Hans Beck - Kostas Buraselis - Alex McAuley - Ethnos and Koinon - Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism-Franz Steiner Verlag (2019)

Ethnos and Koinon
Alte Geschichte
Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity
Franz Steiner Verlag and Federalism
Edited by Hans Beck,

Kostas Buraselis
and Alex McAuley
HABES 61
Ethnos and Koinon
Kostas Buraselis and Alex McAuley
habes
Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien

Begründet von Géza Alföldy
Herausgegeben von Angelos Chaniotis und Christian Witschel
Beirat: François Bérard, Anthony R. Birley, Kostas Buraselis, Lucas de Blois,
Ségolène Demougin, Elio Lo Cascio, Mischa Meier, Elizabeth Meyer,
Michael Peachin, Henk Versnel und Martin Zimmermann
Band 61
Ethnos and Koinon
Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism

Kostas Buraselis and Alex McAuley
Franz Steiner Verlag

Umschlagabbildung:
Foundations of the so-called Treasury of the Boiotians in Delphi, Photo: Hans Beck
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek:

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
<http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.
Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes
ist unzulässig und strafbar.
© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2019
Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier.
Printed in Germany.
ISBN 978-3-515-12217-7 (Print)
ISBN 978-3-515-12245-0 (E-Book)
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations ................................................................................................... 7
Hans Beck, Kostas Buraselis, & Alex McAuley

Preface ..................................................................................................................... 9
Emily Mackil
Ethnic Arguments .................................................................................................. 11
Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study ........ 29
Nikolaos Petrochilos
The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western
Lokrians ................................................................................................................. 45
Albert Schachter
The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina ............................................................. 65
Angela Ganter
Federalism Based on Emotions?
Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellenistic and Roman Times ....................................... 83
Ruben Post
Integration and Coercion: Non–Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League ..... 99
Nikos Giannakopoulos
Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at
Amarynthos: The Limits of Roman–Sponsored Greek Federalism..................... 113
Alex McAuley
Sans la lettre: Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria ................ 131
Claudia Antonetti
Spearhead and Boar Jawbone – An Invitation to Hunt in Aitolia:
‘Foreign Policy’ within the Aitolian League ....................................................... 149
6 Contents
Jacek Rzepka
Federal Imperialism: Aitolian Expansion between Protectorate, Merger, and
Partition ................................................................................................................ 167
Sheila Ager
The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League .................................... 175
Catherine Grandjean
Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians:
A Numismatic Approach ..................................................................................... 193
Kostas Buraselis
Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the
Achaian and Aitolian Leagues ............................................................................. 205
Athanassios Rizakis
Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions ............................ 219
James Roy
The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon ......................... 243
Cinzia Bearzot
The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League:
From Lykomedes of Mantineia to staseis among homoethneis ........................... 257
Maria Mili
Ἄπιστα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν: The Dubious Thessalian State .................................. 271
Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Ethnic Constructs from Inside and Out:
External Policy and the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. ............................................ 285
Selene E. Psoma
The League of the Chalkideis:
Development of its External and Internal Relations and Organization ............... 321
Adolfo J. Domínguez
The ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations .. 339
Katerina Panagopoulou
Between Federal and Ethnic: The koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones
Revisited .............................................................................................................. 363
Hans Beck
The Aiolians – A Phantom ethnos? ..................................................................... 385
Index ................................................................................................................... 405

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1) Grandjean, Figure 1: LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. © With permis-
sion. p. 200
2) Grandjean, Figure 2: CNG Electronic Auction 375, 341 2016 June 1. 16,18g. Price 736.
Argos silver tetradrachm of attic standard. © With permission. p. 201
3) Grandjean, Figure 3: LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. 5,31g, Pa-
gai/Achaian; ΧΑΡΜΙΔΑΣ , ΑΧΑΙΩΝ ΠΑΓΑΙΩΝ ; bronze coin. © With permission. p. 201
4) Grandjean, Figure 4: Dr Busso Pius Nachfolger Auction 378, 177, 2004 April 28. 2,21g.
Elis/Achaian – silver tribal of reduced aeginetic (= symmachic) standard. © With permis-
sion. p. 201
5) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 1: Map of Achaia Phthiotis. © the authors. p. 307
6) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 2: Plan of Classical settlement at Grintja (possibly
Karandai). © the authors. p. 308
7) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 3: Plan of Classical settlement at Kastro Kallithea.
© the authors. p. 308
8) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 4: Plan of Classical settlement at Magoula Platani-
otiki (Old Halos). © the authors. p. 309
9) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 5: Plan of Classical settlement of Karatsagdali (un-
known settlement). © the authors. p. 309
10) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 6: Map of Hellenistic Settlements in Achaia Phthi-
otis. © the authors. p. 310
11) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 7: Plan of the Hellenistic City of New Halos. ©
With permission of H. R. Reinders. p. 310
12) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 8: Plan of the city of Kastro Kallithea in the Hel-
lenistic Period. © the authors. p. 311
13) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 9: The region of Achaia Phthiotis with cities mint-
ing coins with monogram AX. © the authors. p. 311
14) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 10: Coin from Larisa Kremaste with the image of
Thetis on a hippocamp holding a shield with the monogram AX (Axaion) found at Halos.
© With permission of H. R. Reinders. p. 312
15) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 11: Coin from Peuma with the AX monogram (Ax-
aion) on the reverse and a male head on the obverse. Found at Kastro Kallithea. © the
authors. p. 312
16) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 12: Terracotta figurine depicting Phrixos or Helle
on a ram. From the House of the Coroplast at New Halos. © With permission of H. R.
Reinders. p. 312
17) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 13: Figure of ΑΘΑΜΑΣ on a mould made bowl
from the Southeast Gate at New Halos. Published in: Zoï Malakasi-
oti, Reinder Reinders [Halos, SE gate, ArchDelt 56–59 (2001–2004) [2011], Chronika II.
2, p. 467f and 489f (fig. 27). © With permission from the authors. p. 313
18) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 14: Mouldmade jug with labeled images of Sisy-
phos and Autolykos from Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. © the authors. p. 313
19) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 15: Stone block with protrusions found in Building
10 at Kastro Kallithea. © authors’ photo. p. 314
20) Haagsma, Surtees, & Chykerda, Figure 16: Terracotta bread stamps with images of a leaf,
lighting bolt and barley found in Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. © the authors. p. 314
21) Domínguez, Figure 1: Map of Thesprotia. © the author. p. 358
8 List of Illustrations
22) Panagopoulou, Plate 1: Early Antigonid coins and their monograms. © With permission. p.
379
23) Beck, Figure 1: Aiolian migrations from Central Greece to Asia Minor: the orthodox pic-
ture. © With permission. p. 386
24) Beck, Figure 2: The corridor from the Lelantine plain into Boiotia according to the Homeric
Hymn to Apollo. Map after Schachter 2016: xxi. © With permission of A. Schachter. p. 393
25) Beck, Figure 3: Suggested direction of Aiolian migration movements, 8 th to 6th centuries
BCE. © With permission. p. 395
PREFACE
The traditional view of Greek history has long held that the polis was the funda-
mental unit and institution around which other social and political structures re-
volved. The Greek world was seen as a mosaic of these citizen-communities inter-
acting with one another in war and peace, and it was the autonomous community
of the polis that made the Greek world unique. While the importance of the polis to
communal life in the Greek world cannot be overlooked, various research projects
over the past decades have shown that it was not the only source of identity and
community in Greek antiquity. The ‘ethnic turn’ that has developed since the 1990s
demonstrates more and more the important role played by ethnic allegiance as a tie
that suffuses polis structures and connects communities that were otherwise politi-
cally separate. Recent advances in the study of federalism have shown how these
perceived ethnic relationships contributed to – and were in turn influenced by – the
elaboration of federal structures comprising many poleis in a given region. The ed-
itors of this volume along with many of its contributors were involved in the recent
project Federalism in Greek Antiquity published by Cambridge University Press in
2015, whose various systematic and case studies demonstrated in striking detail
how these latent ethnic attachments produced vastly different forms of federal col-
laboration, though all were united by their foundation on a sense of common de-
scent. These new avenues of inquiry have produced as many questions as they have
answered regarding this fascinating interplay between ethnicity and politics, and
much work remains to be done.
An aspect of this that has been relatively neglected so far, however, is an ex-
amination of the interior composition of Greek ethne and the ways in which they
managed to relate – and often synthesize – with one another. The process of nego-
tiation and inclusion played out in response to social and environmental factors
unique to each particular region and ethnos, and some of these aggregative trends –
but not all – gradually morphed into confederate structures. Neither did these pro-
cesses occur in isolation: the influence one ethnos had on another and the mutual
awareness of various ethne and the federal structures with which they organised
themselves has likewise been under-explored. The world of a given community,
region, or federation was never a vacuum. The interplay between and mutual con-
sciousness of parallel developments throughout the Greek world is equal parts fas-
cinating and underexplored.
More than perhaps anywhere else in the Greek World, Delphi embodies the
overlap among these various tiers of Greek history, as it was a place of devotion to
ethnic groups, cities, and federations alike. All of these quite literally met together
in the sanctuary of Apollo in the hills above the village. The place thus provided
the ideal location for an international colloquium aimed at filling some of the gaps
10 Preface
in our understanding of the relationship between ethnos and koinon. This collo-
quium took place at the European Cultural Centre of Delphi from 24 to 27 May
2015, and the harvest of this meeting and its findings have been collected, edited,
and presented here. We hope that it will shed further light on these different corners
of a Greek world that was constantly trying to overcome its narrow borders. It is
amusing, if not perhaps sobering, to think of the relevance of such an avenue of
inquiry to the Europe of our age, which seems to find itself torn between local and
general interests, identities, and priorities. If the editors and contributors to this vol-
ume can come together in the decoding of this phenomenon, perhaps it can too.
History does not repeat itself as a facsimile, but it also never fails to recall its past
in its own present.
The colloquium in Delphi was sponsored by the Anneliese Maier Research
Prize which the Humboldt Foundation awarded to Hans Beck. The editors wish to
thank Angelos Chaniotis for his comments and for guiding us through the peer re-
view process. Chandra Giroux offered more than one helping hand throughout the
editorial process for which we are genuinely grateful. Our sincere thanks as well go
to Andrew Lepke for his careful reading of the final typescript.
May 2018 Hans Beck Kostas Buraselis Alex McAuley

Montreal Athens Cardiff
ETHNIC ARGUMENTS
Emily Mackil
University of California, Berkeley
Just inside the entrance to the Sacred Way in the precinct of Apollo in Delphi are
situated the fragmentary blocks that once comprised the base of perhaps the most
ethnically charged monument in the entire sanctuary: a series of nine statues depict-
ing Apollo, Nike, and the tribal heroes of Arkadia. The group was dedicated in the
heady aftermath of the Theban-led invasion of Lakonia in the winter of 370/69,
which led to the liberation of the helots, the establishment of two massive new cit-
ies, Messene and Megalopolis, and the foundation of an Arkadian koinon. The mon-
ument is situated directly opposite the huge Spartan nauarchs’ monument, which
celebrated the victory at Aigospotamoi, a location certainly chosen as a deliberate
snub to their Spartan enemies.1 The Arkadians presented themselves to Apollo and
the Hellenes, in an epigram inscribed on this massive base, as αὐτόχθων ἱερᾶς λαὸς
[ἀπ’ Ἀρκαδί]ας, the ‘autochthonous people of holy Arkadia,’ and recorded a gene-
alogy apparently designed not so much to describe as to enact and promulgate the
kinship of Azanians, Triphylians, and Arkadians, all descendants of Arkas himself.2
Dedicated in the early years of the Arkadian state, the monument carefully implies
a coincidence of ethnic identity and political action that might be taken as the result
of a policy of ethnic exclusiveness.3
We should not find this especially surprising. Ethnic identity, even as a social
construct, is widely believed to have had a powerful integrative force, driving the
formation of ethnically defined regional states like those of the Phokians, Boiotians,
Achaians, and Arkadians to name just a few. Self-categorization, the assertion of a
claim about collective identity, has been highlighted by Hans–Joachim Gehrke as
one of the major purposes of what he calls intentional history, the purposive retro-
jection of claims into the deep, especially the mythic, past. But the intention behind
such acts of intentional history as the Arkadian monument at Delphi was not simply
to assert a group identity. The intention was also to justify present arrangements or
1 On the spatial politics of the monument see Scott 2008.

2 FD III.1.3 l. 2. The important distinction between dedications as contributing to an identity,
rather than simply displaying an existing identity, has recently been made by Giangiulio 2010,
121: ‘When discussions of state dedications at Delphi take into account corporate identity, polis
or group identity is often presupposed, and seen as a factual given, or an object, in a sense
something one can put on display. Instead, the evidence shows that this type of dedication con-
tributed to shaping, rather than simply to displaying the self-awareness of the relevant commu-
nity…’. On the claim to autochthony in this epigram see Roy 2014, 247f.
3 Although not applied directly to the Delphic monument, the principle is upheld by Nielsen
2002, 23f; Ruggeri 2009, 61.
12 Emily Mackil
to argue for recent changes by situating them in the deep past. The Arkadians
claimed a kinship bond that enveloped the communities that were then members of
the new Arkadian koinon, and in so doing they simultaneously justified the bound-
aries of their new state and imposed on its members an obligation to future loyalty,
for kinship in Greek thought, as Gehrke has emphasized, entails reciprocal obliga-
tion.4
This perspective takes us a long way from the old explanations of Greek federal
states as mere elaborations of a primordial tribal belonging, and it also helps us to
avoid the value judgment implicit in terms like ‘forgery’ or ‘fiction,’ which are
often used by those who ascribe to an instrumentalist view of ethnicity to describe
ethnic heroes like the ones depicted on the Arkadians’ monument.5 In what follows
I would like to explore the specific contexts in which ethnic identity was deployed
as an argument for political purposes among the ethnos states of mainland Greece
in the Classical period, the ways in which those arguments were resisted, and some
of the places where we might have expected to find ethnic arguments being de-
ployed but instead find non-ethnic contestations of disputes. Limitations of both
space and expertise prohibit me from attempting a comprehensive analysis, but I
have tried to draw on a wide enough array of cases as to provide at least a basic
typology of ethnic arguments, which might serve as a point of reference for future
discussions of the relationship between ethnic identity and political cooperation. In
analyzing ancient ethnic arguments, I hope to build a bridge between the two sides
of a modern ethnic argument; that is, between those who have been emphasizing
identity and integration as the foremost issues to be addressed in current studies of
Greek federal states and those, like myself, who have placed the spotlight on inter-
actions and institutions as the distinctive constituents of regional identities and re-
gional states.6
I will first consider ethnic arguments marshalled to encourage participation in
an ethnos state, and then look at several cases in which ethnic identities were pa-
tently constructed or redefined in order to justify political change; this will bring us
back, of course, to the Arkadian monument, which deserves much more attention
than I have just given it. I will then turn to rejections of these ethnic arguments,
both by individual poleis subjected to them as well as by ethnos states themselves,
4 Gehrke 2001; cf. Gehrke 2003, 2005; Gehrke 2010.

5 Primordialist explanations: Gschnitzer 1955; Larsen 1968. Ethnic identity as fiction: McIner-
ney 1999, 148; Beck 2003, 181; V. Parker in BNJ 70 F 122a commentary. Cf. Gehrke 2001,
298.
6 Emphasis on identity and integration: Beck 2003, 179–183; Beck and Funke 2015, 9 (describ-
ing ‘studies that disclosed the mechanics of ethnic identity formation at the regional level’ as
‘[t]he great thematic shockwave’ in studies of Greek federalism); Funke 2013. Emphasis on
interactions and institutions: Mackil 2013. In a paper dedicated to the relationship between
ethnic identity and federation, Hall 2015, 48 suggests that ethnic identity was ‘not simply a pre-
requisite for federalization, but rather one of the means by which it was accomplished.’ His
suggestion that identity could have established trust networks that supported federative political
and economic developments is very useful, but it is only a beginning.
Ethnic Arguments 13
before considering conflicts within an ethnos to fully expose the rift between iden-
tity and political behavior. In pursuit of a more positive argument I will consider
briefly some non-ethnic arguments made in favor of a politics of cooperation.
I. ETHNIC IDENTITY AS AN ARGUMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
The most obvious purpose behind the deployment of an ethnic argument by advo-
cates of an ethnos state was to persuade communities to join. In 519 the Plataians
were, according to Herodotus, “being pressed by the Thebans” (πιεζεύμενοι ὑπὸ
Θηβαίων οἱ Πλαταιέες) but were not willing ἐς Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν (Hdt. 6.108.2–5).
The precise meaning of this phrase is difficult to understand. It is usually translated
“become members of the Boiotian League” but there is no independent evidence
for anything like a developed Boiotian koinon at this early date, and I have sug-
gested that teleein here has a fiscal connotation.7 But whether the Thebans were
asking the Plataians simply to contribute to a joint fund by which they might make
war on common enemies, or whether they were pressuring them to join a state with
more elaborate formal institutions, they were pressing them in the name of the Boi-
otians, and in so doing they were implicitly making an ethnic argument – one that
the Plataians rejected out of hand, sitting as suppliants at Athenian altars and seeing
the protection of their closest non–Boiotian neighbor to ensure their ongoing auton-
omy.
The dispute, of course, continued, and although it is possible that Plataia had
joined the Boiotian koinon in the years after 446, if it did so the city withdrew again
and in 431 was attacked by the Thebans, being encouraged, according to Thucydi-
des, by some Plataians who wished to align their city with the koinon ‘for the sake
of personal power’ (Thuc. 2.2.2–3). A herald announced that any Plataian who
wished “to join the alliance in accordance with the ancestral customs (κατὰ τὰ πά-
τρια) of all the Boiotians” should lay down his arms.8 The Plataians, with some
Athenian support, resisted for three years, until the last defenders surrendered. In
the sham trial of Plataians that followed before a Spartan jury, the Thebans first
claimed responsibility for the settlement of all Boiotia, conceding that they had set-
tled “Plataia together with some other places later than the rest of Boiotia,” after
“having driven out a mixed population.” They implicitly claimed that the region
widely recognized as Boiotia was ethnically unified, a territory occupied by a group
of people of common descent. They then accused the Plataians of “contravening the
ancestral customs of the other Boiotians” by making an alliance with the Athenians,
and defend the Plataian citizens who had opened the gates to them as men who
7 Mackil 2013, 27, 295; Mackil 2014, 272. For the traditional view, e.g., How and Wells 1912,
II.110; Waanders 1983, 111; Scott 2005, 375–377.
8 Thuc. 2.2.4. Hornblower 1991, 241 glosses this phrase as ‘to become their ally and return to
the ancestral constitution of Boiotia’ and remarks that although the meaning of ta patria here
is ‘very vague indeed, [it is] apparently … no more than a reference to membership of the
Boiotian confederacy.’
14 Emily Mackil
wished that the polis would no longer be estranged but would again live in kinship
(ξυγγένεια).9 These claims amount to a robust argument that the Boiotians, a shared
descent group with a common territory, had a custom of political cooperation that
should not be contravened.
It is impossible to know whether the Thebans in fact made these ethnic argu-
ments either in 431 or in 427. What matters is that Thucydides seems to have known
that ethnic identity could at least be viewed as a strong inducement to a politics of
cooperation; this may, in fact, have been one of the Thebans’ favorite lines, and
Thucydides may have known that. It appears again, in more positive terms, in the
speech he puts in the mouth of Pagondas of Thebes, one of the eleven boiotarchs in
office in 424, when the Boiotian army mustered at Tanagra to drive the Athenians
out of Delion. The only boiotarch to favor pursuit of the Athenian army after it had
crossed into Attic territory, Pagondas exhorted his colleagues to engage, telling
them that “it is your ancestral custom to oppose a foreign army (πάτριόν τε ὑμῖν
στρατὸν ἀλλόφυλον ἐπελθόντα) regardless of whether he is in your country or
not.”10 Pagondas’ harangue placed equal emphasis on territory and common de-
scent. For the Thebans, arguments made in terms of ‘ancestral custom’ were ex-
pected to be compelling, charged as they were in both an ethnic and political sense.
Pagondas’ fellow boiotarchs, and the army assembled by them, were more receptive
to Theban ethnic arguments than the Plataians had been: having been persuaded by
Pagondas, the Boiotian army pursued and routed the Athenians at Delion, winning
an important victory in the Peloponnesian War.
While we have to read Herodotus and Thucydides at an angle in order to per-
ceive the ethnic arguments being advanced by the Thebans in the late sixth and fifth
centuries, evidence for a parallel argument being made in fourth-century Arkadia is
much clearer. As Xenophon tells it, the movement for Arkadian political unification
began in Tegea in 370, where two leaders, Kallibios and Proxenos, “were urging
that all of Arkadia should unite and that the poleis should agree to abide by whatever
was decided in common.”11 Despite gaining the upper hand in an armed conflict
with fellow citizens committed to the ongoing autonomy of the polis, a position
justified by appeal to Tegea’s ‘ancestral laws,’ further steps were taken toward po-
litical unification only after the Boiotian invasion of Lakonia.12 According to Xen-
ophon, the Arkadians were encouraged in 369 to stop following the Thebans and
assume a leadership of their own. In a speech that has justifiably received a great
deal of attention, one Lykomedes of Mantineia makes a series of ethnic arguments
in favor of this proposal: the Arkadians alone of the Peloponnesians were auto-
cthnous as well as being the most numerous of all the Greek ethnē, not to mention
9 Thuc. 3.61.2, with a paraphrase of Thuc. 3.65.3. Larson 2007, 181 remarks that ‘Thebes is now
using older ethnic ties to emphasize further the newer federal obligations.’
10 Thuc. 4.92.
11 Xen. Hell. 6.5.6. Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1, who attributes the innovation to Lykomedes of Tegea
and gives a more purely institutional account. As Beck 2000, 340–343 notes, the fact that this
proposal was advanced prior to the Theban invasion suggests that we should not chalk the in-
novation of Arkadian federalism up to Theban policy.
12 Xen. Hell. 6.5.7–10 with Gehrke 1985, 154f.
Ethnic Arguments 15
their physical and military prowess, proven simply by appeal to the excellent repu-
tation of Arkadian mercenaries.13 The claim of autochthony is simultaneously a
claim about shared territory and consanguinity; these are the terms with which
Lykomedes justifies the new politics of cooperation in Arkadia. But the ethnic
claims themselves are not new: the myth of Arkadian autochthony almost certainly
goes back to the Archaic period.14 To our knowledge, the opposition at Tegea in the
previous year was the only significant opposition faced by the authors of political
unification in Arkadia. In fact, the new state was so attractive that it immediately
attracted non-Arkadians as members.
I am alluding, of course, to the Triphylians, who were in the early 360’s, ac-
cording to Xenophon, “held … in high regard because they claimed to be Arkadi-
ans.”15 Thomas Heine Nielsen has shown that the Triphylians, erstwhile perioikoi
of Elis, only forged an ethnic identity of their own after their liberation by the
Lakonians in 400.16 Now, chameleon-like, they have changed their identity again
in the interest of safety, saying that they too are Arkadian. Both Nielsen and Claudia
Ruggeri have suggested that the Triphylians adopted an Arkadian identity because
it was the only way for them to participate in a koinon predicated on ‘ethnic exclu-
siveness.’17 This reading of the evidence is too literal. The Triphylians heard the
ethnic arguments being made in favor of participation, like those put in the mouth
of Lykomedes, and responded in the same idiom. It was surely as a result of both
Arkadian argument and Triphylian response that Triphylos himself, eponymous
hero of the recently-defined group known as Triphylioi, appears on the Arkadian
monument at Delphi with which I began, one of the sons of Arkas to be sure, but
born to a different mother – not Erato but Laodameia, the daughter of the Spartan
king Amyklas.18
13 Xen. Hell. 7.1.23–26.

14 The earliest probable reference to it is in a fragment of Asios quoted by Paus. 8.1.4. On Asios
see West 1985, 4. Hdt. 8.73.1 includes the Arkadians in a list of the seven ethnē that inhabit the
Peloponnese; of those seven, the Arkadians and Kynourians (a ‘tribe’ on a par with the Maina-
lians, both of which become part of the Arkadian koinon) are autochthonous. Nielsen 2000, 32–
35 discusses the Arkadian origin myth and the claim of autochthony. On the speech of Lykome-
des, see the detailed examination of Bearzot in this volume.
15 Xen. Hell. 7.1.26.
16 Nielsen 1997; cf. Ruggeri 2009.
17 Nielsen 2002, 23f; Ruggeri 2009, 61: ‘the Arcadian federal state was ‘ethnically exclusive’,
which means that no-one [sic] who did not share the same ethnic identity could become a mem-
ber of the federation.’ But Nielsen (2000, 54f) notes that ‘[t]he Arkadian ethnos was not a
closed unit: it was, on the contrary, capable of expansion’ and cites the inclusion of the Triph-
ylians and the independent polis Lasion as evidence. Yet he concedes, a page later, that ‘[t]here
is no doubt that the fourth-century Confederacy was to a large extent built upon Arkadian eth-
nicity. All communities that were allowed to join the Confederacy were considered to be Arka-
dian. True, some of the members, such as the Triphylians and Lasion, may have been ‘new’
Arkadians, but they were, nevertheless, considered Arkadians by 370. The basis upon which
the Confederacy was built was thus at least in part a common feeling of Arkadian ethnicity.’
18 FD III.1.3 l. 7: Λαοδάμεια δ’ ἔτικτε Τρίφυλον, παῖς Ἀ[μύκλαντος]; cf. Paus. 10.9.5 for
Laodameia as daughter of Amyklas. Stesichoros (Σ Aesch. Cho. 733) knows Laodameia as
the nurse of Orestes.
16 Emily Mackil
As exciting as this dedication is for those interested in the relationship between

ethnic identity and political practice, a note of caution is in order. We know very
little about the political position of Triphylia or its member poleis within the Arka-
dian koinon. Only one decree of the Arkadian koinon survives in a tolerably com-
plete state: a proxeny decree for an Athenian, belonging to the 360s.19 It includes
an apparently complete list of 50 damiorgoi, officials who clearly served as repre-
sentatives of member communities to the koinon. These officials are clustered by
their representative units, which include poleis large and small-Megalopolis and
Kleitor, for example-as well as smaller ethnic groups, Nielsen’s Arkadian ‘tribes,’
like the Mainalians and Kynourians. The Triphylians do not appear as a group, and
the only hint that they may be represented at all is the presence of two damiorgoi
under the heading Lepreatai. Nielsen regards it as possible that this signifies a heg-
emonic role for Lepreon over all the other Triphylian poleis, whereby they con-
trolled the group’s representation to the koinon, or that Lepreon was not considered
a Triphylian community for the purposes of the Arkadian koinon.20 Neither possi-
bility, however, sheds a particularly favorable light on the way in which the Arka-
dian koinon integrated ethnic outsiders.21 But with a sample size of precisely one
decree from the koinon in this period, it would be rash to draw any firm conclusions
on the matter. It remains possible, however, that the Arkadian monument at Delphi,
a brash display of the rewards of political unification for an ethnos, occludes prac-
tical inequalities that existed within that new state.
Let me return, however, to the broader issue I am pursuing. The Thebans on
several occasions in the late sixth and fifth centuries, and some Arkadians in 370
and 369, were advancing the claim that ethnic identity ought to be politicized, that
members of an ethnic group were well poised, perhaps in some sense morally obli-
gated, to participate in a regional state governed by and for the ethnos. Yet none of
the speakers on these occasions spells out exactly why they suppose that a common
ethnic identity ought to be enough to justify a politics of cooperation, even though
an answer to this question seems to me imperative. In two speeches imputed by
Thucydides to Athenian leaders during the Peloponnesian War, I think we can find
a more explicit articulation of the logic of political ethnicity, although in both cases
it is expressed in negative terms.
On the eve of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (1.141.6) has Perikles exhort
the Athenians by describing the weaknesses of their Peloponnesian opponents.
19 Rhodes and Osborne 2003 no.32 (IG V.2.1) from Tegea, topped with a relief depicting Tyche
holding a helmet and touching a trophy. On the date see Roy 1971, 571 (368–361) and Rhodes
and Osborne 2003, 160 (‘c. 367 or slightly earlier’).
20 If Lepreon is supposed to represent all the Triphylian cities, they seem rather under-represented,
given that for example the small city of Kleitor on its own has five damiorgoi. See Roy 2000,
312f; Nielsen 1997, 153–155 for a full discussion of the difficulty of understanding the impli-
cations of the Leprean damiorgoi in this text.
21 A third, more neutral, possibility is that the Triphylian communities rotated the responsibility
for sending damiorgoi each year, but we would still have expected the heading to read Triphy-
lioi in that case.
Ethnic Arguments 17
μάχῃ μὲν γὰρ μιᾷ πρὸς ἅπαντας Ἕλληνας δυνατοὶ Πελοποννήσιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἀντισχεῖν,
πολεμεῖν δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὁμοίαν ἀντιπαρασκευὴν ἀδύνατοι, ὅταν μήτε βουλευτηρίῳ ἑνὶ χρώμενοι
παραχρῆμά τι ὀξέως ἐπιτελῶσι πάντες τε ἰσόψηφοι ὄντες καὶ οὐχ ὁμόφυλοι τὸ ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν ἕκα-
στος σπεύδῃ·
In a single battle against all the Hellenes the Peloponnesians and their allies might be able to
prevail, but they are not capable of waging war against a different kind of opponent, for they
lack a single council in which to resolve on swift and vigorous action, but they all have an equal
vote and yet are not homophyloi, with each one devoted to his own interest.
And in 415, as the Athenians debated whether or not to embark on an expedition to

Sicily with rather unclear goals, Thucydides (6.17.2–4) has Alkibiades encourage
them, again by describing the weakness of their opponents. The cities of Sicily, he
tells them, have “large populations comprised of motley rabbles” (ὄχλοις τε γὰρ
ξυμμείκτοις πολυανδροῦσιν αἱ πόλεις); citizenship is highly unstable. As a result,
they are not equipped with arms nor do they have landed property. Stasis is rife.
And from such a mob, Alkibiades reassures the Athenians, unanimity and cooper-
ative action are not to be expected. There is, in the Sicilian cities, no common in-
terest.
On this Thucydidean view, ethnic diversity – being allophyloi or xummeiktoi –
correlates strongly to a failure of cooperative political behavior and to military de-
feat. The underlying assumption is that kinship makes political cooperation possible
by creating “a basis for mutual identification that supports social cohesion and col-
lective action.”22 The same idea is implicit in Aristotle’s remark that “stasis also
arises among those who are not homophyloi, until they accomplish unity of spirit.”23
But these critical passages imply other reasons for supposing that an ethnically ho-
mogeneous state will be most successful: it leads to stability in the citizen body,
and a strong sense of commitment fostered by the receipt of arms from the state and
possession of landed property in its territory. Having been given a personal stake in
the flourishing and independence of the community, individual and communal in-
terests are successfully aligned.
Hindsight of course presents a direct challenge to these arguments, and Thu-
cydides certainly knew it. The mixed rabble of Sicilians inflicted on the Athenians
their worst defeat in the war until that time, acting with both homonoia and common
resolve, and the Peloponnesians finally defeated the Athenians and their allies de-
spite not being homophyloi. Does this mean that ethnic arguments in favor of a
politics of cooperation in the ancient Greek world were purely specious? Perhaps
not, given that they seem in some cases to have contributed to cooperative out-
comes, as in fifth-century Boiotia, a case Thucydides knew very well, and fourth-
century Arkadia, which of course he did not. However, I will suggest that such
arguments were largely instrumental, that they could easily be dismissed by those
22 Lape 2010, 169.

23 Arist. Pol. 1303a 25–26: στασιωτικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὁμόφυλον, ἕως ἂν συμπνεύσῃ. He gives as
examples of ethnic stasis colonies founded by multiple groups, who later fight, with one group
expelling the other(s). The only non-colonial example is Antissa on Lesbos, which accepted a
group of Chian exiles; they later fought with these Chians and expelled them. See Hansen and
Nielsen 2004, 129.
18 Emily Mackil
toward whom they were directed or simply rejected if other enabling conditions
were not met, and that other arguments – mutual advantage and shared mistrust
among them – were at least as persuasive among the ethnos states of the Classical
Greek world.
II. CONSTRUCTING AND REDEFINING ETHNIC IDENTITY IN TANDEM

WITH POLITICAL CHANGE
In his exhortation to the Athenians Alkibiades associated ethnic diversity with po-
litical instability; the implicit contrast is with the steady course steered by an ethni-
cally homogeneous crew at the helm of the ship of state. Resting as it does on no-
tions of shared descent and common territory, ethnicity is, in the Greek imaginary,
as stable and unchanging a social force as one could hope for. Yet the ease with
which new claims about the past were made and readily accepted made ethnic iden-
tity a valuable instrument for those undergoing political change. Its capacity to cre-
ate an appearance of long-standing solidarity is precisely what made it so useful in
the constantly changing political landscape of the Greek world.
In other words, ethnic arguments evolved in tandem with political change. The
best illustration of this dynamic comes, of course, from the case of Triphylia, men-
tioned briefly above. But their protean ethnic identity can only be fully appreciated
by considering their earlier commitments. Herodotus lists six cities in the region
that was later called Triphylia – Lepreon, Makiston, Phrixa, Pyrgos, Epeion, and
Noudion – and tells us that they were settled by Minyans, descendants of the crew
of the Argo who had for a time resided in Sparta but were later expelled when they
‘became arrogant,’ asking for a share of the kingship and doing other things that
were ‘not sacred.’24 It was at this juncture, according to Herodotus, that they went
to the northwestern Peloponnese. But Herodotus (4.148.4) hastens to add what was
certainly the most salient fact about these cities in his time: “Most of these in my
time the Eleians have sacked.” They had, in other words, been subjugated by the
Eleians who counted them among their perioikoi. Whether these communities ac-
tively nurtured a Minyan or some other group in the early Classical period is un-
clear. In the fifth century Pherekydes identified Phrixa as an Arkadian polis; insofar
as the others are attested in Classical sources other than Herodotus, they appear as
perioikic poleis of Elis.25 Strabo mentions a sanctuary of Poseidon Samios, admin-
istered by the Makistioi, where all Triphylians worshipped, and though a cult like
that could serve as a center for the articulation and performance of group identity,
24 Hdt. 4.148.3–4.
25 Phrixa: Pherekydes, FGrH 3 fr. 161 (Steph.Byz. s.v. Φρίξα· πόλις· Φερεκύδης δὲ Ἀρκαδίας
αὐτὴν γράφει). For these cities as perioikic poleis of Elis: Thuc. 5.31.4 and Xen. Hell. 3.2.25
with Roy 1997.
Ethnic Arguments 19
there is no certainty that Strabo’s report addresses a period before the fourth cen-
tury.26 When these communities were freed from Eleian rule by the Spartans around
400 they, along with other communities in the area not listed by Herodotus, pro-
tected themselves by creating a regional state with a name that was patently new:
the Triphylioi.27 Initially loyal to their Spartan benefactors, the Triphylians seem to
have advertised their ethnic hybridity to create a new identity that would embrace
all members of the new state.28
It is intriguing that the only public documents we have from this Triphylian
state (SEG 35.389, 40.392) are records of the bestowal of citizenship on outsiders,
and it is tempting to infer that they integrated foreigners in a way that was rather
atypical for the early fourth century. The fact that these two inscriptions also reflect
significant dialectal variations attests to the construction of this new state from a
group of people who were clearly, to borrow a phrase from Thucydides, not ho-
mophyloi.29 The appearance of the eponymous ancestor Triphylos on the Delphic
monument is the only evidence we have for an expression of this identity in ances-
tral terms, but as we have already seen, that appearance was embedded in an attempt
to integrate the Triphylians into the new Arkadian koinon. As Thomas Nielsen has
shown so clearly, the Triphylian identity did not disappear, persisting at least into
the second century, but was expertly grafted onto the Arkadian one.30 The appar-
ently sudden articulation of a group identity in the early fourth century reflects an
attempt by the Triphylians not so much to find a place of belonging as to become
part of a state that would protect them from Eleian encroachments, for we know
that immediately after Leuktra, the Eleians refused to sign a renewal of the common
peace because they would not recognize the autonomy of Marganeis, Skillous, or
the Triphylians.31 The Triphylians, then, illustrate the way in which ethnic identity
could be crafted and changed in very short periods of time. What I wish to empha-
26 Str. 8.3.13. Ruggeri 2004, 96–102 (see also Ruggeri 2001, 173–175; Ruggeri 2009, 54f) and
Tausend 1992, 19–21 believe this amphiktyony of Poseidon Samikos, attested only by Strabo,
was Archaic. It is thought that Strabo is relying here on Artemidorus of Ephesos (late sec-
ond/early first century BCE), but his source is unclear. Nielsen 1997, 147 n.115 exercises pru-
dent caution: ‘It seems … safe to assume that the cult must have existed in the Classical period,
if it was administered by Makiston, a city which presumably did not survive into the Hellenistic
period. But it may … have existed earlier as well.’
27 Xen. Hell. 3.2.30–31 for the negotiations between Sparta and Elis that leave the cities in the
region autonomous.
28 Initial loyalty to Spartans: Xen. Hell. 4.2.16, contributing troops to the Spartan side at Nemea
in 394.
29 Ruggeri 2000, 120 n. 22; Ruggeri 2004, 134–137. SEG 35.389 was found in the temple of
Athena at Mazi; SEG 40.392 may be from Krestena (Hallof 1990, on the basis of letters in the
IG archive from Hans von Prott, who saw the piece in 1897 and 1898 in the hands of a ‘sehr
verdächtig’ Athenian art dealer), a mere 6 km west of Mazi. Both date to the period c. 400–
369.
30 Polyb. 4.77.8 knows the Triphylioi as descendants of Triphylos, one of the sons of Arkas. In
219 they were again subordinated to Elis, which at the time was an ally of the Aitolian koinon
(Polyb. 4.77.10).
31 Xen. Hell. 6.5.2–3.
20 Emily Mackil
size is the fact that in each stage of this development we see the change being ef-
fected in the service of political and strategic concerns. The perioikic communities
of Elis were aware of the ethnic idiom in which regional states were speaking, and
readily adopted it for their own in order to secure protection from their erstwhile
overlords.
The Eleians were, of course, not oblivious to any of this, and they provide us
with a second illustration of the advancement of ethnic claims in shifting political
circumstances. In the early fourth century the Eleians and Aitolians seem to have
been vigorously re-activating and elaborating upon a claim of kinship that certainly
goes back to the first quarter of the fifth century, if not earlier. Scholars of both Elis
and Aitolia have written about this interesting dynamic, but they have tended to
focus on one side or the other in the kinship claim, whereas both sides seem to have
been actively interested in promulgating the relationship. This means that in order
to understand what was happening we need to take a broader perspective.
In Olympian 3, composed in 476 for Theron of Akragas, Pindar, in a character-
istically elusive fashion, describes one of the Hellanodikai, the Eleian judges of the
Olympic Games, as an Αἰτωλὸς ἀνήρ (Ol. 3.12). And a bit later, Herodotus (8.73.2–
3) says that Elis is the only city in the Peloponnese that is part of the Aitolian ethnos.
But explicating these hints would be virtually impossible if we did not have frag-
ments of several fourth-century historians who dilate on the theme of kinship be-
tween Aitolians and Eleians. And that pattern may be significant: the sudden inter-
est in the theme in the early fourth century suggests that it received elaboration
because it was suddenly powerful – not just to Eleians but also to Aitolians.
Ephoros, writing in the mid-fourth century, describes what must be regarded as
a pair of statues, one at the sanctuary of Apollo at Thermon and one in the agora of
Elis. Both sat on bases inscribed with dedicatory epigrams, which Ephoros appears
to quote verbatim.
παρατίθησι δὲ τούτων μαρτύρια τὰ ἐπιγράμματα, τὸ μὲν ἐν Θέρμοις τῆς Αἰτωλίας, ὅπου τὰς
ἀρχαιρεσίας ποιεῖσθαι πάτριον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ἐγκεχαραγμένον τῆι βάσει τῆς Αἰτωλοῦ εἰκόνος·
Χώρης οἰκιστῆρα, παρ᾽ ᾽Αλφειοῦ ποτε δίναις θρεφθέντα, σταδίων γείτον᾽ ᾽Ολυμπιάδος,
᾽Ενδυμίωνος παῖδ᾽ Αἰτωλοὶ τόνδ᾽ ἀνέθηκαν Αἰτωλόν, σφετέρας μνῆμ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἐσορᾶν. τὸ δ᾽ ἐν
τῆι ἀγορᾶι τῶν ᾽Ηλείων ἐπὶ τῶι ᾽Οξύλου ἀνδριάντι· Αἰτωλός ποτε τόνδε λιπὼν αὐτόχθονα
δῆμον κτήσατο Κουρῆτιν γῆν, δορὶ πολλὰ καμών· τῆς δ᾽ αὐτῆς γενεᾶς δεκατόσπορος Αἵμονος
υἱὸς ᾽Οξύλος ἀρχαίην ἔκτισε τήνδε πόλιν.
As evidence for this he (i.e. Ephoros) quotes inscriptions, one of which is at Thermon in Aitolia,
where the Aitolians by custom conduct the elections of their officials. The inscription is en-
graved on the base of the statue of Aitolos: ‘The Aitolians dedicated this statue of Aitolos, son
of Endymion, the founder of this land, who as a neighbour of Olympia’s track once grew up
beside Alpheios’ eddies, as a monument of their valour for all to see.’ But the other inscription
stands on the statue of Oxylos in the marketplace of Elis: ‘Aitolos once left this autochthonous
people and in war with many hardships won the land of Kouretis. Oxylos, the son of Haimon,
the tenth seed of the same lineage, founded this ancient city. 32
32 Ephoros BNJ 70 F 122a 1–2 (trans. V. Parker).

Ethnic Arguments 21
The two statues and their epigrams together attest a vigorous assertion by both Ai-
tolians and Eleans of their kinship with one another: the Aitolian epigram focuses
on the founding hero represented by the statue, proudly asserting his Eleian origin,
while the Eleian statue nods at the same tradition but describes the Eleians as au-
tochthonous and adds the local detail that Elis was founded by Oxylos, a tenth-
generation descendant of Aitolos. This is our only evidence for an Eleian claim to
autochthony.33 The Eleians must have been engaging in an act of intentional history
with the aim of providing a basis for their claim to their territory. And as Gehrke
has noted, the Greeks’ intentional histories were most successful when they reached
“as far back into the past as possible.”34 On this logic, the claim of autochthony
trumps all other claims intended to demonstrate the right to a territory.
The consensus view now seems to hold that these statues with their epigrams
must have been dedicated in the early fourth century: the Eleians had suffered sig-
nificant territorial losses with the liberation of their perioikoi — including the
Triphylians — in the war with Sparta around 400, and a robust assertion of the right
to control that territory makes sense in the aftermath of that conflict.35 It also makes
sense from the Aitolian perspective, but this has not been much discussed. When
the Eleians were being attacked by the Spartans in 400, they received help from the
Aitolians, “their allies, who sent a force of 1,000 picked men” deployed to guard an
area of the city.36 Shortly before 389, the Aitolians had lost control of their ancient
polis Kalydon when it was taken by the Achaians, who had also by this time gained
control of Lokrian Naupaktos, long a Messenian-Athenian stronghold. The Ai-
tolians and Eleians, both suffering significant territorial losses and being faced with
the rising efficacy of regional states on their borders, fell into one another’s arms,
distant relatives who needed now to become reacquainted. It seems to me that it is
possible to understand the pair of statues described by Ephoros — and we must see
them as a deliberate pair — only as an act of reacquaintance.
In this act of reacquaintance, the bond appears to have been strengthened not
by simply repeating old stories but by improving on them. Here Strabo’s coda to
Ephoros’ description of the statues is quite interesting:
τὴν μὲν οὖν συγγένειαν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῶν τε ᾽Ηλείων καὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ὀρθῶς ἐπισημαί-
νεται διὰ τῶν ἐπιγραμμάτων, ἐξομολογουμένων ἀμφοῖν οὐ τὴν συγγένειαν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ
ἀρχηγέτας ἀλλήλων εἶναι· δι᾽ οὗ καλῶς ἐξελέγχει ψευδομένους τοὺς φάσκοντας τῶν μὲν Αἰτω-
λῶν ἀποίκους εἶναι τοὺς ᾽Ηλείους, μὴ μέντοι τῶν ᾽Ηλείων τοῦς Αἰτωλούς.
With these inscriptions Ephoros rightly attests the Eleians’ and the Aitolians’ kinship with each
other since both inscriptions agree not only in the matter of kinship, but also in regard to each
people’s being the other’s founders. In this way he skilfully refutes as liars those who say that
the Eleians are colonists [apoikoi] of the Aitolians, but that the Aitolians are not colonists of
the Eleians.
33 Roy 2014, 248f.

34 Gehrke 2001, 304.
35 Antonetti 1990, 60; Sordi 1994; Roy 2014, 249.
36 Diod. Sic. 14.79.9–10.
22 Emily Mackil
The liars to whom Ephoros and Strabo allude here must be those, like Herodotus,
who ascribed to the view that the Aitolians had settled Elis and believed that was
the end of the matter.37 We can, I think, glimpse here a vigorous ethnic argument,
a claim that the Aitolians and Eleians were not related to one another merely as
metropolis to apoikia, as was claimed in the fifth century, but were more closely
bound together by both kinship and reciprocal settlement. This elaboration of the
Eleian-Aitolian tie is perhaps in part a response to the deterioration of the simple
tie between metropolis and apoikia that was so fully exposed at the start of the
Peloponnesian War; in the early fourth century, that bond was no longer particularly
robust.
There are several other hints that this ethnic argument was being made in pre-
cisely the first half of the fourth century. Ephoros, once again, in a long fragment
devoted to the history of Elis, recounts the reciprocal settlement of Aitolia by the
Eleian Aitolos and of Elis by his Aitolian descendant Oxylos, and then adds that
when Oxylos and his men achieved their victory, “they also took over the manage-
ment of the sanctuary at Olympia, which the Achaians had been governing.”38 A
strange claim from a purely Eleian perspective, it perfectly integrates the concerns
of their Aitolian kin in the early fourth century and draws the battle lines clearly,
asserting the ancient pre-eminence of the Aitolians and Eleians while diminishing
any Achaian claims or presumptions to Peloponnesian leadership.39 The vigor of
this new argument in the first half of the fourth century, and Aitolian interest in it,
is further attested by its appearance in a fragment of the fourth-century historian
Daimachos of Plataia.40 The other reason to date this development to the early
fourth century is a purely negative one, which could of course be chalked up to the
choices made by our extant sources. But for what it is worth, Thucydides twice
describes major Athenian attacks on Aitolian territory — once in 456 and again in
426 — and though he goes into great detail about the latter invasion, on neither
occasion do we hear about Aitolian appeals to Eleian kin. Indeed, at this time it is
likely that the Aitolians, or at least some group of Aitolians, had made an alliance
with the Spartans.41 In short, in the early fourth century, surrounded by neighbors
37 Parmeggiani 2011, 651f.

38 Ephoros BNJ 70 F 115 (trans. V. Parker).
39 The only surviving trace of an Achaian provocation to which the Eleans could have been re-
sponding is the early fifth-century dedication by the Achaiaoi of a statue group depicting Nestor
and the Homeric Achaian heroes drawing lots for a duel with Hektor (Paus. 5.25.6–8). The
bases survive in situ: Eckstein 1969, 27–32; Dörig 1977, 20f. There is otherwise no surviving
evidence for Achaian claims to Olympia or to Peloponnesian leadership, but there is much that
we do not know.
40 Daimachos BNJ 65 F 1 reports that Aitolos, son of Endymion, the Elean, fled across the gulf
after having committed involuntary manslaughter, became eponymous ancestor of Aitolia, and
had three sons, after whom cities in Aitolia were named: Pleuron, Koures, and Kalydon. Jacoby
(FGrH 65 F 1) associated Daimachos of Plataia with the period of the Theban hegemony; he is
largely followed by Zecchini 1997, 193 and, cautiously, by Engels in BNJ.
41 Invasion of 456: Thuc. 1.108.5 and SEG 32.550; invasion of 426: 3.94.1–98.5. Spartan alliance
depends on the date of the inscribed treaty SEG 51.449 with Mackil 2013, 483–488. These
invasions are discussed by Mackil 2013, 52–57.
Ethnic Arguments 23
whose regional states were growing in power at their expense, the Eleians and Ai-
tolians invigorated an old tradition of kinship, elaborated upon it, and promulgated
their new, intertwined ethnic identity in their respective political centers. As with
the Triphylians, so too with the Eleians and Aitolians: ethnic identity was very much
in the service of political need.
III. DIVISIONS AMONG HOMOPHYLOI
But when ethnic arguments had to be made, if their claims were not self-evident,
they cannot have been seen as either inevitable or binding. However much Perikles
and Alkibiades wanted to claim that ethnic diversity severely inhibited collective
action, the Greeks — and Thucydides himself — knew that ethnic unity was no
guarantor of political cooperation. Let me be clear: I do not wish to assert that the
Greeks themselves dismissed such claims out of hand as ‘fictions’ or ‘forgeries,’
but rather that the narratives of these intentional histories, precisely because they
were so deeply embedded in presentist concerns, were subject to intense debate.
We have already seen that the Plataians twice rejected the Thebans’ ethnic ar-
gument for participation in the Boiotian koinon, and though our sources never make
explicit the reasons they gave for their refusal to participate, it is fairly clear that in
practice they hated the Thebans and feared being subordinated to them.42 The The-
bans appear to have been drawing on a widespread view that Plataia was a Boiotian
community; so at least it appears in the Homeric catalogue of ships.43 At some point
— and one would dearly love to know when — they rejected this view and the
Thebans’ ethnic argument for political cooperation with a countervailing claim: ac-
cording to Pausanias (9.1.1–3), who is certainly reporting a local claim, the Pla-
taians were autochthonous and were named after Plataia herself, who was either a
nymph, the daughter of the River Asopos that roughly delimited the border between
Theban and Plataian territory, or the daughter of a King Asopos after whom the
river was named.44 By the third century, when the Plataians had actually become
members of the Boiotian koinon, they had forged a hybrid identity that was a prod-
uct of historical experience rather than mythologizing: Herakleides Kritikos, writ-
ing in the second quarter of the third century, reports that “the citizens themselves
say that they are colonists (apoikoi) of the Athenians, and that they are ‘Athenian
Boiotians.’”45 The claim of autochthony was cast in the teeth of the Thebans and
other Boiotians, who at least by the fifth century claimed to have migrated into their
territory from Thessalian Arne. With the assertion that they were apoikoi of the
42 Oddly, the Plataian speech focuses on the Plataians’ own services to the Hellenes (Persian
Wars) and to the Spartans (sending citizens to assist at Ithome); reminding the Spartans that it
was they who advised the Plataians to make an alliance with Athens; and reminding the Spar-
tans of Theban medism. They call the Thebans ἐχθιστοί (Thuc. 3.59.2).
43 Hom. Il. 2.494–510 (Boiotian contingent) at 504 (Plataia).
44 Paus. 9.1.3. Prandi 1988, 16 mentions the passage but makes nothing of it.
45 Evidence for membership in the koinon in the third century: IG VII.2723 inter alia. Herakleides
Kritikos BNJ 369A F 1.11. For the date see Arenz 2006.
24 Emily Mackil
Athenians, the Plataians implicitly rejected the claim that ethnic identity is inher-
ited, not made, and that it should control one’s political destiny. The Plataians ar-
gued instead that they had crafted their own identity by a series of active political
choices. This is, perhaps, what gave them the ideological room to become full mem-
bers of the koinon in the Hellenistic period despite a long history of opposition to
it. They participated by choice, in response to the radically changed political cir-
cumstances of Boiotia in the Hellenistic period, rather than by succumbing to some
purported ethnic destiny.
Achaia affords us another set of illustrations of the limited power of ethnic ar-
guments for political cooperation. Despite an Achaian identity that may, in the view
of Catherine Morgan and Jonathan Hall, go back to the Iron Age, and the gradual
establishment of a territory that was perhaps complete by the fifth century, the emer-
gence of a regional state occurred only in the early fourth century, and even as that
state emerged it failed to capture the participation of all ethnically Achaian poleis.
Two detailed accounts of the Boiotian invasions of the Peloponnese in 370 and 369,
from Xenophon and Diodorus, make it clear that Pellene, the easternmost of the
Achaian poleis, was allied with Sparta and had not joined the Achaian koinon.46 In
367, we learn that the Achaian polis Dyme was held by an Achaian garrison, and
that it was ‘liberated’ by the Boiotians after they failed to secure a lasting alliance
with the Achaian koinon in that year.47 Dyme was, of course, the westernmost of
the Achaian poleis and the garrison may have been stationed there not so much to
hold the polis down as to protect the border with Elis; the other possibility, recently
suggested by Klaus Freitag, is that Dyme was fortified only in anticipation of the
Boiotian attack and that the language of liberation is a product of Theban propa-
ganda.48 But the other way to read this incident is to infer that Dyme was resisting
the political integration of Achaia. We know that in these years there was stasis that
affected not just one polis but the entire region, and in that context it is reasonable
to suppose that Dyme had been garrisoned for resistance.49
We do not know whether the Pelleneans or the Dymaians had articulated their
separatist positions in ethnic terms, but it is clear that they did not view their shared
Achaian identity as a powerful inducement to participate in an Achaian politics of
cooperation. But we may be justified in concluding that not even the Achaians who
were most eagerly promoting the political integration of the region in these years
thought about it in ethnic terms, for the first incontrovertible evidence we have for
the existence of an Achaian koinon is its annexation of two decidedly non-Achaian
poleis — Lokrian Naupaktos and Aitolian Kalydon — and its bestowal of Achaian
citizenship on their inhabitants sometime before 389. I leave aside as self-evident
the rapid growth of the Achaian koinon in the Hellenistic period beyond its ethnic
borders, while readily acknowledging that the Hellenistic state, at least on Polybios’
telling, did emerge within the boundaries of the ethnos. The same is true, of course,
46 Xen. Hell. 7.1.15–18; Diod. Sic. 15.68.2.

47 Diod. Sic. 15.75.2 with Mackil 2013, 75.
48 Freitag 2009, 105.
49 Xen. Hell. 7.1.42.
Ethnic Arguments 25
of the Aitolian and to a more limited extent the Boiotian koina in the Hellenistic
period.50
The limited power of ethnicity to induce cooperative political behavior is fur-
ther illustrated by cases of stasis within a regional state defined nominally by its
ethnic homogeneity. The example of Classical Boiotia is instructive. Stasis in Pla-
taia between democrats who favored independence and an ongoing allegiance to
Athens on the one hand, and oligarchs who sought to integrate (or reintegrate) Pla-
taia into the Theban-led koinon on the other, was what led to the Theban attack on
the city in 432, mentioned above.51 In 414 stasis in Thespiai erupted between oli-
garchs and democrats; the putsch was quickly suppressed by the Thebans and the
surviving democrats took refuge in Athens.52 In both cases there was a clear concern
among Thebans that a regime change within a member polis could lead to either
integration in or secession from the koinon. In 395 Thebes itself was beset by stasis
between pro-Spartan and pro-Athenian parties; the Oxyrhynchos Historian tells us
that because both groups (hetaireiai) were influential, “many came forward from
the cities in Boiotia and joined one or other of the factions.”53 A stasis that origi-
nated in one polis soon enveloped the whole region. Sometime before 378 similar
tensions erupted again at Thespiai, which played into the Spartan presence in the
region and led within seven years to the destruction of the city by their Boiotian
kin, the Thebans.54 The alacrity with which Thespians, Plataians, and Orchomeni-
ans joined the Makedonians in attacking and destroying Thebes in 335 is perhaps
the clearest illustration one could want of deep hostility between members of the
same ethnos.55
IV. COOPERATIVE POLITICS BEYOND ETHNICITY
So if ethnic identity was offered as an argument for a politics of cooperation, but

articulations of identities could shift rapidly in response to strategic and political
needs and opportunities, and the ethnic argument could be, and often was, simply
rejected out of hand, where do we stand? Ethnic identity appears to have been only
one weapon in a much larger arsenal built up by those advocating the formation of
50 Oropos, on the Attic-Boiotian border, shows no evidence of Boiotian ethnicity but was inte-
grated into the koinon as early as 402 (Diod. Sic. 14.17.1–3) and again in the Hellenistic period
(IG VII.3207). Non-Boiotian poleis that became members of the Boiotian koinon in the Hel-
lenistic period: Megara (Polyb. 20.6.8); Opous (Petrakos 1997, no. 21 l. 1–2); Chalkis (IG
VII.2724b).
51 Thuc. 2.2.2; 3.65.2–3.
52 Thuc. 6.95.2; Gehrke 1985, 172.
53 Hell. Oxy. XVII.2.
54 In 378 the democratic faction from Thespiai was living in exile in Thebes (Xen. Hell. 5.4.46),
while a dynasteia was in control in Thespiai, supported by a Spartan garrison. By 372 the The-
bans had forced Thespiai to rejoin the koinon (Isocr. 14.9), but before autumn 371 the city was
sacked and depopulated by the Thebans (Diod. Sic. 15.46.6; Isoc. 6.27; Dem. 16.4.25, 28).
55 Arr. Anab. 1.8.8 with Hurst 1989; Diod. Sic. 17.13.5; Justin 11.3.8.
26 Emily Mackil
regional states in the Greek world. Others included long histories of participation
in common cults (experienced by virtually every ethnos state), the promise of
greater access to economic resources (which seems to have been made explicitly by
the Chalkidians), of equitable access to and protection under law (a major emphasis
in Lokrian inscriptions of the Classical period), of equitable political representation
and the mutual enforcement of contractual obligations (made emphatically in the
Hellenistic and Achaian Boiotian states), as well as shared mistrust of hostile neigh-
bors (notable in the cases of Phokis, Boiotia, Arkadia, and Aitolia in the Classical
period).56 These are arguments I have made at length elsewhere, and I cannot repeat
them here. But it seems to me that we will have the best chance of grasping the full
complexity of ethnos states if we can integrate the arguments we detect in the an-
cient sources about the relevance of ethnic identity to political participation with a
study of the many other considerations weighed by communities who contemplated
membership. This will require that we study the presence and the absence of ethnic
identity in the institutions of these states, its relevance and its irrelevance to internal
organization and external relations, its stability and its dynamism in the intentional
histories of ethnos states.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens: Image et religion, Paris.

Arenz, A. (2006) Herakleides Kritikos ‘Über die Städte in Hellas.’ Eine Periegese
Griechenlands am Vorabend des Chremonideischen Krieges, Munich.
Beck, H. (2000) Thebes, the Boeotian League and the ‘Rise of Federalism’ in Fourth Century
Greece, in P.A. Bernardini (ed.), Presenza e funzione della città di Tebe nella cultura greca:
Atti del convegno internazionale, Urbino 7–9 iuglio 1997, Pisa/Rome, 331–344.
Beck, H. (2003) New Approaches to Federalism in Ancient Greece: Perceptions and Perspectives,
in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History 2.
Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethnē in Ancient Greece, Athens, 177–190.
Beck, H. and P. Funke (2015) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P.
Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29.
Dörig, J. (1977) Onatas of Aegina, Leiden.
Eckstein, F. (1969) ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ. Studien zu den Weihgeschenken strengen Stils im Heiligtum von
Olympia, Berlin.
Freitag, K. (2009) Achaea and the Peloponnese in the Late Fifth–Early Fourth Centuries, in P. Funke
and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League,
Cambridge, 15–29.
Funke, P. and M. Haake (eds.) (2013) Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and
Integration, Stuttgart.
Gehrke, H.-J. (1985) Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten
des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Vestigia, 35), Munich.
Gehrke, H.-J. (2001) Myth, History and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and
Beyond, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, 286–313.
56 Common cults: Mackil 2013, 147–236 (focusing on the work of ritual) and the papers in Funke
2013 (focusing on sanctuaries and their uses). Economic resources: Mackil 2013, 237–325.
Law and the enforcement of contractual obligations within the state: Mackil 2013, 347–370,
390–397.
Ethnic Arguments 27
Gehrke, H.-J. (2003) Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man intentionale Geschichte? Mara-
thon und Troja als fundierende Mythen, in G. Melvile and K.–S. Rehberg (eds.), Gründungs-
mythen, Genealogien, Memorialzeichen: Beiträge zur institutionellen Konstruktion von Konti-
nuität, Cologne, 21–36.
Gehrke, H.-J. (2005) Die Bedeutung der (antiken) Historiographie für die Entwicklung des Ge-
schichtsbewußtseins, in E.-M. Becker (ed.), Die antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der
christlichen Geschichtsschreibung, Berlin/New York, 29–51.
Gehrke, H.-J. (2010) Representations of the Past in Greek Culture, in L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and
N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart, 15–34.
Giangiulio, M. (2010) Collective Identities, Imagined Past, and Delphi, in L. Foxhall, H.–J. Gehrke,
and N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart, 121–
136.
Gschnitzer, F. (1955) Stammes und Ortsgemeinden im alten Griechenland, Wiener Studien 68, 120–
144.
Hall, J.M. (2015) Federalism and Ethnicity, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek
Antiquity, Cambridge, 30–48.
Hallof, K. (1990) Zur Herkunft des Bronze-Diskos mit dem Beschluß der Triphylier, Archiv für
Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 36, 43–44.
Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen (eds.) (2004) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An
Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research
Foundation, Oxford.
Hornblower, S. (1991) A Commentary on Thucydides, Oxford.
How, W.W. and J. Wells (1912) A Commentary on Herodotus, Oxford.
Hurst, A. (1989) La prise de Thèbes par Alexandre selon Arrien, in H. Beister and J. Buckler (eds.),
Boiotika. Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien–Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr.
Siegfried Lauffer, Munich, 183–192.
Lape, S. (2010) Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy, Cambridge.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford.
Larson, S.L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and
Early Classical Periods. Historia Einzelschriften 197, Stuttgart.
Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the
Greek Koinon. Hellenistic Culture and Society, Berkeley.
Mackil, E. (2014) Ethnos and Koinon, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the An-
cient Mediterranean, Oxford, 270–284.
McInerney, J. (1999) The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis, Austin.
Nielsen, T.H. (1997) Triphylia: An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Political Organisation,
in T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart, 129–162.
Nielsen, T.H. (2000) The Concept of Arkadia – the People, Their Land, and Their Organisation, in
T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia, Copenhagen, 16–79.
Nielsen, T.H. (2002) Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Göttingen.
Parmeggiani, G. (2011) Eforo di Cuma: studi di storiografia greca, Bologna.
Petrakos, V.H. (1997) Οἱ ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ, Athens.
Prandi, L. (1988) Platea: Momenti e problemi della storia di una polis, Padua.
Rhodes, P. and R. Osborne (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323BC, Oxford.
Roy, J. (1971) Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian Affairs, 370–362BC, Historia 20, 569–599.
Roy, J. (1997) The Perioikoi of Elis, in M.H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City–
State, Copenhagen, 282–320.
Roy, J. (2000) Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370–362 BC, in R. Brock and
S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organization and Community
in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 308–326.
Roy, J. (2014) Autochthony in Ancient Greece, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in
the Ancient Mediterranean, Malden, Ma./Oxford, 241–255.
28 Emily Mackil
Ruggeri, C. (2000) Note sulle divergenze nel dialetto e nella forma delle lettere tra le iscrizioni del
centro-Sud della Trifilia e quelle dell’Elide, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133,
117–121.
Ruggeri, C. (2001) L’état fédéral de la Triphylie: remarques sur l’histoire politique et constitutio-
nelle, in Πρακτικά του ς´Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Τρίπολις 24–29
Σεπτεμβρίου 2000 2, 165–176.
Ruggeri, C. (2004) Gli stati intorno a Olimpia: Storia e costituzione dell’Elide e degli stati formati
dai perieci elei, Stuttgart.
Ruggeri, C. (2009) Triphylia from Elis to Arcadia, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics
of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, 49–64.
Scott, L. (2005) Historical Commentary on Herodotus Book 6, Leiden.
Scott, M.C. (2008) Constructing Identities in Sacred Inter-State Space: The Case of the Arcadian
Monument at Delphi, in O. Menozzi, M. Di Marzio, and D. Fossataro (eds.), SOMA 2005:
Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Oxford, 431–438.
Sordi, M. (1994) Strabone, Pausania, e la viende di Oxilo, in A.M. Biraschi (ed.), Strabone e la
Grecia, Naples, 137–144.
Tausend, K. (1992) Amphiktyonie und Symmachie. Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im ar-
chaischen Griechenland, Historia Einzelschriften 73, Stuttgart.
Waanders, F.M.J. (1983) The History of ΤΕΛΟΣ and ΤΕΛΕΩ in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam.
West, M.L. (1985) The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Its Nature, Structure, and Origins, Oxford.
Zecchini, G. (1997) Rassegna di storiografia beotica, in J. Bintliff (ed.), Recent Developments in the
History and Archaeology of Central Greece. Proceedings of the 6th International Boeotian
Conference, Oxford, 189–200.
LOKRIAN FEDERAL AND LOCAL PROXENIES IN
INTERSTATE RELATIONS: A CASE STUDY
Giovanna Daverio Rocchi
Università degli Studi di Milano
I. PROXENY AS A TOOL OF INTERMEDIATION
Proxeny is one of the most copiously documented institutions of ancient Greece,

primarily by a vast body of inscriptions. The institution was systematically em-
ployed throughout the entire Greek world over a vast period of time spanning from
the seventh century BCE to the second century CE. Such broad chronological and
geographical diffusion, along with remarkable consistency in formulae and proce-
dures, leads us to recognize the expression of a common political culture in this
institution. To a certain extent, in modern state systems a shared political culture is
considered as a prerequisite for the establishment of international relations, and we
can consider proxeny as the ancient equivalent of this commonly-accepted contem-
porary political grammar.
In the ancient Greek world guest friendship was a fil rouge linking the patch-
work of large and small states, which themselves were variably organized in terms
of equality, integration, or dependency, with all of this at different levels of scale.
Proxeny provided a tool of mediation for managing relations with outsiders in the
context of official relationships; it differs from other forms of interstate relations in
that it is the product of both personal and official interactions, providing the frame-
work for a triangular system that included three principal players: the bestowing
state, the individual being bestowed with this status, and his home city.
II. MULTIPLE PROXENIES
In some federal states, one particular form of proxeny is attested which I would
define as “multiple” in the sense that both the koinon and poleis possessed the au-
thority of conferring it. In other words, proxeny was the outcome of a triangulation
in which one of the parties involved was a variable subject. Current debate – as P.
Funke and H. Beck have recently illustrated1 – has come to the conclusion that the
koinon was a dynamic and flexible system. Its success over time emerged from its
ability to negotiate a complex set of interactions, by virtue of an expanded concept
of inside that was shared by multiple constituents. Therefore, this extended inside
1 Beck and Funke 2015, 1–29.

30 Giovanna Daverio Rocchi
reconfigures the affairs of multiple constituent insides with the outside. The exist-
ence of an intermediary (i.e. the koinon) created a greater divide between the do-
mestic and foreign domains. But to these dynamics I would also add the observation
that a single member polis was able to define its own external relations to a certain
degree through institution of proxeny.
Accordingly, when we examine proxenies in the context of the interstate rela-
tions of a federal state, the fundamental issue at stake becomes the mediating role
that proxeny played in the two domains of the koinon and the polis. In this paper, I
aim to consider if proxeny should be taken as evidence for a loose central power,
or if it was rather the outcome of complementary initiatives which were the product
of an equitable distribution of power throughout the federal state in the interests of
consensus and co-operation. Did proxeny indicate a weak federal power, or was it
a common tool used by many member states? Moreover, a preliminary enquiry into
the topic should consider the meaning of ethnic belonging and civic identity in the
context of these links. In other words, we should consider several factors ranging
from a group’s awareness of (real or fictive) common ancestry, of shared history,
and of cultic heritage, to its association with a specific territory, and in the process
seek to understand the extent to which these features could orient the construction
of a guest-friendship network, as manifested by multiple proxenies.
III. A CASE STUDY: THE LOKRIAN PROXENIES
The geographic and diachronic changes through which the history of each koinon
developed necessarily influence the character of their resultant institutions, giving
them meanings and functions that must be understood within specific historical en-
vironments and in relation to certain circumstances and situations. The case study I
propose here focuses on Lokrian proxenoi, i.e. the proxenoi nominated by Lokrian
political institutions. Some preliminary clarifications are in order. An examination
of this case study must consider the two levels of civic belonging within which the
proxenoi were engaged, shifting between the member-states and the koinon. More-
over, we must deal with the separation of the region and its groups into two, and in
certain periods, three, distinct Lokrian federal states. I will take into account the
evidence both from Eastern Lokris (in its various qualifications of Opuntian,
Hypoknemidian, and Epiknemidian) and Western Lokris (Ozolian). I am driven to
outline such a broad geopolitical framework by virtue of a set of common features
that I have discussed at length in other works,2 and I will examine how our under-
standing of proxeny feeds back into our understanding of this substantial and com-
plex case study.
2 Daverio Rocchi 2013, 139–161; 2015, 179–198.

Lokrian Federal and Local Proxenies in Interstate Relations: A Case Study 31
IV. THE EVIDENCE
Lokrian awards of proxeny are epigraphically attested by eleven decrees from East-
ern Lokris – specifically from Opus, Thronion and Skarphea – and six decrees from
Western Lokris – from Physkos, Chaleion, Amphissa. This evidence is not as sub-
stantial as one would hope, but it is nevertheless adequate in providing an outline
of proxeny grants issued by the Lokrian leagues from the second quarter of the third
to the end of the second centuries BCE.3
V. LOKRIAN DISTINCTIVENESS
The formulae employed in the grants are generally consistent with the standard rep-
ertoire for proxenia elsewhere, yet they also bear some distinctive features with
regards to both form and content. It is precisely these particularities that I wish to
highlight in this paper.
Formal aspects
First we must examine the formal aspects of these decrees. Lokrian proxenies use
a repertoire of formulae that is common throughout cities and leagues of Central
Greece, but unknown in other regions of Hellas.4 The granting authorities are both
the koinon and the polis.5 The definition of the federal authority differs between the
Eastern and the Western koinon. In the Eastern decrees it is referred to as “the
Opuntians and the Lokrians with the Opuntians” and in the Western decrees as
simply the “koinon”. This different formulation seems to reflect the separation be-
tween two distinct state-systems in the east and the west, each with its own institu-
tions and relative nomenclature. Among the cities mentioned in the documents of
the Eastern koinon are Thronion and Skarphea, yet none of the attestations of proxe-
nia make any reference to the koinon of the Lokroi Epiknemidioi, established for a
certain period, in spite of the fact that these two cities were its centres of gravity. 6
Despite their variety in identifying the federal authority, the modes and vocabulary
of the awards show substantial similarities among the Western and Eastern koina,
and there are no formal differences between local and federal grants.
Modes of bestowing this status and its relevant procedures in Eastern Lokrian
proxeny decrees are governed by the nomos7 of proxenia. According to the formu-
lae of the documents, the grant is bestowed kata ton nomon (according to the law),
3 Eastern Lokris: IG IX.12 5 1908, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 (Opus); 2932
(Thronion), 2038 (Skarphea). Western Lokris: IG IX.12 3 667, 668 (Physkos); 721, 740 (Chaleion)
750 (Amphissa).
4 See Monceaux 1886, 35; Gschnitzer 1973, 710–721; Marek 1984, 142–149.
5 T 1–7.
6 See Daverio Rocchi 2015, 179–198.
7 Nomos: T1. See IG IX 12 5 1909, 1912 (Eastern Lokris). In Chaleion (Western Lokris, T5), the
proxenia is deliberated in the ennomoi ekklesiai. We do not know whether this is the regular as-
sembly of the polis, or it was an assembly specially convened by the proxeny law. Lokrian eunomia
though the specific content of this law is never clarified. The grant is officially for-
malized by appointing engyoi, i.e. guarantors of the proxeny.8 Both the nomos prox-
enikos and the role of the guarantors are features of the regional specificities I have
mentioned above.9
Contents: accessory awards

Among these regional features are also accessory measures, providing for the grant-
ing of citizenship and pasture rights.10
VI. POLITEIA AND ISOPOLITEIA
Granting of (iso-)politeia is attested in decrees of both the Eastern and Western

leagues, thus both the koinon and individual city-states awarded (iso-)politeia. In
the cases attested in Eastern Lokris, the federal authority granting politeia is always
expressed with the formula hoi Opountioi kai hoi Lokroi meta Opountion, which
seems to be an alternative formulation for referring to the federal Opuntian sys-
tem.11 The only evidence of a proxeny granted by a polis, is a decree by the polis
of Opus (l. 2 [Ὀ]πούντιοι ἔδωκαν) but this does not include the associated award of
politeia.12 The Skarpheians (l. 1 Σκ[αρφεῖς…]) granted isopolitieia to a citizen of
Phtiotic Thebes.13
was celebrated, and the Greeks acknowledged its antiquity and value. See Pind. Ol. 9.16. Strabo
9.4.2 thought of the polis of Opus as μητρόπολις Λοκρῶν εὐθυνόμων Ael. VH 2.22: the Lokrians
are included in a list of peoples who have good laws, together with Mantineans, Cretans, Spartans,
and Athenians. See IG IX.12 5 1911, c. 230 BC.. l. 8: this epigram attributed to Poseidippos praises
the θέσμια εὐνομίας, confirming that eunomia was rooted also in the public opinion. The letter sent
to citizens of Naryka (a. 138) by the emperor Hadrian, confirming their status of polis, included
among the merits of the Narykians the fact that they had preserved the nomoi of Opuntians. For the
proxenikoi nomoi see Gschnitzer 1973, 705–707; Marek 1984, 142–149. For Aetolian proxenoi see
Funke 2015, 86–117.
8 T 1. Cf. IG IX.12 5 1912, 1913, 1914, 1917 (Eastern Lokris). T 4. Cf. IG IX 12 3, 668.
9 Gschnitzer 1973, 705–707; Marek 1984, 142–149. For the Aitolian koinon see Funke 2015, 86–
117. There are no attestations in the region of Lokris of proxenies honoring Lokrian citizens, unlike
in the Aitolian League, where both the League and the single member-states could grant proxeny
to Aitolian citizens. The only case could be the one of the agreement between Chaleion and Oian-
theia, two centuries earlier, by which the two cities nominated reciprocal proxenoi. See E&R I no.
53 and Daverio Rocchi 2015, 183, 193–198 with bibliography. Relative to the proxenies within the
Aitolian League, evidence is found in the Kallipolis inscriptions edited by D. Rousset 2006, 381–
433. Until this date proxenies conferred to members of the Aitolian League were unknown.
10 Gschnitzer 1973, 705–707; Marek 1984, 142–149.
11 However, the word koinon appears in contemporary documents. See IG IX 12 5, 1920, l. 4: treaty
between Eastern Lokrians and Thessalians.
12 IG IX 12 5, 1908.
13 T 3.
In Hesperian Lokris, politeia is granted by the koinon ton Lokron, and also by
the polis (?) of Physkos;14 at Chaleion the polis in the ennomos ekklēsia deliberates
granting isopoliteia to Kleogenes of Aigion, and again the polis tout court grants
the privilege to the brother of the Smyrnean poetess Aristodama;15 at Amphissa the
damos deliberates awarding isopoliteia to Makedonian Menophantos, the physician
(iatros) of Hyrcanis, adding the decision to send copies of the act granting the prox-
eny to the polis of the Skarpheians and of the Opuntians.16
The general picture we may gather from this evidence is of an inclusive use of
politeia towards the proxenoi. The propensity for granting citizenship to the prox-
enos, among most of the states of Central Greece, led Monceaux and Marek to speak
of a geographically circumscribed, regional phenomenon, which is “incomprehen-
sible” in Marek’s view.17 The complete list reconstructed by Marek counts 23 lo-
calities (we may here recall the koinon of the Aitolians, the Thessalians, the koinon
of the Ainianes, the koinon of the Dorians, and among the poleis Lamia, Hypata,
Halos, Phtiotic Thebes, Ambryssos).18 Scholarship on guest-friendship has pointed
out that granting politeia in combination with proxeny does not seem to have been
a practice in other areas of Greece: in the five-century span of the epigraphic record
of Athenian proxenies, merely six grants of citizenship are known.19
In the specific case of the proxenies by the Lokrian koina, it is certainly worth-
while to consider the purpose of this grant, or at least look into the scale of its pri-
orities. Was there a desire to make Lokrian guest-friendship particularly appealing
and, if so, what was the reason? Was this done by attaching an honorary title, but
one with no consequences on the legal status of the proxenos? Or was the grant of
politeia meant to foster the inclusion of new citizens, favouring a specific category
of foreigners? What was the relationship between local and federal grants?
A policy of openness to new citizens is consistent with the social mobility that
marked Greece in the Hellenistic age and with the general demographic crisis which
is believed to have affected the regions of the Peloponnese and North–Central
Greece with particular intensity. Indeed, such a demographic crisis even led, in cer-
tain cases, to the sale of citizenship rights or the mass inclusion of new citizens into
the state.20 It is by no means unusual that, in a mainly mountainous region such as
Lokris, there could be localized population shortages, which would have prompted
14 T 4: koinon. IG IX 12 3, 668: according to Klaffenbach, on the basis of prosopographical analysis,

the decree is issued by the polis because the archontes (ll. 5–8) bear Physkean names.
15 T 5 and 6.
16 T 7.
17 Monceaux 1886, 35; Marek 1984, 142–149.
18 Marek 1984, 146: 23 koina and poleis.
19 Herman 1987; Mitchel 1997, 37–40: a fourth-century example of the compatibility between citi-
zenship and proxeny is provided by an Athenian inscription (IG II2 19, Osborne 1981–83 D7): in
the main body of the decree the man is awarded proxeny, while in a rider to the decree he is awarded
citizenship. Contra Larsen, OCD s.v. Proxenos: proxeny and citizenship were incompatible be-
cause a proxenos, by definition, could not be a citizen of the state he was representing.
20 By way of example, I mention the Achaian case, analyzed by A. Rizakis and E. Mackil. See Rizakis
1990, 109–134; 2008, 44–49, no.3; Mackil 2013, 450–455.
programs aimed at broadening the citizen body. Economic mobility in Lokris is

well illustrated by the case of the ancient population movement documented in the
colonial legislation of Naupactus, and by the case of populating borderland areas
by an unknown polis of Western Lokris.21 In another perspective, grants of citizen-
ship cannot be separated from the element of prestige gained by the proxenos or
from the purpose of conferring a privilege within a reciprocal network that, in any
time and place, governed the laws of hospitality. The exiguous number of cases
attested and the parsimony with which citizenship was granted in Greek history
overall point to the fact that such politeia was rather a virtual kind of citizenship,
unlike the other privileges that involved practical benefits to the proxenos – e.g.
rights of property ownership, marriage, tax exemptions, and the like. Nonetheless,
the unique characteristics of the proxenies issued in central Greece, with respect to
the ordinary practices elsewhere, do prompt the question of what actual repercus-
sions the grant of citizenship rights had on the legal status of the proxenos. In certain
local environments there was a level of operative, practical politeia, which allowed
the recipient the concrete faculty of activating his citizenship rights.
Attention should be given to the evidence provided for the poetess from Lesbos
and her brother, which, I argue, provides a good case in point to demonstrate the
legal value of politeia and its actual fruition.22 Aristodama, named proxenos of Cha-
leion, likely belonged to that class of itinerant artists that flourished during the Hel-
lenistic age, as demonstrated by her receiving similar honors from the city of La-
mia.23 Although she was the foremost recipient of the honors decided by the decree,
evidenced by the many and notable privileges granted to her, she did not receive
citizenship because being a woman automatically excluded her from the legal re-
quirements for civic rights. That honor was instead awarded to her brother.
With respect to the relationship between local and federal citizenship, I wish to
share the relevant considerations expounded by P. Funke about Aitolian proxenia
decrees, which amply testify to grants of local and federal (iso-)politeia.24 Accord-
ing to Funke, both the koinon and the member-states were entitled to grant Aitolian
citizenship to foreigners. Funke draws attention to the frequent use of the formula
kata nomon in the decrees of the Aitolian League and remarks on the function of
the proxenikoi nomoi25 which – he argues – served to govern the potential overlap
of competences, and avert conflicts of interest between the League and its member-
states in granting citizenship.
The limited, yet by no means insufficient, evidence from the region of Lokris
calls for an examination of what might have been the aims and the content of the
nomos proxenikos in the Lokrian koina. Did it contain precise regulations that de-
21 E&R 1 no. 43, no. 44. See Daverio Rocchi 2015, 179–198 with bibliography. See also Mackil 2013,
258–264.
22 T 6.
23 IG IX.2. 62; Syll.3 532. See Marek 1984, 295.
24 See IG IX.12. 5–50. See also the proxenies of Kallipolis edited by Rousset 2006, 381–433.
25 Funke 2015, 104–108.
termined the legal effects and obligations for member-states as well as the proce-
dures in case the recipients chose to make actual use of the award? The evidence
does not allow us to confirm that the same kind of reciprocity that P. Funke observes
in the Aitolian system is at work here among the Lokrians,26 but the similarities in
content and procedures between Aitolian and Lokrian proxenies encourage us not
to rule out such a possibility a priori. We should certainly take into consideration
the specific kind of citizenship with respect to the affiliation within the Eastern or
the Western koinon, and we cannot ignore the distinct federal systems in the East
and West within which the proxeny decrees, local or federal, were issued. After the
first quarter of the second century BCE. Amphissa was an autonomous polis,27
hence we should assume that its grant of proxeny and politeia to the Makedonian
Menophantos, physician of Hyrkanis, did not involve the mechanisms of the federal
level. The decision to give the proxenos freedom of movement, the guarantee en-
suring his personal safety within the city’s territory (separate from safety in peace
and war, which was also provided for in the decree according to the usual proxeny
formula), as well as the faculty of establishing contacts with cities of Eastern Lokris,
altogether bear testimony to the autonomy of Amphissa in its decisions over public
issues and foreign relations.28
VII. EPINOMIA
Among the additional provisions of the proxeny the Amphisseis bestowed on the
Makedonian Menophantos, doctor of Hyrkanis, is the right of pasture (epinomia).29
This is a commonplace award in proxenia in northern parts of central Greece, and
Chr. Marek30 has noticed an erstaunliche Deckung among the regions of the epino-
miai and those of the politeiai. As I have discussed elsewhere, long- and short-
range mobility was essential to pastoral practices. However, such mobility might
also provoke friction both within the territory of the league, when the koinon op-
posed the free movement of shepherds and sedentary farmers, and within neigh-
bourhood affairs, when they crossed into other cities.31 Thus epinomia saved the
proxenos from eventually violating the dispositions set out by the poleis or the koi-
non to protect their pasturelands, and thus from incurring the resulting sanctions. In
26 Funke 2015, 104–108: ‘Both the koinon and each individual member-state were able to award un-
restricted Aetolian citizenship to foreigners. The corresponding decrees of the league or of member-
states had the same consequences’.
27 Lérat 1952 II, 95–112.
28 T 7. The hiatros is granted an escort of citizens to guarantee his safe circulation across the territory
of the city (ll. 25–26); in subsequent lines (ll. 32–32) the decree guarantees safety (asphaleia) in
times of peace and war; a copy of the proxeny decree is sent to the cities of Skarphea and Opus (l.
27–29). On the special position of Amphissa in the political context of the region of Lokris see
Daverio Rocchi 2015, 195.
29 T 7, l. 31.
30 Marek 1984, 147.
31 For an updated discussion on this topic see Daverio Rocchi 2016, 58–77.
this perspective I think it is noteworthy that the decree of Amphissa honoring the
doctor of Hyrcanis mandates providing him with an escorting retinue composed of
citizens.32
The network of peaceful relations created by proxenies seems to suggest a pic-
ture that is the opposite of the situation of local conflicts, or borderland disputes,
that were so commonplace across Central Greece. In the Lokrian regions livestock
was a major form of wealth and a primary source of profit; it was integral to agri-
culture in the autarkic economic organization. For this reason the right of pasture
was of the utmost importance, to the point that Marek considered it a high privilege
and saw in the politeia a preliminary condition to guarantee the proxenos the pos-
sibility of practicing husbandry.33 There are reasons to believe that, in a context of
resource complementarity on a regional scale, we may read in the binomial of
politeia/epinomia the aims and expectations of the conferral of proxeny, which re-
sponds to local economic and social programs.
VIII. THE GEOGRAPHY OF PROXENIES: A NATURAL-ANTHROPIC

ECOSYSTEM.
Each koinon, and – within it – each polis were the termini of inbound and outbound
vectors of relations involving the state of the proxenos and the state granting it to
citizens of the koinon. Geography thus outlines the territorial extension of these
interstate relations created by proxeny, which depended on this network of reci-
procity. This network in turn must be measured in relation to the spaces of war,
peace, and alliances, but also of economy and trade; in other words, in relation to
all of the diverse issues concerning interactions with foreign powers.
These Lokrian proxenia decrees generally concerned the central belt of Greece
(Aitolia, Hypata, Tralleis, Phtiotic Thebes, Hyrkanis), and extended westwards into
the Gulf of Corinth (Aigion and Achaia) and the western coastal regions. With re-
spect to the attested cases, the koinon of the Opuntioi granted proxeny to the citizens
of Krane/Kephallenia, Hypata, Tralleis, Aitolia.34 The cities of Opus, Thronion, and
Scarphea – respectively – nominated proxenoi in Krane/Kephallenia, Phytaea in
Aitolia, and Thebes in Achaea Phthiotis.35 In the west, the koinon of the Hesperian
Lokrians granted proxeny to a citizen of Aigion in Achaea, and also the city of
Chaleion granted proxeny to a citizen of Aigion, as well as to the poetess Aris-
todama of Smyrna and her brother, while Amphissa as we have seen granted prox-
eny to the Makedonian Menophantos, hiatros of Hyrkanis.36 These latter cases –
32 T 7, l. 25–26.
33 Marek 1984, l.c.
34 IG IX.12 5 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913.
35 IG IX.12 5 1908, 2032, 2038. For the reading Krane/Kephallenia in the inscription no. 1908 I
follow the IG edition (l. 2–3, [— — — Κεφαλλᾶνι ἐκ Κρα|ν]ίων), in preference to the integration
Krannon. Contra Moreno Hernández-Pascual Valderrama 2013, 507–535.
36 IG IX.12 3 667, 721, 740, 750.
the proxenies granted to Aristodama and her brother, in Smyrna, and to the Make-
donian physician of Hyrkanis – representing far-reaching relations seem to consti-
tute an exception that proves the general rule: proxenia was generally granted on a
somewhat smaller scale. As I have mentioned above, the poetess from Smyrna must
be understood within the context of those itinerant artists who contributed to a high
degree of lively professional mobility in the Hellenistic age. With respect to the
hiatros from Hyrkanis, the text of the inscription explains that he had come to Am-
phissa with an embassy and his professional services were subsequently needed.37
These networks of relations may be compared with the trajectories of the Lo-
krian recipients of proxeny. In the third to the first centuries BCE we can reconstruct
grants to Opuntian Lokrians, from Pherae, Eretria, and Lamia, and to a citizen of
Alope from Tithronion. Proxenies granted to Hesperian Lokrians, were issued from
Korkyra, Kassandreia, Histiaia, Thisbe, Aigosthena, principally to citizens of Nau-
paktos and – in a minor degree – of Chaleion. To this evidence we must add the
overwhelming number of Delphic proxenies granted to Lokrians, both eastern and
western.38 While the proxenoi of Eastern Lokris are from a broad set of poleis, in
the West the grantees are concentrated in Naupaktos and Chaleion. These Delphic
proxenies support the central role of Delphi in interregional relations, as modern
historiography has not failed to stress. I must limit myself to briefly mentioning the
issue here, as it lays beyond the scope of this contribution.
When we observe the overall locations of the proxenies granted by the Eastern
and by the Western Lokrians – with the exceptions of the two cases of the Smyrnean
poetess and of the hiatros of Hyrkanis – as well as the distribution of the poleis of
the Lokrian proxenoi, we see that their geographic extensions overlap. Essentially
the decrees concern a well-defined territory, which runs east to west along the cen-
tral belt of Greece. The homogeneous natural environment and the similar ways of
life foster a natural-anthropic eco-system. What emerges is a micro-region, closely
inter-connected, with complementary resources and a high degree of economic in-
terdependence. The region features an economy based on agriculture, forestry, and
pastoralism, integrated by sea-trade eastward with Euboia (and occasionally to the
northern Aegean) and westward in the Gulf of Corinth.39 In other words, the decrees
present the case of an institutionalized solution to interstate relations for societies
in a small scale world of forest – and maritime – economy.40 Precisely by virtue of
this closely-bound system of neighboring communities, the privileges associated
with proxeny – among them also politeia – could here gain concrete value on a level
not seen in other regions. This network of relationships outlines how proxenia was
37 IG IX 12 3 750, ll. 10–15. Cf. T 7.

38 The survey is based on data from Fasti in IG IX 12 3; IG IX 12 5.
39 For the communications over land and sea see Sánchez-Moreno 2013, 279–335, 337–359; Arjona
2013, 361–392.
40 In Aitolia, the city of Kallipolis granted proxenies to citizens from across the regions of central
Greece. The editor of these inscriptions, D. Rousset, remarks that the origin of the foreigners hon-
ored in Kallipolis defines the circle of connections of a small polis of central Greece. See Rousset
2006, 381–434.
interwoven with informal regional networks which do not seem to have been af-
fected by the political and military strategies of the great powers that, over time,
extended their control over Central Greece.
IX. PROXENY, NEIGHBORING RELATIONS, ETHNOGENESIS
The territorial distribution of these proxenia decrees reflects the geography of the
region’s ethnogenesis. This map, as it were, is drawn by genealogies and territori-
alisation myths, in which the names of ancestors (archegetai) and founders (ktistai)
are closely intertwined:41 from Amphiktyon came Malos, Itonos, Physkos, Ain-
ias(?); from Physkos came Lokros, and from the latter Opus. J. Hall defines this
genealogy as “amphictyonic” and he sees in it the attempt to forge a proto-ethnicity
in the region around Thermopylai.42 The descent from Amphiktyon expresses the
idea that Malians, Phtiotic Achaians, Lokrians, and probably the Ainianes, were
among the original members of the Pylean Amphictyony, centered at the sanctuary
of Anthela.43 According to a complementary tradition, Amphiktyon was responsi-
ble for the synoikism of the region of Thermopylai and ruled over its unified popu-
lations.44 Although this genealogy seems to articulate diachronic stages in the mem-
bership of the Pylian Amphictyony,45 at the same time the myth associates Amphik-
tyon with a group of neighboring communities linked by common cult that later
came to coincide with a political system and, over time, was sub-divided into dis-
tinct political communities. Thus, it does not seem out of place to examine these
regions’ ethnicity and how the construction of these genealogical trees intersects
with subsequent political affiliations. Other traditions link this genealogy with Ai-
tolian kinship: the father of Physkos, Amphiktyon, was Aitolian, or else Physkos
was the son of Aitolos.46 I share Hall’s conclusions that this tradition dates to after
the annexation of Lokris by the Aitolians, in the third century BCE, but we may
also consider the possibilities of a broader context of social and cultural affinity,
and of regional economy in Central Greece.47
The sense of communal belonging and participation in common cult places, the
myths elaborating shared memory and identity, the perception of a common de-
scent, and co-territoriality, were altogether elements of a collective consciousness
that could provide the grounds to facilitate a network of guest-friendship on a re-
gional scale. To illustrate the point I cite the ties of guest-friendship between Opun-
tioi and the citizens of Thebes of Achaia Phtiotis: it is possible to discern a mythical
41 For a commentary see Hall 2002, 150–153.

42 Hall 2002, 153.
43 See Steph. Byz. s.v. Μαλιεύς; Paus. 5.1.4; Paus. 9.1.1; Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1.551; Eusth. ad Hom.
272.19.
44 Theop. FGrH 115 F 63; Mar. Par. FGrH 239 A 5.
45 Hall 2002, 150.
46 Steph. Byz. s.v. Φύσκος, Skymn. 589. See DaverioRocchi 2013, 142–145.
47 Hall 2002, 150–154.
counterpart in the tradition of the philia between Achilles and the Opuntian
Patroklos.48
Proxeny was interwoven in a patchwork of poleis and communities which all
related to an amphiktyonic identity;49 they were scattered in and about the region
of Thermopylai and extended into the borders of the neighboring territories as well
as reaching towards the sea. In this process of expansion, the Gulf of Corinth be-
came a channel of ethnicity – according to Klaus Freitag’s fitting definition.50 This
interconnection to neighboring regions bonded the Lokrian proxenoi to a geograph-
ically-delineated territory as well as to a homogeneous cultic space. According to
the tradition preserved by Theopompos and the Marmor Parium, as mentioned
above, the people that Amphiktyon unified and over which he ruled are called peri-
oikoi – i.e. the surrounding inhabitants – of Thermopylai. To a certain extent, not-
withstanding the chronological distances and diverse historical contexts, I would
compare the Lokrian local proxenies to the Theban proxeniai, which Pindar men-
tions in the poem written for the festival of the Daphnephoria led by the Theban
Agasikles.51 At lines 41–44 the poet praises Agasikles and his noble family on ac-
count of their proxeniai and says that, by virtue of such merits, they have been
honored by the amphiktiones.52 In this perspective I find the translation by E.
Mackil noteworthy: she renders the latter term as “by those who live around them”,
because – she explains – “this sentence is an expansion of the earlier assertion that
the noble parents of Agasikles have rendered service to their neighbors as prox-
enoi”.53 According to E. Mackil, “this elite household could have served as witness,
protectors, hosts, and promoters of the interests of neighboring communities in
Thebes”. But “the Pindarian amphiktiones”– she stresses – “here are not ordinary
neighbors; they are people who live in the region and participate in the same cult”.
In line with this I believe that in the Lokrian region these cultic and interpersonal
traditions helped to promote a kind of coexistence within a framework of neighbor-
ing relations, i.e. amphiktyonic, guest-friendship.
The Lokrian proxenia decrees that we have examined here are part of a system
of interstate relations in which the outside does not refer to a removed sphere of
long-distance contacts, but rather it involves neighboring cities and communities
with whom relationships were often borderland contacts.54 The major problems be-
ing addressed, in this fairly intimate geographical context, involved striking some
sort of balance among a cluster of territorially organized settlements within a rela-
tively limited space, in order to avert situations of conflict – which were otherwise
48 T 3. Hom. Il. 9. 666–669, 23, 23–25, 84–85. See Daverio Rocchi 2013, 139–161; 2015, 179–198.
49 For the amphiktyonic identity see Funke 2013, 11.
50 Freitag 2011, 19–28.
51 Pind. fr. 94b Maehler. The Daphnephoria was a ritual procession in honor of Apollo Ismenias in
Thebes. The date for the composition and the performance of the poem is ca. 445–440.
52 The spelling with iota is employed by Pindar.
53 Mackil 2013, 160–163.
54 For the neighboring relationships as category of interstate relations see Daverio Rocchi 2016, 58–
77.
attested – and to provide solutions to contemporary demographic shortages. On ac-

count of these geographic and environmental specificities we may explain the in-
clusive attitude of the centers of region, namely their readiness to admit and solicit
the addition of new citizens, by providing economic incentives and justifying this
attitude by recourse to common heritage thanks to the ethnogenesis of the region’s
inhabitants.
X. A CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT
Following up on my initial proposition, we may consider proxeny, in the Lokrian

koina, as the outcome of a variable triangulation. The proxenos interacted with dif-
ferent authorities, namely the koinon and the member-states, in a flexible context
beyond the institutionally formalized division of powers and responsibilities. The
mediating role of proxeny did not concern the balance of political and military alli-
ances. The Lokrian multiple proxenies seem to point to a distribution of functions,
expressing a multi-directional and horizontal articulation of power, which was
shared across the koinon and member-states, rather than simply in a vertical hierar-
chy. Just as the koinon itself, each member-state, both in the east and the west,
enjoyed the faculty of granting citizenship to foreigners – in addition to the usual
legal, economic, and fiscal awards.
This guest-friendship was negotiated within the specific sphere of interstate re-
lations developed in a contiguous environment. It was based on geographic prox-
imity, but also shared in ways of living, cultic bonds, and traditions rooted in local
and regional ethnogenesis. Regional vicinity, its geographical specificities, and the
environment itself bonded the communities in their needs and economic goals. This,
in turn, could shape shared attitudes towards the granting of proxenia, especially in
their accessory privileges. These conditions provided the background to an inclu-
sive attitude towards citizenship and towards the conferral of rights of pasture.
APPENDIX
EASTERN LOKRIS
T 1. IG IX 12 5 1909
Second half oft he second century BCE. Proxeny decree of the Opuntioi and of the
Lokroi hoi meta Opountion for three citizens of Krane/Kephallenia
ll. 1–2, 4–5, 7

Ὀπούντιοι καὶ Λοκροὶ [οἱ μετὰ Ὀπουντίων ἔδω]καν… προξενίαν, πολιτείαν,
ἱσοτέλειαν… πάντα κατὰ τὸν νόμον…ἔγγυοι…
The Opuntians and the Lokrians along with the Opuntians granted … proxeny, cit-
izenship, fiscal equality … everything according to the law … the guarantors …
T 2. IG IX 12 5 1913
Second half of the second century BCE. Proxeny decree of the Opuntioi and of the
Lokroi hoi meta Opountion for the Aetolian citizen Antiphilos
ll. 2–4, 8
Ὀπούντιοι καὶ Λοχροὶ οἱ μετὰ Ὀπουντίων ἔδωκαν Ἀντιφίλωι Αἰτωλῶι καὶ τοῖς
ἐκγόνοις αὐτοῦ προξενίαν, πολιτείαν … ἔγγυ[ο]ι …
The Opuntians and the Lokrians along with the Opuntians granted to Aitolian An-
tiphilos and his descendants proxeny, citizenship …The guarantors …
T 3. IG IX 12 5 2038
End of the third century BCE. Proxeny decree of the Skarpheis for two citizens of
Thebes of Phtiotic Achaia
ll. 1–5
Σκ[αρφεῖς ἔδοσαν] Κλεάδαι Διοδό[του, — — —] Τιμοκλέος Θηβ[αίοις ἐξ Ἀχαΐας
… προξε]νίαν, ἰσοπολι[τείαν …]
Skarpheis granted to Kleadas son of Diodotos … and … son of Timokles, both
Theban from Achaia … proxeny, equality of citizenship …
1st
WESTERN LOKRIS
T 4. IG IX 12 3 667
Mid-second century BCE. Proxeny decree of the koinon ton Lokron for a citizen of
Achaian Aigion
ll. 3–5, 11–12

… τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Λοκρῶν ἔδωκε Ἀριστοβο[ύ]λωι Εὐαγόρα Ἀχαιῶι ἐξ Αἰγίου
προξενίαν … καὶ πολιτείαν … ἔνγυοι τᾶς προξενίας …
The league of Lokrians granted to Achaian Aristoboulos son of Evagoras from Ai-
gion, proxeny … and citizenship… The guarantors of the proxeny …
T 5. IG IX 12 3 721c.
Mid second-century BCE. Proxeny decree of Chaleion for a citizen of Aigion
ll. 6–8, 10–11

… ἔδοξε τᾶι πό λει ἐν ἐννόμωι ἐκκλησίαι· πρόξενον εἶμεν … τᾶς πόλιο[ς] τῶν
Χαλειῶν Κλεογένη Ἀλκιθόου Αἰγ[ιῆ] … καὶ εἶμεν αὐ̣τ̣ῶι̣ ἰσο[πο]λιτείαν …
Resolved by the city in the legal assembly. Kleogenes son of Alkithoos from Aigion
shall be proxenos ... of the city of Chaleion … and he shall have the equality of
citizenship …
T 6. IG IX 12 3 740
218/7 (?). Proxeny decrees of Chaleion for the Smyrnean poetess Aristodama and
her brother
ll. 2, 21–27, 29–30

… [ἔδοξε] τᾶι πόλει τῶν [Χαλειῶ]ν … εἶμεν δὲ αὐτὰν [πρόξενον καὶ εὐεργέτιν] τᾶς
πόλιος· δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐ[τᾶι παρὰ τᾶς πόλιος] … καὶ γ[ᾶς καὶ οἰκίας] ἔγκτησιν καὶ
ἀτέλειαν κα[ὶ ἀσυλίαν] … καὶ τἆλλα πάντ[α, ὅσα καὶ τοῖς] ἄλλοις προξένοις καὶ
εὐεργέτ[αις ὑπάρχει] … ὑπαρχέτω δὲ καὶ Διον[υσίωι τῶι] ἀδελφεῶι αὐτᾶς
προξενία, πολιτεία…
Resolved by the city of Chaleion … She shall be proxenos and benefactor of the
city. Let her have by the city … and the right to own land and houses, immunity
from taxation, and immunity from seizure … and all the other things that occur for
the other proxenoi and benefactors. Also let Dionysos, her brother, have proxeny,
citizenship …
T 7. IG IX.12, 3, 750
First half of the second century BCE. Proxeny decree of Amphissa for the hiatros
of Hyrcanis Menophantos
ll. 24–31
δεδόχθαι τῷ δάμῳ· … καὶ δόμεν αὐτῷ συμπαραπομ[πο]ὺς ἀσ[τούς], [ἵνα
κομισθῇ(?) μ]ετ’ ἀσ[φ]α[λ]είας, ἐν οὕς κα προαι[ρ]ῆται τόπους· [ἐξαποστεῖλ]αι δὲ
καὶ τᾶς δεδομένας αὐτῷ προξενίας τὸ ἀντίγρ[αφον τύχ]αι ἀγαθᾷ ποτὶ τὰν πόλιν τῶν
Σκαρφέων … ἔ[τι δ]ὲ καὶ ποτὶ τὰ[ν] τῶν Ὀπουντίων … Ἀμφισσεῖς ἔδωκαν
Μην[οφ]άντῳ Ἀρτεμ[ιδ]ώρου Μακεδόνι Ὑρκανίῳ … προξενίαν, ἰσο[πολι]τείαν,
… ἐπινομία[ν] … ἔ[γγυος…]
Resolved by the people … and to give him some citizens who will escort him, so
that he can travel in safety to every place he wants to. … to send a copy of the
proxeny granted to him to the city Skarphea, and also to the city Opus …The citi-
zens of Amphissa granted to Macedonian Menophantos, son of Artemidoros, from
Hyrkanis …. proxeny, equality of citizenship … right to pasture…. The guarantor
…
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beck, H., and P. Funke (2015) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and P.
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2013) Ethnic Identity, Cults and Territorial Settlement: East and West
Locrians, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries. Identity
and Integration, Stuttgart, 139–161.
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2015) The Lokrians and their Federal Leagues, in H. Beck and P. Funke
(eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 179–198.
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2016) Systems of Borders in Ancient Greece, in S. Bianchetti, M.R. Cataudella,
and H.-J. Gehrke (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography. The Inhabited World in
Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 58–77.
Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2013) The Late Archaic Period, in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstan-
tinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 445–
470.
Freitag, K. (2011) A channel for Ethnicity. Zur Rolle des Korinthischen Golfes im Spannungsfeld
zwischen Raumgestalt und der Ausbildung von Staatlichkeit im antiken Griechenland, in L.
Breglia, A. Moleti, and M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la “terza” Grecia
e l’Occidente, Pisa: 19–28.
Funke, P. (2015) Aitolia and the Aitolian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in
Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 86–117.
Gschnitzer, F. (1973) Proxenos, RE. Suppl. XIII, 629–730.
Hall, J.M. (2002) Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago/London.
Herman, G. (1987) Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge.
Mackil, E. (2013) Creating a Common Polity. Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the
Greek koinon, Berkeley.
Marek, C. (1984) Die Proxenie, Frankfurt/Bern/New York.
Mitchell, L.G. (1997) Greeks bearing Gifts, Cambridge.
Monceaux, P. (1886) Les proxénies grecques, Paris.
Moreno Hernández J. J. and I. M. Pascual Valderrama (2013) The Hellenistic Period (323–146),
in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnem-
idian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 507–535.
Pascual, J. and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.) (2013) Topography and History of Ancient Epicnem-
idian Lokris, Leiden/Boston.
Rizakis, A. (1990) La politeia dans les cités de la confédération achéenne, Tyche 5, 109–134.
Rizakis, A. (2008) Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens/Paris.
Rizakis, A. and Y. Tourartsoglou (2008) L’économie du Péloponnèse hellénistique: un cas régional,
in C. Grandjean (ed.), Le Péloponnèse d’Epameinondas à Hadrien, Paris, 69–82.
Rousset, D. and R. Kolonia (2011) Monuments funéraires de Locride occidentale, Chiron 41, 181–
216.
Zachos, G. (2013) The Roman Period from 146 BC to Justinian, in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papa-
konstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston,
537–548.
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHIC TESTIMONIES
FOR THE ETHNOS OF THE WESTERN LOKRIANS
Nikolaos Petrochilos
Ephorate of Antiquities, Phokis
Only rarely do ancient authors refer to Hesperian or Ozolian1 Lokris, a region

spreading along the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf between Phokis to the
East and Antirrhion to the West.2 The people living in this region, known as Ἑσπέ-
ριοι or Ὀζόλαι Λοκροί, constituted the western branch of the Lokrians, an ethnos
whose eastern branch, Ὀπούντιοι or Ἑῷοι Λοκροί, established their presence in the
region opposite Euboia. The complete absence of any reference to Hesperian Lo-
kris, either in its geographical sense or as the fatherland of mythical or Homeric
heroes,3 has been interpreted to mean that the formation of the local Hesperian iden-
tity did not occur. Furthermore, any attestation of this particular ethnos in the liter-
ary tradition is indirect and appears in relation to the historical developments in the
wider region. Hesperian Lokrians are mentioned for the first time in the literary
sources by Thucydides, who, while describing Demosthenes’ campaign against the
Aitolians in 426 BCE,4 mentions a series of people’s names,5 which are rightfully
considered to refer to people living in the correspondent Lokrian sites cited in geo-
graphical order. Other references focus mainly on popular attempts to interpret their
tribal name, Ὀζόλαι, from the ancient Greek verb ὄζειν, to give off a scent, or ὄζος,
knot,6 indicating their backwardness7 as well as their descent from Opountian Lo-
kris in the period following the Trojan War and the Dorian invasion.8 Nevertheless,
1 For the name Ozolia and its derivatives Paus. 9.38.1–3 suggests various interpretations which
give the impression that these were later inventions. In this paper the term is used indiscrimi-
nately with the official term Hesperioi.
2 Str. 10.2.21.
3 On the contrary, the Homeric Poems Il. B. 529–535 praise Ajax, the son of Oileus, a renowned
offspring of Opountian Lokrians, who dwell beyond Euboia.
4 Thuc. 3.94–98.
5 Thuc. 3.101–102.
6 Daverio Rocchi2013, 140 n. 8 ascertains forestry and pastoral traditions in the etymology of
Lokros, the eponym of the ethnos.
7 Thuc. 1.5.3–6.2. Antonetti 1990, 72–74.
8 An inscription reminiscent of the fallen against the Medes at Thermopylae, Opous is designated
as the metropolis of the Lokrians; Str. 9.4.2 τούσδε ποθεῖ φθιμένους ὑπὲρ ῾Ελλάδος ἀντία
Μήδων, μητρόπολις Λοκρῶν εὐθυνόμων ᾿Οπόεις; cf. also Dominguez 2013b, 467. Likewise,
in honoring the doctor Menophantos the Amphissaeans vote in the early 2 nd cent. BCE to send
honors not just to the man’s city of birth, Skarpheia, but also to Opous, while the citizens of
Naupaktos, in the vote concerning their colony, invoke Opous as their metropolis. Furthermore,
46 Nikolaos Petrochilos
the unity of the Lokrian nation, with its two population groupings settled in two
remote geographical regions9 to which had been granted two seats in the Amphik-
tyonic League,10 was widely accepted in antiquity and lingered until the Imperial
Period. The particularity of the unified character of the Lokrian ethnos has intrigued
modern scholars, who have delved into the perplexed nature of the ethnic identity
even though archaeological testimonies are not sufficient – if indeed there are any
at all. This paper aims at offering a contribution to the subject by presenting the
archaeological material available, and by reconsidering some questions concerning
their origin and their identity.11
The historical development of West Lokris since prehistoric times was deter-
mined in large part by its geography, as well as by its cultural heterogeneity. While
throughout most of the territory no burial monuments and settlements dated to the
Mycenaean period have been found thus far, and the Mycenaean presence in general
seems to be hardly noticeable at all,12 the eastern part of the region offers a great
deal of material.13 One of the most important elements in this aspect is the so-called
“Doric Corridor”, a stretch of lowland lying between mountains along its eastern
edges. It is a road that has been a commercial and cultural artery from prehistoric
times until the present day, as it led from Kirra and the northern coast of the Corin-
thian Gulf through the narrow fields between Parnassus and the slopes of Mt. Giona
the mythical genealogy invokes the beliefs on the common origins of all the Lokrians; Lokros,
is referred to as the son of Physkos and the father of Opous (Steph. Byz. s.v. Φύσκος), and
Locros as founder of the cities of Physkeis and of Oeantheia (Plut. Qu. Gr. 15), whereas ac-
cording to the Parian Marble Lokrians where related to the Delphic Amphiktyony, since
Physkos is mentioned as the son of Amphiktyon (Theop. FGrH 115 fr. 63; Marm. Par. FGrH
239 A 5); cf. Daverio Rocchi 2013, 142-5 with updated bibliography.
9 For the theories on the origins of the West Lokrians, see Oldfather 1926, 1183–1190; Lerat
1952 II, 5–11; Kase et al. 1991, 89–98; Sakellariou 2009, 664–666.
10 Aesch. 2.116; Paus. 10.8.2. The two seats for the Lokrians in the Amphiktyonic League were
given one to the East and one to the West Lokrians, according to geographic criteria and the
ethnic contribution that was envisaged during the early development of the Amphiktyony;
Lefèvre 1998, 17–20; Sánchez 2001, 37–41, 515; Jacquemin et al. 2012, 18; Daverio Rocchi
2013, 144.
11 On the genealogies and the mythical origins the Lokrians: Daverio Rocchi 2013, 142;
Dominguez 2013a, 412–43; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 179–182, with previous bibliography.
12 Apart from Galaxidi there is one certain find, a chamber tomb at which were found only two
stirrup jars; further a plundered chamber tomb is reported at the site Gouva, to the east of Mo-
nastiraki (Petronotis 1973, 101 n. 4 with previous references) as well as at the vicinity of Malan-
drino, where a likewise plundered chamber tomb has been noticed (report in the archives of the
Archaeological Service of Phokis). At two other sites, at Marathias, near the present-day village
of Vitrinitsa (Lerat 1952 I, 122; Petronotis 1973, 101 no. 107; Bommeljé et al. 1987, 95–96),
and Paliokastro in Kokovitsa (Petronotis 1973, 103 no. 120), the settlements can be dated back
to the Mycenaean period, but the lack of any ceramic findings at either location, as well as the
exclusive reliance for dating purposes upon the type of wall that resembles Cyclopean, render
these identifications exceptionally precarious.
13 Decades of archaeological research in the region surrounding the Valley of Hylaithos has
brought to light important archaeological sites of the Bronze Age at Kirrha, Glas in the vicinity
of Itea, Amphissa, Krissa (modern Chrysso). For Kirrha and the wider region, cf. Skorda 2003,
2–5; Orgeolet, Skorda, Zurbach et al., forthcoming.
The Archaeological and Epigraphic Testimonies for the ethnos of the Western Lokrians 47
up to the coast of the Malian and Euboian Gulfs. The use of the “Doric Corridor”
among the nearby settlements is well attested, as is its significance in the cultural
and economic prosperity at both of its ends. Remains from commercial items
bought and sold, mainly ceramic objects and other artifacts which travelled between
southern and central Greece, constitute evidence that this system was in operation
from prehistoric times onwards, and that its southern end in the Hylaithos valley
was a center of commercial exchange and influence since the second millennium.14
One of the most important finds that demonstrates the relations between the two
regions is the vaulted tomb that was unearthed during the summer months of 2014
in the vicinity of Amphissa. This monument had a life span of approximately three
centuries, from about the middle of the 14th until the middle of the 11th century
BCE. The pottery found at the site, the burial offerings, bronze weapons, necklaces
of precious stones, glass artifacts and amber, the large number of engraved stones,
the bronze rings and the gold jewelry, especially the gold signet ring with the de-
piction of grazing cattle, all make it certain that among the dead there was a local
ruler or the members of a family or class which would have held a leading role in
the governance of the area, and, in any case, had the means of exchanging goods
with distant areas. The grave offerings from within the burial chamber, as well as
from a deposit where objects that had been used in the burial ceremony were cast,
testify to contacts with neighboring Krissa and Delphi, as well as with the south-
eastern Peloponnese and central Greece.15 The vaulted tomb of Amphissa contrib-
utes not only to our understanding of the area in the center of the Mycenaean world
and across the passages leading to the periphery, but also fills a gap between the
earlier periods -which are well documented in the region– and the ensuing periods.
In the area surrounding Amphissa where the vaulted tomb was discovered, hab-
itation seems to have continued without interruption into the Iron Age.16 Already
from the 8th century BCE onwards, Amphissa began to show signs of developing
into a highly-populated region, as can be deduced from the two cemeteries discov-
ered so far, one next to the classical acropolis in the district of Charmaina and the
other just outside the southern stretch of the wall at the modern plot of the Greek
Telecommunications Organization.17 Perhaps even more likely is the possibility
that there were village-type settlements (komai)18 from which the district, and later
14 Kase 1973; Kase, Szemler 1979/1983, 520–527; Kase et al. 1991, 21-45; 65-69.
15 N. Petrochilos, AD 2014 (forthcoming).
16 Near Itea, at Moulki, several chamber tombs have been excavated containing gave offerings of
the Sub-Mycenaean period; Lerat 1952 I, 163–167.
17 For the cemetery at the foothill crowned on top by the later defensive wall (modern district
Charmaina cf. Perdrizet 1899, 344–348; I. Konstantinou, AD 18, 1963, 130, pl. 164, 165a; ΑD
27, 1972, 384–388; Themelis 1984, 228. For the cemetery at the Telecommunications Center
that was used a burial ground from the 8th until the 4th cent. BCE, Themelis 1984, 228–232;
Kourachanis 1992, 99. In general, Tsaroucha 2006, 855f; Tsaroucha (forthcoming). On Archaic
inscriptions found in Amphissa, Rousset-Kolonia 2011, 181–189.
18 For this characteristic as well as for the primitive way of living contemned Thucydides 1.5.3;
3.94.3–4 not only the Lokrians but also the Aitolians and the Akarnanians who shared the same
habits.
the well-known city of the Classical and modern times, developed. During the Dark
Ages and the Archaic period, the Amphissaeans continued to maintain commercial
relations with distant areas, especially with the Peloponnese, central, and northern
Greece,19 and it is certain that the ‘Doric Corridor’ continued to be utilized as it was
during the second millennium. It also seems that the size of the district, in addition
to its contacts with other areas, contributed to the rather quick development of the
city. A manifestation of this development is the construction of defensive walls
around its acropolis from early on, perhaps even the 6th century.20 It cannot be de-
termined whether the settlement was restricted within the bounds of the walls or if
the latter functioned merely as an acropolis, as the last recourse in case of eminent
danger; if the komai in the plain of Amphissa had outlived the Archaic period, then
this assumption could hold ground.
It seems possible that the development of the settlement in present-day Galaxidi
was somewhat similar. Northeast of the present-day city, restricted settlements were
developed during the Mycenaean Period,21 which appear to have continued until
the Geometric Period, since the foundations of those from the Dark Ages and the
Archaic Period were laid upon those of prehistoric times.22 The burial practices at
the site are noteworthy, especially the contracted position of the dead within cist
graves at the site of Agios Athanasios, dating from the 8th century BCE.23 This
practice finds parallels in Opountian24 and Epiknemidian25 Lokris also during the
Early Iron Age. Just as in the case of Amphissa, the settlements throughout the area
of Galaxidi display a notable extroversion during the Archaic Period. In the region
of Agios Vlassis the remains of ancient structures, the shaping of the ground into
levels by means of polygonal masonry walls, the location of a cemetery from the
Archaic period at a somewhat lower altitude on the side of a hill, as well as a testi-
mony concerning two exceptionally significant bronze inscriptions – which are to-
day displayed in the British Museum26 – all allow us to assume that an important
settlement and probably an adjacent sanctuary existed at the site, a point of refer-
ence for other settlements in the area.27 The findings point to commercial relations
with Corinth, the northern Peloponnese, Phokis and other more distant places such
19 Kourachanis 1992.
20 Part of the polygonal wall can be seen in the north-western part of the wall; Lerat 1952, pl. LX.
Papakonstantinou 2014, 23.
21 Two sites are reported to have produced Late Bronze material so far; cf. Mpaziotopoulou-Val-
avanis 2013, 16f.
22 Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 17–20 (with previous references).
23 Threpsiadis 1972, 201–205.
24 At the cemetery of Tragana, for which see Dominguez 2013a, 408 with previous notes.
25 Ph. Dakoronia, AD 32, Chronicles B1, 104. Papakonstantinou and Sipsi 2009, 1031.
Dominguez 2013a, 407–408.
26 Threpsiadis 1972, 288. Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 20–22. For the inscriptions cf. n. 54
and 62.
27 Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 21–22.
as Etruria, from which a bronze vessel was imported.28 The identification of this
religious center with the sanctuary of Apollo Nasiota29 is convincing.
The region shares one more trait with Amphissa: the existence of an early de-
fensive structure, similar to the former. The wall is found not far from Galaxidi, at
Elaphokarto or Palaiogalaxido, a conspicuous site oriented towards the interior,
maintaining an overview of the wider region from the coast of the Krissaean Gulf,
and the olive grove up until the passages leading to Myonia and northwestern Lo-
kris.30 It is an exceptionally well preserved defensive wall that protected the north-
ern, easily accessible side of the plateau, measuring approximately 3 m. in width,
with a height at some points exceeding 4 m. Like that in Amphissa, the wall at
Palaiogalaxido is built in polygonal or “lesbian” masonry, finally dressed on the
exterior but less on the interior.31 The wall measures approximately 80 m. in length
on the northern side, while at both ends it turns vertically, extending for less than
30 m. to the eastern side, ending at some form of structure, probably a tower. The
corresponding end of the wall on the western side is not preserved apart from a few
rows of stones. It is estimated that the plateau contained within the wall occupied
an area of c. 5 acres. Despite the meticulous survey conducted on the plateau, which
is circumscribed by the wall on the northern side and the precipitous cliffs on the
other sides, neither pottery sherds nor any other artifacts were found. Nevertheless,
the masonry of the wall is, in any case, not misleading for dating the structure to
the Archaic or, at the latest, to the Early Classical period. Taking into account the
total absence of any indication as to the usage of the site, it could be considered the
acropolis, the ultimate site of refuge in the case of a threat to the population living
in the surrounding area.
In addition, at a relatively short distance from Galaxidi and Amphissa, a rather
early settlement at present-day Tritaia has been found, which was known until the
beginning of the 20th century as Kolopetinitsa. A small scale archaeological exca-
vation conducted by Vassilios Petrakos in the area in the early 1970’s has led to the
collection of ceramic finds showing the lifespan of the settlement from the 12th cen-
tury BCE down to the Hellenistic Period.32 The settlement can be identified as the
seat of the Hypnians, the community that, among others, assisted in Eurylochus’
campaign against Naupaktos in 426 BCE.33 The formation of the settlement and the
walls of rubble masonry would allow us to characterize the settlement as a village-
type settlement, a kome, the typical form of settlement during the Classical period,
which led Thucydides to make his famous comment upon the primitive way of life
of the Lokrians. This particular settlement developed into a political community,
which allied itself with other cities. It is known that there was an alliance between
Hypnia and Myania in c. 167 BCE for the purpose of designating guards for the
28 Zymi and Sideris 2003, 35.

29 As proposed by Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2013, 22f.
30 R. Kolonia, Ph. Ntasios, ΑD 56–59, 2001–2004, 438, dated the wall to the Hellenistic period;
this dating is highly improbable.
31 For the polygonal masonry, cf. Scranton 1941, 25–44; Martin 1965, 379f.
32 Report in the archives of the Archaeological Service of Phokis.
33 Cf. n. 4.
fields and flocks, dividing fields and pastures, as well as for participation in the
sacrifices of public worship.34
Although in the eastern part of West Lokris settlements show durability from
early periods onwards,35 in all likelihood without interruption, as it seems that for
the rest of West Lokris there are no signs of organized habitation long before the
Classical period. From then onwards, the settlements seem to have been particularly
numerous. The documentation is lacking, since in Hesperian Lokris no extensive
surveys have been conducted so far, even though on this issue the contributions of
Lerat, Philippson and Petronotis36 are highly significant. However, the western part
of the land has been thoroughly surveyed within the context of the Aitolian Studies
Project, and so we can reconstruct a similar image of the settlement distribution
over the rest of the Lokrian territory. The Aitolian Studies Project has documented
that in the area under examination the habitation apart from limited settlements
rarely predated the Classical period, as attested by the surface finds37 and the similar
results of the survey in the adjacent Aitolian territory. This pattern of settlement –
restricted komai without fortification walls – must have been prevalent in the rest
of the Lokrian territory as well.38 In each of them a small number of families were
settled, earning their living by means of agriculture, as can be seen from the terrace
walls with which the territories surrounding the komai were constructed. In the vi-
cinity of these settlements were the cemeteries, where the most distinctive burial
practice was performed until the Classical period: the inhumation of adults in jars,
a practice that in other areas – with the exception of Opountian Lokris – is seldom
encountered.39 It seems that the archaeological documentation corroborates Thu-
cydides’ description of Hesperian Lokrians as a backward people – or at the very
34 Jacquemin et al. 2012, 219–223, no 121.

35 Dominguez 2008, 322f clearly recognizes the bonds between the eastern part of Ozolian Lokris
and Opountian Lokris since the geometric period.
36 Lerat 1952; Petronotis 1973.
37 Bommeljé et al. 1987, 124 (Eparchy of Naupaktia, demos of Naupaktos); 129 (Eparchy of Do-
ris, demos of Oineon [former name of the municipality of Eupalion, today municipal unity of
Eupalion, part of the municipality of Doris]; demos of Tolophon [belonging to the municipality
of Doris]); 129 f., s.v. Nerantzis n.d., 192–200.
38 Some of these people, named by Thucydides 3.101.2 and attested in inscriptions (the catalogue
of the thearodokoi), must have been living in these komai, cf. n. 89–90. If the description of
the komai by the Athenian historian as small settlements destitute of any kind of urban ambi-
ence without defensive walls is conceived correctly, then such komai can be recorded in several
places: at Makrini (A)-Mt Gyros, Bommeljé et al. 1987, 94, s.v.; at Lidoriki, Bommeljé et al.
1987, 92 (s.v. Lidoriki B, C); at Kallithea, Bommeljé et al. 1987, 86 (s.v Kallithea B, C); at
Kisseli, Lerat 1952 I, 114f. Bommeljé et al. 1987, 110 (s.v. Tolophon F, G). Portelanos 1998,
621–738.
39 So far jar-burials have been found in Hesperia Lokris at the following places: a) at Louza, adult
jar-burial positioned slanted on the ground and with its mouth covered with rocks, while on the
inside there were a few vessels and some jewelry that have been dated to the 5 th century BCE.
At some distance from the previous grave, to the North of the present-day village of Eratini, a
jar-burial was found, inside which were found four coins: one silver obol of the Opountian
Lokrians minted in 369–338 BCE and three bronze coins of Philip II and from Elateia dated to
the 2nd cent. BCE, Ph. Zaphiropoulou, AD 31, 1976, Chronicles, B1, 165. The oldest jar-burial
least as a unique people. However, at the same time in Hesperian Lokris during the
Archaic period we have evidence of elaborate arrangements40 to say nothing of the
observance of regulations put forward in decrees that will be discussed later.
This last contrast between the living standards and the advanced institutions
attested in Hesperian Lokris requires the examination of similar evolutions in
Opountian Lokris. At the other end of the “Doric Corridor”, in Eastern Lokris, many
fortified settlements dated to the Archaic period have been documented,41 and the
program of fortifying settlements has been envisaged as the result of the fresh ac-
quisition of Lokrian independence from the Thessalian yoke.42 Besides, in
Opountian Lokris the most common method of burying the dead, even adults, dur-
ing the Archaic and Classical periods and even as late as the early Hellenistic period
was jar-burial,43 thus making both areas inhabited by the Lokrians the only places
where this burial practice was performed. The connection of these places by means
of funerary practices is vivid, even though these kinds of approaches are viewed
with a certain degree of reservation.44
The relations between the two Lokrian branches also extends to the realm of
economics and the circulation of ancient coins throughout the area serves to further
support the conclusion that the Western Lokrians had especially close relations with
the Opountian Lokrians even up to the late Classical period. During the 4th century
BCE, cities in Eastern Lokris minted coins that displayed their common past by
means of decoration on the obverse of the coin.45 In Western Lokris, on the other
hand, coins were not minted except in very small quantities, beginning from the
period of the Aitolian occupation, since the early 3rd century46 and the lack of local
coinage throughout the entire previous period was covered by coins minted mainly
by the Opountian, the Epiknemedian and the Hypoknemidian Lokrians that circu-
lated in West Lokris. These observations are supported by sporadic finds and
mainly by the coin hoard that was found in 1984 during a rescue excavation in
Amphissa. Eastern Lokrian coins constitute 51% percent of the total, whereas for
is that found at Marathias, which can be dated to the first third of the 7 th century, based upon
burial offerings found inside, at Amphissa, R. Kolonia, AD 44, 1989, Chronicles B1, 190 and
at Naupaktos, I. Dekoulakou, AD 28, 1973, Chronicles B2, 390–393; M. Petritaki, AD 42, 1987,
Chronicles B1, 172.
40 From Oeantheia comes the most ancient – middle of the 6th century – attestation of a proxeny
(IG IX.1 867).
41 Archaic fortifications in Opountian Lokris, Bouyia 2000.
42 Fossey 1990, 140f. Dominguez 2013b, 453. For an updated evaluation of the relations between
East Lokrians and Thessalians, cf. Dominguez 2015.
43 At Kynos (mod. Pyrgos, Livanates) and its environs, Onassoglou 1988; Fossey 1990, 82, 85;
at Tragana, s.v. n. 24.
44 O’Shea 1984, 299, where the disadvantages of the association between mortuary practices and
ethnic group affiliation are pointed out; nevertheless, in the case of the two Lokrians, the argu-
ment of the mortuary practice is an addition to the documentation of their affinity, let alone the
fact that their common funerary rites were practiced as long as they maintained their tight bonds
and were gradually changed during the Hellenistic period.
45 Daverio 2013, 148–9; Pascual 2013, 502–3, both with previous bibliography.
46 Liampi 1995–1996.
the 4th and 3rd centuries the percentage of coins minted in Opountian Lokris in-
creases.47
The lack of minted coins in Hesperian Lokris is related to the belated activity
that led to the political unification of the area. During the 5th century BCE the Lo-
krians held diverging stances as to their preferences towards the major political co-
alitions of the time, a behavior that should be ascribed to the overwhelmingly per-
suasive effect of the actual presence of the Persian, Athenian, and later, of the Spar-
tan, armies in their land.48 The data rather exclude the possibility that in the 5th
century there existed any mechanism of collective decision-making among the Hes-
perian Lokrians. Their stance throughout the second half of the century casts light
on the lack of political unanimity. At the beginning of the Peloponnesian War the
Western Lokrians were allies of the Athenians, and appeared eager to support De-
mosthenes with all their military strength, so that he might be able to attack the
Aitolians. In the end, their assistance was futile, most likely due to haste on the part
of the Athenians, causing a heavy defeat for Athens at the hands of the Aitolians.
In response, the Spartans began to attack Naupaktos during the same summer, hav-
ing first made their way through Hesperian Lokris. During this operation, they
found the Amphissaeans to be fervent supporters of their efforts, while among the
rest of the Lokrians some supported the Spartan force, but without the same fervor,
φοβουμένους τὸν ἐπιόντα στρατόν, “for fear of the oncoming army”, while others
did not approve at all.
It is particularly likely that the conditions for the creation of a unified confed-
eracy in Hesperian Lokris began to bear fruit no earlier than the second quarter of
the fourth century. During the archonship of Argilius, between the years 360–357
BCE., a list was drawn up of supporters for the restoration of the temple of Apollo
that had been destroyed in 373 BCE. Among the financial contributors of the Hes-
perian Lokrians a name is mentioned, which we ought to understand, not in terms
of geography, but in a political sense. An even more certain testimony is found in
the form of an inscription in present-day Malandrino, ancient Physkeis, in which
there is an explicit reference to the koinon of the Hesperian Lokrians.49 Taking this
inscription as a firm basis, some scholars have interpreted Thucydides’ collective
reference to the Ozolian Lokrians as allies of the Athenians, as indirect testimony
that already from the 5th century there existed a centralized mechanism for decision-
47 The dating of several published coins, especially those from rescue excavations, would be wel-
comed; e.g. AD 31, 1976, Chronicles B1, 161, where it is reported that a jar burial contained a
coin of Lacedaemon dated prior to 250 BCE and one of the Aitolian Koinon, dated to 179–168
BCE. Taking into consideration Liampi 1995–1996, the latter could be contemporary to the
former.
48 Daverio Rocchi 2013, 151.
49 Lerat 1952 I, 133f; II, 55–60. IG IX I2 3 665. Daverio Rocchi 2000; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 192.
making within the area,50 in which the most advanced and populated city of Hespe-
rian Lokris, Amphissa, most probably did not participate.51 This kind of develop-
ment could have taken place within the context of the policies that were formed
through the Peace of Antalcidas and the pursuits of Epameinondas shortly after 367
BCE.52
The most important information concerning Hesperian Lokris is derived from
the ancient sanctuary of Agios Vlassis, in the vicinity of Chaleion, which has al-
ready been discussed. The significance of the sanctuary for the surrounding area
must have been quite substantial. If the location had not been subject to such a large
degree to looting by illicit dealers of antiquities, it might have been able to provide
us with valuable information concerning the function of the sanctuary in the sur-
rounding area, or even in Hesperian Lokris in general, as can be assumed by the
deposition of the two bronze tablets dated to the 5th century, which are said to have
been found at the site. The first of these is the bronze tablet, in which a τεθμός is
recorded, a law probably dated to the early fifth century, judging by the shape of
the letters,53 and in any case prior to the occupation of Naupaktos by the Athenians
in approximately 458 BCE, after the conclusion of the 3rd Messenian war.54 With
the law that was approved by the Eastern Lokrians, a certain number of citizens
from Hypoknimidian Lokris and Chaleion was designated to be dispatched to Nau-
paktos, with the participation of a group of Chaleians, whose leader was a certain
Antiphatas.55 Naming the place where the settlers had to arrive (ll.1–2) is an indi-
cation that there was a pre-existing community there, even though the latter was
most likely not very populous,56 and his campaign should have aimed at the rein-
forcement of the local Lokrian element.57 The law of Chaleion must have set the
legal framework for the arrangements needed to dispatch fresh settlers to an already
extant Lokrian settlement, which itself was located in an especially strategic geo-
graphical position. On the other hand, the terms indicate that privileges were
granted to the future settlers in order to encourage their relocation (ll. 4–6; 32–36),
to discourage their precocious return to Eastern Lokris without leaving behind (in
Naupaktos) a son or a brother (ll.6–8). But at the same time other stipulations of the
document express the precautions taken by the issuing authorities to prevent any
secession of these settlers from the control of the Opountians (l. 12–14; 15–16). In
50 Lerat 1952 II, 55f. Many scholars presume that this koinon pre-existed, probably since the 5th
c.; Dominguez 2008, 323.
51 Lerat 1952 II, 56–60; Dominguez 2008, 323.
52 Diod. 15, 75, 2; Lerat 1952 II, 55–57; Daverio Rocchi 2013, 146.
53 Jeffery 1990, 104–106.
54 Thuc. 1.103; Tod 1933, no 24; Lerat 1952 II, 29–32; IG IX.I2 3, 718; Graham 1964, 44–68;
Larsen 1968, 45–58; Effenterre, Ruzé 1994, 178–185, nr. 43; Beck 1999; Dominguez 2008,
324–345; Dominguez 2013b, 457–461; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 186–190.
55 Cf. previous n.
56 At Naupaktos with the exception of scant archaeological findings which are dated to the geo-
metric period (Saranti 2006, 501 n. 12), the human presence does not antedate the decree, as
the finds – at least all that have been discovered and published up to the present – are mainly
dated to the 5th century and later.
57 Dominguez 2013b, 457.
addition, hints are given as to the legal status, not just of the settlers to Naupaktos,
but to the Hesperian Lokrians collectively: at lines 10–11 it is stated that the colo-
nists are exempted from the obligation to pay taxes except in common with the
Western Lokrians.58 This last reference is often considered an indirect reference to
a loose federal organization in Hesperian Lokris,59 as opposed to that in Eastern
Lokris, where the cities are thought to have constituted a federal assembly of dele-
gates aristocratic in origin, the “Thousand Opountians”.60
Another source of information on the movement and relations of populations
in West Lokris during the Archaic period is an inscription found at the fringes of
the Hesperian Lokrian territory61 dated to the transition from the sixth to the fifth
century. It records the activity of two councils, the πρείγα and the ἀποκλεσία, the
latter of which probably consisted of one hundred and one members, as well as the
πόλις, seemingly the assembly of the citizens.62 The sanctuary of Chaleion is re-
ported to have produced yet another inscription describing the relations between the
Oianthians and the Chaleians.63 The inscription is most likely near in date to the
previous one found at Chaleion, from the middle of the 5th century or earlier. The
text is composed of two parts; in the first part the seizure of citizens’ property in
the territory of the other city is regulated, as well as the legal status of citizens res-
ident in the other city. In the second part provisions on diplomatic relations and
legal procedures are recorded. It is, in other words, a treaty with which the two
interested parties drew up the nature of their diplomatic relations. The context of
the regulations does not leave much room to support the view that the two contract-
ing parties had very close ties, as if they were parts of a federal state or even that
they shared consciousness of a common descent. The law regulates the attitude to-
wards citizens’ private property of two distant, yet neighboring, communities that
in no case had developed any sense of sharing any common interests or traditions.
The treaty could have literarily been signed by any two communities whatsoever.64
When all the above is taken into consideration, it can be deduced that, with the
exception of Amphissa and the eastern part of the region in general, the gradual
development of the Lokrian element originating from Opountia occurred during the
Archaic Period.65 The fact that this settlement took place very early on is most likely
responsible for the similarities between the two branches of the Lokrian ethnos such
58 We prefer the translation of ll. 10/11 ότι μὲ <μ>ετὰ Λοϙρο͂ν το͂ν Ϝεσπαρί |ον as in common (as
Tod 1933, 34) with rather than among the Hesperian Lokrians.
59 Larsen 1968, 55; Dominguez 2008, 324; Daverio Rocchi 2013, 140; Lerat 1952 II, 31 did not
consider this reference decisive for the existence of a Hesperian Lokrian confederation.
60 Larsen 1968, 52–54; Beck 1999; Dominguez 2013b, 459.
61 There are reservations whether this inscription should be ascribed to an Aitolian or Lokrian
territory, since the circumstances under which it was discovered are vague; for a constructive
summary of the views, Gschnitzer 1991, 81–84.
62 Effenterre, Ruzé 1994, 186–193, n. 44; Daverio Rocchi 2015, 184–185.
63 Tod 1933, 63–66, nr. 34; IG IX.1², 3 717; Larsen 1968, 54f; Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, 216–
221 no. 53.
64 Larsen 1968, 52, 55–56, 58.
65 Gschnitzer 1991, 89.
as the patterns of habitation, the fact that the sources refer to the Lokrians as a uni-
fied group, with no distinction into branches, the mortuary practices, even the struc-
ture of the local aristocracy. The one hundred families at the top of the social pyra-
mid in Opountian Lokris, known from ancient authors, find their parallel in the one
hundred and one select citizens that would decide to call upon two hundred addi-
tional soldiers in case of a conflict, as we learn from the inscription dated to the end
of the sixth century from the vicinity of Naupaktos.66 In the inscription regulating
the colony of Naupaktos it is designated that one hundred Naupactian men may
impose the oath upon the Opountians thirty years from the time of the original oath-
taking, and the Opountians upon the Naupaktians.
A crucial point in the historical evolution of Hesperian Lokris was the emer-
gence and the expansionistic policy of the Aitolians, as early as the 5th century.
During the Peloponnesian War, the Aitolians were fervent supporters of the Spar-
tans, and the outcome of the confrontation resulted in the strengthening of their
presence in the area. After Demosthenes’ disastrous campaign, the Aitolians laid
their hands on the western part of the Lokrian region, and as a result they occupied
Molykreion, Makyneia, and the suburbs of Naupaktos,67 an area that constituted a
territory hence named as Αἰτωλία ἐπίκτητος, as distinct from ἀρχαία Αἰτωλία,68
designating the western end of Hesperian Lokris that was acquired earlier than the
rest of Lokris, which in its entity would constitute the Λοκρικὸν τέλος69. Due to the
lack of documentation we cannot confirm or deny whether the city of Naupaktos
itself was integrated into the Aitolian state towards the end of the fourth or the be-
ginning of the third century, since the city was delivered by Philip to the Aitolians
in 338 BCE only to be lost two years later, perhaps by the same king’s interven-
tion.70 The Aitolians’ ambitions for territorial expansion to the east were revealed
when in 321 BCE they invaded Western Lokris and plundered the territory of Am-
phissa, before they were forced by the Akarnanians to withdraw.71 The consolida-
tion of the Aitolian presence in Lokrian territory must have been accomplished
gradually by the end of the 280’s, reaching completion perhaps as late as the begin-
ning of the 260’s, as can be assumed by the proxeny decrees of Lokrian cities.72
The Aitolian conquest would have brought on the weakening of relations between
66 See n. 58 – 61.
67 Thuc. 3.94; Plut. Nic. 6; Diod. 12.60; Grainger 1999, 94f; Freitag 2001, 64.
68 Str. 10.2.3 (= C 450). For the gradual acquisition of West Lokrians’ lands by the Aitolians, cf.
Grainger 1999, 87–104; Scholten 2000, 16–25.
69 Corsten 1999.
70 Bosworth 1976; Grainger 1999, 94; Freitag 2001, 87. On the issue of Philipp’s intervention in
Naupaktos, cf. Rzepka 2004.
71 Grainger 1999, 96.
72 IG IX.1.5 (for a citizen from Chaleion, issued on the first strategy of Charixenos I, early 280’s);
IG IX.1.12a (for a family from Amphissa, late 270’s); to this is added the dispatch of two Lo-
krian hieromnemones in 269/8 and 268/7, (Flacelière 1937, 391 no. 11) and the fact that among
the Lokrians only the Amphissaeans are explicitly named as fighting by the side of the Aitolians
against the Celts in 279 BCE. Cf. Grainger 1999, 95.
Hesperian and Opountian Lokris, even though Eastern Lokris was occupied by the
Aitolians as well in the ensuing years.73
Hesperian Lokrians themselves held Opous to be their ultimate fatherland.74
Numerous other testimonia lead us to understand the close relations between the
eastern and Western Lokrians, which also explains why the latter share a hereditary
sin with the former. In beginning of the 3rd century,75 an inscribed stele was erected
in Vitrinitsa, with an agreement between the citizens of Naryka in eastern Lokris
and a local tribe, the Aianteians of Naryka.76 The agreement refers to their commit-
ment to send young girls to Ilion as expiation for the sacrilege that Ajax committed
in the sanctuary of Athena Troas after the capture of Troy, in exchange for eco-
nomic and political privileges. Despite the fact that neither the Western nor the
Eastern Lokrians are mentioned in what has been preserved of the inscribed stele,
the discovery of the inscription in Western Lokris — provided that its size would
have made transporting the stone impossible — along with the invocation of all
Lokrians collectively, and the subject of the regulation that dates back to a common
ancestral sin, whose consequences were borne by all the descendants of Lokrian
Ajax, all together point to the conclusion that all Lokrians, regardless of the place
they lived, must have been also involved in the expiation. Furthermore, the fact
that in all probability the regulations are meant to increase the consequences of the
chastisement can be considered as the conclusion of a religious pendency77 within
the Aitolian territory, perhaps after the intervention of the Aitolians themselves.
There would be no better place to erect the decree that settled the protracted issue
than right in the middle of Hesperian Lokris, where according to Oldfather a sanc-
tuary was erected.78 This longstanding tradition between the Lokrians and the city
of Ilion, where the sacrilege took place, could probably explain the institution of
the worship of Athena Ilias among the Physkeis79 where later the Hesperian Lokri-
ans later had the seat of their koinon. It is perhaps noteworthy that the inscription is
dated after the annexation of Opountian Lokris by the Aitolians, when both
branches of the Lokrian ethnos were combined under one political framework.
73 Grainger 1999, 122–129, esp. 124.

