A History of Boeotia (Classical)

A History of Boeotia

Map 1. Boeotia - the Setting

A History of Boeotia

by Robert J. Buck

The University of Alberta Press

1979

Map 2. The Main Ancient Sites and Routes

First published by The University of Alberta Press Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 1979

Copyright ® The University of Alberta Press 1979

This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Buck, Robert J., 1926A history of Boeotia Bibliography: p. ISBNO-88864-051-X 1. Boeotia - History. I. Title. DF261.B5B82 938'.4 C78-002089-8

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the copyright owner.

Printed by Printing Services of The University of Alberta

I wish to express my thanks to the University of Chicago Press for their kindness in allowing me to use copyright material from my articles in Classical Philology in the preparation of this work. I especially am grateful to my wife Helen and to the late Mrs. M. Mojecko for their work in typing the manuscript, and to my friends and colleagues, especially John Fossey, for their help and criticism.

Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

Introduction

xi

1. The Land of Boeotia 2. Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

1

33

The Neolithic Age

34

The Early Helladic Period

35

The Middle Helladic Period

36

Late Helladic I and II

37

Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB

38

Late Helladic IIIC

40

Summary and Conclusions

41

3. Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age The Three Traditions

45 45

4. Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

55

5. The Coming of the Boiotoi

75

6. Boeotia in the Archaic Period

87

7. The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-526 B.C.

107

8. The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

123

9. Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

141

10. Conclusions Bibliography

169 179

Maps

1. Boeotia - the Setting

ii

2. The Main Ancient Sites and Routes

iv

3. The Ancient Sites (with numerical and alphabetical indices)

xiv

4. The Late Helladic Period

32

5. The Entry of the Boiotoi

74

6. The Main Towns and Battle Sites of Classical Boeotia

86

7. The Original Membership of the Boeotian League

106

8. The Boeotian League in 480 B.C.

122

9. The Boeotian League in 450 B.C.

140

Introduction

The Boeotians were one of the first of the Greek stocks to make a practicable federal state. In neighbouring Attica, an area of similar size and, as far as can be judged, of about equal population in the Archaic Age, it was not a federal state that ultimately emerged, but a unitary one, Athens. The contrast is interesting. How, when and why the Boeotians produced a federation are questions worthy of study, together with an enquiry into how they developed the various institutions by which it was governed. These depend in part on an examination of Boeotian society and its classes and how they evolved, as far as the evidence and analogy to similar Greek states permit. The Boeotians were, in their traditions, conquering immigrants. How they treated the earlier inhabitants is part of the enquiry as well; for in the Boeotian state there was no group similar to the helots of Lacedaemon. To pursue this question requires a critical examination of the historical sources and an analysis of the various historical traditions. This in turn leads to an examination of their validity plus an examination of the other historical evidence available, chiefly archaeological but also linguistic and topographical. In effect the work is a preliminary study of Boeotian history from the earliest times down to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, as well as an examination of the literary, archaeological and other source-material available. It is clear that much of the previous work that has been done in this area was based on insufficiently examined data. How the Boeotians grappled with the problems of big-member dominance, localism, separatism and centralism in the early stages is perhaps instructive, and some points worthy of note emerge. The Boeotians preferred to stay for most of the time down to the Peloponnesian War under the rule of aristocracies or oligarchies. During the fifth century they developed a lively and vigorous school of oligarchic theory deriving their ideas from existing practice in the Boeotian League.

Though some of the towns came under very narrow oligarchies and several flirted with or became attached to democracy, none, as far as we know, was ever ruled by a tyrant. Only one town took part in the sending out of a colony. In these respects the Boeotian towns were exceptional. Like several northwest Greek peoples the Boeotians did not have tribes or phratries as functional units, and, as we noted above, they did not possess a depressed class like the helots or penestae. They were, then, exceptional in their social organization. This is not a study of Boeotian art, culture and literature except incidentally. The Boeotians, it should be emphasized, had a lively and vigorous cultural, intellectual and artistic life from the Bronze Age down at least as far as the fifth century B.C. There is no justification for the old gibe of "Boeotian swine."

