Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis: Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 351508102X, 9783515081023

Citation preview

THOMAS HEINE NIELSEN (Ed.)

EVEN MORE STUDIES IN THE ANCIENT GREEK POLIS

HISTORIA ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ALTE GESCHICHTE REVUE D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY RIVISTA DI STORIA ANTICA

EINZELSCHRIFTEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VON MORTIMER CHAMBERS/LOS ANGELES HEINZ HEINEN/TRIER MARTIN JEHNE/DRESDEN FRANCOIS PASCHOUD/GENEVE HILDEGARD TEMPORINI/TÜBINGEN

HEFT 162

O FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 2002

THOMAS HEINE NIELSEN (Ed.)

EVEN MORE STUDIES IN THE ANCIENT GREEK POLIS PAPERS FROM THE COPENHAGEN POLIS CENTRE 6

qp FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 2002

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Even more studies in the ancient Greek polis / Thomas Heine Nielsen (ed.). — Stuttgart : Steiner, 2002 (Historia : Einzelschriften ; H. 162) Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre ; 6) ISBN 3-515-08102-X

69 ISO 9706

Jede Verwertung des Werkes auBerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulássig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Übersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikroverfilmung oder vergleichbare Verfahren sowie für die Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungs-

anlagen. © 2002 by Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbestándigem Papier. Druck: Druckerei Proff, Eurasburg. Printed in Germany

Conventions .......... esee

eee eene nennen ennt na tene tens sins a rastris μενεν μεν μεν setas senes ananas pe sns atas s enses

Mogens Herman Hansen, The Game Called Polis .............................

eese

Mogens Herman Hansen, Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society? ..................

7 9 17

Thomas Heine Nielsen, Phrourion. A Note on the Term in Classical Sources and in Diodorus Siculus .......................cccccecsscsssssesesssscssssscsssecesesccensecececesonsesensauenes

49

Rune Frederiksen, The Greek Theatre. A Typical Building in the Urban Centre of the Polis? ............eeee eee νυν νονο κεν κεν en nennen enean ots tasas ata se sin ta sena senis

65

Tobias Fischer-Hansen, Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of

Gela and Akragas - as Seen from the Perspective of the Copenhagen Polis

Paula Perlman, Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years. Part II.

The Laws from the Temple of Apollo Pythios .................................... eese 187 James Roy, The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis. The “Eight Poleis’ ....................... 229 James Roy, The Synoikism of Elis .....................

essen

249

Index of Sources .......uenuenensensansunsnsnensnnnnnnnennnnnannannnnnnonnannnnonsnnnnnsonnnnannnenannnnanennanannnanann 265 l. Literary texts .............. esee nente teeth nnttnattntn tates te sensere tense tenen 265 2. Inscriptions and papyri ..................... esistente rntnnene 273 General Index .............ucccseseseeeseeneenenenenenenenenenunnanusunnsenessannunsnsunununnnnanunununnenannenenanesnen senos 281

CONVENTIONS 1.

References to Greek authors follow the abbreviations of OCD'. For references to

Jacoby's Fragmente, we print e.g.: Ar(i)aithos (FGrHist 316) fr. 6. References to inscriptions follow the conventions of SEG. Citations of modern works follow the abbreviations of American Journal of Archaeology (1991) and (2000) issues.

4.

Polis & Politics z P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis & Politics. Studies in Ancient Greek History presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000 (Copenhagen 2000).

5.

Publications of the Polis Centre are referred to in the following way:

CPCActs

1 (1993) =

CPCActs 2 (1995) =

M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 1. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 67 (Copenhagen 1993). ΜΗ. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State.

CPCActs 3 (1996) z

Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 72 (Copenhagen 1995). M.H. Hansen (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 74 (Copenhagen 1996).

CPCActs 4 (1997) =

M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and asa

CPCActs 5 (1998) =

Political Community. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 75 (Copenhagen 1997). M.H. Hansen, Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 5. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 76 (Copenhagen

1998).

CPCActs 6 (1999) =

T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 6. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 78 (Copenhagen 1999).

CPCPapers

D. Whitehead (ed.), From PoliticalArchitecture to Stephanus

1 (1994) =

Byzantius. Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 1. Historia Einzelschriften 87

(Stuttgart 1994).

Conventions

CPCPapers 2 (1995) z

M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2. Historia Einzelschriften 95 (Stuttgart 1995).

CPCPapers 3 (1996) =

M.H.

Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), More Studies in the

Ancient Greek Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3. Historia Einzelschriften 108 (Stuttgart 1996). CPCPapers 4 (1997) =

T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek

Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4. Historia CPCPapers 5 (2000) =

Einzelschriften 117 (Stuttgart 1997). P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek

Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 5. Historia Einzelschriften 138 (Stuttgart 2000). Thirty City-State Cultures (2000) = ΜΗ. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty

City-State Cultures. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 21 (Copenhagen 2000).

THE GAME CALLED POLIS!

by MOGENS HERMAN

HANSEN

In the beginning of the fourth book of the Republic Sokrates and Adeimantos discuss how their own ideal polis can survive when surrounded by more powerful neighbours (422a-423b). Sokrates convinces Adeimantos that, in spite of their limited economic resources, the trained guardians will be able to hold their own against an even much larger force from a much wealthier polis. They will be like dogs among sheep and, through diplomacy, they will also be in a position to exploit their neighbours' greed for each others’ possessions. Adeimantos assents but then objects: A: There might be a danger to the poor polis if the wealth of many poleis were to be gathered into one. $: But how simple of you to think that the term polis is applicable at all to any but our own! A: Why so? S: You ought to speak of the other poleis in the plural number; not one of them is a polis, but many poleis, as they say in the game. Each will contain not less than two divisions, one the polis of the poor, the other of the rich, which are at war with one another; and within each there are many smaller divisions. You would be altogether beside the mark if you treated these as a single polis; but if you deal with them as many, and give the wealth or power or persons of the one to the others, you will always have a great many friends and not many enemies. And your polis, while the wise order which has now been prescribed continues to prevail in her, will be the greatest of poleis, 1 do not mean to say in reputation or appearance, but in deed and truth, though she number not more than a thousand defenders. A single polis of that size you will hardly find, either among Hellenes or barbarians, though many that appear to be as great and many times greater.”

For my investigation the crucial part of this conversation is the beginning of Sokrates' long explanation: "You ought to speak of the other poleis in the plural number; not one of them is a polis, but many poleis, as they say in the game”: pei-

ζόνως, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, χρὴ προσαγορεύειν τὰς ἄλλας. ἑκάστη yàp αὐτῶν πόλεις εἰσὶ πάμπολλαι ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πόλις τὸ τῶν παιζόντων (4226). The words μειζόνως and τὸ τῶν παιζόντων are not easy to interpret and almost impossible to translate.’ Literally, μειζόνως means ‘in a grander manner’ but the context shows that ‘in the plural’ is an essentially correct rendering; only, the irony is lost. The phrase τὸ τῶν παιζόντων recurs twice in Plato's dialogues (Resp. 573d; Leg. 780c) and in both cases it means ‘as they say jestingly' or, rather, 'as the saying goes'. This has led some commentators to 1

Iwould like to thank Prof. K. Alpers and Dr. P.A. Hansen for information about the lexicographical notes discussed below, Prof. J. Powell for the reference to Austin (1940), and Dr. A. Bülow-

Ne

Jacobsen for reading and commenting on this article. 1 have not seen Sir D'Arcy Thompson's paper "The Game of Πόλις" apparently published as a separatum in Glasgow, 1911. 3

Translated by Jowett (1871-1953) 2.272-3. Ct. Jowett and Campbell (1894) 167-8.

10

Mogens Herman Hansen

infer that, in Resp. 422e, there is no reference at all to a game called polis.* But the proverb seems to have been πόλεις παίζομεν ‘we play poleis’ or, in the infinitive: πόλεις παίζειν ‘to play polis’ (below). Thus τὸ τῶν παιζόντων means not only ‘as they say jestingly in the proverb’, the phrase also plays on the verb παίζειν being part of the proverb. So Plato does allude to the game of polis, but as he assumes that his readers know the game as well as Sokrates and Adeimantos, not much more can be learned from his text. However, many lexicographers commented on the passage -- or, rather, on the proverb behind the passage — and they provide us with invaluable information about the game. The obvious starting point is the scholion to the passage: πόλεις παίζειν εἰδός ἐστι πεττευτικῆς παιδιᾶς μετῆκται δὲ καὶ εἰς παροιμίαν: "To play poleis is a kind of board-game. Metaphorically it is used as a proverb". If the scholiast is right that there was a proverb about the game of polis, there is no reason to question his piece of information that Sokrates refers to this proverb, and thus to a board-game called polis.® Now, numerous lexicographical notes do confirm that there was a proverb about the game of polis. Zenobios' alphabetically ordered manual of proverbs has the following entry: πόλεις παίζειν' μέμνηται ταύτης Kpativogc ἐν Δραπέτεσιν. ἡ δὲ πόλις εἶδός ἐστι παιδιᾶς πεττευτικῆς. καὶ δοκεῖ μετενηνέχθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ταῖς ψήφοις παιζόντων, ταῖς λεγομέναις νῦν χώραις, τότε δὲ πόλεσιν: “Το play poleis'. Kratinos mentions it in The Runaway Women. Polis is a kind of board-game; and the metaphorical sense seems to stem from those who play with the pieces, now called ‘countries’,

but then 'poleis"."? Another paroimiographic lexicon, erroneously ascribed to Plutarch, has the entry: πόλεις παίζομεν. πόλις εἶδός ἐστι παιδιᾶς πεττευτικῆς: "We play poleis’. Polis is a

kind of board-game”.® A similar note is found in Suda: πόλις" εἶδος παιδιᾶς, xai παροιμία. Πόλεις παίζομεν: “Polis a kind of game, and a proverb: ‘we play poleis'".? Finally, there is a note in Hesychios: πόλεις παίζειν. παροιμιῶδες. xai δοκεῖ μετενηνέχθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ταῖς ψήφοις παιζόντων ταῖς λεγομέναις νῦν μὲν χώραις, τότε δὲ πόλεσι: "To play poleis. A proverb. The metaphorical sense seems to stem from those who play with pieces which are now called 'countries' but were were once called

*poleis'".!0 I conclude that there was a proverb about the game of polis, that it ran πόλεις παίζομεν or πόλεις παίζειν, and the point of the saying must somehow have involved

an opposition between polis in the singular and poleis in the plural.!! We have, of course, to consider the possibility that the proverb is a late invention and that all the lexicographical notes about it stem from some scholiast who misinterpreted Plato's passage at Resp. 422e. But such a view can be countered by the observation that the 4

Stewart (1893) 359.

5

Scholia Platonica, ed. G.Ch. Greene (Chicago 1938) 221.

6 7

Ridgeway (1896) 288; Lamer (1927) 1974. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. Leutsch and Schneidewin (Góttingen no. 5.67. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum 1.323 no. 1.14. Ed. Adler (Stuttgart 1935) P1911. P.A. Hansen's unpublished edn. of Hesychios' Lexicon, vol. 3, P2757. Cf. Ridgeway (1896) 288; Lamer (1927) 1973-5.

8 9 10 11

1839) 1.147

The Game Called Polis

11

lexicographers, in so far as they mention a Classica) author, refer to Kratinos and not to Plato: the relevant passage from Kratinos’ lost comedy is not only cited by Zenobios, it is actually quoted by another lexicographer commenting on the game of polis, viz., Julius Pollux. In the ninth book of his Onomasticon Pollux lists all possible types of game (94— 103), including board-games (98-9) and in 98 he has the following description of polis: ἡ δὲ διὰ πολλῶν ψήφων παιδιὰ πλινθίον ἐστί, χώρας ἐν γραμμαῖς ἔχον διακειμένας. καὶ τὸ μὲν πλινθίον καλεῖται πόλις, τῶν δὲ ψήφων ἑκάστη κύων. διῃρημένων δὲ εἰς δύο τῶν ψήφων κατὰ τὰς χρόας, ἡ τέχνη τῆς παιδιᾶς ἐστὶ περιλήψει δύο ψήφων ὁμοχρόων τὴν ἑτερόχρων ἀνελεῖν. ὅθεν καὶ Κρατίνῳ πέπαικται: “Πανδιovida πόλεως βασιλεῦ") τῆς ἐριβώλακος, οἶσθ᾽ ἣν λέγομεν, / καὶ κύνα καὶ πόλιν, ἣν

παίζουσιν᾽".12 ἐγγὺς δέ ἐστι ταύτῃ τῇ παιδιᾷ καὶ ὁ διαγραμμισμὸς καὶ τὸ διαγραμμίζειν, ἥντινα παιδιὰν καὶ γραμμὰς ὠνόμαζον: “In the game with many pieces there is a board with squares separated by lines. The board is called ‘polis’, and each of the pieces a ‘dog’. There are two sets of pieces, of different colours, and the object of the game is with two pieces of the same colour to surround and thereby to take a piece of the opposite colour. There is an allusion to the game in Kratinos: “Oh, descendant of Pandion, king of the fertile polis, you know the one we speak of, and [you know] ‘the dog’ and ‘the polis’, that is, the one they play.” A game resembling this one is that of ‘divided lines’ and ‘to divide by lines’, a game which they also called ‘lines’.” The above quote from Kratinos is in fact in verse but is here rendered into prose like the rest of the passage from Pollux in order to obtain an accurate translation. It is regrettable that the point of Kratinos' joke seems to be irrevocably lost, but some useful information can still be extracted from the fragment. The descendant of Pandion must be Theseus, the son of Aigeus who again was the son of Pandion. Theseus was famous

for having merged all the poleis of Attika into one large polis, viz., Athens.!? So, like Plato, Kratinos probably alludes, in mythological disguise, to an opposition between one polis and many poleis. Furthermore, in the fragment Attika is described as a fertile polis, probably an ironic reference to the notoriously poor and thin soil of Attika.!^ The mention of a dog undoubtedly alludes to the pieces of the game of polis being called ‘dogs’, but I suppose that there may be some obscene connotation as well: in comedy κύων usually stands for the male member.!5 An even more informative description of the game of polis can be found in Eustathios’ commentaries on Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Admittedly, there is no reference to the game in Homer, but learned professors are prone to digressions, and Eustathios is no exception. In /l. 23.87—8 we hear that Patroklos once in anger killed his opponent in a game of astragaloi. Eustathios explains that astragaloi is a game of dice played with knuckle bones (astragaloi) and that induces him to a digression about a

different game, viz., polis.! Again, in Od. 1.107 we hear that Penelope's suitors are throwing dice waiting for Penelope to make up her mind. Commenting on this line Eustathios offers an even longer and more detailed description of polis." Eustathios 12

= Poetae Comici Graeci IV, ed. Kassel and Austin (Berlin 1983) 152 fr. 61.

13

Thuc. 2.15.1-2.

14 15

Thuc. 1.2.5. Henderson (1991) 127, 133.

16

Eust. fl. 4.691.11-15 (van der Valk).

12

Mogens Herman Hansen

seems to have known about the game of polis from Suetonius who in Greek wrote a treatise On Games (Περὶ Παιδιῶν). Only extracts are preserved but, in the most recent edition of Suetonius' treatise, Eustathios' comment on Od. 1.107 is printed as a fragment: "Another game of dice is polis, in which there was an alternate removal of pieces, of which a large number were placed on a board in squares separated by lines. In educated speech the framed squares were called ‘poleis’ and the two opposing sets of pieces were called ‘dogs’”: Εἶδός τι κυβείας xai πόλις ἐν I ψήφων πολλῶν ἐν διαγεγραμμέναις τισὶ χώραις πεττευτικῶς κειμένων ἐγίνετο ἀνταναίρεσις. καὶ ἐκαλοῦντο αἱ μὲν γραμμικαὶ χῶραι πόλεις ἀστειότερον, αἱ δὲ ἀντεπιβουλεύουσαι ἀλλήλαις ψῆφοι κύνες.13 Finally, Photios' lexicon includes a short note on the game: πόλεις καίζειν. τὰς νῦν χώρας (ms. xapác) καλουμένας ἐν ταῖς E’ ψήφοις “to play poleis, what is now called *countries' in (the game] with sixty pieces".!? Photios is the only lexicographer who tells us about the number of pieces. Porson emended the text and read 5 (seven)

instead of &' (sixty). But such an emendation is not only unwarranted, it is in conflict with the other sources, viz. Pollux' piece of information that the game was played with many pieces and resembled another board-game called diagrammismos which, according to Eustathios, was played with sixty pieces, thirty black and thirty white.?? Unless Photios got it wrong, the number of pieces was the same in both games. On the basis of all these lexicographical notes I propose the following reconstruction of the game: whenever the name of the game is mentioned it is πόλις in the singular, never πόλεις in the plural.?! But the saying invariably goes: πόλεις παίζομεν

or παίζειν in the plural, and there is no attestation of πόλιν raileıv.2? The game is played by two persons” on a board?^ subdivided into squares.? It is played with pieces? of two different colours?’ and each player seems to have had thirty pieces.2® The object of the game is to isolate and surround the opponent's pieces with one's own pieces and thereby to take them, one by one. The moves are made in connection with a throw of dice.??

17 18

Eust. Od. 1397.44—8 (van der Valk). Ed. J. Taillardat (Paris 1967) 66 no. 1.16.

19

Ed. Porson (Leipzig 1823), quoted by Lamer (1927) 1974.

20 2|

Eust. ff. 2.728.6-7 (van der Valk); cf. Adam (1963) Krat.; Zen.; Hsch.; Suda; Eust.; Ps.-Plut.

22

Schol. Plat.; Zen.; Hsch.; Suda; Ps.- Plut.

23 24 25 26 27

Poll.; Schol. Poll.; Poll.; Poll.

28

Phot.

29 30

Poll.; Eust. Eust.

Eust. Plat.; Poll.; Zen.; Ps.-Plut.; Eust. Phot.; Eust. Zen.; Eust.

1.211.

The Game Called Polis

13

The board is called polis?! The squares were originally called poleis,?? but later chorai.?? The name of the pieces was sometimes kynes,?* sometimes poleis,?5 or later chorai.* In the British Museum there are some terracotta pieces shaped like heads of dogs or jackals. They have been dated to the fifth century BC and it has been suggested that

they belong to a set of pieces used in the game of polis.” Moving from the game itself to the historical reality it reflects, we note that the term polis had several different meanings and uses. In the Classical period the original meaning of ‘stronghold’ or ‘akropolis’ had vanished and survived only in fixed formulas such as ‘this decree shall be inscribed on a stone stele and it shall be set up on the

polis’, i.e. the akropolis.?® When Kratinos wrote his comedies and Plato his dialogues, the term polis was almost invariably used in one of three senses: (1) about the city-state and its citizens, or (2) about the urban centre of the city-state, or sometimes (3) about

the territory controlled by the city-state.?? The game of polis illustrates the multiple meanings of the word polis. It is used about the board or, more frequently, about the squares, denoting the territory of the polis. But it is also used about the pieces, denoting the citizens of the polis or, rather, its army. Like many other games polis was a war-game. The individual piece represents the army of the polis which can leave its territory and attack other poleis, or, conversely, it can be attacked by other poleis and eradicated so that hostile poleis conquer its territory. Alternatively, the game is seen like a hunt in which the pieces are ‘dogs’ attacking and killing their quarry. Both metaphors are reflected in the passage from Plato's Republic: just before he alludes to the game of polis Sokrates describes the army of his ideal polis as "tough, wiry dogs” (422d). It is tempting to connect this metaphor with the fact that the pieces used in the game of polis were commonly called ‘dogs’ as well as ‘poleis’ and that the word polis was commonly used about the citizenry or the army of a polis. Taking polis to be a war-game, there are at least two possible interpretations of the metaphor. The Greeks often opposed war between poleis, called polemos, to war inside a polis between two or more rival factions of citizens, called stasis. Did the players of polis believe that they were opposing poleis or opposing factions within a polis? Plato obviously prefers the latter interpretation. The opposition between polis in the singular and poleis in the plural is connected with the assertion that every polis is split up into two: one of the rich and one of the poor. In Plato's eyes the two players are the faction of the rich against the faction of the poor, and the object of the game is to neutralise the opposing faction and come to control the polis, here seen as the entire board as indicated by Pollux.

31

Poll.

32 33 34

Eust. Phot. Poll.; Eust.

35 36 37 38 39

Zen.; Hsch. Zen.; Hsch.; Phot. Ridgeway (1896) 289. IGP 46.21-2. Hansen (1998) 17-34.

14

Mogens Herman Hansen

But Plato's interpretation must be his own re-interpretation. The analogy breaks down when he goes on to say that each faction is composed of rival sub-factions. In the game of polis there cannot have been war between the 30 pieces controlled by each player. Thus, we must not turn Sokrates’ allusion to the game of polis into an allegory. Sokrates plays on the proverb ‘we play poleis' and on some opposition between one polis and many poleis. The allusion to the guardians being 'dogs' evokes instead the picture of two opposing armies, each composed of thirty dogs or citizens. Thus the single piece is here the citizen rather than the city, and that matches Plato's idea that the structure of the whole polis in some sense is a macrocosmic reflection of the structure of the soul of the individual citizen. A similar reference in political theory to the game of polis can probably be found in Aristotle's Politics Book 1 Chapter 2: ὁ ἄπολις διὰ φύσιν καὶ οὐ διὰ τύχην ἤτοι φαῦλός ἐστιν, ἢ κρείττων ἢ ἄνθρωπος. ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ὑφ᾽ ᾿Ομήρον λοιδορηθεὶς “ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος᾽. ἅμα γὰρ φύσει τοιοῦτος καὶ πολέμου ἐπιθυμητής, ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὧν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοῖς: "He who is without a polis because of his nature and not by some accident, is either a bad man or superhuman. He is like the one Homer denounces as 'deprived of his group, of legal protection, and of his hearth'. Having such a nature he is keen on war, and - to use a term from the board-game -- he stands isolated" (Arist. Pol. 1253a3-7). There is no proof, but it is likely that Aristotle is thinking of the game of polis and that the isolated piece is one that is in danger of being surrounded by the opponent's pieces and taken.* If so, Aristotle is comparing the individual piece to a citizen of the polis and not to the whole polis. But that should cause no surprise. Like Plato and others Aristotle could easily leap from microcosmos to macrocosmos or the reverse, cf. his reflections at 1261a22-9 on the nature of an alliance, where the symmachia is compared with the polis and seen partly as a union of soldiers and partly as a union of poleis.^! Turning from Plato's and Aristotle's interpretations of the game to our information about how it was played, we can observe that the frame of reference changes from war within the polis to war between poleis. That the name of the game was polis in the singular does not necessarily imply that only one polis was involved and that all 60 pieces were the citizens of such a polis. The proverb 'to play poleis’ is a strong indication that the game was between opposing poleis. That polis was supposed to imitate a war between two opposing poleis is indicated by the fourth reference to the game in Classical literature. In the Supplices of Euripides, performed at the City Dionysia in 422, Theseus — here represented as the leader of democratic Athens - and a messenger from the tyrant of Thebes carry on for over one hundred lines a fierce discussion about the constitution of their two poleis (399-510). When Theseus stresses the liberty and equality of the Athenian citizens, the messenger

replies that that gives Thebes one advantage over Athens, just as in the board-game, because his polis is ruled by one man, not by a mob: ἕν μὲν τόδ᾽ ἡμῖν ὥσπερ Ev πεσσοῖς δίδως / κρεῖσσον. πόλις yàp ἧς ἐγὼ πάρειμ᾽ ἄπο / ἑνὸς πρὸς ἀνδρός, οὐκ ὄχλῳ xparüveran.*? The juxtaposition in the text of pessoi and polis strongly suggests 40 4|

Lamer (1927) 1969. Cf. Hansen (1999) 81.

42

Eur. Supp. 409-12.

The Game Called Polis

15

that the reference to a board-game must be to polis.* Perhaps the point of comparison is with a game of polis where one side is played by a master player against several persons who discuss every move -- and bungle the strategy. However, the other terms used in the game point in a slightly different direction: Each square was a polis, the word being used synonymously with chora about the territory of a polis, and each piece could be called a polis, used about the citizen army of the polis fighting the armies of other poleis. In fact, the war is not just between two poleis but between two sets of poleis, and the reference seems to be to alliances of leagues of poleis fighting against one another. The background of the game of polis seems to be a major war like the Peloponnesian War between the Delian League and the Peloponnesian League, in which the object of the war was to conquer the opposing side's poleis one by one. Behind the philosophical treatises of Plato and Aristotle we get a glimpse of a popular game and a well-known proverb, and thus a source which reflects ordinary citizens' opinion and understanding of the different aspects of the concept of polis.

Bibliography Adan, J. 1963. The Republic of Plato \-2?, with an introduction by D.A. Rees (Cambridge). Austin, R.G. 1940. "Greek Board-Games,” Antiquity 14: 257-7). Hansen, ΜΗ. 1998. Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent, CPCActs 5 (Copenhagen). Hansen, ΜΗ. 1999. "Aristotle's Reference to the Arkadian Federation at Pol. 1261a29," CPCActs 6: 81-8. Henderson, J. 1991. The Maculate Muse (New York and Oxford). Jowett, B. 1871-1953. The Dialogues of Plato Translated into English (Oxford).

Jowett, B. and Campbell, L. 1894. The Republic of Plato. Vol. 3. Notes (Oxford). Lamer, H. 1927. "Lusoria Tabula," RE XIII.2: 1900-2029. Ridgeway, W. 1886. “The Game of Polis and Plato's Rep. 422 E," JHS 16: 288-90. Stewart, J.A. 1893. "Plato, REPUBLIC 422 E," CR 7: 359. Mogens Herman Hansen The Copenhagen Polis Centre

43

Austin (1940) 266.

WAS THE POLIS A STATE OR A STATELESS

SOCIETY?

by MOGENS

HERMAN HANSEN

In Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent, CPCActs 5 (Copenhagen 1998), I investigated the ancient Greek polis compared with the modern state. In the final chapter (114—23) I listed a number of differences between the two

concepts (many of them emphasised by other scholars too) and then a number of similarities (usually overlooked in recent scholarship). I found that, on balance, the

similarities seemed to outweigh the differences, and my conclusion was that the polis

was a type of city-state, and that the city-state was a type of state.! In his review of my book in CR 49 (1999) 467—8, and again in a recent collection of

articles, Paul Cartledge contrasts my view of the polis as a type of state with the view of Moshe Berent that the polis was a stateless society.? In both cases Cartledge refers to Berent's unpublished Cambridge doctoral thesis of 1994.5 Whether Berent's thesis will be published remains to be seen, but his views about the polis being a stateless society have since appeared in an article: "Hobbes and the 'Greek Tongues'," History of Political Thought 17 (1996) 36-59. Berent has recently supplemented this study with another article: "Anthropology and the Classics: War, Violence and the Stateless Polis," CQ 50 (2000) 257-89. In a review of recent work on the ancient Greek polis in

Dike 3 (2000) 217-29, Michele Faraguna has juxtaposed Berent's new article with my Polis and City-State and discussed differences in approach to and analysis of the concept of polis. Apart from one new aspect, Berent's view of the polis as a stateless society is a sometimes verbatim repeat of his earlier study.* I shall here focus on the article from 1996 but treat one aspect of the new article in an appendix.5 I disagree with the views of Berent and Cartledge on this issue. In my books (1998, 2000) I have argued positively for the view that the polis was a type of state. Here I shall argue negatively against the view that it was a stateless society. Thus my article has to be polemical. Let me add, however, that I much appreciate that Moshe Berent has taken the trouble to argue the position that the polis was a stateless society. Other | 2 3 4 5

For the relation between the concepts of state and city-state, see Hansen (2000) 12-19. Cartledge (19962) 182; (1996b) 45 n. 16; (1998) 7 and (2001) 21. M.Berent, The Stateless Polis. Towards a Re-Evaluation of the Classical Greek Political Community, Dissertation (Cambridge 1994). From page 260 n. 20 to page 262 n. 69 the new text is almost identical with that of the earlier article pages 38-43. For valuable information about the administration of justice in early modern Europe I would like to thank Prof. C. Emsley of The Open University, Prof. K. Hürter of the Max Planck Institut für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte in Frankfurt am Main, and Dr. A.M. Lanni of University of Michigan. For reading and commenting on the present article, I would like to thank Dr. L. Rubinstein and Prof. Q. Skinner.

18

Mogens Herman Hansen

historians tend to state the view without presenting any evidence in support of their position. Moreover, he argues his position uncompromisingly and clearly, and that is a perfect point of departure for one who wants to state the opposite view.

1. What is a Stateless Society? Let me start with the concept of stateless society itself. It is used in three different contexts of which only one is relevant for the present investigation. (1) In Marxist thought 'stateless society' is used (a) in descriptions of primitive societies, before the development of classes and the state as the institutionalised powerbase of the ruling class, and (b) as a description of the utopian classless society which is supposed to emerge after the breakdown of the capitalist state.’ Obviously, (b) is irrelevant in a historical context. In (3) below I shall offer a fuller account of (a). (2) Recent accounts of the modern state written by political scientists often empha-

sise a difference between an Anglo-American and a continental conception of the state, particularly prominent in Germany and France.? In Britain and America "there is very little self-consciousness of being in a state-tradition”.? Similarly, “the relative 'statelessness' of American social science coincides with the relative statelessness of the United States”; and England is described as “the stateless society par excellence".!? In a recent study a political scientist has found it "necessary to revise the standard account

of British indifference towards the concept of the state",!! and he demonstrates, at least to my satisfaction, that the description of England and the United States as 'stateless societies’ is much exaggerated, not to say misguided. But even assuming that modern Britain and the United States could, in some sense, be called ‘stateless societies’, this use of the term is not relevant in a historical context in which the concept of stateless society has a radically different meaning and is applied not to modern western industrialised communities but to so-called primitive societies in the Third World and to societies all over the world before the emergence of the concept of state. (3) Thus, we have to move from political science and philosophy to history and anthropology. Students of political science and political philosophy tend to hold that it is an anachronism to speak of states outside Europe before ca. 1900 and inside Europe before ca. 1650.!? In discussions of the concept of state, the two milestones are, in 6

E.g. Rahe (1994) 16-17.

7

For (a), see

8 9

Dyson (1980) preface, 19, 51-2, 271-2, 280. Vincent (1987) 2.

Engels (1884), for (b), see Engels (1894) 261-3.

IO

Nett (1968) 10-11.

1] 12

Meadowcraft (1995) 22-3. To illustrate this very important point it suffices, I think, to quote one leading scholar in political science, David Easton, and one in political philosophy, Carl Schmitt. Easton (1971) 109: "The territorial state as we have known it since the Treaty of Westphalia has thus become the prototype from which the criteria for all political systems are derived. But prior to the seventeenth century, for the vast span of time in which men lived and governed one another,

according to this interpretation of the state at least, no state was in existence. At most there was a truncated form of political life. Greece had its city-community, mistranslated today as the citystate ...".

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

19

political history, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648!? and, in political philosophy, the

publication in 1651 of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.!* Anthropologists, sociologists, historians and archaeologists, on the other hand, hold that the concept of state applies all over the world and in all periods, whenever and wherever we find a centralised government in possession of the monopoly of the use of legitimate force within a territory over its population. The European state of the early modern period is a more developed form of state, but early states are attested in the Third World long before 1900, and, going back to the roots of our own civilisation, early states are found in

Egypt and Mesopotamia from the Early Bronze Age onwards.!? In this context a 'stateless society' is usually defined negatively as a community without an institution-

alised and centralised government ruling a territory and its population.!® 2. The Concept of State in Thomas Hobbes, in Max Weber and in Modern Anthropology When Moshe Berent speaks about the Greek polis as a ‘stateless society’ rather than a state, his concept of state is that of Thomas Hobbes, i.e. one discussed principally by political philosophers, whereas his concept of stateless society is the one used by anthropologists in their descriptions of, primarily, some African communities. That is a somewhat skewed constellation of concepts. Let me start again with the concept of stateless society. (1) Describing his model (page 39) Berent explicitly refers to the pioneering volume African Political Systems edited in 1940 by M. Fortes and E.E. Evans-Pritchard, and returning to the analogy in the section about "the Stateless Polis and the Control of Violence" (56-9) he quotes Mair (1962), Schapera (1956) and Radcliffe-

Brown (1940), all writing about African communities. Schmitt (1941) 376: "Noch heute hört man statt von der griechischen Polis oder von der römischen

Republik vom "antiken Staat" der Griechen und Römer, statt vom Reich vom "deutschen Staat des Mittelalters" und gar von den Staaten der Araber, Türken oder Chinesen sprechen. Eine durchaus zeitgebundene, geschichtlich bedingte, konkrete und spezifische Organisationsform der politischen Einheit verliert auf diese Weise ihren geschichtlichen Ort und ihren typischen Inhalt; sie wird in irreführender Abstraktheit auf günzlich verschiedene Zeiten und Vólker übertragen und in völlig andersartige Gebilde und Organisationen hineinprojiziert. Diese Erhebung des Staatsbegriffes zum allgemeinen Normalbegriff der politischen Organisationsform aller Zeiten und Völker wird wahrscheinlich mit dem Zeitalter der Staatlichkeit selbst bald ein Ende nehmen. Sie kommt aber auch heute noch vor, und deshalb sei hier der konkret-geschichtliche und spezifische Charakter des Staatsbegriffes als einer an das 16. bis 20. Jahrhundert europüischer Geschichte gebundenen, politischen Ordnungsvorstellung von Anfang an ausser Zweifel gestellt". The historical inaccuracy and the theoretical fallacy of this view are pointed out in Hansen (1998) 13

107-16. Easton (1971) 109; cf. next note; Held (1995) 77ff).

14

Skinner (1989) 90, 118-21, 124, 126 and, especially, (1999) 2 et passim.

15

Krader (1968) 7-10; Claessen and Skalnfk (1978) 1—107; Finer (1997) 2-15; Fineman and Marcus

16

(1998). Thus there is a clash between a European concept of state, dominating jurisprudence, political science and political philosophy, as against a broader concept of state covering world history from the Bronze Age to this century and used in anthropology, sociology, archaeology and history. For a description of both concepts, see Hansen (2000) 12-14. Southall (1968) 157, 167.

20

Mogens Herman Hansen

To judge the validity of Berent's classification of the Greek polis as a stateless society in this sense it is appropriate here to quote the passage of the editors' introduction to African Political Systems in which they establish the main differences between ‘primitive states’ and ‘stateless societies’: "It will be noted that the political systems described in this book fall into two main categories. One group, which we refer to as Group A, consists of those societies which have centralized authority, administrative machinery, and judicial institutions - in short, a government — and in which cleavages of wealth, privilege. and status correspond to the distribution of power and authority. This group comprises the Zulu, the Ngwato, the Bemba, the Bayankole, and the Kede. The other group, which we refer to as Group B, consists of those societies which lack centralized authority, administrative machinery, and constituted judicial institutions - in short which lack government — and in which there are no sharp divisions of rank, status or wealth. This group comprises the Logoli, the Tallensi, and the Nuer. Those who consider that a state should be defined by the presence of governmental institutions will regard the first group as primitive states and the second group as stateless societies" (Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940] 5).

It is debatable whether this bisection of political communities is relevant in a study of ancient history; but, for the sake of argument, accepting that it is, where does the Greek polis belong? Was it a 'primitive state', like Byankole, or, as argued by Berent, a *stateless society’? (2) Berent's concept of state, on the other hand, is not that of Forte and Evans-

Pritchard, as one might expect. It is explicitly stated to be that of Thomas Hobbes. Thus, we jump from anthropology to political philosophy. Berent then asserts that the Hobbesian concept of state is the same as that of Max Weber, and further assumes that Weber's definition of the state is adequate and universally accepted (38-9). He has no

discussion of the fact that the view of what a state is has undergone a number of important changes since Hobbes published his Leviathan in 1651, and that, in his treatment of Weber's definition of the state, he focuses on one aspect only. For Thomas Hobbes, the state, in Latin civitas, is "an abstract public power above both ruler and ruled”.!” It is an ‘artificial person’ impersonated by the sovereign. But in Hobbes's political philosophy there is no trace of the territory or the body politic as important aspects of the state; and he does not normally identify the state with the sovereign or the government. In all these respects he differs from most modern accounts of what a state is. By contrast, Max Weber's definition of a state runs as follows: “Staat ist diejenige menschliche Gemeinschaft, welche innerhalb eines bestimmten Gebietes - dies: das ‘Gebiet’ gehört zum Merkmal - das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit für sich (mit Erfolg) beansprucht”.'® According to Weber the territory is an essential aspect of the concept of state and that becomes particularly important when the concept of state has to be contrasted with the concept of stateless society (see below).

17

The state is "a continuous public power above both ruler end ruled" (Skinner [1978] 11.353). That this concept can be traced back to Hobbes is now convincingly argued in Skinner (1999) 2: "Hobbes was the first major political philosopher to organise a theory of government around the person of the state. As he says himself, ‘I speak not of the men, but (in the Abstract) of the Seat of

18

Power’, to which he adds that the seat is ‘that great Leviathan called a Common-wealth, or State’.” Hobbes (1996) 3 and 9. Weber (1972) 822.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

21

Next, Weber describes the state not as a government, but as a "menschliche Gemeinschaft’, only later subdivided into rulers and ruled: "Der Staat ist ... ein auf das Mittel der legitimen ... Gewaltsamkeit gestütztes Herrschaftsverhültnis von Menschen über Menschen" (emphasis original). Later again the focus is on the rulers only, described as 'Beamtentum'. Thus a third element of the state is the people inhabiting the territory, subsequently subdivided into rulers and ruled. Berent offers a partial and one-sided account of Weber's concept of state and, furthermore, Weber's emphasis on the monopoly of legitimate force is indeed one essential aspect of the modern concept of state, but not the whole story. The state as a territory is emphasised in Weber's definition. The state as a body politic is another important aspect of the modern state, only lightly touched on by Weber in his analysis. If we move from Weber to modern accounts of what a state is, we can observe that, in addition to the view that the state is an abstract sovereign power, there are three elements which are crucial: the state is a government with the sole right to enforce a

given legal order within a territory over a population.'? Of these three important elements of the concept of state Berent singles out the government and its monopoly on the legitimate use of force, whereas he leaves out the territory and the body politic. He can do that because he compares the polis with the Hobbesian concept of state, which has no mention of the two other elements, although both are crucial for the way in which states are distinguished from stateless societies today. When we move on from

Hobbes to the 19th and 20th centuries, all three elements become indispensable.? It is this view of the state that has dominated the world since the 19th century, and today it is found not only in modern handbooks of international and constitutional law, but also

in definitions of the concept of state advanced by students of sociology and political science who, after a long period of neglecting the state, have come to admit that the concept is indispensable for their discipline. To conclude: in a contrastive analysis of the concepts of state and stateless society, we cannot restrict our investigation of the concept of state to the government as the wielder of an abstract public power. We must include a treatment of the state as a territory and as a body politic. 19

20

In international law there is a fourth element: namely the right to enter into relation with other states; see the Section 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933, quoted in the following note, and below 39—41. Bluntschli (1886) 14—84: "Der Staatsbegriff"; Jellinek (1914) 144-8, 394—434, subsuming the concepts of Staatsterritorium, Staatsvolk and Staatsgewalt under the term Dreielementelehre; Kelsen (1946) 207-69: Doehring (1987) 424; Verdross and Simma (1984) 224-5; Starke (1989) 95; Oppenheim (1992) 120—3. A fourth characteristic of the modern state, stressed in international

law, is the capacity to enter into relation with other states, cf. The Montevideo Convention, signed in 1933 by the United States and a number of Latin American states. The text of Article 1 runs:

"The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) a Government; and (d) a capacity to enter into relations with other states." From 1949 onwards the /nternational Law Commission has repeatedly debated whether an updated clarification of the meaning of the term state was needed; for a short survey, see Duursma (1996) 113-5. In 1956 the following draft was made by special rapporteur Fitzmaurice, intended to be Article 3 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties: "The term state means an entity consisting of a people inhabiting a defined territory, under an organized system of government, and having the capacity to enter into international relations binding the entity as such, either directly or through some other state."

22

Mogens Herman Hansen J. The State as an Abstraction and as an Institution

An obvious starting point, however, is to single out those two aspects of the concept of state which Berent has selected for discussion: the state as an abstract public power and as a government enforcing law and order. Quoting Skinner (1989) 112-13, Berent holds (43) that “the state must be acknowledged to be an entity with a life of its own; an

entity which is at once distinct from both rulers and ruled and is able in consequence to call upon the allegiance of both parties." By contrast, the “impersonal character [of the Greek polis] was rudimentary (certainly in the Athenian case)", and it was simply "identified with its citizens". It is true that the modern state is often seen as an abstract public power, but we must not forget that it is also often identified with the body politic. It is also true that the Greek polis is usually identified with its citizens,?! but we must not forget that it is also often seen as an impersonal abstract power above both rulers and ruled. When both modifications are added, the alleged contrast between polis and state in this particular respect becomes so attenuated that it virtually disappears. First, the view that the modern state is essentially the body politic is stressed by, e.g. Raphael (1975) 609: “the ‘state’, as the term refers to the political organization of society, is used in two ways, one more general, meaning the whole body of persons who are politically organized, the other more specific, meaning the institutions of government. In the first usage the state comprehends all the citizens; in the second, it may be contrasted with the citizens. Since the second meaning is just as well, if not

more clearly expressed by the term government, it is best for purposes of expression and understanding, to concentrate on the idea of the state as being the whole body politic.” The same view was expressed in the 18th century by Blackstone (1765-69): a state is "a collective body composed of a multitude of individuals, united for their safety and convenience and intending to act together as one man"; and in the 20th century by Ernest Barker (1951) 91: "After the end of the eighteenth century

it may

be said:

L' État, c' est nous! The State is now the whole community: the whole legal association; the whole of the juridical organization. This is democracy, or a result of democracy: we must henceforth think of the State as ourselves ... and we must henceforth give the name of ‘Government’ to the authority — before called ‘State’ — which is now seen

as exercising on our behalf the powers which it had hitherto claimed as its own".?? Second, scores of sources substantiate the view that the Greeks often saw the polis as an impersonal public power above the citizens. Let me here quote one from a philosopher, one from a statesman and one from a historian. (1) The problem whether an act is an act of the government or of the polis is discussed in Aristotle's Politics 1276a8—16: "some people are in doubt when a given 21

22

Thuc. 7.77.7; Pl. Definitiones 415c; Arist. Pol. 1274b41. Non-Athenian sources are, e.g., Alc. fr. 426 (Z 103 in Lobel and Page); /G IV 839 and 841 (Kalauria). Further evidence in Hansen (1998) 22-3, 56—64. Brubaker (1992) 21: “Citizenship is not a mere reflex of residence; it is an enduring personal status

... In this respect the modern state is not simply a territorial organization but a membership organization, an association of citizens". Jellinek

and Simma (1984) 225; Oppenheim (1992) 121.

(1914) 144—5; Doehring (1987) 424—5; Verdross

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

23

act can, and when it cannot, be considered to be the act of the polis. One example is when an oligarchy or a tyranny changes into a democracy. In such a case some people are reluctant to fulfil public contracts [e.g. about loans] on the ground that the recipient [of the loan] was not the polis but the tyrant, and they are unwilling to meet other obligations of a similar nature. They hold the view that some constitutions exist [only] by virtue of force, and not for the sake of the common good: but in the case some are governed democratically in the same way [i.e. by virtue of force], it must be concluded that the acts done under such a constitution are the acts of the polis, just as much as the acts of an oligarchy or tyranny." No matter whether the conclusion is that it was the polis or only the rulers who signed the contract, the whole argumentation is based on the view that the polis can be seen as a continuous public power distinct from the rulers, and the Athenians explicitly took that view into account when, after the restoration of the democracy in 403, they repaid the sum of 100 talents which the Thirty Tyrants had borrowed from the Spartans (Isoc. 7.68). (2) In 348, Meidias had punched Demosthenes in the face in public and during the

Greater Dionysia (Dem. 21.1, 6, 12, 25). Demosthenes brought a public action against Meidias (1-12), and in his speech for the prosecution he debates whether Meidias' offence is a public matter of relevance for the polis, or belongs in the private sphere of life (25-35). The crucial point is, according to Demosthenes, that on that occasion he

was performing a public task as the choregos of his tribe (26, 31, 34), and in that capacity he was wearing a crown (33), just as any thesmothetes wore a crown when he performed his duties. The crucial passage runs as follows: "It wasn't just me, Demosthenes, that he was bullying during that day, but also your choregos. Let me explain the significance of that. You know of course that none of the thesmothetai here has the name Thesmothetes, but whatever name each one has. Well then, if one treats insolently or slanders any one of them as a private individual, one will be prosecuted in a graphe for hybris or a private case for slander; if as a thesmothetes, one will be permanently disfranchised. Why? Because the man who does that is using insolence also against the laws, and against the crown that belongs to you all, and against the name of the polis; for the name Themothetes does not belong to any person, but to the polis."?3

In this passage Demosthenes establishes a formal distinction between the person as an individual and as an official, and again between the office he fills and the polis itself. (3) In 411 the Athenian democracy was replaced by an oligarchy but the Athenian navy, based on Samos, stuck to the democracy and would not obey the new government in Athens. Therefore, the oligarchs "sent ten men to Samos to reassure the navy and to tell them that the oligarchy had not been introduced to the detriment of the polis or the citizens" (Thuc. 8.72.1). Like the philosopher and the statesman, the historian Thucydides emphasises the difference between the citizens (the politai) and the polis as such, which is represented as an abstract entity over and above its members.*4 All three sources concern Athens and although the first purports to be general, it may be Athenocentric. What about the ca. 1499 other ancient Greek poleis? We do not possess philosophical treatises or forensic speeches written by citizens living in these

23

Translated by MacDowell (1990), but keeping polis instead of rendering it 'city'.

24

Hansen (1998) 27-8.

24

Mogens Herman Hansen

poleis; but we have a treasure of inscriptions which often shed light on what the Greeks outside Athens thought of their polis. There are, of course, numerous instances of the polis being equated with the citizens: in Arkesine on the island of Amorgos the whole polis mourns over a drowned citizen (/G XII 7 108), and in Taras, we are told, the whole polis gets drunk during a festival (Pl. Leg. 637b). Also, decrees passed by the

people of Delphi are sometimes introduced with the formula "It was decided by the polis of the Delphians"; but an alternative formula is just "it was decided by the Delphians".?5 Here the polis are the citizens, which should cause no surprise. But some inscriptions show that no complete identification can be made between the concept of the polis and that of its citizens. Several honorific decrees distinguish between the polis and its politai, just as the Athenian sources quoted above. A decree of the fourth century passed by the council and assembly of Poteidaia states as the reason for bestowing some honours on a certain Xenokritos that “he continues to be a good man toward the polis and toward the politai, and promises to do whatever good he can ...."

(SEG 38 662.3-7).26 Again, in a Milesian decree of the mid-fifth century some men are outlawed and it is further stipulated that if the polis apprehends them, then some officials, called the epimenioi, shall have them executed (Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 43.7), i.e., a distinction is made between the Milesian polis as such and the Milesian

officials who are instructed to carry out the verdict passed by the polis. These and similar examples must be borne in mind when we turn to all the instances of polis being used as the subject of a verb in the active, i.e. as an agent. Two of the most common examples of an abstract noun appearing as an agent are nomos and polis. They are very close to one another and sometimes appear in the same context. Thus, in Plato's Kriton the polis, identified with the laws of the polis, addresses Sokrates and has him cross-examined about political obligations in general and Socrates' duties towards the polis in particular (Pl. Cri. 50a). Moving to the polis world outside Athens we find that the polis: passes a law (/.Cret. IV 43B.a.3, Gortyn; Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 2.1-2, Dreros) or a sentence (Syll.? 530.4, Dyme; SEG 41 308, Epidauros)

or inflicts a punishment (/G IV?.1 91A.6, Epidauros) or has a decree inscribed (F.Delphes III.4 153.17, Delphi; Syil.? 4, Kyzikos) or arrests somebody (Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 43.7, Miletos) or brings an action on behalf of a citizen (Koerner, Gesetzsestexte no. 62, Chios)

or appoints a panel of jurors (F.Delphes 111.4 352.11.5, Delphi) or elects an official (SEG 27 631.1-10, Lyttos)

or sends out envoys or representatives (C/D II 74, the members of the Delphic amphictyony; /.Ephesos 2.3—4, Ephesos) or takes an oath (JG XIL.9 191, 42-3 and 49, Eretria) or goes to war (Thuc. 5.79.4, quoting a treaty between Sparta and Argos) or makes peace (Thuc. 5.79.1, quoting a treaty between Sparta and Argos) or witnesses an alliance (OlBer. 7 [1961] 207-10, Poseidonia) or defects from a league or a ruler (Hdt. 5.106.5, the Ionian poleis) 25 26

ἔδοξε τᾶι πόλει τῶν Δελφῶν (F.Delphes III 4 414.3-4); ἔδοξε toig Δελφοῖς (F.Delphes IIL.4 371.33-4). Other examples are /.Istros 12 and 15; /.lasos 58.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

25

or founds a colony (Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 5.37, Thera) or collects a revenue (CID II 76, Delphi) or defrays expenses (/vO 16.7-8, Elis and Skillous)

or takes up a loan (Costabile, Polis ed Olympieion no. 2, Epizephyrian Lokris) or pays interest on a loan (/G XII.7 67.49-50, Arkesine) or enters into a contract (/G XII.9 191.49, Eretria) or owes money (IG V.2 6B.96, Tegea)

or pays a fine (CID II 74.6—7, members of the Amphictyony) or buys landed property (/. Crer. II.x.1.1, Kydonia) or pledges some property (/scr. Cos. ED128.1) or strikes coins (/G XII.2 1, Mytilene and Phokaia)

or accepts as legal tender coins struck by other poleis (IG XII.7 67.55, Arkesine) or repairs the walls (CEG 869, Paphos)

or sends out an army (/G IV?.1 68.95, Epidauros) or organises a festival (JG VII 1.14, Megara; /G XII 9 189.5, Eretria) or makes sacrifices to a god (LSAM 24, Erythrai)

or makes a dedication to a god (/G IX.1 130.2, fourth century, Elateia; /.Beroia 29, late fourth century, Beroia) or consults an oracle (JG IV?.1

122.74-80, Epidauros)

or buries the citizens killed in war (/G XII.9 1195.8, Histiaia) or bestows a crown on a benefactor (/G IV?.1 615.1, Epidauros) or naturalises a foreigner (SEG 43 310, Skotoussa)

or shelters a refugee (Syll.? 172.1-3, Histiaia) As is well known, "in most Greek prose-writers abstract substantives are seldom made the subject of verbs: the normal agents are human beings" (Denniston [1952] 28, emphasis original). Again: "In English, as in Greek, abstract expression, and, in particular, the employment of abstract subjects, is a mark of style which aims at some degree of elevation. ... But the degree of elevation produced in English by a free use of abstracts is far less than the degree produced by a similar use in Greek" (ibid. 39-40). In most of the sources listed above a human agent could easily have been substituted for polis as the subject: either the people in assembly, or the council, or some particular official, or a named citizen, or all citizens such as the Milesians, etc. Thus, the use of what I have called

‘an abstract personification’

(Hansen

[1998] 41) is really worth

noting and illustrates the ancient Greeks' capacity for seeing the polis as an abstract power distinguishable from its politai. Let me conclude this section with an afterthought on the modern concept of state: the state as an abstraction is an essential aspect of the European concept of state from Hobbes onwards. The state as an institution is an element in a concept of state which is applied to political communities all over the world and in all periods. Again, we have moved from politica! philosophy and political science to anthropology and history. Especially anthropologists are prone to see the state as an institution and some even explicitly reject the thought that it is an abstraction above both ruler and ruled. Let me quote what Radcliffe-Brown has to say in the book upon which Berent has built his theory of stateless society: "In writings on political institutions there is a good deal of discussion about the nature and the origin of the State, which is usually represented as

26

Mogens Herman Hansen

being an entity over and above the human individuals who make up a society, having as one of its attributes something called 'sovereignty', and sometimes spoken of as having a will (law being often defined as the will of the state) or as issuing commands. The State, in this sense, does not exist in the phenomenal world; it is a fiction of the philosophers. What does exist is an organisation, i.e. a collection of individual human beings connected by a complex system of relations” (Radcliffe-Brown [1940] xxiii). Thus, the communities classified as ‘early states’ in African Political Systems, e.g. the Zulu and Ankole kingdoms, are seen as institutions, not as abstract powers.

4. The State as a Government Enforcing Law and Order within a Territory over a Population The monopoly of force is now universally emphasised in almost every discussion of the concept of state.? It is usually traced back to Max Weber whose definition of a state runs as follows: "Staat ist diejenige menschliche Gemeinschaft, welche innerhalb eines bestimmten Gebietes ... das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit für sich (mit Erfolg) beansprucht”.?9 The sheer monopoly of force, however, does not in itself constitute a state. The concept of state also comprises the territory within which the laws are enforced (‘innerhalb eines bestimmten Gebietes’) and the people who are forced to obey the legal order (‘die menschliche

Gemeinschaft’).

In his treatment of the state Berent

concentrates on the monopoly of force and has nothing to say about the two other aspects, the territory and the body politic, although both are crucial for his topic. (1) Territory. One of the essential differences between state and stateless society

concerns the territory, insofar as one of the characteristics of stateless societies is "that they lack the definitive territorial boundaries" (Southall [1968] 167) which are charac-

teristic of a state. Where does the polis belong in this context? It is true that the territory is not the most prominent of the characteristics of the polis. The body politic (the politai) and the system of political institutions (the politeia) are the more important elements. This is

well known and basically true. But it must not lead to the inference that the territory was not an element in the concept of the polis: the frequently used penalty of exile?9 consisted precisely in the right of anyone to kill the outlaw if found within the territorial bounds,?! and we know of laws and verdicts which prescribed that the corpse of an executed criminal be thrown over the border of the polis.?? So the Greeks were perfectly capable of saying "the polis stretches to this-and-this point and not beyond". 27

See also Claessen and Skalník (1978) 4.

28

d'Entéves (1967) 4; Gellner (1983) 3; Giddens (1985) 17-19; Zippelius (1989) 52-3; Held (1995) 48. Pierson (1996) 7. Weber (1972) 822. Lys. 6.15: οὗτος μὲν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς ἐξ ᾿Αρείου κάγον φεύξεται τὴν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος

29 30

πόλιν. /G II? 24 b-c 3-6: [καὶ] ἐάν τις ἀπκοκτε[ίνη]ῖ ᾿Αρχίιππον

ἢ Ἵππαρχον

τ]ὸν ᾿Αρχίππο

ἀδελίφόν)]. φεύγίεν τὴν πόλιν" τ]ὴν᾿Αϑηναίων καὶ τὰς ἄλλ]ας κόλίες. ὁκόσαι ᾿Αθ) ηναίων ἐσὶν σύμμαχοί[ι].

31 32

Dem. 23.37, 39ff.; Philochoros (FGrHist 328) fr. 30. Din. 1.77: τὸν τῆς ᾿Ελλάδος ἀλιτήριον ἀποκτείναντας ἐξόριστον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως κοιῆσαι.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

27

The borderline of a polis was often marked with boundary stones (horoi);?? we are told that territorial disputes had to be settled by international arbitration?* and might result in wars between poleis.3® The once popular concept of Poleis ohne Territorium (Hampl [1939]) has now been abandoned as a fallacy,*© and today almost all scholars seem to agree that the defined territory was an essential part of the polis.?’ The conclusion is that the polis with its defined territory resembled a state and was certainly not a stateless society. (2) Body politic. I have already argued above that the modern state is not only the

government; it is also the body politic, i.e. the citizenry at large. In relation to the structure and function of the state, however, citizens fall into two opposed groups: rulers and ruled, the first being identified with the government and the second with the subjects. This distinction is essential to the concept of state and, according to Berent, it did not exist in the ancient Greek polis. Quoting Ehrenberg and Osborne, Berent reminds us that in a state there is an opposition between rulers and ruled whereas the polis is coextensive with the citizen body, and in a democratically governed polis decisions are made by the citizens in assembly: all are rulers and "there are no subjects”.’8 The identity between rulers and ruled makes the polis ‘ungovernable’ (45) and is in marked contrast to the modern state based on the opposition between government and subjects. This line of argument has an element of truth but one crucial aspect is missing from the model: (a) in the polis citizens ruled non-citizens, i.e. female citizens plus foreigners and slaves of both sexes; (b) in the polis the adult male citizens were, admittedly,

both rulers and ruled, especially in democratically governed poleis, but not at the same time. One basic idea behind the political organisation of the Greek polis and particular-

ly the democratic polis is that the citizens take turns being rulers and subjects. At any time there is a clear distinction between on the one hand the rulers, called archontes, who issue commands and are empowered to enforce their commands, and on the other hand the subjects, called archomenoi, who have to obey orders and can be punished for

disobedience.?? So the polis is not a community in which it is impossible to distinguish 33

34

Xen. Hell. 4.4.6: αἰσθανόμενοι (the Korinthians) ἀφανιζομένην τὴν πόλιν διὰ τὸ xai ὄρους ἀνασπᾶσθαι καὶ Ἄργος ἀντὶ Κορίνθον τὴν κατρίδα αὐτοῖς ὀνομάζεσθαι ... See Rousset (1994) 97-126. Cf. IG X11.5 543 (Kartheia); /G VII 2792, cf. SEG 36 411 (Boiotian horos marking the border between Akraiphia and Kopai); Syll? 134.22-3 (Miletos and Myous); /PArk no. 14 (Orchomenos). Arbitration between Miletos and Myous, ca. 391-88 (Syil. 134 = Tod, GHI no. 113); Orchomenos

369-1 (IPArk no. 14); the Delphic Amphictyony judges a border dispute between Amphissa and Delphi in ca. 338/7? (BCH 27 [1903] 140-53; Ager (1996) no. 1); Alexander the Great calls for a boundary settlement between Aspendos and a neighbour, perhaps Side in 333 BC (Arr. Anab. 1.27.4; Ager [1996] no. 6).

35

36 37 38 39

Dem. 15.17; Thuc. 5.79.4 (treaty between the Lakedaimonians and the Argives, 418 BC): ai δέ τινι τᾶν πολίων ἡ ἀμφίλλογα, ἢ τᾶν ἐντὸς fj τᾶν ἐκτὸς Πελοκοννάσω, alte περὶ ópav aite κερὶ ἄλλω τινός, διακριθῆμεν. Sakellariou (1989) 80—4; Ampolo (1996) 305. For the territory as an element in the concept of polis, see Hansen (1998) 53—6; Brunet (1999) passim. Berent (1996) 43 quoting Ehrenberg (1969) 88-9 and Osborne (1985) 8. Arist. Pol. 1332b12-41: every political community consists of rulers (ἀρχόντων) and subjects (ἀρχομένων). Pol. 1317a40—b3: one aspect of democratic liberty is to take turns being ruled and

28

Mogens Herman Hansen

between rulers and subjects. It is a community in which the citizens take turns as rulers and subjects. According to Aristotle (Pol. 1333a11-16) the principle to rule and be ruled in turn applies not only to democracies, but also to his own ideal political community, called politeia. It is a community based on rotation, and rotation in office is the key behind the organisation of the democratic polis. But citizens who do not fill an office are subjects, and the oath all young Athenian citizens had to take included instructions to obey the authorities both in war and peace. (3) Government and administration. Did the ancient Greek polis possess a network

of organised political institutions at state level? In a modern state decisions are made by governments and parliaments and carried into effect by a hierarchically organised network of professional civil servants, usually chosen by their superiors. In a democratically organised Greek polis decisions were made in assemblies and popular courts, and carried into effect by magistrates (archai) elected or selected by lot for a term of, usually, one year. If we compare the modern bureaucracy with the ancient magistrates, some obvious differences catch the eye. First the administration of the polis was not

hierarchical in structure,*! and second the officials were chosen either by election or by lot. Election of officials is not particularly unfamiliar to us: in the United States many official posts are elected, and in European democracies election, direct or indirect, is the prescribed procedure for choosing new holders of the highest ranks, directly the president in a republic, or indirectly the ministers in a parliamentary democracy. But selection by lot of officials constitutes a huge gap between ancient and modern democracies.*? We can just about imagine an Assembly of the People or, at a pinch, a

People's Court, but nobody nowadays would dream of picking a Chief of Police or an Undersecretary of State by putting the names of all citizens who said they wanted to

stand into a hat and choosing at random. But these characteristics do not conflict with the observation that, in many respects, the polis was more institutionalised than a modern state and that it possessed, if not a hierarchical bureaucracy of professional civil servants, then a very sophisticated network of magistrates empowered to implement the decisions made in assemblies. In Athens and in other democratically governed poleis all important decisions were taken by the Assembly, the Legislators (nomothetai) and the People's Court, but it was the magistrates“ who had to prepare the decisions and implement them.*55 ‘Magis-

trates’ is a translation of hai archai. The word arche actually means a magistracy,*? but it was used with just about equal frequency of the person holding the magistracy;*® hence hai archai, ‘the magistrates’, was the collective term for a group of people who

40 4| 42

being rulers (τὸ ἐν μέρει ἄρχεσθαι xai ἄρχειν): see also Pol. 1252a15-16; 1259b4—5; 12772267; 1333a11-16; Pl. Resp. 412c; 556b; Leg. 689e—90c; Xen. Mem. 3.9.11; Isoc. 8.91. See Hansen (1998) 70 with nn. 310-12. Tod, GHI no. 204.12, 28-9. Busolt-Swoboda (1920-26) 1059. Elster (1989) 78-92.

43

Headlam (1891) 1-3.

44 45 46 47 48

Busolt-Swoboda (1920-26) 1054-1150; Kahrstedt (1936); Develin (1989). Arist. Pol. 1322b12-7. Aeschin. 3.13ff. Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.2. Andoc. 1.84.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

29

constituted a branch of the government on a par with the ekklesia and the dikasteria.*? The archai were a well-defined group of state officials, and they were defined in various laws. The criteria for being a magistrate included being chosen by election or by lot; undergoing a preliminary examination (dokimasia) before taking up office; holding office for at least 30 days; and rendering accounts (euthynai) on relinquishing office.*! Finally the magistrates, like the jurors, had to swear an oath to carry out their

duties properly and in consonance with the laws.°2 Hai archai means literally, ‘the rulers’, and in many oligarchical city-states that

name was fully justified, for all power lay in the hands of the magistrates,5? who were chosen from amongst the richest citizens, and Assembly and People’s Court were

unknown institutions?’ or mere ciphers.° But in democratic poleis the principle was to give power to the People and prevent the establishment of a magisterial elite.5" In accordance with this principle the Athenian archai, as the democracy grew up, were reduced from 'rulers' to administrators. But administrators they certainly were. They had the exclusive right to summon and preside over the decision-making bodies, and, most importantly, they were responsible for the carrying into effect of the decisions made by the citizens in the assembly or in the courts. Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle all

assert that the most important duty of the magistrates is to give orders to the citizens,*8 and the oath taken by the young citizens when they came of age included a promise to

obey the magistrates.5? Many provisions in the surviving laws and decrees are instructions to magistrates to put the decisions into force: and when sentence was passed in a public prosecution it was the magistrates who had to see to its execution.$! The magistrates were furnished with the necessary authority by giving them special legal protection and the power to impose minor fines. As a sign of public authority every

magistrate wore a myrtle wreath in the course of his duties,6? and violence against or defamation of a magistrate on duty was punished more severely than in the case of an ordinary citizen.© If anyone refused to obey the command of a magistrate he could be subject to an inappellable fine of up to, probably, 50 drachmas,™ and the Council could impose up to 500 drachmas® (though in that case there was appeal to the Courts).5é

49

Arist. Pol. 1317b35-6; Dem. 25.20.

50 51 52 53 54 55

Aeschin. 1.13; Arist. Ark. Pol. 43.1. Aeschin. 3.13-5, 28-30. Din. 3.2, 10; Dem. 24.147, cf. 144; Arist. Ath. Pol. 55.5. Arist. Pol. 1275b13-17; 1293228. Arist. Pol. 1292a39—b7. Arist. Pol. 1275b7.

56

"Thuc. 5.84.4.

57 58 59

Arist. Pol. 1298a28-32; 1299638-40. Xen. Mem. 3.9.11; Pl. Plt. 260b; Arist. Pol. 1299a25—7. Tod, GHI no. 204.11-12: εὐηκοήσω τῶν ἀεὶ xpawóvtov.

60

SEG 26 72; Hansen (1981) 357-9.

61 62 63 64 65 66

Dem. Dem. Dem. IGE Dem. Arist.

24.80-1. 26.5; Poll. 8.86. 21.32. 82.26. 47.43. Ath. Pol. 45.2.

30

Mogens Herman Hansen

Berent holds the view that the polis had no institutions which one needed to take over if one wanted to rule, no "existing power structure and institutions of government" (44). This statement is contradicted by Thucydides' description of how the Four Hundred oligarchs assumed power in Athens in 411: the most important body of Athenian officials was the Council of Five Hundred. Fully armed and with an extra bodyguard the Four Hundred showed up in the council hall during a meeting of the Five Hundred

and sent them

home

having paid them their small daily consideration

for

serving on the council (Thuc. 8.69.4). Berent also quotes Robin Osborne for the view that the Athenian officers were reduced “to individuals not distinct from the demos" (43). This view is in conflict with all the sources quoted above. A well-argued and welldocumented exposition of what distinguished an Athenian magistrate from an ordinary citizen can be found in Rubinstein (1998), judiciousiy summarised by Faraguna in his

discussion of Berent’s model of the polis as a stateless society. 5. Administration of Justice Berent argues that the most essential criterion for distinguishing a state from a stateless society concerns the administration of justice: in a state there is an agency which possesses the monopoly of legitimate violence, whereas the stateless society has no state-coercive apparatus: there is no prison, no executioner and no officials entrusted with the execution of sentences. Berent concludes that, according to this criterion, the

polis must be classified a stateless society: it had no police force; the redress of many crimes was by self-help and self-defence; and when law enforcement was carried out by officials, the apprehension and prosecution of perpetrators was left to the injured person or to volunteers, and only exceptionally performed by the officials themselves. One of the modern state's prerogatives, on the other hand, is the legitimate use of physical force, and for a specific purpose: viz., the enforcement of a legal order; and from this point of view the concept of state is inseparably connected with the legal system as such and with the rule of law as the end of the state. Berent has selected the evidence that fits his model and makes no mention of the sources which show that in the majority of cases the polis came fairly close to having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and, conversely, that self-help was still allowed in all European states in the age of Thomas Hobbes, that there was no police force, except in France, and that private prosecution was the norm. 6. Was Respect for the Law Based on Sanctions or on Habit and Consensus?

According to Berent, "the polis, as any other stateless community, was not a locus of power; there were no state institutions which one needed to take over if one wanted to rule, no existing power structure and institutions of government" (44). As a result the 67

Rubinstein (1998) 131-9; Faraguna (2000) 221-2.

68

For legitimacy as a defining characteristic of the state, see Dunleavy (1993) 611; Held (1995) 48; Pierson (1996) 8. Cf. also Vincent (1987) 37-9. For the state as a personification of the legal order see Kelsen (1946) 181. See also d'Entréves (1967) 2, 5, 82-8, 141—50.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

31

laws were not commands backed by sanctions as they are in the modern state. The authority of the law rested on habit and common consent. Apart from quoting some modern historians Berent substantiates this view with the following quote from Aristotle’s Politics: "Consider, for instance, the following passage by Aristotle: ‘It is from habit (ethos), and only from habit, that law derives the validity which secures obedience. But habit can be created only by the passage of time; and a readiness to change from existing to new and different laws will accordingly tend to weaken the general power of law’ (Pol. 1269220-3). In the Greek setting the Aristotelian position looks perfectly normal. In the absence of a public coercive apparatus the law, in order to be law, must be identical with the customs of the community. Thus the Aristotelian law, not backed by public force, must evolve as a way of life to be a true law of the community." I have two objections to this quote from Aristotle and Berent's interpretation of it: First, from the Aristotelian view that "law derives its validity from habit" Berent seems to make the unwarranted inference that law is habit ("identical with the customs

of the community"). But, like all other Greeks, Aristotle held the view that the majority of the laws of a polis were imposed by lawgivers or voted into existence by legislative

councils and assemblies.‘? Next, Berent creates a misleading opposition between Aristotelian and modern law by suppressing both what Aristotle has to say about the enforcement of laws and what modern authors have to say about habit as an essential element of what makes people law-abiding. Consider, for instance, the following passage in Aristotle's Politics Book 6: "Next comes an office of which the duties are the most necessary and also the most difficult, viz., that to which is committed the execution of punishments, or the exaction of fines from those who are posted up according to the registers, and also the custody of prisoners. The difficulty of this office arises out of the odium which is attached to it; no one will undertake it unless great profits are to be made, and anyone who does is loath to execute the law. Still the office is necessary; for judicial decisions are useless if they take no effect, and if society cannot exist without them, neither can it exist without the execution of them" (1321b40—22a7). Thus Aristotle is perfectly aware of the fact that

laws must be enforced, and that an element of violence is a necessary foundation of any

polis.?o Conversely, Berent has no mention of the modern recognition that fear of punishment is not the only motivation behind law-abidingness. “It is generally recognized that people usually obey the law because it is the law, and not just because they are afraid of

being punished if they disobey".?! The obvious authority to quote in this connection is, I suppose, John Austin whose views about law have had an immense influence. Austin 69

Arist. Pol. 129825. By a partly correct but partly anachronistic interpretation of the history of law, Aristotle and his contemporaries also believed that early laws were not just customs transformed into law, but rather reforms invented and imposed by legislators such as Drakon of Athens (1274b15), Solon of Athens (1273b34), Lykourgos of Sparta (1273533), Philolaos of Korinth (1274a31), Androdamas of Rhegion (1274b23), Zaleukos Katane (1274223) and Pittakos of Lesbos (1274b18).

70

(1274a22),

Charondas

of

Cf. also Eth. Nic. 1180a2-24, where Aristotle argues that "the majority obey compulsion rather than reason and punishments rather than the good" (4—5) and that "law possesses compulsive power" (21).

71

of Lokris

Lloyd (1964) 40.

32

Mogens Herman Hansen

holds that a law is a command, and that a command is backed by a sanction or an enforcement of obedience. The evil to be incurred in case a command be disobeyed is

frequently styled a punishment.?? This part of his philosophy of law is in full agreement with the view that in a state there has to be a public coercive apparatus to enforce the law. But at the same time Austin is famous for his treatment of the concept of sovereignty, viz., that a basic element of sovereignty and the independent political society which sovereignty implies is that the bulk of the given society are in a habit of

obedience or submission to a determinate and common superior.”> “We must suppose that, whatever the motive, most of the orders are more often obeyed than disobeyed by most of those affected. We shall call this here, following Austin, ‘a general habit of obedience’ and note, with him, that like many other aspects of law it is an essentially

vague or imprecise notion”.’* To conclude, the allegedly fundamental distinction between ancient Greek and modern views of law and state is created by matching one half of what Aristotle says with the opposite half of the views held by Austin and other modern authors, leaving out the ancient insistence upon enforced punishment as a major factor behind the law of the polis, as well as the modern view that, in addition to the use of force, habitual obedience is an indispensable factor behind law-abidingness in modern states.

7. Self-Help Berent overemphasises the importance of self-help in the ancient polis and, conversely, he seems to believe that self-help had already been eradicated from society in the age of Thomas Hobbes. Both parts of the argumentation are open to criticism. (1) In Classical Athens it was legal to resort to self-help against adulterers caught in the sexual act (Arist. Ath. Pol. 57.3; Lys. 1.2), burglars caught during the night hours (Dem. 24.113), traitors (SEG 12 87.10-11; Andoc. 1.96—8) and exiles found in Attika (Dem. 23.28). Similar laws are known from other poleis. The right to kill an outlaw is

found in anti-tyranny laws from Miletos (Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 43.3-6), Amphipolis (Tod, GHI no. 150.4-6), Eretria (JG XII.9 190), and Ilion (/./lion 25.43-53).75 In Lys. 1.2, the defendant claims that the husband's right to kill the adulterer applies in democracies and oligarchies alike, and Xenophon asserts that it exists in many poleis (Hier. 3.3). But both authors stress as well the exceptional character of self-help in connection with this particular type of offence. Thus the polis did not have an absolute monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But self-help was restricted to these four types of offence and was allowed only if the perpetrator was caught in the act. Furthermore, a citizen did not have to resort to self-

help. He could apprehend the perpetrator, hand him over to the officials and leave it to them to have him executed on the spot or brought before a court. Or he could report the crime to the officials and leave it to them to have the perpetrator arrested, see below 34 (Arist. Ath. Pol. 52.1; Dem. 22.26; SEG 17 415, Thasos). Most importantly, in all 72 73 74

Austin (1832/1954) 13-15. Austin (1832/1954) 1934. Hart (1961) 23.

75

Velissaropoulos-Karakostas (1991) 93-105, Hansen (1976) 19-20.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

33

matters other than those listed above, no person was allowed to take the law into his own hands, and an offender had to be tried before a court appointed by the polis: several of the orators state with approval the rule that no citizen could be executed without due process of law," and "no execution without a trial" (medena akriton apokteinai) was felt to be a right which all citizens enjoyed." Another rule forbade

torture of Athenian citizens," and the principle that free men are exempt from corporal punishment is closely connected with democratic ideology.’? The Athenian democracy further provided some protection of a citizen's home. Demosthenes was severely criticized by Aischines for breaking into a house and arresting the alleged traitor, Antiphon, without a warrant, i.e. a psephisma of the people,9? and in the Assembly Aischines got his way and secured the man's release. Demosthenes, in his turn, accuses Androtion of having surpassed the Thirty in brutality: they had people arrested in the market place, but, when exacting arrears of eisphora, Androtion conducted the Eleven

to the debtors’ houses and had them arrested there.®! Finally, in Aristotle's Constitution of Athens we are told that as soon as the archon enters upon his office, he proclaims through the public herald that whatever a person possessed before he entered upon his archonship he will have and possess until the end of his term.82 To conclude, in the Classical polis self-help was restricted to a few defined offences. In all other matters self-help was a punishable offence as it is in modern states. (2) The other half of my argument is that in most European states of the 17th and 18th centuries self-help was an acknowledged part of the administration of justice, and it was typically allowed against the same types of criminal as in Athens, viz., the adulterer, the burglar caught during night, the traitor and the outlaw. In many European states the husband's right to kill an adulterer, if caught in the sexual act with the husband's wife, survived until the the 19th century. In Denmark it

was upheld until 1866;3? and in the state of New Mexico it was discontinued only in 1978 by à law passed by the legislators in Santa Fe. Similarly, in Denmark as well as in other European states a man was entitled to kill a burglar if caught at night in his house, and in Denmark this form of legal self-help was abolished only in 1866.55 And in many of the states of the US, especially in rural 76

77 8

79

Lys. 19.7; 22.2; Andoc. 1.94; Isoc. 15.22; Dem. 25.87. One of the principal charges against the oligarchic regime of 404—3 was that the Thirty had executed hundreds of Athenian citizens without trial, see Lys. 12.36, 82, 83; Isoc. 7.67; 20.11; Aeschin. 2.77; 3.235. Hansen (1989) 13. Lys. 19.7; Dem. 25.87. For a non-Athenian (=Arkadian) example, see Xen. Hell. 7.4.38: οὐδένα ... Οὔτε δεδέσθαι οὔτε ἀποθνήσκειν xpd δίκης. Andoc 1.43; see MacDowell (1962) 92-3.

Dem. 22.55: xai μὴν εἰ θέλετε σκέψασθαι τί δοῦλον ἢ ἐλεύθερον εἶναι διαφέρει, τοῦτο μέγιστον ἂν εὕροιτε, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν δούλοις τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἀκάντων ὑκεύθυνόν ἐστιν, τοῖς δ᾽ ἐλευθέροις. κἂν τὰ μέγιστ᾽ ἀτυχῶσιν, τοῦτο γ᾽ ἔνεστι σῶσαι εἰς χρήματα yàp τὴν δίκην περὶ τῶν πλείστων παρὰ τούτων προσήκει λαμβάνειν. See Saunders (1991) 339—40.

80 81

82 83 84

Dem. 18.132: βοῶν ὁ βάσκανος οὗτος καὶ κεκραγώς, ὡς ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ δεινὰ ποιῶ τοὺς ἠτυχηκότας τῶν κολιτῶν ὑβρίζων καὶ Er’ οἰκίας βαδίζων ἄνευ ψηφίσματος ... Dem. 22.52: οὗτος τοίνυν (Androtion) τοσαύτην ὑπερβολὴν ἐποιήσατ᾽ éxeivov (the Thirty) τῆς αὐτοῦ βδελυρίας ὥστ᾽ £v δημοκρατίᾳ κολιτευόμενος τὴν ἰδίαν οἰκίαν ἑκάστῳ δεσμωτήριον καθίστη, τοὺς ἔνδεκ᾽ ἄγων ἐπὶ τὰς οἰκίας. Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.2; see Mossé (1981) 262-71; Rhodes (1981) 622. Jyske Lov (1241) 3.37; Danske Lov (1683) 6.12.4; abolished by the penal law code of 1866 $ 308. Danske Lov (1683) 6.12.7, abolished by the penal law code of 1866 $ 308.

34

Mogens Herman Hansen

districts, lynch law was an accepted form of administration of justice and is apologetically explained and defended by James Bryce in The American Commonwealth.® Finally, the traitor and the outlaw. One outstanding example among several others is the case of Corfitz Ulfeldt, the Danish Chancellor of the Exchecquer from 1643-52. He fled Denmark and went over to the Swedish king Carl X Gustav, whom he supported in the next two wars between Denmark and Sweden. In 1663 the Danish Supreme Court had him sentenced to death in absentia; he was executed in effigy and a price was put on his head: any person who killed him would obtain a reward of 10,000 silver thalers, raised to 20,000 thalers if he was apprehended and handed over to the

king of Denmark.® By and large, the range of legal self-help was the same in Classical Athens and in a European state in the 17th and 18th centuries and, if from this point of view Athens and other Greek poleis were stateless societies, so were Denmark and most other European ‘states’, including England, until the mid-nineteenth century.

8. Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminals So much for self-help in the sense of a penalty inflicted on the perpetrator by the injured person. The other aspect stressed by Berent is that, although the punishment of crimes was left to the state's officials, ordinary citizens had to take an active part in the administration of justice. "Policing was done by self-help and self-defence (that is with the help of friends, neighbours, family). There was no public prosecution system, and cases were brought to the court either by interested parties or by volunteers. ... The Eleven did not normally make arrests on their own initiative. These were carried out by self-help, by interested individuals or by volunteers.” (40-1 quoting Lintott [1982]).? This is a qualified truth. Athenian sources describe some instances in which the arrest of suspects and the inquiry into the case were carried out by polis officials, e.g., the profanation of the mysteries and mutilation of the Herms in 415 and the action against the eight generals after the battle of the Arginousai (Hunter [1994] 144).

Furthermore, as Berent admits in a footnote, if the victim felt he did not have the strength to apprehend a burglar or a robber himself (by apagoge), he could ask the

Eleven to do it (by ephegesis).®® Berent objects that ephegesis is "rarely mentioned in the sources" (41 with n. 24). True, but so is apagoge carried out by the victim.9? In both cases the arrest of the perpetrator would often result in his execution without a trial. Therefore there would be no speeches and since forensic speeches are our principal

85

"Lynch law is not unknown in more civilized regions, such as Indiana or Ohio. Now lynch law, however shocking it may seem to Europeans and New Englanders, is far removed from arbitrary violence. According to the testimony of careful observers, it is very seldom abused, and its procedures are generally conducted with some regularity of form as well as fairness of spirit."

86

The sentence as well as other relevant documents are printed in Paludan-Müller (1879) 118-26.

87

See Hunter (1994) 143-9,

88 89

Dem. 22.26; 23.31; 24.164; Democrates fr. 3, Sauppe; Ar. Thesm. 922. See Hansen (1976) 24-6. Hansen (1976) 54. The only known cases of robbers and thieves apprehended by apagoge and handed over to the officials are Cat. nos. 6, 18 and 30.

Bryce (1888) quoted in Brown (1975) 144—5.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

35

source for the administration of justice, both self-help in apagoge and intervention by officials in ephegesis are poorly attested in the sources we have. Of non-Athenian sources I have selected for special mention in this context a fifthcentury law from Chios. It regulates the sale of property, probably enforced sales of some kind, and probably conducted at public auction. In order to protect the buyers against resistance from, presumably, the former owners, a number of sanctions are added to the list of sales: “If, to the detriment of the polis, anybody removes any of the boundary stones, he shall pay 100 staters and suffer loss of rights (atimia), and the orophylakes (the Guardians of the Boundaries) shall collect the fine." And again a little later: "If anybody ejects the buyers or brings an action against them, the polis shall assist the ejected persons and plead their case, and if the polis loses the case, then the polis shall pay the penalty on the buyer's behalf".9? I note that here, as in many other inscriptions, the officials are entrusted with collecting the fine,?! and that the polis undertakes to conduct a law suit on behalf of a citizen and even anticipates that the polis may lose the case, yet another instance of the polis conceived as a juristic person. However, there can be no denial that in most cases both apprehension and prosecution of an offender were performed by ordinary citizens, not by polis officials. The problem with Berent's argument is rather that similar conditions prevailed in almost all European 'states' until the 19th century. Let me adduce, once again, my own country, Denmark, the only state ever to have

had a constitution that fulfilled Hobbes's dream about the absolute monarch.?? In the Danish law code of 1683 it is laid down that if a thief is caught with the stolen goods in hand, the owner must bind him and detain him. In the countryside the thief and the stolen goods must be handed over to the squire, in the towns to the magistrate, and the

case is then heard in the local court.?? A small metropolitan police force was set up in Copenhagen in 1683 and a nationwide police force in the modern sense emerged only in the course of the 19th century. Also, public prosecution of criminals was the exception, and many criminal cases had to be brought and conducted by the victims. As late as 1765, Henrik Stampe, the president of the Danish Supreme Court, complains in an official report that some criminals are never put on trial because the victim, if he is a poor man, cannot pay the costs: the victim - or a citizen on his behalf — not only had to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrator, he had even to pay for having the defendant in custody, for having him tried and even for the carrying out of the sentence. The principle that criminal cases are investigated and conducted by state officials comes to prevail only in the course of the

late 18th century.?* In 18th century England "some arrests were made by constables or by watchmen (who were more efficient than police reformers of the nineteenth century allowed). But

many and probably most pursuits and arrests still had to be undertaken by victims and 90

Koerner, Gesetzestexte no. 62 A.9-16, C.1—4. The first part of C.1—2 is heavily restored, but there are only minor and insignificant restorations of single letters in the lines that instruct the polis to conduct the case on behalf of the victims and to pay the compensation if the verdict goes againt the polis.

91]

Examples in Busolt-Swoboda (1920-26) 488 n. 2.

92 93 94

The Lex Regia of 1665, see Fabricius (1920). ]uul (1949) = Kong Christian den Femtes Danske Lov Chapter 17 section I, 4 and 13. Stampe (1796) 614. Erklering no. 179 of 26 June 1765.

36

Mogens Herman Hansen

their friends,” and “the overwhelming majority of criminal prosecutions, more than eighty per cent, were conducted by the victims of crimes or, rather less frequently, by private individuals acting on the victim's behalf".96 France was the exception. "A century and a half before England or any other European state boasted a nationwide rural police force, France had a body of armed men whose duty it was to carry law and order to the countryside".9" Summing up: in the 17th and 18th centuries most European states had no police force of any consequence, and it was usually left to the injured party as well as to other citizens to apprehend a perpetrator and have him dragged before the magistrate. Again there is a striking analogy with the ancient Greek polis in which perpetrators usually had to be brought before the magistrates by arrest (apagoge) or denunciation (endeixis) carried out by ordinary citizens on behalf of the community. Both in the polis and in the early state, prosecution of criminals was mostly conducted by private citizens, either the victims themselves or other citizens on their behalf.

9. Executions and Carrying out of Sentences Whereas the state possesses a set of law-enforcing institutions, the stateless society has no state-coercive apparatus: there is no prison, no executioner and no official entrusted with the execution of sentences. It is simply left to the parties in the case to comply with the verdict passed by the jurors, often an assembly of elders. Where does the Classical polis belong? (1) Berent notes that "imprisonment was not normally a form of punishment imposed by the courts" and was mostly used "to detain people" (41). Nevertheless, according to Aristotle, every polis seems to have had a prison (Pol. 1322a1). In Plato's utopian polis Magnesia there were no fewer than three prisons (Leg. 907e—908a), and, quite apart from the prison in Athens (Arist. Ath. Pol. 52.1, cf. Wycherley [1957] 149),98 we hear about the prison in Alexandria (Paus. 2.9.3), Argos (Arist. Rher. 1375a5-6), Kroton (Paus. 6.13.1), Messene (Plut. Phil. 20.1), Oreos (Dem. 9.60),

Pergamon (Plut. Caes. 2.6), Sparta (Plut. Agis Dio 57.5), and Tegea (Xen. Hell. 7.4.36). Next, the period before the trial (Antiph. 5.9, 17) sentenced to death until the execution could largest groups of prisoners were undoubtedly

95

96 97 98

19.3-5), Syracuse (Diod. 11.86.5; Plut. prisons were indeed used for custody in or, after the trial, to detain a person take place (Pl. Phd. 57a-58d). But the public debtors, of whom some were in

Letter from Prof. C. Emsley of June 2001; cf. Beattie (1986) 36-8, 52-9; Emsley (1987) 172 and King (2000) 17: "Between 1740 and 1820 officials only took responsibility for prosecutions involving property appropriation in very exceptional circumstances, such as major coining or forgery cases. It was the victim who provided the momentum, the driving force that moved a dispute towards a trial in the major courts. If the victim refused to react, the judicial system remained inert and ineffective. If the victim chose to take on the expensive, time-consuming, and often complex task of organizing the detection, arrest, and possible committal of the offender, he (or occasionally she) found that an array of discretionary powers fell into his hands." Emsley (1987) 138. Cameron (1977) 47. Hunter (1997) 296-326.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

37

prison for years on end.?? The existence of a prison in most Greek poleis militates against any classification of the polis as a stateless society. Conversely, in early modern Europe the organisation and function of prisons was not very different from the prisons of ancient Greek poleis: “‘the prison before 1775 was more a place of confinement for debtors and those passing through the mills of justice than a place of punishment’. In terms of inmates then the English prison was not

unlike its Athenian counterpart".!00 (2) In public actions the carrying out of sentences was an obligation incumbent on the polis and performed by state officials (see above 29).!?! In private matters the execution of the judgment was, in the first instance, left to the parties to the case, but if the losing party did not comply with the court's verdict, the winning party could bring a new action, called a dike exoules. If in this action he had the original verdict confirmed, a fine payable to the polis would be added to the compensation owed to the winning party, and so the polis officials would in this case be responsible for the

execution of the verdict. 0? Thus, with a few exceptions the polis did have a monopoly of force, and this prerogative was not just a fact which attracted little attention. In many of the sources which contrast the private and the public the exclusive right to punish is

recognised as one of the essential features of the polis.!93 (3) In Athens capital punishment had to be carried out by the Board of Eleven (hoi hendeka),'™ and for this purpose they had a slave, called ho demios, who acted as executioner.!05 The Athenian board of Eleven is explicitly mentioned by Aristotle; information about other poleis is less easy to find. To the best of my knowledge, no scholar has collected the numerous but scattered references to magistrates ordered to carry out sentences;!% and in this context it suffices to quote two inscriptions which support the general statement made by Aristotle: that any polis would have magistrates responsible for the execution of sentences. (i) In a law from Gortyn, a board of magistrates is instructed to bring some persons before the court, hear the case, pass a verdict and hand the convicted persons over to another board of magistrates, called the esprartai (I. Cret. IV 160).

(ii) A decree from Miletos deals with some exiles whom, of course, anybody might kill if found inside the borders of the territory. But in addition to self-help the decree also prescribes an alternative procedure by which a board of magistrates, called the epimenioi, are ordered to have the exiles executed; and a severe fine is imposed on the magistrates if they do not comply with the order (Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 43 Ξ Fornara no. 66).

99 Hunter (1997) 303-7; cf. Dem. 24.125, 135; 25.61, 67; Din. 2.2, 9. 100 Hunter (1997) 309.

101 Agora XIX P5.1-8; Plut. Mor. 834A; Arist. Ath. Pol. 52.1; Dem. 24.80-1. 102 Dem. 21.44; Harp. s.v. exoules; cf. Lipsius (1905-15) 664—5, 672-3; but see Hunter (1994) 142.

103 Dem. 23.2343; Dem. 21.29, and 74-6. 104 Arist. Ash. Pol. 52.1; cf. Hansen (1976) 119 and (1990) 234 n. 93.

105 Ar. Ecci. 81; Pl. Resp. 439e: Lys. 13.56; Aeschin. 2.126; Pl. Leg. 872b. 106 For a general account with a few examples cited in the notes, see Busolt-Swoboda (1920-26) 477.-8, 555.

38

Mogens Herman Hansen

10. A Standing Army as a Condition for Statehood Another important issue concerns wars and armed forces. Weber's definition of the state as an organisation in possession of the monopoly of legitimate violence is commonly combined with the distinction between the internal and the external sovereignty of the state: the enforcement of the legal order within the territory over the population is entrusted to courts and police forces and corresponds to the maintenance of the internal sovereignty. The defence of the integrity of the territory is the task of the armed forces and corresponds to the external sovereignty." The analysis of the concept of state during the last generation has emphasised not only that states make war but, conversely, that war makes states.!0$ Armed conflicts and armies have become a key issue in the debate of the emergence and nature of the state, especially the European state since the 17th century. Conversely it can be argued that the absence of

an army, and especially a standing army, implies the absence of the state. Berent argues that the ancient Greek polis had no standing army. Consequently it was a stateless society (40). This is, again, a qualified truth. In his later study (below 42—4) Berent admits that

Sparta, the Athenian navy and tyranically governed poleis were exceptions (260). But there are several other attestations of standing armies in Greek poleis:!® (i) democratic Syracuse had an elite corps of 600 men (Diod. 11.76.2); (ii) fourth-century Thebes had its Sacred Band (Plut. Mor. 639F; Pelop. 19.3); (iii) in Argos 1,000 young hoplites

were trained all year round at public expense and formed a special unit of the army (Diod.

12.75.7; 79.1-4;

80.2-3; Thuc.

5.67.2); (iv) the Arkadian

Federation had a

standing army of, allegedly, 5,000 Eparitoi (Xen. Hell. 7.4.22, 33-4; 7.5.3; Diod. 15.62.2); and (v) a special force of 300 Eleian elite hoplites is attested in the mid-fourth

century (Xen. 7.4.13, 16, 31). Given the fragmentary nature of our sources the conclusion seems to be that many middle-sized and big poleis did possess a standing army. It was admittedly small, but so was the whole community. Measured in per cent of the population the standing armies of the poleis were comparable to the standing armies of many European states in the 17th and 18th centuries. Furthermore, the important point is not just to possess a standing army; it is rather the degree of militarisation. And many Greek poleis were more militarised than the states of the early modern period, because, in addition to the fairly small standing army, the entire citizen population could be and often was called up for service, either as hoplites in the phalanx, or as light armed troops, or as garrison troops in the fortressess, or as marines in the navy.

Finally, the costs of maintaing an army and a navy are important and, especially in time of peace, the importance of standing armies for state formation is connected with the public costs of maintaining an army and a navy. In this context the navy and the

cavalry are more important than the hoplites, simply because they are much more expensive. To maintain a navy of triremes was in itself a heavy burden incumbent partly on the polis as such, and partly on its rich citizens who had to take turns paying

107 Weber (1972) 516; Finer (1997) 17-19, 59-72; Hansen (1998) 40; Reinhard (1999) 363. 108 Tilly (1975) 73-6; Finer (1997) 59-63. 109 Pritchett (1974) 221-4.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

39

for the upkeep of the ships.!!? But many — perhaps most -- poleis also had a cavalry which, although not a standing force, could be extremely costly.!!! In Athens it was 1,000 strong and even the fodder for their mounts cost the polis 40 talents a year, i.e. about as much as did the Assembly of the People, the largest and most expensive of the institutions in democratic Athens. I conclude that the Greek polis was a highly militarised community and that the money spent on army and navy was the most important item on the budget even in time of peace. Every polis had its own army under the command of, usually, elected military officials. Furthermore, in long periods war with other poleis was the normal state and peace the exception. In such periods the polis was more or less permanently under arms. In an ancient Greek context Tilly's maxim that states make war and war makes states can be reformulated as poleis make war and war makes poleis, and the similarities between the early state and the polis seem to be as noticeable as the differences.

11. Relations Between Poleis

War between poleis leads to my final point: relations between poleis in general. International relations are always emphasised as one of the essential characteristics of statehood. The state, as defined in the first section of the Montevideo convention of 1933, must fulfil four conditions: it must have (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government and (4) "a capacity to enter into relations with other states". International relations are seen as a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient criterion of statehood. In any region split up into a plurality of political entities - be they states or stateless societies - there must be some relations between the entities, in economy (trade), in competition for power (war), in population movements (migrations), in historical traditions (a common ancestor), in religion (a cult shared by all), etc. Interaction between stateless societies is, of course, one aspect of the stateless society just as interaction between states is one aspect of the state. There are innumerable examples of wars between tribes or other types of stateless socity, and declaration of war as well as conclusion of peace is frequently attested, as is the formation of alliances and sometimes even of leagues. One obvious instance are the Iroquois during

the early modern period.!!? Alliances between stateless societies were formed and sealed by gift-giving and marriages between leading members of the societies involved.!!3 ‘International’ administration of justice is also well known. Among the Tswana, for example, when internal relations between a Chief and his people became too strained, a Chief of a neighbouring tribe could be appointed arbitrator and entrusted with the settling the dispute between Chief and people; and if a man wanted to change

his tribe, it required the assent of the Chiefs of both the tribes involved.!!* The interaction between political entities becomes evidence of statehood only if these relations become sufficiently institutionalised, and reach a level where one can 110 Gabrielsen (1994).

111 112 113 114

For cavalry outside Athens, see Spence (1993) 1-33. Goldstein (1969). Gifts: Mauss (1970). Marriages: Tapper (1991) 91-3. Schapera (1955) 85, 121-3.

40

Mogens Herman Hansen

speak of international law.!!5 Where does the polis belong? Especially in the Archaic period inter-poleis relations were often maintained through private hospitality, guest-

friendship and gift-giving.!! But in the Classical period, if not before, the Greek poleis had developed a system of official diplomacy and, at least in some fields, it is proper to

speak about international law.!!? Ad hoc envoys (presbeis), heralds (kerykes) and messengers (angeloi) were no longer private persons; they were appointed by the assembly or the council of their polis, usually by being elected, and they represented their polis on their mission. There existed (as a minimum) an inchoate custom of respecting the fundamental personal

integrity of envoys.!!? Furthermore, an enormous and complicated system of permanent and officially appointed ‘consuls’ (proxenoi) was built up in the course of the fifth and fourth centuries. It was an immensely important instrument of foreign policy in

both the Classical and Hellenistic periods;!!? and it was only in the Roman period that the proxenia slowly degenerated into an empty honour. An equally important institu-

tion in the religious sphere was the theorodokia, developed in the course of the Classical period and flourishing in the Hellenistic age. Before one of the major Panhellenic festivals envoys (theoroi) were sent out to poleis all over the Greek world in order to invite every polis (or monarch) to send representatives to the festival and ask

the polis to respect the sacred truce during the festival. In the various poleis the theoroi were hosted by specially appointed theorodokoi who could introduce them to the ruling body of the polis in question, and long lists of such theorodokoi are still preserved.!?9 To give a survey of international law in ancient Greece in this article would be out of place, and I shall confine myself to two observations, one on the concept of Common Peace, and one on the concept of neutrality.!?! During the fourth century, the Greeks made several attempts to conclude a peace that did not just involve the actual belligerent powers, but all poleis. Such a treaty was called

a ‘Common

Peace’

(koine eirene) and "The Common

Peace treaties were all

applicable to all states, irrespective of the alignment of states in the wars that they concluded, and they were based on a single general principle of freedom and autonomy

for al]."!22 There is no single term for neutrality in ancient Greek, but the concept was well known and has been succinctly analysed in a major study by Robert Bauslaugh who concludes: "If we compare the substance of the nineteen specific articles of neutrality adopted at the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 with the evidence from the classical period [i.e. the fifth and fourth centuries] the basic agreement is striking" (Bauslaugh [1991] 246).

To sum up: diplomacy and inter-poleis relations were formalised and institutionalised to an extent which makes it inappropriate to think of the poleis as stateless societies of the African, Pacific, or North American type, but suggests that the proper 115 116 117 118 119

Reinhard (1999) 370-85. Herman (1987). Bederman (2001) 16—47. Kienast (1973); Adcock and Mosley (1975); Bederman (2001) 109-14. Perlman (1958); Gschnitzer (1973); Marek (1984); Moggi (1995).

120 Perlman (2000).

121 Another obvious topic is declaration of war, for which see Troncoso (1995). See also Ober (1996). 122 Ryder (1965) 118-19.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

41

parallels to the poleis are the medieval city-states in northern Italy, Switzerland or southern Germany or, outside Europe, city-state cultures in Mesoamerica, West Africa, the Fertile Crescent or the Far East.

12. Conclusion

Berent has built his model of state versus polis on what I would call "the skewed comparison" (Hansen [1998] 13—14): if one takes about half the evidence concerning

the modern state and match that with the opposite half of the evidence concerning the ancient Greek polis the result is that all differences are thrown into relief whereas all similarities are passed over in silence. The result is a clear, but skewed model. It may fit the views of a number of theorising historians; but it does not fit the sources we have. And it is of course extremely problematic from a theoretical point of view as well: to select Hobbes and Weber as equal representatives of the concept of state is questionable since many aspects of the modern state took form no earlier than in the 19th

century,!?? that is midway between Hobbes and Weber. We must take into account that both the concept of polis and the concept of state changed over time. In Europe the concept of state spans a period of almost 400 years, and in many respects Thomas Hobbes's state is far removed from the concept of state found in Max Weber, and even further away from the prevailing concept of state in 2001. Consequently, a comparison between the Classical Greek polis and the European state changes in accordance with the comparendum one has selected. Even if we disregard the evolution of the concept of polis from the beginning of the Archaic age to the end of the Hellenistic period and confine our investigation to the Classical polis ca. 480-330, we are still faced with a constantly changing picture according to which concept of state we want to apply: that found in Thomas Hobbes ca. 1650? or in Montesquieu ca. 1750? or in John Austin ca. 1850? or in Max Weber ca. 1900? or in the first section of the Montevideo convention of 1933? In some respects the Classical polis resembles the state of the 17th and 18th centuries more than the modern state. In other respects it resembles the modern state more than that of the 17th and 18th centuries. Concerning self-help, apprehension and prosecution of criminals, and the organisation and function of prisons, there are some interesting similarities between the ancient Greek polis and the early modern European states in the 17th and 18th centuries, whereas many more differences become apparent in a comparison between the Classical poleis and the European states of the 19th and 20th centuries. Conversely, the ancient Greek concept of citizenship as an essential element of the concept of polis has a parallel in the interdependence of the concepts of citizenship and state in the 19th and 20th century, whereas the concept of citizenship was of little or no importance in the 17th and 18th centuries and was not felt to be an essential element of the concept of state, except in some city-states in Italy, Switzerland, Germany and the Dutch Republic. As set out in the beginning of this study I hold on most counts the opposite views of those advocated by Berent and, in a comparative context, I would like to argue the following two points. It is questionable to match the anthropological view of stateless society with Hobbes's concept of state instead of with the anthropologists' own view of 123 Finer (1974) 86 with nn. 3-4; Hansen (1998) 107-13.

42

Mogens Herman Hansen

what a state is. If, in the study of the polis, we want to apply the anthropological distinction between early states and stateless societies, the Classical Greek polis belongs with the early states. The proper parallels are not the Logoli, the Tallensi or the Nuer, but rather the Youruba, the Hausa, the Fante, the Kotoko and the Ijo in West

Africa. !?4 If one prefers, instead, to compare the Classical Greek polis with the state in early modern Europe, I hold that the similarities are as important as the differences. But that does not mean that I want to identify the European state with the Greek polis. There are

many important differences,!?5 but, in my opinion, not exactly those singled out by Berent in his study.

Appendix Recently Berent has supplemented his first article about the polis as a stateless society with a new one, "Anthropology and the Classics: War Violence and the Stateless Polis," CQ 50 (2000) 257-89. In this study he debates the theory that the polis was an egalitarian community of warriors and argues that this model applies to the Archaic polis but no longer to the polis of the Classical period. It is not my intention to enter into this debate in the present study, but some discussion of the new article is nevertheless in place because a number of Berent's views about the polis as a stateless society

are repeated almost verbatim, but in a new context and with a new emphasis. Because of the different theme the quotes from Thomas Hobbes and the analysis of his concept of state have disappeared as have the quotes from Quentin Skinner. Conversely, the analysis of Ernest Gellner's agroliterate state figures more prominently than in the earlier article, and the context provides a new insight untouched in the first article: Berent is still convinced that the anthropological approach followed in the first article is the right one: "the polis was not a state but what anthropologists call a stateless society" (258, 259, 262, 286). But then he introduces a new distinction: "Social anthropologists have traditionally identified the stateless society with the tribe. The classical polis, though stateless, was not tribal and it is strongly doubted today whether tribal forms ever existed in ancient Greece even in archaic times" (259).

Once again Berent creates artificial distinctions by simplification. That social anthropologists have identified stateless society with the tribe is an overstatement.!26 It is unquestionably the Africanists who today are in the front in the formulation and use of the concept of stateless society. But for the last two generations they have distinguished between at least three different types of which only one is tribal, namely the segmentary lineage system. The other two are (1) the dispersed, territorially-defined community, in which co-residence carries more weight than genealogical ties; and (2) 124 Sec Hansen (2000) 483—506 (the Hausa by R. Griffeth), 507-17 (the Yoruba by J.D.Y. Peel), 519-

30 (the Fante by R.A. Kea), 531-2 (the Kotoko by M.H. Hansen), 533-45 (the Ijo by KI Princewill). 125 For a list of differences between the ancient Greek polis and the modern state from the 17th century onwards, see Hansen (1998) 117-18. 126 There are, admittedly, anthropologists who hold -- or rather held - the view that all stateless societies are tribal in the broad sense of the term, cf., e.g., Crone (1986) 50-1.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

43

the large compact village or town in which cross-cutting institutions such as age-grades

or secret societies predominate over kinship relations.!?! Moreover, the segmentary lineage systems (e.g. the Nuer) are far from always classified as a type of stateless society. Often they are seen as an intermediary type of community between, one the one hand, stateless society proper (e.g. the Bushmen) and, on the other hand African

unitary states with a king or a paramount chief as the ruler (e.g. Ankole).!28 The other half of my argument is an objection to the sweeping statement that “the classical polis, though stateless, was not tribal." (259, 262-3). This view is substantiated by a reference to "the two French scholars Roussel [1976] and Bourriot [1976].

According to these two scholars the tribal model of Archaic Greece was mainly a product of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century rationalizing" (263). Even supposing that this is a fair summary of what Roussel and Bourriot say, it does not follow that "the classical polis was not tribal". What may be a fiction of the 19th century is not the phylai and phratriai themselves as subdivisions of the Classical polis, but the retrojection of these institutions back into the Dark Ages to fill a gap in an evolutionist theory. There is no doubt that the Spartan army in the seventh century BC was organised into the three Dorian phylai: the Hylleis, the Dymanes and the Pamphyloi (Tyrtaios fr. 19.8, West). It seems reasonable to presume that the four to six Ionian

phylai were important civic subdivisions in many Milesian colonies and can be traced back to the eighth century (Piérart (1983] 4). Also, in seventh-century Athens the phratria was an important unit, as is indisputably attested in Drakon's law of homicide (16 P? 104.18, 23). Let us assume for the sake of argument that all these institutions are

innovations of the Archaic period, which is in fact what Roussel argues in his book. Even if, following Roussel, we refuse to trace their origin back into the Dark Ages, there can be no denying that so-called tribal groups were an essential aspect of the Archaic and Classical Greek polis. Admittedly, phylai, phratriai and similar groups were not true kinship organisations. But the same observation applies to tribes of all periods all over the world: the first thing to be remembered is that the consanguinity that binds all the members of a tribe together is not a factual but a presumed consanguinity. By contrast with the family, it is not a kinship group in the literal sense of that term. Next, we must remember what is often forgotten, that Roussel's theory about the late development of phylai and phratriai is no more than an ingenious theory based on an argument from silence, and it is strange that so many historians from Finley and onwards in this particular case have accepted an argumentum e silentio at face value! We know for sure that phylai and phratriai in many poleis were transformed during the Archaic and Classical periods and that the new subdivisions were often purely artificial without the slightest claim to be kinship groups even in a remote sense. But they replaced earlier organisations which were, allegedly, kinship groups. When these older phylai and phratriai were introduced and how they were organised is a moot point. Especially after Nicholas Jones's study it is hard to deny that the Ionian phylai must go back to the period before the colonisation, i.e. before the eighth century. In a recent article Hans-Joachim Gehrke (2000) has sketched a more balanced view of the whole 127 Horton (1971) 78-119; Tosh (1978) 35-6. For slightly different typologies, see Middleton and

Tait (1958) 1-3; Colson (1962) 27-65. 128

Middleton and Tait (1958)

1-3.

44

Mogens Herman Hansen

issue and I much hope that he will supplement his preliminary study with a full-scale account. Once again I note that Berent's view does not stand up to scrutiny partly because social anthropologists no longer identify stateless society with tribal organisation, and partly because the Archaic and Classical Greek polis show clear elements of tribal organisation. Bibliography Adcock, F. and Mosley, DJ.

1975. Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London).

Ager, S.L. 1996. interstate Arbitration in the Greek World 337-90 B.C. (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London). Ampolo, C. 1996: “II sistema della ‘polis’. Elementi costitutivi e origini della città greca," in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia Cultura Arte Società. 2 Una storia greca. 1. Formazione (Turin) 297-342. Austin, J. 1832/1954. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, edited by H.L.A. Hart (London).

Barker, E. 1951. Principles of Social and Political Theory (Oxford). Bauslaugh, R.H. 1991. The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece (Berkeley and Los Angeles) Beattie, J.M. 1986. Crime and the Courts in England 1660-1800 (Princeton). Bederman, D.J. 2001. International Law in Antiquity (Cambridge). Berent, M. 1994. The Stateless Polis. Towards a Re-Evaluation of the Classical Greek Political Community, Dissertation (Cambridge). Berent, M. 1996. "Hobbes and the ‘Greek Tongues’,” History of Political Thought 17: 36-59. Berent, M. 2000. "Anthropology and the Classics: War, Violence and the Stateless Polis," CQ 50: 257— 89. Blackstone, W. 1765—69. Commentaries on the Laws of England 1—4 (London). Bluntschli, J.C. 1886. Allgemeine Staatslehre® (Berlin).

Bourriot, F. 1976. Recherches sur la nature du genos (Lille and Paris). Brown, R.M. 1975. Strain of Violence. Historical Studies of American Violence and Vigilantism (New York).

Brubaker, R. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge Mass.). Brunet, M. (ed.). 1999. Les Territoires des cités grecques, BCH Suppl. 33 (Paris). Bryce, J. 1888. The American Commonwealth 1-3 (London). Busolt, G. and Swoboda, H. 1920-26. Griechische Staatskunde

1-2 (Munich).

Cameron, L.A. 1977. "The Police of Eighteenth-Century France," European Studies Review 7: 47-75. Cartledge, P. 1996a. “Comparatively Equal," in J. Ober and C. Hedrick (eds.), Demokratia (Princeton) 175-85. Cartledge. P. 1996b. "La politica," in S. Settis (ed.), / Greci. Storia cultura arte società. 1. Noi e i Greci (Turin) 39-72. Cartledge, P. et al. (eds.). 1998. Kosmos. Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge).

Cartledge, P. 1998. "Introduction. Defining a Kosmos," in Cartledge e! al. (1998) 1-12. Cartledge, P. 2001. "The Peculiar Position of Sparta in the Development of the Greek City-State,” in P. Cartledge, Spartan Reflections (London) 21—38. Claessen, H.J.M. and Skalnfk, P. (eds.) 1978. The Early State (The Hague). Colson, E. 1962. The Plateau Tonga of Northern Rhodesia (Manchester). Crone, P. 1986. "The Tribe and the State," in J.A. Hall (ed.), States in History (Oxford) 48-77.

d'Entréves, A.P. 1967. The Notion of the State (Oxford). Denniston, J.D. 1952. Greek Prose Style (Oxford). Develin, R. 1989. Athenian Officials 684—321 B.C. (Cambridge). Doehring, K. 1987: "State," in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (North Holland) 423-8.

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

45

Dunleavy, P. 1993. "The State," in R.E. Goodin and Ph. Pettit (eds.), A Companion to Conteporary Political Philosophy (Oxford) 611-21. Duursma, J.C. 1996. Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-States (Cambridge). Dyson, H.F. 1980. The State Tradition in Western Europe (Oxford). Easton, D. 1971. The Political System? (New York). Ehrenberg, V. 1969. The Greek State? (Oxford).

Elster, J. 1989. Solomonic Judgements (Cambridge). Emsley, C. 1987. Crime and Society in England, 1750-1900 (London). Engels. F. 1884. Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats, reprinted in Marx-

Engels Werke 21 (1975) 27-173. Engels, F. 1894. Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwülzung der Wissenschaft? (Stuttgart) reprinted in MarxEngels Werke 20 (1975) 5-303. Fabricius, K. 1920. Kongeloven (Copenhagen). Faraguna, M. 2000. "Individuo, stato e comunità. Studi recenti sulla polis," Dike 3: 217-29. Fineman, G.M. and Marcus, J. (eds.) 1998. Archaic States (Santa Fe).

Finer, S.E. 1974. "State-Building, State Boundaries and Border Control,” Social Science Information 13: 79-126. Finer, S.E. 1997. The History of Government I-III (Oxford). Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (eds.) 1940. African Political Systems (Oxford).

Frézouls, Ed. and Jacquemin, A. (eds.). 1995. Les relations internationales, Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 Juin 1993 (Paris). Gabrielsen, V. 1994. Financing the Athenian Fleet (Baltimore and London).

Gehrke, H.-J. 2000. “Ethnos, Phyle, Polis. GemüBigt unorthodoxe Vermutungen,” in Polis & Politics: 159-76. Geliner, E. 1983. Nations and Nationalism (Cambridge).

Giddens, A. 1985. The Nation-State and Violence (Cambridge). Goldstein, R.A. 1969. French-Iroquois Diplomatic and Military Relations 1609-1701 (the Hague and Paris). Gschnitzer, F. 1973. “Proxenos,” RE Suppl. XIII: 629-730. Hampl, F. 1939. "Poleis ohne Territorium," Klio 32: 1-60. Hansen, M.H. 1976. Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis (Odense). Hansen, M.H. 1981. "Initiative and Decision: the Separation of Powers in Fourth-Century Athens," GRBS 22: 345-70. Hansen, M.H. 1989. Was Athens a Democracy? Popular Rule, Liberty and Equality in Ancient and Modern Political Thought, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 59, The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (Copenhagen). Hansen, M.H. 1990. "The Political Powers of the People's Court in Fourth-Century Athens," in O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (Oxford) 215—43. Hansen, M.H. 1998. Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent, CPCActs 5 (Copenhagen). Hansen, M.H. (ed.) 2000. A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre (Copenhagen). Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law (Oxford). Headlam, J.W. 1891. Election by Lot at Athens (Cambridge). Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order (Cambridge).

Herman, G. Hobbes, T. Horton, R. (eds.),

1987. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge). 1996. Leviathan, edited by J.C.A. Gaskin (Oxford). 1971. "Stateless Societies in the History of West Africa," in J.F.A. Ajayi and M. Crowder History of West Africa I (Cambridge) 78-119.

Hunter, V. 1994. Policing Athens. Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420—320 B.C. (Princeton). Hunter, V. 1997. "The Prison of Athens. A Comparative Perspective," Phoenix 51: 296—326.

46

Mogens Herman Hansen

Iuul, S. (ed.) 1949. Kong Christian den Femtes Danske Lov af 15. April 1683 (Copenhagen).

Jellinek, G. 1914. Allgemeine Staatslehre? (Berlin). Jones, N.F. 1987. Public Organisation in Ancient Greece.

A Documentary Study (Philadelphia).

Kahrstedt, U. 1936. Untersuchungen zur Magistratur in Athen (Stuttgart). Kelsen, H. 1946. General Theory of Law and State (Cambridge Mass). Kienast, D. 1973. "Presbeia," RE Suppl. XIII: 499—628. King, P. 2000. Crime, Justice, and Discretion in England 1740-1820 (Oxford). Krader, L. 1968. Formation of the State (Englewood Cliffs). Lintott, A. 1982. Violence, Civil Strife and Revolution in the Classical City 750-330 B.C. (London and Canberra).

Lipsius, J.H. 1905-15. Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren i-iii (Leipzig). Lloyd, D. 1964. The Idea of Law (Harmondsworth).

MacDowell, D.M. 1962. Andocides. On the Mysteries (Oxford). MacDowell, D.M. 1990. Demosthenes. Against Meidias (Oxford). Mair, L. 1962. Primitive Government (Bloomington and London).

Marek, Chr. 1984. Die Proxenie (Frankfurt am Main). Mauss, M. 1970. The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (English translation, London).

Meadowcroft, J. 1995. Conceptualizing the State. Innovation and Dispute in British Political Thought 1880-1914 (Oxford). Middleton, J. and Tait, D. (eds.). 1958. Tribes Without Rulers (London). Moggi, M. 1995. "I Proxenoi e la guerra nel V secolo A.C.," in Frézouls and Jacquemin (1995) 143—59. Mossé, C. 1981. "La Démocratie athénienne et la protection de la propriété," Symposion 4: 262-71. Nettl, J.P. 1968. “The State as a Conceptual Variable," World Politics 20, 559-92; reprinted in J.A. Hall (ed.), The State. Critical Concepts I (London 1994) 9-36. Ober, J. 1996. “The Rules of War in Classical Greece," in J. Ober, The Athenian Revolution. Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory (Princeton) 53-71.

Oppenheim. 1992 = R. Jennings and A. Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law I? (Harlow 1992). Osborne, R. 1985. Demos. The Discovery of Classical Artika (Cambridge). Paludan-Müller, C. 1879. "Kong Frederik den Tredje og Corfits Ulfeld efter Kjebenhavnerfreden af

27de Maj 1660," Historiske Àrbgger 2: 59-133. Perlman,

P. 2000.

City and Sanctuary

in Ancient Greece.

The Theorodokia

in the Peloponnese

(Göttingen).

Periman, S. 1958. "A Note on the Political Importance of Proxenia in the Fourth Century B.C.," CQ 8: 185-91. Piérart, M. 1983. “Athénes et Milet I. Tribus et demes milésiens," MusHelv 40: 1-18. Pierson, C. 1996. The Modern State (London). Pritchett, W.K. 1974. The Greek State at War Il (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1940. "Preface," in Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (eds.) xi-xxiii. Rahe, P.A. 1994. Republics Ancient and Modern. The Ancien Régime in Classical Greece (Chapel Hill and London).

Raphael, D.D. 1975. "State," in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 17: 609-15. Reinhard, W. 1999. Geschichte der Staatsgewalt. Eine vergleichende Verfassungsgeschichte Europas von den Anfüngen bis zur Gegenwart (Munich). Rhodes, P.J. 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford). Roussel, D. 1976. Tribu et cité (Paris).

Was the Polis a State or a Stateless Society?

47

Rousset, D. 1994. "Les frontiéres des cités grecques. Premieres réflexions à partir du recueil des documents épigraphiques," Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz 5: 97-126. Rubinstein, L. 1998. “The Athenian Political Perception of the /diotes,” in Cartledge et al. (1998) 125—

43. Ryder, T.T.B. ford).

1965. Koine Eirene. General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece (Ox-

Sakellariou, M.B. 1989. The Polis-State. Definition and Origin (Athens). Saunders, T

J. 1991. Plato's Penal Code (Oxford).

Schapera, I. 1955 A Handbook of Tswana Law and Custom? (London). Schapera, I. 1956. Government and Politics in Tribal Societies (London). Schmitt, C. 1941. "Staat als ein konkreter, an eine geschichtliche Epoche gebundener Begriff," in C. Schmitt (ed.), Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsätze (Darmstadt 1958) 375-85. Seymour-Smith, C. 1996. Macmillan Dictionary or Anthropology (London). Skinner, Q. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought 1-1] (Cambridge). Skinner, Q. 1989. “The State," in T. Ball, J. Farr and R.L. Hanson (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge) 90-131. Skinner, Q. 1999. "Hobbes and the Purely Artificial Person of the State," The Journal of Political Philosophy 7: 1-29. Southall, A.W. 1968. “Stateless Society," in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York) 15: 157-67. Spence, 1.G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece (Oxford). Stampe, H. 1796. Erklaringer Breve og Forestillinger, General-Prokureur-Embedet vedkommende. IV Deel fra 1763 til 1765 inclusive (Copenhagen). Starke, 1.0. 1989. Introduction to International Law!” (London). Ste. Croix, G.E.M. de. 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London).

Tapper, N. 1991. Bartered Brides. Politics, Gender and Marriage in an Afghan Tribal Society (Cambridge).

Tilly, C. 1975. "Reflections on the History of European State-Making," in Ch. Tilly (ed.), The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton) 3-83.

Tosh, J. 1978. Clan Leaders and Colonial Chiefs in Lango. The Political History of an East African Stateless Society (Oxford).

Troncoso, A. 1995. "Ultimatum et déclaration de guerre dans la Gréce classique," in Frézouls and Jacquemin (1995) 210-95.

Velissaropoulos-Karakostas, J. 1991. "Nnxoivei ve8vádvai," Symposion 8: 93-105. Verdross, A. and Simma, B. 1984. Universelles Völkerrecht? (Berlin) 224-5. Vincent, A. 1987. Theories of the State (Oxford).

Weber, M. 1972. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft? (Tübingen). Wycherley, R.E. 1957. The Athenian Agora IIl. Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton, New Jersey).

Zippelius, R. 1989. Allgemeine Staatslehre!? (Munich).

Mogens Herman Hansen The Copenhagen Polis Centre

PHROURION. A NOTE ON THE TERM IN CLASSICAL SOURCES AND IN DIODORUS SICULUS!

by THOMAS HEINE NIELSEN

Like kome and emporion,? phrourion is a term often used by modern historians to classify settlements which are believed not to have been poleis? The object of the present short study is to investigate the ancient use of the term and in particular to

determine whether, like kome,‘ it is an antonym of polis. This is a problem of some significance for instance in the investigation of the polis structure of Sicily, especially when our source is Diodorus Siculus. Mylai may serve as an example of the problems involved. This community is often thought not to have constituted a polis but simply a

military base (= phrourion) in the territory of Zankle/Messana.® Certainly, Diodorus Siculus applies the term φρούριον to Mylai;? but he also calls it a polis (14.87.3 r394)

and so do Ps.-Skylax 139 and Ps.-Skymnos 288-90,? and Hansen has recently argued that Mylai was indeed a polis.!? It thus seems worthwhile to consider the ancient use of φρούριον, especially since Mylai is not a unique case.

|

This study is a spin-off resulting from work on An Inventory of Poleis on Sicily in the Archaic and Classical Periods (due to appear in a future publication of the Copenhagen Polis Centre). This work was carried out in collaboration with Tobias Fischer-Hansen and Carmine Ampolo, both of

UA

d.

UC) t2

whom I thank; however, though I draw on our collective efforts, it should be understood that the

6

7

8 9

views expressed here are my own. | would like also to thank Mogens Herman Hansen for criticism of a draft of the investigation, and Pernille Flensted-Jensen. On kome, see Hansen (1995); on emporion, see Hansen (19972). See e.g. n. 6 below on Mylai. For kome as an antonym of polis, see Hansen (1998) 26. Harrison (1912) 176 clearly thinks of phrourion as an antonym of polis (" ... but Stagiros was a πόλις, not a époUpiov."). Sec e.g. Ziegler in RE XVI:

1042; Bernabó

originaria di phrourion del territorio zancleo" and says that "M«ilazzo» non ha mai coniato moneta, il che conferma la sua posizione non di polis autonoma, ma di phrourion del territorio messinese"; Dubois in /GDS ad no. 5 who describes it as a "bourgade ... qui ne semble pas avoir eu le statut de polis". 12.54.4—5 (r427): Μύλας φρούριον ἐπολιόρκησαν ... εὐθὺς δὲ καὶ τὸ φρούριον Exxodiopκήσαντες. Citing Diodorus I indicate by 'r' followed by a date (e.g. '427', as here) the chronological point to which the cited passage refers; so 'r427' = referring to the year 427. Ps.-Skylax 13: πόλις ᾿Ελληνὶς Μύλαι. On Ps.-Skylax’ use of polis, see Flensted-Jensen and Hansen (1996). Μύλαι κατῳκίσθησαν ἐπκικαλούμεναι εἶθ᾽ ᾿Ιμέρα καὶ Ταυρομένιον ἐχομένη" εἰσὶν δὲ πᾶσαι

Χαλκιδέων αὗται πόλεις. 10

Brea (1992) who at 118 refers to "sua condizione

Hansen (2000) 198. See further below 59-60.

50

Thomas Heine Nielsen

1. Classical Sources

What is a phrourion? The word is normally translated ‘fort’ or ‘garrison’ vel sim. and a brief consideration of the contexts in which the word occurs will demonstrate that it is

indeed a military term. A phrourion is a complex of buildings.!! It is fortified: phrourion is often connected with such verbs as τειχίζειν.2 It may have pyrgoi.!? A watch-station function is indicated by its coupling with terms such as, or related to, φυλάττειν!" and φυλακή," but a phrourion may serve offensive military purposes as I1

Thuc. 3.18.4: φρούρια δ᾽ ἔστιν 1j ἐπὶ τῶν καρτερῶν ἐγκατῳκοδόμηται; 3.51.2: ἐχρῶντο δὰ αὐτῇ κύργον ἐνοικοδομήσαντες οἱ Μεγαρῆς φρουρίῳ; 6.97.5: ἐκαναχωρήσαντες φρούριον ἐπὶ τῷ Λαβδάλῳ φκοδόμησαν,; 8.84.4: ἔλαβον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ Μιλήτῳ ἐνῳκοδομημένον τοῦ Τισσαφέρνους φρούριον οἱ Μιλήσιοι λάθρᾳ ἐπικεσόντες. Thuc. 2.18.2: ἡ γὰρ Οἰνόη οὖσα ἐν μεθορίοις τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς καὶ Βοιωτίας ἐτετείχιστο, καὶ αὐτῷ φρουρίῳ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐχρῶντο ὁπότε πόλεμος καταλάβοι; 2.32.1: ἐτειχίσθη δὲ καὶ ᾿Αταλάντη ὑπὸ ᾿Αθηναίων φρούριον; 6.75.1: ἐτείχιζον ... καὶ τὰ Μέγαρα φρούριον; 7.4.5: διακομίσας οὖν στρατιὰν καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἐξετείχισε τρία φρούρια; Xen. Hell. 4.4.13: καὶ τειχίσας ᾿Επιείκειαν, ἵνα φρούριον εἴη xpd τῆς φιλίας τοῖς συμμάχοις; Hell. 4.7.7: βουλόμενος τειχίσαι φρούριόν τι ἐπὶ ταῖς xapà Κηλοῦσαν ἐμβολαῖς; Cyr. 3.1.27: ἔξεστι δέ σοι καὶ φρούρια ἐντειχίζειν καὶ τὰ ἐχυρὰ κατέχειν; Cyr. 3.2.1: σκοπῶν ποῦ τειχίσειε φρούριον; Cyr. 3.2.11; εὐθὺς ἐτείχιζε φρούριον; Cyr. 3.2.24: συνετείχιζόν τε ἀμφότεροι κροθύμως ὡς κοινὸν φρούριον; Cyr. 5.3.11: τὸ φρούριον ... 6 φατε ... ἐπιτετειχίσθαι τῇδε τῇ χώρᾳ πρόβολον εἶναι τοῦ πολέμου; Cyr.

5.3.23: κῶς ἃ συμφορώτατα χρῴμεθα τῷ φρουρίῳ; ... ἐκεὶ δὲ συνῆλθον οἷς ἔμελε κερὶ τοῦ φρουρίου, ἐβουλεύσαντο κοινῇ φυλάττειν ... ὅπως αὐτοῖς μὲν πρόβολος εἴη πολέμου, τοῖς δ᾽ ᾿Ασσυρίοις ἐπιτετειχισμένον. 13

Thuc. 3.51.1: ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ θέρει μετὰ τὴν Λέσβου

ἄλωσιν ᾿Αθηναῖοι

Νικίου τοῦ Νικηράτου

στρατηγοῦντος ἐστράτευσαν ἐπὶ Μινῴαν τὴν νῆσον, fj κεῖται πρὸ Meyápov: ἐχρῶντο δὲ αὐτῇ πύργον ἐνοικοδομήσαντες οἱ Μεγαρῆς φρουρίῳ.

Thuc. 7.28.1-2: τῶν τε πάντων ὁμοίως ἐπακτῶν ἐδεῖτο ἡ πόλις, καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ πόλις εἶναι φρούριον κατέστη. πρὸς yap τῇ ἐπάλξει τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν κατὰ διαδοχὴν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι φυλάσσοντες, τὴν δὲ νύκτα καὶ ξύμκαντες κλὴν τῶν ἱππέων, οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις Τποιούμενοι, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους, καὶ θέρους καὶ χειμῶνος ἐταλαιπωροῦντο; Lys. 14.35: δηλώσειε δ᾽ ἂν ἃ

κακῶς φυλάττεται τῶν φρουρίων; Aen. Tact. 3.3: ὁμοτρόπως δὲ καὶ φρουρίου ὑπὸ συμμάχων φρουρουμένου μέρος τι τοῦ τείχους τῶν συμμάχων ἑκάστοις ἀκοδιδόσθω φυλάττειν; Anaximenes Rhet. ad Alex. 38.19: ποιεῖσθαι δὲ συμμάχους ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν. ὅταν οἱ πολῖται μὴ τυγχάνωσι δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν δυνατοὶ τὴν χώραν καὶ τὰ φρούρια φυλάττειν ἢ τοὺς πολεμίους ἀμύνεσθαι. /G II? 1260.7-9 (307-304): κ]αὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πειρα[ϊέως κατασταθεὶς πλεύσας] ἐπὶ Σούνιον διεφύλαξεν τὸ φρούριον τῶι δήμ]ωι; Eur. Hypsipyle fr. 20/21.12 and fr. 12 (identical): φυλάσσεται γῆ φρουρίοισιν ἐν κύκλῳ; Eur. Or. 760: οὐχ ὁρᾷς, φυλασσόμεσθϑα φρουρίοισι πανταχῇ.

Thuc. 2.93.4: καὶ φρούριον Er’ αὐτοῦ ἦν καὶ νεῶν τριῶν φυλακὴ τοῦ μὴ ἐσπλεῖν Μεγαρεῦσι μηδὲ ἐκπλεῖν μηδέν; 8.62.3: ἐς τὸ ἀντιπέρας τῆς ᾿Αβύδου ἀποπλεύσας Σηστὸν πόλιν τῆς Χερσονήσου, fjv ποτε Μῆδοι εἶχον. καθίστατο φρούριον καὶ φυλακὴν τοῦ παντὸς ᾿Ελλησπκόντου; 8.84.4: ἔλαβον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ Μιλήτῳ ἐνῳκοδομημένον τοῦ Τισσαφέρνους φρούριον οἱ Μιλήσιοι λάθρᾳ ἐπιπεσόντες, καὶ τοὺς ἐνόντας φύλακας αὐτοῦ ἐκβάλλουσιν; Xen. Cyr. 1.4.16: τὰ φρούρια καὶ ἡ φυλακή; Cyr. 3.3.1: ἐκ δὲ τούτου κατασκενάσας ὁ Κῦρος τὸ φρούριον καὶ φύλαξιν ἱκανοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτηδείοις πᾶσι καὶ ἄρχοντ᾽ αὐτῶν καταλιπὼν Μῆδον; Cyr. 5.4.5]: τρία ὄντα τῶν Σύρων φρούρια, Ev μὲν αὐτὸς τὸ ἀσθενέστατον βίᾳ προσβαλὼν ἔλαβε, τὼ δὲ δύο [φρουρίω) φοβῶν μὲν Κῦρος. πείθων δὲ Γαδάτας ἔπεισε παραδοῦναι τοὺς φυλάττοντας. Cf. also Thuc. 3.115.6: ὁ δὲ Πυθόδωρος ἤδη ἔχων τὴν τοῦ Λάχητος τῶν νεῶν ἀρχὴν ἔπλευσε τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἐπὶ τὸ Λοκρῶν φρούριον ὃ πρότερον Λάχης εἷλε, καὶ νικηθεὶς μάχῃ ὑπὸ τῶν Λοκρῶν ἀπεχώρησεν & Thuc. 3.99 where this phrourion is labelled περικόλιον; Eupolis fr. 341.1: xai τοὺς περιπόλους ἀπιέν᾽ εἰς τὰ φρούρια; Xen. Vect. 4.52: οἵ τε φρουρεῖν ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις οἵ τε πελτάζειν καὶ περιπολεῖν τὴν χώραν.

Phrourion

51

well as defensive ones.!6 Phrourion may be used synonymously with teichos,!? teichisma,'® or epiteichisma;!? it is found in enumerations of military terms?? and the Ath. Pol. lists commanders of phrouria next to other military officers.?! However, even if a phrourion is a military installation, there is no Classical source which explicitly uses the term as an antonym of polis. Admittedly, Thuc. 7.28.1-2 comes close to such a usage: in discussing the effects on Athenian society of the Peloponnesian occupation of Dekeleia he says that: τῶν τε πάντων ὁμοίως ἐπακτῶν

ἐδεῖτο ἡ πόλις, καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ πόλις elvat φρούριον κατέστη. πρὸς yap τῇ ἐπάλξει τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν κατὰ διαδοχὴν οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι φυλάσσοντες, τὴν δὲ νύκτα καὶ ξύμπαντες πλὴν τῶν ἱππέων, οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις Τποιούμενοιτ, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους, καὶ θέρους καὶ χειμῶνος ἐταλαιπωροῦντο.22 The emphasis here is on the socio-economic aspects of the epiteichismos: what had been a community living off its land with some additional imports now relied entirely on imports? and daily life changed its appearance since (= yàp) military watch-keeping became the central activity carried out by the male citizenry.?* The yàp-sentence serves to explain the use of the term phrourion 16

Thuc. 1.142.4: φρούριον δ᾽ ei ποιήσονται, τῆς μὲν γῆς βλάκτοιεν dv τι μέρος καταδρομαῖς καὶ αὐτομολίαις, οὐ μέντοι ἱκανὸν ye ἔσται ἐπιτειχίζειν te κωλύειν ἡμᾶς πλεύσαντας ἐς τὴν ἐκείνων καί, ἧπερ ἰσχύομεν. ταῖς ναυσὶν ἀμύνεσθαι; Xen. Hell. 5.1.2: οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι πολιορκούμενοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, πέμψαντες εἰς Αἴγιναν καὶ ὁπλίτας καὶ στρατηγὸν αὐτῶν Πάμφιλον ἐπετείχισαν Αἰγινήταις καὶ ἐπολιόρκουν αὐτοὺς καὶ κατὰ γὴν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν δέκα τριήρεσιν. ὁ μέντοι Τελευτίας τυχὼν ἐπὶ τῶν νήσων ποι ἀφιγμένος κατὰ χρημάτων πόρον, ἀκούσας ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ ἐπιτειχισμοῦ ...; Hell. 5.1.5: καὶ ἐκ τούτου ἐπολιορκοῦντο μᾶλλον οἱ ἐν τῷ ἐπιτειχίσματι᾿ ᾿Αθηναίων fj ol ἐν τῇ πόλει᾽ ὥστε UKd ψηφίσματος Αθηναῖοι κληρώσαντες ναῦς πολλὰς ἀπεκομίσαντο ἐξ Αἰγίνης πέμπτῳ μηνὶ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ φρουρίον.

17

Thuc. 5.80.3: ἔπεμψαν δὲ καὶ napa τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι πρέσβεις, τὸ ἐξ ᾿Επιδαύρου τεῖχος κελεύοντες ἐκλιπεῖν ... ὁ δὲ ἀφικόμενος καὶ ἀγῶνά τινα πρόφασιν γυμνικὸν ἔξω τοῦ

18

19

20

21 22

23 24

φρουρίου ποιήσας. ὡς ἐξῆλθε τὸ ἄλλο φρούριον, ἀπκέκλῃσε τὰς πύλας; Thuc. 5.80.3: ... ὁ δὲ ἀφικόμενος καὶ ἀγῶνά τινα πρόφασιν γυμνικὸν ἔξω τοῦ φρουρίου κοιήσας, ὡς ἐξῆλθε τὸ ἄλλο φρούριον, ἀπέκλῃσε τὰς πύλας" καὶ ὕστερον ᾿Επιδαυρίοις avaνεωσάμενοι tac σκονδὰς αὐτοὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀπέδοσαν τὸ τείχισμα. Xen. Hell. 5.1.5: καὶ ἐκ τούτου ἐπολιορκοῦντο μᾶλλον οἱ ἐν τῷ ἐπιτειχίσματι ᾿Αθηναίων fj οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει ὦστε ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος ᾿Αθηναῖοι πληρώσαντες ναῦς κολλὰς ἀπεκομίσαντο ἐξ Αἰγίνης πέμπτῳ μηνὶ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ φρουρίου. Ar. Ran. 362: fj προδίδωσιν φρούριον fj ναῦς; Lys. 31.26: εἰ μέν τις φρούριόν τι προὔδωκεν fj ναῦς fj στρατόπεδόν τι; Xen. Vect. 4.52: οἵ τε φρουρεῖν ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις of τε πελτάζειν καὶ zepixoAeiv τὴν χώραν; Dem. 20.78: οὐ φρούριον, οὐ ναῦν, οὐ στρατιώτην ἀπώλεσεν οὐδέν᾽ ἡγούμενος ὑμῶν; Theophr. fr. 101.1: προδόντων φρούριον f| στρατιὰν ἢ ναῦς. Arist. Ath. Pol. 30.2: τοὺς ταξιάρχους καὶ ixxápyouc καὶ φυλάρχους καὶ ἄρχοντας εἰς τὰ φρούρια. Warner: "Every single thing that the city needed had to be imported, so that instead of being city it became a fortress. By day detachments took it in turn to mount guard on the battlements, by night all except the cavalry were on duty, some at the various armed posts and others on the walls. So, summer and winter, there was no end to their hardships." Blanco: "Athens had to import everything it needed, and what once had been a city was now a fort. During the day, the men took turns guarding the walls, and everyone except the cavalry guarded it by night, with some men stationed with their arms at various posts and others up on the wall itself. They suffered in winter and summer alike." Cf. HCT IV ad τῶν τε πάντων ὁμοίως ἐπκακτῶν ἐδεῖτο ἡ πόλις: "Athens had long relied on imported grains (vi. 20. 4); now she needed to import all commodities" (italics original). Cf. Classen ad φρούριον κατέστη: "Bine reine Festung wurde Athen nach dem Folgenden dadurch, daß der Wachtdienst fast alle Bürger in der stärksten Weise in Anspruch nahm."

52

Thomas Heine Nielsen

which is an unusual term to apply to a city (see below), though paradoxically fitting in this context because of the predominance of military activities. Of course, Athens did

not cease to be a polis in any sense because of the epitechismos, but daily life now resembled life in military forts and this is what Thucydides is emphasizing. On the other hand, even if Thuc. 7.28.1—2 cannot serve to establish phrourion as an antonym of polis, there are a few passages which distinguish between phrourion and polis and thus imply that these were two different entities: (1) Xen. Hell. 7.4.4: ὡς δὲ συνῆλθον oi ἐκ τῶν φρουρίων Αθηναῖοι εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἐκήρυξαν οἱ Κορίνθιοι, ei τις ἀδικοῖτο ᾿Αθηναίων, ἀπογράφεσθαι, ὡς ληψομένους τὰ δίκαια. (2) Dem. 19.264: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τηλικαύτης EX’ αὐτοὺς ἐλθούσης δυνάμεως οὔτε τὴν πόλιν οὔτε φρούριον οὐδὲν ἀπώλεσαν. (3) Dem. 20.78: ἑνὶ δὲ κεφαλαίῳ μόνος τῶν πάντων στρατηγῶν οὐ πόλιν, οὐ φρούριον, οὐ ναῦν, οὐ στρατιώτην ἀπώλεσεν οὐδέν᾽ ἡγούμενος ὑμῶν. (4) IG II? 236.5-11 (338/7): οὐδ]ὲ ὅπλα ἐ[κ]οί[σω ἐπὶ πημονῆι Er’ οὐδένα τῶν]

ἐμμενόντ[ω)ν ἐν t[oig ὅρκοις οὔτε κατὰ γῆν] οὔτε κατὰ [θ]άλασίσαν᾽ οὐδὲ πόλιν οὐδὲ φρο]ύριον καταλήψομί[αι οὔτε λιμένα ἐπὶ πολέ]μωι οὐθενὸς τῶν Tic εἰρήνης κοινωνούντ]ων τέχνηι οὐδεμι[ᾶι οὔτε μηχανῆι"] Moreover, there is only a single passage in which phrourion denotes ἃ settlement which was definitely a polis: at 8.62.3 Thucydides says the following about the city of Sestos:?5 ἐς τὸ ἀντιπέρας τῆς ᾿Αβύδου ἀποπλεύσας (sc. Strombichides) Σηστὸν πόλιν τῆς Χερσονήσου, ἥν ποτε Μῆδοι εἶχον, καθίστατο φρούριον καὶ φυλακὴν τοῦ παντὸς ᾿Ελλησπόντου = “so he sailed across to the opposite coast to Sestos, the city in the Chersonese once occupied by the Persians, and made this his base for the defence of the whole Hellespont" (Warner). There is no reason to believe that Sestos now ceased

to be a polis in any implies no such thing polis towns. On the Classical sources was

way and Warner's translation ("he made this his base") which is impeccable. But phrourion is not often used in this way about contrary, no other individual site classified as a phrourion by a Greek polis town and several are not even given a name:

Unnamed Athenian phrourion at Aigina: Xen. Hell. 5.1.2.27 Atalante: Thuc. 2.32.1.2 25

Onthe polis status of Sestos, see: Hdt. 7.33.1 (polis in the urban sense); 9.118.2 (polis in the urban sense); 7.33.8, 78.1 (acity ruled by Persia); /G I? 267.1V.33 (member of the Delian League); Xen. Hell. 2.1.26 (polis in the urban sense); Isoc. 15.107-8 (polis in the urban and political senses; cf. Hansen [2000] 175-6); Ps.-Skylax 67 (listed as a polis in the urban sense under the heading πόλεις

aide). /G II? 133 (a mid-fourth century grant of proxeny to a man of Sestos); SEG 26 1022 (a grant of citizenship by Samos to a man of Sestos [321-310)).

26

27

28

One, Motye (Philistos [FGrHist 556] fr. 64), was a Phoenician city-state (a colony of Carthage: Diod. 14.47.4). On Phoenician city-states, see Niemeyer (2000). who refers to Motye at 95, 100, 105. The Greeks frequently applied their own site-classifications to non-Greek sites, see Nielsen (2000a) 135-8 and Hansen (2000) 180-2. οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι πολιορκούμενοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, πέμψαντες εἰς Αἴγιναν xai ὁκλίτας xai στρατηγὸν αὐτῶν Πάμφιλον ἐπετείχισαν Αἰγινήταις καὶ ἐπολιόρκουν αὐτοὺς καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν δέκα τριήρεσιν. ὁ μέντοι Τελευτίας τυχὼν ἐκὶ τῶν νήσων ποι ἀφιγμένος κατὰ χρημάτων πόρον, ἀκούσας ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ ἐπιτειχισμοῦ ...; Hell. 5.1.5: καὶ ἐκ τούτον ἑκολιορκοῦντο μᾶλλον οἱ ἐν τῷ ἐκιτειχίσματι ᾿Αθηναίων ἢ οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει΄ dote ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος A8nναῖοι πληρώσαντες ναῦς κολλὰς ἀκεκομίσαντο ἐξ Αἰγίνης κέμπτῳ μηνὶ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ φρουρίον. ἐτειχίσθη δὲ καὶ ᾿Αταλάντη ὑπὸ ᾿Αθηναίων φρούριον τοῦ θέρους τούτου τελευτῶντος, ἡ ἐπὶ

Phrourion

53

Boudoron on Salamis: Thuc. 2.93.4, 2.94.3;? possibly also Ephoros (FGrHist 70) fr. 198.0

Unnamed Athenian phrourion at Epidauros: Thuc. 5.80.33! Epieikeia near Nemea: Xen. Heil. 4.4.13.?? Unnamed phrouria at Korinthos: Xen. Heil. 7.4.4.?? Labdalon at Syracuse: Thuc. 6.97.5, 7.3.4.3* Lekythos at Torone: Thuc. 4.113.225 Unnamed phrourion/epipolion at Lokroi Epizephyrioi: Thuc. 3.115.6.36 Phrourion at Megara Hyblaia: Thuc. 6.75.1.?

29

30

31

32

33

Λοκροῖς τοῖς Οπουντίοις νῆσος ἐρήμη πρότερον οὖσα. τοῦ μὴ λῃστὰς ἐκπλέοντας ἐξ Ὁποῦντος καὶ τῆς ἄλλης Λοκρίδος κακουργεῖν τὴν Εὔβοιαν. Cf. Thuc. 3.89.3: καὶ περὶ ᾿Αταλάντην τὴν ἐκὶ Λοκροῖς τοῖς Ὁπουντίοις νῆσον παρακλησία γίγνεται ἐκίκλυσις, καὶ τοῦ τε φρουρίου τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων παρεῖλε καὶ δύο νεῶν ἀνειλκυσμένων τὴν ἑτέραν κατέαξεν. 2.93.4: (ἔπλεον) ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Σαλαμῖνος τὸ ἀκρωτήριον τὸ πρὸς Μέγαρα ὀρῶν. καὶ φρούριον ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἦν καὶ νεῶν τριῶν φυλακὴ τοῦ μὴ ἐσπλεῖν Μεγαρεῦσι μηδὲ ἐκπλεῖν μηδέν. τῷ τε φρουρίῳ προσέβαλον καὶ τὰς τριήρεις ἀφείλκυσαν κενάς ...; 2.94.3: λείαν λαβόντες καὶ τὰς τρεῖς ναῦς ἐκ τοῦ Bovsöpov τοῦ φρουρίου κατὰ τάχος éxi τῆς Νισαίας ἀπέπλεον.

Ἔφορος δὲ φρούριον ᾿Βούδαρον᾽ εἶπεν (apud Steph. Byz. 180.15): it is possible but far from certain that Ephoros used the term phrourion, since he is merely cited for a variant of the toponym. Stephanus may have used the term phrourion here with Thucydides (to whom he also refers) in mind. However, Stephanos refers to the third book of Thucydides (3.51.2) and here Thucydides does not use phrourion (as he does in 2.94). So it is not entirely impossible that pArourion here reproduces what Ephoros wrote. But the text is epitomised, and certainty is impossible. ἔπεμψαν δὲ xai παρὰ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι πρέσβεις. τὸ €& Επιδαύρου τεῖχος κελεύοντες ἐκλικεῖν ... ὁ δὲ ἀφικόμενος καὶ ἀγῶνά τινα πρόφασιν γυμνικὸν ἔξω τοῦ φρουρίον ποιήσας, ὡς ἐξῆλθε τὸ ἄλλο φρούριον, ἀπέκλῃσε τὰς πύλας" καὶ ὕστερον ᾿Εκιδαυρίοις ἀνανεωσάμενοι τὰς σπονδὰς αὐτοὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἀπέδοσαν τὸ τείχισμα.

(Praxitas) ἀναλαβὼν τὸ στράτευμα ἦγε τὴν ἐπὶ Μέγαρα, καὶ αἰρεῖ προσβαλὼν πρῶτον μὲν Σιδοῦντα, ἔπειτα δὲ Κρομμνῶνα. καὶ ἐν τούτοις τοῖς τείχεσι καταστήσας φρουροὺς τοὔμπαλιν ἐπορεύετο: καὶ τειχίσας ᾿Εκιείκειαν, ἵνα φρούριον εἴη xpd τῆς φιλίας τοῖς συμμάχοις, οὕτω διαφῆκε τὸ στράτευμα. Εἰπόντος δὲ Δημοτίωνος ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ὡς ἡ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Αρκάδας φιλία καλῶς αὐτῷ δοκοίη πράττεσθαι, τοῖς μέντοι στρατηγοῖς προστάξαι ἔφη χρῆναι ὅκως καὶ Κόρινθος σῴα 1j τῷ δήμῳ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων" ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα οἱ Κορίνθιοι, τάχυ πέμψαντες ἱκανοὺς φρουροὺς ἑαυτῶν πάντοσε ὅπου ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐφρούρουν εἶκαν αὐτοῖς ἀπιέναι, ὡς οὐδὲν ἔτι δεόμενοι φρουρῶν. οἱ 5° ἐπείθοντο. ὡς δὲ συνῆλθον οἱ ἐκ τῶν φρουρίων ᾿Αθηναῖοι εἰς τὴν ROALY, ἐκήρυξαν οἱ Κορίνθιοι, ei τις ἀδικοῖτο ᾿Αθηναίων, ἀπογράφεσθαι, ὡς ληψομένους τὰ δίκαια. 6.97.5: ἐκαναχωρήσαντες φρούριον &xi τῷ Λαβδάλῳ ὠκοδόμησαν, ἐπ᾽ ἄκροις τοῖς κρημνοῖς τῶν

πκικολῶν,

ὁρῶν

πρὸς

τὰ Μέγαρα,

ὅπως

εἴη αὐτοῖς,

ὁπότε

προΐοιεν

ἢ μαχούμενοι

fi

τειχιοῦντες, τοῖς τε σκεύεσι καὶ τοῖς χρήμασι ἀποθήκη; 7.3.4: μέρος δέ τι πέμψας πρὸς τὸ φρούριον τὸ Λάβδαλον αἱρεῖ καὶ ὅσους ἔλαβεν ἐν αὐτῷ πάντας ἀπέκτεινεν. 35

36

37

τῶν δὲ λοικῶν οἱ μὲν πεζῇ, οἱ δὲ ἐς τὰς ναῦς, ai ἐφρούρουν δύο, καταφυγόντες διασῴζονται ἐς τὴν Λήκυθον τὸ φρούριον ὃ εἶχον αὐτοὶ καταλαβόντες, ἄκρον τῆς πόλεως ἐς τὴν θάλασσαν ἀκειλημμένον ἐν στενῷ ἰσθμῷ. ὁ δὲ Πυθόδωρος ἤδη ἔχων τὴν τοῦ Λάχητος τῶν νεῶν ἀρχὴν ἔπλευσε τελευτῶντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ἐπὶ τὸ Λοκρῶν φρούριον ὃ κρότερον Λάχης εἷλε, καὶ νικηθεὶς μάχῃ ὑπὸ τῶν Λοκρῶν ἀπεχώρησεν (cf. Thuc. 3.99 where this phrourion is labelled περικόλιον). ἐτείχιζον ... καὶ τὰ Μέγαρα φρούριον; Megara Hyblaia had been destroyed by Gelon in the 480s (Hdt. 7.156) and was not a polis town in 415/4.

54

Thomas Heine Nielsen

Unnamed Athenian phrourion at Methana: Thuc. 4.45.2.?? Unnamed Persian phrourion at Miletos: Thuc. 8.84.4, 8.85.2.39

Minoa off Megara: Thuc. 3.51.1. Phoenician Motye in Sicily: Philistos (FGrHist 556) fr. 64.4!

Oinoe in Attika: Thuc. 2.18.2.42 At Syracusan Olympieion: Thuc. 6.75.1.9 Plemmyrion at Syracuse: Thuc. 7.4.5.4 Phyle in Attika: Philochoros (FGrHist 328) fr. 62.45 Sounion in Attika: IG II? 1260.7-9 (307-304).

To sum up: in Classical sources phrourion is a military term used about fortified bases; though it is different from polis it is not an antonym, but only one passage uses the term about a settlement (Sestos) which was definitely a polis town and one uses it paradoxically about a city exposed to epiteichismos (Athens); the rest of the sites described as phrouria were not Greek polis towns and some were certainly merely centers of civic subdivisions (Oinoe, Phyle, and Sounion).

2. Diodorus Siculus

We may now proceed to a study of how Diodorus uses the term in his narrative of events in the Classical period. Like Classical authors, Diodorus uses phrourion as a

military term.*’ In some passages he also distinguishes between polis and phrourion in 38

τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ πκαρακλεύσαντες ἐς τὴν Exibaupiav πρῶτον xai áxófaciv τινα ποιησάμενοι ἀφίκοντο ἐς Μέθανα τὴν μεταξὺ ᾿Επιδαύρου καὶ Τροιζῆνος, καὶ ἀπολαβόντες τὸν τῆς χερσο-

νήσου ἰσθμὸν ἐτείχισαν. [ἐν ᾧ ἡ Μεθώνη ἐστί.) καὶ φρούριον καταστησάμενοι ἐλήστευον τὸν

39

ἔπειτα χρόνον τήν τε Τροιζηνίαν γῆν xai ᾿Αλιάδα καὶ ᾿Επιδαυρίαν. ταῖς δὲ ναυσίν, ἐπειδὴ ἐξετείχισαν τὸ χωρίον. ἀκέκλευσαν ER’ οἴκου. 8.84.4: ἔλαβον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ Μιλήτῳ ἐνῳκοδομημένον τοῦ Τισσαφέρνους φρούριον οἱ Μιλήσιοι λάθρᾳ ἐπιπεσόντες, καὶ τοὺς ἐνόντας φύλακας αὐτοῦ ἐκβάλλουσιν; 8.85.2: ξυνέκεμψε δὲ καὶ Τισσαφέρνης αὐτῷ κρεσβευτὴν τῶν παρ᾽ ἑαντοῦ, Γαυλίτην ὄνομα, Κᾶρα δίγλωσσον, κατηγορήσοντα τῶν τε Μιλησίων κερὶ τοῦ φρονρίον κτλ. ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ θέρει μετὰ τὴν Λέσβου ἅλωσιν ᾿Αθηναῖοι Νικίου τοῦ Νικηράτου στρατηγοῦντος ἐστράτευσαν ἐκὶ Μινῴαν τὴν νῆσον. fj κεῖται πρὸ Μεγάρων᾽ ἐχρῶντο δὲ αὐτῇ πύργον ἐνοικο-

δομήσαντες οἱ Μεγαρῆς φρουρίῳ. Μοτύη. πόλις Σικελίας ... Φίλιστος δὲ φρούριον αὐτὴν φησι Σικελίας καραθαλάττιον (= Steph. Byz. 457.10-11).

ἡ γὰρ Οἰνόη οὖσα ἐν μεθορίοις τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς καὶ Βοιωτίας ἐτετείχιστο, καὶ αὐτῷ φρουρίῳ oi ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἐχρῶντο ὁκότε πόλεμος καταλάβοι. ἐτείχιζον .., καὶ τὰ Μέγαρα φρούριον καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ολυμκιείῳ ἄλλο. διακομίσας οὖν στρατιὰν καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἐξετείχισε τρία φρούρια᾽ καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς τά τε σκεύη τὰ κλεῖστα ἔκειτο καὶ τὰ πλοῖα ἤδη ἐκεῖ τὰ μεγάλα ὥρμει καὶ αἱ ταχεῖαι νῆες.

Φιλόχορος δ' ἐν C ᾿Ατθίδος φρούριον αὐτό φησιν εἶναι. κ]αὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πειρα[ιέως κατασταθεὶς πλεύσας) ἐκὶ Σούνιον διεφίύλαξεν τὸ φρούριον τῶι

δήμ]ωι. A phrourion is a built physical structure: 14.63.3 (r396); 16.58.4 (1346). Phrourion connected with τειχίζειν: 12.65.7 (r424); 13.69.4 (1408); 14.17.12 (r402); with ὀχυροῦν: 14.58.1 (6396); with περίβολος: 18.41.2 (r332). Forces defeated in battle escape to phrouria: 11.91.3 (1451); 13.9.5 (r413); 14.99.3 (1390). Phrouria are put to siege or attacked or captured: 11.91.4 (r451); 12.6.1

Phrourion

55

a way which suggests that they were two separate types of site.*? One passage even describes how a polis town was transformed into a phrourion: the war between Leontinoi and Syracuse which began in 427 (cf. Thuc. 3.86) ended, according to Diodorus, when the Leontinans settled their differences with Syracuse, were all granted Syracusan citizenship and the Syracusans “made the polis (sc. of Leontinoi) a phrourion".*? Here phrourion, as at Thuc. 7.28.1-2, comes close to being an antonym of polis. And, again like Classical authors, Diodorus applies the word to sites which were certainly not Greek polis towns (see below).

