Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece

1,680 243 16MB

English Pages [316] Year 1987

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece

Table of contents :
List of Maps and Figures
I. The Founders of Colonies and Apollo's Oracle
Introduction: The Role of Delphoi in Greek Colonization
Authenticity of
Oracular Responses and the Method of Consultation
The Founders of Rhegion and the Human Tithe to Apollo
Archias and Syracuse
Myskellos and the Achaian Foundation of Kroton
The Foundation Oracles of Taras
The Joint Foundation of Gela
Abdera: The Failure of Timesias
Thasos: "A Conspicuous City in the Dimly Seen Island"
The Foundation of Kyrene in Libya
Delphoi and the Transfer of Cult: Massalia
The Exact Words of the Pythia: "To Found Kyrnos"
The Legacy of the Argonauts:
Herakleia Pontike
Miltiades and the Dolonkoi of the Thracian Chersonese
The Question Addressed to Apollo: The Spartan Dorieus
Am phi polis: The Athenian Hagnon and the Relics of Rhesos
Parthenope and Neapolis
The Sikel Douketios
Post Foundation Inquiry: Apollonia
II. Divination and Foundation
The Purpose of Divination
Founders and Seers: Syracuse, Archias and the Iamidai
Athens and Thourioi
Xenophon and Silanos
The Refoundation of Messene
The Foundation of Alexandria
Bird Divination
The Sacrifice "For Good Omens" in the Mother-City
III. The Sacred Fire and the Public Hearth
The Transfer of Sacred Fire from the Mother-City
The Origins of the Transfer of Sacred Fire
The Symbolism of Hestia
Perpetual Fire
The Exceptional Colonies
IV. Sanctuaries for the Gods
The Siting of Sacred Precincts
Temené and the Polis
Places "Naturally Sacred"
Religious Authority to Site Sacred Precincts
Statements in Greek Authors
Respect for Precedents of Sacredness
The Archaeological Evidence
The Sites
V. The Nature of the Cult
The Universality of the Oikist Cult
Annual Commemorations
Tomb in the Agora
VI. Founders and their Cults
Battos and Kyrene
The Oracle at the Tomb of the Oikist
Material Evidence for the Tombs of Oikists
Phalanthos and Taras
Timesias and Abdera
Themistokles and Magnesia
Amphipolis Between Hagnon
and Brasidas
Sikyon and Late Cases
Sicilian Cults
VII. Founders and Posterity
The Archēgetēs and The Colony
Descendants of Oikists
Plurality of Oikists versus the Single Oikist Cult: How Important Was The Cult of the
VIII. Conclusion to Part Two: The Origins of the Oikist Cult
Bibliography of Works Cited
Index of Names and Terms
Index of Ancient Authors Cited
Index of Inscriptions Cited

Citation preview




Mvam0a.Mc; UVE0EKE 'Avrnpaµcn "Mnasithales dedicated to Antiphamos" A fragment of a 5th-century B.C. Attic kylix dedicated to the founder of Gela, Antiphemos




Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Malkin, !rad. Religion and colonization in ancient Greece. (Studies in Greek and Roman religion ; v. 3) Originally presented as the author's thesis (Ph. D.University of Pennsylvania) Bibliography: p. Include indexes. I. Greece-Religion. 2. Greece-Colonies. 3. Colonization-Religious aspects. I. Title. II. Series. 87-14598 292'.08 BL795.C57M35 1987 ISBN 90-04-07119-9 (pbk.)

ISSN 0169-9512 ISBN 90 04 07119 9 © Copyright /987 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher

This book is dedicated to Felice Posner Malkin and Yaakov Malkin with thanks and love.

CONTENTS List of Maps and Figures Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

........ ......... ......... .........

. . . .

... ... ... ...

.............. .............. .............. ..............

........... ........... ........... ...........





Introduction: The Role of Delphoi in Greek Colonization 17. - Authenticity of Oracular Responses and the Method of Consultation 29. - The Founders of Rhe­ gion and the Human Tithe to Apollo 31. - Archias and Syracuse 41. - Myskellos and the Achaian Foundation of Kroton 43. - The Foundation Oracles of Taras 47. - The Joint Foundation of Gela 52. - Abdera: The Failure of Timesias 54. Thasos: "A Conspicuous City in the Dimly Seen Island" 56. - The Foundation of Kyrene in Libya 60. - Delphoi and the Transfer of Cult: Massalia 69. - The Exact Words of the Pythia: "To Found Kyrnos" 72. - The Legacy of the Argonauts: Herakleia Pontike 73. - Miltiades and the Dolonkoi of the Thracian Chersonese 77. - The Question Addressed to Apollo: The Spartan Dorieus 78. - Amphipolis: The Athenian Hagnon and the Relics of Rhesos 81. - Parthenope and Neapolis 84. - The Sikel Douketios 85. - Post Foundation Inquiry: Apollonia 86. - Conclu­ sions 88. II. Divination and Foundation


The Purpose of Divination 92. - Founders and Seers: Syracuse, Archias and the Iamidai 93. Athens and Thourioi 97. Xenophon and Silanos 102. The Refoundation of Messene 104. The Foundation of Alexandria 106. - Bird Divination 108. - The Sacrifice "For Good Omens" in the Mother-City 109. - Conclusions 111. III. The Sacred Fire and the Public Hearth The Transfer of Sacred Fire from the Mother-City 114. - The Origins of the Transfer of Sacred Fire 122. - The Symbolism of Hestia 124. - Perpetual Fire 125. - The Exceptional Colonies 129. - Conclusions 133.





IV. Sanctuaries for the Gods The Siting of Sacred Precincts 135. - Temene and the Polis 138. - Places "Naturally Sacred" 141. - Religious Authority to Site Sacred Precincts 142. Statements in Greek Authors 143. - Respect for Precedents of Sacredness 148. The Archaeological Evidence 160. - The Sites 164. - Conclusions 183.

PART Two THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER V. The Nature of the Cult


The Universality of the Oikist Cult 190. - Annual Commemorations 195. Tomb in the Agora 200. VI. Founders and their Cults Battos and Kyrene 204. - The Oracle at the Tomb of the Oikist 206. - Material Evidence for the Tombs of Oikists 213. - Phalanthos and Taras 216. - Timesias and Abdera 221. - Themistokles and Magnesia 223. - Amphipolis Between Hag­ non and Brasidas 228. - Sikyon and Late Cases 232. - Sicilian Cults 237. VII. Founders and Posterity



The Archegetes and The Colony 241. - Descendants of Oikists 250. - Plurality of Oikists versus the Single Oikist Cult: How Important Was The Cult of the Founder? 254. VIII. Conclusion to Part Two: The Origins of the Oikist Cult


Bibliography of Works Cited


Index of Names and Terms


Index of Ancient Authors Cited


Index of Inscriptions Cited


LIST OF FIGURES (pp. 165-171) I. Megara Hyblaia, agora (after Vallet, Villard, Aubersorr: 1976) 2. Megara Hyblaia, agora and "city blocks." (after Vallet, Villard, Auberson: 1976) 3. Selinous (after Martin: 1977) 4. Naxos (after Martin; 1974) 5. Leontinoi (after Bosi: 1980) 6. Syracuse 7. Kasmenai (after di Vita: 1961) 8. Kamarina (after Martin: 1974) 9. Himera (after Bonacasa: 1976) 10. Gela (after Orlandini: 1968b) 11. Akragas (after Graham: 1982) 12. Metapontion (after Adamesteanu: 1974b) 13. Poseidonia LIST OF MAPS (pp. XIV-XV) 1. Greek Colonization in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea 2. Greek Colonization in the Western Mediterranean

PREFACE Religion and colonization? the connection between the two may seem either too shadowy or, depending on the color of one's Zeitgeist, too obvious: namely, that religion may be used to justify taking somebody else's land. Examples abound: the Hebrew Promised Land, the spread and conquests of Islam, the Latin Kingdoms of the Crusaders, the Pope's divisions and allocations of the New World to various Christian powers, etc. When, as a graduate student of A.J. Graham's I delivered a paper on Delphoi and Greek colonization, it was indeed this theme of justifica­ tion and legitimation which gripped my interest and which later also prompted me to undertake a full study of the relation between Greek religion and colonization. However, this is not the subject of the present book. Very soon I came to realize that the question of how Greek colonists regarded the foundation of their settlements, a question which involves an investigation of their myths and cults, would be grounded on somewhat shifty sands as long as a broad and comprehensive picture of the basic role of religion in the foundation of Greek colonies was unavailable. Considering the profusion in print of irresponsible gener­ alizations based on loose interpretations of Greek "myths and sym­ bols" -I thought it would be better to postpone pursuing my interest in religious sanction and legitimation and to establish the basis first. The result is here: a detailed study of the crucial role which religion ful­ filled in the lives of Greek colonists before setting out on their voyages to sites along the shores of the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, during the actual possession and settlement of the new colony, as well as afterwards-in the lives of their posterity. The problem of Greek attitudes to settlement, possession, and conquest, although often men­ tioned here in particular cases, will be dealt with separately in the future. An earlier version of this work was submitted as a Ph.D. thesis at the University of Pennsylvania. The revisions made for this book are exten­ sive and include the addition of the Introduction , Chapter VIII, a new approach to the material in Chapter III, additional bibliographical items, maps and figures and general revisions and rewriting throughout the book. The completed text was delivered in 1984 and thus I have merely been able to note works that came to my attention afterwards



(especially Leschorn (1984)), or to refer to specific points, depending on the stages of the proofs (e.g., to Casevitz (1985)). I try to follow Greek transliteration (e.g., Herakles, Lampsakos, not Heracles, Lampsacus) except where convention or schooling overpower me (e.g., Corinth, Thucydides). References are noted according to the Social Sciences' method but in the footnotes rather than in the text; e.g., Burkert (1977: 60) stands for: W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, (Stuttgart, Berlin, Kolo, Mainz, 1977) p. 60 (the English translation of this particular work, Oxford, 1985, was at the time unavailable to me). Exceptions to this model are references to articles in lexica and encyclopedias and to single epigraphical references published in journals. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my gratitude to some people and institu­ tions. A special debt of thanks I owe to four: to A.J. Graham, whose historical acumen, insights and criticism have often prompted me in the right direction and encouraged me to define and clarify what is impor­ tant and relevant; to M. Ostwald whose help has always been warm and fruitful and whose keen and humane eye focused on both minute detail and on large conceptual problems; to Z. Yavetz whose support, friend­ ship and trust over the years, as well as the gift of teaching how to think as an ancient historian, were invaluable. Finally, to my father Yaakov Malkin, who taught me how to think at all. I also wish to thank the following, from whose advice, comments, encouragement or inspira­ tion I benefitted: R.E.A. Palmer, D. Asheri, W. Burkert, P. Vidal­ Naquet, M. Detienne, Chr. Meier, W.G. Forrest, A. Snodgrass, F.T. van Straten and H.S. Versnel. B. Isaac helped in the correction of the proofs. The responsibility for all views and errors remains, obviously, my own. I would like to thank the Mr. and Mrs. Fred Lessing Fund at the Aranne School of History at Tel Aviv University for its support towards the publication of this book.

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations of periodicals will be those commonly found in modern learned literature or as they appear in L 'annee philologique. AR:


Archaeological Reports. Published in JHS. B.D. Meritt, H.T. Wade-Gery, M.F. McGregor. The Athenian Tribute lists. 4 vols. Princeton, N.J. 1950-1953. Bulletin epigraphique. Published in REG. The Cambridge Ancient History

C.H. Daremberg, Edm. Saglio. Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines (see Bibliography). W. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecorum. 3rd ed. Leipzig. 1915- I 925 (reprinted as 4th ed.). Fouilles de Delphes. Series published by Ecole fran�aise d' Athenes. FD: F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin. 1923-1930; Lei­ FGrHist: den. 1940-1958. FHG: K. Millier. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Paris. 1841-1872. GGM: K. Millier. Geographi Graeci Minores. 3 vols. Paris. 1855-1891. M.P. Nilsson. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. B.d.l. Die Religion Griechen­ GGR4: lands bis au/ die griechische Weltherschaft. 4th (=3rd ed. 1967) ed. Milnchen. 1976. B.V. Head. Historia Numorum. 2nd ed. Oxford. 1911. Head HN2: H. Peter. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. Leipzig. Vol.I 1906; vol.II 1914. HRR: lnscriptiones Graecae. Berlin. 1873 - . JG: LSAM: F. Sokolowski. Lois sacrees de l'Asie mineure. Paris. 1955. LSCG: F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des cites grecques. Paris. 1969. LSCG Suppl.: F. Sokolowski. Lois sacrees des cites grecques. Supplement. Paris. 1962. Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae. Ediderunt et explanaverunt Ioannes de LGS: Prott, Ludovicus Ziehen. Vol.I-II Pt.I. Leipzig. 1896. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon with a Supplement. L.S.J.: Oxford. 1968. R. Meiggs and D. Lewis. A. Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End ML: of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford. 1969. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. N.G.L. Hammond and H.H. Scullartl. 2nd OCD2: ed. Oxford. 1970. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Studies. Ed. R. Stillwell et al. Princeton, PE: N.J. 1976. W.H. Roscher, ed. Aus/iihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen My­ Roscher thologie. Leipzig. 1893. Reprint ed. 1977 Georg Olms Verlag Hildesheim; New Lexikon: York. Paulys Realencyclopiidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. G. Wissowa RE: et al. Stuttgart. 1904-. See Bibliography s.v. Schoemann, G.F. Schoemann­ Lipsius: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Lugduni Batavorum 1923-1971; Sijt­ SEG: hoff and Noordhoff 1979-. Sammlung der griechischen Dialektinschriften. Ed. H. Collitz, et al. Gottingen. SGDI: 1884-1915. Daremberg­ Saglio: Ditt. Syll.4:




Map J.

Map 2.

INTRODUCTION This book attempts to provide a comprehensive study of the role of religion in the foundation of Greek colonies in the archaic and classical periods, be­ tween the 8th and the 4th centuries B.C. Greek colonization in these periods usually meant the establishment of independent city-states (poleis) in relatively distant territories. The creation of the city-state (polis) distinguishes this colo­ nization from earlier forms of migrations (e.g., the "Ionian migration") on the one hand, and from later colonization in the Hellenistic period in which the polis lost its political independence and colonization was conducted inside areas already controlled by Hellenistic rulers, on the other hand. Viewed from a broader perspective, the rise of the polis must be regarded as a phenomenon of general historical importance. Greek colonization, which was contemporary in its initial stages with the rise of the polis, should be seen as a significant contributor to the spread of the polis as well as to its very forma­ tion and development. This contribution is evidenced not only in the impressive number of new colonies established as early as the 8th century in distant and disparate regions, but also in the very nature of city-states created ex novo, which must have facilitated the abstraction and refinement of the Greek city­ state. For a period of over 1000 years after the 8th century B.C. the spread of polis life was viewed by both Greeks and Romans in the same way as we now speak of "the spread of civilization." Indeed, the very concept of "civiliza­ tion" was intimately identified with the city-state (polis, civitas). Aristotle is often accused of having been blind to the fact that the polis was being stifled by Philip and Alexander precisely at the time when he was lecturing on the polis as being the best model for society. But Aristotle was essentially correct, since polis life and the foundation of new po/is-type settlements would not cease for a few more centuries, in spite of the fact that the polis had lost its political sove­ reignty. Greek colonization in the archaic and classical periods may therefore be considered within the broad context of the ancient oikoumene as the move­ ment which both originated with the rise of the polis, and also determined the manner of its spread through the foundation of new colonies. Religion was of central importance in the foundation of Greek colonies. It provided both the concrete and the symbolic framework of "foundation" through the creation of sanctuaries, the establishment of cults, the transfer of sacred fire, the regulation of the sacred calendars, the setting up of altars, etc. This should not surprise us since in ancient Greek societies social and political bonds, including the notion of citizenship, were often defined and expressed



through religion and cult. Political reforms, which are equivalent to the "foun­ dation" of a new social order, illustrate this well: The Spartan Great Rhetra, for example, was not only sanctioned by Delphoi, but its very first provision was to found new sanctuaries dedicated to Zeus Syllanios and to Athena Sylla­ nia (Plut. Lye. 6). When founding a colony the Greeks were also founding a new place of abode for their gods. The foundation of colonies involved a series of religious acts performed from the very inception: the founder (oikist) would go to Apollo's oracle where he would be designated in person as "founder," where he would be invested with religious authority, and where he would receive the specific oracular response concerning the prospective site of the colony. Divination by seers (manteis) usually accompanied the whole foundation process: in the mother-city, en route and at the site itself. Sacred fire from the public hearth of the mother-city would be transferred to the new colony, thus linking the two in a ritual rich with symbolic values. The colonized sites would sometimes be associated with known myths, e.g., Herakles' exploits in Sicily, or the Argo­ nauts in the Black Sea. This association could be used to justify, or validate, a claim over a particular site. The establishment of the colony at the site would have involved the creation of new sanctuaries and the regulation of cults and of nomima (religious calendars, offices, etc.). In the subsequent history of each colony the memory of its foundation continued to play a central role through the heroic cult accorded to the deceased founder. This cult probably provided a point of cohesion and social identification for the colonists, being, as it were, the first cult which was the colony's own, not having been imported from its mother-city. As such it made concrete and perpetual the possession of the colo­ ny, it accorded the colonists the heroic protection of their own guardian hero (polissouchos) and provided each colony with its first historic symbol ab urbe condita.

While Greek colonists came from numerous metropoleis or from regions with no proper poleis, while they founded hundreds of settlements from the shores of the Black Sea to the coast of the South of France, and while their dialects, social organizations, ethnic identities, etc., could vary significantly, religion seems to have necessitated certain practices common to all Greeks when founding new colonies (such as the consultation of oracles or the conse­ cration of precincts). Indeed, to paraphrase Herodotus (VIII 144), religion constituted one of the few elements (together with kinship and language) which were regarded as common to all Greeks. Therefore, in discussing religion and the foundation of colonies, we are discussing a subject which belongs less to what is particular and more to what the Greeks themselves also considered "Greek" in general. While the subsequent history of each colony is particular, the foundations themselves contain practices common to most. Therefore particular cults or



nomima peculiar to individual colonies do not form the main subject matter of this book. Instead our study concentrates on the foundation of colonies and the role which the memory of this foundation came to play in later periods. Dis­ cussions of other aspects of the religious life of Greek colonies (e.g., Pythago­ reans in the West), while fruitful and interesting in themselves, do not properly belong here and will not be addressed since such discussions belong to compre­ hensive histories of Greek religion rather than to studies dedicated in particular to colonization. The figure of the oikist, the founder who was autocratically responsible for the various stages of the foundation of a colony, is common to most coloniza­ tion enterprises we know of and thus provides us with an authentic and useful focus for the study of religion and colonization. The authority of individual oikists may have varied according to the period and circumstances. Sometimes there were two or more oikists, particularly in colonies which were joint foun­ dations; sometimes the oikist was the son of a tyrant, an enterprising individual who acted on his own, or even a leader of fugitives looking for a place to settle. But whatever his origin, the actual practices of foundation and the relationship between oikist and settlers seem to have varied little: he was their leader, su­ preme organizer, and military commander. Once a colony was decided upon it was the oikist who went to an oracle where he received not just confirmation or an order to colonize, but also a personal designation as oikist. Thus the oikist was invested with religious authority. He was then responsible for the various stages of foundation: the journey, the choice of the actual site, rela­ tions (and wars) with natives, division and allocation of lands (both sacred and secular), the performing of proper rites, the establishing of cults, and in general the establishing of the social order and its laws with an authority comparable to that of kings and lawgivers. Except for Kyrene, where the oikist became an actual king, we do not know the precise political transitions from the rule of a colony's founder to its subsequent constitution. Whatever the case may be, the act of founding the colony can certainly be said to have ended with the oikist's death, whereupon the oikist himself was usually given a hero's cult in the city he had founded. The essential phases of a colony's foundation under the leadership of the oikist consequently provide the basis of the plan of this book: (a) a discussion of the founders of colonies, the god Apollo, the oracular responses concerning colonization; (b) the role of divination in the various stages of foundation; (c) practices en route and at the site: the transfer of sacred fire; (d) taking posses­ sion of the site: the establishment of sanctuaries; (e) the subsequent life of the colony and the cult of the founder. Our subject matter is Greek colonization in the vital eras of the Greek polis, namely, the archaic and classical periods. Our evidence is gathered from widely disparate source materials, including reviews of the literary evidence, archaeo-



logical data and syntheses, epigraphical analysis and some discussion of coins. Whereas modern historians, unlike the ancient Greeks, use the criterion of the polis to distinguish between Greek colonization which took place from the 8th to the 4th century and settlements from preceding periods, Greeks in the classical period seem to have conceived of the latter in terms of the former and applied the terminology of the apokia ("colony") to foundations in general. Such anachronisms sometimes prove useful since they may help us attest or bet­ ter understand some general features of religion and colonization. In general, Greeks seem to have taken a keen interest in colonization, either as a practical option or as a subject for inquiry and discourse. But this interest was too often expressed in the forms of foundation lore (ktisis), a popular genre in Greek lite­ rature from an early period and of little historical value. To illustrate: Plato recounts that Hippias proudly told Sokrates that he had achieved great popula­ rity at Sparta, not through his philosophical or musical discourses (for which Spartans had no taste whatsoever) but because of his ability to talk about foun­ dations of cities and of genealogies of heroes (Plato, Hipp. Maior 285d). Cer­ tain ancient historians, like Ephorus, were noted for their special interest in colonization (Polyb. IX.1.4; XXXIV .1.3). Thucydides is our best example of an historian who took an active historical (non-legendary) interest in colonies. His accounts exe�plify what Greeks in the classical period considered worth remembering: the date of foundation, the origin or mother-city, and the name of the founder (esp. Thuc. VI.3-5; VII. 57). The relative profusion of avail­ able historical names of founders is in itself rewarding, especially in the early period of Greek history when literary evidence is, in general, scant. It also indi­ cates that founders were considered important in early periods long before interest in foundations was expressly reported. Except for the general history by Raoul Rochette (1815) there exists no com­ prehensive, detailed, history of Greek colonization. There are some good in­ troductions to the subject (notably, Graham, 1982) and various aspects of colonization have received separate attention. However, the role of religion in colonization has been studied very little. Specifically, there has been no attempt to assemble and discuss all the material concerning religion and the foundation of colonies, such as is our aim. There has been considerable work on the role of Delphoi in Greek coloniza­ tion but many points have gone unnoticed and a fresh view of the role of the oracle vis a vis the oikist is needed. There are no studies known to us which treat as their central theme colonization and divination, the transfer of sacred fire, or the establishment of sanctuaries (our chapters II, III, IV). Finally, since Lampros's thesis on legendary and historical founders, presented in Greek at Leipzig in 1873, there has not been a concentrated general study of the cult of founders in Greek colonies (our part II). This book attempts, therefore, to present for the first time a comprehensive study of religion and the foundation of colonies in ancient Greece.



The focus of chapter I is the oikist, who functioned as the link between the mother-city, the settlers, the prospective site of the colony, and the god. Be­ cause the oikist embodied the transformation from the potential to the actual independent new polis, the divine sanction or promise (in the form of an ora­ cular response) could be made not to the mother-city but to the independent, divinely designated, oikist. Foundation oracles usually indicated the very need to colonize, the prospec­ tive site, and the founder. This personal designation of the oikist (as well as the fiction that the act of colonization was Apollo's initiative) invested the founder with significant religious authority. This authority should be under­ stood both as a sort of religious aura, enhancing the leadership of the oikist, and as authority to act and make religious decisions. The oikist became for the colonists what Apollo was for the oikist: an expounder (exegetes) of religion. Apollo's position of the "divine exegetes" or "mediator" between men and the world full of gods was, as Nilsson rightly observed, the main source of Apollo's influence in Greek society. This mediation on Apollo's part provided men with otherwise unknowable answers; similarly, the oikist's position as ''the exegetes of the foundation of the city'' was the source of his religious au­ thority, since he could provide the settlers whom he led to their new world with the answers they needed and with continuous assurance as the direct represen­ tative of Apollo. With this delegated religious authority the oikist could then supervise the departure-sacrifice in the mother-city; the necessary divination procedures; and the transfer of sacred fire. Upon arrival at the area of the prospective colony, he could pinpoint its precise location and proceed to insti­ tute cults and festivals, to set up altars, to consecrate sacred precincts for the gods and to conduct the proper rites. In Plutarch's words, he could do all this because he had been entrusted (at Delphoi) with "signs for recognizing places, the times for activities, the shrines of the gods across the sea, the secret burial places of heroes, hard to find for men setting forth on a distant voyage from Greece;" the oikists could "discover by means of evidential proofs the suitable place of settlement provided to each" (Plut. Mor. 407f-408a). The oikist, who usually had plenipotentiary powers (autokrator) during the foundation process, embodied in his person the functions of the king, the priest, the lawgiver, and the military leader. He was a "lawgiver" in the sense that he must have set up the foundations of the new social order. Thus the oikist is also comparable to the social reformer. Social reformers - like Ly­ kourgos at Sparta, Demonax at Kyrene, Kleisthenes at Athens - often re­ ceived Delphoi's sanction for the new social order of which they were the proper "founders." Foundation oracles are also comparable, sometimes, to oracular responses given to military leaders before wars. This is only to be expected, since colonization often involved conquest. Did Delphoi justify colonization? Are we to see in its foundation oracles



"charters" or Papal bulls? Did Delphoi legitimize settlement, conquest, subju­ gation, or expulsion of natives? Inasmuch as the seizure of someone else's land was probably regarded as a crime, Delphoi's colonization oracles implied the permission to do so. Moreover, sometimes we hear of a colony as a "gift" of Apollo to the oikist. In this respect the foundation oracles are similar to the Biblical notion of the "promised land." The analogy, however, is limited. The Biblical concept implies that the land promised does not yet belong to the reci­ pient of the promise, as in the case of Abraham, whereas in many colonization enterprises of the Greeks the process appears inverted: the colonization is de­ scribed as a renewal of hoary connections, since the Greeks went to settle where Herakles, or the Argonauts, or those who returned from Troy had already vi­ sited or settled. Modern idealizations of pioneering and "new frontiers" ap­ pear as diametrically opposed to what seems to have been a basic Greek outlook, namely, that colonization signified some sort of "return." For the most part Delphoi was connected with such "charter myths" only by implication. Thus, for example, the founders of Herakleia Pontike were instructed in their foundation oracle to honour Idmon the Argonaut who was supposed to have been buried at the site which they were going to settle. The connection with Idmon, then, was merely implied in a cultic prescription. However, explicit charter myths, like the one promising the land of Sicilian Eryx to the descendants of Herakles, appear only in oracular literature com­ posed outside of Delphoi. Idmon's tomb at Herakleia provided an immediate and concrete bond with the soil; it was "a secret burial place of a hero" which also aided the oikist in pinpointing the site and its center. By contrast, explicit and detailed mythological associations seem to have been secondary to Delphoi. Moral justification and legitimacy of claim and of possession are not neces­ sarily self-evident needs. Sometimes (perhaps always?), legitimacy of settle­ ment becomes an issue only when faced with a challenge. We simply do not know what Greek colonists in the archaic period felt about colonization in this respect. Except for a disturbing line in Mimnermos, where he speaks of hybris as inherent in the colonizing act, we have almost no evidence (Frg. 9 West). On the other hand, in so far as Delphoi is concerned, since the world was full of gods, there must have been a real fear of trespassing their domains. Delphic sanction and mediation thus probably assumed a significant role in removing this fear both by providing a preliminary sanction and through the continuous presence of Apollo's delegate, the oikist. In certain Delphic ktiseis the oikist appears not as a representative of the mother-city but rather as an individual inquiring about his private affairs. Then, as a surprise, he is designated "oikist." Sometimes the occasion of the inquiry is represented as hostile conditions at home; sometimes as personal handicap (stammering) or other difficulties (e.g., the failure to beget children). Such traditions, as curious as they may seem, developed in the colonies and



their purpose is apparent in their effect: the shift of emphasis from the mother­ city to the oikist, thus enhancing local pride. It is also possible that the fiction of the surprised oikist was not always a late invention since such a public image of a leader malgre lui would have enhanced the oikist's direct authority as a leader. Apollo and the oikist complement each other; Lampros is certainly wrong to postulate a gradual fading of Apollo's role as oikist and his replacement by human oikists. While it is true that Apollo sometimes appears as "spontane­ ously prophesying" about colonization he is far from being guilty of usurpa­ tion or "imperialism" as, for example, J. Defradas labels some of Delphoi's activities, particularly with regard to colonization. This becomes particularly clear in inquiries by colonies at Delphoi later in their history especially when questions concerning the rightful oikist or mother-city arose. Only as a last resort, and rarely too, were disputes resolved by making Apollo himself an oikist. Such inquiries also illustrate the memory of Delphoi's involvement in colonization (which can also be learnt from Delphic symbols in colonial coin­ age) and the seriousness with which colonies regarded the identity and the cult of their founders. This was equivalent, in turn, to an inquiry about their very own self-identity. Moreover, the subsequent special relations with Delphoi also illustrate that colonies continued to regard the questions about their founda­ tion in religious terms. Delphoi and the oikist came to symbolize beginnings and those beginnings represented the identity of each colony. The introductory sections in chapter I discuss the need to concentrate on Delphoi and not on other oracles; a review of previous studies follows, in order to establish and clarify our position on two main areas of contention in modern scholarship: when did Delphoi begin to exert its predominant influence in Greek colonization and which of the oracular responses preserved in our sour­ ces may be considered authentic. We maintain that Delphoi was actively in­ volved in Greek colonization from the 8th century B.C. and that we are entitled to regard as authentic not a negligible amount of foundation oracles. We hope that our arguments, when added to past discussions, will help to influence opi­ nion away from the strayed direction which certain scholars have followed. The second section discusses the method of consultation by oikists, which is important both for the question about the authenticity of oracular responses and in order to understand the nature and importance of the designation which the oikist received at Delphoi. If oikists used just a "yes or no" lot-oracle, then the answers would merely have provided a confirmation of the colonization enterprise and hence we must suspect all extant verse oracles as forgeries and view the oikist's designation in a much diminished light. We analyse the evi­ dence and conclude that the opposite was probably true: the oikist would be personally admitted to the pythia and would be addressed through her in a full oracular r�sponse.



The bulk of chapter I is devoted to a detailed examination of the foundation of colonies, the problems peculiar to each and the general inferences which may be drawn from each case. It would seem redundant to outline the various cases here. We shall only illustrate with an example: The discussion about Rhegion includes the particulars of the foundation, the various oikists, the reported foundation oracles, etc., and also the general question of whether Rhegion was founded by people who were sent to Delphoi as a human tithe, and if so should this be regarded as a general custom which may also explain the very origins of the practice of consulting Delphoi in matters of colonization, as some have thought. In addition to the consultation of Apollo at Delphoi we have evidence for the use of other divination in the various stages of the foundation of colonies. Chapter II discusses professional divination (mantike), the seers (manteis) who performed it, and their relation to the oikist whom they served. We examine the reported cases of Archias (Syracuse's founder) and the Iamidai; Thourioi and the Thouriomanteis; Xenophon and Silanos; the refoundation of Messene; the foundation of Alexandria; and the colony in Aristophanes' Birds. We also investigate specific practices of bird divination and of "sacrifice for good omens" at the mother-city. It is maintained that although our evidence for colonies is relatively late (our analysis of the Iamidai argues not for an 8th cen­ tury context but for a 5th century one), it seems probable that oikists were accompanied by professional manteis from an early date. Oikists were also military leaders and the evidence for military mantike is far earlier and more abundant. Manteis served in the retinue of leaders and, when these functioned as leaders of colonial enterprises, they also began to serve the needs of colonization-mantike. Divination for the purposes of colonization never de­ veloped independently and we are reminded that, unlike the Etruscans or Ro­ mans, Greeks did not conduct elaborate foundation rites, like the ploughing of a ritual furrow. The mantis was involved with various types of divination in the mother-city before setting out (kalliherein), en route, and at the site of the colony. We find manteis practicing sacrificial divination, interpreting dreams, conducting rites, and also (notably the chresmo/ogoi) using oracular literature for the purpose of colonization. While Delphoi was consulted once only, solemnly, by the oikist, professional divination could provide a continuous mediation between men and gods. As far as the colonists were concerned it gave them encourage­ ment and reassurance, it could allay fears, provide immediate religious ans­ wers, and enhance the oikist's authority. In the mother-city divination sometimes influenced the very decision to colonize, as the cases of Thourioi or even Xenophon indicate. We may regard mantike, therefore, as an integral element of the colonization process. The rite which linked the mother-city with the colony both in its foundation



and in its subsequent life was the transfer of sacred fire from the Public Hearth in the prytaneion of the mother-city to the new colony. On the one hand this rite appears to stress aspects of continuity and kinship between the older and the newer communities; on the other hand it seems to emphasize the creation of an independent and separate polis. Curiously, although modern scholars often mention this rite as a generally accepted Greek custom, the only explicit evidence for it is found in a very late Byzantine lexicon. Somewhat less explicit evidence appears in certain scholia from the 4th century A.O. on a text of the 2nd century A.O. Certain doubts as to the very existence of this practice could therefore be more than justified. We are thus concerned with the following questions: was the transfer of sacred fire a common practice in the foundation of colonies in the archaic and classical periods? If so, what did this practice involve? What were its origins? What could it signify for Greek colonists and for those Greeks remaining in the mother-city? It is our purpose to present in our 3rd chapter the first comprehensive and thorough analysis of these questions. First we establish the existence of the custom by using evidence hitherto neglected in this context. We also discuss what "fire" was transferred, how, and by whom. Next we examine the proba­ ble origins of the custom; the symbolism of perpetual ·fires; the significance of the Common Hearth in the Greek polis. Finally we bring up cases of excep­ tional colonies where the transfer of sacred fire seems to have been either impossible or significantly different. We maintain and bring evidence to show that the very fact of kindling a fire in a new territory signified a claim for possession and settlement. The sacred fire itself was carried and maintained by professional fire-bearers ( pyrphoroi ) who accompanied the oikist. It was taken in earthen pots (chytra,) which con­ tained seeds of flame (Pindar's words), namely, ashes and cinders (aphidru­ mata) from the Common Hearth (koine hestia). In addition to its function in lighting the fire in the prytaneion of the newly founded polis, the sacred fire also served other functions: it was used as sacrificial fire en route to the colony, it served in the rites of setting up altars, and it was employed in the consecration of new precincts. Originally fire was probably taken along on military campaigns. When aristocratic leaders of military expeditions also became leaders of colonial expeditions (which must have had a dominant military aspect on many occa­ sions), the ritual of taking fire probably acquired new significance: it came to represent the community as a whole, both the one the colonists had departed and the one which they were about to create. But the origins of the ritual of colonial transfer of sacred fire were not exclusively military and may be found also in the world of kinship. "As parents to children" - thus opens an ancient inscription concerning the relations between a metropolis and an apoikia. Just as marriage ceremonies (where fire was taken from the bride's hearth at home



to accompany the daughter to the hearth of her husband's home) express through the hearth both new independence and the retention of the ties of kin­ ship, such apparently was the case between a mother-city and her colony. As with other aspects of Greek religion, private and public religion coalesced: when the idea of the private hearth was extended to the koine hestia, the child­ ren of the community (the colonists) were accompanied by sacred fire from the hearth of their home, their metropolis. When founding colonies the Greeks also created new homes for their gods by reserving sacred areas (temene) for them. But how did the founders of colo­ nies know which areas were sacred and which were not? Was there anything in their religion that could direct the Greeks as to the sacredness of a place? An eminent historian of Greek religion tried to answer that question: "We make a spot holy by putting a sanctuary there; but in antiquity the holiness belonged to the place itself and the sanctuary was erected there because it was holy." (M.P. Nilsson). In other words, Nilsson (and others, e.g., L. Gernet) contend that for the Greeks sacred places were simply inherently sacred. This may have been true for mainland Greece in the 8th century, where the sacred­ ness of places had existed since time immemorial. But, we claim in our 4th chapter, this was not true for colonies established ex novo. Historians of Greek colonization (unlike historians of Greek religion) at­ tempted some explanations - that Greek colonists followed indications of "native" sacred areas, or signs of sacredness which had come down through the ages from the Mycenaean period, or "natural" sacredness (Naturmale). We claim that these explanations perhaps account for a few sanctuaries, but on the whole do not provide the answer. It is remarkable that with all the suggestions posed so far, no one has claimed and systematically proved, as we hope to do, the most straightforward answer: that it was the Greek oikists themselves who decided where to place sacred precincts, according to criteria which they themselves had shaped. These crite­ ria were not external religious criteria, but simply rational and functional guidelines of territorial organization and town-planning. In our opinion, man made the decisions about what was sacred, and in that respect colonization represents for us a significant development in Greek religion. We shall attempt to prove this by presenting an overall synthesis of: (a) state­ ments by Greek authors concerning the placement of sacred precincts; (b) known practices of Greek religion; (c) archaeological evidence (of the last ca. 40 years in particular). It will be shown that a systematic review of colonies reveals that the three criteria found in the literary evidence (euerkeia, katharo­ tes, epiphaneia) are indeed manifested in most colonial sites. The evidence also seems to demonstrate that the sacred precincts were sited according to the same criteria used by the oikists for the territorial organization (or the division of space) of the rest of the colony - in other words, according to rational and functional criteria.



The second part of the book discusses the founder's cult in the subsequent history of the colony. The cult of the oikist was a nomos, universally practiced in Greek colonies; it was a hero cult and it took place annually around the tomb of the oikist, who was buried in the heart of his new city, its agora. In chapter V we establish that the oikist cult was, in fact, a common practice; we examine the form and significance of the cult, which was practiced as an annual comme­ moration; finally we discuss the evidence and reasons for burial in the heart of the polis, the agora. In chapter VI we discuss individual historical personalities who were ac­ corded a founder's cult. Generally we avoid cults dedicated to fictitious epo­ nyms. Such cults are unhelpful in shedding light on historical events - the evidence concerning them is often much too late and usually does not go be­ yond the mere mention of a name. Eponymous founders are mentioned here only when their cults aid our understanding of generally accepted, traditional practices. We begin with Battos, the founder of Kyrene, about whose cult at the agora we possess the earliest and fullest literary evidence. Battos' tomb may have also served as an oracle, which leads us into a discussion of whether tombs of oikists served as oracles in colonies as a general practice. Finally, we examine the archaeological evidence for the identification of Battos' tomb and for tombs of other oikists. We then turn to the cult of other founders: The Spartan Phalanthos, who is supposed to have been exiled from the colony he founded (Taras) and to have caused his own ashes to be scattered in Taras' agora after his death; Timesias of Klazomenai, the oikist who was overcome by natives and failed in his attempt to colonize, but who was accorded a founder's cult one century later by the Teian founders of Abdera; the adoption of the oikist cult by the people of Magnesia on the Maeander, who accorded it to Themistokles the Athenian; and the exceptional position and cult of the living Athenian Hagnon at Amphipolis and the official transfer of the status and cult of the oikist to Brasidas the Spartan after the latter's death. Next we turn to some later cases in Greece and Sicily. Sikyon provides an interesting case where the honours of oikists were extended to other persons, notably Euphron in 366 B.C. (and some contemporaries elsewhere: Epimelides, Poda­ res), Demetrios Poliorketes in 303, and Aratos in 213. In particular, Sikyon sheds the most light on the practice of and attitudes toward burials in the agora, as the case of the Orthagorid Kleisthenes in the 6th century already indicates. Finally, the cults accorded to Sicilian rulers are studied together: Gelon, The­ ron, Hieron (who was active as an "oikist" himself), Dion, and Timoleon. In chapter VII we discuss aspects of the role of the oikist cult in colonies. It is not sufficient to show that the cult existed; it must be determined whether it also fulfilled a real and important function in the life of the community. First we study the titles of oikists in the context of their cult, especially arche­ getes. These titles indicate the wider religious and social connotations of the



founder's cult. Next we ask whether the direct descendants of founders had any special status in the community and whether they played a particular role in the cult of their ancestor, the oikist. Our negative conclusion, namely, that the oikist cult was not a private cult in the charge of a single family or clan, empha­ sizes the public, poiis aspect of the founder's cult which properly belonged to the community as a whole. Finally, we view the question of cult in colonies which were founded by more than one oikist, and attempt to discover what problems arose in such cases. Generally, we show that in such colonies a clear tendency toward a single founder's cult is apparent: colonies preferred to focus on a single identity and a single founder. In certain instances we see that a real stasis, civil strife, arose in colonies concerning the rightful status of the oikist and the honours which were due to him. We conclude that if the oikist cult was worth fighting for it was not an empty, formal ritual but rather a cult of real social and religious significance for the members of the community. In our last chapter we raise the question how and when the oikist cult emerged. Did it begin with the death of the first oikists in the 8th and 7th centu­ ries? Did it follow the models of founders' cults in the older Greek world? Or was it perhaps an innovation by a later generation in each colony? The question of the origins of the cult is problematic and speculative in nature. Our purpose, in view of the lack of direct evidence, is to define the problems and suggest some methods of examination and some possible answers. We contend that the oikist cult, which was in essence a polis cult, did not begin before the rise of the polis, probably in the 8th century B.C., and that it belongs to the first gene­ rations of colonization. We view the cult in the context of the new aristocratic "heroic" burial customs of the 8th century and suggest that when such burials were accorded oikists, these burials assumed the further public significance of the polis cult. The proper method of investigation must, therefore, follow two main avenues: that of the rise of the polis itself, and that of the nature of the hero cult and its new characteristics, which appear in the 8th century. There is no clear answer to the question of when the Greek polis arose; we object to the assumption, implicit in the writings of many scholars, that this rise must have "preceded" the colonization movement of the 8th century. The two were contemporary and colonization itself must have contributed significantly to the rise of the polis, and also to its physical and social refinement (which is ob­ viously true in cases where the "mother-city" was not a "polis" at all). It would seem that instead of regarding oikist cults as an emulation of a custom prevalent in the mother-cities, they should be considered as an innovation ini­ tiated by the colonies. The proliferation of legendary or eponymous founders which existed in the older Greek world was a rather late phenomenon, possibly emulating the colonial custom but not serving as its precedent. This is compati­ ble with 8th century developments in hero cults. Whether we regard them as a phenomenon of continuity from earlier centuries or as an innovation of the



8th century, it is nevertheless clear that certain new developments did occur in the 8th century both in cult and in burial customs of the aristocracy. These novelties are contemporary both in colonies and in the mother-cities (e.g., Ere­ tria, Pithekoussai). But it was in the colonies where the role of the aristocratic oikist was more crisply defined. When he died he was usually not replaced by another autokrator, but became the polissouchos through the heroic founder's cult accorded to him. This cult was probably an extension and an adoption of the current aristocratic heroic-type burial into a public polis-cult especially accorded to the originator of the polis. Finally there is a religious reason which may explain why the oikist cult probably emerged first in colonies: it was the first cult which created a concrete bond with the soil, unique to the colony, in places which usually lacked any direct cultic tradition or continuity. Thus the oikist cult and tomb made concrete and final the colony's foundation.




THE FOUNDERS OF COLONIES AND APOLLO'S ORACLE Introduction: The Role of Delphoi in Greek Colonization The founders of Greek colonies were invested with religious authority by ora­ cles, especially Delphoi. So far as our evidence goes, we can effectively discuss only the oikists who are reported to have consulted Delphoi, because evidence for the role of other oracles in Greek colonization is meagre and uncertain. In particular, not one foundation oracle with any claim to authenticity has come down to us from any oracle other than Delphoi. Some late authors, notably Cicero, mention in generalizing statements other oracles, such as Dodona and Ammon, and some scholars have justifiably regarded it as probable that Apol­ lo's oracles in Asia Minor may have been consulted, especially by the great colonizing state, Miletos.1 It seems significant, however, that as early as the first half of the 6th century B.C., Phokaia, according to Herodotus, consulted Delphoi rather than one of the oracles in Asia Minor.2 Moreover, the cumula­ tive impression formed from all our sources, both historical and spurious, is that Delphoi was regarded in antiquity as the most prominent authority by far in matters of colonization. Therefore, in concentrating on Delphoi, we are not merely discussing one oracle among many, but the most influential one in colo­ nization. On the other hand, we must keep in mind that the role of oracles, par­ ticularly in colonization by the Eastern Greeks, must remain obscure. 3 Since the same god, Apollo, was probably involved with colonization in Asia Minor and Delphoi, we are still encouraged to assume that the designation of oikists was similar in both areas. In order to understand the nature of the religious authority conferred on the oikist and how it related to his various functions, we should first assess Del­ phoi's role in colonization; in order to do so, we must determine the trust­ worthiness of the reported or quoted foundation oracles which constitute a major part of our literary evidence. Past discussions on the role of the Delphic oracle in Greek colonization 1 See for surveys of such late generalizing statements Pease (1917: 1-2); Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 50); Lombardo (1972: 63ff.). The probability of consultations at Didyma (Asia Minor) is represented by Hammond (1967a : 113) as a fact. 2 See our section on Kyrnos below, p. 72f. 3 There is a remote possibility that some historical foundation oracles were derived from the oracle of Zeus at Dodona or of Ammon in Siwa. See n. 1 above. There is no concrete evidence for this, however.



reveal a variety of attitudes and much disagreement. The main areas of conten­ tion are the date of the beginning of Delphoi's "international influence," its scope, and the authenticity of the extant foundation oracles, which are either reported, paraphrased, or quoted, usually in verse form. Raoul Rochette,4 who was uncommitted, approached the subject in a spirit of scepticism. E. Curtius5 and G. Grote accepted Delphoi enthusiastically as a clearing house for emigration; 6 the historians of religion, A. Bouche Leclerq7 and L.R. Far­ nell,8 accepted this as well. S.A. Holm9 was critical although he perceptively emphasized the legitimizing function of Delphoi, which was apparently needed as a justification for the act of settlement. G. Busolt denied Delphoi's role; 10 Beloch did not even mention it. 1 1 H. von Gaertringen in his article on Delphoi in the Realencyclopiidie was also close to Busolt in his attitude. The subject of Apollo, Delphoi, and colonization occupies about a third of S.P. Lampros' concise thesis on the honours accorded oikists. 1 2 Lampros emphasized Apollo's own aspect as founder (particularly in mythological con­ text), and he sees the oikist as a reflection of Apollo.13 Lampros does not pro­ perly address the questions of authenticity and date, nor does he clearly distinguish between regular colonization and the dekate type (i.e., a "tithe" of people consecrated to Apollo and sent to colonize. See below on Rhegion). A good introductory monograph, which also laid the framework for future research, was written by A.S. Pease 1 4 who collected and classified foundation oracles and examined them in context. Pease on the whole was sceptical about the authenticity of foundation oracles and rarely accepted anything as genuine that went beyond a straightforward reported sanction (in contrast to verse oracles). The l 950's yielded a great deal of discussion about Delphoi. J. Defradas 1 5 launched an attack on the historicity of Delphoi's involvement in colonization and on the authenticity of oracles which antedate the 6th century. He con­ tended that Delphoi's international status was late and denounced its "usur4 ( 1 815: 53f.). s (1872: 11.49-50). English translation. 6 Grote, quoted by Pease (19 1 7: 2 n.6). 7 (1879-1882: lll.132). The Delphic priesthood, he says, "se mettait ainsi en etat de donner a tout venant, en connaissance de cause, des indications dont la justesse, apres verification, parais­ sait miraculeuse." 8 (1909: V.200-202). 9 ( 1 906: 1.231-232 with note). 10 (1893- 1 904: 1.678). "Man darf nicht glauben, daB das delphische Heiligtum der hellenischen Kolonisation die Bahnen vorgezeichnet hat." 11 Cf. Pease (19 1 7: 3). See id. for a more extensive treatment of 19th century A.O. discussion. 12 Lampros (1873). 13 Cf. Brelich (1958: 129ff.) who emphasizes "foundation" as an heroic aspect in general. 14 (1917). ts (1972 = 2nd. ed. of 1954).



pations" and "imperialisme."16 He grudgingly allowed Apollo some early association with colonization but not as the Delphian, or Pythian, Apollo.17 His work proved seminal, but it was severely criticized.18 Essentially, Defradas' treatment suffers from arbitrary and ruthless hand­ ling of the sources and from a neglect of significant evidence. For example, he presents the few references in Homer to the oracle at Pytho, including one in the Cataloque of Ships, as late interpolations.19 L. Gierth, in a historiographi­ cal discussion of ktiseis, convincingly shows a connection between Kallinos' story about Kolophon's foundation and the Delphian Apollo.20 Since Kallinos wrote in the first half of the 7th century, this shows that the Pythian Apollo was already conceived as a god of colonization much earlier than Defradas allows.21 Defradas also dismisses in a cursory fashion the most important piece of evidence from cult. This is the cult of Apollo Archegetes, 22 which is already attested at Naxos, the earliest colony in Sicily (734 B.C.): Thucydides relates the erection of the altar to Apollo Archegetes at Naxos by its founder, Thoukles, as part of the act of foundation; Thucydides also emphasizes the panhellenic (or at least pan-Sikeliote) aspect of this cult, 23 which was still attested in Naxos at the time of Augustus.24 W.G. Forrest, in an article entitled "Colonization and the Rise of Del­ phi", 25 refutes Defradas on several grounds, particularly his historical assess­ ment of Delphoi's rol in general. Forrest adds the insight that colonization did more for the spread of Delphoi's influence and prestige than Delphoi itself did for colonization. This is sensibly demonstrated, and the implied emphasis on the mutual or reciprocal relations between Delphoi and the colonies is impor­ tant. Forrest, however, still finds that (partly in order to justify that conclu­ sion) Delphoi's "international" standing originated only in the 8th century; this theory is based primarily on his interpretation of the archaeological find­ ings at Delphoi, but it must be emphasized that this evidence can be interpreted differently: Desborough, for example, interprets the pottery finds at Delphoi 16 (1972: 237): "ainsi s'est cree, a une epoque necessairement tardive, posterieure en tous cas a la grande periode de colonisation, le mythe d'Apollon delphien archegete."