This page intentionally left blank

Numerical Index of Sites 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Chaeronea Orchomenus Lebadea Itonium Alalcomenae Coronea Hippotae Magoula Balomenou Kalami Agoriani Tzamali Polyira (Tegyra) Mavromandili (Eudielus) Magoula near Pyrgos Pyrgos (Aspledon) Stroviki Olmones Hyettus Corseia Cyrtones Copae Larymna Tilphusium Ocalee Muses, Valley of Haliartus Ascra Onchestus Listi (Ceressus?) Neochorion Thespiae Leuctra Eutresis Chorsiae Thisbe Aghios loannes Mavrovouni

Map 3. The Ancient Sites

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Siphae (Tiphys) Creusis Aghios Vasilios Medeon Acraephia Senkenna Klimitari Ptoan Apollo Chantsa Aghios loannis Pyrgos Aghias Marinas 49. Gla 50. Megali Katavothri 51. Mouriki (Schoenus?) 52. Likeri 53. Aghios Elias 54. Skala Paralimnes (Peteon?) 55. Oungra (Trapheia?) 56. Kastro 57. Cabirium 58. Heracles Hippodetes 59. Potniae 60. Thebes 61. Peribolus 62. Kanapetra (Knopia?) 63. Mesovouni 64. Soules (Teumessus) 65. Glisas 66. Heleon 67. Harma 68. Mycalessus 69. Mt. Messapium 70. Plataea 71. Pantanassa (Hysiae) 72. Aghia Triadha

73. 74. 75. 76.

Darimari (Erythrae?) Vergoutiani Soros (Eteonus?) Metropoliti Bridge (Scolus?) 77. Palaiomylai 78. Chlempotsari (Eilesion?) 79. Klidhi (Schedia?) 80. Pyle(Sidae) 81. Kavasala (Drymus?) 82. Eleutherae 83. Vratsi(Stephon?) 84. Tanagra 85. Schimatari 86. Oropus 87. Amphiarium 88. Delium 89. Dramesi(Graea?) 90. Aulis 91. MegaloVouno 92. Vlicha(Hyria?) 93. Karababas 94. Chalia 95. Lithosoros (Salganeus) 96. Aghios Minas 97. Aghii Georgil 98. Isos 99. Anthedon 100. Tateza(Donacon?) 101. Platanaki 102. Aghios Pantaleimon (Pharae?) 103. Staniates (Oenophyta?) 104. Skroponeri (Phocae?)

Alphabetical Index of Sites Acraephia 42 Aghia Triadha 72 Aghii Georgii 97 Aghios Elias 53 Aghios loannes 36 Aghios loannis 47 Aghios Minas 96 Aghios Pantaleimon (Pharae?) 102 Aghios Vasilios 40 Agoriani 10 Alalcomenae 5 Amphiarium 87 Anthedon 99 Ascra 27 Aspledon (Pyrgos) 15 Aulis 90 Cabirium 27 Ceressus? (Listi) 29 Chaeronea 1 Chalia 94 Chantsa 46 Chlempotsari (Eilesion?) 78 Chorsiae 34 Copae. 21 Coronea 6 Corseia 19 Creusis 39 Cyrtones 20 Darimari (Erythrae?) 73 Delium 88 Donacon? (Tateza) 100 Dramesi (Graea?) 89 Drymus? (Kavasala) 81 Eilesion? (Chlempotsari) 78 Eleutherae 82 Erythrae? (Darimari) 73 Eteonus? (Soros) 75 Eudielus? (Mavromandili) 13 Eutresis 33 Gla 49 Glisas 65 Graea? (Dramesi) 89 Haliartus 26 Harma 67 Heleon 66 Heracles Hippodetes 58 Hippotae 7 Hyettus 18