74 Cf. n. 8.
75 The date of the inscription is not undisputable, since there are no internal references and it is
primarily based on the form of the letters. We would not exclude the possibility that the in-
scription would not postdate the acquisition of Hesperia Lokris by the Aitolians, thus it would
not be later than the 2nd decade of the 3rd cent. BCE, as indeed is suggested by the form of the
letters.
76 IG IX.12. 3. 706.
77 Leaf 1914/1915, 150f. Leaf follows Wilhelm’s dating of the inscription in the period 275–240
BCE.
78 Oldfather 1926, 1146. The temple’s foundations that were seen by Oldfather were not visible
even at the time when Lerat visited the site in 1949: Lerat 1952 I, 110. Daverio Rocchi 2013,
153, relates the finding place of the inscription with the tradition recorded by Plutarch, Qu. Gr.
15, according to which Oeantheia and Physkeis descendent from Lokros, thus the two cities
were related and the choice for the erection of the stele is owed to cultic traditions.
79 As Daverio Rocchi 2013, 147. For the function of the sanctuary of Athena Ilias as the federal
religious center, cf. Lerat 1952 II, 119–123, 156–158.
What is more evident in Lokrian territory after the Aitolians had absorbed their
land is the widespread change in the pattern of habitation. Some of the settlements
already discussed were increased in the Hellenistic Period to small or medium-sized
fortified cities, thus introducing the pattern of walled settlements in this area. 80 As
far as the question of whether the village-like settlements were abandoned in favor
of walled cities or if the latter were organized independently, the present state of
our knowledge does not leave room for answers. Nevertheless, surveys report that
the komai were still inhabited during the Hellenistic Period, as was also the case in
Aitolia until the second century.81 The role of the Aitolians in the emergence of
walled cities in the area must have been decisive. Lerat, to whom we owe the most
complete study on Hesperian Lokris, believed that the defensive walls of the Lo-
krian cities must be dated back to the period of the Aitolian domination.82 This
development can be supported in certain cases with rather convincing evidence.
Place-names, which were probably assigned to komai, are no longer mentioned after
this period; this is the case with the Messapians83 as well as with the Hessioi,84 the
Hyaioi85 and the Olpaioi,86 names which are only referred to by Thucydides.87 It is
noteworthy that later inscriptions also mention the names of communities, which
probably inhabited similar komai, some of which are known to have been dependent
upon certain poleis.88 In any case, these komai must have been rather exceptions to
the normal habitation pattern. The settlements in the area of Galaxidi – which were
discussed earlier in connection with the ancient sanctuary at Agios Vlassis – did not
outlive the Classical period, according to our available documentation. Rather, it
can be said with relative certainty that the only settlement that existed in the area
80 I am reluctant to use the term ‘urbanization’, which is frequently used for other areas in Central
Greece, since no archaeological excavations have been conducted in any of the cities of Hes-
perian Lokris and thus the elements that show the ‘urban’ character of a site are not evident.
Whether the Aitolians triggered the evolution of gathering into walled settlements or this evo-
lution would have taken place any way even without the intervention of the Aitolians cannot
be decided. It is nevertheless worth mentioning that in Aitolia the development of ‘städtische
Siedlungszentren’, as Funke 1977, 169 aptly describes it, can be recorded as early as the clas-
sical period. For Aitolia’s emergence of poleis, cf. Funke 1987; Funke 1987; 1991, esp. 328–
332, and 1997, 169–172; Rzepka 2009, 16; cf. also Scholten 2000, 2 (by the end of the 4 th
century BCE, as a result of contacts with other Greeks).
81 Funke 1997, 156.
82 Lerat 1952 II, 69; Valavanis 1980, 339f; Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2003, 26 n. 65. On the
contrary, Portelanos 1998, 659, 846, 902–906 states that the walls must predate the Aitolian
domination, in the 4th c. BCE.
83 Oldfather 1931, 1207f; Lerat 1952 I, 210; II, 85. According to Lerat 1952 I, 35 the Messapians
were the people who, since the 3rd cent. BCE, bore the name Physkeis, a view disproved by
subsequent studies, cf. Rousset 2002, 18.
84 Lerat 1952 I, 32–34, 212f.
85 Lerat 1952 I, 31f, 97.
86 Lerat 1952 I, 13–15, 212.
87 These observations should probably be taken with some reservation, since future epigraphic
finds might bring significant reconsiderations.
88 Stieis and Peleoi, people living in a kome near Amphissa: Lerat 1952 I, 50, 60–63; Phalika,
Lerat 1952 I, 63; Axia, Lerat 1952 I, 18. Kase et al. 1991, 92f. Rousset 2004.
during this period was Chaleion, present-day Galaxidi. The time at which the set-
tlement was established cannot be ascertained with certainty, but it is very probable
that it was founded in the closing years of the fourth century or at the beginning of
the third century BCE,89 when the walls of the city were erected. We can see anal-
ogous developments in locations throughout the length of the coastal area, where
important and extensive cities arose. On the present-day Coast of Tolophon
(Παραλία Τολοφῶνος) archaeological excavations have brought to light parts of
residences dated to the third and second centuries.90 It is not impossible that at least
some of these settlements could be related to some sanctuary. Apart from the one
in the region of Chaleion already discussed, other sanctuaries are known from later
sources: a sanctuary of Apollo Phaistinos at Oeantheia, modern Panormos,91 one
dedicated to Athena Ilias in Physkeis, the sanctuary of Nemean Zeus, well-known
from the campaign of Demosthenes, located near the site where the Athenian army
disembarked, at Oeneon, present-day Klima, as well as the infamous sanctuary of
Asclepius near Naupaktos.92
After the Aitolians absorbed their land, the Lokrians participated to the fullest
in the political conditions that were shaped by the Aitolian order. Lokrians partici-
pated in the Aitolian political life, while at the same time the maintenance of their
distinctive local identity would be facilitated by the division of the Aitolian state in
τέλη, to which the ethnic character was significant.93 Having occupied the land of
the ethne participating in the Amphiktyony, the Aitolians took over their seats at
the congress as well, and, as a result, by 262 BCE the Aitolians had acquired nine
seats. Likewise, it seems that the Aitolians fully re-oriented the area’s defense sys-
tem, from Delphi to Aitolia. During the Hellenistic period towers were erected
throughout the length of the public pathways, as well as at certain strategic loca-
tions.94 In this way the Aitolians exercised control over communications and traffic,
while also securing the fortified cities.
89 The archaeological research at Galaxidi has been conducted within the limited bounds of rescue
excavations and therefore no decisive conclusions can be drawn on the foundation of the city
and its historical evolution. The most extensive research was that of Threpsiadis in 1940, during
which a monumental burial construction was unearthed; unfortunately, the documentation and
the results of that research is lacking. Nevertheless, Threpsiadis 1972, 200f dates the circuit
wall in the 4th c. BCE, whereas Themelis, AD 33, 1978, Chronicles, B1, 146–148, in the period
320–290 BCE. Also cf. Mpaziotopoulou-Valavanis 2003, 25f n.62 and 64, where all the refer-
ences are collected.
90 Ground plan of the fortification wall, ap. R. Kolonia, D. Skorda, AD 46, 1991, Chronicles B1,
200. R. Kolonia, AD 52, 1997 Chronicles B2, 448.
91 For the identification of Panormos with Oeantheia, cf. Themelis 2003, 33. For the location of
Oeantheia at Glyfa cf. Raptopoulos and Tsaroucha 2012.
92 For the cults in Hesperian Lokris, Lerat 1952 II, 143–169.
93 Sordi 1953, 444 (= Gschnitzer 373f); Larsen 1968, 197f; Funke 1997, 158. Corsten 1999, 132–
159 favors the opinion that τέλη were not ethnic entities but organizational districts based on
the proportionality.
94 Plut. Demetr. 40.7 …Τῶν δὲ Πυθίων καθηκόντων, πρᾶγμα καινότατον ἐπέτρεψεν αὑτῷ ποιεῖν
ὁ Δημήτριος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ Αἰτωλοὶ τὰ περὶ Δελφοὺς στενὰ κατεῖχον…; cf. Flacelière 1937, 68–80,
esp. 76, who accepts that Aitolians also controlled Delphi since 290/289 BCE; Grainger 1999,
We find ourselves on more solid ground, in relation to the image of Hesperian

Lokris, after the recovery of their independence from the Aitolians in the aftermath
of the battle of Pydna.95 It is certain that the cities at the western edge of West Lokris
up to Naupaktos would not have participated in the re-established koinon.96 The
same applies for the Amphissaeans and it is also probable that this was the case for
Chaleion.97 As a result, the revived Κοινὸν τῶν Λοκρῶν, the Lokrian koinon, as
seems to be its official name,98 consisted merely of the central part of the Hesperian
Lokris of the early Classical period, and more specifically of the six cities Oian-
theia, Tolophon, Phaistinos, Tritaia,99 Myonia and Physkeis, the seat of the koinon.
The reference point for the koinon headed by the agonothetēs100 was probably the
sanctuary of Athena Ilias, where fifteen manumission decrees were found. 101 De-
spite the fact that the Amphissaeans did not participate in the koinon,102 they do not
seem to have given up their Lokrian heritage. In a decree issued at Delphi between
the years 135–128 BCE,103 certain judges receive honors for having solved judicial
contests, not necessarily based on land claims, which had arisen between the city
and certain opponents who in the decree are named Lokrians and could have been
none other than Amphissaeans, the only Lokrian people sharing borders with
Apollo’s land. In any case, it is significant that during the 2nd century it is possible
to see that ethnic identity is much broader than simply participating in the koinon.
89–100 observes that the control of the passages leading to Delphi is not the same as to control
the sanctuary itself. This notice does not weaken the argument that holding the passages equaled
the total control over Hesperia Lokris. The network of the towers is especially dense in the area
of modern Galaxidi as well as that of Delphi. In the area between Galaxidi and Itea two towers
(at Tsitome and Kamniotissa) were described by Lerat 1952 I, 150, 167 and in the past few
years their number has increased significantly in the area around Delphi (for which cf. Skorda
1992, 53–59) and in the region of Galaxidi (for which cf. Raptopoulos, Pilalas 2015); they all
either occupy prominent places or are situated next to paths, let alone the towers found earlier
by Lerat in the coastal and the continental regions of Lokris, Lerat 1952 I, 84, 113, 115, 173f.
All these towers will be systematically presented and discussed in a future study.
95 Flamininus’ policy left West Lokris unaffected as part of the Aitolian state; cf. Lerat 1952 II,
72.
96 Lerat 1952 II, 95–99 who takes account of the nationality of the officials, mentioned in the
manumission inscriptions.
97 Between the years 166/5 BCE and 122/1 BCE, out of the twenty-five manumission acts in
which Amphissaeans are mentioned – 45 in all from Lokris – not even one has been dated by
an official of the koinon, while in Amphissa they even use their local calendar. Perhaps the
Chaleians did not participate in the koinon for this very same reason as the Amphissaeans did
not.
98 IG IX2.1. 667. Funke 1997, 158 puts forward the assumption that the Lokrian koinon as well as
the other koina revived or created for the first time after 168 BCE.
99 Modern Penteoria, not to be confused with the modern name place Tritaia, ancient Hypnia.
100 The title denotes that he mainly had religious obligations; the Rhieia, a festival attested in West
Lokris in the late 1st cent. CE, hardly could be considered as the federal festival, since there are
no other testimonies but the reference of Plutarch Mor. 162, C-E.
101 Rousset 2006, 350–369 with previous references.
102 Lerat 1952 II, 117.
103 FD III.4. 169.
To name one example, a contemporary amphiktyonic catalogue presents an Am-

phissaean hieromnemon as representative of the Hesperian Lokrians. Whatever the
case may be, during the period after 167 BCE the western Lokrians seem to have
maintained only a weak recollection of their lineage from the Opountian Lokris.
Can the aforementioned observations offer insights into the ethnic identity of
the Hesperian Lokrians? There seems to be a stratification of facts and conditions
that all contribute to the non-formation of a distinctive, local Lokrian identity. With
the exception of the eastern part of Lokris, the land where the Lokrians were settled
was not uninhabited, but perhaps was not as densely populated as other regions in
central Greece. It is known that even during the 4th century in Naupaktos Achaians
were present,104 whereas Molykreion was colonized by Corinthian settlers by the
time Cypselus was tyrant. The extent to which the Lokrians have come to terms
with other populations cannot be underestimated. The infiltration of the Lokrians
originating from Opountian Lokris must have been completed over a period of sev-
eral centuries through the region of Amphissa, a place with which the ties were
never disrupted.105 Another stratification element was added with the Aitolian oc-
cupation; the Lokrians were henceforth politically considered Aitolians but main-
tained their distinctive Lokrian identity.
In this paper the archaeological documentation has served to approach the re-
gion and to re-examine the epigraphical and philological testimonies concerning
Hesperian Lokris. The observations made lead to the confirmation of the ancient
tradition, according to which Lokrians originating from Eastern Lokris settled to
Hesperian Lokris gradually since the Late Bronze Age until this movement’s com-
pletion as late as the Archaic Period. The basic channel of communication was an
ancient road that brought the plain of Pleistos into contact with central and southern
Greece even since the 2nd millennium, the so-called ‘Doric Corridor.’ Perhaps these
recollections are depicted in the tradition preserved by Plutarch, according to which
Lokros, the son of Physkos and descendant of Deukalion, crossed over to the other
side of the sea ὑπερβαίνων εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν θάλασσαν106, obviously by crossing over
the mountainous ridge of Ghiona. Plutarch’s tradition clearly constitutes an echo of
this journey. The consciousness of a common reference point and solidarity be-
tween the two populations may have been multidimensional and multi-faceted, and
exercised a formative influence on the construction of the Western Lokrians’ iden-
tity. The latter, especially during the Classical period, held the memory of their
heritage vividly in mind, which allowed them to maintain strong bonds with the
Opountians – before travelling on the path that would lead to their development as
a distinct collectivity. In a sense, these thoughts stretch the schema, according to
104 They were expelled from the Boiotians under Epameinondas (Diod. 15.75), but later, in 343/2
BCE, they were anew present at Naupaktos (Dem. Phil. 3.34). Lerat 1952 II, 49.
105 In Opountian Lokris during the period following the Late Bronze Age, since the Late Helladic
IIIB period (12th cent. BCE) until the Protogeometric period (10th cent. BCE), the number of
sites seem to have been reduced significantly, an observation that has been rightly connected
with the traditions on the colonization of West Lokris. Lerat 1952 II, 12–16; Fossey 1990, 105–
107, and n. 4, with further references.
106 Op.cit. n. 78.
which in the Archaic period there existed different levels of the feeling of member-
ship in major unities and channels of self-designation, especially in the poleis and
the ethnos.107 This latter notion should have been exceptionally intense and influ-
ential among the Lokrians, who chose to name their only colony, founded probably
on the initiative of the Opountians as early as the last quarter of the eighth century,
by the name of their ethnos, Lokroi, a choice associated with the importance of that
collectivity prior to and independently from the formation of the poleis.108 This
consciousness of their origins was not disrupted even after Hesperian Lokris was
subjected to the Aitolians, and the belief that they descended from Eastern Lokris
would linger on even well into the Imperial Period.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens. Image et religion, Paris.

Beck, H. (1999) Ostlokris und die “Tausend Opuntier”. Neue Überlegungen zum Siedlergesetz für
Naupaktos, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 124, 53–62.
Bommeljé, S. et al. (1987) Aetolia and the Aetolians: towards the interdisciplinary study of a Greek
region, Utrecht.
Bosworth, A.B. (1976) Early Relations between Aetolia and Macedon, American Journal of Ancient
History 1, 164–181.
Bouyia, P. (2000) Archaische Befestigungen in Polygonalmauerwerk in der Opuntischen Lokris, in
F. Krinzinger (ed.), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkun-
gen 8. bis 5. Jh. v.Chr. Akten des Symposions, Wien 24. bis 27. März 1999, Vienna, 67–75.
Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer
Bundesstaaten, München.
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2000) Physkos [2], Der Neue Pauly 8, Stuttgart/Weimar, 1000.
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2013), Ethnic Identity, Cults and Territorial Settlement: East and West
Lokrians, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries. Identity
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2015) The Lokrians and their Federal Leagues, in H. Beck and P. Funke
(eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 179–198.
Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2008) Ethnos, koinon and polis among the Lokrians, in M. Lombardo
(ed.), Forme sovrapoleiche e interpoleiche di organizzazione nel mondo greco antico, atti del
convegno internazionale, Lecce, 17–20 septembre 2008, Lecce, 322–334.
Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2013a) Early Settlement and Configuration of the Archaic Poleis, in J.
Pascual and M.–F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian
Locris, Leiden/Boston 405–443.
Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2013b) The Late Archaic Period, in J. Pascual and M.-F. Papakonstan-
tinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 445–
470.
Domínguez Monedero, A.J. (2015) Eastern Lokris between Thessaly and Phokis, in A. Mazarakis
Ainian (ed.), Archaiologiko ergo Thessalias kai Stereas Helladas, Volos, 883–892.
Effenterre, H.v., and F. Ruzé (1994) Nomima : recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de
l’archaisme grec I, Rome.
Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aetoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe
siècle av. J.-C., Paris.
107 Morgan 2003, 113; Dominguez 2013a, 417.

108 Musti 1977, 25–27; Dominguez 2013a, 416.
Fossey, J.M. (1990) The Ancient Topography of Opountian Lokris, Amsterdam.

Freitag, K. (2001) Der Golf von Korinth. Historisch-topographische Untersuchungen von der Ar-
chaik bis in das 1. Jh. v. Chr., Münster.
Funke, P. (1987) Zur Datierung befestigter Stadtanlagen in Aetolien: Historisch-philologische An-
merkungen zu einem Wechselverhältnis zwischen Siedlungsstruktur und politischer Organisa-
tion, Boreas 10, 87–96.
Funke, P. (1991) Zur Ausbildung städtischer Siedlungszentren in Aetolien, in E. Olshausen and H.
Sonnabend (ed.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 2, 1984
und 3, 1987, Bonn, 313–332.
Funke, P. (1997) Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aetolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr., in M.H. Hansen
(ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 145–188.
Graham, A.J. (1964) Colony and mother city in ancient Greece, New York.
Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aetolians, Leiden.
Gschnitzer, F. (1991) Zum Vorstoß von Acker- und Gartenbau in die Wildnis: Das “Westlokrische
Siedlungsgesetz” (IG. IX, 12. 609) in seinem agrargeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, Ktema 16,
81–91.
Jacquemin, A. et al. (2012) Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et commentées, Athènes.
Jeffery, L.H. (1990) The local scripts of archaic Greece. A study of the origin of the Greek alphabet
and its development from the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C., Oxford.
Kase, E.W. and G. Szemler (1979/1983) The Amphiktyonic League and the First Sacred War: a
New Perspective, in J. Harmatta (ed.), Proceedings of the VIIth International Federation of the
Societies of Classical Studies I, Budapest, 109–116.
Kase, E.W. (ed.) (1991) The Great Isthmus Corridor route, explorations of the Phokis–Doris expe-
ditions, Dubuque.
Kourachanis, P. (1992) Η αρχαία Άμφισσα στο φως της αρχαιολογικής έρευνας, Φωκικά Χρονικά
4, 98–115.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1968) Greek Federal States, their institution and history, Oxford.
Lefèvre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athènes.
Lerat, L. (1952) Les Locriens de l’Ouest, Paris.
Liampi, K. (1995–1996) On the chronology of the bronze Coinages of the Aetolian League and its
Members (Spearhead and Jawbone Types), Αρχαιογνωσία 9, 83–109.
Martin, R. (1965) Manuel d’architecture grecque I. Matériaux et techniques, Paris.
Mazarakis Ainian, A. (ed.) (2015) Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας 4, Πρακτικά
επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος, 15.3–18.3–2012 Τόμος ΙΙ: Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos.
Nerantzis, I.G. (2001) Η χώρα των Αιτωλών, συμβολή στη γεωπολιτική της οργάνωση, Crete.
Oldfather, W.A. (1926) Lokris, RE XIII, 1135–1288.
Oldfather W.A. (1931), RE XV, 1207–8.
Onassoglou, A. (1988) Ein Klappspiegel aus einem Grab in der Ostlokris, Archäologischer Anzeiger
25, 439–459.
O’Shea, J.M. (1984) Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation, Orlando.
Orgeolet, R., Skorda, D., Zurbach, J, & alii (2017) ‘un bilan d’étape, 1. La fouille et les structures
archéologiques’, BCH 141.2
Papakonstantinou, M.-F. (2014) Ex Umbra in Solem: το Κάστρο της Άμφισσας και η προοπτική
ανάδειξής του, in M.–F. Papakonstantinou (ed.), Το Κάστρο των Σαλώνων ('Αμφισσας), Am-
phissa, 19–32.
Papakonstantinou, M.-F. and E. Karantzali (2013) The Nekropoleis of Epicnemedian Lokris and
Dipotamos Valley, in J. Pascual and M.–F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History
of Ancient Epicnemedian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 225–262.
Papakonstantinou, M.-F. and M. Sipsi (2009) Το γεωμετρικό νεκροταφείο στη θέση Άγιος Δημή-
τριος Καινούργιου Νομού Φθιώτιδος, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 2ο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο
Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης. Βόλος, 16.3–19.3.2006.

Τόμος ΙΙ, Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, 1029–1042.
Pascual, J. and M.-F. Papakonstantinou (eds.) (2013) Topography and History of Ancient Epicnem-
idian Lokris, Leiden/Boston.
Pascual, J (2013), The Classical period (480–323 BC), in J. Pascual and M.–F. Papakonstantinou
(eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian Lokris, Leiden/Boston, 471–505.
Perdrizet, P. (1899) Notes ď épigraphie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 23, 344–348.
Petronotis, A. (1973) Αρχιτεκτονικά και οικιστικά μνημεία και ιστορικές θέσεις του Νομού Φωκί-
δος, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Στερεοελλαδικών Μελετών 4, 93–132.
Portelanos, A.K. (1998) Οι αρχαίες αιτωλικές οχυρώσεις, Athens.
Raptopoulos, S. and A. Tsaroucha (2012) Κάστρο Γλύφας – Δυτική Λοκρίδα: προβλήματα ταύτισης
και νέες προτάσεις, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 3ο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς
Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης. Βόλος, 12.3–15.3.2006. Τόμος ΙΙ, Στερεά
Ελλάδα, Volos, 1113–1119.
Raptopoulos, S. and I. Pilalas (2015) Πύργοι και αμυντικό δίκτυο στην Δ. Λοκρίδα των ελληνιστι-
κών χρόνων, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας
4, Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος, 15.3–18.3–2012 Τόμος ΙΙ: Στερεά Ελλάδα, Vo-
los, 785–792.
Rousset, D. (2004) West Lokris, in M. H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic
and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 381–398.
Rousset, D. (2006) Affranchissements de Physkeis en Locride occidentale, Bulletin de correspon-
dance hellénique 130, 349–379.
Rousset, D. and R. Kolonia (2011) Monuments funéraires de Locride occidentale, Chiron 41, 181–
216.
Rzepka, J. (2004) Phillip II of Macedon and the ‘Garrison of Naupaktos’: a Re–Interpretation of
Theopompus FGrHist 115 F 234, Tyche 19, 157–166.
Rzepka, J. (2009) The Aetolian Elite Warriors and Fifth-Century Roots of the Hellenistic Confed-
eracy, Akme 4, 7–34.
Sakellariou, M.B. (2009) Ethnè grecs à l’âge du Bronze, II Etoliens–Thessaliens, conclusions,
Athènes.
Sánchez, P. (2001) L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes : Recherches sur son rôle historique, des
origines au 2e siècle de notre ère, Stuttgart.
Saranti, E. (2006) Η αρχαία Ναύπακτος και η ευρύτερη περιοχή της, in Α΄ Αρχαιολογική Σύνοδος
Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, ΣΤ’ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων, 6 η Εφο-
ρεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων, Πάτρα, 9–12 Ιουνίου 1996, Πρακτικά, Athens, 499–510.
Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder. Aetolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic
Era, 279–217 B.C., Berkeley.
Scranton, R.L. (1941) Greek Walls, Cambridge.
Skorda, D. (1992) Recherches dans la vallée du Pléistos, in J.-F. Bommelaer (ed.), Delphes: Cente-
naire de la “grande fouille” réalisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes, 1892–1903: actes du
colloque Paul Perdrizet, Strasbourg, 6–9 novembre 1991, Leiden, 39–66.
Skorda, D. (2003) Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην περιοχή της Ιτέας και του Γαλαξειδίου, in P.C.
Themelis and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens,
1–9.
Sordi, M. (1953) Le origini del koinon etolico, Acme 6, 419–445.
Themelis, P. (1984) Δελφοί και περιοχή τον 8ο και 7ο π. Χ. αι. (Φωκίδα-Δυτική Λοκρίδα), ASAtene
LXI N.S., XLV 1983, Athens, 213–245.
Themelis, P. (2003) Ο Δαμοφών στην Οιάνθεια, in P.C. Themelis and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.),
Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 27–33.
Themelis, P. and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.) (2003) Το Γαλαξείδι από την αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα,
Athens.
Threpsiadis (1972): Ι. Threpsiadis, Ανασκαφή Γαλαξιδίου, ΑΕ (1972) 184–217.
Tod, M.N. (1933) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century B.C.,
Oxford.
Tsaroucha, A. (2006) Τα νεκροταφεία της Άμφισσας, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 1o Αρχαιολογικό
Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος 27.2–
2.3.2003. Τόμος 1, Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, 855–867.
Tsaroucha, A. (forthcoming) Η πορεία της Φωκίδας μέσα από τα νεκροταφεία των ιστορικών χρό-
νων, in 1ος Θεματικός Τόμος Δημοσίευσης Αποτελεσμάτων Σωστικών Ανασκαφικών Ερευνών
με Θέμα τα Νεκροταφεία.
Valavanis, P. (2003) “Μετακινήσεις” του Γαλαξειδιού στην Αρχαιότητα, in P.C. Themelis and R.
Stathaki–Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 11–26.
Zymi, E. and A. Sideris (2003) Χάλκινα σκεύη από το Γαλαξείδι: πρώτη προσέγγιση, in P.C. The-
melis and R. Stathaki-Koumari (eds.), Το Γαλαξίδι από την αρχαιότητα ως σήμερα, Athens, 35–
60.
THE BOIOTIANS: BETWEEN ETHNOS AND KOINA
Albert Schachter
McGill University
In Herodotus’ account of the events at Plataia in 519, the Thebans were advised by
the Corinthians to leave those of the Boiotians, who were unwilling to throw their
lot in with the Boiotoi, alone (ἐᾶν Θηβαίους Βοιωτῶν τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους ἐς
Βοιωτοὺς τελέειν: 6.108). Here we have, explicitly stated, the clear distinction be-
tween ‘Boiotoi’ as an ἔθνος, ‘a people’, and ‘Boiotoi’ as a political entity.
It is the object of this paper to investigate the differences between the Boiotoi
as a people — an ἔθνος — and the Boiotoi as a state, with a view to seeing how
they interacted with each other and with others, and how these relationships altered
over time. The unique aspect of Boiotia is that the evidence available makes it pos-
sible to do a diachronical survey virtually from one end of antiquity to the other.
I. THE ETHNOS1
We can begin by asking who the Boiotoi were. The obvious answer, that they were
the people who lived in the territory known as Boiotia, and who spoke a dialect of
Greek peculiar to themselves, is true enough, but only up to a point. The population
of Boiotia was made up of several elements and the limits of the territory fluctuated
over time, as a result of which there were times when not all so-called “Boiotians”
spoke in the Boiotian dialect.
The Boiotian ethnos was made up of several distinct groups of people. First,
there were the Boiotoi proper, who had migrated from the North and settled first at
Koroneia where they set up a sanctuary of their chief deity, Athena Itonia. Adjoin-
ing them were the so-called Minyans, who also came from the North, and were
based at Orchomenos; their territory covered the western and northern fringes of
the Kopaic basin. Their chief god was Zeus. In addition, there were groups who had
migrated from other places: the East, the Argolid; and a pocket of people in the
1 The earliest surviving reference to the Boiotian ethnos, in the sense of a ‘Boiotian people’ is
Pindar’s statement in one of his dithyrambs that ἦν ὅτε σύας Βοιώτιον ἔθνος ἔνεπον –– Fr. 83
– ‘there was a time when they called the Boiotian people ‘pigs’’. In the inscription which cel-
ebrates the victory of the Athenians over the Boiotoi and Chalkidians in 506 BCE, the defeated
enemies are identified as ἔθνεα Βοιοτõν καὶ Χαλκιδέον: CEG 1.179 (IG I3.501). Here, however,
ἔθνος does not mean ‘a people’; on the contrary, it carries the word’s original meaning of an
‘organized group’, such as a swarm of insects, or a band of men: the expression therefore means
the ‘armies of the Boiotoi and of the Chalkidians’.
66 Albert Schachter
south-eastern part of the region’s territory who were ethnically linked to the Eretri-
ans across the Euboian Strait.
Underlying all of these groups were the descendants of the Bronze Age popu-
lation. It is unlikely that the mass of population, the lower classes and slaves, van-
ished when the Mycenaean palace régimes collapsed. They had no alternative but
to stay where they were. These people may very well have formed the largest single
element in the population of what came to be known as Boiotia. Traces of their
presence survived into the Hellenic period in their place names, the gods they wor-
shipped, and no doubt the language they spoke.2 Their communities, leaderless and
isolated, were forced to develop independently in their own relatively small territo-
ries. Unity returned with the introduction of new ruling elites, whom we know as
the Minyai and the Boiotoi. They were in a sense the Normans or Vikings of the
Greek Dark Age, relatively small groups of people in search of some place to live,
who took advantage of the disorganized state of affairs they found.
The territory which we know as Boiotia was limited on the southwest by the
Gulf of Corinth, on the northeast by the Euboian Strait. To the west, the territory of
the so-called ‘Minyans’ of Orchomenos was squeezed in between the Phokians and
the Boiotoi proper. It was open to contact, and by the same token vulnerable to
pressure from both sides. Fitting the Orchomenians into Boiotia was a recurring
problem.
In the south, Kithairon and Parnes formed a natural boundary, but one which
was disputed until at least late in the sixth century. In the case of the Skourta Plain,
a no-man’s land was agreed upon formally by the Boiotians, Athenians, and Corin-
thians: all of these people used this plain as an upland pasture. In the southeast were
the Oropians and their territory, who had close ties with the Eretrians across the
Euboian Strait with whom they shared at the least a common dialect.3
Finally, in the north, the northern coastal fringes of the Kopais were always
Boiotian, but the regions beyond Hyettos and Kopai were for most of antiquity Lo-
krian, but occasionally part of Boiotia in a political sense. The Boiotian dialect
probably developed on the spot from the form of Greek spoken during the Bronze
Age, with an admixture of North-West Greek elements, which together gave it its
special characteristics.4
In sum, the Boiotian ἔθνος was a combination of peoples who inhabited the
same space, and who by and large spoke the same language.
II. THE BEGINNINGS OF A STATE
One might be permitted to think that, with a more or less clearly defined territory
and a distinctive dialect shared by almost all the inhabitants, it would have been a
2 Schachter 2016a, 3–21. See too Schachter 1996a and 2000.

3 The Skourta Plain: Schachter 2016a, 91–94.
4 Vottéro 2006.
The Boiotians: Between ethnos and koina 67
simple matter for the Boiotian ἔθνος to transform itself into a single viable political
state. But it was not.
There are no doubt several reasons why this was so, but for me one stands out.
Unlike the successful unitary states of Athens and Sparta, Boiotia was full of small,
independent poleis, at least four of which — Thebes, Orchomenos, Thespiai, Plataia
— had their own circle of dependent communities. There were internal tensions,
and outsiders regularly played upon the basic instability of the Boiotian state by
supporting separatist interests in Plataia, Thespiai and Orchomenos. The will to
unite under the leadership of a single polis — in this case, Thebes — was not strong.
As mentioned above, the migrations of the so-called Dark Age saw the arrival of
two tribes from central Thessaly, whom we know as Boiotoi and Minyans. They
appear in the record first in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships, at the time of whose
composition they were still split into groups – the first under five chieftains, the
second under two. Together they would eventually provide the seven regions into
which Boiotia was later divided. There is no overall leader in the Catalogue, and
no obvious contender for the position, although Hypothebai, like the sanctuary of
Onchestos, gets a line to itself.
One of the major components in the Boiotian mosaic, the Minyans of Orchome-
nos, were hemmed in by their neighbours on all sides. The Boiotoi themselves were
based, as we know — but not from Homer — at the sanctuary of Athena Itonia at
Koroneia. They had room to expand, eastwards and southwards, and they did so. It
was inevitable that the Minyans would one day wish to break out of the strict bound-
aries which constrained them. There are signs that this happened during the first
half of the sixth century, but any further expansion was blocked by the ambitions
of a relatively new player: Thebes. Hellenic Thebes had begun to take shape in the
eighth century: its founding population — it is one of the few poleis in mainland
Greece to have a foundation legend (two, in fact), in much the same way as an
ἀποικία – was made up of local peoples from the original townsite and surrounding
countryside, and migrants from other parts of Greece, notably the Argolid, and from
Asia Minor. These were the so-called Spartoi, the ‘Sown Men’, or rather the people
of diverse origins. The polis of Thebes, beginning as Hypothebai (the town below
Thebai) and focussed on the adjacent sanctuaries of Apollo Ismenios and Herakles,
had, by the middle of the sixth century, extended its influence over eastern Boiotia.
Either at the same time or during the third quarter of the sixth century, it arrived at
some sort of rapprochement with the Thespians, whom they protected at the siege
of Keressos. From there their ambitions spread to the Kopais where they collided
with the Orchomenians, who were at the time the principal power in the area. The
result was a defeat for Orchomenos and the absorption of the cities of the Kopais
into the Theban sphere of influence. Their subsequent attempt to bring the Plataians
into line failed, as we all know, in 519, and the southern boundary of Boiotia was
effectively fixed at the Asopos.5
5 The developments outlined here are dealt with in Schachter 2014 and Schachter 2016a, chapters
1 to 4 and 11.
68 Albert Schachter
I have already alluded to Herodotus’ account of the events of 519 BCE. The
theme is reprised by Thucydides, who has the Thebans trace their problems with
the Plataians back to the time when, after having secured the rest of Boiotia and
subsequently done the same for Plataia and other regions from which they had
driven out ‘peoples who did not belong here’ (ξυμμεικτοὺς ἀνθρώπους), they found
that the Plataians had gone back on their word and were now refusing to submit to
their leadership.6 Although neither historian was a witness to the events of 519, the
gist of what they report – that it was the Thebans who were the prime movers in
creating a Boiotian state out of the Boiotian people, and that they were the leaders
of that state – is supported by inscriptions, which show that the Boiotoi possessed a
formally constituted government, as opposed to being a collective based on ethnic
identity.
Three inscriptions from about the end of the sixth century or early in the fifth
record dedications at Thebes by citizens of other Boiotian poleis to Apollo, who is
identified twice as Hismenios. Apollo Hismenios was the chief god of the Theban
polis: a dedication made to him by the people of other poleis may legitimately be
regarded as an act of homage to the Thebans. To this degree it is fair to say that
their fellow Boiotians regarded the Thebans as their leaders.
Collectively, the Boiotoi made dedications at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoieus,
to Athena Pronaia, and at the sanctuary of the Hero Ptoios of Akraiphia. Although
these were small objects, the decision to have them made and dedicated will have
been made by a body competent and empowered to do so, and moreover, one with
a treasury, however small, at its disposal. From the same period, two texts found at
Delphi refer to what seems to have been either an alliance or the settlement of a
dispute with Lokris and one of its poleis. Here too the Boiotoi were acting with
powers which one would normally associate with a formally constituted and recog-
nized government. And once again, as in the case of the dedications at the Ptoion,
the very existence of the dedications to which these texts refer requires an agency
which had the right and the resources to decide to make them and then to do it.7
An inscription found at the Theban Herakleion dated to the first half of the fifth
century and published by Vassilis Aravantinos is dated by a boiotarch (A – – –
βοιοταρχίοντος). Until the discovery of this text, the only reference to boiotarchs
before the foundation of the first federation after the Battle of Koroneia was the
report by Herodotus (9.15.1) that, in 479, “the boiotarchs sent for the inhabitants of
the land around the Asopos” (οἱ γὰρ βοιωτάρχαι μετεπέμψαντο τοὺς προσχώρους
τῶν Ἀσωπίων) who guided Mardonios and his army back to Boiotia from northern
Attica. Some have taken this as an anachronism, but the inscription from Thebes
makes it clear that there can be no doubt that the office of boiotarch existed during
6 Thuc. 3.61.2: Ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς διάφοροι ἐγενόμεθα τὸ πρῶτον ὅτι ἡμῶν κτισάντων Πλάταιαν
ὕστερον τῆς ἄλλης Βοιωτίας καὶ ἄλλα χωρία μετ’αὐτῆς ἃ ξυμμεικτοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐξελάσαντες
ἔσχομεν, οὐκ ἠξίουν οὗτοι, ὠσπερ ἐτάχθη τὸ πρῶτον, ἡγεμονεύεσθαι ὑφ’ ἡμῶν. (We first fell
out with them for this reason: we settled Plataia later than the rest of Boiotia, as well as other
regions with it, of which we gained possession by driving out alien elements; but the Plataians
refused to be led by us, as had been previously agreed).
7 Schachter 2016a, 56–59.
the first half of the fifth century BCE, and perhaps even before. Indeed, since the
Boiotians came under the sway of the Athenians in 458, it is probably fair enough
to give that year as a terminus ante quem for the boiotarchy. The boiotarchy existed
before the first federation, and, accordingly, this magistracy testifies to the exist-
ence of a formally constituted Boiotian government.8
It is therefore safe to say that by late in the sixth century most of the ethnic
Boiotoi, with the exclusion of the Plataians, the so-called Minyai, and perhaps peo-
ple of non–Boiotian stock in the Oropia,9 were united politically – as Boiotoi –
under the leadership of the Thebans.
This patching together of a single political entity from diverse components is
reflected in the conversion of two tribal gods, Athena of the Boiotoi and Zeus of the
Minyai, into the national deities of Boiotia, who were worshipped jointly through-
out the region as Athena Itonia and Zeus Karaios. The sanctuary of Athena at Koro-
neia, which contained cult images of both gods, became the national sanctuary and
functioned as such throughout the rest of antiquity. The choice of the sanctuary at
Koroneia over the older and more centrally located sanctuary of Poseidon at Onch-
estos would have made it a constant reminder to the Orchomenians of the suprem-
acy of Thebes in Boiotia. The Thebans did something similar after the Battle of
Leuktra, when they established the Basileia to commemorate their victory and lo-
cated the new sanctuary of Zeus as Basileus on a hilltop just outside Lebadeia. From
here it would be visible not only to the Orchomenians across the way, but also to
anybody who passed by enroute to Delphi.
A later attempt to use a regional god as a national symbol was the elevation of
Hera Teleia, the major deity of southern Boiotia, to pan–Boiotian status, thereby
bringing the Plataians and their neighbours into the Boiotian political mainstream.
The festival known later as Daidala – ‘Dolls’ – which seems previously to have
been limited to the various sub-regions of the Plataiïd, was now expanded to take
in all of the regions of Boiotia – the τέλη – which would henceforward participate
in its celebration. What had originally been a ritual to declare ownership of the
territory of Plataia, stretching from the Asopos to the top of Kithairon, was now to
become a celebration of the possession of all of Boiotia. This may have happened
when the first federation was organized. In the event, Plataia, did not remain long
in this federation: it was destroyed, and the communities along the Parasopia de-
pendent on it were absorbed into Thebes. The festival, however, continued to be
celebrated, but at irregular intervals — more or less whenever it was felt that some
show had to be made of Boiotian unity, as, for example, during the Theban hegem-
ony, then again when the Hellenistic koinon was instituted, and later still, under the
Empire.10
A symptom of the fundamental disunity of the Boiotoi is the fact that there was
no single god who could be identified as truly pan-Boiotian, in the way that Athena
8 Aravantinos 2014b, 199–202; Schachter 2016a, 53.

9 On the possibility of Theban control of the Oropia before the Persian Wars, see Papazarkadas
2014a, 242, 245f and Schachter 2016a, 40 n.19 and 94.
10 See Schachter 2016a, 117f, 143, 184.
70 Albert Schachter
was the patron god of all the Athenians. Athena Itonia and Zeus Karaios were at
home in the northwest quarter of Boiotia, in the region of the Kopais. The poleis of
central and eastern Boiotia had different patron deities: Hera as we have seen at
Plataia, the Parasopia and Thespiai as well; Hermes at Tanagra; Demeter, Dionysos,
and Herakles at Thebes. Most of these were survivals from the Bronze Age.11
The god who was most widely worshipped in Boiotia was Apollo, who might
be said to have represented the interests of the ruling elites in the various poleis.
These people had more in common with each other than with their fellow citizens
of the lower orders. No matter what differences existed among the poleis, there was,
in each one of them, an aristocratic faction with ties of xenia to its opposite numbers
elsewhere. Even in Plataia there were partisans of the Theban cause.
III. THE CHANGING STATE OF THE STATE (TO KOINON, HEGEMONY,

AND KOINON)
It is impossible to tell how things might have played out in Boiotia had it not been
for the traumatic events of the Persian Wars. Would the Thebans have been able to
maintain their hegemony and turn all of Boiotia into what would have been effec-
tively a Greater Thebes, powerful enough to rival Athens and Sparta? It is idle to
speculate; what seems to have happened was that after the Persian Wars Thebes
was no longer the hegemon of the Boiotoi, although in fact the Thebans came out
of it well enough. They regained (or still had) control of the eastern part of Boiotia
by 470 at the latest, and before that one of their number had been victorious at the
Pythian Games of 474. Pindar’s ode celebrating the victory (Pyth. 11)
begins with a roll call of the major heroines/goddesses of Thebes, and ends with a
joint reference to Iolaos of Thebes and Polydeukes of Therapne. It is as if the poet
were announcing the return of the Thebans to the community of the Hellenes.
The Boiotoi were still recognized as a political community: it was as such that
they were penalized at Olympia for an unspecified crime, no doubt connected with
the Persian Wars. Some time later on, the Thespians – ‘and those with them’, that
is, their dependent poleis (Eutresis and Thisbe) – were absolved of the penalty lev-
ied against the Boiotoi as a whole. This must have been because they alone of the
Boiotoi had not medized. The Plataians of course were not politically ‘Boiotoi’ at
the time, but a dependency of the Athenians.12
Boiotian poleis continued to issue coins (if the dates assigned are correct) and
some of the Tanagran issues were identified as ‘Boiotian’ as well as Tanagran. Pre-
sumably there was some sort of regional treasury, which used the Tanagran mint.
This is, incidentally, the earliest Boiotian coinage to be identified as such. It does
not mean that Tanagra was the leader of the state, but merely that its mint provided
11 Schachter 2016a, 9–11.

12 NIO 5; see Schachter 2016a, 59f.
the facility.13 This could be regarded as a first step to a federation, namely a Boio-
tian government not led by the Thebans.14
But once again events intervened to stop any further development. This time it
was the battles of Tanagra and Oinophyta which resulted in Boiotia becoming an
Athenian vassal, or rather a collection of vassals, for ten years.
It is remarkable when one thinks how quickly and how easily Boiotia simply
fell apart after the battle of Oinophyta. This calls to mind Perikles’ remark that the
Boiotians, by fighting with each other, were like holm-oaks, which are the cause of
their own destruction.15 If nothing else, this shows how weak the ties of a common
ethnos really were, at least in this region of Greece.
We know very little of what went happened in Boiotia during the ten years of
Athenian control. There is some evidence that two poleis – Akraiphia and Orchome-
nos – might have become members of the Delian League. Attempts were made,
without great success, to install democratic régimes in various poleis. We do know
that a fair number of disaffected Boiotians, of the aristocratic class, went into exile.
It was they who, gathering at Orchomenos with others of their persuasion from Eu-
boia, Lokris, and elsewhere, caused the Athenians to send out a force under Tol-
mides to restore order. The result was utter defeat for the Athenians at the battle of
Koroneia in 446, and the res\toration of all of Boiotia to the Boiotians.16
The victors set about organizing a Boiotian government in their own image,
which ensured that the franchise rested only with the propertied classes. The con-
stitution as described by the Oxyrhynchos Historian is full of checks and balances
which were intended to ensure that this would be the case. The territory was divided
into eleven μέρη, or to use the appropriate Boiotian term, τέλη, based partly on
population. Each was entitled to one boiotarch and was obliged to contribute troops
and money to the common government. The boiotarchies were allocated in such a
way as to make it hard for any single polis to have undue influence. None of the
larger poleis had more than two boiotarchies. Tanagra, long a dependency of
Thebes, was given a boiotarchy of its own, leaving Thebes with two; while
Chaironeia and Lebadeia, originally dependencies of Orchomenos were, for the
purposes of equitable distribution, removed from Orchomenos and put together
with the other Kopaic poleis to share two boiotarchies in rotation. Clearly this ar-
rangement was the result of compromises among the major players.
It appears to be a fair distribution, but on closer inspection we can detect a bias
on the one hand against Orchomenos, and in favour of Thebes on the other. Leba-
deia and Chaironeia, both carved out of the original territory of the Orchomenians,
were removed from their direct control. At the very least, the arrangement among
13 Schachter 2016a, 61f.

14 That there was some form of pan-Boiotian infrastructure is suggested also by the fact that it
was the Boiotians who fought in the battle of Oinophyta. There is no indication that there were
only Thebans involved on the Boiotian side: Thuc. 1.108: the Athenians marched ἐς Βοιωτούς
and μάχῃ ἐν Οἰνοφύτοις Βοιωτοὺς νικήσαντες.
15 Arist. Rhetoric 3.4.
16 See Schachter forthcoming, and Schachter 2016a, 71f.
72 Albert Schachter
the Kopais poleis neutralized the potential influence of the Orchomenians. The The-
bans, on the other hand, could count on the Tanagrans regularly, as they could most
of the time on the cities of the Kopais. But what weighted the arrangement in the
Thebans’ favour from the very beginning, and sowed the seeds for the destruction
of the federation, was that the seat of the federal government was placed at Thebes.
Theoretical considerations aside, in practical terms this meant that federal decisions
were most likely to have been influenced by the Thebans, who had the advantage
of already being on hand whenever federal business was transacted. The effects of
this were not lost upon those who later organized the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon.
Still, it was an attempt to create a pan–Boiotian government in which every section
of the country participated.
This situation lasted until the spring of 431, when the Thebans – at the behest
of their friends inside the town – invaded Plataia with the intention of eliminating
the opposition and handing the polis over to the Thebans (τὴν πόλιν Θηβαίοις
προσποιῆσαι: Thuc. 2.2.2), and allying themselves in accordance with the ancestral
traditions of all the Boiotoi (κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν ξυμμαχεῖν: Thuc.
2.2.4). It is assumed by some that Plataia had not been a member of the Boiotian
federation set up in 446, but this is not likely. The constitution of the Boiotians as
described by the Oxyrhynchos Historian had originally allocated two boiotarchies
to Plataia and its dependent towns, but these were now (in 395) in the hands of the
Thebans, who in this way controlled four boiotarchies out of the eleven. There must
have been a time when the Plataiïd belonged to the federation in its own right, and
this can only have been at the outset, from 446 to 431.
From then until the end of the Peloponnesian War, the Thebans were clearly
the dominant power in Boiotia again. It was one of their boiotarchs, Pagondas, who
led the Boiotian forces at the battle of Delion in 424 BCE. A year after this battle,
in which the Thespians had suffered great losses, the Thebans tore down the city
wall of Thespiai, accusing the Thespians of ἀττικισμός. They must have been re-
acting to events inside Thespiai after the battle of Delion. The loss of so many men
of the hoplite class would have weakened the pro-Theban and pro-Spartan elite of
the polis to the point where the pro-Athenian faction felt free to try to take control
of the polis. Tearing down the walls was not so much an act of war against Thespiai
as one of support for the hard-pressed hoplite class. And indeed in the summer of
414 the Thespian δῆμος rose up against its rulers. The Thebans came to the rescue
again; some members of the δῆμος were arrested, others fled to Athens, and Thes-
piai was once more in the hands of the men of property, friendly to the Thebans,
friendly to the Spartans.
At the end of the Peloponnesian War the Thebans fell out with the Spartans
over the matter of whether or not to destroy Athens. The failure of the Theban lead-
ership to get their way led to their being replaced by a faction not wedded to the
Spartan cause, and gave rise to the situation described by the Oxyrhynchos Histo-
rian. Accordingly there were two factions, one pro–Spartan, and the other accused
of ἀττικισμός. It is probably more correct to regard the latter faction not as pro-
Athenian, but as Theban or Boiotian nationalists. They made use of their Athenian
connections, certainly, but they were not necessarily ‘democratic’ themselves. The
oligarchic constitution was still in force and remained that way until the dissolution
of the Boiotian league by the King’s Peace. The League, led as it was by Thebans,
was now hostile to its erstwhile allies, the Spartans, and moving gradually closer to
the Athenians. It was still ostensibly a federation, issuing its own coinage, although
more and more it was the Thebans who took the lead in Boiotian affairs. There was
disaffection on the part of the Thespians and the Orchomenians, who found them-
selves moving closer to Sparta, but generally it seems that the Thebans were able
to command the loyalty of most Boiotians — a situation which remained more or
less unchanged until the destruction of Thebes in 335.17
Under the terms of the King’s Peace of 386, the Boiotian federation was dis-
solved, and so it remained until the liberation of Thebes at the end of 379. At that
time, the Thebans revived the federation – the κοινόν – but it was a federation in
name only.18 The Thebans kept control of the government of the country, naming
most if not all of the boiotarchs, and negotiating with foreign powers in the name
of all Boiotians. Proxeny decrees were issued in the name of the Boiotoi, but when
it came to serious business it was the Thebans who signed the documents. This will
explain the confusion before the Battle of Leuktra, when the Thebans insisted on
ensuring that when they signed the proposed treaty, they were doing so on behalf
of the Boiotoi. We see this process operate also in a recently published treaty, ac-
cording to which the Histiaians agreed to submit to the military hegemony of the
Thebans, not the Boiotians.19
The common opinion is that the Theban Hegemony ended at the battle of Man-
tineia in 362.20 To be sure, the death of Epameinondas marked a turning-point, for
it deprived Thebes of its most capable leader. But for at least five years after the
battle of Mantineia the Boiotians, that is, the Thebans, were the main land power in
Greece, giving way to Philip of Makedon only after a series of setbacks which were
matched by the steady growth in the powers of the Makedonians and their king.
The Thebans exercised their leadership in Boiotia by a mixture of coercion and
diplomacy. Dissident elements were dealt with by force. The Plataians, who had
been hostile to the Thebans since at least 519, were driven out in 373, their city
destroyed and their lands distributed among Thebans. Plataia no longer existed as a
polis. Orchomenos, which had provided a base for the enemies of Thebes during
the Corinthian War (and was to do the same later during the Third Sacred War), and
remained a centre of the disaffected aristocracy during the Theban Hegemony, was
taken in 364, when at least some of its citizens were put to the sword and their
womenfolk and children enslaved. Orchomenos continued to function as a polis,
17 Schachter 2016a, chapter 7, esp. 115f.

18 See for now Robinson 2011, 56f.
19 Aravantinos and Papazarkadas 2012. For the period between 431 and 371 in general, see Buck
1994.
20 This opinion owes much to Xenophon, who ended his Hellenika at this point, and to Ephoros,
who stated it explicitly: τελευτήσαντος γὰρ ἐκείνου (sc. τοῦ Ἐπαμεινώνδου) τὴν ἡγεμονίαν
ἀποβαλεῖν εὐθὺς τοὺς Θηβαίους γευσαμένους αὐτῆς μόνον (FGrH 70 F 119 = Str. 9.2.2 [401])
(For at his death, the Thebans immediately lost the hegemony, having had only a taste of it),
and cf. later in the passage at Str. 9.2.5 (402).
74 Albert Schachter
however, as in 359 an Orchomenian was appointed theōrodokos for an Epidaurian

theōros. It is possible, therefore, that the punishment meted out to the Orchomeni-
ans was limited to members of the faction opposed to the Thebans.21
This must also have been the case with Thespiai. Beyond tearing down the city
walls the Thebans seem to have left the Thespians alone. Probably they supported
the pro-Theban faction there and used them to keep their fellow citizens under con-
trol. And, whatever Isokrates says about the Thebans having obliged the Thespians
to join them, their behaviour cannot have been very oppressive. Thespiai not only
prospered, but maintained its own contacts with the outside world. 22 The Thebans
treated those loyal to them well: it was at this time that the territory of Tanagra was
greatly enlarged by the addition of the tetrakomia and its lands to the north.23 The
defection of the Euboians from Thebes in 357 did not turn the people of Oropos —
which had been ceded to the Thebans in 366 — away from Thebes, and, even after
the battle of Chaironeia, they remained independent, and were handed over to Ath-
ens by Alexander only in 335 (perhaps he suspected that they still had pro–Theban
sympathies). Nor is there any sign at all of disaffection at two other important poleis
of Boiotia, Haliartos and Akraiphia. What we have is silence, but here it speaks
loudly enough. Furthermore, the people of Chaironeia and Lebadeia, even though
they were surrounded by elements hostile to Thebes, also remained loyal through-
out the Third Sacred War (although the Koroneians wavered in their allegiance).24
It seems that the aim of the Theban leadership during this period was to con-
centrate control of external affairs, military matters, and the treasury, in their own
hands. The federal assembly was based at Thebes. Federal documents were dated
by the archon of Thebes, and the coins of Thebes, while not necessarily the only
issue, appear — to judge from the sheer number of coins which have survived —
to have served as a quasi-federal coinage.25 Nevertheless, individual poleis proba-
bly retained control of purely local matters. The relationship of the other poleis to
Thebes is described by the expressions Θηβαίοις συντελεῖν or συντελεῖν εἰς τὰς
Θήβας, a status held certainly by Thespiai and Tanagra. These were bi-lateral ar-
rangements, whereby a polis consented to merge its affairs with those of the The-
bans, giving up its αὐτονομία, which had been restored by the King’s Peace.26
Συντέλεια is contrasted by Isokrates with the disappearance of the polis of the Pla-
taians, and the absorption of their territory into that of Thebes. In practical terms,
21 On the fate of Plataia and Orchomenos, see the summaries in Hansen 2004, 449–451.216 (Pla-
taia) and 446–448.213 (Orchomenos).
22 See Hansen 2004, 457f.222, and Schachter 1996b, 120–122.
23 Schachter 2016a, chapter 6, passim, 114f.
24 Schachter 2016a, 115 and notes 5–6 (Oropos), note 7 (Chaironeia and Lebadeia), note 8 (Koro-
neia).
25 See Hepworth 1998 and Schachter 2016b.
26 Θηβαίοις συντελεῖν: Isocr. 14 (Plataiikos) 8; συντελεῖν εἰς τὰς Θήβας: idem 9, and Hell. Oxy.
= FGrH 66 fr. 1.265 (referring to an earlier occasion). Diod. Sic. 12.41, 15.38–39, 50, 70.
συντέλεια means that the polis in question had ceded to Thebes its right to conduct
foreign policy, in times of both peace and war.27
Outside Boiotia, the Thebans followed more or less the same procedure. They
made separate alliances with individual states, the terms of which seem to have
varied from case to case. The Achaians and Histiaians, for example, accepted the
Thebans as their leaders. The Phokians on the other hand undertook only a mutual
defence pact, which did not oblige them to follow the Thebans wherever they led.28
The Thebans’ alliance with Athens in 378 was also a special arrangement, or so it
would seem from the despatch of a delegation to Thebes, who were to persuade the
Thebans ὅ [τ]ι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαθόν, ‘of whatever good thing they can’. Aside from
these cases, the terms of engagement remain hidden, although one may guess that
most of the alliances with Peloponnesian states were based on mutual defence in
the event of invasion. The Theban network of alliances extended from Akarnania
to Byzantion, and from Thessaly to the Peloponnese. It was never a full-scale league
in the manner of the Second Athenian League, for example. The nature of Theban
involvement with their allies can be seen in the inscription which lists contributions
to the Boiotian war effort in the middle of the Third Sacred War: the money came
not as a fixed tribute, but as individual donations from two poleis in Akarnania,
Byzantion, and from a Boiotian proxenos of Tenedos.29
Although the Thebans were able to collect a large number of allies on a one-to-
one basis, they were not able to impose their leadership over the other Hellenes as
a whole. When, in 366, they tried to organize a general peace, nobody took them
seriously and the enterprise foundered. The Thebans lacked the will, the ability, the
prestige, or all of these, to impose themselves. And in truth, Theban policy outside
Boiotia was defensive rather than aggressive. They had no ambitions other than to
protect their position and their territory. They sought to neutralize their enemies by
helping their allies, and engaged themselves abroad primarily in police actions.
Even their disastrous foray against Phokis, which set off the Third Sacred War, may
be seen in this light.
IV. A REAL ΚΟΙΝΌΝ
All of this came to an end with the destruction of Thebes in 335. The removal of
the Thebans from the scene left the way open for the creation of a true confederacy,
27 Συντελεῖν εἰς Θήβας: see Isokrates 14 (Plataikos), 9. See too Bakhuizen 1994, and Gonzalez
2006, 34–38, and on Thebes and Boiotia in the Classical period in general, Hammond 2000.
The occasional appearance abroad in official contexts of a polis-ethnic shows that the individ-
ual poleis were not swallowed up into a single state: IG IV2.1.94/95 theorodokoi from Thebes,
Thespiai, Koroneia, Orchomenos, Lebadeia; for the date (mid-fourth century BCE) see Sève
1993, 207. IG XII.3. 542. 6.25: a Lebadeian proxenos of Karthaia (mid-fourth century).
28 Xen. Hell. 7.5.4–8.
29 Achaians: Xen. Hell. 7.1.42. Histiaia: Aravantinos and Papazarkadas 2012. Phokians: Xen.
Hell. 7.5. 4–8. Athens: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 92–105 no.22 ll. 72–75). Contributions for
the Sacred War: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 268–271 no. 57.
76 Albert Schachter
the only Boiotian κοινόν which deserves this definition. Care was taken to ensure
that no single polis had undue influence. Individual poleis retained a great deal of
autonomy but ceded interstate relations with each other and with external powers
to the central, Boiotian, government. The seat of this government was at Onchestos,
near the sanctuary of Poseidon at the southeast corner of the Kopais. The founda-
tions of the federal capital buildings have been found just west of the pass. The
symbolic importance of locating the federal capital in neutral territory, which be-
longed to no individual polis, cannot be overestimated. It is a principle which still
operates today in several countries.30
The Boiotians of the Hellenistic koinon were divided into regions as before,
seven of them, some comprising one polis, others grouping several small ones to-
gether. On the occasions when the koinon was expanded to include poleis from
outside Boiotia proper (East Lokris, Oropos, Megara, Aigosthena), an eighth region
was created. Each provided representatives to the federal government, some to
serve as magistrates, others to be what we would call civil servants. Over all of
these, but with no power other than to date the activities of his year, was the federal
archon, whose name, as a symbol of his neutrality, was not accompanied by an
ethnikon. The occasional extension of the koinon beyond the normal boundaries of
‘Boiotia’ shows that by this time at least, ethnicity was not a primary characteristic
of being ‘Boiotian’: what mattered more was political expediency.31
This state of affairs lasted until early in the second century BCE, when meetings
of the koinon came to be held, not at Onchestos any more, but at Thebes. This could
have reflected a shift in the balance of power towards the direction of the Thebans.32
V. FROM ΚΟΙΝΌΝ TO ΚΟΙΝΌΝ
Towards the end of the 170s, possibly in 173, the Boiotian koinon formed an alli-
ance with King Perseus of Makedon.33 In 17234 the Romans sent a delegation to
Greece, whose leaders let it be known that, in Boiotia, they would deal only with
individual poleis, and openly spurned the advances of Ismenias, head of the koinon,
who had offered to put the whole of the country at the disposal of Rome.35 In short,
the Romans no longer recognized the koinon as the legitimate representative of the
Boiotians; in this they were aided and abetted by those Boiotians who had been
opposed to the koinon’s pro–Makedonian policy. The result of this was that the
federal government simply disappeared from the scene. The Romans were very
pleased with themselves for having brought about the collapse of the koinon at
30 On the site, see Schachter 1986, 208, 220f.

31 On the Hellenistic koinon in general, see Roesch 1965. On the districts (τέλη) see Corsten 1999,
27–60 and Knoepfler 2001 (one of several articles dealing with this subject). For an overview
see Beck and Ganter 2015.
32 Roesch 1982, 275–282.
33 Mackil 2013, 135.
34 For the date see Wiemer 2004, 36f.
35 Polyb. 27.1.
arm’s length, as it were, and with no armed intervention.36 Not all Boiotians were
happy with the outcome, and it took a few months to bring the people of Koroneia,
Thisbe, and Haliartos to heel. Matters were sealed by the siege and destruction of
Haliartos in 171, whose territory was allotted to the Athenians in 167, and the sup-
pression of anti–Roman elements in Koroneia and Thisbe.37 Dissident elements
were still active in Thebes, however, and it was not until 146 that the Romans man-
aged to settle matters there.38
What happened in 172/171 was not a formal ‘dissolution’. The Romans took
advantage of what, in an earlier day, would have been called stasis to bring about
the collapse of the koinon by favouring one of the two sides, the pro–Roman one,
over the pro–Makedonian elected government. Formal dissolution was ratified,
more or less in retrospect, by Mummius in 146.39
It is not easy to reconstruct what went on in Boiotia between the collapse of the
koinon in 172/171 and the emergence of a κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν known to be in existence
by the third quarter of the first century BCE. The evidence is sparse and open to a
variety of interpretations.40 It is widely believed that the koinon was revived at
some time after 172/171, although there is disagreement about the date, duration,
and even the number, of revivals. However, I would suggest it is more likely that,
just as there was no formal dissolution of the koinon in 172/171, so there may never
have been a conscious/formal ‘revival’ before the formation of the last κοινὸν
Βοιωτῶν.41
Although the central authority and its institutions ceased to exist in 172/171,
the poleis and τέλη and the people who comprised them were still very much pre-
sent. It was in some respects similar to what happened when the palatial govern-
ments collapsed at the end of the Myceanean period, except that after 172/171 those
throughout Boiotia who had supported the Romans and were now, because of their
loyalty to Rome, the men in authority, formed a network of ‘poleis’ which can be
seen in the operation of two festivals, the Delia and the Basileia. It is to be sure by
no means a full-blown federation, but, as far as these two festivals are concerned,
the ‘poleis’ behaved very much like a pan–Boiotian government. They passed de-
crees, issued laws, had a civil service of sorts, and a central treasury; moreover, in
the case of the Basileia at least, they had the power to require member states to help
pay for the festivals.42
36 Livy 42.47.
37 Excellent summary of events in Mackil 2013, 135–137.
38 The story in outline in Paus. 7.14.6–16.9. Cf. Polyb. 39.4–6 and Livy Epitome 52.
39 Paus. 7.16.9.
40 Repeated attempts to clarify the situation, most recently by Denis Knoepfler and Christel
Mueller, have made much progress, but we are still a long way from certainty. See Mueller
2014 and Knoepfler 2015, 448–450 (no. 449) for recent assessments. See too Mackil 2013, 136
n. 276.
41 I hope to deal with this matter at a later date.
42 The apologia of Damon son of Ariston of Orchomenos, agonothete of the Delia (SEG 57.452;
cf. Bull. épigr. 2010.311, late second century BCE) refers to payments required ἐκ τοῦ νόμου
(ll. 19–20 and 21: the original editors of the inscription –– Brélaz, Andreiomenou, and Ducrey
78 Albert Schachter
The formal creation of the last version of the κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν, whenever it hap-
pened, would have been based on this existing system. The earliest reference to this
koinon, dated 33 or 32 BCE, is a dedication in Athens of (a statue of?) the proquaes-
tor M. Junius Silanus, as their benefactor, by τὸ κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν | Εὐβοέων Λοκρῶ̣ν
| Φωκέων Δωριέων.43 It can be assumed that at least some of the individual compo-
nents of this central Greek global association were already in existence by this time.
The koinon was based at the ancestral federal sanctuary of the Boiotoi, that of
Athena Itonia at Koroneia. Its governing body was the college of naopoioi, whose
secretary fulfilled the rôle of agonothetēs of the Pamboiotia, and was the de facto
archon of the association.44 It must have been this body which organized the occa-
sional celebrations of the Daidala: from Pausanias’ account of this festival it is clear
that the division of the territory into τέλη as well as πόλεις was still maintained. As
in the latter years of the Hellenistic koinon and afterwards, membership was not
restricted to poleis or individuals of Boiotia proper. Boiotarchs reappear on the
scene, but now they came not only from old Boiotia, but also from Megara, Phokis,
2007, 287 –– suggest that this was a law of Tanagra, but concede that ‘la participation des cités
béotiennes à l’élaboration de ce réglement est cependant probable compte tenu du rôle que
celles-ci jouent dans l’organisation du concours’). Mention is also made of a decree by the
poleis (ll. 26–27: καθὼς ἔδοξε ταῖς πόλε|[σι] and of an under-secretary (ll. 20–21: Εὐκλείδηι̣
ὑπογραμμ[α|τεῖ]: it is the view of the editors that this functionary, who was paid for his services,
‘n’est pas un magistrat . . . La présence d’un sous-secrétaire, dont le titre sert à montrer l’infé-
riorité hiérarchique par rapport à un magistrat, n’implique pas qu’un secrétaire de plein droit
ait participé à l’organisation des Delia’ [p. 295 n. 184]. I find it difficult to agree with this: if
there is an undersecretary, then there must be a secretary under whom he is ranked).
The inscription dealing with the Basileia is not published in its entirety in any single source
(the most complete version of the text is given by Manieri 2009, 156–163, Leb. 11, who omits
lines 1–28 of part C. These lines are to be found in Vollgraff 1901, 375–378 no. 20, and Hol-
leaux 1938, 131–142). The document probably dates to ca. 58–55 BCE (the years of exile of
Ptolemy XII, whose chariot won the race ἅρματι τελείωι, ll. 18–19), and comprises the end of
an athletic/hippic victors’ list (A 1–19), the apologia of Xenarchos son of Sokrates of Hyettos,
agonothete of the Basileia (A 20–37), the partial list delegates from poleis (B 1–39: from
Anthedon, Akraiphia, Boumelitaia, Larymna, Kopai, Plataia), partial inventory of phialai de-
posited by a succession of agonothetes (C 1–28), and a complaint by Xenarchos against his
predecessor for his failure to present his accounts (C 29–71). The document refers to (1) con-
tributions required from the poleis (A 23–24: they are waived by Xenarchos [ἀφῆκα δὲ τἀς
πόλεις τὴν γινομένην | αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰσφορὰν πᾶσαν]), (2) an under-secretary (A 26),
(3) decrees (A 28), (4) a common treasury at the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus (A 29–31; cf. C 1–
28 [the inventory] and A 21: income from the rental of the stadion and its environs), (5) active
participation by the poleis (B; C 39 and 44–47: they send ἐγκριταί), (6) laws (A 35–37, C 36),
and τέλη (C 36–37).
43 IG II2.4114. For the date, see Geagan 2011, 225f no. H413.
44 IG VII.2871, ll. 2–4 (γραμματεύοντος τῶν ναοποιῶν | Μνασάρχου τοῦ Χαρίτωνος, τοῦ δὲ
αὐτοῦ | [κ]αὶ ἐπιμελητοῦ τῆς πανηγύρεως). Fragments of other victors’ lists: IG VII.1764,
Pritchett 1969, 88B. See Schachter 1981, 124–126 (slightly out of date, but not entirely without
merit).
Naryka, possibly even Karystos.45 An individual magistrate could hold office in,
and any member polis could belong to, more than one koinon.46
Despite its grand titles and pious references to the Boiotian ἔθνος,47 this koinon
was little more than a club which offered occasions for the elite to intermingle. It
was a body with few if any powers: it could not even prevail upon its own member
communities to take part in the delegation to the Emperor in 37 CE,48 although it is
hard to imagine it being unable to require contributions to the cost of producing the
Pamboiotia, for example, and the simple upkeep of the sanctuary at Koroneia. It
almost certainly had no political standing. The Romans, as they had done since
172/171, dealt with individual poleis directly. Such matters as the engineering pro-
jects in the Kopais, and settling disputes between neighbouring poleis were referred
to the source of real power, the Emperor and his officials. In the same vein, when
men had to be recruited in a time of crisis, the Romans negotiated directly with
individual poleis, as happened in Thespiai.49 The only instance where Boiotia is
mentioned as an official entity is in the case of the έπίτροπος Βοιωτίας, the imperial
freedman who looked after the emperor’s personal interests in the region.50 For the
individual ‘Boiotian’, what conferred real status — as it did throughout the Empire
— was not belonging to an ethnos or other regional community; it was, rather, the
possession of Roman citizenship.
To sum up: the Boiotian ethnos was not monolithic, but was from the start an
amalgam of different peoples who lived in the same space and spoke the same form
of Greek. Welding them into a political state was not easy. It did not come about
because the Boiotians wanted it, but because the Thebans did. And, until the crea-
tion of the Roman province of Achaia the single factor dominating internal politics
in Boiotia was whether or not the Thebans could impose themselves on their Boio-
tian neighbours. Other Greek states, notably Athens and Sparta, exploited the basic
disunity of the Boiotians, in order to ensure that they did not pose a serious threat
to their own interests. Later, after the destruction of Thebes, the Boiotians were
able to set up a true confederacy. By this time, however, Boiotia was a backwater
within a backwater. Later still, when Boiotia was a minor administrative unit of the
province of Achaia, the regional elite revived for one last time the Boiotian koinon,
but this was a body possessed neither of political power nor territorial integrity nor
a common ethnicity. And as far as the last of these is concerned, almost from the
beginning being ethnically Boiotian did not make a community a member of the
Boiotian state, nor was it a requirement for membership.
45 IG VII.106 (Megara), IG IX.1.218 (Phokis), SEG 51.641 (Naryka). For a possible boiotarch
from Karystos, see Schachter 2016, 143, n.22 (on p. 144). See too Knoepfler 2012.
46 See for example IG VII.3426, IG IX.1.218, SEG 51.641.
47 See IG VII.2711 passim.
48 IG VII.2711 passim.
49 Works in the Kopais, and the settlement of inter-polis disputes: Oliver 1989, 253–273. Raising
troops from Thespiai: IThesp 37.
50 Ἐπίτροπος Βοιωτίας: FD 3.4.445: P. Aelius Myron, freedman of the Emperor (PIR2 A.224).
80 Albert Schachter
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aravantinos, V. (2014) The Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of Herakles at Thebes: An Overview,
in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 149–210.
Aravantinos, V. and N. Papazarkadas (2012) hαγεμονία: A New Treaty from Classical Thebes, Chi-
ron 42, 239–254.
Bakhuizen, S. C. (1994) Thebes and Boeotia in the Fourth Century, Phoenix 48, 307–310.
Beck, H. and A. Ganter (2015) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.),
Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 132–157.
Brélaz, C., A. K. Andreiomenou, and P. Ducrey (2007) Les Premiers comptes du sanctuaire d’Apol-
lon à Délion et le concours pan-béotien des Delia, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 131,
235–308.
Buck, R. J. (1994) Boiotia and the Boiotian League, 432–371 B.C., Edmonton, Alberta.
Geagan, D. J. (2011) Athenian Agora 18. Inscriptions: the dedicatory monuments, Princeton.
Gonzalez, J. P. (2006) Poleis and Confederacy in Boiotia in the Early Fourth Century BC, The An-
cient World 36, 22–45.
Hammond, N. G. L. (2000) Political Developments in Boeotia, The Classical Quarterly 50, 80–93.
Hansen, M. H. (2004) Boiotia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic
Hepworth, R. G. (1998) The 4th Century BC Magistrate Coinage of the Boiotian Confederacy,
Νομισματικά Χρονικά 17, 61–96.
Holleaux, M. (1938) Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques I, Paris.
Knoepfler, D. (2001) La Fête des Daidala de Platées: une clef pour l’histoire de la Béotie hellénis-
tique, in D. Knoepfler and M. Piérart (eds.), Éditer, traduire, commenter Pausanias en l’année
2000, Geneva, 343–374.
Knoepfler, D. (2012) L’exercice de la magistrature fédérale béotienne par des “étrangers” à l’époque
impériale: conséquence de l’extension du koinon en dehors des frontières de la Béotie ou simple
effet d’une multi-citoyenneté individuelle? In A. Heller and A.–V. Pont (eds.), Patrie d’origine
ou patries ‘electives’. Les citoyennetés multiples dans le monde grec d’époque romaine, Bor-
deaux, 223–247.
Knoepfler, D. (2015) Bulletin épigraphique: Béotie, Revue des Études Grecques 127, 444–494.
Manieri, A. (2009) Agoni poetico-musicale nella Grecia Antica i: Beozia, Pisa/Rome.
Müller, C. (2014) A Koinon after 146? Reflections on the Political and Institutional Situation of
Boeotia in the Late Hellenistic Period, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of
Boeotia, Leiden, 119–146.
Oliver, J. H. (1989) Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri,
Philadelphia.
Papazarkadas, N. (2014a) Two New Epigrams: Dialectal “bilingualism” in Thebes, in N. Papazarka-
das (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 223–251.
Papazarkadas, N. (ed.) (2014b) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden.
Pritchett, W. K. (1969) Studies in Ancient Greek Topography II, Berkeley/Los Angeles.
Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne (eds.) (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC., Oxford.
Robinson, W. (2011) Democracy beyond Athens. Popular government in the Greek Classical Age,
Cambridge.
Roesch, P. (1965) Thespies et la confédération béotienne, Paris.
Roesch, P. (1982) Études béotiennes, Paris.
Rousset, D., J. Camp and S. Minon (2015) The Phokian City of Panopeus/Phanoteus, Three New
Rupestral Inscriptions, and the Cippus of the Labyadai of Delphi, American Journal of Archae-
ology 119, 441–463.
Schachter, A. (1981) Cults of Boiotia I, London.
Schachter, A. (1986) Cults of Boiotia II, London.
Schachter, A. (1996a) Evidence for Cult and Continuity from Linear B Documents at Thebes, in E.
De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi (eds.), Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso interna-
zionale di Micenologia (Incunabula Graeca 98), Rome, 891–899.
Schachter, A. (1996b) Reconstructing Thespiai, in A. Hurst and A. Schachter (eds.), La Montagne
des Muses, Geneva, 99–126.
Schachter, A. (2000) Greek Deities: Local and panhellenic identities, in P. Flensted–Jensen (ed.),
Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschrift 138), Stuttgart: 9–18.
Schachter, A. (2014) Creating a Legend: The war between Thebes and Orchomenos, Quaderni ur-
binati di cultura classica 135, 65–88.
Schachter, A. (2016a) Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers, Cambridge.
Schachter, A. (2016b) Towards a Revised Chronology of the Theban Magistrates’ Coins, in S. D.
Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century BC, Philadelphia, 42–58.
Schachter, A. (forthcoming ) Strange Bedfellows: Boiotians and the Delian League, in V. Aravanti-
nos (ed.), The History and Archaeology of Northern Boeotia, Athens.
Sève, M. (1993) Les Concours d’Epidaure, Revue des Études Grecques 106, 303–328.
Vollgraff, W. (1901) Inscriptions de Béotie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 25, 359–378.
Vottéro, G. (2006) Remarques sur les origines “éoliennes” du dialecte béotien, in C. Brixhe and G.
Vottéro (eds.), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans le Grèce antique, Nancy, 99–154.
Wiemer, H.-U. (2004) Der Beginn des 3. Makedonischen Krieges. Überlegungen zur Chronologie,
Historia 53, 22–37.
FEDERALISM BASED ON EMOTIONS?
PAMBOIOTIAN FESTIVALS IN HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN
TIMES
Angela Ganter
Friedrich Alexander Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg
I. INTRODUCTION
Contemporary scholars agree that common cults ought to be considered as a nucleus

of group formation and a driving force for the creation and maintenance of ethnic
identity throughout all periods of Greek history.1 Perhaps these cults should even
be regarded as the firmest foundation of experienced cohesion, as they survive all
the various upheavals in the political sphere. Accordingly, the purpose of the Boi-
otian league in later Hellenistic and Roman times is often seen as being limited to
cultic functions and ritual performance.2 But even with this primarily religious role,
federalism was certainly not dead. How did it survive? Perhaps an answer lies in
the presence of emotionally laden memories of the past.
Emotional bonds are widely believed to be essential for creating a communal
spirit, though this is an assumption that is hardly ever explained.3 Recent debates
on the history of emotions question this general view and reclaim a more histori-
cally precise approach. By mainly considering the epigraphic material, this contri-
bution aims to describe how emotions were involved in the construction of ethnic
identity and in the preservation of federal bonds at a time when the Classical League
had vanished from the political landscape of Ancient Boiotia.
1 Cf. the research report by Freitag 2007, especially 386f; and Ganter 2013. The thesis by P. R.
Grigsby, ‘Boiotian Games: Festivals, Agones, and the Development of Boiotian Identity’, sub-
mitted in September 2017 at the University of Warwick, appeared too late to be taken into
account here.
2 Cf. Roesch 1965, 71–73; Schachter 1980, 86; 1981–1994 vol. 1, 124 passim; Buck 1993, 106;
Gauger 2005, 204; Manieri 2009, 165.
3 Cf. only Parker 2005, 290, who introduces his sophisticated analysis of the Athenian An-
thesteria by comparing their emotional impact to the one modern Christmas has in contempo-
rary Western societies. Yet, apart from this, he does not speak of emotions any more during his
detailed considerations: it is a convincing, but not an evaluated premise. In a different way,
emotions also play an important part in Walter Burkert’s and Christoph Auffahrt’s analysis of
the Anthesteria. However, both of them derive their assumptions from the premise of anthro-
pological constants, that is to say, they describe the emotions of participating Athenians by
empathically imagining what they might have experienced (Burkert 1997 2, 241–243; Auffahrt
1991, 207, 213, 229). Cf. Mackil 2013, 148, who stresses that the ‘cohesive effect of religion
is assumed, but it is rarely explained.’
84 Angela Ganter
This paper concentrates on pan-boiotian festivals: the Ptoia, the Pamboiotia,

and the Basileia, in order to describe the mechanics of regional coherence. After
some methodical remarks, I shall examine a few exemplary inscriptions that give
us an impression of different emotional constellations during the festivals named
above. Finally, I shall discuss the chronological sequence of these observations in
order to determine how emotional bonds may have been linked to the shifting insti-
tutional context of the koinon.
II. COLLECTIVE EMOTIONS AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:

METHODICAL REMARKS
We usually imagine emotions as being anthropological phenomena linking people

of other periods and cultures with our own sentiments. There ought to be parallels
between, for instance, contemporary football fans attending a public event and del-
egates from Boiotian poleis participating in Pamboiotian festivals – or so we tend
to assume. Even trained historians who are used to coping with cultural differences
are necessarily bound to their own experiences and anthropological assumptions.
This is particularly the case when emotions come into play. The implicit compari-
son of the collective emotions arising at events which diverge in time and space is
not as absurd as it might seem in the first instance. This might be a necessary way
of gaining access to phenomena like these because it is immensely difficult to de-
scribe emotions and to categorize them rationally.
But what exactly are we talking about when we discuss ‘emotions’? There is
no definition of emotions applicable to all the sciences involved in their investiga-
tion. Nonetheless, as a starting point, I propose the following: emotions are internal
processes that are triggered in particular situations. Biologically, culturally, and in-
dividually caused, they may find physical or verbal expression. Formed by interac-
tion and reflection, they are shaped by social contexts, moral concepts, and value
judgements.4
Historians commonly subscribe to a constructivist conception of emotions that
differ according to individuals or societies experiencing and shaping them. Though
change is the key concept, anthropological constants are nevertheless important in
the field. If there were none, we would never be able to understand human beings
of other periods and cultures.5 Thus, the principal methodological problem to be
overcome is to consider carefully how our own ideas are retrojected, often uncon-
sciously, when talking about ancient cultures.
A great deal of work has been done on emotions in recent years, predominantly
in the fields of Modern and Medieval history.6 In Ancient History, however, the so-
4 For the problems of defining emotions, see Plamper 2012, 11–50.

5 Cf. the résumé by Plamper 2012, 351f.
6 Cf. the research reports by Hitzer 2011, Matt 2011, and Plamper 2012. The Center for the His-
tory of Emotions, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (http://www.mpib-ber-
lin.mpg.de/de/forschung/geschichte-der-gefuehle; 07.03.2016), and the Cluster of Excellence
Federalism Based on Emotions? Pamboiotian Festivals in Hellensitic and Roman Times 85
called ‘emotional turn’7 has not gained much of a response so far.8 This is likely
due to the nature of our source material: whereas literary texts provide substantial
insight into emotions and can be investigated with established semantic analysis,
material sources are much more difficult to decipher.9 What about inscriptions, the
main category of sources for the Boiotian koinon in Hellenistic and Roman times?
Angelos Chaniotis, the most prominent scholar who has delved into the matter thus
far, is optimistic about their utility. If emotions are not mentioned in the text of the
inscription, which is the case in all the inscriptions of interest here, he proposes the
following approach:
1. “establishing the date and background of the composition;
2. considering the intended audiences;
3. studying the relation between text and monument;
4. examining the place in which the inscription was set up.”10
Generically, these are the central questions every epigraphist has to tackle when
working with their material. By focusing on exemplary inscriptions, these ques-
tions, in a slightly modified order, will lead us through the discussion. I pose them
in the following way:
1. What and how? The content and the fabric
2. When? Date and background
3. Where? The setting
4. Who? The initiators and the intended audience
III. PTOIA, PAMBOIOTIA AND BASILEIA: INSCRIPTIONS ALLUDING TO

EMOTIONS
III.1. The Ptoia: A New Festival and Old Habits
III.1.1. Trophonios and the Amphiktyonic Council give their Blessing to the Ptoia
(IG VII 4135 and IG VII 4136): Stabilising External and Internal Relations
1. What and how? The content and the fabric
‘Languages of Emotion’ (http://www.loe.fu-berlin.de; 07.03.2016), both situated in Berlin,

have equally played an important role in enhancing the awareness of related problems.
7 For the expression, see AHR Conversation 2012, 1487.
8 The research association ‘The Emotions Project: The Social and Cultural Construction of Emo-
tions: The Greek Paradigm’ presided by Angelos Chaniotis in Oxford, has done groundbreak-
ing research (http://emotions.classics.ox.ac.uk/ (07.03.2016); cf. Chaniotis (ed.) 2012, and
Chaniotis/Ducrey (ed.) 2013. In Roman History, the semantics of elite behaviour have been the
focus of interest; for a mainly Latinist perspective, cf. Kaster 2005; Bormann/Wittchow (ed.)
2008; on elite behaviour, Barghop 1994 and Kneppe 1994.
9 There is a rising awareness of comparable questions among archaeologists, cf. already Fless
and Moede 2007, 259–262.
10 Chaniotis 2012, 120f. For implicit allusions to emotions in decrees, their emotional back-
ground, and the rise of explicit emotional allusions in the Hellenistic period, cf. Chaniotis
2013b and also Chaniotis 2013a.
86 Angela Ganter
Between 230 and 225 BCE, an important inscription was set up at the temple of
Apollo Ptoios at Akraiphia. Carved into blue-grey marble, it is 1.22 meters high,
0.58 wide, and 0.15 thick. It consists of three texts: an Amphiktyonic decree, an
oracle of Trophonios, and a dedication of money to Apollo, the last not discussed
here. Let us begin with the first:
A.
[– – – – – – – – – – – – – – πένθ’ ἡμέρα]ς πορευομέ–
[νοις καὶ ἀπερχομένοις ἄλλας τοσαύ]τας καὶ <ἕ>ως ἂν ἡ πανήγυρις
[γίνηται καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖ]ς ἀκολούθοις καὶ ἃ ἂν ἔχωσι
[χρήματα πανταχο]ῦ· ἐὰν δέ τις [παρὰ] ταῦτα ἄγηι τινὰ ἢ ῥυ[σιάζηι],
5 [ὑπ]όδικος ἒστω ἐν Άμφικτύοσιν· εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἄσυ–
λον τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Πτωΐου το ἐν Ἀκραιφίοις, ὡς ἂν
αἱ στῆλαι ὀρίζωσι, καθάπερ τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς· τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν χώ–
ραν τὴν ἱερὰν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος τοῦ Πτωΐου μὴ ἀδικεῖν μηδένα·
ἐὰν δέ τις ἀδικῆι, ὑπόδικος ἔστω ἐν Ἀμφικτύοσιν. τῆς δὲ
10 ἐκεχειρίας καὶ τῆς ἀσφαλείας ἄρχειν τὴν πεντεκαιδεκά–
την τοῦ ῾Ιπποδρομίου μηνὸς κατὰ θεόν, ὡς Βοιωτοὶ ἄγουσιν,
ὡς δὲ [Δ]ελφοί, Ἀπελλαίου· κυρίους δ’ εἶναι οἰκονομοῦντας
τὰ κατὰ τὸ ἱερὸν τόν τε προφήτην καὶ τὸν ἱερέα τοῦ Ἀπόλλω–
[ν]ος τοῦ Πτωΐου καὶ τὴν πόλιν τῶν Ἀκραιφιέων καὶ τὸ κοινὸν
15 τῶν Βοιωτῶν, καθὼς καὶ ἔνπροσθεν, καὶ τὸν ἀγωνοθέτην τὸν εἱρημένον ἑπὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα
τῶν Πτωΐων· ἀναγράψαι δὲ τὸ ψή–
φισμα ἐν στήλαις Πτωϊοκλῆν Ποταμοδώρου, καὶ ἀναθεῖναι
τὴμ μὲν ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, τὴν δ' ἐν Ἀ–
κραιφίοις ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Πτωΐου, τὴν δὲ ἐμ Πυλαίαι· ἀναθεῖ–
20 [ν]αι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν ὅπου ἂν δοκῆι ἐν καλλίστωι εἶν–
[αι]· ἐὰν δέ τι γίνηται ἀδίκημα παρὰ τὸ δόγμα τῶν Ἀμφικτυ–
[όν]ων, ἀποτεισάτω ὁ ἀδικῶν δισχιλίους στατῆρας καὶ ὃ
[ἂ]ν καταβλάψηι, τὰ δὲ καταδικασθέντα χρήματα ἱερὰ ἔσ–
[τ]ω τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Πτωΐου. ἀνενενκεῖν δὲ τὸ δόγμα τοὺς
25 ἱερομνήμονας ἐπί τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια, ὅπως εἰδῶ–
σιν πάντες τὰ δεδογμένα τοῖς Ἀμφικτίοσιν.
[(inviolability) ... for five days] in coming [and as many in departing] and while the
festival [takes place, both for themselves and their] attendants and their [property,
everywhere.] If anyone contrary to this seize or rob anyone, let him be subject to pros-
ecution before the Amphiktyons. The temple of Apollo Ptoius in Acraephia is to be
inviolable, as the boundaries define, as is the temple in Delphi; the other sacred land
of Apollo Ptoius no one is to harm; if anyone does, he is to be subject to prosecution
before the Amphiktyons. The sacred truce and security are to begin on the fiftheenth
of Hippodromios by the moon as Boeotians reckon, of Apellaios as Delphians. Those
in authority to administer the temple affairs are to be the prophet, the priest of Apollo
Ptoius, the city of Acraephia, and the Boeotian League, as previously, and the agono-
thete elected for the contest of the Ptoia ... (provisions for inscribing) ... If any offense
occur contrary to the decree of the Amphiktyons, the wrongdoer is to pay 2,000 staters
plus damages and the fine is to be dedicated to Apollo Ptoios. The hieromnemones are
to report this decree to their respective cities or nations so that all may know what the
Amphiktyons have decreed.11
Thus, the Amphiktyons decreed inviolability for those travelling to the sanctu-
ary in order to celebrate the festival of the Ptoia, and declared the temple to be
likewise inviolable (ἄσυλος, ll. 5–6). Furthermore, they granted a sacred truce
(ἐκεχειρία, l. 10) as well as safety (ἀσφάλεια, l. 10) to the participants of the festival.
Those who act contrary to the decree are repeatedly threatened with charges and
fines. Finally, the administrators of the temple affairs are defined: the prophet, the
priest of Apollo Ptoios, the city of Akraiphia, the Boiotian koinon – “as previously”
(καθὼς καὶ ἔνπροσθεν, l. 15), the text underlines – and the agonothetēs
(ἀγωνοθέτης, ‘supervisor of the contest,’ l. 15). The closing formula ensures that
the decree is made known everywhere.
The model for this decree is obviously well-established Panhellenic festivals
like the agones taking place at Delphi. So, the decree increased the status of the
Ptoia, regardless of whether the games had already existed in former times or if
they were created anew.12 The enhancement also advanced institutionalisation
within the koinon: an agonothetēs, mainly responsible for the finances of the games,
was added to the temple authorities.13
Before going deeper into the subject, let us have a look at the second text, the
oracle of Trophonios:
Β.
Καλλικλίδας Λοκρὸς ἐσς Ὀπόεντος καταβὰς ἐν Τρεφώ–
νιον ἀνάνγειλε Λεπάδειαν τοι Δὶ τοῖ Βασιλεῖι ἀνθέμεν
κὴ τοῖ Τρεφωνίοι, κὴ Ἀκρήφια τοῖ Ἀπόλλωνι τοι Πτωΐυ, κὴ μεί
30 ἀδικῖμεν μειδένα οὕτως. οὕτως δὲ ἀγιρέμεν, άμφοτέ–
ρως τὰ ἱαρὰ χρείματα κυνῆ ἐφ᾿οὑγίη κατὰ πᾶσαν χώ–
ραν, κὴ τὸν ἀγῶνα ἱαρὸν καταγγελλέμεν. ὅστις δέ κα τῶ
Διὸς τῶ Βασιλεῖος ἐπιμελειθείει τῶ ναῶ, τὸν στέφανον
ὔσετη.
Calliclidas, Locrian from Opus, having gone down to Trophonius, proclaimed that
Lebadeia is to be dedicated to Zeus Basileus and Trophonius, and Acraephia to Apollo
Ptoius, and no one is to wrong these (peoples). They are both to collect sacred funds,
11 IG VII.4135 cf. Manieri 2009 Acr. 1; translation by Rigsby 1996, 65f. For the general data and
the context of the erection see Rigsby 1996, 60–63; Manieri 2009, 64f.
12 For this discussion, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 1, 70f; Manieri 2009, 65 with note 12.
13 Rigsby 1996, 61, 67.
88 Angela Ganter
for the common good, in every land, and proclaim the holy contest. Whoever repairs
the temple of Zeus Basileus will wear the crown. 14
Most interpreters assume that the Lokrian consulting the oracle did so on behalf of
the Boiotian koinon.15 Here, the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios is named in conjunction
with the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia. Again we hear of a sacred truce,
or, to put it differently: the people attending activities at the sanctuaries were pro-
tected by the gods. Funds are to be collected, and the agones are to be proclaimed
everywhere – whether the expression “in every land” (κατὰ πᾶσαν χώραν, ll. 31–
32) refers to Boiotia or to a Panhellenic context is uncertain.16 Last but not least,
the temple of Zeus Basileus, doubtless the biggest project in Boiotia at this period,
is mentioned: whoever manages to repair this temple is to be the priest, or is
awarded with a crown, according to the promises of the oracle.17
Already the composition of the dossier combining the decree from Delphi and
the advice of the most important oracle in Boiotia is revealing.18 Several scholars
assume that the Boiotian koinon first consulted the oracle of Trophonios and then
sought the sanction of the Amphiktyony.19 As the answer of Trophonios is written
in the Boiotian dialect, the sanction of the god was obviously very important for the
legitimisation of the Ptoia within the region. Nevertheless, the Amphiktyonic de-
cree enjoys the prime position on the stone, probably because Delphi was consid-
ered to be the most renowned and prestigious institution from a Panhellenic point
of view. The stone thus attested to both the internal and external mechanics of fed-
eralism in the religious field. Internally, the Boiotians seem to have enforced re-
gional cooperation during these years. There are many more activities pointing to
this direction, as we will soon see. Externally, the Boiotians apparently wanted to
strengthen their bonds with the Aitolians, who presided over the Delphic Amphik-
tyony since the beginning of the century.20
2. When? Date and background
In the second half of the third century BCE, many cults in Boiotia were revitalised.
The Hellenistic Boiotian league invested heavily in the consolidation of common
religious life in the region. It was a period of changing alliances, and the Boiotian
koinon had to face external pressures which also had an impact on the modification,
or consolidation, of internal mechanisms.
14 IG VII.4136, cf. Manieri 2009 Acr. 2; translation by Rigsby 1996, 63.

15 See, for example, Bonnechère 2003, 31.
16 For the discussion, see Rigsby 1996, 64, and Manieri 2009, 87.
17 Schachter (1981–1994 vol. 3, 114) translates στέφανοφορεῖν (τὸν στέφανον ὔσετη, ll. 33–34)
with ‘to be awarded a crown’ as a reward for services (cf. Bonnechère 2003, 31), whereas
Rigsby 1996, 65 reads it as ‘to be the priest.’
18 On the oracle of Trophonios, Bonnechère 2003.
19 Cf. the overviews by Rigsby 1996, 62; Manieri 2009, 66.
20 Briefly on the background, Polyb. 20.5; Rigsby 1996, 61; Manieri 2009, 64f.
After the re-integration of Thebes into the koinon, probably in 287 BCE, the
district system was re-organized, this time guaranteeing the equal participation of
the cities according to their size, and thus preventing another hegemonic position
like that held by Thebes in the fourth century. In 245, the Boiotians were allies of
the Achaians against the Aitolians. But when the Aitolians invaded Boiotia and de-
stroyed the Boiotian army at the Battle of Chaironeia, the Boiotians joined the Ai-
tolian koinon. In 234, Demetrios II invaded Boiotia, but was defeated one year later.
Many other events, capped by the Romans appearing on the scene from the early
220s onwards, illustrate the decidedly relative character of Boiotian independence.
The koinon was making alliances with other koina, mainly with the Aitolians in
these years, while at the same time it was seeking to maintain its own internal co-
hesion.21
With a view to the so-called Hellenic Alliance formed in 224 BCE, consisting
of koina opposed to Kleomenes III of Sparta, “an awareness that the koinon rather
than the polis had become the major political structure of Hellenistic mainland
Greece” can be seen, to “provide stability to structures of interstate cooperation in
such a turbulent period.”22 This is also true for the Boiotian koinon, whose activities
in the religious field demonstrate the enforcement and strengthening of communal
structures during the last third of the third century. This is when the Ptoia and the
Basileia were sanctioned by the oracle of Trophonios and the Delphic Amphik-
tyony, and when the construction of the temple of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia began.
The religious activities of the 220s attest to the need to stabilise both external and
internal relations.
III.1.2. The Revival of Tripod Dedications (IG VII 2724): Stressing Continuity to
Former Times of Glory?
3. Where? The setting
Next, the setting of the inscriptions is pivotal in understanding their emotional va-
lence. Another dossier of inscriptions found at the Ptoion needs to be included in
our analysis: tripod dedications made by the koinon, all of which stem from the
third century BCE. The majority were found at the Ptoion,23 and they all roughly
say the same thing: the Boiotoi dedicated the tripod in accordance with an oracle of
Apollo to Apollo Ptoios. In addition, the archon and the aphedriates are designated
by name, patronymic, and city ethnic. Finally, the mantis and/or the secretary is
mentioned. See, as an example, the following inscription:
Εὐμείλω ἄρχοντος Ἐπικουδείω Κορωνεῖ[ο]ς,
21 For an overview on the political background, see Mackil 2013, 98–116; Beck/Ganter 2015,
151–157 with references to older contributions.
22 Mackil 2013, 113.
23 Six of them, dedications to Apollo Ptoios, stem from the Ptoion: one was dedicated to the
Muses, one to the Graces at Orchomenos, and three to Zeus Eleutherios. The dossier is de-
scribed by Mackil 2013, 433–436, T16–21.
90 Angela Ganter
τοῖ Ἀπόλλωνι τὸν τρίποδα ἀνέθειαν Βοιωτοί, μαντευσ–

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

the Boiotian koinon at this period by naming all the magistrates involved, among
them the college of the aphedriates, who represented the Hellenistic districts.25 I
agree with Emily Mackil’s conclusions regarding these dedications. All were made
roughly between 287 and 249, in a period of upheavals, and thus, to quote her sum-
mation, they should ensure ‘that the dedications were in fact made by all the Boio-
tians. It complicated defection, implicitly securing the commitment and participa-
tion of every individual and community in the dedicatory act (...). The broad range
of the aphedriates’ activities, from Akraiphia to Lebadeia, likewise suggests that
the Boiotians sought to continually reinforce the unification of the region through
systematic participation in many of its cults, capturing the cohesive effects of shared
ritual action. We can also see the aphedriatēs and their collective dedications as a
means of protecting the very system of districts by imbricating it in a ritual con-
text’.26
On the subject of implicit emotions, fear might have been a motive of this en-
forcement: fear of particularism and of a competition between the member poleis,
which would ultimately destroy the koinon as it did many times before.
Yet, fear of internal strife and threats from the external world does not create
identification, neither does it produce positive emotions. The tripod dedications al-
lude to much more than the memory of a difficult past and present. As a material
reference to the Archaic Period, they evoke former times of glory.
Though the Ptoion was not exactly a Pamboiotian sanctuary in the true sense –
it was not comparable to the Itonion at Koroneia or the cult place of Zeus Basileus
24 Dedication of a tripod by the Boiotoi to Apollo Ptoios, probably after 287 BCE (IG VII.2724 =
Mackil 2013, T 17; translation by Mackil); a photograph is provided by Guillon 1943 I, 15,
Base IV.
25 See especially Mackil 2013, 221–224, and, for the discussion of the Hellenistic districts, Müller
2011.
26 Mackil 2013, 223.
close to Lebadeia –, though it was not directly linked to the cultic and mythical
origins of the ethnos, it had been the first place where the koinon had made collec-
tive dedications. Strictly speaking, these first dedications had not been impressive
in comparison to the overwhelming monuments decorating the sanctuary, mainly
kouroi and tripods. At least the alignments of the tripod bases on the terraces must
have still been visible in the third century, if not the old tripods themselves – testi-
fying to a foregone, partly unknown past.27 Centuries later, this sophisticated dif-
ferentiation did not matter anymore, neither did the fact that Thebes had dominated
the affairs of the sanctuary for a long time.28 In the third century, the Ptoion seemed
to be the right place to demonstrate continuity, to dedicate tripods, which should
remind mainly Boiotian visitors of former times of glory, while also making them
proud of their common history in order to promote unification29 – regardless of the
fact that the monumental history of the sanctuary did not tell a story of Boiotian
glory. But this is not how memory works.
The policy of memorization is also attested in other contexts of the period. The
tripods fit well into the line of formulations, which can be found in many inscrip-
tions, like καθὼς καὶ ἔνπροσθεν stressing the long established authority of the koi-
non.30
III.1.3. Decrees of Acceptance in the Late Third and in the Late Second Century
BCE (IG VII 351 and IG VII 4140–4142): A Comparison
4. Who? The initiators and the intended audience

Another dossier of inscriptions related to the Ptoia once more gives the impression
that the authorities of the koinon did everything to ensure that internal cooperation
was working properly.31 At the beginning of every festival cycle, delegates were
sent to each Boiotian polis to announce the next Ptoia. Welcomed by the city coun-
cils, they had to ensure that the poleis accepted the festival rules and that they chose
27 The tripods are specifically discussed by Guillon 1943 and Papalexandrou 2008, 259f (ibid.
270f on the revival of tripod dedications by the Hellenistic koinon), the kouroi by Ducat 1971.
For the discussion on first possible dedications by the Classical Boiotian koinon, see Larson
2007, 131–133 with critical comments by Ganter 2013, 88f; cf. also Mackil 2013, 171f.
28 Most scholars agree that the sanctuary fell under Theban control in the sixth century BCE, e.g.
Guillon 1943, 99–115; Ducat 1964, 288; 1971, 448–450; and Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 1, 69;
1994b, 300–302, 304–306; critical remarks in Kowalzig 2007, 369.
29 Cf. the commentary by Guillon 1943 II, 162: ‘Ainsi les trépieds fédéraux érigés autant qu’il
semble dans le 3e quart du IIIe s. à travers les grands sanctuaires béotiens sont sans doute le
témoignage d’un effort général pour réveiller autour du sentiment de l’unité fédérale le mou-
vement agonistique à l’occasion de l’érection solennelle du trépied.’ Cf. Chaniotis 2013b, 748
and 756, who speaks of four functions of emotional display: explicative, commemorative, emo-
tive and performative.
30 IG VII.4135 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 1, l. 10, cited above. Other examples: Manieri 2009, Acr. 11
A ll. 2. 7; IG VII.4140. 4142 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 12 A ll. 1–2. C l. 7.
31 Cf. the commentary by Manieri 2009, 66f on the acceptance decrees: ‘Si crea un intreccio di
relazioni diplomatiche rispettivamente di invito e di accettazione che ha come scopo quello di
rinsaldare i legami religiosi e politici tra le città beotiche.’
92 Angela Ganter
delegates to perform the common rituals taking place at the festival. Apart from the
agones, which attracted participants from all over the Hellenic world and which
stood individually for their poleis of provenience, the religious part of the Ptoia
with the sacrifice and the procession was the genuinely Boiotian element.32
Again we see the koinon operating at a highly institutionalised level, organizing
the whole festival with local and regional magistrates who performed their tasks in
a specialized function. What strikes me most is the elaborate, expensive practice of
erecting acceptance decrees carved into stone in every city of Boiotia as part of the
festival preparations. These decrees, exposed at the main temples of the towns, like
the example from Oropos (IG VII 351), that was erected after 222 BCE, made it
publicly known that Oropos, invited by the city of Akraiphia and the Boiotian koi-
non, consented in participating at the common sacrifices (l. 6)33 and the procession,
and that it would send an ox.
Why was it so important to carve the consent in stone? It was in this way that
the citizens of Oropos were reminded of their Boiotian status, and the authorities of
the koinon ensured that the citizens would not forget their bonds to the federation.
Rituals like common sacrifices and processions create strong bonds between the
participants, uniting them before the gods. These rituals do display a degree of com-
monality which sets aside sophisticated thoughts about the quality of regional co-
herence. But to make sure that every polis would participate a high degree of for-
malisation was needed. Obviously, the authorities were possessed by the fear that
coherence would not be displayed as common festivals supposedly do.
One century later, it was no longer the Boiotian koinon that sent the delegates
into the cities, as a decree of acceptance in an unknown Boiotian town from the end
of the second century attests (IG VII 4140–4142).34 But the religious magistrates
like the theōroi are still there, and it is clear that federal religious institutions had
survived the dissolution of the Hellenistic koinon. In contrast to the decree from the
third century, however, the bonds between the cities are stressed several times by
alluding to the common past (καθῶς καὶ πρότερον, A ll. 1–2 and C l. 7), and to
φιλία, and συγγένεια (B ll. 6–7; C ll. 5; 13).35
These expressions, like many more in the acceptance decrees, are stereotypical,
and reveal by this very fact that the memories of the common past had become the
firmest ties that bound the Boiotians together when the Classical and the Hellenistic
league had vanished from the political landscape.36 They embodied continuity in
the region – whether this played out emotionally is hard to say. But the emotions
arising from the celebration of common festivals were still bound to institutions,
and these religious magistracies survived the political upheavals until a very late
32 Manieri 2009, 69–77.

33 IG VII.351 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 4 ll. 5–7: (...) παρεκαλοῦσαν τὸν δῆμον συναύξειν τὴν θυσίαν
τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Πτωΐωι καθάπερ καὶ τὸ κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν καὶ ἡ πόλις τῶν Ἀκραιφιέων·
34 IG VII.4140–4142 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 12.
35 For φιλία, and συγγένεια, cf. also IG VII.4138 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 10 A ll. 10–11. 17–18; IG
VII.4139 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 11 B ll. 2. 15; IG VII.4144 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 13 l. 5.
36 Cf. Manieri 2009, 67: ‘La loro richiesta trae comunque forza dall’antica alleanza e dalla co-
mune tradizione politica e religiosa che unisce il popolo beotico.’
date. An individual euergetēs may have been personally touched by this common
heritage and therefore invested great sums to revive festivals like the Ptoia when
Boiotia had become a part of the Roman Empire.37 Surely, religious practice sup-
plied a great sense of continuity to the experience of ethnic commonness despite
the strong competition between the poleis of the region throughout Boiotian history.
Perhaps in this sense, federalism was based on emotions, individually experienced
or not. But the authorities of the koinon knew well that the koinon could not do
without them. They were certainly not the weakest bonds tying the Boiotians to-
gether, and they survived when all of the League’s political institutions had long
died.
III.3. The Pamboiotia: Cooperation and Competition
In the scope of this contribution, I cannot discuss in detail the evidence for the Pam-
boiotia, which took place at the ancient cult sanctuary of Athena Itonia close to
Koroneia. Athena was the most important ethnic goddess, and the Basileia, a festi-
val inaugurated by the Thebans after the victory of Leuktra close to the oracle of
Trophonios and the cult place of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia, was another occasion
of primary importance for ethnic identity in Boiotia. I limit myself to a few brief
remarks.
If an inscription set up in the 260s BCE refers to the sanctuary of Athena at
Koroneia, as many scholars assume, the Itoneion was declared asylon by an Am-
phiktyonic decree already at this point of time, thus thirty years earlier than the
Ptoion and the sanctuary of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia.38 The most remarkable as-
pect of the agones are the competitions between military units drawn from the Boi-
otian districts.39 Accordingly, the inscriptions commemorating victories at the
events provide no lists of individual victors, but they rather name the successful
military units as a group. Individuals mentioned are the leaders of these units ap-
pearing with their name and patronymic. What is more, the inscriptions are written
in the Boiotian dialect.40 Was this perhaps the way to canalise the agonistic impetus
between the member poleis, not only after the reorganisation of the federal army
between 250 and 245 BCE?41 These contests certainly were a measure to embed
competition into cooperative structures, a measure to create pride in genuinely Boi-
otian achievements.
37 Cf. IG VII.4133. 4148 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 17–18, especially IG VII.2712 = Manieri 2009,
Acr. 19.
38 SEG 18.240 with Schachter 1980, 81; 1981–1994 vol. 1, 123f; Rigsby 1996, 55; Mackil 2013,
224.
39 Telē are explicitly mentioned in SEG 3.354 = Schachter 1980, no. 3, l. 3. For the discussion of
telē and districts embedded in rituals, cf. Mackil 2013, 224–226.
40 The dossier is presented and discussed by Schachter 1980.
41 On the reorganisation of the federal army, see Feyel 1942, 187–262; Henning 1977, 146–148.
94 Angela Ganter
III.4. The Basileia and the Temple of Zeus Basileus: An Everlasting, Unfinished
Project
Already in 281/280 BCE, an Athenian inscription honours tassiarxoi being invited

to participate in the sacrifice of the Basileia. They are not invited eis Lebadeis, but
eis Boiotous,42 which seems very remarkable to me. Accordingly, in the late third
century, victors are not designated by their home towns, but by their ethnos.43 The
invitation of military delegates may hint at the character of the festival still com-
memorating military victories – though it was not linked to Theban supremacy any
longer, but to the successes of the Boiotians as a whole. 44 As already discussed
above, in an echo of the Ptoia, the status of the games was enhanced between 230
and 225 BCE, when the oracle of Trophonios and the Amphiktyony legitimised the
festivals and secured the funds necessary to build such a huge project as the temple
of Zeus Basileus was.45
This project was ambitious indeed, involving a monumental temple 46 meters
long.46 It attests to the optimism and self-fashioning of the Boiotian koinon during
these years, demonstrating towards the member poleis and towards the Hellenic
world alike that, as a koinon, the Boiotians were constructive in the best sense of
the word. Together, it seemed, they were able to achieve something that would have
seemed impossible to an individual member polis. Even a new magistracy was cre-
ated, the naopoioi, who had to survey the building project.47 This was a koinon at
the height of its power, still extending the degree of institutionalisation and organ-
isation. Everyone coming to the sanctuary should understand this. Therefore the
federal officials decided to carve the work contracts onto a wall purposely built of
stelai, one of the largest such inscribed walls we know from Antiquity, over two
meters tall and approximately 16 meters in length.48 Given that it was viewable
from all sides, these inscriptions were intended to be read. Anyone having con-
structed or renovated a house knows how difficult it is to keep much smaller pro-
jects going. Apparently, the naopoioi hoped to control the workforce in order to
reduce delays and the loss of money.49 But the wall is much more: a monument of
42 SEG 25.90 = Manieri 2009, Leb. 5, ll. 19–20: τοὺς ταξιάρχους τοὺς ἀποσταλέντας εἰς
[Β]οιωτοὺς. The victors from IG VII.3078 = Manieri 2009, Leb. 11 demontrate that the Basileia
were well-known all over the Greek world.
43 SEG 3.368 = Manieri 2009, Leb. 9 from the 3 rd/2nd century BCE. However, there have been
doubts, if the festival meant were the Basileia at all, Manieri 2009, 154.
44 In the first instance, after the battle of Leuktra in 371 BCE, the festival was meant to remember
the Theban victory over Sparta; for the history of the festival, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 3,
115–118; Beck 1997, 191f; Manieri 2009, 137–140.
45 IG VII.4136 = Manieri 2009, Acr. 2, cited above, with Manieri 2009, 139.
46 On the temple project, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 3, 113; Nafissi 1995; Mackil 2013, 208
note 228; Pitt 2014, 380f with references to further literature.
47 Cf. Schachter 1994a, 82–84; Manieri 2009, 141.
48 The dossier includes IG VII.3073–3077 among others, see Schachter 1981–1994 vol. 3, 113
note 4. For the reconstruction of the wall, see Turner 1994; cf. also Pitt 2014, 386.
49 This is the convincing interpretation by Pitt 2014, 373.
administrative achievements by the magistrates, a monument illustrating the im-

pressiveness of the undertaking, a monument of pride.
Significantly, the wall was the only part of the precinct ever finished. 50 The
ruins were still visible when Pausanias visited the place.51 They stand for the koinon
as a whole with its history of ups and downs, and reveal the koinon to be an ever-
lasting, unfinished project. Maybe even the scattered half-worked limestone blocks
had an emotional impact on the visitors coming to the place.
IV. INSTITUTIONS AND EMOTIONS: A BOIOTIAN SYNOPSIS FOR

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN TIMES
To conclude, I would like to add general considerations on the interdependence

between institutions and emotions. Before doing so, I should underline that they are
only first steps in a wide field which needs much more elaboration. Not only the
evidence of the Pamboiotian sanctuaries, but also the evidence of many other Boi-
otian festivals flourishing during the period in question should be taken into account
to get a fuller picture.
If the inscriptions known to us do indeed provide a realistic impression of the
circumstances between the Hellenistic and the Roman periods, broadly speaking,
then they illustrate that the organisation of religious activities depended on the
working of the institutions of the koinon. But the analysis can be pushed somewhat
further: religious activities were regarded as being so important by the authorities
of the koinon that the Hellenistic koinon enhanced the organisational level of many
activities, which in turn led to the creation of new magistracies, and thus promoted
institutionalisation. Partly, the fear of regional particularism, so well-known from
the recent past, may have driven the authorities to do so. As only the koinon could
face the threats from outside, internal strife would have made Boiotia a mere object
of external powers, turning the region into a permanent ‘dance-floor of war.’52
But fear is not enough to cause the heart of an ethnos to beat continuously. This
religious policy would not have been accepted, if the sanctuaries had not been long
established reference points of regional identity. The leading groups obviously
knew this. Accordingly, they stressed continuity with former times of glory, e.g. by
dedicating tripods at the Ptoion. Pride was the counterpart of fear, the temple for
Zeus Basileus being the most impressive testimony of a koinon presenting itself at
the height of its ambitions. And the Basileia offered the possibility to integrate com-
petition and cooperation, for the victories in the agonistic field applied to the com-
mon military units, not to the individual poleis.53
50 Pitt 2014, 389.

51 Paus. 9.39.4.
52 Cf. Plut. Mor. 193E; Marc. 21 (310).
53 Cf. the following considerations by Mackil 2013, 225 concerning the interdependency of ritu-
alisation and institutionalisation: ‘(...) the agōnes of the Pamboiotia simultaneously ritualized
the institutions of polis, district, and koinon, insofar as each district team represented a polis or
a cluster of poleis and participated in a regional cult managed by the koinon. The process of
96 Angela Ganter
Without the institutions of the koinon, it seems that it would have been much
more difficult to organize communal gatherings, to display, and experience, re-
gional coherence. Yet, as is often the case, the religious structures had a longue
durée. The Boiotians continued celebrating their festivals with the awareness that
their ancestors had equally done so. Already the Hellenistic koinon had based its
religious policy on sentiments relating to a glorious past. These sentiments re-
mained and emotions will have risen when an agonothetēs, like Epameinondas of
Akraiphia, invested heavily in the revival of the Ptoia in the first century CE,54
testifying to regional identity and cohesion. Christel Müller recognizes a “renewal
of collective sentiment” where friendship and kinship (syngeneia) between Boio-
tian cities were renewed, and “a sort of federal memory, capable of remaining in
force even in the absence of formal federal structures.”55 You might call this feder-
alism based on emotions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AHR Conversation (2012) The Historical Study of Emotions, American Historical Review 117,
1487–1531.
Auffahrt, C. (1991) Der drohende Untergang. “Schöpfung” in Mythos und Ritual im Alten Orient
und in Griechenland am Beispiel der Odyssee und des Ezechielbuches 39, Berlin/New York.
Barghop, D. (1994) Forum der Angst: eine historisch-anthropologische Studie zu Verhaltensmus-
tern von Senatoren im Römischen Kaiserreich, Frankfurt/Main.
Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen
Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Stuttgart.
Bonnechère, P. (2003) Trophonios de Lébadée. Cultes et mythes d’une cité béotienne au miroir de
la mentalité antique, Leiden.
Bormann, D. and F. Wittchow (eds.) (2008) Emotionalität in der Antike. Zwischen Performativität
und Diskursivität, Berlin.
Buck, R.J. (1993) The Hellenistic Boiotian League, The Ancient History Bulletin 7, 100–106.
Burkert, W. (1997) Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen, Ber-
lin/New York.
Chaniotis, A. (2012) Moving Stones: The Study of Emotions in Greek Inscriptions, in A. Chaniotis
(ed.), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World
(HABES, 52), Stuttgart, 91–129.
Chaniotis, A. (ed.) (2012) Unveiling Emotions. Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in
the Greek World (HABES 52), Stuttgart.
Chaniotis, A. (2013a) Emotional Language in Hellenistic Decrees and Hellenistic Histories, in M.
Mari and J. Thornton (eds.), Parole in movimento. Linguaggio politico e lessico storiografico
ritualization endowed these institutions with stability and permanence through reiteration and
the deployment of symbols in a cultic context related in myth to the unity of the Boiotians by
descend (from the Boiotoi who invaded from Arne) and in ritual to the community of the Boi-
otians by interaction (...).’
54 Manieri 2009, Acr. 19 (37 CE).
55 Müller 2014, 132f.
nel mondo ellenistico. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 21–23 febbraio 2011 (Studi
Ellenistici 27), Pisa, 339–352.
Chaniotis, A. (2013b) Affective Epigraphy: Emotions in Public Inscriptions of the Hellenistic Age,
Mediterraneo antico 16, 745–760.
Chaniotis, A. and P. Ducrey (eds.) (2013) Unveiling Emotions II. Emotions in Greece and Rome:
Texts, Images, Material Culture (HABES 55), Stuttgart.
Ducat, J. (1964) Le Ptoion et l’histoire de la Béotie à l’époque archaïque, Revue des Études Grecques
77, 283–290.
Ducat, J. (1971) Les kouroi du Ptoion: Le sanctuaire d’Apollon Ptoieus à l’époque archaïque, Paris.
Feyel, M. (1942) Polybe et l’histoire de Béotie au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, Paris.
Fless, F. and K. Moede (2007) Music and Dance: Forms of Representation in Pictorial and Written
Sources, in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Religion, Oxford, 249–262.
Freitag, K. (2007) Ethnogenese, Ethnizität und die Entwicklung der griechischen Staatenwelt in der
Antike, Historische Zeitschrift 285, 373–399.
Ganter, A. (2013) A Two–Sided Story of Integration: The cultic dimension of Boeotian ethnogene-
sis, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries, Stuttgart,
85–105.
Gauger, J.–D. (2005) Boiotien, in H. H. Schmitt and E. Vogt (eds.), Lexikon des Hellenismus, Wies-
baden, 202–205.
Guillon, P. (1943) Les trépieds du Ptoion I–II, Paris.
Henning, D. (1977) Der Bericht des Polybios über Boiotien und die Lage von Orchomenos in der 2.
Hälfte des 3. Jh.s v. Chr., Chiron 7, 119–148.
Hitzer, B. (2011) Emotionsgeschichte – ein Anfang mit Folgen, http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-ber-
lin.de/forum/2011–11-001 (07.03.2016).
Kaster, R. (2005) Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome, Oxford.
Kneppe, A. (1994) Metus temporum: Zur Bedeutung von Angst in Politik und Gesellschaft der rö-
mischen Kaiserzeit des 1. und 2. Jhdts. n. Chr., Stuttgart.
Kowalzig, B. (2007) Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Clas-
sical Greece, Oxford.
Larson, S. L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and
Early Classical Periods (Historia Einzelschriften 197), Stuttgart.
Manieri, A. (2009) Agoni poetico-musicale nella Grecia Antica I: Beozia, Pisa/Rome.
Matt, S.J. (2011) Current Emotion Research in History: Or, Doing History from the Inside Out,
Emotion Review 3, 117–124.
Müller, C. (2011) ΠΕΡΙ ΤΕΛΩΝ: Quelques réflexions autour des districts de la Confédération béo-
tienne à l’époque hellénistique, in N. Badou (ed.), Philologos Dionysios. Mélanges offerts au
professeur Denis Knoepfler, Genève, 261–282.
Müller, C. (2014) A Koinon after 146? Reflections on the Political and Institutional Situation of
Boeotia in the Late Hellenistic Period, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of
Boeotia, Leiden, 119–146.
Nafissi, M. (1995) Zeus Basileus di Lebadea: la politica religiosa del koinon beotico durante la gue-
rra cleomenica, Klio 77, 149–169.
Papalexandrou, N. (2008) Boiotian Tripods: The Tenacity of a Panhellenic Symbol in a Regional
Context, Hesperia 77, 251–282.
Papazarkadas, N. (ed.) (2014) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. Leiden.
Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.
Pitt, R. (2014) Just as It Has Been Written: Inscribing Building Contracts at Lebadeia, in N. Papa-
zarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 373–394.
Plamper, J. (2012) Geschichte und Gefühl. Grundlagen der Emotionsgeschichte, München.
Rigsby, K.J. (1996) Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, California.
98 Angela Ganter

Schachter, A. (1978) La fête des Pamboiotia: le dossier épigraphique, Cahier des Études Anciennes
8, 81–107.
Schachter, A. (1981–1994) Cults of Boeotia Vols. 1–4, London.
Schachter, A. (1994a) Gods in the Service of the State, the Boiotian Experience, in L. Aigner Foresti
et al. (eds.), Federazioni e federalismo nell’Europa antica, Milano, 67–85 (also in A.
Schachter, Boiotia in Anquity. Selected Papers, Cambridge 2016, 175–192).
Schachter, A. (1994b) The Politics of Dedication: Two Athenian Dedications at the Sanctuary of
Apollo Ptoieus in Boeotia, in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics.
Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 292–306 (also in A.
Schachter, Boiotia in Anquity. Selected Papers, Cambridge 2016, 151–167).
Turner, L.A. (1994) IG VII 3073 and the display of inscribed texts, in J. Fossey and P. J. Smith
(eds.), Boeotia Antiqua IV, Amsterdam, 17–31.
INTEGRATION AND COERCION: NON–BOIOTIANS IN THE
HELLENISTIC BOIOTIAN LEAGUE
Ruben Post
University of Pennsylvania
One of the key topics in the history of Boiotian federalism has been the ethnogene-
sis of the Boiotoi. Much attention has been devoted recently to how the disparate
groups that came to be labeled with this ethnonym managed to overcome their dif-
ferences and unite in collective action during the Archaic and Classical periods.1
Little attention has been devoted, however, to the role of ethnicity in later Boiotian
history. The Boiotian koinon of the Hellenistic period was never nearly as powerful
as its neighbours, the Achaian and Aitolian federal states. Nonetheless, it impres-
sively managed to maintain its autonomy throughout the third and early second
centuries BCE, warding off the predatory advances of these expanding koina. In-
deed, it even at times managed to expand its borders through the absorption of non-
Boiotian poleis. In this paper I will address the integration of these ethnically-dif-
ferent communities into the Boiotian koinon and how they were treated within this
federal state. In particular, I will focus on the Boiotians’ apparent willingness to
resort to intimidation and coercion to retain member poleis and how this fits into
our broader understanding of Boiotian history.
While the Boiotian koinon had annexed some ethnic non–Boiotian populations
already in the Classical period, such as the Lokrian polis of Larymna,2 this federal
state only began to absorb ethnically non–Boiotian cities in earnest in the Hellenis-
tic period. The first such polis to be integrated into the koinon was Oropos, which
had a complex relationship with the Boiotians. This polis changed between being a
member of the Boiotian koinon, being attached to Athens, and being independent
nine times from the later fifth century BCE until it once again entered the ranks of
the Boiotians shortly after 287 BCE, this time remaining a member of the federal
state until 171 BCE.3 We next find a string of annexations in the 280s and 270s
BCE, following the conclusion of the most intense decades of conflict between the
Diadochoi in Greece. The Galatian invasion of Greece, Pyrrhos’ campaign in the
Peloponnese, and the weakness of Makedonia allowed the Boiotians, like the Ai-
tolians, to expand their control in central Greece. Indeed, as Scholten has noted, the
success of the Aitolians in actively absorbing ethnic non-Aitolians into their koinon
in the early third century BCE likely provided a model for the newly reconstituted
1 Kühr 2006; Larson 2007; Kowalzig 2007, 328–391.

2 Paus. 9.23.7.
3 For a good summary of the shifting political orientation of Oropos, see Morpurgo-Davies 1993,
274f; Knoepfler 2002; and n.38 below.
100 Ruben Post
Boiotian koinon.4 Thus, in 272 BCE the Opountian Lokrians to the northwest ap-
pear to have joined the Boiotian koinon.5 We do not know whether this movement
was coerced or voluntary, but it seems likely that the Opountians willingly joined
the Boiotians to shield themselves from the turbulence of this period.6 Opous cer-
tainly belonged to the Boiotian koinon until 245 BCE, when it may have been ceded
to the Aitolians.7 Nonetheless, this polis was a member of the koinon again in 237/6
BCE, only to fall under Makedonian control shortly after 228 BCE8 and at some
point in the later third century BCE rejoin the Boiotians once again.9 Similarly,
Lokrian Larymna, which had been annexed in the fourth century BCE, was again
controlled by the koinon in 227 BCE,10 while the smaller neighbouring polis of
Halai was a member in the later third century BCE, though it is likely that this city
joined together with Opous.11
Across the straights of the Euripos to the east, the Euboian cities of Chalkis and
Eretria also appear to have joined the Boiotian koinon in the 280s or early 270s
BCE. The date of Chalkis’ annexation is linked closely to an inscribed list of
aphedriateuontes, Boiotian religious representatives, which includes a
Chalkidian,12 now shown by Knoepfler to date to the 280s or 270s BCE;13 regard-
less of when it joined the koinon, however, Chalkis had left by 271/0 BCE.14 Knoep-
fler has also convincingly demonstrated that Eretria joined the Boiotians in the af-
termath of Demetrios Poliorketes’ defeat and capture in 286 BCE.15 The preamble
of a decree of 278/7 BCE recorded by Diogenes Laertios makes clear, however, that
by that date this polis was no longer a member of the Boiotian koinon.16 Thus, both
Chalkis and Eretria likely joined the Boiotians in the 280s, but both left to join the
reformed Euboian koinon again in the 270s BCE.
4 Scholten 2000, 69.

5 Moreno Hernandez and Pascual Valderrama 2013, 516f; the date is disputed without further
explanation in Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 331 n.246.
7 Klaffenbach 1926, 83; Le Bohec 1993, 162f.
8 Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 332–334.
9 Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 288–292. The assertion that Opous belonged once again to the
Boiotian koinon in the later 190s BCE, made by Feyel based on his dating of SEG 1.101 (1942,
61–68), has been refuted by Étienne and Knoepfler in the above pages.
10 Polyb. 20.5.8. Larymna was still considered Boiotian by Strabo 9.2.13.
11 Goldman 1915, n.3–4, with the archonships of Philon and Nikon dated to the period from 208–
204 BCE by Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 306, with the chart on 350; cf. Roesch 1965, 66f.
The small settlement of Boumelita, between Larymna in the west and Halai in the east, almost
certainly also followed its neighbours into the koinon, though we have no evidence testifying
to the status of this community during the duration of the koinon’s existence (Roesch 1965,
67f).
12 IG VII.2724b.
13 Knoepfler 2014, 73–83 has suggested that the Chalkidians may have joined the Boiotian koinon
twice, once for a period after Demetrios’ Poliorketes defeat in 286 BCE and a second time in
the later 270s BCE.
14 Knoepfler 1992, 450f, n.75; Knoepfler 1995, 147f; Knoepfler 1998, 207f.
15 IG XII.9.192; Knoepfler 1998, 202–204.
16 Diog. Laert. 2.142; Knoepfler 2014, 82–85.
Integration and Coercion: Non-Boiotians in the Hellenistic Boiotian League 101
Finally, Megara, as well as its two previously dependent communities of Pagai

and Aigosthena, also joined the Boiotian koinon, though again the date of this polis’
integration is uncertain. Polybios states that the Megarians, who had joined the
Achaian koinon in 243 BCE, joined the Achaian koinon after Corinth was occupied
by Kleomenes III in 224 BCE, and we know that the Megarians left the Boiotian
koinon and were re-integrated into the Achaian koinon sometime thereafter.17 The
details of the secession of Megara and its dependent neighbours from the ranks of
the Boiotians will be discussed below. Chronologically, all that we know about this
polis’ withdrawal from the Boiotian federal state is that Philopoimen was in power
when it occurred;18 both 206/5 and 192/1 BCE are possible dates for this event,19
but, following Polybios most closely, I have accepted the latter date.20
Thus at various times from the later fourth century BCE until the dissolution of
the Boiotian koinon in 171 BCE, the inhabitants of six ethnically non-Boiotian pol-
eis and their dependent communities in total were integrated into its ranks (Lar-
ymna, Opous, Halai, Chalkis, Eretria, Megara), and one polis (Oropos) whose eth-
nic identity was, as we will see, ambiguous. Unfortunately, in the case of most of
these cities we often only have just enough evidence to prove that they indeed were
members of the koinon at some time, but not enough to illuminate the process of
integration that they experienced. We do, however, know a little about how the
Boiotians treated new members. Documents issued by Halai, Eretria, Chalkis, and
Megara while members of the federal state make clear that they were allowed to
preserve their internal institutional structures, onto which a new federal framework
was superimposed.21 This latter development, however, by necessity seems to have
involved the dissolution of local supra-polis structures, since the annexation of
Opountian Lokris involved the dissolution of the Lokrian koinon that had been cen-
tred previously on Opous.22 Furthermore, after joining the Boiotians Megara was
forced to make Aigosthena and Pagai, two komai previously subject to it, independ-
ent members of the koinon.23 Thus, it appears that the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon
followed the contemporary Achaian federal habit of breaking up power structures
in newly integrated communities in order to prevent any single new member from
having too much influence.24 This is in contrast to the Aitolian federal state, which
appears to have absorbed into its ranks the Phokian and Dorian koina as well as, for
a short period of time after 245 BCE, the Boiotian federal state itself into its ranks
while still preserving their federal structures.25
17 Polyb. 20.6.9; Plut. Arat. 43–44; Cleom. 19.

18 Polyb. 20.6.9–12; Plut. Phil. 12.3; Paus. 8.50.4.
19 Beloch 1927, 434; Aymard 1938, 14f, n.7; Feyel 1942, 30f.
20 Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 266, n.3; 328, n.238.
21 Roesch 1965, 67, n.2.
22 Moreno Hernandez and Pascual Valderrama 2013, 519f.
23 Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 329f; Legon 1981, 32f.
24 Mackil 2013, 362f.
25 Scholten 2000, 73.
102 Ruben Post
Beyond such administrative treatment, we can glimpse the complex ethnic ne-
gotiations that could be found in the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon from a contempo-
rary source: Herakleides Kritikos. In his itinerary through central Greece, likely
dating to sometime in the third quarter of the third century BCE,26 this author states
about the Oropians that “denying that they are Boiotians, they are Athenian Boio-
tians” (ἀρνούμενοι τοὺς Βοιωτοὺς Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσι Βοιωτοί).27 This rather enigmatic
statement is paralleled later when the author states of the Plataians that they “have
nothing else to say than that they are colonists of the Athenians and that the battle
between the Greeks and the Persians took place there. They are Athenian Boiotians”
(Οἱ δὲ πολῖται οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἔχουσι λέγειν ἢ ὅτι Ἀθηναίων εἰσὶν ἄποικοι καὶ ὅτι τῶν
Ἑλλήνων καὶ Περσῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἡ μάχη ἐγένετο. Εἰσὶ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοi Βοιωτοί).28
These twin statements are of interest for the light they shed on the dialogues of
integration that must have been current in the third century koinon. By stating that
the Oropians denied being purely Boiotian, Herakleides makes clear that the pre-
vailing claim among many of their fellow federal citizens must have been that the
Oropians were indeed fully Boiotian. This was no doubt an artefact of the incessant
movement of this polis between Athens and the Boiotians in the centuries prior.
The assertion of a hybrid identity in this case seems to have been viewed as prob-
lematic by the primary members of the koinon, and, given Oropos’ history, this
claim likely evoked wariness over the loyalty of the Oropians to the federal state.
In the case of the Plataians, on the other hand, we find no similar declaration of the
contentiousness of their hybrid ethnic identity; there was perhaps too much well-
known history between the Plataians, the other members of the Boiotian koinon,
and the Athenians for such a claim to be denied.
By bringing this scarce and disparate evidence together, we may draw a few
conclusions about the expansion of the Hellenistic Boiotian koinon. First, this fed-
eral state rarely appears to have pursued an aggressive policy of expansion; rather,
its absorption of neighbouring non-Boiotian poleis was opportunistic and largely
dependent on extraneous political circumstances. Second, when it did integrate new
members into its ranks, the koinon pursued a policy of dividing up consolidated
power structures to ensure that no one member could hold disproportionate influ-
ence. Third, this expansion at least in some cases led to contentious negotiations of
ethnic identity within this federal state. Finally, the shifting conditions of the Hel-
lenistic period also often led newly-integrated cities to secede or be detached from
the koinon, sometimes repeatedly. Consequently, the Boiotian koinon had much less
success retaining new members than did its Aitolian and Achaian counterparts.
These conclusions suggest that the core members of the Boiotian koinon would
likely have regarded new members with suspicion, a view borne out, as we will see,
by other evidence.
26 For a discussion of the difficulties of dating this source, see Arenz 2006, 49–83 and the discus-
sion in McInerney’s biographical essay in BNJ 369A.
27 Herakleides Kritikos BNJ 369A F 1.7.
28 Herakleides Kritikos BNJ 369A F 1.11.
Our single best source of information on the history of Hellenistic Boiotia is

Polybios’ well-known digression on the degeneracy of its inhabitants.29 In this ex-
cursus, he states that:30
τὰ δὲ κοινὰ τῶν Βοιωτῶν εἰς τοσαύτην παραγεγόνει καχεξίαν ὥστε σχεδὸν εἴκοσι καὶ πέντ᾽
ἐτῶν τὸ δίκαιον μὴ διεξῆχθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς μήτε περὶ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν συμβολαίων μήτε περὶ τῶν
κοινῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν φρουρὰς παραγγέλλοντες τῶν ἀρχόντων, οἱ δὲ στρατείας
κοινάς, ἐξέκοπτον ἀεὶ τὴν δικαιοδοσίαν: ἔνιοι δὲ τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ μισθοδοσίας ἐποίουν ἐκ
τῶν κοινῶν τοῖς ἀπόροις τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
The affairs of the Boiotians had fallen into such disorder that for almost 25 years justice was
not administered among them either in private cases or public suits. Some magistrates were
engaged in dispatching garrisons, others national expeditions, and thus they continually put off
their juridical duties. Some of the generals also dispensed pay to the needy from the public
treasury.
This quarter of a century has traditionally been thought to fall between the years
217, marking the end of the Social War, and 192/1 BCE, when the Boiotians allied
with Antiochos III.31 Müller has recently asserted that we should read this section
as a largely literary construct, a product of Polybios’ bias against the Boiotians.32
As she notes, however, while Polybios’ portrait of Boiotian decline into decadence
is filled with literary tropes, we can be certain that it was constructed around a “dip-
lomatic/military basis of the narrative.”33 It is with these political and military
events that I am concerned.
In order to understand Polybios’ comments, we must place them in the context
of the history of Boiotia and the broader Greek world in the later third and early
second centuries BCE. In our literary sources we hear of no major Boiotian military
operations in the period after the end of the Kleomenic War in 222 BCE. The koinon
remained neutral during the Social War as well as the First Makedonian War,
emerging unscathed from both conflicts.34 In essence, during almost the entire pe-
riod covered by Polybios’ account, the Boiotian koinon successfully pursued a pol-
icy of neutrality. How, thus, can we explain Polybios’ assertion that for a quarter of
a century the Boiotians had been continually sending out phrourai and koinai
strateiai? Some light can be shed on the former by an inscription of an agreement
between Orchomenos and Chaironeia that specifies how cavalry from both poleis
were regularly to be deployed.35
This document dates to around 285 BCE and specifies that the cavalry of these
cities were to patrol for six to 11 days at a time around Thebes and Oropos.36 Only
29 Müller 2013, 267.

30 Polyb. 20.6.1–2 (translation by the author).
31 Walbank 1979, 72.
32 Müller 2013.
33 Müller 2013, 270.
34 Polyb. 2.65.3; Feyel 1942, 130f, 170–180.
35 SEG 28.461.
36 On the general dating of this document see Knoepfler 2014, 69–71, though I disagree with
Knoepfler’s assertion that the patrols outside of Boiotia must have been in central Euboia, and
thus cannot accept his more specific dating of 286–285 BCE (Knoepfler 2014, 85f).
104 Ruben Post
a couple of years earlier, both of these poleis had been re-integrated into the koinon,
the former after being destroyed and rebuilt,37 the latter after experiencing a period
of Athenian rule and then independence.38 The patrols around Oropos certainly
make sense from a strategic perspective, as this city marked one of the main routes
of entry from Attika into Boiotia.39 The importance of cavalry patrols for the secu-
rity of the koinon is made clear in another passage of Polybios narrating how in 227
BCE a rumour spread among the Boiotians that “Antigonos [Doson] intended to
ravage their country” (μέλλει κατατρέχειν τὴν χώραν Ἀντίγονος), prompting the
federal hipparch to patrol “with all the Boiotian cavalry” (πάντας τοὺς Βοιωτῶν
ἱππεῖς) around Larymna in the northwest “in order to guard the country” (χάριν τοῦ
παραφυλάττειν τὴν χώραν).40 The patrols around Thebes outlined in this inscription
do not appear to have served a strategic purpose, however; Thebes lay, of course,
in the heart of Boiotia, about as far from the borders of the koinon as a member
could be. It thus seems that while these patrols in some cases were intended to pro-
tect Boiotia from external attack, they also served the purpose of intimidating mem-
bers.
As for the koinai strateiai, an anecdote in a later part of Polybios’ digression
sheds light on what the historian seems to have had in mind with this phrase. After
outlining the degeneracy of the Boiotians, Polybios narrates the episode of Meg-
ara’s secession from the Boiotian koinon. As he notes, the Megarians had previ-
ously left the Achaian koinon in 224 BCE and joined the Boiotians “with the con-
sent of the Achaians” (μετὰ τῆς τῶν Ἀχαιῶν γνώμης). He goes on:41
βραχὺ δὲ πρὸ τῶν νῦν λεγομένων καιρῶν δυσαρεστήσαντες τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῶν Βοιωτῶν αὖτις
ἀπένευσαν πρὸς τοὺς Ἀχαιούς. οἱ δὲ Βοιωτοὶ διοργισθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ καταφρονεῖσθαι δοκεῖν
ἐξῆλθον ἐπὶ τοὺς Μεγαρεῖς πανδημεὶ σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις. οὐδένα δὲ ποιουμένων λόγον τῶν Με-
γαρέων τῆς παρουσίας αὐτῶν, οὕτω θυμωθέντες πολιορκεῖν ἐπεβάλοντο καὶ προσβολὰς
ποιεῖσθαι τῇ πόλει. πανικοῦ δ᾽ ἐμπεσόντος αὐτοῖς καὶ φήμης ὅτι πάρεστιν Φιλοποίμην τοὺς
Ἀχαιοὺς ἔχων, ἀπολιπόντες πρὸς τῷ τείχει τὰς κλίμακας ἔφυγον προτροπάδην εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν.
But shortly before the time of which we are now speaking [192/1 BCE], becoming dissatisfied
with the Boiotian constitution, they [the Megarians] again joined the Achaians. The Boiotians,
incensed at what they considered being treated with contempt, sallied out with their full force
under arms against the Megarians. When the Megarians did not take any account of their pres-
ence, they [the Boiotians], being enraged, determined to besiege and make assaults on their
city. But when a panic overtook them after a report spread that Philopoimen was at hand with
a force of Achaians, they left their scaling ladders against the walls and fled back hastily to
their own country.
What is of interest here is not so much that the Boiotians responded to the secession
of a member of the koinon with violence, since this was the normal response in, for
instance, the contemporary Achaian koinon as well,42 but rather how the federal
37 Roesch 1982, 417–439; Knoepfler 2001b.

38 Gauthier 1987–1989, 194; Knoepfler 2001a, 371–387.
39 Fachard and Pirisino 2015, 139f, fig. 13.1.
40 Polyb. 20.5.8.
41 Polyb. 20.6.9 (translation by the author).
42 Mackil 2013, 366–370.
government responded. As Polybios makes clear, the Megarians first decided to

secede, and the Boiotian federal magistrates then responded by sending an entire
levy of troops (πανδημεὶ σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις). They only attacked, however, when the
Megarians would not converse with them, implying that the full federal army was
sent out initially more as an intimidation tactic than as an actual assault force. What
is unusual here, it seems, is not so much that the Boiotians sent an army to Megara
because it wished to secede, but that they ended up actually besieging that polis and
withdrawing out of fear of an Achaian counterattack.
Between this episode and the patrols outlined in the cavalry agreement between
Orchomenos and Chaironeia, I believe we can find an explanation for Polybios’
reference to the regular dispatching of phrourai and strateiai koinai between
roughly 217 and 192 BCE. These domestic troop deployments were doubtless
sometimes intended to protect the borders of the koinon, but serious external threats
requiring calling up the entire cavalry or army appear to have been relatively rare
during the period discussed by Polybios.43 As such, it seems likely that at least some
of those strateiai koinai were a means of intimidating member poleis suspected of
wavering loyalty when the phrourai patrolling around their territories, like the Or-
chomenian and Chaironeian cavalry around Thebes and Oropos, failed to keep them
in line. Chief among these must have been those ethnically non-Boiotian cities in-
tegrated into the koinon relatively recently, like Megara or Opous, as well as those
poleis with longer but more storied relations, like Plataiai and Oropos.
The question remains of how the Boiotian koinon managed to fund such regular
military activity. The Orchomenos–Chaironeia cavalry agreement outlines that cav-
alrymen were to receive road pay (ἐφόδια) while patrolling,44 and it was standard
practice by the third century BCE for all troops when called up to receive both
wages for service and money to cover minor expenses. 45 Numismatics can shed
light on this question. After the destruction of Thebes in 335 BCE, the Boiotian
federal government ceased striking coinage on a significant scale.46 The koinon ap-
pears, based on the irregularity of its issues, to have followed in broad strokes the
standard monetary policy of the time, drawing primarily on the existing body of
coinage in circulation and only topping up the supply when it was felt necessary.47
By the latter half of the third century BCE, large amounts of silver and bronze coin-
age were circulating in Boiotia,48 but hoards from Boiotia and neighbouring regions
of this period often include little or no local Boiotian coinage.49 In the last decades
43 We hear of no Boiotian involvement in any major military operations beyond the koinon’s
borders during the latter half of the third century save for supporting Antigonos Doson at the
battle of Sellasia in 222 BCE with 2,000 infantry and 200 cavalry, almost certainly standing
contingents and not levied troops (Polyb. 2.65.3; Feyel 1942, 131).
44 SEG 28.461, ll. 26–29.
45 Pritchett 1974, 1–33; Chaniotis 2005, 116.
46 Martin 1985, 169.
47 See on monetary policy in the Hellenistic world, Bresson 2005, 45–50.
48 Grandjean 2006, 209.
49 See for Boiotia IGCH 163, 193, 223; for Euboia IGCH 175, 189, 221 (only IGCH 205 includes
a substantial quantity of Boiotian coinage); and for Phokis IGCH 195.
106 Ruben Post
of the third century and the early second century BCE for the first time in the Hel-
lenistic period we find significant amounts of new coinage issued by the Boiotian
federal government.50 Dominant among these are bronze coins featuring the
wreathed head of Demeter or Persephone on the obverse and a standing Poseidon
with one foot raised on the reverse; these were overstruck rather sloppily on Mak-
edonian bronzes featuring the beardless head of Herakles on the obverse and a na-
ked rider holding a wreath on the reverse.51 This overstriking of a bronze coinage
en masse marks a major fiscal shift that must have been stimulated by some transi-
tion in the state’s finances.
This prompts the question of, firstly, why the federal government issued so
much coinage so hastily, and, secondly, how it obtained so much Antigonid bronze
coinage to overstrike in the first place. To address the second question first, Antigo-
nid coinage may have reached Boiotia in two ways. The first is that one or more
kings donated this cash to the koinon. We have literary evidence for Hellenistic
kings doing just that,52 most notably Ptolemy V in 186/5 BCE giving 200 talents of
bronze coin to the Achaian koinon.53 In the particular case of the Boiotian koinon,
Polybios tells us that Antigonos Doson and Philip V were “always supporting fi-
nancially” (χορηγοῦντες… αἰεί) the pro-Makedonian faction at Thebes.54 The other
possibility is that this Makedonian coinage was paid to Makedonian troops garri-
soned in Boiotia.55 At any rate, the Boiotian Demeter/Poseidon type overstrikes
were already in circulation around or shortly by the late third century BCE56 and
came to dominate circulation in Boiotia down to around 175 BCE.57
The overstriking of large quantities of foreign coin indicates a desire either to
put a large amount of cash into circulation quickly at low cost or to replace a sig-
nificant quantity of an unpopular coin type.58 The former was probably the most
important factor driving the desire to overstrike the Makedonian coinage in large
quantities, and the likeliest stimulus for such mass striking was military activity. 59
An inscription known as the apologia of Pompidas helps to illuminate the monetary
50 Hackens 1969, 710f.

