Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion) 9004071199, 9789004071193

Citation preview

RELIGION AND COLONIZATION IN ANCIENT GREECE

STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN RELIGION EDITED BY H.S. VERSNEL IN CO-OPERATION WITH F.T. VANSTRATEN

VOLUME 3

Mvaat9ai..Epa~TO Kai T67tOJV OTIIJ.&ia Kai 7tpa~&OJV Ka\poi Kai 9&00V i&pclli\a7tOVTiOJV Kai l'Jprorov cin6PPTITO\ 9i'jKa\ Kai liua&~&up&TO\ IJ.aKpnv cinaipoum Ti'j~ 'EA.Mlio~. iaT& yap T&i:iKpov Kai KpTITiVTIV Kai fVT'Iaioxov Kai ~ci.A.av9ov, liA.A.ou~ T& 7tOAAOU~ i)y&IJ.6Va~ OT6AOJV 6aou~ fli&l T&KIJ.TIPiO\~ civ&up&iv Ti)V lilliOIJ.&VTIV &KaaTcp Kai npomiKouaav tlipua\V' !J.&TpO\~

"Then, besides, there is nothing in poetry more serviceable to language than that the ideas communicated, by being bound up and interwoven with verse, are better remembered and kept firmly in mind. Men in those days had to have a memory for many things. For many things were communicated to them, such as signs for recognizing places, the times for activities, the shrines of gods across the sea, secret burial-places of heroes, hard to find for men setting forth on a distant voyage from Greece. You all, of course, know about Teukros and Kretines and Gnesiochos and Phalanthos and many other leaders of expeditions who had to discover by means of evidential proofs the suitable place of settlement granted to each." (tr. Babbit, Loeb)

We note with Lombardo54 that there are four elements which Plutarch emphasizes: 1. signs to recognize places 2. appropriate times 3. temples of gods across the seas 4. tombs of heroes. The first clearly conforms to the specifications of geographical directions: it is the responsibility of the oikist to recognize the site. We shall show that sometimes folk-motifs, especially paradoxical riddles, when they are found together with straightforward directions, may support the authenticity of a particular oracle rather than render it suspect, because such motifs could be "signs" which aid the oikist in pinpointing the site within the general area also mentioned in the foundation oracle. For example, the settlers of the colony sent to Thourioi received an oracle at Delphoi telling (the Athenian embassy) to settle where they would be able to drink water by measure and to eat their bread without measure. 55 The solution was found in a local spring whose waters issued from a bronze pipe called a medimnos ("measure") by the natives. It was probably the Athenian oikist and religious specialist, Lampon, who provided the proper interpretation, 56 thereby pinpointing the site and solving the "riddle." The case belongs to the Classical period, 57 but there is no reason to

54 (1977: 65). 55 Diod. XII.I0.5; cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.ll No. 131). 56 57

Cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.l 187). See pp. 97-101.

26

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

deny that Delphic "signs" or "riddles" may have been similarly interpreted by oikists in earlier periods. Appropriate times, the second element which Plutarch mentions, are not expressly found in foundation oracles, although they may be implied in the sacrifices which the oikist conducted before setting out (kalliherein). We shall return to this subject in a different chapter. 58 The third and fourth elements are connected because they both imply prescribed cult and worships. We shall examine separately the question of local heroes and the establishment of precincts and temples. It is important to emphasize again with Nilsson that such expounding of cults was essential to Delphoi's influence on colonization. In particular, these elements in Plutarch may be used to support reported oracles, such as the one about Idmon's tomb at Herakleia Pontike; but in such cases the sceptic would easily argue that Plutarch's account is based on traditions which are mostly spurious or aetiological, especially since some of the oikists whom he mentions are clearly mythological figures. We admit that the latter objection may be raised against the whole list in Plutarch, but particular cults or heroes seem to us more susceptible to such criticism than the general class of topographical signs. Whereas we have seen how the need might arise to reinterpret an oracle in order to change its meaning to that of a prescribed cult for a hero (Kyrnos), we do not seem to have evidence for such occasions which would have motivated forgery of straightforward geographical data. Finally, we should mention one more possible objection to the authenticity of oracles containing more than a mere sanction (Pease's criterion). Although Thucydides, at the opening of Book VI, sums up in relative detail the history of Greek colonization in the West he omits any mention of oracles. Moreover, when he does mention a consultation prior to an act of colonization in the case of the Spartan colony to Herakleia Trachinia (see section below), he seems to report it as a mere sanction. One should avoid, however, resting the weight of an argument on absence in a source. Thucydides, on the whole, is less interested in oracles; still, even in the case of Herakleia, as we shall see, he retains the fromula, "on the command of the god", 59 in spite of the fact that the "command" is clearly only a sanction. Thucydides, therefore, simply does not report foundation oracles, and his silence should not affect their authenticity either way. It is impossible to generalize further about the nature of the sources concerning ancient oracular literature in general, which are numerous and disparate. We cannot add here to the discussion of sources in the prolegomena 58 See pp. 109-110. 59 Thuc. 111.92.5. KtA.&uovtoc;. For a serious assessment see now Marinatos 1981a; b, who is

right to say that in general Thucydides is interested in the interpretation of oracles rather than in their content (1981b: 47ff.)

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

27

by Parke and Wormell to their corpus of oracles, to which we refer readers for a general introduction. 60 To sum up, we are inclined to accept as authentic an oracular response about the foundation of a colony when it answers the criteria of straightforwardness (i.e., a direct "command" to found a particular place), sometimes with the addition of geographical directions, unless there are additional reasons in an individual case which tell strongly against it. On these principles we shall consider each case on its own merits in an attempt to assess its value as a source for understanding the religious role of the oikist. Our focus in this chapter is not Delphoi but the oikist. The most important aspect of the oikist's consultation at Delphoi was his personal designation by Apollo and the implied religious authority with which he was invested. Miltiades will serve as a good example (see also the section on him below); Herodotus relates that it was not merely sufficient for Apollo to have indirectly indicated to the Thracians that Miltiades was to be their oikist; in fact, he had to go to Delphoi himself to receive the oracle's confirmation and designation. By ''religious authority'' we do not mean only the religious aspect of his authority as a leader but also the authority to act and make religious decisions, such as instituting cults and designating precincts to the gods. In this respect the religious authority with which the oikist was invested resembled that of Apollo himself, namely, the authority to expound religion. Lampon, the Athenian oikist of Thourioi, was called by a late source "an exegetes of the foundation of the city" (&~TIYTI'riJc; tile; Ktia&roc; tile; 7t6A.&roc;); 61 the official term may be anachronistic, but its meaning is accurate. The oikist's relation to the colonists, in religious terms, was similar to his relation to Apollo. For the settlers he was their immediate authority on matters of religion. When we consider that as the Greeks founded cities they were also establishing new abodes for their gods (and heroes), 62 the religious role of the founder becomes even more significant. The oikist was first and foremost the settlers' leader, who guided them to the site and was responsible for setting up the social and religious order. His death symbolized the end of the period of "foundation." Sometimes, especially when colonies were composed of groups of settlers from diverse origins, we hear of more than one oikist and independent consultations at Delphoi by each (e.g., Rhegion, below). A theme which is often found in foundation oracles is that of the "surprised oikist" - a person who went to Delphoi to consult on private affairs, such as (1956: ii, vii-xxxvi). See n.69 Ch. II. Cf. Aristid. Or 27 .S (Keil) on Apollo as exegetls of Kyzikos. 62 Cf. Graham (1971: 26). 60 61

28

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

Battos the founder of Kyrene, who had a speech defect, and instead of an answer to his personal concern, was designated oikist. Such oracles are obviously suspect, but one wonders whether they did not serve the purpose of improving morale and increasing a leader's authority since a leader malgre lui always appears more credible. Foundation oracles imply divine sanction or justification of settlement; sometimes we hear of a particular place expressly described as a gift from the god to the oikist. We must leave the topic of moral justification of colonization for another occasion, 63 but we should pause and point out the significance of the "gift" in so far as it sheds light on the position of the oikist. Since foundation oracles were concerned with potential entities only and not with existing states, they could not be given either to the citizens of the mother-city (because the new foundation would not belong to them), nor to the colonists themselves (because they had not yet been formed into an independent polis). Religious authority and guidance could only be delegated to someone who was between these two statuses - namely the oikist. The founders of Greek colonies represented both the initiative of their mother-cities, the authority of Apollo, and the embryonic colony. The oikists thereby formed the connection among all three, they served as the intermediary between men, their communities, and their gods. The oikists embodied in themselves the transformation and realization of the colony. With the death of the oikist, as we have stated, the act of foundation can be said to have ended. Let us now examine individual cases in which a consultation of the oracle is reported and, when possible, in which a foundation oracle is also provided. We can only discuss Delphoi effectively, as we have said. We shall also have to leave for later (see below, pp. 79; 106ff.) the possible use of literary oracles or such collections of the prophecies as those attributed to Bakis, Musaios, and the Sibyl. As the case of Dorieus shows, although he had in hand a written oracle attributed to Laios which a professional chresmologue ("oracle monger") had provided, this was not enough; he had to go himself to Delphoi for a personal consultation (see section below). Although the number of colonies which had connections with Delphoi may have been quite large, we cannot effectively discuss all of them. We again mention that Delphic involvement in the foundation of Metapontion was highly probable; but since there is no mention of consultation or foundation oracles given to its founders, we shall have to leave it aside. We shall examine, in short, all cases of historical Greek colonies, in which it is reported that oikists consulted the oracle and in which we can discuss with some measure of control

63

We intend to investigate this question in a separate study.

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

29

what we consider to be historical (i.e., not the product of folklore or legend) foundation oracles. A section of Conclusions will close this chapter in an attempt to present the more general picture that should emerge from the following sections. Before we approach the relevant cases, we must first inquire about the method oikists may have used to consult Delphoi.

Authenticity of Oracular Responses and the Method of Consultation How the oikist received the foundation oracle is an important question which cannot be answered conclusively. The oracles that we possess show the inquirer, usually the oikist, 64 receiving an oral reply from the mouth of the Pythia. If, however, another method of inquiry was used which could be answered only in the negative or affirmative, then any oracular response containing a reply longer than "yes" or "no" could be proved inauthentic. The Pythia herself prophesied only one day every month and only nine months every year. 65 We also hear of oracles by lot (cleromancy) at Delphoi. If these were given on other auspicious days, they could have been more readily obtained. 66 P. Amandry, who is a firm believer in cleromancy at Delphoi, posits a bean oracle in which two beans were used for affirmative or negative answers. Another way in which beans may have been used was in the selection of names from a given list. Thus a Thessalian king is said to have been selected by the use of q>puKt6~, a "roasted bean." 67 Possibly, too, the ten eponymous Athenian heroes of the Kleisthenic tribes were selected in this way from a list of a hundred. 68 These examples however are inapplicable to a colonial situation. The sources which mention oracular lots at Delphoi are late, and their context is mythologicai. 69 We have, however, from the 4th century B.C. one inscription which Amandry regards as decisive. 70 The inscription contains sacred regulations for Delphoi and Skiathos. After stating public and private charges for the pelanos (sacrificial cake) and for the hide of the victims 71 (in both cases: one Aeginetan stater for the public consultation, two obols for the private one), one reads: Pease (1917: 6). On the procedure of the oracle see in general Amandry ( 1950) and Parke and Wormell ( 1956: Vol.l ch. 3). 66 Amandry (1950: ch.2). 67 Plut. Mor. 492b. 68 Ath. Pol. 21.6. 69 Amandry (1950: 25-32). 70 Ibid. 32f.; cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: 18-19). 71 On animal sacrifices in general: Burkert (1977: 101-115). On use of the parts of the animal: Puttkammer (1912). 64 65

30

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

ai K' bti q>puKtci> napi111, to J.1EV oaJ,16cnov at[a]tij[p]a ai[ywaiov, to o& io1ov ... (lacuna) ... ] tCi>l 9&ci'>[t XP110tt\p ?] 1ov &ni [tav tpcin]&~av aiya K[aA.A.t]at&uovta Ka[i t]aA.A.a i.&pa Katta [n]atpta.pUK't'cO as the dual, that is, two beans (probably for affirmative and negative answers) and translates: Si l'on se presente a Ia consultation par les deux feves, pour une affaire publique, ce sera un statere eginetique, pour une affaire privee, ce sera ...

This is the meaning of the word phryktos (literally, "roasted") in the story about the selection of the Thessalian king as well as in Hesychius and Suidas. Sokolowski objected on the grounds that the rest of the inscription refers to offerings and their prices. He prefers to emphasize the primary meaning (roasted - e.g., meat, grain) and to compare the q>pUK't'Oi to the eiA.u't'at, another kind of sacrificial cake consecrated to Trophonios at Lebadeia. 73 Sokolowski could have further strengthened his case by pointing out that the phryktos costs exactly as much as the pelanos and that one should expect the consultation itself to be worth more than its preliminary offering. 74 Sokolowski also maintains that E7ti q>puKro is not a dual but a dative singular with the iota omitted (E7ti q>puKnp ), that is, ''if he comes forward (to consult the oracle) after having made a preliminary sacrifice of aphryktos." 75 Sokolowski's suggestion about the meaning of phryktos is confirmed by another Delphic inscription about regulations for Andros; there the word occurs with the meaning, "sacrificial offering. " 76 This does not settle the question about the bean oracle, but it seems to remove its epigraphic support. Even if we accept cleromancy at Delphoi, it still seems irrelevant to the question how the oikists made their inquiries. It is difficult to imagine that an Archias or a Myskellos would have had a problem with access: oikists came from the highest orders of society and usually acted as the representatives of their states. 77 Their consultations must have had priority, even if the Pythia received consultants only one day every month, nine times a year. Also, consultations about the foundation of a colony, even when they came from the great colonizing states, such as Chalkis or Corinth, cannot have been too numerous; each was probably regarded as an important state decision, and the colonists

Amandry (1939: 184-219 esp. 195-198); (1950: Appendix XVI). Sokolowski (1949: 981-984). Sokolowski, however, admits that he cannot support his comparison to eD..utat. According to Fontenrose's translation (1978: 223). Sokolowski (1948: 994, note complementaire); Daux (1949: 58-72). Fontenrose (1978: 223) misses this point. 77 Graham (1971: 30; 220). 72 73 74 75 76

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

31

would have wished to be certain that their oikist was personally designated and addressed by the god. If, then, it is unlikely that oracles by lot were used in the Archaic period for consultations in connection with the foundation of a colony, it is possible that there was a change in the Classical period. Perhaps, as Parke and Wormell suggest, in late cases where our source merely reports a sanction, this was the case; 78 for example, the Spartan consultation about Herakleia in Trachis in 426 B.C., which, as Thucydides reports, merely followed the preresolved decision to colonize, 79 may have employed the lot oracle for sanction, but this is merely a conjecture. Moreover, as we said above, Thucydides simply does not report foundation oracles, even when dealing with the Archaic colonies at the beginning of Book VI. Finally, if we recall the formula which the oikist at Delphoi is reported by Herodotus as using for his inquiry - "to whatland he should go to settle,'' 80 - the question could not be answered by either "yes" or "no" but only by specific details. To sum up, even if one accepts the existence of a lot oracle at Delphoi, particularly before the Classical period, one cannot use it as an argument against the authenticity of foundation oracles, and one should conceive of the consultation by the oikist at the oracle at Delphoi as a solemn, personal encounter with the god's mouthpiece, the Pythia.

The Founders of Rhegion and the Human Tithe to Apollo We begin with the foundation of Rhegion, not because it is the earliest81 but because of the theory of Parke and Wormell that we can see in the peculiar characteristics of Rhegion's foundation a reflection of an ancient practice which may explain the origin of the practice to consult Delphoi about colonization: Rhegion is supposed to be the only historic colony which was founded with the dedication of a human tithe to Apollo at Delphoi. According to Antioch us, the initiative to found the colony came from Zankle, which provided the oikist, Antimnestos, and which invited people from Chalkis (Zankle's mother-city) to join. 82 In contrast to Antiochus, the other literary sources seem confused and appear to contain contradictions; as a (1956: Voi.I, 19). Thuc. 111.92.5. 80 See above, p. 28 and below, pp. 78ff. 81 Rhegion may still be the earliest colony in the far south of Italy; it was founded ca. 730 B.C., as we Jearn from the Messenian participation dated by the first Messenian war (traditionally dated 743-720 B.C., see below). For references and discussion of its origins and date, see in detail Vallet (1958: 66-80); cf. Berard (1957: 99-106); Dunbabin (1949: 12-13); Graham (1982: 109). 82 FGrHist 555 F9 = Strabo, VI.257. 78

79

32

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

result, some scholars have regarded Antiochus as the only reliable source for Rhegion's foundation. On the other hand, there is always the possibility that the later close relations between Zankle and Rhegion may have furnished the basis for a rationalization of the foundation story by Antioch us. In particular, the Messenian participation (below), which is not mentioned by Antiochus, makes some of the other details in our sources more credible. Some of the apparent contradictions are the name (or names) of the oikist(s). We believe that the different names we possess in fact complement, rather than contradict each other. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the one who received the foundation oracle at Delphoi (i.e., the oikist83 ) was "the Chalkidian Artimedes;" the two names are not mutually exclusive. 84 According to Thucydides it was "according to the ancient custom" 85 for a colony to send for an oikist from its mother-city when it founded another colony itself. Epidamnos - on which Thucydides comments - may pose a problem since only one oikist is mentioned, whereas if we are to take Antimnestos and Artimedes as complementary, we have two. We shall discuss "plurality" of oikists in a separate section; what must be emphasized here is that although there is a clear tendency towards exclusiveness (especially in the cult accorded to oikists) no single pattern or rule emerges. Specifically, Thucydides does not say, after all, that it was also the rule in sub-colonies that there should be only one oikist. Moreover, even if one takes Thucydides' words to imply a single oikist only, Rhegion may have been exceptional due to the factor of distance: Chalkis was far away, whereas the site of Rhegion can be seen from Zankle by the naked eye on a clear day. Perhaps Antimnestos of Zankle was needed for practical reasons: knowledge of the territory and its inhabitants. 86 We may have the name of yet a third oikist. According to the accounts in Strabo, who probably follows Timaeus87 and Heraclides Lembos, 88 the Chalkidians were joined by a group of Messenians; fleeing from the Spartans as a consequence of the first Messenian War, their delegation received an oracle at Delphoi telling them to be grateful to Artemis for their lives and ordering them "to join the Chalkidians on the way to Rhegion" (6 cS' 'A1t6A.A.rov &K&A.suas 83 Vallet (1958: 69 n.3); cf. Pease (1917: 6). 84 Ant. Rom. XIX.2; 'Apn~&lia'lc; 6 XaA.Kta&uc; A.6ytov &ix&v. This is also Manni's view (1980: 313). 8S 1.24.2. 86 See in general on the effect of distance, Graham (1971: ch.V). See also Vallet (1958: 1969) who accepts the existence of the two oikists. 87 It is possible that this, too, is a part of the same fragment of Antiochus, but it is more likely to have been based on Timaeus. See Jacoby's commentary on 555 F9 (FGrHist lllb and n. 70); cf. ibid. 566 F43. Vallet (1958: 71 with n.3) essentially agrees but misrepresents Jacoby's printing of Strabo's text, thus creating an impression of false disagreement. 88 25. FHG 219.

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

33

atsA.M:a9al ~&'t'a XaA.Kl5Eo>v sic; to 'P1l"fl.OV). 89 The name of the leader of the Messenians is furnished by Pausanias in a passage otherwise full of anachronisms. 90 The name is Alkidamidas, the fourth-generation ancestor of Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegion. Since the historical dates of the latter are 494-476 B.C., Pausanias is obviously mistaken; the mistake, however, seems to concern Anaxilas (not Alkidamidas), whom he dates to the 29th Olympiad, that is, the mid 7th century B.C. If one counts four generations back, the picture once again is reconciled with history, although that date would still place Alkidamidas in the later years of the first Messenian War. 91 That the Messenians participated at all in the early foundation has sometimes been suspected as anachronistic; specifically, it was typical of Timaeus to combine different groups of colonists. 92 However, the arguments advanced in favor of the historical authenticity of the Messenian participation, which are also based on epigraphical evidence (Dorian elements) and cult (of Artemis Phaselitis), seem to us convincing. 93 If this is so, we may possess the name of the actual Messenian leader, Alkidamidas, and we should also credit him with receiving the oracle's reply during the Messenian delegation's reported consultations at Delphoi. That the fugitive Messenians facing destruction and conquest should consult Delphoi seems credible, particularly as the inquirers are said to have requested a religious answer concerning Artemis. This type of combining two distinct parties seems to be what Delphoi did best in the context of colonization: it provided the colonizers with the needed additional recruits94 and, on the other hand, gave the rootless group of potential settlers a concrete address. Alkidamidas should be viewed as a leader of such a group that came to Delphoi for directions (perhaps already having agreed on the need to colonize somewhere). Should we regard him as a proper oikistes? That his Messenians came to be incorporated in the Chalkidian foundation should not trouble us too much. Lamis, the contemporary oikist of the group of Megarians who ended up at Megara Hyblaia, tried his fortune for a while at Leontinoi; that is, he too attempted an incorporation. There is no doubt, however, that Lamis was an oikistes, as Thucydides explicitly refers to him. 95 The importance of Alkidamidas' descendant, Anaxilas, explains how the memory of Alkidamidas survived, just as the importance of the Deinomenids provides us with some details about the family's history for the early settlement of Gela. 96 89 Strabo VI.257; cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.ll 370). 90 Paus. IV.23.5-7; cf. Manni (1980: 314-315). 91 See on this passage in Pausanias Berard (1957: 94-95; 103); Vallet (1958: 72-74). 92 That Timaeus was Strabo's source see n.87 above. 93 Vallet (1958: 71-80); Berard (1957: 102-104); Dunbabin (1949: 12-13). 94 Cf. also the "recruitment oracle" for Kyrene in Hdt. IV.159.3. 9S Vl.4.1. 96 Hdt. Vll.153. with Compernolle (1957); Kesteman (1970). See pp. 97; 251; 259, below.

34

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

Alkidamidas is in many respects similar to Artimedes, the Chalkidian oikist, because he too is reported to have been the leader of a group of people expelled from home because they had been consecrated as a tithe to Apollo (Strabo Vl.257): KtlOIJ.a 5' ECJti to 'Pirytov XaA.KtMc.ov, ouc; Kata XP1101J.OV 5&Kat&u9&vt&c; t 'An6Uc.ov1 lh' iupopiav, uat&pov EK A&A.q>rov cinmKi\aat 5&iip6 q>a01, napaA.aP6vtac; Kai liA.A.ouc; trov oiKo9&v. Rhegion is a foundation of the Chalkidians who according to an oracle were consecrated as a tithe to Apollo because of dearth; later, it is said, they set out thither (Rhegion) as colonists from Delphoi, taking with them also others from home.

Thus Strabo narrates his account of the story before contrasting it with Antioch us' version: roc;&' 'Avtiox6c; q>TJat. His source may have been Timaeus. 97 Heraclides Lembos presents the following version:98 'Pt\ytov Q>Ktaav XaA.Kt5⁣ oi cin' Eupinou 5ta A.tJ.LOV civaatavt&c; · naptA.aPov

5& Kai EK ll&A.onovvt\aou toile; M&aa11viouc; ... Kai auvq>Ktaav nprotov napa tov 'loKiiatou tliq>ov, tvoc; trov Ai6A.ou nai5c.ov, ov q>aaw cino9av&iv nA.11y&vta

uno 5paKovtoc;· Kai XPllOIJ.OV fA.aPov, onou liv ft 91\A.&ta toil lipp&va ... Kai i56vt&c; f:pwq> 1t&plq>UKUiav liJ.L1t&AOV, tOUtOV &tVa\ tOV t61tOV CJUVi\Kav· tO 5f: xc.opiov, tv titv n6A.w Q>Ktaav, 'Pt\ytov EKaA.&ito cin6 nvoc; tnc.opiov ilpc.ooc;. The Chalkidians who emigrated99 from Euripos because of a famine founded Rhegion. They also took with them from the Peloponnesos the Messenians etc .... and made a joint settlement first at the site of Iokastos' grave, one of the sons of Aiolos, who died, they say, being bitten by a serpent; and they received an oracle (to found a city) where a female (embraces) a male ... and seeing a vine growing around a wild fig tree they understood that this was the place. The site where they founded the city was named Rhegion after some local hero.

Diodorus quotes three verses of the oracle itself in a similar story: 100 on EK ti\c; 5&Kat11c; civn9tvt&c; XaA.Kt5⁣ liA.9ov XP1100IJ.&V011t&pi cinotKiac;, Kai civ&iA.&· 'A111ia nota11rov i&pci>tatoc; ⁣ liA.a nint&l fv9' &iac.o PaA.A.ovn tov lipa&va 9i\A.uc; lmui&l &v9a n6A.w oiKt~, 5t5oi 5& am Auaova xci>pav Oi Of: Kata tov 'A111iav nota11ov &up6vt&c; liJ.Ln&A.ov n&pm&nA.&yJ.L&Vllv tptv&q>, to A.&y6J.L&vov cipa&v6811A.uv, fKnaav n6A.w.

u

The Chalkidians who were handed over from the tithe went to receive an oracle about the colony and the god responded: Where Apsia the most sacred of rivers falls into the sea There at the point of embarkation the female marries the male

See n.87 above. Loc. cit.; cf. Vallet (1958: 67 n.2). Heraclides may have derived his information from Aristotle's Constitutions; see RE s.v. (Daebritz) Cols. 489-491. 99 See L.S.J. s.v. avicmuu III.2. 100 VIII.fr.23.2. 97

98

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

35

There found a city, as the Ausonian land is given to you. Finding by the river a vine entwined around a wild fig (that which is called Hermaphrodite) they founded a city.

The same story also appears in Dionysius of Halicarnassus but with two significant additions: the name of the oikist and a report about the expulsion of natives. 101 'Ap'TlJ.lll~TI~ 6 XaA.Kl~&U~ A.6ylOV dx.&v, fv9' av &UPlJ TOV cipp&va uno •ii~

6nm6J.1&vov, a1h68l J.1&V&lV Kai J.111Ktn npoaroTtpro nA.&iv· nA.&uaa~ ~& 7t&pi TO nanavnov Tij~ 'ITaA.ia~ Kai i~ci>V ciJ.17t&AOV ... Kai TOU~ KaTEX.OVTa~ Tov T6nov J3apf3apou~ tKJ3aA.ci>V oiK&i· 'Pl\YlOV 6 T6no~ KaA.&iTal. 811A.&ia~

Artimedes the Chalkidian received an oracle that where he should find the male subject to the marriage of the female, there he should remain and sail no further. Sailing around Pallantion of Italy and seeing a vine etc. . .. and having chased away the barbarians inhabiting the place, he settled there. The place is called Rhegion.