So Diodorus' use of phrourion is basically the same as that found in Classical sources: it signifies a military installation which is not the same as a polis town. What is striking in Diodorus' usage, however, is that he applies the term to at least six settlements which were actually Greek polis towns. The following 18 named Greek? sites are described as phrouria in Diodorus: Aitna?! (r477-46); 12.42.6 (1430); 12.42.7 (1430); 12.43.1 (1430); 12.49.3 (428); 12.50.6 (428); 12.54.5 (r427);

48

49

12.65.7 (r424);

12.81.1

(r417);

13.11.3 (r413);

13.64.5 (r409);

13.76.4 (r407);

14.14.2

(r403); 14.17.8 (402); 14.57.6 (1396); 14.72.3 (1396); 14.72.4 (1396); 14.101.3 (1390); 15.42.5 (r374); 16.25.2 (1355); 16.52.9 (1349); 17.27.7 (1334); 18.52.4 (1331); 18.53.7 (1331). Other military associations: 13.64.2 (r409: τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων στρατηγοὶ πλεύσαντες ἐπὶ Χαλκηδόνα, Χρυσόκολιν ᾧκισαν φρούριον καὶ τὴν ἱκανὴν αὐτῷ κατέλιπον δύναμιν). 12.32.3 (438): ᾿Αθηναῖοι συνῴκισαν ᾿Αμφίπολιν, καὶ τῶν οἰκητόρων οὖς μὲν ἐκ τῶν πολιτῶν κατέλεξαν, οὖς δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν σύνεγγυς φρουρίων; 12.50.7 (γ428): μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά τινες τῶν πόλεων καὶ τῶν φρουρίων διὰ τὸν φόβον ἑκουσίως; 13.52.3 (410): βουλόμεθα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄγειν εἰρήνην, ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, καὶ τὰς μὲν πόλεις ἔχειν ἃς ἑκάτεροι κρατοῦμεν, τὰ δὲ φρούρια τὰ παρ᾽ ἀλλήλοις καταλῦσαι; 13.95.3 (406): ... εἰς Λεοντίνους. αὕτη δ᾽ ἡ πόλις τότε φρούριον ἦν tdv Συρακοσίων; 16.52.7 (1349): οἱ δὲ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι κιστεύσαντες τοῖς γεγραμμένοις καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ἀγαπητῶς προσδεξάμενοι παρέδωκαν πάντες τὰ φρούρια καὶ τὰς πόλεις. Diod. 12.54.7: τοῦ δὲ πολέμου χρονίζοντος οἱ Λεοντῖνοι διαπρεσβευσάμενοι πρὸς τοὺς Συρακοσίους διελύθησαν ... οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι τοῖς Λεοντίνοις μεταδόντες τῆς πολιτείας ἅπαντας Σνρακοσίους ἐποίησαν, καὶ τὴν πόλιν φρούριον ἀπέδειξαν τῶν Συρακοσίων. Cf. 13.95.3

(r406): εἰς Λεοντίνους. αὕτη δ᾽ ἡ κόλις τότε φρούριον ἦν τῶν Συρακοσίων, and Thuc. 5.4.2-6. 50

The event occurred after the Congress of Gela in 424. Phrourion is applied also to non-Greek sites: (1) Blauda in Lydia: 13.104.6 r405: κατῴκισεν εἰς Βλαῦδα. φρούριόν τι τῆς Λυδίας; (2) Boubastos in Egypt: 16.49.8 r350; note that both Hdt. 2.59.1 and Diodorus himself (16.49.7: Βούβαστον καὶ κολλὰς ἄλλας πόλεις) describe Boubastos (sBoubastis in Hdt.; cf. RE III: 931-2) as a polis; (3) Motyon at Akragas: 11.91.4 r451: ἅμα δὲ τούτοις πραττομένοις ᾿Ακραγαντῖνοι τὸ Mótuov φρούριον κατεχόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν μετὰ Δουκετίον Σικελῶν ἐξεπολιόρκησαν. The 'ethnic identity' of this site is uncertain; it was in the territory of Akragas but is unidentified; if it was at Sabucina it was a site with strong indigenous traits; if it was at Monte Saraceno or Monte Bubbonia it was an indigenous but ‘Hellenised’ community. But it may have been Greek (see Fischer-Hansen in this volume); (4) Pelousion in Egypt:

16.49.3 1350:

παρέδωκαν τὸ φρούριον; (5) Sasanda in Karia: 14.79.4 1396: κατέπλευσε τῆς Καρίας κρὸς Σάσανδα. φρούριον ἀπέχον τῆς Καύνου σταδίους ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα (note that the Pasandeis were members of the Delian League [/G I? 262.1Π.23), and later formed a civic subdivision of Kaunos [SEG 12 473.13]; Sasanda may be a corruption of Pasanda, but it is uncertain whether it

51

was fully 'Hellenised' in the early fourth century). 14.7.7 r404: petexéprovto τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Αἴτνης ixxeig; οὗτοι γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ

τῆς τυραννίδος

ἐκπεπτωκότες ᾧκουν τοῦτο τὸ φρούριον; 14.14.2 r403: πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τῇ Αἴτνῃ προσστρατοκεδεύσας παρέλαβε τὸ φρούριον, τῶν φυγάδων οὐκ ὄντων ἀξιομάχων κρὸς τηλικαύτην δύνα-

56

Thomas Heine Nielsen

Boudorion on Salamis?? Chrysopolis at Chalkedon*} Dekeleia™ Delphinion on Chios Gaurion® Hysiai in the Argolid? Kephaloidion on Sicily?® Knidinion in Asia Minor’? Krommyon in Korinthia® Lasion in Elis?! Leontinoi®? Mylai®?

Naupaktos9* Polichna in Sicily Phyle in Attika® Pylos in Messenia®’ geira®® μιν; 14.58.2 r396: ἔπεισε δὲ καὶ τοὺς τὴν Κατάνην οἰκοῦντας Καμκανοὺς eig τὴν νῦν καλονμένην Αἴτνην μεταστῆναι διά τὸ λίαν εἶναι τὸ φρούριον ὀχυρόν. 12.49.3 τ428: προσπεσὼν δ᾽ ἀπροσδοκήτως εἰς τὸ φρούριον τῆς Σαλαμῖνος τὸ καλούμενον Βουδόριον, τρεῖς ναῦς ἀπέσπασε καὶ τὴν ὅλην Σαλαμῖνα κατέδραμε. [3.64.2 r409: oi δὲ περὶ Κύζικον ὄντες τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων στρατηγοὶ πλεύσαντες ἐπὶ Χαλκηδόνα, Χρνυσόκολιν ᾧκισαν φρούριον καὶ τὴν ἱκανὴν αὐτῷ κατέλιπον δύναμιν. 13.9.2 r413: Λακεδαιμόνιοι μετὰ τῶν συμμάχων ἐνέβαλον εἰς vv Αττικήν, ... καταλαβόμενοι δὲ χωρίον ὀχυρὸν Δεκέλειαν φρούριον ἐποίησαν κατὰ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς. 13.76.3-4 r407: ἐν δὲ τῇ Χίων χώρᾳ Δελφίνιον κατεχόντων ᾿Αθηναίων, ἐπὶ τούτους ἔπλευσε ... Καλλικρατίδας δὲ τὸ μὲν φρούριον παραλαβὼν κατέσκαψεν. 13.69.4 r408: ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης ἑκατὸν ναῦς πληρώσας ἐξέπλευσεν cic Avbpov, καὶ καταλαβόμενος Γαύριον φρούριον ἐτείχισεν. 12.81.1 r417: Λακεδαιμόνιοι μετὰ τῶν συμμάχων στρατεύσαντες εἰς τὴν ᾿Αργείαν "Tovàg χωρίον εἶλον καὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας ἀκοκτείναντες τὸ μὲν φρούριον κατέσκαψαν. 14.56.2 (r396): ταῦτα δὲ διανοηθεὶς πράττειν, πρὸς τοὺς μὲν ᾿Ιμεραίους καὶ τοὺς τὸ Κεφαλοίδιον φρούριον κατοικοῦντας φιλίαν ἐποιήσατο. 14.99.3 r390: ὀλίγοι δ᾽ εἰς τὸ Κνιδίνιον φρούριον διεσώθησαν. 12.65.7 r424: ὁ δὲ Νικίας πλεύσας εἰς Κρομμνῶνα τήν τε χώραν ἐδήωσε καὶ τὸ φρούριον ἐχειρώσατο. 14.17.8 r402: ὁ δ᾽ οὖν Παυσανίας xat’ ἔφοδον τῆς ᾿Αρκαδίας ἐμβαλὼν εἰς τὴν Ἦλιν Λασίωνα

μὲν φρούριον εὐθὺς ElAev ἐξ ἐφόδου. 12.54.7 r427 (text quoted in note 49 above). 12.54.5 r427: Μύλας φρούριον ἐπολιόρκησαν ... εὐθὺς δὲ xai τὸ φρούριον ἐκπολιορκήσαντες κατέσχον. 14.34.2 τ401: Λακεδαιμόνιοι ... ἐστράτευσαν ἐπὶ Μεσσηνίους, ὧν οἱ μὲν ἐν Κεφαλληνίᾳ φρούριόν τι κατῴκουν, οἱ δὲ Ναύπακτον ἐν τοῖς προσεσπερίοις λεγομένοις Λοκροῖς, δόντων ᾿Αθηναίων. ἐκβαλόντες δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῶν τόπων ἀπέδωκαν τὰ φρούρια, τὸ μὲν τοῖς τὴν Κεφαλληνίαν οἰκοῦσι, τὸ δὲ τοῖς Λοκροῖς.

14.72.3 1396: αὐτὸς μὲν φρούριον τὴν καλουμένην Πολίχναν εἷλε κατὰ κράτος.

67 68

14.32.1 r401: συνεργούντων αὐτῷ (sc. Thrasyboulos) λάθρᾳ τῶν Θηβαίων κατελάβετο τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς χωρίον ὀνομαζομένην Φυλήν. ἦν δὲ τὸ φρούριον ὀχυρόν τε σφόδρα κτλ. [3.64.5 r409: Λακεδαιμόνιοι ... ἐστράτευσαν ἐπὶ Πύλον, ἣν Μεσσήνιοι φρουρᾷ κατεῖχον ... καὶ περιστρατοπεδεύσαντες τὸ φρούριον ἐπόρθουν ἅμα καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν.

16.52.9 r349: Κατὰ δὲ τὴν Εὐρώπην Φίλιπκος μὲν ὁ Μακεδόνων βασιλεὺς στρατεύσας ἐπὶ τὰς

Phrourion

57

For the following of these there are no indications that they were Greek poleis in the Classical period: Boudorion, Chrysopolis, Dekeleia, Delphinion, Gaurion, Hysiai, Knidinion, Krommyon, Leontinoi (not a polis at the time referred to by Diodorus), Phyle, Polichna, and Pylos. But for the following six Greek sites there is evidence that they were poleis in the Classical period: Aitna, Kephaloidion, Lasion, Mylai, Naupaktos, and Stageira. (1) Aitna. There can be no doubt that Aitna (I), founded by Hieron on the site of Katane in 476 (Diod. 11.49.2; Strabo 6.2.3), was a polis in every sense of the word.9? However,

in 461 the Aitnaians were expelled from Aitna (I) and retired to Inessa, a Sikulan site 80 stades inland from Katane on Mt. Etna, and relocated their community there, proclaiming Hieron oikistes and preserving the name as Aitna (II) (Strabo 6.2.3; Diod. 11.76.3),

thus making a demonstrative point of the continued existence of their community in spite of the relocation. At its foundation this new community was presumably a polis as indicated by the proclamation of an oikistes (Strabo 6.2.3; cf. also below on coins) but its later history was tumultuous: In 451, Douketios took the city and in this connection Diod. 11.91.1 mentions a person whom he describes as ὁ ἡγούμενος αὐτῆς (sc. Αἴτνης), presumably a military commander though Diodorus does not explain the phrase; it seems, however, to have been still a polis. Syracusan hippeis in conflict with Dionysios I took Aitna (II) in 405 (Diod. 13.113.3 [καταλαβεῖν]) and the site formed the base of opposition to Dionysios (14.7.7, 8.1, 9.5 [r404]); Dionysios sent ambassadors, πρέσβεις, urging the exiles who had gathered with the hippeis at Aitna (II) to return to Syracuse but the majority remained at Aitna (IT) (Diod. 14.9.6-8). In 403 the settlement (termed phrourion in this connection) was taken by Dionysios (Diod.

14.14.2). In 396 Dionysios persuaded the "Kampanians living at Katane" to relocate to Aitna and in this connection the city is again described as a phrourion (Diod. 14.58.2). However, as we have seen from Thuc. 8.62.3 (describing the uncontroversial polis of Sestos as a phrourion) the fact that the city served as a phrourion need not militate against its being a polis but Dionysios obviously treated Aitna as a dependency. So even if a change of status between 451 and the late fifth/early fourth century cannot be excluded, there is no compelling reason to deny Aitna (II) polis status and its designation as a phrourion certainly cannot serve that end. The polis status of fifth-century Aitna (II) is also indicated by the fact that it most

probably minted coins." The stylistic similarity between these coins and coins of Naxos and Katane may also indicate some kind of formal collaboration between Aitna (II) and these cities.’! Aitna (II) minted in bronze as a member of the the alliance

(symmachia) organised by Timoleon.?? So if Aitna (II) ever lost its polis status it certainly regained it. If Aitna can be presumed to have remained a polis during all these events, its ethnic identity may be uncertain after the settlement of Kampanians at the site: in 396 Χαλκιδικὰς πόλεις «Etd»yeipav μὲν φρούριον ἐκπολιορκήσας κατέσκαψε, πολισμάτων ἔνια κατακληξάμενος ἠνάγκασεν ὑκοτάττεσθαι.

τῶν δὲ ἄλλων

69

See Pind. Pyrh. 1.31 and 65, and Diod. 11.66.4 (r466). It soon struck coins (Kraay [1976] 212).

70 7|

Massa (1990) 289. Massa (1990) 289.

72

Head, Hist. num.? 119; Karlsson (1995) with refs.; cf. also Talbert (1974) 181, 187-8.

58

Thomas Heine Nielsen

Himilkon sent ambassadors to “the Kampanians in possession of Aitna" urging the city to cut its ties with Dionysios I (Diod. 14.61.4), and Diod. 16.67.4 (1345) again refers to

"the Kampanians living at Aitna"; however, in 339 Timoleon "destroyed the Kampanians at Aitna, having forced them to surrender by siege" (Diod. 16.82.4). Aitna appears in the third-century list of Delphic theorodokoi in Sicily (BCH 45 (1921] 25, col. IV 96) presumably as a fully Hellenic community. (2) Kephaloidion. This community may possibly have been a polis and possibly Greek.

Admittedly, no source calls Kephaloidion a polis;”? however, silver and bronze coins, presumably struck by/in the community and on stylistically grounds dated to C51-C4e?4 suggests that it may have been a polis. The Obv. depicts the head of Herakles, the Rev. a butting bull (from the mid-fourth century substituted by a pegasos on bronzes). The legends are unusual and difficult to interpret; the following variants are found: (a) Obv. EK KE®AAOIAIOY Rev. HPAKAEINTRN; (b) Obv. KEDAAOIAITAN Rev. HPAKAEIQTAN; (c) KE®AAOIAITAN. Whereas (c) can be interpreted as an ordinary legend of a civic coinage of Kephaloidion, (a) and (b) seem to involve a foreign group,

the Herakleiotai, of unknown origin. Ek Kephaloidiou of (a) probably means “based on

Kephaloidion"?5 and suggests that the Herakleiotai had been admitted to Kephaloidion as a group; the double legend of (b), naming both the Kephaloidians and the Herakleiotans, suggests that the latter had been admitted to citizenship by a block grant but kept their individual identity. And this would suggest that Kephaloidion was a polis at the time of the minting of these coins. In 396, Himilkon of Carthage concluded a treaty of friendship with Himera and

"those settled at the phrourion of Kephaloidion".?6 Whether these latter were Greeks is not clear, but they were presumably not Himeraians. At Diod. 14.78.7 r396 Kephaloidion is implicitly described as Sikel, but the Greek-style coinage discussed above suggests a considerable degree of Greek identity; it was captured διὰ προδοσίας by Dionysios I in 396 (Diod. 14.78.7) and is not met with again before the time of Agathokles (Diod. 20.56.3 r307; 77.3 r306). (3) Lasion. This city, on the border between Elis and Arkadia, was certainly a polis as

will be clear from the following two points: (1) Diodorus' reference to Lasion falls in the context of the war between Elis and

Sparta in the late fifth/early fourth century." This war was fought, inter alia,”® to liberate the Eleian dependencies from Eleian rule (Xen. Hell. 3.2.23), and it appears from Xenophon (Hell. 3.2.30) that Lasion was among the Eleian dependencies libera-

ted by Sparta in this war. The Eleian dependencies are described as perioikides poleis by Xenophon (Hell. 3.2.23, cf. 3.30 for an individual community, Epeion, designated as polis) and there is nothing to suggest that the Eleians deprived their dependencies of 73 74

Note, however, that ταύτης at Diod. 20.56.3 r307 may mean "this polis"; a chora is referred to at Diod. 20.77.3 r306. Cutroni Tusa and Tullio (1987) 211.

75

Kraay (1976) 229.

76 77 78

τοὺς τὸ Κεφαλοίδιον φρούριον κατοικοῦντας (Diod. 14.56.2). For the chronology of this war, see Tuplin (1993) 55-6, 201-5. On this war see also Falkner (1996).

Phrourion

59

their polis status; on the contrary, the formal mechanism through which Elis ruled its dependencies was a symmachia and to be a member of a symmachia is obviously a very good indication of polis status.’9 So there is good reason to believe that at the very point when Lasion is described as a phrourion by Diodorus it was in fact a polis. (2) After its liberation from Eleian rule Lasion continued to function as a polis as is

clear from its membership of, first, the Peloponnesian League (Xen. Hell. 4.2.16), and, later, the Arkadian Confederacy (Xen. Hell. 7.4.12). In conclusion, the polis status of

Lasion is beyond doubt. (4) Mylai. Mylai is described as a πόλις "EAAnvig xai λιμήν in Ps.-Skylax 13 (cf. Hansen [2000] 198); it is also called a polis in the urban sense at Diod. 14.87.3 (1394)

and by Ps.-Skymnos 288-90. The external collective use of the city-ethnic is found in SEG 24 313-14 (early fifth century) and in Diod. 12.54.4 (r427). Even so, Mylai is often thought not to have been been a polis but simply a fortified out-post (phrourion) of Zankle/Messana.9 Certainly, relations between Mylai and Zankle/Messana seem to have been close: (a) Mylai was founded by Zankle (Ps.-Skymnos 287; cf. Strabo 6.2.6) in 716 (Euseb. Chron. sub Ol. 16.1); (b) Thuc. 3.90.2 describes it as MuAai ai Μεσσηνίων

and states that ἔτυχον δὲ δύο φυλαὶ ἐν ταῖς Μυλαῖς τῶν Μεσσηνίων φρουροῦσαι; and (c) the term phrourion is applied to the site in Diod. 12.54.5bis (427) and 19.65.3 (r315); finally (d) Theophr. Hist. pl. 8.2.8 uses the phrase ἐν Σικελίᾳ τῆς Μεσσηνίας £v ταῖς καλουμέναις Μύλαις, which seems to indicate that Mylai was conceived of as situated

in the territory of Messana

(so Ziegler in RE

XVI:

1042).

However,

the

following should be noted: Re (a) The report on the foundation does not state the purpose of the foundation and there is no compelling a priori reason why Mylai should not have been planned as an ordinary colony and thus as a polis; but even if it is assumed that it was planned as a military out-post the examples of Kasmenai and Akrai indicate that this need not militate against its being a polis (cf. Hansen [1997b] 36), though then presumably a dependent polis. Much more importantly, our earliest source on Mylai are two dedications of spoils by Messana at Olympia that are inscribed MEXZENIOI MYAAION (SEG 24 313-14 (of the early fifth century]); this of course indicates both separate identities of and military confrontation(s) between Mylai and Messana, and it strongly suggests “that Mylai, at least before being defeated, had been a self-governing community and undoubtedly a polis" (Hansen [2000] 198). Re (b and c) The application of the term phrourion does not exclude polis status for Mylai (cf. Thuc. 8.62.3 describing the uncontroversial polis of Sestos as a phrourion) and in fact Diodorus varies between phrourion (12.54.5 427 & 19.65.3 r315) and polis (14.87.3 r394). The fact that Messanian forces were garrisoning Mylai in 427 indicates

close military collaboration 79 80

and suggests again that Mylai

was a dependency

of

See Nielsen (1997) 133-44; Roy (1997) 285-95. In the Hellenistic period, when Elis finally united the region of Eleia, other mechanisms were employed, see Roy (1999). Ziegler in RE XVI: 1042; Bernabó Brea (1992) who at 118 refers to "sua condizione originaria di phrourion del territorio zancleo” and says that "M«ilazzo» non ha mai coniato moneta, il che conferma la sua posizione non di polis autonoma, ma di phrourion del territorio messinese"; Dubois in /GDS ad no. 5.

60

Thomas Heine Nielsen

Messana as does Thucydides' phrase Μυλαὶ αἱ Μεσσηνίων. Describing the events of 427, however, Diod.

12.54.2 describes the inhabitants of Mylai as MuAaiot, not as

Μεσσήνιοι, and this once again indicates that it was a community with an identity of its own and distinct from that of Messana. Re (d) The fact that Mylai may have been conceived of as situated in Messanian

territory does not mean that it cannot have been a polis since small poleis situated inside the territory of a larger polis is a well-attested phenomenon (Hansen [19975] 31). If Mylai was thus situated this may help to explain Thucydides' statement (6.62.2) that Himera was the only Greek polis on the Tyrrhenian coast of Sicily (a statement which in any case may refer primarily to north-western Sicily) since a dependent polis inside the territory of another polis may have counted as a polis only in internal matters (Hansen [1995] 73-4). To conclude, the Messanian dedications at Olympia indicate that Mylai was a polis in the early fifth century and Ps.-Skylax 13 that it was so in the fourth century; it seems to have been a dependent polis inside the territory of Zankle/Messana. [15 status may perhaps have been subject to change (Hansen [2000] 198), but the application of the term phrourion cannot serve to establish that. (5) Naupaktos.

It may

first be noted that Diodorus

is not consistent in classifying

Naupaktos as a phrourion: at 12.48.2 (r428) he calls it a polis in the political sense,®! and at 15.66.5 (456—455) he calls it a polis in the urban sense.8? A famous inscription, Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 20 from ca. 500-475, shows that at this time Naupaktos was a community of citizens: it defines under what circumstances epoikoi from Eastern Lokris are to become citizens of Naupaktos and it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Naupaktos was a polis at the time of this inscription. However, after the Messenian revolt of the 460s the Athenians settled Messenian helots at Naupaktos.9^ From that point onwards the existence of a Naupaktian community, as

opposed to ‘the Messenians at Naupaktos'55 is "invisible in Thucydides”8° and so it may perhaps be suspected that the polis of the Naupaktians ceased to exist. This, however, seems not to be the case as is indicated by two inscriptions: (1) The first inscription is, unfortunately, unpublished; "All we know of it is that it lays down the arrangements under which the Messenians and the native Naupactians

should live together under the protection of Athena Polias".9 So the Naupaktians continued in existence.®® 81 82

οἱ δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ... ἀπέπλευσαν εἰς πόλιν συμμαχίδα Naoxaxtov. ... κατῴκησαν ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ, δόντων αὐτοῖς ᾿Αθηναίων οἰκητήριον τήνδε τὴν πόλιν.

83

For a recent discussion of the inscription with refs., see Nielsen (2000b).

84

Thuc. 1.103.3: xai αὐτοὺς οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι δεξάμενοι κατ᾽ ἔχθος ἤδη τὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐς Ναύπακτον κατῴκισαν, ἣν ἔτυχον ὑρηκότες νεωστὶ Λοκρῶν τῶν Οζολῶν ἐχόντων. On this passage, see Badian (1990). Cf. Diod.

85

86 87

11.84.7-8.

For this designation of the community, see Thuc. 2.9.4; cf. 4.41.2: oi ἐκ τῆς Ναυπάκτου Μεσσήνιοι; 7.31.2: £x τῆς Ναυπάκτου τῶν Μεσσηνίων μετεκέμψατο; 7.57.8: οἱ Μεσσήνιοι vov καλούμενοι ἐκ Ναυκάκτου καὶ ἐκ Πύλου. However, at 2.92.4 Thucydides refers to the ‘harbour of the Naupaktians' (τὸν Ναυπακτίων λιμένα). Diodorus refers to the Messenians at Naupaktos as Μεσσήνιοι ot τὴν Ναύπακτον οἱ κοῦντες (12.42.5 r431). D.Lewis in CAH V2:118. D.Lewis in CAH V?: 118. Lewis refers to Mastrokostas who in ArchDelt 19B (1964) 295 describes

the inscription as follows: “Χρονολογεῖται περὶ τὰ μέσα τοῦ Sov αἰῶνος, εἰς τοὺς πρώτους

Phrourion

61

(2) This continued existence of the Naupaktians is also attested by Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 74, a thank-offering to Olympian Zeus set up by Μεσσάνιοι καὶ Ναυπάκτιοι

in ca. 421.9 So after the settlement of Messenians at Naupaktos the city's population was composed of two different ethnic groups: Messenians and Naupaktians (Lokrians), though the continued existence of the latter is 'invisible in Thucydides'. What is not invisible in Thucydides is the political status of Naupaktos. It was a polis even under this arrangement: it is called polis in the political sense at 2.9.1 and 4, and in the urban sense at 3.102.5, while 3.102.4 refers to the circuit wall (τεῖχος) and 3.102.2 to the

suburb (προάστειον). Now, the passage in which Diodorus describes Naupaktos as a phrourion refers to the end of the Messenian presence at Naupaktos, and there is no reason at all to deny Naupaktos polis status at this point. So before, during, and after? the Messenian presence at Naupaktos this city was a polis and it must be concluded that Diodorus at 14.34.2 (1401) has applied phrourion to a site which was a polis. (6) Stageira. «Στάργειρα at 14.52.9 is an emendation, but one that should in all

probability be accepted.?! Diodorus calls Stageira a phrourion in reference to 349. Prior to the fourth century, Stageira was certainly a polis,?? but on its status in the fourth century we are poorly informed; however, in 360/59 it had an Epidaurian

theorodokos?? and was thus probably still a polis. So it may very well have been a polis at the point in time referred to by Diodorus.?*

88 89

χρόνους τῆς ἐγκαταστάσεως τῶν Μεσσηνίων £v Ναυπάκτῳ, τὴν óxoiav πρὸ ὀλίγου εἶχε κυριεύσει ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος ναύαρχος Τολμίδης (Θουκ. I 103, Διοδ. XI 84, 7). Εἶναι συμπολιτεία Μεσσηνίων καὶ Ναυκακτίων. ᾿Αναγράφει τὴν φράσιν γυναῖκας καταβιβάσαι ἐκ τῶν ὀρεινῶν περιχώρων 5n3., ὅπου θὰ εἶχον καταφύγει οἱ Ναυκπάκτιοι καὶ ὁρίζει διὰ τοὺς παραβάτας τῆς συμφωνίας τὴν ἐπιβόλην χρπματικοῦ xpootipov, τοῦ ὁποίου τὰ χρήματα θὰ εἶναι ἱερὰ τῆς ᾿Αθανὰς τῆς Πολιάδος. ᾿Αναφέρει ἐπίσης καὶ σθυρηλάτους ἀνδριάντας. Τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς Πολιάδος γίνεται τὸ πρῶτον γνωστόν." Cf. A. Matthaiou in Horos | (1983) 84. See also Pritchett (1995) 69-71. The editors comment: "L. 1 shows that the Messenians, settled in Naupaktos under Athenian auspices at the close of the Helot Revolt (Thuc. i. 103. 3), combined

90 91

92

93 94

with some of the previous

inhabitants of the town." Naupaktos is called a polis in Ps.-Skylax 35; it had an Epidaurian theorodokos in 356/5 (/G IV?.1 95.1.6). See Flensted-Jensen (1998) 101-2. The emendation was rejected by Harrison (1912) 166 inter alia on the ground that the status of polis and phrourion were incompatible; this, as the present study argues, is not correct; but Harrison's implication that Stageira was a polis is probably correct. Hdt. 7.115.2 calls it a polis in the urban sense, and it is called a polis in the political sense in the Peace of Nikias (Thuc. 5.18.5). It was a member of the Delian League (/G I? 259.1.14, 282.II.10). It struck coins from the late sixth century (Gübler (1930) 302; [1935] 110—11). IG 1V?.194.b.21. Some later sources refer to fourth-century Stageira: Plut. Alex. 7.3 calls it a polis in reference to the time of destruction; Plut. Mor. 1097B refers to its surviving politai; Dio Chrys. Or. 47.9 calls it κώμη τῆς OAuvdiac. On this passage Hansen (1995) 75 comments: "We know from other sources that Stageira was a polis. If the information provided by this late source can be trusted, Stageira was also a kome in the territory of Olynthos, and consequently a member state of the Chalkidic Confederacy. Again we are probably, metaphorically speaking, in the borderland between citystate and municipality. The term polis is used about dependencies as well as about independent

62

Thomas Heine Nielsen

The conclusion is that Diodorus repeatedly applies the term phrourion to ments which were poleis and not mere military bases. So did Thucydides passage (8.62.3), as we saw above. This raises the question of whether the term passages represents Diodorus' own choice of words or whether he reproduces his source(s). It seems the most simple assumption that Diodorus has picked extended the usage attested by Thuc. 8.62.3 whereby a site which is actually

settlein one in such it from up and a polis

may be called a phrourion.?5 Alternatively, he may have reproduced phrourion from his sources. As it is, there is only one possible (and far from certain) case of a site which

is classified as a phrourion by both Diodorus and his presumed source: Boudor(i)on on Salamis, classified as a phrourion by Diod. 12.93.4 and possibly by his presumed source Ephoros (FGrHist 70, fr. 198).% Most of Diodoros’ presumed sources are lost and he may have reproduced more instances of phrourion from his sources than appears at the moment. But for the Polis Centre's investigation of the polis structure of the different regions of ancient Greece it does not really matter. If we assume that Diodorus in every instance where he classifies a settlement as a phrourion has correctly reproduced the term from his source then we would simply have to conclude that the usage attested by Thuc. 8.62.3 whereby the polis of Sestos is classified as a phrourion was more widespread than appears from our surviving sources and that would be unproblematic. If we assume that the term represents Diodorus' own choice of wording then we would simply have to disregard his classification of sites as phrouria. And that too would be unproblematic since it is the policy of the Polis Centre not to accept retrospective site classifications by post-Classical sources unless these are supported by Archaic or Classical evidence. Thus, we do not accept Diodorus’ polis classifications unless these are supported by additional Archaic or Classical evidence, and neither should we accept his phrourion classifications at face value.

J. Conclusion

Let me conclude this short study of the ancient use of the term phrourion: though it is thought of as designating something different from a polis the term phrourion is not an antonym of polis and though rare in texts of the Classical period the term may occasionally be used about sites that were polis towns. In Diodorus six sites that were almost certainly poleis are classified as phrouria, presumably because he extended the rare Classical usage found in a single passage of Thucydides. A corollary of this conclusion is that we cannot deny polis status to a community such as e.g. Sicilian Mylai simply because Diodorus classifies it as a phrourion. The status of such a community must be established from other sources.

95

96

city-states, and kome is used about dependent city-states as well as about municipalities." So if Dio correctly reproduces kome from a well-informed contemporary source, Stageira may have been a dependent polis in the territory of Olynthos. Dio's chronological reference, however, is not entirely clear; he possibly refers to Aristotle's time, but not impossibly simply to the past. Palm (1955) investigated Diodorus' language and came to the overall conclusion that it was a construct of Diodorus' himself and not dependent to any notable extent on the language of his sources (p. 194ff.). The assumption that Diodorus' use of phrourion is his own and not that of his sources is of course in harmony with Palm's conclusion. δες Stylianou (1998) 49-50. See note 30 above.

Phrourion

63

Bibliography Badian, E. 1990. "Athens, the Locrians and Naupactus," CQ 40: 364—9. Bernabó Brea, L. 1992. "Milazzo," Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche 10: 115-8. Cutroni Tusa, A. and Tullio, A. 1987. "Cefalü," Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche 5: 209-21. Falkner, C. 1996. Flensted-Jensen, unpublished Flensted-Jensen, 137-67.

"Sparta and the Elean War, ca. 401/400 B.C..” Phoenix 50: 17-25. P. 1998. The Poleis of the Chalkidic Peninsula until the Macedonian Conquest, dissertation (Copenhagen). P. and Hansen, M.H. 1996. "Pseudo-Skylax' Use of the Term Polis," CPCPapers 3:

Gabler, H. 1930. “Die Münzen von Stagira”, SBPreuss 1930: 293-304. Gäbler, H. 1935. Die antiken Münzen Nordgriechenlands 3 (Berlin). Hansen, M.H. Were Not Hansen, M.H. Classical Hansen, M.H.

1995. "Kome. A Study in How the Greeks Designated and Classified Settlements Which Poleis,” CPCPapers 2: 45—81. 1997a. "Emporion. A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the Archaic and Periods," CPCPapers 4: 83-105. 1997b. "A Typology of Dependent Poleis," CPCPapers 4: 29-37.

Hansen, M.H.

1998. Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent, CPCActs 5

(Copenhagen). Hansen, M.H. 2000. "A Survey of the Use of the Word Polis in Archaic and Classical Sources," CPCPapers 5: 173-215. Harrison, E. 1912. "Chalkidike," CQ 6: 93-103, and 165-78. Karlsson, L. 1995. “The Symbols of Freedom and Democracy on the Bronze Coinage of Timoleon," Acta Hyperborea 6: 149—69. Kraay, C.M.

1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London).

Massa, M. 1990. "Inessa," Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche 8: 286-93. Nielsen, T.H. 1997. "Triphylia. An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Political Organisation," CPCPapers 4: 129-62. Nielsen, T.H. 2000a. "Xenophon's Use of the Word Polis in the Anabasis," CPCPapers 5: 133-9. Nielsen, T.H. 2000b. "Epiknemidian, Hypoknemidian, and Opountian Lokrians. Reflections on the Political Organisation of East Lokris in the Classical Period," CPCPapers 5: 91—120. Niemeyer, H.G. 2000. "The Early Phoenician City-States on the Mediterranean: Archaeological Evidence for their Description," in Thirty City-State Cultures: 89-115. Palm, J. 1955. Über Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien. Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der hellenistischen Prosa (Lund). Pritchett, W.K. 1995, Thucydides’ Pentakontaetia and Other Essays, APXAIA EAAAZ \ (Amsterdam). Roy, J. 1997. "The Perioikoi of Elis," CPCActs 4: 282-320. Roy, J. 1999. “Cités d'Elide," in Le Péloponnése. Archéologie et histoire, textes rassemblés par Josette Renard (Rennes)

151-76.

Stylianou, P.J. 1998. A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15 (Oxford).

64

Thomas Heine Nielsen

Talbert, R.J.A. 1974. Timoleon and the Revival of Greek Sicily 344—317 B.C. (Cambridge). Tuplin, C. 1993. The Failings of Empire. A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11—7.5.27, Historia Einzelschriften 76 (Stuttgart). Thomas Heine Nielsen The Copenhagen Polis Centre

THE GREEK THEATRE. A TYPICAL BUILDING IN THE URBAN CENTRE OF THE POLIS?!

by

RUNE FREDERIKSEN I. Introduction

‘The Greek Theatre’ forms a chapter in almost any description of the Hellenic world in Classical and Hellenistic times. Since the modern world began to look back on the ancient, the indisputable importance of the ancient Greek theatre has been evident from the preserved plays of the great dramatic poets which remain acknowledged masterpieces. Physical evidence of the theatre attained prominence with the rediscovery and excavations of the Theatre of Dionysos at Athens, and since then it has become more and more clear that theatres are very often present in the archaeological remains of the urban centres of the Greek poleis and their affiliated extra-urban sanctuaries, alongside temples, city-walls, the agora with various public monumental architecture, gymnasia, stadia, etc.? So even though our evidence is Athenocentric in terms of the preserved plays, the presence of theatres in more or less all parts of the Greek world indicates that the theatre was, in fact, a deeply integrated part of Greek civilisation. The present study deals with the spread of theatre buildings in the Greek world in Classical and Hellenistic times and attempts to explain the factors behind their erection. Theatres are found in Argos, Korinthos, Kyrene, Miletos, Syracuse and all the other larger and well-known poleis. But we do not find remains of theatres everywhere. At present, the total number of archaeologically attested Greek theatres is ca. 251? if we 1

2

3

Lowe many thanks to Mogens Herman Hansen, who not only suggested the approach to the study of the Greek theatre presented in this article, but also supported and inspired me in the typical Hansen-open-minded way during periods of creative considerations. Next, I would like to thank Thomas Heine Nielsen for much help in making a text out of my original manuscript and for inspiring discussions about what role the theatre played in the Greek world. I am also indebted to Hans Peter Isler who most kindly read a pre-print draft, made some important corrections and also took time to discuss aspects of the Greek theatre with me. Finally, I would like to thank Tobias Fischer-Hansen and Adam Bülow-Jacobsen for important corrections and suggestions too. It need not be said, however, that any error or misinterpretation is my responsibility alone. Thearchaeological evidence for Greek theatres has been collected in Appendix IV which is based on Rossetto and Sartorio (1994) — hereafter referred to as TGR ~ and Isler (1997) which is an important supplement. Theatres mentioned in this article without references to scholarly literature can be found in Appendix IV (with refs.). Compiled from TGR and Isler (1997). Additions (of which some are only possibilities): Dura Europos (Hoepfner et al. [1999] 500); Naxos (Gruben [1982] 165-6); Neandreia (Trunk [1994] 91-100); 'Perperene', modern Asaga-Bei-ködi (Fabricius and Bohn [1886]; cf. Stauber [1996] 29]-305); Sidon (PECS 837); Theangela, modern Aläzeytin Kalesi (Radt [1970] 37f.); Tithorea (Isler

[1997] 553), for remains, see Vischer (1857) 625, cf. Frazer (1898) V: 407, cf. Appendix III no. 68.

66

Rune Frederiksen

include buildings dated down to the second century AD, found (a) at localities that either were or had been poleis when the buildings were constructed, or (b) at other

nucleated centres in the Greek world, including non-Hellenized regions, founded or existing before 200 BC. The basic social and politica) unit of Greek civilisation was the polis, and there were some 1,500 poleis altogether.* A comparison of the two figures shows that the theatres are found in the urban centres and territories of only some 17% of all poleis. To claim from that evidence alone that poleis without theatres had no share in the important part of Greek culture that was practiced in the theatre would be wrong, simply because theatrical activities are supposed to have taken place without a theatre as an architectural frame.’ On the other hand we must conclude that the high representation of the monument in the archaeological record reflects an essential aspect of the culture in question. First of all it is quite clear that the presence of the building at a given locality at the same time indicates the presence of the activities normally linked to it, the drama; but we have to analyse the spread of dramatic activities from other sources in order to investigate, for example, whether regions or landscapes with few theatres did not practice the social institutions for which theatres were normally used to the same extent as regions and areas with many theatres. An investigation of all localities with theatres is not only important for the analysis of the extent to which dramatic festivals were an ubiquitous aspect of Greek culture. The theatre served a lot of purposes in the daily life of the polis and an overall study of the architectural frame of all those activities should result in a more nuanced picture of ancient Greek society than the generally accepted assumption that "Every polis, every organised community, has its theatre; a legacy from the distant, glorious past.”’ This new picture will of course show that the larger and richer poleis had their own theatre just as they had all the other well-known types of monumental building. But we will have to examine the available evidence in more depth to be able to conclude bow well established the link was between theatres and large poleis. Is it possible to distinguish cities with a theatre from cities without? Will it be possible to say, as a general rule, that the presence of a theatre in itself places the locality at which it is found in a specific category? Satisfactory answers to such questions require investigations of various kinds. First we shall have to investigate the ratio between the total number of attested theatres and the total number of theatres once in existence. Many monuments must have disappeared through quarrying in later periods, or by natural erosion of the mountain slopes and hillsides where theatres were normally built. Others are still hidden under modern cities or concealed in some other way. This leaves us with two groups of unattested theatres once in existence: those which have disappeared forever, and those whose remains may be found in the future. The number of theatres in either group is, alas, impossible to ascertain with any certainty.

un

4 6

7

Hansen(1994) 14. Cf. Hansen (2000). E.g. Tomlinson (1976) 41; Isler (1994) 88. On ekklesia in the theatre: McDonald (1943) 40, 43; Wycherley (1962) 163 ("the general place of assembly"); Kolb (1981) 1, 88ff. with n. 9; Kolb (1984) 134; Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 44—5, 48ff. | Monaco (1994) 40. See also Martin (1956) 281; De Bernardi Ferrero (1974) 18 (on Asia Minor);

and RE? V: 880.

The Greek Theatre

67

II. The Archaeology of the Greek Theatre As ἃ building type, the Greek theatre is quite well defined, at least in the late Classica! and Hellenistic periods when the canonical monumental type had been fully developed. Almost all the 251 monuments classified as theatres share the following defining characteristics: a building that consists of a monumentalised koilon of canonical semicircular design, reflected in the shape of the orchestra as well as of other details like stone seats and stairways, proedria and euripos. There are at least five types of theatre building to which, regardless of type, is added a scene building of either the paraskenia or proskenion type (randomly occurring in relation to the types of theatre building)? In the Archaic and early Classical periods we are faced with problems of secure identification, first of all because remains of scene buildings are lacking, or at best debatable, and next because, unlike the later canonical design, the design of early ‘theatre buildings' varies from monument to monument and is simply not known well enough due to the poor state of preservation of the few attested monuments (see below). But for the present study the problems of identification of the theatre do not lie in the early period; in order to be included in my inventory, it suffices that there are remains of a building which can be securely identified as a monumental Greek theatre at a given place at any time in the Greek period or down to the second century AD in the Hellenic world; and almost all early attested 'difficult' buildings were later either rebuilt as or replaced by such easily identifiable canonical theatres? A few are left which are also interpreted as theatres: e.g. the linear rock-cut rows of seats in Stymphalos, because of similarities with monuments of the only identified type of theatre of the

fifth century. In the present study, the problem of identification arises with building types that are similar to the canonical theatre of the late Classical and Hellenistic periods, principally bouleuteria, odeia and ekklesiasteria with semicircular rows of seats built

in stone.!! Under optimal conditions of preservation they are easily separated from theatres. Bouleuteria were normally quite small and only rarely equipped with a scene building; ekklesiasteria were normally circular, odeia covered with a roof, etc. But if part of the seating facilities is all that is left it may be difficult to determine whether the remains are of a theatre or of one of the other types of building. Anyhow, given the low frequency of buildings of these types compared with unquestionable theatres,!? I tend to believe that there is little doubt about the identification as theatres of almost all the 251 monuments included in this inventory.!? It should, however, be noted that this 8 9 10 li

Frederiksen (2000) 148-9, 160. This goes for e.g. Argos, Athens, Chaironeia in Boiotia, Korinthos, Isthmia, the theatre-ekklesiasterion of Metapontion, Syracuse, Tegea and Thorikos. Type A in Frederiksen (2000) 139, to which the linear theatres at Argos, Chaironeia (phase I) and Syracuse belong. For the identification of the type, see Ginouv&s (1972) 61-3 with refs. For examples of these building types see McDonald (1943); Gneisz (1990); Hansen and FischerHansen (1994).

12 13

Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 34, 37 ἃ 55ff. Debatable cases are, e.g.: (a) Rhegion: fragments of Ionic terracotta capitals are the only traces of what was perhaps the scene building; the capitals may possibly derive from a bema — and if so the edifice may have been an ekklesiasterion (Martorano [1985] 241; cf. Hansen and Fischer-Hansen

[1994] 72-4) - but may just as well belong to a scene building; (b) the 'small' theatre at Kassope

68

Rune Frederiksen

identification is made from a strictly architectural point of view which does not necessarily mirror all the functions of these monuments. At a number of localities “a depression in the ground that probably was the theatre”

is all that remains visible.'4 That is no surprise, since the theatre is the only commonly attested building which really interacted with townscape, a fact that often naturally results in cone-shaped structures, which were chopped disappear or change character from earthquakes

and became part of the landscape or good conditions of preservation:!3 the or dug out of cliffs and hills, do not or quarrying as easily as do other types

of monumental architecture.'® To disappear completely, theatres will have to be filled up, which may happen in connection with later urbanisation (e.g. Larisa in Thessaly

and Thebes in Boiotia)!? or in connection with erosion (e.g. Aigai and Epidauros (the polis]).'® How many theatres still lie completely covered under modern cities or under

thick layers of slopewash elsewhere in the landscape we cannot know.!? The ‘depressions’ that lie about in the Greek landscape are of course ambiguous. The ‘earth koilon' of the theatre in the valley of the Muses at Thespiai in Boiotia is only positively identified as a theatre because of the remains of a stone skene there, while the same kind of koilon in the theatre (7) at Koroneia, also in Boiotia, could be a natural

depression that once may or may not have been used as a theatre. Naturally, many such depressions have been tentatively interpreted as remains of theatres, often proved to be true by later excavation (e.g. Aigai, Theatre of Dionysos at Athens, Olbia and Stratos). The accounts of the Philhellenic travellers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries provide us with important and interesting documentation of the difference in the state of preservation of many monuments, including theatres, between their time

and our own.29 A theatre was reported by E. Curtius at Thouria in Messene in 1838?! and indicated on his plan of the town.2? Explicit details are given a few decades later by W. Vischer

which in fact has a scene building, but on account of the existence of the larger theatre at Kassope has been interpreted as a bouleuterion (Hoepfner and Schwandner [1986] 102-3). For the view that it was rather an ekklesiasterion, or a theatre, cf. Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 63.

14

15 16 17 18 19

20

As suggested at e.g. Eleusis, see Travlos (1949) 139 Fig. | (apparently not the same location as the one listed TGR 11: 206). Olynthos: Robinson (1930) 6; Hoepfner and Schwandner (1986) 40. Kandyba: TGR III: 428. Kolossai: TGR III: 449. Horreum: TGR II: 118. For more examples, see Appendix IV nos. 58, 145 and 166. Cf. Lauter (1986) 167. Cf. Pausanias' description of Metapontion, of which nothing was left to see in his day but the theatre and the circuit of the city walls (6.19.11). Larisa: TGR II: 245; Thebes: Isler (1997) 553. Symeonoglou (1985) 139. Excavations during the 1970s have documented that there were theatres at these two localities, see TGR 11: 317 ἃ II: 213, respectively, for refs. Proton-magnetometry and other means of investigating from the surface without actual excavation may, of course, supplement regular excavations as methods of obtaining information under such circumstances. Consider, e.g., Akragas where a theatre which has now vanished was observed as early as the 16th century (TGR II: 369).

21 22

Curtius (1851-52) II: 161. Ibid. Taf. VII.

The Greek Theatre

69

and C. Bursian.? Today there is only a depression in the ground to indicate that there

may once have been a theatre there. W.M. Leake?5 described remains of a small theatre at Psophis in Arkadia (visited

on February 28, 1806), the condition of which had not changed significantly when Frazer visited Psophis during his fascinating periegesis in the track of Pausanias in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Frazer identified “ ... the remains of a small theatre facing west. Part of the circumference of four or five rows of seats may be seen; fragments of the seats are also lying about."?6 When I visited the site in June 1998, nothing was left to be seen, and my observation was confirmed by several of the locals: they remembered the theatre, but said that nothing was left of it. More examples from the old travellers' accounts could be adduced, but what matters in this context is not so much the specific evidence they provide as their general testimony to the changing conditions of the evidence. The theatre may be generally well preserved and detectable compared to other types of monumental building, but we have to conclude that an unknown number of theatres may have disappeared completely since antiquity. In some cases, however, traces of such now vanished theatres were left as late as a century ago. Moreover, it seems a reasonable assumption that many monuments are still undiscovered since monuments not previously known keep on appearing (see nn. 17 & 18) and from the fact that only a tiny number of ancient cities and towns have been excavated.” So we have to take into account that an unknown number of theatres must be added to the 251 of which remains have been preserved to our time.

Ill. The Term Oéatpov An estimate of the number of vanished and concealed theatres may be obtained from the written sources. Being an important element of Greek urban life the Greek theatres are frequently mentioned in Greek and Roman literary and epigraphical sources. Fig. 1 is ἃ graph showing the numbers of theatres attested in, respectively, archaeological, epigraphical and literary sources dating down to the second century AD, and referring to (a) localities that either were or had been poleis, or (b) other nucleated centres in the

Greek world, including non-Hellenized regions, founded or existing before 200 BC. The epigraphical and literary references refer directly, or indirectly, to localities as having had ‘a theatre’ (θέατρον), and the evidence is given in Appendices II-III (cf. Appendix IV). The references are exclusively to sources in Greek; sources in Latin are largely irrelevant because they do not often give the same kind of detailed urban/

23

SRR

24

Vischer (1857) 425: "Ferner erkennt man deutlich das wenig erhaltene Theater ... "; Bursian (1872) 169: “ ... an dieselbe lehnte sich die gegen Westen geöffnete Cavea eines Theaters, deren Form wenigstens noch kenntlich ist, wenn auch die Sitzstufen verschwunden sind." McDonald and Simpson (1961) III: 14: location of the theatre indicated with a question mark. Leake (1830) I: 355 "searched in vain for a theatre" when he visited Thouria on April 22, 1805, which may be explained by the fact that he spent only 70 minutes on location. Leake (1830) II: 243. Frazer (1898) IV: 282. Morgan and Coulton (1997) 87.

70

Rune Frederiksen

topographical information about the Greek world prior to 200 AD as the Greek sources do; they are accordingly not considered here. Naturally, some of these references are to buildings which we know archaeologically (the overlaps containing 28 and 36 theatres), and a small group of buildings is known from all three types of source (the overlaps containing 13).28 Of primary importance for the present discussion are the 55 theatres referred to in written sources but, apparently, unattested in the archaeological record. We have good reason to believe that these 55 theatres constitute a part of the above-mentioned groups of concealed and vanished buildings. Some authors of the fourth century refer to θέατρον in a topographical manner and so casually as if the building had been typical of the Greek city for centuries. From the middle of the fourth century and onwards it can be proved that θέατρον is the term used when the reference is to a building that fits our definition of a theatre (cf. above).

An example is Diodorus 16.83.3 (Appendix I no. 1) who compares the theatre that was built in Agyrion on Sicily (after 339/38 BC) with the one in Syracuse and states that it was the finest in Sicily after that of Syracuse. The theatre at Agyrion has not been identified, but we know the theatre in Syracuse which Diodorus must have had in mind. We would also today regard that as 'the finest of Sicily', and we may conclude that the comparison by Diodorus justifies a classification of the unknown building at Agyrion as a theatre. From the fourth century (315-300 BC) comes a building account which mentions the large theatre of Delos (Appendix I no. 4). The text mentions the entrances,

the stone seats and the wooden σκηνή of the theatre. This meaning of θέατρον is found in late authors too, principally Pausanias?! and Vitruvius (who uses the latinised form theatrum); for more examples see Appendix I. However, occurrences of the term θέατρον qualified by a reference to e.g. the orchestra or the skene are rare and it is equally rare to come across an occurrence which allows of an indisputable identification with a known theatre. What we have is in most

cases the naked word θέατρον without any additional details.?2 Moreover, when we look at all the sources (Classical, Hellenistic and Roman) there

are a few attestations of θέατρον denoting a monument which is not a theatre in the usual sense (see below). So the central problem is to what extent the some 145 θέατρα known from the written sources are in fact of the same type of building as the theatres known from the archaeological evidence. As illustrated in Fig. 1, 77 of the 145 theatres referred to in the written sources can plausibly be linked to known monuments since they refer to a θέατρον at a locality where a theatre has been identified, while 55 are localities where theatres — with varying degrees of explicitness — are reported to have existed but where no links can be made with actual remains because no such remains 28 29 30 31 32

Cross-references between the three groups of source are given in the three Appendices II-IV. E.g. Aen. Tact. 1.9, 3.5 ἃ 22.4; Pl. Leg. 779d. These passages do not describe events in specific poleis but assume that all cities (or most cities) had their own theatre or theatres. Cf. Kolb (1981) 3. For a very useful study of Pausanias' references to θέατρον, see Gogos (1988). Aixone (Attika): ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα eic στήλην λιθίνην Φιλόθηρον τὸν δήμαρχον καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῷ θεάτρωι (= Appendix Il πο. 2); Siphnas: ... καὶ ἀνακηρῦξαι τὸν στέφανον ἐν τῶι) θεάτρωι Διον] υ[σ] ἰο]ις τραγωιϊιδῶν τῶι ἀγῶνι (= Appendix II no. 66); Aigai: ... τὸ μὲν πλῆθος ἔτι νυκτὸς οὔσης συνέτρεχεν εἰς τὸ θέατρον (= Appendix III no. 5): Korinthos: ... τὸν δὲ καθήμενον τὸν δέ τινὰ ἐν θεάτρῳ, ἔστι δ᾽ ὃν καὶ κριτὴν καθήμενον (= Appendix III no. 32).

The Greek Theatre

71

have been found. The fact that 77 source references can be linked with independently attested buildings is a good indication, though not proof (cf. below on stadia and odeia), that the general meaning of θέατρον is in fact 'theatre'. There is, moreover, no doubt that in all instances the word refers to a specific place called θέατρον. That this place at least very often, if not always, was a building can be inferred from the many passages which not only refer to a θέατρον but include a

reference to activities implying gatherings of people.?? Furthermore, the theatre is well defined architectonically and is frequently attested in the period in which almost all the inscriptions were published (cf. Appendix II); thus, at 49 of the 76 sites at which reference is made to a θέατρον by an inscription a theatre has actually been identified (ca. 65%).

The study of the written sources shows, first of all, that the word θέατρον, in the majority of the instances, refers to a theatre in the usual sense. This is quite obvious considering the fact that most of the references are unspecified, i.e. to the theatre without any further attributes. Such references must have been immediately understood by the ancient readers, that is, they must have denoted one specific monument, securely identifiable by the word θέατρον alone. Now if θέατρον was actually used just as often about the auditorium of bouleuteria, ekklesiasteria, odeia, stadia, parts of stadia or non-monumentalised edifices etc., as it was used about the auditorium of actual theatres, there would have been more than one θέατρον in innumerable poleis, and accordingly, specified references would have dominated in our sources, and outnum-

bered the frequently attested unspecified references.?4 From this observation alone we cannot infer that every occurrence of the word θέατρον denotes a theatre; three different problems must be discussed before we can decide to what extent it is legitimate to make an equation between θέατρον and ‘theatre’: (1) there are a few sources which add a specification to the term θέατρον; (2)

there are a few instances of θέατρον being used about a different type of building; (3) there are attestations of θέατρον being used in the general sense of ‘auditorium’ and not in the specific sense of ‘theatre’. Re (1) Of the few references to a θέατρον where specifications are given, a certain

group of references is to be treated here. They have in common that the specifications which they offer serve the purpose of distinguishing between more theatres at the localities in question: (a) Athens: Aeschin. Ctes. 46: Ὅτι δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, σημεῖον ὑμῖν μέγα τούτου ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν νόμων ἐπιδείξω. αὐτὸν γὰρ τὸν χρυσοῦν στέφανον, ὃς ἂν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ τῷ ἐν ἄστει ἀναρρηθῇ ...”° Aischines here refers to an Athenian law, which apparently

33

34 35

Chios: ... áveixelv] τὸν iepoxripuka Διονυσίοις ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι ὅταν oi [τῶν παίδων χοροὶ μέλ]λωσιν ἀγωνίζεσθαι ... (= Appendix II no. 12); Minoa (Amorgos): οἱ δὲ ἀγωνοθέται avayyελλέτωσαν αὐτοῦ τὸν στέφανον καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν "Exatonßiwv (/G XTI.7 388.26—9); Phigaleia: ... καὶ Διονυσίων κατὰ τύχην ὄντων. ἐπιπεσόντες ἁκροσδοκήτως τοῖς ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ καθημένοις (= Appendix III no. 50); Sikyon: παρῆν γὰρ ἐκ πορείας εἰς τὸ θέατρον γραμματηφόρος φέρων ἐπιστολὴν παρὰ Κοΐντου Μαρκίου (x Polyb. 29.25.2 cf. 29.24.6). Cf. Robertson (1992) 155, who discusses different references to a θέατρον at Sparta and points out the semantic difficulties in using θέατρον for structures other than theatres proper. "For the truth of my assertion I will show you a strong argument derived from the laws themselves.

72

Rune Frederiksen

dealt with coronations ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ τῷ ἐν ἄστει. The meaning of the attribute ἐν ἄστει here must be to distinguish the theatre at the Akropolis from one or more theatres in the Peiraieus or in the demes of the countryside, and it is the only passage in Cres. which adds a specification to θέατρον. The explanation must be that the audience and the reader are perfectly aware which theatre Aischines is referring to, i.e. the Theatre of Dionysos at the southern slope of the Akropolis. But the text of the law presumably added a specification because specificity is vital in that type of text. There are many references to a θέατρον in the sources for Athenian history, from the fifth century and onwards. By far the majority do not distinguish between more theatres, which suggests that there was only one theatre in Athens, namely the Theatre of Dionysos. It seems that when distinctions are made, they are between the theatre of Athens (τὸ ἐν ἄστει θέατρον) and the theatres of the demes of Attika (as in the passage

just discussed), perhaps first of all Peiraieus.?6 A theatre in Peiraieus is mentioned in three literary texts discussing events of the late fifth century. One refers to the Peiraieus

in general," while two specify that the theatre was in the Mounichian quarter.’® The reason why the specification ‘in Mounichia'

was added is presumably the fact that it

was necessary to distinguish it from ‘the theatre of Dionysos in Athens’.?? Of course, the Peiraieus as such is topographically distinct from Athens, but despite the fact that the distance between the Akropolis and the harbour was some 8 km, Athens merges with its surroundings as a scene of historical events. Historical events often take place in the built-up area of Athens, but sometimes, when they take place in the Peiraieus, the difference can be very important for the events in question, as they in fact are in the situations from the end of the fifth century referred to above.“ (b) Ambrakia: Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.50.4: ἐν δὲ ᾿Αμβρακίᾳ ἱερόν τε τῆς αὐτῆς θεοῦ καὶ ἠρῷον Αἰνείου πλησίον τοῦ μικροῦ θεάτρου, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ξόανον μικρὸν ἀρχαϊκὸν Αἰνείου λεγόμενον ...*! This is a passage similar to (c) below, but here it is a 'small' theatre which is referred to. In fact, two theatres have been identified at

Ambrakia, one of which is actually very small.*? Thus, the specification ‘small’ was presumably necessary because there was a plurality of theatres at Ambrakia, as at Athens. (c) Alexandreia: Ath. 620d: ... Ιάσων δ᾽ ἐν τρίτῳ περὶ tv Αλεξάνδρον" ἱερῶν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ φησὶν ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ θεάτρῳ ὑποκρίνασθαι Hynoiav τὸν κωμῳδὸν τὰ For the golden crown itself which is proclaimed in the city theatre ..." (transl. by Adams in the Loeb). 36

An inscription from Delos (/.Delos 1498.13-14, 160-150 BC) uses a similar expression (ἐν τῶι ἐν

37 38 39

ἄστει θεάτρωι) and the Theatre of Dionysos at Athens is probably also thought of here, distinguished from the large theatre of Delos. Xen. Hell. 2.4.33 r403 BC. Thuc. 8.93.1 r411 BC; Lys. 13.322, 55.7. That the specification was intended to distinguish the Mounichia theatre from the theatre in the Zea harbour of Peiraieus is not completely out of the question, although it seems that the latter did not exist before the 2nd cent. BC. Cf. TGR II: 277-8.

40

Thuc. and Lys., cited above n. 38.

41]

"... in Ambracia, a temple of the same goddess and a hero-shrine of Aeneas near the little theatre. In this shrine there was a small archaic statue of wood, said to be of Aeneas ..." (transl. by Spelman

42

in the Loeb). Small theatre: TGR II: 129. Theatre at Tsakalof Street: TGR II: 131.

The Greek Theatre

73

᾿Ησιόδον ....* A theatre is here referred to as ‘the large’, which means either that there must have been a smaller one, i.e. a plurality of theatres as at Athens and Ambrakia, or that the absolute size of the theatre in question was worth emphasizing. I conclude that specifications are very rare, and, when they are given, their purpose is to distinguish one theatre from another and not to distinguish a theatre from some other kind of monument. Re (2) Even though it is extremely rare to find θέατρον used about buildings which are not theatres in the usual sense, there are a few such instances and they deserve

discussion.“ One is found in Pausanias’ description of Athens.4> At 1.8.6 he uses θέατρον

in reference to the Odeion of Agrippa in the Agora (τοῦ θεάτρου

δὲ ὃ

καλοῦσιν ᾿Ωιδεῖον ἀνδριάντες πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου βασιλέων εἰσὶν Alyuntiov). From the excavation of the monument it is clear that, according to our typology, the building was in fact an odeion;*’ and this is probably also after all the attitude of Pausanias: further on in Book 1, returning to the description of the same building after a long digression on third century Greek history, he actually calls it an odeion (1.14.1: ἣ μὲν ᾿Ηπειρωτῶν ἀκμὴ κατέστρεψεν ἐς τοῦτο᾽ ἐς δὲ τὸ ᾿Αθήνῃσιν ἐσελθοῦσιν Nıdeiov ἄλλα τε καὶ Διόνυσος κεῖται θέας GEioc).* Pausanias' change of term for the building seems inexplicable.*? When we look at other references in Pausanias it is clear that he distinguishes between the two types of monument, (e.g. at Patras where both an odeion and a theatre are noted (7.20.6 & 7.21.6 respectively]). In almost all cases there is no doubt that Pausanias uses the word θέατρον about what we call a theatre (see Appendix I nos. 16-24). But of course we cannot rule out that, occasionally, he is actually speaking of an odeion or perhaps even some other type of monumental building. 43

44 45 46

47 48 49

Ca. 250 BC: "Jason, too, says in the third book of his work On the Divine Honours to Alexander that the comedian Hegesias acted the poems of Hesiod in the great theatre at Alexandria" (transl. by Gulick in the Loeb). Cf. RE? V 2: 1384ff. Cf.Gogos (1988) 336. "Before the entrance of the theatre which they call the Odeum are statues of Egyptian kings" (transl. by Jones in the Loeb). In the description of the Odeion of Agrippa at 1.8.6 the initial genitive τοῦ θεάτρον is strange. All translators take τοῦ θεάτρον to be a partitive genitive depending on τῆς ἐσόδου. But, if so, its position at the beginning of the period is strange. None of the commentators has any note on such an unusual word order. A preferable interpretation is to take τοῦ θεάτρου to be isolated genitive, almost = περὶ τοῦ θεάτρον. For this usage, see KühnerGerth, Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 2.1, p. 363 $ 417 Anmerk. 11: "Auf áhnliche Weise wird nicht selten ein Genitiv einem Satze scheinbar ohne Rücksicht auf die Konstruktion vorausgeschickt; einem solchem Genitiv übersetzen wir zwar durch in betreff, quod attinet ad, wie auch die Griechen κερί τινος gebraucht, 2. B. X. R.A. 1,14. Hdt. 7.102." Thompson (1950). “So ended the period of Epeirot ascendancy. When you have entered the Odcum at Athens you meet, among other objects, a figure of Dionysus worth seeing" (transl. by Jones in the Loeb). Travlos passes on the confusion from Pausanias. He calls the monument both a theatre and an odeion, without commenting on the inconsistency (Travlos [1971] 365). This minor problem of

inconsistency in the terminology of Pausanias in these passages was pointed out by the Danish scholar J.L. Ussing in a minor study on ancient Greek geography (Ussing [1868] 20-1); Ussing concluded that Pausanias was describing an odeion be true by excavation more than 70 years later) but that he normally distinguished different building types.

as early as 1868 and topography (only proved to between the two

74

Rune Frederiksen

The only other indisputable examples known to me of θέατρον used about buildings which are not theatres are found in Philostr. VS, and again the references are to odeion buildings: first to the Odeion of Herodes Atticus” and next to the Odeion of Agrippa.*! It is clear from the description of the Odeion of Herodes that Philostratos had a detailed knowledge of it; he describes the cedar wood used for the roof, so he cannot have mistaken it for a theatre. Rather it seems that, for some reason, he did not distinguish between theatre and odeion. An observation supporting this view is that the word odeion is in fact unattested in his writings. Apart from these two exceptional references to an odeion, the term θέατρον, when used about a specific monumental

building, seems always to denote a theatre.?? Re (3) The final problem to be discussed is of a more general nature. It is, a priori,

likely that θέατρον could be used to designate not only a building but also, in a wider sense, any place from where things were seen. The etymology alone (from θεάομαι, ‘I see’) supports such an assumption. So it is likely that θέατρον sometimes denoted a certain spot which was used for theatrical activities, but where no monumental building was built. That θέατρον referred, first of all, to the auditorium of a more or less monumentalised theatre is indicated by the fact that the word was used for the auditorium of other monumental buildings as well. A third-century BC inscription from Eleusis has been adduced as an example of this: [6 IT? 1682: ... εἰς τὸ θέατρον τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταδίου τιθέναι τοὺς λίθους.᾽3 The most likely interpretation is that the reference is to ‘the theatre [i.e. the rows of seats] on [or around] the stadion’. An alternative but

less plausible interpretation is to take ἐπί to mean ‘at’ or ‘near’, which, indeed, is a possible sense of ἐπί with the genitive case (LSJ s.v. A.I.1 ad finem). Θέατρον would then, as in most instances where the word is used, refer to a separate building, near the stadion. The stadion of Eleusis has been identified, while no indisputable candidate for a theatre anywhere ‘near’ the stadion has been presented.™ It is true that buildings sometimes disappear without leaving a trace, as has been shown above. On balance, however, the preferable view is that θέατρον in /G IT? 1682 is a reference to the seats in the stadion, and this interpretation is further strengthened by what is probably an analogous attestation of θέατρον referring to the auditorium of a stadion, viz., at Xen. Hell. 7.4.31.55 [n this passage Xenophon relates how, in 365 BC, a territorial conflict resulted in a veritable battle between an Eleian and an Arkadian army in the temenos of S0

51

52

53 54

55

2.551: ἀνέθηκε δὲ ᾿Ηρώδης ᾿Αθηναίοις xal τὸ ἐκὶ PryidAn θέατρον κέδρου ξυνθεὶς τὸν ὄρφον ... ("Herodes also dedicated to the Athenians the theatre in memory of Regilla, and he made its roof of cedar wood"; transl. by Wright in the Loeb). 2.571: EuveAéyovto μὲν δὴ ἐς τὸ ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ θέατρον, ὃ δὴ ἐκωνόμασται ᾿Αγριπκεῖον ... ("They were accordingly assembled in the Cerameicus, in the theatre which has been called the Agrippeion”: transl. by Wright in the Loeb, modified). On Pausanias' and Philostratos' use of theatron and odeion in connection with Athens, see Frazer (1898) II: 112 ad Paus. 1.14.1. with refs. Pausanias does not mention the Odeion of Herodes in book one, but at 7.20.6, when describing Patras, he states that the odeion in Athens is the most beautiful of all Greece, and that the reason why he did not mention it in book one was that it was not built when he finished book one. RE? V.2: 1384; Dilke (1948) 126 n. 3. Onhis plan of Eleusis, however, Travlos indicates the location of a possible theatre (sce above n. 14). The inscription (Appendix II no. 15) admittedly supports the view that there was a theatre in Eleusis. Fora study of this particular passage, see Krinzinger (1980).

The Greek Theatre

75

Olympia. His account provides us with a very detailed topographical description of the central area of the sanctuary, where the battle was fought; in this context the problem is how to understand the θέατρον which he mentions: ' Exei μέντοι κατεδίωξαν εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου xai τοῦ tfi; Εστίας ἱεροῦ xai τοῦ πρὸς ταῦτα προσήκοντος θεάτρου.56 There can be no doubt that θέατρον in this case, like the bouleuterion and the hieron of Hestia, is a topographically distinct edifice. But no theatre has been found in this area, or anywhere else in Olympia for that matter. Perhaps there was one, constructed of perishable materials; the first half of the fourth century BC is still in the early period of the monumentalising phase of the Greek theatre, and such a ‘primitive’ building would perhaps then have been a quite common sight; the theatre of Elis close

by, dating even later from ca. 300 BC, was in fact built in a 'primitive' way.?? Still it seems more probable that θέατρον is used here as a designation for stadion, a word, by the way, not used in the architectural sense by Xenophon at all. Moreover, the location of the old stadion fits the topography of Xenophon's narrative. If this is the correct interpretation we would in fact have an exact parallel to the preferable interpretation of

the inscription from Eleusis.58 To sum up. In the widest meaning of the word, θέατρον could be used about an odeion and parts of other buildings which were not theatres as we define them (e.g. a stadion). And we cannot rule out the possibility, even if we do not have evidence pointing in that direction, that θέατρον could exceptionally be used for other auditorium-structures, like ekklesiasteria and bouleuteria, as well as for locations which were not even buildings, but where theatrical activities took place.?? But that does not affect the conclusion that by far the majority of the references to a θέατρον are in fact references to theatres proper. A further argument for that is the fact that at those localities where written sources attest to the existence of a theatre and where physical remains of a theatre have been identified, those physical remains are regularly contemporary with the written sources. That is, only in about 10-15% of the instances is the written source older than the archaeological evidence. Combined with the fact that odeia and stadia — buildings to which θέατρον may on occasion refer — are not very common in the archaeological record, it seems a reasonable assumption that theatron almost always refers to theatres proper. I conclude that references to a θέατρον are to actual theatres in the architectural sense, which means that whenever such a reference can be connected with a specific locality we may conclude that this locality had a theatre in the usual architectural sense. The sources collected in Appendices II-III list that evidence. In at least 77 instances 56 57

“They then drove the enemy back to the space between the Council Hestia and the theatre nearby", transl. by Warner in Penguin Classics The kerkides of the theatre at Elis are without the usual rows of stone divided by ramps instead of regular stairways made of stone blocks. sopoulos-Leon and Pochmarski (1976—77) Abb.

58

59

House and the sanctuary of (modified). seats and they are moreover See TGR II: 207 and Mit-

17.

le.IG 11? 1682. A third example of θέατρον used in connection with a stadion is the inscription IG 112 351.17 (330/29 BC) from the Acropolis of Athens: ... τοῦ σταδ[ί)ον καὶ τοῦ θεάτρου τοῦ Παναθηίναϊ]κοῦ ... It is unclear what the exact meaning is. Bulle (1928) 74 suggested “das *Schauhaus' des panathenäischen Stadions,” whatever that means. A possible example of this is the situation at Rhamnous, if we accept that the θέατρον mentioned in /G II? 1311.7 is actually the semi-monumentalised structure found there (= Appendix IV no. 200).

76

Rune Frederiksen

there is in fact archaeological evidence of a theatre at localities at which written sources speak of theatra (cf. Fig. 1). The same presumably applies also at the 55 localities, where we have found no archaeological remains of theatres: the reason for lack of physical remains of these 55 theatres could be that a great part of them were in fact of the perishable ‘primitive’ or non-monumentalised types. An investigation of the localities in question show that this might have been the case in some instances, but the principal reason for the absence of archaeological evidence seems to be lack of research or modern topographical conditions. Of the 55 localities we lack an obvious explanation in only nine instances for why a theatre has not been found there, i.e. where we cannot adduce lack of investigation or modern topographical circumstances as an explanation for the absence of theatres.© Some of these nine localities undoubtedly had easily perishable theatres. An example may be the reference by Pausanias to the theatre at Abai in Phokis which is not found among the ruins there. Pausanias describes the theatre there as being of ‘ancient construction’.6! We cannot get more out of that description than that the theatre of Abai was of 'ancient construction’. Possibly it was built of wood, or perhaps it was a construction with an earth koilon. Pausanias actually uses the same

phrase

about the theatre at Elis (6.26.1), which

is constructed

in a

‘primitive’ way, as pointed out above.9? A further possibility is that some of the nine ‘theatres’ were non-monumentalised locations, where theatrical activities took place. Finally, we cannot, of course, preclude the remote possibility that a few of the structures referred to were not theatres but other types of monumental buildings. However, as the evidence is, I am confident that the 55 localities, attested in written sources only, did have theatres and thus can be added to the 251 localities with archaeologically attested theatres. The combined sources accordingly provide us with evidence of 306 theatres, the total number of theatres listed in Appendices II-IV.

IV. Regional Distribution of Theatres So far, the archaeological and written sources for the Greek theatre have been treated separately and without regard to geographical differences and factors. A useful way of getting an overview of this complex material is to set up a quantitative comparison of the groups of evidence, which at the same time is split up in geographical regions/areas of the Greek world. This has been done in Fig. 2. The numbers from the different areas should not be compared per se horizontally; the sources may not necessarily be comparable in that way. The value of the graph is primarily to serve as an indicator of possible differences in the nature of or possible biases in the sources for the different areas, which would show vertically. What the graph illustrates is that the quantities of 60

61

62

Pella, Tenos and Troizen are examples of localities with a high degree of investigation combined with a good topographical situation as they are not covered by modern towns (see Appendices IjIII for θέατρον attested at those communities). Paus. 10.35.4.: ABaioig δὲ ἔστι μὲν θέατρον, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀγορὰ σφισι, κατασκενῆς ἀμφότερα ἀρχαίας ("At Abae there is a theatre, and also ἃ market-place, both of ancient construction"; transl. by Jones in the Loeb). Seep. 75 with n. 57 above.

The Greek Theatre

77

attested theatres in the different areas follow more or less the same tendency in the three different categories of evidence. This is very important and indicates that we can trust the representational value of the sources on a general level. Notice for instance that both in Asia Minor and Central Greece the number of epigraphically attested theatres is around half the number of theatres found. In order to detect significant divergences we have to descend to the regional level. From Epeiros-Iliyricum there is almost no written evidence, while 20 theatres are attested by archaeology. This is the clearest instance of a discrepancy between the different groups of sources. We know from the general analysis presented above that, in order to get as close as possible to the original number of buildings, the theatres attested by archaeological remains have to be supplemented with theatres known from the written sources. Thus, if the focus is on this particular area we need to ask why there is no epigraphical evidence at all, and why the literary evidence is scarce. A similar discrepancy in the sources is found in Magna Graecia, Sicily and the Middle East, while areas like Macedonia and Thrace, Africa and the Black Sea raise no questions like that: the sources are here equally scarce and reflect, possibly, that the numbers of theatres in those areas were small. This can be said of the Chalkidian Peninsula, Crete, Cyprus, Lakedaimon, Messenia and Thessaly as well (this is not shown in Fig. 2 which only shows differences on a broader geographic level).

]. Representativeness of 6éatpov-references in literature There is an obvious bias in the theatrical references found in ancient historiography, which tends to focus on what happened in the larger poleis. A glance at the localities listed in Appendix III is enough to confirm this observation. One example is the absence of literary references to theatres in Epeiros-Illyricum, an area lying at the periphery of major events in the history of Greece. It is no surprise that the only reference is to a theatre in Ambrakia, the capital of Pyrrhos (Appendix III no. 10). It is also to be expected that different authors display individual bias. An obvious example is Pausanias, who for several reasons is the most important single source for this study. First of all, due to the unique nature of his work, he is the one author who provides us

with most of our direct references to theatres in central Greece and the Peloponnese.9? He is particularly important because of the account he gives of Phokis, where several theatres are listed, but where -- besides Delphi — remains of theatres have been found in one place only (Tithorea n. 3 above, cf. Appendix III no. 68). But Pausanias did not visit all of Greece. What would we know today about theatres in Aitolia, Akarnania, West Lokris and Epeiros-Illyricum if Pausanias had included a description of these regions in his work? Comparing the evidence for Epeiros with that for Phokis we must conclude

that, for Phokis,

it is the written sources

which

(because

of one

author)

provide us with our information whereas the physical remains of the theatres in Epeiros speak for themselves; it is unlikely that a visit by Pausanias there would have added much to what we know. Conversely, had he not visited Phokis, we would know next to nothing about theatres in that region. The example of Phokis shows that in regions where we have little or no archaeological evidence at all for theatres we cannot infer 63

Seen. 31 above.

78

Rune Frederiksen

that they did not have any. Other evidence will have to be considered before such a conclusion can be drawn.

2. Representativeness of Séatpov-references in inscriptions The term θέατρον occurs in inscriptions — almost exclusively decrees of various types - originating from 76 localities (see Fig. 1 and Appendix III). The contexts in which the term occurs fall into three major groups. The first is the stipulation that certain activities — coronations are very frequent — are to take place ἐν τῶι Ocátpox or εἰς τὸ θέατρον.δ΄ The second group is dominated by publication formulas prescribing that the inscription in question is to be set up in the θέατρον;55 while the third group consists of

accounts, dedications vel sim. The fact that the term θέατρον appears almost exclusively in decrees is crucial. We cannot, then, expect to find this kind of evidence at localities which did not pass decrees or did not publish them on durable materials. This observation alone immediately explains the lack of references of this kind in Epeiros, a region governed from a royal centre, and also in Magna Graecia and Sicily where the body of preserved inscriptions is small, partly because the poleis there had tbeir decrees inscribed on bronze tablets which have not survived to the same extent as decrees inscribed on stone. We simply have to accept the regional bias inherent in the epigraphical evidence. The next question is whether there is a further bias within the regions which have produced inscriptions. Obviously, there is a bias stemming from the simple fact that we have more extensive information about larger poleis than about smaller ones; many small poleis have not been located or have not been excavated, which of course means that generally speaking we lack epigraphical evidence from such localities. Indirect evidence does not seem to help us with this particular problem of possible biases because of the difference in degree of investigation between large and small sites. Nor

are many theatres attested by inscriptions published outside the issuing community,9? and those which are so attested were all located in well-known large poleis.

64 65

E.g. los, Appendix II no. 25; Kyme (Aiolis), Appendix II no. 34; and Olbia, Appendix II no. 50. Eg. Aixone (Attika), Appendix II no. 2; Magnesia at Maiandros, Appendix II no. 40; and Megalopolis, Appendix II no. 42.

66

E.g. Aphrodisias

67

Appendix II no. 56. The evidence of this kind is predominantly decrees where the publication formula prescribe that

(Karia), Appendix

II no. 9; Delos, Appendix

II no.

13; and Peiraieus (Zea),

the decree be inscribed on stone and set up in the theatre of the polis that issues the decree, and at

the same time that a copy be set up at a sanctuary, e.g. Delphi. Evidence at Delphi:

Athens

F.Delphes 111.2 86.28-29 (ca. 209 BC) and Chios F. Delphes 1Π.3 226.11—12 (date?). Evidence at

Delos: Teos /G X1.4 1061.23 (167 BC) and Athens /.Delos 1498.14 (160-150 BC); a honorific decree from Magnesia (/.Magnesia 91a.14—5) from 194 BC is another example, but in this case the copy we have is from the issuing polis Magnesia (the sequence containing the reference to ἃ θέατρον is restored: ..., τὰν δὲ E(u Μαγνησίαι ἐν θεάτροι ...] but the restoration is supported by

the fact that the inscription was found in the theatre at Magnesia).