Hyria? (Vlicha) 92 Hysiae (Pantanassa) 71 Isos 98 Itonium 4 Kalami 9 Kanapetra (Knopia?) 62 Karababas 93 Kastro 56 Kavasala (Drymus?) 81 Klidhi(Schedia') 79 Klimatari 44 Knopia? (Kanapetra) 62 Larymna 22 Lebadea 3 Leuctra 32 Likeri 52 Lithosoros (Salganeus) 95 Listi (Ceressus?) 29 Magoula near Pyrgos 14 Magoula Balomenou 8 Mavromandili 13 Mavrovouni 37 Medeon 41 Megalo Vouno 91 Megali Katavorthri 50 Mesovouni 63 Messapium (Mt.) 69 Mitropoliti Bridge (Scolus?) 76 Mouriki (Schoenus?) 51 Muses, Valley of 25 Mycalessus 65 Neochorion 30 Ocalee 24 Oenophyta? (Staniates) 103 Olmones 17 Onchestus 28 Orchomenus 2 Oropus 86 Oungra (Trapheia?) 55 Palaiomylai 77 Pantanassa (Hysiae) 71 Peribolus 61 Peteon? (Skala Paralimnes) 54 Pharae? (Aghios Pantaleimon) 102 Phocae? (Skroponeri) 104 Plataea 70 Platanaki 101 Polyira (Tegyra) 12

Potniae 59 Ptoan Apollo, Sanctuary of 45 Pyle (Sidae) 80 Pyrgos (Aspledon) 15 Pyrgos Aghias Marinas 48 Salganeus (Lithosoros) 95 Schedia? (Klidhi) 79 Schimatari 85 Schoenus? (Mouriki) 51 Scolus? (Mitropoliti Bridge) 76 Senkenna 43 Sidae (Pyle) 80 Siphae (Tiphys) 38 Skala Paralimnes (Peteon?) 54 Skroponeri (Phocae?) 104 Soros(Eteonus?) 75 Soules (Teumessus) 64 Staniates (Oenophyta?) 103 Stephen? (Vratsi) 83 Stroviki 16 Tanagra 84 Tateza (Donacon?) 100 Tegyra (Polyira) 12 Teumessus (Soules) 64 Thebes 60 Therapne? (Soros) 75 Thespiae 31 Thisbe 35 Tilphusium 23 Tiphys(Siphae) 38 Trapheiai (Oungra) 55 Tzamali 11 Vergoutiani 74 Vlicha (Hyria?) 92 Vratsi (Stephon?) 83

1. The Land of Boeotia

Central Greece is a long peninsula between the Gulf of Corinth and the Straits of Euboea with Boeotia forming its central section. The arable part of Boeotia is an elliptically shaped group of plains, about eighty kilometres east to west and forty kilometres north to south. These plains are part of a corridor, flanked by mountains, that extends east-southeast from Mt. Oeta for about 125 kilometres to the Gulf of Euboea. In the centre of this group of plains there was, until the turn of this century and through most of antiquity, 1 a large shallow, swampy lake, Copai's, which extended about twenty kilometres east to west and ten north to south. The lake lay so that there were large arable areas to the east and to the west, and rather narrow strips to the north and south. The main towns of Boeotia lay in the larger areas, such as Thebes to the east and Orchomenus to the west, with smaller towns such as Haliartus and Copae scattered in the strips. The plains are, for Greece, of good quality for farming, composed of erosible marls and clays with some alluvial soil. The mountains flanking these plains to the south are chiefly Mesozoic limestones and form separate large blocks connected by ridges. They run directly east-southeast to the northern end of the Gulf of Petalia in the Straits of Euboea. In their western part they shut off Boeotia from the Gulf of Corinth, and in their eastern part they separate Boeotia from Megara and Attica. The massif of Helicon dominates the western sector and is linked by hills to Parnassus still further west, while Cithaeron dominates the eastern part.2 Helicon itself consists of several parallel chains of mountains, the tallest of which rises to Palaiovouno (1,799 metres), the four in the west becoming three in the east, with spurs and smaller ranges radiating in different directions. One spur goes northwest to join Mt. Laphystium and forms a dividing line between Boeotia and Phocis. Another spur points northeast in a diminishing line of hills towards Sphinx mountain and the

