenter Pausanias en l’année 2000, Geneva, 343–374. Knoepfler, D. (2012) L’exercice de la magistrature fédérale béotienne par des “étrangers” à l’époque impériale: conséquence de l’extension du koinon en dehors des frontières de la Béotie ou simple effet d’une multi-citoyenneté individuelle? In A. Heller and A.–V. Pont (eds.), Patrie d’origine ou patries ‘electives’. Les citoyennetés multiples dans le monde grec d’époque romaine, Bordeaux, 223–247. Knoepfler, D. (2015) Bulletin épigraphique: Béotie, Revue des Études Grecques 127, 444–494. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Manieri, A. (2009) Agoni poetico-musicale nella Grecia Antica i: Beozia, Pisa/Rome. Müller, C. (2014) A Koinon after 146? Reflections on the Political and Institutional Situation of Boeotia in the Late Hellenistic Period, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 119–146. Oliver, J. H. (1989) Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia. Papazarkadas, N. (2014a) Two New Epigrams: Dialectal “bilingualism” in Thebes, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 223–251. Papazarkadas, N. (ed.) (2014b) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden. Pritchett, W. K. (1969) Studies in Ancient Greek Topography II, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne (eds.) (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC., Oxford. Robinson, W. (2011) Democracy beyond Athens. Popular government in the Greek Classical Age, Cambridge. Roesch, P. (1965) Thespies et la confédération béotienne, Paris. Roesch, P. (1982) Études béotiennes, Paris.

The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina

81

Rousset, D., J. Camp and S. Minon (2015) The Phokian City of Panopeus/Phanoteus, Three New Rupestral Inscriptions, and the Cippus of the Labyadai of Delphi, American Journal of Archaeology 119, 441–463. Schachter, A. (1981) Cults of Boiotia I, London. Schachter, A. (1986) Cults of Boiotia II, London. Schachter, A. (1996a) Evidence for Cult and Continuity from Linear B Documents at Thebes, in E. De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi (eds.), Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso internazionale di Micenologia (Incunabula Graeca 98), Rome, 891–899. Schachter, A. (1996b) Reconstructing Thespiai, in A. Hurst and A. Schachter (eds.), La Montagne des Muses, Geneva, 99–126. Schachter, A. (2000) Greek Deities: Local and panhellenic identities, in P. Flensted–Jensen (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschrift 138), Stuttgart: 9–18. Schachter, A. (2014) Creating a Legend: The war between Thebes and Orchomenos, Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 135, 65–88. Schachter, A. (2016a) Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers, Cambridge. Schachter, A. (2016b) Towards a Revised Chronology of the Theban Magistrates’ Coins, in S. D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century BC, Philadelphia, 42–58. Schachter, A. (forthcoming ) Strange Bedfellows: Boiotians and the Delian League, in V. Aravantinos (ed.), The History and Archaeology of Northern Boeotia, Athens. Sève, M. (1993) Les Concours d’Epidaure, Revue des Études Grecques 106, 303–328. Vollgraff, W. (1901) Inscriptions de Béotie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 25, 359–378. Vottéro, G. (2006) Remarques sur les origines “éoliennes” du dialecte béotien, in C. Brixhe and G. Vottéro (eds.), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans le Grèce antique, Nancy, 99–154. Wiemer, H.-U. (2004) Der Beginn des 3. Makedonischen Krieges. Überlegungen zur Chronologie, Historia 53, 22–37.

FEDERALISM BASED ON EMOTIONS? PAMBOIOTIAN FESTIVALS IN HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN TIMES Angela Ganter Friedrich Alexander Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg I. INTRODUCTION Contemporary scholars agree that common cults ought to be considered as a nucleus of group formation and a driving force for the creation and maintenance of ethnic identity throughout all periods of Greek history.1 Perhaps these cults should even be regarded as the firmest foundation of experienced cohesion, as they survive all the various upheavals in the political sphere. Accordingly, the purpose of the Boiotian league in later Hellenistic and Roman times is often seen as being limited to cultic functions and ritual performance.2 But even with this primarily religious role, federalism was certainly not dead. How did it survive? Perhaps an answer lies in the presence of emotionally laden memories of the past. Emotional bonds are widely believed to be essential for creating a communal spirit, though this is an assumption that is hardly ever explained.3 Recent debates on the history of emotions question this general view and reclaim a more historically precise approach. By mainly considering the epigraphic material, this contribution aims to describe how emotions were involved in the construction of ethnic identity and in the preservation of federal bonds at a time when the Classical League had vanished from the political landscape of Ancient Boiotia. 1

2 3

Cf. the research report by Freitag 2007, especially 386f; and Ganter 2013. The thesis by P. R. Grigsby, ‘Boiotian Games: Festivals, Agones, and the Development of Boiotian Identity’, submitted in September 2017 at the University of Warwick, appeared too late to be taken into account here. Cf. Roesch 1965, 71–73; Schachter 1980, 86; 1981–1994 vol. 1, 124 passim; Buck 1993, 106; Gauger 2005, 204; Manieri 2009, 165. Cf. only Parker 2005, 290, who introduces his sophisticated analysis of the Athenian Anthesteria by comparing their emotional impact to the one modern Christmas has in contemporary Western societies. Yet, apart from this, he does not speak of emotions any more during his detailed considerations: it is a convincing, but not an evaluated premise. In a different way, emotions also play an important part in Walter Burkert’s and Christoph Auffahrt’s analysis of the Anthesteria. However, both of them derive their assumptions from the premise of anthropological constants, that is to say, they describe the emotions of participating Athenians by empathically imagining what they might have experienced (Burkert 1997 2, 241–243; Auffahrt 1991, 207, 213, 229). Cf. Mackil 2013, 148, who stresses that the ‘cohesive effect of religion is assumed, but it is rarely explained.’

84

Angela Ganter

This paper concentrates on pan-boiotian festivals: the Ptoia, the Pamboiotia, and the Basileia, in order to describe the mechanics of regional coherence. After some methodical remarks, I shall examine a few exemplary inscriptions that give us an impression of different emotional constellations during the festivals named above. Finally, I shall discuss the chronological sequence of these observations in order to determine how emotional bonds may have been linked to the shifting institutional context of the koinon. II. COLLECTIVE EMOTIONS AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS: METHODICAL REMARKS We usually imagine emotions as being anthropological phenomena linking people of other periods and cultures with our own sentiments. There ought to be parallels between, for instance, contemporary football fans attending a public event and delegates from Boiotian poleis participating in Pamboiotian festivals – or so we tend to assume. Even trained historians who are used to coping with cultural differences are necessarily bound to their own experiences and anthropological assumptions. This is particularly the case when emotions come into play. The implicit comparison of the collective emotions arising at events which diverge in time and space is not as absurd as it might seem in the first instance. This might be a necessary way of gaining access to phenomena like these because it is immensely difficult to describe emotions and to categorize them rationally. But what exactly are we talking about when we discuss ‘emotions’? There is no definition of emotions applicable to all the sciences involved in their investigation. Nonetheless, as a starting point, I propose the following: emotions are internal processes that are triggered in particular situations. Biologically, culturally, and individually caused, they may find physical or verbal expression. Formed by interaction and reflection, they are shaped by social contexts, moral concepts, and value judgements.4 Historians commonly subscribe to a constructivist conception of emotions that differ according to individuals or societies experiencing and shaping them. Though change is the key concept, anthropological constants are nevertheless important in the field. If there were none, we would never be able to understand human beings of other periods and cultures.5 Thus, the principal methodological problem to be overcome is to consider carefully how our own ideas are retrojected, often unconsciously, when talking about ancient cultures. A great deal of work has been done on emotions in recent years, predominantly in the fields of Modern and Medieval history.6 In Ancient History, however, the so4 5 6

For the problems of defining emotions, see Plamper 2012, 11–50. Cf. the résumé by Plamper 2012, 351f. Cf. the research reports by Hitzer 2011, Matt 2011, and Plamper 2012. The Center for the History of Emotions, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/de/forschung/geschichte-der-gefuehle; 07.03.2016), and the Cluster of Excellence

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

85

called ‘emotional turn’7 has not gained much of a response so far.8 This is likely due to the nature of our source material: whereas literary texts provide substantial insight into emotions and can be investigated with established semantic analysis, material sources are much more difficult to decipher.9 What about inscriptions, the main category of sources for the Boiotian koinon in Hellenistic and Roman times? Angelos Chaniotis, the most prominent scholar who has delved into the matter thus far, is optimistic about their utility. If emotions are not mentioned in the text of the inscription, which is the case in all the inscriptions of interest here, he proposes the following approach: 1. “establishing the date and background of the composition; 2. considering the intended audiences; 3. studying the relation between text and monument; 4. examining the place in which the inscription was set up.”10 Generically, these are the central questions every epigraphist has to tackle when working with their material. By focusing on exemplary inscriptions, these questions, in a slightly modified order, will lead us through the discussion. I pose them in the following way: 1. What and how? The content and the fabric 2. When? Date and background 3. Where? The setting 4. Who? The initiators and the intended audience III. PTOIA, PAMBOIOTIA AND BASILEIA: INSCRIPTIONS ALLUDING TO EMOTIONS III.1. The Ptoia: A New Festival and Old Habits III.1.1. Trophonios and the Amphiktyonic Council give their Blessing to the Ptoia (IG VII 4135 and IG VII 4136): Stabilising External and Internal Relations 1. What and how? The content and the fabric ‘Languages of Emotion’ (http://www.loe.fu-berlin.de; 07.03.2016), both situated in Berlin, have equally played an important role in enhancing the awareness of related problems. 7 For the expression, see AHR Conversation 2012, 1487. 8 The research association ‘The Emotions Project: The Social and Cultural Construction of Emotions: The Greek Paradigm’ presided by Angelos Chaniotis in Oxford, has done groundbreaking research (http://emotions.classics.ox.ac.uk/ (07.03.2016); cf. Chaniotis (ed.) 2012, and Chaniotis/Ducrey (ed.) 2013. In Roman History, the semantics of elite behaviour have been the focus of interest; for a mainly Latinist perspective, cf. Kaster 2005; Bormann/Wittchow (ed.) 2008; on elite behaviour, Barghop 1994 and Kneppe 1994. 9 There is a rising awareness of comparable questions among archaeologists, cf. already Fless and Moede 2007, 259–262. 10 Chaniotis 2012, 120f. For implicit allusions to emotions in decrees, their emotional background, and the rise of explicit emotional allusions in the Hellenistic period, cf. Chaniotis 2013b and also Chaniotis 2013a.

86

Angela Ganter

Between 230 and 225 BCE, an important inscription was set up at the temple of Apollo Ptoios at Akraiphia. Carved into blue-grey marble, it is 1.22 meters high, 0.58 wide, and 0.15 thick. It consists of three texts: an Amphiktyonic decree, an oracle of Trophonios, and a dedication of money to Apollo, the last not discussed here. Let us begin with the first: A. [– – – – – – – – – – – – – – πένθ’ ἡμέρα]ς πορευομέ– [νοις καὶ ἀπερχομένοις ἄλλας τοσαύ]τας καὶ ως ἂν ἡ πανήγυρις [γίνηται καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖ]ς ἀκολούθοις καὶ ἃ ἂν ἔχωσι [χρήματα πανταχο]ῦ· ἐὰν δέ τις [παρὰ] ταῦτα ἄγηι τινὰ ἢ ῥυ[σιάζηι], 5 [ὑπ]όδικος ἒστω ἐν Άμφικτύοσιν· εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἄσυ– λον τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Πτωΐου το ἐν Ἀκραιφίοις, ὡς ἂν αἱ στῆλαι ὀρίζωσι, καθάπερ τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς· τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν χώ– ραν τὴν ἱερὰν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος τοῦ Πτωΐου μὴ ἀδικεῖν μηδένα· ἐὰν δέ τις ἀδικῆι, ὑπόδικος ἔστω ἐν Ἀμφικτύοσιν. τῆς δὲ 10 ἐκεχειρίας καὶ τῆς ἀσφαλείας ἄρχειν τὴν πεντεκαιδεκά– την τοῦ ῾Ιπποδρομίου μηνὸς κατὰ θεόν, ὡς Βοιωτοὶ ἄγουσιν, ὡς δὲ [Δ]ελφοί, Ἀπελλαίου· κυρίους δ’ εἶναι οἰκονομοῦντας τὰ κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν τόν τε προφήτην καὶ τὸν ἱερέα τοῦ Ἀπόλλω– [ν]ος τοῦ Πτωΐου καὶ τὴν πόλιν τῶν Ἀκραιφιέων καὶ τὸ κοινὸν 15 τῶν Βοιωτῶν, καθὼς καὶ ἔνπροσθεν, καὶ τὸν ἀγωνοθέτην τὸν εἱρημένον ἑπὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν Πτωΐων· ἀναγράψαι δὲ τὸ ψή– φισμα ἐν στήλαις Πτωϊοκλῆν Ποταμοδώρου, καὶ ἀναθεῖναι τὴμ μὲν ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, τὴν δ' ἐν Ἀ– κραιφίοις ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Πτωΐου, τὴν δὲ ἐμ Πυλαίαι· ἀναθεῖ– 20 [ν]αι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν ὅπου ἂν δοκῆι ἐν καλλίστωι εἶν– [αι]· ἐὰν δέ τι γίνηται ἀδίκημα παρὰ τὸ δόγμα τῶν Ἀμφικτυ– [όν]ων, ἀποτεισάτω ὁ ἀδικῶν δισχιλίους στατῆρας καὶ ὃ [ἂ]ν καταβλάψηι, τὰ δὲ καταδικασθέντα χρήματα ἱερὰ ἔσ– [τ]ω τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Πτωΐου. ἀνενενκεῖν δὲ τὸ δόγμα τοὺς 25 ἱερομνήμονας ἐπί τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια, ὅπως εἰδῶ– σιν πάντες τὰ δεδογμένα τοῖς Ἀμφικτίοσιν. [(inviolability) ... for five days] in coming [and as many in departing] and while the festival [takes place, both for themselves and their] attendants and their [property, everywhere.] If anyone contrary to this seize or rob anyone, let him be subject to prosecution before the Amphiktyons. The temple of Apollo Ptoius in Acraephia is to be inviolable, as the boundaries define, as is the temple in Delphi; the other sacred land of Apollo Ptoius no one is to harm; if anyone does, he is to be subject to prosecution before the Amphiktyons. The sacred truce and security are to begin on the fiftheenth of Hippodromios by the moon as Boeotians reckon, of Apellaios as Delphians. Those in authority to administer the temple affairs are to be the prophet, the priest of Apollo Ptoius, the city of Acraephia, and the Boeotian League, as previously, and the agonothete elected for the contest of the Ptoia ... (provisions for inscribing) ... If any offense

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

87

occur contrary to the decree of the Amphiktyons, the wrongdoer is to pay 2,000 staters plus damages and the fine is to be dedicated to Apollo Ptoios. The hieromnemones are to report this decree to their respective cities or nations so that all may know what the Amphiktyons have decreed.11

Thus, the Amphiktyons decreed inviolability for those travelling to the sanctuary in order to celebrate the festival of the Ptoia, and declared the temple to be likewise inviolable (ἄσυλος, ll. 5–6). Furthermore, they granted a sacred truce (ἐκεχειρία, l. 10) as well as safety (ἀσφάλεια, l. 10) to the participants of the festival. Those who act contrary to the decree are repeatedly threatened with charges and fines. Finally, the administrators of the temple affairs are defined: the prophet, the priest of Apollo Ptoios, the city of Akraiphia, the Boiotian koinon – “as previously” (καθὼς καὶ ἔνπροσθεν, l. 15), the text underlines – and the agonothetēs (ἀγωνοθέτης, ‘supervisor of the contest,’ l. 15). The closing formula ensures that the decree is made known everywhere. The model for this decree is obviously well-established Panhellenic festivals like the agones taking place at Delphi. So, the decree increased the status of the Ptoia, regardless of whether the games had already existed in former times or if they were created anew.12 The enhancement also advanced institutionalisation within the koinon: an agonothetēs, mainly responsible for the finances of the games, was added to the temple authorities.13 Before going deeper into the subject, let us have a look at the second text, the oracle of Trophonios: Β. Καλλικλίδας Λοκρὸς ἐσς Ὀπόεντος καταβὰς ἐν Τρεφώ– νιον ἀνάνγειλε Λεπάδειαν τοι Δὶ τοῖ Βασιλεῖι ἀνθέμεν κὴ τοῖ Τρεφωνίοι, κὴ Ἀκρήφια τοῖ Ἀπόλλωνι τοι Πτωΐυ, κὴ μεί 30 ἀδικῖμεν μειδένα οὕτως. οὕτως δὲ ἀγιρέμεν, άμφοτέ– ρως τὰ ἱαρὰ χρείματα κυνῆ ἐφ᾿οὑγίη κατὰ πᾶσαν χώ– ραν, κὴ τὸν ἀγῶνα ἱαρὸν καταγγελλέμεν. ὅστις δέ κα τῶ Διὸς τῶ Βασιλεῖος ἐπιμελειθείει τῶ ναῶ, τὸν στέφανον ὔσετη. Calliclidas, Locrian from Opus, having gone down to Trophonius, proclaimed that Lebadeia is to be dedicated to Zeus Basileus and Trophonius, and Acraephia to Apollo Ptoius, and no one is to wrong these (peoples). They are both to collect sacred funds,

11 IG VII.4135 cf. Manieri 2009 Acr. 1; translation by Rigsby 1996, 65f. For the general data and the context of the erection see Rigsby 1996, 60–63; Manieri 2009, 64f. 12 For this discussion, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 1, 70f; Manieri 2009, 65 with note 12. 13 Rigsby 1996, 61, 67.

88

Angela Ganter for the common good, in every land, and proclaim the holy contest. Whoever repairs the temple of Zeus Basileus will wear the crown. 14

Most interpreters assume that the Lokrian consulting the oracle did so on behalf of the Boiotian koinon.15 Here, the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios is named in conjunction with the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia. Again we hear of a sacred truce, or, to put it differently: the people attending activities at the sanctuaries were protected by the gods. Funds are to be collected, and the agones are to be proclaimed everywhere – whether the expression “in every land” (κατὰ πᾶσαν χώραν, ll. 31– 32) refers to Boiotia or to a Panhellenic context is uncertain.16 Last but not least, the temple of Zeus Basileus, doubtless the biggest project in Boiotia at this period, is mentioned: whoever manages to repair this temple is to be the priest, or is awarded with a crown, according to the promises of the oracle.17 Already the composition of the dossier combining the decree from Delphi and the advice of the most important oracle in Boiotia is revealing.18 Several scholars assume that the Boiotian koinon first consulted the oracle of Trophonios and then sought the sanction of the Amphiktyony.19 As the answer of Trophonios is written in the Boiotian dialect, the sanction of the god was obviously very important for the legitimisation of the Ptoia within the region. Nevertheless, the Amphiktyonic decree enjoys the prime position on the stone, probably because Delphi was considered to be the most renowned and prestigious institution from a Panhellenic point of view. The stone thus attested to both the internal and external mechanics of federalism in the religious field. Internally, the Boiotians seem to have enforced regional cooperation during these years. There are many more activities pointing to this direction, as we will soon see. Externally, the Boiotians apparently wanted to strengthen their bonds with the Aitolians, who presided over the Delphic Amphiktyony since the beginning of the century.20 2. When? Date and background In the second half of the third century BCE, many cults in Boiotia were revitalised. The Hellenistic Boiotian league invested heavily in the consolidation of common religious life in the region. It was a period of changing alliances, and the Boiotian koinon had to face external pressures which also had an impact on the modification, or consolidation, of internal mechanisms.

14 15 16 17

IG VII.4136, cf. Manieri 2009 Acr. 2; translation by Rigsby 1996, 63. See, for example, Bonnechère 2003, 31. For the discussion, see Rigsby 1996, 64, and Manieri 2009, 87. Schachter (1981–1994 vol. 3, 114) translates στέφανοφορεῖν (τὸν στέφανον ὔσετη, ll. 33–34) with ‘to be awarded a crown’ as a reward for services (cf. Bonnechère 2003, 31), whereas Rigsby 1996, 65 reads it as ‘to be the priest.’ 18 On the oracle of Trophonios, Bonnechère 2003. 19 Cf. the overviews by Rigsby 1996, 62; Manieri 2009, 66. 20 Briefly on the background, Polyb. 20.5; Rigsby 1996, 61; Manieri 2009, 64f.

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

89

After the re-integration of Thebes into the koinon, probably in 287 BCE, the district system was re-organized, this time guaranteeing the equal participation of the cities according to their size, and thus preventing another hegemonic position like that held by Thebes in the fourth century. In 245, the Boiotians were allies of the Achaians against the Aitolians. But when the Aitolians invaded Boiotia and destroyed the Boiotian army at the Battle of Chaironeia, the Boiotians joined the Aitolian koinon. In 234, Demetrios II invaded Boiotia, but was defeated one year later. Many other events, capped by the Romans appearing on the scene from the early 220s onwards, illustrate the decidedly relative character of Boiotian independence. The koinon was making alliances with other koina, mainly with the Aitolians in these years, while at the same time it was seeking to maintain its own internal cohesion.21 With a view to the so-called Hellenic Alliance formed in 224 BCE, consisting of koina opposed to Kleomenes III of Sparta, “an awareness that the koinon rather than the polis had become the major political structure of Hellenistic mainland Greece” can be seen, to “provide stability to structures of interstate cooperation in such a turbulent period.”22 This is also true for the Boiotian koinon, whose activities in the religious field demonstrate the enforcement and strengthening of communal structures during the last third of the third century. This is when the Ptoia and the Basileia were sanctioned by the oracle of Trophonios and the Delphic Amphiktyony, and when the construction of the temple of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia began. The religious activities of the 220s attest to the need to stabilise both external and internal relations. III.1.2. The Revival of Tripod Dedications (IG VII 2724): Stressing Continuity to Former Times of Glory? 3. Where? The setting Next, the setting of the inscriptions is pivotal in understanding their emotional valence. Another dossier of inscriptions found at the Ptoion needs to be included in our analysis: tripod dedications made by the koinon, all of which stem from the third century BCE. The majority were found at the Ptoion,23 and they all roughly say the same thing: the Boiotoi dedicated the tripod in accordance with an oracle of Apollo to Apollo Ptoios. In addition, the archon and the aphedriates are designated by name, patronymic, and city ethnic. Finally, the mantis and/or the secretary is mentioned. See, as an example, the following inscription: Εὐμείλω ἄρχοντος Ἐπικουδείω Κορωνεῖ[ο]ς,

21 For an overview on the political background, see Mackil 2013, 98–116; Beck/Ganter 2015, 151–157 with references to older contributions. 22 Mackil 2013, 113. 23 Six of them, dedications to Apollo Ptoios, stem from the Ptoion: one was dedicated to the Muses, one to the Graces at Orchomenos, and three to Zeus Eleutherios. The dossier is described by Mackil 2013, 433–436, T16–21.

90

Angela Ganter τοῖ Ἀπόλλωνι τὸν τρίποδα ἀνέθειαν Βοιωτοί, μαντευσ– αμένω τῶ θεῶ καὶ ἀποδόντος τὰν ἀγαθὰν μαντείαν Βοιωτοῖς, ἀφεδριατευόντων Εὐωνυμοδώρω Πυθορμίω Ἁλι– 5 αρτίω, Φιλίππω Ἀριστοκρατείω Θεισπιεῖος, Μοιρίχω Εὐκώμω Πλατ– αιεῖος, Τρίακος Ἀντιδωρίω Θειβ[ε]ίω, Τερψίαο Φορυσκίω Ἐρχομενίω, Μοσχίνω Θεδωρίδαο Λεπαδειήω, Ἀμεινοκλεῖος Ἀμεινίαο Ταν– αγρήω, Ὀνουμάστω Νικολαΐω Θεισπιεῖος μάντιος. When Eumeilos son of Epikoudeos of Koroneia was archon, the Boiotoi dedicated this tripod to Apollo, for the god prophesied and gave a prophesy that was favorable to the Boiotoi. The aphedriates were Euonymodoros son of Pythormos of Haliartos, Philip son of Aristokrates of Thespiai, Moirichos son of Eukomos of Plataia, Triax son of Antidoros of Thebes, Terpsias son of Phoryskos of Orchomenos, Moschinos son of Thedoridas of Lebadeia, Ameinokles son of Ameinias of Tanagra. Onymastos son of Nikolaos of Thespiai was the mantis.24

Again, these inscriptions stress the high degree of institutionalisation displayed in the Boiotian koinon at this period by naming all the magistrates involved, among them the college of the aphedriates, who represented the Hellenistic districts.25 I agree with Emily Mackil’s conclusions regarding these dedications. All were made roughly between 287 and 249, in a period of upheavals, and thus, to quote her summation, they should ensure ‘that the dedications were in fact made by all the Boiotians. It complicated defection, implicitly securing the commitment and participation of every individual and community in the dedicatory act (...). The broad range of the aphedriates’ activities, from Akraiphia to Lebadeia, likewise suggests that the Boiotians sought to continually reinforce the unification of the region through systematic participation in many of its cults, capturing the cohesive effects of shared ritual action. We can also see the aphedriatēs and their collective dedications as a means of protecting the very system of districts by imbricating it in a ritual context’.26 On the subject of implicit emotions, fear might have been a motive of this enforcement: fear of particularism and of a competition between the member poleis, which would ultimately destroy the koinon as it did many times before. Yet, fear of internal strife and threats from the external world does not create identification, neither does it produce positive emotions. The tripod dedications allude to much more than the memory of a difficult past and present. As a material reference to the Archaic Period, they evoke former times of glory. Though the Ptoion was not exactly a Pamboiotian sanctuary in the true sense – it was not comparable to the Itonion at Koroneia or the cult place of Zeus Basileus 24 Dedication of a tripod by the Boiotoi to Apollo Ptoios, probably after 287 BCE (IG VII.2724 = Mackil 2013, T 17; translation by Mackil); a photograph is provided by Guillon 1943 I, 15, Base IV. 25 See especially Mackil 2013, 221–224, and, for the discussion of the Hellenistic districts, Müller 2011. 26 Mackil 2013, 223.

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

91

close to Lebadeia –, though it was not directly linked to the cultic and mythical origins of the ethnos, it had been the first place where the koinon had made collective dedications. Strictly speaking, these first dedications had not been impressive in comparison to the overwhelming monuments decorating the sanctuary, mainly kouroi and tripods. At least the alignments of the tripod bases on the terraces must have still been visible in the third century, if not the old tripods themselves – testifying to a foregone, partly unknown past.27 Centuries later, this sophisticated differentiation did not matter anymore, neither did the fact that Thebes had dominated the affairs of the sanctuary for a long time.28 In the third century, the Ptoion seemed to be the right place to demonstrate continuity, to dedicate tripods, which should remind mainly Boiotian visitors of former times of glory, while also making them proud of their common history in order to promote unification29 – regardless of the fact that the monumental history of the sanctuary did not tell a story of Boiotian glory. But this is not how memory works. The policy of memorization is also attested in other contexts of the period. The tripods fit well into the line of formulations, which can be found in many inscriptions, like καθὼς καὶ ἔνπροσθεν stressing the long established authority of the koinon.30 III.1.3. Decrees of Acceptance in the Late Third and in the Late Second Century BCE (IG VII 351 and IG VII 4140–4142): A Comparison 4. Who? The initiators and the intended audience Another dossier of inscriptions related to the Ptoia once more gives the impression that the authorities of the koinon did everything to ensure that internal cooperation was working properly.31 At the beginning of every festival cycle, delegates were sent to each Boiotian polis to announce the next Ptoia. Welcomed by the city councils, they had to ensure that the poleis accepted the festival rules and that they chose 27 The tripods are specifically discussed by Guillon 1943 and Papalexandrou 2008, 259f (ibid. 270f on the revival of tripod dedications by the Hellenistic koinon), the kouroi by Ducat 1971. For the discussion on first possible dedications by the Classical Boiotian koinon, see Larson 2007, 131–133 with critical comments by Ganter 2013, 88f; cf. also Mackil 2013, 171f. 28 Most scholars agree that the sanctuary fell under Theban control in the sixth century BCE, e.g. Guillon 1943, 99–115; Ducat 1964, 288; 1971, 448–450; and Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 1, 69; 1994b, 300–302, 304–306; critical remarks in Kowalzig 2007, 369. 29 Cf. the commentary by Guillon 1943 II, 162: ‘Ainsi les trépieds fédéraux érigés autant qu’il semble dans le 3e quart du IIIe s. à travers les grands sanctuaires béotiens sont sans doute le témoignage d’un effort général pour réveiller autour du sentiment de l’unité fédérale le mouvement agonistique à l’occasion de l’érection solennelle du trépied.’ Cf. Chaniotis 2013b, 748 and 756, who speaks of four functions of emotional display: explicative, commemorative, emotive and performative. 30 IG VII.4135 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 1, l. 10, cited above. Other examples: Manieri 2009, Acr. 11 A ll. 2. 7; IG VII.4140. 4142 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 12 A ll. 1–2. C l. 7. 31 Cf. the commentary by Manieri 2009, 66f on the acceptance decrees: ‘Si crea un intreccio di relazioni diplomatiche rispettivamente di invito e di accettazione che ha come scopo quello di rinsaldare i legami religiosi e politici tra le città beotiche.’

92

Angela Ganter

delegates to perform the common rituals taking place at the festival. Apart from the agones, which attracted participants from all over the Hellenic world and which stood individually for their poleis of provenience, the religious part of the Ptoia with the sacrifice and the procession was the genuinely Boiotian element.32 Again we see the koinon operating at a highly institutionalised level, organizing the whole festival with local and regional magistrates who performed their tasks in a specialized function. What strikes me most is the elaborate, expensive practice of erecting acceptance decrees carved into stone in every city of Boiotia as part of the festival preparations. These decrees, exposed at the main temples of the towns, like the example from Oropos (IG VII 351), that was erected after 222 BCE, made it publicly known that Oropos, invited by the city of Akraiphia and the Boiotian koinon, consented in participating at the common sacrifices (l. 6)33 and the procession, and that it would send an ox. Why was it so important to carve the consent in stone? It was in this way that the citizens of Oropos were reminded of their Boiotian status, and the authorities of the koinon ensured that the citizens would not forget their bonds to the federation. Rituals like common sacrifices and processions create strong bonds between the participants, uniting them before the gods. These rituals do display a degree of commonality which sets aside sophisticated thoughts about the quality of regional coherence. But to make sure that every polis would participate a high degree of formalisation was needed. Obviously, the authorities were possessed by the fear that coherence would not be displayed as common festivals supposedly do. One century later, it was no longer the Boiotian koinon that sent the delegates into the cities, as a decree of acceptance in an unknown Boiotian town from the end of the second century attests (IG VII 4140–4142).34 But the religious magistrates like the theōroi are still there, and it is clear that federal religious institutions had survived the dissolution of the Hellenistic koinon. In contrast to the decree from the third century, however, the bonds between the cities are stressed several times by alluding to the common past (καθῶς καὶ πρότερον, A ll. 1–2 and C l. 7), and to φιλία, and συγγένεια (B ll. 6–7; C ll. 5; 13).35 These expressions, like many more in the acceptance decrees, are stereotypical, and reveal by this very fact that the memories of the common past had become the firmest ties that bound the Boiotians together when the Classical and the Hellenistic league had vanished from the political landscape.36 They embodied continuity in the region – whether this played out emotionally is hard to say. But the emotions arising from the celebration of common festivals were still bound to institutions, and these religious magistracies survived the political upheavals until a very late 32 Manieri 2009, 69–77. 33 IG VII.351 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 4 ll. 5–7: (...) παρεκαλοῦσαν τὸν δῆμον συναύξειν τὴν θυσίαν τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Πτωΐωι καθάπερ καὶ τὸ κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν καὶ ἡ πόλις τῶν Ἀκραιφιέων· 34 IG VII.4140–4142 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 12. 35 For φιλία, and συγγένεια, cf. also IG VII.4138 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 10 A ll. 10–11. 17–18; IG VII.4139 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 11 B ll. 2. 15; IG VII.4144 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 13 l. 5. 36 Cf. Manieri 2009, 67: ‘La loro richiesta trae comunque forza dall’antica alleanza e dalla comune tradizione politica e religiosa che unisce il popolo beotico.’

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

93

date. An individual euergetēs may have been personally touched by this common heritage and therefore invested great sums to revive festivals like the Ptoia when Boiotia had become a part of the Roman Empire.37 Surely, religious practice supplied a great sense of continuity to the experience of ethnic commonness despite the strong competition between the poleis of the region throughout Boiotian history. Perhaps in this sense, federalism was based on emotions, individually experienced or not. But the authorities of the koinon knew well that the koinon could not do without them. They were certainly not the weakest bonds tying the Boiotians together, and they survived when all of the League’s political institutions had long died. III.3. The Pamboiotia: Cooperation and Competition In the scope of this contribution, I cannot discuss in detail the evidence for the Pamboiotia, which took place at the ancient cult sanctuary of Athena Itonia close to Koroneia. Athena was the most important ethnic goddess, and the Basileia, a festival inaugurated by the Thebans after the victory of Leuktra close to the oracle of Trophonios and the cult place of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia, was another occasion of primary importance for ethnic identity in Boiotia. I limit myself to a few brief remarks. If an inscription set up in the 260s BCE refers to the sanctuary of Athena at Koroneia, as many scholars assume, the Itoneion was declared asylon by an Amphiktyonic decree already at this point of time, thus thirty years earlier than the Ptoion and the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia.38 The most remarkable aspect of the agones are the competitions between military units drawn from the Boiotian districts.39 Accordingly, the inscriptions commemorating victories at the events provide no lists of individual victors, but they rather name the successful military units as a group. Individuals mentioned are the leaders of these units appearing with their name and patronymic. What is more, the inscriptions are written in the Boiotian dialect.40 Was this perhaps the way to canalise the agonistic impetus between the member poleis, not only after the reorganisation of the federal army between 250 and 245 BCE?41 These contests certainly were a measure to embed competition into cooperative structures, a measure to create pride in genuinely Boiotian achievements.

37 Cf. IG VII.4133. 4148 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 17–18, especially IG VII.2712 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 19. 38 SEG 18.240 with Schachter 1980, 81; 1981–1994 vol. 1, 123f; Rigsby 1996, 55; Mackil 2013, 224. 39 Telē are explicitly mentioned in SEG 3.354 = Schachter 1980, no. 3, l. 3. For the discussion of telē and districts embedded in rituals, cf. Mackil 2013, 224–226. 40 The dossier is presented and discussed by Schachter 1980. 41 On the reorganisation of the federal army, see Feyel 1942, 187–262; Henning 1977, 146–148.

94

Angela Ganter

III.4. The Basileia and the Temple of Zeus Basileus: An Everlasting, Unfinished Project Already in 281/280 BCE, an Athenian inscription honours tassiarxoi being invited to participate in the sacrifice of the Basileia. They are not invited eis Lebadeis, but eis Boiotous,42 which seems very remarkable to me. Accordingly, in the late third century, victors are not designated by their home towns, but by their ethnos.43 The invitation of military delegates may hint at the character of the festival still commemorating military victories – though it was not linked to Theban supremacy any longer, but to the successes of the Boiotians as a whole. 44 As already discussed above, in an echo of the Ptoia, the status of the games was enhanced between 230 and 225 BCE, when the oracle of Trophonios and the Amphiktyony legitimised the festivals and secured the funds necessary to build such a huge project as the temple of Zeus Basileus was.45 This project was ambitious indeed, involving a monumental temple 46 meters long.46 It attests to the optimism and self-fashioning of the Boiotian koinon during these years, demonstrating towards the member poleis and towards the Hellenic world alike that, as a koinon, the Boiotians were constructive in the best sense of the word. Together, it seemed, they were able to achieve something that would have seemed impossible to an individual member polis. Even a new magistracy was created, the naopoioi, who had to survey the building project.47 This was a koinon at the height of its power, still extending the degree of institutionalisation and organisation. Everyone coming to the sanctuary should understand this. Therefore the federal officials decided to carve the work contracts onto a wall purposely built of stelai, one of the largest such inscribed walls we know from Antiquity, over two meters tall and approximately 16 meters in length.48 Given that it was viewable from all sides, these inscriptions were intended to be read. Anyone having constructed or renovated a house knows how difficult it is to keep much smaller projects going. Apparently, the naopoioi hoped to control the workforce in order to reduce delays and the loss of money.49 But the wall is much more: a monument of

42 SEG 25.90 = Manieri 2009, Leb. 5, ll. 19–20: τοὺς ταξιάρχους τοὺς ἀποσταλέντας εἰς [Β]οιωτοὺς. The victors from IG VII.3078 = Manieri 2009, Leb. 11 demontrate that the Basileia were well-known all over the Greek world. 43 SEG 3.368 = Manieri 2009, Leb. 9 from the 3 rd/2nd century BCE. However, there have been doubts, if the festival meant were the Basileia at all, Manieri 2009, 154. 44 In the first instance, after the battle of Leuktra in 371 BCE, the festival was meant to remember the Theban victory over Sparta; for the history of the festival, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 3, 115–118; Beck 1997, 191f; Manieri 2009, 137–140. 45 IG VII.4136 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 2, cited above, with Manieri 2009, 139. 46 On the temple project, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 3, 113; Nafissi 1995; Mackil 2013, 208 note 228; Pitt 2014, 380f with references to further literature. 47 Cf. Schachter 1994a, 82–84; Manieri 2009, 141. 48 The dossier includes IG VII.3073–3077 among others, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 3, 113 note 4. For the reconstruction of the wall, see Turner 1994; cf. also Pitt 2014, 386. 49 This is the convincing interpretation by Pitt 2014, 373.

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

95

administrative achievements by the magistrates, a monument illustrating the impressiveness of the undertaking, a monument of pride. Significantly, the wall was the only part of the precinct ever finished. 50 The ruins were still visible when Pausanias visited the place.51 They stand for the koinon as a whole with its history of ups and downs, and reveal the koinon to be an everlasting, unfinished project. Maybe even the scattered half-worked limestone blocks had an emotional impact on the visitors coming to the place. IV. INSTITUTIONS AND EMOTIONS: A BOIOTIAN SYNOPSIS FOR HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN TIMES To conclude, I would like to add general considerations on the interdependence between institutions and emotions. Before doing so, I should underline that they are only first steps in a wide field which needs much more elaboration. Not only the evidence of the Pamboiotian sanctuaries, but also the evidence of many other Boiotian festivals flourishing during the period in question should be taken into account to get a fuller picture. If the inscriptions known to us do indeed provide a realistic impression of the circumstances between the Hellenistic and the Roman periods, broadly speaking, then they illustrate that the organisation of religious activities depended on the working of the institutions of the koinon. But the analysis can be pushed somewhat further: religious activities were regarded as being so important by the authorities of the koinon that the Hellenistic koinon enhanced the organisational level of many activities, which in turn led to the creation of new magistracies, and thus promoted institutionalisation. Partly, the fear of regional particularism, so well-known from the recent past, may have driven the authorities to do so. As only the koinon could face the threats from outside, internal strife would have made Boiotia a mere object of external powers, turning the region into a permanent ‘dance-floor of war.’52 But fear is not enough to cause the heart of an ethnos to beat continuously. This religious policy would not have been accepted, if the sanctuaries had not been long established reference points of regional identity. The leading groups obviously knew this. Accordingly, they stressed continuity with former times of glory, e.g. by dedicating tripods at the Ptoion. Pride was the counterpart of fear, the temple for Zeus Basileus being the most impressive testimony of a koinon presenting itself at the height of its ambitions. And the Basileia offered the possibility to integrate competition and cooperation, for the victories in the agonistic field applied to the common military units, not to the individual poleis.53 50 51 52 53

Pitt 2014, 389. Paus. 9.39.4. Cf. Plut. Mor. 193E; Marc. 21 (310). Cf. the following considerations by Mackil 2013, 225 concerning the interdependency of ritualisation and institutionalisation: ‘(...) the agōnes of the Pamboiotia simultaneously ritualized the institutions of polis, district, and koinon, insofar as each district team represented a polis or a cluster of poleis and participated in a regional cult managed by the koinon. The process of

96

Angela Ganter

Without the institutions of the koinon, it seems that it would have been much more difficult to organize communal gatherings, to display, and experience, regional coherence. Yet, as is often the case, the religious structures had a longue durée. The Boiotians continued celebrating their festivals with the awareness that their ancestors had equally done so. Already the Hellenistic koinon had based its religious policy on sentiments relating to a glorious past. These sentiments remained and emotions will have risen when an agonothetēs, like Epameinondas of Akraiphia, invested heavily in the revival of the Ptoia in the first century CE,54 testifying to regional identity and cohesion. Christel Müller recognizes a “renewal of collective sentiment” where friendship and kinship (syngeneia) between Boiotian cities were renewed, and “a sort of federal memory, capable of remaining in force even in the absence of formal federal structures.”55 You might call this federalism based on emotions. BIBLIOGRAPHY AHR Conversation (2012) The Historical Study of Emotions, American Historical Review 117, 1487–1531. Auffahrt, C. (1991) Der drohende Untergang. “Schöpfung” in Mythos und Ritual im Alten Orient und in Griechenland am Beispiel der Odyssee und des Ezechielbuches 39, Berlin/New York. Barghop, D. (1994) Forum der Angst: eine historisch-anthropologische Studie zu Verhaltensmustern von Senatoren im Römischen Kaiserreich, Frankfurt/Main. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157. Bonnechère, P. (2003) Trophonios de Lébadée. Cultes et mythes d’une cité béotienne au miroir de la mentalité antique, Leiden. Bormann, D. and F. Wittchow (eds.) (2008) Emotionalität in der Antike. Zwischen Performativität und Diskursivität, Berlin. Buck, R.J. (1993) The Hellenistic Boiotian League, The Ancient History Bulletin 7, 100–106. Burkert, W. (1997) Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen, Berlin/New York. Chaniotis, A. (2012) Moving Stones: The Study of Emotions in Greek Inscriptions, in A. Chaniotis (ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (HABES, 52), Stuttgart, 91–129. Chaniotis, A. (ed.) (2012) Unveiling Emotions. Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (HABES 52), Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. (2013a) Emotional Language in Hellenistic Decrees and Hellenistic Histories, in M. Mari and J. Thornton (eds.), Parole in movimento. Linguaggio politico e lessico storiografico

ritualization endowed these institutions with stability and permanence through reiteration and the deployment of symbols in a cultic context related in myth to the unity of the Boiotians by descend (from the Boiotoi who invaded from Arne) and in ritual to the community of the Boiotians by interaction (...).’ 54 Manieri 2009, Acr. 19 (37 CE). 55 Müller 2014, 132f.

Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times

97

nel mondo ellenistico. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 21–23 febbraio 2011 (Studi Ellenistici 27), Pisa, 339–352. Chaniotis, A. (2013b) Affective Epigraphy: Emotions in Public Inscriptions of the Hellenistic Age, Mediterraneo antico 16, 745–760. Chaniotis, A. and P. Ducrey (eds.) (2013) Unveiling Emotions II. Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture (HABES 55), Stuttgart. Ducat, J. (1964) Le Ptoion et l’histoire de la Béotie à l’époque archaïque, Revue des Études Grecques 77, 283–290. Ducat, J. (1971) Les kouroi du Ptoion: Le sanctuaire d’Apollon Ptoieus à l’époque archaïque, Paris. Feyel, M. (1942) Polybe et l’histoire de Béotie au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, Paris. Fless, F. and K. Moede (2007) Music and Dance: Forms of Representation in Pictorial and Written Sources, in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Religion, Oxford, 249–262. Freitag, K. (2007) Ethnogenese, Ethnizität und die Entwicklung der griechischen Staatenwelt in der Antike, Historische Zeitschrift 285, 373–399. Ganter, A. (2013) A Two–Sided Story of Integration: The cultic dimension of Boeotian ethnogenesis, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries, Stuttgart, 85–105. Gauger, J.–D. (2005) Boiotien, in H. H. Schmitt and E. Vogt (eds.), Lexikon des Hellenismus, Wiesbaden, 202–205. Guillon, P. (1943) Les trépieds du Ptoion I–II, Paris. Henning, D. (1977) Der Bericht des Polybios über Boiotien und die Lage von Orchomenos in der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jh.s v. Chr., Chiron 7, 119–148. Hitzer, B. (2011) Emotionsgeschichte – ein Anfang mit Folgen, http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/forum/2011–11-001 (07.03.2016). Kaster, R. (2005) Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome, Oxford. Kneppe, A. (1994) Metus temporum: Zur Bedeutung von Angst in Politik und Gesellschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit des 1. und 2. Jhdts. n. Chr., Stuttgart. Kowalzig, B. (2007) Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, Oxford. Larson, S. L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods (Historia Einzelschriften 197), Stuttgart. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Manieri, A. (2009) Agoni poetico-musicale nella Grecia Antica I: Beozia, Pisa/Rome. Matt, S.J. (2011) Current Emotion Research in History: Or, Doing History from the Inside Out, Emotion Review 3, 117–124. Müller, C. (2011) ΠΕΡΙ ΤΕΛΩΝ: Quelques réflexions autour des districts de la Confédération béotienne à l’époque hellénistique, in N. Badou (ed.), Philologos Dionysios. Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler, Genève, 261–282. Müller, C. (2014) A Koinon after 146? Reflections on the Political and Institutional Situation of Boeotia in the Late Hellenistic Period, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 119–146. Nafissi, M. (1995) Zeus Basileus di Lebadea: la politica religiosa del koinon beotico durante la guerra cleomenica, Klio 77, 149–169. Papalexandrou, N. (2008) Boiotian Tripods: The Tenacity of a Panhellenic Symbol in a Regional Context, Hesperia 77, 251–282. Papazarkadas, N. (ed.) (2014) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. Leiden. Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Pitt, R. (2014) Just as It Has Been Written: Inscribing Building Contracts at Lebadeia, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 373–394. Plamper, J. (2012) Geschichte und Gefühl. Grundlagen der Emotionsgeschichte, München. Rigsby, K.J. (1996) Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, California.

98

Angela Ganter

Roesch, P. (1965) Thespies et la confédération béotienne, Paris. Schachter, A. (1978) La fête des Pamboiotia: le dossier épigraphique, Cahier des Études Anciennes 8, 81–107. Schachter, A. (1981–1994) Cults of Boeotia Vols. 1–4, London. Schachter, A. (1994a) Gods in the Service of the State, the Boiotian Experience, in L. Aigner Foresti et al. (eds.), Federazioni e federalismo nell’Europa antica, Milano, 67–85 (also in A. Schachter, Boiotia in Anquity. Selected Papers, Cambridge 2016, 175–192). Schachter, A. (1994b) The Politics of Dedication: Two Athenian Dedications at the Sanctuary of Apollo Ptoieus in Boeotia, in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 292–306 (also in A. Schachter, Boiotia in Anquity. Selected Papers, Cambridge 2016, 151–167). Turner, L.A. (1994) IG VII 3073 and the display of inscribed texts, in J. Fossey and P. J. Smith (eds.), Boeotia Antiqua IV, Amsterdam, 17–31.

INTEGRATION AND COERCION: NON–BOIOTIANS IN THE HELLENISTIC BOIOTIAN LEAGUE Ruben Post University of Pennsylvania One of the key topics in the history of Boiotian federalism has been the ethnogenesis of the Boiotoi. Much attention has been devoted recently to how the disparate groups that came to be labeled with this ethnonym managed to overcome their differences and unite in collective action during the Archaic and Classical periods.1 Little attention has been devoted, however, to the role of ethnicity in later Boiotian history. The Boiotian koinon of the Hellenistic period was never nearly as powerful as its neighbours, the Achaian and Aitolian federal states. Nonetheless, it impressively managed to maintain its autonomy throughout the third and early second centuries BCE, warding off the predatory advances of these expanding koina. Indeed, it even at times managed to expand its borders through the absorption of nonBoiotian poleis. In this paper I will address the integration of these ethnically-different communities into the Boiotian koinon and how they were treated within this federal state. In particular, I will focus on the Boiotians’ apparent willingness to resort to intimidation and coercion to retain member poleis and how this fits into our broader understanding of Boiotian history. While the Boiotian koinon had annexed some ethnic non–Boiotian populations already in the Classical period, such as the Lokrian polis of Larymna,2 this federal state only began to absorb ethnically non–Boiotian cities in earnest in the Hellenistic period. The first such polis to be integrated into the koinon was Oropos, which had a complex relationship with the Boiotians. This polis changed between being a member of the Boiotian koinon, being attached to Athens, and being independent nine times from the later fifth century BCE until it once again entered the ranks of the Boiotians shortly after 287 BCE, this time remaining a member of the federal state until 171 BCE.3 We next find a string of annexations in the 280s and 270s BCE, following the conclusion of the most intense decades of conflict between the Diadochoi in Greece. The Galatian invasion of Greece, Pyrrhos’ campaign in the Peloponnese, and the weakness of Makedonia allowed the Boiotians, like the Aitolians, to expand their control in central Greece. Indeed, as Scholten has noted, the success of the Aitolians in actively absorbing ethnic non-Aitolians into their koinon in the early third century BCE likely provided a model for the newly reconstituted 1 2 3

Kühr 2006; Larson 2007; Kowalzig 2007, 328–391. Paus. 9.23.7. For a good summary of the shifting political orientation of Oropos, see Morpurgo-Davies 1993, 274f; Knoepfler 2002; and n.38 below.

100

Ruben Post

Boiotian koinon.4 Thus, in 272 BCE the Opountian Lokrians to the northwest appear to have joined the Boiotian koinon.5 We do not know whether this movement was coerced or voluntary, but it seems likely that the Opountians willingly joined the Boiotians to shield themselves from the turbulence of this period.6 Opous certainly belonged to the Boiotian koinon until 245 BCE, when it may have been ceded to the Aitolians.7 Nonetheless, this polis was a member of the koinon again in 237/6 BCE, only to fall under Makedonian control shortly after 228 BCE8 and at some point in the later third century BCE rejoin the Boiotians once again.9 Similarly, Lokrian Larymna, which had been annexed in the fourth century BCE, was again controlled by the koinon in 227 BCE,10 while the smaller neighbouring polis of Halai was a member in the later third century BCE, though it is likely that this city joined together with Opous.11 Across the straights of the Euripos to the east, the Euboian cities of Chalkis and Eretria also appear to have joined the Boiotian koinon in the 280s or early 270s BCE. The date of Chalkis’ annexation is linked closely to an inscribed list of aphedriateuontes, Boiotian religious representatives, which includes a Chalkidian,12 now shown by Knoepfler to date to the 280s or 270s BCE;13 regardless of when it joined the koinon, however, Chalkis had left by 271/0 BCE.14 Knoepfler has also convincingly demonstrated that Eretria joined the Boiotians in the aftermath of Demetrios Poliorketes’ defeat and capture in 286 BCE.15 The preamble of a decree of 278/7 BCE recorded by Diogenes Laertios makes clear, however, that by that date this polis was no longer a member of the Boiotian koinon.16 Thus, both Chalkis and Eretria likely joined the Boiotians in the 280s, but both left to join the reformed Euboian koinon again in the 270s BCE. 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15 16

Scholten 2000, 69. Moreno Hernandez and Pascual Valderrama 2013, 516f; the date is disputed without further explanation in Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 331 n.246. Scholten 2000, 69. Klaffenbach 1926, 83; Le Bohec 1993, 162f. Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 332–334. Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 288–292. The assertion that Opous belonged once again to the Boiotian koinon in the later 190s BCE, made by Feyel based on his dating of SEG 1.101 (1942, 61–68), has been refuted by Étienne and Knoepfler in the above pages. Polyb. 20.5.8. Larymna was still considered Boiotian by Strabo 9.2.13. Goldman 1915, n.3–4, with the archonships of Philon and Nikon dated to the period from 208– 204 BCE by Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 306, with the chart on 350; cf. Roesch 1965, 66f. The small settlement of Boumelita, between Larymna in the west and Halai in the east, almost certainly also followed its neighbours into the koinon, though we have no evidence testifying to the status of this community during the duration of the koinon’s existence (Roesch 1965, 67f). IG VII.2724b. Knoepfler 2014, 73–83 has suggested that the Chalkidians may have joined the Boiotian koinon twice, once for a period after Demetrios’ Poliorketes defeat in 286 BCE and a second time in the later 270s BCE. Knoepfler 1992, 450f, n.75; Knoepfler 1995, 147f; Knoepfler 1998, 207f. IG XII.9.192; Knoepfler 1998, 202–204. Diog. Laert. 2.142; Knoepfler 2014, 82–85.

Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League

101

Finally, Megara, as well as its two previously dependent communities of Pagai and Aigosthena, also joined the Boiotian koinon, though again the date of this polis’ integration is uncertain. Polybios states that the Megarians, who had joined the Achaian koinon in 243 BCE, joined the Achaian koinon after Corinth was occupied by Kleomenes III in 224 BCE, and we know that the Megarians left the Boiotian koinon and were re-integrated into the Achaian koinon sometime thereafter.17 The details of the secession of Megara and its dependent neighbours from the ranks of the Boiotians will be discussed below. Chronologically, all that we know about this polis’ withdrawal from the Boiotian federal state is that Philopoimen was in power when it occurred;18 both 206/5 and 192/1 BCE are possible dates for this event,19 but, following Polybios most closely, I have accepted the latter date.20 Thus at various times from the later fourth century BCE until the dissolution of the Boiotian koinon in 171 BCE, the inhabitants of six ethnically non-Boiotian poleis and their dependent communities in total were integrated into its ranks (Larymna, Opous, Halai, Chalkis, Eretria, Megara), and one polis (Oropos) whose ethnic identity was, as we will see, ambiguous. Unfortunately, in the case of most of these cities we often only have just enough evidence to prove that they indeed were members of the koinon at some time, but not enough to illuminate the process of integration that they experienced. We do, however, know a little about how the Boiotians treated new members. Documents issued by Halai, Eretria, Chalkis, and Megara while members of the federal state make clear that they were allowed to preserve their internal institutional structures, onto which a new federal framework was superimposed.21 This latter development, however, by necessity seems to have involved the dissolution of local supra-polis structures, since the annexation of Opountian Lokris involved the dissolution of the Lokrian koinon that had been centred previously on Opous.22 Furthermore, after joining the Boiotians Megara was forced to make Aigosthena and Pagai, two komai previously subject to it, independent members of the koinon.23 Thus, it appears that the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon followed the contemporary Achaian federal habit of breaking up power structures in newly integrated communities in order to prevent any single new member from having too much influence.24 This is in contrast to the Aitolian federal state, which appears to have absorbed into its ranks the Phokian and Dorian koina as well as, for a short period of time after 245 BCE, the Boiotian federal state itself into its ranks while still preserving their federal structures.25

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Polyb. 20.6.9; Plut. Arat. 43–44; Cleom. 19. Polyb. 20.6.9–12; Plut. Phil. 12.3; Paus. 8.50.4. Beloch 1927, 434; Aymard 1938, 14f, n.7; Feyel 1942, 30f. Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 266, n.3; 328, n.238. Roesch 1965, 67, n.2. Moreno Hernandez and Pascual Valderrama 2013, 519f. Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 329f; Legon 1981, 32f. Mackil 2013, 362f. Scholten 2000, 73.

102

Ruben Post

Beyond such administrative treatment, we can glimpse the complex ethnic negotiations that could be found in the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon from a contemporary source: Herakleides Kritikos. In his itinerary through central Greece, likely dating to sometime in the third quarter of the third century BCE,26 this author states about the Oropians that “denying that they are Boiotians, they are Athenian Boiotians” (ἀρνούμενοι τοὺς Βοιωτοὺς Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσι Βοιωτοί).27 This rather enigmatic statement is paralleled later when the author states of the Plataians that they “have nothing else to say than that they are colonists of the Athenians and that the battle between the Greeks and the Persians took place there. They are Athenian Boiotians” (Οἱ δὲ πολῖται οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἔχουσι λέγειν ἢ ὅτι Ἀθηναίων εἰσὶν ἄποικοι καὶ ὅτι τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ Περσῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἡ μάχη ἐγένετο. Εἰσὶ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοi Βοιωτοί).28 These twin statements are of interest for the light they shed on the dialogues of integration that must have been current in the third century koinon. By stating that the Oropians denied being purely Boiotian, Herakleides makes clear that the prevailing claim among many of their fellow federal citizens must have been that the Oropians were indeed fully Boiotian. This was no doubt an artefact of the incessant movement of this polis between Athens and the Boiotians in the centuries prior. The assertion of a hybrid identity in this case seems to have been viewed as problematic by the primary members of the koinon, and, given Oropos’ history, this claim likely evoked wariness over the loyalty of the Oropians to the federal state. In the case of the Plataians, on the other hand, we find no similar declaration of the contentiousness of their hybrid ethnic identity; there was perhaps too much wellknown history between the Plataians, the other members of the Boiotian koinon, and the Athenians for such a claim to be denied. By bringing this scarce and disparate evidence together, we may draw a few conclusions about the expansion of the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon. First, this federal state rarely appears to have pursued an aggressive policy of expansion; rather, its absorption of neighbouring non-Boiotian poleis was opportunistic and largely dependent on extraneous political circumstances. Second, when it did integrate new members into its ranks, the koinon pursued a policy of dividing up consolidated power structures to ensure that no one member could hold disproportionate influence. Third, this expansion at least in some cases led to contentious negotiations of ethnic identity within this federal state. Finally, the shifting conditions of the Hellenistic period also often led newly-integrated cities to secede or be detached from the koinon, sometimes repeatedly. Consequently, the Boiotian koinon had much less success retaining new members than did its Aitolian and Achaian counterparts. These conclusions suggest that the core members of the Boiotian koinon would likely have regarded new members with suspicion, a view borne out, as we will see, by other evidence.

26 For a discussion of the difficulties of dating this source, see Arenz 2006, 49–83 and the discussion in McInerney’s biographical essay in BNJ 369A. 27 Herakleides Kritikos BNJ 369A F 1.7. 28 Herakleides Kritikos BNJ 369A F 1.11.

Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League

103

Our single best source of information on the history of Hellenistic Boiotia is Polybios’ well-known digression on the degeneracy of its inhabitants.29 In this excursus, he states that:30 τὰ δὲ κοινὰ τῶν Βοιωτῶν εἰς τοσαύτην παραγεγόνει καχεξίαν ὥστε σχεδὸν εἴκοσι καὶ πέντ᾽ ἐτῶν τὸ δίκαιον μὴ διεξῆχθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς μήτε περὶ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν συμβολαίων μήτε περὶ τῶν κοινῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν φρουρὰς παραγγέλλοντες τῶν ἀρχόντων, οἱ δὲ στρατείας κοινάς, ἐξέκοπτον ἀεὶ τὴν δικαιοδοσίαν: ἔνιοι δὲ τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ μισθοδοσίας ἐποίουν ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν τοῖς ἀπόροις τῶν ἀνθρώπων. The affairs of the Boiotians had fallen into such disorder that for almost 25 years justice was not administered among them either in private cases or public suits. Some magistrates were engaged in dispatching garrisons, others national expeditions, and thus they continually put off their juridical duties. Some of the generals also dispensed pay to the needy from the public treasury.

This quarter of a century has traditionally been thought to fall between the years 217, marking the end of the Social War, and 192/1 BCE, when the Boiotians allied with Antiochos III.31 Müller has recently asserted that we should read this section as a largely literary construct, a product of Polybios’ bias against the Boiotians.32 As she notes, however, while Polybios’ portrait of Boiotian decline into decadence is filled with literary tropes, we can be certain that it was constructed around a “diplomatic/military basis of the narrative.”33 It is with these political and military events that I am concerned. In order to understand Polybios’ comments, we must place them in the context of the history of Boiotia and the broader Greek world in the later third and early second centuries BCE. In our literary sources we hear of no major Boiotian military operations in the period after the end of the Kleomenic War in 222 BCE. The koinon remained neutral during the Social War as well as the First Makedonian War, emerging unscathed from both conflicts.34 In essence, during almost the entire period covered by Polybios’ account, the Boiotian koinon successfully pursued a policy of neutrality. How, thus, can we explain Polybios’ assertion that for a quarter of a century the Boiotians had been continually sending out phrourai and koinai strateiai? Some light can be shed on the former by an inscription of an agreement between Orchomenos and Chaironeia that specifies how cavalry from both poleis were regularly to be deployed.35 This document dates to around 285 BCE and specifies that the cavalry of these cities were to patrol for six to 11 days at a time around Thebes and Oropos.36 Only 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Müller 2013, 267. Polyb. 20.6.1–2 (translation by the author). Walbank 1979, 72. Müller 2013. Müller 2013, 270. Polyb. 2.65.3; Feyel 1942, 130f, 170–180. SEG 28.461. On the general dating of this document see Knoepfler 2014, 69–71, though I disagree with Knoepfler’s assertion that the patrols outside of Boiotia must have been in central Euboia, and thus cannot accept his more specific dating of 286–285 BCE (Knoepfler 2014, 85f).

104

Ruben Post

a couple of years earlier, both of these poleis had been re-integrated into the koinon, the former after being destroyed and rebuilt,37 the latter after experiencing a period of Athenian rule and then independence.38 The patrols around Oropos certainly make sense from a strategic perspective, as this city marked one of the main routes of entry from Attika into Boiotia.39 The importance of cavalry patrols for the security of the koinon is made clear in another passage of Polybios narrating how in 227 BCE a rumour spread among the Boiotians that “Antigonos [Doson] intended to ravage their country” (μέλλει κατατρέχειν τὴν χώραν Ἀντίγονος), prompting the federal hipparch to patrol “with all the Boiotian cavalry” (πάντας τοὺς Βοιωτῶν ἱππεῖς) around Larymna in the northwest “in order to guard the country” (χάριν τοῦ παραφυλάττειν τὴν χώραν).40 The patrols around Thebes outlined in this inscription do not appear to have served a strategic purpose, however; Thebes lay, of course, in the heart of Boiotia, about as far from the borders of the koinon as a member could be. It thus seems that while these patrols in some cases were intended to protect Boiotia from external attack, they also served the purpose of intimidating members. As for the koinai strateiai, an anecdote in a later part of Polybios’ digression sheds light on what the historian seems to have had in mind with this phrase. After outlining the degeneracy of the Boiotians, Polybios narrates the episode of Megara’s secession from the Boiotian koinon. As he notes, the Megarians had previously left the Achaian koinon in 224 BCE and joined the Boiotians “with the consent of the Achaians” (μετὰ τῆς τῶν Ἀχαιῶν γνώμης). He goes on:41 βραχὺ δὲ πρὸ τῶν νῦν λεγομένων καιρῶν δυσαρεστήσαντες τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῶν Βοιωτῶν αὖτις ἀπένευσαν πρὸς τοὺς Ἀχαιούς. οἱ δὲ Βοιωτοὶ διοργισθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ καταφρονεῖσθαι δοκεῖν ἐξῆλθον ἐπὶ τοὺς Μεγαρεῖς πανδημεὶ σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις. οὐδένα δὲ ποιουμένων λόγον τῶν Μεγαρέων τῆς παρουσίας αὐτῶν, οὕτω θυμωθέντες πολιορκεῖν ἐπεβάλοντο καὶ προσβολὰς ποιεῖσθαι τῇ πόλει. πανικοῦ δ᾽ ἐμπεσόντος αὐτοῖς καὶ φήμης ὅτι πάρεστιν Φιλοποίμην τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ἔχων, ἀπολιπόντες πρὸς τῷ τείχει τὰς κλίμακας ἔφυγον προτροπάδην εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν. But shortly before the time of which we are now speaking [192/1 BCE], becoming dissatisfied with the Boiotian constitution, they [the Megarians] again joined the Achaians. The Boiotians, incensed at what they considered being treated with contempt, sallied out with their full force under arms against the Megarians. When the Megarians did not take any account of their presence, they [the Boiotians], being enraged, determined to besiege and make assaults on their city. But when a panic overtook them after a report spread that Philopoimen was at hand with a force of Achaians, they left their scaling ladders against the walls and fled back hastily to their own country.

What is of interest here is not so much that the Boiotians responded to the secession of a member of the koinon with violence, since this was the normal response in, for instance, the contemporary Achaian koinon as well,42 but rather how the federal 37 38 39 40 41 42

Roesch 1982, 417–439; Knoepfler 2001b. Gauthier 1987–1989, 194; Knoepfler 2001a, 371–387. Fachard and Pirisino 2015, 139f, fig. 13.1. Polyb. 20.5.8. Polyb. 20.6.9 (translation by the author). Mackil 2013, 366–370.

Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League

105

government responded. As Polybios makes clear, the Megarians first decided to secede, and the Boiotian federal magistrates then responded by sending an entire levy of troops (πανδημεὶ σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις). They only attacked, however, when the Megarians would not converse with them, implying that the full federal army was sent out initially more as an intimidation tactic than as an actual assault force. What is unusual here, it seems, is not so much that the Boiotians sent an army to Megara because it wished to secede, but that they ended up actually besieging that polis and withdrawing out of fear of an Achaian counterattack. Between this episode and the patrols outlined in the cavalry agreement between Orchomenos and Chaironeia, I believe we can find an explanation for Polybios’ reference to the regular dispatching of phrourai and strateiai koinai between roughly 217 and 192 BCE. These domestic troop deployments were doubtless sometimes intended to protect the borders of the koinon, but serious external threats requiring calling up the entire cavalry or army appear to have been relatively rare during the period discussed by Polybios.43 As such, it seems likely that at least some of those strateiai koinai were a means of intimidating member poleis suspected of wavering loyalty when the phrourai patrolling around their territories, like the Orchomenian and Chaironeian cavalry around Thebes and Oropos, failed to keep them in line. Chief among these must have been those ethnically non-Boiotian cities integrated into the koinon relatively recently, like Megara or Opous, as well as those poleis with longer but more storied relations, like Plataiai and Oropos. The question remains of how the Boiotian koinon managed to fund such regular military activity. The Orchomenos–Chaironeia cavalry agreement outlines that cavalrymen were to receive road pay (ἐφόδια) while patrolling,44 and it was standard practice by the third century BCE for all troops when called up to receive both wages for service and money to cover minor expenses. 45 Numismatics can shed light on this question. After the destruction of Thebes in 335 BCE, the Boiotian federal government ceased striking coinage on a significant scale.46 The koinon appears, based on the irregularity of its issues, to have followed in broad strokes the standard monetary policy of the time, drawing primarily on the existing body of coinage in circulation and only topping up the supply when it was felt necessary.47 By the latter half of the third century BCE, large amounts of silver and bronze coinage were circulating in Boiotia,48 but hoards from Boiotia and neighbouring regions of this period often include little or no local Boiotian coinage.49 In the last decades 43 We hear of no Boiotian involvement in any major military operations beyond the koinon’s borders during the latter half of the third century save for supporting Antigonos Doson at the battle of Sellasia in 222 BCE with 2,000 infantry and 200 cavalry, almost certainly standing contingents and not levied troops (Polyb. 2.65.3; Feyel 1942, 131). 44 SEG 28.461, ll. 26–29. 45 Pritchett 1974, 1–33; Chaniotis 2005, 116. 46 Martin 1985, 169. 47 See on monetary policy in the Hellenistic world, Bresson 2005, 45–50. 48 Grandjean 2006, 209. 49 See for Boiotia IGCH 163, 193, 223; for Euboia IGCH 175, 189, 221 (only IGCH 205 includes a substantial quantity of Boiotian coinage); and for Phokis IGCH 195.

106

Ruben Post

of the third century and the early second century BCE for the first time in the Hellenistic period we find significant amounts of new coinage issued by the Boiotian federal government.50 Dominant among these are bronze coins featuring the wreathed head of Demeter or Persephone on the obverse and a standing Poseidon with one foot raised on the reverse; these were overstruck rather sloppily on Makedonian bronzes featuring the beardless head of Herakles on the obverse and a naked rider holding a wreath on the reverse.51 This overstriking of a bronze coinage en masse marks a major fiscal shift that must have been stimulated by some transition in the state’s finances. This prompts the question of, firstly, why the federal government issued so much coinage so hastily, and, secondly, how it obtained so much Antigonid bronze coinage to overstrike in the first place. To address the second question first, Antigonid coinage may have reached Boiotia in two ways. The first is that one or more kings donated this cash to the koinon. We have literary evidence for Hellenistic kings doing just that,52 most notably Ptolemy V in 186/5 BCE giving 200 talents of bronze coin to the Achaian koinon.53 In the particular case of the Boiotian koinon, Polybios tells us that Antigonos Doson and Philip V were “always supporting financially” (χορηγοῦντες… αἰεί) the pro-Makedonian faction at Thebes.54 The other possibility is that this Makedonian coinage was paid to Makedonian troops garrisoned in Boiotia.55 At any rate, the Boiotian Demeter/Poseidon type overstrikes were already in circulation around or shortly by the late third century BCE56 and came to dominate circulation in Boiotia down to around 175 BCE.57 The overstriking of large quantities of foreign coin indicates a desire either to put a large amount of cash into circulation quickly at low cost or to replace a significant quantity of an unpopular coin type.58 The former was probably the most important factor driving the desire to overstrike the Makedonian coinage in large quantities, and the likeliest stimulus for such mass striking was military activity. 59 An inscription known as the apologia of Pompidas helps to illuminate the monetary 50 Hackens 1969, 710f. 51 Head 1884, f 41, no.81–89, Pl. VI.8; Hackens 1969, 725–728; Vlachogianni 2000, 107, 108, Classical Numismatic Group 2006, 29, 30, no.100–109. In Boiotian hoards of the first half of the second century BCE, these coins comprise the majority of all types. For instance, in the Lake Kopais 1908 hoard, of 1549 bronze coins, 1449 were of this type (IGCH 229) while a hoard uncovered in Thebes in 1997 contained 457 coins, of which 427 were of this type (Vlachogianni 2000, 103). 52 Vlachogianni 2000, 110f. 53 Polyb. 22.9.3 and 24.6.3. Cf. Polyb. 5.89.2. 54 Polyb. 20.5.13. 55 Psoma 2009, 21f. 56 The only hoard including Demeter/Poseidon bronzes that possible predates the 2nd c. BC is IGCH 169, whose date is unclear (Vlachogianni 2000, 108, n.41) 57 Vlachogianni 2000, 111f. 58 Le Rider 1975, 52f. 59 Howgego 1990, 7–9, though cf. the balanced perspective on the relationship between coinage and military activity from the perspective of the contemporary Achaian koinon in Grandjean 2000.

Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League

107

situation in early second century BCE Boiotia and how it relates to military activity.60 This inscription, dated probably to around 170 BCE by Grandjean,61 is the apologia, or account, of a Theban hipparchos named Pompidas enumerating money he received from the city, the sale of some horses, pay for his troops, and other minor expenses. This is a civic, not a federal, document, and one that dates to shortly after the dissolution of the koinon in 171 BCE, but the administration of the army prior to this time was largely carried out at the polis level, and so this inscription very likely sheds light on the administration of military pay under the koinon of the later 3rd or early 2nd century BCE as well.62 In Pompidas’ apologia, the sums discussed are reckoned in silver and bronze drachmas, mentioned interchangeably as if equivalent in value.63 The Theban cavalrymen were only paid in silver, however, while the purchase of horses and other minor transactions were conducted in bronze drachmas,64 which have been identified plausibly with the overstruck Demeter/Poseidon bronzes.65 Interestingly, Pompidas states in his account that he had to buy 110 silver drachmas from a moneychanger to cover his expenses, a transaction which cost him 137 drachmas 3 obols in bronze.66 It therefore appears from this inscription that citizen troops were paid in silver, which was common practice in the Greek world due to the universally recognized value of silver coinage, while bronze was generally reserved for everyday transactions.67 Outside of public pay, silver, it seems, could only be obtained at a premium at this time in Boiotia.68 The best explanation for the proliferation of bronze coinage in late third and early second century BCE Boiotia and the economic situation attested in the Pompidas inscription is that the Boiotian federal government was actively withdrawing silver coinage from widespread circulation and replacing it with bronze coinage. Warren posited that just such a situation has been discerned in the Achaian koinon in the second quarter of the second century BCE, at which time that federal state similarly struck a large quantity of bronze coinage of one denomination.69 Kroll has suggested that this bronze coinage was issued en masse by the Achaians to address military needs; he proposed that it was not produced in order to pay troops directly, however, but to extract silver from the economy and hold it in federal coffers in

60 IG VII.2426. 61 Grandjean 1995, 4f. 62 On the relationship between the Boiotian federal government and its member poleis with regards to military matters, see Feyel 1942, 187–218; Roesch 1965, 109–122, 176–179; Étienne and Roesch 1978, 366–374; Roesch 1982, 316–319. 63 Grandjean 1995, 7f; Sosin 2002, 337. 64 IG VII.2426, ll. 2–6. 65 Vlachogianni 2000, 109. 66 IG VII.2426, ll. 16–18. 67 Grandjean 2000, 316f; Sosin 2002, 335–337. 68 Sosin 2002, 338. 69 Warren 2007, 156–158.

108

Ruben Post

order to meet any military needs that might have arisen.70 To do this, the government must have mandated that all tax payments be made in silver. Just such a situation is likely reflected in the large quantity of Boiotian bronze overstrikes known from late third and second century BCE contexts. Let us now return to the Boiotian digression of Polybios and integrate this economic evidence into our analysis of it. As we have seen, in the period extending from roughly 217 to 192 BCE the Achaian historian tells us firstly that Antigonos Doson and Philip V were continually sending money to the pro-Makedonian faction at Thebes.71 He next tells us that during this period the boiotarchs, the chief federal magistrates of the koinon, were constantly deploying the army on guard duty and national campaigns. As we have seen, however, there is little indication of external military activity during this time, and the koinon appears to have remained neutral during the Social War as well as the First Makedonian War and its aftermath. I propose that Boiotian magistrates hastily overstruck the large quantity of Makedonian bronze coins of the Herakles/rider type that had entered the koinon under Philip V and his predecessors to put them into circulation and consequently withdraw silver into the federal treasury. The continuous need for silver to pay troops during the period discussed by Polybios meant that the overstruck coins remained current and widespread in Boiotia during this period. Thus, the support of the Antigonids likely allowed the Boiotians to pursue a policy of using the federal army to intimidate members who might have been considering secession to remain in the koinon at a time of increasingly violent large-scale conflicts throughout much of Greece. Now that we have examined the Boiotian koinon’s treatment of ethnically nonBoiotian or hybrid Boiotian communities, particularly in the last decades of the third century and first decade of the second century BCE, let us place this activity into the broader context of Boiotian history. I suggest that two factors shaped the Hellenistic koinon’s treatment of newly-integrated ethnically non-Boiotian poleis. The first was the relative lack of success the koinon experienced in retaining new members. After the initial expansion of the 280s and 270s BCE, which brought in Oropos, Chalkis, Eretria, and Opous, the Euboian cities quickly withdrew, while the poleis of Opountian Lokris were also lost later in the century, only to be regained and then lost again. In these circumstances, and with the expanding Achaian and Aitolian koina often threatening to annex their territory, the Boiotians must have been eager to ensure the retention of every polis integrated into their federal state. The second factor was the Boiotian history of resolving domestic conflicts with military force. Despite their successes in unifying the politically, economically, and ritually, the Boiotians were notorious for their violent conflicts with one another,72 most pithily encapsulated in Perikles’ famous comparison of them to “holm-oaks who are beaten down by each other” (τούς τε γὰρ πρίνους ὑφ᾿ αὑτῶν 70 Kroll 2009. 71 Polyb. 20.5.13. 72 On the relationship between cooperation and coercion in the development of Boiotian federalism, see Mackil 2014.

Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League

109

κατακόπτεσθαι).73 Internal conflict is of course something that all federal states must face, but the Boiotians had a particularly long and fierce history of inter-polis violence about which we are relatively well informed. From Thebes’ attempt to compel Plataiai to contribute to the Boiotoi in the late sixth century BCE onwards,74 the Boiotians had often resorted to coercion and violence to compel unity in their ranks, a tendency most brutally showcased in the fourth century BCE when the hegemonic Thebans attacked numerous poleis opposed to them.75 In conclusion, I wish to contextualize this aspect of the history of the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon by considering briefly the famous Theban response to the Plataian appeal to the Spartans in 427 BCE. The Plataians’ withdrawal from the koinon sometime before 431 BCE is the first detailed record of the secession of a polis from a Greek federal state. The Theban speaker, arguing to the Spartans that the Plataian withdrawal was not legitimate, opens by asserting that the Plataians “refused to acknowledge our leadership, as was first arranged, and, separating themselves from the other Boiotians, deserted ta patria” (οὐκ ἠξίουν οὗτοι, ὥσπερ ἐτάχθη τὸ πρῶτον, ἡγεμονεύεσθαι ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν, ἔξω δὲ τῶν ἄλλων Βοιωτῶν παραβαίνοντες τὰ πάτρια).76 In the lengthy speech that follows, Thucydides has the Theban assert that his city was compelled to return the Plataians to the Boiotians “so that Plataiai might be an enemy of none and at peace with all alike” (ἐχθροὺς οὐδενὶ καθιστάντες, ἅπασι δ᾿ ὁμοίως ἐνσπόνδους).77 As he relates it:78 οὔτε γὰρ ἠδικήσαμεν οὐδένα, προείπομέν τε τὸν βουλόμενον κατὰ τὰ τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν πάτρια πολιτεύειν ἰέναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς. καὶ ὑμεῖς ἄσμενοι χωρήσαντες καὶ ξύμβασιν ποιησάμενοι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἡσυχάζετε, ὕστερον δὲ κατανοήσαντες ἡμᾶς ὀλίγους ὄντας, εἰ ἄρα καὶ ἐδοκοῦμέν τι ἀνεπιεικέστερον πρᾶξαι οὐ μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους ὑμῶν ἐσελθόντες, τὰ μὲν ὁμοῖα οὐκ ἀνταπέδοτε ἡμῖν, μήτε νεωτερίσαι ἔργῳ λόγοις τε πείθειν ὥστε ἐξελθεῖν, ἐπιθέμενοι δὲ παρὰ τὴν ξύμβασιν... We did no harm to anyone, but invited those who wished to live under ta patria79 of the Boiotians to come over to us; and you, coming over gladly and making an agreement [with us], at first remained tranquil, until later you became aware that we were few. Now if we seemed to do something rather unreasonable by entering [your city] without the consent of the majority, at any rate you did not repay us in kind by refraining from violence and persuading us to retire by negotiation, but rather attacked us in violation of our agreement…

This, the Theban states, justified assaulting the city and forcing it to comply with Theban directives. We might imagine just such a speech being delivered by a Boiotian general to the Megarians over two centuries later. The koinon and the world

73 Arist. Rhet. 1407a 4–6; Cf. Plut. Per. 33.4. 74 Hdt. 6.108.1–5. 75 Xen. Hell. 5.4.63, 6.3.1, 5; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6, 51.3, 79.3–6; Isocr. 6.27, 14; Dem. 16.4, 25, 28; Plut. Pel. 25.7. 76 Thuc. 3.61.2. 77 Thuc. 3.65.3. 78 Thuc. 3.66.1–2 (translation by the author). 79 I have left ta patria untranslated here and below in order to preserve the ambiguity of the term. For the valence of this word in this context, see Mackil 2013, 40f.

110

Ruben Post

around it had changed significantly in the years between 427 and 192 BCE, but the rhetoric of integration, obligation, and compulsion had likely changed little. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arenz, A. (2006) Herakleides Kritikos “Über die Städte in Hellas.” Eine Periegese Griechenlands am Vorabend des Chremonideischen Krieges, Munich. Aymard, A. (1938) Les assemblées de la confédération achaienne: Étude critique d’institutions et d’histoire, Bordeaux. Beloch, K.J. (1927) Griechische Geschichte, IV 2, 2nd edition, Strassburg. Bresson, A. (2005) Coinage and Money Supply in the Hellenistic Age, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing. The New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 BC, Oxford, 44–72. Chaniotis, A. (2005) War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History, Malden, MA./Oxford. Classical Numismatic Group (2006) Triton XI. The BCD Collection of the Coinage of Boiotia, Lancaster, PA, and London. Étienne, R. and D. Knoepfler (1976) Hyettos de Béotie, et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 avant J.–C., Athens. Étienne, R. and P. Roesch (1978) Convention militaire entre les cavaliers d’Orchomène et de Chéronée, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 102, 359–374. Fachard, S. and D. Pirisino (2015) Routes Out of Attica, in M.M. Miles (ed.), Autopsy in Athens. Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, Oxford, 139–153. Feyel, M. (1942) Polybe et l’histoire de Béotie au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, Paris. Gauthier, P. (1987–1989) Grandes et petites cites: Hégémonie et autarcie, Opus 6–8, 187–202. Goldman, H. and A.L. Walker (1915) Report on Excavations at Halae of Locris, American Journal of Archaeology 19, 418–437. Grandjean, C. (1995) Les comptes de Pompidas (IG VII 2426): Drachmes d’argent symmachique et drachmes de bronze, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 1–26. Grandjean, C. (2000) Guerre et monnaie en Grèce ancienne: le cas du koinon achaien, in J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat (eds.), Économie antique. La guerre dans les economies antiques, Saint Bertrand de Comminges, 315–336. Grandjean, C. (2006) Histoire économique et monétarisation de la Grèce à l’époque hellénistique, in R. Descat (ed.), Approches de l’économie hellénistique, Paris, 195–214. Hackens, T. (1969) La circulation monétaire dans la Béotie hellénistique: trésors de Thèbes 1935 et 1965, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 93, 701–729. Head, B.V. (1884) Catalogue of Greek Coins: Central Greece (Locris, Phocis, Boeotia, and Euboea), London. Klaffenbach, G. (1926) Zur Geschichte von Ost-Lokris, Klio 20, 68–88. Knoepfler, D. (1992) Sept années de recherche sur l’épigraphie de la Béotie, Chiron 22, 411–503. Knoepfler, D. (1995) Les relations des cités eubéennes avec Antigone Gonatas et la chronologie delphique au début de l’époque étolienne, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 137– 159. Knoepfler, D. (1998) Chronologie delphique et histoire eubéenne: Retour sur quelques points controversés, Topoi 8, 197–214. Knoepfler, D. (2001a) Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté, Lausanne. Knoepfler, D. (2001b) La réintégration de Thèbes dans le Koinon béotien après son relèvement par Cassandre, ou les surprises de la chronologie épigraphique, in R. Frei–Stolba and K. Gex (eds.), Récherches récentes sur le monde hellénistique, Bern/New York, 11–26.

Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League

111

Knoepfler, D. (2002) Oropos et la Confédération béotienne à la lumière de quelques inscriptions ‘revisitées,’ Chiron 32, 119–55. Knoepfler, D. (2014) ΕΧΘΟΝΔΕ ΤΑΣ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ: The Expansion of the Boeotian Koinon towards Central Euboia in the Early Third Century BC., in N. Papazarkdas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 68–94. Kowalzig, B. (2007) Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, Oxford. Kroll, J. H. (2009) Review of The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal, Journal of Hellenic Studies 129, 192–193. Kühr, A. (2006) Als Kadmos nach Boiotien kam: Polis und Ethnos im Spiegel thebanischer Gründungsmythen, Stuttgart. Larson, S.L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods. Historia Einzelschriften, Stuttgart. Le Bohec, S. (1993) Antigone Dôsôn, roi de Macédoine, Nancy. Legon, R.P. (1981) Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C., Ithaca, NY. Le Rider, G. (1975) Contremarques et surfrappes dans l’Antiquité grecque, in J.-M. Dentzer, P. Gauthier, and T. Hackens (eds.), Numismatique antique. Problèmes et méthodes, Nancy/Louvain, 27–56. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. (2014) Creating a Common Polity in Boeotia, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 45–67. Martin, T. R. (1985) Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton, NJ. Moreno Hernández J.J. and I.M. Pascual Valderrama (2013) The Hellenistic Period (323–146), in J. Pascual and M.F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Loikris, Leiden/Boston, 507–535. Morpurgo Davies, A. (1993) Geography, History and Dialect: The Case of Oropos, in E. Crespo, J.L. García Ramón, and A. Striano (eds.), Dialectologica Graeca, Madrid, 261–280. Müller, C. (2013) The Rise and Fall of the Boeotians: Polybius 20.4–7 as a Literary Topos, in B. Gibson and T. Harrison (eds.), Polybius and His World. Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank, Oxford, 267–278. Pritchett, W.K. (1974) The Greek State at War. Vol. 1., Berkeley. Roesch, P. (1965) Thespies et la confédération béotienne, Paris. Roesch, P. (1982) Études béotiennes, Paris. Psoma, S. (2009) Tas Sitarchias Kai Tous Misthous ([Arist.], Oec. 1351B) Bronze Currencies and Cash-Allowances in Mainland Greece, Thrace and the Kingdom of Macedonia, Revue Belge de Numismatique 155, 3–38. Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley. Sosin, J. D. (2002) Boeotian Silver, Theban Agio and Bronze Drachmas, The Numismatic Chronicle 162, 333–339. Vlachogianni, E. (2000) A Hoard of Coins from Thebes: The Problem of the Boiotian Overstrikes, Nomismatika Khronika 19, 102–113. Walbank, F.W. (1957–1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 volumes, Oxford. Warren, J.A. (2007) The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal, London.

EUBOIAN UNITY IN THE 2ND CENTURY BCE AND THE CHALKIDIAN EMBASSY AT AMARYNTHOS: THE LIMITS OF ROMAN-SPONSORED GREEK FEDERALISM. Nikos Giannakopoulos Athens I. INTRODUCTION Whether and under what form a koinon Euboeon existed in the Classical and Early Hellenistic periods has long been a matter of debate among modern historians. Although several aspects of this problem still remain obscure, it is now perfectly clear that in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, the great age of federalism in Greece, Euboia – which was initially caught in the middle of the longstanding conflicts first between the hegemonic powers and subsequently between the Diadochoi, and later firmly under Makedonian control – simply failed to acquire a permanent and durable federal state-structure.1 Nevertheless, the 190’s created a wholly different and perhaps highly favourable environment for federal projects in Euboia. The Isthmian Declaration was followed by a revival of federalism in central Greece, with the Romans encouraging or actively promoting the formation of koina in Perrhaibia, Thessaly, Magnesia and elsewhere.2 In this respect, it is widely accepted that after 196 BCE a Euboian koinon was (re)organized. The relevant evidence and the discussion it has generated may be summarized as follows: Before leaving Greece in 194 BCE, Flamininus is reported to have summoned at Chalkis a conventus Euboicarum civitatium.3 This is frequently believed to signify the foundation act of a new Euboian koinon,4 although it has recently been argued that Livy’s use of the word conventus, and not concilium, does not necessarily indicate the foundation of a federal state at that date.5 In any event, there can hardly be any doubt that Rome’s intentions regarding Euboia involved a federal organization of the island, or at least some kind of coordination which involved bringing together the island’s four cities.6 In fact, two federal decrees found at 1

2 3 4

5 6

See the recent thorough treatment of this problem by Knoepfler 2015. Among previous studies on this topic see Wallace 1956; Larsen 1968, 97–103; Martin 1975, 116–121; Picard 1979, 231–274; Beck 1997, 27f; Knoepfler 2001, 121f; Reber – Hansen – Ducrey 2004, 643. A point well noted by Wallace 1956, 39 n.81. Cf. Ferrary 1988, 105f; Eckstein 2008, 288. Livy 34.51. E.g. Wallace 1956, 39; Larsen 1968, 405; Martin 1975, 123f; Picard 1979, 288; Robert 1969, 48 n.2 subscribes to this view, although he points out that the Euboian koinon is not explicitly mentioned by Livy in this context. Zecchini 2013, 258f; Knoepfler 2015, 159 n.1, 169. Cf. Picard 1979, 288.

114

Nikos Giannakopoulos

Chalkis provide undisputed proof for the existence of a federal primary assembly and a federal council in the 180’s.7 An honorific decree issued by the polis of Chalkis after 146 BCE 8 attests to the existence of a federal festival called Rhomaia, known from several agonistic inscriptions as well.9 Moreover, in the course of the 2nd century BCE numismatic issues bearing the legend ΕΥΒΟΕΩΝ reappear.10 Picard observed several changes regarding both the identity of the authorities which issued coinage in 2nd-century BCE Euboia and the iconographical types used in these issues, and he suggested that these changes reflected political developments on the island. Hence, he was able to distinguish two different series of coins bearing the legend ΕΥΒΟΕΩΝ and dated the first to 194–192 and the second to 191– 175/170 BCE. Between these two series he was able to identify a civic issue of Eretria dated to the short period of Seleucid control over Euboia, between the fall of 192 BCE and the Battle of Thermopylai. In Picard’s scheme the Euboian koinon organized by Flamininus in 194 BCE was provisionally dissolved during Antiochos’ short period of rule over Euboia between the fall of 192 and the late spring of 191 BCE and became active again only after the king’s departure for Asia Minor. After ca. 170, civic issues reappear in Euboia and this is interpreted by Picard either as a consequence of a new dissolution of the Euboian koinon, which was again recreated some years after 146 as the evidence for the Rhomaia shows, or as a consequence of disagreement between the members of a continuously functioning koinon over issues of monetary policy.11 With some modifications, these hypotheses were also accepted by Knoepfler who pointed out that the civic issues after ca. 170 BCE demonstrate that the Euboian koinon had by then ceased to function as a sympolitic state, as opposed to the 180’s, when the two aforementioned federal decrees offered to non-Euboian benefactors the privileges of enktesis in all the Euboian cities, a clear sign of a sympolitic polity. Knoepfler argued that this disruption in the function of the Euboian koinon was the result of a Roman intervention and at least partly explains the anti-Roman stance of Chalkis in 146 BCE. After the Achaian War the Euboian koinon reemerged, although its nature is difficult to determine, since the only relevant information concerns the festival of Rhomaia and the dispatch of judges from the Euboian ethnos to Geronthrai.12 The present paper focuses on a particular episode of Euboian collaboration which in my view allows us to underline certain hitherto unexplored features of the Euboian federal experience in the early 2nd century BCE: the Chalkidian request for help addressed to the Eretrians and the Karystians in 192 BCE. My aim is to re7 8 9

IG XII.9.898 and Knoepfler 1990, 474. IG XII.9.899. On the evidence regarding the Rhomaia held at Chalkis see Robert 1969, 44–49. Cf. below n.72. 10 The only monograph devoted to the federal coinage of Euboia from the Classical to the Hellenistic period is Wallace 1956, to be read in conjunction with the remarks made by Picard 1979, passim. 11 Picard 1979, 192–202, 301f. 12 See on all this Knoepfler 1990, 485f; Knoepfler 1991, 277; Knoepfler 2015, 173–177. On the decree of Geronthrai (IG V.1.1111) cf. Picard 1979, 301 n.4.

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

115

examine this episode in the light both of comparative evidence regarding the political and diplomatic activity of other Greek koina founded after 196 BCE and of the methodological tools and concepts developed within the framework of recent studies on ethnic identity. Hence, it will be shown that the turbulent period preceding the outbreak of the War of Antiochos witnessed: a) a total absence of Euboian federal institutions or at least their failure to provide an efficient political and diplomatic framework within which the interests of the newly established local pro–Roman factions could be defended; b) an attempt to articulate a public discourse regarding the essential elements of a comprehensive Euboian regional political identity. II. THE CHALKIDIAN EMBASSY AT AMARYNTHOS The Political Context The political situation in Euboia in 192 and 191 BCE may be summarized as follows: In the fall of 192 BCE the Roman embassy sent to Greece to combat Aitolian propaganda headed by Flamininus himself reached Chalkis, which was on the verge of stasis. The leaders of what would eventually crystallize into a pro-Roman faction, Mikythion and Xenokleides, seized the opportunity and drove a certain Euthymedes, an Aitolian proxenos and presumably the leader of a Chalkidian faction oriented towards Aitolia, out of the city. Later, an Aitolian force led by Thoas and accompanied by Euthymedes himself marched suddenly against Chalkis, inciting their supporters in the city to revolt. This enterprise failed as Mikythion and Xenokleides asked for, and received, military assistance from Eretria and Karystos. Livy reports this incident as follows: They increased their courage by the following scheme. It happened that at this time there was an annual festival at Eretria in honour of Diana Amarynthis, which crowds both of the natives and the Karystians attend. They sent there men to beg the people of Eretria and Karystos to take compassion on those who were born in the same island as themselves, to remember their alliance with Rome; let them not permit Chalkis to become Aitolian; if they held Chalkis they would hold Euboia; the Makedonians had been harsh masters, the Aetolians would be much more insupportable. The two cities were influenced mainly by their respect for the Romans, which had recently experience of both their valour in war and their justice and kindness in victory. Therefore, whatever strength in young men each city had it armed and sent. 13

After Antiochos’ landing in Greece, both Aitolian and Seleukid envoys attempted once more to win Chalkis over. Again they were unsuccessful. It was only after the 13

Livy 35.38.4–6: Micythio et Xenoclides…consilio tali animum adiecerunt. Sacrum anniversarium eo forte tempore Eretriae Amarynthidis Dianae erat, quod non popularium modo sed Carystiorum etiam coetu celebratur. eo miserunt qui orarent Eretrienses Carystiosque ut et suarum fortunarum in eadem insula geniti misererentur et Romanam societatem respicerent: ne sinerent Aetolorum Chalcidem fieri; Euboiam habituros, si Chalcidem habuissent; grave fuisse Macedonas dominos, multo minus tolerabiles futuros Aetolos. Romanorum maxime respectus civitates movit et virtutem nuper in bello in victoria iustitiam benignitatemque expertas. itaque quod roboris in iuventute erat utraque civitas armavit misitque.

116

Nikos Giannakopoulos

defeat of a Roman detachment at Delion that the Chalkidians were finally persuaded to accept the King in their city. It was now the turn of the pro–Roman leaders to leave, although not for long. Antiochos made Chalkis his base. He married the daughter of a local dignitary, thus gaining considerable local support, but then defeat at Thermopylai obliged him to leave Greece in the spring of 191 BCE. Due to Flamininus’ intervention Chalkis escaped the rage of the consul Manius Glabrio and, as is well known, the savior was properly honored.14 The non-involvement of Euboian federal institutions in the diplomatic events of 192 BCE Although the assistance provided to Chalkis by Eretria and Karystos has been considered as evidence for the functioning of a Euboian federal state, 15 the Euboian koinon is strikingly absent from the Livian account of the Chalkidian embassy. Faced with an external threat, the Chalkidians did not appeal to any federal council or magistrates, as the Achaean Dyme, Tritaia and Pharai had done in a well-known incident related by Polybios,16 but directly to two neighboring cities, exploiting the opportunity offered by the Artemisia at Amarynthos, which were regularly attended by officials and citizens of both Karystos and Eretria, and perhaps of Chalkis as well.17 A comparison with a similar incident that occurred early in 191 BCE may help to further elucidate this point. Faced with an attempt by Antiochos to take control of their city, the Medeonians, members of the Akarnanian koinon, proposed to refer the matter to the Akarnanian council.18 This was not the course of action adopted by the Chalkidians. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the recipients of the Chalkidian request, the Eretrians and the Karystians, also acted as fully autonomous city-states. Livy’s narrative leaves no doubt on this point. Each city decided on its own to arm and dispatch its elite forces. It is thus clear that, at least in 192 BCE, two years after the conventus Euboicarum civitatium summoned by Flamininus, each Euboian city still preserved full sovereignty in the management of its military and foreign policy. Even after the arrival of the Karystian and Eretrian forces at Chalkis, an undisputable sign of intra–Euboian cooperation, it was a Chalkidian delegation, not one dispatched by a union of Euboian cities or the Euboian koinon, which negotiated with the Aitolians.19 14 On all these events concerning Euboia before and during the war of Antiochos see Deininger 1971, 81–86; Picard 1979, 283–290; Grainger 2002, 173f, 183, 197–208, 249; Giannakopoulos 2009, 149–161. On the chronology cf. Walbank 1940, 327–329. 15 Larsen 1968, 405; cf. Knoepfler 2015, 172. 16 Polyb. 4.59–60. 17 On this festival, which was not a federal one in the 2 nd century BCE but may have acquired such a character in the Imperial Period (Paus. 1.31.5), see Knoepfler 1972, 294–301; Picard 1979, 218–221; Knoepfler 1990, 485 n.57. 18 Livy 36.11–12: ...media visa est Clyti sententia eoque accepta, ut ad regem mitterent legatos peterentque ab eo ut Medionios super tanta re consulare in concilio Acarnanum pateretur. 19 Livy 35.38.7–10: iis tuenda moenia Chalcidis oppidani cum tradidissent, ipsi omnibus copiis transgressi Euripum ad Salganea posuerunt castra. inde caduceator primum, deinde legati ad

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

117

In fact, the Euboian koinon, as opposed to other koina founded after 196 BCE is totally absent from all the political and diplomatic events of 192–191 BCE. It is, for example, completely ignored by the Romans themselves who are reported by Livy to have dispatched embassies to Athens, Chalkis, the Thessalian concilium, and the Magnesian concilium.20 It is possible that the Roman embassy sent to Chalkis addressed a Euboian concilium as well, but both the aforementioned Chalkidian request and the subsequent diplomatic events that took place in Euboia speak against this possibility. Livy’s record of the conference held outside Chalkis’ gates after Antiochos’ landing in Greece again leaves no doubt that those who negotiated with the royal and Aitolian envoys were the Chalkidian magistrates and leading politicians, not the Euboian ones. Their main argument was that “The Chalkidians needed no one to vindicate their liberty, for they were free”.21 Clearly, these negotiators acted in the name of Chalkis, not in the name of a Euboian koinon. They represented a city not a confederation or a federal state. It would be useful at this point to compare the evidence regarding these diplomatic approaches to Chalkis with that concerning a neighbouring region equally organised as a koinon: Magnesia. This comparison is even more interesting since it has been convincingly argued that both the Magnesian koinon and the Euboian federation shared a common feature: the preponderance of one city as the federal seat, Demetrias and Chalkis respectively.22 However, in contrast with the politically and diplomatically inactive Euboian koinon, the Magnesian federation emerges as an actor in its own right. It receives a Roman legate sent by Flamininus, who addresses the Magnesian assembly and receives a reply from the Magnetarch Eurylochos.23

20

21

22 23

Aetolos missi percunctatum quo suo dicto factove socii atque amici ad se oppugnandos venirent. respondit Thoas dux Aetolorum non ad oppugnandos sed ad liberandos ab Romanis venire sese: splendidiore nunc eos catena sed multo graviore vinctos esse quam cum praesidium Macedonum in arce habuissent. se vero negare Chalcidenses aut seruire ulli aut praesidio cuiusquam egere. ita digressi ex conloquio legati ad suos. Livy 35.31.1–2: dum inter Achaeos et tyrannum bellum erat, legati Romanorum circuire sociorum urbes solliciti, ... Athenas primum, inde Chalcidem, inde in Thessaliam iere, adlocutique concilio frequenti Thessalos Demetriadem iter flexere. eo Magnetum concilium indictum est. Livy 35.46.: … magistratus quoque Chalcidensium et principes ante portam processerunt…ad haec Micythio, unus ex principibus, mirari se dixit ad quos liberandos Antiochus relicto regno suo in Europam traiecisset; nullam enim civitatem se in Graecia nosse quae aut praesidium habeat aut stipendium Romanis pendat aut foedere iniquo adligata quas nolit leges patiatur; itaque Chalcidenses neque vindice libertatis ullo egere, cum liberi sint, neque praesidio, cum pacem eiusdem populi Romani beneficio et libertatem habeant. See on this comparison Knoepfler 1990, 479–482; 2015, 174f. Livy 35.31: [1] dum inter Achaeos et tyrannum bellum erat, legati Romanorum circuire sociorum urbes solliciti, ... [2] Athenas primum, inde Chalcidem, inde in Thessaliam iere, adlocutique concilio frequenti Thessalos Demetriadem iter flexere. eo Magnetum concilium indictum est. ... [11] magnetarchen summum magistratum vocant; is tum Eurylochus erat, ac potestate ea fretus negavit dissimulandum sibi et Magnetibus esse, quae fama vulgata de reddenda Demetriade Philippo foret; [12] id ne fieret, omnia et conanda et audenda Magnetibus esse. et inter dicendi contentionem inconsultius evectus proiecit tum quoque specie liberam Demetriadem esse, re vera omnia ad nutum Romanorum fieri.

118

Nikos Giannakopoulos

A few weeks later the Magnetarch and the principes Magnetum welcome Antiochos upon his arrival at Pteleos.24 Other koina also appear to have played an important diplomatic role in the same period. Thus, when Flamininus sent his legate to the Magnesians he also requested Thessalian military support by addressing a letter to the Thessalian strategos Eunomos.25 A conference held by Antiochos and his associates at Demetrias ended with the decision to send an embassy to Larissa, ad concilium Thessalorum.26 The ambassadors from Larissa who met Antiochos at Pherai “asking for what deed or word of the Thessalians he was assailing them with war” were in all probability federal not civic envoys.27 In Thebes Antiochos addressed a concilium gentis, i.e. the federal council of the Boiotian koinon,28 while the ambassadors from Epirus who met the Seleucid monarch at Chalkis were sent communi gentis consensu, which is in accordance with a decision by the Epirote koinon.29 What factors could account for this manifest difference? Are we to draw from the absence of the Euboian koinon in the Livian account of the War of Antiochos the conclusion that, despite Flamininus’ initiative in 194 BCE, a Euboian koinon did not yet exist in 192 BCE or at least had failed to crystallize into a fully developed federal polity? The aforementioned federal decrees found at Chalkis do not provide any help since they are dated to the 180’s and what they actually prove is that a federal apparatus for a Euboian koinon certainly existed after the War of Antiochos, but not necessarily before. The coinage presents a different set of problems. Although the technical arguments put forward by Picard regarding the relative and absolute chronology of the Euboian federal and civic coinage are excellent, I would like to point out that numismatic issues identified by a regional ethnos do not necessarily indicate the existence of a federal state, as examples from several Aegean islands and various areas of mainland Greece demonstrate.30 In fact, Picard’s arguments do not take into account the lack of involvement of any Euboian federal institution in the political and diplomatic events of 192 BCE. Admittedly, if we consider this non-involvement as a proof for the non-existence of a Euboian koinon at that time, we should modify either Picard’s dating of the common Euboian coinage, placing it after Antiochos’ departure, or its interpretation as an indication of a wellorganized and fully developed Euboian federal polity, or perhaps both.

24 Livy 35.43.4–5: imbrum primo insulam tenuit; inde Sciathum traiecit; ubi collectis in alto quae dissipatae erant navibus ad Pteleum primum continentis venit. ibi Eurylochus ei Magnetarches principesque Magnetum ab Demetriade occurrerunt... 25 Livy 35.39.4: …Eunomo praetori Thessalorum scripsit, ut armaret iuventutem. 26 Livy 36.8.2: legati Larisam ad concilium Thessalorum sunt missi. 27 Livy 36.9.1: Antiocho ad Pheras iam castra habenti, ubi coniunxerant ei se Aetoli et Amynander, legati ab Larisa venerunt quaerentes, quod ob factum dictumve Thessalorum bello lacesseret eos. 28 Livy 36.6.1. 29 Livy 36.5. 30 See on this point Psoma 2001, 253–261 (on Chalcidike); Constantakopoulou 2005, 11; Mackil 2015, 489f; Buraselis 2015, 371 (on Lesbos). As far as Euboia is concerned, see Larsen 1968, 101; Martin 1975, 117–119.

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

119

On the other hand, accepting Picard’s chronology and interpretation of the common Euboian coinage would mean that in 192 BCE a Euboian koinon was in existence and issued federal coinage but had not yet developed federal mechanisms capable of assuming the task of directing the Euboian cities’ diplomacy and of mobilizing their armed forces. In other words, a Euboian koinon did exist but possessed no sovereignty over the foreign policy of its members. Although this does not sound very likely, an analogous situation may have prevailed in Euboia in the 340’s as well.31 A third option would be that a Euboian federal apparatus with sovereign rights was nominally functioning, but the pro–Roman Chalkidians in control of their city simply had no trust in it, perhaps because it was under the influence of pro-Aitolian Euboian politicians, otherwise known to have been active in Chalkis and presumably in other Euboian cities as well. After all, federalism in early 2ndcentury BCE Euboia could be perceived to be as much a Roman-sponsored project as an Aitolian-inspired endeavour. Lack of evidence leaves plenty of room for speculation; however, it is certain that at least until 192 BCE Euboia did not respond to the general stimulus given to Greek federalism by the Isthmian Declaration and the subsequent Flamininian settlement of Greek affairs as fast and as efficiently as Thessaly and Magnesia had done. A united Euboian federal state-structure enjoying diplomatic and military sovereignty either had not emerged or was ignored by the member cities. After all, building a federal polity was a project involving negotiations which could have considerably expanded in time and the evidence presented above suggests that, by the fall of 192 BCE, this process either had not started or had not been completed in Euboia.32 Deeply rooted intra–Euboian rivalries combined with the aforementioned divisions created by the political conjuncture (in other words the schism between pro-Aitolian and pro-Roman factions in Euboia) may provide some explanation for this, but perhaps not fully resolve the question. A discourse on regional unity In fact, the Chalkidian embassy at Amarynthos invites us to regard the short period between the Isthmian Declaration and the outbreak of the War of Antiochos as one of labour, when not only new federal institutions but also a new kind of Euboian regional political identity had to be constructed, so that the Euboians could successfully respond to the new conditions created by the Roman-sponsored federalism 31 See Knoepfler 2015, 166f where he observes that the Euboian koinon at that time ‘never deprived its constituent cities of their sovereignty with regards to foreign policy’. In fact, Knoepfler bases his conclusions on the inexistence of any federal structure directing the foreign policy in mid–4th century BCE Euboia. As in 192 BCE, this was left to the individual cities of the island. 32 An example is provided by an inscription dated to the first half of the 2 nd century BCE which provides information on the internal mechanics of the Lesbian koinon (IG XII Suppl. 136). This koinon was equipped with an assembly, common military forces and a sort of mutual citizenship, but did not yet possess common laws which were to be prepared by delegates of the individual members. See Labarre 1996, 70–74 and Buraselis 2015, 372–374.

120

Nikos Giannakopoulos

which aimed at changing the geopolitical landscape of central Greece. In this respect, what makes the brief Livian narrative of this embassy undoubtedly valuable is the fact that this is the only piece of information that we have about Euboians articulating a public discourse on Euboia and intra–Euboian cooperation and unity. Perhaps the most valuable and fruitful contribution of recent studies on ethnic identity in antiquity has been the widely accepted recognition that ethnicity is primarily defined by “socially and discursively constructed criteria”33 which promote the affiliation of a collective group with a specific territory and the shared belief on common descent.34 Admittedly, ancient writers refer to the Euboians as a collective group as early as in the Archaic period, but mainly within the framework of instances of coordinated action taken by the cities or the inhabitants of the same island.35 But in terms of narratives on common descent, the overall picture is very different and highly complex. In the 5th century BCE most Euboians were generally recognized as part of the Ionian race, but that was not the case for the Karystians (and the Styrians, later to be incorporated into Eretria), who were considered to be Dryopes.36 The Ionian affiliation of the Eretrians and the Chalkidians was also promoted by traditions which attributed the foundation of the two major cities of central Euboia to heroes from Athens: according to Strabo, Aiklos and Kothos set out from Athens to establish Eretria and Chalkis respectively after the Trojan War.37 Strabo also records that Ellops, brother of Aiklos and Kothos, founded Ellopia in northern Euboia (its inhabitants later migrated to Histiaia) and ruled Histaia, Aedepsos, and Oreos, the latter named after its first Ellopian inhabitants, who were mountaineers.38 Another tradition recorded by Plutarch makes Aiklos and Kothos sons of Xouthos, hence brothers of Ion.39 It is at least possible that the Athenian 33 Hall 1997, 32; 2015, 35f. 34 For the significance of myths of common descent and of connection with a specific territory for the construction of regional/ethnic identity in Ancient Greece see Hall 1997, 2, 25, 32–40. Cf. Luraghi 2008, 7–15; Graninger 2011, 13 on the Thessalian case; Beck and Funke 2015, 23f. 35 The relevant evidence is usefully assembled in Picard 1979, 225–229. 36 Thuc. 7.57 (cf. 4.61) regards all the Euboians except the Dryopian Karystians as Ionians. Hdt. 8.46.2. also styles the Chalkidians and the Eretrians as Ionians, while the Styrians are regarded as Dryopes, as is also the case in Paus. 4.34.11. Diod. Sic. 4.37.1–2 relates that the founders of Karystos were Dryopes expelled from Oita and Trachis by Hercules. Cf. Vedder 1978, 14f, Knoepfler 1997, 353f, and Walker 2004, 29, 39. 37 Strabo 10.1.8, who draws on Artemidoros and ultimately Ephoros, according to Lasserre 1971, 118. 38 Str. 10.1.3–4. Lasserre 1971, 22 n.3 argues that Strabo’s source was Apollodoros who drew on Theopompos. On the Ellopians’ metoikiseis in Histiaia cf. Knoepfler 1997, 405 n.6. Eust. Il. p. 431 records that Kerinthos was once named Ellopia. On the Ellopians in northern Euboia see also Geyer 1903, 38, 95f; Vedder 1978, 13f; Walker 2004, 40f. 39 Plut. Qu. Gr. 22 (Mor. 296 D-E). Cf. Bradeen 1947, 23 and Walker 2004, 44. Clearly, this tradition was quite well remembered even in the Imperial Period. Plutarch interpreted the Tomb of the Children at Chalkis as a monument set up for those children who had been killed by the island’s Aeolian inhabitants because, upon Kothos’ arrival, they gave him earth from the ground in return for toys (Kothos had been promised that he would rule the land if he bought it). Cf. Bakhuizen 1985, 22f, 29 n.40–41, who argues that the source of this story may have been either Ephoros or Dionysios of Chalkis, the author of Ktiseis.

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

121

origin of Aiklos, Kothos, and Ellops reflect 5th-century BCE Athenian imperial pretensions; other traditions recorded by Strabo about Eretria and Histiaia deriving their names from colonists from the homonymous demes of Attica,40 and about the provenance of the inhabitants of southern Euboia from the Marathonian Tetrapolis (thus implicitly from Xouthos), presumably served the same function. 41 The version that presents the whole island of Euboia as being formerly called Ellopia after Ellops son of Ion should be seen in the same light.42 On the other hand, the story that makes Aiklos and Kothos (implicitly Ellops as well) sons of Xouthos, hence brothers of Ion, may be attributed to an aspiration on the part of the Euboians to be recognized as kinsmen but not descendants and colonists of the Athenians. In any case, these traditions contribute to the creation of a sense of kinship uniting several Euboian cities both to one another and to Athens.43 But Karystos also had its own eponymous demi-god hero, who is completely unrelated either to the Dryopes or to the Athenian/Ionian founders of the other Euboian cities.44 Moreover, even in the cases of Eretria and Histaia the link with Athens and the Ionians was not unanimously recognized. Like Karystos, Eretria also had an eponymous hero, Eretrieus son of the Titan Phaethon, who, according to a tradition recorded by Strabo, came to Euboia from the Triphylian city Makistos.45 In fact, this tradition seems to have been very old in Eretria, as a local civic tribe attested in an inscription dated to the mid-5th century BCE was called Mekistis. This connection between Eretria and the south-west Peloponnese was also promoted by the tradition that Eretria’s former name was Melaneis, after the hero Melaneus, who was the father of Eurytos and is attested in Messenia as Apollo’s son.46 As far as Histiaia/Oreos is concerned, alternative traditions, also recorded by Strabo, attributed Oreos’ name to Orion, who 40 Str. 10.1.3. Vell. Pat. 1.4.1 (cf. Bakhuizen 1985, 29) also considers the Chalkidians and the Eretrians as colonists of the Athenians. 41 Str. 10.1.6 and 8.7.1 (on Xouthos as founder of the tetrapolis). Cf. Vedder 1978, 16. On all these stories linking Euboia with Athens and the Ionians see the information provided by Bradeen 1947, 19–21; Vedder 1978, 15f; Walker 2004, 52, although the latter’s overall tendency to regard the mythical tradition as reflecting the historical reality in pre-Archaic Euboia may be questioned. According to Lasserre 1971, 23 n.1, p 24 n.6, these tales come from Philochoros or Theopompos. 42 Str. 10.1.3. According to Lasserre 1971, 117 this version comes from Philochoros (Fr. 25). 43 The way in which the traditions on the Euboians’ Athenian origin could function as uniting bonds between two individual Euboian cities is highlighted by IG XII.9, 406, which records in the genitive case the name Kothos and according to Knoepfler was the boundary stone of a temenos of the mythical founder of Chalkis located at Eretria. See SEG 26 (1976–1977), 1037 and SEG 32 (1982), 855. Knoepfler 1997, 406 n.10. 44 Karystos, the son of the Centaur Cheiron and Chariklo, Apollo’s daughter (Schol. Ad Pind. Pyth. IV. 182). Bacchyl. fr. 45 apud Schol. Ap. Rhod. 2.498 records that Karystos was the father of Aristaios, who in Oppian (Cynegetica IV. 265–285) fostered Dionysos in Euboia. 45 Str. 10.1.10; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἐρέτρια. Cf. Geyer 1903, 72f. Lasserre 1971, 119 points to Hellanikos as Strabo’s possible source. 46 Str. 10.1.10; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἐρέτρια; Paus. 4.2.2. The evidence regarding this connection between Eretria and Triphylia has been quite recently discussed by Knoepfler 1997, 385–387, 392f; cf. Knoepfler 1998 and Walker 2004, 53f. On the Eretrian tribes see also KnoepflerAckerman 2012.