The Greek Theatre

79

V. Theatres outside Polis-Towns

By and large every theatre was situated in a polis, either in the polis town itself or in the territory; but before I turn to the analysis of the theatre in polis towns, it has to be clarified to what extent theatres served the polis as such and to what extent they served communities of a different kind, either above or below polis level, i.e. were they erected (a) in sanctuaries of Panhellenic or regional significance, and (b) by a second-

order settlement situated in the territory of a polis, such as an Attic deme? Re (a) A handful of theatres are found at large well-known extra-urban sanctuaries:

the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia, the sanctuary of the Kabirioi at Thebes in Boiotia, the sanctuary of Leto at Xanthos, the sanctuary in the Valley of the Muses at Thespiai and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos.® In the first four cases, it is certain that the theatres were constructed as part of the sanctuaries and were intended to meet the needs of festival assemblies: the poleis which controlled these theatres (Epidauros, Korinthos, Thebes and Xanthos) had their

own city theatre to be used for the local needs of the poleis as opposed to the sanctuaries. The same is probably true of the latter two, although city theatres are not attested in the polis towns of Thespiai and Oropos. Some theatres are found at sanctuaries situated close to the urban centre of the polis and closely connected with it, e.g. the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodone and the sanctuary of the Kabirioi at Samothrake. These three theatres were just as much sanctuary theatres as the ones mentioned above, but may at the same time have served the nearby polis. The sanctuaries at Dodone, Delphi, Epidauros, Isthmia and to some degree the Amphiareion were Panhellenic. The sanctuaries at Kabirion, the Valley of the Muses and Samothrake were of a more regional character, though this distinction is sometimes not an easy one to make. It is beyond doubt, however, that these theatres were used primarily for activities connected with the sanctuary rather than with the polis to which

the sanctuary belonged.” Re (b) Other theatres are situated in demes and other second-order settlements of

poleis. The bulk of our evidence concerns some of the Athenian demes:

Aixone,

Eleusis, Euonymon, Ikarion, Peiraieus, Rhamnous, Thorikos and Sphettos."? Similar examples outside Attika are: Halasarna, a deme of Kos;’! Lepsia, a second-order

settlement in the territory of Miletos;’? Mykenai, which was incorporated into Argos in 468 BC; Apollonia, the harbour of Kyrene;”? the village-sanctuary of Lagina/Hierakome which was a deme of Stratonikeia;’* Kastabos (Hemithea), a sanctuary attached 68

70

The sanctuary of Asklepios is situated 9 km from Epidauros polis. Isthmia is 9 km from Korinthos, Kabirion 10 km from Thebes, Letoon 4 km from Xanthos, the Sanctuary of the Muses 8 km from Thespiai and the Amphiareion 3 km from Oropos. For example it is quite doubtful that the theatre in the sanctuary of Thespiai served as the general assembly place for the polis of Thespiai, given the rather long distance between Thespiai and the sanctuary. Seen. 92.

7|

Theatre: TGR Il: 150; deme-status:

72 73 74

Theatron ca. 169 BC: Appendix Il no. 39; deme-status: inferred from the inscription. Cf. Goodchild (1971). Theatron references perhaps hinting at Stratonikeia, cf. Isler (1997) 556. Deme-status: (1971) 98.

69

Sherwin- White (1978) 61ff.

Bean

80

Rune Frederiksen

to the Rhodian deme Bybasos;?? the sanctuary of Apollo at Kastanioi, a deme of lalysos.’6 This short treatment shows to what extent theatres were constructed by other institutions than the polis. That major sanctuaries had theatres is hardly surprising. More significant is the evidence from the Athenian demes, which is impressive in comparison with evidence from demes of other poleis, but not particularly impressive considering the high number of Athenian demes (8 theatres in 139 demes). The conclusion seems to be that second-order settlements built theatres only to a modest extent, at least when compared with the numbers of theatres built by poleis, to which I shall now turn.

VI. The Theatre in the Greek Polis

Why were theatres more common in some regions than in others? And which factors would motivate a community to build a theatre? Apart from the pretty obvious explanation for a low number of theatres in a given area, namely that the number of poleis in the area was lower than in the other areas of Greece, we must stress differences in the importance of the activities that took place in the theatre as a very logical explanation of the otherwise surprisingly uneven regional distribution of theatres. A discussion of such factors may help us to shed some light on the interesting observation that, in regions where the theatre is often found, far from every polis had a theatre. The follow-

ing factors may be relevant in this context: (1) Activities resulting in gatherings of people and connected with the working of the polis: religious festivals, first of all the dramatic, and the secular meetings of political and administrative character. (2) Significant population numbers, i.e. the size of the group of people who visited the theatre during dramatic festivals, a group which was not co-extensive with the entire population; but in many poleis it may have numbered thousands and this in itself would require a theatre for gatherings.

(3) An ability to raise sufficient funds for constructing such a building.'$ 1. The use of the theatre. A political or religious building? It is important to distinguish between the two basic kinds of activity for which the theatre was used, viz. drama and politics. Both types of activity were typical of the 75

Theatre: TGR III: 489. Deme-status: Cook and Plommer (1966) 8.

76

Theatre TGR II: 281. Deme-status (Erethima): RE Suppl. V: 749.

77 78

Cf.Kolb (1984) 133. Major architectural undertakings of a polis do not necessarily reflect the resources which the given polis was able to muster. Sometimes public architecture was constructed with financial aid from the outside (cf. Morgan and Coulton (1997] 104). Though such external donations towards the construction of a theatre are known - e.g. from Megalopolis, where the proedria and the euripos (τὸν ὀχετόν) were donated by the famous athlete Antiochos of Lepreon (Dilke [1948] 168-9) — it seems reasonable to assume that in general the construction of a theatre should be considered an undertaking by the polis in or at which it is found, both in the Classical and the Hellenistic period.

The Greek Theatre

81

Greek polis and we have no difficulty in thinking of the theatre as the architectural frame for both. While scholars previously emphasised the dramatic performances, recent research has put more focus on the fact that many political meetings were held in

the theatre.’? In Athens, meetings of the ekklesia and other secular activities sometimes took place in the theatre immediately before or after the dramatic performances,®° apparently to take advantage of the opportunity provided by having a great number of citizens assembled during the festival. But normally the two types of meeting were held separately and presumably regarded as belonging to separate spheres. Obviously, in some poleis, especially those governed by a tyrant, theatres may have been used for dramatic activities only. Thus, we must ask two important questions about the use of the theatre: first, whether we are able to connect the building with one of the two types of activity rather than the other, and, second, whether the dominant activity determined the erection of the building. Answers to these questions may offer a new approach to the identification and interpretation of theatre buildings in the poleis. It is with good reason that the theatre has traditionally been understood as an architectural edifice constructed for drama and, accordingly, primarily as part of a sanctuary used for dramatic festivals. But recent research has suggested that theatres were in fact used first of all for political meetings and therefore constructed to meet the demands of such meetings. Further, there has been an emphasis recently on drama as the perhaps most important form of political discourse which has opened the way for seeing the political functions as equally or perhaps even more important than the

religious and ceremonial functions.5! We must analyse the evidence more thoroughly in order to determine whether the political and religious functions were separated and,

if so, which function was the more important.®2 The traditional view — that the theatre is monumental religious architecture? — is based primarily on the Athenian evidence. Here the dramatic activities were connected

with the worship of Dionysos™ during various festivals,8 of which τὰ Διονύσια tà ἐν ἄστει took place in the theatre located in the temenos of Dionysos Eleutherios.96 But Athens and a few other major poleis had separate buildings for political meetings of the people -- which was quite uncommon - and a religious function and significance of theatres in such poleis may, accordingly, more easily be identified or, at least, postulated. Conversely, lack of specific evidence for specialised assembly buildings in most poleis easily leads to the assumption that the theatre was the only frequently found 79

Fora list of evidence about ekklesiai in the theatre, see above n. 6 (Kolb [1981] and Hansen and Fischer-Hansen [1994]).

80 81

Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 44 with n. 82 (with further refs.). For the political significance of drama in Athens, see e.g. Zaidman and Pantel (1992) 109.

82

See Hansen

and Fischer-Hansen

(1994) 53, and Kolb (1981) 90; (1984)

134, respectively,

for

opposed views on this issue. 83

E.g. Dinsmoor (1950) 38.

84

Bieber (1961) Iff.; Sourvinou-Inwood (1994) 269ff.

85

The Anthesteria, the Lenaia and the Great Dionysia, cf. Pickard-Cambridge (1968); Cole (1993)

86

25f. Τῆς sources for dramatic Dionysiac festivals and their connection to the theatre are extensive at Athens. Some central treatments are: Pickard-Cambridge (1946); Bieber

Cambridge (1968) 57ff.; Rehm (1992) Parker (1996) 79.

(1961) 51ff.; Cf. Pickard-

12-19. Religious significance of ta Διονύσια, cf. e.g.

82

Rune Frederiksen

assembly

building in middle-sized and small poleis and that it served as a multi-

functional assembly building.3’ If we conclude that generally the theatre was multifunctional, we must ask whether the religious character of the theatre as a building was

still prominent.88 From one point of view the theatres from the rest of Greece can be interpreted like the theatre in Athens: they are all equipped with scene buildings, which unambiguously indicates the building's use for dramatic activities and proves that the theatres were constructed

(or rebuilt) as centres for dramatic

festivals. That, of course,

strongly

supports the interpretation of the theatre as a religious building in general terms; but in a study like the present we cannot stop here: (1) the presence of a scenebuilding is not at all incompatible with the well-attested use of the theatre for other types of assembly; and they may well have been more ‘important’ for the community than the dramatic festivals which only occupied the theatre a few days a year. They may even have been so important that it was the political, and not the dramatic activities, which, at some localities, had been the reason for the erection of a theatre;9? (2) furthermore: it is clear that the scenebuilding was used for performance; but does that performance necessarily have to be dramatic and linked to Dionysos, and therefore religious? Meetings of the ekklesia in the theatre are documented at a few dozen poleis (at the most); more frequent are sources attesting that some theatres were part of the public space and to some extent had a function similar to that of the agora. This is indicated, e.g., by the many examples we have of the theatre being used as a place to publish public messages (numerous examples in Appendix II). But none of the above mentioned public and politica! activities can be said to be confined to the theatre -- they took place elsewhere too, either at the agora, in sanctuaries, or in specialised buildings of various kind. If dramatic activities too were as randomly connected with the theatre as political activities, we will not be able to classify the building as built primarily for one type of activity. The spread of dramatic activities throughout Greece has been discussed on a number of occasions,?! and it proves that dramatic performances constituted an integral element of Greek culture. But we must compare the evidence for dramatic activity with the evidence for theatre buildings in a more direct way if we want to investigate whether it was dramatic activities which motivated communities to erect a theatre. Starting with Attika, we have direct or indirect proof of dramatic activities in seventeen 87 88

Wycherley (1962) 119. ltisquestionable whether it is really possible to separate the religious Wycherley [1962] 87): from one point of view practically all activities take place in a religious sphere. But we still conclude that there existed rather than sacred, and, accordingly, architecture connected with such

from the secular sphere (cf. of the polis could be said to activities that were secular activities, e.g. bouleuteria

and ekklesiasteria, is defined as monumental political architecture (Hansen and Fischer-Hansen

89 90 91

[1994] 52). This is the main argument of Kolb (1981) 90. Cf.n. 6 above. E.g. Pickard-Cambridge (1946) 240ff, Bieber (1961) 87, 129ff, Mette (1977); Cole (1993) n. 37; from the late 4th cent. we have attestations of large scale festivals incorporating thousands of performers from 'all Greece' (e.g. a great festival held at Ekbatana arranged by Alexander the Great [Plut. Alex. 72; Arr. Anab. 7.14], and a festival at Antigoneia arranged by Antigonos [Diod. 20.108]). See also nn. 97 and 98, respectively, for the evidence of theatrical activity at locations with and locations without attestations of theatres.

The Greek Theatre

83

demes,?? of which eight or nine have provided us with remains of a theatre (five-six

demes) or references to a θέατρον (three demes).?? Only Euonymon, Peiraieus and Thorikos had real monumental theatres, while Ikarion and Rhamnous were furnished with semi-monumental structures. Such structures could very well remain covered in the other demes, where dramatic activities are attested; but that does not help us any further at the moment; looking at the available evidence it seems that we will have to conclude that in Attika dramatic performances were not necessarily linked to a building. Expanding the investigation to other regions of Greece, we reach a different conclusion. By and large the general evidence for dramatic activities matches the evidence of theatres. The celebration of τὰ Διονύσια in the theatre is documented in inscriptions and the literature at numerous localities (e.g. Eretria, Iasos, loulis (Keos],

Magnesia, Oliaros, Peiraieus, Phigaleia, Siphnos, Taras, Tenos, Teos and Thasos),?* while many other sources testify to the existence of dramatic activities at numerous

localities where we have also found theatres, or where a theatre is documented by a

reference to a 8éatpov.?5 These sources comprise mention of Διονυσιακοὶ ἀγῶνες, 92

(1) Acharnai: θέατρον attested (cf. Appendix II no. 1); /G II? 3106: choregos of dithyrambos and

komoidia, ca. 350 BC, presumably local; (2) Aigilia: /G II? 3096: choregos, before 350 BC, local

contests?; (3) Aixone: /G II? 1202.15: komoidia (313/2 BC); (4) Anagyrous: /G IP 3101.2-3: local choregos, ca. 350 BC; (5) Eleusis: θέατρον attested (cf. Appendix II no. 15); /G II? 1186.12-13: dithyrambos, ca. 350 BC; ibid. 6-7: Dionysia; komoidia attested in /G II? 3100.2, presumably at Eleusis (ca. 350 BC); (6) Euonymon: theatre = TGR II: 311—12; (7) Halai Araphenides: AE 1932 Chr. 30-2 1I. 20-4: proedria: (8) Ikarion: theatre = TGR II: 199; /G I? 186/7.B.32-4: choregos and

tragoidia, 5th cent. BC; (9) Kephale: theatre (9) reported by Wheler (1723) 260; (10) Kollytos: komoidia at rural Dionysia: Aeschin. ἐπ Tim. 157: κρώην ἐν toig κατ᾽ ἀγροὺς Διονυσίοις κωμῳδῶν ὄντων ἐν Κολλυτῷ (346/5 BC); (11) Myrrhinous: /G II? 1183.36—7: Dionysia in the month of Poseideon; IG 11? 1182.2-3 proedria in theatre (?), ca. 350 BC; (12) Paiania: /G II? 3097: choregos of tragoidiai, ca. 350 BC, possibly local; (13) Peiraieus: theatres = TGR II: 276 (4th? cent. BC) ἃ TGR Il: 277-278 (2nd cent. BC); /G II? 1214.19-20 (= Appendix II no. 55, 300-250

BC): Dionysia in the (early) theatre; (14) Phlya: rural Dionysia, 4th cent. BC: Isae. 8.15 (inferred from context); (15) Rhamnous:

theatre = TGR II: 221; 1G 1I? 3108: komoidiai, 4th cent. BC (?);

93

(16) Sphettos (?): θέατρον, see Appendix II no. 69; (17) Thorikos: theatre = TGR II: 308-9. Some of the choregic monuments (Acharnai, Aigilia and Paiania) may refer to the City Dionysia. For a discussion of this and the rural Dionysia in general, with refs. to evidence for dramatical performances in the demes, see Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 42ff.; Deubner (1969) 134-8; and Whitehead (1986) 212ff. Cf. Wiles (1997) 23-34, who reaches the number of 14 demes with theatres.

94

Eretria: /G XII.9 207.25-26 (294-288

95

599.8-9 (2nd cent. BC); Magnesia on Maiandros: /. Magnesia 50.41—42; Oliaros: Appendix If no. 51; Peiraieus: Appendix II no. 55; Phigaleia: Appendix III no. 50; Siphnos: Appendix II no. 66; Taras: Appendix III no. 64; Tenos: Appendix Il no. 70; Teos (from Delos): 10 X1.4 1061.24 (172167 BC); Thasos: Appendix I] no. 73. According to Cole (1993) 29 the evidence from decrees proclaiming coronations testifies to the celebration of xà Διονύσια in the theatre in well over 40 cities. Aigiale (Amorgos): /G XII.7 386.35—6 (3rd cent. BC), θέατρον (Appendix II no. 4); Aigina: JG IV

BC); Iasos: Appendix

II no. 23; Ioulis (Keos):

1.41 (158-144 BC), theatre (TGR II: 203); Arkesine (Amorgos):

/G X11.5

/G XII.7 41.3 (2nd cent. BC),

θέατρον (Appendix II no. 5); los: 10 XII.5 1010.2-3 (3rd cent. BC), θέατρον (Appendix II no. 25); Kos: /scr. Cos ED 234.9-10 (3rd cent. BC), θέατρον Appendix II no. 33); Hephaistia (Lemnos):

/G 112 1223.8-9 (after

167 BC) theatre (TGR II: 249); Minoa

(Amorgos):

/G XIL7

221.B.16 (2nd cent. BC) θέατρον (Appendix II no. 6); Mykenai: SEG 3 312.11-12 (200 BC), theatre (TGR II: 265); Orchomenos (Arkadia): SEG 11 1104 (4th-3rd cents. BC), theatre (TGR II: 229); Paros: iG XII.S 129.33—4 (2nd cent. BC) theatre (TGR II: 271); Tegea: IG V.2 118.V1.30

84

Rune Frederiksen

references to festivals which included the performance of κωμῳδίαι or τραγῳδίαι, honours bestowed on a χορηγός, or the like. Of course, there are exceptions, where

attested dramatic activity does not go hand in hand with evidence of a theatre: one example is Opous in East Lokris where dramatic activity is indirectly documented by the presence of Dionysiac actors in the second century BC (/G IX.1 278.2-3). Another

example is Korkyra.”’ The nature of the evidence raises an important question: perhaps large scale information about the secular activities and information about dramatic activities from a number of localities have not come down to us. Concerning the latter we can get a little further by looking at evidence from Delphi, e.g. the (city- and regional) ethnics recorded in the lists of artists and performers at the Delphic Soteria in the third century.?® Now the origin of an artist from a locality does not necessarily prove dramatic activity at that locality,” but I nonetheless consider it to be not too farfetched circumstantial evidence for a dramatic tradition in at least the majority of the localities listed. The ratio of such localities to localities with attested theatres appearing in the Soteria lists is 1:3. That is admittedly something, but not enough to change the general impression that the spread of theatrical activity fits the spread of the theatre buildings, and therefore that there is a link between dramatic performances and theatres. This is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, it may be concluded that dramatic activities were less popular in regions where we find a few or no theatres (to some extent: the Black Sea, Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, Lakedaimon, Messenia, and in (3rd cent. BC), theatre (TGR II: 270); Thera: /G XU.3 322.10 (2nd cent. BC) theatre (TGR II: 289);

96 97

Thespiai: /G VII 1869.5—6 (date?) theatre (TGR 11: 307). Similar evidence, not presented here, can be found in numerous other poleis and sanctuaries, e.g.: Epidauros, Korinthos, Sparta, Megalopolis, Messene, Larisa, Mesambria and Olbia. Cf. Cole (1993) 30. See /G IX.1 694.4, an inscription of the third century BC. Yet more examples of dramatic activity at localities where no theatre is attested: Andros: /G XII.5 714.10-11 (3rd?-cent. BC decree on coronation during-) ... Διονυσί]οις τραγωιδῶν τῶι dydvi...; Astypalaia: /G XII.3 169.16-17 (date?); Eresos: /G ΧΙ1.2 527.33—35 (221-205 BC, Dionysiac festivals); Cole (1993) 30 refers to the existence of a theatre at Eresos on account of the same inscription. This is probable, since there is a mention of προεδρία (Il. 34-5) which could very likely be in a theatre; Imbros: /G XTI.8 53.17-18 (2nd cent. BC); Kartheia: /G XII.5 1061.14 (264 BC decree on coronation during-) ...

98

Διονυσίοις τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν τραγωιδῶν ...; Chalkis: [6 XII.9 899. col. Cl (2nd cent. BC); the claim by Cole (1993) 31-2 that a theatre in Chalkis is attested in epigraphical sources can be challenged, cf. Veyne (1985) 624; Peparethos: /G XII.8 640.32 (2nd cent. AD); Salamis: /G H-III 1008.82 (119/8 BC decree on coronation during:) ... Διονυσιῶν [τ]ῶν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι τραγῳδῶν τῷ ἀγῶνι. See also the evidence from Attika presented in n. 92. The compilation presented below is based on four inscriptions and the poleis for which we have no attestation of a theatre are marked with an asterisk: SGD/ 2563-66, dating from 272-227/6 BC: Abdera (Thrace), Abydos (Mysia), Aigina, Aitolia, Akarnania, Achaia, Ambrakia, Argos, Arkadia, Bosporos, Byzantion, Chalkidike, Chios, Epeiros, Ephesos, *Gargara (Epeiros (Steph. Byz.] or Troas), (H)elaia (Aiolis), Herakleia (2), *Hermione (Argolis), *Histiaia (Euboia), Kassandreia, Keos, Kephallenia, Kleitor, Knidos, Korinthos, Lakedaimon, *Kynaitha (Arkadia), Kyrene, *Kythera, Megara, Messene, Miletos, Naukratis, *Opous, *Pellene, Philippi. *Poteidaia, Rhodos, Salamis, Samos, Sikyon, *Sinope (Paphlagonia), Taras, Tegea, Tenos, Thessalia, Troizen and *Zakynthos. The texts are discussed in e.g. Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 283f.

99

There are many reasons for not linking a person to the region or polis which his ethnic refers to. The only thing that the ethnic shows is where a person is a citizen. This is often the place where he was born and where he lived, but it is exactly at this point we face problems: artists travelled around, and many probably left their home polis for good.

The Greek Theatre

85

particular: Crete, Cyprus and the Chalkidian Peninsula). Next we must conclude, as the evidence for political activities is not as extensive and not as exclusively linked to the localities with theatres as the dramatic activities, that the theatre, in regions where it is frequently found, was built primarily for the purpose of dramatic performance.!99 We ought to check with other circumstances surrounding the theatre in order to find out whether they might support the conclusions that the theatre was first of all a religious building erected for the purpose of dramatic activity and the more farreaching conclusion that the spread of the theatre mirrors the spread of dramatic activity. Given the situation in Athens, where the theatre is part of the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleutherios, the location of other theatres may be investigated in order to check

whether they are similarly located.!?! Some theatres are clearly built within the borders of sanctuaries, both in urban centres of poleis and in extra-urban sanctuaries. Obvious examples, apart from Athens, are the Panhellenic sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, where the theatre is located inside the temenos, and Aigeira where the theatre is located inside the temenos of the urban sanctuary of Zeus.!% At Delos neither of the two theatres is located within the area of the central sanctuary. It would be wrong to infer, however, that they were not part of a sanctuary: the small cult-theatre is located inside the

Sanctuary of the Syrian Goddess,!?? while the larger one, to be found in the middle of a habitation quarter, is located close to several minor temene situated in the immediate vicinity, an indication that this theatre too was part of a sanctuary. The following examples show the wide range of the location of theatres in relation to sanctuaries: (a) Urban

outside

a temenos:

Elis, close to sanctuary

of Dionysos

(TGR

II: 207);

Megalopolis, close to sanctuary of Dionysos and clearly connected to it somehow (Paus. 8.32.1-3). (b) Sub- or extra-urban sanctuaries inside a temenos: Dodone, sanctuary of Zeus (TGR

II: 200-2); Isthmia, sanctuary of Poseidon (TGR II: 224—6);!9* Kalymna, sanctuary of Apollo at Linaria (TGR II: 144); Oropos, sanctuary of Amphiaraos (TGR Il: 227-8); Thespiai, sanctuary of the Muses (TGR II: 307); Thebes, sanctuary of the

Kabirioi (TGR II: 306); Samothrake, sanctuary of the Kabirioi (TGR II: 288); (c) Sub- or extra-urban sanctuaries outside a temenos: Dion, sanctuary of Dionysos (TGR II: 196); Epidauros, sanctuary of Asklepios (TGR II: 208-10). (d) We can list a number of urban theatres with many different topographical contexts. Sometimes close to or actually part of the agora (e.g. Byllis, Elis, Lokroi Epiz100 Another argument for the assumption that the theatre was first of all a monument built for the dramatic purpose is the size of theatres, which very often implies high numbers of audience compared to the numbers expected to take part in an ekklesia. Sec Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 53, followed by Morgan and Coulton (1997) 114.

101

Kolb (1981) 88ff.. correctly refers to the topographical relationship between agora and theatre, but he pushes this issue too far in favour of the political interpretation of the theatre. It is true that the agora is the political centre of the polis, but it is also the commercial and religious centre. This does not weaken Kolb's position that the theatre was primarily of political significance, but we have to consider this topographical argument as circumstancial. 102 See TGR 1I: 188-90 and 204—5 respectively. 103 Cf. Will (1985) PI. A. 104 Tomlinson (1976) 95 notes that the theatre probably was considered to be "well away from the most strictly sacred area."

86

Rune Frederiksen

ephyrioi, Mantinea, Metapontion, Morgantina and Tegea);!05 sometimes elsewhere in the centre of the built up area (e.g. Priene) and sometimes more in the outskirts of the urban area within or immediately outside the city walls (e.g. Abdera, Kassope, Miletos).

When a theatre is found in connection with a sanctuary, it seems normally to have been placed next to the sanctuary, rather than actually in it,!% i.e. outside the temenos. There is a tendency, however, that theatres of extra-urban sanctuaries are more often located inside the temenos. Precise knowledge about the topography is often poor, but it seems reasonable to assume that if, as a rule, the theatre was situated inside a sanctuary in the many poleis we would have found more evidence for it. A concomitant explanation for the frequent urban location is the fact that the theatre was used for several different types of assembly associated with the urban centre, which often resulted in an urban location! even in cases where an extra-urban location would otherwise be expected. The variable location of the theatres in relation to the temene

and to the many different urban areas of the polis as such,!® is easily explained by the fact that the monumental theatre is a late comer among the monumentalised Greek building types,!9? and not easily fitted into the urban architectonical complexes of late Classical and Hellenistic Greece. There is no doubt that the theatre itself was sometimes regarded as a sanctuary, but since the evidence for this is not particularly abundant, we cannot generalise and interpret the building as such as sacred.! !? It seems, then, that no unambiguous support for the religious interpretation of the theatre can be

drawn from the study of theatrical topography.!!! The close relation between the theatre and Dionysos, as we find it in Athens, undoubtedly supports the religious interpretation of the theatre. The connection elsewhere between sanctuaries of Dionysos and theatres is not consistent, as is also

demonstrated in the list above p. 85, but it is on the other hand dominating.!!? The Dionysiac connection is, furthermore, found in the dedications of theatres to the god.! ? 105 For more examples, see Kolb (1981) 88. Cf. Wycherley (1962) 163. 106 Tomlinson (1976) 41.

107 Wycherley (1962) 163. 108 Cf. Wycherley (1962) 162. 109 Cf. Schachter (1992) 49. Dinsmoor (1950) 38 suggests that the theatre should be defined among the group of earlier monumental Greek religious architecture with close affinities to the temenos, and states at the same time that the secular public architecture is a later phenomenon. There is no doubt that the theatre, from a topographical point of view, belongs in the group of later secular architecture. 110 Atan entrance to the theatre at Magnesia on the Maiandros the audience was met with the message Ὅρος ἱεροῦ (1. Magnesia 233, 1st cent. BC). 111 Pausanias states that lack of topographical separation between sanctuaries and habitation quarters was characteristic for the organisation of the Greek cities, at the point where he describes Tanagra. which is apparently an exception because the sanctuaries there, including the theatre, are clearly separated from the habitation area (9.22.2). 112 Wycherley (1962) 88: "The theatre was the shrine of Dionysos," and 161. A firm and consistent relation between Dionysos and the theatre is frequently assumed by the earlier scholarly literature, cf. e.g. Kern in RE? V: 880. 113 E.g. Epidauros (the polis): TGR Il: 213; Morgantina: koilon or part of it dedicated to Dionysos, cf. Mitens (1988) 107; Orchomenos (Arkadia): SEG 11 1104, dedication to Dionysos (inscribed on proedria-bench); Rhamnous: dedication of stone seats (Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 53); Tegea: SEG

The Greek Theatre

87

Good albeit indirect evidence for the connection of Dionysos to the theatre is provided by the guilds of Dionysiac actors, τὰ κοινὰ τῶν Atovuctaxóv τεχνιτῶν, attested in

several areas of Greece from the third century and later.!!^ The guilds seem to emerge at the same time that the numbers of theatres explode all over Greece. That, of course, indicates that the drama to a great extent took place in the sphere of Dionysos. In the Hellenistic period there is a rapidly increasing amount of evidence for other festivals

than those in honour of Dionysos. An interesting inscription from Eretria!!5 refers to Dionysia at Karystos, Eretria, Chalkis and Oreos, Demetrieia at Oreos and Aristonikeia

at Karystos.!!6 That the theatre both in earlier and later periods was the architectural frame for all kinds of festivals is also attested in the sources; an example is the celebration of the Hyakinthia in Sparta in honour of Apollo which involved the theatre (Ath. 139e).!!? The theatre as the exclusive domain of Dionysos could perhaps be claimed in the early Classical period, but is not possible for the Hellenistic period, when we find most theatres. The Dionysiac connection with drama is indisputable, but a broad conclusion must be that the theatre was a building no longer dedicated to Dionysos, but to any of the Olympian gods, as well as to the Muses, to heroes, or to kings, etc. Indeed, it seems as if the erection of a theatre first of all was motivated by the drama. If this is correct we must conclude that people living in regions with few or no theatres did not cherish dramatic activities to the same extent as people living in regions where remains of theatres abound. This is of course very important, but we have to keep in mind that it is problematic to argue e silentio. It may be argued that, for small and remote localities, the lack of sources for activities going on in a theatre does not reflect reality, especially since the evidence from Attika points in the opposite

direction.!!$ 2-3. The theatre.

A monument of the large polis?

As mentioned above, the location of theatres reveals not only important differences between the various regions of Greece. It also testifies to important differences within a region. In regions in which theatres abound the theatre is not found in every polis, and it seems worth while to investigate in which poleis theatres were constructed. Such an investigation would help us to obtain a more nuanced picture of the distribution of 11 1070 dedication to Dionysos (inscribed on theatre seat) (350-300 BC); Thasos: the proskenion dedicated to Dionysos TGR II: 303; dedications to other gods are also found (e.g. the Charites, the scene building of the theatre at Boiotian Orchomenos, TGR II: 268-9). 114 Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 279ff. Cf. n. 97 above. 115 Pickard-Cambridge (1968) appendix to ch. VII no. 1 (/G XII.9 207 and p. 179; /G XII Suppl. p. 178). 116 On these festivals see Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 281 with refs.

117 Other examples of festivals in the honour of other gods or mythological figures in theatres: Abdera: festival of Andromedeia (Lucian, Hist. conscr. 1.22); Delos: festival of Apollo (e.g. IG ΧΙ. 4 542.30 300-281

BC); Minoa (Amorgos):

festival of the Hekatombaia (IG XII.7 237.42 2nd

cent. BC): Tenos: festival of Poseidon and Dionysos (IG X11.5 831.19—20 2nd cent. BC). For more examples see Mette (1977).

118 It is significant, however, that none or very few of the dernes yielding evidence for theatres or of dramatic activity are to be put in the category of small demes, Whitehead (1986) 213.

88

Rune Frederiksen

theatres and to get further than just concluding that some regions seem to have cherished dramatic activities more than others. The factors of population size and financial ability clearly point in the direction that the theatre was a monument of larger poleis rather than smaller. It is an obvious thought that there must have existed a connection between the size of a polis and the building of a theatre;''? but before we attempt to prove that it actually was so, we will have to define what a large polis is. This issue has been discussed recently by M.H. Hansen!?? who lists a number of different factors which may allow us to classify a polis as great or small. Thus, a polis which could muster a large number of hoplites was in a sense large, but might have a smaller urban centre than another polis which was capable of mustering only half as many hoplites. It is clear that many factors have to be taken into account. From one point of view the Greek world from the Crimea to the Pillars of Herakles was one civilisation, with a lot of common characteristics, but it was

also a world that offered very different conditions for organising a polis. So a study matching the sizes of poleis with the presence of theatres makes sense only if confined to individual landscapes or regions, where comparable factors to some extent are expected to be present. On this basis, perhaps, one can arrive at a general judgement. (a) Boiotia

At different times in the Archaic and Classical periods there existed in Boiotia some 27 poleis altogether plus a number of other settlements.!?! In the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (19.2—4) we have some very interesting information about the hierarchy of these poleis and other settlements in Boiotia, relating to the beginning of the fourth century. At that time the Boiotian poleis formed a federation organised into 11 units of which each supplied 1 Boiotarch to the federal government, 60 councillors to the federal boule, and 1,000 hoplites and 100 horse to the federal army. The 11 units formed 6 groups in the following way: Thebes with all its dependencies controlled four units alone, Orchomenos and Thespiai with their dependencies two units each, Tanagra one, whereas two sets of three small poleis formed one unit each. Fig. 3 is a graph of that 6-unit system. The system undoubtedly reflects the size of population and the power of the cities. At the heavy end we find Thebes, Orchomenos and Thespiai, the most important poleis of Boiotia, each providing more than one Boiotarch.

119 Of course the element of display was present and resulted in the construction of buildings which were larger and more elaborate than necessary, for example in small rich cities which perhaps built a larger theatre than necessary, simply because it showed status, both internally for the liturgical class as against the other citizens, and externally for the polis that constructed the theatre as against neighbouring poleis with smaller theatres or perhaps no theatres at all. But I would not wish to overestimate the element of display even if the theatre is to be interpreted as a religious building. Of course the element of display was present, but in my opinion it could not determine whether a theatre was to be built. A theatre was an expensive undertaking. But when it was constructed I tend to believe that its degree of monumentalisation was more or less directly linked to the general wealth

of the community

which

built

it. Cf.

Hansen

and

Fischer-Hansen

(1994)

23

n. 2 on

monumentality of the theatre. In my study Frederiksen (2000) 157, I argue that the more elaborate types of theatre building are always found at large poleis or sanctuaries. [20 Hansen (1997) 25ff.

121

Hansen (1996) 73-116.

The Greek Theatre

89

The theatres found up to this date in Boiotia are also shown in Fig. 3.!?? They are not dated to the beginning of the fourth century BC, when this system was in operation;

some belong later in the century while some are not dated with certainty.!?? It is interesting to note, however, first, that the theatre is found only in or in connection with

poleis which are listed as having a direct share in the federal organisation;!?* second, only one theatre appears in each group, and no group is without a theatre. This distribution confirms the impression that the units were formed around the larger poleis with one large polis as the core of each. The theatres could have been used for political gatherings in connection with the working of the confederacy, though precisely how remains unknown. What the pattern indicates is that the most powerful poleis, i.e. those with the largest population, highest financial ability etc. just happened to have theatres, used for whatever purposes. In Boiotia the theatre is found exclusively in the larger poleis and sanctuaries.!? The information from this region fits the assumption stated above, i.e. that the theatre is not a typical building in the urban centre of the polis, but a building typical of the larger poleis. We cannot complain about lack of sources: Pausanias visited Boiotia, many inscriptions have come to light from the region; in both these groups of sources evidence for theatres at minor localities could have appeared and the inference is that we may well know about all the theatres of the Classical period. (b) Arkadia

A similar judgement can be made about the occurrence of theatres in Arkadia. Fig. 4 is a list of the most important Arkadian poleis and the different types of source which illustrate the hierarchical relation among them. In a decree dated to the 360s a list of

damiorgoi from some Arkadian poleis is given;!?$ their function is unknown,!?? but commenting on the problem of how to interpret the distribution of damiorgoi among

poleis, J. Roy states that "it suggests some very rough form of representation".!?8 122 The theatre in the sanctuary of the Kabirioi at Thebes as well as the epigraphically attested theatre at Akraiphia are not shown, as they date to the Hellenistic period (see Heyder and Mallwitz [1978] 63 and Appendix II no. 3 respectively). 123 Debatable cases are: Koroneia, Thebes and Thespiai. The existence of a theatre at Koroneia is very probable but not yet verified by excavation (Frazer [1898] V: 170; Burn [1949] 316). Few remains

of a theatre in Thebes are attested, vaguely dated to Classical times (Symeonoglou [1985] 139), but very conveniently supported by literary evidence (Appendix IH no. 66). The theatre in the sanctuary of the Muses at Thespiai is dated to Hellenistic times on the basis of the scene-building which is the only part excavated (cf. TGR 1I: 307); more research here probably would prove a dating of the theatre proper to Classical times, where it would have been needed in connection with the musical contests of the Museia (perhaps going back to the 5th cent.) which are certainly attested from the 3rd cent. (Schachter [1986]

163ff.).

124 To present the theatre in the Valley of the Muses as the polis theatre of Thespiai would of course be to turn things upside down (cf. n. 68 above). But the power of Thespiai is on the other hand reflected in the influence the city had on the sanctuary. 125 The distribution of theatres is almost confined to group A of Bintliff's three-group size-hierarchy of settlements in Boiotia (group A Plataia does not have a theatre, while group B Koroneia and Chaironeia do). Compare Fig. 3 with Bintliff (1997) Fig. 3. 126 Tod, GHI no. 132. 127 Roy (2000).

128 Roy (2000).

90

Rune Frederiksen

Important here is that some sort of hierarchy, represented by the different numbers of damiorgoi (and localities not mentioned at all) seems to be in operation (see Fig. 4). In his chapter about Arkadia, Ps.-Skylax (44) mentions five poleis as αἱ μεγάλαι (Fig. 4), of which four are among those which provide damiorgoi. Pausanias' description of the Arkadian poleis which contributed oikistai to the foundation of Megalopolis (8.27, Mantinea, Tegea and Kleitor) also confirms this hierarchy to some extent, as well as calculations of population numbers, made from several different approaches,!?? placing Tegea, Mantinea and Orchomenos in the heavy end. Finally, a hierarchy could be set up on the basis of a knowledge of size of territory. Fig. 4 shows the estimated territory of 17 poleis, according to size. It is perfectly true that each of the five groups of source has its own bias, and we do not know precisely what kind of absolute relation among the poleis they reflect. On the other hand the considerable overlap between the sources indicate that, taken together, they provide us with information about the nine principal poleis of the region. The factors listed above (p. 80) as conducive to the erection of theatres — i.e. population and wealth — are not necessarily identical with the factors which determined the political hierarchy of the Arkadian poleis. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to assume that the most populous and wealthy poleis were also the most important politically, and that the remarkable agreement between the sources - illustrated in Fig. 4 — can be used as a point of departure for our investigation. The attested theatres follow this hierarchy. We have, admittedly, found no theatres at Heraia, Pheneos and Thelphousa, and further, the poleis of Phigaleia, Psophis and Stymphalos, all having theatres, do not fit the hierachy of 'importance' as clearly as do the other poleis with theatres. So the picture is not as clear as the one found in Boiotia. But this is not crucial for the idea behind the approach; first of all we do not know precisely what kind of factors determined the suggested hierarchy, and secondly there were more factors than just one behind the erection of theatres. A polis could be insignificant in a federal context, due to whatever reason, but might at the same time have a few very wealthy citizens or institutions, which, for some reason, financed the construction of a theatre. A polis could have a small territory, but a high percentage of good arable soil, so that it could feed as large a population as a polis with a large territory with a low percentage of arable soil. The territory of Phigaleia is rather small compared to the other Arkadian poleis with theatres. On the other hand the city was highly monumentalised, presumably with a large built-up area within the impressive city walls. VII. Conclusion

As I believe to have shown in this article the study of the spread of the theatre can only be satisfactorily performed by combining sources of different kinds. To get as true a picture of the distribution as possible, the weaknesses of one type of source must be rectified by other sources. A significant outcome of a focus on the distribution of the theatre combined with evidence for dramatic activity is that we shall have to reconsider the role of the drama as an omnipresent element of Greek culture on two levels. 129

Forsén (1999) 35ff.

The Greek Theatre

9]

(1) First, there are regional divergences. Some regions have very few theatres, compared with their numbers of poleis, and some have no theatres at all. Crete is the clearest example of a region completely without theatres prior to the Roman period,(30 when theatres suddenly sprang up everywhere on the island. This interesting observation is supported by lack of evidence for theatrical activity from the ca. 60 poleis of Classical and Hellenistic Crete. That there were regional divergences in the popularity of dramatic festivals is not necessarily surprising. The Greek world was not a unified culture in all respects. But the observation is important and must be followed by an analysis of whether the difference in the spread of dramatic performance is a result of other cultural differences within the Greek world. It is often stated that Crete did not take part in the general increase of wealth and population that the rest of the Greek world experienced in the fourth century BC. This could explain something, but not a complete absence of a cultural activity; the explanation must be sought elsewhere. The theatre building served many purposes. Its presence seems to be easier to interpret than its absence: it is the absence which calls for explanation. Some of the regions with no or only a few theatres were dominated by a few monarchically governed poleis; perhaps they, for whatever reason, did not share the habit of mass meetings of people, religious or political, to the same extent as regions dominated by democratic and oligarchic poleis? The entire southern part of the Peloponnese, Lakedaimon and Messenia, is almost devoid of theatres, as well as of information about theatrical activity. Sparta had one or more theatres of course, but in Messenia evidence for theatres is not found until after its independence from Sparta in 369 BC (Messene and Thouria). It is obvious that, in the time down to 369, political meetings were not

allowed anywhere in the southern Peloponnese, except at Sparta. Furthermore, it is likely that cultic activities or festivals bringing masses of people together would have been a potential threat to the power of Sparta; that is perhaps why we find very few theatres in Lakedaimon and Messene. Admittedly the general evidence for theatres in the Greek world begins after the period of Spartan rule over Messenia, from the second half of the fourth century BC; therefore my emphasis lies on the low number of theatres in Messenia in the Hellenistic period rather than the absence of them in the Classical. It seems reasonable to assume that the theatre and its activities were not introduced without further ado in areas where a local tradition for it had not been developed from Archaic times onwards. The few theatres in Thessaly could perhaps be explained likewise; here power was concentrated in one or a few urban centres from early in the fourth century and on. From 375/4 Thessaly was governed by the tyrant Jason and after 353 BC the region was dominated by the kingdom of Macedonia. About the same time the Chalkidian Peninsula fell under Macedonian supremacy, and here theatres and information about theatrical activity are almost non-existent. My point is not that monarchies and tyrannies were not fond of drama and theatres. The evidence for a lively dramatic culture in the Greek West and in the larger cities of 130 Some structures on Crete have been interpreted as theatres or theatre structures, e.g. at Lato (TGR Ii: 173) and at Dreros (TGR II: 184). These buildings may have served inter alia theatrical activities, but this is obviously not a reason for classifying them as theatra. There is one reference to a theatre in epigraphic sources from Gortyn from Ist cent. BC around the same time as the island along with Kyrene was turned into a Roman province (Appendix II no. 20).

92

Rune Frederiksen

fourth-century Macedonia speaks for itself. The claim is rather that the spread of the theatre in some regions governed by kings or tyrants was hindered by the concentration of power in the larger urban centres, perhaps deliberately or perhaps because of socioeconomic conditions as a result of concentration of power. Whatever the explanations for the regional differences may be, we must conclude, for regions with few or no theatres, that the theatre was not a monument of the 'typical polis’. (2) Within regions where theatres are common we will also have to conclude that

the theatre is not an element of the ‘typical polis’. The analysis of where theatres are found in Boiotia and Arkadia in the fourth century suggests that in such regions, too, the theatre is found where power is concentrated, that is in the larger poleis. This conclusion most probably goes for other regions and landscapes of Greece as well, also in the Hellenistic period, when the theatre was a more frequently built monument. Rather than being a monument of the ‘typical polis’, the monumental theatre seems to be a monument of the large democratic or oligarchic polis in regions in which dramatic performances were an integrated part of the political and religious culture. Such poleis are at the same time the places where we would expect most other types of assembly activity — such as an ekklesia - to have taken place, and for which the theatre was a convenient architectural frame. Because the theatre as a building type is easily identified from surviving remains and because theatres were often referred to in inscriptions and literature, we posses two independent groups of sources which can be collected and analysed independently of one another and thereafter combined to form a complete collection of evidence for the Greek theatre. With such an investigation we have a unique opportunity to analyse the spread of the theatre and investigate its significance for Greek culture. The result is an inventory of 306 theatres which can be used for a number of future studies, of which I

have only proposed a few concerning the function of the theatre as a dramatical or political monument, the geographical distribution of the theatre and a more detailed investigation in two regions of the distribution of the theatre and its possible relation to the political and socio-economic structure. Such an investigation has not been undertaken before, and its most important feature is probably the method upon which it rests: the identification of other buildingtypes that existed in most poleis, such as bouleuteria and prytaneia, has to be made almost exclusively with a combination of archaeological and written sources first of all because easily identifiable building types of these kinds never developed. This is not the case for the theatre and the Greek peripteral temple, for which an investigation, similar to the one presented here, could be carried out with most profitable results: it is my impression that temples disappear more easily than theatres and that we would be able to add, via literary and epigraphical sources, even more temples to the list of archaeologically attested temples than it has been possible to add theatres to the list of archaeologically attested theatres.

93

The GreekTheairc

Fig. l: Sources for the Greek Theatre

69 theatres mentioned in literary sources

(55 theatres known exclusively from written sources)

(77 theatres known from at least two

sources)

~

251 theatres attested by archaeology

76 theatres mentioned in inscriptions

Fig. 2: The Geographical Distribution of the Greek Theatre

120

· · ·• · · Epp-. Hide-

--LIL•nle--

94

Rune Frederiksen

Fi • 3:

ao· tian Pohis

in the Federati n in the Period 446-386

Fig. 4: Hierarchy of Ark dian Poltis in the 4th century ( oncd by iie of territory) -

Damiorgoi Oiki tat Pau. lO Megalopolis 400-)500 625 5 K.Jeitor 5 Tegea X 385 345 Pheneu 5 X 295 Mantin a p ophi 280 275 5 Th lpu a 5 265 Heraia 230 5 Orchom no Kaphyai 220 Stymphalo 180 Kynaitha 125 125 Phigaleia l 10 Alea Aliphera 100 60 Asea Pallantion 30-55 Territory

Popul.

lax

Th

tre

(km2)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

The Greek Theatre

95

Appendix I Passages which use θέατρον to designate theatres in the usual sense

Agyrion on Sicily Appendix III no. 4. Diod. 16.83.3. (1339/38 BC). Inferred from context, i.e. comparison with the theatre at Syracuse. Athens Sources are here extensive and inscriptions found in (or very close to) the theatre mentioning θέατρον can be dated as far back as 330. BC (e.g. IG II? 410.39). Sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos Appendix II no. 52. IG VII 4255.30 (338-322 BC) was found at the theatre. Delos (large theatre)

IG X1.2 142.29, 30 etc. (315-300 BC). Admittedly this particular inscription was not found in the theatre, which is of course crucial. But that it actually refers to the large theatre on Delos is beyond any doubt, first of all because details known only from theatre buildings are mentioned, and because many other inscriptions, actually found in the theatre and dating to the 3rd century and later, refer to the theatre by the term θέατρον (e.g. IG XI.2 150, 158, 159, 161 & 199). Eretria

IG X11.9 193.6 (308-304 BC), found on fragments of the scene building of the theatre. In another slightly later inscription (294-288 BC) the parodoi of the theatre are mentioned (207.55).

Epidauros (sanctuary of Asklepios) NIEpi. 19.C.10 (4tlvearly 3rd century BC). Details mentioned. Commented on and dated earlier by Burford (1966) 296ff. Pella Plut. Mor. 1096B (time of Alexander the Great). Details mentioned.

Aphrodisias Appendix II no. 9. SEG 41 915 (Julio-Claudian). Details mentioned.

96

Rune Frederiksen

9

Skepsis Appendix II no. 67. Details mentioned.

10

Larisa (Thessaly)

Appendix II no. 38. Details mentioned. 11

Delphi F.Delphes 111.6 37.15 (20-46 AD). Details mentioned (found in theatre).

12

Gytheion Appendix II no. 21. Details mentioned.

13

Nisa Appendix II no. 48. Details mentioned.

14

Ioulis (Keos)

Appendix II no. 26. Details mentioned.

15 Magnesia on Sipylos Appendix II no. 41. Details mentioned. 16—24 [n 9 instances Pausanias uses theatron about a building at a certain locality which can be proved to be a theatre either because of topographical details given or because of comparisons he makes with other theatres: Sikyon (2.7.5, details mentioned)

Epidauros, sanctuary of Asklepios (2.27.5, beauty of the theatre praised) Aigina (2.29.11, compared with the theatre of Epidauros) Sparta (3.14.1, deduced from topographical description) Elis (6.26.1, details and topography)

Megalopolis (8.32.1, details and topographical) Tegea (8.49.1, circumstantial topographical evidence) Tanagra (9.22.2, topographical) Delphi (10.32.1, topographical) (cf. Gogos [1988)).

The Greek Theatre

97

Appendix II Inventory of inscriptions Theatres that are also archaeologically attested are marked with U and can be found in Appendix IV. Literary references to a θέατρον at the same locality, to be found in Appendix III, are marked with L. Dates given at U and L always refer to U and to the earliest phase of it.

1

Acharnai

Attika

C4

IG IP 1206.6-7

decree

Aixone

Attika

ca. 300

IG IF 1197.21

hon.

U

decree

C4?

Akraiphia

Boiotia

C2V/CI

IG VII 4148.9

hon decree

Amorgos

Kyklades

C2f

IG XII.7 389.33

(Aigiale)

Amorgos

decree

Kyklades

Roman

IG XII.7 49.25

Amorgos

Kyklades

250-200

(Minoa)

7

Andania

hon.

decree

(Arkesine) 6

| hon

Messenia

92/91

IG X11.7

bon

221.B.16

decree

IG V.1 1390.68

decree

98

Rune Frederiksen

Antiocheia on

Kilikia

ca. 140

SEG

12 511.27

Pyramos

hoa.

decree

(Megarsos) Aphrodisias

Karia

CI AD

SEG 41 915.3

private dedications

Athens

Attika

ca. 330

IG IP 410.39

decree

U | Cl

UL C4

Athens

Attika

34372

(unknown

Agora XIX

lease

L6.147-8

record

SEG 19 569.14

hon.

theatre) Chios

Chios

C3m

UL

decree Delos

Delphi

Eleusis

Kyklades

Phokis

Auika

315-300

248-46

C4m

IG X1.2 142.27

building

U

account

C3

F.Delpbes 111.3

bon.

UL

215.21

decree

Hell.

IG IP 1187.10-11 | bon. decree

Ephesos

Epidauros (sanct. of Asklepios)

lonia

Argolis

323-301

C4/C3e

LEphesos 1452.3

| hon.

UL

decree

C2

NIEpi. 19.C.10;

| building

uL

SEG 25 394.B.11

| account

C3

The Greek Theatre

18

Eretria

Euboia

308-04

99

IG X11.9 193.6

decree

U C4

19

20

21

Erythrai

Gortyn

Gytheion

lonia

Crete

Lakedaimon

271-15

Cl

| 15 AD

LErythrai 24.32

hon.

U

decree

C4

LCret. IV 2228.3 | hon.

SEG 11 923.5

UUU

decree

Roman?

decree

U Roman

22

Hermokapeleia

23

Iasos

| Lydia

7

TAM V 1237.2

decree?

Karia

?

Lagos 43.5

hon.

U

decree

C2 or earlier

24

Ilion

Troas

ca. 306

Lion

1.10

hon.

UU

decree

C4 &

Hell. 25

Jos

Kyklades

C3

IG XII.5 1010.3

hon. decree

26

Ioulis (Keos)

Kyklades

C3

IG ΧΙΙ.5 597.8 & SEG 39 869

(ϑέατρον restored, but

proskenion and skene are mentioned)

decree

100

Rune Frederiksen

Pontos

C3/C2

LHistriae 65.30

hon.

U

decree

Apte 100 AD

Bithynia

172

L.Kalchedon 1.71 | hon. decree

Pontos

C3e

ISM Ill 3.5

proxeny decree

Sporades

270-60

Tit.Cal. 16.4.19

| hon. decree

Karia

Imperial

OpAth 10 (1971)

| decree

36-9.14 Karia

C3/C2

LKnidos 231.20

U Greek? U C2

hon.

UU

decree

C2 & late Hell.

Sporades

205-201

LCos 10A.25

Aiolis

C21

SEG 33 1039.38

Phrygia

Karia

C3e

?

CIG 3655.12

decree | hon.

U

decree

Hell.?

bon.

UL

decree

Imperial

1.Stratonikeia 662 | donation

(b) 2-3

U?L

The Greek Theatre

Laodikeia

Larisa

Lepsia (from

Phrygia

Thessaly

Sporades

200-189

C3v/C2

169

Patmos)

ΙΟΙ

LLaodikeia 5.17

IG IX.2 522.9

| hon.

UU

decree

Hell.

building

UU

report

C3 & CI

ASAtene 25-26

hon.

(1963-64) pp.

decree

293-349 no. 18.24 Magnesia

Karia

c2

LMagnesia 92a.5 | hon.

at Maiandros Magnesia on

decree lonia

C2

Sipylos Megalopolis

Mesambria

Arkadia

Pontos

183

281-77

U C2

LMagn am

hon.

Sipylos 4.17.

decree

IG V.2 432.12

hon.

UL

decree

C4

IGBulg

P 307.5

| hon. decree

Messene

Miletos

Myra

Messenia

lonia

Lykia

35-44 AD | IG V.1

1432.5-6

| tributary

UL

decree

Hell.

C2/C3

Milet VI 2

building

U

AD

935.2-3

inscr.

C3e

146 AD

IGR 3

bon.

U

704. 11A.23

decree

C2 AD

102

47

Rune Frederiksen

Naxos

Kyklades

C3

IG XII.5 35.10

hon.

U

(zpoeöpliar] ἐν

decree

Greek

τῶι [ϑεάτρωι}) 48

Nisa

Lykia

C2 AD

TAM

11.3 736.6

| building inscr.

49

50

Oinoanda

Olbia

Lykia

Pontos

125 AD

ca. 325

SEG 38 1462.64,

| hon.

U C2 AD U

69, 85

decree

Cc

SEG 32 794.16

bon.

u?

decree 5]

Oliaros

Kyklades

C2

IG XII.5

(perhaps Parian

471.1.12; JG XU

or Siphnian)

Suppl. 111; SEG

bon.

| decree

33 680

52

Oropos

Attika

338-22

IG VII 4255.30

decree

(Amphiareion)

U

C4

53

Pagai

Megaris

Cl

IG VII 190.17

54

Patara

Lykia

18-37 AD

| TAM II 2 420.8-9

decree proclama-

U

tion of

ΓΙ AD

donation 55

Peirzieus

Attika

300-250

IG I? 1214.19-20 | hon.

(Mounichia) 56

Peiraicus

(Zea)

Attika

ca.

150

IG IP 2334.3

UL

decree

Ca?

donation

U

ca

The Greek Theatre

57

Phalanna

Thessaly

c2

IG 1X.2 1230.33

103

| hon. decree

58

Priene

lonia

285/4

LPriene 4.32 (cf.

| hon.

U

Chiron 26 [1996]

| decree

C4/C3

233) 59

Ptolemais

Egypt

246-21

QGIS 49.8

Hermiou

60

Rhamnous

hon. decree

Attika

225-2000

| IG IF 1311.7

military

υ

hon.

C4

decree

61

Rhodiapolis

Lykia

152/3 AD | TAM 11.3 XIXB.1-2

bon.

U

decree

Late

Hell.

62

Salamis

Cyprus

76/77 AD | Salamine de Chypre XIII

building

U

decree

Roman

106.4

Augustean

63

Samos

Samos

280-46

IG XII.6 119.12

(Heraion, or

bon.

U?L?

decree

possibly in Samos town) 64

Samos (from Kos, Sanct. of

Asklepios)

Samos

cal

IG X11.6 150.3

bon.

U

decree

Hell.?

104

65

Rune Frederiksen

Sardis

Lydia

ca. 155

Sardis VII.1 4.22 | hon. decree

66

67

68

69

Siphnos

Skepsis

Smyrna

Sphettos

Kyklades

Troas

Ionia

Attika

274/3-

IG X11.5 481.19-

270?

20

C3?

OJh (1900) 54-7

C2

350-300

UL c3?

| bon. decree

| building

no. 16.12-13

decree

LSmyma 588.2

bon.

UL

decree

C2 AD

SEG 36 187.10

hon. decree

70

Tenos

Kyklades

C3

IG XII.5 798.13

| hon. decree

71

Teos

lonia

229 or

SEG 2 580.24

205

hon.

U

decree

C2 or Roman

72

Termessos

Pamphylia

?

TAM ΠῚ 5.3

decree?

υ C2

73

74

Thasos

Theangela

Thasos

Karia

ca. 300

Cl

LLampsakos

hon.

U

1.21

decree

C4/C3

SEG 29 1089.8

hon.

u?

decree 75

Tlos

Lykia

Cil

TAM

11.2 550.3

building

U

donation

Ci/Cl AD

105

1.Mylasa 633.3 (καὶ zpoeöpliar] ἐν τῶίι deirrpun] εἶναι)

Appendix IIl Inventory of literary references Abbreviations and cross-references: Theatres which are also archaeologically attested are marked by an (ὦ and can be found in Appendix IV. Epigraphical attestations are indicated by i, and details are found in Appendix II. Dates given under 'Crossreferences' are archaeological, and always refer to the earliest phase of the theatre in question.

Paus. 10.35.4

[C4U/C3e]

Lucian, Hist. conscr. 1

"Troas

Ante Cal

Arist. Mir. 832618

Sicily

[339738]

|Diod. 16.83.3

60-30

Macedonia

133675]

Diod. 16.92.53

60-30

Aigina

CZ AD

U C4

Paus. 2.29.11

U Roman

Algion

CZ AD

Paus. 7.25.9

Egypt

[Ca. 250]

Ath. 620D. CT. TOR I: 316

C2/C3 AD Pontos

C2 AD

Lucian, loxaris 59.5

U

C1 AD

106

τσ

Rune Frederiksen

TAmbrakia

[|Epeiros

ΤΙ

Dion. Hal. Ant. Kom. 1.50.4

UU C3&C3

IT

[|AnHocheia

|Lebanon

on Orontes ΤΣ

| Argos

[AD 70]

Joseph B] 7.47

75-79 AD Argolis

CZ AD

U C1 AD

Paus. 2.20.7

U

C2 3

| Athens

Attika

[413]

Ath. WTA

C2/C3 AD I4

|Berytos

Lebanon

TAnte 12] 75-

Ui C6

[Joseph AJ 19.335

79 AD I5

[Byzanion

| Thrace

1197 AD]

| Cass. Dio 74.12.4

C2/C3 AD ΤῸ

|Chalkis or

iboia

Karystos I7

[Chios

I]

Dio Chrys. Or. 7.24

C1/C2 AD Chios

[CTe]

App. Mith. 186.3

Ui

C1/C2 AD [T8

|Damaskos

᾿ Syria

[CTI] 73-79

[Joseph BJ 1.422

AD [9

[Delphi

Phokis

CT AD

Paus. 10.32.1

Ui C3

?T

Elateia

Phokis

CT AD

Paus. 10.9.8

[Elis

Elis

CZ AD

Paus. 6.26.1

U C4/C3

27

| Engyion

Sicily

[Hell]

ut. Marc. 20.8-9

C1/C2 AD 23 | Eona

Sicily

[33] 60-30

Diod. 34735.2.14 |

The Greek Theatre

Ephesos

Tonia

CI AD

Nov. Test.

107

Act, Ap. 19.29.3

ὍΤ᾽

c 25

[Epidsuro

| Argolis

CIT AD

Paus. 2.27.5

(sanct. of

Ui C3

Asklepios)

286

| Gedrosia

Pakistan

13257

Plut Alex. 57.5 —

C1/C2 AD

Herakleia

| Ponios

Pontike Hyampolis [Tkonon

Isthmia

[C3]

Diog. Laert. 5.91

C3 AD

Roman?

| Phokis

CZ XD

Paus. 10.35.6

| Phrygia

CZ AD

Acta Pauli et Theclac 20.11

[C5]

Plut: Mor. 79E

Korinthia

C1/C2 AD 31

[Jerusalem

Palestine

[CIT ADJ

U

U CS

Joseph ΑἹ 15.208

75-79 AD 'Korinthos

— | Korinthia

1392]

Xen. Hell. 4.4.3

C4e Kos

| Kroton

Kos

C5

TC4]

Antig. Car. Mir. 161 [quoting

ca. 240

Eudoxos of C4]

Magna Graecia | [C57]

U

UTi

TambI. VP 125

C3/C4 AD 'Kyrene (7) |Kyrenaka — |IC4C3]

ὀ | Put. Mor. 558

U

C1/C2 AD | Kyzikos

Phrygia

165 AD

Aristides, Hieroi Logo] £.349.29

| Ui Imperial

Leontinoi

[Sicily

[Cam] Cl/c2 AD

Plut: Dio 43.1.1

108

Rune Frederiksen

Lilaia

39 | Mantinea

Phokis

CZ AD

Paus. 10.33.4

Arkadia

CZ AD

Paus. 8.9.5

U c4

40

| Megalopolis | Arkadıa

CZ XD

Paus. 8.32.1

Ui

C4 4]

|Messene

Messenia

TC3I]

Plut. Arat. 50.3

C1/C2 AD 32 | Metapontion | Magna Graccia | CZ AD

Ui

Hellenistic Paus. 6.19.11

|

U C4

43

|Myulene

Lesbos

[Cam]

Plut. Pomp. 42.9

C1/C2 AD 44

45

|Nysa

|Panopolis

Karia

Egypt

CICIAD

ZEB

U

Hellenistic {Strabo 14.1.43 (theatre or

U

amphiteatre)

CI AD?

Pap. Chest. Beatty Lib. T: 333,

375 (TGR I: 315) 46 47

| Patrai |Peiraieus

Achaia

CT AD

Paus. 7.21.6

Attika

[CSI

Thuc. 8.93.1

(Mounichia) Pella

C4 Macedonia

[Ca]

| Ui

C4? Plut. Mor. 10965

C1/C2 AD 49

| Pergamon

| Aiolis

[97]

| Plut. ul. 11.2

CI/C2 AD

UUU

C3,C2 AD ἃ C2 AD

| Phigaleia

Arkadıa

[374]

Diod. [5.20.2

60-30 37T | Phleious

Argolis

CZ AD

|

Paus. 2.13.5

U C4?

The Greek Theatre

Rhodes

1316]

109

Diod. 19.5.5

60-30 [325]

Diod. 17.106.4

60-30 Tonia

CI AD

Vita

GET]

Ui Hellenistic?

Lydia

T218715]

Polyb. 7.16.6

Ui

C3 Sicily

[C473] ante C4m

Lebanon

Sikyonia

| Callim. fr. 20! [Pheiffer] Dieg. IX.15-6.

[CI 75-79 | Joseph BJ 1.422

U

AD

Cl

[CZ]

Polyb. 29.25.72

C3/C2

Thessaly

[369-58]

Hellenistic

Paus. 6.5.2.3

C2 AD Aiolis

146 AD

U

U Hellenistic?

Aristides, Hieroi Logoi B.297.28

| Ui

C2 AD Lakedaimon

[491-80]

Hdt. 6.67.3

ca. 425 sicily

1406]

Roman Diod. 13.94.1

60-30 Boiotia

CZ AD

U

U

C3 Paus. 9.22.2

U c3?

Magna Graecia | [252] C2/C3 AD

Cass. Dio 9.39 fr. 5.2

110

$5

Rune Frederiksen

| Tegea

Arkadia

CZ AD

. 6.49.7

U

C3 $6

| Thebes

Boots

[Cae]

Plut. Mor. 799E-F

C1/C2 AD $7

| Thespiai

Boiotia

TI

Classical? Prot. Mor. 755A-B

C1/C2 AD

89

U

U

C3l

Tithorea

Phokis

CZ AD

Paus. 10.32.10

|Troizen

Argolis

CZ AD

Paus. 2.31.4

U7

ll

The Greek Theatre

Appendix IV Archaeologically Attested Theatres

No.

Locality

Region

Date

References

Appendices

| 2 3

Abdera Abila Aigai

Thrace Syria Aiolis

TGR Hl 115 TGR ΤΠ 092 TGR III 485

III no. 2

4

Aigai

Macedonia

TGR IL 317

III no. 5

5

Aigeira

Achaia

6 7

Aigina Aipion

Aigina Triphylia

8

Aixone

Attika

Greek Roman? Roman (C2/C3 AD) Greek (350-300) Greek (280-250?) Roman Greek (C4 & Hell.) Greek (C41)

9

Aizanoi

Phrygia

Roman

TGR 11 410-412

Sicily

(Cl AD) Greek

TGR II 548—549

lO

— Akrai

TGR Il 204-205 TGR Il 203 TGR II 235 TGR1L 311-312

III no. 6

IIno.2

(C3) 11

Alabanda

Karia

12

Alexandria Oxiana Alexandria

Bacıria

13

Troas

Roman TGR III 368-369 (Early Empire) Greek TGR 1211 (ca. 200) Roman TGR III 422

Karia

Greek

Troas

(Hadrianic)

14

Alyndos

Ι6

Amastris

Pontos

16

Epeiros

18

— Ambrakia (D Ambrakia an Amos

19

Amyzon

Karia

20 21

Anemourion Kilikia Ankyra Galatia

TGR 111 463-464

(C2)

17

Epeiros Karia

Roman (C1 AD) Greek (C4/C3) Greek (C3e) Greek (Hell.) Greek (Hell.) Roman? Roman

TGR II 360

ΠῚ no. 9

TGR II 129

III no. 10

TGR Il 131

HI no. 10

TGR IIl 375 Isler (1997) 555 TGR If] 419 TGR 111 362

(Imperial)

22 23

Antiochia . Antiochia

Phrygia Syria

24

. Antiphellos

Lykia

25

+= Aphrodisias

Karia

on Orontes

26

^ Apollonia

Roman? Roman

TGR III 526 TGR III 364-365

— III no. 11

(ΟἹ AD)

Kyrenaika

Greek (Hell.) Roman (37-29) Greek (300-280)

Remarks

TGR III 465 ΤΟΚΊΠ 429-30 TGR III 132-133

II no. 9

In the deme Euonymon.

112

Rune Frederiksen

No.

Locality

Region

Date

References

27

. Apollonia

Lykia

TGR III 470

28

= Apollonia

Epeiros

29

Epeiros

32.

Argos Amphil. = Argos (I)

Greek (Hell.) Greek (ca. 250) Greek

Argolis

Greek

TGR ll 123

31

Argos (I)

Argolis

Greek

Appendices

Remarks

TGR 1 226-227 TGR li 254

(C5) ΤΟΚῊ

125-126

— III no. 12

(C3e) 32

Arsinoe

Egypt

Roman

TGR 1323

Krokodeilon

(ca. 139 AD)

33

Arykanda

Lykia

34

Aspendos

Pamphylia

35

ASSOS

Mysia

36

Athens

Attika

Greek

polis

TGR ΠῚ 370

(C2) Roman (C2 AD) Greek (Hell.) Greek

TGR III 393-395 TGR ITI 392 TGRIL132-135

(C6 and later)

37

Babylon

Babylonia

38

Bargyleia

Karia

39 40

. Bithynion, Pontos Claudiopolis | Bouthrotos Epeiros

Greek (C41) Greek (C2?) Roman (Hadrianic) Greek

II no. 10; III no. 13

TGR II 330-332 TGR IN 372 TGR III 404 TGR 1217-218

(C3) 41

Byblos

42

Byllis(l)

Syria X Epeiros

Greek (Hell.) Greek (C3/C2) Greek and Roman Greek (C4) Greek

TGR ID 123-124 TGR 1221

43

. Byllis(ID

Epeiros

44

Castiglione di Paludi . Chaironeia

Magna Graecia Boiotia

Chersonesos . Chersonesos Taurica Chios . Delos

Crete

Roman?

TGR 11 182-183

Pontos

Greek (C3VC2e) ? Greek (C4 & Hell.) Greek (108-7)

TGR III 539

Greek

TGRILI188-190

45

TGR1222 TGR II 427 TGR Il 146

(C5) 46 47 48 49

Chios Delos

50

Delos

Delos

51

Delphi

Phokis

Isler (1997) 553 TGR 11 192-194 TGR WM 195

(C4 ἃ Hell.)

52

Demetrias

Thessaly

Greek (C3)

Uno. 12; HI no. 17 Ii no. 13 In sanctuary of the Syrian Goddess. i1no. 14; III no. 19

TGR II 319-320

The Greek Theatre

No.

Locality

53

Dion(D

54

.

Dodone

56

Dreros

58

Date

Macedonia

Dion (ID

55

57

Region

(7)

Dura Europos Dura Europos (?) X Elea

Greek (ca. 200) Macedonia Greek and Roman Epeiros Greek (297-272) Crete Greek (Classical?) MesopotamiaGreek?

60

Elis

MesopotamiaGreek (Hell.) Epeiros Greek (Hell.?) Elis Greek

61

Ephesos

lonia

62

64

Epidauros Argolis (polis) Epidauros Argolis (sanct. of Asklepios) Eretria Euboia

65

Erythrai

Ionia

66

Euromus

Karia

67

Gadara (l)

Syria

68

. Gadara(Il)

Syria

59

References

113

Appendices

Remarks

TGR lI 196 TGR II 197 TGR II 200-202 TGR II 184 TGR III 202 Hoepfner et al. (1999) 500

Identification as theatre uncertain. Small cult theatre Depression in ground.

TGR I1 315 TGR 11 207

HI no. 21

(ca. 300)

63

69 70 71 72

Gitana | Gortyn(I) Gortyn (TI) Gortyn (III)

73 74

. Gytheion | Halasama

75

Halikar-

Greek TGR (C21) Greek TGR (C4 & Hell.) Greek TGR (C3 & Hell.) Greek TGR (CAVC3e ἃ Hell.)

Crete

Greek (C4 & Hell.?) Greek (250-2007) Roman (CIVC2e AD) Roman (CiVC2e AD) Greek (230-167?) Roman?

Crete Crete

Roman? Roman?

Epeiros

Lakedaimon Roman Kos Greek (Hell.) Karia Greek

nassos

(300-250)

III 494-406

II no. 16; III no. 24

11 213 11 208-210 11 215-216;

TGR II 451

Il no. 17; III no. 25 IL no. 18

II no. 19

Recent investigations raise doubt as to whether any phases of the theatre are earlier than C3. Sec forthcoming publications of the Swiss misson (H.P. Isler). Not sufficiently published.

TGR Ill 376 TGR 11 093 TGR 1I 094 TGR II 220 TGR II 166-167

Tino. 20 (2)

TGR II 168-169 TGR 11 170

II no. 20 (7) II no. 20 (?)

TGR II 218 TGR WM 150

II no. 21

TGR III 402

Not sufficiently

published. 76

Harpasa

Karia

Greek

(C2?)

Isler (1997) 556

114

Rune Frederiksen

No.

Locality

Region

Date

References

77

Heloros

Sicily

TGR II 444

78

| Hephaistiai

Lemnos

Greek (C4/C3) Greek (early Hell.) Greek (C3?) Greek (C41I/C3e) Roman? Roman (CI AD?) Roman? Greek

TGR ΠΙ 403

79 80 81

Herakleia Karia on Latmos Herakleia — Sicily Minoa Herakleia Pontos

Appendices

Remarks

TGR II 249 TGR III 459 TGR ll 446 TGR ΠῚ 405

IH no. 27

Pontice

82 83 84

JMHierapolis

Kilikia

Hierapytna Crete . Hippana (7) Sicily

TGR Il 176-177 TGR ll 576

Identification of

(Hell.?)

site

85

Homolion

Magnesia

Greek

TGR II 247

86

Hyele

Magna Graecia

Greek

Isler (1997) 558

87

Hyllarima

Karia

Greek

Isler (1997) 556

uncertain.

(C2?) 88

|laitas

Sicily

89

Jalysos

Rhodos

90

[asos

Karia

9

Ikarion

Attika

Greek (C4 & Hell.) Greek (CAU/C3e) Greek (ante 175) Greek

TGR 11 513-514 TGR I1 281 TGR Ul 476

II no. 23

TGR ll 199

In the deme

(C4 & Hell.)

92

Ilion (D

Troas

93

Ilion (ID

Troas

Greek

Ikarion.

TGR III 447

II no. 24?

TGR ΠῚ 448

II no. 24?

(ca. 300)

Roman (Imperial)

94

[ssa

Illyria

95

Isthmia

Korinthia

96

Istros

Pontos

Caves possibly Hellenistic.

Roman TGR 1302 (C1) Greek TGR I 224—226 (Classical & Hell.) Greek TGR II 188

Ili no. 30 II no. 27

or Roman (ante 100 AD)

97

Kabirion

98

. Kadyanda

99

Kallipolis

100 101

Kalymna Kandyba

102 103

Boiotia Lykia — Aitolia

Greek (Hell.) Greek (C2?) Greek?

Kalymnos Lykia

Greek ?

Kassope

Epeiros

Kassope

Epeiros

Greek (C4/C3) Greek (C4/C3)

TGR 11 306 TGR II 523 Isler (1997) 552; Hoepfner et al. (1999) 428 TGR 11 144 TGR II 428

Buried/under water. I no. 30 Depression in the ground.

TGR n 231 TGR II 232-233

Identification uncertain.

The Greek Theatre No.

Locality

Region

Date

References

115 Appendices

Remarks Perhaps a bouleuterion. The existence of a scene building indicates theatrical functions. Cf. p. 67f. n. 13.

104

Kastabos

Karia

Greek TGR III 489 (C4Vante 150) Greek TGR Il 428-430 (C5? & Roman) Greek TGR Ill 414

105

Katane

Sicily

106

Kaunos

Karia

107

Kedreai

Karia

108

Kephalos

Kos

109 110 11!

Keryneia Kibyra (Maior) Kieitor

Arkadia

112

Klimatia

Epeiros

Greek (C2?) Greek (Hell.) Greek Greek (ca. 100) Greek (Hell.?) Greek?

Epeiros

Greek Greek (C2?) Greek

II no. 31

(C2)

113

Klos

Achaia Lykia

TGR ΠῚ 493 TGR ll 151 TGR U 255 TGR YI 433-434 TGR II 237 TGR II 241

According to the locals no longer preserved (autopsy June 1998).

TGR 1 223

(C3) 114

Knidos

Karia

115

Knidos

Karia

TGR III 511-12

Il no. 32?

"Lower theatre".

TGR III 510

II no. 32?

"Upper theatre".

(late Hell.)

116 117

Korinthos Kos

Korinthia Kos

Greek TGR11152-155 (C5 & Hell.) Roman TGR ll 147

Cyprus

Greek Greek (C3VC2e) Greek (Hell.?) Greek (350-300) Greek

(CI AD)

118

Kourion

— III no. 32 Il no. 33; II no. 33

TGR 1 279-280

(C2) 119

Kyanai

Lykia

120

Kyme

Aiolis

121

Kyrene

Kyrenaika

122

Kys

Karia

TGR ΠῚ 529 TGR II 483

HI no. 34

TGR ΠῚ 137

III no. 35

Isler (1997) 556

(C2?) 123

Kyzikos

Propontis

124

Laodikeia on Lykos Laodikeia on Lykos

Phrygia

125

Phrygia

Roman (Imperial) Greek (Hell.) Greek (Hell.)

TGR Ill 390 TGR III 437

II no. 35?; IIl no. 36 II no. 37?

"Large theatre".

TGR III 438

lI no. 37?

"Small theatre".

116

No. 126

Rune Frederiksen

Locality Larisa(l)

Region

Date

References

Appendices

Thessaly

TGR II 245

II no. 38

127

Larisa (II) Thessaly

128

Lato?

Crete

129

Lato?

Crete

Greek (C31) Greek (Cl) Greek (C4/C3) Greek

Achaia

Greek

TGR 11 246 TGR II 173

Identification as theatre uncertain. Identification as

TGR II 174

(C4/C3)

130

Leontion

theatre uncertain.

TGR II 251

Covered after ex-

(350-300)

131

Letoon

Lykia

132

Leukas

Leukas

133 134

Leuke Limyra

at Crete Lykia

135

Lindos

Rhodos

136

Lokroi Epizephyrioi Lyttos Magnesia on Maiandros Magnesia on Maiandros

Magna Graecia Crete lonia (I) lonia (II)

140

Makyneia

WLokris

141

Mantinca

Arkadia

Remarks

cavatıon in 1957,

Greek (ca. 100) Greek (Hell.?) Roman? Roman

but cleared since. Accessible May 1998. Identification uncertain. Partially excavated; unpublished.

TGR II 475 TGR II 253 TGR 11 181 TGR III 415

(post 140 AD)

137 138 139

Greek TGR Il 279 (C3) Greek TGR II 490—491 (ca. 350) Roman? TGR UI 186-187 Greek TGR IIl 354 (C2) Greek? TGR ΠῚ 355 (late Hell /Early Imperial) Greek (Classicai? Greek

Isler (1997) 553 & Hell.) TGR 11 313

142

Maroneia

Thrace

143

Massalia

Gallia

(C4 & Hell.) Greek TGR Il 257 (Hell.) Roman TGR 1 439

Narbonensis

(C1 AD)

Arkadia

Greek

144

Megalopolis

TGR 11 262-263

(C4m)

145

Megara(?)

Megaris

Greek?

Melos

Greek

TGR II 264

147

Messene

Messenia

(Hell.?) Greek

TGR II 258-259

(Hell.?)

149 150

Metapontion Methymna

Messenia Magna Graecia Lesbos

II no. 42; Depression in ground; not confirmed by autopsy.

Melos

| Messene(?)

III no. 39

Ill no. 40

146

148

II no. 40

Greek TGR 11 260-261 (Hell.) Greek TGR11500-503 (Archaic and later) Greek TGR 11 253 (Hell.?)

— II no. 44; II no. 41

Identification uncertain. II no. 42

The Greek Theatre No.

Locality

151

Mieza

Region

Date

References

Macedonia

Greek

Isler (1997) 555

117 Appendices

Remarks

(Hell.)

152

Miletos

Ionia

Greek

TGR III 384—387

Tino. 45

(ca. 300)

153

Morgantina

Sicily

154

Mykenai

Argolis

155

Mylasa

Karia

156

Myra

Lykia

157

Mytilene

Lesbos

Greek (C41) Greek (Hell.) Greek (Hell.?) Roman (C2 AD) Greek

TGR III 026 TGR ll 265 TGR II 479 TGR III 416

II no. 46

TGR II 252

III no. 43

(Hell.)