51 Head 1884, f 41, no.81–89, Pl. VI.8; Hackens 1969, 725–728; Vlachogianni 2000, 107, 108,
Classical Numismatic Group 2006, 29, 30, no.100–109. In Boiotian hoards of the first half of
the second century BCE, these coins comprise the majority of all types. For instance, in the
Lake Kopais 1908 hoard, of 1549 bronze coins, 1449 were of this type (IGCH 229) while a
hoard uncovered in Thebes in 1997 contained 457 coins, of which 427 were of this type
(Vlachogianni 2000, 103).
52 Vlachogianni 2000, 110f.
53 Polyb. 22.9.3 and 24.6.3. Cf. Polyb. 5.89.2.
54 Polyb. 20.5.13.
55 Psoma 2009, 21f.
56 The only hoard including Demeter/Poseidon bronzes that possible predates the 2nd c. BC is
IGCH 169, whose date is unclear (Vlachogianni 2000, 108, n.41)
57 Vlachogianni 2000, 111f.
58 Le Rider 1975, 52f.
59 Howgego 1990, 7–9, though cf. the balanced perspective on the relationship between coinage
and military activity from the perspective of the contemporary Achaian koinon in Grandjean
2000.
situation in early second century BCE Boiotia and how it relates to military activ-
ity.60 This inscription, dated probably to around 170 BCE by Grandjean,61 is the
apologia, or account, of a Theban hipparchos named Pompidas enumerating money
he received from the city, the sale of some horses, pay for his troops, and other
minor expenses. This is a civic, not a federal, document, and one that dates to
shortly after the dissolution of the koinon in 171 BCE, but the administration of the
army prior to this time was largely carried out at the polis level, and so this inscrip-
tion very likely sheds light on the administration of military pay under the koinon
of the later 3rd or early 2nd century BCE as well.62
In Pompidas’ apologia, the sums discussed are reckoned in silver and bronze
drachmas, mentioned interchangeably as if equivalent in value.63 The Theban cav-
alrymen were only paid in silver, however, while the purchase of horses and other
minor transactions were conducted in bronze drachmas,64 which have been identi-
fied plausibly with the overstruck Demeter/Poseidon bronzes.65 Interestingly, Pom-
pidas states in his account that he had to buy 110 silver drachmas from a money-
changer to cover his expenses, a transaction which cost him 137 drachmas 3 obols
in bronze.66 It therefore appears from this inscription that citizen troops were paid
in silver, which was common practice in the Greek world due to the universally
recognized value of silver coinage, while bronze was generally reserved for every-
day transactions.67 Outside of public pay, silver, it seems, could only be obtained at
a premium at this time in Boiotia.68
The best explanation for the proliferation of bronze coinage in late third and
early second century BCE Boiotia and the economic situation attested in the Pom-
pidas inscription is that the Boiotian federal government was actively withdrawing
silver coinage from widespread circulation and replacing it with bronze coinage.
Warren posited that just such a situation has been discerned in the Achaian koinon
in the second quarter of the second century BCE, at which time that federal state
similarly struck a large quantity of bronze coinage of one denomination.69 Kroll has
suggested that this bronze coinage was issued en masse by the Achaians to address
military needs; he proposed that it was not produced in order to pay troops directly,
however, but to extract silver from the economy and hold it in federal coffers in
60 IG VII.2426.
61 Grandjean 1995, 4f.
62 On the relationship between the Boiotian federal government and its member poleis with re-
gards to military matters, see Feyel 1942, 187–218; Roesch 1965, 109–122, 176–179; Étienne
and Roesch 1978, 366–374; Roesch 1982, 316–319.
63 Grandjean 1995, 7f; Sosin 2002, 337.
64 IG VII.2426, ll. 2–6.
65 Vlachogianni 2000, 109.
66 IG VII.2426, ll. 16–18.
67 Grandjean 2000, 316f; Sosin 2002, 335–337.
68 Sosin 2002, 338.
69 Warren 2007, 156–158.
108 Ruben Post
order to meet any military needs that might have arisen.70 To do this, the govern-
ment must have mandated that all tax payments be made in silver. Just such a situ-
ation is likely reflected in the large quantity of Boiotian bronze overstrikes known
from late third and second century BCE contexts.
Let us now return to the Boiotian digression of Polybios and integrate this eco-
nomic evidence into our analysis of it. As we have seen, in the period extending
from roughly 217 to 192 BCE the Achaian historian tells us firstly that Antigonos
Doson and Philip V were continually sending money to the pro-Makedonian faction
at Thebes.71 He next tells us that during this period the boiotarchs, the chief federal
magistrates of the koinon, were constantly deploying the army on guard duty and
national campaigns. As we have seen, however, there is little indication of external
military activity during this time, and the koinon appears to have remained neutral
during the Social War as well as the First Makedonian War and its aftermath. I
propose that Boiotian magistrates hastily overstruck the large quantity of Make-
donian bronze coins of the Herakles/rider type that had entered the koinon under
Philip V and his predecessors to put them into circulation and consequently with-
draw silver into the federal treasury. The continuous need for silver to pay troops
during the period discussed by Polybios meant that the overstruck coins remained
current and widespread in Boiotia during this period. Thus, the support of the An-
tigonids likely allowed the Boiotians to pursue a policy of using the federal army
to intimidate members who might have been considering secession to remain in the
koinon at a time of increasingly violent large-scale conflicts throughout much of
Greece.
Now that we have examined the Boiotian koinon’s treatment of ethnically non-
Boiotian or hybrid Boiotian communities, particularly in the last decades of the
third century and first decade of the second century BCE, let us place this activity
into the broader context of Boiotian history. I suggest that two factors shaped the
Hellenistic koinon’s treatment of newly-integrated ethnically non-Boiotian poleis.
The first was the relative lack of success the koinon experienced in retaining new
members. After the initial expansion of the 280s and 270s BCE, which brought in
Oropos, Chalkis, Eretria, and Opous, the Euboian cities quickly withdrew, while
the poleis of Opountian Lokris were also lost later in the century, only to be regained
and then lost again. In these circumstances, and with the expanding Achaian and
Aitolian koina often threatening to annex their territory, the Boiotians must have
been eager to ensure the retention of every polis integrated into their federal state.
The second factor was the Boiotian history of resolving domestic conflicts with
military force. Despite their successes in unifying the politically, economically, and
ritually, the Boiotians were notorious for their violent conflicts with one another,72
most pithily encapsulated in Perikles’ famous comparison of them to “holm-oaks
who are beaten down by each other” (τούς τε γὰρ πρίνους ὑφ᾿ αὑτῶν
70 Kroll 2009.
71 Polyb. 20.5.13.
72 On the relationship between cooperation and coercion in the development of Boiotian federal-
ism, see Mackil 2014.
κατακόπτεσθαι).73 Internal conflict is of course something that all federal states

must face, but the Boiotians had a particularly long and fierce history of inter-polis
violence about which we are relatively well informed. From Thebes’ attempt to
compel Plataiai to contribute to the Boiotoi in the late sixth century BCE onwards,74
the Boiotians had often resorted to coercion and violence to compel unity in their
ranks, a tendency most brutally showcased in the fourth century BCE when the
hegemonic Thebans attacked numerous poleis opposed to them.75
In conclusion, I wish to contextualize this aspect of the history of the Hellenistic
Boiotian koinon by considering briefly the famous Theban response to the Plataian
appeal to the Spartans in 427 BCE. The Plataians’ withdrawal from the koinon
sometime before 431 BCE is the first detailed record of the secession of a polis
from a Greek federal state. The Theban speaker, arguing to the Spartans that the
Plataian withdrawal was not legitimate, opens by asserting that the Plataians “re-
fused to acknowledge our leadership, as was first arranged, and, separating them-
selves from the other Boiotians, deserted ta patria” (οὐκ ἠξίουν οὗτοι, ὥσπερ
ἐτάχθη τὸ πρῶτον, ἡγεμονεύεσθαι ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν, ἔξω δὲ τῶν ἄλλων Βοιωτῶν
παραβαίνοντες τὰ πάτρια).76 In the lengthy speech that follows, Thucydides has the
Theban assert that his city was compelled to return the Plataians to the Boiotians
“so that Plataiai might be an enemy of none and at peace with all alike” (ἐχθροὺς
οὐδενὶ καθιστάντες, ἅπασι δ᾿ ὁμοίως ἐνσπόνδους).77 As he relates it:78
οὔτε γὰρ ἠδικήσαμεν οὐδένα, προείπομέν τε τὸν βουλόμενον κατὰ τὰ τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν
πάτρια πολιτεύειν ἰέναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς. καὶ ὑμεῖς ἄσμενοι χωρήσαντες καὶ ξύμβασιν ποιησάμενοι
τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἡσυχάζετε, ὕστερον δὲ κατανοήσαντες ἡμᾶς ὀλίγους ὄντας, εἰ ἄρα καὶ
ἐδοκοῦμέν τι ἀνεπιεικέστερον πρᾶξαι οὐ μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους ὑμῶν ἐσελθόντες, τὰ μὲν ὁμοῖα οὐκ
ἀνταπέδοτε ἡμῖν, μήτε νεωτερίσαι ἔργῳ λόγοις τε πείθειν ὥστε ἐξελθεῖν, ἐπιθέμενοι δὲ παρὰ
τὴν ξύμβασιν...
We did no harm to anyone, but invited those who wished to live under ta patria79 of the Boio-
tians to come over to us; and you, coming over gladly and making an agreement [with us], at
first remained tranquil, until later you became aware that we were few. Now if we seemed to
do something rather unreasonable by entering [your city] without the consent of the majority,
at any rate you did not repay us in kind by refraining from violence and persuading us to retire
by negotiation, but rather attacked us in violation of our agreement…
This, the Theban states, justified assaulting the city and forcing it to comply with
Theban directives. We might imagine just such a speech being delivered by a Boi-
otian general to the Megarians over two centuries later. The koinon and the world
73 Arist. Rhet. 1407a 4–6; Cf. Plut. Per. 33.4.

74 Hdt. 6.108.1–5.
75 Xen. Hell. 5.4.63, 6.3.1, 5; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6, 51.3, 79.3–6; Isocr. 6.27, 14; Dem. 16.4, 25, 28;
Plut. Pel. 25.7.
76 Thuc. 3.61.2.
77 Thuc. 3.65.3.
78 Thuc. 3.66.1–2 (translation by the author).
79 I have left ta patria untranslated here and below in order to preserve the ambiguity of the term.
For the valence of this word in this context, see Mackil 2013, 40f.
110 Ruben Post
around it had changed significantly in the years between 427 and 192 BCE, but the
rhetoric of integration, obligation, and compulsion had likely changed little.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arenz, A. (2006) Herakleides Kritikos “Über die Städte in Hellas.” Eine Periegese Griechenlands
am Vorabend des Chremonideischen Krieges, Munich.
Aymard, A. (1938) Les assemblées de la confédération achaienne: Étude critique d’institutions et
d’histoire, Bordeaux.
Beloch, K.J. (1927) Griechische Geschichte, IV 2, 2nd edition, Strassburg.
Bresson, A. (2005) Coinage and Money Supply in the Hellenistic Age, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Da-
vies, and V. Gabrielsen (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing. The New World of Ancient
Economies, 323–31 BC, Oxford, 44–72.
Chaniotis, A. (2005) War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History, Malden, MA./Ox-
ford.
Classical Numismatic Group (2006) Triton XI. The BCD Collection of the Coinage of Boiotia, Lan-
caster, PA, and London.
Étienne, R. and D. Knoepfler (1976) Hyettos de Béotie, et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux
entre 250 et 171 avant J.–C., Athens.
Étienne, R. and P. Roesch (1978) Convention militaire entre les cavaliers d’Orchomène et de Ché-
ronée, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 102, 359–374.
Fachard, S. and D. Pirisino (2015) Routes Out of Attica, in M.M. Miles (ed.), Autopsy in Athens.
Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, Oxford, 139–153.
Feyel, M. (1942) Polybe et l’histoire de Béotie au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, Paris.
Gauthier, P. (1987–1989) Grandes et petites cites: Hégémonie et autarcie, Opus 6–8, 187–202.
Goldman, H. and A.L. Walker (1915) Report on Excavations at Halae of Locris, American Journal
of Archaeology 19, 418–437.
Grandjean, C. (1995) Les comptes de Pompidas (IG VII 2426): Drachmes d’argent symmachique et
drachmes de bronze, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 1–26.
Grandjean, C. (2000) Guerre et monnaie en Grèce ancienne: le cas du koinon achaien, in J. Andreau,
P. Briant, and R. Descat (eds.), Économie antique. La guerre dans les economies antiques,
Saint Bertrand de Comminges, 315–336.
Grandjean, C. (2006) Histoire économique et monétarisation de la Grèce à l’époque hellénistique,
in R. Descat (ed.), Approches de l’économie hellénistique, Paris, 195–214.
Hackens, T. (1969) La circulation monétaire dans la Béotie hellénistique: trésors de Thèbes 1935 et
1965, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 93, 701–729.
Head, B.V. (1884) Catalogue of Greek Coins: Central Greece (Locris, Phocis, Boeotia, and Eu-
boea), London.
Klaffenbach, G. (1926) Zur Geschichte von Ost-Lokris, Klio 20, 68–88.
Knoepfler, D. (1992) Sept années de recherche sur l’épigraphie de la Béotie, Chiron 22, 411–503.
Knoepfler, D. (1995) Les relations des cités eubéennes avec Antigone Gonatas et la chronologie
delphique au début de l’époque étolienne, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 137–
159.
Knoepfler, D. (1998) Chronologie delphique et histoire eubéenne: Retour sur quelques points con-
troversés, Topoi 8, 197–214.
Knoepfler, D. (2001a) Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté, Lausanne.
Knoepfler, D. (2001b) La réintégration de Thèbes dans le Koinon béotien après son relèvement par
Cassandre, ou les surprises de la chronologie épigraphique, in R. Frei–Stolba and K. Gex (eds.),
Récherches récentes sur le monde hellénistique, Bern/New York, 11–26.
Knoepfler, D. (2002) Oropos et la Confédération béotienne à la lumière de quelques inscriptions

‘revisitées,’ Chiron 32, 119–55.
Knoepfler, D. (2014) ΕΧΘΟΝΔΕ ΤΑΣ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ: The Expansion of the Boeotian Koinon towards
Central Euboia in the Early Third Century BC., in N. Papazarkdas (ed.), The Epigraphy and
History of Boeotia, Leiden, 68–94.
Kroll, J. H. (2009) Review of The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Fed-
eral Ideal, Journal of Hellenic Studies 129, 192–193.
Kühr, A. (2006) Als Kadmos nach Boiotien kam: Polis und Ethnos im Spiegel thebanischer Grün-
dungsmythen, Stuttgart.
Early Classical Periods. Historia Einzelschriften, Stuttgart.
Le Bohec, S. (1993) Antigone Dôsôn, roi de Macédoine, Nancy.
Legon, R.P. (1981) Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C., Ithaca, NY.
Le Rider, G. (1975) Contremarques et surfrappes dans l’Antiquité grecque, in J.-M. Dentzer, P.
Gauthier, and T. Hackens (eds.), Numismatique antique. Problèmes et méthodes, Nancy/Lou-
vain, 27–56.
Mackil, E. (2014) Creating a Common Polity in Boeotia, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy
and History of Boeotia, Leiden, 45–67.
Martin, T. R. (1985) Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton, NJ.
Moreno Hernández J.J. and I.M. Pascual Valderrama (2013) The Hellenistic Period (323–146), in J.
Pascual and M.F. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Topography and History of Ancient Epicnemidian
Loikris, Leiden/Boston, 507–535.
Morpurgo Davies, A. (1993) Geography, History and Dialect: The Case of Oropos, in E. Crespo,
J.L. García Ramón, and A. Striano (eds.), Dialectologica Graeca, Madrid, 261–280.
Müller, C. (2013) The Rise and Fall of the Boeotians: Polybius 20.4–7 as a Literary Topos, in B.
Gibson and T. Harrison (eds.), Polybius and His World. Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank,
Oxford, 267–278.
Pritchett, W.K. (1974) The Greek State at War. Vol. 1., Berkeley.
Psoma, S. (2009) Tas Sitarchias Kai Tous Misthous ([Arist.], Oec. 1351B) Bronze Currencies and
Cash-Allowances in Mainland Greece, Thrace and the Kingdom of Macedonia, Revue Belge
de Numismatique 155, 3–38.
Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic
Sosin, J. D. (2002) Boeotian Silver, Theban Agio and Bronze Drachmas, The Numismatic Chronicle
162, 333–339.
Vlachogianni, E. (2000) A Hoard of Coins from Thebes: The Problem of the Boiotian Overstrikes,
Nomismatika Khronika 19, 102–113.
Walbank, F.W. (1957–1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 volumes, Oxford.
Warren, J.A. (2007) The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal,
London.
EUBOIAN UNITY IN THE 2ND CENTURY BCE AND THE
CHALKIDIAN EMBASSY AT AMARYNTHOS:
THE LIMITS OF ROMAN-SPONSORED GREEK FEDERALISM.
Nikos Giannakopoulos
Athens
I. INTRODUCTION
Whether and under what form a koinon Euboeon existed in the Classical and Early
Hellenistic periods has long been a matter of debate among modern historians. Alt-
hough several aspects of this problem still remain obscure, it is now perfectly clear
that in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, the great age of federalism in Greece, Euboia
– which was initially caught in the middle of the longstanding conflicts first be-
tween the hegemonic powers and subsequently between the Diadochoi, and later
firmly under Makedonian control – simply failed to acquire a permanent and dura-
ble federal state-structure.1 Nevertheless, the 190’s created a wholly different and
perhaps highly favourable environment for federal projects in Euboia. The Isthmian
Declaration was followed by a revival of federalism in central Greece, with the
Romans encouraging or actively promoting the formation of koina in Perrhaibia,
Thessaly, Magnesia and elsewhere.2 In this respect, it is widely accepted that after
196 BCE a Euboian koinon was (re)organized. The relevant evidence and the dis-
cussion it has generated may be summarized as follows:
Before leaving Greece in 194 BCE, Flamininus is reported to have summoned
at Chalkis a conventus Euboicarum civitatium.3 This is frequently believed to sig-
nify the foundation act of a new Euboian koinon,4 although it has recently been
argued that Livy’s use of the word conventus, and not concilium, does not neces-
sarily indicate the foundation of a federal state at that date.5 In any event, there can
hardly be any doubt that Rome’s intentions regarding Euboia involved a federal
organization of the island, or at least some kind of coordination which involved
bringing together the island’s four cities.6 In fact, two federal decrees found at
1 See the recent thorough treatment of this problem by Knoepfler 2015. Among previous studies
on this topic see Wallace 1956; Larsen 1968, 97–103; Martin 1975, 116–121; Picard 1979,
231–274; Beck 1997, 27f; Knoepfler 2001, 121f; Reber – Hansen – Ducrey 2004, 643.
2 A point well noted by Wallace 1956, 39 n.81. Cf. Ferrary 1988, 105f; Eckstein 2008, 288.
3 Livy 34.51.
4 E.g. Wallace 1956, 39; Larsen 1968, 405; Martin 1975, 123f; Picard 1979, 288; Robert 1969,
48 n.2 subscribes to this view, although he points out that the Euboian koinon is not explicitly
mentioned by Livy in this context.
5 Zecchini 2013, 258f; Knoepfler 2015, 159 n.1, 169.
6 Cf. Picard 1979, 288.
114 Nikos Giannakopoulos
Chalkis provide undisputed proof for the existence of a federal primary assembly
and a federal council in the 180’s.7 An honorific decree issued by the polis of
Chalkis after 146 BCE 8 attests to the existence of a federal festival called Rhomaia,
known from several agonistic inscriptions as well.9 Moreover, in the course of the
2nd century BCE numismatic issues bearing the legend ΕΥΒΟΕΩΝ reappear.10 Pi-
card observed several changes regarding both the identity of the authorities which
issued coinage in 2nd-century BCE Euboia and the iconographical types used in
these issues, and he suggested that these changes reflected political developments
on the island. Hence, he was able to distinguish two different series of coins bearing
the legend ΕΥΒΟΕΩΝ and dated the first to 194–192 and the second to 191–
175/170 BCE. Between these two series he was able to identify a civic issue of
Eretria dated to the short period of Seleucid control over Euboia, between the fall
of 192 BCE and the Battle of Thermopylai. In Picard’s scheme the Euboian koinon
organized by Flamininus in 194 BCE was provisionally dissolved during Anti-
ochos’ short period of rule over Euboia between the fall of 192 and the late spring
of 191 BCE and became active again only after the king’s departure for Asia Minor.
After ca. 170, civic issues reappear in Euboia and this is interpreted by Picard either
as a consequence of a new dissolution of the Euboian koinon, which was again
recreated some years after 146 as the evidence for the Rhomaia shows, or as a con-
sequence of disagreement between the members of a continuously functioning koi-
non over issues of monetary policy.11 With some modifications, these hypotheses
were also accepted by Knoepfler who pointed out that the civic issues after ca. 170
BCE demonstrate that the Euboian koinon had by then ceased to function as a sym-
politic state, as opposed to the 180’s, when the two aforementioned federal decrees
offered to non-Euboian benefactors the privileges of enktesis in all the Euboian cit-
ies, a clear sign of a sympolitic polity. Knoepfler argued that this disruption in the
function of the Euboian koinon was the result of a Roman intervention and at least
partly explains the anti-Roman stance of Chalkis in 146 BCE. After the Achaian
War the Euboian koinon reemerged, although its nature is difficult to determine,
since the only relevant information concerns the festival of Rhomaia and the dis-
patch of judges from the Euboian ethnos to Geronthrai.12
The present paper focuses on a particular episode of Euboian collaboration
which in my view allows us to underline certain hitherto unexplored features of the
Euboian federal experience in the early 2nd century BCE: the Chalkidian request for
help addressed to the Eretrians and the Karystians in 192 BCE. My aim is to re-
7 IG XII.9.898 and Knoepfler 1990, 474.

8 IG XII.9.899.
9 On the evidence regarding the Rhomaia held at Chalkis see Robert 1969, 44–49. Cf. below
n.72.
10 The only monograph devoted to the federal coinage of Euboia from the Classical to the Hel-
lenistic period is Wallace 1956, to be read in conjunction with the remarks made by Picard
1979, passim.
11 Picard 1979, 192–202, 301f.
12 See on all this Knoepfler 1990, 485f; Knoepfler 1991, 277; Knoepfler 2015, 173–177. On the
decree of Geronthrai (IG V.1.1111) cf. Picard 1979, 301 n.4.
Euboian Unity in the 2nd Century BCE and the Chalkidian Embassy at Amarynthos 115
examine this episode in the light both of comparative evidence regarding the polit-
ical and diplomatic activity of other Greek koina founded after 196 BCE and of the
methodological tools and concepts developed within the framework of recent stud-
ies on ethnic identity. Hence, it will be shown that the turbulent period preceding
the outbreak of the War of Antiochos witnessed:
a) a total absence of Euboian federal institutions or at least their failure to pro-
vide an efficient political and diplomatic framework within which the interests
of the newly established local pro–Roman factions could be defended;
b) an attempt to articulate a public discourse regarding the essential elements
of a comprehensive Euboian regional political identity.
II. THE CHALKIDIAN EMBASSY AT AMARYNTHOS
The Political Context

The political situation in Euboia in 192 and 191 BCE may be summarized as fol-
lows: In the fall of 192 BCE the Roman embassy sent to Greece to combat Aitolian
propaganda headed by Flamininus himself reached Chalkis, which was on the verge
of stasis. The leaders of what would eventually crystallize into a pro-Roman fac-
tion, Mikythion and Xenokleides, seized the opportunity and drove a certain Eu-
thymedes, an Aitolian proxenos and presumably the leader of a Chalkidian faction
oriented towards Aitolia, out of the city. Later, an Aitolian force led by Thoas and
accompanied by Euthymedes himself marched suddenly against Chalkis, inciting
their supporters in the city to revolt. This enterprise failed as Mikythion and Xeno-
kleides asked for, and received, military assistance from Eretria and Karystos. Livy
reports this incident as follows:
They increased their courage by the following scheme. It happened that at this time there was
an annual festival at Eretria in honour of Diana Amarynthis, which crowds both of the natives
and the Karystians attend. They sent there men to beg the people of Eretria and Karystos to
take compassion on those who were born in the same island as themselves, to remember their
alliance with Rome; let them not permit Chalkis to become Aitolian; if they held Chalkis they
would hold Euboia; the Makedonians had been harsh masters, the Aetolians would be much
more insupportable. The two cities were influenced mainly by their respect for the Romans,
which had recently experience of both their valour in war and their justice and kindness in
victory. Therefore, whatever strength in young men each city had it armed and sent. 13
After Antiochos’ landing in Greece, both Aitolian and Seleukid envoys attempted
once more to win Chalkis over. Again they were unsuccessful. It was only after the
13 Livy 35.38.4–6: Micythio et Xenoclides…consilio tali animum adiecerunt. Sacrum anniver-

sarium eo forte tempore Eretriae Amarynthidis Dianae erat, quod non popularium modo sed
Carystiorum etiam coetu celebratur. eo miserunt qui orarent Eretrienses Carystiosque ut et
suarum fortunarum in eadem insula geniti misererentur et Romanam societatem respicerent:
ne sinerent Aetolorum Chalcidem fieri; Euboiam habituros, si Chalcidem habuissent; grave
fuisse Macedonas dominos, multo minus tolerabiles futuros Aetolos. Romanorum maxime re-
spectus civitates movit et virtutem nuper in bello <et> in victoria iustitiam benignitatemque
expertas. itaque quod roboris in iuventute erat utraque civitas armavit misitque.
defeat of a Roman detachment at Delion that the Chalkidians were finally persuaded
to accept the King in their city. It was now the turn of the pro–Roman leaders to
leave, although not for long. Antiochos made Chalkis his base. He married the
daughter of a local dignitary, thus gaining considerable local support, but then de-
feat at Thermopylai obliged him to leave Greece in the spring of 191 BCE. Due to
Flamininus’ intervention Chalkis escaped the rage of the consul Manius Glabrio
and, as is well known, the savior was properly honored.14
The non-involvement of Euboian federal institutions

in the diplomatic events of 192 BCE
Although the assistance provided to Chalkis by Eretria and Karystos has been con-
sidered as evidence for the functioning of a Euboian federal state, 15 the Euboian
koinon is strikingly absent from the Livian account of the Chalkidian embassy.
Faced with an external threat, the Chalkidians did not appeal to any federal council
or magistrates, as the Achaean Dyme, Tritaia and Pharai had done in a well-known
incident related by Polybios,16 but directly to two neighboring cities, exploiting the
opportunity offered by the Artemisia at Amarynthos, which were regularly attended
by officials and citizens of both Karystos and Eretria, and perhaps of Chalkis as
well.17 A comparison with a similar incident that occurred early in 191 BCE may
help to further elucidate this point. Faced with an attempt by Antiochos to take
control of their city, the Medeonians, members of the Akarnanian koinon, proposed
to refer the matter to the Akarnanian council.18 This was not the course of action
adopted by the Chalkidians. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the recipients
of the Chalkidian request, the Eretrians and the Karystians, also acted as fully au-
tonomous city-states. Livy’s narrative leaves no doubt on this point. Each city de-
cided on its own to arm and dispatch its elite forces. It is thus clear that, at least in
192 BCE, two years after the conventus Euboicarum civitatium summoned by
Flamininus, each Euboian city still preserved full sovereignty in the management
of its military and foreign policy. Even after the arrival of the Karystian and Eretrian
forces at Chalkis, an undisputable sign of intra–Euboian cooperation, it was a
Chalkidian delegation, not one dispatched by a union of Euboian cities or the Eu-
boian koinon, which negotiated with the Aitolians.19
14 On all these events concerning Euboia before and during the war of Antiochos see Deininger
1971, 81–86; Picard 1979, 283–290; Grainger 2002, 173f, 183, 197–208, 249; Giannakopoulos
2009, 149–161. On the chronology cf. Walbank 1940, 327–329.
15 Larsen 1968, 405; cf. Knoepfler 2015, 172.
16 Polyb. 4.59–60.
17 On this festival, which was not a federal one in the 2 nd century BCE but may have acquired
such a character in the Imperial Period (Paus. 1.31.5), see Knoepfler 1972, 294–301; Picard
1979, 218–221; Knoepfler 1990, 485 n.57.
18 Livy 36.11–12: ...media visa est Clyti sententia eoque accepta, ut ad regem mitterent legatos
peterentque ab eo ut Medionios super tanta re consulare in concilio Acarnanum pateretur.
19 Livy 35.38.7–10: iis tuenda moenia Chalcidis oppidani cum tradidissent, ipsi omnibus copiis
transgressi Euripum ad Salganea posuerunt castra. inde caduceator primum, deinde legati ad
In fact, the Euboian koinon, as opposed to other koina founded after 196 BCE
is totally absent from all the political and diplomatic events of 192–191 BCE. It is,
for example, completely ignored by the Romans themselves who are reported by
Livy to have dispatched embassies to Athens, Chalkis, the Thessalian concilium,
and the Magnesian concilium.20 It is possible that the Roman embassy sent to
Chalkis addressed a Euboian concilium as well, but both the aforementioned
Chalkidian request and the subsequent diplomatic events that took place in Euboia
speak against this possibility. Livy’s record of the conference held outside Chalkis’
gates after Antiochos’ landing in Greece again leaves no doubt that those who ne-
gotiated with the royal and Aitolian envoys were the Chalkidian magistrates and
leading politicians, not the Euboian ones. Their main argument was that “The
Chalkidians needed no one to vindicate their liberty, for they were free”.21 Clearly,
these negotiators acted in the name of Chalkis, not in the name of a Euboian koinon.
They represented a city not a confederation or a federal state.
It would be useful at this point to compare the evidence regarding these diplo-
matic approaches to Chalkis with that concerning a neighbouring region equally
organised as a koinon: Magnesia. This comparison is even more interesting since it
has been convincingly argued that both the Magnesian koinon and the Euboian fed-
eration shared a common feature: the preponderance of one city as the federal seat,
Demetrias and Chalkis respectively.22 However, in contrast with the politically and
diplomatically inactive Euboian koinon, the Magnesian federation emerges as an
actor in its own right. It receives a Roman legate sent by Flamininus, who addresses
the Magnesian assembly and receives a reply from the Magnetarch Eurylochos.23
Aetolos missi percunctatum quo suo dicto factove socii atque amici ad se oppugnandos veni-
rent. respondit Thoas dux Aetolorum non ad oppugnandos sed ad liberandos ab Romanis ve-
nire sese: splendidiore nunc eos catena sed multo graviore vinctos esse quam cum praesidium
Macedonum in arce habuissent. se vero negare Chalcidenses aut seruire ulli aut praesidio
cuiusquam egere. ita digressi ex conloquio legati ad suos.
20 Livy 35.31.1–2: dum inter Achaeos et tyrannum bellum erat, legati Romanorum circuire so-
ciorum urbes solliciti, ... Athenas primum, inde Chalcidem, inde in Thessaliam iere, adlocuti-
que concilio frequenti Thessalos Demetriadem iter flexere. eo Magnetum concilium indictum
est.
21 Livy 35.46.: … magistratus quoque Chalcidensium et principes ante portam processerunt…ad
haec Micythio, unus ex principibus, mirari se dixit ad quos liberandos Antiochus relicto regno
suo in Europam traiecisset; nullam enim civitatem se in Graecia nosse quae aut praesidium
habeat aut stipendium Romanis pendat aut foedere iniquo adligata quas nolit leges patiatur;
itaque Chalcidenses neque vindice libertatis ullo egere, cum liberi sint, neque praesidio, cum
pacem eiusdem populi Romani beneficio et libertatem habeant.
22 See on this comparison Knoepfler 1990, 479–482; 2015, 174f.
23 Livy 35.31: [1] dum inter Achaeos et tyrannum bellum erat, legati Romanorum circuire socio-
rum urbes solliciti, ... [2] Athenas primum, inde Chalcidem, inde in Thessaliam iere, adlocu-
tique concilio frequenti Thessalos Demetriadem iter flexere. eo Magnetum concilium indictum
est. ... [11] magnetarchen summum magistratum vocant; is tum Eurylochus erat, ac potestate
ea fretus negavit dissimulandum sibi et Magnetibus esse, quae fama vulgata de reddenda De-
metriade Philippo foret; [12] id ne fieret, omnia et conanda et audenda Magnetibus esse. et
inter dicendi contentionem inconsultius evectus proiecit tum quoque specie liberam De-
metriadem esse, re vera omnia ad nutum Romanorum fieri.
A few weeks later the Magnetarch and the principes Magnetum welcome Antiochos
upon his arrival at Pteleos.24 Other koina also appear to have played an important
diplomatic role in the same period. Thus, when Flamininus sent his legate to the
Magnesians he also requested Thessalian military support by addressing a letter to
the Thessalian strategos Eunomos.25 A conference held by Antiochos and his asso-
ciates at Demetrias ended with the decision to send an embassy to Larissa, ad con-
cilium Thessalorum.26 The ambassadors from Larissa who met Antiochos at Pherai
“asking for what deed or word of the Thessalians he was assailing them with war”
were in all probability federal not civic envoys.27 In Thebes Antiochos addressed a
concilium gentis, i.e. the federal council of the Boiotian koinon,28 while the ambas-
sadors from Epirus who met the Seleucid monarch at Chalkis were sent communi
gentis consensu, which is in accordance with a decision by the Epirote koinon.29
What factors could account for this manifest difference? Are we to draw from
the absence of the Euboian koinon in the Livian account of the War of Antiochos
the conclusion that, despite Flamininus’ initiative in 194 BCE, a Euboian koinon
did not yet exist in 192 BCE or at least had failed to crystallize into a fully devel-
oped federal polity? The aforementioned federal decrees found at Chalkis do not
provide any help since they are dated to the 180’s and what they actually prove is
that a federal apparatus for a Euboian koinon certainly existed after the War of An-
tiochos, but not necessarily before. The coinage presents a different set of problems.
Although the technical arguments put forward by Picard regarding the relative and
absolute chronology of the Euboian federal and civic coinage are excellent, I would
like to point out that numismatic issues identified by a regional ethnos do not nec-
essarily indicate the existence of a federal state, as examples from several Aegean
islands and various areas of mainland Greece demonstrate.30 In fact, Picard’s argu-
ments do not take into account the lack of involvement of any Euboian federal in-
stitution in the political and diplomatic events of 192 BCE. Admittedly, if we con-
sider this non-involvement as a proof for the non-existence of a Euboian koinon at
that time, we should modify either Picard’s dating of the common Euboian coinage,
placing it after Antiochos’ departure, or its interpretation as an indication of a well-
organized and fully developed Euboian federal polity, or perhaps both.
24 Livy 35.43.4–5: imbrum primo insulam tenuit; inde Sciathum traiecit; ubi collectis in alto quae
dissipatae erant navibus ad Pteleum primum continentis venit. ibi Eurylochus ei Magnetarches
principesque Magnetum ab Demetriade occurrerunt...
25 Livy 35.39.4: …Eunomo praetori Thessalorum scripsit, ut armaret iuventutem.
26 Livy 36.8.2: legati Larisam ad concilium Thessalorum sunt missi.
27 Livy 36.9.1: Antiocho ad Pheras iam castra habenti, ubi coniunxerant ei se Aetoli et Amynan-
der, legati ab Larisa venerunt quaerentes, quod ob factum dictumve Thessalorum bello lac-
esseret eos.
28 Livy 36.6.1.
29 Livy 36.5.
30 See on this point Psoma 2001, 253–261 (on Chalcidike); Constantakopoulou 2005, 11; Mackil
2015, 489f; Buraselis 2015, 371 (on Lesbos). As far as Euboia is concerned, see Larsen 1968,
101; Martin 1975, 117–119.
On the other hand, accepting Picard’s chronology and interpretation of the com-
mon Euboian coinage would mean that in 192 BCE a Euboian koinon was in exist-
ence and issued federal coinage but had not yet developed federal mechanisms ca-
pable of assuming the task of directing the Euboian cities’ diplomacy and of mobi-
lizing their armed forces. In other words, a Euboian koinon did exist but possessed
no sovereignty over the foreign policy of its members. Although this does not sound
very likely, an analogous situation may have prevailed in Euboia in the 340’s as
well.31 A third option would be that a Euboian federal apparatus with sovereign
rights was nominally functioning, but the pro–Roman Chalkidians in control of
their city simply had no trust in it, perhaps because it was under the influence of
pro-Aitolian Euboian politicians, otherwise known to have been active in Chalkis
and presumably in other Euboian cities as well. After all, federalism in early 2nd-
century BCE Euboia could be perceived to be as much a Roman-sponsored project
as an Aitolian-inspired endeavour.
Lack of evidence leaves plenty of room for speculation; however, it is certain
that at least until 192 BCE Euboia did not respond to the general stimulus given to
Greek federalism by the Isthmian Declaration and the subsequent Flamininian set-
tlement of Greek affairs as fast and as efficiently as Thessaly and Magnesia had
done. A united Euboian federal state-structure enjoying diplomatic and military
sovereignty either had not emerged or was ignored by the member cities. After all,
building a federal polity was a project involving negotiations which could have
considerably expanded in time and the evidence presented above suggests that, by
the fall of 192 BCE, this process either had not started or had not been completed
in Euboia.32 Deeply rooted intra–Euboian rivalries combined with the aforemen-
tioned divisions created by the political conjuncture (in other words the schism be-
tween pro-Aitolian and pro-Roman factions in Euboia) may provide some explana-
tion for this, but perhaps not fully resolve the question.
A discourse on regional unity
In fact, the Chalkidian embassy at Amarynthos invites us to regard the short period
between the Isthmian Declaration and the outbreak of the War of Antiochos as one
of labour, when not only new federal institutions but also a new kind of Euboian
regional political identity had to be constructed, so that the Euboians could success-
fully respond to the new conditions created by the Roman-sponsored federalism
31 See Knoepfler 2015, 166f where he observes that the Euboian koinon at that time ‘never de-
prived its constituent cities of their sovereignty with regards to foreign policy’. In fact, Knoep-
fler bases his conclusions on the inexistence of any federal structure directing the foreign policy
in mid–4th century BCE Euboia. As in 192 BCE, this was left to the individual cities of the
island.
32 An example is provided by an inscription dated to the first half of the 2 nd century BCE which
provides information on the internal mechanics of the Lesbian koinon (IG XII Suppl. 136). This
koinon was equipped with an assembly, common military forces and a sort of mutual citizen-
ship, but did not yet possess common laws which were to be prepared by delegates of the indi-
vidual members. See Labarre 1996, 70–74 and Buraselis 2015, 372–374.
which aimed at changing the geopolitical landscape of central Greece. In this re-
spect, what makes the brief Livian narrative of this embassy undoubtedly valuable
is the fact that this is the only piece of information that we have about Euboians
articulating a public discourse on Euboia and intra–Euboian cooperation and unity.
Perhaps the most valuable and fruitful contribution of recent studies on ethnic
identity in antiquity has been the widely accepted recognition that ethnicity is pri-
marily defined by “socially and discursively constructed criteria”33 which promote
the affiliation of a collective group with a specific territory and the shared belief on
common descent.34 Admittedly, ancient writers refer to the Euboians as a collective
group as early as in the Archaic period, but mainly within the framework of in-
stances of coordinated action taken by the cities or the inhabitants of the same is-
land.35 But in terms of narratives on common descent, the overall picture is very
different and highly complex. In the 5th century BCE most Euboians were generally
recognized as part of the Ionian race, but that was not the case for the Karystians
(and the Styrians, later to be incorporated into Eretria), who were considered to be
Dryopes.36 The Ionian affiliation of the Eretrians and the Chalkidians was also pro-
moted by traditions which attributed the foundation of the two major cities of cen-
tral Euboia to heroes from Athens: according to Strabo, Aiklos and Kothos set out
from Athens to establish Eretria and Chalkis respectively after the Trojan War.37
Strabo also records that Ellops, brother of Aiklos and Kothos, founded Ellopia in
northern Euboia (its inhabitants later migrated to Histiaia) and ruled Histaia,
Aedepsos, and Oreos, the latter named after its first Ellopian inhabitants, who were
mountaineers.38 Another tradition recorded by Plutarch makes Aiklos and Kothos
sons of Xouthos, hence brothers of Ion.39 It is at least possible that the Athenian
33 Hall 1997, 32; 2015, 35f.

34 For the significance of myths of common descent and of connection with a specific territory
for the construction of regional/ethnic identity in Ancient Greece see Hall 1997, 2, 25, 32–40.
Cf. Luraghi 2008, 7–15; Graninger 2011, 13 on the Thessalian case; Beck and Funke 2015, 23f.
35 The relevant evidence is usefully assembled in Picard 1979, 225–229.
36 Thuc. 7.57 (cf. 4.61) regards all the Euboians except the Dryopian Karystians as Ionians. Hdt.
8.46.2. also styles the Chalkidians and the Eretrians as Ionians, while the Styrians are regarded
as Dryopes, as is also the case in Paus. 4.34.11. Diod. Sic. 4.37.1–2 relates that the founders of
Karystos were Dryopes expelled from Oita and Trachis by Hercules. Cf. Vedder 1978, 14f,
Knoepfler 1997, 353f, and Walker 2004, 29, 39.
37 Strabo 10.1.8, who draws on Artemidoros and ultimately Ephoros, according to Lasserre 1971,
118.
38 Str. 10.1.3–4. Lasserre 1971, 22 n.3 argues that Strabo’s source was Apollodoros who drew on
Theopompos. On the Ellopians’ metoikiseis in Histiaia cf. Knoepfler 1997, 405 n.6. Eust. Il. p.
431 records that Kerinthos was once named Ellopia. On the Ellopians in northern Euboia see
also Geyer 1903, 38, 95f; Vedder 1978, 13f; Walker 2004, 40f.
39 Plut. Qu. Gr. 22 (Mor. 296 D-E). Cf. Bradeen 1947, 23 and Walker 2004, 44. Clearly, this
tradition was quite well remembered even in the Imperial Period. Plutarch interpreted the Tomb
of the Children at Chalkis as a monument set up for those children who had been killed by the
island’s Aeolian inhabitants because, upon Kothos’ arrival, they gave him earth from the
ground in return for toys (Kothos had been promised that he would rule the land if he bought
it). Cf. Bakhuizen 1985, 22f, 29 n.40–41, who argues that the source of this story may have
been either Ephoros or Dionysios of Chalkis, the author of Ktiseis.
origin of Aiklos, Kothos, and Ellops reflect 5th-century BCE Athenian imperial pre-
tensions; other traditions recorded by Strabo about Eretria and Histiaia deriving
their names from colonists from the homonymous demes of Attica,40 and about the
provenance of the inhabitants of southern Euboia from the Marathonian Tetrapolis
(thus implicitly from Xouthos), presumably served the same function. 41 The ver-
sion that presents the whole island of Euboia as being formerly called Ellopia after
Ellops son of Ion should be seen in the same light.42 On the other hand, the story
that makes Aiklos and Kothos (implicitly Ellops as well) sons of Xouthos, hence
brothers of Ion, may be attributed to an aspiration on the part of the Euboians to be
recognized as kinsmen but not descendants and colonists of the Athenians. In any
case, these traditions contribute to the creation of a sense of kinship uniting several
Euboian cities both to one another and to Athens.43 But Karystos also had its own
eponymous demi-god hero, who is completely unrelated either to the Dryopes or to
the Athenian/Ionian founders of the other Euboian cities.44 Moreover, even in the
cases of Eretria and Histaia the link with Athens and the Ionians was not unani-
mously recognized. Like Karystos, Eretria also had an eponymous hero, Eretrieus
son of the Titan Phaethon, who, according to a tradition recorded by Strabo, came
to Euboia from the Triphylian city Makistos.45 In fact, this tradition seems to have
been very old in Eretria, as a local civic tribe attested in an inscription dated to the
mid-5th century BCE was called Mekistis. This connection between Eretria and the
south-west Peloponnese was also promoted by the tradition that Eretria’s former
name was Melaneis, after the hero Melaneus, who was the father of Eurytos and is
attested in Messenia as Apollo’s son.46 As far as Histiaia/Oreos is concerned, alter-
native traditions, also recorded by Strabo, attributed Oreos’ name to Orion, who
40 Str. 10.1.3. Vell. Pat. 1.4.1 (cf. Bakhuizen 1985, 29) also considers the Chalkidians and the
Eretrians as colonists of the Athenians.
41 Str. 10.1.6 and 8.7.1 (on Xouthos as founder of the tetrapolis). Cf. Vedder 1978, 16. On all
these stories linking Euboia with Athens and the Ionians see the information provided by
Bradeen 1947, 19–21; Vedder 1978, 15f; Walker 2004, 52, although the latter’s overall ten-
dency to regard the mythical tradition as reflecting the historical reality in pre-Archaic Euboia
may be questioned. According to Lasserre 1971, 23 n.1, p 24 n.6, these tales come from Philo-
choros or Theopompos.
42 Str. 10.1.3. According to Lasserre 1971, 117 this version comes from Philochoros (Fr. 25).
43 The way in which the traditions on the Euboians’ Athenian origin could function as uniting
bonds between two individual Euboian cities is highlighted by IG XII.9, 406, which records in
the genitive case the name Kothos and according to Knoepfler was the boundary stone of a
temenos of the mythical founder of Chalkis located at Eretria. See SEG 26 (1976–1977), 1037
and SEG 32 (1982), 855. Knoepfler 1997, 406 n.10.
44 Karystos, the son of the Centaur Cheiron and Chariklo, Apollo’s daughter (Schol. Ad Pind.
Pyth. IV. 182). Bacchyl. fr. 45 apud Schol. Ap. Rhod. 2.498 records that Karystos was the father
of Aristaios, who in Oppian (Cynegetica IV. 265–285) fostered Dionysos in Euboia.
45 Str. 10.1.10; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἐρέτρια. Cf. Geyer 1903, 72f. Lasserre 1971, 119 points to
Hellanikos as Strabo’s possible source.
46 Str. 10.1.10; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἐρέτρια; Paus. 4.2.2. The evidence regarding this connection
between Eretria and Triphylia has been quite recently discussed by Knoepfler 1997, 385–387,
392f; cf. Knoepfler 1998 and Walker 2004, 53f. On the Eretrian tribes see also Knoepfler-
Ackerman 2012.
was brought up in the area, and insisted that its first inhabitants were the Oreitai,
who were attacked by the Ellopians and moved to Histiaia to form a single city.47
As late as in the 2nd century BCE Pseudo-Skymnos attributed the foundation of
Eretria, Chalkis and Kerinthos to the Athenians Aiklos, Pandoros son of Erecthieus
and Kothos respectively, although he also pointed out that Karystos was built by
the Dryopes and Histaia by the Perrhaibians.48 Writing in the Imperial Period,
Pseudo-Apollodoros attributed the foundation of Histiaia to Thebans fleeing their
city after its sack by the Epigonoi, although it is not entirely clear if this Histiaia
was to be understood as the Euboian city or the Thessalian Histaiotis.49 What is
important for our purpose is that all these stories, some of which may have been
locally elaborated, equally failed to create a notion of pan-Euboian unity. In fact, if
one was to search for traces of such a unity in the traditions surrounding Euboia,
one would have to turn to the Homeric epic, where the Abantes headed by Ele-
phenor ruled all the Euboian cities.50
On the other hand, the name Euboia was not unknown in Greek myths. Accord-
ing to Corinna,51 this was the name of one of the nine daughters of the Boiotian
river-god Asopus and Metope. Corinna stated that Euboia was abducted by Posei-
don and in the 5th century CE Nonnus was able to point out that the god had rooted
this maiden in the sea.52 It was presumably some knowledge of this story that led
Pseudo–Skymnos to state that the island was named after Asopos’ daughter and
Strabo to observe that ‘Εὔβοια ἀπὸ ἡρωΐνης ἐκλήθη.’53 However Diodorus pre-
served a tradition that gave the name Chalkis to one of Asopos’ daughters, 54 while
Hekataios, in as early as the 5th century BCE, put forward a different but highly
interesting version: ‘Χαλκὶς πόλις ἐστίν, ἣ πρότερον Εὔβοια προσηγορεύετο,
ἐκλήθη δὲ ἀπὸ Κόμβης τῆς Χαλκίδος καλουμένης, θυγατρὸς Ἀσωποῦ’.55 Clearly
47 Str. 10.1.4.
48 GGM 1.218. Knoepfler (1997, 406 n.10) points out that the fact that Kothos, the founder of
Chalkis in Strabo, appears here as founder of Kerinthos indicates that the latter was incorpo-
rated into Chalkis and not into Histaia. The Perrhaibians, as conquerors of the Euboian Histiai-
otis, are also on record in Strabo 9.5.17 and 10.1.4; cf. Geyer 1903, 38, 95f; Vedder 1978, 13f;
Walker 2004, 41.
49 Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.3. Cf. Geyer 1903, 95 n.3; Sakellariou 1990, 210–214.
50 Hom. Il. B 536–543. On the notion of a united Euboia under the Abantes see Vedder 1978, 12
and Walker 2004, 43f.
51 Fragment 645.
52 Nonnus, Dion. 42 l. 411.
53 GGM 1.218 and Str. 10.1.3. According to Lasserre 1971, 22 n.3 the story about Asopos’ daugh-
ters goes back to Akousilaos of Argos.
54 Diod. Sic. 4.72.1. This nymph was still considered in the 3 rd century CE as the founder of the
polis, as the cult of Archegetis Chalkis attested in IG XII.9. 906 shows. The nymph Chalkis
was frequently depicted on Chalkidian coins (Picard 1979, 12–17, 46, 57, 92, 113, 115, 121,
130f, 133, 135); she was also considered to be the Korybantes’ mother, the latter also being
associated with the Kouretes, both standard features of Euboian mythology (e.g. Schol. in Il.
XIV 291 and Nonnus, Dion. 13. 135 ff.). Cf. on all this Escher 1899, col. 2092 and Walker
2004, 27–31 with the relevant evidence and bibliography.
55 Recorded by Steph. Byz. s.v. Χαλκίς. Cf. Eust., Il., I 428 ll. 10–12. See Geyer 1903, 48 n.2;
Bradeen 1947, 10; Reber, Hansen, and Ducrey 2004, 647.
in Hekataios’ scheme the name Euboia was originally attributed to a single city on
the island56 and it is highly tempting to see in this tradition a tale produced in
Chalkis itself, which served the purpose of expressing Chalkidian claims to a kind
of supremacy over the whole of Euboia.57
What thus emerges from these various foundation and migration myths is a
highly complex picture of unsurprisingly conflicting stories. Ties of kinship surely
exist, but they usually bring together certain, but not all, of the individual cities of
Euboia. Their point of reference is a non–Euboian hegemonic power, Athens. They
coexist with alternative traditions which either promote the notions of autochthony
and divine eponymy and ancestry (in the cases of the eponymous Karystos, Ere-
trieus and Orion and of Melaneus as well)58, or associate the Perrhaibian northern
Euboia with northern Thessaly (for a long time under Makedonian control) and per-
haps Thebes (in Pseudo-Apollodoros’ account), and the Dryopian Karystos with an
ancient people believed to have migrated from central Greece to various other parts
of Greece59 and Eretria with the Peloponnese (in the case of the eponymous Ere-
trieus). Moreover, all the stories which are not oriented towards Athens survive well
into the Hellenistic Period and beyond, displaying a tendency to ascribe to each
Euboian city a distinct identity and history.60 Even the common name of the island
is sometimes coloured with pretensions of supremacy on the part of Chalkis and,
more importantly, it is never associated with any kind of ethnic genealogy. In short,
no comprehensive and cohesive tale linking the individual Euboian cities and their
eponym figures with a common Euboian descent has ever found its place in the
56 In describing the Lelantine plain, Strabo 10.1.9 also mentions a city called Euboia which was
destroyed by blasts through subterranean passages. Bakhuizen 1976, 9–13 associates this pas-
sage with Hekataios’ remark that Chalkis’ old name was Euboia and attempts to identify
Strabo’s Euboia with Xeropolis-Lefkandi. Geyer 1903, 48 n.2 argued that Chalkis’ original
name may have changed due to the discovery of bronze. Bradeen 1947, 14f also seeks the
historical reality behind this tale and argues that the name of the island’s most important city
was subsequently attributed to the whole island, the city being driven to adopt a new name.
What interests me in this paper is the implications of this myth, not its historical authenticity,
rightly questioned by Knoepfler 1997, 352, 405 n.1, who notes that the city Euboia was quite
possibly a fiction mentioned by the Athenian tragic poets as well.
57 It is quite interesting that Plin. H.N. 4.21 records a completely contrasting version: it was the
whole of Euboia that was formerly called Chalkis. This may be either a misinterpretation of
Hekataios, as Bradeen 1947, 14f suggested, or a variation upon a common theme highlighting
Chalkidian claims to supremacy.
58 See Lasserre 1971, 23 n.2, 118 commenting on Oreos’ case.
59 Geyer 1903, 38, 113; Walker 39; On the Dryopes and the Dryopian identity see Hall 1997, 72–
77.
60 Walker 2004, 40 points out that Melaneus, the father of Eurytos, appears as a king of the Dry-
opes in Ant. Lib. Met., 4, drawing on Nicander of Kolophon, writing in the 2 nd century BCE
(Celoria 1992, 109 n.1). This would have provided a link between the Dryopian Karystos and
Eretria, via Eurytos’ Oichalia, not infrequently located in Euboia, and more specifically in the
area of Eretria (Str. 9.5.17 and 10.1.10; Apollod. Bibl. 2.6.1–2). In view of the incorporation of
various southern Euboian cities believed to be Dryopian into Eretria’s territory (Knoepfler
1997, 353f), this causes no surprise. On the Artemisia held at Amarynthos as a cultic bond
between the Eretrians and the Karystians see above note 17.
Greek mythological tradition.61 One could perhaps recognize here the reflection
both of a highly fragmented ethnic and geographical landscape and of a certainly
early political division into competing individual city-states.62 In any case, the lack
of common foundation myths, in contrast to other Greek regions and even big mul-
tipolate islands such as Lesbos or Rhodes before the synoikismos,63 indicates that
in Euboia the notion of a regional island-wide identity and unity was rather weak
in comparison to civic particularism, although the epic tradition and common his-
torical experiences surely contributed towards the creation of a sense of Euboian
community.64
It is against this background that the Livian narrative on the Chalkidian em-
bassy at Amarynthos should be examined. Due emphasis has already been laid on
the fact that the Chalkidians stressed the need to respect the alliance with Rome.65
But there were other important aspects of this discourse that need to be examined.
In fact, the very foundation of the Chalkidian request for help lay in the bonds of
solidarity that must have united the peoples born in the same island. In this respect,
attention should be paid to the fact that the Chalkidian envoys do not mention any
ties stemming from a common genealogy or kinship, although the Hellenistic period
witnessed an explosion of what has been eloquently called kinship diplomacy.66
This absence of references to a common genealogy, quite easily understood in view
of the absence of common myths of descent, was counterbalanced by the emphasis
placed on being born in and becoming associated with a specific territory. Euboians
could be easily defined as such not by descent but by birth on an island whose bor-
ders demanded no further definition or demarcation, having been permanently and
undisputedly fixed by the insular character of the region. 67 But it is equally im-
portant that the Chalkidian appeal presented to its fellow Euboians both a negatively
coloured view of their common past and alternative versions of a common future
as well. Past Makedonian rule over Euboia was explicitly considered as a period of
outright oppressive foreign domination; hence, whatever past efforts may have been
deployed for Euboian coordination centred on the Antigonids, as the well-known
Law on the Dionysian technitai indicates,68 such efforts could not be used as prec-
edent within the present context. The prospect of becoming attached to Aitolia was
treated in even more negative terms. On the other hand, persistence in the affiliation
61 As opposed to other regions such as Boiotia and Phokis (cf. Hall 2015, 39). On the little devel-
oped character of Euboian mythology cf. Knoepfler 1997, 393.
62 This geographical, ethnic and political fragmentation is stressed by Picard 1979, 207–212; cf.
Knoepfler 1997, 352–354.
63 For such attempts to construct island-wide identities based on myths of common descent see
Reger 1997, 474–478; Constantakopoulou 2005, 6f.
64 On these potentially unifying factors cf. Picard 1979, 229 and Knoepfler 2015, 160f.
65 Knoepfler 2015, 172.
66 See Jones 1999.
67 On the concept of islands as territories clearly defined by the sea itself see Reger 1997, 450;
Constantakopoulou 2005, 2f; 2007, 2–6.
68 IG XII.9. 207 with Stephanis 1984. For the issues raised by this document in connection with
the existence of common Euboian institutions see Wallace 1956, 27f; Larsen 1968, 100; Martin
1975, 121; Picard 1979, 261–263; Knoepfler 2015, 162f.
to Rome was positively evaluated as the cornerstone of Euboian freedom, both in

the present and in the future. A common past shared by all the Euboians did exist,
but it involved a collectivity of slaves who were forced now to struggle to defend
the freedom recently conferred on them by the Romans against the new threat posed
by what was perceived as Aitolian expansionism. Thus, in the Chalkidian discourse
both the common past of subjugation and a newly emerging external threat provided
the necessary elements in opposition to which the Euboian political identity could
be defined,69 while the insular character of Euboia and the support for the new order
imposed in Greece by Rome emerged as positive focal points of Euboian unity.
In this respect, the Chalkidian envoys at Amarynthos put forward a fairly co-
herent suggestion about the constituent elements of Euboian political identity: the
unity of all the inhabitants of the island, imposed and legitimized by geography
itself, was built upon a political and ideological consensus which involved both the
rejection of foreign imperialism and the defence of the principles of the Isthmian
Declaration and the subsequent Roman settlement of Greek and in particular Eu-
boian affairs. To this background picture the Chalkidian envoys added an extremely
significant detail: the importance of the city of Chalkis to the freedom of all the
Euboians. The statement that if the Aitolians controlled Chalkis they would hold
Euboia highlighted the strategic role of this particular Euboian city. In fact, this
statement was no more than an internalization and elaboration of the theme of
Chalkis being a Fetter of Greece,70 but this time the concept was set in an entirely
new and exclusively Euboian context: instead of being a fortress occupied by a non-
Euboian power to promote its imperialistic goals, Chalkis now functioned as the
guardian of Euboian freedom. The unity of the free Euboians was thus linked with
the recognition of Chalkis’ central role in this union, a centrality which was also
perceived as being imposed and legitimized by the Euboian landscape itself. There
could have been no better basis for justifying Chalkis’ role as the capital of the
Koinon Euboeon.
III. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In 192 BCE, when the Chalkidian embassy at Amarynthos took place, Euboian fed-
eral institutions with sovereignty over the foreign policy of the individual Euboian
cities either had not emerged or were perceived, at least by the pro-Roman political
factions on the island, to be unreliable. Despite its promotion by the Romans, fed-
eralism in Euboia was far from being fully developed. However, the Chalkidian
embassy addressed the problem of Euboian political unity and identity. Before an
audience of fellow Euboians it did not invoke any notion of intra-Euboian kinship
69 Luraghi 2008, 11, 45 offers valuable remarks concerning the ‘temporal dimension’ of the ethnic
discourse which locates the roots of an ethnic group in the past. In this respect it is interesting
to note that the Chalkidian discourse expressed at Amarynthos uses the common Euboian past
in a rather different way, as it pinpoints its negative aspect.
70 On the strategic value of Chalkis for the Makedonian rulers see Picard 1979, 252–258, 284.
but raised issues of Euboian birth and, implicitly, of Chalkidian precedence; more-
over, it exploited the memory of the Euboian common past under Makedonian rule
so as to highlight the need for a permanent alliance with Rome as a fundamental
precondition of Euboian freedom. The positive response of the Eretrians and the
Karystians demonstrates that this particular concept of Euboian unity was – at least
momentarily – favourably accepted. To what extent the memory of the successful
outcome of the cooperation between these three Euboian cities against the Aitolians
actually contributed to the creation – if they had not yet emerged at all – or to the
crystallization of federal institutions after Antiochos’ departure cannot be deter-
mined.71 However, it is worth pointing out that the basic elements of Euboian iden-
tity as conceived in the Chalkidian discourse articulated at Amarynthos are actually
reflected in what little is known about the institutions and the function of the Eu-
boian koinon in the 2nd century BCE. Indeed, the precedence of Chalkis, the concept
of Euboian territoriality and the devotion to Rome are present in Chalkis’ function
as the federal capital, in the iconography of the federal coins depicting the nymph
Euboia and in the federal Rhomaia, the only known federal – and not civic – festival
celebrating the cult of Rome in 2nd-century BCE Greece,72 a fact that highlights to
what extent the Euboian koinon in particular chose to construct its own political
identity with reference to the new hegemonic, but also benevolent, power to which
it owed its very existence.
However, this is only one side of the story. In an overall assessment of the
notion of Euboian unity in the 2nd century BCE one has to take into account the
aforementioned vicissitudes of the Euboian koinon in the course of the 2nd century
BCE, with alternate periods of activity and inactivity or dissolution. In 146 BCE it
was the Chalkidians and not all the Euboians who sided with the Achaians, the
Eretrians probably taking the Roman side.73 The famous Euboian quarrel over the
hieromnemosyne of the Pythic year around 110 BCE which brought Eretria and
Karystos against Chalkis involved conflicting views on Euboian representation and
a clear challenge to Chalkidian claims to precedence over the other Euboian cities.74
71 Of course, faced with Antiochos’ attempts to capture their city later in 192 BCE, the Chalkidi-
ans did not appeal to their fellow Euboians but to Flamininus, probably in the belief that the
magnitude of the new threat required support from more powerful allies. But it should also be
taken into account that, as Antiochos’ naval forces presented a threat to the other Euboians as
well, it would have been rather unwise on their part to help Chalkis, as they had done some
weeks earlier.
72 On the institutions of the Euboian koinon in the 2nd century BCE see now Knoepfler 2015, 173–
177. On Rhomaia in 2nd century BCE Greece see Mellor 1975, 99–107. Most scholars connect
the foundation of the Euboian Rhomaia with the conventus of the Euboian cities summoned by
Flamininus; see e.g. Mellor 1975, 99f; Picard 1979, 288f. Irrespective of whether this conventus
signified the birth of an Euboian koinon, Knoepfler 1990, 486 n.61; 2015, 177 rightly pointed
out that secure references to the Euboian Rhomaia come from inscriptions dated after 146 BCE.
Hence, it cannot be ruled out that this festival was created not in 194 BCE, but at some later
date.
73 See Knoepfler 1991b.
74 CID IV.121–122. See Lefèvre 1998, 62f; Sánchez 2001, 396–398. According to Lefèvre, the
Chalkidians’ claim that the vote was common for all the Euboians meant that the hieromnemon
More importantly, it is by no means accidental that in the Late Hellenistic period,

Euboians outside Euboia were almost always recorded with their civic ethnic and
not with their regional one.75 As in the 3rd century BCE,76 they were (self-)identified
as citizens of individual cities, not as members of an ethnic/regional community.77
Even in acts of international religious diplomacy the Euboian cities participated as
such, not as members of an ethnos or a koinon. It was the city of Chalkis which
appeared as the dedicator of a phiale in a list of donors to the oracle of Didyma
dated around 100 BCE .78 Once again the comparison with Thessaly is revealing: in
the course of the 2nd century BCE, the Thessalian koinon received theoroi from
Mytilene and was asked to recognize the asylia of the sanctuary of Apollo Klarios
at Kolophon.79 Despite the Roman-backed tendency towards federalism and unifi-
cation, a strong consciousness of regional togetherness which could permanently
prevail over civic particularism did not emerge in late Hellenistic Euboia.
It could be argued that this weakness of the notion of ethnic unity and federal-
ism in 2nd-century BCE. Euboia was at least partly due to the problematic nature of
its political foundations which, to a considerable extent, associated Euboian unity
with a power outside Euboia and with a single city inside the island. But Chalkis’
centrality was in the long run bound to cause reactions on the part of the other Eu-
boian cities. Moreover, both the recognition of Chalkis’ importance and the focus
on Rome, highlighted in the federal Rhomaia, could function as effective factors in
Euboian unity only as long as the freedom granted by the Romans was perceived to
be under immediate, or at least potential, threat by a third power with hegemonic
ambitions in Greece. But fear was never an adequate factor in building a durable
union.80 After the defeat of Antiochos and the Aitolians there was neither an imme-
diate nor a potential danger of this kind. What was left for strengthening Euboian
unity were the bonds bringing together the peoples ‘born in the same island’, which
the Chalkidian envoys had invoked at Amarynthos. This was admittedly a purely
represented all the Euboians, i.e. the notion of the ethnos prevailed over that of the cities (fol-
lowing Picard 1979, 224). Eretria and Karystos opposed this principle of collective representa-
tion, stating that the vote should not be considered common for all the Euboians, and that each
city should appoint a hieromnemon in a fixed turn. According to Sánchez, Chalkis argued that
the Amphiktyonic seat should belong collectively to all the Euboians, but the hieromnemosyne
of the Pythic year exclusively to her. Eretria and Karystos claimed that the current rules should
be followed; this is based on an earlier reading of l. 8. Sánchez argued that these rules probably
prescribed that certain Euboian cities had the right to appoint hieromnemones but as far as the
Pythic years were concerned this right was exercised by each city in turn.
75 See the evidence assembled in the Appendix.
76 Cf. Knoepfler 2015, 169.
77 This was also the case with the decree of Geronthrai (IG V.1.1111), which refers to the dis-
patching ethnos but records a judge as Eretrian and a secretary as Karystian. See above note
12.
78 I. Didyma 457. The other cities included in this list are Kos, Erythrai, Mylasa, Chios, Ilion,
Myrina, Megalopolis, Alinda, Kyzikos, Iasos, Smyrna and Klazomenai. The names of kings
and dynasts were also mentioned.
79 See Granninger 2011, 144–148.
80 Cf. Ganter’s contribution to this volume.
Euboian concept, an ethnic argument searching for internal elements of unity. How-
ever, as Livy explicitly states, it was purely political considerations that had led the
Eretrians and the Karystians to provide aid. Ethnic arguments alone – even if they
were articulated on the more concrete basis of territoriality and birth rather than by
reference to the more ambivalent notion of an ultimately rather problematic Eu-
boian “common descent” – did not constitute a strong centripetal force for a region
covered by four relatively large city-states with a long history of separate existence
and antagonism.
APPENDIX:
LIST OF LATE HELLENISTIC INSCRIPTIONS RECORDING EUBOIANS
ABROAD
A. identified as Histiaians:
IG IX.1².1 31 l. 178 (Aitolia, Thermos, end of the 3rd /beg. of the 2nd cent. BCE);
ID 1416 face B col. 1 l. 75 (Delos, 156/5 BCE)
B. identified as Eretrians:
IG II².893, cf. SEG 16.84 and SEG 21.34 (Athens, 188/7 BCE); SEG 38.114
col. V l. 129 (Athens, 122/1 BCE); IG II².8496 (Athens, 2nd cent. BCE).
C. identified as Karystians:
ID 1416 face A col.I l. 71 and face B c. II l. 96 (Delos 156/5 BCE); ID 1417
face B col.I l. 75 (Delos 155/4 BCE); ID 1452 face A l. 49 (Delos after 145
BCE); IG XII Suppl. 248 D ll. 47–65 (Andros, 2nd cent. BCE); SEG 38.114 col.
V l. 128 (Athens, 122/1 BCE); IG II².1961, cf. SEG 34.153 l. 70 (Athens, c. 40
BCE); IG II².1043 l. 105 (Athens, 38/7 BCE); Agora 17, 515 (Athens, 3–2 c.
BCE); Agora 17, 514 (Athens, 2 c. BCE); Agora 17, 513 (Athens, 2–1st cent.
BCE); IG II².8986 (Athens, 2nd –1st cent. BCE); IG II².8966 (Athens, 1st cent.
BCE); IG II².8968 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); IG II².8979 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE);
IG II².8980 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); IG II².8984 (Athens, 1st cent. BCE); V.
Petrakos, Ο Δήμος του Ραμνούντος. Σύνοψη των ανασκαφών και των ερευ-
νών(1813–1998) ΙΙ: οι επιγραφές, Αθήνα 1999, nr.287 (Rhamnous, 1st. cent.
BCE); G. I. Zolotas – A. Zolota, “Χιακῶν καὶ Ἐρυθραϊκῶν ἐπιγραφῶν συνα-
γωγή” Ἀθηνά (20) 1908, 214–216 no. 13 col. 2. ll. 7–9 (Chios)
D. identified as Chalkidians:
IG V.2 368 l. 27 (Kleitor, 3rd –2nd c. BCE); IG IX.1².1 31 ll. 60–69, 151, 156
(Aitolia, Thermos, end of the 3rd /beg. of the 2nd cent. BCE); ID 1416 face B
col. I l. 103 (Delos, 156/5 BCE); ID 1927 l. 10 (Delos 103/2 BCE); ID 2595 l.
48 (Delos); SGDI II 2687 (Delphi, 100–50 BCE); SEG 55.608 (Larisa, c. 70
BCE); IG VII.543 (Tanagra, after 87 BCE); IG VII.2727 (Akraiphia, 1st cent.
BCE); Α. Maiuri, Nuova silloge epigrafica di Rodi e Cos, Firenze 1925, 384
(Rhodes, after the 2nd cent. BCE); Maiuri NSER 208 (Rhodes, 2nd –1st cent.
BCE);
E. identified by their regional ethnic (as Euboians):
G. I. Zolotas – A. Zolota, “Χιακῶν καὶ Ἐρυθραϊκῶν ἐπιγραφῶν συναγωγή”

Ἀθηνά (20) 1908, 8, 214–216 no. 13 col. 2. ll. 10–11 (Chios)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakhuizen, S.C. (1976) Chalcis in Euboia, Iron and Chalcidians Abroad, Leiden.
Bakhuizen, S.C. (1985) Studies in the Topography of Chalcis on Euboia: A discussion of the sources,
Leiden.
Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen
Bradeen, D. (1947) A History of Chalkis to 338 B.C (PhD Thesis), Cincinnati.
Buraselis, K. (2015) Federalism and the Sea: The Koina of the Aegean Islands, in H. Beck and P.
Celoria, F. (1992) The Metamorphoses of Antoninus Liberalis: A Translation with a Commentary,
London/New York.
Constantakopoulou, C. (2005) Proud to be an Islander: Island Identity in Multi–Polis Islands in the
Classical and Hellenistic Aegean, Mediterranean Historical Review 20, 1–34.
Constantakopoulou, C. (2007) The Dance of the Islands: Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire,
and the Aegean World, Oxford.
Deininger, J. (1971) Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland. 217–86 v.Chr, Ber-
lin/New York.
Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic
Mediterranean, 230–170 B.C., Malden/Oxford/Carlton.
Escher, J. (1899) Chalkis, Realencyclopädie III. 2, col. 2078–2092.
Férrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhellénisme et Impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine
du monde hellénistique, de la second guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate, Paris.
Geyer, F. (1903) Topographie und Geschichte der Insel Euboïa im Altertum, I: Bis zum Peloponni-
schen Kriege, Berlin. Translated into modern Greek by A. Zambalos (1962) Τοπογραφία καὶ
Ἱστορία τῆς νήσου Εὐβοίας μέχρι τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν Πόλεμον, Αρχεῖον Εὐβοικῶν Μελετῶν
9, 18–124 (page references given in this article are to the Greek translation).
Giannakopoulos, N. (2009) Chalcidian Politicians and Rome between 208 and 168 B.C., Classica
et Mediaevalia 60, 145–165.
Grainger, J. (2002) The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, Leiden/Boston/Köln.
Graninger, D. (2011) Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly, Leiden.
Hall, J.M. (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge.
Jones, C.P. (1999) Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World, Cambridge/London.
Knoepfler, D. (1972) Carystos et les Artémisia d’Amarynthos, Bulletin de correspondance hellé-
nique 96, 283–301.
Knoepfler, D. (1990) Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalcis III. Décrets fédéraux et décrets muni-
cipaux au IIe siècle av. J.-C., Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 114, 473–498.
Knoepfler, D. (1991) L. Mummius Achaicus et les cités du golfe euboïque: à propos d’une nouvelle
inscription d’Erétrie, Museum Helveticum 48, 252–280.
Knoepfler, D. (1997) Le territoire d’Erétrie et l’organisation politique de la cité (dêmoi, chôroi,
phylai), in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community,
Copenhagen, 352–449.
Knoepfler, D. (1998) Le héros Narkittos et le système tribal d’Erétrie, in M. Bats and B. D’Agostino
(eds.), EUBOICA. L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente, Napoli, 105–
108.
Knoepfler, D. (2001) Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté, Lausanne.
Knoepfler, D. (2015) The Euboian League – an ‘irregular’ koinon? in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.),
Knoepfler, D. and G. Ackerman (2012) Phulè Admètis: un nouveau document sur les institutions et
les cultes de l’Erétriade trouvé dans les fouilles de l’Ecole Suisse d’Archéologie en Grèce,
Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 905–949.
Labarre, G. (1996) Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale, Paris.
Lasserre, F. (1971) Strabon. Géographie. Tome VII (Livre X), Paris.
Luraghi, N. (2008) The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge.
Mackil, E. (2015) The Economics of Federation in the Ancient Greek World, in H. Beck and P.
Martin, D.G. (1975) Greek Leagues in the later Second and first Centuries B.C. (PhD Thesis),
Princeton.
Mellor, R. (1975) ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ, Göttingen.
Picard, O. (1979) Chalcis et la Confédération eubéenne. Etude de numismatique et d’histoire (IVe–
Ier siècle), Paris.
Psoma, S. (2001) Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et d’histoire, Stutt-
gart.
Reber, K., M.H. Hansen, and P. Ducrey (2004) Euboia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An
Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 660–680.
Reger, G. (1997) Islands with one Polis versus Islands with several Poleis, in M. H. Hansen (ed.),
The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 450–492.
Robert, L. (1969) Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce Centrale, Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1–58.
Sakellariou, M.B. (1990) Between Memory and Oblivion: The Transmission of Early Greek Histor-
ical Traditions, Athens.
Stephanis, I.E. (1984) Ο ευβοϊκός νόμος για τη μίσθωση των Διονυσιακών Τεχνιτών (IG XII 9,
207), Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης.
Τεύχος Τμήματος Φιλολογίας 22, 499–564.
Vedder, R.G. (1978) Ancient Euboia. Studies in the History of a Greek Island from the earliest Times
to 404 B.C. (PhD Thesis), Arizona.
Walbank, F.W. (1940) Philip V of Macedon, Cambridge.
Walker, K. (2004) Archaic Eretria, London/New York.
Wallace, W.P. (1956) The Euboian League and its Coinage, New York.
Zecchini, G. (2013) I Romani e l’Eubea, in C. Bearzot and F. Landucci (eds.), Tra mare e continente:
l’isola d’Eubea, Milano, 257–270.
SANS LA LETTRE:
ETHNICITY, POLITICS, AND RELIGION IN THE ARGIVE
THEŌRIA
Alex McAuley
Cardiff University
Argos has always figured prominently in the ever-expanding body of ethnic studies,
thanks in no small part to the fact that it forms the principal case study of Jonathan
Hall’s seminal Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997). Seven years later it was
also featured in Catherine Morgan’s equally pivotal Early Greek States beyond the
Polis (2003), and the number of studies of the region in recent years only continues
to swell.1 But it remains difficult to look beyond the bronze-age allure and Homeric
appeal of the city and the region, and scholars have naturally been drawn to focus
their attention almost exclusively on the region’s development in the Archaic Pe-
riod, with the Classical and Hellenistic being treated only as epilogue.2 Compound-
ing the issue is the geographic ambiguity of ‘Argos’ among ancient and modern
authors alike: when Homer and his literary successors describe ‘Argos,’ are they
referring to the city itself with its citadel at Larisa, the Argive plain, the kingdom
of Agamemnon, the broader region, or even the entire Peloponnese itself?3 Further
questions arise when we factor in the diversity of the region’s constituent commu-
nities: was there some form of latent ethnic unity to the region of the Argolid, and
did this ever manifest itself in the political realm?
Despite its enduring popularity, the Argolid – and here I draw a clean distinc-
tion between the city of Argos and the region of the Argolid – sits rather awkwardly
1 Hall 1997, 4–26 gives a detailed recapitulation of the body of Argive studies up until the time
in which he was writing, and the various ethnic models proposed by preceding generations of
scholars. Among other ethnic studies we can count Tomlinson 1972, the contributions to the
edited volume of Bearzot and Landucci 2006; Piérart 1997 and 2005; and Amandry 1980.
2 This body of studies is vast, and only a representative sampling is possible. On the Mycenaean
and Archaic Periods in Argos: Darcque 1998, Foley 1988, Piérart 1991, 1997, and 2004, Re-
naudin 1928 on the Mycenaean necropolis of the Plain, and Zangger 1993 on its geoarchaeol-
ogy, and Jansen 2002 on its road networks. Many of the studies mentioned in the preceding
note tend to focus on the sixth century and fifth century, with the fourth being treated only
briefly. I should note that Argive studies in general are rather problematic at the moment, given
the delay in publishing Charalambos Kritzas’ corpus of inscriptions and epigraphic material.
This paper deals only with currently published material.
3 The ambiguity inherent in Homer’s use(s) of the term ‘Argos’ is only the tip of the iceberg, for
instance at Il. 9.141–142, Od. 3.263, as well as his more specific identification of ‘Achaean’
(Il. 9.141) and ‘Pelasgian’ (Il. 2.682) Argos. Allen 1909 provides the fullest discussion of these
ambiguities, and see also Piérart 2004.
132 Alex McAuley
in the body of ethnic case studies contained in this volume.4 It remained an ethni-
cally diverse place throughout much of the Classical Period, and the city of Argos’
domination over the broader region was never fully realised. Unlike many other
regions with strong ethnic attachments – notably the Boiotians, the Arkadians, and
the Aitolians – the Argolid never produced a federation of its own.5 And still, in the
midst of warring communities co-existing only grudgingly with one another, there
is some kind of unity, some brand of coherence, to the region that recurrently seems
to present itself in subtle ways. So can we really speak of an Argive ethnos, and
did this sense of commonality have a political dimension akin to that realised in the
complex institutions of so many koina elsewhere?6
My conclusion in this paper is a hesitant yes, thanks to what I argue is a pivotal
instance of the region’s collaboration in the realm of non-violent external relations:
the theōria in promotion of the festivals of Asklepios at Epidauros, the Hekatom-
boia at Argos, and the Nemean Games.7 Unlike many other corners of the Greek
world, this collaboration does not emerge until the close of the fifth century and the
early fourth – hence much later than the Archaic and Early Classical origins that we
would expect.8 But the process, I believe, is the same. These theoric expeditions
from first Epidauros, and later Argos and Nemea, are preserved on stelai dating to
360/59–356/5 and around 326, respectively, and both come at the close of over a
century of ethnic amalgamation in the Argive plain that continued to consolidate
the region despite persistent rivalry among its erstwhile constituents.9 In this
broader context, a somewhat offhand observation by Paula Perlman in her expan-
4 In this paper, as elsewhere, I follow the definition of the Argive Plain given by Piérart 2004,
599f, following ancient distinctions enumerated by Ephor. Fr. 18C, Diod. Sic. 12.43.1, Polyb.
5.91.8, and Ps-Skylax 49, 50. Following the contemporary route of the autoroute E65 through
the Peloponnese provides an apt testament to the natural geographic unity of the Plain.
5 See the relevant case studies in this volume, as well as those in Beck and Funke (eds) 2015.
6 Before moving forward, I must clarify the definition of ethnos and ‘ethnic group’ which I am
adopting for the purposes of this paper. There is great ambiguity in the term ethnos in Greek,
which can refer to anything from a band of people in Hom. Il. 1.495 to a swarm or flock of
animals (Hom. Il. 2.459) and the Herodotean sense (1.101, for instance) of a group of people
roughly equivalent with ‘nation.’ Herodotus 8.44 famously predicates ethnicity in the Greek
context on common descent, language, and religion, similar customs and ways of life, which
essentially forms the basis of contemporary approaches. For a more precise definition, in this
paper I adopt the criteria of Hall 1997, 25, who identifies six characteristics of an ethnic group:
a collective name, common myth of descent, shared distinctive culture, association with a ter-
ritory, and a sense of communal solidarity.
7 Perlman 2000 provides the only systematic study of the theoric decrees, with an epigraphic
dossier. For Epidaurus, see Perlman 2000, 67–98, for Argos and Nemea see 99–155. On the
theōria more generally, see Rutherford 2014’s recent monograph treatment, and Dillon 1997
for a broader chronological scope.
8 Rutherford 2014, 42–44, for example, holds that the theōria is a fundamentally Hellenistic in-
stitution characterised by the interaction between theoric embassies and the courts of Hellenis-
tic monarchs. Early theoric attestations like these from the Argolid are not given extensive
treatment.
9 Perlman 2000, Ep. Cat. E 1 and 2, N 1 and A1, with full citations below.
Ethnicity, Politics, and Religion in the Argive theōria 133
sive study of these theoric inscriptions published in 2000 takes on capital im-
portance. She notes that the list of cities visited by the Argive theōroi in c. 326
seems garbled and out of place, as it if were incomplete. This discrepancy, she con-
cludes, “requires the conclusion that the Argives adopted the institution of the
theōrodokia considerably earlier than the final quarter of the fourth century BCE,
Argos and not Epidauros might have been the earlier of the two communities to
have followed the lead of the organizers of the Olympic Games in the appointment
of theōrodokoi” (2000, 103).
I aim to pick up where Perlman left off by investigating the idea that the Epi-
daurian theōria was inspired by an earlier Argive expedition, which followed the
same general route, and visited many of the same locations, as its neighbour to the
West. The similarity in theoric itineraries, as well as the resulting networks estab-
lished by each expedition, cannot be the product of mere coincidence. Instead I
argue that this represents a concerted regional effort in the promotion of its religious
sanctuaries that is guided by ethnic collaboration. While the theōriai themselves
may not have taken place until the late fifth century, the ties that bound the region
had begun to be woven some decades earlier. We can thus view this collaboration,
in the religious sphere at least, as hinting that the broader Argolid may well be
viewed as a politicized ethnos from some angles. To examine this notion and its
ramifications for our more general understanding of Argive ethnic history, we shall
briefly examine the tendency towards ethnic amalgamation in the fifth century Ar-
golid. From there we shall turn our attention to the subtleties of the theoric lists
from Epidauros and Argos, before proposing a longer-term reconstruction of this
religious vector of ethnic collaboration.
I. A MELTING POT? THE FIFTH-CENTURY ARGOLID
Any discussion of the Argolid in the fifth and fourth centuries must be prefaced
with caveat lector: our understanding of the region’s history during the Period is in
limbo as we await the publication of a vast body of epigraphic material preserved
on bronze plaques and edited by Charalambos Kritzas. Until this invaluable data
emerges, the specific nuance of many of the following observations must be left
subject to revision; however, I hope that the broader picture that emerges will be
accurate in an impressionistic, if not realist, style. In spite of the seemingly timeless
impression of regional cohesion conveyed by the ruins at Mycenae and Tiryns along
with the verses of Homer, Argos had only begun to consolidate its hold over the
broader region by the middle of the fifth century.10 Even then, the Argolid as we
understand it today remained a region marked by the presence of numerous polis
communities and ethnic groups which have already been described in detail by Jon-
athan Hall in 1995 and 1997 (67–106), and enumerated by Michel Piérart in 2004.
Alongside Argos itself, there were the cities of Epidauros, Asine, Nemea, Midea,
10 McInerney 1999, 4–8; Hall 1997, 69f; Kritzas 1992, 239.

134 Alex McAuley
Hermione, and Halieis, whose territories were populated by groups of Dorians, He-
rakleidai, Dryopes, Ionians, and some Pelasgians according to our literary
sources.11 The Argolid in the fifth century, then, was not a homogeneous region
either politically or ethnically. This homogeneity in the Argolid had long been pre-
sent, ranging from the palatial landscape of the Mycenaean-era Argive Plain to the
political fissures created by allegiance to (or opposition of) Sparta. By the opening
decades of the fifth century, the ethnic heterogeneity of the region had begun to
present itself in newly politicised ways in response to contemporary strategic real-
ities.
Whatever loose dominion Argos proper held over the plain at the dawn of the
century was shattered by the Spartan victory at the Battle of Sepeia, resulting in the
collapse of Argive hegemony and the loss of a substantial portion of its hoplite
class.12 The fractured character of the Argolid manifests itself clearly during the
Persian Wars: a weakened Argos remained neutral in the conflict, while nearby
Mycenae and Tiryns despatched their own contingents of troops to fight alongside
the Greek coalition.13 Argive influence in the region after the defeat of Xerxes’
invasion was subdued but not broken, and would re-assert itself with little subtlety
in the following decade.
At some point in the 460s Argos besieged Mycenae, and likely Tiryns as well.
Diodorus’ (11.65.3–6) account of the motivation behind this Argive siege is pivotal
grasping the contemporary divisions of the plain and its later amalgamation. He
wrote “in short, the Argives were suspicious of them, worrying that since the My-
cenaeans had become stronger they would lay claim to the hegemony of Argos be-
cause of the ancient pride (φρόνημα) of their city.” In other words, the inhabitants
of Mycenae are reviving their ancestral (ethnic?) claim to dominance over the Ar-
golid which dates the Bronze Age, and using this as rationale against contemporary
Argive influence. The response of Argos reveals the gravity of Mycenae’s asser-
tions: unable to brook a rival claim to their ancestral primacy, the Argives des-
patched their own troops and those of their allies to besiege the Cyclopeaean Walls
of Mycenae.14 Once victorious, andrapodismos was exacted on the city as its
11 See the entries in Piérart 2004, 599–605 for his complete entries on these cities. On the ethnic
diversity of the Plain among ancient authors, see Hdt 6.77–78 and 127; Arist. Pol. 1302b 33,
Paus. 2.20.8–10; Diod. Sic. Fr. 7.13.2; Plut. Lyc. 7.
12 Hdt. 6.77–8; Arist. Pol. 1302b 33; Paus. 2.20.8–10; Robinson 1997, 85.
13 Diod. Sic. 11.3.3–6; 11.65.2–3; Kritzas 1992, 232f.
14 The account of Diodorus 11.65.3–6: τὸ δὲσύνολον ὑπώπτευον αὐτούς, μήποτε ἰσχύσαντες ἐπὶ
πλέον τῆςἡγεμονίας ἀμφισβητήσωσι τοῖς Ἀργείοις διὰ τὸ παλαιὸν φρόνημα τῆςπόλεως. διὰ δὴ
ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἀλλοτρίως διακείμενοι, πάλαι μὲνἔσπευδον ἆραι τὴν πόλιν, τότε δὲ καιρὸν
εὔθετον ἔχειν ἐνόμιζον,ὁρῶντες τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους τεταπεινωμένους καὶ μὴ δυναμένους
τοῖςΜυκηναίοις βοηθεῖν. ἀθροίσαντες οὖν ἀξιόλογον δύναμιν ἔκ τε Ἄργουςκαὶ ἐκ τῶν
συμμαχίδων πόλεων ἐστράτευσαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, νικήσαντες δὲμάχῃ τοὺς Μυκηναίους καὶ
συγκλείσαντες ἐντὸς τειχῶν ἐπολιόρκουντὴν πόλιν. οἱ δὲ Μυκηναῖοι χρόνον μέν τινα τοὺς
πολιορκοῦνταςεὐτόνως ἠμύνοντο, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα λειπόμενοι τῷ πολέμῳ, καὶ
τῶνΛακεδαιμονίων μὴ δυναμένων βοηθῆσαι διὰ τοὺς ἰδίους πολέμους καὶτὴν ἐκ τῶν σεισμῶν
γενομένην αὐτοῖς συμφοράν, ἄλλων δ᾽ οὐκ ὄντωνσυμμάχων, ἐρημίᾳ τῶν ἐπικουρούντων κατὰ
women and children were sold into slavery – or worse (Str. 8.6.11, Paus. 8.27.1).
Tiryns likely succumbed to the same fate as their Bronze Age cousin to the north at
roughly the same time.
In the years that follow the victory of Argos over its aspirant rivals, the Argives
appear to have shifted their regional policy from one of loose military domination
to ethnic amalgamation. While some have identified a model of either desertifica-
tion or synoikismos in this Argive push towards regional consolidation (Kritzas
1996), to me the persistence of many of the region’s distinct communities and poleis
well into the Hellenistic Period makes it seem as if the plain was brought together
by less heavy-handed means.15 The Argives themselves, for their part, appear quite
eager to incorporate elements of their subject communities’ traditions in the new
regional mélange.16
It was only in the decades following this Argive re-conquest that many of its
sanctuaries, festivals, and traditions become ‘regional’ rather than ‘local’ – despite
the impression of Archaic continuity given by some of our sources.17 Religion, un-
surprisingly, figures prominently in this process: in 464 we find the first attestation
of the procession from Argos to the Heraion in Pindar’s Tenth Nemean Ode (Hall
1995, 590–597). Our first archaeological evidence for the games of Hera dates to
460; at roughly the same time the Argives built the Sacred Way (hieros odos) link-
ing the city itself to this sanctuary that had only recently passed into its hands. The
attention lavished on the Heraion is particularly noteworthy: until this point Hera
had never figured prominently in the Argive Pantheon, instead she and her sanctu-
ary were traditionally of paramount importance to Mycenae, Tiryns, and other
groups of Herakleidai.18 This shift by all accounts should be understood as an at-
tempt to integrate these ancestral religious sensibilities into the newly emerging
‘Argive’ community. It was also around this point that Hera first appears on Argive
coinage, and several fragments of contemporary authors have led Hall to identify
this focus on Hera as part of a broader process of contemporary mythological re-
engineering which incorporated the previously disparate aspects of the region’s
communities into a newly coherent tradition.
Various other vectors of political and ethnic amalgamation can be found in the
fifth century, albeit with less chronological precision. Although many of the bronze
plaques discovered in the region remain unpublished, three of their number were
analysed by Kritzas in 1996 (233–238) and prove invaluable to our reconstruction
κράτος ἥλωσαν.οἱ δὲἈργεῖοι τοὺς Μυκηναίους ἀνδραποδισάμενοι καὶ δεκάτην ἐξ αὐτῶν

τῷθεῷ καθιερώσαντες, τὰς Μυκήνας κατέσκαψαν.
15 See McAuley 2008; Kritzas 1992; and Piérart 2004. Piérart 1997, 329f identifies two different
models of regional integration, based on the accounts of Diod. 11.65.2–3 and Str. 8.6.11.
16 For instance, in the realm of architecture as discussed by des Courtils 1992.
17 On the apparent antiquity of the Argive Heraion, see Hall 1997 and, more recently, Auffarth
2006 with a different conclusion on the archaic origins of the sanctuary. On the political back-
ground to this transformation, see Robinson 1997, 82–86. For the general narrative of the period
in question, see Robinson 1972, 87–116, and his discussion of the religious development of the
region at 200–220.
18 See again the discussion of Hall 1995 and Auffarth 2006.
136 Alex McAuley
of the ethnic consolidation of the Argolid. All of the plaques have nail holes in their
corners, and were presumably mounted on or in public buildings. Two of them have
been dated to around 450, and concern mostly financial matters. In the first, magis-
trates known as the duodeka disburse sums to various tribes and their constituent
phratries. The presence of an entirely new fourth tribe alongside the traditional Do-
rian phylai – the Hyrnathioi – suggests the inclusion of new ethnic communities
into the expanded politeia. The names of the phratries themselves present an inter-
esting mix of traditional Argive figures (Daiphontes, Temenides), alongside those
drawn from the region’s other communities.
The second plaque disburses money from the city’s magistrates in support of
the games of Hera at the Hekatomboia, and thus we find further indication of on-
going Argive support of the Heraion. The third, which dates to the fourth century,
reinforces this connection between political patronage and religion by providing a
fragmentary list of deities to whom lands had been consecrated ‘by the ancients’
and then parcelled out to individual tenants. Among these deities are Hera, Hera-
kles, Apollo Pythaeus, and Alektryon. In these consecrations we catch a glimpse of
the extended regional mosaic: Apollo Pythaeus was traditionally the primary deity
worshipped by the Dorian Argives, Hera and Herakles are again linked with the
Herakleidai of Mycenae and Tiryns, while Alektryon, a member of Herakles’ fam-
ily, had an ancestral link to the communities of the eastern Argolid (Hall 1997, 99–
106). All of these diverse traditions are the recipients of benefaction by the govern-
ment of Argos, and thus again these old strands have been woven into a new knot.
Neither does this process appear to have been instantaneous, as the persistent pop-
ularity of the Heraion and its associated festivals along with the longevity of these
civic and territorial groupings attest.
There are two points that I wish to derive from this brief survey of the fifth-
century Argolid. The first is that the region as such only began to display the char-
acteristics of an ethnos – common mythology and heroic descent, participation in
common religious festivals and their respective sanctuaries, and some form of re-
gional political collaboration – beginning around 460–450 and bearing fruit in ear-
nest by the latter half of fifth century. This was very much a new and ongoing pro-
cess in the decades that followed. The second is that the city of Argos itself was the
engine – both political and financial – that drove this process of ethnic fusion in the
Argolid. Argive patronage of the sanctuary of Hera, of the games of the Hekatom-
boia, and of the cults and sanctuaries which were of ancestral importance to the
region’s constituent communities resulted in this more collaborative character of
the region. In the broader context of the fifth century, it is noteworthy that these
vectors of ethnic integration may well have been the by-product of contemporary
political and strategic realities: cooperation was enabled through shifting alliances
between the two major external powers of Athens and Sparta, military alliances
bred political exchange, and all of this occurs against the backdrop of the Classical
Period trend towards city states becoming territorial states.19
It is at this point that we must pause and resume the question first posed in the
introduction to this chapter: can we really speak of an Argive ethnos, or of the Ar-
golid as a region populated by an ‘ethnic’ group? This overview of the fifth century
reveals it to be a pivotal time in the collective history of the Argive plain, and one
which, I argue, represents a moment at which we can begin to speak of the region
in terms of ethnic coherence for essentially the first time since its Mycenaean ge-
ography of power. Returning to Hall’s criteria of ethnicity mentioned above, we see
that it is only during this time that the Argolid begins to tick many of the boxes he
identifies: association with a specific territory, sense of communal solidarity, a
shared history, and a common name. It is during this fifth century consolidation of
power that the borders of the Argolid are set by Argive conquests, which would
later be defended during the Hellenistic Period with various degrees of success.20 It
is at this point in time that Jacques des Courtils notes the emergence of a new ar-
chitectural style common to the region, and in the Hellenistic world the loose defi-
nition of ‘Argive’ ethnicity was precisely one of the factors that contributed to its
popularity as studied by Scheer.21 The development of the Argive Heraion during
this period was aimed at making it into what Hall describes as ‘a confederate sanc-
tuary for all of the Argive plain’ (1995, 613). Finally, it is also at this moment that
Hall identifies the ‘usurpation’ of traditionally non-Argive mythological figures
into the genealogy of the Argive plain (1997, 98). Archaic notions of the shared
inheritance of the plain gave way to the absorption of old communities’ heroes and
common descent into the ‘new Argive synoikism’22 We can thus identify a sense
of collective Argive identity rooted in common descent, regional association, cultic
commonality, and shared history emerging by the fifth century that leads us towards
tentatively identifying the Argives as a distinct ethnos. These diverse ties that were
negotiated over centuries provide the ethnic fabric of the region that would later
19 In this regard the Sicilian context as described by Antonaccio 2001 becomes both similar and
pertinent: in her survey of the development of Sikiliote identity out of its fragmentary constit-
uent communities, she argues that the aggregative trend in the formation of Sicilian regional
identity occurs after periods of great political or demographic stress. The actions of individual
rulers – especially Ducetius, in this case – can stimulate ethnic integration even though this was
perhaps not their original intent (136–139). The aggregative trend, she demonstrates, manifests
itself on the various levels that we see present here in the Argolid as well – religion, material
culture, and political organisation. For the Argolid as a region caught between two large pow-
ers, see the experience of Epidauros as recounted by Piérart 2004, 607.
20 We can identify a broadly internal shift in the fourth century strategy of the Argives geared
towards the consolidation and securing of the region’s territories. This is at work with the con-
flict of 351 discussed by Diod. 16.24.2; Tomlinson 1972, 143f; Spawforth and Cartledge 1989,
10–15 against Sparta, and various other conflicts identified by Piérart 2004, 611. Philip II’s
arbitration at the League of Corinth after the Battle of Chaironeia settled many territorial ques-
tions in favour of the Argives, giving them control over Epidauros again along with Thryia, for
this cf. IG IV2.1.69 and SEG.11.400.
21 des Courtils 1992, 249, and Scheer 2005.
22 For the full discussion of the mythical genealogy of the region see Hall 1997, 77–106.
138 Alex McAuley
manifest itself in its theoric expeditions. It was at this point that ‘Argive’ began to
extend beyond the citizens of Argos alone, to encompass the inhabitants of the re-
gion’s other communities as well.
Regardless of what precisely first instigated the process, it was ultimately the
Argives who re-tooled their own pantheon, civic subdivisions, and even mytho-
history in order to include the communities that now lay in its political shadow.
This ethnic integration as we can glimpse it today appears unidirectional; how these
efforts were received among the relocated peoples of Mycenae, Tiryns, and else-
where can only be the object of speculation. We must likewise bear in mind that in
spite of these recent avenues of ethnic commonality, the region remained divided
in many ways. War broke out between Argos and Epidauros in 419, and even
Kleonai remained an independent polis through to the middle of the fourth cen-
tury.23 By the close of the fifth century, then, the seeds of regionalism had been
sown, but had not yet come to fruition – and it is in this context that we turn to
Epidauros and its theōria.
II. THERE AND BACK AGAIN: THE THEŌRIA AT EPIDAUROS
The cult of Asklepios at Epidauros and its associated theōria are noteworthy for a
variety of reasons, not least among them is their chronology. The theōria as an
epangelic institution is generally identified as a quintessentially Hellenistic phe-
nomenon, as is certainly the case in Rutherford’s recent expansive study.24 The cult
of Asklepios and the popularity of his associated sanctuaries are likewise consid-
ered Hellenistic religious developments, alongside the cults of Serapis, Isis, and the
mysteries of Demeter. But here, in this rocky corner of the Peloponnese, we find
convincing evidence of the late–Classical popularity of the healing god, his shrine,
and the network forged in support of this civic cult.
The Asklepieion at Epidauros is the oldest such sanctuary in Greece, as both it
and its associated agonistic festival are attested from the late sixth century on-
wards.25 Already by the mid fifth-century the games were attracting athletes from
outside the Argolid and the Peloponnese – Pindar refers to victory of the pankratists
Themistios, Kleandros, and Aristokleides from Aigina in 530 and 479 BCE, while
23 As discussed by Piérart 2004, 611, with reference to Piérart and Touchais 1996, 62–64. The
argument in favour of the continued independence of Kleonai until the late fourth century de-
pends on the reconstruction of Athenian proxeny decree of 323, IG II2.365, while SEG 30.355
and IG IV.616 (c.315) attest that Kleonai was later integrated as a civic subdivision of Argos.
24 See Rutherford 2014, 42–44 on the importance of royal courts to his reconstruction of the in-
stitution. See also Kindt 2012, 39–42. Dillon 1997 perhaps unintentionally conveys the same
impression by discussing Hellenisic theoria in the context of mystery cults and panhellenic
festivals, though this chronology is much broader.
25 Lambrinoudakis 1979; Kabbadias 1900; Latte 1931; Sève 1993.
the famous athlete Dorieus of Rhodes counted four victories in the same event to-
wards the end of the fifth century.26 The presence of the Anatolian All Star, as it
were, makes it clear that this was not simply a local competition – though the
longstanding claim that Rhodes was originally an Argive colony perhaps hints at
an ethnic component to the Epidaurian games.27 By the 370s, the popularity of the
Asklepeieion led to a large building programme aimed at expanding the sanctuary
and its associated festivals. Given Tomlinson’s (1972, 211) observation that Argive
craftsmen were involved in the renovation of the sanctuary, I do not think it beyond
the realm of possibility that Argos itself was involved both financially and materi-
ally in this Epidaurian initiative.28 With this in mind, it comes as little surprise that
Epidaurian coin types from this period bear portraits of Asklepios and Apollo – the
latter being the chief deity of Argos itself.29
Greek excavations at the site in the 1890s unearthed two marble stelai featuring
lists of theōrodokoi in topographic order from two separate theoric expeditions
which we shall consider in turn. The first list detailing the route of one theōria is
preserved on two fragments, the first of which charts the journey of the embassy
through central Greece, proceeding from Epidauros to Megara and Athens before
turning to Thebes, Thespiai, Koroneia, and Orchomenos in Boiotia before the list
breaks off.30 The second fragment picks up with the embassy already in the North,
listing cities visited in Thessaly, Makedonia, Chalkidike, Thrace, and Thasos before
breaking off again at line 33. That these two fragments are non-joining implies that
there were cities visited in between and after these parts of the list which have been
preserved, and Perlman concludes (2000, 74f) that this document must have been
inscribed upon their return to Epidauros.
Even this partial preservation attests to over forty communities visited by this
embassy which is the second oldest explicit reference to the theōria and
theōrodokia in the Greek world following the theōria in support of the Pythian
Games at Delphi from after c. 420 (Perlman 2000, 13–30, Syll.3 90). The itinerary
followed by these Epidaurian theōroi is fascinating in that it took them beyond the
limits of what was typically held to be the ‘Greek world proper’ of the fourth cen-
tury. Their contact with cities throughout Makedon, Epeiros, and Thrace essentially
presupposes a web of relations between the Mainland and the North that would not
emerge until after the dust settled from the campaigns of Alexander and his succes-
sors. The ‘Hellenistic’ character of such a network leads us to pause and reconsider
26 Perlman 2000, 67f, citing Pind. Nem. 5.95–7 and Isthm. 8.68. The games are thus attested for
530 and 479 BCE, respectively, though they had fallen from prominence in the fifth century
only to be revived around the time at which the sanctuary was renovated.
27 Perlman 2000, 68f.
28 This would seem particularly likely given the involvement of artisans from farther afield than
Argos in the reconstruction of the sanctuary in the fourth century, as recounted by Piérart 2004,
607; Burford 1969; and Perlman 2000: 67f and n.4, 73 n.32.
29 For instance, B. M. C., Pelop. Pl. XXIX. 11–13.
30 Perlman Ep. Cat. E1 frgs a and b, with full references on 177. Inscription is IG IV2.1.94, and
SEG 11.410.
140 Alex McAuley
some of our prevailing assumptions about the geography of power in the early half
of the fourth century.
Remarkable figures appear in this list as well. Among the theōrodokoi we find
Perdikkas III of Makedon (l. 9), which along with a reference to the city of Datos
allows the inscription and thus the embassy to be conventionally dated to 360/59 –
the last year of this king of Makedon’s reign (Perlman 2000, 69). I believe the
prominence with which Makedon, Epeiros, and the Argeads in particular figure in
this list can be considered as the product of the Argive ties cultivated by the Argeads
since the mid fifth-century in order to gain admission to the Olympic Games. This
was not a one-off recognition of Argive ancestry, because Philip II’s later assertions
of Argive descent were commonly repeated without challenge by the time of his
reign.31 It would thus appear that Epidauros was piggybacking off this claim of
common ancestry and using it to gain further support for the Asklepieia from the
Makedonian royal house and its territories. Despite the ongoing political tension
between Argos and Epidauros, claims of common Argive descent between them
must have had a certain cachet for both parties. Without the fifth-century back-
ground of ethnic amalgamation in the region, one wonders whether these claims of
ethnic commonality would have carried such fourth-century weight.
The second theoric inscription is somewhat more straightforward. Dated by
Perlman and many others to roughly four years after the first delegation we have
encountered above, thus to 356/5.32 It seems that the Epidaurians despatched this
second embassy to continue the success of the first while also announcing the fes-
tival to new audiences (Perlman 2000, 68–73). As with the previous delegation, this
embassy proceeded through the north of Greece though this time following a more
westerly route leading through Ambrakia (l. 33) to Molossia (l. 32), Epeiros (l. 23),
and many other neighbouring communities. But in this list we find other destina-
tions that further reveal the reach of this small city’s religious connections: the
theōroi proceed through cities in Italy, among them Herakleia (l. 40), Kroton (l. 42),
Tarentum (l. 44) and Sicily (Syracuse, l. 39), thus the sanctuary and festival were
announced across the Greek Mainland as they were across the Ionian Sea as well.
Given the small size of Epidauros, one wonders whether a community such as this
would be able to organise and carry out an embassy of such vast geographical scope
entirely on its own. As we shall soon explore in greater detail, it instead seems far
more likely that Epidauros was following a route that was already well-tread by a
larger community with a broader diplomatic reach: Argos. But as residents of the
Argolid, the route was, in a sense, theirs to follow.
The timing of these two theoric embassies clearly coincides with the large-scale
renovation and expansion of the sanctuary itself that began in the 370s and would
31 For the links between the Argeads and the Argives, see Hdt. 5.22, 8.137–139; Thuc 2.99.3;
Isocr. Philip. Panth. 76–77; Scheer 2005, 216f. Isocrates goes to the point of describing Philip
II as the ideal descendant of Herakles.
32 Ep. Cat. E.2 in Perlman 2000, with full bibliography and publication history on p.180. The
inscription was originally published as IG IV.1504, and IG IV2.1.95.
have been completed by the close of the decade. With the construction work com-
plete, likely thanks to the help of Argive craftsmen, the Epidaurians were eager to
advertise the correspondingly expanded games of the Asklepieia whose lavishness
and complexity was augmented to match their surroundings.33 This close chrono-
logical connection between the renovation of the sanctuary itself followed shortly
by a theoric embassy is a pattern that we shall also explore in the context of the
Argive Heraion. In timing as well as route, then, the Epidaurians seem to have been
imitating their hegemonic counterparts in Argos. Perlman aptly captures the rela-
tionship between the Epidaurian and Argive theōriai when she writes “during a
period of seventy years, while their rosters are not identical they are remarkably
similar and seem to reflect an established itinerary for the purposes of festival
epangelia.” She goes on to write that it is thus “reasonable to imagine that theoroi
from Epidauros in 360–359 followed much the same route as those from Argos in
the fourth and third centuries BC” (Perlman 2000, 75). Could the Argive route,
though, be an even earlier innovation?
III. BLAZING THE TRAIL: ARGOS AND NEMEA
Turning then to the evidence from Argos and Nemea, it becomes immediately ob-
vious that these theoric lists are substantially more problematic than their Epidaur-
ian equivalents. We can treat the two embassies for the games of the Hekatomboia
at the Argive Heraion and the Nemean games at the sanctuary of Zeus, respectively,
as one unit by virtue of Miller’s observation that while the Nemean games contin-
ued to be celebrated at Nemea they would by this point have fallen more or less
under direct Argive control.34 The list concerning the Heraion was discovered in
the Agora of Argos itself and first published by Pierre Charneux in 1966, while the
Nemean list was found in the sanctuary of Zeus by the American School’s excava-
tions in 1978 and published by Miller a decade later. We shall consider each in turn.
The reconstruction of the Argive theōria that I propose below again emerges
from Perlman’s elaboration of an observation first made by Charneux in 1966: he
argues that this list for the Hekatomboia, dated to 330–324 BCE, is incomplete and
should be considered as an addendum to a document that was already engraved and
displayed in the agora at Argos.35 This conclusion emerges from the fact that the
itinerary outlined by the list is disrupted in the sense that it does not follow the same
logical land and sea routes as the Epidaurian embassies. For instance, the
33 See notes above.

34 The Argive list: Ed. Pr. P. Charneux BCH 90, 1966, 159–239, SEG 23.189, 33.289, subse-
quently Perlman 2000 Ep. Cat. A.1 The Nemean list was first published by S.G. Miller in Hes-
peria 48, 1979, 78f, subsequently commented by Amandry 1980 and Perlman 2000, 101f. The
text is now SEG 36.331, and Perlman 2000, Ep.Cat. N.1. See Miller 2001, 92f for the bibliog-
raphy surrounding the question of when and where the games were celebrated at various points
in the fourth century. The topic is also covered by Perlman 2000, 138–157.
35 A conclusion at which he arrives in Charneux 1966, 232–234. Full text and commentary by
Charneux 1966, 156–239.
142 Alex McAuley
theōrodokoi from Ambrakia and Epeiros are preceded by one from Argos and Leu-
kas, and then followed five lines later by cities in Cyrene. As Perlman explains in
greater detail, the gaps and fissures in the itinerary make it clear that this inscription
provides revisions and additions to a roster of theōrodokoi, also including cities that
had only recently been added or achieved their independence (Perlman 2000, 103).
The original roster, she asserts, would have been maintained by the theōroi them-
selves and then (re-)inscribed at certain important moments in the history of the
festival and sanctuary (Perlman 2000, 103f). Accordingly, with this inscription we
catch a glimpse of a theoric tradition that has already been regularized by the 320s
BCE; in other words, we are not witnessing the inception of the Argive theōria but
rather its routine maintenance.
Like the Asklepieia at Epidauros, the festival of the Hekatomboia at the
Heraion, synonymous with the games of Argive Hera, had already been popular for
over a century by the time this theōria was despatched.36 As we have seen above,
Argive patronage of the competition attracted foreign competitors attested since the
middle of the fifth century, including the same Dorieus of Rhodes along with Co-
rinthians, Athenians, and Lokrians.37 The theoric itinerary outlined by this Argive
list treads the familiar ground of central and northwest Greece that we have found
in Epidauros, but also includes farther-flung destinations on the Ionian Coast and
North Africa. The northwest Greek section of their itinerary is so similar to Epi-
daurus as to be beyond mere coincidence: cities like Medion, Leukas, Torubeia,
Alyzea, Palairos, Corcyra, Epeiros, and Ambrakia all recur. That the order in which
the cities are listed does not match the itinerary of the Epidaurian theōria further
supports our supposition that this is a fragmentary addendum.38
Several figures of note appear among theōrodokoi for Argos. Among them we
find another connection between the Argeads and the Argolid that pre-dates the
Hellenistic Period proper: Cleopatra, full sister of Alexander the Great and widow
of Alexander I of Epeiros who ruled as queen from 331–324 is included in their
number at line 11. Along with Perdikkas III’s presence among the theōrodokoi for
Epidauros (frg. B l. 9), it becomes clear that the Makedonian royals were cultivating
ties with the region of the Argolid as a whole, not just one particular polis or sanc-
tuary. In the same vein, the presence of many other communities in the north makes
it seem that these ties were between two regions, and not simply between the Ar-
golid and the Argead dynasty. Whether such regional ties were predicated on some
sense of common ancestry is unclear, though it remains an enticing hypothesis. The
longevity of these regional ties is aptly attested by the fact that the Epidaurian and
36 On the incorporation of Hera into the Argive pantheon and the mechanisms by which this was
accomplished, see Hall 1995, 612; Amandry 1980, 234–239; Hall 1997, 96–99; Kritzas 1992,
236f.
37 See Amandry 1980, 233 n.54 for his catalogue of early victor’s inscriptions at the games. In-
terestingly, the famous athlete Doreius of Rhodes is attested as having been victorious in both
the games of Asklepios and the games of Argive Hera, thus suggesting that perhaps the two
competitions formed part of a similar competitive circuit throughout the Greek world.
38 For a summation of this see Perlman 2000, Figures 7 and 12 on p. 76 and 120, respectively.
Argive lists share three specific theōrodokoi, despite being separated by three dec-
ades. Aristion of Medion, Phorbadas of Ambrakia, and Aristion of Anaktorion were
recognised as hosts for the theōroi of both festivals.39 Their engagement with Ar-
give religious life from afar over a period of three decades indicates that such the-
oric relationships or not simply motivated by instantaneous advantage; they were
individual links to an entire region that were cultivated throughout a lifetime.
The Nemean list, found in a well near the southwest corner of the sanctuary of
Zeus, is somewhat more detailed but equally problematic as its Argive equivalent.
The dating of the inscription is uncertain: Miller has placed it in 324 as an an-
nouncement of the games of 323, while Perlman argues for the window of 324–313
based on the mention of Nikokreon of Salamis.40 The stele was one that stood and
was modified for a substantial period of time: the Hellespont and its theōrodokoi
were added to the original list by another hand between 313 and 280 BCE, and a
third hand inscribed another set of addenda concerning Eretria, Chios, and Cumae
after the 270s BCE.41 Given this episodic composition of the document, Perlman
concludes that this, just like the Argive list, must be a fragmentary supplement to
revise a more complete that was already displayed.42 This one document, then, ac-
counts for nearly forty years of theoric activity at Nemea.
Although by nature incomplete, even in its fragmentary form the document
suggests a deep connection with the Epidaurian theōria. Both followed very itiner-
aries: like at Epidaurus, the Nemean theōroi head through central Greece to the
north into Akarnania and Makedon before turning to follow the Thracian coast to
the Hellespont. The poleis visited by the Nemeans are listed in the same order as at
Epidauros, and contains three theōrodokoi – one each at Palairos, Leukas, and Cor-
cyra – who also appear on the Argive list. The regional and collaborative character
of these theoric embassies again becomes clearer. The Makedonian connection is
again reinforced with the attestation of three Makedonian poleis, so both the geo-
graphic itinerary and the specific communities visited are consistent across all three
of our theoric lists. Other cities outside Makedon are also shared by the Epidaurian
and Nemean lists, further lending credence to the idea the Nemeans were, like the
Argives and perhaps the Epidaurians, following a well-trodden route.
The inclusion of Nikokreon, king of Salamis in Cyprus, is of capital importance
as it further testifies to the regional, not sanctuary-specific, nature of these theoric
ties. Nikokreon is listed among the theōrodokoi in Cyprus, and as we have seen
with the Argeads the presence of a monarch among the benefactors of such a festi-
val is a late–Classical period development, not a phenomenon unique to the Hellen-
istic world.43 But Nemea was not the only sanctuary in the Argolid which enjoyed
the patronage of Nikokreon: a votive statue was erected by the Argives in praise of
39 See Perlman 2000, Fig. 13 on p.151 for the recurrences and their respective line numbers.
40 Perlman 2000, 105–111 for her discussion of this dating window, and Miller 1978, 78–80 for
the date and mechanics of deposition.
41 Perlman 2000, 107–116 for the argument of different hands, summarised in fig. 10 on p.107.
42 Perlman 2000, 109–112, with references to the preceding decades of debate surrounding the
dating these addenda.
43 For Nikokreon in the Nemean theōrodokoi lists see citations at Perlman 2000, 109–116.
144 Alex McAuley
the king’s generosity in sending the materials necessary to provide the prizes for
the games of Hera at the Heraion. The text of the inscription (IG IV.583) on the
base of the statue reinforces the connection between ethnicity and religion in the
Argolid for which I argue throughout this chapter. In the first three lines of the
inscription, Nikokreon explicitly identifies himself as a Pelasgian Argive descended
from Aiachus, and he states that in supporting the games of Hera he is contributing
to his ancestral metropolis.44 Of course in so doing he is reviving much older ethnic
ties between Argos in Cyprus that had long lay dormant, but regardless of the his-
toricity of his claims it is clear that the Argive Heraion was a religious venue
charged with ethnic attachments.45 Even if they were fictive, these ties of kinship
still had contemporary meaning, and there were other, more latent, vectors of com-
monality between the two communities as Kritzas has identified with the corre-
spondence of the names of months, for instance.46 It is not difficult to imagine that
the same set of ethnic attachments led Nikokreon to host the Nemean theōroi and,
likely, contribute to this regional sanctuary as well. Neither, ironically, would have
been considered an ethnic sanctuary had it not been for the fifth-century efforts
towards regional integration by the Argives.
Finally, in a broader chronological context we see the same mechanism from
Epidaurus at work here in Nemea: the sanctuary of Zeus had declined in popularity
during the fourth century, and it was only by around the 330s that it was renovated
and its festivals reorganised – again with the support of Argos proper. This theōria,
as at Epidauros, was sent to publicise the renovated sanctuary and its revitalised
festival.
IV. PICK UP THE PIECES: RECONSTRUCTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
How, then, can we put the pieces of the puzzle together by placing these highly
specific epigraphical documents back into their broader historical context? In order
to reconstruct the ethnic dimension of these theoric embassies and apply these hy-
potheses to the region’s longer history, four points ought to be made. The first and
most straightforward conclusion is that the theoric itineraries of Epidauros, Argos,
and Nemea are too similar to be coincidental, and must represent a typical route that
these embassies generally followed – with room for slight deviation, of course. The
fragmentary nature of the Argive and Nemean lists, as we have seen above, suggests
that this ‘typical’ theoric route for the Argolid was well-established by the 330s,
44 Amandry 1980, 219f. The full text of the inscription (IG IV.583):
μ̣ατρ[όπο]λ̣ίς μοι χθὼν Πέλοπος τὸ Πελαζγικὸν Ἄργος,
Πνυταγόρας δὲ πατὴρ Αἰάκου ἐκ γενεᾶς·
εἰμὶ δὲ Νικοκρέων, θρέψεν δέ με γᾶ περίκλυστος
Κύπρος θειοτάτων ἐκ προγόνων βασιλῆ,
στᾶσαν δ’ Ἀργεῖοί με χάριν χαλκοῖο τίοντες,
Ἥραι ὃν εἰς ἔροτιν πέμπον̣ [ἄε]θλα νέοις.
45 See the more detailed discussion of Bing 2013, especially p.42.
46 Kritzas 2013.
and must have been established much earlier. The fact that all three expeditions
visited similar regions and poleis, and some individuals serve as theōrodokoi for
two sanctuaries over a long period of time, suggests that the Argive theōria was
bound by regional ties, not associations with an individual cult. The fifth-century
backdrop to this regional theoric effort along with the claims of common descent
made by Nikokreon of Cyprus and the Argead dynasty suggest that these regional
ties were girded by a sense of ethnic commonality.
Second: the prominence with which Makedon in general, and the Argead dyn-
asty in particular, figures in all three of these lists must be related to the broader
cultivation of ethnic ties between the two regions which first presented itself in the
fifth century. This thus created a link between the Argolid and Makedon that pre-
dates the latter’s prominence on the Greek political stage of the late Classical Pe-
riod. This engagement of Makedon with the Mainland as a religious benefactor is
thus not, strictly speaking, a Hellenistic tendency. That Epidauros, which was out-
side of the Argive political fold and technically independent at the time of its
theōria, itself cultivated such a link with Makedon implies that there was an under-
lying ethnic unity among the Argolid’s communities. Participation in the religious
sphere, thus, provides a vector of ethnic cohesion even amidst a fragmented politi-
cal tableau.
Third: following Perlman’s hypothesis, it was the Argives who were the first to
send a theoric expedition in support of their festivals, they would have established
the route that was later followed by the other embassies from the Argolid. The first
attested Epidaurian theōria of 360/359 then provides our terminus ante quem, as it
was following an unattested Argive precedent. For this mysterious first theōria, we
can propose a date. Given the typical mechanism that we have seen in all of these
three sanctuaries, a theōria is sent out following the renovation of a sanctuary and
the reorganization of its festivals. Thucydides (4.133) relates that the Heraion was
destroyed by massive fire in 423, and it would follow logically that Argos would
rebuild and enlarge the sanctuary in the decades that followed the blaze.47 Perhaps
the festival and games of the Hekatomboia were reorganised then as well, and the
theōria sent out to announce this competition along with the renovation of the sanc-
tuary. If we presume the renovations took perhaps five years to complete, then this
theōria would have been sent at some point in the 410s. Regardless of the precise
date, this initial theoric embassy would have established the general route through
central and northern Greece into Makedon and Epeiros, and the resultant list of
theōrodokoi would have been maintained and updated with addenda such as those
found for the 320s. Even if we place the initial theōria according to terminus ante
quem from Epidauros, the timing is still noteworthy. The theōria is again viewed
as an institution that flourished in the Hellenistic Period, and for three sanctuaries
of the Argolid to already have well-established theoric networks by the 320s causes
us to reconsider the initial development of the practice.48 The relationship between
47 See Amandry 1980 for a detailed analysis of the dates of the re-organisation of Argive festivals.
48 See notes above, referring to Rutherford 2014; Kindt 2012; and Dillon 1997.
146 Alex McAuley
these theōriai in the Argolid and the earliest Delphic theōriai is another question
entirely, and merits further enquiry.
Finally, when these theōriai are placed back into the broader fifth and fourth
century context described at the outset of this chapter, we can see this aspect of
regional collaboration as another step in a process of ethnic amalgamation which
had been occurring for over a century in the Argolid. It happened in fits and spurts,
admittedly, with each city and group subject to fortune’s specific caprice, but the
attempts of Argos to foster some measure of unity among the communities of the
Argolid met with at least some measure of success. Perhaps not with a complex
koinon to rival that of the Boeotians, but such cooperation in the religious sphere is
meaningful enough to the lives of these communities.49 In the process we witness
the transformation of polis cults and traditions into regional cults and traditions, all
by means of their inclusion into a nascent sense of ethnic collectivity. Although the
constituent cities of the Argolid remained independent and often opposed to one
another, the suffusion of this sense of collectivity made it such that they could co-
operate in the religious sphere while remaining competitive in so many others. This
pattern, at least, is in keeping with the vagaries of Greek localism. The political
fragmentation of the region precluded the sort of complex political institutionalisa-
tion that we find elsewhere in the Greek world, but this does not make the Argive
experience irrelevant or cheapened. In this corner of the Greek world, unlike others,
whatever trappings of an ethnos the Argolid had only emerge at the dusk of the
Classical Period, and would not come to full fruition until the Hellenistic. The
glimpse of the Argive experience in the fourth century through the lens of the
theōria thus reveals them not to be an ethnos avant la letttre, but sans la lettre.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, T. W. (1909) Argos in Homer, The Classical Quarterly 3, 81–98.

Amandry, P. (1980) Sur les concours argiens, Études argiennes: Supplément VI du Bulletin de cor-
respondance hellénique, 211–253.
Antonaccio, C. M. (2001) Ethnicity and Colonization, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of
Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge, MA., 113–157.
Auffarth, C. (2006) Das Heraion von Samos oder das Heraion der Argolis?, in K. Freitag, P. Funke,
and M. Haake (eds.), Kult-Politik-Ethnos, Stuttgart, 192–217.
Bearzot, C. and F. Landucci (eds.) (2006) Una democrazia diversa, Milan.
Beck, H. (2014) Ethnic Identity and Integration in Boeotia: The Evidence of the Inscriptions, in N.
Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden,
19–44.
Beck, H. and P. Funke (eds.) (2015) Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge.
Bernardini, P.A., (ed.) (2004) La città di Argo: mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche, Rome.
49 Beck and Ganter 2015 for the most recent survey of Boeotia, and Beck 2014 for the dynamics
of ethnicity in the state-formation of the region.
Bing, P. (2013) Invective from the Cultural Periphery: The Case of Hermeias of Kourion, in S. Ager
and R. Faber (eds.), Belonging and Isolation in the Hellenistic World, Toronto, 33–46.
Burford, A. (1969) The Greek Temple Builders at Epidaurus, Liverpool.
Charneux, P. (1966) À propos de la liste argienne de Théarodoques’, Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 90, 156–239.
Dabney, M.K. (1999) Locating Mykenaian Cemeteries, in P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R.
Laffineur, and W.–D. Niemeier (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented
to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, (Aegaeum, 20), Liège, 171–175.
Darcque, P. (1998) Argos et la plaine argienne à l’époque mycénienne, in A. Pariente and G. Tou-
chais (eds.), Άργος και Αργολίδα: Τοπογραφία και πολεοδομία / Argos et l’Argolide: Topogra-
phie et urbanisme, Paris, 103–115.
des Courtils, J. (1992) L’architecture et l’histoire d’Argos dans la première moitié du cinquième
siècle av. J–C., in M. Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à
la constitution de l’état classique, Athens, 241–251.
Dillon, M. (1997) Pilgrims and Pilgrimages in Ancient Greece, London.
Foley, A. (1988) The Argolid, 800–600 B.C.: An Archaeological Survey, Göteborg.
Hall, J. (1995) How Argive was the “Argive” Heraion?, American Journal of Archaeology 99, 577–
613.
Hall, J. (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge.
Jansen, A.G. (2002) A Study of the Remains of Mykenaian Roads and Stations of Bronze-Age
Greece, Queenston.
Kabbadias, P. (1900) To ieron tou Asklepiou tou Epidaurōi, Athens.
Kelly, T. (1976) A History of Argos to 500 B.C., Minneapolis.
Kindt, J. (2012) Rethinking Greek Religion, Cambridge.
Kritzas, C. (1992) Aspects de la vie politique et économique d’Argos au cinquième siècle av. J-C,
in M. Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution
de l’état classique, Athens, 231–240.
Kritzas, C. (2013) Κυπρο–Ἀργολικά, in D. Michaelidis (ed.), Epigraphy, Numismatics, Prosopog-
raphy, and History of Ancient Cyprus. Papers in Honour of Ino Nicolaou, Uppsala, 213–225.
Lambrinoudakis, B. K. (1979) Λατρεια και Ιστορια της Επιδαυρου, Επιστημονική Επετηρίς της Φι-
λοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών 27, 54–77.
Latte, K. (1929) Spondophoroi, Realencyclopädie IIIA.2, 1847–1850.
Latte, K. (1931) IG IV2, Hiller de Gaertringen (ed.), Gnomon 7, 113–135.
Malkin, I. (ed.) (2001) Ancient Perceptions of Greek Identity, Washington.
Malkin, I. (2001) Introduction, in I. Malkin (ed), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washing-
ton, 1–28.
Miller, S. G. (1976) Excavations at Nemea, 1975, Hesperia 45, 174–202.
Miller, S. G. (1990) Nemea: A Guide to the Site and Museum, Berkeley.
Morgan, C. (2003) Early Greek States beyond the Polis, London.
Pariente, A., M. Piérart, and J.-P. Thalmann (1998) Les recherches sur l’agora d’Argos: résultats et
perspectives, in A. Pariente and G. Touchais (eds.), Argos et l’Argolide, topographie et urba-
nisme, Paris, 211–231.
Perlman, P. (2000) City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese,
Göttingen.
Piérart, M. (1991) Aspects de la transition en Argolide, in D. Musti, A. Sacconi, L. Rochhetti, M.
Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Portiello, and M.E. Giannotta (eds.), La transizione dal Miceneo all’alto
arcaismo, Rome, 133–144.
Piérart, M. (1992) Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’État
classique, Athens.
Piérart, M. (1997) L’attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide, Acts of the Copenhagen
Polis Centre, vol. 4, 321–351.
148 Alex McAuley
Piérart, M. (2000) Argos: une autre démocratie, in P. Flensted–Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubins-
tein (eds.), Polis and Politics, Copenhagen, 297–314.
Piérart, M. (2004) Argolis, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and
Classical Poleis, Oxford, 599–619.
Piérart, M. and G. Touchais (eds) (1996) Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans, Paris.
Renaudin, L. (1923) La nécropole «mycénienne» de Skhinokhori–Lyrkeia (?), Bulletin de corres-
pondance hellénique 47, 190–240.
Rutherford, I. (2014) State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece, Cambridge.
Scheer, T. (1993) Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstver-
ständnis kleinasiatischer Städte, Munich.
Scheer, T. (2000) Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder
in Religion und Politik (Zetemata 106), Munich.
Scheer, T. (2005) The Past in a Hellenistic Present, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellen-
istic World, Oxford, 216–232.
Sève, M. (1993) Les Concours d’Epidaure, Revue des Études Grecques 106, 303–328.
Tomlinson, R. A. (1972) Argos and the Argolid, London.
Zangger, E. (1993) The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid, Argolis 2, Berlin.
SPEARHEAD AND BOAR JAWBONE – AN INVITATION TO
HUNT IN AITOLIA:
‘FOREIGN POLICY’ WITHIN THE AITOLIAN LEAGUE
Claudia Antonetti
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
The task of investigating the cultural-political relations that were established be-
tween the ethne of Central Greece belonging to the Aitolian League (3rd–2nd centu-
ries BCE) in order to strengthen federal cohesion, and the results of these ties for
the foreign policy of the koinon as a whole, is severely limited by the scarcity of
sources on the matter. Despite this limitation, it is possible to make some observa-
tions on the politics and policies of the federal cult network, mythical tales of com-
mon ancestry, and the choice of federal and local numismatic types and public seals.
All of these diverse elements may well have shaped this feeling of federal cohe-
siveness: the interaction between these powerful ideological markers within the
League was closely linked to religious ritual action or public performances – some-
thing that is not surprising given the prominent role played by religious and mythi-
cal behaviour in the construction of political communities in ancient Greece, par-
ticularly those beyond the polis.1
Recent scholarship acknowledges that the leadership of the federal Aitolian
system put associative policies and practices into place among the new members of
the koinon that were shared by the original ethnic Aitolian communities. Well-
known examples of this trend are the inclusion of ‘newcomers’ within the federal
government2 and the institution of the Panaitōlika, the new federal assembly held
in the spring, which took place where necessary and, as far as we know, in the
newly-acquired lands of the League in order to reinforce their participation3 in the
frame of this vast state whose territory covered most of central and western Greece
in the middle of the 3rd century. Indeed there were other ways to act, apart from the
political and institutional levels, other forms of aggregating strategies that were
widely used in the Greek world – and also in Aitolia – from the 4th century onwards,
1 Mackil 2013, 155f.

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

or cultural nature, and the organisation of festivities and games (agōnes). The cre-
ation and diffusion of encomiastic poetry was also an important means of doing this
– especially because there was a revival during the early Hellenistic period of tra-
ditional archaic forms such as the epos, along with the more usual epigrammatic
genre. But the propaganda of images was by far the most powerful strategy for
communication, mainly in the public realm and in particular on statues and coins.4
We shall briefly review the first two points, which have recently been the sub-
ject of scholarly attention, before turning our focus to the importance of iconogra-
phy on numismatics and sigillography for a federal audience.
A recent investigation I carried out for the Hellenistic era in north-western
Greece has shown that in the original Aitolian land there is no positive documenta-
tion for thiasoi, eranoi and sacred koina, like in the rest of the Greek world, but
almost exclusively for fairly rare voluntary religious associations, which are not
very useful for highlighting federal links,5 whereas the recorded festivals merely
confirm what was already known. These festivals are the ancient Thermika for
Apollo Thermios in the federal capital Thermon, the traditional autumn festival dur-
ing which the primary federal assembly was held together with the election of fed-
eral officials, and the Laphrieia, the festival of Artemis Laphria in Kalydon, which
was probably held between spring and summer, like many similar feasts of Arte-
mis.6 The central role maintained by the two main (and only) federal Aitolian sanc-
tuaries during the Hellenistic period is interesting in view of both the internal and
external dialectic of the koinon:7 the tradition is respected, even enriched, as can be
seen by the conspicuous enlargements of monuments, especially in Thermon,
whereas Delphi, after the Aitolian victory over the Gauls in 279 BCE, became their
main pan–Hellenic ‘showcase’. It was here that new agōnes, the games in honour
of the victory and in remembrance of the salvation of Greece, the Sotēria, were
instituted: they were refounded in 246 BCE with a more strongly political inten-
tion.8 The ancient Aitolian sanctuaries are included in a cultural and political net-
4 On this point, see Morgan 2009.

5 Antonetti 2010b, 312–320.
6 On these festivals, see also Funke 2013 and 2015, 108–110. Trümpy 1997, 26 and footnote
103, 201–203: the Aitolian month Laphriaios corresponds to the Attic summer month Heka-
tombaion. At Delphi, the Labyadai inscription shows that the Artemisian fests (among which
the Laphria) are all held in the spring: CID I.9, D l. 8, and the commentary by G. Rougemont
ibidem: 58f.
7 It is evident that I do not consider, like others scholars (e.g. Mackil 2013, 62, 182 and Funke
2015, 110), the sanctuary of Kalydon as ‘external’ to Aitolia because, for a period between the
5th and the 4th century, the koinon has lost control over the polis. I see the evidence concerning
the Aiolis in Aitolia more as a local phenomenon of ‘intentionale Geschichte’ than a drastic
breach between the hinterland and the coast, and not at all as a rupture of religious nature.
Likewise, I do not share the opinion that the sanctuaries of Thermon and Kalydon are similar
and that they have had the same functionality for the koinon. I clearly expressed my ideas about
that: Antonetti 1990, passim; Antonetti 2005 and 2010c.
8 Reference work: Nachtergael 1977. Updates in Champion 1995; Scholten 2000, 235–252.
Foreign Policy within the Aitolian League 151
work that on the one hand leads to the Pythian sanctuary, and on the other estab-
lishes new contacts. The central position of Thermon is not affected by the creation
of itinerant Panaitōlika and even takes on, during the 3rd century, an agonistic func-
tion that places it in relation with the other centres of the athletic “grand tour”.9
There was also a noticeable local investment in the celebration of the origins of the
ethnos, as can be seen in the erection of the statue of Aitolos in the 4th century or
even before, as well as in the celebration of the success of the koinon under Aitolian
leadership, which was symbolised by the personification of Aitolia, victorious on a
trophy collection of Galatian weapons – therefore after 279 BCE, with the same
monument being reproduced both in Thermon and in Delphi.10
Kalydon seems to have acted on a different level by spreading its influence as
an antique Artemisian sanctuary, a prestigious aura spread outside Aitolia already
during the classical period when close connections with Western Lokris are at-
tested: the chryselephantine cult statue of the goddess, represented as a huntress,
was made by Menaichmos and Soïdas, two artists from Naupaktos, a polis who
gathered a sanctuary of Artemis Aitolē: here she was represented in the attitude of
hurling a javelin.11 In time, through the increasing, documented, diffusion of
Laphri(ei)a festivities and Laphrioi months, the Kalydonian goddess must have
reached the centre of a dense web of cultural relations that covered most of central
Greece and the Peloponnese,12 before the forced transfer of her cult to Patras after
Actium, and at Augustus’ behest;13 a decision that marked a dramatic rupture in the
cult’s traditions, ushering a second and very different phase of its history. It is cer-
tainly not coincidental that there are traces of ritual performances for the goddess
Laphria mainly in the regions incorporated in the Aitolian koinon or politically
linked to it: Western Lokris, Delphi and Phokis, Doris, Messenia, and Elis.
Turning now to how we may deal with the use of poetic means for celebratory
and political-cultural purposes, we must note first that recently this field of studies
has been considerably advanced thanks to new historical perspectives. Today, much
more attention is paid to the most recent layers of tradition of Aitolian mythology
and poetry, those who are contemporary to the period of dominance of the koinon.14
But there is also a widening of perspective concerning the sources which should be
considered in order to fully understand the federal cultic network and the responsi-
bility of the elites in his promotion. J. Rzepka rightly proposed that valuable infor-
mation on local myths and traditions could be inferred from examining texts that
9 Moretti IGA, 45. See Antonetti 2010b, 310f.

10 Full references in Antonetti 2012.
11 Paus. 10.38.12. Cf. 4.31.7; 7.18.10 and Str. 5.1.9 C 215. See Antonetti 1990, 256f. For the
iconography of the goddess Laphria, see Pantos 1988 and 1996.
12 See Antonetti 1990, 258f and Trümpy 1997, 134f, 139, 212–214 and Index der Festnamen, s.
v. Laphria. For a different relationship between the sanctuary of Kalydon and the Lusiates
(Arcadia), see Rigsby 2006, nr.92, and the commentary of Bugin 2010.
13 Paus. 7.18.8–13. Cf. Ellinger 2011, 574 with previous bibliography: the whole cultural complex
of the Laphria was associated at Patras with Augustus and the imperial cult.
14 See also Funke 2015, 90f.
are not purely historical in scope, like scholia, lexicographers, geographers, paroe-
miographers, and paradoxographers.15 E. Cavalli conducted a cross-study within
the inscriptional corpus of central and western Greece which leads him to the recog-
nition, in the first age of the Diadochoi, of an elegiac epigraphical production on
historical subjects related to local elites, whose tones and contents are different from
those of contemporary Alexandrian literature yet close to part of Posidippus’ poetic
production.16 One of the best examples of this stream is the epigram inscribed on a
statue-base found in Thermon for a certain Skorpion, son of Drakon, who fell while
fighting with the Aitolian cavalry near Teithronion, in Phokis – a historical episode
otherwise ignored, but one that can nonetheless be dated to the first half of the 3rd
century.17 Skorpion and his father must have been members of the Aitolian aristoc-
racy: the son is defined in the epigram (l. 4): “worthy of Oeneus ancestry”, an ex-
pression that significantly recalls the verses of Pindar’s Fifth Isthmian Ode (vv. 30–
31): “among the Aitolians the brave sons of Oeneus (Oineidai) are worshipped with
shining sacrifices”. The sons of Oeneus seem to remain a focal point of the heroic
conceptions of the Aitolians across many different periods – a trend to which we
shall return subsequently.18
If Posidippos, along with his fellow ‘wandering poets’, probably played a major
role in the creation and dissemination of this kind of poetry which was highly ap-
preciated among the elites of the koinon’s member states, then the privileges the
Aitolian League granted to this poet of Pella are perfectly understandable. The ep-
igraphical medium is once again the key witness: the presence of the author in Ther-
mon is revealed by the inscription which confirms that in around 260 BCE he was
awarded proxeny by the koinon: ‘to Posidippos, the creator of epigrammata (epi-
grammatopoios) from Pella’.19 Several Delphic honorary inscriptions from the sec-
ond half of the 3rd century show the passage in the sanctuary of many epic poets
and the honors obtained by them: Kleandros of Kolophon, Theopompos of Mega-
lopolis, Eratoxenos of Athens, and most important for the poetry at the service of
the Aitolian League, Nikander of Kolophon,20 who may have planned to voice an
epic with the political aim of praising the Aitolians, saviours of Hellas against the
15 See the first results of this research: Rzepka 2008 and 2013.
16 Cavalli 2010. See also Criveller 2010.
17 IG IX.I2.1 51 with full references in Cavalli 2010.
18 Antonetti 1990, 267–269. A different view in Moretti, ISE II, no.85, n.6 (Oineidai means Ai-
tolians).
19 IG IX.I2.1 17, l. 24. The presence of a Posidippus, together with a certain Asclepiades on a
contemporary fragmentary proxeny list of Delphi (FD III.3.192) is not an incontrovertible ev-
idence of a Delphic grant to the poet: see Bing 2009, 183. On the question, Cavalli 2010, 425,
n.66.
20 FD III.2.75 (Chaniotis 1988, E 61); III.4.145 (Chaniotis 1988, E 63); III.2.158 (Chaniotis 1988,
E 62); Syll3 452, FGrH 271/2 (Chaniotis 1988, E 54), and now Jacquemin – Mulliez –
Rougemont 2012, nr.122. See also Rzepka 2008, 219–222 and Rutherford 2009 for further
examples, and 246–248 for Nicander.
barbarians, and likened therefore to the Titans, allies of the Olympian gods – if we
follow the brilliant recent theory of E. Cavalli.21
But an exemplary case, and one which is also perhaps the best known because
of the extraordinary honours she received, is that of the female poet Aristodama of
Smyrna.22 In 218/7 BCE the poleis of Lamia and Chaleion, which were both mem-
bers of the koinon at the time, honoured in a similar way the epic poetess (poetria
epeon) who was invited to come to them. The Lamian decree granted her, her
brother and her descendants various privileges, among which the most important
are politeia and proxeny, for ‘having given various performances of her poems, in
which she recounted adequately and enthusiastically the ethnos of the Aitolians and
the ancestors (progonoi) of the damos (of Lamia)' (ll. 4–7).23 The decree issued by
Chaleion, and known only through the copy in Delphi, shows a similar formulation
even in the motivation, and is unfortunately very fragmentary (‘she commemorated
... and the ancestors (progonoi) of our polis,’ ll. 9–10).24 Some further interesting
details: indeed the Lokrian city has a series of honours for Aristodama connected
with local celebrations, the panegyris of the Poitropia, and with the sacrifice of
Apollo Nasiotas (a garland of sacred laurel, a geras from Apollo – a portion of the
meat from the sacrifice –, a guest-gift, ll. 14–21). I think L. Lerat is correct in un-
derlining that the aim of the decree is to inform the visitors to Delphi of the high
honours that the polis of Chaleion awards ‘those who will take it upon themselves
to speak and write about the god’ (l. 33).25 One can conclude from this second ex-
ample that the poetess, as well as performing epic celebrations of the Aitolian eth-
nos as in Lamia, also recited poems about Apollo – the local Apollo Nasiotas as
well as the god of Delphi – a divinity linked somehow to the epic tales of the city
ancestors.
This element of praise had great potential in the successful ‘triangulation’ of
the same cult of Apollo that was not just celebrated locally in Chaleion, but also in
Delphi and in Thermon. He was the most important god of the Aitolian ethnos, of
the koinon, of the Delphic Amphiktyony and of many individual poleis within it.
21 This is the widely documented theory – especially through the surviving poetic fragments of
Nikander – put forward by Edoardo Cavalli in his PhD Thesis: Cavalli 2015.
22 See Chaniotis 1988, E 56, 338–340; BNJ 483 and Rzepka 2007. See Rutherford 2009, who
tried to investigate the relationship between the work of wandering poets and the political
agenda of the Aitolians choosing Aristodama of Smyrna as the exemplary case.
23 IG IX.2.62 (cf. Syll.3 532). See Ferrandini Troisi 2000, 2.3; Rzepka 2007, T 1.
24 IG IX.I2.3 740. See Rzepka 2007, T 1a. Rutherford 2009, 248 endorses the hypothesis that
behind the extraordinary award of citizenship to the poetess (like to Nikander and other poets)
is a sort of engagement by the Aitolian League for the creation and dissemination of a Pan-
Aitolian poetic tradition. But, since Chaleion does not provide for her the granting of the polity,
which is instead given to her brother Dionysius, the conclusion seems to me too risky. See in
this regard Cavalli 2015, 193f and passim (where a totally new historical contextualization of
all this set of texts).
25 Lerat II, 152. Otherwise Chaniotis 1988, 340: ‘Aristodama hatte sich also in ihren Gedichte
auch mit den Epiphanie des Apollon auseinander gesetz, vielleicht in Zusammenhang mit dem
Krieg der Ätoler gegen die Galater (279/8 v. Chr.)’. See Rutherford 2009, 239 with no. 8, on
the festival of the Poitropia, apparently both local and Delphic.
Another clear intersection between the inside and the outside of the koinon is visible
in the close connection, established by the decrees, between “tales of ancestors” of
the poleis and of the Aitolian ethnos.26 And I would like to emphasise how the
voices of the poets – of which Aristodama is a fitting example – must not be con-
sidered separate from the ritual actions, and from that set of public performances
that were performed on special occasions in these Greek communities of Hellenistic
times, such as for the arrival of foreign ambassadors or sacred legates. At least this
is what emerges from the collection of texts of recognition of the Leukophryeneia
of Magnesia on the Maeander, “the best documented diplomatic enterprise in Greek
history,”27 which provides very rich references to the poleis and the koina of the
mid-western Greece. It appears from this corpus of inscriptions that the previous
merits of the Magnesians in favour of the Delphic sanctuary and of the other Greeks,
a leitmotiv with which the Magnesian ambassadors always began their speeches in
the different poleis – the praxeis tōn Magnetōn28– were documented in the Pythian
sanctuary by “oracles, poets and decrees of those poleis that were favorable towards
them”.29 In one case, that of Epidamnos, the following specification was added:
“and by the historians who illustrated the actions of the Magnesians,”30 thus adding
historiography into the frame of political and encomiastic strategies that could be
used on such occasions,31 greatly contributing to the impact of cultural mobility
with both mnemopoiesis and ‘travelling memories’.32
The decree of Kalydon, in this same context, offers another interesting specifi-
cation that precedes the three columns listing 18 peoples which approved it in the
year 208 BCE.33 It consists of the place where that decree (psaphisma) was exhib-
ited: it was to be inscribed ‘in the sanctuary of Artemis Laphria, where the founders
(ktistai) of the polis are, on the base (of the statue/statues), where Artemis (…),’ ll.
6–7. Although it might be a stretch of the imagination to picture the representatives
of the members of the koinon gathered in Kalydon at the feet of the statue of Artemis
Laphria for the occasion, it is nevertheless plausible that every one of them knew
exactly where to find, among such rich sanctuary, the place where the epigraphy
showed the ethnikon of their community involved in the communal vow. If the pub-
lic commitment also required an oath, it is logical that this would have occurred
under the statue of the god who was seen as their guarantor, or at least as the most
representative of their identity. That is exactly the situation I imagine occurred
about half a century earlier in Thermon, at the feet of the statue of Aitolia, which
we now know had the inscription of the alliance between Aitolians and Boiotians
26 On the epigrammatic contests and local history, see Petrovic 2009.