The sources are agreed on the main points with some differences that are worth noting; Strabo is more precise about the identity of the colonists: consecrated Chalkidians, setting out from Delphoi, took with them other, "proper," Chalkidians. The Messenians are also mentioned in Strabo (probably following Timaeus); they as well as the Chalkidians received a foundation oracle, which is implied in the very act of consecration and setting out from Delphoi. 102 According to Heraclides, Messenians and Chalkidians received the oracle together. There are various geographical landmarks: the tomb of Iokastos (Heraelides), the river Apsia (Diod.), Pallantion (Dion. Hal.). lokastos is interesting because he is comparable to other local heroes who were reported to be honoured by colonists: the Antenoridai at Kyrene, Idmon-Agamestor in Herakleia Pontike, Rhesos at Amphipolis. 103 It would be interesting to know whether he was associated with Delphoi, perhaps with one of the "secret burial places of heroes," mentioned by Plutarch as one of the possible directions given by Delphoi to oikists. 104 The tradition must be of some antiquity because we can contrast it with the obviously aetiological eponymous "Rhegion," who is also mentioned by Heraclides. There are four recurring elements which should occupy our attention: 1. Dearth followed by a: 2. Consecration of a tithe; 3. Delphoi is the point of departure for the colonists bound for Rhegion. Ant. Rom. XIX.2. Contra Vallet (1958: 70 n.l) who regards the Messenian oracle as an alternative one whereas the oracle to the Chalkidians is "only" in Diodorus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 103 See below under each colony. 104 See the introduction above on Plut. Mor. 407f. 101

102

36

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

4. The content of the oracle itself As the first three are interconnected, let us begin with the oracle. Diodorus is the only one who actually quotes it. Parke and Wormell regard it as a late invention, particularly due to its paradoxical riddle, a motif from folklore so common in spurious foundation oracles. 105 On the other hand, the oracle does not consist only of a paradox but also contains explicit and straightforward geographical data. The latter, as we have said, form the basis of Parke and Wormell's criterion for authenticity: the site is specified as the mouth of the river Apsia, 106 at the point where it is convenient for a ship to moor. River mouths were typical colonial sites. 107 As we said in the introduction, we regard such riddles as possibly genuine when they are found in conjunction with straightforward geographical data that could aid the oikist to pinpoint the site within the general area mentioned in the geographical directions. That the riddle in this oracle is not a condition but an addition, argues for its authenticity. The paradox of the "female marries the male" is implied in the verb 6nuico, ("to marry") since elsewhere in its active form it applies only to men, never to women. 108 We also find this motif in Herodotus' account of the Delphic oracle given to the Argives before the war with Sparta. Plutarch, Pausanias, and Polyaenus add by way of explanation, accounts of the valiant actions of the Argive women. 109 It could be argued, of course, that the existence of this parallel implies that our oracle was concocted on the basis of Herodotus; on the other hand, there is no reason to see any direct link here, as in the case of the concocted oracle about Byzantion; 110 also, there is no reason a priori to be surprised at the existence of recurring motifs in Delphic oracles. 111 The oracle is quoted in the second person singular (line 3), following the common oracular convention of addressing an individual and not a group.1 12 The oracle also specifies the land as a gift from the god, which is perhaps ana-

Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.I 54). Probably modern Calopinace. A. De Franciscis in PE s.v. Rhegion. 107 Lacroix (1965: 115 ff.). 108 L.S.J. s.v. 109 Hdt. VI.77; Plut. de Mul. Virt. 245c-f; Paus. 11.28.1; Polyaen. VIII.33. For implications concerning the social significance of the "rule of women" see Vidai-Naquet (1981; esp. 196 for Rhegion); Pembroke (1970). IIO Above p. 22. Ill Cf. Crahay (1956: 172-175); Fontenrose (1980: 70-71). Because of the recurrence of Delphic motifs, which is only to be expected, we cannot accept the fine distinctions and analysis applied to the Messenians' role in Rhegion's foundation by Valenza Mele (1977: 512-515) which are based on her original analysis of the "riddle" in the oracles given to the Messenians and to the colonists at Taras. Cf. Manni (1980: 312 N. 5). See also below, pp. 47-52. 112 This was common (see Fontenrose (1978: Appendix BI)) but it is still noteworthy that the convention is consistent with the principle of personal designation. lOS

106

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

37

logous to the Hebrew "promised land." 113 In this way, the oracle justifies the settlement and, in this case, also, the expulsion of local inhabitants. 114 The most remarkable aspect about the traditions concerning Rhegion's foundation is that of the colonial dekate ("tithe"). It is known otherwise only in legendary cases: the genos of the Gephyraioi was consecrated as a tithe (cS&KaT&u9&vn:~) by the Athenians, sent to Delphoi and from there to Tanagra.115 According to Aristotle, the Macedonian Bottiaioi were sent by Cretans as an cinapxt1 to Delphoi. From there they went to Italy and ended up in Thrace. 11 6 The Dryopes of Asine and Hermione believed that they had been conquered by Herakles and sent as an civci9TJIJ.a to Delphoi whence they set out to Asine and Hermione. 117 After the fall of Thebes the daughter of Teiresias, Manto, was dedicated with other captives to Delphoi and was sent to found Kolophon.118 Finally, the people of Magnesia on the Maeander believed that they had originated as a dekate sent to Delphoi after the Trojan war; they were sent to Crete for 80 years but then were not allowed to return to their native Thessaly; instead, t.hey were assigned an oikist, Leukippos, who led them to Asia Minor. These Magnesians were, in the words of Aristotle (or Theophrastus) i&poi Toll 9wu, d&l..(j)rov cinotKat. 119 In the 3rd century B.C. the Magnesians set up a long and detailed inscription in their agora narrating their foundation and "quoting" foundation oracles given to them and to their oikist, Leukippos, who asked for a personal confirmation. The inscription is a forgery, as Wilamowitz has shown, yet it provides us with the most detailed framework for ideas about the practice of the tithe. 120 In the Classical period there are two cases where we find dekateuein attested, E.g., to Abraham, Gen. 15.7,18; 17.8; to Moses, Deut.34.1-5. The name AOaoov xci>pa appears first in Hecataeus FGrHist 1 F63. Dion. Hal. 1.53.3 says that Ausonia is the old Greek name for Italy. Cf. Rohrbach (1960: 7). 115 Suidas s. v. Mpu Kai KTIPUKElov; Zenob. III .26; Eustath. in Iliad 408.4. 116 Aristotle fr.485 = Plut. Thes. 16.2; Plut. QG 298f-299a. 117 Paus. IV.34.9. For other references see Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.II No. 448); Ducat (1974: 100ff.) 118 Schol. Apoll. Rhod.l.308; cf. Paus. IX.33.2; Diod. IV.66.5-6; Apollod.III.7.4. Similarly for Klaros - Paus. VII.3.1. 119 Athenaeus IV.173.e-f (=FHG II fr. 198a); cf. Conon Narr. 29 = FGrHist 26 F1(29). 120 Kern (1894); Wilamowitz (1895: 177-198); Kern (1900 No. 17). Cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.II No. 378-382; Voi.I 52-54); Schmid (1947: 94ff.) Parke and Wormell op. cit. try to create an impression of a kernel of truth by quoting Aristotle (or Theophrastus) as if the Magnesians "used to supply any Delphian who settled among them a roof, salt, olive oil, vinegar, lamp oil, beds, coverlets and tables." But the text does not say "Delphian" and the words toic; bni>TIIlOUOV Kai yevemov Kai q>ll..civ9proxov.

I commend . . . and still more the inhabitants of Eretria and Magnesia who presented the god with the first fruits of their people, in the belief that he is the giver of crops, the god of their fathers, the author of their being and a friend of man.l 24

We cannot be certain, of course that this passage refers specifically to the Eretrian colonists of Korkyra. On the other hand, it is clear that Plutarch equates the situation of the Eretrians with that of the Magnesians in this passage. Since we know independently that the Magnesian ktisis was a "colonization" of the dekate type, it seems probable to us that the Eretrian colonization-tithe about which Plutarch speaks here should be identified with the other passage in which Plutarch discusses Eretria's refusal to take back the fugitive Eretrian colonists; their mother-city's rejection seems to have been based on her refusal to recognize them as "Eretrians" at all, which is precisely what the dekate implies: the consecrated people are the property of the god. 125 By contrast, the colonists' "right of return" was generally not denied. 126 Finally, of the numerous Eretrian colonies, no other colonial enterprise seems to fit the passage in which Plutarch talks about Magnesia and Eretria together. Parke and Wormell are uncertain about the authenticity of the dekate at Rhegion and prefer to leave it as an open question 127 However, they regard the significance of this ritual as far reaching: "the primitive existence of this custom of dedication in association with dispatch of the dedicated to found a

Hdt. VII. 132. See in detail Parke (1948: 82-114). Diod. Xl.65.5; cf. Eurip. Phoeniss. 202-203; 280-281. Plut. QG 293a; cf. Strabo VI.269. A similar case (below) is that of the Theraean colonists who failed in their attempt to return home. 124 Plut. Mor. 401f-402a (Tr. Babbit, Loeb). 125 Parke (1948). 126 Graham (1971: index s.v. return, colonists' right oO. 127 (1956: Vol.l 55). 121 122 123

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

39

colony must have established a convention whereby all intending colonists consulted the Delphic oracle." In other words, this is the key to Delphic involvement in colonization (and to the position of the oikist as a recipient of foundation oracles). The basic assumption that underlies this hypothesis is the notion that the Greek dekate and the Italic ver sacrum were essentially the same. 128 But this is far from certain. Our main Greek sources for the ver sacrum ("sacred spring") are Strabo and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In summary, the whole "produce," notably the young born in a certain year, is dedicated to Mars. The community allows the young to grow up but forces them to depart when they reach maturity. They are then directed by the god (often by means of a sacred animal) to a new place of abode. Strabo explicitly says that this custom is Ka9cim:p trov 'EA.A.tlvrov t'lV£~.129

In the introduction to his studies on ver sacrum J. Heurgon strongly argues against the identification of the Greek dekate with the ver sacrum. The latter is found mainly in Sabellian context and is linked with Mars (not Apollo). Its elements are important: (I) a total (not a tenth) dedication of a year's yield (2) expulsion and colonization (3) a guide in the form of a sacred animal (not found in the Greek accounts) The balance, argues Heurgon, is against an essential similarity, although the two are comparable. 130 It could also be argued that the practice of dedicating and sending a tithe of young men to Delphoil3 1 did not primarily serve colonization but provided Delphoi with sacred slaves. Perhaps this is the meaning of the Magnesian appellation as iepoi toO 0&o0 aeA.q>rov cinotKot. 132 This is similar to a statement made by a man of Rhegion in the Classical period: Timaeus 133 tells about a quarrel at the Pythian games at Delphoi in which Ariston of Rhegion asks the Delphians to side with him:

Parke (1948: 87); Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 51). Strabo V.250; cf. Dion. Hal. 1.16; 23-24. Heurgon (1957); cf. W. Eisenhut in RE s.v. ver sacrum who also doubts the existence of a Greek counterpart. The veritable ver sacrum of the Mamertini which was attributed to Apollo in the 3rd century B.C. is shown to have been the result ofChalkidian (Cumaean or Rheginian) influence: Heurgon (1957: 28ff.); Gage (1955: 47; 240-241). See also Ducat (1974: 105) who adopts Heurgon's approach but doubts the historicity of either the ver sacrum or the dekate. Heurgon's distinctions have been developed further in Martin's penetrating study (1973). It is his view that Greeks in later periods (Strabo, Dion. Hal. 1.6) interpreted the ver sacrum as a rite of foundation which originally it was not (1973: 34). 131 And women? Eurip. loc. cit. 132 Athenaeaus loc. cit. 133 Strabo VI.260 = FGrHist 566 F43b. 128 129 130

40

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES U:pou~ yap &ivat TOU 9&oii TOU~ 7tpoy6vou~ QUTOU Kai TftV a7tOlKiav tv98vl;& tcmi1..8a1.

Because his ancestors were sacred to the god and that the colony had been sent from there. 134

It is probable that in certain cases Delphoi did, indeed, send out to found colonies consecrated people who had become the property of Apollo, but this was probably not a general practice. The most salient characteristic of what we know of the Greek dekate in colonization is, indeed, its extraordinary aspect. Rhegion was neither the only Chalkidian colony in the West nor the earliest, but it was one in a series of colonies founded in the late 8th century B.C. Yet it is the only one about which a dekate is reported. Moreover, it is doubtful whether Chalkis suffered from overpopulation in view of its intensive colonizing activity. In fact, to provide the colony with sufficient numbers, Messenians as well as other Chalkidians had to be added to the consecrated group, which may not have constituted a majority of the colonists. If we are to consider this tradition authentic, 135 we must impute a religious reason to it. Probably, some natural disaster occurred that was regarded as an expression of divine wrath and an attempt at appeasement took such an extraordinary form. 136 Dekate does not seem to have ever been a universal custom from which the need to consult Delphoi in matters of colonization could have evolved, as Parke and Wormell claim. To conlude, whereas we reject the dekate as a clue to understanding Delphoi's role in colonization and the position of the oikist, it is still possible to accept that Rhegion's own foundation had its historical origin, in part, in this practice. 137 The oikist appears in such a case of dekate as a leader of dispossessed and rootless people. There are other traditions about such groups; we have already noted theMessenians above. A hostile tradition about the origins of the people of Lokroi (673 B.C.) as slaves, thieves, or such, was reported by Aristotle and attacked by Timaeus, who was in turn attacked (unconvincingly) by Polybius. 138 The Partheniai and Phalanthos (below, p. 47; 216ff.) constituted another such group. 139 134 Cf. Hild in Daremberg-Saglio s.v. "Hieroduli" p. 172; Schmid (1947: 55ff.). 13S It was certainly believed in the Classical period as Timaeus' anecdote about Ariston shows. 136 6ui A.1116v in Heraclides Joe. cit; 61' 6:Qlopiav in Strabo Joe. cit. On A.m~t6c; and comparable

terms as an expression of divine wrath which strikes against the fertility of land, of animals, and of women and which needs expiation through the mediation of Apollo see Delcourt (1938: passim); Thuc. II.54; Soph. Oed. Rex. 25ff.; 17lff.; 269ff.; Hesiod Works and Days 240ff. 137 Vallet (1958: 71). 138 Polyb. XII.5-16 with Walbank's commentary and FGrHist 566 Fl3; Lerat (1952: 22-24); Graham (1971: 115ff.). 139 Cf. Polyb. XII.5.6.

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

41

There are others, 140 but except for the Eretrians, as argued above, there is no need to see in them a reflection of a dekate.

Archias and Syracuse A foundation oracle which Parke and Wormell consider authentic is reported for Archias, the Corinthian founder of Syracuse (founded 733 B.C.). 141 Archias was one of the Herakleidai, probably a Bakchiad. 142 Perhaps he had special connections with the region of Tenea which supplied most of the colonists.143 An anecdote narrated by Plutarch 144 gives details about why Archias had to leave Corinth. Rejected in his effort to win the love of the young Aktaion, Archias' followers attempted to abduct him and in the struggle that ensued between those who tried to carry him off and those who pulled him back, Aktaion was torn to death. No punishment was meted out following this horrible end. 145 But the invocations of the desperate father made just before his public suicide brought about drought and pestilence (aux!J.oc; Kai AOliJ.Oc; Ka-n:A.ciiJ.(}avs tl)v 7t6A.tv). Delphoi was consulted by a delegation which included Archias among its members. The oracle specified the reason for the natural disaster as the wrath of Poseidon and ordered punishment (6 9s6c; civsiM: IJ.fivw dvat noasuSrovoc; ouK civnaovtoc;, fmc; dv tov 'AKtairovoc; 9civatov 1J.Et&A.9otsv). Archias did not dare to return to Corinth but sailed to Sicily and founded Syracuse. 146 Berard considers the anecdote not without historical value but does not elaborate.147 Dunbabin notes: "it is interesting that such discreditable incidents

See section on Kyrene p. 60ff. Thuc. Vl.3.2. On Syracuse's foundation see Berard (1957: 116ff.); Dunbabin (1948: 14-16); Boardman (1980: 172-174); Graham (1982: 105-106). Cf. Manni (1981: 228-234). 142 Thuc. ibid.; cf. Marmor Parium No. 31 (a lOth generation from Temenos, obviously a "mistake"); Plut. Mor. 772d-773b; schol. Apoll. Rhod. IV.l212; Arist. fr.611, 19; Diod. Vll.9.6. See Berard (1957: 118-119); Will (1955: 296ff.) in general on Bakchiads and Heraklids at Corinth: Graham (1971: 220 n.2). 143 Maybe he owned land there and once the region was stricken by natural disasters (below) and overpopulation he was a more willing candidate for emigration. See Strabo Vlll.380: My&ta\ lit Kai 'Apx.iq t(\1 att:U.avt\ TiJv t:lc; l:upaKouaac; c'tnmKiav, toile; nuiatouc; tci>v tnoiKoov tvt&OO&v auV&naKoA.ou9ijaa1, ... Cf. Berard (1957: 126); Dunbabin (1948: IS) implies that this region was particularly prone to suffer from natural disasters. 144 Plut. Mor. 772d-773b. 145 Compare the opposite type of story about King Solomon where the true parent gives up her child to preserve him: I Kings 3.16-28. 146 Cf. Diod. Vlll.lO.l-3; schol. Apoll. Rhod. IV.l212 (where the whole Bakchiad clan is exiled). 147 Berard (1957: 119). 140

141

42

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

should be remembered (or invented) about the founder of a colony. 148 The elements of this story, as told by Plutarch, certainly seem to be loosely joined. This merits a closer analysis. An inquiry at Delphoi by a founder who wishes to atone for a blood guilt is a common motif in legendary foundation oracles but "never in historical foundations" (Parke). 149 Archias seems to be an obvious exception, but we should still regard Parke's statement as essentially correct. We propose that the love story (which may simply be an adaptation of certain aspects of myth and ritual) 150 may be separated from the account of the actual consultation. We would then be left with the following sequence: (I) loimos, i.e., natural disasters (2) Divine wrath thought to be its cause (3) Inquiry at Delphoi by a delegation which includes the oikist (4) Colonization This is precisely the sequence reported for Rhegion and for some legendary foundations, notably Magnesia. It may even be possible to argue that what we have here is a hidden motif of dekate; but this is not necessary. The situation implies overpopulation (which is inherent in any shortage of food caused by natural disasters) and a need to colonize. lSI The story in Plutarch makes an abrupt turn at the point where the oracle orders "punishment" and where Archias goes to settle. If we eliminate the anecdotal element this would be a possible context for the foundation oracle as it is preserved in Pausanias: 152 '0pT\Yyl11 nc; K&iTal tv i)&pO&lOti: 7t6VTC!) 0pwaKi11c; Ka9un&p9&v, iv' 'AA.q>&loli aT6~a PA.ul/:l ~layan:~ ttyyrov ciKpov n:oA.toio y&v&iou fv9a Tcipavta n:mou tn:i :Eatupiou i}&l}arota. 183

Fair indeed is the space between Corinth and Sikyon; you will not live there, not even if you were all of bronze. Mark Satyrion and the gleaming waters of Taras and the harbour on the left and where the goat loves the briny surge, dipping the tip of his hoary beard. There make Taras mounted on Satyrion.

As the colonists did not understand the oracle (Diodorus), a second, more straightforward response was given (Oracle II): :Eatupt6v tot 5roKa, Tcipavtci t& n:iova 5i1J.LOV oiKilaat Kai m\J.Lat' 'Ian:uy&am y&vta9at.

I have given you Satyrion and Taras, a rich country to dwell in and to be a plague to the lapygians. (Parke)

The wish to settle in "Sikyon," that is, in a relatively near and familiar place, is understandable. Similarly the Phokaians, in their flight from the Persians, tried first to purchase the nearby islands of Oinoussai from Chios, and only when the Chians, fearing rivalry, turned them down did they go to the far West. 184 The fugitives from Tiryns who consulted Delphoi and founded Halieis after the destruction of their city by Argos provide another example. 185 Oracle I The site requested is denied, in a way which is somewhat analogous to the denial of Sybaris to Myskellos. A more precise parallel for the denial of a territory (although not "colonial") is an oracle which Delphoi had given Sparta about Arkadia: 'ApKa5illv ll' ait⁣; J.Ltya ll' ait⁣ · ou tot 5roaro. n:oA.A.oi tv 'ApKa5iu l}aA.aVllq>ciyot civ5p&c; famv, oi a' cin:OKroA.uaouatv. tyro 5£ tot ofitt j.L&yaipro. 5roaro tOl T&YETIV n:oaaiKpOtOV opxl\aaa9at

183 Diod. Vlll.21.3; tr. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.l 72).

Hdt. 1.165. See also below 72ff. Ephorus FGrHist 70 FS6 = Steph. Byz. s.v. 'AA.1£ic;. Cf. Rohrbach (1960: 17). Jacoby believes that Tiryns fell in an earlier period (commentary ad loc.) but its mention by Herodotus (IX.28.4) at Plataia in 479 B.C., and the fact that Halieis is first mentioned by that name only in the first Peloponnesian War (460-453 B.C., Hdt. VII.I37 .2) refute this notion. Herodotus specifically calls it a settlement of Tiryns. Although the oracle itself is aetiological "to have a home and be called fishermen" (6:A.Ita t& K&KA.ijaOat) and hence suspect, the historical circumstances and the consultation at Delphoi seem genuine. Another similar case where, however, the inhabitants of a destroyed city were commanded by Delphoi to stay in place, is Pellene which was destroyed by Kleisthenes of Sikyon (P. Ox. 1365 = FGrHist lOS F2; P. Ox. 1241 Col.llllines 2-12; cf. Ael. VH VI.I.S4; Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol. II No. 25). In neither case do we hear of an oikist. 184 ISS

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

49

Kai Kai..Ov m:liiov axoivql lilUIJEtpl\aaa9a•. "Askest Arcadia from me? 'Tis a boon too great for the giving. Many Arcadians there are, stout heroes, eaters of acorns, These shall hinder thee sore. Yet 'tis not I that begrudge thee: Lands Tegeaean I'll give thee, to smite with feet in the dancing, Also the fertile plain with line I'll give thee to measure." 186 (Tr. Godley, Loeb)

The inquiry is first restated, as it was in the former oracle about Sikyon. Then follows the personal denial, which is, however, not dependent on Apollo's own arbitrary decision but on the fact that the Arkadians will offer resistance. This is also similar to the reason given for the denial in the oracle about Sikyon, implied in line 2: "even if you were made of bronze. 187 In place of the desired destination, an alternative is provided by each oracle: Tegea and Taras. Nothing is said in the first oracle about Taras about war with the inhabitants (in contrast to Tegea). In the second this is explicit: "a plague on the Iapygians" (see below). Our evaluation of the authenticity of these oracles should depend partly on this point: Antiochus clearly implies friendly relations with the natives when he says that the colonists "were welcomed" by the local inhabitants: KUi el)&~QV'tO autou~ oi tE J3apJ3apot Kai oi KpfitE~ oi npoKataax6vtE~ tov t6nov. On the other hand, it is Antiochus himself who quotes the oracle about the plague to the Iapygians as the only foundation oracle just a few lines before. Moreover, Justin preserves a tradition according to which the former inhabitants fled to Brentesion, thereby signifying a forcible expulsion of the natives.188 But even if we accept Berard's view that in the initial stage relations had been friendly, 189 the question about the second oracle should remain open because it is perfectly possible that on setting out from the Peloponnesos the colonists could not have anticipated what kind of relations they would have with the natives and would have considered resistance likely (see more on this motif below). The oracle represents Delphoi as initiating the colonization of Taras as a reply to the colonists' wish to colonize. It is probably addressed to the oikist, who is provided with the appropriate geographical details. Unlike the oracle about Kroton, nothing is mentioned of the route but only instructions on how to recognize the place on arrival. ''Mark Satyrion and the gleaming water of Taras.'' Satyrion (modern Leporano) lies a few miles east of the site of Taras and apparently was the site of Hdt. 1.66.1; cf. Rohrbach (1960: 17); Crahay (1956: 150). Corinth probably would not have allowed it; cf. Forrest (1957: 172). For the significance of "bronze" see Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.II No. 302). 188 Justin 11.4; cf. Strabo VI.282. See also our discussion on the cult of Phalanthos below, p. 216ff. 189 (1957: 171). This would imply that the first oracle has more claims to authenticity because it does not mention war and that the second is spurious because it does. 186 187

50

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

a preliminary settlement; 190 local legend later made its eponym, the nymph Satyrion, the mother of the eponymous hero, Taras. 191 The oracle probably refers to a topographical area; in the second oracle this area is referred to, with "Taras," as 1tirov 5f\~oc; ("rich country"). Some late sources, however, seem to indicate that previously a settlement had existed there. 192 Taras could be a reference to the sea, but more probably the river is meant; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his paraphrase of the oracle, specifies 7tota~ov Tapavta. 193 In verse 6, however, we read Tapavta 7t0\0U, that is, the name of the future colony. This does not have to be anachronistic; colonies were often named quite straightforwardly after rivers (e.g., Gela), 194 and even if the first settlement had not been on the site of the acropolis of the later Tarentum, its name could have been Taras. The oikist, then, is given two topographical landmarks and also a name for the colony. 195 The third sign by which to recognize the site is "the harbour on the left." Strictly speaking, upon approaching Taras the harbours are on one's right, but from the point of view of a ship going "up" from the Peloponnesos, it can be regarded as "left." A better translation, however, is probably western, which is another meaning of aKat6c;. 196 The fourth sign by which the site is to be recognized is not topographical but a riddle: where the goat dips its beard in the water. Parke, who generally rejects such motifs as belonging to folklore, approaches this oracle hesitantly; "there are no traces of accretion of legend in it." On the other hand, the pun on the he-goat he takes as an "early accretion." 197 It is important to emphasize that, as was the case with Rhegion, the recognition of the site by the oikist does not depend on the solution of the riddle. In an alternative legendary account of Phalanthos that is indeed the case: he was told to found a city where rain pours out of the clear sky; the solution was the tears that flowed from the eyes of Aithra, his wife, whose name can be taken literally to mean "clear sky." 198 But in our case the riddle is a mere addition to the mention of three straightforward landmarks. One can even say that the oracle directs the oikist exactly to the place where he will find the solution of the riddle, which is completely

Lo Porto (1964a: 177-279); (1964b: 67-80). See also Dunbabin (1948: 30); Wuilleumier (1939: 6, 46). Steph. Byz. s.v.; Servius ad Verg. Georg. ll.l9; Probus ad loc. Dion. Hal. XIX.I.2 in his paraphrase of this oracle calls it xrop\ov Tijc; 'Ianuyiac; I:aTUplov which may mean either (L.S.J. s.v. XcOPlOV I, 2). 193 Loc. cit. For the river see e.g., Appian BC V.93.292; Paus. X.l0.8; Steph. Byz. s.v. Tcipac; 194 Lacroix (1965: 115ff.). 19S Naming the colony was probably the function of the oikist; see the case of Hagnon in Thuc. IV.I02.3; cf. Aristoph. Birds, 809-811 with Burelli (1972: 105). 196 L.S.J. s.v. II. 197 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 73). 198 Paus. X.I0.6. 190 191 192

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

51

different from finding the place according to the riddle. As was the case with Rhegion, the oikist is supplied with the religious authority to pinpoint the spot of settlement within the area given him to colonize. To the colonists, then, their oikist would appear to be translating the god's own command into physical terms of a site. Oracle II Satyrion and Taras are explicitly said to be a gift from the god (liroKa). This again provides justification and sanction for the settlement as well as for the expulsion of the native lapygians. This motif of supplying justification and sanction is implied also in the phrase: "a plague to the lapygians." It has been rightly compared by Rohrbach 199 to the Homeric expression applied to Achilles; Peleus says of his son that he raised him "to be a plague to the Trojans" 1tij~a y&vsa9at Tproai. 200 In the context of colonization an even closer analogy in form and in content to the justification of war against natives occurs in the legendary oracle given to Neleus, the founder of Miletos. He was told to "drive out the wicked Karians," NT)A.&G, q>pa~u, {mro~ MiKc.ov Kaprov ysvo~ avliprov t~tA.aaa~, KtA.. 201 These parallels would take us beyond the limits of our subject, and at this stage we can only point them out. It is important to emphasize, however, that they all imply the need for justifying conquest. The foundation oracle of Taras is, therefore, not an isolated case, but is compatible with a common Greek attitude. We should add, however, that it is still possible for someone to argue that the existence of the Homeric parallels may tell against the authenticity of our oracle and that it may have been concocted on the basis of these parallels. This is possible, of course, but such a contention must not disregard either the phenomenon of recurring motifs in religious lore and in literature, which, although repeated, are not necessarily copied from each other. To conclude, for colonists setting out towards a distant location with a reasonable expectation of war against natives, such an oracle could raise morale and allay fears. At the same time, the language which is used evokes epic, or heroic, associations. The colonists could look up to their leader not just as a divinely appointed oikist but also as a military commander cast in the heroic mold. 202 Rather than diminishing the danger of encounters with local inhabitants, the oracular response creates the impression of a divinely justified and

199

(1960: 19).