158

159

Naxos

Neandreia

Naxos

Greek

Troas

Greek

Gruben (1982) 165-6 II no. 47 Only a seating block of the theatre has been found. Trunk (1994) 91-100

(C4 & Hell.?) Roman TGR MI 457 (C2e AD) Roman TGR 111 508 (C2 AD) Greek TGR III 490

160

Nikaia

Pontos

161

Nisa

Lykia

162

Notion

Ionia

163

Nysa

Karia

164

Oiniadai

Akamania

165

Oinoanda

Lykia

Roman (C1 AD?) Greek (C3) Greek

166

Olbia (?)

Pontos

Greek?

H no. 48

(C2) TGR II 504—505

III no. 44

TGR 1 236 TGR II 452

II no. 49

TGR II 538

II no. 50

(C2?) 167

Olynthos (7) Chalkidike

Greek

168

Orchomenos

Arkadia

169

Orchomenos

Boiotia

Greek (C4/C3) Greek (C41) Greek? Greek (C4 & Hell.) Greek (C4/C3) Greek (250-200) Greek

170 171 172

Orikon Epeiros Oropos Attika (Amphiareion) Paphos Cyprus

173

Paros

174

Patara

Paros Lykia

Robinson (1930) 6; Hoepfner and Schwandner (1986) 40 TGR I1 229 TGR II 268-269 TGR 1 224 TGR II 227-228

— II no. 52

TGR 1281 TGR 11271 TGR II 467

and Roman (Tiberian)

II no. 54

Depression in

ground. Depression in ground; not confirmed by autopsy.

118 No.

175

Rune Frederiksen Locality

Peiraieus

Region

Date

References

Attika

Greek

TGR II 276

Mounichia

176

(C4?)

Peiraieus Zea Pella

Attika

— Aiolis

181

Pergamon (D Pergamon (II) Pergamon (HI) Perge

182

Perperene

— Aiolis

177 178 179 180

Syria

— Aiolis — Aiolis Pamphylia

183

Petra (I)

Syria

184 185

Petra (11) Petra (III)

Syria Syria

186

Pharsalos(?) Thessaly

Greek (C2) Roman (CIVC2 AD) Greek (C3V/C2e) Roman (C2 AD?) Roman (C2 AD) Roman (ca. 120 AD) Greck?

TGR Il 277-278

Appendices

Remarks

II no. 55;

In the deme of

III no. 47

Peiraieus.

Ino. 56

In the deme of Peiraieus.

TGR TI 091 TGR III 396-398

III no. 49

TGR III 399 TGR ID 400 TGR III 356-358 Fabricius and Bohn (1886);

Stauber (1996) 291-305 TGR II 086-089

Roman (CUCI AD) Roman? Roman?

TGR II 090 TGR II 095

?

TGR 11 217

Suggested by Stählin; not confirmed.

187

Phaselis

Pamphylia

Roman

TGR ΠῚ 515

(early Imperial)

188

Philadelphia Syria

189

Philippi

190

Philippo-

Macedonia — Thrace

polis

Roman TGR 11 076-078 (CI AD) Greek TGR II 243-244 (C4l ἃ Hell.?) Greek TGR 1 270-271 (C4?)

191

Phleious

Argolis

192

Phoinike

Epeiros

193

Phokaia

Ionia

[94

Pinara

Lykia

195

Pleuron

Aitolia

Greek (C47) Greek (C3/C2?) Greek

TGR 11117

IIl no. 51

TGR 1 220 Isler (1997) 556

(C4) Greek (C2?) Greek

TGR II 481 TGRTI 234

(ca. 230)

196 197

Priene

lonia

198 199

Prousias on Hypion Psophis Ptolemais

Pontos (Augustean) Arkadia — Kyrenaika

200

Rhamnous

Attika

201

Rhegion

Magna Graecia

Greek (332-300?) Roman

TGR Ill 441-442 TGR ITI 520-521

Greek Greek

Isler (1997) 552 TGR IN 143

II no. 58

(C3) Greek TGR I1 221 (C4 & Hell.) Greck TGR II 578 (C4/C3e)

Π no. 60

In the deme of Rhamnous.

The Greek Theatre

119

No.

Locality

Region

Date

References

Appendices

202

Rhodiapolis Sagalassos

Lykia

Greek (late Hell.) Roman (C21 AD) Roman

TGR II 491

II no. 61

203 204

Salamis

Pisidia Cyprus

Remarks

TGR III 350-351 TGR 1 284-286

II no. 62

TGR 11 287

II no. 63;

(Augustean)

205

Samos

Samos

Greek (Hell.?)

206

Samothrake

Samothrake

Greek

Ill no. 54

TGR II 288

(C2) 207

Sardis

208

Segesta

209 210

Seleukia on Tigris Selge

211

Sepphoris

212

Side

213

Sidon

Lydia

Greek TGR III 492 (C3) Sicily Greek TGR III 021-23 (ca. 250) MesopotamiaGreek TGR II 333 (Hell.?) Pisidia Roman TGR ΠΙ 534 (ca. 150 AD) Syria Roman TGR Il 353-354 (ante 17 AD) Pamphylia Roman TGR ΤΠ 498—500 (ca. 150 AD) Syria Roman PECS 837; (C1)

II no. 65; III no. 55

IIl no. 57

cf. TGR III 125

Recent investigations have

revealed remains of a theatre. 214

Sikyon

Sikyonia

215

Sillyon

Pamphylia

216

Skotoussa

Thessaly

Greek (Hell.) Greek (Hell.) Greek

TGR 11 291-292

[Π no. 58

TGR ΠῚ 373 Isler (1997) 553

III no. 59

(Hell.)

217

Skythopolis

Syria

218

Smyrna

lonia

219

Soloi

Sicily

220

Soloi

Cyprus

22] 222

Sparta Lakedaimon Sparta Lakedaimon (Artemis Orthia)

223

Stratonikeia Karia

224

225 226

Siratos

Stymphalos Syracuse (D

Roman TGR Il 340-342 (C21 AD) Roman TGR IM 454-455 (post 178 AD) Greek TGR III 039 (C47?) Roman TGR 1 282-283 (C2UC3e AD) Roman TGR 11 298-300 Greek TGR il 301 (Hell.) Greek (late Hell.)

TGR III 424

Akarnania

Greek (C4)

TGR 11 302

Arkadia Sicily

Greek Greek (C5)

Isler (1997) 552 TGR II 033

— Il no. 68; III no. 60

[Π no. 61 In the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.

Excavated recently but not published.

120

Rune Frederiksen

No.

Locality

Region

Date

References

Appendices

2327

Sicily

III no. 62

Syros

Greek (Hell.) Greek

TGR III 034-37

228

Syracuse (II) Syros

Isler (1997) 554

229

Talendos

Islet off

?

Isler (1997) 554

Tanagra

Kalymnos Boiotia

TGR li 302

Tauro-

Sicily

Greek (C3?) Greek

230 231

menion

Remarks

Only a seating block of the theatre has been found.

III no. 63

TGR III 050-52

(C3)

232

Tegea

Arkadia

233

Telmessos

234

Teos

Lydia

235

Termessos

Pamphylia

236

Thasos

Thasos

237

Theangela

Lykia

— Karia

Greek (C4 & 174) Roman (C1) Roman (C2 AD) Greek (C2?) Greek (C4 & C3) Greek

TGR 11270

III no. 65

TGR III 425 TGR III 501

Il no. 71

TGR Ill 443-444

II no. 72

TGR II 303-304

— Il no. 73

Radt (1970) 37f.

— II no. 74

(?) 238

Thebes

Boiotia

Greek Isler (1997) 553 (C41? ἃ Hell.) Greek TGR II 266 (C4?) Greek TGR II 289

—s III no. 66

239

Thebes

Phtiotis

240

Thera

Thera

241

Thespiai

242

Thorikos

Boiotia (C31) Attika

243 244

Thouria Thourioi

Messenia Magna

7 Roman

Isler (1997) 552 TGR III 31-32

245

Tithorea

Graecia Phokis

(C1 AD) Greek

Vischer (1857) 625; III no. 68

(C2) Greek

TGR 11307

Greek

TGR II 308

MI no. 67

(Classical)

Thorikos.

Frazer (1898) V.407; Isler (1997) 553 TGR 111 527-528 — II no. 75

246

Tlos

Lykia

247

Tralles

Lydia

248

Tripolis

Lydia

Roman

Greek? (CIV/Cle AD) GreekTGR Il] 380-81

Sicily

Greek

Roman (C1/Cl (Apollonia)

249

Tyndaris

AD)

TGR ΠΙ 532

(C2 AD)

TGR ITI 063-64

(ca. 300 & C3)

250

Xanthos

Lykia

Greek (Hell.

251

Zela

Pontos

?

Valley of the Muses. In the deme of

TGR ΠῚ 471+ III 472 & Roman)

Isler (1997) 557

The Greek Theatre

121

Addenda

(1) A passage in Hippoc. Epid. (1.20) has recently been taken to be literary evidence for the existence of a theatre on Thasos in the later fifth century (Y. Granjean & F. Salviat, Guide

de

Thasos

[Paris

2000]

105).

In the relevant

passage,

editors

print either

θέρετρον (Jones in the Loeb edition, 1.20.4) or θέατρον (Littré, 1.2.9.55). If the reading θέατρον is accepted, this passage must be added to Appendix III. (2) The

situation

at the Amphiareion

at Oropos

deserves

an additional

note.

The

inscription /G VII 4255.30 (cf. Appendices I no. 3 ἃ II no. 52) mentions a theatre “at the altar": λί(θ)οις δὲ χρήσεται toig ἐκ τοῦ θεάτρου τοῦ κατὰ τὸ[μ] βωμόν ... This means that there must have been two theatres (or more) at the sanctuary since (i) it was necessary to add the specification "at the altar" and since (ii) the well-known theatre is

not situated "at the altar". The theatre referred to in the inscription is most likely the structure consisting of a few bending rows of seats and actually situated opposite an altar (see e.g. J. Travlos, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des Antiken Attika (Tübingen 1988] 301-3 Abb. 380). The well-known theatre, from which the one "at the altar" is

distinguished in the inscription, is the canonized theatre (Appendix IV no. 171) or more likely the early phase of it. (The first phase of this theatre, possibly contemporary with IG VII 4255, was not that much different in its construction than “the theatre at the altar". The canonized second phase belongs to the Hellenistic period. For the early phase see C. Anti & L. Polacco, Nuove richerce sui teatri greci arcaici [Padova 1969]

47-77, 163-171, Tav. III-IV.) This use of θέατρον, i.e. to refer to a seating arrangement which was not a theatre in the usual architectural sense, is similar to the use discussed above 74f. (3) A C2 decree (BCH 37 [1913] 122 n. 39.23; cf. P.J. Rhodes, The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford 1997]

195) mentioning a theatron at Abdera came to my know-

ledge only after I had completed the text of the present study. This decree is an addendum to Appendix II and Abdera, then, belongs to the group of localities where a theatre is attested by all three kinds of evidence, and accordingly this group numbers [4 and not 13 localities (as indicated in Fig. 1).

Bibliography Bean, G.E. 1971. Turkey beyond the Maeander (London). Bieber, M. 1961. The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre (Princeton). Bintliff, 3. 1997. "Further Considerations on the Populations of Ancient Boeotia,” in J. Bintliff (ed.)

Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece. Proceedings of the 6th International Boeotian Conference, BAR 666 (Oxford) 231—52.

Bulle, H. 1928. Untersuchungen an griechischen Theatern, AbhMünch XXXV (Munich). Burford, A. 1966. "Notes on the Epidaurian Building Inscriptions," BSA 61: 254-339. Burn, A.R. 1949. "Helikon in History," BSA 44: 313ff. Bursian, C. 1872. Geographie von Griechenland 11 (Leipzig). Cole, S.G. 1993. “Procession and Celebration at the Dionysia,” in R. Scodel (ed.), Theater and Society in the Classical World (Ann Arbor) 25-38.

122

Rune Frederiksen

Cook, J.M. and Plommer, W.H. 1966. The Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos (Cambridge). Corni, F. 1994. "Theatre Classification," in Rossetto and Sartorio (1994) 1: 134-35.

Curtius, E. 1851-52. Peloponnesos 1-Π (Gotha). De Bernardi Ferrero, D. 1974. Teatri classici in Asia Minore. Vol. 4. Deduzioni e proposte (Rome). Deubner, L. 1969. Artische Feste (Darmstadt).

Dilke. O.A.W. 1948. "The Greek Theatre Cavea," BSA 43: 125-92. Dinsmoor, W.B. 1950. The Architecture of Ancient Greece? (Batsford).

Fabricius, E. and Bohn, R. 1886. "Eine pergamenische Landstadt,” AM 14: 1-14. Forsén, B. 1999. "Population and Political Strength of some southeastern Arkadian Poleis," CPCPapers 5: 35-55. Frazer. J.G. 1898. Pausanias's Description of Greece I-VI (Cambridge).

Frederiksen, R. 1995. "De boiotiske teatre i klassisk tid. Valgsteder for boiotarcher og rádsmedlemmer?," in T.H. Nielsen and G. Tortzen (eds.), Gammel Dansk. Studier et alia til ere for Mogens

Herman Hansen pá hans 55~drs fedselsdag 20. august 1995 (Copenhagen) 17-23. Frederiksen, R. 2000. "Typology of the Greek Theatre Building in late Classical and Hellenistic Times," Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 3: 135-75. Ginouves, R. 1972. Le théütron à gradins droits et l'odéon d’Argos (Paris). Gneisz, D. 1990. Das antike Rathaus. Das griechische Bouleuterion und die frührömische

Curia

(Wien).

Gogos. S. 198B. "Das antike Theater in der Periegese des Pausanias," Klio 70: 329-39. Goodchild, R.G. 1971. Kyrene und Apollonia (Zürich). Gruben, G. 1982. "Naxos und Paros," Archaeologischer Anzeiger. 159-95. Hansen, ΜΗ. 1994. “Poleis and City-States, 600-323 B.C.," CPCPapers 1: 9-17. Hansen, M.H. 1995. "Boiotian Poleis. A Test Case," CPCActs 2: 13-63. Hansen, M.H. 1996. "An Inventory of Boiotian Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods," CPCActs 3: 73-116.

Hansen, ΜΗ. 1997. "The Polis as an Urban Centre. The Literary and Epigraphical Evidence,” CPCActs 4: 9-86. Hansen, M.H. 2000. “The Hellenic Polis," Thirty City-State Cultures: 141-87. Hansen, M.H. and Fischer-Hansen, T. 1994. “Monumental Political Architecture in Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis. Evidence and Historical Significance," CPCPapers 1: 23-90. Heyder, W. and Mallwitz, A. 1978. Die Bauten im Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben (Berlin).

Hoepfner. W. and Schwandner, E.-L. 1986. Haus und Stadi im klassischen Griechenland (Munich). Hoepfner, W. et al. 1999. “Die Epoche der Griechen," in W. Hoepfner (ed.), Geschichte des Wohnens (Stuttgart) 123—608. Isler, H.P. Isler, H.P.

1994. "Ancient Theatre Architecture," in Rossetto and Sartorio (1994) I: 86-124. 1997. "Teatro e odeon," EAA Suppl. H (1971-94) (Rome) 549-63.

ISM-Avram. A. 1999. Inscriptiones de Scythie Mineure vol. III. Callatis et son territoire (Paris and Bucharest).

Keen. A.G. 1998. Dynastic Lycia. A Political History of the Lycians and Their Relations with Foreign Powers, c. 545-362 BC (Leiden).

Kolb, F. 1981. Agora und Theater. Volks- und Festversammlung (Berlin). Kolb, F. 1984. Die Stadt im Altertum (Munich). Krinzinger, F. 1980. "Das OEATPON von Olympia," in Forschungen und Funde. Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch, IBK 21 (Innsbruck) 249—60. Lauter, H. 1986. Die Architectur des Hellenismus (Darmstadt). Leake, W.M. 1830. Travels in the Morea 1-1III (London).

The Greck Theatre

123

Marchese, R. 1994. “The Theater at Harpasa,” Anatolica 20: 233-47. Martin, R. 1956. L'urbanisme dans la Gréce antique (Paris). Martorano, F. 1985. "Il porto e l'ekklesiasterion di Reggio nel 344. Ricerche di topografia e di architettura antica su una polis italiotica,” RivStorCalabr 6: 231-57. McDonald, W.A. 1943. The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks (Baltimore). McDonald. W.A. and Simpson, R.H. 1961. "Prehistoric Habitation in Southwestern Peloponnese.” AJA 65: 221-260. Mette, H.J. 1977. Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Griechenland (Berlin).

Mitens, C. 1988. Teatri greci e teatri ispirati all'architettura greca in Sicilia e nell'Italia meridionale c.350-50 a.C. (Rome). Mitsopoulou-Leon, V. and Pochmarski, E. 1976-77. "Elfter vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Elis," ÓJhBeibl 51: 181-222. Monaco. G. 1994. “In the Open Air.” in Rossetto and Sartorio (1994) I: 38-43.

Morgan, C. and Coulton, J.J. 1997. "The Polis as a Physical Entity," CPCActs 4: 87-144. Parker. R. 1996. Arhenian Religion. A History (Oxford). Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 1946. The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (Oxford). Pickard-Cambridge, A.W.

1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens? (Oxford).

Radt, W. 1970. Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel Halikarnassos, IstMitt Beiheft 3 (Tübingen). Rehm, R. 1992. Greek Tragic Theatre (London).

Robertson, N. 1992. Festivals and Legends. The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual (Toronto). Robinson, D.M. 1930. Excavations at Olynthos. Part Il. Architecture and Sculpture: Houses and other Buildings (Baltimore). Roebuck, C.A. 1941. A History of Messenia. From 369 to 146 B.C. (Diss. University of Chicago). Rossetto, P.C. and Sartorio, G.P. (eds.). 1994. Teatri greci e romani. Alle origini del linguaggio rappresentato I-III (Rome) = TGR. Roy. J. 2000. "Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370-362 BC,” in R. Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alernatives to Athens. Ancient Greece (Oxford) 308-26.

Varieties of Political Organization and Community

in

Schachter, A. 1986. Cults of Boiotia II (London). Schachter, A. 1992. "Policy, Cult, and the Placing of Greek Sanctuaries,” in O. Reverdin and B. Grange (eds.) Le sanctuaire grec (Geneva) 1—64.

Sherwin- White, S.M. 1978. Ancient Kos, Hypomnemata 51 (Góttingen). Sourvinou-[nwood, C. 1994. "Something to do with Athens: Tragedy and Ritual," in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.) Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts. Presented to David

Lewis (Oxford) 269—290. Stauber, J. 1996. Die Bucht von Adramytteion. I. Adramytieion I: 291-309. Symeonoglou, S. 1985. The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times (Princeton). TGR = P.C. Rossetto and G.P. Sartorio (eds.) 1994, Teatri greci e romani. Alle origini del linguaggio rappresentato I-III (Rome). Thompson, H.A. 1950. "Τῆς Odeion in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 19: 31-141. Tomlinson, R.A.

1976. Greek Sanctuaries (London).

Travlos, J. 1949. “The Topography of Eleusis," Hesperia 18: 138-47. Travlos, J. 1971. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen (Tübingen). Trunk, M. 1994. "Das Theater von Neandria. Vorbericht zu einer Stufenanlage im Stadtcentrum,” in E. Schwertheim and H. Wiegartz (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu Neandria und Alexandria Troas, Asia Minor Studien || (Bern) 91-100. Ussing, J.L. 1868. Kritiske Bidrag til Grekenlands gamle Geographie (Copenhagen). In Danish with a

French summary.

124

Rune Frederiksen

Veyne, P. 1985. "Une inscription dionysiaque peu commune,” BCH 109: 621-4. Vischer, W.

1857. Erinnerungen und Eindrücke aus Griechenland (Basel).

Wheler, G. 1723. Voyage de Dalmatie de Gréce et du Levant (The Hague). Whitehead, D. 1986. The Demes of Attica (Princeton).

Wiles, D. 1997. Tragedy in Athens (Cambridge). Will, E. 1985. Le sanctuaire de la déesse syrienne, Exploration archéologique de Délos XXXV (Paris). Wycherley, R.E. 1962. How the Greeks Built Cities? (New York). Zaidman, L.B. and Pantel, P.S. 1992. Religion in the Ancient City, transl. by P.A. Cartledge (Cambridge).

Rune Frederiksen The Copenhagen Polis Centre

REFLECTIONS ON NATIVE SETTLEMENTS IN THE DOMINIONS OF GELA AND AKRAGAS AS SEEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COPENHAGEN POLIS CENTRE*

by TOBIAS FISCHER-HANSEN

I. Introduction

This investigation treats some of the Hellenised Sikel settlements in the interior of Sicily (Fig. 1). The urbanisation of these centres and their reception of Greek cult and burial customs make them, at times, indistinguishable from the Greek colonies on the coast. Urbanisation under Greek influence began as early as the seventh century in some of the native! communities under examination here, an outcome of the penetration of Greek contacts far into the hinterland, at times seen even before the foundation of the coastal colonies. The growing influence within adjoining territories, or even the subjugation of these following the establishment of colonies, led at times to the foundation of secondary colonies; Syracuse is a well known case: within a century of its foundation it had founded Heloron, Kasmenai, Akrai and Kamarina, and created an extensive Syracusan dominion in southeast Sicily. Leontinoi founded a city named Euboia, located somewhere inland from the Leontine plain, and Kallipolis, a Naxian foundation according to Strabo (6.2.6), which succumbed to Hippokrates of Gela ca. 495 (Hdt. 7.154.2), must have been situated in the heights delimiting the plain of Naxos. Gela, with its secondary foundation Akragas, dominated vast tracts of central Sicily through the seventh and sixth centuries, securing the influence of these two cities northwards as far as territories bordering upon the sphere of Himera. However, the *

]

2

This is a somewhat expanded and updated version of papers given at the Universities of Aarhus and Pisa in 1996. I am grateful to Carmine Ampolo and to Thomas Heine Nielsen for their collaboration on the compilation of the site indices of native settlements for the Inventory of Poleis on Sicily in the Archaic and Classical Periods, to be published by the Copenhagen Polis Centre. However, the mainly archaeological contribution presented here, with its undoubted shortcomings, is my own responsibility. Theterm 'native' is chosen in accordance with the suggestion by Whitehouse and Wilkins (1989) 124 n. 1. However, ‘native’ and ‘Sikel’, for the Sikulan and Sikanian peoples, are terms used here rather indiscriminately. The distribution of Sikanians and Sikulans, as defined in the literary sources (e.g. Thuc. 6.2.1—6), is not always clearly mirrored in the archaeological evidence (for the difficulty of distinguishing Sikanian from Sikulan sites, see, i.a., Cusumano [1994] 141-8; Leighton [1999] 215-17, 221-2) and these ethnic terms are mostly avoided here. However, for a recent survey of the native cultures of Sicily, see La Rosa (1989). Di Vita (1956); (1987).

Ouat1ca

(OateodH)

TYRRHENUM

MARE

Agtlgentu

C Palma di Mo

0

50 km

I. Map of Sicily: EEA S11ppl.vol. 5: p. 243.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

127

written sources mention no Geloan or Akragantine colonial foundations in this vast zone, though a number of phrouria in their territories are attested in Diodorus Siculus. Some of thesc may have had an early origin, for instance Eknomos between Gela and Akragas, according to Diodorus a stronghold of Phalaris (19.108.1). Cities proper such as Omphake, Maktorion and Kakyron are treated in the sources as native communities in conflict with Greek cities on the coast. At times some Hellenisation is implied for these cities, as in the case of Omphake, where Geloans took as spoil what is described as a cult image made by Daidalos (Paus. 8.46.2). However, the majority of the cities under examination are unattested in the written sources, though it is clear from the archaeologial testimonies that they played a role of paramount importance in the early history of Gela and Akragas. A number of settlement sites in Sicily are included in the Copenhagen Polis Centre's inventory of Greek poleis, although they have a native origin. Many of these cities, some of which are known only from the literary sources, had, after the middle of the fifth century, witnessed and undergone a political history and an urban development which allows this classification. These are: Abakainon, Adranon, Agyrion, Alaisa, Alontion, Apollonia, Engyon, Galeria, Henna, Herbessos, Herbita, Hippana, Imachara, Kentoripa, Kephaloidion, Longane, Morgantina, Mytistratos, Nakone, Petra and Piakos. Other sites attested in the sources as poleis, polismata, polisma Sikanon, poleis Sikelias, or as phrouria, or perhaps mentioned without classification, and also several sites not identified in the sources but known from important urban remains, are not included in the inventory of Greek poleis. This is most often to be explained by the late date or the dubiousness of the sources mentioning them, or by the fact that the archaeological remains per se do not admit a polis classification. The settlements not included in the inventory are: Adryx, Agathyrnon, Akrilla, Assoros, Butera, Ergetion, Hybla Geleatis, Hybla Heraia, Hykkara, Inessa, Inyx (Inykos), Kakyron, Kale Akte, Kamikos, Maktorion, Menai (Menainon), Menai (the patris of Douketios relocated to Palike), Monte Bubbonia, Monte Desusino, Monte Gibil Gabib, Monte Iudica, Monte

San Mauro, Monte Saraceno, Motyon, Omphake,

Palike, Trinakrie, Tyrakinai and

Vassallaggi.? The majority of the latter group of settlements were in origin native communities which in various ways came under influence from the Greek colonies on the coast, in some cases by conquest as the Geloan conquest of Omphake and as the Akragantine conquest of Kamikos. Other settlements might be influenced by Greek ways of life, as was the case with most of the archaeological sites treated here, among which some cities not identified with certainty in the sources, such as Monte Saraceno and Monte San Mauro, are not easily distinguishable as either Hellenised native settlements, as native sites with Greek settlers, or as Greek cities with native elements.* By the midfifth century the Sikel leader Douketios had founded the Sikel cities of Palike (Diod. 12.8.2) and Kale Akte (Diod. 11.88.6), and perhaps Morgantina (Diod. 11.78.5), cities which from the description in the sources of the act of foundation would be classified as city-states similar to Greek poleis.5 Most of the archaeological sites listed above show 3 4 5

Sources for the ancient sites: Manni (1981); situation, where known, with main references: R.J.A. Wilson in the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Map 47. Cf.Martin et al. (1979) 749. Rizzo (1970) 58-66; Bell (1984-85) 505-6; Martin et. al. (1979) fig. 226 (Palike). Kale Akte is

128

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

clear evidence of urbanisation of habitation areas by the sixth century, at times by urban planning and the embellishment of sanctuaries, and, at times, by the raising of circuit walls.

II. South-Eastern Italy 1. Settlements Before setting forth in more detail the Sicilian evidence, it will be useful to place into perspective the process of Hellenisation of the Sicilian sites by taking a look at the situation in south-eastern Italy, where only few non-Greek cities may qualify as poleis. In comparison with the 21 Classical sites in Sicily which have a native origin but have been included in the Inventory of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, only Brentesion in Apulia may qualify as a polis Hellenis during the Classical period, indeed a very meagre harvest. In addition, the native sites in south-eastern Italy do not seem to be

fully urbanised before the fourth century, and even that is a matter of debate, whereas the native settlements of Sicily under review have revealed strong evidence of sixthcentury urbanisation. Also to be taken into consideration is the argument that the urbanisation of native sites in southern Italy took a distinctly native form.’ A further difference between Sicily and southern Italy would lie in the argument that the urbanisation processes of the colonies Taras and Metapontion share a number of features with the non-Greek cities of southeast Italy, perhaps to be understood as a process of regional development against the background of a cultural koine which included Greek and Italic elements.’ But such common developments should be seen in the perspective of late processes, whereas in Sicily the evidence seems to point quite clearly to an early urbanistion of native sites under Hellenic influence (see further below). Whitehouse

and Wilkins also reflect on the late urbanisation of native sites, but follow this up with the argument that the Greek settlements themselves achieved urban status only by the sixth century.? However, this view is hardly tenable today, and urban planning, rich embellishment of sanctuaries and at some sites the raising of circuit walls — for instance the eighth/seventh-century walls of Siris (Policoro) — suggest urbanisation at a much

earlier date.!0 The ekklesiasterion at Metapontion, with a history going back to the seventh century, is tangible evidence for an early political monument at this site.!!

ON

normally located in the zone of Marina di Caronia; for a fortified plateau here with traces of a regular urban layout, see Bonacasa Carra (1974) 111-12, pl. 6.3. Refs. above all in Lomas (1993); cf. also Herring (2000) 65-9.

8

Lomas (1993); Lomas (2000) 83-4: "Urbanisation, by analogy with the Greek world, is often assumed to imply the development of polis type social and political systems, based on citizenship and participation in the life of the community. It is also — again by the analogy with the Greeks — frequently assumed to imply political autonomy on the part of these cities. However, neither the archaeological nor the literary evidence for southeast Italy is straightforward on either point." Lomas (2000) 88; cf. Herring (2000) 73 n. 3.

9

Whitehouse and Wilkins (1989) 118.

IO

Fischer-Hansen (1996), though treating primarily Sicily, sets forth evidence also from the colonies in South Italy to support this contention.

ti

Mertens and De Siena (1982); Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 65-7; Carter (1994) 168.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

129

Whitehouse and Wilkins have summed up the evidence for Greek-style architecture and fortifications in Southern Italy, in Calabria, Basilicata and Apulia, and especi-

ally in the interior region of Metapontion and Herakleia.!? Fortifications raised at inland settlements are seen as native, but inspired by Greek prototypes. In Sicily the Sikel settlements may have been fortified as a result of Hellenisation, most often with

the employment of a rather simply structured rampart wall of native type.!? Although the native settlements in Sicily saw the introduction of Greek urban planning and Greek sanctuaries and temples, their fortifications were strongly influenced by a native typology, even though they were probably also an element in the Hellenisation pro-

cess.!* What is seen as the native type of rampart wall was in fact used in circuit walls of the Greek colonies of Himera and at Kasmenai,'* and at Kamarina the technique used in the first, sixth-century phase, fortification, a double curtain wall raised in small stones with internal fill of loose stones,!6 is not dissimilar to the rampart or aggere-type of fortification found at several of the inland sites. Adamesteanu has pointed out that in analysing types and chronology of fortifications one should take into account also the geomorphological environment in which a colony was founded or a settlement developed. During the early history of a settlement it would also be the geomorphological environment which determined the technique used in fortifications, and sites such as Siris, poorly furnished with rock, therefore used sun-dried brick for their first perimeter

wall.!? If the geomorphological point of view is expanded to native and native Hellenised sites the rubble walls and ashlar walls may be explained by local geological conditions, explaining why the techniques employed in fortifications are such uncer-

tain parameters for defining ethnicity.!? The appearance of defensive systems in the native sites of south-east Italy is mainly fourth-century, perhaps fifth-century at a few sites, whereas the Sicilian settlements treated here were fortifed by the sixth century; towers and gates dated to the fourth century are primarily the result of restructuring of already existing walls or ramparts.

2. Sanctuaries

Greek-type sanctuaries are rare in the native settlements of south-east Italy. Greek temples are as yet unknown in the native settlements before Hellenistic times — as for instance in Gnathia and Kanysion — and the number of Greek or Greek-type architectural terracottas from for instance S. Braida di Vaglio, Rossano di Vaglio and Botromagno do not with any certainty attest temples or public buildings of Greek type.!? Native rural sanctuaries in both Basilicata and Apulia, on the other hand, bear stronger resemblances to Greek rural sanctuaries situated in the chorai of the Greek colonies 12 13

Whitehouse and Wilkins (1989) 109-10. In Italian publications often described as 'aggere'. For this somewhat Bonacasa Carra (1974) 93 n. 3.

misleading

14

Bonacasa Carra (1974); Tréziny (1986) 189-91; Albanese Procelli (1996) 171.

15 16

Bonacasa Carra (1974) 110-11 (Himera); Adamesteanu (1986) 110 (Kasmenai). Pelagatti et al. (1985) 295.

17

Adamesteanu (1986).

18 19

Cf. Tréziny (1986); Albanese Procelli (1996) 171. Whitehouse and Wilkins (1989) 109-10; Herring (1996) 156-7.

term, see

130

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

from the late seventh century — those of Metapontion being exceptionally well investigated; like these they are often associated with water resources, and some may have functioned as emporia for native and Greek trading contacts.?! Although Greek votives are richly represented in some rural sanctuaries in the hinterland of native cities, the low degree of Hellenisation of these suggest that this evidence cannot be taken as an argument for Hellenisation of the sanctuaries.2? This picture is different in Sicily where several rural and urban sanctuaries, although situated at some distance from the Greek cities, seem wholly Greek even from the early sixth century. In Selinuntian territory the

stele from Mandra di Mezzo with a dedication to Herakles is testimony to a rural sanctuary and the diffusion of the cult of Herakles inland into Elymian territory; other rural cults for Herakles are attested at Butera and Montagna di Marzo in the hinterland of Gela (see below).

The extra-urban sanctuary of Contrada Mango at Segesta has all the appearance of a Greek sanctuary during its sixth- and fifth-century history. The large sanctuary (83.40 x 47.80 m) was delimited on all sides by a sturdy temenos wall, built in accurate isodomic ashlar technique very similar to that employed in the temenos wall of the Demeter Malophoros sanctuary in Selinous; this may suggest that Selinuntian craftsmen were responsible for the structure.? Architectural fragments found inside the sanctuary belonged to an exceptionally high-quality canonic Doric temple with perista-

sis and pronaos, dating shortly after the middle of the fifth century,2* and therefore earlier than the major extra-urban Segesta temple, testimony of the profound Hellenisation of the sanctuary, and also of its wealth. However, the graffiti carried by a part of the abundant of Greek votive material, above all Attic Black Figured vases, are written

in Elymian, in Greek lettering acquired from the Greeks of Selinous.?* The sixth-century temple in the Elymian city of Iaitas (Monte lato), recognised from epigraphic evidence as a sanctuary for Aphrodite, is built in a form recognisable as a Sicilian naiskos, perhaps especially close in typology to the naiskoi of Selinous. It is not only built by Greeks but also for a Greek community according to Isler, who sees the sanctuary as serving Greek merchants rather than a sanctuary with a shrine raised as a result of a political Hellenisation, as that known from the hinterland of Gela.26

3. Sicily versus Southern Italy What are the explanatory models for the differences between the region of southsouth-eastern Italy and Sicily in the respects outlined above? Herring has suggested that the lack of public buildings on native sites in south-eastern Italy may be explained by the lack of social and religious hierarchies of more developed state societies, in

20

Carter (1994).

21 22

Whitehouse and Wilkins (1989) 114—16; Carter (1994) also mentions the economic aspect, though the emporia-aspect is less pronounced in his investigation. Whitehouse and Wilkins (1989) 110; Herring (1996) 157-8.

23

Tusa (1961); (1988-89) 66-7.

24

Mertens (1984) 87-92.

25

La Geniére (1978a) 42-3 and passim.

26

Isler (1984); (1991) 19-20, 52-6.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

131

which public buildings are normally found," or simply by the lack of a native tradition for using specific buildings for ritual purposes. However, even in the fullfledged Archaic and Classical Greek polis civic public buildings are most often hard to recognise.2? Perhaps the native traditions were different in Sicily, where there is some evidence for civic public buildings at Monte San Mauro and Morgantina, perhaps not solely to be explained by the influence of the Greek cities, but perhaps also reflecting earlier local monumental structures, for instance at Pantalica, if the Late Bronze Age date of the palacc-like habitation and workshop structure is to be trusted, and at other

sites.? The traditional view is that native societies changed under influence from the Greek colonial cities, with an adoption of Greek civilisation to a degree of assimilation or Hellenisation. However, as pointed out in several recent studies, the process of acculturation was complex and native elements not only survived at native Hellenised sites but can even be traced in Greek communities. Finds of Sikel pottery in Archaic and Classical contexts in Syracuse and Naxos may count as frail evidence of native presence, but non-Hellenic graffiti from Gela have with some certainty revealed native

settlers at this site, possibly also evidence of native acquiescence in Greek cult.? The wide distribution of Akragantine bronze coinage at native sites in central Sicily from the mid-fifth century has revealed that these played a role in the economic life of Akragas; that the denominations of the bronze coinage of the Greek cities were based

upon the litra, a native unit of weight, is well known.?! However, as also pointed out by Herring,?? native groups or regions may have behaved differently, and the native cities of Sicily have revealed a pattern of Hellenisation very different from that of Southern Italy. The history of the poleis of South Italy is dominated by the permanent threat of successive native tribes moving south, some, as in the case of the Loukanians, ultimately successful in their aggression against the Greek cities. The picture is different in Sicily. Since there is no influx of native tribes from outside after the foundation of the Greek colonies, Phoenician Sicily apart, Hellenisation is seen as a more uniform

assimilation.) Also, it has been argued by Lomas that the cities of south-east Italy, although they had contacts with the Greek world and show signs of Hellenisation,

developed on a pattern distinct from that of the polis."

SEEN

As a point of departure it may be useful to follow the model laid forth by Herring, that is, to examine what elements the native societies adapted or took over and what

31 32 33 34

Herring (1996) 157. Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994).

Albanese Procelli (1995) 36-7; Leighton (1999) 155-6.

Manni (1984-85) 177. For the concept of intermarriage see the recent analysis by G. Shepherd which has shown the difficulties in tracing the phenomenon in the sources and in the archaeological material; especially noteworthy is the demonstration that the find pattern of fibulae at Pithekoussai, often taken to indicate native wives, is much the same as at Syracuse. The significant finds of fibulae and other metal objects in graves may reflect rather rich metal work industries (Shepherd [1999]). Vassallo (1983). See especially Herring (1996) 146-7. Martin et al. (1979) 764; see also Lomas (2000) 183-4. Lomas (1993) 64-5.

132

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

elements of their own they retained - in this study, however, looking mainly at the urban aspects: habitation, urban layout and public architecture. If an analysis of the native sites primarily examines these restricted elements it may turn out that the assimilation is so comprehensive already by the sixth century that it is difficult to distinguish native from Greek sites. What seems apparent from the Sicilian sites under discussion here is that the communal display of wealth played an important role. It seems that the pattern of public buildings and the display of public wealth is very much the same as that known from the Greek colonies of Sicily. Here we may compare the situation in Southern Italy, where the native sites “do not seem to have adopted the Greek temple building, and where there is limited evidence of public buildings, ritual buildings and of meeting places, possibly to be explained by lack of social and religous hierarchies that go with

developed state societies."?5

III. Gela and Akragas, and their Territories One of the more noteworthy examples of Greek territorial expansion is witnessed in the hinterland of Gela (founded 689/9) and Akragas (founded ca. 580).?%

Gela's sphere of influence is reflected from soon after its foundation in the Hellenisation of several sites along the inland river valleys and along the coast — leading eventually to the foundation of Akragas. Butera, situated only 12 km north of Gela, was Hellenised by the seventh century, Monte Bubbonia by the sixth century, and Monte San Mauro also by the second half of the sixth century. After the foundation of Akragas, Gela together with Akragas secured control of the River Salso valley system and Greek contacts have been documented at native sites such as Monte Saraceno and Sabucina from the first half of the sixth century (Fig. 2).?? The native settlements are often understood as being Hellenised in several phases: at first as sites under the military control of Gela or Akragas and playing a role as phrouria; later through the sixth century and perhaps under influence of Akragas, by that time a powerful state, these developed into poleis proper. However, the terminology employed by different scholars is at times rather confused, the individual terms being used rather indiscriminately for the native and for the Hellenised native settlements.?* A distinction should be made between the phrouria laid out to serve primarily 35

Herring (1996) 156-7.

36

Fundamental research at sites under discussion here was initiated a century ago by Paolo Orsi and

was taken up later in a number of seminal studies by Dinu Adamesteanu, Ernesto De Miro and Piero Orlandini, for instance: Adamesteanu (1955); (19562); (1956b); (1957a); (19582); (1958b); (1963); De Miro (1962); Orlandini (1956); (1962); (1971); for Forschungsberichte see also Orsi

37

and Pancucci (1972-73) 5-6 and Adamesteanu (1963) 19-26, the latter with one of the earliest and most successful examples of the use of aerial photography in urbanistic research. Our study is mainly, but not entirely, concerned with the settlements in the dominions of Gela and Akragas; recent surveys are found in Domínguez (1989); Micciché (1989); and in BTCGI. The most acute topographical review of the routes of Geloan expansion west and north-westwards, based upon the analyses of aerial photography and archacological surveys, is still that of Adamesteanu (1963) esp. 42-8

38

Cf. e.g. Micciché (1989) 45-59.

Reflections on Native SettJements in the Dominions of Gela and ~gas

133

l~ (

,_ _,....._ olizzello •

.

Cat • Vlllarmo

• M11ena

2. Map of central southern Sicily with sites in the hinterland of Gcla and Akragas:Miccich~ ( 1989).

the specific purpose of fortress. for instance those of AJtobrando and Monte Turcisi (see below), and settlements proper. The latter may have served as phrouria, but they are also habitation sites of some standing with housing, public structures such as circuit walls, urban planning and sacred buildings. elements which when taken together make these sites from an archae-0logical point of view indistinguishable from poleis proper. This article will therefore also attempt to review the possibility of analysing the different types of sites. The Sikel revolt led by Douketios can conveniently be se,en as an end-phase of the first period of Hellenisation. The fourth century with its refoundations of native settlements as Greek cities by Timoleon. is not discussed here.

134

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

IV. Catalogue of Settlements

Ariaitos (Ariaitas) The earliest known example of an offering by a colony to the gods of its metropolis is the seventh-century dedication by the Geloans of a krater to Athana Lindia at Rhodos, the spoils (akrothinion) taken from Ariaitos (or Ariaitas) listed in the Lindian Chronic-

le (Xenagoras [FrGrHist 240] fr. 12). It is widely accepted that Ariaitos was an otherwise unknown locality in the hinterland of Gela,4 and not, as some would have it, the name of a person. The historical context is unknown, but we have to do with a valuable written source for Geloan expansion in its hinterland, probably in order to secure its chora, an expansion which must be placed shortly after the foundation of the colony and at the time of the Hellenisation at other native settlements such as Butera and Monte Bubbonia. At Gela enchytrismos burials in pithoi, of which some carry a decoration inspired by native plumed painted wares, corroborate the early contacts between Greeks and natives and may be taken as evidence of native or mixed Greek native inhabitants within the

Geloan community.®! Kamikos Kamikos was the polis of the Sikanian king Kokalos. The city, with the basileia of Kokalos (Diod. 4.78.2), was beleagured by the Cretans, albeit in vain, but was apparently settled by Akragantines at the time of Herodotos (Hdt. 7.170.1). According to Polyainos, the Akragantines at the time of Phalaris exercised an expansionist policy

(Strat. 5.1, 3).* This tradition is possibly corroborated by the mention in the Lindian Chronicle of a krater carrying a dedication from Daidalos to Kokalos, which was sent by Phalaris to Rhodos. Presumably it was part of the spoils taken from some Sikanian

city (FGrHist [532] 27),9 though according to Luraghi the wording of the dedication argues against such an interpretation.“ Kamikos is most often identified with Sant’

Angelo Muxaro, but the evidence is equivocal.“ Butera Butera, situated on hights dominating the plain of Gela ca. 14 km north of Gela, is most often identified with Omphake, one of the few cities known from literary sources to have been situated in the territory of Gela (Omphake: polis Sikelias: Philistos [FGrHist 39

Cf. Graham (1971) 161-2.

40

Manni (1981)

41

Orsi (1906) 95, 111-12, 125-6, etc.; Orlandini and Adamesteanu (1960) 151-2; most recently: Orlandini (1995) 39-40. The anecdote (Polyainos Strat. 5.4) of the stratagem used by Phalaris to conquer the Sikanian city of Ouessa, seat of Teutos, does probably echo the campaigns of Phalaris (however, cf. Luraghi [1994] 29-30). Ouessa. has, still less than Kamikos, been identified with any certainty, though Sant' Angelo Muxaro has been brought forward as a candidate also for this site (Manni [1981] 241). Cf. Waele (1971) 103-8; Braccesi (1988) 7-13. Luraghi (1994) 42-3. Manni (1981) 155; Luraghi (1994) 38-9.

42

43 44 45

146-7; Giangiulio (1984).

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

135

556] fr. 19). The oecist of Gela, Antiphemos, sacked Omphake and took from that city a cult statue made by Daidalos, evidence of at least some sort of cult image (Paus. 8.46.2).

Adamesteanu

has underlined the speed

with which

signs of Hellenisation

turned up at Butera.* The site is near Gela and there is strong evidence of Hellenisation from the first part of the seventh century in the cemetery of Piano della Fiera. Geometric and Proto-Korinthian wares, including Geloan imitations, are richly represented among the tomb gifts. Some tomb rituals are similar to those of the early tombs at Gela, though native rites such as multiple burials also suggest mixed populations. One very unusual funeral rite used in Greek seventh-century burials is found here, namely the practice of akephalia, that is burial of the head separately from the body. Similar grave rituals are documented in Gela and in Prinias, Crete, and Adamesteanu interprets the seventh-century settlement phase at Butera as Greek. He regards it as a Cretan settlement founded contemporarily with Gela and probably the city of Omphake soon taken by Gela (cf. Paus. 8.46.3).*8 From the evidence of the cemetery, the settle-

ment came to a violent end late in the seventh century. There are no Archaic or Classical Greek or Hellenised urban remains, but there are sporadic finds of mid-sixthcentury Greek wares from the habitation plateau. From this evidence the sack of the site is later than that suggested by the tomb evidence, and would also be later than that connected with the tradition of Antiphemos and his conflict with Omphake. The picture offered by the destruction of the settlement, if this is the correct interpretation, is

different from that offered at Sikel sites further inland, where urbanisation continued through the fifth century, but it could be explained by the vicinity of the Greek colony. P Oxy.

665

(2 FGrHist

(577]

fr. 1) mentions

that Omphake

(?) was occupied

by

Syracusan mercenaries in 466/5 which further complicates the issue.” A Timolean phase is attested archaeologically for this site, but Omphake is not found in fourthcentury or later sources. Votive finds from the extra-urban sanctuary at Fontana Calda have revealed Greek frequentation from the mid-seventh century through the sixth century. Fifth-century architectural terracotttas from the vicinity of Butera testify to yet another extra-urban Greek sanctuary,°° and seventh-century bronze figurines from the cemetery and from

the sanctuaries have been referred to Geloan workshops.*! This evidence at least points to continuity of cult after the abandonment of the settlement. A votive graffito for Herakles from Marchito near Butera, dated to the second half of the sixth century, has been taken as cvidence of a rural sanctuary of the hero in the

hinterland of Gela.??

46 47

Survey of evidence: Bejor (1985); Domínguez (1989) 287-92; Gargini (1993b). Adamesteanu (1957b) 166-73.

48

Adamesteanu (1994-95); Leighton (1999) 250-1 has, however, pointed out the mixed character of the tomb finds. Rare cases of this tomb ritual are in fact also documented at other other Sicilian Greek colonies (Himera, Syracuse, Kamarina) and at Morgantina: Lyons (1996b) 181 with refs.

49 50 51 52

Cf.Manni (1990) 105 n. 62. Bejor (1985) 223. Orlandini (1956). Canzanella (1991); IGDS no. 162.

136

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

Lavanca Nera

A hilltop settlement located only 20 km east of Butera in the river Gela valley, which, at least from the testimony of tomb finds, is, primarily, a native site. Part of the site was fortified by a double curtain wall raised in unworked stones, a technique which, at least

at this site, could reflect the ethnicity of the inhabitants.5? An east-west oriented building interpreted as a naiskos, by analogy with more of the sites treated here, was situated on the upper plateau. However, from the description of the technique employed with its use of rough unworked stones, the substructures

seem un-Greek. Tiles are dated to the Archaic period.’* Aerial photography seems to indicate some urban planning; though of uncertain

date, it has been referred to a fourth-century resettlement of the hilltop by Timoleon.55 Monte Bubbonia Monte Bubbonia is situated on the mountain ridge above the river Gela valley, ca. 20 km northeast of Gela. There is no epigraphical or literary evidence for the ancient name of the site, although Omphake and Maktorion have been brought forward as candidates. There is testimony of Greek contacts, most likely Geloan, from the late eighth/ early seventh century, that is from shortly after the foundation of Gela and revealed partly by the Greek ceramic influences on local wares and partly by Sub-Geometric and

Proto-Korinthian imported wares.’’ A deep trench with native pottery, animal bones and ashes inside the later Archaic naiskos (sacellum ' A") on the akropolis suggests that the Greek sanctuary succeeded a Sikel cult-place, good testimony of continuity of cult

from the original native to the later Greek history of the site.°® The settlement of Monte Bubbonia was situated on an oblong plateau and fortified by a sixth-century, 5-km-long stone rampart, a technique often referred to as native, but as likely employed by Greek settlers.’? The earliest structural remains examined are those of the sanctuary situated on the upper plateau, the akropolis. This was later

separated from the main plateau by a fourth-century diateichisma wall (Fig. 3). A mid-sixth-century naiskos with an inner division into two rooms points to Gela where naiskoi with an internal division into two or more rooms are common (Fig. 4).5! Parts

of a bothros, a well-preserved subterranean chamber built in a meticulous ashlar technique, now lying outside the north-east corner of the naiskos, belong to this first

phase of the sanctuary (Fig. 5).2 There may have been a second structure of a similar type in the sixth-century sanctuary, as revealed by ashlar blocks re-used in the founda-

tions of a fourth-century tower-like structure. A number of Silenos antefixes and ridge tiles (kalypter hegemon) are attributed to the building dated to the mid-sixth 53

Adamesteanu (1958a) 383-7; Naro (1992).

54

Adamesteanu (1958a) 383-7.

55 56 57 58

Adamesteanu (1963) 32-4. Pancucci (1980-81); (1992); Pancucci and Naro (1992); Domínguez (1989) 292-6. Pancucci and Naro (1992) 136-7, 164. Pancucci (1980-81) 653-4.

59

Adamesteanu (1955) pl. 74.1; (1956a) 359, 362-3; Bonacasa Carra (1974) 105-6, pl. 3.2.

60

Pancucci and Naro (1992) 131-4.

61

Cf. Fiorentini (1977) 105-12, ‘sacellum A’.

62 63

Pancucci (1977) pl. 33.1-2; (1980-81) pl. 107.2. Pancucci (1977) 122.

~ ,I' 3. Monte .Bubbonfa. Plan of lhe hill-top settlement; cemeteries are indicated in hatching: Pancucci ( I 977) pl. 30.

138

Tobia Pilcher..ffanlen

• •

'

..

•

-------··

- ...I

---·

j_

!

I

J.__ . l

l

'

I

I

I I

.•

t-· ...~ •

•

.J...

. ·t--i

t-

--+----t

f

.l

• - -- .I .

4. Monte Bubbonia. Plan of structures on the abopolis: Pancucci ( 1977) pl.

3 J.

ReOectionson Native Settlementsin the Dominionsof GeJa and Akra.gu

S. Monte Bubbonia. Bothros, section and structure: Pancucci ( 1977) pl. 33, 1-2.

139

140

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

century. The antefix types, although related to Geloan types, are stylistically independent and were most likely locally made. The bothros was respected by the late-sixthcentury/early-fifth-century naiskos built to the north of the earlier building which it replaced. The new temple was a building of traditional Greek-Sicilian megaron plan, without internal divisions.“ The continued use of the altar, now situated inside the building, proves the cultic function of the building. It is worth noting also that the sanctuary extended over a wide area, as revealed by the distribution of votive terracott-

as, Bothroi, in archaeological usage ritual pits or altars with central cavity, are most

often linked to ritual in sanctuaries for the Chthonian divinities.® Related structures are known from the sanctuary of the Chthonian divinities at

Akragas,® from Temple C (‘Temple of Demeter and Persephone’) at Akragas™ and from the area in front of the propylon of the Malophoros sanctuary at Selinous.?? Marconi has drawn attention to the fact that borhroi appear in pairs in the Akragantine sanctuaries of the Chthonian divinities of Demeter and Persephone,’! and this phenomenon does find a parallel in the early sanctuary at Monte Bubbonia, where there is also evidence of two bothroi. This testimony of Greek ritual in the sanctuary at Monte Bubbonia is strong evidence of Greek acculturation. Yet another sanctuary has been identified on the north siope of the upper plateau, and although no details are offered this testimony underlines the prominence given to Greek sanctuaries in the settle-

ment.’? Votive terracottas offer further testimonies of acculturation. At Monte Bubbonia this evidence is known primarily from the cemetery, from the refuse dump of a kiln,

and from a votive deposit.’? The type of standing female figure clad in a footlong chiton, carrying a suckling pig in both hands, is found at Gela and at sites in the

hinterland of Gela.’* The seated kourotrophos”? is known above all from the Bitalemi sanctuary at Gela.’° The type of standing kore holding a flower found in tombs at

64 65 66

Pancucci (1977) pl. 33.3-4; (1980—81) pl. 109.1. Pancucci (1977) 120-1; (1980—81) pl. 106, 107.1. Pancucci and Naro (1992) 134.

67

Stengel (1920) 16-17, 26; Nilsson (1941) 78 n. 14.

68

Marconi (1933); Waele (1971) 195-9; Pancucci (1977) 121.

69 70

Marconi (1929) 69-71; Waele (1971) 199-200. Gabrici (1927) 78, pl. 7. A bothros structurally joined to the naos wall is known also from the latefifth-century sanctuary, ascribed to the Chthonian divinities, in the Selinuntine settlement at Monte Adranone (Fiorentini [1977] 112-14; [1995] 10-11). Cf. also Uhlenbrock (1988) 154-5 with the evidence connecting Demeter sanctuaries, votive protomai and bothroi. The rectangular structure in the cella of the 'Ionic Temple' at Lokroi Epizephyrioi is now tentatively interpreted as a treasury: Costabile (1992) 113. Marconi (1929) 71 n. 1.

71 72

Pancucci (1992) 280; Pancucci and Naro (1992) 139.

73

The last is with some uncertainty located in the sanctuary on the northern part of the plateau, mentioned above: Pancucci and Naro (1992) 139-41.

74 75 76

For the Monte Bubbonia specimens: Griffo (1958) 26 pl. 56; Sguaitamatti (1984) 36, 103, 107, 109, 112, types 24-5, 28-30, 35-6. Pancucci (1976-77) pl. 56.2. Orlandini (1966); Kron (1992).

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

141

Monte Bubbonia is known also at Gela." The figure of an enthroned goddess is typologically related to a large group of votive figurines known from the Geloan and

Akragantine chthonian sanctuaries.’® In any case, the votive statuettes find their nearest parallel in the sphere of the chthonian goddesses, and although the models are primarily Geloan there is evidence which points to local production. A workshop area with kilns has revealed production of Sikel seventh-century Geometric wares and of Greek votive statuettes of the type

described above, a telling testimony of continuity of use of the workshop area.?? Finds from the kilns may suggest that also architectural terracottas were produced locally. Terracotta protomai of Geloan type but of local production are known from the cemetery, although one protome is said to have come from the votive deposit. However, as pointed out by Uhlenbrock, protomai cannot be taken as exclusive evidence of a cult of Persephone and Demeter, though this is often assumed.9? It is often maintained that sanctuaries of Demeter and Persephone were usually established outside the circuit wall,®! but if the divinity of the akropolis sanctuary is correctly identified as chthonian this rule is not applicable here, nor probably at other sites such as Monte Saraceno (see below).

The city situated on the lower plateau has not been excavated, but aerial photography has revealed traces of a formal, orthogonally planned urban layout with north-

south oriented stenopoi, rather similar to that known from Kasmenai,®? and probably not later than the sixth-century circuit wall. Sporadic Greek finds confirm a sixthcentury habitation phase, but they cannot be taken as certain evidence for the date of the planned city. According to Griffo, remains of a large building, the so-called 'anactoron invernale’, excavated by Orsi on the north slope of the plateau near the north cemetery, are no longer extant. The complex was a vast structure (63.80 x 30 m) of several rooms around a central court.® The interpretation of the structure rests upon the presence of pithoi and mill stones, and its early history is dated to the late sixth century by Greek pottery and a fragment of a Gorgon antefix. This does not, however, necessarily imply a sacred function of the building, or of part of it.8 The architecture of the complex has similarities with the farmsteads of Milinghiana, Manfria and Priorato which have a sixth-century history; but it is the fourth-century phase which is similar to the structure at Bubbonia. The layout of the building complex seems inherently Hellenistic, but 77

80 81 82 83 84

Monte Bubbonia: Pancucci (1976-77) 473—4 pls. 55.4; 56.4; Gela: Orsi (1906) 695-6. figs. 519, 521. Griffo (1958) 26, pl. 56. Griffo (1958) 26, pl. 56; Orlandini (1962) pl. 12.1; Pancucci (1976-77) pl. 51.7; Pancucci and Naro (1992) 139-41. Some of these finds may come from a votive deposit not identified with certainty. Uhlenbrock (1988) 124-5, 151-6. Cf. e.g. Kesteman (1970) 411; Cole (1994) 211-13. Orlandini (1962) pl. 10.2; Kasmenai: Di Vita (1981) 71-2, fig. 2. Griffo (1958) 25. Orsi and Pancucci (1972-73) 11-12, 56-8.

85

Pace Orsi and Pancucci (1972-73)

86

Milinghiana: Martin in Storia della Sicilia I: 338-40; Manfria and Priorato: Adamesteanu (19582) 311-16; Canzanella (1996).

78 79

12.

142

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

Orsi does in fact propose a sixth-century date for parts of the structure,®’ and the complex may have had a sixth-century origin. The overall urban components including this extra-urban fattoria gives an impression of similarity to Greek sites proper, and in this case a comparison with Gela and the rural farm-factory at Manfria seems especially appropriate. The cemeteries were placed along the outer slopes of the settlement plateau.99 Orsi's early investigations revealed tombs of native type: chamber tombs and tholoi® with rich contents. They were predominantly native wares including also local wares of Greek imitation at least from the eighth century. Greek pottery is represented by Attic, Korinthian and Laconian vases dating later burials to the second half of the sixth century. Other cemeteries have tomb types known from the Greek colonies, apart from simple trench graves, also tile graves (a cappucina), and inhumations in jars (enchytrismos), burial forms known at Gela in the Late Archaic and Classical period. The trench graves are poor in grave-gifts, but one of the tile graves contained good examples of Attic vases, including skyphoi, kylikes and a krater, significant as an indication of a social practice involving symposia, but also vases for personal use such as alabastra and lekythoi.?! Some of the tile graves at this site are of particular importance with rich grave furnishings. The mixture of Greek and native ethne is apparent from the native gifts, local bronze pendants and local wares; also indicative is

the local rite of placing a jug inside a bowl.?? The Greek elements are, however, strong, revealed by the Greek pottery and terracottas discussed above.?? A coin hoard from Monte Bubbonia buried ca. 465 with 338 silver coins from the major centres of Akragas, Kamarina, Gela, Himera, Leontinoi, Zankle, Messana, Selinous and Syracuse, and with coins also from Athens and Akanthos, is of major importance for its documentation of the penetration of coinage to native sites in the interior prior to the mid-fifth century.?* During the first phase of research, settlements such as Monte Bubbonia and Monte Saraceno were defined as Greek poleis. Let us cite one of the early investigators: “... we now have evidence of the Hellenisation of the interior regions, not only of the coast. ... These towns are characterised by their sanctuaries as formally Greek, and no longer as native settlements backward in development. We are confronted by real Greek centres, the result of a fusion of native and Hellenic elements. The sites reflect historical cities such as Omphake, Maktorion, Kakyron and reveal that these played a political, an economic and a cultural role not dissimilar to that of the coastal cities, they were poleis already in the first half of the fifth century and not just insignificant native settlements.'?5 But the noteworthy presence of native elements and finds at Monte Bubbonia 87

Orsi and Pancucci (1972-73) 57.

88 89

Pancucci and Naro (1992) 145, fig. 2. Probably tomb architecture of native origin, although influence from Rhodian-Cretan Gela is not ruled out by Pancucci in Orsi and Pancucci (1972-73)

90

10 n. 20.

Orsi and Pancucci (1972-73); Pancucci and Naro (1992) 146-60.

91

Pancucci (1973); Pancucci (1976—77) 471-6.

92

The grave ritual of placing a jug inside a bowl is known at Vassallaggi (see below) and at Iron Age Morgantina (Lyons [1996b]

93 94 95

186).

Figurines as grave-gifts in tombs are not so common at Gela as at Akragas: De Miro (1988) 246, 250-1; (1989) 24-5 and passim. IGCH no. 2071, cf. p. 308 for the listing of further evidence. Adamesteanu (1956b) 145.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

143

has also prompted the conclusion that the settlement, although revealing important Hellenising influences, continued to be primarily a native site, the absorption of Greek culture being limited to a superficial veneer.?$ However, the testimony of the cult furniture in the sanctuary seems to imply at least some profound Hellenisation. Monte San Mauro The site is situated on a plateau ca. 25 km northeast of Gela, in a strategic position commanding the upper Gela-Maroglio valley in the border area of the Geloan and

Chalkidian spheres of influence.?? The site occupies an extensive plateau, with the areas of habitation, sanctuaries and cemeteries distributed over five separate summits and adjacent slopes (Fig. 6). The aspect of the dispersed nuclei of the settlement areas and of the sanctuaries, enforced by the morphology of the area, is different from that known from most of the other sites discussed here, though there is some similarity with that of Vassallaggi. The originally native site developed into an as yet anonymous Hellenised settlement of some importance. Various names have been brought into play, such as Omphake, Maktorion and Galaria (Galarina),?® and the location of the settlement at the nodal point of influence between Geloan and the Chalkidian territories has also been taken into account in the analysis of territorial affiliation. Whereas the architectural evidence and funerary traditions point to Gela, the epigraphic testimonies point to the Chalkidian region and a

recent suggestion identifies the site with the Leontine sub-colony of Euboia.!® Monte San Mauro was a frontier settlement and the destruction of the site in the early part of the fifth century has been linked to the expedition of Hippokrates of Gela in northea-

stern Sicily.!°! The upper plateau, ‘hill 3’, with the monumental building, was fortified, as was possibly also the lower settlement plateau, though this is unclarified.!% Although the technique employed is that of the more primitive rampart, as at several of the other sites

listed here, the wall may have been built during the Greek history of the site.!0? The monumental building on ‘hill 3’ was interpreted as an eighth-century princely

dwelling, an anaktoron,'™ by Orsi, later as a mid-sixth-century naiskos.!°5 Most recently, as a result of new investigations, more rooms conjoining the central structure have been laid bare, the whole forming a complex of buildings by the investigators interpreted as workshops or magazines (Fig. 7).'%% However, the interpretation of the 96 97 98 99

Pancucci and Naro (1992) 172, cf. figs. pp. 134, 137, 157. Domínguez (1989) 298-304; Frisone (1992). Spigo (1979); (1986) 20; Frisone (1992) 489. Procelli (1989) 682.

100 Frasca (1997).

101 102 103 104

Cf. Spigo (1979) 38; Frisone (1992) 494. Adamesteanu (1956a) 358-9, fig. 1. Bonacasa Carra (1974) 103; Albanese Procelli (1996) 171. The term anaktoron is not attested in the sense of ‘palace’ in Archaic or Classical sources (in Classical sources it is used about sanctuaries, cf. LSJ s.v.); it is best avoided, since it endows the structures under discussion with a false connotation, partly of function and partly of Greekness; see further Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 28—9.

105 Adamesteanu (1955) 183—6. 106 Spigo (1986). For the pre-Greek mid-eighth/mid-seventh hut settlement on the summit of "hill 3’, see Wilson (1996) 75.

144

Tobiu Fischer-Hansen

PIANTAGEHERALE

6. Monte San Mauro. Plan of settlement area and cemeteries: Orsi (1910)pl. 1.

main structure as a naiskos is still convincing, according to Procelli, who points out the important function of sanctuaries in the control of territories and sees the combination of sanctuary, workshop and merchant activities in a wider perspective of exchange.• 07 Three arulae found on the south slope of 3' may have bad an origin in the structure on the top of the hill, whether sanctuary or not. 108 The paramount importance of the whole complex, not only in a local but probably also in a regional perspective, is borne out by fragments from two bronze plaques with early sixth-century inscriptions with mention of homicide laws and fines. Tb.esc, written in the Chalkidian alphabet and perhaps originating in one of the Chalkidian colonies, have been associated with the lawgiver Cbarondas. 109

·rull

107 Procelli (1989) 684; cf. also Albanese Procelli (1996) 171. 108 Orsi (1910) 821; Meijden (1993) 165. 109 Cordano (l986); IGDS no. 15.

146

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

Rather than born as a Geloan or Leontine foundation, the settlement more likely gradually developed into a full-fledged Greek settlement, attributed though with some

uncertainty to either the Geloan cultural sphere or to the Chalkidian.!!° The architectural terracottas, which are earlier than the inscriptions, may point to Gela; funerary

customs point to Gela and also to Kamarina, Naxos and Leontinoi.!!! Mercantile contacts with Kamarina, and further afield, are attested by the type of amphorai found

on the site.!!? Orsi mentions the remains of several houses, which be dates to the sixth century, on

the south slope of ‘hill 5’; although no plan is given, the impression is that of sporadic housing.!!? Sixth- and fifth-century habitation remains on the south slope of ‘hill 4’

reveal some regularity of orientation.!!* The habitation area recently investigated on the lower slope of ‘hill 3° is remarkable for the typology of the houses and for their contents (Fig. 8).!!5 The late-seventhcentury phase is represented by a two-roomed building with an apse, stone wall foundations, and an internal bench. Though these features taken together might suggest

a cult building, the function of the structure is uncertain;!!® in the subsequent phase the area was laid out for habitation. Under influence from colonial architecture a significant change in domestic architecture is seen here, as in other Hellenised sites, from

early in the sixth century. Houses were laid out in irregular groups, but with a rather uniform ground-plan. Some of the houses belong to the pastas type which evolved in Greece but is seen in the Greek colonies in South Italy and Sicily from the seventh century. Also here this type of more sophisticated building reflects social stratification — by analogy with the evidence from the Greek cities, for instance Megara Hyblaia and

Naxos.!!? Apart from habitation, the buildings also served as workshops and magazines for the production of pithoi and arulae. Among the latter group the arulae, with what seems a rendering of the preparation for the offering of piglets, may be testimony of a Demeter cult, i.e. a thesmophoria cult.!!® The excavators suggest tentatively that the arulae could be related to a small open air sanctuary revealed by 5 bothroi excavated on the southwest slope of ‘hill 3°. The depressions, between 1.20 and 1.60 m deep, with stone coverings, contained mixed material of sherds, bones and ashes, probably discarded material from votive offerings. The sherds are Greek, primarily Korinthian and Attic, with a few Laconian sherds and fragments of Ionian cups, and reveal a history of cult going back to the seventh century, though spanning mainly the sixth century. Amphorai are represented mainly by Korinthian and Massalian types. The bothroi 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

As already outlined by Holloway (1990) 150-1, 153. Spigo (1979) 38. Spigo (1980-81) 776; Albanese Procelli (1991) 110. Orsi (1910) 800-5. Lagona (1973) 297, pl. 7-8. Spigo (1979), with a typological survey of Archaic Sicilian housing at 39—40 n. 39; Spigo (1986). Though late seventh century the structure is typologically related to Geometric period houses in Greece and structures in the Mezzavia complex at Pithekoussai, but also to the contemporary naiskos on the Farmhouse Hill at Morgantina: Spigo (1986) 10-13; Spatafora (1997) 156.

117 Cordsen (1995) 109-14. Spigo (1979) 37; (1986) reads this evidence -- the rational distribution of

the habitation units and their typology -- as the most decisive evidence for the conspicuously Greek character of the site. 118 Spigo (1979) 31-2; Lentini (1993b) 127-8; cf. Cole (1994) 203-4.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

8.

147

Monte San Mauro. Habitation area on the south slope of ‘hill 3': Spigo(1980—81) pl. 188.

certainly seem to attest a temenos and the settlement area would therefore consist of

habitation and workshops interspersed with temene.!!? Also the limestone relief with two sphinxes and the rendering of a komos is evidence of a sanctuary if correctly interpreted as either part of an altar or as votive; with the komos scene in mind it is

possibly testimony of a cult of Dionysos.!2° The summit of 'hill 1—2' was occupied by a sanctuary of noteworthy size from at least the early sixth century. Ashlar blocks may belong to a foundation of a naiskos, but the attribution of architectural terracottas to this structure remains uncertain. However, the size and type of the architectural fragments and the votive deposit on the edge of the plateau indicate a large temenos, though we know little about its buildings and its

layout.!2! Architectural terracottas, from at least two sizeable buildings, are well developed

in style and show affinities with revetments from both Selinous and Gela.!?? The positioning numerals scratched on the back of some slabs of a sima may indicate that these were brought from somewhere else, probably Gela, rather than being of local 119 A number of arulae of uncertain provenance within the site of Monte San Mauro are listed by Orsi (1910) 825. Orsi suggests that they are evidence of a sanctuary of which no trace is left. 120 Ghisellini (1982). Ghisellini argues that the style is Greek — though eclectic: primarily Korinthian and probably of Geloan workmanship; however, local Sikel-influenced workmanship should not be ruled out. 121 Orsi (1910) 776-8; votive deposit: Orsi (1910) 797-8, and female protomai of Geloan type from this: Uhlenbrock (1988) 122.

122 Orsi (1910) 778-97; Van Buren (1923) 49-53; Scichilone (1961-62) 184, 191, 194.

148

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

manufacture.!?? There are individual fragments of sculptural groups, among these a Gorgon head in the round and youths on horseback. The latter are evidence of pedimental groups or acroteria. Similar fragments are known from Kamarina and Gela, and horsemen acroteria are in Sicily primarily known in the Geloan and Syracusan areas of

influence.!?^ Some architectural fragments point specifically to Gela, such as an antefix of the painted type,!2 but the fragments of Gorgon antefixes could also point in this direction, although there are no direct parallels and other affiliations have also been suggested.!?6 The larger architectural fragments of sima and geison seem to have their origin in a Selinuntine tradition, also attested at Akragas, and at Monte San Mauro

evidence of western Sicilian influence.!?? Fragments of a kalypter hegemon, re-used in the cemetery on the north slope of 'hill 1—2', most likely originate from the sanctuary on the summit of that hill. It is a sophisticated type of architectural terracotta dated to the first half of the sixth century and analogous to fragments from the Athenaion at Gela.!?5 The architectural finds at Monte San Mauro, though primarily pointing to Gela for the origin of types and style, also point to other areas. This taken together with the Chalkidian epigraphic evidence reveals the cosmopolitan character of the site. A significant number of tombs are enchytrismos burials in pithoi and amphorai, the latter mainly Greek, and tile graves, a cappucina, some of these employing important architectural fragments (see above). The undisturbed graves reveal a substantial level

of grave-gifts from the early sixth century, including Korinthian and Attic vases, and terracotta statuettes of possible Korinthian worksmanship.!?? A particularly prestigious object is a sixth-century bronze krater of probable Laconian workmanship.!?? Though of uncertain provenance within the site the krater belongs to the group of prestigious grave-gifts and votives from sanctuaries, known from other Hellenised sites in the

interior of Sicily where they have been attributed to a native elite,!?! but which may as well belong in a Greek settlement. The urbanistic evidence, including that of the cemeteries and the epigraphic finds, all point to a degree of Hellenisation perhaps compatible with the identification of the

settlement with the city of Euboia, as suggested by Frasca.!?? Euboia is listed as a polis by Ps.-Skymnos (287), together with Mylai and other major north-eastern Sicilian colonies. Euboia was founded as a secondary colony by Leontinoi (Strabo 6.2.6) or by Chalkidians in general (10.1.15). The foundation date can only be inferred from the

context of Strabo with its reference to the secondary foundations of Himera, Kallipolis, Selinous and Euboia, suggesting that also Euboia was founded in the seventh century. However, a foundation date late in the eighth century, contemporaneously with the 123 Van Buren (1923) 53.

124 Holloway (1988) 179; for the popularity of horsemen acroteria in Western Greek architecure: Danner (1988) 304. 125 Orsi (1910) 790, fig. 49; Spigo (1977) 93. 126 For Gela: Orsi (1910) 751, fig. 11, 778-97. For Ramacca, another site with architectural terracottas offering related evidence for cross-cultural contacts, see Procelli (1980).

127 128 129 130

Barleıta (1983) 290-2. Pelagatti (1977) 55-61. Orsi (1910) 754-75; Pelagatti (1976-77) 530-3. Orsi (1910) 810-15; Pelagatti (1989) 21.

131 Albanese Procelli (1991) 106. 132 Frasca (1997).

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

149

foundation of Mylai, cannot be excluded - the two sites are mentioned together by Ps.Skymnos (287-8). However, such early Greek finds are not well attested at Monte San Mauro. From Herodotos (7.156.3) we gather that there must have been a social division

at Euboia because Gelon transferred the wealthy citizens to Syracuse offering them citizenship, while the common people were sold into slavery, a fate similar to that suffered by Kamarina and Megara Hyblaia. This is possibly testimony of a polis status

similar to that of these cities.!?? On this occasion Euboia changed status and became a Syracusan phrourion (Strabo 10.1.15). The ancient site of Euboia is unidentified, but it

must have been located somewhere in the hinterland of Leontinoi where the presence of

Chalkidian Greeks has been well documented,54 but its identification with Monte San Mauro seems uncertain, and the connection of this site with Syracuse is not well documented.

Monte Desusino Monte Desusino is a hilltop site ca. 20 km west of Gela, securing Geloan influence towards Akragas and the territory of the lower Himera valley. Although distant ca. 45 km from Akragas, and therefore closer to Gela than to Akragas, Monte Desusino has been tentatively identified by Adamesteanu as the phrourion named Phalarion. This is mentioned by Diodorus in connection with the conflicts between Agathokles and Hamilcar, but the name seems to indicate a history going back to the period of Phalaris (Diod. 19.108.2 r311).55 The impressive 5.5-km-long fortification has an Archaic phase constructed in irregularly sized and irregularly hewn blocks, but also with parts

built in a more careful technique, known from the Greek walls at Leontinoi.!? On the uppermost part of the plateau foundations of a major building, oriented east-west,

reveal Greek masonry technique and are attributed to a naiskos of Greek type. However, on the evidence of the rather sporadic finds of Greek sixth-century pottery

and Archaic tiles!?® the Hellenisation of this site in the Archaic period may have been rather tenuous. Monte Saraceno The

settlement

of Monte

Saraceno

is situated ca. 20 km

north of Licata (ancient

Phintias) on a height dominating the river Salso valley. The height is morphologically divided into three terraces, the upper forming an akropolis, the lower two an upper and a lower habitation plateau. A Geloan or Akragantine settlement in this location secured Gela's, and later Akragas', influence in central Sicily, from the Himera valley northwards. The identity of the settlement has not been established with certainty, but the 133 Cf. Siebert (1979) 226, 228. 134 Procelli

(1989);

see Wilson

(1996)

75

for new

evidence

that Licodia

Eubea

may

be a good

candidate for the location of Euboia. 135 For a survey of sites interpreted as phrouria with an origin in the period of Phalaris: Adamesteanu (1956b). 136 Adamesteanu (19562) 364—5; (1963) 27, pl. 2.3. The fourth-century walls and gates, and the urban layout attributed to the period of Timoleon or Agathokles (Adamesteanu [1963] 31) are left out of consideration here. The interpretation by Ghizolfi (1992) 332 of Monte Desusino as "una vera e

propria polis" probably relates to the fourth-century phase. 137 Adamesteanu (19562) 367; (1958a) 348. 138 Adamesteanu (1963) 31; (19582) 348-9.

150

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

suggestion by Adamesteanu to identify the city with Kakyron has won some support.!?? Syracusan mercenaries took refuge at Kakyron (see below), and Ptolemaios (Geogr. 3.4.13) located Kakyron (Maktorion in Müller's emendation) north-west of Phintias.

The native settlement came under Greek influence from the mid-seventh century and the suggestion that the site was a Geloan sub-colony de novo is hardly tenable. However, the site was strongly Hellenised already from mid-sixth century and has even

been considered a Greek settlement from this time.' A circuit wall fortified only the akropolis with a sanctuary and the upper plateau with the first Geloan and the later Akragantine settlements. However, the wall is dated to the mid-sixth century and therefore to the Akragantine phase; during its early history

the site was apparently fortified by natural defences.!*! Although the fortification was raised rather late in the history of the site its primitive technique is probably still testimony of native influence.!4? After the initial seventh-/first-half-of-sixth-century Geloan phase the city lived through a particularly flourishing period from the mid-sixth century and during the first half of the fifth century, a period which is regarded as Akragantine and conjoined with the Akragantine expansion under Phalaris: It was a period which witnessed extensive habitation and impressive public endowments in the sanctuaries. This Archaic and early Classical phase seems to come to an end in the second half of the fifth century, perhaps in connection with stasis and unrest at Akragas reflected in the reception of Syracusan mercenaries at Kakyron and at other cities in the territory after the fall of the Deinomids (P Oxy. 4.665 = [FGrHist 577) fr. 1; Waele [1971] 45-47). Also Butera, much closer to Gela, has revealed a similar archaeological record (see above). Fourth-

century towers added to the circuit wall are testimony of resettlement in the period of Timoleon. The Greek sanctuary on the akropolis had a seventh-century origin. During the sixth century, the sanctuary was endowed with three major buildings, a monumental

temple ca. 40 m long, and two smaller naiskoi.!9 The east-west orientation of the larger building was only feasible after radical interventions in the morphology of the plateau. Architectural terracottas belong within the sphere of Geloan sixth-century workshops. Similar architectural elements known from the Molino di Pietro sanctuary in Gela are testimony to continued Geloan influence, though this habitation phase at Monte Saraceno is considered Akragantine. Moulds and other evidence show that workshops

were

attached

to the sanctuary

during

both

the Archaic

and

Classical

periods.!** Yet another sanctuary situated on a lower terrace had a mid-seventh-century origin. Parts of a mid-sixth-century temple have revealed Geloan traits in structural techniques and in typology, but with evidence also here of local workshops and local

production.!4^5 These sanctuaries are important testimonies to noteworthy sacred building activities in a border zone; the upper sanctuary with one major and two smaller 139 Adamesteanu (1956b); cf. Manni (1981) 151; Gargini (1993a) 15; Domínguez (1989) 311-16. 140 Adamesteanu (1956b) 137-8; De Miro and Fiorentini (1976-77) 448; Gargini (1993a) 15: “...

trasformato in polis greca sotto l'influenza agrigentina verso la metà del VI sec. a.C." 141 142 143 144

Calderone (1980-81) 604—6. Bonacasa Carra (1974) 102-3. Adamesteanu (1956b). Adamesteanu (1956b) 123.