27 Chaniotis 2009, 263.
28 Chaniotis 2009, 264f.
29 Rigsby 1996, nr.85, ll. 8–10 (Same, Cefallenia); 86, ll. 9–10 (Ithaca); 94, ll. 14–16 (Corcyra).
30 Chaniotis 1988, T 2b, 39 and 358. Rigsby 1996, nr.96, ll. 13–14.
31 About this point, see Chaniotis 1988, passim, especially 354–362 and 382–389. See also above,
n.15.
32 Both definitions are borrowed from Chaniotis 2009, 253–265.
33 IvMagn. 28 (IG IX.I2.2 186). Rigsby 1996, nr. 77, also for the date given in text. On the inter-
pretation of this list of peoples, see Rzepka 2006, 140f.
on its base: in this case there was a specific oath that each of the two contracting
peoples had to pronounce.34
But apart from Artemis Laphria, who would the other ktistai have been in Kal-
ydon? The fragmentary inscription does not help, though from the surviving text it
appears that the information was universally known. Indeed the ancient sanctuary
of Lophrion/Laphrion, which dates back to the Geometric Period, was at the centre
of a rich cultic complex: the deities most closely related to Artemis were Apollo
(known as Lophrios in the 6th century BCE) and Dionysus, whose cult under Au-
gustus suffered the same fate as that of the Laphria and was forcibly transferred to
Patras – which in and of itself is a clear indication of its importance.35 Other deities
cannot be excluded, like Athena, Aphrodite, Zeus, and especially Herakles,36 but in
this era of the end of the 3rd century BCE, we must necessarily think to the inter-
action between gods and heroes in the celebration of the origins. This interaction is
even well documented in the private sphere at Kalydon, during exactly the same
years of the decree, by recent archaeological excavations in the so-called Peristyle
Building inside the west gate of the polis that leads to the sanctuary of Laphrion. It
has been suggested that the structure is a clubhouse (linked to a certain Laniskos,
perhaps a celebrated athlete, and to his association) with a cult room which served
several purposes, most prominent among them is the cult of Kybele revered in the
shape of the crowned city goddess Tyche: “a symbioses between public and private
enterprises and interests”.37 The Peristyle Building shows striking similarities with
the well-known Heroön of Kalydon, outside the city walls, a structure whose dating
and functionality were totally revised in recent years. Besides being a Heroön, the
edifice – no earlier than the 2nd/1st century BCE – served as a palaestra and gathered
increasing cultic activities until the imperial period. Among these it is worth noting
the presence of Artemis Laphria and an iconographic and mythological cycle who
was represented in room VII by a series of at least 11 imagines clipeatae: among
the 8 which survive are gods and heroes like Aphrodite, Zeus, Apollo, Hermes,
Eros, Herakles, Meleager, and perhaps Leon, the heroized founder or the recipient
of the foundation.38
Certainly, the archaiologia of the ancient polis relied on a mythical stratifica-
tion going back at least to Homer: the epic cycle of Oeneus’ sons, Tydeus and Mel-
eager, the war against the Curetes, the Kalydonian boar hunt, Herakles’ wrestling
with the river-god Achelous, and his voyage through the region and his marriage
with Deianira, to quote only the most famous cycles.39 I believe there were several
34 Syll.3 366; cf. IG IX.I2.1 170, fr. a, ll. 4, 6–15. The revision of the text by D. Knoepfler was
decisive: Knoepfler 2007. See Jacquemin – Mulliez – Rougemont 2012, nr.64 (with clear ref-
erences) and Antonetti 2012.
35 Full references in Antonetti 1990, 262–264.
36 Antonetti 1990, 264–266.
37 Dietz in: Dietz – Jensen – Mejer – Sondrup 2011, 153.
38 Stavropoulou Gatsi 2010, 83, and Dietz in: Dietz – Jensen – Mejer – Sondrup 2011, 155f. For
the Heroon, see Charatzopoulou 2006, especially 68 and passim.
39 See Antonetti 1990, 267–269 and passim; Antonetti 1993, 273f and Antonetti 2005, 68f. For
the literary evidence on local myths, see also D’Alfonso 2010, 135, 141–144 and Biagetti 2011.
vibrant and popular traditions of the city’s foundation that flourished with particular
vigor in the Hellenistic period, and this certainly occurred in connection with fed-
eral expansion as the contemporary examples of epigrammatic and epic poetry have
shown before.
For a better understanding of this phaenomenon between the 3rd and 2nd centu-
ries BCE, we must therefore turn to contemporary public iconographical documen-
tation, which is mainly numismatic in medium. Recent studies by K. Liampi and D.
Tsangari have shown that the coinage of the Aitolian League was very centralised
in a federal sense: the koinon produced bronze and silver coins from the second half
of the 4th century, while no originally Aitolian city is known to have issued coins,
and only few member states belonging to central Greece minted small bronzes with
the federal types during the 3rd century, as we will see more clearly below.40 More-
over, the Aitolian League adopted a very homogeneous system in the choice of
iconographic messages, which concentrates on two central themes. The first is the
main elements of local religion and mythology, and the second is the most pivotal
episode in the recent history of the koinon: the victory over the Galatians in 279.
Aitolian coinage first appears in the second half of the 4th century with silver
triobols that, although with some interruptions, were struck continuously up until
the mint stopped operating, along with bronze quarter obols of the same type: the
head of Atalante on the obverse, a charging boar and spearhead on the reverse. 41
The second series, dated between 323 and 300/290 BCE, is similar to the first, with
the difference being that the bronze coins had a spearhead on the reverse.42 The
third series is very important because it remained in use throughout the 3rd century,
during the highest point of the Koinon (300/290–229 BCE). The Aitolians modified
their bronze coinage with types that remained unchanged up until the end of the
century, placing the head of Apollo on the obverse and a spearhead with a boar
jawbone on the reverse.43 Starting from the period of the war with Demetrios II
Aitolikos (239–229), and lasting until the end of the first Makedonian war (215–
205), they also minted high-denomination coins in gold and silver for pan-Hellenic
circulation: gold staters bearing the head of Athena on the obverse and the person-
ification of Aitolia above a trophy of Celtic weapons on the reverse, while
tetradrachms featured the same reverse and the head of Herakles in a lion skin on
40 Liampi 1995–1998, 84: ‘most of the League members, evidently the geographically remote
ones, continued to mint their traditional types’. See for the Aitolian coinage system Tsangari
2005 and 2007; Mackil 2013, 252–254. A slightly different view in Mackil 2015, 489. For the
common coinage among Greek federal states and coin circulation in Western Greece, see
Psoma – Tsangari 2003 and Tsangari 2011.
41 Tsangari 2007, 39–43 and 249 for details of different minting groups.
42 Tsangari 2007, 45–51, 249f: the bronze coins were issued in three denominations, hemiobols,
quarter obols, and chalkoi, with, respectively, the three following types: spearhead and bunch
of grapes, spearhead, club of Herakles.
43 Tsangari 2007, 53–72, 250 and passim: only the spearhead appears on the chalkos.
the obverse.44 Then, in the last two decades of the century, a new series of did-
rachms and drachms with new types and reduced weight was produced: this bears
the head of Apollo on the obverse and Aitolos represented as a naked standing war-
rior with a foot on a rock on the reverse, or the head of Artemis the huntress on the
obverse and Aitolia upon the trophy on the reverse.45 The last phase of the Aitolian
mint (205–150) is characterised by a great reduction in both value and variety: the
koinon minted only silver triobols, whereas at the end of the 3rd century the bronze
ones lost the combined symbols of the spear and boar jawbone, which were replaced
by the head of Athena on the obverse and a standing Herakles in lion-skin holding
a club on the reverse.46
From this overall picture we can draw several historical conclusions.First, the
longer-lasting types, which pre-date the great expansion of Aitolia and accompany
its entire history, were those that referred directly to Kalydonian myths, mainly to
mythical hunts and hunters. The oldest symbols are Atalante, the boar and the spear,
to which more recent ones were added – boar jawbone, hunting Artemis – and fi-
nally Herakles and his attributes. If the references to the Kalydonian boar hunt are
self-evident, we should not simply confine these to the cycle of Herakles’ labors.
Just to concentrate our attention on the archaeological documentation, without con-
sidering the literary and epigraphic evidence that indicates the diffusion of Hera-
kles’ cult in Kalydon and in ‘Old Aitolia’,47 one must remember that the metopes
of the first and second temples of Artemis Laphria (from the 7th to the 5th centuries
BCE) show many (unidentified) mythical hunters and at least two episodes of Her-
akles hunting, certainly one involving the Erymanthian boar (on Temple B2).48
Second, among the numismatic types mentioned above, images with a strong
content of ethnic identity, those referring to Aitolia and Aitolos, do not appear be-
fore the anti-Makedonian conflicts of the second half of the 3rd century – in the case
of Aitolos even not before 220 BCE – although, as we saw, there had long been
statues of the two heroes in Thermon, and of Aitolia in Delphi. The desire to project
the propaganda of the Aitolian koinon proclaiming itself savior of Hellas against
the barbarians is quite evident in this issue. The barbarians here are the Makedoni-
ans: the presence on these coins of Makedonian shields in the trophy dominated by
Aitolia is a clear demonstration.49 In this case the iconographic medium corre-
sponds precisely to the literary one, entrusted to the voice of the poets, as seen
above. These are the years in which the Aitolians, after having plundered many
important Greek sanctuaries among which Dion and Dodona, saw, for the first time
44 Tsangari 2007, 73–91, 250–253, and passim for details of different minting groups (third series,
group II and fourth series).
45 Tsangari 2007, 92f, 97–114, 253f (fourth series). There was also a variation in the bronze series,
with a new type of quarter obols with the head of Apollo on the obverse and an arms trophy on
the reverse, whereas the chalkos goes back to the traditional type with the head of Atalante and
the boar (ibidem, 114–139).
46 Tsangari 2007, 141–187, 254f (fifth series).
47 See Antonetti 1990, 264f, 273–276, 278–280, 284, and above, n.39.
48 Temples B1 and B2 of Artemis Laphria: Antonetti 1990, 247f (with previous bibliography).
49 Tsangari 2007, 252.
in their history, the invasion of their territory by Philip V, first in 218 and again in
207 BCE.50
In the meantime, the combination of the two most widespread symbols – spear-
head and boar jawbone – on the reverse of the bronze coins demonstrates the terri-
torial and political achievements of the koinon during all of the 3rd century, after the
seizure of Delphi. The absence of these symbols indicates its decline. It is not a
coincidence that this same type is reproduced on the reverse of the bronze coins of
those members of the koinon who had the closest ties with it: Amphissa and Oian-
theia in Western Lokris, Tithorea in Phokis, Oetaians, Ainianes, and Thronion in
Eastern Lokris.51 This could also be tangible proof of their close economic and ter-
ritorial ties,52 perhaps even of a joint administration, if we follow the reconceptual-
ization recently proposed by P. Funke, of what the Aitolian telē must have been: not
merely ‘districts’ but political rather than ethnic-geographical structures of the koi-
non, directly connected with the integration of originally non-Aitolian poleis and
koina, and particularly adapted to enable the preservation of distinct identities
among the new member states.53
It is undeniable the intentional use made by the Aitolians of the rich mythical-
religious complex that Kalydon and its sanctuaries represented for the Hellenic im-
aginary: the strength of the Kalydonian cult relied on precise and prestigious epic
origins such as the Iliad while the connections established with other Artemisian
sanctuaries in central Greece and the Peloponnese increased its fame, and this fame
was justified: the presence of the Troylus episode on a metope of the Temple A (of
the beginning of the 6th century BCE), the only iconographic element referring to
the Trojan cycle found so far in all of Aitolia, proves without a doubt the pan–
Hellenic dimension reached by the local religious culture already in archaic times.54
One could say that, as far as mythic and religious propaganda was concerned, Kal-
ydon could not be ignored and stood as the primary and necessary reference.
All the more reason, therefore, to further investigate the dual symbol (jawbone
and spearhead) of federal allegiance, both internal and external, to the koinon as a
whole which otherwise might appear imbalanced in favour of Kalydon, thus ignor-
ing the contribution of the rest of the ethnos. As for the boar jawbone, this can only
be a reference to the Kalydonian boar hunt, despite the diffusion throughout Greece
of local variations on the myth: real boar tusks figure among the votive offerings of
Laphrion,55 and the same iconographic motif has been correctly identified by A.
50 See Antonetti 2012, 188 and 192 with references.

51 These coins bear their own types on the obverse and the dual symbols of spearhead and boar
jawbone on the reverse (Oiantheia has only the spearhead), together with their own ethnicon
instead of that of the Aitolians: Liampi 1998, with full references; cf. Liampi 1995–1998; Funke
2015, 106 and Funke 2016, with interesting and thorough discussion of the evidence.
52 Mackil 2013, 253f, 287–289, 343–345, 360 and passim, rightly emphasizes the economic co-
operation that might correspond to the emergence of such phenomena.
53 Full references and discussion in Funke 2015, 95f.
54 The temple must be that of Apollo Lophrios and the name of the epic hero is painted on the
metope: Antonetti 1990, 249–253.
55 Antonetti 1990, 254.
Jördens and G. Becht–Jördens engraved above an Aitolian decree for Mytilene

(214/3 BCE), evidently as an immediate symbol (episemon).56 The documentation
provided by the seal impressions from the archive of Kallipolis (dated between 3rd
and 2nd centuries BCE)57 can help to deepen the discussion since some items repro-
duce icons related to this symbology. If we pay attention to number 104 in the syl-
loge published by P. Pantos, we see a seal in the shape of a round shield with the
protome of a boar and the name of the owner, Eurypidas, almost certainly the fa-
mous Aitolian strategos who devastated Elis and Achaea during the social war
(218/7). It was probably a private seal,58 which is interesting because it evokes an-
cestral feelings and traditional behaviours, the Kalydonian beast bringing with him
the warring wrath of Ares – as it is expressed in a beautiful fragment of Kallimachos
(eimi teras Kalydonos, ago d’Aitolon Area)59 – a theme that already characterised
the hero Tydeus in the Euripides’ Phoenicians (vv. 133–134).60 Number 238 of the
same sylloge, which represents the public seal of Kalydon, as can be deduced from
the presence of the ethnikon, presents the figure of a hunting Artemis, dressed as an
amazon and holding the knotty shaft of a probolion, the spear used for hunting
boars:61 she is defined as Artemis Laphria by P. Pantos.
On the other hand, the spearhead may refer to a symbolism that is broader than
merely Kalydonian: it does not exclusively represent the spear of Meleager who
killed the mythical boar. From classical times onwards, ancient sources show that
the spear, together with the javelin, embodies the Aitolian ‘national’ weapon.62 The
eponymous hero Aitolos is described, in the epigram handed down by Ephorus and
commented on by Strabo, as the one who conquered the land of the Kuretes “ex-
hausting himself through the use of his spear”.63 The iconography of the hero on
the coins of the koinon has in common with those of the personification of Aitolia
the constant presence of the spear, representing the weapon of the winner, the con-
queror, the founder, on which the right to power is based. In this case again, as in
56 Jördens – Becht-Jördens 1994, 172–175 (for the inscription). For local variations on the myth,
such as the archaic Boeotian one, or the important Tegean one, see ibidem, 177–182 (in my
opinion, with an overestimation of the version of Tegea). Reference works: Daltrop 1966 and
Barringer 2001, 147–173.
57 The archive belonged to the important family of strategoi Hagetas and Lochagos of Kallipolis,
it covers more than a century, from 279 to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, when it caught
fire, and was found during the rescue archeological excavations held in Velouchovo (Kallion,
eastern Aitolia) over 30 years ago. The archive, studied and published by P. Pantos, consists of
a lot of impressions of public and private seals which appeared on the correspondence of those
who were between 3rd and 2nd centuries some of the most eminent politicians of the koinon:
Pantos 1985 and 1996. An updating on Callipolis in Rousset 2006.
58 Full references in Pantos 1985, 128f.
59 Fr. 621 Pfeiffer. Cf. Nachtergael 1977, 184f for the very interesting hypothesis that the frag-
ment could belong to the Galateia, a poem praising the victory over the Galatians.
60 See Antonetti 1990, 92–98.
61 Pantos 1985, 286–288: the attribute of the goddess could be also a torch; this seal should be
read together with the next, number 239 (and maybe also with number 240).
62 See Antonetti 1990, 99–101 and passim.
63 Ephorus, FGrH 70 F 122a, quoted by Strabo 10.3.2 C 463–464. Commentary in Antonetti 2012,
188–192.
the previous one, we have the proof that the iconographic motif was used abroad as
an episemon: the spear appears above a bronze tablet (chalkoma) bearing a decree
of proxeny for four Aitolian citizens (219 BCE) in Arcadian Orchomenos.64 The
information we can gather from the seal impressions of Kallipolis are precious also
in this second context: numbers 99 and 100, for example, showing weapons, clearly
indicate how the disproportionate size of the spearhead, if compared to the shield
and the sword, denotes its ideological function and identifies the images as sets of
Aitolian arms.65
There is also a large collection of seals pointing towards an elaborate icono-
graphic ‘language’ about the spearhead that, in combination with various legends,
denotes different degrees of the Aitolian institutional hierarchy, according to the
convincing interpretation of P. Pantos. The spearhead inscribed with the ethnikon
Aitolon, preceded by the legend Synedron, is the official seal of the Aitolian senate
– usually held by the secretary (grammateus)66 – while the one with the legend
Hipparchou could be that of the second-in-command of the koinon, the commander
of the cavalry.67 Spearheads inscribed with personal names like Charixenou, Loch-
agou etc., are evidently seals of eponymous officials, probably of the first-in-com-
mand of the koinon, the strategos.68
A perplexity arises from number 132, where a spearhead bears the legend
Ery(thr)aio(n): it is the public seal of Erythrai, a polis which is originally Lokrian
and not Aitolian.69 This fact raises the question of the extension of the official Ai-
tolian symbol by associate members of the koinon. This is not an easy issue, espe-
cially considering the minting of isolated bronze coins by the nearby eastern ‘neigh-
bours’ of the Aitolians, an issue that K. Liampi has usefully brought to light for the
first time.70 We have seen that some cities and peoples of central Greece have
adopted the usual dual symbols of ‘spearhead and boar jawbone’ next to their own
ethnikon on the reverse of their issues. Within this set, Oiantheia presents only the
first of these types (the spearhead), whereas two historically Aitolian cities, Apol-
lonia and Potidania, belonging to the ethnos of the Apodotoi, do not follow the Ai-
tolian standard and have their own well defined types on the obverse and partially
on the reverse: for Apollonia, the head of Artemis the huntress on the obverse, an
arrow and boar jawbone on the reverse; for Potidania, Apollo with a lyre on the
obverse, a spear and boar jawbone on the reverse; both bear their own ethnikon and
not the collective Aitolon.71 In short, they both mint coins as if they had originally
64 Ritti 1969, no.47.

65 Pantos 1985, 123–125: the image of number 100 could be really a trophy.
66 Pantos 1985, number 129, 157; number 131, 158–159 with the same icon, but without indica-
tion of office, could be the official seal of the grammateus, third-in-command of the koinon,
or, in subordination, that of the strategos.
67 Pantos 1985, nr.130, 157f.
68 Pantos 1985, nr.117–127, 146–156.
69 Pantos 1985, 139–160. On the settlement, see Rousset 2004, 392.
70 Liampi 1995–1998.
71 The ethnikon of Poteidania is not fully readable on these coins while the identification of Ap-
ollonia is discussed: Liampi 1996 1995–1998; Funke 2016. On both settlements, see Freitag –
Funke – Moustakis 2004, 381, 387. See above, 12f and n.51–53.
not been Aitolian, but there is no evidence of them ever having been independent:
it is as if they were on their way to becoming Lokrian. On the other hand, the seal
of Erythrai shows a profound assimilation with the centre of the federal establish-
ment: as if they were on their way to becoming Aitolian. There is no doubt that this
refined symbology describes a dense web of economic, social, political and military
relations, of which we have only partial traces on the sources:72 these phenomena
show a strong area of tangency between eastern Aitolia and Western Lokris, where
the telos lokrikon would later arise.73
In general, one can argue that there must have been a very precise yet sophisti-
cated and flexible modulation of the symbolic and iconographic language within
the political and institutional structure of the koinon. It must have gone far beyond
the dual symbol of ‘spearhead (= Aitolian ethnos) / boar jawbone (= Kalydonian
hunt)’ to reflect the different status of each – be they an official or a member state
– by recording their progress in terms of integration and relative prestige. Proof of
this is the last case I will examine: the public seal of Pale in Cephalonia, which is
different again from the previous examples, in that the polis simply adopted the
iconography of the hero Aitolos as its own.74 Here again there is no lack of historical
reasons for justifying such a bold assimilation: the huge military importance of the
Ionian island for the koinon is demonstrated by the entrance of Cephalonia in the
Aitolian League from 228 BCE. Shortly after, the koinon founded at Same the only
Aitolian colony known to us: his life was short because Marcus Fulvius Nobilior
besieged and conquered the city in 189 BCE.75
The various grades of symbols we find in coin and seal types may correspond
to different levels of ‘affiliation’ and proximity to the heart of the koinon: the met-
aphor of the mythical hunt, inherent to this iconographic heritage, adds a heroic and
initiatory significance to the practice. Recent scholarship has repeatedly empha-
sized the importance of hunting within pastoral societies for creating a common
ethnic space with shared behaviours. This is particularly the case with Phokis and
its sanctuary of Kalapodi, highlighting “the significance of this practice in relation
to élite performances, territorial control and strategies for enacting the organization
of social time and space”.76 In this context, ‘Homeric attachments’77 like a strong
reference to the Kalydonian boar hunt by the Aitolians, could be regarded as a pat-
tern “formative for their polities in the late Archaic and Classical Periods”,78 and
72 About some shared social practices among Aitolians and Lokrians in Hellenistic and Late Hel-
lenistic era, see Antonetti 2010b, 322–325. For the literary dimension of this koine, see Rzepka
2013, 120–124. For the idea of a ‘cooperative coinage’, see Mackil 2013, 247–255.
73 See above, 12f and Funke 2015, 95f and passim.
74 Pantos 1985, number 165, 193–196 (dated after 218 BCE).
75 IG IX.I 2.1 2: the inscription recording the foundation of the colony is dated by G. Klaffenbach
after 223/2 BCE. On all these events, see Scholten 2000, 194–197.
76 McIrney 2013b, 194. For the Aitolians as an ethnos devoted to pastoralism: Mackil 2013, 182.
77 Definition borrowed from McIrney 2013a, 471.
78 Beck 2003, 183.
their ‘backwardness’ could even be seen as “a key to understanding their subse-

quent ability and willingness to be institutional innovators”.79
It is not surprising to discover such a high attachment for hunting gods and
heroes in a people who revered Artemis Laphria, the Huntress par excellence, she
who determined their charter myth by beginning the most famous mythical hunt in
all of Greek imagery. Still in the Hellenistic period, in these areas of Western
Greece, associations of young people (perhaps ephebes) were practicing a cult to
Artemis as ‘hunting companions’ (synkynagoi), thus showing that they held as their
models the great mythical hunters: Atalante, Acteon, and especially the Oineidai,
the Thestiou paides, Tydeus, and Meleager.80 But in this same era, in which the
royal hunts (especially Makedonian)81 dominated the public imagination, the use of
a very popular and prestigious collective image like this by the Aitolians must have
had a different meaning. Being chosen for the Kalydonian hunt brought with it the
privilege of taking part in the heroic adventures of the Aitolian Koinon: this means
– at least formally – following the principles of equality, because there were no
more basileis in the sacred plains of Artemis Laphria.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens: Image et religion, Paris.

Antonetti, C. (1993) I Driopi e alcune antiche tradizioni eraclidi della Grecia centrale, in E. Olshau-
sen and H. Sonnabend (eds.), Geographica Historica 8, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur histori-
schen Geographie des Altertums 5, Stuttgart, 267–274.
Antonetti, C. (2005) La tradizione eolica in Etolia, in A. Mele, M. L. Napolitano, and A.Visconti
(eds.), Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie, Naples, 55–70.
Antonetti, C. (ed.) (2010a) Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidental. Territorio,
società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa.
Antonetti, C. (2010b) I diversi aspetti di una koine socio-culturale nella Grecia nord-occidentale di
epoca ellenistica, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occi-
dentale: Territorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1. Pisa, 301–326.
Antonetti, C. (2010c) Il koinon etolico di età classica: dinamiche interne e rapporti panellenici, in
C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio,
società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 163–180.
Antonetti, C. (2012) Aitolos and Aitolia: Ethnic Identity per Imagines, in M. Offenmüller (ed.),
Identitätsbildung und Identitätsstiftung in griechischen Gesellschaften, Graz, 183–200.
Antonetti, C. and E. Cavalli (2012) Il fondo epigrafico Petsas presso l’Università Ca’ Foscari Vene-
zia: Iscrizioni di Termo (Etolia), Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 180, 173–201.
Barringer, J.M. (2001) The Hunt in Ancient Greece, Baltimore.
79 Scholten 2003, 68.

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

Biagetti, C. (2011) Fra Eveno e Tafiasso. Leggende, territorio e storia ai confini dell’Etolia, in L.
Breglia, A. Moleti, and M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la ‘terza’ Grecia e
l’Occidente, Diabeseis 2.1, Pisa, 521–544.
Bing, P. (2009) Reimagining Posidippus, in P. Bing (ed.), The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in
Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry, Ann Arbor, 177–193.
Bugin, E. (2010) Asylia sotto gli occhi di Artemide: considerazioni a partire da un decreto di Cali-
done, in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Te-
rritorio, società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 395–407.
Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol.II,
Athens.
Cavalli, E. (2010) Ὥς ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἀπόλωλε ἀρετά. Storia e gloria nell’età dei Diadochi, in C. An-
tonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società,
istituzioni, Diabesis 1, Pisa, 409–428.
Cavalli, E. (2015) “Salpati dall’Ortigia titanide”: L’espansionismo etolico di III sec. a. C. Mito
politico e leggenda poetica al servizio del koinon (PhD Thesis), Venice.
Champion, C. (1995) The Soteria at Delphi: Aitolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record,
American Journal of Philology 116, 213–220.
Chaniotis, A. (1988) Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften: epigraphische Bei-
trage zur griechischen Historiographie, Stuttgart.
Chaniotis, A. (2009) Travelling Memories in the Hellenistic World, in R. Hunter and J. Rutherford
(eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Pan–Hellenism, Cam-
bridge/New York, 249–269.
Charatzopoulou, C. (2006) L’Héroon de Kalydon révisité, in A.M. Guimier Sorbets, M.B.
Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizot (eds.), Rois, cites, nécropoles. Institutions, rites et monuments en
Macédoine, Meletemata, 45, Athènes, 63–88.
Criveller, E. (2010) Epigrammi funerari di Etolia e Acarnania tra III e II sec. a.C., in C. Antonetti
(ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, società, istitu-
zioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 429–457.
D’Alfonso, F. (2010) Sulle rive del Licorma. I miti di Marpessa e Deianira, Studi Italiani di Filolo-
gia Classica 102, 132–178.
Daltrop, G. (1966) Die Kalydonische Jagd in der Antike, Hamburg/Berlin.
Dietz, S., J.T. Jensen, J. Mejer, and C. Sondrup (2011) The Cult in the Peristyle Building, in S. Dietz
and M. Stavropoulou Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon in Aitolia, I – II, Athens, 133–156.
Ellinger, P. (2011) Le maître et son fidèle esclave: Artémis Limnatis et l’identité de la cité de Patras,
in L. Breglia, A. Moleti, and M.L. Napolitano (eds.), Ethne, identità e tradizioni: la ‘terza’
Grecia e l’Occidente, Diabeseis 2.1, Pisa, 573–585.
Ferrandini Troisi, F. (2000) La donna nella società ellenistica. Testimonianze epigrafiche, Bari.
Franks, H.M. (2012) Hunters, Heroes, Kings. The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina (Ancient Art and
Architecture in Context vol.3), Princeton.
Freitag, K., P. Funke, and N. Moustakis (2004) Aitolia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An
Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford 379–390.
Funke, P. (2013) Thermika und Panaitolika. Alte und neue Zentren im Aitolischen Bund, in P. Funke
and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries, Stuttgart, 49–64.
Funke, P. (2016) Bundesstaatliche Kompetenz oder Kompetenz der Gliedstaaten? Einige Überle-
gungen zu den Bronzeprägungen des Aitolischen Bundes, in H. Nieswandt and H. Schwarzer
(eds.), "Man kann es sich nicht prächtig genug vorstellen!". Festschrift für Dieter Salzmann
zum 65. Geburtstag, Marsberg 2016, 103–111.
Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians, Leiden.

Grainger, J.D. (2000) Aitolian Prosopographical Studies, Leiden.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1994) Cultes et rites de passage en Macédoine, Athens.
Hunter, R. and J. Rutherford (eds.) (2009) Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Lo-
cality and Pan-hellenism, Cambridge.
Jacquemin, A., D. Mulliez, and G. Rougemont, (2012) Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et
commentées, Athens.
Jördens, A. and G. Becht–Jördens (1994) Ein Eberunterkiefer als ‘Staatssymbol’ des aitolischen
Bundes. Politische Identitätssuche im Mythos nach dem Ende der spartanischen Hegemonie,
Klio 76, 172–184.
Knoepfler, D. (2007) De Delphes à Thermos. Un témoignage épigraphique méconnu sur le trophée
galate des Étoliens dans leur capitale (le traité étolo-béotien), Comptes rendus des séances de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1215–1253.
Lerat, L. (1952) Les Locriens de l’Ouest, Paris.
Liampi, K. (1995–1996) On the Chronology of the Bronze Coinages of the Aitolian League and its
Members (Spearhead and Jawbone Types), Αρχαιογνωσία 9, 83–109.
Liampi, K. (1996) He nomismatike paragoge tes Potidanias, poleōs tōn Apodōtōn, in Charaktēr.
Aphierōma stin Manto Oikonomidou, Athens, 157–164.
McInerney, J. (2013a) Polis and Koinon: Federal Government in Greece, in H. Beck (ed.), A Com-
panion to Ancient Greek Government, Malden, Mass., 466–479.
McInerney, J. (2013b) Making Phokian Space: Sanctuary and Community in the Definition of
Phokis, in P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity
Morgan, C. (2009) The Archaeology of Ethnê and Ethnicity in the Fourth–Century Peloponnese, in
P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnese
League, Cambridge, 148–182.
Nachtergael, G. (1977) Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtèria de Delphes, Bruxelles.
Pantos, P.A. (1985) Ta sphragismata tēs Aitolikēs Kallipoleos, Athens.
Pantos, P.A. (1988) Das Wappen von Kalydon. Ein Beitrag zur Identifizierung des Statuentypus der
Artemis Laphria, in Praktika tou XII Diethnous Synedriou Klassikes Archaiologias, Athens,
167–172.
Pantos, P.A. (1996) Porträtsiegel in Kallipolis. Einige methodologische Bemerkungen, in M.F.
Boussac and A. Invernizzi (eds.), Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique, BCH Suppl. 29,
Athens, 185–194.
Papagianni, E. (2014) Το κυνήγι του Καλυδωνίου κάπρου, in P. Valavanis and E. Manakidou (eds.),
Eγραφσεν και εποιεσεν. Essays on Greek Pottery and Iconography in honor of Professor
Michalis Tiverios, Thessaloniki, 493–510.
Petrovic, A. (2009) Epigrammatic Contests, poeti vaganti and Local History, in R. Hunter and J.
Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Pan-helle-
nism, Cambridge, 195–216.
Psoma, S. and D. Tsangari (2003) Monnaie commune et Etats Fédéraux : la circulation des mon-
nayages frappés par les Etats Fédéraux du monde grec, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis
(eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 111–141.
Ritti, T. (1969) Sigle ed emblemi sui decreti onorari greci, Memorie dell'Accademia dei Lincei, s.
VIII, 14.5, 261–360.
Rousset, D. (2004) West Lokris, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic
and Classical poleis, Oxford, 381–398.
Rousset, D. (2006) Les inscriptions de Kallipolis d’Étolie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique

130, 381–433.
Rutherford, J. (2009) Aristodama and the Aitolians: An Itinerant Poetess and her Agenda, in R.
Hunter and J. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality
and Pan-hellenism, Cambridge, 237–248.
Rzepka, J. (2006) The Rights of Cities within the Aitolian Confederacy, Valencia.
Rzepka, J. (2007) Appendix on the Malians (483), in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1873–5363_bnj_a483.
Rzepka, J. (2008) Principes Semper Graeciae: Pompeius Trogus/Justinus and the Aitolian Politics
of History, in J. Pigoń (ed.), The Children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman Historiography and
Related Genres, Cambridge, 219–230.
Rzepka, J. (2011) The ‘New Aitolians’ and their Access to the Federal Generalship in the Third
Century BC., in N.V. Secunda and A. Noguera Borel (eds.), Hellenistic Warfare I, Fundación
Libertas 7, Valencia, 89–97.
Rzepka, J. (2013) Monstrous Aitolians and Aitolian Monsters – A Politics of Ethnography? in E.
Almagor and J. Skinner (eds.), Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches, London, 117–130.
Scholten, J.B. (2015) The Internal Structure of the Aitolian Union: A Case-study in Ancient Greek
Sympoliteia, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 65–
80.
Stavropoulou Gatsi, M. (2010) New Archaeological Researches in Aitolia, Akarnania, and Leukas,
in C. Antonetti (ed.), Lo spazio ionico e le comunità della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio,
società, istituzioni, Diabeseis 1, Pisa, 79–96.
Trümpy, C. (1997) Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen, Hei-
delberg.
Tsangari, D. I. (2005) Nomismatōn Historia. Aitolia, Nomismatiki Syllogi Alpha Bank, Athens.
Tsangari, D. I. (2007) Corpus des monnaies d’or, d’argent et de bronze de la confédération éto-
lienne, Athens.
Tsangari, D. I. (2011) Coin Circulation in Western Greece: Epirus, Acarnania, Aitolia, The Hoard
Evidence, in T. Faucher, M.–C. Marcellesi, and O. Picard (eds.), Nomisma. La circulation mo-
nétaire dans le monde grec antique, Actes du colloque international, Athènes, 14–17 avril
2010, BCH Suppl. 53, Athens, 245–256.
FEDERAL IMPERIALISM: AITOLIAN EXPANSION BETWEEN
PROTECTORATE, MERGER AND PARTITION
Jacek Rzepka
Warsaw University
In this paper I would like to survey both the methods of Aitolian expansion in the
later fourth and third century BCE, and the ideological explanation of the conquests.
It is generally acknowledged that the Aitolian Confederacy, as other Greek federal
states, expanded due to bestowal of the federal citizenship to originally alien states,
cities, and peoples. We can also reconstruct from our sources a more or less detailed
and sometimes quite certain timetable of the expansion, showing how the Aitolians,
step-by-step, extended their citizenship to the new areas. As a result, most modern
accounts of the Aitolian territorial growth focus on annexations (friendly or not) of
individual cities or small ethne. I think, however, that those conquests and annexa-
tions of individual cities quite often resulted from a failure of more ambitious plans,
which the Confederacy had for its neighbours.
I believe that we have sufficient evidence (both literary and epigraphic) to show
that in the late fourth/early third century BCE the Aitolians, at least in Akarnania
and Western Lokris, first tried to absorb whole countries (equal or nearly equal to
Aitolia in size and population). In some cases, they preferred a kind of alliance
based on a form of protectorate (Boiotia, Phokis), but this seems to have been an
interim solution, which was to precede an ideal answer to the problem – a total
absorption. Where, however, resistance was too strong, and the Aitolian conquering
machine failed to achieve its aims, alternative solutions were needed. I believe that
this was the case with Akarnania, once linked to Aitolia through a treaty of alliance
and isopoliteia, and then partitioned with Epeiros as another accomplice. I would
argue that this partition was indeed a fiasco of Aitolian foreign policy, which gen-
erally was driven by much greater ambitions.
For a few decades of the third century BCE the Aitolian League continued to be the
most powerful and biggest state of the Greek mainland.1 The period between the
Celtic invasion of Greece in 281–279 BCE and the Social War of 220–217 is con-
sidered to be an era of particular expansion. Still, a tendency towards expansion
was visible in the Aitolian politics already in the fourth century BCE, when the
1 On the Aitolian League and its foreign policies, see above all: Funke 1997; Scholten 2000;
Grainger 2000; Mackil 2013; and Funke 2015.
168 Jacek Rzepka
Aitolians took over a number of cities on the north shore of the Gulf of Corinth.
Some of these places were originally Aitolian, most notably Kalydon and Pleuron,
and in Greek eyes their take-over was anything but a Reconquista. Other places,
like Naupaktos and perhaps Makyneia, were not originally Aitolian.2 The conquest
of Naupaktos and its environs, in spite of some thinkable attempts at explaining the
conquests to the Greek world, must be considered as an act of aggressive imperial-
ism (and perhaps was perceived as such in Antiquity).
At some point in the 330s or 320s BCE, in the absence of Alexander the Great,
the Aitolians seized Akarnanian Oeniadai. Due to this conquest, the League became
one of two major targets of the Exiles Decree issued by Alexander in Babylon in
324 BCE. Their unwillingness to comply with the decree’s demands led the Ai-
tolians, in the months following the death of Alexander, to an alliance with Athens
and to fighting the Hellenic War against Makedon (more commonly known as the
Lamian War).3
Aitolia was the sole survivor of the ensuing catastrophe of the Greek coalition.
In spite of a modern theory that Aitolia adopted a low profile policy in order to
survive difficult post-war years,4 the very outcome of the Hellenic War made the
League the only Greek power ready to acquire new lands in the last two decades of
the fourth century BCE.5 The league continued to expand throughout the third cen-
tury until the Social War of 219–217 BCE, and eventually got possession of sub-
stantial parts of Akarnania, Phokis, Thessalian and perioecic territories, and the
whole of Western Lokris. The chronology of the Aitolian expansion is known only
partially – we are on safer ground after the League entered the Amphiktyonic Coun-
cil as a reward for a successful defence of Delphi and Central Greece against the
Gauls in 280–279 BCE.6
Much less can be confidently said about motivations of the Aitolian conquests
and annexations as well as about the general political rationale behind them. Polyb-
ios, very much hostile towards the Aitolians, tries to convince his readers that the
League’s political choices used to be motivated by Aitolian greed, and that the Ai-
tolians used to act irresponsibly and without the appropriate consideration. Modern
scholars, based on the chronology of conquests, which seems to be a series of step-
by-step acquisitions in various directions, tend to believe that the Aitolian foreign
2 For the Aitolian acquisitions on the northern shore of the Gulf of Corinth in the 4 th century, see:
Merker 1989 and J. Rzepka. For the lost cities of coastal Aitolia, see: Bommélje 1988.
3 For the Aitolians during the Lamian War, their motives to go to war with Makedon, actions
during the war, and the successful politics after its conclusion, see: Schmitt 1992, 87–91.
4 Mendels 1984.
5 It has been suggested by Schmitt 1992, 90f.
6 In contrast to earlier protectors of Delphi, the Aitolians proved themselves innovative and dis-
covered a new and improved method of controlling the Amphiktyony. The League appropriated
the seats in the Amphiktyony, which previously belonged to the peoples joining their states.
Thus, the number of the Aitolian seats in the council went beyond the usual two in the 270s
and grew together with the League’s conquest until the 220s. See esp.: Flacelière 1937, passim;
Lefèvre 1998, 102–115; and Sánchez 2001, 288–291.
Federal Imperialism: Aitolian Expansion between Protectorate, Merger, and Partition 169
policies were plainly opportunistic, with the Aitolian leaders grasping every oppor-
tunity to add new cities to the League, but without any coherent and systematic
imperialistic plan.7
Such an interpretation of Aitolian imperialism goes well with the current pre-
vailing view of Roman imperialism, according to which Rome gained a world em-
pire, so to speak, by chance, without an original intention to become the master of
the known world.8 If we deny such plans in the case of the Romans with their nar-
row elite, the systematic planning of conquest in Greek states seems less thinkable
with their more egalitarian regimes. If one may agree that pursuing long-term strat-
egies was rather impossible in the conditions of Greek free states, one has also to
remember that ancient Greek politicians had only restricted freedom with respect
to breaking their countries’ traditional policies – they had to meet expectations of
their co-citizens, and sometimes to deal with the ‘ghost of empire’ and other col-
lective political illusions.9
Of course, with our knowledge of Classical and Hellenistic Greek history, one
can hardly understand how the Aitolians could dream about great conquest or he-
gemony in Greece at so early a date. In later times we have, indeed, the citizens of
Aitolia becoming very much fond of their position of power in Greece – in order to
retain or re-conquer it, the Aitolians were ready to risk a war against Rome and
showed a stance that might be a dictionary definition of the ‘ghost of empire’. Pom-
peius Trogus underscored a very combination of political misjudgment and de-
formed hegemonic ambitions of the Aitolians on more than one occasion in his
Histories.10
Pompeius Trogus (or technically speaking Iustinus) first alludes to this ideol-
ogy of the Aitolian supremacy in Greece in Book 28 (Justin 28.1.1) in his account
of the Roman embassy to Aitolia coming to succor the Akarnanians endangered by
Aitolian aggression in the later 240s BCE. Iustinus makes clear that the Akarnani-
ans who made an appeal to Rome were ones who had previously been attached to
Alexander of Epeiros as a result of a partition treaty criticized by Polybios on nu-
merous occasions.11 It is striking that Polybios criticizes only Aitolians’ signing of
this treaty. It is easy to explain Polybios’ remarks with his general lack of sympathy

8 In place of an older view that the Romans became masters of the Western world by fighting
enemies that wanted to subdue or conquer the Romans (Holleaux 1921), one follows today
Harris 1979, who stresses mechanisms of internal politics (family rivalries, competitive career
tracks, etc.) as the main reasons why the Romans waged so many wars. Of course, Roman
imperialism was not of an ‘annexationist’ kind, a very feature which deters some scholars to
call Roman politics in the late Republic ‘imperialistic’, see: Badian 1968; Gruen 1984; and
Eckstein 2008.
9 One has to agree with Rhodes 2012, of course, that recollections of past glory could not have
long-term adverse effects on state politics – in Athens’ case, as discussed by Rhodes, the illu-
sions based upon recollections of the former fifth-century Athenian Empire did not shape Athe-
nian politics after the 370s.
10 Rzepka 2009; 2013.
11 Polyb. 2.45.1; 9.34.6–7; cf. also Paus. 10.16.6; Polyaen. 8.69.1; on this see: Errington 2008,
93; Scholten 2000, 256.
170 Jacek Rzepka
towards the Aitolians. Yet another explanation may be the fact that the part of Akar-
nania which went to Alexander II had not been formally annexed by Epeiros,
whereas the Aitolians simply incorporated their part into their League.
In his criticism of Aitolian foreign politics, Polybios goes further, stating that
the partitioning of neighbours was a usual policy of the Aitolians (Polyb. 9.45.1:
‘they had partitioned those of Akarnania with Alexander and had previously pro-
posed to do regarding Achaea with Antigonos Gonatas’). Modern scholars who
have in mind an alliance that Aitolia struck with Rome with provisos concerning
division of spoils, including cities and lands (Staatsverträge 536), tend to think that
the Aitolian League’s politics towards its neighbours was opportunistic, and that
the League annexed new cities or land when available. This impression is strength-
ened by our knowledge of the rise of Aitolian presence in the Amphiktyonic Coun-
cil in the third century BCE.
There are a few documents, which may indicate that sometimes at least, the
Aitolian foreign policy was less aggressive and greedy, and the League was ready
to seek a peaceful collaboration with its neighbours. The most famous of these doc-
uments is a treaty of friendship, alliance, and equal citizenship between Aitolia and
Akarnania from c. 260 BCE 12 known from a fine bronze tablet found at Thermos
(now in the National Museum of Athens), with the second, badly preserved, copy
found at Olympia (IG IX.12.1 3a).
According to most commentators, the treaty was a short-lived success of the
Akarnanians, who secured their borders and independence against more aggressive
Aitolia.13 In my view this is a flawed interpretation and the treaty was another at-
tempt to subdue the whole of Akarnania. The most important proviso of the decree
declared the exchange of civic rights, which might have been a step towards a com-
plete population mingling, if the treaty had survived somewhat longer.
The complete absorption of nearby countries with its entire population was also
an Aitolian obsession in Western Lokris. The Hellenistic Aitolians had a tale of
Polykritos, the aitolarchēs or the ‘leader of the Aitolians’, who married a Lokrian
girl, begot a child and died on the third day of his marriage. The story is known
from Proklos’ commentaries on Plato and in a longer version from Phlegon of
Tralles. The latter, which is interesting for our aims, mentions an unclear oracle
issued by Polykritos’ child, which, however, makes clear that the Lokrians and the
Aitolians shall be one nation: ψυχαὶ δὲ βέονται | Λοκρῶν Αἰτωλῶν τ᾽ ἀναμὶξ
βουλῆισιν ᾽Αθήνης – ‘but by the will of Athena the souls of Lokrians and Aitolians
shall live mixed together’ (BNJ 257 F36II).14 Of course, the Aitolians had acquired
some Western Lokrian cities prior to the age of Polykritos (Naupaktos, perhaps with
its vicinities, was annexed about 338 BCE). Yet it seems that the Aitolian elites
12 The text with date in the second generalship of Polykritos of Callium, Grainger 1999, 555 sug-
gests 271 BCE, Scholten 2000, 253–256 prefers 261 BCE, but see cautious remarks by Funke
2008, 259.
13 Dany 1999, 85f; Scholten 2000, 88f.
14 On this see: Rzepka 2013, 117–129.
would be much happier if they were able to acquire what remained of Western Lo-
kris at once.
There remains a problem of date (as usually in the study of ancient history).
One has adduced some appealing premises to identify Polykritos, the ghost of
Phlegon’s story with Polykritos of Callium (thus the general of the Akarnanian
treaty), and to place this ghost episode in the circumstances of the mid-third century
BCE.15 Since I believe that Polykritos of Callium, as the Aitolian leader in the time
of alliance, friendship, and isopoliteia with Akarnania, strived for an absorption of
his western neighbour, I would welcome such a dating. However, I believe that
there are more arguments for linking this fictional episode with the earlier epoch,
when the Aitolians tried to subdue Western Lokris.
Firstly, in the middle of the third century BCE, Aitolia had already been a long
time important player in Greek interstate politics and it is not easy to understand
how a story like that of Polykritos might be circulated without any trace in contem-
porary literature (admittedly, this cannot be a decisive argument). Secondly, some
peculiarities of the language of the story may indicate that Naumachios of Epeiros
and Hieron of Alexandria or Ephesus (being direct sources of information on
Polykritos’ affair for Proklos and Phlegon) had taken this episode from Hieronymus
of Kardia.16 If the latter is true, King Antigonos, informed of the miraculous event
by his friends, must have been Monophthalmos, who died in 301 BCE.17 Thirdly,
in the mid-third century BCE the Aitolian appetite for Akarnania would not be
curbed by an oracle (Phlegon’s version includes verses of the oracle, which divert
the Aitolians from attacking the Akarnanians and promise a perfect and durable
union with the Western Lokrians). Whereas in the late fourth century, an idea of
subduing Akarnania by the League would sound bizarre.18
It seems that in the end of the fourth century BCE, after significant gains in
Western Lokris, the Aitolians decided to extend their federal citizenship (symbol-
ized by the eternal marriage of mixed souls in Phlegon) on all the Western Lokrians,
and did not encounter any significant opposition. The country swiftly and with no
resistance19 became Aitolian on the turn of the fourth century (or in the 290s) at the
latest. Without complete and unrestricted control over the whole of Western Lokris
15 So: McInerney in BNJ 257 F36II, very much following Scholten 2000, 89.
16 Rzepka 2005, 131f.
17 I thought for a long time that the styling of Polykritos as aitolarches in Proklos was anachro-
nistic and very much Late Antique. Having analysed a number of similar names for magistrates
in Greek leagues, I would now say that this is a relic of an old Aitolian custom, imitating the
Boiotian patterns, and replaced in the third century BCE by a system of offices with the strat-
egos as the head of state.
18 In 314, the Akarnanians, on the advice of Kassandros, resettled Stratos and two other cities
(through synoikismos of lesser hitherto undefended localities), which was clearly a successful
anti-Aitolian action of both the Akarnanians and the Makedonians (Diod. Sic. 19.67.4).
19 Centuries later, as a careful observer of local traditions, Pausanias records that the people of
Amphissa, ashamed of the name of Ozolian Lokrians, insisted that they were Aitolians (Paus.
10.38.4) – this may reflect an absence of any historical prejudice between the Aitolians and the
Lokrians.
172 Jacek Rzepka
the next great success of the League, i.e. the extension of the protectorate over Del-
phi, certainly before the Pythian Games of 290, which Demetrios Poliorketes staged
in Athens (Plut., Demetr, 13 and 40.4; Duris BNJ 76 F13), would have been impos-
sible. The Athenian-staged Pythian games were followed by an attack of Demetrios
on the Aitolians – we possess (since 1998) a partly damaged inscription containing
a treaty, which ended a war between Demetrios and the Aitolians and ‘those who
share citizenship with them’ (sympoliteuomenoi met’auton – SEG 48.588), almost
certainly the war we talked about earlier.20 The text suggests that there was an un-
decided conflict with Akarnania, that the Aitolians retained control over the sanc-
tuary of Delphi (which however should ‘be shared by all the Greeks’ – SEG 48.588,
ll. 21–22),21 and – last but not least – that they were responsible for the settlement
in Oiantheia (in the eastern part of Western Lokris). Therefore, it seems compelling
to understand ‘those who share citizenship with the Aitolians’ as the Western Lo-
krians who were recently absorbed by the League, and perhaps also some Phokians
(excluding the people of Delphi).22
Everything suggests that the Aitolian attempt at subduing the whole of Western
Lokris in the 300s BCE through an agreement of sympoliteia or isopoliteia was
successful. Of course, sympoliteia/isopoliteia covenants were a method of extend-
ing one’s own supremacy in the world of poleis, and in the case of the Western
Lokrians the Aitolians simply applied that method to a populous nation that was
nearly their size and manpower. The success of the Western Lokrian experiment
induced the Aitolians to similar attempts with other neighbouring ethne. A treaty
made with Boiotia in 292 BCE attests that there were ‘the Phokians who were with
the Aitolians’ (Syll.3 366, ll. 9–10: καὶ τὰς συνθήκας τὰς γεγενημένας |[Βοιωτ]ο̣ῖς
καὶ Αἰτωλοῖς καὶ Φωκεῦσιν τοῖς μετ’ Αἰτωλῶν), but no specific proviso of this text
refers to Phokis. Similarly, no Phokian copy of the treaty was envisaged (the Del-
phic copy was common to both sides23). Apparently, the Phokians were treated as
Aitolians at that time, but since they were newly joined to the League they still
seemed worthy to single out in some places of the treaty.
Among the Aitolian neighbours the Akarnanians were the strongest, and the
most defiant. The Aitolians, who developed a method of absorbing nearby ethne as
entities, waited for such a suitable moment in Akarnania. For some reason the Akar-
nanians felt it useful to conclude the treaty of alliance, friendship, and isopoliteia
in the 260s BCE. Perhaps a bait was hidden among the delimitation clauses of the
treaty confirming the sovereignty of the Akarnanians over the western bank of Ach-
eloos, excluding the regions of Pras and Demphis. It is clear that after many wars
with the Akarnanians and interim conquests there, the Aitolians might have made
20 Ed.pr and a detailed commentary in Lefèvre 1998a.

21 Since there is no exclusion of the Aitolians from Delphi (after another Sacred War!), this pro-
viso opening the sanctuary to all the Greeks means that the Aitolians remained in control of the
sanctuary and generously allowed Demetrios to approach Delphi (thus, he might declare his
success as well).
22 For the Phokians, see the next section.
23 There is a general agreement that Delphi has never been incorporated by the Aitolians. More-
over, it would be unwise for the Aitolians to attempt any formal subjugation of the city.
more territorial claims to other parts of the country. Instead of pursuing the maxi-
mum agenda, they decided to retain two strategically positioned acquisitions,24 and
to give up others in the hope of having everything as soon as the alliance, friendship,
and isopoliteia turned into a real union. First, when that union proved itself to be an
illusion due to the resilience of the Akarnanians, the Aitolians decided on a partition
of Akarniania, and a quick assimilation of more restricted gains (but still covering
major centres of the country including Stratos and Thyrreion) and found a ready
accomplice in Alexander II of Epeiros. A symbol of a new policy towards Akarna-
nia was an inscription engraved on the other side of the Thermos copy of the alli-
ance and isopoliteia treaty with the Akarnanians, containing a verdict of a boundary
arbitration between two Akarnanian communities of Oeniadai and Matropolis re-
tained by the Aitolian League, and being constituents of the Stratian telos (district)
of the Aitolian League.25 The commissioners arbitrating in this affair were also
originally Akarnanian, of Thyrreion. 26
One may conclude this reconstruction with a remark that whereas the assimila-
tion of all Western Lokris by the Aitolians was complete and durable, the partition
of Akarnania did not produce the loyalty of adjoined Akarnanians toward Aitolia
with the exception of a few cities that laid close to Acheloos and remained Aitolian
for good (Stratos, and – to a degree – Thyrreion). Perhaps it indicates that negotia-
tions and bargaining were better as a method of enhancing Greek leagues than the
sheer exercise of federal (man)power.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Badian, E. (1968) Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, Oxford.

Bommélje, S. (1988) Aeolis in Aetolia: Thuc. III 102, 5 and the origins of the Aetolian ethnos,
Historia 37, 297–316.
Dany, O. (1999) Akarnanien in Hellenismus. Geschichte und Völkerrecht in Nordwestgriechenland,
München.
Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic
Mediterranean, 230–170 BC, Malden.
24 The land of Pras gave the Aitolians access to the Gulf of Ambracia; see: Schoch 1997, 77f;
Schoch-Wacker 1996, 127f.
25 IG IX.12.1 3b with the date in the fourth generalship of Charixenos in 230s BCE. There is an
ongoing discussion on the nature of Aitolian districts, namely, whether the whole territory of
the League or only part of it was divided into districts, and whether the shapes of the districts
mirrored traditional boundaries between ethne or regions, which cannot be concluded at pre-
sent. The most important voices in the debate vary from the division of the whole league terri-
tory into totally artificial districts (Corsten 1999, 130–134, 150–155) and the districts as sur-
vival forms of previous political identities of new greater Aitolia (Funke 1997, 158f; Funke
2015, 96).
26 It is also worth stressing that when Aitolia, due to the results of the Social War, lost Thyrreion,
notable citizens of the latter remained the Aitolian citizens, apparently forming the community
of Thyrreians in exile: Polyb. 18.10.9–10.
174 Jacek Rzepka
Errington, R.M. (2008) A History of the Hellenistic World: 323 – 30 BC, Malden, MA.
Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aitoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe
siècle av. J.–C., Paris.
Funke, P. (1997) Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr., in M.H. Hansen
(ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 145–188.
Funke, P. (2008) Die Aitoler in der Ägäis. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Seepolitik der Aitoler
im 3. Jh. v. Chr., in E. Winter (ed.), Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike.
Festschrift für E. Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn, 253–267.
Gruen, E. (1984) The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 vols., Berkeley/Los Ange-
les/London.
Harris, W.V. (1979) War and Imperialism in the Republican Rome, Oxford.
Holleaux M. (1921) Rome, la Grèce et les Monarchies hellénistiques au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (273–
205), Athens/Paris.
Lefèvre, F. (1998a) Traité de paix entre Démétrios Poliorcète et la confédération étolienne (fin
289?), Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 122, 109–141.
Mendels, D. (1984) Aitolia 331–301 B.C. Frustration, Political Power and Survival, Historia 33,
129–180.
Merker, I.L. (1989) The Achaians in Naupaktos and Kalydon in the Fourth Century, Hesperia 58,
303–311.
Rhodes, P. (2012) The Alleged Failure of Athens in the Fourth Century, ELECTRUM 19, 111–129.
Rzepka, J. (2004) Phillip II of Macedon and the ‘Garrison of Naupactus’: a Re-Interpretation of
Theopompus FgrHist 115 F 234, Tyche 19, 157–166.
Rzepka, J. (2005) Koine Ekklesia in Diodorus Siculus and the General Assemblies of the Macedo-
nians, Tyche 20, 119–142.
Rzepka, J. (2009) Principes Semper Graeciae: Pompeius Trogus/Justinus and the Aetolian Politics
of History, in G. Malinowski and J. Pigoń (eds.), Children of Herodotus. Acts of the Conference
held in Wroclaw, 21–22 May 2007, Newcastle, 218–229.
Rzepka, J. (2013) Monstrous Aetolians and Aetolian Monsters – A Politics of Ethnography? in E.
Almagor and J. Skinner (eds.), Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches, London, 117–130.
Schmitt, O. (1995) Der lamische Krieg, Bonn.
Schoch, M. (1997) Beiträge zur Topographie Akarnaniens in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit,
Würzburg.
Schoch, M. and C. Wacker (1996) Zur Teilung Akarnaniens, in P. Berktold, J. Schmid, and C. Wa-
cker (eds.), Akarnanien. Eine Landschaft im antiken Griechenland, Würzburg, 125–128.
THE LIMITS OF ETHNICITY:
SPARTA AND THE ACHAIAN LEAGUE
Sheila Ager
University of Waterloo
Over the roughly forty-five years that Sparta was a member of the Achaian League
(192–148 BCE), the relationship between the koinon and its most reluctant member
was complex and emotionally fraught. This paper cannot analyze in detail all the
multifaceted ramifications of this relationship; its goal rather is to offer some ob-
servations on the colossal challenge facing the Achaians as they struggled to keep
their internal affairs under their own control in the face of determined centrifugal
forces.
The expansion of the Achaian League after the mid-third century BCE em-
braced the inclusion of non-Achaian communities, with Sikyon under the leadership
of Aratos as the first state outside Achaia proper to join the koinon.1 It is arguable
that, with the inclusion of non-Achaians, Achaian ethnic identity thereafter became
an artificial construct, but as Jonathan Hall points out, all ethnic identity is to some
extent an artificial construct: “the ethnic group is not a biological group but a social
group, distinguished from other collectivities by its subscription to a putative myth
of shared descent and kinship and by its association with a ‘primordial’ territory”.2
Nevertheless, the Greeks themselves did frame ethnicity in terms of kinship and
blood ties, however falsely constructed such ties might be.3 They self-identified as
members of different ethnic groups, and such self-identification was always a
source of pride for those on the inside and often a source of contempt for those on
the outside. Dialect and cultural practices – such as the tribal classification of the
Dorians or the Ionian Apatouria festival – were markers of these identities.
In terms of traditional Greek ethnic divisions, then, the Achaian koinon had
become multi-ethnic by the second half of the third century BCE, and even more so
by the second century. Nevertheless, and perhaps deliberately, the distinction be-
tween the Achaian ethnos and the Achaian koinon was ultimately blurred to the
point of synonymy. Polybios speaks of the ethnos of the Achaians incorporating
other ethnē (the Arkadians and the Lakonians; 2.37–38) and uses ethnos or ethnikē
sympoliteia at other points to designate the koinon well after it had already been
extended to non-Achaians.4 Polybios himself, as a native of Megalopolis, was not
1 251–250 BCE; Polyb. 2.43.

2 Hall 1997, 2, 25; see also Ganter 2014; Kaplan 2014; Mackil 2014; Hall 2015.
3 See Luraghi 2014, 216.
4 2.37–38; 2.44.5; 4.17.7. See Mackil 2014, 276; Hall 2015, 30. One suspects the Greeks were
often less careful about terminological distinctions than modern scholars tend to be.
176 Sheila Ager
ethnically Achaian, but as a supporter of the League, he seems to have been willing
to embrace this aspect of communal ethnicity.
Emily Mackil argues that ethnicity had a distinct role to play as one of the cen-
tripetal forces binding Greek federal leagues together: “however fictive it may have
been, ethnic identity was an argument used to generate support for a politics of
cooperation.”5 She also emphasizes the material advantages of economic coopera-
tion and shared political institutions, extended to ethnic Achaians and non-Achaians
alike. Mackil generally takes a somewhat optimistic stance on the efficacy of both
ethnicity and institutionalism as a kind of federal glue, though her work is far from
one-sided in this respect.6 Many of Mackil’s conclusions about the attractiveness of
membership in the Achaian (or any) koinon do not fit the case of Sparta, which was
coerced into the League and kept there by force.7
Ethnicity, moreover, can actually be an instrument that divides: a polity encom-
passing various ethnicities may rupture under pressure along ethnic lines, much as
a vase that has been broken and glued together will fracture again along previous
fault lines. Ultimately any federation’s emphasis on ethnicity can become a disad-
vantage, since such an emphasis enhances difference as much as it enhances be-
longing. The creation of an in-group necessitates the creation of an out-group, and
there are few federations where one group or another has not felt disadvantaged and
hard done by. The early 1990s saw tragic instances of ethnic discontent: the artifi-
cially created state of Yugoslavia dissolved in the midst of brutal fighting, while
tensions between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda culminated in the massacre of up to a
million Tutsi in 1994. Lt.–Gen. Roméo Dallaire’s account of the months leading up
to the genocide underscores the utter failure of international institutionalism in the
face of ethnic hatred on that occasion.8 Ethnicity may be an ‘artificial’ social con-
struct; but it can also be the seat of some very real and very powerful emotions.
As for institutions, an institutionalist approach to the Achaian koinon and its
internal mechanisms is automatically coloured by Polybios, and inevitably has the
effect of making Sparta seem unreasonably and mystifyingly recalcitrant: ‘irre-
deemably eccentric’ in the words of Paul Cartledge.9 Such a characterization – to
which Polybios clearly subscribed – suggests a purely rational take on political de-
cision-making, positing that states (or the persons representing states) calculate
their own interests in a lucid, coherent, and generally materialist way, engaging in
a carefully reasoned cost-benefit analysis. But such decision-making is rarely
driven by pure ‘rationality’: emotion, affect, and memory play an extremely im-
portant role. Stephen Rosen points out that in cases of rapid decision-making with
5 Mackil 2014, 271; see also Beck 2003, 180f; Mackil 2013; Mackil 2015.
6 Mackil 2014, 281 acknowledges that the ethnic piece had ‘only limited efficacy’, arguing that
it was the more material advantages that were chiefly the source of the attractiveness of Achaian
membership.
7 Sparta is thus the exception in Mackil’s generalizations about koinon participation only rarely
being coerced and koina being ‘poor instruments for subordination and imperialism’ (2014,
270, 280).
8 Dallaire 2003. Cf. the essays collected in Smith (ed.) 1995 and Gagnon (ed.) 2009.
9 Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 79.
The Limits of Ethnicity: Sparta and the Achaian League 177
only incomplete information available (the circumstances under which many deci-
sions about interstate conflict are made), “those memories with high emotional con-
tent may be preferentially, if inaccurately, recalled.” Memories of previous negative
experiences with an individual or a group may drive future interactions through a
process of ‘emotion-based pattern recognition’.10
Rather than joining in the assessment of Sparta as recalcitrant and eccentric,
then, I would like to shed a somewhat different light on its behaviour, and perhaps
enhance our understanding of the internal dynamics within the Achaian League. In
this context it is significant that Hall points to the historical (or mythistorical) and
territorial foundations of identity. It is precisely these foundations, and the strong
emotional attachments to them, that made Spartan membership in the Achaian
League such a challenging, and in the end impossible, enterprise. The internal lure
of an artificially shared identity and the advantage of common institutions were
insufficient to overcome the centrifugal forces of separatism and autonomy. This
paper therefore explores the limits of institutionalism as well as the limits of eth-
nicity.
The early days of Achaian expansion, as captured in the sympathetic pages of
Polybios and Plutarch, feature a glowing history of liberation and the suppression
of tyranny (not to mention supreme unity and mutual amity):
Not only have [the Peloponnesians] formed an allied and friendly community, but they have
the same laws, weights, measures, and coinage, as well as the same magistrates, senate, and
courts of justice, and almost the whole Peloponnesus falls short of being a single city only in
the fact of its inhabitants not being enclosed by one wall, all other things being, both as regards
the whole and as regards each separate town, very nearly identical. In the first place it is of
some service to learn how and by what means all the Peloponnesians came to be called Achae-
ans. For the people whose original and ancestral name this was are distinguished neither by the
extent of their territory, nor by the number of their cities, nor by exceptional wealth or the
exceptional valor of their citizens. Both the Arcadian and the Laconian nations far exceed them,
indeed, in population and the size of their countries, and certainly neither of the two could ever
bring themselves to yield to any Greek people the palm for military valor. How is it, then, that
both these peoples and the rest of the Peloponnesians have consented to change not only their
political institutions for those of the Achaeans, but even their name? (πῶς οὖν καὶ διὰ τί νῦν
εὐδοκοῦσιν οὗτοί τε καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν πλῆθος τῶν Πελοποννησίων, ἅμα τὴν πολιτείαν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν
καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν μετειληφότες;).11
The commonwealth of the Achaeans was first raised to dignity and power by Aratus, who con-
solidated it when it was feeble and disrupted, and inaugurated a Hellenic and humane form of
government. Then, just as in running waters, after a few small particles have begun to take a
fixed position, others presently are swept against the first, adhere and cling to them, and thus
form a fixed and solid mass by mutual support, so the Achaeans, at a time when Greece was
weak and easily dissolved and drifting along by individual cities, first united themselves to-
gether, and then, by receiving into their number some of the cities round about which they had
10 Rosen 2005, 39, 50–55. Cf. (from a quite different perspective) Wiegand and Powell 2011. On
the role of the emotions in ancient politics and political thought see Ludwig 2009 and Sissa
2009.
11 Polyb. 2.37.10–38.4; trans. Paton (Loeb) 2010. See also Polyb. 2.43.8–9.
178 Sheila Ager
aided and assisted in shaking off their tyrants, and by uniting others with themselves in a har-
monious civil polity, they purposed to form the Peloponnesus into a single political body and
one power.12
The Achaeans always followed one single policy, ever attracting others by the offer of their
own equality and liberty (ἰσηγορίαν καὶ παρρησίαν) and ever making war on and crushing those
who either themselves or through the kings attempted to enslave their native cities, and that, in
this manner and pursuing this purpose, they accomplished their task in part unaided and in part
with the help of allies. For the Achaean political principle must be credited also with the results
furthering their end, to which their allies in subsequent years contributed. Though they took so
much part in the enterprises of others, and especially in many of those of the Romans which
resulted brilliantly, they never showed the least desire to gain any private profit from their
success, but demanded, in exchange for the zealous aid they rendered their allies, nothing be-
yond the liberty of all states and the unity of the Peloponnesians (τὴν ἑκάστων ἐλευθερίαν καὶ
τὴν κοινὴν ὁμόνιαν Πελοποννησίων).13
In his enthusiasm, Polybios may have said more than he intended to in this last
passage. In return for their many favours to Rome and others, in which they sought,
according to their cheerleader, no private profit, the Achaians turn out to have had
a self-interested motive after all: control of the Peloponnese. One might charitably
interpret koinē homonoia as something as benign as ‘common accord’, but it seems
quite clear that what the Achaians wanted was a Peloponnese united under their
leadership (and implicitly a Peloponnese in which a state like Sparta was properly
chastised and humbled). Polybios is so in tune with Achaian desires that he sees
nothing incongruous in his simultaneous assertion both of Achaian selflessness and
of Achaian ambition.
In 416 BCE the Athenians told the Melians that they could not afford to leave
the little island in peace, since to do so would have been seen as a sign of Athenian
weakness.14 Like Athens in the heyday of its naval empire, the Achaians evidently
viewed consolidation of the entire Peloponnese as a sine qua non for the security of
the koinon. So while Polybios implies that the Spartans willingly embraced mem-
bership in the koinon for the great institutional advantages it offered, the actual his-
tory of Spartan-Achaian relations tells a different story, as Polybios himself well
knew. Sparta, Messenia, and even Elis joined the League only under protest.15 In
this case, history – with its weight of community identity, shared experience, or-
ganic cultural values, and depth of emotional and psychological feeling – easily
trumped the artificial constructs of ethnos identity and institutions.
12 Plut. Phil. 8.1–2; trans. Perrin (Loeb) 1921; see also Arat. 9.4–6. On the development of the
Hellenistic Achaian League see Urban 1979; on the Achaian koinon’s self-presentation as dem-
ocratic, see Polyb. 2.38.6, 2.44.6; Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 47; Roy 2003, 84f; Koehn
2007, 54–61.
13 Polyb. 2.42.3–6; trans. Paton (Loeb) 2010. See Larsen 1968, 219.
14 Thuc. 5.95.
15 Sparta (192 BCE): Livy 35.37; Paus. 8.51.1; Plut. Phil. 15.2–3. Messene (191 BCE): Livy
36.31. Elis (also 191?): Livy 36.35.7. See Eckstein 2006, 90f, 97.
With few exceptions, the default setting for Spartan-Achaian relations in the
third and second centuries was hostility.16 It would be absurd to deny that the secu-
rity concerns and hostile attitude of the Achaians were largely the result of persis-
tent irredentism on the part of Sparta itself. Under Kleomenes III and under Nabis,
the Spartans repeatedly sought to re-establish their leading position in the Pelopon-
nese and to re-define their borders with their Peloponnesian neighbours. Sparta’s
frontiers created fertile ground for conflict over many centuries: whether it was the
Thyreatis to the east, claimed by both Argos and Sparta, or the Dentheliatis to the
west, a source of persistent rivalry between Sparta and Messene, these competing
territorial claims were a constant source of tension. Pausanias’ mythistorical ac-
count of the first open clash between Sparta and Messenia asserts that Sparta’s king
Teleklos was murdered by the Messenians in the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis in
the Dentheliatis, a sanctuary that was to be the epicentre of territorial conflict at
least into the first century CE.17 As for the Thyreatis, Pausanias, in speaking of it,
remarks that the Argives and the Spartans had “poured out their blood like water
because of a dispute about boundaries”.18 As so often was and is the case with these
seemingly irremediable disputes, neither war nor third-party conflict resolution pro-
vided a permanent solution and the Spartan-Argive territorial conflict continued
into the Hellenistic Age.19
The defeat at Leuktra in 371 BCE had exacerbated Sparta’s border dissatisfac-
tions. Messenia was liberated the following year by Epameinondas and territorial
rivalries that had lain dormant during the three centuries of Spartan domination
came to the fore again.20 The foundation of Arkadian Megalopolis and the short-
lived Arkadian League within two or three years of Leuktra created a powerful
northern neighbour for Sparta; although the Arkadian League broke up again less
than a decade later, Megalopolis continued to flourish.21 Sparta did not join in the
Athenian-Theban coalition against Philip II in 338, but Philip seems to have fol-
lowed the policy of Epameinondas in strengthening Sparta’s neighbours after
Chaironeia: the Dentheliatis was confirmed as Messenian territory; he awarded the
16 Exceptions: the Chremonidean War and a brief alignment in 243 BCE: IG II2 687; Plut. Agis.
13–15 (and see also IG V.1 3); Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 35–37, 41.
17 Paus. 3.2.6, 3.7.4, 4.4.2–3, 4.31.3. The Dentheliatis and the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis
formed the subject of numerous arbitrations between Sparta and Messenia over the centuries:
Piccirilli 1973, nos. 1, 61; Ager 1996, nos. 50, 150, 159; Magnetto 1997, no. 48; Luraghi 2008,
16–27. The last certain arbitration was that of Tiberius in CE 25, but epigraphic evidence of a
boundary delineation carried out by a freedman of Vespasian’s in CE 78 suggests that Tiberius’
settlement may not have been accepted as final (IG V.1 1371–1372, 1431).
18 Paus. 7.11.2; trans. Jones and Ormerod (Loeb) 1918; cf. 3.2.2–3, 3.7.5.
19 See Picirilli 1973, nos. 8, 29; Ager 1996, no. 136.
20 Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 562; Luraghi 2008, 17f, 253f; Luraghi 2009; Thein 2014; Luraghi
2015.
21 Pretzler 2009; Nielsen 2015.
180 Sheila Ager
Belminatis, the region disputed between Sparta and Megalopolis, to the latter; and
Argos too may have received a favourable land settlement in the Thyreatis.22
It was not until the reign of Kleomenes III that Sparta once again made signif-
icant headway with its territorial ambitions: Megalopolis was destroyed by Kleome-
nes in 223, its survivors, led by Philopoimen, taking refuge in Messene.23 Kleome-
nes’ ambitions were ultimately checked by the Achaian decision to ally with An-
tigonos III Doson; this decision represented a reversal of Achaia’s anti-Makedonian
policy, and was in itself a measure of how much the Achaians feared the idea of a
resurgent Spartan hegemony in the Peloponnese. After the Battle of Sellasia in 222,
Antigonos restored the Belminatis to Megalopolis and the Dentheliatis to Messene,
but over the next few decades the Spartans, under Lykourgos, Machanidas, and fi-
nally Nabis, made repeated attempts to redefine their borders.
By the time Sparta was brought into the Achaian League in 192 BCE, there was
thus a long and unhappy shared past with some of the constituent members of the
koinon. The new shared ‘ethnic’ identity (however falsely constructed) introduced
complexities and inherited hostilities into the union, especially since the leading
statesmen of the koinon after the death of Aratos in 213 BCE were chiefly from
Megalopolis.24 Although the Achaians may have taken some forethought for deal-
ing with pre-existing conflicts, perhaps arranging for peaceful settlement of them
as new members were welcomed into the koinon,25 the level of enmity between
Sparta and its neighbours, and the history of these conflicts, was intense and pro-
tracted. Rosen points out that “massive social violence or trauma can generate
shared emotional experiences and memories, which can then determine state be-
haviour.”26 Is it any wonder that the Megalopolitans would be hostile to Sparta after
Kleomenes’ destruction of the city in 223? As for Philopoimen, who rescued the
Megalopolitans at that time, he would have had quite a direct and personal memory
himself of both Kleomenes and Nabis. His actions and behaviour towards Sparta
were no doubt coloured by his own emotional memories and the expectations aris-
ing from those memories.27
22 Str. 8.4.8; Tac. Ann. 4.43.1; Paus. 8.30.6; Livy 38.34; Polyb. 9.28.6–7 and 9.33.8–12; Paus.
7.11.2. Piccirilli 1973, nos. 60, 61; Piérart 2001; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 521f, 563, 604;
Christien 2006.
23 Polyb. 2.55; Plut. Cleom. 24–25; Paus. 4.29.8.
24 Cf. Paus. 4.29.7.
25 See Ager 1996, nos. 38, 43, 44, and 46; Harter-Uibopuu 1998, nos. 3, 4, and 5; Mackil 2013,
T37-T40. Harter-Uibopuu 1998, 119–129 argues that we have little positive evidence to prove
a regular role for the League in arbitrating the disputes of its members, but it is impossible that
the League would have tolerated significant active conflict between its members, and most
cases of conflict settlement in the koinon do show evidence of federal involvement (including
the dispute between Messene and Megalopolis in the late 180s or early 170s: Arnaoutoglou
2009–2010; Luraghi and Magnetto 2012; Rizakis 2015, 130f).
26 Rosen 2005, 54.
27 See Rosen 2005 for case studies of emotional pattern recognition decision-making by American
statesmen such as JFK at times of international crisis (in his case, the Cuban missile crisis; 56–
68).
Philopoimen’s unilateral decision to attach Sparta to the koinon in the first place
in 192, and subsequent relations between Sparta and the League, demonstrate that
the Achaians underestimated the power of the foundations of Sparta’s own ethnic
identity: its history and its territory (or what it saw as its territory).28 History is a
powerful driver of identity, and the Greeks were well aware of this. Local histories,
whether oral or written, were handed down through the generations, and the land-
scapes of the Panhellenic sanctuaries were crowded with monuments to glorious
moments in the history of the various poleis. Such glorious moments were very
commonly the victory of one Greek state over another: visitors to Delphi in antiq-
uity would have been struck the moment they entered the temenos by the bristling
statues lining either side of the road in a static face-off:
Next [to the Bull of Corcyra] come the Tegean [Arkadian] dedications from the spoils of Sparta:
Apollo and Victory and the divine heroes of the district, Kallisto daughter of Lykaon, Arkas
who gave his name to the country, with his sons Elatos and Apheidas and Azan, and then Triph-
ylos.... The Tegeans sent all these to Delphi when they took Spartan prisoners in an attack on
Tegea.29 Opposite them stand Spartan dedications from the spoils of Athens: the Dioskouroi
and Zeus and Apollo and Artemis, then Poseidon, Lysander being crowned by Poseidon, Agias
who was Lysander’s soothsayer, and Hermon, the captain of Lysander’s flagship.... Behind the
statues I have recorded are statues of those of the Spartans and their allies who took part in
Lysander’s achievement at Aigospotamoi. 30
Other dedications follow, celebrating other victories, chiefly Argive and Arkadian
victories over Sparta. The first several metres of the Delphic Sacred Way were thus
dominated by statue groups celebrating struggles between Spartans, Athenians, Ar-
gives, and Arkadians, in an agōn of monument and counter-monument.31
In the context of Sparta’s relations with its neighbours and ultimate co-mem-
bers of the Achaian koinon, one of the most telling examples of this agōn is the
Nike of Paionios at Olympia, which occupied an imposing position in front of the
temple of Zeus. Dedicated by the free Messenians of Naupaktos during the Pelo-
ponnesian War, it celebrated (probably) Messenian collaboration with the Atheni-
ans in defeating the Spartans at Sphakteria in 425.32 Three centuries later, the Mes-
senians added another inscription to the colossal base of the statue, an inscription
recording a Messenian victory in the interminable territorial dispute between Mes-
senia and Sparta over the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis.33 The huge panel of Mi-
lesian judges who arbitrated the case voted overwhelmingly in favour of Messenia,
28 On territoriality and ethnicity (ancient and modern), see Diehl 1999b; Lecours 2012; Kaplan
2014; Mackil 2014; Hall 2015.
29 The victory dedication seems to have been by the Arkadians as a whole, not just the Tegeans,
as the inscribed base demonstrates (FD III.1.3). On the manipulation of Arkadian mythistory
on this occasion (marking the foundation of their koinon), see Pretzler 2009.
30 Paus. 10.9.3–4; trans. Levi 1 1979. See Eckstein 2006, 211f.
31 See FD III.1.3–11, 50f, 69–78, 90f, 573.
32 Paus. 5.26.1; Meiggs and Lewis 1988, no. 74 = IG V.1 1568 = IvO 259; cf. also Paus. 4.26.1.
See Luraghi 2009, 113, who agrees with Hölscher 1974 that the Spartans would have seen this
monument as a deliberate challenge; also Thein 2014, 291.
33 IvO 52; Ager 1996, no. 159.
182 Sheila Ager
by a vote of 584 to 16. The base of a monument celebrating an earlier Messenian

victory over Sparta was the logical place for this inscription, and the ensemble of
statue and texts advertised to all visitors to Olympia not only Messenian pride in
their triumphs but also Messenian derision of their Spartan enemy. Arbitration vic-
tories could be vaunted just as publicly as military victories.34
Panhellenic sanctuaries, then, while they might be places for Greeks to come
together in worship and religious celebration, had a visual landscape that commem-
orated inter–Hellenic conflict, a conflict that was mirrored in the agōnes of the
games and contests. In addition to the monuments at the great sanctuaries, Pausa-
nias saw many local commemorations of Greek victories over Greek enemies. One
of those he would have seen was a stoa at Megalopolis. The stoa had been destroyed
when Kleomenes sacked the city in 223 BCE; when Philopoimen forced Sparta
back into the Achaian koinon in 188, the Spartans were compelled to pay war rep-
aration specifically for the rebuilding of the portico at Megalopolis.35 No author
records one, but it would not be at all surprising to discover that there had been a
very conspicuous inscription on that stoa that celebrated the fact that it was the
Spartans who had to pay for it.
Memory was long and memory was bitter, as Pausanias learned when he trav-
eled throughout Greece and heard of bygone but long-cherished wrongs and injus-
tices.36 In his Peloponnesian sojourning, Pausanias was told particularly often tales
of Spartan aggression and Spartan oath-breaking. Sparta was not well-loved in the
regions it had dominated for so long, and continuing Spartan attachment to territo-
ries that were long lost to it was evenly matched by the enduring memories of neigh-
bours who had suffered in the centuries of Spartan supremacy.37 All blame was laid
at the door of Sparta, in a way that mirrors the physical monuments of Delphi: two-
thirds of the monuments at the entrance to the temenos celebrated victories over
Sparta. Spartan territorial greed in one region was cited as sufficient cause to adduce
such greed in another region: the Messenians told Pausanias that the Spartans orig-
inally attacked them because of “an avaricious plot to take territory”, pointing to
the examples of “what happened to Arkadia and what happened to Argos, how the
Lakonians had continually cut away land from one or the other and have never been
satisfied.”38
Pausanias continues his Messenian mythistory with the Arkadians and the Ar-
gives eagerly joining forces with Messenia against Sparta because of their hatred of
34 Some decades earlier the Messenians had proudly inscribed at length the results of a boundary
arbitration with Megalopolis: in this case, the vote was 140 to 7 (Arnaoutoglou 2009–2010 ll,
56–61; see also Luraghi and Magnetto 2012).
35 Livy 38.34.7.
36 Cf. Pretzler 2005. Emotional memories (and hence emotional decision-making) can be inspired
in succeeding generations if the historical accounts and their presentation are sufficiently emo-
tionally arousing: Rosen 2005, 52.
37 E.g.: Paus. 3.2.2–3, 3.7.2–3 (Argos); 3.2.5 (Aigys); 3.2.6, 4.4.2–4 (Messenia); 3.2.7 (Helos);
3.7.3 (Tegea); 4.17.2 (Spartans leaders in bribing the enemy); 7.7.4 (Kleomenes III and Mega-
lopolis).
38 Paus. 4.5.3; trans. Levi 2 1979.
the latter, and he regularly emphasizes the enduring hatred the Messenians had for
the Spartans.39 The Messenians had a “chronic need to make up for their previous
absence from the stage of Greek history,” a need that resulted in the creation of the
account of Messenian history recorded by Pausanias and the public dedication of
numerous monuments.40 Nino Luraghi points out that the inherited ‘ethnicity’ of
the Messenians who were liberated after Leuktra was in fact a very mixed bag; but
what is significant was their choice to create a shared history foundational to their
claim to shared ethnicity.41 Perhaps it was the Messenian determination to create
and maintain a distinctive historical and ethnic identity that made them, like the
Spartans, reluctant to join the Achaian League; but it is noteworthy that mutual
antipathy to Achaia never resulted in a Messenian–Spartan détente.
The considerable contemporary research that has been done on the phenomena
of intractable conflict and enduring international rivalries has something to offer
here, since it speaks again to the issue of the emotional content of interstate inter-
action.42 Intractable conflicts are “conflicts that have persisted over time and re-
fused to yield to efforts…to arrive at a political settlement.”43 Such conflicts can
“lead to the accumulation of grievances incorporated into each party’s version of
history.”44 Zeev Maoz and Ben Mor point out, in a survey of international conflict
over the last two hundred years, that “a small group of dyads is responsible for a
disproportionately large number of conflicts and wars.”45 In other words, conflict
is not diffused evenly and randomly across the international system; instead, it is
concentrated in a relatively small set of nodes that exhibit the characteristics of
lasting hostility defined as enduring rivalry, “a persistent, fundamental, and long-
term incompatibility of goals between two states,”46 which manifests itself in hos-
tile psychological attitudes and repeated clashes, military or otherwise. These are
the most deep-rooted of conflicts, and by far the most resistant to negotiated reso-
lution.
As the Achaian koinon extended its control throughout the Peloponnese, it in-
herited the dyadic rivalries Sparta had with neighbours like Messenia, Megalopolis,
and Argos, and created a multiple layering of enmity with its own past and subse-
quent history of hostile relations with Sparta. Territorial rivalries in particular can
become entrenched and extremely bitter, especially when the salience of the land
39 Paus. 4.10.1, 4.11.1, 4.15.1, 4.26.1, 4.26.5, 4.29.3. Argos and Arkadia did in fact assist in the
construction of a free Messenia after 369.
40 Luraghi 2009, 113.
41 Luraghi 2008, 219–248; 2009, 118–123. See also Thein 2014.
42 See Diehl 1998; Huth 1999; Diehl and Goertz 2000; Maoz and Mor 2002; Crocker et al. 2005;
Cox 2010.
43 Crocker et al. 2005b, 5.
44 Crocker et al. 2005b, 7.
45 Maoz and Mor 2002, 3. Cf., however, Eckstein 2006, 91, who suggests that the Peloponnese
specifically ‘seems a dark example of the classic Hobbesian war of all against all’ (my empha-
sis).
46 Maoz and Mor 2002, 4.
184 Sheila Ager
in question is symbolic rather than pragmatic, both because the non-strategic char-
acter of the land allows for prolonged continuation of the dispute and because the
symbolic value of the land deepens the emotional attachment each side feels.47 Ter-
ritory is associated with national identity and “landscapes are imbued with symbolic
and mythical characteristics.”48 Territorial disputes, and in particular those with a
symbolic association, are the most likely of all international disputes to escalate into
violence.49 The multiple arbitrations through the centuries between Sparta and Mes-
senia over the Dentheliatis and its Artemis sanctuary had not resolved the core of
the conflict, and indeed arbitration, which, like war, creates winners and losers, can
actually exacerbate a conflictual situation.50
Sparta, moreover, was less likely than many other states to bow to rationalist
arguments of the kind the Athenians had used with the Melians (of course, the Me-
lians, allegedly descendants of the Spartans, did not listen to the rationalist argu-
ments either). Sparta had a long history of military success and glory and, like
Rome, was not accustomed to settling its conflicts in a peaceful manner at the behest
of others. Institutions such as arbitration – favoured methods of conflict resolution
in the context of a koinon – held and hold little appeal for states such as this, and
throughout its history Sparta had regularly refused offers of mediation or arbitration
of its disputes.51
When Philopoimen exploited the confusion that reigned following the murder
of Nabis to bring Sparta into the League in 192, he initially had some support in
Sparta itself.52 This support, however, was neither firmly rooted nor long-lasting,
and shortly thereafter the anti-Achaian contingent in Sparta came to the fore. Sparta
defected from the league and offered deditio to the Roman consul, Marcus Fulvius
Nobilior.53 Given the Spartan self-image of political independence, this act of sub-
mission is stunning, and as such mirrors the earlier Achaian decision to throw in
with Makedon during the reign of Kleomenes III. The extremity of these decisions
demonstrates just how much fear and loathing each party inspired in the other.
If emotional decision-making was on the table, it was not restricted solely to
the Spartans. After Fulvius told both Spartans and Achaians to stop fighting and to
47 See Piérart 2007, 40.

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

man answer – Philopoimen moved ahead with forcing Sparta back into the League.
The Achaians now decided that the time had come to crush Spartan independence.54
In addition to the penalty of paying for the rebuilding of the stoa at Megalopolis (a
penalty no doubt more important for its symbolism than for its actual cost), Sparta’s
walls were destroyed, its exiles returned, its border territories redefined,55 and its
Lykourgan constitution abolished in favour of the laws and constitutions of the
Achaians: “For thus they would be of one body and would agree more easily on
everything”, as Livy says.56
Livy’s fatuous conclusion probably already appeared in the rationalist Polyb-
ios, who could not understand why the Spartans would be reluctant to embrace the
superior institutions of the Achaian koinon. Enough has been said to establish the
fact that neither past nor present relations with the koinon or with its constituent
members were apt to make Sparta ever a contented member of the League. As Pau-
sanias said, “the policy of the Achaeans was hostile to the Lacedaemonians; for the
Argives and the Arcadian group formed not the smallest element in the League.”57
Far from appreciating the blessing of Achaian laws and institutions, the Spartans
viewed the loss of their ancestral constitution – a marker of their own ethnic identity
– as an unbearable affront, and rightly so: both the abolition of the Lykourgan con-
stitution (insofar as it still existed) and the return of various sets of Spartan exiles
would have been deliberate attempts on the part of the koinon to keep Sparta weak
and internally divided by attacking the very core of its cultural particularism. A
more calculated response might have been to reintegrate Sparta on the same terms
as in 192, since that would have reduced the chance for future grievances, but the
Achaians were just as passionate as the Spartans, and perhaps under Philopoimen’s
leadership especially so.58
While there is always considerable potential for anachronistic imprecision and
false or misleading analogies, it may be illuminating here to examine a modern
model of federalism: in this context I would like to suggest the example of Canada
and the province of Québec.59 The reason for doing so is that this example presents
an opportunity to highlight the psychological mechanisms underlying nationalism,
separatism, and federalism, particularly in the case of a single large member poten-
tially at odds with the rest of the union. Ideology and emotion and ethnic identity
play a significant role in a federated polity, whatever its structure, and underpinning
all of this is history and memory.
54 Livy 38.32–34.
55 The Belminatis once again went back to Megalopolis (Livy 38.32; Paus. 7.8.5–6).
56 Livy 38.34: ita unius eos corporis fore et de omnibus rebus facilius consensuros.
57 4.29.7; trans. Jones and Ormerod (Loeb) 1918.
58 We may compare the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, in terms of a compact that laid the ground-
work for future trouble. On Philopoimen’s consistent attachment to a policy of keeping Sparta
down, see Livy 38.31.1.
59 Although Canada, unlike the Achaian League, is considered to be a single state, within Canada
the individual provinces wield considerable power and have primary control of numerous ser-
vices and resources.
186 Sheila Ager
Most Canadians (and I write as one) like to think that when the rest of the world
contemplates Canada at all, it thinks of it as a not very important, but peaceful and
internally cohesive country. We might compare the complacency many Canadians
tend to feel about the state of affairs in their own nation with the Achaian smugness
reflected in Polybios. Nevertheless, the sheer size and relatively sparse population
of Canada have facilitated secessionist movements over time in various provinces
from east to west.60 The most significant of these movements is the one which has
at its heart a clear ethnic issue: there is and has been for a long time strong support
in Francophone Québec for separation from the rest of Canada. Québec’s identity
and unique place in Canada go back to the days of North American colonization
and the enduring conflict between European powers, in this case Britain and France.
In 1759 at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the British forces defeated the French
at Québec City, both the English General Wolfe and the French General Montcalm
dying as a result of their wounds; the fact that both men are commemorated as he-
roes speaks to the ethnic divide in Canadian culture. By the Treaty of Paris of 1763,
which put an end to the Seven Years’ War (known in Québec as the War of the
Conquest), the French ceded most of their North American holdings to Britain. The
British North America Act of 1867 established the confederation of the Dominion
of Canada, and although Canada’s constitution was patriated in 1982 under then
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the British monarch still remains Canada’s formal
head of state.
Although proponents of the sovereignty movement in Québec argue that a com-
pelling rationale for separation is Canada’s failure to abide by the spirit of the initial
federation agreement in 1867,61 there can be no doubt that the chief popular appeal
lies in emotional factors of history and memory and identity. This assertion is in no
way intended to denigrate the validity and strength of such factors; indeed, my point
has been all along that emotion is of significant (and insufficiently acknowledged)
importance in political decision-making. In a recent article exploring the continued
strength of ‘sub-state nationalism’, André Lecours emphasizes the power of the
continuing historical narratives in places such as Québec, fueling feelings and be-
haviours that are ‘a-rational (although not necessarily irrational)’.62
Such emotion finds clear expression in Québec’s provincial motto, ‘je me sou-
viens’ (‘I remember’), inscribed over the doors of the Québec legislature and since
1978 the tagline on Québec license plates. Two full centuries after the British con-
quest, separatist feelings in Québec reached unprecedented heights with the for-
mation in 1968 of the Parti Québécois (PQ), a provincial political party whose main
60 Since Confederation, separatist movements have appeared in the Atlantic provinces of Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in the prairie provinces (Manitoba and Saskatchewan),
and in the west (Alberta and British Columbia), in addition to Québec. This enumeration does
not even begin to address the situation and sentiments of the indigenous peoples of Canada:
Canada has more than once been criticized in the international community for the way in which
it has dealt with its indigenous population, and certainly the residential school system was a
prime example of misguided and destructive attempts at assimilation.
61 Facal 2009; Rocher 2009.
62 Lecours 2012, 275.
platform was and is the separation of Québec from Canada. In the same year, the
province significantly renamed its legislature the ‘Assemblée nationale du Québec’.
Although the vast majority of Québec separatist movements have been peaceful in
nature, Canada experienced its own brand of terrorism at this time, when the ex-
tremist militant Front de Libération du Québec, the FLQ, engaged in a wave of
bombings, kidnappings, and murder that culminated in the so-called October Crisis
of 1970 when the Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, invoked the War Measures Act.
The PQ, in pursuance of its mandate to make Québec a sovereign state, has held
two referenda on the question of separation from Canada, first in 1980 and again in
1995. In 1980, the separatist cause received 40.44% of the vote. Fifteen years later,
the margin was much closer, with the pro-separatist vote at 49.42%: in 1995, virtu-
ally half the electorate of Québec wanted out. If they felt (and feel) this strongly
after more than two centuries in the union, it should not be surprising that Sparta,
many of whose inhabitants could remember firsthand a time when Sparta had
played a leading role in the Peloponnese – and who would also recall the massacre
of eighty leading Spartans under a guarantee of safe conduct from Philopoimen at
Kompasion in 188 BCE – clung to the notion of independence and autonomy.63
Even in 192, when Philopoimen had made no attempt to deconstruct Sparta’s
distinct ethnicity, the simple fact that they now had to acknowledge Achaian he-
gemony would have been emotionally intolerable to many, both ‘a shock and a hu-
miliation’.64 The forcible efforts of the Achaians in 188 and later to make the Spar-
tans conform to Achaian ways were very much at cross-purposes to the creation of
a contented and united koinon: this was not multiculturalism (the brand that Canada
has adopted for itself), it was forced assimilation, with much more in common with
the 1840 Act of Union than the 1867 BNA Act. “For thus they would be of one
body and would agree more easily on everything”, says Livy; but only at the cost
of wiping out everything that made Sparta a distinct society.65
None of this is to argue that second-century Sparta was simply an unfortunate
victim of Achaian brutality. One cannot accuse the Achaians of cultural insensitiv-
ity when the notion of being culturally sensitive would never have occurred to an
ancient Greek in the first place. I simply seek to demonstrate that all the practical
benefits of belonging to a koinon or a federated state, and having access to its insti-
tutions, as listed by Plutarch and Polybios, might not outweigh the emotional and
psychological costs of the loss of autonomy and of ethnic identity, particularly
marked in cases where the history of relations has been so punctuated by hostility.
Polybios is being disingenuous when he implies that the Spartans willingly leapt at
the chance to join Achaia. Many Spartans would have been happier to sell their
souls to the devil than to embrace the Achaians; this may explain the deditio to
63 Livy 38.33.
64 Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 78.
65 The phrase ‘distinct society’ (la société distincte) has been used to describe Québec’s unique
position within Canada. The 1840 Act of Union (uniting Upper Canada and Lower Canada into
a single colony) rose out of a report by Lord Durham, who recommended assimilating the
French in North America completely, they being, ‘a people with no literature and no history’.
188 Sheila Ager
Rome, where, in a twist on the old proverb, the Spartans preferred the devil they
didn’t know to the one they did.
It is possible that without the presence of Rome on the scene, the Spartans might
ultimately have acquiesced in being part of the koinon, though neither Achaian eth-
nicity nor Achaian institutions had proved to be a drawing card. After the 180s
Sparta made no more secessionist moves that we know of until the final crisis of
the Achaian War loomed,66 though it continued to send independent embassies to
Rome, in defiance of alleged Achaian regulations. The Romans continued to re-
spond with diplomatic messages, commissions of inquiry and attempts at arbitra-
tion.67 It is hard to imagine, moreover, that Sparta would ever truly have integrated:
after all, it was its peculiar ways that made it a tourist draw centuries later under the
empire. Tourists today visit Montréal and Québec City in part because they are, by
North American standards, exotic and Old World and ‘other’. Furthermore, the sub-
sequent history of the Messenia–Sparta dispute shows that no matter what over-
arching authority appeared in the Peloponnese, the emotional salience of ‘ancestral
land’ would remain a source of latent conflict. Nevertheless, it seems that it was the
Roman appearance on the scene that created the conditions for the perfect storm.
Ambiguous and contradictory replies to Greek embassies, and passive, if not active,
encouragement of dissension within the League were bound to fan the flames of
both Spartan independence and Achaian indignation.
In 1967, the year before the foundation of the PQ and a time when the FLQ was
still alive and well, the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, visited Canada. Giv-
ing a speech to a large crowd from a balcony in Montréal, he proclaimed ‘Vive
Montréal!’ and ‘Vive le Québec!’, and then ‘Vive le Québec libre!’ Not unnatu-
rally, this caused a significant diplomatic flurry in Ottawa, but perhaps no greater a
flurry than the Roman senate caused as early as 183/2 BCE, during the embassy
season in Rome:
When the Achaeans begged them, if it were possible, to send a force in virtue of their alliance
with Rome to help them against the Messenians, or if not to see to it that no one coming from
Italy should import arms or food to Messene, they paid no attention to either request, and an-
swered them that not even if the people of Sparta, Corinth or Argos deserted the League should
the Achaeans be surprised if the senate did not think it concerned them. Giving full publicity
to this reply, which was a sort of proclamation that the Romans would not interfere with those
who wished to desert the Achaean League, they continued to detain the envoys, waiting to see
how the Achaeans would get on at Messene. 68
66 Sparta seceded sometime in 182 BCE, when Messenia was in revolt from the League; both
Messenia and Sparta were brought back in by Lykortas (Polyb. 23.16–18; Piper 1986, 128–
131; Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 82f).
67 Achaian rules about foreign embassies: Paus. 7.12.5; Mackil 2013, 349 modifies this broad
statement, pointing out that Achaian cities could send embassies about ‘non-political and non-
military’ issues. Roman attempts to arbitrate between Sparta and Megalopolis (and between
Sparta and Argos?) in 163 BCE: Polyb. 31.1.6–7; Paus. 7.11.1–2 (see Ager 1996, nos. 135–
137).
68 Polyb. 23.9.12–14; trans. Paton (Loeb) 2010.
Things went progressively downhill from this point on, both the persistent particu-
larism of Sparta and the efforts of Achaian statesmen such as Philopoimen and
Lykortas to keep what they saw as federal affairs within the federal family driving
the wedge between Rome and Achaia ever deeper.69
By the time the Achaians had united the entire Peloponnese under their koinon,
with the incorporation of Sparta, Messenia, and Elis, there really was little that was
distinctively ‘Achaian’ about them beyond the name. But if Achaian ethnicity had
its limits, Spartan ethnicity, it seems, did not. The Achaians, committed to federal
growth, which entailed the incorporation of ‘others’, were thereby committed to an
inclusive strategy that would by definition weaken the sense of a specific ‘Achaian-
ness’. The Spartans, on the other hand, clung with a dogged persistence to their
memories of a distinctive historical and geographical identity, and the Spartan am-
bassadors who argued their case before Tiberius in 25 CE cited centuries-old annals
and the songs of poets to prove their case.70 The Achaians were unable to bring to
bear any ethnic charisma to rival such local loyalties, and while they may have
provided what they saw as institutional advantages, Sparta had no more esteem for
such advantages than Québec sovereigntists have for the ‘gift’ of Canadian feder-
alism. Canada too struggles to define what constitutes a quintessential Canadian
‘identity’ in the face of multiple ethnic identities within its borders. It may be that
any federated state will always face the barrier of potentially divisive ethnic alle-
giances, and that federalism itself will always remain a chancy basis for the creation
of a state.71 As for Sparta, if asserting its own ethnicity and autonomy meant bring-
ing down the League as a whole, it was clearly prepared, and indeed eager, to do
so.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ager, S.L. (1996) Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C., Berkeley.
Arnaoutoglou, I. (2009–2010) Dispute Settlement between Poleis-Members of the Achaean League.
A New Source, Dike 12–13, 181–201.
Balot, R.K. (ed.) (2009) A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Malden.
Athens.
Cartledge, P. and A. Spawforth (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A Tale of Two Cities, Lon-
don/New York.
69 Other Achaian statesmen, such as Diophanes (strategos 192–191) and Kallikrates (strategos
180–179 and Polybios’ bête noir), counseled greater attention to Roman desires: Livy 38.32.6–
7, 41.23–24; Polyb. 22.10, 24.8–10, 30.13, 30.29, 30.32; Paus. 7.11.
70 The Messenians put forward precisely the same kind of evidence; cf. Chaniotis 2004.
71 See Smith (ed.) 1995; Gagnon (ed.) 2009; Karmis 2009.
190 Sheila Ager
Chaniotis, A. (2004) Justifying Territorial Claims in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Begin-
nings of International Law, in E.M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The Law and the Courts in
Ancient Greece, London, 185–213.
Christien, J. (2006) The Lacedaemonian State: Fortifications, Frontiers and Historical Problems, in
S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds.), Sparta and War, Swansea, 163–183.
Cox, E.W. (2010) Why Enduring Rivalries Do – or Don’t – End, Boulder/London.
Crocker, C.A., F.O. Hampson, and P. Aall (eds.) (2005a) Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of
Intractable Conflict, Washington.
Crocker, C.A., F.O. Hampson, and P. Aall (2005b) Mapping the Nettle Field, in C.A. Crocker, F.O.
Hampson, and P. Aall (eds.), Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict,
Washington, 3–30.
Dallaire, R.A. (2003) Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, Toronto.
Diehl, P.F. (ed.) (1998) The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries, Urbana/Chicago.
Diehl, P.F. (ed.) (1999a) A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict,
Nashville/London.
Diehl, P.F. (1999b) Territory and International Conflict: an Overview, in P.F. Diehl (ed.), A Road
Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, Nashville/London, viii-xx.
Diehl, P.F. and G. Goertz (2000) War and Peace in International Rivalry, Ann Arbor.
Eckstein, A. (2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley.
Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic
Mediterranean, 230–170 BC, Malden.
Facal, J. (2009) Conflicting National Identities and Federalism: A Quebec Perspective on the
Change Occurring in Canada’s Political System, in A.-G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Cana-
dian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions, Toronto, 213–223.
Fornara, C.W. (1983) Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War, Second edition, Cam-
bridge.
Funke, P. and N. Luraghi (eds.) (2009) The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian
League, Washington.
Gagnon, A.-G. (ed.) (2009) Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institu-
tions, Toronto.
Ganter, A. (2014) Ethnicity and Local Myth, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the
Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford, 228–240.
Goertz, G. and P.F. Diehl (1992) Territorial Changes and International Conflict, London/New
York.
Foundation, Oxford.
Harter-Uibopuu, K. (1998) Die zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon. Zur
friedliche Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln.
Hölscher, T. (1974) Die Nike der Messenier und Naupaktier in Olympia, Jahrbuch des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts 89, 70–111.
Huth, P.K. (1999) Enduring Rivalries and Territorial Disputes, 1950–1990, in P.F. Diehl (ed.), A
Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, Nashville/London, 37–72.
Kaplan, P. (2014) Ethnicity and Geography, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the
Karmis, D. (2009) The Multiple Voices of the Federal Tradition and the Turmoil of Canadian Fed-
eralism, in A.–G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Tradi-
tions, Institutions, Toronto, 53–79.
Koehn, C. (2007) Krieg – Diplomatie – Ideologie. Zur Außenpolitik hellenistischer Mittelstaaten,

Stuttgart.
Lecours, A. (2012) Sub-state Nationalism in the Western World: Explaining Continued Appeal,
Ethnopolitics 11, 268–286.
Levi, P. (1979) Pausanias: Guide to Greece, 2 volumes, Middlesex.
Ludwig, P.W. (2009) Anger, Eros, and Other Political Passions in Ancient Greek Thought, in R.K.
Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Malden, 294–307.
Luraghi, N. (2008) The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge.
Luraghi, N. (2009) Messenian Ethnicity and the Free Messenians, in P. Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.),
The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, 110–134.
Luraghi, N. (2014) The Study of Greek Ethnic Identities, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to
Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester/Malden/Oxford, 213–227.
Luraghi, N. (2015) Traces of Federalism in Messenia, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism
in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 285–296.
Luraghi, N. and A. Magnetto (2012) The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New
Inscription from Messene (With an Appendix by Christian Habicht), Chiron 42, 509–550.
Magnetto, A. (1997) Gli arbitrati interstatali greci II: dal 337 al 196 A.C., Pisa.
Maoz, Z. and B.D. Mor (2002) Bound by Struggle. The Strategic Evolution of Enduring Interna-
tional Rivalries, Ann Arbor.
McInerney, J. (ed.) (2014) A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chiches-
ter/Malden/Oxford.
Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis (1988) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford.
Newman, D. (1999) Real Spaces, Symbolic Spaces: Inter-related Notions of Territory in the Arab–
Israeli Conflict, in P.F. Diehl (ed.), A Road Map to War. Territorial Dimensions of Internatio-
nal Conflict, Nashville/London, 3–34.
Nielsen, T.H. (2015) The Arkadian Confederacy, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in
Paton, W.R. (2010–2012) Polybius: The Histories, 6 volumes, revised by C. Habicht and F.W. Wal-
bank, Cambridge.
Piccirilli, L. (1973) Gli arbitrati interstatali greci I: dalle origine al 338 A.C., Pisa.
Piérart, M. (2001) Philippe et la Cynourie (Thyréatide): les frontiers du partage des Héraclides, in
R. Frei-Stolba and K. Gex (eds.), Recherches récentes sur le monde hellénistiques, Bern, 27–
41.
Piérart, M. (2007) La question des frontières entre Sparte et Argos: les frontières du partage des
Héraclides, in N. Birgalias, K. Buraselis, and P. Cartledge (eds.), The Contribution of Ancient
Sparta to Political Thought and Practice, Pyrgos, 33–47.
Piper, L.J. (1986) Spartan Twilight, New Rochelle NY.
Pretzler, M. (2005) Pausanias at Mantinea: Invention and Manipulation of Local History, Proceed-
ings of the Cambridge Philological Society 51, 21–34.
Pretzler, M. (2009) Arcadia: Ethnicity and Politics in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE, in P.
Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian
League, Washington, 86–109.
Rizakis, A. (2015) The Achaian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek An-
tiquity, Cambridge, 118–131.
192 Sheila Ager
Rocher, F. (2009) The Quebec-Canada Dynamic or the Negation of the Ideal of Federalism, in A.–
G. Gagnon (ed.), Contemporary Canadian Federalism: Foundations, Traditions, Institutions,
Toronto, 81–131.
Rosen, S.P. (2005) War and Human Nature, Princeton.
Roy, J. (2003) The Achaian League, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of Euro-
pean Community in History II, Athens, 81–95.
Sissa, G. (2009) Political Animals: Pathetic Animals, in R.K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek
and Roman Political Thought, Malden, 283–293.
Smith, G. (ed.) (1995) Federalism: The Multiethnic Challenge, London/New York.
Thein, A. (2014) Messenia, Ethnic Identity, and Contingency, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion
to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 285–297.
Tir, J. and P.F. Diehl (2002) Geographic Dimensions of Enduring Rivalries, Political Geography
21, 263–286.
Urban, K. (1979) Wachstum und Krise des Achäischen Bundes, Wiesbaden.
Wiegand, K.E. and E.J. Powell (2011) Past Experience, Quest for the Best Forum, and Peaceful
Attempts to Resolve Territorial Disputes, Journal of Conflict Resolution 55, 33–59.
INTERNAL MECHANISMS, EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS OF
THE ACHAIANS: A NUMISMATIC APPROACH*
Catherine Grandjean
Université de Tours
For while many have attempted in the past to induce the Peloponnesians to adopt a common
policy, no one ever succeeding, as each was working not in the cause of general liberty, but for
his own aggrandizement, this object has been so much advanced, and so nearly attained, in my
own time that not only do they form an allied and friendly community, but they have the same
laws, weights, measures and coinage, as well as the same magistrates, senate, and courts of
justice, and the whole Peloponnesian only falls short of being a single city in the fact of its
inhabitants not being enclosed by one wall, all other things being, both as regards the whole
and as regards each separate town, very nearly identical.
Polybios 2.37.9–11 (translation W.R. Paton, Loeb, 1922)
Polybios, a Megalopolitan member of the Achaian koinon, is quite likely to have

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

1 Pedech 1964, 378f; Chantraine 1972, 175–190.
194 Catherine Grandjean
especially in Germany where the history of the federal states has met with keen
interest.2
In the midst of this scholarly interest, coins are conspicuously absent from the
discussion of the nature of the Achaian koinon and its institutions. However, Polyb-
ios tends to consider weights, measures and coinage on the one hand, and genuine
political institutions (such as laws, magistracies, councils and law-courts) on the
other with seemingly equal importance when evaluating a federation or constitu-
tion. Coupling coinage (nomisma) to law (nomos) underlines the essential link be-
tween the two words. Nomisma was originally the poetic double of nomos, as E.
Laroche has demonstrated.3
This passage conspicuously refers to Aristotle’s text on coinage: “In fact,
money exists by agreement, as an exchangeable form of need. This is the reason for
our calling it nomisma, because it does not exist naturally but through custom (no-
mos)…” (Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1133b). Yet Polybios’ thinking seems to extend be-
yond this Aristotelian philosophical quotation, and becomes both personal and
pragmatic.
This stands as a measure of just how important the issue of coinage was to
Polybios, and how relevant it is to study monetary elements as a way of better un-
derstanding the political reality of a given situation or institution. Several questions
may be raised about the structures of the koinon, and they will be dealt with first in
terms of coinage.
Achaian coins were minted at different periods, beginning with the Classical coin-
age documented through a small set of coins of Aeginetic standard: a unicum stater
(Head of Demeter Panachaia or Achaia?/Zeus Amarios), some drachms and hem-
idrachms (FIG.1). This coinage must date to the first half of the 4th century BCE,
before 330, maybe between 367–362 after the end of the alliance with Sparta. This
would thus take place during the short-lived democratic koinon, while the Achaian
oligarchs had taken refuge in Elis, or during the 3rd Sacred war.4
The Peloponnesian monetary system referred to by Polybios in this text is based
on silver and bronze coinage with the types and ethnic hallmarks of the Achaian
koinon. We will focus on the Hellenistic koinon coinage initiated in 281/280. It
consists mainly of small silver coins, hemidrachma or triobols, and bronze coins
that Heinrich Chantraine justifiably divided into two groups (ältere and jüngere).
The ältere group is a small set of coins about which we know very little. They
are triobols or hemidrachms of Aeginetic standard with the head of Zeus on the
2 Corsten 1999; Lehmann 2001; Beck and Funke 2015.

3 Laroche 1949.
4 Kraay 1976, 100f (c. 370–362); Psôma and Tsangari 2003 (3rd Sacred war); Grandjean 2003,
28–32, c. 370-c. 330; LHS Auction 96, Coins of Peloponnesos The BCD Collection, May 2006:
107 (c. 370–360).
Internal Mechanisms, External Relationships of the Achaians: A Numismatic Approach 195
obverse and a monogram with the letters ΑΧ standing for ΑΧΑΙΩΝ in a laurel
wreath on the reverse (fig.2). It also features bronze coins with a similar format and
types; some of them have symbols like a star or club. It was probably struck only
in Achaia proper and in small quantities as only 5 ± obverse dies are known, which
may mean that it was a small issue.5 M. Thompson insisted on the stylistic resem-
blance and the presence of a wreath with ties above on the ältere triobols and on
the first jüngere triobols issued at Corinth c. 196/5. But for the dating of silver coins,
no hoard is chronologically decisive.6 However, a dating for at least some of the
bronze coins as early as the 360s seems to be indicated, since some have been found
in strata of about c.360 BCE at Olympia.7 This coinage hardly circulated outside
the Achaian heartland. H. Chantraine is therefore right to assert that it is not the
common coinage mentioned by Polybios. Whether it was minted at Dyme (some-
times a delta appears on the reverse) or not, it is very likely to have been the coinage
of the core of the Achaian koinon.
As the koinon founded in 281/280 expanded beyond the limits of Achaia, a
significant coinage unique to this process did not yet appear. Silver used in the Pel-
oponnese in the 3rd century BCE consisted largely of Alexander tetradrachms struck
both during his reign and after his death, as well as civic triobols issued in the 4th
and 3rd centuries (from Peloponnese and Central Greece) along with royal silver
coins. Some of these cities minted posthumous Attic-standard alexanders (FIG.3
from Argos, with the harpa), but the production stopped when the jüngere coinage
began with its federal standard; that is to say, the reduced Aeginetic standard. It has
been plausibly suggested that these Peloponnesian alexanders represented a coinage
of a quasi-federal nature.8 The koinon had to pay for the army of Antigonos Dôsôn
(225–222), and aided Eumenes against Antiochos III (189–188).
As is to be expected, the cities which were the most at odds with the koinon,
namely Sparta (under kings Areus and Kleomenes III, then under Nabis) and Mes-
sene (when it revolted against the koinon in 183/2 BCE) struck autonomous
tetradrachms of the Attic standard.9 Polybios’ Achaian coinage must be what Chan-
traine called the jüngere coinage which features hemidrachma or triobols of the
reduced Aeginetic standard – or Symmachic standard – and also bronze coins.10
5 Nicolet-Pierre and Oikonomides 1991, pl.3 no.86–91 and pl. 4, no.92–94.

6 Abai Hoard IGCH 195 and Zakynthos Hoard IGCH 245 are mixtures of 4th and 3rd century
coins.
7 Moustaka 1999, 164; Warren 2007, 109–111.
8 According to Troxell 1973 and Price 1991, 155–166: during the Kleomenan and Social
wars (225–215 BCE): Pellene, Megalopolis, Corinth, Sicyon, Argos + 10 other Peloponnesian
mints; during the Antiochian War (c. 190–188): Argos and Messene. Some Argive and Messe-
nian alexanders have been discovered in Syria (Baiyada hd IGCH 1541; Latakia hd 1759 IGCH
1544) or in Turkey (Mektepini hd IGCH 1410); a harpa as an Argive symbol and the same
monogram appears on alexanders as well as on Argive Achaian jüngere triobols issued later.
9 Grunauer von Hoerschelmann 1978; Grandjean 2003.
10 Clerk 1995; Thompson 1968; Warren 2007.
On a series of bronze coins issued in the name of 45 or 47 cities,11 the obverse

features Zeus leaning on his sceptre and carrying a Nike, while a female figure ap-
pears on the reverse which bears the inscription ΑΧΑΙΩΝ together with the polis’
ethnic mention in the genitive form, and sometimes also a name (FIG.4 from Phi-
galia). These were issued in a single run dating to 168–150, and the production was
extensive with more than 1600 obverse dies. This coinage hardly circulated outside
the territory of each issuing city, except for the numerous coins minted at Pellene,
Sicyon, and Tegea. To quote H. Chantraine’s apt phrase we have here a ‘Janus-like
coinage’: half federal, half civic, with a frequent ambivalence in the productions of
the koina – just like the Boiotian koina or the Lycian koinon.12 We thus return to
Polybios’ observation about how similar the koinon was to a city-state.
The main silver currency of the Achaian koinon is a massive collection of tri-
obols or hemidrachms of reduced aeginetic standard issued in the name and using
the symbols of 19 member cities (as many as 16 issued at the same period). These
silver coins are the same as the earlier series but have been further adorned with the
specific symbols, letters or monograms of each city (e.g. FA for Elis, FIG.5) along
with letters, names or monograms used as mint marks.
M. Thompson considered that that total body of coinage could be divided into
three groups according to the increasing use of adjunct markings:
• The Early group issued by 11 cities;
• The Late group issued by 16 cities;
• The Later (Final) group by 7 cities or more.
Judging from the seminal works of M. Thompson and H. Chantraine, coin produc-
tion did not start before 195. Some other dates could be considered, especially 191
when the annexation of Elis and Messene completed the unification of the Pelopon-
nese, or 188 when the koinon was reformed by Philopoimen, and Aigion was no
longer considered as the sole capital.13
On the other hand, the date at which they stopped being minted is still unre-
solved. While numismatists agree that the first two groups of jüngere coinage ought
to be dated before 146, they disagree about the third (‘later’ or ‘final’) group, citing
either the Achaian War or the 1st century BCE, since Chr. Boehringer has dated the
final issues and some civic series of triobols (Messene, Koroni, Argos, Patras,
Sparta, Sicyon, Megalopolis) to the 1st century BCE (from the Mithridatean war in
Greece to Actium). An Achaian koinon was restored after 146 and large quantities
11 Many of them had never struck any coin previously or would ever again.
12 Lehmann 2001: 58–61; Troxell 1982; Salmon 1994: 217–230.
13 M. Thompson 1968 dated the beginning of these issues at Corinth, Sicyon, Patras, Argos, Ko-
roni, Messene, and Elis c. 195 (Corinth entered the Achaian koinon in 196; Argos in 195) until
189/188 (the war against Nabis and the expedition against Sparta). Chantraine 1972, 187 has
considered that the beginning of the new silver coinage was connected with the reform in 189/8
concerning the holding of federal synodoi, previously at Aigion, thereafter in different cities of
the koinon (cf Livy 38.30.3) = and indeed, the janiform coinage (one side federal, one side
with civic symbols and markings) appears to be kata koinē kai kata poleis (cf Polyb. 2.37.9–
11).
of triobols belonging to the third group can be found in first century hoards in very
good condition.14
The Achaian coinage studied here circulated mainly in Peloponnese, but also
in central and western Greece, often in relation with the Makedonian wars – as Y.
Touratsoglou and E. Tsourti have demonstrated – and Boiotian/Thessalian coinage
can be found quite frequently in many Peloponnesian hoards.15 These hoards, dating
back to the later Hellenistic period, occasionally combine some old coins of the 4th
century BCE with more recent ones, as is the case in contemporary hoards from
central Greece. Most feature standard or reduced Aeginetic coins, but also earlier
or more recent coins of Attic or Rhodian standards. The Peloponnese did not form
a limited monetary zone — a richly profitable domain for the state as was the case
for the Ptolemaic kingdom — but was connected to a kind of monetary koinē
stretching from Thessaly to the Peloponnese and from western Greece to Euboea
(with the exception of Attica). Associating with minor coinages whose converging
standards, achieved through metal clipping, made it easier to exchange different
currencies.16 What is certain is that cities of the Achaian koinon struck only coinage
of the reduced Aeginetic standard during this period.
It is more difficult to tackle the question of whether the koinon’s member cities
simultaneously struck federal and autonomous triobols, both of reduced Aeginetic
standard, because putting a date on specific types of Megalopolitan and Spartan
coins is still quite tricky – cf. federal and civic triobols issued at Messene with the
same obverse die. What is clear, on the other hand, is that some cities did simulta-
neously strike koinon and autonomous bronze coins.17
Several questions may now be raised about the structures of the koinon in terms of
coinage: How were competences and power shared between the authorities of the
koinon and the cities? How autonomous were the cities?
We shall focus on the organization of the production of silver during the Early
and Late periods of the Achaian coinage. We shall not include the ‘Final’ issues in
the present discussion because their chronology is still challenged.
14 Boehringer 1991; Warren 1999; Grandjean 2003; contra: Touratsoglou and Tsourti 1991;
Lakakis-Marchetti 1996; Oikonomides, Lakakis-Marchetti, Marchetti 2007. Numismatists are
still in the middle of the debate on that hypothesis, but the technical features of these final
issues (die studies, metrology, markings) have never been really studied: that seems to be nec-
essary (cf the study in progress of the Olympia Hoard, IGCH 270, by A. Moustaka and C.
Grandjean).
15 Touratsoglou and Tsourti 1991.
16 Cf. for example the hoards Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (IGCH 1973) 242, 246, 258, the
Patras hoard Coin Hoards (CH 1994) 8, 454, and the hoards from Pselalonia, Patras (Tsangari
and Alexopoulou 2003; cf. Hackens 1968, 95; Giovannini 1978).
17 Messenian bronze civic and federal coins feature the same name on the reverse: ΔΕΞΙΑΣ. The
same magistrate or benefactor may have been in charge of both issues (Grandjean 2003).
During the ‘early period’ (c.195/c.188–c.167 BCE), at least eleven mints struck
triobols, most of them in the east and southeast of Peloponnese. The main mints
were Antigoneia/Mantinea, Megara, and Patras. The amount of production doesn’t
seem to obey the demographic proportional principle used for the designation of
the nomographoi at the same time according to the Inscription from Aigion dating
to c. 191–c.182 BCE.18
Sixteen mints struck triobols during the ‘late period’ (c. 167/160–c.150/146),
most of them in the north. The main mints were at Elis and, as previously, Megara
(as a border city?). Accordingly, the distribution of the production of these coins
in the Peloponnese seems to be erratic and unequal.
According to hoards and excavations, the distribution of federal silver in the
Peloponnese gives the same picture. In Achaia, most of the coins found have been
issued at Patras, Elis, and Messene (in the western Peloponnese). The portion of
Megara and Antigoneia remains significant, but lower than the previous mints.19
Few federal triobols have been found in the excavations at Corinth, Nemea, and
Argos from nearby and/or main mints: Patras 3, Antigoneia/Mantinea 3, Megara 2,
Tegea 3, and Elis 3. The landscape is quite similar in Laconia–Messenia: Patras 29,
Elis 31, Antigoneia 25, Megara 12, Sparta 10, Messene 5.20
Contemporary European studies on the distribution of the Euro gives a similar
picture: the Euros issued in France and in Germany tend to circulate all over Europe,
unlike those issued in smaller countries.21
Therefore, in the Achaian koinon, monetary circulation seems to reflect a natu-
ral circulation of coinage: one can neither detect a political influence on this patter
nor a resistance to it.
To go further, a hundred Achaian coins and other Peloponnesian triobols (Ar-
gos, Sicyon, Megalopolis, Patras, Messene, Sparta) dating to the 3rd–1st centuries
BCE of the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque nationale de France have
been analysed using the Orleans cyclotron. The results point to some interesting
developments.
The weights of the Achaian koinon coins are more homogenous than those of
the other Peloponnesian (civic) triobols, but the silver bullion weight (silver is only
a component of the alloy) of Achaian coins varies greatly. This means that federal
authorities may well have controlled the end product (i.e. the weight of the coins),
but that federal mints may have enjoyed unexpected freedom over the way the metal
alloy was prepared. This was an essential stage in the manufacturing process of
coins as their commercial value depended on their purity in silver. Therefore, it
seems clear that the main point for the Achaians was not to get a prominent inter-
national coinage, but to give the Peloponnese a common coinage, as Polybios wrote.
18 Rizakis 2003.
19 Zougra hoard (IGCH 261) cf Oeconomides, Lakakis-Marchetti, Marchetti 2007; Patras hoard
1973 (CH 8.454) cf. Agallopoulou-Kalliontzi 1979.
20 Vellies hoard (CH 8.371); Epidaurus Limera hoard IGCH 258; Grandjean 2003; Messenia
hoard (IGCH 301).
21 Banque de France Eurosystème 2011; Deutsche Bundesbank Eurosystem 2011.
M. Thompson has shown that some silver federal triobols from Patras and Elis
were struck with common obverse dies. This does not seem consistent with the no-
tion that cities were left free to mint. She also underlined the similarity in the fea-
tures of Zeus on the triobols struck by Antigoneia, Megalopolis and Messene
around 175–168 BCE, which could come from one single mint, perhaps in Messene.
And the “increasing use of adjunct markings” on the coins could instead point to
centralized control of the coin production. This could lead us to think that produc-
tion was centralised, prompting us to reconsider the question of syntelia and exam-
ine its validity in terms of numismatics. The notion once advanced by A. Ferrabino
that the Achaian koinon was divided into military and tax districts was revived by
T. Corsten and further considered by G. A. Lehmann and A. Rizakis.22 A. Ferrabino
claimed the koinon was at that time divided into three districts or syntelies focused
on Argos, Megalopolis, and Patras. Thomas Corsten calculated that there were at
least five districts until 208/207 – which is the date mentioned in the Megalopolis
inscription concerning Magnesia on the Meander (Syll.3 559). These districts were
then redrawn into three more important districts around Patras, Megalopolis, and
Argos. A. Rizakis later showed that this theory may be uncertain except in the case
of the Patras district, and the coins do indeed agree with him. Zinc is very seldom
found in Peloponnesian coins. The only coins of the Achaian koinon that have been
found to contain Zinc are from the Achaian cities of Aigion, Dyme, and Patras,
along with an Elean coin, out of which two dies are identical to the Patras Achaian
coinage. Given that autonomous triobols later minted in Patras also contain some
zinc, and that Patras was the most important mint in the northwestern Peloponnese,
it might well then seem that the alloy used by other mints was prepared there. This
in turn leads us to wonder whether the Patras syntelia, whose existence is attested
in 217 and in 146 (Polybios 4.59–60; 5.95, 5–9; 38, 16.4), was also a monetary
district.
Yet the homogeneity of the silver coins could lead us to suppose that they were
controlled in various ways by the federal state, hence the link made by Polybios
between weights, measures, and coins. The fact that there were common dies and
central mints is evidence that production was at least partly conceived and planned
at a higher level than that of the cities. Surviving documents certainly do not allow
us to conclude whether this situation resulted from a federal decision or from agree-
ments initiated by cities of their own free will. However, The Patras syntelia has to
be regarded as a separate case altogether, but it may belong to the old core of the
Achaian koinon.
Another question arises regarding the role these coinages played in the creation
of a Peloponnese united under the authority of the Achaian koinon. Polybios pre-
22 Ferrabino 1921; Corsten 1999; Lehmann 2001; Rizakis 2003.

sents money both as an element underlying military power and as an important con-
stituent in the creation of an ‘allied and friendly community’; in short, currency is
a factor behind unification just as much as shared laws and magistracies. The ab-
sence of coinage had limited the power of Sparta, and the city had never succeeded
in uniting the Peloponnese under its leadership because it had not worked in the
common interest, but for its own good motivated by avarice (just like the Make-
donians or the Aitolians). In contrast, the Achaians were so fully dedicated to the
general interest that the Peloponnese was completely united and brought together
by common friendship, like a single city. In fact, it dispensed everything which
compounds the political unity of a city-state, and notably money, whose importance
to the broader social construct was known by the ancients only too well. As Aristo-
tle wrote “They settled upon a custom by which all these things might be bought,
calling it silver coinage nomisma and using it; and by each giving the value of each
thing, they created exchange with one another, and thus kept together the political
association (politikēn koinōnian)” (Aristotle, Mag. Mor. 1.33, 12 [1194a]).
FIGURES
Figure 1: LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. ; 2,67 g ; Achaian siver triobol of
aeginetic standard
Figure 2: CNG Electronic Auction 375, 341. 2016 June 1. 16,18g. Price 736. Argos silver
tetradrachm of attic standard.
Figure 3 LHS Numismatik AG. Auction 96, 376, 2016 May 8. 5,31g ; Pagai/Achaian;
ΧΑΡΜΙΔΑΣ, ΑΧΑΙΩΝ ΠΑΓΑΙΩΝ ; bronze coin.
Figure 4 Dr Busso Pius Nachfolger Auction 378, 177, 2004 April 28. 2,21g. Elis/Achaian – sil-
ver tribal of reduced aeginetic (= symmachic) standard
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agallopoulou-Kalliontzi, P. (1979) Θησαυρος αργυρων τριωβολων απο την Πατραν, Αρχαιολογική

Eφημερίς, 188–199.
Banque de France (2011) La circulation fiduciaire, dix ans après l’introduction de l’euro, La Lettre
du Fiduciaire 2.
Bartzsch, N., R. Gerhard, and F. Seitz (2011) Foreign demand for euro banknotes issued in Ger-
many: estimation using direct approaches, Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies 20, 1–
51.
Boehringer, C. (1991) Zur geschichte der Achaischen liga im lichte des Münzfundes von Poggio
Picenze (Abruzzen), in A. Rizakis (ed.), Αρχαία 'Αχαία και 'Ηλεία, Athens/Paris, 163–170.
Athens.
Chantraine, H. (1972) Der Beginn der jüngeren achäischen Bundesprägung, Chiron 2, 175–190.
Clerk, M.G. (1895) Catalogue of the Coins of the Achaean League, London.
Ferrabino, A. (1921) Il Problema dell’unita nazionale nella Grecia antica, I, Arato di Sicione e
l’idea nazionale, Florence.
Giovannini, A. (1978) Rome et la circulation monétaire en Grèce au IIe s. avant J.-C., Basel.
Grandjean, C. (2000) Guerre et monnaie en Grèce ancienne: le cas du koinon achaien, in J. Andreau,
P. Briant, and R. Descat (eds.), Économie antique. La guerre dans les economies antiques,
Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, 315–336.
Grandjean, C. (2003) Les Messéniens de 370/369 au 1er s. de notre ère, Athens.
Grunauer von Hoerschelmann, S. (1978) Die Münzprägung der Lakedaimonier, Berlin.
Hackens, T. (1968) A propos de la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au IIIe s. av. J.-C.,
Antidorum W. Peremans sexagenario ab alumnis oblatum, Louvain, 69–95.
Kraay, C. M. (1976) Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Oxford.
Lakakis–Marchetti, M. (1996) A propos du monnayage achéens et des trésors qui le font connaître,
ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ, Αφιέρωμα στη Μάντω Οικονομίδου, Athens, 147–156.
Laroche, E. (1949) Histoire de la racine “nem” en grec ancien, in Etudes et commentaires VI, Paris.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1971) The Rights of Cities within the Achaean Confederacy, Classical Philology
66, 81–86.
Lehmann, G. A. (2001) Ansätze zu einer Theorie des griechischen Bundesstaates bei Aristoteles und
Polybios, Göttingen.
Mallwitz, A. (ed.) (1999) Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Berlin.
Moustaka, A. (1999) Die Fundmünzen der Südostgrabung, in A. Mallwitz (ed.), Bericht über die
Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Berlin, 152–179.
Nicolet–Pierre, H. and M. Oikonomides (1991) Le trésor de Zakynthos, Quaderni Ticinesi di Numi-
smatica e Antichità Classiche 20, 161–191.
Oikonomides, M., M. Lakakis–Marchetti, and P. Marchetti (2007) Le trésor de Zougra (IGCH 261)
et la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au IIe siècle, Liber Amicorum T. Hackens, Lou-
vain, 380–426.
O’Neil, J.L. (1984–1986) The Political Elites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues, Ancient Society
15–17, 33–61.
Pedech, P. (1964) La méthode historique de Polybe, Paris.
Price, M.J. (1991) The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus, Lon-
don/Zürich.
Psoma, S. and D. Tsangari (2003) Monnaie commune et Etats Fédéraux la circulation des mon-
nayages frappés par les Etats Fédéraux du monde grec, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis
(eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II, Athens, 111–141.
Rizakis, A. (2003) Le collège des nomographes et le système de représentation dans le Koinon
achéen, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in His-
tory II, Athens, 97–109.
Salmon, P. (1994) Le koinon tōn Boiōtōn, in L.A. Foresti (ed.), Federazioni e federalismo nell’Eu-
ropa antica, Milan, 217–230.
Thompson, M. (1968) The Agrinion Hoard, New York.
Thompson, M., C.M. Kraay, and O. Morkholm (1973) An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, New
York.
Touratsoglou, Y. and E. Tsourti (1991) Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία των τριοβόλων της Αχαïκής
συμπολιτείας στον Ελλαδικό χώρο: η μαρτυρία των θησαυρών, in A. Rizakis (ed.), Αρχαία 'Α-
χαία και 'Ηλεία, Athens/Paris, 171–188.
Troxell, H.A. (1971) The Peloponnesian Alexanders, Museum Notes 17, 41–94.
Troxell, H. A. (1982) The Coinage of the Lycian League, New York.
Tsangari, D.I. and G.Z. Alexopoulou (2003) Deux tresors hellénistiques de Pselalonia de Patras,
Eulimene 4, 153–162.
Walbank, F.W. (1933) Aratos of Sicyon, Cambridge.
Walbank, F.W. (2002) Hellenes and Achaeans: ‘Greek Nationality’ revisited, in F.W. Walbank, Po-
lybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 137–152.
Warren, J.A. (1999) The Achaian League Silver Coinage Controversy Resolved: A Summary, The
Numismatic Chronicle 159, 99–109.
London.
Warren, J.A. (2008) The Framework of the Achaian Koinon, in C. Grandjean (ed.), Le Péloponnèse
d’Epaminondas à Hadrien, Bordeaux, 91–100.
Wartenberg, U. (ed.) (1994) Coin Hoards Greek volume VIII, London.
DISSIMILAR BROTHERS:
SIMILARITIES VERSUS DIFFERENCES OF THE ACHAIAN
AND AITOLIAN LEAGUES
Kostas Buraselis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
I.
Hans Beck has once pertinently remarked that the southern and the northern coast
of the Corinthian Gulf may be seen as a mirror image of each other.1 An often very
narrow coastal plain is immediately followed on both sides by a high mountain
chain. However, while Achaia was early on a landscape of important cities, a num-
ber of them sea-oriented (like Patrai or Aigion), Aitolian settlements were clearly
centred inland and only gradually developing to extensive city structures since the
late classical period.2 The Aitolians’ turn to the Corinthian Gulf was also a later
development, actually secured only after the addition of the stronghold of Naupak-
tos, a grant of Philip II. Those basic geographical similarities but also differences
in practical assets and orientation built up the whole background for the develop-
ment on both sides of the gulf of the most successful Greek federal states of post-
Alexander Greece, those of the Achaians and the Aitolians. These two regular ene-
mies during the same period shared, nevertheless, not only phases of decided col-
laboration (see below) but also other common features in their political and strategic
aims as well as their constitutional and social structure, which may entitle us to call
them ‘dissimilar brothers’. It will be the purpose of this study to examine some of
their various affinities but also their differences, and point to some eventual con-
vergences or even mutual influences on each other’s historical development.
There are two main methodological precautions in this effort. First, the state of
the existing sources on the two confederacies is also dissimilar. As already re-
marked,3 Achaia is privileged by the (even partial) preservation of Polybios’ work,
thus having its data and also viewpoint of things firmly established in our historical
tradition. On the other hand, despite Rizakis’ valuable recent corpus of Achaian
inscriptional evidence4 and some spectacular very recent additions to our relevant
1 Beck 1997, 55.