2

The Land of Boeotia

range along the eastern side of Copais. It marks a major division between the eastern and western groups of Boeotian plains. A gap, the Vale of Thespiae, lies between the eastern part of Helicon and the next massif, Cithaeron. It is a fertile area that winds towards the coast and is linked to the western group of plains by various valleys through Helicon. It joins the south Boeotian plateau by easy stages.3 The easternmost series of mountains, those separating Boeotia from Attica and Megara, consists of three parallel ranges. The most northerly range, composed of Cithaeron and Pastra, is about thirty kilometres long.4 The second, about five kilometres south of this, has Pateras linked by low ridges with Parnes to form a line about sixty kilometres long. Between the first and the second range lie three small basins: on the coast lies Aegosthena, which was disputed in Hellenistic times between Boeotia and Megara; inland are found the valleys of Eleutherae and of Oenoe, the former of which was disputed between Boeotia and Athens until the fourth century. A spur then turns southeast. This one separates the two plains of Eleusis and Megara. The third range, Geraneia, runs across the Isthmus of Megara and lies outside the scope of this study.5 The mountains flanking the Boeotian plains to the north are, like those to the south, formed in a series of blocks of limestone. They are less elevated than those in the south, but form an impressive-looking barrier (easily crossed) between Boeotia and the coastal area of Locris. The massif of Mount Chlomon (of dolomitic limestone) forms the principal block in the west. It sends off to the south-southwest a smallish range, Mt. Hedylium, which runs towards the valley of the Cephissus and the spur moving up from Laphystium. A tangle of cream-coloured cliffs above shaly, scrub-covered slopes, with occasional arable hollows, forms a series of hills linking Chlomon with the next block to the east, Mt. Ptoon. The boundaries between Boeotia and Locris are not sharply defined by any natural division and they shifted back and forth in this rugged area throughout the historical period. Thus Larymna and various other small towns were at one time Boeotian, at another time Locrian. The hills block any surface egress from Lake Copai's, which was drained by underground sinkholes. From Mt. Ptoon a spur goes southwest to Sphinx Mountain along what was once the east side of Lake Copai's. Between this spur and the parallel one from the next block lie two lakes, Iliki and Paralimni (ancient Hylice and Trephia) and the modern drain for Copai's. The last block is a ridge from Mt. Messapium running southwest to Hypatus. To the east lies a coastal plain.6 Between these north and south ranges lie the plains of Boeotia. The westernmost plain is drained by the Cephissus River and begins in Phocis

The Land of Boeotia

3

and Doris. Only the lower reaches belong to Boeotia, the line of the frontier being marked by the Marios ravine that runs south to north just to the east of Panopeus, and by the peak of Hedylium to the north of the Cephissus River. This fertile and well-watered plain marks one of the main lines of entry into Boeotia.7 The Copaic basin has good farmland along the former verges of the lake, as well as in the very fertile former lake bed. The modern settlements, like the ancient, are on the margins of the plain, close to suitable water supplies. Some ancient sites had been moved when the levels of the lake rose near the end of the Bronze Age.8 The lake has now been completely drained, and the course of the Cephissus has been altered so as to swing along the former southern side and act as a great drainage ditch.9 Several streams other than the Cephissus entered the Copai's. The Melas is a large perennial river. It starts in springs at the foot of Chlomon and skirts the northern edge of the former lake eventually to enter a sinkhole at the end of the old northeast arm. The Hercyna River (modern Probasia) flows easterly from springs on Mt. Laphystium and past Lebadea.10 The Phalarus (Pantzas) runs northeast from Helicon and passes on the west side of the site of Coronea.11 The Cuarius 12 was probably the torrent found on the east side of Coronea. The Triton13 was another small seasonal stream, probably one slightly east of the Cuarius near modern Solinari. The Lophis14 is probably the small stream that starts high in Helicon, and flows east, turning north to pass to the east of Haliartus. Most of these are not rivers or brooks, but simply "run-offs." Only the Cephissus and the Melas are perennial. The run-offs to the north of Lake Copais are not identified, even by conjecture. To the east of the hills connecting Mt. Ptoon and Helicon lies the Theban plain. It is bounded on the south by a scarp or ridge that rises up to the south Boeotian plateau and on the east by rolling hills that separate it from the plain of Tanagra. The northern part, the Aonian plain, lies to the southwest of Mt. Messapium (Ktipas). It used to be somewhat dampish, but it has been drained and produces good crops, while the hill slopes, especially those of Ktipas, have many olive groves and orchards. The western part, between Lake Iliki, the scarp to the south and the hills to the west, forms the Teneric plain, the less fertile but still sufficiently productive section. The Theban plain is drained by the Thespius (modern Kanavari) to the west and the Ismenus to the east. South of the scarp lies a plateau descending from the eastern slopes of Helicon, about thirty kilometres west to east by ten kilometres north to south. It is sometimes called the upper Asopus basin, but the south Boeotian plateau is a better term. It is a series of bumpy hills and gulleys,