122

Nikos Giannakopoulos

was brought up in the area, and insisted that its first inhabitants were the Oreitai, who were attacked by the Ellopians and moved to Histiaia to form a single city.47 As late as in the 2nd century BCE Pseudo-Skymnos attributed the foundation of Eretria, Chalkis and Kerinthos to the Athenians Aiklos, Pandoros son of Erecthieus and Kothos respectively, although he also pointed out that Karystos was built by the Dryopes and Histaia by the Perrhaibians.48 Writing in the Imperial Period, Pseudo-Apollodoros attributed the foundation of Histiaia to Thebans fleeing their city after its sack by the Epigonoi, although it is not entirely clear if this Histiaia was to be understood as the Euboian city or the Thessalian Histaiotis.49 What is important for our purpose is that all these stories, some of which may have been locally elaborated, equally failed to create a notion of pan-Euboian unity. In fact, if one was to search for traces of such a unity in the traditions surrounding Euboia, one would have to turn to the Homeric epic, where the Abantes headed by Elephenor ruled all the Euboian cities.50 On the other hand, the name Euboia was not unknown in Greek myths. According to Corinna,51 this was the name of one of the nine daughters of the Boiotian river-god Asopus and Metope. Corinna stated that Euboia was abducted by Poseidon and in the 5th century CE Nonnus was able to point out that the god had rooted this maiden in the sea.52 It was presumably some knowledge of this story that led Pseudo–Skymnos to state that the island was named after Asopos’ daughter and Strabo to observe that ‘Εὔβοια ἀπὸ ἡρωΐνης ἐκλήθη.’53 However Diodorus preserved a tradition that gave the name Chalkis to one of Asopos’ daughters, 54 while Hekataios, in as early as the 5th century BCE, put forward a different but highly interesting version: ‘Χαλκὶς πόλις ἐστίν, ἣ πρότερον Εὔβοια προσηγορεύετο, ἐκλήθη δὲ ἀπὸ Κόμβης τῆς Χαλκίδος καλουμένης, θυγατρὸς Ἀσωποῦ’.55 Clearly 47 Str. 10.1.4. 48 GGM 1.218. Knoepfler (1997, 406 n.10) points out that the fact that Kothos, the founder of Chalkis in Strabo, appears here as founder of Kerinthos indicates that the latter was incorporated into Chalkis and not into Histaia. The Perrhaibians, as conquerors of the Euboian Histiaiotis, are also on record in Strabo 9.5.17 and 10.1.4; cf. Geyer 1903, 38, 95f; Vedder 1978, 13f; Walker 2004, 41. 49 Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.3. Cf. Geyer 1903, 95 n.3; Sakellariou 1990, 210–214. 50 Hom. Il. B 536–543. On the notion of a united Euboia under the Abantes see Vedder 1978, 12 and Walker 2004, 43f. 51 Fragment 645. 52 Nonnus, Dion. 42 l. 411. 53 GGM 1.218 and Str. 10.1.3. According to Lasserre 1971, 22 n.3 the story about Asopos’ daughters goes back to Akousilaos of Argos. 54 Diod. Sic. 4.72.1. This nymph was still considered in the 3 rd century CE as the founder of the polis, as the cult of Archegetis Chalkis attested in IG XII.9. 906 shows. The nymph Chalkis was frequently depicted on Chalkidian coins (Picard 1979, 12–17, 46, 57, 92, 113, 115, 121, 130f, 133, 135); she was also considered to be the Korybantes’ mother, the latter also being associated with the Kouretes, both standard features of Euboian mythology (e.g. Schol. in Il. XIV 291 and Nonnus, Dion. 13. 135 ff.). Cf. on all this Escher 1899, col. 2092 and Walker 2004, 27–31 with the relevant evidence and bibliography. 55 Recorded by Steph. Byz. s.v. Χαλκίς. Cf. Eust., Il., I 428 ll. 10–12. See Geyer 1903, 48 n.2; Bradeen 1947, 10; Reber, Hansen, and Ducrey 2004, 647.

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

123

in Hekataios’ scheme the name Euboia was originally attributed to a single city on the island56 and it is highly tempting to see in this tradition a tale produced in Chalkis itself, which served the purpose of expressing Chalkidian claims to a kind of supremacy over the whole of Euboia.57 What thus emerges from these various foundation and migration myths is a highly complex picture of unsurprisingly conflicting stories. Ties of kinship surely exist, but they usually bring together certain, but not all, of the individual cities of Euboia. Their point of reference is a non–Euboian hegemonic power, Athens. They coexist with alternative traditions which either promote the notions of autochthony and divine eponymy and ancestry (in the cases of the eponymous Karystos, Eretrieus and Orion and of Melaneus as well)58, or associate the Perrhaibian northern Euboia with northern Thessaly (for a long time under Makedonian control) and perhaps Thebes (in Pseudo-Apollodoros’ account), and the Dryopian Karystos with an ancient people believed to have migrated from central Greece to various other parts of Greece59 and Eretria with the Peloponnese (in the case of the eponymous Eretrieus). Moreover, all the stories which are not oriented towards Athens survive well into the Hellenistic Period and beyond, displaying a tendency to ascribe to each Euboian city a distinct identity and history.60 Even the common name of the island is sometimes coloured with pretensions of supremacy on the part of Chalkis and, more importantly, it is never associated with any kind of ethnic genealogy. In short, no comprehensive and cohesive tale linking the individual Euboian cities and their eponym figures with a common Euboian descent has ever found its place in the 56 In describing the Lelantine plain, Strabo 10.1.9 also mentions a city called Euboia which was destroyed by blasts through subterranean passages. Bakhuizen 1976, 9–13 associates this passage with Hekataios’ remark that Chalkis’ old name was Euboia and attempts to identify Strabo’s Euboia with Xeropolis-Lefkandi. Geyer 1903, 48 n.2 argued that Chalkis’ original name may have changed due to the discovery of bronze. Bradeen 1947, 14f also seeks the historical reality behind this tale and argues that the name of the island’s most important city was subsequently attributed to the whole island, the city being driven to adopt a new name. What interests me in this paper is the implications of this myth, not its historical authenticity, rightly questioned by Knoepfler 1997, 352, 405 n.1, who notes that the city Euboia was quite possibly a fiction mentioned by the Athenian tragic poets as well. 57 It is quite interesting that Plin. H.N. 4.21 records a completely contrasting version: it was the whole of Euboia that was formerly called Chalkis. This may be either a misinterpretation of Hekataios, as Bradeen 1947, 14f suggested, or a variation upon a common theme highlighting Chalkidian claims to supremacy. 58 See Lasserre 1971, 23 n.2, 118 commenting on Oreos’ case. 59 Geyer 1903, 38, 113; Walker 39; On the Dryopes and the Dryopian identity see Hall 1997, 72– 77. 60 Walker 2004, 40 points out that Melaneus, the father of Eurytos, appears as a king of the Dryopes in Ant. Lib. Met., 4, drawing on Nicander of Kolophon, writing in the 2 nd century BCE (Celoria 1992, 109 n.1). This would have provided a link between the Dryopian Karystos and Eretria, via Eurytos’ Oichalia, not infrequently located in Euboia, and more specifically in the area of Eretria (Str. 9.5.17 and 10.1.10; Apollod. Bibl. 2.6.1–2). In view of the incorporation of various southern Euboian cities believed to be Dryopian into Eretria’s territory (Knoepfler 1997, 353f), this causes no surprise. On the Artemisia held at Amarynthos as a cultic bond between the Eretrians and the Karystians see above note 17.

124

Nikos Giannakopoulos

Greek mythological tradition.61 One could perhaps recognize here the reflection both of a highly fragmented ethnic and geographical landscape and of a certainly early political division into competing individual city-states.62 In any case, the lack of common foundation myths, in contrast to other Greek regions and even big multipolate islands such as Lesbos or Rhodes before the synoikismos,63 indicates that in Euboia the notion of a regional island-wide identity and unity was rather weak in comparison to civic particularism, although the epic tradition and common historical experiences surely contributed towards the creation of a sense of Euboian community.64 It is against this background that the Livian narrative on the Chalkidian embassy at Amarynthos should be examined. Due emphasis has already been laid on the fact that the Chalkidians stressed the need to respect the alliance with Rome.65 But there were other important aspects of this discourse that need to be examined. In fact, the very foundation of the Chalkidian request for help lay in the bonds of solidarity that must have united the peoples born in the same island. In this respect, attention should be paid to the fact that the Chalkidian envoys do not mention any ties stemming from a common genealogy or kinship, although the Hellenistic period witnessed an explosion of what has been eloquently called kinship diplomacy.66 This absence of references to a common genealogy, quite easily understood in view of the absence of common myths of descent, was counterbalanced by the emphasis placed on being born in and becoming associated with a specific territory. Euboians could be easily defined as such not by descent but by birth on an island whose borders demanded no further definition or demarcation, having been permanently and undisputedly fixed by the insular character of the region. 67 But it is equally important that the Chalkidian appeal presented to its fellow Euboians both a negatively coloured view of their common past and alternative versions of a common future as well. Past Makedonian rule over Euboia was explicitly considered as a period of outright oppressive foreign domination; hence, whatever past efforts may have been deployed for Euboian coordination centred on the Antigonids, as the well-known Law on the Dionysian technitai indicates,68 such efforts could not be used as precedent within the present context. The prospect of becoming attached to Aitolia was treated in even more negative terms. On the other hand, persistence in the affiliation 61 As opposed to other regions such as Boiotia and Phokis (cf. Hall 2015, 39). On the little developed character of Euboian mythology cf. Knoepfler 1997, 393. 62 This geographical, ethnic and political fragmentation is stressed by Picard 1979, 207–212; cf. Knoepfler 1997, 352–354. 63 For such attempts to construct island-wide identities based on myths of common descent see Reger 1997, 474–478; Constantakopoulou 2005, 6f. 64 On these potentially unifying factors cf. Picard 1979, 229 and Knoepfler 2015, 160f. 65 Knoepfler 2015, 172. 66 See Jones 1999. 67 On the concept of islands as territories clearly defined by the sea itself see Reger 1997, 450; Constantakopoulou 2005, 2f; 2007, 2–6. 68 IG XII.9. 207 with Stephanis 1984. For the issues raised by this document in connection with the existence of common Euboian institutions see Wallace 1956, 27f; Larsen 1968, 100; Martin 1975, 121; Picard 1979, 261–263; Knoepfler 2015, 162f.

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

125

to Rome was positively evaluated as the cornerstone of Euboian freedom, both in the present and in the future. A common past shared by all the Euboians did exist, but it involved a collectivity of slaves who were forced now to struggle to defend the freedom recently conferred on them by the Romans against the new threat posed by what was perceived as Aitolian expansionism. Thus, in the Chalkidian discourse both the common past of subjugation and a newly emerging external threat provided the necessary elements in opposition to which the Euboian political identity could be defined,69 while the insular character of Euboia and the support for the new order imposed in Greece by Rome emerged as positive focal points of Euboian unity. In this respect, the Chalkidian envoys at Amarynthos put forward a fairly coherent suggestion about the constituent elements of Euboian political identity: the unity of all the inhabitants of the island, imposed and legitimized by geography itself, was built upon a political and ideological consensus which involved both the rejection of foreign imperialism and the defence of the principles of the Isthmian Declaration and the subsequent Roman settlement of Greek and in particular Euboian affairs. To this background picture the Chalkidian envoys added an extremely significant detail: the importance of the city of Chalkis to the freedom of all the Euboians. The statement that if the Aitolians controlled Chalkis they would hold Euboia highlighted the strategic role of this particular Euboian city. In fact, this statement was no more than an internalization and elaboration of the theme of Chalkis being a Fetter of Greece,70 but this time the concept was set in an entirely new and exclusively Euboian context: instead of being a fortress occupied by a nonEuboian power to promote its imperialistic goals, Chalkis now functioned as the guardian of Euboian freedom. The unity of the free Euboians was thus linked with the recognition of Chalkis’ central role in this union, a centrality which was also perceived as being imposed and legitimized by the Euboian landscape itself. There could have been no better basis for justifying Chalkis’ role as the capital of the Koinon Euboeon. III. CONCLUDING REMARKS In 192 BCE, when the Chalkidian embassy at Amarynthos took place, Euboian federal institutions with sovereignty over the foreign policy of the individual Euboian cities either had not emerged or were perceived, at least by the pro-Roman political factions on the island, to be unreliable. Despite its promotion by the Romans, federalism in Euboia was far from being fully developed. However, the Chalkidian embassy addressed the problem of Euboian political unity and identity. Before an audience of fellow Euboians it did not invoke any notion of intra-Euboian kinship 69 Luraghi 2008, 11, 45 offers valuable remarks concerning the ‘temporal dimension’ of the ethnic discourse which locates the roots of an ethnic group in the past. In this respect it is interesting to note that the Chalkidian discourse expressed at Amarynthos uses the common Euboian past in a rather different way, as it pinpoints its negative aspect. 70 On the strategic value of Chalkis for the Makedonian rulers see Picard 1979, 252–258, 284.

126

Nikos Giannakopoulos

but raised issues of Euboian birth and, implicitly, of Chalkidian precedence; moreover, it exploited the memory of the Euboian common past under Makedonian rule so as to highlight the need for a permanent alliance with Rome as a fundamental precondition of Euboian freedom. The positive response of the Eretrians and the Karystians demonstrates that this particular concept of Euboian unity was – at least momentarily – favourably accepted. To what extent the memory of the successful outcome of the cooperation between these three Euboian cities against the Aitolians actually contributed to the creation – if they had not yet emerged at all – or to the crystallization of federal institutions after Antiochos’ departure cannot be determined.71 However, it is worth pointing out that the basic elements of Euboian identity as conceived in the Chalkidian discourse articulated at Amarynthos are actually reflected in what little is known about the institutions and the function of the Euboian koinon in the 2nd century BCE. Indeed, the precedence of Chalkis, the concept of Euboian territoriality and the devotion to Rome are present in Chalkis’ function as the federal capital, in the iconography of the federal coins depicting the nymph Euboia and in the federal Rhomaia, the only known federal – and not civic – festival celebrating the cult of Rome in 2nd-century BCE Greece,72 a fact that highlights to what extent the Euboian koinon in particular chose to construct its own political identity with reference to the new hegemonic, but also benevolent, power to which it owed its very existence. However, this is only one side of the story. In an overall assessment of the notion of Euboian unity in the 2nd century BCE one has to take into account the aforementioned vicissitudes of the Euboian koinon in the course of the 2nd century BCE, with alternate periods of activity and inactivity or dissolution. In 146 BCE it was the Chalkidians and not all the Euboians who sided with the Achaians, the Eretrians probably taking the Roman side.73 The famous Euboian quarrel over the hieromnemosyne of the Pythic year around 110 BCE which brought Eretria and Karystos against Chalkis involved conflicting views on Euboian representation and a clear challenge to Chalkidian claims to precedence over the other Euboian cities.74 71 Of course, faced with Antiochos’ attempts to capture their city later in 192 BCE, the Chalkidians did not appeal to their fellow Euboians but to Flamininus, probably in the belief that the magnitude of the new threat required support from more powerful allies. But it should also be taken into account that, as Antiochos’ naval forces presented a threat to the other Euboians as well, it would have been rather unwise on their part to help Chalkis, as they had done some weeks earlier. 72 On the institutions of the Euboian koinon in the 2nd century BCE see now Knoepfler 2015, 173– 177. On Rhomaia in 2nd century BCE Greece see Mellor 1975, 99–107. Most scholars connect the foundation of the Euboian Rhomaia with the conventus of the Euboian cities summoned by Flamininus; see e.g. Mellor 1975, 99f; Picard 1979, 288f. Irrespective of whether this conventus signified the birth of an Euboian koinon, Knoepfler 1990, 486 n.61; 2015, 177 rightly pointed out that secure references to the Euboian Rhomaia come from inscriptions dated after 146 BCE. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that this festival was created not in 194 BCE, but at some later date. 73 See Knoepfler 1991b. 74 CID IV.121–122. See Lefèvre 1998, 62f; Sánchez 2001, 396–398. According to Lefèvre, the Chalkidians’ claim that the vote was common for all the Euboians meant that the hieromnemon

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

127

More importantly, it is by no means accidental that in the Late Hellenistic period, Euboians outside Euboia were almost always recorded with their civic ethnic and not with their regional one.75 As in the 3rd century BCE,76 they were (self-)identified as citizens of individual cities, not as members of an ethnic/regional community.77 Even in acts of international religious diplomacy the Euboian cities participated as such, not as members of an ethnos or a koinon. It was the city of Chalkis which appeared as the dedicator of a phiale in a list of donors to the oracle of Didyma dated around 100 BCE .78 Once again the comparison with Thessaly is revealing: in the course of the 2nd century BCE, the Thessalian koinon received theoroi from Mytilene and was asked to recognize the asylia of the sanctuary of Apollo Klarios at Kolophon.79 Despite the Roman-backed tendency towards federalism and unification, a strong consciousness of regional togetherness which could permanently prevail over civic particularism did not emerge in late Hellenistic Euboia. It could be argued that this weakness of the notion of ethnic unity and federalism in 2nd-century BCE. Euboia was at least partly due to the problematic nature of its political foundations which, to a considerable extent, associated Euboian unity with a power outside Euboia and with a single city inside the island. But Chalkis’ centrality was in the long run bound to cause reactions on the part of the other Euboian cities. Moreover, both the recognition of Chalkis’ importance and the focus on Rome, highlighted in the federal Rhomaia, could function as effective factors in Euboian unity only as long as the freedom granted by the Romans was perceived to be under immediate, or at least potential, threat by a third power with hegemonic ambitions in Greece. But fear was never an adequate factor in building a durable union.80 After the defeat of Antiochos and the Aitolians there was neither an immediate nor a potential danger of this kind. What was left for strengthening Euboian unity were the bonds bringing together the peoples ‘born in the same island’, which the Chalkidian envoys had invoked at Amarynthos. This was admittedly a purely

75 76 77

78

79 80

represented all the Euboians, i.e. the notion of the ethnos prevailed over that of the cities (following Picard 1979, 224). Eretria and Karystos opposed this principle of collective representation, stating that the vote should not be considered common for all the Euboians, and that each city should appoint a hieromnemon in a fixed turn. According to Sánchez, Chalkis argued that the Amphiktyonic seat should belong collectively to all the Euboians, but the hieromnemosyne of the Pythic year exclusively to her. Eretria and Karystos claimed that the current rules should be followed; this is based on an earlier reading of l. 8. Sánchez argued that these rules probably prescribed that certain Euboian cities had the right to appoint hieromnemones but as far as the Pythic years were concerned this right was exercised by each city in turn. See the evidence assembled in the Appendix. Cf. Knoepfler 2015, 169. This was also the case with the decree of Geronthrai (IG V.1.1111), which refers to the dispatching ethnos but records a judge as Eretrian and a secretary as Karystian. See above note 12. I. Didyma 457. The other cities included in this list are Kos, Erythrai, Mylasa, Chios, Ilion, Myrina, Megalopolis, Alinda, Kyzikos, Iasos, Smyrna and Klazomenai. The names of kings and dynasts were also mentioned. See Granninger 2011, 144–148. Cf. Ganter’s contribution to this volume.

128

Nikos Giannakopoulos

Euboian concept, an ethnic argument searching for internal elements of unity. However, as Livy explicitly states, it was purely political considerations that had led the Eretrians and the Karystians to provide aid. Ethnic arguments alone – even if they were articulated on the more concrete basis of territoriality and birth rather than by reference to the more ambivalent notion of an ultimately rather problematic Euboian “common descent” – did not constitute a strong centripetal force for a region covered by four relatively large city-states with a long history of separate existence and antagonism. APPENDIX: LIST OF LATE HELLENISTIC INSCRIPTIONS RECORDING EUBOIANS ABROAD A. identified as Histiaians: IG IX.1².1 31 l. 178 (Aitolia, Thermos, end of the 3rd /beg. of the 2nd cent. BCE); ID 1416 face B col. 1 l. 75 (Delos, 156/5 BCE) B. identified as Eretrians: IG II².893, cf. SEG 16.84 and SEG 21.34 (Athens, 188/7 BCE); SEG 38.114 col. V l. 129 (Athens, 122/1 BCE); IG II².8496 (Athens, 2nd cent. BCE). C. identified as Karystians: ID 1416 face A col.I l. 71 and face B c. II l. 96 (Delos 156/5 BCE); ID 1417 face B col.I l. 75 (Delos 155/4 BCE); ID 1452 face A l. 49 (Delos after 145 BCE); IG XII Suppl. 248 D ll. 47–65 (Andros, 2nd cent. BCE); SEG 38.114 col. V l. 128 (Athens, 122/1 BCE); IG II².1961, cf. SEG 34.153 l. 70 (Athens, c. 40 BCE); IG II².1043 l. 105 (Athens, 38/7 BCE); Agora 17, 515 (Athens, 3–2 c. BCE); Agora 17, 514 (Athens, 2 c. BCE); Agora 17, 513 (Athens, 2–1st cent. BCE); IG II².8986 (Athens, 2nd –1st cent. BCE); IG II².8966 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); IG II².8968 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); IG II².8979 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); IG II².8980 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); IG II².8984 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); V. Petrakos, Ο Δήμος του Ραμνούντος. Σύνοψη των ανασκαφών και των ερευνών(1813–1998) ΙΙ: οι επιγραφές, Αθήνα 1999, nr.287 (Rhamnous, 1st. cent. BCE); G. I. Zolotas – A. Zolota, “Χιακῶν καὶ Ἐρυθραϊκῶν ἐπιγραφῶν συναγωγή” Ἀθηνά (20) 1908, 214–216 no. 13 col. 2. ll. 7–9 (Chios) D. identified as Chalkidians: IG V.2 368 l. 27 (Kleitor, 3rd –2nd c. BCE); IG IX.1².1 31 ll. 60–69, 151, 156 (Aitolia, Thermos, end of the 3rd /beg. of the 2nd cent. BCE); ID 1416 face B col. I l. 103 (Delos, 156/5 BCE); ID 1927 l. 10 (Delos 103/2 BCE); ID 2595 l. 48 (Delos); SGDI II 2687 (Delphi, 100–50 BCE); SEG 55.608 (Larisa, c. 70 BCE); IG VII.543 (Tanagra, after 87 BCE); IG VII.2727 (Akraiphia, 1st cent. BCE); Α. Maiuri, Nuova silloge epigrafica di Rodi e Cos, Firenze 1925, 384 (Rhodes, after the 2nd cent. BCE); Maiuri NSER 208 (Rhodes, 2nd –1st cent. BCE); E. identified by their regional ethnic (as Euboians):

Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos

129

G. I. Zolotas – A. Zolota, “Χιακῶν καὶ Ἐρυθραϊκῶν ἐπιγραφῶν συναγωγή” Ἀθηνά (20) 1908, 8, 214–216 no. 13 col. 2. ll. 10–11 (Chios) BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakhuizen, S.C. (1976) Chalcis in Euboia, Iron and Chalcidians Abroad, Leiden. Bakhuizen, S.C. (1985) Studies in the Topography of Chalcis on Euboia: A discussion of the sources, Leiden. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Beck, H. and P. Funke (2015) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29. Bradeen, D. (1947) A History of Chalkis to 338 B.C (PhD Thesis), Cincinnati. Buraselis, K. (2015) Federalism and the Sea: The Koina of the Aegean Islands, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 358–376. Celoria, F. (1992) The Metamorphoses of Antoninus Liberalis: A Translation with a Commentary, London/New York. Constantakopoulou, C. (2005) Proud to be an Islander: Island Identity in Multi–Polis Islands in the Classical and Hellenistic Aegean, Mediterranean Historical Review 20, 1–34. Constantakopoulou, C. (2007) The Dance of the Islands: Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire, and the Aegean World, Oxford. Deininger, J. (1971) Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland. 217–86 v.Chr, Berlin/New York. Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 B.C., Malden/Oxford/Carlton. Escher, J. (1899) Chalkis, Realencyclopädie III. 2, col. 2078–2092. Férrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhellénisme et Impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la second guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate, Paris. Geyer, F. (1903) Topographie und Geschichte der Insel Euboïa im Altertum, I: Bis zum Peloponnischen Kriege, Berlin. Translated into modern Greek by A. Zambalos (1962) Τοπογραφία καὶ Ἱστορία τῆς νήσου Εὐβοίας μέχρι τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν Πόλεμον, Αρχεῖον Εὐβοικῶν Μελετῶν 9, 18–124 (page references given in this article are to the Greek translation). Giannakopoulos, N. (2009) Chalcidian Politicians and Rome between 208 and 168 B.C., Classica et Mediaevalia 60, 145–165. Grainger, J. (2002) The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, Leiden/Boston/Köln. Graninger, D. (2011) Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly, Leiden. Hall, J.M. (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48. Jones, C.P. (1999) Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World, Cambridge/London. Knoepfler, D. (1972) Carystos et les Artémisia d’Amarynthos, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 96, 283–301. Knoepfler, D. (1990) Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalcis III. Décrets fédéraux et décrets municipaux au IIe siècle av. J.-C., Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 114, 473–498. Knoepfler, D. (1991) L. Mummius Achaicus et les cités du golfe euboïque: à propos d’une nouvelle inscription d’Erétrie, Museum Helveticum 48, 252–280. Knoepfler, D. (1997) Le territoire d’Erétrie et l’organisation politique de la cité (dêmoi, chôroi, phylai), in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 352–449.

130

Nikos Giannakopoulos

Knoepfler, D. (1998) Le héros Narkittos et le système tribal d’Erétrie, in M. Bats and B. D’Agostino (eds.), EUBOICA. L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente, Napoli, 105– 108. Knoepfler, D. (2001) Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté, Lausanne. Knoepfler, D. (2015) The Euboian League – an ‘irregular’ koinon? in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 158–178. Knoepfler, D. and G. Ackerman (2012) Phulè Admètis: un nouveau document sur les institutions et les cultes de l’Erétriade trouvé dans les fouilles de l’Ecole Suisse d’Archéologie en Grèce, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 905–949. Labarre, G. (1996) Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale, Paris. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Lasserre, F. (1971) Strabon. Géographie. Tome VII (Livre X), Paris. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes. Luraghi, N. (2008) The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge. Mackil, E. (2015) The Economics of Federation in the Ancient Greek World, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 487–502. Martin, D.G. (1975) Greek Leagues in the later Second and first Centuries B.C. (PhD Thesis), Princeton. Mellor, R. (1975) ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ, Göttingen. Picard, O. (1979) Chalcis et la Confédération eubéenne. Etude de numismatique et d’histoire (IVe– Ier siècle), Paris. Psoma, S. (2001) Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et d’histoire, Stuttgart. Reber, K., M.H. Hansen, and P. Ducrey (2004) Euboia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 660–680. Reger, G. (1997) Islands with one Polis versus Islands with several Poleis, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 450–492. Robert, L. (1969) Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce Centrale, Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1–58. Sakellariou, M.B. (1990) Between Memory and Oblivion: The Transmission of Early Greek Historical Traditions, Athens. Sánchez, P. (2001) L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes : Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au 2e siècle de notre ère, Stuttgart. Stephanis, I.E. (1984) Ο ευβοϊκός νόμος για τη μίσθωση των Διονυσιακών Τεχνιτών (IG XII 9, 207), Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης. Τεύχος Τμήματος Φιλολογίας 22, 499–564. Vedder, R.G. (1978) Ancient Euboia. Studies in the History of a Greek Island from the earliest Times to 404 B.C. (PhD Thesis), Arizona. Walbank, F.W. (1940) Philip V of Macedon, Cambridge. Walker, K. (2004) Archaic Eretria, London/New York. Wallace, W.P. (1956) The Euboian League and its Coinage, New York. Zecchini, G. (2013) I Romani e l’Eubea, in C. Bearzot and F. Landucci (eds.), Tra mare e continente: l’isola d’Eubea, Milano, 257–270.

SANS LA LETTRE: ETHNICITY, POLITICS, AND RELIGION IN THE ARGIVE THEŌRIA Alex McAuley Cardiff University Argos has always figured prominently in the ever-expanding body of ethnic studies, thanks in no small part to the fact that it forms the principal case study of Jonathan Hall’s seminal Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997). Seven years later it was also featured in Catherine Morgan’s equally pivotal Early Greek States beyond the Polis (2003), and the number of studies of the region in recent years only continues to swell.1 But it remains difficult to look beyond the bronze-age allure and Homeric appeal of the city and the region, and scholars have naturally been drawn to focus their attention almost exclusively on the region’s development in the Archaic Period, with the Classical and Hellenistic being treated only as epilogue.2 Compounding the issue is the geographic ambiguity of ‘Argos’ among ancient and modern authors alike: when Homer and his literary successors describe ‘Argos,’ are they referring to the city itself with its citadel at Larisa, the Argive plain, the kingdom of Agamemnon, the broader region, or even the entire Peloponnese itself?3 Further questions arise when we factor in the diversity of the region’s constituent communities: was there some form of latent ethnic unity to the region of the Argolid, and did this ever manifest itself in the political realm? Despite its enduring popularity, the Argolid – and here I draw a clean distinction between the city of Argos and the region of the Argolid – sits rather awkwardly 1

2

3

Hall 1997, 4–26 gives a detailed recapitulation of the body of Argive studies up until the time in which he was writing, and the various ethnic models proposed by preceding generations of scholars. Among other ethnic studies we can count Tomlinson 1972, the contributions to the edited volume of Bearzot and Landucci 2006; Piérart 1997 and 2005; and Amandry 1980. This body of studies is vast, and only a representative sampling is possible. On the Mycenaean and Archaic Periods in Argos: Darcque 1998, Foley 1988, Piérart 1991, 1997, and 2004, Renaudin 1928 on the Mycenaean necropolis of the Plain, and Zangger 1993 on its geoarchaeology, and Jansen 2002 on its road networks. Many of the studies mentioned in the preceding note tend to focus on the sixth century and fifth century, with the fourth being treated only briefly. I should note that Argive studies in general are rather problematic at the moment, given the delay in publishing Charalambos Kritzas’ corpus of inscriptions and epigraphic material. This paper deals only with currently published material. The ambiguity inherent in Homer’s use(s) of the term ‘Argos’ is only the tip of the iceberg, for instance at Il. 9.141–142, Od. 3.263, as well as his more specific identification of ‘Achaean’ (Il. 9.141) and ‘Pelasgian’ (Il. 2.682) Argos. Allen 1909 provides the fullest discussion of these ambiguities, and see also Piérart 2004.

132

Alex McAuley

in the body of ethnic case studies contained in this volume.4 It remained an ethnically diverse place throughout much of the Classical Period, and the city of Argos’ domination over the broader region was never fully realised. Unlike many other regions with strong ethnic attachments – notably the Boiotians, the Arkadians, and the Aitolians – the Argolid never produced a federation of its own.5 And still, in the midst of warring communities co-existing only grudgingly with one another, there is some kind of unity, some brand of coherence, to the region that recurrently seems to present itself in subtle ways. So can we really speak of an Argive ethnos, and did this sense of commonality have a political dimension akin to that realised in the complex institutions of so many koina elsewhere?6 My conclusion in this paper is a hesitant yes, thanks to what I argue is a pivotal instance of the region’s collaboration in the realm of non-violent external relations: the theōria in promotion of the festivals of Asklepios at Epidauros, the Hekatomboia at Argos, and the Nemean Games.7 Unlike many other corners of the Greek world, this collaboration does not emerge until the close of the fifth century and the early fourth – hence much later than the Archaic and Early Classical origins that we would expect.8 But the process, I believe, is the same. These theoric expeditions from first Epidauros, and later Argos and Nemea, are preserved on stelai dating to 360/59–356/5 and around 326, respectively, and both come at the close of over a century of ethnic amalgamation in the Argive plain that continued to consolidate the region despite persistent rivalry among its erstwhile constituents.9 In this broader context, a somewhat offhand observation by Paula Perlman in her expan-

4

5 6

7

8

9

In this paper, as elsewhere, I follow the definition of the Argive Plain given by Piérart 2004, 599f, following ancient distinctions enumerated by Ephor. Fr. 18C, Diod. Sic. 12.43.1, Polyb. 5.91.8, and Ps-Skylax 49, 50. Following the contemporary route of the autoroute E65 through the Peloponnese provides an apt testament to the natural geographic unity of the Plain. See the relevant case studies in this volume, as well as those in Beck and Funke (eds) 2015. Before moving forward, I must clarify the definition of ethnos and ‘ethnic group’ which I am adopting for the purposes of this paper. There is great ambiguity in the term ethnos in Greek, which can refer to anything from a band of people in Hom. Il. 1.495 to a swarm or flock of animals (Hom. Il. 2.459) and the Herodotean sense (1.101, for instance) of a group of people roughly equivalent with ‘nation.’ Herodotus 8.44 famously predicates ethnicity in the Greek context on common descent, language, and religion, similar customs and ways of life, which essentially forms the basis of contemporary approaches. For a more precise definition, in this paper I adopt the criteria of Hall 1997, 25, who identifies six characteristics of an ethnic group: a collective name, common myth of descent, shared distinctive culture, association with a territory, and a sense of communal solidarity. Perlman 2000 provides the only systematic study of the theoric decrees, with an epigraphic dossier. For Epidaurus, see Perlman 2000, 67–98, for Argos and Nemea see 99–155. On the theōria more generally, see Rutherford 2014’s recent monograph treatment, and Dillon 1997 for a broader chronological scope. Rutherford 2014, 42–44, for example, holds that the theōria is a fundamentally Hellenistic institution characterised by the interaction between theoric embassies and the courts of Hellenistic monarchs. Early theoric attestations like these from the Argolid are not given extensive treatment. Perlman 2000, Ep. Cat. E 1 and 2, N 1 and A1, with full citations below.

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

133

sive study of these theoric inscriptions published in 2000 takes on capital importance. She notes that the list of cities visited by the Argive theōroi in c. 326 seems garbled and out of place, as it if were incomplete. This discrepancy, she concludes, “requires the conclusion that the Argives adopted the institution of the theōrodokia considerably earlier than the final quarter of the fourth century BCE, Argos and not Epidauros might have been the earlier of the two communities to have followed the lead of the organizers of the Olympic Games in the appointment of theōrodokoi” (2000, 103). I aim to pick up where Perlman left off by investigating the idea that the Epidaurian theōria was inspired by an earlier Argive expedition, which followed the same general route, and visited many of the same locations, as its neighbour to the West. The similarity in theoric itineraries, as well as the resulting networks established by each expedition, cannot be the product of mere coincidence. Instead I argue that this represents a concerted regional effort in the promotion of its religious sanctuaries that is guided by ethnic collaboration. While the theōriai themselves may not have taken place until the late fifth century, the ties that bound the region had begun to be woven some decades earlier. We can thus view this collaboration, in the religious sphere at least, as hinting that the broader Argolid may well be viewed as a politicized ethnos from some angles. To examine this notion and its ramifications for our more general understanding of Argive ethnic history, we shall briefly examine the tendency towards ethnic amalgamation in the fifth century Argolid. From there we shall turn our attention to the subtleties of the theoric lists from Epidauros and Argos, before proposing a longer-term reconstruction of this religious vector of ethnic collaboration. I. A MELTING POT? THE FIFTH-CENTURY ARGOLID Any discussion of the Argolid in the fifth and fourth centuries must be prefaced with caveat lector: our understanding of the region’s history during the Period is in limbo as we await the publication of a vast body of epigraphic material preserved on bronze plaques and edited by Charalambos Kritzas. Until this invaluable data emerges, the specific nuance of many of the following observations must be left subject to revision; however, I hope that the broader picture that emerges will be accurate in an impressionistic, if not realist, style. In spite of the seemingly timeless impression of regional cohesion conveyed by the ruins at Mycenae and Tiryns along with the verses of Homer, Argos had only begun to consolidate its hold over the broader region by the middle of the fifth century.10 Even then, the Argolid as we understand it today remained a region marked by the presence of numerous polis communities and ethnic groups which have already been described in detail by Jonathan Hall in 1995 and 1997 (67–106), and enumerated by Michel Piérart in 2004. Alongside Argos itself, there were the cities of Epidauros, Asine, Nemea, Midea,

10 McInerney 1999, 4–8; Hall 1997, 69f; Kritzas 1992, 239.

134

Alex McAuley

Hermione, and Halieis, whose territories were populated by groups of Dorians, Herakleidai, Dryopes, Ionians, and some Pelasgians according to our literary sources.11 The Argolid in the fifth century, then, was not a homogeneous region either politically or ethnically. This homogeneity in the Argolid had long been present, ranging from the palatial landscape of the Mycenaean-era Argive Plain to the political fissures created by allegiance to (or opposition of) Sparta. By the opening decades of the fifth century, the ethnic heterogeneity of the region had begun to present itself in newly politicised ways in response to contemporary strategic realities. Whatever loose dominion Argos proper held over the plain at the dawn of the century was shattered by the Spartan victory at the Battle of Sepeia, resulting in the collapse of Argive hegemony and the loss of a substantial portion of its hoplite class.12 The fractured character of the Argolid manifests itself clearly during the Persian Wars: a weakened Argos remained neutral in the conflict, while nearby Mycenae and Tiryns despatched their own contingents of troops to fight alongside the Greek coalition.13 Argive influence in the region after the defeat of Xerxes’ invasion was subdued but not broken, and would re-assert itself with little subtlety in the following decade. At some point in the 460s Argos besieged Mycenae, and likely Tiryns as well. Diodorus’ (11.65.3–6) account of the motivation behind this Argive siege is pivotal grasping the contemporary divisions of the plain and its later amalgamation. He wrote “in short, the Argives were suspicious of them, worrying that since the Mycenaeans had become stronger they would lay claim to the hegemony of Argos because of the ancient pride (φρόνημα) of their city.” In other words, the inhabitants of Mycenae are reviving their ancestral (ethnic?) claim to dominance over the Argolid which dates the Bronze Age, and using this as rationale against contemporary Argive influence. The response of Argos reveals the gravity of Mycenae’s assertions: unable to brook a rival claim to their ancestral primacy, the Argives despatched their own troops and those of their allies to besiege the Cyclopeaean Walls of Mycenae.14 Once victorious, andrapodismos was exacted on the city as its

11 See the entries in Piérart 2004, 599–605 for his complete entries on these cities. On the ethnic diversity of the Plain among ancient authors, see Hdt 6.77–78 and 127; Arist. Pol. 1302b 33, Paus. 2.20.8–10; Diod. Sic. Fr. 7.13.2; Plut. Lyc. 7. 12 Hdt. 6.77–8; Arist. Pol. 1302b 33; Paus. 2.20.8–10; Robinson 1997, 85. 13 Diod. Sic. 11.3.3–6; 11.65.2–3; Kritzas 1992, 232f. 14 The account of Diodorus 11.65.3–6: τὸ δὲσύνολον ὑπώπτευον αὐτούς, μήποτε ἰσχύσαντες ἐπὶ πλέον τῆςἡγεμονίας ἀμφισβητήσωσι τοῖς Ἀργείοις διὰ τὸ παλαιὸν φρόνημα τῆςπόλεως. διὰ δὴ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἀλλοτρίως διακείμενοι, πάλαι μὲνἔσπευδον ἆραι τὴν πόλιν, τότε δὲ καιρὸν εὔθετον ἔχειν ἐνόμιζον,ὁρῶντες τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους τεταπεινωμένους καὶ μὴ δυναμένους τοῖςΜυκηναίοις βοηθεῖν. ἀθροίσαντες οὖν ἀξιόλογον δύναμιν ἔκ τε Ἄργουςκαὶ ἐκ τῶν συμμαχίδων πόλεων ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, νικήσαντες δὲμάχῃ τοὺς Μυκηναίους καὶ συγκλείσαντες ἐντὸς τειχῶν ἐπολιόρκουντὴν πόλιν. οἱ δὲ Μυκηναῖοι χρόνον μέν τινα τοὺς πολιορκοῦνταςεὐτόνως ἠμύνοντο, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα λειπόμενοι τῷ πολέμῳ, καὶ τῶνΛακεδαιμονίων μὴ δυναμένων βοηθῆσαι διὰ τοὺς ἰδίους πολέμους καὶτὴν ἐκ τῶν σεισμῶν γενομένην αὐτοῖς συμφοράν, ἄλλων δ᾽ οὐκ ὄντωνσυμμάχων, ἐρημίᾳ τῶν ἐπικουρούντων κατὰ

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

135

women and children were sold into slavery – or worse (Str. 8.6.11, Paus. 8.27.1). Tiryns likely succumbed to the same fate as their Bronze Age cousin to the north at roughly the same time. In the years that follow the victory of Argos over its aspirant rivals, the Argives appear to have shifted their regional policy from one of loose military domination to ethnic amalgamation. While some have identified a model of either desertification or synoikismos in this Argive push towards regional consolidation (Kritzas 1996), to me the persistence of many of the region’s distinct communities and poleis well into the Hellenistic Period makes it seem as if the plain was brought together by less heavy-handed means.15 The Argives themselves, for their part, appear quite eager to incorporate elements of their subject communities’ traditions in the new regional mélange.16 It was only in the decades following this Argive re-conquest that many of its sanctuaries, festivals, and traditions become ‘regional’ rather than ‘local’ – despite the impression of Archaic continuity given by some of our sources.17 Religion, unsurprisingly, figures prominently in this process: in 464 we find the first attestation of the procession from Argos to the Heraion in Pindar’s Tenth Nemean Ode (Hall 1995, 590–597). Our first archaeological evidence for the games of Hera dates to 460; at roughly the same time the Argives built the Sacred Way (hieros odos) linking the city itself to this sanctuary that had only recently passed into its hands. The attention lavished on the Heraion is particularly noteworthy: until this point Hera had never figured prominently in the Argive Pantheon, instead she and her sanctuary were traditionally of paramount importance to Mycenae, Tiryns, and other groups of Herakleidai.18 This shift by all accounts should be understood as an attempt to integrate these ancestral religious sensibilities into the newly emerging ‘Argive’ community. It was also around this point that Hera first appears on Argive coinage, and several fragments of contemporary authors have led Hall to identify this focus on Hera as part of a broader process of contemporary mythological reengineering which incorporated the previously disparate aspects of the region’s communities into a newly coherent tradition. Various other vectors of political and ethnic amalgamation can be found in the fifth century, albeit with less chronological precision. Although many of the bronze plaques discovered in the region remain unpublished, three of their number were analysed by Kritzas in 1996 (233–238) and prove invaluable to our reconstruction

15 16 17

18

κράτος ἥλωσαν.οἱ δὲἈργεῖοι τοὺς Μυκηναίους ἀνδραποδισάμενοι καὶ δεκάτην ἐξ αὐτῶν τῷθεῷ καθιερώσαντες, τὰς Μυκήνας κατέσκαψαν. See McAuley 2008; Kritzas 1992; and Piérart 2004. Piérart 1997, 329f identifies two different models of regional integration, based on the accounts of Diod. 11.65.2–3 and Str. 8.6.11. For instance, in the realm of architecture as discussed by des Courtils 1992. On the apparent antiquity of the Argive Heraion, see Hall 1997 and, more recently, Auffarth 2006 with a different conclusion on the archaic origins of the sanctuary. On the political background to this transformation, see Robinson 1997, 82–86. For the general narrative of the period in question, see Robinson 1972, 87–116, and his discussion of the religious development of the region at 200–220. See again the discussion of Hall 1995 and Auffarth 2006.

136

Alex McAuley

of the ethnic consolidation of the Argolid. All of the plaques have nail holes in their corners, and were presumably mounted on or in public buildings. Two of them have been dated to around 450, and concern mostly financial matters. In the first, magistrates known as the duodeka disburse sums to various tribes and their constituent phratries. The presence of an entirely new fourth tribe alongside the traditional Dorian phylai – the Hyrnathioi – suggests the inclusion of new ethnic communities into the expanded politeia. The names of the phratries themselves present an interesting mix of traditional Argive figures (Daiphontes, Temenides), alongside those drawn from the region’s other communities. The second plaque disburses money from the city’s magistrates in support of the games of Hera at the Hekatomboia, and thus we find further indication of ongoing Argive support of the Heraion. The third, which dates to the fourth century, reinforces this connection between political patronage and religion by providing a fragmentary list of deities to whom lands had been consecrated ‘by the ancients’ and then parcelled out to individual tenants. Among these deities are Hera, Herakles, Apollo Pythaeus, and Alektryon. In these consecrations we catch a glimpse of the extended regional mosaic: Apollo Pythaeus was traditionally the primary deity worshipped by the Dorian Argives, Hera and Herakles are again linked with the Herakleidai of Mycenae and Tiryns, while Alektryon, a member of Herakles’ family, had an ancestral link to the communities of the eastern Argolid (Hall 1997, 99– 106). All of these diverse traditions are the recipients of benefaction by the government of Argos, and thus again these old strands have been woven into a new knot. Neither does this process appear to have been instantaneous, as the persistent popularity of the Heraion and its associated festivals along with the longevity of these civic and territorial groupings attest. There are two points that I wish to derive from this brief survey of the fifthcentury Argolid. The first is that the region as such only began to display the characteristics of an ethnos – common mythology and heroic descent, participation in common religious festivals and their respective sanctuaries, and some form of regional political collaboration – beginning around 460–450 and bearing fruit in earnest by the latter half of fifth century. This was very much a new and ongoing process in the decades that followed. The second is that the city of Argos itself was the engine – both political and financial – that drove this process of ethnic fusion in the Argolid. Argive patronage of the sanctuary of Hera, of the games of the Hekatomboia, and of the cults and sanctuaries which were of ancestral importance to the region’s constituent communities resulted in this more collaborative character of the region. In the broader context of the fifth century, it is noteworthy that these vectors of ethnic integration may well have been the by-product of contemporary political and strategic realities: cooperation was enabled through shifting alliances between the two major external powers of Athens and Sparta, military alliances

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

137

bred political exchange, and all of this occurs against the backdrop of the Classical Period trend towards city states becoming territorial states.19 It is at this point that we must pause and resume the question first posed in the introduction to this chapter: can we really speak of an Argive ethnos, or of the Argolid as a region populated by an ‘ethnic’ group? This overview of the fifth century reveals it to be a pivotal time in the collective history of the Argive plain, and one which, I argue, represents a moment at which we can begin to speak of the region in terms of ethnic coherence for essentially the first time since its Mycenaean geography of power. Returning to Hall’s criteria of ethnicity mentioned above, we see that it is only during this time that the Argolid begins to tick many of the boxes he identifies: association with a specific territory, sense of communal solidarity, a shared history, and a common name. It is during this fifth century consolidation of power that the borders of the Argolid are set by Argive conquests, which would later be defended during the Hellenistic Period with various degrees of success.20 It is at this point in time that Jacques des Courtils notes the emergence of a new architectural style common to the region, and in the Hellenistic world the loose definition of ‘Argive’ ethnicity was precisely one of the factors that contributed to its popularity as studied by Scheer.21 The development of the Argive Heraion during this period was aimed at making it into what Hall describes as ‘a confederate sanctuary for all of the Argive plain’ (1995, 613). Finally, it is also at this moment that Hall identifies the ‘usurpation’ of traditionally non-Argive mythological figures into the genealogy of the Argive plain (1997, 98). Archaic notions of the shared inheritance of the plain gave way to the absorption of old communities’ heroes and common descent into the ‘new Argive synoikism’22 We can thus identify a sense of collective Argive identity rooted in common descent, regional association, cultic commonality, and shared history emerging by the fifth century that leads us towards tentatively identifying the Argives as a distinct ethnos. These diverse ties that were negotiated over centuries provide the ethnic fabric of the region that would later 19 In this regard the Sicilian context as described by Antonaccio 2001 becomes both similar and pertinent: in her survey of the development of Sikiliote identity out of its fragmentary constituent communities, she argues that the aggregative trend in the formation of Sicilian regional identity occurs after periods of great political or demographic stress. The actions of individual rulers – especially Ducetius, in this case – can stimulate ethnic integration even though this was perhaps not their original intent (136–139). The aggregative trend, she demonstrates, manifests itself on the various levels that we see present here in the Argolid as well – religion, material culture, and political organisation. For the Argolid as a region caught between two large powers, see the experience of Epidauros as recounted by Piérart 2004, 607. 20 We can identify a broadly internal shift in the fourth century strategy of the Argives geared towards the consolidation and securing of the region’s territories. This is at work with the conflict of 351 discussed by Diod. 16.24.2; Tomlinson 1972, 143f; Spawforth and Cartledge 1989, 10–15 against Sparta, and various other conflicts identified by Piérart 2004, 611. Philip II’s arbitration at the League of Corinth after the Battle of Chaironeia settled many territorial questions in favour of the Argives, giving them control over Epidauros again along with Thryia, for this cf. IG IV2.1.69 and SEG.11.400. 21 des Courtils 1992, 249, and Scheer 2005. 22 For the full discussion of the mythical genealogy of the region see Hall 1997, 77–106.

138

Alex McAuley

manifest itself in its theoric expeditions. It was at this point that ‘Argive’ began to extend beyond the citizens of Argos alone, to encompass the inhabitants of the region’s other communities as well. Regardless of what precisely first instigated the process, it was ultimately the Argives who re-tooled their own pantheon, civic subdivisions, and even mythohistory in order to include the communities that now lay in its political shadow. This ethnic integration as we can glimpse it today appears unidirectional; how these efforts were received among the relocated peoples of Mycenae, Tiryns, and elsewhere can only be the object of speculation. We must likewise bear in mind that in spite of these recent avenues of ethnic commonality, the region remained divided in many ways. War broke out between Argos and Epidauros in 419, and even Kleonai remained an independent polis through to the middle of the fourth century.23 By the close of the fifth century, then, the seeds of regionalism had been sown, but had not yet come to fruition – and it is in this context that we turn to Epidauros and its theōria. II. THERE AND BACK AGAIN: THE THEŌRIA AT EPIDAUROS The cult of Asklepios at Epidauros and its associated theōria are noteworthy for a variety of reasons, not least among them is their chronology. The theōria as an epangelic institution is generally identified as a quintessentially Hellenistic phenomenon, as is certainly the case in Rutherford’s recent expansive study.24 The cult of Asklepios and the popularity of his associated sanctuaries are likewise considered Hellenistic religious developments, alongside the cults of Serapis, Isis, and the mysteries of Demeter. But here, in this rocky corner of the Peloponnese, we find convincing evidence of the late–Classical popularity of the healing god, his shrine, and the network forged in support of this civic cult. The Asklepieion at Epidauros is the oldest such sanctuary in Greece, as both it and its associated agonistic festival are attested from the late sixth century onwards.25 Already by the mid fifth-century the games were attracting athletes from outside the Argolid and the Peloponnese – Pindar refers to victory of the pankratists Themistios, Kleandros, and Aristokleides from Aigina in 530 and 479 BCE, while

23 As discussed by Piérart 2004, 611, with reference to Piérart and Touchais 1996, 62–64. The argument in favour of the continued independence of Kleonai until the late fourth century depends on the reconstruction of Athenian proxeny decree of 323, IG II2.365, while SEG 30.355 and IG IV.616 (c.315) attest that Kleonai was later integrated as a civic subdivision of Argos. 24 See Rutherford 2014, 42–44 on the importance of royal courts to his reconstruction of the institution. See also Kindt 2012, 39–42. Dillon 1997 perhaps unintentionally conveys the same impression by discussing Hellenisic theoria in the context of mystery cults and panhellenic festivals, though this chronology is much broader. 25 Lambrinoudakis 1979; Kabbadias 1900; Latte 1931; Sève 1993.

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

139

the famous athlete Dorieus of Rhodes counted four victories in the same event towards the end of the fifth century.26 The presence of the Anatolian All Star, as it were, makes it clear that this was not simply a local competition – though the longstanding claim that Rhodes was originally an Argive colony perhaps hints at an ethnic component to the Epidaurian games.27 By the 370s, the popularity of the Asklepeieion led to a large building programme aimed at expanding the sanctuary and its associated festivals. Given Tomlinson’s (1972, 211) observation that Argive craftsmen were involved in the renovation of the sanctuary, I do not think it beyond the realm of possibility that Argos itself was involved both financially and materially in this Epidaurian initiative.28 With this in mind, it comes as little surprise that Epidaurian coin types from this period bear portraits of Asklepios and Apollo – the latter being the chief deity of Argos itself.29 Greek excavations at the site in the 1890s unearthed two marble stelai featuring lists of theōrodokoi in topographic order from two separate theoric expeditions which we shall consider in turn. The first list detailing the route of one theōria is preserved on two fragments, the first of which charts the journey of the embassy through central Greece, proceeding from Epidauros to Megara and Athens before turning to Thebes, Thespiai, Koroneia, and Orchomenos in Boiotia before the list breaks off.30 The second fragment picks up with the embassy already in the North, listing cities visited in Thessaly, Makedonia, Chalkidike, Thrace, and Thasos before breaking off again at line 33. That these two fragments are non-joining implies that there were cities visited in between and after these parts of the list which have been preserved, and Perlman concludes (2000, 74f) that this document must have been inscribed upon their return to Epidauros. Even this partial preservation attests to over forty communities visited by this embassy which is the second oldest explicit reference to the theōria and theōrodokia in the Greek world following the theōria in support of the Pythian Games at Delphi from after c. 420 (Perlman 2000, 13–30, Syll.3 90). The itinerary followed by these Epidaurian theōroi is fascinating in that it took them beyond the limits of what was typically held to be the ‘Greek world proper’ of the fourth century. Their contact with cities throughout Makedon, Epeiros, and Thrace essentially presupposes a web of relations between the Mainland and the North that would not emerge until after the dust settled from the campaigns of Alexander and his successors. The ‘Hellenistic’ character of such a network leads us to pause and reconsider

26 Perlman 2000, 67f, citing Pind. Nem. 5.95–7 and Isthm. 8.68. The games are thus attested for 530 and 479 BCE, respectively, though they had fallen from prominence in the fifth century only to be revived around the time at which the sanctuary was renovated. 27 Perlman 2000, 68f. 28 This would seem particularly likely given the involvement of artisans from farther afield than Argos in the reconstruction of the sanctuary in the fourth century, as recounted by Piérart 2004, 607; Burford 1969; and Perlman 2000: 67f and n.4, 73 n.32. 29 For instance, B. M. C., Pelop. Pl. XXIX. 11–13. 30 Perlman Ep. Cat. E1 frgs a and b, with full references on 177. Inscription is IG IV2.1.94, and SEG 11.410.

140

Alex McAuley

some of our prevailing assumptions about the geography of power in the early half of the fourth century. Remarkable figures appear in this list as well. Among the theōrodokoi we find Perdikkas III of Makedon (l. 9), which along with a reference to the city of Datos allows the inscription and thus the embassy to be conventionally dated to 360/59 – the last year of this king of Makedon’s reign (Perlman 2000, 69). I believe the prominence with which Makedon, Epeiros, and the Argeads in particular figure in this list can be considered as the product of the Argive ties cultivated by the Argeads since the mid fifth-century in order to gain admission to the Olympic Games. This was not a one-off recognition of Argive ancestry, because Philip II’s later assertions of Argive descent were commonly repeated without challenge by the time of his reign.31 It would thus appear that Epidauros was piggybacking off this claim of common ancestry and using it to gain further support for the Asklepieia from the Makedonian royal house and its territories. Despite the ongoing political tension between Argos and Epidauros, claims of common Argive descent between them must have had a certain cachet for both parties. Without the fifth-century background of ethnic amalgamation in the region, one wonders whether these claims of ethnic commonality would have carried such fourth-century weight. The second theoric inscription is somewhat more straightforward. Dated by Perlman and many others to roughly four years after the first delegation we have encountered above, thus to 356/5.32 It seems that the Epidaurians despatched this second embassy to continue the success of the first while also announcing the festival to new audiences (Perlman 2000, 68–73). As with the previous delegation, this embassy proceeded through the north of Greece though this time following a more westerly route leading through Ambrakia (l. 33) to Molossia (l. 32), Epeiros (l. 23), and many other neighbouring communities. But in this list we find other destinations that further reveal the reach of this small city’s religious connections: the theōroi proceed through cities in Italy, among them Herakleia (l. 40), Kroton (l. 42), Tarentum (l. 44) and Sicily (Syracuse, l. 39), thus the sanctuary and festival were announced across the Greek Mainland as they were across the Ionian Sea as well. Given the small size of Epidauros, one wonders whether a community such as this would be able to organise and carry out an embassy of such vast geographical scope entirely on its own. As we shall soon explore in greater detail, it instead seems far more likely that Epidauros was following a route that was already well-tread by a larger community with a broader diplomatic reach: Argos. But as residents of the Argolid, the route was, in a sense, theirs to follow. The timing of these two theoric embassies clearly coincides with the large-scale renovation and expansion of the sanctuary itself that began in the 370s and would

31 For the links between the Argeads and the Argives, see Hdt. 5.22, 8.137–139; Thuc 2.99.3; Isocr. Philip. Panth. 76–77; Scheer 2005, 216f. Isocrates goes to the point of describing Philip II as the ideal descendant of Herakles. 32 Ep. Cat. E.2 in Perlman 2000, with full bibliography and publication history on p.180. The inscription was originally published as IG IV.1504, and IG IV2.1.95.

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

141

have been completed by the close of the decade. With the construction work complete, likely thanks to the help of Argive craftsmen, the Epidaurians were eager to advertise the correspondingly expanded games of the Asklepieia whose lavishness and complexity was augmented to match their surroundings.33 This close chronological connection between the renovation of the sanctuary itself followed shortly by a theoric embassy is a pattern that we shall also explore in the context of the Argive Heraion. In timing as well as route, then, the Epidaurians seem to have been imitating their hegemonic counterparts in Argos. Perlman aptly captures the relationship between the Epidaurian and Argive theōriai when she writes “during a period of seventy years, while their rosters are not identical they are remarkably similar and seem to reflect an established itinerary for the purposes of festival epangelia.” She goes on to write that it is thus “reasonable to imagine that theoroi from Epidauros in 360–359 followed much the same route as those from Argos in the fourth and third centuries BC” (Perlman 2000, 75). Could the Argive route, though, be an even earlier innovation? III. BLAZING THE TRAIL: ARGOS AND NEMEA Turning then to the evidence from Argos and Nemea, it becomes immediately obvious that these theoric lists are substantially more problematic than their Epidaurian equivalents. We can treat the two embassies for the games of the Hekatomboia at the Argive Heraion and the Nemean games at the sanctuary of Zeus, respectively, as one unit by virtue of Miller’s observation that while the Nemean games continued to be celebrated at Nemea they would by this point have fallen more or less under direct Argive control.34 The list concerning the Heraion was discovered in the Agora of Argos itself and first published by Pierre Charneux in 1966, while the Nemean list was found in the sanctuary of Zeus by the American School’s excavations in 1978 and published by Miller a decade later. We shall consider each in turn. The reconstruction of the Argive theōria that I propose below again emerges from Perlman’s elaboration of an observation first made by Charneux in 1966: he argues that this list for the Hekatomboia, dated to 330–324 BCE, is incomplete and should be considered as an addendum to a document that was already engraved and displayed in the agora at Argos.35 This conclusion emerges from the fact that the itinerary outlined by the list is disrupted in the sense that it does not follow the same logical land and sea routes as the Epidaurian embassies. For instance, the 33 See notes above. 34 The Argive list: Ed. Pr. P. Charneux BCH 90, 1966, 159–239, SEG 23.189, 33.289, subsequently Perlman 2000 Ep. Cat. A.1 The Nemean list was first published by S.G. Miller in Hesperia 48, 1979, 78f, subsequently commented by Amandry 1980 and Perlman 2000, 101f. The text is now SEG 36.331, and Perlman 2000, Ep.Cat. N.1. See Miller 2001, 92f for the bibliography surrounding the question of when and where the games were celebrated at various points in the fourth century. The topic is also covered by Perlman 2000, 138–157. 35 A conclusion at which he arrives in Charneux 1966, 232–234. Full text and commentary by Charneux 1966, 156–239.

142

Alex McAuley

theōrodokoi from Ambrakia and Epeiros are preceded by one from Argos and Leukas, and then followed five lines later by cities in Cyrene. As Perlman explains in greater detail, the gaps and fissures in the itinerary make it clear that this inscription provides revisions and additions to a roster of theōrodokoi, also including cities that had only recently been added or achieved their independence (Perlman 2000, 103). The original roster, she asserts, would have been maintained by the theōroi themselves and then (re-)inscribed at certain important moments in the history of the festival and sanctuary (Perlman 2000, 103f). Accordingly, with this inscription we catch a glimpse of a theoric tradition that has already been regularized by the 320s BCE; in other words, we are not witnessing the inception of the Argive theōria but rather its routine maintenance. Like the Asklepieia at Epidauros, the festival of the Hekatomboia at the Heraion, synonymous with the games of Argive Hera, had already been popular for over a century by the time this theōria was despatched.36 As we have seen above, Argive patronage of the competition attracted foreign competitors attested since the middle of the fifth century, including the same Dorieus of Rhodes along with Corinthians, Athenians, and Lokrians.37 The theoric itinerary outlined by this Argive list treads the familiar ground of central and northwest Greece that we have found in Epidauros, but also includes farther-flung destinations on the Ionian Coast and North Africa. The northwest Greek section of their itinerary is so similar to Epidaurus as to be beyond mere coincidence: cities like Medion, Leukas, Torubeia, Alyzea, Palairos, Corcyra, Epeiros, and Ambrakia all recur. That the order in which the cities are listed does not match the itinerary of the Epidaurian theōria further supports our supposition that this is a fragmentary addendum.38 Several figures of note appear among theōrodokoi for Argos. Among them we find another connection between the Argeads and the Argolid that pre-dates the Hellenistic Period proper: Cleopatra, full sister of Alexander the Great and widow of Alexander I of Epeiros who ruled as queen from 331–324 is included in their number at line 11. Along with Perdikkas III’s presence among the theōrodokoi for Epidauros (frg. B l. 9), it becomes clear that the Makedonian royals were cultivating ties with the region of the Argolid as a whole, not just one particular polis or sanctuary. In the same vein, the presence of many other communities in the north makes it seem that these ties were between two regions, and not simply between the Argolid and the Argead dynasty. Whether such regional ties were predicated on some sense of common ancestry is unclear, though it remains an enticing hypothesis. The longevity of these regional ties is aptly attested by the fact that the Epidaurian and

36 On the incorporation of Hera into the Argive pantheon and the mechanisms by which this was accomplished, see Hall 1995, 612; Amandry 1980, 234–239; Hall 1997, 96–99; Kritzas 1992, 236f. 37 See Amandry 1980, 233 n.54 for his catalogue of early victor’s inscriptions at the games. Interestingly, the famous athlete Doreius of Rhodes is attested as having been victorious in both the games of Asklepios and the games of Argive Hera, thus suggesting that perhaps the two competitions formed part of a similar competitive circuit throughout the Greek world. 38 For a summation of this see Perlman 2000, Figures 7 and 12 on p. 76 and 120, respectively.

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

143

Argive lists share three specific theōrodokoi, despite being separated by three decades. Aristion of Medion, Phorbadas of Ambrakia, and Aristion of Anaktorion were recognised as hosts for the theōroi of both festivals.39 Their engagement with Argive religious life from afar over a period of three decades indicates that such theoric relationships or not simply motivated by instantaneous advantage; they were individual links to an entire region that were cultivated throughout a lifetime. The Nemean list, found in a well near the southwest corner of the sanctuary of Zeus, is somewhat more detailed but equally problematic as its Argive equivalent. The dating of the inscription is uncertain: Miller has placed it in 324 as an announcement of the games of 323, while Perlman argues for the window of 324–313 based on the mention of Nikokreon of Salamis.40 The stele was one that stood and was modified for a substantial period of time: the Hellespont and its theōrodokoi were added to the original list by another hand between 313 and 280 BCE, and a third hand inscribed another set of addenda concerning Eretria, Chios, and Cumae after the 270s BCE.41 Given this episodic composition of the document, Perlman concludes that this, just like the Argive list, must be a fragmentary supplement to revise a more complete that was already displayed.42 This one document, then, accounts for nearly forty years of theoric activity at Nemea. Although by nature incomplete, even in its fragmentary form the document suggests a deep connection with the Epidaurian theōria. Both followed very itineraries: like at Epidaurus, the Nemean theōroi head through central Greece to the north into Akarnania and Makedon before turning to follow the Thracian coast to the Hellespont. The poleis visited by the Nemeans are listed in the same order as at Epidauros, and contains three theōrodokoi – one each at Palairos, Leukas, and Corcyra – who also appear on the Argive list. The regional and collaborative character of these theoric embassies again becomes clearer. The Makedonian connection is again reinforced with the attestation of three Makedonian poleis, so both the geographic itinerary and the specific communities visited are consistent across all three of our theoric lists. Other cities outside Makedon are also shared by the Epidaurian and Nemean lists, further lending credence to the idea the Nemeans were, like the Argives and perhaps the Epidaurians, following a well-trodden route. The inclusion of Nikokreon, king of Salamis in Cyprus, is of capital importance as it further testifies to the regional, not sanctuary-specific, nature of these theoric ties. Nikokreon is listed among the theōrodokoi in Cyprus, and as we have seen with the Argeads the presence of a monarch among the benefactors of such a festival is a late–Classical period development, not a phenomenon unique to the Hellenistic world.43 But Nemea was not the only sanctuary in the Argolid which enjoyed the patronage of Nikokreon: a votive statue was erected by the Argives in praise of 39 See Perlman 2000, Fig. 13 on p.151 for the recurrences and their respective line numbers. 40 Perlman 2000, 105–111 for her discussion of this dating window, and Miller 1978, 78–80 for the date and mechanics of deposition. 41 Perlman 2000, 107–116 for the argument of different hands, summarised in fig. 10 on p.107. 42 Perlman 2000, 109–112, with references to the preceding decades of debate surrounding the dating these addenda. 43 For Nikokreon in the Nemean theōrodokoi lists see citations at Perlman 2000, 109–116.

144

Alex McAuley

the king’s generosity in sending the materials necessary to provide the prizes for the games of Hera at the Heraion. The text of the inscription (IG IV.583) on the base of the statue reinforces the connection between ethnicity and religion in the Argolid for which I argue throughout this chapter. In the first three lines of the inscription, Nikokreon explicitly identifies himself as a Pelasgian Argive descended from Aiachus, and he states that in supporting the games of Hera he is contributing to his ancestral metropolis.44 Of course in so doing he is reviving much older ethnic ties between Argos in Cyprus that had long lay dormant, but regardless of the historicity of his claims it is clear that the Argive Heraion was a religious venue charged with ethnic attachments.45 Even if they were fictive, these ties of kinship still had contemporary meaning, and there were other, more latent, vectors of commonality between the two communities as Kritzas has identified with the correspondence of the names of months, for instance.46 It is not difficult to imagine that the same set of ethnic attachments led Nikokreon to host the Nemean theōroi and, likely, contribute to this regional sanctuary as well. Neither, ironically, would have been considered an ethnic sanctuary had it not been for the fifth-century efforts towards regional integration by the Argives. Finally, in a broader chronological context we see the same mechanism from Epidaurus at work here in Nemea: the sanctuary of Zeus had declined in popularity during the fourth century, and it was only by around the 330s that it was renovated and its festivals reorganised – again with the support of Argos proper. This theōria, as at Epidauros, was sent to publicise the renovated sanctuary and its revitalised festival. IV. PICK UP THE PIECES: RECONSTRUCTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS How, then, can we put the pieces of the puzzle together by placing these highly specific epigraphical documents back into their broader historical context? In order to reconstruct the ethnic dimension of these theoric embassies and apply these hypotheses to the region’s longer history, four points ought to be made. The first and most straightforward conclusion is that the theoric itineraries of Epidauros, Argos, and Nemea are too similar to be coincidental, and must represent a typical route that these embassies generally followed – with room for slight deviation, of course. The fragmentary nature of the Argive and Nemean lists, as we have seen above, suggests that this ‘typical’ theoric route for the Argolid was well-established by the 330s, 44

Amandry 1980, 219f. The full text of the inscription (IG IV.583): μ̣ατρ[όπο]λ̣ίς μοι χθὼν Πέλοπος τὸ Πελαζγικὸν Ἄργος, Πνυταγόρας δὲ πατὴρ Αἰάκου ἐκ γενεᾶς· εἰμὶ δὲ Νικοκρέων, θρέψεν δέ με γᾶ περίκλυστος Κύπρος θειοτάτων ἐκ προγόνων βασιλῆ, στᾶσαν δ’ Ἀργεῖοί με χάριν χαλκοῖο τίοντες, Ἥραι ὃν εἰς ἔροτιν πέμπον̣ [ἄε]θλα νέοις. 45 See the more detailed discussion of Bing 2013, especially p.42. 46 Kritzas 2013.

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

145

and must have been established much earlier. The fact that all three expeditions visited similar regions and poleis, and some individuals serve as theōrodokoi for two sanctuaries over a long period of time, suggests that the Argive theōria was bound by regional ties, not associations with an individual cult. The fifth-century backdrop to this regional theoric effort along with the claims of common descent made by Nikokreon of Cyprus and the Argead dynasty suggest that these regional ties were girded by a sense of ethnic commonality. Second: the prominence with which Makedon in general, and the Argead dynasty in particular, figures in all three of these lists must be related to the broader cultivation of ethnic ties between the two regions which first presented itself in the fifth century. This thus created a link between the Argolid and Makedon that predates the latter’s prominence on the Greek political stage of the late Classical Period. This engagement of Makedon with the Mainland as a religious benefactor is thus not, strictly speaking, a Hellenistic tendency. That Epidauros, which was outside of the Argive political fold and technically independent at the time of its theōria, itself cultivated such a link with Makedon implies that there was an underlying ethnic unity among the Argolid’s communities. Participation in the religious sphere, thus, provides a vector of ethnic cohesion even amidst a fragmented political tableau. Third: following Perlman’s hypothesis, it was the Argives who were the first to send a theoric expedition in support of their festivals, they would have established the route that was later followed by the other embassies from the Argolid. The first attested Epidaurian theōria of 360/359 then provides our terminus ante quem, as it was following an unattested Argive precedent. For this mysterious first theōria, we can propose a date. Given the typical mechanism that we have seen in all of these three sanctuaries, a theōria is sent out following the renovation of a sanctuary and the reorganization of its festivals. Thucydides (4.133) relates that the Heraion was destroyed by massive fire in 423, and it would follow logically that Argos would rebuild and enlarge the sanctuary in the decades that followed the blaze.47 Perhaps the festival and games of the Hekatomboia were reorganised then as well, and the theōria sent out to announce this competition along with the renovation of the sanctuary. If we presume the renovations took perhaps five years to complete, then this theōria would have been sent at some point in the 410s. Regardless of the precise date, this initial theoric embassy would have established the general route through central and northern Greece into Makedon and Epeiros, and the resultant list of theōrodokoi would have been maintained and updated with addenda such as those found for the 320s. Even if we place the initial theōria according to terminus ante quem from Epidauros, the timing is still noteworthy. The theōria is again viewed as an institution that flourished in the Hellenistic Period, and for three sanctuaries of the Argolid to already have well-established theoric networks by the 320s causes us to reconsider the initial development of the practice.48 The relationship between

47 See Amandry 1980 for a detailed analysis of the dates of the re-organisation of Argive festivals. 48 See notes above, referring to Rutherford 2014; Kindt 2012; and Dillon 1997.

146

Alex McAuley

these theōriai in the Argolid and the earliest Delphic theōriai is another question entirely, and merits further enquiry. Finally, when these theōriai are placed back into the broader fifth and fourth century context described at the outset of this chapter, we can see this aspect of regional collaboration as another step in a process of ethnic amalgamation which had been occurring for over a century in the Argolid. It happened in fits and spurts, admittedly, with each city and group subject to fortune’s specific caprice, but the attempts of Argos to foster some measure of unity among the communities of the Argolid met with at least some measure of success. Perhaps not with a complex koinon to rival that of the Boeotians, but such cooperation in the religious sphere is meaningful enough to the lives of these communities.49 In the process we witness the transformation of polis cults and traditions into regional cults and traditions, all by means of their inclusion into a nascent sense of ethnic collectivity. Although the constituent cities of the Argolid remained independent and often opposed to one another, the suffusion of this sense of collectivity made it such that they could cooperate in the religious sphere while remaining competitive in so many others. This pattern, at least, is in keeping with the vagaries of Greek localism. The political fragmentation of the region precluded the sort of complex political institutionalisation that we find elsewhere in the Greek world, but this does not make the Argive experience irrelevant or cheapened. In this corner of the Greek world, unlike others, whatever trappings of an ethnos the Argolid had only emerge at the dusk of the Classical Period, and would not come to full fruition until the Hellenistic. The glimpse of the Argive experience in the fourth century through the lens of the theōria thus reveals them not to be an ethnos avant la letttre, but sans la lettre. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, T. W. (1909) Argos in Homer, The Classical Quarterly 3, 81–98. Amandry, P. (1980) Sur les concours argiens, Études argiennes: Supplément VI du Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 211–253. Antonaccio, C. M. (2001) Ethnicity and Colonization, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge, MA., 113–157. Auffarth, C. (2006) Das Heraion von Samos oder das Heraion der Argolis?, in K. Freitag, P. Funke, and M. Haake (eds.), Kult-Politik-Ethnos, Stuttgart, 192–217. Bearzot, C. and F. Landucci (eds.) (2006) Una democrazia diversa, Milan. Beck, H. (2014) Ethnic Identity and Integration in Boeotia: The Evidence of the Inscriptions, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden, 19–44. Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157. Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Bernardini, P.A., (ed.) (2004) La città di Argo: mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche, Rome.

49 Beck and Ganter 2015 for the most recent survey of Boeotia, and Beck 2014 for the dynamics of ethnicity in the state-formation of the region.

Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria

147

Bing, P. (2013) Invective from the Cultural Periphery: The Case of Hermeias of Kourion, in S. Ager and R. Faber (eds.), Belonging and Isolation in the Hellenistic World, Toronto, 33–46. Burford, A. (1969) The Greek Temple Builders at Epidaurus, Liverpool. Charneux, P. (1966) À propos de la liste argienne de Théarodoques’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 90, 156–239. Dabney, M.K. (1999) Locating Mykenaian Cemeteries, in P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.–D. Niemeier (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, (Aegaeum, 20), Liège, 171–175. Darcque, P. (1998) Argos et la plaine argienne à l’époque mycénienne, in A. Pariente and G. Touchais (eds.), Άργος και Αργολίδα: Τοπογραφία και πολεοδομία / Argos et l’Argolide: Topographie et urbanisme, Paris, 103–115. des Courtils, J. (1992) L’architecture et l’histoire d’Argos dans la première moitié du cinquième siècle av. J–C., in M. Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’état classique, Athens, 241–251. Dillon, M. (1997) Pilgrims and Pilgrimages in Ancient Greece, London. Foley, A. (1988) The Argolid, 800–600 B.C.: An Archaeological Survey, Göteborg. Hall, J. (1995) How Argive was the “Argive” Heraion?, American Journal of Archaeology 99, 577– 613. Hall, J. (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Jansen, A.G. (2002) A Study of the Remains of Mykenaian Roads and Stations of Bronze-Age Greece, Queenston. Kabbadias, P. (1900) To ieron tou Asklepiou tou Epidaurōi, Athens. Kelly, T. (1976) A History of Argos to 500 B.C., Minneapolis. Kindt, J. (2012) Rethinking Greek Religion, Cambridge. Kritzas, C. (1992) Aspects de la vie politique et économique d’Argos au cinquième siècle av. J-C, in M. Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’état classique, Athens, 231–240. Kritzas, C. (2013) Κυπρο–Ἀργολικά, in D. Michaelidis (ed.), Epigraphy, Numismatics, Prosopography, and History of Ancient Cyprus. Papers in Honour of Ino Nicolaou, Uppsala, 213–225. Lambrinoudakis, B. K. (1979) Λατρεια και Ιστορια της Επιδαυρου, Επιστημονική Επετηρίς της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών 27, 54–77. Latte, K. (1929) Spondophoroi, Realencyclopädie IIIA.2, 1847–1850. Latte, K. (1931) IG IV2, Hiller de Gaertringen (ed.), Gnomon 7, 113–135. Malkin, I. (ed.) (2001) Ancient Perceptions of Greek Identity, Washington. Malkin, I. (2001) Introduction, in I. Malkin (ed), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, 1–28. McInerney, J. (1999) The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis, Austin. Miller, S. G. (1976) Excavations at Nemea, 1975, Hesperia 45, 174–202. Miller, S. G. (1990) Nemea: A Guide to the Site and Museum, Berkeley. Morgan, C. (2003) Early Greek States beyond the Polis, London. Pariente, A., M. Piérart, and J.-P. Thalmann (1998) Les recherches sur l’agora d’Argos: résultats et perspectives, in A. Pariente and G. Touchais (eds.), Argos et l’Argolide, topographie et urbanisme, Paris, 211–231. Perlman, P. (2000) City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese, Göttingen. Piérart, M. (1991) Aspects de la transition en Argolide, in D. Musti, A. Sacconi, L. Rochhetti, M. Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Portiello, and M.E. Giannotta (eds.), La transizione dal Miceneo all’alto arcaismo, Rome, 133–144. Piérart, M. (1992) Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’État classique, Athens. Piérart, M. (1997) L’attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide, Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, vol. 4, 321–351.

148

Alex McAuley

Piérart, M. (2000) Argos: une autre démocratie, in P. Flensted–Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and Politics, Copenhagen, 297–314. Piérart, M. (2004) Argolis, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 599–619. Piérart, M. and G. Touchais (eds) (1996) Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans, Paris. Renaudin, L. (1923) La nécropole «mycénienne» de Skhinokhori–Lyrkeia (?), Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 47, 190–240. Rutherford, I. (2014) State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Scheer, T. (1993) Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte, Munich. Scheer, T. (2000) Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik (Zetemata 106), Munich. Scheer, T. (2005) The Past in a Hellenistic Present, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 216–232. Sève, M. (1993) Les Concours d’Epidaure, Revue des Études Grecques 106, 303–328. Tomlinson, R. A. (1972) Argos and the Argolid, London. Zangger, E. (1993) The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid, Argolis 2, Berlin.

SPEARHEAD AND BOAR JAWBONE – AN INVITATION TO HUNT IN AITOLIA: ‘FOREIGN POLICY’ WITHIN THE AITOLIAN LEAGUE Claudia Antonetti Ca’ Foscari University of Venice The task of investigating the cultural-political relations that were established between the ethne of Central Greece belonging to the Aitolian League (3rd–2nd centuries BCE) in order to strengthen federal cohesion, and the results of these ties for the foreign policy of the koinon as a whole, is severely limited by the scarcity of sources on the matter. Despite this limitation, it is possible to make some observations on the politics and policies of the federal cult network, mythical tales of common ancestry, and the choice of federal and local numismatic types and public seals. All of these diverse elements may well have shaped this feeling of federal cohesiveness: the interaction between these powerful ideological markers within the League was closely linked to religious ritual action or public performances – something that is not surprising given the prominent role played by religious and mythical behaviour in the construction of political communities in ancient Greece, particularly those beyond the polis.1 Recent scholarship acknowledges that the leadership of the federal Aitolian system put associative policies and practices into place among the new members of the koinon that were shared by the original ethnic Aitolian communities. Wellknown examples of this trend are the inclusion of ‘newcomers’ within the federal government2 and the institution of the Panaitōlika, the new federal assembly held in the spring, which took place where necessary and, as far as we know, in the newly-acquired lands of the League in order to reinforce their participation3 in the frame of this vast state whose territory covered most of central and western Greece in the middle of the 3rd century. Indeed there were other ways to act, apart from the political and institutional levels, other forms of aggregating strategies that were widely used in the Greek world – and also in Aitolia – from the 4th century onwards, 1 2

3

Mackil 2013, 155f. Despite some skeptical positions (e.g. Rzepka 2011), the process is documented in the epigraphic sources (Grainger 2000 and Funke 2015, 102); see the last published Aitolian decrees of the first half of the 3rd cent., where the presence of Polycharmos of Herakleia (a typical ‘newcomer’) as grammateus is widely confirmed: Antonetti-Cavalli 2012 (Texts no. 6, 7, 8). Anyhow, the involvement of new members was much more limited for the role of strategos: Grainger 1999, 185f. Funke 2013 and 2015, 108–110.

150

Claudia Antonetti

for instance: the invention or reinforcement of associative structures of a religious or cultural nature, and the organisation of festivities and games (agōnes). The creation and diffusion of encomiastic poetry was also an important means of doing this – especially because there was a revival during the early Hellenistic period of traditional archaic forms such as the epos, along with the more usual epigrammatic genre. But the propaganda of images was by far the most powerful strategy for communication, mainly in the public realm and in particular on statues and coins.4 We shall briefly review the first two points, which have recently been the subject of scholarly attention, before turning our focus to the importance of iconography on numismatics and sigillography for a federal audience. A recent investigation I carried out for the Hellenistic era in north-western Greece has shown that in the original Aitolian land there is no positive documentation for thiasoi, eranoi and sacred koina, like in the rest of the Greek world, but almost exclusively for fairly rare voluntary religious associations, which are not very useful for highlighting federal links,5 whereas the recorded festivals merely confirm what was already known. These festivals are the ancient Thermika for Apollo Thermios in the federal capital Thermon, the traditional autumn festival during which the primary federal assembly was held together with the election of federal officials, and the Laphrieia, the festival of Artemis Laphria in Kalydon, which was probably held between spring and summer, like many similar feasts of Artemis.6 The central role maintained by the two main (and only) federal Aitolian sanctuaries during the Hellenistic period is interesting in view of both the internal and external dialectic of the koinon:7 the tradition is respected, even enriched, as can be seen by the conspicuous enlargements of monuments, especially in Thermon, whereas Delphi, after the Aitolian victory over the Gauls in 279 BCE, became their main pan–Hellenic ‘showcase’. It was here that new agōnes, the games in honour of the victory and in remembrance of the salvation of Greece, the Sotēria, were instituted: they were refounded in 246 BCE with a more strongly political intention.8 The ancient Aitolian sanctuaries are included in a cultural and political net-

4 5 6

7

8

On this point, see Morgan 2009. Antonetti 2010b, 312–320. On these festivals, see also Funke 2013 and 2015, 108–110. Trümpy 1997, 26 and footnote 103, 201–203: the Aitolian month Laphriaios corresponds to the Attic summer month Hekatombaion. At Delphi, the Labyadai inscription shows that the Artemisian fests (among which the Laphria) are all held in the spring: CID I.9, D l. 8, and the commentary by G. Rougemont ibidem: 58f. It is evident that I do not consider, like others scholars (e.g. Mackil 2013, 62, 182 and Funke 2015, 110), the sanctuary of Kalydon as ‘external’ to Aitolia because, for a period between the 5th and the 4th century, the koinon has lost control over the polis. I see the evidence concerning the Aiolis in Aitolia more as a local phenomenon of ‘intentionale Geschichte’ than a drastic breach between the hinterland and the coast, and not at all as a rupture of religious nature. Likewise, I do not share the opinion that the sanctuaries of Thermon and Kalydon are similar and that they have had the same functionality for the koinon. I clearly expressed my ideas about that: Antonetti 1990, passim; Antonetti 2005 and 2010c. Reference work: Nachtergael 1977. Updates in Champion 1995; Scholten 2000, 235–252.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

151

work that on the one hand leads to the Pythian sanctuary, and on the other establishes new contacts. The central position of Thermon is not affected by the creation of itinerant Panaitōlika and even takes on, during the 3rd century, an agonistic function that places it in relation with the other centres of the athletic “grand tour”.9 There was also a noticeable local investment in the celebration of the origins of the ethnos, as can be seen in the erection of the statue of Aitolos in the 4th century or even before, as well as in the celebration of the success of the koinon under Aitolian leadership, which was symbolised by the personification of Aitolia, victorious on a trophy collection of Galatian weapons – therefore after 279 BCE, with the same monument being reproduced both in Thermon and in Delphi.10 Kalydon seems to have acted on a different level by spreading its influence as an antique Artemisian sanctuary, a prestigious aura spread outside Aitolia already during the classical period when close connections with Western Lokris are attested: the chryselephantine cult statue of the goddess, represented as a huntress, was made by Menaichmos and Soïdas, two artists from Naupaktos, a polis who gathered a sanctuary of Artemis Aitolē: here she was represented in the attitude of hurling a javelin.11 In time, through the increasing, documented, diffusion of Laphri(ei)a festivities and Laphrioi months, the Kalydonian goddess must have reached the centre of a dense web of cultural relations that covered most of central Greece and the Peloponnese,12 before the forced transfer of her cult to Patras after Actium, and at Augustus’ behest;13 a decision that marked a dramatic rupture in the cult’s traditions, ushering a second and very different phase of its history. It is certainly not coincidental that there are traces of ritual performances for the goddess Laphria mainly in the regions incorporated in the Aitolian koinon or politically linked to it: Western Lokris, Delphi and Phokis, Doris, Messenia, and Elis. Turning now to how we may deal with the use of poetic means for celebratory and political-cultural purposes, we must note first that recently this field of studies has been considerably advanced thanks to new historical perspectives. Today, much more attention is paid to the most recent layers of tradition of Aitolian mythology and poetry, those who are contemporary to the period of dominance of the koinon.14 But there is also a widening of perspective concerning the sources which should be considered in order to fully understand the federal cultic network and the responsibility of the elites in his promotion. J. Rzepka rightly proposed that valuable information on local myths and traditions could be inferred from examining texts that

9 Moretti IGA, 45. See Antonetti 2010b, 310f. 10 Full references in Antonetti 2012. 11 Paus. 10.38.12. Cf. 4.31.7; 7.18.10 and Str. 5.1.9 C 215. See Antonetti 1990, 256f. For the iconography of the goddess Laphria, see Pantos 1988 and 1996. 12 See Antonetti 1990, 258f and Trümpy 1997, 134f, 139, 212–214 and Index der Festnamen, s. v. Laphria. For a different relationship between the sanctuary of Kalydon and the Lusiates (Arcadia), see Rigsby 2006, nr.92, and the commentary of Bugin 2010. 13 Paus. 7.18.8–13. Cf. Ellinger 2011, 574 with previous bibliography: the whole cultural complex of the Laphria was associated at Patras with Augustus and the imperial cult. 14 See also Funke 2015, 90f.

152

Claudia Antonetti

are not purely historical in scope, like scholia, lexicographers, geographers, paroemiographers, and paradoxographers.15 E. Cavalli conducted a cross-study within the inscriptional corpus of central and western Greece which leads him to the recognition, in the first age of the Diadochoi, of an elegiac epigraphical production on historical subjects related to local elites, whose tones and contents are different from those of contemporary Alexandrian literature yet close to part of Posidippus’ poetic production.16 One of the best examples of this stream is the epigram inscribed on a statue-base found in Thermon for a certain Skorpion, son of Drakon, who fell while fighting with the Aitolian cavalry near Teithronion, in Phokis – a historical episode otherwise ignored, but one that can nonetheless be dated to the first half of the 3rd century.17 Skorpion and his father must have been members of the Aitolian aristocracy: the son is defined in the epigram (l. 4): “worthy of Oeneus ancestry”, an expression that significantly recalls the verses of Pindar’s Fifth Isthmian Ode (vv. 30– 31): “among the Aitolians the brave sons of Oeneus (Oineidai) are worshipped with shining sacrifices”. The sons of Oeneus seem to remain a focal point of the heroic conceptions of the Aitolians across many different periods – a trend to which we shall return subsequently.18 If Posidippos, along with his fellow ‘wandering poets’, probably played a major role in the creation and dissemination of this kind of poetry which was highly appreciated among the elites of the koinon’s member states, then the privileges the Aitolian League granted to this poet of Pella are perfectly understandable. The epigraphical medium is once again the key witness: the presence of the author in Thermon is revealed by the inscription which confirms that in around 260 BCE he was awarded proxeny by the koinon: ‘to Posidippos, the creator of epigrammata (epigrammatopoios) from Pella’.19 Several Delphic honorary inscriptions from the second half of the 3rd century show the passage in the sanctuary of many epic poets and the honors obtained by them: Kleandros of Kolophon, Theopompos of Megalopolis, Eratoxenos of Athens, and most important for the poetry at the service of the Aitolian League, Nikander of Kolophon,20 who may have planned to voice an epic with the political aim of praising the Aitolians, saviours of Hellas against the

15 16 17 18

See the first results of this research: Rzepka 2008 and 2013. Cavalli 2010. See also Criveller 2010. IG IX.I2.1 51 with full references in Cavalli 2010. Antonetti 1990, 267–269. A different view in Moretti, ISE II, no.85, n.6 (Oineidai means Aitolians). 19 IG IX.I2.1 17, l. 24. The presence of a Posidippus, together with a certain Asclepiades on a contemporary fragmentary proxeny list of Delphi (FD III.3.192) is not an incontrovertible evidence of a Delphic grant to the poet: see Bing 2009, 183. On the question, Cavalli 2010, 425, n.66. 20 FD III.2.75 (Chaniotis 1988, E 61); III.4.145 (Chaniotis 1988, E 63); III.2.158 (Chaniotis 1988, E 62); Syll3 452, FGrH 271/2 (Chaniotis 1988, E 54), and now Jacquemin – Mulliez – Rougemont 2012, nr.122. See also Rzepka 2008, 219–222 and Rutherford 2009 for further examples, and 246–248 for Nicander.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

153

barbarians, and likened therefore to the Titans, allies of the Olympian gods – if we follow the brilliant recent theory of E. Cavalli.21 But an exemplary case, and one which is also perhaps the best known because of the extraordinary honours she received, is that of the female poet Aristodama of Smyrna.22 In 218/7 BCE the poleis of Lamia and Chaleion, which were both members of the koinon at the time, honoured in a similar way the epic poetess (poetria epeon) who was invited to come to them. The Lamian decree granted her, her brother and her descendants various privileges, among which the most important are politeia and proxeny, for ‘having given various performances of her poems, in which she recounted adequately and enthusiastically the ethnos of the Aitolians and the ancestors (progonoi) of the damos (of Lamia)' (ll. 4–7).23 The decree issued by Chaleion, and known only through the copy in Delphi, shows a similar formulation even in the motivation, and is unfortunately very fragmentary (‘she commemorated ... and the ancestors (progonoi) of our polis,’ ll. 9–10).24 Some further interesting details: indeed the Lokrian city has a series of honours for Aristodama connected with local celebrations, the panegyris of the Poitropia, and with the sacrifice of Apollo Nasiotas (a garland of sacred laurel, a geras from Apollo – a portion of the meat from the sacrifice –, a guest-gift, ll. 14–21). I think L. Lerat is correct in underlining that the aim of the decree is to inform the visitors to Delphi of the high honours that the polis of Chaleion awards ‘those who will take it upon themselves to speak and write about the god’ (l. 33).25 One can conclude from this second example that the poetess, as well as performing epic celebrations of the Aitolian ethnos as in Lamia, also recited poems about Apollo – the local Apollo Nasiotas as well as the god of Delphi – a divinity linked somehow to the epic tales of the city ancestors. This element of praise had great potential in the successful ‘triangulation’ of the same cult of Apollo that was not just celebrated locally in Chaleion, but also in Delphi and in Thermon. He was the most important god of the Aitolian ethnos, of the koinon, of the Delphic Amphiktyony and of many individual poleis within it. 21 This is the widely documented theory – especially through the surviving poetic fragments of Nikander – put forward by Edoardo Cavalli in his PhD Thesis: Cavalli 2015. 22 See Chaniotis 1988, E 56, 338–340; BNJ 483 and Rzepka 2007. See Rutherford 2009, who tried to investigate the relationship between the work of wandering poets and the political agenda of the Aitolians choosing Aristodama of Smyrna as the exemplary case. 23 IG IX.2.62 (cf. Syll.3 532). See Ferrandini Troisi 2000, 2.3; Rzepka 2007, T 1. 24 IG IX.I2.3 740. See Rzepka 2007, T 1a. Rutherford 2009, 248 endorses the hypothesis that behind the extraordinary award of citizenship to the poetess (like to Nikander and other poets) is a sort of engagement by the Aitolian League for the creation and dissemination of a PanAitolian poetic tradition. But, since Chaleion does not provide for her the granting of the polity, which is instead given to her brother Dionysius, the conclusion seems to me too risky. See in this regard Cavalli 2015, 193f and passim (where a totally new historical contextualization of all this set of texts). 25 Lerat II, 152. Otherwise Chaniotis 1988, 340: ‘Aristodama hatte sich also in ihren Gedichte auch mit den Epiphanie des Apollon auseinander gesetz, vielleicht in Zusammenhang mit dem Krieg der Ätoler gegen die Galater (279/8 v. Chr.)’. See Rutherford 2009, 239 with no. 8, on the festival of the Poitropia, apparently both local and Delphic.

154

Claudia Antonetti

Another clear intersection between the inside and the outside of the koinon is visible in the close connection, established by the decrees, between “tales of ancestors” of the poleis and of the Aitolian ethnos.26 And I would like to emphasise how the voices of the poets – of which Aristodama is a fitting example – must not be considered separate from the ritual actions, and from that set of public performances that were performed on special occasions in these Greek communities of Hellenistic times, such as for the arrival of foreign ambassadors or sacred legates. At least this is what emerges from the collection of texts of recognition of the Leukophryeneia of Magnesia on the Maeander, “the best documented diplomatic enterprise in Greek history,”27 which provides very rich references to the poleis and the koina of the mid-western Greece. It appears from this corpus of inscriptions that the previous merits of the Magnesians in favour of the Delphic sanctuary and of the other Greeks, a leitmotiv with which the Magnesian ambassadors always began their speeches in the different poleis – the praxeis tōn Magnetōn28– were documented in the Pythian sanctuary by “oracles, poets and decrees of those poleis that were favorable towards them”.29 In one case, that of Epidamnos, the following specification was added: “and by the historians who illustrated the actions of the Magnesians,”30 thus adding historiography into the frame of political and encomiastic strategies that could be used on such occasions,31 greatly contributing to the impact of cultural mobility with both mnemopoiesis and ‘travelling memories’.32 The decree of Kalydon, in this same context, offers another interesting specification that precedes the three columns listing 18 peoples which approved it in the year 208 BCE.33 It consists of the place where that decree (psaphisma) was exhibited: it was to be inscribed ‘in the sanctuary of Artemis Laphria, where the founders (ktistai) of the polis are, on the base (of the statue/statues), where Artemis (…),’ ll. 6–7. Although it might be a stretch of the imagination to picture the representatives of the members of the koinon gathered in Kalydon at the feet of the statue of Artemis Laphria for the occasion, it is nevertheless plausible that every one of them knew exactly where to find, among such rich sanctuary, the place where the epigraphy showed the ethnikon of their community involved in the communal vow. If the public commitment also required an oath, it is logical that this would have occurred under the statue of the god who was seen as their guarantor, or at least as the most representative of their identity. That is exactly the situation I imagine occurred about half a century earlier in Thermon, at the feet of the statue of Aitolia, which we now know had the inscription of the alliance between Aitolians and Boiotians 26 27 28 29 30 31

On the epigrammatic contests and local history, see Petrovic 2009. Chaniotis 2009, 263. Chaniotis 2009, 264f. Rigsby 1996, nr.85, ll. 8–10 (Same, Cefallenia); 86, ll. 9–10 (Ithaca); 94, ll. 14–16 (Corcyra). Chaniotis 1988, T 2b, 39 and 358. Rigsby 1996, nr.96, ll. 13–14. About this point, see Chaniotis 1988, passim, especially 354–362 and 382–389. See also above, n.15. 32 Both definitions are borrowed from Chaniotis 2009, 253–265. 33 IvMagn. 28 (IG IX.I2.2 186). Rigsby 1996, nr. 77, also for the date given in text. On the interpretation of this list of peoples, see Rzepka 2006, 140f.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

155

on its base: in this case there was a specific oath that each of the two contracting peoples had to pronounce.34 But apart from Artemis Laphria, who would the other ktistai have been in Kalydon? The fragmentary inscription does not help, though from the surviving text it appears that the information was universally known. Indeed the ancient sanctuary of Lophrion/Laphrion, which dates back to the Geometric Period, was at the centre of a rich cultic complex: the deities most closely related to Artemis were Apollo (known as Lophrios in the 6th century BCE) and Dionysus, whose cult under Augustus suffered the same fate as that of the Laphria and was forcibly transferred to Patras – which in and of itself is a clear indication of its importance.35 Other deities cannot be excluded, like Athena, Aphrodite, Zeus, and especially Herakles,36 but in this era of the end of the 3rd century BCE, we must necessarily think to the interaction between gods and heroes in the celebration of the origins. This interaction is even well documented in the private sphere at Kalydon, during exactly the same years of the decree, by recent archaeological excavations in the so-called Peristyle Building inside the west gate of the polis that leads to the sanctuary of Laphrion. It has been suggested that the structure is a clubhouse (linked to a certain Laniskos, perhaps a celebrated athlete, and to his association) with a cult room which served several purposes, most prominent among them is the cult of Kybele revered in the shape of the crowned city goddess Tyche: “a symbioses between public and private enterprises and interests”.37 The Peristyle Building shows striking similarities with the well-known Heroön of Kalydon, outside the city walls, a structure whose dating and functionality were totally revised in recent years. Besides being a Heroön, the edifice – no earlier than the 2nd/1st century BCE – served as a palaestra and gathered increasing cultic activities until the imperial period. Among these it is worth noting the presence of Artemis Laphria and an iconographic and mythological cycle who was represented in room VII by a series of at least 11 imagines clipeatae: among the 8 which survive are gods and heroes like Aphrodite, Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, Eros, Herakles, Meleager, and perhaps Leon, the heroized founder or the recipient of the foundation.38 Certainly, the archaiologia of the ancient polis relied on a mythical stratification going back at least to Homer: the epic cycle of Oeneus’ sons, Tydeus and Meleager, the war against the Curetes, the Kalydonian boar hunt, Herakles’ wrestling with the river-god Achelous, and his voyage through the region and his marriage with Deianira, to quote only the most famous cycles.39 I believe there were several 34 Syll.3 366; cf. IG IX.I2.1 170, fr. a, ll. 4, 6–15. The revision of the text by D. Knoepfler was decisive: Knoepfler 2007. See Jacquemin – Mulliez – Rougemont 2012, nr.64 (with clear references) and Antonetti 2012. 35 Full references in Antonetti 1990, 262–264. 36 Antonetti 1990, 264–266. 37 Dietz in: Dietz – Jensen – Mejer – Sondrup 2011, 153. 38 Stavropoulou Gatsi 2010, 83, and Dietz in: Dietz – Jensen – Mejer – Sondrup 2011, 155f. For the Heroon, see Charatzopoulou 2006, especially 68 and passim. 39 See Antonetti 1990, 267–269 and passim; Antonetti 1993, 273f and Antonetti 2005, 68f. For the literary evidence on local myths, see also D’Alfonso 2010, 135, 141–144 and Biagetti 2011.

156

Claudia Antonetti

vibrant and popular traditions of the city’s foundation that flourished with particular vigor in the Hellenistic period, and this certainly occurred in connection with federal expansion as the contemporary examples of epigrammatic and epic poetry have shown before. For a better understanding of this phaenomenon between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, we must therefore turn to contemporary public iconographical documentation, which is mainly numismatic in medium. Recent studies by K. Liampi and D. Tsangari have shown that the coinage of the Aitolian League was very centralised in a federal sense: the koinon produced bronze and silver coins from the second half of the 4th century, while no originally Aitolian city is known to have issued coins, and only few member states belonging to central Greece minted small bronzes with the federal types during the 3rd century, as we will see more clearly below.40 Moreover, the Aitolian League adopted a very homogeneous system in the choice of iconographic messages, which concentrates on two central themes. The first is the main elements of local religion and mythology, and the second is the most pivotal episode in the recent history of the koinon: the victory over the Galatians in 279. Aitolian coinage first appears in the second half of the 4th century with silver triobols that, although with some interruptions, were struck continuously up until the mint stopped operating, along with bronze quarter obols of the same type: the head of Atalante on the obverse, a charging boar and spearhead on the reverse. 41 The second series, dated between 323 and 300/290 BCE, is similar to the first, with the difference being that the bronze coins had a spearhead on the reverse.42 The third series is very important because it remained in use throughout the 3rd century, during the highest point of the Koinon (300/290–229 BCE). The Aitolians modified their bronze coinage with types that remained unchanged up until the end of the century, placing the head of Apollo on the obverse and a spearhead with a boar jawbone on the reverse.43 Starting from the period of the war with Demetrios II Aitolikos (239–229), and lasting until the end of the first Makedonian war (215– 205), they also minted high-denomination coins in gold and silver for pan-Hellenic circulation: gold staters bearing the head of Athena on the obverse and the personification of Aitolia above a trophy of Celtic weapons on the reverse, while tetradrachms featured the same reverse and the head of Herakles in a lion skin on

40 Liampi 1995–1998, 84: ‘most of the League members, evidently the geographically remote ones, continued to mint their traditional types’. See for the Aitolian coinage system Tsangari 2005 and 2007; Mackil 2013, 252–254. A slightly different view in Mackil 2015, 489. For the common coinage among Greek federal states and coin circulation in Western Greece, see Psoma – Tsangari 2003 and Tsangari 2011. 41 Tsangari 2007, 39–43 and 249 for details of different minting groups. 42 Tsangari 2007, 45–51, 249f: the bronze coins were issued in three denominations, hemiobols, quarter obols, and chalkoi, with, respectively, the three following types: spearhead and bunch of grapes, spearhead, club of Herakles. 43 Tsangari 2007, 53–72, 250 and passim: only the spearhead appears on the chalkos.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

157

the obverse.44 Then, in the last two decades of the century, a new series of didrachms and drachms with new types and reduced weight was produced: this bears the head of Apollo on the obverse and Aitolos represented as a naked standing warrior with a foot on a rock on the reverse, or the head of Artemis the huntress on the obverse and Aitolia upon the trophy on the reverse.45 The last phase of the Aitolian mint (205–150) is characterised by a great reduction in both value and variety: the koinon minted only silver triobols, whereas at the end of the 3rd century the bronze ones lost the combined symbols of the spear and boar jawbone, which were replaced by the head of Athena on the obverse and a standing Herakles in lion-skin holding a club on the reverse.46 From this overall picture we can draw several historical conclusions.First, the longer-lasting types, which pre-date the great expansion of Aitolia and accompany its entire history, were those that referred directly to Kalydonian myths, mainly to mythical hunts and hunters. The oldest symbols are Atalante, the boar and the spear, to which more recent ones were added – boar jawbone, hunting Artemis – and finally Herakles and his attributes. If the references to the Kalydonian boar hunt are self-evident, we should not simply confine these to the cycle of Herakles’ labors. Just to concentrate our attention on the archaeological documentation, without considering the literary and epigraphic evidence that indicates the diffusion of Herakles’ cult in Kalydon and in ‘Old Aitolia’,47 one must remember that the metopes of the first and second temples of Artemis Laphria (from the 7th to the 5th centuries BCE) show many (unidentified) mythical hunters and at least two episodes of Herakles hunting, certainly one involving the Erymanthian boar (on Temple B2).48 Second, among the numismatic types mentioned above, images with a strong content of ethnic identity, those referring to Aitolia and Aitolos, do not appear before the anti-Makedonian conflicts of the second half of the 3rd century – in the case of Aitolos even not before 220 BCE – although, as we saw, there had long been statues of the two heroes in Thermon, and of Aitolia in Delphi. The desire to project the propaganda of the Aitolian koinon proclaiming itself savior of Hellas against the barbarians is quite evident in this issue. The barbarians here are the Makedonians: the presence on these coins of Makedonian shields in the trophy dominated by Aitolia is a clear demonstration.49 In this case the iconographic medium corresponds precisely to the literary one, entrusted to the voice of the poets, as seen above. These are the years in which the Aitolians, after having plundered many important Greek sanctuaries among which Dion and Dodona, saw, for the first time 44 Tsangari 2007, 73–91, 250–253, and passim for details of different minting groups (third series, group II and fourth series). 45 Tsangari 2007, 92f, 97–114, 253f (fourth series). There was also a variation in the bronze series, with a new type of quarter obols with the head of Apollo on the obverse and an arms trophy on the reverse, whereas the chalkos goes back to the traditional type with the head of Atalante and the boar (ibidem, 114–139). 46 Tsangari 2007, 141–187, 254f (fifth series). 47 See Antonetti 1990, 264f, 273–276, 278–280, 284, and above, n.39. 48 Temples B1 and B2 of Artemis Laphria: Antonetti 1990, 247f (with previous bibliography). 49 Tsangari 2007, 252.

158

Claudia Antonetti

in their history, the invasion of their territory by Philip V, first in 218 and again in 207 BCE.50 In the meantime, the combination of the two most widespread symbols – spearhead and boar jawbone – on the reverse of the bronze coins demonstrates the territorial and political achievements of the koinon during all of the 3rd century, after the seizure of Delphi. The absence of these symbols indicates its decline. It is not a coincidence that this same type is reproduced on the reverse of the bronze coins of those members of the koinon who had the closest ties with it: Amphissa and Oiantheia in Western Lokris, Tithorea in Phokis, Oetaians, Ainianes, and Thronion in Eastern Lokris.51 This could also be tangible proof of their close economic and territorial ties,52 perhaps even of a joint administration, if we follow the reconceptualization recently proposed by P. Funke, of what the Aitolian telē must have been: not merely ‘districts’ but political rather than ethnic-geographical structures of the koinon, directly connected with the integration of originally non-Aitolian poleis and koina, and particularly adapted to enable the preservation of distinct identities among the new member states.53 It is undeniable the intentional use made by the Aitolians of the rich mythicalreligious complex that Kalydon and its sanctuaries represented for the Hellenic imaginary: the strength of the Kalydonian cult relied on precise and prestigious epic origins such as the Iliad while the connections established with other Artemisian sanctuaries in central Greece and the Peloponnese increased its fame, and this fame was justified: the presence of the Troylus episode on a metope of the Temple A (of the beginning of the 6th century BCE), the only iconographic element referring to the Trojan cycle found so far in all of Aitolia, proves without a doubt the pan– Hellenic dimension reached by the local religious culture already in archaic times.54 One could say that, as far as mythic and religious propaganda was concerned, Kalydon could not be ignored and stood as the primary and necessary reference. All the more reason, therefore, to further investigate the dual symbol (jawbone and spearhead) of federal allegiance, both internal and external, to the koinon as a whole which otherwise might appear imbalanced in favour of Kalydon, thus ignoring the contribution of the rest of the ethnos. As for the boar jawbone, this can only be a reference to the Kalydonian boar hunt, despite the diffusion throughout Greece of local variations on the myth: real boar tusks figure among the votive offerings of Laphrion,55 and the same iconographic motif has been correctly identified by A. 50 See Antonetti 2012, 188 and 192 with references. 51 These coins bear their own types on the obverse and the dual symbols of spearhead and boar jawbone on the reverse (Oiantheia has only the spearhead), together with their own ethnicon instead of that of the Aitolians: Liampi 1998, with full references; cf. Liampi 1995–1998; Funke 2015, 106 and Funke 2016, with interesting and thorough discussion of the evidence. 52 Mackil 2013, 253f, 287–289, 343–345, 360 and passim, rightly emphasizes the economic cooperation that might correspond to the emergence of such phenomena. 53 Full references and discussion in Funke 2015, 95f. 54 The temple must be that of Apollo Lophrios and the name of the epic hero is painted on the metope: Antonetti 1990, 249–253. 55 Antonetti 1990, 254.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

159

Jördens and G. Becht–Jördens engraved above an Aitolian decree for Mytilene (214/3 BCE), evidently as an immediate symbol (episemon).56 The documentation provided by the seal impressions from the archive of Kallipolis (dated between 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE)57 can help to deepen the discussion since some items reproduce icons related to this symbology. If we pay attention to number 104 in the sylloge published by P. Pantos, we see a seal in the shape of a round shield with the protome of a boar and the name of the owner, Eurypidas, almost certainly the famous Aitolian strategos who devastated Elis and Achaea during the social war (218/7). It was probably a private seal,58 which is interesting because it evokes ancestral feelings and traditional behaviours, the Kalydonian beast bringing with him the warring wrath of Ares – as it is expressed in a beautiful fragment of Kallimachos (eimi teras Kalydonos, ago d’Aitolon Area)59 – a theme that already characterised the hero Tydeus in the Euripides’ Phoenicians (vv. 133–134).60 Number 238 of the same sylloge, which represents the public seal of Kalydon, as can be deduced from the presence of the ethnikon, presents the figure of a hunting Artemis, dressed as an amazon and holding the knotty shaft of a probolion, the spear used for hunting boars:61 she is defined as Artemis Laphria by P. Pantos. On the other hand, the spearhead may refer to a symbolism that is broader than merely Kalydonian: it does not exclusively represent the spear of Meleager who killed the mythical boar. From classical times onwards, ancient sources show that the spear, together with the javelin, embodies the Aitolian ‘national’ weapon.62 The eponymous hero Aitolos is described, in the epigram handed down by Ephorus and commented on by Strabo, as the one who conquered the land of the Kuretes “exhausting himself through the use of his spear”.63 The iconography of the hero on the coins of the koinon has in common with those of the personification of Aitolia the constant presence of the spear, representing the weapon of the winner, the conqueror, the founder, on which the right to power is based. In this case again, as in 56

57

58 59 60 61 62 63

Jördens – Becht-Jördens 1994, 172–175 (for the inscription). For local variations on the myth, such as the archaic Boeotian one, or the important Tegean one, see ibidem, 177–182 (in my opinion, with an overestimation of the version of Tegea). Reference works: Daltrop 1966 and Barringer 2001, 147–173. The archive belonged to the important family of strategoi Hagetas and Lochagos of Kallipolis, it covers more than a century, from 279 to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, when it caught fire, and was found during the rescue archeological excavations held in Velouchovo (Kallion, eastern Aitolia) over 30 years ago. The archive, studied and published by P. Pantos, consists of a lot of impressions of public and private seals which appeared on the correspondence of those who were between 3rd and 2nd centuries some of the most eminent politicians of the koinon: Pantos 1985 and 1996. An updating on Callipolis in Rousset 2006. Full references in Pantos 1985, 128f. Fr. 621 Pfeiffer. Cf. Nachtergael 1977, 184f for the very interesting hypothesis that the fragment could belong to the Galateia, a poem praising the victory over the Galatians. See Antonetti 1990, 92–98. Pantos 1985, 286–288: the attribute of the goddess could be also a torch; this seal should be read together with the next, number 239 (and maybe also with number 240). See Antonetti 1990, 99–101 and passim. Ephorus, FGrH 70 F 122a, quoted by Strabo 10.3.2 C 463–464. Commentary in Antonetti 2012, 188–192.

160

Claudia Antonetti

the previous one, we have the proof that the iconographic motif was used abroad as an episemon: the spear appears above a bronze tablet (chalkoma) bearing a decree of proxeny for four Aitolian citizens (219 BCE) in Arcadian Orchomenos.64 The information we can gather from the seal impressions of Kallipolis are precious also in this second context: numbers 99 and 100, for example, showing weapons, clearly indicate how the disproportionate size of the spearhead, if compared to the shield and the sword, denotes its ideological function and identifies the images as sets of Aitolian arms.65 There is also a large collection of seals pointing towards an elaborate iconographic ‘language’ about the spearhead that, in combination with various legends, denotes different degrees of the Aitolian institutional hierarchy, according to the convincing interpretation of P. Pantos. The spearhead inscribed with the ethnikon Aitolon, preceded by the legend Synedron, is the official seal of the Aitolian senate – usually held by the secretary (grammateus)66 – while the one with the legend Hipparchou could be that of the second-in-command of the koinon, the commander of the cavalry.67 Spearheads inscribed with personal names like Charixenou, Lochagou etc., are evidently seals of eponymous officials, probably of the first-in-command of the koinon, the strategos.68 A perplexity arises from number 132, where a spearhead bears the legend Ery(thr)aio(n): it is the public seal of Erythrai, a polis which is originally Lokrian and not Aitolian.69 This fact raises the question of the extension of the official Aitolian symbol by associate members of the koinon. This is not an easy issue, especially considering the minting of isolated bronze coins by the nearby eastern ‘neighbours’ of the Aitolians, an issue that K. Liampi has usefully brought to light for the first time.70 We have seen that some cities and peoples of central Greece have adopted the usual dual symbols of ‘spearhead and boar jawbone’ next to their own ethnikon on the reverse of their issues. Within this set, Oiantheia presents only the first of these types (the spearhead), whereas two historically Aitolian cities, Apollonia and Potidania, belonging to the ethnos of the Apodotoi, do not follow the Aitolian standard and have their own well defined types on the obverse and partially on the reverse: for Apollonia, the head of Artemis the huntress on the obverse, an arrow and boar jawbone on the reverse; for Potidania, Apollo with a lyre on the obverse, a spear and boar jawbone on the reverse; both bear their own ethnikon and not the collective Aitolon.71 In short, they both mint coins as if they had originally 64 Ritti 1969, no.47. 65 Pantos 1985, 123–125: the image of number 100 could be really a trophy. 66 Pantos 1985, number 129, 157; number 131, 158–159 with the same icon, but without indication of office, could be the official seal of the grammateus, third-in-command of the koinon, or, in subordination, that of the strategos. 67 Pantos 1985, nr.130, 157f. 68 Pantos 1985, nr.117–127, 146–156. 69 Pantos 1985, 139–160. On the settlement, see Rousset 2004, 392. 70 Liampi 1995–1998. 71 The ethnikon of Poteidania is not fully readable on these coins while the identification of Apollonia is discussed: Liampi 1996 1995–1998; Funke 2016. On both settlements, see Freitag – Funke – Moustakis 2004, 381, 387. See above, 12f and n.51–53.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

161

not been Aitolian, but there is no evidence of them ever having been independent: it is as if they were on their way to becoming Lokrian. On the other hand, the seal of Erythrai shows a profound assimilation with the centre of the federal establishment: as if they were on their way to becoming Aitolian. There is no doubt that this refined symbology describes a dense web of economic, social, political and military relations, of which we have only partial traces on the sources:72 these phenomena show a strong area of tangency between eastern Aitolia and Western Lokris, where the telos lokrikon would later arise.73 In general, one can argue that there must have been a very precise yet sophisticated and flexible modulation of the symbolic and iconographic language within the political and institutional structure of the koinon. It must have gone far beyond the dual symbol of ‘spearhead (= Aitolian ethnos) / boar jawbone (= Kalydonian hunt)’ to reflect the different status of each – be they an official or a member state – by recording their progress in terms of integration and relative prestige. Proof of this is the last case I will examine: the public seal of Pale in Cephalonia, which is different again from the previous examples, in that the polis simply adopted the iconography of the hero Aitolos as its own.74 Here again there is no lack of historical reasons for justifying such a bold assimilation: the huge military importance of the Ionian island for the koinon is demonstrated by the entrance of Cephalonia in the Aitolian League from 228 BCE. Shortly after, the koinon founded at Same the only Aitolian colony known to us: his life was short because Marcus Fulvius Nobilior besieged and conquered the city in 189 BCE.75 The various grades of symbols we find in coin and seal types may correspond to different levels of ‘affiliation’ and proximity to the heart of the koinon: the metaphor of the mythical hunt, inherent to this iconographic heritage, adds a heroic and initiatory significance to the practice. Recent scholarship has repeatedly emphasized the importance of hunting within pastoral societies for creating a common ethnic space with shared behaviours. This is particularly the case with Phokis and its sanctuary of Kalapodi, highlighting “the significance of this practice in relation to élite performances, territorial control and strategies for enacting the organization of social time and space”.76 In this context, ‘Homeric attachments’77 like a strong reference to the Kalydonian boar hunt by the Aitolians, could be regarded as a pattern “formative for their polities in the late Archaic and Classical Periods”,78 and

72 About some shared social practices among Aitolians and Lokrians in Hellenistic and Late Hellenistic era, see Antonetti 2010b, 322–325. For the literary dimension of this koine, see Rzepka 2013, 120–124. For the idea of a ‘cooperative coinage’, see Mackil 2013, 247–255. 73 See above, 12f and Funke 2015, 95f and passim. 74 Pantos 1985, number 165, 193–196 (dated after 218 BCE). 75 IG IX.I 2.1 2: the inscription recording the foundation of the colony is dated by G. Klaffenbach after 223/2 BCE. On all these events, see Scholten 2000, 194–197. 76 McIrney 2013b, 194. For the Aitolians as an ethnos devoted to pastoralism: Mackil 2013, 182. 77 Definition borrowed from McIrney 2013a, 471. 78 Beck 2003, 183.