200 //. XXII.421-422. 201 Parke and Wormell 202 This partly accounts

part of this work.

(1956: Vol.II No. 301, No. 302) for text and sources. for the heroic cult accorded to oikists after their death. See the second

52

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

inspired war, with the god personally at the side of the leader.

The Joint Foundation of Gela Gela, on the southern shore of Sicily, was founded in 688 B.C. by Rhodians and Cretans; the oikists were Antiphemos of Rhodes and Entimos of Crete. 2°3 In time the memory and cult of Antiphemos and the role of Rhodes came to overshadow Entimos and Crete; in some early accounts, notably that of Herodotus, Crete and Entimos were left out altogether. 204 Antiphemos was also remembered as a commander in the field against the local Sikanians of Omphake from whom he "retrieved" a statue "made by Daidalos" (see below). 205 A separate foundation legend grew up around the figure of Antiphemos; a "foundation oracle" is attributed to him together with his brother, Lakios, the oikist of Phaselis. According to it, Antiphemos laughed when he heard he was to found a city; this was the origin of the name, Gela, from yeA.aro. The story was in vogue quite early, and Aristophanes uses the pun. 206 In contrast to this anecdotal foundation story mentioning Antiphemos alone, there is an oracle preserved by Diodorus which seems to Parke quite straightforward in character and which mentions both oikists. For this reason, Parke regards it as authentic: 'Evn11' t15f: Kp

TtllllOi~

7tEpi

tfi~

U7t0\Kiac; cSoeeic;

XP1101.10fjKE EV 'Ht:pil) Kti~ElV EUOEit:A.ov aaw

Parke and Wormell translate as follows: 234 Announce to the Parians, Telesikles, that I bid you found a conspicuous city in the island of Eeria.

226 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 66); the authors, however, are inconsistent because in their corpus (Vol. II) the oracle (No. 230) is placed in the fifth period, i.e., between the Peloponnesian War and 373 B.C.; cf. Graham (1978: 78). Pouilloux (1954: 24ff.) also believes in the authenticity of the oracle although id. ( 1963: 9) is more cautious; cf. Graham (1978: 78 n.l06). Pouilloux (1982) now emphasizes that the possibility that the oracle is authentic is a strong argument in itself. 227 See Pease (1917: 6) for oikists as inquirers and our introduction to this chapter. 228 Pouilloux (1954: 27; 327). 229 Ibid. 28 n.2; 116. 230 Ibid. 31. See Call. Aetia fr.l04, with scholia; Pfeiffer (1949). 231 Graham (1971: ch.V). 232 S.v. 0aao~. 233 Oenomaos' motive was personal disappointment he experienced from his consultation of the oracle at Klaros. The oracles he quotes are mostly Delphic, perhaps from some collection of oracles: Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.II xi). It is extant in Eusebius PE 6, 7 p.256b. 234 Commas are omitted in our citation on purpose; Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol. II No. 230) place a comma after Telesikles; Graham argues for a second one after K&A.Euro; see below. The translation is in Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.I 66). For similar translations see Graham (1978:

76).

58

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

Telesikles, therefore, clearly appears as the oikist; he is commanded by Apollo to found a city and to tell the Parians about it. As we have said, this is the convention of most foundation oracles. 235 Graham proposes a different translation of this oracle, based on his interpretation of the clause, roc; a& K&A&uro: according to his reading, in which roc; means as rather than that, the clause becomes parenthetic. Literary parallels and concordances convince him that the "Greeks will have naturally taken roc; with K&A&uro in verse as meaning as, and to take it as meaning that would be most unnatural. " 236 The change in meaning is significant; instead of being ordered to found a colony, Telesikles becomes a mere announcer of the god's command. In his treatise, Oenomaos makes Apollo claim that the following events would not have occurred unless he (Apollo) had commanded them: that Telesikles announced his order; that Archilochos guided the Parians to Thasos, telling them that its former name was Eeria; that the Parians actually founded it. Oenomaos also has Telesikles claim (by a twist of sophistry) that he would have made the announcement to the Parians whether the god had ordered him or not. Graham is certainly right that in Oenomaos' view, at least, Telesikles' role is merely that of an announcer, not of an oikist. 237 Because the ancients were interested in Archilochos and in ktiseis, the silence of Oenomaos becomes significant, especially since his knowledge of Eeria - which apparently derives from a poem of Archilochos - suggests that Oenomaos was also acquainted with "the available material about Archilochos. " 238 Jacoby, in contrast, thought that the name, Eeria, was the only thing worth preserving from Oenomaos. He may be right. 239 If Oenomaos' source for his whole work on oracles was merely a collection of oracles, then he probably read Eeria in that collection, and, therefore, an argument from silence about what he knew or did not know about Archilochos himself becomes less significant. On the other hand, the fact that the name, Eeria, does appear seems to indicate that the oracle itself was indeed concocted on the basis of a poem of Archilochos. The concocted oracle can thus be grouped with other fictitious oracles which are centered around the biography of Archilochos. 240 235 We find, therefore, the view of F.H. Sandbach which Graham refers to (1978: 77 infra) erroneous. 236 (1978: 77). Original italics. 237 Ibid. 238 Ibid. 78. 239 (1941: 103). 240 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol. II No 230-232); cf. SEG XV 517 with Parke (1958: 90-94). Numbers 4 and 5 in the corpus of Parke and Wormell which they consider authentic have been shown also as spurious: Tarditi (1956: 122-139). Tarditi notes the similarity to a story about Hesiod: 131 on Plut. Numa IV.6 and he notes a play on words which appears in Archilochos fr.88A (Diehl).

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

59

Another argument for the inauthenticity of the oracle is the role of Eeria as a "riddle": "The Parians will come to it when my son, Archilochos, has told them that that island was formerly called Eeria. " 241 "Riddles" are often regarded as a sign of a folklore motif. The name seems to us to have been a stock "former name of places": Pliny mentions it as a former name of Thasos and of Crete; 242 Apollonius Rhodius mentions it as the ancient name of Thessaly. 243 It seems to us that the riddle itself is more subtle: the word, aeria, is in fact an adjective meaning either "early," or "at (or with) early dawn." 244 It can also mean "misty," "dimly seen." 245 If we apply the second meaning, we arrive at a perfectly legitimate literary sense common in (mostly) spurious foundation oracles, that is, a paradox: a foundation is ordered of a "clearly seen" (suosisl..ov) city on a "dimly seen" 246 island. To resume, the oracle seems spurious to us. On the other hand, we hesitate to remove Telesikles as the oikist; there are many spurious foundation oracles, about real oikists; although their content is usually historically worthless, they still preserve the memory of a real founder. Oenomaos, after all, does not deny that Telesikles was an oikist, nor does he attribute this function to Archilochos. 247 On the other hand, even Graham agrees that "one may well argue" the mere fact that Telesikles is addressed (even if as a mere announcer) means that ''prima facie he is likely to have been the oikistes. 248 Since we cannot be sure how Oenomaos arrived at his information, we do not consider that the argument from silence about him should be pressed. We concede, however, that the matter is far from certain because the spurious foundation oracle is the only basis for regarding Telesikles as an oikistes. The historical foundation of Thasos involves many other problems which do not concern us here. Specifically, because we reject the foundation oracle itself as a late invention, we cannot use it as an historical source for the question of the oikist and Delphoi.

241

Graham's translation of Oenomaos (1978: 77).

242 243

NH IV.73; IV.58; cf. Gellius XIV.6.4; Steph. Byz. s.v.

IV.267. See RE s.v. Aeria (Hirschfeld) Col.673 for more examples (Pietschmann; lhm; Tiimpel). 244 L.S.J. s.v. This is the earlier meaning. 24S Ibid. 246 Rohrbach (1960: 25, 39) compares it to the oracle reported by Menekles of Barka for Kyrene: ij7t&lpo~ ajl&tV(l)V flC!>o~ (see section on Kyrene). He prefers to see in Aeria the "early" island in the sense of Jungfraiilicher Boden (p. 25), i.e., virgin lands. Thasos, however, was not "virgin" as the poems of Archilochos show. 247 Graham (1978: 80-81). 248 Ibid. 78.

60

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

The Foundation of Kyrene in Libya The North African colony of Kyrene was founded by Thera ca. 630 B.C. 249 The source material for the account of its foundation and for the oracular literature associated with it is quite rich in comparison to other colonies: accounts in Pindar250 and Herodotus (below), an inscription which claims to be the original foundation decree, 251 and other isolated references in ancient literature. Herodotus provides the detailed framework; he begins by narrating the foundation of Thera from Sparta (IV.146-149) and goes on to provide two distinct versions for the foundation of Kyrene: a Theraian version (150-153) and a "Kyrenaian" one (154-158). The two, as it will be shown, are structurally similar but differ in detail, roles, and emphasis; they also provide mutually exclusive foundation oracles. 252 As they have come down to us, it is unlikely that they are authentic. On the other hand, the connection with Delphoi is well attested (also in subsequent relations), and even Defradas accepts the basic elements of Delphoi's involvement as true. 253 The stories themselves, as we find them in Pindar and Herodotus, appear to have originated at least as early as the 6th century B.C., if not earlier. Consequently, even if invented (or paraphrased), the oracles provide us with an opportunity to study in relative detail perceptions of the oikist' s role with regard to the Delphic oracle which are early and thus valuable. Much has been written about the oracular literature associated with Kyrene's foundation; we shall here confine ourselves to the subject of the oikist alone. Let us begin by examining the two versions of the foundation story in Herodotus, using his text as a point of reference for other sources when needed.

Theraian Version Oracle I The Theraean king Grinnos comes with his entourage to Delphoi to sacrifice a hecatomb; while inquiring about "other matters" (7tEpi iiA.A.rov) the Pythia

249 For a general account and discussion: Chamoux (1953); for the evidence concerning its foundation and date ibid., ch.IV (esp. 120-124). See also Schaefer (1952: 136-170); on the founder: Biising (1978: 51-79); for archaeological survey and discussion Boardman (1980: 153-159); Graham (1982: 134-138). A collection of sources for the religious history of Kyrene with commentary: Vitali (1932). For a discussion on the foundation oracles: Defradas (1972: 245-257); Crahay (1956: I !Off); Parke and Wormell (1956: Voi.I 73ff.); Rohrbach (1960: 31ff.); Schmid (1947: 108-116); Gierth (1971: 96-103); Fontenrose (1978: 120-123; Q45-Q51); cf. Kirchberg (1%5: 5!-53). 250 Pyth. IV.4-8; 59-63; Pyth. V.85-95. 251 ML 5. 252 Crahay (1956: 118). 253 Defradas, op. cit.

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

61

responds that he should found a city in Libya (:x,pc} ..; nuOin K'til;Etv tv Atf}UlJ n6A.tv). Grinnos is reluctant, asks to be excused because of his age, and points seemingly at random to Battos, son of Polymnestos, a descendant of the Minyan Euphemos (IV .150). 254 Herodotus does not quote the oracle but reports it indirectly. No specific place in Libya is mentioned, and the command is reported straightforwardly without any elements of folklore or a "riddle" by which a site may be recognized. Grinnos is addressed as king; the position of oikist is conferred on him alone. Apollo clearly does not agree to the shifting of the designation to Battos. The sacrifice which Grinnos brings to Delphoi merits a comment: the hecatomb was an exceptionally costly sacrifice undertaken only under extraordinary circumstances. 255 We thus gain an insight into the "other matters" about which Grinnos was inquiring at Delphoi; probably some sort of trouble at home, whether social and political or simply hunger and overpopulation, preceded his consultation. A severe seven year drought is reported by Herodotus to have followed and to have occasioned a second oracle; but it may have started earlier.

Oracle II The Pythia's response to the inquiry about the drought was the order to send a colony to Libya (npotq>&p& ..; nuain TTtV t~ Atf}unv anoudav). It does not mention Grinnos, who is likely to have been dead by this time, since he had already been an old man seven years before. This again illustrates that the oracle was given to him qua king, as the responsibility to colonize lay on the Theraians. On the other hand, no other oikist is mentioned (IV.151.1). 256 The Theraians find a Cretan guide; a small group lands on the offshore island Platea (probably modern Bomba)257 where they leave their guide, Korobios. The others return home and tell "their countrymen that they had colonized an island on the coast of Libya" (amiyy&A.A.ov ro~ aqn &iTt viiao~ tni Atf}uu EK'tlOJ.1SVTt) (IV .153); what follows reads like a paraphrase of an official decree: "The Theraians resolved to send out men from their seven regions, taken by lot one of every pair of brothers, and making Battos leader and king of all." Two fifty-oared ships (penteconters) carried the colonists to Platea. The way the oikist is chosen in the Theraian version is noteworthy: Battos is made a hegemon and basileus only after the foundation had officially taken place, albeit symbolically, by leaving one man there. He is also not officially 254 Pind. Pyth. IV.4ff. reports that Medea prophesied Kyrene's foundation to Euphemos. For other references Vitali (1932: No. 197-208; pp. 74-83, 114-120); cf. Defradas (1972: 242-245). 255 RE (Stengel) s.v. l'jKat61l~11; Schaefer (1952: 137 n.l3); Rohrbach (1960: 32). 256 We disagree with Gierth ( 1971 : 100) that in both oracles of the Theraian version no oikist is named. Grinnos, in Herodotus' story (in the first consultation) clearly reacts as if he is designated. 257 Bomba: Boardman (1980: 154).

62

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

called "oikist;" 258 in the "Agreement of the Founders," which echoes this paraphrase, he is called archegetes and basileus. 259 The difference is not great, and it can be shown that sometimes the three words are used as synonyms and sometimes to emphasize certain aspects of the founder's role. 260 Still, one wonders if the reason for the lack of the appellation oikistes in this particular context is that Battos is not said to have ever received the sanction of Delphoi, in contrast to the Kyrenaian version where he was: in Pindar's words (Pindar reflects the Kyrenaian version), xpfiaEv oiKta't"fjpa, that is, clearly a designatory oracle (see below). 26! The relatively small number of colonists that occupied the two fifty-oared ships is intriguing in itself and may be relevant to the question of Battos' position. The number cannot represent every young male (from a family of at least two sons) from the seven districts of Thera; nor could it provide a solution to overpopulation and hunger. Perhaps the men took Libyan wives; 262 Herodotus says that at the time of Battos II the "dwellers in Kyrene were no more in numbers than when they had first gone forth to the colony" (oiKEOV oi Kupnvaim t6V't"E nap6vtt, aU' oiKtatai

n6/..&roc;. OlKlCJtaic; 45& toile; j.1EV tU7tOUc; 7tpOCJllK&l &i4Stvat, EV ofc; 4S&i j.1U9o/..oy&iV toile; 7t0llltcic;, nap' ouc; &av 7tOlWCJlV OUK E7tttp&7tttov, ou lliJV autoic; y& 7tOllltEOV llU9ouc;. Adeimantos, we are not poets, you and I at present, but founders of a state. And to founders it pertains to know the patterns on which poets must compose their fables and from which their poems must not be allowed to deviate. But the founders are not required themselves to compose fables. Plato, Rep. II 379a (tr. Shorey, Loeb)

Foundation oracles usually indicated the need to colonize, the prospective site, and the founder. The verse oracles we examined are mostly addresses in the second person, and sometimes the oikist is called by name. From the oikist's point of view, this designatory aspect of the foundation oracle was the most important, for it implied all the rest. It was not enough for the mother-city to select the oikist; Delphoi had to invest this selection with its religious authority. The oikist may be described as the link, the intermediary between the mother-

417 Cf. the theory about the origins of Greek heroes as "faded gods" whose chief exponent was Deneken (in Roscher, Lexikon, s.v. heros).

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

89

city, the colonists, the potential colony, and the god. The mother-city was not supposed to own the colony; the latter was yet to be. Only to the oikist, therefore, could the divine promise be made. Nilsson describes Delphoi's success in colonization in religious terms, namely, because of its exegetic function: Apollo expounds the areas of responsibility and the authority of individual gods and heroes, and he points out the required cult. 418 The oikist is delegated this exegetic function through Apollo's designation; when the colony is founded he may proceed to institute cults and festivals as did Battos at Kyrene, to raise altars as did Thoukles at Naxos, to define precincts and build temples as Homer says of Nausithoos, and to conduct the proper rites. 419 As Plutarch says, the oikist was entrusted with "signs for recognizing places, the times for activities, the shrines of the gods across the sea, secret burial places of heroes, hard to find for men setting forth on a distant voyage from Greece." Oikists had to "discover by means of evidential proofs the suitable place of settlement provided to each. " 420 As was said of Lampon, the oikist was an "expounder of the foundation of the city." 421 In certain cases, such as Massalia and Herakleia Pontike, the oracle provided specific cult instructions, but for the most part the religious details were left to the founder. It could be said that the oikist, in religious terms, is to the colonists what Apollo is to the oikist - an expounder of what is to be done. To recapitulate the double aspect of the religious authority with which the oikist was entrusted at Delphoi: (a) A kind of religious aura, or "charisma," emanating from his personal designation by Apollo and which enhances the exercise of his leadership in the various phases of the foundation. (b) Religious authority in the sense of the oikist's right to expound religion and especially to make religious decisions: which heroes to worship, where to place the sacred precincts, what foundation rites to perform, what altars to set up, etc. In many respects the oikists resembled kings, not least of which in this aspect of' 'numinous authority.'' Their religious functions, too, as Berard points out, were similar to those of kings. 422 The oikist probably had absolute powers; it is still a mystery how the transfer of power to an oligarchic or democratic constitution was made (the monarchy in Kyrene was the exception). Perhaps he was like an aesymnetes, holding absolute powers for a limited period. We bring this up to emphasize how he would have embodied all the civic functions, which in themselves were sometimes connected with Delphoi. Thus, he was probably a "lawgiver" in the sense that he must have set up the basic elements

GGR4 637-640. See pp. 138; 140; 141. 420 See pp. 24-26 on Plut. Mor. 407f-408a. 421 See pp. 93-102. 422 Berard (1960: 82). 418

419

90

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

of the social order. 423 The political aspect of Apollo and the oracles given to lawgivers (e.g., Lykourgos) need no elaboration here. If we are to understand the kind of authority with which Delphoi had invested the oikist, the analogy of the lawgiver should be kept in mind. The oikist was also a military leader. Some of the foundation oracles we noted (and many others) are comparable to oracles given in response to inquiries about wars, especially when such wars involved the conquest of new territory.424 We have seen that foundation oracles imply (sometimes explicitly) a justification for the appropriation of territories and sometimes, also, of conquest, expulsion, or subjugation of natives. Thus the colonists could look up to their leader as the one possessing the authority to trespass on the realms protected by other gods and heroes. It is probable that in certain respects colonization resembled a crime because it took land from someone else; for this reason it was important that the act of colonization receive moral sanction from Apollo. In contrast to idealizations of "new frontiers," of "pioneers," etc., which are sometimes manifested in the White Man's colonization of the New World, Greek colonists seem to have preferred to tell themselves they were not the first Greeks to settle in the territories they were colonizing. Often their myths told of former visits or foundations by the Argonauts, by Herakles, by the various nostoi, etc. Such myths served perhaps to familiarize somewhat alien and forbidding lands by defining the new colonial topography in terms of mythological geography. The subject of religious justification or "charter myths" merits a full and separate discussion; however, we cannot enter into it here since Delphoi and the oikist are connected with such charter myths only through cultic prescriptions or by indirect implication. For example: as we have seen, the site of Herakleia Pontike was associated with the myth of the Argonauts; in addition, Delphoi provided an explicit cultic prescription: to worship Idmon, the Argonaut buried at the site. The cult, implemented by the oikist Gnesiochos, certainly made concrete the bond with the site and its soil. In other words, Delphoi does not seem to have included charter myths as such in its foundation oracles, it rather alluded to them by implication through cultic prescriptions. Charter myths seem to belong properly to non-Delphic, oracular literature. The case of Dorieus, as we have seen, is a good example: Antichares of Eleon, the professional chresmologue, was the one who said that Eryx properly belonged to the descendants of Herakles, of which Dorieus himself was one. 425 But the myth plays no role in Dorieus' subsequent consultation at Cf. Farnell (1921: 361). Fontenrose (1978: Appendix 8 no. VI 442). Cf. Od. VIII.75ff.: Agamemnon, on his way to Troy, first stopped at Pytho. 42S See pp. 78-81. 423

424

FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE

91

Delphoi. The need for justification - not through myth but rather through direct divine sanction - explains perhaps why Greeks insisted that the initiative to colonize must come not from the oikist or his mother-city, but from the god: the colony was Apollo's "gift" to the oikist. Foundation traditions sometimes emphasized the oikist less as a representative of the mother-city and more as an independent person. Often the oikist was characterized as a leader malgre lui, which probably enhanced his public image and authority. At times hostile conditions at home were imputed which forced the oikist to leave. Whatever the particulars of each case this feature of colonial foundation traditions probably reflects the enhancement of local patriotism since the emphasis was shifted away from the mother-city to the colonists themselves. The geographical directions given to the oikist in those oracles with claims to authenticity provided a divine authority in topographical terms. The colonists would thus know the exact area which was granted them. It was the delegated responsibility of the oikist to find the place and, once there, to identify it precisely. In some oracles, therefore, we find both general directions and specific landmarks, often in the form of an obvious riddle, which constitutes, in Plutarch's words a "sign for recognizing places," or "evidential proofs," which pinpoint the site. We shall have more to say about the symbolic qualities of the oikist in the section about cult. Let us just note here that subsequent inquiries from the colony about the identity of the oikist - when this was disputed - imply that things did not always go well and that we should be careful about adhering to general constructs pertaining to fixed practices of foundation. Such inquiries show, on the other hand, that it was inconceivable not to have an oikist, even if, as the last resort, he should be Apollo himself. These inquiries also illustrate that Apollo did not vie for the position and that naming him oikist was a last resort for the Delphic priesthood in cases of arbitration, rather than usurpations, as Defradas would have it. It can be said that religion provides answers for the mystery of authority; so, to a large extent, it seems to have functioned with the founders of Greek colonies.

CHAPTER TWO

DIVINATION AND FOUNDATION ... oi 1tal..at0i ... J.uil..uJta llUVtllilJOlV £xp&ovto ... out& 1tol..ia~ c'pKt~ov out& t&iX&a 7t&pt&j3ai..Aovto out& ... Ktl... . .. 1tpiv liv &1'! 1tapa 11avt&rov aKoiicrat ~Kacrta.

" ... the ancients had divination in very great use ... would found no cities, invest themselves with no ramparts ... until they had been advised in all particulars by diviners." Lucian, Astrology, 23 (tr. Harmon, Loeb.)

The Purpose of Divination In addition to the oikist's consultation at Delphoi we have evidence for another practice with a similar, if less defined, purpose: divination. This is a better translation for JlUV'tlKTt in the context of colonization where the word denoted an attempt to divine the intentions of the gods, whether favorable or not, toward a prospective enterprise. This mantike (the activity, especially, of the JlliVn ta11ia~ dto~ f.v Tiia~. auvmKtat1lp t& tciv Kl..&tvciv l:tpaKoaaciv·

Now, if any one were a victor at Olympia, and were minister unto the prophetic altar of Zeus in Pisa, and were a fellow-founder of famous Syracuse ... (tr. Sandys, Loeb.)