17 (1972: 234). 18 E.g., Amandry (1956); Gernet (1955). 19 Defradas (1972: ch.II). 20 (1971: 85) with reference to Strabo XIV.668. 21 That we are not concerned with an historical account is irrelevant here. The point is whether the Pythian Apollo was believed to have influenced colonization. The ancients made no distinc­ tions between the migratory period and the period of historical colonization (Graham, 1971: 2). 22 (1972: 234ff.); cf. Malkin (1986). 23 Thuc. Vl.3.1. 24 Appian BCV. I 09. This late source must not be pressed for fine distinctions such as that only "the Naxians" brought Apollo's cult with them (hence not the Chalkidians, hence not an evidence for Apollo Archegetes' early panhellenic influence). Valenza Mele (1977: 504). 25 (1957).



as signifying international status as early as the 9th century.26 Defradas also influenced Crahay's monograph on the oracular literature in Herodotus.27 Crahay, who attacked the authenticity of nearly every oracle reported by Herodotus, seems to have gone a step further and denied not just the particular quoted oracles but also the historical involvement of Delphoi in colonization in the cases which Herodotus mentions. Some of these oracles in Herodotus will be discussed later; at this point it is worth noting Amandry's criticism of Crahay and the school of thought which denies the influence of Delphoi: "La forme litteraire des oracles est une chose, la realite des consulta­ tions en est une autre, la teneur des reponses et leur portee pratique en soot encore une autre. " 28 These distinctions are important. The History of the Delphic Oracle by H.W. Parke and D.E.W. Wormell (1956) includes a revised edition of the History published by Parke in 1939, and a corpus of enquiries and responses. A whole chapter is devoted to Delphoi and colonization; also, there are discussions in other chapters about individual colonizing enterprises. In addition, the basic criteria are laid down for judging whether an oracle is spurious or genuine. The category of authentic oracles which the authors establish and which we accept (p. 22ff.) is wider than that of Pease, but is still limited. Only straightforward sanctions and geographical directions are admitted as authentic; oracles containing a priori, improbable, or ambiguous conditions, aetiological stories, folk tales, proverbs, and the like are rejected. Most reported oracles do not pass this test. We emphasize, how­ ever, that in effect all judgments are based on the internal evidence of the text, and, although we admit that Delphoi played a role as early as the late 8th century B.C., an oracle's credibility depends on whether or not one believes in the authenticity of the quotation or paraphrase of a given oracular response. We shall return to this problem soon. In 1960 R. Rohrbach wrote a dissertation on Kolonie und Orake/. 29 The work treats the material perceptively but suffers from omissions and from a limited acquaintance with the modern critical literature. The sources which the author chooses to discuss are handled well, and some original ideas are helpful. It is a pity that no clear picture of Rohrbach's criterion for Echtheit emerges; we remain in the dark about the criteria of authenticity for the foundation ora­ cles he does choose to omit. 26 Desborough (I 952: 304). Others prefer now the mid 8th century as the time of the beginning of Delphoi's international importance: Rolley FD (1969: 101-103). This approximate date con­ forms with the earliest waves of the new colonization movement of the 8th century. 27 (1956). cf. Kirchberg (1965) which provides little analysis but still constitutes a useful col­ lection. 28 Amandry (1959: 412). Cf. id. (1956: 279): "Que le texte des oracles soit apocryphe ne prouve rien de !'oracle." Also, Berve (1958: 179): "In der Tat ist zuzugeben, daB keines der fiir iiltere Griindungen iiberlieferten Kolonisationsorakel den Charakter der Echtheit triigt, was freilich noch nicht besagt, daB damals von Pytho noch keine Orakel an Oikisten gegeben worden." 29 Rohrbach (1960).



Because we are concerned with historical colonies we shall have little to say on legendary oikists and legendary foundation oracles. Some of the work, however, which has been done on this aspect of ktiseis is relevant because the authors had to bring historical Delphoi into their discussion. B. Schmid wrote a thesis on poetical accounts of foundations; 30 L. Gierth discusses the subject in order to try and assess its relation to historical writing, but his chapter on Delphische Orakelgeschichten is somewhat general. 3 1 A recent work by F. Prinz addresses the topic of poetical foundations in a detailed and exhaustive treatment (but mostly down to the Ionian migrations).32 M.P. Nilsson, in his Geschichte der griechischen Religion, investigates the reasons for the success and influence of Apollo and the Delphic oracle in colo­ nization. His conclusion is significant and seems to provide us with if not a historical, at least a religious answer; Apollo's influence was due to his exegetic function of pointing out the proper cults and rites and to whom they should be accorded. Apollo functioned in colonization as a divine mediator between men and gods by expounding religion.33 This same point has been repeated in an article by M. Lombardo entitled "Le concezioni degli antichi sul ruolo degli oracoli nella colonizzazione greca." 34 Lombardo is good on particular aspects, such as his emphasis on the Delphic prescription of establishing cults (see in Kyrnos, below) and temples. His methodology however, which explains later sources first (e.g., Celsus, Lucan, Cicero), seems to have led him astray in his discussion of which oracles, besides Delphoi, were concerned with colo­ nization; due to this methodology Lombardo allows a far greater role to other oracles. Finally, we ought to mention J. Fontenrose's The Delphic Oracle. 3 5 Its use­ fulness lies in its accessible catalogue of inquiries and responses with cross references and classifications of modes. However, because Fontenrose dis­ believes almost all of his evidence, too often an oracle is rejected out of hand because he labels it "unlikely" with no further discussion.36 Fontenrose de­ fines as historical only oracles that were spoken during the life of the source reporting them; 37 he also qualifies the word "historical" to avoid confusion with "genuine," but is not always successful in maintaining this distinction. This short survey of the earlier scholarly discussion reveals that there is great room for disagreement about the two interconnected questions: the authenti30 31 32 33 34 3s 36 37

Schmid (1947). Gierth (1971). (1979). Nilsson GGR 4 637-640. (1972: esp. 86). (1978). Fontenrose (1978: e.g., 141-142). Ibid. 7.



city of foundation oracles and the date and nature of Delphoi's role in Greek colonization. Some, like Defradas, who denies a historical role to Delphoi in the 8th and 7th centuries, disbelieve all foundation oracles a priori. Others, like Pease, accept Delphoi's involvement but brush aside most foundation oracles as later inventions. Parke and Wormell take a similar stand but widen the crite­ rion of authenticity by accepting foundation oracles that show no apparent sign of forgery of folk tale elements. As the problem of authenticity is difficult, our own position should be stated at the outset because foundation ora�les play an important role as sources for understanding the relation between the oikist and the oracle. We believe that Delphoi was involved with colonization as early as the late 8th century; the exact nature and subsequent development and expansion of Delphoi's influence escape us, although the historical reconstructions of Parke and Wormell 3 8 and, to some degree, of Forrest39 seem acceptable. The question of authenticity involves us with an assessment of probability. At least in one case there is clear evidence that an oracle was concocted, and we can even pinpoint the circumstances of its invention. Strabo and Tacitus report the oracle given to the Megarian colonists who founded Byzantion ''to make their settlement opposite the blind;" the "blind" were the Megarian founders of Chalkedon who, 17 years earlier, had settled so near yet had missed the site of Byzantion with its obviously superior advantages.40 We know, however, that this was not an oracle because Herodotus, describing the Hel­ lespontine command given to the Persian Megabazas, attributes the same words to him on his visit to Byzantion.41 Herodotus adds that Megabazos' words made him well remembered among the inhabitants of the Hellespont. But even if we did not have Herodotus' evidence, the oracle as quoted by Strabo and Tacitus would have been suspect on a priori grounds because it falls into the large category of oracles with such features as folkloristic elements and aetiologies. Some oracles of the late 6th and 5th centuries, which we shall examine in detail later, support the criteria of authenticity suggested by Parke and Wor­ mell, and may be used to strengthen their position. Herodotus, writing about the Spartan Dorieus who was active towards the end of the 6th century, censures his rash actions because he had led colonists "neither consulting at the oracle in Delphoi to which land he should go to settle, nor doing any of the other customary things.''42 Herodotus both asserts 8 (1956: Vol.I 78-79). 9 (1957). Our reservations concern his reconstructions of events linked with the Lelantine War. 40 Strabo VII.320; Tac. Ann. XII.63. 41 Hdt. IV.144. 42 Hdt. V.42.2. See for full discussion our section on Dorieus below, p. 78ff.



that it was necessary for the oikist to consult Delphoi, and provides us with the contents of the expected inquiry: "to which land he should go to settle." This passage provides direct support for Parke and Wormell's criterion of straight­ forward geographical directions (with no apparent motive for their invention), which indicates the authenticity of a foundation oracle. Two spurious oracles should also be mentioned in this context because their opening lines repeat the supposed inquiry. One is an oracle given to Archias the founder of Syracuse as well as to Myskellos, the founder of Kroton, of­ fering each a choice between wealth and health. This oracle is obviously in­ vented on the basis of Syracuse's wealth and Kroton's later fame for its doctors and athletes.43 The oracle opens (line 2): ... tiva yaiav iK:T)a8e. A similar question is reported in the legendary foundation oracle for Ephesos.44 Al­ though these oracles are obviously without historical value, they seem to indi­ cate the model on which they were based, that is, a response to a certain type of inquiry about colonization. The recurrence of lists of place names and other geographical details in foun­ dation oracles which we shall observe, implies in general a convention accord­ ing to which the oikist knows neither the way nor the site itself. This convention is in accord with the pattern of Delphic "initiative" for the foundation of colo­ nies which is maintained in most foundation oracles. This Delphic initiative seems to have reassured the colonists not only that their oikist was personally chosen and appointed by Apollo (below), but that he was also going to be guided by Apollo both during their journey to the prospective site and in recog­ nizing it on arrival. The Phokaian founders of Alalia in Corsica had received, as Herodotus re­ ports, 45 a foundation oracle "to found Kyrnos (Greek for Corsica);" the set­ tlement was established in 565 B.C., but some 25 years later the colonists were forced to leave, and some of them eventually founded Velia. "They founded this city having learnt from a man of Poseidonia that the Pythia proclaimed to them 'to found Kyrnos' who is a hero and not the island (i.e. Corsica)".46 More will be said about this later; at this point it is important to note first, that a consultation of Delphoi (as implied by the "Pythia") is attested in the first half of the 6th century and that it came from a city in Asia Minor. Second, which is even more important, the interpreter of the oracle adhered to the pre­ cise words of the Pythia in spite of the fact that his new meaning is not borne out by the words' grammar; originally, all that they probably indicated was a 43 Strabo Vl.269; see Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II no. 229) for other references. See for authenticity: id.· (1956: Vol.I no. 69). 44 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II no. 234): 6nou to n61..1aµa Oci)vtm. 45 Hdt. 1.165.1. See our sections on Massa/ia and Kyrnos, p. 69ff. 46 1.167.4.



straightforward geographical designation. This adherence to form seems to in­ dicate a conscious preservation of the precise wordings of foundation oracles which should encourage our belief that at least some foundation oracles were carefully preserved. We shall return to these and other foundation oracles later when we examine what claims they have to authenticity. The case for authenticity should also be examined in the context of historical probability. We have noted that a tradition of the first half of the 7th century exists which connects the Delphian Apollo with colonization (contra Defra­ das); we have also observed that the cult of Apollo archegetes was established as a panhellenic cult as early as the first colony in Sicily (734 B.C.) by its oikist. Subsequent relations between Delphoi and the colonies are also significant; a city like Metapontion, for example, about which no quoted foundation oracle is extant or reported had special relations with Delphoi; many other colonies, especially in the West, show evidence of Delphic motifs on their coinage (which is best presented in the extensive monograph on the subject by L. Lacroix).47 Finally, we point out the general interest that Greeks in later periods expressed in foundation histories; Ephorus, for example, is particularly commended on his treatments of foundations.48 Also, the annual state cult of the oikist in each colony may have provided a framework for the retention of some original oracles.49 Although, on the one hand, this general interest certainly produced a mass of historically worthless material, so some genuine foundation oracles may have been preserved; this is especially probable in cases (such as Gela or Kroton; see sections below) where at least two oracles have survived: one which meets the rigorous criteria of authenticity and one oracle (or a few) which is clearly spurious. In such cases we would accept as probably authentic oracles of the former type. There are a number of general statements from antiquity about the need to consult oracles before the foundations of colonies; these are discussed or mentioned by Pease, Parke and Wormell, and Lombardo.51 One of them may be particularly important for the question of authenticity. This is a passage in one of Plutarch's Delphic essays52 where, in the context of a discussion which (among other things) mentions several oikists and especially Battos, the founder of Kyrene, 5 3 Plutarch says:

47 48

(1965). See also on Metapontion id. 154-158. Polyb. IX.1.4; XXXIV.1.3 cf. Plato Hipp. Maior 2850. 49 See our Ch. V. so Which may be useful for thematic significance of the genre but not for the concrete historical events. 51 Pease (1917: 1-2); Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 79 n.4); Lombardo (1972: 64ff.). 52 De Pythia: oraculis 407f-408a (tr. Babbit, Loeb). 53 Some of the oikists mentioned are obviously legendary (Teukros, Kretines). Gnesiochos was the Megarian oikist of Herakleia Pontike. Phalanthos - the Spartan oikist of Taras (historicity: doubtful). See in the sections below.




VETl TOivuv ou6tv 7t0\TITlKi'j� Mycp XPTIOlµOOT&pov U7t0.PX&l TOU 6&0&VTa µtTpo1� Ta q>pa�6µ&va Kai auµni..aK&VTa µnUov µVTlµov&u&a0m Kai KpaT&ia0m. Toi� µtv ouv T6T& noi..i..nv f6&1 µVl\µ11v nap&ivm· noUa yap &(j)pO.�TO Kai T67tOJV OTlµ&ia Kai 1tpa�&OJV Ka\pOi Kai 0&ci>V {&pa 61a1tOVTlOJV Kai TIPOOOJV a1t6PPTITO\ 0i'jKm Kai 6ua&�&up&TO\ µaKpav anaipoum Ti'j� 'Ei..M6o�. iaT& yap T&OKpov Kai Kp11TiVT1V Kai fVT1aioxov Kai Cl>ai..av0ov, liUou� T& noUou� T)y&µ6va� aT6i..rov 6aou� f6&1 T&Kµ11pio1� av&up&iv TTJV 616oµ&VT1V &KO.OTC!) Kai npo01'1Kouaav t6pua1v·

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

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

54 55 56 57

(1977: 65). Diod. XII.10.5; cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 131). Cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 187). See pp. 97-101.



deny that Delphic "signs" or "riddles" may have been similarly interpreted by oikists in earlier periods. Appropriate times, the second element which Plutarch mentions, are not expressly found in foundation oracles, although they may be implied in the sacrifices which the oikist conducted before setting out (kalliherein). We shall return to this subject in a different chapter. 58 The third and fourth elements are connected because they both imply pre­ scribed cult and worships. We shall examine separately the question of local heroes and the establishment of precincts and temples. It is important to em­ phasize again with Nilsson that such expounding of cults was essential to Del­ phoi's influence on colonization. In particular, these elements in Plutarch may be used to support reported oracles, such as the one about Idmon's tomb at Herakleia Pontike; but in such cases the sceptic would easily argue that Plu­ tarch's account is based on traditions which are mostly spurious or aetiologi­ cal, especially since some of the oikists whom he mentions are clearly mythological figures. We admit that the latter objection may be raised against the whole list in Plutarch, but particular cults or heroes seem to us more suscep­ tible to such criticism than the general class of topographical signs. Whereas we have seen how the need might arise to reinterpret an oracle in order to change its meaning to that of a prescribed cult for a hero (Kyrnos), we do not seem to have evidence for such occasions which would have motivated forgery of straightforward geographical data. Finally, we should mention one more possible objection to the authenticity of oracles containing more than a mere sanction (Pease's criterion). Although Thucydides, at the opening of Book VI, sums up in relative detail the history of Greek colonization in the West he omits any mention of oracles. Moreover, when he does mention a consultation prior to an act of colonization in the case of the Spartan colony to Herakleia Trachinia (see section below), he seems to report it as a mere sanction. One should avoid, however, resting the weight of an argument on absence in a source. Thucydides, on the whole, is less interested in oracles; still, even in the case of Herakleia, as we shall see, he retains the fromula, "on the com­ mand of the god", 59 in spite of the fact that the "command" is clearly only a sanction. Thucydides, therefore, simply does not report foundation oracles, and his silence should not affect their authenticity either way. It is impossible to generalize further about the nature of the sources con­ cerning ancient oracular literature in general, which are numerous and dis­ parate. We cannot add here to the discussion of sources in the prolegomena 58 See pp. 109-110. 59 Thuc. 111.92.S. KtA.&uovt0c;. For a serious assessment see now Marinatos 1981a; b, who is right to say that in general Thucydides is interested in the interpretation of oracles rather than in their content (1981b: 47ff.)



by Parke and Wormell to their corpus of oracles, to which we refer readers for a general introduction.60 To sum up, we are inclined to accept as authentic an oracular response about the foundation of a colony when it answers the criteria of straightforwardness (i.e., a direct "command" to found a particular place), sometimes with the addition of geographical directions, unless there are additional reasons in an individual case which tell strongly against it. On these principles we shall con­ sider each case on its own merits in an attempt to assess its value as a source for understanding the religious role of the oikist. Our focus in this chapter is not Delphoi but the oikist. The most important aspect of the oikist's consultation at Delphoi was his personal designation by Apollo and the implied religious authority with which he was invested. Mil­ tiades will serve as a good example (see also the section on him below); Herodo­ tus relates that it was not merely sufficient for Apollo to have indirectly indicated to the Thracians that Miltiades was to be their oikist; in fact, he had to go to Delphoi himself to receive the oracle's confirmation and designation. By ''religious authority'' we do not mean only the religious aspect of his autho­ rity as a leader but also the authority to act and make religious decisions, such as instituting cults and designating precincts to the gods. In this respect the reli­ gious authority with which the oikist was invested resembled that of Apollo himself, namely, the authority to expound religion. Lampon, the Athenian oi­ kist of Thourioi, was called by a late source "an exegetes of the foundation of the city" (&�TIYTl•TJpuKt6i;, a "roasted bean." 67 Possibly, too, the ten eponymous Athenian heroes of the Kleisthenic tribes were selected in this way from a list of a hundred.68 These examples however are inapplicable to a colonial situation. The sources which mention oracular lots at Delphoi are late, and their con­ text is mythologicaI.69 We have, however, from the 4th century B.C. one inscription which Amandry regards as decisive. 70 The inscription contains sacred regulations for Delphoi and Skiathos. After stating public and private charges for the pelanos (sacrificial cake) and for the hide of the victims71 (in both cases: one Aeginetan stater for the public consultation, two obols for the private one), one reads: 64 Pease (1917: 6). On the procedure of the oracle see in general Amandry (1950) and Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I ch. 3). 66 Amandry (1950: ch.2). 67 Plut. Mor. 492b. 68 Ath. Pol. 21.6. 69 Amandry (1950: 25-32). 70 Ibid. 32f.; cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: 18-19). 71 On animal sacrifices in general: Burkert (1977: 101-115). On use of the parts of the animal: Puttkammer (1912). 65


RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES ai K' &1ti q>puKtci> 1tapitt1, to µtv 6aµ6cnov at[a]tij[p]a ai[ywaiov, to 6t i6tov ... (lacuna) ...] tci>1 8&ci>[1 XPttatt\p ?] 10v &1ti [tav tpa1t]&,aV aiya K[aA.A.l]Ot&UOVta Ka[i t]«lA.A.Q i.&pa Katta [1t]atpia.pUK't'CO as the dual, that is, two beans (probably for affir­ mative and negative answers) and translates: Si l'on se presente a la consultation par Jes deux feves, pour une affaire publique, ce sera un statere eginetique, pour une affaire privee, ce sera ...

This is the meaning of the word phryktos (literally, "roasted") in the story about the selection of the Thessalian king as well as in Hesychius and Suidas. Sokolowski objected on the grounds that the rest of the inscription refers to offerings and their prices. He prefers to emphasize the primary meaning (roasted - e.g., meat, grain) and to compare the q>pUK't'Oi to the EiAU't'at, another kind of sacrificial cake consecrated to Trophonios at Lebadeia.73 Sokolowski could have further strengthened his case by pointing out that the phryktos costs exactly as much as the pelanos and that one should expect the consultation itself to be worth more than its preliminary offering.74 Sokolows­ ki also maintains that e1ti q>puKco is not a dual but a dative singular with the iota omitted (e1ti q>pUK't'q> ), that is, ''if he comes forward (to consult the oracle) after having made a preliminary sacrifice of aphryktos." 75 Sokolowski's sug­ gestion about the meaning of phryktos is confirmed by another Delphic in­ scription about regulations for Andros; there the word occurs with the meaning, "sacrificial offering."76 This does not settle the question about the bean oracle, but it seems to remove its epigraphic support. Even if we accept cleromancy at Delphoi, it still seems irrelevant to the question how the oikists made their inquiries. It is difficult to imagine that an Archias or a Myskellos would have had a problem with access: oikists came from the highest orders of society and usually acted as the representatives of their states.77 Their consultations must have had priority, even if the Pythia received consultants only one day every month, nine times a year. Also, consul­ tations about the foundation of a colony, even when they came from the great colonizing states, such as Chalkis or Corinth, cannot have been too numerous; each was probably regarded as an important state decision, and the colonists Amandry (1939: 184-219 esp. 195-198); (1950: Appendix XVI). Sokolowski (1949: 981-984). 74 Sokolowski, however, admits that he cannot support his comparison to eD..utm. 75 According to Fontenrose's translation (1978: 223). 76 Sokolowski (1948: 994, note complementaire); Daux (1949: 58-72). Fontenrose (1978: 223) misses this point. 77 Graham (1971: 30; 220). 72 73



would have wished to be certain that their oikist was personally designated and addressed by the god. If, then, it is unlikely that oracles by lot were used in the Archaic period for consultations in connection with the foundation of a colony, it is possible that there was a change in the Classical period. Perhaps, as Parke and Wormell sug­ gest, in late cases where our source merely reports a sanction, this was the case; 78 for example, the Spartan consultation about Herakleia in Trachis in 426 B.C., which, as Thucydides reports, merely followed the preresolved deci­ sion to colonize, 79 may have employed the lot oracle for sanction, but this is merely a conjecture. Moreover, as we said above, Thucydides simply does not report foundation oracles, even when dealing with the Archaic colonies at the beginning of Book VI. Finally, if we recall the formula which the oikist at Delphoi is reported by Herodotus as using for his inquiry - "to whatland he should go to settle, " 80 - the question could not be answered by either "yes" or "no" but only by specific details. To sum up, even if one accepts the existence of a lot oracle at Delphoi, parti­ cularly before the Classical period, one cannot use it as an argument against the authenticity of foundation oracles, and one should conceive of the consul­ tation by the oikist at the oracle at Delphoi as a solemn, personal encounter with the god's mouthpiece, the Pythia. The Founders of Rhegion and the Human Tithe to Apollo We begin with the foundation of Rhegion, not because it is the earliest8 1 but because of the theory of Parke and Wormell that we can see in the peculiar characteristics of Rhegion's foundation a reflection of an ancient practice which may explain the origin of the practice to consult Delphoi about coloniza­ tion: Rhegion is supposed to be the only historic colony which was founded with the dedication of a human tithe to Apollo at Delphoi. According to Antiochus, the initiative to found the colony came from Zank­ le, which provided the oikist, Antimnestos, and which invited people from Chalkis (Zankle's mother-city) to join.82 In contrast to Antiochus, the other literary sources seem confused and appear to contain contradictions; as a 78 (1956: Vol.I, 19). 79 Thuc. 111.92.5. 80 See above, p. 28 and below, pp. 78ff. 81 Rhegion may still be the earliest colony in the far south of Italy; it was founded ca. 730 B.C., as we learn from the Messenian participation dated by the first Messenian war (traditionally dated 743-720 B.C., see below). For references and discussion of its origins and date, see in detail Vallet (1958: 66-80); cf. Berard (1957: 99-106); Dunbabin (1949: 12-13); Graham (1982: 109). 82 FGrHist 555 F9 = Strabo, VI.257.



result, some scholars have regarded Antiochus as the only reliable source for Rhegion's foundation. On the other hand, there is always the possibility that the later close relations between Zankle and Rhegion may have furnished the basis for a rationalization of the foundation story by Antiochus. In particular, the Messenian participation (below), which is not mentioned by Antiochus, makes some of the other details in our sources more credible. Some of the apparent contradictions are the name (or names) of the oikist(s). We believe that the different names we possess in fact complement, rather than contradict each other. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the one who received the foun­ dation oracle at Delphoi (i.e., the oikist83 ) was "the Chalkidian Artimedes;" the two names are not mutually exclusive.84 According to Thucydides it was "according to the ancient custom" 85 for a colony to send for an oikist from its mother-city when it founded another colony itself. Epidamnos - on which Thucydides comments - may pose a problem since only one oikist is men­ tioned, whereas if we are to take Antimnestos and Artimedes as complemen­ tary, we have two. We shall discuss "plurality" of oikists in a separate section; what must be emphasized here is that although there is a clear tendency towards exclusiveness (especially in the cult accorded to oikists) no single pattern or rule emerges. Specifically, Thucydides does not say, after all, that it was also the rule in sub-colonies that there should be only one oikist. Moreover, even if one takes Thucydides' words to imply a single oikist only, Rhegion may have been exceptional due to the factor of distance: Chalkis was far away, whereas the site of Rhegion can be seen from Zankle by the naked eye on a clear day. Perhaps Antimnestos of Zankle was needed for practical reasons: knowledge of the territory and its inhabitants.86 We may have the name of yet a third oikist. According to the accounts in Strabo, who probably follows Timaeus87 and Heraclides Lembos, 88 the Chal­ kidians were joined by a group of Messenians; fleeing from the Spartans as a consequence of the first Messenian War, their delegation received an oracle at Delphoi telling them to be grateful to Artemis for their lives and ordering them "to join the Chalkidians on the way to Rhegion" (6 c5' 'A1t6U.rov &KEA.Suas 83 Vallet (1958: 69 n.3); cf. Pease (1917: 6). 84 Ant. Rom. XIX.2; 'Apnµ,i6l]c; 6 XaA.K16&uc; ).6yiov &ix&v. This is also Manni's view (1980: 313). 85 1.24.2. 86 See in general on the effect of distance, Graham (1971: ch.V). See also Vallet (1958: 1969) who accepts the existence of the two oikists. 87 It is possible that this, too, is a part of the same fragment of Antiochus, but it is more likely to have been based on Timaeus. See Jacoby's commentary on 555 F9 (FGrHist lllb and n. 70); cf. ibid. 566 F43. Vallet (1958: 71 with n.3) essentially agrees but misrepresents Jacoby's printing of Strabo's text, thus creating an impression of false disagreement. 88 25. FHG 219.



a't'EAM:a8m µ&ta Xa1..K16trov sic; to 'Pll"f\OV).89 The name of the leader of the Messenians is furnished by Pausanias in a passage otherwise full of anachro­ nisms.90 The name is Alkidamidas, the fourth-generation ancestor of Anaxi­ las, the tyrant of Rhegion. Since the historical dates of the latter are 494-476 B.C., Pausanias is obviously mistaken; the mistake, however, seems to concern Anaxilas (not Alkidamidas), whom he dates to the 29th Olympiad, that is, the mid 7th century B.C. If one counts four generations back, the picture once again is reconciled with history, although that date would still place Alkidami­ das in the later years of the first Messenian War.9 1 That the Messenians parti­ cipated at all in the early foundation has sometimes been suspected as anachronistic; specifically, it was typical of Timaeus to combine different groups of colonists.92 However, the arguments advanced in favor of the histo­ rical authenticity of the Messenian participation, which are also based on epi­ graphical evidence (Dorian elements) and cult (of Artemis Phaselitis), seem to us convincing.93 If this is so, we may possess the name of the actual Messenian leader, Alkidamidas, and we should also credit him with receiving the oracle's reply during the Messenian delegation's reported consultations at Delphoi. That the fugitive Messenians facing destruction and conquest should consult Delphoi seems credible, particularly as the inquirers are said to have requested a religious answer concerning Artemis. This type of combining two distinct parties seems to be what Delphoi did best in the context of colonization: it provided the colonizers with the needed additional recruits94 and, on the other hand, gave the rootless group of potential settlers a concrete address. Alkida­ midas should be viewed as a leader of such a group that came to Delphoi for directions (perhaps already having agreed on the need to colonize somewhere). Should we regard him as a proper oikistes? That his Messenians came to be incorporated in the Chalkidian foundation should not trouble us too much. Lamis, the contemporary oikist of the group of Megarians who ended up at Megara Hyblaia, tried his fortune for a while at Leontinoi; that is, he too attempted an incorporation. There is no doubt, however, that Lamis was an oikistes, as Thucydides explicitly refers to him.95 The importance of Alkidamidas' descendant, Anaxilas, explains how the memory of Alkidamidas survived, just as the importance of the Deinomenids provides us with some details about the family's history for the early settlement of Gela.96 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Strabo VI.257; cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II 370). Paus. IV.23.5-7; cf. Manni (1980: 314-315). See on this passage in Pausanias Berard (1957: 94-95; 103); Vallet (1958: 72-74). That Timaeus was Strabo's source see n.87 above. Vallet (1958: 71-80); Berard (1957: 102-104); Dunbabin (1949: 12-13). Cf. also the "recruitment oracle" for Kyrene in Hdt. IV.159.3. VI.4.1. Hdt. Vll.153. with Compernolle (1957); Kesteman (1970). See pp. 97; 251; 259, below.



Alkidamidas is in many respects similar to Artimedes, the Chalkidian oikist, because he too is reported to have been the leader of a group of people expelled from home because they had been consecrated as a tithe to Apollo (Strabo Vl.257): Ktiaµa 6' foti to 'Piry1ov XaA.K16tc.ov, ouc; Kata XP11CJµov 6&Kat&U0&Vt&c; tq> 'A1t6Uc.ov1 61' iupopiav, uat&pov tK A&).q>rov ci1t01Ki\aai 6&up6 q>aa1, 1tapa).al36vtac; Kai c'i).).ouc; tc'i'>v oiKo0&v. Rhegion is a foundation of the Chalkidians who according to an oracle were conse­ crated as a tithe to Apollo because of dearth; later, it is said, they set out thither (Rhegion) as colonists from Delphoi, taking with them also others from home.

Thus Strabo narrates his account of the story before contrasting it with Antio­ chus' version: roe; 6' 'Avtiox6c; q>TJat. His source may have been Timaeus. 97 Heraclides Lembos presents the following version: 98 'Pt\y1ov q>K1aav XaA.Kl6⁣ oi ci1t' Eupinou 61a A.lµov civaatavt&c;.1tapt).al3ov 6& Kai tK TT&).onovvt\aou touc; M&aa11viouc; ... Kai auvq>K1aav npc'i'>tov napa tov 'loKliatou tliq>ov, tvoc; tc'i'>v Ai6).ou nai6c.ov, ov q>aaw cino0av&iv n).11yevta {mo 6paKOVtoc;· Kai '.X.PllCJµOV f).aj3ov, 01tOU UV Tl 01\A.&la tOU c'ipp&Va ... Kai i66vt&c; tp1v4'> 1t&p1q>UKUiav c'iµ1t&A.OV, tOUtOV &lVal tOV t61tov OUVi\Kav· to 6& x.c.opiov, tv titv 1t6A.1V q>K1aav, 'Pt\y1ov tKaA.&ito cin6 nvoc; tyx.c.opiov iipc.ooc;. The Chalkidians who emigrated99 from Euripos because of a famine founded Rhegion. They also took with them from the Peloponnesos the Messenians etc.... and made a joint settlement first at the site of Iokastos' grave, one of the sons of Aiolos, who died, they say, being bitten by a serpent; and they received an oracle (to found a city) where a female (embraces) a male ... and seeing a vine growing around a wild fig tree they understood that this was the place. The site where they founded the city was named Rhegion after some local hero.

Diodorus quotes three verses of the oracle itself in a similar story: 100 on tK ti\c; 6&Kat11c; civn0tvt&c; Xa).K16⁣ 11).8ov XP11a6µ&v01 1t&pi ci1to1Kiac;, Kai civ&i).&· 'A111ia notaµrov u:pci>tatoc; ⁣ c'i).a 1ti1tt&1 fv0' &iac.o !30.).).ovn tov c'ipa&va 9i\).uc; 61tui&1 fv0a 1t6A.1V oiKl�, 616oi 6& 001 Auaova x.copav Oi 6& Kata tOV 'A111iav 1tOtaµov &up6vt&c; c'iµ7t&A.OV 1t&p11t&1tA.&yµ&V11V tp1v&4'>, to ).&y6µ&vov cipa&v6811).uv, fKnaav 1t6A1V.


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

97 See n.8 7 above. 98 Loe. cit.; cf. Vallet (195 8 : 67 n.2). Heraclides may have derived his information from Aristotle's Constitutions; see RE s.v. (Daebritz) Cols. 4 89-491. 99 See L.S.J. s.v. avicmiµt III.2. 100



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

The same story also appears in Dionysius of Halicarnassus but with two signifi­ cant additions: the name of the oikist and a report about the expulsion of natives. 101 'ApnµT\61'1� 6 XaA.Kl6&u� AOYlOV &ix,&v, fv0' av &UPlJ tOV cipp&va (mo tij� 8T1A.&ia� 61tm6µ&vov, mh60l µtv&w Kai µTIK&'Tl 1tpoarottpro 7tA&iv· 7tA.&Uaa� 6& 7t&pi to nanavnov tij� 'ltaA.ia� Kai i6ci>v ciµ7t&A.OV ... Kai tOU� Kattx,ovta� tov t61tov f3apf3apou� tKl3aAci>v oiK&i· 'PT\YlOV 6 t61to� KaA.&itm.

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

The sources are agreed on the main points with some differences that are worth noting; Strabo is more precise about the identity of the colonists: consecrated Chalkidians, setting out from Delphoi, took with them other, "proper," Chal­ kidians. The Messenians are also mentioned in Strabo (probably following Timaeus); they as well as the Chalkidians received a foundation oracle, which is implied in the very act of consecration and setting out from Delphoi. 102 According to Heraclides, Messenians and Chalkidians received the oracle to­ gether. There are various geographical landmarks: the tomb of Iokastos (Hera­ clides), the river Apsia (Diod.), Pallantion (Dion. Hal.). lokastos is interesting because he is comparable to other local heroes who were reported to be ho­ noured by colonists: the Antenoridai at Kyrene, Idmon-Agamestor in Hera­ kleia Pontike, Rhesos at Amphipolis. 103 It would be interesting to know whether he was associated with Delphoi, perhaps with one of the "secret burial places of heroes," mentioned by Plutarch as one of the possible directions given by Delphoi to oikists.104 The tradition must be of some antiquity be­ cause we can contrast it with the obviously aetiological eponymous "Rhegi­ on," who is also mentioned by Heraclides. There are four recurring elements which should occupy our attention: 1. Dearth followed by a: 2. Consecration of a tithe; 3. Delphoi is the point of departure for the colonists bound for Rhegion. IOI Ant. Rom. XIX.2. IOl Contra Vallet (1958: 70 n.l) who regards the Messenian oracle as an alternative one whereas the oracle to the Chalkidians is "only" in Diodorus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. I03 See below under each colony. 104 See the introduction above on Plut. Mor. 407f.



4. The content of the oracle itself As the first three are interconnected, let us begin with the oracle. Diodorus is the only one who actually quotes it. Parke and Wormell regard it as a late invention, particularly due to its paradoxical riddle, a motif from folklore so common in spurious foundation oracles. 105 On the other hand, the oracle does not consist only of a paradox but also contains explicit and straightforward geographical data. The latter, as we have said, form the basis of Parke and Wormell's criterion for authenticity: the site is specified as the mouth of the river Apsia, 106 at the point where it is conven­ ient for a ship to moor. River mouths were typical colonial sites.107 As we said in the introduction, we regard such riddles as possibly genuine when they are found in conjunction with straightforward geographical data that could aid the oikist to pinpoint the site within the general area mentioned in the geo­ graphical directions. That the riddle in this oracle is not a condition but an addition, argues for its authenticity. The paradox of the "female marries the male" is implied in the verb 61tuico, ("to marry") since elsewhere in its active form it applies only to men, never to women.108 We also find this motif in Herodotus' account of the Delphic oracle given to the Argives before the war with Sparta. Plutarch, Pausanias, and Polyaenus add by way of explanation, accounts of the valiant actions of the Argive women. 109 It could be argued, of course, that the existence of this parallel implies that our oracle was concocted on the basis of Herodotus; on the other hand, there is no reason to see any direct link here, as in the case of the concocted oracle about Byzantion;110 also, there is no reason a priori to be surprised at the existence of recurring motifs in Delphic oracles. 111 The oracle is quoted in the second person singular (line 3), following the common oracular convention of addressing an individual and not a group. 112 The oracle also specifies the land as a gift from the god, which is perhaps ana-

105 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 54). 106 Probably modern Calopinace. A. De Franciscis in PE s.v. Rhegion. 107 Lacroix (1965: 115ff.). 108 L.S.J. s.v. 109 Hdt. VI.77; Plut. de Mui. Virt. 245c-f; Paus. 11.28.1; Polyaen. VIII.33. For implications concerning the social significance of the "rule of women" see Vidal-Naquet (1981; esp. 196 for Rhegion); Pembroke (1970). 110 Above p. 22. 111 Cf. Crahay (1956: 172-175); Fontenrose (1980: 70-71). Because of the recurrence of Del­ phic motifs, which is only to be expected, we cannot accept the fine distinctions and analysis applied to the Messenians' role in Rhegion's foundation by Valenza Mele (1977: 512-515) which are based on her original analysis of the "riddle" in the oracles given to the Messenians and to the colonists at Taras. Cf. Manni (1980: 312 N. 5). See also below, pp. 47-52. 112 This was common (see Fontenrose (1978: Appendix Bl)) but it is still noteworthy that the convention is consistent with the principle of personal designation.



logous to the Hebrew "promised land."113 In this way, the oracle justifies the settlement and, in this case, also, the expulsion of local inhabitants.114 The most remarkable aspect about the traditions concerning Rhegion's foun­ dation is that of the colonial dekate ("tithe"). It is known otherwise only in legendary cases: the genos of the Gephyraioi was consecrated as a tithe (c5&KaT&u8tvn:�) by the Athenians, sent to Delphoi and from there to Tana­ gra.115 According to Aristotle, the Macedonian Bottiaioi were sent by Cretans as an lt1tapx11 to Delphoi. From there they went to Italy and ended up in Thrace.116 The Dryopes of Asine and Hermione believed that they had been conquered by Herakles and sent as an ltvci8T1µa to Delphoi whence they set out to Asine and Hermione.117 After the fall of Thebes the daughter of Teiresias, Manto, was dedicated with other captives to Delphoi and was sent to found Ko­ lophon.118 Finally, the people of Magnesia on the Maeander believed that they had originated as a dekate sent to Delphoi after the Trojan war; they were sent to Crete for 80 years but then were not allowed to return to their native Thessa­ ly; instead, t_hey were assigned an oikist, Leukippos, who led them to Asia Mi­ nor. These Magnesians were, in the words of Aristotle (or Theophrastus) i&poi TOO 8&00, d&Aq>rov ii1totK0t.119 In the 3rd century B.C. the Magnesians set up a long and detailed inscription in their agora narrating their foundation and "quoting" foundation oracles given to them and to their oikist, Leukippos, who asked for a personal confirmation. The inscription is a forgery, as Wila­ mowitz has shown, yet it provides us with the most detailed framework for ideas about the practice of the tithe.120 In the Classical period there are two cases where we find dekateuein attested, E.g., to Abraham, Gen. 15.7,18; 17.8; to Moses, Deut.34.l-5. The name AOooov xci>pa appears first in Hecataeus FGrHist l F63. Dion. Hal. 1.53.3 says that Ausonia is the old Greek name for Italy. Cf. Rohrbach (1960: 7). 115 Suidas s.v. 66pu Kai KT1PliKE1ov; Zenob. III .26; Eustath. in Iliad 40 .4. 8 116 Aristotle fr.485 = Plut. Thes. 16.2; Plut. QG 298f-299a. 117 Paus. IV.34.9. For other references see Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 448); Ducat (1974: lOOff.) 118 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1.308; cf. Paus. IX.33.2; Diod. IV.66.5-6; Apollod. 111.7.4. Similarly for Klaros - Paus. VIl.3.1. 119 Athenaeus IV.173.e-f (=FHG II fr. 98a); cf. Conon Narr. 29 = FGrHist 26 Fl(29). 1 120 Kern (1894); Wilamowitz (1895: 177-198); Kern (1900 No. 17). Cf. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 378-382; Vol.I 52-54); Schmid (1947: 94ff.) Parke and Wormell op. cit. try to create an impression of a kernel of truth by quoting Aristotle (or Theophrastus) as if the Magne­ sians "used to supply any Delphian who settled among them a roof, salt, olive oil, vinegar, lamp oil, beds, coverlets and tables." But the text does not say "Delphian" and the words toic; tm6T1µ00o1 may simply mean "travellers." This is how Athenaeus himself understood it because in the words prefacing this he says "to any foreigners" (toic; 1tapa'Ylyvoµtvo1c; l73e). Strictly speaking, Delphians are attested as enjoying this right (probably as visitors, not settlers) only in Delos (ibid. = FGrHist 396 F7) where the reciprocal religious interests are self-evident. Cf. Prinz (1979: 111-121). 113




but not in a colonial context. Dekateuein was planned as a punishment to medizing states before the battle of Plataia; 121 in 468 B.C. the Argives con­ quered Mykenai, levelled it to the ground, sold its population into slavery, "and a tenth of them they dedicated to the god." 122 We shall return to Rhegion soon, but first, we would like to suggest in addi­ tion to Rhegion another example of a possible tithe: Korkyra. Its Eretrian colonists were expelled by the Corinthian settlers, but when they attempted to return home were "repulsed by slings." 123 In a treatise on the oracles of the Pythia, Plutarch states: tyro 6& ... E7tatV6> ... &tl 6& µciHov 'Ep&tpu:ic; Kai MciyVTJtac;, av0pci>nrov anap:x,aic; 6ropT1oaµevouc; tov 0&6v, ci>c; Kap1t6>v 6otijpa Kai natpcilov Kai yevemov Kai q>lAciv0pronov. I commend . . . and still more the inhabitants of Eretria and Magnesia who presented the god with the first fruits of their people, in the belief that he is the giver of crops, the god of their fathers, the author of their being and a friend of man.124

We cannot be certain, of course that this passage refers specifically to the Ere­ trian colonists of Korkyra. On the other hand, it is clear that Plutarch equates the situation of the Eretrians with that of the Magnesians in this passage. Since we know independently that the Magnesian ktisis was a "colonization" of the dekate type, it seems probable to us that the Eretrian colonization-tithe about which Plutarch speaks here should be identified with the other passage in which Plutarch discusses Eretria's refusal to take back the fugitive Eretrian colonists; their mother-city's rejection seems to have been based on her refusal to recog­ nize them as "Eretrians" at all, which is precisely what the dekate implies: the consecrated people are the property of the god.125 By contrast, the colonists' "right of return" was generally not denied.126 Finally, of the numerous Ere­ trian colonies, no other colonial enterprise seems to fit the passage in which Plutarch talks about Magnesia and Eretria together. Parke and Wormell are uncertain about the authenticity of the dekate at Rhegion and prefer to leave it as an open question127 However, they regard the significance of this ritual as far reaching: "the primitive existence of this custom of dedication in association with dispatch of the dedicated to found a

Hdt. VII. 132. See in detail Parke (1948: 82-114). Diod. Xl.65.5; cf. Eurip. Phoeniss. 202-203; 280-281. Plut. QG 293a; cf. Strabo VI.269. A similar case (below) is that of the Theraean colonists who failed in their attempt to return home. 124 Plut. Mor. 40lf-402a (Tr. Babbit, Loeb). 12s Parke (1948). 126 Graham (1971: index s.v. return, colonists' right oO. 127 (1956: Vol.I 55). 121 122 12 3



colony must have established a convention whereby all intending colonists con­ sulted the Delphic oracle." In other words, this is the key to Delphic involve­ ment in colonization (and to the position of the oikist as a recipient of foundation oracles). The basic assumption that underlies this hypothesis is the notion that the Greek dekate and the Italic ver sacrum were essentially the same.128 But this is far from certain. Our main Greek sources for the ver sacrum ("sacred spring") are Strabo and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In summary, the whole "produce," notably the young born in a certain year, is dedicated to Mars. The community allows the young to grow up but forces them to depart when they reach maturity. They are then directed by the god (often by means of a sacred animal) to a new place of abode. Strabo explicitly says that this custom is Ka8am:p trov 'E).Mvcov tiv&�.129 In the introduction to his studies on ver sacrum J. Heurgon strongly argues against the identification of the Greek dekate with the ver sacrum. The latter is found mainly in Sabellian context and is linked with Mars (not Apollo). Its elements are important: (I) a total (not a tenth) dedication of a year's yield (2) expulsion and colonization (3) a guide in the form of a sacred animal (not found in the Greek accounts) The balance, argues Heurgon, is against an essential similarity, although the two are comparable. 130 It could also be argued that the practice of dedicating and sending a tithe of young men to Delphoi131 did not primarily serve colonization but provided Delphoi with sacred slaves. Perhaps this is the meaning of the Magnesian appellation as iepoi toO 0&o0 ae).q>rov cinotKot.132 This is similar to a state­ ment made by a man of Rhegion in the Classical period: Timaeus133 tells about a quarrel at the Pythian games at Delphoi in which Ariston of Rhegion asks the Delphians to side with him:

128 129 l30

Parke (1948: 87); Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 51). Strabo V.250; cf. Dion. Hal. 1.16; 23-24. Heurgon (1957); cf. W. Eisenhut in RE s.v. ver sacrum who also doubts the existence of a Greek counterpart. The veritable ver sacrum of the Mamertini which was attributed to Apollo in the 3rd century B.C. is shown to have been the result of Chalkidian (Cumaean or Rheginian) influ­ ence: Heurgon (1957: 28ff.); Gage (1955: 47; 240-241). See also Ducat (1974: 105) who adopts Heurgon's approach but doubts the historicity of either the ver sacrum or the dekate. Heurgon's distinctions have been developed further in Martin's penetrating study (1973). It is his view that Greeks in later periods (Strabo, Dion. Hal. 1.6) interpreted the ver sacrum as a rite of foundation which originally it was not (1973: 34). 131 And women? Eurip. loc. cit. l32 Athenaeaus loc. cit. 133 Strabo VI.260 = FGrHist 566 F43b.


RELIGION AND THE FOUNDATION OF GREEK COLONIES u:pouc; yap &ivm TOU 0&oii TOUp1ov I, 2). l93 Loe. cit. For the river see e.g., Appian BC V.93.292; Paus. X.10.8; Steph. Byz. s.v. Tcipac; 194 Lacroix (1965: 115ff.). 195 Naming the colony was probably the function of the oikist; see the case of Hagnon in Thuc. IV.102.3; cf. Aristoph. Birds, 809-811 with Burelli (1972: 105). 196 L.S.J. s.v. II. 197 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 73). 198 Paus. X.10.6.



different from finding the place according to the riddle. As was the case with Rhegion, the oikist is supplied with the religious authority to pinpoint the spot of settlement within the area given him to colonize. To the colonists, then, their oikist would appear to be translating the god's own command into physical terms of a site. Oracle II Satyrion and Taras are explicitly said to be a gift from the god (6roKa). This again provides justification and sanction for the settlement as well as for the expulsion of the native lapygians. This motif of supplying justification and sanction is implied also in the phrase: "a plague to the lapygians." It has been rightly compared by Rohrbach 199 to the Homeric expression applied to Achilles; Peleus says of his son that he raised him "to be a plague to the Trojans" 1ti'jµa y&vsa8m Tproai.200 In the context of colonization an even closer analogy in form and in content to the justification of war against natives occurs in the legendary oracle given to Neleus, the founder of Miletos. He was told to "drive out the wicked Karians," NTJA.&U, q>pa�u, 01tro� ci6iKCOV Kaprov ysvo� av6prov t�t,.,aaa�, KtA..201 These parallels would take us beyond the limits of our subject, and at this stage we can only point them out. It is important to empha­ size, however, that they all imply the need for justifying conquest. The founda­ tion oracle of Taras is, therefore, not an isolated case, but is compatible with a common Greek attitude. We should add, however, that it is still possible for someone to argue that the existence of the Homeric parallels may tell against the authenticity of our oracle and that it may have been concocted on the basis of these parallels. This is possible, of course, but such a contention must not disregard either the phenomenon of recurring motifs in religious lore and in literature, which, although repeated, are not necessarily copied from each other. To conclude, for colonists setting out towards a distant location with a rea­ sonable expectation of war against natives, such an oracle could raise morale and allay fears. At the same time, the language which is used evokes epic, or heroic, associations. The colonists could look up to their leader not just as a divinely appointed oikist but also as a military commander cast in the heroic mold.202 Rather than diminishing the danger of encounters with local inhabi­ tants, the oracular response creates the impression of a divinely justified and 199 (1960: 19). 200 //. XXIl.421-422. 201 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 301, No. 302) for text and sources. 202 This partly accounts for the heroic cult accorded to oikists after their death. See the second part of this work.



inspired war, with the god personally at the side of the leader. The Joint Foundation of Ge/a Gela, on the southern shore of Sicily, was founded in 688 B.C. by Rhodians and Cretans; the oikists were Antiphemos of Rhodes and Entimos of Crete.203 In time the memory and cult of Antiphemos and the role of Rhodes came to overshadow Entimos and Crete; in some early accounts, notably that of Hero­ dotus, Crete and Entimos were left out altogether.204 Antiphemos was also remembered as a commander in the field against the local Sikanians of Om­ phake from whom he "retrieved" a statue "made by Daidalos" (see below).205 A separate foundation legend grew up around the figure of Antiphemos; a "foundation oracle" is attributed to him together with his brother, Lakios, the oikist of Phaselis. According to it, Antiphemos laughed when he heard he was to found a city; this was the origin of the name, Ge/a, from 'YEAO:ro. The story was in vogue quite early, and Aristophanes uses the pun.206 In contrast to this anecdotal foundation story mentioning Antiphemos alone, there is an oracle preserved by Diodorus which seems to Parke quite straightforward in character and which mentions both oikists. For this reason, Parke regards it as authentic: 'Evnµ' 116e Kpci'rrovoc; ciyaKA.&0pov, e;\.06vn:c; l:1K&A.T1V (Ka;\.t'lv) x,06va vai&tov c'iµq>ro, 6&1µ0.µ&v01 1ttoA.i&0pov 6µou KpT]ti�oµm. For the anecdote: Aristaenetus FGrHist 771 Fl = Steph. Byz. s.v. rti..a; cf. Et. Magn. s.v. rti..a 225.1; Theopompus FGrHist 115 F358 = schol: Thuc. Vl.4.3. (it is unclear, however, whether Theopompus is the one who tells the story; see Fontenrose, 1980, on "Q41"); Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 64-65; Vol.II No. 410). 207 Diod. VIIl.23.1. Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 65). 208 Vl.4.3. Cf. Call. Aetia II fr.43 for its origin from Lindos in Rhodes; Graham (1971: 20).