145 Adamesteanu (1956b) 128-9.

151

Reflections on Native SeuJements in the Dominions of Gcla and Akragas

•...--

........ ---i------'T---+---'T'"'"""---+----r-----'i----i--~t---,.~~-•

,_

•

.. •

1-

•• •

·- ---

-

L.__

9. Monte Saraceno.sixth/fifth-centuries habitation. phase: Calderone (1984-85) pl. 59.

temples is larger than the sanctuaries known from Greek cities in this period - such as Kamarina, Heloron, Kasmenai, Akrai. The first regular urban layout, dated to the seventh century/first half of the sixth century and attributed to Gela, is followed by a mid-sixth-century Akragantine resettlement on top of the earlier city employing a new overall orientation similar to that seen in the sanctuaries. This refoundation with its new urban layout is connected with Akragantinc territorial expansion under Phalaris. A second Akragantine phase, dated to the second half sixth centu.ry/first half of the fifth century. has offered abundant evidence of urban planning and urban structures (Fig. 9). Individual houses with rooms and workshops around a central court, laid out in blocks of more structures, were part of a terraced and orthogonal planned habitation quarter, with the use of insulae,

152

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

ambitus, stenopoi and plateiai.!* A comparison with architectural and urban features in Akragas itself, for instance the habitation area between the Olympieion and the sanctuary of the chthonian divinities, reveals the most striking similarities, not only between the individual structures but also in the overall urban layout with the use of housing blocks, separated by ambitus, grouped around an open, agora-like space.'47 Though the size of the individual blocks is smaller in Monte Saraceno, the proportions of the housing blocks at this site and at Akragas are much the same (Fig. 10).!48

One of the buildings is interpreted as a shrine showing traces of an altar inside a naos, and with an opisthodomos-like structure behind and in front of an open space. Apart from the architectural layout, votives and furniture such as arulae, an askos and

a louterion support the interpretation of the complex as a sanctuary.!9 Rooms behind the naos may have served as magazines. The sanctuary is urban and forms an integrated part of the surrounding habitation structures. Protomai may suggest that the sanctuary was dedicated to Demeter, but cannot be taken as certain evidence; however, sanctuaries of Demeter need not necessarily be extra-urban as is often maintained (see above). The great number of arulae found within the urban shrine were produced in local workshops, but are similar to types known from Monte San Mauro and from Gela. This underlines the strong Geloan-Akragantine traditions of workmanship, and religious furniture at this site supports the contention that we have to do with a site under strong

Geloan-Akragantine influence, though not a Geloan-Akragantine sub-colony proper.!5? Two cemeteries are known from outside the circuit wall, an Archaic cemetery including sixth-century tombs of Geloan type (terracotta sarcophagi — baule). Although this has been considered the Akragantine phase, they are testimony that the terminolo-

gy used for the different urban phases is rather a strait-jacket.!5! The second cemetery was in use from the late fifth century and, primarily, in the age of Timoleon.!5? Two Greek inscriptions are known from the site; though of uncertain provenance within the site, they are probably funeral. One is hardly legible, the other, an epitaph or dedication, carries nomenclature known also at other Sicilian sites, at Selinous, Gela

and Himera.! This account of the settlement at Monte Saraceno is rather circumstantial, but it serves to demonstrate the Greek character of the site — apart from its territorial location the site is indistinguishable from a Greek city, and the few native finds from the

domestic quarter!5* are not incompatible with this interpretation.

146 De Miro (1980) 722-3; Calderone (1980-81) 608-12; (1984-85) 535-6. 147 De Miro (1980) 711-15. 148 Saraceno: 14 x 8.50 m; 10 x 3.50. Akragas: 19 x 12; 17 x 13, 17 x 11.5. Saraceno, width of plateia: 5.40 m. Akragas, width of stenopos: 5.50. 149 Calderone (1984-85) 536-8. For the arulae: Meijden (1993) cats. UN 18, UN 62, OR 41, OR 69; De Miro (1993); Calderone (1999) 190-1. 150 Cf. De Miro (1993) 55. 151 Denti (1980-81) 621-4. 152 Denu (1980-81) 625—41; (1984-85). 153 /GLMP no. 36, cf. IGDS, p. 189; IGDS no. 165. 154 Calderone (1980-81) pl. 90.3.

153

‚Steno pos e

2

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

10.

Akragas. Habitation quarter between the Temple of Zeus and the Sanctuary of the Chthonian Divinities: De Miro (1980) fig. 6.

Vassallaggi The settlement of Vassallaggi occupies five separate heights of an elongated plateau southwest of Caltanisetta in the river Salso valley, ca. 40 km north of Licata. The identity of the site is unknown, but it is most often identified with Motyon, a phrourion

154

Tobiu Pischer-Hansen

,..

.

11. Vassallaggi. Habiaation quarter on southern 'bill 3': Tusa and De Miro (1983) fig. 67.

taken by Douketios in the mid-fifth century. Greek influence in this, originally native, ettlement commenced in the early sixth century, the first Greek contacts pointing to Akragas. 155 As at Monte Saraceno the early history of the site is believed to be bound up with Akragantine expansion under PhaJaris and evidence of this is seen reflected in the typology of the mid-sixth-century urban layout. Akragantine influence in the region is subsequently confirmed by the numismatic evidence which bas revealed close ties with Akragas from the second half of the fifth century. 156 155 Orlandini (1971) 11-12; Domfngucz (1989) 448--52. 156 Merigbi(1963); Vassallo (1983).

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

155

A defensive rampart was raised according to native practice during the early Greek

history of the site, incorporating the five hills of the settlement.!57 Remains of habitation structures are known from the separate heights of the plateau, but have been examined mainly on ‘hill 3’ and ‘hill 2’. The housing on ‘hill 3’ had a formal urban layout with houses raised on terraces and a single wide plateia dividing the habitation area into two sections (Fig. 11).55 The individual houses are wholly Greek in their layout with large rooms, numbering from five to six, surrounding a courtyard and some are even comparable to housing at Akragas, especially to the large and sophisticated

pastas house type with more rooms facing onto a large room in front.!?? The habitation area on ‘hill 2° is less regular in its layout, influenced by an urban system of agglomeration. However, a part of this area is taken up by a sanctuary demarcated by a temenos wall within the foundations of a small temple with columns in antis (Fig. 12). Two phases are attested with architectural terracottas revealing kinship with Geloan and Akragantine architecture. In front a monumental altar was built in an ashlar structure similar to structures found in the Chthonian Sanctuary at Akragas.!99 Some of the buildings encircling the sanctuary held votive deposits with votive terra-

cottas pointing to a cult of Demeter and Persephone,!$! phenomenon

again substantiating the

of intra-mural Demeter sanctuaries. Greek-type cult furniture, arulae,

were found in the sanctuary.!6? One fragment is from an arula carrying on the front a Dionysian scene, silenoi and a mainad riding a mule within a pergola of vine. Arulae with heroic, mythological themes are well attested in the Greek colonies, but are virtually unknown at the internal Hellenised sites. The Dionysian theme on the altar from Vassallaggi is on the other hand not known from arulae found in the Greek colonies and may therefore attest a cult or cult furniture influenced by the native

setting.!& An open space between the temenos, and the habitation area of which it is a part and the gate, is interpreted as an agora. The overall urban layout therefore shows some similarity with the northernmost area of the upper city on the Himera plateau.!6* Native burial rites — cave tombs a grotticello with multiple inhumations — and

native tomb gifts are attested from the sixth and first half of the fifth centuries.!65 From shortly after the middle of the fifth century the tomb gifts are primarily Greek. Athenian Red-Figure pottery is particularly well represented, and vase transactions are attested by graffiti.16 However, oinochoai of local tradition are still common grave-

gifts.!9? The finds are testimony of a noteworthy re-population from the mid-fifth century and may support the identification of the site with Motyon, destroyed by Douketios 460—450 and refounded by Akragas and Syracuse a few years later (Diod. 157 Bonacasa Carra (1974) 106-7.

158 159 160 161 162

De Miro (1980) 723-4; Tusa and De Miro (1983) 246-50. Cordsen (1995) 115-16. Orlandini (1961); Tusa and De Miro (1983) 249-50. Griffo (1958) pl. 59; De Miro (1962) 143-4, pls. 55.6—57.2; Tusa and De Miro (1983) 246-50. Orlandini (1959) 100; Meijden (1993) 165, 312, 326.

163 Calderone (1999) 186-9 argues that native-influenced Greek cults are extraneous to Greek heroic

cults, common in the Greek colonies. 164 Fischer-Hansen (1996) 340-1.

165 Wilson (1996) 100. 166 Johnston (1973). 167 Orlandini (1971).

156

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

I

r0

0

J.

, ..

I

_j.-

I

"

.,,

.,

1 u

-

..... u

L.J.-1

LJ

I

1--r"

--au.tollt

-·---.."'- -C

~

IISL """"""'tO

12. Vassallaggi. Habitation quarter on northern 'hill 2': Tusa and De Miro ( 1983) fig. 68.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

157

11.91.1, 4).!% The urban remains and the tomb evidence point to a strong Hellenisation of the site, and this to such a degree that the term polis has been widely used for the

settlement.69 Monte Gibil Gabib Monte Gibil Gabib is a fortified hilltop site 5 km south-west of Caltanisetta which

secured the upper Salso valley in the region of Henna and Caltanisetta.!?? The first Greek contacts of the native Iron Age settlement were Geloan.!?! From the mid-sixth century the main origin of Hellenisation is assumed to have been Akragas, as was the case with the other sites discussed above, and the tomb evidence also points in this direction. According to Adamesteanu, a large part of the habitation plateau became urbanised in this period, with houses uniformly oriented and of nearly uniform size, dispersed over more terraces on the upper plateau. The foundations in ashlar suggest Greek influence, and most finds from the plateau and from the cemetery are from the

late sixth century and primarily Greek.!?? Here, as at other sites of this type, only the accessible part of the plateau was fortified. Though raised in the native dry-stone style, the 500-m-long circuit wall is attri-

buted to the Greek mid-sixth-century phase.'73 A small early-sixth-century shrine, spared by the later circuit wall, seems from the description of a bench inside the

structure to be a native structure. The finds are mixed native and Greek.!"4 A later reinforcement of the circuit wall, and more sophisticated, formal town plan

is attributed to the period of Timoleon.!75 The cemetery was disposed along a lower terrace which encircled the habitation plateau on three sides. The Iron Age native cave and chamber tombs were in the latter part of the sixth century substituted by Greek-type trench tombs cut in the rock and roofed with tiles. The few unspoiled graves have yielded Attic vases and a fragment of

a terracotta statuette of the Demeter-type, a female divinity with polos and pectoral.!76 Monte Castellazzo di Marianopoli (ancient Mytistratos)

The native settlement of Monte Castellazzo di Marianopoli, situated in the upper Halykos valley on the northern confines of Geloan and Akragantine territory, was Hellenised at least by the fourth century as revealed by evidence from the cemetery and more specifically from the numismatic evidence if the site is correctly identifed with Mytistratos. Traces of two urban phases, the first sixth/fifth-century, the second fourth/thirdcentury, are dispersed over two terraces; the later phase with clearest evidence of a

regular layout is probably of Timolean date.'”’ The degree of Hellenisation of the sixth168 See Orlandini (1971) 219-20 for an interpretation of the site with a historical survey. 169 Merighi (1963) 97-101; Orlandini (1976) 957; Micciché (1989) 56. 170 Adamesteanu (19582) 387-408; Di Noto (1992).

171 Orlandini (1962) 99-101. 172 173 174 175 176

Adamesteanu Adamesteanu Adamesteanu Corroborated Adamesteanu

(1958a) 389, 400-7; recent investigations: Wilson (1996) 100. (19588) 389; Bonacasa Carra (1974) 101. (1958a) 393-4. by the numismatic evidence, cf. Di Noto (1992) 353. (1958a) 396-9.

177 Adamesteanu (1963) 39—40; Fiorentini (1980-81); (1984—85); (1992).

158

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

century urban phase is much less apparent. The date of the circuit wall is not clear from

the most recent investigations,'Ӥ though it is dated to the mid-sixth century and connected with a Hellenisation of the site at this time by Bonacasa Carra.!?? There is no account of remains of the sixth-century structures, but the circuit wall of this phase employed an ashlar technique. Some account has been given of a shrine, but its

architecture and degree of Hellenisation is not clarified.!9? The site of Marianopoli may mark the outer limit of the territory under the influence of Gela and Akragas in the sixth

century.!?! Whether Akragas invented bronze coinage or not, the city saw the emission of bronze coinage as a means of trade with the Sikel centres of its hinterland. The finds of Akragantine bronze coins at native sites from perhaps as early as the mid-fifth century show that these sites had influence on the economic life of the Greek city. The circulation of Akragantine coinage was wide — from Selinous and from Eiymian and Phoenician sites in the west to the Greek colonies in the east, to Himera in the north, and to the Hellenised sites of Monte Bubbonia, Montagna di Marzo and Morgantina in the hinterland of Gela. However, the most numerous finds are from the central Sicilian sites discussed here — Monte Saraceno, Gibil Gabib, Sabucina, Vassallaggi, Castellazzo di Marionopoli, Terravecchia di Cuti — and although other mints are represented at some of these sites the predominance of Akragantine coins suggests a narrow control of trade traffic. Interestingly, the earliest bronze emission, the cast shapes from ca. 450, are known from Castellazzo di Marionopoli and Terravecchia di Cuti (see below), two of the most interior sites. Balate (Marianopoli di Balate) Balate is a hilltop settlement situated on the northern confines of Geloan and Akragantine territory, ca. 10 km north-west of Monte Castellazzo. A mid-sixth-century rampart of large rough stones fortified a plateau of several terraces. On the lower there is some testimony of habitation remains and a regular urban planning, whereas the upper has been recognised as an akropolis with a sanctuary. Finds from the area of habitation show that the site had two Greek phases, mid-sixth/mid-fifth-century, and fourth/third-

century, the latter here, as elsewhere, probably Timolean.!?? Terrace and enclosure walls on the akropolis delimit a large sanctuary with votive finds and cult furniture (louteria, arula).'®3 The finds of architectural terracottas are taken as evidence of more cult buildings, but these are as yet not otherwise attested. Though the votives point to a Greek cult, some of the architectural terracottas were made in a native style, and votive stelai erected in the sanctuary have a native mark, but one of the stelai carries a fifthcentury inscription in Greek employing Greek nomenclature.!5^ The majority of the excavated tombs are sixth-century, the tomb gifts are mixed Greek and native, but 178 Fiorentini (1992) 303. 179 Bonacasa Carra (1974) 107. 180 Fiorentini (1984-85) 469; cf. Adamesteanu (1963) 40.

181 The later history of the site is not discussed here. The city of Mytistratos is known from various late sources: Philistos (FGrHist 556) fr. 39 apud Steph. Byz. 465.12; Polyb. 1.24.11; Diod. 23.9.4. 182 Fiorentini (1991). 183 Meijden (1993) 164, 334 cat. FR 2. 184 Fiorentini (1991) 362.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

159

according to the excavators the tomb evidence also seems to show that the fifth-century

city was Greek.!95 Sabucina The site of Sabucina north of Caltanisetta and ca. 50 km from Gela lies on the border zone of Geloan and Akragantine influence.!96 Monte Sabucina was occupied during the Bronze Age and, after a hiatus, again from the seventh century, when the first Greek contacts are revealed by Proto-Korinthian and Geloan-type vases found on the site. The seventh-century native settlement is characterised by rectangular houses, some of which were large with several rooms. The sixth century saw progressively more Greek commercial contacts, and perhaps even Geloan and Akragantine settlers. The settlement was fortified by a rampart-like fortification furnished with round towers, and the habitation area, now restricted to the hilltop inside the fortification, was characterised

by a somewhat sophisticated architecture. Though single habitation structures, with several rooms grouped around a central court, undoubtedly reveal Greek influence, there are no signs of formal town planning (Fig. 13). The city, destroyed in mid-fifth century undoubtedly in connection with the revolt of Douketios, was re-founded in the

second half of the fifth century, when the circuit wall was strengthened and provided with a number of square towers, with further reconstruction referred to the period of

Timoleon.!57 The site of Sabucina is characterised by a perseverance of native cultural traits which differentiates the site from Hellenised cities in central Sicily. The persistence of native decorative motives on local wares is stronger at Sabucina than at other sites, and the sixth- and fifth-century urban phases show native influence in the lack of formal planning and in the village-like layout of the city. Not before the Timolean fourthcentury refoundation of a new quarter does the city acquire an orthogonal, formal

layout.!$8 Two sanctuaries have been investigated outside the circuit wall.'®9 In both sanctuaries buildings were raised in a tradition of a native, Bronze Age hut architecture, but with details in structure which point to the Greek world. 'Sanctuary A' is a wellconstructed round stone building with a Greek-inspired pronaos on its east side; irregular in ground plan, it has antae terminating the lateral walls. The votive material consists of local pottery and cult objects, though a louterion is probably of Greek inspiration. Votive models represent partly native cult buildings and partly Greekinspired naiskoi. The life of the sanctuary spans the seventh and the early sixth century. 'Sanctuary B' had a complicated history. The earliest, seventh-century cult building was rectangular in conformity with the houses in the contemporary settlement. The stone platform inside the structure, with depressions to hold cult furniture, was a 185 Fiorentini (1991) 186 The bibliography Micciché (1989) 187 Orlandini (1963)

363. for Sabucina is vast; references with bibliographies: Sedita Migliore (1981); bibl. 181-2, Domínguez (1989) 316-24. 91—3; Orlandini (1965) 135.

188 De Miro (1975). A rather similar picture is known from the Sikanian site of Polizello (not treated

here), a settlement revealing strong and persistent native cultural traits, but also some Greek influence: De Miro (1988-89); Wilson (1996) 90-2 with a recent up-date. 189 De Miro (1980-81) 561-6; De Miro (1983).

.. • o

... .

..

f.

J

f -----1-----

13. Sabucina. Habitation inside circuit wall: De Mjro (1980) fig. 11.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

161

native trait. This structure was superceded late in the seventh century by a round, hutshaped cella with an irregular shaped pronaos with two columms in antis. The columns are polygonal and probably imitate the fluting on Doric columns; they also carried rough imitations of Doric capitals. A stone platform inside the round cella, native cult furniture and burnt offerings indicate cult activites. The well-known terracotta model of a native, Greek-inspired

naiskos with more Greek elements

in structure and

in

architectural outfit than seen in the shrines on the site, was found in this structure.!99 The early history of the sanctuary spanned the seventh and sixth centuries. In this period strong native traditions persist long after the contacts with the Greek world were initiated; this is apparent not least from the choice of the hut-shaped cella, an architectural form going back to the Bronze Age, for the cult building raised during the second phase of the sanctuary. The sanctuary was enlarged during the second half of the sixth century with a temenos wall and a rectangular, Greek-type naiskos, though this was furnished with a native type platform carrying partly native and partly Greek votives. Votive gifts included the enthroned divinity wearing a polos and pectoral, and this testimony together with the evidence of burnt offerings of piglets seems to point to a

Chthonian cult.!?! A Geloan-type Silenos antefix and Gorgon antefixes show that the upper structures of the buildings were Greek or Greek-influenced. Arena lists two Greek graffiti of uncertain significance from one of the sanctuaries, one dated to the

late sixth/early fifth century, the other to the fifth century.!?? Extensive cemeteries have been investigated on the south, south-east and west slopes of Monte Sabucina. Greek-type enchytrismos graves are most common from the second half of sixth century, grave-gifts comprising Late Korinthian, Geloan and local wares; tile graves span the early fifth and fourth centuries. A number of sixth-century sophisticated rockcut trench tombs had a roofing of stone slabs and in some cases plastered walls, perhaps under influence of native tradition of chamber tombs. The grave-gifts are nearly exclusively Greek, mainly Attic, some of very fine quality, some with owner's graffito

or with artist's signature employing Greek nomenclature.!?? Bronze bowls, in part of Etruscan origin and in part Sicilian imitations, are here, as at other Hellenised sites such as Montagna di Marzo and Terravecchia di Cuti, the prestigious tomb gifts of an elite; one bowl carries an owner's graffito with a non-Greek, Sikel (?) name.!?* Trench tombs re-used in the second half of the fifth century show that this period was characterised by some poverty or recession, possibly caused by conflicts at the

time of Douketios.!?* Chamber tombs of Bronze Age origin were re-used from the seventh century to the fifth century; tomb gifts reveal the same pattern as outlined above. One Late Archaic tomb chamber was built in ashlar, perhaps testimony to a Greek tomb that replaced a native one, where the original native chamber tomb was rebuilt employing Greek isodomic technique. The tomb gifts were solely prestigious Attic Black-Figure and Red-Figure vases. 190 De Miro (1983) 340; Castellana (1983); Holloway (1988); Plates to CAH? IV: fig. 257.

191

De Miro (1980—81) 566.

192

Arena (1992) 105—6.

193 IGDS nos. 171, 173-4; Arena (1992) 108-10. 194 Orlandini (1963) 87-8; Albanese Procelli (1980-81) esp. 144—6; /GDS no. 172; Arena (1992) 107. 195 Orlandini (1968).

162

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

Overall

the cemeteries

have

revealed

at first seventh-century

Greek

(Geloan)

contacts; from the sixth century through the fifth the tombs indicate progressively a replacement of depositions of native type with those of Greek tradition, though a number

of native traits continue. 19$ Whereas

De

Miro

stressed the perseverance

of native

traits at Sabucina

(see

above), the first investigator of the site, Orlandini, interprets the site differently, believing that the settlement was profoundly Hellenised during the sixth century and transformed into a Greek settlement proper serving as a phrourion guarding the upper Salso valley and the border of Akragantine territory northwards; in that case the circuit wall was built in the settlement's Greek phase.!?? Fifth-century coin finds have revealed the

continued Akragantine affiliation.!% Monte Capodarso Monte Capodarso, together with Monte Sabucina, commanded the upper Salso-Hirnera valley in the region of Enna, and the Hellenisation of this site probably had the same background as that of the neighbouring sites, Sabucina and Gibil Gabib, of securing the territorial influence of Akragas in the direction of Himera. The urban area, as yet uninvestigated, encompassed about 10 ha and was fortified by a 3 m wide circuit wall raised in large roughly worked slabs, which belong typologically to the group of ramparts placed by Bonacasa Carra in her earliest and most

primitive group.' Monumental towers may have been added later and the lower plateaux were fortified by secondary lines of fortifications and a diateichisma wall. The strong fortifications indicate a phrourion, but the chronology is not very clear. A sixthcentury date seems to be implied by the investigators of the site, and this date is supported by the chronology of the cemetery.299 Individual finds of votives of Greek type and a fragment of a cult statue (?) indicate one or more sanctuaries; however, the structures are as yet unknown. A Demeter sanctuary somewhere on the urban site is inferred from fifth-century terracotta votives.201 The evidence from the cemetery has revealed mixed Greek and native burials during the early sixth century, but by the late sixth century and through the fifth the tomb finds indicate a fully Hellenised site,2°? an interpretation supported by the testimony of Greek sanctuaries from the same period Terravecchia di Cuti

Located on the watershed between the upper reaches of the Salso and Platani rivers, this originally native settlement came under Geloan influence from the first half of the sixth century, as one of the most northern sites within the Geloan dominion. Later, from the period of Phalaris, the site became part of Akragantine territory, occupying à 196 Orlandini (1963); (1965); (1968); Sedita Migliore (1981). 197 Orlandini (1965) 137; Micciché (1989) 89 proposes that the site of Sabucina should be identified

with Motyon. 198 Merighi (1963); Orlandini (1965) 139; Cutroni Tusa (1993-94) 461-2. 199 Bonacasa Carra (1974) 100. 200 Scibona (1992).

201 Scibona (1992) 287. 202 Scibona (1992) 288.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

163

strategic position between Himera and Akragas, as borne out also by the evidence of

the distribution of fifth-century Akragantine bronze coinage.??? The settlement lay dispersed over several terraces of the plateau and was defended in part by the natural defences of steep slopes and in part by circuit walls. These were probably built in the second half of the sixth century during the Greek history of the site although also here built in the primitive technique of a double wail in rough, worked

blocks and loose stones with an internal fill.2% The typology of a fifth-century housing complex excavated along the inside of the circuit wall is not wholly clarified, but it consisted of several rooms, perhaps arranged

around a central courtyard.205 A few structural remains and a very rich deposit of votive terracottas have revealed a fifth-century extra-urban sanctuary situated ca. 1 km east of the city. The votives have close parallels at Akragas, Gela and Kamarina, and their typology, including the Standing female type holding piglet, suggests that the sanctuary was dedicated to the chthonic divinities, comprising the thesmophoria. The importance of the sanctuary is shown by fragments of life-size and more than life-size statues, and the fully Greek character of the sanctuary contrasts strongly with the apparently more culturally mixed settlement. This has been taken as testimony to the active role played by the sanctuary on behalf of the Greeks in their acculturation of the native settlement.2% The native population element is documented in part by native pottery from the site and partly by loomweights with sixth- and fifth-century graffiti employing mixed native and Greek onomastica.20” A part of the material may comprise a dedication to

the Charites.208 A few sites outside the Geloan-Akragantine hinterland are treated in the following section: Castellazzo di Poggioreale Castellazzo di Poggioreale is an anonymous hilltop settlement ca. 30 km north of Selinous, a location commanding Elymian territory in the upper valley of the river Hyp-

sas. 209 It offers testimony of the form Hellenisation can take at an Elymian site within the dominion of Selinous, evidence which can be usefully compared to that offered by sites in the territories of Gela and Akragas, mainly treated here. A sanctuary of Herakles at Mandra di Mezzo (Poggioreale), ca. 4 km from Castellazzo, deduced from the early sixth-century dedication to Herakles by one Aristylos in the Doric dialect and Selinun203

Vassallo (1983).

204 Bonacasa Carra (1974) 104; Vanni et al. (1991) 46-7. 205 Vanni (1988-89); Vanni et al. (1991) 47-8. 206 Bonacasa (1980-81) 859-61; Epifanio and Vassallo (1984-85), Vanni (1988-89) 670-3. 207

SEG

27 656-7; IGDS no.

175a-b; Arena (1992)

111-16; see also Antonaccio and Neils (1995)

269-73 below, Morgantina) for the name Kypra (Kypara, Sikel fountain nymph?) inscribed on one of the loomweights; Brugnone in Vanni (1988-89) 675-8.

208 Vanni et al. (1991) 53-8. 209

Falsone (1992).

164

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

tian alphabet,?!° has brought into relief how early, and how soon after the foundation of Selinous (the Eusebian date of ca. 651/0 is followed here), Greek cult turned up at

interior native sites. Finds from the settlement have revealed Greek contacts from the late seventh/early sixth century, but by 550 the urban layout was wholly Greekinspired. The plateau was during its sixth-century history partly fortified by its natural steep slopes but also by a strong gate built in finely executed isodomic ashlar stonework, such as that known from Selinous. The important stone quarries in the territory of that city2!! corroborate the suggestion put forward by Adamesteanu that the geomorphological environment should be taken into account in evaluating the typology and

chronology of the fortifications at native sites.?!? The area inside the gate, an open space delimited by smaller ashlar structures, may have served as an agora, and the

transition from the Iron Age, native houses, identified in combined

circular and

rectangular structures, to that of the Hellenised phase is clear.?!? The sixth-century Greek-type houses are large rectangular structures with several rooms, with sporadic use of ashlar structures in the walls, raised around a central courtyard. Finds indicate that grain processing took place in the structure. The close relationship with Selinous in this 550—480 phase of the city is brought out by finds of Selinuntian-type pottery and by the fragment of a terracotta altar which by the merit of its workmanship is attributed to a workshop in Selinous.?!4 The site was destroyed early in the fifth century, possibly as a result of conflicts involving Selinous and Segesta, but there is some re-occupation from the late fifth century. Castiglione Castiglione is a hilltop settlement situated ca. 20 km east of Kamarina. The sixthcentury settlement phase is characterised by small and irregular rooms and the absence of Greek-inspired domestic architecture and formal layout; also, Greek and Sikeliote finds from this phase are rare, most of the pottery found on the site being Sikel; two late-sixth-century terracottas are interpreted as stylistically Attic, but of local produc-

tion.2!3 This phase saw violent destruction in the late sixth century, reflecting either the defeat of Kamarina and its Sikel allies in the uprising against Syracuse (Philistos [FGrHist 556] fr. 5) or the expeditions against the Sikel and Chalkidian cities by Hippokrates of Gela. The settlement was strongly fortified by a double curtain wall;

this is not dated but an Archaic date is perhaps implied.?!6 The fourth-century phase seems less Hellenised than other ‘Timolean sites’, and Greek finds from this period are few.

210 211 212 213 214

IGLMP no. 35; IGDS no. 84; Falsone (1992) 307-8. Peschlow-Bindokat (1990). Adamesieanu (1986); sec further above. Falsone er al. (1980-81) 934—48. Falsone et al. (1980—81) 948-52, with mention of further finds of arulae, now lost; Meijden (1993) 279 cat. 154. For the growing influence of Selinuntine contacts, probably economically based, far inland along the Hypsas valley to Castellazzo di Poggioreale, Monte Maranfusa, Monte Iato, Entella and yet other sites not treated here, see Spatafora (1996) esp. 198; (1997).

215 Di Vita (1959) 358-9; Di Stefano (1980); (1988—89) 92 fig. 4, 101; cf. also Holloway (1990) 152. 216 Di Stefano (1980-81) 761; (1987) 132.

Reflections on Native Settlements in the Dominions of Gela and Akragas

165

The grave types are those of native cave tombs (a grotticello) and trench graves; the latter, though possibly Greek-inspired, were apparently mainly used by the Sikel

population according to the grave-goods.?!? However, a grave stone with a funerary verse inscription in Greek is valuable evidence of the adoption of Greek language at

this centre, which from the settlement and cemetery evidence seems primarily Sikel.?!8 The gravestone of Choro and Elos, late-sixth-century according to Dubois and post 461

according to Jeffery,?!? was put up by their son; at least one of the names is Sikel. Although the settlement was situated at a rather short distance from Kamarina, in the chora of the Greek colony, and although it was at least in part Greek-speaking, the archaeological testimonies point to a native settlement where Greek influence was at its minimum. Holloway has delimited a region with primarily Sikel sites in south-east Sicily, which functioned as a 'buffer zone' between Kamarina and Syracuse, but even

within this region there is noteworthy evidence of Greek communities that lived within or as near neighbours with Sikel communities -- revealed by a rich Greek cemetery near the Sikel city at Ragusa (ancient Hybla Heraia [?]), according to Di Vita testimony to a

Kamarinaian commercial

station in Sikel territory from the first half of the sixth

century.220 Montagna di Marzo Montagna di Marzo, a hill-top settlement ca. 5 km north-west of Piazza Armerina, has, on the basis of fourth-century numismatic evidence, been tentatively identified with the Sikel city Herbessos, situated, according to the sources, on the confines of Syracusan territory.2?! The major part of the urban remains, including a stretch of the circuit wall

and a small shrine, are fourth- century and probably to be attributed to Timoleon.??? Earlier Greek contacts are attested by the sixth-century Greek imports among the tomb finds, and a votive deposit in the vicinity of the cemetery with Archaic and early Classical terracottas of the type associated with Demeter has been taken as evidence of an otherwise unidentified extra-mural Demeter sanctuary, perhaps a thesmophorion since a number of the statuettes are of the type showing a standing female carrying a

piglet.22 Sixth- and fifth-century chamber tombs of native type were dispersed in a vast cemetery to the east of the city; the sarcophagi found in some tombs reflect Greek burial rites. The tombs from this phase are rich with an average of 60—70 vases attested

per burial.* One fifth-century warrior grave was particularly rich with the panoply of two warriors, ca. 130 tomb-gifts, primarily Attic vases, and 10 bronze vessels. A number of the Greek vases carried graffiti (see below).2?5 This and other rich tombs at Montagna di Marzo are seen as an example of an elite group within a native community 217

Pelagatti and Del Campo (1971).

218 For the provenance: Pelagatti and Del Campo (1971) 34. 219 LSAG 268 no. 17; CEG I no. 147; IGDS no. 127. 220 Di Vita (1959) 354—5; Holloway (1990) 152-3; Di Stefano and Marotta D'Agata (1996) 543—4. 221

Esp. Diod. 7.14, 78; full discussion: Bejor (1989) 279-80.

222 Mussinano (1970) 166-8, pl. 18; Domínguez (1989) 306-9; Moreschini and Cutroni Tusa (1992); for the formal urban layout: Adamesteanu (1963) 35, pl. 11 fig. 15. 223 Gentili (1969) 18-22. 224 Mussinano (1970) 168. 225 Mussinano (1970) 169 and passim.

166

Tobias Fischer-Hansen

responsible for the transmission of a style of life based upon Greek models. The symposiastic connotation of the many kylikes and other table ware is evident, underlined also by the presence in the tomb of wine transport amphorai.??$ Late Archaic and Early Classical bronze lebetes from the site, possibly Etruscan imports distributed through Gela, are further testimonies to prestigious possessions of a local elite.22? Greek graffiti, employing the Rhodian-Geloan alphabet on local and Greek wares, and native-languaged graffiti, likewise employing the Rhodian-Geloan alphabet, testify to a mixed Sikel-Greek settlement or to Sikels appropriating Greek symposiastic culture.23 The Greek graffito on a native hydria is erotic in content, naming a nativenamed female and two Greek-named males; the Greek graffito on an Attic blackfigured kylix has symposiastic, comic and erotic contents naming Greek-named males and females;22? a votive graffito attests a Herakles cult; and a number of graffiti attest

Greek or Sikel onomastica.2?° Morgantina

Most scholars have identified Morgantina with the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic

town investigated on the Serra Orlando ridge, near Aidone.?! The Serra Orlando ridge is one of the plateaus on the western edge of the plain of Katane, a border zone between the Geloan and Chalkidian regions. The Classical and

Hellenistic city occupied the 3 km long ridge, whereas the Archaic city was situated on the Cittadella hill which rises to the east, and which, in itself, consists of an upper and two lower plateaus. Hellenisation was strong at this site from the sixth century and it is reflected in the urban architecture, the architectural terracottas and cult furniture from

the site, and in the cemeteries, partly in tomb typology but also in Greek tomb gifts.29? The Hellenisation of the settlement led Sjögvist to the belief that the Archaic history of the settlement was that of a primarily Greek city, possibly even a sub-colony of one of the Chalkidian colonies, albeit with some Sikel elements apparent in the urban site and

in the cemeteries.??? Our main concern here is the Archaic city on the Cittadella, recently analysed by Antonaccio with a review also of earlier scholarship on the ethnic components of

Archaic Morgantina.2* The Archaic settlement of Morgantina has revealed Greek contacts primarily from the mid-sixth century, that is from a period later than that attested at several of the other sites discussed here. The Cittadella and adjacent areas have given up valuable evidence of sanctuaries and naiskoi, in some cases apparently succeeding Iron Age cult areas (Fig. 14).25 Foundations of a mid-sixth-century hekatompedon have been excavated on the akropolis, and a rich harvest of architectural 226 Albanese Procelli (1991) 106, 108. 227 Albanese Procelli (1980-81). 228 Moreschini and Cutroni Tusa (1992) 229-30. 229

230 231 232 233 234

IGDS nos. 166-7; Arena (1992) 119-20.

IGDS no. 168a; Arena (1992) 119-22. For the epigraphic evidence: /GDS pp. 226-7. Survey of the archaeological evidence with an extensive bibliography: Tsakirgis (1995). Sjóqvist (1973) esp. 28-35. Antonaccio (1997). Our text on the Archaic settlement site is based upon that of Antonaccio, where full references can be found. 235 Allen (1977).

Reflectionson Native Seulemcnts in the Dominions of Oela and Akraps

~

167

,---

.

- -L -~

DIAWIND No. 1/196 A1tcHn1Cr:s. Cun ·t

I

·- .• " .

LEGEND

---- •- • - •

. -..

..

--~

acca1rotd l'l'OpCRY line

14. Morgantina. Farmhouse Hill. Upper and Lower Cittadella: Antonaccio and Neils (1995) fig. 2.

tcrracottas found on the lower plateau are evidence of a naiskos in this part of the Archaic settlement also. In this area, the "Lower Cittadella', a votive deposit with an arula found inside a circular stone packing, perhaps an underground chamber or bothros, is further confirmation of cult. Although built in rough stones the structure is comparable to the bothroi of Monte Bubbonia discussed above, and the structure is also at Morgantina taken as testimony of a cbtbonian cult. 236 (The divinities of the sanctuaries on the Cittadella at Morgantina have not so far been identified. 237 ) The arcbitecturaJ terracottas find stylistic parallels not only within several of the Greek Sicilian regions. but apparently also in East Greek terracottas. Apart from this evidence, architectural parts from a monumental stone altar testify to important sixthcentury religious structures in Greek style. 238 Further finds point to extra-mural sanctuaries, and Archaic Morgantin.a has overall given testimonies of religious buildings of 236 Allen (1970) 370, pl. 9 J, fig. 8; Allen (l 977) l 3S-6; Meijden (1993) 240 cat. 11 I 5. 237 Antonaccio and Neils (1995) tcntively interpret the graffito KUKapa ε3 c

I(1) II(2) III(3)

The plaintiff? defendant?--Whoever presents himself for arbitration?--Ankemolia does not apply to an adopted son---

IV(4-5)

Ifa woman with the same father and the same mother---if one contends that

the property is paternal and another objects. V(6-8)

.

If witnesses for both are present---(if) he himself chooses? to decide, he

(the plaintiff? defendant?) shall deposit 5 cauldrons. But if he contests--Line I: [xó]v | noA[tovxa] or [τὸ]ν | noA[tóp£ vov]? For τὸν μολίοντα, cf. /.Cret. IV

165.12. The

use of the plural neuter passive participle (τὰ noXiopeva) in the sense of ‘pleading’ is attested (/. Crer. IV 42B3;

72v44;

vi55; xi30), although

this use of the singular is not. The

use of the vertical

line

between an article and its substantive is rare. The only other example from the Pythion texts occurs in I.Cret. IV 6.2. [ó]g noX[---] is also possible, although in legal texts the relative is usually used indefinitely with xe. For an example of its use without xe, see /.Cret. IV 72i154—55. Line 2: μέζαϊίτος} ἴοι: Comparetti

and Bechtel

in /.Crer. IV, followed by van Effenterre-Ruzé

(1994-95) 11.38. Line 3: ἀνκεμολία: actions concerning or against a relative? (Martínez-Fernández [1983] 179-80, "no se entablará proceso contra el hijo adoptivo."). Cf. Bile (1988) 351, "procés que l'on engage pour un proche parent"; van Effenterre-Ruzé (1994-95) 11.38, "il n'y a pas d'intervention familiale". The term also occurs in /. Crer. IV 44, a law concerning heiresses. Line 4: There is a mark to the right of the initial omikron of önoramp which somewhat resembles

a lambda—although the horizontal stroke is longer and drawn at a more oblique angle than usual in the Pythion texts—or less closely a gamma. I cannot explain its presence. ἃ κ΄: van Effenterre-Ruzé (1994— 95) 11.38: “If she has the same father and the same mother"; Hesych. ἃ δέ ka: ὁτάν. Line 7: ἐπαιρῆι: van Effenterre-Ruzé (1994-95) 11.38: "étre poussé à" or "choisir de"; the subject of the verb may be either the arbitrator of 1. 2 who receives an honorarium of 5 febetes or a judge, in which case the 5 lebetes should be regarded as a deposit on the fine or as court costs.

218

Paula Perlman

Figure 3

Private Inscriptions! ?? l. Provenance: Knossos. Description: Graffito on an aryballos.

Date: 8*—ca. 630 BC. Text: |TAP38 — Reference: Coldstream, Callaghan, and Musgrave (1981) 151 Fig. 5 no. 117; 157 no. 117. 2. Provenance: Phaistos. Description: Owner's name on pot. Date: 8-6" century BC (?). Text: Ἑρπετιδάμο Παιδοπίλας ὅδε Reference: SEG 26 1050.

+

3. Provenance: Knossos. Description: Owner's name on a late orientalizing bucchero aryballos. Date: 650-625 BC. Text: Περάτας | καλίστο | n[---]? — Reference: Johnston (1996) 463-4.

4. Provenance: Agia Pelaghia (Apellonia). Description: Graffito on a Knossian cup.

Date: 7 century BC. Tex: P HET?ATD Unpublished.

ε-

S. Provenance: Praisos. Description: Graffito (dedication?) on a Daedalic terracotta figurine.

Date: 7" century BC. Text: Aogg[---] > Reference: I.Cret. IL viii.1 (wrongly ascribed to Siteia); Jeffery (1990) 316 no. 18.

137 The entries arc arranged in chronological order. 138 Cf. Coldstream, Callaghan and Musgrave (1981) 157 no. 117: (---]yyap[---]. The stroke they print as a dotted iota is most likely a vertical dividing line. 139 Cf. Johnston 1996, 463-464: Περατὰς | καλίστο | πίρόχους] ("[this is] the cup of Peratas, the most handsome").

Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years

6. Provenance: Prinias. Description: Graffito (practice text?).

Date: 7% century BC. Text: For the text, see above p. 196. Reference: I.Cret. l.xxviii.1; Jeffery (1990) 315 no. 10. 7. Provenance: Prinias. Description: Grave stele with image of a standing woman who is spinning thread. Date: 660—650 BC. Text: Traces of letters appear along the left edge of the stele. Reference: Lembesi (1976) 21—2, A1; Pls. 2-3; 41B.

8. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed helmet with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*—early 6* century BC. Text: Νεόπολις + Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 2-4 HI; Pls. 1-5; 7. 9. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed helmet with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*—early 6" century B.C. Text: Συνήνιτος

—

ὁ Εὐκλώτα

>

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 4 H2; Pls. 8-10.

10. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed helmet with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*—early 6" century BC. Text. Γισοκάρτης 9 τόνδε

—— -

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 5 H3; Pl. 11. 11.

Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed corselet with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*—early 6" century BC. Text: [---JQN!*! | zovö’ Me + Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 8 C3; Pl. 27.2.

140 For the owner, see also Fig. 3, no. 17. 141 Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 8 C3: (Né]ov. Sec also Fig. 3, no. 20.

219

220

Paula Perlman

12. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed corselet with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*^—early 6" century BC. Text: OITIPIKZIO[---]NO'?

—

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 9 C5.

13. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7'%-early 6" century BC. Text: Συνήνιτος 160€.

ὁ Εὐκλώτα

at left: from top down

at right: from bottom up

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 10 M1; Pls. 31; 33. 14.

Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*—early 6" century BC. Text: Αἰσονίδας τόνδ᾽ ἦλε ὁ Κλοριδίο εReference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 11 M2; PI. 34. 15. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7-early 6" century BC. Text: Καρισθένης ὁ Πειθία τόν- εδ᾽ ἀπήλευσε Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 12 M5; PI. 37.2.

16. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7'b-early 6" century BC. Text: Evwvupos [ἦ]λε τόδε ὁ Elp-] ασιμένιος

+ >

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 12 M6; Pl. 37.1.

17. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7'^—early 6" century BC. Text: Γισοκάρτης 451 τόνδε + Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 12 M7; Pl. 38.2. 142 Perhaps ὁ Mpixg? Cf. Fig. 3, no. 19. 143 For the owner, scc also Fig. 3, no. 10.

Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years

221

18. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*-early 6" century BC. Tex: Me

—

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 13 M8; PI. 38.1. 19. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*-early 6" century BC. Text: Onpr9c' óc τόνδε ἦλε —— Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 13 M9. 20. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late T'h-early 6" century BC. Text: Νέων!"45 τόνδ᾽ Me — Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 13 M10; PI. 36.2. 21. Provenance: Aphrati. Description: Inscribed mitra with record of personal victory.

Date: Late 7*^-early 6" century BC. Text:

ὁ Κάλανος

ε-

traces of a second line?!46

Reference: Hoffman-Raubitschek (1972) 13 M12.

22. Provenance: Gortyn, vicinity of the altar in the sanctuary of Athene on Hagios Ioannis. Description: Graffito (dedication?) along the front face of the base of a Daedalic figurine. Date: ca. 600 BC. Text: Onilnkg € Reference: Rizza-Scrinari (1968)

187-8 no. 257; Pl. XXXVII.

23, Provenance: Aphrati/Datala (from Kato Syme). Description: Bronzesmith’s signature on the ring handle from a bronze cauldron. Date: 6th century BC. Text: Δαμόθετος ἐπόεσ᾽ ὁ Δαταλές + Reference: Lembesi (1973) 191; Pl. 193y. 144 ὁ Πρῖφς = “the Phrygian”? See also Fig. 3, no. 12. 145 For the owner, see also Fig. 3, no. 11.

146 BCH 92 (1968) 993, Fig. 1.

222

Paula Perlman

24. Provenance: Gortyn, Hagios loannis. Description: Curse (?) inscribed on three joining fragments of an orthostate block. Date: 600—550 BC. Text: οἵ xa μὴ ἀπό«“Whoever does not swear an μοσεν € ὀτρεύ-» — oath or who ? may the devil γεν κῖτος

+

(literally *monster') take him

[ἐἹκπέρεν — away.”!47 Reference: I.Cret. IV 28; van Effenterre-Ruzé (1994-95) II.12. 25. Provenance: Itanos, Cape Sideros (᾽ς τὸ βερνεγάδι). Description: Rupestral inscription. Date: Archaic or early Classical? Text: [---]uov ἔγραφέ με εdolphin facing left

Reference: I.Cret. IILvii.2. 26. Provenance: Itanos, Cape Sideros (᾽ς τὸ βερνεγάδι).

Description: Rupestral inscription.

[---] Εὐτέλης EQOHTE I [.] AI! [.]INHOTIETOKAAEIEN TON[.JZ | ETEIH | Itaviov [.. ca. 4 ..]NATE[..]KAOANAN Reference: I.Cret. Il.vii.3.

sTtıT

Date: ca. 525-500 BC (on the basis of Jeffery [1900] 309 [Y 3]). Text: hand and phallus?

27. Provenance: Knossos.

Description: Graffito on a wine or oil amphora. Date: 550-500 BC or earlier? Text: | APE + Reference: Sackett (1992) 141-2, x.32; Pl. 121.32.

28. Provenance: Olous, Spinalonga peninsula. Description: Rupestral inscription. Date: Archaic. Text: Θύνδρος εa pair of feet to left and a single foot to right of the text, all facing left

Reference: I.Cret. l.xxii.64b.

147

For the text and translation, see van Effenterre-Ruzé (1994—95) 1I.12.

Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years

223

29. Provenance: Plora (Pyloros).

Description: Grave monument? Date: Archaic. Text: Ταλάδος — Reference: I.Cret. lLxxv.l. 30. Provenance: Phaistos. Description: Graffito on

sherd

of uncertain

date

(LMIII

or later)

inscribed

post-

breakage in the Aiginetan alphabet of Kydonia.

Date: 6" century BC.!48 Text: hepaxAéc

Γόρτυς

>

+

Reference: Guarducci (1952-54).

31. Provenance: Phaistos.

Description:

Graffito on sherd of uncertain date (LMIII

or later) inscribed post-

breakage in the Aiginetan alphabet of Kydonia.

Date: 6^ century BC. Text: Σαστωκ

3

Θεμιστοκλὲς m Reference: Guarducci (1952—54).!49 32. Provenance: Chersonesos (from Hellanika).

Description: Inscribed grave marker.

Date: 6% century BC. Text: Tyióg nut! Evaypos μ᾽ ἕστασε Reference: Petrou-Mesogeites Jeffery (1990) 316 no. 20.

+

(1937-38)

204-7

no. 3; Masson

(1979)

64-5

no.

1;

33. Provenance: Agia Pelaghia (Apellonia).

Description: Dedication to Apollo cut on the rim of a bronze cauldron in the Aiginetan script of Kydonia. Date: ca. 500 BC. Text: Θάλιος ἀνέθεκε τόπόλονι — Reference: SEG 34 913. 148 Guarducci (1952-1954) proposes that the appearance together of Herakles and Gortys suggests that the inscription dates to a period of friendship between Phaistos and Gortyn. For Herakles at Phaistos, see Steph. Byz. s.v. Φαιστός; Paus. 2.6.6; 2.10.1. 149 The name Themistokles occurs elsewhere at Phaistos (/.Cret. l.xxiii.17) and at Olous (/.Cret. I.xxii.29). Guarducci (1952-1954) observes that the name Sastok is likely to be Egyptian and may

either attest an Egyptian living in Phaistos or be an ancient indigenous (Eteocretan?) name.

224

Paula Perlman

34. Provenance: Eleutherna.

Description: Graffito on a limestone block.

Date: 6-5" century BC. Text: Κιβυίου — Reference: SEG 45 1271.

35. Provenance: Gortyn, ‘East Wall’ of the Odeion. Description: Kalos inscription.

Date: early 5" century BC. Text: Δαμαγόρα- — G καλός € Reference: I.Cret. IV SO.

36. Provenance: Gortyn, στοὺς ᾿Αγίους Δέκα. Description: Graffito on ἃ wall block.

Date: early 5" century BC. Text: Σότιμος € Reference: I.Cret. IV 71. 37. Provenance: Itanos, Cape Sideros ("¢ τὸ βερνεγάδι). Description: Rupestral inscription. Date: 5" century BC (?). Text: Two pairs of feet above

Anvio «τροίδε πόδες

—

Reference: l.Cret. IIl.vii.4.

38. Provenance: Kydonia. Description: Grave stele in the Aiginetan alphabet.

Date: early 5“ century BC. Text: Αὐτομέδεός ἐμι

— >

Reference: I.Cret. 11.x.7.

39. Provenance: Kydonia. Description: Grave stele in the Aiginetan alphabet.

Date: early 5^ century BC.

150 Arena (1983) 99-101 suggests Anvi ὄζοι δὲ πόδες, and interprets the text as a dedication of the feet to Zeus following an epiphany of the god. Cf. SEG 33 740 (Pleket) who notes that the δέ is awkward.

Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years

225

Text: σᾶμα Μελισσί- > δος Epi «Reference: I.Cret. 11.x.13. 40. Provenance: Kydonia. Description: Grave stele in the Aiginetan alphabet.

Date: early 5" century BC. Text: Καλλι-

δίκα

>

-9

Reference: I.Cret. 11.χ.10.

4]. Provenance: Abydos, Egypt, temple of Ramses II. Description: Graffito, probably of a Cretan mercenary.

Date: early 5" century BC. Text: Δαμόκριτος ELPUNPOKTOG Reference: SEG 26 1708.

42. Provenance: Abydos, Egypt, temple of Ramses II. Description: Graffito, probably of a Cretan mercenary.

Date: early 5^ century BC. Text: YneppaAXXov Reference: SEG 26 1709.

Bibliography Arena, R. 1983. "Per la lettura di due iscrizioni greche archaiche." ZPE 53: 99-102. Bile, M. 1988. Le dialecte crétois ancien. Etude de la langue des inscriptions. Recueils des inscriptions postérieures aux IC, EtCrét XXVII (Paris). Boegehold, A.L. 1995. The Lawcourts at Athens. Sites, Buildings, Equipment, Procedure, and Testimo-

nia, The Athenian Agora Vol. XXVIII (Princeton). Burkert, W.

1984. Greek Religion (Cambridge, Mass.).

Carey, C. 1998. "The Shape of Athenian Laws," CQ 48: 93-109. Chaniotis, A. 1995. "Problems of ‚Pastoralism‘ and ‚Transhumance‘ in Classical and Hellenistic Crete," Orbis Terrarum 1: 39-89. Chaniotis, A. 1996. Die Vertrüge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit (Stuttgart). Chaniotis, A. 1999. "Milking the Mountains. Economic Activities on the Cretan Uplands in the Classcal and Hellenistic Periods," in A. Chaniotis (ed.), From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders.

Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete (Stuttgart) 181-220. Coldstream, J.N., Callaghan, P. and Musgrave, J.H. 1981. "Knossos: An Early Greek Tomb on Lower Gypsadhes Hill,” BSA 76: 141-65. Csapo, E. 1991. "An International Community of Traders in Late 8th-7th c. B.C. Kommos in Southern Crete," ZPE 88: 211-16. Csapo, E. 1993. "A Postscript to ‘An International Community of Traders in Late 8th-7th c. B.C. Kommos'," ZPE 96: 235-6.

226

Paula Periman

Davies, J.K. 1996. “Deconstructing Gortyn: When is a Code a Code?," in L. Foxhall and A.D.E. Lewis (eds.), Greek Law in its Political Setting: Justifications Not Justice (Oxford) 33-56. Demargne, P. and van Effenterre, H. 1937. "Recherches a Dréros II. Les inscriptions archaiques," BCH 61: 333-48. Duhoux, Y. 1982. L'étéocretois. Les textes, la langue (Amsterdam).

Frisone, F. 1995. "Una legislazione funeraria a Gortina?" Studi di Antichità 8: 55-68. Gagarin, M. 1982. "The Organization of the Gortyn Law Code," GRBS 23: 129-46. Gagarin, M. 1986. Early Greek Law (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London). Gagarin, M. 1994. “Τῆς Economic Status of Women in the Gortyn Code: Retroactivity and Change," in G. Thür (ed.), Symposion 1993. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Graz-Andritz, 12.-16. September 1993 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna). Gordon, A.E. 1983. Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London). Graf, F. 1979. "Apollo Delphinios," MusHelv 36: 2-22. Guarducci, M.

1950. Inscriptiones Creticae Vol. IV (Rome).

Guarducci, M. 1952-54. "Iscrizioni vascolari arcaiche da Phaistos," ASAtene 14-16: 167—73. Guizzi, F. 1997. “Terra comune, pascolo e contributo ai syssitia in Creta arcaica e classica," AnnA rchStorAnt n.s. 4: 45-51. Harris, W.V.

1989. Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass. and London).

Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 1992. “Written Law in Archaic Greece.” PCPS 38: 87-117. Hoffman, H. (with A.E. Raubitschek).

1972. Early Cretan Armorers (Mainz on Rhine).

Holloway, R.R. 1971. "An Archaic Coin Hoard from Crete and the Early Aiginetan Coinage,” ANSMN 17: 1-22. 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.?, revised by A.W. Johnston (Oxford).

Johnston, A.W. Catling

1996. "The Graffito on the Aryballos 107.84: A Note,” in J.N. Coldstream and

(eds.),

Knossos

North

Cemetery.

Early Greek

Tombs

Vol.

II, BSA

Suppl.

H.

28: 463-4.

London. Jones, N.F. 1987. Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 176 (Philadelphia). Koerner, R. 1993. Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna). Kroll, J.H. 2001. "Observations on Monetary Instruments in Pre-Coinage Greece," in M.S. Balmuth (ed.), Hacksilber to Coinage. New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece, Numismatic Studies 24 (New York) 77-91.

Lembesi, A. 1973 (1975). “Ιερὸν Eppot καὶ Aépobi tn εἰς Σύμην Βιάννου," Prakt 1973: 188—99. Lembesi, A. 1976. Οἱ Στηλες rov Πρινια, ArchDelt Suppl. 22 (Athens). Le Rider, G. 1966. Monnaies crétoises du V au It" siecle av. J.-C., ÉtCrét XV (Paris).

Lévy. E. 1997. "Libres et non-libres dans le code de Gortyn," in P. Brulé and J. Oulhen

(eds.).

Esclavage, guerre, économie en Gréce ancienne. Hommages à Yvon Garlan (Rennes) 25-41. MacDowell, D.M.

1986. Spartan Law (Edinburgh).

Martínez-Fernández, A. 1983. "Nota a la terminología jurídica cretense: ávxeuóAia (I.C. IV.21.3 y 44.7)," in Unidad y pluralidad en el mundo antiguo, Actas del VI Congreso espafiol de estudios clásicos (Sevilla, 6-11 de abril de 1981) II: Comunicaciones (Madrid) 173-81.

Masson, O. 1979. "Cretica," BCH 103: 57-82. Perlman, P. 1996. “Πόλις ᾿ΥὙπήκοος. The Dependent Polis and Crete,” CPCActs 3: 233-87. Perlman, P. 2000. "Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years (Part I)," in Polis ἃ Politics: 59-89.

Gortyn. The First Seven Hundred Years

227

Petrakos, V. 1995. "Xápayua ἐκ Ραμνοῦντος." AE 1995: 267-270. Petrou-Mesogeites, Chr. 1937-38. "Κρητικὰ ᾿Επιγραφικά," Hellenika 10: 193-209. Pounder, R.L. 1984. “The Origin of ®eoi as Inscription-Heading.” in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday, GRBM 10: 243-50. Rhodes, P.J. 1991. "The Athenian Code of Laws, 410-399 B.C.," JHS 111: 87-100. Rhodes, PJ. (with D.M. Lewis).

1997. The Decrees of the Greek States (Oxford).

Ricciardi, M. 1986-87 (1991). "Il tempio di Apollo Pizio a Gortina,” ASArene 64-65: 7-130. Rizza, G. and Scrinari, V.S.M.

1968. 1] santuario sull'acropoli di Gortina (Rome).

Sackett. L.H. 1992. Knossos. From Greek City to Roman Colony. Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion YI, BSA Suppl. 21 (London). Simpson, R.H. er al. 1995. “The Archaeological Survey of the Kommos Area," in J. W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos. 1.1. The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries (Princeton) 325— 402. Small, J.P. 1997. Wax Tablets of the Mind. Cognitive studies of memory and literacy in classical antiquity (London and New York).

Stefanakis. M. 1999. “The Introduction of Coinage in Crete and the Beginning of Local Minting." in A. Chaniotis (ed.), From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders. Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete (Stuttgart) 247-68.

Stoddart, S. and Whitley, J. 1988. "The Social Context of Literacy in Archaic Greece and Etruria," Antiquity 62: 761-72. Thomas, R. 1995. "Written in Stone? Liberty, Equality, Orality and the Codification of Law." BICS 40: 59-74. van Effenterre, H. and M. 1985. "Nouvelles lois archaiques de Lyttos," BCH 109: 157-88. van Effenterre, H. and Ruzé, F. 1994-95. Nomima. Recueil d'inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l'archaisme grec 1-1, Collection de l'École francaise de Rome 188 (Rome). Viviers, D. 1994. "La cité de Datala et l'expansion territoriale de Lyktos en Créte centrale," BCH 118: 229-59. von Reden, S. 1997. “Money, Law and Exchange: Coinage in the Greek Polis," JHS 117: 154-76. Wallace, R.W. 1989. The Areopagus Council to 307 B.C. (Baltimore and London). Whitley, J. 1997. “Cretan Laws and Cretan Literacy," AJA 101: 635-61. Willetts, R.F. 1955. Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete (London).

Willetts, R.F. 1967. The Law Code of Gortyn, Kadmos Suppl. I (Berlin). Wolff, H.J. 1946. “The Origin of Judicial Litigation among the Greeks," Tradition 4: 31-87.

Paula Periman University of Texas at Austin

THE PATTERN OF SETTLEMENT IN PISATIS. THE 'EIGHT POLEIS' by JAMES ROY

1. The Region Strabo 8.3.31-2 says that there were eight poleis in Pisatis, and indeed in these two chapters mentions that number of poleis no fewer than six times. It is generally accepted that Strabo's view is taken from Apollodoros,! writing in the second century. This article seeks to establish what we can know or deduce about these ‘eight poleis' not only in the Helienistic period but also earlier. The main questions are, first, whether so many towns existed in Pisatis and, if so, whether they existed only in the Hellenistic period or also earlier; and, second, whether -- at whatever period they existed - they were simply nucleated settlements large enough to be called towns, or whether they discharged socio-political functions which would justify describing them not merely as towns but as poleis. It is first necessary to consider the location and extent of Pisatis as understood by Apollodoros/Strabo, the more so because the term Pisatis, while clearly referring to a district situated along the lower course of the R. Alpheios and including Olympia, was conceived in antiquity by different writers in very different terms and varied greatly in size. The best discussion of the question is by Meyer.? His reconstruction of the local geography starts from the situation of ca. 400, when we know that Letrinoi, Amphidolia, and Marganeis were perioikic communities, as were the Akroreians on Mt. Pholoé (east of Elis and northeast of Olympia), while Pisatis was part of the territory of the Eleian state proper. Letrinoi lay on the road through the plain from Olympia to Elis, and was 120 stades from Olympia and 180 from Elis (Paus. 6.22.8): that puts Letrinoi some distance west of Olympia in the area of the modern town Pirgos and the modern village Ayios Ioannis. Meyer assumed that Amphidolia and Marganeis were close to Letrinoi, since Xenophon habitually refers to all three together (Hell. 3.2.25 & 30; 4.2.16), and | 2

See e.g. Baladié (1978) 26. Meyer (1950) 1736-43; he also discusses the varying use of the term ‘Pisatis’ by other ancient authors. Note also the comments of Siewert (1991b) on the early use of ‘Olympia’ to refer to the

sanctuary of Zeus and ‘Pisa’ to refer to the area around it. There is no doubt ca. 400, as Meyer argues, and it is extremely unlikely that in earlier years had achieved domination of Pisatis and so of Olympia, had ever taken the outside strictly Eleian territory. See Roy (1997), esp. n. 12. The distinction territory and perioikic territory seems to have survived until 146 (Roy perioikoi of Elis, see Roy (1997) and Roy, in this volume 251-3.

that Pisatis was Eleian the Eleians, once they risk of leaving Pisatis between purely Eleian [1999] 165-7); on the

230

James Roy

assigned them to territory on the north bank of the lower Alpheios extending up to a point not far west of Olympia. He also argued for a reconstruction which allowed an unbroken stretch of Eleian (as opposed to perioikic) territory from the valley of the R. Peneios down through Pisatis to the Alpheios, and so gave the Eleians access to Olympia on purely Eleian territory: although present evidence does not allow absolute certainty on the point, his argument makes obvious strategic sense. Meyer's reconstruction leaves for the Pisatis of ca. 400 an area which stretched from just west of Olympia eastwards to the Arkadian frontier at or near the R. Erymanthos and from the R. Alpheios northwards towards the watershed between the river-systems of the Alpheios and the Peneios, where it would join other Eleian territory. Other scholars differ from Meyer's reconstruction,? but any reconstruction which assigns all the upper valley of the R. Lestenitsa to perioikoi and so cuts off Pisatis from the rest of purely Eleian territory is difficult to accept. There are problems with details of Meyer's reconstruction, but they do not weaken his basic argument. He puts Letrinoi at Ayios Ioannis, but remains of the Classical period have not been found there, whereas they have been found in and around Pirgos, which is therefore a more likely location for Letrinoi. He puts Marganeis in the plain between modern Strefi and Flokas, and the Amphidoloi in the hill land between Varvassaina and Lambeti (i.e. a little east of Pirgos). However, Classical and Hellenis-

tic material has been found at modern Salmoni (formerly Koukoura) near the Alpheios southwest of Strefi and it could well have been an ancient settlement, presumably Marganeis:5 the site fits both Strabo's description (8.3.24) of Marganeis as not naturally strong and Meyer's argument that Marganeis was near Olympia. Also, it is clear from Strabo 8.3.10 that Amphidolia adjoined Alasyaion, which lay on the mountain road from Olympia to Elis, which means that Amphidolia probably lay farther east, or farther northeast, than the Varvassaina-Lambeti area suggested by Meyer. Meyer noted very reasonably that the joint dedication at Olympia by the Alasyes (of Alasyaion) and the Akroreioi (of Mt. Pholo&) suggests that they were neighbours; but any such suggestion is probably misleading since it is hard to see how the Alasyes could border on both Mt. Pholoé to the east or northeast and also on any plausible location for the Amphidoloi to the west or southwest. (The mountain road presumably used the upper valley of the R. Lestenitsa before crossing to the valley of the Eleian R. Ladon and continuing to the valley of the R. Peneios.)’ Such modifications to Meyer's reconstruc3 4

Io

5

Eg.Baladié (1978) 247-8 puts Amphidolia not west of Olympia but north, in the upper valley of the R. Lestenitsa. On Ayios loannis, see McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 302-3 no. 306. On Pirgos. see ibid. 320-1 no. 717, and BCH 108 (1984) Chron. 770. McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 304-5 no. 308; see also ibid. 320-1 no. 722. Siewert (199 1a) no. 3. See RE V: 2370 on the route along the valleys of the rivers Ladon and Lestenitsa, which are separated by a ridge rising only ca. 300m above the valleys: Meyer (1950) 1736-9 accepts this route for the mountain road from Olympia to Elis. The fortified site described by Bon (1946) 2930 north of the modern village Goumero would control the route, but Goumero belongs to the valley of the Eleian R. Ladon, and so would lie outside Pisatis. A fortified hilltop near modern Persaina (northeast of Neraida) is also situated near this route, and would probably fall within Pisatis. but seems likely to be prehistoric rather than Classical: see ArchDelt 44 (1989) [1995]

B.1.102-3.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

e

zZ «——

23]

232

James Roy

tion would however still leave a block of perioikic territory (Letrinoi, Amphidoloi, Marganeis) to the west of Pisatis and another block (Akroreia) to the northeast, with

purely Eleian territory stretching north uninterrupted from Pisatis towards Koile Elis. The main change to Meyer's reconstruction would be that Pisatis could extend somewhat farther west, perhaps as far as Strefi and the lower Lestenitsa. The Pisatis of ca. 400, so understood, would still be a relatively small area, as Meyer argued, even if

somewhat larger than he supposed.? The topographical information that can be gained from Strabo's text also suggests a Pisatis of limited extent. Of the four towns which Strabo explicitly labels as belonging to the eight poleis of Pisatis, three — Harpina, Herakleia, and Salmone - can all be located in fairly close proximity to Olympia, while there is no evidence for the precise location of Kikysion within Pisatis. Furthermore Alasyes, Dyspontion, and Pharaia/ Pheraia can also be located in the same general area. (Detailed evidence on Pisatan

communities will be set out and analysed below.) It is therefore possible - if one allows that we do not necessarily know all eight of these communities - to suppose that Pisatis in this passage of Strabo is a fairly restricted area, not extending far from Olympia. That was Meyer's conclusion, and it is adopted here. Meyer argued, persuasively, that Apollodoros' Pisatis was too small and insignificant to have been the original Pisatis with which Elis contended for control of Olympia, and so he came to the view that Apollodoros' rather limited Pisatis was the area incorporated directly into Eleian territory once Elis dominated Pisatis and Olympia, and in fact the same area as the Pisatis of ca. 400.9 It is indeed likely, although it cannot be proved, that the division into Eleian and perioikic territory seen ca. 400 had been more or less the same since the Eleians secured domination of the area in the sixth century. It is unlikely that communities like Letrinoi had first been incorporated directly into Eleian territory, and then removed from it and given perioikic status; and it

is equally unlikely that Pisatis, with its great sanctuary at Olympia, was ever allowed perioikic

status rather than being

incorporated

as soon as possible

into the Eleian

state. After ca. 400 the distinction between Eleian and perioikic territory probably 8

Yalouris (1972) 96 gives the area of Pisatis as 555km? (followed by Panayotopoulos [1991] 275), but, as his map shows (Fig. | on p. 96), Yalouris' Pisatis extends to the sca and is much larger than

9

10

Meyer's reconstruction of the Pisatis of Apollodoros/Strabo. Yalouris reports that 44 settlements have been discovered within Pisatis (as he defines it), but does not specify their nature or date. It is odd that Yalouris also reports that nine towns are known from literary sources in Pisatis, since his Pisatis would include Phea, Letrinoi, Amphidolia, and Marganeis, besides the communities discussed in this paper. The more restricted Pisatis defined by Meyer is much smaller than Yalouris' 555km?, and moreover not all of the area is equally suitable for settlement and agriculture, parts of the north and northeast being less hospitable. Meyer (1950) 1737-43. Meyer ibid. 1749-50 rejected the view of Niese (1910) 26-47 that all accounts of an independent Pisa in the Archaic period are an invention deriving from the period of Pisatan independence in ca. 365-362: Meyer rightly argued that the evidence for an independent Archaic Pisa, even if somctimes confused, is too strong to be discarded out of hand. Maddoli et al. (1999) 364-5 and 369 (on Paus. 6.22.1 and 4) suggest, without exploring the question at length. that the idea of the eight cities was developed at the time of Pisatan independence in ca. 365-362. Τῆς wording of Paus. 5.10.2 (Tlicav ... xai ὅσον τῶν περιοίκων ἄλλο συναπέστη Πισαίοις) might be taken to mean that Pisatis was perioikic, but the Greek need not be understood in that sense (Roy [1997] 310-1). nor does the very recent Budé edition (Casevitz er al. [1999]) translate

the words in that sense, giving instead " ... Pisa ainsi que tous les périéques qui s'étaient rangés aux

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

233

remained in place until 146,!! i.e. into Apollodoros’ lifetime. It is difficult to see any explanation other than Meyer's for Apollodoros' adopting a definition of Pisatis as such a restricted area, and it is therefore assumed here that the communities described by Apollodoros/Strabo as the eight poleis of Pisatis are to be sought within the area set out by Meyer as modified above. (All those whose location is known fall within it.) The area is not very large, but it could certainly have accommodated eight communities with as little land as the average territory of 25km? found in the communities of northern Triphylia, just across the Alpheios from Pisatis. It is worth noting that these small communities of northern Triphylia were certainly poleis.'?

2. The Settlements of Pisatis

The area included the great sanctuary at Olympia, but Olympia was not a town (although, as will be seen, settlement developed at sites close to Olympia). The area would also have included the town Pisa if it had existed, but there is no reason to suppose that there was such a town. Whether or not the town Pisa had ever existed was already disputed in the time of Apollodoros (Strabo 8.3.31): some believed that it had, and that its site lay on a height between two hills called, like those in Thessaly, Ossa

and Olympos, while others - including Apollodoros — denied that such a town had existed. Pausanias 6.22.1 visited what he clearly believed to be the site of the former town of Pisa at a place — apparently different from Strabo's site — entirely covered by vines with no trace of walls or other building, i.e. a site which offered no evidence

whatsoever for the earlier existence of a town. It seems safe to follow Meyer in denying that there had ever been a town Pisa, which of course is not to deny the existence of a

Pisatan state." Strabo identifies explicitly only four of the eight Pisatan cities in 8.3.31-2: Harpina, Herakleia, Kikysion, and Salmone. The argument (Strabo 8.3.31) that, if there had been a town Pisa, it would have been one of the eight poleis of Pisatis, suggests that the

full list of eight was known, to Apollodoros if not to Strabo (and that Pisa was not among the eight). Other communities which may arguably be located in Pisatis (as here defined) are Alasyes, Dyspontion, Lenos, and Pharaia/Pheraia. If any of these were not Pisatan, or if Dyspontion and Lenos disappeared too early to be included among

Apollodoros' eight poleis, then the total of eight might be made up by one or other of the several communities attested in the region Elis but not otherwise located, e.g. the

Il I2

cótés de Pisa dans la défection." The other recent edition, by Maddoli and Saladino (1995), also offers a translation which does not imply that Pisatis had perioikic political status, because the term perioikoi (περιοίκων) is evidently understood purely in terms of location: " ... Pisa e quante altre tra le città adiacenti si erano unite ai Pisei nella rivolta." Roy (1999) 165-7. Ruschenbusch (1985) 257 on the territory of northern Triphylian poleis; on Triphylia generally,

13

see Nielsen (1997). Meyer (1950) 1743-6. See also Maddoli et al. (1999) 364-5 (on Paus. 6.22.1). Polemon (FHG ΠῚ

121 fr. 19) also describes briefly a supposed site of Pisa: his description does not match either that of Strabo or that of Pausanias.

The grant (/vO

11) by the otherwise

unknown

Chaladrioi

to a

certain Deukalion of land in Pisa, besides citizenship and certain other rights, is not evidence that a town Pisa existed.

234

James Roy

Anaitoi and Metapioi of IvO 10 and the Chaladrioi of IvO 11: but, while such places might belong to Pisatis, they could equally belong elsewhere in the Eleian region, some even south of the Alpheios. The evidence for the eight communities which can at least arguably be located in Pisatis is as follows: Alasyes. Ale(i)sion, a Homeric place in Elis (/l. 2.617) with a hill or mound (ZI. 11.757), was later (Strabo 8.3.10) identified with Alasyaion, described as a place (χώρα) around Amphidolis with a monthly market for the surrounding inhabitants, but previously a polis of Pisatis: it was situated on the mountain road from Elis to Olympia.!* The same community is normally, and surely correctly, identified with the Alasyes who in the later fifth or early fourth century together with the Akroreioi made a joint inscribed dedication at Olympia using their ethnics (Siewert [1991a] no. 3): the dedication with

collective ethnic suggests that at that time the Alasyes formed a polis, presumably a dependent polis of Elis since Pisatis was Eleian ca. 400. It must have been situated beside Pisatis' borders with Amphidolia and in a readily accessible position to attract

people to its market, but is not otherwise located. According to Steph. Byz. 72.17-20 its founder was Alesios, who was a son of Skillous and one of the suitors of Hippodameia, or else was a son of Gargettos and came to the area with Pelops. Dyspontion. Strabo (8.3.32) puts Dyspontion in Pisatis, but does not explicitly call it one of the eight poleis. He locates it in a plain on the road from Olympia to Elis: the need to mention a plain indicates that Dyspontion lay on what Strabo calls elsewhere (8.3.10) the mountain road to Elis.! Paus. 6.22.4 reports that the Dyspontians were a

perioikic community, destroyed after they joined Pisa in revolt against Elis ca. 570; he evidently distinguished Dyspontion from the Pisatans, though he says that the Dyspontians were very closely related to the Pisatans. Strabo, presumably referring to the same occasion, says (8.3.32) Dyspontion was destroyed and most of its inhabitants emigrated to Epidamnos and Apollonia. There is no evidence of its existence after ca. 570.17 It 14

For the name of the place with which Apollodoros/Strabo identified Homeric Ale(i)sion the MSS

of Strabo have various readings, including ᾿Αλαισναίων and "AXaicvaiov. The emendation 'AXacvaiov was proposed by Wilamowitz because of the ethnic 'AXacvég in Siewert (19912) no. 3: ᾿Αλασνὲς καὶ Akpópetot ἀνέθεκαν. I5 As noted by Baladié (1978) 247, Partsch conjecturally suggested locating Alasyaion at a site north of modern Karatoulas where there are medieval remains: there is no obvious reason to accept this identification. 16 Pausanias mentions two roads from Olympia to Elis, a road through the plain via Letrinoi (6.22.8) and ‘the mountain road’ via Pylos (6.22.5). Strabo (8.3.10) refers to ‘the mountain road’, and Meyer (1950) 1737 argued that it is the only road certainly mentioned by Strabo, and that Dyspontion should be located on it. Others have supposed that Dyspontion lay on the road through the plain (e.g. Baladié [1978] 114); but Strabo's choosing to specify at 8.3.32 that Dyspontion lay in a plain (not ‘the’ plain) strongly suggests that Meyer was right. 17 Maddoli et al. (1999) 369 (on Paus. 6.22.4) suggest that the transfer of population from Dyspontion to the coast of Epeiros took place in the fourth century as a result of the brief Pisatan independence in the 360s; this view takes no account of the lack of references to Dyspontion after ca. 570, and in particular its absence from accounts of Elis’ troubled relations with other communities of the area from the Eleian-Spartan war of ca. 400 to the later 360s. It also does not suggest how the Makistians and Skillountians -- the Pisatans' other allies in Paus. 6.22.4 — fit into the events supposedly affecting Dyspontion and Pisa in the 360s.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

235

produced one or two early Olympic victors (Phlegon [FGrHist 257] fr. 4 (772 BC] and possibly fr. 6 (672 BC], where the text is disturbed), described as 'Eleian from Dyspontion'. Given these Olympic victors, it may have been a polis. Paus. 6.22.4 says Dysponteus son of Oinomaos was oecist of Dyspontion; Steph. Byz. 245.12-246.2 says that Dyspontos (sic) was a son of Pelops, citing the Alexandrian grammarian Tryphon (fr. 15) of the first century BC.

Harpina. Strabo 8.3.32 says that Harpina was one of the eight poleis of Pisatis, situated near Olympia on the road to the Arkadian town Pheraia, and on the R. Parthenias. In his account (6.21.3-22.1) of the route from Arkadia to Olympia through Pisatis (Pisaia), Paus. 6.21.8 mentions the ruins of Harpina, including notably altars, situated beside the R. Harpinates: he describes Harpina as a polis. In his account of the immolation of Peregrinus at Harpina, Lucian (De mort. Peregr. 35) puts Harpina twenty stades from Olympia, accessible by wagon. Harpina therefore lies a short distance east of Olympia, and near the Alpheios, probably at modern Miraka.'® The only reference to Harpina earlier than that of Strabo is in Thuc. 5.50.3, if one accepts an emendation by Michaelis of the text (ἐν ' Apzivn for ἐν Ἄργει in the MSS):!? in that passage Harpina would in any case be no more than a toponym. According to Pausanias (6.21.8) Oinomaos founded Harpina and named it after his mother. Herakleia.? Strabo 8.3.32 calls Herakleia one of the eight poleis of Pisatis, situated near Salmone and about forty stades from Olympia on the R. Kytherion, where there was the shrine of the nymphs Joniades with healing waters. Paus. 6.22.7 says that 18

Locating Harpina is complicated by problems in ancient reports. Paus. 6.21.6-8 confuses the southern and northern banks of the Alpheios, not making clear that Phrixa lay south of the river and Harpina north. Moreover Strabo 8.3.32 says that the R. Parthenias ran through Harpina, while Paus. 6.21.6-8 puts Harpina near the R. Harpinates, evidently west of the Parthenias. The Parthenias is securely identified as the stream of Bakireika, rising near modern Lalas and joining the Alpheios near modern Mouria: E. Meyer in RE XVIII: 1886 art. Parthenias, accepted by Pritchett (1989) 35-6. It is at least clear that Harpina lay north of the Alpheios somewhere in the area from Mouria to Miraka. Harpina has been located at a site with ancient remains near the modern village Miraka, on the grounds that the site is 20 stades from Olympia, the distance given by Lucian (Baladi [1978] 268; Papahatzis [1979] 382 n. 8); however F. Bólte in RE VII: 2407-9

19

art. Harpina objected that Miraka is less than twenty stades from Olympia. There is however good reason to locate Harpina at the locality near Miraka called Frangonisi, 4km from Olympia, where the archaeological remains range from the Archaic to the Roman periods and include traces of Archaic and Classical walls and Classical graves: see McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 320-1 no. 723. cf. ibid. 306-7 nos. 323 ἃ 324. There do not appear to be comparable reports of Classical remains near Mouria. The passage requires the name of a place near Olympia at which allied forces from Argos, Mantinea, and Athens could wait for the Olympic festival of 420, at which violence from the Spartans was feared (Thuc. 5.50.4). Argos, the toponym given in the MSS, is much too far away: Harpina would be perfectly suitable geographically. The comments of Andrewes in Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover (1970) 66 are favourable to the emendation ἐν ᾿Αρπίνῃ, despite the doubts

20

of Gomme. Herakleia would be attested in the Archaic period if it was the Herakleia mentioned in the inscription on the gold cup dedicated by the Kypselids of Korinth at Olympia: that identification has been proposed (see SEG 45 404) but is highly conjectural, and indeed seems extremely unlikely.