4

The Land of Boeotia

sometimes called sharply rolling plains, with a surface of easily eroded Pliocene sands and clays that form red or brown soils. It is quite fertile and grows much grain, vines and olives. The slopes are well forested for Greece, and some further reforestation is in train, but there still remains much pasture land. The Asopus is the main stream in the area, but there are others forming different watersheds.15 The Asopus is a smallish stream, in a shallow valley, flowing eastward well below Cithaeron and Parnes for much of its length. It flows past the ancient site of Eutresis and past a string of small settlements on the slopes above its valley, then through the escarpment at its eastern end into the plain of Tanagra.16 The Thespius drains a more westerly part of the plateau, flowing east after risng near Thespiae then turning north to join the Ismenus, which flows past Thebes and through the Teneric plain. Once joined they empty into Lake Iliki.17 The Oeroe (modern Stravopotamos) flows southwest past Plataea to drain the southern part of the plateau immediately below Cithaeron and finishes near the port of Creusis on the Corinthian Gulf.18 The Permessus (modern Archontitza) drains the extreme west and southwest arms of the plateau and disappears in a swampy sinkhole near Domvraina.19 To the east of the south Boeotian plateau and of the Theban plain is the plain of Tanagra. It is separated from the plateau by a continuation of the scarp, which here forms a ridge culminating in the Soros and Moustaphades hills, and is separated from the Theban plain by a saddle, the Dritsa ridge. The plain is irregular in shape, red-soiled and fertile. One arm swings northwest to form the area once occupied by the four small towns called the Tetracomia. The plain ends in a low escarpment where the land falls away to the straits of Euboea.20 Three coastal plains on the Straits of Euboea are noteworthy. First is the plain of Oropus,21 at the mouth of the Asopus. This was long in dispute between Athens and Boeotia. Second is the plain around Aulis, south of the Euripus,22 the plain of Vathy. Third, north of Euripus, lies the plain of ancient Salganeus, modern Khalia, a fertile area.23 On the south coast a small coastal plain lies at Chorsiae on the west, a second joins the Domvraina section of the south Boeotian plateau, and a very small third one lies at the mouth of the Oeroe.24 They provide the main entry to Boeotia from the Peloponnese. There are several approaches to the Boeotian plains. First is the route by way of the Cephissus valley and Chaeronea.25 Second is the passage from Thermopylae southeast via Hyampolis.26 Third are the various west-east paths over and through Helicon.27 Fourth are the paths from Chorsiae and Thisbe north through Helicon towards Coronea.28

The Land of Boeotia

5

Fifth are the paths from Siphae, Chorsiae and Thisbe up the Permessus valley to Thespiae.29 Sixth is the route from Greusis inland to Thespiae and Thebes.30 The ancient road itself has been traced by Pritchett31 from Creusis towards Thespiae. Seventh are the tracks over Cithaeron from Attica and Megara, at least four in number.32 Eighth is the route by Oropus and Delium and then inland to Tanagra or to Thebes.33 Ninth, the path that runs southwest from Chalcis or Aulis towards Thebes. Tenth, the route lies from Anthedon and Larymna west to Orchomenus.34 The main natural resources of Boeotia, other than its fertile soil, consist of limestone; cement, especially produced at Aulis; bauxite, from east of Dhistomon; magnesite, from Mt. Ktipas; and a little iron and nickel from Mt. Ptoon. None of these, except the limestone and perhaps the iron, was exploited in antiquity.