Wentker put forward a theory which attempts to resolve some of the difficul­ ties: because Thucydides uses the term, f1to1Ko1, (in contrast to c'i1t01Ko1), Gela was an additional settlement or a refoundation of a former colony of Lindos. The name, Gela, being the name of the local river, is in itself neutral (unlike Lindioi).209 In this way, Diodorus' oracle may be regarded as authentic be­ cause Gela would be this epoikia. The argument from terminology, however, is weak: Thucydides did not use epoikoi or epoikia in a narrow legalistic way. In one place he even defined "additional settlers" as c'i1t01Ko1.210 Also, neither does Thucydides nor any other source refer to such two phases: Entimos and Antiphemos, seem in Vl.3.4 to be the founders of Lindioi as well. Historically there is no real doubt about Cretan presence in Gela at the initial stages of the foundation. Pottery finds show Cretan wares (rare in other parts of Sicily) from the period of the foundation and perhaps earlier. There were also found Cretan pithoi used for child-burials. The statue of Daidalos, which Antiphemos was said to have retrieved (above), may also reveal Cretan influ­ ence.211 In a later period the Rhodians came to predominate, especially at the time of the foundation of Akragas (580 B.C.) when Gela was reinforced by additional Rhodians. As we said, the Rhodian oikist also came to overshadow the Cretan. This possibly alarmed the Cretan population of Gela. In general, Greek colonies of "mixed origins" often suffered tensions and civil discord, and the lines of division based on descent would be remembered for long periods.212 The oracle we have may reflect the Cretans' attempt to insure their traditional status in the face of this Rhodian reinforcement. This hypothesis is borne out by the following considerations: (1) The oracle cannot be authentic (the use of Gela as the colony's name). (2) The oracle mentions Entimos, who is usually forgotten. Although after Thucydides everyone could know about Entimos (see below), the foun­ dation lore of Gela generally focused on Antiphemos only. (3) The peculiar emphasis on the joint aspect of the colonization, which is an exceptional feature in foundation oracles. This last point merits elaboration: Entimos precedes Antiphemos in the first line, as does Cretan in the third. 213 Twice the "togetherness" of the coloniza­ tion is stressed: first the oikists themselves (aµq>w) and then the colonists (6µou Kprrrrov 'Po6iwv n:). The general impression is not that of a regular founda209 Wentker (1956: 129-139); Asheri (1967: 5-30, esp. 12ff.). 210 V.116.4. See Dover's commentary on Thuc. Vl.4.3. (Gomme: 1980). 211 Graham (1971: 19-20). 212 Aristotle Pol. 1303a 25; Graham (1971: 15-22). 213 Rohrbach (1960: 22 n.2) notes that Antiphemos is addressed in an epic fashion as "the son of ... "This should not imply, however, that Antiphemos' importance over Entimos is apparent in the oracle. The reason may have been metrical.



tion oracle but of a Delphic sanction for a social order, confirming the parity of the oikists and colonists and probably also the parity of the state cult for the two oikists. (4) The name, Gela, in this context is easily explained either as a compromise (Wentker) or more probably as a simple anachronism. One hundred years after its foundation the colony had expanded and was probably already known as Gela. This was probably the name used by the native Sikels and Sikans because of the river, Gela. The concoction of this oracle, therefore, may fit an early historical context. This is still a conjecture, but it does not seem likely that the joint aspect of the foundation would have been emphasized at a later period, when the Rhodian element had finally overshadowed the Cretan. In any case, Parke's notion that the prefoundation oracle is authentic should be rejected; the oracle should rather be viewed as an early post-foundation oracle whose purpose was perhaps to sanction the social order of the mixed colony, possibly in the vein of other such post-foundation oracles (e.g., Zankle, Thourioi, Epidamnos).214 Abdera: The Failure of Timesias

The people of Teas, fleeing the Persians, founded Abdera (544 B.C.). There they accorded heroic honours to the former (historic) founder of Abdera, Timesias of Klazomenai. Timesias' attempted foundation (ca. 650 B.C.) failed because of the resistance of the Thracian tribes who expelled him.215 According to Plutarch, Timesias was hated in his native city (because he insisted on doing "everything himself"), and when he realized this left Klazo­ menai with his wife.216 In a completely different context, while discussing the fickleness of friendship, Plutarch quotes a line from an oracle: roam:p oiiv 6 ni> T1µ11ai� m:pi tfic; a1t01Kiac; c5o0Eic; XPTIOµoc; 1tpo11y6pEUOE aµfiva µEA.taaawv tax.a wi Kai mpfjKEc; fooV't"m. 217

214 See below, pp. 76; 86; 198-9; 254ff. For two obviously late and spurious oracles con­ cerning Antiphemos and Entimos see Zenobius 1.54 who mentions a riddle: to beware of the quadruple danger. Zenobius adds that the two were not careful and were killed by a Phoenician pirate. Berard (1957: 233 with n.4) seems to give this story some credit because Zenobius is known to have read Hippys of Rhegion, but this does not seem justified. Another oracle which seems to justify wars with natives is found in Artemon of Pergamon: FGrHist 569 Fl = schol. Pind. 0/. 11.16; cf. schol. 70g (Drachmann). 21 5 Hdt. I. 168; cf. Solin X.10 (for Klazomenai as mother-city). On Timesias' cult see p. 221ff. 216 Was he an aesymnetes? See A. Demand! in RE Suppl. XIV.796. That the opposition was political is implied both by the public aspect of the hatred and by the comparison to Themistokles: Plut. Mor. 812b; cf. Aelian VH XII.9 (tci>Y aya8v avoprov). 217 Plut. Mor. 96b.



As the oracle given to Timesias about his colony prophesied, Soon shall your swarms of honey-bees turn out to be hornets. (tr. Babbit, Loeb)

Parke interprets this oracle as prophesying Timesias' expulsion by the Thra­ cians: "the native inhabitants first were to appear friendly, but later to turn to bitter enemies.'' He concludes, therefore, that the oracle may be treated as a vaticinium post eventum. 218 We consider this interpretation improbable since there are good reasons to believe that the Thracians did not appear friendly to the Greek colonists. Thrace was notorious for bellicosity and hard-fought battles, as is shown by the many failures attending Athens' repeated attempts to settle the Strymon valley before she finally succeeded in establishing Amphipolis. 219 The region of Abdera was likewise hostile: not long before the Klazomenian foundation Archilochos lost his shield fighting in the territories of the Saioi. These are identified by Strabo with the Sinties or Sepaioi who used to reside near Abdera. Anakreon also mentions the Sinties as enemies of Abdera.220 This lends substance to our assumption that Thracians actually fought Greeks in the area of Abdera not long before the attempted settlement by Timesias. The oracle, therefore, may not be viewed as reflecting a friendly stage of relations between colonists and natives. On the other hand, a more straightforward interpretation seems to be borne out by Plutarch himself. We suggest that the "honey bees" are Timesias' fel­ low citizens at Klazomenai. This is indicated by the first context in which Plutarch mentions Timesias: in spite of the fact that riv m:pi ,riv 7tOAtV aviJp aya06c; he was forced to leave. This is underlined by the comparison to The­ mistokles, which clearly implies ungratefulness: "Why, my dear people, are you tired of receiving repeated benefits?" 221 Plutarch probably drew his in­ formation about Timesias from the same literary source which contained the oracle quoted above. This line that was preserved may even have been the opening line paraphrasing, as often, the reason for the inquiry. Thus Parke's objection to the authenticity of the oracle seems to be removed. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence that it is authentic, but that would be too much to hope for. In the second context (on Friendship), Plu­ tarch uses the oracle as a proverb (which also indicates that he understood 218 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I. 61) conjecture also that the oracle was forged at the time of the Teian foundation. 219 See cf. p. 228ff.; p. 81ff. 220 Strabo X.457; cf. XIl.549. Anakreon: Diehl fr.20 = Page, Poetae melici graeci (1%2) fr.504 = schol. Od. VIII.294. See also Strabo XIV.644; Suidas s.v. 'AvciKpEwv; Pind. Paean Il.59ff. On this see the discussion in Isaac (1986: 81 with n.51 on Anakreon for more references). Isaac conjectures that the Thasians attempted to settle there but this does not seem to be evidenced just by the battles fought against the Thracians there. 221 Mor. 812b: ti co µ0Kcip101, Komati: no>..>..aKt� Eu nciaxovtE�; tr. Babbit, Loeb.



"honey-bees" as Klazomenians). Moreover, Plutarch's remark that this was an oracle given to Timesias ,u:pi -rfic; anotKiac; does not serve a purpose for his argument in the context of friendship but is added incidentally. Therefore, this remark should not be suspected as his invention but is rendered somewhat more trustworthy as derived from a literary source about which, however, we know nothing.222 Delphoi is not mentioned explicitly, but it is probable on general grounds that the inquiry was believed to have been made there. What is more important is the way in which Timesias qua oikist appears in this tradition: an historical oikist who does not operate as a representative of his mother-city. Historically, perhaps, Klazomenai did support him, perhaps in the same way that Miltiades the Elder was supported by the Peisistratids when he went to the Chersonese to become tyrant there, taking Athenian colonists with him.223 As far as the ktisis is concerned, Timesias was represented as an individual who received his ''mandate'' to colonize from an oracle. That the enterprise failed probably did not add to Delphoi's reputation; it seems that this is the reason why Parke chose to interpret the prophecy as a vaticinium post eventum implying future failure. But this is not the only time that Delphoi failed in a colonization prophecy, and there were many ways to explain that (e.g., Dorieus' attempt to found Herakleia, below). It is even possible that Timesias was honoured as oikist by the Teian colonists on the orders of Delphoi. Delphoi could then point out that the foundation ultimately did succeed.224

Thasos: "A Conspicuous City in the Dimly Seen Island" The island of Thasos, which lies off the Thracian coast, was colonized by Paros in the first half of the 7th century B.C.225 No literary source explicitly men­ tions an oikist; a foundation oracle, however, which has been considered 222 Perhaps it was from this source, too, that Maximus of Tyre drew his interesting detail that Timesias foretold an eclipse (XIIl.5). On the whole there cannot have been much in local Abderan tradition about Timesias. The important state cult soon came to be dedicated to the mythical eponym Abderos for whom annual agOnes were celebrated (Servius on Aeneid 1.756. Cf. Isaac (1986: 78-79); RE s.v. Abderos (Tiimpel) Col. 23-4 and RE Suppl.III Col.14 (Oldfather). 223 On Miltiades see section below and in the discussion about his cult, p. 77f.; 190-195. 224 On Delphoi as an authority on who should be considered a hero see Farnell (1909: V 206-208). 225 A Parian foundation: Thuc. IV.104.4; Strabo X.487. The date is not fixed; based partly on considerations involving the foundation oracle under discussion here, it is usually presented as ca. 680 B.C., i.e., at the time of Telesikles, the father of the poet, Archilochos (fl. 650 B.C.): Board­ man (1980: 229-233). The archaeological evidence, however, does not take us earlier than ca. 650 B.C.; the recent discussion by Graham (1978) attempts to dismiss Telesikles as the oikist and lowers Thasos' foundation to ca. 650 B.C., i.e., thefloruit of Archilochos; contra, see Pouilloux (1982: 91-101). See also below.



genuine by some, 226 is addressed to Telesikles, the father of the poet Archilo­ chos. Since foundation oracles are often addressed to oikists, the inference, prima facie, seems to be that Telesikles was the oikist of Thasos.227 Moreover, the oracle itself seems to designate Telesikles oikist. That Delphoi and the Pythian Apollo were at all involved in the foundation of Thasos seems to be indirectly attested by the prominence of the cult of the Pythian Apollo and by Thasos' subsequent close relations with Delphoi. Together with Athena Po­ liouchos, the Pythian Apollo was the city's chief deity.228 The temple on the Pythios-terrace, which belonged to the late 5th century B.C., was shown to have replaced a smaller one of a much earlier date.229 There is also an obscure tradition about an arbitration of the Pythian Apollo between Thasians and Thracians which was possibly early.230 In the 4th century B.C. Delphoi served as an arbitrator between Thasos and its colony, Neapolis.23 1 The crucial issue, however, is whether Telesikles was the oikist and, since that is based only on the foundation oracle, whether the latter is genuine. The oracle is quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium232 and by Oenomaos of Gadara, who adds an interpretative paragraph. Oenomaos was a Cynic phi­ losopher of the early 2nd century A.D. who composed a treatise which quoted a number of oracles in order to show their inherent deceit: what is fated to happen will happen anyway.233 The oracle about Thasos is as follows: ayyElA.OV TTapim� TEA.ECJlKA.EE� &� CJE KEA.EU(!) VJlCJt &irt vnao� tni Atf}uu &Knaµtvn) (IV.153); what follows reads like a paraphrase of an official decree: "The Theraians resolved to send out men from their seven regions, taken by lot one of every pair of brothers, and making Battos leader and king of all." Two fifty-oared ships (penteconters) carried the colonists to Platea. The way the oikist is chosen in the Theraian version is noteworthy: Battos is made a hegemon and basileus only after the foundation had officially taken place, albeit symbolically, by leaving one man there. He is also not officially 254 Pind. Pyth. IV.4ff. reports that Medea prophesied Kyrene's foundation to Euphemos. For other references Vitali (1932: No. 197-208; pp. 74-83, 114-120); cf. Defradas (1972: 242-245). 255 RE (Stengel) s.v. qKat6µ�11; Schaefer (1952: 137 n.13); Rohrbach (1960: 32). 256 We disagree with Gierth (1971: l 00) that in both oracles of the Theraian version no oikist is named. Grinnos, in Herodotus' story (in the first consultation) clearly reacts as if he is des­ ignated. 257 Bomba: Boardman (1980: 154).



called "oikist;"258 in the "Agreement of the Founders," which echoes this paraphrase, he is called archegetes and basileus. 259 The difference is not great, and it can be shown that sometimes the three words are used as synonyms and sometimes to emphasize certain aspects of the founder's role.260 Still, one wonders if the reason for the lack of the appellation oikistes in this particular context is that Battos is not said to have ever received the sanction of Delphoi, in contrast to the Kyrenaian version where he was: in Pindar's words (Pindar reflects the Kyrenaian version), xpfiaEv oiKta't'fjpa, that is, clearly a designa­ tory oracle (see below).26 1 The relatively small number of colonists that occupied the two fifty-oared ships is intriguing in itself and may be relevant to the question of Battos' posi­ tion. The number cannot represent every young male (from a family of at least two sons) from the seven districts of Thera; nor could it provide a solution to overpopulation and hunger. Perhaps the men took Libyan wives;262 Herodo­ tus says that at the time of Battos II the "dwellers in Kyrene were no more in numbers than when they had first gone forth to the colony" (oi'.KEOV oi Kupnvaiot &OV't'E 6oKtco d).).o n. 268 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.I 74); cf. Schaefer (1952: 150-152). 269 Chamoux (1953: 95-98). 210 Hdt. IV.155.1: loxv6cpcovoi;. 271 See p. 43ff..



little over a century after Kyrene's foundation. Its most important aspect is its emphasis on Delphic initiative and personal designation of the oikist. Pindar articulates this designatory aspect best when he says that the Pythia xpfiaev oiK10,fjpa Bpnv· i\1t&1poc; aµ&ivcov T1q>oc;. 1tp6t&pov 66)..ov fKl3a)..&· 1t&i0&' 'A1t6llcov at&ppov yijv 6aicoa&v tt'lv, µ1a⁣ a9&µiatcoc;. oia t' llVT)P fp!;,&t, toiov ttloc; (lUtOV iKO.V&l.

The text is mostly corrupt except for the opening and closing lines.280 1. Battos, what went before was bad, make your second search a good one. 2. Go, leave the sea-girt land; the mainland is better. 3. At dawn cast out the former deceit, persuading with persuasion (the codex reads 1t&i8&11t&i8cov, which was emended by 0. Millier to1t&i8o'C, as dative of1t&i8co. (See more on this below).

Menekles obviously understood "sea-girt land" to mean Thera and the whole of the first line as an answer to a question presenting two choices: to go back to Thera or to colonize. Therefore, as Parke argues, he conjectured the general context of the inquiry as one "about civil strife." According to Parke, not all the lines agree with Menekles' interpretation, and it should be separated from the actual oracle. Better sense is made by the "island" if we understand Platea. The "mainland" is Libya; rio� probably does not mean "east" (which makes geographical nonsense), but "dawn." The fourth line, in which Battos is bid279 FGrHist 270 F6 = schol. Pind. Pyth. IV.10. Parke (1938: 56- 78 esp. 72- 78). Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 416). 280 The following are Parke's translations (1938). The last line is a moral: as a man labours so is the result of his labour. For the text see Jacoby loc. cit. and Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 416).



den in accordance with the gods' will to love the land which he now hates by disregarding their oracle, cannot find a place in Menekles' interpretation. The balance, argues Parke, is in favor of his own hypothesis. The greatest argument against this theory is that Herodotus quotes a dif­ ferent oracle altogether.281 Rohrbach has tried to show that if one follows 0. Muller's emendation, then one finds a similarity in the uncommon constructions, t>..8rov t>..86v-roc; (Hdt. IV.157.2) and 1t&i8oi'. 1t&i8cov.282 There­ fore, he concludes, the two oracles may, in fact, be different lines of the same oracle. This is tempting, but the text is too corrupt to secure the analogy. Parke and Wormell suggest an altogether different emendation.283 In his commentary Jacoby affirms that Menekles is wrong, that is, this oracle does not reflect a Theran stasis. Jacoby, however, adheres to an older notion in order to explain this: the oracle reflects an anti-Battiad tradition in Kyrene itself. L. Gierth follows this theory, too.284 But one should be cautious; one of the supports on which the anti-Battiad notion rests is the difference between the Theraian and Kyrenaian versions of Battos' origin. In the former he is sim­ ply a son of Polymnestos. In the latter, a bastard of a Cretan concubine. Since "bastard" is a moral stain, a Makel, this version denigrates Battos. We suggest that this merely reflects the moral attitudes of historians. Battos in the Kyre­ naian version is clearly extolled as the designated oikist. Herodotus does not provide the slightest indication that being a bastard was for Battos a blemish. He was still, after all, a son of Polymnestos, even in the Kyrenaean version.285 In fact, the concubine seems to have served the purpose of introducing the Cre­ tan element into the story, a function which Korobios fulfils in the Theraian version. The story of Menekles, therefore, does not have to reflect Kyrenaian politics of a later age.286 All this does not prove, of course, that the oracle is authentic. Parke and Wormell place it among oracles of a later period in their corpus. Nevertheless, it should be taken into consideration not just because it exists but also because it illustrates Battos as a leader of colonists in transition between departure and final settlement. The oracle reported by Herodotus (IV.157.2) revealed to the colonists that they had not yet reached Libya "proper." They crossed over to the mainland where they settled in Aziris for six years.287 After this the Libyans led them to Cf. Chamoux (1954: 112). Rohrbach (1960: 39). No. 416 line 3: 1t&i8e' 'A1t6A.ACl)V Gierth (1971: 99). Cf. Pind. Pyth. IV.59. 286 Cf. Jacoby's commentary loc. cit.: " ... vielfach und wenigstens teilweise Aufgrund der innerkyreniiischer Parteiverhiiltnisse umgestaltet ist." 287 Hdt. IV.158. For traces of this settlement Boardman (1980: 154). 281 282 283 284 285



the site of Kyrene, pointing out the place and saying there was a hole in the sky. This is usually taken as a metaphor for the abundant rains that fall there (the high plateau stops the rain clouds from the sea). One may wonder, however, whether this sentence, which appears somewhat abruptly in Herodotus' ac­ count, is not yet another fragment of a foundation oracle with folklore ele­ ments which included the riddle: "settle where the sky has a hole in it." This is remarkably similar to the oracle with folklore elements given to Phalanthos (and Myskellos) to settle where rain falls from clear sky.288 Upon arrival at the site of the permanent settlement an oikist would also be engaged in establishing cults and rites, as well as sacred precincts. To build temples to the gods is one of the elements in the short "minimum list" which describes in Homer the activities of the oikist.289 For the most part, details about such activities of oikists have not reached us. In fact, most of the extra­ ordinary work of creating a polis ex novo (for which the oikist was surely responsible, at least, in the initial stages) cannot be obtained. The religious tasks of the oikist were probably considered as drawing their authority from his designation by the god at Delphoi.290 They were probably many and im­ portant. Aristotle states "that it is the religious observances of the original settlers of cities and builders of the gods' temples that is proper for us most to preserve." 29 1 Although Aristotle actually writes first settlers (not oikists: ,rov npo'.l'trov oiKtaav,rov), the meaning is, in fact, the same, and his statement reveals an attitude of respect and reverence. We shall have occasion to discuss in detail the religious duties of the oikist, particularly with regard to sacred precincts and respect due to local religious precedent. At the moment, however, let us just point out the religious duties relevant to Battos. In Pythian V (with some corroboration from Callimachus Hymn II) we learn about the following religious activities of Battos: I. Honouring heroes associated with the site: the Antenoridai292 2. Establishing the sacred precincts 3. Instituting and regulating the festivals including building the sacred road. There are, of course, notable examples that occurred to the poets. There must have been many other religious matters in which the oikist would have been in­ volved. Seeking the sanction or advice of Delphoi on every occasion was, of course, impossible. The oikist seems to have been given a carte blanche for

288 289 290 291 292

See p. 50. Hom. Od. VI.7-10: For discussion see Ch. IV esp. p. 138. Plut. Mor. 407f. See Introduction to Ch.I. Rhet. ad Alex. 1423a 36. See also p. 250. See pp. 153-4; 210.



deciding religious details through his designation by Apollo. The notion of a Delphic carte blanche is not hypothetical293 but is explicitly stated in the 4th century B.C. sacred law from Kyrene. We shall have occasion to discuss it in detail later because it is especially important for the question of cult.294 At the moment, let us just note the opening lines: 'O 'A1t6A.A.COV fxp11[a&] [ .....]t Ka8apµoic; Kai ciyvtitatc; Ka[i..I . .]t\tatc; 'XP&tµtvoc; tciv A&j3uav oiK[tv]. "Apollo ordered in an oracular response to inhabit Libya using purifications, expiatory rites and (text corrupt) etc. ...." The inscrip­ tion represents an accumulation of sacred laws gathered and inscribed in the 4th century B.C. It deals with purifications, rules of purity, admission to sanc­ tuaries, suppliants, etc.295 Battos' tomb is also mentioned as well as that of Onymastos the Delphian; he, it has been conjectured, was a professional Del­ phic guide who accompanied Battos to assist him with matters of religion.296 What is important in our context is the fiction that all these laws derive from Apollo and that they are represented as if they were given in advance: the opening lines tell the people of Kyrene "how to live in Libya." 297 Delphoi and the Transfer of Cult: Massalia298 «i1taipouo1 yap tote; cl>coKat&Ootv £K tijc; oiK&iac; Myiov £K7t&o&tv q>aotv, iiy&µ6vt 1p11oao8m toO 7tA.00 1tapa -rijc; 'Eq>&oiac; 'Apt&µ16oc; ial300o1.

It is said that when the Phokaians sailed from their homeland, an oracle was given to them to use for their voyage a hegemon from the Ephesian Artemis. 299

Strabo goes on to relate how some Phokaians stopped at Ephesos where they took with them a woman named Aristarcha. The night before the sailing, the goddess appeared to Aristarcha in a dream ordering her to go along and to take with her a sacred image (aq>i6puµa).300 After the settlement of the colony (tijc; 293 N. 290 above. 294 See pp. 206-212. 295 For a preliminary summary of points see Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 280); Defra­ das (1972: 254f.). 296 See pp. 210-212. 297 Certain orthodox schools in Judaism believe in a similar fiction, namely, that all the "Law" was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, not just the Ten Commandments but all the canonized books of the Old Testament, and even the later oral traditions of the Mishna and Talmud. Moses is comparable to Battos also in the story that he was kvad peh (lit., heavy mouthed), possibly a stammerer and certainly a leader malgre lui (Exod. IV.IO). 298 Massalia was founded ca. 600, which is confirmed by archaeological evidence: Villard (1960: esp. 73ff.); cf. Wever (1966). The divergent date of 545 B.C. is explained as the date of its reinforcement by Phokaians fleeing from the Persians: Brunel (1948: 5-26), also for the texts relevant to the foundation; Boardman (1980: 217-219); Graham (1982: 140-141). Generally for an excellent synthesis of recent research: Morel (1975: 853-896); cf. id. (1972); (1979). 299 Strabo IV.179. 300 On aphidruma see also below, pp. 119ff.



a1t0tKiac; A.al3ouaT1c; 't&Aoc;) Aristarcha, in gratitude, was given the "exception­ al honour" of being made priestess (-riJv 'AptcmiP'JC.TIV nµfjam Otaq>&p6v-rcoc; iEp&tav a1too&i�av-rac;).30 1 It is not absolutely certain whether Strabo is describing here the actual foun­ dation of Massalia (ca. 600 B.C.) or its reinforcement some 50 years later by Phokaians fleeing from the Persians. It seems probable, however, that the original foundation is meant, which is indicated by the use of the genitive abso­ lute -rfjc; a1t0tKiac; Aal}oual'lc; -reAoc;. 302 The oikist of Massalia is reported to have been one Protis. In his Constitu­ tion of the Massaliotes Aristotle tells a romantic story about the marriage of Protis' father (a merchant) to the daughter of the local king; 303 Justin says it was Protis himself. 304 The story is obviously a folktale since the names of the persons involved (Euxenos, Aristoxene) incorporate the idea of hospitality. In content, also, the story is very similar to that told of the foundation of Lampsa­ kos, another Phokaian colony.305 The name, Protis, is also suspect: Plutarch mentions him as the actual founder by way of illustrating the times when merchants were not despised and could even found cities. The text is uncertain, and the name may actually be Protos, that is, "the first," which is obviously suspect as a later invention.306 Aristotle adds the fact that in his day there was a genos called Protiadai at Massalia, descended from the founder. It is pos­ sible, however, that Protis (as "founder") was invented for the self-glorifi­ cation of this genos. 307 Whatever the case may be, we should not doubt that Massalia had at least one oikist and as such he was involved with the transfer of the cult of Artemis Ephesia. It is not surprising to find cults transferred from a mother-city to a colony,308 but the minute detail, including the copying of the sacred image, and the missionary zeal which the Massaliotes would later show in spreading this cult in a similar way in their own colonies are exceptional. 309 The story also seems to justify the need for a religious specialist; an oikist could manage the transfer of ordinary cults from his own mother-city since he was usually an aristocrat and, accordingly, involved with the civic religion. But in the case 301 Loe. cit. 302 Cf. Graham (1971: lll). 303 Aristotle fr. 549 (Rose) = Athenaeus XIII.576a. 304 Justin XLIIl.3.8-11. 30S Plut. Mor. 255a-e; Polyaen. VIII.37; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ao.µ111aKoc;. 306 Plut. Solon 2.4; see Brunel (1948: 6) for discussion. 307 Aristotle loc. cit. See our section on descendants of oikists. 308 See especially the studies of Hanell (1934) and Bilabel (1920). 309 Specifically, Brunel (1953: 21-33); reviewed and censured by Robert (1965: 120-125, 213). N.B. Xen. Anab. V.3.7 (with Diog. Laert. 11.7); cf. Fleischer (1973: 137-139). For the spread of the cult and its copying see Strabo lll.159; 160; IV.179; 184. For other such transfers and copies: Strabo Vlll.360; 385; XIl.537.



of Massalia the cult was neither ordinary, nor did it come from Phokaia but from Ephesos. Some scholars have raised doubts about the validity of the whole story in Strabo, dismissing it as a legend. 310 Their main argument is based on the name of the priestess. Aristarcha is also an epithet of the goddess and Aristarcheion is the name of a sanctuary of Artemis in Elis. 311 Charles Picard, too, doubts that Aristarcha is the name of a priestess on cultic grounds: in the earlier periods at Ephesos, priestesses played only a minor role. 312 On the other hand, all this can be used instead to support Strabo's account. It should come as little or no surprise that a priestess is named after the cult title of the goddess she serves. As for Picard, Strabo does not say that Aristar­ cha played a major role at Ephesos, only that she was prominent among the women there (trov tvtiµcov ocp66pa yuvmKrov). Also, Aristarcha was made priestess in Massalia not as a matter of routine but as an exceptional (6taq>&p6vtcoc;) honour. This is the exception that proves the rule. There should be no objection, therefore, to the authenticity of the story about Aristarcha. But why was a woman chosen as the religious attendant? There may be two reasons. The first is that it was preferable for "Protis" to take a woman along in order to justify a narrow interpretation of the oracle, which, after all, or­ dered the Phokaians to take a hegemon with them. Hegemon could even func­ tion as a synonym for "oikist"313 and thus there was a danger that a male hegemon (backed by numinous authority) would overshadow the Phokaian leader. The second reason is religious: it is possible that a woman was needed for the tendance of the sacred image. 314 Our knowledge about these matters is too meager, but it seems likely that some aspects of this tendance were reserved for women. The Ephesian xpuo6cpopoi are uncertain. 315 At Athens we know that the xoanon of Athena was washed at the Plynteria in the sea. The task was the hereditary privilege of the genos, Praxiergidai. The hereditary aspect signifies, of course, male descendants, but we know that the actual task was entrusted to two maidens called 1t1..uvtpi6&c; or 1..outpi6&c;. 316 The choice 310 Brunel (1953: 31) with references to previous discussion. 3II Plut. QG 302c; cf. the cult title Ariste in Attica: Paus. 1.29.2; cf. a patra of Kameiros, Aristarcheioi, RE II.I Col.860. 312 Picard (1922: 234 n.4; 182ff.). 313 See our section on Archegetes below. 314 Brunel (1953: esp. 30-32) tries to show that the meaning of c'tq>l6puµa "copy of an image or shrine" (L.S.J. s.v.) is inapplicable and that aq>ilipuµa includes in its meaning all there is on the altar, including cinders and ashes. Robert (1965: 120-125) criticized this and has demonstrated that in certain cases, including the one at hand, the meaning is a xoanon "an image." Cf. Hock (1905: 82; 87ff.). Brunel is right, however, in most of the other cases he discusses (see note 300). 315 Picard (1922: 242-248 esp. 243). 316 Plut. Ale. 34.1; Xen. Hell. 1.4.12; Photius s.v. )..outpl6ec;; Hesychius s.v. id.; Deubner (1932: 17-22); RE (Ziehen) s.v. Plynteria; Parke (1977: 152-155). On priesthood in Athens in general see Feaver (1957). On the position of priestesses in general see Farnell (1904).



of a woman is also reasonable on general grounds: as the myth of Aktaion illustrates, it was considered a terrible offense for a man to see a goddess (and Artemis, in particular) naked (the xoana were usually clothed). We may con­ clude, then, that a female priestess was probably necessary.31 7 The cult of Ephesian Artemis was not native to Phokaia. It seems that the initiative for this oracular prescription did, indeed, come from the oracle; it was no mere sanction. This Massalian cult was intended for its colonists alone, in contrast to the twin cult of Apollo Delphinios at Massalia, which was pan­ Ionian from the start.31 8 We cannot know the reason for this particular initiative, but we can seek consolation in the fact that the authenticity of this oracular consultation seems secure; in matters of religion the oracle was the obvious address for answers about the proper rites or cults. That Delphoi319 provided cultic prescriptions for other deities than Apollo should come as no surprise; this was precisely its essential function, that is, an exegetic role of mediation between men and the unknown realms of the gods. As we said, M.P. Nilsson even goes so far as to attribute the reason for Delphoi's success and influence in matters of coloniza­ tion to this very aspect of religious expounding.320 The Exact Words of the Pythia: "To Found Kyrnos" In 545 B.C. the Phokaians fled before the Persians; after failing to settle near­ by, "the Phokaians made ready to sail to Kyrnos (Corsica), where at the com­ mand of an oracle (&K 8eo1tpo1tiou) they had 20 years before this built a city called Alalia. "321 Eventually the combined forces of Carthaginians and Etrus­ cans compelled them to abandon the site. After more difficulties, the remain­ ing Phokaians founded Velia (Hyele, Elea). i:K'Tl, El alpt&t tn' iiv OtEA.A.Etat XO>PTJV" ti 6& Tiu0iTJ oi XP� aiplia&tV.360

When Dorieus heard these things he went away to Delphoi to consult the god whe­ ther he would obtain the country to which he was about to set out, and the Pythia prophesied to him that he would obtain it.

Dorieus set out accordingly. It is possible that before Dorieus set out for Libya he had consulted oracular literature 361 about the area; similarly, he was certainly prompted to aim at Er­ yx on the basis of a written oracle about which he was informed by a profes­ sional chresmologue. 362 But that was clearly not enough; Herodotus makes it explicit that the consultation at Delphoi was expected; it was one of Ta voµt�6µeva. That a divine promise existed in writing or in the information at the disposal of the chresmologues was not disputed; Herodotus censures Do­ rieus for avoiding the personal consultation at Delphoi itself. From the point of view of the "oikist and the oracle" the reason seems clear: it was not enough that a place was promised to colonists; the personal appointment of the oikist and the delegation of religious authority to him had to be fulfilled directly. We have seen, for example, in the cases of Miltiades or the legendary Leukippos, the oikist of the Magnesians, that the oikists came themselves for a personal confirmation of the original oracle. This did not seem superfluous; rather, it was necessary. Let us now turn to the details provided by Herodotus. He censures Dorieus at the beginning for having failed to consult where to settle, which implies that this was the expected inquiry, that is, an inquiry which presupposes geographic details in the response. But when Dorieus finally arrives at Delphoi this is not the question he asks, but rather whether he would take the country to which he was about to set out (Ei aiptEt tn' f\v a't&AAE'tat xcopT)v); the Pythia prophe­ sied that he would take it (Tl cS& Ilu8iT1 oi XP� aiptiaetv). This requires comment, for in fact both the inquiry and the response are in the vein of conquest, not of colonization. 363 Dorieus, therefore, although he finally went to consult 3S9 V.43. 360 Ibid. 361 Hdt. IV.178; Plut. Lys. 25.4; see Niese (1907: 450-457 esp. 454ff.); Rohrbach (1960: 111-112); Stauffenberg (1960: 181-215, esp. 185). 362 Antichares came from Eleon, the home of the Bakidai. Schol. Aristoph. Pax 1071; schol. Lycophr. 1278. Stauffenberg (1960: 188); Kett (1966: 24). 363 We have seen this (section on Kyrnos, above: Hdt. VI.76.1), for example, in the case of Kleomenes and the inquiry whether he will take Argos. For other such inquiries see Fontenrose



Delphoi, still did not ask the "right" question. This contradiction between the expected, or "right" type of inquiry about colonization and what, in fact, Dorieus did ask has been pointed out by others. We suggest, however, that the contradiction should be understood on different terms: Dorieus employs a formula not suited to an oikist but more appropriate to a king, that is, a ques­ tion about conquest. This is precisely the question which Kleomenes asked about Argos, that is, whether he would take it. This is also consistent with the theme which Herodotus develops about Dorieus' frustration at not being al­ lowed the kingship. The difference, therefore, is between topics and formulae of Delphic inquiry, not between two types of inquiry about colonization.364 It is also clear that Dorieus merely sought Delphic sanction for a preresolved plan since the question he is reported to have asked implies the expectation of either an affirmative or a negative response. We cannot support Fontenrose's idea, however, that Delphoi merely sanctioned a literary oracle (the oracle of Laios), because that is not what is implied in Herodotus' paraphrase of Do­ rieus' inquiry.365 The episode of Dorieus does illustrate, however, that although there existed an expected form of inquiry, it was not insisted upon; Dorieus lived, after all, in a later period when religious diversity seems to have been more common. This becomes apparent with another Spartan consultation which took place in the lifetime of Thucydides, who reports it. After going through a list of politi­ cal, strategic, and other motives for the Spartan decision to settle Herakleia Trachinia, Thucydides concludes with a matter-of-fact statement that "first, therefore, they inquired of the god in Delphoi, and at his command they sent out the colonists." 366 It is a matter of certainty here that the Spartans came to receive a sanction for a place which they had already resolved upon. Thucy­ dides, however, does not paraphrase the inquiry; it could still have adhered to the form of inquiry "to which land;" this is also implied in the use of the verb, KEA.EUEtv: although the god is said to command, it is clear that he merely sanc­ tions. Still, the form or convention of initiative is retained. By this time (426 B.C.) the position of the oikist has changed; although it is probable that the three Spartan oikists Alkidas, Leon, and Damagon formed the official delega­ tion to Delphoi (and even that is uncertain), we know that they did not remain there after its foundation.367 (1978: Appendix B VI p. 442); Lombardo (1972: 87); Lonis (1979: 74-78). 364 We disagree with Lombardo (1972: 86ff.) who would like to see in the second question of Dorieus the common and accepted way (ibid.: 80) in contrast to the juridical terms of the inquiry "to which land," which represents "Delphic ideology" (apparently borrowing from Defradas). This terminology is anachronistic and Herodotus cannot be made to imply it as his text stands. 36S Fontenrose (1978: 158); cf. Crahay (1956: 142-145). 366 Thuc. 111.92; 111.92.5: npciltov µtv ouv tv .t1&Mpoic; tov 8&ov tmjpovto, K&A.&uov-roc; 6t t!;tn&µljl'lV touc; oiKljtopac; .... Cf. Diod. XIl.59.5. 367 Graham (1971: 38-39).



It is possible that we should interpret other late foundations, about which all we hear is that they were founded Kata xp110µ6v, as we have Herakleia Trachinia. For example, Herakleia Pontike was said to have founded (with Delians) a colony xpnaµou ttvoc; in the Tauric Chersonese.368 Another colony of Herakleia, Kallatis, is said to have been founded Kata xpnaµ6v.369 In 385 B.C. Paros founded a colony on the island of Pharos Kata nva xpnaµov.3 70 This point obviously needs further comment, but as it does not contribute more to our knowledge of oikists we shall have to leave it. Amphipolis: The Athenian Hagnon and the Relics of Rhesos

This Athenian colony was founded (in 437 B.C.) by Hagnon in accordance with an oracle which called on the Athenians to transfer the remains of the hero, Rhesos (from Troy), to his fatherland. The verses are found in Polyaenus: 371 • Ayvrov 'A-tttKitv 61totKiav i\yay&v oiKiam PouMµ&voc; tac; Kai..ouµtvac; 'Ewta Moue; &1ti tcp l:tpuµ6w ijv yap Kai Mytov 'A0rivaiotc; tm6v6&· tint& vtroc; Ktiaam noi..unouv µ&v&aiv&t& x,ropov, KOUpOl 'A811vairov; X,ilAE7tOV 6& 0&rov c'it&p uµµw. ou yap 0tmpat6v &an, npiv civ Koµia11,' ano Tpoi11c; 'P11aou av&up6vt&c; KaAliµ11v, 1tatpi11 6' &V apoupu Kpuw11,' &uaytroc;· t6t& 6' civ ,66& K06oc; cipota0&. taOta toO 0&o0 x,p11aavt0c; 6 atpa,11yoc; • Ayvrov .... Hagnon led an Attic colony wishing to found the so-called place "Nine Ways" · by the Strymon river; for there was an oracle (i..6ytov) to the Athenians as such: So you desire eagerly to found again the manyfooted place, brave Athenians? It is hard for you without the gods. For it is not divinely decreed until you will have found the remains of Rhesos and brought him from Troy, and buried him as religion demands in his father-land. Only then can you win glory. The god having prophesied these words, the general Hagnon ... (went to Troy etc.).

The words quoted by Polyaenus may not be authentic, but this is a case where Amandry's principle is proven, for we can be sure that the content is factual and that a consultation did take place.372 Parke and W ormell hesitantly sug368 369

Ps. Scymn. 822ff. (Miiller GGM) = 826 (Diller: 1952). Ibid. 762-3 (Miiller), 760-1 (Diller). Cf. Memnon FGrHist 434 c.13; Strabo VII.314; XII.542. 370 Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 177, No. 429). 371 Thuc. IV.102.3; cf. schol. Aesch. 11.91; Polyaenus Strat. VI.53 (cf. Marsyas FGrHist 135 F7 = schol. Eurip. Rhes. 347). See Parke and Wormell (1956: Vol.II No. 133) for textual notes. 3 72 We may also note that Apollo was an important god of the colony and appeared predomi­ nantly on its coinage: Head HN2 p. 217; West (1929: 160ff.).



gest that the word, logion, signifies not an actual consultation but "a previously recorded oracle." 373 Polyaenus, however, resumes his narrative with the geni­ tive absolute .ou 01mu x,prioav.oc; which signifies consultation.374 Both the lat­ ter formula and the word, logion, are not part of the quoted oracle but were composed by Polyaenus; the text of this late author should therefore not be pressed for such fine distinctions. We have already seen that Herodotus speaks of consultation by an oikist as a necessity; the most probable context for this oracle was Hagnon's visit to Delphoi, followed immediately by his action. The evidence for Rhesos' cult is not abundant but is still conclusive. A µVllµEiov of Rhesos existed in the center of Amphipolis as well as a shrine to his mother, one of the Muses.375 This monument probably dates to the time of Hagnon because the cult seems to have ceased after the citizens of Amphipolis transferred the title of oikist to Brasidas in 422 B.C., and turned against the "Hagnoneia" in anger.376 This is borne out by a statement of Cicero. While making the general point that not all heroes receive worship, he mentions Rhe­ sos (and Orpheus) as an example. Cicero's sources, as W. Leaf argues, were probably Alexandrian, based on information reaching back to the 5th century B.C.377 There is also the play, Rhesos, which may perhaps be attributed to Euripi­ des; 378 it shows an active Athenian interest in the hero, after the time of Am­ phipolis' foundation. The play seems to reflect a break with the mythological tradition, which suggests a new attitude. Let us now examine the figure of Rhesos himself in the context of the play, as evidence for the existence of his cult and also as a clue to why this cult was instituted at all. Rhesos is first mentioned in Homer as an ally of Priam, a son of Eioneius.379 By "Thracian," Homer probably meant the area north of the Hellespont, probably in the Hebros valley where the city of Ainos is located.380 Yet in the Rhesos, the play makes his father the river Strymon, that is, in the area of Amphipolis. Leaf provides a detailed analysis of the scene in the play (lines 890-996) in which Athens is charged with Rhesos' death and made responsible for paying some sort of compensation. This last point suggests why this cult was important. There are, of course, 373 374

Op. cit. Cf. Polyaen. 1.30.2: toii 8&oii :x;p,;aavtoc;, the oracle given to the Athenians about the "wooden wall." 375 Marsyas, loc. cit. cf. Perdrizet (1910: 15). 376 Thuc. V .11. See our interpretation of this passage p. 228ff. 377 Cic. de Nat. Deor. Ill.45. See Leaf (1915: 4). For Rhesos' cult elsewhere: Perdrizet (1910:


378See Ritchie


379 //. X.435ff. 380 Leaf (1915: 2).

Ainos is the only Thracian city known to Homer. A late author even men­ tions it as the hometown of Rhesos (Hipponax fr.39 (42)).



other examples of the transfer of relics and in most the ritual seems intended to ensure averting the wrath of a particular hero, removing his protection from an enemy, attaching it to oneself, and creating a "title" to the land. The best known cases are the Spartan theft of the bones of Orestes to ensure their victory over Tegea38 1 and the ceremonial transfer of the remains of Theseus by Kirnon from the island Skyros when it was taken over by Athens.382 The ritual of the cult of Rhesos, while reflecting the same outlook, itself involves the transfer of relics not away from the site to be possessed, as in the cases above, but instead to the site of the colony. A closer analogy is found in an older Athenian context (which also involves an oracle). Before the acquisition of Salamis, Solon is said to have received an oracle ordering him to go to the island and sacrifice to the local cipx11yoi.383 Although not strictly in the context of coloni­ zation, the incident at Salamis involved an oracle about territorial acquisition. Solon is similar in many ways to an oikist: he led 500 volunteers384 and there was a tradition that, like those of Phalanthos, his ashes were dispersed over the island after his death.385 As in the case of Massalia and Herakleia Pontike (as well as Neapolis, be­ low), we find Delphoi entrusting the oikist with particular cult prescriptions peculiar to the site of the prospective colony. Polyaenus presents this as a condition, which is perhaps false, but that is a minor point because we do not doubt the fact that Hagnon instituted a cult to Rhesos. There is perhaps another reason for the institution of the cult which is also implied by the word vtro�. Previous attempts to settle the area ended with dis­ astrous results. Aristagoras died there in 497 B.C.; an Athenian force of 10,000 was annihilated in 465 B.C.386 Although recent archreological reports seem to show evidence of Greek residence and worship in the area long before the foundation of Amphipolis,387 there is still no doubt that another attempt to establish a colony was greatly feared by the prospective settlers. The protection of a local hero who had also been brought into the Athenian mythological orbit probably served the purpose of raising morale: such a hero would protect the colonists. 381 382 3 83

Hdt. 1.67-68. Plut. Cim. 8.Sf; Thes. 36.l. For transfer of relics see Pfister (1909: 188ff.). Plut. Sol. 9.1. Cf. the precinct set up for Aiakos before the Athenian conquest of Aegina: Hdt. V.89 (cf. Pind. Isth. VIIl.21ff.; Paus. Il.29.7; schol. Pind. Nem. V.94e for an Aiakeion there). 384 Volunteers: Plut. Sol. 9.2. Rohrbach (1960: 66) compares it to the use of ol f3ou)..6µEv01 in colonial context (Hdt. VI.36.1; Thuc. 1.26.1; III.92.S; Diod. XIl.10.4). 38S Plut. Sol. 32.4 . On Phalanthos see p. 216ff. 386 See Histiaios' attempt to settle Myrkinos (Hdt. V.11; 23). Aristagoras: Hdt. V.124, 126; cf. Thuc. IV.102 and Diod. XIl.68.1-2. For the 10,000 at Drabeskos: Thuc. 1.100; IV.102; cf. Diod. XI.70.S. See also Asheri (1967: 5-30 esp. 5-9) for other attempts; also, Isaac (1986: esp. 15-30; 33-56). 387 Isaac (I 986: 4-8).



A third reason for the institution of the cult may be sought in the motivation of Hagnon. This interesting person symbolized a break with past traditions in more ways than one: he seems to have created a cult for himself while still alive (thus foreshadowing Lysander) 388 and at the same time, unlike archaic oikists, he left the colony to return to the service of the mother-city.389 Religious senti­ ment of colonists (most of whom were not Athenians390 and, therefore, may have been even more conservative in matters of religious form) must have been offended on both counts. Thus, the establishment of the cult of Rhesos may have been a compensation of sorts on the part of Hagnon, perhaps similar to the creation of an additional 1to1,,1aaoux°'; (Idmon-Agamestor) at Herakleia Pontike by its oikist, Gnesiochos. 391 Admittedly, these are only speculations about motives for the cult's initia­ tion. It is clear, at any rate, that in Amphipolis the oikist functions as carrying out (at least formally) a directive of Delphoi in a way which creates a specific religious connection, dependent on both oracle and oikist, to the new site.392 Expounding local cults and heroes, the oikist functions as an exegetes who mediates between Delphoi and the colony. Parthenope and Neapolis Timaeus says that the Athenian nauarch, Diotimos, sacrificed in Neapolis to Parthenope and instituted an annual torch race, both Ka,a 'X.Pl1CJµ6v, "ac­ cording to an oracle. " 393 This occurred sometime after the Korkyraean expe­ dition of 433/2 B.C.394 Among the various groups that colonized Neapolis, Strabo mentions Athenians; he also speaks of a monument to Parthenope, which "is pointed out in Neapolis, and in accordance with an oracle a gym­ nastic contest is celebrated there." In all probability, this is the same oracle. 395 388 389

See our discussion p. 228ff. Graham (1971: 38). 390 Thuc. IV.106.1; cf. 103.3. 391 See section above; also, Jocastos at Rhegion (above), Antenoridai at Kyrene (above), Parthenope at Neapolis (below). 392 Apparently, this was not enough: Aeschines (11.31) refers to a myth about Akamas, a son of Theseus who received the area as a dowry. 393 Timaeus FGrHist 566 F98 = schol. ad Lycophr. 717-721: q>l]ai Tiµaioc; �16nµov tov 'A8l]vaicov vauapxov napay&v6µ&vov tc; N&li,ro).1v Kata XPlJaµov 8uam tij nap8&v61t1J Kai 6p6µov nouiam ).aµ1tli6cov, 610 Kai vuv tov tiic; ).aµ1tli6oc; o.yrova napa toic; N&ano).itmc; (ttl]aicoc;) t&A&ia8m. Cf. Tzetz. ad Joe.: �16nµoc; 6t ≤ N&li1to).1v t'i).0ev l>t& atpatl]yoc; rov trov 'A0l]vaicov t1toUµ&1 toic; l:1K&A1Koic;. 394 For a discussion of the date see Berard (1957: 55-67) and Jacoby's commentary on FGrHist 566 F98. 395 V.246: 61tou 6&iKvutm µvijµa trov l:&1ptjvcov µuic;, nap8&v61tTJc;, Kai o.yrov auvt&A&itm yuµvtKoc; Kata µavt&iav.



Parthenope was honoured in Neapolis a long time before Diotimos; "Par­ thenope" may even have been the name of the city in former times.396 Luta­ tius Catulus also mentions a similar oracle about Parthenope, but he attributes it to the Cumaean foundation of Neapolis. He says that Cumaeans, "having been separated from their parents,'' founded the city of Parthenope, named after the Siren397 who occupied a tomb there. Jealousy caused Cumae (Kyme) to destroy the colony. When Cumae was struck by an epidemic as a punish­ ment, the colony was refounded ex responso oraculi (hence the name Neapolis, "New City") and religious rites were instituted for Parthenope.398 PS. Scym­ nus also mentions the Cumaean foundation as Ka,a 'XPTJOµov.399 It is certainly conceivable that Ps. Scymnus is right; but as far as Lutatius is concerned, the similarity of the religious prescription to that in Diotimos' oracle is suspect. If the Athenian colonists whom Strabo mentions are to be accepted, 400 then the evidence hangs together well and suggests the following reconstruction: Diotimos son of Strombichos, after having commanded the Athenian fleet which was sent to aid Korkyra in 433/2 B.C.,401 later led Athe­ nian colonists402 to Neapolis and as their oikist403 received some sort of foun­ dation oracle about honouring Parthenope, as Hagnon was ordered to honour Rhesos (which probably happened in the same decade).