236

James Roy

Herakleia was a village (kome) of Elis about fifty stades from Olympia on the R. Kytheros; he also says that there is at Herakleia a spring feeding the river and at the spring a shrine of the nymphs Jonides at which cures are effected by bathing in the spring. Pausanias, who also gives the individual names of the four nymphs, says that their collective name is derived from Ion, son of Gargettos, who migrated there from Attika. No ancient text names an oecist of Herakleia, but the name obviously recalls Herakles, whose involvement at Olympia was famous. Panayotopoulos (1991) suggests a likely location near the modern village Pournari, where there are both ancient remains and healing springs.?! Kikysion. According to Strabo (8.3.31, 32) Kikysion was the biggest of the eight poleis of Pisatis. No other ancient author refers to it. No oecist is known, but the name may possibly be connected with Kikon son of Amythaon: Kikon is little known, but

Amythaon grandson of Oinomaos was a more significant figure in local mythology.?? Strabo gives no indication of where in Pisatis Kikysion was located. Lenos. Lenos is known only from Phlegon (FGrHist 257) fr. 7: a Lenaian (Anvaiog)

was Olympic victor in 588. It is described as a place (χώρα) of Pisatis by Steph. Byz. 413.17-18, but it may be assumed to have been a polis because of the Olympic victor, whose ethnic presumably occurred in the text of Phlegon. There is no indication of where in Pisatis Lenos was situated. PharaialPheraia. Mentioned only by Polybios and Strabo; the ethnic is not attested. According to Polyb. 4.77.5 Philip V set out from Olympia on the road to Pharaia and went to Thelphousa: Pharaia was presumably important enough to be identified by readers, since Polybios names the road from Olympia after it. Strabo (8.3.32) also uses Pheraia to identify a road: he locates Harpina on the road from Olympia to Pheraia. His location of Pheraia itself is however incomprehensible (“above the territory of Dyme and Bouprasion and Elis"). He calls Pheraia Arkadian, but he considered Mt. Pholoé Arkadian (8.3.32), whereas territory west of the R. Erymanthos was commonly considered Eleian (e.g. Paus. 8.26.3—4).?? If Pharaia/Pheraia is correctly located at modern 21

As Panayotopoulos (1991) notes, the location of Herakleia at Pournari had already been proposed. but it had also been suggested that Herakleia be located at the modern village Brouma northwest of Pournari: Brouma is now officially called Iraklia (2 Herakleia). Panayatopolulos also (276) reports

a suggestion of Chamoux that the difference between Strabo’s report that Herakleia was 40 stades from Olympia and Pausanias’ that it was 50 is due to textual confusion between M or u (for 40) and N or v (for 50). Kiskiras (1989), in a geological study of the sulphurous medicinal springs of the modern nomos Ilia, notes the springs at Pournari and assumes without discussion (p. 82) that they correspond to the springs of ancient Herakleia. On ancient remains (Classical and possibly Archaic) in the neighbourhood of Pournari, see also McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 320-1 nos. 734-5.

22

On Kikon, see RE XI: 381 art. Kikon (1): he was mentioned by Hipponax fr. 4A (West [19891992]). Amythaon on one occasion organised the Olympic games (Paus. 5.8.2), and part of Elis was named Amythaonia after him (Rhianos (FGrHist 265) fr. 11). See also Strabo 8.6.10 on the Amythaonidai.

23

Strabo and Pausanias both give more than one account of where the frontier between Pisatis (in their day Elis) and Arkadia ran. Strabo 8.3.32 puts the frontier at the R. Erymanthos, but three times (8.3.1, 8.3.32, 8.8.3) describes Mt. Pholoé (west of the Erymanthos) as Arkadian. Paus.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

237

Nemouta west of the Erymanthos, it could have been regarded as Pisatan.?* Clearly, however, it was not one of Apollodoros' eight cities of Pisatis, and it is possible that Apollodoros did not include the area around Nemouta in his conception of Pisatis. Salmone (also Salamona and Salmonia). According to Strabo 8.3.32 Salmone was one of the eight poleis of Pisatis. Strabo relates the name Salmone to the name of the mythical king Salmoneus, without actually saying that Salmoneus founded Salmone. It lay near the spring of the same name from which flows the R. Enipeus, and Tyro daughter of Salmoneus fell in love with Enipeus, for which myth Strabo quotes a line from Homer and cites Euripides. According to Diodorus (4.68.1) Salmoneus son of Aiolos founded the polis Salmonia in Elis beside the Alpheios. According to Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.7 Salmoneus founded a polis, not named, in Elis but then Zeus struck him with a thunderbolt and destroyed the polis with all its inhabitants. An inscription of ca. 425 (/vO 18 = LSAG 221 no. 20) records an agreement between two individuals for one to

rent to the other 18 plethra of "the land in Salamona". Panayotopoulos (1991) suggests a location near the modern village Neraida, i.e. near the springs of the R. Lestenitsa, for

Salmone.?® Alasyes, Dyspontion, located

within

Harpina, Herakleia, Pharaia/Pheraia and Salmone can all be

Apollodoros'

Pisatis as reconstructed

by

Meyer.

For Kikysion

and

Lenos we have no precise topographical evidence, save that they are said to be Pisatan, but there is no objection to their being located also in the same area. Meyer's reconstruction of Pisatis as understood by Apollodoros therefore seems broadly valid.

24

6.21.3—5 gives as the frontier south of the Alpheios the R. Diagon, and north of the Alpheios the R. Leukyanias (which is some distance west of the R. Erymanthos: see RE XVIII: 1886 art. Parthenias), but Paus. 8.26.3—4 says that the Arkadians regard the Erymanthos as the frontier while the Eleians believe that the nearby tomb of Koroibos marks the frontier. See Roy (2000) on the Arkadian-Eleian frontier in general, and pp. 141—2 on these passages of Strabo and Pausanias. Pritchett (1989) 35-7, following Meyer (1957). Nemouta lies on the eastern side of Mt. Pholoé facing the valley of the Erymanthos.

On

walls near Nemouta,

see ArchDelr

27 (1972)

[1976]

B.1.270: it is suggested that the walls probably belonged to Lasion. but Lasion is identified very plausibly with a site near Koumanis (Pritchett [1989] 28-30).

25

26

Strabo 8.3.32, quoting Hom. Od. 11.238, and citing Euripides’ Aiolos as evidence that Tyro's father Salmoneus ruled in the area. For discussion of whether this material should be attributed to the Aiolos or to another lost play of Euripides see Jouan and Van Looy (1998) 36 n. 27 on Aiolos fr. 29. [n Homer Salmoneus is described as noble (ἀμύμονος), but in later accounts is noted especially for impiety. On Salmoneus, see Kl. Pauly 4: 1519 and LIMC 7.1 653-5. As noted by Panayotopoulos (1991), other locations have been suggested for Salmone. One is near the modern village Koukoura, now officially called Salmoni, but the site is very near the Alpheios and far from the source of any river. There is no doubt that the R. Enipeus is the modern R. Lestenitsa. Another location proposed for Salmone is north of the modern village Karatoulas, near the source of the R. Alisios: but Panayotopoulos points out that the Alisios is a less important tributary of the Lestenitsa, and that the site which he identifies near the sources of the Lestenitsa, where there is a rich surface scatter of sherds of Classical tile and pottery, is more appropriate. He recognises that the site is not very close to his proposed site for Herakleia at Pournari, though Strabo 8.3.32 says that Herakleia was near Salmone: but, Panayotopoulos argues, 'near' in Strabo’s text is a relative term. See also ArchDelr 45 (1990) [1995] B.1.111-13.

238

James Roy

J. Regional Pattern of Settlement Of the eight communities listed, six (Alasyes/Alasyaion, Dyspontion, Harpina, Herakleia, Pharaia/Pheraia, and Salmone) are attested by more than one source. Of those

mentioned by Strabo only Kikysion appears in no other source, while Lenos is attested only by Phlegon. Nonetheless there seems no good reason to doubt that ail eight did actually exist as communities. However, if - as Meyer supposed - Apollodoros’ list of eight cities referred to Pisatis once it was part of the Eleian state from ca. 570 onwards,”’ Dyspontion and Lenos may not belong in the list. Paus. 6.22.4 reports that Dyspontion was destroyed at the time of the war by which Elis apparently gained control of Pisa, and, since the only evidence for Lenos is its Olympic victor of 588, it too may well have disappeared in the earlier sixth century. In addition Strabo considered Pharaia/Pheraia to be Arkadian. It is therefore likely that we can identify only five of the eight poleis of Apollodoros' Pisatis. It is also worth noting that Apollodoros/ Strabo shows

knowledge

of more

of these communities

(all but Lenos)

than does

Pausanias (only Dyspontion, Harpina, and Herakleia). Moreover, out of these five communities together with Pharaia/Pheraia, only Alasyes and Salmone are securely attested in the Classical period, both by inscriptions. Harpina is also mentioned in the fifth century if the proposed emendation of Thuc.

5.50.3 is accepted.?5 The earliest evidence for the existence of any of the remaining communities is Polybios' reference to Pharaia at the time of Philip V's expedition in 219. There is however evidence that within Eleian territory generally there was a tendency, beginning already in the Archaic period and notable in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, for urban centres to decline and even disappear.?? It is theoretically possible that Pisatis was an exception to this tendency, but the early disappearances of Dyspontion

and

Lenos

suggest

that

it was

not, as does

also the later decline

of

Alasyaion and Harpina. (By the later Hellenistic period Alasyaion was no more than a place in Amphidolis where a market was held [Strabo 8.3.10], while Harpina was in ruins by the time Pausanias saw it [6.21.8]). Therefore, if there were in fact eight towns in Pisatis, it is extremely unlikely that they increased from a small number in the Classical period to a total of eight in the Hellenistic period: most, and indeed probably all, of these communities must have existed already in the Classical period. The cases of Dyspontion and Lenos in fact suggest that the development of such communities in Pisatis was under way in the earlier sixth century. In the areas neighbouring on Pisatis small towns were common in the Classical period, and these towns had the status of poleis. Xenophon (Hell. 3.2.23) describes all 27

28 29

If one accepts the sons of Pantaleon, supposedly the last independent rulers of Pisatis, as historical, Damophon was in power at the 48th Olympiad (588) and then Pisa was conquered by Elis when under his brother and successor Pyrrhos (Paus. 6.22.34): see Meyer (1950) 1750-1, accepting Damophon and Pyrrhos as historical, while rightly sceptical in general of the possibility of reconstructing historical developments from the confused evidence for Archaic Pisatan history. On the basis of unpublished bronze inscriptions from Olympia which he is preparing for publication, Siewert (1987-88) 7 says that script, dialect, and content show the Eleians as dominant at Olympia from. at earliest, the middle third of the sixth century. The suggestion that Herakleia in Pisatis is referred to on the Archaic gold cup dedicated by the Kypselids of Korinth at Olympia (see SEG 45 404) is better ignored. Roy (1999) 167-70.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

239

the perioikic communities of Elis ca. 400 as poleis, and the category would include Letrinoi, Amphidoloi, and Marganeis, the neighbours of Pisatis to the west; the Akroreians on Mt. Pholoé to the northeast; and the Triphylians to the south across the Alpheios. There is also separate evidence for each of these groups. For Letrinoi, Amphidoloi, and Marganeis we have Xen. Hell. 3.2.25 and 30, and 4.2.16; and there is further evidence for the Marganeis in Xen. Hell. 6.5.2. For the Akroreians there is Xen. Hell. 7.4.14, and their dedication at Olympia (Siewert [1991a] no. 3). For the Triphylians there is Xen. Hell. 6.5.2.9? The general pattern of development in the area is obvious. It does not necessarily follow that Pisatis matched the pattern of its neighbours, but that is clearly likely. That consideration makes it yet more probable that there were a number of towns in Classical Pisatis, and even lends some support to the idea that such Pisatan towns could have had the status of poleis. There is also archaeological evidence for significant nucleated settlement in Classical Pisatis. As argued above, some archaeological sites can be attributed very plausibly to communities known from literary evidence: Harpina can be identified with a site at modern Miraka, Herakleia with a site at modern Pournari, Pharaia/Pheraia with a site at modern Nemouta, and Salmone with a site at modern Neraida. (There is also the

possibility, already discussed, that remains near the modern village which has taken the name Salmoni can be identified with Marganeis, but that lies outside and to the west of Meyer’s reconstruction of Pisatis.) There are however archaeological remains suggesting Classical settlement at other sites near the modern villages Aspra Spitia, Flokas, Kafkonia, Koskinas, and Strefi,?! and other less certain cases have been found near the modern villages Kladeos, Latzoi, Mayiros, and Platanos.?? (Aspra Spitia lies just west of the junction of the rivers Erymanthos and Alpheios, and so between the R. Erymanthos and the R. Leukyanias in the area which was commonly considered Eleian but would be Arkadian according to Paus. 6.21.3-5: this area is discussed above à propos of Pharaia.) Not all of these sites necessarily represent urban communities, let alone towns from Apollodoros' list of the eight poleis of Pisatis. Some might be villages or 30

The texts cited are not an exhaustive list, but clearly show the communities described as poleis in the Classical period by the contemporary author Xenophon, and in some cases behaving as paleis. On Akroreia see Siewert (1987-88), and on Triphylia see Nielsen (1997).

31

Aspra Spitia: McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 308-9 no. 329; Flokas: ibid. 304-5 no. 316 and ArchDeit 25 (1970) (1972) B.1.194; 26 (1971) [1974] B.1.194; 28 (1973) (1977] B.1.199-201; 38 (1983) [1989] B.1.109; Kafkonia: McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 320-1 no. 733, cf. 306—9 nos. 327 ἃ 328 (listed as Kavkania) and BCH 83 (1959) Chron. 656; ArchDelir 20 (1965) [1967]

32

B.1.210; 27 (1972) (1976] B.1.270; 39 (1984) [1989] B.1.78; Koskinas: especially ArchDelr 25 (1970) [1972] B.1.191-3: also 33 (1978) [1985] B.1.78; 45 (1990) [1995] B.1.109; 47 (1992) [1997] B.1.120—1: 48 (1993) [1998) B.1 105-6; Strefi: McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 320I no. 718, cf. 304-5 no. 309. Kladeos: McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 306-7 no. 325; Latzoi: ibid. 306-7 no. 320 (with a note on its commanding position in the Lestenitsa valley); Mayiros: ibid. 306—7 no. 319 (listed as Mayira); Platanos: ibid. 306—7 no. 318. Near the village of Persaina (northeast of Neraida) a ‘natural acropolis’ on a hill overlooking a mule track to Goumero (in the valley of the Eleian R. Ladon) was fortified by a wall of huge stones, but the wall may well belong to the Bronze Age: Middle and Late Helladic remains are reported nearby and, though Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman finds have been reported in the area of Persaina, they are not sufficient to suggest a settlement of any size: ArchDeli 44 (1989) [1995] B.1.102-3, see also ArchDelt 42 (1987) [1992]

B.1.134.

240

James Roy

hamlets, and in particular some of those near Olympia (particularly Flokas and Koskinas) might have developed as, in effect, suburbs of the sanctuary to accommodate those who had business there. Nonetheless the range of archaeological evidence for nucleated settlement in Classical Pisatis is perfectly compatible with the supposition that there were eight poleis there. At Koskinas, Miraka (probably Harpina), and Neraida (probably Salmone) the presence of Archaic material suggests that the settlement began before the Classical period. It must however be noted that, if there were poleis in Pisatis, then, apart from Dyspontion, they do not appear in what we know of Pisatis’ history, save indirectly in 365—364 (Paus. 5.9.6, discussed below). Archaic Pisatan history is presented by ancient sources mainly as a struggle against Elis for control of Olympia, and, while the

surviving accounts are not historically reliable, they do consistently present Pisatis as a unitary state (e.g. notably in Paus. 5.1.1—5.4.7). At the end of the Spartan-Eleian war of ca. 400 the Spartans considered stripping the Eleians of control of Olympia, but in the event did not do so because they thought that those who were raising a claim to Olympia against the Eleians were rustic (χωρίτας, Xen. Hell. 3.2.31) and not capable of presiding over the sanctuary: the rustic counter-claimants, although not named, must be the Pisatans, who evidently did not appear politically sophisticated to the Spartans, though the pejorative term should not be pressed as evidence of any particular structure in politics or settlement. Pisatis briefly regained independence in ca. 365-362 and there

is one surviving Pisatan decree from that period,’ but nothing in its text casts light on the internal structures of Pisatis. Presumably the sanctuary at Olympia served as the political centre of the Pisatans in these years.?5 The little we know of the history of Pisatis while separate from Elis thus does not include a reference to poleis within Pisatis, though no evidence excludes the possibility of eight small poleis (provided that one does not press unduly the tag of 'rustics' into which Xen. Hell. 3.2.31 compressed Spartan objections to the Pisatans ca. 400). Apart from the years ca. 365-362, in the Classical and Hellenistic periods Pisatis formed part of the territory of the Eleian state, and there is some evidence to suggest that there may have been dependent poleis within Eleian (as opposed to perioikic) territory.* In sum, it is possible that there were poleis within Classical Pisatis, but, if so, they must have been insignificant enough to escape attention in what survives of Pisatan political history.

33 34

See Meyer (1950) 1747-52. IvO 36. Cf. the surviving treaties made by the Pisatan state in the years 365-2 with Arkadia and Akroreia and with Messenia and Sikyon (Ringel, Siewert, and Taeuber (1999]). On the events of

35

365-2, see Roy (1994) 203-4. Itisin fact likely that the Pisatan state of ca. 365-2, though clearly functioning as a state in its own right, was a puppet of the Arkadian Confederacy, since the Arkadians were able to draw on Olympic treasures (Xen. Hell. 7.4.33-4; Diod. 15.82.1}, and it was often said that the Olympic Games of 364, regarded as ἃ non-Olympiad by the Eleians (Diod. 15.78.3), were held by the Pisatans and the Arkadians (Xen. Hell. 7.4.28-9; Diod. 15.82.1; Paus. 6.4.2) or even by the Arkadians alone (Paus. 6.8.3, 6.22.3; cf. Xen. Hell. 7.4.35).

36

See Roy (1997) 286-8.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

241

4. Local Cults and Traditions

We do however have listed: there is some rather more evidence concerns Harpina and of gods at Harpina, among

its ruins.

two types of evidence about the internal life of the communities information, admittedly limited, on religious cults, and there is on myth attached to the communities. The evidence for the cults Herakleia, and can be set out briefly. There had clearly been cults since Pausanias (6.21.8) drew particular attention to the altars

At Herakleia

Pausanias

(6.22.7)

found

a functioning

cult of the

nymphs /onides, also mentioned by Strabo 8.3.32 as loniades: there were curative springs at the sanctuary. There is however much more evidence for myth. Some of the myths attached to communities of this area, or to the area itself, were well known to the wider Greek world. (The considerable bodv of myth relating to the sanctuary at Olympia is obviously a special case, and is not here considered in its own right.) Salmoneus, founder of Salmone, was famous as king of Pisatis, and notorious — in most versions of the myth though not in Homer - as having been destroyed by Zeus because of his impiety. The story of how his daughter Tyro fell in love with the river Enipeus, or with Poseidon disguised as Enipeus, was also widely known.?? Another celebrated story was that of Oinomaos, king of Pisatis: he obliged each of the suitors of his daughter Hippodameia to undertake a chariot race against him and, after beating them, killed them all until Pelops won his race against him. The myth of Oinomaos was often treated in both art

and literature, for instance in plays by Sophokles and Euripides.?® Pausanias saw local features related to the Oinomaos myth in the area: not only the tomb of the suitors near Harpina (6.21.9), but also near the R. Parthenias the grave of the mares of one suitor, Marmax (6.21.7). He even reported (6.21.7) that the R. Parthenias took its name from

Parthenia, one of Marmax' mares. Beside such widely known myths there were however others of more local significance. An example is the obscure link between Gargettos, a man from Attika, and two communities of Pisatis. According to Steph. Byz. 72.17-20 the founder of Alesion (Alasyaion/Alasyes) was Alesios, who was a son of Skillous and one of the suitors of

Hippodameia, or else was a son of Gargettos and came to the area with Pelops. Paus. 6.22.7 says that at Herakleia, a village (kome) of Elis about fifty stades from Olympia on the R. Kytheros, there is a spring feeding the river and at the spring a shrine of the nymphs /onides: these nymphs took their name from Ion, son of Gargettos, who migrated there from Attika. (Strabo 8.3.32 calls the nymphs /oniades.) Several of the myths name an oecist for a Pisatan community. Alasyes/Alasyaion was founded by Alesios, either a son of Skillous and one of the suitors of Hippodameia, or else a son of Gargettos coming to the area with Pelops (Steph. Byz. 72.17-20). Dyspontion was founded by Dysponteus son of Oinomaos (Paus. 6.22.4) or by Dyspontos son of Pelops (Steph. Byz. 245.12-246.2, citing Tryphon = fr. 15). Oinomaos founded Harpina and named it after his mother, according to Paus. 6.21.8. The founder of Salmone was Salmoneus (Diod. 4.68.1; cf. Strabo 8.3.32 and Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.7). (No oecists are known

37 38

for Herakleia, Kikysion, Lenos, or Pharaia/Pheraia.) In most

On Salmoneus, see Ki. Pauly 4: 1519 and LIMC 7.1 653-5. On Oinomaos, see Kl. Pauly 4: 261 art. Oinomaos (1), and LIMC 7.1 19-23.

242

James Roy

cases the myths not only supply an oecist but also link the community concerned to a

major figure, Oinomaos, Pelops, or Salmoneus.?? Apollodoros/Strabo was evidently better informed than Pausanias about the existence of the Pisatan communities, for Strabo mentions Alasyaion, Dyspontion, Harpina, Herakleia, Kikysion, Pharaia/Pheraia, and Salmone, while Pausanias refers to only Dyspontion, Harpina, and Herakleia. (Lenos is mentioned only by Phlegon.) It is however clear that Pausanias obtained information about local Pisatan myth and history which is not found in Strabo. Pausanias evidently found an informant or a text offering information about Dyspontion, including the supposedly Dyspontian claim that they were closely related to the Pisatans because their oecist was Dysponteus son of Oinomaos (Paus. 6.22.4); if truly Dyspontian, the claim will presumably have been made in the Archaic period, but it may have been a later attempt by others to link Dyspontion closely to Pisatis. Pausanias seems to have had a local report on Harpina, which was in ruins in his day, since Oinomaos was the oecist of Harpina and named it after his mother "they say" (λέγουσιν, Paus. 6.21.8). Again evidently using a local source, Pausanias also reports that the name of the nymphs /onides was derived, "they say" (λέγουσι, Paus. 6.22.7), from the name of Ion son of Gargettos, whereas Strabo (8.3.32) knows of the nymphs, whom he calls Joniades, but offers no explanation for their name. Strabo in fact reports only one myth connected with a Pisatan community, namely the love of Tyro daughter of Salmoneus for the river Enipeus (8.3.32), and his

interest is clearly due not to local belief but to the myth's appearance in Homer and in later literature because he quotes Homer and refers to Euripides. He also identifies Alasyaion with the Aleision of //. 11.757, quoting the words of Homer. It is clear that these two references reflect Apollodoros' interest in Homer, and nothing in Strabo's text suggests that Apollodoros had any other interest in myths connected with Pisatan communities.

For purposes of elucidating Homeric geography Pisa was of little direct importance, since there is no reference to Pisa in Homer,” though obviously places in Pisatis, like Alasyaion, might be identified with Homeric localities. Apollodoros may also have felt the need to take some account of Pisatis because important mythical figures like

Oinomaos and Pelops, not to mention Herakles, were linked to the area, but that could have been done by references to Pisatis as a whole rather than by references to particular Pisatan communities except when e.g. the myth of Salmoneus required mention of the R. Enipeus. It is curious, and unexplained, that Apollodoros drew up, or borrowed from an earlier source, a list of eight fairly minor Pisatan poleis few of which

served to elucidate the text of did however have such a list, found in Pisatis, and there is serve theories about Homeric 39

40

Homer or to establish Homeric geography. Apollodoros based on reliable information about communities to be no sign whatever that his list was distorted in order to questions.

The point would be reinforced if, as is very likely, Herakleia claimed some link with Herakles, but such a link is not attested. If, as suggested above, Kikysion was connected with Kikon, son of Amythaon and great-grandson of Oinomaos, then that connection would also fit the pattern; but the connection is not attested and is less obviously likely than a link between Herakleia and Herakles. See Meyer (1950) 1746-7, pointing out that for Homer a border running north of the Alpheios divided the region between the Epeians to the north and the Pylians to the south. As Meyer notes, Olympia also does not appear in Homer.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

243

It is therefore possible to say with some confidence that in the Classical period there were in Pisatis, besides the great sanctuary at Olympia, up to eight towns, tightly grouped in a relatively small area, and indeed Dyspontion and Lenos, though they did not survive, suggest that the development of such towns was under way in the later Archaic period, as does archaeological evidence. Evidently these nucleated centres formed a very important element in the settlement pattern of the area, though some at least declined after the Classical period.*! Religious activity is attested at Harpina and Herakleia, and was no doubt more widespread,*? while there are myths, including accounts of oecists, recorded for several towns. In other words, even the limited surviving evidence shows a developed sense of identity in the communities of Pisatis.

5. Status of Pisatan Settlements There remains the question of the status of these towns. The two main possibilities are that they were demoi within the Eleian state, at least in 365, or that they were subordinate poleis within the territory of the Eleian state. For the possibility that they were demoi the main evidence is the statement of Pausanias 5.9.6 that in 365 the invading Arkadians deprived Elis of much territory and of the demoi in the territory, so that the Eleians reduced the number of their phylai from twelve to eight. Although in this war the Eleians lost control of perioikic communities, notably in Akroreia, the purely Eleian territory which was lost was Pisatis, and Pausanias' report can therefore be taken to refer to Pisatis. If we can rely on Pausanias' wording, it is possible to deduce from it that in 365, before the invasion, there were four phylai of the Eleian state in Pisatis, each containing demoi, and indeed Jones has suggested that each Eleian phyle had about three or four demoi, but not many more.* It is not however clear that Pausanias' terminology is precise and consistent. Besides his collective reference to the demoi lost in 365 Pausanias also refers to the individual Eleian demoi Orthia (5.16.6) and Petra (6.24.5). Elsewhere however he describes communities within Elis as poleis, saying (5.16.2-8) that there had at one time been sixteen poleis in Elis and referring to

Harpina — which he saw in ruins — as a polis.*5 It is notable that Pausanias calls Orthia a demos immediately after his reference to the sixteen poleis, and names Orthia because it was the home of Physkoa who had a son by the god Dionysos: for Pausanias the demos Orthia evidently existed at a very early date.* There is also variation in the 4]

42 43 44 4S 46

Some modern scholars have supposed that, outside the town of Elis, the Eleian population lived mainly in a pattern of dispersed rural settlement, but there is considerable evidence against that view: see Roy (1999) 158—64. Settlement in Pisatis structured around a number of fairly closely grouped urban centres would provide further evidence against the view if settlement in Pisatis could be taken as typical of the whole region, which is not certain. Pausanias mentions (6.22.1) a temple of Artemis Kordax between Harpina and Olympia, without suggesting that it was attached Io any particular community. Roy (1997) 297-8. Jones (1987) 145. Sec also Hansen (1995) 71, arguing that the Eleian polis was subdivided into demoi. Sixteen poleis (5.16.5-6): Pausanias evidently named the sixteen but, because of a lacuna in the text, only the name of Elis itself survives. Harpina: 6.12.8. Bultrighini (1990) 172-3 suggests that Pausanias’ references to poleis within Elis are to communi-

244

James Roy

terminology of Strabo, who calls the settlements which existed within Elis before the synoikism both villages and demoi, while Diodorus calls them small poleis.*" Hansen has noted the fluctuation in the terminology for classifying sites used by writers of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and Rubinstein has drawn attention to imprecision in the terminology of Pausanias in particular.*? We cannot clarify the situation within Elis by supposing that three communities which each appear only once on bronze tablets found at Olympia were poleis before the synoikism and afterwards demoi within Elis, since the communities in question may well have been perioikic and not involved in the

synoikism.? The use of the term ‘demos’ in the treaty of ca. 500 preserved in /vO 9 also brings no certainty: while the text envisages the possibility that the treaty may be breached by a 'demos', the reference may well be to one or other of the two states which were party to the treaty, the Eleians and the Ewaoioi, rather than to demoi within the Eleian state.°® It is thus possible to suppose, on the basis of Paus. 5.9.6, that in 365 there were demoi within Eleian phylai whose territory lay in Pisatis, and in that case it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that these demoi should be identified with the eight or so Pisatan towns identified above. On the other hand, given the variation in terminology found in Pausanias (and Strabo), it is far from certain that we can rely on Paus. 5.9.6 as evidence that there were demoi in Pisatis. There is therefore also the possibility that these communities were poleis. Strabo uses the term for Alasyaion (8.3.10) and for Kikysion (8.3.31), as well as for the poleis of Pisatis collectively (8.3.31), and moreover the term is clearly implied in the phrase "the eight" (τῶν ὀκτώ) which Strabo uses twice in 8.3.31 and three times in 8.3.32.

Pausanias (6.21.8) calls Harpina a polis, evidently referring to an unspecified earlier period since in his day Harpina was in ruins, but -- as noted above - the value of such statements in Pausanias has been severely questioned by Rubinstein.?! (Paus. 6.22.7 also called Herakleia a ‘village’, referring to his own day.) Whether the use of the term polis by these later sources corresponds to the status and functioning of these towns in ties which existed as poleis before the synoikism of 471/0, after which there would have been a single state with subdivisions like Attika: but such a distinction does not appear to hold for Pausanias' references to poleis and a demos in 5.16.5--6. It is also possible that there were subordinate poleis within Eleian territory after the synoikism: Ps.-Skylax 43 calls Kyllene a polis, and Xen. Hell. 7.4.26 uses a collective ethnic for the inhabitants of Eleian Pylos. 47

Strabo 8.3.2 calls the settlements both ‘villages’ (κωμηδὸν) and 'demoi', and indeed also ‘adjacent

communities' (περιοικίδων, presumably used in a local and not a constitutional sense: so Moggi [1976] 164 n. 14). In the same passage Strabo also refers to a particular demos called probably the reading is uncertain -- Agriades. Cf. Diod. 11.54.1. 48 49

50 5]

Hansen (1995) 62, 71; Rubinstein (1995). The communities are the Anaitoi and Metapioi (IvO

10) and the Chaladrioi (IvO

11): see Roy

(1997) 313 n. 31. That the communities appear only once in the historical record does not argue against their being poleis separate from Elis, even if subordinate: Noudion in Triphylia appears only in Hdt. 4.148, and the Ewaoioi, clearly distinct from the Eleians because they were allied to them and quite possibly perioikoi, appear only in /vO 9 (see Roy and Schofield [1999]). vO 10, in which the Anaitoi and Metapioi appear, may in any case be later than the synoikism: Minon (1994) 1.106—14 dates it ca. 475-450. (1 am grateful to Dr. Minon for allowing me to consult her doctoral thesis, which she is preparing for publication.) Walter (1993) 118 n. 22 (on p. 119) noted that the term could refer either to a state which was party to the treaty or, as had sometimes been supposed, to a demos within the Eleian state. Rubinstein (1995).

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

245

the Classical period, or even earlier, needs to be examined. Dyspontion and Lenos might plausibly be reckoned as poleis because of their Olympic victors, but probably did not survive into the Classical period. By the criteria applied by the Copenhagen Polis Centre to decide whether a community should be included in its catalogue of poleis of the late Archaic and Classical periods only the Alasyes might on the available evidence be considered a polis in the Classical period: they made a dedication at Olympia in the later fifth or earlier fourth century, using their collective ethnic and acting as apparently equal partners of the Akroreians, who were certainly subdivided into poleis at the time whether as perioikic allies of the Eleians or as independent

poleis.*? It is also true, as noted above, that the eight towns of Pisatis scarcely appear in the little we know of Pisatan political history. If however communities like Dyspontion and Lenos were developing as poleis already in the first half of the sixth century, and if, more significantly, Alasyaion acted as a polis in the Classical period, then it is unlikely that there were no other examples of the polis in Classical Pisatis. There is also evidence that there were myths attached to several of these communities, especially about their founders, and there is the circumstantial evidence that small poleis had certainly developed in the Classical period in the adjacent areas to the northeast (Akroreia), to the west (Letrinoi, Amphidoloi, and Marganeis), and to the south (northern Triphylia). For these reasons a good case can be made, though not a

conclusive one, that Strabo's eight poleis of Pisatis were indeed poleis in the Classical period. Any Pisatan communities which developed as poleis would have been for most of the Classical period subordinate poleis within Eleian territory, and briefly in the

360s subordinate poleis within an independent Pisatis.?? That a case can be made for believing that Classical communities in Pisatis were poleis even though most of them do not meet the conditions laid down by Copenhagen Polis Centre for inclusion in its

Inventory of Poleis in no way

invalidates the Centre's conditions, since rigorous

criteria are clearly needed for determining which communities should be included; it

does however illustrate what one might in any case suppose, namely that the accidents of the survival of evidence will mean that some communities which were in fact Classical poleis will not find their way into the catalogue.

Possibly epigraphy or archaeological excavation will some day provide evidence that Classical Pisatan poleis could meet the criteria of the Copenhagen Polis Centre for inclusion in its inventory. For the moment it is not clear whether these communities were demoi of Elis or subordinate poleis within Elis. We can however envisage with confidence settlement in Classical Pisatis organised around a number of small towns. as was settlement in the neighbouring areas both north and south of the Alpheios.

52 53

On the polis status of the perioikic allies of Elis, see Roy (1997) 285-6. On the Akrcreioi, sce Siewert (1987-88). ltisatleast in theory possible that the independent Pisalan state of ca. 365-362 was a confederacy of small Pisatan poleis, but there is no evidence of such a confederate structure.

246

-

James Roy

Bibliography (Not including archaeological reports of ArchDelt and BCH or articles of RE and Ki. Pauly).

Baladié, R. 1978. Strabon. Géographie. Livre Vill, Budé edition, Vol. V (Paris). Bon, A. 1946. “HAEIAKA,” BCH 70: 15-31. Bultrighini, U. 1990. Pausania e le tradizioni democratiche (Argo e Elide) (Padua). Casevitz, M., Pouilloux, J., and Jacquemin, A. 1999. Pausanias. Description de la Grece, Tome V,

Livre V. L'Élide (1). Budé edition (Paris).

Gomme,

A.W., Andrewes, A., and Dover,

K J. 1970. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, Vol. 4,

Books V.25-VII (Oxford). Hansen, M.H. 1995. "Kome. A Study in How thc Greeks Designated and Classified Settlements Which Were Not Poleis," CPCPapers 2: 45-81. Jones, N.F. 1987. Public Organization in Ancient Greece. A Documentary Study (Philadelphia). Jouan, F., and Van Looy, H. 1998. Euripide Tome Vill. Fragments. [πὶ Partie Budé edition (Paris). Kiskiras, D. 1989. "Oi υδροθειούχες tapatixés πκηγές της Ἠλείας." Peloponnesiaka Supplement 15, Proceedings of rhe 2nd Local Congress of Elean Studies, Amalias, 13-15 November 1987 (Athens)

81-96. Maddoli, G., and Saladino, V. 1995. Pausania. Guida della Grecia, Libro V. L'Elide e Olimpia (Milan). Maddoli, G., Nafissi, M., and Saladino, V. 1999. Pausania. Guida della Grecia, Libro VI. L'Elidee Olimpia (Milan).

McDonald, W.A., and Hope Simpson, R. 1972. "Archaeological Exploration," and "Appendix," in W.A. McDonald and G.R. Rapp (eds.), The Minnesota Messenia Expedition (Minneapolis) 11747, 263-322 respectively. Meyer, E. 1950. "Pisa, Pisatis," RE XX: 1732-55. Meyer, E. 1957. "Arkadisches," MusHelv 14: 81-8. Minon. S. 1994. Les tableties éléennes du Vie et du Ve siécle: étude dialectologique et historique (2 vols.. thésc de doctorat, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris). Moggi. M. 1976. / sinecismi interstatali greci (Pisa).

Nielsen, T.H. 1997. "Triphylia. An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Political Organisation." CPCPapers 4: 129-62. Niese, B. 1910. "Drei Kapitel eleischer Geschichte," in Carl Robert zum 8. März 1910 Genethliakon (Berlin) 3-47.

Panayotopoulos, G. 1991. "Questions sur la topographie éléenne: les sites d'Héracleia et de Salmoné,” in A.D. Rizakis (ed.), Achaia und Elis in der Antike : Akten des 1. Internationalen Symposiums. Athen 19-21 Mai, 1989, Meletemata 13, Institut für Griechische und Römische Antike, Nationales Hellenisches Forschungszentrum (Athens) 275-81.

Papahatzis. N. 1979.

Παυσανίου EAAd6o;

Περιήγησις, Vol. 3, Μεσσηνιακὰ xai ᾿Αρκαδικά (Ath-

ens).

Pritchett, W.K. 1989. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Part VI, University of California Publications in Classical Studies 33 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London).

Ringel, E., Siewert, P., and Taeuber, H. 1999. "Die Symmachien Pisas mit den Arkadern, Akroreia, Messenien und Sikyon. Ein neues Fragment der 'Arkadischen Bündnisstele' von 365 v. Chr.” Olber XI: 413-20.

The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis

247

Roy, J. 1994. “Thebes in the 360s BC," in CAH VV: 187-208. Roy, J. 1997. “The Perioikoi of Elis," CPCActs 4: 282-320. Roy. J. 1999. "Les cités d'Élide," in J. Renard (ed.) Le Péloponnése. Archéologie et histoire (Rennes)

151-76. Roy. J. 2000. "The Frontier between Arkadia and Elis in Classical Antiquity," in Polis & Politics: 13356. Roy, J. and Schofield, D. 1999. “IvO 9. A New Approach,” Horos 13: 155-65. Rubinstein, L. 1995. "Pausanias as a Source for the Classical Greek Polis," CPCPapers 2: 211-19. Ruschenbusch, E. 1985. "Die Zahl der griechischen Staaten und Arealgrösse und Bürgerzahl der "Normalpolis'," ZPE 59: 253-63. Siewert, P. 1987-88. “Triphylien und Akroreia. Spartanische ‘Regionalstaaten’ in Peloponnes,” in Acts of the 3rd International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies. September 1985, Peloponnesiaka Supplement 13 (Athens) 7-12. Siewert, P. 1991a. "Staatliche Weihungen von Kesseln und anderen Bronzegerüten in 106: 81-4. Siewert, P. 1991b. "Die frühe Verwendung und Bedeutung des Ortsnamens 'Olympia'," Walter, U. 1993. An der Polis teilhaben, Historia Einzelschriften 82 (Stuttgart). West, M.L. 1989-92. Jambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati? (Oxford). Yalouris, N. 1972. "The City-State of Elis," Ekistics 33: 95—6. James Roy University of Nottingham

der westlichen Kalamata 8-15 Olympia," AM AM 106: 65-9.

THE SYNOIKISM

OF ELIS!

by JAMES ROY

It is generally agreed that Elis was synoikised in or about 471 BC, and this synoikism has been seen by some scholars as a major phase in Eleian development. The synoikism has therefore been used to explain other Eleian developments, political, military, social, and cultural. Yet the limited available evidence leaves the nature of the synoikism itself far from clear, let alone how the synoikism may have affected other aspects of Eleian development. It is the purpose of this paper to review what is known or can be deduced about the synoikism: the review will raise questions about the supposed effects of the synoikism on the Eleian community, and even about the understanding of synoikism by Diodorus Siculus and Strabo.

1. The Evidence for the Synoikism The main evidence for the synoikism comes from the following passages of Diodorus

and Strabo:? Diod. 11.54.1: En’ ἄρχοντος δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνησι Πραξιέργου ᾿Ρωμαῖοι μὲν ὑπάτους κατέστησαν Αὔλον Οὐεργίνιον Τρίκοστον καὶ Γάιον Σερουίλιον Στροῦκτον. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων ᾿Ηλεῖοι μὲν πλείους καὶ μικρὰς πόλεις οἰκοῦντες εἰς μίαν συνῳκίσθησαν τὴν ὀνομαζομένην Ἦλιν ("In the archonship at Athens of Praxiergos the Romans appointed as consuls Aulus Verginius Tricostus and Caius Servilius Structus. In their term of office the Eleians, who lived in several small poleis, were synoikised into one, that known as Elis.") Strabo 8.3.2: Ἦλις δὲ ἡ νῦν πόλις οὕπω ἔκτιστο καθ᾽ Ὅμηρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ χώρα κωμηδὸν ὠκεῖτο᾽ ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ

Κοίλη

HAtc ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος: τοιαύτη γὰρ

ἦν ἡ πλείστη καὶ ἀρίστη. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε συνῆλθον εἰς τὴν νῦν πόλιν Ἦλιν, μετὰ τὰ |

2

This paper has benefited particularly from discussion with Dr. Birgitta Eder and Dr. Thomas Nielsen, and from comments of Dr. Mogens Hansen, though none of them has any responsibility for its defects. I am grateful to Dr. Eder for letting me read and cite the forthcoming paper by Baitinger and Eder; and to Dr. Sophie Minon for permission to read and cite her unpublished doctoral thesis. The evidence for the synoikism is set out, and analysed at length, in Moggi (1976) 157-66. The synoikism has been discussed frequently: among recent studies, see Roussel (1976) 292-6; Gehrke (1985) 52-3; Bultrighini (1990); Demand (1990) 61-6; Moggi (1991) and (1996); Walter (1993) 116-25; Hansen (1995) 58—60; and Inglis (1998).

250

James Roy

Περσικά, ἐκ πολλῶν δήμων. σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τόπους τοὺς κατὰ Πελοπόννησον πλὴν ὀλίγων, οὕς κατέλεξεν ὁ ποιητής, οὐ πόλεις, ἀλλὰ χώρας ὀνομάζει, συστήματα δήμων ἔχουσαν ἑκάστην πλείω, ἐξ ὧν ὕστερον αἱ γνωρι-

ζόμεναι πόλεις συνῳκίσθησαν, οἷον τῆς ᾿Αρκαδίας Μαντίνεια μὲν ἐκ πέντε δήμων ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αργείων συνῳκίσθη, Τεγέα δ᾽ ἐξ ἐννέα, ἐκ τοσούτων δὲ καὶ ᾿Ηραία ὑπὸ Κλεομβρότου ἢ Κλεωνύμου. ὡς δὲ αὕτως Αἴγιον ἐξ ἑπτὰ ἢ ὀκτὼ δήμων συνεπολίσθη, Πάτραι δὲ ἐξ ἑπτὰ, Δύμη δὲ ἐξ ὀκτὼ οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἡ Ἦλις ἐκ τῶν περιοικίδων

συνεπολίσθη

(μία τούτων

προσκτισ...

᾿Αγριάδες)

("The

present

polis Elis was ποῖ yet built in the time of Homer, but the region was settled in villages; and it was called Hollow Elis [Koile Elis] from its character, for such was

the largest and best part. At some late time they came together into the present polis Elis, after the Persian Wars, from many demes. And almost all the other places also in the Peloponnese, which the poet listed, apart from a few, he calls not poleis but regions, each having several deme structures, from which later the known poleis were synoikised: as in Arkadia Mantinea was synoikised by the Argives from five demes, and Tegea from nine, and Heraia also from the same number by Kleombrotos or Kleonymos; and so likewise Aigion was united into a polis from seven or eight demes, and Patrai from seven, and Dyme from eight; and so Elis also was united into a polis from the surrounding communities (one of these add... [7] ... Agriades [?]).")

There are also in Ps.-Skylax and Leandr(i)os the following passages which may be relevant:

Ps.-Skylax 43:"HAic μετὰ δὲ ᾿Αχαιοὺς λίς ἐστιν ἔθνος, xai πόλεις £v αὐτῇ αἵδε: Κυλλήνη καὶ λιμὴν, καὶ ποταμὸς ᾿Αλφειός" ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλη συνοικία πόλεων

Ἦλις

ἐν μεσογείᾳ ("Elis. After the Achaians Elis is an ethnos, and there

are the following poleis in it: Kyllene also a harbour, and the River Alpheios: and there is also another synoikia of poleis [synoikised group of poleis (?)] Elis in the interior.") Leandr(i)os (FGrHist 492) fr.13 = Etymologicum Magnum 426.10-16: 4 HAıc>: ἡ

πόλις" ἤτοι, ὡς Aéavópoc, διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ περισωθέντας ἐν αὐτῇ ἁλισθῆναι, ὃ ἐστιν ἁθροισθῆναι: ἢ διὰ τὸ κατὰ κώμας οἰκοῦντας ὕστερον εἰς μίαν πόλιν ἀλισθῆναι᾽ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ᾿Ηλέως βασιλεύσαντος τῆς χώρας τὴν πόλιν λαβεῖν τὸ ὄνομα ("«Elis». The polis; either, as Leandros says, because those saved from the flood were collected [halisthenai] in it, i.e. gathered; or because, living in villages, they were later collected into one polis; or because the polis took the name from the son of Poseidon, Eleus, who ruled the region.")

The mention in Ps.-Skylax of a synoikia of synoikised from (presumably small) poleis. nations of the name Elis are to be attributed earlier settled in villages (kata komas) and 3

Jacoby tentatively Kallimachos.

poleis may be a reference to a community Leandr(i)os -- if all three suggested explato him - also reported that the Eleians were later gathered into one polis.? Ps.-Skylax

suggested a date of ca. 330-300

BC for Leandr(i)os, who

was known

to

The Synoikism of Elis

251

and Leandr(i)os may therefore be taken as further evidence of the Eleian synoikism, but

they tell us no more about the nature of the synoikism than can be deduced from Diodorus and Strabo. Pausanias' report (5.4.3) of an early synoikism of Elis by the legendary king Oxylos seems unhistorical,* but might be interpreted as further evidence of an ancient belief that the town of Elis had been formed by synoikism (though Pausanias' account assumes that at the time of Oxylos' supposed synoikism the town of Elis already existed and was fortified).

Without showing verbal echoes close enough to demonstrate that they share a common source, Diodorus and Strabo agree fairly well in their accounts of the synoikism, and it is conceivable though not certain that their accounts are directly or indirectly derived from a common source, possibly Ephoros.5 Strabo's ‘after the Persian Wars' accords well enough with Diodorus' more precise date of 471/0. As for the actual process of synoikism, Diodorus says that the Eleians previously lived in small poleis but were then synoikised into the town of Elis, while Strabo, without explicitly using the term 'synoikise' for what happened at Elis, says that the Eleians lived earlier in communities which he describes in turn as ‘villages’ (κωμηδὸν), ‘many demes'

(£x πολλῶν δήμων), and ‘surrounding communities’

(£x τῶν περιοικίδων),

and that they then came together in the town of Elis. If one allows for some fluctuation in the vocabulary used to describe the settlements in which the Eleians reportedly lived before the synoikism, Diodorus and Strabo agree that the Eleians were settled in a number of small communities until the 470s and then were synoikised into the town of

Elis. Diodorus' account implies that the town of Elis did not exist before the synoikism, and Strabo says so explicitly. Their reports also might be taken to suggest that the earlier small communities did not survive the synoikism. Studies of ancient Greek synoikism have shown that it was a complex and variable process,® and it is therefore possible that the Eleian synoikism was undertaken to achieve several purposes. Nonetheless the only aspect of the Eleian synoikism reported by Diodorus and Strabo is change in the pattern of settlement.’ As will be seen later, however, their reports do not match the archaeological evidence now available for settlement in the area both before and after the 470s.

2. Perioikoi

a>

Before questions of settlement are studied the relation of the Eleian perioikoi to the synoikism will be considered. By the 470s Elis had already made some neighbouring states subordinate to itself, though efforts to extend Eleian domination south of the

5

So Moggi (1976) 160. Eg. Baladié (1978) 26 suggests that Strabo's account of the synoikism of Elis is derived from Apollodoros, who may in turn have derived it from Ephoros. On the importance of Ephoros as Diodorus’ principal source for Greek affairs in Books 11-15 (16), see e.g. the recent discussion by Stylianou (1998) 49-132.

6

Seee.g. Davies (1992) 27-8.

7

Walter (1993) 118 argues against a major transfer of population to the town of Elis at the time of the synoikism.

252

James Roy

Alpheios continued later in the fifth century, as Hdt. 4.148 shows. It is clear that by 420 Elis had organised its relations with its subordinate neighbours, or perioikoi, as an alliance in which it was the dominant partner (Thuc. 5.47). A recently published inscription of ca. 500 refers, in a context of rules for the Olympic Games, to "the Eleians and the sym(m)achia” ὃ and Siewert is surely right to interpret the symmachia, or alliance, as a group of communities subordinate to Elis, in other words the Eleian

perioikoi. This new evidence carries back to the late sixth century the situation known from Thucydides (5.47) in 420. The perioikoi were states in their own right, separate from the Eleian state even if dominated by it.? There is no reason to suppose that the pattern of relationship through alliance between Elis and the perioikoi was interrupted between the late sixth century and 420, and so there is no reason to suppose that the perioikoi were directly involved in the Eleian synoikism.!® Our evidence does not allow us to draw precise boundaries between Eleian and perioikic territory; but north of the Alpheios (where all purely Eleian territory lay) the two categories amounted together to some 2120 km?, and more than half of that area belonged to the Eleian state

proper.!! It is necessary also to consider whether certain particular communities which are mentioned on inscriptions found at Olympia were synoikised, since arguments about them have been used to try to understand the synoikism. Hansen in particular has suggested that such communities are examples of small poleis absorbed into Elis in the synoikism.!? In one text of ca. 500—475 the Chaladrioi awarded Chaladrian citizenship and other privileges to a certain Deukalion.!? In another of ca. 475—450 the Anaitoi and the Metapioi made a fifty-year pact of friendship; the nature of the transaction suggests that these two communities were exercising the functions of independent

8

9

10

Ebert and Siewert (1999), with references to the first published discussions of the text. One example of such an alliance linking Elis to a nearby community may be provided by /vO 9 of ca. 500, for which see Roy and Schofield (1999). See Roy (1997).

The same view was adopted by Moggi (1976) 160. Inglis (1998) 2-3, 89, 101 supposes that Pisatis, until then attached to the Eleian state, became perioikic at the time of the synoikism, a view for which there is no direct evidence. Pisatis was certainly an integral part of the Eleian state at the

time of the Eleian-Spartan war ca. 400 (Roy [1997] 283 with n. 12), and it is most unlikely that, once the Eleians gained control of the area surrounding the great sanctuary at Olympia, they would have allowed it to pass out of their direct control. [t is therefore preferable to suppose that Pisatis formed an integral part of Eleian territory from the sixth century onwards. (The possibility that Pisatis, backed by some perioikoi, fought a war against Elis in the earlier part of the fifth century is considered below.)

I!

12.

Yalouris (1972) 96 gives the total figure of 2120 km? for Eleian and perioikic territory north of the Alpheios. Swoboda RE V: 2422 s.v. Elis, gives as estimates of area ca. 1160 km? for Elis itself and ca. 1500 km? for perioikic territories north and south of the Alpheios; but these estimates include Pisatis among the perioikic area. E.g. by Hansen (1995) 59-60, referring to the Chaladrioi, the Anaitoi, and the Metapioi. The interesting discussion of the Eleian constitution and

Eleian citizenship by Walter (1993)

120-5

is

flawed by a failure to take account of the possibility that the Chaladrioi, Anaitoi, and Metapioi were perioikic communities. 13

14

/|vO 11 = Nomima I no. 21, dated 500-475 by Minon (1994) 97-108.

IvO 10- Nomima [ no. 51 (with arguments against identifying the Metapioi with the Messapians of Southern Italy); dated to ca. 475—450 by Minon (1994)

106-114.

The Synoikism of Elis

253

states.!5 Ca. 500 the Ewaoioi made an alliance with the Eleians for one hundred years.!6 None of the four communities — Chaladrioi, Anaitoi, Metapioi, and Ewaoioi — is otherwise known. The Ewaoioi were probably perioikoi: the fact that they formed an alliance with the Eleians shows that they were not part of the Eleian state, and it is likely that their alliance is an example of the pattern of unequal alliances between Elis and its perioikoi. For the Chaladrioi, the Anaitoi, and the Metapioi we have no relevant evidence: they may have been communities within the Eleian state, but may equally well have been perioikic.!? The pact between the Anaitoi and the Metapioi is dated ca. 475—450 on grounds of lettering, and it would be unwise to press that dating unduly, but it suggests that the agreement was probably made after the synoikism of 471 rather than before, in which case the existence of the two communities was not ended by the synoikism of their inhabitants into Elis. Moreover the fact that each of the four communities disappears from the historical record after one epigraphic appearance need not be associated with the synoikism, since a number of other communities within

the region, both Eleian and perioikic, also disappear over a period of centuries.!'5 In sum, these three inscriptions, though extremely interesting, offer us no reliable evidence of the relations among purely Eleian (i.e. non-perioikic) communities before or

after the synoikism.'?

3. Earlier Settlement at Elis

Comparison of the reports of Diodorus and Strabo with such other evidence as we have about settlement in Elis is revealing. Two comparisons are necessary: first with what we know of any earlier settlement on the site of the town of Elis, and secondly with our knowledge of settlement elsewhere in Elis both before and after the synoikism. For the site of Elis we now have the recent, fuli, and thorough analysis of the published

evidence for Archaic settlement by Eder and Mitsopoulos.?? While the evidence is limited, burials show clearly some occupation of the site from the late I 1th or from the 10th century. Evidence for the ninth century is slight, but there is more material from the eighth century onwards. There were monumental buildings of the sixth and early fifth centuries, and an inscription dated to the first half of the sixth century suggests that there were judicial proceedings on the site. Thus, although there appears to be no surviving literary reference to a settlement at Elis before the synoikism - unless Hom. Il. 11.672 is taken to refer to a settlement there — Eder and Mitsopoulos conclude that there was settlement on the site for centuries before the synoikism. They recognise 15

Hansen (1995) 59.

16 17

1vO 2 = Nomima | no. 23, dated ca. 500 by Minon (1994) 85-96: see Roy and Schofield (1999). If the Chaladrioi, Anaitoi, and Metapioi belonged to the Eleian state proper, they could have continued to exist after the synoikism as dependent poleis within Eleian territory. Other examples

18 19

The evidence is assembled in Roy (1999) 167-71. That all four communities disappear from the historical record is not surprising: other examples of such disappearance in the region are Dyspontion north of the Alpheios, and Noudion south of it, and on such disappearances see Roy (1999) 169-70. Eder and Mitsopoulos (1999). Their presentation and analysis of the evidence is naturally longer but also more cautious than that of Yalouris (1976).

of such dependent Eleian poleis are known (see below).

20

254

James Roy

however that the limited evidence at present available does not suffice to establish clearly the extent and nature of the settlement. They suggest that there could have been scattered small settlements, with associated burials, on the site, and at least from the sixth century some public buildings in a central position.?! It had been recognised for

some time that there was settlement on the site of Elis before the synoikism,?? and Eder and Mitsopoulos have clarified the nature of that settlement so far as the present evidence allows. Whatever may have been achieved by synoikism in the 470s, it was not the creation of an entirely new settlement on the site of Elis.

4. Settlements elsewhere in Eleian Territory There is both literary and archaeological evidence that there were several settlements elsewhere on Eleian territory before the synoikism. As literary evidence we have, in addition to Diodorus and Strabo, also Pausanias. He writes (5.16.6) of the deme Orthia

in Hollow Elis, home of Physkoa who bore a son to the god Dionysos, and (6.24.5) of the deme Petra near Elis where the sophist Pyrrhon was buried. Pausanias (5.16.2—8) also explains that the Eleian cult-group of Sixteen Women was originally made up of one woman from each of sixteen towns which then existed on Eleian territory, though some had disappeared by his day; he even listed the towns, though unfortunately a lacuna in the text has cost us all but the first name, which is Elis itself. Strabo (8.3.2)

also named a deme which participated in the synoikism of 471/0: the reading of the name - possibly Agriades - is uncertain, and the deme may have been added to the

synoikism after the event.?? It is also likely that some at least of the eight cities reported by Strabo in Pisatis existed already in the late Archaic period: these Pisatan communi-

ties are considered in a separate paper in this volume.?* As examples of archaeological evidence of nucleated settlement within Eleian territory before the synoikism the following may be cited. In Pisatis at the locality Frangonisi near the modern village Miraka there are archaeological remains ranging from the Archaic to the Roman periods, including traces of Archaic and Classical walls

and Classical graves. The site is probably ancient Harpina.?6 Ancient Phe(i)a, one of the two ports of Elis, is situated near modern Katakolo, and has been surveyed though not excavated: there was settlement from prehistoric times, and in particular a flouris-

hing town from the Archaic period to later Roman times." At modern Vartholomio a site described as prehistoric to Roman has recently been reported; at modern Armatova, identified as Eleian Pylos, there was Archaic settlement; and at modern Glifa a

21

The early settlement at Elis, attested at different locations on the site rather than in a single concentration, may well match the 'big sites' discussed by Morgan (2000); see also Morgan and Coulton (1997) 91-8.

22

E.g.by Moggi (1976) 164 n. 19.

23

Baladié (1978) ad loc.

24 25 26

Roy, Pisatis. McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 320-1 no. 723, cf. ibid. 306-7 nos. 323 and 324. See Baladié (1978) 268, and Papahatzis (1979) 382 n. 8; contra RE VII: 2407-9 s.v. Harpina.

27

See Yalouris (1957) and Themelis (1968); oddly, the site is not dated Archaic in Barr.

The Synoikism of Elis

255

cemetery of the sixth century has recently been reported, near which there was presumab-

ly a settlement.?? More examples could be cited.?? There is therefore clearly both literary and archaeological evidence for a range of settlement within Eleian territory before the synoikism. That is not surprising in so large an area, but it does confirm the reports of Diodorus and Strabo. There is also clear archaeological evidence of several towns or large villages on Eleian (as opposed to perioikic) territory after the synoikism. There were the ports Pheia and Kyllene.9 The Classical period was the most prosperous for the site at

Armatova, taken to be Pylos.?! At modern Salmoni there is Classical material, possibly the remains of ancient Marganeis.?? In Pisatis at modern Miraka, which is probably the site of ancient Harpina, there are at the locality Frangonisi — as mentioned above --

archaeological remains ranging from the Archaic to the Roman periods.?? There is also evidence

Goumero,

of Classical

settlements, possibly

urban

settlements, at modern

Elaionas,

Korifi, and Vartholomio.* Once more, this list includes only the more

important cases, and much more archaeological evidence could be cited.?3 It is clear that after the synoikism settlement flourished not only at the town of Elis but also at a number of other sites. Some settlements may even have functioned as dependent poleis within the territory of Elis, according to the criteria for polis status elaborated by the Copenhagen Polis Centre: leading candidates are Kyllene and Eleian Pylos.! Some of the small communities of Pisatis evidently had some characteristics of a polis, though for the most part they do not meet the CPC's criteria for polis status.?® (The perioikic communities are not considered here, since, while they were certainly poleis in their own right, they stood outside Eleian territory proper.)

28

Vartholomio,

29

Glifa, ArchDelt 45 (1990) [1995] B.1.111. For fuller coverage of the evidence see Roy, Pisatis.

30 31

Pheia: Yalouris (1957) and Themelis (1968); Kyllene: Servais (1961). Coleman (1986) 6-8, 66-116.

32

McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 304-5 no. 308: see also ibid. 320-1 no. 722. For the identification see Roy, /nventory. On the site at Frangonisi, see McDonald and Hope Simpson (1972) 320-1 no. 723; cf. ibid. 306-7 nos. 323 and 324; on the identification with Harpina, see Baladié (1978) 268 and Papahatzis [1979] 382 note 8, despite RE VII: 2407-9 s.v. Harpina. On the possibility that other towns also existed in Pisatis in the Classical period, see Roy, Pisatis. Elaionas (formerly Malapasi): Sperling (1942) 83 no. 22; Goumero: Bon (1946) 29-30; Korifi (formerly Koukouvitsa): Sperling (1942) 82 no. 13; and Vartholomio: ArchDelt 44 (1989) [1995] B.1.104-5. The data given by Yalouris (1972) 96 include 79 settlements attested archaeologically in Koile Elis, Akroreia, and Pisatis: that figure suggests the considerable range of Eleian settlement already known in 1972 (and more has since been reported in various annual reports in ArchDelt), but Yalouris' data are not presented in a form which allows chronological distinctions, or the separation of Eleian and perioikic settlements. See also Roy (1997). Cavanagh (1991) offers a very interesting comparison of historical and archaeological approaches to synoikism, and points out (p. 114) that, in general terms, "in the case of synoecism the conscious political act, the ‘classical’ reform, seems not to have altered radically the relationship between city and country." The question of dependent poleis within Eleian territory is discussed in Roy, /nventory. Roy, Pisatis.

33

34

35

36

37 38

ArchDelt

44 (1989)

(1995]

B.1.104-5:

Armatova,

Coleman

(1986)

5-6.

34—65;

256

James Roy

5. Polybios' Evidence for Eleian Settlement The comments offered on Elis by Polybios (4.73-75) also deserve notice, since they

might seem to show a different, very scattered, pattern of settlement.?? Polybios at 4.73.7-8, as is well known, described how some Eleians were so fond of life in the country (ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν) that for two or three generations they did not leave their homes to visit the lawcourts, any need for judicial decisions being met by a system of peripatetic jurisdiction. Polybios spoke of his own day but thought that the situation had already existed for some time. Polybios clearly believed that some Eleians lived on the land, presumably in farms, but his text also shows that such Eleians typically lived near a village, and often near a defensible strong point. Furthermore, his account, while clearly concerned to emphasise the high level of population and of lootable property in the Eleian countryside, says nothing to suggest that there were not also towns in Eleian territory. Finally there is the obvious possibility that the situation which he describes, even if it had developed some time before his own day, may not have existed as early as the fifth century.

6. Interpreting Diodorus and Strabo We can therefore conclude that there were numerous settlements in Eleian territory before the synoikism, as reported by Diodorus and Strabo. That pattern of settlement included a significant community on the site of Elis itself, which is not obvious from the two ancient accounts. The synoikism did not create a new town of Elis, nor did it

seriously weaken the pattern of settlement elsewhere in Eleian territory. It is therefore not possible to accept a simple and straightforward reading of the reports of Diodorus and Strabo. There is therefore a temptation to suppose that Diodorus and Strabo should be taken to mean something other than what a simple reading of their accounts suggests. Some interpretations of the synoikism can however be rejected. One possibility which can be dismissed is that the synoikism was the foundation of a coherent Eleian state from previously separate or loosely associated communities. There is no doubt at all that an Eleian state existed well before the synoikism, as epigraphic evidence shows. We have texts of official documents of the Eleian state from the sixth century, including an alliance concluded ca. 500 with the Ewaoioi; a seat at Olympia inscribed with the name of a sixth-century Lakedaimonian proxenos of the Eleians; and inscribed sixth-century dedications by the Eleians at Olympia.*!

In addition we know that the

39

See Roy (1999) 158—64.

40

Polyb. 4.73.5 with τὰς παρακειμένας κώμας and τοὺς ἐρυμνοὺς; the latter might conceivably refer to natural strong points. The following texts use the collective ethnic of the Eleians (others which do not, but are rightly

4]

understood to be official Eleian documents, could be added): alliance with the Ewaoioi: [vO 2 = Nomima I no. 23, dated ca. 500 by Minon (1994) 85-96; see Roy and Schofield (1999); Lakedaimonian proxenos: Nomima | no. 37, dated ca. 550/500 by Minon (1994) 536 (another record of a

proxenos, SEG 26 476 = Nomima I no. 38, is dated ca. 400 by Minon [1994] 290, though earlier dates have been suggested); dedications: Siewert (1991) nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

The Synoikism of Elis

257

Eleians' military forces were mobilised to help the resistance to Xerxes' invasion.*? All this makes abundantly clear, as has long been recognised,* that the Eleian state existed in an effective form long before the synoikism. Another possibility which can be dismissed is that the synoikism was intended to

strengthen the town of Elis for military purposes. While a greater concentration of manpower in an urban centre might have military value, if the concentration included a sufficient number of men of hoplite status, the obvious way to make the town of Elis militarily strong was to fortify it; but we know that Elis was still unwalled at the end of

the fifth century.“ It is also conceivable that synoikism was undertaken in order to develop the town of Elis as the political centre of the Eleian state. Elis was a distinctly unusual polis in that it was 'bicentral' (to use a term suggested by Mogens Hansen), with political activity at both Olympia and the town of Elis.*> The view that before the synoikism the sanctuary at Olympia served as the focus of Eleian political activity had to be modified after the publication of a sixth-century inscription showing judicial activity at the town of Elis, and there is also clear archaeological evidence of public buildings at Elis by the sixth century. Some public business was therefore clearly transacted at Elis before the synoikism. Equally, however, Olympia continued to serve as a centre for some business

of the Eleian state after the synoikism, and it is notable that some political and some religious organs of the state operated at both Elis and Olympia.^' The importance and persistence of Olympia's role within the Eleian state is exemplified by a forthcoming analysis of Hellenistic bronze voting tokens found both at Elis and at Olympia.^8 It is therefore clear that the aim of the Eleian synoikism was not to centralise all political activity at the town of Elis.

We can also dismiss the possibility that Strabo understood the settlement on the site of the town Elis before the synoikism to be a cluster of villages similar to that found at

Sparta, according to Thucydides, ?? and that Strabo supposed the synoikism to be the 42 43 44

45

Hdt. 9.77, Meiggs-Lewis, GHI no. 27 coil 9. E.g. by Moggi (1976) 161. Roy (1997) 300-2. Demand (1990) 65 notes the absence of a wall at the time of the synoikism, and deduces that the Eleians did not fear attack, and specifically that the synoikism was not intended as an anti-Spartan measure. The ‘bicentral’ nature of Elis was discussed (without using the term) by Hansen and FischerHansen (1994) 86-9 and by Hansen (1995) 59-60, suggesting that the Eleian state had its urban centre at the town Elis and its political centre at Olympia (but note the reservations expressed in Morgan and Coulton [1997]

112-14). On the bouleuterion at Olympia, see Gneisz (1990) 340-1,

dating its first phase to the sixth century, and on the prytaneion at Olympia of the earlier fifth century, see Miller (1978) 86-91, 235-9. Mogens Hansen now informs me that in his view, because of the inscription showing sixth-century judicial activity at the town Elis (see next footnote), both the town and Olympia must already then have served as political centres. 46

47 48

49

For the inscription see Siewert (1994) and (2000)

19-31, and for the public buildings Eder and

Mitsopoulos (1999). See also Roy (1997) 288. See Roy (1999) 158-9. Baitinger and Eder, Stimmarken; in addition to the analysis and interpretation of the voting tokens, the authors review in detail the roles of Elis and Olympia as the two centres of the Eleian state, bringing out also the importance of Olympia as an economic centre. Thuc. 1.10.2 on Sparta; cf. Hansen (1995) 52-5, noting that the villages referred to by Thucydides are now

universally

understood

to be Limnai.

Kynosoura,

Mesoa,

and

Pitane,

which

together

formed a cluster of settlement described by other ancient writers and by Thucydides himself elsewhere as the polis Sparta.

258

James Roy

conversion of such loosely structured settlement into a more tightly knit urban centre. (Diodorus' use of the term poleis to describe the presynoikistic Eleian settlements makes it impossible to understand his account of the synoikism in such a way.) Such an interpretation of Strabo's account would be compatible with the archaeological evidence from the site, but is precluded by his comparison of the Eleian synoikism with those at Mantinea, Tegea, Heraia, Aigion, Patrai, and Dyme. Strabo clearly supposed that all these communities had a similar pattern of settlement before synoikism, a pattern consisting of separate villages (komai or demoi) spaced out over the territory: his account that Tegea, for instance, was synoikised from nine villages cannot be taken to mean that a cluster of nine villages on the site of Tegea was converted into a more cohesive town. Moreover, before leaving this topic, it is worth noting that Strabo gives the number of villages synoikised at each of the other places on the list, ranging from five at Mantinea to nine at Tegea, but has no such number for Elis. Given the very large territory of Elis, certainly much bigger than that of any other of the states listed, the number of Eleian villages should have been much larger than nine, and the process of combining them may well have been different from the other synoikisms in the list: this raises the question of whether Strabo or his source in drawing up the list of supposedly comparable Peloponnesian synoikisms fully understood the various forms which syn-

oikism might take. Some scholars have assumed a connection between the synoikism and the political and constitutional development of Elis. The arguments for this view have been set out by Gehrke, together with a lucid and helpful summary and analysis of the relevant evidence.9? It is clear that in the sixth and fifth centuries Elis developed from a restricted oligarchy to, ultimately, a form of democracy. References to the damos in IvO 3 and 7 suggest that the move away from oligarchy had begun before the synoikism,°! and there is in fact no ancient evidence requiring a link between the synoikism and constitutional change in Elis. Attempts have also been made to establish a connection between the synoikism and the changes in the body of Eleian officials known as Hellanodikai, with arguments about the likely political significance of the changing number of Hellanodikai. Gehrke has shown, however, that the evidence for changes in the number of Hellanodikai is too uncertain for these changes to be reliable independent evidence of Eleian constitutional development.5? And attempts have been made to link the activities in the Peloponnese of Themistokles to the Eleian synoikism, but Moggi pointed out some time ago that it is impossible to say with certainty whether Themistokles exercised any influence directly or indirectly on political developments

in Elis.* It is true that any proposal to carry out a synoikism in Elis must have been in itself a political issue, and can only have been adopted through a political decision; but

on present evidence there is no evidence linking the Eleian synoikism to any known political or constitutional development in Elis. 50 51

Gehrke (1985) 52-4, 365-7. Among other recent work on the topic see Bultrighini (1990); Walter (1993) 116-25; Minon (1994) 473—532; and Inglis (1998) 70-82. Minon (1994) dates /vO 3 to ca. 500/475 (pp. 54-61) and /vO 7 to ca. 525/500 (pp. 19-32): cf. the

comments of Gehrke (1985) 365-6. Strong arguments against the supposition that democracy was introduced at Elis at the time of the synoikism were set out by O'Neil (1981) 339—40, 345—6 and (1995) 32-3, 38-9, and developed by Robinson (1997) 108-1. 52

Gehrke

53

Moggi (1976) 161-2.

(1985) 366; cf. Jones (1987)

142-5.

The Synoikism of Elis

259

It has also been assumed that "the synoikism of Elis set that city upon a policy of military expansion."5^ It is true that Elis established domination of a region stretching southward as far as the Messenian border at the River Neda, and that the process of establishing Eleian control was going on in the fifth century when, by Herodotos' account, most of the six cities which he describes as Minyan south of the Alpheios were sacked by the Eleians ‘in my time'.55 Herodotos' time may, however, have been well after the synoikism, but also — and more importantly — the process of Eleian expansion south of the Alpheios was a complex one which had been going on at least since the earlier sixth century. According to Pausanias, when Elis fought the Pisatans around the 570s Makistos and Skillous, both situated south of the Alpheios, fought with Pisa;?? Pausanias' wording suggests that both Makistos and Skillous were already under Eleian domination, but at the very least they must have felt threatened by Elis. Generally evidence is scarce for Elis' efforts to extend its power south of the Alpheios, but there is enough to show that even in the fifth century the process was more complex than simply the military operation against Minyan cities described by Herodotos. Lepreon voluntarily associated itself with Elis, even ceding half its territory to the Eleians, because it feared a threat from Arkadians,°® and the Eleians obtained Epeion

by a forced purchase from somebody - possibly Arkadians — who then controlled it.5? In addition there are two passages of Strabo which refer to Eleian expansion, but they need particular consideration because they are far from straightforward. Strabo 8.3.33 says that Sparta helped Elis conquer Pisa and Triphylia, but the statement follows immediately on Strabo's report that Sparta and Elis together overcame Pheidon of Argos and so seems to refer to events of the Archaic period. Strabo 8.3.30 says that the Spartans helped the Eleians overcome Pisa after the final defeat of the Messenians, because Elis helped Sparta against the Messenians who were allied with the Arkadians; the Eleians then extended their control to the Messenian border; and they united Triphylian Pylos to Lepreon as a favour to the Lepreates because they had not joined in the war, but the Eleians destroyed many other cities and imposed tribute on those who they thought wanted to act independently. The reference to Arkadians allied with the Messenians points to the second Messenian War of the seventh century, but the reference to the final defeat of Messenia indicates rather the late 460s or even the 450s.°! There is confusion and uncertainty in these two passages of Strabo, but the following points emerge. First, Strabo clearly believed that Sparta helped Elis to extend its domination south to the River Neda. Such a policy may 54 55 56 57

58

59 60

61

Τῆς quotation is from Demand (1990) 64. Hdt. 4.148; see Roy (1997) on Eleian control of its perioikot. Gschnitzer (1958) 14 noted that the Eleian campaign against Minyan cities reported by Herodotos may well have been preceded by other campaigns. Paus. 5.6.4, 6.22.4. Pausanias dates the war to the time of King Pyrrhos of Pisa, whose brother and predecessor Damophon was ruling in 588. This Elis-Pisa war is commonly dated to ca. 572, with reference to Eusebius Chronicon I p. 202 Schoene (see Maddoli er al. [1999] 368. Thuc. 5.31.2; see Roy (1997) 311 n. 17, and (2000) 144-5.

Xen. Hell. 3.2.30-31; see Roy (2000) 138. Strabo's text is not clear about who (Spartans or Eleians) united Pylos to Lepreon, but Moggi (1976) 166-9 argues persuasively that it was done by the Eleians, and dates the event ca. 460. The imposition of tribute on recalcitrant communities was presumably done by the Eleians. On the Messenian War beginning probably in 465 see e.g. D.M. Lewis in CAH V2; 108-10.

260

James Roy

plausibly be attributed to the Spartans, since it would stabilise the territory on Messenia's northern frontier by putting it under a friendly ally, without burdening Sparta with the problem of maintaining control north of the Neda. Secondly, the report of a synoikism of Lepreon and Pylos promoted by Elis is also plausible in view of Lepreon's voluntary association with Elis, as attested by Thucydides. Thirdly, Strabo's chronological references are confused and conflicting. If, however, we concentrate on the apparent reference to the Messenian War which began in the 460s, then Sparta helped Eleian expansion in the years after that war finished, i.e. no earlier than the late 460s. The only

date that we would then have for this phase of Eleian expansion would be a decade or more after the Eleian synoikism, though Elis might of course have begun a campaign south of the Alpheios before Sparta began to help. The record is further complicated by a report of Pausanias (5.10.2) that the temple of Zeus at Olympia was built from spoils taken by Elis in a war against Pisa and such

perioikoi as joined Pisa.6? Because Pausanias' report of this war resembles what he says about the war between Elis and Pisa in the earlier sixth century, some have argued that Paus. 5.10.2 also refers to the sixth-century war, and one might then suppose that booty from the war was preserved for a century or so before being used to meet the costs of the temple. Others have however accepted that Elis did fight Pisa and other communities shortly before the temple was built.6* In that case the dating of the war would depend on the dating of the construction of the temple. The evidence for dating the temple has recently been set out conveniently by Jacquemin, and it appears that the

temple was begun in the 470s or 460s and finished by 457 or soon after. The process of construction was slow enough for some development to be observable in the shaping of the temple's columns.® This means that the temple may have been begun either before or after the Eleian synoikism, and that the war against Pisa likewise may have preceded or followed the synoikism. It is therefore unsafe to see the war against Pisa, if it did indeed occur in the earlier fifth century, as part of a 'Triphylian War' of southward

expansion.© To summarise, the evidence for Eleian expansion southward suggests that it was under way by the earlier sixth century, and continued into the fifth century. Military activity was an important part of that expansion, but not the only part. Evidence for dating does not tie any military activity with certainty to the period shortly after the synoikism, and Strabo's evidence, for what it is worth, puts part of the expansion a decade or more after the expansion. There is no compelling reason to believe that the synoikism set Elis on a policy of military expansion. For the reasons just explored above there is also no clear evidence that the building of the temple of Zeus was in any way a consequence of the synoikism. It may in fact have been begun before the synoikism. If it was financed by the booty from a recent victory over Pisatis and related communities, the building of the temple may have been 62

There is no need to take Pausanias’ wording to mean that the Pisatans were at the time perioikic; see Roy (1997) 310-11

63 64

n. 12.