162

Claudia Antonetti

their ‘backwardness’ could even be seen as “a key to understanding their subsequent ability and willingness to be institutional innovators”.79 It is not surprising to discover such a high attachment for hunting gods and heroes in a people who revered Artemis Laphria, the Huntress par excellence, she who determined their charter myth by beginning the most famous mythical hunt in all of Greek imagery. Still in the Hellenistic period, in these areas of Western Greece, associations of young people (perhaps ephebes) were practicing a cult to Artemis as ‘hunting companions’ (synkynagoi), thus showing that they held as their models the great mythical hunters: Atalante, Acteon, and especially the Oineidai, the Thestiou paides, Tydeus, and Meleager.80 But in this same era, in which the royal hunts (especially Makedonian)81 dominated the public imagination, the use of a very popular and prestigious collective image like this by the Aitolians must have had a different meaning. Being chosen for the Kalydonian hunt brought with it the privilege of taking part in the heroic adventures of the Aitolian Koinon: this means – at least formally – following the principles of equality, because there were no more basileis in the sacred plains of Artemis Laphria. BIBLIOGRAPHY Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens: Image et religion, Paris. Antonetti, C. (1993) I Driopi e alcune antiche tradizioni eraclidi della Grecia centrale, in E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend (eds.), Geographica Historica 8, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 5, Stuttgart, 267–274. Antonetti, C. (2005) La tradizione eolica in Etolia, in A. Mele, M. L. Napolitano, and A.Visconti (eds.), Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie, Naples, 55–70. Antonetti, C. (ed.) (2010a) Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidental. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa. Antonetti, C. (2010b) I diversi aspetti di una koine socio-culturale nella Grecia nord-occidentale di epoca ellenistica, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale: Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1. Pisa, 301–326. Antonetti, C. (2010c) Il koinon etolico di età classica: dinamiche interne e rapporti panellenici, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 163–180. Antonetti, C. (2012) Aitolos and Aitolia: Ethnic Identity per Imagines, in M. Offenmüller (ed.), Identitätsbildung und Identitätsstiftung in griechischen Gesellschaften, Graz, 183–200. Antonetti, C. and E. Cavalli (2012) Il fondo epigrafico Petsas presso l’Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia: Iscrizioni di Termo (Etolia), Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 180, 173–201. Barringer, J.M. (2001) The Hunt in Ancient Greece, Baltimore. Beck, H. (2003) New Approaches to Federalism in Ancient Greece: Perceptions and Perspectives, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History 2. Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethnē in Ancient Greece, Athens, 177–190.

79 Scholten 2003, 68. 80 IG IX.I2.2 435, from Astacos (Acarnania). See commentary in Antonetti 2010b, 317. For a revival of classical iconography for the Kalydonian boar hunt in the Roman western Greece, see Papagianni 2014. 81 For the Makedonian royal hunts, see Franks 2012. For Herakles Kynagidas and hunters in Makedonia, see Hatzopoulos 1994, 103–105.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

163

Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Biagetti, C. (2011) Fra Eveno e Tafiasso. Leggende, territorio e storia ai confini dell’Etolia, in L. Breglia, A. Moleti, and M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la ‘terza’ Grecia e l’Occidente, Diabeseis 2.1, Pisa, 521–544. Bing, P. (2009) Reimagining Posidippus, in P. Bing (ed.), The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry, Ann Arbor, 177–193. Bugin, E. (2010) Asylia sotto gli occhi di Artemide: considerazioni a partire da un decreto di Calidone, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 395–407. Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol.II, Athens. Cavalli, E. (2010) Ὥς ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἀπόλωλε ἀρετά. Storia e gloria nell’età dei Diadochi, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabesis 1, Pisa, 409–428. Cavalli, E. (2015) “Salpati dall’Ortigia titanide”: L’espansionismo etolico di III sec. a. C. Mito politico e leggenda poetica al servizio del koinon (PhD Thesis), Venice. Champion, C. (1995) The Soteria at Delphi: Aitolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record, American Journal of Philology 116, 213–220. Chaniotis, A. (1988) Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften: epigraphische Beitrage zur griechischen Historiographie, Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. (2009) Travelling Memories in the Hellenistic World, in R. Hunter and J. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Pan–Hellenism, Cambridge/New York, 249–269. Charatzopoulou, C. (2006) L’Héroon de Kalydon révisité, in A.M. Guimier Sorbets, M.B. Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizot (eds.), Rois, cites, nécropoles. Institutions, rites et monuments en Macédoine, Meletemata, 45, Athènes, 63–88. Criveller, E. (2010) Epigrammi funerari di Etolia e Acarnania tra III e II sec. a.C., in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 429–457. D’Alfonso, F. (2010) Sulle rive del Licorma. I miti di Marpessa e Deianira, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 102, 132–178. Daltrop, G. (1966) Die Kalydonische Jagd in der Antike, Hamburg/Berlin. Dietz, S., J.T. Jensen, J. Mejer, and C. Sondrup (2011) The Cult in the Peristyle Building, in S. Dietz and M. Stavropoulou Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon in Aitolia, I – II, Athens, 133–156. Ellinger, P. (2011) Le maître et son fidèle esclave: Artémis Limnatis et l’identité de la cité de Patras, in L. Breglia, A. Moleti, and M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la ‘terza’ Grecia e l’Occidente, Diabeseis 2.1, Pisa, 573–585. Ferrandini Troisi, F. (2000) La donna nella società ellenistica. Testimonianze epigrafiche, Bari. Franks, H.M. (2012) Hunters, Heroes, Kings. The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina (Ancient Art and Architecture in Context vol.3), Princeton. Freitag, K., P. Funke, and N. Moustakis (2004) Aitolia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford 379–390. Funke, P. (2013) Thermika und Panaitolika. Alte und neue Zentren im Aitolischen Bund, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries, Stuttgart, 49–64. Funke, P. (2015) Aitolia and the Aitolian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 86–117. Funke, P. (2016) Bundesstaatliche Kompetenz oder Kompetenz der Gliedstaaten? Einige Überlegungen zu den Bronzeprägungen des Aitolischen Bundes, in H. Nieswandt and H. Schwarzer (eds.), "Man kann es sich nicht prächtig genug vorstellen!". Festschrift für Dieter Salzmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Marsberg 2016, 103–111. Funke, P. and M. Haake (eds.) (2013) Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart.

164

Claudia Antonetti

Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians, Leiden. Grainger, J.D. (2000) Aitolian Prosopographical Studies, Leiden. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1994) Cultes et rites de passage en Macédoine, Athens. Hunter, R. and J. Rutherford (eds.) (2009) Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Pan-hellenism, Cambridge. Jacquemin, A., D. Mulliez, and G. Rougemont, (2012) Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et commentées, Athens. Jördens, A. and G. Becht–Jördens (1994) Ein Eberunterkiefer als ‘Staatssymbol’ des aitolischen Bundes. Politische Identitätssuche im Mythos nach dem Ende der spartanischen Hegemonie, Klio 76, 172–184. Knoepfler, D. (2007) De Delphes à Thermos. Un témoignage épigraphique méconnu sur le trophée galate des Étoliens dans leur capitale (le traité étolo-béotien), Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1215–1253. Lerat, L. (1952) Les Locriens de l’Ouest, Paris. Liampi, K. (1995–1996) On the Chronology of the Bronze Coinages of the Aitolian League and its Members (Spearhead and Jawbone Types), Αρχαιογνωσία 9, 83–109. Liampi, K. (1996) He nomismatike paragoge tes Potidanias, poleōs tōn Apodōtōn, in Charaktēr. Aphierōma stin Manto Oikonomidou, Athens, 157–164. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. (2015) The Economics of Federation in the Ancient Greek World, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 487–502. McInerney, J. (2013a) Polis and Koinon: Federal Government in Greece, in H. Beck (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Greek Government, Malden, Mass., 466–479. McInerney, J. (2013b) Making Phokian Space: Sanctuary and Community in the Definition of Phokis, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart, 185–204. Morgan, C. (2009) The Archaeology of Ethnê and Ethnicity in the Fourth–Century Peloponnese, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnese League, Cambridge, 148–182. Nachtergael, G. (1977) Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtèria de Delphes, Bruxelles. Pantos, P.A. (1985) Ta sphragismata tēs Aitolikēs Kallipoleos, Athens. Pantos, P.A. (1988) Das Wappen von Kalydon. Ein Beitrag zur Identifizierung des Statuentypus der Artemis Laphria, in Praktika tou XII Diethnous Synedriou Klassikes Archaiologias, Athens, 167–172. Pantos, P.A. (1996) Porträtsiegel in Kallipolis. Einige methodologische Bemerkungen, in M.F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi (eds.), Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique, BCH Suppl. 29, Athens, 185–194. Papagianni, E. (2014) Το κυνήγι του Καλυδωνίου κάπρου, in P. Valavanis and E. Manakidou (eds.), Eγραφσεν και εποιεσεν. Essays on Greek Pottery and Iconography in honor of Professor Michalis Tiverios, Thessaloniki, 493–510. Petrovic, A. (2009) Epigrammatic Contests, poeti vaganti and Local History, in R. Hunter and J. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Pan-hellenism, Cambridge, 195–216. Psoma, S. and D. Tsangari (2003) Monnaie commune et Etats Fédéraux : la circulation des monnayages frappés par les Etats Fédéraux du monde grec, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 111–141. Rigsby, K.J. (1996) Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, California. Ritti, T. (1969) Sigle ed emblemi sui decreti onorari greci, Memorie dell'Accademia dei Lincei, s. VIII, 14.5, 261–360. Rousset, D. (2004) West Lokris, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis, Oxford, 381–398.

Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League

165

Rousset, D. (2006) Les inscriptions de Kallipolis d’Étolie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 130, 381–433. Rutherford, J. (2009) Aristodama and the Aitolians: An Itinerant Poetess and her Agenda, in R. Hunter and J. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Pan-hellenism, Cambridge, 237–248. Rzepka, J. (2006) The Rights of Cities within the Aitolian Confederacy, Valencia. Rzepka, J. (2007) Appendix on the Malians (483), in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1873–5363_bnj_a483. Rzepka, J. (2008) Principes Semper Graeciae: Pompeius Trogus/Justinus and the Aitolian Politics of History, in J. Pigoń (ed.), The Children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres, Cambridge, 219–230. Rzepka, J. (2011) The ‘New Aitolians’ and their Access to the Federal Generalship in the Third Century BC., in N.V. Secunda and A. Noguera Borel (eds.), Hellenistic Warfare I, Fundación Libertas 7, Valencia, 89–97. Rzepka, J. (2013) Monstrous Aitolians and Aitolian Monsters – A Politics of Ethnography? in E. Almagor and J. Skinner (eds.), Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches, London, 117–130. Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley. Scholten, J.B. (2015) The Internal Structure of the Aitolian Union: A Case-study in Ancient Greek Sympoliteia, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 65– 80. Stavropoulou Gatsi, M. (2010) New Archaeological Researches in Aitolia, Akarnania, and Leukas, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 79–96. Trümpy, C. (1997) Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen, Heidelberg. Tsangari, D. I. (2005) Nomismatōn Historia. Aitolia, Nomismatiki Syllogi Alpha Bank, Athens. Tsangari, D. I. (2007) Corpus des monnaies d’or, d’argent et de bronze de la confédération étolienne, Athens. Tsangari, D. I. (2011) Coin Circulation in Western Greece: Epirus, Acarnania, Aitolia, The Hoard Evidence, in T. Faucher, M.–C. Marcellesi, and O. Picard (eds.), Nomisma. La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique, Actes du colloque international, Athènes, 14–17 avril 2010, BCH Suppl. 53, Athens, 245–256.

FEDERAL IMPERIALISM: AITOLIAN EXPANSION BETWEEN PROTECTORATE, MERGER AND PARTITION Jacek Rzepka Warsaw University In this paper I would like to survey both the methods of Aitolian expansion in the later fourth and third century BCE, and the ideological explanation of the conquests. It is generally acknowledged that the Aitolian Confederacy, as other Greek federal states, expanded due to bestowal of the federal citizenship to originally alien states, cities, and peoples. We can also reconstruct from our sources a more or less detailed and sometimes quite certain timetable of the expansion, showing how the Aitolians, step-by-step, extended their citizenship to the new areas. As a result, most modern accounts of the Aitolian territorial growth focus on annexations (friendly or not) of individual cities or small ethne. I think, however, that those conquests and annexations of individual cities quite often resulted from a failure of more ambitious plans, which the Confederacy had for its neighbours. I believe that we have sufficient evidence (both literary and epigraphic) to show that in the late fourth/early third century BCE the Aitolians, at least in Akarnania and Western Lokris, first tried to absorb whole countries (equal or nearly equal to Aitolia in size and population). In some cases, they preferred a kind of alliance based on a form of protectorate (Boiotia, Phokis), but this seems to have been an interim solution, which was to precede an ideal answer to the problem – a total absorption. Where, however, resistance was too strong, and the Aitolian conquering machine failed to achieve its aims, alternative solutions were needed. I believe that this was the case with Akarnania, once linked to Aitolia through a treaty of alliance and isopoliteia, and then partitioned with Epeiros as another accomplice. I would argue that this partition was indeed a fiasco of Aitolian foreign policy, which generally was driven by much greater ambitions. * For a few decades of the third century BCE the Aitolian League continued to be the most powerful and biggest state of the Greek mainland.1 The period between the Celtic invasion of Greece in 281–279 BCE and the Social War of 220–217 is considered to be an era of particular expansion. Still, a tendency towards expansion was visible in the Aitolian politics already in the fourth century BCE, when the 1

On the Aitolian League and its foreign policies, see above all: Funke 1997; Scholten 2000; Grainger 2000; Mackil 2013; and Funke 2015.

168

Jacek Rzepka

Aitolians took over a number of cities on the north shore of the Gulf of Corinth. Some of these places were originally Aitolian, most notably Kalydon and Pleuron, and in Greek eyes their take-over was anything but a Reconquista. Other places, like Naupaktos and perhaps Makyneia, were not originally Aitolian.2 The conquest of Naupaktos and its environs, in spite of some thinkable attempts at explaining the conquests to the Greek world, must be considered as an act of aggressive imperialism (and perhaps was perceived as such in Antiquity). At some point in the 330s or 320s BCE, in the absence of Alexander the Great, the Aitolians seized Akarnanian Oeniadai. Due to this conquest, the League became one of two major targets of the Exiles Decree issued by Alexander in Babylon in 324 BCE. Their unwillingness to comply with the decree’s demands led the Aitolians, in the months following the death of Alexander, to an alliance with Athens and to fighting the Hellenic War against Makedon (more commonly known as the Lamian War).3 Aitolia was the sole survivor of the ensuing catastrophe of the Greek coalition. In spite of a modern theory that Aitolia adopted a low profile policy in order to survive difficult post-war years,4 the very outcome of the Hellenic War made the League the only Greek power ready to acquire new lands in the last two decades of the fourth century BCE.5 The league continued to expand throughout the third century until the Social War of 219–217 BCE, and eventually got possession of substantial parts of Akarnania, Phokis, Thessalian and perioecic territories, and the whole of Western Lokris. The chronology of the Aitolian expansion is known only partially – we are on safer ground after the League entered the Amphiktyonic Council as a reward for a successful defence of Delphi and Central Greece against the Gauls in 280–279 BCE.6 Much less can be confidently said about motivations of the Aitolian conquests and annexations as well as about the general political rationale behind them. Polybios, very much hostile towards the Aitolians, tries to convince his readers that the League’s political choices used to be motivated by Aitolian greed, and that the Aitolians used to act irresponsibly and without the appropriate consideration. Modern scholars, based on the chronology of conquests, which seems to be a series of stepby-step acquisitions in various directions, tend to believe that the Aitolian foreign

2 3 4 5 6

For the Aitolian acquisitions on the northern shore of the Gulf of Corinth in the 4 th century, see: Merker 1989 and J. Rzepka. For the lost cities of coastal Aitolia, see: Bommélje 1988. For the Aitolians during the Lamian War, their motives to go to war with Makedon, actions during the war, and the successful politics after its conclusion, see: Schmitt 1992, 87–91. Mendels 1984. It has been suggested by Schmitt 1992, 90f. In contrast to earlier protectors of Delphi, the Aitolians proved themselves innovative and discovered a new and improved method of controlling the Amphiktyony. The League appropriated the seats in the Amphiktyony, which previously belonged to the peoples joining their states. Thus, the number of the Aitolian seats in the council went beyond the usual two in the 270s and grew together with the League’s conquest until the 220s. See esp.: Flacelière 1937, passim; Lefèvre 1998, 102–115; and Sánchez 2001, 288–291.

Federal Imperialism: Aitolian Expansion between Protectorate, Merger, and Partition

169

policies were plainly opportunistic, with the Aitolian leaders grasping every opportunity to add new cities to the League, but without any coherent and systematic imperialistic plan.7 Such an interpretation of Aitolian imperialism goes well with the current prevailing view of Roman imperialism, according to which Rome gained a world empire, so to speak, by chance, without an original intention to become the master of the known world.8 If we deny such plans in the case of the Romans with their narrow elite, the systematic planning of conquest in Greek states seems less thinkable with their more egalitarian regimes. If one may agree that pursuing long-term strategies was rather impossible in the conditions of Greek free states, one has also to remember that ancient Greek politicians had only restricted freedom with respect to breaking their countries’ traditional policies – they had to meet expectations of their co-citizens, and sometimes to deal with the ‘ghost of empire’ and other collective political illusions.9 Of course, with our knowledge of Classical and Hellenistic Greek history, one can hardly understand how the Aitolians could dream about great conquest or hegemony in Greece at so early a date. In later times we have, indeed, the citizens of Aitolia becoming very much fond of their position of power in Greece – in order to retain or re-conquer it, the Aitolians were ready to risk a war against Rome and showed a stance that might be a dictionary definition of the ‘ghost of empire’. Pompeius Trogus underscored a very combination of political misjudgment and deformed hegemonic ambitions of the Aitolians on more than one occasion in his Histories.10 Pompeius Trogus (or technically speaking Iustinus) first alludes to this ideology of the Aitolian supremacy in Greece in Book 28 (Justin 28.1.1) in his account of the Roman embassy to Aitolia coming to succor the Akarnanians endangered by Aitolian aggression in the later 240s BCE. Iustinus makes clear that the Akarnanians who made an appeal to Rome were ones who had previously been attached to Alexander of Epeiros as a result of a partition treaty criticized by Polybios on numerous occasions.11 It is striking that Polybios criticizes only Aitolians’ signing of this treaty. It is easy to explain Polybios’ remarks with his general lack of sympathy 7 8

Scholten 2000, 15. In place of an older view that the Romans became masters of the Western world by fighting enemies that wanted to subdue or conquer the Romans (Holleaux 1921), one follows today Harris 1979, who stresses mechanisms of internal politics (family rivalries, competitive career tracks, etc.) as the main reasons why the Romans waged so many wars. Of course, Roman imperialism was not of an ‘annexationist’ kind, a very feature which deters some scholars to call Roman politics in the late Republic ‘imperialistic’, see: Badian 1968; Gruen 1984; and Eckstein 2008. 9 One has to agree with Rhodes 2012, of course, that recollections of past glory could not have long-term adverse effects on state politics – in Athens’ case, as discussed by Rhodes, the illusions based upon recollections of the former fifth-century Athenian Empire did not shape Athenian politics after the 370s. 10 Rzepka 2009; 2013. 11 Polyb. 2.45.1; 9.34.6–7; cf. also Paus. 10.16.6; Polyaen. 8.69.1; on this see: Errington 2008, 93; Scholten 2000, 256.

170

Jacek Rzepka

towards the Aitolians. Yet another explanation may be the fact that the part of Akarnania which went to Alexander II had not been formally annexed by Epeiros, whereas the Aitolians simply incorporated their part into their League. In his criticism of Aitolian foreign politics, Polybios goes further, stating that the partitioning of neighbours was a usual policy of the Aitolians (Polyb. 9.45.1: ‘they had partitioned those of Akarnania with Alexander and had previously proposed to do regarding Achaea with Antigonos Gonatas’). Modern scholars who have in mind an alliance that Aitolia struck with Rome with provisos concerning division of spoils, including cities and lands (Staatsverträge 536), tend to think that the Aitolian League’s politics towards its neighbours was opportunistic, and that the League annexed new cities or land when available. This impression is strengthened by our knowledge of the rise of Aitolian presence in the Amphiktyonic Council in the third century BCE. There are a few documents, which may indicate that sometimes at least, the Aitolian foreign policy was less aggressive and greedy, and the League was ready to seek a peaceful collaboration with its neighbours. The most famous of these documents is a treaty of friendship, alliance, and equal citizenship between Aitolia and Akarnania from c. 260 BCE 12 known from a fine bronze tablet found at Thermos (now in the National Museum of Athens), with the second, badly preserved, copy found at Olympia (IG IX.12.1 3a). According to most commentators, the treaty was a short-lived success of the Akarnanians, who secured their borders and independence against more aggressive Aitolia.13 In my view this is a flawed interpretation and the treaty was another attempt to subdue the whole of Akarnania. The most important proviso of the decree declared the exchange of civic rights, which might have been a step towards a complete population mingling, if the treaty had survived somewhat longer. The complete absorption of nearby countries with its entire population was also an Aitolian obsession in Western Lokris. The Hellenistic Aitolians had a tale of Polykritos, the aitolarchēs or the ‘leader of the Aitolians’, who married a Lokrian girl, begot a child and died on the third day of his marriage. The story is known from Proklos’ commentaries on Plato and in a longer version from Phlegon of Tralles. The latter, which is interesting for our aims, mentions an unclear oracle issued by Polykritos’ child, which, however, makes clear that the Lokrians and the Aitolians shall be one nation: ψυχαὶ δὲ βέονται | Λοκρῶν Αἰτωλῶν τ᾽ ἀναμὶξ βουλῆισιν ᾽Αθήνης – ‘but by the will of Athena the souls of Lokrians and Aitolians shall live mixed together’ (BNJ 257 F36II).14 Of course, the Aitolians had acquired some Western Lokrian cities prior to the age of Polykritos (Naupaktos, perhaps with its vicinities, was annexed about 338 BCE). Yet it seems that the Aitolian elites

12 The text with date in the second generalship of Polykritos of Callium, Grainger 1999, 555 suggests 271 BCE, Scholten 2000, 253–256 prefers 261 BCE, but see cautious remarks by Funke 2008, 259. 13 Dany 1999, 85f; Scholten 2000, 88f. 14 On this see: Rzepka 2013, 117–129.

Federal Imperialism: Aitolian Expansion between Protectorate, Merger, and Partition

171

would be much happier if they were able to acquire what remained of Western Lokris at once. There remains a problem of date (as usually in the study of ancient history). One has adduced some appealing premises to identify Polykritos, the ghost of Phlegon’s story with Polykritos of Callium (thus the general of the Akarnanian treaty), and to place this ghost episode in the circumstances of the mid-third century BCE.15 Since I believe that Polykritos of Callium, as the Aitolian leader in the time of alliance, friendship, and isopoliteia with Akarnania, strived for an absorption of his western neighbour, I would welcome such a dating. However, I believe that there are more arguments for linking this fictional episode with the earlier epoch, when the Aitolians tried to subdue Western Lokris. Firstly, in the middle of the third century BCE, Aitolia had already been a long time important player in Greek interstate politics and it is not easy to understand how a story like that of Polykritos might be circulated without any trace in contemporary literature (admittedly, this cannot be a decisive argument). Secondly, some peculiarities of the language of the story may indicate that Naumachios of Epeiros and Hieron of Alexandria or Ephesus (being direct sources of information on Polykritos’ affair for Proklos and Phlegon) had taken this episode from Hieronymus of Kardia.16 If the latter is true, King Antigonos, informed of the miraculous event by his friends, must have been Monophthalmos, who died in 301 BCE.17 Thirdly, in the mid-third century BCE the Aitolian appetite for Akarnania would not be curbed by an oracle (Phlegon’s version includes verses of the oracle, which divert the Aitolians from attacking the Akarnanians and promise a perfect and durable union with the Western Lokrians). Whereas in the late fourth century, an idea of subduing Akarnania by the League would sound bizarre.18 It seems that in the end of the fourth century BCE, after significant gains in Western Lokris, the Aitolians decided to extend their federal citizenship (symbolized by the eternal marriage of mixed souls in Phlegon) on all the Western Lokrians, and did not encounter any significant opposition. The country swiftly and with no resistance19 became Aitolian on the turn of the fourth century (or in the 290s) at the latest. Without complete and unrestricted control over the whole of Western Lokris

15 So: McInerney in BNJ 257 F36II, very much following Scholten 2000, 89. 16 Rzepka 2005, 131f. 17 I thought for a long time that the styling of Polykritos as aitolarches in Proklos was anachronistic and very much Late Antique. Having analysed a number of similar names for magistrates in Greek leagues, I would now say that this is a relic of an old Aitolian custom, imitating the Boiotian patterns, and replaced in the third century BCE by a system of offices with the strategos as the head of state. 18 In 314, the Akarnanians, on the advice of Kassandros, resettled Stratos and two other cities (through synoikismos of lesser hitherto undefended localities), which was clearly a successful anti-Aitolian action of both the Akarnanians and the Makedonians (Diod. Sic. 19.67.4). 19 Centuries later, as a careful observer of local traditions, Pausanias records that the people of Amphissa, ashamed of the name of Ozolian Lokrians, insisted that they were Aitolians (Paus. 10.38.4) – this may reflect an absence of any historical prejudice between the Aitolians and the Lokrians.

172

Jacek Rzepka

the next great success of the League, i.e. the extension of the protectorate over Delphi, certainly before the Pythian Games of 290, which Demetrios Poliorketes staged in Athens (Plut., Demetr, 13 and 40.4; Duris BNJ 76 F13), would have been impossible. The Athenian-staged Pythian games were followed by an attack of Demetrios on the Aitolians – we possess (since 1998) a partly damaged inscription containing a treaty, which ended a war between Demetrios and the Aitolians and ‘those who share citizenship with them’ (sympoliteuomenoi met’auton – SEG 48.588), almost certainly the war we talked about earlier.20 The text suggests that there was an undecided conflict with Akarnania, that the Aitolians retained control over the sanctuary of Delphi (which however should ‘be shared by all the Greeks’ – SEG 48.588, ll. 21–22),21 and – last but not least – that they were responsible for the settlement in Oiantheia (in the eastern part of Western Lokris). Therefore, it seems compelling to understand ‘those who share citizenship with the Aitolians’ as the Western Lokrians who were recently absorbed by the League, and perhaps also some Phokians (excluding the people of Delphi).22 Everything suggests that the Aitolian attempt at subduing the whole of Western Lokris in the 300s BCE through an agreement of sympoliteia or isopoliteia was successful. Of course, sympoliteia/isopoliteia covenants were a method of extending one’s own supremacy in the world of poleis, and in the case of the Western Lokrians the Aitolians simply applied that method to a populous nation that was nearly their size and manpower. The success of the Western Lokrian experiment induced the Aitolians to similar attempts with other neighbouring ethne. A treaty made with Boiotia in 292 BCE attests that there were ‘the Phokians who were with the Aitolians’ (Syll.3 366, ll. 9–10: καὶ τὰς συνθήκας τὰς γεγενημένας |[Βοιωτ]ο̣ῖς καὶ Αἰτωλοῖς καὶ Φωκεῦσιν τοῖς μετ’ Αἰτωλῶν), but no specific proviso of this text refers to Phokis. Similarly, no Phokian copy of the treaty was envisaged (the Delphic copy was common to both sides23). Apparently, the Phokians were treated as Aitolians at that time, but since they were newly joined to the League they still seemed worthy to single out in some places of the treaty. Among the Aitolian neighbours the Akarnanians were the strongest, and the most defiant. The Aitolians, who developed a method of absorbing nearby ethne as entities, waited for such a suitable moment in Akarnania. For some reason the Akarnanians felt it useful to conclude the treaty of alliance, friendship, and isopoliteia in the 260s BCE. Perhaps a bait was hidden among the delimitation clauses of the treaty confirming the sovereignty of the Akarnanians over the western bank of Acheloos, excluding the regions of Pras and Demphis. It is clear that after many wars with the Akarnanians and interim conquests there, the Aitolians might have made 20 Ed.pr and a detailed commentary in Lefèvre 1998a. 21 Since there is no exclusion of the Aitolians from Delphi (after another Sacred War!), this proviso opening the sanctuary to all the Greeks means that the Aitolians remained in control of the sanctuary and generously allowed Demetrios to approach Delphi (thus, he might declare his success as well). 22 For the Phokians, see the next section. 23 There is a general agreement that Delphi has never been incorporated by the Aitolians. Moreover, it would be unwise for the Aitolians to attempt any formal subjugation of the city.

Federal Imperialism: Aitolian Expansion between Protectorate, Merger, and Partition

173

more territorial claims to other parts of the country. Instead of pursuing the maximum agenda, they decided to retain two strategically positioned acquisitions,24 and to give up others in the hope of having everything as soon as the alliance, friendship, and isopoliteia turned into a real union. First, when that union proved itself to be an illusion due to the resilience of the Akarnanians, the Aitolians decided on a partition of Akarniania, and a quick assimilation of more restricted gains (but still covering major centres of the country including Stratos and Thyrreion) and found a ready accomplice in Alexander II of Epeiros. A symbol of a new policy towards Akarnania was an inscription engraved on the other side of the Thermos copy of the alliance and isopoliteia treaty with the Akarnanians, containing a verdict of a boundary arbitration between two Akarnanian communities of Oeniadai and Matropolis retained by the Aitolian League, and being constituents of the Stratian telos (district) of the Aitolian League.25 The commissioners arbitrating in this affair were also originally Akarnanian, of Thyrreion. 26 One may conclude this reconstruction with a remark that whereas the assimilation of all Western Lokris by the Aitolians was complete and durable, the partition of Akarnania did not produce the loyalty of adjoined Akarnanians toward Aitolia with the exception of a few cities that laid close to Acheloos and remained Aitolian for good (Stratos, and – to a degree – Thyrreion). Perhaps it indicates that negotiations and bargaining were better as a method of enhancing Greek leagues than the sheer exercise of federal (man)power. BIBLIOGRAPHY Badian, E. (1968) Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, Oxford. Bommélje, S. (1988) Aeolis in Aetolia: Thuc. III 102, 5 and the origins of the Aetolian ethnos, Historia 37, 297–316. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Dany, O. (1999) Akarnanien in Hellenismus. Geschichte und Völkerrecht in Nordwestgriechenland, München. Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 BC, Malden.

24 The land of Pras gave the Aitolians access to the Gulf of Ambracia; see: Schoch 1997, 77f; Schoch-Wacker 1996, 127f. 25 IG IX.12.1 3b with the date in the fourth generalship of Charixenos in 230s BCE. There is an ongoing discussion on the nature of Aitolian districts, namely, whether the whole territory of the League or only part of it was divided into districts, and whether the shapes of the districts mirrored traditional boundaries between ethne or regions, which cannot be concluded at present. The most important voices in the debate vary from the division of the whole league territory into totally artificial districts (Corsten 1999, 130–134, 150–155) and the districts as survival forms of previous political identities of new greater Aitolia (Funke 1997, 158f; Funke 2015, 96). 26 It is also worth stressing that when Aitolia, due to the results of the Social War, lost Thyrreion, notable citizens of the latter remained the Aitolian citizens, apparently forming the community of Thyrreians in exile: Polyb. 18.10.9–10.

174

Jacek Rzepka

Errington, R.M. (2008) A History of the Hellenistic World: 323 – 30 BC, Malden, MA. Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aitoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe siècle av. J.–C., Paris. Funke, P. (1997) Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr., in M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 145–188. Funke, P. (2008) Die Aitoler in der Ägäis. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Seepolitik der Aitoler im 3. Jh. v. Chr., in E. Winter (ed.), Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike. Festschrift für E. Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn, 253–267. Funke, P. (2015) Aitolia and the Aitolian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 86–117. Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians, Leiden. Gruen, E. (1984) The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 vols., Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Harris, W.V. (1979) War and Imperialism in the Republican Rome, Oxford. Holleaux M. (1921) Rome, la Grèce et les Monarchies hellénistiques au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (273– 205), Athens/Paris. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes. Lefèvre, F. (1998a) Traité de paix entre Démétrios Poliorcète et la confédération étolienne (fin 289?), Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 122, 109–141. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mendels, D. (1984) Aitolia 331–301 B.C. Frustration, Political Power and Survival, Historia 33, 129–180. Merker, I.L. (1989) The Achaians in Naupaktos and Kalydon in the Fourth Century, Hesperia 58, 303–311. Rhodes, P. (2012) The Alleged Failure of Athens in the Fourth Century, ELECTRUM 19, 111–129. Rzepka, J. (2004) Phillip II of Macedon and the ‘Garrison of Naupactus’: a Re-Interpretation of Theopompus FgrHist 115 F 234, Tyche 19, 157–166. Rzepka, J. (2005) Koine Ekklesia in Diodorus Siculus and the General Assemblies of the Macedonians, Tyche 20, 119–142. Rzepka, J. (2009) Principes Semper Graeciae: Pompeius Trogus/Justinus and the Aetolian Politics of History, in G. Malinowski and J. Pigoń (eds.), Children of Herodotus. Acts of the Conference held in Wroclaw, 21–22 May 2007, Newcastle, 218–229. Rzepka, J. (2013) Monstrous Aetolians and Aetolian Monsters – A Politics of Ethnography? in E. Almagor and J. Skinner (eds.), Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches, London, 117–130. Sánchez, P. (2001) L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes : Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au 2e siècle de notre ère, Stuttgart. Schmitt, O. (1995) Der lamische Krieg, Bonn. Schoch, M. (1997) Beiträge zur Topographie Akarnaniens in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit, Würzburg. Schoch, M. and C. Wacker (1996) Zur Teilung Akarnaniens, in P. Berktold, J. Schmid, and C. Wacker (eds.), Akarnanien. Eine Landschaft im antiken Griechenland, Würzburg, 125–128. Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley.

THE LIMITS OF ETHNICITY: SPARTA AND THE ACHAIAN LEAGUE Sheila Ager University of Waterloo Over the roughly forty-five years that Sparta was a member of the Achaian League (192–148 BCE), the relationship between the koinon and its most reluctant member was complex and emotionally fraught. This paper cannot analyze in detail all the multifaceted ramifications of this relationship; its goal rather is to offer some observations on the colossal challenge facing the Achaians as they struggled to keep their internal affairs under their own control in the face of determined centrifugal forces. The expansion of the Achaian League after the mid-third century BCE embraced the inclusion of non-Achaian communities, with Sikyon under the leadership of Aratos as the first state outside Achaia proper to join the koinon.1 It is arguable that, with the inclusion of non-Achaians, Achaian ethnic identity thereafter became an artificial construct, but as Jonathan Hall points out, all ethnic identity is to some extent an artificial construct: “the ethnic group is not a biological group but a social group, distinguished from other collectivities by its subscription to a putative myth of shared descent and kinship and by its association with a ‘primordial’ territory”.2 Nevertheless, the Greeks themselves did frame ethnicity in terms of kinship and blood ties, however falsely constructed such ties might be.3 They self-identified as members of different ethnic groups, and such self-identification was always a source of pride for those on the inside and often a source of contempt for those on the outside. Dialect and cultural practices – such as the tribal classification of the Dorians or the Ionian Apatouria festival – were markers of these identities. In terms of traditional Greek ethnic divisions, then, the Achaian koinon had become multi-ethnic by the second half of the third century BCE, and even more so by the second century. Nevertheless, and perhaps deliberately, the distinction between the Achaian ethnos and the Achaian koinon was ultimately blurred to the point of synonymy. Polybios speaks of the ethnos of the Achaians incorporating other ethnē (the Arkadians and the Lakonians; 2.37–38) and uses ethnos or ethnikē sympoliteia at other points to designate the koinon well after it had already been extended to non-Achaians.4 Polybios himself, as a native of Megalopolis, was not 1 2 3 4

251–250 BCE; Polyb. 2.43. Hall 1997, 2, 25; see also Ganter 2014; Kaplan 2014; Mackil 2014; Hall 2015. See Luraghi 2014, 216. 2.37–38; 2.44.5; 4.17.7. See Mackil 2014, 276; Hall 2015, 30. One suspects the Greeks were often less careful about terminological distinctions than modern scholars tend to be.

176

Sheila Ager

ethnically Achaian, but as a supporter of the League, he seems to have been willing to embrace this aspect of communal ethnicity. Emily Mackil argues that ethnicity had a distinct role to play as one of the centripetal forces binding Greek federal leagues together: “however fictive it may have been, ethnic identity was an argument used to generate support for a politics of cooperation.”5 She also emphasizes the material advantages of economic cooperation and shared political institutions, extended to ethnic Achaians and non-Achaians alike. Mackil generally takes a somewhat optimistic stance on the efficacy of both ethnicity and institutionalism as a kind of federal glue, though her work is far from one-sided in this respect.6 Many of Mackil’s conclusions about the attractiveness of membership in the Achaian (or any) koinon do not fit the case of Sparta, which was coerced into the League and kept there by force.7 Ethnicity, moreover, can actually be an instrument that divides: a polity encompassing various ethnicities may rupture under pressure along ethnic lines, much as a vase that has been broken and glued together will fracture again along previous fault lines. Ultimately any federation’s emphasis on ethnicity can become a disadvantage, since such an emphasis enhances difference as much as it enhances belonging. The creation of an in-group necessitates the creation of an out-group, and there are few federations where one group or another has not felt disadvantaged and hard done by. The early 1990s saw tragic instances of ethnic discontent: the artificially created state of Yugoslavia dissolved in the midst of brutal fighting, while tensions between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda culminated in the massacre of up to a million Tutsi in 1994. Lt.–Gen. Roméo Dallaire’s account of the months leading up to the genocide underscores the utter failure of international institutionalism in the face of ethnic hatred on that occasion.8 Ethnicity may be an ‘artificial’ social construct; but it can also be the seat of some very real and very powerful emotions. As for institutions, an institutionalist approach to the Achaian koinon and its internal mechanisms is automatically coloured by Polybios, and inevitably has the effect of making Sparta seem unreasonably and mystifyingly recalcitrant: ‘irredeemably eccentric’ in the words of Paul Cartledge.9 Such a characterization – to which Polybios clearly subscribed – suggests a purely rational take on political decision-making, positing that states (or the persons representing states) calculate their own interests in a lucid, coherent, and generally materialist way, engaging in a carefully reasoned cost-benefit analysis. But such decision-making is rarely driven by pure ‘rationality’: emotion, affect, and memory play an extremely important role. Stephen Rosen points out that in cases of rapid decision-making with 5 6

7

8 9

Mackil 2014, 271; see also Beck 2003, 180f; Mackil 2013; Mackil 2015. Mackil 2014, 281 acknowledges that the ethnic piece had ‘only limited efficacy’, arguing that it was the more material advantages that were chiefly the source of the attractiveness of Achaian membership. Sparta is thus the exception in Mackil’s generalizations about koinon participation only rarely being coerced and koina being ‘poor instruments for subordination and imperialism’ (2014, 270, 280). Dallaire 2003. Cf. the essays collected in Smith (ed.) 1995 and Gagnon (ed.) 2009. Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 79.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

177

only incomplete information available (the circumstances under which many decisions about interstate conflict are made), “those memories with high emotional content may be preferentially, if inaccurately, recalled.” Memories of previous negative experiences with an individual or a group may drive future interactions through a process of ‘emotion-based pattern recognition’.10 Rather than joining in the assessment of Sparta as recalcitrant and eccentric, then, I would like to shed a somewhat different light on its behaviour, and perhaps enhance our understanding of the internal dynamics within the Achaian League. In this context it is significant that Hall points to the historical (or mythistorical) and territorial foundations of identity. It is precisely these foundations, and the strong emotional attachments to them, that made Spartan membership in the Achaian League such a challenging, and in the end impossible, enterprise. The internal lure of an artificially shared identity and the advantage of common institutions were insufficient to overcome the centrifugal forces of separatism and autonomy. This paper therefore explores the limits of institutionalism as well as the limits of ethnicity. The early days of Achaian expansion, as captured in the sympathetic pages of Polybios and Plutarch, feature a glowing history of liberation and the suppression of tyranny (not to mention supreme unity and mutual amity): Not only have [the Peloponnesians] formed an allied and friendly community, but they have the same laws, weights, measures, and coinage, as well as the same magistrates, senate, and courts of justice, and almost the whole Peloponnesus falls short of being a single city only in the fact of its inhabitants not being enclosed by one wall, all other things being, both as regards the whole and as regards each separate town, very nearly identical. In the first place it is of some service to learn how and by what means all the Peloponnesians came to be called Achaeans. For the people whose original and ancestral name this was are distinguished neither by the extent of their territory, nor by the number of their cities, nor by exceptional wealth or the exceptional valor of their citizens. Both the Arcadian and the Laconian nations far exceed them, indeed, in population and the size of their countries, and certainly neither of the two could ever bring themselves to yield to any Greek people the palm for military valor. How is it, then, that both these peoples and the rest of the Peloponnesians have consented to change not only their political institutions for those of the Achaeans, but even their name? (πῶς οὖν καὶ διὰ τί νῦν εὐδοκοῦσιν οὗτοί τε καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν πλῆθος τῶν Πελοποννησίων, ἅμα τὴν πολιτείαν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν μετειληφότες;).11 The commonwealth of the Achaeans was first raised to dignity and power by Aratus, who consolidated it when it was feeble and disrupted, and inaugurated a Hellenic and humane form of government. Then, just as in running waters, after a few small particles have begun to take a fixed position, others presently are swept against the first, adhere and cling to them, and thus form a fixed and solid mass by mutual support, so the Achaeans, at a time when Greece was weak and easily dissolved and drifting along by individual cities, first united themselves together, and then, by receiving into their number some of the cities round about which they had

10 Rosen 2005, 39, 50–55. Cf. (from a quite different perspective) Wiegand and Powell 2011. On the role of the emotions in ancient politics and political thought see Ludwig 2009 and Sissa 2009. 11 Polyb. 2.37.10–38.4; trans. Paton (Loeb) 2010. See also Polyb. 2.43.8–9.

178

Sheila Ager aided and assisted in shaking off their tyrants, and by uniting others with themselves in a harmonious civil polity, they purposed to form the Peloponnesus into a single political body and one power.12 The Achaeans always followed one single policy, ever attracting others by the offer of their own equality and liberty (ἰσηγορίαν καὶ παρρησίαν) and ever making war on and crushing those who either themselves or through the kings attempted to enslave their native cities, and that, in this manner and pursuing this purpose, they accomplished their task in part unaided and in part with the help of allies. For the Achaean political principle must be credited also with the results furthering their end, to which their allies in subsequent years contributed. Though they took so much part in the enterprises of others, and especially in many of those of the Romans which resulted brilliantly, they never showed the least desire to gain any private profit from their success, but demanded, in exchange for the zealous aid they rendered their allies, nothing beyond the liberty of all states and the unity of the Peloponnesians (τὴν ἑκάστων ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὴν κοινὴν ὁμόνιαν Πελοποννησίων).13

In his enthusiasm, Polybios may have said more than he intended to in this last passage. In return for their many favours to Rome and others, in which they sought, according to their cheerleader, no private profit, the Achaians turn out to have had a self-interested motive after all: control of the Peloponnese. One might charitably interpret koinē homonoia as something as benign as ‘common accord’, but it seems quite clear that what the Achaians wanted was a Peloponnese united under their leadership (and implicitly a Peloponnese in which a state like Sparta was properly chastised and humbled). Polybios is so in tune with Achaian desires that he sees nothing incongruous in his simultaneous assertion both of Achaian selflessness and of Achaian ambition. In 416 BCE the Athenians told the Melians that they could not afford to leave the little island in peace, since to do so would have been seen as a sign of Athenian weakness.14 Like Athens in the heyday of its naval empire, the Achaians evidently viewed consolidation of the entire Peloponnese as a sine qua non for the security of the koinon. So while Polybios implies that the Spartans willingly embraced membership in the koinon for the great institutional advantages it offered, the actual history of Spartan-Achaian relations tells a different story, as Polybios himself well knew. Sparta, Messenia, and even Elis joined the League only under protest.15 In this case, history – with its weight of community identity, shared experience, organic cultural values, and depth of emotional and psychological feeling – easily trumped the artificial constructs of ethnos identity and institutions.

12 Plut. Phil. 8.1–2; trans. Perrin (Loeb) 1921; see also Arat. 9.4–6. On the development of the Hellenistic Achaian League see Urban 1979; on the Achaian koinon’s self-presentation as democratic, see Polyb. 2.38.6, 2.44.6; Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 47; Roy 2003, 84f; Koehn 2007, 54–61. 13 Polyb. 2.42.3–6; trans. Paton (Loeb) 2010. See Larsen 1968, 219. 14 Thuc. 5.95. 15 Sparta (192 BCE): Livy 35.37; Paus. 8.51.1; Plut. Phil. 15.2–3. Messene (191 BCE): Livy 36.31. Elis (also 191?): Livy 36.35.7. See Eckstein 2006, 90f, 97.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

179

With few exceptions, the default setting for Spartan-Achaian relations in the third and second centuries was hostility.16 It would be absurd to deny that the security concerns and hostile attitude of the Achaians were largely the result of persistent irredentism on the part of Sparta itself. Under Kleomenes III and under Nabis, the Spartans repeatedly sought to re-establish their leading position in the Peloponnese and to re-define their borders with their Peloponnesian neighbours. Sparta’s frontiers created fertile ground for conflict over many centuries: whether it was the Thyreatis to the east, claimed by both Argos and Sparta, or the Dentheliatis to the west, a source of persistent rivalry between Sparta and Messene, these competing territorial claims were a constant source of tension. Pausanias’ mythistorical account of the first open clash between Sparta and Messenia asserts that Sparta’s king Teleklos was murdered by the Messenians in the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis in the Dentheliatis, a sanctuary that was to be the epicentre of territorial conflict at least into the first century CE.17 As for the Thyreatis, Pausanias, in speaking of it, remarks that the Argives and the Spartans had “poured out their blood like water because of a dispute about boundaries”.18 As so often was and is the case with these seemingly irremediable disputes, neither war nor third-party conflict resolution provided a permanent solution and the Spartan-Argive territorial conflict continued into the Hellenistic Age.19 The defeat at Leuktra in 371 BCE had exacerbated Sparta’s border dissatisfactions. Messenia was liberated the following year by Epameinondas and territorial rivalries that had lain dormant during the three centuries of Spartan domination came to the fore again.20 The foundation of Arkadian Megalopolis and the shortlived Arkadian League within two or three years of Leuktra created a powerful northern neighbour for Sparta; although the Arkadian League broke up again less than a decade later, Megalopolis continued to flourish.21 Sparta did not join in the Athenian-Theban coalition against Philip II in 338, but Philip seems to have followed the policy of Epameinondas in strengthening Sparta’s neighbours after Chaironeia: the Dentheliatis was confirmed as Messenian territory; he awarded the

16 Exceptions: the Chremonidean War and a brief alignment in 243 BCE: IG II2 687; Plut. Agis. 13–15 (and see also IG V.1 3); Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 35–37, 41. 17 Paus. 3.2.6, 3.7.4, 4.4.2–3, 4.31.3. The Dentheliatis and the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis formed the subject of numerous arbitrations between Sparta and Messenia over the centuries: Piccirilli 1973, nos. 1, 61; Ager 1996, nos. 50, 150, 159; Magnetto 1997, no. 48; Luraghi 2008, 16–27. The last certain arbitration was that of Tiberius in CE 25, but epigraphic evidence of a boundary delineation carried out by a freedman of Vespasian’s in CE 78 suggests that Tiberius’ settlement may not have been accepted as final (IG V.1 1371–1372, 1431). 18 Paus. 7.11.2; trans. Jones and Ormerod (Loeb) 1918; cf. 3.2.2–3, 3.7.5. 19 See Picirilli 1973, nos. 8, 29; Ager 1996, no. 136. 20 Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 562; Luraghi 2008, 17f, 253f; Luraghi 2009; Thein 2014; Luraghi 2015. 21 Pretzler 2009; Nielsen 2015.

180

Sheila Ager

Belminatis, the region disputed between Sparta and Megalopolis, to the latter; and Argos too may have received a favourable land settlement in the Thyreatis.22 It was not until the reign of Kleomenes III that Sparta once again made significant headway with its territorial ambitions: Megalopolis was destroyed by Kleomenes in 223, its survivors, led by Philopoimen, taking refuge in Messene.23 Kleomenes’ ambitions were ultimately checked by the Achaian decision to ally with Antigonos III Doson; this decision represented a reversal of Achaia’s anti-Makedonian policy, and was in itself a measure of how much the Achaians feared the idea of a resurgent Spartan hegemony in the Peloponnese. After the Battle of Sellasia in 222, Antigonos restored the Belminatis to Megalopolis and the Dentheliatis to Messene, but over the next few decades the Spartans, under Lykourgos, Machanidas, and finally Nabis, made repeated attempts to redefine their borders. By the time Sparta was brought into the Achaian League in 192 BCE, there was thus a long and unhappy shared past with some of the constituent members of the koinon. The new shared ‘ethnic’ identity (however falsely constructed) introduced complexities and inherited hostilities into the union, especially since the leading statesmen of the koinon after the death of Aratos in 213 BCE were chiefly from Megalopolis.24 Although the Achaians may have taken some forethought for dealing with pre-existing conflicts, perhaps arranging for peaceful settlement of them as new members were welcomed into the koinon,25 the level of enmity between Sparta and its neighbours, and the history of these conflicts, was intense and protracted. Rosen points out that “massive social violence or trauma can generate shared emotional experiences and memories, which can then determine state behaviour.”26 Is it any wonder that the Megalopolitans would be hostile to Sparta after Kleomenes’ destruction of the city in 223? As for Philopoimen, who rescued the Megalopolitans at that time, he would have had quite a direct and personal memory himself of both Kleomenes and Nabis. His actions and behaviour towards Sparta were no doubt coloured by his own emotional memories and the expectations arising from those memories.27

22 Str. 8.4.8; Tac. Ann. 4.43.1; Paus. 8.30.6; Livy 38.34; Polyb. 9.28.6–7 and 9.33.8–12; Paus. 7.11.2. Piccirilli 1973, nos. 60, 61; Piérart 2001; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 521f, 563, 604; Christien 2006. 23 Polyb. 2.55; Plut. Cleom. 24–25; Paus. 4.29.8. 24 Cf. Paus. 4.29.7. 25 See Ager 1996, nos. 38, 43, 44, and 46; Harter-Uibopuu 1998, nos. 3, 4, and 5; Mackil 2013, T37-T40. Harter-Uibopuu 1998, 119–129 argues that we have little positive evidence to prove a regular role for the League in arbitrating the disputes of its members, but it is impossible that the League would have tolerated significant active conflict between its members, and most cases of conflict settlement in the koinon do show evidence of federal involvement (including the dispute between Messene and Megalopolis in the late 180s or early 170s: Arnaoutoglou 2009–2010; Luraghi and Magnetto 2012; Rizakis 2015, 130f). 26 Rosen 2005, 54. 27 See Rosen 2005 for case studies of emotional pattern recognition decision-making by American statesmen such as JFK at times of international crisis (in his case, the Cuban missile crisis; 56– 68).

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

181

Philopoimen’s unilateral decision to attach Sparta to the koinon in the first place in 192, and subsequent relations between Sparta and the League, demonstrate that the Achaians underestimated the power of the foundations of Sparta’s own ethnic identity: its history and its territory (or what it saw as its territory).28 History is a powerful driver of identity, and the Greeks were well aware of this. Local histories, whether oral or written, were handed down through the generations, and the landscapes of the Panhellenic sanctuaries were crowded with monuments to glorious moments in the history of the various poleis. Such glorious moments were very commonly the victory of one Greek state over another: visitors to Delphi in antiquity would have been struck the moment they entered the temenos by the bristling statues lining either side of the road in a static face-off: Next [to the Bull of Corcyra] come the Tegean [Arkadian] dedications from the spoils of Sparta: Apollo and Victory and the divine heroes of the district, Kallisto daughter of Lykaon, Arkas who gave his name to the country, with his sons Elatos and Apheidas and Azan, and then Triphylos.... The Tegeans sent all these to Delphi when they took Spartan prisoners in an attack on Tegea.29 Opposite them stand Spartan dedications from the spoils of Athens: the Dioskouroi and Zeus and Apollo and Artemis, then Poseidon, Lysander being crowned by Poseidon, Agias who was Lysander’s soothsayer, and Hermon, the captain of Lysander’s flagship.... Behind the statues I have recorded are statues of those of the Spartans and their allies who took part in Lysander’s achievement at Aigospotamoi. 30

Other dedications follow, celebrating other victories, chiefly Argive and Arkadian victories over Sparta. The first several metres of the Delphic Sacred Way were thus dominated by statue groups celebrating struggles between Spartans, Athenians, Argives, and Arkadians, in an agōn of monument and counter-monument.31 In the context of Sparta’s relations with its neighbours and ultimate co-members of the Achaian koinon, one of the most telling examples of this agōn is the Nike of Paionios at Olympia, which occupied an imposing position in front of the temple of Zeus. Dedicated by the free Messenians of Naupaktos during the Peloponnesian War, it celebrated (probably) Messenian collaboration with the Athenians in defeating the Spartans at Sphakteria in 425.32 Three centuries later, the Messenians added another inscription to the colossal base of the statue, an inscription recording a Messenian victory in the interminable territorial dispute between Messenia and Sparta over the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis.33 The huge panel of Milesian judges who arbitrated the case voted overwhelmingly in favour of Messenia, 28 On territoriality and ethnicity (ancient and modern), see Diehl 1999b; Lecours 2012; Kaplan 2014; Mackil 2014; Hall 2015. 29 The victory dedication seems to have been by the Arkadians as a whole, not just the Tegeans, as the inscribed base demonstrates (FD III.1.3). On the manipulation of Arkadian mythistory on this occasion (marking the foundation of their koinon), see Pretzler 2009. 30 Paus. 10.9.3–4; trans. Levi 1 1979. See Eckstein 2006, 211f. 31 See FD III.1.3–11, 50f, 69–78, 90f, 573. 32 Paus. 5.26.1; Meiggs and Lewis 1988, no. 74 = IG V.1 1568 = IvO 259; cf. also Paus. 4.26.1. See Luraghi 2009, 113, who agrees with Hölscher 1974 that the Spartans would have seen this monument as a deliberate challenge; also Thein 2014, 291. 33 IvO 52; Ager 1996, no. 159.

182

Sheila Ager

by a vote of 584 to 16. The base of a monument celebrating an earlier Messenian victory over Sparta was the logical place for this inscription, and the ensemble of statue and texts advertised to all visitors to Olympia not only Messenian pride in their triumphs but also Messenian derision of their Spartan enemy. Arbitration victories could be vaunted just as publicly as military victories.34 Panhellenic sanctuaries, then, while they might be places for Greeks to come together in worship and religious celebration, had a visual landscape that commemorated inter–Hellenic conflict, a conflict that was mirrored in the agōnes of the games and contests. In addition to the monuments at the great sanctuaries, Pausanias saw many local commemorations of Greek victories over Greek enemies. One of those he would have seen was a stoa at Megalopolis. The stoa had been destroyed when Kleomenes sacked the city in 223 BCE; when Philopoimen forced Sparta back into the Achaian koinon in 188, the Spartans were compelled to pay war reparation specifically for the rebuilding of the portico at Megalopolis.35 No author records one, but it would not be at all surprising to discover that there had been a very conspicuous inscription on that stoa that celebrated the fact that it was the Spartans who had to pay for it. Memory was long and memory was bitter, as Pausanias learned when he traveled throughout Greece and heard of bygone but long-cherished wrongs and injustices.36 In his Peloponnesian sojourning, Pausanias was told particularly often tales of Spartan aggression and Spartan oath-breaking. Sparta was not well-loved in the regions it had dominated for so long, and continuing Spartan attachment to territories that were long lost to it was evenly matched by the enduring memories of neighbours who had suffered in the centuries of Spartan supremacy.37 All blame was laid at the door of Sparta, in a way that mirrors the physical monuments of Delphi: twothirds of the monuments at the entrance to the temenos celebrated victories over Sparta. Spartan territorial greed in one region was cited as sufficient cause to adduce such greed in another region: the Messenians told Pausanias that the Spartans originally attacked them because of “an avaricious plot to take territory”, pointing to the examples of “what happened to Arkadia and what happened to Argos, how the Lakonians had continually cut away land from one or the other and have never been satisfied.”38 Pausanias continues his Messenian mythistory with the Arkadians and the Argives eagerly joining forces with Messenia against Sparta because of their hatred of 34 Some decades earlier the Messenians had proudly inscribed at length the results of a boundary arbitration with Megalopolis: in this case, the vote was 140 to 7 (Arnaoutoglou 2009–2010 ll, 56–61; see also Luraghi and Magnetto 2012). 35 Livy 38.34.7. 36 Cf. Pretzler 2005. Emotional memories (and hence emotional decision-making) can be inspired in succeeding generations if the historical accounts and their presentation are sufficiently emotionally arousing: Rosen 2005, 52. 37 E.g.: Paus. 3.2.2–3, 3.7.2–3 (Argos); 3.2.5 (Aigys); 3.2.6, 4.4.2–4 (Messenia); 3.2.7 (Helos); 3.7.3 (Tegea); 4.17.2 (Spartans leaders in bribing the enemy); 7.7.4 (Kleomenes III and Megalopolis). 38 Paus. 4.5.3; trans. Levi 2 1979.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

183

the latter, and he regularly emphasizes the enduring hatred the Messenians had for the Spartans.39 The Messenians had a “chronic need to make up for their previous absence from the stage of Greek history,” a need that resulted in the creation of the account of Messenian history recorded by Pausanias and the public dedication of numerous monuments.40 Nino Luraghi points out that the inherited ‘ethnicity’ of the Messenians who were liberated after Leuktra was in fact a very mixed bag; but what is significant was their choice to create a shared history foundational to their claim to shared ethnicity.41 Perhaps it was the Messenian determination to create and maintain a distinctive historical and ethnic identity that made them, like the Spartans, reluctant to join the Achaian League; but it is noteworthy that mutual antipathy to Achaia never resulted in a Messenian–Spartan détente. The considerable contemporary research that has been done on the phenomena of intractable conflict and enduring international rivalries has something to offer here, since it speaks again to the issue of the emotional content of interstate interaction.42 Intractable conflicts are “conflicts that have persisted over time and refused to yield to efforts…to arrive at a political settlement.”43 Such conflicts can “lead to the accumulation of grievances incorporated into each party’s version of history.”44 Zeev Maoz and Ben Mor point out, in a survey of international conflict over the last two hundred years, that “a small group of dyads is responsible for a disproportionately large number of conflicts and wars.”45 In other words, conflict is not diffused evenly and randomly across the international system; instead, it is concentrated in a relatively small set of nodes that exhibit the characteristics of lasting hostility defined as enduring rivalry, “a persistent, fundamental, and longterm incompatibility of goals between two states,”46 which manifests itself in hostile psychological attitudes and repeated clashes, military or otherwise. These are the most deep-rooted of conflicts, and by far the most resistant to negotiated resolution. As the Achaian koinon extended its control throughout the Peloponnese, it inherited the dyadic rivalries Sparta had with neighbours like Messenia, Megalopolis, and Argos, and created a multiple layering of enmity with its own past and subsequent history of hostile relations with Sparta. Territorial rivalries in particular can become entrenched and extremely bitter, especially when the salience of the land

39 Paus. 4.10.1, 4.11.1, 4.15.1, 4.26.1, 4.26.5, 4.29.3. Argos and Arkadia did in fact assist in the construction of a free Messenia after 369. 40 Luraghi 2009, 113. 41 Luraghi 2008, 219–248; 2009, 118–123. See also Thein 2014. 42 See Diehl 1998; Huth 1999; Diehl and Goertz 2000; Maoz and Mor 2002; Crocker et al. 2005; Cox 2010. 43 Crocker et al. 2005b, 5. 44 Crocker et al. 2005b, 7. 45 Maoz and Mor 2002, 3. Cf., however, Eckstein 2006, 91, who suggests that the Peloponnese specifically ‘seems a dark example of the classic Hobbesian war of all against all’ (my emphasis). 46 Maoz and Mor 2002, 4.

184

Sheila Ager

in question is symbolic rather than pragmatic, both because the non-strategic character of the land allows for prolonged continuation of the dispute and because the symbolic value of the land deepens the emotional attachment each side feels.47 Territory is associated with national identity and “landscapes are imbued with symbolic and mythical characteristics.”48 Territorial disputes, and in particular those with a symbolic association, are the most likely of all international disputes to escalate into violence.49 The multiple arbitrations through the centuries between Sparta and Messenia over the Dentheliatis and its Artemis sanctuary had not resolved the core of the conflict, and indeed arbitration, which, like war, creates winners and losers, can actually exacerbate a conflictual situation.50 Sparta, moreover, was less likely than many other states to bow to rationalist arguments of the kind the Athenians had used with the Melians (of course, the Melians, allegedly descendants of the Spartans, did not listen to the rationalist arguments either). Sparta had a long history of military success and glory and, like Rome, was not accustomed to settling its conflicts in a peaceful manner at the behest of others. Institutions such as arbitration – favoured methods of conflict resolution in the context of a koinon – held and hold little appeal for states such as this, and throughout its history Sparta had regularly refused offers of mediation or arbitration of its disputes.51 When Philopoimen exploited the confusion that reigned following the murder of Nabis to bring Sparta into the League in 192, he initially had some support in Sparta itself.52 This support, however, was neither firmly rooted nor long-lasting, and shortly thereafter the anti-Achaian contingent in Sparta came to the fore. Sparta defected from the league and offered deditio to the Roman consul, Marcus Fulvius Nobilior.53 Given the Spartan self-image of political independence, this act of submission is stunning, and as such mirrors the earlier Achaian decision to throw in with Makedon during the reign of Kleomenes III. The extremity of these decisions demonstrates just how much fear and loathing each party inspired in the other. If emotional decision-making was on the table, it was not restricted solely to the Spartans. After Fulvius told both Spartans and Achaians to stop fighting and to

47 See Piérart 2007, 40. 48 Newman 1999, 4, on the Arab-Israeli conflict; cf. Luraghi 2008 on the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis as ‘a true icon of Spartan power and Messenian freedom’. 49 Goertz and Diehl 1992; Huth 1999; Newman 1999; Tir and Diehl 2002. 50 Wiegand and Powell 2011; Crocker et al. 2005b. 51 When Sparta did agree to the procedure, it often rejected the findings; hence perhaps its reputation for oath-breaking that we find in Pausanias. 52 Livy 34.35–41, 34.48–50, 35.25–30, 35.37; Diod. Sic. 28.13; Plut. Flam. 13.1, Phil. 15; Paus. 8.50.7, 8.50.10, 8.51.1; Justin 31.3.1–4. Plutarch and Livy state that this support came from the aristoi (Plut. Phil. 15.3), the principes (Livy 35.37.2): perhaps the Gerousia? (Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 77). See Eckstein 2008, 324. There is no room in this context to discuss the complexities of internal Spartan politics, but it should be kept in mind that discord within the Spartan state itself (and involving its multiple sets of exiles) was a significant destabilizer throughout this period. 53 Fall/winter 189/8. Livy 38.30–31.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

185

send embassies to Rome – embassies which received a classically ambiguous Roman answer – Philopoimen moved ahead with forcing Sparta back into the League. The Achaians now decided that the time had come to crush Spartan independence.54 In addition to the penalty of paying for the rebuilding of the stoa at Megalopolis (a penalty no doubt more important for its symbolism than for its actual cost), Sparta’s walls were destroyed, its exiles returned, its border territories redefined,55 and its Lykourgan constitution abolished in favour of the laws and constitutions of the Achaians: “For thus they would be of one body and would agree more easily on everything”, as Livy says.56 Livy’s fatuous conclusion probably already appeared in the rationalist Polybios, who could not understand why the Spartans would be reluctant to embrace the superior institutions of the Achaian koinon. Enough has been said to establish the fact that neither past nor present relations with the koinon or with its constituent members were apt to make Sparta ever a contented member of the League. As Pausanias said, “the policy of the Achaeans was hostile to the Lacedaemonians; for the Argives and the Arcadian group formed not the smallest element in the League.”57 Far from appreciating the blessing of Achaian laws and institutions, the Spartans viewed the loss of their ancestral constitution – a marker of their own ethnic identity – as an unbearable affront, and rightly so: both the abolition of the Lykourgan constitution (insofar as it still existed) and the return of various sets of Spartan exiles would have been deliberate attempts on the part of the koinon to keep Sparta weak and internally divided by attacking the very core of its cultural particularism. A more calculated response might have been to reintegrate Sparta on the same terms as in 192, since that would have reduced the chance for future grievances, but the Achaians were just as passionate as the Spartans, and perhaps under Philopoimen’s leadership especially so.58 While there is always considerable potential for anachronistic imprecision and false or misleading analogies, it may be illuminating here to examine a modern model of federalism: in this context I would like to suggest the example of Canada and the province of Québec.59 The reason for doing so is that this example presents an opportunity to highlight the psychological mechanisms underlying nationalism, separatism, and federalism, particularly in the case of a single large member potentially at odds with the rest of the union. Ideology and emotion and ethnic identity play a significant role in a federated polity, whatever its structure, and underpinning all of this is history and memory. 54 55 56 57 58

Livy 38.32–34. The Belminatis once again went back to Megalopolis (Livy 38.32; Paus. 7.8.5–6). Livy 38.34: ita unius eos corporis fore et de omnibus rebus facilius consensuros. 4.29.7; trans. Jones and Ormerod (Loeb) 1918. We may compare the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, in terms of a compact that laid the groundwork for future trouble. On Philopoimen’s consistent attachment to a policy of keeping Sparta down, see Livy 38.31.1. 59 Although Canada, unlike the Achaian League, is considered to be a single state, within Canada the individual provinces wield considerable power and have primary control of numerous services and resources.

186

Sheila Ager

Most Canadians (and I write as one) like to think that when the rest of the world contemplates Canada at all, it thinks of it as a not very important, but peaceful and internally cohesive country. We might compare the complacency many Canadians tend to feel about the state of affairs in their own nation with the Achaian smugness reflected in Polybios. Nevertheless, the sheer size and relatively sparse population of Canada have facilitated secessionist movements over time in various provinces from east to west.60 The most significant of these movements is the one which has at its heart a clear ethnic issue: there is and has been for a long time strong support in Francophone Québec for separation from the rest of Canada. Québec’s identity and unique place in Canada go back to the days of North American colonization and the enduring conflict between European powers, in this case Britain and France. In 1759 at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the British forces defeated the French at Québec City, both the English General Wolfe and the French General Montcalm dying as a result of their wounds; the fact that both men are commemorated as heroes speaks to the ethnic divide in Canadian culture. By the Treaty of Paris of 1763, which put an end to the Seven Years’ War (known in Québec as the War of the Conquest), the French ceded most of their North American holdings to Britain. The British North America Act of 1867 established the confederation of the Dominion of Canada, and although Canada’s constitution was patriated in 1982 under then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the British monarch still remains Canada’s formal head of state. Although proponents of the sovereignty movement in Québec argue that a compelling rationale for separation is Canada’s failure to abide by the spirit of the initial federation agreement in 1867,61 there can be no doubt that the chief popular appeal lies in emotional factors of history and memory and identity. This assertion is in no way intended to denigrate the validity and strength of such factors; indeed, my point has been all along that emotion is of significant (and insufficiently acknowledged) importance in political decision-making. In a recent article exploring the continued strength of ‘sub-state nationalism’, André Lecours emphasizes the power of the continuing historical narratives in places such as Québec, fueling feelings and behaviours that are ‘a-rational (although not necessarily irrational)’.62 Such emotion finds clear expression in Québec’s provincial motto, ‘je me souviens’ (‘I remember’), inscribed over the doors of the Québec legislature and since 1978 the tagline on Québec license plates. Two full centuries after the British conquest, separatist feelings in Québec reached unprecedented heights with the formation in 1968 of the Parti Québécois (PQ), a provincial political party whose main 60 Since Confederation, separatist movements have appeared in the Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in the prairie provinces (Manitoba and Saskatchewan), and in the west (Alberta and British Columbia), in addition to Québec. This enumeration does not even begin to address the situation and sentiments of the indigenous peoples of Canada: Canada has more than once been criticized in the international community for the way in which it has dealt with its indigenous population, and certainly the residential school system was a prime example of misguided and destructive attempts at assimilation. 61 Facal 2009; Rocher 2009. 62 Lecours 2012, 275.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

187

platform was and is the separation of Québec from Canada. In the same year, the province significantly renamed its legislature the ‘Assemblée nationale du Québec’. Although the vast majority of Québec separatist movements have been peaceful in nature, Canada experienced its own brand of terrorism at this time, when the extremist militant Front de Libération du Québec, the FLQ, engaged in a wave of bombings, kidnappings, and murder that culminated in the so-called October Crisis of 1970 when the Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, invoked the War Measures Act. The PQ, in pursuance of its mandate to make Québec a sovereign state, has held two referenda on the question of separation from Canada, first in 1980 and again in 1995. In 1980, the separatist cause received 40.44% of the vote. Fifteen years later, the margin was much closer, with the pro-separatist vote at 49.42%: in 1995, virtually half the electorate of Québec wanted out. If they felt (and feel) this strongly after more than two centuries in the union, it should not be surprising that Sparta, many of whose inhabitants could remember firsthand a time when Sparta had played a leading role in the Peloponnese – and who would also recall the massacre of eighty leading Spartans under a guarantee of safe conduct from Philopoimen at Kompasion in 188 BCE – clung to the notion of independence and autonomy.63 Even in 192, when Philopoimen had made no attempt to deconstruct Sparta’s distinct ethnicity, the simple fact that they now had to acknowledge Achaian hegemony would have been emotionally intolerable to many, both ‘a shock and a humiliation’.64 The forcible efforts of the Achaians in 188 and later to make the Spartans conform to Achaian ways were very much at cross-purposes to the creation of a contented and united koinon: this was not multiculturalism (the brand that Canada has adopted for itself), it was forced assimilation, with much more in common with the 1840 Act of Union than the 1867 BNA Act. “For thus they would be of one body and would agree more easily on everything”, says Livy; but only at the cost of wiping out everything that made Sparta a distinct society.65 None of this is to argue that second-century Sparta was simply an unfortunate victim of Achaian brutality. One cannot accuse the Achaians of cultural insensitivity when the notion of being culturally sensitive would never have occurred to an ancient Greek in the first place. I simply seek to demonstrate that all the practical benefits of belonging to a koinon or a federated state, and having access to its institutions, as listed by Plutarch and Polybios, might not outweigh the emotional and psychological costs of the loss of autonomy and of ethnic identity, particularly marked in cases where the history of relations has been so punctuated by hostility. Polybios is being disingenuous when he implies that the Spartans willingly leapt at the chance to join Achaia. Many Spartans would have been happier to sell their souls to the devil than to embrace the Achaians; this may explain the deditio to 63 Livy 38.33. 64 Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 78. 65 The phrase ‘distinct society’ (la société distincte) has been used to describe Québec’s unique position within Canada. The 1840 Act of Union (uniting Upper Canada and Lower Canada into a single colony) rose out of a report by Lord Durham, who recommended assimilating the French in North America completely, they being, ‘a people with no literature and no history’.

188

Sheila Ager

Rome, where, in a twist on the old proverb, the Spartans preferred the devil they didn’t know to the one they did. It is possible that without the presence of Rome on the scene, the Spartans might ultimately have acquiesced in being part of the koinon, though neither Achaian ethnicity nor Achaian institutions had proved to be a drawing card. After the 180s Sparta made no more secessionist moves that we know of until the final crisis of the Achaian War loomed,66 though it continued to send independent embassies to Rome, in defiance of alleged Achaian regulations. The Romans continued to respond with diplomatic messages, commissions of inquiry and attempts at arbitration.67 It is hard to imagine, moreover, that Sparta would ever truly have integrated: after all, it was its peculiar ways that made it a tourist draw centuries later under the empire. Tourists today visit Montréal and Québec City in part because they are, by North American standards, exotic and Old World and ‘other’. Furthermore, the subsequent history of the Messenia–Sparta dispute shows that no matter what overarching authority appeared in the Peloponnese, the emotional salience of ‘ancestral land’ would remain a source of latent conflict. Nevertheless, it seems that it was the Roman appearance on the scene that created the conditions for the perfect storm. Ambiguous and contradictory replies to Greek embassies, and passive, if not active, encouragement of dissension within the League were bound to fan the flames of both Spartan independence and Achaian indignation. In 1967, the year before the foundation of the PQ and a time when the FLQ was still alive and well, the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, visited Canada. Giving a speech to a large crowd from a balcony in Montréal, he proclaimed ‘Vive Montréal!’ and ‘Vive le Québec!’, and then ‘Vive le Québec libre!’ Not unnaturally, this caused a significant diplomatic flurry in Ottawa, but perhaps no greater a flurry than the Roman senate caused as early as 183/2 BCE, during the embassy season in Rome: When the Achaeans begged them, if it were possible, to send a force in virtue of their alliance with Rome to help them against the Messenians, or if not to see to it that no one coming from Italy should import arms or food to Messene, they paid no attention to either request, and answered them that not even if the people of Sparta, Corinth or Argos deserted the League should the Achaeans be surprised if the senate did not think it concerned them. Giving full publicity to this reply, which was a sort of proclamation that the Romans would not interfere with those who wished to desert the Achaean League, they continued to detain the envoys, waiting to see how the Achaeans would get on at Messene. 68

66 Sparta seceded sometime in 182 BCE, when Messenia was in revolt from the League; both Messenia and Sparta were brought back in by Lykortas (Polyb. 23.16–18; Piper 1986, 128– 131; Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 82f). 67 Achaian rules about foreign embassies: Paus. 7.12.5; Mackil 2013, 349 modifies this broad statement, pointing out that Achaian cities could send embassies about ‘non-political and nonmilitary’ issues. Roman attempts to arbitrate between Sparta and Megalopolis (and between Sparta and Argos?) in 163 BCE: Polyb. 31.1.6–7; Paus. 7.11.1–2 (see Ager 1996, nos. 135– 137). 68 Polyb. 23.9.12–14; trans. Paton (Loeb) 2010.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

189

Things went progressively downhill from this point on, both the persistent particularism of Sparta and the efforts of Achaian statesmen such as Philopoimen and Lykortas to keep what they saw as federal affairs within the federal family driving the wedge between Rome and Achaia ever deeper.69 By the time the Achaians had united the entire Peloponnese under their koinon, with the incorporation of Sparta, Messenia, and Elis, there really was little that was distinctively ‘Achaian’ about them beyond the name. But if Achaian ethnicity had its limits, Spartan ethnicity, it seems, did not. The Achaians, committed to federal growth, which entailed the incorporation of ‘others’, were thereby committed to an inclusive strategy that would by definition weaken the sense of a specific ‘Achaianness’. The Spartans, on the other hand, clung with a dogged persistence to their memories of a distinctive historical and geographical identity, and the Spartan ambassadors who argued their case before Tiberius in 25 CE cited centuries-old annals and the songs of poets to prove their case.70 The Achaians were unable to bring to bear any ethnic charisma to rival such local loyalties, and while they may have provided what they saw as institutional advantages, Sparta had no more esteem for such advantages than Québec sovereigntists have for the ‘gift’ of Canadian federalism. Canada too struggles to define what constitutes a quintessential Canadian ‘identity’ in the face of multiple ethnic identities within its borders. It may be that any federated state will always face the barrier of potentially divisive ethnic allegiances, and that federalism itself will always remain a chancy basis for the creation of a state.71 As for Sparta, if asserting its own ethnicity and autonomy meant bringing down the League as a whole, it was clearly prepared, and indeed eager, to do so. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ager, S.L. (1996) Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C., Berkeley. Arnaoutoglou, I. (2009–2010) Dispute Settlement between Poleis-Members of the Achaean League. A New Source, Dike 12–13, 181–201. Balot, R.K. (ed.) (2009) A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Malden. Beck, H. (2003) New Approaches to Federalism in Ancient Greece: Perceptions and Perspectives, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History 2. Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethnē in Ancient Greece, Athens, 177–190. Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol.II, Athens. Cartledge, P. and A. Spawforth (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A Tale of Two Cities, London/New York.

69 Other Achaian statesmen, such as Diophanes (strategos 192–191) and Kallikrates (strategos 180–179 and Polybios’ bête noir), counseled greater attention to Roman desires: Livy 38.32.6– 7, 41.23–24; Polyb. 22.10, 24.8–10, 30.13, 30.29, 30.32; Paus. 7.11. 70 The Messenians put forward precisely the same kind of evidence; cf. Chaniotis 2004. 71 See Smith (ed.) 1995; Gagnon (ed.) 2009; Karmis 2009.

190

Sheila Ager

Chaniotis, A. (2004) Justifying Territorial Claims in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Beginnings of International Law, in E.M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, 185–213. Christien, J. (2006) The Lacedaemonian State: Fortifications, Frontiers and Historical Problems, in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds.), Sparta and War, Swansea, 163–183. Cox, E.W. (2010) Why Enduring Rivalries Do – or Don’t – End, Boulder/London. Crocker, C.A., F.O. Hampson, and P. Aall (eds.) (2005a) Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict, Washington. Crocker, C.A., F.O. Hampson, and P. Aall (2005b) Mapping the Nettle Field, in C.A. Crocker, F.O. Hampson, and P. Aall (eds.), Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict, Washington, 3–30. Dallaire, R.A. (2003) Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, Toronto. Diehl, P.F. (ed.) (1998) The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries, Urbana/Chicago. Diehl, P.F. (ed.) (1999a) A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, Nashville/London. Diehl, P.F. (1999b) Territory and International Conflict: an Overview, in P.F. Diehl (ed.), A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, Nashville/London, viii-xx. Diehl, P.F. and G. Goertz (2000) War and Peace in International Rivalry, Ann Arbor. Eckstein, A. (2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley. Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 BC, Malden. Facal, J. (2009) Conflicting National Identities and Federalism: A Quebec Perspective on the Change Occurring in Canada’s Political System, in A.-G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions, Toronto, 213–223. Fornara, C.W. (1983) Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War, Second edition, Cambridge. Funke, P. and N. Luraghi (eds.) (2009) The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington. Gagnon, A.-G. (ed.) (2009) Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions, Toronto. Ganter, A. (2014) Ethnicity and Local Myth, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford, 228–240. Goertz, G. and P.F. Diehl (1992) Territorial Changes and International Conflict, London/New York. Hall, J.M. (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48. Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen (eds.) (2004) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford. Harter-Uibopuu, K. (1998) Die zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon. Zur friedliche Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln. Hölscher, T. (1974) Die Nike der Messenier und Naupaktier in Olympia, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 89, 70–111. Huth, P.K. (1999) Enduring Rivalries and Territorial Disputes, 1950–1990, in P.F. Diehl (ed.), A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, Nashville/London, 37–72. Kaplan, P. (2014) Ethnicity and Geography, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford, 298–311. Karmis, D. (2009) The Multiple Voices of the Federal Tradition and the Turmoil of Canadian Federalism, in A.–G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions, Toronto, 53–79.

The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League

191

Koehn, C. (2007) Krieg – Diplomatie – Ideologie. Zur Außenpolitik hellenistischer Mittelstaaten, Stuttgart. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Lecours, A. (2012) Sub-state Nationalism in the Western World: Explaining Continued Appeal, Ethnopolitics 11, 268–286. Levi, P. (1979) Pausanias: Guide to Greece, 2 volumes, Middlesex. Ludwig, P.W. (2009) Anger, Eros, and Other Political Passions in Ancient Greek Thought, in R.K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Malden, 294–307. Luraghi, N. (2008) The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge. Luraghi, N. (2009) Messenian Ethnicity and the Free Messenians, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, 110–134. Luraghi, N. (2014) The Study of Greek Ethnic Identities, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford, 213–227. Luraghi, N. (2015) Traces of Federalism in Messenia, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 285–296. Luraghi, N. and A. Magnetto (2012) The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New Inscription from Messene (With an Appendix by Christian Habicht), Chiron 42, 509–550. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. (2014) Ethnos and Koinon, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 270–284. Mackil, E. (2015) The Economics of Federation in the Ancient Greek World, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 487–502. Magnetto, A. (1997) Gli arbitrati interstatali greci II: dal 337 al 196 A.C., Pisa. Maoz, Z. and B.D. Mor (2002) Bound by Struggle. The Strategic Evolution of Enduring International Rivalries, Ann Arbor. McInerney, J. (ed.) (2014) A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford. Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis (1988) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford. Newman, D. (1999) Real Spaces, Symbolic Spaces: Inter-related Notions of Territory in the Arab– Israeli Conflict, in P.F. Diehl (ed.), A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, Nashville/London, 3–34. Nielsen, T.H. (2015) The Arkadian Confederacy, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 250–268. Paton, W.R. (2010–2012) Polybius: The Histories, 6 volumes, revised by C. Habicht and F.W. Walbank, Cambridge. Piccirilli, L. (1973) Gli arbitrati interstatali greci I: dalle origine al 338 A.C., Pisa. Piérart, M. (2001) Philippe et la Cynourie (Thyréatide): les frontiers du partage des Héraclides, in R. Frei-Stolba and K. Gex (eds.), Recherches récentes sur le monde hellénistiques, Bern, 27– 41. Piérart, M. (2007) La question des frontières entre Sparte et Argos: les frontières du partage des Héraclides, in N. Birgalias, K. Buraselis, and P. Cartledge (eds.), The Contribution of Ancient Sparta to Political Thought and Practice, Pyrgos, 33–47. Piper, L.J. (1986) Spartan Twilight, New Rochelle NY. Pretzler, M. (2005) Pausanias at Mantinea: Invention and Manipulation of Local History, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 51, 21–34. Pretzler, M. (2009) Arcadia: Ethnicity and Politics in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, 86–109. Rizakis, A. (2015) The Achaian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 118–131.

192

Sheila Ager

Rocher, F. (2009) The Quebec-Canada Dynamic or the Negation of the Ideal of Federalism, in A.– G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions, Toronto, 81–131. Rosen, S.P. (2005) War and Human Nature, Princeton. Roy, J. (2003) The Achaian League, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 81–95. Sissa, G. (2009) Political Animals: Pathetic Animals, in R.K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Malden, 283–293. Smith, G. (ed.) (1995) Federalism: The Multiethnic Challenge, London/New York. Thein, A. (2014) Messenia, Ethnic Identity, and Contingency, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 285–297. Tir, J. and P.F. Diehl (2002) Geographic Dimensions of Enduring Rivalries, Political Geography 21, 263–286. Urban, K. (1979) Wachstum und Krise des Achäischen Bundes, Wiesbaden. Walbank, F.W. (1957–1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 volumes, Oxford. Wiegand, K.E. and E.J. Powell (2011) Past Experience, Quest for the Best Forum, and Peaceful Attempts to Resolve Territorial Disputes, Journal of Conflict Resolution 55, 33–59.

INTERNAL MECHANISMS, EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS OF THE ACHAIANS: A NUMISMATIC APPROACH* Catherine Grandjean Université de Tours For while many have attempted in the past to induce the Peloponnesians to adopt a common policy, no one ever succeeding, as each was working not in the cause of general liberty, but for his own aggrandizement, this object has been so much advanced, and so nearly attained, in my own time that not only do they form an allied and friendly community, but they have the same laws, weights, measures and coinage, as well as the same magistrates, senate, and courts of justice, and the whole Peloponnesian only falls short of being a single city in the fact of its inhabitants not being enclosed by one wall, all other things being, both as regards the whole and as regards each separate town, very nearly identical. Polybios 2.37.9–11 (translation W.R. Paton, Loeb, 1922)

Polybios, a Megalopolitan member of the Achaian koinon, is quite likely to have produced a very biased view of the unification of the Peloponnese. He thought that the Spartans had failed to achieve its unification because they had relied on brute force alone, while according to Polybios the Achaian koinon had succeeded, however briefly, because it had favoured ‘democracy’, a system of equal rights between the member states based on agreement. Polybios mentions the time when the Peloponnese was united, that is the period 191–146 BCE, but H. Chantraine, following P. Pedech and F. Walbank, thinks that this timeframe actually begins with Philopoimen’s reform of the koinon in 188 when Aigion lost its status as capital and when equality between the city members was enhanced – at least in theory. As for the terminus ante quem, the text was written, like Books 1 to 30, in the present tense, and thus likely dates to some point during his Italian exile from 168 to his return home in 146 BCE.1 The passage above is a famous quotation from Polybios which has drawn extensive comment concerning the notion of a Peloponnese united under Achaian rule. Sparta’s unremitting resistance, rooted in a deep-seated nationalism, and Messene’s revolt against the koinon in 183/2 BCE amply show that Polybios, a member of the ruling class, tends to convey a rosy picture of the Achaian koinon when he speaks of the Peloponnesian ‘allied and friendly community’. Furthermore, this passage has raised a number of questions concerning the nature and structures of the Achaian koinon which are still hotly debated by historians,

* 1

To the memory of Jennifer A. W. Warren. Pedech 1964, 378f; Chantraine 1972, 175–190.

194

Catherine Grandjean

especially in Germany where the history of the federal states has met with keen interest.2 In the midst of this scholarly interest, coins are conspicuously absent from the discussion of the nature of the Achaian koinon and its institutions. However, Polybios tends to consider weights, measures and coinage on the one hand, and genuine political institutions (such as laws, magistracies, councils and law-courts) on the other with seemingly equal importance when evaluating a federation or constitution. Coupling coinage (nomisma) to law (nomos) underlines the essential link between the two words. Nomisma was originally the poetic double of nomos, as E. Laroche has demonstrated.3 This passage conspicuously refers to Aristotle’s text on coinage: “In fact, money exists by agreement, as an exchangeable form of need. This is the reason for our calling it nomisma, because it does not exist naturally but through custom (nomos)…” (Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1133b). Yet Polybios’ thinking seems to extend beyond this Aristotelian philosophical quotation, and becomes both personal and pragmatic. This stands as a measure of just how important the issue of coinage was to Polybios, and how relevant it is to study monetary elements as a way of better understanding the political reality of a given situation or institution. Several questions may be raised about the structures of the koinon, and they will be dealt with first in terms of coinage. * Achaian coins were minted at different periods, beginning with the Classical coinage documented through a small set of coins of Aeginetic standard: a unicum stater (Head of Demeter Panachaia or Achaia?/Zeus Amarios), some drachms and hemidrachms (FIG.1). This coinage must date to the first half of the 4th century BCE, before 330, maybe between 367–362 after the end of the alliance with Sparta. This would thus take place during the short-lived democratic koinon, while the Achaian oligarchs had taken refuge in Elis, or during the 3rd Sacred war.4 The Peloponnesian monetary system referred to by Polybios in this text is based on silver and bronze coinage with the types and ethnic hallmarks of the Achaian koinon. We will focus on the Hellenistic koinon coinage initiated in 281/280. It consists mainly of small silver coins, hemidrachma or triobols, and bronze coins that Heinrich Chantraine justifiably divided into two groups (ältere and jüngere). The ältere group is a small set of coins about which we know very little. They are triobols or hemidrachms of Aeginetic standard with the head of Zeus on the 2 3 4

Corsten 1999; Lehmann 2001; Beck and Funke 2015. Laroche 1949. Kraay 1976, 100f (c. 370–362); Psôma and Tsangari 2003 (3rd Sacred war); Grandjean 2003, 28–32, c. 370-c. 330; LHS Auction 96, Coins of Peloponnesos The BCD Collection, May 2006: 107 (c. 370–360).

Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach

195

obverse and a monogram with the letters ΑΧ standing for ΑΧΑΙΩΝ in a laurel wreath on the reverse (fig.2). It also features bronze coins with a similar format and types; some of them have symbols like a star or club. It was probably struck only in Achaia proper and in small quantities as only 5 ± obverse dies are known, which may mean that it was a small issue.5 M. Thompson insisted on the stylistic resemblance and the presence of a wreath with ties above on the ältere triobols and on the first jüngere triobols issued at Corinth c. 196/5. But for the dating of silver coins, no hoard is chronologically decisive.6 However, a dating for at least some of the bronze coins as early as the 360s seems to be indicated, since some have been found in strata of about c.360 BCE at Olympia.7 This coinage hardly circulated outside the Achaian heartland. H. Chantraine is therefore right to assert that it is not the common coinage mentioned by Polybios. Whether it was minted at Dyme (sometimes a delta appears on the reverse) or not, it is very likely to have been the coinage of the core of the Achaian koinon. As the koinon founded in 281/280 expanded beyond the limits of Achaia, a significant coinage unique to this process did not yet appear. Silver used in the Peloponnese in the 3rd century BCE consisted largely of Alexander tetradrachms struck both during his reign and after his death, as well as civic triobols issued in the 4th and 3rd centuries (from Peloponnese and Central Greece) along with royal silver coins. Some of these cities minted posthumous Attic-standard alexanders (FIG.3 from Argos, with the harpa), but the production stopped when the jüngere coinage began with its federal standard; that is to say, the reduced Aeginetic standard. It has been plausibly suggested that these Peloponnesian alexanders represented a coinage of a quasi-federal nature.8 The koinon had to pay for the army of Antigonos Dôsôn (225–222), and aided Eumenes against Antiochos III (189–188). As is to be expected, the cities which were the most at odds with the koinon, namely Sparta (under kings Areus and Kleomenes III, then under Nabis) and Messene (when it revolted against the koinon in 183/2 BCE) struck autonomous tetradrachms of the Attic standard.9 Polybios’ Achaian coinage must be what Chantraine called the jüngere coinage which features hemidrachma or triobols of the reduced Aeginetic standard – or Symmachic standard – and also bronze coins.10

5 6 7 8

9 10

Nicolet-Pierre and Oikonomides 1991, pl.3 no.86–91 and pl. 4, no.92–94. Abai Hoard IGCH 195 and Zakynthos Hoard IGCH 245 are mixtures of 4th and 3rd century coins. Moustaka 1999, 164; Warren 2007, 109–111. According to Troxell 1973 and Price 1991, 155–166: during the Kleomenan and Social wars (225–215 BCE): Pellene, Megalopolis, Corinth, Sicyon, Argos + 10 other Peloponnesian mints; during the Antiochian War (c. 190–188): Argos and Messene. Some Argive and Messenian alexanders have been discovered in Syria (Baiyada hd IGCH 1541; Latakia hd 1759 IGCH 1544) or in Turkey (Mektepini hd IGCH 1410); a harpa as an Argive symbol and the same monogram appears on alexanders as well as on Argive Achaian jüngere triobols issued later. Grunauer von Hoerschelmann 1978; Grandjean 2003. Clerk 1995; Thompson 1968; Warren 2007.

196

Catherine Grandjean

On a series of bronze coins issued in the name of 45 or 47 cities,11 the obverse features Zeus leaning on his sceptre and carrying a Nike, while a female figure appears on the reverse which bears the inscription ΑΧΑΙΩΝ together with the polis’ ethnic mention in the genitive form, and sometimes also a name (FIG.4 from Phigalia). These were issued in a single run dating to 168–150, and the production was extensive with more than 1600 obverse dies. This coinage hardly circulated outside the territory of each issuing city, except for the numerous coins minted at Pellene, Sicyon, and Tegea. To quote H. Chantraine’s apt phrase we have here a ‘Janus-like coinage’: half federal, half civic, with a frequent ambivalence in the productions of the koina – just like the Boiotian koina or the Lycian koinon.12 We thus return to Polybios’ observation about how similar the koinon was to a city-state. The main silver currency of the Achaian koinon is a massive collection of triobols or hemidrachms of reduced aeginetic standard issued in the name and using the symbols of 19 member cities (as many as 16 issued at the same period). These silver coins are the same as the earlier series but have been further adorned with the specific symbols, letters or monograms of each city (e.g. FA for Elis, FIG.5) along with letters, names or monograms used as mint marks. M. Thompson considered that that total body of coinage could be divided into three groups according to the increasing use of adjunct markings: • The Early group issued by 11 cities; • The Late group issued by 16 cities; • The Later (Final) group by 7 cities or more. Judging from the seminal works of M. Thompson and H. Chantraine, coin production did not start before 195. Some other dates could be considered, especially 191 when the annexation of Elis and Messene completed the unification of the Peloponnese, or 188 when the koinon was reformed by Philopoimen, and Aigion was no longer considered as the sole capital.13 On the other hand, the date at which they stopped being minted is still unresolved. While numismatists agree that the first two groups of jüngere coinage ought to be dated before 146, they disagree about the third (‘later’ or ‘final’) group, citing either the Achaian War or the 1st century BCE, since Chr. Boehringer has dated the final issues and some civic series of triobols (Messene, Koroni, Argos, Patras, Sparta, Sicyon, Megalopolis) to the 1st century BCE (from the Mithridatean war in Greece to Actium). An Achaian koinon was restored after 146 and large quantities

11 12 13

Many of them had never struck any coin previously or would ever again. Lehmann 2001: 58–61; Troxell 1982; Salmon 1994: 217–230. M. Thompson 1968 dated the beginning of these issues at Corinth, Sicyon, Patras, Argos, Koroni, Messene, and Elis c. 195 (Corinth entered the Achaian koinon in 196; Argos in 195) until 189/188 (the war against Nabis and the expedition against Sparta). Chantraine 1972, 187 has considered that the beginning of the new silver coinage was connected with the reform in 189/8 concerning the holding of federal synodoi, previously at Aigion, thereafter in different cities of the koinon (cf Livy 38.30.3) = and indeed, the janiform coinage (one side federal, one side with civic symbols and markings) appears to be kata koinē kai kata poleis (cf Polyb. 2.37.9– 11).

Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach

197

of triobols belonging to the third group can be found in first century hoards in very good condition.14 The Achaian coinage studied here circulated mainly in Peloponnese, but also in central and western Greece, often in relation with the Makedonian wars – as Y. Touratsoglou and E. Tsourti have demonstrated – and Boiotian/Thessalian coinage can be found quite frequently in many Peloponnesian hoards.15 These hoards, dating back to the later Hellenistic period, occasionally combine some old coins of the 4th century BCE with more recent ones, as is the case in contemporary hoards from central Greece. Most feature standard or reduced Aeginetic coins, but also earlier or more recent coins of Attic or Rhodian standards. The Peloponnese did not form a limited monetary zone — a richly profitable domain for the state as was the case for the Ptolemaic kingdom — but was connected to a kind of monetary koinē stretching from Thessaly to the Peloponnese and from western Greece to Euboea (with the exception of Attica). Associating with minor coinages whose converging standards, achieved through metal clipping, made it easier to exchange different currencies.16 What is certain is that cities of the Achaian koinon struck only coinage of the reduced Aeginetic standard during this period. It is more difficult to tackle the question of whether the koinon’s member cities simultaneously struck federal and autonomous triobols, both of reduced Aeginetic standard, because putting a date on specific types of Megalopolitan and Spartan coins is still quite tricky – cf. federal and civic triobols issued at Messene with the same obverse die. What is clear, on the other hand, is that some cities did simultaneously strike koinon and autonomous bronze coins.17 * Several questions may now be raised about the structures of the koinon in terms of coinage: How were competences and power shared between the authorities of the koinon and the cities? How autonomous were the cities? We shall focus on the organization of the production of silver during the Early and Late periods of the Achaian coinage. We shall not include the ‘Final’ issues in the present discussion because their chronology is still challenged. 14

15 16

17

Boehringer 1991; Warren 1999; Grandjean 2003; contra: Touratsoglou and Tsourti 1991; Lakakis-Marchetti 1996; Oikonomides, Lakakis-Marchetti, Marchetti 2007. Numismatists are still in the middle of the debate on that hypothesis, but the technical features of these final issues (die studies, metrology, markings) have never been really studied: that seems to be necessary (cf the study in progress of the Olympia Hoard, IGCH 270, by A. Moustaka and C. Grandjean). Touratsoglou and Tsourti 1991. Cf. for example the hoards Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (IGCH 1973) 242, 246, 258, the Patras hoard Coin Hoards (CH 1994) 8, 454, and the hoards from Pselalonia, Patras (Tsangari and Alexopoulou 2003; cf. Hackens 1968, 95; Giovannini 1978). Messenian bronze civic and federal coins feature the same name on the reverse: ΔΕΞΙΑΣ. The same magistrate or benefactor may have been in charge of both issues (Grandjean 2003).

198

Catherine Grandjean

During the ‘early period’ (c.195/c.188–c.167 BCE), at least eleven mints struck triobols, most of them in the east and southeast of Peloponnese. The main mints were Antigoneia/Mantinea, Megara, and Patras. The amount of production doesn’t seem to obey the demographic proportional principle used for the designation of the nomographoi at the same time according to the Inscription from Aigion dating to c. 191–c.182 BCE.18 Sixteen mints struck triobols during the ‘late period’ (c. 167/160–c.150/146), most of them in the north. The main mints were at Elis and, as previously, Megara (as a border city?). Accordingly, the distribution of the production of these coins in the Peloponnese seems to be erratic and unequal. According to hoards and excavations, the distribution of federal silver in the Peloponnese gives the same picture. In Achaia, most of the coins found have been issued at Patras, Elis, and Messene (in the western Peloponnese). The portion of Megara and Antigoneia remains significant, but lower than the previous mints.19 Few federal triobols have been found in the excavations at Corinth, Nemea, and Argos from nearby and/or main mints: Patras 3, Antigoneia/Mantinea 3, Megara 2, Tegea 3, and Elis 3. The landscape is quite similar in Laconia–Messenia: Patras 29, Elis 31, Antigoneia 25, Megara 12, Sparta 10, Messene 5.20 Contemporary European studies on the distribution of the Euro gives a similar picture: the Euros issued in France and in Germany tend to circulate all over Europe, unlike those issued in smaller countries.21 Therefore, in the Achaian koinon, monetary circulation seems to reflect a natural circulation of coinage: one can neither detect a political influence on this patter nor a resistance to it. To go further, a hundred Achaian coins and other Peloponnesian triobols (Argos, Sicyon, Megalopolis, Patras, Messene, Sparta) dating to the 3rd–1st centuries BCE of the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque nationale de France have been analysed using the Orleans cyclotron. The results point to some interesting developments. The weights of the Achaian koinon coins are more homogenous than those of the other Peloponnesian (civic) triobols, but the silver bullion weight (silver is only a component of the alloy) of Achaian coins varies greatly. This means that federal authorities may well have controlled the end product (i.e. the weight of the coins), but that federal mints may have enjoyed unexpected freedom over the way the metal alloy was prepared. This was an essential stage in the manufacturing process of coins as their commercial value depended on their purity in silver. Therefore, it seems clear that the main point for the Achaians was not to get a prominent international coinage, but to give the Peloponnese a common coinage, as Polybios wrote. 18 19 20 21

Rizakis 2003. Zougra hoard (IGCH 261) cf Oeconomides, Lakakis-Marchetti, Marchetti 2007; Patras hoard 1973 (CH 8.454) cf. Agallopoulou-Kalliontzi 1979. Vellies hoard (CH 8.371); Epidaurus Limera hoard IGCH 258; Grandjean 2003; Messenia hoard (IGCH 301). Banque de France Eurosystème 2011; Deutsche Bundesbank Eurosystem 2011.

Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach

199

M. Thompson has shown that some silver federal triobols from Patras and Elis were struck with common obverse dies. This does not seem consistent with the notion that cities were left free to mint. She also underlined the similarity in the features of Zeus on the triobols struck by Antigoneia, Megalopolis and Messene around 175–168 BCE, which could come from one single mint, perhaps in Messene. And the “increasing use of adjunct markings” on the coins could instead point to centralized control of the coin production. This could lead us to think that production was centralised, prompting us to reconsider the question of syntelia and examine its validity in terms of numismatics. The notion once advanced by A. Ferrabino that the Achaian koinon was divided into military and tax districts was revived by T. Corsten and further considered by G. A. Lehmann and A. Rizakis.22 A. Ferrabino claimed the koinon was at that time divided into three districts or syntelies focused on Argos, Megalopolis, and Patras. Thomas Corsten calculated that there were at least five districts until 208/207 – which is the date mentioned in the Megalopolis inscription concerning Magnesia on the Meander (Syll.3 559). These districts were then redrawn into three more important districts around Patras, Megalopolis, and Argos. A. Rizakis later showed that this theory may be uncertain except in the case of the Patras district, and the coins do indeed agree with him. Zinc is very seldom found in Peloponnesian coins. The only coins of the Achaian koinon that have been found to contain Zinc are from the Achaian cities of Aigion, Dyme, and Patras, along with an Elean coin, out of which two dies are identical to the Patras Achaian coinage. Given that autonomous triobols later minted in Patras also contain some zinc, and that Patras was the most important mint in the northwestern Peloponnese, it might well then seem that the alloy used by other mints was prepared there. This in turn leads us to wonder whether the Patras syntelia, whose existence is attested in 217 and in 146 (Polybios 4.59–60; 5.95, 5–9; 38, 16.4), was also a monetary district. * Yet the homogeneity of the silver coins could lead us to suppose that they were controlled in various ways by the federal state, hence the link made by Polybios between weights, measures, and coins. The fact that there were common dies and central mints is evidence that production was at least partly conceived and planned at a higher level than that of the cities. Surviving documents certainly do not allow us to conclude whether this situation resulted from a federal decision or from agreements initiated by cities of their own free will. However, The Patras syntelia has to be regarded as a separate case altogether, but it may belong to the old core of the Achaian koinon. Another question arises regarding the role these coinages played in the creation of a Peloponnese united under the authority of the Achaian koinon. Polybios pre-

22

Ferrabino 1921; Corsten 1999; Lehmann 2001; Rizakis 2003.

200

Catherine Grandjean

sents money both as an element underlying military power and as an important constituent in the creation of an ‘allied and friendly community’; in short, currency is a factor behind unification just as much as shared laws and magistracies. The absence of coinage had limited the power of Sparta, and the city had never succeeded in uniting the Peloponnese under its leadership because it had not worked in the common interest, but for its own good motivated by avarice (just like the Makedonians or the Aitolians). In contrast, the Achaians were so fully dedicated to the general interest that the Peloponnese was completely united and brought together by common friendship, like a single city. In fact, it dispensed everything which compounds the political unity of a city-state, and notably money, whose importance to the broader social construct was known by the ancients only too well. As Aristotle wrote “They settled upon a custom by which all these things might be bought, calling it silver coinage nomisma and using it; and by each giving the value of each thing, they created exchange with one another, and thus kept together the political association (politikēn koinōnian)” (Aristotle, Mag. Mor. 1.33, 12 [1194a]). FIGURES

Figure 1: LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. ; 2,67 g ; Achaian siver triobol of aeginetic standard

Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach

201

Figure 2: CNG Electronic Auction 375, 341. 2016 June 1. 16,18g. Price 736. Argos silver tetradrachm of attic standard.

Figure 3 LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. 5,31g ; Pagai/Achaian; ΧΑΡΜΙΔΑΣ, ΑΧΑΙΩΝ ΠΑΓΑΙΩΝ ; bronze coin.

Figure 4 Dr Busso Pius Nachfolger Auction 378, 177, 2004 April 28. 2,21g. Elis/Achaian – silver tribal of reduced aeginetic (= symmachic) standard

202

Catherine Grandjean

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agallopoulou-Kalliontzi, P. (1979) Θησαυρος αργυρων τριωβολων απο την Πατραν, Αρχαιολογική Eφημερίς, 188–199. Banque de France (2011) La circulation fiduciaire, dix ans après l’introduction de l’euro, La Lettre du Fiduciaire 2. Bartzsch, N., R. Gerhard, and F. Seitz (2011) Foreign demand for euro banknotes issued in Germany: estimation using direct approaches, Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies 20, 1– 51. Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Boehringer, C. (1991) Zur geschichte der Achaischen liga im lichte des Münzfundes von Poggio Picenze (Abruzzen), in A. Rizakis (ed.), Αρχαία 'Αχαία και 'Ηλεία, Athens/Paris, 163–170. Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol.II, Athens. Chantraine, H. (1972) Der Beginn der jüngeren achäischen Bundesprägung, Chiron 2, 175–190. Clerk, M.G. (1895) Catalogue of the Coins of the Achaean League, London. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Ferrabino, A. (1921) Il Problema dell’unita nazionale nella Grecia antica, I, Arato di Sicione e l’idea nazionale, Florence. Giovannini, A. (1978) Rome et la circulation monétaire en Grèce au IIe s. avant J.-C., Basel. Grandjean, C. (2000) Guerre et monnaie en Grèce ancienne: le cas du koinon achaien, in J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat (eds.), Économie antique. La guerre dans les economies antiques, Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, 315–336. Grandjean, C. (2003) Les Messéniens de 370/369 au 1er s. de notre ère, Athens. Grunauer von Hoerschelmann, S. (1978) Die Münzprägung der Lakedaimonier, Berlin. Hackens, T. (1968) A propos de la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au IIIe s. av. J.-C., Antidorum W. Peremans sexagenario ab alumnis oblatum, Louvain, 69–95. Kraay, C. M. (1976) Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Oxford. Lakakis–Marchetti, M. (1996) A propos du monnayage achéens et des trésors qui le font connaître, ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ, Αφιέρωμα στη Μάντω Οικονομίδου, Athens, 147–156. Laroche, E. (1949) Histoire de la racine “nem” en grec ancien, in Etudes et commentaires VI, Paris. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Larsen, J.A.O. (1971) The Rights of Cities within the Achaean Confederacy, Classical Philology 66, 81–86. Lehmann, G. A. (2001) Ansätze zu einer Theorie des griechischen Bundesstaates bei Aristoteles und Polybios, Göttingen. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mallwitz, A. (ed.) (1999) Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Berlin. Moustaka, A. (1999) Die Fundmünzen der Südostgrabung, in A. Mallwitz (ed.), Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Berlin, 152–179. Nicolet–Pierre, H. and M. Oikonomides (1991) Le trésor de Zakynthos, Quaderni Ticinesi di Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 20, 161–191. Oikonomides, M., M. Lakakis–Marchetti, and P. Marchetti (2007) Le trésor de Zougra (IGCH 261) et la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au IIe siècle, Liber Amicorum T. Hackens, Louvain, 380–426. O’Neil, J.L. (1984–1986) The Political Elites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues, Ancient Society 15–17, 33–61. Pedech, P. (1964) La méthode historique de Polybe, Paris. Price, M.J. (1991) The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus, London/Zürich.

Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach

203

Psoma, S. and D. Tsangari (2003) Monnaie commune et Etats Fédéraux la circulation des monnayages frappés par les Etats Fédéraux du monde grec, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 111–141. Rizakis, A. (2003) Le collège des nomographes et le système de représentation dans le Koinon achéen, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 97–109. Roy, J. (2003) The Achaian League, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 81–95. Salmon, P. (1994) Le koinon tōn Boiōtōn, in L.A. Foresti (ed.), Federazioni e federalismo nell’Europa antica, Milan, 217–230. Thompson, M. (1968) The Agrinion Hoard, New York. Thompson, M., C.M. Kraay, and O. Morkholm (1973) An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, New York. Touratsoglou, Y. and E. Tsourti (1991) Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία των τριοβόλων της Αχαïκής συμπολιτείας στον Ελλαδικό χώρο: η μαρτυρία των θησαυρών, in A. Rizakis (ed.), Αρχαία 'Αχαία και 'Ηλεία, Athens/Paris, 171–188. Troxell, H.A. (1971) The Peloponnesian Alexanders, Museum Notes 17, 41–94. Troxell, H. A. (1982) The Coinage of the Lycian League, New York. Tsangari, D.I. and G.Z. Alexopoulou (2003) Deux tresors hellénistiques de Pselalonia de Patras, Eulimene 4, 153–162. Walbank, F.W. (1933) Aratos of Sicyon, Cambridge. Walbank, F.W. (2002) Hellenes and Achaeans: ‘Greek Nationality’ revisited, in F.W. Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 137–152. Warren, J.A. (1999) The Achaian League Silver Coinage Controversy Resolved: A Summary, The Numismatic Chronicle 159, 99–109. Warren, J.A. (2007) The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal, London. Warren, J.A. (2008) The Framework of the Achaian Koinon, in C. Grandjean (ed.), Le Péloponnèse d’Epaminondas à Hadrien, Bordeaux, 91–100. Wartenberg, U. (ed.) (1994) Coin Hoards Greek volume VIII, London.

DISSIMILAR BROTHERS: SIMILARITIES VERSUS DIFFERENCES OF THE ACHAIAN AND AITOLIAN LEAGUES Kostas Buraselis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens I. Hans Beck has once pertinently remarked that the southern and the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf may be seen as a mirror image of each other.1 An often very narrow coastal plain is immediately followed on both sides by a high mountain chain. However, while Achaia was early on a landscape of important cities, a number of them sea-oriented (like Patrai or Aigion), Aitolian settlements were clearly centred inland and only gradually developing to extensive city structures since the late classical period.2 The Aitolians’ turn to the Corinthian Gulf was also a later development, actually secured only after the addition of the stronghold of Naupaktos, a grant of Philip II. Those basic geographical similarities but also differences in practical assets and orientation built up the whole background for the development on both sides of the gulf of the most successful Greek federal states of postAlexander Greece, those of the Achaians and the Aitolians. These two regular enemies during the same period shared, nevertheless, not only phases of decided collaboration (see below) but also other common features in their political and strategic aims as well as their constitutional and social structure, which may entitle us to call them ‘dissimilar brothers’. It will be the purpose of this study to examine some of their various affinities but also their differences, and point to some eventual convergences or even mutual influences on each other’s historical development. There are two main methodological precautions in this effort. First, the state of the existing sources on the two confederacies is also dissimilar. As already remarked,3 Achaia is privileged by the (even partial) preservation of Polybios’ work, thus having its data and also viewpoint of things firmly established in our historical tradition. On the other hand, despite Rizakis’ valuable recent corpus of Achaian inscriptional evidence4 and some spectacular very recent additions to our relevant

1 2 3 4

Beck 1997, 55. On this difficult question in detail: Funke 1997, esp. 168–72. Thus i.a. Grainger 1999, xvf; Roy 2003, 81. Rizakis 1998, 2008.

206

Kostas Buraselis

sources,5 we possess at present much less inscribed data on Achaia than on Aitolia. Therefore, the latter’s structure and development can be elucidated by many stone documents issued by and concerning the league, while the absence of any Aitolian Polybios cannot be replaced by the scattered information on Aitolia mainly in the (inimical) Achaian historian’s work and Livius. Furthermore, even Polybios never speaks in detail about the internal structure of Achaia and even less Aitolia, to a large extent presupposing his readers’ knowledge of the institutions of both Achaians and Aitolians and concentrating on a narrative history where institutional flashes are kept to a minimum, often a propagandistically coloured one. Due to this elliptic infrastructure any reconstruction of the constitutional framework of both leagues necessarily presents essential gaps and uncertainties, which cannot be filled by whatever observations scholarly labour and ingenuity may produce as hopeful remedies. This might be best exemplified by the question of the specific function and political quality of Achaian assemblies, persisting as a notorious ‘Gordian knot’ of ancient institutional history, as we shall also come to see. Therefore, the inherent fundamental limitations of the present undertaking should be borne in mind. II. As a sort of introduction, a concise comparative sketch of Achaian and Aitolian foreign policy might help. The external relations of both confederacies contain a basic point of temporary convergence and then constant divergence in their respective history: relations with Makedonia. Despite the already mentioned instant favour of Philip II for Aitolia, both leagues underwent difficult times under Alexander and developed afterwards in the shadow and as local reactions to the Makedonian effort to control the world of cities in Southern Greece. This tended to unite them against a common enemy of their autonomy as it actually happened in their common action against Demetrios II in the 230s BCE.6 However, another basic point in their policies was the tendency to expand their respective spheres of influence to the other side of the Corinthian Gulf. Classical Achaia had once managed to incorporate Kalydon and Naupaktos in its territories, while Hellenistic Aitolia had not refrained from planning in the Hellenistic age a partition of Achaia with Antigonos Gonatas,7 and, even later, from often intervening in the ‘Achaian’ Peloponnese. They were too similar to always keep off hands from each other. The turning-point of permanent alienation between them came with the Achaians’ sacrifice of their anti-Makedonian orientation to securing their survival as an important political factor against Kleomenian Sparta and the consequent policy of

5 6 7

E.g. the new document from Messene on territorial arbitration within the League: LuraghiMagnetto 2012. Pol. 2.44.1. Cf. Hammond-Walbank 1988, 324f. Pol. 2.43.9; 9.34.6. Cf. Hammond-Walbank 1988, 311–313 .

Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 207

a sort of Makedonian-Achaian condominium in the Peloponnese through the Hellenic Alliance of Doson and Aratos. In contrast, the Aitolians never returned to really and pronouncedly friendly relations with their northern neighbours of Makedonia. Even after both Aitolia’s and Makedonia’s defeat by the Romans there never appeared any systematic understanding and collaboration between the two old, now similarly humiliated enemies. Some diplomatic approaches around the end and after the Antiochic War cannot be overestimated.8 When the Romans appeared on the chessboard of Greece, Aitolians and Achaians took again always different paths, trying to serve their interests as members of opposed alliances. The more adventurous Aitolians first welcomed the Romans as allies in Greece to be also first alienated with, then opposed to them openly and finally humiliated by them in the Antiochic War. On the other hand, the Achaians, after their own impressive change of alliance (practically, allegiance) from Makedonia to Rome in the Second Makedonian War, kept on trying to combine their struggle for local hegemony in the Peloponnese with their loyalty to Rome until the bitter end of the Achaian War.9 The Achaians appear on the whole to have acted with more care and circumspection, ready to accept and sustain compromises, first with Makedonia and then with Rome, while the Aitolians proved more openly recalcitrant both to Makedonian hegemony and then to the fine but firm rules of Roman imperial over-control. III. On the institutional level one may again spot various interesting similarities but also differences between the two ‘brothers’. A sanctuary, that of Zeus Homarios at Aigion for the Achaians,10 that of Apollo at Thermon for the Aitolians,11 constituted in both cases the traditional centre of the confederacy and its conferential meetingpoint, as also in many other Greek confederacies. However, Aigion, to which the federal cult of the Achaians was attached, was a polis while Thermon basically no more than a cult place (and a depository of concomitant offerings and utensils). The environment of Thermon was a slumbering settlement, only periodically reviving during the yearly celebrated federal festival of the Thermika and the contemporaneous assembly of the Aitolians in the autumn, where Aitolian magistrates were

8

Cf. Grainger 1999, 468–473, 507–510, correctly rejecting any serious rapprochement of Philip V and the Aitolians (through Nikandros) in the last phase of the Antiochic War, even after the final peace between Aitolians and Rome in 189. Perseus’ alliance with Aitolia (Appian, Mak. 11.1: Αἰτωλοῖς συμμαχήσας) seems on all rest evidence to be just part of Eumenes II’s tendentious presentation of contemporary Makedonia’s success to the Romans and is certainly not to be interpreted as a general and official re-orientation of Aitolian policy towards Rome and Makedonia. Cf. Grainger ib., 515, 523; Hammond-Walbank 1988, 494f (less nuanced). 9 An overview of this development is offered by Bastini 1987. 10 Pol. 2.39.6; 5.93.10. Str. 7.385. Cf. the detailed analysis by Rizakis 2013. 11 Pol. 5.8.5–7. Str. 10.3.2 = Ephoros FGrH 70 F 122. Cf. Funke 2013.

208

Kostas Buraselis

elected. The more explicit, earlier established polis-character of the Achaian koinon may be discerned here, too. The gradual expansion of the Aitolian confederacy in the third century was accompanied by the creation of a second yearly meeting of the Aitolians, called Panaitolika and taking place at various cities inside the Aitolian territories (thus e.g. at Hypata, the capital of the Ainianes). The existence of this periodical possibility to convene the Aitolians elsewhere than at their traditional centre certainly allowed a better integration of new territories into the life of the league as one has to consider the difficulties of traveling to other places for local Aitolian populations, especially of lesser means. While the Aitolians prove here to be early realists, the Achaians remained long traditionalists. It is noteworthy that they first decided after a debated proposal of Philopoimen in 188 to organize meetings of their own constitutional bodies also far from Aigion, which greatly regretted that.12 Thus, later meetings of the Achaians took place at Megalopolis, Corinth, Argos, Sikyon and other cities as well as Aigion. One can see how important this reform was for the better cohesion of the Achaian League as several important cities became alternatingly centres of important discussions and decisions. The Achaians may have been here inspired by the practical Aitolian example as already Holleaux has thought probable.13 Two other points where one may spot institutional similarities, possibly to be explained in the same way, concern the principal office of the two leagues and the beginning of its tenure. Polybios expressly reports that the Achaian League when revived in 280 and until 255 BCE had as supreme executive officials two strategoi.14 Then, beginning with Margos from Keryneia, the Achaians preferred to “entrust their whole fate” (πιστεύειν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὅλων) to one strategos, a post to which distinguished Achaians like Aratos were often elected in later years. Of course, there could be other models for this innovation. However, the efficiency of Aitolian leadership, traditionally following the same rule of one general at the head of their state, in the preceding decades of Galatic invasion and ensuing expansion of the Aitolians in central Greece, cannot have failed to impress neighbours. Furthermore, the time of the election of this sole general was for the Aitolians the autumnal equinox, in the context of the already mentioned Thermika, while the original respective period of election for the Achaians was according to Polybios approximately the rise of the Pleiades, that is in late spring/beginning summer.15 This custom was very unpractical in respect to war needs as a general might thus be already engaged in operations and then have to hand over command to a successor in the middle of a campaign, a situation that did occur. It is no surprise then that the Achaians decided a reform of their administrative system in this point, too, around 210 BCE, probably since the last year of the Social War (217).16 From then 12 Liv. 38.30.1–5. Cf. Errington 1969, 137–140; Roy 2003, 87; Rizakis 2008, 162; Funke 2013, 57. 13 Holleaux 1905, 372. 14 Pol. 2.43.1–2. 15 Pol. 4.37.1–2. 16 Cf. Larsen 1968, 220.

Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 209

on Achaian generals were also elected and entered their office in the autumn. That seems again to have been a wise coordination with Aitolian data. IV. The circle of those entrusted with the generalship in the two leagues betrays again similarities and differences. A detailed prosopographical study by James L. O’Neil has shown that both in Aitolia and in Achaia one finds often members of a social and administrative elite in possession of this office.17 However, in Achaia we find cases where a high accumulation of such yearly tenures for one man appears: thus, sixteen times for Aratos and eight for Philopoimen. In Aitolia the recordman was Pantaleon I with only five such periods of service, followed by i.a. Thoas with four and others like Skopas II with three. The generous aristocratic dose in Polybios’ glorified Achaian democracy is obvious. In contrast, there seems to have been much less room left in Aitolia for the deployment of important leaders’ ambitions. Setbacks as that experienced by Skopas in his debt-policy seem to find no parallel in the case of Achaian leadership. On the geographical level, the same analysis by O’Neil18 showed that in Aitolia, especially in the period until ca 220 BCE, a frequent provenience for the generals of the league was the area around Thermon, that is ‘Old Aitolia’, probably for both practical (propinquity to the place of elections) and essential reasons of continuity in leadership. At the same time, the distribution of lesser offices in Aitolia seems to have secured a better internal balance of representation and to have promoted cohesion. In Achaia the major cities of originally non-Achaian identity like Megalopolis and Sikyon were highly represented in generalship, while others like Argos or Sparta much less. However, apart from Sparta, this does not seem to have generated any internal federal tensions originating from poleis rarely or not at all represented in Achaian leadership. V. As far as other magistrates and deliberative bodies are concerned, the two confederacies present again basic similarities and characteristic differences. Both Achaians and Aitolians possessed primary assemblies, councils and boards of magistrates.19 In the case of the Aitolians discussion and voting procedure in both already mentioned popular assemblies of the year followed the norm of Greek democratic practice, that is general participation of assembled citizens from all member states

17 O’Neil 1984–1986. 18 To which now the more recent one by Grainger 2000, 48–52 may be added. 19 On this basic institutional similarity of the two leagues: Giovannini 1971, 25f.

210

Kostas Buraselis

and personal vote.20 Addressing the assembled people and winning their favour for whatever proposal is underlined as a means of success for competing statesmen.21 There was a boule with its leading officials, appearing as boularchoi/boularchountes, possibly but not necessarily identical with another executive body, the apokletoi. Both committees seem to have acted as a sort of federal government.22 Important interim decisions between the two yearly assemblies had to be taken on that administrative level while big issues like war, peace and relevant agreements were reserved for the gatherings of the people (as in the negotiation of Aitolian surrender after the Antiochic War).23 The respective state of things for Achaia is at first sight better known, and finally better debatable. As already noted, the question of Achaian assemblies has become a notorious crux of Hellenistic constitutional history.24 To summarize our data, the Achaians did also have a primary assembly, appearing as ekklesia in Polybios, and a boule (a council). A board somehow comparable with the Aitolian boularchountes/apokletoi seems to have been here the damiorgoi, which were responsible for convening the deliberative bodies, introducing the questions to be treated by them and caring for the publication of the ensuing decisions.25 However, our sources use two further terms to describe these deliberative bodies: synodos and synkletos, whose significance and function is still disputed. An older orthodoxy, based on J.A.O. Larsen’s analysis,26 understood synodoi as meetings originally of all assembled Achaian citizens but later, from c. the beginning of the second century, of only the council of the Achaians. Synkletos was in the same view an exceptional meeting of the council with an eventual participation of at least part of the people. This interpretation went hand-in-hand with a view recognizing a gradual

20 Larsen 1952 studied Aitolian assemblies in detail and emphasized the democratic character of the Aitolian League. Grainger 1999, 171–173, 182–187 examined the subject again but he finally came to deny the notion of an Aitolian democracy preferring to speak of ‘not merely an oligarchy, but an aristocracy’ (186). On Aitolian assemblies also: Scholten 2000, 26; Funke 2013. 21 Thus e.g. in Pol. 2.2.10 Aitolian statesmen appear as ‘exhorting the assembled people’ (παρακαλούντων τὰ πλήθη) to win them for their views on how the successive generals should share glory and booty after an expected victory. 22 Cf. Grainger 1999, 173–178, who understands boularchoi as members of the boula (176) and apokletoi as a special committee of the council ‘set up for the purpose of planning and of liaising with Antiochos (III)’ (178); Scholten 2000, 27f, who sees the apokletoi as a committee chosen from the members of the boula to deal with ‘more routine activities, such as the reception and sending of embassies’. 23 Pol. 20.10.11–17. Liv. 36. 28.7–29.1. Cf. Grainger 1999, 468. 24 A basic (and necessarily selective) bibliography includes: Aymard 1938, with a still noteworthy concluding sketch (397–421) of Achaian assemblies and their limits of comparison with the Aitolian ones; Larsen 1968, esp. 223–231; Giovannini 1969; Errington 1969, 6f, 137–140; Walbank 1970; Roy 2003, 87. 25 Cf. the concise synthesis of the Achaian federal damiorgoi’s functions given by VeligianniTerzi 1977, 103–107; Rizakis 2008, 165. 26 Larsen l952.

Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 211

development of the Achaians from the practice of a direct towards a more representative form of democratic procedure. A younger theory (Giovannini)27 has tried to reclaim the Achaians’ genuine democratic practice by interpreting all attested synodoi as full popular assemblies and declaring synkletos a constitutional non-entity in the Achaian confederacy, as being just an exceptional sort of gathering but not a clearly defined and recognized institution of the league. To begin from this latter point, one may stress first that the term synkletos for a form of Achaian assembly does not only appear once in Polybios28 but also in an Oropian decree29 dealing with the presence and diplomatic entreaties of Oropian exiles to the Achaians in ca 150 BCE. Thus, it would not do to disband term and notion of the Achaian synkletos from specific constitutional existence and the contemporary technical vocabulary. In this inscription the context allows one to see synkletos as an additional, extraordinary assembly of whatever synthesis to deal with a special question to be faced by the Achaians. The Oropian request had first been presented at a regular synodos in Corinth to be examined further at a synkletos to take place next in Argos. It is reassuring that in the well-known (and vexed) Polybian passage narrating the context of the Achaean synkletos convened at Sikyon in 168 BCE to finally decide on sending military aid to Ptolemaic Egypt or Seleucid Syria, or send an embassy of reconciliation to both, a similar pattern emerges.30 A synodos at Corinth had been previously convened and, after a hot discussion, finally declared legally unable to resolve the question so that a subsequent synkletos had to take place and reach a decision. Polybios expressly reports two significant facts on this course of events: first that the examination of the requests for aid from Alexandria and Antiochia ‘in full assembly’ (ἐν ἀγορᾷ) was in the end recognized as inappropriate and interrupted. Then (and understandably therefore) those to participate in the synkletos at Sikyon have been only the members of the Achaian council and all Achaians above the age of thirty (συγκλήτου…, ἐν ᾗ συνέβαινε μὴ μόνον συμπορεύεσθαι τὴν βουλὴν ἀλλὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀπὸ τριάκοντ' ἐτῶν).31 The basic reasonable conclusion seems to be that a synkletos was mainly a body where decisions had to be taken if the argument in a more open assembly form, for whatever reason, had failed to bring a result. However, the fundamental core of the Achaian synkletos was the council (boule), supplemented in this case by all Achaians above the age of thirty. It is remarkable that all younger Achaians were thus excluded from a meeting with an immediate bearing on their own eventual and imminent military service! By whatever further constitutional interpretation, this is an important finding: Achaian deliberations often knew to remain as exclusive as desirable for the sober efficiency of Achaian government. 27 Giovannini 1969, 7: ‘‘Synklètos’ est bien un terme technique et précis (l’inscription d’Oropos ne laisse aucun doute sur ce point), mais contrairement à l’opinion généralement admise, il sert à désigner les assemblées dont ni la composition, ni les compétences ne sont fixées par les lois achéennes. Autant dire que s’il existe des synklètoi, la synklètos, elle n’existe pas’ (cf. ib. 13). 28 Pol. 29.24.6. 29 IG VII. 411= Syll.3 675= Petrakos, I. Oropos, 307. 30 Pol. 29.24–25. 31 Pol. 24.6.

212

Kostas Buraselis

The synodoi of the Achaians themselves cannot have been exclusive in any sense as far as physical presence is concerned. We may conclude this from a series of Polybian passages, not least the famous report on the final and fatal such meeting at Corinth in the spring of 146 BCE, on the eve of the Achaic War, where Kritolaos according to Polybios ‘moved and roused the crowds’ (ἐκίνει καὶ παρώξυνε τοὺς ὄχλους), an unprecedented number of people of low social origin being also forcefully present (συνηθροίσθη πλῆθος ἐργαστηριακῶν καὶ βαναύσων ἀνθρώπων ὅσον οὐδέποτε).32 Now, the crucial thing is again which sort of vote this meeting would result in. Polybios does not fail to allude here to the fact that the risky patriotic enthusiasm had seized “all the cities but in its totality the city of Corinth” (πᾶσαι μὲν γὰρ ἐκορύζων αἱ πόλεις, πανδημεὶ δὲ καὶ μάλιστά πως ἡ τῶν Κορινθίων). This remark is not simply narrative and should be interpreted in a broader but specific historical context. For we know from two other clear incidents reported by Livius (that is, finally also from Polybios)33 that the voting procedure of Achaian synodoi was based on the system of civic representations to them. Thus already at the historical volte-face-meeting of the Achaians, turning now to collaboration with Rome, at Aigion in 198 BCE the voting took clearly place by poleis as they were represented in the synodos, which Livius properly describes as concilium.34 The same system of voting appears also expressly in the Achaian decision to declare war against Sparta in 189 BCE as reported by Livius.35 In other words, the voting members of the assembly were grouped in city delegations, and accompanied by whatever crowd of Achaians might also be present and willing to express by noise and shouts their opinions on the arguments presented. It seems to me therefore mistaken to try to find here a formal solution to the problem of whether Achaian assemblies were bodies of democratic representation or not. They seem to have basically consisted of the official groups of city delegates in the Achaian boule, the council, as voters but the presence of whoever Achaian would be practically able to be present was fully acceptable, and psychologically and finally proved to be weighty. The Achaians voted in an aristocratic representative fashion but under the impact of a very democratically composed crowd. In contrast to Aitolia, discreet methods of aristocratic control were instilled into Achaian deliberative practice of popular assemblies but the synodoi could not become and did not become a closed society. A partial remedy of that was the alternative of the synkletos. On the sense of the latter one should also consider the important detail that Polybios sees no problem in using the same term to describe in many passages the Roman senate.36 32 Pol. 38.12.10 and 5. 33 Walbank 1976/7, 41f is rightly unwilling to suppose that Livius misunderstood Polybios in these cases. 34 Liv. 32.22.1–23.3, also. 22.4: supererat unus iusti concilii dies. That not only councillors but also a crowd of simple citizens was also present and actively involved in the deliberation emerges repeatedly in the same report (esp. 22.1, 4, 8). 35 Liv. 38.32.1. 36 Cf. the Polybius-Lexikon, Bd. III. 1 (bearb. von C.-F. Collatz / M. Gützlaf / H. Helms), Berlin 2002, s.v. I (Sp. 172–178). The aristocratic, numerically and clearly distinct sense of the term, compared with that of a full popular assembly, in Polybian usage emerges also from the passage

Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 213

The essence of a closed (or at least potentially closer) society must have rendered this usage possible. On the practical aspect of participation in Achaian synodoi one should also especially note the report of Polybios on Eumenes II’s offer in 187 BCE to the council (boule) of the Achaians to finance the participation of the councillors in the ‘common assemblies’ (κοιναῖς συνόδοις) of the confederacy.37 The apparent conclusion is that even the core participation of the Achaians, i.e. that of the councillors, in the synodoi was financially not self-understandable. This must have been also the case, a fortiori, for most other citizens of Achaia, not in the sense of a notional right but as a factual possibility. The democratic frame did exist no less than its corresponding aristocratic reality. VI. Another point of similarity between the political organization of the Achaian and the Aitolian confederacy was their (poorly-attested) division into local districts of military mobilization and general administrative units. The basic term for these districts seems to have been telos (τέλος), and the variant to express the active collaboration/contingent originating from these local clusters synteleia (συντέλεια). Thus, Polybios speaks of such a synteleia of Patrai, active in the Social War, who happened to be under the command of Lykos of Pharai (as a hypostrategos of the synteleia).38 Patrai as the most important community of the district gave it its name. A further passage of Polybios, however, presents Dyme, Tritaia and Pharai in a specific historical context as the most active members of the district under the hypostrategos Mikkos from Dyme.39 Thus, four neighbour Achaian cities seem to have composed this synteleia in the western part of ‘Old Achaia’. The existence of this organizational unit of Patrai and its synteleia must have continued until the years of the Achaic War.40 We do not possess further evidence on any other such districts in Achaia but it would be very improbable to postulate the case of the Patrian synteleia as an exceptional arrangement in the league.

37 38

39

40

of Pol. 15.1.5 where the Carthaginian σύγκλητος is contrasted to the πολλοί (: the popular assembly!) of Carthage. Pol. 22.7.3. Pol. 5.94.1 (217 BCE): …τοὺς δὲ μισθοφόρους συνέστησε [sc. Aratos] Λύκῳ τῷ Φαραιεῖ, διὰ τὸ τοῦτον ὑποστράτηγον εἶναι τότε τῆς συντελείας τῆς Πατρικῆς. Cf. on this synteleia and the office of hypostrategos Larsen 1968, 221; Corsten 1999, 166–170. Pol. 4.59.2: Ὁ δὲ Μίκκος ὁ Δυμαῖος, ὅσπερ ἐτύγχανε κατ' ἐκείνους τοὺς καιροὺς [219 BCE] ὑποστράτηγος ὢν τῶν ᾿Αχαιῶν, ἐκβοηθήσας πανδημεὶ τούς τε Δυμαίους καὶ Φαραιεῖς, ἅμα δὲ καὶ Τριταιεῖς ἔχων, προσέκειτο τοῖς πολεμίοις ἀπαλλαττομένοις. The absence of any mention of Patrai in this context cannot suggest a different local unit (thus also Corsten 1999, 167 with n. 37), unless Patrai had not yet been added to that of Dyme, Pharai and Tritaia as the main (and name-giving) community. However, there may have been unknown contemporary reasons for the Patraian non-appearance in that episode of the early Social War. In this case a derivative adjective denotes the same idea, ib. 38.16.4: Πατρεῖς δὲ καὶ τὸ μετὰ τούτων συντελικὸν βραχεῖ χρόνῳ πρότερον ἐπταίκει κατὰ τὴν Φωκίδα…

214

Kostas Buraselis

In the case of the Aitolians we do hear with certainty (a) of a ‘telos of Stratos’ (Στρατικοῦ τέλεος) in a decree of land arbitration from Thermon dated to 235–230 BCE, that is in a period when Akarnania, and thus also Stratos, was incorporated into the Aitolian League,41 and (b) of ‘a telos of the Lokroi’ (Λοκρικοῦ τέλεος) which produced a certain (Aitolian) boularchon in a Delphic manumission document of 189/8 BCE.42 It would be rather bold to conclude much more about the functional importance of these tele in the federal organization of the Aitolians.43 However, the existence of these geographical-administrative units and their apparent capacity to cover larger areas (like that of the West Lokrian region) distinctly points again to an affinity with the Achaian League. Let us be content with that in the framework of this study as any detailed and secure comparison of the two leagues in this respect seems at present impossible. VII. Another remarkable difference in the administrative structure of Achaians and Aitolians is the existence of a high officer of the Achaians with the title of nauarchos while there is no mention of a similar magistrate in the Aitolian League. The Achaian nauarchos appears third in the confederacy’s hierarchy after the strategos and the hipparchos in the document regulating the admission of Orchomenos (c. 234 BCE) into the league.44 That the Achaians possessed and used naval power is quite natural and attested.45 This was also a not negligible aspect of their strength as allies of Makedonia and Rome. 41 IG IX.12 1, 3 B, l.2: …κρῖμα γαϊκὸν Στρατικοῦ τέλεος. 42 GDI II. 2070, l.1. 43 Cf. Funke 1997, 158f, and then the substantial analysis by Corsten 1999, 134–159. In any case, it is clear that we need more sources to feel on safer ground concerning the function of tele in both the Aitolian and the Achaian Leagues. 44 IG V.2 344= Syll.3 490= Staatsv. III. 499, l.7. 45 Already the integration of Aigina into the Achaian League (229 BCE: Plut., Arat. 34.7, cf. Pol. 2.44.6) suggests some Achaian naval power. In 229 there was a fleet of ten Achaian kataphraktoi, manned in an emergency by Achaians and Aitolians together, which dared face the IllyrianAkarnanian naval alliance (Pol. 2.9.8–10.5). It is noteworthy that an important ex-strategos of the Achaian League, Margos of Keryneia, participated and died during those operations. We have then some evidence from Polybios for naval activities of the Achaians during the Social War: first, Philip V appears relying partly on Achaian collaboration to build a considerable fleet in 218 (Pol. 5.2.4). Then, during 217, we read at 5.94.7–9 of naval operations under the Achaian admiral’s command against the Aitolians. Ib. 95.3 reports that four Corinthian ships would assist the Makedonian fleet, while ib. 11–12 we hear of repeated successful raids of the Achaian admiral in the areas of Kalydon and Naupaktos. Livius adds some later instances of Achaian action at sea: 28.8.7 (in 207 Philip V uses six Achaian ships to cross over from the Peloponnese to Antikyra), 35.26 (neglect and weakness of the Achaian fleet in Philopoimen’s time, 192 BCE). Thus, the overall verdict of Busolt-Swoboda 1926, 1572 ‘unbedeutende Bundesflotte’ certainly understates the significance of the Achaian navy during a longer period as it emerges from the above-mentioned occasions. Cf. also Kleu 2015, esp. 32–34, 39f, 74, 185f on the Achaian contributions to Philip’s fleet.

Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 215

On the other hand, Aitolian activities and operations at sea are also well-known, and somehow connected with the wider expansion of the league and its sometimes remote influence. Therefore one would expect a similarly attested, public magistracy concerning the Aitolian navy – even their flotillas of smaller ships– in the context of the Aitolian state machine. A tentative explanation for the absence of this official integration of the navy into the federal administration of the Aitolians may be the essence of their seafaring.46 Their standard piratical expeditions were very probably based on an extensive practice of privateering, simply and loosely, and without a possibly cumbersome responsibility, which would have been undertaken by the Aitolian state. The Achaians counted more on military discipline and officeholding, the Aitolians might partly dispense with similar measures to serve their specific needs and modes of action. VIII. Some concise conclusions may be in place after this series of observations. Polybios broadly conveys an ideal image of Achaia as a world of democratic and orderly collaboration among Peloponnesian cities, while Aitolia is pictured as a backward and rapacious society, lacking in civilized spirit and real capacity to coexist in an international world. In contrast with this prejudiced view, one may certify basic institutional and constitutional similarities of the two confederacies and a trait of elite rule concerning leadership in both. However, the Achaians seem to have retained more of a discreetly aristocratic character in their official organization, a greater flexibility and readiness to compromises in their foreign policy and an adaptability of their institutions to more functional standards. The Aitolians may have deserved at least part of their fame of plunderers47 but this seems to have been combined with more devotion to democratic and integrative practice within their confederate structures. Despite similarities, the two koina remained dissimilar in

46 Cf. Benecke’s 1934, 15 still judicious remark: ‘…der aitolische Bund besaß überhaupt keine eigene Flotte, sondern war eben nur auf die geschickt behandelten Piratenführer und später auf die Schiffe der Kephallenen und anderer Bundesgenossen angewiesen’. Grainger 1999, 212f is puzzled by the ‘almost invisible’ Aitolian naval strength in our sources, which he comments on as ‘very odd for a state reported to be addicted to piracy’. Scholten 2000, 107 also concludes ‘the absence of a regular navy’ in the case of the Aitolians. Funke 2008 has carefully scrutinized the evidence for the Aitolians’ activities in the Aegean and concluded that they should be mainly dated to the two last decades of the third century BCE., without supporting the thesis of a conscious and systematic sea policy of the Aitolian state in the same area. This is fully compatible with the absence of an official ‘state navy’ of the Aitolians. 47 Grainger 1999, 3–25 devotes a long introductory section in his monograph to disprove the notion of Aitolia as ‘a pirate state’. His reaction to a still current view of the League’s essence has certainly a positive value but an a priori apologetic stance does not really help restore a sober historical balance.

216

Kostas Buraselis

many points of scope and practice,48 and they both rose and fell due to their ultimately unsuccessful effort to combine their basic quests for autonomy and local hegemony. They resembled each other most in their weaknesses. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aymard, A. (1938) Les assemblées de la confédération achaienne: Étude critique d’institutions et d’histoire, Bordeaux. Bastini, A. (1987) Der Achäische Bund als hellenische Mittelmacht. Geschichte des Achäischen Koinon in der Symmachie mit Rom, Frankfurt. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Benecke, H. (1934) Die Seepolitik der Aitoler (PhD Thesis) Hamburg. Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History, vol. II, Athens. Busolt, G., and H. Swoboda (1920–1926) Griechische Staatskunde, vols. I–II, München. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Errington, R.M. (1969) Philopoemen, Oxford. Funke, P. (1994) Staatenbünde und Bundesstaaten. Polis-übergreifende Herrschaftsorganisationen in Griechenland und Rom, in K. Buraselis (ed.), Unity and Units of Antiquity. Papers from a Colloquium at Delphi, Athens, 125–136. Funke, P. (1997) Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr., in M.H. Hansen (ed.) The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 145–188. Funke, P. (2008) Die Aitoler in der Ägäis. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Seepolitik der Aitoler im 3. Jh. v. Chr., in E. Winter (ed.), Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike. Festschrift für E. Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn, 253–267. Funke, P. (2013) Thermika und Panaitolika. Alte und neue Zentren im Aitolischen Bund, in P. Funke and Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries, Stuttgart, 49–64. Funke, P. and M. Haake (eds.) (2013) Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart. Giovannini, A. (1969) Polybe et les assemblées achéennes, Museum Helveticum 26, 1–17. Giovannini, A. (1971) Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland, Göttingen. Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians, Leiden. Grainger, J.D. (2000) Aitolian Prosopographical Studies, Leiden. Hammond, N.G.L. and F.W. Walbank (1988) A History of Macedonia, III: 336–176 B.C., Oxford. Holleaux, M. (1905) Sur les assemblées ordinaires de la Ligue Aitolienne, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 29, 362–372. Kleu, M. (2015) Die Seepolitik Philipps V. von Makedonien, Bochum. Larsen, J.A.O. (1952) The Assembly of the Aetolian League, TAPA 83, 1–33. Larsen, J. A. O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford.

48 Another difference in regard to relations between the league members may be discerned in the apparently (after the extant sources) much more systematically exercised arbitration of territorial disputes within the Achaian koinon in comparison with the Aitolians. On this aspect of Achaian inner organization see the basic study by K. Harter-Uibopuu, Das zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im Achäischen Koinon. Zur friedlichen Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln et al. 1998. Cf. also the new text and the study cited in n. 5 above.

Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 217 Luraghi, N. and A, Magnetto (2012) The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New Inscription from Messene (With an Appendix by Christian Habicht), Chiron 42, 509–550. O’Neil, J.L. (1980) Who Attended Achaian Assemblies?, Museum Helveticum 37, 41–49. O’Neil, J.–L. (1984–1986) The political elites of the Achaian and Aitolian leagues, Ancient Society 15–17, 33–61. Rizakis, A. (1998) Achaïe II. La cité de Patras: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens. Rizakis, A. (2008) Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens/Paris. Rizakis, A. (2013) États féderaux et sanctuaires: Zeus Homarios et la construction de l’identité achéenne, in P. Funke and M. Haake, Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart, 13–47. Roy, J. (2003) The Achaian League, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 81–95. Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder. Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley. Veligianni–Terzi, C. (1977) Damiurgen. Zur Entwicklung einer Magistratur (PhD Thesis) Heidelberg. Walbank, F.W. (1970) The Achaean Assemblies again, Museum Helveticum 27, 129–143. Walbank, F.W. (1976–1977) Were there Greek federal states?, Scripta Classica Israelica 3, 27–51.

ACHAIANS AND LYKIANS: A COMPARISON OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS Athanassios Rizakis National Hellenic Research Foundation I. INTRODUCTION: IN SEARCH OF THE BEST FEDERAL CONSTITUTION* Although the system of the polis remained at the centre of Greek political philosophy during the Classical and Hellenistic eras, federalist ideas gained widespread distribution, especially by the end of the former and the beginning of the latter period. This reorientation of political thought led to various experiences, as it became increasingly evident that the polis-system could no longer confront the new political realities created after the death of Alexander. As this new political structure generally copied the tripartite organization of the polis (primary assembly, i.e. ekklēsia, representative assembly, i.e. boulē, and the body of magistrates, i.e. archontes), it is hardly surprising to find titles for various functions that remind us of their equivalents at the urban level.1 The various experiences of federalism through the Greek world create, mutatismutandis, a federal culture which became a new weapon in the arsenal of Greek political ideas, although it did not have the same intellectual impact as the polis model which preceded it. The majority of the Hellenistic koina are symmetrical federations, that is to say, political unions in which the activities of the government are divided between regional and central levels in such a way that each tier of government has specific arenas in which it has the final say.2 One remarkable example of these Hellenistic federal experiences is the Achaian League, if one believes Polybios – although he gives no information regarding the operation of institutions and does not outline how member states were represented in federal bodies. As a *

1

2

Thanks are due to Elke Klose who read and improved a first draft of this paper. I am grateful to Professors Ralf Behrwald and Hans Beck for helpful criticism and comments, errors of course remain my own. This is the communis opinio: see Busolt 1926, 1318; Ehrenberg 1976, 208f; Larsen 1955, 66; Beck, Funke 2015, 14f. Especially, for Achaia, see Polyb. 2.37: ‘Nor is there any difference between the entire Peloponnese and a single city, except in the fact that its inhabitants are not included within the same wall; in other respects, both as a whole and in their individual cities, there is a nearly absolute assimilation of institutions’ (Histories. Polybios. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962); cf. Walbank 1957, 217f. This corresponds to the modern definition of federalism: see Watts 1999, 121; Bednar 2011, 4.

220

Athanassios Rizakis

result of this, fundamental issues such as the nature of the assemblies or the composition, election and functions of different magistracies remain either unknown or unclear.3 Unlike Polybios’ silence on the internal organisation of the Achaian League, however, a passage of Strabo (14.3.3) better illustrates certain processes and institutions within the Lykian League, especially in how federal delegates in the deliberative bodies or magistrates are selected, and how judges are chosen and taxes levied. This text contributed enormously to the perception of the superiority of the Lykian League during the Age of Enlightenment as well as in the rebirth of the study of ancient federalism in modern times. Subsequently, many scholars believe that it was an original federal model that could serve as a basis for modern federal experiences. In the sixteenth century, the philosopher Jean Bodin,4 inspired by this famous passage of Strabo’s Geography, presented the organization of Lykian cities, and was the first to assume, mostly by intuition, the similarity of the Lykian constitution with the Achaian League. A century later, Charles-Louis de Montesquieu expressed, in a more obvious way, his admiration for the ‘Republic of the Lykians’ which he describes as the ideal model of federalism,5 although he shares Polybios’ admiration for the structure and constitution of the Achaians, itself a ‘belle République fédérative’.6 Unlike Montesquieu, L’Abbé de Mably7 finds that the Achaian koinon, as presented by Polybios, offers many points for reflection in spite of – or perhaps simply because of – its dramatic fate. The fathers of the American Constitution discussed both these and other ideas about ancient federations during

3

4

5

6

7

See Walbank 1957, 218–221; Id., 1979, 406–414. In fact Polyb. 24.8.4 and 9.14 (cf. Walbank 1979, 261f) refers to ‘the oaths, laws and inscribed pillars, which hold together our common federation’ (sympoliteia) but, as F.W. Walbank 1977–1978, 51 observed, we do not know how far these defined the existence of a written constitution, which has been assumed by Swoboda 1912, 23; on this question, see also Mendels 1979–1980, 85–93. As has also been pointed out by Walbank, a written constitution was not absolutely necessary and ‘it is not the first nor the only example of a political institution which is fully operative for a considerable time before political theorists get round to telling us what it is’. ‘Nous pouvons dire le semblable des XXIII villes de Lycie, qui établirent une république aristocratique, semblable à celle des Achéens’: see Bodin 1986, chap. VII, p. 171 cited by Knoepfler 2013, 117 and n.22. ‘S’il fallait donner un modèle d’une belle république fédérative, je prendrais la république de Lycie’ (Montesquieu 1961, Book IX). Montesquieu 1961, chapt. III of book IX, p. 371f compared the institutions of ancient and contemporary federations, specifically the Republic of Holland, which he held in great esteem; cf. Knoepfler 2013, 113 and n.9. ‘La société des Achéens l’emporte sur les autres associations du même type par la liberté qu’elle laissait à ses membres’… ’Lorsque l’Union est démocratique,’ écrit-il, ‘chaque état particulier peut la rompre, parce qu’il a toujours gardé son indépendance. C’est ainsi qu’était la société des Achéens’ (Montesquieu 1951, vol. II, 1005. On Polybios and Montesquieu, see Guelfucci 2006, 125–136; cf. Knoepfler 2013, 123–125). 1766–1767.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

221

the heated debates in Philadelphia’s convention of 1787, as reported by James Madison.8 Despite their knowledge of Polybios’ work and their esteem for Achaian institutions,9 it was the clarity of Strabo’s text that led them to adopt the Lykian model of proportional representation of the member-states in the national legislative assembly of the future constitution of the United States on June 30, 1787.10 This predominance of the Federal Republic of Lykia was challenged from the beginning of the nineteenth century when “scholars began to direct their interest more to ancient history than to political philosophy.”11 Although by the end of the same century Edward Freeman12 recognised the great importance of the historical role of the Achaian koinon, Lykian institutions continued to impress him as well as other scholars13 who considered them the model of an advanced federal state. The prevalence of the Lykian governing system eventually ended in the 20th century when new discoveries suggested quite strongly that the Achaian League served as the prototype for some Lykian institutions.14 II. THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM IN THE GREEK FEDERATIONS: LYKIA AND ACHAIA, TWO PARALLEL EXAMPLES One of the principal questions concerning the leagues of the Hellenistic period is to what extent member cities were subordinate to the central government. Giovannini’s theory15 that the Greek koina were neither federal states (Bundesstaat) nor confederacies (Staatenbund) but rather unitary states did not resonate favourably among other scholars.16 What is important to know at this point is rather how power was distributed between central and regional authorities: how were member-states represented in various federal bodies, or even more pressingly, how were responsibilities divided between member states and the central government?17 The best literary description concerning the internal balance of power in a federal state is offered by Strabo who informs us, following Artemidorus of Ephesos (whose floruit is placed around 100 BCE), that in Lykia 23 cities had the right to vote in federal

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17

Madison 1984, 223f resumed in Knoepfler 2013, 136 and n.99. On Polybios and the American constitution, see Chinard 1940; Lehmann 1985 and 2015. See Madison 1984, 381. For hesitation or misunderstanding of these discussions see Giovannini 2003, 147f cited by Knoepfler 2013, 136 n.99. Knoepfler 2013, 137f. ‘Lykia too, beyond all doubt, had a federal constitution which was in some respects more perfect than that of Achaia itself. But then Lykia has nothing which can be called a history’ Freeman 1863, 6. See Larsen 1968, 240–263 and Moretti 1962, 186–195. On the similarities between Achaian and Lykian institutions, see Larsen 1956, 151–169; id., 1957, 5–26 and especially p. 5 with n.1. Giovannini 1971, 31. See Walbank 1976–1977, 39–45. On the assemblies of the Achaians and Aitolians, their composition, and their role in the koinon, see especially the contribution of Buraselis to this volume.

222

Athanassios Rizakis

affairs. These votes were then allocated according to each city’s importance or population, with large cities having three votes, mid-sized, two, and the less important cities, one.18 According to Strabo, the principle of proportional representation affected every body of the Lykian State, not only the constitution of the common council, the Κοινόν Συνέδριον, which itself should be identified with the ἀρχαιρεσιακή ἐκκλησία.19 The other deliberative assembly, the boulē, is not mentioned by Strabo and this omission, if we exclude a misunderstanding about it from the geographer,20 led some scholars to think that it was a post-Augustan innovation. If it did not really exist in the Hellenistic period, the koinon would function only with a representative assembly, i.e. the archairesiakē ekklēsia. The boulē, whenever it was actually functional, was certainly not as large as the ἀρχαιρεσιακή ἐκκλησία.21 That these two assemblies were distinct is indicated by the fact that ἀρχοστάται and βουλευταί are two distinct categories in the various lists of donations (dianomai).22 18

19

20

21

22

Εἰσὶ δὲ τρεῖς καὶ εἴκοσι αἱ τῆς ψήφου μετέχουσαι. Συνέρχονται δὲ ἐξ ἑκάστης πόλεως εἰς κοινὸν συνέδριον, ἥν ἄν δοκιμάσωσι πόλιν ἑλόμενοι. Τῶν δὲ πόλεων αἱ μέγισται τριῶν ψήφων ἐστὶν ἑκάστη κυρία, αἱ δὲ μέσαι δυεῖν, αἱ δ᾽ἄλλαι μιᾶς (Str. 14.3.3); cf. Troxell 1982; Behrwald 2000 and the contribution of the same author in Beck and Funke 2015, 403–418. This ekklēsia is attested, for the first time in 100 BCE, when Artemidorus of Ephesus analysed the federal institutions of Lykia (see Str. 14.3.3; cf. Jameson 1979, 842f). Larsen 1945, 76 supposes that the use of this term means that the Lykian ekklēsia had once been a mass meeting opened to all of its citizens. Unfortunately, we do not know at what time it was transformed into a representative body but we do know that this model existed well into imperial times (Berhwald 2015, 409). This assembly met three times a year in the late Hellenistic period or once a year in three sessions (see TAM II 583). This organization reminds us of the meetings of the synodos, which are, according to Polybios, four per year in fixed dates (see Aymard 1938, 275f). Larsen 1945, 81f thought that the Geographer simply forgot to mention it and he considered this absence abnormal, giving the fact that this body was a structural element of government in several federations. This conviction led him to hastily date Pinara’s decree (referring to the two representative bodies) to the first century BCE (TAM II 508; cf. Larsen 1943, 177–190 and 246–255; id., 1945, 93–95). Such a dating allowed him to assume that there was a continuity in governing practices among the Republican and Imperial Period and therefore that the boulē had always existed in Lykia. This interpretation has been criticized by several scholars (Magie 1950 II, 1381f; Jameson 1980, 842f) who observe that an earlier dating of the decree of Pinara is in fact difficult. The presence in the text of a δικαιοδότης, indicating, according to L. Robert REG 57, 1944, 230f, a provincial governor, would place the decree automatically after 43 CE. In contrast, Larsen 1945, 93–97; id. 1956, 188–190 followed by Behrwald 2015, 409 thinks that maybe the boulē existed in the Hellenistic period because the text in TAM II 508 referring to boulēutai and archostatai ‘seems to reflect a situation prior to the loss of Lykian independence’ (provided by Claudius in 43 CE, when Lykia became a Roman province: see Suet. Claud. 25.3; Dio Cassius 60.17, 3). Larsen 1945, 83f; Berhwald 2000, 188–209; id., 2015, 409. Larsen [1968, 250] thought that the main representative body was the boulē, the archairesiake ekklēsia simply being ‘an expansion of or an appendix to a meeting of the boulē’. See Larsen 1945, 81–83 and 91–93; Balland 1981, 183f. With the exception of the foundation of Licinius Longinus (Larsen 1945, 91f), all the donations concern three groups of dignitaries: archostatai, boulēutai and magistrates. It is unclear whether the members of the latter two categories were directly involved in the elections; it is nevertheless certain that they were closely

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

223

The geographer gives the names of the six megistai poleis of the Lykian League, but the names of medium and small size cities remain unknown.23 This fact does not allow us to know the number of votes dispensed individually and consequently we remain unaware of the ratio between the three groups of cities. On this point, we can only suppose that the number of votes held by the two latter groups should be superior to that of the large cities. It is highly probable that the scale 3, 2, 1 was established according to the population of cities, so it would likely be this simple distribution principle that was applied both to the allocation of taxes and the appointment of the federal councillors, magistrates, and judges: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ δικασταὶ καὶ ἄρχοντες ἀνάλογον ταῖς ψήφοις ἐξ ἑκάστης προχειρίζονται πόλεως (Strabo 14.3.3).24 If the ratio is similar to that of Achaia, we can propose the following distribution: 3 x 6 =18 + 2 x 9 = 18 + 1 x 8 = 8 (that means a total of 44 votes) or a less balanced one: 3 x 6=18 + 2 x 6 = 12 + 1 x 11 = 11 (a total of 41 votes). One must assume that the internal balance of power, i.e. the ratio between the three groups of cities, needed to change when there were departures or additions of new members to the league, as well as when cities were merged in a sympoliteia. In fact, the four different lists of Lykian cities show that the composition of the League and the balance of internal power knew some changes during Hellenistic and imperial times. A decree from the Lētōon, erected in honour of the great benefactor Opramoas of Rhodiapolis, shows that in the middle of the second century the composition of the League had changed either by accepting new members or by replacing old ones. The same decree reveals first that this tripartite structure for the distribution of votes within the Lykian League survived into the Empire, and second that the group of six πρωτεύουσαι πόλεις remained, at that time, the same. But this last figure would subsequently change with the addition of new members under the Antonines.25 Accordingly, the number of megistai, medium size or small poleis had

23

24

25

associated with the archairesiaké ekklēsia’s meeting and that the term Koinoboulion covers at least boulē and ekklēsia and it presumably includes the magistrates in office (Balland 1981, 183f). There is a debate about the meaning of the term koinobouloi (it also appears in a number of inscriptions [e.g. Balland, 1981, 173–185 no.66, ll. 14–19] also of Prusias of Hypios and Nicomedia) that concerns the beneficiaries of the foundation of Opramoas of Rhodiapolis (see Kokkinia 2000) who apparently are members of the federal koinoboulion, a term more frequently attested meaning the annual meeting of a kind of elective parliament on which the archostatai played the principal role as electors (voters), see Balland, 1981, 182–185; cf. Behwald 2000, 188–209. Ἕξ δὲ τὰς μεγίστας ἔφη Ἀρτεμίδωρος. Ξάνθον Πάταρα Ὄλυμπον Μύρα Τλῶν κατὰ τὴν ὑπέρθεσιν τὴν εἰς Κίβυραν κειμένην (Str. 14.3.3). It seems that this list it is correct for Artemidoros but not in Strabo’s time (see Larsen 1945, 76f and n.61). Knoepfler 2013, 133–135, rightly observed a misinterpretation by Montesquieu of Strabo’s formula ἐξ ἑκάστης πόλεως, due to the Latin translation, pro singulis urbibus (Knoepfler 2013, 134 and n.92): ‘en Lycie, les juges et les magistrats des villes étaient élus par le Conseil commun, et selon la proportion que nous avons dites’. In fact, the list of thirty one (31) poleis (in the decree of the Létôon) to which Opramoas of Rhodiapolis demonstrated his generosity (mid 2nd century CE), shows changes in the number of the League’s members as well as that of the six πρωτεύουσαι πόλεις (Myra, Patara, Xanthos,

224

Athanassios Rizakis

not been fixed in aeternum by either a constitutional law or long-term use, but rather that some law or decree of the ekklēsia necessary determined it. In fact, a letter of Commodus found at Boubon on the southern borders of Lykia informs us that Boubon was admitted among the cities with three votes, ἐν τοῖς τριψήφοις τῶν πόλεων. This promotion was not made at the expense of one of the poleis with three votes, but following Schindler and Kokkinia we must believe that their number would have been increased toward the end of the Antonine era.26 In spite of some obscurities, Strabo’s text offers a clear and satisfactory picture of the structure and functionality of the Lykian institutions, but this is not also the case for Polybios and the equivalent Achaian institutions. Polybios famously (2.37.8–11) praised the Achaian constitution, its political principles and particularly the advantages of federalism in this specific regional manifestation. One of the arguments used by the Historian to demonstrate how the League succeeded in unifying the entire Peloponnese (σύμπασαν Πελοπόννησον) was the democratic and egalitarian nature of Achaian institutions,27 which permitted the member-states to have the same laws, weights, measures, and currency, as well as the same magistrates, councillors, and judges: Ἄρχουσι, βουλευταῖς, δικασταῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς.28 This division of power among these governing bodies reminds us, as has been pointed by Walbank29, of the triple distinction between magistrates, the deliberative, and

26 27

28

29

Tlos, Telmessos et Limyra; see the comments in Balland 1981, 176f). Pinara and Olympos had given in the imperial period (mid 2nd century CE) their place to Telmessos in the West and Limyra in the East respectively (see Jameson 1979, 842; Balland 1981, 173–185 no.66 especially p. 176f; cf. Knoepfler 2013, 130, fig. 5a). It is worth noting that Pliny cites in his Historia Naturalis 5.28 [100] 36 oppida in Lykia. See Schindler 1972 II, p. 9–11, no.2 (cf. L. Robert, BE 1973, 451) and the new edition of Kokkinia 2008, 32–34 no.5; cf. also Knoepfler 2013, 128f. Polybios himself defines the πολίτευμα των Αχαιών as a democracy whose main principles are ισηγορία and παρρησία (2.38.6; cf. Walbank 1957, 221f; see also Polyb. 6.8.3–5; 6. 8.5; 6.9.4– 5; cf. Walbank 1957 ad loc; Rémy 2008, 105f; Tuci 2003). This regime is in contrast to the extreme democracy (ὀχλοκρατία) condemned by the historian (see Polyb. 6.9.9; 6.57.9; cf. Welwei 1969; Mendels 1979–1980; Braun 1983, 6–8; Eckstein 1995, 129f). This form of government (i.e. pure democracy) regarded as normal for federal states by Polybios 31.2.12 would have been called ‘oligarchic’ in the late fifth century (see Larsen, 1945, 66f and especially, p. 87–91). Ἄρχοντες in Polyb. 5.1.6 and 9; 22.10.10–13 and 12.7 is more technical in meaning and indicates a general term for magistrates. Elsewhere they are called οἱ προεστῶτες τοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν πολιτεύματος (2.46.4), αἱ συναρχίαι (27.2.11; 38.13.4–5) and οἱ συνάρχοντες (23.16.6). The term συναρχίαι, suggestive of a collegiate organization (Aymard 1938, 322f), is perhaps the official title. A board was formed consisting of the στρατηγός and the ten δαμιουργοί (23.5.16; cf. Bingen, 1954, no.18 ll. 3–4, Rizakis 2008, 176–178 no.120). For the number of the damiourgoi, see Livy 32.22.2. Additionally, there were inferior magistrates such as the hipparch and the navarch (Polyb. 5.94.7; 95.11). See generally Freeman 1863, 219–222.; Aymard 1938, 180–186; Walbank 1957, 219. The precise responsibilities of the dikastai remain unknown however: see Cole 1964, 4–7. Walbank 1957, 219f.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

225

judiciary bodies going all the way back to Aristotle.30 It does not, however, correspond exactly with the modern division popularized by Montesquieu of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. It seems that in Achaia, as well as in other states, the balance of power between governing bodies or member-states did not remain fixed but changed according to contemporary trends or the necessity of efficiency. This happened when the League’s ambitions began exceeding the framework of the ancient union of the twelve small poleis in the north-western Peloponnese that was the heartland of old Achaia – all of whom, in Plutarch’s words, were quite equal in their mediocrity.31 The larger cities, which were included in its frontiers since the middle of the third century BCE,32 would barely tolerate representation in the federal boards with a number of delegates equal to that of the smaller cities. As has been assumed by Ferrabino, the critical moment for an institutional change was the end of the social war (217 BCE), but the precise nature and motives of these reforms remain unknown. Aldo Ferrabino presumes that the introduced institutional reform dealt with the army and the financial system on the one hand and the decision-making process on the other hand.33 According to Aymard34 this reform which took place later (i.e. by the end of the third century), did not change the composition of the synodos but removed the most important realms of Achaian foreign policy from its competence. Larsen agreed with the French scholar about the dating but not on the meaning of this reform. He thought that the leaders of Achaia decided to transfer important powers from the primary assembly to the council, either because they followed the general trend of this period or better understood the advantages of a representative boulē in a large federal state.35 This reform gave the boulē greater prominence; an organ, which in its composition, was now more flexible and effective. Proportional participation in this body was based therefore on the size of the population of the cities and was a response 30

31 32 33

34 35

Arist. Pol. 4.11 [1298a]: ἕν μὲν τί τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ τῶν κοινῶν, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς...τρίτον δὲ τί τὸ δικάζον. See against (Aymard 1938, 158f) Newman 1902, commenting on Aristotle, Polybios 4.236. The comparison with Aristotle shows that under ‘deliberative’ several functions are included which could today be classified as legislative (see Walbank 1957, 219). On the conception of the federal states by Aristote and Polybios, see Lehmann 2001. Aratos 9.6 and 7; cf. also loc. cit., 11.1. See Urban 1979. Ferrabino 1921, 217–222 and 297–301. Larsen 1955, 92f thinks that this reform was probably initiated by Aratus. Bastini 1987, 29–30 thought that the reform took place before the death of Aratus. Aymard 1938, 418–420. The terminus ante quem of this reform is the year 200 BCE as it was already in force then (Livy 31.25.2–10); see Larsen 1955, 85; id., 1968, 223. On the introduction in the Achaian league after 217 BCE of a representative assembly see Larsen 1968, 284 and Lehmann 1983, 237–261 as well as Giovannini 1969, 1–17 (cf. the critical remarks of Larsen 1972, 178–185). On the introduction of a pro rata basis system in Achaian league, see also Beck 1997, 168f; Rizakis 2003, 97–109; Sisov 2016, 101–109.

226

Athanassios Rizakis

to the challenge posed by the predominance of the local citizens in the assemblies. Thus, the representation of the various cities of the League in the federal assemblies and particularly in the synodos was more equitable and satisfied the demands and expectations of large cities such as Corinth, Argos or Megalopolis. This assumption is suggested by two epigraphic discoveries confirming the parallelism between the Achaian and the Lykian institutions. The documents in question are two lists of Achaian nomographoi one from Epidauros between 210 and 207/206 BCE, and the other from Aigion between 182 and 146 BCE. 36 These lists show that the distribution scale of votes between large, medium, and small cities is the same as in the Lykian League. In the Achaian League there are also three categories of member-states supplying three, two and one votes respectively in the college of nomographoi. However, we do not really know the criteria for classification in the three groups: it seems, for example, that population is not the only element that defines classification. In the earliest list three cities, Dyme, Aigion, and Sikyon, each possessed two votes, although their demographic importance is not equivalent.37 On the other hand certain large cities (e.g. Aigina, Corinth, Megara) as well as some that were less important (e.g. cities of central and south Arkadia, except Megalopolis) are not represented at all. Gschnitzer38 argues that while small member-states would not necessarily be represented, larger cities would be, and therefore that it is possible to draw conclusions about the League’s membership by their absence at the time of the text.39 The idea that small cities could be represented alternately is a plausible hypothesis, in the sense that similar situations are attested in other confederations. For example, in Lykia and Boiotia neighbouring small cities could be represented ‘à tour de rôle’ in the federal bodies.40 Furthermore, some small cities might have been admitted to the Lykian Koinon without a vote in the synedrion41 and, perhaps more importantly, smaller poleis could be joined into one sympoliteia. This would explain the absence of so many smaller poleis in texts from the Imperial period: they had 36

37 38 39

40 41

IG IV.I2.73. Gschnitzer 1985 proposed the period 210–207 BCE while Swoboda 1922, 520– 522 and Lehmann 1983, 245–251; 2001, 82–89 thought to an earlier date before or after the social war (220–217 BCE). Finally Sizov thinks 2016, 108 that the terminus post quem should be the year 229 BCE, when Argos, Hermione and Phleius joined the league and the terminus ante quem the year 197 BCE when Corinth return to the Achaian Κοινόν. The second is SEG 58.417, dated to 182-146. See Lehmann 1983, 249; Gschnitzer 1985; Rizakis 2003. Gschnitzer 1985. This is probably true for the three large cities of Aigina, Corinth or Megara, which were not at that time members of the League (for the cities of Megaris and their relations with the Achaian league, see Freitag 2015, 56–67). Lehmann 1983 challenges this view, arguing in particular that Mantineia (Antigoneia on the list), though absent from the list, must have been a full member with a significant citizen population during the period when the text was drawn up; see on this point the interesting comment of Sizov 2016, 104f. Gschnitzer 1985, 103–116; Lehmann’s theory on the rotation of all cities (even the large ones) did not find a favorable echo with other the scholars; see Sizov 2016, 101–107. According to Moretti 1962, 206f such cities could make in the Lykian League their contributions in the form of money or dispatching their troops.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

227

been absorbed by, or joined together with, neighbouring poleis that sometimes would have been of equal size.42 We can also suppose that a similar situation existed in Achaia, although we lack specific examples. But, interestingly, some minor and mostly insignificant (e.g. Ascheion, Kallistai),43 Achaian cities are represented in the lists of the federal nomographoi. This weakens Gschnitzer’s theory, unless we suppose that these cities had a peculiar status giving them some special rights not possessed by ‘ordinary’ small cities.44 Literary, numismatic, and epigraphical documents show that the Achaian Koinon, like the Lykian League, was updated periodically according to the demographic changes and political vicissitudes created by the departure of old or the addition of new members. The great extension of Achaia’s borders, especially after Aratos’ generalship, resulted in a permanent revision of the list of city-members, as well as the continuous adjustment of the balance of power between old and new members. In the list from Epidauros (210–207 BCE), 17 cities (or 18 with that of the secretary of the collegium of nomographoi which was probably not counted) send representatives.45 They had a total number of 24 votes46 distributed among the three city types: the megistai poleis (Argos and Megalopolis) were represented by three delegates (2x3=6),47 the medium size cities (Dyme, Aigion Sikyon) by two (3x2=6), and finally the twelve small cities (12x1=12) only by one. It is clear that the ratio between the three groups of cities is rather balanced, as the number of votes of the large and medium size cites is equivalent to that of the small ones (6+6+12 = 24: votes).48 This ratio reveals a desire to eliminate differences or even conflicts between the members of the League by establishing a balance between the three groups. It is clearly a product of compromise, since some of the old cities that had a role in the foundation of the League (Dyme and Aigion) possessed two votes, which was not fully justified by their demographic standing. As major and middle-size cities did not have an absolute majority (6+6=12 votes), any decision required the agreement of, or a compromise with, the smaller 42 43

44 45 46

47

48

I owe this last precision to the kindness of Ralf Behrwald. These cities are totally absent on any list of Achaian cities (Hdt. 1.145; Polyb. 2.41.6–8; Str. 8.7.4 and Paus. 7.6.1) although their citizens bear the ethnic Achaios and their ethnic appears in their coins: see Rizakis 1995, nos.597, 598, 605, 659, 668II; id. 2016; cf. Löbel 2014, 45f and 48; Rizakis 2016. For this question, see Rizakis 2016. See Knoepfler 2002, 148 (for the case of Boiotia; cf. Rizakis 2003, 99 n.11: bibliography). Achaia sent ten representatives: the Argolis was represented by five cities with a total of seven votes (Argos having three); Sikyon had two votes; and finally, Arkadia was represented by three cities and had five votes in total since Megalopolis had three. Megalopolis was still by the end of the third century an important town because, according to Polyb. 5.91.7, it furnished 1/6th of all the Achaians in arms in 217 BCE. Argos, although it was no longer at the forefront of the Greek cities its glory and its resources offered still it some importance. Lehmann 1983, 247; Gschnitzer 1985, 112; Rizakis 2003, 101–104; id. 2008, 168–170, no.116. Sizov 2016, 106 n.30. Although this symmetry between large, medium and small cities can not be confirmed by the list of Aigion, it does not mean, as Sizov 2016, 106 n.30 thinks, that the equal numbers in the catalogue from Epidauros ‘must have just been a coincidence’.

228

Athanassios Rizakis

member states. We can assume that this principle did not change when, a few years later, the League enjoyed massive expansion and spread to encompass virtually the entire Peloponnese. This restructuring of the League necessitated changes regarding both the number of cities represented in the collegium of nomographoi as well as the distribution of votes among its member states. This new situation is illustrated by the list of Aigion (between 182 and 146 BCE) in which all new acquisitions of the League appear in Arkadia, Lakonia, and Messenia. The list of Aigion mentions, at the current state of conservation, only representatives of 16 cities (17 including the secretary’s home city) which sent 21 delegates originating from four regions: nine Arkadian and two Triphyllian cities send 12 delegates (the only city with two votes being Megalopolis). Lakonia is represented only by one city (i.e. Sparta) which sent three delegates49, Messenia by four cities sending five delegates (only Messene has two votes). The name of only one Achaian city (i.e. Ascheion) is preserved in the list. It remains unknown how many cities (from Elis, Korinthia, Megaris and finally from Achaia, Sikyon, and Argolis) do not appear in the list and how many votes they would have had in total. As the cities of the three later areas appear in the older list of Epidauros, we can presume that they continued to be represented and sent the same number of delegates. And if we add the cities of Elis, Corinth and the Megaris which are not mentioned in the two lists (the cities of the Megaris have been integrated later, around 170 BCE),50 we can say that the approximate number of cities should be around 35. The radical increase in the number of the member-states of the League after 191 BCE would impose a change in the distribution of votes, so that the ratio known from the previous list and the balance in representation between the three groups of cities could be restored. There are some clues to support this statement. For example, Megalopolis is no longer represented by three votes like in the list of Epidauros, but now only by two.51 This fact as well as the growth of the League with the addition of many new members resulted in a redistribution of the seats in the college of nomographoi, as indicated by the list of Aigion. Pheneos, present in the list of Epidauros, no longer appears in the document from Aigion. However, it is surprising that small cities such as Lousoi in Arkadia and especially Ascheion (close to the Arkadian border with Achaia) appear on both lists. We can presume that, besides Sparta, which appears on the list of Aigion, and Argos and Megalopolis (which appear in the list of Epidauros), three votes could also be given to large cities like Argos, Corinth and Megara which are missing from the two lists. Besides Megalopolis and Messene, among the cities sending two delegates we can count Aigion, Dyme and Sikyon (which are present on the list of Epidauros), and probably Aigina or Elis. If this schema of delegate distribution were correct, the ratio would be the 49 50 51

Lakonian cities are not represented because they have a special status in the League; see Livy 38.32.9–10; cf. Rizakis 2003, 107 n.42. See note 72 below. This change may possibly be linked (see Sizov 2016, 103 n.15) to the decrease of its importance as a result of the separation of some small communities (193 BCE), which became full members of the Achaian Koinon. Plutarch (Philop. 13.8) lets us know that this reform was done at the instigation of Philopoimen: cf. Errington 1969, 90f; Bastini 1987, 88f.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

229

following: 12 delegates for the large cities (Sparta, Argos, Corinth and Megara), 12 delegates for the mid-size cities and 24 for the small. This means that the balance between the three groups first established in the list of Epidauros is maintained. The nomographoi documents lead us to believe that it was the individual cities of Achaia rather than the administrative districts (συντέλειαι)52 – as for example in Boiotia53 – that selected and sent delegates to various federal bodies. Aldo Ferrabino’s54 idea that the Achaian Koinon was subdivided into three administrative districts during the military reform of Aratos in 217 BCE is based on a Polybian passage (5.92.7–10). But Thomas Corsten thought that the League was divided, during this period, into five districts, and only later in 207 BCE into three as a consequence of the military reforms of Philopoimen.55 According to the latter scholar the distribution of the civic delegates in the list of Epidauros illustrates the division of the League into five districts, each of which sent five nomographoi with the exception of Patrai which sent four (4x5+4=24). This theory did not find much support.56 The Polybian passage (5.92.7–10) implies that this artificial structure in western Achaia was closely related to the defence of the area, entrusted to the poleis included in this synteleia. There is no other evidence for the existence of such artificial units in Achaia or that they were used “for the mechanics of the representative government”, as was the case in some other leagues. Unfortunately, what we know of the synteleiai in Lykia is of little help. The two administrative subdivisions are attested there only in the first century BCE and are associated with the minting activity of the Lykian cities. The real dates of their introduction as well as their role remain unknown.57

52

53 54

55 56

57

The term meros (a standard term used to denote such subdivisions, while in the Hellenistic period the term synteleia was used which is best translated by ‘district’. On the terms meros– merea (see Helly 1997 [Achaia] and generally Beck and Funke 2015, 15f with n.27: bibliography) which was used by Herodotus 1.145 to designate the twelve Achaian subdivisions, disappears from the sources of the Hellenistic period (only exception in Polyb. 5.92.7–10) when the new term synteleia (see Beck and Funke 2015, 15f and 26), in the sense of district, comes into use containing the cities of the western Achaia. For the role of districts in the Boiotian League, see Salmon 1956, 51–70; Müller 2011, 261– 282 with the previous bibliography in n. 1 (cf. BE 2012, 181). This reform would provide three military units each tasked with assuring the defence of Spartan, Eleian, and Aitolian borders (cf. Aymard 1938, 302–307; Errington 1969, 63f; Anderson 1967, 104f). In addition to the district of Patrai (Polyb. 5.94.1 and 38.16.4: Πατρεῖς δὲ καὶ τὸ μετὰ τούτων συντελικόν; on the synteleia of the western cities see Larsen 1971, 84–86), Ferrabino 1921, 297–301 recognised a second district, that of Megalopolis, attested in an inscription of Magnesia on the Meander (IvM 39) dated c. 208 BCE; for the problems of interpretation of this text see Roy 2003, 123–130. Corsten 1999, 166–177. Larsen 1971, 86, does not believe that the League was divided into districts and considered that of Patrai as unique. For my own reservations regarding such a role of the districts in Achaia of the Hellenistic period, see Rizakis 2003, 202–206 and more recently Sizov 2016, 102–104. OGIS 565; IGR 488; cf. Troxell 1982, 112–117 thought that this organization underlines the reaction to Roman demands after Mithridates’ war but this opinion was criticized by Ashton and Meadows 2008, 113–116.

230

Athanassios Rizakis

III. ARCHAIRESIAKĒ EKKLĒSIA OR SYNODOS AND THE GOVERNING PRACTICES IN LYKIA AND ACHAIA Except for the distribution of power between the constituent parts of a league (symmetrical or asymmetrical federation), the main difference between the various leagues concerns the internal organization that regulates the relationship and balance between the three constituent bodies of power (ekklēsia, boulē and magistrates). We know that the majority of Hellenistic leagues had a primary assembly, i.e. ekklēsia, and a representative assembly called boulē or synedrion.58 The boulē or synedrion was generally by its very nature a deliberating body composed, in various confederations, of delegates from member-states, which were represented either directly or in proportion to their population. The representative council was then regarded “as normal machinery in federal states” (Polybios 31.2.12)59 which offered speed and efficiency in decision-making.60 The Romans certainly encouraged this tendency, thereby accelerating an already existing trend either by creating or encouraging the creation of new leagues. Councils of proportional representation are already attested in the Hellenistic period in Aitolia, Boiotia, and possibly Arkadia, and after the beginning of the 2nd century BCE in Thessaly, Phokis, Magnesia, Crete, and Lykia, which were governed by representative synedria (or boulē) then becoming the chief law-making body.61 Τhe leading political class in Achaia understood, especially after the traumatic experience of the wars of the second half of the third century BCE, the difficulties of the mechanisms of government in making rapid and prudent decisions, and accordingly adapted it to the expansion of the political boundaries of the League throughout the Peloponnese and Central Greece. As the new League surpassed its ethnic boundaries and integrated great and powerful cities with a glorious history into its organisation, its political unity and stability could be achieved by a fairer 58

59

60

61

Larsen 1968, 281–295.; cf. also Martin 1975, 531–536 thinks that this corresponds to the general evolution and trend of the period, although there are some exceptions corresponding to particular cases. The model of the reforms introduced in Achaia and particularly that of a representative assembly could be that of Phokis; see Martin 1975, 160f; Behwald 2000, 188 n.118; Daverio Rocchi 2015. Larsen 1945, 65–97. This view was challenged by Aymard 1950 as exaggerated but Larsen 1955, 75–105 did a new, full analysis of Polybios’ terminology and has produced a theory, which has the merit of simplicity and seems to cover all the evidence. This is not certainly the only reason: by the creation of some leagues (e.g. Thessalian or Eleutherolaconian) Rome wanted strong states to withstand either Makedonian or Spartan pressure, see Martin 1975, 545f and 580–583. Larsen 1945, 65–68 and 87f; id. 1955, 68–75; Martin 1975, 57f (Thessaly), 160f (Phokis) 91– 93 (Magnesia), 504f (Kreta); cf. also, loc.cit. 533–555. Knoepfler 1990, 497 and Müller 2005, 114f showed that the synedrion replaced the boulē in the cities of Central Greece after 167 BCE (see also Funke 2015, 111f and 116 [Aitolia] and Beck and Funke 2015, 604 s.v. Synedrion.) In contrast, some scholars think that asymmetric federal states (e.g. Boiotian Koinon at the time of Pelopidas and Epameinondas as well as the Chalkidician one) were highly centralized states dominated by the main polis and had no federal council, but this point of view is based either on controversial sources (Xen., Hell. 7.3.5) or on the wrong use of an argumentum ex silentio.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

231

distribution of power and influence in the institutions among its member-states. This reform followed a generally pronounced tendency towards representative government in the federal states and cities of this period.62 Except for this detail, many other questions remain controversial despite the effort of many generations of scholars. This is the case for the composition and function of the federal assemblies, especially for the synodos. A crucial point is the federal boulē and its role in the system are clearly attested in the first Achaian Koinon by an inscription dated at the end of the fourth century BCE.63 It is less clear in Polybios’ text, however, if this is also the case for the Hellenistic period, and the lack of inscriptions does not help in resolving this problem. The majority of scholars before the Great War thought that the boulē was a representative body, and that it was possible to maintain that the Achaian League essentially had a representative government with a proviso for referendum on questions of war and peace and alliance.64 Aymard65 argued that boulē in Polybios simply means ‘a deliberative assembly’ and could apply to a primary assembly like the synodos but his theory did not receive any support because, as has been pointed out by Mendels following Larsen, “boulē never referred to a primary assembly, but always to a deliberative council”. For him and his followers the boulē was identical to the synodos, which was itself a representative assembly.66 Swoboda67, at the beginning of the 20th century, stated that the same principle of proportional representation, already known for the nomographoi, would have applied to other federal bodies such as the boulē.68 In this case the scale 3:2:1 would be, as in Lykia, a simple distribution key applied to the relative share of federal burdens and for the selection of the boulēutai or other federal officials. The number of the boulēutai thus varied from one city to another and from one period to another. It reached its peak in the second century BCE, when the League comprised the entire Peloponnese and some cities in Central Greece. It is highly probable that the appointment of the federal councillors did not take place at the federal level, but rather in their respective cities. The precise size of the Achaian boulē is unknown despite the efforts of some scholars to calculate the number of the federal delegates from Polybios’ report of 62

63

64 65 66 67 68

Larsen 1945, 68f; id. 1955, 83f (examples). It is noteworthy that there is no evidence for a primary assembly in some of the new federal states of the second century BCE (i.e. Lykia, Makedonia, Thessaly), see Larsen 1945, 69f. For the enhanced role of the boulē in the cities of this period, see Hamon 2001, XVI-XXI and id., 2005, 121–144; id. 2007, 77–98. Bingen 1954, 402–407 no.18; Rizakis 2008a, 176–178 no.120. Although any direct evidence on the composition of this boulē is missing, it can be supposed that the twelve Achaian memberstates of the first League have an equal representation in this body: see Löbel 2014, 85–88 who highlights the oligarchic character of the first League’s institutions. Larsen 1945, 66 n.5 refers to Tarn 1928, 738. Aymard 1938, 150–164. Larsen 1955, 75–85 and 165–188; id. 1972, 178–185; Walbank 1957, 219f where other views on this question are also briefly exposed; Mendels 1979–1980, 91 and n.34. Swoboda 1922, 519f; Lehmann 1983, 249; id., 1999, 171; Rizakis 2003, 97f; Sizov 2016, 101f; Löbel 2014, 91 considers this question as still open. See the reserves of Aymard 1938, 383–385 on this point.

232

Athanassios Rizakis

Eumenes’ offer of money during the synodos of 185 BCE. The king offered 720 talents to the Achaians to be used so “that they might lend it and spend the interest paying the members of the Achaian assembly during its session” (Polyb. 22.7.3).69 Larsen is right when he says that this passage does not give adequate information to calculate the exact number of the boulēutai but the estimations made by various scholars70 could give us a general idea of the numerical order of the members of the federal boulē.71 Given the large number of new member-states integrated by 170 BCE,72 we can only presume by means of comparison that the federal council should likely be more extensive than its Aitolian counterpart, which counted over 550 members, or than the synedrion of the Thessalian League, which numbered 33 members.73 We can suppose, thanks to Polybios, that the boulē was an administrative board, which received embassies and coordinated the meetings of the synodoi. The latter arbitrated conflicts between contending cities and in some particular cases exercised penal jurisdiction on offenders against the constitution.74 Although there is no passage in Polybios indicating that there were preliminary discussions in the council before the popular meetings, as was the practice in Aitolia and Acarnania, Walbank considers it highly probable given the existence of an extensive agenda in the synodoi.75 Such a power is maybe suggested in Plutarch’s formula οἱ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ (sc. Ἀχαιοί) μετὰ τῶν προβούλων referring to the Achaians who elected the federal stratēgos in the meeting of Megalopolis (182 BCE) and then invaded Messenia in

69 Polyb. 22.7.3: ἐξαπαστάλκη δὲ βασιλεύς Εὐμένης πρεσβευτάς, ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἑκατόν καὶ εἴκοσι τάλαντα δώσειν τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς, ἐφ' ᾧ, δανειζομένων τούτων, ἐκ τῶν τόκων μισθοδοτεῖσθαι τὴν βουλὴν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς κοιναῖς συνόδοις: ‘King Eumenes had also sent envoys promising to give the Achaians one hundred and twenty talents which they might lend and spend the interest paying the members of the Achaian parliament during its session’. 120 talents (720.000 drachmas) is a huge sum for such purposes (in comparison to similar donations to the Lykian Confederacy at a later date consisting of 55.000 and another of 110.000 denarii; see Larsen 1955, 96 n.21). On this question see also Polyb. 22.8.8 and 12 and the detailed comments of Aymard 1938, 102–120.; 154–161; 332–337 and 391–394. 70 Larsen 1955, 226; De Sanctis 1908, 257 n.1; Tarn 1928, 737; Schwahn 1931, 1256. 71 Aymard 1938, 81–83; Larsen 1968, 226; Walbank 1979, 187; Rizakis 2015, 128 n.59. 72 See Rizakis 2011; for the admission of Megara, Pagai and Aigosthena, see Freitag 2016. The number of member states in the period of the highest acme of the League has been evaluated as between 60 and 70 members: see Warren 2007, 152–154; Löbel 2014, 405–408. 73 Livy 45.28.7 (Aitolia). IG IX.2 261 (Thessaly). The synedrion of the Thessalian Koinon (property qualifications for holding offices: see Livy 34.51.6; cf. Larsen 1955, 102; Bouchon, Helly 2015, 240f has at the time of Tiberius, 334 members [IG IX.2 261]). We do not know the number of the members in the Lykian synedrion (Jameson 1980, 842f). The recently excavated assembly hall possibly used for federal assemblies in Patara could host some 1000–1400 people which gives an approximate idea towards the size of the federal assemblies (see Korkut and Grosche 2007). 74 See Rizakis 2008b, 278–282. 75 Walbank 1979, 187. For preliminary discussions in the Aitolian or the Akarnanian boulē, see Funke 2015, 110f (Aitolia) and IG IX2.208–209, 582–583, 588 and SEG 43.227 (Akarnania).

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

233

order to avenge Philopoimen’s death.76 In conclusion, we can say that the record of the vote and its secrecy shows that members of the Achaian boulē voted as individuals and not by delegations, as they did in case of primary assemblies (i.e .synklētoi).77 The question concerning the composition of the synodos is more complicated, and none of the theories proposed are satisfactory. Nonetheless, the similarity between the institutions of the Achaian and the Lykian leagues in connection to their representation practices has been definitely established. This could support the idea that the composition of the Achaian synodos78 in its normal form, could be analogous to that of the arhairesiakē ekklēsia of the Lykian koinon (ongoing magistrates with members of the boulē or big electors or both).79 In any case, this assembly – which was the main governing body – was generally composed of wealthy citizens 76

77

78

79

Plut. Phil. 21.1. The precise meaning of πρόβουλοι is not clear but from the various solutions proposed I agree with that of Larsen 1955, 178 and Walbank 1979, 408 and 410 who suppose that it indicates the members of the council (federal officials according to Schwahn 1931, 1257; Aymard 1938, 213 n.5). The authority on voting by cities in the synkletoi is not Polybios but Livy: 32.22.8–11; 32.19.6 (Sikyone datum est iis concilium) and 23.1 (198 BCE); 32.20.7 and 22.2; 38.32.1 (Briscoe 1973 and 2008 adloc.); such a practice is not unknown in other federations: Livy 33.2.6; cf. Beck, Ganter 2015, 154 with bibliography (Boiotia); Livy 33.16.3 (Akarnania); cf. Aymard 1938, 377–394; Larsen 1955, 83f; O’Neil 1980, 46 n.57. Walbank 1976–1977, 40 and n.66a where he observes that voting by cities is not a Roman practice. On the combinations proposed on the composition of the synodoi, see Walbank 1970, 129–143; id. 1979, 406–414; who withdrew his earlier views and, following Giovannini’s idea 1969, 1– 17 (a summary of this theory is given by Walbank in his introductory paragraphs and by Larsen 1972, 179f), argued that the synodos was composed of the members of the boulē, the magistrates and the primary assembly (cf. Mendels 1979–1980, 88); for a critical approach to Giovannini’s theory see Larsen 1972, 178–185. Rémy’s theory 2008, 110f that the council consisted of city officials is a speculation based on a confusing passage of Pausanias who, speaking of a meeting which was not a synodos, affirms that it was attended by the magistrates of the Achaian cities (7.14.1: τοῖς ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει ἔχοντες τὰς ἀρχάς). The political decisions then were taken by the elites of the member states which made up the various federal bodies: see Aymard 1938, 56, 137, 335f, 380, 405; Tarn 1928, 739; Musti 1967, 163; id., 1995, 307; Errington 1969, 6–8.; Walbank 1979, 406–408.; 0’Neil 1984, 33–44; who 1984, 42 speaks about a ‘self-perpetuated elite’ in Achaia (a similar situation can be found in some of the other leagues: Rzepka 2006, 111–135; Funke 2015, 112f [Boiotia]; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 184f [Lokris]). The fact that the boulēutai and other officials were unpaid in Achaia (Polyb. 22.7.8; cf. Aymard 1938, 331–337. Larsen 1968, 232) suggests that the participation of the lower classes in political life would be limited (Welwei 1966, 282–301; Mendels 1979– 1980, 88–93). The magistrates and other major officials played a main role ‘in the decisionmaking’. In the case of Eumenes’ offer successful speakers such as Apollonidas of Sikyon and Kassandros of Aigina are not known to have held any magistracy although the former was a prominent politician (Polyb. 22.8.1–13; cf. O’Neil 1984, 41). Even though the Achaian constitution gave all citizens the equal right of taking part in politics, not all citizens had an equal chance to exercise this right. Nevertheless, in some critical circumstances common people show that they were not deprived of any power (O’Neil 1984, 43). Many passages in Polybios suggest the existence of a socio-economic tension between the rich and poor classes which reached its summit during the Achaian war (Polyb. 38.10.1–13; cf. Fuks 1970, 78f.; Mendels 1979–1980, 88–93. See also note 80 below

234

Athanassios Rizakis

from various cities, as in Aitolia, who were members of the most prominent families and had, by these means, held political power and enjoyed the possibility of influencing governing decisions since the end of the third century BCE.80 IV. THE ACHAIAN INSTITUTIONAL MODEL What is the role of Achaia and Achaian institutions in this process of the ‘politicization’ of other federal states such as the Italiote League81 and the Lykian Koinon? Similarities and differences can be better detected and contrasted in the case of the latter, which took shape gradually and acquired a precise institutional form in the first half of the second century during Lykian conflicts after the Peace of Apamea (188 BCE).82 This federalist evolution of the Lykians was sponsored by Rome83 and some Polybian passages let us presume that the Lykians were inspired by the Achaian model in the establishment of their new federal constitution. We really have no idea when exactly the relations between the two leagues began, but we can suppose that these contacts became closer after Apamea (188 BCE) when the conflicts with Rhodes pushed the Lykian cities to send several embassies to Rome.84 The long stay of the largest of these embassies in Achaia in 178/177 BCE,85 probably allowed the Lykians to acquire intimate knowledge of the Achaian institutions, and maybe of that of other contemporary leagues. This would have then served as the basis for the creation – eventually with the help of Rome – of a new form of federal organization of the cities, i.e. the Κοινὸν τῶν Λυκίων, which liberated them from dependence on the Rhodians in a lasting manner.86 Strabo’s text concerning Lykia along with the Achaian inscriptions on federal nomographoi suggest that the selection of the members of the respective representative federal bodies were in both cases identical. This thus betrays a very close relationship between the Λυκιακὸν σύστημα and the Achaian model. One could multi-

80

81 82

83 84 85

86

It is not unreasonable to assume that members of this privileged ‘classe politique’ would be the 1000 Achaians hostages required by Rome after the third Makedonian war (167 BCE), see Tagliafico 1995, 215–223. For this league, see Fronda 2015, 386–402 (with the previous bibliography). Polyb. 21.24.7–8; loc. cit. 45.8; 22.5.1–2; Appian Syr. 44; Livy 37.55.5–6; Briscoe 1981, 385. As has been said by Larsen 1945, 71–73 the Lykian League knew a real development after the liberation from Rhodian control, although ‘some approaches to unity it at an earlier date are recognised’. For other Roman initiatives, see Giannakopoulos in this volume. See Jameson 1979, 833 with n.5. Polybios, then young politician of the Achaian League but especially historian, describes these embassies. This episode is reported in different chronological contexts in Polybios and Livy, cf. Lehmann 1983, 239; 1979, 833 with n.5; Behrwald 2000, 181 n.86; cf. also Canali de Rossi 1997, 216f no.260. An Achaian mediation in order to gain the support of Rome is not alleged in the sources; see Behrwald 2000, 164 n.12 and 89 n.290; see also the previous note. For the foundation of the Lykian League and the related problems, see Behrwald 2000, 161–169; id. 2015.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

235

ply the examples of similarities between the two leagues in regards to several aspects: first, Artemidorus says that the koinon synedrion of the Lykian League did not meet in a city that was considered as the capital but εἰς κοινὸν συνέδριον, ἣν ἂν δοκιμάσωσι πόλιν ἑλόμενοι (Strabo 14.3.3).87 This formula recalls the decision made by the Achaian federal authorities in 189/8 BCE under the leadership of Philopoimen,88 which put an end to Aigion’s claims as the exclusive meeting place of the League; the federal ‘capital’ lost its monopoly on federal assemblies in favour of a rotating schedule in various cities. Some inscriptions reveal in Lykia the presence of the same federal magistrates known in Achaia and other Greek leagues. They were designated by either the synodos or the archairesiakē ekklēsia respectively as well the general courts of justice.89 The commander in chief of the federal troops90 was the stratēgos assisted by the hipparch.91 From the Orthagoras Decree in Lykia, which mentions the federal rank of apoteleios also known in Achaia,92 it seems that the member states in both cases sent contingents under their own officers and paid contributions to the central government.93 Other minor officials called (e.g. hypostratēgoi or hagemones) could undertake regional tasks,94 while the regional army group of mobilized free citizens 87 88

89

90 91

92

93 94

See Knoepfler 2013, 153. Livy 38.30.1–6: ‘The consul having arranged matters in Kephalenia and stationed a garrison at Same crossed to the Peloponnesus, whither the Aigians especially and the Lakedaemonians had long been summoning him. From the beginning of the Achaian League the members of the assembly had all been called for Aigium, whether this was a tribute to the importance of the city or the convenience of the place. This custom Philopoimen, in this year for the first time, was trying to break down and was preparing to propose a law that the meetings should be held in all cities which belonged to the Achaian League in rotation. And at the approach of the consul, when the damiurgoi of the cities (they are chief magistrates) called the meeting at Aigium, Philopoimen – he was then praetor – summoned it at Argos’; cf. Aymard 1938, 292– 307; Rizakis 1995, 131 no.175. For Achaia, see Polyb. 23.4.5 and 4.14; 24.9.13; Livy 39.35.8 and 36.2 (cf. Paus. 7.9.2); id. 42.51.8; Syll.3 490.4–5 and the comments of Walbank 1957, 120; for Lykia, Str. 14.3.3: Δικαστήριά τε ἀποδείκνυται κοινῇ; cf. Mitchell 2005 and Schuller 2007. Cassius Dio 47.33.I speaks of the κοινὸν τῶν Λυκίων στράτευμα but in an honorary inscription it is used (for their commander) in the formula Λυκίων οι συστρατευσάμενοι: SEG 45.1825. The hipparch was the second of the federal magistrates, see Larsen 1971, 84. The charge of navarch, which is not mentioned by Polybios, is known by one inscription: Syll.3 490, ll. 6–7 (admission in the League of Orchomenos, in 234/233 BCE). For the homonymous magistrates in Lykia, see Larsen 1945, 95f; id. 1956, 179, 183, 248f; Jameson 1979, 835f with n.10; Behrwald 2015, 409f. The local military commander of the contingent of a city, in the rank of ἀποτέλειος is attested once in Lykia (SEG 18.570; cf. Larsen 1956, 152 and 167) but more in Achaian Koinon (Syll.3 600; Polyb. 10.23.9; 16.36.3); see also Suidas s.v. ἀποτέλειοι. Another parallelism between the two leagues is, according to Larsen 1956, 166f, the fact that in both leagues the civic authorities of the member states communicated with the central government through ‘ambassadors’. Cf. Behrwald 2015, 410 with n.23 (Lykia). On hypostrategoi, see Polyb. 4.59.2; 5.94.1 and 38.18.2; 38.16.4; 40.3.4 (cf. Walbank, adloc.) and Paus. 7.11.3 and 15.2; cf. Rizakis 1995, no.444, 457 and 466 with comments, loc. cit. 261 no 430 no.2a. Polybios 38.18.2 presented the hypostratēgos as president of a council (διαβούλιον) whose role is unknown. The function of hypohipparchos is attested in the Lykian

236

Athanassios Rizakis

or mercenaries was under the command of a hypostratēgos.95 The nomographoi equally attested in the two leagues are probably officers who codified the laws without a regular function but were elected occasionally to regulate internal conflicts or vote federal laws.96 Although the various testimonies concerning the tax system in Lykia,97 as well as in Achaia, lack precision, we can suppose that with the exception of regular obligations or various indirect taxes98 the federal government could ask, at critical moments, for an extra contribution (eisphora or telos), from the cities, in order to respond to the situation.99 This is confirmed by a passage of Polybios in which the historian (4.60.5; cf. also 4.60.9–10) reproaches the decision of some Achaian cities, which in a critical moment of the Social War refused to pay their contributions to the central government.100 The idea that contributions of any kind would be calculated in proportion to the respective population of a member city, probably following the scale 3:2:1, is an exciting hypothesis.101 In both leagues, the tamias was charged with the management of direct or indirect taxes, and, especially in Lykia,

League (Behrwald 2015, 409f). The term hagemones, denoting the Federal magistrates, is mentioned in the inscription from Messene (SEG 58.370, l. 17) and maybe the Latin term principum used by Livy 41.24.19 is its equivalent. Behrwald 2015, 411 and n.23 underlines the singular mention of a hegemon in a Hellenistic inscription from Myra (Petersen and von Luschan 1889 no.67) supposing that it might refer ‘to an allied commander or to a Lykian officer’. The strategos, is attested in Lykia too, as well in other leagues in the Hellenistic period and later on. We do not know if in Lykia this high charge was identical with that of the Lykiarch (Jameson 1979, 835f with n.14; Behrwald 2015, 410 with n.22). 95 Polyb. 4.59.1; 5.94.1; 38.16.4; 40.3.4; cf. Walbank, ad loc. and Paus. 7.11.3 and 15.2; Rizakis 1995, no.444, 457 and 466 with comments, loc. cit. 261 no.430 no.2a. 96 Lykia: TAM II 420 (nomographoi); it was the same according to Reitzenstein 2001, 30 cited by Behrwald 2015, 410 n.27 who assumes that the μετάπεμπτα δικαστήρια, also attested in the second century CE (TAM II 905), were also irregular institutions (cf. also Larsen 1956, 249– 253). 97 Behrwald 2015, 410 with n. 25. 98 See Mackil 2013, 289–304. The indirect taxes were associated with land use or customs, imposts or duties levied on the import and export of goods through harbors within the territory of the Koinon. This question is better known for the Lykian Koinon, especially during the Empire, thanks to new epigraphic testimonies; see Takmer 2007, 165–188 (SEG 57.1666); cf. Behrwald 2015, 426. 99 Every city of the koinon should raise troops serving the common cause: Polyb. 4.7.10; 5.91.4 and 6–7; it was the strategos en cours who fixed the importance of cities’ contribution in armed citizens (Polyb. 4.7.10). It seems that some cities had financial problems and could not pay their contributions (Polyb. 5.30.5–7) but as noted by Mendels 1979–1980, 90 and n.29, based on Polyb. 5.94.9, they were relieved later (cf. also Griffith 1935, 102). 100 See Walbank 1957, 514 who highlights our ignorance about Achaian finance; see also Mackil 2013, 290 and 299–302 (where other interesting examples of such non-regular contributions are cited). 101 See Rizakis 2003, 99 n.12. It is highly probable that at the beginning (the first Koinon) the twelve small Achaian cities contributed equally to the federal army; see Helly 1997; Löbel 2014, 87 and 93.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

237

with the funds for military needs as well as the quadrennial festival celebrated in honor of Apollo.102 Perhaps Achaia was not the only model for the Lykian League, as the federal experiences of the Hellenistic period created a common federal culture that could inspire further attempts at similar organizations that were in turn developed and adapted according to local traditions and realities. But there is no doubt that the Lykians were inspired by the Achaians in some points concerning their external103 as well internal organisation. The Achaian representative system was the model, between 188 and 167 BCE104 for the creation of the Lykian system, especially in the selection of delegates to the deliberative assemblies or the selection of various magistracies, judges and taxes.105 And as has been said by Knoepfler,106 the Achaians deserved to be included in Book IX of the Esprit des lois, as a model of that ‘belle République fédérative’, if Montesquieu had guessed that these people were the creators of the representative system mentioned in Strabo (14.3.3).107

102 See Jameson 1979, 836 with n.12–13; cf. also Behrwald 2015, 410 with n.24. 103 The Convention of the Létôon concluded between the Lykian confederacy and the city of the Termessians near Oinoanda, probably after 167 BCE, shows that the League negotiated and concluded agreements with the city of Termessos, the city of Tlos and probably that of Kadyanda, which were represented by the Confederation itself. Rousset 2010, 76f and n.278 points out that the same procedure was followed by the Achaian Confederation in the early second century. In a territorial dispute between Megara-Pagai, members of the Achaian League, and Aigosthena, a member of the Boiotian Confederation, the Achaian League sent its court judges (IG VII.187; Cf. Harter-Uibopuu 1998, 110f). 104 This point was highlighted particularly by Behrwald 2000, 89 and n.290, 164 n.12 and 165 with n.14. On the contacts between Lykians and Achaians, on the occasion of the travels of the former during this period to Rome, see notes 85–86 supra. According to Larsen 1956, 151– 159; Jameson 1979, 835 and n.9, the decree of Araxa, voted in honour of Orthagoras around 180 BCE for his services to the city and the Lykians, reveals that the Lykian League existed from early in the second century BCE but the dating of the inscription of Araxa and the events it narrates are the subject of a long scientific controversy. In a recent paper Denis Rousset 2010, 98 prefers a lower date both for the document itself and for the events it recounts, some of which may actually be placed before 167 BCE: ‘after 167 and probably in the second half of the second century and also to admit that the events he narrates, maybe in chronological order, some may have put in the first half of the second century and even before 167 BC’ ; see especially Rousset 2010, 127–133 (with much discussion on the date); cf. the detailed discussion on this problem and relevant bibliography in Knoepfler 2013, 147–151. 105 Lehmann 1983, 250. Although the recently published treaties between Lykia and Rome regulate competences of Roman and Lykian courts, the latter’s structure ‘remain silent’: see Mitchell 2005; Schuler 2007b cited by Behrwald 2015, 410 n.28. 106 Knoepfler 2013, 153f thinks that the pioneers and the real inventors in this domain were the Boiotians, since the mid of the fifth century BCE. 107 Similarly, Larsen 1956, 166f, after examining the parallelisms between the two leagues, concluded that ‘the strong position of the federalism in Greece might argue that Achaia should be ‘the more likely pioneer’’.

238

Athanassios Rizakis

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J.K. (1967) Philopoemen’s Reform in the Achaian Army, Classical Philology 62, 104– 105. Ashton, R.H.J. and A.R. Meadows (2008) The Letoon Deposit: Lykian League Coinage, Rhodian Plinthophori, and Pseudo–Rhodian Drachms from Haliartos (yet again) and Asia Minor, The Numismatic Chronicle 168, 111–134. Aymard, A. (1938) Les assemblées de la confédération achaienne: Étude critique d’institutions et d’histoire. Bordeaux. Aymard, A. (1950) L’organisation de la Macédoine en 167 et le régime représentatif dans le monde grec, Classical Philology 45, 96–107. Balland, A. (1981) Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon, Paris. Bastini, A. (1987) Der Achäische Bund als hellenische Mittelmacht. Geschichte des Achäischen Koinon in der Symmachie mit Rom, Frankfurt. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157. Bednar, J. (2009) The Political Science of Federalism, Department of Political Science University of Michigan, Mzay 25, 2011, 1–51. Behrwald, R. (2000) Der Lykische Bund. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung, Bonn. Behrwald, R. (2015) The Lykian league, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in the Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 403–418. Bingen J. (1954) Inscriptions d’Achaie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 78, 402–407. Bodin J. (1986) Six Livres de la République, Paris. Bouchon, R. and B. Helly (2015) The Thessalian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 231–249. Brawn E. (1983) Die extreme Demokratie bei Polybios und bei Aristoteles, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 54, 1–39. Briscoe J. (1973) A Commentary on Livy, Books 31–33, Oxford. Briscoe J. (1981) A Commentary on Livy. Books 34–37, Oxford. Briscoe J. (2008) A Commentary on Livy. Books 38–40, Oxford. Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol. II, Athens. Busolt, G. (1926) Griechische Staatskunde II, Munich. Canali de Rossi, F. (1997) Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età republicana, Roma. Chinard, G. (1940) Polybius and the American constitution, Journal of the History of Ideas I, 38– 58. Cole, T. (1961) The Source and Composition of Polybius VI, Historia 13, 444–486. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Daverio Rocchi, G. (2015) The Lokrians and their Federal Leagues, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 179–198. Eckstein, A. (1995) Moral visions in the Histories of Polybius, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Ehrenberg, V. (1976) L’état grec: La cité – l’état fédéral – la monarchie hellénistique, Paris. Errington, R.M. (1969) Philopoemen, Oxford. Ferrabino, A. (1921) Il Problema dell’unita nazionale nella Grecia antica, I, Arato di Sicione e l’idea nazionale, Florence. Freeman, E.A. (1893) History of the Federal Government from the Foundation of the Achaian League to the Disruption of the United States, London/Cambridge.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

239

Freitag, K. (2015) Poleis in Koina. Zu dem Auswirkungen von bundesstaatlichen Organisationsformen auf Strukturen in griechischen Poleis der hellenistischen Zeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Polis Megara, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann (eds.), Urbane Strukturen und bürgerliche Identaet im Hellenismus, Heidelberg, 56–67. Fronda, M.P. (2015) The Italiote League and Southern Italy, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 386–402. Fuks, A. (1970) The Bellum Achaicum and its Social Aspect, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 90, 78–89. Ghinatti, F. (1961–1962) Ricerche sulla lega italiota, Atti e Memori della Accademia Patavina di Scienze Lettere ed Arti 74, 117–133. Giovannini, A. (1969) Polybe et les assemblées achéennes, Museum Helveticum 26, 1–17. Giovannini, A. (1971) Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland, Göttingen. Giovannini, A. (2003) Genèse et accomplissement de l’Etat fédéral (de la Grèce antique à la Constitution américaine de 1787–1789), in K. Buraselis et K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History, Vol.II, Athens, 143–176. Griffith, G.T. (1935) The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge. Gschnitzer, F. (1985) Die Nomographenliste von Epidauros (IG IV 12, 73) und des Achäische Bund im späten 3. Jh. v. Chr., Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 58, 103–107. Guelfucci, M.-R. (2006) Polybe et Montesquieu: aspects d’une réflexion commune, Anabases 4, 125–136. Hamon, P. (2001) A propos de l’institution du Conseil dans le cités grecques de l’époque hellénistique, Revue des Études Grecques 114/2, XVI–XXI. Hamon, P. (2005) Le conseil et la participation des citoyens: la mutation de la basse époque hellénistique, in P. Fröhlich and C. Müller (eds.), Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique: actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, 121–144. Hamon, P. (2007) Elites dirigeantes et processus d’aristocratisation à l’époque hellénistique, in H.– L. Fernoux and C. Stein (eds.), Aristocratie antique: modèles et exemplarité sociale, Dijon, 77– 98. Harter-Uibopuu, K. (1998) Die zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon. Zur friedliche Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln. Helly, B. (1997) Arithmétique et histoire. L’organisation militaire et politique des Ioniens en Achaïe à l’époque archaïque, Topoi 7, 207–262. Jameson, S. (1980) The Lycian League: Some Problems of its Administration, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 7, 832–855. Knoepfler, D. (1990) Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalcis III. Décrets fédéraux et décrets municipaux au IIe siècle av. J.-C., Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 114, 473–498. Knoepfler, D. (2002) Oropos et la confédération béotienne à la lumière de quelques inscriptions ‘révisitées’, Chiron 32, 119–155. Knoepfler, D. (2013) ‘Un modèle de belle république fédérative’? Montesquieu et le système politique des Lyciens, de la genèse de l’Esprit des Lois aux découvertes épigraphiques les plus récentes en Asie Mineure méridionale, Journal des savants, 115–154. Kokkinia, C. (2000) Die Opramoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis. Euergetismus und soziale Elite in Lykien, Bonn. Kokkinia, C. (2008) Boubon. The inscriptions and archeological remains. A survey 2004–2006, Athens. Korkut, T. and G. Grosche (ed.) (2007) Das Boulēuterion von Patara. Versammlungsgebäude des lykischen Bundes, Istanbul. Larsen, J.A.O (1943) Tituli Asiae Minoris II, 508 Part I. Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Classical Philology 38, 177–190. Larsen, J.A.O. (1945) Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic Federalism, Classical Philology 40, 65–97.

240

Athanassios Rizakis

Larsen, J.A.O. (1955) Representative Government in Greek and Roman History, London. Larsen, J.A.O. (1956) The Araxa Inscription and the Lykian Confederacy, Classical Philology 51, 151–169. Larsen, J.A.O. (1957) Lykia and the Greek Federal Citizenship, Symbolae Osloenses 33, 5–26. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Larsen, J.A.O. (1971) The Rights of Cities within the Achaean Confederacy, Classical Philology 66, 81–86. Larsen, J.A.O. (1972) A Recent Interpretation of the Achaian Assemblies, Classical Philology 67, 178–185. Lehmann, G.A. (1981) Ansätze zur bundesstaatlichen Ordnung und repräsentativen Verfassung in der Antike und ihre Rückwirkungen auf die Neuzeit, Geschichte in Köln 9, 54–88. Lehmann, G.A. (1983) Erwägungen zur Struktur des achäischen Bundesstaates, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51, 237–261. Lehmann, G.A. (1985) Die Rezeption der achäischen Bundesverfassung in der Verfassung der USA, Xenia 15, 171–182. Lehmann, G. A. (2001) Ansätze zu einer Theorie des griechischen Bundesstaates bei Aristoteles und Polybios, Göttingen. Lehmann, G.A. (2015) Greek Federalism and the Rediscovery of Polybius, and the Framing of the American Constitution, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in the Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 512–523. Löbel Y. (2014) Die Poleis der bundesstaatlichen Gemeinwesen im antiken Griechenland. Untersuchungen zum Machtverhältnis zwischen Poleis und Zentralgewalten bis 167 v. Chr., Alessandria. Mably, Abbé de (1766–1767) Observations sur l’histoire de la Grèce ou des causes de la prospérité et des malheurs des Grecs, Geneva/Zurich. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Madison, J. (1984) Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1987, reported by James Madison with an Introduction by Adr. Koch, 2nd edition, Athens. Magie, D. S. (1950) Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton. Martin, D.G. (1975) Greek Leagues in the later Second and first Centuries B.C. (PhD Thesis), Princeton. Mendels, D. (1979–1980) Polybius and the constitution of the Achaian League: a note, Scripta classica israelica 5, 85–93. Montesquieu, C.-L. (1748) L’esprit des lois, Geneva. New edition in La Bibliothèque de la Pleiade, Paris 1951; and by Gonsague Truc, Paris 1961 [Livre IX]. Moretti, L. (1962) Le federazione dei Lici, in L. Moretti, Richerche sulle leghe greche, Roma, 171– 218. Müller, C. (2005) La procédure d’adoption des décrets en Béotie de la fin du IIIe siècle av. J.–C au Ier s. apr. J.–C., in P. Fröhlich and C. Müller (eds.), Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique: actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, 95–119. Müller, C. (2011) Quelques réflexions autour des districts de la confédération béotienne à l’époque hellénistique, in N. Badoud (ed.), Philologos Dionysios, Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler, Geneva, 261–282. Musti, D. (1967) Polibio e la demokrazia, Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa 36, 155– 207. Musti, D. (1995) Demokratia: Origini di un’idea, Roma. Newman, W. L. (1902) Politics of Aristotle, Oxford. O’Neil, J.L. (1980) Who Attended Achaian Assemblies?, Museum Helveticum 37, 41–49. O’Neil, J.L. (1984–1986) The Political Elites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues, Ancient Society 15–17, 33–61.

Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions

241

Petersen, E. and F. von Luschan (1889) Reisen in Lykien. Milyas und Kibyratien, Vienna. Rémy, A. (2008) Polybe et les institutions de la confédération achéenne, Bulletin de l’Association Guillame Budé I, 101–125. Rizakis, A. (1995) Achaïe I. Sources textuelles et histoire régionale, Athènes. Rizakis, A. (2003) Le collège des nomographes et le système de représentation dans le Koinon achéen, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 97–109. Rizakis, A. (2008a) Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens/Paris. Rizakis, A. (2008b) L’expérience de l’organisation inter civique et supra civique dans la confédération achéenne, in M. Lombardo and F. Frisone (eds.), Forme sovrapoleiche e interpoleiche di organizzazione nel mondo greco antico, Galatina, 274–292. Rizakis, A. (2011) Real-Politik της Ρώμης και η θλιβερή τύχη της Μεσσήνης μετά τον Β᾽Μακεδονικό πόλεμο (196–182 π.Χ.), in P. Valavanis (ed.), Ταξιδεύοντας στην κλασσική Ελλάδα. Τόμος προς τιμήν του καθηγητού Πέτρου Θέμελη, Athens, 271–281. Rizakis, A. (2016) Territorio e riorganizzazione delle poleis nell’Achaia orientale da Omero a Strabone, in A. Pontradolfo (ed.), Egialea, Ricerche nella valle del Krios, Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente XXIV, Athens, 19–30. Robinson, C.A. (1941) The Greek Political Experience. Studies in Honor of W.K. Prentice, Princeton. Roesch, P. (1982) Études béotiennes, Paris. Rousset, D. (2010) De Lycie en Cabalide. La convention entre les Lycéens et Termessos près d’Oinoanda, Geneva. Roy, J. (2003) The Arcadians in Inschriften von Magnesia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 145, 123–130. Rzepka, J. (2006) The Rights of Cities within the Aitolian Confederacy, Valencia. Salmon, P. (1956) Les districts béotiens, Revue des études anciennes 58, 51–70. Schindler, F. (1972) Die Inschriften von Boubon (NordLykien), Vienne. Schuler, C. (2007) Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und die Lykiern aus Tyberissos, in C. Schuler (ed.), Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien, Vienna, 51–79. Schwahn, W. (1931) Das Bürgerrecht der sympolitischen Bundesstaten bei den Griechen, Hermes 66, 97–118. Sizov, S.K. (2016) Two Lists of Achaian nomographoi, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 198, 101–109. Swoboda, H. (1912) Studien zu den griechischen Bünden: 3. Die Städte im achäischen Bunde, Klio, 12, 17–50. Swoboda, H (1922) Die neue Urkunden von Epidauros, Hermes 57, 518–534. Tagliafico, M. (1995) Le deportazioni degli Achei a Roma nel 167 a.C., in M. Sordi (ed.), Coercizione e mobilità umana nel mondo antico, Milano, 215–223. Takmer, B. (2007) Lex portorii provinciae Lykiae. Ein Vorbericht über die Zollinschrift aus Adriake aus neronischer Zeit, Gephyra 4, 165–188. Tarn, W. (1928) The Greek leagues and Macedonia, Cambridge Ancient History 7, 732–768. Thornton, J. (2000) Une regione vista da lontano: la Licia di Strabone dai dati geografici al mito del’Eunomia, in A.M. Biraschi and G. Salmeri (eds.), Strabone e l’Asia Minore, Naples, 401– 459. Troxell, H. A. (1982) The Coinage of the Lycian League, New York. Tuci, P. (2003) La democrazia di Polibio tra heredità classica e federalismo, in C. Bearzot, F. Landucci, and G. Zecchini (eds.), Gli stati teritoriali nel mondo antico. Contributi di storia antica, Milano, 45–86. Urban, K. (1979) Wachstum und Krise des Achäischen Bundes, Wiesbaden. Walbank, F.W. (1957–1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 volumes, Oxford. Walbank, F.W. (1970) The Achaean Assemblies Again, Museum Helveticum 27, 129–143.

242

Athanassios Rizakis

Walbank, F.W. (1985) Were there Greek federal states?, in F.W. Walbank, Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge, 2–37. Warren, J.A. (2007) The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal, London. Watts, R. (1999) Comparing Federal Systems, 2nd ed. Montreal. Welwei, W. (1966) Demokratie und Masse bei Polybios, Historia 15, 282–301.

THE DYNAMICS OF THE ARKADIAN ETHNOS, OR POLEIS VERSUS KOINON. James Roy University of Nottingham At the beginning of the fifth century the Arkadians were clearly an ethnos with a developed myth-history of common origin and a shared territory in the central Peloponnese. However they did not form a koinon until, in the aftermath of the battle of Leuktra in 371, special circumstances arose. Even then the pan-Arkadian koinon, although briefly very influential in inter-state affairs, especially in the Peloponnese, lasted only a few years before splitting into two blocs.1 Clearly, as Emily Mackil (2013, 2014) has argued forcefully, the existence of an ethnos was not sufficient of itself to produce a koinon, but it is worth considering known factors that would militate against the formation of an Arkadian koinon, and also the other developments that can be seen to have taken place within the Arkadian ethnos. First, some features of the Arkadian ethnos. It first appears in Homer, notably in the Catalogue of Ships (Iliad 2.603–614), and elements of the charter-myth of common Arkadian origins are already apparent in Hesiodic mythography.2 Why and how the charter-myth developed so early is unknown: if there were kings in archaic Arkadia, it might have served their interests to manipulate such myth, particularly if they were competing for power within Arkadia, but that is merely speculation.3 It is at any rate clear that the inherited ethnos-identity was available from the later archaic period onwards, and could be used to promote the interests of Arkadians. Different Arkadian communities might of course interpret it differently to suit their divergent interests. Thomas Nielsen has shown (2002 120–157) how Arkadian identity could be politicised, and it probably lay behind, for instance, the attempt by the Spartan king Kleomenes I in the early fifth century to bring together leading men in Arkadia (Hdt. 6.74.1–2: see Nielsen 2002 127–129), and the army drawn from all the Arkadians except the Mantineans that fought the Spartans at Dipaia in the 470s or 460s (Hdt. 9.35.1–2; Nielsen 2015 252f). Maria Pretzler (2009) also surveys how Arkadian identity was used: since her purpose is to explain the emergence of the Arkadian koinon after Leuktra, she lays some stress on panArkadian tendencies, which certainly existed; but they existed alongside divergent tendencies.

1 2 3

On the Arkadian koinon of the 360s see Niesen 2015, 258–268, and Bearzot in this volume. Nielsen 2002, 66–72, Fowler 2013, 104. On reports of kings in Arkadia see Carlier 1984, 404–407: note the comments of de Fidio 2013, 457–466.

244

James Roy

The Arkadians were recognised as an ethnos by other Greeks, sometimes in surprising ways. Herodotus (1.66–68) tells how in the middle of the sixth century the Spartans attacked Tegea. He clearly believed that the Spartans originally intended to conquer all Arkadia, but were persuaded by the Delphic oracle to campaign first only against Tegea. Why the Spartans would have thought it wise to attack all of Arkadia in a single campaign is far from clear, but Herodotus’ vision of Arkadia as a unit is very clear. Pausanias (8.39.3) says something very similar when reporting a Spartan attack on Phigalia that he dates to the seventh century: the attack took place, he says, “when the Spartans attacked the Arkadians”. Once the various Arkadian communities had joined the Peloponnesian League, the Spartans could treat Arkadia, like other regions, as a unit when planning reforms of Peloponnesian League forces: thus Arkadia appears in reports both of the naval contributions planned in 413/412 (Thuc. 8.3.2) and of the army contributions established in 377/376 (when – strikingly – Arkadia was to supply two of the ten divisions).4 The large number of troops supplied by Arkadia is one indication of the resources available in Arkadia. The troops would be hoplites, so that they also indicate that many Arkadians were not poor, even if we do not know what the qualification for hoplite status might have been in Arkadian communities. The numerous Arkadians who took service as mercenaries outside Arkadia, and often outside Greece, were presumably men trained as hoplites (Roy 2004b, 272–276). There were certainly wealthy men in Arkadia (Roy 1999, 343f). Some of that wealth was used for communal projects: already in the later archaic period Arkadian communities were building ambitious temples, and it is notable that the relatively small community of Pallantion was alone responsible for at least four archaic temples.5 The region Arkadia was large, and seems to have included by the end of the archaic period most of what was later generally regarded as Arkadian, though fluctuations continued along the frontiers (Roy 2000a) and the adhesion of Triphylia to Arkadia in 370 or soon afterwards marked a major change (Nielsen 2002, 89–117). Within that large region there was a variety of economic resources (Roy 1999). Some modern scholars have assumed that the Arkadians were, by Greek standards, relatively primitive or backward, but there is no justification for this view (Roy 2013a). On the contrary, they were able to organise themselves as other Greeks did. As Thomas Nielsen has shown, by the end of the archaic period the polis, the typical Greek city-state, was well established in Arkadia, and in the classical period the numerous Arkadian communities were structured as poleis.6 That pattern included the constituent communities of the four regional groupings within Arkadia, 4

5 6

Diod. Sic. 15.31.1–2: see Stylianou 1998, 281–285, with estimates of the number of men required. However, Xenophon’s Hell. 5.2.7 report that, after the dioikism of Mantinea a separate xenagos was sent to each kome of Mantinea shows that the Arkadian forces of the Peloponnesian League were not mustered as a single unit: there are in fact numerous references to troops from particular Arkadian communities within armies of the Peloponnesian League, e.g., famously, the Tegeans at Plataiai (Hdt. 9.26–28), and Mantineans and Tegeans at the battle near the R. Nemea in 394 (Xen. Hell. 4.2.9–23). Voyatzis 1999, on Pallantion see 134f and 146f. Nielsen 2002, 193–228, 271–411; and 2004a.

The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon

245

the Parrhasians, the Mainalians, the Eutresians, and the Kynourians (Nielsen 2002, 271–307 and 2015, 256f). The Arkadians not only developed poleis, as other Greeks did, but from a fairly early date some Arkadian communities built carefully-planned new towns as the urban centre of the polis. At Tegea a network of streets laid out on a grid-pattern may date from the sixth century (Ødegård and Karapanagiotou 2012), and in the Megalopolis basin two such towns were created in the fifth century, near the modern villages of Kiparissia and Perivolia.7 In the fourth century, probably c.375-350, a new site, again on a grid-pattern, was created for Stymphalos (Williams 2013). Arkadians clearly had the administrative skills and financial resources to carry out such projects, and an inscription from Tegea of the mid-fourth century (IPArk 3) shows how an Arkadian polis could handle the recruitment and surveillance of the work-force which – as was usual in the Greek world – had to be brought in for a major building project. Arkadia also produced able politicians, such as, to name only a few, Demonax of Mantinea8 who was chosen to carry out constitutional reforms in Kyrene in the mid-sixth century; Chileos of Tegea, according to Herodotus (9.9–10) the most influential xenos at Sparta in 480; and Lykomedes of Mantinea, who was highly successful in the Arkadian confederacy of the 360s (Xen. Hell. 7.1.23–24). For these reasons it cannot be supposed that the Arkadians were simply incapable of creating a confederacy. Indeed, when they did finally create one after Leuktra, its constitution was tightly organised and the confederacy carried through the major enterprise of creating Megalopolis.9 There were examples of federalism in the Peloponnese before Leuktra. Interestingly, there were probably small federal structures within Arkadia itself. In central and southern Arkadia there were four areas where individual communities were grouped together, the Parrhasians, the Mainalians, the Kynourians, and the Eutresians. Thomas Nielsen has shown that the individual communities within these groups were poleis (Nielsen 2002, 271–307 and 2015, 256f). We know little about the activities of the Kynourians and the Eutresians, but the Parrhasians and the Mainalians undertook major activity collectively. This led Hans-Joachim Gehrke to describe them as ‘Mini–Föderationen’, and Thomas Nielsen has written of their ‘federal character’.10 It is possible that the Akroreians in north-eastern Eleia also formed a confederacy, though evidence is very limited.11 The Spartans evidently did not object to small federal structures that were no threat: when in 421 they intervened in Parrhasia to drive out the Mantineans, to whose hegemonic alliance the 7 8 9

10 11

For the site at Kiparissia see Karapanagiotou 2005 and 2010; for that at Perivolia see Archaeology in Greece online, Perivolia no.2429: (http://chronique.efa.gr/index.php/fiches/2429). Hdt. 4.161.3: see Baldacci 2013. On the federal constitution see Beck 1997, 67–83 (82 ‘straff organisierter Bundesstaat’); Roy 2000b, 310–316 (noting that the Arkadians may have sought advice from Plato or his pupil Aristonymos); and Nielsen 2015, 260–267. On the foundation of Megalopolis see Nielsen 2000, 414–443 and Roy 2005, ancient reports that the initiative for the foundation came from Epameinondas are very doubtful (Nielsen 2002, 419f; Roy 2014). See Gehrke 1986, 112, 154; Nielsen 2002, 271f (the quoted phrase is at 278). See also Roy 2013b on the Parrhasians. Siewert 1987–1988, Roy 2004a, 490.

246

James Roy

Parrhasians had belonged, they left the Parrhasians autonomous and probably ensured that a pro-Spartan faction was dominant, but did not otherwise interfere with their constitutional structure.12 The Spartans also looked favourably on the Triphylian koinon set up when the area was freed from Eleian control in 400, creating simultaneously an ethnos and a koinon.13 Whether the koinon was actually set up by the Spartans, as Siewert suggested, or was the result of a local initiative, a possibility noted by Nielsen, there is no doubt that the Spartans protected the Triphylian koinon against Elis until they could no longer offer that protection because of the setbacks suffered after Leuktra, and in particular the loss of Messenia.14 It is interesting that federalism was clearly known both within Arkadia and in Arkadia’s Triphylian neighbours (which did not join Arkadia until after Leuktra), but such small-scale federalism, tolerated or even encouraged by Sparta, was not a precedent for a pan-Arkadian koinon. Large federal structures developed north of the Gulf of Corinth, 15 but in the Peloponnese of the classical period the only large-scale confederacy was the Achaian koinon. Achaia came under Spartan influence in the Peloponnesian League only at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War: Pellene was the first Achaian polis to join, at the outbreak of the War, and the others followed during the War (Thuc. 2.9.2). Thus, for much of the fifth century Achaia was more free from Spartan influence than most Peloponnesian regions. Even so, at what date a political framework uniting the Achaians came into being is not clear: Morgan and Hall (2004, 474f) see little evidence of such a framework before the end of the fifth century, and Mackil (2014, 274–276) argues that there is no evidence before 389. Consequently, for most of the classical period before Leuktra there was no large Peloponnesian koinon. There were, however, other factors that might inhibit the emergence of an Arkadian koinon. One was the influence of Sparta. By c. 500 all Arkadian communities had joined the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta (e.g. Nielsen 2002, 73f). Sparta therefore had influence throughout Arkadia, and an obvious interest in ensuring that no threat to the Peloponnesian League developed in Arkadia. In the 470s or 460s Sparta fought and won battles first against Tegea and Argos and then against all the Arkadians except Mantinea (Hdt. 9.35.2). In 421 a Spartan army deprived the Mantineans of control of Parrhasia, and tension between Sparta and Mantinea continued until the battle at Mantinea in 418 (Thuc. 5.33–81). Relations between the two continued to be poor until in 385 Sparta attacked Mantinea, destroyed the town, and divided the Mantineans into separate villages (or possibly poleis).16 Such incidents would have made very clear to Sparta the danger of a major grouping of Arkadian states. Cinzia Bearzot has drawn attention to Xenophon’s report (Hell. 5.2.12–19) 12 13 14 15 16

Thuc. 5.33.1–3: Roy 2013a, 25–28. Nielsen 1997; 2002, 229–269; 2004b, 540–546. Siewert 1987–1988; Nielsen 2002, 252–262. See the case-studies in Beck 1997. Xen Hell. 5.2.2–7. On the possibility that Mantinea was divided into five poleis rather than villages see Roy 2000b, 309 n.5.