The Sikel Douketios In Douketios we have a case where an oikist used an oracle in the middle of the 5th century B.C. But the case is exceptional, not least because the oikist was not a Greek. The Sikel leader Douketios was engaged in a series of foundations of cities

396 Plin. NH 111.62 = 9.9: ... Neapo/is Chalcidiensium, et ipsa Parthenope a tumulo Sirenis appellata. See Berard (1957: 56 n.2); cf. Solin 2.9; Dion. Perierg. 357 (a µti..a8pov of Parthenope = heroon). 397 Cf. Strabo loc. cit. 398 Lutatius Catulus fr. 7 HRR I 192-193: Lutatius Libro IV dicit, Cumanos incolas a parenti­

bus digressus Parthenopen urbem constituisse, dictam a Parthenope sirena, cuius corpus etiam {il­ lic sepultum sit./ Postquam ob locorum ubertatem amoenitatemque magis coepta sit frequentari. veritos Cumanos ne Cumae omnino desererentur, inisse consilium Parthenopen diruendi. Postea tamen pestilentia affectos ex responso oraculi urbem restituisse sacraque Parthenopes cum magna religione suscepisse, nomen autem Neapoli ob recentem institutionem imposuisse. For the use of parens as mother-city cf. Livy XXXVII.54.19; Plin. NHV.76; Florus 11.6.5; Rohr­

bach (1960: 64). Berard's difficulty with the word (1957: 58) seems unjustified. 399 Ps. Scymn. 251-252. 400 Jacoby op. cit., disagrees. Berard accepts them. 401 Thuc. 1.45.2; cf. /G 1 2 295 line 9. 402 Perhaps in connection with the Athenian expedition to Sicily in 427-425 B.C. See Tzetz. n.l above (Berard op. cit.). 403 Cf. Rohrbach (1960: 75): "der Fiihrer der Athenischen Epoikie."



before he was defeated in 451 B.C. by Akragas and Syracuse.404 After be­ coming a suppliant of the latter, he was exiled to Corinth. He remained there only a short time, "and on the plea that the gods had given him an oracle that he should found a city on the Fair Shore of Sicily, he sailed to the island with a number of colonists; some Sikels were also included ...." 405 The foundation of Kale Akte, as well as Douketios' death, are reported in 440 B.C.; 406 since he left Corinth in 448/7 B.C., we may assume that Diodo­ rus' account left out a great many incidents. Perhaps Syracuse was now inte­ rested in playing him off against Akragas. The emphatic mention that "some Sikels" also participated clearly implies that the other colonists were Greeks (with Syracuse's help?), and it is probably for their sake a foundation oracle was procured. The expression, um'> 0srov, does not seem to imply Delphoi, in which case one would expect 61to 0sofi.407 Such a foundation oracle is otherwise not known to us. It is likely, therefore, that Diodorus here compresses literary ora­ cles provided by chresmologues with a possible consultation at Delphoi. But even if he did not consult Delphoi, as far as the oikist is concerned the use that Douketios made of a foundation oracle is comparable to that of a Greek oikist­ es, to justify and sanction the act of colonizing. Post-Foundation Inquiry: Apo/Ionia

There are three known cases in which an inquiry is reported to have taken place at Delphoi after the foundation of the colony, concerning the rightful mother­ city or oikist. Epidamnos was permitted to change its mother-city; in the case of Zankle, neither of the contending oikists was recognized at Delphoi; in the case of Thourioi, Apollo declared himself as the founder. We shall deal with these cases which are well known and have had previous discussion while dis­ cussing the cult accorded to the oikist; we propose here a fourth case, which involves a new historical reconstruction.408 Illyrian Apollonia was founded by Corinth, probably together with Korky­ ra.409 On a 5th century B.C. dedication at Olympia Pausanias read the fol404 Diod. Xl.78.5; 88.6; 90.1. 405 Diod. XII.8.2: ... Kai 1tpoanon1aciµEvoc; XPlJv o1KlJt6P..ciflovto 6t Kai tli>v I:1K&>..1i>v nvec; .... 406 Diod. XIl.29.1. See also Adamesteanu (196 2: 16 7-198 esp. 190-196). 407 Cf. Rohrbach (1960: 1 28). 4os See p. 2 5 4ff. 409 Joint foundation (ca. 600 B.C.): Strabo VIII.3 16; Ps. Scymn. 4 39. But Thucydides (1.26.2) defines it as Kop1v8i(l)V itnmKia; Steph. Byz. s.v. 'Ano>..).(l)via and s.v. ruMKEta (quoted below) also mentions a Corinthian oikist and 200 Corinthian colonists. Apollonia's coinage, howe ver, is similar to that of Korkyra. Pausanias, too (V.2 2.4), mentions only Korkyra as the mother-city.



lowing inscription of which we quote the first two lines: µv«iµat' 'A1t0Uroviac; avaKEiµ&0a, t(lV £vi 1t6vtq> 'Ioviq> cl>oiPoc; q>Klv EiKoc; 1tapalal3&tv nvac;. Because his ancestors, the Iamidai, attended Archias in Syracuse, from whom it was natural to take some (seers?). 8b: CJUVOlKlCJtllP t&: toiito 6& OUK al110c;· OU yap outoc; CJUVqlKlCJ& tac; l:upaKOUCJac;. aUa npoc; EYKC.OµlOV &lA.Tl(j)&V" ano yap EK&ivcov 6 'Ay11aiac; t, q>avat &u6aiµova fa&a9at tJIV tci t& a11.11.a, Kai tci'>V EK yi'jc; Kapnc'i>v &iv&Ka. The soothsayers and among them especially Alexander the Telmissian, who was reported to have made many other correct prophecies to Alexander, reflecting upon this, said that the city would be prosperous in all respects, but especially in the fruits of the earth. (Robson).

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

86 For other sources consult Bosworth (1980: ad Joe.); on Plutarch see Hamilton (1969: comm. ad Joe.). 87 "King, to you I speak. (Behold) the god of the ram's horns. If you wish forever to flourish in youth eternal, Build an illustrious city above the island of Proteus, Where once Aion Plutonius first took his throne as a ruler, Lord of the boundless kingdom, over the fire spreading mountains ... Tr. Haight (1955: 33-34). 88 Bosworth (1980: 263-264) with Wells (196 2 : esp. 2 7 5-2 84). 89 Perhaps the seers conducted the sacrifice which Arrian mentions in the passage quoted above, but no divination is mentioned. 90 ou µriv ci)..) tayia on the battlefield.120 Conclusions

(a) The oikist and the mantis Except for Lampon, the seers mentioned above are distinct and separate from the figure of the founder, and even Lampon seems to have assumed both roles himself. The seers are insignificant in the colonization itself; they are there to execute a function delegated to them by the oikist. Does the distinction between the functions of oikist and mantis apply also to the Archaic period? The question is difficult to answer. At Zankle, if we believe Callimachus, no seers are mentioned. That the lamidai came to Syra­ cuse with Archias is doubtful. In the history of Greek religion we note the tendency toward religious specia­ lization and institutionalization. Athens is our best example: successive re­ forms broke up one by one the monopolies of the Aristocracy; religion was among the last to be attacked. Thus, even in the 5th century, for example, inter­ preters of chresmoi (inspired oracles and sayings in hexameter) were Eupatri­ dai. Later some of the functions were institutionalized in the office of the exegetes. 121 Moreover, the very art of manlike became so intricate and com­ plex over the centuries that books were written to expound it; a certain Anti­ phon who was a contemporary of Sokrates set down rules for the interpretation of dreams.122 We also hear of a mantis who had read all the necessary books of instruction.123 Clement of Alexandria tells us that Philochorus the Atthido­ grapher also wrote a book on mantike. 124 We may discern then, two opposing tendencies: (1) manlike, as such, becoming more and more specialized the further one progresses into the Classical period; (2) the further one goes back in time the more concentration is found: the Archaic aristocracy certainly controlled political, military and religious matters. The archaic oikists be­ longed to this milieu; hence we may suppose that the function of divination was not yet necessarily separated, as far as the act of foundation was concerned.125

119 120 121 122 123

See next chapter, especially 118. In general see Pritchett (1971: I. ch.VIII). In general see Oliver (1950: chapters I, II). Dodds (1951: 132 n.100). Thrasyllus: Cic. De Div. 1.39; 116; cf. Isocr. XIX.45. The books were a legacy of the mantis Polemainetos. 124 Strom. 1.21, 134, 4 (see Pritchett, 1979: 73, for more references). Cf. FGrHist 328 Tl, 2. 125 Cf. Berard (1960: 82).



The mantis' presence was not a necessary condition for a foundation of a colony. It is probable, however (although we possess no explicit evidence) that a mantis had been present in most colonial expeditions from early times, accom­ panying the oikist in his capacity as a military leader. Also, there is no doubt that manteis in general appear in our earliest sources and in stories about earliest historical times, such as Kalchas and Teiresias.126 We hear of the gods intimating what should or should not be done by means of portents, omens, dreams, birds, etc. The seers have special ability recognized by public opinion. The question is not whether the mantis was active in the Archaic period (for he was) but how was his activity connected with colonization in its early stages. Our well attested cases are found only in the Classical period. It has been demonstrated that prefoundation divination was a general practice; this is indicated in each case and is directly implied in Aristophanes' Birds. The appli­ cation of all this to earlier periods rests on the probability that the need for divination existed; it is also a common supposition that matters of religion, and especially of ritual, are least prone to change. Because the rituals seem to be traditional, it is very likely that they descended from the Archaic period. In the next chapter we shall maintain that the immediate context for the origins of the custom to transfer sacred fire to a new colony was military: professional fire­ bearers would follow the military leader. Similarly, it would seem that original­ ly manteis joined oikists as religious functionaries in their retinue; oikists, after all, were at once both leaders of emigrants and military commanders. Divina­ tion for the purposes of colonization never developed as a specialized field, distinct from other types of divination; rather, (as in the case of Xenophon and Silanos), the mantis would perform whatever divination a leader of people might require of him. The responsibility for divination, as we have seen, belonged to the oikist but the performance of the actual rites were probably delegated by him to his mantis. (b) Type of divination

We observed three types: sacrificial, involving the interpretation of an actual sacrifice; oracular, concerned with the interpretation of literary oracles, no­ tably of "Bakis;" and inspirational divination, in which direct instructions were given through dreams. The latter two seem to be more circumstantial, whereas the sacrificial type implies a generally prescribed ritual.

126 See Ziehen's article in RE, XIV.2 1345-1355 s.v. mantis.



(c) Purpose

The religious purpose of divination is to divine the favor of the gods; the object symbolizing the colonization enterprise seems to be the oikist himself, as in the case of Epaminondas (and Xenophon?). That it is the oikist who consults at Delphoi, for the most part, seems to corroborate this. But the consultation at Delphoi would have taken place only once, before the colonial expedition would set out, whereas divination provided a continuous assurance that the favor of the gods was still upon the oikist and the colonists in the various stages of the foundation process. The social purpose of divination seems self-evident: to encourage, enhance authority, provide immediate and concrete religious answers, and allay fears (see our opening remarks). (d) Sphere of relevance

The divination is not involved in consecration of territory (as in Roman prac­ tices) but in the foundation act and decision. The initiative stems from the col­ onizer and is expressed through the oikist. At Athens it seems to have served as a political factor influencing the decision to colonize Thourioi. The question which pre-foundation divination formally helps to answer, then, is "whether" to colonize. Divination in the later stages of foundation (e.g., the beginning of battles, pin-pointing the precise location of sacred areas, managing foundation rituals, etc.) helps to answer questions of "how" or "where." But it is the pre­ foundation divination which appears before us as belonging, strictly speaking, to the act of colonization. (e) Historical importance

Divination answers a legalistic ritual prescription; although the formal ques­ tion it answers is "whether," it probably did not constitute an insuperable obstacle if the answer were negative. But divination should not be regarded cynically; the Thouriomanteis are a clear indication that even for "enlight­ ened" Athens the matter was one of importance. One may suppose (and to some degree usually observe in the case of Messene and Alexandria) that it gradually lost its viability in the 4th century. We should regard pre-foundation divination, therefore, as an integral practice with real significance which prob­ ably accompanied Greek colonization and its leaders, in one way or another, from its early days.


THE SACRED FIRE AND THE PUBLIC HEARTH The Transfer of Sacred Fire from the Mother-City

An entry in the Etymologicum Magnum under the heading, prytaneia, reads: 1tpu-rav&ta: 6n -ro i.Epov 1t6p &1tl -rou-rrov ci1t6K&t'tat, Kaiwi>n e'taVTJlOl> tOO 'A0nvairov 6pµn0tvm; Kai voµi�ovn:c; yi:vvm6Tawt Eivm 'Irovrov, ouwt 6& ou yuvaiKac; f)yayovw tc; ,f1V U7tOlK\TlV ... Those who set out from the prytaneion at Athens and regarded themselves as the most true blooded Ionians did not bring women to the colony etc.

Herodotus does not mention fire, which is perhaps surprising in view of its implied symbolism and the fact that it could confer a greater claim to Athenian descent. 16 It can be demonstrated, however, by other examples that a mention of "setting out from the prytaneion" also implies a common hearth, that is in it: referring to the cult of Bendis, a 3rd century Athenian inscription reads 'tTJV novniJv n/tvnetv ano ,iji; tcniai; ,iji; &KK .ou npu,aveiou.17 We are told by Plutarch that the daughters of Aristides were married EK ,ou npu,aveiou. 18 Since marriage ceremonies involved the hearth, 1 9 this is clearly another in­ stance in which the mere mention of prytaneion renders that of hearth super­ fluous. This seems to be the case with three other inscriptions similar to the one quoted above, which are all presented in Miller's Testimonia of the Pry­ taneion.20

We can adduce two more examples, not in an Athenian context, for the transfer of sacred fire from a prytaneion. Pausanias tells of a kind of transfer of "dead" fire from the hearth in the prytaneion of Elis at Olympia: every year "ash from the prytaneion," that is, the hearth of perpetual fire there, which was made of ashes,2 1 was taken by manteis and used to plaster the great ash­ altar of Zeus.22 The most famous and best attested case of the transfer of sacred fire occurred at Delphoi after the Persian Wars. After the victory of Plataia in 479 B.C., the Delphic Oracle ordered the Greeks to erect an altar to 14 1.146-147. IS 1.147.2. 16 See below on the "argument from silence." 17 /G 112 1 283 lines 6-7. "That (Thracians) are to conduct the procession from the hearth out of the prytaneion" (= Miller, 1978: Al79). Cf. lines 14-16. 18 Plut. Aristides 27.2. 19 Samter (1911: 72f.). 20 And which do not explicitly mention "hearth": A308, A359, A387 in Miller's testimonia (1978). 21 Paus. V.15.8-9. 22 Paus. V.13.11.



Zeus the Deliverer (Soter), but before sacrifices could be made on it they had to extinguish all "the fires throughout the land" (To KaTa Titv xcopav 1tOp a1toal3toavmi;), which the Pythian god said had been polluted by the Bar­ barians. The extinguished fires were to be rekindled with fire which was "fresh and pure from the Common Hearth at Delphoi (&vauaaa0m Ka0apov &K A&Aq>rov ano Tfji; Kotvfji; taTiai;). 23 That the Common Hearth at Delphoi was located in the prytaneion is further attested by a number of inscriptions. 24 It should not be considered strange that the prytaneion, an institution which would seem to serve only a local community (in this case, the residents of Delphoi) plays a panhellenic role here. We have seen above that the prytaneion of Elis was in the sanctuary at Olym­ pia; 25 at Delphoi, too, there is evidence that the prytaneion was connected with the general function of the Oracle: Plutarch reports that the Pythia, Apol­ lo's priestess, was involved in a ritual there. 26 In rites of foundation of altars, precincts and temples, we find important corroborations for the custom of transfer of sacred fire for the purpose of foundation. Brunel's study of transfers of cults and of the word aq>i6puµa seems to us of major importance; Brunel has shown that beside the meaning of "statue," "an image of a deity," the word aphidruma signifies both the abstract notion of the transfer of cult and the concrete items transferred. 27 In the case of Massalia, as we have said, we disagree with Brunel for it seems clear that the aphidruma taken by the priestess Aristarcha was the image (xoanon) of Artemis Ephesia. 28 We agree, however, with his interpretation of a passage in Diodorus (XV. 49) where aphidruma plays a significantly different role. 29 In order to establish their common sanctuary, the Panionion, says Diodorus, the Ionians received an oracle at Delphoi which instructed them to take "aphi­ drumata from the ancient altars of their ancestors" at Helike, in their ancient homeland (Achaia) (w11aµoui; tial3ov aq>i6puµaTa Aal3&iv ano Trov apxairov Kai npoyoviKrov auwii; J3coµrov). The sacred ambassadors were sent to Helike; the Achaians permitted them to make their sacrifice to Poseidon of Helike but the people of Helike itself behaved in a sacreligious manner and attacked the lonians after the sacrifice. Poseidon's anger was roused and Helike was sub­ sequently destroyed. 23 Plot. Aristides 20.4-5. The land presumably means Greece, but it could also stand for Plataia only. This does not essentially alter the role of this piece of evidence in our argument. 24 FD III', 308 (Miller, 1978, A290); SGD/II 2646A (Miller, 1978, A292); FD III2, 94, 17-18 (Miller, 1978, A295); FD 1111, 260, 8-9 (Miller, 1978, A297); FD III4, 56, 19-22 (Miller, 1978, A300); FD III4, 57, 26-28 (Miller, 1978, A301); FD III3 , 249, 16-17 (Miller, 1978, A302). 25 Paus. V.13.11; 15.8-9. 26 Plot. op. cit. 16 (Mor. 391d). Cf. Roux (1970: 117-132). 27 Brunel (1953). 28 See 71 with Xenophon, Anab.V.3.12. 29 Brunel (1953: 28-29).



The words "from the altars" should be understood literally, argues Brunel (i.e. not "from at, or near, the altars) because the point of the story is that the sacrifice itself is the sine qua non for the taking of the aphidrumata. In other words, what the Ionians wished to take with them were cinders and ashes from the altars themselves: "Ce que les Ioniens veulent emporter chez eux, c'est la seule chose qu'il est possible de prendre sur un autel ou l'on vient de sacrificier. Ce sont les restes de sacrifice, quelque parcelles de cendres et d'os calcines..." This is directly relevant to the subject of sacred fire in colonization since aphi­ drumata taken from a burning altar constitute "seeds of flame" for use on another, newly founded, altar.30 Brunel could have lent support to his argument from the following pieces of evidence concerning rites of foundation. The first is the ktisis of Rhodes, which constitutes a major theme in Pindar's 7th Olympian. Pindar says that Helios instructed his children to "found a bright altar to the goddess (Athena) and establish a stately sacrifice" (line 42, Lattimore). But "a mist of forgetfulness" caused them to err: Kai toi yap ai9oiaac; fxovn:c; antpµ' avtpav q>A.oyoc; oii· t&O�av 6'anupolc; i&poic;/t'iA.aoc; EV aKpo1t6A.&l' ...

Thus they went up, having not the bright seed of flame, with fireless sacrifice they appointed The grove on the acropolis. ( ...) (48-49, Lattimore)

The inference is straightforward: altars and precincts, particularly in a new colony (the acropolis is that of Athena of Lindos), were expected to be founded with rites involving the transfer of fire. Pindar's "bright seeds of flame" fit Brunel's interpretation of aphydrumata: cinders and ashes used in rites of foundation to rekindle a fire on the newly founded altar. A few other references in our sources should also be mentioned. These indi­ cate not only that transfer of fire was an integral part of foundation rites but also provide an answer as to how the "seeds of flame" were actually carried. In a scene in Xenophon's Hellenika, Agesilaos' soldiers suffer from extreme cold; the king sends up the men "carrying fire in chytrai (earthen pots) (q>epovta�, nup tv x,utpm�).3 1 The word chytra is significant; in combination with ic5pu&1v (x,utpm�) it signifies "to set up, consecrate, an altar or statue." 32 Sometimes chytrai, filled with boiled vegetables and pulse, were used in foun­ dation rites; 33 but chytrai also functioned in foundation rites as implements for carrying the sacrificial fire. In the opening scene of Aristophanes' Birds the 30 31 32 33

Brunel cites examples of altars constituted entirely of cinders and ashes (loc.cit.). IV.5.4. L.S.J. s.v. xlitpa.2. Ibid.; cf. Hock (1905: 78-79).



two Athenian "oikists," on their way to found their colony carry with them "basket, pot (chytra) and myrtle (line 42)." The scholion explains these as items for use in the foundation sacrifice of the new city. That fire was actually an item carried to a sacrifice we know from the Peace (947-8) where basket, barley grain, sacrificial knife, and fire are mentioned together; but the purpose of the chytra becomes abundantly clear in the Lysistrata (308; 315) since the torch is to be kindled by dipping it into the chytra which must mean that it contained fire. Chytrai, therefore, were used to carry fire probably in the form of cinders, both for regular use (e.g., heating, as Xenophon describes it), and on solemn occasions to kindle sacred fire. It seems probable, therefore, that what the two Athenian oikists in the Birds carried was a chytra containing the sacred fire with which to conduct the foundation rite. The rite is actually described later in the play (850ff.): an animal is sacrificed - which clearly implies burnt offerings involving the use of fire - and the basket (containing the knife) is mentioned again. The priest commences his prayer with an address to "the Hestia-Bird and . . . to all the other Olympian Birds.'' The emphasis on Hestia could be significant: does the scene parody the setting up of the koine hestia (common hearth) in the new colony? The proposi­ tion is tempting but one must not forget that addressing Hestia at the beginning of prayers was common in Greek religion (see below, p. 125), and the matter is therefore uncertain. Still, it seems highly probable that the fire used in the foundation sacrifice itself was that which the "oikists" carried with them in the chytra when they set out from Athens. Brunel's aphidrumata, Pindar's "seeds of flame," Aristophanes' and Xenophon's pots of fire - all attest the common practice of transfer of fire for the purpose of foundation rites. To sum up so far. Having established: (a) the practice of transfer of sacred fire in cult and particularly in foundation rites (Panionion, Rhodes-Lindos, the "colony" in the Birds); (b) that kindling of fire by new settlers symbolized the very act of settlement (Herodotus' Minyai) - we now possess a context for the statements in the scholia to Aristides and in the Etymologicum Magnum that colonists took with them fire from the Hestia in the prytaneion of their mother­ city to rekindle it on the new koine hestia of their colony. Herodotus' statement that the Ionian colonists originally set out from the prytaneion at Athens may, therefore, be understood as an allusion to this practice particularly when "setting out from the prytaneion" signifies, as we have shown, setting out from the hestia inside the prytaneion. We still have to consider Farnell's warning that the practice of transferring the sacred fire from a mother-city to a colony may be attested only for Athens. It should be added that Athens was not one of the colonizing states of the 8th and 7th centuries; some of its 6th century settlements were marked by the peculiar features of tyranny. Its 5th century colonization (disregarding the klerouchies) had already reached a relatively high degree of organization and



sophistication, which suggests a divergence from past practices.34 Moreover, Herodotus was writing at the time of the Athenian Empire, when religious connections between Athenians and their subjects were deliberately empha­ sized. Some of those connections, such as the decree to contribute "cow and panoply" to the Great Panathenaia, were directly adopted from colonial rela­ tions between mother-city and its colony.35 There was also a clear and delibe­ rate promotion of Athens' image as the "Mother City" of all Ionians; as Meiggs has conclusively shown,36 although this was not an invention of the Empire, the image clearly received a strong emphasis in this period. In histori­ cal times the transfer of sacred fire from Athens would have begun only with its first historical colony, Sigeion (ca. 600 B.C.), which is relatively late in the history of Greek colonization. To conclude, the ritual of the transfer of sacred fire seems to be reasonably well attested, at least for Athens. Except for the statements in the scholia on Aristides and the Etymologicum Magnum, no other evidence exists that this was a universal custom, but this means little. So much of our written evidence about ancient Greece in general is centered around Athens that an argument from silence about other cities should not be .admitted; moreover, when we consider the evidence discussed above (the Minyai, the aphidrumata, the chy­ trai, Rhodes' ktisis, the Panionion, "setting out from the hestia in the pryta­ neion,") we see that the argument is not ex silentio: the transfer of sacred fire was a universal Greek religious custom. As a political act signifying a new polis, the custom is unlikely to have ante­ dated the 8th century, the time of the beginning of po/is-colonization and probably the rise of the polis itself.37 In order to understand both the signifi­ cance of the custom and when it began, we must first inquire about its possible origins. The Origins of the Transfer of Sacred Fire In private religion upon the death of a man the fire on his hearth was extin­ guished and new fire was brought from a neighbour's house. Both extinction and rekindling seem to symbolize life.38 In marriage ceremonies the bride's 34 Graham (1971: III, IX). 3S E.g., ML 69 lines 57-58. See in general Meiggs (1972: ch.16 esp. 293). 36 Meiggs (1972: 294); cf. Alty (1982: 1-4; note 46). On the traditions concerning the Ionian colonization see Prinz (1979: pt. III). 37 Cf. Ehrenberg (1937: 147-159). The evidence from Old Smyrna (Cook 1958) is still too uncertain for antedating the rise of the polis. See below, p. 164 n. 143; p. 262f. 38 (At Argos:) Plut. QG 24 p. 296; see also Stengel (1920: 98); Fustel de Coulanges (1864: 25); Farnell (1909: V.345ff.); Gernet (1968: 384-402 esp. 387), where he refers to the myth of Me­ leager's death (Apollod. I.65; cf. Paus. X.31.4) and to the ceremony of the aphidromia after the birth of a child.



mother accompanied her to her new home with a torch which was perhaps lit on her father's hearth; 39 the marriage ceremony begins at her old childhood hearth and ends at the hearth in the new home of her husband. Fire, probably from the hearth, accompanied a departing offspring. When we consider that relations between a colony and a mother-city were often expressed in terms of kinship, such as "like Parents to Children" (as the very term metropolis, "mother-city," shows),40 it is plausible that familial ceremonies may have given rise to the custom of state transfer of fire. Another possible origin is the practice of military fire-bearing. Before setting out for a military expedition the Spartan king sacrificed at his home to Zeus and the Dioskouroi. The official fire-bearer, the pyrphoros, would then take fire from the altar (in chytrai?) and lead the way to the borders, where another sacrifice would be made. If it proved a good omen, fire (apparently the same fire) again led the way. The details of the ritual are precise and probably of great antiquity. 41 Are they helpful in understanding the colonial practice? The oikist was also a military leader, and colonists often had to fight. If it can be shown that the use of the pyrphoros was not limited to Sparta but was a com­ mon Greek practice, then it is reasonable to expect that it was common for an oikist to have a pyrphoros on his staff. Athens, too, had pyrphoroi who were priests of Ares. 42 In addition to their ritual functions, they also performed the practical duty of signalling "instead of trumpets. " 43 "Not even the fire-bearer survived'' seems to have been a proverb for a total military disaster. 44 The fact that this was a proverb probably means that the function of the fire-bearer was a common feature in Greek armies other than those of Athens and Sparta. By analogy, the oikist in his role as a military leader may have been con­ sidered responsible for fire-bearing. If so, this added another minor religious functionary to the retinue, in addition to the mantis.45 If this is the case, we should not expect that two different fires were carried from a mother-city but rather that the military fire was in time identified with the symbolic fire from the common hearth, and, as a result, the military custom acquired new sym­ bolic force in a colonial situation. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact Samter op. cit.; Fustel de Coulanges (1864: 42ff.); cf. Furley (1981: V). The words, "like parents to children," ci>c; yovt:Om npoc; t&Kva, are the opening phrase of a treaty between the Lokrians and their colonists, which Timaeus had seen: Polyb. XIl.9.3; cf. Plato, Laws 754a-c. 41 Xen. Lac. 13.2. For discussion see Pritchett (1979: 68, 82); Lonis (1979: 95-97). 42 Schol. on Eurip. Phoeniss. 1377: txpci'>vto ouv Katci to na> tv toic; noA.tµ101c; civti t..myKtopouc; etc. Quoted and discussed in a general treatment of the pyrphoros by Schwenn (1922: 58-62); cf. Fustel de Coulanges (1864: 165); Farnell (1909: 403-404). 43 Schol. ibid. 44 Hdt. VIII.6.2; L.S.J. s.v. nupq>opoc; 2. for more references. Fire was also used for destruc­ tion in war: Aesch.Sept.432 with Vidal-Naquet (1981: 132). 4s See Ch.II. 39 40



that the pyrphoros was not just a military functionary but had other religious duties, which are attested. Apart from the use of fire for the sacrificial purpose which we saw at Sparta, we hear of Athenian pyrphoroi who periodically trans­ ferred fire from Delphoi to Athens. The fire was taken from Apollo's altar (not from the common hearth) and transferred in a tripod. 46 While it seems more probable that the custom of sacred fire-bearing to the new colonies originated as a military practice, this should not exclude its pos­ sible origins in private, family religion. It is in the nature of symbols (and of "historical symbols" in particular) to appear before us as complex creations, composed of various, accumulated, elements. It would seem that at some point in the early stages of the colonization movement, when the political symbolism of the public hearth had crystallized (see below), sacred fire-bearing evoked both connotations from private, kinship religion, as well as from public reli­ gion, in a wider range of symbolism. The Symbolism of Hestia

A general treatment of Hestia and fire symbolism is outside the scope of this chapter. Such a project is not irrelevant, as it could provide insights into the symbolic associations that the custom of transferring fire (whether universal or not) may have evoked. Symbolism of Hestia and of koine hestia in particular has been treated extensively by others; we should perhaps only mention some of the important aspects with a few references to some especially relevant points. 47 The very creation of the common hearth, as argued forcefully by Louis Gernet in a treatise on its symbolism, 48 may have been the first public mani­ festation of the emerging polis, and the common hearths known to us from the Classical period can be regarded as the oldest remaining expression of the breaking away from an older social order. 49 Thucydides tells how Theseus in his unification of Attica abolished local prytaneia in favor of a single pryta­ neion. 50 This implies an emphasis on a single common hearth as well because 46 Stengel (1920: 98 n.4); Schwenn (op. cit.) lists a few more examples of fire-bearing, notably a yearly transfer of fire from Delos to Lemnos for reasons of purification. 47 Generally, see Preuner (1864); id. in Roscher Lexikon I 2605-2653; Farnell (1909: V.345-347); Siiss in RE VIII 1257-1304; Des Places (1%9: 66-68); Burkert (1977: 264f.) with up­ to-date references. See also the article of Gernet (1968) mentioned above, with Vernant (1%5: 124-170). Cf. Hommel (1972: 397-420). Farnell's collection of cited references, although not quite full, is still the most convenient to use. The Ancient City of Fustel de Coulanges, in spite of its many faults, still provides an exciting introduction which also searches for the maximum symbolic range of the "religion of the hearth." 48 Gernet (1968). 49 Ibid. 386-387. so Thuc. 11.15.2; cf. Plut. Thes. 24.



it was an integral part of the prytaneion.51 The attested practice of offering a sitesis, a meal at the common hearth, to visiting or returning ambassadors is used by Gernet to argue that common hearths presuppose each other, that is, a kind of ius gentium of inter-state political etiquette is based on them.52 The common hearth also signifies the state's authority; Aristotle even says that magistrates derive their power from it.53 On the whole, the commmon hearth signifies the center of an open and public religion. The goddess Hestia is found in public religion in both temples and civic buildings (e.g., Boulaia, Tamia). Her fire may have symbolized life, but she was not the sacrificial fire itself (represented by Hephaistos).54 In private religion the hearth was the center of the home and the symbol of the family; sexual taboos were connected with the hearth and people swore by it. Hestia was accorded a priority of sacrifice before the other gods, both in private and public religion which probably indicates merely the necessary, preliminary use of the hearth itself. 55 Hestia also signified belonging and integration; wives, slaves, and strangers were introduced into the household by approaching it. Finally, to return to Hestia's importance in public religion and colonization, it is worth noting that Plato allocates sacred precincts in his colony (in the Laws56) to the deities whom he considers important to the state: Hestia, Zeus, and Athena. Perpetual Fire57 Was the fire in the prytaneion from which colonists took the flame for their prospective colony a perpetual fire? This question is important, for if that were the case, the transfer would imply that the same fire was taken and that the new fire in the colony would retain this quality of sameness. If so, interpreting the practice to be symbolic of continuity gains credibility. We mentioned above the rekindling of the hearths from the fire in the com5l See Miller (1978: ch.I) and Tosi (1966: 14-15) on the Common Hearth. 52 Gernet (1968: 384). 53 Pol. 1322 b 26f.: ... ciito tiiv aWt'IPiac; Ilu9oi Kai 'A811V11mv, ou nap9tvm, yuvaiKEc; 6i: 1tE1tauµtvm yaµrov fxoum tl)V tmµ&i..Elav· &av 6i: (mo tUXTlc; tlvoc; &Kli1t1J, Ka9anEp 'A81\V11m µi:v tni tijc; 'Aplatirovoc; MyEtal tupavvi6oc; cinoal}Ea8ijvm tov u:pov luxvov, &v AElq>oic; 6t tOU vaou Kata1tpT1a8tvt0c; (mo Ml\6rov, 7tEpi 6& ta Ml9pl6anKa Kai tOV &µq>UA.lOV 'Proµairov n6i..Eµov liµa t l}roµq, to nup T)q>avia8T1, ou q,am 6Eiv cino &ttpou nupoc; tvauEa8m, Kawov 6t noIBiv Kai vtov, civantovtac; cino tou 1'liou q,Mya Ka8apav Kai ciµiavtov. Wherever in Greece a perpetual fire is kept, as at Delphoi and Athens, it is 58 Plut. Numa IX.6. For commentary on this passage see Flaceliere (1948: 418f.). See below for more on this passage. S9 Choeph. 1034-1039. 60 De E apud Delphos; Mor. 385c. 61 tip1opKouvn 6t 8tµ1c; Kai 'An6Hcov nu810c; Kai Acitco Kai· Apn:µ1c; Kai 'Eatia Kai nup 'A8civa-rov Kai 8&oi ncivt&c; ... BCH 27 (1903) 107 814 (= Syll. 4 826C). 62 For lone see Cook (1925: 1187 n.l). Delcourt (1955: ch.III esp. 150-151) considers all Delphic fires to have been one and the same, but she does not present the full evidence (see above, n.24, on the prytaneion), some of which consists of inscriptions which were discovered later than the publication year of her work. 63 It is interesting that the order to extinguish fires is represented as a condition for the cult of Zeus Soter. The latter was intimately linked with the Hestia (=hearth) of the household (he was the "house spirit which brings good fortune"). See Wieneke (1947: 192f.).



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

The words, wherever in Greece (lSnou nOp lial3&at6v tanv), do not strictly deny that other examples exist besides the two which Plutarch mentions; how­ ever, one often finds statements to this effect, namely, that Plutarch knows of no other example64 or that by Plutarch's time perpetual fires in Greece have been neglected and allowed to die out. 65 We can only determine what Plutarch knew from what he tells us, and in this case Delphoi and Athens serve clearly as examples. The second possibility (Parnell's suggestion) is simply not true, as Pausanias testifies. 66 But it is possible to admit that not everywhere (as implied by lSnou) fires were kept. It is also possible that Plutarch has a special meaning in mind because he does not speak of prytaneia; at Athens the sacred fire was kept at the Erechtheion, 67 as we know from other sources. Moreover, the hearth at the prytaneion at Athens was probably tended by men, not by elderly women.68 Athens, like Delphoi, probably had two perpetual sacred fires, as Frazer has pointed out. 69 Explicit statement for the perpetual fire in the Athenian prytaneion is found in a scholion on Thuc. II. 15.2: ... aU.m 6t cpacnv 6n to 1tputav&iov 1tupo� �v taµ&iov fv0a Kai �v liaf3&atov 7tUp Kai 11uxovto. 70 "Others say that the prytaneion was the treasury of fire, where was also the un­ extinguished fire, and where prayers were made." Also Pollux says: ecp' rov 6t 0uoµ&v i\ 7tUp civaKaioµ&v, f3cbµo�. 0uµiatripiov, tatia· !:vim yap outc.o� ci>voµa.Kacnv. outc.o 6' av Kupici>tata KaA.oi11� t1)v tv

64 Delcourt (1955; 150 n.). 65 Farnell (1909: V.351f.). 66 Although not in the context of prytaneion: VIII.9.2; VIII.37.11; IX.34.2; 11.19.5; see also Frazer's commentary on X.24.4 and VIII.53.9. But Plutarch does not speak of prytaneia-fires either in this case (see immediately below). 67 Paus. 1.26.6 (with Frazer's commentary); Strabo IX.1.16 (p. 396); Plut. Sulla 13; cf. Lucul­ lus 19.6; schol. Od. 19.34 (Dindorf). 68 See Gernet (1968: 389-390) on Aristotle Pol. 1322b 26f. We may add that at Naukratis women were explicitly forbidden to enter the prytaneion (Athenaeus IV.149d) and thus excluded from the special cult of Hestia Prytanis there (see more below). 69 See also Frazer on Paus. X.24.4. (Vol.V 351). 70 Cf. Suidas, s.v. nputaveiov, which as Miller (1978) notes (A264) seems to repeat word for word this scholion.



nputaveiq>, &q>' ric; to nup to aal}Eatov CLV0.7ttEtat (I, 7). 71 "Those things on which we sacrifice or kindle a fire are the altar, the censer, the hearth; for thus some have given these names. Thus one would most correctly call that in the prytaneion on which the unextinguished fire burns."

We do not know how the fire in the Athenian prytaneion was contained. In the Erechtheion it was held in a lamp; so, too, possibly, it was in the prytaneion (see below). Pindar sings of the ''Child of Rhea (Hestia), who has for her share the pryta­ neia"72 (which confirms again the fact that Hestia existed in all prytaneia). The scholion is important: nputaveia q>T1CJ1 ),eiv tiJv tatiav, nap6aov ai tci'>v n6)..ewv 'Eatiat tv tote; nputavEiotc; aq>i6puvtm Kai to iEpov A.Ey6µevov 7tUP &7ti tOUt(l)V CL7t6KEltat 73

"They say that Hestia got as her lot the prytaneia inasmuch as 'Hestias' (hearths) of poleis are established in prytaneia and the so-called 'sacred fire' is stored at them."

Again we have a qualification: "inasmuch as (1tap6aov) hearths of cities are established in prytaneia;" still, it seems that the scholiast considers the pre­ sence of sacred fire (the mention of which is not in Pindar) universal, since he also goes on to derive the etymology of "prytaneion" from 1ti:ip ("fire"). The use of rm6KEtµai, "to lay up in store,"74 is interesting, for it could explain the baffling insistence of some of the sources that the fire in the prytaneion was not an actual fire but merely a lamp. 75 Theocritus, writing in the mid 3rd century, lists a few proverbs for sleepless­ ness, one of which reads "the lamp in the prytaneion" (to ... )..uxviov EV 1tputaveiq>). As Gow emphasizes, the connection with insomnia clearly implies an ever-burning lamp. 76 This seems significant; as a proverb the immediate meaning of the "lamp in the prytaneion" was probably a matter of common knowledge. Specific corroboration, both for the perpetuity of the fire and for the form of its container - a lamp, comes from Tarentum where Dionysios the Younger is said to have dedicated in its prytaneion a lampstand capable of holding "as 71 See Miller (1978: A465). We prefer this to Miller's eternal to avoid possible confusion with

Undying Fire. 12 Nem. XI.If.

73 Cf. for the language of the last sentence Et. Mag. 694.28. Miller's translation (1978: A437) contains a mistake: ci1t6K&t,at is translated as "kindled (Et. Mag. 694.28 is missing from Miller's Testimonia). For the significance see immediately following. 74 L.S.J. s.v. ci1t6K&lµat. 75 Miller (1978: 34f.). 76 Theocritus XXl.34-37. Literally, lux.vtov means a lamp-stand but it may stand for a lamp. See Gow (1950: ad loc.).



many lighted lamps as there are days in the year.''77 To conclude: there were variations both in the function and in the forms of tendance of perpetual fires in different localities in ancient Greece. As far as prytaneia are concerned, it seems that what mattered was not so much how it was kept (in a sacred lamp or otherwise) but that it was kept at all. It seems reasonably well attested that perpetual fires did burn at, or by, the common hearths in the prytaneia, and that the oikist and the colonists took from the common hearth "seeds of flame" in earthen pots to carry with them to their new settlement. The Exceptional Colonies

In certain cases the practice of transferring sacred fire must have involved particular adaptations, owing to the circumstances of foundation and to the nature of the colony. In one case in particular we receive specific information about "Hestia of the prytaneion" which merits comment. In the Greek colony of Naukratis in Egypt we hear of a yearly state celebra­ tion of the birthday of Hestia Prytanis78 : "In Naukratis, as Hermeias says in his second book of the On the Gryneian Apollo, they dine in the prytaneion on the birthday of Hestia Prytanis" (tv tq> npu.av&i� o&mvoucn y&v&8)..ioc; 'Eotiac; nputavinooc;); the passage goes on to describe other feasts in the pry­ taneion, the prytaneic robes, the menu, the supervision of the timouchos ("magistrate," see below), and ends with the mention of a prohibition for women to enter the prytaneion ("except the flute player").79 Some have taken the ''birthday of Hestia Prytanis'' to mean the birthday of Naukratis itself and, as a result, have regarded the celebration as a commemoration of the city's foundation.80 The only other explicit mention of a city's "birthday" in our sources is found in the Suda, s.v. 'Aotuopoµia: napa Ai(3uoiv oiov&i ti'jc; n6)..eroc; y&vt8)..1a .... This could be a reference to Kyrene but not necessarily.8 1 As we shall see in the second part of this work, yearly commemorations of the foun­ dations of colonies were not expressed by the term, birthday; such celebrations

77 Euphorion (fr. 24b p. 76 Meineke) ap. Athenaeus XV.700d: Euq,opirov 6' tv 'Iat0ptKoic; 'YnoµVl\µamv �tovum6v q>l]at tov vECi>n:pov I:tK&A.iac; tupavvov Tapavtivotc; ≤ to nputav&iov a.va8&ivm AUXV&iov 6uvciµ&vov Kai&tv toaoutouc; Mxvouc; 6aoc; 6 tcilv i'(µ&pcilv fottv a.pt8µoc; &Iotl3oc; yap aEi 7t0AlEaaµ&c; 'Av-ravopi6a1. auv 'Eltv� ycip µ61..ov, Kanvco8&iaav na-rpav en&i i6ov tn. y' 85 ev • Ap&1. -ro 6 • elaamnov f8voc; ev6uKtcoc; 6&Kov-rm 8uaimmv dv6pec; olxvtov-rtc; aq>& 6copoq,6po1 toi>c; • Ap1ato-rtlT1c; linay&, vaual 8oaic; «iMc; �a8eiav Ktuu8ov avoiycov. [Kyrene], which is held by bronze armed Trojans from a foreign shore, even by the descendants of Antenor. For they came with Helen, after they had seen their native city burnt in war, and that chariot-driving race was heartily welcomed with sacri­ fices by men who greeted them with gifts, men who were brought by Aristoteles, when, with his swift ships, he opened a deep path across the sea. (tr. Sandys, Loeb)

Line 82 perhaps suggests that the tombs of the Antenoridai were in the city. 79 Farnell suggests that 6tKovtat (86) may be explained as "admitted them" to their political communion as indigenous heroes by consecrating annual sacri­ fices to them; or 6tKovtm could allude to the religious festivities called �tvia, to which the souls of heroes might be invited. There is also a third possibility that the honours were paid only upon arrival and that somehow they entered the foundation lore. There was a hill between Kyrene and the sea called • Av,11vop16rov A.6q>ov. 80 This either confirms the antiquity of the tradition (Farnell) or explains the tradition as an aition. There was certainly an indepen­ dent Kyrenaian version of the story of the Antenoridai (the one Pindar uses) which was distinct from other traditions. 81 This ktisis, however, can hardly be historical. It is best placed in the category of places associated with events and personalities of the heroic sagas. Such associations were common in other Greek colonies, especially with the cycles of the Argonautica, the Nostoi, and Herakles' labours, and probably helped to make a place more familiar as part of one's "history" and, perhaps, also justified to a certain extent its posses­ sion, as we indicated in the cases ofldmon (another "local" hero) at Herakleia Pontike and Rhesos at Amphipolis. 82 To sum up, up until now we have not found any specific reference to con­ tinuation of a non-Greek cult at a local sacred area. On the other hand, the nomos in Thucydides and the honouring of local heroes by the visitors in 79 Farnell (1932: Vol.II, ad loc.). 80 Lysimachus of Alexandria (1st century B.C.), in his n&pi N6at0>v (FGrHist 382 F6), claims that that was the first place of settlement. 81 See Jacoby's commentary on Lysimachus (FGrHist lllb p. 170). 82 See above, p. 73ff.; p. 81ff.



Apollonius allow us to entertain this as a distinct possibility. The same can be said of the evidence which reflects general attitudes and religious outlook: it seems likely that a Greek in the Archaic period would show respect to local religious precedent. We emphasize seem, at this point, because this has yet to be demonstrated. Our first task is to seek literary evidence for the incorporation of local native precincts during Greek colonization. First we return to Battos, who, Pindar says, K't'ia&v cS' ci)..a&a µ&i�ova 8&rov 83 "founded greater groves for the gods." Groves are synonymous here, as often, with precincts. 84 This is clear evidence that the oikist is responsible for creating precincts, but why is the comparative, "greater," used? The scholiasts regard meizona as "simply great," without any implication of comparison (civ't'i wu µtya)..a an)�, ou npo� ci)..)..a auyKpivrov). This may be correct, especially if we keep in mind that the adjec­ tive, µtya� "big," also means "important." 85 On the other hand, it is certainly legitimate to interpret the comparative lite­ rally; according to such a reading, the precincts which Battos "increased" were local sacred areas which the colonists incorporated during the foundation of Kyrene. This possibility becomes more likely for the following reasons: (1) We know from Herodotus (IV.158) that the settlement was achieved through peaceful relations and cooperation with the natives. (2) If the precincts in question are to be identified archaeologically with the areas of the Artemision and the first temple of Apollo (end 7th, begin­ ning of 6th century B.C.)86 downward from the sacred cave, then we may adduce an argument from general religious practice: grottos and caves are almost universally considered as inherently sacred.87 (3) As we have seen, Pindar also mentions the tradition about the honours which Battos paid the (reputed) local heroes, the Antenoridai, which may provide an analogy. There is no decisive argument to determine which of these readings is pre­ ferable. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the scholia are not factual but interpretative; as a result, there is no a priori reason to reject the literal translation of the passage. It seems preferable, therefore, to accept Chamoux' hypothesis that the precincts were located on the site of a former native sacred area or cult site.88 So perhaps was the Krene Apollonos, for 83 Pyth. V line 89. 84 Scholia ad Joe. (119 Drachmann): liAOTJ 6t tci tv 8£1i>v tEµ&VTJ. Cf. Pind. Of. VII.49; Hdt. V.78-80; IX.65; Hom. Hymn to Apollo 84; 384; etc. Strabo the rationalist is angry about the con­ fusion IX.412. 85 L.S.J. s.v., 11.4. 86 Chamoux (1953: 130-131). 87 See above, p. 142. 88 Op. cit.



similar reasons. It should also be pointed out that even if the oikist followed native clues to sacredness, they did not necessarily fit the new foundation's requirements for the sacred areas; they could only serve as a starting point for the preliminary laying out of the overall settlement plan by the oikist. In Kyrene, we have also seen that Battos and his descendants were personally responsible for providing revenue-bearing temene. 89 That they provided reve­ nue implies that they had to be of considerable size. Kyrene, therefore, may provide a case in which native sacred areas possibly met some (probably just a few) of the needs for sacred precincts. Choosing the remainder was the oikist's responsibility. A similar problem is found in the Athenian Decree about the foundation of a colony at Brea. (ML 49, 9-11) 9 10 11


[a 6t t&µ]tv& ta txa&lp&µtva tciv Ka80.[1t&p tat)[i, Kai dl]la µt t&µ&vi1/;v ....

. . . The sacred precincts which have been reserved shall be left just as they are and others should not be established.

Although partially restored, the text seems certain. We are concerned here with two provisions: (1) to leave the reserved (or "allotted," "chosen," "set apart," see below on t�atptro) precincts just as they are, and (2) not to create new precincts. It is important to emphasize that the stipulations about the precincts are decided by the state, and constitute part of the limitations or directives imposed on the oikist, Demokleides, who is otherwise designated as "having full powers" (au.o]Kpa:topa, line 9).90 What were the precincts in question? Two basic interpretations are found in the commentaries: the precincts were either "native (or local) cult places ante­ dating the colony" or sites chosen for the gods of the new community.91 Let us examine these two propositions in turn. (I) Native sacred areas antedating the colony: there is no real difficulty in calling non-Greek sacred areas temene. 92 It would still seem strange if native sacred areas were to answer all the religious needs for precincts of the colony (see more below). In this respect the analogy to Battos would be misleading because although Battos may have incorporated native sacred areas, he prob89 See above, p. 139; 141. 90 Graham (1971: 35) for other limitations. 9! See ML commentary ad loc. with references to former discussions and see below. We retain ML's line numbers because of their commentary. See now JG J 3 no. 46. 92 Daremberg-Saglio, Vol.V, p. 87 for a list of references. Luria (1926-1927: 71): " ... doch keine hellenischen Gotter sollen in Brea ein Heiligtum erhalten!" Luria, however, does not take into account the possibility of syncretism.



ably increased them. In our case, however, increasing them would conflict with this decree's injunction that the precincts remain just as they are and that no new ones be created. To conclude, if one were to insist on "native" cult sites, one would also have to explain this suspiciously precise overlapping of the native precincts with the Greek ones. It could still be argued against our objection that this suspicion is merely theoretical. There is, however, another consideration: we know that in gene­ ral the reserved public and religious areas in the Greek polis were relatively large. 93 Some areas were also marked off for bearing revenues, either directly or by being leased out. There are many examples of this practice, specifically in Athenian settlements. 94 This means, of course, that the sacred areas in the Brea Decree cannot have been very small. But if the "native cult sites" at Brea were to meet the needs of the colony and remain "just as they are," we must assume they were of considerable size as well. This implies an existing settlement there, but we know that this was not the case because the military preparations specified in the inscription imply only defence against danger from without; 95 they cannot be taken to imply the expulsion of people already residing at the site. Those who support the notion of native cult-sites often adduce the statement of Thucydides, which we have discussed, about the nomos of preserving ser­ vices in sanctuaries situated in lands which Greeks took over. 96 But all that can be said about this statement (as well as the other evidence which we discus­ sed) is that its language is general enough to allow the possibility that it could apply also to non-Greek sanctuaries. It is by no means compelling, however, that this was the case. All that can be said about Brea, therefore, is that if there were native cult sites, the nomos could apply. To conclude, the difficulties with the explanation that the precincts men­ tioned in the Brea Decree are "native cult sites" are too many and too funda­ mental for us to accept. But demonstrating the inapplicability of one hypothesis still does not prove that the alternative is correct. (2) The idea that the precincts were "sites chosen for the gods of the new community" clearly necessitates assuming further that an official advance party existed to determine the locations and boundaries of the sacred areas.

93 For a general discussion of religious centers in the polis see Martin (1974: 253ff.). 94 See in general above, p. 140f. Athenian colonization: Thuc. 111.50.2 (Lesbos); Ael. VHVI.1 (2nd kleruchy at Chalkis) with JG 12 376 and an additional fragment Raubitschek (1943: 28-33 with n.62). See also A TL Ill.296; 1G 12 30 (Lemnos) with Stroud (1971: 172); cf. Hyperides IV.16. 95 Line 13.... tav 6t w; tmatpa[t&li&t &7t] Line 14. [i T&V ye]v ttv TOV ci1toiKOV,... 96 Thuc. IV.98.2; there is nothing to support Luria's idea (op. cit.) that native temenl at Brea would have been specified as t&µtVl] 8&oov tmxoopioov or !&pa 0paKtKa.. Cf. Tod 44.