The Scholia (Drachmann), 8a: aUVOlKlat1lp t&: l>tt oi 7tp6yovm autoii auv 'Ap:x.i~ nap&ytvovto f.v l:upaKouaat~ oi 'Ia11icSat, (up' v EiKo~ napal..aj3&tv ttva~. Because his ancestors, the Iamidai, attended Archias in Syracuse, from whom it was natural to take some (seers?). 8b: auvmKtat1lP t&: toiito cSf: ouK cil..118~· ou yap outo~ auvcpKta& ta~ l:upaKouaa~. cil..l..a npo~ f.yKci>11tov &ii..Tiq>&v· cino yap f.K&ivcov 6 'Ay11aia~ t~ civ Ktiatll~ y&yovci>~ tf\~ 1t6A.&ro~. 33 Pindar himself, in Pythian I, calls Hieron a KAslVO~ oiKtatt\p 34 and Aristophanes alludes to Hieron in the Birds (itself a satire also of colonization practices) as Ktiatrop Aitva~. 35 We see then that in the policy of the Deinomenid brothers the terminology and honours associated with oikists were important. Gelon's situation seems to have been a compromise since he was not explicitly accorded an oikist's honours, but his tyranny could certainly have been regarded as a foundation, 36 especially if we consider the physical synoikismos of Syracuse which Gelon undertook. 37 Hieron was even more straightforward. Hagesias himself was closely linked with Hieron and probably also with Gelon. Our poem seems to include allusions to Hagesias' own unpopularity in Syracuse (line 8), and "we may discern an allusion to possible dangers threatening Hagesias that were beginning to cloud the horizon. " 38 It seems reasonable to connect this unpopularity with Hagesias' association with the tyrant. Against this background it may indeed be possible to regard the use of synoikister "with a view to Hagesias' praise" but without the further connection to his ancestors. The word seems to allude to a "refoundation" of Syracuse: and to emphasize the contrast between what is due to Hagesias at the hands of the Syracusans (the poem, after all, extols him) and the actual hostility which the seer of the tyrant might have met. In conclusion, we do not possess straightforward evidence concerning the Iamidai which reaches to the 8th century. The scholiasts do not seem to base their explanation on independent information but rather on likelihood. This explanation is not improbable in itself, as seems to be indicated by early manleis in myth and especially in military manlike of the archaic period; but in so far as explicit evidence is concerned, the Iamidai should be given up. Let us now turn to the later, attested, cases. 2. Athens and Thourioi Thourioi was founded by Athens in 443/2 B.C. 39 The colony was not a 31 Diod. XI.26.7. The Deinomenidai were hereditary priests to the goddesses: Hdt. VII.! 53. 32 XI.49.2. 33 X1.66.4. 34 Pyth. 1.31, cf. Pyth. III 69. 3S Birds 926. See also 428ff. 36 Cf. Diod. Xl.26.2; XIV.66.2-3. 37 Dunbabin (1948: 416). See Moggi (1976: section 17). 38 Farnell (1932: 40) on lines 100-102. 39 On the foundation of Thourioi Diod. XII.IOf. See Ehrenberg (1948: esp. 164-165) on the

98

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

primary settlement but a re-foundation, and not the first, of Sybaris. Its ostensible character was pan-Hellenic; in a sense it was an attempt to implement a utopia, to create the best-planned, best designed polis. Hippodamos of Miletos laid out the plan; Protagoras wrote (some of?) the laws. Notable names appear among the list of settlers, such as Herodotus. Whatever our views about the political aims of Perikles in founding the colony40 we should agree that in itself the foundation of Thourioi must have been regarded as a remarkable enterprise. Yet barely ten years passed before Thourioi was already involved in its oikist-dispute, 41 whose winner was not an Athenian. Gradually Thourioi was removed from Athens, and in 413 B.C. it fought against it. Henceforward Greek utopias were confined to writing. 42 It is against this background that we may understand the derision implied in the term Thouriomanteis coined by the comic poets. It evoked the memory of the unfulfilled promise of the Thourian Seers. Aristophanes includes them among a list of sophists, i.e., frauds. 43 The scholion is illuminating: ... 0oupto~tcivtEtc; cino 0oupiou ~tcivtetc;, cii..A.c't tol>c; eic; 0ouptov, n6A.w l:tKEI..iac;, 7tE~tq>9&vtac; tni tcj) Ktioat aut!lv· E7tE~tq>9TJoav 6t 6&Ka av6pec; rov Kai Aci~t7t(J)V ~v 6 ~tcivttc;, av E!;1J"flltilv tKcil..ouv. ~v 6t Kai tiDV nol..tteuo~t&vrov nol..l..ciKtc; llUVtlKOU 6pv&ou, fTUXE 6& Kai Tijc; tv 7tpUTUVEiq> OlTllaEroc;.

Lampon was a sacrificer, a chresmologos and a mantis to whom some attribute also the Athenian colony for Sybaris, saying he was a leader (being Athenian) with the other sacrificers. He took oath on the goose as a bird of divination and he also was granted maintenance in the Prytaneion. 60

It is quite probable that this maintenance, which was a great public honour, was given to Lampon as a reward for Thourioi. 61 We also saw that he was continuously bringing up Thourioi in his speeches and there is no need to suppose that he did not do so also after the foundation. The Athenian disappointment in the colony, on the one hand, and Lampon as its living reminder, on the other, may have heightened the satirical effect. In line 988 he is mocked yet again: this time the context seems rather clear; the framework of the Birds is after all the foundation of a new state. The connection is made explicit a few lines earlier:

w5ati16VtE Ta 9Eia 11i1 q>auA.roc; q>&pE· ci>c; fan BaKt6oc; XP11a11oc; civnKpuc; A.Eyrov

tc; Tac; NEq>EA.oKoKKuyiac;.

[nEt.] Kcl1tEl Ta nroc; TaUT' OUK txpllallOAOYEtc; au npiv AilE TTJV n6A.lV Tliv5' oiKiaat;

(Chresmologos:) Oh think not lightly, friend, of things divine; know I've an oracle of Bakis, bearing on your Cloudcuckooberries. (Peisthetairos:) Eh? then why did you not soothsay that before I founded my city here? 62

The passage seems to presuppose a general practice63 of pre-foundation manlike. It may have been sacrificial or based on interpretation of oracles as58

Aa~nrov

59 VIII.l.

S'

o~vua' ftt

Kai vuvi tov xiiv' ihav t~anatci

tt.

Cf. Pritchett (1979: 111.72); Oliver (1950: 11-12). See Oliver, ibid., who doubts whether it was a grant for life, but adduces no evidence for Lampon. 62 %Iff. Rogers' tr. 63 cr. line 984 on "sacred rites." 60 61

DIVINATION AND FOUNDATION

101

sembled in books under the names of Bakis, the Sibyl, Orpheus, Musaios, Laios etc. 64 In the preliminary stage, namely the very decision to colonize, manlike seems to have played some role. This was not an empty ritual performed merely for the sake of tradition and form; the very fact that an important figure like Lampon was a Thourian seer is significant; he was also an Athenian politician who was sent with an oikist's powers precisely because, as we shall soon see, he was a specialist in religion. We also note from Lampon's activity that the general sphere of this pre-foundation manlike was the mother-city, and its purpose was to tell about the future prospects of the enterprise. The colonization of Thourioi involved a particular religious problem: the new site had to be moved away from the former one, which Sybaris had occupied. This required justification - both for the new choice and to explain why the former site of Sybaris had proven unlucky. Delphoi was consulted, and we may hardly doubt that it was Lampon, possibly a Pythochrestos himself, 65 who was in charge of receiving the foundation oracle. 66 This specified the site by a riddle: the location would be where there was "water to drink in due measure but bread to eat without measure." This was solved by founding Thourioi where a spring (Thouria) flowed through a bronze pipe called medimnos (a measure) by the natives. 67 Such an interpretation, which pin-pointed the site, was probably the work of Lampon's and the board of organizers-seers. Lampon, then, was able to give an authoritative interpretation since he combined in his person both the qualifications of a religious specialist and those of the oikist. The most adequate descriptive term for this activity, which really sums up all the religious functions of an oikist connected with foundations is tl;rtytrn'lc; tile; Kt'io&roc; tile; n6A.&roc;68 (an expounder of the foundation of the city); the role included expounding Apollo's instructions as well as performing duties connected with ritual and divination. As already noted, the oikist is to the colonists in practical terms what Apollo is to the oikist. But Thourioi failed. Socrates in the Republic vows never again to rely on a human exegetes but only on Apollo. 69 See our introduction to Ch. I on literary oracles. Ehrenberg (1948: 164). 66 See on this Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 187; II No. 131). 67 Diod. loc. cit. 68 Suda s. v. 0ouptollcivteu;. 69 Plato, Rep. IV .427c. The contrast between Thourioi and the "Ideal State" is brought up by Oliver (1950: 27). The question "who was the oikist of Thourioi" cannot be satisfactorily answered. The question is better phrased "Did Thourioi have an oikist?" The oikist's functions were undoubtedly executed and in this practical sense we may regard Lampon (and the Board of Ten) as an "oikist," but apparently not as a title. Lampon did not reside in the colony and in 434 B.C. arose the "oikist dispute." Perhaps the Board of Ten are better explained as organizers (cf. schol. Clouds 332) corresponding to the apoikistai of the Brea Decree (ML 49line 4) or the ten "oikistai" 64

6S

102

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

3. Xenophon and Silanos

After the Ten Thousand reached the shores of the Black Sea Xenophon had the notion (so he reports) of settling the army by founding a polis. 70 Kai &7ti tmhmc; &8\i&to npiv tlVt &ineiv tli>V atpatt(lm:ov I:tA.avov napaKaA.taac; tov Kupou J.Uivnv y&v6J.L&vov tov 'AJ.LPpaKtci>'tl'IV.

With a view to this project before speaking about it to any of the soldiers he Xenophon) offered sacrifices, summoning for that purpose Silanos the Ambrakiote who had been the soothsayer of Cyrus. 71

(=

The object of the sacrifice is clear: the very idea to colonize; hence the words, "with a view to this project (bti TOU'totc;)." Later (VI.29) Xenophon could deny this in his speech to the angry soldiers and would say that all he meant was to find out "whether it was better to begin to speak before you and to act regarding this project, or not to touch the matter at all.'' 72 The sophistry is transparent. The sacrifices proved favorable, even though Silanos turned out to be hostile: I:tA.avoc; && J.LOt 6 J,LO.vttc; an&Kpivato to J.LEV J,Ltytatov til iepa KaA.il dvat· ij&et yap Kai EJ.LE OUK c'i7t&tpov 6vta &til tO a&i nap&ivat toic; i&poic;.

Now Silanos, the seer, answered me in respect to the main issue that the omens were favorable (for he knew well enough that I was not unacquainted with divination, from being always present at the sacrifices). 73

Here we are concerned with sacrificial, nonoracular, divination, whose object is to determine the degree of favor for the decision to colonize. Nothing is said about any particular site, only about the initiative. We are not told what kind of sacrifices were performed; apparently because it was a matter of common knowledge. 74 Xenophon clearly assumes the functions of an oikist; it is noteworthy that

sent by Athens to Notion (Thuc. III.34.4; cf. Plato Laws 702c). In that respect Thourioi is exceptional but the practices involved were traditional and hence it is legitimate to include it in the discussion of foundation-manlike. Ehrenberg's idea (1948: 165) that "Lampon ... was independent and patriotic enough to prevent Apollo from becoming the official oiKtotlji;. Thourioi was to be founded by an Athenian, not by a non-Athenian god" is fallacious. There is no evidence that Lampon "robbed" Apollo, nor that anybody, including Delphoi, had meant for Apollo to be the oikist in 444/3 B.C. We have already noted (p. 88) that the assumption of the role of founder by Apollo was used only as a last resort. Cf. below pp. 254-257. The mistake has crept into Oliver's discussion (1950: 27). 70 The relevant passages are Anab. V.6.15 until the end of V.6. 71 Tr. Brownson, Loeb. See on this passage also the comments of Popp (1957: 62). 72 Kai v(jv tou61llJV nt:pi autoii tolitou £i dll£lVOV £ill dpxeo9at Atyt:lV di; Ulldi; Kal npcitt£lV nepi tOU"tOOV, ij .... 73 V.6.29. 74 Nock (1942: 475-476).

DIVINATION AND FOUNDATION

103

he needed the services of a professional mantis for a sacrifice that he could have conducted himself as he almost tells us. But Silanos was with the army anyway, as a mantis, and Xenophon may have also meant to benefit from the favorable opinion of a professional hostile diviner who would thus strengthen his own case a fortiori. 75 Silanos illustrates how the mantis accompanying military commanders came to serve also the purpose of colonization; there is not a great difference, after all, between the oikist as a leader of a colonial, or a military, expedition. For the historian the important question about ritual is its function and significance in the circumstances under examination. In other words, was Xenophon simply conducting a traditional, fossilized rite? Did he perhaps do it because he was himself a particularly religious person (which he was)? The answer to these questions is negative, as becomes clear from an examination of the ensuing events. Xenophon's opponents used the fact of the sacrifices as an effective weapon: aKouro 5& -rwac; 9usa9at &ni -rou-rq> oM' OIJ.iv A.tyov-rac;. (ch. 22, Timasion:) But I hear that certain people are offering sacrifices on this matter (i.e., of staying) with not so much as a word to you. 76 fA.syov roc; OElVOV Ei'l i5ir;t IJ.EV Esvoq>ci>VTa nsi9Etv TE KaTaiJ.tVElV Kai 9usa9at Ontp Ti'jc; IJ.Ovi'jc;, .... It was outrageous of Xenophon to be privately urging people to settle down and sacrificing with a view to staying. 77

The sacrifices, then, made the threat of staying concrete since they meant that an actual step had been taken toward the colonization plan, a step whose significance was familiar and real. Although technically Silanos performed the sacrifices, it was no more than a delegated function with no responsibility attached. The language is indicative (V .6.16): the subject of teus'to, "he sacrificed," is Xenophon, not Silanos. We do not know whether Xenophon thought of himself as the sole would-be oikist, but he certainly took the matter seriously enough to go into details of the physical site (VI.4.3-7), and it is clear that he conceived of his own role as predominant. Personal ambition for reputation and power, which would be derived from the position of oikist may have been important to him too; these are, at any rate, the words he puts in the mouth of his detractor, Silanos, who (ch. 17) carried forth to the troops a report that Xenophon wanted them to settle down, so that he could found a city and win for himself a name and power (6VOIJ.a Kai &UvaiJ.lV). 7S 76 77

Silanos steals away later Vl.4.13. V.6.22. V.6.27.

104

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

Rarely do we get such a penetrating glimpse into the reality of the social position of the oikist as we do here. 4. The Refoundation of Messene The account in Pausanias about the refoundation of Messene in 369 B.C. provides us with a wealth of religious detail about prefoundation practices. After the defeat of Sparta at Leuktra in 371 B.C. the founding of Messene by Epaminondas was a further blow to Sparta from which she did not recover. In view of the former banishment, scattering, and subjugation of the Messenians by Sparta, the founding of Messene was a dramatic event, and this is how it appears in our sources. It is unfortunate that we do not have an account by Xenophon, who ends his Hellenika in 371 B.C. Still, the account preserved in Pausanias (IV.26-27) is rather full. Delphoi was apparently not involved before the foundation. 78 All religious practices were performed on the initiative of the founders and settlers. Because certain rites were particularly dependent on the identity of those conducting the ritual, they should not be considered typical of traditional practices. They are not difficult to point out: for example, the The bans sacrificed to Apollon Ismenios, the Messenians to Zeus of Ithome, etc. (27.6). Pausanias tells of dreams foretelling the return which occurred to Messenians at Messene-of-the-Straits and in Africa (26.3). After Leuktra, when the Thebans summoned the Messenians to return from wherever they might be, Epaminondas was faced with a controversy about the choice of site. A dream is reported to have occurred to him on this occasion, too, in which a man "closely resembling a priest of Demeter" 79 enjoined him to restore the Messenians and told him that the religious obstacle to such a restoration, the "wrath of the Dioskouroi" had been removed. Apparently there was some anxiety about the "Spartan" Dioskouroi which the Founder was supposed to resolve. Placating heroes was a common religious function of the oikist. 80 Pointing out the precise location was left to Epiletes the Argive. The same figure appeared to him in a dream (26. 7); he was told that ''wherever he found yew and myrtle growing on Ithome, to dig between them etc." Epiletes found an urn which

78 After the foundation the relics of the Messenian hero Aristomenes were brought from Rhodes by Apollo's order: Paus. IV .32.3 (tov 5t tv ~EA.q~oic; 9eov tov KEA.Euaavta dva1). Pausanias does not say explicitly that this occurred after the foundation, but his silence on this matter in his detailed description (below) and the fact that the Messenians themselves are supposed to have been responsible for the transfer of the relics (and for the inquiry at Delphoi) makes this probable ( = Parke and Wormell II No. 369). Cf. Paus. IV.14.7; Reverdin (1945: 167). In IV.32.5 Pausanias also mentions a consultation at Lebadea concerning Aristomenes. 79 IEpocpcivtlJ 11ciA.1ata ElKaa11tvov;· IV .26.6. 80 E.g., Antenoridai in Kyrene (pp. 153-154).

DIVINATION AND FOUNDATION

lOS

he took at once to Epaminondas, told him the dream and bade him remove the lid and see what was within. Epaminondas, after sacrifice and prayer to the vision that had appeared, opened the urn and having opened it found some tin foil, very thin, rolled like a book. On it were inscribed the mysteries of the Great Goddesses, and this was the pledge deposited by Aristomenes. (27 .5) When the mysteries were recovered, all who were of the priestly family set them down in books. (tr. Jones, Ormerod.)

The siting between "yew and myrtle" is very similar to the riddles we have observed in foundation oracles of Delphoi; these contain some sort of instruction which is left to the oikist to interpret and carry out. We may note that myrtle was used in the foundation rites of the colony in Aristophanes' Birds (see below 121). Again, the general area, Mt. lthome, is specified, and the riddle serves to pinpoint the site within the provided area. That this was resorted to in the first half of the 4th century may render similar riddles in foundation oracles (when coupled with true geographical directions) more credible. The other particulars of the story are self-evident: they confer a sacredness on the spot, a religious sanction, and an historical justification in carrying out the legacy of Aristomenes. 81 Once this pinpointing of the site had been accomplished but before each group involved (the Thebans, Argives, Messenians, priests of the Great Goddesses) conducted its own particular and circumstantial rites, there followed a series of what seem to be traditional practices: 'E7tUJ.UVci>v5ac; 6£, c; oi 'tO xc.opiov, fv9a vUV fxoumv oi Mt:aal\VlOl 't:TtV 7t6)..w, IJ.U)..la'ta tc; oiKlOIJ.OV tq>aivt:'to t7tm't5t:lov, tKt)..t;ut:v civaaKo7tt:ia9al 1:oic; IJ.UV'tt:aw, (t:i) oi PouMat:'t:Ul 'tUU'tlJ Kai. 'til 1:rov 9t:rov t7tlXC.Opi'jaal. q>UIJ.Evc.ov 5& Kai. 't:OU'tc.ov dval 'til it:pil aiala, ou1:c.o 7tapt:aKt:ual;t:'to tc; 1:ov oiKlOIJ.6V, )..{9ouc; 't£ iiyt:a9al Kt:)..t:Uc.ov Kai av6pac; 1J.E'tU7tEIJ.7t61J.EVOc;, o{c; 't:EXV11 O't£VC.07tOUc; Ka'ta't:EIJ.Vt:a9al Kai. oiKiac; Kai. it:pil oiKo5otJ.t:ia9al Kai 'tt:iXTt 7tt:PlPa)..)..t;a9al. As Epaminondas considered the spot where the city of the Messeninas now stands most convenient for the foundation, he (Epaminondas) ordered inquiry to be made by the seers if the favor of the gods would follow him there. When they announced that the offerings were auspicious, he began preparations for the foundation, ordering stone to be brought, and summoning men skilled in laying out streets and in building houses, temples and ring walls. 82

The decision to locate the settlement at Mt. Ithome had clearly been taken prior to the consultation of the manteis. Still, this step apparently seemed necessary - perhaps as a further ad hoc corroboration but more probably as the simple carrying out of a traditional practice (which provided such corroboration, in any case). According to Pausanias, the whole of the first day of the actual foundation 81 82

On Aristomenes: Paus. IV.l4-24. Paus. IV.27.S, tr. Jones, Ormerod (Loeb).

106

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

was devoted to religious rites (27. 7). It is clear that the inquiry put to the seers opened that day officially; everything that happened previously (the dreams, the digging up of the urn) was not part of a foundation ritual, properly speaking. It is also certain that this sacrificial divination was executed for the sake of form; it Jacked the real political significance that it had played at Athens when foundation-divination was apparently employed to convince the democracy to colonize Thourioi. The question put to the manteis, "if the favor of the gods would follow him there," has a formulaic ring. It is worth noting that the subject of the question is Epaminondas, not the enterprise as such. The formula was probably used by oikists, and its origin is probably to be found in the Archaic period, when the oikist was still the pivot of the whole foundation process. It is clear that Epaminondas was regarded as an oikist: Kai oiKUJ't'i)c; Meaa11vimc; •oic; vuv tanv 'E7taJ.uvcbvoac;.83 Besides the sacrificial divination we find also oracular divination in literary form, as we saw in the case of Dorieus and the oracles of Laios, 84 and Bakis in the Birds, 961. Here we have Bakis once more (27 .4): Kai t6t& Mt l:nciptTtc; J,1i:V an' ayA.aov civ9oc; 6A.&ital, M&OOtlVTt cS' aline; oiKt1a&tal i\Jlata ncivta. Then indeed shall the bright bloom of Sparta perish and Messene again shall be inhabited for all time (IV .27 .4).

Perhaps Epaminondas employed the services of a chresmologos, or perhaps the manteis who conducted the sacrificial divination also supplied him with the oracular prophecy. Whichever the case may be, it seems clear that Epaminondas scrupulously covered all the proper religious ground in order to provide the fullest religious sanction possible without recourse to Delphoi. 85

5. The Foundation of Alexandria (Arrian Anab. 111.1.5:) It struck him (Alexander) that the position was admirable for founding a city there ... he himself marked out the ground plan of the city, both where the market place was to be laid out, how many temples were to be built and in honour of what gods, some of these Greek, and Isis, the Egyptian; and where the wall was to be built round it. In view of all this he offered sacrifice, and the sacrifice proved favorable. (tr. Robson, Loeb.)

83 Paus. IX.l4.5. Epaminondas had a bronze statue at Messene (Paus. IV.32.1); we do not hear, however, of cult. See also Sordi (1974). 84 See p. 28; p. 79; p. 101. 85 See n.78.

DIVINATION AND FOUNDATION

107

This concise narrative is supplemented by Plutarch (Alex. 26). 86 As at Messene, Alexander is instructed by a dream in which Homer specifies the site for the future foundation. Was there an oracular sanction for the foundation of Alexandria? The case for such a sanction rests on the probability of Alexander's visit to Siwa and on the doubtful Ps. Callisthenes 1.30.5, where the actual consultation with Ammon is reported. It is interesting that here, as in Plutarch, the oracular instruction is delivered in a dream to Alexander. 87 We shall not enter the debate whether Alexander visited Siwa after Alexandria's foundation or before; 88 it is sufficient to note here that none of our sources mentions any consultation of Ammon at all. Ps. Callisthenes, by itself, may not carry the full burden of the historicity of the reported foundation oracle. In our other sources the only religious activity associated with the foundation of Alexandria is centered on the immediate actions of Alexander himself. We have already mentioned the dream. The manteis first appear in connection with the marking of the proposed city's ground plan. 89 According to the story in Plutarch (Alex. 26.5), once the ground had been marked by barley meal, birds appeared and ate it. The manteis, however, encouraged Alexander and represented this as a good omen of future prosperity. 90 Arrian, who does not mention birds but merely the barley meal 91 (on bird-divination see more below), adds details concerning the seers: TOiiTo && E1nl..e~a1J.&vouc; mile; IJ.avnac; Kai IJ.aA.taTa &i) 'ApiaTav&pov TOV T&AIJ.lCJCJta, oc; 7t0AAQ IJ.EV Kai cUA.a ciA.TI9&iiaat &A.ty&TO •Al..e~av&pq>, cpa vat &tJ&aiiJ.OVU fa&a9at TTJV 7t6AtV TQ 't& UAAU, Kai 't(i')V tK yi'jc; Kap7tc'i>V &iV&Ka.

The soothsayers and among them especially Alexander the Telmissian, who was reported to have made many other correct prophecies to Alexander, reflecting upon this, said that the city would be prosperous in all respects, but especially in the fruits of the earth. (Robson).

According to both versions, Alexander's own troop of manteis, which was

86 For other sources consult Bosworth (1980: ad Joe.); on Plutarch see Hamilton (1969: comm. ad Joe.). 8 7 "King, to you I speak. (Behold) the god of the ram's horns. If you wish forever to flourish in youth eternal, Build an illustrious city above the island of Proteus, Where once Aion Plutonius first took his throne as a ruler, Lord of the boundless kingdom, over the fire spreading mountains ... Tr. Haight (1955: 33-34). 88 Bosworth (1980: 263-264) with Wells (1962: esp. 275-284). 89 Perhaps the seers conducted the sacrifice which Arrian mentions in the passage quoted above, but no divination is mentioned.

90 ou 1-ll'lv ciA.A.ci ni'lv 11livterov 0appeiv napawolivtrov (noA.uapK&atatl]V yap oiKil;,ea9al n6A.lV un' QUtOU, Kai navtolianci'lv civlipci>nrov EOOj.lEVl]V tpoq>6v). 91

Arrian III.2.1-2; cf. Strabo XVII.792. See Hamilton on Plut. Alex 26.5.