The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon

247

of a speech delivered by Kleigenes of Akanthos in 382 to the Spartans and their allies in which he sought to persuade the Spartans of the dangers of a Chalkidian koinon,17 but in that case part of the problem was that the Chalkidian peninsula was a long way from Sparta: Sparta would be more likely to react to threats in Arkadia, immediately north of Lakonia. It is however notable that Sparta did not react to smaller groupings that did not appear to threaten its influence. Thus, when in the 420s Mantinea and Tegea developed rival hegemonic alliances in central and southern Arkadia and actually fought a battle in 423 (Thuc. 4.134.1–2), Sparta eventually intervened to drive the Mantineans out of Parrhasia, which lay on the Lakonian frontier (Thuc. 5.33.1–3), but apparently did nothing to weaken Tegea and its alliance. Thus, even membership of the Peloponnesian League did not stop Arkadian states going to war with each other, as Mantinea and Tegea did. Another striking example is a war between Kleitor and Orchomenos in 378 (Xen. Hell. 5.4.36–37): it is reported only because the Kleitorians were employing mercenaries, and the Spartan King Agesilaos wanted to use these mercenaries in a campaign that he was leading against Thebes. He told the Kleitorians to let him have their mercenaries, and ordered Orchomenos to refrain from war against Kleitor for as long as his own campaign might last, even threatening that, if any polis campaigned against another during a Peloponnesian League campaign, he would attack them directly. Xenophon does not tell us whether fighting between Kleitor and Orchomenos resumed once Agesilaos’ campaign was over, but he reports no measure to prevent it. Thus membership of the Peloponnesian League allowed the Arkadian poleis, especially the bigger ones, considerable freedom to create hegemonic alliances and even to go to war with each other, but Sparta could, and did, intervene when it saw fit. A panArkadian confederacy would have been a danger great enough to justify intervention, and Arkadians must have known that. As Emily Mackil has stressed, shared religious activity promoted cohesion among Greeks, and could play a major role in establishing, maintaining, and developing the koinon (Mackil 2013, 147–236). However it is not clear whether the Arkadians had a sanctuary that could serve as a focus for such cohesion. Only one site, the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios on Mt. Lykaion, could have played such a role. Pausanias (8.37.9) says that the Arkadians revered Despoina most of all the gods, but the only known cult of Despoina in Arkadia was at Lykosoura and there is no sign that her sanctuary there was seen as a meeting-place for the Arkadian ethnos.18 Herodotus (6.74.1–2) says that the Spartan king Kleomenes I tried to bring together leading men of the Arkadians at Nonakris, where there was the Styx, in order to have them swear by the water of the Styx (as well as by other oaths) to follow him wherever he might lead, but, however fearsome an oath by the Styx might be, there was no sanctuary at the Styx and there is no trace of regular cult activity there (Jost 1985, 36). On Mt. Lykaion, however, there was a major sanctuary near the summit 17

18

Bearzot 2004, 45–56. The comparable danger from a Thessalian bloc was set out in a speech of 375–374 by Polydamas of Pharsalos to the Spartans (Xen. Hell.6.1.4–16: see Bearzot 2004, 63–72). On the sanctuary and cult of Despoina see Jost 1985, 297–301 and 326f.

248

James Roy

where there was cult activity on a very large scale, including well-known games, the Lykaia, in honour of Zeus Lykaios, and, on the summit itself, an ash altar and a temenos.19 Both the sanctuary and the ash altar are currently being investigated by the Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project: two extensive preliminary reports have recently appeared,20 one on the ash altar and the adjacent temenos at the summit and the other on the lower sanctuary. The investigation is adding greatly to our knowledge of both sites. Nothing so far known, however, shows the various Arkadian communities coming together to worship Zeus Lykaios: few inscriptions have been found, and other offerings cannot obviously be related to pan-Arkadian interaction. The importance of Zeus Lykaios for the Arkadians is not in doubt, but much is still unclear about the sanctuary. It is not known, for instance, who was responsible for its management, including the organisation of the Lykaia. I have recently argued (Roy 2013b) that the simplest hypothesis is to suppose that the responsibility belonged to the Parrhasians, in whose territory the sanctuary lay. (After the synoikism of Megalopolis, when the Parrhasians were incorporated in Megalopolis and the sanctuary on Mt. Lykaion fell within Megalopolitan territory, it is clear that Megalopolis administered the sanctuary [Roy 2013b, 31f]). There are, however, some apparently pan-Arkadian features. One is that on the two surviving victorlists from the games, of the late fourth century, all Arkadian victors are designated by the ethnic ‘Arkas’ alone, with no reference to their particular home community: this was evidently an attempt to emphasise common Arkadian identity.21 Also, in the fifth coinage with the legend ARKADIKON (or an abbreviation) was struck in very large quantities, with the head of Zeus Lykaios on the obverse of all the coins. Various attempts have been made to explain who struck these, coins, and why,22 but a very plausible suggestion is that they were struck in connection with the Lykaia, the games held at the sanctuary, since that would explain the very large quantity of coinage struck (Nielsen 2002, 145–152).23 If that suggestion is right, then the simplest hypothesis is that they were struck by whoever organised the games, and, rather than assume an otherwise unattested Arkadian amphictyony or the like (Nielsen 2002, 149), it is simpler to suppose that the Parrhasians ran the games and struck the coins (Roy 2013b, 32–35). In that case the Parrhasians would have been asserting the link between the sanctuary, with its games, and the identity of the Arkadian ethnos; and they would also have been declaring, implicitly, the prominence that they enjoyed among Arkadians through having the sanctuary in 19

20 21 22 23

See Jost 1985, 179–185 with Pl.47–49 on the sanctuary, and 249–269 on the cult of Zeus Lykaios: note however that the archaeological information available at the time of publication was from the excavations of Kourouniotis in the early 20 th century. On the importance of the cult of Zeus Lykaios for Arkadians see also Nielsen 2013, 235–240. Romano and Voyatzis 2014 and 2015. IG V.2 549–550: see Nielsen 2002, 150 and 529f. Mackil 2013, 249 n.39 notes various suggestions: see also Pretzler 2009, 98f; and Nielsen 2013, 237 and 2015, 251f. Pretzler 2009, 98f and Nielsen 2013, 237 both strongly suggest that the ARKADIKON coinage was minted by Tegea, but neither seeks to explain why Tegea would have minted in such quantity. See also Nielsen 2015, 250–253.

The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon

249

their territory. Such behaviour would be important for understanding how Arkadian identity could be used, a question that will be considered later. Here it is enough to note that nothing that we know at the moment about the sanctuary at Mt. Lykaion shows that it was the scene of interaction among Arkadian communities likely to lead to a more structured grouping such as a koinon, and we know of no other Arkadian sanctuary likely to have played such a role. Spartan influence, the lack of a Peloponnesian model of a large koinon, and the absence of shared religious activity likely to promote union, all help to explain why no Arkadian koinon developed before 370. However, it is also important to understand what the Arkadians did do before 370, the more so because a tendency that developed in that period then continued for centuries. By the beginning of the classical period Arkadia was made up of a large number of communities, generally organised as poleis; Nielsen (2004a) lists 39 that meet the criteria of the Copenhagen Polis Centre for being considered as poleis. There were in fact many more communities that were probably also poleis, but for which the relevant evidence is lacking, or is available but does not meet the criteria of the CPC: for instance, fewer than half of the communities that Pausanias (8.27.3–4) says were to be incorporated in the synoikism of Megalopolis appear in Nielsen’s list. Whether or not all of these communities named by Pausanias were actually absorbed by Megalopolis, there is no reason to doubt their existence (Nielsen 2002, 280f). Pausanias, however, in Book 8 gives only seventeen Arkadian poleis in total in his day (second century CE), including Stymphalos and Alea although they were then attached to the Argolid. Among the seventeen were three small poleis: Lykosoura had survived as an enclave in Megalopolitan territory; Antoninus Pius had restored the polis-status of Pallantion because it was believed to be the home of Evander, mythical founder of the first settlement on the Palatine at Rome; and Alipheira had somehow survived on the border between Arkadia and Elis (Roy 2010, 59f). The other fourteen cities mentioned by Pausanias, all larger than those three, had absorbed all the other poleis that had once existed in Arkadia.24 This was the result of a process that had gone on for centuries, as larger Arkadian poleis sought, by various means, to extend their influence over smaller neighbours. The earliest evidence is a sixth-century dedication by Kleitor at Olympia celebrating victory over ‘many cities’:25 since Kleitor did not lie on the frontier of Arkadia, it is very hard to see how it could win such a victory over anyone other than its Arkadian neighbours. In the 420s (as mentioned above) both Tegea and Mantinea had created hegemonic alliances over neighbours, and in 423 they fought a battle, each being supported by its allies (Thuc. 4.134): this example shows that expansion was sometimes competitive. The hegemonic nature of Mantinea’s alliance is clear from the terms of the treaty agreed in 420 by Mantinea, Elis, Argos, and Athens (Thuc. 5.47, Staatsverträge 193): the four major states each swore an oath on behalf of themselves and their subordinate allies. Similarly in 362, according to Xenophon (Hell. 7.5.4), the Arkadians who supported 24 25

The full list is: Alea, Heraia, Kaphyai, Kleitor, Kynaitha, Mantinea, Megalopolis, Orchomenos, Pheneos, Phigalia, Psophis, Stymphalos, Tegea, and Thelpousa. Paus. 5.23.7: see Nielsen 2002, 193–195.

250

James Roy

Epameinondas’ invasion of the Peloponnese were the Tegeans, the Megalopolitans, the Aseans, and “any poleis that were forced [to follow them] because they were small and were situated in the middle of these”. Sometimes the smaller community was incorporated in the larger by a formal agreement: two fourth-century inscriptions show such agreements between Orchomenos and Euaimon and between Mantinea and Helisson, and in both cases it is generally accepted that the larger polis was in effect absorbing the smaller.26 It was possible for a small community that had been absorbed to regain its independence, and Helisson is a good example: it must have separated from Mantinea since it was incorporated in Megalopolis, but later it also separated from Megalopolis and appeared as an independent polis c. 300 and later as a member of the Achaian League striking federal coinage in its own name.27 The synoikism of Megalopolis took in many small poleis, and some – particularly those near the edge of Megalopolitan territory – subsequently regained independence. Helisson is one such, and another good example is Methydrion (Nielsen 2002, 449–452). After the second century BCE, however, there is no known case of a smaller Arkadian polis regaining its independence, apart from the exceptional case of Pallantion, which had been a komē of Megalopolis or Tegea but was elevated by Antoninus Pius to the status of polis.28 Pausanias’ account of Arkadia suggests rather that in his day the larger poleis controlled their territories securely. Thus, from at least the late archaic period the larger Arkadian poleis extended their influence over smaller neighbours. The process was not entirely straightforward, since a smaller community could sometimes regain its polis-status, but the eventual outcome was that fourteen poleis absorbed all but three of the others.29 As a result the fourteen gained territory and manpower, and may well have also gained economic advantages, such as access to more arable land for cultivation and to pasture for the flocks that were very important in the Arkadian economy. While these fourteen poleis grew stronger through expansion, none became strong enough to achieve sole dominance in Arkadia. Forsén (2000) has examined the relative strengths of Tegea, Mantinea, and Orchomenos, the three major poleis of the southeastern basins of Arkadia. He finds that Tegea was stronger than Mantinea, and Mantinea stronger than Orchomenos, but that none was alone strong enough to overcome a neighbour. It is understandable that Forsén chose to examine these three poleis, the major cities of southern Arkadia before the foundation of Megalopolis, because there is sufficient evidence to permit his analysis. It is likely, however, that the surviving evidence concentrates on southern Arkadia at the expense of other areas, at least in the late archaic and classical periods, because of a general Greek interest in Sparta, immediately to the south. Kleitor in northern Arkadia, for instance, seems from the limited available evidence to have been an 26 27 28 29

Orchomenos and Euaimon, IPArk 15: see Nielsen 2002, 350–352. Mantinea and Helisson, SEG 37.340: see Nielsen 2002, 359–363 and 2015, 254–256. IG IV2.1 42; Dubois 1988, 2.132 and Warren 2007, 67. Paus. 8.44.1–7: Roy 2010, 59. On this process see Roy 2008.

The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon

251

important polis.30 Besides its sixth century dedication at Olympia commemorating victory over many cities (Paus. 5.23.7), we know that in 378 it was at war with Orchomenos (Xen. Hell. 5.4.36); since they were separated by the territory of Kaphyai, one or both must have been trying to expand. For the foundation of Megalopolis the Arkadian koinon appointed ten oikists, of which two were from Kleitor (8.27.2): the others were made up of two each from Mantinea, Tegea, Parrhasia, and Mainalia. Kleitor, at least in the time of Pausanias, had a very large territory, apparently the largest in Arkadia (Nielsen 2002, 323– 325). Thus the important poleis of Arkadia were not all concentrated in the south, even if the south attracted much more attention from historians. Nonetheless it is still true that no single polis was dominant. Megalopolis was obviously intended to be a major polis, and in the decree of the Arkadian koinon preserved on IG V.2, 1 it alone has ten damiorgoi, while no other polis has more than five. It is often said that it was intended to be the federal capital, or, as Hans Beck (1997, 83) put it, the Bundeszentrum, but the evidence to support the suggestion is not good (Roy 2007, 291f). In any case, not long after the creation of Megalopolis the Arkadian confederacy split into two blocs, and Megalopolis was clearly not able to dominate Arkadia thereafter. In fact no single polis ever held in Arkadia the dominant position that Thebes for a considerable time enjoyed in Boiotia. There was thus no polis that could alone promote an Arkadian koinon. On the other hand there were several poleis that could profit from the absence of a federal structure by promoting their own interests locally. Leading Arkadian cities also used what may be called pan-Arkadian sentiment to promote their interests. The subject has been examined recently by Pretzler (2009, 96–99) and Nielsen (2013, 235–237 and 2015, 252–254): the available evidence concerns mainly Tegea and Mantinea. It is however important to consider whether such claims were made to promote a pan-Arkadian cause, as Pretzler and Nielsen suggest, or were meant to serve the particular interests of Tegea and Mantinea.31 In the case of Tegea Pretzler cites two passages in Herodotus (9.35 and 9.26–28). The first fits Pretzler’s argument well, referring as it does to two battles fought by Tegea against Sparta in the 470s or 460s; in the first Tegea was supported by Argos, and in the second by all Arkadians except Mantinea. The second passage, however, concerns Tegea’s claim to a place of honour in the battle-line at Plataiai in an army led by the Spartans. In the speech that Herodotus (9.26) gives the Tegeans they certainly tell how their mythical king Echemos prevented the Herakleidai, the Spartans’ ancestors, from remaining in the Peloponnese, but they also tell the Spartans explicitly that they have no rivalry with them and leave them to 30 31

See the comments of Nielsen 2002, 365f. Pretzler 2009, 97 writes ‘at least in the fifth century Tegea made a conscious effort to present itself as a long-standing champion of the Arcadian cause, particularly against Sparta’, and (on the transfer of the bones of Arkas to Mantinea) ‘a bold move which suggests a serious claim to pan-Arcadian leadership’. Nielsen 2013, 235 writes ‘some sort of Arkadian unification, it would seem, had been the ambition of both Tegea and Mantinea during the fifth century’ (though on pp. 236f he writes of Tegea and Mantinea seeking to ‘further their local political initiatives’).

252

James Roy

choose whichever wing of the battle-line they wish. The speech is in fact made in a spirit of friendship towards the Spartans. Despite subsequent hostility in the 470s or 460s, relations between Sparta and Tegea were evidently friendly again in the late 420s: it is notable that, although Sparta sent an army to drive the Mantineans out of Parrhasia and to deprive them of their Parrhasian allies and of a fort that they had built in Parrhasia, Sparta took no action against the Tegeans who had equally built up a hegemonic alliance on Sparta’s northern frontier (Thuc. 5.33.1–3, cf. 4.134.1–2). Indeed, from the 460s until the aftermath of the battle of Leuktra there is no evidence of Tegean hostility to Sparta or of a Tegean attempt to unite Arkadia. As for Mantinea, it had certainly built up a hegemonic alliance in Mainalia and Parrhasia by 423, and it may well have been in those years that the supposed bones of Arkas were brought from Mainalia to Mantinea (Paus. 8.9.3, 8.36.8: Nielsen 2002, 403f). Mantinea became openly hostile to Sparta in 420, allying itself with Elis, Argos, and Athens (Thuc. 5.47, Staatsverträge 193). However the speech which, according to Thucydides (5.69.1), a Mantinean commander made to his troops before the battle of Mantinea in 418, is revealing: for the Mantineans, the commander said, the battle was about archē and slavery, not to lose archē and not to suffer slavery [at the hands of the Spartans] again. In other words, at least in the judgment of Thucydides, the Mantineans’ ambition was not at all pan-Arkadian but purely Mantinean, a desire to maintain leadership of their hegemonic alliance. Pretzler (2009, 98) also mentions the case of Orchomenos, already noted by Nielsen (2002, 355–357, cf. 2015, 254). In the fourth century coins of Orchomenos and of Methydrion (which had been attached to Orchomenos) showed the nymph Kallisto dying and, lying beside her, her baby son Arkas: Nielsen suggests that the coins were intended to link Orchomenos and Methydrion.32 At any rate, as Pretzler notes, these coins show that major figures of Arkadian mythology were not deployed only by the most powerful Arkadian states; Orchomenos could have no pan-Arkadian purpose (and in fact opposed the Arkadian koinon when it came into being: Xen. Hell. 6.5.11, 13–14). It seems that apparently panArkadian claims could be used to promote the purely local ambitions of particular Arkadian communities, although, when an opportunity arose, they could also serve genuinely pan-Arkadian purposes. In fact before the battle of Leuktra, the fifthcentury battle fought against the Spartans by all the Arkadians except Mantinea seems to be the only (almost) pan-Arkadian action. It also appears, however, that Arkadian communities were concerned about their standing within Arkadia: the use of pan-Arkadian myth to promote local interests within Arkadia suggests a desire to assert status among fellow-Arkadians. The ARKADIKON coinage may have been struck to claim such status for the community that struck it. To sum up: there were various factors that help to explain why no Arkadian koinon was created before the Battle of Leuktra, notably Spartan influence, the lack of any single Arkadian community strong enough to lead the others, and, possibly, the lack of a religious centre where Arkadian communities interacted closely 32

Examples of the coins are illustrated in Walker 2006, 373 n.1572 (Methydrion) and 374f n.1573–1582 (Orchomenos).

The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon

253

enough to promote closer union. Nonetheless the bigger Arkadian communities had found ways to increase their power, territory, and resources by absorbing smaller neighbours, and, although they used pan-Arkadian cult and myth for their purposes, they pursued their own local interests. Then came Leuktra and its aftermath, briefly bringing changed circumstances in which the formation of a koinon seemed desirable to many Arkadians (though not all); but in the tensions of the 360s the koinon remained united only until 363/2, when it split into two blocs. Both blocs seem to have continued as rival confederacies for a time, and one at least seems to have survived until 322: how much longer it survived is unknown.33 It is however clear that after the 360s the major Arkadian communities continued to pursue their own local interests as before, and did so into the Roman imperial period. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baldacci, G. (2013) Ridefinire l’identità di una polis: la riforma di Demonatte di Mantinea a Cirene, in G. Baldacci, E.M. Ciampini, E. Girotto, and G. Masaro (eds.), Percorsi identitari tra Mediterraneo e vicino Oriente antico, Padua, 21–33. Bearzot, C. (2004) Federalismo e autonomia nelle Elleniche di Senofonte, Milan. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr, Stuttgart. Carlier, P. (1984) La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasburg. Charneux, P. (1983) Sur quelques inscriptions d’Argos, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 251–267. de Fidio, P. (2013) Eforo e le tradizioni sulla Messenia arcaica, in P. de Fidio and C. Talamo (eds.), Eforo di Cuma nella storia della storiografia grece. Atti dell’Incontro Internazionale di Studi Fisciano-Salerno, 10–12 dicembre 2008, vol. 1, Naples, 413–506. Dubois, L. (1988) Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, Louvain-la–Neuve. Forsén, B. (2000) Population and Political Strength of Some Southeastern Arkadian Poleis, in P. Flensted–Jensen (ed.), Further studies in the ancient Greek polis, Stuttgart, 35–55. Fowler, R. L. (2013) Early Greek mythography vol. 2: Commentary, Oxford. Gehrke, H.-J. (1986) Jenseits von Athen und Sparta: das dritte Griechenland und seine Staatenwelt, Munich. Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen (eds.) (2004) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford. Jost, M. (1985) Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, Paris. Karapanagiotou, A. V. (2005) Preliminary Notices on the Excavation of a Classical Town at Kyparissia, Gortynia, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the Third International Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, Athens, 331–350.

33

Nielsen 2002, 493–496. An Argive inscription that refers to an Arkadian koinon and also shows Kleonai as a kome of Argos (Piérart 1982; Charneux 1983, 256–262) had been used as argument for the longer survival of an Arkadian koinon, but Kritsas 2006, 427–429 has now shown that Kleonai was incorporated into Argos in the earlier fourth century, probably before the formation of an Arkadian koinon after Leuktra.

254

James Roy

Karapanagiotou, A. V. (2010) Kyparissia bei Gortynia: eine Streifenstadt klassischer Zeit im westlichen Arkadien, in H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern: Festschrift für Burkhardt Wesenberg zum 65. Geburtstag, Möhnesee, 127–138. Kritzas, C. (2006) Nouvelles inscriptions d’Argos: les archives des comptes du trésor sacré (IVe s. av. J.–C.), Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles–Lettres 150, 397–434. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. (2014) Ethnos and Koinon, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 270–284. Morgan, C. and J.M. Hall (2004) Achaia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 472–488. Nielsen, T.H. (1997) Triphylia: An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Political Organisation, in T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 129–162. Nielsen, T.H. (2002) Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Göttingen. Nielsen, T.H. (2004a) Arkadia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 505–539. Nielsen, T.H. (2004b) Triphylia in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 540–546. Nielsen, T.H. (2013) Can “federal sanctuaries” be Identified in Triphylia and Arkadia?, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart, 227–244. Nielsen, T.H. (2015) The Arkadian Confederacy, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 250–268. Ødegård, K. and A.V. Karapanagiotou (2012) Τεγέα και Τεγεατική, in A.G. Vlachopoulos (ed.), αρχαολογία Πελοπόννησος, Athens, 278–285. Piérart, M. (1982) Argos, Cléonai, et le koinon des Arcadiens, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 106, 119–138. Pretzler, M. (2009) Arcadia: Ethnicity and Politics in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, 86–109. Romano, D.G. and M.E. Voyatzis (2010) Excavating at the Birthplace of Zeus, Expedition 52, 9– 21. Romano, D. G. and M.E. Voyatzis (2014) Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, Part 1: the Upper Sanctuary, Hesperia 83, 569–652. Romano, D. G. and M.E. Voyatzis (2015) Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, Part 2: The Lower Sanctuary, Hesperia 84, 207–276. Roy, J. (1999) The Economies of Arkadia, in T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia, Copenhagen, 320–381. Roy, J. (2000a) The Frontier Between Arkadia and Elis in Classical Antiquity, in P. Flensted–Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and Politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday, August 20th, 2000, Copenhagen, 133–156. Roy, J. (2000b) Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370–362 BC, in R. Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 308–326. Roy, J. (2004a) Elis, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 489–504. Roy, J. (2004b) The Ambitions of a Mercenary, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), The Long March, New Haven/London, 264–288.

The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon

255

Roy, J. (2005) Synoikizing Megalopolis: the scope of the synoikism and the interests of local Arkadian communities, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the third international seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, Athens, 261–270. Roy, J. (2007) The Urban Layout of Megalopolis in its Civic and Confederate Context, in R. Westgate, N. Fisher, and J. Whitley (eds.), Building communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. Proceedings of a conference held at Cardiff University, 17–21 April 2001, London, 289–295. Roy, J. (2008) Interaction of Large and Small Communities in Arkadia in the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic and Roman Periods, in C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis and G.M. Muskett (eds.), Dioskouroi. Studies presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30year joint contribution to Aegean Archaeology, Oxford, 176–183. Roy, J. (2010) Roman Arkadia, in A.D. Rizakis and C. Lepenioti (eds.), Roman Peloponnese III: Society, economy and culture under the Roman empire: continuity and innovation, Athens, 59– 73. Roy, J. (2013a) On Seeming Backward: how the Arkadians did it, in S.D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable Man: essays on ancient Greek social behaviour in honour of Nick Fisher, Swansea, 67–85. Roy, J. (2013b) The Parrhasians of Southwestern Arkadia, Classica et Mediaevalia 64, 5–47. Roy, J. (2014) Emplekton Technique in Fortification at Itome/Messene, Megalopolis, and Mantinea: the work of Theban military engineers?, Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 7, 123– 131. Siewert, P. (1987–1988) Triphylien und Akroreia. Spartanische “Regionalstaaten” in der westlichen Peloponnesos vol. 2, in Acts of the 3rd International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies, Athens, 7–12. Stylianou, P. J. (1998) A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15, Oxford. Voyatzis, M.E. (1999) The Role of Temple Building in Consolidating Arkadian Communities, in T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia, Copenhagen, 130–168. Walker, A. (2006) Coins of the Peloponnesos: the BCD Collection (Auction LHS 96), Zurich. Warren, J.A. (2007) The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal, London. Williams, H. (2013) Archaeological Investigations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1982–2008, in K. Kissas and W.-D. Niemeyer (eds.), The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese. Topography and history from prehistoric times until the end of antiquity, Munich, 425–431.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE ARKADIAN LEAGUE: FROM LYKOMEDES OF MANTINEIA TO STASEIS AMONG HOMOETHNEIS Cinzia Bearzot Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan In spite of the title proposed above (which is perhaps somewhat ambitious) and in light of the large number of studies considering the Arkadian League and its policies during the course of the years 370–360, in this paper I shall only consider two points: first, the characteristics of Arkadian identity as a base for the foreign policy of the league; and second, the role played Arkadia vis-à-vis Athens and Thebes. I. ARKADIAN IDENTITY AND FOREIGN POLICY After the koinē eirēnē of 371/370, Mantineia, which at the time was controlled by the democratic-leaning anti–Spartan party led by Lykomedes, began a project of synoikismos in order to undo the dioikismos imposed by Sparta in 385. At the same time (i.e. the spring-summer of 370) in Tegea, the federalist party of Kallibios and Proxenos, which was supported by the democratic city of Mantineia, was promoting the idea of an Arkadian federal union as a counterbalance to the emphasis on autonomy advocated by Stasippos, who, for his part, was himself supported by the Lakedaimonians (Xen. Hell. 6.5.6–9, cf. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1–2).1 According to Xenophon, Kallibios and Proxenos “were working to unify all of Arkadia in such a way that (or so that) any motion adopted in the general assembly of the koinon would also have the force of law in its member cities” (ἐνῆγον ἐπὶ τὸ συνιέναι τε πᾶν τὸ Ἀρκαδικόν, καὶ ὅ τι νικῴη ἐν τῷ κοινῷ, τοῦτο κύριον εἶναι καὶ τῶν πόλεων). The party of Stasippos, on the other hand, argued that every city should be guaranteed the control of its own territory and the freedom “to respect its ancestral laws and traditions” (ἔπραττον ἐᾶν τε κατὰ χώραν τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις χρῆσθα). Kallibios and Proxenos, in turn, proposed the following formula: νόμοις τοῖς αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι καὶ συμπολιτεύειν of Olynthians, which the ambassador Kleigenes the Acanthian, who had come to seek Spartan aid, in turn refused in the speech he presented to the Spartan assembly by demanding that the Spartans respect the will of his fellow citizens to τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις χρῆσθαι καὶ αὐτοπολῖται εἶναι (Xen. Hell. 5.2.12,14). The ideas of συνιέναι (to assemble in common) and συμπολιτεύειν (common governance of a state), with all that they entail, represented two of the fundamental tenets of federal states, as they emerge clearly from the 1

Bearzot 2004, 127–138.

258

Cinzia Bearzot

excursus of Polybios on the history of the Achaian League (2.37–42).2 These criteria are quite clearly present in the democratic and federalist revolution that was put into motion in Arkadia in 370. But Arkadian federalism was also sustained by several other specific arguments beyond these notions of assembly and governance: common belonging to an ethnos, autochthony to the region’s territory,3 and physical strength and military prowess, all of which are certainly worthwhile ideological tenets to review, if only for the importance they had in shaping the policies of the brand new federation during the years 370–362 BCE. Lykomedes of Mantineia seems by all accounts to have been the principal agent behind the synoikismos of Mantineia (even if Xenophon Hell. 6.5.3–5 does not specifically mention his name), and was certainly the driving force behind the democratic and federalist revolution in Arkadia in 370.4 Both of these processes were launched by him and justified by anti-Spartan sentiments along with an argument in favour of the region’s total autonomy from interfering forces outside the Peloponnese.5 He is also the chief proponent of Arkadian nationalism; a sentiment which itself is tightly linked to a policy of opposition first and foremost against the excessive power of Sparta, as Th. Nielsen has highlighted,6 and also opposition to the interference of Thebes. We readily find the basis of this nationalism in the famous speech reported by Xenophon (7.1.23–24) in which Lykomedes, at the time of the second Theban invasion of the Peloponnese, sought to galvanize the collective conscience of his homoethneis and to draw their attention to the imminent danger posed by Thebes. Ironically, the Arkadians themselves had previously invited this Theban intervention: having been attacked by the Spartans in 370/369, the Arkadians first sought assistance from Athens and then, after their plea to the Athenians had been refused, they turned instead towards the Thebans, the victors of the Battle of Leuktra, who responded with their first invasion of the Peloponnese (Diod. Sic. 15.62.3, this detail is not mentioned by Xenophon).7 This Theban danger does not otherwise seem to have captured the attention of the Peloponnesians, given that, at the beginning of the passage in question, Xenophon emphasizes the political and military harmony between Thebes and its allies in the Peloponnese (Hell. 7.1.22:

2 3 4

5

6 7

Bearzot 2015. On the democratic nature of the propaganda of autochthony, cf. Sordi 1998. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1–2 where he is identified as a Tegean; Xenophon, again, does not mention his name in Hell. 6.5.6–9. The error of Diodorus could well derive from the historian’s equation of Lykomedes with the democratic faction of Tegea, which was responsible for the movement in favour of Arkadian unification. At any rate, Diodorus identifies Lykomedes as Mantineian in another passage (15.62.2), as do Xenophon and Pausanias (8.27.2). Arkadian federalism seems to develop independently from the Thebans, even though Pausianias (8.14.4) writes of the involvement of Epameinondas in the synoikism of Mantineia, and Plutarch Pel. 24.9 alludes to the role of Thebes in the unification of Arkadia (καὶ πᾶσαν μὲν Ἀρκαδίαν εἰς μίαν δύναμιν συνέστησαν; cf. Georgiadou 1997, 182f. Nielsen 1999, 60; Nielsen 2002, 154. Cf. Dem. 16.12 and 19. Paus. 9.14.4 limits himself to mentioning that the Arkadians enthusiastically invited the Thebans into the Peloponnese (καὶ τῶν Ἀρκάδων προθύμως μεταπεμπομένων). Cf. Stylianou 1998, 424f.

The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League

259

Θηβαῖοι δὲ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀποστάντες ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων μέχρι μὲν τούτου τοῦ χρόνου ὁμοθυμαδὸν καὶ ἔπραττον καὶ ἐστρατεύοντο ἡγουμένων Θηβαίων),

as does Diodorus 15.68.1: Ἀρκάδες καὶ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Ἠλεῖοι συμφρονήσαντες ἔγνωσαν στρατεύειν ἐπὶ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ πρεσβεύσαντες πρὸς Βοιωτοὺς ἔπεισαν αὐτοὺς κοινωνεῖν τοῦ πολέμου) and Plutarch (Pelop. 24. 5 and 8: ἀλλ’ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἄνευ δόγματος κοινοῦ καὶ ψηφίσματος ἐποίει τοὺς συμμάχους ἕπεσθαι σιωπῇ πάντας ἡγουμένοις ἐκείνοις. […] καὶ γὰρ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Ἠλεῖοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες, ἐν τοῖς συνεδρίοις ἐρίζοντες καὶ διαφερόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς Θηβαίους ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονίας, ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἀγώνων καὶ παρὰ τὰ δεινὰ τοῖς ἐκείνων αὐθαιρέτως πειθόμενοι στρατηγοῖς ἠκολούθουν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ στρατείᾳ).

We shall subsequently return to these ‘disputes’ between Thebes and its allies over hegemony, to which the Plutarch’s passage alludes. The principal goal of the speech of Lykomedes was to promote and stimulate the phronēma of the Arkadians – a term we find frequently among our sources that is used to indicate the sense of awareness or collective consciousness unique to the ethnē of the Greek world, beginning with the Boiotians.8 This national consciousness highlighted by Lykomedes is based on three aspects: ties with the region’s territory, military strength, and the autonomy of Arkadian communities from external powers. Lykomedes asserts above all that the Arkadians were the only people who were able to define the Peloponnese as their ancestral homeland, given that they were the one and only autochthonous group to inhabit the region (λέγων ὡς μόνοις μὲν αὐτοῖς πατρὶς Πελοπόννησος εἴη, μόνοι γὰρ αὐτόχθονες ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκοῖεν). This claim, based on the myth of Pelasgos, ancestor of the Arkadians and a native to the region,9 implies an opposition against the Spartans who had arrived in the Peloponnese as external conquerors – even though through the myth of the return of the Herakleidai they presented themselves as the legitimate inhabitants of the Peloponnese, which they believed to be the ancestral home of their forefathers. At the same time, however, this claim of Arkadian autochthony to – and thus a privileged association with – the Peloponnese has anti–Theban implications. Indeed the Thebans were, a fortiori, ‘foreigners’ who had come from outside the Peloponnese (even if it was, in fact, the Arkadians who had invited them). That the theme of autochthony figures prominently in the contemporary collective consciousness of the Arkadians is indicated by the inscription CEG 2.383 = FD III.1.2 = Syll.3 160, lines 1–2, which read: CEG 2.824 = FD III.1.2 = Syll.3 160, : Πύθι’ Ἄπολλον [ἄ]ναξ, τάδ’ [ἀγάλματ’ ἔ]δ[ωκεν ἀπαρχὰς] / αὐτόχθων ἱερᾶς λαὸς [ἀπ’ Ἀρκαδί]ας; Dusanic thinks it possible that it was Lykomedes himself who conceived of the text.10 The second point of collective commonality addressed by Lykomedes is without a doubt the most important: the demographic strength and military valour of the Arkadians, the most numerous and the strongest of all the Greek nations (phyla) (πλεῖστον δὲ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν φύλων τὸ Ἀρκαδικὸν εἴη καὶ σώματα ἐγκρατέστατα 8 9

Bearzot 2004, 52–56. Nielsen 1999, 66–72; Nielsen 2002, 32–36. On the subject of federalism and ethnicity, cf. Beck 2003; Hall 2015. 10 Dušanić 1970, 295 n. 43.

260

Cinzia Bearzot

ἔχοι), was comprised of the most courageous men of Greece (καὶ ἀλκιμωτάτους δὲ αὐτοὺς ἀπεδείκνυε).11 This argument is reinforced by calling to mind the extent to which Arkadian soldiers were desired by others (‘every time that anyone had need of reinforcements, they would prefer Arkadians over all others’), and this claim applies equally well to the Spartans as it does to the Thebans. Yet Lykomedes’ assertion also privileges one of the characteristic features of Arkadian society: the fact that they were renowned as mercenaries.12 The characteristic at this point applied equally well to the unified state of the Arkadians as a federal polity, who recently benefitted from territorial expansion, demographic strength, and a high capacity for military mobilisation – all the qualities that the Arkadians (described as pleistoi, enkratestatoi, alkimotatoi) are encouraged to take advantage of themselves, rather than placing them at the service of whatever the hegemonial power of the moment may have been. We find another important indication of the ‘military’ characteristics of Arkadian nationalism in the inscription that we have encountered above, in which the use of the term laos aptly underscores this martial aspect.13 The remarkable capabilities of the Arkadians in the realm of military affairs along with their budding ethnic consciousness were even noted by Xenophon himself, though admittedly he is hardly inclined to appreciate the aspirations of groups hailing from the Peloponnese.14 In fact, after Xenophon notes, in the context of the speech of Lykomedes (Xen. Hell. 7.1.24–25), that “the Arkadians rejoiced at hearing these things” (οἱ μὲν δὴ Ἀρκάδες ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες ἀνεφυσῶντο), he then adds – regarding the campaigns in support of the Argives and against Asine of Laconia – that the Arkadians “also rejoiced because of the events which followed” (καὶ ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων δὲ ἔργων ἐμεγαλύνοντο οἱ Ἀρκάδες), because “wherever they went, nothing stood in their way – not darkness, not storms, neither the length of the journey nor impassable mountains; it was on account of this, therefore, that at the time they were convinced they were the strongest” (ὥστε ἔν γε ἐκείνῳ τῷ χρόνῳ πολὺ ᾤοντο κράτιστοι εἶναι). Xenophon considered the Arkadians, just like the Argives, as one of the strongest peoples of the Peloponnese (Hell. 7.2.2: ἔχοντες πολεμίους τοὺς δυνατωτάτους τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ Ἀρκάδας καὶ Ἀργείους). We may find another confirmation of the growing popularity of this collective consciousness shaped by Lykomedes in the words of the Arkadian Antiochos, who was sent as the delegate of the Arkadian koinon to the negotiation of the common peace of 367 in Persia. Antiochos, rebuffed by the Persian ambassadors over the role of the Arkadian League, upon his return to Arkadia reported to the 10,000, “that the king had a multitude of bakers, of chefs, of attendants and valets, but when it came to men who were capable of fighting against the Greeks, even though he 11 Xenophon Hell. 6.5.16 emphasizes the large number of Arkadian hoplites sent by Tegea to the assistance of Mantineia when it had been attacked by Agesilaos. Diodorus 15.64.3 notes the importance of the Arkadian contingent in the allied army during the first Theban invasion of the Peloponnese (ἡ δὲ τρίτη μερίς, ἐκ τῶν Ἀρκάδων συνεστηκυῖα καὶ στρατιώτας ἔχουσα πλείστους). 12 Nielsen 1999, 79–83; Nielsen 2002, 40–43; Gallotta 2006. 13 Nielsen 2002, 53. 14 Sordi 1951, 313–316.

The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League

261

had searched far and wide he did not find a single man” (Hell. 7.1.38). Thus, in these words of Antiochos, we find that the collective perception of the Arkadikon promoted by Lykomedes was intrinsically linked to the Arkadians’ awareness of the military force of their League. The third point follows directly from this recognition of their own military strength. Lykomedes beseeches the Arkadians to stop ‘following all those who call on them,’ to not follow the Thebans ‘on a whim’, and to demand that they lead the alliance in turn (kata meros); if they do not do these things, he asserts that the Arkadians will find that the Thebans are ‘the new Spartans’ (ἐὰν οὖν σωφρονῆτε, τοῦ ἀκολουθεῖν ὅποι ἄν τις παρακαλῇ φείσεσθε· ὡς πρότερόν τε Λακεδαιμονίοις ἀκολουθοῦντες ἐκείνους ηὐξήσατε, νῦν δὲ ἂν Θηβαίοις εἰκῇ ἀκολουθῆτε καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος ἡγεῖσθαι ἀξιῶτε, ἴσως τάχα τούτους ἄλλους Λακεδαιμονίους εὑρήσετε). If they did so, then the autonomy of the Arkadians themselves as well as the entire Peloponnese would be endangered yet again. In the past I have noted elsewhere that in this speech Lykomedes argues in favour of Arkadian hegemony over the entire Peloponnese; today I would certainly not describe his position in such terms.15 The reality of the situation, it seems to me, was rather that the Arkadians took care to defend their independence by means of a defensive alliance that did not oblige them to follow the lead of the hegemon ‘wherever he may wish’ as the Spartans had demanded of the allies and of those who had ascribed to a common peace. As an aside: this requirement indeed was something Thebes also sought to do at the time by threatening, among other things a punitive expedition against whomever would dare oppose it, as is evident in the negotiations at Susa in 367 Xen. Hell. 7.1.36. The Arkadians, sought to prevent this by planning that the command of the alliance would rotate among member states in turn, something to which Plut. Pel. 24.8 by all accounts alludes to, though he does not specify who exactly disagreed with this idea, which he considers as being put forward by all the allies and not just the Arkadians on their own, although he downplays the importance and consequences of the strategy (καὶ γὰρ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Ἠλεῖοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες, ἐν τοῖς συνεδρίοις ἐρίζοντες καὶ διαφερόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς Θηβαίους ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονίας…). The invitation of Lykomedes, by all accounts, took into consideration the heated debates that had recently been sparked among the allies of Sparta by this obligation to follow the hegemon ‘wherever he may wish’. During the assembly of 371 (for the peace, presumably), the Athenian Autokles had expressly accused the Spartans of violating the condition of autonomy by this hegemonial obligation (Xen. Hell. 7.3.7–8), and in the treaty establishing the Common Peace with which the assembly concluded, this requirement of obligatory intervention had been erased, (Xen. Hell. 7.3.18), only to be reintroduced in the version of the treaty ratified at Athens in 371/370 (Xen. Hell. 7.5.2). The idea of alternating the office of hegemon was among the leading debates of the time, to the point that the Athenian Kephisodotos demanded it – with success – during the negotiation of the alliance between Athens and Sparta in 369 (Xen. Hell. 7.1.12–14). Subsequent renewals of the Common Peace had also emphasized issues such as these that were linked to 15 Bearzot 2004, 128.

262

Cinzia Bearzot

the defence of autonomy, and it seems appropriate to me that this emphasis on autonomy was ultimately of greater interest to Lykomedes and the Arkadians than the question of hegemony. I would like to elaborate one other point regarding this question of the essentially military character of Arkadian national identity as prioritised by Lykomedes. As we know, our sources documenting the Theban Hegemony insist strongly on the fact that these hegemonic aspirations of the Thebans were nourished by phronēma rooted in their collective military capabilities. In this regard, certain passages of Diodorus are fitting inserts. During the Battle of Tegyra in which the Thebans proved victorious against the Spartans, even though they were outnumbered 2:1, Diodorus notes that this victory galvanized the phronēma of the Thebans, renowned for their andreia, and led them to further cultivate their desire for hegemony.16 At 15.50.5, Diodorus recalls that the Spartans feared the Thebans, whom they considered as potential rivals to their hegemony in Greece because of their physical force acquired through constant training, as well as their warlike character. 17 In Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 119), the preoccupation of Thebans with military value is viewed as a limitation which prevents them from consolidating through paideia the gains they had won.18 The Thebans, however, supported and promoted this propaganda based on military valour, physical strength, courage, and intense training, which enabled them to defeat the Spartans. We find an example of this in Plutarch’s Life of Pelopidas 30, a passage relating to the diplomatic expedition of Pelopidas to Susa in 367 which clearly reflects this pro-Theban tradition.19 Reports of Theban victories against the Spartans precede Pelopidas’ arrival in Persia, where he is welcomed as a triumphant hero who had chased the Spartans by land and by sea back to their territory between the Eurotas River and the Mount Taygetos, and who had reduced Agesilaos’ ambitions of conquest in Asia to dust.20 Accordingly, I wonder whether the insistence of Lykomedes (and of Antiochos, the Arkadian ambassador to Susa) on the martial prowess of the Arcadians, itself based on sheer numbers as well as courage and physical strength, neither takes into account this emphatic Theban propaganda, nor does it seek in any way to challenge it. Since the Spartan problem had been resolved, all of this comes at a moment when the most pressing threat seemed to come from these new hegemons, and it thus seemed fitting to highlight 16 Diod. Sic. 15.37.2, 15.37.2: διὸ καὶ φρονήματος ἐπίμπλαντο Θηβαῖοι, καὶ τὴν ἀνδρείαν εἶχον μᾶλλον περιβόητον, καὶ φανεροὶ καθειστήκεισαν ἀμφισβητήσοντες τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγεμονίας. 17 Diod. 15.50.5: ἔν τε γὰρ τοῖς γυμνασίοις συνεχῶς διατρίβοντες εὔρωστοι τοῖς σώμασιν ὑπῆρχον, καὶ φύσει φιλοπόλεμοι καθεστῶτες οὐδενὸς ἔθνους Ἑλληνικοῦ ταῖς ἀνδρείαις ἐλείποντο. 18 Ephorus FGrH 70 F 119: τελευτήσαντος γὰρ ἐκείνου [Épaminondas] τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἀποβαλεῖν εὐθὺς τοὺς Θηβαίους, γευσαμένους αὐτῆς μόνον· αἴτιον δὲ εἶναι τὸ λόγων καὶ ὁμιλίας τῆς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ὀλιγωρῆσαι, μόνης δ’ ἐπιμεληθῆναι τῆς κατὰ πόλεμον ἀρετῆς. 19 Georgiadou 1997, 205–211. 20 The renown won by the Thebans following the battle of Leuktra is also recalled by Xenophon Hell. 6.1.3.

The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League

263

the military capacity of the Peloponnesians to liberate themselves by their own means from foreign intervention, thereby becoming autonomous. And this seems all the more to be the case because these Peloponnesian allies were perfectly aware of the military attributes of the Thebans: according to Xenophon (Hell. 7.5.23), when the Arcadians, Argives, and the Eleians asked the Thebans to invade Lakonia, in addition to drawing attention to their own numerical importance, they also extolled the strength of the Theban army (ὑπερεπαινοῦντες δὲ τὸ τῶν Θηβαίων στράτευμα). Xenophon himself highlights the quality of their military training, which is the result of repeated exercises (καὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν Βοιωτοὶ ἐγυμνάζοντο πάντες περὶ τὰ ὅπλα, ἀγαλλόμενοι τῇ ἐν Λεύκτροις νίκῃ, cf. Diod. Sic. 15.50.5). Lykomedes thus successfully made himself the spokesman of an Arkadian national conscience based on autochthony, intrinsic links to their territory (the Peloponnese), their physical and moral characteristics (demographic superiority, strength, and courage), as well as their military importance; in short, the specific values of the Arkadian phylon. This national consciousness seems to be capable of inspiring a political policy with autonomist tendencies: first and foremost it was anti-Spartan, then equally anti-Theban, even though in Diodorus the policy advocated by Lykomedes was never presented as being explicitly anti–Theban, his own remarkable military feats are mentioned on several occasions.21 At the same time the policy of Lykomedes favoured the promotion of federal unity among the Arkadians, even while developments outside the League demonstrated that in Arkadia, as in Greece as a whole, national identity and political policy were not necessarily linked to one another.22 The promotion of a strong national identity did nothing at all to prevent the deep fissures which formed in the heart of the Arkadian League in 364: perhaps among the various causes of this we ought to look particularly at the lack of consolidation among the federal union’s member states. Doubtless the resistance to the league, whose traces we find since its beginnings in the refusal of ‘certain’ Arkadian cities to support the synoikism of Mantineia (Xen. Hell. 5.11), contributed to this fracture. Perhaps the lack of strong central authority like that wielded by Lykomedes, who was killed in 366 in an attempted oligarchic coup, was another causal factor in the League’s rupture.23 In this regard it is interesting to note that the vicissitudes of federal Arkadia, as with the city of Thebes during its hegemony, underscore the fundamental importance of each respective league’s leadership: ambitious projects, like the unification of Arkadia on the one hand, and the Theban hegemony on the other, often seem to have been the product of individual initiative, be it on the part of Lykomedes or Epameinondas and Pelopidas in their respective milieu. The act of taking these individuals out of the picture blocks the development 21 Diodorus, who relies on a pro-Theban tradition, does not mention the problems faced by the coalition. Lykomedes is mentioned as a strategos during the expeditions against Orchomenos, which did not want to involve itself in the Arkadian League, and against Pellene (Diod. Sic. 15.62.2, cf. Xen. Hell. 6.5.11–14; Diod. Sic. 15.67.2, cf. Xen. Hell. 7.2.2–4; the name of Lykomedes is not mentioned explicitly by Xenophon). 22 Cf. Roy 1972 regarding this national identity of the Arkadians and the local attachments which, at any rate, remained rather strong. 23 Beck 1997.

264

Cinzia Bearzot

of certain projects that would have been undertaken with great success. The subsequent tradition has identified in the deaths of Epameinondas and Pelopidas one of the motifs of the transient character of the Theban hegemony, namely, that the Boeotian political elite had neither the ability nor the interest to promote such projects. In the same vein, the assassination of Lykomedes, whose great personal influence is emphasized by Xenophon (Hell. 7.1.24: οἱ μὲν δὴ Ἀρκάδες ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες ἀνεφυσῶντό τε καὶ ὑπερεφίλουν τὸν Λυκομήδην καὶ μόνον ἄνδρα ἡγοῦντο· ὥστε ἄρχοντας ἔταττον οὕστινας ἐκεῖνος κελεύοι) endangered the Arkadian federal project, which he had so fervently desired (Diod. Sic. 15.59.1),24 just as much as it jeopardised designs of the Arkadians on the conduct of the Peloponnesian alliance as a whole. To conclude, I believe that it is possible to underscore the fundamental individual role played by Lykomedes (justifiably recognised by Xenophon) who kindled an adequate national identity based on common values, in the promotion of the national unity of the Arkadians, as well as in the promotion of a solid policy among them favouring autonomy. Perhaps most importantly, we can recognise the importance of his influence in the fact that he had momentarily succeeded in containing the divisive elements among the Arkadians, which would reappear promptly after his death and which would rapidly lead to the staseis among homoethneis reported by Diod. Sic. 15.82.2 – a process which can also certainly be attributed to the disappearance of the ominous and oppressive presence of Sparta from the political stage. II. ARKADIA BETWEEN ATHENS AND THEBES Marta Sordi, a pioneer in the study of federalism in Italy, was convinced that over the course of its hegemony Thebes had consciously favoured the development of federalism in the Peloponnese and in Thessaly.25 Hans Beck, however, denied the existence of systematic collaboration among federal states.26 The case of Arkadia in the aftermath of 370 provides an excellent test for at least partially examining this question of inter-federal collaboration in the fourth century. Many points have already been highlighted by contemporary scholars, and it seems fitting to me to bring some other observations regarding the progressive rupture between the Arkadians and the Thebans, as well as on the ‘Athenian’ choice of Lykomedes, into the picture. As we have seen above, the position statement of Lykomedes over the course of the second Peloponnesian campaign of the Thebans implies that the hegemonic role played by the Thebans in the alliance was challenged by the Arkadians, who

24 According to Stylianou 1998, 416, Diodorus simplifies the situation: in essence there was a cooperation among, on the one hand, the democrats of Mantineia, of Tegea, and of the other Arkadian cities, and on the other hand, the exiles who were living in Argos and Athens. 25 Sordi 1982, 159–166. 26 Beck 1997a, 212–225; Beck 2000, 343–344.

The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League

265

demanded to have an equal say. The Arkadians, for their part, argued that the alliance should be led kata meros; a request that actually expressed the sort of willingness to collaborate that was typical of Greek federal states who were used to delegating and sharing power and influence. Until the speech of Lykomedes which brought to light the dispute between the Arkadians and the Thebans in a completely unexpected manner in the account of Xenophon, the relations among the states of the Peloponnese (Arkadians, Argives, Eleans) and the Thebans had seemed quite strong, founded as they were on reciprocal trust. What was it that led to this controversy which, even though it did not lead to a total rupture of the alliance, nonetheless dragged on with moments of great tension until 363–362, when over the course of the crisis which had preceded the final expedition of Thebes in the Peloponnese, Epameinondas accuses the Arkadians of treason and threatens to invade them (Xen. Hell. 7.4.40)? The emphasis has been placed on various factors: the dissatisfaction of the Arkadians with how the Thebans had been conducting the affairs of the Peloponnese;27 the growing disengagement of the Thebans which was equally the result of the domestic problems faced by Epameinondas;28 the absence of stable structures organising the alliance;29 and the question of the synoikism of Megalopolis and its extension.30 We can legitimately cite all of these reasons, but given the strongly military character of the national identity which drove the Arkadians to oppose Thebes, it seems to me that we can also recognise an aspect of the situation that comes to the fore in certain episodes recounted by our sources. In the context of the first Theban expedition in the Peloponnese,31 Xenophon (Hell. 6.5.30) mentions that when they pitched camp the Thebans hurried to cut down trees and build shelters, while the Arkadians, for their part, “did nothing of this sort, instead abandoning the camp to go pillage the houses.” Xenophon again observes (Hell. 6.5.50) in the context of the end of the second expedition of the Thebans,32 “many Arcadians, Argives, and Eleans, the inhabitants of the neighbouring regions, had withdrawn, returning to their homeland with everything that they had looted”. As a result, the Thebans themselves considered retreating in front of the spectacle of shrinking Arkadian formations and groups of men. Plutarch (Ages. 32.13) for his part observes that the retreat of the Thebans on this occasion was a result of the Arkadians beginning to withdraw by abandoning everything with no organisation whatsoever (τῶν Ἀρκάδων ἀρξαμένων ἀπιέναι καὶ διαρρεῖν ἀτάκτως).33 Pausanias (9.14.6) also reports the same story (ἐν τούτῳ δὲ οἱ τῶν Θηβαίων σύμμαχοι κατέτρεχον διασκεδασθέντες χώραν τὴν Λακωνικὴν καὶ ἥρπαζον τὰ ἐξ αὐτῆς). 27 Dušanić 1970, 292–300. 28 Roy 1971, 575–582. He notes that in 368 and 367 the Thebans did not launch any noteworthy expeditions in the Peloponnese, even though the Arkadians and the Argives continued to fight; Buckler 1980, 105–109. 29 Cf. Buckler 1982; Buckler 2000. 30 Dušanić 1970, 292–298. 31 At some point between November-December and March-April of 370/369: Shipley 1997, 349. 32 Summer of 369. 33 Shipley 1997, 348.

266

Cinzia Bearzot

Over the course of these two first expeditions, the Arkadian troops were thus distinguished by their lack of discipline, because they tended to scatter in search of plunder. These episodes (in response to which the Thebans seem quite intolerant in encouraging them to withdraw from the Peloponnese) allow us to identify one of the roots of the dispute between the Thebans and the Arkadians, which certainly concerned military matters (or were military in their origins). By this I wish to say that the haughty demands of the Arkadians certainly were a response to the criticisms they had received from the Thebans during these two expeditions; that on the Theban side disparaging comments on the military prowess of the Arkadians were certainly not lacking is in fact confirmed elsewhere by the words of Pelopidas at Susa, when he observed to the Great King that the Argive and the Arkadians had been defeated when they had fought without the aid of the Thebans (ἔλεγε δὲ ὁ Πελοπίδας ὅτι οἱ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ οἱ Ἀρκάδες μάχῃ ἡττημένοι εἶεν ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, ἐπεὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ παρεγένοντο). The allusion concerns the so-called ‘Battle without Tears’, fought by the Arkadians in 368 (Xen. Hell. 6.1.29–32; Diod. Sic. 15.72.3), an episode which allowed Pelopidas to easily refuse, on the basis of fact, the pretence of Arkadian military superiority claimed by Lykomedes that neither the Spartans nor the Thebans had ever dared to fight the Arkadians. In the account offered to us by the ancient sources, various references are made to the crisis of diplomatic relations between the Arkadians and the Thebans, as well as to the subsequent development of an Elean-Theban axis, which appears quite clearly at certain moments such as the negotiations at Susa. Immediately after recounting the speech of Lykomedes, Xenophon indicates that the Thebans began to distrust the Arkadians and not show any indications of friendship towards them (Hell. 7.1.26: οἱ μὲν δὴ Θηβαῖοι διὰ ταῦτα ὑποφθόνως καὶ οὐκέτι φιλικῶς εἶχον πρὸς τοὺς Ἀρκάδας). The Eleans, for their part, became hostile towards the Arkadians because of Triphylia (καὶ οἱ Ἠλεῖοι δυσμενῶς εἶχον πρὸς αὐτούς). Xenophon then emphasizes the mega phronein of the allies of Thebes, who then caused a rupture in the heart of the anti-Spartan alliance (Hell. 7.1.27), with its usual complacency in drawing attention to the difficulties of the Thebans. 34 He also stresses the satisfaction of the Thebans and the Eleans following the defeat of the Argives and Arkadians at the ‘Battle without Tears’ (Hell. 7.1.32 ἐπὶ μέντοι τῇ τῶν Ἀρκάδων τύχῃ οὐ πολύ τι ἧττον Λακεδαιμονίων ἥσθησαν Θηβαῖοί τε καὶ Ἠλεῖοι· οὕτως ἤδη ἤχθοντο ἐπὶ τῷ φρονήματι αὐτῶν). Tensions were at their highest during the negotiations at Susa (Xen. Hell. 7.1.38: Antiochos was irritated by the lack of esteem in which the Arkadians were held), and during the congress at Thebes which followed, when Lykomedes again challenged Theban leadership of the alliance by affirming that the congress ought to have been held where the war was being waged, namely, in the Peloponnese (Xen. Hell. 7.1.39: ὁ μέντοι Ἀρκὰς Λυκομήδης καὶ τοῦτο ἔλεγεν, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸν σύλλογον ἐν Θήβαις δέοι εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἔνθα ἂν ᾖ ὁ πόλεμος). This episode is highly significant. Lykomedes was not so much arguing for Arkadian hegemony as he was for the right of the states of the Peloponnese to self-

34 Riedinger 1991, 172–190.

The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League

267

determination, cities whose fates should not be decided at Thebes. It has been emphasized that there was a clear link between this request of holding the congress in the Peloponnese and the petition that command of the alliance should be held alternately.35 In response to the negative reaction of the Thebans who accused him of wanting to destroy the alliance, Lykomedes withdrew the Arkadian delegation from the congress and the Theban initiative was thus destined to failure (χαλεπαινόντων δ’ αὐτῷ τῶν Θηβαίων καὶ λεγόντων ὡς διαφθείροι τὸ συμμαχικόν, οὐδ’ εἰς τὸ συνέδριον ἤθελε καθίζειν, ἀλλ’ ἀπιὼν ᾤχετο, καὶ μετ’ αὐτοῦ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας πρέσβεις). This represented a cause of concern for the Thebans, if indeed Epameinondas, as Xenophon writes (Hell. 7.1.41) initiated the third expedition in the Peloponnese, in Achaia (366) in order to ‘obtain the consideration’ of the Arkadians and of the other allies (ὅπως μᾶλλον σφίσι καὶ οἱ Ἀρκάδες καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι σύμμαχοι προσέχοιεν τὸν νοῦν). But the expedition was a failure, and in its wake Epameinondas was brought up on charges ‘by the Arkadians and by the political adversaries’, a development which leads us to think that, in a practical sense, contact had been established between the Arkadians and the domestic opposition of Epameinondas (Xen. Hell. 7.1.43: κατηγορούντων δὲ αὐτοῦ τῶν τε Ἀρκάδων καὶ τῶν ἀντιστασιωτῶν). The climax of this trial is the accusation of treason formulated by Epameinondas against the Arkadians at the time of the internal crisis of the League, in 363–362. Epameinondas, who was asked to sentence to death the Theban commander confined at Tegea who proceeded to arrest the Tegean beltistoi, responds with irritation, referencing the separate peace concluded between the Arkadians and the Eleans without consultation of the Thebans, whom the Arkadians themselves had summoned to come fight in the Peloponnese, as well as by underscoring the legitimacy of the accusation of prodosia raised against them (Xen. Hell. 7.4.40: τὸ γὰρ ἡμῶν δι’ ὑμᾶς εἰς πόλεμον καταστάντων ὑμᾶς ἄνευ τῆς ἡμετέρας γνώμης εἰρήνην ποιεῖσθαι πῶς οὐκ ἂν δικαίως προδοσίαν τις ὑμῶν τοῦτο κατηγοροίη). It is certainly surprising to observe the growing distrust of the Arkadians towards Thebes while it functioned as a federal power, even if it was the Arkadians themselves who had invited the Thebans into the Peloponnese and they in turn contributed, by defending the site, to the foundation of Megalopolis (Paus. 8.27).36 In fact, the democratic and anti-Spartan Lykomedes was rather inclined to look to the Athenians for help since a long history of anti-Spartan cooperation linked Mantineia and Athens, stretching from the intervention of Themistokles in the Peloponnese around 470 until the alliance of 418. It is true, however, that Athens had more recently shown itself to be ambivalent towards helping Mantineia against Sparta. In 385, when Mantineia experienced the imposition of dioikismos, the appeal for help sent to Athens remained unanswered. Diodorus (15.5.5) affirms that Athens did not 35 Jehne 1994, 86 and n.229 (who cites Thompson 1983, 52). 36 Pausanias considers Epameinondas as the ‘oikist’ of Megalopolis, see also 9.14.4; but Beck 2000, 341–343 highlights the weak involvement of Thebes in the city’s foundation (as Roy had previously argued in 1971, 577f). The bibliography concerning the foundation of Megalopolis is vast and rich in topics of ongoing debate, beginning with the very date of its foundation: cf. Moggi 1974; Roy 2005; and Nielsen 2002, 341–343.

268

Cinzia Bearzot

want to violate the koinē eirēne (Common Peace), which is certainly understandable given the risk of isolation that this would incur in the diplomatic climate immediately following the ratification of the King’s Peace. A second refusal arrived after the Battle of Leuktra in 370, when Lykomedes, then stratēgos of the Arkadian League,37 inflicted a defeat on the Lacedaemonians but, fearing that he would not be able to resist Sparta, made an appeal to Athens (Diod. Sic. 15.62.3: τὸ μὲν πρῶτον πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας, ἀξιοῦντες συμμαχίαν ποιήσασθαι κατὰ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν, ὡς δ’ οὐδεὶς αὐτοῖς προσεῖχε, διαπρεσβευσάμενοι πρὸς τοὺς Θηβαίους ἔπεισαν αὐτοὺς συμμαχίαν συνθέσθαι κατὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων). 38 In both cases Athens hesitated to place itself against Sparta in support of a population in the Peloponnese; in the first case, it was fear, in the second, Athens was likely pushed by internal forces which advocated a return to sharing spheres of influence with Sparta, as proposed by Kallistratos during the congress in Sparta of 371. This, however, does not at all change the fact that Athens remained in a certain sense the first choice of Lykomedes. Despite the two preceding refusals, in light of the turn for the worse taken by the Arkadian relationship with the Thebans, Lykomedes again asked the Athenians to form a defensive alliance in 336. The conditions for such a pact were far from being favourable, given that in 369 Athens had concluded an alliance with Sparta and would have found itself allied with two states which were mutual enemies. But Lykomedes took advantage of the discontented Athenians who had not received help in the episode of Oropos, which had recently fallen into Theban hands. A convincing line of reasoning, presented by Xenophon as the consensus of the Athenian assembly, likely dates back to Lykomedes: even though it seems paradoxical to unite with the enemy of an ally, it was to everyone’s benefit that the Arkadians no longer needed the Thebans.39 In fact, the alliance struck between Athens and the Arkadians weakened the alliance between Athens and Sparta. Lykomedes, who would later fall victim to an attack during his return voyage to Arkadia, persisted in his policy of weakening the hegemonic role of Thebes by adding conditions so that the Arkadians could renounce the aid of the Thebans. Accordingly he looked towards Athens, partly as a veritable knight of autonomy following the decree of Aristotle, whose contents were entered into the peace treaty of Athens which was concluded following

37 Lykomedes would again be strategos in 369: Diod. 15.67. 38 Cf. Dem. 16. 12 and 19; Paus. 9.14.4 limits himself to recalling that the Arcadians invited the Thebans into the Peloponnese with insistence, καὶ τῶν Ἀρκάδων προθύμως μεταπεμπομένων; Xen. (Hell. 6.5.11–14) relates the defeat of the Spartans by the Arkadians, but does not mention Lykomedes and seeks to downplay the importance of the episode. 39 Xen. Hell. 7.4.2: Καταμαθὼν δὲ ὁ Λυκομήδης μεμφομένους τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τοῖς συμμάχοις, ὅτι αὐτοὶ μὲν πολλὰ πράγματα εἶχον δι’ ἐκείνους, ἀντεβοήθησε δ’ αὐτοῖς οὐδείς, πείθει τοὺς μυρίους πράττειν περὶ συμμαχίας πρὸς αὐτούς. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον ἐδυσχέραινόν τινες τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὸ Λακεδαιμονίοις ὄντας φίλους γενέσθαι τοῖς ἐναντίοις αὐτῶν συμμάχους· ἐπειδὴ δὲ λογιζόμενοι ηὕρισκον οὐδὲν μεῖον Λακεδαιμονίοις ἢ σφίσιν ἀγαθὸν τὸ Ἀρκάδας μὴ προσδεῖσθαι Θηβαίων, οὕτω δὴ προσεδέχοντο τὴν τῶν Ἀρκάδων συμμαχίαν. Cf. Beck 1997a, 222–225 who emphasizes Lykomedes’ diplomatic skills.

The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League

269

Leuktra in 371/370 (Hell. 6.5.1–3), partly as a naval power disinterested in territorial control of the Peloponnese, and partly as a decidedly democratic city tied to Mantineia by a long history of political collaboration.40 By means of diplomatic relations with Athens, Lykomedes intended to make Arkadia into a strong state with its own very precise foreign policy that did not intend at all to follow the political line of other states.41 It is precisely the difficulty encountered by Mantineia in the 4th century in obtaining Athenian assistance which makes the conviction with which Lykomedes considered Athens as a privileged interlocutor all the more significant, with sufficient inclination and means to support the autonomy of Peloponnesian states without posing a danger in and of itself. At this point I can conclude by emphasizing two fundamental aspects which, in my opinion, have become clear from this examination. On the one hand, the importance of military prowess in defining the Arkadian national identity in the process of the development of a national conscience, as well as opposition to Thebes. On the other hand, the irrelevance of common federal experience in the foreign policy of the Arkadian League with regard to Thebes. It was the inclinations of the domestic politics (a democratic tendency) of foreign policy (relations with Sparta, trustworthiness in the support of autonomy, potential threats to the independence of the Peloponnese) which dominated, so that the traditional democratic axis between Mantineia and Athens ended by prevailing on the federal axis between Mantineia and Thebes. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bearzot, C. (2004) Federalismo e autonomia nelle Elleniche di Senofonte, Milan. Bearzot, C. (2015) Ancient Theoretical Reflections on Federalism, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 503–511. Beck, H. (1997a) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Beck, H. (1997b) Das Attentat auf Lykomedes von Mantineia, Tekmeria 3, 1–6. Beck, H. (2003) New Approaches to Federalism in Ancient Greece: Perceptions and Perspectives, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History 2. Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethnē in Ancient Greece, Athens, 177–190. Buckler, J. (1980) The Theban Hegemony, 371–362 B.C., Cambridge, Mass./London. Buckler, J. (1982) Alliance and Hegemony in 4 th-Century Greece. The Case of the Theban Hegemony, The Ancient World 5, 79–89. Buckler, J. (2000) The Phantom Synedrion of the Boiotian Confederacy 378–335 BC, in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, Presented to M.H. Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 431–446. Dušanić, S. (1970) The Arcadian League of the Fourth century, Beograd.

40 Dušanić 1970, 300f. (on the preceding relations between Athens and Mantineia); Beck 1997a, 224 (tendency of the Arkadians to seek aid from democratic states). On the topic of democracy in Arkadia, cf. Roy 1971, 571f; contra Thompson 1983; Roy 2000. 41 Buckler 1980, 197.

270

Cinzia Bearzot

Gallotta, S. (2006) I mercenari arcadi: dall’Occidente al Mar Nero, in M.-G. Angeli Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Le vie della storia. Migrazioni di popoli, viaggi di individui, circolazioni di idee nel Mediterraneo antico, Rome, 361–365. Georgiadou, A. (1997) Plutarch’s Pelopidas. A Historical and Philological Commentary, Stuttgart/Leipzig. Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48. Jehne, M. (1994) Koine Eirene. Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart. Moggi, M. (1974) Il sinecismo di Megalopoli, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 4, 71–107. Nielsen, T.H. (1997) Triphylia: An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Political Organisation, in T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 129–162. Nielsen, T.H. (1999) The Concept of Arkadia – The People, their Land and their Organisation, in T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia: Symposium, April, 1–4 1998, Copenhagen, 16–79. Nielsen, T.H. (2002) Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Göttingen. Riedinger, J.–C. (1991) Étude sur les Helléniques. Xénophon et l’histoire, Paris. Roy, J. (1971) Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian Affairs, 370–362 BC, Historia 20, 569–599. Roy, J. (1972) Arcadian Nationality as Seen in Xenophon’s Anabasis, Mnemosyne 25, 129–136. Roy, J. (2000) Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370–362 BC, in R. Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 308–326. Roy, J. (2005) Synoikizing Megalopolis: the scope of the synoikism and the interests of local Arkadian communities, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the third international seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, Athens, 261–270. Shipley, D.R. (1997) A Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Agesilaos, Oxford. Sordi, M. (1950–1951) I caratteri dell’opera storiografica di Senofonte nelle Elleniche, Athenaeum 28, 3–53; 29, 273–348. Sordi, M. (1982) Storia politica del mondo greco, Milano. Sordi, M. (1998) Propaganda e confronto politico, in A. D’Atene and E. Lanzillotta (eds.), Alle radici della democrazia: dalla polis al dibattito costituzionale contemporaneo, Rome, 57–67. Stylianou, P. J. (1998) A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15, Oxford. Thompson, W.E. (1983) Arcadian Factionalism in the 360’s, Historia 32, 149–160.

Ἄπιστα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν1: THE DUBIOUS THESSALIAN STATE Maria Mili University of Glasgow Thessaly holds a special position in discussions about ethnē/koina, largely because the region never fit into modern categories very well.2 According to a dominant narrative, during the Archaic Period, when other ethnē are beyond our purview as loose unions barely leaving a mark, Thessaly is supposedly a major player in the Greek world. It is a strong ‘tribal state’ in a position to shape the world of central Greece, not least through its domination of the Delphic amphiktyony.3 In the Classical Period, when ethnē like Phokis, Boiotia or Aitolia are progressing towards the creation of more developed and permanent regional political institutions, Thessaly disintegrates, becoming introverted and stuck in its ‘arcane’ institutions of the tagos 1

2

3

This ancient proverbial expression, which has become emblematic of modern scholars’ understanding of Thessalians’ foreign policy, can be traced back to Euripides fr. 422. See also schol. Ar. Plut. 521; Dem. 1. 21; 23. 112. A note on the terms ethnos, koinon and federal state is necessary given their variable use by both ancient and modern authors: Ethnos and koinon had a wide variety of meanings in ancient sources, ranging from that of a group of animal, human or things to more specific political meanings: Giovannini 1971, 14–16; Walbank 1985, 21–24; Beck 1997, 11f; Morgan 2003, 7– 10; Mili 2015, 7–10. In modern scholarship there is a tendency to use the term koinon as synonymous with that of federal state: see for instance Beck 1997, 11f. Meanwhile, the term ethnos is often used to describe the kind of states that existed before federal institutions developed: Morgan 2003. In the most recent treatment of the topic, Mackil 2013, 5–7 further differentiates between the term federal and koinon: the term federal is only used when ancient practices seem to map closely onto the modern concept, and the term koinon is thus used in a more abstract way. Still, she accepts the existence of entities organized along the lines of an ethnic group, which could be described with the term ethnos. While, as will become clear in the course of this paper, I fully agree that one should be careful of drawing too close a parallel between ethne/koina and modern federal states, I am not sure about whether we should distinguish between ethnos and koinon. In what follows, then, the terms ethnos and koinon will often be used interchangeably, but occasionally I will use the terms ‘the Thessalians’, or ‘the Thessalian ethnos’ to refer to the more nebulous concept of Thessalian society, while the term the ‘Thessalian koinon’ will be used to refer to the institutionalized aspects of this society, albeit with no reference to federal states. The idea that Thessaly was a ‘superpower’ in the archaic period is more fully developed by Larsen 1968, 12–20. It has proved extremely influential and challenging this common opinion would have all sorts of ramifications for our understanding of the early Delphic amphictiony and for the surrounding states: a strong early Thessaly is indeed, according to many scholars, the crucial factor triggering the process of ethnogenesis in the other regions of the area, such as Phokis: McInerney 1999, 173–181.

272

Maria Mili

and the tetrads.4 Only for a brief spell in the 380–370’s under Jason did the area return to its earlier glory days, albeit under a more modern ‘federal’ constitution. A different reconstruction of archaic and classical Thessalian history, however, has emerged in recent years. According to it, the extent of Thessalian unity and power in the archaic period has been over-estimated,5 as has the extent of Thessalian disorder and interregional conflict during the classical period. From the late sixth century onwards, it is suggested, Thessaly was strong, united, modern and well-organized.6 This new view of Thessaly has not managed to acquire general acceptance and totally replace the traditional narrative. Most scholars writing on Thessalian matters tend to blend the two, using some elements of the one, and some elements of the other prevailing school of thought. Several scholars, for instance, would call fifth century Thessaly a federal state, albeit a very weak one that for the most part was incapable of enforcing its will.7 Despite their important differences, in the works summarized above there is a clear correlation between Thessaly’s foreign relations and its internal affairs. Accordingly the idea emerges that there was a close correlation between the success (or lack thereof) of the regional compromise producing a Thessalian state and the success and consistency of its foreign affairs. Unstable foreign policy with multiple competing actors, lack of vision and inability to leave one’s imprint on the wider Greek world is seen as a reflection of internal instability and an indication of a weak Thessaly. On the other hand a strong Thessalian state is associated with consistency and monopoly over Thessaly’s foreign affairs.8 This paper re-examines the complex relationship between Thessaly’s internal mechanics and external affairs, with a focus on the fifth and the first half of the fourth centuries BCE. I will argue that neither of these narratives, one emphasizing stasis and the other unity, is correct. Both measure Thessaly against an abstract 4

5

6 7 8

‘Arcane institutions’: I am referring here to those works which see the tagos and the tetrads as old time institutions of the Thessalian ethnos supposedly introduced by Aleuas the Red in the early archaic period: Larsen 1960, 237f and 1968, 15–17. See also Hatzopoulos 1994, 251f for the idea that Thessaly was in its essence a monarchically organised state, as expressed by the institution of the tagos, whose ideal it failed to attain. Other later dates for Aleuas and his reforms have of course been suggested: Sordi 1958, 63; Helly 1995, 117, 171–175. For the problem of the historicity of Aleuas and his reforms see Mili 2015, 55 n.8 with previous bibliography. But see above n.3 for the problem of accommodating this view with the traditional role that Thessaly has acquired in the history of Archaic Greece. Moreover, although skepticism concerning the validity of using late literary sources, such as Plutarch, to reconstruct the early history of Thessaly is definitely right, I find problematic the concomitant tendency to treat the first mention of a phenomenon in a literary source as a terminus post quem for its appearance. Helly 1995 passim. See for instance Beck 1997, 124–134; Sprawski 1999, 21–23. Apart from the various works cited above see also Axenidis 1947, 81–84, who uses the phrase Ἄπιστα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν, which figures at the title of this paper, as the heading of the chapter where he discusses precisely the theme of this paper, that is the relationship between Thessaly’s internal mechanics and external affairs. Stamatopoulou 2007a also argues that the Thessalians were ‘introverted’ and occupied by their own internal conflicts throughout the fifth and early fourth century.

The Dubious Thessalian State

273

ideal of how it should have been. In the one case anything that does not fit this ideal is considered as a sign of failure; while the other has to press the evidence to fit the model state and explain away anything that contradicts this ideal. The idea that any state, including federal states (the modern category which has been predominantly used to understand ancient ethnē and koina) would wish to restrict to itself power over foreign affairs, or at least the most important types of foreign affairs, is widespread. Foreign relations in ancient Greece encompassed a variety of contacts: military alliances, economic, religious and political connections, and even more informal kinds of contact such as xenia relationships. These different types of relations involve different actors. They can involve different states, or a state and an individual or individuals from different states.9 It is common to order these kinds of contacts in a hierarchical way: a military alliance is placed on the top of the scale, while the reception of a religious embassy falls towards the bottom. It has been argued that in the case of ancient federal states hard foreign policy was in the hands of the koinon, while their constituent parts only had soft power in that respect.10 Following this line of thought, during most of the time frame discussed here Thessaly could not be confidently classed as a federal state, or even as a state at all. Although we do hear of various regional magistrates and of the Thessalians en masse, the extent of the power of these individuals in positions of authority or of this nebulous group of the Thessalians is difficult to determine, and seems to have been contested and compromised by the activities of other groups or individuals even in matters we would classify as hard foreign policy. Thessaly then raises the question of how we should understand the distribution and balance of power among its various constituent parts without resorting to the trope of the failed state; or indeed without succumbing to the need to iron out the inconsistencies and argue for a well-functioning and ordered state. In a recent monograph, Mackil underlined the dangers of conflating modern (federal) categories with ancient (ethnos/koinon) terminology, and forcefully argued against the tendency to discuss Greek ethnē/koina only or mostly in terms of the development of ‘federal’ institutions. She also stressed the need to study the complex social interactions that took place in the areas within which these institutions were formed. Due emphasis has rightly been given to the religious and economic links that bound the inhabitants of these areas together in multiple complex ways.11 Ethnē/koina, I will argue in this paper, were also arenas of other important

9 10

11

See in general Mitchell 1997; Low 2007; Mack 2015. Mackil 2013, 347–370, 384–390. Although this kind of division might be valid for heuristic purposes, one has to also be aware of the complex links between the two levels of power. Soft power exercised at a local level might well be more formative of high level politics than the model allows. That might for instance be the case in the ‘non autonomous koina’, that is koina that because of their dependence on foreign powers were not in a position to fully develop their regional foreign policy. For an interesting case study of the local versus regional in foreign affairs see also Daverio-Rocchi in this volume. Mackil 2013 passim, and clearly stated in the conclusions 405f.

274

Maria Mili

social interactions, not least among which is the sheer quantity of political interaction. There was in Thessaly a shared political culture, indicated not only in the similarity of civic institutions, but also in the fact that one acquired political power and prestige through a wide regional network of various competing alliances. This competition between various power groups, it will be argued, was to a large extent constitutive of Thessalian society, and it is because of contemporary failure to properly recognize this fact that any kind of dissent amongst the Thessalians has been seen as a sign of disintegration. Instead of seeing power groups or individuals as being in conflict with the regional institutions, we should try to explore their symbiotic relationship, and how one helped shape the other.12 I start by reviewing some of the key evidence for the actors in Thessalian foreign relations. A lot of relevant evidence has been seen either as an example of how the private could override and clash with the public, or any kind of tension has been silenced in order to create an impression of smooth public action. I will argue that the evidence does not allow us to build a simple opposition between private/factional versus public/Thessalian, but shows a complex interaction between the two, in which one is built into and entangled with the other. The story of Kleomachos from Pharsalos and his participation in a war between Chalkis and Eretria, although difficult to date and tie to particular historical events,13 may serve here as a good illustration of this intertwining. Several scholars have recently argued that Kleomachos’ participation in the Euboian war was a private expedition conducted in the context of a xenia or even a philia relationship.14 Other scholars take it as indicating wide Thessalian participation.15 When we take a closer look at the evidence, a complex picture emerges, where both private and public aspects co-exist and intermingle. We learn about the event from Plutarch, who tells us that Kleomachos led an army to Chalkis, and was especially courageous in battle to impress his lover who was watching. He died and was buried in Chalkis where one could see in the agora a column to his memory.16 There are indeed elements in the story that stress the individual actor, not least Kleomachos’ relationship with the lover, who was perhaps meant to be a Chalkidian in the story. 17 But we have to remember that the story was transmitted to us by Plutarch in his work Amatorius, which emphasizes love, and it is only to be expected that the private nature of the relationship of Kleomachos would have been emphasized. Moreover, the reference to Kleomachos’ commemorative monument set up in the agora of Chalkis gives an unmistakable public dimension on the event, at least from the point of view of the Chalkidians. The Chalkidians, rumour had it, were proverbial for their propensity to homosexual relationships: the verb chalkidizein, to act as a Chalkidian,

12 13 14 15 16 17

See also Mackil 2013, 10–13 on the socially embedded nature of institutions. The war is usually identified as the Lelantine War: for a critical review of the evidence see Parker 1997, 145f. Morgan 2003, 203; Stamatopoulou 2007b, 213. Sordi 1958, 47; Larsen 1960, 231; Helly 1995, 136–140. Plut. Amat. 17 = Mor. 760 E–761 B. So thinks Sordi 1958, 47 n.3.

The Dubious Thessalian State

275

to come to mean ‘to enter in a homosexual relationship’.18 The monument of Kleomachos celebrates the public benefits that can result from this most private of relationships and it is pointedly set up in the agora, the public space par excellence. It is impossible to tell what, if anything, this story might have meant for the Thessalians, but there is plenty of evidence which clearly demonstrates how such stories harking back to the past could be invoked to validate the formation of friendship and kinship relationships between the various Greek states. There is some further evidence pointing to Thessalian connections with Chalkis: the first federal decree issued in the name of the Thessalians, and dated to the fourth century, bestows proxeny to a Chalkidian.19 There is uncertainty concerning Plutarch’s sources and thus the chronological context of the story, but the homoerotic episode and the mention of Aristotle in the text could also point to a fourth century date.20 The most famous example of a Thessalian ‘private entrepreneur’ is Menon the Pharsalian who participated in an Athenian expedition at Eion in northern Greece. We hear about the event from Demosthenes, who tells us that Menon contributed a large amount of money and a force of 300 of his own penestai who served as cavalrymen.21 Demosthenes further adds that Menon was rewarded with citizenship.22 As with Kleomachos, Menon’s actions have either been described as operating on a separate private level, or they have been seen as part of an official Thessalian expedition. This latter interpretation clearly stretches the evidence.23 Menon’s contribution of money and manpower is clearly described by Demosthenes as a private initiative.24 And we should not minimize the importance of the fact that a Thessalian nobleman seems to have been able to lead a private army in an expedition abroad.25 But this statement should be qualified, because it would be wrong to think of Menon as the leader of a private army who, when in pursuit of his own interests, operated at a completely different level from his public life. Menon was a member of a wellknown Pharsalian family which throughout the fifth and fourth centuries had played a role in local and wider regional politics, and, to say the least, his private actions would have interacted with and impacted his public profile. The career of Menon has been the subject of considerable debate. Raubitschek, in an important article, argued that the expedition to Eion in which Menon participated was the one led by Kimon, and that Menon the Pharsalian should be identified with the Menon of Gar-

18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25

Hsch. s.v. χαλκιδίζειν; Suda s.v. χαλκιδίζειν, χαλκιδεύεσθαι. Peek 1934, 57; Graninger 2009, 122–124; Mili 2015, 58, 173, 352. Parker 2011, 113 entertains the idea, not clear on what grounds, of a third century date. Parker 1997, 145–147, who also discusses who this Aristotle might have been. Bakhuizen 1976 suggests that the monument with which the story of bravery inspired by pederasty was associated could though date back to the sixth century BCE: this seems to me tenuous. Dem. 23. 199; Dem. 13.23 gives the number of penestai as 200. Dem.23.199. But Dem. 13.23 says that he was awarded with ateleia, but not citizenship. Helly 1995, 185f, 303–312 argues for an official Thessalian participation, but I do not find his position convincing. See also the criticism by Ducat 1997, 184–187. So has argued also Stamatopoulou 2007b, 219. For private armies: Morgan 2003, 203.

276

Maria Mili

gettos who was ostracized at some point in the first half of the fifth century, presumably after taking up his citizenship.26 The identification of the Pharsalian Menon with the ostracized Menon of Gargettos has been seriously challenged, and recently even the identification of the expedition in which he participated with that led by Kimon has been questioned in favour of another episode at a later date in the course of the Peloponnesian War.27 It is a shame that we cannot insert Menon’s action into a specific historical context.28 Nevertheless, even with the little we can be certain of, the bestowal of various honours and perhaps even citizenship by the Athenians, it is clear that Menon’s actions were interpreted by others against a wider public background. As with Kleomachos we can see this fact more clearly from the perspective of a foreign power, but this was a two way dialogue. It was because of the potential prestige one could carry home that one ventured into these enterprises abroad.29 The ability of the individual to gain prestige through his own initiative created space for a clash between different powerful individuals and groups. The events that took place during the Persian Wars allow us to further investigate the potential clash between the actions and interests of private groups and Thessaly at large, and inquire into how common decision making was achieved. The Aleuads, the most famous aristocratic family from Thessaly linked with the city of Larisa, seem to have had a direct relationship with the Persian king and they were the first Greeks to medize. We find them in the court of Xerxes encouraging him to follow Mardonios’ plan and invade Greece.30 And the Thessalians finally medized too, although there seems to have been a great deal of ancient disagreement regarding how this came about, as well as the decision of the Greek army to abandon its position at Tempe on the borders between Thessaly and Makedonia. Herodotus describes how representatives of the Thessalians appealed to the Greek league and asked them to defend the pass at Tempe, and it was only after the Greeks decided to leave the pass that the Thessalians medized en masse.31 Thessaly’s medism then was, for Herodotus, due to necessity, not due to the machination of the Aleuads. This was not the only version of the story. Damastes, another fifth century historian, is reported to have said that it was because Alexander of Makedon informed the Greeks about the treachery of the Aleuads and the Thessalians that the Greeks left Tempe.32 This 26 27 28 29

30 31 32

Raubitschek 1955; Morrison 1942, 62. Ruggeri 2002; Coşkun 2013. There is also the question of why Menon was awarded with citizenship. Is it possible that at some point he was exiled from his hometown and thus took up citizenship in Athens? Potential prestige: See also Mack 2015, 104–118 for the prestige one acquired through the office of proxenia. I do not, however, mean that Menon’s was necessarily acting as a proxenos. His contributions went much beyond what was normally expected from a proxenos. For the possible dangers that this kind of ventures could also entail see previous note and discussion further below. Hdt 7.6 and 7.130 about the Aleuads being the first of the Greeks to medize and Xerxes making the mistake of supposing they were offering friendship from all the people there. Hdt. 7.172–173. Damastes FGrH 5 fr. 4.

The Dubious Thessalian State

277

has led scholars to argue, following the logic of Damastes’ narrative, that the pro– Greek group which had gone to the Greek league was some other aristocratic faction, which did not necessarily have wide support.33 The point to be taken here is not that private groups could override the majority, but that there is a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing the will of the Thessalians from that of its various constituent private groups. The question that is pertinent here is not whether a majority of the Thessalians had the power to enforce their decisions and will, but rather what was the process through which such decisions could be taken and a supposed majority constituted. Even in a case like that of Kineas who, we are told, was sent by the Thessalians by common decision (κοινῇ γνώμῃ) to aid the Peisistradids against the Spartans,34 the mechanisms through which this decision was taken are unclear.35 In several other cases, we could equally well imagine that a decision described as ‘Panthessalian’ was taken through a series of agreements between various Thessalian actors on a one to one basis. This is indeed how Xenophon reports Jason’s ascendancy to the ‘federal’ tageia.36 After winning over various Thessalian cities, Jason goes to persuade Polydamas, the leading man at Pharsalos, to agree with his ascendancy to the tageia, telling him that Polydamas could also sway the various other cities which were dependent on Pharsalos to accept his rule. Thucydides’ description of the aid sent by the Thessalians in the beginning of the Peloponnesian War to the Athenians consists of the contingents supplied by various Thessalian cities, all working together under the command of various local leaders, the Larisean ones even coming from two separate Larisean factions.37 His description seems to give the prominent role to the various local and private units, and not to the federal enterprise, even though they were all operating together.38 The fragmented nature of this Thessalian co-operation comes to the fore more clearly a few years later during Brasidas’ expedition to Amphipolis.39 To secure his passage he contacted his friends at Pharsalos and other cities, who escorted him through Thessaly. He was waylaid by pro-Athenian groups, who said that he was passing illegally through their territory without unanimous agreement (ἄνευ τοῦ πάντων κοινοῦ).40 Thucydides describes an interesting exchange of arguments between the two groups, where the limits of what each one of them is entitled to do 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Westlake 1936, 16f, 19; Beck 1997, 123. Contra: Robertson 1976, 103, who reviews various possible suggestions and argues that this was the official federal position; followed by Helly 1995, 115f, 223–226. Hdt. 5.63. As stressed by Morgan 2001, 31; Morgan’s 2003, 203 description of the expedition as an otherwise straightforward account of aid between xenoi, is exaggerated. Xen. Hell. 6.1.8. Thuc. 2.22. For the passage see also Rechenauer 1993. This is also stressed by Beck 1997, 126. Thuc. 4.78. Morrison 1942, 63 takes the expression to mean the common council. Sprawski 1999, 28 also argues that there existed some sort of body which formally had the power to issue such a decision but the ruling dynasty had deprived it of any significance.

278

Maria Mili

are made clear. One group claimed to be simply acting as hosts, the other demanded the matter be discussed more broadly. Finally, the matter is resolved by quickly sweeping it under the carpet – no decision is taken. The passage reveals how these connections could operate in a complicated way: it is through a network of relationships among the various Thessalians and between the Thessalians and the Makedonians, not simply because of his own personal connections, that Brasidas can secure passage. Later when Rhamphias wanted to pass through the country in assistance to Brasidas he was stopped, because the alliance of Perdikkas had changed, showing how a shift in one node of the network could affect the end result.41 An individual was connected in many ways and so his allegiance was not a given at any single moment. The family of Menon, for example, had long-standing connections with Athens but was also linked with the family of the Aleuads, who were supposedly anti-Athenian.42 I am building up here a picture in which a lot of the common decision making and acting was done in a fragmented manner, and this meant that the concept of the allegiance of the majority of the Thessalians was complex and unpredictable. This state of affairs tallies with the fact that classical Thessaly may well not have had permanent regional institutions with clearly delineated powers dealing with matters of foreign policy. The nature and extent of powers of the Thessalian regional institutions is a debated point in scholarship. There are those who believe that Thessaly from the late sixth century onwards had fully functioning federal institutions in place with clear-cut and extensive powers. The problem with this theory is that it has to dismiss all the evidence discussed above. And there are those scholars, in the majority who believe that Thessaly may have had some federal institutions in place, but they were not functioning properly because room was left for other power groups to contest them. The problem with this theory is the deep division it creates between institutions and power groups. As I have pointed out above, this does not fully make sense of the evidence but rather drives hard wedges into it. We should instead try to think of how Thessaly’s institutions were actually shaped by the social dynamics of this particular society. By the mid-fifth century the division of Thessaly into four districts is attested: the so-called tetrads of Pelasgiotis, Phthiotis, Thessaliotis and Hestiaiotis.43 If we take the Daochos monument set up in Delphi in the fourth century as an accurate report of fifth century realities, then there were also officials called tetrarchs who, as their name indicates, must have been somehow related to the tetrads.44 We have no evidence detailing the role of the tetrads and the tetrarchs was at that time. A century later the tetrads seem to play a military role, but through the polemarchs, who, although attested in the fifth century, seem to be unconnected to the tetrads 41

42 43 44

Thuc. 4.78; 4.132; 5.13. See also Sprawski 1999, 29, who entertains the idea that Nikonidas of Larisa, who in 4.78 is called a friend of Perdikkas, must have been one of those who followed Perdikkas’ change of alliance. Brown 1986, 399. See Sprawski 1999, 31. Hellanikos, FGrH 4 fr. 52; Hekataios, FGrH 1 fr. 133; Hdt. 1.56–57. FD III.4.460.

The Dubious Thessalian State

279

(see further below).45 In the second century BCE the tetrads have an economic role, facilitating the trade of corn, and this may be a role we could push back in time to at least the fourth century, given that Philip made use of the institution of the tetrarchs and his intervention into Thessaly seems to have had a strong economic character.46 The existence of districts is clearly important, but in what respect? The division of Thessaly into territorial units underlines the fact that the area was clearly unified in certain respects, since the purpose of the districts must have been to facilitate these common activities, economic or military. Furthermore, and just as important, the names of the tetrads point to an embroidered mythological tradition, in which the region as a whole is mentioned.47 Still, we are in the dark about the extent of these common economic or military activities organized through the districts. Neither can we surmise by their evidence alone the existence of a complex representational mechanism, similar to the Boiotian system, which served the equitable representation of poleis in the koinon.48 Other evidence for regional institutions operating in matters of foreign policy betrays what I would call an institutional flexibility. At around the mid fifth century the Thessalians commemorated a military victory by setting up a dedication at Delphi and which listed a number of polemarchs and perhaps other officials. In none of the cases is it clear by what authority they had been appointed.49 We are similarly unclear about the internal mechanics of the union headed by Jason of Pherai in the fourth century, who seems to have preferred the title of tagos for himself. The little information we have seems to point to an agglomeration of cities, or of cities and their circles, rather than to a clearly federal structure. Jason asks Polydamas of Pharsalos to persuade the Pharsalians and the cities around them. Jason asks the cities for sacrificial contributions and manpower.50 A decade or so later two Athenian inscriptions record defensive military alliances between Athens and the Thessalian koinon (mentioned as such for the first time), which is headed by an archon, and is divided by tetrads each represented by a polemarch.51 No mention is made of a representative body of the Thessalians taking the oath.52 Instead a number of officials, some regional other local, are listed in the most complete of the decrees. There is a clear attempt to include as many representatives as possible (τοὺς ἄλλος ἄρχοντας ὅποσοι ὑπὲρ το κοινο το Θετταλῶν ἄρχοσιν), some of which might well have been local (the hipparchs for instance), while others might not have operated 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Daux 1958. Larsen 1963, 240; Garnsey, Gallant and Rathbone 1984, 36–4l. For Philip: Dem. 1.22; Dem. 9.26. Mili 2015, 165–197. For the importance of districts in Greek federal states see Corsten 1999 passim; 178–184 for the Thessalian evidence. For the Boiotian districts: Mackil 2013, 370–377. Daux 1958; Helly 1995, 226–233. Negotiation with Polydamas: Xen. Hell. 6.1.8. Organization of Pythian Games: Xen. Hell. 6.4.29. IG II2.116 and 175. The hippeis must refer not to the Thessalian cavalry en masse, but to some more restricted elite identity: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 223; Mili 2015, 58.

280

Maria Mili

at a koinon level, or indeed in matters like the ones treated in the document, as is the case with the hieromnēmones.53 The Thessalians appear differently again in another fourth century decree, which bestows proxeny on a Chalkidian and mentions the two gentilician groups of Sorsikidai and Kotilidai in the role of prostateuontes (guarantors).54 The Thessalian koinon appears in yet another guise, this time in the third century, with a priest at its head and the tagoi of Larisa ratifying the decision.55 In short, whenever we see the Thessalians they are never the same. And while scholars have often thought of a series of organizations and reorganizations of the koinon after periods of collapse, a tiresome process of trial and error, we should rather emphasise the apparent ease with which the Thessalians could coalesce under various guises to get their act together when dealing with foreigners. It is in this context of institutional indeterminacy and flexibility of the Thessalians that the institutions of tagia and atagia should be seen. One of best known of features of the Thessalian ethnos is its pendulum swing between periods of tagia, when there was a tagos at its top, and period of atagia when there was not. The periods of atagia have been often viewed as periods of stasis and chaos, resulting from the inability of the Thessalians to come together.56 But we should challenge this traditional perception of periods of tagia and atagia as periods of order versus disorder. The expression κἐν ταγᾶ κἐν ἀταγία known from two fifth century decrees, if correctly interpreted as meaning something like both in war and in peace, would then indicate that the periods of atagia were considered the normal course of affairs.57 The election of the tagos in Jason’s speech is clearly connected with common military and economic policies. It would follow then that in the periods of atagia, even if some kind of regional organs existed, these did not have the power to exclusively decide on matters of foreign policy, and a lot of space for action was left open to various power groups.58 It would seem then that in internal Thessalian politics, tagia and atagia were not the encapsulation of good and bad but were considered as possible – and equally valid – options, a fact highlighted by Jason’s 53

54

55 56 57

58

Tod 1948, 145; Helly 1995, 54 for the hieromnemones being the representatives in the Amphictionic council. Contra: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 224 see them as officials of the koinon. Hatzopoulos 1996, 288 sees them as representatives of the local communities vis-à-vis the ethnos with a role in the cult of Athena Itonia. For local hieromnemones: Axenidis 1949, 129f; Helly 1970, 276f, 283 and the reservations of Salviat and Vatin 1971, 34. Peek 1934, 57; Graninger 2009, 122–124; Parker 2011, 113 entertains the possibility for a later third century date. The role of these groups as prostateuontes is not clear: see in general Mili 2015, 57f. The tagoi who presided the assembly are sometimes called prostateuontes: Axenidis 1949, 106; Helly 1973, 139. Guarantors are mentioned in Aitolian proxeny decrees: Mack 2015, 74f. Malay and Ricl 2009; Parker 2011. Axenidis 1947, 84–91; Larsen 1968, 14f, 26. IG IX.2 257 (Thetonion). A similar expression is found in E. Giannopoulos, Ἀρχ. Ἐφ. 1934– 1935, 140–145. Helly 1995, 334f for the interpretation ‘both in war and in peace’. But Sordi 1997, 181 is right to note that the periods of atagia did not necessarily entail the total absence of the state of war. So also Sordi 1997, 181f.

The Dubious Thessalian State

281

speech to Polydamas in which he tries to persuade him of the benefits of coming under a tagos.59 Understanding the institutional flexibility of Thessaly as the unique product of Thessalian society, and not as a sign of its failure, can lead us to re-examine the workings of power in the Thessalian ethnos and see the competition among its various groups in a different light. We could perhaps think of it not as the destructive force that worked against the unity of the group but as the underlying ideology which created and sustained the idea of a unitary ethnos. Power both on the local and regional level was achieved through a network of competing alliances that transcended the boundaries of single cities and incorporated the actors into a Panthessalian milieu.60 The frequent absence of a concrete leader and the dependence on informal decision making mechanisms would have made Thessaly a very difficult place for outsiders to control. Indeed, while historians like Axenidis have seen the institutional weakness of Thessaly as allowing outsiders access, we should note that before Philip II no outside power successfully managed to control Thessaly. The mirror of this, in the conception of Thessaly as failed, is the idea that Thessaly was not capable of projecting its power abroad; its failure then is seen in its lack of expansionism. Here we need to remember that the expansionistic polis par excellence was Athens, which was unique in its empire building and we certainly should not have this as an ideal to which other Greeks aspired. Even in Athens Kowalzig has proposed there were two models of foreign relationships: one in which elite individuals exploited Panhellenic networks and another of a more Athenocentric state-based power rooted in popular politics.61 Jason’s speech to Polydamas certainly provides the image of an expansionistic Thessaly led by a tagos but it also highlights the fact that this was not necessarily desirable.62 To sum up, the term ethnos, as well as the tern koinon, both of which feature on the title of this volume, are not synonymous with a federal state. Nevertheless questions about federal states often dominate scholarship of ancient ethnē/koina, namely an emphasis on politics, institutions and co-operation. Thessaly throughout the classical and Hellenistic period, if it qualified as a federal state could only qualify as a failed one. But Thessaly was definitely an ethnos and a unified entity to our ancient sources. By putting the emphasis on politics and the politicization of ethnic identities we can tend to undervalue the social. There might not have been a Thessalian political unit, but there was definitely something we can call a Thessalian society. And by always stressing co-operation and institutionalization we sideline the fact that there are societies that are created through an ideology of competition and conflict. The rules of the political game in such a society are different from 59 60

61 62

Xen. Hell. 6.1.8. See also Xen. Hell. 6.1.2. about the Pharsalian Polydamas being entrusted with power by his co-citizens, because he was well known and respected both in his city and in Thessaly in general. Kowalzig 2007, 214. Note also that although memories of various military achievements had a role in the formation of Thessalian identity and religion, it was not an all pervasive one: Mili 2015, 213–257.

282

Maria Mili

those of a society striving towards institutionalization. The strongest indication that our application of institutional-based paradigms to Thessaly is inappropriate is that we attempt to do so, Thessaly as an entity always seems to fragment and dissipate, whereas in the ancient sources it is consistently seen as a coherent and unified whole. BIBLIOGRAPHY Axenidis, T. (1947) Η Πελασγίς Λάρισα και η αρχαία Θεσσαλία. Κοινωνική και πολιτική ιστορία Α’: Mέχρι της Μακεδονικής ηγεμονίας, Athens. Axenidis, T. (1949) Η Πελασγίς Λάρισα και η αρχαία Θεσσαλία. Κοινωνική και πολιτική ιστορία Β’: Οι μακεδονικοί και ρωμαικοί χρόνοι, Athens. Bakhuizen, S.C. (1976) Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ΚΙΟΝ: The Monument for Kleomachos at Chalkis-in-Euboea, in J.S. Boersma and A.N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta (eds.), Festoen. Opgedragen ann A.N. ZadoksJosephus Jitta bij haar zeventigste verjaardag, Groningen, 43–48. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Brown, T.S. (1986) Menon of Thessaly, Historia 35, 387–404. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München. Coşkun, A. (2013) Die Menoniden von Pharsalos: proxenoi der Athener im 5. Jh. v. Chr, Hermes 141, 142–154. Daux, G. (1958) Dédicace thessalienne d’un cheval à Delphes, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 82, 329–334. Ducat, J. (1997) Bruno Helly et les pénestes, Topoi 7, 183–189. Garnsey, P., T. Gallant, and D. Rathbone (1984) Thessaly and the Grain Supply of Rome during the Second Century B.C., The Journal of Roman Studies 74, 30–44. Gehrke, H.–J. (1985) Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Vestigia 35, Munich. Giovannini, A. (1971) Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland, Göttingen. Graninger, D. (2009) Apollo, Ennodia and Fourth Century Thessaly, Kernos 22, 109–124. Hatzopoulos, M. (1994) Thessalie et Macédoine: affinités et convergences, in Θεσσαλία. 15 χρόνια αρχαιολογικής έρευνας 1975–90. Αποτελέσματα και προοπτικές, Athens, 249–254. Hatzopoulos, M. (1996) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 1, Athens. Helly, B. (1970) A Larisa: bouleversements et remise en ordre de sanctuaires, Mnemosyne 23, 249– 296. Helly, B. (1973) Gonnoi I: la cité et son histoire, Amsterdam. Helly, B. (1995) L’état Thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les tetrads et les tagoi, Lyon. Kowalzig, B. (2007) Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, Oxford. Larsen, J.A.O. (1960) A New Interpretation of the Thessalian Confederacy, Classical Philology 55, 229–248. Larsen, J.A.O. (1963) The Thessalian tetrades in Plutarch’s Moralia 822E, Classical Philology 58, 240. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Low, P. (2007) Interstate Relations in Classical Greece. Morality and Power, Cambridge. Mack, W. (2015) Proxeny and Polis. Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley.

The Dubious Thessalian State

283

Malay, H. and M. Ricl (2009) Two Hellenistic Decrees from Aigai in Aiolis, Epigraphica Anatolica 42, 39–55. McInerney, J. (1999) The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis, Austin. Mili, M. (2015) Religion and Society in Ancient Thessaly, Oxford. Mitchell, L. (1997) Greeks Bearing Gifts. The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435–323 BC, Cambridge. Morgan, C. (2001) Symbolic and Pragmatic Aspects of Warfare in the Greek World of the Eight to the Sixth Centuries B.C., in L. Hannestad and T. Bekker-Nielsen (eds.), War as a Cultural and Social Force: Essays on Warfare in Antiquity, Copenhagen, 20–44. Morgan, C. (2003) Early Greek States beyond the Polis, London. Morrison, J.S. (1942) Meno of Pharsalus, Polycrates, and Ismenias, Classical Quarterly 36, 57–78. Parker, R. (2011) The Thessalian Olympia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, 111– 118. Parker, V. (1997) Untersuchungen zum Lelantischen Krieg und verwandten Problemen der frühgriechischen Geschichte, Stuttgart. Peek, W. (1934) Griechische Inschriften: Thessalien, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus 59, 56–57. Raubitschek, A.E. (1955) Menon, son of Menekleides, Hesperia 24, 286–289. Rechenauer, G. (1993) Zu Thucydides II 22, 3 …ἀπὸ τῆς στάσεως ἑκάτερος, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 136, 238–244. Rhodes, P. and R. Osborne (eds.) (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC., Oxford. Robertson, N. (1976) The Thessalian Expedition of 480 B.C., Journal of Hellenic Studies 96, 100– 120. Ruggeri, C. (2002) Menone, figlio di Menecleide, ateniese, del demo di Gargetto, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 138, 73–86. Salviat, F. and C. Vatin (1971) Inventaire de terrains sacrés à Larissa, in Inscriptions de Grèce Centrale, Paris, 9–34. Sordi, M. (1958) La lega tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno, Rome. Sordi, M. (1997) I tagoi tessali come suprema magistratura militare del koinon tessalico, Topoi 7, 177–182. Sprawski, S. (1999) Jason of Pherai. A Study on History of Thessaly in Years 431–370 BC, Krakow. Stamatopoulou, M. (2007a) Thessalian Aristocracy and Society in the Age of the Epinicians, in S. Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford, 309–341. Stamatopoulou, M. (2007b) Thessalians Abroad, The Case of Pharsalos, in I. Malkin, C. Constantakopoulou and K. Panagopoulou (eds.), Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, 211–236. Tod, M. N. (1948) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions II: From 403 to 323 B.C., Oxford. Walbank, F.W. (1985) Were there Greek federal states?, in F.W. Walbank, Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge, 2–37. Westlake, H.D. (1936) The Medism of Thessaly, Journal of Hellenic Studies 56, 12–24.

ETHNIC CONSTRUCTS FROM INSIDE AND OUT: EXTERNAL POLICY AND THE ETHNOS OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS.1 Margriet J. Haagsma, University of Alberta, Edmonton Laura Surtees, Bryn Mawr College C. Myles Chykerda, University of California, Los Angeles Interest in ethnos states has recently shifted beyond characterizations of ethnē as ‘backwards’ or primitive entities found in the periphery of the Greek world. Traditionally, ethnē have been conceptualized as ‘embryonic’ or tribal states and contrasted with the ‘advanced’ polis structure of southern Greece that was viewed by many scholars as the embodiment of the organizational complexity and plurality of Greece’s cultural and political core.2 The current discourse focusses not only on deconstructing the concept of ‘ethnos’ in relation to those of ‘state’ and ‘ethnicity’, but also recognizes that textual sources have been unjustifiably privileged over other forms of evidence in studies on the social, religious, and political components of an ethnos. Non-literary/archaeological data have begun to be brought into discussions concerning both the nature of the ethnos and concepts of ethnicity.3 This paper focuses on the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis, a region in central Greece that is often considered part of Thessaly but in antiquity was considered to be a socalled perioikos, an area with strong ties to the central plains that was nevertheless culturally and, at times, economically and politically independent from tetradic Thessaly.4 Beyond all three authors’ long-term familiarity with the region, there are numerous reasons why an examination of ancient ethnicity pertaining to Achaia Phthiotis is timely. First, there exists no synthetic account of the history of this ethnos apart from Friedrich Stählin’s early work.5 Secondly, there is notoriously little information written about this region in ancient sources, and many of the epigraphic sources are relatively late. Finally, the corpus of archaeological evidence concerning settlements, sanctuaries, cemeteries, and material culture (especially from eastern Achaia Phthiotis) has been growing steadily over the past quarter century and 1

2 3 4 5

The authors would like to thank the organizers of the colloquium Greek Ethnos States, Internal Mechanics, External Relations, Hans Beck and Kostas Buraselis, for their hospitality and for the opportunity to share our work on Achaia Phthiotis. We also would like to thank Steven Hijmans for the reading the manuscript. We would like to thank professor Reinder Reinders for the use of figures 7, 10 and 12a and Z. Malakasioti for the use of Fig. 13. All remaining errors are, of course, our own. For overview of scholarship see McInerney 1999, 6–35; 2001. Morgan 2003; Antonaccio 2010; Cifani and Stoddart 2012. Tetradic Thessaly refers to the geographic and political division of the Thessalian plains into four parts: Hestiaiotis, Thessaliotis, Phthiotis, and Palasgiotis. See Str. 9.5.2–3. Stählin 1967, 152–154.

286

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

includes our own archaeological research.6 This evidence needs to be incorporated into the narrative of the region. We do not intend to create a definitive or exhaustive account of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. Rather, by drawing all lines of evidence together, we attempt to contextualize our own archaeological observations and those of others in an admittedly fragmentary and complex historical framework. Approaching the ethnos from an archaeological perspective permits an exploration of the fluidity and multiplicity of ethnic constructs and allows us to contemplate how external and internal influences operating on local and regional levels shape and re-shape perceptions and expressions of ethnic cohesion. This paper moves beyond identifying unifying characteristics of an ethnos and takes a ‘bottom up’ approach towards the available evidence. By employing such an approach we intend to explore the dynamic conception of regional identity and query how shared narratives of identity were maintained and manipulated by internal and external forces through the lens of those who subscribed to it.7 In particular, we focus in what ways membership to the group identity of Achaia Phthiotis became desirable, was maintained and negotiated over time, and how external political influences on the Hellenistic period may have encouraged the reassertion of such membership. While the available evidence suggests that select inhabitants of Achaia Phthiotis presented a regional self-awareness in the Archaic and Classical periods, we see this awareness becoming increasingly and more deliberately expressed in times of political and social tension, exemplified in the Hellenistic period. It is a construction of the other and a contrast between ‘us and them’ that appear to have led to a re-solidified sense of togetherness, which the region’s inhabitants utilized in an attempt to distinguish themselves from other groups or states, albeit for only a short period. A resurgence of regional identity did not, however, transcend other social conceptions of group membership. In expressing their adherence to Achaia Phthiotis, most inhabitants of the region seem to simultaneously express loyalty to their particular polis community as well. Following Catherine Morgan,8 we see multiple tiers of identification being practiced simultaneously on social, economic, and political levels, which intersect each other in different circumstances. For instance, as part of their expansionist policies and associated rhetoric of liberation, the Makedonians, who controlled this region from the mid-4th until the mid-late 3rd century BCE, seem to have appealed to or instigated a resurgence of and subscription to the multi-tiered ethnic constructs and identities in both polis and ethnos contexts. We witness significant regional political transformations in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE with the new presence of Aitolians, Makedonians, and Romans, and the foundation 6

7

8

We would like to thank the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and the archaeological ephorates of Larissa and Volos, as well as the Canadian Institute in Greece and Netherlands Institute of Athens for their support in our fieldwork at Kastro Kallithea and Halos respectively. We thus adopt the ‘practice’ approach advocated by Jean-François Bayart 2005, 92 who asserts that ‘there is no such thing as identity, only operational acts of identification.’ Material culture often acts as a medium in these operational acts, which makes archaeological data excellent sources for the study of identity formation. Morgan 2003.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

287

of the Thessalian League, heralding a new sense of supra-regionality, while localized responses to the policies of foreign hegemons resulted in a fluctuating sense of togetherness. Prior to delving into the evidence for how habits of identification were shaped and expressed in material culture while being influenced by external or internal motivators, it is necessary to clarify our definitions and understanding of group identity and explore the literary evidence for the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. I. APPROACHES TO ANCIENT ETHNĒ A central challenge in assessing the role of ethnē in the ancient Greek world is a traditional failure of available terminology to describe the highly diverse examples of political arrangement, many of which are now clumped together under limited categories in modern scholarship.9 Epigraphic and textual sources attest to the Achaians of Phthiotis as an ethnos with degrees of self-perception and a sense of corporate belonging10 yet they are far from clear concerning what the status of ethnos entailed.11 Anthony Snodgrass expresses a limited view of the ethnos, defining it as a thinly scattered population with no urban centers that was nothing more than the survival of earlier tribal systems into historic times.12 This reductionist view is now considered flawed, and we instead see ethnos as a multi-layered and dynamic form of social organization that was closely tied to the concepts of ethnicity. Before turning to our use of the term ethnos, we must clarify the concepts of primordial and instrumental ethnicity. Primordial views identify ethnic or tribal groups as biologically self-perpetuating populations whose members share cultural values within a bound field of communication and interaction, within which members consciously create a sense of belonging and otherness.13 These categories are closely aligned with those that Herodotus lists as the elements that bind Greeks together: blood, language, religion, and culture.14 Critiques, however, raise important concerns with such a limited definition. Tightly constrained views of ethnicity and associated tendencies to romanticize and mystify ethnic identities of the past present such identities as naturally occurring elements determining immutable dimensions of individual self-identity, 9 10

11

12 13 14

Morgan 2003, 4. Jones 1997, 56f notes that authors rarely lay out in an explicit manner how they define and understand terms such as ethnicity and ethnic group. For references to the people of Achaia Phthiotis see Hdt. 7.185.2, 7.132; Thuc. 8.3.1; Arist. Pol. 1267b 5–7, 1269b 6; Theopomp. Fr. 63. See Decourt et al. 2004, 686f, 713–718 for summary of the use of it ethnic for the region and individual cities. Helly 2001 discusses a 2nd century BCE inscription concerning the city of Melitaia and its implications for the earlier 3rd century ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis but does not define his concept of ethnos, differentiate between territorial boundaries and ethnic constructs, and address the role or even existence of the ethnos once the region was incorporated into the 2nd century Thessalian League. Snodgrass 1980, 42. Cf. McInerney 2001. For detailed historiography of the ethnos see McInerney 1999, 8–35. Hall 1997, 17; 2002, 9; Malkin 2001, 1; McInerney 1999, 25. Hdt. 8.144.2.