This assumption couJd be supported by the expression [ta 6t n:µ]&vE ta txaeipeµtva, if the adjectival force of the perfect participle is subordinated to its perfective force. Exeremena would indicate, then, a completed act of choosing which had taken place prior to the passing of the decree. There are various instances where the verb, t�mptro, is associated with choice and reservation of lands and precincts. Herodotus reports t�at Demo­ nax, the arbitrator sent to Kyrene t00t0 6t tq> J3aaiAti Bcittql tEµ&vta t�eMi>v Kai u:proauvac;. 97 This is clearly an official act. After the subjugation of Les­ bos the Athenians divided the land into 3000 lots and tpiaKoaiouc; µtv wic; 8toic; u:poi>c; t�ev..ov. 98 Plato similarly describes an "official" procedure ... tv tij Kcoµu 6t EKUCJtlJ 1tprot0v µtv u:pa Kai ciyopav t�upiia8m 8trov tE Kai trov t1toµtvrov 8toic; 6mµ6vrov, ...99 Xenophon uses the verb twice in the Cyropaidia in an official sense: 1tprot0v µtv ouv wic; 8toic;, fq>TJ, t�aiptitE 6 n av oi µayoi t�nyrovtai.100 Again, after the fall of Babylon Xenophon at­ tributes the Greek custom of how to treat land after subjugation101 to the Persians: 1tprot0v µtv wi>c; µayouc; KaAtaac; roe; 6op1aA.cot0u tiic; 1t6Atroc; ouanc; ciKpo8iv1a wic; 8toic; Kai ttµ&VTJ &K&Atuaev t�EAEiv.102 Exhaireo, then, can clearly signify an official act of marking off sacred precincts. On the other hand, especially in its participial construction, the exeremena has the force of an adjective, indicating "reserved," "choice." In another passage of the Cyropaidia we find the phrase of our inscription repeated almost verbatim but clearly with an adjectival force, ta tEµ&VT) ta toic; 8toic; &�lJPTJµ&va. 103 This similarity may also signify that this phrase was a formu­ laic figure of speech. The derivative adjective, t�aipttac; ("choice," "better," "select"), is found in similar contexts: Plato speaks of t�aiptta tEµ&VT); 104 similarly, Xe­ nophon mentions the "choice domains" of the Spartan kings; 105 the decree of Issa about its colony sent to Black Korkyra mentions t�aipttov three times (but not in a religious context). 106


Hdt. IV.161.3. Thuc. 111.50.2. Laws 848d. This passage was referred to above, p 144f., in connection with the preservation of the local cults of the Magnetes (which immediately follows). It is clear that Plato sees the two actions, that of preserving (61aaci>�1v) and of reserving (t�aip&iv) as clearly distinct from each other. IOO IV.5.51. 101 Cf. Thuc. 111.50.2; with Gomme (1956: ad loc.); Ael. VH VI.I. 102 Cyrop. Vll.5.35; cf. Vll.3.1: . . . TOic; 8&oic; t�&A.&iv 61t01 civ ol µciyo1 t�TJyci>vtai. See also Hyperides (IV.16) who mentions reserving (t�a1p&iv) of a sacred area as an official action. 103 VIll.3.1; cf. Hdt. 1.148.1.; Plato, Critias 117c; Alcibiades 123c. 104 Laws 738d. 105 Xen. Rep. Lac. 15.3.; cf. Hdt. 11.168.1 (choice lands for warriors in Egypt). 106 Ditt. Sy/I. 4 141 lines 4, 6, 7. 98 99



To conclude, the assumption that an official advance party was sent to Brea before the decree was passed is tenable, based on one interpretation of the key word, txastpsµeva. However, this explanation is by no means compelling because the word may not signify an action at all. The most serious difficulty with the notion of an "advance party" which would have fixed the locations and boundaries of the precincts is inherent in the inscription itself: (6) ... yEov6µoc; lit hEMa9[m litKa/civlipac;,] fva tx tov KA.ijpov, yEOOµ&tpTJc; 6t 6 µetp' .:.



t Kai A8Tjvairov. Also, Ps. Scymn. 699ff.: ... Kapl>ia, cipx.flv µtv (mo Mv..riairov Ktta8£iaa Kai KA.a�oµtvirov, I>' 'A8Tjvairov Ono 6t& Mv..ttcil>ric; tKpcitTja£ Xtppovria{rov. Paktye: Ps. Scymn. 711-712: Myouat Kai tautac; l>t MtA.ttcil>riv Ktiaat; there was a "tomb of Helle" there: Hellanicus FGrHist 4 F127 = schol. Apoll. Rhod. II 1144; cf. Hdt. VII.58.2. Krithoe: Ephorus FGrHist 70 F40 = (Miltiades and Athenians) Harpocration, s.v. Kpt8ci>triv. Elaious: Ps. Scymn. 707: 'AtttKflV cinotKiav. The Athenians were probably settled at the strategic points: Kardia and Paktye form the two ends of the cross-wall. Krithote is across from Lampsakos, against which Miltiades waged war (Hdt. VI.37); cf. Isaac (1986: 166-171) who also considers Agora (Hdt. loc. cit.) as a foundation of Miltiades (p. 167). 11 IX.118; 129. 12 FGrHist I Fl63 ( = Steph. Byz. s.v. X&pp6vriaoc;); cf. Ehrenberg (1946: 123).



Ehrenberg 13 connects with that polis. Still, the present context of Miltiades' death makes it unlikely that only the members of a single polis in the Chersonese paid honours to Miltiades. Moreover, that the term was collective seems to be substantiated further by its use in the Athenian Tribute Lists, in which Chersonesitai is a designation of one synteleia (taxation unit). 1 4 It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the Chersonesitai mentioned by Herodotus as sacrificing to Miltiades were both the original inhabitants and the Athenian colonists brought by Miltiades. This conclusion still contains a theoretical difficulty: is it possible that honours were paid the oikist only by the Athenian settlers? 15 We find it quite improbable. They are not called "the Athenians who reside in the Chersonese," nor, for that matter, are they even called colonists (this term is a modern inference, not a translation of a Greek term in Herodotus' text). Even the possibility that the "Athenian colonization" of the Chersonese was a private enterprise is irrelevant to the question of cult. It would not change at all the settlers' relation to their founder, who in any case would have had absolute powers, 1 6 whether he acted as a representative of a mothe·r-city or in his own right. The substantive argument which disposes of the difficulty derives from Herodotus himself: no new polis was founded, and the whole point of the lengthy story about the Dolonkoi was that they were the ones who explicitly searched for an oikistes. It is best, therefore, to regard as Chersonesitai all the subjects of Miltiades who in common referred to him as their oikist. The fact that non-Greeks sacrificed according to Greek customs 1 7 may seem unusual but should not trouble us too much. First, the Dolonkoi consulted a Greek oracle; Miltiades himself consulted Delphoi a second time; indeed, the whole religious framework bears the mark of Apollo. It is quite clear that the form of cult should be thought of in terms of the recipient of the honours, rather than in terms of those who practiced it. Moreover, if we also count the Greeks who had lived there before Miltiades 18 and those Athenians who accompanied him as "Chersonesitai," then tnere is no problem either way. Why did Miltiades deserve the honours of an oikist? The obvious answer is that he was designated as such by Delphoi. 1 9 In the case of the Dolonkoi the 13 Ibid. 14 ATL III 199; 206 n.56. 15 Thus Rohrbach (1960: 161). 16 Cf. ML 49 line 9. 17 Cf. Hdt. V.47 (heroic honours given to Philippos of Kroton by Segesta). See also Dunbabin (1948: 335). Conversely, the Akanthians worshipped as a hero Artachaees the Persian (Hdt. VII.1 1 7); both men, incidentally, were of remarkable physical appearance. Cf. Bohringer (I 979: 469-517). 18 See n.10 above. 19 On the significance of Delphic designation see Ch.I Introduction.



ordinance they received was specific, and there is no need to take it metaphorically. Also, an element of colonization was after all involved; like many similar Delphic sets of instruction, it was based on precedent (and analogy). Careful attention should be given to the verb, 8u&1v, which Herodotus uses to denote the sacrifices to Miltiades. Handbooks on Greek religion usually differentiate between Olympian sacrifice (8u&iv) and sacrifice accorded to heroes, which is defined by a different verb, evayil;&iv. One often reads this latter verb translated as "sacrifice as to a hero. " 20 Should we then infer the reverse and say that the honours paid to Miltiades were divine and not heroic? As so often in Greek religion clear-cut definitions, abstractions and differentiations are simply not valid. The locus classicus, for example, of the contrast between evayil;&iv and 8u&1v is Herodotus' discussion of "Two Herakleis," one a hero, the other a god. 21 Herodotus, however, also provides a great number of exceptions to this supposedly hard and fast distinction. In fact, more often than not, the more general term for sacrifice (as we shall also see later), 8u&tv, is used in connection with hero cult, and is particularly associated with oikists. The cult that honoured Miltiades was indeed roe; v6µoc; oiKtcmj, that is, a hero cult. 22 Let us now move on to consider other indications of the existence of common and regular cult practices for oikists. In a scholion on Pindar OJ l 149 ( = 93) we read: Ol yap oiKtcnai t.v µtome; -raic; 1t6A£01v t.0a1t-rov-ro ti; f0ouc;. Founders were buried in the center of poleis according to custom.

The context in Pindar (in which the comment is made) is religious since the site of the "well frequented tomb" (tuµ(3ov ciµq>i1t0Aov) was a sanctuary where the aiµaKoupia for Pelops was conducted. 23 Pelops was the hero of the a/tis; founder is here extended to refer to the founder of the games. Pindar himself believed that Herakles was the true founder,24 but that was only one version. 20 See in particular Casabona (1966: ch.Ill, ch.V, esp. 204ff.); Rudhardt (1958: 238-239, 250-251); Rudhardt rightly emphasizes the wider range of applicability of 8utiv; cf. Des Places (1969: 135-139); Burkert (1977: 306-312). See also for an exhaustive list of references and discussion Pfister (1909-1912: 466ff.); cf. Nock (1944: 148ff.). 21 11.44.5: Kai liodouai lit µm o{itm op86tata 'EU1'vcov notb:iv, oi 61!;,ci 'Hpa.KM:ta {lipuaciµEVO\ fKtT1VtU\, Kai tq> µt.v ci>� a8av6.tcp, 'OAUµ1t{cp lit &1tWWµiT1V 8uouai, tq> lit &ttpcp ci>� ijpwi tvayi�OUO\. 22 The agOnes which Herodotus mentions form an integral part of the hero's cult, especially when this cult was placed in political context. Note that Miltiades did not receive the third type of agOn, the musical competition. On the function of agOnes in this context see Habicht (1956: 150ff.). 23 Fernandez-Galiano (1956: ad loc.); Farnell (1932: ad loc.); cf. Plut. Arist. 21. See also Brelich (1958: 131). 24 OJ X.24ff.; Farnell ibid.



There was another (to which perhaps, the scholion alludes) in which the prototype or foundation story of the Olympic games was the race between Pelops and Oinomaos.25 The scholion attempts to explain the "well frequented tomb" and its location, which was an exception to the rule since it was "in the middle of the city" (rather than outside it). In order to provide an explanation for the exception, the scholion juxtaposes this unusual case with the general, well­ defined and well-established custom: the burial sites of oikistai. Its meaning will be further discussed later, but right now it is important to establish the reference to the custom, per se. Another reference to a well-established custom is found in Strabo's citation of Ephorus, 26 who contrasts Lykourgos with Eurysthenes and Prokles (at Sparta) in terms of the title, founder: ... EK&ivmc; 6t, Kabt&p oiKtataic; y&voµtvmc;, µ116t touto 6&66a9m, root& toi>c; a1t' autti>v µtv Eupua9&vi6ac;, toi>c; 6t TTpOKM:i6ac; KA.a&ia9m, ... ... o9&(V ou6' OPXTIY&tac; ) VOµta9fjvat C>7t&p 7tCl� 30 An inscription found on a column base at Himera is considered by Piraini Manni to bear the name of one of the oikists, Eukleides (in Adriani, et al.; 1970: 347-9; fig. 17; plate 74,1). Piraini Manni restores: EuKAEi[6t�). The name, however, may be Eukles (Robert, BE, 84, 1971, no. 764). There is also an erasure in parts of the K, A, E - which may indicate an ancient restoration (Piraini Manni) but which makes the matter even less clear. We should also note that the context of the inscription is not dedicatory. 31 See Habicht (1956: 147-153) for the significance of public funerals, processions, etc. For the ritual see Alexiou (1974: 29-31). For the importance of annual commemoration in tomb cult: Humphreys (1980: 100-1). 32 Hdt. IV.148.4: ... tij 6t Vll tni to0 o!Ktotero 0ijpa ft tnrowµiTJ tyev&to. On eponymous heroes see Lampros (1873: 34ff.); Farnell (1921: ch.XI, XII); Malkin (1985). 33 Paus. III.15.6. His son Oiolykos had a hero shrine in Sparta. 34 Ibid. IV.7.8. 35 Hdt. IV.148.



oiKlO'tij.36 We do not know when this annual cult "as to the oikist" was established; presumably before the foundation of Kyrene. Whatever the case may be, its duration down to the 2nd century A.O. is impressive. Aeneas was reputed to have founded several cities after his flight from Troy. One of them, Aineia in Chalkidike, provides one of the earliest contemporary pieces of evidence for the commemoration of its founder-hero (on coins). But first we should note that Livy mentions Aineia incidentally while discussing episodes (in 182 B.C.) intended to denigrate Philip V. In one incident it is related how a fugitive couple (Porris - a man of Aineia and his sister-in-law, Theoxana, with her children) escape from Thessalonica to Aineia en route to Athens. They arrive there on the day of an "appointed sacrifice which every year they make to their founder, Aeneas, with great ceremony. Having spent a day there in the ritual feasts"37 they boarded a ship. We observe the following elements: (1) An appointed consecrated day for the sacrifice (2) Annual celebration of that day (3) The founder (conditor) is the focus of celebration. (4) Apparently the whole of Aineia participates: the sacrifice is said to be conducted cum magna caerimonia and is held as a public, customary, ritual feast (sol/emnes epulas). 38 Further corroboration is furnished by numismatic evidence. Head lists a coin type from Aenea "before 500"39 which shows a representation of an episode from the Trojan cycle: Aeneas carrying Anchises preceded by his wife, Kreusa, carrying Askanios. A later type ("500-424 B.C.") shows the head of a bearded Aeneas with an archaic type of helmet.40 There are still later examples. In itself this evidence does not prove that a cult existed, but in conjunction with Livy's testimony it is reasonable to assume that it reflects a cult; accordingly, the date of Aeneas' cult may be pushed back at least to the late Archaic period. The cult is attested for a very small place, which illustrates how little we really know about similar cults all over the Greek world. Our source, as usual, provides the relevant information only incidentally. We ought to mention in this context an isolated piece of evidence pertaining to an annual rite whose raison d'etre was believed to have been the 36 III.1.8.

37 (Tr. Evans) Livy XL.4.9: ab Thessalonica Aeneam ad statum sacrificium, quod Aeneae conditori cum magna caerimonia quotannisfaciunt. ibi per sollemnes epulas consumpto, .... Cf. Lampros (1873: 54) for the mention of this passage. 38 Cf. t:!Xa1tiV1J at Zankle; pp. 197-200. 39 HN2 214; cf. Kraay (1976: 134), who dates the coin just a little later. 40 HN2 ibid., Kraay ibid.



commemoration of a foundation, but in which, as far as the tradition that we have informs us, the oikist is not mentioned. The city in question is Pamphylian Phaselis. The circumstances of its foundation are obscure; it is listed in Eusebius' Chronica as founded in 691 B.C.41 In a tradition preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium, 42 the charming story is told of the brothers Antiphemos (the oikist of Gela) and Lakios (the oikist of Phaselis) and their joint consultation of the Delphic oracle. Lakios, according to two versions in Athenaeus, 43 paid the local shepherd, Kylabras, smoked fish for the territory "and that is why the men of Phaselis sacrifice smoked fish to Kylabras even today" and "therefore the men of Phaselis sacrifice (8u&1v) smoked fish to Kylabras every year, honouring him as a hero." The story of the exchange could be dismissed as an aetiological myth explaining some ritual. It could be taken to reflect some tradition about relations between the colonists and the natives, perhaps using the fictional sale for justification. It is also possible that Kylabras was simply a local hero to whom the colonists continued to pay honours. The question is intriguing but outside the realm of this investigation.44 What is clear is that at Phaselis, too, we have evidence for an · annual ritual linked with traditions about the foundation of the colony, and if Lakios enjoyed a cult there, it is reasonable to place it in this context as well. We now turn to the most important evidence we possess for the universality of commemorations of the foundation of cities in general and of founders' cults in particular. This is a papyrus fragment of the Aetia of Callimachus (II, 43).45 The fragmentary opening seems to present a catalogue of Sicilian colonies ("I know of Gela ... of Leontinoi ..."), which is followed by a general statement: "No one who ever once built a wall for any of these cities comes to its customary feast without being named.••46 This opening serves as a background for the ensuing poetic discussion of the exception to the rule - the case of Zankle - in which the name is not spelled out. But before we proceed any further, let us first make the following observations:

41 Helm 93b; cf. Berard (1957: 217). 42 S.v. rna Cf. p. 52. 43 VIl.297-298 = Herophytus FHG 111.29; Philostephanus FHG IV.248; cf. A. Giannini, Paradoxograph. Graec. Reliquiae (1966) 21-23. 44 See Prinz (1979: 28-31). 45 Pfeiffer (1949: Vol.II); Ehlers (1933); Schmid (1947: 55-64); Vallet (1958: 61-63). 46 Line 54: tcioov ou6&µ1ij ya[p 6t)l� 7tO[tE) t&ix,o� f6&1µ& Line 55: voovuµvi voµiV11V fpx,&t' tn' &lA.anivriv.



(1) Callimachus notes here a universal custom for colonies. 47 (2) This custom consists of a customary, solemn, feast. 48 (3) The oikist(s)49 of the city are expected to attend (this becomes clearer in the case of Zankle). (4) The oikists are invited by a ritual, common to all colonies (at least in Sicily), in which their names are called out. so From these observations the following inferences can be drawn: (1) The customary feast to which the oikist is invited is to be identified with the annually observed cult of the oikist. (2) It is customary, then, not only because it is ubiquitous but also because it is periodic. (3) Callimachus thus points out the way in which names of founders were preserved and possibly stories of foundations as well. 5 1 (4) Dunbabin conjectures that this commemoration may also indicate the way in which the era of the colony was reckoned. 52 We have here, then, evidence for a general practice of an annual cult in which the central figure is the oikist. This becomes all the more trustworthy from the following considerations. Callimachus was particularly interested in foundations, and we are told that he wrote a work entitled KTiaEtfi 8i:6c;· oi 6' aiovti:c; ant6paµ9v, �[K 6' fn KEi]vou yaia ,ov oiKlCJtTJV ouK ovoµacsti is:[a>..i:Ji, 0061: 6t µw KaA.toucs1v tn' fv,oµa 6Ttµlo&pyoi· "i)..aoc; 1'µ1:,tp11v 6csnc; f6i:lµE n6)..w tpxtcs8w µi:tci 6aita, mipi:csn 6t Kai 66' ciyi:cs8m Kai 7tA.fac;· OUK 01:,[i ]yv v liAA.OlV l3aaiMrov ....). Schol. 129. however, contradicts this: 7tp0 6roµa.Trov: noirov 6roµaTrov; i\TOl TOU i\prooc; BaTTOU ij TOOV Pamuirov il Kai 7tp0 T©V Tfjc; 1t6A.&roc; 7tUA.©V. Kai TOUTO 6oK&i T©V UA.A.O)V 6taq>Ep&lV 6 BaTToc;, Tl 6 µtv iiKpi, ciyopc} Tt9anTat, ol 6& npo Tfjc; 1t6A.&roc;.

(Pind.) Before the other dwellings: What dwellings? Either of the hero Battos or of the other kings, or again, before the city-gates. And in this too Battos seems to be different from the others (i.e., kings), because whereas he is buried at the edge of the agora, the others are buried before the city.

This is possible, but not compelling. The other possibilities offered by the scholiast in the opening line about the meaning of dwellings give the interpretation a literary, rather than a factual, character. We bring up this point because it could be argued that Kyrene is an exceptional case among Greek colonies due to its institution of kingship3 and for this reason may not be a characteristic example of an oikist cult. But even if we accept that the other kings of Kyrene were buried inside the city and perhaps even received heroic honours (like the Spartan kings),4 Pindar makes it clear that they did not receive the same treatment and their burial site was separate and removed from the single tomb of Battos. For this reason, we can 1 Cf. schol. 124f. (Drachmann p. 188); 124g. and the other scholia ad loc. 2 ••• nµrov-rtc; ouv au-rov ol Kup11vai01 cl>c; cipx11rt-r11v. On the title, archlgetls, see Ch. VII. 3 Monarchy was exceptional in colonies. For Aristophilides at Taras and Pollis at Syracuse see Drews (1983: 36-40). For his view on the basileia at Kyrene: (1983: 121-128). 4 See Rohde (1925: 123 n.46). Sparta was the mother-city of Thera, itself the mother-city of Kyrene. Note also for special position of kings: Aesch. Choeph. 322 (TTpoo66µ01c; 'Atpd6atc;).



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

In 1927 S. Ferri published a long inscription from the end of the 4th century B.C. at Kyrene.5 The inscription, which contains a variety of sacred laws, claims they are much older and attributes their origin to Apollo's oracle: (line 1) ['A]n6A.A.COV fXPTI [at. Lines 21- 25 are highly relevant on several points which have already been discussed and may even provide an additional dimension to the religious position of the oikist after his death. This particular passage, however, is "the most difficult" (Buck), and there is no agreement among scholars about its interpretation. Due to the controversies and because the problems involved are interconnected, we consider it best to discuss them together here, keeping in mind that we are concerned only with questions relevant to the oikist. The text is as follows: AKAMANTION 6aia xavti Kai t Kai l3al3a.i..cp[1] xi..av cm' civ8pcimro Ba.nro tro t(I) apx,ay1ha Kai Tp1to1tateprov Kai cixo 'Ovuµa.atro tro �1:i..q>ro1, «ix', 6xij liv8proxoc; fKaµe, ouK 6aia ayvro[1) trov 6t iaprov 6aia xavti.

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



Wilamowitz considered µav'tirov as the genitive plural of µcivn� "prophet." Latte, however, built a detailed and convincing case for µavn:iov = µcivnov and in this is followed by Buck, 7 who compares similar uses in this inscription.8 We quote his translation "(genitive of matters or persons involved) as to oracles, sanction9 (to consult them) belongs to everyone, both the holy and the profane - except that (for those) from the person Battos the Founder ...." This raises the question: Did Battos the founder have an oracle at Kyrene? If he did, did he have it qua founder? Again, if he did, would this be a basis for a generalization about similar cults for other oikists, part of ci>� v6µo� oiKlO'ttij? Although there is no corroborating evidence for an oracle of Battos, if the reading, ii Ka µav'tirov, is accepted, there is no reason to disbelieve it, and we should accept Battos the Archegetes as an oracular source for Kyrene. Is his case unique? The question has not been raised by anyone so far who dealt with the inscription, although it is most relevant. We know of no other "historic" oikistai who were also sources of oracles. We do know, however, of two oracles of mythic oikistai: those of Mopsos at Mallos and Autolykos at Sinope: (Pausanias:) tv Ma).).{i> µavn:iov awsu6ta'ta't0v 't@V b' tµou.10 It would be hazardous to claim that this oracle, which Mopsos shared with Amphilochos at Mallos, was attributed to him qua founder.11 Because Mopsos was a mythic figure, traditions about him (and about another Mopsos) were varied and confused. His salient characteristics were his prophetic and divining powers. He was also associated with Apollo's oracles at Klaros. Moreover, several places were considered his foundations, 12 but only Mallos boasted an oracle. The manteion at Mallos is best explained as originating from Mopsos in his role as prophet, not oikist. It is still possible, however, that in time these two aspects came to be considered one. In comparison, the oracle of Autolykos at Sinope presents a much clearer case of an oracle attributed to a founder. According to Apollonius of Rhodes, Autolykos was first associated with Sinope when the Argonauts picked up his brothers and him there.13 According to Strabo, however, Autolykos was an Argonaut first and took possession of Sinope later.14 The text is instructive, 7 Parallel to 6ouli11-6ouA.&ia; a,oO· 6oKti 6t ,ci>v 'Iciaovi auµxi..Euacivnov dvm Kai Ka,aaxtiv ,oO,ov ,ov ,61tov. d9' Oa,tpov M1i..11a101 ,l)v ti>qmiav t66v.t� Kai ,l)v aa8tvt1av ,ci>v tvmKouv,rov t�1S1ciaav.o Kai txoiKou� fa,t1i..av. Lucullus... took away... the statue of Autolykos (Sthenis' work), whom they regarded as founder of their city and honoured as god. He is considered to have been one of Jason's Argonauts and to have acquired possession of this place. Later, the people of Miletos, seeing how advantageous the place was and how weak were its inhabitants, took it and sent colonists there.

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

Cf. Plut. Luc. 23; Appian loc. cit. P.192. Paus. IX.30.6. See Buck op. cit. for other references. Hdt. IV.172.3.



That the location of the oracle should be the tomb of the Archegetes is accepted by all the scholars who follow the reading of µavTicov. Chamoux' formulation in presenting the case is characteristic (Chamoux himself inclines to the other reading): 19 "un passage ... a fait supposer qu'un oracle etait consulte sur la tomb de l'Archegete." In this context the reference of Pindar to Battos' tomb (above) as well as the archaeological "confirmation" of Pindar (below) are often adduced. The association of the oracle with the tomb is justified both by the hero's cult accorded to the oikist and also by this inscription: cm' ciA.>..o Om1 civ8pomoc; fKaµ& (line 24); lit. (Buck) "from anyone else where a person died (our emphasis)." With this interpretation too, there are difficulties, especially the one which Latte brings up,20 namely, the possibility that we are dealing, on the one hand, with the tombs of Battos, Tritopatores, and Onymastos and, on the other, with "houses of mourning." This interpretation, however, better fits the reading of ciKaµavTicov as a euphemism for the dead ("the unwearied ones," which he also suggests but rejects in favour of a Ka µav'ticov) rather than the reading oracles, since no oracles are expected from "houses of mourning." Even if (to anticipate a little) the reading ciKaµavticov or 'AKaµavTicov is accepted and all we are dealing with is a regulation about ritual cleanliness with regard to the dead, a fortiori we are dealing with a tomb of Battos. If this is so, however, the inscription cannot be used in the context of oracles but only as another confirmation of Pindar's Pyth. V, 93 (which is of value in itself) and of the religious significance which Battos' tomb held.21 According to the variant reading - aKaµavncov - the general meaning of the passage relates to purity and contamination in one's contact with the dead. The significance of the inscription's implication about tombs has already been discussed. Does it have any further bearing on the oikist? The euphemism, ciK..>..t:1v in this sense should mean "follow (chronologically);" Eumelos seems not to have been a contemporary (Lyra Graeca I 12-16 (Edmonds); as he seems to refer to the first Messenian War. The matter is uncertain. Whatever the case may be, Eumelos was not a "religious expert" according to any of our sources (Edmonds ibid. 12). 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29

/G 112 1358 line 32



Battos in our text. The Tritopatores (or in the verse form, -rprro-1ta-rp⁣)30 are elsewhere known only from (i.e., originating in) Attica. E. Wiist in the RE article even claims that they are to be found "nur in Attika," which is wrong, of course: they appear also at Delos and at Kyrene.31 The literary evidence for the Tritopatores is meagre, confused, and late (sometimes confused with Tritons); their "original" attributes are supposed to be those of ancestors, progenitors, and winds (wind = soul?).32 The number three may indicate an indefinite plurality either in their number or in respect to their number of generations.33 A sanctuary devoted to them, a Tritopatreion, has been identified in Athens between the road to Eleusis and the Street of Tombs.34 Its structure is triangular with several inscriptions identifying it and proclaiming it off-limits (abaton): HOPOE:HIEPO/TPITOIIATPEON/HABATON.35 Its location is significant: at a crossroads and not far from the city's entrance (see below). Epigraphical evidence exists for private cults of the Tritopatores belonging to a genos (or phratry?). /G 112 2615 ( = Ditt. Sy/I. 4 925) reads: 6poc; i&po Tpt.01ta-rptrov ZaKua5rov. Recently another such horos has been found at Athens - 6poc; i&po Tp1.01ta-rptrov Eu&p')'l5rov.36 Another inscription about a cult of a genos was found at Delos, this time for a Tritopator in the singular: Tp1.omi-rrop/TiuppaK15rov/Aiy1).1rov.37 The Pyrrhakidai can also be identified as an Athenian genos which is known from the Delphic records of the Athenian Pythai"s.38 The Delian tradition about them was that their archegetes travelled with Eurysichthon from Athens to Delos.39 The Delian sanctuary was also at a crossroads. Finally, we should note the Sacred Calendar from Marathon, which we refer to above. Let us turn to the question of location: in Athens and in Delos the cult is found at crossroads and entrances.40 In Kyrene we know that the tomb of Battos was located at the outskirts of the agora, that is, probably at the 30 Kretschmer (1920: 38-45 esp. 41). 31 J. and L. Robert, REG 68 (1955) BE No. 30 195-196. 32 Rohde (1925: Ch. V with n.123). The fullest study may be found in Cook (1940: 112-146). The literary evidence is discussed on pages 120ff. A case was also made attempting to connect them with Mycenaean figures which may appear on a tablet from Pylos: Hemberg (1959: 172-190). 33 Cook (1940: 124). 34 Wycherley (1978: 259 with n.18); cf. Judeich (1931: 410-411). 35 Ohly (1965: 327-328). 36 B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 30 (1961) 264 No. 80 pl.SO. 37 Cook (1940: 118) with illustration (fig. 40) and references; Robert Joe. cit. 38 Ditt. Sy//.4 No. 711 D 30f; n.13 (350-351). 39 Cook op. cit. For Eurysichthon at Delos see Gallet de Santerre (1958: 186-188). In Delos, then, the cult is connected with a foundation myth. 40 Thompson (1966: 46). A recent discussion including the question of position may be found in C. Berard (1970: 60ff.; 68) (who attempts to include the her{)on at the western entrance - 7th century B.C. - in the same category).



entrance: (ev8a 1tpuµvoic; ciyopac; em 6ixa KEitm 8avrov, Pind. Pyth. V, 93). This may be compared to the location of the Theseion at Athens "a l'entree du centre civique. "41 Thus we can better understand the religious significance attributed to both Battos and the Tritopatores: Battos as an Archegetes is also conceived of as an ancestor in cultic terms. The Tritopatores are the general impersonal mythic and religious ancestors who are also oi 1tpro.oi cipx11yetm.42 Their cult may have come to be associated with that of Battos both due to the similarity of religious significance and content (i.e., the ancestor aspect of the oikist cult) and also due to the similarity of their physical location (at entrances). Conclusions: (1) The inscription serves as another corroboration for Battos as archegetes. (2) The inscription seems to indicate the existence of an oracle of the oikist in Kyrene which may be compared especially to the oracle of Autolykos at Sinope. Because both cases, however, are highly exceptional and peculiar, general deductions must be made with caution. (3) It is impossible to decide between the two major interpretations of AKAMANTION; each is problematic, yet a good case of probability can be made for each. Even if the oracle is rejected and we are dealing with contamination resulting from contact with the dead, we are still left with the implication of a tomb. Both interpretations, therefore, confirm the tomb of Battos independently of Pindar, probably with a reference to his cult qua archegetes in the agora of Kyrene. (4) Because we reject the arguments of Maas and Sokolowski, the inscription may not be used to support special positions of honour for descendants of the oikist. (5) The oikist's function of defining cults and according honours to gods and heroes, as in the case of the Antenoridai, does not seem to be relevant to the Akamantes. It may be important, however, if Onymastos was a Delphian priest who came to regulate religious matters, since that would represent Delphoi's role in Kyrene's foundation as much more active. (6) The connection with the Tritopatores underlines the aspect of ancestor implied in the oikist's title archegetes, and further illuminates the terms in which the religious position and symbolism of an oikist were perceived in his colony. 41 C. Berard (1970: 69), following Thompson; Wycherley (1978: 64 and n.78). The precise location, however, is not known. Cf. Thompson (1978). 42 Anecd. Graec. Vol. I 307 line 16. For a similar position of a heroon cf. Bousquet (1963: 191-196).



Material Evidence for the Tombs of Oikists The archaeological identification of the Tomb of Battos at Kyrene has been generally accepted by scholars as probable. Before turning to it, let us first point out what other ascriptions of physical remains to tombs of historical oikists we can examine. Lamis, the oikist of the Megarian colonists, died at Thapsos in the third attempt to settle down before the colonists had finally found a permanent place at the site of Megara Hyblaia.43 An 8th century B.C. single grave, which disturbed the local Bronze Age cemetery, has been found; it is better known for the Thapsos cups, but some think that this burial "may very well be" the actual grave of Lamis.44 The hypothesis is attractive and not improbable on a priori grounds; yet it must remain a conjecture. One would also have to explain the existence of a second set of bones, which was found in the same grave. There seem to be no indications of cult at the site. Even if we are dealing with the tomb of the historic Lamis, we cannot use it as a significant piece of evidence in the context of the cult given to the oikist. At Megara Hyblaia itself the authors of the excavations of its agora propose identifying building d at the important crossroads A and C, as a heroon, particularly on the evidence of small pits at the entrance to the heroon, which they think comparable to similar pits at Kyrene and Thasos.45 As we have said, one would have liked a wider range of comparisons with other heroa, but given the nature of the evidence, we accept the identification as possible. The area seems to have been reserved as sacred from the very beginning of the colony, and the heroon itself was built some 50 years later. The authors go on to suggest identifying this heroon with that of the founder (with Lamis' replacement?). Its position is certainly attractive: at the corner or the entrance to the agora just as Pindar describes the tomb of Battos at Kyrene.46 Again, all we can do is accept it as a tentative hypothesis since there is no clear evidence to connect the building with a founder or even to identify it was a heroon with any certain degree of confidence. At Poseidonia, a little south of the temple of Athena, a little stone chamber with only its roof showing above the ground and no door, was found inside a precinct. It has in its middle an elevated platform or bench with five iron spits lying on it. In the corner was found a painted Black Figure Athenian vase, and

Thuc. VI.4.1. 44 Boardman (1980: 174); Coldstream (1977: 235); Dunbabin (1948: 19). Vallet and Villard (1952: 337). 45 Vallet, Villard, Auberson (1976: 209-211; 412-413); see pp. 164-174. 46 Pind. Pyth. V.93. 43



along the two longer walls bronze jars filled to the rim with honey. No body was found in the chamber. Its date is ca. 520-500 B.C.47 The chamber has been identified as a cenotaph of a hero, and more specifically, P. Zancani-Montuoro has advanced the theory that this is the tomb of an oikist; the oikist is not Poseidonia's but Is of Helike, the founder of Sybaris. Supposedly, with the destruction of Sybaris by Kroton in 510 B.C., some Sybarites who went to their daughter colony, Poseidonia, established there a cult to their own hero. A change of coinage type, which shows Achaian influence, is also attributed to this period and is adduced to support the theory.48 The hypothesis, although bold, is not improbable in itself. The gravest objection is a graffito on a local vase found in the same precinct, which reads tdc; vuµq>ac; tµi nia ...; whatever the restoration of the last word might be, 49 it seems clear that this dedication50 which "mit der ganzen Anlage gleichzeitig sind" 51 is not a dedication to an oikist like the one we have seen at Gela. The identity of the nymphs is open to question, but that is irrelevant here. The heroon needs an explanation, but its identification as a founder's cenotaph seems doubtful to us. It is at best a conjecture which avoids the difficulty of the late date (i.e., this cannot be a cenotaph for the founder of Poseidonia itself) by positing an unparalleled practice. At Gela itself, except for the dedication, Orlandini has suggested a tentative identification of a heroon which may be, he thinks, the heroon of Antiphemos. The identification, however, is uncertain.52 Let us now return to Battos. It should be stated at the outset that the evidence found in Kyrene's agora is particularly defective in view of the total destruction of the city by fire at the time of Trajan. What has been identified as the tomb of Battos belongs, in fact, to the Hadrianic period. The work concerning the tomb which was begun earlier was completed and published by S. Stucchi. The heroon of Battos has also recently received a detailed synthetic treatment by Busing in his monograph on Battos.5 3 We are concerned with two different structures: a tomb and a precinct at the east corner of the agora, northwards, toward the sea. Inside the precinct a one-

47 For a recent detailed publication with a sensible assessment of the evidence see Kron (1971: ll7-148); cf. Boardman (1980: 181); Bosi (1980: 82) has a good photograph. 48 Arch.Star. Calabria 23 (1954) l83ff.; cf. Kron, ibid., 126-128. 49 Kron, ibid., 120, for the various suggestions. so Ibid., for its definition as a dedication. SI Ibid., 128. 52 Orlandini (1968b: 49). See our figure IO. For another case of uncertainty cf. our note 30, ch.


SJ Stucchi (1965: 58-98 esp. 58-65), with references to former works. Busing (1978: 51-79 esp. 66-79).



room house "before 600 B.C." was identified as well as a sacrificial pit in front of its entrance, a little to the east (probably not to block it). In it were found ashes and sacrificial remains. Around 600 B.C. the building was enlarged, and the pit was now placed inside the building. Fragments from 17 vessels were found inside the building, nine of which date to the last quarter of the 7th century, and the others all within 100 years. These dedications(?)54 should be dated, therefore, to the time of Battos I and shortly after his death (ca. S90 B.C.). Around 430 B.C. the building was enlarged with a new entrance from the south. The building has been identified variously as a heroon or a temple. The tomb site itself, just at the north wall of the precinct, contains pottery­ fragments of ca. 600 B.C. It is described by Stucchi and Busing as a round mound of earth, 6.20 m. in diameter, held together by encircling stone slabs. Within it was found an ash altar which in spite55 of the levelling and the refilling during the centuries was still 40 cm. thick at the time of the excavation. When the ashes were removed, 13 uneven stones were found, positioned to form an oval shape.56 Under them, probably untouched, were burnt remains and bones mixed with earth and nothing else. An examination of the earth-type has led to the conclusion that it is found nowhere else at Kyrene; this has led Busing to state that Battos I actually died elsewhere and that his remains were transferred later. The enormous quantity of ashes has been explained as the result of a particularly long· and public funeral.57 At the end of the 5th century B.C. there were changes in the agora, and its level was raised artificially. The mound over the tomb was now no longer visible. It was apparently left untouched, but a new cenotaph was built next to it with a new mound of earth. This now encroached on the old precinct, which itself underwent some changes. Inside the new mound was found a stone coffin 2.86 m. x 1.14 m. x 1.10 m.5 8 In the second half of the 4th century the agora was elevated yet again, and a new cover for the cenotaph was added as well as new walls around the tomb. The "sacred tomb of Battos" which Catullus mentions59 perhaps still refers to 54 Biising (1978: 68) postulates that the vessels were placed on the floor. An inscription on a Rhodian vase reads Ophelei (Stucchi 1965: 46-48; pl.IQ.10; cf. Rev. de Phil. 43 (1970: 239), which may be taken as substantive "to the Ophelei," "Helper," i.e., a dedication to a well disposed daimon (or hero?). Biising (1978: 70) prefers to read it as a verb whose subject is Apollo (hence the building is the first temple to Apollo). 55 Biising (1978: 71). 56 See figs. a-b Stucchi (1965: 59). 57 Biising ibid. 58 We do not find Biising's comparison to the cenotaph at Poseidonia tenable. The mere difference in size (about four times bigger in Poseidonia) makes any possible analogy as to the contents of the cenotaph at Kyrene suspect (Biising 1978: 73). 59 VII.6: Botti veteris sacrum sepulcrum. Cf. Stucchi (1965: 65).



the tomb in this stage. After the great destruction there was a complete rebuilding. The position of the tomb is compatible with what Pindar says about it,60 and there is no doubt that Battos did have a tomb in the agora. Its identification, in particular the analysis of the ash altar and the bones, seems to us plausible. One must remain cautious, however: no direct evidence, such as an inscription, has been found to identify it. It is also difficult in archaeological excavations to assess size and volume of mounds of earth, particularly in view of the (at least two) elevations of the agora. We should end by emphasizing that any interpretation of this tomb must take into account the possibility that it served as an oracle according to one of the two major interpretations of the sacred law, which we have discussed above.61 Phalanthos and Taras The circumstances of the foundation of Taras62 (Tarentum) in the last decade of the 8th century are veiled in delightful yet obscure stories full of elements of folklore and legend. The tradition that the oikist was Phalanthos is unanimous,63 but there are many variations on his social origins, his role in the events preceding the colonization, and his life subsequent to the foundation itself. Essentially, he was said to have led certain groups (Epeunaktai; Partheniai)64 which were not integrated in Lakonian society; the specific identity of those groups, although elaborated in our sources, escapes us. The stories about the first Messenian War, the oath of the men not to return home, the frustration of the Spartan women and the subsequent growth to maturity of the partheniai (the bastards born of these women), although fascinating and perhaps reflective of certain social customs,65 are probably late aetiological inventions, perhaps designed to explain the forgotten meaning of partheniai. 66 In any case, the cult of the oikist at Taras does not depend on the origins of the colonists.

60 Loe. cit. 61 This would open a new possibility for the interpretation of iJphelei in the inscription mentioned above. The "Helper" or "he who helps" may be connected with Battos himself'? 62 The main sources: Antiochus (FGrHist SSS Fl3) and Ephorus (FGrHist 70 F216), both in Strabo Vl.278-280. For detailed discussions and references: Berard (1957: 162-175 esp. 170-172 on the oikist); Wuilleumier (1939); recently Pembroke (Sept.-Oct. 1970, No. S: 1240-1270 esp. sections I, IV, V); Vidal-Naquet (1981a: esp. 194-196). See also Corsano (1979: 113-140). 63 But not mentioned in the passage which Strabo excerpts from Ephorus; cf. Pembroke (1970: 1259 with n.5). 64 On those names for discussion and references to former works Pembroke (l 970: 1246-1249; 1265-1267); Vidal-Naquet, op. cit. 65 See for discussion and references Corsano op. cit. 66 Cf. Graham (l 982: 112); there can be, however, no certainty as to the meaning of this term.



Phalanthos himself is also a rather shadowy figure, and a number of attempts have been made to identify him with various deities or even a local lapygian hero.67 He was clearly distinguished from the (legendary) eponymous hero, Taras, who apparently came to have a predominant cult at the colony (see below). This distinction encourages our investigation into the attestations of the cult he enjoyed and may support the strong case Berard presents for the historicity of Phalanthos. 68 Our point of orientation should, therefore, be the cult, as we keep in mind that although there are doubts about the historicity of this oikist, he was considered historical, probably from an early age. Moreover, as he was distinguished from the eponymous hero of the colony, our reasons for not dealing in general with such cases do not apply to him. According to the traditions preserved by Strabo and Justin, 69 Phalanthos was exiled from the colony he had founded. He died at Brentesion; according to Strabo, "he was considered by the men of Brentesion worthy of a splendid taphe." 10 The word may mean either burial or funeral. 11 S. Pembroke, who tries to present the tradition as if Phalanthos was not actually buried in Brentesion (in Strabo's version), claims that "quoique Strabon parle de funerailles magnifiques, ii ne dit rien du tombeau." Thus the sense of heroon, which is accepted by various scholars, 72 is denied, and Strabo's version becomes compatible with that of Justin (below), who describes the transfer of Phalanthos's actual remains to Taras. Pembroke's theory, however, is doubtful. Taphe may mean funeral, 73 but this cannot be compelling. To substantiate his case Pembroke cites Hdt. V.47.2. where an 11ponov is explicitly distinguished from a regular -raq>0c;; 74 but taphos and taphe are not synonymous. The question, therefore, is not settled, and we are left with Strabo's statement, which seems in our opinion to signify an actual burial at Brentesion.75 We agree, however, that the point 67 See Berard's sensible review (1957: 170 with n.3) and his assessment of other fabulous elements connected with other figures whose historicity is not in doubt; cf. Pembroke (1970: 1260-1265). See in general for testimonia and commentary Gianelli (1963: 12-27; 241-246). 68 For the sake of clarifying our attitude: we believe that the name, Phalanthos, is the name of the historical founder, but anything beyond that about his biography and circumstances would belong to the tradition of fiction. Names of oikists and of mother-cities, as well as foundation dates, are often all that our sources preserve for us; it seems to indicate that in antiquity those facts were considered important and worth preserving. The "selection" of facts which have come down to us is not altogether arbitrary. 69 Strabo VI.282; Justin III.4. 70 ft!;((l)oav Aaµnpdc; tmpi'jc;. 71 L.S.J. s.v. taqn\. 72 Pembroke (1970: 1263 with n.5); cf. RE XIX.2 art. "Phalanthus" (Ehrenberg) 1624. 73 L.S.J. s.v. No. 2; cf. Diod. Xl.58.1 and discussion on Themistokles. 74 Cf. Corsano (1979: 133 with n.41). 75 Brentesion may have laid some sort of "claim" to Phalanthos; it also minted coins in the dolphin-rider series, which may have represented Phalanthos (see below); Head HN 2 52; cf. Pfister (1909-1912: 295 n.968); Pembroke (1970: 1261). The first issue, however, is late, ca. mid



of the story is to justify the Jack of a tomb for Phalanthos at Taras itself. This also seems to be the point of Justin's version: Phalanthos is said to have convinced the men of Brentesion to scatter his ashes in the market place of Taras by making them believe that this action would constitute a final betrayal of Taras; however, by having his ashes scattered in the agora of the colony he had founded, he in fact guaranteed that it would remain in the hands of the Tarentines forever. For that, concludes Justin, the Tarentines pay him "divine honours" (divinos honores). It is possible that Justin uses the words, divinos honores, carelessly and that in fact Phalanthos enjoyed a proper hero cult. But this is uncertain. Phalanthos does not seem to have had a heroon at Taras, the "scattering of the ashes" at once satisfied the need to "bury" an oikist in the agora and yet prevented the identification of any specific point which could serve as the hero's cult site. Phalanthos is thus comparable to Lykourgos, the Spartan lawgiver, whose ashes were also believed to have been scattered (but for a different reason), 76 and to Solon (for a similar motive). 77 It is even possible that some of Phalanthos' characteristics were modelled on those of Lykourgos, for the latter, too, was not entirely "human. " 78 Perhaps this explains why Justin does not refer to heroic, but to divine honours. Whatever the explanation may be, 79 the story does not seem historical. There is one more reason why a scattering of ashes may have been invented particularly at Taras: the original settlement was in the citta vecchia; later the town grew and came to incorporate graveyards that were originally situated outside the city walls. so Later generations, who were not aware of this historical and topographical development, invented a justification for this irregularity. 81 The Tarentines, then, came to believe that there was nothing exceptional about intramural burials in their own city; but if that were the case, what would have distinguished their oikist from any other Tarentine? The scattering of his ashes thus would have marked him out from all other members of the community. Stephanus of Byzantium lists the Phalantidai at Taras among other such families whose members enjoyed a special distinction in their communities. 82 3rd century B.C., and may have begun after the foundation of the Roman colony there. The dolphin-rider could have been simply an artistic device adopted through the influence of Tarentum (see more below). 76 Plut. Lye. 27; 31. 77 Plut. Sol. 32; Diog. Laert. 1.62. For other examples see Rohde (1925: 143 n.35). By scattering the ashes the relics are also secured from theft. 78 Hdt. 1.65-66; Paus. III.16.6, who says that his cult was ofa ... 8£4>. 79 Possibly, too, the lack of a tomb precluded a chthonic heroic cult. 80 Lo Porto (1971: 343-383). 81 Polyb. VIII.28. 82 Steph. Byz. s.v. 'A9i\va1. See 253-254. Pembroke (1970: 1264) argues "que le mot de



The historicity of their genealogy (presumably going back to Phalanthos himselO is doubtful; but it is worth noting that this is further corroboration of the belief that Phalanthos was an actual oikist. Moreover, the scattering of ashes would thus distinguish Phalanthos from the other presumed graves of Phalantidai which existed within the city. Finally, some numismatic evidence may provide some indication of Phalanthos' position. Tarentine coins are often found with the figure of a man riding a dolphin. 83 The same type also appears in other Apulian towns (Butuntum, Teate, [B]aletium) and, interestingly, also in Brentesion. 84 The Dolphin rider is identified as Phalanthos by Pausanias in his description of a group of statues representing Taras and Phalanthos who stands near a dolphin dedicated at Delphoi. Pausanias proceeds to tell how Phalanthos had been saved from drowning by a dolphin. 8 5 Numismatists oscillate between Phalanthos and Taras (the hero). The case for the latter is based on (1) a similar story of rescue by a dolphin; (2) dismissal of Pausanias' story as that of a "Delphic tourist guide tale" (the dolphin was, after all, not under Phalanthos but near him) and adoption of the view that Phalanthos' adventure was confounded with the earlier story told of Taras; (3) a fragment of Aristotle86 which expressly identifies the dolphin rider as the eponymous hero: v6µia�La tq,'ou tvT&.U1tcoa8ai Tavtq> K[ai toic; anoy6votc;J.131 in the festival for Themistokles which is held annually, there should be for him all the agatha which were accorded to Kleophantos and his descendants. This inscription is usually discussed by modern historians 132 in either of the following two contexts: (1) Was the Persian gift to Themistokles genuine or fictional? What are the implications about the Delian League and Lampsakos' membership? or, (2) The restitution and position of the descendants of Themistokles at Athens. The two are actually connected, for Kleophantos' return to Athens is linked with Lampsakos' membership in the League. J. K. Davies, following a "guess" of the authors of the Athenian Tribute Lists, states that "on his return to Athens Kleophantos waived his doubtful title to revenues from Lampsakos 130 Loe. cit. 131 Lolling (1881: 103-105) lines quoted: 12-15; cf. Bauer and Frost (1966: 97-98). 132 ATL III pp. 112-113; Davies (1971: 218); Podlecki (1975: 206); Lenardon (1978: 149).