2 On this difficult question in detail: Funke 1997, esp. 168–72.
3 Thus i.a. Grainger 1999, xvf; Roy 2003, 81.
4 Rizakis 1998, 2008.
206 Kostas Buraselis
sources,5 we possess at present much less inscribed data on Achaia than on Aitolia.
Therefore, the latter’s structure and development can be elucidated by many stone
documents issued by and concerning the league, while the absence of any Aitolian
Polybios cannot be replaced by the scattered information on Aitolia mainly in the
(inimical) Achaian historian’s work and Livius. Furthermore, even Polybios never
speaks in detail about the internal structure of Achaia and even less Aitolia, to a
large extent presupposing his readers’ knowledge of the institutions of both Achai-
ans and Aitolians and concentrating on a narrative history where institutional
flashes are kept to a minimum, often a propagandistically coloured one.
Due to this elliptic infrastructure any reconstruction of the constitutional frame-
work of both leagues necessarily presents essential gaps and uncertainties, which
cannot be filled by whatever observations scholarly labour and ingenuity may pro-
duce as hopeful remedies. This might be best exemplified by the question of the
specific function and political quality of Achaian assemblies, persisting as a noto-
rious ‘Gordian knot’ of ancient institutional history, as we shall also come to see.
Therefore, the inherent fundamental limitations of the present undertaking should
be borne in mind.
II.
As a sort of introduction, a concise comparative sketch of Achaian and Aitolian

foreign policy might help. The external relations of both confederacies contain a
basic point of temporary convergence and then constant divergence in their respec-
tive history: relations with Makedonia. Despite the already mentioned instant fa-
vour of Philip II for Aitolia, both leagues underwent difficult times under Alexander
and developed afterwards in the shadow and as local reactions to the Makedonian
effort to control the world of cities in Southern Greece. This tended to unite them
against a common enemy of their autonomy as it actually happened in their common
action against Demetrios II in the 230s BCE.6 However, another basic point in their
policies was the tendency to expand their respective spheres of influence to the
other side of the Corinthian Gulf. Classical Achaia had once managed to incorporate
Kalydon and Naupaktos in its territories, while Hellenistic Aitolia had not refrained
from planning in the Hellenistic age a partition of Achaia with Antigonos Gonatas,7
and, even later, from often intervening in the ‘Achaian’ Peloponnese. They were
too similar to always keep off hands from each other.
The turning-point of permanent alienation between them came with the Achai-
ans’ sacrifice of their anti-Makedonian orientation to securing their survival as an
important political factor against Kleomenian Sparta and the consequent policy of
5 E.g. the new document from Messene on territorial arbitration within the League: Luraghi-
Magnetto 2012.
6 Pol. 2.44.1. Cf. Hammond-Walbank 1988, 324f.
7 Pol. 2.43.9; 9.34.6. Cf. Hammond-Walbank 1988, 311–313 .
Dissimilar Brothers: Similarities versus Differences of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues 207
a sort of Makedonian-Achaian condominium in the Peloponnese through the Hel-

lenic Alliance of Doson and Aratos. In contrast, the Aitolians never returned to re-
ally and pronouncedly friendly relations with their northern neighbours of Make-
donia. Even after both Aitolia’s and Makedonia’s defeat by the Romans there never
appeared any systematic understanding and collaboration between the two old, now
similarly humiliated enemies. Some diplomatic approaches around the end and after
the Antiochic War cannot be overestimated.8
When the Romans appeared on the chessboard of Greece, Aitolians and Achai-
ans took again always different paths, trying to serve their interests as members of
opposed alliances. The more adventurous Aitolians first welcomed the Romans as
allies in Greece to be also first alienated with, then opposed to them openly and
finally humiliated by them in the Antiochic War. On the other hand, the Achaians,
after their own impressive change of alliance (practically, allegiance) from Make-
donia to Rome in the Second Makedonian War, kept on trying to combine their
struggle for local hegemony in the Peloponnese with their loyalty to Rome until the
bitter end of the Achaian War.9 The Achaians appear on the whole to have acted
with more care and circumspection, ready to accept and sustain compromises, first
with Makedonia and then with Rome, while the Aitolians proved more openly re-
calcitrant both to Makedonian hegemony and then to the fine but firm rules of Ro-
man imperial over-control.
III.
On the institutional level one may again spot various interesting similarities but also
differences between the two ‘brothers’. A sanctuary, that of Zeus Homarios at Ai-
gion for the Achaians,10 that of Apollo at Thermon for the Aitolians,11 constituted
in both cases the traditional centre of the confederacy and its conferential meeting-
point, as also in many other Greek confederacies. However, Aigion, to which the
federal cult of the Achaians was attached, was a polis while Thermon basically no
more than a cult place (and a depository of concomitant offerings and utensils). The
environment of Thermon was a slumbering settlement, only periodically reviving
during the yearly celebrated federal festival of the Thermika and the contempora-
neous assembly of the Aitolians in the autumn, where Aitolian magistrates were
8 Cf. Grainger 1999, 468–473, 507–510, correctly rejecting any serious rapprochement of Philip
V and the Aitolians (through Nikandros) in the last phase of the Antiochic War, even after the
final peace between Aitolians and Rome in 189. Perseus’ alliance with Aitolia (Appian, Mak.
11.1: Αἰτωλοῖς συμμαχήσας) seems on all rest evidence to be just part of Eumenes II’s tenden-
tious presentation of contemporary Makedonia’s success to the Romans and is certainly not to
be interpreted as a general and official re-orientation of Aitolian policy towards Rome and
Makedonia. Cf. Grainger ib., 515, 523; Hammond-Walbank 1988, 494f (less nuanced).
9 An overview of this development is offered by Bastini 1987.
10 Pol. 2.39.6; 5.93.10. Str. 7.385. Cf. the detailed analysis by Rizakis 2013.
11 Pol. 5.8.5–7. Str. 10.3.2 = Ephoros FGrH 70 F 122. Cf. Funke 2013.
elected. The more explicit, earlier established polis-character of the Achaian koinon
may be discerned here, too.
The gradual expansion of the Aitolian confederacy in the third century was ac-
companied by the creation of a second yearly meeting of the Aitolians, called
Panaitolika and taking place at various cities inside the Aitolian territories (thus
e.g. at Hypata, the capital of the Ainianes). The existence of this periodical possi-
bility to convene the Aitolians elsewhere than at their traditional centre certainly
allowed a better integration of new territories into the life of the league as one has
to consider the difficulties of traveling to other places for local Aitolian populations,
especially of lesser means.
While the Aitolians prove here to be early realists, the Achaians remained long
traditionalists. It is noteworthy that they first decided after a debated proposal of
Philopoimen in 188 to organize meetings of their own constitutional bodies also far
from Aigion, which greatly regretted that.12 Thus, later meetings of the Achaians
took place at Megalopolis, Corinth, Argos, Sikyon and other cities as well as Ai-
gion. One can see how important this reform was for the better cohesion of the
Achaian League as several important cities became alternatingly centres of im-
portant discussions and decisions. The Achaians may have been here inspired by
the practical Aitolian example as already Holleaux has thought probable.13
Two other points where one may spot institutional similarities, possibly to be
explained in the same way, concern the principal office of the two leagues and the
beginning of its tenure. Polybios expressly reports that the Achaian League when
revived in 280 and until 255 BCE had as supreme executive officials two strate-
goi.14 Then, beginning with Margos from Keryneia, the Achaians preferred to “en-
trust their whole fate” (πιστεύειν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὅλων) to one strategos, a post to which
distinguished Achaians like Aratos were often elected in later years. Of course,
there could be other models for this innovation. However, the efficiency of Aitolian
leadership, traditionally following the same rule of one general at the head of their
state, in the preceding decades of Galatic invasion and ensuing expansion of the
Aitolians in central Greece, cannot have failed to impress neighbours.
Furthermore, the time of the election of this sole general was for the Aitolians
the autumnal equinox, in the context of the already mentioned Thermika, while the
original respective period of election for the Achaians was according to Polybios
approximately the rise of the Pleiades, that is in late spring/beginning summer.15
This custom was very unpractical in respect to war needs as a general might thus
be already engaged in operations and then have to hand over command to a succes-
sor in the middle of a campaign, a situation that did occur. It is no surprise then that
the Achaians decided a reform of their administrative system in this point, too,
around 210 BCE, probably since the last year of the Social War (217).16 From then
12 Liv. 38.30.1–5. Cf. Errington 1969, 137–140; Roy 2003, 87; Rizakis 2008, 162; Funke 2013,
57.
13 Holleaux 1905, 372.
14 Pol. 2.43.1–2.
15 Pol. 4.37.1–2.
16 Cf. Larsen 1968, 220.
on Achaian generals were also elected and entered their office in the autumn. That
seems again to have been a wise coordination with Aitolian data.
IV.
The circle of those entrusted with the generalship in the two leagues betrays again
similarities and differences. A detailed prosopographical study by James L. O’Neil
has shown that both in Aitolia and in Achaia one finds often members of a social
and administrative elite in possession of this office.17 However, in Achaia we find
cases where a high accumulation of such yearly tenures for one man appears: thus,
sixteen times for Aratos and eight for Philopoimen. In Aitolia the recordman was
Pantaleon I with only five such periods of service, followed by i.a. Thoas with four
and others like Skopas II with three. The generous aristocratic dose in Polybios’
glorified Achaian democracy is obvious. In contrast, there seems to have been much
less room left in Aitolia for the deployment of important leaders’ ambitions. Set-
backs as that experienced by Skopas in his debt-policy seem to find no parallel in
the case of Achaian leadership.
On the geographical level, the same analysis by O’Neil18 showed that in Aitolia,
especially in the period until ca 220 BCE, a frequent provenience for the generals
of the league was the area around Thermon, that is ‘Old Aitolia’, probably for both
practical (propinquity to the place of elections) and essential reasons of continuity
in leadership. At the same time, the distribution of lesser offices in Aitolia seems to
have secured a better internal balance of representation and to have promoted co-
hesion. In Achaia the major cities of originally non-Achaian identity like Megalop-
olis and Sikyon were highly represented in generalship, while others like Argos or
Sparta much less. However, apart from Sparta, this does not seem to have generated
any internal federal tensions originating from poleis rarely or not at all represented
in Achaian leadership.
V.
As far as other magistrates and deliberative bodies are concerned, the two confed-
eracies present again basic similarities and characteristic differences. Both Achai-
ans and Aitolians possessed primary assemblies, councils and boards of magis-
trates.19 In the case of the Aitolians discussion and voting procedure in both already
mentioned popular assemblies of the year followed the norm of Greek democratic
practice, that is general participation of assembled citizens from all member states
17 O’Neil 1984–1986.
18 To which now the more recent one by Grainger 2000, 48–52 may be added.
19 On this basic institutional similarity of the two leagues: Giovannini 1971, 25f.
and personal vote.20 Addressing the assembled people and winning their favour for
whatever proposal is underlined as a means of success for competing statesmen.21
There was a boule with its leading officials, appearing as boularchoi/boular-
chountes, possibly but not necessarily identical with another executive body, the
apokletoi. Both committees seem to have acted as a sort of federal government.22
Important interim decisions between the two yearly assemblies had to be taken on
that administrative level while big issues like war, peace and relevant agreements
were reserved for the gatherings of the people (as in the negotiation of Aitolian
surrender after the Antiochic War).23
The respective state of things for Achaia is at first sight better known, and fi-
nally better debatable. As already noted, the question of Achaian assemblies has
become a notorious crux of Hellenistic constitutional history.24 To summarize our
data, the Achaians did also have a primary assembly, appearing as ekklesia in Po-
lybios, and a boule (a council). A board somehow comparable with the Aitolian
boularchountes/apokletoi seems to have been here the damiorgoi, which were re-
sponsible for convening the deliberative bodies, introducing the questions to be
treated by them and caring for the publication of the ensuing decisions.25 However,
our sources use two further terms to describe these deliberative bodies: synodos and
synkletos, whose significance and function is still disputed. An older orthodoxy,
based on J.A.O. Larsen’s analysis,26 understood synodoi as meetings originally of
all assembled Achaian citizens but later, from c. the beginning of the second cen-
tury, of only the council of the Achaians. Synkletos was in the same view an excep-
tional meeting of the council with an eventual participation of at least part of the
people. This interpretation went hand-in-hand with a view recognizing a gradual
20 Larsen 1952 studied Aitolian assemblies in detail and emphasized the democratic character of
the Aitolian League. Grainger 1999, 171–173, 182–187 examined the subject again but he fi-
nally came to deny the notion of an Aitolian democracy preferring to speak of ‘not merely an
oligarchy, but an aristocracy’ (186). On Aitolian assemblies also: Scholten 2000, 26; Funke
2013.
21 Thus e.g. in Pol. 2.2.10 Aitolian statesmen appear as ‘exhorting the assembled people’
(παρακαλούντων τὰ πλήθη) to win them for their views on how the successive generals should
share glory and booty after an expected victory.
22 Cf. Grainger 1999, 173–178, who understands boularchoi as members of the boula (176) and
apokletoi as a special committee of the council ‘set up for the purpose of planning and of liais-
ing with Antiochos (III)’ (178); Scholten 2000, 27f, who sees the apokletoi as a committee
chosen from the members of the boula to deal with ‘more routine activities, such as the recep-
tion and sending of embassies’.
23 Pol. 20.10.11–17. Liv. 36. 28.7–29.1. Cf. Grainger 1999, 468.
24 A basic (and necessarily selective) bibliography includes: Aymard 1938, with a still noteworthy
concluding sketch (397–421) of Achaian assemblies and their limits of comparison with the
Aitolian ones; Larsen 1968, esp. 223–231; Giovannini 1969; Errington 1969, 6f, 137–140;
Walbank 1970; Roy 2003, 87.
25 Cf. the concise synthesis of the Achaian federal damiorgoi’s functions given by Veligianni-
Terzi 1977, 103–107; Rizakis 2008, 165.
26 Larsen l952.
development of the Achaians from the practice of a direct towards a more repre-
sentative form of democratic procedure. A younger theory (Giovannini)27 has tried
to reclaim the Achaians’ genuine democratic practice by interpreting all attested
synodoi as full popular assemblies and declaring synkletos a constitutional non-en-
tity in the Achaian confederacy, as being just an exceptional sort of gathering but
not a clearly defined and recognized institution of the league.
To begin from this latter point, one may stress first that the term synkletos for a
form of Achaian assembly does not only appear once in Polybios28 but also in an
Oropian decree29 dealing with the presence and diplomatic entreaties of Oropian
exiles to the Achaians in ca 150 BCE. Thus, it would not do to disband term and
notion of the Achaian synkletos from specific constitutional existence and the con-
temporary technical vocabulary. In this inscription the context allows one to see
synkletos as an additional, extraordinary assembly of whatever synthesis to deal
with a special question to be faced by the Achaians. The Oropian request had first
been presented at a regular synodos in Corinth to be examined further at a synkletos
to take place next in Argos. It is reassuring that in the well-known (and vexed)
Polybian passage narrating the context of the Achaean synkletos convened at
Sikyon in 168 BCE to finally decide on sending military aid to Ptolemaic Egypt or
Seleucid Syria, or send an embassy of reconciliation to both, a similar pattern
emerges.30 A synodos at Corinth had been previously convened and, after a hot dis-
cussion, finally declared legally unable to resolve the question so that a subsequent
synkletos had to take place and reach a decision. Polybios expressly reports two
significant facts on this course of events: first that the examination of the requests
for aid from Alexandria and Antiochia ‘in full assembly’ (ἐν ἀγορᾷ) was in the end
recognized as inappropriate and interrupted. Then (and understandably therefore)
those to participate in the synkletos at Sikyon have been only the members of the
Achaian council and all Achaians above the age of thirty (συγκλήτου…, ἐν ᾗ
συνέβαινε μὴ μόνον συμπορεύεσθαι τὴν βουλὴν ἀλλὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀπὸ τριάκοντ'
ἐτῶν).31 The basic reasonable conclusion seems to be that a synkletos was mainly a
body where decisions had to be taken if the argument in a more open assembly
form, for whatever reason, had failed to bring a result. However, the fundamental
core of the Achaian synkletos was the council (boule), supplemented in this case by
all Achaians above the age of thirty. It is remarkable that all younger Achaians were
thus excluded from a meeting with an immediate bearing on their own eventual and
imminent military service! By whatever further constitutional interpretation, this is
an important finding: Achaian deliberations often knew to remain as exclusive as
desirable for the sober efficiency of Achaian government.
27 Giovannini 1969, 7: ‘‘Synklètos’ est bien un terme technique et précis (l’inscription d’Oropos
ne laisse aucun doute sur ce point), mais contrairement à l’opinion généralement admise, il sert
à désigner les assemblées dont ni la composition, ni les compétences ne sont fixées par les lois
achéennes. Autant dire que s’il existe des synklètoi, la synklètos, elle n’existe pas’ (cf. ib. 13).
28 Pol. 29.24.6.
29 IG VII. 411= Syll.3 675= Petrakos, I. Oropos, 307.
30 Pol. 29.24–25.
31 Pol. 24.6.
The synodoi of the Achaians themselves cannot have been exclusive in any
sense as far as physical presence is concerned. We may conclude this from a series
of Polybian passages, not least the famous report on the final and fatal such meeting
at Corinth in the spring of 146 BCE, on the eve of the Achaic War, where Kritolaos
according to Polybios ‘moved and roused the crowds’ (ἐκίνει καὶ παρώξυνε τοὺς
ὄχλους), an unprecedented number of people of low social origin being also force-
fully present (συνηθροίσθη πλῆθος ἐργαστηριακῶν καὶ βαναύσων ἀνθρώπων ὅσον
οὐδέποτε).32 Now, the crucial thing is again which sort of vote this meeting would
result in. Polybios does not fail to allude here to the fact that the risky patriotic
enthusiasm had seized “all the cities but in its totality the city of Corinth” (πᾶσαι
μὲν γὰρ ἐκορύζων αἱ πόλεις, πανδημεὶ δὲ καὶ μάλιστά πως ἡ τῶν Κορινθίων).
This remark is not simply narrative and should be interpreted in a broader but
specific historical context. For we know from two other clear incidents reported by
Livius (that is, finally also from Polybios)33 that the voting procedure of Achaian
synodoi was based on the system of civic representations to them. Thus already at
the historical volte-face-meeting of the Achaians, turning now to collaboration with
Rome, at Aigion in 198 BCE the voting took clearly place by poleis as they were
represented in the synodos, which Livius properly describes as concilium.34 The
same system of voting appears also expressly in the Achaian decision to declare
war against Sparta in 189 BCE as reported by Livius.35 In other words, the voting
members of the assembly were grouped in city delegations, and accompanied by
whatever crowd of Achaians might also be present and willing to express by noise
and shouts their opinions on the arguments presented. It seems to me therefore mis-
taken to try to find here a formal solution to the problem of whether Achaian as-
semblies were bodies of democratic representation or not. They seem to have basi-
cally consisted of the official groups of city delegates in the Achaian boule, the
council, as voters but the presence of whoever Achaian would be practically able to
be present was fully acceptable, and psychologically and finally proved to be
weighty. The Achaians voted in an aristocratic representative fashion but under the
impact of a very democratically composed crowd. In contrast to Aitolia, discreet
methods of aristocratic control were instilled into Achaian deliberative practice of
popular assemblies but the synodoi could not become and did not become a closed
society. A partial remedy of that was the alternative of the synkletos. On the sense
of the latter one should also consider the important detail that Polybios sees no
problem in using the same term to describe in many passages the Roman senate.36
32 Pol. 38.12.10 and 5.

33 Walbank 1976/7, 41f is rightly unwilling to suppose that Livius misunderstood Polybios in
these cases.
34 Liv. 32.22.1–23.3, also. 22.4: supererat unus iusti concilii dies. That not only councillors but
also a crowd of simple citizens was also present and actively involved in the deliberation
emerges repeatedly in the same report (esp. 22.1, 4, 8).
35 Liv. 38.32.1.
36 Cf. the Polybius-Lexikon, Bd. III. 1 (bearb. von C.-F. Collatz / M. Gützlaf / H. Helms), Berlin
2002, s.v. I (Sp. 172–178). The aristocratic, numerically and clearly distinct sense of the term,
compared with that of a full popular assembly, in Polybian usage emerges also from the passage
The essence of a closed (or at least potentially closer) society must have rendered
this usage possible.
On the practical aspect of participation in Achaian synodoi one should also es-
pecially note the report of Polybios on Eumenes II’s offer in 187 BCE to the council
(boule) of the Achaians to finance the participation of the councillors in the ‘com-
mon assemblies’ (κοιναῖς συνόδοις) of the confederacy.37 The apparent conclusion
is that even the core participation of the Achaians, i.e. that of the councillors, in the
synodoi was financially not self-understandable. This must have been also the case,
a fortiori, for most other citizens of Achaia, not in the sense of a notional right but
as a factual possibility. The democratic frame did exist no less than its correspond-
ing aristocratic reality.
VI.
Another point of similarity between the political organization of the Achaian and
the Aitolian confederacy was their (poorly-attested) division into local districts of
military mobilization and general administrative units. The basic term for these dis-
tricts seems to have been telos (τέλος), and the variant to express the active collab-
oration/contingent originating from these local clusters synteleia (συντέλεια).
Thus, Polybios speaks of such a synteleia of Patrai, active in the Social War, who
happened to be under the command of Lykos of Pharai (as a hypostrategos of the
synteleia).38 Patrai as the most important community of the district gave it its name.
A further passage of Polybios, however, presents Dyme, Tritaia and Pharai in a
specific historical context as the most active members of the district under the hy-
postrategos Mikkos from Dyme.39 Thus, four neighbour Achaian cities seem to
have composed this synteleia in the western part of ‘Old Achaia’. The existence of
this organizational unit of Patrai and its synteleia must have continued until the
years of the Achaic War.40 We do not possess further evidence on any other such
districts in Achaia but it would be very improbable to postulate the case of the Pa-
trian synteleia as an exceptional arrangement in the league.
of Pol. 15.1.5 where the Carthaginian σύγκλητος is contrasted to the πολλοί (: the popular as-
sembly!) of Carthage.
37 Pol. 22.7.3.
38 Pol. 5.94.1 (217 BCE): …τοὺς δὲ μισθοφόρους συνέστησε [sc. Aratos] Λύκῳ τῷ Φαραιεῖ, διὰ
τὸ τοῦτον ὑποστράτηγον εἶναι τότε τῆς συντελείας τῆς Πατρικῆς. Cf. on this synteleia and the
office of hypostrategos Larsen 1968, 221; Corsten 1999, 166–170.
39 Pol. 4.59.2: Ὁ δὲ Μίκκος ὁ Δυμαῖος, ὅσπερ ἐτύγχανε κατ' ἐκείνους τοὺς καιροὺς [219 BCE]
ὑποστράτηγος ὢν τῶν ᾿Αχαιῶν, ἐκβοηθήσας πανδημεὶ τούς τε Δυμαίους καὶ Φαραιεῖς, ἅμα δὲ
καὶ Τριταιεῖς ἔχων, προσέκειτο τοῖς πολεμίοις ἀπαλλαττομένοις. The absence of any mention
of Patrai in this context cannot suggest a different local unit (thus also Corsten 1999, 167 with
n. 37), unless Patrai had not yet been added to that of Dyme, Pharai and Tritaia as the main
(and name-giving) community. However, there may have been unknown contemporary reasons
for the Patraian non-appearance in that episode of the early Social War.
40 In this case a derivative adjective denotes the same idea, ib. 38.16.4: Πατρεῖς δὲ καὶ τὸ μετὰ
τούτων συντελικὸν βραχεῖ χρόνῳ πρότερον ἐπταίκει κατὰ τὴν Φωκίδα…
In the case of the Aitolians we do hear with certainty (a) of a ‘telos of Stratos’
(Στρατικοῦ τέλεος) in a decree of land arbitration from Thermon dated to 235–230
BCE, that is in a period when Akarnania, and thus also Stratos, was incorporated
into the Aitolian League,41 and (b) of ‘a telos of the Lokroi’ (Λοκρικοῦ τέλεος)
which produced a certain (Aitolian) boularchon in a Delphic manumission docu-
ment of 189/8 BCE.42 It would be rather bold to conclude much more about the
functional importance of these tele in the federal organization of the Aitolians.43
However, the existence of these geographical-administrative units and their appar-
ent capacity to cover larger areas (like that of the West Lokrian region) distinctly
points again to an affinity with the Achaian League. Let us be content with that in
the framework of this study as any detailed and secure comparison of the two
leagues in this respect seems at present impossible.
VII.
Another remarkable difference in the administrative structure of Achaians and Ai-

tolians is the existence of a high officer of the Achaians with the title of nauarchos
while there is no mention of a similar magistrate in the Aitolian League. The
Achaian nauarchos appears third in the confederacy’s hierarchy after the strategos
and the hipparchos in the document regulating the admission of Orchomenos (c.
234 BCE) into the league.44 That the Achaians possessed and used naval power is
quite natural and attested.45 This was also a not negligible aspect of their strength
as allies of Makedonia and Rome.
41 IG IX.12 1, 3 B, l.2: …κρῖμα γαϊκὸν Στρατικοῦ τέλεος.

42 GDI II. 2070, l.1.
43 Cf. Funke 1997, 158f, and then the substantial analysis by Corsten 1999, 134–159. In any case,
it is clear that we need more sources to feel on safer ground concerning the function of tele in
both the Aitolian and the Achaian Leagues.
44 IG V.2 344= Syll.3 490= Staatsv. III. 499, l.7.
45 Already the integration of Aigina into the Achaian League (229 BCE: Plut., Arat. 34.7, cf. Pol.
2.44.6) suggests some Achaian naval power. In 229 there was a fleet of ten Achaian kataphrak-
toi, manned in an emergency by Achaians and Aitolians together, which dared face the Illyrian-
Akarnanian naval alliance (Pol. 2.9.8–10.5). It is noteworthy that an important ex-strategos of
the Achaian League, Margos of Keryneia, participated and died during those operations. We
have then some evidence from Polybios for naval activities of the Achaians during the Social
War: first, Philip V appears relying partly on Achaian collaboration to build a considerable fleet
in 218 (Pol. 5.2.4). Then, during 217, we read at 5.94.7–9 of naval operations under the Achaian
admiral’s command against the Aitolians. Ib. 95.3 reports that four Corinthian ships would
assist the Makedonian fleet, while ib. 11–12 we hear of repeated successful raids of the Achaian
admiral in the areas of Kalydon and Naupaktos. Livius adds some later instances of Achaian
action at sea: 28.8.7 (in 207 Philip V uses six Achaian ships to cross over from the Peloponnese
to Antikyra), 35.26 (neglect and weakness of the Achaian fleet in Philopoimen’s time, 192
BCE). Thus, the overall verdict of Busolt-Swoboda 1926, 1572 ‘unbedeutende Bundesflotte’
certainly understates the significance of the Achaian navy during a longer period as it emerges
from the above-mentioned occasions. Cf. also Kleu 2015, esp. 32–34, 39f, 74, 185f on the
Achaian contributions to Philip’s fleet.
On the other hand, Aitolian activities and operations at sea are also well-known,
and somehow connected with the wider expansion of the league and its sometimes
remote influence. Therefore one would expect a similarly attested, public magis-
tracy concerning the Aitolian navy – even their flotillas of smaller ships– in the
context of the Aitolian state machine. A tentative explanation for the absence of this
official integration of the navy into the federal administration of the Aitolians may
be the essence of their seafaring.46 Their standard piratical expeditions were very
probably based on an extensive practice of privateering, simply and loosely, and
without a possibly cumbersome responsibility, which would have been undertaken
by the Aitolian state. The Achaians counted more on military discipline and office-
holding, the Aitolians might partly dispense with similar measures to serve their
specific needs and modes of action.
VIII.
Some concise conclusions may be in place after this series of observations. Polybios
broadly conveys an ideal image of Achaia as a world of democratic and orderly
collaboration among Peloponnesian cities, while Aitolia is pictured as a backward
and rapacious society, lacking in civilized spirit and real capacity to coexist in an
international world. In contrast with this prejudiced view, one may certify basic
institutional and constitutional similarities of the two confederacies and a trait of
elite rule concerning leadership in both. However, the Achaians seem to have re-
tained more of a discreetly aristocratic character in their official organization, a
greater flexibility and readiness to compromises in their foreign policy and an
adaptability of their institutions to more functional standards. The Aitolians may
have deserved at least part of their fame of plunderers47 but this seems to have been
combined with more devotion to democratic and integrative practice within their
confederate structures. Despite similarities, the two koina remained dissimilar in
46 Cf. Benecke’s 1934, 15 still judicious remark: ‘…der aitolische Bund besaß überhaupt keine
eigene Flotte, sondern war eben nur auf die geschickt behandelten Piratenführer und später auf
die Schiffe der Kephallenen und anderer Bundesgenossen angewiesen’. Grainger 1999, 212f is
puzzled by the ‘almost invisible’ Aitolian naval strength in our sources, which he comments on
as ‘very odd for a state reported to be addicted to piracy’. Scholten 2000, 107 also concludes
‘the absence of a regular navy’ in the case of the Aitolians. Funke 2008 has carefully scrutinized
the evidence for the Aitolians’ activities in the Aegean and concluded that they should be
mainly dated to the two last decades of the third century BCE., without supporting the thesis of
a conscious and systematic sea policy of the Aitolian state in the same area. This is fully com-
patible with the absence of an official ‘state navy’ of the Aitolians.
47 Grainger 1999, 3–25 devotes a long introductory section in his monograph to disprove the no-
tion of Aitolia as ‘a pirate state’. His reaction to a still current view of the League’s essence has
certainly a positive value but an a priori apologetic stance does not really help restore a sober
historical balance.
many points of scope and practice,48 and they both rose and fell due to their ulti-
mately unsuccessful effort to combine their basic quests for autonomy and local
hegemony. They resembled each other most in their weaknesses.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

d’histoire, Bordeaux.
Bastini, A. (1987) Der Achäische Bund als hellenische Mittelmacht. Geschichte des Achäischen
Koinon in der Symmachie mit Rom, Frankfurt.
Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen
Benecke, H. (1934) Die Seepolitik der Aitoler (PhD Thesis) Hamburg.
Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History, vol.
II, Athens.
Busolt, G., and H. Swoboda (1920–1926) Griechische Staatskunde, vols. I–II, München.
Errington, R.M. (1969) Philopoemen, Oxford.
Funke, P. (1994) Staatenbünde und Bundesstaaten. Polis-übergreifende Herrschaftsorganisationen
in Griechenland und Rom, in K. Buraselis (ed.), Unity and Units of Antiquity. Papers from a
Colloquium at Delphi, Athens, 125–136.
Funke, P. (1997) Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr., in M.H. Hansen
(ed.) The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, 145–188.
Funke, P. (2008) Die Aitoler in der Ägäis. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Seepolitik der Aitoler
im 3. Jh. v. Chr., in E. Winter (ed.), Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike.
Festschrift für E. Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn, 253–267.
Funke, P. (2013) Thermika und Panaitolika. Alte und neue Zentren im Aitolischen Bund, in P. Funke
and Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries, Stuttgart, 49–64.
Giovannini, A. (1969) Polybe et les assemblées achéennes, Museum Helveticum 26, 1–17.
Giovannini, A. (1971) Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sym-
politie in Griechenland, Göttingen.
Grainger, J.D. (2000) Aitolian Prosopographical Studies, Leiden.
Hammond, N.G.L. and F.W. Walbank (1988) A History of Macedonia, III: 336–176 B.C., Oxford.
Holleaux, M. (1905) Sur les assemblées ordinaires de la Ligue Aitolienne, Bulletin de correspon-
Kleu, M. (2015) Die Seepolitik Philipps V. von Makedonien, Bochum.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1952) The Assembly of the Aetolian League, TAPA 83, 1–33.
Larsen, J. A. O. (1968) Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford.
48 Another difference in regard to relations between the league members may be discerned in the
apparently (after the extant sources) much more systematically exercised arbitration of territo-
rial disputes within the Achaian koinon in comparison with the Aitolians. On this aspect of
Achaian inner organization see the basic study by K. Harter-Uibopuu, Das zwischenstaatliche
Schiedsverfahren im Achäischen Koinon. Zur friedlichen Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphi-
schen Quellen, Köln et al. 1998. Cf. also the new text and the study cited in n. 5 above.
Luraghi, N. and A, Magnetto (2012) The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New
Inscription from Messene (With an Appendix by Christian Habicht), Chiron 42, 509–550.
O’Neil, J.L. (1980) Who Attended Achaian Assemblies?, Museum Helveticum 37, 41–49.
O’Neil, J.–L. (1984–1986) The political elites of the Achaian and Aitolian leagues, Ancient Society
15–17, 33–61.
Rizakis, A. (1998) Achaïe II. La cité de Patras: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens.
Rizakis, A. (2008) Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens/Paris.
Rizakis, A. (2013) États féderaux et sanctuaires: Zeus Homarios et la construction de l’identité
achéenne, in P. Funke and M. Haake, Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and
Integration, Stuttgart, 13–47.
Scholten, J.B. (2000) The Politics of Plunder. Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic
Veligianni–Terzi, C. (1977) Damiurgen. Zur Entwicklung einer Magistratur (PhD Thesis) Heidel-
berg.
Walbank, F.W. (1970) The Achaean Assemblies again, Museum Helveticum 27, 129–143.
Walbank, F.W. (1976–1977) Were there Greek federal states?, Scripta Classica Israelica 3, 27–51.
ACHAIANS AND LYKIANS: A COMPARISON OF FEDERAL
INSTITUTIONS
Athanassios Rizakis
National Hellenic Research Foundation
I. INTRODUCTION: IN SEARCH OF THE BEST FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION*
Although the system of the polis remained at the centre of Greek political philoso-
phy during the Classical and Hellenistic eras, federalist ideas gained widespread
distribution, especially by the end of the former and the beginning of the latter pe-
riod. This reorientation of political thought led to various experiences, as it became
increasingly evident that the polis-system could no longer confront the new political
realities created after the death of Alexander. As this new political structure gener-
ally copied the tripartite organization of the polis (primary assembly, i.e. ekklēsia,
representative assembly, i.e. boulē, and the body of magistrates, i.e. archontes), it
is hardly surprising to find titles for various functions that remind us of their equiv-
alents at the urban level.1
The various experiences of federalism through the Greek world create, mutatis-
mutandis, a federal culture which became a new weapon in the arsenal of Greek
political ideas, although it did not have the same intellectual impact as the polis
model which preceded it. The majority of the Hellenistic koina are symmetrical
federations, that is to say, political unions in which the activities of the government
are divided between regional and central levels in such a way that each tier of gov-
ernment has specific arenas in which it has the final say.2 One remarkable example
of these Hellenistic federal experiences is the Achaian League, if one believes Po-
lybios – although he gives no information regarding the operation of institutions
and does not outline how member states were represented in federal bodies. As a
* Thanks are due to Elke Klose who read and improved a first draft of this paper. I am grateful
to Professors Ralf Behrwald and Hans Beck for helpful criticism and comments, errors of
course remain my own.
1 This is the communis opinio: see Busolt 1926, 1318; Ehrenberg 1976, 208f; Larsen 1955, 66;
Beck, Funke 2015, 14f. Especially, for Achaia, see Polyb. 2.37: ‘Nor is there any difference
between the entire Peloponnese and a single city, except in the fact that its inhabitants are not
included within the same wall; in other respects, both as a whole and in their individual cities,
there is a nearly absolute assimilation of institutions’ (Histories. Polybios. Evelyn S. Shuck-
burgh, translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962); cf. Wal-
bank 1957, 217f.
2 This corresponds to the modern definition of federalism: see Watts 1999, 121; Bednar 2011, 4.
220 Athanassios Rizakis
result of this, fundamental issues such as the nature of the assemblies or the com-
position, election and functions of different magistracies remain either unknown or
unclear.3 Unlike Polybios’ silence on the internal organisation of the Achaian
League, however, a passage of Strabo (14.3.3) better illustrates certain processes
and institutions within the Lykian League, especially in how federal delegates in
the deliberative bodies or magistrates are selected, and how judges are chosen and
taxes levied. This text contributed enormously to the perception of the superiority
of the Lykian League during the Age of Enlightenment as well as in the rebirth of
the study of ancient federalism in modern times. Subsequently, many scholars be-
lieve that it was an original federal model that could serve as a basis for modern
federal experiences.
In the sixteenth century, the philosopher Jean Bodin,4 inspired by this famous
passage of Strabo’s Geography, presented the organization of Lykian cities, and
was the first to assume, mostly by intuition, the similarity of the Lykian constitution
with the Achaian League. A century later, Charles-Louis de Montesquieu ex-
pressed, in a more obvious way, his admiration for the ‘Republic of the Lykians’
which he describes as the ideal model of federalism,5 although he shares Polybios’
admiration for the structure and constitution of the Achaians, itself a ‘belle Ré-
publique fédérative’.6 Unlike Montesquieu, L’Abbé de Mably7 finds that the
Achaian koinon, as presented by Polybios, offers many points for reflection in spite
of – or perhaps simply because of – its dramatic fate. The fathers of the American
Constitution discussed both these and other ideas about ancient federations during
3 See Walbank 1957, 218–221; Id., 1979, 406–414. In fact Polyb. 24.8.4 and 9.14 (cf. Walbank
1979, 261f) refers to ‘the oaths, laws and inscribed pillars, which hold together our common
federation’ (sympoliteia) but, as F.W. Walbank 1977–1978, 51 observed, we do not know how
far these defined the existence of a written constitution, which has been assumed by Swoboda
1912, 23; on this question, see also Mendels 1979–1980, 85–93. As has also been pointed out
by Walbank, a written constitution was not absolutely necessary and ‘it is not the first nor the
only example of a political institution which is fully operative for a considerable time before
political theorists get round to telling us what it is’.
4 ‘Nous pouvons dire le semblable des XXIII villes de Lycie, qui établirent une république aris-
tocratique, semblable à celle des Achéens’: see Bodin 1986, chap. VII, p. 171 cited by
Knoepfler 2013, 117 and n.22.
5 ‘S’il fallait donner un modèle d’une belle république fédérative, je prendrais la république de
Lycie’ (Montesquieu 1961, Book IX). Montesquieu 1961, chapt. III of book IX, p. 371f com-
pared the institutions of ancient and contemporary federations, specifically the Republic of
Holland, which he held in great esteem; cf. Knoepfler 2013, 113 and n.9.
6 ‘La société des Achéens l’emporte sur les autres associations du même type par la liberté
qu’elle laissait à ses membres’… ’Lorsque l’Union est démocratique,’ écrit-il, ‘chaque état par-
ticulier peut la rompre, parce qu’il a toujours gardé son indépendance. C’est ainsi qu’était la
société des Achéens’ (Montesquieu 1951, vol. II, 1005. On Polybios and Montesquieu, see
Guelfucci 2006, 125–136; cf. Knoepfler 2013, 123–125).
7 1766–1767.
Achaians and Lykians: A Comparison of Federal Institutions 221
the heated debates in Philadelphia’s convention of 1787, as reported by James Mad-

ison.8 Despite their knowledge of Polybios’ work and their esteem for Achaian in-
stitutions,9 it was the clarity of Strabo’s text that led them to adopt the Lykian model
of proportional representation of the member-states in the national legislative as-
sembly of the future constitution of the United States on June 30, 1787.10
This predominance of the Federal Republic of Lykia was challenged from the
beginning of the nineteenth century when “scholars began to direct their interest
more to ancient history than to political philosophy.”11 Although by the end of the
same century Edward Freeman12 recognised the great importance of the historical
role of the Achaian koinon, Lykian institutions continued to impress him as well as
other scholars13 who considered them the model of an advanced federal state. The
prevalence of the Lykian governing system eventually ended in the 20th century
when new discoveries suggested quite strongly that the Achaian League served as
the prototype for some Lykian institutions.14
II. THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM IN THE GREEK FEDERATIONS:

LYKIA AND ACHAIA, TWO PARALLEL EXAMPLES
One of the principal questions concerning the leagues of the Hellenistic period is to
what extent member cities were subordinate to the central government. Giovan-
nini’s theory15 that the Greek koina were neither federal states (Bundesstaat) nor
confederacies (Staatenbund) but rather unitary states did not resonate favourably
among other scholars.16 What is important to know at this point is rather how power
was distributed between central and regional authorities: how were member-states
represented in various federal bodies, or even more pressingly, how were responsi-
bilities divided between member states and the central government?17 The best lit-
erary description concerning the internal balance of power in a federal state is of-
fered by Strabo who informs us, following Artemidorus of Ephesos (whose floruit
is placed around 100 BCE), that in Lykia 23 cities had the right to vote in federal
8 Madison 1984, 223f resumed in Knoepfler 2013, 136 and n.99.

9 On Polybios and the American constitution, see Chinard 1940; Lehmann 1985 and 2015.
10 See Madison 1984, 381. For hesitation or misunderstanding of these discussions see Giovannini
2003, 147f cited by Knoepfler 2013, 136 n.99.
11 Knoepfler 2013, 137f.
12 ‘Lykia too, beyond all doubt, had a federal constitution which was in some respects more per-
fect than that of Achaia itself. But then Lykia has nothing which can be called a history’ Free-
man 1863, 6.
13 See Larsen 1968, 240–263 and Moretti 1962, 186–195.
14 On the similarities between Achaian and Lykian institutions, see Larsen 1956, 151–169; id.,
1957, 5–26 and especially p. 5 with n.1.
15 Giovannini 1971, 31.
16 See Walbank 1976–1977, 39–45.
17 On the assemblies of the Achaians and Aitolians, their composition, and their role in the koinon,
see especially the contribution of Buraselis to this volume.
affairs. These votes were then allocated according to each city’s importance or pop-
ulation, with large cities having three votes, mid-sized, two, and the less important
cities, one.18 According to Strabo, the principle of proportional representation af-
fected every body of the Lykian State, not only the constitution of the common
council, the Κοινόν Συνέδριον, which itself should be identified with the
ἀρχαιρεσιακή ἐκκλησία.19 The other deliberative assembly, the boulē, is not men-
tioned by Strabo and this omission, if we exclude a misunderstanding about it from
the geographer,20 led some scholars to think that it was a post-Augustan innovation.
If it did not really exist in the Hellenistic period, the koinon would function only
with a representative assembly, i.e. the archairesiakē ekklēsia. The boulē, whenever
it was actually functional, was certainly not as large as the ἀρχαιρεσιακή
ἐκκλησία.21 That these two assemblies were distinct is indicated by the fact that
ἀρχοστάται and βουλευταί are two distinct categories in the various lists of dona-
tions (dianomai).22
18 Εἰσὶ δὲ τρεῖς καὶ εἴκοσι αἱ τῆς ψήφου μετέχουσαι. Συνέρχονται δὲ ἐξ ἑκάστης πόλεως εἰς κοινὸν
συνέδριον, ἥν ἄν δοκιμάσωσι πόλιν ἑλόμενοι. Τῶν δὲ πόλεων αἱ μέγισται τριῶν ψήφων ἐστὶν
ἑκάστη κυρία, αἱ δὲ μέσαι δυεῖν, αἱ δ᾽ἄλλαι μιᾶς (Str. 14.3.3); cf. Troxell 1982; Behrwald 2000
and the contribution of the same author in Beck and Funke 2015, 403–418.
19 This ekklēsia is attested, for the first time in 100 BCE, when Artemidorus of Ephesus analysed
the federal institutions of Lykia (see Str. 14.3.3; cf. Jameson 1979, 842f). Larsen 1945, 76
supposes that the use of this term means that the Lykian ekklēsia had once been a mass meeting
opened to all of its citizens. Unfortunately, we do not know at what time it was transformed
into a representative body but we do know that this model existed well into imperial times
(Berhwald 2015, 409). This assembly met three times a year in the late Hellenistic period or
once a year in three sessions (see TAM II 583). This organization reminds us of the meetings
of the synodos, which are, according to Polybios, four per year in fixed dates (see Aymard
1938, 275f).
20 Larsen 1945, 81f thought that the Geographer simply forgot to mention it and he considered
this absence abnormal, giving the fact that this body was a structural element of government in
several federations. This conviction led him to hastily date Pinara’s decree (referring to the two
representative bodies) to the first century BCE (TAM II 508; cf. Larsen 1943, 177–190 and
246–255; id., 1945, 93–95). Such a dating allowed him to assume that there was a continuity
in governing practices among the Republican and Imperial Period and therefore that the boulē
had always existed in Lykia. This interpretation has been criticized by several scholars (Magie
1950 II, 1381f; Jameson 1980, 842f) who observe that an earlier dating of the decree of Pinara
is in fact difficult. The presence in the text of a δικαιοδότης, indicating, according to L. Robert
REG 57, 1944, 230f, a provincial governor, would place the decree automatically after 43 CE.
In contrast, Larsen 1945, 93–97; id. 1956, 188–190 followed by Behrwald 2015, 409 thinks
that maybe the boulē existed in the Hellenistic period because the text in TAM II 508 referring
to boulēutai and archostatai ‘seems to reflect a situation prior to the loss of Lykian independ-
ence’ (provided by Claudius in 43 CE, when Lykia became a Roman province: see Suet. Claud.
25.3; Dio Cassius 60.17, 3).
21 Larsen 1945, 83f; Berhwald 2000, 188–209; id., 2015, 409. Larsen [1968, 250] thought that
the main representative body was the boulē, the archairesiake ekklēsia simply being ‘an ex-
pansion of or an appendix to a meeting of the boulē’.
22 See Larsen 1945, 81–83 and 91–93; Balland 1981, 183f. With the exception of the foundation
of Licinius Longinus (Larsen 1945, 91f), all the donations concern three groups of dignitaries:
archostatai, boulēutai and magistrates. It is unclear whether the members of the latter two cat-
egories were directly involved in the elections; it is nevertheless certain that they were closely
The geographer gives the names of the six megistai poleis of the Lykian
League, but the names of medium and small size cities remain unknown.23 This fact
does not allow us to know the number of votes dispensed individually and conse-
quently we remain unaware of the ratio between the three groups of cities. On this
point, we can only suppose that the number of votes held by the two latter groups
should be superior to that of the large cities. It is highly probable that the scale 3, 2,
1 was established according to the population of cities, so it would likely be this
simple distribution principle that was applied both to the allocation of taxes and the
appointment of the federal councillors, magistrates, and judges: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ
δικασταὶ καὶ ἄρχοντες ἀνάλογον ταῖς ψήφοις ἐξ ἑκάστης προχειρίζονται πόλεως
(Strabo 14.3.3).24 If the ratio is similar to that of Achaia, we can propose the fol-
lowing distribution: 3 x 6 =18 + 2 x 9 = 18 + 1 x 8 = 8 (that means a total of 44
votes) or a less balanced one: 3 x 6=18 + 2 x 6 = 12 + 1 x 11 = 11 (a total of 41
votes).
One must assume that the internal balance of power, i.e. the ratio between the
three groups of cities, needed to change when there were departures or additions of
new members to the league, as well as when cities were merged in a sympoliteia.
In fact, the four different lists of Lykian cities show that the composition of the
League and the balance of internal power knew some changes during Hellenistic
and imperial times. A decree from the Lētōon, erected in honour of the great bene-
factor Opramoas of Rhodiapolis, shows that in the middle of the second century the
composition of the League had changed either by accepting new members or by
replacing old ones. The same decree reveals first that this tripartite structure for the
distribution of votes within the Lykian League survived into the Empire, and second
that the group of six πρωτεύουσαι πόλεις remained, at that time, the same. But this
last figure would subsequently change with the addition of new members under the
Antonines.25 Accordingly, the number of megistai, medium size or small poleis had
associated with the archairesiaké ekklēsia’s meeting and that the term Koinoboulion covers at
least boulē and ekklēsia and it presumably includes the magistrates in office (Balland 1981,
183f). There is a debate about the meaning of the term koinobouloi (it also appears in a number
of inscriptions [e.g. Balland, 1981, 173–185 no.66, ll. 14–19] also of Prusias of Hypios and
Nicomedia) that concerns the beneficiaries of the foundation of Opramoas of Rhodiapolis (see
Kokkinia 2000) who apparently are members of the federal koinoboulion, a term more fre-
quently attested meaning the annual meeting of a kind of elective parliament on which the
archostatai played the principal role as electors (voters), see Balland, 1981, 182–185; cf.
Behwald 2000, 188–209.
23 Ἕξ δὲ τὰς μεγίστας ἔφη Ἀρτεμίδωρος. Ξάνθον Πάταρα Ὄλυμπον Μύρα Τλῶν κατὰ τὴν
ὑπέρθεσιν τὴν εἰς Κίβυραν κειμένην (Str. 14.3.3). It seems that this list it is correct for Artemi-
doros but not in Strabo’s time (see Larsen 1945, 76f and n.61).
24 Knoepfler 2013, 133–135, rightly observed a misinterpretation by Montesquieu of Strabo’s
formula ἐξ ἑκάστης πόλεως, due to the Latin translation, pro singulis urbibus (Knoepfler 2013,
134 and n.92): ‘en Lycie, les juges et les magistrats des villes étaient élus par le Conseil com-
mun, et selon la proportion que nous avons dites’.
25 In fact, the list of thirty one (31) poleis (in the decree of the Létôon) to which Opramoas of
Rhodiapolis demonstrated his generosity (mid 2nd century CE), shows changes in the number
of the League’s members as well as that of the six πρωτεύουσαι πόλεις (Myra, Patara, Xanthos,
not been fixed in aeternum by either a constitutional law or long-term use, but rather
that some law or decree of the ekklēsia necessary determined it. In fact, a letter of
Commodus found at Boubon on the southern borders of Lykia informs us that Bou-
bon was admitted among the cities with three votes, ἐν τοῖς τριψήφοις τῶν πόλεων.
This promotion was not made at the expense of one of the poleis with three votes,
but following Schindler and Kokkinia we must believe that their number would
have been increased toward the end of the Antonine era.26
In spite of some obscurities, Strabo’s text offers a clear and satisfactory picture
of the structure and functionality of the Lykian institutions, but this is not also the
case for Polybios and the equivalent Achaian institutions. Polybios famously
(2.37.8–11) praised the Achaian constitution, its political principles and particularly
the advantages of federalism in this specific regional manifestation. One of the ar-
guments used by the Historian to demonstrate how the League succeeded in unify-
ing the entire Peloponnese (σύμπασαν Πελοπόννησον) was the democratic and
egalitarian nature of Achaian institutions,27 which permitted the member-states to
have the same laws, weights, measures, and currency, as well as the same magis-
trates, councillors, and judges: Ἄρχουσι, βουλευταῖς, δικασταῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς.28 This
division of power among these governing bodies reminds us, as has been pointed
by Walbank29, of the triple distinction between magistrates, the deliberative, and
Tlos, Telmessos et Limyra; see the comments in Balland 1981, 176f). Pinara and Olympos had
given in the imperial period (mid 2nd century CE) their place to Telmessos in the West and
Limyra in the East respectively (see Jameson 1979, 842; Balland 1981, 173–185 no.66 espe-
cially p. 176f; cf. Knoepfler 2013, 130, fig. 5a). It is worth noting that Pliny cites in his Historia
Naturalis 5.28 [100] 36 oppida in Lykia.
26 See Schindler 1972 II, p. 9–11, no.2 (cf. L. Robert, BE 1973, 451) and the new edition of Kok-
kinia 2008, 32–34 no.5; cf. also Knoepfler 2013, 128f.
27 Polybios himself defines the πολίτευμα των Αχαιών as a democracy whose main principles are
ισηγορία and παρρησία (2.38.6; cf. Walbank 1957, 221f; see also Polyb. 6.8.3–5; 6. 8.5; 6.9.4–
5; cf. Walbank 1957 ad loc; Rémy 2008, 105f; Tuci 2003). This regime is in contrast to the
extreme democracy (ὀχλοκρατία) condemned by the historian (see Polyb. 6.9.9; 6.57.9; cf.
Welwei 1969; Mendels 1979–1980; Braun 1983, 6–8; Eckstein 1995, 129f). This form of gov-
ernment (i.e. pure democracy) regarded as normal for federal states by Polybios 31.2.12 would
have been called ‘oligarchic’ in the late fifth century (see Larsen, 1945, 66f and especially, p.
87–91).
28 Ἄρχοντες in Polyb. 5.1.6 and 9; 22.10.10–13 and 12.7 is more technical in meaning and indi-
cates a general term for magistrates. Elsewhere they are called οἱ προεστῶτες τοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν
πολιτεύματος (2.46.4), αἱ συναρχίαι (27.2.11; 38.13.4–5) and οἱ συνάρχοντες (23.16.6). The
term συναρχίαι, suggestive of a collegiate organization (Aymard 1938, 322f), is perhaps the
official title. A board was formed consisting of the στρατηγός and the ten δαμιουργοί (23.5.16;
cf. Bingen, 1954, no.18 ll. 3–4, Rizakis 2008, 176–178 no.120). For the number of the dami-
ourgoi, see Livy 32.22.2. Additionally, there were inferior magistrates such as the hipparch
and the navarch (Polyb. 5.94.7; 95.11). See generally Freeman 1863, 219–222.; Aymard 1938,
180–186; Walbank 1957, 219. The precise responsibilities of the dikastai remain unknown
however: see Cole 1964, 4–7.
29 Walbank 1957, 219f.
judiciary bodies going all the way back to Aristotle.30 It does not, however, corre-
spond exactly with the modern division popularized by Montesquieu of legislative,
executive, and judicial powers.
It seems that in Achaia, as well as in other states, the balance of power between
governing bodies or member-states did not remain fixed but changed according to
contemporary trends or the necessity of efficiency. This happened when the
League’s ambitions began exceeding the framework of the ancient union of the
twelve small poleis in the north-western Peloponnese that was the heartland of old
Achaia – all of whom, in Plutarch’s words, were quite equal in their mediocrity.31
The larger cities, which were included in its frontiers since the middle of the third
century BCE,32 would barely tolerate representation in the federal boards with a
number of delegates equal to that of the smaller cities. As has been assumed by
Ferrabino, the critical moment for an institutional change was the end of the social
war (217 BCE), but the precise nature and motives of these reforms remain un-
known. Aldo Ferrabino presumes that the introduced institutional reform dealt with
the army and the financial system on the one hand and the decision-making process
on the other hand.33
According to Aymard34 this reform which took place later (i.e. by the end of
the third century), did not change the composition of the synodos but removed the
most important realms of Achaian foreign policy from its competence. Larsen
agreed with the French scholar about the dating but not on the meaning of this re-
form. He thought that the leaders of Achaia decided to transfer important powers
from the primary assembly to the council, either because they followed the general
trend of this period or better understood the advantages of a representative boulē in
a large federal state.35
This reform gave the boulē greater prominence; an organ, which in its compo-
sition, was now more flexible and effective. Proportional participation in this body
was based therefore on the size of the population of the cities and was a response
30 Arist. Pol. 4.11 [1298a]: ἕν μὲν τί τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ τῶν κοινῶν, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς
ἀρχάς...τρίτον δὲ τί τὸ δικάζον. See against (Aymard 1938, 158f) Newman 1902, commenting
on Aristotle, Polybios 4.236. The comparison with Aristotle shows that under ‘deliberative’
several functions are included which could today be classified as legislative (see Walbank
1957, 219). On the conception of the federal states by Aristote and Polybios, see Lehmann
2001.
31 Aratos 9.6 and 7; cf. also loc. cit., 11.1.
32 See Urban 1979.
33 Ferrabino 1921, 217–222 and 297–301. Larsen 1955, 92f thinks that this reform was probably
initiated by Aratus. Bastini 1987, 29–30 thought that the reform took place before the death of
Aratus.
34 Aymard 1938, 418–420.
35 The terminus ante quem of this reform is the year 200 BCE as it was already in force then (Livy
31.25.2–10); see Larsen 1955, 85; id., 1968, 223. On the introduction in the Achaian league
after 217 BCE of a representative assembly see Larsen 1968, 284 and Lehmann 1983, 237–261
as well as Giovannini 1969, 1–17 (cf. the critical remarks of Larsen 1972, 178–185). On the
introduction of a pro rata basis system in Achaian league, see also Beck 1997, 168f; Rizakis
2003, 97–109; Sisov 2016, 101–109.
to the challenge posed by the predominance of the local citizens in the assemblies.
Thus, the representation of the various cities of the League in the federal assemblies
and particularly in the synodos was more equitable and satisfied the demands and
expectations of large cities such as Corinth, Argos or Megalopolis. This assumption
is suggested by two epigraphic discoveries confirming the parallelism between the
Achaian and the Lykian institutions.
The documents in question are two lists of Achaian nomographoi one from
Epidauros between 210 and 207/206 BCE, and the other from Aigion between 182
and 146 BCE. 36 These lists show that the distribution scale of votes between large,
medium, and small cities is the same as in the Lykian League. In the Achaian
League there are also three categories of member-states supplying three, two and
one votes respectively in the college of nomographoi. However, we do not really
know the criteria for classification in the three groups: it seems, for example, that
population is not the only element that defines classification. In the earliest list three
cities, Dyme, Aigion, and Sikyon, each possessed two votes, although their demo-
graphic importance is not equivalent.37 On the other hand certain large cities (e.g.
Aigina, Corinth, Megara) as well as some that were less important (e.g. cities of
central and south Arkadia, except Megalopolis) are not represented at all.
Gschnitzer38 argues that while small member-states would not necessarily be rep-
resented, larger cities would be, and therefore that it is possible to draw conclusions
about the League’s membership by their absence at the time of the text.39
The idea that small cities could be represented alternately is a plausible hypoth-
esis, in the sense that similar situations are attested in other confederations. For
example, in Lykia and Boiotia neighbouring small cities could be represented ‘à
tour de rôle’ in the federal bodies.40 Furthermore, some small cities might have been
admitted to the Lykian Koinon without a vote in the synedrion41 and, perhaps more
importantly, smaller poleis could be joined into one sympoliteia. This would explain
the absence of so many smaller poleis in texts from the Imperial period: they had
36 IG IV.I2.73. Gschnitzer 1985 proposed the period 210–207 BCE while Swoboda 1922, 520–
522 and Lehmann 1983, 245–251; 2001, 82–89 thought to an earlier date before or after the
social war (220–217 BCE). Finally Sizov thinks 2016, 108 that the terminus post quem should
be the year 229 BCE, when Argos, Hermione and Phleius joined the league and the terminus
ante quem the year 197 BCE when Corinth return to the Achaian Κοινόν. The second is SEG
58.417, dated to 182-146.
37 See Lehmann 1983, 249; Gschnitzer 1985; Rizakis 2003.
38 Gschnitzer 1985.
39 This is probably true for the three large cities of Aigina, Corinth or Megara, which were not at
that time members of the League (for the cities of Megaris and their relations with the Achaian
league, see Freitag 2015, 56–67). Lehmann 1983 challenges this view, arguing in particular
that Mantineia (Antigoneia on the list), though absent from the list, must have been a full mem-
ber with a significant citizen population during the period when the text was drawn up; see on
this point the interesting comment of Sizov 2016, 104f.
40 Gschnitzer 1985, 103–116; Lehmann’s theory on the rotation of all cities (even the large ones)
did not find a favorable echo with other the scholars; see Sizov 2016, 101–107.
41 According to Moretti 1962, 206f such cities could make in the Lykian League their contribu-
tions in the form of money or dispatching their troops.
been absorbed by, or joined together with, neighbouring poleis that sometimes
would have been of equal size.42 We can also suppose that a similar situation existed
in Achaia, although we lack specific examples. But, interestingly, some minor and
mostly insignificant (e.g. Ascheion, Kallistai),43 Achaian cities are represented in
the lists of the federal nomographoi. This weakens Gschnitzer’s theory, unless we
suppose that these cities had a peculiar status giving them some special rights not
possessed by ‘ordinary’ small cities.44
Literary, numismatic, and epigraphical documents show that the Achaian Koi-
non, like the Lykian League, was updated periodically according to the demo-
graphic changes and political vicissitudes created by the departure of old or the
addition of new members. The great extension of Achaia’s borders, especially after
Aratos’ generalship, resulted in a permanent revision of the list of city-members, as
well as the continuous adjustment of the balance of power between old and new
members. In the list from Epidauros (210–207 BCE), 17 cities (or 18 with that of
the secretary of the collegium of nomographoi which was probably not counted)
send representatives.45 They had a total number of 24 votes46 distributed among the
three city types: the megistai poleis (Argos and Megalopolis) were represented by
three delegates (2x3=6),47 the medium size cities (Dyme, Aigion Sikyon) by two
(3x2=6), and finally the twelve small cities (12x1=12) only by one. It is clear that
the ratio between the three groups of cities is rather balanced, as the number of votes
of the large and medium size cites is equivalent to that of the small ones (6+6+12 =
24: votes).48 This ratio reveals a desire to eliminate differences or even conflicts
between the members of the League by establishing a balance between the three
groups. It is clearly a product of compromise, since some of the old cities that had
a role in the foundation of the League (Dyme and Aigion) possessed two votes,
which was not fully justified by their demographic standing.
As major and middle-size cities did not have an absolute majority (6+6=12
votes), any decision required the agreement of, or a compromise with, the smaller
42 I owe this last precision to the kindness of Ralf Behrwald.

43 These cities are totally absent on any list of Achaian cities (Hdt. 1.145; Polyb. 2.41.6–8; Str.
8.7.4 and Paus. 7.6.1) although their citizens bear the ethnic Achaios and their ethnic appears
in their coins: see Rizakis 1995, nos.597, 598, 605, 659, 668II; id. 2016; cf. Löbel 2014, 45f
and 48; Rizakis 2016.
44 For this question, see Rizakis 2016.
45 See Knoepfler 2002, 148 (for the case of Boiotia; cf. Rizakis 2003, 99 n.11: bibliography).
46 Achaia sent ten representatives: the Argolis was represented by five cities with a total of seven
votes (Argos having three); Sikyon had two votes; and finally, Arkadia was represented by
three cities and had five votes in total since Megalopolis had three.
47 Megalopolis was still by the end of the third century an important town because, according to
Polyb. 5.91.7, it furnished 1/6th of all the Achaians in arms in 217 BCE. Argos, although it was
no longer at the forefront of the Greek cities its glory and its resources offered still it some
importance.
48 Lehmann 1983, 247; Gschnitzer 1985, 112; Rizakis 2003, 101–104; id. 2008, 168–170, no.116.
Sizov 2016, 106 n.30. Although this symmetry between large, medium and small cities can not
be confirmed by the list of Aigion, it does not mean, as Sizov 2016, 106 n.30 thinks, that the
equal numbers in the catalogue from Epidauros ‘must have just been a coincidence’.
member states. We can assume that this principle did not change when, a few years
later, the League enjoyed massive expansion and spread to encompass virtually the
entire Peloponnese. This restructuring of the League necessitated changes regarding
both the number of cities represented in the collegium of nomographoi as well as
the distribution of votes among its member states. This new situation is illustrated
by the list of Aigion (between 182 and 146 BCE) in which all new acquisitions of
the League appear in Arkadia, Lakonia, and Messenia.
The list of Aigion mentions, at the current state of conservation, only represent-
atives of 16 cities (17 including the secretary’s home city) which sent 21 delegates
originating from four regions: nine Arkadian and two Triphyllian cities send 12
delegates (the only city with two votes being Megalopolis). Lakonia is represented
only by one city (i.e. Sparta) which sent three delegates49, Messenia by four cities
sending five delegates (only Messene has two votes). The name of only one Achaian
city (i.e. Ascheion) is preserved in the list. It remains unknown how many cities
(from Elis, Korinthia, Megaris and finally from Achaia, Sikyon, and Argolis) do
not appear in the list and how many votes they would have had in total. As the cities
of the three later areas appear in the older list of Epidauros, we can presume that
they continued to be represented and sent the same number of delegates. And if we
add the cities of Elis, Corinth and the Megaris which are not mentioned in the two
lists (the cities of the Megaris have been integrated later, around 170 BCE),50 we
can say that the approximate number of cities should be around 35.
The radical increase in the number of the member-states of the League after
191 BCE would impose a change in the distribution of votes, so that the ratio known
from the previous list and the balance in representation between the three groups of
cities could be restored. There are some clues to support this statement. For exam-
ple, Megalopolis is no longer represented by three votes like in the list of Epidauros,
but now only by two.51 This fact as well as the growth of the League with the addi-
tion of many new members resulted in a redistribution of the seats in the college of
nomographoi, as indicated by the list of Aigion. Pheneos, present in the list of Ep-
idauros, no longer appears in the document from Aigion. However, it is surprising
that small cities such as Lousoi in Arkadia and especially Ascheion (close to the
Arkadian border with Achaia) appear on both lists. We can presume that, besides
Sparta, which appears on the list of Aigion, and Argos and Megalopolis (which
appear in the list of Epidauros), three votes could also be given to large cities like
Argos, Corinth and Megara which are missing from the two lists. Besides Mega-
lopolis and Messene, among the cities sending two delegates we can count Aigion,
Dyme and Sikyon (which are present on the list of Epidauros), and probably Aigina
or Elis. If this schema of delegate distribution were correct, the ratio would be the
49 Lakonian cities are not represented because they have a special status in the League; see Livy
38.32.9–10; cf. Rizakis 2003, 107 n.42.
50 See note 72 below.
51 This change may possibly be linked (see Sizov 2016, 103 n.15) to the decrease of its importance
as a result of the separation of some small communities (193 BCE), which became full mem-
bers of the Achaian Koinon. Plutarch (Philop. 13.8) lets us know that this reform was done at
the instigation of Philopoimen: cf. Errington 1969, 90f; Bastini 1987, 88f.
following: 12 delegates for the large cities (Sparta, Argos, Corinth and Megara), 12
delegates for the mid-size cities and 24 for the small. This means that the balance
between the three groups first established in the list of Epidauros is maintained.
The nomographoi documents lead us to believe that it was the individual cities
of Achaia rather than the administrative districts (συντέλειαι)52 – as for example in
Boiotia53 – that selected and sent delegates to various federal bodies. Aldo Fer-
rabino’s54 idea that the Achaian Koinon was subdivided into three administrative
districts during the military reform of Aratos in 217 BCE is based on a Polybian
passage (5.92.7–10). But Thomas Corsten thought that the League was divided,
during this period, into five districts, and only later in 207 BCE into three as a con-
sequence of the military reforms of Philopoimen.55 According to the latter scholar
the distribution of the civic delegates in the list of Epidauros illustrates the division
of the League into five districts, each of which sent five nomographoi with the ex-
ception of Patrai which sent four (4x5+4=24). This theory did not find much sup-
port.56 The Polybian passage (5.92.7–10) implies that this artificial structure in
western Achaia was closely related to the defence of the area, entrusted to the poleis
included in this synteleia. There is no other evidence for the existence of such arti-
ficial units in Achaia or that they were used “for the mechanics of the representative
government”, as was the case in some other leagues. Unfortunately, what we know
of the synteleiai in Lykia is of little help. The two administrative subdivisions are
attested there only in the first century BCE and are associated with the minting
activity of the Lykian cities. The real dates of their introduction as well as their role
remain unknown.57
52 The term meros (a standard term used to denote such subdivisions, while in the Hellenistic
period the term synteleia was used which is best translated by ‘district’. On the terms meros–
merea (see Helly 1997 [Achaia] and generally Beck and Funke 2015, 15f with n.27: bibliog-
raphy) which was used by Herodotus 1.145 to designate the twelve Achaian subdivisions, dis-
appears from the sources of the Hellenistic period (only exception in Polyb. 5.92.7–10) when
the new term synteleia (see Beck and Funke 2015, 15f and 26), in the sense of district, comes
into use containing the cities of the western Achaia.
53 For the role of districts in the Boiotian League, see Salmon 1956, 51–70; Müller 2011, 261–
282 with the previous bibliography in n. 1 (cf. BE 2012, 181).
54 This reform would provide three military units each tasked with assuring the defence of Spar-
tan, Eleian, and Aitolian borders (cf. Aymard 1938, 302–307; Errington 1969, 63f; Anderson
1967, 104f). In addition to the district of Patrai (Polyb. 5.94.1 and 38.16.4: Πατρεῖς δὲ καὶ τὸ
μετὰ τούτων συντελικόν; on the synteleia of the western cities see Larsen 1971, 84–86), Fer-
rabino 1921, 297–301 recognised a second district, that of Megalopolis, attested in an inscrip-
tion of Magnesia on the Meander (IvM 39) dated c. 208 BCE; for the problems of interpretation
of this text see Roy 2003, 123–130.
55 Corsten 1999, 166–177.
56 Larsen 1971, 86, does not believe that the League was divided into districts and considered that
of Patrai as unique. For my own reservations regarding such a role of the districts in Achaia of
the Hellenistic period, see Rizakis 2003, 202–206 and more recently Sizov 2016, 102–104.
57 OGIS 565; IGR 488; cf. Troxell 1982, 112–117 thought that this organization underlines the
reaction to Roman demands after Mithridates’ war but this opinion was criticized by Ashton
and Meadows 2008, 113–116.
III. ARCHAIRESIAKĒ EKKLĒSIA OR SYNODOS AND THE GOVERNING

PRACTICES IN LYKIA AND ACHAIA
Except for the distribution of power between the constituent parts of a league (sym-
metrical or asymmetrical federation), the main difference between the various
leagues concerns the internal organization that regulates the relationship and bal-
ance between the three constituent bodies of power (ekklēsia, boulē and magis-
trates). We know that the majority of Hellenistic leagues had a primary assembly,
i.e. ekklēsia, and a representative assembly called boulē or synedrion.58 The boulē
or synedrion was generally by its very nature a deliberating body composed, in var-
ious confederations, of delegates from member-states, which were represented ei-
ther directly or in proportion to their population. The representative council was
then regarded “as normal machinery in federal states” (Polybios 31.2.12)59 which
offered speed and efficiency in decision-making.60 The Romans certainly encour-
aged this tendency, thereby accelerating an already existing trend either by creating
or encouraging the creation of new leagues. Councils of proportional representation
are already attested in the Hellenistic period in Aitolia, Boiotia, and possibly Arka-
dia, and after the beginning of the 2nd century BCE in Thessaly, Phokis, Magnesia,
Crete, and Lykia, which were governed by representative synedria (or boulē) then
becoming the chief law-making body.61
Τhe leading political class in Achaia understood, especially after the traumatic
experience of the wars of the second half of the third century BCE, the difficulties
of the mechanisms of government in making rapid and prudent decisions, and ac-
cordingly adapted it to the expansion of the political boundaries of the League
throughout the Peloponnese and Central Greece. As the new League surpassed its
ethnic boundaries and integrated great and powerful cities with a glorious history
into its organisation, its political unity and stability could be achieved by a fairer
58 Larsen 1968, 281–295.; cf. also Martin 1975, 531–536 thinks that this corresponds to the gen-
eral evolution and trend of the period, although there are some exceptions corresponding to
particular cases. The model of the reforms introduced in Achaia and particularly that of a rep-
resentative assembly could be that of Phokis; see Martin 1975, 160f; Behwald 2000, 188 n.118;
Daverio Rocchi 2015.
59 Larsen 1945, 65–97. This view was challenged by Aymard 1950 as exaggerated but Larsen
1955, 75–105 did a new, full analysis of Polybios’ terminology and has produced a theory,
which has the merit of simplicity and seems to cover all the evidence.
60 This is not certainly the only reason: by the creation of some leagues (e.g. Thessalian or Eleu-
therolaconian) Rome wanted strong states to withstand either Makedonian or Spartan pressure,
see Martin 1975, 545f and 580–583.
61 Larsen 1945, 65–68 and 87f; id. 1955, 68–75; Martin 1975, 57f (Thessaly), 160f (Phokis) 91–
93 (Magnesia), 504f (Kreta); cf. also, loc.cit. 533–555. Knoepfler 1990, 497 and Müller 2005,
114f showed that the synedrion replaced the boulē in the cities of Central Greece after 167 BCE
(see also Funke 2015, 111f and 116 [Aitolia] and Beck and Funke 2015, 604 s.v. Synedrion.)
In contrast, some scholars think that asymmetric federal states (e.g. Boiotian Koinon at the time
of Pelopidas and Epameinondas as well as the Chalkidician one) were highly centralized states
dominated by the main polis and had no federal council, but this point of view is based either
on controversial sources (Xen., Hell. 7.3.5) or on the wrong use of an argumentum ex silentio.
distribution of power and influence in the institutions among its member-states.

This reform followed a generally pronounced tendency towards representative gov-
ernment in the federal states and cities of this period.62
Except for this detail, many other questions remain controversial despite the
effort of many generations of scholars. This is the case for the composition and
function of the federal assemblies, especially for the synodos. A crucial point is the
federal boulē and its role in the system are clearly attested in the first Achaian Koi-
non by an inscription dated at the end of the fourth century BCE.63 It is less clear in
Polybios’ text, however, if this is also the case for the Hellenistic period, and the
lack of inscriptions does not help in resolving this problem. The majority of scholars
before the Great War thought that the boulē was a representative body, and that it
was possible to maintain that the Achaian League essentially had a representative
government with a proviso for referendum on questions of war and peace and alli-
ance.64 Aymard65 argued that boulē in Polybios simply means ‘a deliberative as-
sembly’ and could apply to a primary assembly like the synodos but his theory did
not receive any support because, as has been pointed out by Mendels following
Larsen, “boulē never referred to a primary assembly, but always to a deliberative
council”. For him and his followers the boulē was identical to the synodos, which
was itself a representative assembly.66
Swoboda67, at the beginning of the 20th century, stated that the same principle
of proportional representation, already known for the nomographoi, would have
applied to other federal bodies such as the boulē.68 In this case the scale 3:2:1 would
be, as in Lykia, a simple distribution key applied to the relative share of federal
burdens and for the selection of the boulēutai or other federal officials. The number
of the boulēutai thus varied from one city to another and from one period to another.
It reached its peak in the second century BCE, when the League comprised the
entire Peloponnese and some cities in Central Greece. It is highly probable that the
appointment of the federal councillors did not take place at the federal level, but
rather in their respective cities.
The precise size of the Achaian boulē is unknown despite the efforts of some
scholars to calculate the number of the federal delegates from Polybios’ report of
62 Larsen 1945, 68f; id. 1955, 83f (examples). It is noteworthy that there is no evidence for a
primary assembly in some of the new federal states of the second century BCE (i.e. Lykia,
Makedonia, Thessaly), see Larsen 1945, 69f. For the enhanced role of the boulē in the cities of
this period, see Hamon 2001, XVI-XXI and id., 2005, 121–144; id. 2007, 77–98.
63 Bingen 1954, 402–407 no.18; Rizakis 2008a, 176–178 no.120. Although any direct evidence
on the composition of this boulē is missing, it can be supposed that the twelve Achaian member-
states of the first League have an equal representation in this body: see Löbel 2014, 85–88 who
highlights the oligarchic character of the first League’s institutions.
64 Larsen 1945, 66 n.5 refers to Tarn 1928, 738.
65 Aymard 1938, 150–164.
66 Larsen 1955, 75–85 and 165–188; id. 1972, 178–185; Walbank 1957, 219f where other views
on this question are also briefly exposed; Mendels 1979–1980, 91 and n.34.
67 Swoboda 1922, 519f; Lehmann 1983, 249; id., 1999, 171; Rizakis 2003, 97f; Sizov 2016, 101f;
Löbel 2014, 91 considers this question as still open.
68 See the reserves of Aymard 1938, 383–385 on this point.
Eumenes’ offer of money during the synodos of 185 BCE. The king offered 720
talents to the Achaians to be used so “that they might lend it and spend the interest
paying the members of the Achaian assembly during its session” (Polyb. 22.7.3).69
Larsen is right when he says that this passage does not give adequate information
to calculate the exact number of the boulēutai but the estimations made by various
scholars70 could give us a general idea of the numerical order of the members of the
federal boulē.71 Given the large number of new member-states integrated by 170
BCE,72 we can only presume by means of comparison that the federal council
should likely be more extensive than its Aitolian counterpart, which counted over
550 members, or than the synedrion of the Thessalian League, which numbered 33
members.73
We can suppose, thanks to Polybios, that the boulē was an administrative board,
which received embassies and coordinated the meetings of the synodoi. The latter
arbitrated conflicts between contending cities and in some particular cases exer-
cised penal jurisdiction on offenders against the constitution.74 Although there is no
passage in Polybios indicating that there were preliminary discussions in the coun-
cil before the popular meetings, as was the practice in Aitolia and Acarnania, Wal-
bank considers it highly probable given the existence of an extensive agenda in the
synodoi.75 Such a power is maybe suggested in Plutarch’s formula οἱ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ (sc.
Ἀχαιοί) μετὰ τῶν προβούλων referring to the Achaians who elected the federal
stratēgos in the meeting of Megalopolis (182 BCE) and then invaded Messenia in
69 Polyb. 22.7.3: ἐξαπαστάλκη δὲ <καὶ> βασιλεύς Εὐμένης πρεσβευτάς, ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἑκατόν

καὶ εἴκοσι τάλαντα δώσειν τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς, ἐφ' ᾧ, δανειζομένων τούτων, ἐκ τῶν τόκων
μισθοδοτεῖσθαι τὴν βουλὴν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς κοιναῖς συνόδοις: ‘King Eumenes had also
sent envoys promising to give the Achaians one hundred and twenty talents which they might
lend and spend the interest paying the members of the Achaian parliament during its session’.
120 talents (720.000 drachmas) is a huge sum for such purposes (in comparison to similar do-
nations to the Lykian Confederacy at a later date consisting of 55.000 and another of 110.000
denarii; see Larsen 1955, 96 n.21). On this question see also Polyb. 22.8.8 and 12 and the
detailed comments of Aymard 1938, 102–120.; 154–161; 332–337 and 391–394.
70 Larsen 1955, 226; De Sanctis 1908, 257 n.1; Tarn 1928, 737; Schwahn 1931, 1256.
71 Aymard 1938, 81–83; Larsen 1968, 226; Walbank 1979, 187; Rizakis 2015, 128 n.59.
72 See Rizakis 2011; for the admission of Megara, Pagai and Aigosthena, see Freitag 2016. The
number of member states in the period of the highest acme of the League has been evaluated
as between 60 and 70 members: see Warren 2007, 152–154; Löbel 2014, 405–408.
73 Livy 45.28.7 (Aitolia). IG IX.2 261 (Thessaly). The synedrion of the Thessalian Koinon (prop-
erty qualifications for holding offices: see Livy 34.51.6; cf. Larsen 1955, 102; Bouchon, Helly
2015, 240f has at the time of Tiberius, 334 members [IG IX.2 261]). We do not know the
number of the members in the Lykian synedrion (Jameson 1980, 842f). The recently excavated
assembly hall possibly used for federal assemblies in Patara could host some 1000–1400 people
which gives an approximate idea towards the size of the federal assemblies (see Korkut and
Grosche 2007).
74 See Rizakis 2008b, 278–282.
75 Walbank 1979, 187. For preliminary discussions in the Aitolian or the Akarnanian boulē, see
Funke 2015, 110f (Aitolia) and IG IX2.208–209, 582–583, 588 and SEG 43.227 (Akarnania).
order to avenge Philopoimen’s death.76 In conclusion, we can say that the record of
the vote and its secrecy shows that members of the Achaian boulē voted as individ-
uals and not by delegations, as they did in case of primary assemblies (i.e .syn-
klētoi).77
The question concerning the composition of the synodos is more complicated,
and none of the theories proposed are satisfactory. Nonetheless, the similarity be-
tween the institutions of the Achaian and the Lykian leagues in connection to their
representation practices has been definitely established. This could support the idea
that the composition of the Achaian synodos78 in its normal form, could be analo-
gous to that of the arhairesiakē ekklēsia of the Lykian koinon (ongoing magistrates
with members of the boulē or big electors or both).79 In any case, this assembly –
which was the main governing body – was generally composed of wealthy citizens
76 Plut. Phil. 21.1. The precise meaning of πρόβουλοι is not clear but from the various solutions
proposed I agree with that of Larsen 1955, 178 and Walbank 1979, 408 and 410 who suppose
that it indicates the members of the council (federal officials according to Schwahn 1931, 1257;
Aymard 1938, 213 n.5).
77 The authority on voting by cities in the synkletoi is not Polybios but Livy: 32.22.8–11; 32.19.6
(Sikyone datum est iis concilium) and 23.1 (198 BCE); 32.20.7 and 22.2; 38.32.1 (Briscoe 1973
and 2008 adloc.); such a practice is not unknown in other federations: Livy 33.2.6; cf. Beck,
Ganter 2015, 154 with bibliography (Boiotia); Livy 33.16.3 (Akarnania); cf. Aymard 1938,
377–394; Larsen 1955, 83f; O’Neil 1980, 46 n.57. Walbank 1976–1977, 40 and n.66a where
he observes that voting by cities is not a Roman practice.
78 On the combinations proposed on the composition of the synodoi, see Walbank 1970, 129–143;
id. 1979, 406–414; who withdrew his earlier views and, following Giovannini’s idea 1969, 1–
17 (a summary of this theory is given by Walbank in his introductory paragraphs and by Larsen
1972, 179f), argued that the synodos was composed of the members of the boulē, the magis-
trates and the primary assembly (cf. Mendels 1979–1980, 88); for a critical approach to Gio-
vannini’s theory see Larsen 1972, 178–185. Rémy’s theory 2008, 110f that the council con-
sisted of city officials is a speculation based on a confusing passage of Pausanias who, speaking
of a meeting which was not a synodos, affirms that it was attended by the magistrates of the
Achaian cities (7.14.1: τοῖς ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει ἔχοντες τὰς ἀρχάς).
79 The political decisions then were taken by the elites of the member states which made up the
various federal bodies: see Aymard 1938, 56, 137, 335f, 380, 405; Tarn 1928, 739; Musti 1967,
163; id., 1995, 307; Errington 1969, 6–8.; Walbank 1979, 406–408.; 0’Neil 1984, 33–44; who
1984, 42 speaks about a ‘self-perpetuated elite’ in Achaia (a similar situation can be found in
some of the other leagues: Rzepka 2006, 111–135; Funke 2015, 112f [Boiotia]; Daverio Rocchi
2015, 184f [Lokris]). The fact that the boulēutai and other officials were unpaid in Achaia
(Polyb. 22.7.8; cf. Aymard 1938, 331–337. Larsen 1968, 232) suggests that the participation of
the lower classes in political life would be limited (Welwei 1966, 282–301; Mendels 1979–
1980, 88–93). The magistrates and other major officials played a main role ‘in the decision-
making’. In the case of Eumenes’ offer successful speakers such as Apollonidas of Sikyon and
Kassandros of Aigina are not known to have held any magistracy although the former was a
prominent politician (Polyb. 22.8.1–13; cf. O’Neil 1984, 41). Even though the Achaian consti-
tution gave all citizens the equal right of taking part in politics, not all citizens had an equal
chance to exercise this right. Nevertheless, in some critical circumstances common people
show that they were not deprived of any power (O’Neil 1984, 43). Many passages in Polybios
suggest the existence of a socio-economic tension between the rich and poor classes which
reached its summit during the Achaian war (Polyb. 38.10.1–13; cf. Fuks 1970, 78f.; Mendels
1979–1980, 88–93. See also note 80 below
from various cities, as in Aitolia, who were members of the most prominent families
and had, by these means, held political power and enjoyed the possibility of influ-
encing governing decisions since the end of the third century BCE.80
IV. THE ACHAIAN INSTITUTIONAL MODEL
What is the role of Achaia and Achaian institutions in this process of the ‘politici-
zation’ of other federal states such as the Italiote League81 and the Lykian Koinon?
Similarities and differences can be better detected and contrasted in the case of the
latter, which took shape gradually and acquired a precise institutional form in the
first half of the second century during Lykian conflicts after the Peace of Apamea
(188 BCE).82 This federalist evolution of the Lykians was sponsored by Rome83
and some Polybian passages let us presume that the Lykians were inspired by the
Achaian model in the establishment of their new federal constitution. We really
have no idea when exactly the relations between the two leagues began, but we can
suppose that these contacts became closer after Apamea (188 BCE) when the con-
flicts with Rhodes pushed the Lykian cities to send several embassies to Rome.84
The long stay of the largest of these embassies in Achaia in 178/177 BCE,85 prob-
ably allowed the Lykians to acquire intimate knowledge of the Achaian institutions,
and maybe of that of other contemporary leagues. This would have then served as
the basis for the creation – eventually with the help of Rome – of a new form of
federal organization of the cities, i.e. the Κοινὸν τῶν Λυκίων, which liberated them
from dependence on the Rhodians in a lasting manner.86
Strabo’s text concerning Lykia along with the Achaian inscriptions on federal
nomographoi suggest that the selection of the members of the respective representa-
tive federal bodies were in both cases identical. This thus betrays a very close rela-
tionship between the Λυκιακὸν σύστημα and the Achaian model. One could multi-
80 It is not unreasonable to assume that members of this privileged ‘classe politique’ would be the
1000 Achaians hostages required by Rome after the third Makedonian war (167 BCE), see
Tagliafico 1995, 215–223.
81 For this league, see Fronda 2015, 386–402 (with the previous bibliography).
82 Polyb. 21.24.7–8; loc. cit. 45.8; 22.5.1–2; Appian Syr. 44; Livy 37.55.5–6; Briscoe 1981, 385.
As has been said by Larsen 1945, 71–73 the Lykian League knew a real development after the
liberation from Rhodian control, although ‘some approaches to unity it at an earlier date are
recognised’.
83 For other Roman initiatives, see Giannakopoulos in this volume.
84 See Jameson 1979, 833 with n.5. Polybios, then young politician of the Achaian League but
especially historian, describes these embassies.
85 This episode is reported in different chronological contexts in Polybios and Livy, cf. Lehmann
1983, 239; 1979, 833 with n.5; Behrwald 2000, 181 n.86; cf. also Canali de Rossi 1997, 216f
no.260.
86 An Achaian mediation in order to gain the support of Rome is not alleged in the sources; see
Behrwald 2000, 164 n.12 and 89 n.290; see also the previous note. For the foundation of the
Lykian League and the related problems, see Behrwald 2000, 161–169; id. 2015.
ply the examples of similarities between the two leagues in regards to several as-
pects: first, Artemidorus says that the koinon synedrion of the Lykian League did
not meet in a city that was considered as the capital but εἰς κοινὸν συνέδριον, ἣν ἂν
δοκιμάσωσι πόλιν ἑλόμενοι (Strabo 14.3.3).87 This formula recalls the decision
made by the Achaian federal authorities in 189/8 BCE under the leadership of Phi-
lopoimen,88 which put an end to Aigion’s claims as the exclusive meeting place of
the League; the federal ‘capital’ lost its monopoly on federal assemblies in favour
of a rotating schedule in various cities.
Some inscriptions reveal in Lykia the presence of the same federal magistrates
known in Achaia and other Greek leagues. They were designated by either the syn-
odos or the archairesiakē ekklēsia respectively as well the general courts of jus-
tice.89 The commander in chief of the federal troops90 was the stratēgos assisted by
the hipparch.91 From the Orthagoras Decree in Lykia, which mentions the federal
rank of apoteleios also known in Achaia,92 it seems that the member states in both
cases sent contingents under their own officers and paid contributions to the central
government.93 Other minor officials called (e.g. hypostratēgoi or hagemones) could
undertake regional tasks,94 while the regional army group of mobilized free citizens
87 See Knoepfler 2013, 153.

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

equally attested in the two leagues are probably officers who codified the laws with-
out a regular function but were elected occasionally to regulate internal conflicts or
vote federal laws.96
Although the various testimonies concerning the tax system in Lykia,97 as well
as in Achaia, lack precision, we can suppose that with the exception of regular ob-
ligations or various indirect taxes98 the federal government could ask, at critical
moments, for an extra contribution (eisphora or telos), from the cities, in order to
respond to the situation.99 This is confirmed by a passage of Polybios in which the
historian (4.60.5; cf. also 4.60.9–10) reproaches the decision of some Achaian cit-
ies, which in a critical moment of the Social War refused to pay their contributions
to the central government.100 The idea that contributions of any kind would be cal-
culated in proportion to the respective population of a member city, probably fol-
lowing the scale 3:2:1, is an exciting hypothesis.101 In both leagues, the tamias was
charged with the management of direct or indirect taxes, and, especially in Lykia,
League (Behrwald 2015, 409f). The term hagemones, denoting the Federal magistrates, is men-
tioned in the inscription from Messene (SEG 58.370, l. 17) and maybe the Latin term principum
used by Livy 41.24.19 is its equivalent. Behrwald 2015, 411 and n.23 underlines the singular
mention of a hegemon in a Hellenistic inscription from Myra (Petersen and von Luschan 1889
no.67) supposing that it might refer ‘to an allied commander or to a Lykian officer’. The strat-
egos, is attested in Lykia too, as well in other leagues in the Hellenistic period and later on. We
do not know if in Lykia this high charge was identical with that of the Lykiarch (Jameson 1979,
835f with n.14; Behrwald 2015, 410 with n.22).
95 Polyb. 4.59.1; 5.94.1; 38.16.4; 40.3.4; cf. Walbank, ad loc. and Paus. 7.11.3 and 15.2; Rizakis
1995, no.444, 457 and 466 with comments, loc. cit. 261 no.430 no.2a.
96 Lykia: TAM II 420 (nomographoi); it was the same according to Reitzenstein 2001, 30 cited by
Behrwald 2015, 410 n.27 who assumes that the μετάπεμπτα δικαστήρια, also attested in the
second century CE (TAM II 905), were also irregular institutions (cf. also Larsen 1956, 249–
253).
97 Behrwald 2015, 410 with n. 25.
98 See Mackil 2013, 289–304. The indirect taxes were associated with land use or customs, im-
posts or duties levied on the import and export of goods through harbors within the territory of
the Koinon. This question is better known for the Lykian Koinon, especially during the Empire,
thanks to new epigraphic testimonies; see Takmer 2007, 165–188 (SEG 57.1666); cf. Behrwald
2015, 426.
99 Every city of the koinon should raise troops serving the common cause: Polyb. 4.7.10; 5.91.4
and 6–7; it was the strategos en cours who fixed the importance of cities’ contribution in armed
citizens (Polyb. 4.7.10). It seems that some cities had financial problems and could not pay
their contributions (Polyb. 5.30.5–7) but as noted by Mendels 1979–1980, 90 and n.29, based
on Polyb. 5.94.9, they were relieved later (cf. also Griffith 1935, 102).
100 See Walbank 1957, 514 who highlights our ignorance about Achaian finance; see also Mackil
2013, 290 and 299–302 (where other interesting examples of such non-regular contributions
are cited).
101 See Rizakis 2003, 99 n.12. It is highly probable that at the beginning (the first Koinon) the
twelve small Achaian cities contributed equally to the federal army; see Helly 1997; Löbel
2014, 87 and 93.
with the funds for military needs as well as the quadrennial festival celebrated in
honor of Apollo.102
Perhaps Achaia was not the only model for the Lykian League, as the federal
experiences of the Hellenistic period created a common federal culture that could
inspire further attempts at similar organizations that were in turn developed and
adapted according to local traditions and realities. But there is no doubt that the
Lykians were inspired by the Achaians in some points concerning their external103
as well internal organisation. The Achaian representative system was the model,
between 188 and 167 BCE104 for the creation of the Lykian system, especially in
the selection of delegates to the deliberative assemblies or the selection of various
magistracies, judges and taxes.105 And as has been said by Knoepfler,106 the Achai-
ans deserved to be included in Book IX of the Esprit des lois, as a model of that
‘belle République fédérative’, if Montesquieu had guessed that these people were
the creators of the representative system mentioned in Strabo (14.3.3).107
102 See Jameson 1979, 836 with n.12–13; cf. also Behrwald 2015, 410 with n.24.
103 The Convention of the Létôon concluded between the Lykian confederacy and the city of the
Termessians near Oinoanda, probably after 167 BCE, shows that the League negotiated and
concluded agreements with the city of Termessos, the city of Tlos and probably that of
Kadyanda, which were represented by the Confederation itself. Rousset 2010, 76f and n.278
points out that the same procedure was followed by the Achaian Confederation in the early
second century. In a territorial dispute between Megara-Pagai, members of the Achaian League,
and Aigosthena, a member of the Boiotian Confederation, the Achaian League sent its court
judges (IG VII.187; Cf. Harter-Uibopuu 1998, 110f).
104 This point was highlighted particularly by Behrwald 2000, 89 and n.290, 164 n.12 and 165 with
n.14. On the contacts between Lykians and Achaians, on the occasion of the travels of the
former during this period to Rome, see notes 85–86 supra. According to Larsen 1956, 151–
159; Jameson 1979, 835 and n.9, the decree of Araxa, voted in honour of Orthagoras around
180 BCE for his services to the city and the Lykians, reveals that the Lykian League existed
from early in the second century BCE but the dating of the inscription of Araxa and the events
it narrates are the subject of a long scientific controversy. In a recent paper Denis Rousset 2010,
98 prefers a lower date both for the document itself and for the events it recounts, some of
which may actually be placed before 167 BCE: ‘after 167 and probably in the second half of
the second century and also to admit that the events he narrates, maybe in chronological order,
some may have put in the first half of the second century and even before 167 BC’ ; see espe-
cially Rousset 2010, 127–133 (with much discussion on the date); cf. the detailed discussion
on this problem and relevant bibliography in Knoepfler 2013, 147–151.
105 Lehmann 1983, 250. Although the recently published treaties between Lykia and Rome regulate
competences of Roman and Lykian courts, the latter’s structure ‘remain silent’: see Mitchell
2005; Schuler 2007b cited by Behrwald 2015, 410 n.28.
106 Knoepfler 2013, 153f thinks that the pioneers and the real inventors in this domain were the
Boiotians, since the mid of the fifth century BCE.
107 Similarly, Larsen 1956, 166f, after examining the parallelisms between the two leagues, con-
cluded that ‘the strong position of the federalism in Greece might argue that Achaia should be
‘the more likely pioneer’’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J.K. (1967) Philopoemen’s Reform in the Achaian Army, Classical Philology 62, 104–
105.
Ashton, R.H.J. and A.R. Meadows (2008) The Letoon Deposit: Lykian League Coinage, Rhodian
Plinthophori, and Pseudo–Rhodian Drachms from Haliartos (yet again) and Asia Minor, The
Numismatic Chronicle 168, 111–134.
d’histoire. Bordeaux.
Aymard, A. (1950) L’organisation de la Macédoine en 167 et le régime représentatif dans le monde
grec, Classical Philology 45, 96–107.
Balland, A. (1981) Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon, Paris.
Bastini, A. (1987) Der Achäische Bund als hellenische Mittelmacht. Geschichte des Achäischen
Koinon in der Symmachie mit Rom, Frankfurt.
Bednar, J. (2009) The Political Science of Federalism, Department of Political Science University
of Michigan, Mzay 25, 2011, 1–51.
Behrwald, R. (2000) Der Lykische Bund. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung, Bonn.
Behrwald, R. (2015) The Lykian league, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in the Greek
Bingen J. (1954) Inscriptions d’Achaie, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 78, 402–407.
Bodin J. (1986) Six Livres de la République, Paris.
Bouchon, R. and B. Helly (2015) The Thessalian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism
Brawn E. (1983) Die extreme Demokratie bei Polybios und bei Aristoteles, Jahreshefte des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 54, 1–39.
Briscoe J. (1973) A Commentary on Livy, Books 31–33, Oxford.
Briscoe J. (1981) A Commentary on Livy. Books 34–37, Oxford.
Briscoe J. (2008) A Commentary on Livy. Books 38–40, Oxford.
Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol.
II, Athens.
Busolt, G. (1926) Griechische Staatskunde II, Munich.
Canali de Rossi, F. (1997) Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età republicana, Roma.
Chinard, G. (1940) Polybius and the American constitution, Journal of the History of Ideas I, 38–
58.
Cole, T. (1961) The Source and Composition of Polybius VI, Historia 13, 444–486.
Daverio Rocchi, G. (2015) The Lokrians and their Federal Leagues, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.),
Eckstein, A. (1995) Moral visions in the Histories of Polybius, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
Ehrenberg, V. (1976) L’état grec: La cité – l’état fédéral – la monarchie hellénistique, Paris.
Errington, R.M. (1969) Philopoemen, Oxford.
Ferrabino, A. (1921) Il Problema dell’unita nazionale nella Grecia antica, I, Arato di Sicione e
l’idea nazionale, Florence.
Freeman, E.A. (1893) History of the Federal Government from the Foundation of the Achaian
League to the Disruption of the United States, London/Cambridge.
Freitag, K. (2015) Poleis in Koina. Zu dem Auswirkungen von bundesstaatlichen Organisationsfor-

men auf Strukturen in griechischen Poleis der hellenistischen Zeit unter besonderer Berück-
sichtigung der Polis Megara, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann (eds.), Urbane Strukturen
und bürgerliche Identaet im Hellenismus, Heidelberg, 56–67.
Fronda, M.P. (2015) The Italiote League and Southern Italy, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Feder-
alism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 386–402.
Fuks, A. (1970) The Bellum Achaicum and its Social Aspect, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 90,
78–89.
Ghinatti, F. (1961–1962) Ricerche sulla lega italiota, Atti e Memori della Accademia Patavina di
Scienze Lettere ed Arti 74, 117–133.
Giovannini, A. (1969) Polybe et les assemblées achéennes, Museum Helveticum 26, 1–17.
Giovannini, A. (2003) Genèse et accomplissement de l’Etat fédéral (de la Grèce antique à la Cons-
titution américaine de 1787–1789), in K. Buraselis et K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of Eu-
ropean Community in History, Vol.II, Athens, 143–176.
Griffith, G.T. (1935) The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge.
Gschnitzer, F. (1985) Die Nomographenliste von Epidauros (IG IV 12, 73) und des Achäische Bund
im späten 3. Jh. v. Chr., Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 58, 103–107.
Guelfucci, M.-R. (2006) Polybe et Montesquieu: aspects d’une réflexion commune, Anabases 4,
125–136.
Hamon, P. (2001) A propos de l’institution du Conseil dans le cités grecques de l’époque hellénis-
tique, Revue des Études Grecques 114/2, XVI–XXI.
Hamon, P. (2005) Le conseil et la participation des citoyens: la mutation de la basse époque hellé-
nistique, in P. Fröhlich and C. Müller (eds.), Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque
hellénistique: actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, 121–144.
Hamon, P. (2007) Elites dirigeantes et processus d’aristocratisation à l’époque hellénistique, in H.–
L. Fernoux and C. Stein (eds.), Aristocratie antique: modèles et exemplarité sociale, Dijon, 77–
98.
Harter-Uibopuu, K. (1998) Die zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon. Zur
friedliche Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln.
Helly, B. (1997) Arithmétique et histoire. L’organisation militaire et politique des Ioniens en Achaïe
à l’époque archaïque, Topoi 7, 207–262.
Jameson, S. (1980) The Lycian League: Some Problems of its Administration, Aufstieg und Nieder-
gang der römischen Welt II 7, 832–855.
Knoepfler, D. (1990) Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalcis III. Décrets fédéraux et décrets muni-
cipaux au IIe siècle av. J.-C., Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 114, 473–498.
Knoepfler, D. (2002) Oropos et la confédération béotienne à la lumière de quelques inscriptions
‘révisitées’, Chiron 32, 119–155.
Knoepfler, D. (2013) ‘Un modèle de belle république fédérative’? Montesquieu et le système poli-
tique des Lyciens, de la genèse de l’Esprit des Lois aux découvertes épigraphiques les plus
récentes en Asie Mineure méridionale, Journal des savants, 115–154.
Kokkinia, C. (2000) Die Opramoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis. Euergetismus und soziale Elite in
Lykien, Bonn.
Kokkinia, C. (2008) Boubon. The inscriptions and archeological remains. A survey 2004–2006,
Athens.
Korkut, T. and G. Grosche (ed.) (2007) Das Boulēuterion von Patara. Versammlungsgebäude des
lykischen Bundes, Istanbul.
Larsen, J.A.O (1943) Tituli Asiae Minoris II, 508 Part I. Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Clas-
sical Philology 38, 177–190.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1945) Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic Federalism, Classical Philology
40, 65–97.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1955) Representative Government in Greek and Roman History, London.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1956) The Araxa Inscription and the Lykian Confederacy, Classical Philology 51,
151–169.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1957) Lykia and the Greek Federal Citizenship, Symbolae Osloenses 33, 5–26.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1971) The Rights of Cities within the Achaean Confederacy, Classical Philology
66, 81–86.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1972) A Recent Interpretation of the Achaian Assemblies, Classical Philology 67,
178–185.
Lehmann, G.A. (1981) Ansätze zur bundesstaatlichen Ordnung und repräsentativen Verfassung in
der Antike und ihre Rückwirkungen auf die Neuzeit, Geschichte in Köln 9, 54–88.
Lehmann, G.A. (1983) Erwägungen zur Struktur des achäischen Bundesstaates, Zeitschrift für Pa-
pyrologie und Epigraphik 51, 237–261.
Lehmann, G.A. (1985) Die Rezeption der achäischen Bundesverfassung in der Verfassung der USA,
Xenia 15, 171–182.
Lehmann, G. A. (2001) Ansätze zu einer Theorie des griechischen Bundesstaates bei Aristoteles und
Polybios, Göttingen.
Lehmann, G.A. (2015) Greek Federalism and the Rediscovery of Polybius, and the Framing of the
American Constitution, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in the Greek Antiquity,
Cambridge, 512–523.
Löbel Y. (2014) Die Poleis der bundesstaatlichen Gemeinwesen im antiken Griechenland. Unter-
suchungen zum Machtverhältnis zwischen Poleis und Zentralgewalten bis 167 v. Chr., A-
lessandria.
Mably, Abbé de (1766–1767) Observations sur l’histoire de la Grèce ou des causes de la prospérité
et des malheurs des Grecs, Geneva/Zurich.
Madison, J. (1984) Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1987, reported by James Madison
with an Introduction by Adr. Koch, 2nd edition, Athens.
Magie, D. S. (1950) Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Prince-
ton.
Martin, D.G. (1975) Greek Leagues in the later Second and first Centuries B.C. (PhD Thesis),
Princeton.
Mendels, D. (1979–1980) Polybius and the constitution of the Achaian League: a note, Scripta clas-
sica israelica 5, 85–93.
Montesquieu, C.-L. (1748) L’esprit des lois, Geneva. New edition in La Bibliothèque de la Pleiade,
Paris 1951; and by Gonsague Truc, Paris 1961 [Livre IX].
Moretti, L. (1962) Le federazione dei Lici, in L. Moretti, Richerche sulle leghe greche, Roma, 171–
218.
Müller, C. (2005) La procédure d’adoption des décrets en Béotie de la fin du IIIe siècle av. J.–C au
Ier s. apr. J.–C., in P. Fröhlich and C. Müller (eds.), Citoyenneté et participation à la basse
époque hellénistique: actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, 95–119.
Müller, C. (2011) Quelques réflexions autour des districts de la confédération béotienne à l’époque
hellénistique, in N. Badoud (ed.), Philologos Dionysios, Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis
Knoepfler, Geneva, 261–282.
Musti, D. (1967) Polibio e la demokrazia, Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa 36, 155–
207.
Musti, D. (1995) Demokratia: Origini di un’idea, Roma.
Newman, W. L. (1902) Politics of Aristotle, Oxford.
O’Neil, J.L. (1980) Who Attended Achaian Assemblies?, Museum Helveticum 37, 41–49.
O’Neil, J.L. (1984–1986) The Political Elites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues, Ancient Society
15–17, 33–61.
Petersen, E. and F. von Luschan (1889) Reisen in Lykien. Milyas und Kibyratien, Vienna.
Rémy, A. (2008) Polybe et les institutions de la confédération achéenne, Bulletin de l’Association
Guillame Budé I, 101–125.
Rizakis, A. (1995) Achaïe I. Sources textuelles et histoire régionale, Athènes.
Rizakis, A. (2003) Le collège des nomographes et le système de représentation dans le Koinon
achéen, in K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in His-
tory II, Athens, 97–109.
Rizakis, A. (2008a) Achaïe III. Les cités achéennes: Épigraphie et histoire, Athens/Paris.
Rizakis, A. (2008b) L’expérience de l’organisation inter civique et supra civique dans la confédéra-
tion achéenne, in M. Lombardo and F. Frisone (eds.), Forme sovrapoleiche e interpoleiche di
organizzazione nel mondo greco antico, Galatina, 274–292.
Rizakis, A. (2011) Real-Politik της Ρώμης και η θλιβερή τύχη της Μεσσήνης μετά τον Β᾽Μακεδο-
νικό πόλεμο (196–182 π.Χ.), in P. Valavanis (ed.), Ταξιδεύοντας στην κλασσική Ελλάδα. Τόμος
προς τιμήν του καθηγητού Πέτρου Θέμελη, Athens, 271–281.
Rizakis, A. (2016) Territorio e riorganizzazione delle poleis nell’Achaia orientale da Omero a Stra-
bone, in A. Pontradolfo (ed.), Egialea, Ricerche nella valle del Krios, Monografie della Scuola
archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente XXIV, Athens, 19–30.
Robinson, C.A. (1941) The Greek Political Experience. Studies in Honor of W.K. Prentice, Prince-
ton.
Rousset, D. (2010) De Lycie en Cabalide. La convention entre les Lycéens et Termessos près
d’Oinoanda, Geneva.
Roy, J. (2003) The Arcadians in Inschriften von Magnesia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigra-
phik 145, 123–130.
Rzepka, J. (2006) The Rights of Cities within the Aitolian Confederacy, Valencia.
Salmon, P. (1956) Les districts béotiens, Revue des études anciennes 58, 51–70.
Schindler, F. (1972) Die Inschriften von Boubon (NordLykien), Vienne.
Schuler, C. (2007) Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und die Lykiern aus Tyberissos, in C. Schuler (ed.),
Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien, Vienna, 51–79.
Schwahn, W. (1931) Das Bürgerrecht der sympolitischen Bundesstaten bei den Griechen, Hermes
66, 97–118.
Sizov, S.K. (2016) Two Lists of Achaian nomographoi, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
198, 101–109.
Swoboda, H. (1912) Studien zu den griechischen Bünden: 3. Die Städte im achäischen Bunde, Klio,
12, 17–50.
Swoboda, H (1922) Die neue Urkunden von Epidauros, Hermes 57, 518–534.
Tagliafico, M. (1995) Le deportazioni degli Achei a Roma nel 167 a.C., in M. Sordi (ed.), Coerci-
zione e mobilità umana nel mondo antico, Milano, 215–223.
Takmer, B. (2007) Lex portorii provinciae Lykiae. Ein Vorbericht über die Zollinschrift aus Adriake
aus neronischer Zeit, Gephyra 4, 165–188.
Tarn, W. (1928) The Greek leagues and Macedonia, Cambridge Ancient History 7, 732–768.
Thornton, J. (2000) Une regione vista da lontano: la Licia di Strabone dai dati geografici al mito
del’Eunomia, in A.M. Biraschi and G. Salmeri (eds.), Strabone e l’Asia Minore, Naples, 401–
459.
Troxell, H. A. (1982) The Coinage of the Lycian League, New York.
Tuci, P. (2003) La democrazia di Polibio tra heredità classica e federalismo, in C. Bearzot, F. Lan-
ducci, and G. Zecchini (eds.), Gli stati teritoriali nel mondo antico. Contributi di storia an-
tica, Milano, 45–86.
Urban, K. (1979) Wachstum und Krise des Achäischen Bundes, Wiesbaden.
Walbank, F.W. (1970) The Achaean Assemblies Again, Museum Helveticum 27, 129–143.
Walbank, F.W. (1985) Were there Greek federal states?, in F.W. Walbank, Selected Papers: Studies
in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge, 2–37.
London.
Watts, R. (1999) Comparing Federal Systems, 2nd ed. Montreal.
Welwei, W. (1966) Demokratie und Masse bei Polybios, Historia 15, 282–301.
THE DYNAMICS OF THE ARKADIAN ETHNOS, OR
POLEIS VERSUS KOINON.
James Roy
University of Nottingham
At the beginning of the fifth century the Arkadians were clearly an ethnos with a
developed myth-history of common origin and a shared territory in the central Pel-
oponnese. However they did not form a koinon until, in the aftermath of the battle
of Leuktra in 371, special circumstances arose. Even then the pan-Arkadian koinon,
although briefly very influential in inter-state affairs, especially in the Peloponnese,
lasted only a few years before splitting into two blocs.1 Clearly, as Emily Mackil
(2013, 2014) has argued forcefully, the existence of an ethnos was not sufficient of
itself to produce a koinon, but it is worth considering known factors that would
militate against the formation of an Arkadian koinon, and also the other develop-
ments that can be seen to have taken place within the Arkadian ethnos.
First, some features of the Arkadian ethnos. It first appears in Homer, notably
in the Catalogue of Ships (Iliad 2.603–614), and elements of the charter-myth of
common Arkadian origins are already apparent in Hesiodic mythography.2 Why
and how the charter-myth developed so early is unknown: if there were kings in
archaic Arkadia, it might have served their interests to manipulate such myth, par-
ticularly if they were competing for power within Arkadia, but that is merely spec-
ulation.3 It is at any rate clear that the inherited ethnos-identity was available from
the later archaic period onwards, and could be used to promote the interests of Arka-
dians. Different Arkadian communities might of course interpret it differently to
suit their divergent interests. Thomas Nielsen has shown (2002 120–157) how
Arkadian identity could be politicised, and it probably lay behind, for instance, the
attempt by the Spartan king Kleomenes I in the early fifth century to bring together
leading men in Arkadia (Hdt. 6.74.1–2: see Nielsen 2002 127–129), and the army
drawn from all the Arkadians except the Mantineans that fought the Spartans at
Dipaia in the 470s or 460s (Hdt. 9.35.1–2; Nielsen 2015 252f). Maria Pretzler
(2009) also surveys how Arkadian identity was used: since her purpose is to explain
the emergence of the Arkadian koinon after Leuktra, she lays some stress on pan-
Arkadian tendencies, which certainly existed; but they existed alongside divergent
tendencies.
1 On the Arkadian koinon of the 360s see Niesen 2015, 258–268, and Bearzot in this volume.
2 Nielsen 2002, 66–72, Fowler 2013, 104.
3 On reports of kings in Arkadia see Carlier 1984, 404–407: note the comments of de Fidio 2013,
457–466.
244 James Roy
The Arkadians were recognised as an ethnos by other Greeks, sometimes in

surprising ways. Herodotus (1.66–68) tells how in the middle of the sixth century
the Spartans attacked Tegea. He clearly believed that the Spartans originally in-
tended to conquer all Arkadia, but were persuaded by the Delphic oracle to cam-
paign first only against Tegea. Why the Spartans would have thought it wise to
attack all of Arkadia in a single campaign is far from clear, but Herodotus’ vision
of Arkadia as a unit is very clear. Pausanias (8.39.3) says something very similar
when reporting a Spartan attack on Phigalia that he dates to the seventh century: the
attack took place, he says, “when the Spartans attacked the Arkadians”. Once the
various Arkadian communities had joined the Peloponnesian League, the Spartans
could treat Arkadia, like other regions, as a unit when planning reforms of Pelopon-
nesian League forces: thus Arkadia appears in reports both of the naval contribu-
tions planned in 413/412 (Thuc. 8.3.2) and of the army contributions established in
377/376 (when – strikingly – Arkadia was to supply two of the ten divisions).4
The large number of troops supplied by Arkadia is one indication of the re-
sources available in Arkadia. The troops would be hoplites, so that they also indi-
cate that many Arkadians were not poor, even if we do not know what the qualifi-
cation for hoplite status might have been in Arkadian communities. The numerous
Arkadians who took service as mercenaries outside Arkadia, and often outside
Greece, were presumably men trained as hoplites (Roy 2004b, 272–276). There
were certainly wealthy men in Arkadia (Roy 1999, 343f). Some of that wealth was
used for communal projects: already in the later archaic period Arkadian commu-
nities were building ambitious temples, and it is notable that the relatively small
community of Pallantion was alone responsible for at least four archaic temples.5
The region Arkadia was large, and seems to have included by the end of the archaic
period most of what was later generally regarded as Arkadian, though fluctuations
continued along the frontiers (Roy 2000a) and the adhesion of Triphylia to Arkadia
in 370 or soon afterwards marked a major change (Nielsen 2002, 89–117). Within
that large region there was a variety of economic resources (Roy 1999).
Some modern scholars have assumed that the Arkadians were, by Greek stand-
ards, relatively primitive or backward, but there is no justification for this view (Roy
2013a). On the contrary, they were able to organise themselves as other Greeks
did. As Thomas Nielsen has shown, by the end of the archaic period the polis, the
typical Greek city-state, was well established in Arkadia, and in the classical period
the numerous Arkadian communities were structured as poleis.6 That pattern in-
cluded the constituent communities of the four regional groupings within Arkadia,
4 Diod. Sic. 15.31.1–2: see Stylianou 1998, 281–285, with estimates of the number of men re-
quired. However, Xenophon’s Hell. 5.2.7 report that, after the dioikism of Mantinea a separate
xenagos was sent to each kome of Mantinea shows that the Arkadian forces of the Peloponne-
sian League were not mustered as a single unit: there are in fact numerous references to troops
from particular Arkadian communities within armies of the Peloponnesian League, e.g., fa-
mously, the Tegeans at Plataiai (Hdt. 9.26–28), and Mantineans and Tegeans at the battle near
the R. Nemea in 394 (Xen. Hell. 4.2.9–23).
5 Voyatzis 1999, on Pallantion see 134f and 146f.
6 Nielsen 2002, 193–228, 271–411; and 2004a.
The Dynamics of the Arkadian ethnos, or poleis versus koinon 245
the Parrhasians, the Mainalians, the Eutresians, and the Kynourians (Nielsen 2002,
271–307 and 2015, 256f). The Arkadians not only developed poleis, as other Greeks
did, but from a fairly early date some Arkadian communities built carefully-planned
new towns as the urban centre of the polis. At Tegea a network of streets laid out
on a grid-pattern may date from the sixth century (Ødegård and Karapanagiotou
2012), and in the Megalopolis basin two such towns were created in the fifth cen-
tury, near the modern villages of Kiparissia and Perivolia.7 In the fourth century,
probably c.375-350, a new site, again on a grid-pattern, was created for Stymphalos
(Williams 2013). Arkadians clearly had the administrative skills and financial re-
sources to carry out such projects, and an inscription from Tegea of the mid-fourth
century (IPArk 3) shows how an Arkadian polis could handle the recruitment and
surveillance of the work-force which – as was usual in the Greek world – had to be
brought in for a major building project. Arkadia also produced able politicians,
such as, to name only a few, Demonax of Mantinea8 who was chosen to carry out
constitutional reforms in Kyrene in the mid-sixth century; Chileos of Tegea, ac-
cording to Herodotus (9.9–10) the most influential xenos at Sparta in 480; and
Lykomedes of Mantinea, who was highly successful in the Arkadian confederacy
of the 360s (Xen. Hell. 7.1.23–24). For these reasons it cannot be supposed that the
Arkadians were simply incapable of creating a confederacy. Indeed, when they did
finally create one after Leuktra, its constitution was tightly organised and the con-
federacy carried through the major enterprise of creating Megalopolis.9
There were examples of federalism in the Peloponnese before Leuktra. Inter-
estingly, there were probably small federal structures within Arkadia itself. In cen-
tral and southern Arkadia there were four areas where individual communities were
grouped together, the Parrhasians, the Mainalians, the Kynourians, and the Eu-
tresians. Thomas Nielsen has shown that the individual communities within these
groups were poleis (Nielsen 2002, 271–307 and 2015, 256f). We know little about
the activities of the Kynourians and the Eutresians, but the Parrhasians and the
Mainalians undertook major activity collectively. This led Hans-Joachim Gehrke
to describe them as ‘Mini–Föderationen’, and Thomas Nielsen has written of their
‘federal character’.10 It is possible that the Akroreians in north-eastern Eleia also
formed a confederacy, though evidence is very limited.11 The Spartans evidently
did not object to small federal structures that were no threat: when in 421 they in-
tervened in Parrhasia to drive out the Mantineans, to whose hegemonic alliance the
7 For the site at Kiparissia see Karapanagiotou 2005 and 2010; for that at Perivolia see Archae-
ology in Greece online, Perivolia no.2429: (http://chronique.efa.gr/index.php/fiches/2429).
8 Hdt. 4.161.3: see Baldacci 2013.
9 On the federal constitution see Beck 1997, 67–83 (82 ‘straff organisierter Bundesstaat’); Roy
2000b, 310–316 (noting that the Arkadians may have sought advice from Plato or his pupil
Aristonymos); and Nielsen 2015, 260–267. On the foundation of Megalopolis see Nielsen
2000, 414–443 and Roy 2005, ancient reports that the initiative for the foundation came from
Epameinondas are very doubtful (Nielsen 2002, 419f; Roy 2014).
10 See Gehrke 1986, 112, 154; Nielsen 2002, 271f (the quoted phrase is at 278). See also Roy
2013b on the Parrhasians.
11 Siewert 1987–1988, Roy 2004a, 490.
246 James Roy
Parrhasians had belonged, they left the Parrhasians autonomous and probably en-
sured that a pro-Spartan faction was dominant, but did not otherwise interfere with
their constitutional structure.12 The Spartans also looked favourably on the Triph-
ylian koinon set up when the area was freed from Eleian control in 400, creating
simultaneously an ethnos and a koinon.13 Whether the koinon was actually set up
by the Spartans, as Siewert suggested, or was the result of a local initiative, a pos-
sibility noted by Nielsen, there is no doubt that the Spartans protected the Triphylian
koinon against Elis until they could no longer offer that protection because of the
setbacks suffered after Leuktra, and in particular the loss of Messenia.14 It is inter-
esting that federalism was clearly known both within Arkadia and in Arkadia’s
Triphylian neighbours (which did not join Arkadia until after Leuktra), but such
small-scale federalism, tolerated or even encouraged by Sparta, was not a precedent
for a pan-Arkadian koinon.
Large federal structures developed north of the Gulf of Corinth, 15 but in the
Peloponnese of the classical period the only large-scale confederacy was the
Achaian koinon. Achaia came under Spartan influence in the Peloponnesian League
only at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War: Pellene was the first Achaian polis
to join, at the outbreak of the War, and the others followed during the War (Thuc.
2.9.2). Thus, for much of the fifth century Achaia was more free from Spartan
influence than most Peloponnesian regions. Even so, at what date a political frame-
work uniting the Achaians came into being is not clear: Morgan and Hall (2004,
474f) see little evidence of such a framework before the end of the fifth century,
and Mackil (2014, 274–276) argues that there is no evidence before 389. Conse-
quently, for most of the classical period before Leuktra there was no large Pelopon-
nesian koinon.
There were, however, other factors that might inhibit the emergence of an Arka-
dian koinon. One was the influence of Sparta. By c. 500 all Arkadian communities
had joined the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta (e.g. Nielsen 2002, 73f). Sparta
therefore had influence throughout Arkadia, and an obvious interest in ensuring that
no threat to the Peloponnesian League developed in Arkadia. In the 470s or 460s
Sparta fought and won battles first against Tegea and Argos and then against all the
Arkadians except Mantinea (Hdt. 9.35.2). In 421 a Spartan army deprived the Man-
tineans of control of Parrhasia, and tension between Sparta and Mantinea continued
until the battle at Mantinea in 418 (Thuc. 5.33–81). Relations between the two
continued to be poor until in 385 Sparta attacked Mantinea, destroyed the town, and
divided the Mantineans into separate villages (or possibly poleis).16 Such incidents
would have made very clear to Sparta the danger of a major grouping of Arkadian
states. Cinzia Bearzot has drawn attention to Xenophon’s report (Hell. 5.2.12–19)
12 Thuc. 5.33.1–3: Roy 2013a, 25–28.

13 Nielsen 1997; 2002, 229–269; 2004b, 540–546.
14 Siewert 1987–1988; Nielsen 2002, 252–262.
15 See the case-studies in Beck 1997.
16 Xen Hell. 5.2.2–7. On the possibility that Mantinea was divided into five poleis rather than
villages see Roy 2000b, 309 n.5.
of a speech delivered by Kleigenes of Akanthos in 382 to the Spartans and their

allies in which he sought to persuade the Spartans of the dangers of a Chalkidian
koinon,17 but in that case part of the problem was that the Chalkidian peninsula was
a long way from Sparta: Sparta would be more likely to react to threats in Arkadia,
immediately north of Lakonia. It is however notable that Sparta did not react to
smaller groupings that did not appear to threaten its influence. Thus, when in the
420s Mantinea and Tegea developed rival hegemonic alliances in central and south-
ern Arkadia and actually fought a battle in 423 (Thuc. 4.134.1–2), Sparta eventually
intervened to drive the Mantineans out of Parrhasia, which lay on the Lakonian
frontier (Thuc. 5.33.1–3), but apparently did nothing to weaken Tegea and its alli-
ance. Thus, even membership of the Peloponnesian League did not stop Arkadian
states going to war with each other, as Mantinea and Tegea did. Another striking
example is a war between Kleitor and Orchomenos in 378 (Xen. Hell. 5.4.36–37):
it is reported only because the Kleitorians were employing mercenaries, and the
Spartan King Agesilaos wanted to use these mercenaries in a campaign that he was
leading against Thebes. He told the Kleitorians to let him have their mercenaries,
and ordered Orchomenos to refrain from war against Kleitor for as long as his own
campaign might last, even threatening that, if any polis campaigned against another
during a Peloponnesian League campaign, he would attack them directly. Xeno-
phon does not tell us whether fighting between Kleitor and Orchomenos resumed
once Agesilaos’ campaign was over, but he reports no measure to prevent it. Thus
membership of the Peloponnesian League allowed the Arkadian poleis, especially
the bigger ones, considerable freedom to create hegemonic alliances and even to go
to war with each other, but Sparta could, and did, intervene when it saw fit. A pan-
Arkadian confederacy would have been a danger great enough to justify interven-
tion, and Arkadians must have known that.
As Emily Mackil has stressed, shared religious activity promoted cohesion
among Greeks, and could play a major role in establishing, maintaining, and devel-
oping the koinon (Mackil 2013, 147–236). However it is not clear whether the
Arkadians had a sanctuary that could serve as a focus for such cohesion. Only one
site, the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios on Mt. Lykaion, could have played such a role.
Pausanias (8.37.9) says that the Arkadians revered Despoina most of all the gods,
but the only known cult of Despoina in Arkadia was at Lykosoura and there is no
sign that her sanctuary there was seen as a meeting-place for the Arkadian ethnos.18
Herodotus (6.74.1–2) says that the Spartan king Kleomenes I tried to bring together
leading men of the Arkadians at Nonakris, where there was the Styx, in order to
have them swear by the water of the Styx (as well as by other oaths) to follow him
wherever he might lead, but, however fearsome an oath by the Styx might be, there
was no sanctuary at the Styx and there is no trace of regular cult activity there (Jost
1985, 36). On Mt. Lykaion, however, there was a major sanctuary near the summit
17 Bearzot 2004, 45–56. The comparable danger from a Thessalian bloc was set out in a speech
of 375–374 by Polydamas of Pharsalos to the Spartans (Xen. Hell.6.1.4–16: see Bearzot 2004,
63–72).
18 On the sanctuary and cult of Despoina see Jost 1985, 297–301 and 326f.
248 James Roy
where there was cult activity on a very large scale, including well-known games,
the Lykaia, in honour of Zeus Lykaios, and, on the summit itself, an ash altar and a
temenos.19 Both the sanctuary and the ash altar are currently being investigated by
the Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project: two extensive preliminary reports
have recently appeared,20 one on the ash altar and the adjacent temenos at the sum-
mit and the other on the lower sanctuary. The investigation is adding greatly to our
knowledge of both sites. Nothing so far known, however, shows the various Arka-
dian communities coming together to worship Zeus Lykaios: few inscriptions have
been found, and other offerings cannot obviously be related to pan-Arkadian inter-
action. The importance of Zeus Lykaios for the Arkadians is not in doubt, but much
is still unclear about the sanctuary. It is not known, for instance, who was respon-
sible for its management, including the organisation of the Lykaia. I have recently
argued (Roy 2013b) that the simplest hypothesis is to suppose that the responsibility
belonged to the Parrhasians, in whose territory the sanctuary lay. (After the syn-
oikism of Megalopolis, when the Parrhasians were incorporated in Megalopolis and
the sanctuary on Mt. Lykaion fell within Megalopolitan territory, it is clear that
Megalopolis administered the sanctuary [Roy 2013b, 31f]). There are, however,
some apparently pan-Arkadian features. One is that on the two surviving victor-
lists from the games, of the late fourth century, all Arkadian victors are designated
by the ethnic ‘Arkas’ alone, with no reference to their particular home community:
this was evidently an attempt to emphasise common Arkadian identity.21 Also, in
the fifth coinage with the legend ARKADIKON (or an abbreviation) was struck in
very large quantities, with the head of Zeus Lykaios on the obverse of all the coins.
Various attempts have been made to explain who struck these, coins, and why,22
but a very plausible suggestion is that they were struck in connection with the
Lykaia, the games held at the sanctuary, since that would explain the very large
quantity of coinage struck (Nielsen 2002, 145–152).23 If that suggestion is right,
then the simplest hypothesis is that they were struck by whoever organised the
games, and, rather than assume an otherwise unattested Arkadian amphictyony or
the like (Nielsen 2002, 149), it is simpler to suppose that the Parrhasians ran the
games and struck the coins (Roy 2013b, 32–35). In that case the Parrhasians would
have been asserting the link between the sanctuary, with its games, and the identity
of the Arkadian ethnos; and they would also have been declaring, implicitly, the
prominence that they enjoyed among Arkadians through having the sanctuary in
19 See Jost 1985, 179–185 with Pl.47–49 on the sanctuary, and 249–269 on the cult of Zeus
Lykaios: note however that the archaeological information available at the time of publication
was from the excavations of Kourouniotis in the early 20 th century. On the importance of the
cult of Zeus Lykaios for Arkadians see also Nielsen 2013, 235–240.
20 Romano and Voyatzis 2014 and 2015.
21 IG V.2 549–550: see Nielsen 2002, 150 and 529f.
22 Mackil 2013, 249 n.39 notes various suggestions: see also Pretzler 2009, 98f; and Nielsen 2013,
237 and 2015, 251f.
23 Pretzler 2009, 98f and Nielsen 2013, 237 both strongly suggest that the ARKADIKON coinage
was minted by Tegea, but neither seeks to explain why Tegea would have minted in such quan-
tity. See also Nielsen 2015, 250–253.
their territory. Such behaviour would be important for understanding how Arkadian
identity could be used, a question that will be considered later. Here it is enough to
note that nothing that we know at the moment about the sanctuary at Mt. Lykaion
shows that it was the scene of interaction among Arkadian communities likely to
lead to a more structured grouping such as a koinon, and we know of no other Arka-
dian sanctuary likely to have played such a role.
Spartan influence, the lack of a Peloponnesian model of a large koinon, and the
absence of shared religious activity likely to promote union, all help to explain why
no Arkadian koinon developed before 370. However, it is also important to under-
stand what the Arkadians did do before 370, the more so because a tendency that
developed in that period then continued for centuries. By the beginning of the clas-
sical period Arkadia was made up of a large number of communities, generally
organised as poleis; Nielsen (2004a) lists 39 that meet the criteria of the Copenha-
gen Polis Centre for being considered as poleis. There were in fact many more
communities that were probably also poleis, but for which the relevant evidence is
lacking, or is available but does not meet the criteria of the CPC: for instance, fewer
than half of the communities that Pausanias (8.27.3–4) says were to be incorporated
in the synoikism of Megalopolis appear in Nielsen’s list. Whether or not all of these
communities named by Pausanias were actually absorbed by Megalopolis, there is
no reason to doubt their existence (Nielsen 2002, 280f). Pausanias, however, in
Book 8 gives only seventeen Arkadian poleis in total in his day (second century
CE), including Stymphalos and Alea although they were then attached to the Ar-
golid. Among the seventeen were three small poleis: Lykosoura had survived as an
enclave in Megalopolitan territory; Antoninus Pius had restored the polis-status of
Pallantion because it was believed to be the home of Evander, mythical founder of
the first settlement on the Palatine at Rome; and Alipheira had somehow survived
on the border between Arkadia and Elis (Roy 2010, 59f). The other fourteen cities
mentioned by Pausanias, all larger than those three, had absorbed all the other poleis
that had once existed in Arkadia.24 This was the result of a process that had gone
on for centuries, as larger Arkadian poleis sought, by various means, to extend their
influence over smaller neighbours. The earliest evidence is a sixth-century dedica-
tion by Kleitor at Olympia celebrating victory over ‘many cities’:25 since Kleitor
did not lie on the frontier of Arkadia, it is very hard to see how it could win such a
victory over anyone other than its Arkadian neighbours. In the 420s (as mentioned
above) both Tegea and Mantinea had created hegemonic alliances over neighbours,
and in 423 they fought a battle, each being supported by its allies (Thuc. 4.134):
this example shows that expansion was sometimes competitive. The hegemonic
nature of Mantinea’s alliance is clear from the terms of the treaty agreed in 420 by
Mantinea, Elis, Argos, and Athens (Thuc. 5.47, Staatsverträge 193): the four major
states each swore an oath on behalf of themselves and their subordinate allies. Sim-
ilarly in 362, according to Xenophon (Hell. 7.5.4), the Arkadians who supported
24 The full list is: Alea, Heraia, Kaphyai, Kleitor, Kynaitha, Mantinea, Megalopolis, Orchomenos,
Pheneos, Phigalia, Psophis, Stymphalos, Tegea, and Thelpousa.
25 Paus. 5.23.7: see Nielsen 2002, 193–195.
250 James Roy
Epameinondas’ invasion of the Peloponnese were the Tegeans, the Megalopolitans,

the Aseans, and “any poleis that were forced [to follow them] because they were
small and were situated in the middle of these”. Sometimes the smaller community
was incorporated in the larger by a formal agreement: two fourth-century inscrip-
tions show such agreements between Orchomenos and Euaimon and between Man-
tinea and Helisson, and in both cases it is generally accepted that the larger polis
was in effect absorbing the smaller.26
It was possible for a small community that had been absorbed to regain its in-
dependence, and Helisson is a good example: it must have separated from Mantinea
since it was incorporated in Megalopolis, but later it also separated from Megalop-
olis and appeared as an independent polis c. 300 and later as a member of the
Achaian League striking federal coinage in its own name.27 The synoikism of Meg-
alopolis took in many small poleis, and some – particularly those near the edge of
Megalopolitan territory – subsequently regained independence. Helisson is one
such, and another good example is Methydrion (Nielsen 2002, 449–452). After the
second century BCE, however, there is no known case of a smaller Arkadian polis
regaining its independence, apart from the exceptional case of Pallantion, which
had been a komē of Megalopolis or Tegea but was elevated by Antoninus Pius to
the status of polis.28 Pausanias’ account of Arkadia suggests rather that in his day
the larger poleis controlled their territories securely. Thus, from at least the late
archaic period the larger Arkadian poleis extended their influence over smaller
neighbours. The process was not entirely straightforward, since a smaller commu-
nity could sometimes regain its polis-status, but the eventual outcome was that four-
teen poleis absorbed all but three of the others.29 As a result the fourteen gained
territory and manpower, and may well have also gained economic advantages, such
as access to more arable land for cultivation and to pasture for the flocks that were
very important in the Arkadian economy.
While these fourteen poleis grew stronger through expansion, none became
strong enough to achieve sole dominance in Arkadia. Forsén (2000) has examined
the relative strengths of Tegea, Mantinea, and Orchomenos, the three major poleis
of the southeastern basins of Arkadia. He finds that Tegea was stronger than Man-
tinea, and Mantinea stronger than Orchomenos, but that none was alone strong
enough to overcome a neighbour. It is understandable that Forsén chose to examine
these three poleis, the major cities of southern Arkadia before the foundation of
Megalopolis, because there is sufficient evidence to permit his analysis. It is likely,
however, that the surviving evidence concentrates on southern Arkadia at the ex-
pense of other areas, at least in the late archaic and classical periods, because of a
general Greek interest in Sparta, immediately to the south. Kleitor in northern
Arkadia, for instance, seems from the limited available evidence to have been an
26 Orchomenos and Euaimon, IPArk 15: see Nielsen 2002, 350–352. Mantinea and Helisson, SEG
37.340: see Nielsen 2002, 359–363 and 2015, 254–256.
27 IG IV2.1 42; Dubois 1988, 2.132 and Warren 2007, 67.
28 Paus. 8.44.1–7: Roy 2010, 59.
29 On this process see Roy 2008.
important polis.30 Besides its sixth century dedication at Olympia commemorating

victory over many cities (Paus. 5.23.7), we know that in 378 it was at war with
Orchomenos (Xen. Hell. 5.4.36); since they were separated by the territory of
Kaphyai, one or both must have been trying to expand.
For the foundation of Megalopolis the Arkadian koinon appointed ten oikists,
of which two were from Kleitor (8.27.2): the others were made up of two each from
Mantinea, Tegea, Parrhasia, and Mainalia. Kleitor, at least in the time of Pausanias,
had a very large territory, apparently the largest in Arkadia (Nielsen 2002, 323–
325). Thus the important poleis of Arkadia were not all concentrated in the south,
even if the south attracted much more attention from historians. Nonetheless it is
still true that no single polis was dominant. Megalopolis was obviously intended
to be a major polis, and in the decree of the Arkadian koinon preserved on IG V.2,
1 it alone has ten damiorgoi, while no other polis has more than five. It is often
said that it was intended to be the federal capital, or, as Hans Beck (1997, 83) put
it, the Bundeszentrum, but the evidence to support the suggestion is not good (Roy
2007, 291f). In any case, not long after the creation of Megalopolis the Arkadian
confederacy split into two blocs, and Megalopolis was clearly not able to dominate
Arkadia thereafter. In fact no single polis ever held in Arkadia the dominant posi-
tion that Thebes for a considerable time enjoyed in Boiotia. There was thus no polis
that could alone promote an Arkadian koinon. On the other hand there were several
poleis that could profit from the absence of a federal structure by promoting their
own interests locally.
Leading Arkadian cities also used what may be called pan-Arkadian sentiment
to promote their interests. The subject has been examined recently by Pretzler
(2009, 96–99) and Nielsen (2013, 235–237 and 2015, 252–254): the available evi-
dence concerns mainly Tegea and Mantinea. It is however important to consider
whether such claims were made to promote a pan-Arkadian cause, as Pretzler and
Nielsen suggest, or were meant to serve the particular interests of Tegea and Man-
tinea.31 In the case of Tegea Pretzler cites two passages in Herodotus (9.35 and
9.26–28). The first fits Pretzler’s argument well, referring as it does to two battles
fought by Tegea against Sparta in the 470s or 460s; in the first Tegea was supported
by Argos, and in the second by all Arkadians except Mantinea. The second passage,
however, concerns Tegea’s claim to a place of honour in the battle-line at Plataiai
in an army led by the Spartans. In the speech that Herodotus (9.26) gives the
Tegeans they certainly tell how their mythical king Echemos prevented the Hera-
kleidai, the Spartans’ ancestors, from remaining in the Peloponnese, but they also
tell the Spartans explicitly that they have no rivalry with them and leave them to
30 See the comments of Nielsen 2002, 365f.

31 Pretzler 2009, 97 writes ‘at least in the fifth century Tegea made a conscious effort to present
itself as a long-standing champion of the Arcadian cause, particularly against Sparta’, and (on
the transfer of the bones of Arkas to Mantinea) ‘a bold move which suggests a serious claim to
pan-Arcadian leadership’. Nielsen 2013, 235 writes ‘some sort of Arkadian unification, it
would seem, had been the ambition of both Tegea and Mantinea during the fifth century’
(though on pp. 236f he writes of Tegea and Mantinea seeking to ‘further their local political
initiatives’).
252 James Roy
choose whichever wing of the battle-line they wish. The speech is in fact made in
a spirit of friendship towards the Spartans. Despite subsequent hostility in the 470s
or 460s, relations between Sparta and Tegea were evidently friendly again in the
late 420s: it is notable that, although Sparta sent an army to drive the Mantineans
out of Parrhasia and to deprive them of their Parrhasian allies and of a fort that they
had built in Parrhasia, Sparta took no action against the Tegeans who had equally
built up a hegemonic alliance on Sparta’s northern frontier (Thuc. 5.33.1–3, cf.
4.134.1–2). Indeed, from the 460s until the aftermath of the battle of Leuktra there
is no evidence of Tegean hostility to Sparta or of a Tegean attempt to unite Arkadia.
As for Mantinea, it had certainly built up a hegemonic alliance in Mainalia and
Parrhasia by 423, and it may well have been in those years that the supposed bones
of Arkas were brought from Mainalia to Mantinea (Paus. 8.9.3, 8.36.8: Nielsen
2002, 403f). Mantinea became openly hostile to Sparta in 420, allying itself with
Elis, Argos, and Athens (Thuc. 5.47, Staatsverträge 193).
However the speech which, according to Thucydides (5.69.1), a Mantinean
commander made to his troops before the battle of Mantinea in 418, is revealing:
for the Mantineans, the commander said, the battle was about archē and slavery,
not to lose archē and not to suffer slavery [at the hands of the Spartans] again. In
other words, at least in the judgment of Thucydides, the Mantineans’ ambition was
not at all pan-Arkadian but purely Mantinean, a desire to maintain leadership of
their hegemonic alliance. Pretzler (2009, 98) also mentions the case of Orchome-
nos, already noted by Nielsen (2002, 355–357, cf. 2015, 254). In the fourth century
coins of Orchomenos and of Methydrion (which had been attached to Orchomenos)
showed the nymph Kallisto dying and, lying beside her, her baby son Arkas: Niel-
sen suggests that the coins were intended to link Orchomenos and Methydrion.32
At any rate, as Pretzler notes, these coins show that major figures of Arkadian my-
thology were not deployed only by the most powerful Arkadian states; Orchomenos
could have no pan-Arkadian purpose (and in fact opposed the Arkadian koinon
when it came into being: Xen. Hell. 6.5.11, 13–14). It seems that apparently pan-
Arkadian claims could be used to promote the purely local ambitions of particular
Arkadian communities, although, when an opportunity arose, they could also serve
genuinely pan-Arkadian purposes. In fact before the battle of Leuktra, the fifth-
century battle fought against the Spartans by all the Arkadians except Mantinea
seems to be the only (almost) pan-Arkadian action. It also appears, however, that
Arkadian communities were concerned about their standing within Arkadia: the use
of pan-Arkadian myth to promote local interests within Arkadia suggests a desire
to assert status among fellow-Arkadians. The ARKADIKON coinage may have
been struck to claim such status for the community that struck it.
To sum up: there were various factors that help to explain why no Arkadian
koinon was created before the Battle of Leuktra, notably Spartan influence, the lack
of any single Arkadian community strong enough to lead the others, and, possibly,
the lack of a religious centre where Arkadian communities interacted closely
32 Examples of the coins are illustrated in Walker 2006, 373 n.1572 (Methydrion) and 374f
n.1573–1582 (Orchomenos).
enough to promote closer union. Nonetheless the bigger Arkadian communities

had found ways to increase their power, territory, and resources by absorbing
smaller neighbours, and, although they used pan-Arkadian cult and myth for their
purposes, they pursued their own local interests. Then came Leuktra and its after-
math, briefly bringing changed circumstances in which the formation of a koinon
seemed desirable to many Arkadians (though not all); but in the tensions of the 360s
the koinon remained united only until 363/2, when it split into two blocs. Both
blocs seem to have continued as rival confederacies for a time, and one at least
seems to have survived until 322: how much longer it survived is unknown.33 It is
however clear that after the 360s the major Arkadian communities continued to
pursue their own local interests as before, and did so into the Roman imperial pe-
riod.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldacci, G. (2013) Ridefinire l’identità di una polis: la riforma di Demonatte di Mantinea a Cirene,
in G. Baldacci, E.M. Ciampini, E. Girotto, and G. Masaro (eds.), Percorsi identitari tra Medi-
terraneo e vicino Oriente antico, Padua, 21–33.
Bearzot, C. (2004) Federalismo e autonomia nelle Elleniche di Senofonte, Milan.
Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr, Stuttgart.
Carlier, P. (1984) La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasburg.
Charneux, P. (1983) Sur quelques inscriptions d’Argos, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
107, 251–267.
de Fidio, P. (2013) Eforo e le tradizioni sulla Messenia arcaica, in P. de Fidio and C. Talamo (eds.),
Eforo di Cuma nella storia della storiografia grece. Atti dell’Incontro Internazionale di Studi
Fisciano-Salerno, 10–12 dicembre 2008, vol. 1, Naples, 413–506.
Dubois, L. (1988) Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, Louvain-la–Neuve.
Forsén, B. (2000) Population and Political Strength of Some Southeastern Arkadian Poleis, in P.
Flensted–Jensen (ed.), Further studies in the ancient Greek polis, Stuttgart, 35–55.
Fowler, R. L. (2013) Early Greek mythography vol. 2: Commentary, Oxford.
Gehrke, H.-J. (1986) Jenseits von Athen und Sparta: das dritte Griechenland und seine Staatenwelt,
Munich.
Foundation, Oxford.
Jost, M. (1985) Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie, Paris.
Karapanagiotou, A. V. (2005) Preliminary Notices on the Excavation of a Classical Town at Ky-
parissia, Gortynia, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the Third International
Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, Ath-
ens, 331–350.
33 Nielsen 2002, 493–496. An Argive inscription that refers to an Arkadian koinon and also shows
Kleonai as a kome of Argos (Piérart 1982; Charneux 1983, 256–262) had been used as argu-
ment for the longer survival of an Arkadian koinon, but Kritsas 2006, 427–429 has now shown
that Kleonai was incorporated into Argos in the earlier fourth century, probably before the
formation of an Arkadian koinon after Leuktra.
254 James Roy
Karapanagiotou, A. V. (2010) Kyparissia bei Gortynia: eine Streifenstadt klassischer Zeit im west-
lichen Arkadien, in H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu griechischen
Städten und Heiligtümern: Festschrift für Burkhardt Wesenberg zum 65. Geburtstag,
Möhnesee, 127–138.
Kritzas, C. (2006) Nouvelles inscriptions d’Argos: les archives des comptes du trésor sacré (IVe s.
av. J.–C.), Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles–Lettres 150, 397–434.
Morgan, C. and J.M. Hall (2004) Achaia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of
Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 472–488.
Nielsen, T.H. (2004a) Arkadia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic
Nielsen, T.H. (2004b) Triphylia in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic
Nielsen, T.H. (2013) Can “federal sanctuaries” be Identified in Triphylia and Arkadia?, in P. Funke
and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration,
Stuttgart, 227–244.
Nielsen, T.H. (2015) The Arkadian Confederacy, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in
Ødegård, K. and A.V. Karapanagiotou (2012) Τεγέα και Τεγεατική, in A.G. Vlachopoulos (ed.),
αρχαολογία Πελοπόννησος, Athens, 278–285.
Piérart, M. (1982) Argos, Cléonai, et le koinon des Arcadiens, Bulletin de correspondance hellé-
nique 106, 119–138.
Pretzler, M. (2009) Arcadia: Ethnicity and Politics in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE, in P.
Funke and N. Luraghi (eds.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian
League, Washington, 86–109.
Romano, D.G. and M.E. Voyatzis (2010) Excavating at the Birthplace of Zeus, Expedition 52, 9–
21.
Romano, D. G. and M.E. Voyatzis (2014) Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, Part 1: the
Upper Sanctuary, Hesperia 83, 569–652.
Romano, D. G. and M.E. Voyatzis (2015) Mt. Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, Part 2: The
Lower Sanctuary, Hesperia 84, 207–276.
Roy, J. (1999) The Economies of Arkadia, in T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arka-
dia, Copenhagen, 320–381.
Roy, J. (2000a) The Frontier Between Arkadia and Elis in Classical Antiquity, in P. Flensted–Jensen,
T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and Politics: studies in ancient Greek history
presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday, August 20th, 2000, Copenhagen,
133–156.
Roy, J. (2000b) Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370–362 BC, in R. Brock and
Roy, J. (2004a) Elis, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical
Poleis, Oxford, 489–504.
Roy, J. (2004b) The Ambitions of a Mercenary, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), The Long March, New Ha-
ven/London, 264–288.
Roy, J. (2005) Synoikizing Megalopolis: the scope of the synoikism and the interests of local Arka-
dian communities, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the third international sem-
inar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, Athens,
261–270.
Roy, J. (2007) The Urban Layout of Megalopolis in its Civic and Confederate Context, in R. West-
gate, N. Fisher, and J. Whitley (eds.), Building communities: house, settlement and society in
the Aegean and beyond. Proceedings of a conference held at Cardiff University, 17–21 April
2001, London, 289–295.
Roy, J. (2008) Interaction of Large and Small Communities in Arkadia in the Archaic, Classical,
and Hellenistic and Roman Periods, in C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis and G.M. Muskett (eds.),
Dioskouroi. Studies presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30-
year joint contribution to Aegean Archaeology, Oxford, 176–183.
Roy, J. (2010) Roman Arkadia, in A.D. Rizakis and C. Lepenioti (eds.), Roman Peloponnese III:
Society, economy and culture under the Roman empire: continuity and innovation, Athens, 59–
73.
Roy, J. (2013a) On Seeming Backward: how the Arkadians did it, in S.D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable
Man: essays on ancient Greek social behaviour in honour of Nick Fisher, Swansea, 67–85.
Roy, J. (2013b) The Parrhasians of Southwestern Arkadia, Classica et Mediaevalia 64, 5–47.
Roy, J. (2014) Emplekton Technique in Fortification at Itome/Messene, Megalopolis, and Mantinea:
the work of Theban military engineers?, Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 7, 123–
131.
Siewert, P. (1987–1988) Triphylien und Akroreia. Spartanische “Regionalstaaten” in der westlichen
Peloponnesos vol. 2, in Acts of the 3rd International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies,
Athens, 7–12.
Stylianou, P. J. (1998) A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15, Oxford.
Voyatzis, M.E. (1999) The Role of Temple Building in Consolidating Arkadian Communities, in
T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia, Copenhagen, 130–168.
Walker, A. (2006) Coins of the Peloponnesos: the BCD Collection (Auction LHS 96), Zurich.
London.
Williams, H. (2013) Archaeological Investigations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1982–2008, in K. Kissas
and W.-D. Niemeyer (eds.), The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese. Topography and
history from prehistoric times until the end of antiquity, Munich, 425–431.
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE ARKADIAN LEAGUE:
FROM LYKOMEDES OF MANTINEIA TO STASEIS AMONG
HOMOETHNEIS
Cinzia Bearzot
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan
In spite of the title proposed above (which is perhaps somewhat ambitious) and in
light of the large number of studies considering the Arkadian League and its policies
during the course of the years 370–360, in this paper I shall only consider two
points: first, the characteristics of Arkadian identity as a base for the foreign policy
of the league; and second, the role played Arkadia vis-à-vis Athens and Thebes.
I. ARKADIAN IDENTITY AND FOREIGN POLICY
After the koinē eirēnē of 371/370, Mantineia, which at the time was controlled by
the democratic-leaning anti–Spartan party led by Lykomedes, began a project of
synoikismos in order to undo the dioikismos imposed by Sparta in 385. At the same
time (i.e. the spring-summer of 370) in Tegea, the federalist party of Kallibios and
Proxenos, which was supported by the democratic city of Mantineia, was promoting
the idea of an Arkadian federal union as a counterbalance to the emphasis on au-
tonomy advocated by Stasippos, who, for his part, was himself supported by the
Lakedaimonians (Xen. Hell. 6.5.6–9, cf. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1–2).1 According to Xen-
ophon, Kallibios and Proxenos “were working to unify all of Arkadia in such a way
that (or so that) any motion adopted in the general assembly of the koinon would
also have the force of law in its member cities” (ἐνῆγον ἐπὶ τὸ συνιέναι τε πᾶν τὸ
Ἀρκαδικόν, καὶ ὅ τι νικῴη ἐν τῷ κοινῷ, τοῦτο κύριον εἶναι καὶ τῶν πόλεων). The
party of Stasippos, on the other hand, argued that every city should be guaranteed
the control of its own territory and the freedom “to respect its ancestral laws and
traditions” (ἔπραττον ἐᾶν τε κατὰ χώραν τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις
χρῆσθα). Kallibios and Proxenos, in turn, proposed the following formula: νόμοις
τοῖς αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι καὶ συμπολιτεύειν of Olynthians, which the ambassador Klei-
genes the Acanthian, who had come to seek Spartan aid, in turn refused in the
speech he presented to the Spartan assembly by demanding that the Spartans respect
the will of his fellow citizens to τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις χρῆσθαι καὶ αὐτοπολῖται εἶναι
(Xen. Hell. 5.2.12,14). The ideas of συνιέναι (to assemble in common) and
συμπολιτεύειν (common governance of a state), with all that they entail, represented
two of the fundamental tenets of federal states, as they emerge clearly from the
1 Bearzot 2004, 127–138.