108

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

accompanying the army, were also on hand at the foundation of Alexandria. We are not told why; the barley meal incident was, after all, a surprise, but we may safely presume that their presence had to do with their duties of divination. It seems reasonable to assume that they were there in order to conduct the prefoundation sacrifice (111.1.5 and III.2.1 form a continuous story in Arrian). If that is the case, then the analogy to Messene is exact: there, too, the sacrifice by the manteis opened the official day of foundation, i.e., of determining the ground plan, the sacred precincts, the ring walls, etc. Bird Divination In Plutarch's version of the foundation of Alexandria we noticed that the arrival of the birds was regarded as an omen which necessitated a specific interpretation by the seers. A similar story is found also in Curtius Rufus. 92 Was bird divination employed as a general prefoundation practice? Again, attention must be drawn to the second book of the Aetia (frg. 43) where Callimachus tells the story of the quarrel of Perieres and Krataimenes, the founders of Zankle and of Delphoi's arbitration, which denied them both the position of oikist. 93 The quarrel is preceded by a digression on good and bad omens for foundation of cities, which might even be described as a set of religious instructions: 94 "if you ever lead a people to a colony (in a foreign land etc ... )." 95 Specifically, it seems that the cause of the quarrel is the arrival of the harpasos, whose influence is detrimental unless followed by a heron (lines 61-2), which thus seems to signify a good omen. Callimachus himself wrote a 1tEpi 6pvsrov; 96 W. Ehlers' detailed study of this passage leans to the opinion that this is all an invention of the poet. Ehlers also notes that the appearance elsewhere of an eagle which snatches part of the sacrifice (and wherever the sacrifice drops from its beak, the city will rise) is first found only in early Hellenistic foundation stories. 97 On the other hand, Ehlers himself admits 98 that a precedent already existed: bird divination in general was already known to Homer and was practiced throughout the Greek world from earliest historic times. 99

IV.8.6. See pp. 74-75. 94 Ehlers (1933: 37). 9S &i KO't&tiS [ ... ]lJV A.aov fltotKOV ci[ymc; line 67. 96 Ehlers op. cit. 97 Ehlers (1933: 44 n.111) for references; cf. his n.109. 98 P. 46. 99 Bouche-Leclercq (1879-1882: 1.127ff.); recently in Pollard's chapter "Omens and Augury" (1977); Pritchett (1979: 101f.). Our earliest inscription from Ephesos, for example, concerns augury (Sokolowski LSAM No. 30); cf. Stengel (1920: 57). 92 93

DIVINATION AND FOUNDATION

109

We should also note the popularity of herons as a motif on late 8th century B.C. vases. 100 Our conclusion rests on faith in our author. But even if we accept Callimachus at face value, specifically both Zankle and Alexandria do not signify a general practice because in both cases the divination is an ad hoc reaction to a surprise omen, not a regular procedure. The divination does not seem to be concerned with the decision to colonize but with the physical terrain of the site. If one believes Callimachus, one notes the absence of professional seers; it is the oikists who apparently quarrel about the interpretation of the omen. The manteis, if present at all are incidental.

The Sacrifice "For Good Omens" in the Mother-City The decree concerning the Athenian colony at Brea (ML 49) provides another example of prefoundation sacrifice which apparently took place in the mothercity. Lines 3-6 read: 3. 7t0[ • . 5 .. . ] 4. ( ... 6 ... )V aUtOioic; eSt TOU vaou KaTa1tPTICJ9tvToc; U1t0 Ml\cSrov, 1tEpi eSt Til Mt9ptcSanKa Kai TOV EJ.Lq>UA.tov 'ProJ.Lairov n6i..EJ.LOV liJ.La T j}roJ.L To nup i)q>avia9TI, ou q>am cSEiv cino i:Ttpou nupoc; &vauEa9m, Kawov eSt nolEiv Kal. vtov, civanTovTac; cino Tou l)A.iou q>A.Oya Ka9apav Kal. ciJ.LiavTov. Wherever in Greece a perpetual fire is kept, as at Delphoi and Athens, it is ss Plut. Numa IX.6. For commentary on this passage see Flaceliere (1948: 418f.). See below for more on this passage. S9 Choeph. 1034-1039. 60 DeE apud Delphos; Mor. 385c. 61 E!p!OpKOUVtl l)t 9£~Ltc; Kai 'An6A.A.oov nu9tOc; Kai Acitoo Kai v AptE!ltc; Kai 'Eatia Kai nup 'A9civatov Kai 9toi ncivttc; ... BCH 27 (1903) 107 814 (= Syf1.4 826C). 62 For lone see Cook (1925: 1187 n.l). Delcourt (1955: ch.III esp. 150-151) considers all Delphic fires to have been one and the same, but she does not present the full evidence (see above, n.24, on the prytaneion), some of which consists of inscriptions which were discovered later than the publication year of her work. 63 It is interesting that the order to extinguish fires is represented as a condition for the cult of Zeus Soter. The latter was intimately linked with the Hestia (=hearth) of the household (he was the "house spirit which brings good fortune"). See Wieneke (1947: 192f.).

THE SACRED FIRE AND THE PUBLIC HEARTH

127

committed to the charge, not of virgins (i.e., as in Rome), but of women past the age of marriage. And if by any chance it goes out, as at Athens during the tyranny of Aristion the sacred lamp is said to have been extinguished, and at Delphoi when the temple was burned by the Medes, and as during the Mithridatic and Roman civil wars the altar was demolished and the fire extinguished, then they say it must not be kindled again from another fire, but made fresh and new, by lighting a fresh and unpolluted flame from the rays of the sun. (tr. B. Perrin)

The words, wherever in Greece (' rov eSt 9UOJl&V i\ 7tUp civaKaiOJ.L&V, f3ci>J.LO~. 9UJ.Ltatitptov, tatia· !:vtm yap outc.o~ ci>voJ.LO.Kaaw. outc.o 5' liv Kuptci>tata KaA.oi11~ tl)v tv

Delcourt (1955; ISO n.). Farnell (1909: V.351f.). 66 Although not in the context of prytaneion: VIII.9.2; VIII.37 .II; IX.34.2; 11.19.5; see also Frazer's commentary on X.24.4 and VIII.53.9. But Plutarch does not speak of prytaneia-fires either in this case (see immediately below). 67 Paus. 1.26.6 (with Frazer's commentary); Strabo IX.I.I6 (p. 396); Plut. Sui/a 13; cf. Lucu//us 19.6; schol. Od. 19.34 (Dindorf). 68 See Gernet (1968: 389-390) on Aristotle Pol. 1322b 26f. We may add that at Naukratis women were explicitly forbidden to enter the prytaneion (Athenaeus IV.I49d) and thus excluded from the special cult of Hestia Prytanis there (see more below). 69 See also Frazer on Paus. X.24.4. (Voi.V 351). 70 Cf. Suidas, s.v. nputaveiov, which as Miller (1978) notes (A264) seems to repeat word for word this scholion. 64 65

128

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

nputav&iq>, &q>' Tic; to nup to cial}&atov avant&tat (I, 7). 71

"Those things on which we sacrifice or kindle a fire are the altar, the censer, the hearth; for thus some have given these names. Thus one would most correctly call that in the prytaneion on which the unextinguished fire burns."

We do not know how the fire in the Athenian prytaneion was contained. In the Erechtheion it was held in a lamp; so, too, possibly, it was in the prytaneion (see below). Pindar sings of the ''Child of Rhea (Hestia), who has for her share the prytaneia"72 (which confirms again the fact that Hestia existed in all prytaneia). The scholion is important: nputaveia otpo~ U(j)QlVE\.

And Phoibos it is that men follow when they map out cities. For Phoibos ever31 Stengel (1920: 10-11; 21ff.); Pfister op. cit., esp. Naturmale Col.2146; Schoemann-Lipsius (1902: Voi.II 195ff.); GGR4 1.71ff.; Gernet (1932: 164); Rudhardt (1958: 225); Burkert (1977: II.S). 32 Dunbabin (1948: 177ff.); specific examples: cult of the nymphs (ibid. 177); cult in a cave below the church of S.Biagio at Akragas (ibid. 178); cf. Hermann (1965: 49); at Bitalemi, near the river at Gela, Dunbabin (1948: 181), but see Vallet (1968: 88); cf. below 310; the spring of Cyane (associated with the myth of the rape of Persephone, Diod. IV.23.4); Dunbabin (1948: 178); Contrada Fonte, a source in the territory of Poseidonia, Vallet (1968: 9I n.SI). See in general also Hermann op. cit. See further below on the question of preceding native cults. 33 Generally around the Mediterranean, see Semple (1932: ch. 21). 34 Promontories, for these reasons, are more likely to have been the scene of continuity of cult, perhaps from the Mycenaean period; see Pugliese Carratelli (1962: 241-246). 3S Plut. Mor. 407f; cf. above, pp. 24-27; p. 75; 79.

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

143

more delights in the founding of cities, and Phoibos himself doth weave their foundations. (tr. Mair, Loeb)36

The verb, Sta~E-rp£ro, functions in its technical sense of land surveying. 37 Callimachus implies, therefore, that the whole territorial organization is sanctioned or even directed by Apollo. This may not be taken to mean, however, that Greek colonists regarded their city plan as divinely ordained. 38 First, Callimachus seems to introduce some novelties here; the notion that Apollo is the inventor of cities, for example, is not explicitly attested before Callimachus; the role was, in fact, attributed to Prometheus by Aeschylus, 39 and even Apollonius of Rhodes attributes it to Prometheus' son, Deukalion. 40 Second, in his detailed description of the activity of surveying and organizing the territory of Zankle, Callimachus himself makes this the activity of the oikists, Perieres and Krataimenes, not of Apollo.41 In this hymn, therefore, Apollo appears as the guide in a metaphoric sense. It is significant that the sacred areas form part of the whole and are not singled out as requiring special guidance from Apollo. The oikist, therefore, appears to site them according to the same criteria employed for the rest of the "profane" territorial organization. These criteria, as we shall point out on various occasions, seem to have been rational and functional. To conclude, the activity of the oikist in his siting of the sacred areas and the general planning was not devoid of religious association, but what is important is that these associations were not explicit, but implied in his initial designation by Apollo. Such, then, were the criteria that seem to us to have guided the siting of sacred precincts, except for cases in which respect for religious precedent (see below) was apparently the determining factor. We shall examine such cases in our discussion of the general literary evidence, which now follows.

Statements in Greek Authors Plato chooses as a framework for the ideal state in the Laws a discussion about a foundation of a colony. 42 One of the speakers, Kleinias, is even specifically designated as a founder. 43 Although a utopia, the Laws has much historical 36 Call. Hymn 11.55-57. 37 Lombardo (1972: 73-74); 38 Cf. Martin (1974: 48ff.). 39 Aesch. PV. 450ff. 40 Arg. 111.1088-1089. 41

Aetia 11.43 lines 60-65. See also p. 75; 108; pp. 197-200.

42 E.g., Laws 702d. 43

cf. Williams (1978: ad Joe.).

Ibid. 702c.

144

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

value, especially in matters of religion where Plato was particularly conservative.44 We can trust the Laws, therefore, as a reliable index to some general religious practices, but only to a certain extent; one should try to identify "improvements" on the actual, historical Greek state. For example, as we shall see, Plato (and Aristotle) shows a distinct preference for separation of sacred and "profane" areas in the city, whereas the reality, especially in cities of mainland Greece, was often the opposite. The founder of the state in the Laws, after choosing an appropriate site for the colony (but before the general land division) started by marking off a sacred area for Hestia, Zeus, and Athena, "to which he shall give the name, acropolis, and circle it around with a ring wall. " 45 Plato follows with a division of the city into twelve sections with a corresponding division of the countryside and twelve allotments (kleroi) one for each of the Twelve Gods. Another passage provides a more comprehensive picture of the locations of temples, both those in the inner city and the suburban ones: The temples we must build all around the agora and around the whole city in a circle for the purpose of fencing them well and of cleanliness (&U&pK&ia~ T& Kai Ka9ap6TTJTO~ xap1V). 46

In addition to the city's temples, there are references to the less important cult sites in the country47 and in each village. 48 Up to this point, no religious criterion has been mentioned for the choice of the sacred areas. The acropolis is reserved as a focal point for the titular deities. The temples in the agora are placed there due to its central location (and also, possibly, because they serve functions associated with the agora). 49 That the suburban temples are to be well fenced seems to imply that they are conceived of in relation to the overall physical town-plan. Also, a practical purpose is stated: the temples could be easily cleaned and purified when necessary. 50

44 This is often recognized. See in particular the works by Reverdin (1945), Morrow (1960), Pierart (1974). 4S Laws 745b: ... 6tJJ&vov 'Eatlac; 7tprotov Kai 6toc; Kai 'A6TJvdc; l&pov, 6:Kp67toA.tv OVOJJii~ovta, Kiid.ov 1t&PtPiiA.A.ovta, .... 46 Laws 778c: tci JJtV toivuv l&pci 1tdaav 7ttpt~ tl\v t& ciyopciv XPTt KataaK&ua~tv, Kai tl)v 1t6A.tv 6A.TJV tv KUKMp 1tpoc; toic; {>11/lJAoOic; 'tOOV t61trov, &OtpK&iac; 't& Kai Ka6ap6t1JtOc; xaptv. See England (1921: ad Joe.) for the difficulties in this passage. We prefer to translate &otpK&ta more literally as wei/fenced rather than "security" (England; cf. L.S.J. s. v .) because the latter is derivative and in the context of city planning well fenced provides a more concrete picture. 47 Ibid. 761c. 48 Ibid. 848d; cf. Reverdin (1945: 57ff.); Morrow (1960: 412). 49 Martin (1951: 237ff.). so Cf. Vitruvius I. 7: Si primum omnibus temp/is saluberrimae regiones aquarumque fontes in

his locis idonei eligentur, in quibus fana constituantur.

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

145

Other sacred areas are reserved to serve social and economic functions, that is, to bear revenues.s1 One cannot argue, therefore, that the criteria for the choosing of the sacred areas do not occupy Plato when he envisages a new foundation; but it seems significant that inherent sacredness is not one of these criteria. On the other hand, the founder of the state must take into consideration elements of sacredness which historically precede his foundation. In the following passage Plato brings up the criterion of tradition and sacredness as conferred by oracles and other means of divination: out' liv Kawl)v &~ cipxi\c; nc; 1tOdj out' liv 7taA.au1v St&l] t:fvat 7tpt:nro6t:aTQT1]V, ijnc; EJ.llj)QVEOTQTTJ ouaa aanl}t:aTciTTJ EiTJ' fl6U )lEV yap iMvtac; 7tpoat:u~aa9at, f}l)u 6& ayvroc; fxovtac; npom£vat. Cf. Mare (1962: 52f.). 57 A nab. V.3.7: Xt:voq>Ciiv 6& A.al}oov :x,rop!ov ci>vt:iTal t\'1 9t:opi/j:l xoopi~ i\ 't1 !!UVttiOV /i)..A.o ltU96XPTIOfOV. till 5' av 'tOIOU'tO~ 6 t6lto~ l>on~ tmq>avtuiv t£ fXElltpO~ ti]v tij~ 9&otoo~ ciptti]v iKavro~ Kai ltpO~ 'tel ytl'tVIOOVta lltPTI tij~ 1t6A.£oo~ tpUil vot&poo~. 59 Cf. Pol. 1331b Iff. 60 Paus. IX.22.2.

148

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

a criterion for choosing the site of a sacred area (clearly meaning the important state-temples, not rural shrines). 61 This conspicuousness seems straightforward and signifies prominence and impressiveness. But here those who uphold the notion of inherent sacredness could argue that because mountain tops are sacred in themselves this "conspicuousness" of the philosophers merely reflects dependence on inherent sacredness and not rational choice based on literal conspicuousness, i.e., that a temple should stand prominent and be easily seen and defended. 62 This argument can be happily rejected: first, not all mountain tops are sacred, and summits per se do not confer sacredness. In colonial cities (see following survey) which are built on the top of a hill or mountain this "criterion" would not help to distinguish between sacred and profane. Moreover, it would be completely irrelevant in cities that were founded on a plain (e.g., Megara Hyblaia or Poseidonia). Since these cities on the plains had similar types of state cults to those cities built on mountain tops, the inherent sacredness of mountain tops was not the criterion used for reserving sacred areas. We may also refer again to a passage in Pindar where the sons of Helios are supposed to set up an altar and establish a sacred precinct in Helios' island, Rhodes. Helios enjoined his children

roc; liv 9&1} nprotOl Ktiaal&V PC.OJlOV tvapyta. that they should be the first to build for the goddess (Athena) a conspicuous altar.

The sons proceeded up to the height (the acropolis) where they established the precinct (c'iA.ao~). 63 The reason provided for the choice of the acropolis was probably self-evident and is stated as J}roiJ.OV &vapyea, not the sacredness of the summit. 64

Respect for Precedents of Sacredness We noted above that Plato assumes that if there be at the site of his colony ''any local deities of the Magnetes or any shrines etc.," they should be respected. It is important to investigate what the attitude of the Greek colonists was to any local cults and sacred areas found at the site of the colony at the time of its foundation; the answer may indicate whether local religious precedent was the criterion which the oikist used to site the sacred areas of his colony. The first step is to examine the evidence for the Greeks' religious outlook in general: is See Newman (1887-1902: ad 1331a 24ff.). On sacred summits see Cook (1925: Vol.ll.2 Appendix B) who emphasizes their singularity. Cf. Schoemann-Lipsius (1902: 11,195.); Schmidt (1939); Langdon (1976 esp. Appendix B). 63 Pind. 01. Vll.39ff. 64 Ibid. 48-49. Cf. Gildersleeve (1899: ad Joe.) for ci>c; civ = llmoc; civ. 61

62

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

149

there any evidence in Greek religion of a need to preserve, respect, and continue local cults? The theoretical limitations of this question should be stated at the outset to avoid confusion. First, we should consider whether "local" means earlier Greek or non-Greek cult. Second, the degree of the cult's importance must be evaluated. Were these the cults of local her~es or rural shrines that had been respected and preserved, or did they serve the purpose of the important Greek state cults? The second question is especially important; even if we did find cases in which local religious precedent was respected or adopted, it should still be asked whether these precedents account for the location of all or most of the important state precincts. Several statements in the literary evidence apply directly to the question of respect and even preservation of local religion. The locus classicus is Thucydides IV .98.2: in the winter of 424/3 B.C. the Athenians were negotiating their retreat from Delion after their defeat by the Boeotians. One of the charges made by the latter was that the Athenians transgressed ta VOJltJla trov •Et..A.i!vrov in not respecting the sanctity of the place. 65 On the whole, the Athenian answer to the demand to retreat is long and sophistical. 66 To the specific charge they answer by adducing a nomos, somewhat illogically, but it is precisely because it is awkwardly used that the nomos should be regarded as genuine (IV.98.2):

u

'tOV lit V6J10V toic; .EA.A.TtatV Elvat, rov liv TO KpaToc; •fie; yijc; EKclOTTtc;. i\v n: 1tAtovoc; i\v n: j}pa:x,uT&pac;, TOihrov Kai Ta iepa al.ei yiyvea9at, Tp67tmc; 9epa7teU6J1EVa ole; liv 1tpo Tou [codd. 7tpoc; Toic;] elro96m Kai MvroVTat. And, they said that the law of the Greeks was that whoever had power over any land, whether larger or smaller, to them also the sanctuaries should always belong, to be served as far as possible by the rites which were customary before that time. 67

The nomos is explicit and refers expressly to sanctuaries. It definitely indicates the expected norm for Greek sanctuaries; but can it be applied to non-Greek, "native," cult sites as well? As an answer to the Boeotian charge, the nomos seems applicable only to Greek cults and sanctuaries because of the language of the charge: "for it was an established norm of them all, when invading each other's country, to avoid the sanctuaries there ... " 68 On the other hand, due to the general language of

6S Thuc. IV .97 .2-3: ndat yap Elvat Ka9t:otl]KO oivou «'tKTJpaaimo J.l&AlCJTay∾ :x.t& A.m(3ac; failJ T' ~vva&Tatc; T& 9&oic; llfU:X,aic; T& KaJ,16VTCOV itpci>rov· youvou;o cS' ci1t1'IJ.1ovac; &ivm c'tproyouc; &UJ.l&v&roc;, Kai VTJOc; ~vaiatJ,la n&iaJ.laTa M:x,9at.

And Aison 's son himself from a golden goblet poured into the river libations of honey and pure wine to Earth and to the gods of the country, and to the souls of dead heroes; and he besought them of their grace to give kindly aid, and to welcome their ship's hawsers with favorable omen. (tr. Seaton, Loeb)

The scholion regards this as a general custom: ~vva&Tatc; T& 9&oic;: Toic; ~y:x.ropimc; 9&oic;· ;ouc; yap ~1tlcSTJ1.10UVTac; ~9oc; Tjv ~v Tij c'ti..A.ocSanij 9u&tv 9&oic; &in:x.ropimc; Kai ilprom.

For those who have arrived in a foreign land the custom was to sacrifice to the local gods and heroes. 70

It should be emphasized that the circumstances here are not those of settlement but of arrival, or of visiting. The passage evidences respect for, not preservation of cult. In spite of this, it seems significant that non-Greek heroes and gods are being offered respect as if the visitor is aware of his intrusion, or trespassing, into territory under the protection of foreign divine beings. Similarly, but in a Greek context, Aeschylus in the Suppliant Maidens contrasts the Egyptian herald, who does not care for the local gods, with the king who is astonished and insulted by this attitude. 71 ln some sense a whole city and its territory could be considered "sacred" to

See n.67 above. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Vetera ed. C. Wendel (1974) ad Joe. Cf. Nilsson (1950: 2 with n.2); Guthrie (1968: 29). 71 Lines 893-894; 922; cf. 520. See also the opening scene of Oedipus at Co/onus which exemplifies the fears and religious attitudes upon arrival at a foreign (although Greek) place. The question that Oedipus keeps asking is who is directly connected with the exact place he had arrived at (esp. lines 53ff.). See also the opening scene of Plato's Phaedrus, esp. 230b. 69 70

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

151

its tutelary deity as Athens and Attica were to Athena. 72 Gods and heroes were felt to be ubiquitously present, and it was expected that account should be taken of them both privately and officially. For example, when Archidamos invaded Plataia he invoked the local gods and heroes to justify himself. 73 On the personal level, the world was regarded as literally full of gods and heroes. Historians of Greek religion often emphasize this plurality, especially in natural surroundings. 74 One had to be careful not to offend, and, on the other hand, it was important to acquire the goodwill of a local god or hero. We can catch a glimse of this popular sentiment, which must have been contemporary with the beginning of the period of colonization: "it is better to be home: harm may come out of doors. " 75 In one case we can point out with confidence a consideration of local gods and heroes in the context of "foundation." Our evidence is late and is in a purely Greek context. Moreover, it does not concern a "foundation," properly speaking, but a "refoundation." But it is still worth mentioning, not only because such instances are rare but also because it serves as further corroboration for the respect due to the local (Greek) precedent. An inscription from Kolophon, 76 which relates to the period after its liberation by Alexander, relates the decision to extend the city and settle the 1taA.aui 1t6A.ic; (i.e., the old, but abandoned, site of settlement): 77 . . . &ljiTJcpia9al t&l 51\llrol tTtll 7taAaUill 7t6AlV ijv t&v 10 9&roV 7tapaMvtroV toi~ 7tpoy6VOl~ fllliDV Ktiaavt&~ &K&iVOl Kai vaou~ Kai 13rolloil~ i5puaci.ll&VOl 1tapa 1tiiat tot~ ~EUTJatV ~aav fv5o~m a[u]vt&l'X.iCJal 7tpo~ t'itv t'mci.pxouaav· tva 5& auvt&Afjtal Kata tci.xoc; toll llEV i&p&a toii •A7t6Urovoc; Kai TOU~ aAAOU~ i&p&i~ Kai tac; {&pta~ Kai tOll 7tputaVlV ll&[ta] tfi~ j3ou)..fj~ Kai t&v t'mo5&l'X.9&vtrov &v t&l5& TOOl ljiTJcpiallatt Katal3avta~ 15 Ei~ tftll 7taAauiv ayopciv tijl t&Tpci.l)l {atallSVOU toil &i.CJl6VtO~ llTJVO~ [&7ti) toile; 13rolloilc; t&v 9e&v oii~ Ttlltv o{ 7tp6yovm KaTSAl7tOV e6~aa9al tOOl ~li tOOl r.rotijpl Kai TOOl Tioa&l5&Vl t&l 'AacpaM:irol Kai tOOl 'A7t6UroVl TOOl K)..apirol Kai tijl MTJtpi tijl 'AvtaiTJl Kai tijl 'A9TJViil tfjl TI0Alcl5l Kai tote; aAAOl~ 9&ot~ 7tiial Kai 7tcl.aal~ Kai tote; ijpromv oi Kat&xoumv Ttll&v tl\v T& 7t6AlV Kai t'itv 20 'X.WP«V &mt&Affiy y&VOilSV(l)V tOOV aya9&v 7tp6aol)ov 7t0ll\CJ&CJ9al Kai 9uaiav Ka96tl liv t&l 51illrol M~TJl' ... . . . resolved by the people to enclose in addition to the present city, within the same wall the ancient town which the gods handed over to our ancestors to found Paus. 1.26.6. Cf. Plato, Laws 955e; Fustel de Coulanges (1864: 141); Loraux (1981: 67-70). See his speech in Thuc. 11.74.2-3; cf. IV.87.2 (Brasidas at Akanthos). For the general presence of gods and heroes over a land see for example Xen. Oecon. V.19-20; Lye. I (c. Leocrates). 1. See also the Kolophonian inscription discussed below. 74 Nilsson (1969: 8ff.). 7S Hesiod, Works and Days 365; Hom. Hymn to Hermes 36. 76 Meritt (1935': 361); Robert (1936: 160), "between 311-306 B.C." Cf. Martin (1974: 41;55). 77 Robert (1936: n.6). 72 73

152

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

and to set up altars and temples which were held in high esteem among all the Greeks. (12) In order that this should be accomplished quickly the priest of Apollo and the other priests and priestesses and the chief magistrate (or eponymous Meritt's note on line 1, p.371) with the help of the council and the others listed in this decree - should go down to the ancient agora, on the fourth of the coming month, and to pray upon the altars of the gods which our ancestors bequeathed, to Zeus the Savior, Poseidon the Securer, Apollo the Klarian, the Mother Besought by Prayer (Hekate), Athena Polias, and to the other gods and goddesses, and to the heroes who occupy the city and country, since we enjoy complete prosperity - to make a solemn procession and to sacrifice in the manner the people decide. This inscription is interesting in many respects, not the least of which is its concept of the city as a gift from the gods (lines 9-11). Specifically, however, this is a refoundation by means of urban extension, and cannot be used to generalize about practices, only about attitudes. The gods and heroes are said to occupy or dwell (line 19) in the city and countryside. The connection between the gods and the site is expressed through the altars and temples built by the ancestors (lines 10-11, 16-19). The sacrifices, which are the first and necessary step of the foundation ceremony, are, therefore, expressly emphasized: iva o& auv't'&Af\'t'at Ka't'a •axoc; (line 12). Securing "permission" or "good will" of the (literally) local gods and heroes is necessary since they are bound and connected to the actual soil. The sentiment, attitude, and the particular ritual are clear. Their applicability as a general practice, however, is not. At best, the Kolophon inscription serves us only within a Greek context but not in a colonial situation. When we turn to specific mention in the literary evidence of colonies we find one general statement in Plato about the name to be given to the colony: TOUTO 11EV yap TUX'liv iaro~ Kai 6 KQ't01K1~lV) and of reserving (t~alp&iv) as clearly distinct from each other. 100 IV.5.51. 101 Cf. Thuc. III.50.2; with Gomme (1956: ad Joe.); Ael. VH VI. I. 102 Cyrop. Vll.5.35; cf. Vll.3.1: ... Toic; 9&oic; t~&A.&iv 61t01 civ ol t.uiyol t~TJYOOVTal. See also Hyperides (IV.I6) who mentions reserving (t~alp&iv) of a sacred area as an official action. 103 Vlll.3.1; cf. Hdt. 1.148.1.; Plato, Critias 117c; A/cibiades 123c. 104 Laws 738d. lOS Xen. Rep. Lac. 15.3.; cf. Hdt. 11.168.1 (choice lands for warriors in Egypt). 106 Ditt. Sy/1. 4 141 lines 4, 6, 7. 97

98 99

158

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

To conclude, the assumption that an official advance party was sent to Brea before the decree was passed is tenable, based on one interpretation of the key word, txastpEIJ.EVa. However, this explanation is by no means compelling because the word may not signify an action at all. The most serious difficulty with the notion of an "advance party" which would have fixed the locations and boundaries of the precincts is inherent in the inscription itself: (6) ... yeov6J.1oc; lit heA.ta9[atliEKa/civlipac;,] fva tx v toile; KA.l\pouc;. 108 L.S.J. s.v. yEOOjlEtpTJc;. 109 OCIJ2 s.v. We do not want to give the wrong impression of completely denying that the function of the surveyor had existed; the geonomoi who were elected officials and not specialists must have used professional surveyors. Note the figure of Meton in Aristophanes' Birds 992ff. who defines his purpose as YEOOilEtpijoat f3ouA.ollat tov ci&pa UJliv 5tEA.Eiv t£ Katci yt)ac; (995-996); cf. Burelli 1972: 106-107). All we say is that Phrynichus' distinction and the technical sense of geometr~s are irrelevant to the argument.