The Towns The names of several score Boeotian towns are found in the ancient sources, chiefly in Book 2 of the Iliad, Strabo, Pausanias and Plutarch. The locations of several, but not all, of these are known. They vary from important centres such as Thebes and Orchomenus to obscure hamlets. The sites of many other settlements, the ancient names of which are either uncertain or forgotten, have been located by vigorous archaeological exploration. In general one may say that the requirements for a successful town-site have changed little until recently. These are that arable land should be within walking distance of the town, but not itself be built upon, with water conveniently nearby. Nowadays the presence of railways and highways and the consequent convenience of long-range and rapid transportation have led to some changes. Nonetheless the most important ancient settlements are, in varying degrees, still important today. Because of the number of sites, they will be divided into seven areas for discussion: western, northern, southern, south coast, eastern, south Boeotian plateau and the north coast. The western region includes the settlements in the Boeotian part of the Cephissus alley along with those in the western Copai'c plain. The ancient town of Chaeronea, the home of Plutarch, lies at the site of the modern village of Chaironeia (formerly Kapraina). Only the walls on the acropolis and the theatre are visible, along with the famous lion, though trial excavations revealed the rough limits of the lower town. Sherds show occupation in Neolithic, Early and Late Helladic and Archaic times.35 Orchomenus lies at the tip of Mt. Acontium, about ten kilometres northeast of Chaeronea and north of the modern village of Orchomenos

6

The Land of Boeotia

(formerly Skripou). The remains are well known, including the tholos tomb, the acropolis and long walls, the temple of Asclepius, and so on, and have been the subject of excavations by the German School. The site was occupied from the Neolithic to the Classical periods.36 Lebadea is situated underneath the modern town of Livadhia, and so it has been little explored except for rescue excavations. The nearby hill of Trypiolithari, thought by some to be the acropolis of ancient Lebadea, seems to be simply a cemetery. The site of the famous oracle of Trophonius has not yet been convincingly located.37 The site of the Shrine of Itonian Athena and its attendant hamlet has now been set a few metres northeast of the village of Alalkomenai (formerly Mamoura), at the church of Metamorfosis, where various squared blocks and inscriptions have been discovered, or perhaps at the site nearby recently excavated by the Archaeological Service.38 A few kilometres further southeast, the temple of Athena Alalcomenaea and the neighbouring hamlet of Alalcomenae are to be placed near the modern village of Solinari, where recent excavations of the Greek Archaeological Service have uncovered the remains of a Classical sanctuary.39 Ancient Coronea lies sprawled desolately on a ridge south of Itonium and southwest of Alalcomenae, east of the village of Aghios Georgios. Scattered remains and the footings of walls are visible, and a depression on the east side of the hill suggests the presence of a theatre. A small excavation was carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service in the early twenties. Neolithic, Middle and Late Helladic, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds are reported.40 Hippotae (Plut. Narr. Amat. 4 / Mor. 755a) may lie in the little valley of Koukoura between Coronea and Thisbe in the depths of Helicon where ancient remains have been reported.41 Several ancient sites whose ancient names are unknown or uncertain also lie in this western area, including Magoula Balomenou, Kalami or Lioma, Agoriani and Metachorion. Magoula Balomenou is a large mound that lies northeast of Chaeronea by the Cephissus River. Trial excavations show that it was occupied in the Neolithic, Early and Late Helladic periods, but with no later occupation until Roman times. It has been tentatively identified with Arne of the Catalogue, as a low-lying site associated with Chaeronea.42 Kalami or Lioma lies between Coronea and Lebadea below Mt. Granitza on low-lying ground, close to the old edge of Lake Copai's. It is a large mound, with many roof tiles visible. It has not been excavated, but surface finds show settlement from Neolithic to the end of LH III B. As a low-lying site associated with Lebadea, it has been identified with Midea,