- or confirmed his father's alleged action 133 and received a benefactor's honours from Lampsakos in return." No one doubts that Kleophantos did return to Athens, as Plato seems to corroborate. 134 We agree with Podlecki, 13 5 though, that Davies is wrong to brush aside the Lampsakene inscription so easily; but Podlecki does not provide a reason. It should be clear that the revenues and honours which Kleophantos received were derivative and that he himself did not earn them. Regardless of the historical problem of Lampsakos' incorporation in the Delian League (which occupies the authors of ATL), the cause of those honours should be assessed independently. Kleophantos is not mentioned as benefactor or anything else. Yet the real reason is given to us in the context of the full text of the inscription: the annual festival for Themistokles. It seems that the aya8a. are to be given at the time of the festival (or decreed then), and the honours to Kleophantos actually follow. In addition, Kleophantos also does not seem to have ruled Lampsakos at any point (Phrasikles, the nephew, received the position of power). 136 One could also infer from Plato that Kleophantos was not a very bright man and that his excellence was confined to horsemanship. It is still possible that he may have resided in Lampsakos for a while, and apparently he also had some property. But the honours decreed for him were due to his father. There was no festival for Kleophantos, only for Themistokles. The fact that he resided in Athens at some point should not trouble us too much, either. We need not assume that he had to give up any revenues, and there is no need to read political implications into a rather simple personal situation, as we find in ATL and in Davies. We are reminded of the friend of Plutarch, "Themistokles the Athenian," obviously a resident of Athens, who some six centuries after the death of Themistokles continued to enjoy revenues from Magnesia. A fortiori, then, Kleophantos may easily have continued to enjoy the privileged status of a descendant while residing (temporarily?) in Athens. The same probably held good for his descendants. Be that as it may, the essential point in our investigation is the festival (yearly?) for Themistokles because festivals imply cult. Yet Lampsakos was given to Themistokles only "for wine." For bread he was given Magnesia, which was the most important of the three, yielding 50 talents annually. 13 7 If we consider by itself all the evidence discussed above - the monument or tomb; 133 Alleged in the spurious [Them.] Epist. XX p. 761 (Hersche), i.e., remitting Lampsakos' tribute and setting it free. 134 Meno 93e cf. Plut Them. 32.1. Cf. Frost (1980: 232). 13S P.206. 136 Plut. Them. 32.2; he took over the whole province. Phrasikles was Themistokles' "brother's son" (a6&)..qn6oiic;) Frost, op. cit. 137 Thuc. loc. cit.



its location in the market place; the representation on the coin - it would point to a cult. But together with the Lampsakene inscription we can safely argue that if Themistokles enjoyed a certain cult there, then a fortiori he had such a cult in Magnesia on the Maeander as well. This cult contains the elements of an oikistes cult, as Gardner called it. Themistokles was not a proper oikist, but this application of an oikist cult, although it is interesting in itself, also indicates the model from which it was adopted. We know too little about this model per se; the exceptional cases, such as that of Brasidas and Themistokles help us learn more about it. Themistokles, then, should be included among cases of oikistai and may be used to corroborate further the elements of the oikist cult which were mentioned above. Amphipolis between Hagnon and Brasidas

In 424 B.C. the Spartan general Brasidas accomplished an unprecedented military overland march which resulted in the capture of Amphipolis, a city on the Strymon river in Thrace, and Athens' prize possession. Its loss also marked the end of Thucydides' military career and brought about his exile. No wonder, then, that we may trust him as a particularly keen and interested observer in all that concerns Brasidas. The Spartan general died in 422 B.C. fighting Kleon, who also lost his life in the attempt on Amphipolis. The description of the religious treatment of the dead Brasidas is very important in understanding the cult of the oikist (Brasidas was entitled an "oikist" posthumously) particularly because for once an ancient historian actually pauses to describe in detail the religious proceedings: (Thuc. V .11.1) Mtta 6t taf rra tov Bpaai6av ol �uµµaxm no.vt&c; �uv nAoic; tman6µ&VO\ 611µoai� f8a111av &V tij 1t6A&\ npo tfic; vuv ayopcic; oua11c;· Kai to A0\7tOV oi 'Aµ(jl\7tOAitai, 7t&pi&ip�avn:c; autofi to µVllµ&iov, coc; 11proi t& tvteµvoum Kai nµac; 6&6ci>Kaaiv ayvac; Kai &t11aiouc; 9uaiac;, Kai tTJV anmKiav ci>c; oi.Kiatij npoae9&aav, Katal}aA6vt&c; ta 'Ayvci>v&ia oi.Ko60µ11µata Kai a(llaviaavt&c; &i n µV11µ6auv6v nou fµ&AA&V autofi tfic; oi.Kia&roc; n&piea&a9ai, voµiaavt&c; tov µtv Bpaai6av arotfipo. t& a(llv y&y&vfja9ai Kai tv tq> nap6vn aµa tTJV tv AaK&6aiµovirov �uµµaxiav (116J}cp tv 'A91lvairov 9&pan&uovt&c;, tov 6t "Ayvrova Kata to noAiµiov tv 'A91lvairov ouK liv 6µoiroc; a(llim �uµ(ll6proc; ou6' liv fi6eroc; tac; nµac; fx&iv. After this, all the allies, following with their arms, buried Brasidas publicly inside the city in front of what is now the agora. And henceforward the Amphipolitans, having surrounded his monument with a sacred enclosure, worship him as a hero and give him honours: annual agones and sacrifices. And they transferred the colony to Brasidas as oikist, pulling down the Hagnoneia and obliterating (or: "erasing") anything which, if allowed to survive, was likely to be a memorial of Hagnon's foundation; because, on the one hand, they considered Brasidas to have been their saviour and also at the present, in fear of the



Athenians, were courting the alliance of the Lacedaimonians; on the other hand, because of the war against Athens, it was neither beneficial for themselves in the same way < either "as before," or "as the honours for Brasidas would be" > nor as gratifying for Hagnon to have the honours. (or, taking i\6eroc; as applying to Hagnon: "whereas Hagnon ... would not ... receive their honours either with benefit to themselves or with pleasure to himself" (Smith)).

This passage describes the actions of the people of Amphipolis toward both Hagnon and Brasidas. Thucydides maintains a delicate balance between the two in a very long sentence, emphasizing on the one hand what is denied Hagnon and on the other what is granted Brasidas. The public funeral ceremony is described in the context of conferring the title, oikistes, on Brasidas, instead of Hagnon. Brasidas is given a burial inside the city, at a central location. It is not clear exactly where: the agora, which Thucydides mentions as "in front" of the tomb, may not have been the agora in 422 B.C., since Thucydides inserts vuv ("now").138 Whatever the case may be, Thucydides' emphasis on a tomb inside the city at a prominent location is clear. We may point out the following elements in this passage, which appear as the salient characteristics of the oikist cult: (I) A public or state funeral139 (2) A monumental tomb and a sacred enclosure inside the city (3) A continuing hero cult (surely at the tomb) (4) Annual "honours," that is, agones and sacrifices The last two need further comment. In spite of the explicit roe; i\pv&1a. Habicht (1956: 3ff.) for Lysander.



pleasure is he being denied? Most interpreters of this sentence, as Gomme states, actually prefer this possibility but without the implication of cult for the living Hagnon. 157 Our interpretation permits, therefore, a more concrete reading for i\6&roc;. This interpretation has the further advantage of enabling us to understand aq>avioavt&c; more precisely. The word is usually translated as "obliterating," but that is too vague and implies an unlikely self-destruction on the part of the people of Amphipolis. Instead, we suggest to translate aphanisantes simply as "erasing," 15 8 which is its straightforward sense anyway; what the Amphipolitai did was not to tear down important civic buildings but to erase the inscriptions set up by Hagnon to commemorate himself, i.e., inscriptions which might have served as veritable µvttµ6ouva of his foundation. This use of the verb aq>avi�ro is precisely paralleled in Thucydides when he relates how an inscription bearing the name of the tyrant Hippias on a major public altar in the agora at Athens was erased: "The people of Athens... erased the inscription on the altar ( ... wu l3roµou ftq>civ10& wu1tiypaµµa) 159 Both Hippias and Hagnon suffered, therefore, a sort of a Greek damnatio memoriae. 160 Sikyon and Late Cases The history of Sikyon provides us with a few cases (some of which are interrelated) of cults which were set up along the lines of the oikist cult. Although late (Classical and Hellenistic) and not colonial, these cases may provide further information and corroboration for earlier practices. For comparison, a few other relevant examples from other parts of the Greek world will also be mentioned. In 366 B.C. Euphron was murdered by the exiled oligarchs of Sikyon while he was on an embassy to Thebes. The Thebans were apparently relieved; "his own citizens, however, esteeming him a good man, brought him home, buried him in the market place and pay him pious honours as the founder of their city - so true it is, as it seems, that most people define as good men their own benefactors" (oi µtvtm 1t0Aitm autou ci>c; civ6pa ciya8ov Koµ1ociµ&vo1 e8mvciv t& tv tU ciyop� Kai ci>c; cipx11ytt11v tfic; 1t6A&roc; otl}ovtm). 1 6 1 157 Except Steup who (wrongly) considers Hagnon dead. Even if one does not accept this notion of a cult for the living Hagnon, there should be no reason to deny that such monuments were prepared in advance before the founder's death as part of Hagnon's general act of founding Amphipolis. Cf. Thuc. IV.102.3-4. 158 Cf. Betant (1843-7: s.v.). 159 Thuc. VI.54.7. 160 Leveque and Vidal-Naquet (1964: 72-73) perceptively call the action against Hippias (Thuc. VI.54.7) damnatio memoriae. 161 Xen. Hell. VII.3.12 (tr. Brownson, Loeb). On his supporters see Griffin (1982: 70-74).



Euphron, like Brasidas, was not an actual oikist. But he was a "founder" of a social order, hence an oikist by extension. His honours are thus comparable to the honours paid to lawgivers. The burial in the agora, which is analogous to an archegetes is also noteworthy. 162 The cult also seems to have been perpetual (i.e., annual), which is borne out by the tense of atl3ovtm. Euphron may be compared to another such "archegetes" who was also buried in the agora of his city (and perhaps also received a cult): Arrian mentions that the oligarchs at Ephesos dug up the remains of Herophytos, the "liberator" of the city. Once again, then, we have a case of extended oikist status. 163 A man with a more accurate claim to the title of oikist was Epimelides, the leader of the Messenian refoundation of Korone (371 B.C.), who was also responsible for the naming of the city. We do not know any more about him than his posthumuous position: when discussing the monuments at the agora, Pausanias adds: Ei6ov 6s Kai tou 'Emµn)..i6ou µvi\µa ("I also saw the grave of Epimelides"). The context makes it almost certain that the location was the agora. We do not know when he died; it is interesting to note that Euphron and Epimelides were contemporaries.164 Another contemporary was Podares, "who was killed, they say, in the battle with the Thebans under Epaminondas." He, too, received burial in the agora (of Mantinea) or at least a hero shrine there. His cult was still in existence in the days of Pausanias. 165 In 213 B.C. when the people of Sikyon wanted to bury Aratos in the agora, they felt they could not do so because religious law forbade it. Was Euphron forgotten? The explanation is simple and is provided by yet another (intervening) example of an oikist cult at Sikyon. In 303 B.C. Demetrios Poliorketes moved the site of the town to the Acropolis, which provided greater security in the more perilous times. There he established a "free government" and from those he had benefited "he received divine honours (ttµai iao0sai) . . . for they called the city Demetrias and voted to celebrate sacrifices and public festivals and also games in his honour every year and to grant him the other honours as a founder" (0uaia� 6s Kai 1tavnyupst�, ftt 6'ciyrova� E\11'11Q>iaavto auvt&A.siv autq'> Kat' eviautov Kai ta� d)..)..a� ci1tovtµs1v nµa� CO� Ktiatij). 166 162 See p. 200ff. 163 Arrian Anab.; cf. Foucart (1922: 138). 164 Paus. IV.34.5-6. Epimelides is said to have named the city after his native town in Boeotia. Its former name was Apeia (Hom. 11. IX.152; 249); cf. Frazer (1898: III 448); cf. Strabo VIII p. 360. Korone's refoundation is comparable to the refoundation of Messene by Epaminondas, Epimelides' contemporary. See pp. 104-106. 165 Paus. VIIl.9.9. 166 Diod. XX.102.3; cf. Paus. 11.7.1; see Habicht (1956: 74; 75 n.4).



The ambitious renaming was soon abandoned. 167 We may note, however, that the genuine foundation of Demetrios Poliorketes, the Thessalian Demetrias, retained its name. It was to that city that his ashes were transferred and it was there that he was actively worshipped as a founder (Plut. Dem. 53) in a common shrine of archegetai and ktistai (i.e., including the local heroes before the synoikismos of 293 B.C.). Most probably Demetrios held the prominent position within the cult. 168 At Sikyon, Demetrios is explicitly referred to as ktistes. The list of annual honours is conventional: (I) sacrifices, (2) public festivals, (3) games, (4) and all "other honours of a founder" (a frustrating general category which is often repeated in our sources). There are two elements that are exceptional, however. The first is the nµai io68em ("divine honours"), which are expressly stated. U. Kahrstedt 169 uses this to support his thesis that Demetrios was not honoured as ktistes but as a god, on the supposed model of Alexander's position in the Corinthian League. Habicht disposes of that theory rather easily by showing that the "Hellenic League" was not set up until a full year after Sikyon's refoundation as Demetrias. The explanation may be linked to the second exceptional element: that the founder's cult that Demetrios received at Sikyon was given to him while he was still alive. This is a true break with tradition: the hero cult is by definition a cult of the dead. Once the rules are broken, all is let loose: there is nothing to wonder at in the arrogation of both divine and heroic honours. 1 70 We shall still meet with genuine posthumous cults "as to a founder" in mainland Greece, but the case of Demetrios must remain exceptional and can provide only further corroboration of the elements of the oikist cult. This cult was the model for Demetrios, who arrogated it to himself. Probably, the relocation of the city, which implies of course a new agora, was the cause of the specific religious problem that arose when Aratos died in 213 B.C. He died at Aigion in his 17th strategy of the Achaian League. The Achaians wanted to hurry him then and there: Kai trov 'Axmrov q>tAonµouµtvcov £KEi yevto8m taq>a� Kai µV11µata 1tpt1tovta tq> �icp .oO avopoi;. The people of Sikyon, however, insisted that his body be buried in their own city. "They had, however, an ancient law that no one should be buried inside the city walls and the law was supported by a strong feeling of

167 168 169 170


Griffin (1982: 78). Habicht (1956: 76); ktistes and oikistes: Casevitz (1985: esp. 68 ff; !0lff). Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeiger 195 (1933) 203 . Similarly Kassander in Kassandreia; Lysimachos in Ephesos; Habicht (1956: No. 14; No.



superstition." 171 Only a special embassy to Delphoi and an oracle which was favorably interpreted enabled them to go on with their plans. The shifting of Sikyon's site seems to be the proper explanation for the religious problem. Old Sikyon had in its agora tombs of mythic heroes, such as Adrastos and Melanippos172 and, of course, Euphron. Demetrios Poliorketes' ashes were deposited in Thessalian Demetrias. It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that from 303 B.C. (at least, if not from 366 B.C.) there were no new tombs inside the city walls; to have introduced Aratos' tomb would have been a total, unprecedented novelty for the new agora of Sikyon. This explains the citizens' keen awareness of the ancient law and their need for special sanction. The episode illustrates how rare were burials within city walls, even in the Hellenistic period. To be sure, honours to a ktistes were accorded in an inflationary manner, but usually to living men; they were hardly ever associated with a tomb.173 That the sentiment was alive (and perhaps even somewhat reactionary?) in the 1st century B.C. is attested by a letter which Servius Sulpicius sent to Cicero on May 31, 45 B.C. In it he relates that the Athenians refused to bury M. Marcellus (in spite of his explicit request) within the city, yet he admits that "it was a concession they had never yet made to anybody." (Ab Atheniensibus, locum sepulturae intra urbem ut darent impetrare non potuit, quod religione se impediri dicerent; neque tamen id antea cuiquam concesserant.) 174

Polybius, an earlier source, describes concisely the honours paid to Aratos at Sikyon: Kai yap 0uain Kai 'ttµac; tipcotKac; tw11iaavw, Kai au1..1..11J3c511v oaa 1tpoc; aic.oviov «VllKEt µv1'µ11v, ... (They voted him sacrifices and heroic honours and everything in short which contributes to immortalize a man's memory).175 The exact nature of the thusiai and of the timai heroikai becomes clear when we examine Plutarch's detailed description (always a source for the pious treatment of ritual). First the festive and thronged funeral procession176 which carries the body to Sikyon is described. Then - Kai 't61tov E�EA.6µEVOl 7tEpi07t'tOV roanEp oiKlO'tTJV Kai OCO'ti'jpa 'ti'jp1'atou. 185 How and Wells (1912) commentary ad loc. Adrastos also had a shrine in Megara: Paus. 1.43.1. 186 Paus. IX.18.1. 187 Cf. Paus. 1.43.2-3; 7; for Prytaneion burials in Megara. Cf. Piccirilli (1975: Fl9). 188 See above, p. 200ff. Cf. Griffin (1982: 38).



not said to have been the honours of an oikist: tv-ra08a 6' ao-roO -ra..oyov bt1a-r11aa� ftpro1Kai� nµai� t-riµ11ae -rov rti.rova.1 89 Similarly, six years later, his father-in-law, Theron of Akragas, received ftproucai nµai.190 In 476 B.C. the formidable Syracusan Hieron expelled the inhabitants of Naxos and Katane and resettled Katane whose name he changed to Aitna.191 Hieron was celebrated by Pindar as KA.Etvo� oiK1a-r11p.192 Hagesias, his mantis, as a auv01K1a-r11p. 193 He was even parodied by Aristophanes in the Birds as K-ria-rrop Ai-rva�.194 Apparently, he had a great ambition to be considered an oikist; it is interesting to note Diodorus' assertion about his motives.195 After the practical military need for the resettlement, Diodorus adds: rourn 6' fnpa!;e a1teu6c.ov ... &K rfic; yevoµ&VTJc; µupuivcSpou 1t6Mc.oc; nµcic; exew T)pc.oiK� av K-ria-r11� yeyovco� -rfi� n6>..ero�).196 It is rare that we get such reports which reveal to us how important the status of an oikist was. We observed it in the case of Xenophon 197 and of the citizens of Thourioi who vied for the timai. 198 It will become even more apparent later, when we discuss the plurality of oikists and the eventual trend toward exclusiveness of the title. To be an oikist, as Hieron exemplifies, was a noble ambition; the desire to obtain an oikist cult was perceived as sufficient reason for the expulsion of the population of two cities and the creation of a new one. Diodorus is at his best when dealing with his native island, and we should take his statement seriously - not as a glimpse into Hieron's mind but an indication how his actions and their motives were perceived. 199 Such events were more likely to happen in Sicily at this time than anywhere else in the Greek world. Kamarina, for example, was founded by Syracuse between 598-595 B.C.; it was destroyed 46 years later after a revolt Diod. XI.38. On the Sicilian examples see also GGR4 719. 190 Diod. XI. 53. 191 Diod. XI.49; cf. Berard (1971: 86). 192 Pind. Pyth. 1.31; cf. III. 169. 193 Ibid. OJ. VI.6; cf. frg. 105.3. 194 Birds 926. 195 Diod. XI.49.2. 196 Diod. XI.66.4. See also above, pp. 93-97. 197 See pp. 102-104. Anab. V.6.17: his alleged ambition: l>voµa Kai 6uvaµw. 198 See p. 98 and esp. below, pp. 254-256. 199 In effect he was an oikist providing the site with both a new name and a new population. 189



(552-547 B.C.). 200 It was finally taken over by Hippokrates the tyrant of Gela, in 492 B.C.201 as a ransom for Syracusan prisoners of war. He "himself became founder and recolonized Kamarina" (ail'toc; oiKtatnc; ysv6µsvoc; Katei>Kta& Kaµapwav). 202 A few years later Gelon again depopulated it and recolonized it.203 We do not know, however, of an oikist cult for Hippokrates; he may not have had the time. Hieron, then, had local historical precedents, both for acquiring heroic honours and for acquiring them qua oikist, that is, with "justification." Hieron's own example enables us to understand Douketios, the Sikel leader who made himself an oikist on the Greek model. 204 Hieron's honours were posthumous, and in that respect, at least, he remained traditional. The real break with the past occurred in the middle of the 4th century B.C. when ttµai t)pro1Kai were accorded to Dion. He was still alive at the time and was also a general elected with absolute powers (356 B.C.).205 The change anticipated Hellenistic ruler cults, yet that should not cloud our assessment of the last case (20 years later) which again involves a posthumous cult. Timoleon, who died in 336 B.C., was greatly honoured by the Syracusans for his life's work: defeating the Phoenicians and toppling tyrannies. At his funeral the herald, Demetrios, read the people's decree. The text, except for the last sentence, is almost identical in Diodorus and Plutarch: 'O 6i;µoc; 6 l:.upaKouairov TtµoA.tovta Ttµo611µou Kopiv0tov t6v6& 81btt&t µtv 6taKoairov µvci'>V, etiµTJa& 6' ≤ tov linavta xp6vov ayroai µouatKoic;, inmKoic;, yuµVlKOic;, Otl touc; tupliwouc; KataA.Uaac; Kai touc; l3apl3apouc; Kata7tOA.&µitaac; Kai tac; µ&yiatac; tOOV avaatatroV 7t6A.&roV O(K{aac; U7t&6roK& touc; v6µouc; tote; I:tK&>tatc;. By the people of Syracuse, Timoleon, son of Timodemos, from Corinth, is here buried at a public cost of two hundred minas, and is honoured for all time with annual contests, musical, equestrian, and gymnastic, because he overthrew the tyrants, subdued the Barbarians, re-peopled the largest of the devastated cities, and then restored their laws to the Greeks of Sicily. 206

200 Thuc. Vl.5.3. On the chronology Berard (1971: 136). 201 Hdt. VIl.154.3; Thuc. Vl.5.3; Philistos FGrHist 556 FIS= schol. ad Pind. OJ. V.19c. 202 Thuc. Vl.5.3. 203 Thuc. Vl.5.5; Hdt. VII.156; Diod. XI.76.5; schol. ad Pind. OJ. V.16; 19; schol. ad Aeschin. Ctesiph. 186; Berard op. cit. with n.4. 204 See p. 85ff. 205 Diod. XVl.20. 206 Plut. Tim. 39 (tr. Perrin, Loeb). cf. Diod. XVI. 90: Kata 6t tTtv I:1Kt:A.iav TiµoUoov 6 Kopiv81oc; lhtavta toic; I:upaKoaio1c; Kai t0ic; I:1Kt:AICi>taic; Katrop8roKc; &tt:A.Eut11at:, atpat11Y11aac; ftll OKtco. m 6t I:upaK6a101 µt:ya.A.(l)c; ci1to6t:6&yµtv01 tov dv6pa 616. tE tTtv cipt:tTtV Kai to µtyt:8oc; tci>v t:UEpyt:mci>c; µt:yaA.01tpt:1tci>c; f8a111av ai>tov Kai Kata tTtv &Kq,opav ci8po1a8tvwc; t00 1tA.lj8ouc; t66t: to 1111iq,1aµa ciV11y6pwat:v 6 '111µljtp1oc; 6c; 1'v



Plutarch adds that he received a tacpit tou acoµatooov6tatoi; trov t6tt KTJPUKoov. t111TJq>1ota1 6 6dµoi; trov I:upaKooioov T1µ0Atovta T1µmvttou Kopiv81ov t6v6t 81i1ttt1v µtv lino 61aKomdv µvdv, t1µdo8a1 6& Eli; tov linavta lP6VOV ayci>VEOOI µOUOIKOii; Kai {7t7t1KOii; Kai yuµVIKOii;, 6tl tolli; tUpavvoui; KataA.Uoai; Kai toui; l3apl3apoui; Kata1tOAEµ1lOai; Kai tai; µEyiotai; TOOV 'E)..)..TJviOO>V 1t6A.EOOV 0VOIKiaai; ait1oi; tyEV118TJ tdi; tAEU8tpiai; toii; I:1KEA.l(l)tati;. 207 Plut. ibid.: 'E1to111aavto 6& t1'1v taq>11v toii aci>µat0i; tv ayop�, Kai atocii; iiottpov 1ttp1!3aMvtti; Kai na)..aiotpai; tvo1Ko60µ1\aavtti; yuµvamov toii; avfjKav Kai TiµoAE6vtt1ov 7tpOOTJY6ptuoav. atitol 6& xpcoµEVOI 7tOA.ltEii;t Kai v6µ01i; oOi; tKEivoi; Kat&OTTJOEV, tnl 7t0A.UV 1p6vov tti6mµovoiivtti; 61Ettuoav Cf. Diod. loc. cit.; see Habicht (1956: 150) on agi'>nes.

End note

Foucart (1922: 135-136) contends that Diod. makes a distinction between honours to a hero (this applies to all the cases under discussion here) and the actual conferring of the title, Heros. He bases his entire case, however, on Dion, which is clearly the exceptional example.


FOUNDERS AND POSTERITY Our purpose in this chapter is to discuss special problems connected with the cult of the oikist in order to assess its role and significance in the subsequent life of the colony. It is not enough to show that an oikist cult existed; it must be determined if this cult also fulfilled a real and important function in the life of the community. The first section discusses the titles of oikists in the context of their cult, especially archegetes, which as a cult title had a wide range of religious connotations. The following section discusses the specific problem of the descendants of founders, their status within the community, and whether they had a role in the cult of their ancestor, the oikist. Our conclusion will be that they did not have any special role, which emphasizes yet again the public, polis-aspect of the cult of the founder. In the last section we study the cases of colonies founded by more than one oikist and we find that difficulties arose in connection with the oikist cult. On the whole we find that even in such colonies a clear tendency toward a single-founder's cult is apparent: colonies preferred to focus on a single founder and a single identity. In some cases, internal strife about the position and honours due to an oikist is expressly reported. If the oikist cult was worth fighting for, we conclude, it must have been important and real, not an empty ritual. The Archegetes and the Colony

The religious symbolism and function of the cult of the oikist in the colony may be better understood by examining the term which is often associated with oiKta,itc;: ap:x;r1yt,11c;. As will be shown below, archegetes had wider cultic connotations. Further, the explicit statement of Ephorus, quoted above, 1 that archegetes was a title given to oikists as a general rule, also calls for an examination of this term. Let us begin with a discussion of that passage. In his description of the beginning of Sparta's history, Strabo considers the role of Eurysthenes and Prokles as Sparta's actual "founders" and the true ancestors of its royal families. The royal houses, however, were not named after them. Strabo quotes Ephorus:

1 Seep. 194.


THE CULT OF THE FOUNDER &KEivmc; 6t Kabti:p oiKtotaic; yi:voµtvmc;, µ116t toOto 6t6oo8at, o'>otE touc; ci1t' aOtv touc; µtv Eopuo8i:vi6ac;, touc; 6t Ilpod.i:{6ac; Kai..Eio8at ... 68E(V oo6' cipx11yt-rac;) voµ109iivat, 61tEp 1tciotv ci1to6{6ota(t oiKtotaic; ... ) 2

As we see, there are textual problems which must be dealt with before any interpretation. The word, oiK1ataic;, appears twice and is partially restored the second time; so is the other key word, ciPXTIY&'t'ac;. All the editors of the text use caret brackets, not square ones, and indeed there is general agreement that this is how the text should be read. The particular problem which faced the editors was that apparently the archetype MS. ("A") was missing some 11-16 letters at the end of each line, beginning with wuc; 6& IlpoKASi6ac;. However, a comparison of the derivative MSS produces some of the letters which form the words olK1ataic; and ciPXTl'Y&tac;.3 A 15th century scholar, Guarino Veronese, for example, translates this passage ... quod omnibus urbium conditoribus et earum habitandarum auctoribus attributum est. 4 'APXTl'Y&tac;, in terms of the letters preserved5 is the less doubtful of the two words in question; oiK1ataic;, too, makes excellent sense since it is the logical conclusion of the phrase, KainEp oiKtataic; yEvoµtvo1c; above, which is sound. We can be reasonably certain, therefore, that the text is valid and proceed to examine its meaning and application.6 The apparent meaning of archegetes in this passage is a title signifying an eponymous ancestor, that is, the progenitor of the genealogical line which is named after him. According to Ephorus, Eurysthenes and Prokles should have received the "title" were it not for their bad government. They should have received it by virtue of being oikists. One should actually wonder first about the use of oikistai and only afterwards about archegetai since the latter term seems to have had a specialized meaning at Sparta; here oikistes is used not in the sense of a founder of a colony, but in its extended sense of a founder of, for example, a political order, or constitution, a meaning which was certainly prevalent by the time of Ephorus.7 The passage illustrates an overlapping of the terms, archegetes and oikistes: the archegetes is here the founder, the progenitor, of the genos, but since in his person he also functions as the founder of a political entity, he is also an oikist. 2 FGrHist 10 Fl 18 = Strabo VIIl.365. 3 For a convenient apparatus criticus, see the edition of R. Baladre in the Bude series of Strabo. 4 Quoted by Diller (1975: 127). s Baladre op. cit. 6 In order to argue that the archegetai of the Great Rhetra (Plut. Lye. 6) are not "kings" but the actual two founders who, together with 28 elders should form the gerousia at Sparta L. H. Jeffery suggests an alternative restoration: 68s(v oli6' roe; 1'pci>ac;)ln this way, she argues, for Prokles and Eurysthenes to have been called archegetai by later generations. We are unconvinced; Jeffery does not present a detailed analysis and makes her suggestion tentatively. Moreover, the points mentioned by us here are not addressed by her. See Jeffery (1961: 14S). 7 L.S.J. s.v.; cf. Jessen in RE s.v. t'tP'XTIY&tllc; 443.



Is it possible, however, that Ephorus has in mind the specialized Spartan use of archegetes? When Plutarch interprets the Great Rhetra, 8 he explains that tipx11yttm are l}aaiuiwµo1 tci>v qm>..oov. 49 Hell. VII.3.12. 50 Polyb. XXXIV .1.3. (ap. Strabo X.465); cf. IX.1.4. 51 FGrHist 70 F122 = Strabo X.463-464. 52 OJ. VII.30; 79. 53 Strabo XIV.650.



so far we can also add the word, KtiatT]c; (and Ktianop), as a simple synonym of oiKtat11c;.54 No clear-cut and formal distinctions in definition can be imposed on the terms, hegeml>n, oikistes, archegetes. We can say, however, that in oikist-cult we do not find the word, hegeml>n. Miltiades received a cult ci>c; v6µoc; oiKtatij55 which is the clearest example of the use of oikist in the context of cult. Still, archegetes has a far wider range of cultic connotations than oikistes. Ephorus explicitly states that archegetes is the title given to oikists. It probably came to be associated with oikistes by a process of extended application, but it is impossible to determine how; it may have been derived from the cults of local heroes and ancestors, which are often designated as archegetai; it is also possible that 8th century aristocrats, in search of the archegetai or archegoi of their families56 promoted in general cults of archegetai. As with other elements of the religion of the polis which were in fact an extension of private religion to the public sphere,5 7 so too, the notion of the progenitor of great aristocratic clans came to be applied to the initiators of the new poleis in the form of the archegetes-oikist cult. Possibly, at the same time, Apollo's title of archegetes, attested for Naxos already for 734 B.C.,58 came to be associated with Apollo's delegates, the oikists. The sacred precinct of Anios, the herl>s archegetes of the Delians, illustrates this well: the Archegesion is found inside the precinct of Apollo.59 At Kassandreia the name (Archegeteion) was adopted, probably in the context of the Hellenistic cult for the founder.60 At Demetrias we have observed a similar process: Demetrios Poliorketes' remains were placed in the shrine of the archegetai. 61 It is not our purpose here to determine the order of religious precedence in this process of borrowings and adoptions of cult titles from divine or heroic worship.62 In any case, the historical oikist would seem, a

54 Virgilio (I 972: 358-359). 55 Hdt. VI.38.1. 56 See also below, p. 253. 57 Some of the archegetai in Kleisthenes' reforms at Athens are an excellent illustration of this; see above with Rhodes (1981) on Ath.Pol. 21.S. 58 Thuc. VI.3.1. Apollo is also known by other titles: 'ap111y6i;, 6wµa-ri-n1i;, '11yeµci>v, KTiaTTJi;, 0'1K1a-r11i;, 1to11yt-r11i;, 1tp0Ka811yeµcov. See Pease (1917: 12 n.2). Cf. RE s.v. Apollon (Wernicke) 62. 59 Robert (1953). The inscriptions were published by A. Plassart in Inscriptions de Delos No. 30; No. 35; cf. Gallet de Santerre (1958: 268ff.); Daux (1962: 959ff.); (1963: 862ff.). 60 R. Herzog-G. Klaffenbach, Asylieurkunden aus Kos 16 line IS (Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin l 952 No. I). The authors are inclined to regard it as the "Kultort, fiir den Koniglichen 'apx.11yt-r11i; und K-ria-r11i; der Stadt." Cf. Ditt. Syll.3 332; (cf. No. 380 for Lysimachus). SEG XII 373; cf. Habicht (1956: 37-41). 61 See p. 234. 62 It would seem that the archegetes in the Hellenistic inscription from Argos (published by Vollgraff, l 95I), who was simply a president of a religious association, derived his rights for burial



priori, to have been the recipient of such extended meanings of archegetes, rather than to have been their source. 63 Descendants of Oikists Did descendants of oikists enjoy particular status, honours, or specific functions in the cult of the oikist? The question, as Lampros emphasizes, 64 is relevant; his examination, however, fails to make distinctions between the general status of the founding aristocracy, the influence of particular gene (e.g., the Ageidai), and actual descendants of oikists. The question of descendants may help us understand another aspect of the role of the oikist cult: if his descendants had special privileges and functions, for example, this may reveal a possible vehicle for the transmission of the cult of the oikist because this cult may have assured their prominence. On the other hand, if they did not, then the cult of the oikist appears even more significantly as a public - or a polis - cult. While remarking on the definition of democracy Aristotle regards as undemocratic societies where men, although free, rule over a majority of non­ free persons, his examples being Thera and Apollonia: tv wfrrrov yap &Kattp� tc:i'>v 1t611£rov tv tai� tiµai� 11aav ol 6iaq,tpovt&� Kat' &uytv&iav Kai 1tpc:i'>tO\ Kataax6vt&� ta� a1t0\Kia�. OA.iym 6vt&� noUc:i'>v.65 Because in each of these cities those held in honor were those distinguished by noble birth, that is, the first settlers of the colonies, and these were few out of many.

The Kai, as Newman suggests, is explanatory.66 By the "first settlers" Aristotle probably includes the founders. Another passage in the Rhetoric to Alexander sheds more light on first settlers and founders: ... 6n tc:i'>v npc.otrov oiKiaouc; tov 9Eov &ntjpovto El napa6oiEv Kop1v8i01c; tT)v 1t6;l..1v ci>c; o!K1ataic; ... 6 6' aihoic; civEiA.E napa6oiivm. (=Parke and Wormell: 1956: Vol. II No. 136).



Notion or those sent by Sparta to Herakleia Trachinia were organizers rather than the real founders. 91 It is, therefore, important to emphasize that by contrast the stasis at Thourioi concerned both the oiKia-rnc; and his tiµn in the full, traditional, sense, that is, the unity of both the position and its implied cult. Both the stasis and the inquiry at Delphoi presuppose a single oikist; plurality is not mentioned as a-compromise. The episode as a whole clearly indicates that the question of the oikist and his nµn was both real and important in the life of the polis. Thourioi is, of course, a late example; nevertheless, as we shall try to demonstrate, the notion of exclusiveness in oikist cults, already apparent in earlier periods, emerges here as the culmination of a long process leading towards it. Before we examine the relevant evidence for earlier periods, we should pause to clarify the need for more than one oikist. No one single pattern seems applicable. Thucydides informs us that when a colony itself founds another colony it would invite "according to the ancient custom" an oikist from its own mother-city.92 But in the case of Thucydides' example, Epidamnos, we hear of only one oikist, Phalios of Corinth.93 Similarly, when Megara Hyblaia founded Selinous, only Pamillos was sent from Megara Nisaia; we do not hear of another oikist.94 In fact, there is no evidence that in such "sub-colonies" more than one oikist was ever involved, although this explanation (quite plausible in itself) is often offered, for example, in the case of Kamarina, whose oikists were Daskon, "surely a Syracusan," and Menekolos, "presumably a Corinthian." 95 Conversely, Antiochus takes it for granted that the oikist of Rhegion came from Zankle, that is, from the colony of Chalkis which itself founded a colony and which invited additional settlers from the mother-city.96 We are on firmer ground with colonies of mixed origins, in which each oikist would represent a distinct group of settlers; Gela is our safest example (below).97 Thoukles, the oikist of Naxos, the earliest colony in Sicily (734 B.C.),98 91 Notion: Thuc. lll.34.4; Herakleia: lll. 92.5. See above, p. 101 n. 69; 80. 92 Thuc. 1.24.2: Kata ... tov 1talaiov v6µov. 93 Ibid. 94 Thuc. Vl.4.2; cf. Hanell (1934: 118). 95 Dunbabin (1948: 105). The lack of evidence in such cases should not be pressed to yield artificial reconstructions. 96 FGrHist 555 F9 = Strabo VI.257. We believe that Rhegion did have in fact more than one oikist, as we have said (ch. I section Rhegion), but it is significant that Antiochus reports the case as if Antimnestos was the only one. Rhegion, as we have also said, (pp. 31-32) may have been exceptional in this respect. 97 See pp. 31-33. 98 Thuc. Vl.3.



represents yet another variation, as he was an oikist of more than one colony.99 This man, who emerges as the most adventurous and ambitious of the oikists at the dawn of Greek colonization, went on to found Leontinoi and Katane; but there the colonists asserted independence and chose an oikist of their own (below). It would seem therefore, that plurality of oikists was an ad hoc solution to the particular circumstances of foundation. Often all we have are the mere names of the oikists, and admittedly any positive generalization is hazardous; but it would still appear safe to present a negative conclusion that no single pattern can provide an explanation of the phenomenon. Katane is representative. The choice of Euarchos was an assertion by the new foundation of its own identity, and the text of Thucydides clearly emphasizes this adversative aspect: ... A&ov.ivouc; ... oi.Ki�ou01 ... Kai µ&T' au.ouc; KaTa.VTJv. OiKtaTi\v cSt au.oi Ka.avai01 &1t0111aav.o Euapxov.100 Both the cSt and the au.oi provide the emphasis. We have already observed how the oikist and his cult came to be a symbol of the particular identity and individuality of the colony. Thus the independent action of the people of Katane illustrates this tendency, even in earliest phases of Greek colonization, toward one oikist to one colony. Katane also illustrates a common theme in the history of Greek colonization: the transformation of the emigrant's outlook from that of settlers, who are defined as colonists of a mother-city, to that of members of a new community whose focus of orientation, frame of reference, and criteria of relevance stem from the community itself. This transformation also characterizes the situation at Thourioi, discussed above: ten years after its foundation, the outlook of its residents had become local and self-centered. The earliest attested oikist cult can be dated to the end of the lifetime of the first generation of settlers at Zankle (early 7th century B.C. see also below, p. 26lff.). We have already discussed the relevant passage in Callimachus (Aetia II, frg. 43) which portrays the customary feast at Zankle as exceptional because the oikist's name is not called out as it is in other cities. 101 We should now emphasize that Callimachus speaks of the customary feast for the oikist in the singular: T]tc; 1to[Tt] T&ixoc; fcS&1µ& (line 54). This use of the singular may, of course, be explained as a consequence of its use in a general statement. The formula, however, which the magistrates at Zankle use (it is quoted verbatim) is also in the singular: fiµ&TEPTIV aµot - and its importance in the attestion of oikist cults and their preservation. The inscription, which mentions only Antiphemos, provides a secure attestation for a separate cult to him. It is quite certain that this is the cult of the oikist, 115 hence - although Entimos was not obliterated from some of the traditions about Gela's foundation - in terms of cult, Antiphemos was regarded as sole oikist. Since cult was really the only connection with the dead oikist, in terms of the life of the polis and its self-identity, Antiphemos really was its sole oikist.116 This argument fits in well with the traditions discussed above, from Herodotus through the anecdotes told of Antiphemos' laughter and the derivation of the name, Gela, from it.117 As there can be little doubt that this was a cult to an oikist, we must also assume, in view of what we have demonstrated above, that it was a state cult. If we do not accept this, then we should also assume another such state cult, 111 On the foundation of Gela, see Ch. I section on Ge/a, pp. 52-54. 112 Hdt. VII.153; cf. section on Descendants. The passage is important particularly for questions such as aristocrats participating in foundations, importations of particular cults, descendants of first settlers, etc. Cf. Lind. Chron. No. 28; schol. Pind. Pyth. 11.27 ( = 15). See note 71 above. 113 Paus. VIII.46.2. See Dunbabin (1948: 112; 318); Graham (1971: 20). Cf. 83ff. Above, p. 52; 180 n.96. 114 See p. 194 see frontispiece. 115 Graham (1971: 22n.). 116 Cf. ibid. 117 Steph. Byz. s.v. ft)..a. See 52; cf. 197.



perhaps for the pair of oikists, which is distinct and separate from the one which the inscription attests. Such redundancy, however, would be too far­ fetched. In the case of Gela no foundation lore about quarrel or competition between the two oikists (as in Zankle or Akanthos) has come down to us. All we have is the predominant position of Antiphemos in foundation traditions, in historical memory, and in cult. Our argument about the trend toward exclusive cults rests, therefore, on a much more solid basis of fact than either dim impressions from foundation stories, Alexandrian Aetia, or analogies from late examples, such as Thourioi. Katane is our earliest example of this exclusiveness; and although at Gela there was more than one oikist, a cult to only one developed. Judging from the simple and common nature of the dedication, this cult is also shown to be a viable reality. We maintain that, on the whole, the problem of the single oikist cult versus plurality of oikists can be understood better if we regard it in terms of the basic division that any history of Greek colonization has to face, namely, the "act of foundation" and the subsequent life and external relations of the new polis. As far as the act of foundation is concerned, the role of the mother-city is predominant (the oikist in that respect serves as a "bridge"). Choices about such issues as the origins of colonists and joint foundation, are made a priori. In some cases circumstances seem to have necessitated more than one oikist as an ad hoc solution. Exclusiveness, on the other hand, and particularly exclusiveness in cult, developed in the colonies to fulfil the need of every autonomous state for self­ identity and a striving for a homogeneous self-image. In practice, in many colonies of mixed origins homogeneity was far from successful, sometimes even for centuries.118 This reality, however, does not preclude the need. The oikist cult, as argued above, served as a symbol for the self-identity of the colony, and its practice was a commemoration of the colony's birth. Plurality, by definition, blurs this attempt to focus on a single identity. Thus the cult for the oikist came to answer a primary historical need: the need to have a history. 118 Aristotle Pol. 1303a 28ff.


CONCLUSION TO PART II: THE ORIGINS OF THE OIKIST CULT It remains for us to discuss the origins of the oikist-cult. Considering the poor state of our knowledge about 8th century Greece, such a discussion must be speculative. While our literary sources are silent on this question, the circumstantial evidence - particularly from new excavations - is being enriched continuously. It is possible at this stage only to define the problems and to present some hypotheses about the answers. It seems clear that oikist cults, which focus on the founder of the new polis (polissouchos), could not have begun before the beginning of the colonization movement in the mid 8th century. Is it, however, possible that the oikist cults were developed much later, perhaps by later generations? Considering the evidence we have discussed so far, this seems highly improbable: Zankle and Gela, the heroon at Megara Hyblaia, Battos' cult and tomb, the general practice of worship at a tomb (not a cenotaph) which necessitated the actual remains, the annual commemorations, the very memories of the names of oikists - all seem to indicate an early date going back to the first generations of founders, namely about 750-680 B.C. Moreover, we have an excellent context for this cult in the novel burial practices of the 8th century aristocracy - to which the oikists also belonged. Hesiod sings of the magnificent funeral and agones for Amphidamas of Chalkis, which indicate a taste for the public and the heroic.1 "Princely," or "heroic" burials and tombs dating to the late 8th and early 7th centuries have been discovered at Eretria, Kyme, Pithekoussai, Cypriote Salamis, Athens, etc.2 At Eretria's West Gate were discovered burials and a heroon with dedications dating to 720 and later (see more below). It would seem, therefore, that this new fashion in aristocratic burials developed about the same time when aristocrats, as oikists, were leading people to colonize. Considering all this, we may be reasonably certain as to when the custom of honouring oikists as heroes began (see also below on hero cults). It began at the time of the first waves of the colonization movement of the 8th century. But the significant novelty of the oikist cults was less in its heroic aspect than in terms of its political significance. The cult was not dedicated to a merely prominent member of the society - like Amphidamas at Chalkis or Glaukos 1 Hesiod Erga 651-659. Cf. Roller (1977: 6-8). 2 Coldstream (1977: 349-351).



at Thasos. 3 It was accorded, rather, to the founder and guardian of the polis itself. Therefore, we now arrive at the question: was the polis-cult for the oikist a colonial innovation or was it modelled on precedents of "cults for founders of poleis" in the mother-cities? This question is closely connected with two of the major developments of the Greek renaissance: the rise of the polis itself and the significant new characteristics of hero cults in general. (a) The rise of the polis: By suggesting that colonial oikist cults were modelled on precedents found in the mother-cities we would be presupposing that the "polis" existed before the beginning of the colonization movement.4 But this is not at all certain, since the most accurate statement which can be made as to "when did the Greek polis rise?" is: "the 8th century." In fact, the very term "rise" which is rather ambiguous, was used by Ehrenberg (1938) precisely in order to circumvent any pinpointing. Our knowledge concerning the rise of the polis is simply insufficient and too open to speculation. Interpretations of relevant passages in Greek authors, especially Homer and Hesiod, depend in the final analysis on our decision as to what period or circumstances these passages reflect. Material evidence is also open to various interpretations. The case of Old Smyrna is indicative: its 9th century wall, which was first taken to signify an earlier date for the po/is-community, clearly allows for different explanations.5 On the other hand, evidence for Old Smyrna's urban planning, which should have been able to offer more explicit dating confirmation for the polis, is, as we have seen,6 evidently at least one generation later (ca. 700) than the colony Megara Hyblaia (ca. 730). Elsewhere, even when we take into consideration finds from Lefkandi and Eretria, we are still left with 8th century dates for the "polis." 7 3 ML 3. Glaukos probably played an important role in the life of Thasos (perhaps even in its foundation) but he was not an oikist. See also Pouilloux (19S5). 4 We find it curious that most of the recent writers on the rise of the polis (we have not seen Luce, 1978), although well aware that it is extremely difficult to establish any order of "beginnings" in the 8th century, still insist that colonies followed the rise of the polis. Austin and Vidal-Naquet, for example, while rightly stating that "any search for 'origins' is in fact a forecast of the future. Any argument can be made to stand on its head." (1977: 51) - confidently state a page earlier that since colonies "reproduced institutions" (which? when? nomima?) of the mother-cities this is a "clear proof of the existence of the polis from the start of the colonization movement." Cf. Starr (19S7); Thomas (1966). Hammond prudently concentrates on Sparta (1982: 738-744). We are much closer in our views to the doubts raised by Snodgrass (1977: 33). We intend to return to the question of "colonization and the rise of the polis" in a separate study. s Cook (19S8); (1982: 202-203). Cf. Starr (19S7: 99); Snodgrass (1980: 33). 6 See above, p. 164n.143. 7 For possible earlier evidence at Eretria see Kahil (1980: S27); (1981: p. xv). For Lefkandi see Popham; Sackett (1979-80).



All this is characteristic of the state of our knowledge of 8th century Greece and of our basic problem: if most of the major developments of the Greek renaissance were more or less contemporary, how is it possible to establish an order of precedence or relations of cause and effect? Not everything that happened in colonization was necessarily modelled on a precedent, nor was everything an import or an imitation of the "mother­ city." Greek colonization, which was one of the major social forces in the archaic period, was also a positive and creative force. It is simply not true, for example, that Greeks in the 8th century always had a model of a polis at home which they could import to their colony: "Achaia" was not a polis yet Achaians founded many important colonies. 8 The need implied in colonization to create a society ex novo required conceptualizing what the social unit was and what the ideal type should be. Colonization, while creating new poleis, provided also the opportunity for refining and defining the polis both in practice and in theory: credit fo r such developments is due to the oikists, who were both leaders and creators of these settlements. In short, it is our opinion that colonization contributed just as much towards the rise of the polis as it was dependent on this "rise" for its own existence. The evidence for po/eis-founder-cults in the older Greek communities is usually much later than in the colonies and the heroes themselves are mostly legendary or fictitious eponyms. We tentatively suggest that the colonial cult of historical founders provided the impetus for the creation of similar cults in the older Greek world. It was in the colonies that the new custom of dedicating a cult to the actual founder of the polis developed. Later, this focus on historical beginnings, would prompt the older Greek communities to ask about their own foundation and often to invent for themselves an oikist. These hypotheses would need to be examined in a wide-ranging study which is outside the scope of this work. One other direction such a study will have to take would be a synthesis of our opinions and knowledge about 8th century hero cults. (b) Hero cults: Just as with other aspects of Greek religion, hero cults in the 8th century are viewed by scholars either as a new phenomenon or in terms of continuity. The supporters of continuity may vary in their specific views, but essentially they regard hero cults as a continuing phenomenon reaching through the Dark Age(s) to the 8th century. Rohde, for example, claims that hero cults are a continuation of ancestor worship; 9 heroes and hero cults are not absent from 8 Anderson (1954: esp. 76ff.). Cf. Snodgrass (1977: 33). 9 Rohde (1925: esp. 146-199).



Homer (e.g., Hack, Hadzisteliou Price)'° and their relative insignificance in the Iliad and Odyssey may be due, as Nagy thinks,11 to the predominance of the heroes' panhellenic, epic aspect (kleos) over their local, cultic aspect (time). Archaeological evidence dating from the 8th century reveals a change of attitudes towards the dead. This is apparent in representations on Geometric vases, in new dedications placed in ancient tombs, in certain magnificent aristocratic burials ("princely tombs") and probably even in newly constituted heroic cults at these burials (see below on Eretria). Adherents of the continuity thesis would claim that these findings indicate an important development in hero cults from previous practices. Their opponents regard these findings as evidence that hero cults were essentially a new phenomenon of the 8th century. For example, Farnell's thesis that the Homeric epic provided the impetus for hero cults by presenting a model for emulation, was adopted and substantiated by Coldstream.12 Snodgrass, while accepting and defending discontinuity and novelty offers an alternative explanation: hero cults emerge as a new aristocratic claim and justification for the possession of land, since hero cults provided the necessary connection with the soil.13 The conflict between these two schools of thought is similarly apparent in the varying interpretations of 8th century society and aristocracy. It is, for example, unclear whether the aristocratic genos (or other "kinship" groupings) was an old institution or a new creation of the 8th century.14 Our understanding of the genos must influence our interpretation, for example, of the her6on at the West Gate at Eretria: was it a private cult place of a specific kinship group or a public heroon? 15 We could have hoped that the newly discovered aristocratic "princely," or "heroic" burials would have revealed to us where or when such burials began. But again we are faced with the same problem: the evidence for these tombs in both the colonies (e.g., Pithekoussai, Kyme) and the older Greek communities (e.g., Eretria, Salamis in Cyprus) is about contemporary and no order of precedence can be determined.

JO Hack (1929); Hadzisteliou Price (1973); (1979). 11 Nagy (1979: esp. 114-117). See also: Schefold (1971); (1972); Ahlberg (1971). Cf. Carter (1972). 12 Coldstream (1976); (1977: Ch. 14). 13 Snodgrass (1980: 38-40). Note also Abramson (1981) for a general discussion of the problem and an interesting treatment of a shrine in Sounion. An illuminating statement of the problem and its other categories is made by Humphreys (1980) as well as a detailed discussion of tomb cults in Athens. See also Roller (1977: esp. chs. ii, iii). Cf. Snodgrass (1982). 14 Roussel (1976); Bourriot (1976). JS Berard (1970); (1978); cf. Coldstream (1977: 1%-197); Vidal-Naquet (1981b: 173). Contra: Rolley (1974); Auberson (1975). Cf. de Polignac (1984: 140-151).