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

159

is Demokleides, who officially designates himself110 as oikist (lines 8-9): 8 d&ll)OKAEicS&V eSt Kataot&oat tEV a(7tOtKi9 av auto]Kpatopa, Ka96ttliv Mv&tat ci[ptota. Demokleides shall establish the colony with full powers as best as he can.

To conclude, the notion of an official advance party with powers to mark off sacred areas encounters too many difficulties to be seriously upheld. An unofficial ''reconnaissance'' party is even less likely: the temene referred to are already established, implying previous consecration (with all the appropriate foundation rites). As we have seen, 111 it was the. oikist who was in charge of such rituals, but since Demokleides only received his powers for the first time in the decree, he would not have been able to establish the precincts before it was passed. It seems impossible, then, that an unofficial group of "promoters" was given the power to consecrate. We see, therefore, that neither of the two common explanations for the sacred precincts at Brea seems to be valid. As we barely know anything about Brea except for what the inscription tells us, we may simply have to profess ignorance. Still, we would like to suggest a third hypothesis which seems to us both plausible and to contain the smallest number of a priori assumptions. There might have been a religious reason which forbade a consecration. If, instead of insisting on "local native cult sites," we drop the native and retain the local, then we could suppose a previous attempt at foundation that had failed or a previous Greek settlement. We have already had occasion to mention, for example, the sacred Greek area at Amphipolis which dates to about a century before the official foundation. 112 If Brea was in Thrace, especially if we consider how many attempts to settle there failed, 113 our explanation may gain in credibility. It seems, however, more likely to us that Brea was in Chalkidike; 114 we know even less (in this respect) about Chalkidike, but the same considerations may apply there. In religious terms, the prohibition to consecrate would become, in effect, a prohibition to reconsecrate and, as such, necessary. Plato once says that "no one shall consecrate a second time what is already sacred." 115 In his context, Plato may mean only that a citizen may not consecrate parts of his private lot, 116 but in antiquity this sentence was time and again interpreted as a geneLines 34-35. See p. 139ff. See pp. 81-84. 113 Seep. 83n. 386; Hdt. V.126; Thuc. IV.l02; cf. 1.100.3; P1ut. Per. 19.1-2. See ML's commentary on the site of Brea, and the following note. 114 Woodhead (1952: 57-62); Alexander (1962: 265-87). We are particularly convinced by Asheri (1969: 337-340). liS Laws 955e. 116 Morrow (1960: 412 with n.42). 110 Ill 112

160

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

ral prohibition. 117 This is just what we would expect: once sacred, a spot held fast to its sacredness. liS The examination of the evidence provided by the philosophers has yielded no religious criteria for the siting of sacred precincts. On the contrary, the criteria which they explicitly presented were rational and functional, showing a clear preference for the separation of important precincts from the town itself. The other classes of evidence that have been presented so far provide us with one definite, although general, criterion for siting sacred precincts: Greek religious precedents were to be respected. Any statement beyond this cannot be regarded with certainty, although the possibility has not been rejected that Greek colonists sometimes followed native indications. To complete the picture, let us now turn to the archaeological evidence and its interpretation.

The Archaeological Evidence The most significant gains in our knowledge about early Greek colonization (especially in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.) have been made in the West, where archaeological excavations have been marked by intensive activity. Information about many aspects of colonization has increased to such an extent that some major revisions were necessary in our concepts of the history of early Greek colonization. This is particularly apparent in the history of Greek urbanization where some traditional views needed substantial revision. Archaeological activity also increased interest in early sanctuaries which was the theme of the entire fourth congress of the Studi sui/a Magna Grecia. 119 The focus of the discussions was the Sanctuari extramurani (extramural), that is, sanctuaries not in the innermost city. Later, G. Vallet clarified further the proper terminology by suggesting extra-urban for sanctuaries which are at a significant distance from the city, for example, the sanctuary of Hera Lakinia, which is situated about nine kms. from Kroton. These should be thought of as distinct from suburban sanctuaries which are in the periphery of the city itself, just outside or sometimes even just inside the walls. 120 There are no problems with terminology for the third category, which includes sanctuaries of the inner city such as those of Poseidonia. We propose that an examination of the relation of sacred areas to their location in the city and its territory may provide some answers to the question how

Des Places (1955: 182). Cf. Wycherley (1962: 88-89). 119 "Sanctuari di Magna Grecia." Atti del IV convegno di studi sui/a Magna Grecia, TarantoReggio Calabria 11-16 Octobre 1964 (Napoli 1965). 120 Vallet (1968: 8lff.); see also de Polignac (1984: 31ff.; 95-101). 117

118

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

161

did the oikist and the colonists know where to site their sacred precincts. The question involves a fundamental problem of religious attitudes. We propose that with the new information available, we can now determine at least some of the criteria which shaped the decisions of the early Greek colonists. The task of assessing the relation of the sacred areas to the plan of the city is not feasible, of course, for the extra-urban sanctuaries, where the many factors which may have been involved in their location are for the most part unknowable. We shall leave them aside as a separate, although important, problem. The investigation is best conducted in the city's innermost sacred areas, which were probably also the first to be established; 121 the suburban areas, too, sometimes lend themselves to similar investigation when their relation to the general plan of the city is relatively clear. To be able to carry out such an examination, we should first justify our use of the word, plan. Until quite recently the word would have been considered an anachronism because it used to be thought that regularity in Greek town planning was a relatively late feature. 122 Hence the term, Hippodamian, characterizing the regular-grid town plan which was associated with the intriguing 5th century B.C. figure of Hippodamos of Miletos, a social utopian and town architect. If such regularity did not exist before the 5th century B.C. then the methodology we are proposing would appear invalid since there would be no "plan" by which to assess the location of the sacred areas. The seminal and comprehensive views of A. Von Gerkan both characterized and shaped the general consensus: both sanctuaries and dwellings presented to him a picture of unplanned conglomerations. 123 In recent years, however, this view has been radically transformed: "regularity" (if not actual "orthogonality") has been proved to exist much earlier. 124 The discussions in the congress on the Sanctuaries in Magna Grecia brought out the three basic approaches to the question of siting sacred areas in a colonial context: (1) following native cult sites, (2) following indications of sacredness provided by Mycenaean remains, (3) attempting to explain the problem on its own terms. The theory of "native cult sites" is still sometimes proposed for a rural 121 On the probable priority of urban sanctuaries in the first colonial wave of the 8th century see de Polignac (1984: 102). 122 Castagnoli (1971: introduction and ch. I). 123 Von Gerkan (1924: e.g., 27-28; 31-34; 104-105). Von Gerkan, however, should be credited with emphasizing that the Greeks did not attach religious significance to the city plans. 124 In 1956 Castagnoli ( 1971: 10) could still state that the evidence for grid-planning is recorded since the end of the 6th century B.C. For a synthesis of the revision see Martin (1974: esp. part 4). cf. Asheri (1975). We do not enter the discussion about types and degrees of orthogonality. For our purpose it will be enough to show that cities and territories were planned according to a general concept, that sacred areas were initially reserved according to this plan, and that the division was carried out according to considerations of regularity and systematization.

162

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

context, but even there it finds less and less support among scholars in view of increasing archaeological knowledge. 125 Thus the "clearest" case of continuity at a local cult site, at Bitalemi across the river from Gela, has been discredited by P. Orlandini; the earliest material is Greek, and it begins some 50 years after the .foundation of Gela. 126 The material at Akragas, "the next best" case (the cave down from the church of S.Biagio) has also been shown to be Greek in its earliest phase (i.e., contemporary with the period of foundation), as has the material at Selinous. 127 To this negative trend a note of caution should be introduced: the arguments which claim that the "earliest material is Greek" are in a sense arguments from silence. We do not know about types of Sikel dedications at this early date. 128 It is enough to postulate that they may have dedicated perishable food stuffs to explain the lack of material evidence.I29 Whatever the case may be, the notion of "native cult sites" should be excluded from the discussion of siting sacred areas in so far as the suburban and central sacred areas are concerned. Even at Akragas and Selinous, where there is a "suburban proximity" of one or two cult sites which gives the impression of being "native," these sites account for neither the majority of sacred areas nor the important ones. This conclusion is also applicable to probable cases of syncretisms. We have convincing evidence at Thasos, for example, where the sanctuary of Herakles was adapted to the precolonial, Phoenician, sanctuary. 130 The case of Thasos is, however, extraordinary; the Greeks settled in the Thracian area (below the acropolis), not in the (probably) adjacent Phoenician "trading station." Hence the syncretism is not, properly speaking, with a native cult. The important point is that even at Thasos the apparent syncretism occurs in only one sanctuary. The cult of Herakles at Thasos has been compared to the cult of Achilles in the region of the Black Sea, particularly at and near Olbia. 131 This cult has been recently evidenced as early as the second half of the 6th century B.C., in the city of Olbia itself, where Achilles seems to bear an additional attribute, 125 Cf. Brelich's strong emphasis on hellenization of natives, instead of native influences on the Greek colonists (1965). See also de Polignac (1984: 99; cf.l08-ll8) who suggests that extra urban sanctuaries rather emphasize Greek possession of the land vis a vis the natives. 126 Orlandini (1966: 8ff.); (l968a: 20f.); Cf. Vallet (1968: 88). 127 Vallet, op. cit.; Dunbabin (1948: 181); Hermann (1965: 49). For theories concerning the native sacred areas see also the comments of Manni (Santuari 1965: 79) and see survey below. 128 Cf. Dunbabin (1948: 177); Orlandini (l968b). 129 In the case of Gela (n.126 above), however, if the earliest material found dates indeed to 50 years after the foundation then this objection would not be relevant. 130 The Phoenician origins have been eminently demonstrated by van Berchem (1967: 73-109, 307-336, esp. 88-103). For similar conclusions see Bergquist (1973). Cf. Graham (1978: 89f.). 131 Bravo (1974: 147).

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

163

"giver of life." 132 The cult of Achilles has long been suspected of being based on syncretism with local cults. 133 It is still uncertain whether this was actually the case, although it seems probable, considering how widespread the cult was, and that its peculiar attributes are not found in other Greek regions. In any case, it would seem probable that this syncretism was the result of prolonged local influences and that it was not expressed in the sacred precincts belonging to the initial period of foundation. There does not yet seem to be any direct link between the Achilles cult and an actual sacred precinct in Olbia itself, so any argument must remain tentative. It is interesting to note that the temenos excavated by the Russians since 1951 (in the central part of the upper city north of the agora) contained in the Archaic period a grove which was artificially planted, altars, and what were identified as cult buildings. The location of the temenos and its elements seem to have been coordinated with the rest of the plan of the city which is marked by some characteristics of orthogonality} 34 Let us return to the exposition of the three approaches to the problem of siting sacred areas. The second approach of siting sacred areas according to indications of sacredness left from the Mycenaean period was first suggested by E. Ciaceri 135 and later followed up by G. Pugliese Carrate11i.l36 This view, although possible in certain cases, cannot be taken as more than a conjecture, based also on a mistaken premise that only the gods of the Mycenaean pantheon constitute the important cults. 137 There remains the third approach, to which we shall now turn. If we can show that (1) the earliest settlements were planned and (2) that they were planned according to a criterion of organizational regularity and (3) if the sacred areas appear to have been located in that context due to similar considerations of regularity, then - we may get a clear (and new) picture of how they were chosen: not based on "inherent sacredness," "native cult sites," or "Mycenaean heritage," but as the result of a deliberate and rationally planned act. To illustrate the methodology, let us juxtapose two examples: after Magnesia on the Maeander was captured by the Spartan Thibron from the Persians, the city was transferred to a new site, the village of Leukophrys which already 132 Ibid. (esp. 134ff.). 133 On Achilles in Leuke, Berezan, cSp61-1o~ 'Ax,tA.A.fio~ etc.: the subject has been studied by many. See esp. Bravo (1974: n.l47) for bibliography; Hirst (1902: 245-267, esp. 247ff.); (1903: 24-53, esp. 45-48) who objects to syncretism; Minns (1913: 14, 361,463, 467); Dzikowski (1939: 84-91); de Ballu (1972: 78-82); Leveque (1973: 61-64); Hommel (1980). 134 Karasyov (1964: 129-130); Crigitsky, Roussijaeva (1980: 73-100). 135 Ciaceri (1940: VoJ.II2 20ff.). 136 (1962: 241-246). 137 Cf. Vallet's refutations (1965: 77); (1968: 82). We would like to emphasize that the "Mycenaean pantheon" contained some of the more important Olympian gods whom we should expect to find worshipped in any case.

164

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

contained the sacred precinct of Artemis. 138 The new city was provided with an orthogonal grid plan; the sanctuary area, however, stands out noticeably. It is on a different alignment to the grid plan of the town. It seems clear that the precinct is the only asymmetrical element and that it is asymmetrical because the planners who had to incorporate it in their orthogonal design did not dare violate its sacredness. 139 This illustrates what could happen when the planner(s) of a regularly planned city had to take into consideration the "local sacredness" of areas which in themselves were not aligned to their preconceived pattern. In the early colonies, however, no "preceding" sacred areas stand out in this manner. The three examples we have for a change of orientation and alignment (Metapontion, Naxos, and Himera) 140 represent a late development in the colonies themselves, and the change involves Greek sacred areas (not native) which were originally reserved at the time of foundation. Syracuse provides a contrasting example, which belongs already to the period of its foundation (733 B.C.): the sacred area of the Athenaion in Ortygia (the first site of settlement), 141 whose excavated material goes back to the foundation period, was ruthlessly superimposed on native oval huts which were destroyed (more on Syracuse below). The siting of the Athenaion area cannot have been based on inherent or native sacredness but on a clearly rational, if perhaps ruthless, criterion. Let us now examine in specific detail the available examples of early Greek colonies; when possible we shall follow chronological order but sub-colonies will be treated after their colonial mother-city. The Sites Megara Hyblaia Megara Hyblaia was founded in 728 B.C. from Megara, 142 and seems to present the earliest attested case of regular planning. 143 This Sicilian colony was situated on a flat coastal plain, devoid of natural defences and was For further reading see page 172.

Diod. XIV.36.3. Seen. 139 on the precinct. Humann (1904: 39ff., 91ff.); von Gerkan (1924: 105); Tomlinson (1976: 137). 140 Martin (1974: 314); see survey below, pp. 181-182; 175-176; 179-180. 141 Thuc. Vl.3.2; Coldstream (1977: 234). For other references see "Syracuse" in the survey below, pp. 176-177. 142 Thuc. Vl.4; Dunbabin (1948: 18f.); Berard (1957: llOff.); Hanell (1934: 116ff.). 143 I.e., in contradistinction to "chance conglomeration." Arguments have been advanced that a measure of regularity had existed earlier in Old Smyrna but that is evidenced (perhaps) only in its second phase, i.e., the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century B.C. See Cook (1958-1959: Iff.); (1982: 202-203) cf. Martin (1979: 289f.); Giuliano (1966: 38ff.); see also pp. 262-263. This period is at least a whole generation after the foundation of Megara. All such distinctions of priority, however, must remain tentative, pending the completion of the work on the inner city of Old Smyrna. 138

139

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

165

166

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

Temples

1l/O

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

Q Figure 5.

EPIPOLAI

Theatre

""

0....__ _==-..........2km

Figure 6.

600111

167

168

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES

169

SANCTUARIES FOR THE GODS

archaic ne~ VOJ.J.O~ oiKtaTij. One of the more striking pieces of evidence is an inscribed pottery sherd dedicated to Antiphemos, the founder of Gela, which may imply the existence of a personal routine cult in addition to the annual state worship of oikists. The latter is the subject of the next section, in which evidence for the annual state commemorations is assembled and assessed. From there we turn to an analysis of the symbolism of the oikist cult: it was the first cult which could not have been brought over by the colonists but was truly their own, and as such it symbolized the colony's new self-identity. This symbolism is the main topic of the last section, Tomb in the Agora.

190

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

The Universality of the Oikist Cult

When Miltiades the Elder died, 1 the people he ruled at their own invitation and by the divine sanction of Delphoi honoured him in an exceptional manner: athletic and equestrian games were instituted and sacrifices were offered. Herodotus sums it up in a way which he apparently thought needed no further elaboration: "as it is the norm for a founder' (chc; v6~oc; oiKtatij). 2 The remark is characteristic of our sources: we would very much like to know what the "norm for a founder" was, yet our sources avoid giving us the precise details because they presuppose a common frame of reference. Since the reader (or listener) was expected to be familiar with the founder cult, recording details would have seemed superfluous to the ancient author and his audience. Not only do founder cults make their contribution to the regular frustration of historians over the poverty and paucity of their evidence, but when we do possess testimony of any sort, it exists usually because the case at hand is exceptional and particular to such a degree that the ancient historian (Herodotus, in our case) found it necessary to adduce some details. Besides literary sources for founder cults (see more below) hardly any evidence exists: a chance find of a dedication inscribed on a potsherd3 may turn out to be our only straightforward piece of evidence for the regular practice of the oikist cult (below). Some representations on coins may also be adduced, although, on the whole, the numismatic evidence for oikists is too late to be discussed with proper critical control. 4 Actual physical evidence, such as heroa and altars, is very limited and its understanding depends on the interpretation of the literary evidence. The identifications of oikists' tombs, which have been suggested in certain cases (below), 5 are also mostly tentative and doubtful. The evidence provided by religion should also be used with great caution. Since we are concerned with cults, general information about the same category of cults (notably, hero cults) is useful for establishing a context but not as useful for specific details. However, since we are concerned with a peculiar aspect of Greek political religion, the applicability of general principles derived from the "science," or comparative study of religions is open to question and should be avoided whenever possible. In spite of the exceptional and remarkable elements in the story of Miltiades which evoked Herodotus' remark (considering that Miltiades was not a regular oikist), what he actually does say is very important. It implies that Herodotus firmly believed in the existence of a generally established norm for founders' For the problem of chronology, see Davies (1971: 299). Hdt. Vl.38.1. Cf. Lampros (1873: 46). See below, p. 194; 259. 4 See below on Aineia p. 200; Phalanthos pp. 216ff.; Themistokles pp. 223ff. s See pp. 213-216. 1

2 3

THE NATURE OF THE CULT

191

cults. In order to be certain just how far we can apply Herodotus' statement, we must first examine the particular position of Miltiades as founder and also inquire about those who actually practiced the cult. 6 The full sentence in Herodotus (Vl.38.1) reads: oi 'ttAEU'tt1oavn XtpOOVllOi'tat 9UOUOl roc; V61J.O bti to\i o!Ktoteco 0ijpa ft tncovu11iTJ tyev&to. On eponymous heroes see Lampros (1873: 34ff.); Farnell (1921: ch.XI, XII); Malkin (1985). 33 Paus. 111.15.6. His son Oiolykos had a hero shrine in Sparta. 34 Ibid. IV.7.8. 35 Hdt. IV.I48.

196

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

oiKlO'tij. 36 We do not know when this annual cult "as to the oikist" was established; presumably before the foundation of Kyrene. Whatever the case may be, its duration down to the 2nd century A.D. is impressive. Aeneas was reputed to have founded several cities after his flight from Troy. One of them, Aineia in Chalkidike, provides one of the earliest contemporary pieces of evidence for the commemoration of its founder-hero (on coins). But first we should note that Livy mentions Aineia incidentally while discussing episodes (in 182 B.C.) intended to denigrate Philip V. In one incident it is related how a fugitive couple (Porris - a man of Aineia and his sister-in-law, Theoxana, with her children) escape from Thessalonica to Aineia en route to Athens. They arrive there on the day of an "appointed sacrifice which every year they make to their founder, Aeneas, with great ceremony. Having spent a day there in the ritual feasts" 37 they boarded a ship. We observe the following elements: (1) An appointed consecrated day for the sacrifice (2) Annual celebration of that day (3) The founder (conditor) is the focus of celebration. (4) Apparently the whole of Aineia participates: the sacrifice is said to be conducted cum magna caerimonia and is held as a public, customary, ritual feast (sol/emnes epulas). 38 Further corroboration is furnished by numismatic evidence. Head lists a coin type from Aenea "before 500" 39 which shows a representation of an episode from the Trojan cycle: Aeneas carrying Anchises preceded by his wife, Kreusa, carrying Askanios. A later type ("500-424 B.C.") shows the head of a bearded Aeneas with an archaic type of helmet. 40 There are still later examples. In itself this evidence does not prove that a cult existed, but in conjunction with Livy's testimony it is reasonable to assume that it reflects a cult; accordingly, the date of Aeneas' cult may be pushed back at least to the late Archaic period. The cult is attested for a very small place, which illustrates how little we really know about similar cults all over the Greek world. Our source, as usual, provides the relevant information only incidentally. We ought to mention in this context an isolated piece of evidence pertaining to an annual rite whose raison d'etre was believed to have been the 36 III.l.8. 37 (Tr. Evans) Livy XL.4.9: ab Thessalonica Aeneam ad statum sacrificium, quod Aeneae conditori cum magna caerimonia quotannis faciunt. ibi per sollemnes epulas consumpto, .... Cf. Lampros (1873: 54) for the mention of this passage. 38 Cf. t:!A.aniVTt at Zankle; pp. 197-200. 39 HN2 214; cf. Kraay (1976: 134), who dates the coin just a little later. 40 HN2 ibid., Kraay ibid.

THE NATURE OF THE CULT

197

commemoration of a foundation, but in which, as far as the tradition that we have informs us, the oikist is not mentioned. The city in question is Pamphylian Phaselis. The circumstances of its foundation are obscure; it is listed in Eusebius' Chronica as founded in 691 B.C. 41 In a tradition preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium, 42 the charming story is told of the brothers Antiphemos (the oikist of Gela) and Lakios (the oikist of Phaselis) and their joint consultation of the Delphic oracle. Lakios, according to two versions in Athenaeus, 43 paid the local shepherd, Kylabras, smoked fish for the territory "and that is why the men of Phaselis sacrifice smoked fish to Kylabras even today" and "therefore the men of Phaselis sacrifice (9u&w) smoked fish to Kylabras every year, honouring him as a hero." The story of the exchange could be dismissed as an aetiological myth explaining some ritual. It could be taken to reflect some tradition about relations between the colonists and the natives, perhaps using the fictional sale for justification. It is also possible that Kylabras was simply a local hero to whom the colonists continued to pay honours. The question is intriguing but outside the realm of this investigation. 44 What is clear is that at Phaselis, too, we have evidence for an · annual ritual linked with traditions about the foundation of the colony, and if Lakios enjoyed a cult there, it is reasonable to place it in this context as well. We now turn to the most important evidence we possess for the universality of commemorations of the foundation of cities in general and of founders' cults in particular. This is a papyrus fragment of the Aetia of Callimachus (II, 43). 45

The fragmentary opening seems to present a catalogue of Sicilian colonies ("I know of Gela ... of Leontinoi ... "), which is followed by a general statement: "No one who ever once built a wall for any of these cities comes to its customary feast without being named. ••46 This opening serves as a background for the ensuing poetic discussion of the exception to the rule - the case of Zankle - in which the name is not spelled out. But before we proceed any further, let us first make the following observations:

Helm 93b; cf. Berard (1957: 217). S.v. rna Cf. p. 52. 43 VII.297-298 = Herophytus FHG 111.29; Philostephanus FHG IV.248; cf. A. Giannini, Paradoxograph. Graec. Reliquiae (1966) 21-23. 44 See Prinz (1979: 28-31). 4S Pfeiffer (1949: Vol.ll); Ehlers (1933); Schmid (1947: 55-64); Vallet (1958: 61-63). 46 Line 54: taoov ou3&1UU ya[p 6t)l~ no[tt) t&ix,o~ f3&ll1& Line 55: voovu11vi vo11iV11V fpx,&t' tn' &lA.aniVTIV. 41 42

198

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

(1) Callimachus notes here a universal custom for colonies. 47

(2) This custom consists of a customary, solemn, feast. 48 (3) The oikist(s)49 of the city are expected to attend (this becomes clearer in the case of Zankle). (4) The oikists are invited by a ritual, common to all colonies (at least in Sicily), in which their names are called out. 50 From these observations the following inferences can be drawn: (1) The customary feast to which the oikist is invited is to be identified with the annually observed cult of the oikist. (2) It is customary, then, not only because it is ubiquitous but also because it is periodic. (3) Callimachus thus points out the way in which names of founders were preserved and possibly stories of foundations as well. 51 (4) Dunbabin conjectures that this commemoration may also indicate the way in which the era of the colony was reckoned. 52 We have here, then, evidence for a general practice of an annual cult in which the central figure is the oikist. This becomes all the more trustworthy from the following considerations. Callimachus was particularly interested in foundations, and we are told that he wrote a work entitled KTiaEtv. IJ.ciKap 11&v civSprov 11tta ~vat&v ilproc; S' fn&tta A.aoa&l}i)c;.