288

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

leading to the view of ethnē as nothing more than pre-determined group identities based on ethnic constructions. Contrarily, an instrumental approach sees ethnicity as a dynamic and situational form of group identity created in order to bring about a particular economic and/or political gain that is variably reified depending on a particular historic and social situation.15 It is within the instrumental category that much of the recent interest in ethnē and koina can be situated.16 Having demonstrated the many meanings of the term ethnos, Jeremy McInerney concludes that there is nothing essential to the Greek conception of ethnos other than that it should comprise a group that identifies itself as a people, whether that is something occurring over a broad territory with scattered settlements or in a polis.17 Ethnē, therefore, were something that “existed within the hierarchy of human societies somewhere above the family and below the Hellenes”18 with membership that grew from a need to express communal identity.19 We therefore approach the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis as a community of individuals who distinguished themselves through the articulation of a group identity, which was often, but not exclusively, based on shared mythology, territory, ancestry, and cults. Our understanding of identity is not a romanticized biological construct but rather a dynamic, negotiable, and situfational form of community unified by an assortment of qualifiers.20 Furthermore, the creation of identity was not a singular process operating at an individual level of social organization. There exist within any community multiple ‘tiers of identity’ with which a person or group can identify that may be interrelated on a social, economic, or political level. 21 We conceptualize the ethnos as a group whose experience of identity is dynamic in nature. The articulation of group membership is maleable and adaptable to particular historical situations, thus leading to ongoing changes over time. Group organizations, some of which may be identified as koina, were dynamic, extended their membership beyond ethnic identity and shared territory, and relied on any number of qualities for legitimization, particularly during the Hellenistic period.22 Our own concept of group organization follows a modification of Emily

15 16 17 18 19

Jones 1997, 72. Mackil 2014, 271; McInerney 2013. McInerney 1999, 24. McInerney 1999, 25. Cf. Mackil 2014 who nests discussion of ethnē within associated koina. Morgan 2003, 11 makes a distinct delineation between ethnicity and ethnē, the former being the process of choice by which a group identity is constructed and the latter being the entities rooted in place and time, which are the outcomes of the creation of ethnic groups. 20 Hall 1997; McInerney 1999; 2014. 21 Morgan 2003, 10–16; McInerney 1999, 24f. 22 Mackil 2014, 271–276. While in the 6th century BCE Peloponnesian Achaian identity was articulated with claims of consanguinity and shared territory, the political unification of the Achaian League in the 4th century BCE had no explicitly ethnic arguments for its creation. For the Aitolian League, Scholten 2000, 30 argues that contrary to the League’s initial membership requirements, by the 3rd century BCE membership extended beyond ethnic boundaries in order to build a greater political community.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

289

Mackil’s base definition of koinon as a “group of communities with loose and informal structures for cooperation.”23 This community, brought together by operational acts of belonging, may have been created to enable particular economic, social, or political gains, and were thereafter variably reified depending on particular historical and social situations.24 Underlying reasons for the continued prominence of a koinon or collaborative community include group access to commodities and shared economic power,25 religious solidarity,26 and political goals.27 The group identity of such a community may transcend ethnic definitions28 and be comprised of tiers of identity and belonging that are often expressed and perceived in numerous indicia including texts, epigraphic sources, and material culture.29 What remains consistent is an adaptive structure reliant on power networks distributed across a number of locations reliant on networks instead of a uniform and clearly defined political territory.30 II. GEOGRAPHY OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS Let us briefly situate Achaia Phthiotis within its geographical and historical context before exploring its archaeological record. Achaia Phthiotis is situated to the southeast of the main plains of Thessaly and borders the Pagasitic Gulf. As a transitional territory located between tetradic Thessaly and the northern fringes of Boiotia and Phokis, the precise boundaries of Achaia Phthiotis appear to have been flexible over time. Ancient authors, however, explicitly separate Achaia Phthiotis from its neighbours, thereby providing clues to the region’s extent (Fig. 1).31 By identifying the city of Echinos as the ‘last of the Malians,’ Pseudo-Skylax contrasts it with the southern Achaian Phthiotian settlements of Antron, Larisa Kremaste, and Melitaia, and thus provides a rough approximation of the southern border of Achaia Phthiotis.32 The plain of Phthiotis defines the north and west boundary, perhaps demarcated by the Narthakion mountain range. The city of Phthiotic Thebes and its port at Pyrasos on the Pagasitic Gulf mark the northeast border of Achaia Phthiotis where it converges with the Thessalian plain of Pelasgiotis and the coastal region

23 Mackil 2014, 271; following Morgan 2003. Larsen 1968 describes the Thessalian ethnē as the people who comprise the koina, which he identifies as a federal state. 24 Jones 1997, 65, 72; Hall 1997, 17; Malkin 2001, 1; Mackil 2014, 271f; MacSweeney 2009, 102. 25 Mackil 2013; 2014. 26 Mili 2014. 27 Graninger 2011; McInerney 1999, 9; 2013; Scholten 2000; Helly 2001. 28 MacSweeney 2009, 102. 29 Morgan 2003; this has been demonstrated by MacSweeney, Knapp for the prehistoric periods. 30 Smith 2005; 2007. 31 Pseudo-Skylax, Fr. 62–65; Str. 9.5.1–3, 9.5.8–9, 9.5.12–14. Cf. Reinders 2003a, 12; Shipley 2011, 137–139. 32 Pseudo-Skylax, Fr. 62–64; Cf. Shipley 2011, 68, 137–139. Shipley’s map seems to indicate that Malis was to the west of the bay and did not include any territory to the north.

290

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

of Magnesia. Thucydides’ identification of Pyrasos as Thessalian,33 rather than Achaian, demonstrates the blurriness of territorial demarcation and the ambiguity of the identifier Thessalian, and may exemplify the shifting allegiances that occurred as the perioikoi were integrated into tetradic Thessaly sometime in the Late Classical period.34 Thus Achaia Phthiotis can be broadly conceptualized as the territory of the Othrys massif35 comprised of pockets of arable land and expanses of rolling hills, suitable for pastoralism, and punctuated by large isolated hills and valleys. Topographic features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, may have served as natural boundaries crisscrossing the landscape; however, these boundaries, although based on topographic features, are still cultural concepts that are often flexible. For example, mountains and rivers are not impermeable boundaries, but can be easily traversed as attested by communication and interaction between individual regions throughout Greece.36 III. THE ETHNOS OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS The toponym Ἀχαΐα (Ionic Αχαιίη) or Φθιώτις was utilized to distinguish this region and its specific cities from Peloponnesian Achaia and provided an ethnic qualifier.37 Cities of Achaia Phthiotis are referred to with this toponym, such as Μελίτεια της Ἀχαΐα38 and τῆς Ἀχαιίς ἐς Ἄλος.39 At times both toponyms were used for further clarification: ἡ Φθιώτις Ἀχαΐα40 qualified the region while local Thebans are explicitly described as Θηβαῖοv ἐξ [Ἀχαΐ]ας τῆς Φθιώτιδος.41 These qualifiers are not simply geographic descriptors but also refer to the ethnos itself in the form Ἀχαιός or Φθιῶται, for example: Λαρισαῖος ἐκ Φθι[ώτιδος].42 Late Classical references to the ethnos under consideration record Achaians of Phthiotis as participants in the Delphic Amphiktyony, which listed its members on the basis of cultural groupings, not necessarily geographic location.43 Furthermore, expressions of 33 Thuc. 2.22.3. 34 Graninger 2011, 79; Sprawski 2009, 131f; Helly 1995, 167–169. 35 On the variety of cartographical portrayals of the region see: Stählin 1967, 150–152; Reinders 1988, 18, 22–23; Graninger 2011, xi, 19; Westlake 1934; Tziafalias et al. 2006, 93f. The delineation of its boundaries by Reinders 1988, 2003 has become widely accepted and cited. 36 Decourt 1990; Cantarelli 1999; Tziafalias et al. 2006. 37 For summary of usage see Decourt et al. 2004, 686f, 713–718. 38 Thuc 4.78.1. 39 Hdt.7.173.1, 7.197.1 (ἐς Ἄλον δὲ τῆς Ἀχαιίης). 40 Diod. Sic. 5.50.5. 41 IG VII.288.5. See also Decourt et al. 2004, 717. 42 IG XII.5 542.32. Other select literary and epigraphic references to the ethnic include: Hdt. 7.185.2; Thuc. 8.3.1; Xen. Hell. 1.2.18; Arist. Pol. 1269b6; Aeschin. 2.116, 2.166; Theopomp. Fr. 63; Ps.-Skylax 63; CID II.31.1.31; IG II2.1132 56. 43 The earliest reference to Achaia Phthiotis in epigraphic sources dates to the late 340s BCE, and numerous other examples occur thereafter. See CID II.36.1.6 (341/0 BCE), 43.2 (340/39 BCE), 72.8 (327 BCE), 32.47 (340/39 BCE), 76.I.23 (335 BCE), 84.A.2–3 (332/1 BCE), 74.I.39 (337/6 BCE), 76.I.24 (335 BCE); IG IX2.1292; Syll.3 692 (134/3 BCE); Syll.3 704 (125/4 BCE);

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

291

Achaian identity are attested at the level of regional spheres of interaction, not only in the poleis themselves. Honorees from Halos, Euphraios and Smilas, were referred to in a proxeny decree found at Delphi as Ἀχαιοῖς ἐξ Ἅλου (Achaians from Halos) thus placing the emphasis on the ethnos.44 To the external world, the Achaians presented themselves and were perceived in association with membership of their ethnos. Achaia Phthiotis is often conflated with tetradic Thessaly in ancient literary sources, and a distinction between the regions is rarely made even in modern scholarship despite textual evidence suggesting that the two regions were quite distinct. The Achaian Phthiotians were individual members (hieromnemones) of the Amphiktyonic Council and held two votes; they were, therefore, considered equal and distinct members of the council alongside the Thessalians and other ethnē.45 Achaia Phthiotis appears to have followed a similar historical trajectory to Thessaly in political matters, although the exact relationship between the peoples of these two regions is obscure, and it is uncertain when and to what extent the Achaians were politically independent.46 The literary sources, however, do provide passing mention of political decisions undertaken by the Achaians of Phthiotis, including their decision to medize in the face of Persian aggression,47 their agreement with the Spartan Brasidas,48 and their alliance with Herakleia Trachiniai towards the end of the 5th century BCE.49 Yet during the Classical period, Achaia Phthiotis certainly does become politically subordinate to the Thessalians, eventually falling under the authority of Pharsalos.50 The progress of these historical changes is far from clear. As Emma Aston argues, the fragmentary nature of the textual and inscriptional evidence blurs our understanding of the historical circumstances for the subjection of the Achaia Phthiotis and resulting repercussions acted out on both a local and regional level.51 While Achaia Phthiotis was never a major player in the Greek political sphere, at least according to extant sources, its geographic location meant that it inadvertently became embroiled in major historical events. Anti-Makedonian sentiment in Old Halos, a Classical city in Achaia Phthiotis, led to the siege and destruction of

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Syll.3 826 (125/4 BCE); CID IV.199.E (117/116 BCE). Aeschines 2.115–116 indicates that by 343 BCE Achaia Phthiotis had hieromnemones on the Amphiktyonic council. Considering that his speech refers to investigating the Council’s makeup and rules at its conception, it may be extrapolated that Achaia Phthiotis gained membership at a much earlier period. See also Bonner and Smith 1943; Flaceliére 1937, 36f; Kahrstedt 1922, 384f; Lefèvre 1998, 87f. FD III.2.182. CID IV.119 E; CID II.36.1.6, 36.2.20; 72.8; Aeschin. 2.115–116; Theopomp. Fr. 63; Lefèvre 1998, 87. Thuc. 8.3.1 refers to the Achaeans of Phthiotis and ‘the other subjects of the Thessalians,’ (καὶ Ἀχαιοὺς τοὺς Φθιώτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς ταύτῃ Θεσσαλῶν ὑπηκόους). Hdt. 7.132. Thuc. 4.78. Xen. Hell. 1.2.18. Thuc. 8.3.1 (Achaia Phthiotis); Arist. Pol. 1269b 7–9; Xen. Hell. 6.1.19; Graninger 2011, 14– 16, 116–119; Sprawski 2009, 131–136; 1999, 17. Aston 2012, 14.

292

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

the city by Philip II in 347/6 BCE. Subsequently its territory, including the port, was given to the pro-Makedonian city of Pharsalos.52 This conflict must have led to increasing tension between eastern Achaia Phthiotis and Pharsalos. This friction may have also resulted in a hostile political situation, one which the Makedonian kings may have later exploited as they vied for domination of the region at the end of the 4th century BCE. The Makedonian Demetrios Poliorketes ‘liberated’ the cities of southeast Achaia Phthiotis, including Larisa Kremaste, Antron, and Pteleon, as he moved north to confront Kassandros.53 His maneuvers culminated in a major standoff with Kassandros in the Krokian Plain in 302 BCE, resulting in Demetrios holding southern Achaia Phthiotis and Kassandros controlling the north, including the city of Phthiotic Thebes.54 The standoff did not result in a battle; Demetrios declared the cities under his control ‘free and autonomous’ but he left Greece to aid his father, Antigonos Monophthalmos, in their unsuccessful battle at Ipsos. Kassandros quickly took control of the territories in the region of the standoff after Demetrios’ departure.55 Thus, at the turn of the 3rd century BCE, southeast Achaia Phthiotis experienced a period of liberation under Demetrios’ rule, albeit brief. But Kassandros may have followed a similar policy of freeing cities in order not to lose the sympathy of the local population.56 In tandem with these events we see a simultaneous reassertion of Achaian identity that may have been a conscious reaction to the earlier tensions between Pharsalos and eastern Achaia Phthiotis. Demetrios Poliorketes may have encouraged this resurgence of a visible display of Achaian Phthiotian cohesiveness as part of the Makedonian rhetoric of liberation on polis as well as ethnos level. As we will see below, the reorganization of the landscape, the construction of centralized fortified cities that consolidated dispersed populations, the minting of communal regional coins, and the increased visibility of localized regional myths and religious practices played into the vocabulary that gave expression to this conceived cohesiveness.57 Makedonian control of eastern Achaia Phthiotis continues and was perhaps reinforced by the construction of the Makedonian capital at Demetrias in 294 BCE.58 The reign of Antigonos Gonatas (277–274, 272–239 BCE) brought shortlived stability to Achaia Phtiotis, but this was soon challenged by the expansion of 52 Dem. 11.1, 19.36, 39, 163; Str. 9.5.8. A lacuna in Strabo’s text has been reconstructed by Kramer and subsequent editors as συν[ῴκισαν Φαράλιοι] (Pharsalians colonized or brought together). This reconstruction references the Pharsalian control of Halian territory as mentioned by Demosthenes, however, lacks any direct evidence for Halian unification or colonization by Pharsalos. See also Westlake 1969, 13; Reinders 1988, 26f. 53 Diod. Sic. 20.110.2; Reinders 1988, 168; 2003c, 231. 54 Diod. Sic. 20.110–111; Reinders 1988, 168f. 55 Diod. Sic. 20.112.1. 56 Kasandros refounded, through a synoikismos, the city of Poteidia as Kassandreia and the new city of Thessalonike, named after his Thessalian wife. See Diod. Sic. 19.52, Shipley 2000, 114, 119. He is also associated with the foundation of Dion, a city that strongly resembles Halos in layout. 57 The latter, contrastingly, seems to adhere initially to polis-level constructions of identity rather than a regional one. 58 Str. 9.5.15; Marzolff 1976a, 5; 1994, 60; Batziou-Efstathiou 2002, 17.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

293

the Aitolian League.59 It is unclear whether an Achaian identity waned or was suppressed by the Makedonians due to the Aitolians’ territorial challenge. By the 260s BCE, the Aitolian League had extended its borders into western Achaia Phthiotis, occupying the city of Melitaia, Thaumakoi, and Xyniai.60 The anti-Makedonia revolts of 229–228 BCE by the Thessalians, including Achaia Phthiotis, shifted power dynamics and destabilized royal holdings in favour of the Aitolians.61 By late the 220s BCE, Aitolia possessed much of Achaia Phthiotis.62 The Aitolians implemented a policy of integration through participation and appealed to the traditions of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis by reviving the practice of sending heiromnemones from the Achaian cities to the Aitolian controlled Delphic Amphiktyony, a practice that had been abandoned by the Makedonians.63 Despite acting on behalf of the Aitolians, the Achaian Phthiotians’ return to Delphi served as a successful appeal to long standing traditions and capitalized on a sense of ethnic identity in order to contrast Aitolian control with that of the previous occupiers, the Makedonians. In the following years, however, territorial possession vacillated predominately between the Makedonians, under Philip V, in eastern Achaia and the Aitolians in the west.64 The intervention of the Romans under Titus Quintus Flamininus resulted in the freeing of tetradic Thessaly and the perioikoi, including Achaia Phthiotis, and the revival and reorganization of the Thessalian League in 196 BCE.65 Although it probably did not play a major role in regional politics, Achaia Phthiotis seems to have experienced a period of stability following Roman intervention. The region thus witnessed much action associated with the power struggles that played out during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. The presence of external forces contributed to transitions in the physical landscape with respect to settlement patterns as well as to the expression of the population’s multi-tiered group identity.

59 Scholten 2003, 134–158; Chamoux 2003, 89. 60 Grainger 1995, 317; Scholten 2000, 154–156. Evidence for the incorporation of Achaia Phthiotis derives in part from epigraphic evidence regarding membership in the Delphic Amphkityony, see Lefèvre 1998, 87f. 61 Justin 28.3.14; Scholten 2000, 166 n.5, 169; Graninger 2011, 24. 62 The exact date and extent of Aitolian control of Achaia Phthiotis remains unclear although the Aitolians had gained control of various cities by this point. Justin 28.3.14; van Antwerp Fine 1932, 143; Grainger 1999, 238f; 1995, 333; Scholten 2000, 154–156, 179. 63 Inscriptions record representatives from the Achaian cities of Melitaia and Phthiotic Thebes c. 245 BCE and 229/8 BCE respectively (Lefèvre 1998, 87, 110f) and provide evidence of Aitolian control of those cities; Scholten 2000, 235–252; Grainger 1995, 318–321; 1999, 123f; Helly 2001, 247f. See also van Antwerp Fine 1932, 143–145; Walsh 1993, 40f for Aitolian participation in Delphic Amphiktyony. 64 Control shifted with the acquisition or re-acquisition of territories by the Philip V or the Aitolians. Philip V reclaimed Pharsalos (Polyb. 9.45) and Phthiotic Thebes (Polyb. 5.99–100, Diod. Sic. 26.9) in 217 BCE and the Achaian cities of Echinus, Larissa Kremaste, Kyphaera, and Xyniae (Polyb. 9.41–9.42.4) by 210 BCE. For detailed discussion see van Antwerp Fine 1932; Walsh 1993; Grainger 1999. 65 Polyb. 18.46.5, 18.47.7; Livy 33.32.5, 33.34.7; Graninger 2011, 27f.

294

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Through an examination of changes in the landscape with respect to settlement patterns, epigraphic evidence for territorial conflicts amongst the cities of Achaia Phthiotis, the creation of a communal coinage, and the use of myth and religious practices in daily life, the archaeological evidence permits the exploration of ways in which this group identity was invoked, brought to a level of consciousness, and utilized externally by the Makedonians and Aitolians and internally by the Achaians themselves. IV. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND THE LANDSCAPE What characteristics did settlements possess during the Classical period, and what changes occurred with the arrival of the Makedonians at the end of the 4th century BCE? Classical towns in Achaia Phthiotis are often located on the top of hills in the vicinity of springs, fertile valleys, crossroads, or the sea. They consist of a walled acropolis c. 0.6–1 ha in size and a surrounding settlement, which is sometimes fortified. The average surface area of the settlement is relatively small c. 6–11 ha. A few late Classical examples (Fig. 2–5) are located at Grintja (possibly identified with Karandai), Kastro Kallithea (pre–Hellenistic phase of the site tentatively designated as Peuma), Magoula Plataniotiki (the site of Old Halos), and Karatsagdali (unknown settlement).66 Comparable in size and organization are the well-preserved plans of other nearby Archaic/Classical settlements at Ktouri, north of Pharsala, and Soros, near Demetrias, demonstrating similar patterns in areas surrounding Achaia Phthiotis.67 This collection of settlement evidence from the general area of Achaia Phthiotis illustrates that until the end of the Classical period settlements were relatively small, particularly in comparison to the major contemporary urban centers of southern Greece. Archaeological surveys conducted throughout Greece have revealed a pattern of scattered rural occupation in the landscapes surrounding Classical cities.68 Despite the lack of comparable survey work for Achaia Phthiotis, it is likely that a similar pattern occurs here. While the exploration of the regional landscape is burgeoning for the region, it is difficult to ascertain the nuances of the habitation of the 66 For the identification of these sites see Stählin 1914, 83–104; 1967, 164f, 169; Cantarelli 1999; Reinders 1988, 159–163. For the size of Halos (Reinders 2003a, 19) and Kastro Kallithea (Tziafalias et al. 2006, 111). Estimates on the area of the other sites have been extrapolated from satellite images. 67 Soros: Milojčić 1974a, 65–75, figs. 22–37; 1974b, 662; Marzolff 1994, 256, fig. 1; Μπάτζιου– Ευσταθίου 1985, 186; 1987, 246; 1988, 242. Τριανταφυλλοπούλου 2000, 60–69. Ktouri: Béquignon 1932, 122–191. 68 For overall trends of the Hellenistic world derived from survey see Alcock 1994; Shipley 2002; Stewart 2007. For identification of non-polis settlements in Archaic and Classical period see Decourt et al. 2004, 686f. For survey projects in Achaia Phthiotis see Decourt 1990; Wieberdink 1986; 1990; Stissi 2012. The full results of the regional survey of Halos for the Classical and Hellenistic periods have not yet been fully published. Recent re-evaluation of the pottery from the survey is currently being undertaken by Stissi.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

295

landscape and the later shift towards urbanism given the majority of the region’s archaeological evidence derives from urban spaces or isolated sites. One exception is the well-researched polis of New Halos, a project of the universities of Groningen and Amsterdam in cooperation with the 13th Ephorate at Volos, which has focused on a regional survey, excavations at the Hellenistic city, and is currently exploring a Classical settlement on Magoula Plataniotiki.69 The survey data highlight the existence of multiple scattered settlements and dispersed farmsteads during the Classical period.70 While the dispersed distribution of these small sites may be associated with mixed farming strategies and a pastoralist economy, the population still identified on a socio-political level with the polis of Halos.71 Vladimir Stissi has recently suggested that Classical Halos might be a multi-centered polis, where political responsibilities were not centered in a well-defined single urban core but rather distributed over a larger territory.72 This is contrary to the traditional polis model but offers a different explanation for the small size of Classical Achaia Phthiotian cities. The preliminary data from the Halos survey suggest that with the arrival of the Makedonians and the ‘liberation’ of the area at the end of the 4th century BCE, habitation and land use patterns in the landscape shifted. In contrast to the Classical period, analysis of the survey material has yielded limited evidence for the occupation of rural sites contemporaneous with Hellenistic Halos, a city founded under the influence of Demetrios Poliorketes.73 This may indicate that the dispersed habitation that characterized the Classical landscape of Halos was, at least in part, consolidated into a single fortified city 41 ha in size. The location was also strategically situated further inland in the plain compared to the earlier town’s coastal setting at Magoula Plataniotiki (Fig. 7).74 Part of the population living in rural areas may have migrated to populate the new city, perhaps in addition to inhabitants from elsewhere, albeit for only a short period as the city was not sustainable in the long term.75 This process appears to mirror other consolidations of rural populations into central urban areas as described in historical records. At Phthiotic Thebes, the populations of the village of Phylake, the port of Pyrasos, and the earlier town of Phthiotic Thebes were brought together in a synoikismos. The town was reconfigured as

69 Reinders 1988; Reinders and Prummel 2003; Reinders et al. 2000, 83–92; Reinders 2004b; 2006; 2014; Stissi 2012. 70 Stissi 2012, 395f; Reinders 2014, 20, 23. 71 Reinders and Prummel 1998, 81–95; Haagsma 2010, 258f. 72 Stissi 2014; 2012, 395. 73 This is a personal observation of Haagsma who evaluated the material of the Halos survey in the plain of Almiros. This observation is supported by Vladimir Stissi who with his team from the University of Amsterdam has resurveyed many of these rural sites. See also Stissi 2012; 2014. 74 Reinders 1988, 190–193. The entire area of the city within the fortification walls was 76 ha with the built up are of the lower town consisting of 41 ha. 75 New Halos was constructed sometime after 302 BCE but the urban center was abandoned after an earthquake c. 265 BCE. See Reinders et al. 1996; Reinders 2014, 20–23. On the sustainability of New Halos, see Haagsma 2010, 249–266.

296

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

a single fortified polis of a much grander scale (40 ha) on a high hill. 76 The synoikismos of the city of Demetrias seems to have followed a similar pattern with the incorporation of the population of 15 settlements.77 Such movement of inhabitants is seen at the site of Soros, identified as either Pagasai or Amphanai, where habitation ceased in the early 3rd century BCE after the synoikismos of Demetrias.78 These new or refurbished urban centers were characterized by extensive defensive systems, an orthogonal grid plan, monumental architecture, and a drastic increase in size. For example, the city of Kastro Kallithea (Peuma) (Fig. 8) witnessed the expansion of the lower city and the implementation of an orthogonal grid plan with monumental buildings surrounded by substantial fortification walls enclosing 34 ha.79 It is striking that these late 4th/early 3rd century BCE urban centers exhibit a phenomenal difference in the size and complexity of the urban layout and architecture compared to cities from as little as 40 years earlier. The surge towards urbanism coincides with Makedonian control of Achaia Phthiotis, particularly in its coastal region. According to Diodoros, Demetrios Poliorketes moved the city of Larisa Kremaste further inland and strengthened its fortifications.80 The establishment of New Halos, likely also by Demetrios Poliorketes,81 must have gone hand in hand with a centralization of people and power. We also assume that the extension of Kastro Kallithea was built during this period, potentially by Demetrios Poliorketes, whereby the city served as a buffer zone between Halos and its previous rival Pharsalos.82 The landscape of a large part of Achaia Phthiotis was thus altered due to the establishment of large, strategically located, fortified settlements that resulted in a shift of settlement patterns. This process of centralization may have had an impact on land use as well; with the transfer of people to large well-defended cities, farms were likely reduced in number, as seen at New Halos. Assuming that the local economy was based on mixed farming and pastoralism, this meant that people were moved away from their economic base

76 Stählin 1967, 171–173; Decourt et al. 2004, 717; Herakleides fr. 3.3. 77 Strabo 9.5.15 lists Neleia, Pagasai, Ormenion, Rhizous, Sepias, Olizon, Boibe, and Iolkos. Other cities were incorporated at a later date including: Omolion, Aiolis, Halai, Korope and Spalauthra (IG IX2.1109), Glaphurai (BCH 95, 555), and Amphanai (Polemon A: 126). For synthesis of synoikismos see Boehm 2011, 33–40. 78 Μπάτζιου-Ευσταθίου et al. 2009. 79 Tziafalias et al. 2006, 102–130; Tziafalias et al. 2009, 227–229; Haagsma et al. 2011, 198–207; Surtees et al. 2014, 437–440. 80 Diod. Sic. 2.110.2; Stählin 1967, 183f. 81 Reinders 1988, 169–179; 2003c, 231; 2004, 187; 2014, 18–20. This interpretation is based on a silver coin hoard found in the Southeast city gate of Halos consisting of coins of cities visited by Demetrios Poliorketes prior to his arrival in Achaia Phthiotis. Contrary, Marzolff (pers. comm. as cited in Reinders 1988) believes that Kassandros, who was active in the area and had garrisons at Phthiotic Thebes and Pherai, was the founder of New Halos based on the quantity of coins and his presence in the area. Similarly Καραχρήστος 2007, 208f argues that Kassandros, following similar practices to Demetrios Poliorketes, was responsible for the foundation of Halos. 82 Tziafalias et al. 2006, 98f; 2009, 230f; Surtees et al. 2014, 441f, 445f.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

297

and had limited control of over their agricultural resources. 83 By centralizing the population, the territory became more defendable in an increasingly hostile world. More importantly, the Makedonian kings extended their authority over the inland territory and communication routes and were able to exploit the taxation of an untapped agriculturalist economy by keeping control of overseas trade routes.84 How did the Makedonians sell this idea of centralization to the Achaia Phthiotians and why did they buy into it? Were the existing populations forced to move, were they coerced into it or did they move willingly? The Antigonids were notorious for moving people and cities.85 Their habit of declaring cities autonomous and free must have resonated positively for a population previously under Pharsalian domination.86 The rhetoric of the Makedonian ruler who instigated the move to the city of Halos, be it Kassandros or Demetrios Poliorketes or both, must have gone hand in hand with an appeal to and promotion of the ethnic history of the individual poleis of the region with the goal of ascertaining the goodwill of a perhaps hesitant population. We will see that the result acted as a double-edged sword; the surge of indicia related to a local ‘polis-based’ past under the umbrella of a regional unity only appeared in the coastal communities of Achaia Phthiotis. The inland towns in the more western part of the region were not part of this. Not only must this dynamic have fuelled a tension between autonomies on polis and ethnos levels, but the EastWest divide in the region created the potential to weaken the cohesiveness of the ethnos overall. V. COINS OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS The minting of bronze coinage occurred in some cities of Achaia Phthiotis shortly after this period of intensified urban construction and fortification. 87 These coins 83 Reinders and Prummel 1998, 81–95; Prummel 2003a, 217; Haagsma 2010, 261–263. 84 The Antigonids intended to keep tight control over harbours and sea routes in compliance with their ambition to be the largest sea power in the Eastern Mediterranean. See Buraselis 1982, 39f. Walbank 2002, 107f., though Ager 2003, 50 adds ‘they just weren’t very good at it’. 85 Examples include Lebedos and Teos (Welles 1966, 3f) and the move of Sikyon (Plut. Dem. Pol. 25.2; Diod. Sic. 20.102.2; Shipley 2000, 114; Lolos 2011). 86 See Billows 1990, 203 on this policy in general. That ‘freedom’ is relative and that it had its price is described by Billows 1995, 75 in his chapter on the variety of reciprocal strategies of polis and monarchy. 87 The reign of Philip and the Makedonian kings did not result in the cessation of city coinage in Thessaly. Martin 1985, 139f, 161–163 argues that there was no Makedonian policy of suppressing local mints in Thessaly. If mints were closed, it was likely for economic rather than political motives and cessation of coins cannot be equated with the loss of sovereignty or autonomy in these cities (Martin 1985). Katerini Liampi 2000, 221 notes that ‘Thessalian cities never stopped issuing their own coins’ although the scale of production may have been reduced considerably, for example at Larissa (see Martin 1985, 161; Furtwängler 1990, 118–121). Some cities, like Classical Halos, experienced a hiatus of minting coinciding with its integration into Pharsalian territory c. 346 BCE (Gardner 1883, 13; Rogers 1932, nos.238–240; SNG Cop. Thessaly 62–65; Reinders 1988, 236–251) while numismatic evidence from other cities like

298

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

featured iconography drawn from the individual polis’ mythical ancestry or cultic associations; examples include Phrixos and Helle, the children of Athamas, for Halos, Thetis on a hippocamp for Larisa Kremaste, and major deities such as Zeus for Halos and Athena for Thebes.88 The synoikismos of Phthiotic Thebes is visually exhibited through the amalgamation of legends from previously independent settlements, Phylake and Pyrasos, into the iconography of the city coinage. Such hybridization of imagery demonstrates the importance of drawing on local mythical history to promote newly founded communities. The city of Phthiotic Thebes is recognized by its name on coinage, while the image of Demeter represents Pyrasos, and Protessilaos relates to Phylake as he was the son of its mythical founder.89 These polis-based iconographies were based on local myths but were also accompanied by an element invoking a unified regional identity (Fig. 9). The monogram AX on the Hellenistic coins of Halos, Larisa Kremaste, Phthiotic Thebes, and Peuma has usually been interpreted as meaning ‘Achaion,’ although other interpretations exist.90 At Larisa Kremaste, the monogram was prominently and symbolically integrated into the local iconography present on coins: Thetis holds the shield of Achilles upon which is the AX (Fig. 10).91 At Peuma, the obverse portrays a nymph while the AX monogram occupies the entire reverse of the polis’ coins (Fig. 11).92 These AX coins, minted from c. 302 BCE until c. 288 BCE, were produced in multiple issues with many dies for both reverses and obverses.93 In their study of the chemical composition of extensive slag deposits at Pelasgía, A. Papastamataki, D. Demetriou, and B. Orphanos identified the area near Larisa Kremaste as an important metallurgical center extensively exploited for its copper, possibly in relation to coin production.94 In turn, H. Reinder Reinders and Eleni Asderaki utilized trace element analysis to suggest that the copper in the coins of Halos, Peuma, and Larisa Kremaste, and possibly those of Phthiotic Thebes, came from these nearby copper

88

89 90

91 92 93 94

Larissa Kremaste shows the continuity of coin mints in the 4th through 2nd centuries BCE (Rogers 1932, no.312; SNG Cop. Thessaly 151f). Other cities of eastern Achaia Phthiotis like Phthiotic Thebes and Peuma had not previously issued coins until the late 4 th to early 3rd centuries BCE. Str. 9.5.8; Rogers 1932, no.238–240 (Halos), 302 (Larisa Kremaste); Reinders 1988, 164f, fig. 98, 236–251; SNG Cop. Thessaly 62–65 (Halos), 151f (Larisa Kremaste); Reinders 2003b, 143; Reinders 2004a, 196. Str. 9.5.8; Rogers 1932, 174f nos.306–308, 550–552; SNG Cop. Thessaly 259f. Furtwängler 1990, 223f argues for reading the monogram as XA and suggests that these were the initials of the mintmaster of the mint union rather than a reference to Achaion or league. Contrary, Reinders 1988, 166; 2003c, 141 suggests that the monogram, whether read AX or XA, was the symbol of a newly formed league. Rogers 1932, no.312; SNG Cop. Thessaly 151f. Head, Hist. Num. 304; Rogers 1932, no.442f; SNG Cop. Thessaly 198. Reinders 2004a, 194, who suggests that these coins were produced for payments to Macedonian military. Papastamataki and Dimitriou 1987; Cf. Papastamataki et al. 1994 who argue that the quantity of slag suggests that copper production exceeded local needs.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

299

mines.95 A common copper source suggests that the various coin series were produced in a central place, perhaps Larisa Kremaste, which may have allowed for a reduction in production costs or provided a central distribution hub from which cities could purchase the metals needed for coin production. We agree with scholars who assume that the AX stands for ‘Achaion.’ As such, these coins bear a strong resemblance to those of the Achaian League of the Peloponnese.96 While the identification of ‘Achaion’ seems most probable, there is less certainty as to what ‘Achaion’ referred to in the particular context of Achaia Phthiotis. Scholars have suggested that the monogram relates to a kind of league that functioned as either a political or economic unification of cities. 97 Interpreting AX as such means that only a few of the eastern cities participated in this regional collaboration. The close geographic proximity of the participating cities and coastal locations may be significant, and it is noteworthy that other cities in the western part of Achaia Phthiotis, particularly the large inland city of Melitaia, were excluded from the group. We agree with Klaus Freitag that there is no evidence for the existence of such a formal league.98 We instead view the introduction of coins with an AX monogram as an indication of a successful appeal to a sense of regional belonging rooted in the past, an appeal that was possibly influenced by the Makedonian authorization of freedom and autonomy. The presence of strong cities that formed a united front along the eastern coastal region of Achaia Phthiotis, bound by a shared sense of heritage and a healthy exchange of commodities, certainly served the interests of the Makedonians. We acknowledge that this take on identity formation is rather instrumentalist in character, but it is our opinion that political underpinnings do not necessarily exclude a positive response in at least part of the Achaian population. This ‘mint union’, short-lived as it may have been, may be the result of a divisive strategy that united key coastal cities against other inland regional centers. It served the eastern Achaian cities in an open expression of Achaian identity, uniting the mythical pasts of the coastal poleis under one umbrella, at the exclusion of the region’s more inland poleis. The Makedonians successfully appealed to an ethnic sense of belonging through a reorganization of cities and possible assistance in the implementation of communal coinage and leveraged the collective identity of the coastal Achaia Phthiotians to facilitate their own ambitions. Local identity was supported and used, but not usurped, by external agents who also benefitted in their own right from these expressions and acts of regional cohesion. As stated above, in times of political and social tension, the social need for belonging seems to rise to a level of conscious expression. The iconography of the coinage supported a dual relationship between polity and region by drawing on a local mythical past while also tying this imagery 95 Reinders 2003b, 143f; 2004a, 197f; Reinders and Asderaki 2015. 96 The Achaian League minted coins with the AX monogram in the 4 th century BCE and, after a hiatus, again from 280 BCE as part of the federation of the Achaians. See Gardner 1887, xxiii– xxv; Head Hist. Num. 416; SEG 14.375. 97 Reinders 1988, 166, 169; 2003b, 141–144; 2004a, 193f. 98 Freitag 2006, 224f.

300

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

into that of a larger regional community. Internal forces thereby contributed to shaping such expressions of identity, which were in turn likely supported by external forces. VI. TERRITORIAL DISPUTES Indications of ethnic unity in Achaia Phthiotis seem to wane over the course of the 3rd century BCE while other political events suggest a growing focus on the identities of individual poleis. The cessation of regional coinage coincides with an increase in the number of well-documented territorial conflicts suggesting a rise of inter-polity tension within the region. Perhaps the proposed East-West inland-coast division between groups of cities in the landscape of Achaia Phthiotis, already apparent in the short-lived mint union, was amplified by the appearance of external forces to the point where poleis loosened regional associations. The Aitolians, expanding from their heartland towards Thessaly, pushed their zone of influence into western Achaia Phthiotis by the second half of the 3rd century BCE while the east continued to remain under Makedonian control, at least initially.99 The large number of well-known interstate arbitrations in the region is a likely reflection of an ongoing breakdown of political unity on a regional scale. No less than 12 extant boundary and land disputes involved Achaia Phthiotis and necessitated international arbitration, a large number in comparison to those known from the rest of Greece.100 This volume demonstrates fluctuations in regional and polity alliances. Around 270/260 BCE, Peuma, likely associated with the settlement at Kastro Kallithea at the western edge of the Krokian plain, was challenged twice over its boundaries. In both cases the larger and more established polis of Melitaia supported its neighbouring settlements of Chalai, Pereia, and Phyliadon against Peuma, which lost both arbitrations.101 It may be significant that Peuma did not receive clear support from the Achaian cities along the east coast with which it had previously been linked by means of cultural indicia such as common coinage while Melitaia backed its inland neighbours.102 Bruno Helly argues that Melitaia and its surrounding settlements were aligned politically through a policy of sympoliteia in the first half of the 3rd century BCE thereby creating an alliance in western Achaia Phthiotis

99 Graninger 1999; Scholten 2000. 100 Ager 1996, no.30, 31, 32, 55, 56, 76, 78, 79, 153, 154, 156, 157. Cities of Achaia Phthiotis involved in interstate arbitrations include: Chalai, Halos, Larisa Kremaste, Melitaia, Narthakion, Pereia, Peuma, Phthiotic Thebes, Phyliadon, Pteleion, Xyniai. 101 Ager 1996, no.30, 31. Helly 2001, 242–247, 254–256 identifies the sites of Tsournati and Morjes with Chalai and Phyliadon respectively. Cf. Stählin 1914, 83–104. 102 The unity of the coastal towns may have waned as evidence by the cessation of joint AX coin production c. 288 BCE although individual cities continued to mint coins. Helly 2001, 243– 249, 256 argues that Chalai, Pereia, and Phyliadon were united under a sympoliteia with Melitaia by c. 260/250 BCE thus explaining Melitaia’s political support of these territorial disputes.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

301

with Melitaia taking a dominant role.103 Its border dispute with Peuma may have been an attempt to expand territorial control into the coastal region. 104 Melitaia’s expansionist policy and support of its western Achaian allies may have solidified the East–West, coastal-inland division of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. Melitaia had come under Aitolian influence by the second half of the 3rd century BCE but was also courted by other forces; Amynandros of Athamania supported the city by providing a large sum of ten silver talents for building a gate and repairing the city walls.105 External powers likely capitalized on existing alliances to further their own expansionist policies. Thus the need for settling the conflicts between cities of Achaia Phthiotis through interstate arbitrations testifies to a rising political tension caused by vacillating internal political alliances and foreign hegemonic influence, both of which must have influenced the frail cohesion of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis on many levels. It is telling that two other members of the original ‘mint union’, Halos and Phthiotic Thebes, were involved in a territorial conflict in the mid–2nd century BCE, likely over grazing rights on sacred land. The conflict was arbitrated at Delphi by Makon of Larisa, acting on behalf of the Thessalian League.106 Both cities had come under the control of the newly established Thessalian League by this time, yet there is a reference to Achaian identity in the arbitration record. It notes that inscriptions recording the resolution should be set up at various sanctuaries, including a sanctuary of Artemis at Halos, with the enigmatic epithet ‘Panachaia’.107 Panachaia naturally means ‘all of Achaia’ and seems to appeal to the ethnos, though we do not know when this sanctuary was established. Numerous authors have discussed this famous arbitration, but Klaus Freitag has evaluated it in detail, including the sanctuaries mentioned, and we summarize and draw on his argument.108 The location of the sanctuary of Artemis Panachaia in Halos remains unknown, and while various dedications to Artemis have been found in the vicinity of the ancient polis, none of them mention Artemis in association with this epithet.109 Panachaia is unusual in that it is only found in epigraphic texts found near the port 103 Helly 2001, 245–248, 254–256. As Tsournati’s location connects physically and visually with other cities of the Krokian (Almiros) plain, the settlement may have initially associated itself with these eastern cities prior to joining the sympolity with Melitaia in the 3 rd century BCE. Helly 2001, 247f argues that Tsournati’s (Chalai) geographic position was likely the impetus for the establishment of a civic alliance between Melitaia and Chalai. Through this alliance, Melitaia acquired physical and visual communication and connectivity with the coastal region. 104 While Peuma (Kastro Kallithea) lost the dispute, there is no indication that the polis fell under the control of Melitaia. Melitaia was involved in numerous other territorial disputes either in support of its neighbours or as the primary claimant. It is uncertain to what extent these border conflicts were driven by internal polis ambitions or external powers. Ager 1996, no.30, 31 (Peuma), 55 (Xyniai), 56 (Pereia), 32, 76, 79, 156, 157 (Narthakion). 105 IG IX2.208. See for a summary of comments: Bringmann 1995, 167–169. 106 Ager 1996, no.153; Reinders 1988, 173f; Freitag 2006, 214–218. 107 Ager 1996, 419–420 no.153; Reinders 1988, 152–154, 175, 188f; Freitag 2006, 214–218. 108 Freitag 2006. 109 No archaeological evidence has been found for the sanctuary Reinders 2014, 23; Freitag 2006, 224–227.

302

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

of Phthiotic Thebes and in the Peloponnese. Two Hellenistic dedications to Demeter Panachaia were found near the Classical polis of Pyrasos, referred to by Homer for its veneration of Demeter.110 Pausanias mentions a sanctuary of Demeter Panachaia in Aigion and an Athena Panachaia sanctuary in Patras, both of which are found in Peloponnesian Achaia.111 As Freitag points out, the epithet is late, and none of the associated cults seem to have acquired a central importance in the religious calendar of these cities. He concludes that the epithet possibly relates to a celebration of Panachaism as a form of Panhellenism and thus transcends a local or regional significance of the cults.112 But we wish to reiterate that all recorded Panachaia cults were located in areas known in antiquity as Achaia or Achaia Phthiotis, and the epithets are indeed only known from the Hellenistic period onwards. Was the establishment of two cults with the epithet Panachaia, one in Phthiotic Thebes and the other in Halos, a political tool used to promote and appeal to the population’s sense of ethnic pride and prestige on the level of the polis and ethnos? With rival Makedonian forces of Demetrios Poliorketes and Kassandros stationed along the coastal plain in 302 BCE, continuous competition may have encouraged the construction and/or promotion of cults to deities under a common Achaian denominator whereby the poleis involved increased their religious, social, and perhaps even political status in the context of the ethnos. This claim towards a common Achaian heritage would have resonated long after the balance of political powers had changed. We admit that our suggestion that the Panachaian cults in Achaia Phthiotis must have their origins in the Early Hellenistic period is a bold one and that our sources are too limited to further substantiate it. Yet these kinds of appeals to a regional identity would correspond well with tactics used by Makedonian hegemons to win over the goodwill of a reluctant local population via the central slogans of freedom and autonomy. VII. LOCAL MYTHS IN MATERIAL CULTURE While admittedly scarce, expressions of a unified, regional identity among participating poleis in Achaia Phthiotis drew on a shared mythology as mode of cohesion and inclusion. The centrality of Achaia Phthiotis in Greek mythology is exemplified in the ancestral and heroic figures of Deucalion, Pyrrha, Hellen, Xuthos, and most famously Achilles whose purview and influence extended beyond Achaia Phthiotis. Strabo reports that the agora of Melitaia displayed the tomb of Hellen, forefather of not only the Achaians but of all Greeks.113 Thus we see myths used as tools for aiding the cohesion of groups, local and beyond. Archaeological evidence from cities in eastern Achaia Phthiotis displays vocabularies of multi-tiered regional/ethnos or local/poleis identities comparable to those found in coinage in that it appeals to 110 Freitag 2006, 226f; Hom. Il. 695; Str. 9.5.14. 111 Paus. 7.24.3; Freitag 2006, 226. 112 Freitag 2006, 231f. 113 Str. 9.5.6.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

303

both the regional and local. The material culture from various domestic contexts appears to draw on polis-based myth-history throughout the 3rd century BCE, indicating continued pride and promotion of local cultural heritage. In the House of the Coroplast owned by a terracotta maker at New Halos, a figurine was found that depicts Phrixos or Helle on a ram, iconography similar to that on Halian coins (Fig. 12).114 The inhabitants of this newly established city must have desired material goods reflecting the community’s mythical history and identity, perhaps as a mode of reasserting their local heritage during this period of shifting political environments. The household, where these images were produced as well as displayed, must have played a dynamic role in fuelling and satisfying this social need.115 Local polis identities drew on foundation myths and legends while connecting with other communities of belonging by simultaneously embracing a regional Thessalian heritage. Through the adoption of such myths, a greater Thessalian group identity was invoked, not a Makedonian or Aitolian one. This reaffirmed the role of Achaia Phthiotis in Thessalian history despite the presence of external influence and foreign control of the region. Such affirmation of Thessalian ties is manifested in, for example, the iconography of pottery and in one as yet preliminary published inscription. At New Halos, a farmstead was built into Southeast gate after the urban center had been abandoned c. 265 BCE.116 The Southeast gate was occupied from the mid to late 3rd century BCE, during which time mouldmade bowls decorated with familiar local myth were produced, including one depicting Athamas, the founder of the city (Fig. 13).117 Other ceramics targeted a wider regional Achaian as well as Thessalian audience through figures such as Achilles (Fig. 14). At Kastro Kallithea similarly decorated mouldmade vessels have been found dating to the late 3rd to early 2nd century BCE. A jug from the site (Fig. 15) depicts the Thessalian myth of Sisyphos and Autolykos, thus far only attested in late literary sources. These narratives must have resonated with the local populations and perhaps appealed to their local and/or regional cultural pride despite their obscurity in broader Greek iconography and literature.118 Fragments of one of the vessels discovered at Kastro Kallithea depict the funeral games of Patroklos, thus again drawing on Thessalian heritage. We do not yet know the production provenance of the figured vessels from Kallithea and Halos. Some may have come from nearby; a pottery workshop, specializing in Homeric 114 For terracotta see Van Boekel and Mulder 2003, 106, 113f, Appendix 3 F5; for coins see Reinders 1988, 164–166; Reinders 2003b, 142f, fig. 3.45; 2004, 196. The association of Halos with the myth of Athamas and his children Phrixos and Helle can be found in Str. 9.5.8; Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 513 ed. C. Wendel 1958, 170. 115 Haagsma 2010, 213–216. 116 Reinders 2003a, 32f; 2014, 22f. 117 Sikking 2000, 41; Beestman pers. comm 2015. 118 Maria Nasioula 2013 recently finished her Ph.D. thesis at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki on 216 mould made vases from the Hellenistic period which focuses on an analysis of the depiction of myths and texts. She recognizes four major regions (Makedonia, Thessaly, Boiotia, and the Peloponnese) with each a particular repertoire in stories depicted. Her thesis is unpublished although a summary is available online.

304

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

mouldmade vessels, was discovered at Pherai.119 It may be that workshops like the one at Pherai catered to Thessalians who liked to reflect on famous stories rooted in a collective past during times of commonality, like dinners and religious festivities in their homes. Given the obscurity of some of the stories, some vessels may even have been commissioned by well-to-do families in an attempt to align their personalized history with that of a local heroic past. The importance of associating social groups with Thessalian mythical genealogies is also articulated in an inscription that was discovered in 1999 and thus far has been published only in a preliminary report.120 The inscription is cut on a limestone slab, the upper part of which is missing, found in the Southeast city gate of Halos in between the two gate towers. The text consists of a list of names in the accusative case. Annette Harder suggests that this indicates that a first line of text is missing, one that may be related to honouring or commemorating these names, perhaps even as ancestors.121 Names that occur are Nestor and Periklymenos, sons of Neleus who is in turn a twin brother of Pelias. This mythical family has its roots in Thessaly. In subsequent lines of text, Neleus’ half brothers, Aison and Amythaon, appear as well as the sons of Nestor: Perseus, Stratios, Peisistratos, and Antilochos. In the lower lines we see more Thessalian names belonging to this genealogy, such as Admetos and Eumelos, who, of course, have strong connections with Pherae and Iolkos. This inscription sheds important light on social memory and the process of claiming heritage. It pertains strongly to the heroes with whom the ancient inhabitants of Halos identified, but further analysis needs to wait until it is published in its final form. VIII. RELIGIOUS PRACTICES One last aspect of the material culture in Achaia Phthiotis we would like to discuss relates to religious activities. Our excavations at Kastro Kallithea yielded a number of enigmatic stones found in both a sanctuary as well as a domestic context (Fig. 16): they are square or rectangular blocks of limestone or marble with a semicircular protrusion on top. The number of these protrusions varies from one to three at Kastro Kallithea.122 Margriet Haagsma and Sophia Karapanou, building on the work of Maria Mili and Emily Kearns, argue that these stones represent altars or trapezae (offering tables) and that the protrusions may represent sacrificial cakes offered to the gods.123 These sacrificial cakes were simple offerings in principle but were an important part of ritual dedications. At Kastro Kallithea, bread stamps, which may 119 Αραχωβἰτη and Δουλγέρη-Ιντζεσἰλογλου 2000. 120 Sikking 2000, 40f. The date of the inscription is unknown but given its find context it may belong to the foundation phase of New Halos (302 BCE) or the second habitation stage of the city gate dated to the mid-3rd century BCE. 121 Sikking 2000, 41 referring to personal communication with Harder who will be publishing this inscription in its entirety. 122 Haagsma et al. 2011, 201f; Tziafalias et al. 2006, 124f; Haagsma and Karapanou, forthcoming. 123 Haagsma and Karapanou, forthcoming; Kearns 1994, 68; Mili 2015, 43f, 88f.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

305

have been used on these cakes, (Fig. 17) were found in Building 10, a presumed domestic structure, and indicate that these cakes were in fact produced locally and where people lived. They bear religious symbols, such as a leaf, a symbol for barley, and a lightning bolt, which are perhaps related to Demeter and Zeus. Thus we agree with Mili’s argument that cakes served as an important offering in the religious sphere, particularly in Thessaly, and were produced within the homes to be given as modest dedications elsewhere.124 What is most noteworthy is the fact that these modest offerings become monumentalized in stone, particularly because these appear to be a temporal and regional phenomenon. They are mostly restricted to the northern part of Achaia Phthiotis and all date primarily to the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BCE, a volatile period during which the region became a backdrop for military confrontations between the Makedonians, the Aitolians, and eventually the Romans.125 The later incorporation of the region into the Thessalian League may have been met with resistance from at least part of the population. Denver Graninger notes that individual cities of Achaia Phthiotis were late in adjusting their religious calendar to that of the League.126 The stone trapezae may have been a visual tactic that was part of this passive resistance; apart from the discoveries at Kastro Kallithea, they have been found at Pharsalos, Phthiotic Eretria, Antinitsa, and Phthiotic Thebes. 127 Kearns suggests that offerings with cakes, which these stones mimic and represent, were not simply an unassuming act of sincerity and piety but also expressed a form of what she terms ‘moral superiority’.128 This moral component may have arisen in the context of resistance to the dramatic events and changes of the era, and the idiosyncratic regional monumentalization of simple offerings served a similar sociocultural function. In contrast with lavish offerings made in polis and federal sanctuaries elsewhere in Thessaly, these monumentalized trapezae and altars with cakes may be interpreted as active agents in the negotiation of a regional identity through the cultivation of a local morale that included the elevation of simplicity above ostentation and altruism through the expression of a desire to hold on to humble sacrificial practices.129 With regard to the internal balance of power in Thessaly, it is telling to see that this mentality is not only restricted to the traditionally peripheral region of Achaia Phthiotis but is also present in Pharsalos in the tetrad of Phthiotis. Its diminished role in Thessaly during the 3rd century BCE is illustrated by the local quest of securing comfort, structure and identity in a rapidly changing world.

124 Mili 2015, 88f, 261. 125 The dates of the inscribed stones are mostly based on the archaeological context as well as the dating of the lettering of the inscriptions. 126 Graninger 2011, 106–114. 127 Haagsma and Karapanou, forthcoming; Mili 2015, 88f fn.157f; Single items were also found at Pelinna (Darmezin and Tziafalias 2005, 67–69) and most recently at Skotoussa (Karapanou pers. comm.). 128 Kearns 2011, 103. 129 Haagsma and Karapanou, forthcoming.

306

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

IX. CONCLUSION By drawing together the patchy literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence we have attempted to enlighten and contribute to the conversation amongst historians and archaeologists about ethnos and identity. While a sense of ethnic belonging may have been rooted in the consciousness of the Achaians of Phthiotis throughout the Archaic and Classical periods, we see clearer expressions of group identity and ethnic togetherness coming to the forefront in the early Hellenistic period at a critical moment in the region’s shifting political landscape. What was the impetus for this resurgent sense of communal identity? Did such expressions emerge internally or were they fuelled by external factors? We argue it was both. Having been under the control of the Pharsalians from the mid-4th century BCE, the promise of freedom and autonomy by the Makedonian outsiders would have resonated strongly in eastern Achaia Phthiotis and may have served as an inspiration for expressing a sense of ethnic belonging. By reasserting this sense of togetherness, the Achaians distinguished themselves from their previous occupiers the Pharsalians. As Jeremy McInerney demonstrated in the case of the Phokians, the contrast of ‘us versus them’ can be a powerful tool for the creation of a sense of belonging to a community, however loosely defined.130 And this tool can be easily manipulated by outside forces, like the Makedonians or Aitolians. Short-lived as it may have been, the eastern Achaians drew on their ethnicity and shared past to re-establish a communal identity, which was expressed and perceived in regional coinage and Panachaian cults. This sense of togetherness did not negate more polis-oriented expressions and perceptions of identity; coins, ceramics, and terracottas point to an ongoing adherence to local mythical pasts. Yet perhaps not all cities in Achaia Phthiotis subscribed to the sense of togetherness that seems to have been strongest in the eastern part of the region. By the second quarter of the 3rd century BCE, some western cities of the region challenged the newly formed polis of Peuma in a territorial dispute, and the rapidly changing power relations present amongst the Aitolians, Makedonians, and Romans created a complicated situation. While external powers shifted on the political stage, what we see via the material culture are internal forces laying claim to local polis-based mythical pasts as well as broader regional Thessalian ones. In addition, expressions of religious traditions, such as the monumentalization of offering cakes, are not restricted to the traditional region of Achaia Phthiotis anymore. Instead, we see forms of regionality appear that go beyond the traditional territories of the perioikoi, building on the continuity of communities of belonging while adapting to the new relations of power in Northern Greece. By approaching the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis through the material culture, we feel that we not only illustrate but also aid in conceptualizing the impact of external and internal forces on the expression of ethnic identity. Our findings in Achaia Phthiotis demonstrate the benefits of contextualizing archaeological evidence within a historical framework while emphasizing the necessity of archaeological research to fuel historical contextualization simultaneously. We, therefore, advocate the application of such 130 McInerney 1999.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

307

an approach more broadly in order to facilitate dialogues between historians and archaeologists, especially in times and areas where written sources are relatively scarce. ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1. Map of Achaia Phthiotis.

308

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Fig. 2. Plan of Classical settlement at Grintja (possibly Karandai).

Fig. 3. Plan of Classical settlement at Kastro Kallithea (tentatively Peuma).

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

Fig. 4. Plan of Classical settlement at Magoula Plataniotiki (Old Halos).

Fig. 5. Plan of the Classical settlement of Karatsagdali (unknown settlement).

309

310

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Fig. 6. Settlements in Achaia Phthiotis in the Hellenistic Period

Fig. 7. Plan of the Hellenistic city of New Halos.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

Fig. 8. Plan of the city of Kastro Kallithea in the Hellenistic period.

Fig. 9. The region of Achaia Phthiotis with cities minting coins with monogram AX.

311

312

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Fig. 10. Coin from Larisa Kremeste with the image of Thetis on a hippocamp holding the shield of Achilles on which is the monogram AX (Achaion).

Fig. 11. Coin from Peuma with the AX monogram on the reverse and a nymph on the obverse.

Fig. 12. Terracotta figurine depicting Phrixos or Helle on a ram. From the House of the Coroplast at New Halos.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

313

Fig. 13. Figure of ΑΘΑΜΑΣ on a mouldmade bowl from the Southeast Gate at New Halos.

Fig. 14. Mouldmade jug with labeled images of Sisyphos and Autolykos from Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea.

314

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Fig. 15. Stone block with protrusions found in Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. The protrusions represent the permanent offering of sacrificial cakes on a stone altar.

Fig. 16. Terracotta bread stamps with images of a leaf, lighting bolt and barley found in Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

315

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ager, S.L. (1996) Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C., Berkeley. Ager, S. L. (2003) An Uneasy Balance: from the Death of Seleukos to the Battle of Raphia, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden, MA, 35–51. Alcock, S.E. (1994) Breaking up the Hellenistic World: Survey and Society, in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge, 171–190. Antonaccio, C.M. (2010) Origins, Culture, and Identity in Classical Antiquity, in P. Euben and K. Bassi (eds.), When Worlds Elide, Lanham, 4–17. Αραχωβίτη, Π and Αργ. Δουλγέρη–Ιντζεσίλογλου (2000) Φεραί, in E. Κυπραίου (ed.), Ελληνιστική κεραμική από Θεσσαλία, Athens, 70–81. Aston, E. (2012) Thessaly and Macedon at Delphi, Electrum 19, 41–60. Bayart, J.-F. (2005) The Illusion of Cultural Identity, Chicago. Béquignon, Y. (1932) Études thessaliennes. V. Recherches archéologiques dans la région de Pharsale, Bulletin correspondance hellénique 56, 122–191. Billows, R. (1990) Antigonos the One-eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley. Billows, R. (1995) Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden. Boehm, R. (2011) Synoikism, Urbanization, and Empire in the Early Hellenistic Period (PhD Thesis), Berkeley. Bonner, R.J. and G. Smith (1943) Administration of Justice in the Delphic Amphictyony, Classical Philology 38, 1–12. Breitenstein, N. (ed.) (1982) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: Greece: Thessaly to Aegean Islands, Copenhagen. Bringmann, K. (1995) Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, vol. 1, Berlin. Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis: Forschungen zur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien, München. Cantarelli, F. (1999) Contuitá e discontinuitá nell’occupazione e nell’organizazzione dei territori di alcune poleis della Tessaglia meridionale sino all’ etá Romana, in M. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des cités Grecques. Actes de la Table ronde Internationale organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes, BCH Suppl. 34, 125–133. Chamoux, F. (2003) Hellenistic Civilization, Malden. Cifani, G. and S. Stoddart (2012) Landscape, Ethnicity and Identity in the Archaic Mediterranean Area, Oxford. Darmezin, L. and A. Tziafalias (2005) Deux inscriptions inédites de Pélinna (Thessalie), in Coins, Cults, History and Inscriptions VI: Studies in Honor of J. M. Fossey (Ancient World, 36.1), Chicago, 54–69. Decourt, J.-C. (1990) La Vallée de L’Énipeus en Thessalie, BCH Suppl. 21, Athens. Decourt, J.C., T.H. Nielsen, and B. Helly (2004) Thessalia and Adjacent Regions, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 676–731. Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aitoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe siècle av. J.-C., Paris. Freitag, K. (2006) Ein Schiedsvertrag zwischen Halos und Thebai aus Delphi, in K. Freitag and P. Funke (eds.), Kult–Politik–Ethnos: Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und Politik. Historia Einzelschriften 198, Stuttgart, 211–232. Furtwängler, A.E. (1990) Demetrias, eine makedonische Gründung im Netz hellenistischer Handels– und Geldpolitik, Heidelberg. Gardner, P. (1883) Catalogue of Greek coins. Thessaly to Aetolia, London. Gardner, P. (1887) Catalogue of Greek coins. Peloponneus (excluding Corinth), London. Grainger, J.D. (1995) The Expansion of the Aitolian League, 280–260 BC, Mnemosyne 48, 313– 343.

316

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians, Leiden. Graninger, D. (2011) Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly, Leiden. Haagsma, B.J., Z Malakasioti, V. Rondiri, and H.R. Reinders (1993) Between Karatsadagli and Baklali, Pharos I, 147–164. Haagsma, M.J. (2010) Domestic Economy and Social Organization in New Halos, Groningen. Haagsma, M.J. and S. Karapanou (forthcoming) Cakes and Cults: Negotiating Identity in Hellenistic Achaia Phthiotis, in C. Morgan and M. Stamatopoulou (eds.), Cults and Sanctuaries in Ancient Thessaly, Athens. Haagsma, M.J., S. Karapanou, T. Harvey, and L. Surtees (2011) A New City and its Agora: Results from Hellenic-Canadian Archaeological Work at Kastro of Kallithea in Thessaly, Greece, in The Agora in the Medierranean from Homeric to Roman Times. International Conference, Kos, 14–17 April 2011, Athens, 197–208. Haagsma, M.J., S. Karapanou, and L. Surtees (2015) Greek-Canadian Fieldwork at Kastro Kallithea 2006–2012, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης 4. Βόλος. 16–8 March 2012, Volos, 245–256. Hall, J.M. (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen (eds.) (2004) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford. Head, B.V. (1911) Historia Numorum, 2nd edition, Oxford. Helly, B. (1995) L’état Thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les tetrads et les tagoi, Lyon. Helly, B. (2001) Un décret federal des Thessaliens méconnu dans une cite d’Achaïa Phthiotide (IG IX 2, 103), Bulletin corrrespondance hellénique 125, 239–287. Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present, New York. Kahrstedt, U. (1922) Griechisches Staatsrecht, Göttingen. Καραχρήστος, Β. (2007) Πολιτική και στρατιωτικές αναμετρήσεις κατά το Β’ μιςό του 4ου αι.π.Χ.Η τύχη της Άλου, in Αχαιοφθιωτικά Γ: πρακτικά του Γ. Συνεδρίου Αλμυριωτικών Σπουδών:13– 15 Οκτωβρίου 2000, Almyros, 177–210. Kearns, E. (1994) Cakes in Greek Sacrificial Regulations, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, Stockholm, 65–70. Kearns, E. (2011) Ο λιβανωτός ευσεβές καί τό πόπανον: the rationale of cakes and bloodless offerings in Greek sacrifice, in V. Pirenne-Delforge and F. Prescendi (eds.), Nourrir les dieux?: sacrifice et représentation du divin, Liège. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes. Liampi, K. (2000) The Circulation of Bronze Macedonian Royal Coins in Thessaly, in C.C. Mattusch (ed.), From the Parts to the Whole. Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28–June 1, 1996, Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 39, Portsmouth, 220–225. Lolos, Y. (2011) Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State, Hesperia Supplement 39, Princeton. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. (2014) Ethnos and Koinon, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 270–284. MacSweeney, N. (2009) Beyond Ethnicity: The Overlooked Diversity of Group Identities, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, 101–126. Malkin, I. (2001) Introduction, in I. Malkin (ed), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, 1–28. Martin, T. R. (1985) Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton, NJ. Marzolff, P. (1994) Antiker Städtebau und Architektur in Thessalien, Θεσσαλία, Athens, 255–276.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

317

McInerney, J. (1999) The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis, Austin. McInerney, J. (2001) Ethnos and Ethnicity in Early Greece, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, 51–73. McInerney, J. (2013) Polis and Koinon: Federal Government in Greece, in H. Beck (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Greek Government, Malden, Mass., 466–479. McInerney, J. (2014) Ethnicity: An Introduction, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester, 1–16. Mili, M. (2015) Religion and Society in Ancient Thessaly, Oxford. Mili, M. (forthcoming) Women worshippers in Thessaly, in C. Morgan and M. Stamatopoulou (eds.), Cults and Sanctuaries in Ancient Thessaly, Athens. Milojčić, V. (1974a) Bericht über die deutschen archäologischen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1973, Aρχαιoλoγικά ανάλεκτα εξ Aθηνών 7, 65–75. Milojčić, V. (1974b) Volo, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 98, 662, 668–670. Morgan, C. (2003) Early Greek States beyond the Polis, London. Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. (1985) Αρχαία Δημητριάδα, ΑΔ 40, 185–191. Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. (1987) Δημητριάδα, ΑΔ 42, 246–253. Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. (1988) Σωρός (Θέση Ασπρόγεια Νέων Παγασών, ΑΔ 43, 242–243. Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. and Π. Tριανταφυλοπούλου (2009) Επιφανειακές και ανασκαφικές έρευνες στο Σωρό, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδας 2. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Volos, 257–267. Nasioula, M. (2013) ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΝ. Ελληνιστικά ανάγλυφα αγγεία με ενεπίγραφες διηγηματικές παραστάσεις / ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΝ. Hellenistic relief vases with inscribed narrative scenes (PhD Thesis), Aristotele University of Thessaloniki. Papastamataki, A. and D. Dimitriou (1987) The Production of Copper in Pelasgia, Praktika tis Akadimias Athinon, Athens. Papastamataki, A., D. Dimitriou, and B. Orphanos (1994) Mining and Metallurgical Activities in Pelasgia. The Production of Copper in Antiquity, in R. Misdrache–Kapon (ed.), La Thessalie: Quinze années de recherches anchéologiques, 1975–1990, Athens, 243–248. Reinders, H.R. (1988) New Halos: a Hellenistic Town in Thessalia, Greece, Utrecht. Reinders, H.R. (2003a) New Halos in Achaia Phthiotis, in H.R. Reinders and W. Prummel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 7–36. Reinders, H.R. (2003b) Coins, in H.R. Reinders and W. Prummel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 138–145. Reinders, H.R. (2003c) Beginning and End of the Occupation of New Halos, H.R. Reinders and W. Prummel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 231– 247. Reinders, H.R. (2004a) Coinage and Coin Circulation in New Halos, in L. Kypraiou (ed.), Coins in the Thessalian Region, Volos, 185–206. Reinders, H.R. (ed.) (2004b) Prehistoric sites at the Almirós and Soúrpi plains (Thessaly, Greece), Assen. Reinders, H.R. (2005) De opgraving van de Zuidoostpoort van Nieuw Halos (Griekenland) in het Olympisch jaar 2004, Paleo-aktueel 16, 84–88. Reinders, H.R. (2006) De Zuidoostpoort van Halos, Paleo-Aktueel 17, 114–121. Reinders, H.R. and E. Asderaki (2015) Coinage and copper production in Achaia Phthiotis. Nondestructive analysis using X-ray fluorescence, Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδα 5, Volos 26.2–1.3. Reinders, H.R. and W. Prummel (1998) Transhumance in Hellenistic Thessaly, Environmental Archaeology 3, 81–95. Reinders, H.R. and W. Prummel (eds.) (2003) Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse. Reinders, H.R., Y. Dijkstra, V. Rondiri, S.J. Tuinstra, and Z. Malakasioti (1996) The Southeast Gate of New Halos, Pharos 4, 121–138.

318

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Reinders, H.R., P. Fijma, Z. Malakasioti, and V. Rondiri (2000) An Archaeological Survey of the Sourpi Plain in Thessaly (Greece), Pharos 8, 83–93. Reinders, H.R., C. Williamson, W. Jansen, and P. de Roever (2008) The Church of Ayios Nikolaos (Vounenis) at Karatsadagli Almirou, Pharos 16, 85–122. Rogers, E. (1932) The Copper Coinage of Thessaly, London. Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley. Shipley, G. (2000) The Greek World after Alexander 323–30 BC, London. Shipley, G. (2002) Hidden Landscapes: Greek Field Survey Data and Hellenistic History, in D. Ogden (ed.), The Hellenistic World, Wales, 177–198. Shipley, G. (2011) Pseudo-Skylax’s periplous: the circumnavigation of the inhabited world. Text, translation and commentary, Exeter. Sikking, L. (2000) Bewoning op en rond de Zuidoostpoort van Nieuw Halos (260–240 v. Chr.), Paleo-aktueel 11, 37–41. Smith, M.L. (2005) Networks, Territories, and the Cartography of Ancient States, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95, 832–849. Smith, M.L. (2007) Territories, Corridors, and Networks: A Biological Model for the Premodern State, Complexity 12, 28–35. Snodgrass, A. (1980) Archaic Greece: the age of experiment, London. Sprawski, S. (1999) Jason of Pherai. A Study on History of Thessaly in Years 431–370 BC, Krakow. Sprawski, S. (2009) Thessalians and Their Neighbours in the Classical Period, in 1o Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας: Πρακτικά. Συνεδρίου τομος I, Thessaly, 131– 137. Stählin, F. (1914) Die Grenzen von Meliteia, Pereia, Peumata, und Chalai, Athenische Mitteilungen 39, 83–103. Stählin, F. (1967) Das Hellenische Thessalien, Stuttgart (reprint). Stewart, D.R. (2007) Landscape Change and Regional Variations in the Early ‘Provincial’ Setting: The Rural Peloponnese at the Late Hellenistic to Roman Transition (PhD Thesis), University of Leicester. Stissi, V. (2012) The Countryside of Classical–Hellenistic Halos (and Tanagra): A Comparative Approach, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδα 3, Πρακιτικά επιστημονικής συνάτγσης Βόλος 12.3−15.3.2009, Volos, 393–404. Stissi, V. (2014) Archaeology and an Odd Polis. The case of Halos (Thessaly), Lecture presented at the Netherlands Institute May 23, 2014, Athens. Surtees, L., S. Karapanou, and M.J. Haagsma (2014) Exploring Kastro Kallithea on the Surface: The Foundation and Occupation of Kastro Kallithea, Thessaly, Greece, in D. Rupp and J.A. Tomlinson (eds.), Meditations on the Diversity of the Built Environment in the Aegean Basin and Beyond, Athens, 431–452. Τριανταφυλλοπούλου, Π. (2000) Νεκροταφείο των Αμφανών. Οι πρώιμοι ελληνιστικοί τάφοι, in E. Κυπραίου (ed.), Ελληνιστική κεραμική από Θεσσαλία. 6. Σθνάντεση για την Ελληνιστική κεραμική, Volos, 70–81. Tziafalias, A., M.J. Haagsma, S. Karapanou, and S. Gouglas (2006) Scratching the Surface: A Preliminary Report on the 2004 and 2005 Seasons from the Urban Survey Project at Kastro Kallithea (“Peuma”), Thessaly. Part I: Introduction and Architecture, Mouseion 6, 91–135. Tziafalias, A., M.J. Haagsma, S. Karapanou, and S. Gouglas (2009) The Kastro of Kallithea in its Historical Context, in 1o Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας: Πρακτικά. Συνεδρίου τόμος I, vol. I, Thessaly, 225–231. van Antwerp Fine, J. (1932) The Problem of Macedonian Holdings in Epirus and Thessaly in 221 B.C., Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 63, 126–155. van Boekel, G.M.E.C. and B. Mulder (2003) Terracotta Figurines, in H.R. Reinders and W. Prummel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: a Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 106–118.

External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis

319

Walbank, F.W. (2002) Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections, Cambridge. Walsh, J.L. (1993) Bones of Contention: Pharsalus, Phthiotic Thebes, Larisa Cremaste, Echinus, Classical Philology 88, 35–46. Welles, C.B. (1966) Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, Rome. Wendel, C. (ed.) (1958) Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Vetera, Berlin. Westlake, H.D. (1969) Reprint. Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C., Groningen. Wieberdink, G. (1986) Hellenistische Grensversterkingen in het Othrys Gebergte (Thessalie), (M.A. Thesis), University of Amsterdam. Wieberdink, G. (1990) A Hellenistic Fortification System in the Othrys Mountains (Achaia Phthiotis), Netherlands Institute at Athens Newsletter, 47–76.

THE LEAGUE OF THE CHALKIDEIS: DEVELOPMENT OF ITS EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL RELATIONS AND ORGANIZATION. Selene E. Psoma National and Kapodistrian University of Athens* The state of the Chalkidians of Thrace was undoubtedly a successful systema, to borrow the term Polybios (9.28.2–4; cf. 9.33.2–3) used to describe its political structure. It survived from 432 to 348 BCE, and coincided with the life of the most famous of Greek philosophers, Plato.1 I will first discuss the origin of the population and continue with the nature of the state, which is crucial for an understanding of its internal relations and organization, the development of its foreign policy, and its impact on Greek history during the Classical and the Hellenistic periods. I. THEIR ORIGIN The Euboean-Chalkidian origin of the Chalkidians of Thrace, attested by both Strabo (10.1.8) and Plutarch (Mor. 298.A3–B6), and supported by Aristotle’s mention of Androdamas of Rhegion as their nomothetes (Polyb. 1274b), was seriously questioned in a Classical Quarterly 1912 article by E. Harrison on the basis of Herodotus’ use of the term genos to describe the Chalkidians of Thrace (7.185.2; 8.126–7).2 Scholarly opinion about the issue is divided, but little attention has been paid to Graham’s very valuable remarks about the acrophonic system shared by Chalkis and Olynthos.3 The debate changed radically as a result of Knoepfler’s contribution to the study of the Euboean calendar of Olynthos and the cities that participated in the League.4 In another thorough study Knoepfler examined the onomastikon of Olynthos, Torone, Stolos and Polichne, Mende, Scione, Aphytis, and Methone, which proved the Euboean origin of our Chalkidians.5 Further studies

* 1 2

3 4 5

The author wishes to thank Kostas Buraselis for the invitation to participate in the colloquium. For federal states see Bearzot 2015, 503–511. This thesis was adopted by Gude 1933, 4 n.11; Kahrstedt 1936, 416 n.5, 426, and was also supported by Michael Zahrnt in his monograph about the history of the League, 1971, 12–27. See also Zahrnt 2015, 342–344. Graham 1969. Knoepfler 1989; 1990. Knoepfler 2007.

322

Selene E. Psoma

have shown that the dialect was Ionic,6 while coin legends,7 and a still unpublished dedication from Sarte, have revealed that the alphabet was Chalkidian.8 The monetary standard was also Chalkidian with a stater of 17.3 g and a number of fractions following the duodecimal system.9 Monetary iconography also points to a Chalkidian origin. The types of the earliest hektai of Chalkidice and Olynthos (horse/eagle) were shared with Chalkis. In two recently published papers I have tried to demonstrate (a) that the types of the second series of Olynthos (column and horse) were a clear reference to the legendary ties of colony and mother city as described by Aristotle and Plutarch (Plut. Amat. 760. E4–761 B4),10 and (b) that after the foundation of the League the monetary types (Apollo’s head, tripod, cithara or branch of laurel) allude not to a particular city, Chalkis, but to their origin as colonists.11 This can easily be explained if we keep in mind that part of the population of the cities that formed the League might have been of other – non-Chalkidian – origin (Eretrian, Andrian).12 Archaeological evidence also revealed the Euboean origin of the colonists.13 II. THE NATURE OF THE STATE: EINHEITSSTAAT OR BUNDESSTAAT One group of scholars holds that the state of the Chalkidians was a Einheitsstaat.14 Another group of scholars, including Busolt, West, Larsen, Hatzopoulos, Flensted– Jensen, and myself, argue that it was a Bundesstaat from its foundation to its dissolution in 348 BCE.15 Zahrnt thinks that it was an Einheitstaat during the 5th c. BCE but transformed into a Bundesstaat during the 4th c. BCE.16 It is best to begin with Polybios’ description of a federal state in Antiquity and we will then investigate if what we know about the Chalkidians of Thrace indeed reveals the federal character of their state. According to Polybios (2.37.9–11) the Achaeans used the same laws, standards and coins, magistrates, members of the boule, and judges. As far as the 4th c. BCE is concerned, from the well-known description of the Chalkidian state by Xenophon (Hell. 5.2.19), we learn that epigamia and enktesis were given to all members of the state.17 This same author used the terms συμπολιτεύειν and τῆς πολιτείας 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Hatzopoulos 1988b, 40–45, 65f. Psoma 2001a, 253–261; 2001b, 13–44. Oral communication in the AEMTh. Psoma 2000, 30. For the so-called Attic Euboic monetary standard see Psoma 2016, 98f. Psoma (2017a). Psoma (2017b). For these cities see Psoma 2001a, 206–209. Tiverios 2008, 6–17, 33, 52, 124f with previous bibliography. Kuhn 1878, 283–300; Hampl 1935, 182; Robinson – Clement 1938, 112; Giovannini 1971, 41f; Moggi 1974, 4f, 11; 1976, 184. 15 Busolt 1920–1925, 1502; West 1918, 31, 140; Larsen 1955, 42–44; 1968, 59, n.1; Hatzopoulos 1996a, 33; Psoma 2001, 209–221; Flensted-Jensen 2004, 813. 16 Zahrnt 1971, 65f, 66–79; 2015, 346–349. 17 Cf. Bearzot 2015, 505–507.

The League of the Chalkideis

323

κοινωνοῦσαι to describe participation in the League (Hell. 5.2.18). Theopompos of Chios, mentioning Aioleion, a city of the Bottiaeans, also used the verb πολιτεύομαι (πολιτευομένην μετὰ Χαλκιδέων) to describe participation in the League (FGrH 115 F 144 [ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἰόλειον]), while the treaty between Philip II and the Chalkidians of Thrace mentioned the common magistrates (τ̣ὰ̣ς [ἀρ]χὰς τὰ ξυνὰς: Hatzopoulos 1996, II no.2 l. 3). From a number of deeds of sale from Olynthos, Torone, Spartolos, Strepsa, Stolos, and Polichne we learn that these cities used a common calendar and there was a common eponymous archon who was a priest – most probably of Apollo.18 Demosthenes mentions the hipparchs Εὐθυκράτης and Λασθένης (8. 39–41; 9. 67; 18. 48; 19. 263–267), and the appointment of one of them (χειροτονησάντων: 9.67). Common ‘magistrates’ are also revealed for the silver and gold coinage of the Chalkidians, while in the deeds of sale of all cities previously mentioned, βεβαιωταί (3) and μάρτυρες (3) were used.19 The state received taxes from emporia and limenes (Χen. Hell. 5.2.1). The name of this state during this century was the Chalkidians: the treaties with Amyntas III of Makedonia,20 Grabus of Illyria21and Philip II22 as well as coinage in gold, silver and bronze point in this direction.23 Theopompos of Chios speaks of Olynthians, as far as the local boule is concerned, and about Chalkidians when he mentions participation in the League24. All the evidence cited above reveals that during the 4th century BCE we are clearly dealing with what Polybios considered a federal state. During the 5th century BCE this state was also called the Chalkidians, as is revealed by coinage and Thucydides.25 Let us now examine the arguments in favor of an Einheitsstaat in the 5th century BCE.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

For these deeds of sale see Game 2009. For the coins see Psoma 2001. For the deeds of sale see Game 2009. Hatzopoulos 1996b, II side A ll. 2–3: συνθῆκαι Ἀμύνται τῶι Ἐρριδαίου / καὶ Χαλκιδεῦσι. Robinson 1938, 44 no.2 ll. 3 (ca. 358–356 BCE): [θε]ός. τύχη ἀγαθή. / [συμμαχ]ίη Χαλκιδεῦσι / [καὶ τῶι Ἰλλυριῶν βασι] / λεῖ. Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.2 ll. 5, 9, 12 (357 BCE): Χαλκιδεῖς, Χαλκιδέ[ας], [Χαλ]κιδεῦσι. See Psoma 2001. Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 143 (ap. Ath. 10. 47): ἐν δὲ τῆι τρίτηι καὶ εἰκοστῆι περὶ Χαριδήμου τοῦ Ὠρείτου διηγούμενος, ὃν Ἀθηναῖοι πολίτην ἐποιήσαντο, φησίν· ‘τήν τε γὰρ δίαιταν ἑωρᾶτο τὴν καθ᾽ἡμέραν ἀσελγῆ καὶ τοιαύτην ποιούμενος ὥστε πίνειν καὶ μεθύειν αἰεί, καὶ γυναῖκας ἐλευθέρας ἐτόλμα διαφθείρειν· καὶ εἰς τοσοῦτον προῆλθεν ἀκρασίας ὥστε μειράκιόν τι παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς τῆς τῶν Ὀλυνθίων αἰτεῖν ἐπεχείρησεν, ὃ τὴν μὲν ὄψιν ἦν εὐειδὲς καὶ χαρίεν, ἐτύγχανε δὲ μετὰ Δέρδου τοῦ Μακεδόνος αἰχμάλωτον γεγενημένον.’ Cf. Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 144 ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἰόλειον·τῆς Θράικης χερρονήσου πόλις. Θεόπομπος ἐν Φιλιππικῶν κγ· ‘ἐπορεύθην εἰς πόλιν Αἰόλειον τῆς Βοττικῆς μὲν οὖσαν, πολιτευομένην δὲ μετὰ τῶν Χαλκιδέων’. Thuc. 1.57.5; 1.58.1, 2; 1.62.3; 1.65.2; 2.29.6; 2.58.1, 2; 2.79.1, 3, 5, 6, 7; 2.95.1, 3; 2.99.3; 2.101.1, 6; 4.7; 4.78.1; 4.79.2; 4.80.2; 4.81.1; 4.83.3; 4.84.1, 2; 4.114.13; 4.123.4; 4.124.1; 5.3.6; 5.6.4; 5.21.2; 5.31.6; 5.32.1; 5.83.4; 6.7.4; 6.10.5. χαλκιδική: 1.65.2; 2.70.4; 2.101.5; 6.79.1; 6.103.1. Χαλκιδικὸς πόλεμος: 2.95.2. χαλκιδικαί πολεῖς: 4.110.1; 4.123.4. Χαλκιδικὴ ἵππος: 5.10.9, 10. Χαλκιδικὸν γένος: 4.109.4. For coinage see Psoma 2001.

324

Selene E. Psoma

1. The foundation of the League could not have taken place during the 5th c. BCE because the Athenians recovered the control of the Chalkidic peninsula after the peace of Nikias.26 2. In his speech at Sparta in 383 BCE the Akanthian Kleigenes said that what Xenophon reproduced (or invented) (Hell. 5.2.12: πρᾶγμα μέγα φυόμενον ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι) was that there was a significant development taking place in the North. The use of the present participle reveals that this was a very recent (or ongoing) development. Ad 1. As far as the first argument is concerned we need to observe that Thucydides states exactly the opposite.27 In 5.21.1–3 the historian reveals the difficulties the Lakedaemonians met when trying to convince Klearidas to surrender Amphipolis to the Athenians. Klearidas refused to do so and said that he could not because of the Chalkidians. Sometime later the Chalkidians joined the anti– Spartan coalition of Sparta’s earlier allies together with Elis, Corinth, Megara, and Argos (Thuc. 5.31.6). The Chalkidians renewed their oaths to their allies, the Argives, in 418/417 BCE (Thuc. 5.80.1), and received as an ally the city of Dion in the peninsula of Athos, an ex-ally of Athens in 417/416 BCE (Thuc. 5.82.1). The Athenian campaign under Nikias against the Makedonian king, the Chalkidians, and Amphipolis failed in 417/416 BCE (Thuc. 5.83.4). Athenian military involvement against Perdikkas II and the Chalkidians is mentioned as the latest event before the end of the 16th year of war (Thuc.6.7.4). Chalkidian resistance to Athenian plans for the North from 432 BCE, the year of their revolt, to 415 BCE was a forceful argument made by Nikias when disputing participation in the Sicilian campaign (Thuc. 6.10.5). Ad 2. We may turn now to the second argument. What Xenophon described was by all accounts a recent development marking the beginning of the very aggressive imperialistic policy of the Chalkidians, beginning in the 380s (Hell. 5.2.212). Coinage from ca. 430 BCE and the treaty between Amyntas III and the Chalkidians reveal that there was a Chalkidian state before the 380s.28 As far as the coinage issued in the name of the Chalkideis is concerned, the earliest series date from the Poteidaiatika and were struck on the standard of Perdikkas II, a close collaborator of the cities in revolt, including Potidaia, from 432 BCE.29 They were in circulation along with silver coins of Perdikkas II, evidently serving the same purpose and usage.30 The Chalkidians continued to strike their coinage and together with the Makedonian king, and later the Akanthians, they assumed the responsibility of paying for Brasidas’ soldiers (Thuc. 4.80.5; 4.83.5–6).31 The earliest bronze coins were issued with federal

26 27 28 29 30 31

Cf. Zahrnt 2015, 348f. Contra Zahrnt 2015, 347. For the treaty see Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.1. For the coinage see Psoma 1997; 2001. Psoma 2001, 155f, 173. Psoma 2001, 175–179. Cf. Mackil 2015, 490–492. For Akanthos see Psoma 1997, 423–428. For the Chalkidians see Psoma 1997, 423–428; 2001, 155f.

The League of the Chalkideis

325

types by Olynthos (ΟΛΥ) to serve the siteresion needs of soldiers.32 One recalls that there are also spearheads (ἐπιδορατίδες) with the letters ΟΛΥΝ and this reveals the kata poleis organization of the federal army, which is another feature of so-called federal states.33 Another argument in favor of the foundation of a federal state is the systematic mention of poleis by Thucydides in relation with the Chalkidian state.34 Perdikkas II persuaded the coastal cities to move to Olynthos (Thuc. 1.58.2). Phormion met some success in the territories of the Chalkidians and the Bottiaeans and seized some polismata (Thuc. 1.65.2). After the battle of Spartolos, the Chalkidians and the Bottiaeans who defeated the Athenians dispersed kata poleis (Thuc. 2.79.7). Torone was a city of the Chalkidians (Thuc. 4.114.1) as well as Arnai (Thuc. 4.103.1). Further mention of a proxenos of the Chalkidians at Pharsalos (Thuc. 4.78.1), a ten day truce (Thuc. 4.7.4), the swearing oaths (5.38.1) the renewal of oaths (Thuc. 5.80.2–3), and ambassadors (Thuc. 4.83.3; 5.38.4) also point to a federal state.35 Thucydides also mentions the Olynthians, not to be confused with Chalkidians.36 The Olynthian Lysistratos was the leader of those who entered Torone (Thuc. 4.110.2). After the Peace of Nikias there was a prisoner exchange. Thucydides makes clear that the Chalkidians were freed by the Olynthians (Thuc. 5.3.4–5). The Peace of Nikias required the citizens of Mekyberna and Singos to leave Olynthos and return to their cities (Thuc. 5.18.6–7), and sometime later the Olynthians expelled the Athenian garrison of Mekyberna (Thuc. 5.39.1). A boule of the Olynthians is also mentioned (FGrH 115 F 143 [ap. Ath. 10. 47]) by Theopompos. Based on evidence from Thucydides, Theopompos, Aristotle, coins, and the treaties with two Makedonian kings, we can thus conclude that the state founded after the anoikismos of Olynthos was named Chalkideis and its members were Olynthos and smaller cities in the area.37 From Thucydides (4.84.1–2, 109.5–110.2, 123.2) we learn that the Chalkidians and Brasidas maintained friendly relations with the oligoi – referring to the minority of wealthy oligarchs – of the cities of Akanthos, Torone, Mende, and Scione.38 In another passage (5.31.4–5) describing the anti-Spartan coalition between Elis, Ar-

32 Psoma 2001, 91. 33 For the spearheads found at Olynthos see Psoma 2001, 212 n..198. For the sling bullets see Robinson 1941, 430f nos.2220–2227, pl. 132. 34 Contra Zahrnt 2015, 347 who claims that ‘in the region of the Chalkidian state no other polis besides Olynthus can be attested’. 35 Psoma 2001, 216f; Flensted and Jensen 2004, 813. Cf. Zahrnt 2015, 346: ‘in foreign affairs, the Chalkidians acted as a united political entity’. 36 See the misleading explanation of the term Chalkideis in Zahrnt 2015, 347: ‘after the population of Olynthus had at least tripled and due to the relocations, the new citizens understandably did not want to blend in with the minority of Olynthians, and thus a name was chosen which emphasized their common origin and could be accepted by all citizens’. 37 For the foundation of the League immediately after the anoikismos see Psoma 2001, 203–221. 38 See Larsen 1968, 76 who also mentioned the role of the Chalkidian cavalry.

326

Selene E. Psoma

gos, Corinth, the Chalkidians, the Boiotians, and Megara, Thucydides mentions Argos as the only democracy among these allies. These are the reasons we believe that the Chalkidians of Thrace were, as most of the Greek states, a moderate oligarchy.39 III. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE CHALKIDIAN LEAGUE We can trace three main axes of the League’s foreign policy: relations with the Makedonian kingdom, relations with the major Greek powers, and relations with the cities of the Chalkidic peninsula. Very little is known about the relations of the Chalkidians with the rest of the Greek world, and our testimonia are limited: their legendary participation in a war opposing the mother city of Chalkis against Eretria (Plu. Mor. 760E 4–761B 4), their proxenos at Pharsalos in the 420s (Thuc. 4.78.1), their alliance with Corinth, Argos, Elis, Boiotia and Megara in the aftermath of the peace of Nikias (Thuc. 5.31.6), the renewal of oaths with these allies after the battle of Mantineia (5.80.1–3), the participation of some Thessalian hippeis and Derdas of Elimeia in military operations against them during the war with Sparta (Xen. Hell. 5.2.38, 40, 41, 42; 5.3.1, 2, 9), and the visit of the thearos of the Epidaurian Asklepios (IG IV2.94 F b l. 14). The legendary character of the participation most probably in what we call the Lelantine war cannot tell us a great deal about their early history but stresses the links between colony and mother city.40 The alliances with other members of the pro–Spartan coalition, which became a temporary anti-Spartan front after the Peace of Nikias, was temporary and does not seem to have entailed significant consequences for the League’s history. Apart from the Thessalian Strophakos nothing is known about their relations with Thessaly, while the Thessalian hippeis and Derdas of Elimeia of the years 382–379 BCE need to be seen in the context of their relations with Sparta and the Makedonian kingdom (Xen. Hell. 5.3.18). As far as the Odrysians are concerned, their invasion (Thuc. 2.95.1–3, 101. 1, 101.4–6) is part of the relations of the Chalkidians and Perdikkas II with Athens.41 We must bear in mind that the Odrysians invaded the peninsula but soon retreated following negotiations with Perdikkas, Chalkidian resistance, and perhaps more pressingly, a lack of supplies (Thuc. 2.101.5–6). The alliance of the Chalkidians with the Illyrian Grabos was short-lived and must also be seen as part of their relations with Philip II of Makedonia.42 We will begin with the three Greek hegemonic powers: Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, and then continue with the cities of the Chalkidic peninsula.

39 Zahrnt 1971, 94 with n.22, 107; Psoma 2001, 220f. Contra Gehrke 1985, 124 based on Dem. 9.56 and 8.64. 40 See Psoma 2017a. 41 Loukopoulou – Psoma 2007, 146–148. 42 Robinson 1938, 44, no. 2. Cf. SEG 37.567.

The League of the Chalkideis

327

IV. ATHENS It was the expansion of the Athenian empire that brought the Makedonian king Perdikkas II and the Chalkidians together. The deterioration of relations between the Makedonian king and Athens led immediately to the Athenian decision to send a military colony to the small city of Brea in the Crousis near Olynthos,43 and motivated their alliance with the king’s relatives (Thuc. 1.57.2–3). The Bottiaeans and the Chalkidians may have felt threatened by the foundation of Brea and were encouraged by Perdikkas II to revolt (Thuc. 1.57.2–6). The king promised help and advised the Chalkidians to abandon their small cities, all situated on the coast, and move to Olynthos (Thuc. 1.58.1–60.1, cf. Diod. Sic. 12.34.2 and Thuc. 5.18.7). Thus, the state named the Chalkidians was created. Perdikkas advised the Chalkidians to move to Olynthos in order to resist the attacks of the Athenian fleet successfully – and indeed this is precisely what happened. During the Potidaiatika (Thuc. 1.62.1–5, 65.1–2, 2.29.5–7, 58.1–3) and after the capitulation of Potidaia (2.70.2–4), the Chalkidians successfully resisted. The Athenians accordingly abandoned their own efforts to subdue the revolt of Olynthos after the battle of Spartolos (2.79.1–7, cf. Diod. Sic. 12.47.3), and asked for Sitalkes’ help (2.95.1–3, 101, 1, 101.4–6). In book 4, Thucydides describes the failure of the Athenian general Simonides to capture Eion, a colony of Mende, in the summer of 425 (4.7.1). The Chalkidians continued to be hostile to Athens, as is revealed by their collaboration with Brasidas (4.78.1–2, 5–6, 81.1–2, 83.2–4, 84.1– 2, 88.1–2, 103.1–4, 109.1–4, 109.5–110.1, 110–111, 114.1–2, 123.3–4, 124.1–3, 3– 4), their cooperation with Klearidas after the death of Brasidas (5.3.4–5, 6.4, 10.9– 11, 18.5–7, 21.1–3), their success against Athenians in minor operations (5.39.1, 82.1, 83.4), and their continuous military action against Athens down to 415 BCE (6.7.4). Nikias led the unsuccessful military operations against the Chalkidians in winter 417/6 BCE (Thuc. 5.83.4), and in his speech given in the spring 415 BCE (Thuc. 6.10.5) he emphasized that “this is no time for running risks or for grasping at a new empire before we have secured the one we already have. For the fact is that the Chalkidians in Thrace have been in revolt from us for many years and are still unsubdued”. If we follow Xenophon, there may have been a sort of rapprochement between Athens and the League in the 380s (Hell. 5.2.15). The Chalkidians, as many others, joined the 2nd Athenian League in the 370s (IG II/III2.43 B col. Ι, ΙΙ ll. 5–6; 36 ll. 2–3) but were ready to abandon Athens when Athenian ambitions for Amphipolis threatened the status quo in the North.44 The Chalkidians opposed both the Athenian 43 Psoma 2009, 263–280; (2016a). For the military character of the colony see Erdas 2006, 45– 55. 44 Dem. 23. 149–150 (353/2 BCE); Polyaenus Strat. 3.10.1, 4 (Olynthos) and 15 (Torone), cf. [Arist.] Oec. 1350a. For molydides with the name of Ergophilos, the Athenian general of 363/2 BCE excavated at Olynthos see Robinson 1941, nos.2184–2185. For the success of Timotheos in this area see Diod. Sic. 15.81.6 (364/3 BCE): Torone and Potidaia. Cf. Din. Dem. 14.4–6; Philocl. 17.7; Isokr. 15.113. For the treaty with Menelaos of Pelagon, ally in the war against the Chalkidians and Amphipolis see IG II/III2.110 of 363/2 BCE.

328

Selene E. Psoma

military operations from 368 to 360 BCE, and a long siege by Timotheos supported by Perdikkas III between 365 and 363 BCE.45 Amphipolis remained free thanks initially to Chalkidian help, and then with the help of a Makedonian garrison likely established under Philip, the king’s brother, from 363 onwards.46 It was this king’s growing power that led the Chalkidians to turn to Athens for support in 352 BCE. When Philip’s relations with the Chalkidians deteriorated, Demosthenes used all his rhetorical powers to persuade the Athenians to send military help to Olynthos against Philip II.47 Thus the pattern of relations between Athens and the League can be easily summarized: it was an organ of opposition to permanent Athenian presence – and all it entailed – in the North between the 5th century BCE and the 360s, and a temporary rapprochement during the Corinthian war, in the 370s and in the years before its final dissolution. As far as the 370s are concerned, we may presume that this was the immediate reaction of the League when Sparta began losing its significance some years after the end of the Spartan-Chalkidean war. When it comes to the early 340s, there was no other power that could provide help to Olynthos during this period against their common enemy, Philip II. V. SPARTA The relations of Sparta, her Peloponnesian allies, and especially Corinth, with the Chalkidians of Thrace date to the Potidaiatika. The Chalkidians had their own reasons for opposing the Athenians and feared their renewed intervention after Sphakteria (Thuc. 4.79.2). The Chalkidians and Perdikkas II made an appeal to the most talented Spartan military leader of the Archidamian war, Brasidas. Thucydides provides a number of details about their joint action and their financial and military support to the Spartan leader. Together with the Chalkidians who remained his allies to the very end, Brasidas changed the status quo in the North and forced the Athenians to ask for peace after the capture of Amphipolis.48 Unable to persuade the Chalkidians to deliver Amphipolis to Athens, after the Peace of Nikias, Sparta had to face a coalition of its ex-allies, among whom were the Chalkidians (Thuc. 5.31.6; 5.38.4; 5.80.2). This coalition did not last long and in the 410s the Chalkidians and Sparta collaborated again against their common enemy, Athens (Thuc. 6.7.4). Sparta and the koinon would meet again in the 380s. According to Xenophon (Hell. 5.2.12–19), the cities of Apollonia and Akanthos asked for Sparta’s help 45 Psoma 2011, 124–132; Lane Fox 2011, 257–269. 46 Hatzopoulos 1996b, 178. 47 For the fate of Olynthos see Dem. 1.4–5; 6.5–7.3; 9–10; 12–13; 17–18; 25–26; 2.6–7.6; 11; 14; 3. 36.4–7.2; 4. 416.4–17.6; 6. 20; 7. 28–29; 8.39–41; 59; 64–65; 9.11; 26; 56; 63–64; 66–67: 68.3–69.4; 10 61; 64; 67; 11. 13–14; 18. 48; 19.146, 192; 193–194; 196–197; 263–267; 305– 306; 309–310; 23.107; 108–109; 149–150; [59] 9–11. See also Suda s.v. Κάρανος. 48 For the 5th century BCE see Thuc. 4.78.1–2, 5–6; 4.81.1–2; 4.83.2–4; 4.84.1–2; 4.88.1–2; 4.103.1–4; 4.109.1–4; 4.109.5–110.1; 4.110–111; 4.114.1–2; 4.123.3–4; 4.124.1–3; 5.3.4–5; 5.6.4; 5.10.9–11; 5.21.1–3. For Brasidas see Boëldieu and Trevet 1997, 147–158.

The League of the Chalkideis

329

against the expansion of the League. Kleigenes of Akanthos fully explained why this was a very dangerous development that should not be ignored. For these reasons Sparta decided to be involved in a war against the League that dated from 383 to 379 BCE. However, Ephoros provides a very different version of the story (ap. Diod. Sic. 15.19.2–4). According to the historian from Kyme, it was the Makedonian king who asked for Spartan help and persuaded the Spartans to send troops against Olynthos and the Chalkidians. What Ephorus described finds support in Isokrates’ Panegyricus, which dates to before the end of the Olynthian–Spartan war, in 380 BCE. Isokrates (11.126) mentions Sparta’s aggressive policy against Mantinea, Thebes, Olynthos, and Phleius and its close collaboration, for the same end, with Amyntas of Makedonia, Dionysos the tyrant of Syracuse, and the Great King. It is not difficult to explain Xenophon’s version of the story mentioning Greek cities, as Akanthos and Apollonia, asking Sparta’s military intervention against Olynthos and claiming that city members of the League were ready to revolt against the Chalkidians when Spartan troops appeared. Although there is no explicit mention of the provision on the autonomy of the King’s Peace and Sparta’s obligations in this regard, what Xenophon, a pro–Spartan par excellence and great friend of Agesilaos, wanted to show was that Sparta’s aggressive policy against Olynthos (and others) was a result of Sparta’s will to respect the Kings’ Peace and the autonomy of Greek cities against unification attempts. Amyntas is only mentioned as a rather insignificant ally of Sparta to whom the Spartans asked for help. Sparta’s collaboration with a monarch and intervention at his request could not be mentioned in the Hellenica. After the long siege of Olynthos by the Spartans – Sparta was involved during four campaign seasons in this war (Xen. Hell. 5.2.24 in 383 BCE; 5.2.38 in 382 BCE; 5.3.8–9 and 18–19 in 381 BCE; 5.3.20 in 380 BCE) which also led to the deaths of two Spartan commanders, Eudamidas and Teleutias – the Olynthians, as mentioned by Xenophon,49 sent presbeis autokratores to Sparta to negotiate peace (5.3.26: 379 BCE).50 A treaty was concluded and the Olynthians became allies of the Lakedaemonians with the obligation to participate in military operations conducted by them (Xen. Hell. 5.3.26; Diod. Sic. 15.23.3; Dem. 19. 263–264). The alliance of the Chalkidians with Sparta is also revealed by Xenophon’s narration of events after the liberation of the Kadmeia. The Chalkidian cavalry operated with success in Boiotia under the command of Agesilaos in the following year (Xen. Hell. 5.4.54–55; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.31.2–3). At this point we need to briefly discuss the so-called ‘dissolution’ of the League. As we have seen, Xenophon speaks about an alliance between Sparta and Olynthos, as does Diodorus (15.23.3: 377 BCE). Demosthenes offers a brief summary of the war with Sparta and the death of the three Spartan ‘polemarchs’, and says that the Chalkidians arranged the end of the war as they wished (Dem. 19.263–264).51 Neither Xenophon nor Diodorus speak 49 For the explanation see Zahrnt 2015, 351. 50 For presbeis autokratores see Harris 2000, 487–495. 51 The third polemarch was king Agesipolis who was not killed in battle but died in a rather mysterious way at Aphytis: Xen. Hell. 5.3.18–19.

330

Selene E. Psoma

of the dissolution of the League.52 We cannot discern a gap in the Chalkidian coinage which continued to be minted while the Chalkidians participated in the second Athenian League in 375/4 BCE.53 The Spartans were not interested in dissolving the federal state. One recalls that they did not break up other koina such as the Achaean, the Phokian, the Akarnanian, or even the Aitolian leagues, which joined the anti-Spartan camp late in the Corinthian war, after the King’s Peace, and concentrated all their efforts against Thebes and Boiotia.54 There is no reason to assume that there was no federal state after 379 BCE.55 VI. THEBES AND BOIOTIA There is no direct evidence about the relations of the Chalkidians of Thrace with the new power that emerged at Leuctra, Thebes.56 Both Thebes and the League opposed Athenian intervention in the North and Pelopidas favored the independence of Amphipolis at Susa in 367 BCE.57 From this point of view a Boiotian-Chalkidian alliance might have been a result of mutual interests and could very well be inscribed in their common anti-Athenian policy of the 360s. Thus Theban intervention in the Makedonian kingdom from 369 to 365 BCE seems to have had an impact on her relations with the league.58 VII. THE MAKEDONIAN KINGDOM The League was a creation of Perdikkas II of Makedonia and was dissolved by his great grandnephew, Philip II. Perdikkas II was a great diplomat who knew how to change alliances and look after his own interests.59 His own military skills were 52 Contra Zahrnt 1971, 97; 2015, 352. 53 IG II/III2.43 B col. Ι, ΙΙ l. 5, 375/374 BC, [Χαλκι]δῆς ἀπὸ [Θράικης]; IG II/III2.36 ll. 2–3, [συμμαχία Χαλ]κιδέων τῶ[ν ἐ/πὶ Θράικης τοῖ]ς ἑ[σ]περίοις. 54 Beck 1997, 60–63 [Achaian], 112 [Phokidian], 37 [Akarnanian], 48 [Aitolian]; see also the discussion in pp. 236–240 about the Arcadians. 55 For the refoundation of the Chalkidean league see Zahrnt 1971, 97–104; Beck 1997, 157–161; Stylianou 1998, 227f. 56 A casualty list from Plataia (Kalliontzis 2014) which mentions a number of citizens who died at Olynthos might be connected with the participation of Plataians and other Boiotians in the Spartan campaigns against Olynthos between 382 and 379 BCE. One recalls that Plataia was re-founded after the King’s Peace by the Spartans and was destroyed by Thebes either in 374 or in 373 BCE. According to Kalliontzis, Plataians participated in the campaigns on the Athenian side in 349/8 BCE. 57 Aesch. 2. 29. Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.67.3–4; 15.71.1–2; Plut. Pel. 26.4–5; 27.2–4. 58 There is no reason to connect a recently published proxeny decree from Thebes with Olynthos on the basis of the letters -νθιος of the ethnic: Vlachogianni 2004–2009. As we all know, for their external relations the Chalkidians used the collective ethnic Chalkideis and not Olynthioi. See also Zahrnt 2015, 346. 59 Thuc.1.57.2–6 (432 BCE); 1.58.1–60.1 (432 BCE).

The League of the Chalkideis

331

very limited, and his army was also of limited effectiveness. From a military point of view he had very few chances of success against the Athenians, and this is the reason behind his temporary alliances with the Chalkidians and their common appeal to Sparta and Brasidas. This Makedonian Realpolitik came to an end with Perdikkas’ death. We know nothing about Archelaos’ relations with the League, but we know that he was an ally of Athens (IG Ι3.117. Cf. Thuc. 2.100.2; Diod. Sic. 14.49.1–2). When all Greek forces were engaged in the Corinthian war, Amyntas III, the almost unexpected Temenid, put a temporary end to dynastic struggles by becoming king in 393/2 BCE. He turned to the Chalkidians of Thrace for help, soliciting them with grants of several commercial privileges and land in the border area between their territories and his own (Diod. Sic. 14.92.3–4).60 The Chalkidians betrayed him while their newly acquired power made other cities of the area suspicious.61 This led to Spartan intervention that ended with the alliance of the League with Sparta. There is no other information about relations of this king and his successor Alexander II with the League. It is also the case of Ptolemy of Aloros. However, Theban intervention in Makedonia under Alexander II and Ptolemy of Aloros, and the fact that both Thebes and the League opposed Athenian plans for Amphipolis, might suggest an alliance between Ptolemy of Aloros and the Chalkidians. This alliance came to an end when Perdikkas III became king. The king changed sides, became an ally of Athens, and participated in military operations against Olynthos.62 When the king realized that Athens’ ambitions for Amphipolis were part of her more extended plan for the North and included his kingdom, he abandoned Timotheos and sent a garrison to protect Amphipolis against Athenian attacks. Mutual interests might have brought Perdikkas III and the League together.63 After Perdikkas’ death, the new king, Philip II, had to wait to arrange his relations with the Chalkidians. What he certainly did not need was their hostility.64 Like his father, he offered the League Anthemous and the control of Potidaia.65 It was only when his power became too significant,66 and after the League’s intrigues with his half-brothers and possibly Athens, that he turned against them with known results.67 Thus the pattern of relations between the Chalkidian League and the kings 60 For the treaty between Amyntas III and the Chalkideis see Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.1; Mackil 2015, 495f. 61 Xen. Hell. 5.2.12–19 (383 BCE). Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.19.2–4. 62 Polyaenus Strat. 3.10.1, 4 (Olynthos) and 15 (Torone), cf. [Arist]. Oec. 1350a. 63 Aesch. 2.29; Diod. Sic. 16.3.3–6. 64 For the treaty between Philip II and the Chalkideans see Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.2 (357 BCE). 65 The Chalkidians received Potidaia (Diod. Sic. 16.8.3–6, 357/6 BCE; Dem. 23. 107–109 (353/2 BCE); Dem. 6.20. See also Dem. 2 .6, 7; 8. 62; 23. 107) and Anthemous (Dem. 6.20; Lib. Hypoth. D. 1.2) from Philip II. 66 Dem. 9.11: τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ Ὀλυνθίοις, τετταράκοντ᾽ἀπέχων τῆς πόλεως στάδια, εἶπεν ὅτι δεῖ δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ ἐκείνους ἐν Ὀλύνθῳ μὴ οἰκεῖν ἢ αὑτὸν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ, πάντα τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον, εἴ τις αὐτὸν αἰτιάσαιτό τι τοιοῦτον, ἀγανακτῶν καὶ πρέσβεις πέμπων τοὺς ἀπολογησομένους. 67 Diod. Sic. 16.53.2 (348/7 π.Χ.): ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων Φίλιππος μὲν σπεύδων τὰς ἐφ᾽Ἑλλησπόντῳ πόλεις χειρώσασθαι Μηκύβερναν μὲν καὶ Τορώνην χωρὶς κινδύνων διὰ προδοσίας παρέλαβεν,

332

Selene E. Psoma

of Makedonia can be described in the following way. They both opposed Athenian intervention in the North during the 5th century BCE and the 360s, while the kingdom turned to the League for support during periods of trouble. It was Philip II who put an end to the game with the Chalkidian League by dissolving it and destroying Olynthos. The significance of the Chalkidic League for the Makedonian Kingdom is revealed by the alarm of Antigonos Monophthalmos when he heard that Kassandros was founding Kassandreia (Diod. Sic. 19.52.2–3). Diodorus (19.61.1) reports that Antigonos accused him of refounding Olynthos. For Antigonos, a contemporary of Philip II, the League headed by Olynthos was the most significant threat to the Kingdom in Northern Greece. When Philip dissolved the League and destroyed Olynthos, the kingdom was freed from the danger posed by its most powerful neighbor.68 Although Philip II or Alexander III re-founded Stageira, one of the league’s cities, at Aristotle’s request, the re-foundation of Olynthos was unthinkable for a Makedonian king.69 VIII. THE CITIES OF THE CHALKIDIC PENINSULA The League’s policy towards the cities of the area was a matter of historical circumstances and relation of forces. A number of cities in the western part of the Chalkidic peninsula became members of the League immediately after its creation: Mekyberna, Gale, and Singos. During the Peloponnesian war, cities such as Akanthos, Stageira, and Amphipolis joined Brasidas and the League and remained its allies most probably to the end of the war.70 The cities of the Bottiaeans of the area south of the lakes made peace with Athens (IG I3.76, 422 BCE), while Spartolos fought together with the Chalkidians and was included in the Peace of Nikias (Thuc. 5.18.5–7). This was not the case with Potidaia, Mende, and Scione. After its capture by the Athenians, Potidaia received Athenian cleruchs in 429 BCE (Thuc. 2.70.1–5). Mende and Scione were recaptured by Kleon and Mende remained an ally of Athens while Scione’s territories were given to the Plataians in 421 BCE.71 This city’s population as well as the population of Torone, was sold into slavery.72

68

69 70 71 72

ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν μεγίστην τῶν περὶ τοὺς τόπους τούτους πόλεων Ὄλυνθον στρατεύσας μετὰ πολλῆς δυνάμεως τὸ μὲν πρῶτον νικήσας τοὺς Ὀλυνθίους δυσὶ μάχαις συνέκλεισεν εἰς πολιορκίαν, προσβολὰς δὲ συνεχεῖς ποιούμενος πολλοὺς τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἀπέβαλεν ἐν ταῖς τειχομαχίαις· τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον φθείρας χρήμασι τοὺς προεστηκότας τῶν Ὀλυνθίων, Εὐθυκράτην τε καὶ Λασθένην, διὰ τούτων προδοθεῖσαν τὴν Ὄλυνθον εἷλεν. διαρπάσας δ᾽αὐτὴν καὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας ἐξανδραποδισάμενος ἐλαφυροπώλησε. Cf. Dem. 8.39–41 (341 BCE); 9.56, 66– 67 (after 341 BCE); 18.48 (330 BCE); 19.265–267 (343 BCE); Suda s.v. Κάρανος. The incorporation of most of the League’s territories into the Kingdom was followed by the establishment of Makedonian power in the whole area: see Hatzopoulos 1996b, 200f. See also Hatzopoulos 1993, 575–584. Plut. Alex. 7.3. For Stageira see Zahrnt 1971, 243 with n.388; Gatzolis and Psoma (forthcoming 2). For Akanthos see Picard 2000. For Amphipolis see Hell. Oxy. VII.3. Cf. Salviat 1984. For these cities see Zahrnt 1971, 201 (Mende), 235 (Scione) and 249f (Torone). See previous note.