To sum up: it is futile at this stage to try to make clear-cut distinctions concerning facts about "beginnings" in the 8th century. Any argument can be made to stand on its head. Thus, for example, Eretria - a major mother-city - was itself not "founded" as an urban center before the 8th century.16 We do not and cannot know exactly how or where oikist cults originated. We incline to the following explanation, offered as a tentative hypothesis. The 8th century aristocracy, to whose milieu oikists also belonged, certainly practiced some new form of "heroic" or "princely" burials both in the colonies and in the mother-cities, contemporaneously. Whether these burials constituted some form of continuation from an older cult or a new practice is unclear. What is clear is that aristocrats in the 8th century actually practiced this new type of heroic burial and that when such a burial was associated with an oikist, the ensuing cult was not practiced as a private, aristocratic cult but rather as a public cult of the polis as a whole. If we care to seek a "model" or a precedent for these cults, then the hero or ancestor cults which were possibly practiced before the 8th century in the form of private cults, could have served as the "model" on which the public cult of the po/is-founder was developed. But the question of precedents is of minor importance in view of the fundamental social and political transformation which the polis-founder­ cults represent. Instead of a private cult for the archegetes of an aristocratic clan, the oikistes-archegetes cult accorded by the colony to its founder was conceived of and practiced as the cult of the whole polis community. The transformation from private to public cult - which is characteristic of other aspects of the religion of the polis in later periods - is thus expressed also in the cults for the founders of colonies. It would appear that the transformation to the public cult took place first in the colonies where it was probably facilitated by the more flexible circumstances of a new foundation. The personal prominence and importance of oikists in situations of planned, consciously executed and concentrated foundations was something concrete and real. In contrast to the older Greek communities, the colonies were not the result of local developments or synoikisms; the role of the "founder" in colonies was therefore more crisply defined. As long as he was alive, the cohesion of the new community depended on the oikist(s); once dead - since most colonies rejected kingship - no single autokrator replaced him. Thus the need for a symbolic substitute probably emerged and found its answer in the extension of the heroic-type burial current in the later 8th century into the public cult of the polis accorded to its founder and guardian-hero. In addition there may have been a religious reason why the oikist cult probably emerged first in the colonies. Since colonies were founded in the 8th 16 See note 7 above and in general Coldstream (1977: Ch. 12).



century in distant places with no previous tradition of Greek cult (this must be distinguished from mythological associations such as "Herakles in Sicily") the cult of the oikist would have fulfilled the need of creating a bond with the soil of the site. This bond was unique to each colony since it was created not throught the practice of imported cults (in which members of the home communities retained a share 17 ), but through the cult to its very own heros, its polissouchos. To conclude: the cults for founders of cities which in later periods also served as a basis for the ruler-cults in the Hellenistic and Roman periods - seem to have been the creation of Greek colonies. Only later, with the further developments in the polis communities, did poleis in the older Greek world invent for themselves clearly identifiable, oikistai and archegetai. It was the colonies which apparently inspired the need for founder cults in the mother­ cities, not the other way around. P. Leveque and P. Vidal-Naquet (1964) indicate the right approach when they claim that Kleisthenes the Athenian modelled the cult of Athens' Ten Archegetai on the colonial world. This approach ought to be extended, we think, to the legendary and eponymous "founders" of the other Greek poleis. 17 E.g., Thuc. 1.25.4. See Graham (1971: 160f.); (1982: 153).


Abramson, H., 1981. "A Hero Shrine for Phrontis at Sounion?" California Studies in Classical Antiquity. 12:1-19. Adamesteanu, D., 1962. "L'ellenizzazione della Sicilia ed ii momenta di Ducezio." Koka/os 8:167-198. - , 1973. "Le suddivisioni di terra nel Metaponto." In: Problemes de la terre en Grece ancienne. Ed. M. l. Finley. Paris. La Haye. 49-62. - , 1974a. La Basilica/a antica. Storia e monumenti. Di Mauro Editore. - , 1974b. "Problemi topografici ed urbanistici metapontini." Metaponto, Atti del Xlll convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 14-19 ottobre 1973: 153-186; 33; 44; 45. Naples. Adriani, A., Bonacasa, N., Di Stephano, C. A., Joly, E., Manni Piraino, M. T., Schmiedt, G., Tusa Cutroni, A., 1970. Himera I. Campagne di Scavo 1963-1965. Rome. Ahlberg, G., 1971. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art. Lund. Alexander, J. A., 1962. "Thucydides and the Expedition of Callias against Potidaea, 432 B.C." AJP 83:265-287. Alexiou, M., 1974. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Cambridge. Alty, J. H. M., 1982. "Dorians and Ionians." JHS 102:1-14. Aly, W., 1957. Strabon von Amasia: Untersuchungen uber Text, Aufbau und Quellen der Geographica. (Strabonis Geographica Bd.4) Bonn. Amandry, P., 1939. "Convention religieuse conclue entre Delphes et Skiathos." BCH 63:183-219, pis. XLIV-XLV. - , 1950. La mantique apollinienne a Delphes. Essai sur la fonctionnement de )'oracle. Paris. - , 1956. "Les themes de la propagande delphique." (Review article). Revue de Philologie 30:268 -282. - , 1959. "Oracles, litterature et politique." (Review article). REA 61:400-413. Anderson, J. K., 1954. "A Topographical and Historical Study of Achaea." BSA 49:72-92. Andrewes, A., 1978. "The Opposition to Perikles." JHS 98:1-8. Arnheim, M. T. W., 1977. Aristocracy in Greek Society. London. Asheri, D., 1966. "Distribuzioni di terre nell'antica Grecia." Memoria dell'Accademia de/le scienze di Torino. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche: Ser. 4, no. 10. - , 1967. "Studio sulla storia della colonizzazione di Anfipoli sino alla conquista Macedone." Rivista di Filologia 95:5-30. - 1969. "Note on the Site of Brea: Theopompus F145."AJP 90:337-340. - , 1970. "Note on the Resettlement of Gela under Timoleon." HISTORIA 19:618-623. - , 1972. "Uber die Friihgeschichte von Herakleia Pontike." Forschungen an der Nordkuste Kleinasiens, bd. 1. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophie-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften 106 Band. Ergiinzungsbande zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris, Nr. 5. Vienna. - , 1975. "Osservazioni sulle origini dell'urbanistica lppodamea." Riv. Stor. Ital. 87:5-16. - , 1980. "La colonizzazione greca." In: E. Gabba, G. Vallet, La Sicilia antica I.I: Indigeni, Fenici-Punici e Greci. Naples. 89-142. Auberson, P., 1975. "Chalkis, Lefkandi, Eretrie au VIile siecle." Cahiers du centre Jean Berard 2. Naples. Austin, M. M., 1970. "Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Suppl. no. 2. Austin, M. M., Vidal-Naquet, P., 1977. Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction. London.



Aymard, A., 1938. Les assemblies de la confederation achaienne. Paris. Bakhuizen, S. C., 1976. Chalcis-in-Euboea, Iron and Cha/cideans Abroad. Chalcidean Studies 3. Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society, vol. 5. Leiden. Bacci, G., 1978. "Ceramica dell'VIII e VII secolo a.C. a Messina." Cronache di Archeologia XVII:100-103. lnsediamenti coloniali greci in Sicilia nell'V/11 e VII secoli a.C. Atti della 28 riunione scientifica della scuola di perfezionamento in archeologia classica dell'Universita di Catania. Barker, E., 1946. The Politics of Aristotle. Translated with an introduction, notes, and appendixes. London. Oxford. New York. (Reprint 1976). Barnett, R. D., 1953. "Mopsos." JHS 73:140-143. Bauer, A., Frost, F. J., 1966. Themistokles. Literary, Epigraphical and Archaeological Testimonia. Chicago. Beaumont, R. L., 1936. "Greek Influence in the Adriatic Sea before the 4th Century." JHS 56:159-204. Belin de Ballu, E., 1972. 0/bia. Cite antique du littoral nord de la mer noire. Leiden: Brill. Bengtson, H., 1939. "Einzelpersonlichkeit und athenischer Staat." Sitz. Bayr. Akad. Heft 1:7-67. Berard, C., 1970. Eretria. Fouilles et recherches, vol. 3. L'heroon a la porte de l'ouest. Berne. - , 1972. "Le sceptre du prince." Museum He/veticum 29:219-227. - , 1978. "Topographic et urbanisme de l'Eretrie archaique: l'Heroon." Eretria. Fouilles et recherches, vol. 6. 89-95. - , 1982. "Recuperer la mort du prince: heroisation et formation de la cite." In: Gnoli, G., Vernant, J. P. 1982, La mort, /es morts dans /es societes anciennes. Cambridge. Berard, J., 1957. La Colonisation grecque de l'Italie meridiona/e et de la Sicile dans l'antiquite. Seconde edition revue et mise a jour. Paris. - , 1960. L'expansion et la colonisation grecques jusqu'aux guerres mediques. Aubier, editions montaigne. Paris. Berchem, D. van, 1967. "Sanctuaires d'Hercule-Melquart. Contribution a l'etude de !'expansion phenicienne en Mediterranee." Syria 44:73-109; 307-336. Bergquist, B., 1967. The Archaic Greek Temenos. A Study of Structure and Function. Lund. -, 1973. Herakles on Thasos. Acta University of Uppsala. Uppsala. Bernabo Brea, L., Cavalier, M., 1959. My/ai. Novara: Istituto geographico de Agosini. Bernabo Brea, L., 1965. Contribution to Studi sul/a Magna Grecia 1965:63-65. Berve, H., 1937. Miltiades. Studien zur Geschichte des Mannes und seiner Zeit. Berlin. - , 1953. "Zur Herscherstellung der Deinomeniden." In: Studies presented to D. M. Robinson II, St. Louis. 537-552. - , 1958. (Review of Parke and Wormell, 1956). Gnomon 30:417-429. Betant, E. A., 1843-7. Lexicon Thucydideum. Geneva. Bilabel, F., 1920. Die lonische Kolonisation. Philologus: Supplementband 14, Heft I. Leipzig. Bloch, R., 1963. Les prodiges dans l'antiquite classique. Paris. Blumenthal, E., 1963. Die altgriechische Siedlungskolonisation im Mittelmeerraum unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Siidkiiste Kleinasiens. Tiibingen. Boardman, J., 1980. The Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade. New and enlarged edition. London. Boehringer, C., 1968. "Hierons Aitna und das Hieroneion." JNG 18:67-98. Bohringer, F., 1979. Cultes et actes fondateurs de la cite grecque (8eme-7eme siecles). Doctoral Thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Paris. -, 1980. "Megare: traditions mythiques, espace sacre et naissance de la cite." AC 49:5-22. Bonacasa, N., 1976. "Himera, a Greek City of Sicily." Archaeology 29:42-51. Dosi, R., 1980. Les cites grecques d'Occident. (French tr. Paris, 1982). Bosworth, A. B., 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander. Oxford. Bouche-Leclercq, A., 1879-82. Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquite. Paris. Bourriot, F., 1976. Recherches sur la nature du genos. Lille. Bousquet, J., 1963. "Inscriptions de Delphes: le Heros Phylakos." BCH 87:191-196. Boyd, T. D., Jameson, M. H., 1981. "Urban and Rural Land Division in Ancient Greece." Hesperia 50:327-342.



Brackertz, U., 1976. Zum Problem der Schutzgottheiten griechischer Stiidte. Diss. Berlin. Braun, F. T. R. G., 1982. "The Greeks in Egypt." CAJl2 Vol. III pt.3 ch. 36b. Bravo, 8., 1974. "Une lettre sur plomb de Berezan: colonisation et modes de contact dans le Pont." Dialogues d'histoire anciennce. Annales litteraires de l'Universite de Besan�on 166:110-187. Brelich, A., 1958. Gli eroi greci: un problema storico religioso. Rome. - , 1965. "La religione greca in Sicilia." Kokalos 10-11 :35-54. Bron, F., 1979. Recherches sur /es inscriptions pheniciennes de Karatepe. Centre de recherches d'histoire et de philologie de la IVe section de !'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Geneve. Brunel, J., 1948. "Marseille et Jes fugitifs de Phocee." REA 50:5-26. - , 1953. "A propos des tranferts des cultes: un sens meconnu du mot ciq,i6puµa." Revue de Philologie 27:21-33. Buck, C. D., 1955. The Greek Dialects. (Midway reprint 1973). Chicago. Burkert, W., 1977. Griechische Religion der archaischen und k/assischen Epoche. Stuttgart. Berlin. Koln. Mainz. Burstein, S. M., 1976. Outpost of Hellenism: the Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea. Berkeley. - , 1979. "Heraclea Pontica: the City and Subjects." Anew 2:25-28. Biising, H., 1978. "Battos." In: Thiasos, ed. Thuri Lorenz= Castrum Peregrini 132/3:51-79. Busolt, G., 1893-1904. Griechische Geschichte bis zur Sch/acht bei Chaeroneia. 2nd ed. Gotha. Burelli, L., 1972. "Echi di vita coloniale in Aristofane e nei frammenti della comedia attica e dorica." ASNP Ser. 3 Vol. 11,1:105-113. Carter, J., 1972. "The Beginning of Narrative Art in the Greek Geometric Period." BSA 61:25-58.

Cartledge, P., 1979. Sparta and Lakonia. A Regional History /300-362 B.C. London. Casabona, J., 1966. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec, des origines a la fin de /'epoque classique. Diss. Universite de Paris. Faculte des lettres et sciences humaines. Casevitz, M., 1985. Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien. Paris. Cassirer, E., 1940. Language and Myth. Tr. by S. K. Langer. New York. Castagnoli, F., 1971. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity. Tr. by V. Caliandro. Cambridge, Mass. Cerfaux, L., Tondriau, J., 1957. Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation greco-romaine. Belgium. Chamoux, F., 1953. Cyrene sous la monarchie des Battiades. Bibi. des Ecoles fran�aises d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 177. Paris. Ciaceri, E., 1911. Cu/ti e miti nella storia di Sicilia. Catane. - , 1927-8. Storia de/la Magna Graeca. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Milano. Coldstream, J. N., 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local Styles and their Chronology. London. - , 1976. "Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer." JHS 96:8-17. - , 1977. Geometric Greece. New York. Compernolle, R. van, 1953. "la date de la fondation d'Apollonie d'Illyrie." AC 22:50-64. - , 1951. "Les Deinomenides et le culte de Demeter et Kore a Gela." Hommage a W. Deonna. Coll. Latomus 28:474-479. Cook, A. 8., 1914. (Preface date). Zeus. A study in Ancient Religion. I. (Reprint ed. 1964: Biblo and Tannen). New York. Vol. II.I: 1925 (preface date). (Reprint ed. 1965). Vol. 11.2: 1925 (preface date). Vol. III.I: 1940. Vol. III.2: 1940. Cook, J. M., 1958. "Old Smyrna: 1948-1951 (pis. 1-6). I The site and its environs" 1-8. II The History of Old Smyrna." 9-34. BSA 53. - , 1982. "The Eastern Greeks." CAJl2 Vol. III pt.3 ch. 39a. Corbett, P. E., 1970. "Greek Temples and Greek Worshippers: the Literary and archaeological evidence." BICS 17:149-158. Corsano, M., 1979. "Sparte et Tarente: le mythe de fondation d'une colonic." RHR 196.2: 113-140. Crahay, R., 1956. La litterature oracu/aire chez Herodote. Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophic et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege 138. Paris. Craik, E. M., 1980. The Dorian Aegean. London.



Crigitsky,S. D., Roussijaeva, A.S., 1980. "Les plus anciennes habitations d'Olbia." Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 6:73-100. Curtius,E., 1867-9. Griechische Geschichte. 3 vols. Berlin. 1871-4 tr. A.W.Ward. New York. Daremberg,C.,Saglio,E., 1877-1919. Dictionnaire des antiquitis grecques et romaines. (reprint 1969.) Graz. Daux, G., 1948. 'YnEP suivi de l'accusatif dans Jes inscriptions dialectales." REG 35:32-64. -, 1949. " Un reglement cultuel d'Andros (Ve siecle av. J.-C.)." Hesperia 18:58-72. - , 1%2. "Chronique des fouilles et decouvertes archeologiques en Grece en 1%1." BCH 86:629-978. - , 1963. "Chronique des fouilles et decouvertes archeologiques en Crece en 1%2." BCH 87:689-878. Davies, J. K., 1971. Athenian Propertied Families. Oxford. Deas, H.T., 1931. "TheScholia Vetera to Pindar." HSCP42:l-78. Defradas, J., 1972. Les themes de la propagande delphique. 2e tirage revue et corrige. Paris. Delcourt, M., 1938. Stirilitis mysterieuses et naissances malifiques dans l'antiquiti classique. Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophic etLettres de l'Universite deLiege, fasc. 83.Liege. - , 1942. Ligende et cultes de hiros en Grece. Mythes et religions, collection dirigee par P.L. Couchord. Paris. - , 1955. l'Oracle de Delphes. Paris. Deroy, L., 1950. "Le culte du Foyer deans la Grece mycenienne." RHR 138: 26-43. Desborough, V. R. D'A, 1952. Protogeometric Pottery. Oxford. Des Places, E. S. J., 1955. "Le Platon deTheodore!.Les citations desLois et de l'Epinomie." REG 68:171-184. - , 1%9. la religion grecque. Dieux, cultes, rites et sentiment religieux dans la Grece antique. Paris. Deubner, L., 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin. Diller, A., 1952. The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers.Lancaster. Pa. - , 1976. The Textual Tradition of Strabo's Geography. Amsterdam. Dodds,E. R., 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational.SatherClassicalLectures, vol. 25. Berkeley. Los Angeles. Doxiadis, C. A., 1972. Architectural Space in Ancient Greece.Cambridge, Mass. Drachmann, A. B., 1903. Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina. Vol. I scholia in Olympionicas. - , 1910. Vol. II scholia in Pythionicas.Leipzig. Drerup, H., 1969. Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit. Archl\eologia Homerica Kap. 0. Drews, R., 1983. Basileus. The Evidence for Kingship in Geometric Greece. New Haven.London. Drogemiiller, H.-P., 1969. Syrakus. Zur Topographie und Geschichte einer griechischen Stadt. 1 (Gymnasium Beiheft 6) Heidelberg. Ducat, J., 1974. "Les themes des recits de la fondation de Rhegion." Melanges helliniques offerts a George Daux. Paris. pp. 93-114. Dunbabin, T. J ., 1948. The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from The Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B.C. Oxford. Dusanic,S., 1978. "The opK1ov tci'>v o!K1attjprov and FourthCenturyCyrene." Chiron 8:55-76. Dzikowski, N., 1939. "The Olbian lnsc.-ipti.Jn CIG 2080 Rediscovered." JHS 59:84-91. Ehlers, W., 1933. Die Griindung von Zankle in den Aitia des Kallimachos. Diss. Friedrich Wilhelms-Universitiit zu Berlin. Ehrenberg, V., 1937. "When did the Polis Rise?" JHS 57:147-159. 1946. "Early AthenianColonies" in: Aspects of the Ancient World. Oxford. 1948. "The Foundation ofThurii." AJP69:149-170. 1957. The People of Aristophanes. 2nd ed. Oxford. 1%9. The Greek State. 2nd ed.London. England, E. 8., 1976. The laws of Plato; the text edited with introduction and notes byE. B. England. 2 vols. Reprint of the 1921 edition. New York: Arno Press. Erhardt, N., 1983. Mi/et und seine Kolonien. Frankfurt am Main. Ermatinger,E., 1897. Die attische Autotochtonensage bis auf Euripides, mit einer einleichtenden Darstellung der Bedeutung & Entwicklung der attischen Sage bis auf Euripides. Diss. Berlin. Farnell, L. R., 1904. "Sociological HypothesesConcerning the Position ofWomen in Ancient Religion." ARW 7:70-94.



1921. Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford. 1932. Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar. (1932 reprint edition 1%5 Adolf M. Hakkert) Amsterdam. 2 vols. - , (1971). The Cults of The Greek States. 5 vols. Reprint edition Chicago: Aegean Press. The following are dated according to prefaces: 1895: vols. I, II. 1906: vols. III, IV. 1909: vol. V. Feaver, D. D., 1957. "Historical development in the Priesthoods of Athens." YCIS 15:121-158. Fernandez-Galiano, M., 1956. Pindaro Olimpicas. Madrid. Ferri, S., 1927. "La lex cathartica di Cirene." Notiziario archeologico Annuario Ministerio Colonie. 4. Pis. XVI-XVII. -, 1929. "Note d'epigrafia cirenaica." Historia 3:399-400. Finley, M. I., 1973. Problemes de la terre en Grece ancienne. Sous la direction de M. I. Finley. Civilisations et societes, 33. Paris. La Haye. - , 1975. "Anthropology and the Classics." In: The Use and Abuse of History. New York. Flaceliere, R., 1948. "Sur quelques passages des Vies de Plutarque." REG 61:391-429. Fleischer, R., 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientates dans l'empire romaine. T. 35. Leiden. Fontenrose, J., 1978. The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses. California. Fornara, C. W., 1977. Archaic Times to the End of The Peloponnesian War. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. E. Badian, R. K. Sherk, Editors. Vol. I. Baltimore. Forrest, G., 1957. "Colonization and the Rise of Delphi." Historia 6:160-175. Foucart, M. P., 1878. "Memoire sur les colonies atheniennes au cinquieme et a quatrieme siecle." Academie des Inscriptions et Belles lettres. Ser. I vol. 9:323-413. Paris. -, 1922. "Le culte des Heros chez les Grecs." Academie des Inscriptions et Belles lettres. Vol. 42.1:1-166. Paris. Frazer, J. G., 1885. ''The Prytaneum, the Temple of Vesta, the Vestals, Perpetual Fires." Journal of Philology. 14:145-172. - , 1898. Pausanias' Description of Greece. Translated with a Commentary by J. G. Frazer. 6 vols. Reprint ed. 1965 New York: Biblo and Tannen. - , 1930. Myths of the Origins of Fire. Freeman, E. A., 1823-92. The History of Sicily from Earliest Times. 4 vols. Reprint ed. 1%5. New York: B. Franklin. French, E., Vanderpool, E., 1963. "The Phokikon." Hesperia 32:213-225. Frisk, H., 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Band I:A-Ko. -, 1970. Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Band II: Kp-0. Frost, F. J., 1966. See Bauer. -, 1980. Plutarch's Themistocles. A Historical Commentary. Princeton, N.J. Furley, W. D., 1981. Studies in the Use of Fire in Ancient Greek Religion. New York. Fustel de Coulanges, N. D., 1864. The Ancient City; a Study in the Religious Laws and institutions oJGreece and Rome. Translation of La cite antique by W. Small (1873). Reprint ed. New York. Gage, J., 1955. Apo/Ion romaine; essai sur le culte d'Apollon et le developpement du "ritus Graecus" a Rome des origines a Auguste. Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran�aises d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 182. Paris. Galitis, G. A., 1960. "'APXTJYc;-'APXTJYE't'TJc; tv tij tUTJVlKij ypaµµatEi� Kai 8pTJOKEi�" Athena 64:17-19. Gallet de Santerre, H., 1958. Delos primitive et archai'que. Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran�aises d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. I 92. Paris. Gardner, P., 1898. "A Themistoclean Myth." CR 12:21-23. Geniere, J. de la - see La Geniere, etc. Gerkan, A. von, 1924. Griechische Stiidteanlagen. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Stadtebaues im Altertum. Berlin. Gernet, L., 1932. Le genie grec dans la religion. Reprint ed. 1970. Paris. -, 1955. "Delphes et la pensee religieuse en Grece." Anna/es (ESC) 10:526-542. - , 1968. "Sur le symbolisme politique: le Foyer common." Reprint of Cahiers internationaux de sociologie: 1952. 22-43. In: Anthropologie de la Grece antique. Paris. Gianelli, G., 1963. Cu/ti e miti de/la Magna Grecia; contributo al/a storia piu antica de/le colonie



greche in occidente. 2nd ed. Universita di Napoli. Centro di Studi per la Magna Grecia. Firenze. Giangiulio, M., 1981. "Deformita eroiche e tradizioni de fondazione. Batto, Miscello e l'oracolo delfico." ASNP S.Ill Xl.1:1-24. Gierth, L., 1971. Griechische Griindungsgeschichten als Zeugnisse historischen Denkens vor dem Einsetzen der Geschichtsschreibung. Diss. Freiburg. Gildersleeve, B. L., 1899. The Olympian and Pythian Odes, with an introductory Essay, Notes, and indexes by Basil L. Gildersleeve. (1979). Reprint ed. New York: Arno Press. Giuliano, A., 1966. Urbanistica delle citta greche. Milano. Glotz, G., 1930. The Greek City and its Institutions. Tr. N. Mallinson. New York. Gnoli, G., Vernant, J. P., 1982. La mort, /es morts dans /es societes anciennes. Cambridge. Gomme, A. W., 1945. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. I. Oxford. - 1956. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. II. Oxford. - 1956. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. III. Oxford. - 1970. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. IV. Oxford. - 1981. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. V. Oxford. A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, K. J. Dover Gow, A. S. F., 1950. Theocritus, edited with a Translation and Commentary by A. S. F. Gow. 2 vols. Cambridge. Graham, A. J., 1960. "The Authenticity of the OPKION TON OIKIETHPON of Cyrene." JHS 80:94-111. -, 1971. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. Reprinted with minor corrections (1964). New York. -, 1978. "The Foundation of Thasos." BSA 73:61-98. - , 1982. "The Colonial Expansion of Greece;" "The Western Greeks." CAJ(l Vol. III pt.3 chs. 37, 38. -, 1984. "Religion, Women and Greek Colonization." ATTI Xl(N.S., I) 1980-1981:293-314. Griffin, A., 1982. Sikyon. Oxford. Griffo, P., Matt, L. von, 1968. Gela, The Ancient Greeks in Sicily. Translation. Greenwich Conn. Gruben, G., 1976. Die Tempel der Griechen. Miinchen. Guarducci, M., 1937. "La 'eschara' del tempio greco arcaico." SMSR 13:159-165. Guiraud, P., 1893. La propriete fonciere en Grece jusqu'a la conquete romaine. Institut de France - Academie des sciences morales et politiques. Paris. Guthrie, W. K. C., 1968. The Greeks and Their Gods. Reprint of 1950 ed. London. Habicht, C., 1956. Gottmenschentum und griechische Stiidte. Zetemata; monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft hft. 14. Miinchen. Hack, R. K., 1929. "Homer and the Cult of Heroes." TAPA 60:57-74. Hadzisteliou Price, T., 1973. "Hero-Cult and Homer." Historia 22: 129-144. - , 1979. "Hero Cult in the Age of Homer and Earlier." Arktouros. Studies presented to B.M. W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Edit. G. W. Bowersock, W. Burkert. Berlin. New York. pp. 219-228. Hagg, R., (ed), 1983. The Greek Renaissance of the 8th Century B.C. Tradition and Innovation (Proceedings of the second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1981). Stockholm. Haight, E. H., 1955. The Life of Alexander of Macedon by Pseudo Callisthenes. New York. Halliday, R. S., 1910-11. "Cenotaphs and Sacred Localities." BSA 17:182-192. Halliday, W. R., 1913. Greek Divination: A Study of its Methods and Principles. London. -, 1928. The Greek Questions of Plutarch with a New Translation and a Commentary. Oxford. Hamilton, J. R., 1969. Plutarch: "Alexander". A Commentary. Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L., 1967a. A History of Greece to 322 B.C. 2nd ed. Oxford. - , 1967b. Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas. Oxford. -, 1982. "The Peloponnese." CAJl2 Vol. III pt. I ch. 17. Hanell, K., 1934. Megarische Studien. Lund. Hans, L.-M., 1983. Karthago und Sizilien. Die Entstehung und Gestaltung der Epikratie au/ dem Hintergrund der Beziehungen der Karthager 1.u den Griechen und nichtgriechische Volkern Siziliens (VI-Ill Jh. v.Chr.) (Historische Texte und Studien. Bd. 7) Hildesheim-Ziirich-New




Head, 8. V., 1911. Historia Numorum. 2nd ed. Oxford. Hemberg, B., 19S4. "Tp1.toncit0>p und Tp1011poo�. Griechischer Ahnenkult in klassischen und mykenischen Zeit." Eranos S2:172-190. Hermann, W., 196S. "Santuari di Magna Grecia e delle madre patria." In: Santuari di Magna Grecia. Atti de! IV convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto-Reggio Calabria 11-16 ottobre 1964. Napoli.Pp. 44-S7. Herzog, R., Klaffenbach, G., 19S2. Asylieurkunden aus Kos. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin. Berlin. Heurgon, J., 19S7. Trois eludes sur le "ver sacrum". Collection Latomus vol. 26. Bruxelles. Hirst, G. M., 1902. "The Cults of Olbia." Part I. JHS 22:24S-267. -, 1903. "The Cults of Olbia." Part II. JHS 23:24-S3. Hock, G., 190S. Griechische Weihegebriiuche. Diss. Milnchen. Holloway, R. R., 1978. Review of Vallet, Villard, Auberson (1976). AJA 82:S60-S62. Holm, A., 1906. Vol. I of the History of Greece from its Commencement to the Close of the Independence of the Greek States. English tr. of Band. I 1886 Griechische Geschichte. London. Hommel, H., 1972. "Vesta und die frilhromische Religion." Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. 1.2.:397-420. - , 1980. Der Gott Achilleus. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch­ historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte Abh. 1. Heidelberg. How, W.W., Wells, J., 1912. A Commentary on Herodotus. 2 vols. Oxford. Humann, K., Kohte, J., 1904. Magnesia am Maeander; Bericht iiber die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1891 -1893. Berlin. Humphreys, S. C., 1966. "Colonie e madre patria nella Grecia antica." Riv. Stor. Ital. 78:912-921. - , 1980. "Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism?" JHS 100:96-126. Isaac, 8. H., 1986. The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden. Jacoby, F., 1941. "The Date of Archilochus." CQ 3S:97-109. Jeanmaire, H., 194S. "Le sustantif Hosia et sa signification." REG S8:66-89. Jeffery, L. H., 1961. "ThePact of the First Settlers at Cyrene." Historia 10:139-147. Judeich, W., 1931. Topographie von Athen. 2nd ed. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. 3. abt., Milnchen. Kahil, L., 1980. "Contribution a l'etude de l'Eretrie geometrique." I:THAH N. Kontoleon (in memoriam). Athens. pp. S2S-S31. - , 1981. "Eretrie au vm e siecle." REG 94:xv. Karasyov, A. N., 1964. "Monumental Remains of the Olbian Temenos." Akademia Nauk SSSR. lnstitut archeologii (Olvia). English summary: 129-130. Kern, 0., 1894. Die Griindungsgeschichte von Magnesia am Maiandros. Berlin. - , 1900. Die lnschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin. Kesteman, J.P., 1970. "Les ancetres de Gelon." AC 39:394-413. Kett,P., 1966. Prosopographie der historischer griechischer Manteis bis au/ der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen. Diss. Erlangen. Kirchberg, J., 196S. Die Funktion der Orakel im Werke Herodots. Hypomnemata Heft 11. Kirk, G. S., 1974. The Nature of Greek Myths. Penguin. Kraay, C. M., 1976. Archaic Greek Coinage. London. Kretschmer,P., 1920. "Mythische Namen; 6. Trigoneia und die Tritopatoren." Glotta 10:38-4S. Kron, U., 1971. "Zum Hypogiium von Paestum." Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archiiologischen lnstituts. 86:117-148. - , 1976. Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen: Geschichte, Mythos, Kutt und Darstellung. Mitteilungen des Deutschen archiiologischen lnstituts, Athenische Abteilung; Beiheft S. Berlin. Kurtz, D. C., Boardman, J., 1971. Greek Burial Customs. Apects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca, N.Y. La Geniere, J. de, 1977. "Reflections sur Selinonte et l'ouest sicilien." CRAI 1977:2S1-264. Lacroix, L., 196S. Monnaies et colonisation dans /'Occident grec. Academic royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques. Memoires, t.S8 fasc. 2. Bruxelles.



Lampros, S. P., 1873. De conditorum coloniarum graecorum indole, praemiisque et honoribus. Text in Greek. Diss. Leipzig. Langdon, M. K., 1976. A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos. Hesperia supplement 16. Princeton N.J.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Larsen, J. A. 0., 1953. "The Early Achaean League." In: Studies presented to David Moore Robinson on his Seventieth Birthday. Vol. II ed. G. E. Mylonas and D. Raymond, pp. 797-815. - , 1968. Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History. Oxford. Lazaridis, D., 1971. Thasos and its Peraia. (Ancient Greek Cities 5) Athens. Latte, K., 1928. "Ein sakrales Gesetz aus Kyrene." ARW 26:41-51. Leaf, W., 1915. "Rhesos of Thrace." JHS35:l-ll. Lenardon, R. J., 1978. The Saga of Themistocles. London. Lepore, E., 1%8. "Per una fenomenologia storica del rapporto citta-territorio in Magna Grecia." La cittil e ii suo territorio. Atti de! VII convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 8-12 ottobre 1967. Napoli. - , 1973. "Problemi dell'organizzazione della chora coloniale." In: Problemes de la terre en Grece ancienne. Ed. M. I. Finley, Paris. La Haye. 15-48. Lerat, L., I 952. Les Locriens de l'ouest. Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran�aises d' Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 176. Paris. Leschhorn, W., 1984. "Grunder der Stadt": Studien zu einem politisch-religiosen phiinomen der griechischen Geschichte. Palingenesia XX. Stuttgart. Leveque, P., 1973. "Colonisation grecque et syncretisme." Les syncretismes dans /es religions grecque et romaine. Colloque de Strasburg, 9-11 juin 1971. Paris (pub!. 1973). Leveque, P., Vidal-Naquet, P., 1964. Clisthene l'Athenien. Paris. Lo Porto, F. G., 1964a. "Satyrion (Taranto) - Scavi e richerche nel luogo del piu antico insediamento laconico in Puglia." NSA vol. 89 (ser. 8 vol. 18):177-279. - , 1964b. "Gli scavi sull'acropoli di Satyrion." Boll. d'Arte 49:67-80. - , 1971. "Topografia antica di Taranto." In: Taranto nella civiltil de/la Magna Grecia. Atti de! decimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 4-11 ottobre 1970. Napoli. Pp. 343-383. Lolling, H. G., 1881. "Mitteilungen aus Kleinasiens." Ath. Mitt. 6: 95-105. Lombardo, M., 1972. "Le concezioni degli antichi sul ruolo degli oracoli nella colonizzazione greca." Ricerche sulla colonizzazione greca. Ed. G. Nenci. ASNP S. 3, 2:63-89. Lonis, R., 1979. Guerre et religion en Grece il l'epoque classique: Recherches sur les rites, /es dieux, l'ideologie de la victoire. Paris. Loraux, N., 1981. Les en/ants d'Athena. Paris. Luce, J. V., 1978. "The Polis in Homer and Hesiod." Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (Section C) 78:1-15. Luria, S., 1926-7. "Mitteilungen und Nachrichten. Zur Rechtfertigung meiner Ergiinzung von IG J2 1." Klio 21:68-74. Maas, P., 1927. Review article of Wilamowitz (1927). Deutsche Literaturzeitung. 48.2:1951-1953. McDonald, W. A., 1943. The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 34. Baltimore. Maddoli, G., 1980. "II VI e ii V secolo a.C." In: E. Gabba, G. Vallet, La Sicilia antica J/.1: La Sicilia greca dal VJ secolo a/le guerre puniche. Naples. 3-102. Malkin, I., 1984. "What were the sacred Precincts of Brea? (IG 1 3 No. 46)." Chiron 14:43-48. - , 1985. "What's in a name? The Eponymous Founders of Greek Colonies." Athenaeum 63:114-130. - , 1986. "Apollo Archegetes and Sicily." ASNP S.111 vol. XVI 61-74. Manni, E., 1965. (A contribution to a discussion in:) Santuari di Magna Grecia. (See under STUDI). Pp. 78-79. - , 1980. "L'Oracolo delfico e la fondazione di Regio." Perennitas. Studi in onore di Angelo Brelich. Rome. Pp. 311-320. - , 1981. Geografia fisica e politico de/la Sicilia antica. Kokalos Suppl. Rome. Marconi, P., 1933. Agrigento arcaica. Rome. Mare, W. H., 1962. A Study of the Greek Broµ6c; in Classical Greek Literature. Diss. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.



Marinatos, N., 1981a. "Thucydides and Oracles." JHS 101:138-140. -, 1981b. Thucydides and Religion. Beitriige zur klassischen Philologie. Heft 129. Konigstein/Ts. Martienssen, R. D., 1956. The Idea of Space in Greek Architecture, with special reference to the Doric Temple and its Setting. Johannesburg. Martin, P. M., 1973. "Contribution de Denys d'Halicarnasse a la connaissance du ver sacrum." Latomus 32:23-38. Martin, R., 1951. Recherches sur l'agora grecque: eludes d'histoire et d'architecture urbaines. Bibliotheque des Ecoles fran�aises d'Athenes et de Rome. Paris. - , 1974. L'urbanism dans la Grece antique. 2nd ed. Paris. -, 1977. "Histoire de Selinonte d'apres les fouilles recentes." CRAI pp. 46-63. Martorana, G., 1976-77. "Recenti studi storico-religiosi sulla Sicilia antica." Kokalos 22-23:299-312. Meiggs, R., 1972. The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Meisterhans, K., 1885. Grammatik der attischen lnschriften. Berlin. Meritt, B. D., 1935. "Inscriptions of Colophon." AJP 56:358-397. - , 1961. "Greek Inscriptions." Hesperia 30:205-292. Merkelbach, R., 1967. "Die Heroen als Geber des Outen und Bosen." ZPE 1:97-99. Mertante, V., 1970. "Sulla cronologia di Dorieo e su alcuni problemi connessi." Historia 19:272-293. Mikalson, J. D., 1977. "Religion in the Attic Demes." AJP 98:424-435. Miller, S. G., 1978. The Prytaneion. Its Function and Architectural Form. Berkeley. Los Angeles. London. Minns, E. H., 1913. Scythians and Greeks. Cambridge. Moggi, M., 1976. / sinecismi interstatali greci; introduzione, edizione critica traduzione, commento e indici. Relazioni interstatali nel mondo antico: Fonti e Studi; 2. Pisa. Morel, J.-P., 1972. "Colonisation d'Occident. A propos d'un recent colloque." MEFRA 84:721-733. -, 1975. "L'expansion phoceenne en Occident: dix annees de recherches (1966-1975)." BCH 99:853-896. - , 1979. "Les Phoceens." L 'histoire 15 (Sept.):27-34. Morrow, G. R., 1960. Plato's Cretan City. A Historical Interpretation of the Laws. Princeton, N.J. Mosse, C., 1969. La colonisation grecque. Paris. - , 1980. "Ithaque ou la naissance de la cite," Archeologia e Storia antica 2:7-19. Nagy, 0., 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek poetry. Baltimore. London. Napoli, M., 1979. // Museo di Paestum. Napoli. Navarra, 0., 1964. Cittil sicane, sicule e greche nella zona di Ge/a. Palermo. Needham, J., 1953. "The Siting of Greek Buildings." Journal of the Royal Society of British Architects 60:180-185. Nenci, 0., 1976. BAPBAPOS IlOAEMOE fra Taranto e gli Iapigi e gli ANA8HMATA tarentini a Delfi." ASNP S.III VI.3:719-738. Newman, W. L., 1887-1902. The Politics of Aristotle. With an Introduction, two prefatory Essays and Notes Critical and Explanatory. Reprint ed. 1973. New York: Arno Press. Niese, 8., 1907. "Herodot-Studien besonders zur spartanischen Geschichte; Nachtriigliches zur Geschichte des Dorieus.'' Hermes 42:450-457. Nilsson, M. P., 1950. The Minoan Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. 2nd revised ed. Lund. -, 1957. Cults, Myths, Oracles and Politics in Ancient Greece. With two appendices: the Ionian Phylae, the Phratries. Reprint of 1957 ed. 1972. New York. -, 1961. Greek Folk Religion. Original ed. and title: 1940: Greek Popular Religion. Reprint ed. Philadelphia. - , 1969. Greek Piety. Tr. H. J. Rose. Reprint of the 1948 ed. New York. - , 1976. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Vol. I: Die Religion Griechenlands bis au/ die griechischen Weltherrschaft. 4th ed. = 3rd. ed. 1967. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft (Muller) 5:2: I. Miinchen.



Nissen, H., 1906-10. Orientation. Studium zurGeschichte der Religion. 3 vols. Berlin. Nock, A. D., 1942. "Religious Attitudes of the Ancient Greeks." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 85:472-482. - , 1944. "The Cult of Heroes." HTR 37:141-174. Ohly, D., 1965. "Kerameikos-Grabung, Tiitigkeitsbericht 1956-1961." AA 80:277-376. Oliver, J. H., 1950. The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestrallaw. Baltimore. Oliverio, G., Stele dei nuovi commandamenti e dei cereali. Documenti antichi dell'Africa ltaliana, II Cyrenaica fasc. I. Orlandini, P., 1966. "Lo scavo del Thesmophorion di Bitalemi e ii culto delle divinita ctonie a Gela." Kokalos 12:8-35. - , 1967. "Gela. Nuove scoperte nel Thesmophorion di Bitalemi." Kokalos 13:177-179. - , 1968a. "Gela: depositi votivi di bronzo premonetale nel santuario di Demetra Thesmophoros a Bitalemi." AIIN 12-14:1-20. - , 1968b. "Gela - topografia dei santuari e documentazione archeologica dei culti." Rivista dell'lstituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte. New Series, 15:20-66. Ostwald, M., 1969. Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian Democracy. Oxford. Papastavru, J., 1936. Amphipolis: Geschichte und Prosopographie. (Klio Beiheft 37) Leipzig. Parke, H. W., 1938. "Notes on Some Delphic Oracles." Hermathena 27:56-78. - , 1948. "Consecrations to Apollo. '1&Kat&li&1v tq> tv .1&)..oooic; 8&q>. Hermathena 72:82-114. - , 1956. The Delphic Oracle: see below. - , 1958. "Delphic Responses from Paros." CQ 52:90-94. -, 1962. "A Note on mitoµatilii> in Connexion with Prophecy." JHS 82:145-146. - , 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. Aspects ofGreek and Romanlife. Ithaca, N.Y. Parke, H. W., Wormell, D. E. W., 1956. The Delphic Oracle. l: The History; II: The Oracular responses. Oxford. Pease, A. S., 1917. "Notes on the Delphic Oracle and Greek Colonization." CP 12:1-20. - , 1920-3. M. Tu/Ii Ciceronis De Divinatione. Reprint ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1963. Pelagatti, P., 1964. "Naxos: Relazione preliminare delle campagne di scavo 1961-1964." Bolletino d'Arte 49:149-165. - , 1972. "Naxos, II: Ricerche topografiche e scavi 1965-1970. Relazione preliminare." Bolletino d'Arte 57:211-220. - , 1973. Archeologia nella Sicilia sud-orientate. Centre J. Berard. Naples. Pembroke, S., 1970. "Locres et Tarente: le role des femmes dans la fondation de deux colonies grecques." Anna/es (ESC). Sept.-Oct. 1970 5:1240-1270. -, 1981. "Myth." In: Thelegacy ofGreece. Ed. M. I. Finley. Oxford. pp. 301-324. Perdrizet, P., 1910. Cultes et mythes du Pongee. Annales de l'Est. 24\e annee. Fasc. I. Paris. Nancy. Perrin, 8., 1901. Plutarch's Themistocles and Aristides. Yale University bicentennial publications. Pfeiffer, R., 1949. Callimachus Edidit Rudolfus Pfeiffer. Volumen I. Fragmenta. Oxford: 1949. Volumen II. Hymni et Epigrammata. Oxford: 1953. Pfister, F., 1909. Part I. Der Reliquienkult im Altertum. - , 1912. Part II. Der Reliquienkult im Altertum. (Single Volume). RGVV V.1,2. Giessen. Picard, C., 1922. Ephese et Claros; recherches sur /es sanctuaires et /es cultes de l'lonie du Nord. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome; fasc. 123. Paris. Piccirilli, L., 1972. "Aspeti storico giuridici dell'anfizionia delfica e suoi rapporti con la colonizzazione greca." ASNP S.111 11.1:35-61. - , 1975. MErAPIKA. Testimonianze e frammenti. Pisa. Podlecki, A. J., 1975. Thelife of Themistocles. Montreal. London. Polignac, F. de, naissance de la cite grecque: cultes, espace et societe Ville- Vile avant J.-C. Paris.• Pollard, J. R. T., 1977. Birds inGreeklife and Myth. Aspects of Greek and Roman life. London. Popham, M. R., Sackett, L. H., 1979-80.lefkandi l. London. Popp, H. F., 1957. Die Einwirkung von Vorzeichen, Opfern und Festen auf die Kriegfiihrung der Griechen im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Diss. Erlangen. Wiirzburg.



Pouilloux, J., 1954. Recherches sur /'histoire et /es cu/tes de Thasos. I. De /a fondation de la cite a /96 av. J.-C. Ecole fran�aise d'Athenes. Etudes Thasiennes III. Paris. - , 1955. "Glaucos: fits de Leptine, Parien," BCH 79:75-85. -, 1963. "Archiloque et Thasos: histoire et poesie." In: Fondation Hardt X. Paris. -, 1982. "La fondation de Thasos: archeologie, litterature et critique historique." Rayonnement grec. Hommages a Charles Delvoye. Bruxelles. pp. 91-101. Preuner, A., 1864. Hestia-Vesta. Tiibingen. Prinz, F., 1979. Griindungsmythen und Sagenchronologie. Zetemata. Heft 72. Miinchen. Pritchett, W. K., 1971. Ancient Greek Military Practices. (Later published under the title: The Greek States at War, Part I). Berkeley. Los Angeles. - , 1979. The Greek States at War. Part III: Religion. Berkeley. Los Angeles. Pugliese Carratelli, G., 1962. "Santuari extramurani in Magna Grecia." PP 17:241-246. -, 1965. "Culti e dottrine religiose in Magna Grecia." Santuari di Magna Grecia. Atti del IV convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto-Reggio Calabria 11-16 ottobre 1964. Napoli. Pp. 19-45. -, 1970. "Nascita di Velia." PP25:7-18. Puttkamer, F., 1912. Quo modo Graeci victimarum carnes distribuerint. Diss. Regimonti. Radermacher, L., 1927. "Heilige Gesetze." Anzeiger der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften 63:182-188. Raoul-Rochette, D., 1815. Histoire critique de l'etablissement des colonies grecques. Vols. I-IV. Paris. Reinhold, M., 1970. History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity. Collection Latomus v. 116. Bruxelles. Reverdin, D., 1945. La religion de la cite platonicienne. These, Geneve. Paris. Rhodes, P. J., 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford. Rhousopoulos, A., 1896. "Das Monument des Themistokles in Magnesia." Ath. Mitt. 21:18-26. Ridgway, D., 1981-82. "Archaeology in South Italy. 1977-81." AR:63-83. Ritchie, W., 1964. The Authenticity of the Rhesus by Euripides. Cambridge. Robert, F., 1953. "Le sanctuaire de l'archegete ANIOS a Delos." RA 41:8-40. Robert, L., 1936. "Etudes d'epigraphie grecque xlvi. Decret de Kolophon." Rev. Phil. 158-168. -, 1960. "Hagia Marina en Phicide." He{{enica 10-11: 70-84. - , 1965. "Statues divines." HeUenica 13:120-125. - - . Other references to Robert's work are according to the year and publication number in BE. Robertson, M., 1975. A History of Greek Art. 2 vols. London. Roebuck, C., 1959. Ionian Trade and Colonization. Monographs on Archaeology and Fine Arts 9. New York: Archaeological Institute of America. Rohde, E., I925. Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in immortality among the Greeks. Tr. W. B. Hillis from the 8th ed. London. New York. Rohrbach, H. H., 1960. Kolonie und Drake/. Untersuchungen zur sakralen Begriindung der griechischen Kolonisation. Diss. Heidelberg. Roller, L. E., 1977. Funeral Games in Greek Literature, Art and Life. Diss. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Rolley, C., 1969. FD Vol. V. -, 1974. "Fouilles a Eretrie, archeologie, histoire, et religion." RA:307-311. - , 1983. "Les grands sanctuaires panhelleniques." In: Hagg, R. 1983. The Greek Renaissance of the 8th Century B.C. Tradition and Innovation. Stockholm. Rouse, W. H. D., 1902. Greek Votive Offerings. Reprint ed. New York 1975: Arno Press. Roussel, D., 1976. Tribu et cite. Paris. Roux, G., 1970. "Les prytanes de Delphes." BCH94:117-132. Rudhardt, J., 1958. Notions fondamentales de la pensee religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grece classique. Etude preliminaire pour aider a la comprehension de la piete athenienne au /Vme siecle. Geneve. Rutter, N. K., 1973. "Diodorus and the Foundation of Thurii." Historia 22:155-176. Sakellariou, M. 8., 1958. La migration grecque en Jonie. CoUection de l'lnstitut franrais d'Athenes, 17. These, Universite de Paris. Athenes: lnstitut fran�ais d'Athenes.



Salmon, E. T., 1970. Roman Colonization under the Republic. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca. Samter, E., 1901. Familienjeste der Griechen und Romer. Berlin. - , 1911. Geburt, Hochzeit und Tod. Leipzig. Berlin. Sanctis, G. de, 1927. "Le decretali di Cirene." Rivista di Filologia SS:18S-212. - , 1927-8. "Callimaco e Messina." AAT 63:112-117 (=idem, "Gli ecisti di Messina e Callimaco," Scritti minori I, Rome 1966, 43-48). Schaefer, H., 19S2. "Die verfassungsgeschichtliche Entwicklung Kyrenes im ersten Jahrhundert nach seiner Begriindung." RhM 9S:13S-170. (=idem, Probleme der a/ten Geschichte, Gottingen 1963, 222-2S2). - , 1960. "Eigenart und Wesenziige der griechischen Kolonisation." Heidelberger Jahrbucher 4:77-93 (=idem, Probleme der a/ten Geschichte, Gottingen 1963, 362-383). Schefold, K., 1971. Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art. - , 1972. "Poesie homerique et art archaique." RA 36:9-22. Schenk von Stauffenberg, A., 1960. "Dorieus." Historia 9:181-21S. - , 1963. Trinakria: Sizi/ier. und Gro,Pgriechenland in archaischer und fruhklassischer Zeit. Munich. Vienna. Schmid, 8., 1947. Studien zu griechischen Ktisissagen. Diss. Freiburg i.d. Schweiz. Schmidt, J., 1939. Heilige Berge Griechenlands in alter und neuer Zeit. Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch- neugriechischen Philologie. Nr. 37. Athen. Schmidt, W., 1908. Geburtstag im Altertum. RGVV VII. Giessen. Schmiedt, G., 1968-9. "Le ricerche sull'urbanistica delle citta italiote e siceliote." Kokalos 14-IS:397-427. Schoemann, G. F., 1897. Griechische Altertumer. 4th ed. revised: J. H. Lipsius. Erster Band: Das Staatswesen.

- , 1902. Zweiter Band: Die internationalen Verhaltnisse und das Religionswesen. Berlin. Schwenn, F., 1922. "Der Krieg in der griechischen Religion; V." AR W 21:S8-62. Scully, V., 1979. The Earth, The Temple and The Gods. Greek Sacred Architecture. Revised ed. New Haven. London. Semple, E. C., 1932. The Geography of the Mediterranean Region; its Relation to Ancient History. London. Servais, J., 1960. "Les suppliants dans la loi sacree de Cyrene." BCH 84:112-147. Sjoqvist, E., 1973. Sicily and The Greeks. Studies in the Interrelationship between the Indigenous Populations and the Greek Colonists. Ann Arbor. Snodgrass, A. M., 1977. Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State. Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge. - , 1980. Archaic Greece. The Age of Experiment. London. - , 1982. "Les origines du culte des heros dans la Grece antique." In: G. Gnoli, J. P. Vernant (ed.) La mort, /es morts dans /es societes anciennes. Cambridge. pp. 107-119. Sokolowski, F., 1949. "Sur un passage de la convention Delphes-Skiathos." Melanges, Charles Picard. Revue Archeologique 31-32:981-984. Sordi, M., 1974. "Propaganda politica e senso religioso nell'azione di Epaminonda." Propaganda e persuasione occulta nell'antichita. Contributi dell'lstituto di Storia antica. Vol. II. Milan. pp. 4S-S3. Starr, C. G., 19S7. "The Early Greek City-State." PP 12:97-108. Stengel, P., 1920. Die griechischen Kultusaltertumer. 3. Auflage. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft Bd. S Abt. 3. Miinchen. Stilwell, R., 19S4. "The Siting of Classical Greek Temples." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 13:3-8. Stroud, R. S.: 1971. "Inscription from the North Slope of the Acropolis, I." Hesperia 40:146-204. Stucchi, S., 196S. L 'agora di Cirene, I: I /ati nord ed est de/la p/atea inferiore: Monogr. di Archeol. Lib. VII. Rome. STUD! SULLA MAGNA GRECIA, 196S. Santuari di Magna Grecia. Atti del IV convegno. Taranto-Reggio Calabria 11-16 ottobre 1964. Napoli. - , 1968. La citta e ii suo territorio. Atti del VII convegno. Taranto 8-12 ottobre 1967. Napoli.