65

E.g. Kahrstedt (1928) 169-70. E.g. recently Jacquemin in Casewitz er al. (1999) 147, and, more boldly, Maddoli and Saladino (1990) 228. Jacquemin in Casewitz er al. (1999) 147.

66

So Maddoli and Saladino (1990) 228.

The Synoikism of Elis

261

motivated to a considerable extent by a desire to memorialise Eleian control over Olympia and the land around it. Other developments in Elis have also been dated on the assumption that they will have followed the synoikism. Thus it has been suggested, for instance, that the requirement that athletes intending to compete at the Olympic Games should spend a thirtyday training period at Elis was probably introduced "when Elis was founded as a new city (ca. 471 BC)."? The facts that before the synoikism there was already a significant settlement at Elis, and that the Eleian state was already well organised, mean that the practice could have been introduced earlier. These same facts mean that Elis would have been perfectly capable of striking coins before the synoikism, and whether or not it did must be judged on numismatic criteria: there is no reason to suppose a priori that the earliest Eleian coinage should be later than the synoikism.6® Without multiplying examples of attempts to use the synoikism as a necessary precondition for other Eleian developments, it can be said that on present evidence there is no good reason to think that the Eleians were able to do anything after the synoikism that they could not have done before.

7. Conclusion

The simple fact is that we do not know what happened when Elis was synoikised ca. 471. It would be foolhardy to reject out of hand the reports of Diodorus and Strabo that the synoikism did in fact occur, the more so since the two reports may go back to a common

source in Ephoros. It is nonetheless true that, if we did not happen to have

evidence of an Eleian synoikism ca. 471, there would be absolutely no reason to invent one, i.e. to hypothesise one in order to explain other events and processes in Elis for

which we do have evidence. It is of course possible to combine such evidence as we have in order to create various possible but purely conjectural reconstructions of Eleian history in the 470s and 460s. Until, however, we can test such hypothetical combinati-

ons, there is no reason to regard any of them as persuasive. Over a longer period we can see how Elis developed: there is, for instance, no doubt that in the sixth and fifth centuries Elis became constitutionally more democratic, or that Elis extended its domination as far south as the River Neda. Nonetheless it is not at the moment possible to see in detail how the synoikism fits into such patterns of development. Archaeology and epigraphy may some day tell us more. What is however clear is that the reports of Diodorus and Strabo do not match such evidence as we have, and in particular that they do not match the archaeological evidence. The authors seem in fact to have produced a stereotyped account of what they believed synoikism to be, namely a transfer of population from small settlements to

create a large settlement. It is notable that Strabo in particular implies that the synoikism of Elis, with its very large territory, was essentially similar to the synoikism of the much smaller Mantinea, though the difference in size must have made the two processes significantly different. It is impossible to accept the reports which Diodorus and 67

Crowther (1991) 162. As Crowther states, there is in fact no definite reference to the thirty-day

68

training period before the second century AD. So e.g. Kraay (1976) 104.

262

James Roy

Strabo offer of the Eleian synoikism as they stand, and the most likely explanation of our difficulty is that the authors simply did not understand the complex and varied process of synoikism. If we assume such lack of understanding, then we can readily appreciate why we have such difficulty in interpreting the Eleian synoikism which they report. However at the same time we should also have to acknowledge the depressing possibility that Diodorus' and Strabo's reports of how other communities were synoikised may equally be rooted in their incomprehension of the process of synoikism. What then can we say about the synoikism? If we do not simply reject the evidence of Diodorus and Strabo, we must suppose that in or around 471/0 there took place at Elis some process that could be described as synoikism. From the evidence set out above the following points can be made. In the sixth century, i.e. long before the synoikism, Elis was already a polis in the political sense, as epigraphic evidence shows. Moreover archaeological evidence shows that the town of Elis existed as an urban centre (possibly loosely structured) by the sixth century. The synoikism did not create a new urban centre where none existed before (and indeed the

only well-attested example of such an entirely new creation is Megalopolis). By 500, as recent epigraphic evidence shows, Elis had established alliances with a number of other poleis in the area, and Thucydides 5.47 allows us to interpret these as unequal alliances between Elis and perioikic communities which were independent but subordinate to Elis. There is no reason to think that these perioikic communities were involved in the synoikism of ca. 471/0. Archaeological evidence also shows, however, that, in addition to the town of Elis itself, there were significant nucleated settlements in purely Eleian territory both before the synoikism and after it. Their political status before the synoikism

is not clear, but evidence

later than the synoikism suggests that some -

notably Kyllene and Pylos — were then dependent poleis. It is likely that the synoikism in some way reinforced the town Elis, but exactly how is conjectural. Synoikism normally involved movement of population, which is indeed what Diodorus and Strabo report. It is therefore likely that there was some

movement of Eleian population ca. 471/0. However, given that we cannot rely on the detail of Diodorus' and Strabo's reports, it is impossible to tell how such movement might have been organised — e.g. whether certain selected Eleian settlements were required to send some or all of their population to the town Elis — and it is at present equally impossible to discern in the settlement pattern of the area changes due to transfer of population ca. 471/0. It is also reasonable to assume that the arrival of fresh inhabitants would lead to denser occupation of the urban space, and possibly also to more careful organisation of that space; but only fuller archaeological information about the development of the urban area will bring any certainty. Synoikism frequently also involved political or constitutional change, but it is at the moment impossible to link a supposed Eleian synoikism to any such change. Elis was a distinctly unusual polis in that it was bicentral, with some political functions of the polis being carried out at the town of Elis and others at the sanctuary of Olympia. This bicentral arrangement survived the synoikism. While the balance may possibly have shifted at the time of the synoikism to give greater importance to the town Elis as the prime focus of Eleian political activity, any suggestion that the synoikism amounted to a political reinforcement of the role of the town Elis must remain conjecture unless fresh evidence is found.

The Synoikism of Elis

263

Bibliography Baitinger and Eder, Stimmarken = H. Baitinger and B. Eder, "Hellenistische Stimmarken aus Elis und Olympia: neue Forschungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen Hauptstadt und Heiligtum,” (to appear in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts). Baladié, R. 1978. Strabon. Géographie Livre VIII, Budé edition, Vol. 5 (Paris). Bon, A. 1946. "HAEIAKA," BCH 70: 15-31. Bultrighini, U. 1990. Pausania e le tradizioni democratiche (Argo e Elide) (Padua).

Casevitz, M., Pouilloux, J., and Jacquemin, A. 1999. Pausanias. Description de la Grece V. L'Élide (1). Budé edition (Paris).

Cavanagh, W.G. 1991. "Surveys, Cities and Synoecism,” in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.). City and Country in the Ancient World (London) 97-118.

Coleman, J.E. 1986. Excavations at Pylos in Elis, Hesperia Suppl. 21 (Princeton). Crowther, N.B. 1991. "The Olympic Training Period," Nikephoros 4: 161—6. Davies, J.K. 1992. "Greece after the Persian Wars," CAH V?: 15-33.

Demand, N.H.

1990. Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece. Flight and Consolidation

(Bristol).

Ebert, J., and Siewert, P. 1999. “Eine archäische Bronzeurkunde aus Olympia mit Vorschriften für Ringkämpfer und Kampfrichter," OlBer XI: 391-412. Eder, B. and Mitsopoulos, V. 1999. "Zur Geschichte der Stadt Elis vor dem Synoikismos von 471 v. Chr.," ÓJhBeibl 68: 1-40. Gehrke, H.-J. 1985. Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Munich).

Gneisz, D.

1990. Das antike Rathaus.

Das griechische Bouleuterion und die frührómische

Curia

(Vienna).

Gschnitzer, F. 1958. Abhängige Orte im griechischen Altertum (Munich). Hansen, M.H. 1995. "Kome. A Study in How the Greeks Designated and Classified Settlements Which Were Not Poleis," CPCPapers 2: 45-81. Hansen, M. H., and Fischer-Hansen, T. 1994. "Monumental Classical Greek

Poleis. Evidence

Political

and Historical Significance,"

Architecture

CPCPapers

in Archaic

and

|: 23-90.

Inglis. A.St.G. 1998. A History of Elis c. 700-362 B.C. (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University). Jones, N.F.

1987. Public Organization in Ancient Greece.

A Documentary Study (Philadelphia).

Kahrstedt, U. 1928. "Zur Geschichte von Elis und Olympia," Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen aus dem Jahre 1927 (Berlin) 157-76. Kraay, C.M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London). Maddoli, G., and Saladino, V. 1995. Pausania. Guida della Grecia V. L'Elide e Olimpia (Milan).

Maddoli, G., Nafissi, M., and Saladino, V. 1999. Pausania. Guida della Grecia VI. L'Elide e Olimpia (Milan).

McDonald, W.A.

and Hope Simpson, R. 1972. “Archaeological

Exploration," and "Appendix,"

W.A. McDonald and G.R. Rapp (eds.), The Minnesota Messenia Expedition (Minneapolis)

in

117-

47; 262-322. Miller, S.G. 1978. The Prytaneion. Its Function and Architectural Form (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Minon, S. 1994. Les tablettes éléennes du Vie et du Ve siecle: étude dialectologique et historique, 2 Vols., thése de doctorat, École Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris). Moggi. M. 1976. / sinecismi interstatali greci, Vol. |: Dalle origini al 338 a. C. (Pisa). Moggi, M. 1991. "Strabone interprete di Omero (Contributo al problema della formazione della polis)" AnnPisa 21.2: 537-51 [a shorter version of this paper appeared, under the same title, as Moggi

264

James Roy

(1996)]. Moggi, M. 1996. "Strabone interprete di Omero (Contributo al problema della formazione della polis),” in R. Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all'età ellenistica. Seritti in onore di Bruno Gentili Vol. 3 (Rome) 1033-45 [a longer version of this paper appeared, under the same title, as Moggi (1991).] Morgan, C., and Coulton, J.J. 1997. "The Polis as a Physical Entity," CPCActs 4: 87-144. Morgan, C. 2000. "Politics without the Polis. Cities and the Achaean Ethnos c. 800-500 BC,” in R. Brock

and S. Hodkinson

(eds.), Alternatives to Athens.

Varieties of Political Organization and

Community in Ancient Greece (Oxford) 189-211. Nomima = H. van Effenterre and F. Ruzé. 1994-95. Nomima. Recueil d'inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l'archaisme grec, 2 vols. (1: 1994; II: 1995) (Rome). O’Neil, J.L. 1981. "The Exile of Themistokles and Democracy in the Peloponnese,” CQ 31: 335-46. O' Neil, J.L. 1995. The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy (Lanham). Papahatzis, N. 1979. Παυσανίου ᾿Ελλάδος Περιήγησις. Wi. Μεσσηνιακὰ xai ᾿Ηλιακά (Athens). Robinson, E.W.

1997. The First Democracies. Early Popular Government outside Athens, Historia

Einzelschriften 107 (Stuttgart). Roussel, D. 1976. Tribu et cité (Paris).

Roy, J. 1997. "The Perioikoi of Elis," CPCAcıs 4: 282-320. Roy, J. 1999. "Les cités d'Élide," in J. Renard (ed.), Le Péloponnése. Archéologie et histoire (Rennes) 151-76. Roy. J. 2000. “The Frontier between Elis and Arkadia in Classical Antiquity," Polis & Politics: 133-56. Roy, Inventory = J. Roy, "An Inventory of Poleis in Elis in the Archaic and Classical Periods," (to appear in M.H. Hansen Classical Periods).

and

T.H.

Nielsen

[eds.]. An

Inventory

of Poleis

in the Archaic

and

Roy, Pisatis = J. Roy, "The Pattern of Settlement in Pisatis: the ‘Eight Poleis'." in this volume 229-47. Roy, J. and Schofield, D. 1999. "/vO 9. A New Approach,” Horos 13: 155-65. Servais, J. 1961. "Recherches sur le port de Kyllené," BCH 85: 123-61. Siewert, P. 1991. "Staatliche Weihungen von Kesseln und anderen Bronzegerüten in Olympia," AM 106: 81-4. Siewert, P. 1994. “Eine archäische Rechtsaufzeichnung aus der antiken Stadt Elis," in G. Thür (ed.),

Symposion 1993. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Graz-Andritz, 12.-16. September 1993). Akten der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 10 (Vienna) 17-32 (with pp. 33-34 F. Gschnitzer "Diskussionsbeitrag zum Referat Peter Siewert"). Siewert, P. 2000. "Due inscrizioni giuridiche della città di Elide," Minima Epigraphica er Papyrologica 3: 19-37. Sperling, J. 1942. "Explorations in Elis, 1939," AJA 46: 77-89. Sıylianou, P.J. 1998. A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15 (Oxford). Themelis, P.G.

1968. "eia," ArchDelt 23B.1:

162.

Walter, U. 1993. An der Polis teilhaben: Bürgerstaat und Zugehörigkeit im archaischen Griechenland. Historia Einzelschriften 82 (Stuttgart). Y alouris, N. 1957. “Δοκιμαστικαί Epevvat εἰς tov κόλπον της Φείας HAetag." ArchEph

32-43. Yalouris, N. 1972. "The City-State of Elis," Ekistics 33.195 (February 1972) 95-6. Yalouris, N. 1976. "Elis," PECS: 299. James Roy.

University of Nottingham

1957 (1961):

INDEX OF SOURCES by ADAM SCHWARTZ

I. LITERARY TEXTS Acta Pauli et Theclae 20.11:

Appian

107

Aeneas Tacticus 1.9: 70

3.3: 50 3.5: 70 22.4: 70 Aeschines 1.13: 29 1.157: 83 2.77: 33 2.126: 37 3.13: 28 3.13-5: 29

3.28-30: 29 3.46: 71 3.235: 33 Alcaeus Fr. 426: 22

Mithridateios 186.3: 106

Apollodorus Mythographus Bibliotheca 1.9.7: 237, 241 Aristides Orationes B.297.28: 109 E.349.29: 107

Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae 81: 37 Ranae 362: 51

Anaximenes Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 38.19: 50

Thesmophoriazusae 922: 34 Aristotle

Andocides 1.43: 33 1.84: 28 1.94: 33 1.96-8: 32

Athenaion Politeia 30.2: 51 43.1: 29 45.2: 29 52.1: 32, 36, 37bis

Antigonus Carystius

55.5: 29

Mirabilia 161: 107 Antiphon 5.9: 36 5.17: 36

56.2: 28, 33 57.3: 32 Ethica Nicomachea 1180a2-24: 31 De mirabilibus auscultationibus

832b18: 105

266

Index of Sources

Politica 1252a1 5-6: 28 1253a3-7:14 1259b4—5:28 1261222-9:14 1269a20-3:31 1272a38-9: 209 1273b33:31 1273b34:31 127422:31 1274a23:31 1274a31:31 1274b15:31 1274b18:31 1274b23:31

Cassius Dio 9.39 fr. 5.2: 109 74.12.4: 106 Cratinus Fr. 61 (KA):

Democrates Fr. 3: 34 Demosthenes

9.60: 36 15.17: 27 18.132: 33 19.264: 52 20.78: 51, 52

1274b41:22 1275b7:29 1275b13-17:29 1276a8-16:22 1277a26-7: 28 1292a39—b7:29 1293228:29 1298a5:31 1298a28-32:29 1299a25-7: 29 1299638-40:29 1317240-b3:27 1317b35—6:29 1321b40-22a7:31 1322al:36 1322a10-1: 194 1322b12-7:28 1332b12-41: 27 1333a11-16:28

21.1:23

21.1-12: 23 21.25-35: 23 21.12: 23 21.25: 23 21.26: 23 21.29: 37 21.31: 23 21.32: 29 21.33: 23 21.34:23 21.44:37

21.6: 23 21.74-6: 31 22.26: 32 22.26: 34 22.52: 33 22.55: 33 23.28: 32 23.37: 26 23.31: 34 23.39: 26 23.43: 37 24.80-1: 29, 37 24.113: 32 24.125: 37 24.135: 37

Rhetorica 1375a5-6: 36 Arrian Anabasis 1.27.4: 27 7.14: 82 Athenaeus 139e: 87 407a: 106 620d: 72. 105

Callimachus Fr. 201 (Pfeiffer) Dieg. IX.23:

11

24.144: 29

24.147: 29 24.164: 34

109

25.20: 29 25.61: 37 25.67: 37 25.87: 33bis 26.5: 29 (40.11): 198bis

47.43: 29

267

Index of Sources

Dinarchus 1.77: 26 2.2:37 2.9: 37 3.2: 29 3.10: 29

Dio Chrysostomus 7.24:

106

47.9: 61 Diodorus Siculus 4.68.1: 237, 241 4.78.2: 134 11.49.2: 57 1.54.1: 244, 249 11.76.2: 38 11.76.3: 57, 177 11.78.5: 126, 170, 175 11.84.7: 61 11.84.7-8: 60 11.86.5: 36 11.88.6: 126 11.90.1: 175 11.91.1: 57, 175, 176 11.91.3: $4, 176

11.91.4: 54, 55, 155—7, 175 12.6.1: 54 12.18.2: 126 12.32.3: 55 12.42.5: 60 12.42.6: 55 12.42.7: 55 12.43.1: 55 12.48.2: 60 12.49.3: 55. 56 12.50.6: 55 12.50.7: 55 12.54.2: 60 12.54.4: 59 12.54.5: 49, 55. 56, 59bis 12.54.7: 55, 56 12.65.7: 54, 55, 56 12.75.7: 38 12.79.1-4: 38 12.80.2-3: 38 12.81.1: 55, 56 12.82.2: 171 12.93.4: 62

13.9.2: 56 13.9.5: 54

13.11.3: 55 13.52.3: 55 13.64.2: 55, 56

13.64.5: 55, 56 13.69.4: 56, 65 13.76.3-4: 56 13.76.4: 55 13.94.1: 109 13.95.3: 55bis

13.104.6: 55 13.113.3: 57 14.7.7: 55, 57 14.8.1: 57 14.9.5: 57 14.9.6-8: 57 14.14.2: 55bis, 57 14.17.8: 55, 56 14.17.12: 54 14.32.1: 56 14.34.2: 56, 61 14.47.4: 52 14.52.9: 61 14.56.2: 56, 58 [4.576: 55 14.58.1: 54 14.58.2: 56, 57 14.61.4: 58 14.63.3: 54 14.72.3: 55, 56 14.72.4: 55 14.78.7: 58bis, 171 14.79.4: 55 14.87.3: 49, S9bis 14.95.2: 171

14.99.3: 54, 56 14.101.3: 55

15.40.2: 15.42.5: 15.62.2: 15.66.5:

108 55 38 60

15.78.3: 240

15.82.1: 16.25.2: 16.49.3: 16.49.7: 16.49.8: 16.52.7: 16.52.9: 16.58.4: 16.67.4:

240bis 55 55 55 55 55 55, 56 54 58

16.82.4: 58

16.83.3: 70, 95, 105 16.92.5: 105 17.27.7: 55 17.106.4: 109 18.41.2: 54 18.52.4: 55

268 18.53.7: 55 19.45.5: 109 19.65.3: 59bis 19.108.1: 126 19.108.2: 149 20.56.3: 58bis 20.77.3: 58bis 20.108: 82 23.9.4: 158 34/35.2-14: 106

Index of Sources

Eustathius Ad lliadem 4.691.11-15 (Van der Valk):

11

Ad Odysseam 66 no. 1.16 (Taillardat): 12 1397.44—8 (Van der Valk): 11.

Harpocration Diogenes Laértius 5.91: 107

s.v. exoules: 37

Hellenica Oxyrhynchia Dionysius Halicarnassensis

19.24: 88

Antiquitates Romanae 1.50.4: 72, 106

Herodianus Grammaticus (Lentz) 429. 9: 205

Ephorus (FrGHist 70)

2.59.1: 55 3.59: 203 4.148: 244, 252, 259 5.106.5: 24 6.23-4: 175 6.67.3: 109

Herodotus

Fr. 198: 53, 62 Etymologicum Magnum 426.10—6: 249 s.v. epi Delphinioi: 198

7.33.1: 52

Eupolis Fr. 341.1: 50

7.33.78: 52 7.78.1: 52

Euripides

7.115.2: 61 7.154.2: 125

7.155.1: 175 Aiolos Fr. 29: 237

7.156.3: 149

7.170.1: 134 7.102: 73 7.156: 53

Hypsipyle Fr. 12: 50

9.77: 256

Fr. 20.12: 50

9.118.2: 52

Fr. 21.12: 50 Hesychius Orestes 760: 50

P2757: 10 Hippocrates

Supplices

399-510: 14 409-12: 14

Epidemiae 1.20: 121

Eusebius

Hipponax Fr. 4A: 236

Chronica

16.1: 59 I. p. 202: 259

Homerus llias 2.617: 234

269

Index of Sources 11.672: 253 11.757: 234, 242

Lysias 1.2: 32bis 6.15: 26

Odyssea

12.36: 33

1.238: 237 19.178-9: 198

12.82: 33 12.83: 33 13.32.2: 72 13.55.7: 72 13.56: 37 14.35: 50 19.7: 33bis 22.2: 33 31.26: 51

Hymni Homerici Hymnus ad Apollinem 11.388-96: 198

Iamblichus Vita Pythagorae

Novum

Testamentum

126: 107 Acta Apostolorum

Isaeus 12.9: 198bis

19.29.3: 107

Isocrates 7.67: 33 7.68: 23 8.91: 28 15.107-8: 52 20.11: 33

Pausanias 1.8.6: 73bis 1.14.1: 73, 74 2.6.6: 223 2.7.5: 96 2.9.3: 36 2.10.1: 223 2.13.5: 108 2.20.7: 106 2.27.5: 96 2.21.5: 107 2.29.11: 96, 105 2.31.4: 110 3.14.1: 96 5.1.1—4.7: 240 5.4.3: 251 5.6.4: 259 5.9.6: 240, 243, 244bis 5.10.2: 232, 260bis 5.16.2-8: 243, 254 5.16.5-6: 243, 244 5.16.6: 243, 254 6.4.2: 240 6.5.2-3: 109

Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 15.268: 107 19.335: 106 Bellum Judaicum 1.422: 106, 109 7.47: 106

Leandr(i)us (FGrHist 492) Fr. 13: 250 Lucian De historia conscribenda 1: 105

6.8.3: 240 6.12.8: 243

Toxaris

6.19.11:

59.5: 105 De morte Peregrini 35: 235

6.13.1: 36 108

6.21.3-5: 236f., 239 6.21.6-8: 235bis 6.21.7: 241bis 6.21.8: 235bis, 238. 241bis, 242, 244 6.21.9: 241

270

Index of Sources

6.22.1: 233bis, 243 6.22.3: 240 6.22.3-4: 238 6.22.4: 234ter, 235, 241, 242, 259 6.22.5: 234 6.22.7: 235, 238, 241 bis, 242, 244 6.22.8: 229, 234 6.24.5: 243, 254 6.26.1: 76, 96, 106 7.20.6: 73, 74 7.21.6: 73, 108 7.23.9: 105 8.9.5: 108 8.26.3-4: 236, 237 8.32.1: 96, 108 8.32.1-3: 85 8.46.2: 126, 135 8.46.3: 135, 175 8.49.1: 96, 100 8.27: 90 9.22.2: 86, 96, 109 10.32.1: 96, 106 10.32.10: 110 10.33.4: 108 10.34.6: 106 10.35.4: 76, 105 10.35.6: 107 Philistus (FGrHist 556) Fr. 5: 164 Fr. 19: 134f. Fr. 39: 158 Fr. 62: 54 Fr. 64: 52, 54

Plato Critias

50a: 24 Definitiones 415c: 22 Leges 624a: 198 637b: 24 689e-90c: 28 779d: 70 780c: 9 872b: 37 907e-908a: 36 Phaedo 57a-58d: 36 Politicus 260b: 29

Respublica 412c: 28 422a-423b: 9 422e: 9, 10 439e: 37 556b: 28 573e: 9 Plutarch

Vitae sophistarum 2.551: 74 2.571: 74

Moralia 79E: 107 458E: 107 639F: 38 755A-B: 110 799E-F: 110 834A: 37 1069B: 95 1096B: 108 1097B: 61

Phlegon Paradoxographus (FGrHist 257)

Vitae

Fr. 4: 235 Fr. 6: 235 Fr. 7: 236

Agis 19.3-5: 36

Philochorus (FGrHist 328) Fr. 30: 26

Philostratus

Photius s.v. poleis:

Alexander 12

7.3: 61 67.8: 107 72: 82

271

Index of Sources

Aratus 50.3: 108

Ps.-Galenus (Delatte) 386.6: 205

Caesar 2.6: 36

Ps.-Plutarch

Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorun 1.323 no. 1.14: 10

Dio 43.1.1: 107 51.5: 36

Ps.-Scylax 13: 35: 43. 44: 67:

Marc.

20.8-9:

106

Pelopidas 19.3: 38 Philopoemen

20.1: 36 Pompeius 42.9: 108

49bis, 59, 60 61 244, 250 90 52

Ps.-Scymnus 287: 59, 148 287-8: 149 288-90: 49, 59 Ps.-Xenophon 1.14: 73

Sulla 11.2:

Ptolemaeus

108

Geographica 3.4.13: 150

Theseus 18.1: 198

Polemo (FHG ΗΠ 121) Fr. 19: 233

Rhianus (FGrHist 265) Fr. 11: 236

Pollux

8.86: 29 9.94—103:

11

9.98—9: 11 Polyaenus 5.1:134

5.1.3: 176 5.3: 134 5.4: 134 5.6: 176 Polybius 1.24.11:

158

4.73-15: 256 4.73.5: 256 4.73.7-8: 256 4.71.5: 236

7.16.6: 109 29.24.6: 71

29.25.2: 71, 109

Scholia in Dem. 23.74:

198

in Pind. Pyth. 6.58: 175 in Plat. Resp. 422e: 10 Stephanus Byzantius 72.17-20: 234, 241 bis 180.15: 53 245.12-246.2: 235 245.12-246.20: 241 413.17-8: 236 457.10-11: 54 465.12: 158 s.v. Phaistos: 223 Strabo 6.2.3: 57bis 6.2.6: 59, 125, 148 6.21.3-22.1: 235 8.3.1: 236 8.3.2: 244, 249, 254

272

Index of Sources

8.3.10: 230, 234bis, 238, 244 8.3.24: 230 8.3.30: 259 8.3.31: 233bis, 236, 244ter 8.3.31-2: 229, 233 8.3.32: 234ter, 235ser, 236quater, 237ter, 24 Mer, 242bis, 244 8.3.33: 259 8.6.10: 236 8.8.3: 236 10.1.15:

148, 149

10.4.14: 203 14.1.43: 108 Suda P1911:

4.65.1: 171 4.113.2: 53 5.4.2-6: 55 5.4.4: 172, 175 5.4.6: 172 5.18.5: 61 5.31.2: 259 5.47: 252bis, 262 5.50.3: 235, 238 5.50.4: 235 5.67.2: 38 5.79.1: 24 5.79.4: 24, 27 5.80.3: 51bis, 53 5.84.4: 29

10

Theophrastus

6.2.1-6: 125 6.20.4: 51 6.62.2: 60, 175 6.75.1: 50, 53, 54 6.97.5: 50, 93

Historia plantarum

7.3.4: 93

8.2.8: 59

7.4.5: 50, 54 7.28.1—2: 50, 52, 55

Fragmenta (Wimmer) Fr. 101.1: 51

7.31.2: 60

Thucydides 1.2.5: 11 1.10.2: 257 1.103: 61 1.103.3: 60, 61 1.142.4: 51 2.9.1: 61 2.9.4: 60, 61 2.15.1-2: 11 2.18.2: 50, 54 2.32.1: 50, 52 2.93.4: 50, 53 2.94: 53 2.94.3: 53 3.18.4: 50 3.51.1: 50, 54 3.51.2: 50, 53 3.89.3: 53 3.90.2: 59 3.102.2: 61 3.102.4: 61 3.102.5: 61 3.103.1: 175 3.115.6: 50, 53 3.86: 55 3.99: 50, 53 4.41.2: 60 4.45.2: 54

7.57.8: 60 7.77.7: 22 8.62.3: 50, 52, 57, 59, 62ter

8.69.4: 30 8.72.1: 23 8.84.4: 5Obis, 54

8.85.2: 54 8.93.1: 72, 108 Trypho Fr. 15: 235, 241 Tyrtaeus Fr. 19.8: 43

Vitae Aesopi G 81.1: 109

Xenagoras (FGrHist 240) Fr. 12: 134

Xenophon Cyropaedia 1.4.16: 50 3.1.27: 50 3.2.1: 50 3.2.11: 50

Index of Sources 7.4.13: 38 7.4.14: 239 7.4.16: 38 7.4.22: 38 7.4.26: 244 7.4.28-9: 240 7.4.31: 38, 74

3.2.24: 50

3.3.1: 50 5.3.11: 50 5.3.23: 50 5.4.51: 50 Hellenica 2.1.26: 52 2.4.33: 72 3.2.23: S8bis, 238 3.2.25: 229. 239 3.2.30: 58, 229, 239, 259 3.2.31: 240 3.3.30: 58 4.2.16: 59, 229, 239 4.4.3: 107 4.4.6: 27 4.4.13: 50, 53 5.1.2: 51, 52 5.1.5: 5) bis, 52 6.5.2: 239bis 7.4.4: 52, 53 7.4.12: 59

7.4.33-4: 38, 240

7.4.35: 240 7.5.3: 38 Hiero

3.3: 32 Memorabilia 3.9.11: 28, 29

Vectigalia 4.52: 50, 51

Zenobius (Leutsch & Schneidewin) 1.147 no. 5.67: 10

II. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI AE 1932 Chr. 30-2 Il. 20-4: 83

Bile, Recueil 30-1, no. 6: 199

Ager, Arbitration 1: 27 6: 27

CEG 668: 25 CID 1 74: 24 74.6-1: 25 76:25

Agora XIX L6.147-8: 98

P5.1-8: 37 ASAtene

14-16 (1952-54): 223 25-26 (1963-64) pp. 293-349 no. 18.24:

BCH 27 (1903) 37 (1913) 45 (1921) 70 (1946) 70 (1946) 70 (1946) BGU I 33: 205 148: 205

101

CIG 3655.12: 100 Costabile, Polis ed Olympieion no. 2: 25

140-53: 27 122 n. 39.23: 25, IV 96: 58 590—7, no. 2: 600-2, no. 4: 603-4, no. 6:

121 187, 198, 199 187, 198, 199 187

F.Delphes 111.2 86.28-9: 78 111.3 215.21: 98 111.3 226.11-2: 78 111.4.153.17: 24 111.4 352.11.5: 24 111.4.371.33-4: 24 11I.4.414.3-4: 24

273

274

Index of Sources

IHI.6 37.15: 96 Fornara, Translated Documents 66: 37

Hoffman-Raubitschek, Early Cretan Armorers 2-4 H1: 219 4 H2: 219 5 H3: 219 8 C3: 219 9 C5: 220 10 MI: 220 11 M2: 220 12 MS: 220 12 M6: 220 12 M7: 220 13 M8: 221 13 M9: 221 13 MIO: 221 13 MI2: 221

I. Beroia 29: 25 1.Cret

Lviii.5: 202 Lix.Ic 103: 192 Lxviii.i: 205 Lxxii.29: 223 Lxxii.64b: 222

Lxxiii.17: 223 Lxxv.1: 223 L.xxviii.1: 219 Lxxviii.7: 187

II.v.1-14: 187 ILx.1.1: 25

11.x.7: 224 11.x.10: 225

11.x.13: 225 H.xii.11: 187 ILxii.13—6: 187 11.xii.3-5: 187 HI.vi.t: 187

III.vi.4: 187 HI.vii.2: 222 Iil.vii.3: 222 HL. vii.4: 224 IU. viii. 1: 218 IV 1: 192, 193bis, 201 bis, 202, 203, 205 IV la-b: 201 IV 1.1c: 203 IV

1.1d-f:

189

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

1.1f: 202 1.24: 202 1.3d-f: 189, 202 1.4: 203 1.4d-f: 204 1.4e: 203 1.4e-f: 203 1-6: 192

IV 1-40: 191

IV IV IV IV

2: 193 3: I92ter, 193bis, 201, 204 4: 193, 201, 202, 205bis, 206 43

IV 4.8e-f: 201

IV 4.9n*: 201 IV 4—6: 193

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

5: 201, 202, 205bis 6: 193bis, 194, 202 6.2: 217 7: 189, 202 8: 201, 202, 203, 205 8a-b: 203bis 8a-d: 202 8b-c: 203 8c-d: 202 8e: 202 8e-f: 189 8k: 203, 205 81: 203 8m: 203

IV 9: 20lter

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

9e-f: 201 9o*: 201 10: 193, 201, 203 10a*: 203 10 a*-b*: 202 106: 203 10c-e: 205 10f: 203 10g-h: 202 10i: 207

IV 10m-n: 202

IV IV IV IV

10p*: 202 10q-r: 204 10s-t: 202 του: 203

IV 10v: 203

IV IV IV IV IV IV

10z: 203 11: 201, 207 ith-i: 202 12: 201 12a—b: 205 13: 188, 189bís, 190, 201 bis, 204bis, 205, 211

Index of Sources

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

13.1a: 201 13.1b: 201 13.1d: 201 13.1g-h: 201 13.2d: 203 13.2e: 203, 205, 206 13.2g-h: 206 13.2g-i: 204 13.2h: 201 13.2k: 205 13.2s: 204 14: 188, 189, 194bis, 197, 201, 204, 207, 208bis, 209rer, 210bis, 211bis

IV 14.g-h: 202

IV 14g-p: 207 IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

14g-p.2: 212 14.1: 194, 211 14.1b: 204 14.1g-p: 204 14.11-m: 203 14.2: 204, 208 14.2g: 207 14.2p-0: 203

IV 14.25: 206

IV 14.30: 207 IV 14 fr. s.2: 204

IV 15: 201, 206bis, 211 IV 15.1c: 203

IV 15.2b: 203 IV 17: 189bis, 190, 205bis IV 19: 206

IV 20: 192, 200, 201. 204bis, 205bis, 206 IV 21: 188, 190quinquies,

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

191bis, 192, 193, 194,

198, 201, 202, 204, 205bis, 205, 206 21.1: 201 21.5-6: 201 21.7-8: 189, 202 22B: 189, 196, 201 quater, 202 23: 192, 193bis 23.4: 212 23.8: 206 24: 189 25: 214

IV 25s: 207

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

26: 214 27: 192, 193 28: 214, 222 29: 189, 207 29.3: 207 30: 201, 202, 205ter, 209 31: 214 33-8: 214 39: 214 40: 214

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

41.1-11: 192 41.111.14-7: 204 41.IV 209 41.VIT: 206 41-140: 191 42B: 210 42B3: 191, 217 43B.a.3: 24, 199, 200bis, 205 43B.b: 199, 200 44: 191, 21? 46: 203 50: 224 51: 199, 200 57: 203 58: 203 63: 203, 205bis, 64: 199bis, 200 65: 192, 19, 200 68-9: 214 71: 224 72: 203 72.1.51-5: 209 72.11.5-7: 204 72.11.25-7: 204 72.111.14-16: 204 72.111.54-5: 217 72.1V.35—6: 192 72.V.5-6: 206. 207 72.V.35-39: 204 72.V.39: 192 72.V.44: 191, 217 72.VI.12-17: 206 72. VI.20-2: 206 72.V1.37-40: 206 72.V1.55: 191, 217 72.V11.10-12: 206 72.IX.1-7: 203bis 72.1X.7-13: 206 72.1X.31-4: 210 72.X.19-21: 203 72.X.33-4: 210 72.X.34—6: 211 72.X.48-xi5: 200, 204bis 72.X1.6-10: 191 72.X1.13-4: 211 72.X1.16: 210 72.X1.16-7: 209 72.X1.30: 217 72.X1.30-1: 191 72.X1.31-42: 203bis 72.X1.37-40: 203 72.X1.52-3: 210 74: 203 77: 203

275

276

Index of Sources

IV 78: 199ter, 200, 209, 210, 21 ler. 216 IV 78.4: 209

IV 78.7-8: 204 IV 79: 203, 205, 209, 210, 211 IV 79.15: 209 IV 79.18-21: 204

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

80: 199, 200, 203, 207, 209 80.4: 205 80.4—6: 207 80.6-7: 207 80.8: 207 80.11: 212 87: 210 89: 203bis, 214 105: 214 144: 203, 216 160: 37 162: 200

IV 165.12:

191, 217

1.1lion 1.10: 99 25.43-53: 32 I.Istros 12: 24 15: 24 I.Kalchedon 1.71:

100

I.Knidos 231.20: 100 I.Lampsakos 1.21: 104 I.Laodikeia 5.17: 101

IV 174: 200 IV 181: 200 IV 184: 193, 200, 212

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

186B: 200 191 201 222a.3: 99 231: 200 233: 200 236: 200 293: 207

IV 294: 207

IV IV IV IV

309: 207 311: 207 323: 199 416d: 207

I. Magnesia 50.41—2: 83 91a.14—5: 78 92a.5: 101 233: 86 1. Magn. am Sipylos 4.17: 101 1.Mylasa 633.3: 104 I.Priene

4.32: 103 I.Smyrna

I.Délos

588.2: 104

1498.14: 78 I.Stratonikeia

L.Ephesos 2.3-4: 24 1452.3: 98

662 (b) 2-3: 100 IGBulg P 307.5: 101

LErythrai 24.32: 99

IGDS 15: 144

LHistriae 65.30: 100

84: 164

I.lasos 43.5: 99 58: 24

127: 165 165: 152 166—7: 166 168a: 166

173-4: 161 171: 161 172: 161

Index of Sources

175a-b: 163 175b: 167 IG 186/7.B.32-4: 83 IG? 46.21-2: 13 82.26: 29

104.18: 43 104.23: 43

259.1.14: 61 262.11I.23: 55 267.1V.33: 52 282.11.10: 61 IGIE 24 b-c 3-6: 26 133: 52 236.5-11: 52 351.17: 75 410.39: 95, 98 1182.2-3: 83 1183.36-7: 83 1186.12-13: 83 1187.10-1: 98 1197.21: 97 1202.15: 83 1206.6-7: 97 1223.8-9: 83 1260.7-9: 50, 54 1214.19-20: 83, 102 1311.7: 75. 103 1682: 74bis, 75

2334.3: 102 3096: 83 3097: 83

3100.2: 83 3101.2-3: 83 3106: 83 3108: 83 IG τ1-π| 1008.82: 84

95.1.6: 61 122.77: 25 615.1: 25 IG V.1 1390.68: 97 1432.5-6: 101 IG N22 6B.96: 25 118.V1.30: 83 432.12: 101 IG VII 1.14: 25 190.17: 102 1869.5-6: 84 2792: 27 4148.9: 97 4255.30: 95, 102. 120bis

IG IX.1 130.2: 25 278.2-3: 84 694.4: 84 IG IX? 1.3 609: 198

IG IX.2 522.9: 101 1230.33: 102 IG X1.2 142.27: 98 142.29: 95 142.30: 95 150: 95 158: 95 159: 95 161: 95 199: 95

IG X1.4 542.30: 87

IG IV

1061.23: 78

1.41: 83 839: 22 841: 22

1061.24: 83

IG XIL.2 1:25

IG IV? 1 68.95: 25 91A.6: 24 94.b.21: 61

527.33-5: 84 IG X113 169.16-7: 84

277

278

index of Sources

322.10: 84 IG XII.5 35.10: 102 129.33-4: 83 471.1.12:

102

481.19-20: 104 543: 27 597.8: 99 599.8-9: 83 714.10-1: 84

IGR 3 704.11.A.23: 101 IPArk 14: 27bis Iscr. Cos ED128.1: 25 ED 234.9-10: 83 10A.25: 100

798.13: 104 831.19-20: 87 1010.2-3: 83 1010.3: 99 1061.14: 84

IG XIL6 119.12: 103 150.3: 103 IG XIL7 41.3: 83

49.25: 97 67.49-50: 25 67.55: 25 108: 24 221.B.16: 83, 97 237.42: 87

386.35—6: 83 388.26-9: 71 389.33: 97 IG ΧΙ .8 53.17-8: 84 640.32:

ISM IN 3.5: 100 IO 2: 253, 256 3: 258bis 8: 258bis 9: 244bis 10: 234, 244bis, 252 11: 233, 234, 244, 252 16.7-8: 25 18: 237 36: 240

Koerner, Gesetzestexte 62: 24 62 A.9-16: 35 62 C.1-4: 35

Lindian Temple Chronicle 27: 134

84

LSAG? IG XIL9 42-3: 24 49: 24 189.5: 25 190: 32 191: 24 191.49: 25 193.6: 95, 99 207.25-6: 83 207.55: 95 207: 87 899.C.1: 84 1195.8: 25

221 no. 20: 237

268 no. 17: 165 315 no. 10: 219 316 no. 18: 218 316 no. 20: 223 LSAM

24: 25

Manni Piraino, /GLMP 35: 164 36: 152

IG XII Suppl. 111: 102

Meiggs-Lewis, GHI

178: 87

5.37: 25

2.1-2: 24

(FGrHist 532)

Index of Sources 20: 60

3 312.11—2: 83 11 923.5: 99

27.9: 257 43: 36

43.3-6: 32 43.7: 24bis 74: 61

Milet V12 935.2-3: 101

NIEpi. 19.C.10: 95, 98 Nomima

279

I

111070: 87 11 1104: 83, 86

12 87.10-1: 32 12 473.13: 55

12 511.27: 98 17 415: 32 19 569.14: 98

23 530: 187, 198 23 565: 187 23 571: 187 23 589: 212 24 313-4: S9bis 25 394.B.11: 98

23: 256 37: 256 38: 256

26 476: 256 26 1022: 52

OGIS 49.8: 103

26 26 26 27

Ojh (1900) $4—7 no. 16.12-13: 104

27 631: 187 27 631A, 11. 15-7: 208 27 631.1—10: 24

26 72: 29

1050: 1708: 1709: 620:

218 225 225 187, 198, 199, 209

27 656-7: 163 OlBer 7 (1961)

29 1089.8: 207-10: 24

OpAth 10 (1971) 36.9-14: 100

104

32 794.16: 102 32 908: 187 33 680:

102

665 (= FGrHist (577) fr. 1): 135, 150, 175bis

33 34 35 36 36

1862: 205

38 662.3-7: 24

P Oxy.

Pap. Chest. Beatty Lib. 1.333: 108 1.375: 108 P Teb. 11 420: 205 610: 205

38 38 38 39 41 41

1039.38: 100 913: 223 991A, B: 187 187.10: 104 411: 27 1462.64: 102 1462.69: 102 1462.85: 102 869: 99 308: 24 739: 187

41 915: 95

41 915.3: 98 45 404: 235, 238 45 1271: 224

Salamine de Chypre XIII 106.4: 103 Sardis VII.1 4.22: 103

45 1279: 201 SGDI 2563-6: 84

Syll.3 SEG 2 580.24: 104

4: 24

134: 27

280 134.22-3: 27 173.1-3: 25 530.4: 24

TAM 11.2 420.8-9: 102 11.2 550.3: 104 11.3 XIXB.1-2: 103 11.3 736.6: 102 III 5.3: 104 V 1237.2: 99

Index of Sources

Tit.Cal. 16.4.19: 100 Tod, GHI 113: 27 132: 89 150.4—6: 32 204.11-12: 29 204.12: 28 204.28-9: 28

GENERAL INDEX Abai theatre Abakainon Abdera theatre Abila theatre

al 76, 105 127 at 86, 105, 111 at 111

Abydos theatre at 105 Abydos (Egypt) 225 Acharnai theatre at 97 Adranon 127. 172, 178 Adryx 127 Africa 77

Agathokles of Syracuse 58, 149 Agathyrnon 127 aggere-type fortification 129 Agia Pelaghia 218, 223 agora 82, 85 Agriades 254 Agyrion 127 theatre at 70, 95, 105 Aigai (Aiolis) theatre at 111

Aigai (Macedonia) theatre at 68, 105, 111 Aigeira

theatre at 85, 111 Aigeus 11 Aigiale theatre at 97 Aigina 52, 203 theatre at 96, 105, 111 Aigion 258 theatre at 105 Aiolos 237 Aipion theatre at 111 Aischines 33, 71 Aitna 176 as phrourion 55 coins of 57 ethnic identity of 57-8 polis status of 57-8 relocation of 57 Aitolia 77

Aixone theatre at 79, 97, 111 Aizanoi theatre at 111 Akanthos 142 Akarnania 77

akephalia 135 Akragas 125, 127, 131, 140, 142, 149, 152, 154. 155, 157, 171, 175. 176, 177 bronze coinage of 131. 158, 163 dominion of 132-3

Olympieion 152 theatre at 68 n.20

Akrai 59, 125, 151 theatre at 111

Akraiphia theatre at 97

Akrilla 127 Akroreia (Akroreioi) 229, 230. 232, 234, 239, 243, 245 Alabanda theatre at 111 Alaisa 127

Alasyaion (Alasyes) 230, 232. 233. 237, 238, 242 in myth 241 polis status of 234, 244, 245 Ale(i)sion 234, 241, 242 Alesios 234, 241

Alexandreia theatre Alexandreia prison

Oxiana at 111 (Egypt) in 36

theatre(s) at 72-3, Alexandreia Troas theatre at 111 Alontion 127

105

Alpheios river 229, 230, 233, 237, 239, 252, 259, 260 Altobrando 133, 173, 175

Alyndos theatre at 111 Amastris theatre at 105, 111 Ambrakia theatres at 72, 77, 106, 111 Amendolara 176

282

General Index

Amorgos 24, 97 Amos

theatre at 111 Amphiareion at Oropos theatre(s) at 79, 85, 95, 102, 117, 121 Amphidolia (Amphidoloi) 229, 230, 232, 234, 239, 245 Amphipolis self-help in 32 Amythaon 236 Amyzon theatre at 111 Anaitoi 234, 252-3 anaktoron 143 Andania theatre at 97 Androdamas of Rhegion 31 Androtion 33 Anemourion

theatre at 111 angeloi 40 Ankole 26, 43 Ankyra theatre at 111

Antiocheia on Orontes theatre at 106, 111 Antiocheia (Phrygia) theatre at 111 Antiocheia on Pyramos theatre at 98 Antiphellos theatre at 111 Antiphemos 135, 175 apagoge 34-5, 36 Apellonia 195, 218, 223 Aphrati 195, 196, 207, 219-21 Aphrodisias theatre at 95, 98, 111 Apollo 197, 198, 201, 212 Deiphinios 198 Pythios 187, 188, 198, 199 theatre in sanctuary of at Delphi 79, 85, 96 theatre in sanctuary of at Kalymnian Linaria 85 theatre in sanctuary of at Kastanioi in lalysos 80 Apollodoros of Athens 229, 232, 233, 237, 238, 239, 242 Apollonia (Epeiros) 234 theatre at 112 Apollonia (Kyrenaika)

theatre at 79, 112 Apollonia (Lykia)

theatre at 112 Apollonia (Sicily) 127 Apulia 127, 129 arbitration 27 archai 28-30 Arginousai trial 34 Argolis 56 Argos 24, 65 elite troops of 38 prison in 36 theatre(s) at 106, 112 theatre in kome of 79 Argos Amphilochikon theatre at 112 Ariaitos 134 Aristotle 15, 29, 32, 36, 37, 196 Athenaion politeia 33 Politics 14, 22-3, 31 Aristylos 163 Arkadia (Arkadians) 58, 235, 259 Confederacy of 59 elite troops of 38 theatres in 89-90, 94 Arkesine 24, 25 theatre at 97 Armatova 255 Arsinoe theatre at 112 arulae 144, 146, 152, 154, 177 Arykanda theatre at 112 Asia Minor 56, 77 Asklepieion at Epidauros theatre at 79, 85, 95, 96, 98, 107, 113 Aspendos theatre at 112

Aspra Spitia 239 Assoros 127 Assos

theatre at 112 astragaloi 11 Atalante 52 Athena

Polias 60 Lindia 134 Athenocentricity 23, 65 Athens (Athenians) 23, 32, 52, 54, 142, 171,

175, 178, 195 and the Thirty Tyrants 23, 33 assemblies in theatre at 81 Eleven at 33, 34, 37 execution in 33 mythical synoecism of 11 navy of 38

General Index Odeion of Agrippa 73 Odeion of Herodes Atticus 74 phratriai at 43 prison in 36 self-help in 32 settles helots at Naupaktos 60 theatre(s) at 68, 71-2, 82, 85, 95, 98, 106, 112 theatres in demes of 79 torture at 33 Attika 11, 32, 54, 82, 83, 87, 236, 241 Aulon 199-200 Austin, J. 31-2, 41

Axos 187 Ayios Ioannis 229, 230 Babylon theatre at 112 Balate 158-9, 177

Bargylcia theatre of 112 Basilicata 129

Bauslaugh, R. 40 Bayankole 20 Bemba 20 Berent, M. Beroia 25

283

Byzantion theatre at 106 Calabria 129

Caltanisetta 153, 157, 159 Cape Sideros 222, 224 Carl X Gustav of Sweden 34

Cartledge, P. 17 Castellazzo di Poggioreale 163 Castiglione di Paludi theatre at 112

Castiglione 164, 175. 178, 179 Chaironeia theatre at 112

Chaladrioi 234, 252-3 Chalkedon 55 Chalkidike 77, 85, 91 Chalkis

Dionysia a1 87 theatre at 106

Charondas of Katane 31, 144 Chersonesos (Crete) 195, 223 theatre at 112

Chersonesos Taurica theatre at 112

17-44

Berytos theatre at 106

Bithynion theatre at 112

Chios 24, 56 administration of justice at 35 theatre at 98, 106, 112 choregos 23, 84 Chrysopolis 56-7 Claudiopolis, see Bithynion

Black Sea 77, 84

Common

Boiotia

Contrada Magno (Segesta) 130

Peace 40

Confederacy of 88

Contrada San Francesco 177

theatres in 88—9, 94

Contrada S. Francesco Bisconti 168

boihros 140, 146, 167, 168 Botromagno 129 Boudoron 53, 56-7, 62 bouleuterion 67, 71. 75 Bourriot, F. 43 Bouthrotos theatre at 112 Brentesion 128

Brikinniai 172, 175 Bryce, J. 23 Bursian, C. 69

bushmen 43 Butera 127, 130, 132, 134—5, 136, 150 Bybasos theatre in sanctuary of 79-80 Byblos theatre at 112

Byllis theatre(s) at 85, 112

Crete (Cretans) 77, 85, 91, 134, 187—225

Archaic private inscriptions on 218-25 literacy on 194—7, 218-25 Curtius, E. 68 Cyprus 77, 85 Daidalos 127, 134 Damaskos

theatre at 106 damiorgoi 90 Datala 195, 207, 221 Deinomenidai

150, 175

Dekeleia 51, 56-7 Delian League 15 Delos

theatre(s) at 70, 85, 95, 98, 112 Delphi 25 Amphictiony 25 enactments formulas of 24

284

General Index

Soteria at 84 theatre at 77, 96, 98, 106, 112 Delphinion 56-7

Demeter 141, 146, 152, 155. 165, 168, 170, 172, 177 Malophoros Demetrias

130, 140

theatre at 112 democracy 23, 33, 258 self-help in 32 demos 244 Demosthenes 23, 33

Elateia 25 theatre Elea theatre Eleusis stadion theatre

at 106 at 113 at 74—5 at 79, 98

Eleutherna 187, 195, 196, 224

Dionysios I of Syracuse 57, 58, 171 Dionysos 81, 82, 85—7, 147, 243, 254 Eleutherios 81, 85 diplomacy 9, 40 Dodone theatre at 79, 85, 113

Elis 25, 56, 229, 230, 232, 236, 237 and Olympia 257 and Pisatis 240 and Sparta 58, 240, 259 constitutional development of 258 demes in 243-4 dependencies of 58-9, 234, 239, 245, 262 effects of synoecism on settlement pattern 254-5 Eleian state older than synoecism 256-7, 262 Hellanodikai at 258 Koile Elis 232 perioikoi of 251-3, 260 Pisatis 229-45 settled kata komas 250 site of 253-4 synoecism of 249-62 theatre at 75, 76, 85, 96, 106, 113 town of not created by synoecism 254, 262 Eltynia 187 emporion 49, 130

dokimasia 29

enchytrismos 170

Douketios 57, 127, 333, 154, 155, 159, 161, 170, 171, 175

Ehrenberg, V. 27

endeixis 36 England administration of justice in 35 Engyion 127 theatre at 106 Enipeus 237, 242 Enipeus river 237, 241 Enna 127, 157, 162 theatre at 106 Epeion 58, 259 Epeiros 77 ephegesis 34—5 Ephesos 24 theatre at 98, 107, 113 Ephoros 62, 251, 261 Epidamnos 234 Epidauros 24, 25, 53, 68, 79 theatre at 79, 113 Epieikeia 53

eisphora 33

epipolion 53

ekklesia 29, 81, 82

epiteichismos 51, 54 Erbita 172 Eretria 24, 25

Denmark

administration of justice in 35 self-help in 33-4 Deukalion 252 dikasteria 29 dike exoules 37 Diodorus Siculus 49, 54—62, 70, 127, 149, 175, 237 on synoecism of Elis 249—51, 253, 254, 255, 256-62 Dion theatre(s) at 113

Drakon of Athens 31, 43 Dreros 24, 187 enactment formulas at 198-9, 212

kosmoi at 209 theatre at 113 Dura Europos theatre(s) 113 Dymanes 43 Dyme 258 Dysponteus 235, 241 Dyspontion 232, 233, 237, 240, 242, 243 destruction of 234, 238 in myth 241 polis status 235, 245 Dyspontos 235, 241

ekklesiasterion 67, 71, 75 Eknomos 127

285

General [ndex

Dionysia at 83, 87

self-help in 32 theatre at 83, 95, 99, 113 Ergetion 127, 172 Erymanthos 236, 237, 239 Erythrai 25 theatre at 99, 113 Euboia 143, 148, 149 Euonymon theatre at 79, 83 Euripides 237, 241, 242 Supplices 14 euripos 67 Euromus theatre at 113

enactment formula at 199 family laws at 204—5 fines at 202-4 kosmoi ai 207-9 laws of 187-225 legislative authority at 198—200 list of Pythion inscriptions 214-6 non-citizens at 199 officials at 37, 194, 196, 197, 199, 204, 207. 210-1 polis status of 206 procedural laws at 201—2 property at 205-6 public laws at 204 theatre(s) at 99, 113

Eustathios !1, 12 euthynai 29 Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 19 Ewaioi 244, 253. 256 exile 26, 32, 37

tort laws at 203-4 Gytheion theatre at 96, 99, 113 Hagios loannis 222 Halasarna

theatre at 79, 113

Fante 42

Halikarnassos theatre at 113 Hamilcar 149

Faraguna, M. 17, 30 Finley. M.I. 43 Flokas 230, 239, 240

Fontana Calda 135 Fortes, E. 19 Francavilla Marittima

178

Frangonisi 254 Frazer, J.G. 69

Hansen, M.H. 49, 88, 244. 252, 257 Harpasa theatre at 113 Harpina 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 254 cults at 241

Gadara theatre(s) at 113 Galeria 127, 143

in myth 241 polis status of 244 Harpinates 235

game, called polis 9-15 historical reality reflected by 13-5 Gargettos 234, 236, 241, 242 Gaurion 56-7 Gedrosia

Hausa 42 Hellanika 223

theatre at 107

Gehrke, H.-J. 43, 258 Gela 125, 127, 135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 163, 170, 171, 176, 177, 178 dominion of 132-3

Gellner, E. 42 Gelon of Syracuse 149 Gitana theatre at 113

Glifa 254 Gnathia 129 Gortyn assembly at 211 civic subdivisions at 206

Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 88 Hellenisation

125-79

Heloron 125, 151 theatre at 114 helots 60

Hephaistiai theatre at 114

Heraia 90, 258 Herakleia (Lucania) 129 Herakleia Minoa theatre at 114 Herakleia on Latmos theatre at 114

Herakleia (Pisatis) 232, 233, 235-6, 237, 238, 239, 242, 243 cults at 241 Herakleia Pontica theatre at 107, 114

286

General Index

Herakleiotai at Kephaloidion 58 Herakles 58, 130, 135, 163, 236, 242 Herbessos 127, 165 Herbita 127

theatre at 107 Ilion self-help in 32 theatre(s) at 99, 114

Hermokapeleia theatre at 99 Herms, mutilation of 34 Herodotos 134, 149, 259 Hesychios 10 Hierakome, see Lagina Hierapolis theatre at 114 Hierapytna theatre at 114 Hieron of Syracuse 57 Himera (Himeraians) 58, 125, 129, 142, 148, 152, 158, 163, 171 Himilkon of Carthage 58 Hippana 127 theatre at 114 Hippodameia 234, 241 Hippokrates of Gela 125, 143, 164, 172-3, 175, 176 Histiaia 25 historiography 77 Hobbes, T. 20, 25, 30, 32, 35, 41, 42 Leviathan 19, 20 Homer 11, 14, 237, 241, 242 Homolion theatre at 114 Hyampolis theatre at 107 Hybla Geleatis 127 Hybla Heraia 127, 165 Hyele theatre at 114 Hykkara 127, 175 Hyllarima theatre at 114 Hylleis 43 Hypsas 163 Hysiai 56-7

Imachara i27 Inessa 57, 127 Inyx 127 Ion 236, 241, 242 Ionia 24 loniades nymphs 235-6, 241, 242 los theatre at 99 Ioulis Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 96, 99 Issa theatre at 114 Isthmia theatre at 79, 85, 107, 114 Istros theatre at 100, 114 Itanos 195, 196, 222. 224 Jerusalem theatre at 107 Jones, N.F. 43 Kabirioi, sanctuary of at Samothrake theatre at 79, 85, 119 Kabirioi, sanctuary of at Thebes theatre at 79, 85, 114 Kadyanda theatre at 114 Kafkonia 239 Kakyron 127, 142. 150, 175 Kalchedon theatre at 100 Kale Akte 127, 171 Kallatis theatre at 100 Kallipolis (Aitolia) theatre at 114 Kallipolis (Sicily) 125, 148

laitas 130 theatre at lalysos theatre in Iasos Dionysia theatre at Ijo 42 Ikarion theatre at Ikonion

114 deme of 80, 114 at 83 83, 99, 114

79, 83, 114

Kalymna theatre at 85, 100, 114 Kamarina 125, 129, 142, 146, 148, 149, 151, 163, 164, 165, 171, 175 Kamikos 127, 134, 175 Kampanians 57, 58 Kandyba theatre at 114 Kanysion 129 Karystos Dionysia at 87

287

General [Index

Kasmenai 59, 125, 129, 141, 151, 175, 179

Kotoko 42 Koukoura 230

Kassope

Kourion

theatre at 106

theatre(s) at 86, 114

Kastabos theatre at 79, 115 Katakolo 254 Katane 57, 171, 172 theatre at 115 Kato Syme 221 Kaunos theatre at 100, 115 Kede 20 Kedreai tbeatre at 115 Kentoripa 127 Kephaloidion 127 as a phrourion 56 polis status of 58 Kephalos theatre at 115 kerykes 40 Keryneia

theatre at 115 Kratinos 10, 11, 13 The Runaway Women 10 Kroton prison in 36 theatre at 107 Kyanai theatre at 115 Kydonia 25, 195, 224, 225 Kyllene 255 Kyme

theatre at Kyrene 65 theatre at theatre in Kys theatre at Kytheros river

100, 115 107, 115 harbour of 79 115 236, 241

Kyzikos 24

theatre at 100, 107, 115

theatre at 115

Kibyra Maior theatre at 115

Kikon 236 Kikysion 232, 233, 236. 237, 238, 242 polis status of 244

Kladeos 239 Kleitor 90 theatre at 115

Klimatia theatre at 115

Labdaion 53 Ladon river 230 Lagina theatre at 79, 100 Lakedaimon 77, 84, 91 Lambeti 230 Laodikeia on Lykos theatre(s) at 101, 115 Larisa 68, 96

theatre at 115 Knidinion 56

theatre(s) at 101, 116 Lasion as a phrourion 56 polis status of 58-9

Knidos

Lato

Klos

theatre(s) at 100, 115

Knossos 187, 195, 196, 218, 222 koilon 67 koine eirene 40 Kokalos 134, 175 kome 49, 236, 241 Kore 177 Korinthos 53, 65, 178

Krommyon at 56 theatre at 79, 107, 115 Korkyra 84 Koroneia 68

Kos theatre at 100, 107, 115 theatre in deme of 79 Koskinas 239, 240

theatre(s) at 116

Latosion 199, 209 Latzoi 239 Lavanca Nera 136

lawgivers 31 laws

in Archaic Cretan poleis 187 in Archaic Gortyn 187-225 Leake, W.M. 69

Leandr(i)os of Miletos on synoecism of Elis 250-1 Lekythos 53 Lenos 233, 237, 242, 243 disappearance of 238 polis status of 236, 245 Leontinoi 125, 142, 146, 148, 149, 171, 172

288

General Index

and Syracuse 55 as a phrourion 56 theatre at 107 Leontion theatre in 116 Lepreon 259, 260 Lepsia theatre at 79, 100 Lestenitsa river 230, 232, 237 Leto, sanctuary of at Xanthos theatre at 79 Letoon theatre at 116 Letrinoi 229, 230, 232, 239, 245 Leukas theatre at 116 Leuke theatre at 116 Leukyanias river 239 Licata 149, 153 Lilaia theatre at 108 Limyra theatre at 116 Lindos theatre at 116 Logoli 20, 42 Lokrians 61 Lokris, East 60, 84 Lokris, West 77, 198 Lokroi Epizephyrioi 25, 53 theatre at 85, 116 Longane 127 Loukania (Loukanians) 131 Lucian 235 Lykourgos of Sparta 31 Lyktos 187 Lyttos 24 theatre at 116 Macedonia 77, 84, 91 Magna Graecia 77, 128-32 Magnesia at Maiandros Dionysia at 83 theatre(s) at 83, 101, 116

Mantinea, 90, 258, 261 theatre at 86, 108, 116 Marchito 135 Marganeis 229, 230, 232, 239, 245 Marianopolis 158-9 Marmax 241 Maroglio 143 Maroneia theatre at 116 Massalia theatre at 116 Mayiros 239 Medusa 177 Megalopolis 90, 262 theatre at 85, 96, 101, 107, 116 Megara 25, 54, 116 Megara Hyblaia 53, 146, 149 Megarsos 98 Meidias 23 Melos theatre at 116 Menai 127 Menai (Menainon) 127 Mendolito 178 Mesambria theatre at 101 Messana 49, 59, 60, 142, 171 Messene prison in 36 theatre(s) at 91, 101, 107, 116 Messenia (Messenians) 77, 84, 91, 259, 260 Messenians at Naupaktos 60-1 Metapioi 234, 252-3 Metapontion 128, 129, 130 theatre at 86, 108, 116 Methana 54 Methymna theatre at 116 metropolis 134 Mieza theatre at 117 Miletos 24, 37, 43, 54, 65 self-help in 32 theatre at 86, 101, 117 theatre in second-order settlement of 79

Magnesia on Sipylos theatre at 96, 101 Magon 17] Makistos 259 Maktorion 127, 136, 142, 143, 150 Makyneia theatre at 116 Mandra di Mezzo 130, 163

Milinghiana 141, 179 Minoa 54 theatre at 97 Miraka 235, 239, 240, 254 Molino di Pietro 150 monopoly of physical power 20, 26, 37, 38 Montagna di Marzo 130, 158, 161, 165-6 Montagna di Ramacca 171

Manfria 141, 142, 179

Monte Bubbonia

127, 132, 134, 136-43, 158,

General Index 167, 172. 175, 178, 179 Monte Capodarso 162 Monte Castellazzo di Marionpoli 157-8 Monte Desusino

127, 149, 178

Monte Gibil Gabib 127, 157, 158 Monte Iato 130 Monte Judica 127, 172 Monte San Basilio 172, 175

Monte San Mauro 127, 131, 132. 143-9, 152, 168, 173, 177, 178

self-help in 33 Ngwato 20 Nikaia theatre at 117 Nisa theatre at 96, 102. 117 Noai 172 nomos 24 nomothetai 28 Notion

Monte Saraceno 127, 132, 141, 142, 149-52,

154, 158, 173, 177. 178 Montesquieu 41 Monte Turcisi 133, 173, 175

289

theatre at

117

Nuer 20, 43

Nysa theatre at 107, 117

Montevideo convention 38

Morgantina 127, 131, 158, 166-71, 172, 175, 177 theatre at 86, 117 Motye 54 Motyon 127, 153, 155, 175, 176 Mounichia 72 theatre at 102, 107, 118 Mt. Etna 57

Mt. Pholoe 229, 230, 236, 239 Mykenai theatre at 79, 117

Mylai 53, 62, 148, 149 as a phrourion 56

polis status of 59-60 Mylasa theatre δι 117

Myra theatre at 101, 117

Mytilene 25 theatre at 107, 117

Mytistratos 127, 157-8 naiskos 136, 140, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 159, 161. 167, 172, 173, 177, 178 Nakone

127

Naupaktos as a phrourion 56 polis status of 60-1 Naxos (Kyklades) theatre at 102, 117

Naxos (Sicily) 57, 125, 131, 146, 171 Neandreia theatre at 117 Neda river 259, 261 Nemea 53

Nemouta 237, 239 Neraida 237, 239, 240 neutrality 40 New Mexico

odeion 67, 71, Oiniadai theatre at Oinoanda theatre at Oinoe 54 Oinomaos 235, Oinotria 178

73, 74. 75 117 102, 117 236, 241. 242

Olbia 68 theatre at 102, 117 Oliaros

Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 102 oligarchy 23, 258 self-help in 32 Olous 195, 222 Olympia 59, 60, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 239, 241. 243, 252, 261, 262 and Elis 257

control of disputed by Elis and Pisatis 240 stadion at 74 victors at 235, 236, 238, 245

Olympos 233 Olynthos theatre at 117 Omphake 127, 134, 136, 142, 143, 175

Opous 84 orchestra 67, 70 Orchomenos (Arkadia) 90 theatre at 117 Orchomenos (Boiotia) 88 theatre at Oreos Dionysia in 87

prison in 36 Orikon theatre at 117 Oropos

290

General Index

theatre at 79

Petra (Elis) 243, 254

Orthia 243, 254 Osborne, R. 27, 30 Ossa 233 Oxylos of Elis 251

Petra (Sicily) 127 Phaiax 172, 175 Phaistos 187, 195, 196, 218, 223 Phalanna

Pagai

theatre at 102 Phalarion 149

theatre at 102 Palike 127, 178 Pamphyloi 43 Pandion Il Panopolis theatre at 108 Pantalica 131

Phalaris of Akragas 127, 134, 150, 151, 152, 162 Pharaia 232, 233, 235, 236-7, 237, 238, 239, 242 Pharsalos theatre at 118 Phaselis theatre at 118

Paphos 25

Phe(i)a 254, 255

theatre at 117 paraskenia 67 Paros theatre at 117 Parthenia 241 Parthenias river 235, 241 Patara theatre at 102, 117 Patmos 100 Patrai 258 theatre at 107 Patroklos || Pausanias Periegetes 70, on Elis 243-4, 251, on Pisatis 233, 235, use of term rheatron Pegasos 177 Peiraieus 72 Dionysia at 83 theatre(s) at 79, 83

Pheidon of Argos 259 Pheneos 90 Pheraia, see Pharaia Phigaleia, 90 Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 108 Philadelphia theatre at 118 Philip V of Macedonia 236, 238 Philippi theatre at 118 Philippopolis theatre at 118 Philolaos of Korinth 31 Philostratos use of term theatron 74 Phintias 149, 150 Phlegon 238, 242 Phleious theatre of 108, 118

76, 77, 89, 90 254, 259, 260 236, 238, 241, 242, 244 73, 76, 96

Pella

Phoinike

theatre at 95, 108, 118 Peloponnese 77, 91 Peloponnesian League 15, 59 Peloponnesian War 15 Pelops 234, 235, 241, 242 Peneios river 230 Penelope 11! Pergamon prison in 36 theatre(s) at 108, 118 Perge theatre at 118 Perperene theatre at 118 Persephone 140, 141, 155, 170, 172 Perseus 177

theatre at 118 Phokaia 25 theatre at 118 Phokis 76, 77 Photios 12 phratriai 43 phrourion 49-62, 149, 162, 173, 175 ancient use of the term 50-1, 54-5 distinguished from polis 52 in Classical sources 50—4 in Diodorus Siculus 54—62 in Thucydides 51-2 modern use of the term 49 not an antonym of polis 51-2 phylai 43 Dorian phylai 43

Petra (Syria) theatre(s) at 118

lonian phylai 43 Phyle 54, 56-7

291

General Index Physkoa 243, 254 Piakos 127 Piano della Fiera 135 Piazza Armerina 165 Pinara theatre at 118 Pirgos 230 Pisa 234, 242, 259, 260 no such town known 233 Pisatis

and Elis 240 in mythology 241-3 local identities in 241—3 nucleated settlements in 239—40 region of 229-33 settlement pattern of 238-41 setilements of 233-7 status of settlements 243-5 Pittakos of Lesbos 31 Platani 162 Platanos 239 Plato9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 29, 36 Kriton 24 Laws 198 Republic 9, 10, 13 Pleuron theatre at 118

Plora 223 Plutarch 10 police 35, 36 Polichna 56-7 Policoro 128 polis, poleis administration of justice in 34-6 and phrourion 49-62 and the modern state 17 archontes 27-8 archomenoi 27-8 armies of 38-9 as abstract personification 25 as abstract public power 22-5 as agent 24-5, 200 as a stateless society 19-20 as distinct institution 22-5 as subject of active verbs 24-5, 200 a type of state 17 authority of the law in 31-2 boundary stones of 27 cavalry of 39 dependent p. 60 distinguished from its citizens 25 identified with its citizens 22, 24 imprisonment in 36-7 in Aristotle 22-3

in Demosthenes 23 interaction among 39-41 in Thucydides 23 magistracies in 28-30. 35, 37 meanings of term 13, 198-9 Moshe Berent on 17-44 navies of 38-9 non-citizens 27 nol a stateless society

17-44

of Pisatis 229-45 people of 27-8 self-help in 32-4 territory of 26-7 theatres in 65-121 the game called p. 9-15 wars between 27 Pollux 11, 12, 13 Polyainos 134, 176

Polybios 236, 238 on Elis 256 Porson, R. 12 Poseidon 241 Poseidonia 24 Poteidaia 24 Pounari 236, 239 Praisos 195, 196, 218 presbeis 40, 57 Priene theatre at 86, 103, 117

Prinias 135, 187, 195, 196, 219 Priorato 141, 179

prison 30, 36-7 proedria 67 proskenion 67 Prousias on Hypion theatre at 118

proxenia 40, 256 prytaneion 178 Ps.-Skylax 49, 59, 60. 90 on synoecism of Elis 250 Ps.-Skymnos 49, 148, 149 Psophis 90 theatre at 69, 118 Ptolemaios 150 Ptolemais Hermiou theatre at 103 Ptolemais (Kyrenaika) theatre at 118

Pyloros 195, 223 Pylos (Elis) 254, 255, 260 Pylos (Messenia) 56-7 Pyrrhon the sophist 254 Pyrrhos of Epeiros 77

292

General Index

as a phrourion 52 polis status of 52 n.25 Sicily 49, 54, 56, 60, 77, 125-79

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 25-6

Ragusa 165 Ramacca 173, 177 Rhamnous theatre at 79, 83, 103, 118

Side

Rhegion

Sidon

theatre at 118 Rhitten 199

theatre at 109, 119

Rhodiapolis theatre at 103, 119 Rhodos 134 theatre at 109 theatre in demes of 79-80

Rossano di Vaglio 129 Roussel, D. 43 Rubinstein, L. 30. 244 132, 158, 159—62,

175

Sagalassos theatre at 119 Salamis (Attika) 53, 56, 62 Salamis (Cyprus) theatre at 103, 119 Salamona, see Salmone

Salmone 232, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242 in myth 241 Salmoneus of Salmoni 230, Salmonia, see Salmous theatre at

Sikyon theatre at 96, 109, 119 Sillyon theatre at 119

Siphnos Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 104 Siris 128 skene 68, 70

Roy, J. 89

Sabucina

theatre at 119

Pisatis 237, 241, 242 239 Salmone 109

Salso valley 132, 149, 153, 157. 162 Samos 23 theatre at 103, 109, 119 Samothrake, see Kabirioi San Basile 173

Sant Angelo Muxaro 134 Sardis theatre at 103, 109, 119

S. Braida di Vaglio 129 Segesta 130, 164, 177 theatre at 119

Seleukeia on Tigris theatre at 119

self-help 32-4 Selge theatre at 119 Selinous 130, 140, 142. 147, 148, 152, 164 theatre at 109

Sepphoris theatre at 119 Serra Orlando 168, 170 Sestos, 54, 57. 59

Skepsis theatre at 96, 104 Skillous 25, 234, 241, 259 Skinner, Q. 42 Skotoussa 25 theatre at 109, 119

Skythes of Zankle 175 Skythopolis theatre at 119 Smyrna theatre at 104, 109, 119 Soloi (Cyprus) theatre at 119 Soloi (Sicily) theatre at 119

Solon of Athens 31 Sophokles 241 Sounion 54

Sparta (Spartans) 24, 38, 195, 257, 260 and Elis 58, 240, 259 prison in 36 theaire(s) at 87, 91, 96, 109, 119 Sphettos theatre at 79, 104 Spinalonga 222 stadion 71, 75

Stageira as a phrourion 56 as a kome 61 n.94 polis status of 61 state, 39 administration in 28-30 administration of justice in 30, 34—6 as abstract public power 20, 21, 22-6 as an institution 25 authority of the law in 30-1 government of 28-30 imprisonment in early modern state 37

General Index in Hobbes 20 in Weber 20, 21

people of 21, 26, 27-8 primitive 20 self-help in early modern state 32-4 territory of 21, 26-7 three elements of 21 stateless society 17—44 concepts of 18-9 in antropology 18-9 in historical science 18-9

in Marxist thought 18 in political science 18 Strabo 125, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 241, 242, 244, 245 on synoecism of Elis 249-51, 253, 254, 255, 256-62 Stratonikeia 100 theatre in deme of 79, | 19 Stratos 68 theatre at 119

Strefi 230, 232, 239 Stymphalos 90 theatre at 67, 119 Suda 10 Suetonius On Games 12

Sybaris 176, 178 symmachia 59, 252 symposion 168, 176 synoecism

of Elis 249-62 Syracuse (Syracusans) 53, 65, 131, 142, 149,

155, 164, 165, 171, 175 and Leontinoi 55 dominion of 125

elite troops of 38 Olympieion at 54 Plemmmyrion at 54 prison in 36 theatre(s) at 70, 95, 109, 119-20 Syros theatre at 120

293

Tegea 25, 90, 258 prison in 36 theatre at 86, 96, Telmessos

110. 120

theatre at 120 Tenos

Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 104 Teos Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 104, 120 Termessos theatre at 104, 120 Terravecchia di Cuti 158, 161, 162-3, Thasos Dionysia at 83 theatre at 83, 104, 120. 121

Theangela theatre at 104, 120 theatres 65-121

archaeological invisibility of 66, 69 architectural definition of 67

disappearance of 66, 69 dramas without 66

geographical distribution of 76-8. 80, 93 in extra-urban sanctuaries 79 in Panhellenic sanctuaries 79 in second-order settlements 79-80

meaning of term theatron 69-76, 95-6 number of archaeologically attested t. 65 number of attested by written sources 70 public messages published in 82, 97-104 sources for 93

t. a multi-purpose building 66. 80—7 t. not situated in polis-towns 79-80 total of known t. 76

use of building 80-7 use of term theatron in inscriptions 78, 97104 Thebes (Achaia Phthiotis) theatre at 120 Thebes (Boiotia) 14, 68, 79, 88

elite troops of 38 theatre at 79, 110, 120

Talendos

Thelphousa 90, 236

theatre at 120 Tallensi 20, 42

Themistokles 258 theorodokia 40, 58 Thera 25 theatre at 120 Theron 175 Theseus 11, 14

Tanagra theatre at Taras 24, 128 Dionysia theatre at Tauromenion theatre at

96, 109, 120 at 83 83, 109

thesmophoria 163 thesmothetes 23

120

172, 177

Thespiai 68, 88

294

General Index

theatre at 79, 110, 120 Thessaly 77, 84, 91, 233 Thorikos theatre at 79, 83, 120 Thouria theatre at 68-9, 91, 120 Thourioi

theatre at 120

Ulfeldt, C. 34 urbanisation 125-79

valley of Muses at Thespiai theatre at 68, 79 Vartholomio 254 Varvassaina 230

Vassallaggi 127, 153-7, 158, 173, 177

Thrace 77,84 Thucydides 23, 30, 60, 62, 172, 252, 257, 260, 262

Vischer, W. 68 Vitruvius 70

Timoleon 57, 58, 133, 136, 150, 151, 157. 159,

warfare 27, 38-9 Weber, M. 20, 26, 38, 41 Welchanios 193 Westphalia, Peace of 19

165, 168, 177

Timpone della Motta 178 Tithorea 77 theatre at 110, 120 Tlos theatre at 104, 129 Torone 53 Tralles theatre at 120 travellers 68-9 tribalism 42-4 Trinakrie 127 Triphylia (Triphylians) 233, 239, 245, 259

Xanthos 79

theatre at 79, 120 Xenophon 29, 58, 74-5, 229, 238-9 on self-help 32 Youruba 42 Zaleukos of Lokroi 31

Zankle 49, 59, 60, 142

Tripolis

Zea

theatre at 120 Troizen theatre at 110

Zela

Tryphon Grammaticus 235 Tyndaris theatre at 120 Tyrakinai 127

tyranny 23, 38 Tyro 237, 241, 242

theatre at 102, 118 theatre at 120 Zenobios 10

Zeus 61, 85, 237, 241 temple of at Olympia 260 theatre in sanctuary of at Dodone 79, 85 Zulu 20, 26