The League of the Chalkideis

333

In 417 BCE Dion of Akte revolted from Athens and became an ally of the Chalkidians (Thuc. 5.82.1). During the 390s the League shared borders with Amphipolis, the Bottiaeans of the area of Spartolos, Akanthos, and Mende, as is revealed by the treaty between Amyntas III and the Chalkidians.73 In this treaty both parties agreed not to conclude separate alliances with the cities mentioned above. In the 380s Torone and Potidaia were also ‘allies’ of the League. According to Xenophon (and for reasons we have already explained), it was Apollonia and Akanthos that invited the Spartans to intervene in the area when the Chalkidians began to put pressure on the cities of the peninsula to become members of their federal state.74 Perhaps the war between Mende and Olynthos mentioned by Pseudo-Aristotle (2.21b) might then date to this period of the 380s. Potidaia joined Sparta as soon as Spartan forces arrived in the area (Xen. Hell.5.2.24), while Torone was later captured by Agesipolis in 380 BCE (Xen. Hell.5.3.18–19). At the end of the Spartan–Olynthian war the League might have lost part of its territories but was not dissolved.75 The league defended the independence of Amphipolis in the 360s. Isokrates reported the success of Timotheos in the area (Isokr. 15.113). He captured many cities of the Chalkidians, among them Potidaia and Torone.76 In 362/1 BCE Potidaia asked Athens to send cleruchs to defend Potidaia against the League (IG II/III2.114). Another treaty between Dion and Athens of this same year shows that the League remained the main power in the area, and smaller cities needed powerful allies – particularly Athens – to defend their autonomy and independence (IG II/III2.115).77 A stasis in Dikaia naming Perdikkas III as diallaktes might have involved the opposition of pro-Athenian citizens and pro-Chalkidian citizens.78 At the date of the Epidaurian list of thearodokoi, i.e. under Perdikkas III, the League shared borders with Dikaia, Apollonia, Amphipolis, Akanthos, and Stolos (IG IV2.94, cf. [Skyl. Per. 66]). Stageira was already a member of the League. After 356 and the alliance with Philip II, the League received the territories of Potidaia and the valley of Anthemous from the king, and extended its territories to the East (Stolos and Polichne), to the North East (Arnai), to the West (Spartolos, Aphytis),

73 Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.1 B ll. 8–9 (393/2 BCE): πρὸς Ἀμφιπολίτας, Βοττ[ι]/αίους, Ἀκανθίους, Μενδαίους μὴ π[οιεῖ]/[σ]θ̣αι φιλίην Ἀμύνταμ μηδὲ/ Χαλκιδ[έας]/ [χωρὶ]ς ἑκατέρους, ἀλλὰ μετὰ μιᾶ̣[ς γνώ/μης, ἐὰν ἀ]μφοτέροις δοκῆι, κοιν[ῆι/ προσθέσθαι ἐκε]ί̣νους. See Zahrnt 2015, 349. 74 Xen. Hell. 5.2.12–19 (383 BCE): Apollonia and Akanthos, Xen. Hell. 5.3.1–3 (381 BCE): Apollonia. 75 Psoma 2001, 228–230. For the loss of its territories see IG II/III2.36 ll. 2–3: [συμμαχία Χαλ]κιδέων τῶ[ν ἐ/πὶ Θράικης τοῖ]ς ἑ[σ]περίοις. 76 Polyaenus Strat. 3.10.15: Torone; Diod. Sic. 15.81.6 (364/3 BCE): Torone and Potidaia; Din. Dem. 14.4–6: Methone, Pydna, Potidaia, cf. Din. Philocl. 17.7. 77 For the collaboration of the Athenian cleruchs with Potideatai and possibly Charidemus, see IG II/III2.118 (362/1 BCE). 78 SEG 57.2007, 576: opisthographic stele containing 5 decrees, an amendment and an oath reveals a stasis at Dikaia and involves Perdikkas III (after 363/2 BCE). For an analysis and discussion of the inscription see Voutyras and Sismanidis 2007; Psoma 2011b.

334

Selene E. Psoma

and possibly to the rest of the Pallene.79 This is revealed by the deeds of sales from Olynthos, Spartolos, Stolos, Torone, Polichne, Arnai, Aphytis, and Strepsa,80 and the fragments of books 22 to 25 of Theopompos’ Philippica on the events of 349/8 BCE.81 Sinos and Sermylia, immediate neighbors of Olynthos, were also cities of the League; their territories were later confiscated by Philip II and were distributed to his hetairoi.82 Thus the pattern of relations of the Chalkidians with their neighbors can be traced. We find alliances struck with significant cities against Athens during the Peloponnesian war. The aftermath of the war left the important cities of the area of the pre-war period (Potidaia, Torone, and Sermylia) weakened, and thus an easy target for the League. From this period until to 348 BCE, participation in the federal state was not a matter of choice for the less significant cities of the area but a matter of survival. Cities like Akanthos never became members of the League and opposed Chalkidian plans for the area during the first half of the 4th century. BCE. We are left with Amphipolis, the short-lived Athenian colony in the North. Amphipolis remained free to the end of the Peloponnesian War, probably with Chalkidian help. In the 390s and 380s BCE Chalkidian plans did not extend as far as Amphipolis, but in the 360s, the league strongly opposed Athenian claims on the city. Chalkidian epoikoi led by a certain Kleotimos collaborated with the euporoi,

79 For Aphytis see Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 141 ‘παρῆλθεν εἰς Χυτρόπολιν χωρίον ἀπωικισμένον ἐξ Ἀφύτεως’. For a deed of sale from Aphytis revealing its participation in the League see Game 2009 no 38bis. For the Pallene see Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 50: ἔπειτα διεξελθὼν ὀλίγα τὰ μεταξὺ γενόμενα τίθησι ταυτί·«περὶ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον Χαλκιδέων τῶν ἐπὶ Θράικης θλιβομένων τῶι πολέμωι καὶ πρεσβευσαμένων Ἀθήναζε, Χαρίδημον αὐτοῖς ἔπεμψαν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν ἐν Ἑλλησπόντωι στρατηγόν, ὃς ἔχων ὀκτωκαίδεκα τριήρεις καὶ πελταστὰς τετρακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν, ἦλθεν εἴς τε τὴν Παλλήνην καὶ τὴν Βοττιαίαν μετ' Ὀλυνθίων, καὶ τὴν χώραν ἐπόρθησεν»; Dion. Hal. 7.28–29: κἀκεῖνοι μέν, ὡς ἔοικεν, οἱ πρότερον ἐν Ἀμφιπόλει οἰκοῦντες πρὶν Φίλιππον λαβεῖν, τὴν Ἀθηναίων χώραν εἶχον, ἐπειδὴ δὲ Φίλιππος αὐτὴν εἴληφεν, οὐ τὴν Ἀθηναίων χώραν ἀλλὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει· οὐδ᾽Ὄλυνθόν γε οὐδ᾽Ἀπολλωνίαν οὐδὲ Παλλήνην, οὐκ ἀλλοτρίας ἀλλὰ τὰς ἑαυτοῦ χώρας κέκτηται. 80 For the deeds of sale from Olynthos see Game 2009, nos.14–23, 25–28, from Arnai see Game 2009, 26, from Stolos Game 2009, 15, 29–33, from Polichne ibid, 34f, from Spartolos ibid, 37, from Torone ibid, 38, from Aphytis ibid, 38 bis and from Strepsa SEG 37.583. 81 For Theopompos see Zahrnt 1971, 109–111; Psoma 2001, 243f. In the 22nd book the cities that are mentioned are: Θέρμη (FGrH 115 F 140), Χυτρόπολις (F 141), Θέστωρος (F 142); in the 23rd book: Όλυνθος (FGrH 115 F 143), Αἰόλειον (115 F 144) and Βρέα (115 F 145); in the 24 th book: Ἄσσηρα (FGrH 115 F 147); in the 25th book: Σκάβαλα (FGrH 115 F 151), Μίλκωρος (FGrH 115 F 152), Κανθαρώλεθρον (FGrH 115 F 266) and Σκίθαι (FGrH 115 F 375). See also Τίνδη: St. Byz. s.v. Τίνδιον. ἔστι καὶ Τίνδη Θρᾴκης Χαλκιδικὴ πόλις; Skapsa: Steph. Byz. s.v. Κάψα, πόλις Χαλκιδικῆς χώρας κατὰ Παλλήνην, ὁμοροῦσα τῷ Θερμαίῳ κόλπῳ. ὁ πολίτης Καψαῖος. See also Harp. s.v. Μηκύβερνα, πόλις; Str. 9.2.23: Στῶλος, πόλις. 82 Diod. Sic. 16.8.5. For Anthemous see Dem. 6.20; Lib. Hypoth. Dem. 1.2. For Potidaia see Diod. Sic. 16.8.3–6; Dem. 23.107; Dem. 6.20. See also Dem. 2.6, 7; 8.62; Dem. 23.107. For the distribution of land to the hetairoi see Hatzopoulos 1988a, 30 n.1, 37 n.2 and 3, and 39f; Psoma 2001, 244–248 with notes.

The League of the Chalkideis

335

caused a stasis, and had the majority of the population expelled.83 This may be connected with the information provided by Demosthenes that the Chalkidians held Amphipolis in c. 363 BCE (Dem. 23.149, cf. 12.21). The establishment of a Makedonian garrison soon afterwards might be connected with the need to protect the city not only against Athenian attempts but also against Chalkidian ambitions.84 IX. THE IMPACT OF THE CHALKIDIAN STATE IN GREEK HISTORY The Chalkidian state was a short-lived systema that was significant for Northern Greek politics between 432 and 348 BCE. Together with the Boiotian League, the Chalkidian koinon might have served as a successful exemplum of government as far as internal politics, and most importantly, external politics, are concerned. During the Hellenistic period federal government became the most prominent system in Mainland Greece, as it satisfied the need of cities to collaborate with each other and survive in a new world dominated by powerful kingdoms. The Chalkidian League, we must recall, was founded with the aim of defending the cities of the area against Athens. When Antigonos Monophthalmos heard that Kassandros was founding Kassandreia, Diodorus reports that he accused him of re-founding Olynthos (19.61.1). But we do not need to go quite that far. I believe that we can identify the impact of the foundation of the Chalkidian League much earlier than the Hellenistic period, even as early as the time of the successful revolt of the Chalkidian cities and Potidaia. We learn from Thucydides (3.2.1–3.3.1) that the cities of Lesbos (with the exception of Methymna) were ready to revolt early in the summer of 428 and “were forcibly making the whole of Lesbos into one state under the control of Mytilene”. The Athenians sent out representatives but these “failed to induce the Mytilenians to abandon the idea of the union of Lesbos or to give up their warlike preparations”. It was this idea of unity that alarmed the Athenians. The date of these events, early summer 428 BCE, was one year after the Athenian defeat at the battle of Spartolos. It was after this battle that the Athenians abandoned any hope of fighting the Chalkidians by themselves, and made an appeal to their new ally, the Odrysian Sitalkes. As we have seen, the campaign of the ferocious Odrysians brought nothing to Athens. Makedonian diplomacy and lack of supplies forced Sitalkes to leave the Chalkidic peninsula. Sitalkes’ campaign ended in the winter of 429/8. The Chalkidians seemed invincible at this point and this was some months before the events at Mytilene. Once more in the Eastern Aegean, the three cities of Rhodes (Ialysos,

83 Arist. Pol. 1303b: καὶ Ἀμφιπολῖται δεξάμενοι Χαλκιδέων ἐποίκους ἐξέπεσον ὑπὸ τούτων οἱ πλεῖστοι αὐτῶν. 1305b–1306a: γίνονται δὲ μεταβολαὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσωσι τὰ ἴδια ζῶντες ἀσελγῶς· καὶ γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καινοτομεῖν ζητοῦσι, καὶ ἢ τυραννίδι ἐπιτίθενται αὐτοὶ ἢ κατασκευάζουσιν ἕτερον (ὥσπερ Ἱππαρῖνος Διονύσιον ἐν Συρακούσαις, καὶ ἐν Ἀμφιπόλει ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Κλεότιμος τοὺς ἐποίκους τοὺς Χαλκιδέων ἤγαγε, καὶ ἐλθόντων διεστασίασεν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τοὺς εὐπόρους. 84 For the Makedonian garrison at Amphipolis see Aesch. 2.29; Diod. Sic. 16.3.3–6.

336

Selene E. Psoma

Kamiros and Lindos), allies of the Spartans from 411 BCE (Thuc. 8.44.2), proceeded to a synoecism and founded Rhodes in 408/7 BCE.85 It is difficult to say more about the plausible impact of the Chalkidian paradigm in the synoikismos of Rhodes. There are certainly differences between Rhodes and the Chalkideis. The most significant, though, seems to be that the cities Ialysos, Kamiros, and Lindos became tribes of the new city, Rhodes, while those that were members of the League remained cities in their own right. This, however, might simply be related to the nature of the new state itself. To conclude: as far as the development of their external and internal relations and organization, the Chalkidians of Thrace appear to be an interesting phenomenon, which was ultimately short lived. The state originated from an anoikismos of small poleis of Chalkidian origin to prevent attacks of the Athenian navy and soon became a significant power in the North. From the beginning, it was organized into what we call a federal state, and created procedures for facilitating the incorporation of new members by granting epigamia and enktesis, imposing its federal calendar, coinage, eponymous priesthoods, and common archons.86 This very successful example of federal organization was defeated only by treachery in the struggle with Philip II. Olynthos, Stageira, and Methone were the only cities Philip destroyed. Methone because it was a base of Athenian interests, Stageira for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and Olynthos because this was the most significant Greek power in the North, and could well have become an obstacle to Philip’s ambitions.87 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bearzot, C. (2015) Ancient Theoretical Reflections on Federalism, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 503–511. Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart. Boëldieu–Trevet, J. (1997) Brasidas: la naissance de l’art du commandement, in P. Brulé, J. Oulhen (eds.), Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne. Hommages à Yvon Garlan (1997), Rennes, 147–158 Busolt, G. (1920–1925) Griechische Staatskunde I–II, Munich. Erdas, D. (2006) Forme e stanziamento militare e organizzazione del territorio nel mondo greco: i casi di Casmene e Brea, in M.A. Vaggioli (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII-III sec. a. C.), vol. I, Pisa, 45–55. Flensted-Jensen, P. (2004) Thrace from Axios to Strymon, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 351–374. Gabrielsen, V. (2000) The Synoikised Polis if Rhodes, in P. Flensted–Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 177–205. Game, J. (2009) Actes de vente dans le monde grec: témoignages épigraphiques des ventes immobilières, Lyon.

85 See also Diod. Sic. 13.75.1; Str. 14.2.10. For the synoecism of Rhodes see Gabrielsen 2000. 86 See Bearzot 2015, 505–507. 87 For Stageira see Gatzolis – Psoma (forthcoming 2). For Olynthos see Toynbee 1935, 477–485; Hatzopoulos 1996a, 25–38; Gatzolis – Psoma (forthcoming 2).

The League of the Chalkideis

337

Gatzolis, C. and S.E. Psoma (forthcoming 2) Olynthos and Stageira: Bronze Coinage and Political History, in F. Duyrat and C. Grandjean (eds.). Gehrke, H.-J. (1985) Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Vestigia, 35, Munich. Giovannini, A. (1971) Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland, Göttingen. Graham, A.J. (1969) X=10, Phoenix 23, 347–358. Gude, M. (1933) A History of Olynthus, with a prosopographia and testimonia, Baltimore. Hampl, F. (1935) Olynth und der chalkidische Staat, Hermes 70, 177–196. Harris, E.M. (2000) The Authenticity of Andocides De Pace. A Subversive Essay, in P. FlenstedJensen, T.H. Nielsen, L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 479–506. Harrison, E. (1912) Chalkidike, Classical Quarterly 6, 93–103, 165–178. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1988a) Une donation du roi Lysimaque, L’antiquité classique, Athens. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1988b) Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale, Paris. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1993) Le statut de Cassandrée à l’époque hellénistique, Ancient Macedonia 5, 575–584. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1996a) Royaume de Macédoine et colonies grecques: langues et institutions, Cahiers Glotz 7, 25–38. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996b) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 1, Athens. Kahrstedt, U. (1936) Chalcidic Studies, American Journal of Philology 57, 416–444. Kalliontzis, Y. (2014) Digging in Storerooms for Inscriptions: An Unpublished Casualty List from Plataia in the Museum of Thebes and the Memory of War in Boeotia, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. New Finds, New Perspectives, Berkeley, 332–372. Knoepfler, D. (1989) Le calendrier des Chalcidiens de Thrace: essai de mise au point sur la liste et l’ordre des mois eubéens, Journal des Savants, 23–59. Knoepfler, D. (1990) The Calendar of Olynthus and the Origin of the Chalcidians of Thrace, in J.P. Desroeudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress for Classical Archaeology held in honour of Prof. A. D. Trendell, New York, 99– 115. Knoepfler, D. (2007) Was there an Anthroponymy of Euboian Origin in the Chalkido-Eretrian Colonies of the West and Thrace?, Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 87–119. Larsen, J.A.O (1955), Representative Government in Greek and Roman History. Larsen, J.A.O (1968), Greek Federal States. Lane Fox, R. “The 360s”, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Macedon, 650 B.C.-300 A.D., Leiden 2011, 257–269 Loukopoulou, L. D. and S. E. Psoma, ‘The Thracian Policy of the Temenid Kings’, Ancient Macedonia VII 2007, 143– 151 Mackil, E. (2015) The Economics of Federation in the Ancient Greek World, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 487–502. Moggi, K. (1974) Lo stato dei Calcidesi alla luce del sinoecismo di Olinto, Critica Storica 11, 1– 11. Moggi, K. (1976) I sinecismi interstatali greci, Pisa. Picard, O. (2000) Le retour des émigrés et le monnayage de Thasos, Comptes rendus de l’académie des inscriptions et de belles lettes, 1057–1084. Psoma, S. (1997) Notes sur le début du monnayage fédéral des Chalcidiens de Thrace, Revue numismatique 6, 423–428. Psoma, S. (2000) Σταθμητικοί κανόνες στην Χαλκιδική κατά τον 5 ο και 4ο αι. π.Χ., Οβολός 4, 25– 36. Psoma, S. (2001a) Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et d’histoire, Stuttgart.

338

Selene E. Psoma

Psoma, S. (2001b) ΣΤΑΤΕΡ ΜΑΧΟΝ, Nomismatika Chronika 20, 13–44. Psoma, S. (2009) Thuc. 1, 61, 4, Béroia et la nouvelle localisation de Bréa, Revue des Études Grecques 122, 263–280. Psoma, S. (2011a) Dikaia, colonie d’Éretrie en Chalcidique: entre Perdikkas III de Macédoine et la Ligue Chalcidienne, in N. Badoud (ed.), Phililogos Dionysios, Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler, Geneva, 479–489. Psoma, S. (2011b) The Kingdom of Macedonia and the Chalcidic League, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Macedon, 650 B.C.-300 A.D., Leiden, 113–135. Psoma, S. (2016a) “From Corcyra to Potidaea: the decree of Brea (IG I3 46)”, ZPE 199, 55–57. Psoma, S. E. (2016b) Choosing and Changing a Monetary Standard in the Archaic and Classical Periods, in E.M. Harris, D.M. Lewis and M. Woolmer (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Households and City–States, New York, 90–115. Psoma, S. E. (2017a) “From the Odrysian Sparadokos to Olynthos: Remarks on Iconography”, in P. Iossif, F. de Callataÿ, R. Veymiers (eds), ΤΥΠΟΙ. Greek and Roman Coins seen through their images. Noble issuers, humble users? Histoire, Liège–Paris, 173–188. Psoma, S. E. (2017b) “Proud to be Euboeans: the Chalcidians of Thrace”, in Ž. Tankosić, F. Mavridis, and M. Kosma (eds), An Island between two Worlds. The Archaeology of Euboea from Prehistoric to Byzantine Times. Papers and Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 6, 409–420. Robinson, D.M. (1938) Inscriptions from Macedonia 1938, TAPA 69, 43–47. Robinson, D.M. (1941) Excavations at Olynthus X. Metal and minor miscellaneous finds: an original contribution to Greek life, Baltimore. Robinson, D.M. and A. Clement (1938) Excavations at Olynthus. Vol. IX. The Chalcidic Mint and the Excavation Coins Found in 1928–1934, Baltimore. Salviat, F. (1984) Les archontes de Thasos, Πρακτικά τοῦ Η’Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ Λατινικῆς Ἐπιγραφικῆς, 3–9 Ὀκτωβρίου 1982, Athens, 233–258. Stylianou, P. J. (1998) A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15, Oxford. Tiverios, M. (2008) Greek Colonization in the Northern Aegean, in G.M. Tsetskhladze (ed.), An Account of Greek Colonies and the other Settlements overseas, vol. II, Leiden, 1–154. Toynbee, A. (1935) A Study of History, vol. III, Oxford, 477–485. Vlachogianni, E. (2004–2009) Προξενικό ψήφισμα του Κοινού των Βοιωτών, Hόρος 17, 361–372. Voutyras, E. and K. Sismanidis (2007) Δικαιοπολιτῶν συναλλαγαί. Μια νέα επιγραφή από την Δίκαια, αποικία της Ερέτριας, Ancient Macedonia 7, 253–274. West, A.B. (1918) The History of the Chalcidic League, Madison, Wis. Zahrnt, M. (1971) Olynth und die Chalkidier. Untersuchungen zur Staatenbildung auf der Chalkidischen Halbinsel im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., München. Zahrnt, M. (2015) The Chalkidike and the Chalkidians, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 341–357.

THE ETHNOS OF THE THESPROTIANS: INTERNAL ORGANIZATION & EXTERNAL RELATIONS1 Adolfo J. Domínguez Universidad Autónoma de Madrid I. THE OLDEST LITERARY REFERENCES TO THESPROTIA. In the earliest literary sources from the Greek world, the Homeric poems, we already find references to Thesprotia and its inhabitants, the Thesprotians. Although they are not mentioned explicitly in the Iliad, we do find a mention of the Sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona, to which we will return shortly. In the Odyssey we are given some information of interest: the land of the Thesprotians (γαίῃ Θεσπρωτῶν) is mentioned (Od. 14.315), as is their King, Pheidon (Θεσπρωτῶν βασιλεὺς ... Φείδων) (Od. 14.316). We are told that King Pheidon would have received Odysseus and that he had visited the Dodona sanctuary. The great riches amassed by Odysseus and guarded by the King are also mentioned (Od. 14.321–330; 19.287– 299). The Poet also mentions that the Thesprotians had ships (Od. 14.334–335; 16.65) and were enemies of the Taphian pirates (Od. 16.426–427). From the poem we may infer that Thesprotia had links with Dulichius (Od. 14.335) and Ithaca itself (Od. 17.526; 19.271). The two references to Dodona found in the Odyssey appear in passages referring to the Thesprotians. In the Iliad, on the other hand, there are no direct references to Thesprotia, but there are two mentions of Dodona. In the Catalogue of Ships, the Ainianes and the warring Perrhaibians (᾿Ενιῆνες ... μενεπτόλεμοί τε Περαιβοὶ) had decided to settle around wintry Dodona (περὶ Δωδώνην δυσχείμερον) (Il. 2.749–750). The other reference to the sanctuary appears in a plea by Achilles in which the hero addresses the sovereign Zeus as a Dodonian and Pelasgian, suggesting that he lives far away in Dodona, attended by his interpreters, the Selloi, who do not wash their feet and sleep on the floor (Il. 16.233–235).2 It therefore seems that there are two or three different traditions in Homer’s poems. The two references in the Iliad, each different from the other, highlight the relationship between the Zeus of Dodona and the Selloi, about which the poem does not provide us with much information. We also learn of the god’s relationship with peoples such as the Perrhaibians and the Ainianes, who, long ago, used to live in

1 2

This paper has been written as part of Research Project HAR 2014–53885 funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. Ζεῦ ἄνα Δωδωναῖε Πελασγικὲ τηλόθι ναίων / Δωδώνης μεδέων δυσχειμέρου, ἀμφὶ δὲ Σελλοὶ / σοὶ ναίουσ' ὑποφῆται ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιεῦναι ...; Parke 1967, 3–10.

340

Adolfo J. Domínguez

Dodona and then moved to Thessaly and were known as the perioiki of the Thessalians.3 Here we are clearly faced with two different traditions that must trace back to different origins.4 But then again, the references in the Odyssey relating to Dodona, even if just for its proximity and relationship with the Thesprotians, highlight their nature as a people and that they are ruled by a King (at that moment in time, Pheidon). Both the Iliad and the Odyssey, however, make particular mention of the fact that Dodona was an oracular sanctuary, both through the reference to Zeus’ interpreters (ὑποφῆται), the Selloi (Il. 16.235), and because Odysseus appears there questioning Zeus about the best way to return to Ithaca through the god’s highcrested oak (ἐκ δρυὸς ὑψικόμοιο) (Od. 14.327–330; 19.296–299). These references outline the importance of Dodona, at least, during the second half of the eighth century BCE because, as Luce has shown, “le poète a donc intégré des réalités de son temps, qu’on peut dater de la seconde moitié du VIIIe s., dans le passé des héros”.5 The other information we are given in the Odyssey – especially with regards to their relationship with Dulichius and with Ithaca, and that the Thesprotians were enemies of the Taphian pirates – clearly highlights the seafaring ways of the Thesprotians known in the Homeric poems; they did not take part in the Trojan War, however. It is difficult to draw clear historical conclusions from these scarce and ambiguous references, partly due to the doubts that still exist regrading precisely when Homer’s poems were written. However, it is possible that we are able to suggest here that for the Greeks of the 8th–7th centuries BCE, the Thesprotians were a people living on the coastline of the Ionian Sea. It is not unlikely that they were made known by the Euboians (more likely than the Corinthians), who are the first who seem to take their chances in these waters at this time, or before this time. Perhaps even then, despite other possible traditions which are earlier or arise from different origins, the Thesprotians begin to be linked to the oracle at Dodona. We are unable to say whether the Thesprotians had control over this oracle at the time, because the coexistence of different traditions such as those found in the Iliad seems to suggest the opposite. We can say the same of Hesiod (frag. 319 Merkelbach-West), who tells us that Dodona is still the residence of the Pelasgians (Πελασγῶν ἕδρανον); the same author locates Dodona in a land called Ellopia (Hes. frag. 240 Merkelbach–West). The name given to this land (Ἐλλοπία) is linked by some to the Σελλοί, by taking away the initial sigma of this name (Scholia in Sophoclem, Trach. 1167), although this may well be a later interpretation. In any case, in Hesiod, Dodona is linked to the Pelasgians and with Ellopia, which is therefore the name of another land found in Euboia (Hdt. 8.23). It is also difficult to ascertain where Homer is referring to in the region that would become Thesprotia, although it is perhaps not too adventurous to suggest that 3 4 5

Lefevre 1998, 84–86 (Perrhaibians) and 91 (Ainianes). Other interpretations suggest, however, different perspectives regarding Dodona, but not necessarily contradictory ones: Calce 2011, 28–33. Luce 2010, 40.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

341

it may well be the area named the harbour of Elaia (λιμὴν᾿Ελαία) or Ephyra by authors such as Pseudo–Scylax (§ 30). According to Thucydides (1.46.4), this is in the land called Elaitis in Thesprotia (ἐν τῇ ᾿Ελαιάτιδι τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος). Both authors place the mouth of the River Acheron and the Acherusian Lake in the same area. This is certainly the same port that Strabo (7.7.5) calls Glykys Limen because it is where the Acheron river had its mouth and where the Acherusian Lake is located. Perhaps the presence of this marshy lake (λίμνη) had an influence on the land’s name, because some authors suggest that the toponym Elea or Eliaia could derive from the name for the olive tree,6 while others derive it from the swampy nature of the area (τό ἕλος).7 It is also difficult to know if, at that time, the label ‘Thesprotia’ would refer to all of the land that would later be included in this name.8 Although it is not sure, according to the Odyssey, that the Thesprotians had occupied the interior of Epeiros,9 it is possible that the Thesprotians are beginning to exercise their influence on the sanctuary at Dodona, judging from the references found in the Odyssey. Finally, the mention of a King of the Thesprotians in the Odyssey is also not surprising given the constant references in the Homeric Poems to monarchs that rule over the different peoples mentioned. Accordingly, the first reference to the Thesprotians in Greek sources does not give us a clear understanding of many aspects regarding this people, and it is difficult to define what may be poetic vision and what may be historical reality for Thesprotia and its inhabitants at the beginning of the archaic period. In any case, it is clear that Thesprotia is placed in the margins of the Hellenic world 10 but already plays a role within it.11 II. THE EARLIEST ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN THESPROTIA IN ARCHAIC TIMES AND ITS INTERPRETATION. If we bear in mind archaeological data from the period between the eighth and the sixth centuries BCE, our viewpoint does not become much clearer either, although it does give us some interesting information. The accumulation of pottery with no clear archaeological background at Mavromandilia, for example, close to the course of the Kokytos river, is in line with our knowledge of some village settlements in Molossia such as Vitsa and Liatovouni. In addition to different kinds of handmade pottery, the presence of pottery that was imported from other areas of Greece is also of interest, since these are, to date, the first known imported materials that appeared in the region from the end of the Bronze Age. The pottery comes predominantly 6 7 8 9 10 11

Hammond 1967, 478. Riginos and Lazari 2007, 24. Dakaris 1972, 1–7. Parke 1967, 11f. Cabanes 1988, 92. The idea that Thesprotia represents a ‘negative’ view as against the ‘positive’ image featured by the Taphians is suggested by Rohdenberg and Marks 2012.

342

Adolfo J. Domínguez

from the area of Corinth and there are also some Western-Greek style vases, for which Ithaca has been suggested as an origin. It has been proposed that other vases come from Boiotia, Argos, Thessaly, and Attica. The whole collection could date to between the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, although there is also pottery (of local tradition) from before this.12 This discovery of imported pottery, in the midcourse of the Kokytos River, shows clear relations between the inhabitants of these regions and those living near the mouth of the River Acheron, as we mentioned earlier. In the same way, the similarities between this pottery and other types found at other locations in Epeiros suggest the existence of common traditions and common trade routes among the different peoples living in these areas and even possible interconnections. These very ways of life are evident at the Skala Aetou site, in Philiates, in the middle valley of Kalamas, which has been excavated in recent years (2005–2007), although the results of this excavation have still not been published in detail. At least two rectangular buildings were found with their ends in an apse shape. The best preserved of these (number 3) measured 14.50 x 3.50 m; inside an area was found with the remains of pavement and of pithoi. The materials were dated to between the Iron Age and the fourth century BCE. From the brief reports that have been published to date, it seems that the oldest imported materials correspond to the fourth century BCE, in the form of fragments of Attic black-glazed pottery.13 The same kind of structure has been identified at other Epirote centres, at Vitsa Zagoriou and Liatovouni in particular, both in neighbouring Molossian territory. This suggests, again, that there were very similar ways of life at play in most Epirote lands and in surrounding areas.14 The absence of imports until a relatively advanced period at Skala Aetou, however, may suggest that this establishment was not part of the trade networks that did indeed reach Mavromandilia. From the information collected at these sites, to which we can add some other areas where remains that may correspond to this period have been identified,15 it seems that the settlement of Thesprotia, as in the rest of Epeiros, was organized in average-sized groups that maintained a strong link with certain areas. It may well be that they took up residence in some of these areas for part of the year. There were also necropoleis which, from the examples found at sites such as Vitsa and Liatovouni, were used for many generations.16 Findings such as those unearthed at Mavromandilia indicate that at least part of the territory had begun to receive products that had been made by other Greeks, such as the Euboians and the Corinthians. This demonstrates that these Greeks also began to receive information about these people, which would explain the early presence of the Thesprotians in the Homeric

12 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2009, 40–43; id. 2006, 63–67; Metallinou, Kanta-Kitsou and Riginos 2012, 353. 13 Riginos 2005, 573–575; Metallinou, Kanta-Kitsou and Riginos 2012, 349–354; Lamprou and Saltagianni 2007, 5–11. 14 Hammond 1997a, 57f. 15 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2006, 67 n.27. 16 Vokotopoulou 1986; Douzougli and Papadopoulos 2010.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

343

Poems. Whether or not the Thesprotian identity had begun to evolve at this point in time is another matter. As was observed some time ago by Hammond from a perspective that was based more on theory than fact, the population of Epeiros may have been divided into ‘small tribes’ several of which may have coalesced in ‘an intermediate group’. In addition, “the intermediate groups themselves [could cluster] into large groups, each such group being concerned to protect large pastoral territories”.17 In the same way, this author and others highlighted the similarities in the material findings from Epeiros and those from other Balkan territories. These included the lack of fixed dwellings and the presence of tombs with weapons in the cemeteries, both of which were considered ‘un-Greek’18 – a debate that has been continued over the years. We should consider the elements that authors such as Herodotus (8.144) and Thucydides (3.94.5) deem characteristic of Greek identity, to correspond with those developed by part of the Greek world but that surely had little validity in other areas. These other areas without doubt developed their own concept of ‘Hellenicity’, although without being able to count on writers who, like those mentioned above, opted for a somewhat restrictive concept of what ‘being Greek’ means. The fact that similarities can be seen between peoples who shared the same geographic area and similar ways of life does not mean that they all took on the same ethnic identity and, more importantly, neither does it presume that other Greeks would have considered them part of their own world. In the case of Thesprotia, its presence in the Homeric Poems suggests that we are faced here with a nearby and well-known world, well-linked to better known areas (Dulichius, Ithaca) and sharing the same negative opinions that other peoples and cities in Homer had towards peoples such as the Taphians. There are doubtless differences between the impression of the Thesprotians we are given in the Odyssey (namely that they were organized around a king), and the archaeological viewpoint for the 8th and 7th centuries. Archaeology does not allow us to observe the existence of cities like those found in other parts of Greece, and makes the reference to the population in Thesprotia organizing itself κατὰ κώμας in Pseudo-Skylax (§ 30) ring true. Despite this, some authors have suggested that “there is no necessary correlation between the process of urbanization and the process of crystallization into a large effective polity” and that “in Epeiros, polities could become geographically extended and politically effective entities long before urbanization developed”.19 We could thus take the reference to the Thesprotians and their King Pheidon in the Odyssey as the first sign that a Thesprotian identity was being founded, even when it may have possibly ended in a different territory and with different interests than those it would have in later times. An important element of the creation of an ethnic identity in the Greek world seems to be the presence of common cults that served as a binding element for the group. An important example in which a sanctuary plays a key role, from the point 17 Hammond 1997b, 54. 18 Hammond 1997b, 58. 19 Davies 2000, 241.

344

Adolfo J. Domínguez

of view of the elaboration of an ethnic identity, is in Aitolia with the Sanctuary of Apollo at Thermon. The sanctuary, which we know was in use from at least the eighth century BCE, is one of the few places that has provided us with archaeological information for those times in the Aitolian land as a whole, which demonstrates the important role that it seems to have played in the process of Aitolian ethnogenesis.20 We must also take into consideration the role that the king may have played in the possibility that Thesprotia amalgamated various groups through a sense of (real or symbolic) prestige – a point to which we will return later. III. CULT-PLACES AND KINGSHIP IN THESPROTIA AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THESPROTIAN ETHNIC IDENTITY. If we accept, even just as a hypothesis, the role that a cult place may have played in the construction of a Thesprotian identity, we would have to consider which sanctuary this would have been. The obvious answer, at first glance, would be Dodona. As we have seen before, in the Odyssey there is a tendency to establish a link between the Thesprotians and Dodona, even though this is in a way circumstantial. We are not told that Dodona belongs to the Thesprotians, but rather it is suggested that Odysseus, who has left his riches under the protection of the King Pheidon, would have headed for the sanctuary from Thesprotia. The references to the Pelasgians and, eventually, the Selloi, as well as the Perrhaibians and the Ainianes, would suggest that Dodona is not under Thesprotian control, at least in the version of events presented in the Homeric poems, especially in the Iliad. However, the Homeric tradition is quite controversial, as some scholars have noted.21 There is another cultural area that appears to be linked to Thesprotia or that, with time, would be linked to the land: the sanctuary dedicated to Persephone and Hades, where Circe sends Odysseus to speak to the ghost of Teiresias, signalled by the Acheron river and its tributaries, the Pyriphlegethon and the Kokytos (Od. 10.504–515). In the Odyssey, we are told that the area is located “at the end of the deep Ocean” (ἐς πείραθα ... βαθυρρόου Ὠκεανοῖο), where the city and country of the Kimmerian men can be found (Od. 11.13–14). We should bear in mind that ancient authors tell us that there is a cape and a port named Cheimerion (Χειμέριον) in the same region as the mouth of the real River Acheron (Thuc. 1.30.3; 1.46.4–5; 1.48.1; Str. 8.7.5; Paus. 8.7.2; Steph. Byz. s.v. Χειμέριον).22 Some authors, both

20 Papapostolou 2010, 1–59; Id. 2011, 129–145. 21 Parke 1967, 3–10. I shall not deal here with the cultural aspects of the sanctuary of Dodona because in this paper I am just interested in its possible role as a focal point in the building of the Thesprotian ethnic identity and not in the features of the cult carried out there, including divination. On those issues, Eidinow 2007 and Johnston 2008, 33–75; a reappraisal of the evolution of the sanctuary in Mylonopoulos 2006, 185–214. 22 Hammond 1945, 26–30; on the possible use by Thucydides of an older periegesis, eventually that of Hecataeus, see Pearson 1939, 52.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

345

ancient and modern, relate this to the Kimmerians of the Odyssey.23 Without tackling the difficult question of how actual geography compares with the geography of the Odyssey, it seems that there is, without doubt, a clear relationship between the surroundings described in the poem and the region where the mouth of the Acheron river is found. This can surely be no coincidence24 and would indicate, at least, that poets were inspired by the real landscape when writing of the entrance to the abode of Hades. It is also probable that this association was encouraged by the existence of a sacred sanctuary in the area, dedicated to the gods of the Underworld. This is documented in at least the 6th century, when the tyrant Periander of Corinth sends his messengers to the νεκυομαντήιον, which, according to Herodotus, is in Thesprotian land, on the river Acheron (Hdt. 5.92), to ask the spirit of his wife Melissa about the location of some treasure.25 Although we can be almost certain that the structure excavated by Dakaris in Mesopotamos is not this sanctuary, and it is true that the site of the oracle remains undiscovered, nevertheless it must have been an important place for the Thesprotians as a whole when it was still under the control the Eleans, who, as we have already seen, ruled over this region. This fact is supported by evidence, from some time later, that the Eleans and then the polis of Elea began to coin their own currency, using motifs linked with this cult as emblems of their political structure, including figures such as Persephone and Kerberos.26 About 100m to the west of the excavated building, in the current town of Mesopotamos, around twenty terracotta figures were unearthed representing a goddess with polos. This finding could suggest that at that spot there was a sanctuary to Demeter or Persephone, although we cannot be sure that this would have been the Nekyomanteion.27 It is possible that the sanctuary was of some importance at a later date in the process of the construction of a Thesprotian identity, as we shall shortly see. The rescue excavations were rushed because of the construction of the motorway Egnatia Odos, but still unearthed several archaic findings of interest. These 23 Cheimerion (mentioned by Thuc. 1.46.4, Str. 8.7.5, Paus. 8.7.2 and Steph. Byz. s. v. Χειμέριον) was related by some authors such as Proteas of Zeugma (Etym.Mag. 513. 50–52) to the Kimmerians of the Odyssey (11.14) (see Dakaris 1986, 154f, 165). On the possible reasons for the different locations of the Kimmerians, see Ballabriga 1998, 143–152; Ivantchik 2005, 53–65; Ogden 2014, 211–213. 24 Dakaris 1986, 151–155. Pausanias, meanwhile, indicates that Homer would have known these places and therefore he would have dared to put those names to the rivers by those of Thesprotia (Paus. 1.17.5). 25 However, other authors, such as Strabo, prefer a more westerly location of this episode of the Odyssey, namely around Lake Avernus, in Campania (Str. 1.2.18; 5.4.5). Meanwhile, Pausanias 9.30.6 blends the Campanian location (Lake Avernus) with the Thesprotian one, when he refers to this sanctuary. On the possible Euboian influences on this ‘contamination’, both in the area around Kumai and in Thesprotia, see Calce 2011, 83f. On other homonyms affecting Epeiros and other territories, see De Simone 1985, 70f. 26 Franke 1961, 40, 300. 27 For more information about this finding, see Daux 1959, 666–669, who dates these terracotta to between the mid-sixth century and the last quarter of the fifth century BCE. See also Dakaris 1986, 161, who raises its chronology to the second half of the seventh century BCE.

346

Adolfo J. Domínguez

findings can be linked with others that have been known for some time, although the scarcity of archaeological remains of Geometric and Archaic ages in Thesprotia was remarkable.28 Alongside some Corinthian pottery, the remains of terracotta figurines of a religious nature have been discovered in Neochori-Gkrikas (Paramythia), Mastilitsa, and Pyrgos Ragiou, all dating back to some point in the sixth century BCE. At this time, it is thought that the latter location was a Corcyraean establishment built to control the mouth of the River Thyamis.29 Of particular interest are the findings unearthed at Mastilitsa, to the north of the current mouth of the River Thyamis. Here, a cultic structure was discovered which can be dated to between the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth century BCE. On the same hill, a fortified area was found from the late-Classical/Hellenistic period, as well as a necropolis where imported materials were discovered (end of the sixth-beginning of fifth century BCE). The cultic area seems to have been in use until the beginning of the Hellenistic period and comprises a rectangular building (13.80 x 9.50 m.) facing from E–W, the remains of a possible altar, and evidence that sacrifices were carried out there. It has not yet been possible to ascertain to which divinity it may have been dedicated. Among the variety of findings (pottery, bronze, etc.) there were also weapons (spears, swords and arrows). It is difficult to determine whether this sanctuary and other structures detected in Masilitsa correspond to the Epirote peoples, or if, on the contrary, and perhaps more probably, they are an example of the control that Corcyra had over this strategic area at the mouth of the river Thyamis.30 In any case, it shows the introduction, even if it was at the hands of the Corcyraeans, of new forms of cult in Epirote land that are similar to the usual cult types found in the rest of the Greek world. On the other hand, the discovery of religious terracotta figurines both in Mesopotamos and Neochori31 suggests that these objects began to circulate even in Thesprotian land, and would have influenced the way that this religious phenomenon was perceived by the Epirotes. Continuing with the religious context, we should now return to Dodona. It is accepted that the architectonic development of the sanctuary began from the end of the fifth century BCE onwards and that, until then, it had been used as an open-air sanctuary with hardly any constructions around it. Archaeological findings have confirmed that after the site was used frequently during the Bronze Age, it is in the eighth century BCE that we begin to find evidence of the development of a cultic space at Dodona, documented by the unearthing of bronze tripods, similar to those found at other sanctuaries of the time.32 It is quite probable that several of these tripods were still offered at the sanctuary throughout the seventh century BCE, although at present we do not have a full seriation of them. In any case, these offerings, 28 Vlachopoulou-Oikonomou 2003, 284–288. 29 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2009, 43–49; id. 2006, 67–70. 30 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2006, 70–77; Kanta-Kitsou 2009, 22–25; Metallinou, Kanta-Kitsou and Riginos 2012, 352. 31 The terracotta found at Pyrgos Ragiou could belong to the (possible) Corcyrean fortified settlement that may have existed in this spot. 32 See lastly Dieterle 2007, 170–182.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

347

which increase in number and type from the second half of the seventh century BCE and throughout the sixth century BCE,33 demonstrate that the sanctuary became increasingly open to the outside world. The bronze offerings at Dodona, both imported and from local workshops, are a clear indication that it was this opening of the sanctuary that led, eventually, to the introduction of new products and new ideas in the interior of Epeiros as the renown and popularity of the sanctuary increased. The existence of imported goods at Epirote sites, which increase in number in the sixth century BCE relative to earlier periods, is yet another indication of the progressive expansion of Epeiros’ horizons. It is possible that the fact that the Dodona sanctuary was one of the places that King Kroisos of Lydia chose to send his delegates in his quest to prove the veracity of its oracles is recognition of the role that the sanctuary was acquiring (Hdt. 1.46).34 Besides, Dodona is the first place in Greece touched by the (shadowy) ‘Hyperborean offerings’ (Hdt. 4.33).35 Literary sources also show the increased recognition of the Dodona sanctuary throughout the rest of the Greek world and, at the same time, its certain association with the Thesprotians, although there are not many references to this. In addition to the references found in the Odyssey (Od. 14. 314–330), which are perhaps slightly more ambiguous than claimed by later commentators,36 there is other information suggesting a clearer relationship between Dodona and the Thesprotians. Amongst these, we should mention that in Aeschylus’s Prometheus, which, regardless of its authorial attribution, alludes (in a passage in which the Molossian plain [πρὸς Μολοσσὰ γάπεδα] also appears) to the oracles of Thesprotian Zeus (μαντεῖα ... Θεσπρωτοῦ Διός) (Aesch. Prom. 829–831). Euripides also makes explicit mention of the venerable buildings at Dodona (σεμνὰ Δωδώνης βάθρα), located in the lands of the Thesprotians (Θεσπρωτὸν οὖδας) (Eur., Phoen. 982). In previous authors, however, there is more ambiguity. In Pindar, for example, a plea to Zeus of Dodona is preserved (Frag. 57 Mähler)37 along with number of references to a fragmentary paean in which mention is made of the oracle’s location next to Mount Tomaros and of the Elloi (Pindar favoured this name over the Selloi) (Pind. Pae. fr. 59). In another more complete paean, the author makes another allusion to Dodona through a reference also to Mount Tomaros while he tells us of the arrival of Neoptolemos to Molossian land, located precisely next to the mountain (Pind. Pae. fr. 52 f, 109)38. Finally, in the fourth Nemean Ode he refers to the control of Neoptolemos in Epeiros, which spans from Dodona to the Ionian Sea (Pind.

33 34 35 36

Dieterle 2007, 209–223. Funke 2004, 159–167. Tréheux 1953, 758–774. Schol. Hom. Il. 16.233–235: ὅτι δὲ ἐν Θεσπρωτοῖς οἶδε τὸ μαντεῖον τοῦ Διὸς ὁ ποιητής, φανερὸν ἐποίησεν ἐν ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ. 37 Δωδωναῖε μεγασθενές / ἀριστότεχνα πάτερ. 38 σχεδὸν δ[ὲ Το]μάρου Μολοσσίδα γαῖαν.

348

Adolfo J. Domínguez

Nem. 4.50–53).39 However, Strabo (7.7.11) assures us that both Pindar and the tragedians have classified Dodona as Thesprotian. The geographer tells us that “in the olden days, Dodona was under the control of the Thesprotians, just like Mount Tomaros or Tmaros”, although “after this it came under the control of the Molossians” (Str. 7.7.11; cf. 7.7.5).40 It is the Thesprotians, therefore, who manage and oversee the sanctuary, and it is reasonable to suppose that Dodona became, if it was not already, the political and religious centre of the Thesprotian ethnos. We could further assume that the sanctuary may have been used as a link for the different (sub-)ethne who accepted their role within this composite Thesprotian ethnos.41 The lack of structural remains and even of public inscriptions before the Molossian occupation of the sanctuary means that we are unable to determine what kind of relationship the Thesprotians had with Dodona;42 however, it is very likely that the Molossians took over the sanctuary because it already represented one of the focal points of their neighbour and rival’s identity as an ethnos. Proof of this can be seen in the rapid conversion of Dodona into the stage for political activity for the Molossian state, demonstrated both by the decision to begin a building programme there, and also in the appearance of inscriptions of a markedly political nature. The Molossians would have taken advantage of the central role that Dodona had played for the Thesprotians, but made radical changes to the sanctuary’s appearance, in the process highlighting how Dodonean Zeus was now linked to the interests of the Molossians and their royal house, the Aiacidai.43 Previously to this however, there is already evidence to suggest that certain symbolic movements may have taken place which should be attributed to a Thesprotian desire to present themselves, and their main sanctuary, with a more acceptable past before the rest of the Greeks. This can be seen, perhaps, in the matter regarding the Selloi, the interpreters of the god referred to in Homer and who Pindar preferred to call Elloi. The fact that Pindar, as far as we know, was the first to mention this matter would confirm that he was writing at the time when the Thesprotians were in control. The Pelasgic debate would also be linked to this, bearing in mind that the god appears in Homer with this epithet. As we can see in the debate pre-

39 Δωδώναθεν ἀρχόμενοι πρὸς Ἰόνιον πόρον. It can be true, as Meyer 2015, 310f has suggested, that ‘Dodona had in a sense always belonged to all the people of the region’; however, this does not prevent the eventual political control of the sanctuary by the Thesprotians. An interpretation of the Pindaric poems in Thessalian key in Calce 2011, 80f. 40 Ἡ Δωδώνη τοίνυν τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ὑπὸ Θεσπρωτοῖς ἦν καὶ τὸ ὄρος ὁ Τόμαρος ἢ Τμάρος [...] ὕστερον δὲ ὑπὸ Μολοττοῖς ἐγένετο. 41 On the different Thesprotian (sub-) ethne, see Dakaris 1972, 86f. 42 Mylonopoulos 2006, 188. 43 I cannot discuss and argue here against the recent and alternative opinion advanced by Meyer who sees the relationship between the Molossians and Dodona in a ‘minimalist’ way, suggesting the existence of an ‘amphiktyony’ as well as a loose association between the King, the people, and the sanctuary even in the fourth century BCE. Meyer 2013, 46–60; id. 2015, 297– 318.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

349

sented by Strabo (8.7.10), this author is of the opinion that the sanctuary has a ‘Pelasgian’ origin, based on the analysis of Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 142). Strabo is more explicit in referring to the Selloi, whom he considers barbarians following Homer. Whether the interpreters should be referred to as Selloi or (H)elloi, as Pindar would have maintained, is not dealt with, since the texts are ambiguous (ἡ γραφὴ ἀμφίβολος οὖσα). Strabo gives the impression that other authors link this name with Ellopia, which is mentioned in Hesiod, although he seems to be more inclined to follow Apollodoros, who prefers Selloi, and who relates the name of Ellopia with the marshlands (ἀπὸ τῶν ἑλῶν τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν) that surround the sanctuary. Despite Strabo’s version of events, the matter is more complex than it may seem at first sight. The ancient authors gave various interpretations both of the name Selloi and of Helloi than others, such as Pindar, would prefer.44 Herodotus tells us a complex tale about the origins of the Dodona sanctuary in which various accounts overlap, but all refer to the same location. Herodotus reinterprets and rationalizes a tale that, he assures, he was told by the prophets (προμάντεις) or priestesses (ἱρήιαι) of Dodona themselves and he links it with a story that he was told by the priests of Theban Zeus.45 He reaches the conclusion that a woman who was sacred to the Egyptian god, and not a dove as the Dodonian priestesses claim, had been kidnapped by Phoenicians and sold ‘amongst the Thesprotians, in what today is called Hellas, but used to be called Pelasgia’ (Hdt. 2.56).46 Herodotus is most probably echoing here a story that had arisen about the Sanctuary at Dodona in which the Homeric selloi have become helloi, making a relationship with the Ellopia mentioned by Hesiod easier to establish. All of this is expressed in the most detail in a passage by Aristotle in which the author maintains that the Deucalion flood took place on Greek land, specifically in old Hellas, which he immediately tells us is located around Dodona and the Acheloos River (Arist. Mete. 352a 32–35).47 To finish, the Stagirite assures us that the “Selloi lived in this region, as did those who were then called Graikoi but are now called Hellenes” (Arist. Mete. 352b 1–3).48 The fact that this idea is already suggested in Herodotus and even in Pindar’s reference to the selloi as elloi proves that we must look for its origin during the time in which the Thesprotians had control over the sanctuary; the Molossians had without doubt supported this idea and had perhaps even introduced a revision of the tradition that located the original Hellas in the land ruled by Achilles, as suggested by Thucydides (1.3.3). They may also have tried to take their supremacy away in favour of a Molossia ruled by a dynasty that traced its origins back to Achilles’ son, Neoptolemos. In any case, and despite the possible innovations introduced into the tale, it is interesting to highlight how these origins can be traced back to the Thesprotian period of Dodona. The sanctuary’s nuclear character, as well as that of the 44 Schol. Hom. Il. 16.234. 45 Nesselrath 1999, 1–14. 46 ἡ γυνὴ αὕτη τῆς νῦν Ἑλλάδος, πρότερον δὲ Πελασγίης καλεομένης τῆς αὐτῆς ταύτης, πρηθῆναι ἐς Θεσπρωτούς: ‘In my opinion, the place where this woman was sold in what is now Hellas, but was formerly called Pelasgia, was Thesprotia’ (translation A. D. Godley, 1920). 47 καὶ τούτου περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὴν ἀρχαίαν. αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ Δωδώνην καὶ τὸν Ἀχελῷον· 48 ᾤκουν γὰρ οἱ Σελλοὶ ἐνταῦθα καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι τότε μὲν Γραικοὶ νῦν δ'Ἕλληνες.

350

Adolfo J. Domínguez

ethnos that controls it, can be explained by the creation of a tale of identity that unites the Thesprotians with the Dodona sanctuary, and through which age-old origins are assigned to the ethnos. It was common opinion, as we are told by Herodotus (2.52), that Dodona was the oldest oracular centre in Greece, and in the oldest periods (the Pelasgic period), it was the only existing sanctuary. As other authors have seen, the question of whether the Epirotes were Greeks or barbarians depends on the internal or external point of view of the observers. It seems clear that the Epirotes, possibly stemming from their royal families, have emphasized their position by constructing heroic genealogies that, with time, worked as Pan-Hellenic genealogies.49 We have little information about the Thesprotian royal family because when the Thesprotians joined the Spartan general Knemos in his campaign against Akarnania (429 BCE), Thucydides makes it clear that they did not have a king (ἀβασίλευτοι). He says the same about the Chaonians, although their troops were led by two annual magistrates who belonged to the family that had ruled until then (ἐκ τοῦ ἀρχικοῦ γένους) (Thuc. 2.80). As is well known, the Athenian author includes the Chaonians, the Thesprotians, and the Molossians amongst barbarians, as he does with the Atintanians, the Orestians, and the Makedonians, all of whom were governed by their kings (Thuc. 2.80.5–7).50 This persistence of monarchical rule must have confirmed their barbarian nature all the more for Thucydides. In any case, this information is interesting because although the author does not give us any more detail, he does make it clear that at a previous point in time the Thesprotians had kings and that at that time (429 BCE) they must have been governed by magistrates, as is seen, explicitly here, in the case of the Chaonians. The existence of a monarchy in Thesprotia in the oldest times is documented in the Odyssey itself, as we have seen. For later periods, other sources allude to this fact, including two poems that are hardly known: Thesprotis (Paus. 8.12.5) and Telegonia. The latter of the two was written by the poet Eugammon of Cyrene in the sixth century BCE and seems to have been inspired in the former, or may have even copied elements from it (Clem. Al. Strom. 6.2.25.1). In Proklos’ summary of the Telegony we are told that Odysseus, once he has carried out the sacrifices foreseen by Teiresias, reaches the country of the Thesprotians where he marries their queen, Kallidike (Prokl. Chrest. 315–316).51 Later on, after the war against the Brygi and the death of Kallidike “Polypoites, the son of Odysseus, inherits royalty, and Odysseus returns to Ithaca” (Prokl. Chrest. 321–323).52 Another later author, the Hellenistic Lysimachus of Alexandria, calls the Thesprotian queen Euippe and the son of both, Leontophron, who was then known as Dorykles in other authors

49 50 51 52

Malkin 2001, 187–212. Funke 2000, 123–126. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰς Θεσπρωτοὺς ἀφικνεῖται καὶ γαμεῖ Καλλιδίκην βασιλίδα τῶν Θεσπρωτῶν. μετὰ δὲ τὴν Καλλιδίκης τελευτὴν τὴν μὲν βασιλείαν διαδέχεται Πολυποίτης Ὀδυσσέως υἱός, αὐτὸς δ' εἰς Ἰθάκην ἀφικνεῖται.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

351

(FGrH 382 fr. 15 = Eust. Od. 2.117.17–18)53 and in Sophocles’ lost tragedy Euryalos, the son of Odysseus and Euippe, daughter of King Tyrimmas of Epeiros, is named as Euryalos (Parth. Amat. narr. 3.1–3).54 The traditions from at least the sixth century BCE, therefore recognize an Odyssean origin for the Thesprotian royalty, in the same way that the Molossian royal house develops a Aiacid genealogy and Chaonia linked itself with Hellenus, the Trojan soothsayer.55 This link with Odysseus may have had an important echo in Thesprotia itself since, at least from a certain point in time onwards, they may have been the first to emphasize their Greek origins, particularly before those Greeks who continued to see them as barbarians, as Thucydides would at the end of the fifth century BCE. The Odyssey, as we have seen, already hinted at the relationship that Odysseus had with this territory, with King Pheidon, and with the Dodona sanctuary. Other poets would then go on to develop and expand these links, taking advantage too of the instructions that Odysseus is given by Teiresias in the poem that he must arrive at a place where the people were unaware of the sea and all seafaring ways (Od. 11.121–137).56 Using these elements, Eugammon of Cyrene, perhaps basing the Epirote part of his Telegonia on a previous Thesprotis, would have constructed his plot in which Odysseus became the ancestor of the Thesprotian royal family. The author of this work is not certain57 and as such it is difficult to trace in full the origins of this tradition, although various authors have highlighted the Thesprotian nature of the same, and its possible origins, in order to strengthen the pretensions of local Thesprotian nobility.58 The Thesprotians, since their ever-increasing relations with the outside world, both in coastal regions and especially due to visitors to Dodona, would have known in detail the different traditions that the Greeks had passed down about their land, in which Odysseus played a central role.59 It is not impossible that those who were most involved in contact with these Greeks would eventually modify their ancestral ways of life and add imported objects to their residences and their graves, as archaeology tells us, and begin to take advantage of these stories to justify greater pretensions. It is likely that the region of Dodona 53 Κατὰ δὲ Λυσίμαχον αὐτῷ (τῷ ᾿Οδυσσεῖ) ἐξ Εὐίππης Θεσπρωτίδος Λεοντόφρων, ὃν ἄλλοι Δόρυκλόν φασιν. 54 Jebb et al. 1917, I, 145f. There is an old and extensive bibliography on this topic. We can mention, especially, Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884, 187–191 and Vürtheim 1901, 23– 58. 55 Malkin 1998, 137f; id. 2001, 202f. 56 Huxley 1969, 169. 57 Clemens (Strom. 6.25.1) attributes the authorship of Thesprotis to Musaeus, but his existence is doubtful; however, some authors suggest that Eugammon could have taken a previous poem, perhaps narrating a descent of Odysseus to Hades, and transformed it in a stay of the hero in Thesprotia; see Vürtheim 1901, 49. 58 For instance, Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884: ‚jedermann sieht, dass sie auf thesprotische Localsagen und genealogien hinausläuft‘; this author also believes in an Euboian imprint in these traditions. Likewise, West 2003, 19: ‘The Thesprotian part of his story, which may have existed earlier, was likewise constructed to bolster the pretensions of a local nobility’. 59 Or, as Malkin 1988, 133 puts it: ‘At some point they had become exposed to Greek values attaching ennobling importance to genealogical links with the Nostoi’.

352

Adolfo J. Domínguez

played an important role in these processes, which would also have occurred due to the transformation of some Greek terms such as Selloi to Elloi or Helloi, which would link them with the name for the Greeks, thus explaining why Aristotle and other authors wrote what they did in the fourth century BCE, and what would be echoed in other writers.60 On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that different Greeks other than the Epirotes were interested in locating the origins of their people in this land, especially when the Homeric Poems themselves had made it clear that the original Hellas and the first Greeks were located in different territory (Hom. Il. 2.681–685). As a result, it is possible that there is a relationship between the wishes of the Thesprotian elite, and in particular of its royal family, and the fact that they presented themselves before the increasing number of visitors to the Dodona sanctuary not only as Greeks, but as the oldest of the Greeks. To this end, they would intervene in traditions that were already well established, such as the Selloi, changing the name so that it became Elloi or Helloi, developing the Odyssean genealogies and even considering themselves as the progenitors of other Greeks such as the Thessalians. Indeed, in Herodotus we read that the Thessalians had come “from Thesprotia to dwell in the Aiolian land, the region which they now possess” (Hdt. 8.176; translation A.D. Godley).61 This passage has been interpreted in different ways, including a possible Thessalian interest in justifying its appropriation of lands around Pindos using the tales of ancestral origins in different regions to their historical territories.62 The references in the Catalogue of Ships to the peoples who lived around Dodona and seem to be the ancestors of peoples who, with time, would be included in Thessaly may have contributed towards this. Perhaps, in the same way, and as other authors suggest, the Molossian interest in Neoptolemos may have come from conflict with the Thessalians.63 It is difficult to ascertain how and in what circumstances these stories arose, but in any case, it seems probable that the creation of ethnic identities in these and other territories was carried out by elaborating ideas of opposition and confrontation, which can be expressed in mythical tradition. In this context, we should ask ourselves who would benefit from the notion that their ancestors came from Thesprotia: the Thessalians or the Thesprotians? Although this is not sure, it seems to have been the Thesprotians who would have insisted that the Thessalians came from their land and it seems less likely that the latter developed

60 Among the various testimonies collected by Calce 2011, 95–104, we can mention, as the most explicit, to Hesychius (s.v. ῾Ελλοί): Ελληνες οἱ ἐν Δωδώνῃ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς. 61 Θεσσαλοὶ ἦλθον ἐκ Θεσπρωτῶν οἰκήσοντες γῆν τὴν Αἰολίδα, τήν περ νῦν ἐκτέαται. 62 On the conflicts and tensions between Epirotes and Thessalians for the area around Pindos, see Lepore 1962, 5f; however, some scholars have suggested some type of old relationship between Thessalians and Thesprotians from the prefix Thes- in both ethnonyms: Dakaris 1986, 167. See, also the interesting analysis by Parke 1967, 37–40 about the origin in Thessaly of the cult at Dodona, suggested by some ancient authors, and their political implications. 63 Lepore 1962, 44–47; Malkin 1998, 137 suggests that the Molossian interest for Neoptolemos could be related to the conflicts between the two peoples.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

353

this idea.64 If this were the case, we could interpret it as another indication of the Thesprotian reassertion of their ethnos before other Greek peoples, with whom contact and inter-relations were growing by the day. The fact that it is Herodotus who gives us this information is interesting because it is well known that he visited Dodona and was able to collect information of this kind there from the locals. In the same way, it is also Herodotus who tells us that amongst the colonists who would have immigrated to Ionia, there were Molossians (Hdt. 1.146). This information, it is clear, would have come from informants from these people, perhaps reinterpreting a particular mythical tradition that may go back to the period in which this author was alive. If this interpretation is correct, it seems that already in the fifth century BCE the different Epirote ethne have advanced substantially in the conformation of their ethnic identities and are in the process of finding a way of integrating themselves within the Greek people as a whole, manipulating mythical traditions and adapting them to their own needs. It is difficult to know with certainty when the Molossians took over control of the Dodona sanctuary (Str. 7.7.11),65 but it is likely that it took place during the reign of Tharyps, or at least in the period between the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.66 We have no more data on how the Molossians took control of the sanctuary, but we do know that sometime later the Molossian koinon, or according to some authors, the Molossian monarchy, began to use Dodona as the location for publicizing their political decisions, as certain epigraphs dating back to the reign of Neoptolemos, the son of Alcetas, show (370–368 BCE.).67 Whether or not Dodona was at this time the centre of a Molossian koinon or, as some authors have suggested recently, of just an ‘amphiktyony’68 will not be discussed here as this matter needs further debate, related as it is to the process of the ethnic and political configuration of the Molossians. Dodona was already an important oracular centre open to consultants from many different origins, as shown by some of the lead tablets found there and that can be dated in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE.69 We can, however, assume that the loss of control over the Dodona sanctuary must have been a harsh blow to the Thesprotians, since they had made it their showcase to the outside world, which would increase even more under Molossian con-

64 Sordi 1958, 1–12 has analysed the different traditions about the occupation by the Thessalians of their territory and she has stressed how there are clear contradictions in Herodotus between the establishment in the valley of the Spercheus and their origin in Thesprotia. This would suggest that Herodotus has combined different traditions, possibly from different sources, without having noticed these contradictions. 65 ῾Η Δωδώνη τοίνυν τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ὑπὸ Θεσπρωτοῖς ἦν [...] ὕστερον δὲ ὑπὸ Μολοττοῖς ἐγένετο. 66 Mylonopoulos 2006, 202; Meyer 2013, 13, with part of the previous debate. 67 Evangelidis 1956, 1–13. Although Meyer 2013, 21, 46–60 accepts that they must correspond to this fourth century BCE King, Meyer suggests that ‘may be in its physical form a re-inscription of these fourth-century grants’ which is also difficult to prove. What this scholar intends to show is that, for those times there, a koinon of the Molossians did not exist, but rather, just a state ruled by kings. 68 Meyer 2013, 115. 69 Lhôte 2006, 11–21; Dakaris et al. 2013, passim.

354

Adolfo J. Domínguez

trol. Taking a retrospective viewpoint, Strabo (7.7.5) recognizes Dodona’s importance, in this case for the Molossians, when he assures them that they came into great power (ἐπὶ πλέον ηὐξήθησαν) because of the Aiacid origins of their kings and “because of the fact that the oracle at Dodona was in their country, an oracle both ancient and renowned” (translation H.L. Jones).70 The Molossian pressure on Thesprotian territory would continue in the years that followed.71 It is difficult to observe the reaction of the Thesprotians as a whole at first glance, but we can gain an idea of how some of the sub-ethne groups that were part of this Thesprotian world began to make use of interesting symbols. On this occasion, it is their coins that give us some clues as to their reactions. As Franke noted in his study on the coins of Epeiros (which is still of fundamental importance, although perhaps somewhat outdated in some aspects), it seems that the Eleans were the first of the Thesprotians to make coins, perhaps from 360 BCE onwards. The first of these coins (360–342 BCE) has Pegasus on the obverse, which may have been what made Franke and others believe that Elea was a Corinthian colony, whilst the reverse depicts a trident and the kunee or dog-skin cap of Hades and the legend ΕΛΕΑΙ[ΩΝ]; in later versions the legend reads ΕΛΕΑΤΑΝ.72 Here the Eleans clearly link themselves with the coastal projection of their land and the sanctuary that is located there, which is none other than the Nekyomanteion to which Homer alludes and which, at least from the reign of the tyrant Periander of Corinth, was held to be located in Thesprotia.73 This link is reinforced in the second group of coins (c. 342–340 BCE) that have Persephone on their obverse with a crown of ears of corn, and Kerberos on their reverse side with three heads. Several of the coins of this kind are re-minted on coins from Philip II of Makedonia. The same images appear on the groups III (340–338 BCE) and IV (338–335 BCE); their legends vary between ΕΛΕΑΙ (group II) and ΕΛΕΑΤΑΝ (group III).74 Aside from economic considerations, which are without a doubt important when it comes to coins,75 the minting of coins by Eleans by often reusing the coins of Philip II that had been circulating widely throughout Epirote territory since 350 BCE,76 is a clear sign that 70 καὶ διὰ τὸ παρὰ τούτοις εἶναι τὸ ἐν Δωδώνῃ μαντεῖον, παλαιόν τε καὶ ὀνομαστὸν ὄν. 71 From some scattered information, not always accepted unanimously: Control by Alcetas I of the area of Thesprotia that allowed the crossing to Corcyra (Xen. Hell. 6.2.10); Molossian control in the mid-fourth century BCE of a coastal area in the Gulf of Ambracia (Ps. Scyl. 32); references to the fact that the plain of the Acheron river belonged to Alexander I in 334 BCE (Livy 8.24). Evangelidis 1956, 8–10; Cabanes 1976, 113f; Funke 2000, 142, 154f. 72 Franke 1961, 43f. 73 Against Franke’s Corinthian interpretation of the Pegasus and the trident, Dakaris 1985, 115 suggested that both types were related to the chthonian cult of Poseidon (Ἵππειος Ποσειδῶν), god of spring water and earthquakes. 74 Franke 1961, 44–46; Liampi 2012, 63, 74 on re-coining and, in general, on the Makedonian coins in Epeiros. 75 The coins of Elea, however, seem to have had only a regional circulation since, besides Elea, they have been found so far only in Pandonia, Dodona, Corcyra and Southern Albania: Riginos and Lazari 2013, 375f. A general overview on the economy of Thesprotia in Vasileiadis 2013, 561–579. 76 Liampi 2012, 74.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

355

some Thesprotian communities were advancing towards the reinforcement of their identities, both ethnic and political. Despite some suggestions on the matter, it is difficult to be certain whether the coins of Elea correspond to the ethnos of the Eleans or to the polis of Elea, which is, evidently, the urban centre that this ethnos had created to establish a new political system that was more in line with the processes that are affecting the rest of Epeiros and other parts of these more ‘peripheral’ Greek areas. What the archaeological data does prove is that it is around the middle of the fourth century BCE that several Thesprotian cities are founded, or at least when their walled areas arise. In this way, the first phases of the city walls of Gitana (Goumani), Elea (Kastro Vellianis), and Elina (Dimokastro) seem to be datable back to the middle of the fourth century BCE,77 as part of a process that may have several means of interpretation. One of these interpretations could be related to a policy carried out by the Thesprotian koinon, the political manifestation of the Thesprotian ethnos, of favouring processes of population concentration and fortification to improve the defensive capacities of the Thesprotians against growing Molossian pressure or other threats. On the other hand, however, we should not forget that, bearing in mind the not-so-precise chronological timeframes that archaeology provides us, we could also be facing here the first signs of a new Epirote state, the symmachia of the Epirotes that may have arisen shortly afterwards. However, the fact that we know of the Elean coins and that they have specific features that differentiate them from Molossian coins and those dating back to after the symmachia, seems to suggest that we are dealing here with a demonstration of Thesprotian politics. This impression is confirmed by the fact that there seems to be an important continuity between the coins of Elea and the first Thesprotian coins. Indeed, a small number of coins have been found that carry the legend ΘΕ[ΣΠΡΩΤΩΝ], that have been dated back to around 335/330 BCE by Franke. These coins are similar to those from Elea, with Persephone and her crown of ears of corn on the obverse and Kerberos on the reverse.78 This suggests that the cult dedicated to Persephone and Hades that was at first linked specifically to the Eleans ended up being taken on as a national cult by the Thesprotian ethnos as a whole.79 Despite the fact that the numismatic evidence does not allow us to confirm it, this must have taken place after the loss of the Dodona sanctuary and once it was under Molossian control. It is usually thought that minting of a currency with the name of the Thesprotians is related to the conversion of Gitana into the political centre of the koinon, which seems to be documented by an inscription of manumission discovered there in 1960, dating to around the middle of the fourth century BCE in which explicit mention is made of a προστάτης Θεσπρωτῶν.80

77 Spanodimos 2014, passim and 220f. 78 Franke 1961, 47–51; Papaevangelou-Genakos 2013, 133f; Tzouvara-Soulis 2013, 189f. 79 On the establishment by Odysseus of other sanctuaries devoted to infernal deities in inland Thesprotia (Lycoph. Alex. 800; Steph. Byz. s.v. Βόυνειμα) see Quantin 1999, 80f, 95. 80 Dakaris 1972, 86; Cabanes 1976, 451, 576f; Kanta-Kitsou 2008, 17; cf. Livy 42.38.1.

356

Adolfo J. Domínguez

Of course, this evidence does not imply that the political organization of the Thesprotians in a state or koinon corresponds to this moment in time. Throughout this chapter, we have seen that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a certain ethnic identity was present previously; on the other hand, the information given by Thucydides (although he sees the Thesprotians as barbarians), and the mentioning of the Thesprotians in Epidaurus’ list of thearodokoi (IG IV2.1 95, col. I 26)81 confirm that before these coins appear with the name of the Thesprotians, they were already recognized as an ethnos. As far as we know, these autonomous Thesprotian coins, which were very few and far between, seem to have been in circulation for a very short time. The cause of this seems clear: the creation of the first Epirote state – the symmachia of the Epirotes82 – whose chronology is still the object of debate but whose origins should date back to the reign of Alexander I (343–331 BCE). From this moment onwards, Thesprotia would be included in this new state and the mints of the different ethne that would be included in this state would come to a halt. This would mark the beginning of a new period. Despite this, certain epigraphs that were close to the union,83 as well as the finding in the archive of Gitana of clay stamps with the inscription ΘΕΣΠΡΩΤΩΝ seem to suggest that, even within this new state, the ethnos would have maintained some kind of political affiliation.84 It is not easy to trace the construction of the Thesprotian ethnic identity but it was, undoubtedly, a long process which lasted several centuries. Consequently, our current perception on this issue must be ‘constructivist’ and not ‘essentialist’:85 the Thesprotian ethnos is the result of a series of historical events, which we know only partially, and of a series of conscious (and perhaps, sometimes, unconscious) choices motivated by the interests and needs of the elites and ruling groups. The creation and manipulation of foundation myths was a valuable tool to achieve these goals. So far, we have traced the construction of this ethnos since the so-called ‘Homeric’ times but it is not possible to push this any further, and the ‘essentialist’ view that held that the Thesprotians were installed in Epeiros from the very moment of the ‘arrival’ of the Greeks to Greece, and others like it,86 is no longer tenable.

81 It is generally accepted that the inscription would date between the spring of 356 BCE and the early summer of 355 BCE: Perlman 2000, 70–72. 82 Although we do not have too much data, some authors suggest that the creation of this state would not have been violent but rather the result of diplomatic agreements; Funke 2000, 188. 83 Cabanes 1979, 177f, 580f. 84 On these clay stamps, see Preka-Alexandri 2013, 224; there are also stamps with the name of Molossoi and Chaones: Preka-Alexandri and Stoyas 2011, 679. These stamps, however, have no parallels with the known coins of the Thesprotians and, consequently, its chronology is not certain. 85 Siapkas 2014, 66–81. 86 For instance, Dakaris 1972, 52–54.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

357

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS. As a summary of the key information that has come to light in our analysis, we can conclude the following: The Homeric Poems are the basis for later works that link the Thesprotians and their elites or royal family with Odysseus. In these poems, there is also a suggestion that there is a relationship between the Thesprotians and Dodona. Archaeology confirms, on the one hand, how in some parts of Thesprotia the people start to come into contact with the outside world from the eighth and seventh centuries BCE and, on the other hand, how Dodona begins to become, at this time, an increasingly recognized sanctuary by the Greeks from outside Epeiros. At the same time, part of the population of Thesprotia must have continued living the way of life of their ancestors, which ancient authors define as village-like (kata komas). The increased contact with the outside world may have led to a convergence of interests amongst the elite in terms of a common cult focused on Dodona that may have served to bind together Thesprotian ethnicity and perhaps its first organizational structures, focused without a doubt on the monarchy as a common institution for the different sub-ethne that accepted their belonging to the Thesprotian ethnos. The development of the Odyssean traditions that legitimized the origins of the Thesprotian royal family, in the same way that tracing themselves back to the Aecidae does the same for the Molossian royal family, shows how the different Epirote ethne begin to construct their own ethnic identities. In the same way, the control that the Thesprotian ethnos exercised over Dodona is how they display their ethnos to the rest of the Greek world. This is the same for other sanctuaries that were also Thesprotian, such as the Nekyomanteion, that was not quite as famous as Dodona but still of great importance. As a means of strengthening the traditions of Thesprotian ethnogenesis, other elements came to light too, such as manipulations of the name for the Selloi or those that, perhaps in relation to these interpreters, would come to an end in time, locating the ancestral home of the Greeks themselves, the Old Greece, in Thesprotian land. In relation to this we can also mention other traditions that state that other peoples, such as the Thessalians, can trace their origins back to Thesprotia. In all of the above, we must be aware of the role that the Thesprotian monarchy had to play and, later on, those circles that rose to power when the monarchy fell, to demonstrate their Greek origins, especially when some authors, like Thucydides, do not hold back from pronouncing the Thesprotians and other Epirotes as barbarians. The decline of Thesprotia seems to begin with the loss of control of Dodona at the hands of the Molossians. Despite this, Thesprotia participates in the process of population concentration in urban centres that we can see in other parts of Epeiros and that gives rise to the founding of cities such as Elea and Gitana in the middle of the fourth century BCE. The first of these cities also seems to have been advanced since it coined currency in its own name, emphasizing its relationship with another important Thesprotian sanctuary, the one dedicated to Persephone and Hades. The importance of this link comes to light when the Thesprotian koinon makes its first coins in around the middle of the fourth century BCE, following the model of the

358

Adolfo J. Domínguez

Elean coins and using as common Thesprotian symbols, those of the same sanctuary, once Dodona is already the centre of the Molossian koinon. The creation of the symmachia of the Epirotes opens up a new period in the history of the Thesprotians that we will not tackle here.

Figure 1: Map of Thesprotia

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. (ed.) (2012) 2000–2010 από το Ανασκαφικό Έργο των Εφορειών Αρχαιοτήτων, Athens. Ballabriga, A. (1988) Les fictions d’Homère. L’invention mythologique et cosmographique dans l’Odysée, Paris. Cabanes, P. (1976) L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine, 272–167 av. J.C., Paris. Cabanes, P. (1988) Les habitants des regions situées au Nord-Ouest de la Grèce antique étaient-ils des étrangers aux yeux des gens de Grèce centrale et méridionale?, in R. Lonis (ed.), L’Étranger dans le monde grec, Nancy, 89–111. Calce, R. (2011) Graikoi ed Hellenes: Storia di due etnonimi, Pisa. Dakaris, S. (1972) Θεσπρωτία, Athens. Dakaris, S. (1985) Epiro e Magna Grecia fino all’età arcaica, in Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia. Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 103–131. Dakaris, S. (1986) Οδύσσεια και Ήπειρος, in Ιλιάδα και Οδύσσεια. Μύθος και Ιστορία. Πρακτικά του Δ’ Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια, Ithaca, 141–170.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

359

Dakaris, S., I. Vokotopoulou, and A.P. Christidis (2013) Τα χρηστήρια ελάσματα της Δωδώνης. Των ανασκαφών Δ. Ευαγγελίδη, (S. Tseiika, ed.) Athens. Daux, G. (1959) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1958, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 83, 567–793. Davies, J.K. (2000) A Wholly Non-Aristotelian Universe: The Molossians as Ethnos, State, and Monarchy, in R. Brock, S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 234–258. De Simone, C. (1985) La posizione linguistica dell’Epiro e della Macedonia. Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia, in Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 45–83. Dieterle, M. (2007) Dodona. Religiongeschichtliche und historische Untersuchung zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums, Hildesheim. Douzougli, A. and J.K. Papadopoulos (2010) Liatovouni: A Molossian Cemetery and Settlement in Epìrus, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 125, 1–88. Eidinow, E. (2007) Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, Oxford. Evangelidis, D. (1956) Ψήφισμα τοῦ βασιλέως Νεοπτολέμου ἐκ Δωδώνης, Archaiologiki Ephimeris 95, 1–13. Franke, P.R. (1961) Die antiken Münzen von Epirus. I.– Poleis, Stämme und epirotischer Bund bis 27 v.Chr. Katalog und Untersuchungen, Wiesbaden. Funke, P. (2004) Herodotus and the Major Sanctuaries of the Greek World, in V. Karageorghis and I. Taifacos (eds.), The World of Herodotus, Nicosia, 159–167. Funke, S. (2000) Aiakidenmythos und epeirotisches Königtum: Der Weg einer hellenischen Monarchie, Stuttgart. Hammond, N.G.L. (1945) Naval Operations in the South Channel of Corcyra 435–433 B.C., The Journal of Hellenic Studies 65, 26–37. Hammond, N.G.L. (1967) Epirus. The Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and the Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L. (1997a) The Affinity of the Epirote Tribes with their Neighbours in the Central Balkan Area, in M.B. Sakellariou (ed.), Epirus. 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, Athens, 57–58. Hammond, N.G.L. (1997b) The Tribal Systems of Epirus and Neighbouring Areas Down to 400 B.C., in M.B. Sakellariou (ed.), Epirus. 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, Athens, 54–57. Huxley, G.L. (1969) Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis, London. Ivantchik, A.I. (2005), Am Vorabend der Kolonisation: das nördliche Schwarzmeergebiet und die steppennomaden des 8.–7. Jhs. v. Chr. in der klassischen Literaturtradition: Mündliche Überlieferung, Literatur und Geschichte, Berlin. Jebb, R.C., W.G. Headlam, and A.C. Pearson (1917) The Fragments of Sophocles, Cambridge. Johnston, S.I. (2008) Ancient Greek Divination, Oxford. Kanta–Kitsou, E. (2008) Gitana Thesprotia. Archaeological Guide, Athens. Kanta–Kitsou, E. (2009) Δίκτυο Αρχαιολογικών Χώρων Θεσπρωτίας, Igoumenitsa. Lamprou, A. and E. Saltagianni (2007) Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Ντόλιανης, in Εργασίες ανάδειξης και νέα αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα. Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Ντόλιανης, Igoumenitsa, 5–11. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes. Lepore, E. (1962) Ricerche sull’antico Epiro. Le origini storiche e gli interessi greci, Napoli. Lhôte, E. (2006) Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, Geneva. Liampi, K. (2012) Royal Macedonian Coins in Epirus in the Historical Context, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 62, 55–96. Luce, J.M. (2010) Homère, les sanctuaires et le temps, Gaia 13, 9–55. Malkin, I. (1998) The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization and Ethnicity, Berkeley. Malkin, I. (2001) Greek Ambiguities: ‘Ancient Hellas’ and ‘Barbarian Epirus’, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, 187–212.

360

Adolfo J. Domínguez

Metallinou, G., E. Kanta–Kitsou, and G. Riginos (2012) ΛΒ΄ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων, in M. Andreadaki–Vlazaki (ed.), 2000–2010 από το Ανασκαφικό Έργο των Εφορειών Αρχαιοτήτων, Athens, 349–354. Meyer, E.A. (2013) The Inscriptions of Dodona and a New History of Molossia, Stuttgart. Meyer, E.A. (2015) Molossia and Epeiros, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 297–318. Mylonopoulos, J. (2006) Das Heiligtum des Zeus in Dodona. Zwischen Orakel und venatio., in J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds.), Archäölogie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands, Wien, 185–214. Nesselrath, H.G. (1999) Dodona, Siwa und Herodot – ein Testfall für den Vater der Geschichte, Museum Helveticum 56, 1–14. Ogden, D. (2014) How ‘Western’ Were the Ancient Oracles of the Dead?, in L. Breglia and A. Moleti (eds.), Hespería. Tradizioni, rotte, paesaggi, Paestum, 211–226. Papaevangelou-Genakos, C. (2013) The Monetary Systems of Epirus, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 131–157. Papapostolou, I.A. (2010) Aspects of Cult in Early Thermos, Archaiologiki Ephimeris 149, 1–59. Papapostolou, I.A. (2011) The New Excavations under the Early Archaic Temple of Thermos: Megaron A, Megaron B and the ash-altar, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), The ‘Dark Ages’ Revisited, I, Volos, 129–145. Parke, H.W. (1967) The Oracles of Zeus. Dodona. Olympia. Ammon, Oxford. Pearson, L. (1939) Thucydides and the Geographical Tradition, Classical Quarterly 33, 48–54. Perlman, P. (2000) City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese, Göttingen. Preka-Alexandri, K. (2013) Νομισματικοί τύποι σε σφραγίσματα από τα Γίτανα της Θεσπρωτίας, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 221–233. Preka-Alexandri, K. and Y. Stoyas (2011) Economic and Socio–Political Glimpses from Gitana in Thesprotia: the testimony of stamped amphora handles, coins and clay sealings, in J.L. Lamboley and M.P. Castiglioni (eds.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité, V, 2, Paris, 663–683. Quantin, F. (1999) Aspects épirotes de la vie religieuse Antique, Revue des Études Grecques 112, 61–98. Riginos, G. (2005) Δήμος Φυλιατών. Δ.Δ. Αετού. Θέση Σκάλα (οικόπεδο Αποστόλου η Μιχα), AD 60 Χρονικά B1, 573–575. Riginos, G. and K. Lazari (2007) Ελέα Θεσπρωτίας. Αρχαιολογικός οδηγός του χώρου και της ευρύτερης περιοχής, Athens. Riginos, G. and K. Lazari (2013) Νομίσματα από την Ελέα Θεσπρωτίας, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens: 373–384. Rohdenberg, R. and J. Marks (2012) Taphians and Thesprotians in the Odyssey and Beyond, Kyklos 1, http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5192 (Last accessed March 2016). Siapkas, J. (2014) Ancient Ethnicity and Modern Identity, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 66–81. Sordi, M. (1958) La lega tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno, Rome. Spanodimos, C. (2014), Αστικές οχυρώσεις στη Θεσπροτία. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της οχυρωματικής της αρχαίας Ηπείρου (M.A. Thesis), University of Crete. Tréheux, J. (1953) La réalité historique des offrandes hyperboréennes, in Studies presented to D.M. Robinson II, St. Louis, 758–774. Tzortzatou, A. and G. Fatsiou (2006) Νέα στοιχεία για τη Θεσπρωτία των Γεωμετρικών και Αρχαïκών Χρόνων, Epeirotiká Chroniká 40, 61–90.

The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations

361

Tzortzatou, A. and L. Fatsiou (2009) New Early Iron Age and Archaic Sites, in B. Forsén (ed.), Thesprotia Expedition, I. Towards a Regional History, Helsinki, 39–53. Tzouvara-Soulis, C. (2013) Θεότητες, ήρωες, λατρευτικά σύμβολα στα ηπειρωτικά νομίσματα των κλασικών και των ελληνιστικών χρόνων και στα νομίσματα των αποικιών της Ηπείρου, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 185–199. Vasileiadis, S. (2013) Το μεταπρατικό εμπόριο ως δείκτης της αστικοποίησης των θεσπρωτικών πόλεων, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 561– 579. Vlachopoulou-Oikonomou, A. (2003) Επισκόπηση της τοπογραφίας της Αρχαίας Ηπείρου: Νομοί Ιωαννίνων – Θεσπρωτίας και Νότια Αλβανία, Ioannina. Vokotopoulou, J. (1986) Bίτσα: τα νεκρoταφεία μιάς μoλoσσικής κώμης, Athens. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1884) Homerische Unterschungen, Berlin. Vürtheim, J. (1901) De Eugammonis cyrenaei Telegonia, Mnemosyne 29, 23–58. West, M.L. (ed.) (2003) Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC., Cambridge, Mass.

BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ETHNIC: THE KOINON MAKEDONŌN AND THE MAKEDONES REVISITED Katerina Panagopoulou University of Crete, Rethymno Unlike many Greek States of the south, which defined themselves to a large extent through participation in federal institutions from quite an early stage in their histories, this sort of federal practice did not form part of the tradition of the Makedonian kingdom. The two constituent parts of the Makedonian state were the ethnos (Mακεδόνες) and the king. The Mακεδόνες expressed their will through the ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), which held a few regular meetings each year, and through a restricted board of magistrates, termed by Justin (17.3.2) as ‘senatus’, and smaller ethne (ἔθνη), i.e. regional groupings of rural communities, under a prostatas (προστάτας), usually assisted by a secretary belonging to one of the minor ethne. As the semi-independent ethne in so-called Upper Makedonia, to the West of the river Axios (i.e. the Elimiotai, the Orestai, the Tymphaei-Paravaei) were granted polis status, each political unit in Makedonia had its own politeia, legislation (νόμοι), and government bodies (ἐκκλησία, βουλή, ἄρχοντες, variously called ταγοί, δικασταὶ etc.). These were administered by an epistates (ἐπιστάτης) and by an epōnymos archōn (ἐπώνυμoς ἄρχων). Τhe common federal features shared by Thessaly, Makedonia, and Epeiros, but which distinguish them from the ‘bundesstaatlichen Sympolitien’ of the South, have been summarized by Hatzopoulos with two key characteristics: first, the hereditary nature of the Head of State, and second, the absence of a regular synedrion of any sort other than the king’s Companions and Friends, who were chosen by the king through civic élites.1 That the Head of State was elected in theory, but in practice was hereditary, not only considerably limited the Mακεδόνες’ influence over foreign policy (including war), but also restricted reactions to any royal demand for additional revenues. Hatzopoulos thus regards the formulae ‘Μακεδόνες’, ‘τὸ Μακεδόνων ἔθνος’, ‘αἱ πόλεις Μακεδόνων’, ‘αἱ κατὰ Μακεδονίαν πόλεις’ as equivalent, mutatis mutandis to those from Thessaly (τò ἔθνος τῶν Θεσσαλῶν, αἱ πόλεις αἱ ἐν Θεσσαλίαι) and from Epeiros Ἠπειρῶται = τò ἔθνος / κοινὸν τò Ἠπειρωτᾶν) but there are no equivalent documents. Hatzopoulos points out the king’s direct relationship with the Makedonians: he set the regulations for the army and ordered (in writing) the epistatai (ἐπιστάται) under his direct jurisdiction, i.e.

1

Hatzopoulos 2003. In addition to the editors, anonymous readers and participants in the conference, I should like to thank Dr. Paschalis Paschidis for his comments

364

Katerina Panagopoulou

on religious affairs, and arbitrations between local political units; he also wrote ordinances, i.e. diagrammata (διαγράμματα) requiring a formal legislative decision by the local civic authorities and, finally, he wrote letters prompting the locals’ decisions which were jointly addressed to the local magistrates, council, and assembly. As for regional administration, it is indeed Philip II, rather than the Romans, whom Hatzopoulos credits with the division of Makedonia into regional districts, merides (μερίδες), and with putting together the Makedonian koinon. Diverging from the communis opinio since Larsen’s Greek Federal States,2 he dates the formation of these divisions before Alexander III by virtue of their mention in Arrian’s Anabasis (Arr. Anab. 1.2.5) even though they are not explicitly termed merides. Hatzopoulos argues that it was the Thessalian tetrarchies, namely Histiaiotis, Thessaliotis, Pelasgiotis, and Phthiotis, which inspired Philip II to divide the Makedonian realm into these divisions with local capitals (Amphipolis, Thessalonike, Pella, ?Herakleia), in order to enhance control of the autonomous cities through the strategoi, who were presumably appointed in their respective districts. He therefore argues that, by 325 BCE, scores of autonomous communities sent delegates to festivals coinciding with the meetings of the Common Assembly, of which, however, they did not form an integral part, and that by the early third century the administrative organization under Philip II was resumed in the kingdom through to the Roman conquest.3 The rather frail equilibrium among the Head of State, the ethnos, and the local political units ultimately led Hatzopoulos to underplay the discussion of the Makedonian koinon, at least in the early stages of the kingdom. With this background in mind, in this article I will set out to review the existing evidence for the formation, structure, and functions of the ‘Makedonian koinon’ and to identify its potential changes through time. I will also compare the use of the term ‘Makedonian koinon’ and explore its association with ‘the Makedonians’, at an attempt to draw the limits between the federal and the ethnic use of the latter term in the light of the epigraphic, numismatic, and literary evidence available. I. DATE OF FORMATION & STRUCTURE Τhere is no concrete evidence concerning the emergence of the Makedonian koinon, or its specific institutional structure. In regard to the latter, the scholarly consensus until recently was that the merides, the administrative districts into which the Makedonian state was divided, were an innovation of the Roman settlement of 167 BCE. According to Livy (45.18.7, 45.29.11, based on Polyb. 31.2.12, 17.1–2, 35.4.11), Diodorus Siculus (31.8.7–8), and Strabo (7, fr. 47), the Romans divided Makedonia into four separate regions in 167 BCE: the first lay East of the Strymon, with Amphipolis as its capital, the second between Strymon and Axios, with its capital at 2 3

Larsen 1968, 295–300. Hatzopoulos 2015, 333–337; Hatzopoulos 2003; Hatzopoulos 1996, 231–260, esp. 253.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

365

Thessaloniki, the third between Axios and Peneus, with its capital at Pella, and the fourth comprising Upper Makedonia, Lyncestis, Orestis, and Elimiotis, with Herakleia as its possible capital (Pelagonia). All the regions paid half of what the monarchy had levied from them to Rome – and this is the first time we hear of such taxation previously imposed by the monarchy. Conubium and commercium between the different regions were forbidden, as was the exploitation of the mines and the importation of salt, presumably encompassing both domestic trade among these regions and ‘foreign’ trade with neighbouring polities. It has been argued that the ban on salt had an equally heavy impact as that on mining.4 Historical arguments based on new materials cast doubts on the Roman character of the merides and Olivier Picard was the first to suggest otherwise (in 1982), based on his dating of the minting of the silver tetradrachm type with the head of Zeus on the obverse and Artemis Tauropolos on the reverse at the time of the Antigonid kings.5 His view, supported by Touratsoglou and by Hatzopoulos, is now corroborated by the dating of Ilya Prokopov of the silver (and few bronze) coinages of the first, second and fourth meris prior to 168 BCE and by the attribution by Sophia Kremydi-Sicilianou of a rare didrachm, carrying on the obverse a Makedonian shield and a club within an oak-wreath on the reverse, signed with the rare inscription ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ on the obverse, ΠΡΩΤΗΣ ΜΕΡΙΔΟΣ on the reverse, to the reign of Philip V.6 It has therefore plausibly been argued that the division of Makedonia into merides may be dated higher to the reign of Philip V rather than 167 BCE. But could the existing evidence on the division of Makedonia into μερίδες be pushed to an even earlier date? I am inclined to argue that the numismatic corpus of the precious metal issues struck by the early Antigonid kings may actually add some numismatic pieces to this puzzle. In fact, one might be tempted to recognise in the letters M, E, and Ρ, which occur in many of the monograms of the Antigonid silver coinage (see, for instance, the monograms marked in Figure 1.8; Panagopoulou 2001, 318, pl. 11.2; Panagopoulou forthcoming, chapter 6.2.4), the first three letters of the term ‘meris’ (‘μερίς’). The varied combinations of these letters are indeed quite persistent and occur on a large number of Antigonid Pan specimens: in fact, they run 4 5 6

Crawford 1985, 127–129. Picard 1982, 246. Prokopov 2012. See also Hatzopoulos 1996, 250–255; Touratsoglou 1993. On the rare didrachm MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΗΣ ΜΕΡΙΔΟΣ, see Kremydi-Sicilianou 2007; on the Tauropolos tetradrachms of the First Meris, see Kremydi-Sicilianou 2009. On the (roughly contemporary) silver coinage of Philip V, on the second series (beardless head of the hero Perseus as episema of a Makedonian shield / club in oak wreath), see Burrer 2009. Juhel 2011 argues that there is neither direct nor indirect evidence for the existence of merides under the kings. Hatzopoulos 2012, no.265 counters this suggestion by arguing that the literary evidence concerning the Makedonian army (Arr. Anab. 1.2.5, Polyb. 5.9.73/4), coins, inscriptions (Gonnoi II no.98: ἐν Βοττείαι; Hatzopoulos 1996a, 241f; I.Beroia 4 l. 8/9), and the office of the strategoi (I.Beroia 1; SEG 39.606) prove the existence of merides under the kings. One may also add that the existence of the administrative term meris in the East in the early Hellenistic period might imply the prior existence of such an administrative division in Makedonia; on the meris as an administrative division in the satrapy of ‘Syria and Phoenicia’ in the Seleukid kingdom, for instance, see Aperghis 2004, 271, with earlier bibliography.

366

Katerina Panagopoulou

through the first three periods of Antigonid coin production; in other words, they continue until c. 229 BCE, i.e. until the period of reign of Antigonos Doson. It may also be argued that they were continued in the monogram ME, which occurs on the ‘Zeus / Artemis Tauropolos’ silver tetradrachms of Philip V and on the coinages of Perseus.7 This could suggest the geographical division of Makedonia into districts since Gonatas and perhaps the districts’ involvement in the striking of new coinage or in the supply of silver in the Antigonid kingdom, or ultimately in the payment of some sort of taxation to the king. In fact, the absence of any letters, A, B, or Δ, to indicate which meris issued which variation might refer to a period in which specifying which district struck which coinage did not really matter; namely at a time when commercium among districts was enabled, or when taxation was imposed to the Makedonian koinon as a whole and was collected through the administrative divisions of the merides. If my reading of the above monograms is correct, one would be tempted to interpret the mention of the merides on the Antigonid royal silver tetradrachms through these monograms as evidence of some sort of cooperation between the Makedonians and the king for the production of this coinage or possibly the use of this coinage for specific payments on behalf of the meris to the king. In other words, the presence of a monogram representing the administrative merides in this royal coinage may be interpreted as the numismatic equivalent of the epigraphic formula ‘ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ’, which occurs in the official royal texts of the Antigonid period.8 But no further pieces of evidence may be combined with Arr. Anab. 1.2.5, in order to corroborate Hatzopoulos’s dating of the inauguration of this Koinon to the time of Philip II.9 7

8

9

On this monogram on the reverse of the silver Tauropolos tetradrachms of the first meris, see Kremydi-Sicilianou 2009, 201, nos.1–2. The occurrence of this monogram on bronze and silver specimens of kings Philip V and Perseus alongside silver (smaller denominations) and bronzes of the Makedonians but also of Amphipolis, of the fourth meris and of Makedonia as a Roman province are depicted in Kremydi-Sicilianou 2009, 196, Table. On the epigraphic formula ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ, see, for instance, Hatzopoulos 1996a, 313f, 491; On equivalents, such as [βασιλεὺ]ς Πύρρο[ς καὶ Ἀπειρῶτ]αι, see Hatzopoulos 1996a, 491 n.2. The Makedonian koinon, if it existed any earlier than Gonatas, might have been somehow involved in the striking of the so-called ‘anonymous’ bronze issues carrying on the obverse a Makedonian shield with a symbol on its central badge (i.e. gorgoneion, head of Herakles, club, caduceus, omphalos, gorgoneion, prow, double-axe, torch), with the legend letters B-A but without the name of a king. Liampi dates these issues, which are comparable to Makedonian royal bronzes with monograms in the centre of the Makedonian shield, to the late fourth century BCE, but, in the absence of a full reverse legend, leaves their issuing authority open: Liampi 1986, 54f; Price 1991, 116f; Liampi 1998, 101–105 (M 7–15), pl. 23. Their association with the Makedonian koinon is not incompatible with the fact that they are combined with (roughly contemporary) Makedonian royal bronzes with similar iconography, but such an attribution remains highly conjectural. The letters B-A might have been legitimate, as the Makedonians have always been presented as cooperating with their king. If the Makedonian koinon existed during the period of the interregnum (285–77/6 BCE), then the general Sosthenes who attempted to rescue the country from the Celtic invaders might have been among its leading figures: Euseb. Chron. I (Schoene), 235–236; Diod. Sic. 22.4; Justin 24.6.1–2. See Scholten 2003, 138, 157; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 253f.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

367

II. THE SYNEDRION Turning to the early function of the koinon in the early Antigonid period, if not earlier, it is indeed remarkable that a body such as a synedrion is not attested in this koinon until 167 BCE. The lack of evidence concerning its formal decisions might be assigned to the dearth of inscriptions from this period, or to the absence of any such epigraphic culture from this koinon. The Makedonians who made dedications, together with King Antigonos Doson and their allies, to Delian Apollo subsequent to the battle of Sellasia in 222 BCE are best regarded as co-representatives of the Makedonian state rather than as members of the koinon.10 But prior to this document, it is indeed uncertain whether the dossier granting asylia at the Asklepieion at Kos in 243 BCE is complete. The four decrees corroborating this asylia issued by prominent Northern Greek cities, namely Kassandreia, Amphipolis, Philippoi, and Pella, are – for the moment – not paired with any similar act by the Makedonian king and / or by the koinon11. The king’s willingness to recognise the shrine’s asylia is, for one thing, explicitly taken into account by the Kassandreians (l. 10), the citizens of Amphipolis ((l. 13–14) and of Philippoi (l. 13–14), but is not documented independently. Nor have the Makedonian king or the koinon issued any such documents concerning any other inviolable shrines in the Greek world – unlike the Cretan League, which acknowledged the inviolability of the temple of Apollo at Anaphe. Turning to Asia Minor, several Leagues of the Greek mainland acknowledged the asylia of sanctuaries, such as that of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia on the Maeander, the sanctuary of Dionysos at Teos and that of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamum. In addition to the Aitolian League, which occurs in all cases, the temple at Magnesia was also respected by several Greek Leagues, by (Seleukid, Attalid and Ptolemaic) kings and by cities, including Delphi12; while the sanctuary of Dionysos at Teos was recognised as inviolable also by Delphi, and by several Cretan cities acting independently from the contemporary Koinon of the Creteaeans. The Delphic Amphictyony took position explicitly in the last two cases only. We would indeed expect the Koinon to have been asked to respond to the granting of asylia at the Asklepieion at Kos in 243 BCE; The exact wording of the respective decrees deserves attention: in the first place, the Koan theōroi presented themselves explicitly in the civic ekklēsia only at Philippoi and at Amphipolis; in

10 Hatzopoulos 1996, no. 24. 11 Philippoi: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.36; Amphipolis: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.41; Kassandreia: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.47; Pella: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.58. A discussion of the four decrees may be found ιn Hatzopoulos 1996a, 127, 139–147, 161–163, 182 n. 5, 183, 203, 365f; Rigsby 1996, nos 23–27 (adding a possible fragment of a fifth decree, from Pydna). See also Buraselis 2004. 12 The Greek Leagues officially acknowledging the asylia of Artemis Leukophryene were the Boiotian, the Aitolian, the Akarnanian, the Epirote, the Phokian and the Achaian respectively: Rigsby 1996, 190.

368

Katerina Panagopoulou

Kassandreia they received a response by the boule.13 In renewing their goodwill vis-à-vis the institutional authorities of the respective cities, it is remarkable that only in the decrees from Amphipolis and from Pella do they emphasise their familiarity with and closeness to the Makedonians prior to mentioning their favour towards the respective cities alongside king Antigonos and the Makedonians.14 At Kassandreia, the Koan theōroi reviewed the favour of their city “towards king Antigonos and the city of Kassandreia and the rest of the Makedonians”, as one would expect.15 In the decree from Philippoi, the Koans express their dignity to the Makedonians in a different order: the city and king are mentioned first, then reference is made to ‘the rest of the Greeks’ and then to the Makedonians. 16 At Kassandreia the Koan theōroi are praised for maintaining their good will “to king Antigonos and to their city (i.e. Kassandreia) and to all the Makedonians”, but at Amphipolis and at Pella it is only their good will vis-à-vis king Antigonos and the Makedonians that is reciprocated (l. 7–8);17 the cities are not mentioned. One might indeed wonder whether these differences in the wording chosen by the above cities were purely coincidental. Leaving aside Philippoi, which lay beyond the immediate Makedonian nucleus, a comparison of the four texts shows that there are more nuances favouring the Makedonians, and king Antigonos and the Makedonians, respectively in the texts from Amphipolis and Pella. Praise of the disposition of the Koan theōroi towards the Makedonians is mentioned early in the texts of both cities, and both decrees conclude by complimenting the Koans’ good will towards the king as well as towards the Makedonians in general. It is, of course, worth noting that the two cities that rank the Makedonians and the king so highly in their decrees are precisely the cities that were explicitly named capitals of two regions in the Roman settlement of 167 BCE. Might they have enjoyed some similar status any earlier? Potential evidence regarding the Makedonians and their koinon proliferates only slightly from the time of Philip V onwards. An unpublished decree of the Makedonians discovered at the agora at Dion, which was presented by D. Pantermalis in December 1993, appears to be in a similar vein as the set of four decrees 13 Philippoi: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.36, ll. 5f (ἐπελθόντες ἐπί τὴν ἐκκλησίαν); Amphipolis: ibid., no.41, l. 5f (ἐπελθόντες ἐπί τὴν ἐκκλησίαν); Kassandreia: ibid., no.47, l. 8 (δεδόχθαι τῇ βουλῇ). 14 Amphipolis: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.41, ll. 6f (τήν τε οἰκειότητα ἀνενεώσαντο τὴν ὑπάρχουσα Κώοις πρὸς Μακεδόνας καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν ἐνεφάνιζον, ἣν ἔχουσαν διατελεῖ ἡ πόλις πρός τε τόν βασιλέα Ἀντίγονον καὶ πρὸς Μακεδόνας); Pella: ibidem, no.58, ll. 3f (τήν τε οἰκειότητα ἀνενεώσαντο τὴν ὑπάρχουσα Κώοις πρὸς Μακεδόνας καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν ἀπελογίζοντο, ἥν τυγχάνουσα ἔχει ἡ πόλις ἡ Κώιων πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ἀντίγονον καὶ πρὸς Πελλαίους καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν χώραν τὴν Μακεδόνων). 15 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.47, ll. 5–7. 16 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.36, ll. 6–8, 12f. 17 Amphipolis: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.41, ll. 12f; but earlier, in ll. 7f, the Koan theoroi are quoted to have shown the good will which Amphipolis always had to king Antigonos and the Makedonians. Pella: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.58, l. 11f; Rigsby 1996, no.23; but note the peculiar reference to the land of the Makedonians (ll. 4f); Rigsby 1996, 135 interprets ‘chora’ in terms of ‘nation’ or ‘community’, and provides parallels with I.Maccabees 15.16 and I.Labraunda 42.10.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

369

granting asylia to Kos. This decree is only indirectly known and is dated by Hatzopoulos, through information drawn by Alain Bresson and by J.–Y. Empereur to before 179 BCE, namely during the reign of Philip V when Kyzikos dispatched sacred envoys throughout, claiming asylia as instigator of the festival Soteria in honour of Persephone Soteira.18 A reconciliation with Kyzikos falls in line with the period when Philip V reformed Makedonian foreign relations, even though the Kyzicene theoroi carefully mention friendship between Kyzikos and the king’s ancestors – but not Philip himself. The Koinon Makedonōn makes an explicit appearance in two more dedications in international sanctuaries honouring Philip V, one at Delos and one at the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace.19 In the former, ‘the koinon Makedonōn’ honours Philip because of his aretē and because of his favour towards them; in the second document, it is the ‘Makedones’ (without an article) who honour Philip son of Demetrios to the Great Gods. A similar, though more cryptic, dedication ‘in honour of king Perseus, son of Philip’, was found at Dion.20 Finally, an unpublished fragment of a law from Dion, presented by D. Pantermalis in 1993, preserving clauses of a fiscal law, might also fall in the context of the koinon.21 Given that Dion was the official sanctuary of the Makedonian koinon, assigning this document to the period of reign of Philip V need not be excluded a priori. Turning to coins once more, instead of the mainstream view associating the proliferation from the reign of Philip V onwards of coins inscribed as MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ with specific references to merides, first, second or fourth, with the grant to these administrative divisions of greater autonomy,22 we may instead consider these coordinated issues by the kings, the merides and the cities in the last decades of Antigonid reign as indicative of intensified monetary production, presumably in response to additional taxation or to extra expenses, in view of the war against Rome. After all, Livy attests that the 100 talents the Makedonians were required to pay to the Romans were half of the sum that they were required to pay the Antigonids, thus 200 talents.23 In addition to the similar tetradrachms of the First and of the Second regions, with a head of Artemis at the centre of a Makedonian shield and with a club in an oak wreath on the reverse [Figure 1–2 (first region), 01.5 (second region)], we may likewise include a small tetradrachm issue with the types Head of Zeus / Artemis Tauropolos, above MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ, below ΑΜΦΑΞΙΩΝ (Figure 7). We now also know of a small issue of bronze coins carrying on the reverse the legend ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ ΤΕΤΑΡΤΗΣ (Figure 1.6). The absence of coins minted by the third meris remains uncontested to date. As the third meris is attested as having been a large producer of salt (Livy 45.29.13), presumably 18 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.32, but note the inconsistency between the official dating on p. 51 to 225–200 BCE and the commentary on the inscription, which implies a terminus ante quem to ca. 179 BCE; Rigsby 1996, no.171. 19 Hatzopoulos 1996b, nos.33 and 34, respectively. 20 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.35. 21 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.56. 22 Franke 1957. 23 Liv. 45.18.7 et dimidium tributi, quam quod regibus ferre soliti erant, populo Romano pendere.

370

Katerina Panagopoulou

it was the ban on the salt trade that was intended to complement the ban on the processing of silver in the First and Second regions.24 Following several revolts culminating in the rebellion of Philippos Andriskos, the settlement of 167 BCE was soon replaced by the transformation of Makedonia into a Roman province in 148 BCE.25 The actual process of its organisation into a Roman province remains unknown, though after 148 BCE, the Roman governors, their officers, and military troops were omnipresent in Makedonia. During the imperial period, the archiereus tōn Sevastōn, who annually organised and presided at the synedrion, an assembly of the delegates of the city-members, was responsible for the sacrifices made for the emperor, for the election of the archiereus for the next year, and for the attribution of honorific titles.26 Most information about the cult personnel comes from Philippoi and derives from the imperial cult, demonstrating thus its social importance and high organisation level. Even though it is often hard to define from the epigraphic evidence available whether people participated in religious cult in private or in public, the mention of agonothetes in honour of a specific deity or of the emperors reveals that festivals were part of cult practice.27 It remains unclear, however, whether the koinon was re-founded in the Imperial period, possibly under Augustus, as an institution responsible for the imperial cult or whether it was considered an extension of the earlier Hellenistic koinon. The earliest inscription mentioning the koinon of the Makedonians, the synedrion, and the merides comes from Beroia and is dated to the Flavian period,28 however, it is so mutilated that it does not even attest to the presence of local synedria. The coin issues of the Roman koinon first occur in the Julio-Claudian period during the reign of Claudius, but the legend reads ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ (rather than ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ); the full federal legend only appears at the time of Domitian.29 Papazoglou casts doubt on the continued existence of the Makedonian koinon after 24 Crawford 1985, 131. He also notes the equally large issues of Maroneia and Thasos in roughly the same period; Prokopov 2006 agrees that the coinages of Thasos, in particular, circulated broadly in the North but disproves of Crawford’s remark that virtually all the Makedonian and Thasian issues in the hoards of the North Balkans were local imitations. On the imitations of coinages of Alexander III and of Thasos in the Balkans, also see Lukavk 1996. 25 T. Liv. Per. 45, 50 already in 167 BCE mentions that Macedonia in provinciae formam redacta. 26 Papazoglou 1998, 143. 27 Egelhaaf-Greiser, Rüpke and Tsochos 2007, esp. p. 59; Tsochos 2007; Egelhaaf-Gaiser, Steimle & Tsochos 2003; Steimle 2007; Tsochos-Steimle 2001; Tsochos 2001. On the significance of the Roman imperial cult under the Empire, Herz 2008; Camia 2011, 243-7. On the role of the Roman imperial cult among the koina in Greece, see, for instance, Camia 2011, 229– 242. 28 Kanatsoulis 1953, 296–299; Kanatsoulis 1953–1955; Cormack 1970. 29 Gaebler 1904, 259. RPC assigns three issues ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ to the Makedonian koinon during the Julio-Claudian period, one for Claudius, one for Nero, and one for Vitellius (RPC I, 303– 305), and two more under the Flavians: one for Vespasian, with the reverse legend ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ, and one for Domitian (RPC II, 74, nos.331–336). It is only under Domitian that the legend ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ first occurs on the reverse legend of the two known die combinations (ibid., nos.335f).

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

371

148 BCE, because once Roman officials took over the administration of Makedonia, there was no further need for the merides as regional administrators of any sort. Beroia was made capital of the Roman koinon and hosted festivals in honour of the emperors, in whose family members’ names were erected neokoria temples, and continued to function as such through to the mid-third century CE.30 Alongside the prolific issues Beroia struck as capital of the Koinon of the Makedonians (carrying the legend ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ) since the reign of Claudius, it also issued a limited number of coins in its own name as a metropolis for the first time in its history.31 It is also worth noting that significant koinon officials, such as makedoniarchai, agonothetai, synedroi, emerge from the approximately thirty known honorific inscriptions issued by the Roman Makedonian koinon during the second and the third centuries CE.32 Special reference should be made to the unusual though still sizeable issue that the Makedonian koinon struck in the third century CE in the name of Alexander the Great, presumably at Beroia. This coinage, which comes in many different types, has been associated with the celebration of the Alexandrian Olympian Games in the reign of Gordian III on the occasion of the 600th anniversary of Alexander’s birth.33 III. MERIDES The discussion presented so far fails to specify the exact date of the first appearance of the Κοινόν Μακεδόνων and its fragmentation into merides. Hatzopoulos bases his dating of the division of the Makedonian region into merides to the time of Philip II upon the distinction by Arrian between cavalrymen coming from Upper Makedonia and those from Bottiaia and from Amphipolis in his Anabasis already during the Triballian and Illyrian campaigns between spring and the late summer of 335 BCE: the former were placed by Philotas at the right wing, while the last two were placed at the left wing of the Makedonian army.34 Hatzopoulos interprets this

30 Kanatsoulis 1953–1955, 38–43; Papazoglou 1988, 143 n.18; Touratsoglou 2006. 31 On the provincial coinage ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ stuck under Claudius, see RPC I, 303f, nos.1610– 1612; Gaebler 2004; the assignation of these issues to Thessaloniki (rather than Beroia) in RPC I is based on an earlier (1979) version by Papazoglou on the Roman Makedonian Koinon: Papazoglou 1979; but see Papazoglou 1988, 143 n.18. 32 On these inscriptions, see O. Walter, ‘Funde in Griechenland von Frühjahr 1940 bis Herbst 1941, ArchAnz 57 1942, 99–200, esp. 174–184; Bull. Épigr. 1942, n.96; Papazoglou 1988, 143 n.18 mentions twenty-eight honorific inscriptions. One may add to these inscriptions SEG 45 710 [Nigdelis, Klio 77 1995, 170–183], SEG 46 734 [I.Beroia 68f], SEG 48 736, SEG 52 583. On the makedoniarchai, Kanatsoulis 1973. 33 Burnett 2000; Dahmen 2005. 34 Arr. Anab. 1.2.5: Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὡς προήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς νάπης ἔξω, Φιλώταν μὲν ἀναλαβόντα τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν Μακεδονίας ἱππέας προσέταξεν ἐμβάλλειν κατὰ τὸ κέρας τὸ δεξιόν, ᾗπερ μάλιστα προὐκεχωρήκεσαν ἐν τῇ ἐκδρομῇ· Ἡρακλείδην δὲ καὶ Σώπολιν τοὺς ἐκ Βοττιαίας τε καὶ Ἀμφιπόλεως ἱππέας κατὰ τὸ εὐώνυμον κέρας ἐπάγειν ἔταξε. On Juhel’s doubts on the existence of merides and on the response by Hatzopoulos to Juhel’s argumentation, see

372

Katerina Panagopoulou

administrative innovation as an institutional transfer inspired by the (much earlier) division of Thessaly into tetrads.35 But it ought to be admitted that the evidence for the division of Makedonia into administrative regions termed as merides since Philip II, drawn from Arrian’s Anabasis, is rather feeble: the extrapolation of the existence of such administrative divisions from their representation in the military sector is perfectly legitimate, yet such distinctions are not documented in times of peace. It is also worth noting that even if these divisions existed at the time, they did not carry any names more specific than regional names, i.e. Upper Makedonia, Bottiaia, Amphipolis (a city rather than a region). If the recruitment system depended on such divisions, one would then expect that they would be followed more consistently in Alexander’s army during his campaign in Asia Minor. One would also have expected the merides to have been represented in the army recruited by Sosthenes against the Celts (under Brennos) during the interregnum of 278–277 BCE and the concomitant anarchy that ensued from the controversy between Antipater, Ptolemy, and Arridaeus, which in turn led to the brief leadership by Ptolemy Keraunus, Meleager, Antipater, and Sosthenes.36 I have argued above that the numismatic evidence not only confirms the existence of such administrative divisions since Antigonos Gonatas, but that it also shows their continuation through to the time of Perseus. In order to agree to a formation of the merides during the 4th century BCE, however, more concrete evidence, epigraphic, numismatic or otherwise, is necessary. Equally contested is the origin of such administrative divisions: Hatzopoulos assigns their implementation to a transfer from the administrative divisions in Thessaly, termed as ‘tetrades’ (τετράδες)’.37 The latter had been introduced by Aleuas Pyrrhochrous / Pyrrhos in the second half of the 6th century BCE and initially played a military role; they were gradually associated with lots of land (kleroi) and were expected to contribute an army comprising a cavalry of forty and eighty hoplites each. Each tetras comprised perioikoi, who did not serve as auxiliaries. That each tetras, a set of four units, comprised four cities or four groups of cities in Thessaly,38 might hardly have had a parallel in Makedonia: while four major cities may be ar-

35

36

37 38

n. 6. Note also some indirect evidence of the existence of merides in Makedonia by the time of Alexander III through the existence of such an administrative division in the East, in n.6, 36. Hatzopoulos 1996a, 231–260; Hatzopoulos 2015, 321. On the division of Thessaly into regions, see Aristotle fr. 497R; also see, for instance, Bosnakis 2013, 20 n.20; Gschnitzer 1954; Helly 1995, 159f; Helly 2009, 11–13; Helly 2015, 233–239, with earlier bibliography. Euseb. Chron. I (Schoene), 235f; Diod. Sic. 22.4; Justin 24.6.1–2. See Scholten 2003, 138, 157; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 253f. One might also extrapolate the existence of such an administrative division in Makedonia by the time of Alexander from the existence of the term meris in Egypt and in the East in the early Hellenistic period: on the meris in the satrapy of ‘Syria and Phoenicia’ in the Seleukid kingdom, Aperghis 2004, 271. See also n.6. See above, n.35. Bouchon and Helly 2015, 233, but fail to explain accurately the exact criteria that determined the division of powers along these rules in Perrhaibia, comprising eleven cities, or in Achaia Phthiotis, comprising twelve cities: Bosnakis 2013, 26; Stamatopoulou 2007, 318 n.59; Helly 1995, 133–136, 140–142.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

373

gued to have existed, among many more, in the third meris, the cradle of the Makedonians (Edessa, Pella, Beroia, Dion), and possibly also in the second meris (i.e. Thessaloniki or Herakleia Syntike), it is more difficult to maintain this argument in regard to the Westernmost and the Easternmost regions. One might plausibly argue that this distinction had been abandoned by Philip II by the fourth century; nonetheless, it becomes obvious that certain differences between the Makedonian merides and the Thessalian tetrades cannot be ignored and thus the association of the two is not self-evident. Apparently merides, derived etymologically from the same root as mere, denoted territorial subdivisions in a federal constitution. The numbers of the military drawn from each meris, and, concomitantly, the levels of taxation and also of proportional representation of each, were proportional to the number of citizens living in every meros.39 Beyond Thessaly, out of those confederacies in which mere are attested, namely Boiotia, Achaia and Arcadia, Philip’s early relations with and military training at Thebes prompt us to consider these Makedonian administrative divisions in light of their Boiotian parallels, which are attested since the second half of the fourth century BCE. The eleven mere into which the Boiotian League was divided during the early fourth century BCE, each dominated by a polis, were artificially created districts. They were represented by the boiotarchs, and were structured around the idea that each district should comprise approximately the same number of citizens.40 Thus a Boiotian inspiration for the Makedonian system cannot be a priori excluded, though the topic merits further consideration. If Hatzopoulos is correct, then it may be argued that this koinon formed part of a cluster of federal states founded in Northern Greece between the 6th and the 3rd centuries BCE. It was formed later than the Thessalian League, whose emergence is assigned to the 6th century BCE by Aristotle, although the first literary reference to it dates to the fourth century BCE.41 But it may be chronologically closer to, if not contemporary with, the Koinon of the Molossians, and, thus also to the koinon of the Epirotes, whose foundation has been shifted from the late 5th / early 4th century BCE to the 320s BCE, or even to the 3rd century BCE.42 Be that as it may, in the period ranging between the explicit regional distinction in Arrian of the cavalry into divisions from Upper Makedonia, Bottiaia, and Amphipolis passage, and the (obviously later) silver numismatic issues in the name of specific regions, Bottiaioi, 39 Beck and Funke 2015, 15f, 26. 40 Hall 2015, 30, 141–148; Beck and Ganter 2015, 132. 41 Bouchon and Helly 2015, 239–241; Bosnakis 2013, 30. For the coinage of the Thessalian League, see BMC (Thessaly to Aitolia) 1–9, nos.1–69 (Hellenistic), 70–89 (Roman), pl. 1. 42 For a date of the koinon of the Molossians and of the Epirote Symmachy in the late fourth century BCE, see Liampi, this volume. Liampi rejects Meyer 2013’s dating their formation to the third century BCE and opts for an earlier date for the Molossian koinon on numismatic grounds, though not countering Meyer’s epigraphic remarks. She considers this federation an unofficial institution which was gradually transformed into a federal association uniting ethne and groups at times of war under the term ‘Epirotes’, and associates its formation with the gradual 4th cent. BCE urbanisation at Epeiros. On the coinage of the Epirote League, see BMC (Thessaly to Aitolia), 88–92, nos.1–67, pl. 17.