258 Cinzia Bearzot
excursus of Polybios on the history of the Achaian League (2.37–42).2 These crite-
ria are quite clearly present in the democratic and federalist revolution that was put
into motion in Arkadia in 370. But Arkadian federalism was also sustained by sev-
eral other specific arguments beyond these notions of assembly and governance:
common belonging to an ethnos, autochthony to the region’s territory,3 and physical
strength and military prowess, all of which are certainly worthwhile ideological
tenets to review, if only for the importance they had in shaping the policies of the
brand new federation during the years 370–362 BCE.
Lykomedes of Mantineia seems by all accounts to have been the principal agent
behind the synoikismos of Mantineia (even if Xenophon Hell. 6.5.3–5 does not spe-
cifically mention his name), and was certainly the driving force behind the demo-
cratic and federalist revolution in Arkadia in 370.4 Both of these processes were
launched by him and justified by anti-Spartan sentiments along with an argument
in favour of the region’s total autonomy from interfering forces outside the Pelo-
ponnese.5 He is also the chief proponent of Arkadian nationalism; a sentiment
which itself is tightly linked to a policy of opposition first and foremost against the
excessive power of Sparta, as Th. Nielsen has highlighted,6 and also opposition to
the interference of Thebes. We readily find the basis of this nationalism in the fa-
mous speech reported by Xenophon (7.1.23–24) in which Lykomedes, at the time
of the second Theban invasion of the Peloponnese, sought to galvanize the collec-
tive conscience of his homoethneis and to draw their attention to the imminent dan-
ger posed by Thebes. Ironically, the Arkadians themselves had previously invited
this Theban intervention: having been attacked by the Spartans in 370/369, the
Arkadians first sought assistance from Athens and then, after their plea to the Athe-
nians had been refused, they turned instead towards the Thebans, the victors of the
Battle of Leuktra, who responded with their first invasion of the Peloponnese (Diod.
Sic. 15.62.3, this detail is not mentioned by Xenophon).7 This Theban danger does
not otherwise seem to have captured the attention of the Peloponnesians, given that,
at the beginning of the passage in question, Xenophon emphasizes the political and
military harmony between Thebes and its allies in the Peloponnese (Hell. 7.1.22:
2 Bearzot 2015.
3 On the democratic nature of the propaganda of autochthony, cf. Sordi 1998.
4 Diod. Sic. 15.59.1–2 where he is identified as a Tegean; Xenophon, again, does not mention
his name in Hell. 6.5.6–9. The error of Diodorus could well derive from the historian’s equation
of Lykomedes with the democratic faction of Tegea, which was responsible for the movement
in favour of Arkadian unification. At any rate, Diodorus identifies Lykomedes as Mantineian
in another passage (15.62.2), as do Xenophon and Pausanias (8.27.2).
5 Arkadian federalism seems to develop independently from the Thebans, even though Pausi-
anias (8.14.4) writes of the involvement of Epameinondas in the synoikism of Mantineia, and
Plutarch Pel. 24.9 alludes to the role of Thebes in the unification of Arkadia (καὶ πᾶσαν μὲν
Ἀρκαδίαν εἰς μίαν δύναμιν συνέστησαν; cf. Georgiadou 1997, 182f.
6 Nielsen 1999, 60; Nielsen 2002, 154.
7 Cf. Dem. 16.12 and 19. Paus. 9.14.4 limits himself to mentioning that the Arkadians enthusi-
astically invited the Thebans into the Peloponnese (καὶ τῶν Ἀρκάδων προθύμως
μεταπεμπομένων). Cf. Stylianou 1998, 424f.
The Foreign Policy of the Arkadian League 259
Θηβαῖοι δὲ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀποστάντες ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων μέχρι μὲν τούτου τοῦ χρόνου
ὁμοθυμαδὸν καὶ ἔπραττον καὶ ἐστρατεύοντο ἡγουμένων Θηβαίων),
as does Diodorus 15.68.1:

Ἀρκάδες καὶ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Ἠλεῖοι συμφρονήσαντες ἔγνωσαν στρατεύειν ἐπὶ τοὺς
Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ πρεσβεύσαντες πρὸς Βοιωτοὺς ἔπεισαν αὐτοὺς κοινωνεῖν τοῦ πολέμου)
and Plutarch (Pelop. 24. 5 and 8: ἀλλ’ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἄνευ δόγματος κοινοῦ καὶ
ψηφίσματος ἐποίει τοὺς συμμάχους ἕπεσθαι σιωπῇ πάντας ἡγουμένοις ἐκείνοις. […] καὶ γὰρ
Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Ἠλεῖοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες, ἐν τοῖς συνεδρίοις ἐρίζοντες καὶ διαφερόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς
Θηβαίους ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονίας, ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἀγώνων καὶ παρὰ τὰ δεινὰ τοῖς ἐκείνων αὐθαιρέτως
πειθόμενοι στρατηγοῖς ἠκολούθουν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ στρατείᾳ).
We shall subsequently return to these ‘disputes’ between Thebes and its allies over
hegemony, to which the Plutarch’s passage alludes.
The principal goal of the speech of Lykomedes was to promote and stimulate
the phronēma of the Arkadians – a term we find frequently among our sources that
is used to indicate the sense of awareness or collective consciousness unique to the
ethnē of the Greek world, beginning with the Boiotians.8 This national conscious-
ness highlighted by Lykomedes is based on three aspects: ties with the region’s
territory, military strength, and the autonomy of Arkadian communities from exter-
nal powers. Lykomedes asserts above all that the Arkadians were the only people
who were able to define the Peloponnese as their ancestral homeland, given that
they were the one and only autochthonous group to inhabit the region (λέγων ὡς
μόνοις μὲν αὐτοῖς πατρὶς Πελοπόννησος εἴη, μόνοι γὰρ αὐτόχθονες ἐν αὐτῇ
οἰκοῖεν). This claim, based on the myth of Pelasgos, ancestor of the Arkadians and
a native to the region,9 implies an opposition against the Spartans who had arrived
in the Peloponnese as external conquerors – even though through the myth of the
return of the Herakleidai they presented themselves as the legitimate inhabitants of
the Peloponnese, which they believed to be the ancestral home of their forefathers.
At the same time, however, this claim of Arkadian autochthony to – and thus a
privileged association with – the Peloponnese has anti–Theban implications. Indeed
the Thebans were, a fortiori, ‘foreigners’ who had come from outside the Pelopon-
nese (even if it was, in fact, the Arkadians who had invited them). That the theme
of autochthony figures prominently in the contemporary collective consciousness
of the Arkadians is indicated by the inscription CEG 2.383 = FD III.1.2 = Syll.3 160,
lines 1–2, which read: CEG 2.824 = FD III.1.2 = Syll.3 160, : Πύθι’ Ἄπολλον [ἄ]ναξ,
τάδ’ [ἀγάλματ’ ἔ]δ[ωκεν ἀπαρχὰς] / αὐτόχθων ἱερᾶς λαὸς [ἀπ’ Ἀρκαδί]ας; Dusanic
thinks it possible that it was Lykomedes himself who conceived of the text.10
The second point of collective commonality addressed by Lykomedes is with-
out a doubt the most important: the demographic strength and military valour of the
Arkadians, the most numerous and the strongest of all the Greek nations (phyla)
(πλεῖστον δὲ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν φύλων τὸ Ἀρκαδικὸν εἴη καὶ σώματα ἐγκρατέστατα
8 Bearzot 2004, 52–56.

9 Nielsen 1999, 66–72; Nielsen 2002, 32–36. On the subject of federalism and ethnicity, cf. Beck
2003; Hall 2015.
10 Dušanić 1970, 295 n. 43.
260 Cinzia Bearzot
ἔχοι), was comprised of the most courageous men of Greece (καὶ ἀλκιμωτάτους δὲ
αὐτοὺς ἀπεδείκνυε).11 This argument is reinforced by calling to mind the extent to
which Arkadian soldiers were desired by others (‘every time that anyone had need
of reinforcements, they would prefer Arkadians over all others’), and this claim
applies equally well to the Spartans as it does to the Thebans. Yet Lykomedes’
assertion also privileges one of the characteristic features of Arkadian society: the
fact that they were renowned as mercenaries.12 The characteristic at this point ap-
plied equally well to the unified state of the Arkadians as a federal polity, who re-
cently benefitted from territorial expansion, demographic strength, and a high ca-
pacity for military mobilisation – all the qualities that the Arkadians (described as
pleistoi, enkratestatoi, alkimotatoi) are encouraged to take advantage of them-
selves, rather than placing them at the service of whatever the hegemonial power of
the moment may have been. We find another important indication of the ‘military’
characteristics of Arkadian nationalism in the inscription that we have encountered
above, in which the use of the term laos aptly underscores this martial aspect.13
The remarkable capabilities of the Arkadians in the realm of military affairs
along with their budding ethnic consciousness were even noted by Xenophon him-
self, though admittedly he is hardly inclined to appreciate the aspirations of groups
hailing from the Peloponnese.14 In fact, after Xenophon notes, in the context of the
speech of Lykomedes (Xen. Hell. 7.1.24–25), that “the Arkadians rejoiced at hear-
ing these things” (οἱ μὲν δὴ Ἀρκάδες ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες ἀνεφυσῶντο), he then adds
– regarding the campaigns in support of the Argives and against Asine of Laconia
– that the Arkadians “also rejoiced because of the events which followed” (καὶ ἐκ
τῶν συμβαινόντων δὲ ἔργων ἐμεγαλύνοντο οἱ Ἀρκάδες), because “wherever they
went, nothing stood in their way – not darkness, not storms, neither the length of
the journey nor impassable mountains; it was on account of this, therefore, that at
the time they were convinced they were the strongest” (ὥστε ἔν γε ἐκείνῳ τῷ χρόνῳ
πολὺ ᾤοντο κράτιστοι εἶναι). Xenophon considered the Arkadians, just like the Ar-
gives, as one of the strongest peoples of the Peloponnese (Hell. 7.2.2: ἔχοντες πο-
λεμίους τοὺς δυνατωτάτους τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ Ἀρκάδας καὶ Ἀργείους).
We may find another confirmation of the growing popularity of this collective
consciousness shaped by Lykomedes in the words of the Arkadian Antiochos, who
was sent as the delegate of the Arkadian koinon to the negotiation of the common
peace of 367 in Persia. Antiochos, rebuffed by the Persian ambassadors over the
role of the Arkadian League, upon his return to Arkadia reported to the 10,000,
“that the king had a multitude of bakers, of chefs, of attendants and valets, but when
it came to men who were capable of fighting against the Greeks, even though he
11 Xenophon Hell. 6.5.16 emphasizes the large number of Arkadian hoplites sent by Tegea to the
assistance of Mantineia when it had been attacked by Agesilaos. Diodorus 15.64.3 notes the
importance of the Arkadian contingent in the allied army during the first Theban invasion of
the Peloponnese (ἡ δὲ τρίτη μερίς, ἐκ τῶν Ἀρκάδων συνεστηκυῖα καὶ στρατιώτας ἔχουσα
πλείστους).
12 Nielsen 1999, 79–83; Nielsen 2002, 40–43; Gallotta 2006.
13 Nielsen 2002, 53.
14 Sordi 1951, 313–316.
had searched far and wide he did not find a single man” (Hell. 7.1.38). Thus, in
these words of Antiochos, we find that the collective perception of the Arkadikon
promoted by Lykomedes was intrinsically linked to the Arkadians’ awareness of
the military force of their League.
The third point follows directly from this recognition of their own military
strength. Lykomedes beseeches the Arkadians to stop ‘following all those who call
on them,’ to not follow the Thebans ‘on a whim’, and to demand that they lead the
alliance in turn (kata meros); if they do not do these things, he asserts that the Arka-
dians will find that the Thebans are ‘the new Spartans’ (ἐὰν οὖν σωφρονῆτε, τοῦ
ἀκολουθεῖν ὅποι ἄν τις παρακαλῇ φείσεσθε· ὡς πρότερόν τε Λακεδαιμονίοις
ἀκολουθοῦντες ἐκείνους ηὐξήσατε, νῦν δὲ ἂν Θηβαίοις εἰκῇ ἀκολουθῆτε καὶ μὴ
κατὰ μέρος ἡγεῖσθαι ἀξιῶτε, ἴσως τάχα τούτους ἄλλους Λακεδαιμονίους
εὑρήσετε). If they did so, then the autonomy of the Arkadians themselves as well
as the entire Peloponnese would be endangered yet again. In the past I have noted
elsewhere that in this speech Lykomedes argues in favour of Arkadian hegemony
over the entire Peloponnese; today I would certainly not describe his position in
such terms.15 The reality of the situation, it seems to me, was rather that the Arka-
dians took care to defend their independence by means of a defensive alliance that
did not oblige them to follow the lead of the hegemon ‘wherever he may wish’ as
the Spartans had demanded of the allies and of those who had ascribed to a common
peace. As an aside: this requirement indeed was something Thebes also sought to
do at the time by threatening, among other things a punitive expedition against
whomever would dare oppose it, as is evident in the negotiations at Susa in 367
Xen. Hell. 7.1.36. The Arkadians, sought to prevent this by planning that the com-
mand of the alliance would rotate among member states in turn, something to which
Plut. Pel. 24.8 by all accounts alludes to, though he does not specify who exactly
disagreed with this idea, which he considers as being put forward by all the allies
and not just the Arkadians on their own, although he downplays the importance and
consequences of the strategy (καὶ γὰρ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Ἠλεῖοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες, ἐν τοῖς
συνεδρίοις ἐρίζοντες καὶ διαφερόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς Θηβαίους ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονίας…).
The invitation of Lykomedes, by all accounts, took into consideration the
heated debates that had recently been sparked among the allies of Sparta by this
obligation to follow the hegemon ‘wherever he may wish’. During the assembly of
371 (for the peace, presumably), the Athenian Autokles had expressly accused the
Spartans of violating the condition of autonomy by this hegemonial obligation
(Xen. Hell. 7.3.7–8), and in the treaty establishing the Common Peace with which
the assembly concluded, this requirement of obligatory intervention had been
erased, (Xen. Hell. 7.3.18), only to be reintroduced in the version of the treaty rati-
fied at Athens in 371/370 (Xen. Hell. 7.5.2). The idea of alternating the office of
hegemon was among the leading debates of the time, to the point that the Athenian
Kephisodotos demanded it – with success – during the negotiation of the alliance
between Athens and Sparta in 369 (Xen. Hell. 7.1.12–14). Subsequent renewals of
the Common Peace had also emphasized issues such as these that were linked to
15 Bearzot 2004, 128.

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

means from foreign intervention, thereby becoming autonomous. And this seems
all the more to be the case because these Peloponnesian allies were perfectly aware
of the military attributes of the Thebans: according to Xenophon (Hell. 7.5.23),
when the Arcadians, Argives, and the Eleians asked the Thebans to invade Lakonia,
in addition to drawing attention to their own numerical importance, they also ex-
tolled the strength of the Theban army (ὑπερεπαινοῦντες δὲ τὸ τῶν Θηβαίων
στράτευμα). Xenophon himself highlights the quality of their military training,
which is the result of repeated exercises (καὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν Βοιωτοὶ ἐγυμνάζοντο
πάντες περὶ τὰ ὅπλα, ἀγαλλόμενοι τῇ ἐν Λεύκτροις νίκῃ, cf. Diod. Sic. 15.50.5).
Lykomedes thus successfully made himself the spokesman of an Arkadian na-
tional conscience based on autochthony, intrinsic links to their territory (the Pelo-
ponnese), their physical and moral characteristics (demographic superiority,
strength, and courage), as well as their military importance; in short, the specific
values of the Arkadian phylon. This national consciousness seems to be capable of
inspiring a political policy with autonomist tendencies: first and foremost it was
anti-Spartan, then equally anti-Theban, even though in Diodorus the policy advo-
cated by Lykomedes was never presented as being explicitly anti–Theban, his own
remarkable military feats are mentioned on several occasions.21 At the same time
the policy of Lykomedes favoured the promotion of federal unity among the Arka-
dians, even while developments outside the League demonstrated that in Arkadia,
as in Greece as a whole, national identity and political policy were not necessarily
linked to one another.22 The promotion of a strong national identity did nothing at
all to prevent the deep fissures which formed in the heart of the Arkadian League
in 364: perhaps among the various causes of this we ought to look particularly at
the lack of consolidation among the federal union’s member states. Doubtless the
resistance to the league, whose traces we find since its beginnings in the refusal of
‘certain’ Arkadian cities to support the synoikism of Mantineia (Xen. Hell. 5.11),
contributed to this fracture. Perhaps the lack of strong central authority like that
wielded by Lykomedes, who was killed in 366 in an attempted oligarchic coup, was
another causal factor in the League’s rupture.23 In this regard it is interesting to note
that the vicissitudes of federal Arkadia, as with the city of Thebes during its hegem-
ony, underscore the fundamental importance of each respective league’s leadership:
ambitious projects, like the unification of Arkadia on the one hand, and the Theban
hegemony on the other, often seem to have been the product of individual initiative,
be it on the part of Lykomedes or Epameinondas and Pelopidas in their respective
milieu. The act of taking these individuals out of the picture blocks the development
21 Diodorus, who relies on a pro-Theban tradition, does not mention the problems faced by the
coalition. Lykomedes is mentioned as a strategos during the expeditions against Orchomenos,
which did not want to involve itself in the Arkadian League, and against Pellene (Diod. Sic.
15.62.2, cf. Xen. Hell. 6.5.11–14; Diod. Sic. 15.67.2, cf. Xen. Hell. 7.2.2–4; the name of
Lykomedes is not mentioned explicitly by Xenophon).
22 Cf. Roy 1972 regarding this national identity of the Arkadians and the local attachments which,
at any rate, remained rather strong.
23 Beck 1997.
264 Cinzia Bearzot
of certain projects that would have been undertaken with great success. The subse-
quent tradition has identified in the deaths of Epameinondas and Pelopidas one of
the motifs of the transient character of the Theban hegemony, namely, that the Boe-
otian political elite had neither the ability nor the interest to promote such projects.
In the same vein, the assassination of Lykomedes, whose great personal influence
is emphasized by Xenophon (Hell. 7.1.24: οἱ μὲν δὴ Ἀρκάδες ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες
ἀνεφυσῶντό τε καὶ ὑπερεφίλουν τὸν Λυκομήδην καὶ μόνον ἄνδρα ἡγοῦντο· ὥστε
ἄρχοντας ἔταττον οὕστινας ἐκεῖνος κελεύοι) endangered the Arkadian federal pro-
ject, which he had so fervently desired (Diod. Sic. 15.59.1),24 just as much as it
jeopardised designs of the Arkadians on the conduct of the Peloponnesian alliance
as a whole. To conclude, I believe that it is possible to underscore the fundamental
individual role played by Lykomedes (justifiably recognised by Xenophon) who
kindled an adequate national identity based on common values, in the promotion of
the national unity of the Arkadians, as well as in the promotion of a solid policy
among them favouring autonomy. Perhaps most importantly, we can recognise the
importance of his influence in the fact that he had momentarily succeeded in con-
taining the divisive elements among the Arkadians, which would reappear promptly
after his death and which would rapidly lead to the staseis among homoethneis re-
ported by Diod. Sic. 15.82.2 – a process which can also certainly be attributed to
the disappearance of the ominous and oppressive presence of Sparta from the polit-
ical stage.
II. ARKADIA BETWEEN ATHENS AND THEBES
Marta Sordi, a pioneer in the study of federalism in Italy, was convinced that over
the course of its hegemony Thebes had consciously favoured the development of
federalism in the Peloponnese and in Thessaly.25 Hans Beck, however, denied the
existence of systematic collaboration among federal states.26 The case of Arkadia
in the aftermath of 370 provides an excellent test for at least partially examining
this question of inter-federal collaboration in the fourth century. Many points have
already been highlighted by contemporary scholars, and it seems fitting to me to
bring some other observations regarding the progressive rupture between the Arka-
dians and the Thebans, as well as on the ‘Athenian’ choice of Lykomedes, into the
picture.
As we have seen above, the position statement of Lykomedes over the course
of the second Peloponnesian campaign of the Thebans implies that the hegemonic
role played by the Thebans in the alliance was challenged by the Arkadians, who
24 According to Stylianou 1998, 416, Diodorus simplifies the situation: in essence there was a
cooperation among, on the one hand, the democrats of Mantineia, of Tegea, and of the other
Arkadian cities, and on the other hand, the exiles who were living in Argos and Athens.
25 Sordi 1982, 159–166.
26 Beck 1997a, 212–225; Beck 2000, 343–344.
demanded to have an equal say. The Arkadians, for their part, argued that the alli-
ance should be led kata meros; a request that actually expressed the sort of willing-
ness to collaborate that was typical of Greek federal states who were used to dele-
gating and sharing power and influence. Until the speech of Lykomedes which
brought to light the dispute between the Arkadians and the Thebans in a completely
unexpected manner in the account of Xenophon, the relations among the states of
the Peloponnese (Arkadians, Argives, Eleans) and the Thebans had seemed quite
strong, founded as they were on reciprocal trust. What was it that led to this contro-
versy which, even though it did not lead to a total rupture of the alliance, nonethe-
less dragged on with moments of great tension until 363–362, when over the course
of the crisis which had preceded the final expedition of Thebes in the Peloponnese,
Epameinondas accuses the Arkadians of treason and threatens to invade them (Xen.
Hell. 7.4.40)? The emphasis has been placed on various factors: the dissatisfaction
of the Arkadians with how the Thebans had been conducting the affairs of the Pel-
oponnese;27 the growing disengagement of the Thebans which was equally the re-
sult of the domestic problems faced by Epameinondas;28 the absence of stable struc-
tures organising the alliance;29 and the question of the synoikism of Megalopolis
and its extension.30
We can legitimately cite all of these reasons, but given the strongly military
character of the national identity which drove the Arkadians to oppose Thebes, it
seems to me that we can also recognise an aspect of the situation that comes to the
fore in certain episodes recounted by our sources. In the context of the first Theban
expedition in the Peloponnese,31 Xenophon (Hell. 6.5.30) mentions that when they
pitched camp the Thebans hurried to cut down trees and build shelters, while the
Arkadians, for their part, “did nothing of this sort, instead abandoning the camp to
go pillage the houses.” Xenophon again observes (Hell. 6.5.50) in the context of the
end of the second expedition of the Thebans,32 “many Arcadians, Argives, and
Eleans, the inhabitants of the neighbouring regions, had withdrawn, returning to
their homeland with everything that they had looted”. As a result, the Thebans
themselves considered retreating in front of the spectacle of shrinking Arkadian
formations and groups of men. Plutarch (Ages. 32.13) for his part observes that the
retreat of the Thebans on this occasion was a result of the Arkadians beginning to
withdraw by abandoning everything with no organisation whatsoever (τῶν
Ἀρκάδων ἀρξαμένων ἀπιέναι καὶ διαρρεῖν ἀτάκτως).33 Pausanias (9.14.6) also re-
ports the same story (ἐν τούτῳ δὲ οἱ τῶν Θηβαίων σύμμαχοι κατέτρεχον
διασκεδασθέντες χώραν τὴν Λακωνικὴν καὶ ἥρπαζον τὰ ἐξ αὐτῆς).
27 Dušanić 1970, 292–300.

28 Roy 1971, 575–582. He notes that in 368 and 367 the Thebans did not launch any noteworthy
expeditions in the Peloponnese, even though the Arkadians and the Argives continued to fight;
Buckler 1980, 105–109.
29 Cf. Buckler 1982; Buckler 2000.
30 Dušanić 1970, 292–298.
31 At some point between November-December and March-April of 370/369: Shipley 1997, 349.
32 Summer of 369.
33 Shipley 1997, 348.
266 Cinzia Bearzot
Over the course of these two first expeditions, the Arkadian troops were thus
distinguished by their lack of discipline, because they tended to scatter in search of
plunder. These episodes (in response to which the Thebans seem quite intolerant in
encouraging them to withdraw from the Peloponnese) allow us to identify one of
the roots of the dispute between the Thebans and the Arkadians, which certainly
concerned military matters (or were military in their origins). By this I wish to say
that the haughty demands of the Arkadians certainly were a response to the criti-
cisms they had received from the Thebans during these two expeditions; that on the
Theban side disparaging comments on the military prowess of the Arkadians were
certainly not lacking is in fact confirmed elsewhere by the words of Pelopidas at
Susa, when he observed to the Great King that the Argive and the Arkadians had
been defeated when they had fought without the aid of the Thebans (ἔλεγε δὲ ὁ
Πελοπίδας ὅτι οἱ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ οἱ Ἀρκάδες μάχῃ ἡττημένοι εἶεν ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων,
ἐπεὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ παρεγένοντο). The allusion concerns the so-called ‘Battle without
Tears’, fought by the Arkadians in 368 (Xen. Hell. 6.1.29–32; Diod. Sic. 15.72.3),
an episode which allowed Pelopidas to easily refuse, on the basis of fact, the pre-
tence of Arkadian military superiority claimed by Lykomedes that neither the Spar-
tans nor the Thebans had ever dared to fight the Arkadians.
In the account offered to us by the ancient sources, various references are made
to the crisis of diplomatic relations between the Arkadians and the Thebans, as well
as to the subsequent development of an Elean-Theban axis, which appears quite
clearly at certain moments such as the negotiations at Susa. Immediately after re-
counting the speech of Lykomedes, Xenophon indicates that the Thebans began to
distrust the Arkadians and not show any indications of friendship towards them
(Hell. 7.1.26: οἱ μὲν δὴ Θηβαῖοι διὰ ταῦτα ὑποφθόνως καὶ οὐκέτι φιλικῶς εἶχον
πρὸς τοὺς Ἀρκάδας). The Eleans, for their part, became hostile towards the Arka-
dians because of Triphylia (καὶ οἱ Ἠλεῖοι δυσμενῶς εἶχον πρὸς αὐτούς). Xenophon
then emphasizes the mega phronein of the allies of Thebes, who then caused a rup-
ture in the heart of the anti-Spartan alliance (Hell. 7.1.27), with its usual compla-
cency in drawing attention to the difficulties of the Thebans. 34 He also stresses the
satisfaction of the Thebans and the Eleans following the defeat of the Argives and
Arkadians at the ‘Battle without Tears’ (Hell. 7.1.32 ἐπὶ μέντοι τῇ τῶν Ἀρκάδων
τύχῃ οὐ πολύ τι ἧττον Λακεδαιμονίων ἥσθησαν Θηβαῖοί τε καὶ Ἠλεῖοι· οὕτως ἤδη
ἤχθοντο ἐπὶ τῷ φρονήματι αὐτῶν). Tensions were at their highest during the nego-
tiations at Susa (Xen. Hell. 7.1.38: Antiochos was irritated by the lack of esteem in
which the Arkadians were held), and during the congress at Thebes which followed,
when Lykomedes again challenged Theban leadership of the alliance by affirming
that the congress ought to have been held where the war was being waged, namely,
in the Peloponnese (Xen. Hell. 7.1.39: ὁ μέντοι Ἀρκὰς Λυκομήδης καὶ τοῦτο
ἔλεγεν, ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸν σύλλογον ἐν Θήβαις δέοι εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἔνθα ἂν ᾖ ὁ πόλεμος).
This episode is highly significant. Lykomedes was not so much arguing for
Arkadian hegemony as he was for the right of the states of the Peloponnese to self-
34 Riedinger 1991, 172–190.

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

36 Pausanias considers Epameinondas as the ‘oikist’ of Megalopolis, see also 9.14.4; but Beck
2000, 341–343 highlights the weak involvement of Thebes in the city’s foundation (as Roy
had previously argued in 1971, 577f). The bibliography concerning the foundation of Mega-
lopolis is vast and rich in topics of ongoing debate, beginning with the very date of its founda-
tion: cf. Moggi 1974; Roy 2005; and Nielsen 2002, 341–343.
268 Cinzia Bearzot
want to violate the koinē eirēne (Common Peace), which is certainly understandable
given the risk of isolation that this would incur in the diplomatic climate immedi-
ately following the ratification of the King’s Peace. A second refusal arrived after
the Battle of Leuktra in 370, when Lykomedes, then stratēgos of the Arkadian
League,37 inflicted a defeat on the Lacedaemonians but, fearing that he would not
be able to resist Sparta, made an appeal to Athens (Diod. Sic. 15.62.3: τὸ μὲν
πρῶτον πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας, ἀξιοῦντες συμμαχίαν ποιήσασθαι
κατὰ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν, ὡς δ’ οὐδεὶς αὐτοῖς προσεῖχε, διαπρεσβευσάμενοι πρὸς τοὺς
Θηβαίους ἔπεισαν αὐτοὺς συμμαχίαν συνθέσθαι κατὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων). 38 In
both cases Athens hesitated to place itself against Sparta in support of a population
in the Peloponnese; in the first case, it was fear, in the second, Athens was likely
pushed by internal forces which advocated a return to sharing spheres of influence
with Sparta, as proposed by Kallistratos during the congress in Sparta of 371. This,
however, does not at all change the fact that Athens remained in a certain sense the
first choice of Lykomedes. Despite the two preceding refusals, in light of the turn
for the worse taken by the Arkadian relationship with the Thebans, Lykomedes
again asked the Athenians to form a defensive alliance in 336. The conditions for
such a pact were far from being favourable, given that in 369 Athens had concluded
an alliance with Sparta and would have found itself allied with two states which
were mutual enemies. But Lykomedes took advantage of the discontented Atheni-
ans who had not received help in the episode of Oropos, which had recently fallen
into Theban hands. A convincing line of reasoning, presented by Xenophon as the
consensus of the Athenian assembly, likely dates back to Lykomedes: even though
it seems paradoxical to unite with the enemy of an ally, it was to everyone’s benefit
that the Arkadians no longer needed the Thebans.39
In fact, the alliance struck between Athens and the Arkadians weakened the
alliance between Athens and Sparta. Lykomedes, who would later fall victim to an
attack during his return voyage to Arkadia, persisted in his policy of weakening the
hegemonic role of Thebes by adding conditions so that the Arkadians could re-
nounce the aid of the Thebans. Accordingly he looked towards Athens, partly as a
veritable knight of autonomy following the decree of Aristotle, whose contents
were entered into the peace treaty of Athens which was concluded following
37 Lykomedes would again be strategos in 369: Diod. 15.67.

38 Cf. Dem. 16. 12 and 19; Paus. 9.14.4 limits himself to recalling that the Arcadians invited the
Thebans into the Peloponnese with insistence, καὶ τῶν Ἀρκάδων προθύμως μεταπεμπομένων;
Xen. (Hell. 6.5.11–14) relates the defeat of the Spartans by the Arkadians, but does not mention
Lykomedes and seeks to downplay the importance of the episode.
39 Xen. Hell. 7.4.2: Καταμαθὼν δὲ ὁ Λυκομήδης μεμφομένους τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τοῖς συμμάχοις,
ὅτι αὐτοὶ μὲν πολλὰ πράγματα εἶχον δι’ ἐκείνους, ἀντεβοήθησε δ’ αὐτοῖς οὐδείς, πείθει τοὺς
μυρίους πράττειν περὶ συμμαχίας πρὸς αὐτούς. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον ἐδυσχέραινόν τινες τῶν
Ἀθηναίων τὸ Λακεδαιμονίοις ὄντας φίλους γενέσθαι τοῖς ἐναντίοις αὐτῶν συμμάχους· ἐπειδὴ
δὲ λογιζόμενοι ηὕρισκον οὐδὲν μεῖον Λακεδαιμονίοις ἢ σφίσιν ἀγαθὸν τὸ Ἀρκάδας μὴ
προσδεῖσθαι Θηβαίων, οὕτω δὴ προσεδέχοντο τὴν τῶν Ἀρκάδων συμμαχίαν. Cf. Beck 1997a,
222–225 who emphasizes Lykomedes’ diplomatic skills.
Leuktra in 371/370 (Hell. 6.5.1–3), partly as a naval power disinterested in territo-

rial control of the Peloponnese, and partly as a decidedly democratic city tied to
Mantineia by a long history of political collaboration.40
By means of diplomatic relations with Athens, Lykomedes intended to make
Arkadia into a strong state with its own very precise foreign policy that did not
intend at all to follow the political line of other states.41 It is precisely the difficulty
encountered by Mantineia in the 4th century in obtaining Athenian assistance which
makes the conviction with which Lykomedes considered Athens as a privileged
interlocutor all the more significant, with sufficient inclination and means to sup-
port the autonomy of Peloponnesian states without posing a danger in and of itself.
At this point I can conclude by emphasizing two fundamental aspects which, in
my opinion, have become clear from this examination. On the one hand, the im-
portance of military prowess in defining the Arkadian national identity in the pro-
cess of the development of a national conscience, as well as opposition to Thebes.
On the other hand, the irrelevance of common federal experience in the foreign
policy of the Arkadian League with regard to Thebes. It was the inclinations of the
domestic politics (a democratic tendency) of foreign policy (relations with Sparta,
trustworthiness in the support of autonomy, potential threats to the independence of
the Peloponnese) which dominated, so that the traditional democratic axis between
Mantineia and Athens ended by prevailing on the federal axis between Mantineia
and Thebes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bearzot, C. (2004) Federalismo e autonomia nelle Elleniche di Senofonte, Milan.

Bearzot, C. (2015) Ancient Theoretical Reflections on Federalism, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds),
Beck, H. (1997a) Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen
Beck, H. (1997b) Das Attentat auf Lykomedes von Mantineia, Tekmeria 3, 1–6.
Buckler, J. (1980) The Theban Hegemony, 371–362 B.C., Cambridge, Mass./London.
Buckler, J. (1982) Alliance and Hegemony in 4 th-Century Greece. The Case of the Theban Hegem-
ony, The Ancient World 5, 79–89.
Buckler, J. (2000) The Phantom Synedrion of the Boiotian Confederacy 378–335 BC, in Polis and
Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, Presented to M.H. Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday,
August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 431–446.
Dušanić, S. (1970) The Arcadian League of the Fourth century, Beograd.
40 Dušanić 1970, 300f. (on the preceding relations between Athens and Mantineia); Beck 1997a,
224 (tendency of the Arkadians to seek aid from democratic states). On the topic of democracy
in Arkadia, cf. Roy 1971, 571f; contra Thompson 1983; Roy 2000.
41 Buckler 1980, 197.
270 Cinzia Bearzot
Gallotta, S. (2006) I mercenari arcadi: dall’Occidente al Mar Nero, in M.-G. Angeli Bertinelli and
A. Donati (eds.), Le vie della storia. Migrazioni di popoli, viaggi di individui, circolazioni di
idee nel Mediterraneo antico, Rome, 361–365.
Georgiadou, A. (1997) Plutarch’s Pelopidas. A Historical and Philological Commentary,
Stuttgart/Leipzig.
Jehne, M. (1994) Koine Eirene. Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs und Stabilisierungsbemühun-
gen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart.
Moggi, M. (1974) Il sinecismo di Megalopoli, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 4,
71–107.
Nielsen, T.H. (1999) The Concept of Arkadia – The People, their Land and their Organisation, in
T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia: Symposium, April, 1–4 1998, Co-
penhagen, 16–79.
Riedinger, J.–C. (1991) Étude sur les Helléniques. Xénophon et l’histoire, Paris.
Roy, J. (1971) Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian Affairs, 370–362 BC, Historia 20, 569–599.
Roy, J. (1972) Arcadian Nationality as Seen in Xenophon’s Anabasis, Mnemosyne 25, 129–136.
Roy, J. (2000) Problems of Democracy in the Arcadian Confederacy 370–362 BC, in R. Brock and
Roy, J. (2005) Synoikizing Megalopolis: the scope of the synoikism and the interests of local Arka-
dian communities, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the third international sem-
inar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002, Athens,
261–270.
Shipley, D.R. (1997) A Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Agesilaos, Oxford.
Sordi, M. (1950–1951) I caratteri dell’opera storiografica di Senofonte nelle Elleniche, Athenaeum
28, 3–53; 29, 273–348.
Sordi, M. (1982) Storia politica del mondo greco, Milano.
Sordi, M. (1998) Propaganda e confronto politico, in A. D’Atene and E. Lanzillotta (eds.), Alle
radici della democrazia: dalla polis al dibattito costituzionale contemporaneo, Rome, 57–67.
Thompson, W.E. (1983) Arcadian Factionalism in the 360’s, Historia 32, 149–160.
Ἄπιστα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν1:
THE DUBIOUS THESSALIAN STATE
Maria Mili
University of Glasgow
Thessaly holds a special position in discussions about ethnē/koina, largely because

the region never fit into modern categories very well.2 According to a dominant
narrative, during the Archaic Period, when other ethnē are beyond our purview as
loose unions barely leaving a mark, Thessaly is supposedly a major player in the
Greek world. It is a strong ‘tribal state’ in a position to shape the world of central
Greece, not least through its domination of the Delphic amphiktyony.3 In the Clas-
sical Period, when ethnē like Phokis, Boiotia or Aitolia are progressing towards the
creation of more developed and permanent regional political institutions, Thessaly
disintegrates, becoming introverted and stuck in its ‘arcane’ institutions of the tagos
1 This ancient proverbial expression, which has become emblematic of modern scholars’ under-
standing of Thessalians’ foreign policy, can be traced back to Euripides fr. 422. See also schol.
Ar. Plut. 521; Dem. 1. 21; 23. 112.
2 A note on the terms ethnos, koinon and federal state is necessary given their variable use by
both ancient and modern authors: Ethnos and koinon had a wide variety of meanings in ancient
sources, ranging from that of a group of animal, human or things to more specific political
meanings: Giovannini 1971, 14–16; Walbank 1985, 21–24; Beck 1997, 11f; Morgan 2003, 7–
10; Mili 2015, 7–10. In modern scholarship there is a tendency to use the term koinon as syn-
onymous with that of federal state: see for instance Beck 1997, 11f. Meanwhile, the term ethnos
is often used to describe the kind of states that existed before federal institutions developed:
Morgan 2003. In the most recent treatment of the topic, Mackil 2013, 5–7 further differentiates
between the term federal and koinon: the term federal is only used when ancient practices seem
to map closely onto the modern concept, and the term koinon is thus used in a more abstract
way. Still, she accepts the existence of entities organized along the lines of an ethnic group,
which could be described with the term ethnos. While, as will become clear in the course of
this paper, I fully agree that one should be careful of drawing too close a parallel between
ethne/koina and modern federal states, I am not sure about whether we should distinguish be-
tween ethnos and koinon. In what follows, then, the terms ethnos and koinon will often be used
interchangeably, but occasionally I will use the terms ‘the Thessalians’, or ‘the Thessalian eth-
nos’ to refer to the more nebulous concept of Thessalian society, while the term the ‘Thessalian
koinon’ will be used to refer to the institutionalized aspects of this society, albeit with no ref-
erence to federal states.
3 The idea that Thessaly was a ‘superpower’ in the archaic period is more fully developed by
Larsen 1968, 12–20. It has proved extremely influential and challenging this common opinion
would have all sorts of ramifications for our understanding of the early Delphic amphictiony
and for the surrounding states: a strong early Thessaly is indeed, according to many scholars,
the crucial factor triggering the process of ethnogenesis in the other regions of the area, such
as Phokis: McInerney 1999, 173–181.
272 Maria Mili
and the tetrads.4 Only for a brief spell in the 380–370’s under Jason did the area
return to its earlier glory days, albeit under a more modern ‘federal’ constitution. A
different reconstruction of archaic and classical Thessalian history, however, has
emerged in recent years. According to it, the extent of Thessalian unity and power
in the archaic period has been over-estimated,5 as has the extent of Thessalian dis-
order and interregional conflict during the classical period. From the late sixth cen-
tury onwards, it is suggested, Thessaly was strong, united, modern and well-orga-
nized.6 This new view of Thessaly has not managed to acquire general acceptance
and totally replace the traditional narrative. Most scholars writing on Thessalian
matters tend to blend the two, using some elements of the one, and some elements
of the other prevailing school of thought. Several scholars, for instance, would call
fifth century Thessaly a federal state, albeit a very weak one that for the most part
was incapable of enforcing its will.7
Despite their important differences, in the works summarized above there is a
clear correlation between Thessaly’s foreign relations and its internal affairs. Ac-
cordingly the idea emerges that there was a close correlation between the success
(or lack thereof) of the regional compromise producing a Thessalian state and the
success and consistency of its foreign affairs. Unstable foreign policy with multiple
competing actors, lack of vision and inability to leave one’s imprint on the wider
Greek world is seen as a reflection of internal instability and an indication of a weak
Thessaly. On the other hand a strong Thessalian state is associated with consistency
and monopoly over Thessaly’s foreign affairs.8
This paper re-examines the complex relationship between Thessaly’s internal
mechanics and external affairs, with a focus on the fifth and the first half of the
fourth centuries BCE. I will argue that neither of these narratives, one emphasizing
stasis and the other unity, is correct. Both measure Thessaly against an abstract
4 ‘Arcane institutions’: I am referring here to those works which see the tagos and the tetrads as
old time institutions of the Thessalian ethnos supposedly introduced by Aleuas the Red in the
early archaic period: Larsen 1960, 237f and 1968, 15–17. See also Hatzopoulos 1994, 251f for
the idea that Thessaly was in its essence a monarchically organised state, as expressed by the
institution of the tagos, whose ideal it failed to attain. Other later dates for Aleuas and his
reforms have of course been suggested: Sordi 1958, 63; Helly 1995, 117, 171–175. For the
problem of the historicity of Aleuas and his reforms see Mili 2015, 55 n.8 with previous bibli-
ography.
5 But see above n.3 for the problem of accommodating this view with the traditional role that
Thessaly has acquired in the history of Archaic Greece. Moreover, although skepticism con-
cerning the validity of using late literary sources, such as Plutarch, to reconstruct the early
history of Thessaly is definitely right, I find problematic the concomitant tendency to treat the
first mention of a phenomenon in a literary source as a terminus post quem for its appearance.
6 Helly 1995 passim.
7 See for instance Beck 1997, 124–134; Sprawski 1999, 21–23.
8 Apart from the various works cited above see also Axenidis 1947, 81–84, who uses the phrase
Ἄπιστα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν, which figures at the title of this paper, as the heading of the chapter
where he discusses precisely the theme of this paper, that is the relationship between Thessaly’s
internal mechanics and external affairs. Stamatopoulou 2007a also argues that the Thessalians
were ‘introverted’ and occupied by their own internal conflicts throughout the fifth and early
fourth century.
The Dubious Thessalian State 273
ideal of how it should have been. In the one case anything that does not fit this ideal
is considered as a sign of failure; while the other has to press the evidence to fit the
model state and explain away anything that contradicts this ideal.
The idea that any state, including federal states (the modern category which has
been predominantly used to understand ancient ethnē and koina) would wish to re-
strict to itself power over foreign affairs, or at least the most important types of
foreign affairs, is widespread. Foreign relations in ancient Greece encompassed a
variety of contacts: military alliances, economic, religious and political connec-
tions, and even more informal kinds of contact such as xenia relationships. These
different types of relations involve different actors. They can involve different
states, or a state and an individual or individuals from different states.9 It is com-
mon to order these kinds of contacts in a hierarchical way: a military alliance is
placed on the top of the scale, while the reception of a religious embassy falls to-
wards the bottom. It has been argued that in the case of ancient federal states hard
foreign policy was in the hands of the koinon, while their constituent parts only had
soft power in that respect.10
Following this line of thought, during most of the time frame discussed here
Thessaly could not be confidently classed as a federal state, or even as a state at all.
Although we do hear of various regional magistrates and of the Thessalians en
masse, the extent of the power of these individuals in positions of authority or of
this nebulous group of the Thessalians is difficult to determine, and seems to have
been contested and compromised by the activities of other groups or individuals
even in matters we would classify as hard foreign policy. Thessaly then raises the
question of how we should understand the distribution and balance of power among
its various constituent parts without resorting to the trope of the failed state; or in-
deed without succumbing to the need to iron out the inconsistencies and argue for
a well-functioning and ordered state.
In a recent monograph, Mackil underlined the dangers of conflating modern
(federal) categories with ancient (ethnos/koinon) terminology, and forcefully ar-
gued against the tendency to discuss Greek ethnē/koina only or mostly in terms of
the development of ‘federal’ institutions. She also stressed the need to study the
complex social interactions that took place in the areas within which these institu-
tions were formed. Due emphasis has rightly been given to the religious and eco-
nomic links that bound the inhabitants of these areas together in multiple complex
ways.11 Ethnē/koina, I will argue in this paper, were also arenas of other important
9 See in general Mitchell 1997; Low 2007; Mack 2015.

10 Mackil 2013, 347–370, 384–390. Although this kind of division might be valid for heuristic
purposes, one has to also be aware of the complex links between the two levels of power. Soft
power exercised at a local level might well be more formative of high level politics than the
model allows. That might for instance be the case in the ‘non autonomous koina’, that is koina
that because of their dependence on foreign powers were not in a position to fully develop their
regional foreign policy. For an interesting case study of the local versus regional in foreign
affairs see also Daverio-Rocchi in this volume.
11 Mackil 2013 passim, and clearly stated in the conclusions 405f.
274 Maria Mili
social interactions, not least among which is the sheer quantity of political interac-
tion. There was in Thessaly a shared political culture, indicated not only in the sim-
ilarity of civic institutions, but also in the fact that one acquired political power and
prestige through a wide regional network of various competing alliances. This com-
petition between various power groups, it will be argued, was to a large extent con-
stitutive of Thessalian society, and it is because of contemporary failure to properly
recognize this fact that any kind of dissent amongst the Thessalians has been seen
as a sign of disintegration. Instead of seeing power groups or individuals as being
in conflict with the regional institutions, we should try to explore their symbiotic
relationship, and how one helped shape the other.12
I start by reviewing some of the key evidence for the actors in Thessalian for-
eign relations. A lot of relevant evidence has been seen either as an example of how
the private could override and clash with the public, or any kind of tension has been
silenced in order to create an impression of smooth public action. I will argue that
the evidence does not allow us to build a simple opposition between private/fac-
tional versus public/Thessalian, but shows a complex interaction between the two,
in which one is built into and entangled with the other.
The story of Kleomachos from Pharsalos and his participation in a war between
Chalkis and Eretria, although difficult to date and tie to particular historical
events,13 may serve here as a good illustration of this intertwining. Several scholars
have recently argued that Kleomachos’ participation in the Euboian war was a pri-
vate expedition conducted in the context of a xenia or even a philia relationship.14
Other scholars take it as indicating wide Thessalian participation.15 When we take
a closer look at the evidence, a complex picture emerges, where both private and
public aspects co-exist and intermingle. We learn about the event from Plutarch,
who tells us that Kleomachos led an army to Chalkis, and was especially courageous
in battle to impress his lover who was watching. He died and was buried in Chalkis
where one could see in the agora a column to his memory.16 There are indeed ele-
ments in the story that stress the individual actor, not least Kleomachos’ relationship
with the lover, who was perhaps meant to be a Chalkidian in the story. 17 But we
have to remember that the story was transmitted to us by Plutarch in his work Am-
atorius, which emphasizes love, and it is only to be expected that the private nature
of the relationship of Kleomachos would have been emphasized. Moreover, the ref-
erence to Kleomachos’ commemorative monument set up in the agora of Chalkis
gives an unmistakable public dimension on the event, at least from the point of view
of the Chalkidians. The Chalkidians, rumour had it, were proverbial for their pro-
pensity to homosexual relationships: the verb chalkidizein, to act as a Chalkidian,
12 See also Mackil 2013, 10–13 on the socially embedded nature of institutions.
13 The war is usually identified as the Lelantine War: for a critical review of the evidence see
Parker 1997, 145f.
14 Morgan 2003, 203; Stamatopoulou 2007b, 213.
15 Sordi 1958, 47; Larsen 1960, 231; Helly 1995, 136–140.
16 Plut. Amat. 17 = Mor. 760 E–761 B.
17 So thinks Sordi 1958, 47 n.3.
to come to mean ‘to enter in a homosexual relationship’.18 The monument of

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

19 Peek 1934, 57; Graninger 2009, 122–124; Mili 2015, 58, 173, 352. Parker 2011, 113 entertains
the idea, not clear on what grounds, of a third century date.
20 Parker 1997, 145–147, who also discusses who this Aristotle might have been. Bakhuizen 1976
suggests that the monument with which the story of bravery inspired by pederasty was associ-
ated could though date back to the sixth century BCE: this seems to me tenuous.
21 Dem. 23. 199; Dem. 13.23 gives the number of penestai as 200.
22 Dem.23.199. But Dem. 13.23 says that he was awarded with ateleia, but not citizenship.
23 Helly 1995, 185f, 303–312 argues for an official Thessalian participation, but I do not find his
position convincing. See also the criticism by Ducat 1997, 184–187.
24 So has argued also Stamatopoulou 2007b, 219.
25 For private armies: Morgan 2003, 203.
276 Maria Mili
gettos who was ostracized at some point in the first half of the fifth century, pre-
sumably after taking up his citizenship.26 The identification of the Pharsalian
Menon with the ostracized Menon of Gargettos has been seriously challenged, and
recently even the identification of the expedition in which he participated with that
led by Kimon has been questioned in favour of another episode at a later date in the
course of the Peloponnesian War.27 It is a shame that we cannot insert Menon’s
action into a specific historical context.28 Nevertheless, even with the little we can
be certain of, the bestowal of various honours and perhaps even citizenship by the
Athenians, it is clear that Menon’s actions were interpreted by others against a wider
public background. As with Kleomachos we can see this fact more clearly from the
perspective of a foreign power, but this was a two way dialogue. It was because of
the potential prestige one could carry home that one ventured into these enterprises
abroad.29
The ability of the individual to gain prestige through his own initiative created
space for a clash between different powerful individuals and groups. The events
that took place during the Persian Wars allow us to further investigate the potential
clash between the actions and interests of private groups and Thessaly at large, and
inquire into how common decision making was achieved. The Aleuads, the most
famous aristocratic family from Thessaly linked with the city of Larisa, seem to
have had a direct relationship with the Persian king and they were the first Greeks
to medize. We find them in the court of Xerxes encouraging him to follow Mar-
donios’ plan and invade Greece.30 And the Thessalians finally medized too, alt-
hough there seems to have been a great deal of ancient disagreement regarding how
this came about, as well as the decision of the Greek army to abandon its position
at Tempe on the borders between Thessaly and Makedonia. Herodotus describes
how representatives of the Thessalians appealed to the Greek league and asked them
to defend the pass at Tempe, and it was only after the Greeks decided to leave the
pass that the Thessalians medized en masse.31 Thessaly’s medism then was, for He-
rodotus, due to necessity, not due to the machination of the Aleuads. This was not
the only version of the story. Damastes, another fifth century historian, is reported
to have said that it was because Alexander of Makedon informed the Greeks about
the treachery of the Aleuads and the Thessalians that the Greeks left Tempe.32 This
26 Raubitschek 1955; Morrison 1942, 62.

27 Ruggeri 2002; Coşkun 2013.
28 There is also the question of why Menon was awarded with citizenship. Is it possible that at
some point he was exiled from his hometown and thus took up citizenship in Athens?
29 Potential prestige: See also Mack 2015, 104–118 for the prestige one acquired through the
office of proxenia. I do not, however, mean that Menon’s was necessarily acting as a proxenos.
His contributions went much beyond what was normally expected from a proxenos. For the
possible dangers that this kind of ventures could also entail see previous note and discussion
further below.
30 Hdt 7.6 and 7.130 about the Aleuads being the first of the Greeks to medize and Xerxes making
the mistake of supposing they were offering friendship from all the people there.
31 Hdt. 7.172–173.
32 Damastes FGrH 5 fr. 4.
has led scholars to argue, following the logic of Damastes’ narrative, that the pro–
Greek group which had gone to the Greek league was some other aristocratic fac-
tion, which did not necessarily have wide support.33 The point to be taken here is
not that private groups could override the majority, but that there is a great deal of
difficulty in distinguishing the will of the Thessalians from that of its various con-
stituent private groups.
The question that is pertinent here is not whether a majority of the Thessalians
had the power to enforce their decisions and will, but rather what was the process
through which such decisions could be taken and a supposed majority constituted.
Even in a case like that of Kineas who, we are told, was sent by the Thessalians by
common decision (κοινῇ γνώμῃ) to aid the Peisistradids against the Spartans,34 the
mechanisms through which this decision was taken are unclear.35 In several other
cases, we could equally well imagine that a decision described as ‘Panthessalian’
was taken through a series of agreements between various Thessalian actors on a
one to one basis. This is indeed how Xenophon reports Jason’s ascendancy to the
‘federal’ tageia.36 After winning over various Thessalian cities, Jason goes to per-
suade Polydamas, the leading man at Pharsalos, to agree with his ascendancy to the
tageia, telling him that Polydamas could also sway the various other cities which
were dependent on Pharsalos to accept his rule.
Thucydides’ description of the aid sent by the Thessalians in the beginning of
the Peloponnesian War to the Athenians consists of the contingents supplied by
various Thessalian cities, all working together under the command of various local
leaders, the Larisean ones even coming from two separate Larisean factions.37 His
description seems to give the prominent role to the various local and private units,
and not to the federal enterprise, even though they were all operating together.38
The fragmented nature of this Thessalian co-operation comes to the fore more
clearly a few years later during Brasidas’ expedition to Amphipolis.39 To secure his
passage he contacted his friends at Pharsalos and other cities, who escorted him
through Thessaly. He was waylaid by pro-Athenian groups, who said that he was
passing illegally through their territory without unanimous agreement (ἄνευ τοῦ
πάντων κοινοῦ).40 Thucydides describes an interesting exchange of arguments be-
tween the two groups, where the limits of what each one of them is entitled to do
33 Westlake 1936, 16f, 19; Beck 1997, 123. Contra: Robertson 1976, 103, who reviews various
possible suggestions and argues that this was the official federal position; followed by Helly
1995, 115f, 223–226.
34 Hdt. 5.63.
35 As stressed by Morgan 2001, 31; Morgan’s 2003, 203 description of the expedition as an oth-
erwise straightforward account of aid between xenoi, is exaggerated.
36 Xen. Hell. 6.1.8.
37 Thuc. 2.22. For the passage see also Rechenauer 1993.
38 This is also stressed by Beck 1997, 126.
39 Thuc. 4.78.
40 Morrison 1942, 63 takes the expression to mean the common council. Sprawski 1999, 28 also
argues that there existed some sort of body which formally had the power to issue such a deci-
sion but the ruling dynasty had deprived it of any significance.
278 Maria Mili
are made clear. One group claimed to be simply acting as hosts, the other demanded
the matter be discussed more broadly. Finally, the matter is resolved by quickly
sweeping it under the carpet – no decision is taken. The passage reveals how these
connections could operate in a complicated way: it is through a network of relation-
ships among the various Thessalians and between the Thessalians and the Make-
donians, not simply because of his own personal connections, that Brasidas can
secure passage. Later when Rhamphias wanted to pass through the country in as-
sistance to Brasidas he was stopped, because the alliance of Perdikkas had changed,
showing how a shift in one node of the network could affect the end result.41 An
individual was connected in many ways and so his allegiance was not a given at
any single moment. The family of Menon, for example, had long-standing connec-
tions with Athens but was also linked with the family of the Aleuads, who were
supposedly anti-Athenian.42
I am building up here a picture in which a lot of the common decision making
and acting was done in a fragmented manner, and this meant that the concept of the
allegiance of the majority of the Thessalians was complex and unpredictable. This
state of affairs tallies with the fact that classical Thessaly may well not have had
permanent regional institutions with clearly delineated powers dealing with matters
of foreign policy. The nature and extent of powers of the Thessalian regional insti-
tutions is a debated point in scholarship. There are those who believe that Thessaly
from the late sixth century onwards had fully functioning federal institutions in
place with clear-cut and extensive powers. The problem with this theory is that it
has to dismiss all the evidence discussed above. And there are those scholars, in the
majority who believe that Thessaly may have had some federal institutions in place,
but they were not functioning properly because room was left for other power
groups to contest them. The problem with this theory is the deep division it creates
between institutions and power groups. As I have pointed out above, this does not
fully make sense of the evidence but rather drives hard wedges into it. We should
instead try to think of how Thessaly’s institutions were actually shaped by the social
dynamics of this particular society.
By the mid-fifth century the division of Thessaly into four districts is attested:
the so-called tetrads of Pelasgiotis, Phthiotis, Thessaliotis and Hestiaiotis.43 If we
take the Daochos monument set up in Delphi in the fourth century as an accurate
report of fifth century realities, then there were also officials called tetrarchs who,
as their name indicates, must have been somehow related to the tetrads.44 We have
no evidence detailing the role of the tetrads and the tetrarchs was at that time. A
century later the tetrads seem to play a military role, but through the polemarchs,
who, although attested in the fifth century, seem to be unconnected to the tetrads
41 Thuc. 4.78; 4.132; 5.13. See also Sprawski 1999, 29, who entertains the idea that Nikonidas of
Larisa, who in 4.78 is called a friend of Perdikkas, must have been one of those who followed
Perdikkas’ change of alliance.
42 Brown 1986, 399. See Sprawski 1999, 31.
43 Hellanikos, FGrH 4 fr. 52; Hekataios, FGrH 1 fr. 133; Hdt. 1.56–57.
44 FD III.4.460.
(see further below).45 In the second century BCE the tetrads have an economic role,
facilitating the trade of corn, and this may be a role we could push back in time to
at least the fourth century, given that Philip made use of the institution of the te-
trarchs and his intervention into Thessaly seems to have had a strong economic
character.46 The existence of districts is clearly important, but in what respect? The
division of Thessaly into territorial units underlines the fact that the area was clearly
unified in certain respects, since the purpose of the districts must have been to fa-
cilitate these common activities, economic or military. Furthermore, and just as im-
portant, the names of the tetrads point to an embroidered mythological tradition, in
which the region as a whole is mentioned.47 Still, we are in the dark about the extent
of these common economic or military activities organized through the districts.
Neither can we surmise by their evidence alone the existence of a complex repre-
sentational mechanism, similar to the Boiotian system, which served the equitable
representation of poleis in the koinon.48
Other evidence for regional institutions operating in matters of foreign policy
betrays what I would call an institutional flexibility. At around the mid fifth century
the Thessalians commemorated a military victory by setting up a dedication at Del-
phi and which listed a number of polemarchs and perhaps other officials. In none
of the cases is it clear by what authority they had been appointed.49 We are similarly
unclear about the internal mechanics of the union headed by Jason of Pherai in the
fourth century, who seems to have preferred the title of tagos for himself. The little
information we have seems to point to an agglomeration of cities, or of cities and
their circles, rather than to a clearly federal structure. Jason asks Polydamas of
Pharsalos to persuade the Pharsalians and the cities around them. Jason asks the
cities for sacrificial contributions and manpower.50 A decade or so later two Athe-
nian inscriptions record defensive military alliances between Athens and the Thes-
salian koinon (mentioned as such for the first time), which is headed by an archon,
and is divided by tetrads each represented by a polemarch.51 No mention is made
of a representative body of the Thessalians taking the oath.52 Instead a number of
officials, some regional other local, are listed in the most complete of the decrees.
There is a clear attempt to include as many representatives as possible (τοὺς ἄλλος
ἄρχοντας ὅποσοι ὑπὲρ το κοινο το Θετταλῶν ἄρχοσιν), some of which might well
have been local (the hipparchs for instance), while others might not have operated
45 Daux 1958.
46 Larsen 1963, 240; Garnsey, Gallant and Rathbone 1984, 36–4l. For Philip: Dem. 1.22; Dem.
9.26.
47 Mili 2015, 165–197.
48 For the importance of districts in Greek federal states see Corsten 1999 passim; 178–184 for
the Thessalian evidence. For the Boiotian districts: Mackil 2013, 370–377.
49 Daux 1958; Helly 1995, 226–233.
50 Negotiation with Polydamas: Xen. Hell. 6.1.8. Organization of Pythian Games: Xen. Hell.
6.4.29.
51 IG II2.116 and 175.
52 The hippeis must refer not to the Thessalian cavalry en masse, but to some more restricted elite
identity: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 223; Mili 2015, 58.
280 Maria Mili
at a koinon level, or indeed in matters like the ones treated in the document, as is
the case with the hieromnēmones.53 The Thessalians appear differently again in
another fourth century decree, which bestows proxeny on a Chalkidian and men-
tions the two gentilician groups of Sorsikidai and Kotilidai in the role of prosta-
teuontes (guarantors).54 The Thessalian koinon appears in yet another guise, this
time in the third century, with a priest at its head and the tagoi of Larisa ratifying
the decision.55
In short, whenever we see the Thessalians they are never the same. And while
scholars have often thought of a series of organizations and reorganizations of the
koinon after periods of collapse, a tiresome process of trial and error, we should
rather emphasise the apparent ease with which the Thessalians could coalesce under
various guises to get their act together when dealing with foreigners.
It is in this context of institutional indeterminacy and flexibility of the Thessa-
lians that the institutions of tagia and atagia should be seen. One of best known of
features of the Thessalian ethnos is its pendulum swing between periods of tagia,
when there was a tagos at its top, and period of atagia when there was not. The
periods of atagia have been often viewed as periods of stasis and chaos, resulting
from the inability of the Thessalians to come together.56 But we should challenge
this traditional perception of periods of tagia and atagia as periods of order versus
disorder. The expression κἐν ταγᾶ κἐν ἀταγία known from two fifth century decrees,
if correctly interpreted as meaning something like both in war and in peace, would
then indicate that the periods of atagia were considered the normal course of af-
fairs.57 The election of the tagos in Jason’s speech is clearly connected with com-
mon military and economic policies. It would follow then that in the periods of
atagia, even if some kind of regional organs existed, these did not have the power
to exclusively decide on matters of foreign policy, and a lot of space for action was
left open to various power groups.58 It would seem then that in internal Thessalian
politics, tagia and atagia were not the encapsulation of good and bad but were con-
sidered as possible – and equally valid – options, a fact highlighted by Jason’s
53 Tod 1948, 145; Helly 1995, 54 for the hieromnemones being the representatives in the Am-
phictionic council. Contra: Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 224 see them as officials of the koinon.
Hatzopoulos 1996, 288 sees them as representatives of the local communities vis-à-vis the eth-
nos with a role in the cult of Athena Itonia. For local hieromnemones: Axenidis 1949, 129f;
Helly 1970, 276f, 283 and the reservations of Salviat and Vatin 1971, 34.
54 Peek 1934, 57; Graninger 2009, 122–124; Parker 2011, 113 entertains the possibility for a later
third century date. The role of these groups as prostateuontes is not clear: see in general Mili
2015, 57f. The tagoi who presided the assembly are sometimes called prostateuontes: Axenidis
1949, 106; Helly 1973, 139. Guarantors are mentioned in Aitolian proxeny decrees: Mack
2015, 74f.
55 Malay and Ricl 2009; Parker 2011.
56 Axenidis 1947, 84–91; Larsen 1968, 14f, 26.
57 IG IX.2 257 (Thetonion). A similar expression is found in E. Giannopoulos, Ἀρχ. Ἐφ. 1934–
1935, 140–145. Helly 1995, 334f for the interpretation ‘both in war and in peace’. But Sordi
1997, 181 is right to note that the periods of atagia did not necessarily entail the total absence
of the state of war.
58 So also Sordi 1997, 181f.
speech to Polydamas in which he tries to persuade him of the benefits of coming

under a tagos.59
Understanding the institutional flexibility of Thessaly as the unique product of
Thessalian society, and not as a sign of its failure, can lead us to re-examine the
workings of power in the Thessalian ethnos and see the competition among its var-
ious groups in a different light. We could perhaps think of it not as the destructive
force that worked against the unity of the group but as the underlying ideology
which created and sustained the idea of a unitary ethnos. Power both on the local
and regional level was achieved through a network of competing alliances that
transcended the boundaries of single cities and incorporated the actors into a Pan-
thessalian milieu.60
The frequent absence of a concrete leader and the dependence on informal de-
cision making mechanisms would have made Thessaly a very difficult place for
outsiders to control. Indeed, while historians like Axenidis have seen the institu-
tional weakness of Thessaly as allowing outsiders access, we should note that be-
fore Philip II no outside power successfully managed to control Thessaly. The mir-
ror of this, in the conception of Thessaly as failed, is the idea that Thessaly was not
capable of projecting its power abroad; its failure then is seen in its lack of expan-
sionism. Here we need to remember that the expansionistic polis par excellence was
Athens, which was unique in its empire building and we certainly should not have
this as an ideal to which other Greeks aspired. Even in Athens Kowalzig has pro-
posed there were two models of foreign relationships: one in which elite individuals
exploited Panhellenic networks and another of a more Athenocentric state-based
power rooted in popular politics.61 Jason’s speech to Polydamas certainly provides
the image of an expansionistic Thessaly led by a tagos but it also highlights the fact
that this was not necessarily desirable.62
To sum up, the term ethnos, as well as the tern koinon, both of which feature
on the title of this volume, are not synonymous with a federal state. Nevertheless
questions about federal states often dominate scholarship of ancient ethnē/koina,
namely an emphasis on politics, institutions and co-operation. Thessaly throughout
the classical and Hellenistic period, if it qualified as a federal state could only qual-
ify as a failed one. But Thessaly was definitely an ethnos and a unified entity to our
ancient sources. By putting the emphasis on politics and the politicization of ethnic
identities we can tend to undervalue the social. There might not have been a Thes-
salian political unit, but there was definitely something we can call a Thessalian
society. And by always stressing co-operation and institutionalization we sideline
the fact that there are societies that are created through an ideology of competition
and conflict. The rules of the political game in such a society are different from
59 Xen. Hell. 6.1.8.

60 See also Xen. Hell. 6.1.2. about the Pharsalian Polydamas being entrusted with power by his
co-citizens, because he was well known and respected both in his city and in Thessaly in gen-
eral.
61 Kowalzig 2007, 214.
62 Note also that although memories of various military achievements had a role in the formation
of Thessalian identity and religion, it was not an all pervasive one: Mili 2015, 213–257.
282 Maria Mili
those of a society striving towards institutionalization. The strongest indication that

our application of institutional-based paradigms to Thessaly is inappropriate is that
we attempt to do so, Thessaly as an entity always seems to fragment and dissipate,
whereas in the ancient sources it is consistently seen as a coherent and unified
whole.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Axenidis, T. (1947) Η Πελασγίς Λάρισα και η αρχαία Θεσσαλία. Κοινωνική και πολιτική ιστορία Α’:
Mέχρι της Μακεδονικής ηγεμονίας, Athens.
Axenidis, T. (1949) Η Πελασγίς Λάρισα και η αρχαία Θεσσαλία. Κοινωνική και πολιτική ιστορία Β’:
Οι μακεδονικοί και ρωμαικοί χρόνοι, Athens.
Bakhuizen, S.C. (1976) Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ΚΙΟΝ: The Monument for Kleomachos at Chalkis-in-Euboea,
in J.S. Boersma and A.N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta (eds.), Festoen. Opgedragen ann A.N. Zadoks-
Josephus Jitta bij haar zeventigste verjaardag, Groningen, 43–48.
Brown, T.S. (1986) Menon of Thessaly, Historia 35, 387–404.
Coşkun, A. (2013) Die Menoniden von Pharsalos: proxenoi der Athener im 5. Jh. v. Chr, Hermes
141, 142–154.
Daux, G. (1958) Dédicace thessalienne d’un cheval à Delphes, Bulletin de correspondance hellé-
nique 82, 329–334.
Ducat, J. (1997) Bruno Helly et les pénestes, Topoi 7, 183–189.
Garnsey, P., T. Gallant, and D. Rathbone (1984) Thessaly and the Grain Supply of Rome during the
Second Century B.C., The Journal of Roman Studies 74, 30–44.
Gehrke, H.–J. (1985) Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten
des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Vestigia 35, Munich.
Graninger, D. (2009) Apollo, Ennodia and Fourth Century Thessaly, Kernos 22, 109–124.
Hatzopoulos, M. (1994) Thessalie et Macédoine: affinités et convergences, in Θεσσαλία. 15 χρόνια
αρχαιολογικής έρευνας 1975–90. Αποτελέσματα και προοπτικές, Athens, 249–254.
Hatzopoulos, M. (1996) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 1, Athens.
Helly, B. (1970) A Larisa: bouleversements et remise en ordre de sanctuaires, Mnemosyne 23, 249–
296.
Helly, B. (1973) Gonnoi I: la cité et son histoire, Amsterdam.
Helly, B. (1995) L’état Thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les tetrads et les tagoi, Lyon.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1960) A New Interpretation of the Thessalian Confederacy, Classical Philology 55,
229–248.
Larsen, J.A.O. (1963) The Thessalian tetrades in Plutarch’s Moralia 822E, Classical Philology 58,
240.
Low, P. (2007) Interstate Relations in Classical Greece. Morality and Power, Cambridge.
Mack, W. (2015) Proxeny and Polis. Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford.
Malay, H. and M. Ricl (2009) Two Hellenistic Decrees from Aigai in Aiolis, Epigraphica Anatolica
42, 39–55.
Mili, M. (2015) Religion and Society in Ancient Thessaly, Oxford.
Mitchell, L. (1997) Greeks Bearing Gifts. The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek
World, 435–323 BC, Cambridge.
Morgan, C. (2001) Symbolic and Pragmatic Aspects of Warfare in the Greek World of the Eight to
the Sixth Centuries B.C., in L. Hannestad and T. Bekker-Nielsen (eds.), War as a Cultural and
Social Force: Essays on Warfare in Antiquity, Copenhagen, 20–44.
Morrison, J.S. (1942) Meno of Pharsalus, Polycrates, and Ismenias, Classical Quarterly 36, 57–78.
Parker, R. (2011) The Thessalian Olympia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, 111–
118.
Parker, V. (1997) Untersuchungen zum Lelantischen Krieg und verwandten Problemen der früh-
griechischen Geschichte, Stuttgart.
Peek, W. (1934) Griechische Inschriften: Thessalien, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Institus 59, 56–57.
Raubitschek, A.E. (1955) Menon, son of Menekleides, Hesperia 24, 286–289.
Rechenauer, G. (1993) Zu Thucydides II 22, 3 …ἀπὸ τῆς στάσεως ἑκάτερος, Rheinisches Museum
für Philologie 136, 238–244.
Rhodes, P. and R. Osborne (eds.) (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC., Oxford.
Robertson, N. (1976) The Thessalian Expedition of 480 B.C., Journal of Hellenic Studies 96, 100–
120.
Ruggeri, C. (2002) Menone, figlio di Menecleide, ateniese, del demo di Gargetto, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 138, 73–86.
Salviat, F. and C. Vatin (1971) Inventaire de terrains sacrés à Larissa, in Inscriptions de Grèce Cen-
trale, Paris, 9–34.
Sordi, M. (1958) La lega tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno, Rome.
Sordi, M. (1997) I tagoi tessali come suprema magistratura militare del koinon tessalico, Topoi 7,
177–182.
Sprawski, S. (1999) Jason of Pherai. A Study on History of Thessaly in Years 431–370 BC, Krakow.
Stamatopoulou, M. (2007a) Thessalian Aristocracy and Society in the Age of the Epinicians, in S.
Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic
Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford, 309–341.
Stamatopoulou, M. (2007b) Thessalians Abroad, The Case of Pharsalos, in I. Malkin, C. Constan-
takopoulou and K. Panagopoulou (eds.), Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, 211–236.
Tod, M. N. (1948) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions II: From 403 to 323 B.C., Oxford.
Walbank, F.W. (1985) Were there Greek federal states?, in F.W. Walbank, Selected Papers: Studies
in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge, 2–37.
Westlake, H.D. (1936) The Medism of Thessaly, Journal of Hellenic Studies 56, 12–24.
ETHNIC CONSTRUCTS FROM INSIDE AND OUT: EXTERNAL
POLICY AND THE ETHNOS OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS.1
Margriet J. Haagsma, University of Alberta, Edmonton

Laura Surtees, Bryn Mawr College
C. Myles Chykerda, University of California, Los Angeles
Interest in ethnos states has recently shifted beyond characterizations of ethnē as

‘backwards’ or primitive entities found in the periphery of the Greek world. Tradi-
tionally, ethnē have been conceptualized as ‘embryonic’ or tribal states and con-
trasted with the ‘advanced’ polis structure of southern Greece that was viewed by
many scholars as the embodiment of the organizational complexity and plurality of
Greece’s cultural and political core.2 The current discourse focusses not only on
deconstructing the concept of ‘ethnos’ in relation to those of ‘state’ and ‘ethnicity’,
but also recognizes that textual sources have been unjustifiably privileged over
other forms of evidence in studies on the social, religious, and political components
of an ethnos. Non-literary/archaeological data have begun to be brought into dis-
cussions concerning both the nature of the ethnos and concepts of ethnicity.3
This paper focuses on the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis, a region in central Greece
that is often considered part of Thessaly but in antiquity was considered to be a so-
called perioikos, an area with strong ties to the central plains that was nevertheless
culturally and, at times, economically and politically independent from tetradic
Thessaly.4 Beyond all three authors’ long-term familiarity with the region, there are
numerous reasons why an examination of ancient ethnicity pertaining to Achaia
Phthiotis is timely. First, there exists no synthetic account of the history of this eth-
nos apart from Friedrich Stählin’s early work.5 Secondly, there is notoriously little
information written about this region in ancient sources, and many of the epigraphic
sources are relatively late. Finally, the corpus of archaeological evidence concern-
ing settlements, sanctuaries, cemeteries, and material culture (especially from east-
ern Achaia Phthiotis) has been growing steadily over the past quarter century and
1 The authors would like to thank the organizers of the colloquium Greek Ethnos States, Internal
Mechanics, External Relations, Hans Beck and Kostas Buraselis, for their hospitality and for
the opportunity to share our work on Achaia Phthiotis. We also would like to thank Steven
Hijmans for the reading the manuscript. We would like to thank professor Reinder Reinders for
the use of figures 7, 10 and 12a and Z. Malakasioti for the use of Fig. 13. All remaining errors
are, of course, our own.
2 For overview of scholarship see McInerney 1999, 6–35; 2001.
3 Morgan 2003; Antonaccio 2010; Cifani and Stoddart 2012.
4 Tetradic Thessaly refers to the geographic and political division of the Thessalian plains into
four parts: Hestiaiotis, Thessaliotis, Phthiotis, and Palasgiotis. See Str. 9.5.2–3.
5 Stählin 1967, 152–154.
286 Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda
includes our own archaeological research.6 This evidence needs to be incorporated

into the narrative of the region. We do not intend to create a definitive or exhaustive
account of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. Rather, by drawing all lines of evidence
together, we attempt to contextualize our own archaeological observations and
those of others in an admittedly fragmentary and complex historical framework.
Approaching the ethnos from an archaeological perspective permits an exploration
of the fluidity and multiplicity of ethnic constructs and allows us to contemplate
how external and internal influences operating on local and regional levels shape
and re-shape perceptions and expressions of ethnic cohesion.
This paper moves beyond identifying unifying characteristics of an ethnos and
takes a ‘bottom up’ approach towards the available evidence. By employing such
an approach we intend to explore the dynamic conception of regional identity and
query how shared narratives of identity were maintained and manipulated by inter-
nal and external forces through the lens of those who subscribed to it.7 In particular,
we focus in what ways membership to the group identity of Achaia Phthiotis be-
came desirable, was maintained and negotiated over time, and how external politi-
cal influences on the Hellenistic period may have encouraged the reassertion of
such membership. While the available evidence suggests that select inhabitants of
Achaia Phthiotis presented a regional self-awareness in the Archaic and Classical
periods, we see this awareness becoming increasingly and more deliberately ex-
pressed in times of political and social tension, exemplified in the Hellenistic pe-
riod. It is a construction of the other and a contrast between ‘us and them’ that
appear to have led to a re-solidified sense of togetherness, which the region’s in-
habitants utilized in an attempt to distinguish themselves from other groups or
states, albeit for only a short period.
A resurgence of regional identity did not, however, transcend other social con-
ceptions of group membership. In expressing their adherence to Achaia Phthiotis,
most inhabitants of the region seem to simultaneously express loyalty to their par-
ticular polis community as well. Following Catherine Morgan,8 we see multiple
tiers of identification being practiced simultaneously on social, economic, and po-
litical levels, which intersect each other in different circumstances. For instance, as
part of their expansionist policies and associated rhetoric of liberation, the Make-
donians, who controlled this region from the mid-4th until the mid-late 3rd century
BCE, seem to have appealed to or instigated a resurgence of and subscription to the
multi-tiered ethnic constructs and identities in both polis and ethnos contexts. We
witness significant regional political transformations in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE
with the new presence of Aitolians, Makedonians, and Romans, and the foundation
6 We would like to thank the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and the archaeological ephorates of
Larissa and Volos, as well as the Canadian Institute in Greece and Netherlands Institute of
Athens for their support in our fieldwork at Kastro Kallithea and Halos respectively.
7 We thus adopt the ‘practice’ approach advocated by Jean-François Bayart 2005, 92 who asserts
that ‘there is no such thing as identity, only operational acts of identification.’ Material culture
often acts as a medium in these operational acts, which makes archaeological data excellent
sources for the study of identity formation.
8 Morgan 2003.
External Policy and the Ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis 287
of the Thessalian League, heralding a new sense of supra-regionality, while local-

ized responses to the policies of foreign hegemons resulted in a fluctuating sense of
togetherness. Prior to delving into the evidence for how habits of identification were
shaped and expressed in material culture while being influenced by external or in-
ternal motivators, it is necessary to clarify our definitions and understanding of
group identity and explore the literary evidence for the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis.
I. APPROACHES TO ANCIENT ETHNĒ
A central challenge in assessing the role of ethnē in the ancient Greek world is a
traditional failure of available terminology to describe the highly diverse examples
of political arrangement, many of which are now clumped together under limited
categories in modern scholarship.9 Epigraphic and textual sources attest to the
Achaians of Phthiotis as an ethnos with degrees of self-perception and a sense of
corporate belonging10 yet they are far from clear concerning what the status of eth-
nos entailed.11 Anthony Snodgrass expresses a limited view of the ethnos, defining
it as a thinly scattered population with no urban centers that was nothing more than
the survival of earlier tribal systems into historic times.12 This reductionist view is
now considered flawed, and we instead see ethnos as a multi-layered and dynamic
form of social organization that was closely tied to the concepts of ethnicity. Before
turning to our use of the term ethnos, we must clarify the concepts of primordial
and instrumental ethnicity.
Primordial views identify ethnic or tribal groups as biologically self-perpetuat-
ing populations whose members share cultural values within a bound field of com-
munication and interaction, within which members consciously create a sense of
belonging and otherness.13 These categories are closely aligned with those that He-
rodotus lists as the elements that bind Greeks together: blood, language, religion,
and culture.14 Critiques, however, raise important concerns with such a limited def-
inition. Tightly constrained views of ethnicity and associated tendencies to roman-
ticize and mystify ethnic identities of the past present such identities as naturally
occurring elements determining immutable dimensions of individual self-identity,
9 Morgan 2003, 4. Jones 1997, 56f notes that authors rarely lay out in an explicit manner how
they define and understand terms such as ethnicity and ethnic group.
10 For references to the people of Achaia Phthiotis see Hdt. 7.185.2, 7.132; Thuc. 8.3.1; Arist.
Pol. 1267b 5–7, 1269b 6; Theopomp. Fr. 63. See Decourt et al. 2004, 686f, 713–718 for sum-
mary of the use of it ethnic for the region and individual cities.
11 Helly 2001 discusses a 2nd century BCE inscription concerning the city of Melitaia and its im-
plications for the earlier 3rd century ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis but does not define his concept
of ethnos, differentiate between territorial boundaries and ethnic constructs, and address the
role or even existence of the ethnos once the region was incorporated into the 2nd century Thes-
salian League.
12 Snodgrass 1980, 42. Cf. McInerney 2001. For detailed historiography of the ethnos see McIn-
erney 1999, 8–35.
13 Hall 1997, 17; 2002, 9; Malkin 2001, 1; McInerney 1999, 25.
14 Hdt. 8.144.2.
leading to the view of ethnē as nothing more than pre-determined group identities
based on ethnic constructions.
Contrarily, an instrumental approach sees ethnicity as a dynamic and situational
form of group identity created in order to bring about a particular economic and/or
political gain that is variably reified depending on a particular historic and social
situation.15 It is within the instrumental category that much of the recent interest in
ethnē and koina can be situated.16 Having demonstrated the many meanings of the
term ethnos, Jeremy McInerney concludes that there is nothing essential to the
Greek conception of ethnos other than that it should comprise a group that identifies
itself as a people, whether that is something occurring over a broad territory with
scattered settlements or in a polis.17 Ethnē, therefore, were something that “existed
within the hierarchy of human societies somewhere above the family and below the
Hellenes”18 with membership that grew from a need to express communal iden-
tity.19
We therefore approach the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis as a community of
individuals who distinguished themselves through the articulation of a group
identity, which was often, but not exclusively, based on shared mythology, territory,
ancestry, and cults. Our understanding of identity is not a romanticized biological
construct but rather a dynamic, negotiable, and situfational form of community uni-
fied by an assortment of qualifiers.20 Furthermore, the creation of identity was not
a singular process operating at an individual level of social organization. There exist
within any community multiple ‘tiers of identity’ with which a person or group can
identify that may be interrelated on a social, economic, or political level. 21 We
conceptualize the ethnos as a group whose experience of identity is dynamic in
nature. The articulation of group membership is maleable and adaptable to
particular historical situations, thus leading to ongoing changes over time.
Group organizations, some of which may be identified as koina, were dynamic,
extended their membership beyond ethnic identity and shared territory, and relied
on any number of qualities for legitimization, particularly during the Hellenistic
period.22 Our own concept of group organization follows a modification of Emily
15 Jones 1997, 72.

16 Mackil 2014, 271; McInerney 2013.
17 McInerney 1999, 24.
18 McInerney 1999, 25. Cf. Mackil 2014 who nests discussion of ethnē within associated koina.
19 Morgan 2003, 11 makes a distinct delineation between ethnicity and ethnē, the former being
the process of choice by which a group identity is constructed and the latter being the entities
rooted in place and time, which are the outcomes of the creation of ethnic groups.
20 Hall 1997; McInerney 1999; 2014.
21 Morgan 2003, 10–16; McInerney 1999, 24f.
22 Mackil 2014, 271–276. While in the 6th century BCE Peloponnesian Achaian identity was ar-
ticulated with claims of consanguinity and shared territory, the political unification of the
Achaian League in the 4th century BCE had no explicitly ethnic arguments for its creation. For
the Aitolian League, Scholten 2000, 30 argues that contrary to the League’s initial membership
requirements, by the 3rd century BCE membership extended beyond ethnic boundaries in order
to build a greater political community.
Mackil’s base definition of koinon as a “group of communities with loose and in-
formal structures for cooperation.”23 This community, brought together by opera-
tional acts of belonging, may have been created to enable particular economic, so-
cial, or political gains, and were thereafter variably reified depending on particular
historical and social situations.24 Underlying reasons for the continued prominence
of a koinon or collaborative community include group access to commodities and
shared economic power,25 religious solidarity,26 and political goals.27 The group
identity of such a community may transcend ethnic definitions28 and be comprised
of tiers of identity and belonging that are often expressed and perceived in numer-
ous indicia including texts, epigraphic sources, and material culture.29 What re-
mains consistent is an adaptive structure reliant on power networks distributed
across a number of locations reliant on networks instead of a uniform and clearly
defined political territory.30
II. GEOGRAPHY OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS
Let us briefly situate Achaia Phthiotis within its geographical and historical
context before exploring its archaeological record. Achaia Phthiotis is situated to
the southeast of the main plains of Thessaly and borders the Pagasitic Gulf. As a
transitional territory located between tetradic Thessaly and the northern fringes of
Boiotia and Phokis, the precise boundaries of Achaia Phthiotis appear to have been
flexible over time. Ancient authors, however, explicitly separate Achaia Phthiotis
from its neighbours, thereby providing clues to the region’s extent (Fig. 1).31 By
identifying the city of Echinos as the ‘last of the Malians,’ Pseudo-Skylax contrasts
it with the southern Achaian Phthiotian settlements of Antron, Larisa Kremaste, and
Melitaia, and thus provides a rough approximation of the southern border of Achaia
Phthiotis.32 The plain of Phthiotis defines the north and west boundary, perhaps
demarcated by the Narthakion mountain range. The city of Phthiotic Thebes and its
port at Pyrasos on the Pagasitic Gulf mark the northeast border of Achaia Phthiotis
where it converges with the Thessalian plain of Pelasgiotis and the coastal region
23 Mackil 2014, 271; following Morgan 2003. Larsen 1968 describes the Thessalian ethnē as the
people who comprise the koina, which he identifies as a federal state.
24 Jones 1997, 65, 72; Hall 1997, 17; Malkin 2001, 1; Mackil 2014, 271f; MacSweeney 2009,
102.
25 Mackil 2013; 2014.
26 Mili 2014.
27 Graninger 2011; McInerney 1999, 9; 2013; Scholten 2000; Helly 2001.
28 MacSweeney 2009, 102.
29 Morgan 2003; this has been demonstrated by MacSweeney, Knapp for the prehistoric periods.
30 Smith 2005; 2007.
31 Pseudo-Skylax, Fr. 62–65; Str. 9.5.1–3, 9.5.8–9, 9.5.12–14. Cf. Reinders 2003a, 12; Shipley
2011, 137–139.
32 Pseudo-Skylax, Fr. 62–64; Cf. Shipley 2011, 68, 137–139. Shipley’s map seems to indicate
that Malis was to the west of the bay and did not include any territory to the north.
of Magnesia. Thucydides’ identification of Pyrasos as Thessalian,33 rather than

Achaian, demonstrates the blurriness of territorial demarcation and the ambiguity
of the identifier Thessalian, and may exemplify the shifting allegiances that oc-
curred as the perioikoi were integrated into tetradic Thessaly sometime in the Late
Classical period.34 Thus Achaia Phthiotis can be broadly conceptualized as the ter-
ritory of the Othrys massif35 comprised of pockets of arable land and expanses of
rolling hills, suitable for pastoralism, and punctuated by large isolated hills and val-
leys. Topographic features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, may have served
as natural boundaries crisscrossing the landscape; however, these boundaries, alt-
hough based on topographic features, are still cultural concepts that are often flex-
ible. For example, mountains and rivers are not impermeable boundaries, but can
be easily traversed as attested by communication and interaction between individual
regions throughout Greece.36
III. THE ETHNOS OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS
The toponym Ἀχαΐα (Ionic Αχαιίη) or Φθιώτις was utilized to distinguish this re-
gion and its specific cities from Peloponnesian Achaia and provided an ethnic qual-
ifier.37 Cities of Achaia Phthiotis are referred to with this toponym, such as
Μελίτεια της Ἀχαΐα38 and τῆς Ἀχαιίς ἐς Ἄλος.39 At times both toponyms were used
for further clarification: ἡ Φθιώτις Ἀχαΐα40 qualified the region while local Thebans
are explicitly described as Θηβαῖοv ἐξ [Ἀχαΐ]ας τῆς Φθιώτιδος.41 These qualifiers
are not simply geographic descriptors but also refer to the ethnos itself in the form
Ἀχαιός or Φθιῶται, for example: Λαρισαῖος ἐκ Φθι[ώτιδος].42 Late Classical refer-
ences to the ethnos under consideration record Achaians of Phthiotis as participants
in the Delphic Amphiktyony, which listed its members on the basis of cultural
groupings, not necessarily geographic location.43 Furthermore, expressions of
33 Thuc. 2.22.3.
34 Graninger 2011, 79; Sprawski 2009, 131f; Helly 1995, 167–169.
35 On the variety of cartographical portrayals of the region see: Stählin 1967, 150–152; Reinders
1988, 18, 22–23; Graninger 2011, xi, 19; Westlake 1934; Tziafalias et al. 2006, 93f. The delin-
eation of its boundaries by Reinders 1988, 2003 has become widely accepted and cited.
36 Decourt 1990; Cantarelli 1999; Tziafalias et al. 2006.
37 For summary of usage see Decourt et al. 2004, 686f, 713–718.
38 Thuc 4.78.1.
39 Hdt.7.173.1, 7.197.1 (ἐς Ἄλον δὲ τῆς Ἀχαιίης).
40 Diod. Sic. 5.50.5.
41 IG VII.288.5. See also Decourt et al. 2004, 717.
42 IG XII.5 542.32. Other select literary and epigraphic references to the ethnic include: Hdt.
7.185.2; Thuc. 8.3.1; Xen. Hell. 1.2.18; Arist. Pol. 1269b6; Aeschin. 2.116, 2.166; Theopomp.
Fr. 63; Ps.-Skylax 63; CID II.31.1.31; IG II2.1132 56.
43 The earliest reference to Achaia Phthiotis in epigraphic sources dates to the late 340s BCE, and
numerous other examples occur thereafter. See CID II.36.1.6 (341/0 BCE), 43.2 (340/39 BCE),
72.8 (327 BCE), 32.47 (340/39 BCE), 76.I.23 (335 BCE), 84.A.2–3 (332/1 BCE), 74.I.39
(337/6 BCE), 76.I.24 (335 BCE); IG IX2.1292; Syll.3 692 (134/3 BCE); Syll.3 704 (125/4 BCE);
Achaian identity are attested at the level of regional spheres of interaction, not only
in the poleis themselves. Honorees from Halos, Euphraios and Smilas, were re-
ferred to in a proxeny decree found at Delphi as Ἀχαιοῖς ἐξ Ἅλου (Achaians from
Halos) thus placing the emphasis on the ethnos.44 To the external world, the Achai-
ans presented themselves and were perceived in association with membership of
their ethnos.
Achaia Phthiotis is often conflated with tetradic Thessaly in ancient literary
sources, and a distinction between the regions is rarely made even in modern schol-
arship despite textual evidence suggesting that the two regions were quite distinct.
The Achaian Phthiotians were individual members (hieromnemones) of the Am-
phiktyonic Council and held two votes; they were, therefore, considered equal and
distinct members of the council alongside the Thessalians and other ethnē.45 Achaia
Phthiotis appears to have followed a similar historical trajectory to Thessaly in po-
litical matters, although the exact relationship between the peoples of these two
regions is obscure, and it is uncertain when and to what extent the Achaians were
politically independent.46 The literary sources, however, do provide passing men-
tion of political decisions undertaken by the Achaians of Phthiotis, including their
decision to medize in the face of Persian aggression,47 their agreement with the
Spartan Brasidas,48 and their alliance with Herakleia Trachiniai towards the end of
the 5th century BCE.49 Yet during the Classical period, Achaia Phthiotis certainly
does become politically subordinate to the Thessalians, eventually falling under the
authority of Pharsalos.50 The progress of these historical changes is far from clear.
As Emma Aston argues, the fragmentary nature of the textual and inscriptional ev-
idence blurs our understanding of the historical circumstances for the subjection of
the Achaia Phthiotis and resulting repercussions acted out on both a local and re-
gional level.51
While Achaia Phthiotis was never a major player in the Greek political sphere,
at least according to extant sources, its geographic location meant that it inadvert-
ently became embroiled in major historical events. Anti-Makedonian sentiment in
Old Halos, a Classical city in Achaia Phthiotis, led to the siege and destruction of
Syll.3 826 (125/4 BCE); CID IV.199.E (117/116 BCE). Aeschines 2.115–116 indicates that by
343 BCE Achaia Phthiotis had hieromnemones on the Amphiktyonic council. Considering that
his speech refers to investigating the Council’s makeup and rules at its conception, it may be
extrapolated that Achaia Phthiotis gained membership at a much earlier period. See also Bon-
ner and Smith 1943; Flaceliére 1937, 36f; Kahrstedt 1922, 384f; Lefèvre 1998, 87f.
44 FD III.2.182.
45 CID IV.119 E; CID II.36.1.6, 36.2.20; 72.8; Aeschin. 2.115–116; Theopomp. Fr. 63; Lefèvre
1998, 87.
46 Thuc. 8.3.1 refers to the Achaeans of Phthiotis and ‘the other subjects of the Thessalians,’ (καὶ
Ἀχαιοὺς τοὺς Φθιώτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς ταύτῃ Θεσσαλῶν ὑπηκόους).
47 Hdt. 7.132.
48 Thuc. 4.78.
49 Xen. Hell. 1.2.18.
50 Thuc. 8.3.1 (Achaia Phthiotis); Arist. Pol. 1269b 7–9; Xen. Hell. 6.1.19; Graninger 2011, 14–
16, 116–119; Sprawski 2009, 131–136; 1999, 17.
51 Aston 2012, 14.
the city by Philip II in 347/6 BCE. Subsequently its territory, including the port,
was given to the pro-Makedonian city of Pharsalos.52 This conflict must have led
to increasing tension between eastern Achaia Phthiotis and Pharsalos. This friction
may have also resulted in a hostile political situation, one which the Makedonian
kings may have later exploited as they vied for domination of the region at the end
of the 4th century BCE. The Makedonian Demetrios Poliorketes ‘liberated’ the cities
of southeast Achaia Phthiotis, including Larisa Kremaste, Antron, and Pteleon, as
he moved north to confront Kassandros.53 His maneuvers culminated in a major
standoff with Kassandros in the Krokian Plain in 302 BCE, resulting in Demetrios
holding southern Achaia Phthiotis and Kassandros controlling the north, including
the city of Phthiotic Thebes.54 The standoff did not result in a battle; Demetrios
declared the cities under his control ‘free and autonomous’ but he left Greece to aid
his father, Antigonos Monophthalmos, in their unsuccessful battle at Ipsos. Kassan-
dros quickly took control of the territories in the region of the standoff after Deme-
trios’ departure.55 Thus, at the turn of the 3rd century BCE, southeast Achaia Phthi-
otis experienced a period of liberation under Demetrios’ rule, albeit brief. But Kas-
sandros may have followed a similar policy of freeing cities in order not to lose the
sympathy of the local population.56 In tandem with these events we see a simulta-
neous reassertion of Achaian identity that may have been a conscious reaction to
the earlier tensions between Pharsalos and eastern Achaia Phthiotis. Demetrios Po-
liorketes may have encouraged this resurgence of a visible display of Achaian
Phthiotian cohesiveness as part of the Makedonian rhetoric of liberation on polis as
well as ethnos level. As we will see below, the reorganization of the landscape, the
construction of centralized fortified cities that consolidated dispersed populations,
the minting of communal regional coins, and the increased visibility of localized
regional myths and religious practices played into the vocabulary that gave expres-
sion to this conceived cohesiveness.57
Makedonian control of eastern Achaia Phthiotis continues and was perhaps
reinforced by the construction of the Makedonian capital at Demetrias in 294
BCE.58 The reign of Antigonos Gonatas (277–274, 272–239 BCE) brought short-
lived stability to Achaia Phtiotis, but this was soon challenged by the expansion of
52 Dem. 11.1, 19.36, 39, 163; Str. 9.5.8. A lacuna in Strabo’s text has been reconstructed by Kra-
mer and subsequent editors as συν[ῴκισαν Φαράλιοι] (Pharsalians colonized or brought to-
gether). This reconstruction references the Pharsalian control of Halian territory as mentioned
by Demosthenes, however, lacks any direct evidence for Halian unification or colonization by
Pharsalos. See also Westlake 1969, 13; Reinders 1988, 26f.
53 Diod. Sic. 20.110.2; Reinders 1988, 168; 2003c, 231.
54 Diod. Sic. 20.110–111; Reinders 1988, 168f.
55 Diod. Sic. 20.112.1.
56 Kasandros refounded, through a synoikismos, the city of Poteidia as Kassandreia and the new
city of Thessalonike, named after his Thessalian wife. See Diod. Sic. 19.52, Shipley 2000, 114,
119. He is also associated with the foundation of Dion, a city that strongly resembles Halos in
layout.
57 The latter, contrastingly, seems to adhere initially to polis-level constructions of identity rather
than a regional one.
58 Str. 9.5.15; Marzolff 1976a, 5; 1994, 60; Batziou-Efstathiou 2002, 17.
the Aitolian League.59 It is unclear whether an Achaian identity waned or was sup-
pressed by the Makedonians due to the Aitolians’ territorial challenge. By the 260s
BCE, the Aitolian League had extended its borders into western Achaia Phthiotis,
occupying the city of Melitaia, Thaumakoi, and Xyniai.60 The anti-Makedonia re-
volts of 229–228 BCE by the Thessalians, including Achaia Phthiotis, shifted power
dynamics and destabilized royal holdings in favour of the Aitolians.61 By late the
220s BCE, Aitolia possessed much of Achaia Phthiotis.62 The Aitolians imple-
mented a policy of integration through participation and appealed to the traditions
of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis by reviving the practice of sending
heiromnemones from the Achaian cities to the Aitolian controlled Delphic Amphik-
tyony, a practice that had been abandoned by the Makedonians.63 Despite acting on
behalf of the Aitolians, the Achaian Phthiotians’ return to Delphi served as a suc-
cessful appeal to long standing traditions and capitalized on a sense of ethnic iden-
tity in order to contrast Aitolian control with that of the previous occupiers, the
Makedonians. In the following years, however, territorial possession vacillated pre-
dominately between the Makedonians, under Philip V, in eastern Achaia and the
Aitolians in the west.64 The intervention of the Romans under Titus Quintus Flam-
ininus resulted in the freeing of tetradic Thessaly and the perioikoi, including
Achaia Phthiotis, and the revival and reorganization of the Thessalian League in
196 BCE.65 Although it probably did not play a major role in regional politics,
Achaia Phthiotis seems to have experienced a period of stability following Roman
intervention.
The region thus witnessed much action associated with the power struggles that
played out during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. The presence of external forces
contributed to transitions in the physical landscape with respect to settlement pat-
terns as well as to the expression of the population’s multi-tiered group identity.
59 Scholten 2003, 134–158; Chamoux 2003, 89.

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

terns, epigraphic evidence for territorial conflicts amongst the cities of Achaia
Phthiotis, the creation of a communal coinage, and the use of myth and religious
practices in daily life, the archaeological evidence permits the exploration of ways
in which this group identity was invoked, brought to a level of consciousness, and
utilized externally by the Makedonians and Aitolians and internally by the Achaians
themselves.
IV. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND THE LANDSCAPE
What characteristics did settlements possess during the Classical period, and what
changes occurred with the arrival of the Makedonians at the end of the 4th century
BCE? Classical towns in Achaia Phthiotis are often located on the top of hills in the
vicinity of springs, fertile valleys, crossroads, or the sea. They consist of a walled
acropolis c. 0.6–1 ha in size and a surrounding settlement, which is sometimes for-
tified. The average surface area of the settlement is relatively small c. 6–11 ha. A
few late Classical examples (Fig. 2–5) are located at Grintja (possibly identified
with Karandai), Kastro Kallithea (pre–Hellenistic phase of the site tentatively des-
ignated as Peuma), Magoula Plataniotiki (the site of Old Halos), and Karatsagdali
(unknown settlement).66 Comparable in size and organization are the well-pre-
served plans of other nearby Archaic/Classical settlements at Ktouri, north of
Pharsala, and Soros, near Demetrias, demonstrating similar patterns in areas sur-
rounding Achaia Phthiotis.67 This collection of settlement evidence from the gen-
eral area of Achaia Phthiotis illustrates that until the end of the Classical period
settlements were relatively small, particularly in comparison to the major contem-
porary urban centers of southern Greece.
Archaeological surveys conducted throughout Greece have revealed a pattern
of scattered rural occupation in the landscapes surrounding Classical cities.68 De-
spite the lack of comparable survey work for Achaia Phthiotis, it is likely that a
similar pattern occurs here. While the exploration of the regional landscape is bur-
geoning for the region, it is difficult to ascertain the nuances of the habitation of the
66 For the identification of these sites see Stählin 1914, 83–104; 1967, 164f, 169; Cantarelli 1999;
Reinders 1988, 159–163. For the size of Halos (Reinders 2003a, 19) and Kastro Kallithea
(Tziafalias et al. 2006, 111). Estimates on the area of the other sites have been extrapolated
from satellite images.
67 Soros: Milojčić 1974a, 65–75, figs. 22–37; 1974b, 662; Marzolff 1994, 256, fig. 1; Μπάτζιου–
Ευσταθίου 1985, 186; 1987, 246; 1988, 242. Τριανταφυλλοπούλου 2000, 60–69. Ktouri: Bé-
quignon 1932, 122–191.
68 For overall trends of the Hellenistic world derived from survey see Alcock 1994; Shipley 2002;
Stewart 2007. For identification of non-polis settlements in Archaic and Classical period see
Decourt et al. 2004, 686f. For survey projects in Achaia Phthiotis see Decourt 1990; Wieber-
dink 1986; 1990; Stissi 2012. The full results of the regional survey of Halos for the Classical
and Hellenistic periods have not yet been fully published. Recent re-evaluation of the pottery
from the survey is currently being undertaken by Stissi.
landscape and the later shift towards urbanism given the majority of the region’s
archaeological evidence derives from urban spaces or isolated sites. One exception
is the well-researched polis of New Halos, a project of the universities of Groningen
and Amsterdam in cooperation with the 13th Ephorate at Volos, which has focused
on a regional survey, excavations at the Hellenistic city, and is currently exploring
a Classical settlement on Magoula Plataniotiki.69 The survey data highlight the ex-
istence of multiple scattered settlements and dispersed farmsteads during the Clas-
sical period.70 While the dispersed distribution of these small sites may be associ-
ated with mixed farming strategies and a pastoralist economy, the population still
identified on a socio-political level with the polis of Halos.71 Vladimir Stissi has
recently suggested that Classical Halos might be a multi-centered polis, where po-
litical responsibilities were not centered in a well-defined single urban core but ra-
ther distributed over a larger territory.72 This is contrary to the traditional polis
model but offers a different explanation for the small size of Classical Achaia Phthi-
otian cities.
The preliminary data from the Halos survey suggest that with the arrival of the
Makedonians and the ‘liberation’ of the area at the end of the 4th century BCE,
habitation and land use patterns in the landscape shifted. In contrast to the Classical
period, analysis of the survey material has yielded limited evidence for the occupa-
tion of rural sites contemporaneous with Hellenistic Halos, a city founded under the
influence of Demetrios Poliorketes.73 This may indicate that the dispersed habita-
tion that characterized the Classical landscape of Halos was, at least in part, consol-
idated into a single fortified city 41 ha in size. The location was also strategically
situated further inland in the plain compared to the earlier town’s coastal setting at
Magoula Plataniotiki (Fig. 7).74 Part of the population living in rural areas may have
migrated to populate the new city, perhaps in addition to inhabitants from else-
where, albeit for only a short period as the city was not sustainable in the long
term.75 This process appears to mirror other consolidations of rural populations into
central urban areas as described in historical records. At Phthiotic Thebes, the pop-
ulations of the village of Phylake, the port of Pyrasos, and the earlier town of Phthi-
otic Thebes were brought together in a synoikismos. The town was reconfigured as
69 Reinders 1988; Reinders and Prummel 2003; Reinders et al. 2000, 83–92; Reinders 2004b;
2006; 2014; Stissi 2012.
70 Stissi 2012, 395f; Reinders 2014, 20, 23.
71 Reinders and Prummel 1998, 81–95; Haagsma 2010, 258f.
72 Stissi 2014; 2012, 395.
73 This is a personal observation of Haagsma who evaluated the material of the Halos survey in
the plain of Almiros. This observation is supported by Vladimir Stissi who with his team from
the University of Amsterdam has resurveyed many of these rural sites. See also Stissi 2012;
2014.
74 Reinders 1988, 190–193. The entire area of the city within the fortification walls was 76 ha
with the built up are of the lower town consisting of 41 ha.
75 New Halos was constructed sometime after 302 BCE but the urban center was abandoned after
an earthquake c. 265 BCE. See Reinders et al. 1996; Reinders 2014, 20–23. On the sustainabil-
ity of New Halos, see Haagsma 2010, 249–266.
a single fortified polis of a much grander scale (40 ha) on a high hill. 76 The syn-
oikismos of the city of Demetrias seems to have followed a similar pattern with the
incorporation of the population of 15 settlements.77 Such movement of inhabitants
is seen at the site of Soros, identified as either Pagasai or Amphanai, where habita-
tion ceased in the early 3rd century BCE after the synoikismos of Demetrias.78
These new or refurbished urban centers were characterized by extensive defen-
sive systems, an orthogonal grid plan, monumental architecture, and a drastic in-
crease in size. For example, the city of Kastro Kallithea (Peuma) (Fig. 8) witnessed
the expansion of the lower city and the implementation of an orthogonal grid plan
with monumental buildings surrounded by substantial fortification walls enclosing
34 ha.79 It is striking that these late 4th/early 3rd century BCE urban centers exhibit
a phenomenal difference in the size and complexity of the urban layout and archi-
tecture compared to cities from as little as 40 years earlier.
The surge towards urbanism coincides with Makedonian control of Achaia
Phthiotis, particularly in its coastal region. According to Diodoros, Demetrios Po-
liorketes moved the city of Larisa Kremaste further inland and strengthened its for-
tifications.80 The establishment of New Halos, likely also by Demetrios Polior-
ketes,81 must have gone hand in hand with a centralization of people and power.
We also assume that the extension of Kastro Kallithea was built during this period,
potentially by Demetrios Poliorketes, whereby the city served as a buffer zone be-
tween Halos and its previous rival Pharsalos.82 The landscape of a large part of
Achaia Phthiotis was thus altered due to the establishment of large, strategically
located, fortified settlements that resulted in a shift of settlement patterns. This pro-
cess of centralization may have had an impact on land use as well; with the transfer
of people to large well-defended cities, farms were likely reduced in number, as
seen at New Halos. Assuming that the local economy was based on mixed farming
and pastoralism, this meant that people were moved away from their economic base
76 Stählin 1967, 171–173; Decourt et al. 2004, 717; Herakleides fr. 3.3.
77 Strabo 9.5.15 lists Neleia, Pagasai, Ormenion, Rhizous, Sepias, Olizon, Boibe, and Iolkos.
Other cities were incorporated at a later date including: Omolion, Aiolis, Halai, Korope and
Spalauthra (IG IX2.1109), Glaphurai (BCH 95, 555), and Amphanai (Polemon A: 126). For
synthesis of synoikismos see Boehm 2011, 33–40.
78 Μπάτζιου-Ευσταθίου et al. 2009.
79 Tziafalias et al. 2006, 102–130; Tziafalias et al. 2009, 227–229; Haagsma et al. 2011, 198–207;
Surtees et al. 2014, 437–440.
80 Diod. Sic. 2.110.2; Stählin 1967, 183f.
81 Reinders 1988, 169–179; 2003c, 231; 2004, 187; 2014, 18–20. This interpretation is based on
a silver coin hoard found in the Southeast city gate of Halos consisting of coins of cities visited
by Demetrios Poliorketes prior to his arrival in Achaia Phthiotis. Contrary, Marzolff (pers.
comm. as cited in Reinders 1988) believes that Kassandros, who was active in the area and had
garrisons at Phthiotic Thebes and Pherai, was the founder of New Halos based on the quantity
of coins and his presence in the area. Similarly Καραχρήστος 2007, 208f argues that Kassan-
dros, following similar practices to Demetrios Poliorketes, was responsible for the foundation
of Halos.
82 Tziafalias et al. 2006, 98f; 2009, 230f; Surtees et al. 2014, 441f, 445f.
and had limited control of over their agricultural resources. 83 By centralizing the
population, the territory became more defendable in an increasingly hostile world.
More importantly, the Makedonian kings extended their authority over the inland
territory and communication routes and were able to exploit the taxation of an un-
tapped agriculturalist economy by keeping control of overseas trade routes.84
How did the Makedonians sell this idea of centralization to the Achaia Phthio-
tians and why did they buy into it? Were the existing populations forced to move,
were they coerced into it or did they move willingly? The Antigonids were notori-
ous for moving people and cities.85 Their habit of declaring cities autonomous and
free must have resonated positively for a population previously under Pharsalian
domination.86 The rhetoric of the Makedonian ruler who instigated the move to the
city of Halos, be it Kassandros or Demetrios Poliorketes or both, must have gone
hand in hand with an appeal to and promotion of the ethnic history of the individual
poleis of the region with the goal of ascertaining the goodwill of a perhaps hesitant
population. We will see that the result acted as a double-edged sword; the surge of
indicia related to a local ‘polis-based’ past under the umbrella of a regional unity
only appeared in the coastal communities of Achaia Phthiotis. The inland towns in
the more western part of the region were not part of this. Not only must this dynamic
have fuelled a tension between autonomies on polis and ethnos levels, but the East-
West divide in the region created the potential to weaken the cohesiveness of the
ethnos overall.
V. COINS OF ACHAIA PHTHIOTIS
The minting of bronze coinage occurred in some cities of Achaia Phthiotis shortly
after this period of intensified urban construction and fortification. 87 These coins
83 Reinders and Prummel 1998, 81–95; Prummel 2003a, 217; Haagsma 2010, 261–263.
84 The Antigonids intended to keep tight control over harbours and sea routes in compliance with
their ambition to be the largest sea power in the Eastern Mediterranean. See Buraselis 1982,
39f. Walbank 2002, 107f., though Ager 2003, 50 adds ‘they just weren’t very good at it’.
85 Examples include Lebedos and Teos (Welles 1966, 3f) and the move of Sikyon (Plut. Dem.
Pol. 25.2; Diod. Sic. 20.102.2; Shipley 2000, 114; Lolos 2011).
86 See Billows 1990, 203 on this policy in general. That ‘freedom’ is relative and that it had its
price is described by Billows 1995, 75 in his chapter on the variety of reciprocal strategies of
polis and monarchy.
87 The reign of Philip and the Makedonian kings did not result in the cessation of city coinage in
Thessaly. Martin 1985, 139f, 161–163 argues that there was no Makedonian policy of suppress-
ing local mints in Thessaly. If mints were closed, it was likely for economic rather than political
motives and cessation of coins cannot be equated with the loss of sovereignty or autonomy in
these cities (Martin 1985). Katerini Liampi 2000, 221 notes that ‘Thessalian cities never
stopped issuing their own coins’ although the scale of production may have been reduced con-
siderably, for example at Larissa (see Martin 1985, 161; Furtwängler 1990, 118–121). Some
cities, like Classical Halos, experienced a hiatus of minting coinciding with its integration into
Pharsalian territory c. 346 BCE (Gardner 1883, 13; Rogers 1932, nos.238–240; SNG Cop.
Thessaly 62–65; Reinders 1988, 236–251) while numismatic evidence from other cities like
featured iconography drawn from the individual polis’ mythical ancestry or cultic
associations; examples include Phrixos and Helle, the children of Athamas, for Ha-
los, Thetis on a hippocamp for Larisa Kremaste, and major deities such as Zeus for
Halos and Athena for Thebes.88 The synoikismos of Phthiotic Thebes is visually
exhibited through the amalgamation of legends from previously independent settle-
ments, Phylake and Pyrasos, into the iconography of the city coinage. Such hybrid-
ization of imagery demonstrates the importance of drawing on local mythical his-
tory to promote newly founded communities. The city of Phthiotic Thebes is rec-
ognized by its name on coinage, while the image of Demeter represents Pyrasos,
and Protessilaos relates to Phylake as he was the son of its mythical founder.89
These polis-based iconographies were based on local myths but were also ac-
companied by an element invoking a unified regional identity (Fig. 9). The mono-
gram AX on the Hellenistic coins of Halos, Larisa Kremaste, Phthiotic Thebes, and
Peuma has usually been interpreted as meaning ‘Achaion,’ although other interpre-
tations exist.90 At Larisa Kremaste, the monogram was prominently and symboli-
cally integrated into the local iconography present on coins: Thetis holds the shield
of Achilles upon which is the AX (Fig. 10).91 At Peuma, the obverse portrays a
nymph while the AX monogram occupies the entire reverse of the polis’ coins (Fig.
11).92 These AX coins, minted from c. 302 BCE until c. 288 BCE, were produced
in multiple issues with many dies for both reverses and obverses.93 In their study of
the chemical composition of extensive slag deposits at Pelasgía, A. Papastamataki,
D. Demetriou, and B. Orphanos identified the area near Larisa Kremaste as an im-
portant metallurgical center extensively exploited for its copper, possibly in relation
to coin production.94 In turn, H. Reinder Reinders and Eleni Asderaki utilized trace
element analysis to suggest that the copper in the coins of Halos, Peuma, and Larisa
Kremaste, and possibly those of Phthiotic Thebes, came from these nearby copper
Larissa Kremaste shows the continuity of coin mints in the 4th through 2nd centuries BCE (Rog-
ers 1932, no.312; SNG Cop. Thessaly 151f). Other cities of eastern Achaia Phthiotis like Phthi-
otic Thebes and Peuma had not previously issued coins until the late 4 th to early 3rd centuries
BCE.
88 Str. 9.5.8; Rogers 1932, no.238–240 (Halos), 302 (Larisa Kremaste); Reinders 1988, 164f, fig.
98, 236–251; SNG Cop. Thessaly 62–65 (Halos), 151f (Larisa Kremaste); Reinders 2003b, 143;
Reinders 2004a, 196.
89 Str. 9.5.8; Rogers 1932, 174f nos.306–308, 550–552; SNG Cop. Thessaly 259f.
90 Furtwängler 1990, 223f argues for reading the monogram as XA and suggests that these were
the initials of the mintmaster of the mint union rather than a reference to Achaion or league.
Contrary, Reinders 1988, 166; 2003c, 141 suggests that the monogram, whether read AX or
XA, was the symbol of a newly formed league.
91 Rogers 1932, no.312; SNG Cop. Thessaly 151f.
92 Head, Hist. Num. 304; Rogers 1932, no.442f; SNG Cop. Thessaly 198.
93 Reinders 2004a, 194, who suggests that these coins were produced for payments to Macedonian
military.
94 Papastamataki and Dimitriou 1987; Cf. Papastamataki et al. 1994 who argue that the quantity
of slag suggests that copper production exceeded local needs.
mines.95 A common copper source suggests that the various coin series were pro-
duced in a central place, perhaps Larisa Kremaste, which may have allowed for a
reduction in production costs or provided a central distribution hub from which cit-
ies could purchase the metals needed for coin production.
We agree with scholars who assume that the AX stands for ‘Achaion.’ As such,
these coins bear a strong resemblance to those of the Achaian League of the Pelo-
ponnese.96 While the identification of ‘Achaion’ seems most probable, there is less
certainty as to what ‘Achaion’ referred to in the particular context of Achaia Phthi-
otis. Scholars have suggested that the monogram relates to a kind of league that
functioned as either a political or economic unification of cities. 97 Interpreting AX
as such means that only a few of the eastern cities participated in this regional col-
laboration. The close geographic proximity of the participating cities and coastal
locations may be significant, and it is noteworthy that other cities in the western
part of Achaia Phthiotis, particularly the large inland city of Melitaia, were ex-
cluded from the group. We agree with Klaus Freitag that there is no evidence for
the existence of such a formal league.98 We instead view the introduction of coins
with an AX monogram as an indication of a successful appeal to a sense of regional
belonging rooted in the past, an appeal that was possibly influenced by the Make-
donian authorization of freedom and autonomy. The presence of strong cities that
formed a united front along the eastern coastal region of Achaia Phthiotis, bound
by a shared sense of heritage and a healthy exchange of commodities, certainly
served the interests of the Makedonians. We acknowledge that this take on identity
formation is rather instrumentalist in character, but it is our opinion that political
underpinnings do not necessarily exclude a positive response in at least part of the
Achaian population. This ‘mint union’, short-lived as it may have been, may be the
result of a divisive strategy that united key coastal cities against other inland re-
gional centers. It served the eastern Achaian cities in an open expression of Achaian
identity, uniting the mythical pasts of the coastal poleis under one umbrella, at the
exclusion of the region’s more inland poleis.
The Makedonians successfully appealed to an ethnic sense of belonging
through a reorganization of cities and possible assistance in the implementation of
communal coinage and leveraged the collective identity of the coastal Achaia Phthi-
otians to facilitate their own ambitions. Local identity was supported and used, but
not usurped, by external agents who also benefitted in their own right from these
expressions and acts of regional cohesion. As stated above, in times of political and
social tension, the social need for belonging seems to rise to a level of conscious
expression. The iconography of the coinage supported a dual relationship between
polity and region by drawing on a local mythical past while also tying this imagery
95 Reinders 2003b, 143f; 2004a, 197f; Reinders and Asderaki 2015.

96 The Achaian League minted coins with the AX monogram in the 4 th century BCE and, after a
hiatus, again from 280 BCE as part of the federation of the Achaians. See Gardner 1887, xxiii–
xxv; Head Hist. Num. 416; SEG 14.375.
97 Reinders 1988, 166, 169; 2003b, 141–144; 2004a, 193f.
98 Freitag 2006, 224f.
into that of a larger regional community. Internal forces thereby contributed to shap-
ing such expressions of identity, which were in turn likely supported by external
forces.
VI. TERRITORIAL DISPUTES
Indications of ethnic unity in Achaia Phthiotis seem to wane over the course of the
3rd century BCE while other political events suggest a growing focus on the identi-
ties of individual poleis. The cessation of regional coinage coincides with an in-
crease in the number of well-documented territorial conflicts suggesting a rise of
inter-polity tension within the region. Perhaps the proposed East-West inland-coast
division between groups of cities in the landscape of Achaia Phthiotis, already ap-
parent in the short-lived mint union, was amplified by the appearance of external
forces to the point where poleis loosened regional associations. The Aitolians, ex-
panding from their heartland towards Thessaly, pushed their zone of influence into
western Achaia Phthiotis by the second half of the 3rd century BCE while the east
continued to remain under Makedonian control, at least initially.99 The large num-
ber of well-known interstate arbitrations in the region is a likely reflection of an
ongoing breakdown of political unity on a regional scale. No less than 12 extant
boundary and land disputes involved Achaia Phthiotis and necessitated interna-
tional arbitration, a large number in comparison to those known from the rest of
Greece.100 This volume demonstrates fluctuations in regional and polity alliances.
Around 270/260 BCE, Peuma, likely associated with the settlement at Kastro
Kallithea at the western edge of the Krokian plain, was challenged twice over its
boundaries. In both cases the larger and more established polis of Melitaia sup-
ported its neighbouring settlements of Chalai, Pereia, and Phyliadon against Peuma,
which lost both arbitrations.101 It may be significant that Peuma did not receive clear
support from the Achaian cities along the east coast with which it had previously
been linked by means of cultural indicia such as common coinage while Melitaia
backed its inland neighbours.102 Bruno Helly argues that Melitaia and its surround-
ing settlements were aligned politically through a policy of sympoliteia in the first
half of the 3rd century BCE thereby creating an alliance in western Achaia Phthiotis
99 Graninger 1999; Scholten 2000.

100 Ager 1996, no.30, 31, 32, 55, 56, 76, 78, 79, 153, 154, 156, 157. Cities of Achaia Phthiotis
involved in interstate arbitrations include: Chalai, Halos, Larisa Kremaste, Melitaia, Nar-
thakion, Pereia, Peuma, Phthiotic Thebes, Phyliadon, Pteleion, Xyniai.
101 Ager 1996, no.30, 31. Helly 2001, 242–247, 254–256 identifies the sites of Tsournati and Mor-
jes with Chalai and Phyliadon respectively. Cf. Stählin 1914, 83–104.
102 The unity of the coastal towns may have waned as evidence by the cessation of joint AX coin
production c. 288 BCE although individual cities continued to mint coins. Helly 2001, 243–
249, 256 argues that Chalai, Pereia, and Phyliadon were united under a sympoliteia with
Melitaia by c. 260/250 BCE thus explaining Melitaia’s political support of these territorial dis-
putes.
with Melitaia taking a dominant role.103 Its border dispute with Peuma may have
been an attempt to expand territorial control into the coastal region. 104 Melitaia’s
expansionist policy and support of its western Achaian allies may have solidified
the East–West, coastal-inland division of the ethnos of Achaia Phthiotis. Melitaia
had come under Aitolian influence by the second half of the 3rd century BCE but
was also courted by other forces; Amynandros of Athamania supported the city by
providing a large sum of ten silver talents for building a gate and repairing the city
walls.105 External powers likely capitalized on existing alliances to further their own
expansionist policies. Thus the need for settling the conflicts between cities of
Achaia Phthiotis through interstate arbitrations testifies to a rising political tension
caused by vacillating internal political alliances and foreign hegemonic influence,
both of which must have influenced the frail cohesion of the ethnos of Achaia Phthi-
otis on many levels.
It is telling that two other members of the original ‘mint union’, Halos and
Phthiotic Thebes, were involved in a territorial conflict in the mid–2nd century BCE,
likely over grazing rights on sacred land. The conflict was arbitrated at Delphi by
Makon of Larisa, acting on behalf of the Thessalian League.106 Both cities had come
under the control of the newly established Thessalian League by this time, yet there
is a reference to Achaian identity in the arbitration record. It notes that inscriptions
recording the resolution should be set up at various sanctuaries, including a sanctu-
ary of Artemis at Halos, with the enigmatic epithet ‘Panachaia’.107 Panachaia natu-
rally means ‘all of Achaia’ and seems to appeal to the ethnos, though we do not
know when this sanctuary was established. Numerous authors have discussed this
famous arbitration, but Klaus Freitag has evaluated it in detail, including the sanc-
tuaries mentioned, and we summarize and draw on his argument.108
The location of the sanctuary of Artemis Panachaia in Halos remains unknown,
and while various dedications to Artemis have been found in the vicinity of the
ancient polis, none of them mention Artemis in association with this epithet.109
Panachaia is unusual in that it is only found in epigraphic texts found near the port
103 Helly 2001, 245–248, 254–256. As Tsournati’s location connects physically and visually with
other cities of the Krokian (Almiros) plain, the settlement may have initially associated itself
with these eastern cities prior to joining the sympolity with Melitaia in the 3 rd century BCE.
Helly 2001, 247f argues that Tsournati’s (Chalai) geographic position was likely the impetus
for the establishment of a civic alliance between Melitaia and Chalai. Through this alliance,
Melitaia acquired physical and visual communication and connectivity with the coastal region.
104 While Peuma (Kastro Kallithea) lost the dispute, there is no indication that the polis fell under
the control of Melitaia. Melitaia was involved in numerous other territorial disputes either in
support of its neighbours or as the primary claimant. It is uncertain to what extent these border
conflicts were driven by internal polis ambitions or external powers. Ager 1996, no.30, 31
(Peuma), 55 (Xyniai), 56 (Pereia), 32, 76, 79, 156, 157 (Narthakion).
105 IG IX2.208. See for a summary of comments: Bringmann 1995, 167–169.
106 Ager 1996, no.153; Reinders 1988, 173f; Freitag 2006, 214–218.
107 Ager 1996, 419–420 no.153; Reinders 1988, 152–154, 175, 188f; Freitag 2006, 214–218.
108 Freitag 2006.
109 No archaeological evidence has been found for the sanctuary Reinders 2014, 23; Freitag 2006,
224–227.
of Phthiotic Thebes and in the Peloponnese. Two Hellenistic dedications to Deme-

ter Panachaia were found near the Classical polis of Pyrasos, referred to by Homer
for its veneration of Demeter.110 Pausanias mentions a sanctuary of Demeter
Panachaia in Aigion and an Athena Panachaia sanctuary in Patras, both of which
are found in Peloponnesian Achaia.111 As Freitag points out, the epithet is late, and
none of the associated cults seem to have acquired a central importance in the reli-
gious calendar of these cities. He concludes that the epithet possibly relates to a
celebration of Panachaism as a form of Panhellenism and thus transcends a local or
regional significance of the cults.112 But we wish to reiterate that all recorded
Panachaia cults were located in areas known in antiquity as Achaia or Achaia Phthi-
otis, and the epithets are indeed only known from the Hellenistic period onwards.
Was the establishment of two cults with the epithet Panachaia, one in Phthiotic
Thebes and the other in Halos, a political tool used to promote and appeal to the
population’s sense of ethnic pride and prestige on the level of the polis and ethnos?
With rival Makedonian forces of Demetrios Poliorketes and Kassandros stationed
along the coastal plain in 302 BCE, continuous competition may have encouraged
the construction and/or promotion of cults to deities under a common Achaian de-
nominator whereby the poleis involved increased their religious, social, and perhaps
even political status in the context of the ethnos. This claim towards a common
Achaian heritage would have resonated long after the balance of political powers
had changed. We admit that our suggestion that the Panachaian cults in Achaia
Phthiotis must have their origins in the Early Hellenistic period is a bold one and
that our sources are too limited to further substantiate it. Yet these kinds of appeals
to a regional identity would correspond well with tactics used by Makedonian
hegemons to win over the goodwill of a reluctant local population via the central
slogans of freedom and autonomy.
VII. LOCAL MYTHS IN MATERIAL CULTURE
While admittedly scarce, expressions of a unified, regional identity among partici-

pating poleis in Achaia Phthiotis drew on a shared mythology as mode of cohesion
and inclusion. The centrality of Achaia Phthiotis in Greek mythology is exemplified
in the ancestral and heroic figures of Deucalion, Pyrrha, Hellen, Xuthos, and most
famously Achilles whose purview and influence extended beyond Achaia Phthiotis.
Strabo reports that the agora of Melitaia displayed the tomb of Hellen, forefather of
not only the Achaians but of all Greeks.113 Thus we see myths used as tools for
aiding the cohesion of groups, local and beyond. Archaeological evidence from cit-
ies in eastern Achaia Phthiotis displays vocabularies of multi-tiered regional/ethnos
or local/poleis identities comparable to those found in coinage in that it appeals to
110 Freitag 2006, 226f; Hom. Il. 695; Str. 9.5.14.

111 Paus. 7.24.3; Freitag 2006, 226.
112 Freitag 2006, 231f.
113 Str. 9.5.6.
both the regional and local. The material culture from various domestic contexts
appears to draw on polis-based myth-history throughout the 3rd century BCE, indi-
cating continued pride and promotion of local cultural heritage. In the House of the
Coroplast owned by a terracotta maker at New Halos, a figurine was found that
depicts Phrixos or Helle on a ram, iconography similar to that on Halian coins (Fig.
12).114 The inhabitants of this newly established city must have desired material
goods reflecting the community’s mythical history and identity, perhaps as a mode
of reasserting their local heritage during this period of shifting political environ-
ments. The household, where these images were produced as well as displayed,
must have played a dynamic role in fuelling and satisfying this social need.115
Local polis identities drew on foundation myths and legends while connecting
with other communities of belonging by simultaneously embracing a regional Thes-
salian heritage. Through the adoption of such myths, a greater Thessalian group
identity was invoked, not a Makedonian or Aitolian one. This reaffirmed the role
of Achaia Phthiotis in Thessalian history despite the presence of external influence
and foreign control of the region. Such affirmation of Thessalian ties is manifested
in, for example, the iconography of pottery and in one as yet preliminary published
inscription. At New Halos, a farmstead was built into Southeast gate after the urban
center had been abandoned c. 265 BCE.116 The Southeast gate was occupied from
the mid to late 3rd century BCE, during which time mouldmade bowls decorated
with familiar local myth were produced, including one depicting Athamas, the
founder of the city (Fig. 13).117 Other ceramics targeted a wider regional Achaian
as well as Thessalian audience through figures such as Achilles (Fig. 14). At Kastro
Kallithea similarly decorated mouldmade vessels have been found dating to the late
3rd to early 2nd century BCE. A jug from the site (Fig. 15) depicts the Thessalian
myth of Sisyphos and Autolykos, thus far only attested in late literary sources.
These narratives must have resonated with the local populations and perhaps ap-
pealed to their local and/or regional cultural pride despite their obscurity in broader
Greek iconography and literature.118
Fragments of one of the vessels discovered at Kastro Kallithea depict the fu-
neral games of Patroklos, thus again drawing on Thessalian heritage. We do not yet
know the production provenance of the figured vessels from Kallithea and Halos.
Some may have come from nearby; a pottery workshop, specializing in Homeric
114 For terracotta see Van Boekel and Mulder 2003, 106, 113f, Appendix 3 F5; for coins see
Reinders 1988, 164–166; Reinders 2003b, 142f, fig. 3.45; 2004, 196. The association of Halos
with the myth of Athamas and his children Phrixos and Helle can be found in Str. 9.5.8; Schol.
Apoll. Rhod. 513 ed. C. Wendel 1958, 170.
115 Haagsma 2010, 213–216.
116 Reinders 2003a, 32f; 2014, 22f.
117 Sikking 2000, 41; Beestman pers. comm 2015.
118 Maria Nasioula 2013 recently finished her Ph.D. thesis at the Aristotle University of Thessalo-
niki on 216 mould made vases from the Hellenistic period which focuses on an analysis of the
depiction of myths and texts. She recognizes four major regions (Makedonia, Thessaly, Boiotia,
and the Peloponnese) with each a particular repertoire in stories depicted. Her thesis is un-
published although a summary is available online.
mouldmade vessels, was discovered at Pherai.119 It may be that workshops like the
one at Pherai catered to Thessalians who liked to reflect on famous stories rooted
in a collective past during times of commonality, like dinners and religious festivi-
ties in their homes. Given the obscurity of some of the stories, some vessels may
even have been commissioned by well-to-do families in an attempt to align their
personalized history with that of a local heroic past.
The importance of associating social groups with Thessalian mythical geneal-
ogies is also articulated in an inscription that was discovered in 1999 and thus far
has been published only in a preliminary report.120 The inscription is cut on a lime-
stone slab, the upper part of which is missing, found in the Southeast city gate of
Halos in between the two gate towers. The text consists of a list of names in the
accusative case. Annette Harder suggests that this indicates that a first line of text
is missing, one that may be related to honouring or commemorating these names,
perhaps even as ancestors.121 Names that occur are Nestor and Periklymenos, sons
of Neleus who is in turn a twin brother of Pelias. This mythical family has its roots
in Thessaly. In subsequent lines of text, Neleus’ half brothers, Aison and Amy-
thaon, appear as well as the sons of Nestor: Perseus, Stratios, Peisistratos, and An-
tilochos. In the lower lines we see more Thessalian names belonging to this gene-
alogy, such as Admetos and Eumelos, who, of course, have strong connections with
Pherae and Iolkos. This inscription sheds important light on social memory and the
process of claiming heritage. It pertains strongly to the heroes with whom the an-
cient inhabitants of Halos identified, but further analysis needs to wait until it is
published in its final form.
VIII. RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
One last aspect of the material culture in Achaia Phthiotis we would like to discuss
relates to religious activities. Our excavations at Kastro Kallithea yielded a number
of enigmatic stones found in both a sanctuary as well as a domestic context (Fig.
16): they are square or rectangular blocks of limestone or marble with a semicircular
protrusion on top. The number of these protrusions varies from one to three at Kas-
tro Kallithea.122 Margriet Haagsma and Sophia Karapanou, building on the work of
Maria Mili and Emily Kearns, argue that these stones represent altars or trapezae
(offering tables) and that the protrusions may represent sacrificial cakes offered to
the gods.123 These sacrificial cakes were simple offerings in principle but were an
important part of ritual dedications. At Kastro Kallithea, bread stamps, which may
119 Αραχωβἰτη and Δουλγέρη-Ιντζεσἰλογλου 2000.

120 Sikking 2000, 40f. The date of the inscription is unknown but given its find context it may
belong to the foundation phase of New Halos (302 BCE) or the second habitation stage of the
city gate dated to the mid-3rd century BCE.
121 Sikking 2000, 41 referring to personal communication with Harder who will be publishing this
inscription in its entirety.
122 Haagsma et al. 2011, 201f; Tziafalias et al. 2006, 124f; Haagsma and Karapanou, forthcoming.
123 Haagsma and Karapanou, forthcoming; Kearns 1994, 68; Mili 2015, 43f, 88f.
have been used on these cakes, (Fig. 17) were found in Building 10, a presumed
domestic structure, and indicate that these cakes were in fact produced locally and
where people lived. They bear religious symbols, such as a leaf, a symbol for barley,
and a lightning bolt, which are perhaps related to Demeter and Zeus. Thus we agree
with Mili’s argument that cakes served as an important offering in the religious
sphere, particularly in Thessaly, and were produced within the homes to be given
as modest dedications elsewhere.124
What is most noteworthy is the fact that these modest offerings become monu-
mentalized in stone, particularly because these appear to be a temporal and regional
phenomenon. They are mostly restricted to the northern part of Achaia Phthiotis
and all date primarily to the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BCE, a volatile period
during which the region became a backdrop for military confrontations between the
Makedonians, the Aitolians, and eventually the Romans.125 The later incorporation
of the region into the Thessalian League may have been met with resistance from
at least part of the population. Denver Graninger notes that individual cities of
Achaia Phthiotis were late in adjusting their religious calendar to that of the
League.126
The stone trapezae may have been a visual tactic that was part of this passive
resistance; apart from the discoveries at Kastro Kallithea, they have been found at
Pharsalos, Phthiotic Eretria, Antinitsa, and Phthiotic Thebes. 127 Kearns suggests
that offerings with cakes, which these stones mimic and represent, were not simply
an unassuming act of sincerity and piety but also expressed a form of what she terms
‘moral superiority’.128 This moral component may have arisen in the context of
resistance to the dramatic events and changes of the era, and the idiosyncratic
regional monumentalization of simple offerings served a similar sociocultural
function. In contrast with lavish offerings made in polis and federal sanctuaries
elsewhere in Thessaly, these monumentalized trapezae and altars with cakes may
be interpreted as active agents in the negotiation of a regional identity through the
cultivation of a local morale that included the elevation of simplicity above
ostentation and altruism through the expression of a desire to hold on to humble
sacrificial practices.129 With regard to the internal balance of power in Thessaly, it
is telling to see that this mentality is not only restricted to the traditionally peripheral
region of Achaia Phthiotis but is also present in Pharsalos in the tetrad of Phthiotis.
Its diminished role in Thessaly during the 3rd century BCE is illustrated by the local
quest of securing comfort, structure and identity in a rapidly changing world.
124 Mili 2015, 88f, 261.

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

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

an approach more broadly in order to facilitate dialogues between historians and

archaeologists, especially in times and areas where written sources are relatively
scarce.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1. Map of Achaia Phthiotis.

Fig. 2. Plan of Classical settlement at Grintja (possibly Karandai).
Fig. 3. Plan of Classical settlement at Kastro Kallithea (tentatively Peuma).

Fig. 4. Plan of Classical settlement at Magoula Plataniotiki (Old Halos).
Fig. 5. Plan of the Classical settlement of Karatsagdali (unknown settlement).

Fig. 6. Settlements in Achaia Phthiotis in the Hellenistic Period
Fig. 7. Plan of the Hellenistic city of New Halos.

Fig. 8. Plan of the city of Kastro Kallithea in the Hellenistic period.
Fig. 9. The region of Achaia Phthiotis with cities minting coins with monogram AX.
Fig. 10. Coin from Larisa Kremeste with the image of Thetis on a hippocamp holding the shield
of Achilles on which is the monogram AX (Achaion).
Fig. 11. Coin from Peuma with the AX monogram on the reverse and a nymph on the obverse.
Fig. 12. Terracotta figurine depicting Phrixos or Helle on a ram. From the House of the Coroplast
at New Halos.
Fig. 13. Figure of ΑΘΑΜΑΣ on a mouldmade bowl from the Southeast Gate at New Halos.
Fig. 14. Mouldmade jug with labeled images of Sisyphos and Autolykos from Building 10 at Kas-
tro Kallithea.
Fig. 15. Stone block with protrusions found in Building 10 at Kastro Kallithea. The protrusions
represent the permanent offering of sacrificial cakes on a stone altar.
Fig. 16. Terracotta bread stamps with images of a leaf, lighting bolt and barley found in Building
10 at Kastro Kallithea.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ager, S.L. (1996) Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C., Berkeley.
Ager, S. L. (2003) An Uneasy Balance: from the Death of Seleukos to the Battle of Raphia, in A.
Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden, MA, 35–51.
Alcock, S.E. (1994) Breaking up the Hellenistic World: Survey and Society, in I. Morris (ed.), Clas-
sical Greece: Ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge, 171–190.
Antonaccio, C.M. (2010) Origins, Culture, and Identity in Classical Antiquity, in P. Euben and K.
Bassi (eds.), When Worlds Elide, Lanham, 4–17.
Αραχωβίτη, Π and Αργ. Δουλγέρη–Ιντζεσίλογλου (2000) Φεραί, in E. Κυπραίου (ed.), Ελληνιστική
κεραμική από Θεσσαλία, Athens, 70–81.
Aston, E. (2012) Thessaly and Macedon at Delphi, Electrum 19, 41–60.
Bayart, J.-F. (2005) The Illusion of Cultural Identity, Chicago.
Béquignon, Y. (1932) Études thessaliennes. V. Recherches archéologiques dans la région de Phar-
sale, Bulletin correspondance hellénique 56, 122–191.
Billows, R. (1990) Antigonos the One-eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley.
Billows, R. (1995) Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden.
Boehm, R. (2011) Synoikism, Urbanization, and Empire in the Early Hellenistic Period (PhD The-
sis), Berkeley.
Bonner, R.J. and G. Smith (1943) Administration of Justice in the Delphic Amphictyony, Classical
Philology 38, 1–12.
Breitenstein, N. (ed.) (1982) Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: Greece: Thessaly to Aegean Islands,
Copenhagen.
Bringmann, K. (1995) Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtü-
mer, vol. 1, Berlin.
Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis: Forschungen zur Politik des
Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Polior-
ketes und Antigonos Gonatas im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien, München.
Cantarelli, F. (1999) Contuitá e discontinuitá nell’occupazione e nell’organizazzione dei territori di
alcune poleis della Tessaglia meridionale sino all’ etá Romana, in M. Brunet (ed.), Territoires
des cités Grecques. Actes de la Table ronde Internationale organisée par l’École Française
d’Athènes, BCH Suppl. 34, 125–133.
Chamoux, F. (2003) Hellenistic Civilization, Malden.
Cifani, G. and S. Stoddart (2012) Landscape, Ethnicity and Identity in the Archaic Mediterranean
Area, Oxford.
Darmezin, L. and A. Tziafalias (2005) Deux inscriptions inédites de Pélinna (Thessalie), in Coins,
Cults, History and Inscriptions VI: Studies in Honor of J. M. Fossey (Ancient World, 36.1),
Chicago, 54–69.
Decourt, J.-C. (1990) La Vallée de L’Énipeus en Thessalie, BCH Suppl. 21, Athens.
Decourt, J.C., T.H. Nielsen, and B. Helly (2004) Thessalia and Adjacent Regions, in M.H. Hansen
and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 676–731.
Flacelière, R. (1937) Les Aitoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe
siècle av. J.-C., Paris.
Freitag, K. (2006) Ein Schiedsvertrag zwischen Halos und Thebai aus Delphi, in K. Freitag and P.
Funke (eds.), Kult–Politik–Ethnos: Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und
Politik. Historia Einzelschriften 198, Stuttgart, 211–232.
Furtwängler, A.E. (1990) Demetrias, eine makedonische Gründung im Netz hellenistischer Han-
dels– und Geldpolitik, Heidelberg.
Gardner, P. (1883) Catalogue of Greek coins. Thessaly to Aetolia, London.
Gardner, P. (1887) Catalogue of Greek coins. Peloponneus (excluding Corinth), London.
Grainger, J.D. (1995) The Expansion of the Aitolian League, 280–260 BC, Mnemosyne 48, 313–
343.