FOUNDERS AND THEIR CULTS

205

iit&p9& 5& npo 5roJ.u1trov ft&pot A.ax.6vt&c; cii5av PaCilA.&&c; i&poi &vTt, .... . .. where now, in death, he resteth apart, at the further end of the market-place. Blessed was he, while he dwelt among men, and thereafter a hero worshipped by the people; and asunder, before the dwellings, are the other holy kings whose portion is in Hades. (tr. Sandys, Loeb)

The location of the tomb is said to be "at the far end" of the agora, probably at one of its entrances. 1 As we shall see, this serves as one of the stronger arguments for the archaeological identification of the tomb (below). The cult is said to be that of a hero, and it is a continuing cult (f:1t&tta). The scholion on Aristophanes Plut. 925 serves as a corroboration: ''The Kyrenaeans honour him as the Archegetes. " 2 It seems clear that Pindar means that the other kings of Kyrene, Battos' descendants, are also buried inside the city, in itself an exceptional honour. This is also implied in schol. 124f. (Drachmann p. 188) "apart from the other heroes" (5ixa trov liA.A.c.ov ftproc.ov.) and schol. 126 "separated from the other kings" (5taK&XC.OPUJIJ.Evoc; trov liA.A.c.ov l3acni..Ec.ov .... ). Schol. 129. however, contradicts this: npo 5roJ.1«itrov: noirov 5roJ.1«itrov; 1'\tot toii 1'\prooc; Battou ij trov PaCilA.&irov il Kai npo trov tfic; n6A.&roc; nuA.rov. Kai toiito 5oK&i trov iiA.A.rov 5taq>tp&tv 6 BaTToc;, Tt 6 J.1&v ii Kp~ ciyopc} tt9antat, oi 5& npo Tiic; n6A.&roc;. (Pind.) Before the other dwellings: What dwellings? Either of the hero Battos or of the other kings, or again, before the city-gates. And in this too Battos seems to be different from the others (i.e., kings), because whereas he is buried at the edge of the agora, the others are buried before the city.

This is possible, but not compelling. The other possibilities offered by the scholiast in the opening line about the meaning of dwellings give the interpretation a literary, rather than a factual, character. We bring up this point because it could be argued that Kyrene is an exceptional case among Greek colonies due to its institution of kingship 3 and for this reason may not be a characteristic example of an oikist cult. But even if we accept that the other kings of Kyrene were buried inside the city and perhaps even received heroic honours (like the Spartan kings), 4 Pindar makes it clear that they did not receive the same treatment and their burial site was separate and removed from the single tomb of Battos. For this reason, we can I

Cf. schol. 124f. (Drachmann p. 188); 124g. and the other scholia ad loc.

2 ... ttllc'i'!Vttc; ouv autov ol Kup11vaim cl>c; ciPXT'IrftT'IV. On the title, archlgetls, see Ch. VII. 3 Monarchy was exceptional in colonies. For Aristophilides at Taras and Pollis at Syracuse see

Drews (1983: 36-40). For his view on the basileia at Kyrene: (1983: 121-128). 4 See Rohde (1925: 123 n.46). Sparta was the mother-city of Thera, itself the mother-city of Kyrene. Note also for special position of kings: Aesch. Choeph. 322 (npoo8611otc; 'Atpd8atc;).

206

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

be confident that Kyrene exemplifies the kind of oikist cult one would expect to find in a Greek colony. Further confirmation for the existence of Battos' tomb in Kyrene is found in a Kyrenaian sacred law which may also imply that the tomb of the oikist served as an oracle. Let us now examine this sacred law. The Oracle at the Tomb of the Oikist

In 1927 S. Ferri published a long inscription from the end of the 4th century B.C. at Kyrene. 5 The inscription, which contains a variety of sacred laws, claims they are much older and attributes their origin to Apollo's oracle: (line 1) [' A]n6A.A.cov fXPTI [at. Lines 21-25 are highly relevant on several points which have already been discussed and may even provide an additional dimension to the religious position of the oikist after his death. This particular passage, however, is "the most difficult" (Buck), and there is no agreement among scholars about its interpretation. Due to the controversies and because the problems involved are interconnected, we consider it best to discuss them together here, keeping in mind that we are concerned only with questions relevant to the oikist. The text is as follows: AKAMANTION 6aia xavti Kai liyvoot Kai j3aj3ciA.cp[t) nA.av an' civ9pcimro Bcinro 'tOO 't(l) apx,aytTa Kai TptTonaT&prov Kai cino 'Ovu~tcia•ro Too ~eA.q>oot, an' liA.A.ro, 6nij liv9pronoc; fKa~tE, OUK 6aia ayvoo(t] Toov &t iapoov 6aia nav•i.

The major problem is the reading, AKAMANTIQN. Ferri read the letters a(i) Ka llaVTicov and was followed by Wilamowitz and de Sanctis. The stone itself has no space for the (t), which led P. Maas to raise the question '"AKaJ.Lavtirov von Heiligtiimern der Akamantes?" Vogliano immediately followed and accepted that we are faced here with i)p(i>a. A new reading, however, was established by G. Oliverio; ii Ka J.Lavtirov. This reading was followed by K. Latte, G. Luzzato, SEG, and C. D. Buck. 6 We shall discuss the implications of the reading, AKAMANTIQN further below. Let us first concentrate on the earlier reading since it may add a religious aspect to the oikist. 5 For the full list of references, consult F. Sokolowski, LSCG (1%2: No. 115). A descriptive bibliography may be found in Servais (1%0: 113-116). 1 list here only the more important commentaries which deal directly with lines 21-25: Ferri (1927: 93ff); (1929: 399-400); Wilamowitz (1927: 159ff.); DeSanctis (1927: 185ff.); Maas (1927: 1951-1953); Vogliano (1928: 255ff.); Oliverio (1933: 7ff., esp. 49-55), with the best photographs; Latte (1928: 42ff.); Radermacher (1927: 182-188); Buck (1928: No. 115, 307f.). 6 ciKUJ.1UVTioov followed in Maas, Vogliano, Herzog, Frankel, Sokolowski (see Servais for refs.).

FOUNDERS AND THEIR CULTS

207

Wilamowitz considered JJaV'tirov as the genitive plural of JJcivn~ "prophet." Latte, however, built a detailed and convincing case for JJQV't&iov = JJcivnov and in this is followed by Buck, 7 who compares similar uses in this inscription. 8 We quote his translation "(genitive of matters or persons involved) as to oracles, sanction9 (to consult them) belongs to everyone, both the holy and the profane- except that (for those) from the person Battos the Founder .... " This raises the question: Did Battos the founder have an oracle at Kyrene? If he did, did he have it qua founder? Again, if he did, would this be a basis for a generalization about similar cults for other oikists, part of ci>~ v6JJO~ oiKta'ttij? Although there is no corroborating evidence for an oracle of Battos, if the reading, ii Ka JJQV'tirov, is accepted, there is no reason to disbelieve it, and we should accept Battos the Archegetes as an oracular source for Kyrene. Is his case unique? The question has not been raised by anyone so far who dealt with the inscription, although it is most relevant. We know of no other "historic" oikistai who were also sources of oracles. We do know, however, of two oracles of mythic oikistai: those of Mopsos at Mallos and Autolykos at Sinope: (Pausanias:) tv MaA.A.{!> JJQV't&iov aweuSta'ta'tov 'trov f.n' EJJOii. 10 It would be hazardous to claim that this oracle, which Mopsos shared with Amphilochos at Mallos, was attributed to him qua founder . 11 Because Mopsos was a mythic figure, traditions about him (and about another Mopsos) were varied and confused. His salient characteristics were his prophetic and divining powers. He was also associated with Apollo's oracles at Klaros. Moreover, several places were considered his foundations, 12 but only Mallos boasted an oracle. The manteion at Mallos is best explained as originating from Mopsos in his role as prophet, not oikist. It is still possible, however, that in time these two aspects came to be considered one. In comparison, the oracle of Autolykos at Sinope presents a much clearer case of an oracle attributed to a founder. According to Apollonius of Rhodes, Autolykos was first associated with Sinope when the Argonauts picked up his brothers and him there. 13 According to Strabo, however, Autolykos was an Argonaut first and took possession of Sinope later . 14 The text is instructive, Parallel to 6ouA.i11-6ouM:ia; mpaylOu-mpayt:iov; tt:Milvlov-tt:A.oovt:iov. 'lapci>v, line 25; iKt:aioov, line 110: Buck (1928: 311). On oaia, see the detailed study of Jeanmaire (1945: 66-89); (1944: esp. 143). 10 Paus. 1.34.4. II On the foundation of Mallos see Strabo XIV.675-676; cf. GGM II p. 371 (Miiller) = Eustathius No. 875. For other references see RE s.v. Mopsus (Kreuse) 242. 12 See Barnett (1953); see recently on Mopsu Hestia and Bet Mopsu in the Karatepe inscription Bron (1979: 172-176), who adds a full discussion of Mopsos. 13 Arg. 11.955ff.; cf. Val. Flacc. V.l15, where the brothers are said to have arrived at Sinope after a joint venture with Herakles against the Amazons. Cf. also Appian Mithr. 83. 14 XII.546. 7 8 9

208

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

for it relates Lucullus' capture of Sinope and his carrying off the statue of Autolykos: 6

At:UKoUo~ ....

TOV Ai>T6AUKOV, E9tvtlio~ fpyov, av tK£iVOl oiKlCJ'ri!V Kai tTiiJOOV cil~ 9t6v·l'jv lit Kai IJUVTtiov ai>Tou· lioKti lit Trov 'Iciaovt CJUIJ7ti..Euacivnov dva1 Kai KaTaaxtiv TOUTOV Tov T67tov. £19' i>aTtpov Mli..l\alOl Tl)V ti>qmiav tMVT£~ Kai Tl)V aa9£V£\QV TroV &VO\KOUV't(J)V t~llilciCJUVTO Kai txoiKou~ faTtli..av. tv6111~ov

Lucullus ... took away ... the statue of Autolykos (Sthenis' work), whom they regarded as founder of their city and honoured as god. He is considered to have been one of Jason's Argonauts and to have acquired possession of this place. Later, the people of Miletos, seeing how advantageous the place was and how weak were its inhabitants, took it and sent colonists there.

Autolykos, then, is said to have had divine (not heroic) honours and a IJ.UV't&iov. The Milesians who came ''later'' apparently honoured the mythical hero associated with the place, probably in the way Rhesos at Amphipolis, Idmon at Herakleia, and Timesias at Abdera were honoured as "former" founders or local heroes. Autolykos also may have helped the settlers to justify their taking possession of the site of Sinope. Whatever the case may be, Autolykos did enjoy an active cult, and an oracle in his name was active down to the 1st century B.C. IS Although Mopsos and Autolykos are mythological figures (in the sense that they belong to the mythic cycles), in terms of historical cult their oracles functioned (at least in Sinope) as founder oracles. The IJ.UV't&iov of Battos, then, is not without precedent or context. We should be careful, however, about drawing the further conclusion that all oikists had oracles. First, there is no evidence for it. Second, the cases cited above are all exceptional to some degree. Third, the factor of distance may have been at work: perhaps due to the remoteness of the colonies (especially Sinope and Kyrene) the need may have been greater for an independent oracle in the colony. What type of oracle was it? DeSanctis' view 16 that we are concerned with v&KUOIJ.UV't&ia, has usually been upheld by those who read ci Ka IJ.UV'tirov. Such oracles had the specific function of communicating with the dead and were often located in places of "passage of souls;" the most famous is Aornum in Thesprotis, which is linked with the myth of Orpheus and Eurydike. 17 In our view, Kyrene's agora does not strike us as a very likely place for such a cult. The question must remain open, although perhaps the local Libyan custom of consulting ancestor tombs for dream oracles may be relevant. 18

IS 16 17

18

Cf. Plut. Luc. 23; Appian Joe. cit. P.l92. Paus. IX.30.6. See Buck op. cit. for other references. Hdt. IV.I72.3.

FOUNDERS AND THEIR CULTS

209

That the location of the oracle should be the tomb of the Archegetes is accepted by all the scholars who follow the reading of J,.Lavticov. Chamoux' formulation in presenting the case is characteristic (Chamoux himself inclines to the other reading): 19 "un passage ... a fait supposer qu'un oracle etait consulte sur Ia tomb de 1' Archegete." In this context the reference of Pindar to Battos' tomb (above) as well as the archaeological "confirmation" of Pindar (below) are often adduced. The association of the oracle with the tomb is justified both by the hero's cult accorded to the oikist and also by this inscription: em' cii..A.o 07tTJ civ9pomoc; fKaJ,.L& (line 24); lit. (Buck) "from anyone else where a person died (our emphasis)." With this interpretation too, there are difficulties, especially the one which Latte brings up, 20 namely, the possibility that we are dealing, on the one hand, with the tombs of Battos, Tritopatores, and Onymastos and, on the other, with "houses of mourning." This interpretation, however, better fits the reading of ciKaJ,.Lavtirov as a euphemism for the dead ("the unwearied ones," which he also suggests but rejects in favour of ci Ka J,.Lavtirov) rather than the reading oracles, since no oracles are expected from "houses of mourning." Even if (to anticipate a little) the reading ciKaJ,.Lavtirov or 'AKaJ,.Lavtirov is accepted and all we are dealing with is a regulation about ritual cleanliness with regard to the dead, a fortiori we are dealing with a tomb of Battos. If this is so, however, the inscription cannot be used in the context of oracles but only as another confirmation of Pindar's Pyth. V, 93 (which is of value in itself) and of the religious significance which Battos' tomb held.2 1 According to the variant reading - aKaJ,.Lavnrov - the general meaning of the passage relates to purity and contamination in one's contact with the dead. The significance of the inscription's implication about tombs has already been discussed. Does it have any further bearing on the oikist? The euphemism, ciKaJ,.LaVt&c;, "the unwearied ones," i.e., "the dead," does not seem to have such bearing, 'AKa~J,avtec;, however, as a heroic name (the more accepted version) may signify something. No one is quite sure who the Akamantes are. Chamoux (1953: 286). P.44. 21 Nock (1944: 143) understands this passage as an exception, i.e., any other grave except the tombs of Battos, the Tritopatores and Onymastos, conveys uncleanliness. This exceptional character seems to us to underline the public aspect of the tomb as a place accessible to all, and in that sense, too, it is a confirmation of Pindar. Some doubts have been raised about whether the Battos in our inscription is Battos the oikist; however, they do not seem valid. Maas was troubled by the civ9pwxo' because Battos was heroized; for this reason, he thought that the Battos in our inscription must be the son of Battos I. But this is a mistake: his son was Arkesilas (Hdt. IV.I59.1). Admittedly, civ9pwxo~ remains hard to explain; Buck's idea, that "civ9pwxo~ points the contrast of oracles of deceased human beings to those of the gods" remains the more probable (1928: 311). Silvio Ferri's later ideas (1929: 399-400) about Battos being a "Libyan man" and about "medical oracles" seem to us totally unfounded. The archlgetls is sufficient refutation. 19 20

210

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

It was already noted by P. Maas that in an early 4th-century sacred calendar from Marathon22 both the Akamantes and Tritopatores appear together (in the Skirophorion; before the Skira a sheep was offered to each), perhaps in a context of fertility and fertilization. 23 In Attica there is at least some likelihood that the Akamantes are connected with Akamas, the son of Theseus, who also had a phyle, Akamantis, named after him. The Tritopatores, as we shall see below, are predominantly Attic. 24 In Kyrene we find another A kamas, one of the sons of An tenor the mythical founder of Kyrene. This founder and his descendants, says Pindar, 25 were honoured with sacrifices by Battos I. But why should the sons of Antenor and the other descendants be compressed into the figure of Akamas? 26 Moreover, Pindar uses the term, Antenoridai; if the cultic formula was Akamantes, we should have expected it instead.27 We must, therefore, conclude that those who uphold the reading as 'flpav o{ ~U1111axm nO.vt&c; ~uv n~mc; tma7t6j1&V0l f>llllOOi~ f9aljlaV tv tij n6~&l 7tp0 tfic; vliv ayopcic; OUO'Ilc;' Kai to ~Ol7tOV oi 'AI1(jll7tO~ital, 7t&pl&ip~avn:c; autoli to 11V1111&iov, roc; ilproi t& tvtEj1VOUOl Kai tlllcic; 6&6ci>Kamv ayrovac; Kai ttllOiouc; 9uaiac;, Kai tl')v a7t0\Kiav roc; OlKlOtij 7tpoa£9&aav, Kataf}a~6Vt&c; tel 'Ayvci>V&la OlKOf>OI1Jll1ata Kai U(jlaviaavt&c; &i tl 11V111160uv6v 7t0U fll&H&v autoli tfic; oi.Kia&roc; 7t&plea&a9al, vo11iaavt&c; tov 11tv Bpaaif>av arotfipa t& a(jlrov y&y&vfja9al Kai tv tf9 nap6vn aj1a tl')v trov AaK&f>alj10Virov ~U1111axiav (ji6J}cp trov 'A91lvairov 9&pan&uovt&c;, tov f>t "Ayvrova Katci to noAilllOV trov 'A91lvairov ouK liv 611oiroc; a(jlim ~UJ.1 nor as gratifying for Hagnon to have the honours. (or, taking i\Bsroc; as applying to Hagnon: "whereas Hagnon ... would not ... receive their honours either with benefit to themselves or with pleasure to himself" (Smith)).

This passage describes the actions of the people of Amphipolis toward both Hagnon and Brasidas. Thucydides maintains a delicate balance between the two in a very long sentence, emphasizing on the one hand what is denied Hagnon and on the other what is granted Brasidas. The public funeral ceremony is described in the context of conferring the title, oikistes, on Brasidas, instead of Hagnon. Brasidas is given a burial inside the city, at a central location. It is not clear exactly where: the agora, which Thucydides mentions as "in front" of the tomb, may not have been the agora in 422 B.C., since Thucydides inserts vuv ("now"). 138 Whatever the case may be, Thucydides' emphasis on a tomb inside the city at a prominent location is clear. We may point out the following elements in this passage, which appear as the salient characteristics of the oikist cult: (I) A public or state funeral139 (2) A monumental tomb and a sacred enclosure inside the city (3) A continuing hero cult (surely at the tomb) (4) Annual "honours," that is, agones and sacrifices The last two need further comment. In spite of the explicit roc; i\pQ>. Gomme in his commentary avoids the straightforward meaning of the passage: "either sacrifices to Brasidas as a god (not a hero) or, more probably, annual festivals in his honour (or to celebrate the liberation) in which sacrifices to the gods were made; for tvn:Jl voucn and euaiat are presumably used in their ordinary different senses." It is true that the verb, tvt&JlV&tv, has specific meaning in hero cults (involving a blood offering); 140 it is distinguished from the type of sacrifice implied by euaia, but the latter term is used much more widely, often in the context of state sacrifices. But there is no need to interpret the difference as an antithesis. When Aristotle mentions the cult accorded specifically to Brasidas he calls it OUstv Bpaai5~ (not tvt&J.1V&tv). 141 We suggest that the euaiat are here simply the more general term. 142

Cf. Gomme (1956: Vol. II ad Joe.). See in general Ch. V and Habicht (1956: 147ff.). 140 Rudrardt (1958: 285-286; 257-272); see in detail Casabona (1966: pts. III, VI). 141 Eth. Nic. 1134b 23. 142 See n.l40 above; see alsop. 193. 138

139

230

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

We also propose that the separate mention of the thusiai may be explained by a distinction which is not antithetic but merely a juxtaposition: on the one hand we have the annual event with state sacrifices on a grand scale and games and, on the other, the continuing cult. This also explains the difference in the tenses: ev'tEJ.LVOUV&ta. 156 Habicht (1956: 3ff.) for Lysander.

232

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

pleasure is he being denied? Most interpreters of this sentence, as Gomme states, actually prefer this possibility but without the implication of cult for the living Hagnon. 157 Our interpretation permits, therefore, a more concrete reading for i\l)&roc;. This interpretation has the further advantage of enabling us to understand aq>avioavt&c; more precisely. The word is usually translated as "obliterating," but that is too vague and implies an unlikely self-destruction on the part of the people of Amphipolis. Instead, we suggest to translate aphanisantes simply as "erasing," 158 which is its straightforward sense anyway; what the Amphipolitai did was not to tear down important civic buildings but to erase the inscriptions set up by Hagnon to commemorate himself, i.e., inscriptions which might have served as veritable 1JVrU.t6ouva of his foundation. This use of the verb aq>avi~ro is precisely paralleled in Thucydides when he relates how an inscription bearing the name of the tyrant Hippias on a major public altar in the agora at Athens was erased: "The people of Athens ... erased the inscription on the altar ( .. . toO 13rotJOU ftq>civto& toimiypa1JIJU) 159 Both Hippias and Hagnon suffered, therefore, a sort of a Greek damnatio memoriae. 160

Sikyon and Late Cases The history of Sikyon provides us with a few cases (some of which are interrelated) of cults which were set up along the lines of the oikist cult. Although late (Classical and Hellenistic) and not colonial, these cases may provide further information and corroboration for earlier practices. For comparison, a few other relevant examples from other parts of the Greek world will also be mentioned. In 366 B.C. Euphron was murdered by the exiled oligarchs of Sikyon while he was on an embassy to Thebes. The Thebans were apparently relieved; "his own citizens, however, esteeming him a good man, brought him home, buried him in the market place and pay him pious honours as the founder of their city - so true it is, as it seems, that most people define as good men their own benefactors" (oi IJEV'tOl 7tOAi'tat aU'tOU roc; civl)pa ciya9ov KOIJ10ci1J&V01 &9a\jlciV 't& EV 'tU ciyop~ Kai roc; UPXTtYE'tTtV tfic; 7t6A.&roc; otj3ovtat). 161 157 Except Steup who (wrongly) considers Hagnon dead. Even if one does not accept this notion of a cult for the living Hagnon, there should be no reason to deny that such monuments were prepared in advance before the founder's death as part of Hagnon's general act of founding Amphipolis. Cf. Thuc. IV.I02.3-4. 158 Cf. Betant (1843-7: s.v.). 159 Thuc. VI.S4.7. 160 Leveque and Vidai-Naquet (1964: 72-73) perceptively call the action against Hippias (Thuc. VI.S4.7) damnatio memoriae. 161 Xen. Hell. VII.3.12 (tr. Brownson, Loeb). On his supporters see Griffin (1982: 70-74).

FOUNDERS AND THEIR CULTS

233

Euphron, like Brasidas, was not an actual oikist. But he was a "founder" of a social order, hence an oikist by extension. His honours are thus comparable to the honours paid to lawgivers. The burial in the agora, which is analogous to an archegetes is also noteworthy . 162 The cult also seems to have been perpetual (i.e., annual), which is borne out by the tense of atj3ovtat. Euphron may be compared to another such "archegetes" who was also buried in the agora of his city (and perhaps also received a cult): Arrian mentions that the oligarchs at Ephesos dug up the remains of Herophytos, the "liberator" of the city. Once again, then, we have a case of extended oikist status. 163 A man with a more accurate claim to the title of oikist was Epimelides, the leader of the Messenian refoundation of Korone (371 B.C.), who was also responsible for the naming of the city. We do not know any more about him than his posthumuous position: when discussing the monuments at the agora, Pausanias adds: Ei8ov 8& Kai tou 'EmJ.1nA.i8ou J.1viiJ.1U ("I also saw the grave of Epimelides"). The context makes it almost certain that the location was the agora. We do not know when he died; it is interesting to note that Euphron and Epimelides were contemporaries. 164 Another contemporary was Podares, "who was killed, they say, in the battle with the The bans under Epaminondas." He, too, received burial in the agora (of Mantinea) or at least a hero shrine there. His cult was still in existence in the days of Pausanias. 165 In 213 B.C. when the people of Sikyon wanted to bury Aratos in the agora, they felt they could not do so because religious law forbade it. Was Euphron forgotten? The explanation is simple and is provided by yet another (intervening) example of an oikist cult at Sikyon. In 303 B.C. Demetrios Poliorketes moved the site of the town to the Acropolis, which provided greater security in the more perilous times. There he established a "free government" and from those he had benefited "he received divine honours (ttJ,lai iao9sai) . . . for they called the city Demetrias and voted to celebrate sacrifices and public festivals and also games in his honour every year and to grant him the other honours as a founder" (9uaia~ 8& Kai 1tavnyt)pst~, ftt 8'ciyrova~ E\JillQ>iaavto auvtsA.siv autq> Kat' EVlQUtOV Kai tel~ iiA.A.a~ ci1tOVEJ.1&lV tlJ.lcl~ ro~ Ktiatij). 166 See p. 200ff. Arrian A nab. 1.1.7 .11; cf. Foucart (1922: 138). 164 Paus. IV .34.5-6. Epimelides is said to have named the city after his native town in Boeotia. Its former name was Apeia (Hom. 11. IX.152; 249); cf. Frazer (1898: III 448); cf. Strabo VIII p. 360. Korone's refoundation is comparable to the refoundation of Messene by Epaminondas, Epimelides' contemporary. See pp. 104-106. 16S Paus. VIII.9.9. 166 Diod. XX.l02.3; cf. Paus. 11.7.1; see Habicht (1956: 74; 75 n.4). 162 163

234

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

The ambitious renaming was soon abandoned. 167 We may note, however, that the genuine foundation of Demetrios Poliorketes, the Thessalian Demetrias, retained its name. It was to that city that his ashes were transferred and it was there that he was actively worshipped as a founder (Plut. Dem. 53) in a common shrine of archegetai and ktistai (i.e., including the local heroes before the synoikismos of 293 B.C.). Most probably Demetrios held the prominent position within the cult.l68 At Sikyon, Demetrios is explicitly referred to as ktistes. The list of annual honours is conventional: (I) sacrifices, (2) public festivals, (3) games, (4) and all "other honours of a founder" (a frustrating general category which is often repeated in our sources). There are two elements that are exceptional, however. The first is the ttJ,lai io60eat ("divine honours"), which are expressly stated. U. Kahrstedt 169 uses this to support his thesis that Demetrios was not honoured as ktistes but as a god, on the supposed model of Alexander's position in the Corinthian League. Habicht disposes of that theory rather easily by showing that the "Hellenic League" was not set up until a full year after Sikyon's refoundation as Demetrias. The explanation may be linked to the second exceptional element: that the founder's cult that Demetrios received at Sikyon was given to him while he was still alive. This is a true break with tradition: the hero cult is by definition a cult of the dead. Once the rules are broken, all is let loose: there is nothing to wonder at in the arrogation of both divine and heroic honours. 170 We shall still meet with genuine posthumous cults "as to a founder" in mainland Greece, but the case of Demetrios must remain exceptional and can provide only further corroboration of the elements of the oikist cult. This cult was the model for Demetrios, who arrogated it to himself. Probably, the relocation of the city, which implies of course a new agora, was the cause of the specific religious problem that arose when Aratos died in 213 B.C. He died at Aigion in his 17th strategy of the Achaian League. The Achaians wanted to burry him then and there: Kai trov 'Axmrov q>lAOtlJ.10UJ.1EVCOV tKEi yevtoOat taq>a~ Kai J.1VI\J.1a'ta 1tPE1tOV'ta tc'9 ~iq> 'tOU avopot;. The people of Sikyon, however, insisted that his body be buried in their own city. "They had, however, an ancient law that no one should be buried inside the city walls and the law was supported by a strong feeling of

167 168 169 170

18).