374

Katerina Panagopoulou

Amphaxioi etc., we may identify a gradual process towards the structural integration of minor ethne into the koinon, similar to that attested in Thessaly and in Epeiros. Had the Makedonian Koinon been founded under Philip II, we would expect that it would have encouraged the structural integration of minor ethne into the Koinon, and that the impact of this process would have been visible a century later. However, the upheaval during the interregnum in the early third century and, not least, the brief leadership of Sosthenes in Makedonia in response to the Celtic invasion, clearly show that the move towards a denser structural form had not yet been achieved by the early 270s. It is also worth comparing the numismatic behaviour of the Makedonian koinon to those of the Thessalian League, its counterpart in the Antigonid realm, and of the Epirote League. It is striking that they all struck monetary issues during the reign of Philip V, i.e. after 196 BCE, in view of the Third Makedonian war. But none of the koina struck emergency gold issues, even though at least some (i.e. the Makedonian koinon) certainly had access to raw gold mines; rather, they all struck silver and bronze issues for specific payment.43 These coinages presumably formed part of the active participation of the koina in countering the imminent danger posed by the Romans. They are also significantly less substantial than the coinages struck by both koina under the Roman Empire.44 IV. THE ‘MAKEDONES’ AND THE ‘KOINON MAKEDONŌN’ Examining more closely the use of the terms ‘Makedones’ and ‘Koinon Makedonōn’ in ancient literature allows us to define the exact borders in the use of either term. We may indeed wonder whether the absence of any attestation of a synedrion in the early stages of the koinon provides sufficient grounds for denying the early formation of the Makedonian koinon in the Hellenistic period. Might we discard the early existence of the koinon on the basis of this lacuna in the evidence? We must admit that the ‘Makedones’ as a distinct body were fully functional at least since Alexander’s campaign, and that their decisions complemented those of the king; whether, and to what extent, they were capable of influencing or modifying them is another issue entirely. However, as military contexts have allowed flexibility for a number of ‘fixed’ institutions, such as the mints for striking coinage, whose operation as ‘moving mints’ has by now been widely accepted to depict efficient military practices,45 I am inclined to argue that the institutional term ‘koinon 43 Liampi (this volume) argues that the silver didrachms and drachmae of the Epirote koinon were minted on the eve of the Third Makedonian War. On the issues of the Thessalian League before the same event, see BMC Thessaly to Aitolia, 1–6, nos.1–69, pl. 1. See also Kremydi-Sicilianou 2004. 44 On the Thessalian koinon in the Roman period, see Burrer 1993. On the association of Thessalian coinage with Roman imperial policy, see Papageorgiarou-Banis 2004. 45 See, for instance, Howgego 1995, 26–30, esp. 30: ‘Thus mints might be permanent or temporary establishments, or indeed itinerant, in some cases moving with a campaign…, or with the emperor’; Mørkholm 1991, 49–54, 57–62.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

375

Makedonōn’ in essence equates with the body of the ‘Makedones’, who were in full operation already during Alexander’s military campaign. In other words, the two terms, Makedones and koinon Makedonōn, might have been interchangeable rather than mutually exclusive;46 this flexibility might plausibly have been imposed by the troubled military circumstances from the military campaign of Alexander III through to the Antigonid period. Thus it is contemporary historical conventions, rather than ancient practices, that are to be blamed for attempting an accurate distinction between federal koina and ethnos states. It is essential that we clarify at this point the exact meaning of the term ‘Makedones’, the second component of the Makedonian state. In interpreting the meaning of the ‘Thessalians’, its counterpart body, Marta Sordi regards the termini technici ‘cities of the Thessalians’, ‘the Thessalians’, and to koinon tōn Thessalōn or ‘to Thessalōn ethnos’, as essentially equivalent, denoting the assembly of the representatives of the Thessalian cities. In a similar vein, Fanoula Papazoglou has also concluded independently that, rather than representing a military assembly, the term ‘the Makedonians’ stood for a body similar to the synedria of the Hellenistic Koina.47 Furthermore, on the basis of the formulae of the koan asylia decrees issued by the Makedonian poleis, where ‘oi Makedones’ are quoted alongside the king, she assigns the genesis of the Makedonian koinon to the reign of Antigonos Gonatas (rather than to that of Doson).48 Be that as it may, the ‘freedom of the Makedonians’ in the Makedonian state is indeed severely challenged by Polybios, who emphatically points out that the Makedonians were not free under their kings. On the occasion of Andriskos’s revolt, for instance, he points out that “For the Makedonians had met with many signal favours from Rome; the country as a whole had been delivered from the arbitrary rule and taxation of autocrats and, as all confessed, now enjoyed freedom instead of servitude (kai metalabontes apo douleias omologoumenōs eleutherian), and the several cities had, owing to the beneficent actions of Rome, been freed form serious civil discord and internecine massacres…”.49 Even though freedom from the ‘monarchika epitagmata’ did not in this case entail abolishment of taxation, as the Makedonians were still obliged to pay the Roman state 100 talents, i.e. half of the amount of money they paid to the king, they were now held wholly responsible for the defence of the merides and faced the challenge of more active involvement in regional administration. I argue that ultimately the key

46 See, for instance, Parker 2011, 112 and n.11: ‘it is clear from several texts that terms such as ethnos and koinon are not technical and mutually exclusive’. See also 112 n.11: IG XII Suppl. p. 7 no.3; also e.g. IG IX.2 508. It is also worth noting that Hatzopoulos 2000, no.439 suggests that the term κοινόν τῶν Μακεδόνων is similar to the ἔθνος τῶν Μακεδόνων (cf. I.Beroia 89, 101, 115–118). 47 See, for instance, Papazoglou 1988, 53–71, 143. 48 Papazoglou 1988, 43–46. 49 Polyb. 36.17.13: Μακεδόνες μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἐτετεύχεισαν φιλανθρωπιῶν, κοινῇ μὲν πάντες ἀπολυθέντες μοναρχικῶν ἐπιταγμάτων καὶ φόρων καὶ μεταλαβόντες ἀπὸ δουλείας ὁμολογουμένως ἐλευθερίαν, ἰδίᾳ δὲ πάλιν κατὰ πόλεις ἐκλυθέντες ἐκ μεγάλων στάσεων καὶ φόνων ἐμφυλίων διὰ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ...... φιλοτ̣ιμίας·

376

Katerina Panagopoulou

variable in the political reshuffle caused by the transition from the Antigonid monarchy to the ‘republican’ administration through the fragmentation of the koinon into republican districts was the body of the Makedonians per se. It was they who were attached to the king under the monarchy, presumably selected through the channels that led from the civic élites to the royal court,50 though whether those channels went through the Makedonian koinon or not is difficult to determine in light of our extant evidence. They were now called upon to focus on their civic communities and to participate through them in the federal procedures orchestrated by the koinon. Though I find it hard to understand how this relocation and substantial change of role in the koinon would have been possible in the final stages of the monarchy under Philip V and Perseus, I argue that it was this transition that ultimately determined the new profile of the Makedonian state after 167 BCE and that ultimately led to the final subjugation of the Makedonians to the Romans in 148 BCE. V. CONCLUDING REMARKS In order to put the above evidence together into a coherent picture, one may point out the following major issues: 1. The political formation of the Makedonian koinon is dated with a fair degree of certainty to the early reign of Antigonos Gonatas. Further evidence is required in order to confirm its formation under Philip II, or slightly later. 2. There is no evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, to confirm the creation and existence of a synedrion or the performance of rituals and festivals as part of such gatherings of the Makedonians. While this absence of evidence need not necessarily be interpreted as the outright absence of such institutions and regular meetings, suffice it to say that the Makedonian koinon did not display an epigraphic habit and was not mentioned in literary sources until the reign of Philip V. 3. One would expect the presence of some similarities to and / or communication with the neighbouring koinon of the Thessalians, which was also under Makedonian protection and was led by the hereditary tagos, the Makedonian king. A relatively new decree, which provides explicit proof of the full function of the Thessalian koinon’s institutions in the late third century BCE, contrasts with the absolute silence in contemporary sources regarding its Makedonian equivalent.51

50 Paschidis 2006; Paschidis 2008, 469–486, 501–505. 51 Parker 2011. Particular thanks are due to Maria Mili for pointing out this inscription to me.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

377

4. Whether the creation of the koinon was prompted by the king remains uncertain. The formation of the Makedonian koinon upon royal instigation would have predetermined its divergence from its Southern counterparts. The koinon of the Islanders and the Euboian League were created under the royal aegis and were more prone to satisfying royal wishes,52 but one can certainly follow their own institutions in full operation through the remaining testimonia. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Makedonia. 5. The absence of explicit early references to a synedrion and the obvious ambiguity in the use of the terms ‘Makedones’ and ‘koinon makedonōn’ in all types of evidence, epigraphic, literary and numismatic, allow for the possibility that the line between the two bodies could have been blurred. I argue that the most important variable available to us in unpacking the Makedonian case was the transformative processes that the Makedones went through in order to fully adopt a federal behaviour. Shall we then follow Polybios in crediting the Makedonians with ἀήθεια συνεδριακῆς καὶ δημοκρατικῆς πολιτείας? At the end of the day, the Makedones and the Makedonian koinon may well have represented two sides of the same coin; in other words, both terms may be taken as different expressions of a well-established ethnicity in the minds of the Northern Greeks. It is striking that the same author, who was a priori prejudiced against the authoritative Makedonian kingship, admits that the Makedonians were qualified with isegoria (ἰσηγορία) towards their kings.53 Paschidis interprets their isegoria and parrhesia not only as ‘obsolete remnants of the archaic self-image of Makedonian nobles as free men of essentially free rights to the king, but also as the more modern outcome of the self-esteem developed by citizens who were familiar with decision-making, in war, in administration and in politics’.54 I suggest that these qualities were acquired not only in civic contexts, but also through the decision-making processes put in effect through the Makedonian koinon. It is highly probable that a fair number of competent individuals who excelled in civic contexts and in the court élite were among those who also shaped, or largely influenced, the decisions of the Makedones, as a koinon or as an ethnos.

52 On the koinon of the Islanders, see Buraselis 2015; Buraselis 1982, 60–87; on the Euboian League, see Knoepfler 2015, with earlier bibliography. On the Euboian League in the 2nd cent. BCE, see Giannakopoulos, this volume. 53 Polyb. 5.27.5: συνέντες δ’ οἱ πελτασταὶ τὸ γεγονός, διαπεμψαμένου τινὰ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοῦ Λεοντίου, πρεσβευτὰς ἐξαπέστειλαν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, παρακαλοῦντες, εἰ μὲν πρὸς ἄλλο τι πεποίηται τὴν ἀπαγωγὴν τοῦ Λεοντίου, μὴ χωρὶς αὑτῶν ποιήσασθαι τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐγκαλουμένων κρίσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, ὅτι νομιοῦσι μεγαλείως παρολιγωρεῖσθαι καὶ καταγινώσκεσθαι πάντες—εἶχον γὰρ ἀεὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἰσηγορίαν Μακεδόνες πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς—εἰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐγγύην τοῦ Μεγαλέου, διότι τὰ χρήματα κατὰ κοινὸν εἰσενέγκαντες ἐκτίσουσιν αὐτοί. 54 Paschidis 2006, 265f, n.107.

378

Katerina Panagopoulou

It may accordingly be argued that, by juxtaposing its absences and its slow but steady emergence in the sources, we may largely reconstruct the history of the Makedonian koinon in conjunction with that of the Makedones through to the late Roman period. It would indeed be very intriguing to determine how the Makedonians achieved the transition from faithfulness to the kings to the consistent adoption of federal behaviour at the time of Philip V and Perseus, and how they went through the Koinon’s transformation into a different institution under the Empire, but our sources fall short of our expectations. Even so, there is good reason for us to maintain, contrary to Polybios, that the Makedonians were not unaccustomed to demokratikē and synedriakē politeia. It is rather ironic that history did not prove him wrong. KEY TO FIGURE 1 1) Silver Tetradrachm of the First Meris. Before 168 BCE. Gorny & Mosch 211 (04.03.2013) lot 205 (17,12g). 2) Silver Tetradrachm of the First Meris – imitation. Gorny & Mosch 121 (2003) no. 13 (16,88g). 3) Silver Tetradrachm of the First Meris. Before 168 BCE. CNG Triton VII (12.09.2004) lot 136. 4) Silver Didrachm of the First Meris. Before 168 BCE. Classical Numismatic Group, Triton VIII (11.01.2005) lot no. 205; 7.70 g, 8 h; Kremydi-Sicilianou 2007, pl. XIII.2. 5) Silver Tetradrachm of the Second Meris. Before 168 BCE. Classical Numismatic Group, Triton XIV (04.01.2011) lot 97 (31mm 16.62g 9h). 6) Bronze Coin of the Fourth Meris. Before 168 BCE. Prokopov 2014, 24, n. 30, no. 2; pl. 74.2: Lanz 114 (26.05.2003) no. 108. 7) Silver Tetradrachm MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ ΑΜΦΑΞΙΩΝ. Before 168 BCE. Paris, BNF (photo courtesy of Dr. J. Olivier) (16,95 g). 8) Early Antigonid Coins: Monograms [Panagopoulou 2016, 6.2.4, fig. 6.6].

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

Figure I: Early Antigonid Coins & Monograms

379

380

Katerina Panagopoulou

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aperghis, G.G. (2004) The Seleukid Royal Economy. The finances and financial administration of the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge. Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157. Beck, H. and P. Funke (2015) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29. Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Bosnakis, D. (2013) Ἐνθετταλίζεσθαι, Τεχνοτροπία και ιδεολογία των θεσσαλικών επιτυμβίων αναγλύφων του 5ου και του 4ου αι. π.Χ., Μελέτες 2, Volos. Bouchon, R. and B. Helly (2015) The Thessalian League, in H. Beck amd P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 231–249. Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis: Forschungen zur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien), München. Buraselis, K. (2004) Some Remarks on the Koan Asylia (242 BC) against its International Background, in K. Hôghammar (ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture, Proceedings of an International Seminar organized by the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 11–13 May 2000, Uppsala, 15–20. Buraselis, K. (2015) Federalism and the Sea: The Koina of the Aegean Islands, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 358–376. Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol. ghII, Athens. Burnett, A. (2000) The Coinage of Roman Macedonia, in P. Adam-Veleni (ed.), Το νόμισμα στο μακεδονικό χώρο, Πρακτικά Β᾽ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Οβολός 4, Thessaloniki, 89–91. Burrer, F. (1993) Münzprägung und Geschichte des thessalischen Bundes in der römischen Kaiserzeit bis auf Hadrian (31 v.Chr.–138 n.Chr.), Saarbrücken. Burrer, F. (2009) Die Tetradrachmenprägung Philips V. von Makedonien, Serie II, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 59, 10–70. Camia, F. (2011) Theoi Sebastoi: il culto degli imperatori romani in Grecia (provincia Achaia) nel secondo secolo D.C., Athens. Cormack, J.M.R. (1970) Progress Report on the Greek Inscriptions of the Trite Meris for IG C, in B. Laourdas and C. Makaronas (eds.), Archaia Makedonia I, Papers read at the First International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 26–29 August 1968, Thessaloniki, 193–202. Crawford, M.H.C. (1985) Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, Italy and the Mediterranean Economy, London. Dahmen, K. (2005) The Alexander Busts of the Macedonian Koinon – New Evidence for Sequence and Chronology, Numismatic Chronicle 165, 179–181. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U., Rüpke, J. & Tsochos, Ch. (2007) Religion in der römischen Provinz Makedonien’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), Antike Religionsgeschichte in räumlicher Perspektive, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 50–65. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U., Steimle, Ch. and Tsochos, Ch. (2003) Religion in der römischen Provinz Makedonien, in H. Cancik, J. Rüpke (edd.), Römische Reichs- und Provinzialreligion -Globalisierungs- und Regionalisierungsprozesse in der antiken Religionsgeschichte. Ein Forschungprogramm stellt sich vor, Erfurt, 154–67. Frank, T. (1914) Representative Government in the Macedonian Republics, Classical Philology 9, 49–59. Franke, P.R. (1957) Zur Finanzpolitik des makedonischen Königs Perseus während des Krieges mit Rom 171–168 v. Chr., Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 8, 31–50. Gaebler, H. (1904) Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens. IV. Makedonien in der Kaiserzeit, Zeitschrift für Numismatik 24, 245–338.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

381

Gaebler, H. (1906) Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, vol. III.1. Makedonia und Paionia, Berlin. Gaebler, H. (1935) Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, vol. III.2. Makedonia und Paionia, Berlin. Gschnitzer, F. (1954) Namen und Wesen der Thessalischen Tetraden, Hermes 82, 451–464. Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48. Hammond, N.G.L. and F.W. Walbank (1988) A History of Macedonia, III: 336–176 B.C., Oxford. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996a) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. I, Athens. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1996b) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. II, Athens. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2000) Bulletin Epigraphique, no. 439. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2003) Polis, ethnos and kingship in Northern Greece, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II: Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethne in Ancient Greece, Athens. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2012) Bulletin Epigraphique, no. 265. Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2015) Federal Macedonia, in H. Beck and P. Funke, Federalism in Antiquity, Cambridge, 319–340. Helly, B. (1973) Gonnoi I–II, Amsterdam. Helly, B. (1995) L’état Thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les tetrads et les tagoi, Lyon. Helly, B. (2009) H οικιστική και διοικητική κατανομή της Θεσσαλίας από τη νεολιθική εποχή έως το τέλος της αρχαιότητας, in Θεσσαλία. Ανθολόγιο πρακτικών 1ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας, Athens 69–79 [= Β. Helly, Éléments pour une histoire de la distribution des territoires en Théssalie de l’époque Néolithiqu à la fin de l’Antiquité’, in 1o Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας, Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου, 9–11 Nοεμβρίου 2006, Thessaly, 195–205]. Hertz, P. (2007) Emperors : Caring for the Empire and Their Successors, in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, Malden, Oxford, Victoria, Australia, 304–316. Howgego, C. (1995) Ancient History from Coins, London/New York. Juhel, P.O. (2011) Un fantôme de l’histoire hellénistique: le ‘district’ macédonien, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 51, 579–612. Kanatsoulis, D. (1953–1955) Tὸ κοινὸν τῶν Μακεδόνων, Makedonika 3, 27–102. Kanatsoulis, D. (1953) Tὸ κοινόν τῶν Μακεδόνων καὶ τὰ συνέδρια τῶν μερίδω, Ἑλληνικἀ. Παράρτημα 4, Προσφορά εἰς Στ. Κυριακίδην, Thessalonike, 294–304. Kanatsoulis, D. (1973) Oἱ μακεδονιάρχαι τοῡ κοινοῡ τῶν Μακεδόνων και η κοινωνική θέσις αυτων εις τας Μακεδονικάς πόλεις, Makedonika 13, 1–37. Klose, D. (1998) Zur Chronologie der thessalischen Koinonprägungen im 2. und 1. Jh. v. Chr. Ein weiterer Schatzfund aus Südthessalien, in U. Peter (ed.), Stephanos Nomismatikos, Berlin, 333– 350. Knoepfler, D. (2015) The Euboian League – an ‘irregular’ koinon? in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 158–178. Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. (2004) Hoard Evidence from Thessaly in the Second and First Centuries BC: from a Multi–Currency to a Double–Currency System, in L. Kypraiou (ed.), To νόμισμα στο Θεσσαλικό χώρο, Αthens, 235–258. Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. (2007) MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΗΣ ΜΕΡΙΔΟΣ. Evidence for a Coinage under the Antigonids, Révue Numismatique 163, 91–100. Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. (2009) The Tauropolos Tetradrachms of the First Macedonian Meris: Provenance, Iconography and Dating, in Κερμάτια Φιλίας, Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Γιάννη Τουράτσογλου, Athens, 191–201. Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford. Liampi, K. (1986) Zur Chronologie der sogenannten ‘anonymen makedonischen Münzen des späten 4. Jhs. v. Chr., Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 36, 41–65. Liampi, K. (1998) Der Makedonische Schild, Athens.

382

Katerina Panagopoulou

Lukavk, I. (1996) Les imitations des monnaies d’Alexandre le Grand et de Thasos, Wetteren. Meyer, E.A. (2013) The Inscriptions of Dodona and a New History of Molossia, Stuttgart. Meyer, E.A. (2015) Molossia and Epeiros, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 297–318. Mørkholm, O. (1991) Early Hellenistic Coinage: from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336–188 B.C.), Cambridge/New York. Panagopoulou, K. (2001) The Antigonids: Patterns of a Royal Economy, in Z. Archibald, J.K. Davies, V. Gabrielsen, and G.J. Oliver (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London, 313–362. Panagopoulou, K. (forthcoming) The Early Antigonids: Coinage, Money and the Economy, New York. Papageorgiadou-Banis, C. (2004) Θεσσαλία και ρωμαϊκή νομισματική πολιτική, in Coins in the Thessalian Region. Mints, Circulation, Iconography, History, Ancient, Byzantine, Modern, Athens, 51–63. Papazoglou, F. (1963) Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie macédoniennes, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 87, 517–544. Papazoglou, F. (1979) Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la province de Macédoine, in H. Temporini (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 302–369. Papazoglou, F. (1988) Les Villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine, Athens. Papazoglou, F. (1998) Le Koinon Makédonien et la province de Macédoine, Thracia 12, 133–139. Parker, R. (2011) The Thessalian Olympia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, 111– 118. Paschidis, P. (2006) The Interpenetration of Civic Élites and Court Élite in Macedonia, in A.M. Guimier-Sorbets, M.B. Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizot (eds.), Rois, Cités, Nécropoles, Institutions, Rites et Monuments en Macédoine, Actes des colloques de Nanterre (Décembre 2002) et d’Athènes (Janvier 2004), Athens, 251–268. Paschidis, P. (2008) Between City and King. Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322–190 BC), Athens. Picard, O. (1982) Les Romains et les émissions aux types d’Alexandre, Annali dell’ Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 29, 245–250. Poole, R.S. and P. Gardner (1883) British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins. Thessaly to Aitolia, London. Price, M.J. (1991) The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus, London/Zürich. Prokopov, I. (2006) Die Silberprägung der Insel Thasos und die Tetradrachmen des ‘thasischen Typs’ vom 2.–1. Jahrhundert v.Chr., Griechisches Münzwerk, Berlin. Prokopov, I. (2012) The Silver Coinage of the Macedonian Regions: 2 nd–1st century BC, Wetteren. Rigsby, K.J. (1996) Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, California. Rüpke, J. (2008), A Companion to Roman Religion, Malden, Oxford, Victoria, Australia. Rzepka, J. (2005) Koine Ekklesia in Diodorus Siculus and the General Assemblies of the Macedonians, Tyche 20, 119–142. Scholten, J.B. (2003) Macedon and the Mainland, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, London, 134–158. Sprawski, S. (2003) Philip II and the Freedom of the Thessalians, Electrum 9, 55–66. Sprawski, S. (2009) Οι Θεσσαλοί και οι γείτονές τους κατά την κλασική αρχαιότητα᾽, in Θεσσαλία. Ιστορία και πολιτισμός, Thessaly, 51–61. Sprawski, S. (2009) Thessalians and Their Neighbours in the Classical Period, in 1o Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας: Πρακτικά. Συνεδρίου τομος I, Thessaly, 131–137. Stamatopoulou, M. (2007) Thessalian Aristocracy and Society in the Age of the Epinicians, in S. Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford, 309–341.

Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited

383

Steimle, C. (2007) ‘Religion im römischen Thessaloniki’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), Antike Religionsgeschichte in räumlichen Perspektive, Tübingen, 66–72. Touratsoglou, I. (2006) La métropole de Béroia. Siège du Koinon des Macédoniens, Folia Archaeologica Balkanica 1, 293–305. Touratsoglou, Y. (1993) H Noμισματική Κυκλοφορία στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία (περ. 200 π.Χ. – 268 – 286 AD): Η μαρτυρία των ᾽θησαυρών᾽ = The Coin Circulation in ancient Macedonia (ca. 200 BC – 268 – 286 AD): The Hoard Evidence, Athens. Touratsoglou, Y. (2010) Συμβολή στην Οικονομική Ιστορία του Βασιλείου της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας (6ος – 3ος αι. π.Χ.) = A Contribution to the Economic History of the Kingdom of Ancient Macedonia (6th – 3rd century BC), Athens. Tsochos, Ch. (2001) H ρωμαϊκή θρησκεία στη Μακεδονια, ΑΕΜΤΗ 15, 47–54. Tsochos, Ch. and Ch. Steimle, (2001), Religion in der römischen Provinz Makedonien, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 3, 300. Tsochos, Ch. (2007) Religion and Cults of Macedonia in Imperial Times, in E. Lo Cascio, G.D. Merola (edd.), Forme di aggregazione nel mondon romano: profili istituzionali e sociali, dinamiche economiche, identificazioni culturali, Bari: Edipuglia, 329–344.

THE AIOLIANS – A PHANTOM ETHNOS? Hans Beck McGill University I. AIOLIAN ORTHODOXIES “And from Hellen, the war-loving king, were born Doros and Xuthos (Ion) and Aiolos who delighted in the battle-chariot”. Thus speaks Hesiod (Catalogue of Women fr. 9 West), according to whom the Aiolians stood at the highest order of the various ethnic branches that made up the Hellenes. Along with the Dorians and the Ionians, they were considered to be among the most ancient and, in this sense, primordial tribes of the Greeks. In a landmark section of the Histories, where Herodotus surveys the settlements of these tribes in Asia Minor, he says that there were originally twelve Aiolian towns – the so-called dodekapolis – plus those on the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos (1.149–150). Herodotus adds to these a few more from the Troad further north, the ones around Mt Ida ‘who were separate from the rest’ (κεχωρίδαται γὰρ αὗται: 1.151). Herodotus’ Aiolians send embassies (1.152) and man ships (7.95) to those towns, which implies some collective deliberation process. And, they harbor fellow Aiolian fugitives and grant them citizenship in their local communities, evidently on the grounds of their mutual ethnic bonds (1.150).1 As early as Herodotus’ days, the Aiolians seem to have maintained a common sanctuary of Apollo at Gryneion, which they might have also used as their meeting place. Gryneion’s function was thus similar to that of the Panionion in Mykale and the role it played in the communication among Ionians. The sanctuary is attested only in later periods, in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, when a League of the Aiolians is traceable in the body of epigraphical sources.2 Strabo (13.3.5) marveled at the temple at Gryneion which, according to him, was built all in white marble – coverage of the immense costs would again attest to a collaborative effort of the Aiolians, since they could not be absorbed by the few inhabitants of Gryneion alone. By the 4th century BCE, at least one Aiolian community, the koinon of Lesbos, struck coins with an epigram ΑΙΟΛΕ on the reverse. This documents some sort of communal coordination between the cities who participated in those emissions, although it has 1 2

Prinz 1979, 90–96, 359–365 and passim; Ulf 1996a, 264–270; Gehrke 2001, 304; Hall 2002, 56f, 71–73 and passim. I. Erythrai und Klazomenai 16 and SIG3 330. Note also the regional ethnic Aioleus, Rubinstein 2004, 1033. Apollo Gryneion: Hdt. 1.149; cf. also SEG 40.1109. Cape Mykale: 1.148. A similar force seems to have been at work in the Dorian Hexapolis, which celebrated a festival with games in honor of Triopian Apollo on a promontory near Knidos (1.144).

386

Hans Beck

become increasingly difficult to pin down the motivations behind such collaborative coinages.3 In sum, the Aiolians had a long and eventful history of cooperation. From Hesiod to the Hellenistic Age, there is robust evidence for an Aiolian ethnos in Asia Minor, and also for a league that coordinated some of its common concerns, including the conduct of its foreign policy. Some of the governing assumptions behind the orthodox view of the Aiolian ethnos have been challenged. The Aiolians of later periods in Greek history had a Mycenaean counterpart. The term ‘Aiolians’ is attested in Linear B, with no further geographic specification (evidence from Knossos, Wm 1707). What such an attestation implies is, of course, another matter. For the longest time, scholars have repeated the narrative according to which the Aiolians in the post-Mycenean period journeyed from mainland Greece across the Aegean, mostly from Thessaly and Boiotia, to occupy their new colonial homes in Asia Minor.

Figure 1: Aiolian migrations from central Greece to Asia Minor: the orthodox picture

Such a migration pattern is increasingly under pressure. In two articles that were published simultaneously and partly in conjunction with each other, yet with vastly 3

Head 1911: 559; Robert 1951: 92–100; Billows 1990: 219. The usage of a common coinage among the members of an ethnos, with common weight standards and associated iconographies, has often been viewed as a decisive moment in the transformation from tribe to league. Against this, Emily Mackil (2013; cf. also Mackil and van Alfen 2006) has reminded us that the emission of such coinages may or may not speak to a broad array of intercommunal agencies. Political collaboration, and hence integration, might be one of them, but it is not the only one. In this sense, the common Aiolian coinage from the later Classical and Hellenistic periods document some sort of communal action but the nature of their exchange is open to conjecture.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

387

different research methods, and from divergent bodies of evidence, the literary, archaeological, and linguistic backgrounds of the migration paradigm have been challenged. Brian Rose has demonstrated that the archaeological record does not support the idea of an Aiolian movement across the Aegean. Analyzing the material evidence and corresponding narrative traditions of Iron Age settlements in the northeast Aegean, Rose stresses that, while evidence for post-Mycenaean migrations from the mainland to Aiolis is generally lacking, the available material actually points in the opposite direction. Beyond the local ware found in the post-palatial period, for instance in Troy (VIIb1 and 2), the overwhelming amount of ceramics in the Late Protogeometric layers were either local handmade burnished ware, or components of an economic exchange involving both sides of the Aegean, rather than the result of migration processes.4 Following up on Rose’s findings, Holt Parker offered an in-depth linguistic discussion of the Aiolian dialect. His analysis of the presence of Lesbian speakers in the northeastern corner of the Aegean in Classical times, usually understood as the result of an Aiolian migration, shows that there is no support whatsoever from linguistic analysis. To be sure, linguistic evidence has always been weak, as the convoluted discussion of the Aiolian dialect in previous scholarship suggests. Usually it is referenced as an agglomeration of several regional dialects (for instance, Boiotian and Thessalian), which are presented as sub-branches of a coherent dialectal group. The desire to merge these into one is unmistakable.5 Working backwards from the 5th century BCE, Parker discloses how the traditional dialects of Central Greece cannot be subsumed under one Aiolian label. Thessalian, Boiotian, or Lesbian speakers were simply people “who were seen to be neither Dorians nor Ionians” (2008, 460); their dialects are best understood as relatively unaltered branches of early Greek that did not undergo some of the later typical linguistic developments (e.g., the so-called first compensatory lengthening). Parker concludes that “the idea of an Aiolic dielactal group falls apart” (2008, 460). Albert Schachter, finally, has recently declared in a paper, which is still unpublished, that any tribal movement of the Aiolians, which may or may not have occurred in the Iron Age period, left no material traces whatsoever.6 The archaeological and linguistic foundations of the Aiolian edifice have collapsed. Conceptual advances in scholarship, too, urge us to use caution. In light of recent trends in the studies of ethnic identity formation, it is no surprise that the Aiolians further come under scrutiny. The ethnic turn has toppled the traditional view that the Greek ethnē of later periods drew directly on a late-Mycenaean pedigree. Instead, it appears that the identity formation process was built on essentially changing and relatively late constructions of identities that took shape most often only in 4 5

6

Rose 2008. For the generic view, cf. Blümel 1982; also Buck 1968 on the traditional view of the Aiolian dialect in Boiotia; on perceived Thessalian-Aiolian connections, Garcia Ramon 2007. Vottero 2006 (which came most likely too late for Parker 2008) has also remarked that evidence for the Aiolian dialect is weak. ‘Aiolians and Boiotians,’ delivered at a workshop at the University of Reading. I am grateful to Albert Schachter for sharing the manuscript with me.

388

Hans Beck

the Archaic period. The notorious Dorians have become a landmark example in the way the process is now conceived by scholars. In a nutshell, it was demonstrated how the idea of Dorian tribal togetherness most likely came into place only in the later eighth or seventh centuries. The Dorians of the Archaic Age saw themselves as a group with a heroic pedigree, stretching back to the time when they had departed ‘from windy Erineus’ (Tyrtaios fr. 2) in an opaque swathe of land called Doris to become the masters over the Peloponnese and to several peoples adjacent to it. Both the Mycenaean heritage and the record of so-called ‘Dorians’ in the Linear B body of evidence (do-e-ro ‘slave’ and do-ri-je-we ‘Dorieus’; the meaning of both is naturally debated) fuelled the imagination of such a tribal connection between the Archaic Age and the distant past of the Bronze Age. But the prime mover of Dorian togetherness were the Spartans who couched their claims for leadership and, effectively, hegemony in the language of primordiality.7 The case of Ionian identity formation is even more complicated than its Dorian counterpart, due to the convoluted nature of Athenian traditions, material evidence, and other immaterial expressions of identity and belonging. Yet despite the differences, there is also a thrust toward communality. When the Ionians absorbed the image of a collective tribal group – scholars are divided over when this was – they propagated a heroic lineage for themselves that related them back far in time. In the case of the Athenians, the claim for long duration was so pronounced that they saw themselves as autochthonous people. This mindset is obvious, and it speaks volumes to the political discourse of the Classical period, when this autochthony was celebrated far and wide. While the Dorians were ‘much-wandering’ (Hdt. 1.56, cf. 7.161) people who had returned to their home in the Peloponnese only through waves of migration, the Athenians were born of and from the land.8 The rise of regional ethnic identities, articulated also in the establishment of political leagues or federal states, is in sync with this picture. In a recent volume on Federalism in Greek Antiquity (2015), the transformation from an ethnos to the politicized structure of a koinon was described as a helix-type process. The identity formation in regions such as Boiotia overlapped with federalism in the sense that ethnicity offered a vibrant platform for the integration of local communities into a league. For example, several recent studies on Boiotian ethnogenesis show how the region’s political integration was practically predisposed to, and in turn made possible through a common set of regional cults and foundation myths that go back to the late eighth century BCE.9 While the process of identity formation was under way, it was fused with the development of statehood in the region and its expression in the political administration, or institutionalization, of rising urban centres. The fundamental belief of common primordial descent and legends of collective action fuelled the idea of political cooperation among those cities. Moreover, this cooperation supported the idea of separation from other tribes; hence, it reinstated the notion of tribal distinction. Associated legends of a common heroic past were thus less 7 8 9

Ulf 1996 and 1996a; cf. also Hall 2002, 72–89; Hall 2013. Athenian autochthony, cf. Loraux 1996/2000; Roy 2014; Beck (forthcoming). Cf. Kühr 2006; Kowalzig 2007; Larson 2007.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

389

reflective of actual tribal togetherness, but the immediate result of conversations at a regional level. To be sure, the participants in these conversations will have been both reassured and inspired by the Mycenaean ruins before them. The development of regional customs and traditions further magnified sentiments of togetherness. But, at its very core, the origins of this togetherness were construed rather than real.10 There are enough warning signs at this point to flag the ethnos of the Aiolians, as it were, and revisit the questions of who they were, what their sense of belonging was, and how that sense translated into communal action. While corresponding Dorian and Ionian orthodoxies have been challenged in recent years, and effectively altered, the Aiolians are lagging behind. The orthodox view suggests that there are clear answers to the nature of their tribe. It appears, however, that this view is built on a body of evidence that is extremely fragile. Moreover, it is fraught with assumptions about what an ethnos is and how tribal identity manifests itself which, upon closer examination, are far less compelling than they would suggest. It is the goal of this article to contribute to the reassessment of the Aiolians that is currently under way. For the purpose of the current volume, such an examination can hardly be comprehensive, nor does it strive for the full picture. It is beyond my scope to re-examine the dialectal evidence, or to discuss the nature of Protogeometric ceramics and grey wares that were typically considered Aiolian. In light of the overarching theme of the conference, my article limits itself to the analysis of political expressions of Aiolian togetherness. The approach is genuinely historical. It is beyond question that the Aiolian cities in Asia Minor, or at least some of them, most obviously the core cities of the dodekapolis, coordinated their interactions with the outside world; again, there is ample evidence for this from the Persian War to the Age of Antigonos I Monophthalmos. What is more pressing, yet also more treacherous, are Aiolian relations between Asia Minor and the Greek mainland, i.e., the nature of these relations, through which the Aiolian ethnos is ultimately better understood. II. TRAVELLING AIOLIANS: MOTIVATIONS, ROUTES, AND THE ONTOLOGY OF PLACE The earliest attestation of ethnic ties between Aiolians on either side of the Aegean also marks one of the most impactful pieces of evidence. The first person to comment on Aiolian-Boiotian relations was no other than Hesiod who, in Works and Days (634–645), speaks of how his father came to Boiotia: … just as your father did, … sailing in a ship because he longed for great prosperity. Once, long ago, he crossed far overseas in his black ship, and came here, to this place, and left Aiolian Kyme far behind. He did not flee from riches and success but evil poverty, which comes from

10 The helix of ethnogenesis, urbanity, and the rise of statehood is further explicated by Beck and Funke 2013.

390

Hans Beck Zeus. He settled in a wretched village, near to Helikon, the town of Askra, harsh in winter and miserable in the summer, not really good at any time of the year.

The passage is widely known, and the irony has not escaped commentators. According to Hesiod, his father went from Kyme to Askra, from one bad place to another – out of the frying pan and into the fire. The trick is of course that he still managed to make a good living in Askra, but this is only of minor concern here.11 Kyme and Askra were not dissimilar, although the former lay close to the sea whereas the latter did not. While Kyme enjoyed the fresh breeze from the sea, Askra’s climate was subject to its landlocked location in central Boiotia. The stifling air is, in part, eased by the altitude level (380 m), but today’s visitors can be easily overwhelmed by the standing heat. Herodotus confirms that Aiolis had ‘good soil but bad climate’ (1.149), supporting Hesiod’s assessment and extending it to geomorphic conditions and qualities of the land. Indeed, the conditions for agriculture in Aiolis and Boiotia were similar. Hesiod mentions grain crops and grapes, draft animals, and livestock (goats and sheep) that were at the heart of a farmer’s annual cycle. Askra was neither a centralized nor a particularly hierarchized community, and the agricultural regime in Works and Days implies that there was no shortage of land to carry out these activities. Anthony Edwards suggested a pattern of livestock grazing in the higher pastures during the summer and in the winter closer to the village on fallow, whose soil was enriched by the dung of the grazing animals. This, on the whole, should summon the scene.12 The situation was then indeed similar to the one across the Aegean in Kyme – with one difference, namely, while Kyme had developed into a full-flung, stratified community, with all the economic tensions this entailed, Askra’s urban and social development were significantly less advanced.13 The similarity of place was of critical importance for everything else that followed. When Hesiod’s father arrived near Askra, he found a home away from home, in the more common sense of the word. This meant, among other things, that he found similar living conditions. Similarities in the natural environment of colonizing cities with that of their apoikiai overseas have long been identified by scholars as a critical factor in the choice of the actual site of the new settlement. For instance, Irad Malkin recently remarked (2011, 147) that Massalia, founded at around 600 BCE, was established at a site that resembled that of Phokaia (i.e., a

11 Cf. Nagy 2009, 290–294, who sees the tradition of Hesiod’s father’s migration as a reverse narrative of legendary tales about Ionian migration movements. We will return to the issue of reversed itineraries below. 12 Cf. the collection of all relevant evidence from Works and Days and analysis by Edwards 2008, 127–158. 13 Kyme struck its own coinage from the late 7th century BCE, its circuit wall appears to have been in place from the mid-6th century at the latest, Gates 1994, 275. Aristotle’s collection of politeiai included a treatise on Kyme (fr. 524R). The fragment comes from the epitome of Herakleides Lembos who offers a modestly extensive coverage of Archaic Kyme, reporting, among other things, the enfranchisement of individuals who could breed at least one horse and the inclusion of 1,000 new citizens shortly thereafter (36–39 Dilts).

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

391

promontory between two ports). Between Askra and Kyme, the similarities in nature mostly concerned the conditions of the soil and associated agrarian techniques. It was not a coincidence then that Hesiod’s father went to Boiotia. Rather, he will have heard about the situation there, including the potential availability of land, and the promise to work the land under familiar farming conditions. And, presumably, he was not alone. Other Aiolians knew of the basic scenario, no matter how accurate or detailed their information might have been. To move to Boiotia must have been seen as a profitable enterprise, with similar conditions in place that would allow migrants to live the same life as at home, only better, because there was more land. In other words, from the mid-eighth century there were an increasing number of Aiolians who sought their fortunes in the mainland. This was not a migration movement as such, at least not in the sense Greek migrations are commonly conceived of. Rather, many people from multiple Aiolian towns took the same paths. The flow was steered both by structural influences as well as the way that individuals navigated these structures based on personal ties and relations. Whereas some followed paths that they had learned about from other family members or through kin networks, others would have heard about central Greece in casual conversations in their everyday lives.14 The pattern of intertwined structural and personal influences is commonplace among migration historians. Scholars in the field have put this into compelling research perspectives. In particular, it has been demonstrated how migrant decisionmaking is impacted by conscious choices about perceived opportunities. According to Dirk Hoerder (2002, 19), one of the main arenas where these opportunities are discussed is what he calls the mesolevel, a middle ground between the individual and society, namely in the family and in kin and friendship networks, where all information about the envisioned journey is digested, where risks are calculated, and possibilities weighed. The back flow of information from those who have already left their homes plays a critical role in those deliberations, as emigrants share their knowledge with those who are still at home, not only about the general living conditions in their new environment but also about more specific configurations. As the exchange at the mesolevel is carried out between individuals who speak the same dialect, share in the same cultural traditions and experiences of home, it creates not only further familiarity but it also implies reliability and trustworthiness. It is easy to see how this type of ‘verified’ knowledge spreads through kin networks and effectively helps to shape migration streams. German and Ukranian migrations from Europe to the North American plains largely followed this pattern, much like Highlands Scots migration to Newfoundland, where immigrants also found living conditions similar to those in their original their homes. The examples of those 19th century migrations also elicit how the exchange of knowledge includes both ends of the information flow. Consequently, the accumulation of this type of information

14 The flow to the Greek mainland was presumably not the only route Aiolian emigrants would have taken. See Adak 2007 on the presence of Aiolian migrants in Pamphylia, which appears to have been another preferred destination.

392

Hans Beck

gives rise to new travel arteries, which in turn shape and inform the conversation between migrants and those left behind.15 The Homeric Hymn to Apollo (220–230) provides us with an example of a travel artery that emerged along such lines. It recalls the route emigrants would have taken from Aiolis in Asia Minor on their journey west, once they had landed on Euboia: You stood in the Lelantine plain, but it pleased not your heart to make a temple there and wooded groves. From there you crossed the Euripos, far-shooting Apollo, and went up the green, holy hills, going on to Mykalessos and grassy-bedded Teumessos, and so came to the wood-clad abode of Thebes; for as yet no man lived in holy Thebes, nor were there tracks or ways about Thebes’ wheat-bearing plain as yet. And further still you went, far-shooting Apollo, and came to Onchestos, Poseidon’s bright grove.

Much like Apollo in the Hymn, when Aiolian travellers came to Boiotia, the main travel artery led them from Mykalessos to Teumessos, on to Thebes and its rich agricultural chōra, and further on to Onchestos. About a century later Alkaios would have taken the same itinerary into Boiotia, judging from what he writes about the Tanagraia, Koroneia, and Onchestos.16 From there, it was only 10 kilometres southwest to Askra. The Aiolians who came to central Greece from the later eighth century BCE were thus most likely not an organized group, and they did not arrive there in a coordinated migration movement. Living conditions in Boiotia allowed them to avoid dire economic circumstances and social tension and yet maintain their lifestyles: their agricultural regime, their foods, and their cuisines. The continuation of customs such as these was most likely complemented by other expressions of cultural distinctiveness: local music and dances, religious beliefs, and, of course, the particular way in which they spoke.17

15 The case of Scottish migration to Newfoundland, which serves as a good template, is discussed by Ommer 1977. 16 Cf. frs. 306 (Tanagraia), 325 (Koroneia), and 425 (Onchestos). On Alkaios and Boiotia see also Barner 1967, 23–25; Schachter 2016/(1989), 40–42. 17 On music, see Athenaios’ famous remarks on the Aiolian mode, which figures alongside Dorian and Ionian tunes (14.624c-d). The ethnic register was brought about by the same trajectory that we established for Aiolian speech above.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

393

Figure 2: The corridor from the Lelantine plain into Boiotia according to the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (map after Schachter 2016: xxi. Used with permission).

In sum, Askra, in all likelihood, allowed them to replicate the lifestyle in which they had immersed themselves in Aiolis. It is easy to see how later traditions, under the omnipresent dynamics of ethnic positioning, conceived of this continuity as the result of tribal migrations. What had actually happened since the eight century was an increasing number of Aiolian emigrants coming to Boiotia, with as many motivations behind their journey as there were walks of life. III. AIOLIAN SYNGENEIA IN CONTEXT By the Classical period, several authors comment on the ethnic ties between the Aiolians in Asia Minor and their sungeneis in the mainland. The array of sources seems compelling, indicating that the Aiolian connection across the Aegean had become commonplace at the time. We have already noted how Herodotus’ Histories are inspired by the idea of an Aiolian tribe, and we will turn to Pindar and Thucydides momentarily. The prominence of the Aiolian paradigm was explained by Brian Rose with reference to the wider gulf of Hellenic self-perceptions. Rose argued that, in the aftermath of the Persian War, and especially after the battle of Eurymedon (469/466 BCE), several groups of people from both sides of the Aegean Sea were eager to claim bonds of a tribal communality. Such a rally towards transAegean genealogies, and a shared primordial descent of Greeks on the shores of either side of the sea, supported the idea of an ethnic community that extended across the Aegean and beyond, making the sea a truly Hellenic koinē. The resulting narratives of common descent were by and large tied to the greater trend of othering

394

Hans Beck

strategies, as they were applied by the Greeks, in order to bring meaning and purpose to a new, charged sense of Hellenicity.18 Legendary tales of migration and ethnic lineage were part and parcel of the notions and sentiments that fuelled the sense of Hellenicity, carrying with them their own agenda. As Rose reminds us, fifth century traditions of Hellenic togetherness propel the idea of a migration flow from Greece to Asia Minor. Since, in the aftermath of victory over Persia, the gravitational centre of Hellenicity had shifted from the shores of Ionia and adjacent regions to the mainland, the itinerary of migration myths was evidently remodelled accordingly, to reflect the new primordiality of the mainland. Migration movements, as governing forces behind the perceived ethnic ties across the Aegean, were now conceived of as movements that went from west to east, from the mainland to Asia Minor, rather than the other way around – and in diametrical opposition to what had actually happened between the eighth and sixth centuries BCE. The most obvious example is the case of Athens and the Ionians, an ethnic relation that was soon propagated as legendary migration of Athenians across the Sea to Ionia.19 In the Aiolian case, the direction of the migration streams which we discussed earlier was turned up-side-down, making the mainland the point of origin rather than Aiolis in Asia Minor. Such a creative remodelling in all likelihood gave rise to the idea that the Greek mainland had its own region called Aiolis. In a way, an Aiolis in Greece became an implicit necessity to support the claim of the mainland as actual point of departure. In 3.102.5 Thucydides declares that, after an unsuccessful attempt to take Atheniancontrolled Naupaktos, the Spartans “withdrew, not to the Peloponnese, but to the Aiolis, as it is now called, to Kalydon and Pleuron namely, and the other places of that region, and to Proschion in Aitolia”. Homer, notoriously so, knows nothing of this Aiolis in Aitolia. In the Catalogue of Ships, Kalydon and Pleuron figure both as Aitolian (Il. 2.639–640). His ignorance implicitly supports Thucydides’ statement that the region was ‘only now’ called Aiolis. In a fundamental contribution, Fritz Gschnitzer (1955) has demonstrated how regional and place names either derived their name from a pre-existing ethnic groups or, in turn, inspired the establishment of ethnic names. It appears that Aiolis would have belonged to the first group, that is that the region was called Aiolis because certain Aioleis had settled there. This is well in line with the picture of a migration flow from Asia Minor to the mainland, yet it also begs the more intricate question of how the inhabitants of the Aiolis viewed their ethnic roots, both within their group and in relation to its neighbors. 18 Rose 2008, 419f. This new sense also meant cultural competition and othering strategies within, i.e., between Greeks. According to Sophokles (Schol. Theokr. Idyl. 1.56), the verb aiolizein was equated to mean ‘to be deceitful’ or ‘speak deceitfully’, clearly resonating with Ionian sentiments. 19 The issue of Ionians is even touchier than that of the Dorians (above note 7). Cf. recently Mac Sweeney 2013, 157–173, pointing again to the forceful re-writing of an Ionian identity by Athenian authors in the 5th century BCE (esp. 172). Hall 2002, 70–73 has argued that sentiments of Ionian belonging in Asia Minor were fueled also by regional competition with the rise of Aiolian identities further north.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

395

The issue has sparked a long and lively debate, which is summarized by Sebastiaan Bommeljé.20 While older scholarship strove to reconcile the Aiolians in the mainland with the then prevailing picture of the ‘Dorian Migration’, Bommeljé is naturally more cautious. Rather than seeing the mythical tradition as reflective of authentic migration movements, his analysis of the legendary piecemeal of Aitolian, Achaian, and Aiolian cross-connections (for instance in Strabo 8.1.2, who saw the Achaians as an Aiolian tribe) is embedded in the convoluted natural environment of Central Greece. In particular, he highlights how the region called Aiolis by Thucydides played an intermediary role between the eighth and sixth centuries BCE, when it became a vibrant relay station in the exchanges between the northern and southern shores of the Corinthian Gulf. With lively exchanges across the Gulf, the rise of regional ethnic identities was in persistent movement and subject to multiple shifts and changes. In an ethnically volatile environment such as this, the influx of individuals from a common point of origin elsewhere, over a protracted period of time, easily left its mark on the process of identity formation.

Figure 3: Suggested direction of Aiolian migration movements, 8 th to 6th centuries BCE.

If the picture above of wandering Aiolians from Asia Minor to Boiotia from the eighth century is correct, then there is ample room to hypothesize that some of those travelers will have went beyond Boiotia, either on land or by boat along the northern shores of the Corinthian Gulf. The first location where they would have found larger sections of arable land, with Delphi and Amphissa being out of the picture, was 20 Bommeljé 1988. Freitag, Funke, and Moustakis 2004, 379f, with further references.

396

Hans Beck

Thucydides’ Aiolis, the northern coastline beyond the bottle neck of the Gulf, in the region of Kalydon and Pleuron. It was reiterated recently how the nearby Doris in Central Greece, famous for its name more than its role as authentic home of the Dorians, was a micro-region shrouded in ignorance for many contemporaries of the fifth century BCE.21 This seems to have been true about Aiolis too. With lively conversations about Hellenic ties across Aegean Greece under way after the Persian War, it should come to us as no surprise that an Aiolis appeared on the scene. Curiously enough, Herodotus speaks of Aiolidai (7.176.4) as a small place in northern Phokis, in the border lands to Thessaly. Jeremy McInerney (1999) has argued that the reference speaks to the heroic genealogy of Phokos, the eponymous hero of the Phokians and great-grandson of Aiolos; Aiolidai in Phokis would have been the place to authenticate connections between Phokis and (Aiolian) Thessaly. The challenge is that Herdotus’ reference is opaque, if not erratic. Aiolidai is not mentioned in any other source after Herodotus, and there are no traces of an Aiolis in northern Phokis otherwise. It almost appears as if the association with an Aiolian pedigree in Phokis ran dry in the course of the fifth century BCE. A similar development can be observed in Boiotia, which would have been an obvious place to serve as a terrain of Aiolian sentiments in central Greece, given that some Aiolians from Asia Minor had settled there since the early Archaic Age. As we will see in the subsequent section, there were strong reasons as to why Boiotia was actually unfit for the pronouncement of a charged Aiolian togetherness. Further west along the coast of the Corinthian Gulf, the fertile lands around Pleuron and Kalydon, between the Euenos and Acheloos rivers, offered the one meaningful place for the projection of an Aiolian identity. The new prominence of claims of tribal bondage after the Persian War brought to the fore the issue of belonging locally, regionally, and transregionally. By default, this impacted legendary traditions of Aiolian togetherness across the sea. At the same time, the articulation of ethnic togetherness was nested in convoluted power struggles. For instance, while Aiolian ethnicity was on the rise for some time in the fifth century BCE, the Aiolian cities of Asia Minor were actually all members of the Delian League. Kyme is recorded from 452 as belonging to the Ionian district, with an annual tribute of 12 talents. Others included Pitane (1,000 drachmai) and Myrina.22 It is intriguing to see how the competition in frontline politics in northern Asia Minor also resonated in competing legendary foundation myths, with which both sides supported the stakes of their claims. Herodotus states (5.94) that both the Athenians and the Lesbians bolstered demands over the Aiolian homeland in the Troad. Accordingly, we hear of an Athenian version by Pherekydes (fr. 155) that makes the Aiolian cities in the Troad foundations of the Athenian mythical king Kodros. The rival claim, articulated in Hellanikos (fr. 32), said that the region was

21 Rousset 2015, with further references. 22 Cf. Rubinstein 2004, s.v. Kyme, Pitane, Myrina, with references to the relevant epigraphic evidence from the Athenian Tribute Lists.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

397

settled by colonists from Lesbos; effectively, the Lesbians demanded suzerainty over the Aiolians there.23 The pattern behind these quarrels is familiar, but one wonders where the mainland Aiolians were in the power game. Returning to Thucydides, we learn that the Lesbian-Boiotian sungeneia did indeed inspire concerted action in war. In 428 BCE, when Lesbos prepared to revolt from Athens (3.2.3), the Boiotians were the main supporters of their kinsmen (sungeneis) in Mytilene. A certain Hermaiondas of Thebes was dispatched, presumably with a small force, to fight for the Mytileneaen cause. The configuration recurs in later sections of Thucydides’ work: In 413, when the Lesbians re-launched their attempt to break away, they are again aided by the Boiotians, this time with a flotilla of ten ships (8.5.2). Two years later, in 411, an all-Aiolian gang of rebels fought against an Athenian contingent on Lesbos. The insurgents included some of the leading exiles of Methymna, hoplites from Kyme, and a Theban leader by the name of Anaxarchos, who is again identified as sungenēs of the Lesbians (8.100.3).24 Again, Thucydides was led to believe that the Aiolians from both sides of the Aegean had a shared tribal pedigree; and that this notion of ethnic togetherness informed their foreign policy. Thebans and Aiolians supported each other because of sungeneia. Mutual help on ethnic grounds is of course well attested throughout the Peloponnesian War, with both Athenians and Spartans underpinning their leadership claims with references to their Ionian and Dorian sungeneia, respectively. Ionian sungeneia was the backdrop against which the Delian League was founded, if we follow Thucydides (1.95.1). At the same time, Thucydides makes it clear that he saw such claims as mostly cynical. In book three (3.86.4), he states that references to kinship had basically become an empty propagandistic shell that was used to obfuscate the exercise of blunt power politics. Thucydides’ analysis might have been to the point, yet this does not diminish the force of ethnic arguments as such. To the war parties, the ethnic charge of the conflict constituted a reality, no matter how elusive the grounds behind such a charge might have been.25 How do the scattered notes of trans-Aegean sungeneia relate to full-fledged ethnic ties between Aiolians and Boiotians, real or imagined? We have already seen how the alleged migration of Aiolians was not more than the sum of the actions of individuals who emigrated from Aiolia. We also discussed the circumstances under which the narratives of this movement reversed their direction from east-west to west-east. Effectively, the migration paradigm does not support the idea of tribal lineage and common descent. Is there another way then to think of Aiolian togetherness? Much in the spirit of Hesiod’s father, the migrants to the mainland will have included many men from the local elites of the Aiolian cities who had left their communities for a variety of reasons. Economic motives will have inspired some to 23 Among the earliest pieces of evidence for Lesbian leadership claims Alkaios fr. 129, on which see L. Robert, Revue des Études Anciennes 62 1962, 285–315. 24 Cf. Hornblower 1991–2008 on the respective passages; Fragoulaki 2013, 100–118; Lücke 2000. 25 Cf. Fragoulaki 2013, 209–248 and Hornblower 1991–2008 on 3.86.4.

398

Hans Beck

seek their fortunes elsewhere, but they didn’t start from nothing in their new homes. In other instances, factionalism will have contributed to the decision to pack their bags and leave. Social and political upheaval will have driven some leaders of the local warrior classes away, or actually exiled them. This is how Alkaios came to Boiotia in the sixth century BCE.26 Those emigrants in particular brought with them a wide network of social relations and family ties. Connected to an ever-growing web of interpersonal relations from common family ancestors, intermarriage, and guest friendship, these settlers entertained networks of exchange that spanned across the Aegean. They were sungeneis, again real or imagined, who treasured the same family traditions and bonds of loyalty. And, in their transregional communication, they construed stories of heroic lineage that allowed them to forge connections and establish, or reinforce, ties of reciprocity. In Pindar’s Nemean Ode 11 we encounter such an individual, a certain Aristagoras of Tenedos who is praised for his installation as head of the boulē of Tenedos. Aristagoras came from an illustrious fatherland, says Pindar (line 20). A few lines further down, he continues with his noble descent (33–37): It was easy indeed to infer his [Aristagoras’] Spartan descent from Peisander of old, who came from Amyklai with Orestes, who had led here an ironclad leader of the Aiolians, and also the blending of his blood with that of his mother’s ancestor Melanippos, from beside the stream of Ismenos.

On his father’s side, Aristagoras was of Spartan descent, through Periander from Amyklai, a companion of Orestes. On his mother’s side, the family tree went back to Melanippos, one of the legendary heroes from Thebes who defended their city against the notorious Seven. But there is more to this pedigree. First, note how the family lineage is modelled according to a migration pattern from west to east: an ironclad leader of the Aiolians descended from Spartans and Thebans, respectively. Second, Aristagoras’ example indicates that the claims for primordiality and heroic descent were articulated in a political context that was again more convoluted than the legendary tale suggests. For while Aristogoras, whose Spartan and Theban descent was praised, occupied the position as prytaneis in Tenedos, his community was among the most loyal Athenian allies and members of the Delian League in that corner of the Aegean. We have already observed that the claims for ethnic affiliation in the Troad were a bone of contention among Lesbians/Aiolians on the one hand, and Athenians from Sigeion/Ionians on the other. Aristagoras’ call for Thebes and Aiolis was thus embedded in a lively controversy over affiliations and patterns of belonging. Maybe his Theban stance was the deliberate choice of an anti-Athenian faction in Tenedos, but we can only conjecture this. Thirdly and finally, we ought to acknowledge that the implied ethnic affiliation between Aiolians in Asia Minor and the mainland draws once again on the highly personalized family pedigree of a member of the local elite. In other words, in the case in question, the notion of Aiolian ethnicity melts down to the personal ties of a local aristocrat who claimed descent from Spartan and Theban heroic warriors. 26 See above.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

399

There is of course nothing unusual about this. On the contrary, across the Aegean local elites entertained legends of far-flung descent in order to secure their local distinction. Members of the ruling classes celebrated their time-honoured family esteem everywhere, and no matter where they roamed in the world of Aegean Greece, the Heroic Age provided them with multi-adaptable names and notions that allowed them to plug in, establish proxies, and appropriate the mythical past. Given the migration traffic from Aiolis to central Greece, it is easy to see how those compartmentalized migration histories added up. Each member of the elite contributed to this, and each generation of emigrants added a new layer. Over time, this will have translated into the synthetic sense of a shared ethnicity that united the Aiolians from both sides of the Aegean. IV. FOURTH–CENTURY LESSONS In an inscription from the mid-fourth century BCE, the contributions from Greek states to the Boiotian war chest in the Third Sacred War are recorded (IG VII.2418 = R&O 57). The text has sparked interest because it was believed to reference a sunhedrion of the military alliance established by the Thebans during the years of hegemony. John Buckler has refuted this interpretation, arguing that the sunhedroi in question were not representatives of an interstate council, but rather, they appear to have been officials in local communities. As such, they delivered the funds of their city to the alliance.27 The diverse way in which individuals are identified in the document supports such a reading. The inscription lists contributions from two cities, Alyzeia and Anaktorion, brought to Thebes by envoys; from Byzantion by the named sunhedroi; and from Tenedos, member of the Second Athenian Confederacy at the time, delivered by the Boiotian proxenos there: These contributed money to the war which the Boiotians were waging concerning the sanctuary at Delphi against those who were committing sacrilege against the sanctuary of Pythian Apollo. In the archonship of Aristion: Alyzeia: 30 minas brought by the envoys (prisgees) … : Anaktorion: 30 minas by the envoys … : Byzantium … the money was brought by the sunedroi … Athenodoros son of Dionysios of Tenedos, proxenos of the Boiotians: 1,000 drachmai.

The constellation is not dissimilar from that of Aristagoras of Tenedos and his role in Boiotian-Aiolian affairs, as we encountered earlier. Once again, the ties between the Aiolian island of Tenedos and the Greek mainland manifest themselves in the agency of an aristocratic leader, a man named Athenodoros (which is not uninteresting in itself), who served as the guest-friend of the Boiotians on Tenedos. It is sometimes thought that Athenodoros made his contribution on the grounds of his Boiotian sympathies.28 Or did he do so because of his family ties? Either way, Aiolian relations are not invoked in the text and there are no other references to the

27 Buckler 2000; cf. also Jehne 1999. 28 Cf. the commentaries in R&O 57, p.270 and Harding 1985, 75, p.97.

400

Hans Beck

sentiment of Aiolian togetherness between the ethnē of the Boiotians and the Aiolians in the fourth century. Is it too hazardous to argue that these references are nonexistent because such a tribal togetherness had lost its allure? Let us return once more to Hesiod, who is so eminently important for the career of the Aiolian paradigm. In a contribution from 1985, many years before the cultural and ethnic turns, Albert Schachter brought to life the circumstances of emigration surrounding Hesiod’s family. As we have seen, a person such as Hesiod’s father would no doubt have known where he was going. He would have found out, Schachter reminded us, where land was available, either directly or indirectly, from a major centre of colonizing activity, such as Chalkis. “The hearsay reports on which he had to depend would no doubt have painted a rosy picture of the promised land. Hesiod’s famous complaint about Askra rings strangely true to the ears of any immigrant’s child, who will remember his parents’ repeated recollections of the delights and pleasures of the ‘Old Country’, rendered glamorous and desirable by time and distance.”29 The argument put forth here by Schachter is so convincing because it has an authentic Sitz im Leben, a setting in life. Future generations of Aiolians followed the tracks that were established by Hesiod, his family, and others. When they settled in their new homes, they reproduced the cultural, economic, and religious environments of their place of origin for as much as this was possible; and they treasured the stories that elaborated on their ethnic togetherness in their motherland. They shaped a new environment that was modelled after the local world they left behind. In this sense, they maintained their Aiolianness. At the same time, from the early seventh century BCE, the world in which they settled began to change around them in dramatic ways. The people in the cities of the Kephissos and Asopos valleys developed their own sense of an ethnic identity among them. The process of Boiotian ethnogenesis kicked in, so masterfully disentangled by Angela Kühr (2006), Stephanie Larson (2007), and Barabara Kowalzig (2007). Their studies show how the rise of Boiotian ethnic self-awareness was practically geared to, and in turn made possible by a common set of regional cults and foundation myths that date to the late eighth century BCE. Angela Kühr in particular discloses how the narrative development of Boiotian foundation myths over time was impacted by the existence of divergent and, at times, competing narratives of heroic ancestry. Kühr is able to assign divergent genealogical claims to different local communities: Amphion and Zethos to the lower Asopos valley, and the tradition of Kadmos to Thebes, which allows her to realign the dynamic process of ethnic identity formation with the interaction between local communities. As a result of their interaction, these communities gradually reinforced the idea of their commonality, expressed in the rising prominence of a new primordial hero, Boiotos, (twin) brother of the younger Aiolos. Note that Boiotos’ ascendancy did not marginalize the established local traditions as they were in place, at Thebes, Orchome-

29 Schachter 2016/(1985), 28.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

401

nos, and elsewhere. Boiotos supplemented those local identities, but he did not supersede them. His brother Aiolos, on the other hand, was soon enough reduced to an ephemeral role in Boiotian tales of primordial descent.30 The Aiolian settlers blended in in Boiotia, metaphorically and literally, making an impact on material and immaterial threads of culture as they unravelled along the way. But this impact appears to have been too scattered to ferment into fullfledged local traditions, with constant Aiolian heroic lineages or the like. The notion of Boiotianness was stronger. In fact, it was so strong that the Boiotians, on their part, did not see the need to take the opportunity that was before them. While the Spartans and Athenians were eager to extend their ethnic affiliations throughout the Greek world, both through space and time, the Boiotians had a different approach. It didn’t catch on between them and the Aiolians in Asia Minor. Unlike its Dorian and Ionian counterparts, Aiolian ethnogenesis did not ignite in the mainland. It is noteworthy to recall that the idea of mainland ‘colonization’ in the Archaic Age did not form an integral part of the Aiolian Leagues’ identity in Asia Minor either. As was observed by Brian Rose, beyond the literary piecemeal which we discussed above, there is nothing to suggest that the Aiolians expressed any claims of togetherness with Central Greece.31 The amphiktyony of Delphi, on whose behalf the Boiotians had fought so staunchly in the Third Sacred War, provides a striking example to put this interpretation to the test. Enumerating the members of the amphiktyonic council, Aischines (2.116) declares that he listed “twelve ethnē which shared the shrine: the Thessalians, Boiotians (not the Thebans alone), Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaibians, Magnetes, Dolopians, Lokrians, Oitaians, Phthiotians, Malians, and Phokians.” Few scholars have commented on the obscure nature of this membership directory, which is puzzling in more ways than one.32 In particular, while Dorians and Ionians figure so prominently among the ethnos states who ‘dwelled around’ Delphi – the literal meaning of amphiktyones –, it is telling enough to note that neither of them actually lay in Central Greece.33 The Aiolians, on the other hand, are not listed; rather, Thessalians and Boiotians were members in their stead. In fact, Aischines stresses that the Boiotians were members, rather than ‘the Thebans alone,’ the punch line being that the Thebans had become so dominant that expressions of their political stakes and local identity were often equated with those of the Boiotian ethnos, despite the fact that they were not. From the local world of Thebes to the collective ethnos of the Boiotians, the governing power in the region was the city of Thebes, with its enormous pedigree of power and prestige. Aiolian togetherness, on the other hand, was a paradigm that was stitched into the ethnic and cultural fabrics of Hellenicity. At the macro-level of Greek identities, 30 Cf. Kühr 2006, 118–132. 262–267; Larson 2007, 17–30; Ganter 2014; see also Beck and Ganter 2015, 135; A. Schachter, Der Neue Pauly 2, 1997, 739, s.v. Boiotos. 31 Rose 2008, 416. We note that there is no evidence whatsoever for a common Aiolian phylaistructure on either side of the Aegean. 32 See also the membership lists in Theopomp BNJ 115 F63 and Paus. 10.8.2. For a discussion, Lefèvre 1998; Sanchez 2001, 37–41 and 518 for a synopsis; Funke 2013, 454. 33 The Dorians made up for this of course through Doris, see above.

402

Hans Beck

the Aiolians were an integral part of the highest order of heroic genealogies, intertwined with simultaneous trajectories of Dorians and Ionians, and the formation of their respective ethnic identities. At the grassroots level, however, in Boiotia, the Aiolian paradigm fell flat. The obvious conclusion from Aischines skipping over the Aiolians in his list is that they never became visible agents in Central Greece. The longevity of their material and immaterial cultural legacies brought to Boiotia continued to influence the ways the people talked in that corner of the basin of Lake Kopais in one way or another. In addition, it explained certain cultural distinctions. Thucydides and Pindar credited those distinctions in conclusive terms, seeing them as vital expressions of a pan-Aiolian ethnos. The high authority of their voices, along with that of Hesiod, secured the the Aiolians a place in history. However, it is increasingly difficult to subscribe to their views. The Aiolians of Asia Minor were an ethnos of minor importance and with limited recognition there. As an ethnic group in mainland Greece, with a shared tribal agency and identity that cut across the Aegean, they are a phantom. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adak, M. (2007) Die dorische und äolische Kolonisation des lykisch-pamphylischen Grenzraumes im Lichte der Epigraphik und der historischen Geographie, in C. Schuler (ed.), Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien, Vienna, 41–50. Alty, J. (1982) Dorians and Ionians, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102, 1–14. Antonetti, C. (2005) La tradizione eolica in Etolia, in A. Mele, M. L. Napolitano, and A.Visconti (eds.), Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie, Naples, 55–70. Barner, W. (1967) Zu den Alkaios–Fragmenten von P.Oxy. 2506, Hermes 95, 1–28. Beck, H. (forthcoming) The Parochial Polis. Localism and the Ancient Greek City-State, Chicago. Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157. Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. Beck, H. and P. Funke (2015a) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29. Billows, R. (1990) Antigonos the One-eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley. Blümel, W. (1982) Die aiolischen Dialekte, Göttingen. Bommélje S. (1988) Aeolis in Aetolia: Thuc. III 102, 5 and the origins of the Aetolian ethnos, Historia 37, 297–316. Buck, R.J. (1986) The Aeolic Dialect in Boeotia, Classical Philology 63, 268–280. Buckler, J. (2000) The Phantom Synedrion of the Boiotian Confederacy 378–335 BC, in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, Presented to M.H. Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 431–446. Edwards, A. (2008) Hesiod’s Ascra, Berkeley. Fragoulaki, M. (2013) Kinship in Thucydides: Intercommunal Ties and Historical Narrative, Oxford. Freitag, K., P. Funke, and N. Moustakis (2004) Aitolia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford 379–390. Funke, P. (2013) Greek Amphiktyonies. An Experiment in Transregional Governance, in H. Beck (ed.), Companion to Ancient Greek Government, Malden, MA, 449–465. Ganter, A. (2014) Ethnicity and Local Myth, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford, 228–240.

The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos?

403

Garcia Ramon, J.L. (2007) Neues zur Problematik des thessalischen Dialekts, in I. Hajnal (ed.), Die alten griechischen Dialekte: Wesen und Werden, Innsbruck, 91–111. Gates, M.H. (1994) Archaeology in Turkey, American Journal of Archaeology 98, 249–278. Gehrke, H.-J. (2001) Myth, History and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, 286–313. Gschnitzer, F. (1955) Stammes- und Ortsgemeinden im alten Griechenland, Wiener Studien 68, 120–144. Hall, J.M. (2002) Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago/London. Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48. Harding, P. (1985) Translated Documents of Greece and Rome II: From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus, Cambridge. Head, B.V. (1911) Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, London. Hoerder, D. (2002) Cultures in Contact. World Migrations in the Second Millenium, Durham. Hornblower, S. (1991–2008) A Commentary on Thucydides, 3 volumes, Oxford. Jehne, M. (1999) Formen der thebanischen Hegemonialpolitik zwischen Leuktra und Chaironeia, Klio 81, 317–358. Kowalzig, B. (2007) Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece, Oxford. Kühr, A. (2006) Als Kadmos nach Boiotien kam: Polis und Ethnos im Spiegel thebanischer Gründungsmythen, Stuttgart. Larson, S.L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods. Historia Einzelschriften, Stuttgart. Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes. Loraux, N. (2000) Born of the Earth. Myth and Politics in Athens, Ithaca. Lücke, S. (2000) Syngeneia. Epigraphisch-historische Studien zu einem Phänomen der antiken griechischen Diplomatie, Frankfurt. Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley. Mackil, E. and P. Van Alfen (2006) Collaborative Coinage, in P. Van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange presented to John H. Kroll, New York, 201–247. Mac Sweeney, N. (2013) Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia, Cambridge. Malkin, I. (2011) A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford. Nagy, G. (2009) Hesiod and the ancient biographical traditions, in F. Montanari, C. Tsagalis, and A. Rengakos (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden, 271–311. Ommer, R.E. (1977) Highlands Scots Migration to Southwestern Newfoundland: a Study of Kinship, in J.J. Mannion (ed.), The Peopling of Newfoundland. Essays in Historical Geography, St. John’s, 212–234. Parker, H.N. (2008) The Linguistic Case for the Aiolian Migration reconsidered, Hesperia 77, 431– 464. Prinz, F. (1979) Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, Munich. Rose, C.B. (2008) Separating fact from fiction in the Aiolian migration, Hesperia 77, 399–430. Rousset, D. (2015) Microfederalism in Central Greece: the Dorians and Oitaians, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 222–230. Roy, J. (2014) Autochthony in Ancient Greece, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Malden, Ma./Oxford, 241–255. Rubinstein, L. (2004) Aeolis and South-western Mysia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 1033–1052. Sánchez, P. (2001) L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes : Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au 2e siècle de notre ère, Stuttgart. Schachter, A. (2016) Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers, Cambridge. Ulf, C. (ed.) (1996) Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität, Berlin.

404

Hans Beck

Ulf, C. (1996a) Griechische Ethnogenese versus Wanderungen von Stämmen und Stammstaaten, in C. Ulf (ed.), Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität, Berlin, 240–280. Vottéro, G. (2006) Remarques sur les origines ‘éoliennes’ du dialecte béotien, in C. Brixhe and G. Vottéro (eds.), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans le Grèce antique, Nancy, 99–154.

INDEX Abantes 122 Act of Union of 1840 (Of Canada) 187 Achaia/Achaians 11, 24, 75, 89, 99, 101, 102, 104-108, 127, 159, 175-189, 193200, 205-215, 219-233, 258, 267, 285307, 322, 330, 373, 395 Achaian War 114, 196, 207, 213 Achelous 155 Acheloos River 172, 349, 396 Acheron River 341-342, 344-345 Acherusian Lake 341 Achilles 39, 302, 339, 349 Acteon 162 Actium 151, 196 Admetos 304 Aedepsos 120 Aegean Sea 336, 386-387, 389-390, 393394, 396-399, 402 Aeschylus 347 Agamemnon 131 Agasikles of Thebes 39 Agesilaos, King of Sparta 247, 262, 329 Agesipolis 333 Agias 181 Agios Athanasios 47 Agios Vlassis 47, 52, 56 Agonothetes 59, 78, 87, 96, 370 Aiachus 143 Aiacidai 348, 351, 354 Aianteians 55 Aigina 138, 228 Aigion 36, 193, 196, 198-199, 207-208, 212, 226-228, 235, 302 Aigospotomoi (Battle of) 11, 181 Aigosthena 37, 76, 101 Aiklos 120-122 Ainianes 33, 38, 158, 208, 339, 344 Aioleion 323 Aiolians 352, 385-401 Aiolidai 396 Aiolis 387, 390-396 Aiolos 385, 396, 400-401 Aischines 401-402 Aison 304

Aitolia/Aitolians 20-24, 26, 32-36, 44, 4959, 88-89, 99, 102, 108, 116-118, 125, 128, 132, 149-162, 167-173, 200, 205210, 212-215, 230, 232, 233, 271, 286, 293-294, 300-301, 303, 305-306, 330, 344, 367, 394-395 Aitolos 22, 38, 157 Ajax 55 Akanthos 324-325, 329, 332-334 Akarnania/Akarnanians 55, 75, 116, 143, 167-173, 213, 232, 330, 350 Akraiphia 71, 74, 87, 90 Akroria/Akrorians 245 Alcetas 353 Alea 249 Alektryon 136 Aleuads 276, 278 Aleuas Pyrrhochrous 372 Alexander I of Epirus, 142, 169, 356 Alexander I of Macedon 276 Alexander II 170, 173, 331 Alexander III (The Great) 74, 139, 142, 168, 195, 205-206, 219, 332, 364, 371-372, 374-375 Alexandria 211 Alipheira 249 Alkaios 392, 398 Alkibiades 17-18 Alope from Tithronion 37 Alyzea 142, 399 Amarynthos 116, 119, 124-126, 129 Ambrakia 140, 142 Ambryssos 33 Amphanai 296 Amphiktyon 38-39 Amphiktyonic Council 291 Amphiktyonic League 45 Amphiktyony 88 Amphion 400 Amphipolis 277, 324, 327-328, 330-335, 364, 367-368, 371-373 Amphissa 31, 33-37, 46-59, 395 Amyklai 398 Amynandros of Athamania 301 Amyntas III 323-324, 329, 331, 333

406 Amythaon 304 Anaktorion 399 Anaphe 367 Anaxarchos of Thebes 397 Andrapodismos 134 Androdamas of Rhegion 321 Andros 322 Anfissa 158 Antalcidas 52 Anthela 38 Anthemous 331, 334 Antigoneia 198, 199 Antigonid Dynasty 108, 124, 297, 365-367, 369, 374-376 Antigonos Doson 106, 108, 180, 195, 207, 366-368, 375 Antigonos Gonatas 206, 292, 366, 372, 375376 Antigonos Monophthalmos 171, 292, 332, 335, 389 Antilochos 304 Antinitsa 305 Antiochia 211 Antiochos of Arkadia 260-261, 266 Antiochus (War of) 115-117, 207, 210 Antiochus III 103, 118-119, 126, 129, 195 Antipater 372 Antiphatas 52 Antoninus Pius 249-250 Antron 289, 292 Apamea (Peace of) 234 Apatouria (Festival) 175 Aphedriates 89-90, 100 Apheidas 181 Aphrodite 155 Aphytis 321, 334 Apollo 11, 51, 59, 68, 70, 86, 89, 121, 155157, 181, 322-323, 367, 385, 392 Apollo (Delian) 367 Apollo Ismenios 67 Apollo Nasiota 48, 153 Apollo Ptoieus 68, 86-89 Apollo Pythaeus 136 Apollo Thermios 150, 207, 344 Apollodorus 349 Apollonia 160, 329, 333-334 Aratos 175, 177, 180, 207-209, 227 Archelaos 331 Archidamian War 328 Areus 195 Argead Dynasty 140, 142, 145 Argilius 51

Index Argolid 65, 67, 131-137, 142, 144-146 Argolis 228 Argos/Argives 131-146, 179-183, 185, 188, 195-196, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 226228, 246, 250, 252, 260, 263-264, 266, 324-326, 342 Aristagoras of Tenedos 398-399 Aristion of Anaktorion 143 Aristion of Medion 143 Aristodama 33-36, 153-154 Aristokleides 138 Aristotle 17, 194, 200, 225, 268, 321-322, 325, 332, 352, 373 Arkadia 11-12, 26, 132, 175, 177, 179, 181182, 185, 226-227, 230, 243—253, 257-269, 373 Arkas 11, 181, 248, 252 Arnai 325, 334 Arrian 364, 371-372 Arridaeus 372 Artemidorus of Ephesus 221, 234 Artemis 181, 184, 301, 369 Artemis Laphria 150, 154-155, 157, 159, 162 Artemis Leukophryene 367 Artemis Limnatis 179, 181 Artemis Panachaia 301 Artemis Taurpolos 365-366, 369 Artemisia 116 Ascheion 227-228 Asclepius 57, 132 Aseans 250 Asia Minor 367, 372, 385-386, 389, 392396, 398, 401-402 Asine 133, 260 Asklepeion 139-142, 367 Asklepios 137 Asklepios of Epidauros 326 Askra 390-393, 400 Asopos 23, 67, 122, 400 Assemble nationale du Quebec 187 Atalante 162 Athamas 298, 303 Athena 69, 155-157, 298 Athena of the Boiotioi 69 Athena Ilias 55, 57-58 Athena Itonia 65, 67-70, 78, 93 Athena Nikephoros 367 Athena Panachaia 302 Athena Pronaia 68 Athena Troas 55-56

Index Athenian Naval Confederacy (Second) 327, 330, 399 Athenian-Theban Coalition 179 Athenodorus 399 Athens/Athenians 13-26, 33, 52-53, 58, 6671, 74, 77-79, 94, 99, 102, 104, 120123, 136, 139, 142, 168, 172, 178, 181, 250, 252, 258, 261, 264, 267-269, 275281, 324-326, 327-328, 330-336, 388, 394, 396-398, 401 Atintanians 350 Athos 324 Attalid Kings 367 Attica 197, 342 Augustus 151, 370 Autochthony 11, 14-15, 21, 23, 123, 258, 259, 263, 388 Autokles of Athens 261 Autolykos 303 Axios River 363-365 Azan/Azanians 11, 181 Bablyon 168 Basileia (Festival of) 77, 83, 93-95 Battle Without Tears 266 Belminatis 180 Beroia 370-371, 373 Boiotarch 14, 68-73, 78, 108, 373 Boiotia/Boiotians 11-14, 17, 23-26, 66-79, 83-84, 87-96, 99-108, 122, 132, 139, 146, 154, 167, 172, 196-197, 226, 229230, 251, 259, 271, 279, 289, 326, 329330, 335, 342, 373, 386-392, 395-402 Boiotos 400, 401 Bottiaeans 323, 325, 327, 332-333, 371-373 Boubon 224 Brasidas 277-278, 291, 324, 325, 327-328, 331-332 Brea 327 British North America Act (of 1867) 186187 Brygi 350 Byzantion 75, 399 Canada 185-189 Celts 372, 374 Cephalonia 160 Chaironeia (Battle of) 74, 89, 179 Chaironeia 71, 74, 103, 104 Chalai 300 Chaleon 31, 33-34, 36, 37, 52-53, 57-58, 153 Chalkidian Alphabet 322 Chalkidians 26, 247, 400

407 Chalkidians in Thrace 321-336 Chalkidic Peninsula 324, 326, 336 Chalkis 100-101, 108, 113-129, 139, 274275, 280 Chaonians 350-351 Charmaina 46 Cheimerion 344 Chileos of Tegea 245 Chios 143 Circe 344 Claudius 370-371 Cleopatra 142 Commodus 224 Corinth/Corinthians 36, 48, 60, 65-66, 101, 142, 188, 195, 198, 208, 211, 226, 228, 324, 326, 328, 340, 342, 346, 354 Corinth (Gulf of) 66, 168, 205, 206, 246, 395, 396 Corinthian War 73, 328, 330, 331 Corcyra 142-143, 346 Corcyra, Bull of 181 Crete 230, 367 Creteaeans 367 Crousis 327 Cumae 143 Curetes 155 Cyclopean Walls 134 Cyprus 143, 144 Cypselus 59 Cyrene 142, 245 Daidala 69, 78 Daimachos of Plataia 22 Daiphontes 136 Damastes 276-277 Daochos Monument 278 Daphnephoria 39 Datos 140 Deianira 155 Delia (Festival of) 77 Delian League 71, 396-398 Delion (Battle of) 72 Delos 369 Delphi 11, 33, 46, 57-58, 68-69, 88, 139, 146, 150-151, 153-154, 157-158, 168, 172, 181-182, 214, 244, 278-279, 291, 293, 301, 367, 395, 401 Delphic Amphiktyony 89, 153, 271, 290, 293, 367, 401 Delphic Games 87 Demeter 70, 106-107, 138, 298, 305, 345 Demeter Panachaia 194, 302 Demetrias 117-118, 292, 294, 296

408 Demetrios II 89, 156, 206, 369 Demetrios Poliorketes 100, 172, 292, 295297, 302 Demphis 172 Demonax of Mantinea 245 Demosthenes 45, 51, 55, 58, 275, 323, 328329, 335 Dentheliatis 179, 184 Derdas of Elimeia 326 Despoina 247 Deucalion 302 Diadochi (Wars of the) 99, 113, 139, 151 Didyma (Oracle) 127 Dikaia 333-334 Dimokastro 355 Dipaia (Battle of) 243 Diodorus Siculus 24, 122, 134, 259, 262263, 267, 296, 329-330, 332, 335, 364 Dion 157, 324, 333, 368, 373 Dion of Akte 333 Dionysos 70, 155, 367 Dionysos of Syracuse 329 Dioskouroi 181 Duodeka 136 Dodekapolis 385, 389 Dodona 157, 339-357 Dolopians 401 Domitian 370 Dorians 33, 134, 136, 175, 385, 387-389, 396-397, 401-402 Dorian Invasion/Migration 44, 395 Doric Koinon 101 Doric Corridor 45-47, 50, 59 Dorieis of Rhodes 139, 142 Dorieus 388 Doris 151, 388, 396 Doros 385 Dorykles 350 Drakon 151 Dryopes 120-123, 134 Dulichius 339-340, 343 Dyme 24, 116, 195, 199, 213, 226-228 Echemos 252 Echinos 289 Edessa 373 Egnatia Odos 345 Egypt 349 Eion 275, 327 Elaia 341 Elaiatis 341 Elatos 181 Elea 341, 345, 354-355, 357, 358

Index Elephenor 122 Eliaia 341 Elimiotai 363, 365 Elina 355 Elis/Elians 18-22, 24, 151, 178, 189, 194, 196, 198, 199, 228, 245, 249-250, 252, 263-267, 324-326 Ellopia 120, 121, 122, 340, 349 Ellops 120, 121 Epameinondas 52, 73, 179, 250, 263-265, 267 Epeion 18 Ephoros of Kyme 20-22, 159, 262 329, 349 Ephyra 341 Epidamnos 154 Epidauros 74, 132-133, 137, 139-145, 226229, 333, 356 Epigonoi 122 Epirus 118, 139-140, 142, 145, 167, 170, 341-357, 363, 373-374 Eratoxenos of Athens 152 Erecthieus 122 Eretreia 37, 66, 100-101, 108, 114-116, 120129, 143, 274, 322, 326 Eretreius 121, 123 Erineus 388 Eros 155 Erymanthian Boar 157 Erythrai 161 Etruria 48 Euaimon 250 Euboia 37, 44, 71, 74, 100, 108, 113-128, 197, 321, 340, 342, 377, 392 Euboian Gulf 46 Euboian Strait 66 Euboian War 274 Eudamidas 329 Euenos River 396 Eugammon of Cyrene 350-351 Euippe 350-351 Eumelos 304 Eumenes 195 Eumenes II 213, 232 Eunomos 118 Euphraios 291 Euripides 159, 347 Euripos (Straits of) 100 Europe (Modern History) 198, 391 Eurotas River 262 Euryalos 351 Eurylochos 117 Eurymedon (Battle of) 393

Index Eurypidas 159 Eurytos 121 Euthykrates 323 Euthymedes 115 Eutresis 70, 245 Flamininus, Titus Quinctius 113-119, 293 Flavian Period 370 France 198 Front de Liberation du Quebec 186, 188 Galatians 151, 156 Galatian Invasion of Greece 99, 208 Galaxidi 56, 58 Gale 332 de Gaulle, Charles 188 Gauls 150, 167-168 Germany 198, 391 Geronthrai 114 Ghiona 60 Gitana 355-357 Glabrio, Manius 115 Gordian III 371 Goumani 355 Glykys Limen 341 Grabus of Illyria 323, 326 Great Gods 369 Gryneion 385 Hades 344-345, 354-355, 357 Halai 100-101 Haliartos 74, 77 Halieis 134 Halos 33, 291, 294-298, 301-304 Hekatomboia 132, 136, 140, 142, 145 Helisson 250 Hellanikos 396 Helle 298, 303 Hellen 302, 385 Hellenus of Troy 351 Hellenic Alliance 89 Hellenic War 168 Hellespont 143 Hera 69-70, 135-136, 142, 144 Heraion 135, 137, 140, 144-145 Herakleia 140, 364, 365 Herakleia Syntike 373 Herakleia Trachiniai 291 Herakleidai 134-135, 242, 259 Herakleides Kritikos 19, 102 Herakles 67, 70, 106, 108, 136, 155-157 Heraklion 68 Hermaiondas of Thebes 397 Hermes 70, 155 Hermione 134

409 Hermon 181 Herodotus 13-14, 18-22, 65, 68, 244-245, 247, 251-252, 276, 287, 343, 345, 349, 352-353, 385, 390, 393, 396 Heroön of Kalydon 155 Hesiod 243, 340, 349, 385-386, 389-391, 397, 400, 402 Hessioi 56 Hestiaotis 278 Hieron of Alexandria 171 Highland Scots 391 Histiaia 37, 73, 75, 120-122 Histaiotis 122, 364 Homer 122, 131, 133, 155, 161, 243, 302303, 339-357, 340-357, 394 Homeric Catalogue of Ships 23, 67, 243, 339, 352, 394 House of the Coroplast 303 Hutu 176 Hyaioi 56 Hyettos 66 Hypata 33, 36, 207 Hyperborea 347 Hypnia 48-49 Hypothebai 67 Hyrkanis 33, 35-36 Hyrnathioi 136 Ialysos 336 Ida, Mount 385 Iliad 339-340, 344 Ilion 55 Illyria 371 Iolaos of Thebes 70 Iolkos 304 Ion 120-121, 385 Ionia 120-121, 134, 141-142, 353, 385, 387389, 394, 396-398, 401-402 Ionian Sea 340, 347 Ionic (Dialect) 322 Ipsos (Battle of) 292 Isis 138 Ismenias 76 Isokrates 74, 329, 333 Isthmian Declaration 113, 119, 125 Italiote League 234 Ithaka 339-340, 342-343, 350 Itonos 38 Itonion 90 Jason of Pherae 272, 277, 279-281 Julio-Claudian Dynasty 370 Justin 363 Kadmeia 329

410 Kadmos 400 Kamiros 336 Kalamas 342 Kalapodi 161 Kallibios 14, 257 Kallidike 350 Kallimachos 159 Kalliopolis 159-160 Kallistai 227 Kallisto 181, 252 Kallistratos 268 Kalydon 20, 24, 150, 154-155, 157-158, 168, 206, 394, 396 Kaphyai 251 Karandai 294 Karatsagdali 294 Karystos 79, 115-116, 120-129 Kassandreia 37, 332, 335, 367-368 Kassandros 292, 297, 302, 332, 335 Kastro Kallithea 294, 296, 300, 303-305 Kastro Vellianis 355 Kephisodotos of Athens 261 Kephissos Valley 400 Keraunus 372 Kerberos 344, 354-355 Keressos 67 Kerinthos 122 Kimmerians 344-345 Kimon of Athens 275-276 Kineas 277 King’s Peace 260, 268, 329-330 Kirra 45 Kithairon 66 Kleandros of Kolophon 138, 152 Klearidas 324, 327 Kleigenes of Akanthos 247, 257, 324, 329 Kleitor 247, 249, 251 Kleogenes of Aigion 33 Kleomachos of Pharsalos 274-276 Kleomenes I of Sparta 243, 247 Kleomenes III of Sparta 89, 101, 179-180, 184, 195, 206 Kleomenic War 103 Kleon 333 Kleonai 137 Kleotimos 335 Knemos of Sparta 350 Knossos 386 Koans 368 Kodros 396 Kokytos River 341-342, 344 Kolopetinitsa 48

Index Kompasion (Massacre of) 187 Kopais, Lake/Kopaic Basin 65-76, 79, 402 Korkyra 37 Koroneia 65-68, 71, 74, 77, 79, 90, 93, 139, 392 Koroni 196 Kos 367, 369 Kothos 120-122 Kotilidai 280 Krane/Kephallenia 36 Krissa 46 Krissaean Gulf 48 Kritolaos 211 Kroisos of Lydia 347 Krokian Plain 292, 300 Kroton 140 Ktouri 294 Kuretes 159 Kybele 155 Kyme 389, 391, 396-397 Kynourians 16, 245 Kyzikos 369 Lakedaimonians 257, 268, 324, 329 Lakonia 11, 198, 228, 247, 260, 263 Lakonians 175, 177, 182, 228 Lamia 33-34, 37, 153 Laphrieia 150-151 Laphrion 155, 158 Larisa 131, 277, 280 Larisa Kremaste 289, 292, 296, 298-299 Larissa 118 Larymna 100-101 Lasthenes 323 Lebadeia 69, 71, 74, 88-91, 93-94 Lelantine War 326 Leontophron 350 Lepreon 18 Lesbos 124, 335, 385, 387, 396-398 Lētōon 223 Leukas 142-143 Leukophryeneia 154 Leuktra (Battle of) 69, 73, 93, 179, 183, 243, 245-246, 252-253, 258, 268-269, 330 Liatovouni 341-342 Lindos 336 Linear B 386, 388 Livy 113, 115-117, 128, 185, 206, 212, 364, 369 Lokris 26, 30-40, 44, 48, 53-60, 66, 68, 76, 88, 142, 151, 153, 158, 160, 167, 170173, 214, 401 Lokris (Epiknemidian) 47

Index Lokris (Hesperian) 33, 36, 37, 44, 49-61 Lokris (Hypoknimidian) 52 Lokris (Opuntian) 37, 44-60, 100-101, 108 Lokris (Ozolian) 44, 51 Lokros 59 Lousoi 228 Lycians 196, 220-237 Lykaia 248 Lykaion, Mount 247-249 Lykaon 181 Lykomedes of Mantineia 14-15, 245, 257269 Lykortas 189 Lykosoura 247, 249 Lykourgan Constitution 185 Lyncestis 365 Lysander 181 Lysimachus of Alexandria 350 Lysistratos of Olynthus 325 Magnesia 113, 117-119, 154, 230, 290, 367 Magnetes 401 Magoula Plataniotiki 294-295 Mainalians 16, 245, 251-252 Makon of Larisa 301 Malos/Malians 38, 289, 401 Malian Gulf 46 Mantineia 198, 243, 246-252, 257-258, 263, 267, 269, 329 Mantineia (Battle of) 73, 326 Makedonia 25, 99, 106, 113, 123, 124, 126, 139, 140, 142-143, 145, 157, 168, 180, 184, 197, 200, 206-207, 214, 276, 278, 286, 291-297, 299-300, 302-303, 305306, 323-332, 335-336, 350, 363-378 Makedonia (Upper) 365, 371-373 Makedonian Wars 197 Makedonian War (First) 103, 108, 156 Makedonian War (Second) 208 Makedonian War (Third) 374 Makiston 18, 121 Makyneia 54, 168 Marathonian Tetrapolis 121 Mardonios 276 Marganeis 20 Margos of Keryneia 208 Massalia 390 Mastilitsa 346 Matropolis 173 Mavromandilia 341-342 Maeander River 367 Medeonians 116 Medion 142

411 Megalopolis 11, 175, 179-180, 183, 185, 193, 196-199, 208-209, 227-228, 245, 248-251, 265, 267 Megara/Megarians 76, 78, 101, 104-105, 109, 139, 198, 226, 324, 326 Megaris 228 Mekistis 121 Mekyberna 325, 332 Melaneis 121 Melaneus 121, 123 Melanippos 398 Meleager 155, 162, 372 Melissa 345 Melitaia 289, 293, 299-302 Melos 178 Menaichmos 151 Mende 321, 325, 327, 332-333 Menon of Gargettos 276 Menon of Pharsalos 275-276, 278 Menophantos of Makedon 33, 35-37 Messapians 56 Messene/Messenians 11, 121, 151, 178184, 188-189, 193, 195-199, 228, 232, 246 Mesopotamos 345-346 Messenian War (Third) 52 Methone 321, 336 Methydrion 250, 252 Methymna 335, 397 Metope 122 Midea 133 Mikkos of Dyme 213 Mikythion 115 Miletos 181 Mithridatean War 196 Minyai 18, 65-69 Molossia 140, 341-357, 373 Molykreion 54, 60 de Montcalm, Louis-Joseph 186 Montreal 188 Mummius 77 Myania 49 Mycenae 133-137, 388-389 Mycenean Period 44-47, 77, 134, 386-387 Mykale 385 Mykalessos 392 Myrina 396 Myonia 48, 59 Mytilene 127, 159, 335-336, 397 Nabis 179-180, 184, 195 Naopoioi (College of) 78, 94 Narthakion Range 289

412 Naryka 32, 54, 79 Naumachios of Epirus 171 Naupaktos 24, 34, 37, 51-59, 151, 168, 170, 205-206, 394 Nekyomanteion 345, 357 Neleus 304 Nemea 133, 135, 141, 143-144, 198 Nemean Games 132, 141 Neochori-Gkirkas 346 Neoptolemos 347, 349, 352-353 Nestor 304 Newfoundland 391 Nikander of Kolophon 152 Nike 11, 181, 196 Nike of Paionios 181 Nikias 324, 327-328 Nikias (Peace of) 324-326, 332 Nikokreion of Salamis 143-145 Nobilior, Marcus Fulvius 184 Nonakris 247 North Africa 142 North America 391 Noudion 18 October Crisis 187 Oeneon 57 Oeneus 152 Ocean 344 Odryssians 326, 335 Odyssey 339-340, 343-345, 347, 350-352 Odysseus 339, 344, 350-351, 357 Oetaians 158 Oiantheia 59, 158, 160, 172 Oineidai 162, 168, 173 Oinophyta (Battle of) 71 Oitaians 401 Olpaioi Olympia 70, 181-182, 195, 249, 251 Olympian Games of Gordian III 371 Olympic Games 133, 140 Olynthian-Spartan War 329 Olynthus 257, 321-336 Onchestos 67, 76, 392 Opous 31-33, 36, 38, 54, 100-101, 105, 108 Opramoas of Rhodiapolis 223 Opuntia 52-53, 60 Orchomenos 25, 66-74, 103-104, 139, 160, 247, 250-252, 400-401 Oreitai 122 Oreos 120-121 Orestes 398 Orestians 350, 363, 365 Orion 121, 123

Index Oropos 66, 74-76, 92, 99-105, 108, 211, 268 Orthagoras Decree 235 Othrys Massif 290 Ottowa 188 Oxylos, son of Haimon 20, 22 Pagai 101 Pagasai 296 Pagasitic Gulf 289 Pagondas of Thebes 14, 72 Palairos 142-143 Palatine Hill 249 Pallantion 244, 249-250 Pallene 334 Pamboiotia (festival and sanctuaries) 79, 83, 90, 93, 95 Panaitolika 149, 151, 207 Pandoros 122 Panionion 385 Pantaleon I 209 Paramythia 346 Parasopia 69 Parnassus 46 Parnes 66 Parrhasians 245-246, 248, 249, 251 Parti Quebecois 186, 188 Patrai 205, 213, 229 Patras 151, 155, 196, 198-199, 302 Patroklos 39, 303 Pausanias 23, 78, 95, 179, 182-183, 187, 244, 250-251, 265, 302 Pegasus 354 Peisistratos 304 Peisistratids 277 Pelagonia 365 Pelasgia 298 Pelasgians 134, 144, 339-340, 348-350 Pelasgiotis 278, 289, 364 Pelias 304 Pella 152, 364-365, 367-368, 373 Pellene 24, 196, 246 Pelopidas 262-263, 266, 330 Peloponnese 121, 138, 151, 177-180, 187188, 193-200, 206, 215, 224-225, 227, 230-231, 243, 245-246, 249-250, 252, 258-260, 263-269, 290, 299, 302, 388, 394 Peloponnesian League 244-247 Peloponnesian War 72, 246, 276-277, 332, 334-335, 397 Peneus 365 Perdikkas II 278, 324-328, 330-331 Perdikkas III 140, 142, 328, 331, 333

Index Pereia 300 Pergamum 367 Periander 398 Periander of Corinth 345 Perikles 16, 71, 108 Perrhaibia 113, 122-123, 339, 344, 401 Persephone 106, 344-345, 354-355, 357 Persephone Soteria 369 Perseus 304 Perseus of Macedon 76, 366, 372, 376, 378 Persia 160, 262, 291, 394 Persian Emperor 266, 276, 329 Persian Wars 70, 134, 276, 389, 393, 396 Peuma 294, 296, 298, 300-301 Phaethon 121 Phaistinos 59 Pharai 116, 213 Pharsala 294 Pharsalos 275, 279, 291-292, 296, 305-306, 325-326 Pheidon 339-340, 343-344, 351 Pheneos 228 Pherae 37, 304 Pherai 118, 304 Pherekydes 396 Phigalia 196, 244 Philiates 342 Philip II of Makedon 54, 140, 179, 205-206, 279, 281, 292, 323, 326, 328, 330-332, 334, 336, 354, 364, 366, 371-374, 376 Philip V 106, 108, 158, 293, 365-366, 368369, 374, 376, 378 Philippi 367 Philippoi 367-368, 370 Philippos Andriskos 370, 375 Philopoimen 101, 180-181, 184-185, 187, 189, 193, 196, 208-209, 229, 232, 235 Philotas 371 Phleius 329 Phoenecians 349 Phokaia 390 Phokis 11, 26, 44, 48, 66, 75, 78, 101, 151152, 158, 161, 167-168, 172, 230, 271, 289, 306, 330, 396, 401 Phokos 396 Phorbadas 143 Phormion 325 Phrixa 18 Phrixos 298, 303 Phthiotians 401 Phthiotis 278, 289, 364 Phthiotoc Achaea 38, 285-307

413 Phthiotic Eretreia 305 Phthiotic Thebes 32-33, 36, 289, 292, 295, 298, 301-302, 305 Phylake 295, 298 Phyliadon 300 Physkos 31, 33, 38 Physkeis 51, 55, 59 Phytaea 36 Pindar 20, 39, 70, 347-349, 393, 398, 402 Pindos 352 Pitane 396 Plains of Abraham (Battle of) 186 Plataia (Battle of) 65, 252 Plataia (Figure) 23 Plataia 13, 23-25, 67-73, 102, 105, 109, 333 Plataiid 69, 72 Plato 321 Pleiades 208 Pleistos 46, 59 Pleuron 167, 394, 396 Plutarch 60, 120, 177, 187, 225, 259, 262, 265, 274-275, 321-322 Polichne 321, 323, 334 Polybios 24, 101, 103-106, 108, 116, 168170, 175-178, 185-186, 193-196, 198, 205-206, 208-215, 219-221, 229-232, 258, 321, 323, 364, 375, 377-378 Polydamas 277, 279, 281 Polydeukes of Therapne 70 Polykritos 170-171 Polykritos of Callium 171 Polypoites 350 Pompidas 106-107 Poseidon 69, 76, 106-107, 122, 181 Posidippus 152 Potidaia 324, 327, 331-335 Potidaiatika 327-328 Potidania 160 Pras 172 Proklos 350 Proschion 394 Protessilaos 298 Proxenos of Tegea 14, 257 Pseudo-Aristotle 333 Pseudo-Skylax 289, 341, 343 Pteleon 292 Pteleos 118 Ptoia 91, 93-94, 96 Ptoion 68, 83, 87-90, 95 Ptoios 68 Ptolemaic Egypt 197, 211, 367 Ptolemy 372

414 Ptolemy of Aloros 331 Ptolemy V 106 Pydna (Battle of) 58 Pylean Amphictyony 38 Pyrasos 289-290, 295, 298, 302 Pyrgos 18 Pyrgos Ragiou 346 Pyriphlegethon 344 Pyrrha 302 Pyrrhos of Epiros 99 Pythian Games 70, 139, 172 Pythian Sanctuary 151, 154 Quebec 185-189 Quebec City 188 Rhamfias 278 Rhodes 124, 139, 234, 336 Rhomaia (Festival) 114, 126-127 Rome/Romans 76-79, 89, 93, 113, 115-119, 125-128, 169-170, 178, 184-185, 188, 207, 212, 214, 223, 230, 234, 249, 286, 293, 305-306, 364-365, 368-371, 374376, 378 Rwanda 176 Sacred War (Third) 194, 399, 401 Sacred Way 11, 135, 181 Samothrace 369 Sarte 322 Scione 321, 325, 332-333 Second Athenian League 75 Seleucid Empire 114, 116, 118, 211, 367 Selloi 339-340, 344, 347-349, 352, 357 Sepeia (Battle of) 134 Serapis 138 Sermylia 334 Seven Against Thebes 398 Seven Years War 186 Sicilian Campaign 324 Sigeion 398 Sikyon 196, 198, 208-209, 211, 226-228 Silanus, M. Junius 78 Simonides 327 Singos 325, 332 Sinos 334 Sisyphos 303 Sitalkes 327, 335-336 Skala Aetou 342 Skarphea 31-33, 36 Skillous 20 Skopas 209 Skorpion 151 Skourta 66 Smilas 291

Index Smyrna 36-37 Social War 103, 108, 167-168, 208, 213, 236 Soidas 151 Sophocles 351 Soros 294, 296 Sorsikidai 280 Sosthenes 372, 374 Soteria 150, 369 Sparta/Spartans 11, 13, 15, 18-25 52, 54, 67, 73, 79, 89, 109, 134, 136, 175-189, 193-198, 200, 206, 209, 212, 228, 243254, 257-269, 277, 324, 326, 328-329, 331, 333, 336, 350, 388, 394, 397-398, 401 Spartan-Chalkidean War 328 Spartan-Olynthian War 333 Spartolos 323, 332-334 Spartolos (Battle of) 325, 327, 335 Stageira 332, 334, 336 Stagirite 349 Standard [Coinage], Aeginetic 195 Standard [Coinage], Attic 197 Standard [Coinage], Rhodian 195 Standard [Coinage], Symmachic 195 Stasippos 257 Stasis 17, 24-25, 77, 115 Stolos 321, 323, 334 Strabo 18-19, 21-22, 120-122, 159, 220-224, 321, 341, 348-349, 354, 364, 385, 395 Stratios 304 Stratos 173, 213 Strepsa 323, 334 Strophakos of Thessaly 326 Strymon River 364 Stymphalos 245, 249 Styrians 120 Styx 247-248 Susa 261-262, 266, 330 Syracuse 140 Syria 211 Tagos 271-282, 376 Tanagra 70-72, 74 Tanagra (Battle of) 71 Tanagraia 392 Taphians 339-340, 343 Tarentum 140 Taygetos (Mount) 262 Tegea 14, 181, 196, 198, 244-247, 249-252, 257, 267 Tegyra (Battle of) 262 Teiresias 344, 350

Index Teithronion 152 Teleutias 329 Temenides 136 Tempe 276 Tenedos 398-399 Teos 367 Teumessos 392 Tharyps 353 Thasos 139 Thaumakoi 293 Thebes/Thebans 13, 39, 67-79, 89, 91, 9394, 103-109, 122, 139, 247, 251, 258269, 290, 326, 329-331, 373, 392, 397401 Theban Hegemony 70, 73, 262 Theban-Plataian War 14-15 Themistios 138 Themistokles 267 Theopompos of Chios 323, 325, 334 Theopompos of Megalopolis 152 Theorodokos 74, 142-143 Theōroi 92, 135-140 Thermika (Festival) 150, 207-208 Thermon 150-154, 157, 207, 210, 213 Thermopylai 38-39, 114, 116 Thermos 170 Theron of Akragas 20 Thespiai 25, 67, 70-74, 79, 139 Thesprotia 339-357 Thessaliotis 278, 364 Thessalonike 364-365, 373 Thessaly/Thessalians 33, 50, 75, 113, 118119, 122-123, 127, 139, 168, 197, 230, 232, 264, 271-282, 285, 287, 289-291, 293, 300-302, 304-306, 326, 340, 342, 352, 363-364, 372-376, 386-387, 396, 401 Thetis 298 Third Sacred War 73-75 Thisbe 37, 70, 77 Thucydides 14, 16-17, 19, 22-23, 45, 49, 52, 57, 68, 109, 145, 252, 290, 323-328, 335, 341, 343, 349-350, 356-357, 393397, 402 Thoas 209 Thousand Opuntians 54 Thrace 139 Thronion 31-32, 158 Thyamis River 346 Thyreatis 179-180 Thyrreion 173 Tiberius 189

415 Timotheos 328, 331, 333 Tiryns 133-136 Tithorea 158 Tolmides 71 Tolophon 59 Tolophonic Coast 57 Tomaros, Mount 347-348 Torone 321, 323, 325, 333-334 Torubeia 142 Tralleis 36 Treaty of Paris (of 1763) 186 Triballians 371 Tritaia 59, 116, 213 Troad 385, 396, 398 Trogus, Pompeius 169 Trophonios (Oracle of) 86-89, 93-94 Trojan War 44, 120, 158 Troy 55, 351, 387 Trudeau, Pierre 186 Tryphilians 11, 15, 20-21, 24, 121, 228, 244, 266 Tryphylos 181 Tyche 155 Tydeus 159, 162 Tymphaei-Paravaei 363 Tyrimmas 351 Ukraine 391 Vitrinitsa 55 Vitsa Zagoriou 341-342 Vrennos 372 War Measures Act (Of Canada) 187 Wolfe, James 186 Xenokleides 115 Xenophon 14-15, 24, 246-247, 250, 257269, 277, 322, 324, 327, 329-330, 333 Xerxes 134, 276 Xouthos 120-121 Xuthos 302, 385 Xyniai 293 Zethos 400 Zeus 65, 69, 141, 143-144, 155, 181, 196, 199, 298, 305, 339-340, 365-366, 369 Zeus Amarios 194 Zeus Basileus 88-90, 93-94 Zeus (Dodonian) 348 Zeus Homarios 207 Zeus Karaios 69-70 Zeus Lykaios 247-248 Zeus of the Minyai 69 Zeus (Nemean) 57 Zeus (Theban) 349 Zeus (Thesprotian) 34

The ethnic turn has led to a paradigm shift in Classics and Ancient History. In Greek history, it toppled the traditional view that the various ethnos states of the Classical and Hellenistic periods drew on a remote pedigree of tribal togetherness. Instead, it appears that those leagues were built on essentially changing, flexible, and relatively late constructions of regional identities that took shape most often only in the Archaic period. The implications are far-reaching. They impact the conception of an ethnos’ political organization; and they spill over into the study of external relations.

It has been posited that in their conduct of foreign policy, ethne often resorted to a federal program. Did ethne emulate each other, and did they inspire others to adopt a federal organization? More recently, it was argued that their foreign policy was charged with ethnicized attitudes. Did the idea of ethnic togetherness generally influence foreign policy? And, did everyone subscribe to the same blueprint of ethnicized arguments? The contributions to this volume explore the lived and often contradictory experience between tribal belonging and political integration.

www.steiner-verlag.de Franz Steiner Verlag

ISBN 978-3-515-12217-7

9

7835 1 5 1 22 1 7 7