Graninger, D. (2011) Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly, Leiden.
Haagsma, B.J., Z Malakasioti, V. Rondiri, and H.R. Reinders (1993) Between Karatsadagli and
Baklali, Pharos I, 147–164.
Haagsma, M.J. (2010) Domestic Economy and Social Organization in New Halos, Groningen.
Haagsma, M.J. and S. Karapanou (forthcoming) Cakes and Cults: Negotiating Identity in Hellenistic
Achaia Phthiotis, in C. Morgan and M. Stamatopoulou (eds.), Cults and Sanctuaries in Ancient
Thessaly, Athens.
Haagsma, M.J., S. Karapanou, T. Harvey, and L. Surtees (2011) A New City and its Agora: Results
from Hellenic-Canadian Archaeological Work at Kastro of Kallithea in Thessaly, Greece, in
The Agora in the Medierranean from Homeric to Roman Times. International Conference, Kos,
14–17 April 2011, Athens, 197–208.
Haagsma, M.J., S. Karapanou, and L. Surtees (2015) Greek-Canadian Fieldwork at Kastro Kallithea
2006–2012, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδας.
Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης 4. Βόλος. 16–8 March 2012, Volos, 245–256.
Foundation, Oxford.
Head, B.V. (1911) Historia Numorum, 2nd edition, Oxford.
Helly, B. (2001) Un décret federal des Thessaliens méconnu dans une cite d’Achaïa Phthiotide (IG
IX 2, 103), Bulletin corrrespondance hellénique 125, 239–287.
Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present, New
York.
Kahrstedt, U. (1922) Griechisches Staatsrecht, Göttingen.
Καραχρήστος, Β. (2007) Πολιτική και στρατιωτικές αναμετρήσεις κατά το Β’ μιςό του 4ου αι.π.Χ.Η
τύχη της Άλου, in Αχαιοφθιωτικά Γ: πρακτικά του Γ. Συνεδρίου Αλμυριωτικών Σπουδών:13–
15 Οκτωβρίου 2000, Almyros, 177–210.
Kearns, E. (1994) Cakes in Greek Sacrificial Regulations, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult
Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, Stockholm, 65–70.
Kearns, E. (2011) Ο λιβανωτός ευσεβές καί τό πόπανον: the rationale of cakes and bloodless
offerings in Greek sacrifice, in V. Pirenne-Delforge and F. Prescendi (eds.), Nourrir les dieux?:
sacrifice et représentation du divin, Liège.
Liampi, K. (2000) The Circulation of Bronze Macedonian Royal Coins in Thessaly, in C.C. Mat-
tusch (ed.), From the Parts to the Whole. Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, held
at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28–June 1, 1996, Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl.
39, Portsmouth, 220–225.
Lolos, Y. (2011) Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State, Hesperia Supple-
ment 39, Princeton.
MacSweeney, N. (2009) Beyond Ethnicity: The Overlooked Diversity of Group Identities, Journal
of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, 101–126.
Malkin, I. (2001) Introduction, in I. Malkin (ed), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washing-
ton, 1–28.
Martin, T. R. (1985) Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton, NJ.
Marzolff, P. (1994) Antiker Städtebau und Architektur in Thessalien, Θεσσαλία, Athens, 255–276.
McInerney, J. (2001) Ethnos and Ethnicity in Early Greece, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions
of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, 51–73.
McInerney, J. (2013) Polis and Koinon: Federal Government in Greece, in H. Beck (ed.), A Com-
panion to Ancient Greek Government, Malden, Mass., 466–479.
McInerney, J. (2014) Ethnicity: An Introduction, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity
in the Ancient Mediterranean, Chichester, 1–16.
Mili, M. (2015) Religion and Society in Ancient Thessaly, Oxford.
Mili, M. (forthcoming) Women worshippers in Thessaly, in C. Morgan and M. Stamatopoulou
(eds.), Cults and Sanctuaries in Ancient Thessaly, Athens.
Milojčić, V. (1974a) Bericht über die deutschen archäologischen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1973,
Aρχαιoλoγικά ανάλεκτα εξ Aθηνών 7, 65–75.
Milojčić, V. (1974b) Volo, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 98, 662, 668–670.
Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. (1985) Αρχαία Δημητριάδα, ΑΔ 40, 185–191.
Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. (1987) Δημητριάδα, ΑΔ 42, 246–253.
Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. (1988) Σωρός (Θέση Ασπρόγεια Νέων Παγασών, ΑΔ 43, 242–243.
Μπάτζιου–Ευσταθίου, A. and Π. Tριανταφυλοπούλου (2009) Επιφανειακές και ανασκαφικές έρευ-
νες στο Σωρό, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλά-
δας 2. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Volos, 257–267.
Nasioula, M. (2013) ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΝ. Ελληνιστικά ανάγλυφα αγγεία με ενεπίγραφες
διηγηματικές παραστάσεις / ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΝ. Hellenistic relief vases with in-
scribed narrative scenes (PhD Thesis), Aristotele University of Thessaloniki.
Papastamataki, A. and D. Dimitriou (1987) The Production of Copper in Pelasgia, Praktika tis
Akadimias Athinon, Athens.
Papastamataki, A., D. Dimitriou, and B. Orphanos (1994) Mining and Metallurgical Activities in
Pelasgia. The Production of Copper in Antiquity, in R. Misdrache–Kapon (ed.), La Thessalie:
Quinze années de recherches anchéologiques, 1975–1990, Athens, 243–248.
Reinders, H.R. (1988) New Halos: a Hellenistic Town in Thessalia, Greece, Utrecht.
Reinders, H.R. (2003a) New Halos in Achaia Phthiotis, in H.R. Reinders and W. Prummel (eds.),
Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 7–36.
Reinders, H.R. (2003b) Coins, in H.R. Reinders and W. Prummel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: A
Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 138–145.
Reinders, H.R. (2003c) Beginning and End of the Occupation of New Halos, H.R. Reinders and W.
Prummel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 231–
247.
Reinders, H.R. (2004a) Coinage and Coin Circulation in New Halos, in L. Kypraiou (ed.), Coins in
the Thessalian Region, Volos, 185–206.
Reinders, H.R. (ed.) (2004b) Prehistoric sites at the Almirós and Soúrpi plains (Thessaly, Greece),
Assen.
Reinders, H.R. (2005) De opgraving van de Zuidoostpoort van Nieuw Halos (Griekenland) in het
Olympisch jaar 2004, Paleo-aktueel 16, 84–88.
Reinders, H.R. (2006) De Zuidoostpoort van Halos, Paleo-Aktueel 17, 114–121.
Reinders, H.R. and E. Asderaki (2015) Coinage and copper production in Achaia Phthiotis. Non-
destructive analysis using X-ray fluorescence, Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελ-
λάδα 5, Volos 26.2–1.3.
Reinders, H.R. and W. Prummel (1998) Transhumance in Hellenistic Thessaly, Environmental Ar-
chaeology 3, 81–95.
Reinders, H.R. and W. Prummel (eds.) (2003) Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thes-
saly, Greece, Lisse.
Reinders, H.R., Y. Dijkstra, V. Rondiri, S.J. Tuinstra, and Z. Malakasioti (1996) The Southeast Gate
of New Halos, Pharos 4, 121–138.
Reinders, H.R., P. Fijma, Z. Malakasioti, and V. Rondiri (2000) An Archaeological Survey of the
Sourpi Plain in Thessaly (Greece), Pharos 8, 83–93.
Reinders, H.R., C. Williamson, W. Jansen, and P. de Roever (2008) The Church of Ayios Nikolaos
(Vounenis) at Karatsadagli Almirou, Pharos 16, 85–122.
Rogers, E. (1932) The Copper Coinage of Thessaly, London.
Shipley, G. (2000) The Greek World after Alexander 323–30 BC, London.
Shipley, G. (2002) Hidden Landscapes: Greek Field Survey Data and Hellenistic History, in D. Og-
den (ed.), The Hellenistic World, Wales, 177–198.
Shipley, G. (2011) Pseudo-Skylax’s periplous: the circumnavigation of the inhabited world. Text,
translation and commentary, Exeter.
Sikking, L. (2000) Bewoning op en rond de Zuidoostpoort van Nieuw Halos (260–240 v. Chr.),
Paleo-aktueel 11, 37–41.
Smith, M.L. (2005) Networks, Territories, and the Cartography of Ancient States, Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 95, 832–849.
Smith, M.L. (2007) Territories, Corridors, and Networks: A Biological Model for the Premodern
State, Complexity 12, 28–35.
Snodgrass, A. (1980) Archaic Greece: the age of experiment, London.
Sprawski, S. (1999) Jason of Pherai. A Study on History of Thessaly in Years 431–370 BC, Krakow.
Sprawski, S. (2009) Thessalians and Their Neighbours in the Classical Period, in 1o Διεθνές
Συνέδριο Ιστορίας Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας: Πρακτικά. Συνεδρίου τομος I, Thessaly, 131–
137.
Stählin, F. (1914) Die Grenzen von Meliteia, Pereia, Peumata, und Chalai, Athenische Mitteilungen
39, 83–103.
Stählin, F. (1967) Das Hellenische Thessalien, Stuttgart (reprint).
Stewart, D.R. (2007) Landscape Change and Regional Variations in the Early ‘Provincial’ Setting:
The Rural Peloponnese at the Late Hellenistic to Roman Transition (PhD Thesis), University
of Leicester.
Stissi, V. (2012) The Countryside of Classical–Hellenistic Halos (and Tanagra): A Comparative
Approach, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδα 3,
Πρακιτικά επιστημονικής συνάτγσης Βόλος 12.3−15.3.2009, Volos, 393–404.
Stissi, V. (2014) Archaeology and an Odd Polis. The case of Halos (Thessaly), Lecture presented at
the Netherlands Institute May 23, 2014, Athens.
Surtees, L., S. Karapanou, and M.J. Haagsma (2014) Exploring Kastro Kallithea on the Surface: The
Foundation and Occupation of Kastro Kallithea, Thessaly, Greece, in D. Rupp and J.A.
Tomlinson (eds.), Meditations on the Diversity of the Built Environment in the Aegean Basin
and Beyond, Athens, 431–452.
Τριανταφυλλοπούλου, Π. (2000) Νεκροταφείο των Αμφανών. Οι πρώιμοι ελληνιστικοί τάφοι, in E.
Κυπραίου (ed.), Ελληνιστική κεραμική από Θεσσαλία. 6. Σθνάντεση για την Ελληνιστική
κεραμική, Volos, 70–81.
Tziafalias, A., M.J. Haagsma, S. Karapanou, and S. Gouglas (2006) Scratching the Surface: A Pre-
liminary Report on the 2004 and 2005 Seasons from the Urban Survey Project at Kastro
Kallithea (“Peuma”), Thessaly. Part I: Introduction and Architecture, Mouseion 6, 91–135.
Tziafalias, A., M.J. Haagsma, S. Karapanou, and S. Gouglas (2009) The Kastro of Kallithea in its
Historical Context, in 1o Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας: Πρακτικά.
Συνεδρίου τόμος I, vol. I, Thessaly, 225–231.
van Antwerp Fine, J. (1932) The Problem of Macedonian Holdings in Epirus and Thessaly in 221
B.C., Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 63, 126–155.
van Boekel, G.M.E.C. and B. Mulder (2003) Terracotta Figurines, in H.R. Reinders and W. Prum-
mel (eds.), Housing in New Halos: a Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, Lisse, 106–118.
Walbank, F.W. (2002) Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections, Cam-
bridge.
Walsh, J.L. (1993) Bones of Contention: Pharsalus, Phthiotic Thebes, Larisa Cremaste, Echinus,
Classical Philology 88, 35–46.
Welles, C.B. (1966) Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, Rome.
Wendel, C. (ed.) (1958) Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Vetera, Berlin.
Westlake, H.D. (1969) Reprint. Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C., Groningen.
Wieberdink, G. (1986) Hellenistische Grensversterkingen in het Othrys Gebergte (Thessalie), (M.A.
Thesis), University of Amsterdam.
Wieberdink, G. (1990) A Hellenistic Fortification System in the Othrys Mountains (Achaia Phthio-
tis), Netherlands Institute at Athens Newsletter, 47–76.
THE LEAGUE OF THE CHALKIDEIS:
DEVELOPMENT OF ITS EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL
RELATIONS AND ORGANIZATION.
Selene E. Psoma
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens*
The state of the Chalkidians of Thrace was undoubtedly a successful systema, to

borrow the term Polybios (9.28.2–4; cf. 9.33.2–3) used to describe its political
structure. It survived from 432 to 348 BCE, and coincided with the life of the most
famous of Greek philosophers, Plato.1 I will first discuss the origin of the population
and continue with the nature of the state, which is crucial for an understanding of
its internal relations and organization, the development of its foreign policy, and its
impact on Greek history during the Classical and the Hellenistic periods.
I. THEIR ORIGIN
The Euboean-Chalkidian origin of the Chalkidians of Thrace, attested by both

Strabo (10.1.8) and Plutarch (Mor. 298.A3–B6), and supported by Aristotle’s men-
tion of Androdamas of Rhegion as their nomothetes (Polyb. 1274b), was seriously
questioned in a Classical Quarterly 1912 article by E. Harrison on the basis of He-
rodotus’ use of the term genos to describe the Chalkidians of Thrace (7.185.2;
8.126–7).2 Scholarly opinion about the issue is divided, but little attention has been
paid to Graham’s very valuable remarks about the acrophonic system shared by
Chalkis and Olynthos.3 The debate changed radically as a result of Knoepfler’s con-
tribution to the study of the Euboean calendar of Olynthos and the cities that par-
ticipated in the League.4 In another thorough study Knoepfler examined the ono-
mastikon of Olynthos, Torone, Stolos and Polichne, Mende, Scione, Aphytis, and
Methone, which proved the Euboean origin of our Chalkidians.5 Further studies
* The author wishes to thank Kostas Buraselis for the invitation to participate in the colloquium.
1 For federal states see Bearzot 2015, 503–511.
2 This thesis was adopted by Gude 1933, 4 n.11; Kahrstedt 1936, 416 n.5, 426, and was also
supported by Michael Zahrnt in his monograph about the history of the League, 1971, 12–27.
See also Zahrnt 2015, 342–344.
3 Graham 1969.
4 Knoepfler 1989; 1990.
5 Knoepfler 2007.
322 Selene E. Psoma
have shown that the dialect was Ionic,6 while coin legends,7 and a still unpublished
dedication from Sarte, have revealed that the alphabet was Chalkidian.8 The mone-
tary standard was also Chalkidian with a stater of 17.3 g and a number of fractions
following the duodecimal system.9 Monetary iconography also points to a
Chalkidian origin. The types of the earliest hektai of Chalkidice and Olynthos
(horse/eagle) were shared with Chalkis. In two recently published papers I have
tried to demonstrate (a) that the types of the second series of Olynthos (column and
horse) were a clear reference to the legendary ties of colony and mother city as
described by Aristotle and Plutarch (Plut. Amat. 760. E4–761 B4),10 and (b) that
after the foundation of the League the monetary types (Apollo’s head, tripod, cith-
ara or branch of laurel) allude not to a particular city, Chalkis, but to their origin as
colonists.11 This can easily be explained if we keep in mind that part of the popula-
tion of the cities that formed the League might have been of other – non-Chalkidian
– origin (Eretrian, Andrian).12 Archaeological evidence also revealed the Euboean
origin of the colonists.13
II. THE NATURE OF THE STATE: EINHEITSSTAAT OR BUNDESSTAAT
One group of scholars holds that the state of the Chalkidians was a Einheitsstaat.14
Another group of scholars, including Busolt, West, Larsen, Hatzopoulos, Flensted–
Jensen, and myself, argue that it was a Bundesstaat from its foundation to its disso-
lution in 348 BCE.15 Zahrnt thinks that it was an Einheitstaat during the 5th c. BCE
but transformed into a Bundesstaat during the 4th c. BCE.16 It is best to begin with
Polybios’ description of a federal state in Antiquity and we will then investigate if
what we know about the Chalkidians of Thrace indeed reveals the federal character
of their state.
According to Polybios (2.37.9–11) the Achaeans used the same laws, standards
and coins, magistrates, members of the boule, and judges. As far as the 4th c. BCE
is concerned, from the well-known description of the Chalkidian state by Xenophon
(Hell. 5.2.19), we learn that epigamia and enktesis were given to all members of the
state.17 This same author used the terms συμπολιτεύειν and τῆς πολιτείας
6 Hatzopoulos 1988b, 40–45, 65f.

7 Psoma 2001a, 253–261; 2001b, 13–44.
8 Oral communication in the AEMTh.
9 Psoma 2000, 30. For the so-called Attic Euboic monetary standard see Psoma 2016, 98f.
10 Psoma (2017a).
11 Psoma (2017b).
12 For these cities see Psoma 2001a, 206–209.
13 Tiverios 2008, 6–17, 33, 52, 124f with previous bibliography.
14 Kuhn 1878, 283–300; Hampl 1935, 182; Robinson – Clement 1938, 112; Giovannini 1971,
41f; Moggi 1974, 4f, 11; 1976, 184.
15 Busolt 1920–1925, 1502; West 1918, 31, 140; Larsen 1955, 42–44; 1968, 59, n.1; Hatzopoulos
1996a, 33; Psoma 2001, 209–221; Flensted-Jensen 2004, 813.
16 Zahrnt 1971, 65f, 66–79; 2015, 346–349.
17 Cf. Bearzot 2015, 505–507.
The League of the Chalkideis 323
κοινωνοῦσαι to describe participation in the League (Hell. 5.2.18). Theopompos of

Chios, mentioning Aioleion, a city of the Bottiaeans, also used the verb πολιτεύομαι
(πολιτευομένην μετὰ Χαλκιδέων) to describe participation in the League (FGrH
115 F 144 [ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἰόλειον]), while the treaty between Philip II and
the Chalkidians of Thrace mentioned the common magistrates (τ̣ὰ̣ς [ἀρ]χὰς τὰ<ς>
ξυνὰς: Hatzopoulos 1996, II no.2 l. 3). From a number of deeds of sale from Olyn-
thos, Torone, Spartolos, Strepsa, Stolos, and Polichne we learn that these cities used
a common calendar and there was a common eponymous archon who was a priest
– most probably of Apollo.18 Demosthenes mentions the hipparchs Εὐθυκράτης and
Λασθένης (8. 39–41; 9. 67; 18. 48; 19. 263–267), and the appointment of one of
them (χειροτονησάντων: 9.67). Common ‘magistrates’ are also revealed for the sil-
ver and gold coinage of the Chalkidians, while in the deeds of sale of all cities
previously mentioned, βεβαιωταί (3) and μάρτυρες (3) were used.19 The state re-
ceived taxes from emporia and limenes (Χen. Hell. 5.2.1).
The name of this state during this century was the Chalkidians: the treaties with
Amyntas III of Makedonia,20 Grabus of Illyria21and Philip II22 as well as coinage in
gold, silver and bronze point in this direction.23 Theopompos of Chios speaks of
Olynthians, as far as the local boule is concerned, and about Chalkidians when he
mentions participation in the League24. All the evidence cited above reveals that
during the 4th century BCE we are clearly dealing with what Polybios considered a
federal state. During the 5th century BCE this state was also called the Chalkidians,
as is revealed by coinage and Thucydides.25 Let us now examine the arguments in
favor of an Einheitsstaat in the 5th century BCE.
18 For these deeds of sale see Game 2009.

19 For the coins see Psoma 2001. For the deeds of sale see Game 2009.
20 Hatzopoulos 1996b, II side A ll. 2–3: συνθῆκαι Ἀμύνται τῶι Ἐρριδαίου / καὶ Χαλκιδεῦσι.
21 Robinson 1938, 44 no.2 ll. 3 (ca. 358–356 BCE): [θε]ός. τύχη ἀγαθή. / [συμμαχ]ίη Χαλκιδεῦσι
/ [καὶ τῶι Ἰλλυριῶν βασι] / λεῖ.
22 Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.2 ll. 5, 9, 12 (357 BCE): Χαλκιδεῖς, Χαλκιδέ[ας], [Χαλ]κιδεῦσι.
23 See Psoma 2001.
24 Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 143 (ap. Ath. 10. 47): ἐν δὲ τῆι τρίτηι καὶ εἰκοστῆι περὶ Χαριδήμου
τοῦ Ὠρείτου διηγούμενος, ὃν Ἀθηναῖοι πολίτην ἐποιήσαντο, φησίν· ‘τήν τε γὰρ δίαιταν ἑωρᾶτο
τὴν καθ᾽ἡμέραν ἀσελγῆ καὶ τοιαύτην ποιούμενος ὥστε πίνειν καὶ μεθύειν αἰεί, καὶ γυναῖκας
ἐλευθέρας ἐτόλμα διαφθείρειν· καὶ εἰς τοσοῦτον προῆλθεν ἀκρασίας ὥστε μειράκιόν τι παρὰ
τῆς βουλῆς τῆς τῶν Ὀλυνθίων αἰτεῖν ἐπεχείρησεν, ὃ τὴν μὲν ὄψιν ἦν εὐειδὲς καὶ χαρίεν,
ἐτύγχανε δὲ μετὰ Δέρδου τοῦ Μακεδόνος αἰχμάλωτον γεγενημένον.’ Cf. Theopomp. FGrH
115 F 144 ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἰόλειον·τῆς Θράικης χερρονήσου πόλις. Θεόπομπος ἐν
Φιλιππικῶν κγ· ‘ἐπορεύθην εἰς πόλιν Αἰόλειον τῆς Βοττικῆς μὲν οὖσαν, πολιτευομένην δὲ μετὰ
τῶν Χαλκιδέων’.
25 Thuc. 1.57.5; 1.58.1, 2; 1.62.3; 1.65.2; 2.29.6; 2.58.1, 2; 2.79.1, 3, 5, 6, 7; 2.95.1, 3; 2.99.3;
2.101.1, 6; 4.7; 4.78.1; 4.79.2; 4.80.2; 4.81.1; 4.83.3; 4.84.1, 2; 4.114.13; 4.123.4; 4.124.1;
5.3.6; 5.6.4; 5.21.2; 5.31.6; 5.32.1; 5.83.4; 6.7.4; 6.10.5. χαλκιδική: 1.65.2; 2.70.4; 2.101.5;
6.79.1; 6.103.1. Χαλκιδικὸς πόλεμος: 2.95.2. χαλκιδικαί πολεῖς: 4.110.1; 4.123.4. Χαλκιδικὴ
ἵππος: 5.10.9, 10. Χαλκιδικὸν γένος: 4.109.4. For coinage see Psoma 2001.
324 Selene E. Psoma
1. The foundation of the League could not have taken place during the 5th c.
BCE because the Athenians recovered the control of the Chalkidic penin-
sula after the peace of Nikias.26
2. In his speech at Sparta in 383 BCE the Akanthian Kleigenes said that what
Xenophon reproduced (or invented) (Hell. 5.2.12: πρᾶγμα μέγα φυόμενον
ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι) was that there was a significant development taking place in
the North. The use of the present participle reveals that this was a very re-
cent (or ongoing) development.
Ad 1. As far as the first argument is concerned we need to observe that Thucydides
states exactly the opposite.27 In 5.21.1–3 the historian reveals the difficulties
the Lakedaemonians met when trying to convince Klearidas to surrender Am-
phipolis to the Athenians. Klearidas refused to do so and said that he could not
because of the Chalkidians. Sometime later the Chalkidians joined the anti–
Spartan coalition of Sparta’s earlier allies together with Elis, Corinth, Megara,
and Argos (Thuc. 5.31.6). The Chalkidians renewed their oaths to their allies,
the Argives, in 418/417 BCE (Thuc. 5.80.1), and received as an ally the city of
Dion in the peninsula of Athos, an ex-ally of Athens in 417/416 BCE (Thuc.
5.82.1). The Athenian campaign under Nikias against the Makedonian king, the
Chalkidians, and Amphipolis failed in 417/416 BCE (Thuc. 5.83.4). Athenian
military involvement against Perdikkas II and the Chalkidians is mentioned as
the latest event before the end of the 16th year of war (Thuc.6.7.4). Chalkidian
resistance to Athenian plans for the North from 432 BCE, the year of their re-
volt, to 415 BCE was a forceful argument made by Nikias when disputing par-
ticipation in the Sicilian campaign (Thuc. 6.10.5).
Ad 2. We may turn now to the second argument. What Xenophon described was by
all accounts a recent development marking the beginning of the very aggressive
imperialistic policy of the Chalkidians, beginning in the 380s (Hell. 5.2.212).
Coinage from ca. 430 BCE and the treaty between Amyntas III and the
Chalkidians reveal that there was a Chalkidian state before the 380s.28 As far
as the coinage issued in the name of the Chalkideis is concerned, the earliest
series date from the Poteidaiatika and were struck on the standard of Perdikkas
II, a close collaborator of the cities in revolt, including Potidaia, from 432
BCE.29 They were in circulation along with silver coins of Perdikkas II, evi-
dently serving the same purpose and usage.30 The Chalkidians continued to
strike their coinage and together with the Makedonian king, and later the
Akanthians, they assumed the responsibility of paying for Brasidas’ soldiers
(Thuc. 4.80.5; 4.83.5–6).31 The earliest bronze coins were issued with federal
26 Cf. Zahrnt 2015, 348f.

27 Contra Zahrnt 2015, 347.
28 For the treaty see Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.1. For the coinage see Psoma 1997; 2001.
29 Psoma 2001, 155f, 173.
30 Psoma 2001, 175–179. Cf. Mackil 2015, 490–492.
31 For Akanthos see Psoma 1997, 423–428. For the Chalkidians see Psoma 1997, 423–428; 2001,
155f.
types by Olynthos (ΟΛΥ) to serve the siteresion needs of soldiers.32 One recalls
that there are also spearheads (ἐπιδορατίδες) with the letters ΟΛΥΝ and this
reveals the kata poleis organization of the federal army, which is another fea-
ture of so-called federal states.33
Another argument in favor of the foundation of a federal state is the systematic
mention of poleis by Thucydides in relation with the Chalkidian state.34 Perdikkas
II persuaded the coastal cities to move to Olynthos (Thuc. 1.58.2). Phormion met
some success in the territories of the Chalkidians and the Bottiaeans and seized
some polismata (Thuc. 1.65.2). After the battle of Spartolos, the Chalkidians and
the Bottiaeans who defeated the Athenians dispersed kata poleis (Thuc. 2.79.7).
Torone was a city of the Chalkidians (Thuc. 4.114.1) as well as Arnai (Thuc.
4.103.1). Further mention of a proxenos of the Chalkidians at Pharsalos (Thuc.
4.78.1), a ten day truce (Thuc. 4.7.4), the swearing oaths (5.38.1) the renewal of
oaths (Thuc. 5.80.2–3), and ambassadors (Thuc. 4.83.3; 5.38.4) also point to a fed-
eral state.35
Thucydides also mentions the Olynthians, not to be confused with Chalkidi-
ans.36 The Olynthian Lysistratos was the leader of those who entered Torone (Thuc.
4.110.2). After the Peace of Nikias there was a prisoner exchange. Thucydides
makes clear that the Chalkidians were freed by the Olynthians (Thuc. 5.3.4–5). The
Peace of Nikias required the citizens of Mekyberna and Singos to leave Olynthos
and return to their cities (Thuc. 5.18.6–7), and sometime later the Olynthians ex-
pelled the Athenian garrison of Mekyberna (Thuc. 5.39.1). A boule of the Olynthi-
ans is also mentioned (FGrH 115 F 143 [ap. Ath. 10. 47]) by Theopompos.
Based on evidence from Thucydides, Theopompos, Aristotle, coins, and the
treaties with two Makedonian kings, we can thus conclude that the state founded
after the anoikismos of Olynthos was named Chalkideis and its members were
Olynthos and smaller cities in the area.37
From Thucydides (4.84.1–2, 109.5–110.2, 123.2) we learn that the Chalkidians
and Brasidas maintained friendly relations with the oligoi – referring to the minority
of wealthy oligarchs – of the cities of Akanthos, Torone, Mende, and Scione.38 In
another passage (5.31.4–5) describing the anti-Spartan coalition between Elis, Ar-
32 Psoma 2001, 91.

33 For the spearheads found at Olynthos see Psoma 2001, 212 n..198. For the sling bullets see
Robinson 1941, 430f nos.2220–2227, pl. 132.
34 Contra Zahrnt 2015, 347 who claims that ‘in the region of the Chalkidian state no other polis
besides Olynthus can be attested’.
35 Psoma 2001, 216f; Flensted and Jensen 2004, 813. Cf. Zahrnt 2015, 346: ‘in foreign affairs,
the Chalkidians acted as a united political entity’.
36 See the misleading explanation of the term Chalkideis in Zahrnt 2015, 347: ‘after the population
of Olynthus had at least tripled and due to the relocations, the new citizens understandably did
not want to blend in with the minority of Olynthians, and thus a name was chosen which em-
phasized their common origin and could be accepted by all citizens’.
37 For the foundation of the League immediately after the anoikismos see Psoma 2001, 203–221.
38 See Larsen 1968, 76 who also mentioned the role of the Chalkidian cavalry.
326 Selene E. Psoma
gos, Corinth, the Chalkidians, the Boiotians, and Megara, Thucydides mentions Ar-
gos as the only democracy among these allies. These are the reasons we believe that
the Chalkidians of Thrace were, as most of the Greek states, a moderate oligarchy.39
III. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE CHALKIDIAN LEAGUE
We can trace three main axes of the League’s foreign policy: relations with the
Makedonian kingdom, relations with the major Greek powers, and relations with
the cities of the Chalkidic peninsula. Very little is known about the relations of the
Chalkidians with the rest of the Greek world, and our testimonia are limited: their
legendary participation in a war opposing the mother city of Chalkis against Eretria
(Plu. Mor. 760E 4–761B 4), their proxenos at Pharsalos in the 420s (Thuc. 4.78.1),
their alliance with Corinth, Argos, Elis, Boiotia and Megara in the aftermath of the
peace of Nikias (Thuc. 5.31.6), the renewal of oaths with these allies after the battle
of Mantineia (5.80.1–3), the participation of some Thessalian hippeis and Derdas
of Elimeia in military operations against them during the war with Sparta (Xen.
Hell. 5.2.38, 40, 41, 42; 5.3.1, 2, 9), and the visit of the thearos of the Epidaurian
Asklepios (IG IV2.94 F b l. 14).
The legendary character of the participation most probably in what we call the
Lelantine war cannot tell us a great deal about their early history but stresses the
links between colony and mother city.40 The alliances with other members of the
pro–Spartan coalition, which became a temporary anti-Spartan front after the Peace
of Nikias, was temporary and does not seem to have entailed significant conse-
quences for the League’s history. Apart from the Thessalian Strophakos nothing is
known about their relations with Thessaly, while the Thessalian hippeis and Derdas
of Elimeia of the years 382–379 BCE need to be seen in the context of their relations
with Sparta and the Makedonian kingdom (Xen. Hell. 5.3.18). As far as the Odry-
sians are concerned, their invasion (Thuc. 2.95.1–3, 101. 1, 101.4–6) is part of the
relations of the Chalkidians and Perdikkas II with Athens.41 We must bear in mind
that the Odrysians invaded the peninsula but soon retreated following negotiations
with Perdikkas, Chalkidian resistance, and perhaps more pressingly, a lack of sup-
plies (Thuc. 2.101.5–6). The alliance of the Chalkidians with the Illyrian Grabos
was short-lived and must also be seen as part of their relations with Philip II of
Makedonia.42
We will begin with the three Greek hegemonic powers: Athens, Sparta, and
Thebes, and then continue with the cities of the Chalkidic peninsula.
39 Zahrnt 1971, 94 with n.22, 107; Psoma 2001, 220f. Contra Gehrke 1985, 124 based on Dem.
9.56 and 8.64.
40 See Psoma 2017a.
41 Loukopoulou – Psoma 2007, 146–148.
42 Robinson 1938, 44, no. 2. Cf. SEG 37.567.
IV. ATHENS
It was the expansion of the Athenian empire that brought the Makedonian king
Perdikkas II and the Chalkidians together. The deterioration of relations between
the Makedonian king and Athens led immediately to the Athenian decision to send
a military colony to the small city of Brea in the Crousis near Olynthos,43 and mo-
tivated their alliance with the king’s relatives (Thuc. 1.57.2–3). The Bottiaeans and
the Chalkidians may have felt threatened by the foundation of Brea and were en-
couraged by Perdikkas II to revolt (Thuc. 1.57.2–6). The king promised help and
advised the Chalkidians to abandon their small cities, all situated on the coast, and
move to Olynthos (Thuc. 1.58.1–60.1, cf. Diod. Sic. 12.34.2 and Thuc. 5.18.7).
Thus, the state named the Chalkidians was created.
Perdikkas advised the Chalkidians to move to Olynthos in order to resist the
attacks of the Athenian fleet successfully – and indeed this is precisely what hap-
pened. During the Potidaiatika (Thuc. 1.62.1–5, 65.1–2, 2.29.5–7, 58.1–3) and after
the capitulation of Potidaia (2.70.2–4), the Chalkidians successfully resisted. The
Athenians accordingly abandoned their own efforts to subdue the revolt of Olynthos
after the battle of Spartolos (2.79.1–7, cf. Diod. Sic. 12.47.3), and asked for
Sitalkes’ help (2.95.1–3, 101, 1, 101.4–6). In book 4, Thucydides describes the fail-
ure of the Athenian general Simonides to capture Eion, a colony of Mende, in the
summer of 425 (4.7.1). The Chalkidians continued to be hostile to Athens, as is
revealed by their collaboration with Brasidas (4.78.1–2, 5–6, 81.1–2, 83.2–4, 84.1–
2, 88.1–2, 103.1–4, 109.1–4, 109.5–110.1, 110–111, 114.1–2, 123.3–4, 124.1–3, 3–
4), their cooperation with Klearidas after the death of Brasidas (5.3.4–5, 6.4, 10.9–
11, 18.5–7, 21.1–3), their success against Athenians in minor operations (5.39.1,
82.1, 83.4), and their continuous military action against Athens down to 415 BCE
(6.7.4). Nikias led the unsuccessful military operations against the Chalkidians in
winter 417/6 BCE (Thuc. 5.83.4), and in his speech given in the spring 415 BCE
(Thuc. 6.10.5) he emphasized that “this is no time for running risks or for grasping
at a new empire before we have secured the one we already have. For the fact is
that the Chalkidians in Thrace have been in revolt from us for many years and are
still unsubdued”.
If we follow Xenophon, there may have been a sort of rapprochement between
Athens and the League in the 380s (Hell. 5.2.15). The Chalkidians, as many others,
joined the 2nd Athenian League in the 370s (IG II/III2.43 B col. Ι, ΙΙ ll. 5–6; 36 ll.
2–3) but were ready to abandon Athens when Athenian ambitions for Amphipolis
threatened the status quo in the North.44 The Chalkidians opposed both the Athenian
43 Psoma 2009, 263–280; (2016a). For the military character of the colony see Erdas 2006, 45–
55.
44 Dem. 23. 149–150 (353/2 BCE); Polyaenus Strat. 3.10.1, 4 (Olynthos) and 15 (Torone), cf.
[Arist.] Oec. 1350a. For molydides with the name of Ergophilos, the Athenian general of 363/2
BCE excavated at Olynthos see Robinson 1941, nos.2184–2185. For the success of Timotheos
in this area see Diod. Sic. 15.81.6 (364/3 BCE): Torone and Potidaia. Cf. Din. Dem. 14.4–6;
Philocl. 17.7; Isokr. 15.113. For the treaty with Menelaos of Pelagon, ally in the war against
the Chalkidians and Amphipolis see IG II/III2.110 of 363/2 BCE.
328 Selene E. Psoma
military operations from 368 to 360 BCE, and a long siege by Timotheos supported
by Perdikkas III between 365 and 363 BCE.45 Amphipolis remained free thanks
initially to Chalkidian help, and then with the help of a Makedonian garrison likely
established under Philip, the king’s brother, from 363 onwards.46 It was this king’s
growing power that led the Chalkidians to turn to Athens for support in 352 BCE.
When Philip’s relations with the Chalkidians deteriorated, Demosthenes used all
his rhetorical powers to persuade the Athenians to send military help to Olynthos
against Philip II.47 Thus the pattern of relations between Athens and the League can
be easily summarized: it was an organ of opposition to permanent Athenian pres-
ence – and all it entailed – in the North between the 5th century BCE and the 360s,
and a temporary rapprochement during the Corinthian war, in the 370s and in the
years before its final dissolution. As far as the 370s are concerned, we may presume
that this was the immediate reaction of the League when Sparta began losing its
significance some years after the end of the Spartan-Chalkidean war. When it comes
to the early 340s, there was no other power that could provide help to Olynthos
during this period against their common enemy, Philip II.
V. SPARTA
The relations of Sparta, her Peloponnesian allies, and especially Corinth, with the
Chalkidians of Thrace date to the Potidaiatika. The Chalkidians had their own rea-
sons for opposing the Athenians and feared their renewed intervention after Sphak-
teria (Thuc. 4.79.2). The Chalkidians and Perdikkas II made an appeal to the most
talented Spartan military leader of the Archidamian war, Brasidas. Thucydides pro-
vides a number of details about their joint action and their financial and military
support to the Spartan leader. Together with the Chalkidians who remained his al-
lies to the very end, Brasidas changed the status quo in the North and forced the
Athenians to ask for peace after the capture of Amphipolis.48 Unable to persuade
the Chalkidians to deliver Amphipolis to Athens, after the Peace of Nikias, Sparta
had to face a coalition of its ex-allies, among whom were the Chalkidians (Thuc.
5.31.6; 5.38.4; 5.80.2). This coalition did not last long and in the 410s the Chalkidi-
ans and Sparta collaborated again against their common enemy, Athens (Thuc.
6.7.4).
Sparta and the koinon would meet again in the 380s. According to Xenophon
(Hell. 5.2.12–19), the cities of Apollonia and Akanthos asked for Sparta’s help
45 Psoma 2011, 124–132; Lane Fox 2011, 257–269.

46 Hatzopoulos 1996b, 178.
47 For the fate of Olynthos see Dem. 1.4–5; 6.5–7.3; 9–10; 12–13; 17–18; 25–26; 2.6–7.6; 11; 14;
3. 36.4–7.2; 4. 416.4–17.6; 6. 20; 7. 28–29; 8.39–41; 59; 64–65; 9.11; 26; 56; 63–64; 66–67:
68.3–69.4; 10 61; 64; 67; 11. 13–14; 18. 48; 19.146, 192; 193–194; 196–197; 263–267; 305–
306; 309–310; 23.107; 108–109; 149–150; [59] 9–11. See also Suda s.v. Κάρανος.
48 For the 5th century BCE see Thuc. 4.78.1–2, 5–6; 4.81.1–2; 4.83.2–4; 4.84.1–2; 4.88.1–2;
4.103.1–4; 4.109.1–4; 4.109.5–110.1; 4.110–111; 4.114.1–2; 4.123.3–4; 4.124.1–3; 5.3.4–5;
5.6.4; 5.10.9–11; 5.21.1–3. For Brasidas see Boëldieu and Trevet 1997, 147–158.
against the expansion of the League. Kleigenes of Akanthos fully explained why
this was a very dangerous development that should not be ignored. For these rea-
sons Sparta decided to be involved in a war against the League that dated from 383
to 379 BCE. However, Ephoros provides a very different version of the story (ap.
Diod. Sic. 15.19.2–4). According to the historian from Kyme, it was the Make-
donian king who asked for Spartan help and persuaded the Spartans to send troops
against Olynthos and the Chalkidians. What Ephorus described finds support in
Isokrates’ Panegyricus, which dates to before the end of the Olynthian–Spartan
war, in 380 BCE. Isokrates (11.126) mentions Sparta’s aggressive policy against
Mantinea, Thebes, Olynthos, and Phleius and its close collaboration, for the same
end, with Amyntas of Makedonia, Dionysos the tyrant of Syracuse, and the Great
King. It is not difficult to explain Xenophon’s version of the story mentioning Greek
cities, as Akanthos and Apollonia, asking Sparta’s military intervention against
Olynthos and claiming that city members of the League were ready to revolt against
the Chalkidians when Spartan troops appeared. Although there is no explicit men-
tion of the provision on the autonomy of the King’s Peace and Sparta’s obligations
in this regard, what Xenophon, a pro–Spartan par excellence and great friend of
Agesilaos, wanted to show was that Sparta’s aggressive policy against Olynthos
(and others) was a result of Sparta’s will to respect the Kings’ Peace and the auton-
omy of Greek cities against unification attempts. Amyntas is only mentioned as a
rather insignificant ally of Sparta to whom the Spartans asked for help. Sparta’s
collaboration with a monarch and intervention at his request could not be mentioned
in the Hellenica.
After the long siege of Olynthos by the Spartans – Sparta was involved during
four campaign seasons in this war (Xen. Hell. 5.2.24 in 383 BCE; 5.2.38 in 382
BCE; 5.3.8–9 and 18–19 in 381 BCE; 5.3.20 in 380 BCE) which also led to the
deaths of two Spartan commanders, Eudamidas and Teleutias – the Olynthians, as
mentioned by Xenophon,49 sent presbeis autokratores to Sparta to negotiate peace
(5.3.26: 379 BCE).50 A treaty was concluded and the Olynthians became allies of
the Lakedaemonians with the obligation to participate in military operations con-
ducted by them (Xen. Hell. 5.3.26; Diod. Sic. 15.23.3; Dem. 19. 263–264). The
alliance of the Chalkidians with Sparta is also revealed by Xenophon’s narration of
events after the liberation of the Kadmeia. The Chalkidian cavalry operated with
success in Boiotia under the command of Agesilaos in the following year (Xen.
Hell. 5.4.54–55; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.31.2–3). At this point we need to briefly discuss
the so-called ‘dissolution’ of the League. As we have seen, Xenophon speaks about
an alliance between Sparta and Olynthos, as does Diodorus (15.23.3: 377 BCE).
Demosthenes offers a brief summary of the war with Sparta and the death of the
three Spartan ‘polemarchs’, and says that the Chalkidians arranged the end of the
war as they wished (Dem. 19.263–264).51 Neither Xenophon nor Diodorus speak
49 For the explanation see Zahrnt 2015, 351.

50 For presbeis autokratores see Harris 2000, 487–495.
51 The third polemarch was king Agesipolis who was not killed in battle but died in a rather mys-
terious way at Aphytis: Xen. Hell. 5.3.18–19.
330 Selene E. Psoma
of the dissolution of the League.52 We cannot discern a gap in the Chalkidian coin-
age which continued to be minted while the Chalkidians participated in the second
Athenian League in 375/4 BCE.53 The Spartans were not interested in dissolving
the federal state. One recalls that they did not break up other koina such as the
Achaean, the Phokian, the Akarnanian, or even the Aitolian leagues, which joined
the anti-Spartan camp late in the Corinthian war, after the King’s Peace, and con-
centrated all their efforts against Thebes and Boiotia.54 There is no reason to assume
that there was no federal state after 379 BCE.55
VI. THEBES AND BOIOTIA
There is no direct evidence about the relations of the Chalkidians of Thrace with
the new power that emerged at Leuctra, Thebes.56 Both Thebes and the League op-
posed Athenian intervention in the North and Pelopidas favored the independence
of Amphipolis at Susa in 367 BCE.57 From this point of view a Boiotian-Chalkidian
alliance might have been a result of mutual interests and could very well be in-
scribed in their common anti-Athenian policy of the 360s. Thus Theban interven-
tion in the Makedonian kingdom from 369 to 365 BCE seems to have had an impact
on her relations with the league.58
VII. THE MAKEDONIAN KINGDOM
The League was a creation of Perdikkas II of Makedonia and was dissolved by his
great grandnephew, Philip II. Perdikkas II was a great diplomat who knew how to
change alliances and look after his own interests.59 His own military skills were
52 Contra Zahrnt 1971, 97; 2015, 352.

53 IG II/III2.43 B col. Ι, ΙΙ l. 5, 375/374 BC, [Χαλκι]δῆς ἀπὸ [Θράικης]; IG II/III2.36 ll. 2–3,
[συμμαχία Χαλ]κιδέων τῶ[ν ἐ/πὶ Θράικης τοῖ]ς ἑ[σ]περίοις.
54 Beck 1997, 60–63 [Achaian], 112 [Phokidian], 37 [Akarnanian], 48 [Aitolian]; see also the
discussion in pp. 236–240 about the Arcadians.
55 For the refoundation of the Chalkidean league see Zahrnt 1971, 97–104; Beck 1997, 157–161;
Stylianou 1998, 227f.
56 A casualty list from Plataia (Kalliontzis 2014) which mentions a number of citizens who died
at Olynthos might be connected with the participation of Plataians and other Boiotians in the
Spartan campaigns against Olynthos between 382 and 379 BCE. One recalls that Plataia was
re-founded after the King’s Peace by the Spartans and was destroyed by Thebes either in 374
or in 373 BCE. According to Kalliontzis, Plataians participated in the campaigns on the Athe-
nian side in 349/8 BCE.
57 Aesch. 2. 29. Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.67.3–4; 15.71.1–2; Plut. Pel. 26.4–5; 27.2–4.
58 There is no reason to connect a recently published proxeny decree from Thebes with Olynthos
on the basis of the letters -νθιος of the ethnic: Vlachogianni 2004–2009. As we all know, for
their external relations the Chalkidians used the collective ethnic Chalkideis and not Olynthioi.
See also Zahrnt 2015, 346.
59 Thuc.1.57.2–6 (432 BCE); 1.58.1–60.1 (432 BCE).
very limited, and his army was also of limited effectiveness. From a military point
of view he had very few chances of success against the Athenians, and this is the
reason behind his temporary alliances with the Chalkidians and their common ap-
peal to Sparta and Brasidas. This Makedonian Realpolitik came to an end with
Perdikkas’ death. We know nothing about Archelaos’ relations with the League,
but we know that he was an ally of Athens (IG Ι3.117. Cf. Thuc. 2.100.2; Diod. Sic.
14.49.1–2).
When all Greek forces were engaged in the Corinthian war, Amyntas III, the
almost unexpected Temenid, put a temporary end to dynastic struggles by becoming
king in 393/2 BCE. He turned to the Chalkidians of Thrace for help, soliciting them
with grants of several commercial privileges and land in the border area between
their territories and his own (Diod. Sic. 14.92.3–4).60 The Chalkidians betrayed him
while their newly acquired power made other cities of the area suspicious.61 This
led to Spartan intervention that ended with the alliance of the League with Sparta.
There is no other information about relations of this king and his successor Alex-
ander II with the League. It is also the case of Ptolemy of Aloros. However, Theban
intervention in Makedonia under Alexander II and Ptolemy of Aloros, and the fact
that both Thebes and the League opposed Athenian plans for Amphipolis, might
suggest an alliance between Ptolemy of Aloros and the Chalkidians. This alliance
came to an end when Perdikkas III became king. The king changed sides, became
an ally of Athens, and participated in military operations against Olynthos.62 When
the king realized that Athens’ ambitions for Amphipolis were part of her more ex-
tended plan for the North and included his kingdom, he abandoned Timotheos and
sent a garrison to protect Amphipolis against Athenian attacks. Mutual interests
might have brought Perdikkas III and the League together.63
After Perdikkas’ death, the new king, Philip II, had to wait to arrange his rela-
tions with the Chalkidians. What he certainly did not need was their hostility.64 Like
his father, he offered the League Anthemous and the control of Potidaia.65 It was
only when his power became too significant,66 and after the League’s intrigues with
his half-brothers and possibly Athens, that he turned against them with known re-
sults.67 Thus the pattern of relations between the Chalkidian League and the kings
60 For the treaty between Amyntas III and the Chalkideis see Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.1; Mackil
2015, 495f.
61 Xen. Hell. 5.2.12–19 (383 BCE). Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.19.2–4.
62 Polyaenus Strat. 3.10.1, 4 (Olynthos) and 15 (Torone), cf. [Arist]. Oec. 1350a.
63 Aesch. 2.29; Diod. Sic. 16.3.3–6.
64 For the treaty between Philip II and the Chalkideans see Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.2 (357 BCE).
65 The Chalkidians received Potidaia (Diod. Sic. 16.8.3–6, 357/6 BCE; Dem. 23. 107–109 (353/2
BCE); Dem. 6.20. See also Dem. 2 .6, 7; 8. 62; 23. 107) and Anthemous (Dem. 6.20; Lib.
Hypoth. D. 1.2) from Philip II.
66 Dem. 9.11: τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ Ὀλυνθίοις, τετταράκοντ᾽ἀπέχων τῆς πόλεως στάδια, εἶπεν ὅτι δεῖ
δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ ἐκείνους ἐν Ὀλύνθῳ μὴ οἰκεῖν ἢ αὑτὸν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ, πάντα τὸν ἄλλον
χρόνον, εἴ τις αὐτὸν αἰτιάσαιτό τι τοιοῦτον, ἀγανακτῶν καὶ πρέσβεις πέμπων τοὺς
ἀπολογησομένους.
67 Diod. Sic. 16.53.2 (348/7 π.Χ.): ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων Φίλιππος μὲν σπεύδων τὰς ἐφ᾽Ἑλλησπόντῳ
πόλεις χειρώσασθαι Μηκύβερναν μὲν καὶ Τορώνην χωρὶς κινδύνων διὰ προδοσίας παρέλαβεν,
332 Selene E. Psoma
of Makedonia can be described in the following way. They both opposed Athenian
intervention in the North during the 5th century BCE and the 360s, while the king-
dom turned to the League for support during periods of trouble. It was Philip II who
put an end to the game with the Chalkidian League by dissolving it and destroying
Olynthos. The significance of the Chalkidic League for the Makedonian Kingdom
is revealed by the alarm of Antigonos Monophthalmos when he heard that Kassan-
dros was founding Kassandreia (Diod. Sic. 19.52.2–3). Diodorus (19.61.1) reports
that Antigonos accused him of refounding Olynthos. For Antigonos, a contempo-
rary of Philip II, the League headed by Olynthos was the most significant threat to
the Kingdom in Northern Greece. When Philip dissolved the League and destroyed
Olynthos, the kingdom was freed from the danger posed by its most powerful neigh-
bor.68 Although Philip II or Alexander III re-founded Stageira, one of the league’s
cities, at Aristotle’s request, the re-foundation of Olynthos was unthinkable for a
Makedonian king.69
VIII. THE CITIES OF THE CHALKIDIC PENINSULA
The League’s policy towards the cities of the area was a matter of historical cir-
cumstances and relation of forces. A number of cities in the western part of the
Chalkidic peninsula became members of the League immediately after its creation:
Mekyberna, Gale, and Singos. During the Peloponnesian war, cities such as
Akanthos, Stageira, and Amphipolis joined Brasidas and the League and remained
its allies most probably to the end of the war.70 The cities of the Bottiaeans of the
area south of the lakes made peace with Athens (IG I3.76, 422 BCE), while Spar-
tolos fought together with the Chalkidians and was included in the Peace of Nikias
(Thuc. 5.18.5–7). This was not the case with Potidaia, Mende, and Scione. After its
capture by the Athenians, Potidaia received Athenian cleruchs in 429 BCE (Thuc.
2.70.1–5). Mende and Scione were recaptured by Kleon and Mende remained an
ally of Athens while Scione’s territories were given to the Plataians in 421 BCE.71
This city’s population as well as the population of Torone, was sold into slavery.72
ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν μεγίστην τῶν περὶ τοὺς τόπους τούτους πόλεων Ὄλυνθον στρατεύσας μετὰ πολλῆς
δυνάμεως τὸ μὲν πρῶτον νικήσας τοὺς Ὀλυνθίους δυσὶ μάχαις συνέκλεισεν εἰς πολιορκίαν,
προσβολὰς δὲ συνεχεῖς ποιούμενος πολλοὺς τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἀπέβαλεν ἐν ταῖς τειχομαχίαις·
τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον φθείρας χρήμασι τοὺς προεστηκότας τῶν Ὀλυνθίων, Εὐθυκράτην τε καὶ
Λασθένην, διὰ τούτων προδοθεῖσαν τὴν Ὄλυνθον εἷλεν. διαρπάσας δ᾽αὐτὴν καὶ τοὺς
ἐνοικοῦντας ἐξανδραποδισάμενος ἐλαφυροπώλησε. Cf. Dem. 8.39–41 (341 BCE); 9.56, 66–
67 (after 341 BCE); 18.48 (330 BCE); 19.265–267 (343 BCE); Suda s.v. Κάρανος.
68 The incorporation of most of the League’s territories into the Kingdom was followed by the
establishment of Makedonian power in the whole area: see Hatzopoulos 1996b, 200f. See also
Hatzopoulos 1993, 575–584.
69 Plut. Alex. 7.3. For Stageira see Zahrnt 1971, 243 with n.388; Gatzolis and Psoma (forthcoming
2).
70 For Akanthos see Picard 2000. For Amphipolis see Hell. Oxy. VII.3. Cf. Salviat 1984.
71 For these cities see Zahrnt 1971, 201 (Mende), 235 (Scione) and 249f (Torone).
72 See previous note.
In 417 BCE Dion of Akte revolted from Athens and became an ally of the Chalkidi-
ans (Thuc. 5.82.1).
During the 390s the League shared borders with Amphipolis, the Bottiaeans of
the area of Spartolos, Akanthos, and Mende, as is revealed by the treaty between
Amyntas III and the Chalkidians.73 In this treaty both parties agreed not to conclude
separate alliances with the cities mentioned above. In the 380s Torone and Potidaia
were also ‘allies’ of the League. According to Xenophon (and for reasons we have
already explained), it was Apollonia and Akanthos that invited the Spartans to in-
tervene in the area when the Chalkidians began to put pressure on the cities of the
peninsula to become members of their federal state.74 Perhaps the war between
Mende and Olynthos mentioned by Pseudo-Aristotle (2.21b) might then date to this
period of the 380s. Potidaia joined Sparta as soon as Spartan forces arrived in the
area (Xen. Hell.5.2.24), while Torone was later captured by Agesipolis in 380 BCE
(Xen. Hell.5.3.18–19). At the end of the Spartan–Olynthian war the League might
have lost part of its territories but was not dissolved.75
The league defended the independence of Amphipolis in the 360s. Isokrates
reported the success of Timotheos in the area (Isokr. 15.113). He captured many
cities of the Chalkidians, among them Potidaia and Torone.76 In 362/1 BCE Potidaia
asked Athens to send cleruchs to defend Potidaia against the League (IG
II/III2.114). Another treaty between Dion and Athens of this same year shows that
the League remained the main power in the area, and smaller cities needed powerful
allies – particularly Athens – to defend their autonomy and independence (IG
II/III2.115).77 A stasis in Dikaia naming Perdikkas III as diallaktes might have in-
volved the opposition of pro-Athenian citizens and pro-Chalkidian citizens.78 At the
date of the Epidaurian list of thearodokoi, i.e. under Perdikkas III, the League
shared borders with Dikaia, Apollonia, Amphipolis, Akanthos, and Stolos (IG
IV2.94, cf. [Skyl. Per. 66]). Stageira was already a member of the League. After
356 and the alliance with Philip II, the League received the territories of Potidaia
and the valley of Anthemous from the king, and extended its territories to the East
(Stolos and Polichne), to the North East (Arnai), to the West (Spartolos, Aphytis),
73 Hatzopoulos 1996b, II no.1 B ll. 8–9 (393/2 BCE): πρὸς Ἀμφιπολίτας, Βοττ[ι]/αίους,
Ἀκανθίους, Μενδαίους μὴ π[οιεῖ]/[σ]θ̣αι φιλίην Ἀμύνταμ μηδὲ/ Χαλκιδ[έας]/ [χωρὶ]ς
ἑκατέρους, ἀλλὰ μετὰ μιᾶ̣[ς γνώ/μης, ἐὰν ἀ]μφοτέροις δοκῆι, κοιν[ῆι/ προσθέσθαι ἐκε]ί̣νους.
See Zahrnt 2015, 349.
74 Xen. Hell. 5.2.12–19 (383 BCE): Apollonia and Akanthos, Xen. Hell. 5.3.1–3 (381 BCE): Ap-
ollonia.
75 Psoma 2001, 228–230. For the loss of its territories see IG II/III2.36 ll. 2–3: [συμμαχία
Χαλ]κιδέων τῶ[ν ἐ/πὶ Θράικης τοῖ]ς ἑ[σ]περίοις.
76 Polyaenus Strat. 3.10.15: Torone; Diod. Sic. 15.81.6 (364/3 BCE): Torone and Potidaia; Din.
Dem. 14.4–6: Methone, Pydna, Potidaia, cf. Din. Philocl. 17.7.
77 For the collaboration of the Athenian cleruchs with Potideatai and possibly Charidemus, see IG
II/III2.118 (362/1 BCE).
78 SEG 57.2007, 576: opisthographic stele containing 5 decrees, an amendment and an oath re-
veals a stasis at Dikaia and involves Perdikkas III (after 363/2 BCE). For an analysis and dis-
cussion of the inscription see Voutyras and Sismanidis 2007; Psoma 2011b.
334 Selene E. Psoma
and possibly to the rest of the Pallene.79 This is revealed by the deeds of sales from
Olynthos, Spartolos, Stolos, Torone, Polichne, Arnai, Aphytis, and Strepsa,80 and
the fragments of books 22 to 25 of Theopompos’ Philippica on the events of 349/8
BCE.81 Sinos and Sermylia, immediate neighbors of Olynthos, were also cities of
the League; their territories were later confiscated by Philip II and were distributed
to his hetairoi.82
Thus the pattern of relations of the Chalkidians with their neighbors can be
traced. We find alliances struck with significant cities against Athens during the
Peloponnesian war. The aftermath of the war left the important cities of the area of
the pre-war period (Potidaia, Torone, and Sermylia) weakened, and thus an easy
target for the League. From this period until to 348 BCE, participation in the federal
state was not a matter of choice for the less significant cities of the area but a matter
of survival. Cities like Akanthos never became members of the League and opposed
Chalkidian plans for the area during the first half of the 4th century. BCE.
We are left with Amphipolis, the short-lived Athenian colony in the North. Am-
phipolis remained free to the end of the Peloponnesian War, probably with
Chalkidian help. In the 390s and 380s BCE Chalkidian plans did not extend as far
as Amphipolis, but in the 360s, the league strongly opposed Athenian claims on the
city. Chalkidian epoikoi led by a certain Kleotimos collaborated with the euporoi,
79 For Aphytis see Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 141 ‘παρῆλθεν εἰς Χυτρόπολιν χωρίον ἀπωικισμένον
ἐξ Ἀφύτεως’. For a deed of sale from Aphytis revealing its participation in the League see
Game 2009 no 38bis. For the Pallene see Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 50: ἔπειτα διεξελθὼν ὀλίγα
τὰ μεταξὺ γενόμενα τίθησι ταυτί·«περὶ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον Χαλκιδέων τῶν ἐπὶ Θράικης
θλιβομένων τῶι πολέμωι καὶ πρεσβευσαμένων Ἀθήναζε, Χαρίδημον αὐτοῖς ἔπεμψαν οἱ
Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν ἐν Ἑλλησπόντωι στρατηγόν, ὃς ἔχων ὀκτωκαίδεκα τριήρεις καὶ πελταστὰς
τετρακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν, ἦλθεν εἴς τε τὴν Παλλήνην καὶ τὴν
Βοττιαίαν μετ' Ὀλυνθίων, καὶ τὴν χώραν ἐπόρθησεν»; Dion. Hal. 7.28–29: κἀκεῖνοι μέν, ὡς
ἔοικεν, οἱ πρότερον ἐν Ἀμφιπόλει οἰκοῦντες πρὶν Φίλιππον λαβεῖν, τὴν Ἀθηναίων χώραν εἶχον,
ἐπειδὴ δὲ Φίλιππος αὐτὴν εἴληφεν, οὐ τὴν Ἀθηναίων χώραν ἀλλὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει·
οὐδ᾽Ὄλυνθόν γε οὐδ᾽Ἀπολλωνίαν οὐδὲ Παλλήνην, οὐκ ἀλλοτρίας ἀλλὰ τὰς ἑαυτοῦ χώρας
κέκτηται.
80 For the deeds of sale from Olynthos see Game 2009, nos.14–23, 25–28, from Arnai see Game
2009, 26, from Stolos Game 2009, 15, 29–33, from Polichne ibid, 34f, from Spartolos ibid, 37,
from Torone ibid, 38, from Aphytis ibid, 38 bis and from Strepsa SEG 37.583.
81 For Theopompos see Zahrnt 1971, 109–111; Psoma 2001, 243f. In the 22nd book the cities that
are mentioned are: Θέρμη (FGrH 115 F 140), Χυτρόπολις (F 141), Θέστωρος (F 142); in the
23rd book: Όλυνθος (FGrH 115 F 143), Αἰόλειον (115 F 144) and Βρέα (115 F 145); in the 24 th
book: Ἄσσηρα (FGrH 115 F 147); in the 25th book: Σκάβαλα (FGrH 115 F 151), Μίλκωρος
(FGrH 115 F 152), Κανθαρώλεθρον (FGrH 115 F 266) and Σκίθαι (FGrH 115 F 375). See also
Τίνδη: St. Byz. s.v. Τίνδιον. ἔστι καὶ Τίνδη Θρᾴκης Χαλκιδικὴ πόλις; Skapsa: Steph. Byz. s.v.
Κάψα, πόλις Χαλκιδικῆς χώρας κατὰ Παλλήνην, ὁμοροῦσα τῷ Θερμαίῳ κόλπῳ. ὁ πολίτης
Καψαῖος. See also Harp. s.v. Μηκύβερνα, πόλις; Str. 9.2.23: Στῶλος, πόλις.
82 Diod. Sic. 16.8.5. For Anthemous see Dem. 6.20; Lib. Hypoth. Dem. 1.2. For Potidaia see Diod.
Sic. 16.8.3–6; Dem. 23.107; Dem. 6.20. See also Dem. 2.6, 7; 8.62; Dem. 23.107. For the dis-
tribution of land to the hetairoi see Hatzopoulos 1988a, 30 n.1, 37 n.2 and 3, and 39f; Psoma
2001, 244–248 with notes.
caused a stasis, and had the majority of the population expelled.83 This may be con-
nected with the information provided by Demosthenes that the Chalkidians held
Amphipolis in c. 363 BCE (Dem. 23.149, cf. 12.21). The establishment of a Make-
donian garrison soon afterwards might be connected with the need to protect the
city not only against Athenian attempts but also against Chalkidian ambitions.84
IX. THE IMPACT OF THE CHALKIDIAN STATE IN GREEK HISTORY
The Chalkidian state was a short-lived systema that was significant for Northern
Greek politics between 432 and 348 BCE. Together with the Boiotian League, the
Chalkidian koinon might have served as a successful exemplum of government as
far as internal politics, and most importantly, external politics, are concerned. Dur-
ing the Hellenistic period federal government became the most prominent system
in Mainland Greece, as it satisfied the need of cities to collaborate with each other
and survive in a new world dominated by powerful kingdoms. The Chalkidian
League, we must recall, was founded with the aim of defending the cities of the area
against Athens. When Antigonos Monophthalmos heard that Kassandros was
founding Kassandreia, Diodorus reports that he accused him of re-founding Olyn-
thos (19.61.1).
But we do not need to go quite that far. I believe that we can identify the impact
of the foundation of the Chalkidian League much earlier than the Hellenistic period,
even as early as the time of the successful revolt of the Chalkidian cities and Potid-
aia. We learn from Thucydides (3.2.1–3.3.1) that the cities of Lesbos (with the ex-
ception of Methymna) were ready to revolt early in the summer of 428 and “were
forcibly making the whole of Lesbos into one state under the control of Mytilene”.
The Athenians sent out representatives but these “failed to induce the Mytilenians
to abandon the idea of the union of Lesbos or to give up their warlike preparations”.
It was this idea of unity that alarmed the Athenians. The date of these events, early
summer 428 BCE, was one year after the Athenian defeat at the battle of Spartolos.
It was after this battle that the Athenians abandoned any hope of fighting the
Chalkidians by themselves, and made an appeal to their new ally, the Odrysian
Sitalkes. As we have seen, the campaign of the ferocious Odrysians brought nothing
to Athens. Makedonian diplomacy and lack of supplies forced Sitalkes to leave the
Chalkidic peninsula. Sitalkes’ campaign ended in the winter of 429/8. The Chalkidi-
ans seemed invincible at this point and this was some months before the events at
Mytilene. Once more in the Eastern Aegean, the three cities of Rhodes (Ialysos,
83 Arist. Pol. 1303b: καὶ Ἀμφιπολῖται δεξάμενοι Χαλκιδέων ἐποίκους ἐξέπεσον ὑπὸ τούτων οἱ
πλεῖστοι αὐτῶν. 1305b–1306a: γίνονται δὲ μεταβολαὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσωσι τὰ
ἴδια ζῶντες ἀσελγῶς· καὶ γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καινοτομεῖν ζητοῦσι, καὶ ἢ τυραννίδι ἐπιτίθενται
αὐτοὶ ἢ κατασκευάζουσιν ἕτερον (ὥσπερ Ἱππαρῖνος Διονύσιον ἐν Συρακούσαις, καὶ ἐν
Ἀμφιπόλει ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Κλεότιμος τοὺς ἐποίκους τοὺς Χαλκιδέων ἤγαγε, καὶ ἐλθόντων
διεστασίασεν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τοὺς εὐπόρους.
84 For the Makedonian garrison at Amphipolis see Aesch. 2.29; Diod. Sic. 16.3.3–6.
336 Selene E. Psoma
Kamiros and Lindos), allies of the Spartans from 411 BCE (Thuc. 8.44.2), pro-
ceeded to a synoecism and founded Rhodes in 408/7 BCE.85 It is difficult to say
more about the plausible impact of the Chalkidian paradigm in the synoikismos of
Rhodes. There are certainly differences between Rhodes and the Chalkideis. The
most significant, though, seems to be that the cities Ialysos, Kamiros, and Lindos
became tribes of the new city, Rhodes, while those that were members of the League
remained cities in their own right. This, however, might simply be related to the
nature of the new state itself.
To conclude: as far as the development of their external and internal relations
and organization, the Chalkidians of Thrace appear to be an interesting phenome-
non, which was ultimately short lived. The state originated from an anoikismos of
small poleis of Chalkidian origin to prevent attacks of the Athenian navy and soon
became a significant power in the North. From the beginning, it was organized into
what we call a federal state, and created procedures for facilitating the incorporation
of new members by granting epigamia and enktesis, imposing its federal calendar,
coinage, eponymous priesthoods, and common archons.86 This very successful ex-
ample of federal organization was defeated only by treachery in the struggle with
Philip II. Olynthos, Stageira, and Methone were the only cities Philip destroyed.
Methone because it was a base of Athenian interests, Stageira for reasons I have
explained elsewhere, and Olynthos because this was the most significant Greek
power in the North, and could well have become an obstacle to Philip’s ambitions.87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bearzot, C. (2015) Ancient Theoretical Reflections on Federalism, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds),
Boëldieu–Trevet, J. (1997) Brasidas: la naissance de l’art du commandement, in P. Brulé, J. Oulhen
(eds.), Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne. Hommages à Yvon Garlan (1997),
Rennes, 147–158
Busolt, G. (1920–1925) Griechische Staatskunde I–II, Munich.
Erdas, D. (2006) Forme e stanziamento militare e organizzazione del territorio nel mondo greco: i
casi di Casmene e Brea, in M.A. Vaggioli (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo
antico (VIII-III sec. a. C.), vol. I, Pisa, 45–55.
Flensted-Jensen, P. (2004) Thrace from Axios to Strymon, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.),
An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 351–374.
Gabrielsen, V. (2000) The Synoikised Polis if Rhodes, in P. Flensted–Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L.
Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens
Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 177–205.
Game, J. (2009) Actes de vente dans le monde grec: témoignages épigraphiques des ventes immo-
bilières, Lyon.
85 See also Diod. Sic. 13.75.1; Str. 14.2.10. For the synoecism of Rhodes see Gabrielsen 2000.
86 See Bearzot 2015, 505–507.
87 For Stageira see Gatzolis – Psoma (forthcoming 2). For Olynthos see Toynbee 1935, 477–485;
Hatzopoulos 1996a, 25–38; Gatzolis – Psoma (forthcoming 2).
Gatzolis, C. and S.E. Psoma (forthcoming 2) Olynthos and Stageira: Bronze Coinage and Political
History, in F. Duyrat and C. Grandjean (eds.).
Gehrke, H.-J. (1985) Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten
des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Vestigia, 35, Munich.
Graham, A.J. (1969) X=10, Phoenix 23, 347–358.
Gude, M. (1933) A History of Olynthus, with a prosopographia and testimonia, Baltimore.
Hampl, F. (1935) Olynth und der chalkidische Staat, Hermes 70, 177–196.
Harris, E.M. (2000) The Authenticity of Andocides De Pace. A Subversive Essay, in P. Flensted-
Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history
presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen,
479–506.
Harrison, E. (1912) Chalkidike, Classical Quarterly 6, 93–103, 165–178.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1988a) Une donation du roi Lysimaque, L’antiquité classique, Athens.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1988b) Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale, Paris.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1993) Le statut de Cassandrée à l’époque hellénistique, Ancient Macedonia 5,
575–584.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1996a) Royaume de Macédoine et colonies grecques: langues et institutions,
Cahiers Glotz 7, 25–38.
Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996b) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. 1, Athens.
Kahrstedt, U. (1936) Chalcidic Studies, American Journal of Philology 57, 416–444.
Kalliontzis, Y. (2014) Digging in Storerooms for Inscriptions: An Unpublished Casualty List from
Plataia in the Museum of Thebes and the Memory of War in Boeotia, in N. Papazarkadas (ed.),
The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. New Finds, New Perspectives, Berkeley, 332–372.
Knoepfler, D. (1989) Le calendrier des Chalcidiens de Thrace: essai de mise au point sur la liste et
l’ordre des mois eubéens, Journal des Savants, 23–59.
Knoepfler, D. (1990) The Calendar of Olynthus and the Origin of the Chalcidians of Thrace, in J.P.
Desroeudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian
Congress for Classical Archaeology held in honour of Prof. A. D. Trendell, New York, 99–
115.
Knoepfler, D. (2007) Was there an Anthroponymy of Euboian Origin in the Chalkido-Eretrian Col-
onies of the West and Thrace?, Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 87–119.
Larsen, J.A.O (1955), Representative Government in Greek and Roman History.
Larsen, J.A.O (1968), Greek Federal States.
Lane Fox, R. “The 360s”, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Studies in
the Archaeology and History of Ancient Macedon, 650 B.C.-300 A.D., Leiden 2011, 257–269
Loukopoulou, L. D. and S. E. Psoma, ‘The Thracian Policy of the Temenid Kings’, Ancient Mace-
donia VII 2007, 143– 151
Moggi, K. (1974) Lo stato dei Calcidesi alla luce del sinoecismo di Olinto, Critica Storica 11, 1–
11.
Moggi, K. (1976) I sinecismi interstatali greci, Pisa.
Picard, O. (2000) Le retour des émigrés et le monnayage de Thasos, Comptes rendus de l’académie
des inscriptions et de belles lettes, 1057–1084.
Psoma, S. (1997) Notes sur le début du monnayage fédéral des Chalcidiens de Thrace, Revue nu-
mismatique 6, 423–428.
Psoma, S. (2000) Σταθμητικοί κανόνες στην Χαλκιδική κατά τον 5 ο και 4ο αι. π.Χ., Οβολός 4, 25–
36.
Psoma, S. (2001a) Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et d’histoire,
Stuttgart.
338 Selene E. Psoma
Psoma, S. (2001b) ΣΤΑΤΕΡ ΜΑΧΟΝ, Nomismatika Chronika 20, 13–44.

Psoma, S. (2009) Thuc. 1, 61, 4, Béroia et la nouvelle localisation de Bréa, Revue des Études
Grecques 122, 263–280.
Psoma, S. (2011a) Dikaia, colonie d’Éretrie en Chalcidique: entre Perdikkas III de Macédoine et la
Ligue Chalcidienne, in N. Badoud (ed.), Phililogos Dionysios, Mélanges offerts au professeur
Denis Knoepfler, Geneva, 479–489.
Psoma, S. (2011b) The Kingdom of Macedonia and the Chalcidic League, in R. Lane Fox (ed.),
Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient
Macedon, 650 B.C.-300 A.D., Leiden, 113–135.
Psoma, S. (2016a) “From Corcyra to Potidaea: the decree of Brea (IG I3 46)”, ZPE 199, 55–57.
Psoma, S. E. (2016b) Choosing and Changing a Monetary Standard in the Archaic and Classical
Periods, in E.M. Harris, D.M. Lewis and M. Woolmer (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy:
Markets, Households and City–States, New York, 90–115.
Psoma, S. E. (2017a) “From the Odrysian Sparadokos to Olynthos: Remarks on Iconography”, in P.
Iossif, F. de Callataÿ, R. Veymiers (eds), ΤΥΠΟΙ. Greek and Roman Coins seen through their
images. Noble issuers, humble users? Histoire, Liège–Paris, 173–188.
Psoma, S. E. (2017b) “Proud to be Euboeans: the Chalcidians of Thrace”, in Ž. Tankosić, F. Mav-
ridis, and M. Kosma (eds), An Island between two Worlds. The Archaeology of Euboea from
Prehistoric to Byzantine Times. Papers and Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Ath-
ens 6, 409–420.
Robinson, D.M. (1938) Inscriptions from Macedonia 1938, TAPA 69, 43–47.
Robinson, D.M. (1941) Excavations at Olynthus X. Metal and minor miscellaneous finds: an origi-
nal contribution to Greek life, Baltimore.
Robinson, D.M. and A. Clement (1938) Excavations at Olynthus. Vol. IX. The Chalcidic Mint and
the Excavation Coins Found in 1928–1934, Baltimore.
Salviat, F. (1984) Les archontes de Thasos, Πρακτικά τοῦ Η’Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ
Λατινικῆς Ἐπιγραφικῆς, 3–9 Ὀκτωβρίου 1982, Athens, 233–258.
Tiverios, M. (2008) Greek Colonization in the Northern Aegean, in G.M. Tsetskhladze (ed.), An
Account of Greek Colonies and the other Settlements overseas, vol. II, Leiden, 1–154.
Toynbee, A. (1935) A Study of History, vol. III, Oxford, 477–485.
Vlachogianni, E. (2004–2009) Προξενικό ψήφισμα του Κοινού των Βοιωτών, Hόρος 17, 361–372.
Voutyras, E. and K. Sismanidis (2007) Δικαιοπολιτῶν συναλλαγαί. Μια νέα επιγραφή από την
Δίκαια, αποικία της Ερέτριας, Ancient Macedonia 7, 253–274.
West, A.B. (1918) The History of the Chalcidic League, Madison, Wis.
Zahrnt, M. (1971) Olynth und die Chalkidier. Untersuchungen zur Staatenbildung auf der Chalki-
dischen Halbinsel im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., München.
Zahrnt, M. (2015) The Chalkidike and the Chalkidians, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism
THE ETHNOS OF THE THESPROTIANS:
INTERNAL ORGANIZATION & EXTERNAL RELATIONS1
Adolfo J. Domínguez
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
I. THE OLDEST LITERARY REFERENCES TO THESPROTIA.
In the earliest literary sources from the Greek world, the Homeric poems, we al-
ready find references to Thesprotia and its inhabitants, the Thesprotians. Although
they are not mentioned explicitly in the Iliad, we do find a mention of the Sanctuary
of Zeus at Dodona, to which we will return shortly. In the Odyssey we are given
some information of interest: the land of the Thesprotians (γαίῃ Θεσπρωτῶν) is
mentioned (Od. 14.315), as is their King, Pheidon (Θεσπρωτῶν βασιλεὺς ...
Φείδων) (Od. 14.316). We are told that King Pheidon would have received Odys-
seus and that he had visited the Dodona sanctuary. The great riches amassed by
Odysseus and guarded by the King are also mentioned (Od. 14.321–330; 19.287–
299). The Poet also mentions that the Thesprotians had ships (Od. 14.334–335;
16.65) and were enemies of the Taphian pirates (Od. 16.426–427). From the poem
we may infer that Thesprotia had links with Dulichius (Od. 14.335) and Ithaca itself
(Od. 17.526; 19.271). The two references to Dodona found in the Odyssey appear
in passages referring to the Thesprotians.
In the Iliad, on the other hand, there are no direct references to Thesprotia, but
there are two mentions of Dodona. In the Catalogue of Ships, the Ainianes and the
warring Perrhaibians (᾿Ενιῆνες ... μενεπτόλεμοί τε Περαιβοὶ) had decided to settle
around wintry Dodona (περὶ Δωδώνην δυσχείμερον) (Il. 2.749–750). The other ref-
erence to the sanctuary appears in a plea by Achilles in which the hero addresses
the sovereign Zeus as a Dodonian and Pelasgian, suggesting that he lives far away
in Dodona, attended by his interpreters, the Selloi, who do not wash their feet and
sleep on the floor (Il. 16.233–235).2
It therefore seems that there are two or three different traditions in Homer’s
poems. The two references in the Iliad, each different from the other, highlight the
relationship between the Zeus of Dodona and the Selloi, about which the poem does
not provide us with much information. We also learn of the god’s relationship with
peoples such as the Perrhaibians and the Ainianes, who, long ago, used to live in
1 This paper has been written as part of Research Project HAR 2014–53885 funded by the Span-
ish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.
2 Ζεῦ ἄνα Δωδωναῖε Πελασγικὲ τηλόθι ναίων / Δωδώνης μεδέων δυσχειμέρου, ἀμφὶ δὲ Σελλοὶ
/ σοὶ ναίουσ' ὑποφῆται ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιεῦναι ...; Parke 1967, 3–10.
340 Adolfo J. Domínguez
Dodona and then moved to Thessaly and were known as the perioiki of the Thessa-
lians.3 Here we are clearly faced with two different traditions that must trace back
to different origins.4 But then again, the references in the Odyssey relating to Do-
dona, even if just for its proximity and relationship with the Thesprotians, highlight
their nature as a people and that they are ruled by a King (at that moment in time,
Pheidon). Both the Iliad and the Odyssey, however, make particular mention of the
fact that Dodona was an oracular sanctuary, both through the reference to Zeus’
interpreters (ὑποφῆται), the Selloi (Il. 16.235), and because Odysseus appears there
questioning Zeus about the best way to return to Ithaca through the god’s high-
crested oak (ἐκ δρυὸς ὑψικόμοιο) (Od. 14.327–330; 19.296–299). These references
outline the importance of Dodona, at least, during the second half of the eighth
century BCE because, as Luce has shown, “le poète a donc intégré des réalités de
son temps, qu’on peut dater de la seconde moitié du VIIIe s., dans le passé des hé-
ros”.5
The other information we are given in the Odyssey – especially with regards to
their relationship with Dulichius and with Ithaca, and that the Thesprotians were
enemies of the Taphian pirates – clearly highlights the seafaring ways of the Thes-
protians known in the Homeric poems; they did not take part in the Trojan War,
however.
It is difficult to draw clear historical conclusions from these scarce and ambig-
uous references, partly due to the doubts that still exist regrading precisely when
Homer’s poems were written. However, it is possible that we are able to suggest
here that for the Greeks of the 8th–7th centuries BCE, the Thesprotians were a people
living on the coastline of the Ionian Sea. It is not unlikely that they were made
known by the Euboians (more likely than the Corinthians), who are the first who
seem to take their chances in these waters at this time, or before this time. Perhaps
even then, despite other possible traditions which are earlier or arise from different
origins, the Thesprotians begin to be linked to the oracle at Dodona. We are unable
to say whether the Thesprotians had control over this oracle at the time, because the
coexistence of different traditions such as those found in the Iliad seems to suggest
the opposite. We can say the same of Hesiod (frag. 319 Merkelbach-West), who
tells us that Dodona is still the residence of the Pelasgians (Πελασγῶν ἕδρανον);
the same author locates Dodona in a land called Ellopia (Hes. frag. 240 Merkel-
bach–West). The name given to this land (Ἐλλοπία) is linked by some to the Σελλοί,
by taking away the initial sigma of this name (Scholia in Sophoclem, Trach. 1167),
although this may well be a later interpretation. In any case, in Hesiod, Dodona is
linked to the Pelasgians and with Ellopia, which is therefore the name of another
land found in Euboia (Hdt. 8.23).
It is also difficult to ascertain where Homer is referring to in the region that
would become Thesprotia, although it is perhaps not too adventurous to suggest that
3 Lefevre 1998, 84–86 (Perrhaibians) and 91 (Ainianes).

4 Other interpretations suggest, however, different perspectives regarding Dodona, but not nec-
essarily contradictory ones: Calce 2011, 28–33.
5 Luce 2010, 40.
The Ethnos of the Thesprotians: Internal Organization and External Relations 341
it may well be the area named the harbour of Elaia (λιμὴν᾿Ελαία) or Ephyra by
authors such as Pseudo–Scylax (§ 30). According to Thucydides (1.46.4), this is in
the land called Elaitis in Thesprotia (ἐν τῇ ᾿Ελαιάτιδι τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος). Both au-
thors place the mouth of the River Acheron and the Acherusian Lake in the same
area. This is certainly the same port that Strabo (7.7.5) calls Glykys Limen because
it is where the Acheron river had its mouth and where the Acherusian Lake is lo-
cated. Perhaps the presence of this marshy lake (λίμνη) had an influence on the
land’s name, because some authors suggest that the toponym Elea or Eliaia could
derive from the name for the olive tree,6 while others derive it from the swampy
nature of the area (τό ἕλος).7
It is also difficult to know if, at that time, the label ‘Thesprotia’ would refer to
all of the land that would later be included in this name.8 Although it is not sure,
according to the Odyssey, that the Thesprotians had occupied the interior of Epei-
ros,9 it is possible that the Thesprotians are beginning to exercise their influence on
the sanctuary at Dodona, judging from the references found in the Odyssey. Finally,
the mention of a King of the Thesprotians in the Odyssey is also not surprising
given the constant references in the Homeric Poems to monarchs that rule over the
different peoples mentioned.
Accordingly, the first reference to the Thesprotians in Greek sources does not
give us a clear understanding of many aspects regarding this people, and it is diffi-
cult to define what may be poetic vision and what may be historical reality for Thes-
protia and its inhabitants at the beginning of the archaic period. In any case, it is
clear that Thesprotia is placed in the margins of the Hellenic world 10 but already
plays a role within it.11
II. THE EARLIEST ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN THESPROTIA IN

ARCHAIC TIMES AND ITS INTERPRETATION.
If we bear in mind archaeological data from the period between the eighth and the
sixth centuries BCE, our viewpoint does not become much clearer either, although
it does give us some interesting information. The accumulation of pottery with no
clear archaeological background at Mavromandilia, for example, close to the course
of the Kokytos river, is in line with our knowledge of some village settlements in
Molossia such as Vitsa and Liatovouni. In addition to different kinds of handmade
pottery, the presence of pottery that was imported from other areas of Greece is also
of interest, since these are, to date, the first known imported materials that appeared
in the region from the end of the Bronze Age. The pottery comes predominantly
6 Hammond 1967, 478.

7 Riginos and Lazari 2007, 24.
8 Dakaris 1972, 1–7.
9 Parke 1967, 11f.
10 Cabanes 1988, 92.
11 The idea that Thesprotia represents a ‘negative’ view as against the ‘positive’ image featured
by the Taphians is suggested by Rohdenberg and Marks 2012.
from the area of Corinth and there are also some Western-Greek style vases, for
which Ithaca has been suggested as an origin. It has been proposed that other vases
come from Boiotia, Argos, Thessaly, and Attica. The whole collection could date
to between the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, although there is also pottery (of
local tradition) from before this.12 This discovery of imported pottery, in the mid-
course of the Kokytos River, shows clear relations between the inhabitants of these
regions and those living near the mouth of the River Acheron, as we mentioned
earlier. In the same way, the similarities between this pottery and other types found
at other locations in Epeiros suggest the existence of common traditions and com-
mon trade routes among the different peoples living in these areas and even possible
interconnections.
These very ways of life are evident at the Skala Aetou site, in Philiates, in the
middle valley of Kalamas, which has been excavated in recent years (2005–2007),
although the results of this excavation have still not been published in detail. At
least two rectangular buildings were found with their ends in an apse shape. The
best preserved of these (number 3) measured 14.50 x 3.50 m; inside an area was
found with the remains of pavement and of pithoi. The materials were dated to be-
tween the Iron Age and the fourth century BCE. From the brief reports that have
been published to date, it seems that the oldest imported materials correspond to the
fourth century BCE, in the form of fragments of Attic black-glazed pottery.13 The
same kind of structure has been identified at other Epirote centres, at Vitsa Zagoriou
and Liatovouni in particular, both in neighbouring Molossian territory. This sug-
gests, again, that there were very similar ways of life at play in most Epirote lands
and in surrounding areas.14 The absence of imports until a relatively advanced pe-
riod at Skala Aetou, however, may suggest that this establishment was not part of
the trade networks that did indeed reach Mavromandilia.
From the information collected at these sites, to which we can add some other
areas where remains that may correspond to this period have been identified,15 it
seems that the settlement of Thesprotia, as in the rest of Epeiros, was organized in
average-sized groups that maintained a strong link with certain areas. It may well
be that they took up residence in some of these areas for part of the year. There were
also necropoleis which, from the examples found at sites such as Vitsa and Lia-
tovouni, were used for many generations.16 Findings such as those unearthed at
Mavromandilia indicate that at least part of the territory had begun to receive prod-
ucts that had been made by other Greeks, such as the Euboians and the Corinthians.
This demonstrates that these Greeks also began to receive information about these
people, which would explain the early presence of the Thesprotians in the Homeric
12 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2009, 40–43; id. 2006, 63–67; Metallinou, Kanta-Kitsou and Riginos
2012, 353.
13 Riginos 2005, 573–575; Metallinou, Kanta-Kitsou and Riginos 2012, 349–354; Lamprou and
Saltagianni 2007, 5–11.
14 Hammond 1997a, 57f.
15 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2006, 67 n.27.
16 Vokotopoulou 1986; Douzougli and Papadopoulos 2010.
Poems. Whether or not the Thesprotian identity had begun to evolve at this point in
time is another matter.
As was observed some time ago by Hammond from a perspective that was
based more on theory than fact, the population of Epeiros may have been divided
into ‘small tribes’ several of which may have coalesced in ‘an intermediate group’.
In addition, “the intermediate groups themselves [could cluster] into large groups,
each such group being concerned to protect large pastoral territories”.17 In the same
way, this author and others highlighted the similarities in the material findings from
Epeiros and those from other Balkan territories. These included the lack of fixed
dwellings and the presence of tombs with weapons in the cemeteries, both of which
were considered ‘un-Greek’18 – a debate that has been continued over the years. We
should consider the elements that authors such as Herodotus (8.144) and Thucydi-
des (3.94.5) deem characteristic of Greek identity, to correspond with those devel-
oped by part of the Greek world but that surely had little validity in other areas.
These other areas without doubt developed their own concept of ‘Hellenicity’, alt-
hough without being able to count on writers who, like those mentioned above,
opted for a somewhat restrictive concept of what ‘being Greek’ means. The fact
that similarities can be seen between peoples who shared the same geographic area
and similar ways of life does not mean that they all took on the same ethnic identity
and, more importantly, neither does it presume that other Greeks would have con-
sidered them part of their own world. In the case of Thesprotia, its presence in the
Homeric Poems suggests that we are faced here with a nearby and well-known
world, well-linked to better known areas (Dulichius, Ithaca) and sharing the same
negative opinions that other peoples and cities in Homer had towards peoples such
as the Taphians.
There are doubtless differences between the impression of the Thesprotians we
are given in the Odyssey (namely that they were organized around a king), and the
archaeological viewpoint for the 8th and 7th centuries. Archaeology does not allow
us to observe the existence of cities like those found in other parts of Greece, and
makes the reference to the population in Thesprotia organizing itself κατὰ κώμας
in Pseudo-Skylax (§ 30) ring true. Despite this, some authors have suggested that
“there is no necessary correlation between the process of urbanization and the pro-
cess of crystallization into a large effective polity” and that “in Epeiros, polities
could become geographically extended and politically effective entities long before
urbanization developed”.19 We could thus take the reference to the Thesprotians
and their King Pheidon in the Odyssey as the first sign that a Thesprotian identity
was being founded, even when it may have possibly ended in a different territory
and with different interests than those it would have in later times.
An important element of the creation of an ethnic identity in the Greek world
seems to be the presence of common cults that served as a binding element for the
group. An important example in which a sanctuary plays a key role, from the point
17 Hammond 1997b, 54.

18 Hammond 1997b, 58.
19 Davies 2000, 241.
of view of the elaboration of an ethnic identity, is in Aitolia with the Sanctuary of

Apollo at Thermon. The sanctuary, which we know was in use from at least the
eighth century BCE, is one of the few places that has provided us with archaeolog-
ical information for those times in the Aitolian land as a whole, which demonstrates
the important role that it seems to have played in the process of Aitolian ethnogen-
esis.20 We must also take into consideration the role that the king may have played
in the possibility that Thesprotia amalgamated various groups through a sense of
(real or symbolic) prestige – a point to which we will return later.
III. CULT-PLACES AND KINGSHIP IN THESPROTIA AND THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE THESPROTIAN ETHNIC IDENTITY.
If we accept, even just as a hypothesis, the role that a cult place may have played in
the construction of a Thesprotian identity, we would have to consider which sanc-
tuary this would have been. The obvious answer, at first glance, would be Dodona.
As we have seen before, in the Odyssey there is a tendency to establish a link be-
tween the Thesprotians and Dodona, even though this is in a way circumstantial.
We are not told that Dodona belongs to the Thesprotians, but rather it is suggested
that Odysseus, who has left his riches under the protection of the King Pheidon,
would have headed for the sanctuary from Thesprotia. The references to the Pelas-
gians and, eventually, the Selloi, as well as the Perrhaibians and the Ainianes, would
suggest that Dodona is not under Thesprotian control, at least in the version of
events presented in the Homeric poems, especially in the Iliad. However, the Ho-
meric tradition is quite controversial, as some scholars have noted.21
There is another cultural area that appears to be linked to Thesprotia or that,
with time, would be linked to the land: the sanctuary dedicated to Persephone and
Hades, where Circe sends Odysseus to speak to the ghost of Teiresias, signalled by
the Acheron river and its tributaries, the Pyriphlegethon and the Kokytos (Od.
10.504–515). In the Odyssey, we are told that the area is located “at the end of the
deep Ocean” (ἐς πείραθα ... βαθυρρόου Ὠκεανοῖο), where the city and country of
the Kimmerian men can be found (Od. 11.13–14). We should bear in mind that
ancient authors tell us that there is a cape and a port named Cheimerion (Χειμέριον)
in the same region as the mouth of the real River Acheron (Thuc. 1.30.3; 1.46.4–5;
1.48.1; Str. 8.7.5; Paus. 8.7.2; Steph. Byz. s.v. Χειμέριον).22 Some authors, both
20 Papapostolou 2010, 1–59; Id. 2011, 129–145.

21 Parke 1967, 3–10. I shall not deal here with the cultural aspects of the sanctuary of Dodona
because in this paper I am just interested in its possible role as a focal point in the building of
the Thesprotian ethnic identity and not in the features of the cult carried out there, including
divination. On those issues, Eidinow 2007 and Johnston 2008, 33–75; a reappraisal of the evo-
lution of the sanctuary in Mylonopoulos 2006, 185–214.
22 Hammond 1945, 26–30; on the possible use by Thucydides of an older periegesis, eventually
that of Hecataeus, see Pearson 1939, 52.
ancient and modern, relate this to the Kimmerians of the Odyssey.23 Without tack-
ling the difficult question of how actual geography compares with the geography of
the Odyssey, it seems that there is, without doubt, a clear relationship between the
surroundings described in the poem and the region where the mouth of the Acheron
river is found. This can surely be no coincidence24 and would indicate, at least, that
poets were inspired by the real landscape when writing of the entrance to the abode
of Hades.
It is also probable that this association was encouraged by the existence of a
sacred sanctuary in the area, dedicated to the gods of the Underworld. This is doc-
umented in at least the 6th century, when the tyrant Periander of Corinth sends his
messengers to the νεκυομαντήιον, which, according to Herodotus, is in Thesprotian
land, on the river Acheron (Hdt. 5.92), to ask the spirit of his wife Melissa about
the location of some treasure.25 Although we can be almost certain that the structure
excavated by Dakaris in Mesopotamos is not this sanctuary, and it is true that the
site of the oracle remains undiscovered, nevertheless it must have been an important
place for the Thesprotians as a whole when it was still under the control the Eleans,
who, as we have already seen, ruled over this region. This fact is supported by evi-
dence, from some time later, that the Eleans and then the polis of Elea began to coin
their own currency, using motifs linked with this cult as emblems of their political
structure, including figures such as Persephone and Kerberos.26 About 100m to the
west of the excavated building, in the current town of Mesopotamos, around twenty
terracotta figures were unearthed representing a goddess with polos. This finding
could suggest that at that spot there was a sanctuary to Demeter or Persephone,
although we cannot be sure that this would have been the Nekyomanteion.27 It is
possible that the sanctuary was of some importance at a later date in the process of
the construction of a Thesprotian identity, as we shall shortly see.
The rescue excavations were rushed because of the construction of the motor-
way Egnatia Odos, but still unearthed several archaic findings of interest. These
23 Cheimerion (mentioned by Thuc. 1.46.4, Str. 8.7.5, Paus. 8.7.2 and Steph. Byz. s. v. Χειμέριον)
was related by some authors such as Proteas of Zeugma (Etym.Mag. 513. 50–52) to the Kim-
merians of the Odyssey (11.14) (see Dakaris 1986, 154f, 165). On the possible reasons for the
different locations of the Kimmerians, see Ballabriga 1998, 143–152; Ivantchik 2005, 53–65;
Ogden 2014, 211–213.
24 Dakaris 1986, 151–155. Pausanias, meanwhile, indicates that Homer would have known these
places and therefore he would have dared to put those names to the rivers by those of Thesprotia
(Paus. 1.17.5).
25 However, other authors, such as Strabo, prefer a more westerly location of this episode of the
Odyssey, namely around Lake Avernus, in Campania (Str. 1.2.18; 5.4.5). Meanwhile, Pausa-
nias 9.30.6 blends the Campanian location (Lake Avernus) with the Thesprotian one, when he
refers to this sanctuary. On the possible Euboian influences on this ‘contamination’, both in the
area around Kumai and in Thesprotia, see Calce 2011, 83f. On other homonyms affecting Epei-
ros and other territories, see De Simone 1985, 70f.
26 Franke 1961, 40, 300.
27 For more information about this finding, see Daux 1959, 666–669, who dates these terracotta
to between the mid-sixth century and the last quarter of the fifth century BCE. See also Dakaris
1986, 161, who raises its chronology to the second half of the seventh century BCE.
findings can be linked with others that have been known for some time, although
the scarcity of archaeological remains of Geometric and Archaic ages in Thesprotia
was remarkable.28 Alongside some Corinthian pottery, the remains of terracotta fig-
urines of a religious nature have been discovered in Neochori-Gkrikas
(Paramythia), Mastilitsa, and Pyrgos Ragiou, all dating back to some point in the
sixth century BCE. At this time, it is thought that the latter location was a Corcy-
raean establishment built to control the mouth of the River Thyamis.29
Of particular interest are the findings unearthed at Mastilitsa, to the north of the
current mouth of the River Thyamis. Here, a cultic structure was discovered which
can be dated to between the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the
sixth century BCE. On the same hill, a fortified area was found from the late-Clas-
sical/Hellenistic period, as well as a necropolis where imported materials were dis-
covered (end of the sixth-beginning of fifth century BCE). The cultic area seems to
have been in use until the beginning of the Hellenistic period and comprises a rec-
tangular building (13.80 x 9.50 m.) facing from E–W, the remains of a possible
altar, and evidence that sacrifices were carried out there. It has not yet been possible
to ascertain to which divinity it may have been dedicated. Among the variety of
findings (pottery, bronze, etc.) there were also weapons (spears, swords and ar-
rows). It is difficult to determine whether this sanctuary and other structures de-
tected in Masilitsa correspond to the Epirote peoples, or if, on the contrary, and
perhaps more probably, they are an example of the control that Corcyra had over
this strategic area at the mouth of the river Thyamis.30 In any case, it shows the
introduction, even if it was at the hands of the Corcyraeans, of new forms of cult in
Epirote land that are similar to the usual cult types found in the rest of the Greek
world. On the other hand, the discovery of religious terracotta figurines both in
Mesopotamos and Neochori31 suggests that these objects began to circulate even in
Thesprotian land, and would have influenced the way that this religious phenome-
non was perceived by the Epirotes.
Continuing with the religious context, we should now return to Dodona. It is
accepted that the architectonic development of the sanctuary began from the end of
the fifth century BCE onwards and that, until then, it had been used as an open-air
sanctuary with hardly any constructions around it. Archaeological findings have
confirmed that after the site was used frequently during the Bronze Age, it is in the
eighth century BCE that we begin to find evidence of the development of a cultic
space at Dodona, documented by the unearthing of bronze tripods, similar to those
found at other sanctuaries of the time.32 It is quite probable that several of these
tripods were still offered at the sanctuary throughout the seventh century BCE, alt-
hough at present we do not have a full seriation of them. In any case, these offerings,
28 Vlachopoulou-Oikonomou 2003, 284–288.

29 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2009, 43–49; id. 2006, 67–70.
30 Tzortzatou and Fatsiou 2006, 70–77; Kanta-Kitsou 2009, 22–25; Metallinou, Kanta-Kitsou and
Riginos 2012, 352.
31 The terracotta found at Pyrgos Ragiou could belong to the (possible) Corcyrean fortified set-
tlement that may have existed in this spot.
32 See lastly Dieterle 2007, 170–182.
which increase in number and type from the second half of the seventh century BCE
and throughout the sixth century BCE,33 demonstrate that the sanctuary became
increasingly open to the outside world. The bronze offerings at Dodona, both im-
ported and from local workshops, are a clear indication that it was this opening of
the sanctuary that led, eventually, to the introduction of new products and new ideas
in the interior of Epeiros as the renown and popularity of the sanctuary increased.
The existence of imported goods at Epirote sites, which increase in number in the
sixth century BCE relative to earlier periods, is yet another indication of the pro-
gressive expansion of Epeiros’ horizons.
It is possible that the fact that the Dodona sanctuary was one of the places that
King Kroisos of Lydia chose to send his delegates in his quest to prove the veracity
of its oracles is recognition of the role that the sanctuary was acquiring (Hdt. 1.46).34
Besides, Dodona is the first place in Greece touched by the (shadowy) ‘Hyperbo-
rean offerings’ (Hdt. 4.33).35
Literary sources also show the increased recognition of the Dodona sanctuary
throughout the rest of the Greek world and, at the same time, its certain association
with the Thesprotians, although there are not many references to this. In addition to
the references found in the Odyssey (Od. 14. 314–330), which are perhaps slightly
more ambiguous than claimed by later commentators,36 there is other information
suggesting a clearer relationship between Dodona and the Thesprotians. Amongst
these, we should mention that in Aeschylus’s Prometheus, which, regardless of its
authorial attribution, alludes (in a passage in which the Molossian plain [πρὸς
Μολοσσὰ γάπεδα] also appears) to the oracles of Thesprotian Zeus (μαντεῖα ...
Θεσπρωτοῦ Διός) (Aesch. Prom. 829–831). Euripides also makes explicit mention
of the venerable buildings at Dodona (σεμνὰ Δωδώνης βάθρα), located in the lands
of the Thesprotians (Θεσπρωτὸν οὖδας) (Eur., Phoen. 982).
In previous authors, however, there is more ambiguity. In Pindar, for example,
a plea to Zeus of Dodona is preserved (Frag. 57 Mähler)37 along with number of
references to a fragmentary paean in which mention is made of the oracle’s location
next to Mount Tomaros and of the Elloi (Pindar favoured this name over the Selloi)
(Pind. Pae. fr. 59). In another more complete paean, the author makes another allu-
sion to Dodona through a reference also to Mount Tomaros while he tells us of the
arrival of Neoptolemos to Molossian land, located precisely next to the mountain
(Pind. Pae. fr. 52 f, 109)38. Finally, in the fourth Nemean Ode he refers to the con-
trol of Neoptolemos in Epeiros, which spans from Dodona to the Ionian Sea (Pind.
33 Dieterle 2007, 209–223.

34 Funke 2004, 159–167.
35 Tréheux 1953, 758–774.
36 Schol. Hom. Il. 16.233–235: ὅτι δὲ ἐν Θεσπρωτοῖς οἶδε τὸ μαντεῖον τοῦ Διὸς ὁ ποιητής,
φανερὸν ἐποίησεν ἐν ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ.
37 Δωδωναῖε μεγασθενές / ἀριστότεχνα πάτερ.
38 σχεδὸν δ[ὲ Το]μάρου Μολοσσίδα γαῖαν.
Nem. 4.50–53).39 However, Strabo (7.7.11) assures us that both Pindar and the tra-
gedians have classified Dodona as Thesprotian. The geographer tells us that “in the
olden days, Dodona was under the control of the Thesprotians, just like Mount
Tomaros or Tmaros”, although “after this it came under the control of the Molos-
sians” (Str. 7.7.11; cf. 7.7.5).40
It is the Thesprotians, therefore, who manage and oversee the sanctuary, and it
is reasonable to suppose that Dodona became, if it was not already, the political and
religious centre of the Thesprotian ethnos. We could further assume that the sanc-
tuary may have been used as a link for the different (sub-)ethne who accepted their
role within this composite Thesprotian ethnos.41
The lack of structural remains and even of public inscriptions before the Mo-
lossian occupation of the sanctuary means that we are unable to determine what
kind of relationship the Thesprotians had with Dodona;42 however, it is very likely
that the Molossians took over the sanctuary because it already represented one of
the focal points of their neighbour and rival’s identity as an ethnos. Proof of this
can be seen in the rapid conversion of Dodona into the stage for political activity
for the Molossian state, demonstrated both by the decision to begin a building pro-
gramme there, and also in the appearance of inscriptions of a markedly political
nature. The Molossians would have taken advantage of the central role that Dodona
had played for the Thesprotians, but made radical changes to the sanctuary’s ap-
pearance, in the process highlighting how Dodonean Zeus was now linked to the
interests of the Molossians and their royal house, the Aiacidai.43
Previously to this however, there is already evidence to suggest that certain
symbolic movements may have taken place which should be attributed to a Thes-
protian desire to present themselves, and their main sanctuary, with a more accepta-
ble past before the rest of the Greeks. This can be seen, perhaps, in the matter re-
garding the Selloi, the interpreters of the god referred to in Homer and who Pindar
preferred to call Elloi. The fact that Pindar, as far as we know, was the first to men-
tion this matter would confirm that he was writing at the time when the Thesprotians
were in control. The Pelasgic debate would also be linked to this, bearing in mind
that the god appears in Homer with this epithet. As we can see in the debate pre-
39 Δωδώναθεν ἀρχόμενοι πρὸς Ἰόνιον πόρον. It can be true, as Meyer 2015, 310f has suggested,
that ‘Dodona had in a sense always belonged to all the people of the region’; however, this does
not prevent the eventual political control of the sanctuary by the Thesprotians. An interpretation
of the Pindaric poems in Thessalian key in Calce 2011, 80f.
40 Ἡ Δωδώνη τοίνυν τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ὑπὸ Θεσπρωτοῖς ἦν καὶ τὸ ὄρος ὁ Τόμαρος ἢ Τμάρος [...]
ὕστερον δὲ ὑπὸ Μολοττοῖς ἐγένετο.
41 On the different Thesprotian (sub-) ethne, see Dakaris 1972, 86f.
42 Mylonopoulos 2006, 188.
43 I cannot discuss and argue here against the recent and alternative opinion advanced by Meyer
who sees the relationship between the Molossians and Dodona in a ‘minimalist’ way, suggest-
ing the existence of an ‘amphiktyony’ as well as a loose association between the King, the
people, and the sanctuary even in the fourth century BCE. Meyer 2013, 46–60; id. 2015, 297–
318.
sented by Strabo (8.7.10), this author is of the opinion that the sanctuary has a ‘Pe-
lasgian’ origin, based on the analysis of Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 142). Strabo is more
explicit in referring to the Selloi, whom he considers barbarians following Homer.
Whether the interpreters should be referred to as Selloi or (H)elloi, as Pindar would
have maintained, is not dealt with, since the texts are ambiguous (ἡ γραφὴ
ἀμφίβολος οὖσα). Strabo gives the impression that other authors link this name with
Ellopia, which is mentioned in Hesiod, although he seems to be more inclined to
follow Apollodoros, who prefers Selloi, and who relates the name of Ellopia with
the marshlands (ἀπὸ τῶν ἑλῶν τῶν περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν) that surround the sanctuary.
Despite Strabo’s version of events, the matter is more complex than it may seem
at first sight. The ancient authors gave various interpretations both of the name Sel-
loi and of Helloi than others, such as Pindar, would prefer.44 Herodotus tells us a
complex tale about the origins of the Dodona sanctuary in which various accounts
overlap, but all refer to the same location. Herodotus reinterprets and rationalizes a
tale that, he assures, he was told by the prophets (προμάντεις) or priestesses (ἱρήιαι)
of Dodona themselves and he links it with a story that he was told by the priests of
Theban Zeus.45 He reaches the conclusion that a woman who was sacred to the
Egyptian god, and not a dove as the Dodonian priestesses claim, had been kid-
napped by Phoenicians and sold ‘amongst the Thesprotians, in what today is called
Hellas, but used to be called Pelasgia’ (Hdt. 2.56).46 Herodotus is most probably
echoing here a story that had arisen about the Sanctuary at Dodona in which the
Homeric selloi have become helloi, making a relationship with the Ellopia men-
tioned by Hesiod easier to establish. All of this is expressed in the most detail in a
passage by Aristotle in which the author maintains that the Deucalion flood took
place on Greek land, specifically in old Hellas, which he immediately tells us is
located around Dodona and the Acheloos River (Arist. Mete. 352a 32–35).47 To
finish, the Stagirite assures us that the “Selloi lived in this region, as did those who
were then called Graikoi but are now called Hellenes” (Arist. Mete. 352b 1–3).48
The fact that this idea is already suggested in Herodotus and even in Pindar’s
reference to the selloi as elloi proves that we must look for its origin during the time
in which the Thesprotians had control over the sanctuary; the Molossians had with-
out doubt supported this idea and had perhaps even introduced a revision of the
tradition that located the original Hellas in the land ruled by Achilles, as suggested
by Thucydides (1.3.3). They may also have tried to take their supremacy away in
favour of a Molossia ruled by a dynasty that traced its origins back to Achilles’ son,
Neoptolemos. In any case, and despite the possible innovations introduced into the
tale, it is interesting to highlight how these origins can be traced back to the Thes-
protian period of Dodona. The sanctuary’s nuclear character, as well as that of the
44 Schol. Hom. Il. 16.234.

45 Nesselrath 1999, 1–14.
46 ἡ γυνὴ αὕτη τῆς νῦν Ἑλλάδος, πρότερον δὲ Πελασγίης καλεομένης τῆς αὐτῆς ταύτης, πρηθῆναι
ἐς Θεσπρωτούς: ‘In my opinion, the place where this woman was sold in what is now Hellas,
but was formerly called Pelasgia, was Thesprotia’ (translation A. D. Godley, 1920).
47 καὶ τούτου περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὴν ἀρχαίαν. αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ Δωδώνην καὶ τὸν Ἀχελῷον·
48 ᾤκουν γὰρ οἱ Σελλοὶ ἐνταῦθα καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι τότε μὲν Γραικοὶ νῦν δ'Ἕλληνες.
ethnos that controls it, can be explained by the creation of a tale of identity that
unites the Thesprotians with the Dodona sanctuary, and through which age-old or-
igins are assigned to the ethnos. It was common opinion, as we are told by Herod-
otus (2.52), that Dodona was the oldest oracular centre in Greece, and in the oldest
periods (the Pelasgic period), it was the only existing sanctuary.
As other authors have seen, the question of whether the Epirotes were Greeks
or barbarians depends on the internal or external point of view of the observers. It
seems clear that the Epirotes, possibly stemming from their royal families, have
emphasized their position by constructing heroic genealogies that, with time,
worked as Pan-Hellenic genealogies.49 We have little information about the Thes-
protian royal family because when the Thesprotians joined the Spartan general
Knemos in his campaign against Akarnania (429 BCE), Thucydides makes it clear
that they did not have a king (ἀβασίλευτοι). He says the same about the Chaonians,
although their troops were led by two annual magistrates who belonged to the fam-
ily that had ruled until then (ἐκ τοῦ ἀρχικοῦ γένους) (Thuc. 2.80). As is well known,
the Athenian author includes the Chaonians, the Thesprotians, and the Molossians
amongst barbarians, as he does with the Atintanians, the Orestians, and the Make-
donians, all of whom were governed by their kings (Thuc. 2.80.5–7).50 This persis-
tence of monarchical rule must have confirmed their barbarian nature all the more
for Thucydides. In any case, this information is interesting because although the
author does not give us any more detail, he does make it clear that at a previous
point in time the Thesprotians had kings and that at that time (429 BCE) they must
have been governed by magistrates, as is seen, explicitly here, in the case of the
Chaonians.
The existence of a monarchy in Thesprotia in the oldest times is documented in
the Odyssey itself, as we have seen. For later periods, other sources allude to this
fact, including two poems that are hardly known: Thesprotis (Paus. 8.12.5) and
Telegonia. The latter of the two was written by the poet Eugammon of Cyrene in
the sixth century BCE and seems to have been inspired in the former, or may have
even copied elements from it (Clem. Al. Strom. 6.2.25.1). In Proklos’ summary of
the Telegony we are told that Odysseus, once he has carried out the sacrifices fore-
seen by Teiresias, reaches the country of the Thesprotians where he marries their
queen, Kallidike (Prokl. Chrest. 315–316).51 Later on, after the war against the
Brygi and the death of Kallidike “Polypoites, the son of Odysseus, inherits royalty,
and Odysseus returns to Ithaca” (Prokl. Chrest. 321–323).52 Another later author,
the Hellenistic Lysimachus of Alexandria, calls the Thesprotian queen Euippe and
the son of both, Leontophron, who was then known as Dorykles in other authors
49 Malkin 2001, 187–212.

50 Funke 2000, 123–126.
51 καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰς Θεσπρωτοὺς ἀφικνεῖται καὶ γαμεῖ Καλλιδίκην βασιλίδα τῶν Θεσπρωτῶν.
52 μετὰ δὲ τὴν Καλλιδίκης τελευτὴν τὴν μὲν βασιλείαν διαδέχεται Πολυποίτης Ὀδυσσέως υἱός,
αὐτὸς δ' εἰς Ἰθάκην ἀφικνεῖται.
(FGrH 382 fr. 15 = Eust. Od. 2.117.17–18)53 and in Sophocles’ lost tragedy Eury-
alos, the son of Odysseus and Euippe, daughter of King Tyrimmas of Epeiros, is
named as Euryalos (Parth. Amat. narr. 3.1–3).54 The traditions from at least the
sixth century BCE, therefore recognize an Odyssean origin for the Thesprotian roy-
alty, in the same way that the Molossian royal house develops a Aiacid genealogy
and Chaonia linked itself with Hellenus, the Trojan soothsayer.55
This link with Odysseus may have had an important echo in Thesprotia itself
since, at least from a certain point in time onwards, they may have been the first to
emphasize their Greek origins, particularly before those Greeks who continued to
see them as barbarians, as Thucydides would at the end of the fifth century BCE.
The Odyssey, as we have seen, already hinted at the relationship that Odysseus had
with this territory, with King Pheidon, and with the Dodona sanctuary. Other poets
would then go on to develop and expand these links, taking advantage too of the
instructions that Odysseus is given by Teiresias in the poem that he must arrive at
a place where the people were unaware of the sea and all seafaring ways (Od.
11.121–137).56 Using these elements, Eugammon of Cyrene, perhaps basing the
Epirote part of his Telegonia on a previous Thesprotis, would have constructed his
plot in which Odysseus became the ancestor of the Thesprotian royal family. The
author of this work is not certain57 and as such it is difficult to trace in full the
origins of this tradition, although various authors have highlighted the Thesprotian
nature of the same, and its possible origins, in order to strengthen the pretensions
of local Thesprotian nobility.58 The Thesprotians, since their ever-increasing rela-
tions with the outside world, both in coastal regions and especially due to visitors
to Dodona, would have known in detail the different traditions that the Greeks had
passed down about their land, in which Odysseus played a central role.59 It is not
impossible that those who were most involved in contact with these Greeks would
eventually modify their ancestral ways of life and add imported objects to their res-
idences and their graves, as archaeology tells us, and begin to take advantage of
these stories to justify greater pretensions. It is likely that the region of Dodona
53 Κατὰ δὲ Λυσίμαχον αὐτῷ (τῷ ᾿Οδυσσεῖ) ἐξ Εὐίππης Θεσπρωτίδος Λεοντόφρων, ὃν ἄλλοι

Δόρυκλόν φασιν.
54 Jebb et al. 1917, I, 145f. There is an old and extensive bibliography on this topic. We can
mention, especially, Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884, 187–191 and Vürtheim 1901, 23–
58.
55 Malkin 1998, 137f; id. 2001, 202f.
56 Huxley 1969, 169.
57 Clemens (Strom. 6.25.1) attributes the authorship of Thesprotis to Musaeus, but his existence
is doubtful; however, some authors suggest that Eugammon could have taken a previous poem,
perhaps narrating a descent of Odysseus to Hades, and transformed it in a stay of the hero in
Thesprotia; see Vürtheim 1901, 49.
58 For instance, Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884: ‚jedermann sieht, dass sie auf thesprotische
Localsagen und genealogien hinausläuft‘; this author also believes in an Euboian imprint in
these traditions. Likewise, West 2003, 19: ‘The Thesprotian part of his story, which may have
existed earlier, was likewise constructed to bolster the pretensions of a local nobility’.
59 Or, as Malkin 1988, 133 puts it: ‘At some point they had become exposed to Greek values
attaching ennobling importance to genealogical links with the Nostoi’.
played an important role in these processes, which would also have occurred due to
the transformation of some Greek terms such as Selloi to Elloi or Helloi, which
would link them with the name for the Greeks, thus explaining why Aristotle and
other authors wrote what they did in the fourth century BCE, and what would be
echoed in other writers.60
On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that different Greeks other than the
Epirotes were interested in locating the origins of their people in this land, espe-
cially when the Homeric Poems themselves had made it clear that the original Hel-
las and the first Greeks were located in different territory (Hom. Il. 2.681–685). As
a result, it is possible that there is a relationship between the wishes of the Thespro-
tian elite, and in particular of its royal family, and the fact that they presented them-
selves before the increasing number of visitors to the Dodona sanctuary not only as
Greeks, but as the oldest of the Greeks. To this end, they would intervene in tradi-
tions that were already well established, such as the Selloi, changing the name so
that it became Elloi or Helloi, developing the Odyssean genealogies and even con-
sidering themselves as the progenitors of other Greeks such as the Thessalians. In-
deed, in Herodotus we read that the Thessalians had come “from Thesprotia to dwell
in the Aiolian land, the region which they now possess” (Hdt. 8.176; translation
A.D. Godley).61 This passage has been interpreted in different ways, including a
possible Thessalian interest in justifying its appropriation of lands around Pindos
using the tales of ancestral origins in different regions to their historical territories.62
The references in the Catalogue of Ships to the peoples who lived around Dodona
and seem to be the ancestors of peoples who, with time, would be included in Thes-
saly may have contributed towards this. Perhaps, in the same way, and as other
authors suggest, the Molossian interest in Neoptolemos may have come from con-
flict with the Thessalians.63 It is difficult to ascertain how and in what circumstances
these stories arose, but in any case, it seems probable that the creation of ethnic
identities in these and other territories was carried out by elaborating ideas of op-
position and confrontation, which can be expressed in mythical tradition. In this
context, we should ask ourselves who would benefit from the notion that their an-
cestors came from Thesprotia: the Thessalians or the Thesprotians? Although this
is not sure, it seems to have been the Thesprotians who would have insisted that the
Thessalians came from their land and it seems less likely that the latter developed
60 Among the various testimonies collected by Calce 2011, 95–104, we can mention, as the most
explicit, to Hesychius (s.v. ῾Ελλοί): Ελληνες οἱ ἐν Δωδώνῃ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς.
61 Θεσσαλοὶ ἦλθον ἐκ Θεσπρωτῶν οἰκήσοντες γῆν τὴν Αἰολίδα, τήν περ νῦν ἐκτέαται.
62 On the conflicts and tensions between Epirotes and Thessalians for the area around Pindos, see
Lepore 1962, 5f; however, some scholars have suggested some type of old relationship between
Thessalians and Thesprotians from the prefix Thes- in both ethnonyms: Dakaris 1986, 167. See,
also the interesting analysis by Parke 1967, 37–40 about the origin in Thessaly of the cult at
Dodona, suggested by some ancient authors, and their political implications.
63 Lepore 1962, 44–47; Malkin 1998, 137 suggests that the Molossian interest for Neoptolemos
could be related to the conflicts between the two peoples.
this idea.64 If this were the case, we could interpret it as another indication of the
Thesprotian reassertion of their ethnos before other Greek peoples, with whom con-
tact and inter-relations were growing by the day. The fact that it is Herodotus who
gives us this information is interesting because it is well known that he visited Do-
dona and was able to collect information of this kind there from the locals. In the
same way, it is also Herodotus who tells us that amongst the colonists who would
have immigrated to Ionia, there were Molossians (Hdt. 1.146). This information, it
is clear, would have come from informants from these people, perhaps reinterpret-
ing a particular mythical tradition that may go back to the period in which this au-
thor was alive. If this interpretation is correct, it seems that already in the fifth cen-
tury BCE the different Epirote ethne have advanced substantially in the confor-
mation of their ethnic identities and are in the process of finding a way of integrating
themselves within the Greek people as a whole, manipulating mythical traditions
and adapting them to their own needs.
It is difficult to know with certainty when the Molossians took over control of
the Dodona sanctuary (Str. 7.7.11),65 but it is likely that it took place during the
reign of Tharyps, or at least in the period between the fifth and fourth centuries
BCE.66 We have no more data on how the Molossians took control of the sanctuary,
but we do know that sometime later the Molossian koinon, or according to some
authors, the Molossian monarchy, began to use Dodona as the location for publi-
cizing their political decisions, as certain epigraphs dating back to the reign of Ne-
optolemos, the son of Alcetas, show (370–368 BCE.).67 Whether or not Dodona
was at this time the centre of a Molossian koinon or, as some authors have suggested
recently, of just an ‘amphiktyony’68 will not be discussed here as this matter needs
further debate, related as it is to the process of the ethnic and political configuration
of the Molossians. Dodona was already an important oracular centre open to con-
sultants from many different origins, as shown by some of the lead tablets found
there and that can be dated in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE.69
We can, however, assume that the loss of control over the Dodona sanctuary
must have been a harsh blow to the Thesprotians, since they had made it their show-
case to the outside world, which would increase even more under Molossian con-
64 Sordi 1958, 1–12 has analysed the different traditions about the occupation by the Thessalians
of their territory and she has stressed how there are clear contradictions in Herodotus between
the establishment in the valley of the Spercheus and their origin in Thesprotia. This would
suggest that Herodotus has combined different traditions, possibly from different sources, with-
out having noticed these contradictions.
65 ῾Η Δωδώνη τοίνυν τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν ὑπὸ Θεσπρωτοῖς ἦν [...] ὕστερον δὲ ὑπὸ Μολοττοῖς ἐγένετο.
66 Mylonopoulos 2006, 202; Meyer 2013, 13, with part of the previous debate.
67 Evangelidis 1956, 1–13. Although Meyer 2013, 21, 46–60 accepts that they must correspond
to this fourth century BCE King, Meyer suggests that ‘may be in its physical form a re-inscrip-
tion of these fourth-century grants’ which is also difficult to prove. What this scholar intends
to show is that, for those times there, a koinon of the Molossians did not exist, but rather, just
a state ruled by kings.
68 Meyer 2013, 115.
69 Lhôte 2006, 11–21; Dakaris et al. 2013, passim.
trol. Taking a retrospective viewpoint, Strabo (7.7.5) recognizes Dodona’s im-

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

identities, both ethnic and political. Despite some suggestions on the matter, it is
difficult to be certain whether the coins of Elea correspond to the ethnos of the
Eleans or to the polis of Elea, which is, evidently, the urban centre that this ethnos
had created to establish a new political system that was more in line with the pro-
cesses that are affecting the rest of Epeiros and other parts of these more ‘periph-
eral’ Greek areas.
What the archaeological data does prove is that it is around the middle of the
fourth century BCE that several Thesprotian cities are founded, or at least when
their walled areas arise. In this way, the first phases of the city walls of Gitana
(Goumani), Elea (Kastro Vellianis), and Elina (Dimokastro) seem to be datable
back to the middle of the fourth century BCE,77 as part of a process that may have
several means of interpretation. One of these interpretations could be related to a
policy carried out by the Thesprotian koinon, the political manifestation of the Thes-
protian ethnos, of favouring processes of population concentration and fortification
to improve the defensive capacities of the Thesprotians against growing Molossian
pressure or other threats. On the other hand, however, we should not forget that,
bearing in mind the not-so-precise chronological timeframes that archaeology pro-
vides us, we could also be facing here the first signs of a new Epirote state, the
symmachia of the Epirotes that may have arisen shortly afterwards. However, the
fact that we know of the Elean coins and that they have specific features that dif-
ferentiate them from Molossian coins and those dating back to after the symmachia,
seems to suggest that we are dealing here with a demonstration of Thesprotian pol-
itics. This impression is confirmed by the fact that there seems to be an important
continuity between the coins of Elea and the first Thesprotian coins. Indeed, a small
number of coins have been found that carry the legend ΘΕ[ΣΠΡΩΤΩΝ], that have
been dated back to around 335/330 BCE by Franke. These coins are similar to those
from Elea, with Persephone and her crown of ears of corn on the obverse and Ker-
beros on the reverse.78 This suggests that the cult dedicated to Persephone and
Hades that was at first linked specifically to the Eleans ended up being taken on as
a national cult by the Thesprotian ethnos as a whole.79 Despite the fact that the
numismatic evidence does not allow us to confirm it, this must have taken place
after the loss of the Dodona sanctuary and once it was under Molossian control. It
is usually thought that minting of a currency with the name of the Thesprotians is
related to the conversion of Gitana into the political centre of the koinon, which
seems to be documented by an inscription of manumission discovered there in 1960,
dating to around the middle of the fourth century BCE in which explicit mention is
made of a προστάτης Θεσπρωτῶν.80
77 Spanodimos 2014, passim and 220f.

78 Franke 1961, 47–51; Papaevangelou-Genakos 2013, 133f; Tzouvara-Soulis 2013, 189f.
79 On the establishment by Odysseus of other sanctuaries devoted to infernal deities in inland
Thesprotia (Lycoph. Alex. 800; Steph. Byz. s.v. Βόυνειμα) see Quantin 1999, 80f, 95.
80 Dakaris 1972, 86; Cabanes 1976, 451, 576f; Kanta-Kitsou 2008, 17; cf. Livy 42.38.1.
Of course, this evidence does not imply that the political organization of the
Thesprotians in a state or koinon corresponds to this moment in time. Throughout
this chapter, we have seen that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a certain
ethnic identity was present previously; on the other hand, the information given by
Thucydides (although he sees the Thesprotians as barbarians), and the mentioning
of the Thesprotians in Epidaurus’ list of thearodokoi (IG IV2.1 95, col. I 26)81 con-
firm that before these coins appear with the name of the Thesprotians, they were
already recognized as an ethnos.
As far as we know, these autonomous Thesprotian coins, which were very few
and far between, seem to have been in circulation for a very short time. The cause
of this seems clear: the creation of the first Epirote state – the symmachia of the
Epirotes82 – whose chronology is still the object of debate but whose origins should
date back to the reign of Alexander I (343–331 BCE). From this moment onwards,
Thesprotia would be included in this new state and the mints of the different ethne
that would be included in this state would come to a halt. This would mark the
beginning of a new period. Despite this, certain epigraphs that were close to the
union,83 as well as the finding in the archive of Gitana of clay stamps with the in-
scription ΘΕΣΠΡΩΤΩΝ seem to suggest that, even within this new state, the ethnos
would have maintained some kind of political affiliation.84
It is not easy to trace the construction of the Thesprotian ethnic identity but it
was, undoubtedly, a long process which lasted several centuries. Consequently, our
current perception on this issue must be ‘constructivist’ and not ‘essentialist’:85 the
Thesprotian ethnos is the result of a series of historical events, which we know only
partially, and of a series of conscious (and perhaps, sometimes, unconscious)
choices motivated by the interests and needs of the elites and ruling groups. The
creation and manipulation of foundation myths was a valuable tool to achieve these
goals. So far, we have traced the construction of this ethnos since the so-called
‘Homeric’ times but it is not possible to push this any further, and the ‘essentialist’
view that held that the Thesprotians were installed in Epeiros from the very moment
of the ‘arrival’ of the Greeks to Greece, and others like it,86 is no longer tenable.
81 It is generally accepted that the inscription would date between the spring of 356 BCE and the
early summer of 355 BCE: Perlman 2000, 70–72.
82 Although we do not have too much data, some authors suggest that the creation of this state
would not have been violent but rather the result of diplomatic agreements; Funke 2000, 188.
83 Cabanes 1979, 177f, 580f.
84 On these clay stamps, see Preka-Alexandri 2013, 224; there are also stamps with the name of
Molossoi and Chaones: Preka-Alexandri and Stoyas 2011, 679. These stamps, however, have
no parallels with the known coins of the Thesprotians and, consequently, its chronology is not
certain.
85 Siapkas 2014, 66–81.
86 For instance, Dakaris 1972, 52–54.
IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS.
As a summary of the key information that has come to light in our analysis, we can
conclude the following:
The Homeric Poems are the basis for later works that link the Thesprotians and
their elites or royal family with Odysseus. In these poems, there is also a suggestion
that there is a relationship between the Thesprotians and Dodona.
Archaeology confirms, on the one hand, how in some parts of Thesprotia the
people start to come into contact with the outside world from the eighth and seventh
centuries BCE and, on the other hand, how Dodona begins to become, at this time,
an increasingly recognized sanctuary by the Greeks from outside Epeiros. At the
same time, part of the population of Thesprotia must have continued living the way
of life of their ancestors, which ancient authors define as village-like (kata komas).
The increased contact with the outside world may have led to a convergence of
interests amongst the elite in terms of a common cult focused on Dodona that may
have served to bind together Thesprotian ethnicity and perhaps its first organiza-
tional structures, focused without a doubt on the monarchy as a common institution
for the different sub-ethne that accepted their belonging to the Thesprotian ethnos.
The development of the Odyssean traditions that legitimized the origins of the Thes-
protian royal family, in the same way that tracing themselves back to the Aecidae
does the same for the Molossian royal family, shows how the different Epirote ethne
begin to construct their own ethnic identities. In the same way, the control that the
Thesprotian ethnos exercised over Dodona is how they display their ethnos to the
rest of the Greek world. This is the same for other sanctuaries that were also Thes-
protian, such as the Nekyomanteion, that was not quite as famous as Dodona but
still of great importance.
As a means of strengthening the traditions of Thesprotian ethnogenesis, other
elements came to light too, such as manipulations of the name for the Selloi or those
that, perhaps in relation to these interpreters, would come to an end in time, locating
the ancestral home of the Greeks themselves, the Old Greece, in Thesprotian land.
In relation to this we can also mention other traditions that state that other peoples,
such as the Thessalians, can trace their origins back to Thesprotia. In all of the
above, we must be aware of the role that the Thesprotian monarchy had to play and,
later on, those circles that rose to power when the monarchy fell, to demonstrate
their Greek origins, especially when some authors, like Thucydides, do not hold
back from pronouncing the Thesprotians and other Epirotes as barbarians.
The decline of Thesprotia seems to begin with the loss of control of Dodona at
the hands of the Molossians. Despite this, Thesprotia participates in the process of
population concentration in urban centres that we can see in other parts of Epeiros
and that gives rise to the founding of cities such as Elea and Gitana in the middle
of the fourth century BCE. The first of these cities also seems to have been advanced
since it coined currency in its own name, emphasizing its relationship with another
important Thesprotian sanctuary, the one dedicated to Persephone and Hades. The
importance of this link comes to light when the Thesprotian koinon makes its first
coins in around the middle of the fourth century BCE, following the model of the
Elean coins and using as common Thesprotian symbols, those of the same sanctu-
ary, once Dodona is already the centre of the Molossian koinon. The creation of the
symmachia of the Epirotes opens up a new period in the history of the Thesprotians
that we will not tackle here.
Figure 1: Map of Thesprotia
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. (ed.) (2012) 2000–2010 από το Ανασκαφικό Έργο των Εφορειών Αρχαι-
οτήτων, Athens.
Ballabriga, A. (1988) Les fictions d’Homère. L’invention mythologique et cosmographique dans
l’Odysée, Paris.
Cabanes, P. (1976) L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine, 272–167 av. J.C., Paris.
Cabanes, P. (1988) Les habitants des regions situées au Nord-Ouest de la Grèce antique étaient-ils
des étrangers aux yeux des gens de Grèce centrale et méridionale?, in R. Lonis (ed.), L’Étranger
dans le monde grec, Nancy, 89–111.
Calce, R. (2011) Graikoi ed Hellenes: Storia di due etnonimi, Pisa.
Dakaris, S. (1972) Θεσπρωτία, Athens.
Dakaris, S. (1985) Epiro e Magna Grecia fino all’età arcaica, in Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia.
Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 103–131.
Dakaris, S. (1986) Οδύσσεια και Ήπειρος, in Ιλιάδα και Οδύσσεια. Μύθος και Ιστορία. Πρακτικά
του Δ’ Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια, Ithaca, 141–170.
Dakaris, S., I. Vokotopoulou, and A.P. Christidis (2013) Τα χρηστήρια ελάσματα της Δωδώνης. Των
ανασκαφών Δ. Ευαγγελίδη, (S. Tseiika, ed.) Athens.
Daux, G. (1959) Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1958, Bulletin
de correspondance hellénique 83, 567–793.
Davies, J.K. (2000) A Wholly Non-Aristotelian Universe: The Molossians as Ethnos, State, and
Monarchy, in R. Brock, S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Or-
ganization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 234–258.
De Simone, C. (1985) La posizione linguistica dell’Epiro e della Macedonia. Magna Grecia, Epiro
e Macedonia, in Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 45–83.
Dieterle, M. (2007) Dodona. Religiongeschichtliche und historische Untersuchung zur Entstehung
und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums, Hildesheim.
Douzougli, A. and J.K. Papadopoulos (2010) Liatovouni: A Molossian Cemetery and Settlement in
Epìrus, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 125, 1–88.
Eidinow, E. (2007) Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, Oxford.
Evangelidis, D. (1956) Ψήφισμα τοῦ βασιλέως Νεοπτολέμου ἐκ Δωδώνης, Archaiologiki Ephimeris
95, 1–13.
Franke, P.R. (1961) Die antiken Münzen von Epirus. I.– Poleis, Stämme und epirotischer Bund bis
27 v.Chr. Katalog und Untersuchungen, Wiesbaden.
Funke, P. (2004) Herodotus and the Major Sanctuaries of the Greek World, in V. Karageorghis and
I. Taifacos (eds.), The World of Herodotus, Nicosia, 159–167.
Funke, S. (2000) Aiakidenmythos und epeirotisches Königtum: Der Weg einer hellenischen Monar-
chie, Stuttgart.
Hammond, N.G.L. (1945) Naval Operations in the South Channel of Corcyra 435–433 B.C., The
Journal of Hellenic Studies 65, 26–37.
Hammond, N.G.L. (1967) Epirus. The Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and the Topog-
raphy of Epirus and Adjacent Areas, Oxford.
Hammond, N.G.L. (1997a) The Affinity of the Epirote Tribes with their Neighbours in the Central
Balkan Area, in M.B. Sakellariou (ed.), Epirus. 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization,
Athens, 57–58.
Hammond, N.G.L. (1997b) The Tribal Systems of Epirus and Neighbouring Areas Down to 400
B.C., in M.B. Sakellariou (ed.), Epirus. 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, Athens,
54–57.
Huxley, G.L. (1969) Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis, London.
Ivantchik, A.I. (2005), Am Vorabend der Kolonisation: das nördliche Schwarzmeergebiet und die
steppennomaden des 8.–7. Jhs. v. Chr. in der klassischen Literaturtradition: Mündliche Über-
lieferung, Literatur und Geschichte, Berlin.
Jebb, R.C., W.G. Headlam, and A.C. Pearson (1917) The Fragments of Sophocles, Cambridge.
Johnston, S.I. (2008) Ancient Greek Divination, Oxford.
Kanta–Kitsou, E. (2008) Gitana Thesprotia. Archaeological Guide, Athens.
Kanta–Kitsou, E. (2009) Δίκτυο Αρχαιολογικών Χώρων Θεσπρωτίας, Igoumenitsa.
Lamprou, A. and E. Saltagianni (2007) Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Ντόλιανης, in Εργασίες ανάδειξης και
νέα αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα. Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Ντόλιανης, Igoumenitsa, 5–11.
Lepore, E. (1962) Ricerche sull’antico Epiro. Le origini storiche e gli interessi greci, Napoli.
Lhôte, E. (2006) Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, Geneva.
Liampi, K. (2012) Royal Macedonian Coins in Epirus in the Historical Context, Jahrbuch für Nu-
mismatik und Geldgeschichte 62, 55–96.
Luce, J.M. (2010) Homère, les sanctuaires et le temps, Gaia 13, 9–55.
Malkin, I. (1998) The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization and Ethnicity, Berkeley.
Malkin, I. (2001) Greek Ambiguities: ‘Ancient Hellas’ and ‘Barbarian Epirus’, in I. Malkin (ed.),
Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, 187–212.
Metallinou, G., E. Kanta–Kitsou, and G. Riginos (2012) ΛΒ΄ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών
Αρχαιοτήτων, in M. Andreadaki–Vlazaki (ed.), 2000–2010 από το Ανασκαφικό Έργο των
Εφορειών Αρχαιοτήτων, Athens, 349–354.
Meyer, E.A. (2013) The Inscriptions of Dodona and a New History of Molossia, Stuttgart.
Meyer, E.A. (2015) Molossia and Epeiros, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek
Mylonopoulos, J. (2006) Das Heiligtum des Zeus in Dodona. Zwischen Orakel und venatio., in J.
Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds.), Archäölogie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen
Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands, Wien, 185–214.
Nesselrath, H.G. (1999) Dodona, Siwa und Herodot – ein Testfall für den Vater der Geschichte,
Museum Helveticum 56, 1–14.
Ogden, D. (2014) How ‘Western’ Were the Ancient Oracles of the Dead?, in L. Breglia and A.
Moleti (eds.), Hespería. Tradizioni, rotte, paesaggi, Paestum, 211–226.
Papaevangelou-Genakos, C. (2013) The Monetary Systems of Epirus, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevan-
gelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and
Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 131–157.
Papapostolou, I.A. (2010) Aspects of Cult in Early Thermos, Archaiologiki Ephimeris 149, 1–59.
Papapostolou, I.A. (2011) The New Excavations under the Early Archaic Temple of Thermos: Meg-
aron A, Megaron B and the ash-altar, in A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), The ‘Dark Ages’ Revisited,
I, Volos, 129–145.
Parke, H.W. (1967) The Oracles of Zeus. Dodona. Olympia. Ammon, Oxford.
Pearson, L. (1939) Thucydides and the Geographical Tradition, Classical Quarterly 33, 48–54.
Perlman, P. (2000) City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese,
Göttingen.
Preka-Alexandri, K. (2013) Νομισματικοί τύποι σε σφραγίσματα από τα Γίτανα της Θεσπρωτίας,
in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.),
Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 221–233.
Preka-Alexandri, K. and Y. Stoyas (2011) Economic and Socio–Political Glimpses from Gitana in
Thesprotia: the testimony of stamped amphora handles, coins and clay sealings, in J.L. Lam-
boley and M.P. Castiglioni (eds.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité, V, 2, Paris,
663–683.
Quantin, F. (1999) Aspects épirotes de la vie religieuse Antique, Revue des Études Grecques 112,
61–98.
Riginos, G. (2005) Δήμος Φυλιατών. Δ.Δ. Αετού. Θέση Σκάλα (οικόπεδο Αποστόλου η Μιχα), AD
60 Χρονικά B1, 573–575.
Riginos, G. and K. Lazari (2007) Ελέα Θεσπρωτίας. Αρχαιολογικός οδηγός του χώρου και της ευ-
ρύτερης περιοχής, Athens.
Riginos, G. and K. Lazari (2013) Νομίσματα από την Ελέα Θεσπρωτίας, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevan-
gelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Numismatic History and
Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens: 373–384.
Rohdenberg, R. and J. Marks (2012) Taphians and Thesprotians in the Odyssey and Beyond, Kyklos
1, http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5192 (Last accessed March 2016).
Siapkas, J. (2014) Ancient Ethnicity and Modern Identity, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to
Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford, 66–81.
Sordi, M. (1958) La lega tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno, Rome.
Spanodimos, C. (2014), Αστικές οχυρώσεις στη Θεσπροτία. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της οχυρωματικής
της αρχαίας Ηπείρου (M.A. Thesis), University of Crete.
Tréheux, J. (1953) La réalité historique des offrandes hyperboréennes, in Studies presented to D.M.
Robinson II, St. Louis, 758–774.
Tzortzatou, A. and G. Fatsiou (2006) Νέα στοιχεία για τη Θεσπρωτία των Γεωμετρικών και Αρ-
χαïκών Χρόνων, Epeirotiká Chroniká 40, 61–90.
Tzortzatou, A. and L. Fatsiou (2009) New Early Iron Age and Archaic Sites, in B. Forsén (ed.),
Thesprotia Expedition, I. Towards a Regional History, Helsinki, 39–53.
Tzouvara-Soulis, C. (2013) Θεότητες, ήρωες, λατρευτικά σύμβολα στα ηπειρωτικά νομίσματα των
κλασικών και των ελληνιστικών χρόνων και στα νομίσματα των αποικιών της Ηπείρου, in K.
Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou (eds.), Nu-
mismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 185–199.
Vasileiadis, S. (2013) Το μεταπρατικό εμπόριο ως δείκτης της αστικοποίησης των θεσπρωτικών
πόλεων, in K. Liampi, C. Papaevangelou-Genakos, K. Zachos, A. Douzougli, and A. Iakovidou
(eds.), Numismatic History and Economy in Epirus during Antiquity. KERMA, III, Athens, 561–
579.
Vlachopoulou-Oikonomou, A. (2003) Επισκόπηση της τοπογραφίας της Αρχαίας Ηπείρου: Νομοί
Ιωαννίνων – Θεσπρωτίας και Νότια Αλβανία, Ioannina.
Vokotopoulou, J. (1986) Bίτσα: τα νεκρoταφεία μιάς μoλoσσικής κώμης, Athens.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1884) Homerische Unterschungen, Berlin.
Vürtheim, J. (1901) De Eugammonis cyrenaei Telegonia, Mnemosyne 29, 23–58.
West, M.L. (ed.) (2003) Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC., Cam-
bridge, Mass.
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ETHNIC:
THE KOINON MAKEDONŌN AND THE MAKEDONES
REVISITED
Katerina Panagopoulou
University of Crete, Rethymno
Unlike many Greek States of the south, which defined themselves to a large extent
through participation in federal institutions from quite an early stage in their histo-
ries, this sort of federal practice did not form part of the tradition of the Makedonian
kingdom. The two constituent parts of the Makedonian state were the ethnos
(Mακεδόνες) and the king. The Mακεδόνες expressed their will through the ekkle-
sia (ἐκκλησία), which held a few regular meetings each year, and through a re-
stricted board of magistrates, termed by Justin (17.3.2) as ‘senatus’, and smaller
ethne (ἔθνη), i.e. regional groupings of rural communities, under a prostatas
(προστάτας), usually assisted by a secretary belonging to one of the minor ethne.
As the semi-independent ethne in so-called Upper Makedonia, to the West of the
river Axios (i.e. the Elimiotai, the Orestai, the Tymphaei-Paravaei) were granted
polis status, each political unit in Makedonia had its own politeia, legislation
(νόμοι), and government bodies (ἐκκλησία, βουλή, ἄρχοντες, variously called
ταγοί, δικασταὶ etc.). These were administered by an epistates (ἐπιστάτης) and by
an epōnymos archōn (ἐπώνυμoς ἄρχων).
Τhe common federal features shared by Thessaly, Makedonia, and Epeiros, but
which distinguish them from the ‘bundesstaatlichen Sympolitien’ of the South, have
been summarized by Hatzopoulos with two key characteristics: first, the hereditary
nature of the Head of State, and second, the absence of a regular synedrion of any
sort other than the king’s Companions and Friends, who were chosen by the king
through civic élites.1 That the Head of State was elected in theory, but in practice
was hereditary, not only considerably limited the Mακεδόνες’ influence over for-
eign policy (including war), but also restricted reactions to any royal demand for
additional revenues. Hatzopoulos thus regards the formulae ‘Μακεδόνες’, ‘τὸ
Μακεδόνων ἔθνος’, ‘αἱ πόλεις Μακεδόνων’, ‘αἱ κατὰ Μακεδονίαν πόλεις’ as
equivalent, mutatis mutandis to those from Thessaly (τò ἔθνος τῶν Θεσσαλῶν, αἱ
πόλεις αἱ ἐν Θεσσαλίαι) and from Epeiros Ἠπειρῶται = τò ἔθνος / κοινὸν τò
Ἠπειρωτᾶν) but there are no equivalent documents. Hatzopoulos points out the
king’s direct relationship with the Makedonians: he set the regulations for the army
and ordered (in writing) the epistatai (ἐπιστάται) under his direct jurisdiction, i.e.
1 Hatzopoulos 2003. In addition to the editors, anonymous readers and participants in the con-
ference, I should like to thank Dr. Paschalis Paschidis for his comments
364 Katerina Panagopoulou
on religious affairs, and arbitrations between local political units; he also wrote or-
dinances, i.e. diagrammata (διαγράμματα) requiring a formal legislative decision
by the local civic authorities and, finally, he wrote letters prompting the locals’ de-
cisions which were jointly addressed to the local magistrates, council, and assem-
bly.
As for regional administration, it is indeed Philip II, rather than the Romans,
whom Hatzopoulos credits with the division of Makedonia into regional districts,
merides (μερίδες), and with putting together the Makedonian koinon. Diverging
from the communis opinio since Larsen’s Greek Federal States,2 he dates the for-
mation of these divisions before Alexander III by virtue of their mention in Arrian’s
Anabasis (Arr. Anab. 1.2.5) even though they are not explicitly termed merides.
Hatzopoulos argues that it was the Thessalian tetrarchies, namely Histiaiotis, Thes-
saliotis, Pelasgiotis, and Phthiotis, which inspired Philip II to divide the Make-
donian realm into these divisions with local capitals (Amphipolis, Thessalonike,
Pella, ?Herakleia), in order to enhance control of the autonomous cities through the
strategoi, who were presumably appointed in their respective districts. He therefore
argues that, by 325 BCE, scores of autonomous communities sent delegates to fes-
tivals coinciding with the meetings of the Common Assembly, of which, however,
they did not form an integral part, and that by the early third century the adminis-
trative organization under Philip II was resumed in the kingdom through to the Ro-
man conquest.3
The rather frail equilibrium among the Head of State, the ethnos, and the local
political units ultimately led Hatzopoulos to underplay the discussion of the Make-
donian koinon, at least in the early stages of the kingdom. With this background in
mind, in this article I will set out to review the existing evidence for the formation,
structure, and functions of the ‘Makedonian koinon’ and to identify its potential
changes through time. I will also compare the use of the term ‘Makedonian koinon’
and explore its association with ‘the Makedonians’, at an attempt to draw the limits
between the federal and the ethnic use of the latter term in the light of the epigraphic,
numismatic, and literary evidence available.
I. DATE OF FORMATION & STRUCTURE
Τhere is no concrete evidence concerning the emergence of the Makedonian koinon,

or its specific institutional structure. In regard to the latter, the scholarly consensus
until recently was that the merides, the administrative districts into which the Mak-
edonian state was divided, were an innovation of the Roman settlement of 167 BCE.
According to Livy (45.18.7, 45.29.11, based on Polyb. 31.2.12, 17.1–2, 35.4.11),
Diodorus Siculus (31.8.7–8), and Strabo (7, fr. 47), the Romans divided Makedonia
into four separate regions in 167 BCE: the first lay East of the Strymon, with Am-
phipolis as its capital, the second between Strymon and Axios, with its capital at
2 Larsen 1968, 295–300.

3 Hatzopoulos 2015, 333–337; Hatzopoulos 2003; Hatzopoulos 1996, 231–260, esp. 253.
Between Federal and Ethnic: The Koinon Makedonōn and the Makedones Revisited 365
Thessaloniki, the third between Axios and Peneus, with its capital at Pella, and the
fourth comprising Upper Makedonia, Lyncestis, Orestis, and Elimiotis, with Hera-
kleia as its possible capital (Pelagonia). All the regions paid half of what the mon-
archy had levied from them to Rome – and this is the first time we hear of such
taxation previously imposed by the monarchy. Conubium and commercium be-
tween the different regions were forbidden, as was the exploitation of the mines and
the importation of salt, presumably encompassing both domestic trade among these
regions and ‘foreign’ trade with neighbouring polities. It has been argued that the
ban on salt had an equally heavy impact as that on mining.4 Historical arguments
based on new materials cast doubts on the Roman character of the merides and
Olivier Picard was the first to suggest otherwise (in 1982), based on his dating of
the minting of the silver tetradrachm type with the head of Zeus on the obverse and
Artemis Tauropolos on the reverse at the time of the Antigonid kings.5 His view,
supported by Touratsoglou and by Hatzopoulos, is now corroborated by the dating
of Ilya Prokopov of the silver (and few bronze) coinages of the first, second and
fourth meris prior to 168 BCE and by the attribution by Sophia Kremydi-Sicilianou
of a rare didrachm, carrying on the obverse a Makedonian shield and a club within
an oak-wreath on the reverse, signed with the rare inscription ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ on
the obverse, ΠΡΩΤΗΣ ΜΕΡΙΔΟΣ on the reverse, to the reign of Philip V.6
It has therefore plausibly been argued that the division of Makedonia into mer-
ides may be dated higher to the reign of Philip V rather than 167 BCE. But could
the existing evidence on the division of Makedonia into μερίδες be pushed to an
even earlier date? I am inclined to argue that the numismatic corpus of the precious
metal issues struck by the early Antigonid kings may actually add some numismatic
pieces to this puzzle. In fact, one might be tempted to recognise in the letters M, E,
and Ρ, which occur in many of the monograms of the Antigonid silver coinage (see,
for instance, the monograms marked in Figure 1.8; Panagopoulou 2001, 318, pl.
11.2; Panagopoulou forthcoming, chapter 6.2.4), the first three letters of the term
‘meris’ (‘μερίς’). The varied combinations of these letters are indeed quite persis-
tent and occur on a large number of Antigonid Pan specimens: in fact, they run
4 Crawford 1985, 127–129.