Griffin (1982: 78). Habicht (1956: 76); ktistes and oikistes: Casevitz (1985: esp. 68ff; 10lff). Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeiger 195 (1933) 203. Similarly Kassander in Kassandreia; Lysimachos in Ephesos; Habicht (1956: No. 14; No.

FOUNDERS AND THEIR CULTS

235

superstition." 171 Only a special embassy to Delphoi and an oracle which was favorably interpreted enabled them to go on with their plans. The shifting of Sikyon's site seems to be the proper explanation for the religious problem. Old Sikyon had in its agora tombs of mythic heroes, such as Adrastos and Melanippos 172 and, of course, Euphron. Demetrios Poliorketes' ashes were deposited in Thessalian Demetrias. It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that from 303 B.C. (at least, if not from 366 B.C.) there were no new tombs inside the city walls; to have introduced Aratos' tomb would have been a total, unprecedented novelty for the new agora of Sikyon. This explains the citizens' keen awareness of the ancient law and their need for special sanction. The episode illustrates how rare were burials within city walls, even in the Hellenistic period. To be sure, honours to a ktistes were accorded in an inflationary manner, but usually to living men; they were hardly ever associated with a tomb. 173 That the sentiment was alive (and perhaps even somewhat reactionary?) in the lst century B.C. is attested by a letter which Servius Sulpicius sent to Cicero on May 31, 45 B.C. In it he relates that the Athenians refused to bury M. Marcellus (in spite of his explicit request) within the city, yet he admits that "it was a concession they had never yet made to anybody." (Ab Atheniensibus, locum sepulturae intra urbem ut darent impetrare non potuit, quod religione se impediri dicerent; neque tam enid an tea cuiquam concesserant.) 174 Polybius, an earlier source, describes concisely the honours paid to Aratos at Sikyon: Kai yap euaia Kai 't'tJ.Lac; tiprotKac; E\lllliaav't'o, Kai auU.t1J3c511V oaa 7tpoc; aic.Ovwv civt1KEt J.1vtlJ.111V, ... (They voted him sacrifices and heroic honours and everything in short which contributes to immortalize a man's memory). 175 The exact nature of the thusiai and of the timai heroikai becomes clear when we examine Plutarch's detailed description (always a source for the pious treatment of ritual). First the festive and thronged funeral procession 176 which carries the body to Sikyon is described. Then - Kai 't'61tov E~EA.6J.1EVot 7tEpi07t't'OV roa7tEp oiKtO't'TJV Kai aro't'i'jpa 't'i'jov ci~t6A.oyov bna-r'llaa~ 'ftprotKai~ Tt!J.ai~ t-ri!J.TJOE -rov rtivrova. 189 Similarly, six years later, his father-in-law, Theron of Akragas, received 'ftprotKai Tt!J.ai. 190 In 476 B.C. the formidable Syracusan Hieron expelled the inhabitants of Naxos and Katane and resettled Katane whose name he changed to Aitna. 191 Hieron was celebrated by Pindar as KA.Etvo~ oiKta-r'llp. 192 Hagesias, his mantis, as a auvotKta-r'llp. 193 He was even parodied by Aristophanes in the Birds as K-ria-rrop Ai-rva~. 194 Apparently, he had a great ambition to be considered an oikist; it is interesting to note Diodorus' assertion about his motives. 195 After the practical military need for the resettlement, Diodorus adds: rolitO cS' &npal;e a1teucSc.ov ... EK rfic; yevoll&Vllc; llUpuivcSpou 1t6A.&c.oc; ttllcic;

EX&tv i)pc.otKV 'ftprotKCi'>V fTUX.EV, cO~ QV K'rlOTTJ~ 'YE'YOVcO~ Tfj~ 7t6AE00~). 196 It is rare that we get such reports which reveal to us how important the status of an oikist was. We observed it in the case of Xenophon 197 and of the citizens of Thourioi who vied for the timai. 198 It will become even more apparent later, when we discuss the plurality of oikists and the eventual trend toward exclusiveness of the title. To be an oikist, as Hieron exemplifies, was a noble ambition; the desire to obtain an oikist cult was perceived as sufficient reason for the expulsion of the population of two cities and the creation of a new one. Diodorus is at his best when dealing with his native island, and we should take his statement seriously- not as a glimpse into Hieron's mind but an indication how his actions and their motives were perceived. 199 Such events were more likely to happen in Sicily at this time than anywhere else in the Greek world. Kamarina, for example, was founded by Syracuse between 598-595 B.C.; it was destroyed 46 years later after a revolt

189 190 191 192 193 194 195

196 197 198 199

Diod. XI.38. On the Sicilian examples see also GGR4 719. Diod. XI. 53. Diod. XI.49; cf. Berard (1971: 86). Pind. Pyth. 1.31; cf. III. 169. Ibid. OJ. VI.6; cf. frg. 105.3. Birds 926. Diod. XI.49.2. Diod. XI.66.4. See also above, pp. 93-97. See pp. 102-104. A nab. V .6. I 7: his alleged ambition: I>VOJ.1« Kai Mv«J.1lV. Seep. 98 and esp. below, pp. 254-256. In effect he was an oikist providing the site with both a new name and a new population.

FOUNDERS AND THEIR CULTS

239

(552-547 B.C.). 200 It was finally taken over by Hippokrates the tyrant of Gela, in 492 B.C. 201 as a ransom for Syracusan prisoners of war. He "himself became founder and recolonized Kamarina" (aim>c; oiKtatT)c; ysv61.u:voc; Katci>Kta& KaJ.L0.pwav). 202 A few years later Gelon again depopulated it and recolonized it. 203 We do not know, however, of an oikist cult for Hippokrates; he may not have had the time. Hieron, then, had local historical precedents, both for acquiring heroic honours and for acquiring them qua oikist, that is, with "justification." Hieron's own example enables us to understand Douketios, the Sikelleader who made himself an oikist on the Greek model. 204 Hieron's honours were posthumous, and in that respect, at least, he remained traditional. The real break with the past occurred in the middle of the 4th century B.C. when ttJ.Lai t)protKai were accorded to Dion. He was still alive at the time and was also a general elected with absolute powers (356 B.C.). 205 The change anticipated Hellenistic ruler cults, yet that should not cloud our assessment of the last case (20 years later) which again involves a posthumous cult. Timoleon, who died in 336 B.C., was greatly honoured by the Syracusans for his life's work: defeating the Phoenicians and toppling tyrannies. At his funeral the herald, Demetrios, read the people's decree. The text, except for the last sentence, is almost identical in Diodorus and Plutarch: '0 &i;J.Loc; 6 l:.upaKouairov TtJ.LOAiovta TtJ.LO&itJ.LOU Kopiv9tov t6v&& 9cl7tt&t J.Lf:V &taKoairov J.lVOOV, EtlJ.LTJO& &' &lc; tOV linavta xp6vov ayroat J.lOUOlKOic;, i7t7tlKOic;, yuJ.L VtKoic;, ott toile; tupawouc; Katal..uaac; Kai toile; j3apj3apouc; KQtQ7tOI..&J.LtlOUc; KQl tac; J.l&ylOtac; tOOV UVQOtlitrov 7t61..&rov O{K{aac; U7tE&roK& toile; V6J.LOUc; toic; l:.tK&I..tci>tatc;. By the people of Syracuse, Timoleon, son of Timodemos, from Corinth, is here buried at a public cost of two hundred minas, and is honoured for all time with annual contests, musical, equestrian, and gymnastic, because he overthrew the tyrants, subdued the Barbarians, re-peopled the largest of the devastated cities, and then restored their laws to the Greeks of Sicily. 206

200 Thuc. Vl.5.3. On the chronology Berard (1971: 136). 201 Hdt. VII.I54.3; Thuc. Vl.5.3; Philistos FGrHist 556 FIS = schol. ad Pind. OJ. V.l9c. 202 Thuc. Vl.5.3. 203 Thuc. Vl.5.5; Hdt. Vli.I56; Diod. XI.76.5; schol. ad Pind. OJ. V.I6; 19; schol. ad Aeschin. Ctesiph. 186; Berard op. cit. with n.4. 204 See p. 85ff. 205 Diod. XVI.20. 206 Plut. Tim. 39 (tr. Perrin, Loeb). cf. Diod. XVI. 90: Kata at tftv I:tKt:A.iav T!J,loAioov 6 Kopiv9toc; lhtavta toic; I:upaKoaiotc; Kai toic; I:tK&A.I.Ci>ta~c; Katrop9roKc; &tt:A.t:Utlla&, atpatll'Yllaac; ftll 6Ktci:J. m at I:upaK6c; ~v

240

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

Plutarch adds that he received a taqni toO OcOIJ.atoc; (here clearly a burial, not just a funeral) in the agora; later, when the place became a gymnasium, it was called the Timoleonteion. He also received the annual triple agones, mentioned in the decree. 207 J.l&yaA.oq>rov6tatotatat 6 l>ciJ.lOt &iv&aat J.lOUatKOiOtE tOU~ aotrov tOU~ ~ttv Eopuo9Evilia~. tOU~ lit llpod.Eilia~ Kai..Eio9at ... 69E(V oM' ciP'X.TIYE'fa~) VOJ1to9ijvat, 67tEp 7tciOtV anoliiliota(t oiKtOtai~ ... ) 2 f:KE{VOl~

an'

As we see, there are textual problems which must be dealt with before any interpretation. The word, oiKtatai~, appears twice and is partially restored the second time; so is the other key word, cipxrry&ta~. All the editors of the text use caret brackets, not square ones, and indeed there is general agreement that this is how the text should be read. The particular problem which faced the editors was that apparently the archetype MS. ("A") was missing some 11-16 letters at the end of each line, beginning with toil~ 3& llpoKA.si3a~. However, a comparison of the derivative MSS produces some of the letters which form the words olKtatai~ and ciPXTIYE't'a~. 3 A 15th century scholar, Guarino Veronese, for example, translates this passage ... quod omnibus urbium conditoribus et earum habitandarum auctoribus attributum est. 4 'APXTIYE't'ac;, in terms of the letters preserved5 is the less doubtful of the two words in question; oiKtataic;, too, makes excellent sense since it is the logical conclusion of the phrase, Kain~:p oiKtataic; Y£VOJ.1Evotc; above, which is sound. We can be reasonably certain, therefore, that the text is valid and proceed to examine its meaning and application. 6 The apparent meaning of archegetes in this passage is a title signifying an eponymous ancestor, that is, the progenitor of the genealogical line which is named after him. According to Ephorus, Eurysthenes and Prokles should have received the "title" were it not for their bad government. They should have received it by virtue of being oikists. One should actually wonder first about the use of oikistai and only afterwards about archegetai since the latter term seems to have had a specialized meaning at Sparta; here oikistes is used not in the sense of a founder of a colony, but in its extended sense of a founder of, for example, a political order, or constitution, a meaning which was certainly prevalent by the time of Ephorus. 7 The passage illustrates an overlapping of the terms, archegetes and oikistes: the archegetes is here the founder, the progenitor, of the genos, but since in his person he also functions as the founder of a political entity, he is also an oikist. 2 FGrHist 10 FilS = Strabo VIII.36S. 3 For a convenient apparatus criticus, see the edition of R. Baladre in the Bude series of Strabo. 4 Quoted by Diller (1975: 127). s Baladre op. cit. 6 In order to argue that the archegetai of the Great Rhetra (Plut. Lye. 6) are not "kings" but the actual two founders who, together with 28 elders should form the gerousia at Sparta L. H. Jeffery suggests an alternative restoration: 69s(v ou&' roc; T!pci>ac;)ln this way, she argues, for Prokles and Eurysthenes to have been called archegetai by later generations. We are unconvinced; Jeffery does not present a detailed analysis and makes her suggestion tentatively. Moreover, the points mentioned by us here are not addressed by her. See Jeffery (1961: 145). 7 L.S.J. s.v.; cf. Jessen in RE s.v. t'tPXTIY&tllc; 443.

FOUNDERS AND POSTERIORITY

243

Is it possible, however, that Ephorus has in mind the specialized Spartan use of archegetes? When Plutarch interprets the Great Rhetra, 8 he explains that tipxTJYEtat are j}aatA.&iv n6!..£rov ~v Tai~ 't\~ai~ 'llaav oi Sta'tO\ KQ'tQv. 65

Because in each of these cities those held in honor were those distinguished by noble birth, that is, the first settlers of the colonies, and these were few out of many.

The Kai, as Newman suggests, is explanatory. 66 By the "first settlers" Aristotle probably includes the founders. Another passage in the Rhetoric to Alexander sheds more light on first settlers and founders: ... On Tc:i'>v npci>Trov oiKtacivTrov 'tel~ n6!..£t~ Kai Toi~ 9&oi~ iSpuaa~ttvrov 'tel i&pa ~tliA.ta'ta S&i Sta~ttv&tv Ta~ n&pi Tou~ 9&ou~ &nt~t&l..£ia~ · 67 ... That we should preserve the forms of attention toward the gods of the first settlers of cities and founders of the temples of the gods.

in sacred ground as an "extension" of this right which the oikistes-archegetls enjoyed. This is in contrast to Vollgraff who rejects such burials prior to the 3rd century B.C. See also Ch. Picard, CRAI (1944) 7-9, who rightly points out the tombs in the sanctuary of Anios at Delos. 63 This question deserves further investigation because it is possible that the profusion of oikist cults at the earliest in the beginning of the 7th century B.C. provided an impetus for the creation of new or additional fictitious eponymous cults. See our comments below, p. 261. 64 Lampros (1873: 46ff.); see in general on aristocracy of first settlers Arnheim (1977: 51-54). 6S Pol. 1290b 12. 66 Neuman (1902: ad Joe.). 67 Rhet. ad Alex. 1423 a 37.

FOUNDERS AND POSTERIORITY

251

Although Aristotle's text cannot be pressed to refer specifically to oikists but refers, rather, to the broader group of first families, it is clear that oikists are included in this group; especially, as we have seen, they were involved precisely in regulating and establishing cults, rites, precincts, etc. Similarly, there are isolated pieces of evidence which imply that those who had come first enjoyed greater importance or a greater claim for distinction. Thus the first quarrel at Thourioi occurred because the Sybarites demanded precedence among the settlers in the order of sacrifice. 68 Similarly, the oracle given to Battos II to encourage reinforcement of new settlers implies priority in the division of the best land in favor of those who should come first;69 similar priorities are implied in the foundation decree for Black Korkyra. 70 It is self-evident that descendants of old aristocratic families in the colonies would have been able to trace their ancestors (whether real or invented), sometimes to the period of foundation. The Deinomenids are a good example; although not descended from the stock of the oikists of Gela, they believed that their ancestor came with Antiphemos. In time, one of them acquired the privilege of a special priesthood, which, in turn, became hereditary. The circumstantial anecdote explaining the origins of this distinction was already doubted by Herodotus; 71 we can not determine how Telines actually came to acquire the priestly prerogatives, but that is irrelevant to the issue: the priesthood of the Deinomenids was not theirs qua oikists (the founders of Gela were Entimos and AntiphemOs) so that we may not use it as a support for a special distinction to descendants of oikists. Their priesthood was like other hereditary priesthoods of great aristocratic clans. In Kyrene we have a different situation: there it is clear that the descendants of Battos, who were themselves kings, had special precincts and priesthoods which they were supposed to retain even after the reforms of Demonax of Man tinea. 72 But Kyrene is a special case due to its institution of kingship; it is more reasonable to attribute first their religious prerogatives (comparable to those of the Spartan kings) to this fact rather than to the fact that the Battiads were descendants of an oikist. A case comparable to that of Kyrene is found at Ephesos, whose foundation, however, belongs to the migratory period. The question concerns the "founder" of Ephesos, Androklos son of Kodros:

68 69 70 71 72

Diod. XII.II.l; cf. Aristotle Pol. 1303a 32ff. Hdt. IV.I59.3. Ditt. Sy/1.4 141. See also above, p. 157. See for all this Hdt. VII.153; Compernolle (1957); Kesteman (1970); see also above, 33; 97. Hdt. IV.I61. See also above, p. 141; p. 157 for the significance of this.

252

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER Kai i:n vuv oi tK tou y&vouc; OVOJ.Ui~ovtat ~aatA.⁣, fxovttc; nvac; tlJ.uic;, npo&c5piav t& tv ciyci>at Kai nopqn)pav tniaru..Lov tou ~aatA.tKou y&vouc;, aKinrova civti aK'Ilntpou, Kai til i&pa tile; 'EA.&uawiac; L\TJ~t'lltpoc;. 73

And even now those from his genos are called kings and they have some honours, the privilege of front seats at the games, the purple as insignia of the royal genos, a staff instead of sceptre, and the priesthoods of Eleusinian Demeter.

Even if we were to accept the historicity of Androklos, we need to remember that we are concerned here with descendants of a king, a basileus. The term does not designate an official state office, such as the archon basileus at Athens 74 but rather a hereditary monopolized priesthood.' 5 Hence it is not a title of position but an actual gentilic. All the other honours are properly regal, including the staff and the purple. 76 The only item in the list of honours which is not restricted to kings alone is the prohedria; that, however, is unhelpful because it is a shared, not a unique honour. Finally, unlike the tomb of Battos at Kyrene 77 (and those of his descendants), the tomb of Androklos was not in the agora but in a more usual location, along the roadside. 78 Hence, although Androklos is specifically called ohnatti~. we cannot make much use of this particular evidence. We have discussed above 79 the cult accorded to Themistokles; one of the striking features of the evidence was the special position and honours accorded to his descendants. Let us recapitulate: 1. His nephew, Phrasikles, took over the whole province. 2. A friend of Plutarch, "Themistokles the Athenian," continued to enjoy ttJlai in Magnesia (some five centuries after Themistokles' death). 3. The Lampsacene proxenia decree mentions specifically [ ... t' ciya9c't ii M69TJ]aav KA.&oqHivn.p K[ai toi~ a7toy6vot~]. Phrasikles is not relevant: his was an ad hoc arrangement, and although he held a claim to the province as a relative of Themistokles, this cannot be seen in the context of oikist practices but rather in the context of Persian provincial management. The case of "Themistokles the Athenian," interesting as it may be in itself, yields no further answer to the question of cult. Because he did not even reside in Magnesia, he could not have had a role in a cult. The inscription would appear as the more significant piece of evidence, but in reality it is not very helpful. One can not build an argument on the words,

73 Strabo XIV.632-633. Strabo follows Pherecydes, but the words seem to be his own (FHG I 98 No. 111). 74 Farnell (1906: Vol.lll199). 75 Sakellariou (1958: 139 n.3). 76 Reinhold (1970: 22ff.); Reinhold, however, misses this reference. 77 See pp. 214-216. 78 Paus. V11.2.9. 79 See p. 223ff.

FOUNDERS AND POSTERIORITY

253

"to his descendants," because they are restored and not part of the original text. Even though Themistokles' position and cult were analogous to that of an oikist, he himself was not one. As we emphasized, his case is too late and too particular to be representative; it can be used for corroboration but it does not establish any secure information. Finally, it should be noted that the position, revenues, and honours accorded to him (and some of his descendants) do not seem to have included any religious duties and privileges. Twice in the course of this study we have had occasion to point out families in colonies who claimed descent from their oikist: at Massalia Aristotle mentions the descendants of Protis; 80 at Taras Stephanus notes the Phalantidai. 81 The latter are placed by Stephanus in a wider context of descendants from various notable men (mostly, or perhaps even all, mythological): the Anthedai at Halikarnassos, Phalantidai at Taras, the Kodridai, Kekropidai, Theseidai, and Erechtheidai at Athens. He then adds that these families were held in higher honours: Kai 'tau'tac; y& •ac; Kl..t\a&tc; 'trov ci1to •il c; 7ta'tpi5oc; tvn1J.o't&pac; tv61J.tl;.ov. We would like to have more specific information about EV'ttiJ.O't&pac; because this is the clearest indication in our sources for a relatively higher distinction for descendants. All the figures mentioned by Stephanus, except perhaps Phalanthos, are unhistorical, and even Phalanthos himself is rather shadowy, as we have seen above. The only other "true oikist" is Anthes, also a figure of the heroic age, who is said to have led a colony from Troizen to Halikarnassos. An inscription from the early Christian era (which claims to be a copy from an earlier stele) is brought in by Lampros to serve as further evidence in this context. 82 It contains a list of priests to Poseidon a1to •lie; K'tia&roc;, and Anthes' name appears seventh (following other descendants of Poseidon through his son Telamon). The list is quite certainly fictional. It may well serve to illustrate attitudes toward local history in the time of the early Roman Empire, but it can hardly serve as a firm basis for information about the position of descendants of oikists in the Archaic period. In none of the cases we have examined so far is there any evidence for specific privileges for descendants of oikists which are due to them on the basis of their genealogy. At best, there may be indications that they were "honoured," which is only natural, especially as the oikists themselves were part ofthe social elite and probably members of the inner circles of power. This point is important, especially when considering the question of the tendance of the oikist cult because that transcended gentilic lines to become a cult of the community as a whole. On the one hand, we have not found 80

Above, pp. 69-72; we have seen, however, that Protis is a doubtful historical figure.

81 Seep. 218 on Steph. Byz. s.v. 'A9ijva1. 82

Lampros (1873: 11); CIG 11.2655.

254

THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER

evidence that the oikist's cult was managed by his direct descendants, except perhaps at Kyrene; but there, too, it was performed by the descendants in their role as kings. On the other hand, in places such as Zankle and Aineia, 83 we have noted the magistrates of the city performing the cult. To conclude, whereas descendants of oikists may have enjoyed individual distinction (to what degree probably depending on the colony's respective constitution), they were not the ones responsible for the cult of the oikist. This puts a special emphasis on the nature of the cult as the public cult of the polis, not in charge of any particular aristocratic clan, but belonging to the community as a whole, as the cult for its guardian hero and founder, its polissouchos. Plurality of Oikists versus the Single Oikist Cult: How Important was the Cult of the Founder?

Thus far the term, oikist cult, was used in the singular. Not all Greek colonies, however, were established by only one oikist. Did a plurality of oikists automatically mean a cult for more than one? Were there any special problems with such a cult? How did such plurality affect the cult's function and significance in the subsequent life of the colonies themselves? It should be stated at the outset that there is no evidence for an historical oikist cult which involves more than one founder; this, however, is not surprising and means little in view of the poverty and paucity of our sources. In poleis, such as Kamarina or Himera, the only information that we receive is the mere mention of more than one oikist. 84 In other cases, however, we hear of problems, and a tendency towards exclusiveness and predominance of a single oikist cult becomes apparent. As this can be reasonably demonstrated, we gain an additional insight into the position and significance of the oikist cult in the Greek colony: not only did it exist, but its existence was also important because it was something worth fighting for. In 434 B.C., about a decade after the foundation of their city, the citizens of Thourioi became embroiled in a civic discord. According to the rather detailed account in Diodorus (XII.35), there were two problems: which Greek city was to be regarded as the mother-city, and who was to be considered oikistes. 85 Athens and some cities of the Peloponnese were laying claim to their "ascription as mother-city; " 86 many of the prominent citizens of

83 Seep. 196 (Aineia); pp. 197-200 esp. p. 199 (Zank1e). 84 Thuc. VI.S.1; 3; Berard (1957: 135); Dunbabin (1948: lOS); Graham (1971: 93 n.1). 8S Diod. XII.35.1: tataaia~ov npo~ aA.A.ftAOU~. noia~ n6A.sco~ anoiKOU~ &:i Kauia9al tOU~ E>oupiou~ Kai tiva Ktiatl'IV 5iKatov ovo).lci!J;a9at. (Ktiatll~ and oiKtatft~ are synonymous: 35.3). 86 35.2: tl'tv tntypaq~l'tv til~ anmKia~.

FOUNDERS AND POSTERIORITY

255

Thourioi were involved in the dispute about the position of oikist "since each one of them was hoping to have this honour fall to himself. " 87 A delegation was sent to Delphoi to seek arbitration "to inquire whom should they call the oikist of the city; the god gave an oracular response that he himself should be considered as the Founder." 88 This resolved the stasis. We see how some lO years after its foundation, whatever there was of "Panhellenism" at the time of Thourioi's foundation was shattered and the pieces fell into the old pattern of individual city-states. 89 Diodorus opens the account by stating two reasons for the stasis: the problems of the mother-city and that of the oikist. It immediately becomes apparent, however, that the former issue was debated mainly among cities of mainland Greece, whereas the primary concern of the citizens of Thourioi itself was the question of their oikist. It could be argued that we are pointing out a distinction which is in itself insignificant because once the matter of the oikist was settled, then by implication so too would be the problem of the mother-city. That may, indeed, be correct in so far as the mother-cities are concerned, but it is important to understand the precise terms of the stasis in order to appreciate fully its significance and the priorities of the members of the community of Thourioi. The terms of the stasis do not emerge from an interpretation of only one or two words in the text of Diodorus but rather from the narrative as a whole. Moreover, by knowing how it was resolved we also know what it was about. The inquiry put to Delphoi was not about a mother-city but only about an oikist. Apollo's answer, that he himself be considered the oikist, resolved the issue. Still, one can argue that because it was not up to a colony to decide on its mother-city, nor for Delphoi to designate one, we should, therefore, not expect an inquiry on this subject. But the objection falls flat: almost exactly at the same time (beginning in 435 B.C. or a little earlier) we find Epidamnos tearing itself away from its mother-city, Korkyra, and turning to Corinth. The move received Delphic sanction: " . . . they sent to Delphoi and asked the god whether they should hand over the city to the Corinthians as their founders ... and the god answered that they should hand over .... " 90 By the second half of the 5th century B.C. we find oiKtatai (in the plural) used in a somewhat less distinguished sense; the "founders" sent by Athens to 87 35.3: ... EKciOTOU Tij