- , 1971. Taranto nel/a civiltil de/la Magna Grecia. Atti de! X convegno. Taranto 4-11 ottobre 1970. Napoli. - , 1974. Metaponto. Atti de! XIII convegno. Taranto 1973. Napoli. Tarditi, G. G., 19S6. "La nuova epigrafe Archilochea e la tradizione biografica del poeta." PP 11:122-139. Thomas, C. G., 1966. "Homer and the Polis." PP 21:S-14. Thomson, G., 196S. Studies in Ancient Greek Society. The Pre-historic Aegean. New York. Thompson, H. A., 1966. "Activity in the Athenian Agora." Hesperia 3S:37-S4. - , 1978. "Some Hero Shrines in Early Athens." In: Athens Comes of Age. From Solon to Salamis. Papers of A Symposium sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America, Princeton Society and the Department of Art and Archaeology Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Tod, M. N., 1946. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Vol. I. - , 1948. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Vol. II. Oxford. Tomlinson, R. A., 1976. Greek Sanctuaries. London. Tosi, G., 1966. "Contributo allo studio dei pritanei." Arte Antica e Moderna 33:10-20; ISl-172. Valenza Mele, N., 1977. "Hera ed Apollo nella colonizzazione euboica d'Occidente." MEFRA 89:493-S24. Vallet, G., 19S8. Rhegion et Zancle. Histoire, commerce et civilisation de cites cha/cidiennes du detroit de Messine. Paris. -, 1968. "La cite et son territoire dans les colonies grecques d'Occident." La cittil e ii suo territorio. Atti del VII convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 8-12 ottobre 1967. Napoli. Pp. 67-142. - , 1973. ''Espace prive et espace public dans une cite coloniale d'Occident Megara Hyblaea.'' In: Problemes de la terre en Grece ancienne. Ed. M. I. Finley. Paris. La Haye. Vallet, G., Villard, F., 19S2. "Les dates de la fondation de Megara Hyblaea et de Syracuse." BCH 76:289-346. -, 19S8. "La date de fondation de Selinonte. Les donnees archeologiques." BCH 82:16-26. Vallet, G., Villard, F., Auberson, P., 1976. Megara Hyblaea I, le quartier de /'agora archaique. Ecole fran�aise de Rome, Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire, Supplements I, 2 vols. Paris. Vallois, R., 1944. L'architecture hel/enique et hellenistique a Delos jusqu 'a /'eviction des Deliens (166 av. J.-C.). Bibliotheque des Ecole fran�aises d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 1S7. Paris. Vanderpool, E., 1981. See French, E. Vernant, J. -P., 1965. "Hestia-Hermes. Sur I'expression religieuse de I'espace et du movement chez les Grecs." Mythe et pensee chez /es Grecs. Paris. Pp. 124-170. (6ed. Paris, 1981). -, 1982. (see Gnoli, G., Vernant, J. P., above) Vian, F., 1963. Les origines de Thebes. Cadmus et /es Spartes. Paris. Vidal-Naquet, P., 1964. See Leveque, P. - , 1977. See Austin, M. M. - , 1981a. "Slavery and the Rule of Women in Tradition, Myth and Utopia." In: Myth, Religion and Society. Structuralist Essays by M. Detienne, L. Gernet, J.-P. Vernant and P. Vida/­ Naquet. Ed. R. L. Gordon, Cambridge. Pp. 187-200 (Eng. tr. of Vidal-Naquet, Le Chasseur Noir. Paris, 1981, pp. 267-288.

-, 1981b. "Recepies for Greek Adolescence." In: 1981a, pp. 163-18S. Villard, F., 1960. La ceramique grecque de Marseille. Paris. Virgilio, 8., 1972. "I termini di colonizzazione in Erodoto e nella tradizione preerodotea." AA T 106:34S-406. Vita, A. di, 1961. "Un contributo all'urbanistica greca di Sicilia, Casmene." Atti VII convegno internazionale di archeologia classica 2:77-99. Vitali, L., 1932. Fonti per la storia de/la religione Cyrenaica. Raccolte e commentate da Luisa Vitali. Padova. Vlasto, M. P., 1922. TAPAI: OIKII:THI: American Numismatic Society; Numismatic Notes and Monographs IS. Vogliano, A., 1928. "Nuovi studi sulle decretali di Cirene. L'esplorazione archeologica Italiana della Cirenaica." Rivista di Filologia S6:2SS-320. Vollgraff, M. W., 1951. "Inhumation en terre sacree dans l'antiquite grec." Academie des



Inscriptions et Belles Lettres de /'lnstitut de France, Memoires XIV.2 315-396. Paris. Wachsmuth, C., 1897. "Das Heroon des Themistokles in Magnesia a. M." RhM 52:140-143. Wade-Gery, H. T., 1932. "Thucydides the Son of Melesias." JHS 52:204-227. Waele, J. A. de, 1971. Acragas Graeca. Die Historische Topographie des griechischen Akragas auf Sizilien, I: Historischer Tei/. Archeol. Stud. Nederl. Hist. Inst. te Rome III, 's Gravenhage, 1971. Walbank, F. W., 1957. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. I. - , 1967. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. II. - , 1979. A Historical Commentary on Po/ybius. Vol. III. Oxford. Wassner, J., 1883. De heroum apud graecos cultu. Diss. Kiel. Welles, C. B., 1962. "The Discovery of Sarapis and the Foundation of Alexandria." Historia 11:271-298. Weniger, L., 1915. "Die Seher von Olympia." ARW 18:53-115. - , 1924. "Theophanien, altgriechische Gotteradvente." ARW 22:16,--58. Wentker, H., 1956. "Die Ktisis von Gela Bei Thukydides." MDAl(R) 63:129-139. Wever, J. de, 1966. "La Xcllpa massaliote d'apres Jes fouilles recentes." AC 35:71-117. West, A. B., 1929. Gold Coins from the Thracian Coast. American Numismatic Society; Numismatic Notes and Monographs no. 23. Wieneke, K. I., 1947. Greek Household Religion. Diss. Johns Hopkins. Baltimore. Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, U. von, 1886a. "Oropus und die Graer." Hermes 21:91-115. -, 1866b. /syllos von Epidauros. Berlin. - , 1895. "Die Herkunft der Magneten am Maeander." Hermes 30:177-198. - , 1922. Pindaros. Berlin. -, 1927. "Heilige Gesetze, eine Urkunde aus Kyrene." Sitzungsberichte der preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. June 16th 1927:155-177. - , 1956. DerG/aube der Hellenen. 2nd ed. First published 1931-1932, Berlin. Basel: B. Schwabe. Will, E., 1954. "Sur !'evolution des rapports entre colonies et metropoles en Grece a partir du '(I• siecle." la Nouvelle Clio 6:413-460. - • 1955. Korinihiaka. Recherches sur l'histoire et la civilisation de Corinthe des origines aux guerres mediques. Paris. Williams, F., 1978. Callimachus. Hymn to Apollo. A Commentary. Oxford. Wilson, R. J. A., 1981-82. "Archaeology in Sicily, 1977-81." AR:84-105. Woodhead, A. G., 1952. "The Site of Brea: Thucydides 1.61.4." CQ 46:57-62. Wuilleumier, P., 1939. Tarente des origines a la conquete romaine. Paris. Wycherley, R. R., 1962. How The Greeks built Cities. 2nd ed. Reprint ed. Norton Library 1976. New York. - , 1978. The Stones of Athens. Princeton, N.J. Young, R. S., 1951. "Sepulturae intra urbem." Hesperia 20:67-134. Zancani Montuoro, P., Zanotti-Bianco, U., 1951-4. Heraion allafoce de/ Sele. 2 vols. Rome. Ziehen, L., Prott, J. Eds., 1896-1906. leges graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae ediderunt et explanaverunt. Vol. 1-2. Pt. I. Leipzig.

* De Polignac is the same author as Bohringer (1979); (1980).

INDEX OF NAMES AND TERMS 11,54-56, 76,131,204,208, 220,223 56n.222,76,204 Abderos Abraham 37n.113 46,119,13l,132,263 Achaia 46 Acheloos Achilles 51,162,163n.133 144 Acropolis 88 Adeimantos 235,237 Adrastos Aegina 83n.383,130 196 Aeneas 89 aesymnetes 248 Aetolia 104 A�� Agamestor 35,75,76,84 250 Ageidai 120,231 Agesilaos 222,228,240 agones 11, Ch.IV passim,200-3 agora 83n.383 Aiakeion 83n.383 Aiakos 245n.30 Aiax Aigion 132 l90n.4,196,200,254 Aineia 82 Ainos 130 Aiolians 34 Aiolos 107n.87 Aion Plutonius 45, 46 Aisaros 150 Aison 50 Aithra 96,238 Aitna 45 Aitolia 243 Akademos 209,210,212 Akamantes Akamantis 210 Akamas 84n.392,210 15ln.72,192n.17,258,260 Akanthos Akarnania 45 Akragas 53,86,162,180-1, 238,259 177 Akrai 41,72 Aktaion 258 Akte Alalia 23, 72-3 /06-8, 185 Alexander The Great 107 Alexander the Telmissian Alexandria 8, /06-8, 109,113,130,185 Abdera

33,34,74n.334 Alkidamidas Alkidas 80 42,43 Alpheios 130,139 Amasis 207n.13 Amazons 17,107,145 Ammon 224 Ammonius 261 Amphidamas 207 Amphilochos 11,35,55, 75,76,8/-4, Amphipolis 153,159,202, 203n.91, 208, 228-32, 236,237,257n.100 37 anathema 99 Anaxagoras Anaxilas 33 196 Anchises 251,252 Androklos 258 Andros 249 Anios 153,210 Antenor Antenoridai 35,68,104n.80,153,154, 210,212 153 Antenoridon Lophon 253 Anthedai 253 Anthes Antichares 79,90 31,32,256n.96 Antimnestos 245n.30 Antiochos Antiphemos 52, 53,96n.19,189,194, 197,214,230,251,259,260 Antiphon 111 208 Aornum 37 aparche 118 Apaturia 233n.164 Apeia aphidromia 122n.38 aphanizein 232 aphidruma 69-72, 119,120,122



Apoikia 4 Apoikistai lOln.69,109,110 Apollo passim 72 Apollo Delphinios 104 Apollo Ismenios 181 Apollo Lykeios 152 Apollo of Klaros Apollonia (name of several colonies) 152 Apollonia (Illyrian) 86-8, 230,250



87n.412 177 Apsia 34,35,36 77 Apsinthians 231,236 Arateion 11,233-7 Aratos 249 Archegesion Archegetes 11,62,209,241-250, 258 Archegos 83,248 Archias 8,23,30,41-43, 93-97, 176, 210 151 Archidamos 55, 56-9 Archilochos 252 Archon Basileus 123 Ares 42,43,95, 177 Arethousa Argonautica 153 Argonauts 2,6,90,207 36,38,48,73,79n.363,80, Argos l16n.7,122n.38,237,249n.62 219n.88 Arion 83 Aristagoras 69-72, 119 Aristarcha 71 Arist.archeion 7ln.311 Ariste 118,245 Aristides 115 Aristides (Aelius) 127 Aristion 104n.78,105 Aristomenes 39,40n.135 Ariston 99 Aristophanes Aristophilides 205n.3 63,153 Aristoteles (Battos) 40,147 Aristotle 70 Aristoxene 48,49 Arkadia 63 Arkesilas l92n.l7 Artachaees Artemis 32,33,164 95 Artemis Alpheioa Artemis Ephesia 69-72, 119,146 33 Artemis Phaselitis 154 Artemision 32,34,74n.334 Artimedes Asia Minor 17,37 37 Asine 196 Askanios Athena 71,120,125,144,148,151,177, 213 152,201 Athena Polias Athena Syllania 2 164,177 Athenaion (Syracuse) Athens 5, 37,55, 71, 81-4, 84,106, 110,111,121,123,126,127,151,157, 196,201,211,212,226 ,228-32, 243, 252,253,254,255,258n.109,261 Apollonia Rhyndakia

Apollonion (Syracuse)

Athymbros 248,258 151,201,210,211,224,231 Attica Augustus 19 35,37n.114 Ausonia auspicia 92 autokrator 5, 13 207,208,212 Autolykos 67 Aziris 157 Babylon Bakchiadai 41 Bakidai 79n.362 Bakis 28,100,101,106,112 [B]aletium 219 Basileus 61,62 Battos 11,24,28,44, 60-9, 89,130, 139,153,154,155, 204-12, 246,247, 248,251,261 214-6, 252,261 Battos (tomb) Battos II 251 Battos III 141 118 Bendis Berezan 163n.133 207n.12 Bet Mopsu Birds (divination) 108-109 Birds, colony in the 8,99-100, 121 Bitalemi 142n.32,162,180 247 Bithynia Black Korkyra 157,251 Black Sea 2,162 Boeotia 73, 75 Boeotians 149 61 Bomba Bottiaioi 37 Boulaia (Hestia) .. 125 Bouzygai 202 Brasidas 11,82,15ln.72,223,228-32, 233,236 Brea lOln.69, 1 109-111, 155,156,158 49,217,219,221 Brentesion Bubbonia Mt. 18P 6 Bulls, Papal 219 Butuntum 22,36 Byzantion 198 Callimachus 36 Calopinace 72 Carthage 7,199 Carthaginians 177 Cassale Mt. 22 Chalkedon 176 Chalkidians 159,196,258 Chalkidike 19n.24,30,31,65, 198,256, Chalkis 258,261 45, 46 Chalkis (Aitolian)


Charon Chersonese (Thracian) Chersonese,Tauric Chersonesitai Chios

72n.317 56,77,189 81 191 48,130 111 chresmoi Chresmologoi 8,79,86 90,99,100 Chresmologos 71 Chrysophoroi chytra 9,120,123 235 Cicero 29,30 Cleromancy 158 Commodus 196 Condi tor 142n.30 Contrada Fonte Corinth 30,42,86,132,239,255,256 45 Corinthian Gulf 234 Corinthian League Corsica 23,72 37,180 Cretans Crete 52,65,146,259 Cumae 39n.130,85 145,231 Cyprus 102 Cyrus 53,259 80 232 damnatio memoriae 256 Daskon 243 Daulis 96n.19 Deinomenes Deinomenidai 33, 97n.31,251,259 18,31-41, 42,62,65,74 dekate Delion 149 124n.46,211,249 Delos Delphoi 4,5,6, 7, Ch.I passim,104, 106,108,113,118,119,124,126,127, 145,147, 191, 197,198, 222,235,237, 245, 247,255,256,258n.107,259 Demeter 72,97,104, 177n.181, 181 Demeter Thesmophoros 180 Demetrias 233,234,235,249,258 Demetrios (herald) 239 Demetrios Poliorketes 11,233,234,235, 237,249 199 Demiourgoi 155,159 Demokleides Demonax of Mantinea 5,141,157,251 143 Deukalion llOn.115 diabateria 157n.99 diasozein 17n.l Didyma 11,239 Dion 99n.57 Diopeithes 104,123 Dioskouroi 84,85 Diotimos Daidalos Damagon


17,17n.3,145 Dodona Dolonkoi 77-8, 191,192 219,220 Dolphin (riders) 130 Dorians Dorieus 22,28,56,77, 78-81, 90,106, 258 Douketios 85-6, 239 Drabeskos 83n.386 37 Dryopes 247 Echelaos 45,46 Echinades Eeria 57,58,59 Egypt 130,245n.30 eilapine 196n.38, 198 Eioneius 82 Elaious 191 72 Elea Eleon 79,90 99,211 Eleusis 118,119,248 Elis emporion 130 236 enagismata enagizein 193,236 enelusia 142 81 Ennea Hodoi entemnein 229 Entimos 52,53,251,259 104-6, 113,233n.164 Epaminondas Epeunaktai 47,216 Ephesos 23,69,71,233,234n.170,251 258 Ephorate Ephorus 4,24 Epidamnos 32,54,86,132,255,256 104 Epiletes 11,233 Epimelides epiphaneia 10,147,184 Eratokleides 132 Erechtheion 127,128 Erechtheidai 253 Eretria 13,38,64, 136n.4, 261,262, 264,265 Eretria (heroon) 264 Eryx 6,79,90 Eteoboutadai 202 Etrusca disciplina 93 Etruscans 8,72 Euarchos 230,257 euerkeia 10,144,184 Eukleides 195n.30 Eumelos 210 Eupatridai 111 Euphemos 61 Euphron 11,232,233,235 ,248 99 Eupolis

284 Euripos Eurydike Eurysichthon Eurysthenes Euxenos Exegetes

exhaireo exhairetos

France,South of


34 208 211 194,241,242 70 5, 27,84,99-103, 111 155,157 157 2

Herakles 2,6,37,43,74,75,90,153, 162,184,207n.13,220,222,236, 243n.ll,266 129 Hermeias 37 Hermione 98 Herodotus 108,109 Herons 233 Herophytos Ch.III passim Hestia 129 Hestia Prytanis

/39-40 Gamoroi 96 hidruein 244n.15 Gela 24,33,52-6, 96n.19,142n.30, Hierapytna 99n.57 180, 189,194,197,214,230,239,251, Hierokles . 11,93- 7,239 256,259,260,261 Hieron 164, 179-80, 195n.30,254 Gelon 11,96,97,237,239 Himera 245n.30 Hipothoon 129 genethlios hemera 4,232 158 Hippias geonomoi 98, 14ln.27, Hippodamos of Miletos 37 Gephyraioi 161 242n.6 Gerousia 258 Hippokles 261 Glaukos 230,239 25, 73-7 , 84,90 Hippokrates Gnesiochos 83n.386 105 Histiaios Great Goddesses 72 Hyele 60,61,195 Grinnos 87,88 Ialysos Gylakeia 245 Gylax 87,230 Iamidai 8,93-7, 111,210 48,49,51,217 205 Iapygians Hades 214 Idmon 6,26,35, 73-7, 84,90,153,208 Hadrian 219n.88 93- 7,238 Ikadios Hagesias 34,35 Hagnon 11,50n. I 95,76, 81-4, 202n.82, Iokastos 126 223, 228-232 Ione Ionians 118, 120, 122 Hagnoneia 82,228,230 131,214 48 Is Halieis 1� 130,253 � Halikarnassos 157 Issa 108 Harpasos 37 9, Ch.III passim Italy Hearth, Common Ithome 104, 105 9, Ch.III passim Hearth, Public 125 82 /us gentium Hebros valley Hecatomb 60,61 Jason 208 hegemon 61,71,246 ,247,249 152 Kalchas 112 Hekate 153 Kale Akte 86 Helen 81 Helike 119,131,214 Kallatis 93 120,139,140,148,245,248 Kallias Helios 19ln.10 Kallias (playwright) 99 Helle 130 ka/liherein 8,26, 109-//0 Hellenion 46,130 Kamarina 178,230,238,254, 256 Hera 160 Kameiros 7ln.31l,245 Hera Lakinia 207n.12 Heraion (Metpontion) 181 Karatepe 182n.212 Kardia 131,191 Heraion (Samos) 182 Kasmenai l75n.168, 177-8, 184 Heraion (Sele) 234n.170 56,79 Kassander Herakleia (Minoa) 234n.170,249 Herakleia Pontike 6,26,35,73-77, 81, Kassandreia 77 83, 84,89,90,153,208 katagoge 96,230,238,257,260 Herakleia Trachinia 26,31,80,81,256 Katane 41,79 katharotes 10,144,184 Herakleidai


131,132 253 245n.30 83,201,231 231 78 231 57n.233,207 11,54,56,130,131,204, 221 1� Kk��s Kleisthenes 5,243-5, 249n.57,266 11,48,237 Kleisthenes (Sikyon) Kleoboia 72n.317 73,78,79n.363,80 Kleomenes Kaulonia Kekropidai Kekrops Kirnon Kimoneia Kinyps Kition Klaros Klazomenai



226 Kleophantos 198 Klio 93 Klytiadai 130,246 Knidos 253 Kodridai 251 Kodros 9,10,Ch.III passim koine hestia 19,37,151,152 Kolophon Kore 97,177n.181 Korkyra 38,64,84,85,86,132,255 61,65,67 Korobios 233 Korone 45,46 Kouretes 76,108, 143,198,199 Krataimenes 99 Kratinos 52 Kraton 154 Krene Apollonos Kretines 25 196 Kreusa 45,46 Krimissa 191 Krithoe Kroton 23,24, 43-7, 63,131,132,160, 184 ktiseis 21,58 ktisis 4,6,56,120,189 234,235 ktistes Kylabras 197,249n.54 Kyme 85,179,198,258,261,264 Kypselos 87n.416 Kyrene 3,5,11,24,28,35,44,60-9, 73,74, 89,104n.80,129, 130,141,152, 153,157,172,195,196,204-12, 214-16, 246,251,252,254 17n.2,23,26,72-3, 79n.363 Kyrnos 27n.61 Kyzikos Laios Lakedaimon Lakinian Cape Lakios

28,79,80,101,106 I17 45 52,197


Lamis Lampon Lampsakos

33,174,213 25,27,89, 98-101, Ill 70, 19ln.10,223,226,227, 252 30,104n.78 Lebadeia Lefkandi 262 117,124n.46 Lemnos 80 Leon Leontinoi 33,176,197,257 Leporano 49 157,246 Lesbos 258n.107 Leukas 163n.133,258n.107 Leuke 37,78n.353,79 Leukippos 163 Leukophrys 104 Leuktra 198 Library of Alexandria Libya 60-9, 78,79 52,53,180n.194 Lindioi 53,120,121,180,245 Lindos 246 Lipari 82 logion 40 Lokroi 71 Loutrides 208 Lucullus Lydia 248 5,90,194,218 Lykourgos 84,231 Lysander 234n.l70,249n.60 Lysimachos Lysippos 99 M. Marcellus 235 Magnesia on the Maeander 7,11,37, 38,42,78n.353,163,182,223-8, 252 Magnesians 65,146 Maiandrios 14ln.30 207 Mallos 175 Malophoros Mamertini 39n.130 207 manteion manteis 2,8,118 8,Ch.II passim manlike manlike techne 93,111 Mantinea 233,251 mantis Ch.II passim, 123 Manto 37 Marathon 201,210,211 Marcus Aurelius 158 39 Mars Massalia 69-72, 83,89,119,253 6ln.254 Medea 127 Medes 175 Medieval Cathedrals 22 Megabazos 73-7, 132, 164,200, Megara (Nisaia) 256



Megara Hyblaia 33,132,148,164-74, 175,178,182,184,213,256,261 33 Megarians Megasthenes 258 175n.l71 Meiliochos 93 Melampodidai 235,237 Melanippos 122n.38 Meleager Menekles of Barka 59n.246,62,66,67 Menekolos 256 Messene 8, 104-6, 108,113,233n.164 104 Messene (Sicily) Messenians 33,199 Metapontion 24,28,131,164,179n.191,

195n.33 Oiolykos 162 Olbia Olympia 86,93,96,118 52, 180n.l96,259 Omphake Onymastos the Delphian 69,209,210, 212 83,202n.82 Orestes 82,101,208 Orpheus 42,43,164,176,177 Ortygia 248 Oxylos

191 Paktye 177 Palazzo 35 Pallantion 116 181-2 Pallas Athena 132,256 123 Pamillos Metropolis 122 17,51,130,208 Panathenaia Miletos 119,121,122 Miltiades (the Elder) 7,27,56,74n.334, Panionion 131 77-8, 189,190-5, 248,249 Parion 58,72,81 6 Paros Mimnermos 40,216 220 Partheniai Minos 224 117,-121,122,133 Parthenon Minyai 84-5 127 Parthenope Mithridates 147 194,259 Pausanias Mnasitheles 56 234,235 Peisistratos mneme 100 82,223 Peisthetairos mnemeion 29,30 223,232 Pelanos mnemosunon 117 207,208 Pelasgians Mopsos 51 207n.12 Peleus Mopsu Hestia 48n.185 37n.ll3 Pellene Moses 43,49,50 28,101 Peloponnesos Musaios 193, 194 38 Pelops Mykenai 246 179 Pentathlos Mylai 61 223 pentekonter Myos 136n.4 83n.386 Perachora Myrkinos 87 Myskellos 23,30,43-7, 48,63,68,131 Periander 76,108, 143,198,199 105 Perieres Mysteries 98,99 130 Perikles Mytilene 142n.30 Persephone 72,126 129,130,139 Persia Naukratis 138 89,138,174 Phaiakians Nausithoos Naxos (Sicily) 19,89,140,164, 175-6, Phalanthos 11,25, 40, 47-52, 68,76, 83,190n.4,216-221 179n.191,238,249,256 218,219,253 83, 84-5 Phalantidai Neapolis 132,256 57 Phalios Neapolis (colony of Thasos) 87 51 Phanagoras Neleus 87 247 Phanagoreia Nikaia 99 Pharos 81 Nikias, Peace of 52, 130,197,200 75 Phaselis Nisaia 150 90,153,184 Phasis nostoi 196 l02n.69, 256 Philip V Notion 192n.l7 248,258 Philippos of Kroton Nysa 111 Philochorus 46 57-9, 194 Philoktetes Oenomaos (of Gadara) 239 245n.30 Phoenicians Oineus 17,23,48,69-72, 130 48 Phokaia Oinoussai


74 116n.7 224,227,252 30 phryktos 224 Piraeus 13,261,264 Pithekoussai 38,118,151,245,258n.109 Plataia 61, 64,65,66 Platea 178 plateiai (Hippodamian) 143-6, 147 Plato 46 Pleuron Phokis Phoroneus Phrasikles


140,148, 244n.15,245,248,259 180 Rhodians 43,131 Rhypai 8 Romans 127 Rome

142n.30,162,181 S. Biagio (Akragas) S. Mauro (Gela) 180 S. Mauro (Leontinoi) 176 Saioi 5S Sais 245n.30 11 Salamis 83 Plynteria 71 Salamis (Cyprus) 261,264 Plyntrides 11,233 Samians 199 Podares 111n.123 Samos 130,136n.4,14ln.30 Polemainetos l9S polissouchos 2,13,7S,84,2S4,258,261 Santorini 220 205n.3 Satyra Pollis 48,49 40 Satyrion Polybius 138 Polygnotos 72n.3l7 Scheria 14ln.30 Sele River 182 Polykrates 132,162,174-5, 256 61,62,67 Selinous Polymnestos 196 Sepaioi 5S Porris 41,119,152, 219,220, 221, Servius Sulpicius 23S Poseidon 253 Sibyl 101 2,41,85n.402,237-40, 266 Poseidonia 23,72,73,142,148,160, Sicily 122 178, 182-3, 213,214,215n.S8 Sigeion 71 Sikyon 11,47,49, 232-7, 248 Praxiergidai 8 Silanos 8, 102-4, 112 Priam 207,208,212 2S2 Sinope prohedria 194, 241,242n.6 Sinties 55 Prokles 85 116n.7,143 Siren Prometheus 98 Siris 258n.107 Protagoras 107n.87 sitesis 125 Proteus 70 Siwa l7n.3,107 Protiadai 70, 2S3 Skiathos 29 Protis 146 70 Skillos Protos 131 252 Skione Proxenia 210 Prytaneion 9,99,100,111,Ch.III pas- Skira 210 sim, 237 Skirophorion 83, 201 9 Skyros pyrphoroi 122n.37,164n.143,262 123,124 Smyrna (Old) pyrphoros �146 Pyrrhakidai 211 �ha� 83, 218 Pythagoreanism 3 Solon 117n.8 Pythagoreans 132 Sopater of Apamea 9Sn.l7 Pythai:s 211 Sostratos 7,23, 30, 31, 60,119, 244 Sounion Pythia 264n.13 36,48,93, 104, 106,123,124, 19,90n.424 Sparta Pytho 194, 19S, 200, 202,205n.4, 241,242n.6, pythochrestos 101 243n.ll,2S6, 258n.109 Pythopolis 247 stasis 12, 67,132, 255, 256 75 1� Sthenelos R�a 99n.57 8, 27, 31-41, 42, SO, SI,62, Stilbides Rhegion 85 74, 2S6 Strombichos 55, 81,82,228 Rhesos 35,7S, 76, 81-84, 153, 208 Strymon 2, 243 Sybaris 44,45,48, 98, 99, 100,131,132, Rhetra,(Sparta) 182, 214, 251 Rhodes 52, 104n. 78, 120, 121, 122, 130,



28 162 synktistai 258 137,234,248,265 synoikismos 93-7, 238 synoikister Syracuse 8,23,41-3, 86,93-7, Ill, 164,172,176-7, 205n.3,210,237,239, 256 Sybil Syncretism

Thibron 163 19,89,140,230,256 Thoukles Thouria 101 Thourioi 8,25,27,54,86,88,106,113, 230,238,251,254-6, 257,258n.107, 260

8,98-103, 113 37,55, 159,228 Thrace 57,222 Thracians llln.123 219n.88 Thrasyllus Taenarum,Cape 42,43 125 Thrinakia Tamia (Hestia) 4,228 37,147 Thucydides Tanagra 98 217,223,240 Thucydides son of Melesias taphe 193,229,236 45,46 thuein Taphiassos 229,230,235,236,237 Taphios 46 thusiai 40 217,223 Timaeus taphos 220n.93 timai heroikai 235,238 Tara Taras 11,47-52, 76,200,204,205n.3, Timesias 11,54-6, 76,13I,204,208, 216-221, 253,258n.107 221-3 239 128,216 Timodemos Tarentum 11,178,239 117 Timoleon Taygetos Mt. 240 219 Timoleonteion Teate 129,130 49,83 Timouchos Tegea 75 Teiresias 37,112 Tiphys 48 Teisamenos 93 Tiryns 245 Telamon 253 Tirynthians 245,248 Telesikles 56-9 Tlepolemos 214 251 Trajan Telines 211 10 Tritons temene 209,210,211,212 temenos 138,139-41 and Ch.IV passim Tritopatores 41 Tritopatreion 211 Tenea 253 54,130,131,204 Troizen Teos 243 25,245n.30 Tronis Teukros 30 174,213 Trophonios Thapsos 6,81,196 56-9, 72n.317,162,172, Troy Thasos 145 184n.215,213,262 Tuscany 37,232,237 Thebes 23,72 Themistokles II,55, 190n.4,217n.73, Velia Ver sacrum 39,65 223-8, 252,258n.107 195 xenia Theopompos 77 196 Xenokritos Theoxana 99 Thera 60-69, 195,200,205n.4,246,250 Xenophon 8,102-4, 112,113,146,238 Theraeans 38n.123 xoanon 71,72,119 195 Theras 248 Zankle3/-4/,54,76,86,108,109,Ill, Therma 11,238 143,179,196n.38,197-200, 254,256, Theron 253 257,260,261 Theseidai 231 Zeus 93,95,123,130,141n.30,144,245 Theseion 132 Theseus 83,84n.392,124,201,210,247 Zeus Amarios 208 Zeus Soter 119,126n.63,152,236 Thesprotis 196 Zeus Syllanios 2 Thessalonica 104 37 Zeus of Ithome Thessaly Thouriomanteis

INDEX OF ANCIENT AUTHORS CITED Aelianus,VH 157 VI.I 48 Vl.1.54 54 Xll.9 87 XIV.6 Aelius Aristides, Panath. 115 29 115, 116,117 29 (scholion) Aelius Aristides, Or. 27 XXVll.5 78 XL Vl.168 (scholion) Aeschylus, Choeph. 126 1034-1039 205 322 Aeschylus, PV. 143 450ff. Aeschylus, Sept. 123 432 Aeschylus, Suppl. 125 357ff. 150 893-4; 922; 520 Aeschines, C. Ctes. 239 186 (schol.) 139 116 Aeschines, II (On the Embassy) 84 11.31 81 11.91 (schol.) Anakreon 55 Diehl fr.20 55 Page PMG fr.504

Anec. Graec.

1.449 1.307 Antiochus, FGrHist 555 Fl F9 FlO Fl3

Antiq. Hist. Mir.

117 Apollonius of Rhodes 1.308 (schol.) 11.846-50 ll.955ff. 11.1144 (schol.) ll.127lff. 11.1271ff. (schol.) 111.1088-9

244,248 212 246 31,32,256 44 47,216 46 37 75 207 191 150 150 143

IV.267 IV 1212 (schol.) Apollodorus 1.65 Ill.7.4 Appianus, BC V.109 V.93.292 Appianus,Mithr. 83 Archilochus fr.SSA (Diehl) Aristhaenetus, FGrHist 771 Fl Aristophanes, Birds 42 428ff. 521 809-811 850ff 864-866 926 96lff. 961 988 Aristophanes, Clouds 331-2 Aristophanes, Knights 83 1089 (schol.) Aristophanes, Lysistrata 308; 315 Aristophanes, Peace 1071 (schol.) 1026-1126; 103 947-8 Aristophanes, Plut. 925 Aristophanes,Fragments fr.I (Kock) Aristotle, Eth. Nie. l134b23 1162a Aristotle,NH Vl.15 569bl2 Aristotle, Oecon. ll.1346bl3ff. Aristotle, Pol.

59 41 122 37 19 50 207, 208 58 52 120,121 97 99 50,203 121 125 97,238 100 106 99,100 98 225 43 121 79 99 121 205 52 229 245 224 141



98 1267-8 141 1267b-1269a 141 1285b16 87,250 1290b12 53 1303a25 260 1303a28ff. 251 1303a32ff. 125,127 1322b26f. 147 1331a24ff. 147 1331blff. Aristotle, Rhet. 99 1419a2 Aristotle,Rhet. ad Alex. 68,250 1423a Aristotle,Fragm. 37 485 70 549 (Rose) 219 590 41 611.19 Arrian,Anab. 233 106 III.1.5 107 IIl.2.1-2 Artemon of Pergamon,FGrHist 56 54 Ath. Pol. 249 21.5 29,247 21.6 141 47.4 Athenaeus 127,129,130,131 149d 37,39 173e 47 271c 197 297-8 99 344e 70 576a 129 700d Callimachus,Aetia 52, 75-6, 108-9, 143, II fr.43 197-200, 257,258 Callimachus,Hymn II 142,143 11.55-7 63 11.76 62 11.86 108 Callimachus, Peri orneon Cicero,Ad Fam. 200,235 IV.12.3 Cicero,De div. 110 1.31.65 111 1.39 111 1.116 Cicero,De nat. deor. 82 IIl.45 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 111 1.21; 134,4 210 1.144

Connon, FGrHist 26 Fl (Narr. 29) Curtius Rufus IV.8.6 Demosthenes LX.30-1 Diodorus 1.94 IV.23.4 IV.66.5-6 V.56.4 VII.9.6 VIII.10.1-3 VIIl.17 VIII.21.2 VIIl.21.3 VIII.23.1 XI.26.2 XI.26.7 Xl.38 Xl.38.4-7 XI.49 XI.49.I XI.49.2 XI.53 XI.58 XI.58.1 XI.65.5 XI.66.4 XI.70.5 XI.76.5 Xl.78.5 XI.79.3 XI.88.6 Xl.90.1 XII.8.2 XII.lOf. XII.10.4 XIl.10.5 XII.11.1 XII.29.1 XII.32.2 XII.35 XII.59.5 XIl.68.1-2 XIV.36.3 XIV.66.2-3 XV.18.2 XV.49 XVI.20 XVl.90 XX.102.3 Diogenes Laertius 1.62

37n.119 108 245 125 142 37 245 41 41 44 47 48 52 34 97 97 238 96 238 96 97,238,255 238 223 217 38 97,238 83 239 86 96 86 86 86 97 83 25 251 86 254 254 80 83 159, 225 97 258 119 239 239 233 218


11.7 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.16 1.23-4 1.53.3 1.72 XIX.1.2 XIX.1.3 XIX.2 Dionysius, Perierg. 357 Ephorus FGrHist 70 F40 F56 Fll8 Fl22 F216

Et. Mag.

s.v. Battos s.v. Gela s.v. Prytaneia Euphorion fr.24b (Meineke) Eupolis fr.297 (Kock) Euripides, Orest.


1605 Euripides, Phoeniss. 202-3 280-1 1377 (schol.) Euripides, Rhesos 347 (schol.) Eusebius,PE 6,7 p.256b Eusebius, Chron. s.v. Gela Eustathius, In Dion. Per. 369 Eustathius,In Iliad. 408.4


70 39 39 37 246 50 220 32, 35 85 191 48 194,242 248 47, 216 63 52 114, 128 129 99 244 125 38, 39 38, 39 123 81 57 197 43 37



Florus 11.6.5


Gellius XIV.6.4 Heraclides Ponticus, FHG II 198a Herodotus 1.14.2 1.67-8 1.100.3

59 37n.119 87 83 159

1.124 1.146-7 1.148.1 1.165 1.165.1 1.65-6 1.66.1 1.167.4 1.168 11.10.3 11.44.5 11.168 11.178.1 111.142 111.142.2 111.153 IV.144 IV.145.1-4 IV.146-149 IV.148 IV.148.2 IV.148.4 IV.153 IV.154-158 IV.155.3 IV.158 IV.159.1 IV.159.3 IV.161 IV.161.3 IV.172.3 IV.178 IV.186 V.11.23 V.89 V.42.2 V.43 V.44 V.46.1 V.47.2 V.67 V.78-80 V.124 V.126 Vl.35.3-36.1 Vl.36.1 VI.37 Vl.38.1 Vl.39 Vl.46.1 Vl.47 VII.58.2 Vl.76.1 Vl.77 VI.SO VII.6.3-4

291 219 118 157 48 23,72 218 49 23,72 54,131,221 46 193 157 139 141 139 52 22 117

60-8 195 117 195 246


247 154 209,247 33,251 251 141,157 208 79 62 83 83 22,78 79 93 247,258 217 235,237 154 83 83,159 77 83,191 191 190,191,249 191 94 192 191 73,79 36 73 73



192 Vll.117 38 Vll.132 48 Vll.137.2 33,96,97,251,259 Vll.153 239 Vll.154.3 239 Vll.156 123 VIII.6.2 2 VIII.144 48 IX.28.4 154 IX.65 191 IX.118 191 IX.129 110 IX.92.2; 96.1 Hecataeus,FGrHist 1 37 F63 87 F212 191 Fl63 Hellanicus,FGrHist 4 246 F84 222 Fl05 191 Fl27 Heraclides Lembos 32,34 FHG 219 Hermeias 129 FHG 2.80f. Herodorus,FGrHist 31 75 F50; F51 Herophytus,FHG 197 IIl.29 Hesiod,Erga 40 240ff. 151 365 261 651-659 Hesychius 202 s.v. Horos 71 s.v. Loutrides Hipponax 82 fr.39 (42) Hippys of Rhegion FGrHist 553 44 Fl Homeric Hymns 154 to Apollo 384 151 to Hermes 36 140 Aphrod. 59 Homer,Iliad 46 11.625 46 11.640 245 ll.653ff. 140 VIII.48 233 IX.152; 249 46 IX.529ff. 82 X.435ff. 51 XXll.421-422 140 XXIII.148 Homer,Odyssey 68, 138, 198 VI. 7-10

VIIl.75ff. VIII.294 (schol.) VIII.363 XIX.34 (schol.) Hyperides IV.16

90 55 140 127 156

lbycus fr.21 (Diehl) Isocrates III.28 XIX.45

245 111

Justinus 11.4 III.4 XVl.3.4-7 XLIII.3.8

49 217 74 70

Kings 3.16-28 Kratinos fr.62 (Kock) Livy XXXVll.54.19 XL.4.9 Lucian,Astrology 23 Lutatius Catulus, HRR fr.7 Lycophron 717-721 (schol.) 1278 (schol.) Lysimachus,FGrHist 382 F6 Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc. 6 Marsyas,FGrHist 135 F7 Maximus of Tyre XIII.5 Memnon,FGrHist 434 Menekles,FGrHist 270 F6 Menekrates,FGrHist 701 Fl Mimnermos Frg.9 West Myrsilos,FGrHist 477 F6 Nepos,Milt. 2 Nepos, Themist. 10.3


41 99 85 196 92 85 84 79 153 78 81,82 56 81 66 247 6 46 78 224


Ovidius,Met. XV.17 XV.20 XV.23 P. Oxyr. 1241 Col.III lines 2-12 1365 [FGrHist 105F2] Pausanias 1.1.2 1.26.6 1.29.2 1.34.4 1.43.2-3 Il.7.1 Il.9.4 II.10.1 Il.19.5 11.28.1 11.29.7 IIl.1.8 IIl.3.7 IIl.14.1 III.15.6 III.16.6 III.25.7 IV.7.8 IV.14-24 IV.14.7 IV.14.26-7 IV.14.32.3 IV.23.5-7 IV.23.7 IV.26-7 IV.32.1 IV.34.5-6 V.7.3 V.13.1-3 V.13.11 V.15.8-9 V.22.3-4 Vll.2.9 VIII.24.11 VIIl.46.2 Vlll.9.2 VIII.9.9 Vlll.37.11 VIIl.53.9 IX.14.5 IX.18.1 IX.22.2 IX.27.1 IX.30.6 IX.33.2 IX.34.2 IX.40.4

43 44 46 48 48 224 127,151 71 207 200,237 233 236 236 116 36 83 196 201 230 195 218 219 195 105 104 104 104 33 199


106 233 42 194 118,119 118 87 252 46 52,259 127 233 127 127 106 237 147 131 208 37 127 52

X.4.10 X.10.6 X.10.8 X.11.3 X.13.10 X.24.4 X.25-31 X.31.4 Pherecydes,FHG 1.98 No.lll Philistos,FGrHist 556 FIS Philostephanus,FHG IV.248 Photius s.v. Loutrides Phrynichus,Praec. Soph. p.57 Pindar,lsth. VIII.2lff. Pindar,Nern. 1.1 V.94e XI.If. Pindar,0/. V.16; 19 (schol.) Vl.6 Vl.6-8 (schol.) Vl.98 VII VIl.30; 79 VIl.30; lOOff. VII.39ff. VIl.49 X.24ff. Pindar,Paeans II.59ff. Pindar,Pyth. I. 31. 11.27 111.69 III.169 IV.4-8; 59-63 IV.4ff IV.6; 61-2 IV.59 IV.60 V.82-88 V.83f. V.85-95 V.87 V.89 V.89 (schol.) V.89ff. V.93 93ff.

293 243 50 50,220 246 219 127 72 122 252 239 197 71 158 83 43 83 128 239 238


96 120 248 245 140,148 154 193 55 97,238 259 97 238 60 61 64 67 63 153 210 60 63 154 154 139 212,213 204



62 IX.103-125 Pindar,Fragments 238 105.3 Plato,Ale. 157 123c Plato, Crit. 157 117c Plato,Hipp. Maior. 4,24 285d Plato,Laws 102 702c 143 702d 152 704a 146 704b-705c 145 738b-c 145,157 738d 125,144 745b 123 754a-c 144 761c 144 778c 125,144,157 848d 140 909e-910d 125,151,159 955e Plato,Lys. 244 205d Plato,Meno 227 93e 200 315d Plato,Phaedr. 150 230b Plato,Rep. 88 II 379a 145 427b-c 101 427c Plato, Tim. 245 21e Pliny,NH 85 III.62 59 IV.58 59 IV.73 85 V.76 Plutarch 54 96b 246 163b-c 36 245c-f 70 255a-e 126 385c 119 391d 38 40lf-402a 35,68,142 407f 5, 24,75,89,110,142 407f-408a 29 492b 125 693e-694b 41 772d-773b 55 812b 99 812d

835c Plutarch,Ale. 34.1 Plutarch,Alex. 26 Plutarch,Arat. 53 53.2 Plutarch,Aristid. 11.3 20.4-5 21 27.2 Plutarch,Cim. 8 8.5 Plutarch,Dem. 53 Plutarch,Luc. 23 19.6 Plutarch,Lye. 6 27 31 Plutarch,Lys. 25.4 Plutarch,Numa 4.6 9 Plutarch,Per. 6.2 19.1-2 Plutarch, QG 293a-b 293a 296 298f-299a 298a-b 302c Plutarch,Sol. 2.4 9 32 32.4 9. Plutarch,Sulla 13 Plutarch, Them. 24 32.1 32.2; 5 32.3 32.5 Plutarch, Thes. 16.2

52 71 107 200 235,236 245 119 193 118 201 83 234 208 127 2,242,243 200,218 218 79 58 126 99 159 64

38 122 37 258 71

70 245 218 83 83 127 258 227 224 223 224 37


24 26 35 36.1 Plutarch, Tim. 39 Pollux IX.9 IX.SO Polyaenus 1.30.2 VI.53 VIII.33 VIII.37 Polybius 11.39.6 11.414-16 V.93.10 VIII.12 VIII.28 IX.1.4 IX.27 XIl.5-16 XII.5.6 XIl.9.3 XXXIV.1.3 Probus,(Verg. Georg.) 11.196 Ps. Callisth. 1.30.5 Ps. Scymn. 252-2 283-290 698-702 699ff. 707 711-2 822ff Servius,(Verg. Aen) 1.756 IIl.332 IIl.551 Servius, (Verg. Georg.) 11.19 Solin. 11.9 Sophocles,Antig. 1006 Sophocles, Oed. Col. 60 Sophocles, Oed. Rex. 25ff. ;269ff. Steph. Byz. s.v. Abdera s.v. Athenai

124 247 201 83 239 202 219 82 81 36 70 132 131 132 235 200,218 4,24,194, 248 180 40 40 123 4,24,194,248 220 107 85 199 131 191 191 191 81 56,222 219 221 50 85 125 245 40 222 218,253

s.v. Cherronesos s.v. Eeria s.v. Gela s.v. Halieis s.v. Kardia s.v. Lampsakos s.v. Phanagoreia s.v. Syrakousai s.v. Taras s.v. Thasos Stobaeus IV.2.24 Strabo IV.179 V.246 V.250 VI.243 VI.257 VI.260 VI.262 VI.263 Vl.264 Vl.268 VI.269 Vl.278 Vl.278-9 VI.282 VII fr.SI Vll.314 VII.320 Vlll.360 Vlll.365 Vlll.366 VIII.373 VIII.380 Vlll.384 Vlll.385 VIII.387 IX.1.16 IX.412 IX.427 X.451 X.457 X.462-3 X.465-6 X.463-464 X.465 X.487 Xll.537 XII.542 XII.546 Xll.549 XIIl.588 XIV.632-3 XIV.644 XIV.659

295 191

59 52, 197,259

48 131 70 87 43 50 57 125 69,70,72 84 39 258 31,33,256 39 44,46 131 258 199 23,38,43 216 47 49,217 131 81 22 233 242 194 219 41 131 70 43,146 127 154 46 46 55

46 46 248 194,248 56 70 81 207 55

131 252 55




XIV.668 XIV.675-6 XVll.792 Suidas s.v. Anakreon s.v. Archias s.v. Battos, battarizein s.v. doru s.v. Kalli machos s.v. kerukeion s.v. Myskellos s.v. Prytaneion s.v. Thouriomanteis

19 207 107


43 63 37 198 37 43 127 101

Tacitus,Ann. 22 XIl.63 [Themistocles],[Epistles] 227 XX.761 Theocritus 46 IV.17 128 XXl.34-7 Theopompus,FGrHist 115 47 Fl71 52 F358 Thucydides 83 1.100 32,132,256 1.24.2 255 1.25.1 133 1.25.2 83 1.26 85 1.45.2 223,224,227 1.138.5 46 11.102.2 124,127 11.15.2 40 11.54 151 II.74.2-3 102,256 111.34.4 156,157 111.50.2 80 111.92 26,31,83,256 111.92.5 73 111.96 132 IV.4.2 151 IV.87.2 148,149 IV.97.2-3 148,149,156 IV.98.2 83 IV.102 50,81,203 IV.102.3 232 IV.102.3-4 84,230 IV.103.3 56 IV.104.4 84 IV.106.1 82,257 V.11 228 V.11.1 99 V.19.2 99 V.24.1 53 V.116.4

VI.3 VI.3-5 Vl.3.1 Vl.3.2 VI.3.3 Vl.4.1 VI.4.1-2 VI.4.2 Vl.4.3 VI.4.5-6 Vl.5.1 Vl.5.3 VI.5.5 VI.30 VI.32 Vl.54.7 Vll.57 VIII.I Timaeus FGrHist 566 Fl3 F43 F43b F98 Val. Flac. V.115 Vergil,Aen. IIl.69ff. Vitruvius 1.7 Xenophon, Anab. 111.1.5-7 V.3.12 V.3.7 V.4.22 V.6 V.6.17 VI.4.16; 19 Xenophon,Const. lac. XIIl.2 XV.3 Xenophon,Cyrop. IV.5.51 VII.3.1 VIl.5.35 VIIl.3.1 Xenophon,Hell. 1.4.12 IV.22 IV.5.4 VI.3.6 VII.3.12 Xenophon,Mem.

256 4 19,140,249 41,42,164,177 176,230 33,213 172 174,256 52,53,180 179,199 179,254 177,230,239 239 134 134 232 4 100 40 32 39 84 207 42 144 146 119 70,146 109

102-4 238 110

109,110,123 157 15f 157 157 157 71 110 120 243 232,248


111.8.10 Xenophon, Oecon. V.19-20 Xenophon, Vect. IV.19

146 151 141

Zenobius 1.54 III.26 111.42

297 54 37 44

INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONS CITED Bauer and Frost (1966)97-8 (see Bibliography) BE 30 [REG 68 (1955)) BCH 27 (1903) 107 814

226 211 126

CIG 11.2655


Daux (1949) (see Bibliography) 30n. 76 Ditt. Sy/1. 4 157,251 No. 141 249 No. 332 249 No. 380 211 No. 71ID 126 No. 826C 211 No. 925 ID 249 No. 30; No. 35 FD 119 III/I 260 119 III/I 308 119 IIl/2,94 119 IIl/3 249 119 IIl/4 56 119 IIl/4 57 211 Hesperia 30 (1961) 264 No. 80 JG 11 109 No. 46 /G 12 156 No. 30 85 No. 295 line 9 156 No. 376 141 No. 377 118 No. 1283 210 No. 1358 244 Inscr. Cret. 111.3.A Kron (1971) (see Bibliography)


LGS No. 26 Lolling (1881) (see Bibliography) LSAM No. 30 No. 87 No. 83 LSCG No. 115 No .118 LSCG Suppl. 59 No. 109 Lind. Chron. No. 28 ML No. 3 No. 5 No. 49 No. 69 No. 73 Marmo, Parium No. 31

210 226 108 109 109 206 109 109 259

262 62,63,246 101,109,155,192 122 99

Rev. de Phil. 43 (1970) 239 Robert (1936) (see Bibliography)

41 215 151

SEG 62 IX.I 249 XII.373 58 XV.517 SGDI II 119 No. 2646A Sokolowski (1949) (see Bibliography) 30 215 Stucchi (1965) (see Bibliography)