5 Picard 1982, 246.
6 Prokopov 2012. See also Hatzopoulos 1996, 250–255; Touratsoglou 1993. On the rare did-
rachm MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΗΣ ΜΕΡΙΔΟΣ, see Kremydi-Sicilianou 2007; on the Tauropolos
tetradrachms of the First Meris, see Kremydi-Sicilianou 2009. On the (roughly contemporary)
silver coinage of Philip V, on the second series (beardless head of the hero Perseus as episema
of a Makedonian shield / club in oak wreath), see Burrer 2009. Juhel 2011 argues that there is
neither direct nor indirect evidence for the existence of merides under the kings. Hatzopoulos
2012, no.265 counters this suggestion by arguing that the literary evidence concerning the Mak-
edonian army (Arr. Anab. 1.2.5, Polyb. 5.9.73/4), coins, inscriptions (Gonnoi II no.98: ἐν
Βοττείαι; Hatzopoulos 1996a, 241f; I.Beroia 4 l. 8/9), and the office of the strategoi (I.Beroia
1; SEG 39.606) prove the existence of merides under the kings. One may also add that the
existence of the administrative term meris in the East in the early Hellenistic period might imply
the prior existence of such an administrative division in Makedonia; on the meris as an admin-
istrative division in the satrapy of ‘Syria and Phoenicia’ in the Seleukid kingdom, for instance,
see Aperghis 2004, 271, with earlier bibliography.
through the first three periods of Antigonid coin production; in other words, they
continue until c. 229 BCE, i.e. until the period of reign of Antigonos Doson. It may
also be argued that they were continued in the monogram ME, which occurs on the
‘Zeus / Artemis Tauropolos’ silver tetradrachms of Philip V and on the coinages of
Perseus.7 This could suggest the geographical division of Makedonia into districts
since Gonatas and perhaps the districts’ involvement in the striking of new coinage
or in the supply of silver in the Antigonid kingdom, or ultimately in the payment of
some sort of taxation to the king. In fact, the absence of any letters, A, B, or Δ, to
indicate which meris issued which variation might refer to a period in which spec-
ifying which district struck which coinage did not really matter; namely at a time
when commercium among districts was enabled, or when taxation was imposed to
the Makedonian koinon as a whole and was collected through the administrative
divisions of the merides. If my reading of the above monograms is correct, one
would be tempted to interpret the mention of the merides on the Antigonid royal
silver tetradrachms through these monograms as evidence of some sort of coopera-
tion between the Makedonians and the king for the production of this coinage or
possibly the use of this coinage for specific payments on behalf of the meris to the
king. In other words, the presence of a monogram representing the administrative
merides in this royal coinage may be interpreted as the numismatic equivalent of
the epigraphic formula ‘ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ’, which
occurs in the official royal texts of the Antigonid period.8 But no further pieces of
evidence may be combined with Arr. Anab. 1.2.5, in order to corroborate Hatzopou-
los’s dating of the inauguration of this Koinon to the time of Philip II.9
7 On this monogram on the reverse of the silver Tauropolos tetradrachms of the first meris, see
Kremydi-Sicilianou 2009, 201, nos.1–2. The occurrence of this monogram on bronze and silver
specimens of kings Philip V and Perseus alongside silver (smaller denominations) and bronzes
of the Makedonians but also of Amphipolis, of the fourth meris and of Makedonia as a Roman
province are depicted in Kremydi-Sicilianou 2009, 196, Table.
8 On the epigraphic formula ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ, see, for instance,
Hatzopoulos 1996a, 313f, 491; On equivalents, such as [βασιλεὺ]ς Πύρρο[ς καὶ Ἀπειρῶτ]αι,
see Hatzopoulos 1996a, 491 n.2.
9 The Makedonian koinon, if it existed any earlier than Gonatas, might have been somehow in-
volved in the striking of the so-called ‘anonymous’ bronze issues carrying on the obverse a
Makedonian shield with a symbol on its central badge (i.e. gorgoneion, head of Herakles, club,
caduceus, omphalos, gorgoneion, prow, double-axe, torch), with the legend letters B-A but
without the name of a king. Liampi dates these issues, which are comparable to Makedonian
royal bronzes with monograms in the centre of the Makedonian shield, to the late fourth century
BCE, but, in the absence of a full reverse legend, leaves their issuing authority open: Liampi
1986, 54f; Price 1991, 116f; Liampi 1998, 101–105 (M 7–15), pl. 23. Their association with
the Makedonian koinon is not incompatible with the fact that they are combined with (roughly
contemporary) Makedonian royal bronzes with similar iconography, but such an attribution
remains highly conjectural. The letters B-A might have been legitimate, as the Makedonians
have always been presented as cooperating with their king. If the Makedonian koinon existed
during the period of the interregnum (285–77/6 BCE), then the general Sosthenes who at-
tempted to rescue the country from the Celtic invaders might have been among its leading fig-
ures: Euseb. Chron. I (Schoene), 235–236; Diod. Sic. 22.4; Justin 24.6.1–2. See Scholten 2003,
138, 157; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 253f.
II. THE SYNEDRION
Turning to the early function of the koinon in the early Antigonid period, if not
earlier, it is indeed remarkable that a body such as a synedrion is not attested in this
koinon until 167 BCE. The lack of evidence concerning its formal decisions might
be assigned to the dearth of inscriptions from this period, or to the absence of any
such epigraphic culture from this koinon. The Makedonians who made dedications,
together with King Antigonos Doson and their allies, to Delian Apollo subsequent
to the battle of Sellasia in 222 BCE are best regarded as co-representatives of the
Makedonian state rather than as members of the koinon.10 But prior to this docu-
ment, it is indeed uncertain whether the dossier granting asylia at the Asklepieion
at Kos in 243 BCE is complete. The four decrees corroborating this asylia issued
by prominent Northern Greek cities, namely Kassandreia, Amphipolis, Philippoi,
and Pella, are – for the moment – not paired with any similar act by the Makedonian
king and / or by the koinon11. The king’s willingness to recognise the shrine’s asylia
is, for one thing, explicitly taken into account by the Kassandreians (l. 10), the cit-
izens of Amphipolis ((l. 13–14) and of Philippoi (l. 13–14), but is not documented
independently. Nor have the Makedonian king or the koinon issued any such docu-
ments concerning any other inviolable shrines in the Greek world – unlike the Cre-
tan League, which acknowledged the inviolability of the temple of Apollo at
Anaphe. Turning to Asia Minor, several Leagues of the Greek mainland acknowl-
edged the asylia of sanctuaries, such as that of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia
on the Maeander, the sanctuary of Dionysos at Teos and that of Athena Nikephoros
at Pergamum. In addition to the Aitolian League, which occurs in all cases, the
temple at Magnesia was also respected by several Greek Leagues, by (Seleukid,
Attalid and Ptolemaic) kings and by cities, including Delphi12; while the sanctuary
of Dionysos at Teos was recognised as inviolable also by Delphi, and by several
Cretan cities acting independently from the contemporary Koinon of the
Creteaeans. The Delphic Amphictyony took position explicitly in the last two cases
only.
We would indeed expect the Koinon to have been asked to respond to the grant-
ing of asylia at the Asklepieion at Kos in 243 BCE; The exact wording of the re-
spective decrees deserves attention: in the first place, the Koan theōroi presented
themselves explicitly in the civic ekklēsia only at Philippoi and at Amphipolis; in
10 Hatzopoulos 1996, no. 24.

11 Philippoi: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.36; Amphipolis: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.41; Kassandreia:
Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.47; Pella: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.58. A discussion of the four decrees
may be found ιn Hatzopoulos 1996a, 127, 139–147, 161–163, 182 n. 5, 183, 203, 365f; Rigsby
1996, nos 23–27 (adding a possible fragment of a fifth decree, from Pydna). See also Buraselis
2004.
12 The Greek Leagues officially acknowledging the asylia of Artemis Leukophryene were the
Boiotian, the Aitolian, the Akarnanian, the Epirote, the Phokian and the Achaian respectively:
Rigsby 1996, 190.
Kassandreia they received a response by the boule.13 In renewing their goodwill

vis-à-vis the institutional authorities of the respective cities, it is remarkable that
only in the decrees from Amphipolis and from Pella do they emphasise their famil-
iarity with and closeness to the Makedonians prior to mentioning their favour to-
wards the respective cities alongside king Antigonos and the Makedonians.14 At
Kassandreia, the Koan theōroi reviewed the favour of their city “towards king An-
tigonos and the city of Kassandreia and the rest of the Makedonians”, as one would
expect.15 In the decree from Philippoi, the Koans express their dignity to the Mak-
edonians in a different order: the city and king are mentioned first, then reference
is made to ‘the rest of the Greeks’ and then to the Makedonians. 16 At Kassandreia
the Koan theōroi are praised for maintaining their good will “to king Antigonos and
to their city (i.e. Kassandreia) and to all the Makedonians”, but at Amphipolis and
at Pella it is only their good will vis-à-vis king Antigonos and the Makedonians that
is reciprocated (l. 7–8);17 the cities are not mentioned.
One might indeed wonder whether these differences in the wording chosen by
the above cities were purely coincidental. Leaving aside Philippoi, which lay be-
yond the immediate Makedonian nucleus, a comparison of the four texts shows that
there are more nuances favouring the Makedonians, and king Antigonos and the
Makedonians, respectively in the texts from Amphipolis and Pella. Praise of the
disposition of the Koan theōroi towards the Makedonians is mentioned early in the
texts of both cities, and both decrees conclude by complimenting the Koans’ good
will towards the king as well as towards the Makedonians in general. It is, of
course, worth noting that the two cities that rank the Makedonians and the king so
highly in their decrees are precisely the cities that were explicitly named capitals of
two regions in the Roman settlement of 167 BCE. Might they have enjoyed some
similar status any earlier?
Potential evidence regarding the Makedonians and their koinon proliferates
only slightly from the time of Philip V onwards. An unpublished decree of the
Makedonians discovered at the agora at Dion, which was presented by D. Panter-
malis in December 1993, appears to be in a similar vein as the set of four decrees
13 Philippoi: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.36, ll. 5f (ἐπελθόντες ἐπί τὴν ἐκκλησίαν); Amphipolis: ibid.,
no.41, l. 5f (ἐπελθόντες ἐπί τὴν ἐκκλησίαν); Kassandreia: ibid., no.47, l. 8 (δεδόχθαι τῇ βουλῇ).
14 Amphipolis: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.41, ll. 6f (τήν τε οἰκειότητα ἀνενεώσαντο τὴν
ὑπάρχουσα Κώοις πρὸς Μακεδόνας καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν ἐνεφάνιζον, ἣν ἔχουσαν διατελεῖ ἡ πόλις
πρός τε τόν βασιλέα Ἀντίγονον καὶ πρὸς Μακεδόνας); Pella: ibidem, no.58, ll. 3f (τήν τε
οἰκειότητα ἀνενεώσαντο τὴν ὑπάρχουσα Κώοις πρὸς Μακεδόνας καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν
ἀπελογίζοντο, ἥν τυγχάνουσα ἔχει ἡ πόλις ἡ Κώιων πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ἀντίγονον καὶ πρὸς
Πελλαίους καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν χώραν τὴν Μακεδόνων).
15 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.47, ll. 5–7.
16 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.36, ll. 6–8, 12f.
17 Amphipolis: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.41, ll. 12f; but earlier, in ll. 7f, the Koan theoroi are quoted
to have shown the good will which Amphipolis always had to king Antigonos and the Make-
donians. Pella: Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.58, l. 11f; Rigsby 1996, no.23; but note the peculiar
reference to the land of the Makedonians (ll. 4f); Rigsby 1996, 135 interprets ‘chora’ in terms
of ‘nation’ or ‘community’, and provides parallels with I.Maccabees 15.16 and I.Labraunda
42.10.
granting asylia to Kos. This decree is only indirectly known and is dated by
Hatzopoulos, through information drawn by Alain Bresson and by J.–Y. Empereur
to before 179 BCE, namely during the reign of Philip V when Kyzikos dispatched
sacred envoys throughout, claiming asylia as instigator of the festival Soteria in
honour of Persephone Soteira.18 A reconciliation with Kyzikos falls in line with the
period when Philip V reformed Makedonian foreign relations, even though the
Kyzicene theoroi carefully mention friendship between Kyzikos and the king’s an-
cestors – but not Philip himself. The Koinon Makedonōn makes an explicit appear-
ance in two more dedications in international sanctuaries honouring Philip V, one
at Delos and one at the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace.19 In the former,
‘the koinon Makedonōn’ honours Philip because of his aretē and because of his
favour towards them; in the second document, it is the ‘Makedones’ (without an
article) who honour Philip son of Demetrios to the Great Gods. A similar, though
more cryptic, dedication ‘in honour of king Perseus, son of Philip’, was found at
Dion.20 Finally, an unpublished fragment of a law from Dion, presented by D. Pan-
termalis in 1993, preserving clauses of a fiscal law, might also fall in the context of
the koinon.21 Given that Dion was the official sanctuary of the Makedonian koinon,
assigning this document to the period of reign of Philip V need not be excluded a
priori.
Turning to coins once more, instead of the mainstream view associating the
proliferation from the reign of Philip V onwards of coins inscribed as
MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ with specific references to merides, first, second or fourth, with
the grant to these administrative divisions of greater autonomy,22 we may instead
consider these coordinated issues by the kings, the merides and the cities in the last
decades of Antigonid reign as indicative of intensified monetary production, pre-
sumably in response to additional taxation or to extra expenses, in view of the war
against Rome. After all, Livy attests that the 100 talents the Makedonians were
required to pay to the Romans were half of the sum that they were required to pay
the Antigonids, thus 200 talents.23 In addition to the similar tetradrachms of the First
and of the Second regions, with a head of Artemis at the centre of a Makedonian
shield and with a club in an oak wreath on the reverse [Figure 1–2 (first region),
01.5 (second region)], we may likewise include a small tetradrachm issue with the
types Head of Zeus / Artemis Tauropolos, above MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ, below
ΑΜΦΑΞΙΩΝ (Figure 7). We now also know of a small issue of bronze coins car-
rying on the reverse the legend ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ ΤΕΤΑΡΤΗΣ (Figure 1.6). The ab-
sence of coins minted by the third meris remains uncontested to date. As the third
meris is attested as having been a large producer of salt (Livy 45.29.13), presumably
18 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.32, but note the inconsistency between the official dating on p. 51 to
225–200 BCE and the commentary on the inscription, which implies a terminus ante quem to
ca. 179 BCE; Rigsby 1996, no.171.
19 Hatzopoulos 1996b, nos.33 and 34, respectively.
20 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.35.
21 Hatzopoulos 1996b, no.56.
22 Franke 1957.
23 Liv. 45.18.7 et dimidium tributi, quam quod regibus ferre soliti erant, populo Romano pendere.
it was the ban on the salt trade that was intended to complement the ban on the
processing of silver in the First and Second regions.24
Following several revolts culminating in the rebellion of Philippos Andriskos,
the settlement of 167 BCE was soon replaced by the transformation of Makedonia
into a Roman province in 148 BCE.25 The actual process of its organisation into a
Roman province remains unknown, though after 148 BCE, the Roman governors,
their officers, and military troops were omnipresent in Makedonia. During the im-
perial period, the archiereus tōn Sevastōn, who annually organised and presided at
the synedrion, an assembly of the delegates of the city-members, was responsible
for the sacrifices made for the emperor, for the election of the archiereus for the
next year, and for the attribution of honorific titles.26 Most information about the
cult personnel comes from Philippoi and derives from the imperial cult, demon-
strating thus its social importance and high organisation level. Even though it is
often hard to define from the epigraphic evidence available whether people partic-
ipated in religious cult in private or in public, the mention of agonothetes in honour
of a specific deity or of the emperors reveals that festivals were part of cult prac-
tice.27
It remains unclear, however, whether the koinon was re-founded in the Imperial
period, possibly under Augustus, as an institution responsible for the imperial cult
or whether it was considered an extension of the earlier Hellenistic koinon. The
earliest inscription mentioning the koinon of the Makedonians, the synedrion, and
the merides comes from Beroia and is dated to the Flavian period,28 however, it is
so mutilated that it does not even attest to the presence of local synedria. The coin
issues of the Roman koinon first occur in the Julio-Claudian period during the reign
of Claudius, but the legend reads ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ (rather than ΚΟΙΝΟΝ
ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ); the full federal legend only appears at the time of Domitian.29
Papazoglou casts doubt on the continued existence of the Makedonian koinon after
24 Crawford 1985, 131. He also notes the equally large issues of Maroneia and Thasos in roughly
the same period; Prokopov 2006 agrees that the coinages of Thasos, in particular, circulated
broadly in the North but disproves of Crawford’s remark that virtually all the Makedonian and
Thasian issues in the hoards of the North Balkans were local imitations. On the imitations of
coinages of Alexander III and of Thasos in the Balkans, also see Lukavk 1996.
25 T. Liv. Per. 45, 50 already in 167 BCE mentions that Macedonia in provinciae formam redacta.
26 Papazoglou 1998, 143.
27 Egelhaaf-Greiser, Rüpke and Tsochos 2007, esp. p. 59; Tsochos 2007; Egelhaaf-Gaiser,
Steimle & Tsochos 2003; Steimle 2007; Tsochos-Steimle 2001; Tsochos 2001. On the signifi-
cance of the Roman imperial cult under the Empire, Herz 2008; Camia 2011, 243-7. On the
role of the Roman imperial cult among the koina in Greece, see, for instance, Camia 2011, 229–
242.
28 Kanatsoulis 1953, 296–299; Kanatsoulis 1953–1955; Cormack 1970.
29 Gaebler 1904, 259. RPC assigns three issues ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ to the Makedonian koinon during
the Julio-Claudian period, one for Claudius, one for Nero, and one for Vitellius (RPC I, 303–
305), and two more under the Flavians: one for Vespasian, with the reverse legend
ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ, and one for Domitian (RPC II, 74, nos.331–336). It is only under Domitian
that the legend ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ first occurs on the reverse legend of the two known
die combinations (ibid., nos.335f).
148 BCE, because once Roman officials took over the administration of Make-
donia, there was no further need for the merides as regional administrators of any
sort. Beroia was made capital of the Roman koinon and hosted festivals in honour
of the emperors, in whose family members’ names were erected neokoria temples,
and continued to function as such through to the mid-third century CE.30 Alongside
the prolific issues Beroia struck as capital of the Koinon of the Makedonians (car-
rying the legend ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ) since the reign of Claudius, it also issued a lim-
ited number of coins in its own name as a metropolis for the first time in its history.31
It is also worth noting that significant koinon officials, such as makedoniarchai,
agonothetai, synedroi, emerge from the approximately thirty known honorific in-
scriptions issued by the Roman Makedonian koinon during the second and the third
centuries CE.32
Special reference should be made to the unusual though still sizeable issue that
the Makedonian koinon struck in the third century CE in the name of Alexander the
Great, presumably at Beroia. This coinage, which comes in many different types,
has been associated with the celebration of the Alexandrian Olympian Games in the
reign of Gordian III on the occasion of the 600th anniversary of Alexander’s birth.33
III. MERIDES
The discussion presented so far fails to specify the exact date of the first appearance
of the Κοινόν Μακεδόνων and its fragmentation into merides. Hatzopoulos bases
his dating of the division of the Makedonian region into merides to the time of
Philip II upon the distinction by Arrian between cavalrymen coming from Upper
Makedonia and those from Bottiaia and from Amphipolis in his Anabasis already
during the Triballian and Illyrian campaigns between spring and the late summer of
335 BCE: the former were placed by Philotas at the right wing, while the last two
were placed at the left wing of the Makedonian army.34 Hatzopoulos interprets this
30 Kanatsoulis 1953–1955, 38–43; Papazoglou 1988, 143 n.18; Touratsoglou 2006.

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

division of Thessaly into tetrads.35 But it ought to be admitted that the evidence for
the division of Makedonia into administrative regions termed as merides since
Philip II, drawn from Arrian’s Anabasis, is rather feeble: the extrapolation of the
existence of such administrative divisions from their representation in the military
sector is perfectly legitimate, yet such distinctions are not documented in times of
peace. It is also worth noting that even if these divisions existed at the time, they
did not carry any names more specific than regional names, i.e. Upper Makedonia,
Bottiaia, Amphipolis (a city rather than a region). If the recruitment system de-
pended on such divisions, one would then expect that they would be followed more
consistently in Alexander’s army during his campaign in Asia Minor. One would
also have expected the merides to have been represented in the army recruited by
Sosthenes against the Celts (under Brennos) during the interregnum of 278–277
BCE and the concomitant anarchy that ensued from the controversy between An-
tipater, Ptolemy, and Arridaeus, which in turn led to the brief leadership by Ptolemy
Keraunus, Meleager, Antipater, and Sosthenes.36 I have argued above that the nu-
mismatic evidence not only confirms the existence of such administrative divisions
since Antigonos Gonatas, but that it also shows their continuation through to the
time of Perseus. In order to agree to a formation of the merides during the 4th cen-
tury BCE, however, more concrete evidence, epigraphic, numismatic or otherwise,
is necessary.
Equally contested is the origin of such administrative divisions: Hatzopoulos
assigns their implementation to a transfer from the administrative divisions in Thes-
saly, termed as ‘tetrades’ (τετράδες)’.37 The latter had been introduced by Aleuas
Pyrrhochrous / Pyrrhos in the second half of the 6th century BCE and initially played
a military role; they were gradually associated with lots of land (kleroi) and were
expected to contribute an army comprising a cavalry of forty and eighty hoplites
each. Each tetras comprised perioikoi, who did not serve as auxiliaries. That each
tetras, a set of four units, comprised four cities or four groups of cities in Thessaly,38
might hardly have had a parallel in Makedonia: while four major cities may be ar-
n. 6. Note also some indirect evidence of the existence of merides in Makedonia by the time of
Alexander III through the existence of such an administrative division in the East, in n.6, 36.
35 Hatzopoulos 1996a, 231–260; Hatzopoulos 2015, 321. On the division of Thessaly into re-
gions, see Aristotle fr. 497R; also see, for instance, Bosnakis 2013, 20 n.20; Gschnitzer 1954;
Helly 1995, 159f; Helly 2009, 11–13; Helly 2015, 233–239, with earlier bibliography.
36 Euseb. Chron. I (Schoene), 235f; Diod. Sic. 22.4; Justin 24.6.1–2. See Scholten 2003, 138, 157;
Hammond and Walbank 1988, 253f. One might also extrapolate the existence of such an ad-
ministrative division in Makedonia by the time of Alexander from the existence of the term
meris in Egypt and in the East in the early Hellenistic period: on the meris in the satrapy of
‘Syria and Phoenicia’ in the Seleukid kingdom, Aperghis 2004, 271. See also n.6.
37 See above, n.35.
38 Bouchon and Helly 2015, 233, but fail to explain accurately the exact criteria that determined
the division of powers along these rules in Perrhaibia, comprising eleven cities, or in Achaia
Phthiotis, comprising twelve cities: Bosnakis 2013, 26; Stamatopoulou 2007, 318 n.59; Helly
1995, 133–136, 140–142.
gued to have existed, among many more, in the third meris, the cradle of the Mak-
edonians (Edessa, Pella, Beroia, Dion), and possibly also in the second meris (i.e.
Thessaloniki or Herakleia Syntike), it is more difficult to maintain this argument in
regard to the Westernmost and the Easternmost regions. One might plausibly argue
that this distinction had been abandoned by Philip II by the fourth century; none-
theless, it becomes obvious that certain differences between the Makedonian meri-
des and the Thessalian tetrades cannot be ignored and thus the association of the
two is not self-evident.
Apparently merides, derived etymologically from the same root as mere, de-
noted territorial subdivisions in a federal constitution. The numbers of the military
drawn from each meris, and, concomitantly, the levels of taxation and also of pro-
portional representation of each, were proportional to the number of citizens living
in every meros.39 Beyond Thessaly, out of those confederacies in which mere are
attested, namely Boiotia, Achaia and Arcadia, Philip’s early relations with and mil-
itary training at Thebes prompt us to consider these Makedonian administrative di-
visions in light of their Boiotian parallels, which are attested since the second half
of the fourth century BCE. The eleven mere into which the Boiotian League was
divided during the early fourth century BCE, each dominated by a polis, were arti-
ficially created districts. They were represented by the boiotarchs, and were struc-
tured around the idea that each district should comprise approximately the same
number of citizens.40 Thus a Boiotian inspiration for the Makedonian system cannot
be a priori excluded, though the topic merits further consideration.
If Hatzopoulos is correct, then it may be argued that this koinon formed part of
a cluster of federal states founded in Northern Greece between the 6th and the 3rd
centuries BCE. It was formed later than the Thessalian League, whose emergence
is assigned to the 6th century BCE by Aristotle, although the first literary reference
to it dates to the fourth century BCE.41 But it may be chronologically closer to, if
not contemporary with, the Koinon of the Molossians, and, thus also to the koinon
of the Epirotes, whose foundation has been shifted from the late 5th / early 4th cen-
tury BCE to the 320s BCE, or even to the 3rd century BCE.42 Be that as it may, in
the period ranging between the explicit regional distinction in Arrian of the cavalry
into divisions from Upper Makedonia, Bottiaia, and Amphipolis passage, and the
(obviously later) silver numismatic issues in the name of specific regions, Bottiaioi,
39 Beck and Funke 2015, 15f, 26.

40 Hall 2015, 30, 141–148; Beck and Ganter 2015, 132.
41 Bouchon and Helly 2015, 239–241; Bosnakis 2013, 30. For the coinage of the Thessalian
League, see BMC (Thessaly to Aitolia) 1–9, nos.1–69 (Hellenistic), 70–89 (Roman), pl. 1.
42 For a date of the koinon of the Molossians and of the Epirote Symmachy in the late fourth
century BCE, see Liampi, this volume. Liampi rejects Meyer 2013’s dating their formation to
the third century BCE and opts for an earlier date for the Molossian koinon on numismatic
grounds, though not countering Meyer’s epigraphic remarks. She considers this federation an
unofficial institution which was gradually transformed into a federal association uniting ethne
and groups at times of war under the term ‘Epirotes’, and associates its formation with the
gradual 4th cent. BCE urbanisation at Epeiros. On the coinage of the Epirote League, see BMC
(Thessaly to Aitolia), 88–92, nos.1–67, pl. 17.
Amphaxioi etc., we may identify a gradual process towards the structural integra-
tion of minor ethne into the koinon, similar to that attested in Thessaly and in Epei-
ros. Had the Makedonian Koinon been founded under Philip II, we would expect
that it would have encouraged the structural integration of minor ethne into the Koi-
non, and that the impact of this process would have been visible a century later.
However, the upheaval during the interregnum in the early third century and, not
least, the brief leadership of Sosthenes in Makedonia in response to the Celtic inva-
sion, clearly show that the move towards a denser structural form had not yet been
achieved by the early 270s.
It is also worth comparing the numismatic behaviour of the Makedonian koinon
to those of the Thessalian League, its counterpart in the Antigonid realm, and of the
Epirote League. It is striking that they all struck monetary issues during the reign
of Philip V, i.e. after 196 BCE, in view of the Third Makedonian war. But none of
the koina struck emergency gold issues, even though at least some (i.e. the Make-
donian koinon) certainly had access to raw gold mines; rather, they all struck silver
and bronze issues for specific payment.43 These coinages presumably formed part
of the active participation of the koina in countering the imminent danger posed by
the Romans. They are also significantly less substantial than the coinages struck by
both koina under the Roman Empire.44
IV. THE ‘MAKEDONES’ AND THE ‘KOINON MAKEDONŌN’
Examining more closely the use of the terms ‘Makedones’ and ‘Koinon Make-
donōn’ in ancient literature allows us to define the exact borders in the use of either
term. We may indeed wonder whether the absence of any attestation of a synedrion
in the early stages of the koinon provides sufficient grounds for denying the early
formation of the Makedonian koinon in the Hellenistic period. Might we discard
the early existence of the koinon on the basis of this lacuna in the evidence? We
must admit that the ‘Makedones’ as a distinct body were fully functional at least
since Alexander’s campaign, and that their decisions complemented those of the
king; whether, and to what extent, they were capable of influencing or modifying
them is another issue entirely. However, as military contexts have allowed flexi-
bility for a number of ‘fixed’ institutions, such as the mints for striking coinage,
whose operation as ‘moving mints’ has by now been widely accepted to depict ef-
ficient military practices,45 I am inclined to argue that the institutional term ‘koinon
43 Liampi (this volume) argues that the silver didrachms and drachmae of the Epirote koinon were
minted on the eve of the Third Makedonian War. On the issues of the Thessalian League before
the same event, see BMC Thessaly to Aitolia, 1–6, nos.1–69, pl. 1. See also Kremydi-Sicilianou
2004.
44 On the Thessalian koinon in the Roman period, see Burrer 1993. On the association of Thessa-
lian coinage with Roman imperial policy, see Papageorgiarou-Banis 2004.
45 See, for instance, Howgego 1995, 26–30, esp. 30: ‘Thus mints might be permanent or tempo-
rary establishments, or indeed itinerant, in some cases moving with a campaign…, or with the
emperor’; Mørkholm 1991, 49–54, 57–62.
Makedonōn’ in essence equates with the body of the ‘Makedones’, who were in full
operation already during Alexander’s military campaign. In other words, the two
terms, Makedones and koinon Makedonōn, might have been interchangeable rather
than mutually exclusive;46 this flexibility might plausibly have been imposed by the
troubled military circumstances from the military campaign of Alexander III
through to the Antigonid period. Thus it is contemporary historical conventions,
rather than ancient practices, that are to be blamed for attempting an accurate dis-
tinction between federal koina and ethnos states.
It is essential that we clarify at this point the exact meaning of the term ‘Make-
dones’, the second component of the Makedonian state. In interpreting the meaning
of the ‘Thessalians’, its counterpart body, Marta Sordi regards the termini technici
‘cities of the Thessalians’, ‘the Thessalians’, and to koinon tōn Thessalōn or ‘to
Thessalōn ethnos’, as essentially equivalent, denoting the assembly of the repre-
sentatives of the Thessalian cities. In a similar vein, Fanoula Papazoglou has also
concluded independently that, rather than representing a military assembly, the term
‘the Makedonians’ stood for a body similar to the synedria of the Hellenistic
Koina.47 Furthermore, on the basis of the formulae of the koan asylia decrees issued
by the Makedonian poleis, where ‘oi Makedones’ are quoted alongside the king,
she assigns the genesis of the Makedonian koinon to the reign of Antigonos Gonatas
(rather than to that of Doson).48 Be that as it may, the ‘freedom of the Makedonians’
in the Makedonian state is indeed severely challenged by Polybios, who emphati-
cally points out that the Makedonians were not free under their kings. On the occa-
sion of Andriskos’s revolt, for instance, he points out that “For the Makedonians
had met with many signal favours from Rome; the country as a whole had been
delivered from the arbitrary rule and taxation of autocrats and, as all confessed, now
enjoyed freedom instead of servitude (kai metalabontes apo douleias omologoume-
nōs eleutherian), and the several cities had, owing to the beneficent actions of
Rome, been freed form serious civil discord and internecine massacres…”.49 Even
though freedom from the ‘monarchika epitagmata’ did not in this case entail abol-
ishment of taxation, as the Makedonians were still obliged to pay the Roman state
100 talents, i.e. half of the amount of money they paid to the king, they were now
held wholly responsible for the defence of the merides and faced the challenge of
more active involvement in regional administration. I argue that ultimately the key
46 See, for instance, Parker 2011, 112 and n.11: ‘it is clear from several texts that terms such as
ethnos and koinon are not technical and mutually exclusive’. See also 112 n.11: IG XII Suppl.
p. 7 no.3; also e.g. IG IX.2 508. It is also worth noting that Hatzopoulos 2000, no.439 suggests
that the term κοινόν τῶν Μακεδόνων is similar to the ἔθνος τῶν Μακεδόνων (cf. I.Beroia 89,
101, 115–118).
47 See, for instance, Papazoglou 1988, 53–71, 143.
48 Papazoglou 1988, 43–46.
49 Polyb. 36.17.13: Μακεδόνες μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἐτετεύχεισαν
φιλανθρωπιῶν, κοινῇ μὲν πάντες ἀπολυθέντες μοναρχικῶν ἐπιταγμάτων καὶ φόρων καὶ
μεταλαβόντες ἀπὸ δουλείας ὁμολογουμένως ἐλευθερίαν, ἰδίᾳ δὲ πάλιν κατὰ πόλεις ἐκλυθέντες
ἐκ μεγάλων στάσεων καὶ φόνων ἐμφυλίων διὰ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ...... φιλοτ̣ιμίας·
variable in the political reshuffle caused by the transition from the Antigonid mon-
archy to the ‘republican’ administration through the fragmentation of the koinon
into republican districts was the body of the Makedonians per se. It was they who
were attached to the king under the monarchy, presumably selected through the
channels that led from the civic élites to the royal court,50 though whether those
channels went through the Makedonian koinon or not is difficult to determine in
light of our extant evidence. They were now called upon to focus on their civic
communities and to participate through them in the federal procedures orchestrated
by the koinon. Though I find it hard to understand how this relocation and substan-
tial change of role in the koinon would have been possible in the final stages of the
monarchy under Philip V and Perseus, I argue that it was this transition that ulti-
mately determined the new profile of the Makedonian state after 167 BCE and that
ultimately led to the final subjugation of the Makedonians to the Romans in 148
BCE.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In order to put the above evidence together into a coherent picture, one may point
out the following major issues:
1. The political formation of the Makedonian koinon is dated with a fair degree
of certainty to the early reign of Antigonos Gonatas. Further evidence is re-
quired in order to confirm its formation under Philip II, or slightly later.
2. There is no evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, to confirm the creation and

existence of a synedrion or the performance of rituals and festivals as part of
such gatherings of the Makedonians. While this absence of evidence need not
necessarily be interpreted as the outright absence of such institutions and regu-
lar meetings, suffice it to say that the Makedonian koinon did not display an
epigraphic habit and was not mentioned in literary sources until the reign of
Philip V.
3. One would expect the presence of some similarities to and / or communica-

tion with the neighbouring koinon of the Thessalians, which was also under
Makedonian protection and was led by the hereditary tagos, the Makedonian
king. A relatively new decree, which provides explicit proof of the full function
of the Thessalian koinon’s institutions in the late third century BCE, contrasts
with the absolute silence in contemporary sources regarding its Makedonian
equivalent.51
50 Paschidis 2006; Paschidis 2008, 469–486, 501–505.

51 Parker 2011. Particular thanks are due to Maria Mili for pointing out this inscription to me.
4. Whether the creation of the koinon was prompted by the king remains uncer-
tain. The formation of the Makedonian koinon upon royal instigation would
have predetermined its divergence from its Southern counterparts. The koinon
of the Islanders and the Euboian League were created under the royal aegis and
were more prone to satisfying royal wishes,52 but one can certainly follow their
own institutions in full operation through the remaining testimonia. Unfortu-
nately, this is not the case with Makedonia.
5. The absence of explicit early references to a synedrion and the obvious am-
biguity in the use of the terms ‘Makedones’ and ‘koinon makedonōn’ in all
types of evidence, epigraphic, literary and numismatic, allow for the possibility
that the line between the two bodies could have been blurred. I argue that the
most important variable available to us in unpacking the Makedonian case was
the transformative processes that the Makedones went through in order to fully
adopt a federal behaviour.
Shall we then follow Polybios in crediting the Makedonians with ἀήθεια

συνεδριακῆς καὶ δημοκρατικῆς πολιτείας? At the end of the day, the Makedones
and the Makedonian koinon may well have represented two sides of the same coin;
in other words, both terms may be taken as different expressions of a well-estab-
lished ethnicity in the minds of the Northern Greeks. It is striking that the same
author, who was a priori prejudiced against the authoritative Makedonian kingship,
admits that the Makedonians were qualified with isegoria (ἰσηγορία) towards their
kings.53 Paschidis interprets their isegoria and parrhesia not only as ‘obsolete rem-
nants of the archaic self-image of Makedonian nobles as free men of essentially free
rights to the king, but also as the more modern outcome of the self-esteem devel-
oped by citizens who were familiar with decision-making, in war, in administration
and in politics’.54 I suggest that these qualities were acquired not only in civic con-
texts, but also through the decision-making processes put in effect through the Mak-
edonian koinon. It is highly probable that a fair number of competent individuals
who excelled in civic contexts and in the court élite were among those who also
shaped, or largely influenced, the decisions of the Makedones, as a koinon or as an
ethnos.
52 On the koinon of the Islanders, see Buraselis 2015; Buraselis 1982, 60–87; on the Euboian
League, see Knoepfler 2015, with earlier bibliography. On the Euboian League in the 2nd cent.
BCE, see Giannakopoulos, this volume.
53 Polyb. 5.27.5: συνέντες δ’ οἱ πελτασταὶ τὸ γεγονός, διαπεμψαμένου τινὰ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοῦ
Λεοντίου, πρεσβευτὰς ἐξαπέστειλαν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, παρακαλοῦντες, εἰ μὲν πρὸς ἄλλο τι
πεποίηται τὴν ἀπαγωγὴν τοῦ Λεοντίου, μὴ χωρὶς αὑτῶν ποιήσασθαι τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν
ἐγκαλουμένων κρίσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, ὅτι νομιοῦσι μεγαλείως παρολιγωρεῖσθαι καὶ καταγινώσκεσθαι
πάντες—εἶχον γὰρ ἀεὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἰσηγορίαν Μακεδόνες πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς—εἰ δὲ πρὸς
τὴν ἐγγύην τοῦ Μεγαλέου, διότι τὰ χρήματα κατὰ κοινὸν εἰσενέγκαντες ἐκτίσουσιν αὐτοί.
54 Paschidis 2006, 265f, n.107.
It may accordingly be argued that, by juxtaposing its absences and its slow but
steady emergence in the sources, we may largely reconstruct the history of the Mak-
edonian koinon in conjunction with that of the Makedones through to the late Ro-
man period. It would indeed be very intriguing to determine how the Makedonians
achieved the transition from faithfulness to the kings to the consistent adoption of
federal behaviour at the time of Philip V and Perseus, and how they went through
the Koinon’s transformation into a different institution under the Empire, but our
sources fall short of our expectations. Even so, there is good reason for us to main-
tain, contrary to Polybios, that the Makedonians were not unaccustomed to demo-
kratikē and synedriakē politeia. It is rather ironic that history did not prove him
wrong.
KEY TO FIGURE 1
1) Silver Tetradrachm of the First Meris. Before 168 BCE. Gorny & Mosch 211
(04.03.2013) lot 205 (17,12g).
2) Silver Tetradrachm of the First Meris – imitation. Gorny & Mosch 121 (2003)
no. 13 (16,88g).
3) Silver Tetradrachm of the First Meris. Before 168 BCE. CNG Triton VII
(12.09.2004) lot 136.
4) Silver Didrachm of the First Meris. Before 168 BCE. Classical Numismatic
Group, Triton VIII (11.01.2005) lot no. 205; 7.70 g, 8 h; Kremydi-Sicilianou
2007, pl. XIII.2.
5) Silver Tetradrachm of the Second Meris. Before 168 BCE. Classical Numis-
matic Group, Triton XIV (04.01.2011) lot 97 (31mm 16.62g 9h).
6) Bronze Coin of the Fourth Meris. Before 168 BCE. Prokopov 2014, 24, n. 30,
no. 2; pl. 74.2: Lanz 114 (26.05.2003) no. 108.
7) Silver Tetradrachm MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ ΑΜΦΑΞΙΩΝ. Before 168 BCE. Paris,
BNF (photo courtesy of Dr. J. Olivier) (16,95 g).
8) Early Antigonid Coins: Monograms [Panagopoulou 2016, 6.2.4, fig. 6.6].
Figure I: Early Antigonid Coins & Monograms

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aperghis, G.G. (2004) The Seleukid Royal Economy. The finances and financial administration of
the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge.
Bosnakis, D. (2013) Ἐνθετταλίζεσθαι, Τεχνοτροπία και ιδεολογία των θεσσαλικών επιτυμβίων ανα-
γλύφων του 5ου και του 4ου αι. π.Χ., Μελέτες 2, Volos.
Bouchon, R. and B. Helly (2015) The Thessalian League, in H. Beck amd P. Funke (eds.), Federal-
ism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 231–249.
Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis: Forschungen zur Politik des
Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorke-
tes und Antigonos Gonatas im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien), München.
Buraselis, K. (2004) Some Remarks on the Koan Asylia (242 BC) against its International Back-
ground, in K. Hôghammar (ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture,
Proceedings of an International Seminar organized by the Department of Archaeology and
Ancient History, Uppsala University, 11–13 May 2000, Uppsala, 15–20.
Buraselis, K. (2015) Federalism and the Sea: The Koina of the Aegean Islands, in H. Beck and P.
Buraselis, K. and K. Zoumboulakis (eds.) (2003) The Idea of European Community in History vol.
ghII, Athens.
Burnett, A. (2000) The Coinage of Roman Macedonia, in P. Adam-Veleni (ed.), Το νόμισμα στο
μακεδονικό χώρο, Πρακτικά Β᾽ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Οβολός 4, Thessaloniki, 89–91.
Burrer, F. (1993) Münzprägung und Geschichte des thessalischen Bundes in der römischen Kaiser-
zeit bis auf Hadrian (31 v.Chr.–138 n.Chr.), Saarbrücken.
Burrer, F. (2009) Die Tetradrachmenprägung Philips V. von Makedonien, Serie II, Jahrbuch für
Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 59, 10–70.
Camia, F. (2011) Theoi Sebastoi: il culto degli imperatori romani in Grecia (provincia Achaia) nel
secondo secolo D.C., Athens.
Cormack, J.M.R. (1970) Progress Report on the Greek Inscriptions of the Trite Meris for IG C, in
B. Laourdas and C. Makaronas (eds.), Archaia Makedonia I, Papers read at the First Interna-
tional Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 26–29 August 1968, Thessaloniki, 193–202.
Crawford, M.H.C. (1985) Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, Italy and the Mediterra-
nean Economy, London.
Dahmen, K. (2005) The Alexander Busts of the Macedonian Koinon – New Evidence for Sequence
and Chronology, Numismatic Chronicle 165, 179–181.
Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U., Rüpke, J. & Tsochos, Ch. (2007) Religion in der römischen Provinz Makedo-
nien’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), Antike Religionsgeschichte in räumlicher Perspektive, Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 50–65.
Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U., Steimle, Ch. and Tsochos, Ch. (2003) Religion in der römischen Provinz Ma-
kedonien, in H. Cancik, J. Rüpke (edd.), Römische Reichs- und Provinzialreligion -Globalisie-
rungs- und Regionalisierungsprozesse in der antiken Religionsgeschichte. Ein Forschungpro-
gramm stellt sich vor, Erfurt, 154–67.
Frank, T. (1914) Representative Government in the Macedonian Republics, Classical Philology 9,
49–59.
Franke, P.R. (1957) Zur Finanzpolitik des makedonischen Königs Perseus während des Krieges mit
Rom 171–168 v. Chr., Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 8, 31–50.
Gaebler, H. (1904) Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens. IV. Makedonien in der Kaiserzeit, Zeitschrift für
Numismatik 24, 245–338.
Gaebler, H. (1906) Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, vol. III.1. Makedonia und Paionia,
Berlin.
Gaebler, H. (1935) Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, vol. III.2. Makedonia und Paionia,
Berlin.
Gschnitzer, F. (1954) Namen und Wesen der Thessalischen Tetraden, Hermes 82, 451–464.
Hammond, N.G.L. and F.W. Walbank (1988) A History of Macedonia, III: 336–176 B.C., Oxford.
Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996a) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. I, Athens.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (1996b) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, vol. II, Athens.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2000) Bulletin Epigraphique, no. 439.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2003) Polis, ethnos and kingship in Northern Greece, in K. Buraselis and K.
Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History II: Aspects of Connecting
Poleis and Ethne in Ancient Greece, Athens.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2012) Bulletin Epigraphique, no. 265.
Hatzopoulos, M.B. (2015) Federal Macedonia, in H. Beck and P. Funke, Federalism in Antiquity,
Cambridge, 319–340.
Helly, B. (1973) Gonnoi I–II, Amsterdam.
Helly, B. (2009) H οικιστική και διοικητική κατανομή της Θεσσαλίας από τη νεολιθική εποχή έως
το τέλος της αρχαιότητας, in Θεσσαλία. Ανθολόγιο πρακτικών 1ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ιστορίας
και Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας, Athens 69–79 [= Β. Helly, Éléments pour une histoire de la
distribution des territoires en Théssalie de l’époque Néolithiqu à la fin de l’Antiquité’, in 1o
Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας και Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας, Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου, 9–11
Nοεμβρίου 2006, Thessaly, 195–205].
Hertz, P. (2007) Emperors : Caring for the Empire and Their Successors, in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Com-
panion to Roman Religion, Malden, Oxford, Victoria, Australia, 304–316.
Howgego, C. (1995) Ancient History from Coins, London/New York.
Juhel, P.O. (2011) Un fantôme de l’histoire hellénistique: le ‘district’ macédonien, Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Studies 51, 579–612.
Kanatsoulis, D. (1953–1955) Tὸ κοινὸν τῶν Μακεδόνων, Makedonika 3, 27–102.
Kanatsoulis, D. (1953) Tὸ κοινόν τῶν Μακεδόνων καὶ τὰ συνέδρια τῶν μερίδω, Ἑλληνικἀ.
Παράρτημα 4, Προσφορά εἰς Στ. Κυριακίδην, Thessalonike, 294–304.
Kanatsoulis, D. (1973) Oἱ μακεδονιάρχαι τοῡ κοινοῡ τῶν Μακεδόνων και η κοινωνική θέσις αυτων
εις τας Μακεδονικάς πόλεις, Makedonika 13, 1–37.
Klose, D. (1998) Zur Chronologie der thessalischen Koinonprägungen im 2. und 1. Jh. v. Chr. Ein
weiterer Schatzfund aus Südthessalien, in U. Peter (ed.), Stephanos Nomismatikos, Berlin, 333–
350.
Knoepfler, D. (2015) The Euboian League – an ‘irregular’ koinon? in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.),
Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. (2004) Hoard Evidence from Thessaly in the Second and First Centuries BC:
from a Multi–Currency to a Double–Currency System, in L. Kypraiou (ed.), To νόμισμα στο
Θεσσαλικό χώρο, Αthens, 235–258.
Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. (2007) MAKEΔΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΗΣ ΜΕΡΙΔΟΣ. Evidence for a Coinage under
the Antigonids, Révue Numismatique 163, 91–100.
Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. (2009) The Tauropolos Tetradrachms of the First Macedonian Meris: Prov-
enance, Iconography and Dating, in Κερμάτια Φιλίας, Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Γιάννη
Τουράτσογλου, Athens, 191–201.
Liampi, K. (1986) Zur Chronologie der sogenannten ‘anonymen makedonischen Münzen des späten
4. Jhs. v. Chr., Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 36, 41–65.
Liampi, K. (1998) Der Makedonische Schild, Athens.
Lukavk, I. (1996) Les imitations des monnaies d’Alexandre le Grand et de Thasos, Wetteren.
Meyer, E.A. (2013) The Inscriptions of Dodona and a New History of Molossia, Stuttgart.
Meyer, E.A. (2015) Molossia and Epeiros, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek
Mørkholm, O. (1991) Early Hellenistic Coinage: from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of
Apamea (336–188 B.C.), Cambridge/New York.
Panagopoulou, K. (2001) The Antigonids: Patterns of a Royal Economy, in Z. Archibald, J.K. Da-
vies, V. Gabrielsen, and G.J. Oliver (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London, 313–362.
Panagopoulou, K. (forthcoming) The Early Antigonids: Coinage, Money and the Economy, New
York.
Papageorgiadou-Banis, C. (2004) Θεσσαλία και ρωμαϊκή νομισματική πολιτική, in Coins in the
Thessalian Region. Mints, Circulation, Iconography, History, Ancient, Byzantine, Modern,
Athens, 51–63.
Papazoglou, F. (1963) Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie macédoniennes, Bulletin de correspon-
Papazoglou, F. (1979) Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la province de Macédoine, in H. Temporini
(ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 302–369.
Papazoglou, F. (1988) Les Villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine, Athens.
Papazoglou, F. (1998) Le Koinon Makédonien et la province de Macédoine, Thracia 12, 133–139.
Parker, R. (2011) The Thessalian Olympia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, 111–
118.
Paschidis, P. (2006) The Interpenetration of Civic Élites and Court Élite in Macedonia, in A.M.
Guimier-Sorbets, M.B. Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizot (eds.), Rois, Cités, Nécropoles, Institu-
tions, Rites et Monuments en Macédoine, Actes des colloques de Nanterre (Décembre 2002) et
d’Athènes (Janvier 2004), Athens, 251–268.
Paschidis, P. (2008) Between City and King. Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries be-
tween the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic
Period (322–190 BC), Athens.
Picard, O. (1982) Les Romains et les émissions aux types d’Alexandre, Annali dell’ Istituto Italiano
di Numismatica 29, 245–250.
Poole, R.S. and P. Gardner (1883) British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins. Thessaly to Aitolia,
London.
Price, M.J. (1991) The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus,
London/Zürich.
Prokopov, I. (2006) Die Silberprägung der Insel Thasos und die Tetradrachmen des ‘thasischen
Typs’ vom 2.–1. Jahrhundert v.Chr., Griechisches Münzwerk, Berlin.
Prokopov, I. (2012) The Silver Coinage of the Macedonian Regions: 2 nd–1st century BC, Wetteren.
Rüpke, J. (2008), A Companion to Roman Religion, Malden, Oxford, Victoria, Australia.
Rzepka, J. (2005) Koine Ekklesia in Diodorus Siculus and the General Assemblies of the Macedo-
nians, Tyche 20, 119–142.
Scholten, J.B. (2003) Macedon and the Mainland, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellen-
istic World, London, 134–158.
Sprawski, S. (2003) Philip II and the Freedom of the Thessalians, Electrum 9, 55–66.
Sprawski, S. (2009) Οι Θεσσαλοί και οι γείτονές τους κατά την κλασική αρχαιότητα᾽, in Θεσσαλία.
Ιστορία και πολιτισμός, Thessaly, 51–61.
Sprawski, S. (2009) Thessalians and Their Neighbours in the Classical Period, in 1o Διεθνές Συνέ-
δριο Ιστορίας Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας: Πρακτικά. Συνεδρίου τομος I, Thessaly, 131–137.
Stamatopoulou, M. (2007) Thessalian Aristocracy and Society in the Age of the Epinicians, in S.
Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic
Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford, 309–341.
Steimle, C. (2007) ‘Religion im römischen Thessaloniki’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), Antike Religionsge-

schichte in räumlichen Perspektive, Tübingen, 66–72.
Touratsoglou, I. (2006) La métropole de Béroia. Siège du Koinon des Macédoniens, Folia Archaeo-
logica Balkanica 1, 293–305.
Touratsoglou, Y. (1993) H Noμισματική Κυκλοφορία στην Αρχαία Μακεδονία (περ. 200 π.Χ. – 268
– 286 AD): Η μαρτυρία των ᾽θησαυρών᾽ = The Coin Circulation in ancient Macedonia (ca. 200
BC – 268 – 286 AD): The Hoard Evidence, Athens.
Touratsoglou, Y. (2010) Συμβολή στην Οικονομική Ιστορία του Βασιλείου της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας
(6ος – 3ος αι. π.Χ.) = A Contribution to the Economic History of the Kingdom of Ancient Mace-
donia (6th – 3rd century BC), Athens.
Tsochos, Ch. (2001) H ρωμαϊκή θρησκεία στη Μακεδονια, ΑΕΜΤΗ 15, 47–54.
Tsochos, Ch. and Ch. Steimle, (2001), Religion in der römischen Provinz Makedonien, Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft 3, 300.
Tsochos, Ch. (2007) Religion and Cults of Macedonia in Imperial Times, in E. Lo Cascio, G.D.
Merola (edd.), Forme di aggregazione nel mondon romano: profili istituzionali e sociali,
dinamiche economiche, identificazioni culturali, Bari: Edipuglia, 329–344.
THE AIOLIANS – A PHANTOM ETHNOS?
Hans Beck
McGill University
I. AIOLIAN ORTHODOXIES
“And from Hellen, the war-loving king, were born Doros and Xuthos (Ion) and
Aiolos who delighted in the battle-chariot”. Thus speaks Hesiod (Catalogue of
Women fr. 9 West), according to whom the Aiolians stood at the highest order of
the various ethnic branches that made up the Hellenes. Along with the Dorians and
the Ionians, they were considered to be among the most ancient and, in this sense,
primordial tribes of the Greeks. In a landmark section of the Histories, where He-
rodotus surveys the settlements of these tribes in Asia Minor, he says that there
were originally twelve Aiolian towns – the so-called dodekapolis – plus those on
the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos (1.149–150). Herodotus adds to these a few more
from the Troad further north, the ones around Mt Ida ‘who were separate from the
rest’ (κεχωρίδαται γὰρ αὗται: 1.151). Herodotus’ Aiolians send embassies (1.152)
and man ships (7.95) to those towns, which implies some collective deliberation
process. And, they harbor fellow Aiolian fugitives and grant them citizenship in
their local communities, evidently on the grounds of their mutual ethnic bonds
(1.150).1
As early as Herodotus’ days, the Aiolians seem to have maintained a common
sanctuary of Apollo at Gryneion, which they might have also used as their meeting
place. Gryneion’s function was thus similar to that of the Panionion in Mykale and
the role it played in the communication among Ionians. The sanctuary is attested
only in later periods, in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, when a League of the Aiolians
is traceable in the body of epigraphical sources.2 Strabo (13.3.5) marveled at the
temple at Gryneion which, according to him, was built all in white marble – cover-
age of the immense costs would again attest to a collaborative effort of the Aiolians,
since they could not be absorbed by the few inhabitants of Gryneion alone. By the
4th century BCE, at least one Aiolian community, the koinon of Lesbos, struck coins
with an epigram ΑΙΟΛΕ on the reverse. This documents some sort of communal
coordination between the cities who participated in those emissions, although it has
1 Prinz 1979, 90–96, 359–365 and passim; Ulf 1996a, 264–270; Gehrke 2001, 304; Hall 2002,
56f, 71–73 and passim.
2 I. Erythrai und Klazomenai 16 and SIG3 330. Note also the regional ethnic Aioleus, Rubinstein
2004, 1033. Apollo Gryneion: Hdt. 1.149; cf. also SEG 40.1109. Cape Mykale: 1.148. A similar
force seems to have been at work in the Dorian Hexapolis, which celebrated a festival with
games in honor of Triopian Apollo on a promontory near Knidos (1.144).
386 Hans Beck
become increasingly difficult to pin down the motivations behind such collabora-
tive coinages.3 In sum, the Aiolians had a long and eventful history of cooperation.
From Hesiod to the Hellenistic Age, there is robust evidence for an Aiolian ethnos
in Asia Minor, and also for a league that coordinated some of its common concerns,
including the conduct of its foreign policy.
Some of the governing assumptions behind the orthodox view of the Aiolian
ethnos have been challenged. The Aiolians of later periods in Greek history had a
Mycenaean counterpart. The term ‘Aiolians’ is attested in Linear B, with no further
geographic specification (evidence from Knossos, Wm 1707). What such an attes-
tation implies is, of course, another matter. For the longest time, scholars have re-
peated the narrative according to which the Aiolians in the post-Mycenean period
journeyed from mainland Greece across the Aegean, mostly from Thessaly and Boi-
otia, to occupy their new colonial homes in Asia Minor.
Figure 1: Aiolian migrations from central Greece to Asia Minor: the orthodox picture
Such a migration pattern is increasingly under pressure. In two articles that were
published simultaneously and partly in conjunction with each other, yet with vastly
3 Head 1911: 559; Robert 1951: 92–100; Billows 1990: 219. The usage of a common coinage
among the members of an ethnos, with common weight standards and associated iconographies,
has often been viewed as a decisive moment in the transformation from tribe to league. Against
this, Emily Mackil (2013; cf. also Mackil and van Alfen 2006) has reminded us that the emis-
sion of such coinages may or may not speak to a broad array of intercommunal agencies. Po-
litical collaboration, and hence integration, might be one of them, but it is not the only one. In
this sense, the common Aiolian coinage from the later Classical and Hellenistic periods docu-
ment some sort of communal action but the nature of their exchange is open to conjecture.
The Aiolians – A Phantom Ethnos? 387
different research methods, and from divergent bodies of evidence, the literary, ar-
chaeological, and linguistic backgrounds of the migration paradigm have been chal-
lenged. Brian Rose has demonstrated that the archaeological record does not sup-
port the idea of an Aiolian movement across the Aegean. Analyzing the material
evidence and corresponding narrative traditions of Iron Age settlements in the
northeast Aegean, Rose stresses that, while evidence for post-Mycenaean migra-
tions from the mainland to Aiolis is generally lacking, the available material actu-
ally points in the opposite direction. Beyond the local ware found in the post-pala-
tial period, for instance in Troy (VIIb1 and 2), the overwhelming amount of ceram-
ics in the Late Protogeometric layers were either local handmade burnished ware,
or components of an economic exchange involving both sides of the Aegean, rather
than the result of migration processes.4
Following up on Rose’s findings, Holt Parker offered an in-depth linguistic dis-
cussion of the Aiolian dialect. His analysis of the presence of Lesbian speakers in
the northeastern corner of the Aegean in Classical times, usually understood as the
result of an Aiolian migration, shows that there is no support whatsoever from lin-
guistic analysis. To be sure, linguistic evidence has always been weak, as the con-
voluted discussion of the Aiolian dialect in previous scholarship suggests. Usually
it is referenced as an agglomeration of several regional dialects (for instance, Boi-
otian and Thessalian), which are presented as sub-branches of a coherent dialectal
group. The desire to merge these into one is unmistakable.5 Working backwards
from the 5th century BCE, Parker discloses how the traditional dialects of Central
Greece cannot be subsumed under one Aiolian label. Thessalian, Boiotian, or Les-
bian speakers were simply people “who were seen to be neither Dorians nor Ioni-
ans” (2008, 460); their dialects are best understood as relatively unaltered branches
of early Greek that did not undergo some of the later typical linguistic developments
(e.g., the so-called first compensatory lengthening). Parker concludes that “the idea
of an Aiolic dielactal group falls apart” (2008, 460). Albert Schachter, finally, has
recently declared in a paper, which is still unpublished, that any tribal movement of
the Aiolians, which may or may not have occurred in the Iron Age period, left no
material traces whatsoever.6 The archaeological and linguistic foundations of the
Aiolian edifice have collapsed.
Conceptual advances in scholarship, too, urge us to use caution. In light of re-
cent trends in the studies of ethnic identity formation, it is no surprise that the Aio-
lians further come under scrutiny. The ethnic turn has toppled the traditional view
that the Greek ethnē of later periods drew directly on a late-Mycenaean pedigree.
Instead, it appears that the identity formation process was built on essentially chang-
ing and relatively late constructions of identities that took shape most often only in
4 Rose 2008.
5 For the generic view, cf. Blümel 1982; also Buck 1968 on the traditional view of the Aiolian
dialect in Boiotia; on perceived Thessalian-Aiolian connections, Garcia Ramon 2007. Vottero
2006 (which came most likely too late for Parker 2008) has also remarked that evidence for the
Aiolian dialect is weak.
6 ‘Aiolians and Boiotians,’ delivered at a workshop at the University of Reading. I am grateful
to Albert Schachter for sharing the manuscript with me.
388 Hans Beck
the Archaic period. The notorious Dorians have become a landmark example in the
way the process is now conceived by scholars. In a nutshell, it was demonstrated
how the idea of Dorian tribal togetherness most likely came into place only in the
later eighth or seventh centuries. The Dorians of the Archaic Age saw themselves
as a group with a heroic pedigree, stretching back to the time when they had de-
parted ‘from windy Erineus’ (Tyrtaios fr. 2) in an opaque swathe of land called
Doris to become the masters over the Peloponnese and to several peoples adjacent
to it. Both the Mycenaean heritage and the record of so-called ‘Dorians’ in the Lin-
ear B body of evidence (do-e-ro ‘slave’ and do-ri-je-we ‘Dorieus’; the meaning of
both is naturally debated) fuelled the imagination of such a tribal connection be-
tween the Archaic Age and the distant past of the Bronze Age. But the prime mover
of Dorian togetherness were the Spartans who couched their claims for leadership
and, effectively, hegemony in the language of primordiality.7
The case of Ionian identity formation is even more complicated than its Dorian
counterpart, due to the convoluted nature of Athenian traditions, material evidence,
and other immaterial expressions of identity and belonging. Yet despite the differ-
ences, there is also a thrust toward communality. When the Ionians absorbed the
image of a collective tribal group – scholars are divided over when this was – they
propagated a heroic lineage for themselves that related them back far in time. In the
case of the Athenians, the claim for long duration was so pronounced that they saw
themselves as autochthonous people. This mindset is obvious, and it speaks vol-
umes to the political discourse of the Classical period, when this autochthony was
celebrated far and wide. While the Dorians were ‘much-wandering’ (Hdt. 1.56, cf.
7.161) people who had returned to their home in the Peloponnese only through
waves of migration, the Athenians were born of and from the land.8
The rise of regional ethnic identities, articulated also in the establishment of
political leagues or federal states, is in sync with this picture. In a recent volume on
Federalism in Greek Antiquity (2015), the transformation from an ethnos to the po-
liticized structure of a koinon was described as a helix-type process. The identity
formation in regions such as Boiotia overlapped with federalism in the sense that
ethnicity offered a vibrant platform for the integration of local communities into a
league. For example, several recent studies on Boiotian ethnogenesis show how the
region’s political integration was practically predisposed to, and in turn made pos-
sible through a common set of regional cults and foundation myths that go back to
the late eighth century BCE.9 While the process of identity formation was under
way, it was fused with the development of statehood in the region and its expression
in the political administration, or institutionalization, of rising urban centres. The
fundamental belief of common primordial descent and legends of collective action
fuelled the idea of political cooperation among those cities. Moreover, this cooper-
ation supported the idea of separation from other tribes; hence, it reinstated the no-
tion of tribal distinction. Associated legends of a common heroic past were thus less
7 Ulf 1996 and 1996a; cf. also Hall 2002, 72–89; Hall 2013.
8 Athenian autochthony, cf. Loraux 1996/2000; Roy 2014; Beck (forthcoming).
9 Cf. Kühr 2006; Kowalzig 2007; Larson 2007.
reflective of actual tribal togetherness, but the immediate result of conversations at

a regional level. To be sure, the participants in these conversations will have been
both reassured and inspired by the Mycenaean ruins before them. The development
of regional customs and traditions further magnified sentiments of togetherness.
But, at its very core, the origins of this togetherness were construed rather than
real.10
There are enough warning signs at this point to flag the ethnos of the Aiolians,
as it were, and revisit the questions of who they were, what their sense of belonging
was, and how that sense translated into communal action. While corresponding Do-
rian and Ionian orthodoxies have been challenged in recent years, and effectively
altered, the Aiolians are lagging behind. The orthodox view suggests that there are
clear answers to the nature of their tribe. It appears, however, that this view is built
on a body of evidence that is extremely fragile. Moreover, it is fraught with assump-
tions about what an ethnos is and how tribal identity manifests itself which, upon
closer examination, are far less compelling than they would suggest.
It is the goal of this article to contribute to the reassessment of the Aiolians that
is currently under way. For the purpose of the current volume, such an examination
can hardly be comprehensive, nor does it strive for the full picture. It is beyond my
scope to re-examine the dialectal evidence, or to discuss the nature of Protogeomet-
ric ceramics and grey wares that were typically considered Aiolian. In light of the
overarching theme of the conference, my article limits itself to the analysis of po-
litical expressions of Aiolian togetherness. The approach is genuinely historical. It
is beyond question that the Aiolian cities in Asia Minor, or at least some of them,
most obviously the core cities of the dodekapolis, coordinated their interactions
with the outside world; again, there is ample evidence for this from the Persian War
to the Age of Antigonos I Monophthalmos. What is more pressing, yet also more
treacherous, are Aiolian relations between Asia Minor and the Greek mainland, i.e.,
the nature of these relations, through which the Aiolian ethnos is ultimately better
understood.
II. TRAVELLING AIOLIANS: MOTIVATIONS, ROUTES, AND THE

ONTOLOGY OF PLACE
The earliest attestation of ethnic ties between Aiolians on either side of the Aegean
also marks one of the most impactful pieces of evidence. The first person to com-
ment on Aiolian-Boiotian relations was no other than Hesiod who, in Works and
Days (634–645), speaks of how his father came to Boiotia:
… just as your father did, … sailing in a ship because he longed for great prosperity. Once,
long ago, he crossed far overseas in his black ship, and came here, to this place, and left Aiolian
Kyme far behind. He did not flee from riches and success but evil poverty, which comes from
10 The helix of ethnogenesis, urbanity, and the rise of statehood is further explicated by Beck and
Funke 2013.
390 Hans Beck
Zeus. He settled in a wretched village, near to Helikon, the town of Askra, harsh in winter and
miserable in the summer, not really good at any time of the year.
The passage is widely known, and the irony has not escaped commentators. Ac-
cording to Hesiod, his father went from Kyme to Askra, from one bad place to
another – out of the frying pan and into the fire. The trick is of course that he still
managed to make a good living in Askra, but this is only of minor concern here.11
Kyme and Askra were not dissimilar, although the former lay close to the sea
whereas the latter did not. While Kyme enjoyed the fresh breeze from the sea,
Askra’s climate was subject to its landlocked location in central Boiotia. The sti-
fling air is, in part, eased by the altitude level (380 m), but today’s visitors can be
easily overwhelmed by the standing heat. Herodotus confirms that Aiolis had ‘good
soil but bad climate’ (1.149), supporting Hesiod’s assessment and extending it to
geomorphic conditions and qualities of the land. Indeed, the conditions for agricul-
ture in Aiolis and Boiotia were similar. Hesiod mentions grain crops and grapes,
draft animals, and livestock (goats and sheep) that were at the heart of a farmer’s
annual cycle. Askra was neither a centralized nor a particularly hierarchized com-
munity, and the agricultural regime in Works and Days implies that there was no
shortage of land to carry out these activities. Anthony Edwards suggested a pattern
of livestock grazing in the higher pastures during the summer and in the winter
closer to the village on fallow, whose soil was enriched by the dung of the grazing
animals. This, on the whole, should summon the scene.12 The situation was then
indeed similar to the one across the Aegean in Kyme – with one difference, namely,
while Kyme had developed into a full-flung, stratified community, with all the eco-
nomic tensions this entailed, Askra’s urban and social development were signifi-
cantly less advanced.13
The similarity of place was of critical importance for everything else that fol-
lowed. When Hesiod’s father arrived near Askra, he found a home away from home,
in the more common sense of the word. This meant, among other things, that he
found similar living conditions. Similarities in the natural environment of colo-
nizing cities with that of their apoikiai overseas have long been identified by schol-
ars as a critical factor in the choice of the actual site of the new settlement. For
instance, Irad Malkin recently remarked (2011, 147) that Massalia, founded at
around 600 BCE, was established at a site that resembled that of Phokaia (i.e., a
11 Cf. Nagy 2009, 290–294, who sees the tradition of Hesiod’s father’s migration as a reverse
narrative of legendary tales about Ionian migration movements. We will return to the issue of
reversed itineraries below.
12 Cf. the collection of all relevant evidence from Works and Days and analysis by Edwards 2008,
127–158.
13 Kyme struck its own coinage from the late 7th century BCE, its circuit wall appears to have
been in place from the mid-6th century at the latest, Gates 1994, 275. Aristotle’s collection of
politeiai included a treatise on Kyme (fr. 524R). The fragment comes from the epitome of He-
rakleides Lembos who offers a modestly extensive coverage of Archaic Kyme, reporting,
among other things, the enfranchisement of individuals who could breed at least one horse and
the inclusion of 1,000 new citizens shortly thereafter (36–39 Dilts).
promontory between two ports). Between Askra and Kyme, the similarities in na-
ture mostly concerned the conditions of the soil and associated agrarian techniques.
It was not a coincidence then that Hesiod’s father went to Boiotia. Rather, he will
have heard about the situation there, including the potential availability of land, and
the promise to work the land under familiar farming conditions. And, presumably,
he was not alone. Other Aiolians knew of the basic scenario, no matter how accurate
or detailed their information might have been. To move to Boiotia must have been
seen as a profitable enterprise, with similar conditions in place that would allow
migrants to live the same life as at home, only better, because there was more land.
In other words, from the mid-eighth century there were an increasing number of
Aiolians who sought their fortunes in the mainland. This was not a migration move-
ment as such, at least not in the sense Greek migrations are commonly conceived
of. Rather, many people from multiple Aiolian towns took the same paths. The flow
was steered both by structural influences as well as the way that individuals navi-
gated these structures based on personal ties and relations. Whereas some followed
paths that they had learned about from other family members or through kin net-
works, others would have heard about central Greece in casual conversations in
their everyday lives.14
The pattern of intertwined structural and personal influences is commonplace
among migration historians. Scholars in the field have put this into compelling re-
search perspectives. In particular, it has been demonstrated how migrant decision-
making is impacted by conscious choices about perceived opportunities. According
to Dirk Hoerder (2002, 19), one of the main arenas where these opportunities are
discussed is what he calls the mesolevel, a middle ground between the individual
and society, namely in the family and in kin and friendship networks, where all
information about the envisioned journey is digested, where risks are calculated,
and possibilities weighed. The back flow of information from those who have al-
ready left their homes plays a critical role in those deliberations, as emigrants share
their knowledge with those who are still at home, not only about the general living
conditions in their new environment but also about more specific configurations.
As the exchange at the mesolevel is carried out between individuals who speak the
same dialect, share in the same cultural traditions and experiences of home, it cre-
ates not only further familiarity but it also implies reliability and trustworthiness. It
is easy to see how this type of ‘verified’ knowledge spreads through kin networks
and effectively helps to shape migration streams. German and Ukranian migrations
from Europe to the North American plains largely followed this pattern, much like
Highlands Scots migration to Newfoundland, where immigrants also found living
conditions similar to those in their original their homes. The examples of those 19th
century migrations also elicit how the exchange of knowledge includes both ends
of the information flow. Consequently, the accumulation of this type of information
14 The flow to the Greek mainland was presumably not the only route Aiolian emigrants would
have taken. See Adak 2007 on the presence of Aiolian migrants in Pamphylia, which appears
to have been another preferred destination.
392 Hans Beck
gives rise to new travel arteries, which in turn shape and inform the conversation
between migrants and those left behind.15
The Homeric Hymn to Apollo (220–230) provides us with an example of a
travel artery that emerged along such lines. It recalls the route emigrants would have
taken from Aiolis in Asia Minor on their journey west, once they had landed on
Euboia:
You stood in the Lelantine plain, but it pleased not your heart to make a temple there and
wooded groves. From there you crossed the Euripos, far-shooting Apollo, and went up the
green, holy hills, going on to Mykalessos and grassy-bedded Teumessos, and so came to the
wood-clad abode of Thebes; for as yet no man lived in holy Thebes, nor were there tracks or
ways about Thebes’ wheat-bearing plain as yet. And further still you went, far-shooting Apollo,
and came to Onchestos, Poseidon’s bright grove.
Much like Apollo in the Hymn, when Aiolian travellers came to Boiotia, the main
travel artery led them from Mykalessos to Teumessos, on to Thebes and its rich
agricultural chōra, and further on to Onchestos. About a century later Alkaios
would have taken the same itinerary into Boiotia, judging from what he writes about
the Tanagraia, Koroneia, and Onchestos.16 From there, it was only 10 kilometres
southwest to Askra. The Aiolians who came to central Greece from the later eighth
century BCE were thus most likely not an organized group, and they did not arrive
there in a coordinated migration movement. Living conditions in Boiotia allowed
them to avoid dire economic circumstances and social tension and yet maintain their
lifestyles: their agricultural regime, their foods, and their cuisines. The continuation
of customs such as these was most likely complemented by other expressions of
cultural distinctiveness: local music and dances, religious beliefs, and, of course,
the particular way in which they spoke.17
15 The case of Scottish migration to Newfoundland, which serves as a good template, is discussed
by Ommer 1977.
16 Cf. frs. 306 (Tanagraia), 325 (Koroneia), and 425 (Onchestos). On Alkaios and Boiotia see also
Barner 1967, 23–25; Schachter 2016/(1989), 40–42.
17 On music, see Athenaios’ famous remarks on the Aiolian mode, which figures alongside Dorian
and Ionian tunes (14.624c-d). The ethnic register was brought about by the same trajectory that
we established for Aiolian speech above.
Figure 2: The corridor from the Lelantine plain into Boiotia according to the Homeric Hymn to
Apollo (map after Schachter 2016: xxi. Used with permission).
In sum, Askra, in all likelihood, allowed them to replicate the lifestyle in which they
had immersed themselves in Aiolis. It is easy to see how later traditions, under the
omnipresent dynamics of ethnic positioning, conceived of this continuity as the re-
sult of tribal migrations. What had actually happened since the eight century was
an increasing number of Aiolian emigrants coming to Boiotia, with as many moti-
vations behind their journey as there were walks of life.
III. AIOLIAN SYNGENEIA IN CONTEXT
By the Classical period, several authors comment on the ethnic ties between the
Aiolians in Asia Minor and their sungeneis in the mainland. The array of sources
seems compelling, indicating that the Aiolian connection across the Aegean had
become commonplace at the time. We have already noted how Herodotus’ Histo-
ries are inspired by the idea of an Aiolian tribe, and we will turn to Pindar and
Thucydides momentarily. The prominence of the Aiolian paradigm was explained
by Brian Rose with reference to the wider gulf of Hellenic self-perceptions. Rose
argued that, in the aftermath of the Persian War, and especially after the battle of
Eurymedon (469/466 BCE), several groups of people from both sides of the Aegean
Sea were eager to claim bonds of a tribal communality. Such a rally towards trans-
Aegean genealogies, and a shared primordial descent of Greeks on the shores of
either side of the sea, supported the idea of an ethnic community that extended
across the Aegean and beyond, making the sea a truly Hellenic koinē. The resulting
narratives of common descent were by and large tied to the greater trend of othering
394 Hans Beck
strategies, as they were applied by the Greeks, in order to bring meaning and pur-
pose to a new, charged sense of Hellenicity.18
Legendary tales of migration and ethnic lineage were part and parcel of the
notions and sentiments that fuelled the sense of Hellenicity, carrying with them their
own agenda. As Rose reminds us, fifth century traditions of Hellenic togetherness
propel the idea of a migration flow from Greece to Asia Minor. Since, in the after-
math of victory over Persia, the gravitational centre of Hellenicity had shifted from
the shores of Ionia and adjacent regions to the mainland, the itinerary of migration
myths was evidently remodelled accordingly, to reflect the new primordiality of the
mainland. Migration movements, as governing forces behind the perceived ethnic
ties across the Aegean, were now conceived of as movements that went from west
to east, from the mainland to Asia Minor, rather than the other way around – and in
diametrical opposition to what had actually happened between the eighth and sixth
centuries BCE. The most obvious example is the case of Athens and the Ionians, an
ethnic relation that was soon propagated as legendary migration of Athenians across
the Sea to Ionia.19 In the Aiolian case, the direction of the migration streams which
we discussed earlier was turned up-side-down, making the mainland the point of
origin rather than Aiolis in Asia Minor.
Such a creative remodelling in all likelihood gave rise to the idea that the Greek
mainland had its own region called Aiolis. In a way, an Aiolis in Greece became an
implicit necessity to support the claim of the mainland as actual point of departure.
In 3.102.5 Thucydides declares that, after an unsuccessful attempt to take Athenian-
controlled Naupaktos, the Spartans “withdrew, not to the Peloponnese, but to the
Aiolis, as it is now called, to Kalydon and Pleuron namely, and the other places of
that region, and to Proschion in Aitolia”. Homer, notoriously so, knows nothing of
this Aiolis in Aitolia. In the Catalogue of Ships, Kalydon and Pleuron figure both
as Aitolian (Il. 2.639–640). His ignorance implicitly supports Thucydides’ state-
ment that the region was ‘only now’ called Aiolis. In a fundamental contribution,
Fritz Gschnitzer (1955) has demonstrated how regional and place names either de-
rived their name from a pre-existing ethnic groups or, in turn, inspired the estab-
lishment of ethnic names. It appears that Aiolis would have belonged to the first
group, that is that the region was called Aiolis because certain Aioleis had settled
there. This is well in line with the picture of a migration flow from Asia Minor to
the mainland, yet it also begs the more intricate question of how the inhabitants of
the Aiolis viewed their ethnic roots, both within their group and in relation to its
neighbors.
18 Rose 2008, 419f. This new sense also meant cultural competition and othering strategies within,
i.e., between Greeks. According to Sophokles (Schol. Theokr. Idyl. 1.56), the verb aiolizein was
equated to mean ‘to be deceitful’ or ‘speak deceitfully’, clearly resonating with Ionian senti-
ments.
19 The issue of Ionians is even touchier than that of the Dorians (above note 7). Cf. recently Mac
Sweeney 2013, 157–173, pointing again to the forceful re-writing of an Ionian identity by Athe-
nian authors in the 5th century BCE (esp. 172). Hall 2002, 70–73 has argued that sentiments of
Ionian belonging in Asia Minor were fueled also by regional competition with the rise of Aio-
lian identities further north.
The issue has sparked a long and lively debate, which is summarized by Sebas-
tiaan Bommeljé.20 While older scholarship strove to reconcile the Aiolians in the
mainland with the then prevailing picture of the ‘Dorian Migration’, Bommeljé is
naturally more cautious. Rather than seeing the mythical tradition as reflective of
authentic migration movements, his analysis of the legendary piecemeal of Ai-
tolian, Achaian, and Aiolian cross-connections (for instance in Strabo 8.1.2, who
saw the Achaians as an Aiolian tribe) is embedded in the convoluted natural envi-
ronment of Central Greece. In particular, he highlights how the region called Aiolis
by Thucydides played an intermediary role between the eighth and sixth centuries
BCE, when it became a vibrant relay station in the exchanges between the northern
and southern shores of the Corinthian Gulf. With lively exchanges across the Gulf,
the rise of regional ethnic identities was in persistent movement and subject to mul-
tiple shifts and changes. In an ethnically volatile environment such as this, the influx
of individuals from a common point of origin elsewhere, over a protracted period
of time, easily left its mark on the process of identity formation.
Figure 3: Suggested direction of Aiolian migration movements, 8 th to 6th centuries BCE.
If the picture above of wandering Aiolians from Asia Minor to Boiotia from the
eighth century is correct, then there is ample room to hypothesize that some of those
travelers will have went beyond Boiotia, either on land or by boat along the northern
shores of the Corinthian Gulf. The first location where they would have found larger
sections of arable land, with Delphi and Amphissa being out of the picture, was
20 Bommeljé 1988. Freitag, Funke, and Moustakis 2004, 379f, with further references.
396 Hans Beck
Thucydides’ Aiolis, the northern coastline beyond the bottle neck of the Gulf, in the
region of Kalydon and Pleuron. It was reiterated recently how the nearby Doris in
Central Greece, famous for its name more than its role as authentic home of the
Dorians, was a micro-region shrouded in ignorance for many contemporaries of the
fifth century BCE.21 This seems to have been true about Aiolis too. With lively
conversations about Hellenic ties across Aegean Greece under way after the Persian
War, it should come to us as no surprise that an Aiolis appeared on the scene. Cu-
riously enough, Herodotus speaks of Aiolidai (7.176.4) as a small place in northern
Phokis, in the border lands to Thessaly. Jeremy McInerney (1999) has argued that
the reference speaks to the heroic genealogy of Phokos, the eponymous hero of the
Phokians and great-grandson of Aiolos; Aiolidai in Phokis would have been the
place to authenticate connections between Phokis and (Aiolian) Thessaly. The chal-
lenge is that Herdotus’ reference is opaque, if not erratic. Aiolidai is not mentioned
in any other source after Herodotus, and there are no traces of an Aiolis in northern
Phokis otherwise. It almost appears as if the association with an Aiolian pedigree
in Phokis ran dry in the course of the fifth century BCE. A similar development can
be observed in Boiotia, which would have been an obvious place to serve as a ter-
rain of Aiolian sentiments in central Greece, given that some Aiolians from Asia
Minor had settled there since the early Archaic Age. As we will see in the subse-
quent section, there were strong reasons as to why Boiotia was actually unfit for the
pronouncement of a charged Aiolian togetherness. Further west along the coast of
the Corinthian Gulf, the fertile lands around Pleuron and Kalydon, between the
Euenos and Acheloos rivers, offered the one meaningful place for the projection of
an Aiolian identity.
The new prominence of claims of tribal bondage after the Persian War brought
to the fore the issue of belonging locally, regionally, and transregionally. By de-
fault, this impacted legendary traditions of Aiolian togetherness across the sea. At
the same time, the articulation of ethnic togetherness was nested in convoluted
power struggles. For instance, while Aiolian ethnicity was on the rise for some time
in the fifth century BCE, the Aiolian cities of Asia Minor were actually all members
of the Delian League. Kyme is recorded from 452 as belonging to the Ionian district,
with an annual tribute of 12 talents. Others included Pitane (1,000 drachmai) and
Myrina.22 It is intriguing to see how the competition in frontline politics in northern
Asia Minor also resonated in competing legendary foundation myths, with which
both sides supported the stakes of their claims. Herodotus states (5.94) that both the
Athenians and the Lesbians bolstered demands over the Aiolian homeland in the
Troad. Accordingly, we hear of an Athenian version by Pherekydes (fr. 155) that
makes the Aiolian cities in the Troad foundations of the Athenian mythical king
Kodros. The rival claim, articulated in Hellanikos (fr. 32), said that the region was
21 Rousset 2015, with further references.

22 Cf. Rubinstein 2004, s.v. Kyme, Pitane, Myrina, with references to the relevant epigraphic ev-
idence from the Athenian Tribute Lists.
settled by colonists from Lesbos; effectively, the Lesbians demanded suzerainty

over the Aiolians there.23
The pattern behind these quarrels is familiar, but one wonders where the main-
land Aiolians were in the power game. Returning to Thucydides, we learn that the
Lesbian-Boiotian sungeneia did indeed inspire concerted action in war. In 428
BCE, when Lesbos prepared to revolt from Athens (3.2.3), the Boiotians were the
main supporters of their kinsmen (sungeneis) in Mytilene. A certain Hermaiondas
of Thebes was dispatched, presumably with a small force, to fight for the Mytile-
neaen cause. The configuration recurs in later sections of Thucydides’ work: In 413,
when the Lesbians re-launched their attempt to break away, they are again aided by
the Boiotians, this time with a flotilla of ten ships (8.5.2). Two years later, in 411,
an all-Aiolian gang of rebels fought against an Athenian contingent on Lesbos. The
insurgents included some of the leading exiles of Methymna, hoplites from Kyme,
and a Theban leader by the name of Anaxarchos, who is again identified as
sungenēs of the Lesbians (8.100.3).24
Again, Thucydides was led to believe that the Aiolians from both sides of the
Aegean had a shared tribal pedigree; and that this notion of ethnic togetherness in-
formed their foreign policy. Thebans and Aiolians supported each other because of
sungeneia. Mutual help on ethnic grounds is of course well attested throughout the
Peloponnesian War, with both Athenians and Spartans underpinning their leader-
ship claims with references to their Ionian and Dorian sungeneia, respectively. Io-
nian sungeneia was the backdrop against which the Delian League was founded, if
we follow Thucydides (1.95.1). At the same time, Thucydides makes it clear that
he saw such claims as mostly cynical. In book three (3.86.4), he states that refer-
ences to kinship had basically become an empty propagandistic shell that was used
to obfuscate the exercise of blunt power politics. Thucydides’ analysis might have
been to the point, yet this does not diminish the force of ethnic arguments as such.
To the war parties, the ethnic charge of the conflict constituted a reality, no matter
how elusive the grounds behind such a charge might have been.25
How do the scattered notes of trans-Aegean sungeneia relate to full-fledged
ethnic ties between Aiolians and Boiotians, real or imagined? We have already seen
how the alleged migration of Aiolians was not more than the sum of the actions of
individuals who emigrated from Aiolia. We also discussed the circumstances under
which the narratives of this movement reversed their direction from east-west to
west-east. Effectively, the migration paradigm does not support the idea of tribal
lineage and common descent. Is there another way then to think of Aiolian togeth-
erness? Much in the spirit of Hesiod’s father, the migrants to the mainland will have
included many men from the local elites of the Aiolian cities who had left their
communities for a variety of reasons. Economic motives will have inspired some to
23 Among the earliest pieces of evidence for Lesbian leadership claims Alkaios fr. 129, on which
see L. Robert, Revue des Études Anciennes 62 1962, 285–315.
24 Cf. Hornblower 1991–2008 on the respective passages; Fragoulaki 2013, 100–118; Lücke
2000.
25 Cf. Fragoulaki 2013, 209–248 and Hornblower 1991–2008 on 3.86.4.
398 Hans Beck
seek their fortunes elsewhere, but they didn’t start from nothing in their new homes.
In other instances, factionalism will have contributed to the decision to pack their
bags and leave. Social and political upheaval will have driven some leaders of the
local warrior classes away, or actually exiled them. This is how Alkaios came to
Boiotia in the sixth century BCE.26 Those emigrants in particular brought with them
a wide network of social relations and family ties. Connected to an ever-growing
web of interpersonal relations from common family ancestors, intermarriage, and
guest friendship, these settlers entertained networks of exchange that spanned
across the Aegean. They were sungeneis, again real or imagined, who treasured the
same family traditions and bonds of loyalty. And, in their transregional communi-
cation, they construed stories of heroic lineage that allowed them to forge connec-
tions and establish, or reinforce, ties of reciprocity.
In Pindar’s Nemean Ode 11 we encounter such an individual, a certain Aristag-
oras of Tenedos who is praised for his installation as head of the boulē of Tenedos.
Aristagoras came from an illustrious fatherland, says Pindar (line 20). A few lines
further down, he continues with his noble descent (33–37):
It was easy indeed to infer his [Aristagoras’] Spartan descent from Peisander of old, who came
from Amyklai with Orestes, who had led here an ironclad leader of the Aiolians, and also the
blending of his blood with that of his mother’s ancestor Melanippos, from beside the stream of
Ismenos.
On his father’s side, Aristagoras was of Spartan descent, through Periander from
Amyklai, a companion of Orestes. On his mother’s side, the family tree went back
to Melanippos, one of the legendary heroes from Thebes who defended their city
against the notorious Seven. But there is more to this pedigree. First, note how the
family lineage is modelled according to a migration pattern from west to east: an
ironclad leader of the Aiolians descended from Spartans and Thebans, respectively.
Second, Aristagoras’ example indicates that the claims for primordiality and heroic
descent were articulated in a political context that was again more convoluted than
the legendary tale suggests. For while Aristogoras, whose Spartan and Theban de-
scent was praised, occupied the position as prytaneis in Tenedos, his community
was among the most loyal Athenian allies and members of the Delian League in
that corner of the Aegean. We have already observed that the claims for ethnic af-
filiation in the Troad were a bone of contention among Lesbians/Aiolians on the
one hand, and Athenians from Sigeion/Ionians on the other. Aristagoras’ call for
Thebes and Aiolis was thus embedded in a lively controversy over affiliations and
patterns of belonging. Maybe his Theban stance was the deliberate choice of an
anti-Athenian faction in Tenedos, but we can only conjecture this. Thirdly and fi-
nally, we ought to acknowledge that the implied ethnic affiliation between Aiolians
in Asia Minor and the mainland draws once again on the highly personalized family
pedigree of a member of the local elite. In other words, in the case in question, the
notion of Aiolian ethnicity melts down to the personal ties of a local aristocrat who
claimed descent from Spartan and Theban heroic warriors.
26 See above.
There is of course nothing unusual about this. On the contrary, across the Ae-
gean local elites entertained legends of far-flung descent in order to secure their
local distinction. Members of the ruling classes celebrated their time-honoured fam-
ily esteem everywhere, and no matter where they roamed in the world of Aegean
Greece, the Heroic Age provided them with multi-adaptable names and notions that
allowed them to plug in, establish proxies, and appropriate the mythical past. Given
the migration traffic from Aiolis to central Greece, it is easy to see how those com-
partmentalized migration histories added up. Each member of the elite contributed
to this, and each generation of emigrants added a new layer. Over time, this will
have translated into the synthetic sense of a shared ethnicity that united the Aiolians
from both sides of the Aegean.
IV. FOURTH–CENTURY LESSONS
In an inscription from the mid-fourth century BCE, the contributions from Greek
states to the Boiotian war chest in the Third Sacred War are recorded (IG VII.2418
= R&O 57). The text has sparked interest because it was believed to reference a
sunhedrion of the military alliance established by the Thebans during the years of
hegemony. John Buckler has refuted this interpretation, arguing that the sunhedroi
in question were not representatives of an interstate council, but rather, they appear
to have been officials in local communities. As such, they delivered the funds of
their city to the alliance.27 The diverse way in which individuals are identified in
the document supports such a reading. The inscription lists contributions from two
cities, Alyzeia and Anaktorion, brought to Thebes by envoys; from Byzantion by
the named sunhedroi; and from Tenedos, member of the Second Athenian Confed-
eracy at the time, delivered by the Boiotian proxenos there:
These contributed money to the war which the Boiotians were waging concerning the sanctuary
at Delphi against those who were committing sacrilege against the sanctuary of Pythian Apollo.
In the archonship of Aristion: Alyzeia: 30 minas brought by the envoys (prisgees) … :
Anaktorion: 30 minas by the envoys … : Byzantium … the money was brought by the sunedroi
… Athenodoros son of Dionysios of Tenedos, proxenos of the Boiotians: 1,000 drachmai.
The constellation is not dissimilar from that of Aristagoras of Tenedos and his role
in Boiotian-Aiolian affairs, as we encountered earlier. Once again, the ties between
the Aiolian island of Tenedos and the Greek mainland manifest themselves in the
agency of an aristocratic leader, a man named Athenodoros (which is not uninter-
esting in itself), who served as the guest-friend of the Boiotians on Tenedos. It is
sometimes thought that Athenodoros made his contribution on the grounds of his
Boiotian sympathies.28 Or did he do so because of his family ties? Either way, Aio-
lian relations are not invoked in the text and there are no other references to the
27 Buckler 2000; cf. also Jehne 1999.

28 Cf. the commentaries in R&O 57, p.270 and Harding 1985, 75, p.97.
400 Hans Beck
sentiment of Aiolian togetherness between the ethnē of the Boiotians and the Aio-
lians in the fourth century. Is it too hazardous to argue that these references are
nonexistent because such a tribal togetherness had lost its allure?
Let us return once more to Hesiod, who is so eminently important for the career
of the Aiolian paradigm. In a contribution from 1985, many years before the cultural
and ethnic turns, Albert Schachter brought to life the circumstances of emigration
surrounding Hesiod’s family. As we have seen, a person such as Hesiod’s father
would no doubt have known where he was going. He would have found out,
Schachter reminded us, where land was available, either directly or indirectly, from
a major centre of colonizing activity, such as Chalkis. “The hearsay reports on
which he had to depend would no doubt have painted a rosy picture of the promised
land. Hesiod’s famous complaint about Askra rings strangely true to the ears of any
immigrant’s child, who will remember his parents’ repeated recollections of the
delights and pleasures of the ‘Old Country’, rendered glamorous and desirable by
time and distance.”29 The argument put forth here by Schachter is so convincing
because it has an authentic Sitz im Leben, a setting in life. Future generations of
Aiolians followed the tracks that were established by Hesiod, his family, and others.
When they settled in their new homes, they reproduced the cultural, economic, and
religious environments of their place of origin for as much as this was possible; and
they treasured the stories that elaborated on their ethnic togetherness in their moth-
erland. They shaped a new environment that was modelled after the local world
they left behind. In this sense, they maintained their Aiolianness.
At the same time, from the early seventh century BCE, the world in which they
settled began to change around them in dramatic ways. The people in the cities of
the Kephissos and Asopos valleys developed their own sense of an ethnic identity
among them. The process of Boiotian ethnogenesis kicked in, so masterfully disen-
tangled by Angela Kühr (2006), Stephanie Larson (2007), and Barabara Kowalzig
(2007). Their studies show how the rise of Boiotian ethnic self-awareness was prac-
tically geared to, and in turn made possible by a common set of regional cults and
foundation myths that date to the late eighth century BCE. Angela Kühr in particu-
lar discloses how the narrative development of Boiotian foundation myths over time
was impacted by the existence of divergent and, at times, competing narratives of
heroic ancestry. Kühr is able to assign divergent genealogical claims to different
local communities: Amphion and Zethos to the lower Asopos valley, and the tradi-
tion of Kadmos to Thebes, which allows her to realign the dynamic process of eth-
nic identity formation with the interaction between local communities. As a result
of their interaction, these communities gradually reinforced the idea of their com-
monality, expressed in the rising prominence of a new primordial hero, Boiotos,
(twin) brother of the younger Aiolos. Note that Boiotos’ ascendancy did not mar-
ginalize the established local traditions as they were in place, at Thebes, Orchome-
29 Schachter 2016/(1985), 28.

nos, and elsewhere. Boiotos supplemented those local identities, but he did not su-
persede them. His brother Aiolos, on the other hand, was soon enough reduced to
an ephemeral role in Boiotian tales of primordial descent.30
The Aiolian settlers blended in in Boiotia, metaphorically and literally, making
an impact on material and immaterial threads of culture as they unravelled along
the way. But this impact appears to have been too scattered to ferment into full-
fledged local traditions, with constant Aiolian heroic lineages or the like. The notion
of Boiotianness was stronger. In fact, it was so strong that the Boiotians, on their
part, did not see the need to take the opportunity that was before them. While the
Spartans and Athenians were eager to extend their ethnic affiliations throughout the
Greek world, both through space and time, the Boiotians had a different approach.
It didn’t catch on between them and the Aiolians in Asia Minor. Unlike its Dorian
and Ionian counterparts, Aiolian ethnogenesis did not ignite in the mainland. It is
noteworthy to recall that the idea of mainland ‘colonization’ in the Archaic Age did
not form an integral part of the Aiolian Leagues’ identity in Asia Minor either. As
was observed by Brian Rose, beyond the literary piecemeal which we discussed
above, there is nothing to suggest that the Aiolians expressed any claims of togeth-
erness with Central Greece.31
The amphiktyony of Delphi, on whose behalf the Boiotians had fought so
staunchly in the Third Sacred War, provides a striking example to put this interpre-
tation to the test. Enumerating the members of the amphiktyonic council, Aischines
(2.116) declares that he listed “twelve ethnē which shared the shrine: the Thessali-
ans, Boiotians (not the Thebans alone), Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaibians, Magnetes,
Dolopians, Lokrians, Oitaians, Phthiotians, Malians, and Phokians.” Few scholars
have commented on the obscure nature of this membership directory, which is puz-
zling in more ways than one.32 In particular, while Dorians and Ionians figure so
prominently among the ethnos states who ‘dwelled around’ Delphi – the literal
meaning of amphiktyones –, it is telling enough to note that neither of them actually
lay in Central Greece.33 The Aiolians, on the other hand, are not listed; rather, Thes-
salians and Boiotians were members in their stead. In fact, Aischines stresses that
the Boiotians were members, rather than ‘the Thebans alone,’ the punch line being
that the Thebans had become so dominant that expressions of their political stakes
and local identity were often equated with those of the Boiotian ethnos, despite the
fact that they were not. From the local world of Thebes to the collective ethnos of
the Boiotians, the governing power in the region was the city of Thebes, with its
enormous pedigree of power and prestige.
Aiolian togetherness, on the other hand, was a paradigm that was stitched into
the ethnic and cultural fabrics of Hellenicity. At the macro-level of Greek identities,
30 Cf. Kühr 2006, 118–132. 262–267; Larson 2007, 17–30; Ganter 2014; see also Beck and Ganter
2015, 135; A. Schachter, Der Neue Pauly 2, 1997, 739, s.v. Boiotos.
31 Rose 2008, 416. We note that there is no evidence whatsoever for a common Aiolian phylai-
structure on either side of the Aegean.
32 See also the membership lists in Theopomp BNJ 115 F63 and Paus. 10.8.2. For a discussion,
Lefèvre 1998; Sanchez 2001, 37–41 and 518 for a synopsis; Funke 2013, 454.
33 The Dorians made up for this of course through Doris, see above.
402 Hans Beck
the Aiolians were an integral part of the highest order of heroic genealogies, inter-
twined with simultaneous trajectories of Dorians and Ionians, and the formation of
their respective ethnic identities. At the grassroots level, however, in Boiotia, the
Aiolian paradigm fell flat. The obvious conclusion from Aischines skipping over
the Aiolians in his list is that they never became visible agents in Central Greece.
The longevity of their material and immaterial cultural legacies brought to Boiotia
continued to influence the ways the people talked in that corner of the basin of Lake
Kopais in one way or another. In addition, it explained certain cultural distinctions.
Thucydides and Pindar credited those distinctions in conclusive terms, seeing them
as vital expressions of a pan-Aiolian ethnos. The high authority of their voices,
along with that of Hesiod, secured the the Aiolians a place in history. However, it
is increasingly difficult to subscribe to their views. The Aiolians of Asia Minor were
an ethnos of minor importance and with limited recognition there. As an ethnic
group in mainland Greece, with a shared tribal agency and identity that cut across
the Aegean, they are a phantom.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adak, M. (2007) Die dorische und äolische Kolonisation des lykisch-pamphylischen Grenzraumes
im Lichte der Epigraphik und der historischen Geographie, in C. Schuler (ed.), Griechische
Epigraphik in Lykien, Vienna, 41–50.
Alty, J. (1982) Dorians and Ionians, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102, 1–14.
Antonetti, C. (2005) La tradizione eolica in Etolia, in A. Mele, M. L. Napolitano, and A.Visconti
(eds.), Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie, Naples, 55–70.
Barner, W. (1967) Zu den Alkaios–Fragmenten von P.Oxy. 2506, Hermes 95, 1–28.
Beck, H. (forthcoming) The Parochial Polis. Localism and the Ancient Greek City-State, Chicago.
Beck, H. and P. Funke (2015a) An Introduction to Federalism in Greek Antiquity, in H. Beck and
P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1–29.
Billows, R. (1990) Antigonos the One-eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley.
Blümel, W. (1982) Die aiolischen Dialekte, Göttingen.
Bommélje S. (1988) Aeolis in Aetolia: Thuc. III 102, 5 and the origins of the Aetolian ethnos, His-
toria 37, 297–316.
Buck, R.J. (1986) The Aeolic Dialect in Boeotia, Classical Philology 63, 268–280.
Buckler, J. (2000) The Phantom Synedrion of the Boiotian Confederacy 378–335 BC, in Polis and
Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, Presented to M.H. Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday,
August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 431–446.
Edwards, A. (2008) Hesiod’s Ascra, Berkeley.
Fragoulaki, M. (2013) Kinship in Thucydides: Intercommunal Ties and Historical Narrative, Ox-
ford.
Freitag, K., P. Funke, and N. Moustakis (2004) Aitolia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An
Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford 379–390.
Funke, P. (2013) Greek Amphiktyonies. An Experiment in Transregional Governance, in H. Beck
(ed.), Companion to Ancient Greek Government, Malden, MA, 449–465.
Ganter, A. (2014) Ethnicity and Local Myth, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the
Garcia Ramon, J.L. (2007) Neues zur Problematik des thessalischen Dialekts, in I. Hajnal (ed.), Die
alten griechischen Dialekte: Wesen und Werden, Innsbruck, 91–111.
Gates, M.H. (1994) Archaeology in Turkey, American Journal of Archaeology 98, 249–278.
Gehrke, H.-J. (2001) Myth, History and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and
Beyond, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, 286–313.
Gschnitzer, F. (1955) Stammes- und Ortsgemeinden im alten Griechenland, Wiener Studien 68,
120–144.
Hall, J.M. (2002) Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago/London.
Harding, P. (1985) Translated Documents of Greece and Rome II: From the End of the Peloponne-
sian War to the Battle of Ipsus, Cambridge.
Head, B.V. (1911) Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, London.
Hoerder, D. (2002) Cultures in Contact. World Migrations in the Second Millenium, Durham.
Hornblower, S. (1991–2008) A Commentary on Thucydides, 3 volumes, Oxford.
Jehne, M. (1999) Formen der thebanischen Hegemonialpolitik zwischen Leuktra und Chaironeia,
Klio 81, 317–358.
Kühr, A. (2006) Als Kadmos nach Boiotien kam: Polis und Ethnos im Spiegel thebanischer Grün-
dungsmythen, Stuttgart.
Early Classical Periods. Historia Einzelschriften, Stuttgart.
Loraux, N. (2000) Born of the Earth. Myth and Politics in Athens, Ithaca.
Lücke, S. (2000) Syngeneia. Epigraphisch-historische Studien zu einem Phänomen der antiken grie-
chischen Diplomatie, Frankfurt.
Mackil, E. and P. Van Alfen (2006) Collaborative Coinage, in P. Van Alfen (ed.), Agoranomia:
Studies in Money and Exchange presented to John H. Kroll, New York, 201–247.
Mac Sweeney, N. (2013) Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia, Cambridge.
Malkin, I. (2011) A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford.
Nagy, G. (2009) Hesiod and the ancient biographical traditions, in F. Montanari, C. Tsagalis, and
A. Rengakos (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden, 271–311.
Ommer, R.E. (1977) Highlands Scots Migration to Southwestern Newfoundland: a Study of Kin-
ship, in J.J. Mannion (ed.), The Peopling of Newfoundland. Essays in Historical Geography,
St. John’s, 212–234.
Parker, H.N. (2008) The Linguistic Case for the Aiolian Migration reconsidered, Hesperia 77, 431–
464.
Prinz, F. (1979) Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, Munich.
Rose, C.B. (2008) Separating fact from fiction in the Aiolian migration, Hesperia 77, 399–430.
Rousset, D. (2015) Microfederalism in Central Greece: the Dorians and Oitaians, in H. Beck and P.
Roy, J. (2014) Autochthony in Ancient Greece, in J. McInerney (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in
the Ancient Mediterranean, Malden, Ma./Oxford, 241–255.
Rubinstein, L. (2004) Aeolis and South-western Mysia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An
Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 1033–1052.
Schachter, A. (2016) Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers, Cambridge.
Ulf, C. (ed.) (1996) Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität, Berlin.
404 Hans Beck
Ulf, C. (1996a) Griechische Ethnogenese versus Wanderungen von Stämmen und Stammstaaten, in
C. Ulf (ed.), Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität, Berlin, 240–280.
Vottéro, G. (2006) Remarques sur les origines ‘éoliennes’ du dialecte béotien, in C. Brixhe and G.
Vottéro (eds.), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans le Grèce antique, Nancy, 99–154.
INDEX
Abantes 122 Aitolia/Aitolians 20-24, 26, 32-36, 44, 49-
Act of Union of 1840 (Of Canada) 187 59, 88-89, 99, 102, 108, 116-118, 125,
Achaia/Achaians 11, 24, 75, 89, 99, 101, 128, 132, 149-162, 167-173, 200, 205-
102, 104-108, 127, 159, 175-189, 193- 210, 212-215, 230, 232, 233, 271, 286,
200, 205-215, 219-233, 258, 267, 285- 293-294, 300-301, 303, 305-306, 330,
307, 322, 330, 373, 395 344, 367, 394-395
Achaian War 114, 196, 207, 213 Aitolos 22, 38, 157
Achelous 155 Ajax 55
Acheloos River 172, 349, 396 Akanthos 324-325, 329, 332-334
Acheron River 341-342, 344-345 Akarnania/Akarnanians 55, 75, 116, 143,
Acherusian Lake 341 167-173, 213, 232, 330, 350
Achilles 39, 302, 339, 349 Akraiphia 71, 74, 87, 90
Acteon 162 Akroria/Akrorians 245
Actium 151, 196 Alcetas 353
Admetos 304 Alea 249
Aedepsos 120 Alektryon 136
Aegean Sea 336, 386-387, 389-390, 393- Aleuads 276, 278
394, 396-399, 402 Aleuas Pyrrhochrous 372
Aeschylus 347 Alexander I of Epirus, 142, 169, 356
Agamemnon 131 Alexander I of Macedon 276
Agasikles of Thebes 39 Alexander II 170, 173, 331
Agesilaos, King of Sparta 247, 262, 329 Alexander III (The Great) 74, 139, 142, 168,
Agesipolis 333 195, 205-206, 219, 332, 364, 371-372,
Agias 181 374-375
Agios Athanasios 47 Alexandria 211
Agios Vlassis 47, 52, 56 Alipheira 249
Agonothetes 59, 78, 87, 96, 370 Alkaios 392, 398
Aiachus 143 Alkibiades 17-18
Aiacidai 348, 351, 354 Alope from Tithronion 37
Aianteians 55 Alyzea 142, 399
Aigina 138, 228 Amarynthos 116, 119, 124-126, 129
Aigion 36, 193, 196, 198-199, 207-208, 212, Ambrakia 140, 142
226-228, 235, 302 Ambryssos 33
Aigospotomoi (Battle of) 11, 181 Amphanai 296
Aigosthena 37, 76, 101 Amphiktyon 38-39
Aiklos 120-122 Amphiktyonic Council 291
Ainianes 33, 38, 158, 208, 339, 344 Amphiktyonic League 45
Aioleion 323 Amphiktyony 88
Aiolians 352, 385-401 Amphion 400
Aiolidai 396 Amphipolis 277, 324, 327-328, 330-335,
Aiolis 387, 390-396 364, 367-368, 371-373
Aiolos 385, 396, 400-401 Amphissa 31, 33-37, 46-59, 395
Aischines 401-402 Amyklai 398
Aison 304 Amynandros of Athamania 301
Amyntas III 323-324, 329, 331, 333
406 Index
Amythaon 304 Argolid 65, 67, 131-137, 142, 144-146

Anaktorion 399 Argolis 228
Anaphe 367 Argos/Argives 131-146, 179-183, 185, 188,
Anaxarchos of Thebes 397 195-196, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 226-
Andrapodismos 134 228, 246, 250, 252, 260, 263-264, 266,
Androdamas of Rhegion 321 324-326, 342
Andros 322 Aristagoras of Tenedos 398-399
Anfissa 158 Aristion of Anaktorion 143
Antalcidas 52 Aristion of Medion 143
Anthela 38 Aristodama 33-36, 153-154
Anthemous 331, 334 Aristokleides 138
Antigoneia 198, 199 Aristotle 17, 194, 200, 225, 268, 321-322,
Antigonid Dynasty 108, 124, 297, 365-367, 325, 332, 352, 373
369, 374-376 Arkadia 11-12, 26, 132, 175, 177, 179, 181-
Antigonos Doson 106, 108, 180, 195, 207, 182, 185, 226-227, 230, 243—253,
366-368, 375 257-269, 373
Antigonos Gonatas 206, 292, 366, 372, 375- Arkas 11, 181, 248, 252
376 Arnai 325, 334
Antigonos Monophthalmos 171, 292, 332, Arrian 364, 371-372
335, 389 Arridaeus 372
Antilochos 304 Artemidorus of Ephesus 221, 234
Antinitsa 305 Artemis 181, 184, 301, 369
Antiochia 211 Artemis Laphria 150, 154-155, 157, 159,
Antiochos of Arkadia 260-261, 266 162
Antiochus (War of) 115-117, 207, 210 Artemis Leukophryene 367
Antiochus III 103, 118-119, 126, 129, 195 Artemis Limnatis 179, 181
Antipater 372 Artemis Panachaia 301
Antiphatas 52 Artemis Taurpolos 365-366, 369
Antoninus Pius 249-250 Artemisia 116
Antron 289, 292 Ascheion 227-228
Apamea (Peace of) 234 Asclepius 57, 132
Apatouria (Festival) 175 Aseans 250
Aphedriates 89-90, 100 Asia Minor 367, 372, 385-386, 389, 392-
Apheidas 181 396, 398, 401-402
Aphrodite 155 Asine 133, 260
Aphytis 321, 334 Asklepeion 139-142, 367
Apollo 11, 51, 59, 68, 70, 86, 89, 121, 155- Asklepios 137
157, 181, 322-323, 367, 385, 392 Asklepios of Epidauros 326
Apollo (Delian) 367 Askra 390-393, 400
Apollo Ismenios 67 Asopos 23, 67, 122, 400
Apollo Nasiota 48, 153 Assemble nationale du Quebec 187
Apollo Ptoieus 68, 86-89 Atalante 162
Apollo Pythaeus 136 Athamas 298, 303
Apollo Thermios 150, 207, 344 Athena 69, 155-157, 298
Apollodorus 349 Athena of the Boiotioi 69
Apollonia 160, 329, 333-334 Athena Ilias 55, 57-58
Aratos 175, 177, 180, 207-209, 227 Athena Itonia 65, 67-70, 78, 93
Archelaos 331 Athena Nikephoros 367
Archidamian War 328 Athena Panachaia 302
Areus 195 Athena Pronaia 68
Argead Dynasty 140, 142, 145 Athena Troas 55-56
Argilius 51
Index 407
Athenian Naval Confederacy (Second) 327, Chalkidians in Thrace 321-336

330, 399 Chalkidic Peninsula 324, 326, 336
Athenian-Theban Coalition 179 Chalkis 100-101, 108, 113-129, 139, 274-
Athenodorus 399 275, 280
Athens/Athenians 13-26, 33, 52-53, 58, 66- Chaonians 350-351
71, 74, 77-79, 94, 99, 102, 104, 120- Charmaina 46
123, 136, 139, 142, 168, 172, 178, 181, Cheimerion 344
250, 252, 258, 261, 264, 267-269, 275- Chileos of Tegea 245
281, 324-326, 327-328, 330-336, 388, Chios 143
394, 396-398, 401 Circe 344
Atintanians 350 Claudius 370-371
Athos 324 Cleopatra 142
Attalid Kings 367 Commodus 224
Attica 197, 342 Corinth/Corinthians 36, 48, 60, 65-66,
Augustus 151, 370 101, 142, 188, 195, 198, 208, 211, 226,
Autochthony 11, 14-15, 21, 23, 123, 258, 228, 324, 326, 328, 340, 342, 346, 354
259, 263, 388 Corinth (Gulf of) 66, 168, 205, 206, 246,
Autokles of Athens 261 395, 396
Autolykos 303 Corinthian War 73, 328, 330, 331
Axios River 363-365 Corcyra 142-143, 346
Azan/Azanians 11, 181 Corcyra, Bull of 181
Bablyon 168 Crete 230, 367
Basileia (Festival of) 77, 83, 93-95 Creteaeans 367
Battle Without Tears 266 Crousis 327
Belminatis 180 Cumae 143
Beroia 370-371, 373 Curetes 155
Boiotarch 14, 68-73, 78, 108, 373 Cyclopean Walls 134
Boiotia/Boiotians 11-14, 17, 23-26, 66-79, Cyprus 143, 144
83-84, 87-96, 99-108, 122, 132, 139, Cypselus 59
146, 154, 167, 172, 196-197, 226, 229- Cyrene 142, 245
230, 251, 259, 271, 279, 289, 326, 329- Daidala 69, 78
330, 335, 342, 373, 386-392, 395-402 Daimachos of Plataia 22
Boiotos 400, 401 Daiphontes 136
Bottiaeans 323, 325, 327, 332-333, 371-373 Damastes 276-277
Boubon 224 Daochos Monument 278
Brasidas 277-278, 291, 324, 325, 327-328, Daphnephoria 39
331-332 Datos 140
Brea 327 Deianira 155
British North America Act (of 1867) 186- Delia (Festival of) 77
187 Delian League 71, 396-398
Brygi 350 Delion (Battle of) 72
Byzantion 75, 399 Delos 369
Canada 185-189 Delphi 11, 33, 46, 57-58, 68-69, 88, 139,
Celts 372, 374 146, 150-151, 153-154, 157-158, 168,
Cephalonia 160 172, 181-182, 214, 244, 278-279, 291,
Chaironeia (Battle of) 74, 89, 179 293, 301, 367, 395, 401
Chaironeia 71, 74, 103, 104 Delphic Amphiktyony 89, 153, 271, 290,
Chalai 300 293, 367, 401
Chaleon 31, 33-34, 36, 37, 52-53, 57-58, Delphic Games 87
153 Demeter 70, 106-107, 138, 298, 305, 345
Chalkidian Alphabet 322 Demeter Panachaia 194, 302
Chalkidians 26, 247, 400 Demetrias 117-118, 292, 294, 296
408 Index
Demetrios II 89, 156, 206, 369 Elephenor 122

Demetrios Poliorketes 100, 172, 292, 295- Eliaia 341
297, 302 Elimiotai 363, 365
Demphis 172 Elina 355
Demonax of Mantinea 245 Elis/Elians 18-22, 24, 151, 178, 189, 194,
Demosthenes 45, 51, 55, 58, 275, 323, 328- 196, 198, 199, 228, 245, 249-250, 252,
329, 335 263-267, 324-326
Dentheliatis 179, 184 Ellopia 120, 121, 122, 340, 349
Derdas of Elimeia 326 Ellops 120, 121
Despoina 247 Epameinondas 52, 73, 179, 250, 263-265,
Deucalion 302 267
Diadochi (Wars of the) 99, 113, 139, 151 Epeion 18
Didyma (Oracle) 127 Ephoros of Kyme 20-22, 159, 262 329, 349
Dikaia 333-334 Ephyra 341
Dimokastro 355 Epidamnos 154
Dipaia (Battle of) 243 Epidauros 74, 132-133, 137, 139-145, 226-
Diodorus Siculus 24, 122, 134, 259, 262- 229, 333, 356
263, 267, 296, 329-330, 332, 335, 364 Epigonoi 122
Dion 157, 324, 333, 368, 373 Epirus 118, 139-140, 142, 145, 167, 170,
Dion of Akte 333 341-357, 363, 373-374
Dionysos 70, 155, 367 Eratoxenos of Athens 152
Dionysos of Syracuse 329 Erecthieus 122
Dioskouroi 181 Eretreia 37, 66, 100-101, 108, 114-116, 120-
Duodeka 136 129, 143, 274, 322, 326
Dodekapolis 385, 389 Eretreius 121, 123
Dodona 157, 339-357 Erineus 388
Dolopians 401 Eros 155
Domitian 370 Erymanthian Boar 157
Dorians 33, 134, 136, 175, 385, 387-389, Erythrai 161
396-397, 401-402 Etruria 48
Dorian Invasion/Migration 44, 395 Euaimon 250
Doric Koinon 101 Euboia 37, 44, 71, 74, 100, 108, 113-128,
Doric Corridor 45-47, 50, 59 197, 321, 340, 342, 377, 392
Dorieis of Rhodes 139, 142 Euboian Gulf 46
Dorieus 388 Euboian Strait 66
Doris 151, 388, 396 Euboian War 274
Doros 385 Eudamidas 329
Dorykles 350 Euenos River 396
Drakon 151 Eugammon of Cyrene 350-351
Dryopes 120-123, 134 Euippe 350-351
Dulichius 339-340, 343 Eumelos 304
Dyme 24, 116, 195, 199, 213, 226-228 Eumenes 195
Echemos 252 Eumenes II 213, 232
Echinos 289 Eunomos 118
Edessa 373 Euphraios 291
Egnatia Odos 345 Euripides 159, 347
Egypt 349 Euripos (Straits of) 100
Eion 275, 327 Europe (Modern History) 198, 391
Elaia 341 Eurotas River 262
Elaiatis 341 Euryalos 351
Elatos 181 Eurylochos 117
Elea 341, 345, 354-355, 357, 358 Eurymedon (Battle of) 393
Index 409
Eurypidas 159 Hermon 181

Eurytos 121 Herodotus 13-14, 18-22, 65, 68, 244-245,
Euthykrates 323 247, 251-252, 276, 287, 343, 345, 349,
Euthymedes 115 352-353, 385, 390, 393, 396
Eutresis 70, 245 Heroön of Kalydon 155
Flamininus, Titus Quinctius 113-119, 293 Hesiod 243, 340, 349, 385-386, 389-391,
Flavian Period 370 397, 400, 402
France 198 Hessioi 56
Front de Liberation du Quebec 186, 188 Hestiaotis 278
Galatians 151, 156 Hieron of Alexandria 171
Galatian Invasion of Greece 99, 208 Highland Scots 391
Galaxidi 56, 58 Histiaia 37, 73, 75, 120-122
Gale 332 Histaiotis 122, 364
de Gaulle, Charles 188 Homer 122, 131, 133, 155, 161, 243, 302-
Gauls 150, 167-168 303, 339-357, 340-357, 394
Germany 198, 391 Homeric Catalogue of Ships 23, 67, 243,
Geronthrai 114 339, 352, 394
Ghiona 60 House of the Coroplast 303
Gitana 355-357 Hutu 176
Glabrio, Manius 115 Hyaioi 56
Gordian III 371 Hyettos 66
Goumani 355 Hypata 33, 36, 207
Glykys Limen 341 Hyperborea 347
Grabus of Illyria 323, 326 Hypnia 48-49
Great Gods 369 Hypothebai 67
Gryneion 385 Hyrkanis 33, 35-36
Hades 344-345, 354-355, 357 Hyrnathioi 136
Halai 100-101 Ialysos 336
Haliartos 74, 77 Ida, Mount 385
Halieis 134 Iliad 339-340, 344
Halos 33, 291, 294-298, 301-304 Ilion 55
Hekatomboia 132, 136, 140, 142, 145 Illyria 371
Helisson 250 Iolaos of Thebes 70
Hellanikos 396 Iolkos 304
Helle 298, 303 Ion 120-121, 385
Hellen 302, 385 Ionia 120-121, 134, 141-142, 353, 385, 387-
Hellenus of Troy 351 389, 394, 396-398, 401-402
Hellenic Alliance 89 Ionian Sea 340, 347
Hellenic War 168 Ionic (Dialect) 322
Hellespont 143 Ipsos (Battle of) 292
Hera 69-70, 135-136, 142, 144 Isis 138
Heraion 135, 137, 140, 144-145 Ismenias 76
Herakleia 140, 364, 365 Isokrates 74, 329, 333
Herakleia Syntike 373 Isthmian Declaration 113, 119, 125
Herakleia Trachiniai 291 Italiote League 234
Herakleidai 134-135, 242, 259 Ithaka 339-340, 342-343, 350
Herakleides Kritikos 19, 102 Itonos 38
Herakles 67, 70, 106, 108, 136, 155-157 Itonion 90
Heraklion 68 Jason of Pherae 272, 277, 279-281
Hermaiondas of Thebes 397 Julio-Claudian Dynasty 370
Hermes 70, 155 Justin 363
Hermione 134 Kadmeia 329
410 Index
Kadmos 400 Kompasion (Massacre of) 187

Kamiros 336 Kopais, Lake/Kopaic Basin 65-76, 79, 402
Kalamas 342 Korkyra 37
Kalapodi 161 Koroneia 65-68, 71, 74, 77, 79, 90, 93, 139,
Kallibios 14, 257 392
Kallidike 350 Koroni 196
Kallimachos 159 Kos 367, 369
Kalliopolis 159-160 Kothos 120-122
Kallistai 227 Kotilidai 280
Kallisto 181, 252 Krane/Kephallenia 36
Kallistratos 268 Krissa 46
Kalydon 20, 24, 150, 154-155, 157-158, Krissaean Gulf 48
168, 206, 394, 396 Kritolaos 211
Kaphyai 251 Kroisos of Lydia 347
Karandai 294 Krokian Plain 292, 300
Karatsagdali 294 Kroton 140
Karystos 79, 115-116, 120-129 Ktouri 294
Kassandreia 37, 332, 335, 367-368 Kuretes 159
Kassandros 292, 297, 302, 332, 335 Kybele 155
Kastro Kallithea 294, 296, 300, 303-305 Kyme 389, 391, 396-397
Kastro Vellianis 355 Kynourians 16, 245
Kephisodotos of Athens 261 Kyzikos 369
Kephissos Valley 400 Lakedaimonians 257, 268, 324, 329
Keraunus 372 Lakonia 11, 198, 228, 247, 260, 263
Kerberos 344, 354-355 Lakonians 175, 177, 182, 228
Keressos 67 Lamia 33-34, 37, 153
Kerinthos 122 Laphrieia 150-151
Kimmerians 344-345 Laphrion 155, 158
Kimon of Athens 275-276 Larisa 131, 277, 280
Kineas 277 Larisa Kremaste 289, 292, 296, 298-299
King’s Peace 260, 268, 329-330 Larissa 118
Kirra 45 Larymna 100-101
Kithairon 66 Lasthenes 323
Kleandros of Kolophon 138, 152 Lebadeia 69, 71, 74, 88-91, 93-94
Klearidas 324, 327 Lelantine War 326
Kleigenes of Akanthos 247, 257, 324, 329 Leontophron 350
Kleitor 247, 249, 251 Lepreon 18
Kleogenes of Aigion 33 Lesbos 124, 335, 385, 387, 396-398
Kleomachos of Pharsalos 274-276 Lētōon 223
Kleomenes I of Sparta 243, 247 Leukas 142-143
Kleomenes III of Sparta 89, 101, 179-180, Leukophryeneia 154
184, 195, 206 Leuktra (Battle of) 69, 73, 93, 179, 183, 243,
Kleomenic War 103 245-246, 252-253, 258, 268-269, 330
Kleon 333 Liatovouni 341-342
Kleonai 137 Lindos 336
Kleotimos 335 Linear B 386, 388
Knemos of Sparta 350 Livy 113, 115-117, 128, 185, 206, 212, 364,
Knossos 386 369
Koans 368 Lokris 26, 30-40, 44, 48, 53-60, 66, 68, 76,
Kodros 396 88, 142, 151, 153, 158, 160, 167, 170-
Kokytos River 341-342, 344 173, 214, 401
Kolopetinitsa 48 Lokris (Epiknemidian) 47
Index 411
Lokris (Hesperian) 33, 36, 37, 44, 49-61 Megalopolis 11, 175, 179-180, 183, 185,
Lokris (Hypoknimidian) 52 193, 196-199, 208-209, 227-228, 245,
Lokris (Opuntian) 37, 44-60, 100-101, 108 248-251, 265, 267
Lokris (Ozolian) 44, 51 Megara/Megarians 76, 78, 101, 104-105,
Lokros 59 109, 139, 198, 226, 324, 326
Lousoi 228 Megaris 228
Lycians 196, 220-237 Mekistis 121
Lykaia 248 Mekyberna 325, 332
Lykaion, Mount 247-249 Melaneis 121
Lykaon 181 Melaneus 121, 123
Lykomedes of Mantineia 14-15, 245, 257- Melanippos 398
269 Meleager 155, 162, 372
Lykortas 189 Melissa 345
Lykosoura 247, 249 Melitaia 289, 293, 299-302
Lykourgan Constitution 185 Melos 178
Lyncestis 365 Menaichmos 151
Lysander 181 Mende 321, 325, 327, 332-333
Lysimachus of Alexandria 350 Menon of Gargettos 276
Lysistratos of Olynthus 325 Menon of Pharsalos 275-276, 278
Magnesia 113, 117-119, 154, 230, 290, 367 Menophantos of Makedon 33, 35-37
Magnetes 401 Messapians 56
Magoula Plataniotiki 294-295 Messene/Messenians 11, 121, 151, 178-
Mainalians 16, 245, 251-252 184, 188-189, 193, 195-199, 228, 232,
Makon of Larisa 301 246
Malos/Malians 38, 289, 401 Mesopotamos 345-346
Malian Gulf 46 Messenian War (Third) 52
Mantineia 198, 243, 246-252, 257-258, 263, Methone 321, 336
267, 269, 329 Methydrion 250, 252
Mantineia (Battle of) 73, 326 Methymna 335, 397
Makedonia 25, 99, 106, 113, 123, 124, 126, Metope 122
139, 140, 142-143, 145, 157, 168, 180, Midea 133
184, 197, 200, 206-207, 214, 276, 278, Mikkos of Dyme 213
286, 291-297, 299-300, 302-303, 305- Mikythion 115
306, 323-332, 335-336, 350, 363-378 Miletos 181
Makedonia (Upper) 365, 371-373 Mithridatean War 196
Makedonian Wars 197 Minyai 18, 65-69
Makedonian War (First) 103, 108, 156 Molossia 140, 341-357, 373
Makedonian War (Second) 208 Molykreion 54, 60
Makedonian War (Third) 374 de Montcalm, Louis-Joseph 186
Makiston 18, 121 Montreal 188
Makyneia 54, 168 Mummius 77
Marathonian Tetrapolis 121 Myania 49
Mardonios 276 Mycenae 133-137, 388-389
Marganeis 20 Mycenean Period 44-47, 77, 134, 386-387
Margos of Keryneia 208 Mykale 385
Massalia 390 Mykalessos 392
Mastilitsa 346 Myrina 396
Matropolis 173 Myonia 48, 59
Mavromandilia 341-342 Mytilene 127, 159, 335-336, 397
Maeander River 367 Nabis 179-180, 184, 195
Medeonians 116 Naopoioi (College of) 78, 94
Medion 142 Narthakion Range 289
412 Index
Naryka 32, 54, 79 Oropos 66, 74-76, 92, 99-105, 108, 211, 268
Naumachios of Epirus 171 Orthagoras Decree 235
Naupaktos 24, 34, 37, 51-59, 151, 168, 170, Othrys Massif 290
205-206, 394 Ottowa 188
Nekyomanteion 345, 357 Oxylos, son of Haimon 20, 22
Neleus 304 Pagai 101
Nemea 133, 135, 141, 143-144, 198 Pagasai 296
Nemean Games 132, 141 Pagasitic Gulf 289
Neochori-Gkirkas 346 Pagondas of Thebes 14, 72
Neoptolemos 347, 349, 352-353 Palairos 142-143
Nestor 304 Palatine Hill 249
Newfoundland 391 Pallantion 244, 249-250
Nikander of Kolophon 152 Pallene 334
Nike 11, 181, 196 Pamboiotia (festival and sanctuaries) 79, 83,
Nike of Paionios 181 90, 93, 95
Nikias 324, 327-328 Panaitolika 149, 151, 207
Nikias (Peace of) 324-326, 332 Pandoros 122
Nikokreion of Salamis 143-145 Panionion 385
Nobilior, Marcus Fulvius 184 Pantaleon I 209
Nonakris 247 Paramythia 346
North Africa 142 Parasopia 69
North America 391 Parnassus 46
Noudion 18 Parnes 66
October Crisis 187 Parrhasians 245-246, 248, 249, 251
Oeneon 57 Parti Quebecois 186, 188
Oeneus 152 Patrai 205, 213, 229
Ocean 344 Patras 151, 155, 196, 198-199, 302
Odryssians 326, 335 Patroklos 39, 303
Odyssey 339-340, 343-345, 347, 350-352 Pausanias 23, 78, 95, 179, 182-183, 187,
Odysseus 339, 344, 350-351, 357 244, 250-251, 265, 302
Oetaians 158 Pegasus 354
Oiantheia 59, 158, 160, 172 Peisistratos 304
Oineidai 162, 168, 173 Peisistratids 277
Oinophyta (Battle of) 71 Pelagonia 365
Oitaians 401 Pelasgia 298
Olpaioi Pelasgians 134, 144, 339-340, 348-350
Olympia 70, 181-182, 195, 249, 251 Pelasgiotis 278, 289, 364
Olympian Games of Gordian III 371 Pelias 304
Olympic Games 133, 140 Pella 152, 364-365, 367-368, 373
Olynthian-Spartan War 329 Pellene 24, 196, 246
Olynthus 257, 321-336 Pelopidas 262-263, 266, 330
Onchestos 67, 76, 392 Peloponnese 121, 138, 151, 177-180, 187-
Opous 31-33, 36, 38, 54, 100-101, 105, 108 188, 193-200, 206, 215, 224-225, 227,
Opramoas of Rhodiapolis 223 230-231, 243, 245-246, 249-250, 252,
Opuntia 52-53, 60 258-260, 263-269, 290, 299, 302, 388,
Orchomenos 25, 66-74, 103-104, 139, 160, 394
247, 250-252, 400-401 Peloponnesian League 244-247
Oreitai 122 Peloponnesian War 72, 246, 276-277, 332,
Oreos 120-121 334-335, 397
Orestes 398 Peneus 365
Orestians 350, 363, 365 Perdikkas II 278, 324-328, 330-331
Orion 121, 123 Perdikkas III 140, 142, 328, 331, 333
Index 413
Pereia 300 Phthiotic Eretreia 305

Pergamum 367 Phthiotic Thebes 32-33, 36, 289, 292, 295,
Periander 398 298, 301-302, 305
Periander of Corinth 345 Phylake 295, 298
Perikles 16, 71, 108 Phyliadon 300
Perrhaibia 113, 122-123, 339, 344, 401 Physkos 31, 33, 38
Persephone 106, 344-345, 354-355, 357 Physkeis 51, 55, 59
Persephone Soteria 369 Phytaea 36
Perseus 304 Pindar 20, 39, 70, 347-349, 393, 398, 402
Perseus of Macedon 76, 366, 372, 376, 378 Pindos 352
Persia 160, 262, 291, 394 Pitane 396
Persian Emperor 266, 276, 329 Plains of Abraham (Battle of) 186
Persian Wars 70, 134, 276, 389, 393, 396 Plataia (Battle of) 65, 252
Peuma 294, 296, 298, 300-301 Plataia (Figure) 23
Phaethon 121 Plataia 13, 23-25, 67-73, 102, 105, 109, 333
Phaistinos 59 Plataiid 69, 72
Pharai 116, 213 Plato 321
Pharsala 294 Pleiades 208
Pharsalos 275, 279, 291-292, 296, 305-306, Pleistos 46, 59
325-326 Pleuron 167, 394, 396
Pheidon 339-340, 343-344, 351 Plutarch 60, 120, 177, 187, 225, 259, 262,
Pheneos 228 265, 274-275, 321-322
Pherae 37, 304 Polichne 321, 323, 334
Pherai 118, 304 Polybios 24, 101, 103-106, 108, 116, 168-
Pherekydes 396 170, 175-178, 185-186, 193-196, 198,
Phigalia 196, 244 205-206, 208-215, 219-221, 229-232,
Philiates 342 258, 321, 323, 364, 375, 377-378
Philip II of Makedon 54, 140, 179, 205-206, Polydamas 277, 279, 281
279, 281, 292, 323, 326, 328, 330-332, Polydeukes of Therapne 70
334, 336, 354, 364, 366, 371-374, 376 Polykritos 170-171
Philip V 106, 108, 158, 293, 365-366, 368- Polykritos of Callium 171
369, 374, 376, 378 Polypoites 350
Philippi 367 Pompidas 106-107
Philippoi 367-368, 370 Poseidon 69, 76, 106-107, 122, 181
Philippos Andriskos 370, 375 Posidippus 152
Philopoimen 101, 180-181, 184-185, 187, Potidaia 324, 327, 331-335
189, 193, 196, 208-209, 229, 232, 235 Potidaiatika 327-328
Philotas 371 Potidania 160
Phleius 329 Pras 172
Phoenecians 349 Proklos 350
Phokaia 390 Proschion 394
Phokis 11, 26, 44, 48, 66, 75, 78, 101, 151- Protessilaos 298
152, 158, 161, 167-168, 172, 230, 271, Proxenos of Tegea 14, 257
289, 306, 330, 396, 401 Pseudo-Aristotle 333
Phokos 396 Pseudo-Skylax 289, 341, 343
Phorbadas 143 Pteleon 292
Phormion 325 Pteleos 118
Phrixa 18 Ptoia 91, 93-94, 96
Phrixos 298, 303 Ptoion 68, 83, 87-90, 95
Phthiotians 401 Ptoios 68
Phthiotis 278, 289, 364 Ptolemaic Egypt 197, 211, 367
Phthiotoc Achaea 38, 285-307 Ptolemy 372
414 Index
Ptolemy of Aloros 331 Smyrna 36-37

Ptolemy V 106 Social War 103, 108, 167-168, 208, 213,
Pydna (Battle of) 58 236
Pylean Amphictyony 38 Soidas 151
Pyrasos 289-290, 295, 298, 302 Sophocles 351
Pyrgos 18 Soros 294, 296
Pyrgos Ragiou 346 Sorsikidai 280
Pyriphlegethon 344 Sosthenes 372, 374
Pyrrha 302 Soteria 150, 369
Pyrrhos of Epiros 99 Sparta/Spartans 11, 13, 15, 18-25 52, 54,
Pythian Games 70, 139, 172 67, 73, 79, 89, 109, 134, 136, 175-189,
Pythian Sanctuary 151, 154 193-198, 200, 206, 209, 212, 228, 243-
Quebec 185-189 254, 257-269, 277, 324, 326, 328-329,
Quebec City 188 331, 333, 336, 350, 388, 394, 397-398,
Rhamfias 278 401
Rhodes 124, 139, 234, 336 Spartan-Chalkidean War 328
Rhomaia (Festival) 114, 126-127 Spartan-Olynthian War 333
Rome/Romans 76-79, 89, 93, 113, 115-119, Spartolos 323, 332-334
125-128, 169-170, 178, 184-185, 188, Spartolos (Battle of) 325, 327, 335
207, 212, 214, 223, 230, 234, 249, 286, Stageira 332, 334, 336
293, 305-306, 364-365, 368-371, 374- Stagirite 349
376, 378 Standard [Coinage], Aeginetic 195
Rwanda 176 Standard [Coinage], Attic 197
Sacred War (Third) 194, 399, 401 Standard [Coinage], Rhodian 195
Sacred Way 11, 135, 181 Standard [Coinage], Symmachic 195
Samothrace 369 Stasippos 257
Sarte 322 Stasis 17, 24-25, 77, 115
Scione 321, 325, 332-333 Stolos 321, 323, 334
Second Athenian League 75 Strabo 18-19, 21-22, 120-122, 159, 220-224,
Seleucid Empire 114, 116, 118, 211, 367 321, 341, 348-349, 354, 364, 385, 395
Selloi 339-340, 344, 347-349, 352, 357 Stratios 304
Sepeia (Battle of) 134 Stratos 173, 213
Serapis 138 Strepsa 323, 334
Sermylia 334 Strophakos of Thessaly 326
Seven Against Thebes 398 Strymon River 364
Seven Years War 186 Stymphalos 245, 249
Sicilian Campaign 324 Styrians 120
Sigeion 398 Styx 247-248
Sikyon 196, 198, 208-209, 211, 226-228 Susa 261-262, 266, 330
Silanus, M. Junius 78 Syracuse 140
Simonides 327 Syria 211
Singos 325, 332 Tagos 271-282, 376
Sinos 334 Tanagra 70-72, 74
Sisyphos 303 Tanagra (Battle of) 71
Sitalkes 327, 335-336 Tanagraia 392
Skala Aetou 342 Taphians 339-340, 343
Skarphea 31-33, 36 Tarentum 140
Skillous 20 Taygetos (Mount) 262
Skopas 209 Tegea 14, 181, 196, 198, 244-247, 249-252,
Skorpion 151 257, 267
Skourta 66 Tegyra (Battle of) 262
Smilas 291 Teiresias 344, 350
Index 415
Teithronion 152 Timotheos 328, 331, 333

Teleutias 329 Tiryns 133-136
Temenides 136 Tithorea 158
Tempe 276 Tolmides 71
Tenedos 398-399 Tolophon 59
Teos 367 Tolophonic Coast 57
Teumessos 392 Tomaros, Mount 347-348
Tharyps 353 Torone 321, 323, 325, 333-334
Thasos 139 Torubeia 142
Thaumakoi 293 Tralleis 36
Thebes/Thebans 13, 39, 67-79, 89, 91, 93- Treaty of Paris (of 1763) 186
94, 103-109, 122, 139, 247, 251, 258- Triballians 371
269, 290, 326, 329-331, 373, 392, 397- Tritaia 59, 116, 213
401 Troad 385, 396, 398
Theban Hegemony 70, 73, 262 Trogus, Pompeius 169
Theban-Plataian War 14-15 Trophonios (Oracle of) 86-89, 93-94
Themistios 138 Trojan War 44, 120, 158
Themistokles 267 Troy 55, 351, 387
Theopompos of Chios 323, 325, 334 Trudeau, Pierre 186
Theopompos of Megalopolis 152 Tryphilians 11, 15, 20-21, 24, 121, 228, 244,
Theorodokos 74, 142-143 266
Theōroi 92, 135-140 Tryphylos 181
Thermika (Festival) 150, 207-208 Tyche 155
Thermon 150-154, 157, 207, 210, 213 Tydeus 159, 162
Thermopylai 38-39, 114, 116 Tymphaei-Paravaei 363
Thermos 170 Tyrimmas 351
Theron of Akragas 20 Ukraine 391
Thespiai 25, 67, 70-74, 79, 139 Vitrinitsa 55
Thesprotia 339-357 Vitsa Zagoriou 341-342
Thessaliotis 278, 364 Vrennos 372
Thessalonike 364-365, 373 War Measures Act (Of Canada) 187
Thessaly/Thessalians 33, 50, 75, 113, 118- Wolfe, James 186
119, 122-123, 127, 139, 168, 197, 230, Xenokleides 115
232, 264, 271-282, 285, 287, 289-291, Xenophon 14-15, 24, 246-247, 250, 257-
293, 300-302, 304-306, 326, 340, 342, 269, 277, 322, 324, 327, 329-330, 333
352, 363-364, 372-376, 386-387, 396, Xerxes 134, 276
401 Xouthos 120-121
Thetis 298 Xuthos 302, 385
Third Sacred War 73-75 Xyniai 293
Thisbe 37, 70, 77 Zethos 400
Thucydides 14, 16-17, 19, 22-23, 45, 49, 52, Zeus 65, 69, 141, 143-144, 155, 181, 196,
57, 68, 109, 145, 252, 290, 323-328, 199, 298, 305, 339-340, 365-366, 369
335, 341, 343, 349-350, 356-357, 393- Zeus Amarios 194
397, 402 Zeus Basileus 88-90, 93-94
Thoas 209 Zeus (Dodonian) 348
Thousand Opuntians 54 Zeus Homarios 207
Thrace 139 Zeus Karaios 69-70
Thronion 31-32, 158 Zeus Lykaios 247-248
Thyamis River 346 Zeus of the Minyai 69
Thyreatis 179-180 Zeus (Nemean) 57
Thyrreion 173 Zeus (Theban) 349
Tiberius 189 Zeus (Thesprotian) 34
The ethnic turn has led to a paradigm It has been posited that in their conduct
shift in Classics and Ancient History. In of foreign policy, ethne often resorted to
Greek history, it toppled the traditional a federal program. Did ethne emulate
view that the various ethnos states of each other, and did they inspire others
the Classical and Hellenistic periods to adopt a federal organization? More
drew on a remote pedigree of tribal recently, it was argued that their foreign
togetherness. Instead, it appears that policy was charged with ethnicized atti-
those leagues were built on essentially tudes. Did the idea of ethnic together-
changing, flexible, and relatively late ness generally influence foreign policy?
constructions of regional identities that And, did everyone subscribe to the same
took shape most often only in the Archa- blueprint of ethnicized arguments?
ic period.
The implications are far-reaching. The contributions to this volume explore
They impact the conception of an eth- the lived and often contradictory experi-
nos’ political organization; and they spill ence between tribal belonging and polit-
over into the study of external relations. ical integration.
www.steiner-verlag.de
Franz Steiner Verlag
ISBN 978-3-515-12217-7
9 7835 1 5 1 22 1 7 7

Hans Beck - Kostas Buraselis - Alex McAuley - Ethnos and Koinon - Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism-Franz Steiner Verlag (2019)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hans Beck - Kostas Buraselis - Alex McAuley - Ethnos and Koinon - Studies in Ancient Greek Ethnicity and Federalism-Franz Steiner Verlag (2019)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ethnos and Koinon

Edited by Hans Beck,

Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien

Edited by Hans Beck,

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek:

Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.

List of Illustrations ................................................................................................... 7

Hans Beck, Kostas Buraselis, & Alex McAuley

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi

Margriet Haagsma, Laura Surtees & C. Myles Chykerda

Index ................................................................................................................... 405

May 2018 Hans Beck Kostas Buraselis Alex McAuley

1 On the spatial politics of the monument see Scott 2008.

4 Gehrke 2001; cf. Gehrke 2003, 2005; Gehrke 2010.

I. ETHNIC IDENTITY AS AN ARGUMENT FOR PARTICIPATION

13 Xen. Hell. 7.1.23–26.

As exciting as this dedication is for those interested in the relationship between

And in 415, as the Athenians debated whether or not to embark on an expedition to

22 Lape 2010, 169.

II. CONSTRUCTING AND REDEFINING ETHNIC IDENTITY IN TANDEM

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

33 Roy 2014, 248f.

37 Parmeggiani 2011, 651f.

III. DIVISIONS AMONG HOMOPHYLOI

46 Xen. Hell. 7.1.15–18; Diod. Sic. 15.68.2.

IV. COOPERATIVE POLITICS BEYOND ETHNICITY

So if ethnic identity was offered as an argument for a politics of cooperation, but

Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens: Image et religion, Paris.

I. PROXENY AS A TOOL OF INTERMEDIATION

Proxeny is one of the most copiously documented institutions of ancient Greece,

II. MULTIPLE PROXENIES

1 Beck and Funke 2015, 1–29.

III. A CASE STUDY: THE LOKRIAN PROXENIES

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

IV. THE EVIDENCE

Contents: accessory awards

VI. POLITEIA AND ISOPOLITEIA

Granting of (iso-)politeia is attested in decrees of both the Eastern and Western

14 T 4: koinon. IG IX 12 3, 668: according to Klaffenbach, on the basis of prosopographical analysis,

programs aimed at broadening the citizen body. Economic mobility in Lokris is

VIII. THE GEOGRAPHY OF PROXENIES: A NATURAL-ANTHROPIC

37 IG IX 12 3 750, ll. 10–15. Cf. T 7.

IX. PROXENY, NEIGHBORING RELATIONS, ETHNOGENESIS

41 For a commentary see Hall 2002, 150–153.

attested – and to provide solutions to contemporary demographic shortages. On ac-

Following up on my initial proposition, we may consider proxeny, in the Lokrian

ll. 1–2, 4–5, 7

ll. 3–5, 11–12

ll. 6–8, 10–11

ll. 2, 21–27, 29–30

Only rarely do ancient authors refer to Hesperian or Ozolian1 Lokris, a region

28 Zymi and Sideris 2003, 35.

34 Jacquemin et al. 2012, 219–223, no 121.

73 Grainger 1999, 122–129, esp. 124.

We find ourselves on more solid ground, in relation to the image of Hesperian

To name one example, a contemporary amphiktyonic catalogue presents an Am-

Antonetti, C. (1990) Les Étoliens. Image et religion, Paris.

107 Morgan 2003, 113; Dominguez 2013a, 417.

Fossey, J.M. (1990) The Ancient Topography of Opountian Lokris, Amsterdam.

Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης. Βόλος, 16.3–19.3.2006.

II. THE BEGINNINGS OF A STATE

2 Schachter 2016a, 3–21. See too Schachter 1996a and 2000.