The Land of Boeotia

1

with Eleusis and with Arne. Nearby to the south the sanctuary of the Hero Charops was excavated early in this century.43 Agoriani, sometimes called Dekedhes, is a low hill south of the village of Aghia Paraskevi (formerly Agoriani). It was occupied during the Early, Middle and Late Helladic periods. No official excavations have been made so far. It has been tentatively identified with Eleusis, and, less plausibly, with Athens.44 To the north of Lake Copai's lie a series of settlements in the fertile strip along the edge and in the hollows of the mountans separating Boeotia from Locris. There is much dispute about the precise identification of many of these ancient sites. Aspledon, linked with Orchomenus in the Iliad, is said by Strabo (9.2.41) to have been twenty stades (three and three-quarter kilometres) from Orchomenus and across the Melas river. Pausanias (9.38.9) says that it was abandoned for lack of water, but Strabo says it had a good, that is western, exposure. Today the village of Tzamali lies two and one-half kilometres (thirteen and one-half stades) from Orchomenus. Fairly good springs, some of them sources of the Melas, lie nearby; but the whole site has an eastern exposure and is not across the Melas. There are Classical remains nearby that are claimed as a temple of Dionysus, though this idea is rejected by the latest investigators.45 At Polyira, about four and one-half kilometres (twenty-four and one-third stades) from Orchomenus, a small site has been found on a low spur on the northern edge of the lake. The pottery collected there shows settlement from Early Helladic to Hellenistic times.46 The present route to the site does not cross the Melas, though earlier paths might well have done so. It also has a plentiful water supply nearby, one of the sources of the Melas that seems to have been flowing for a considerable time. A few kilometres to the east of Polyira, about five and one-half kilometres from Orchomenus in a straight line (thirty stades), lie Hellenistic walls and foundations near Mavromandili at Avrokastro.47 Only Classical and Hellenistic pottery has been found at this site. At Pyrgos, about eight kilometres (about forty-three stades) from Orchomenus, on a hill above the town are the remains of a fairly large settlement, the subject of trial excavations. Middle Helladic and Mycenaean occupation is attested as well as Archaic and Classical. The Classical site was apparently walled, perhaps with two circuits (polygonal and Cyclopean), and covered the hilltop area of about 250 by 150 metres. The Mycenaean settlement seems to have been somewhat larger and to have extended down the hill some distance. The village has at present a plentiful supply of water, but its former name, Xeropyrgo, suggests that its water sources are apt to change in the amount they

8

The Land of Boeotia

furnish. It is across the Melas from Orchomenus and has a western exposure.48 At present this village seems to be favoured as the site of Aspledon, in spite of its distance from Orchomenus, because Strabo's mileages are often inaccurate, and all else points to its being an important site.49 In this case Mavromandili could well be Eudielus, which Strabo (9.2.41) says was the later name of Aspledon. Perhaps the water supply gave out in the Hellenistic period, and the settlement transferred to another location.50 Polyira is currently thought by most authorities to be the Tegyra of Plutarch,51 for it seems to have been situated in this area. It had a temple and an oracular shrine of Tegyraean Apollo near and overlooking the townsite. The ruins of a temple on the Mycenaean site of Magoula nearby conform to this description.52 Thus Tegyra may be located at Polyira, which is the most popular view at present, and one supported by the existence of a Classical temple on a nearby Mycenaean location. Tegyra may also be at Pyrgos, which is the older but not commonly held opinion. Aspledon may be located at Pyrgos, the present commonly held opinion, or at Polyira, the older belief. Eudielus or perhaps Euaemon may be set at Mavromandili. Tzamali perhaps marks the site of a temple of Dionysus, or, more likely, a small settlement the name of which is unknown. No identifications are possible for small sites such as Stroviki, where no inscriptions giving place names have been found. Several other obscure toponyms grace this region. Olmones, a mere village,53 should lie north of Lake Copai's. It is usually set at the sparse ruins, apparently of Classical date, that crown a hill just to the west of the village of Pavlou.54 Hyettus, another small village,55 near a place called Dendri, has circuit (or perhaps retaining) walls with inscriptions. These identify the location with certainty. It lies about a kilometre east of Loutsi and about six kilometres northeast of Pyrgos. It was the subject of some excavation in the past century.56 Corseia was a small border village belonging at one time to Boeotia, at another time to Locris.57 It is probably to be identified with some hilltop remains between Martinon and Proskyna, fairly close to the latter.58 Cyrtones is another town of uncertain location that was passed between Boeotia and Locris.59 It is generally placed on a hill southwest of Martinon where ancient remains have been noted.60 Copae, a more important town, has been securely located at Topolia, underneath the modern townsite, on a small rounded hill that projected into the Copai'c basin. Inscriptions confirm the identification. 61 Larymna is a coastal city that was sometimes held by Boeotia, but

The Land of Boeotia

9

usually by Locris. Its site is usually placed at the ruins that lie on the bay of Larmes, on and around a small promontory.62 Several place-names belong on the southern side of Lake Copais between Alalcomenae and Haliartus. One of these is Tilphusium, which lay on or near Mount Tilphusius. At the base of this mountain lay the spring Tilphusa,63 and close to the spring the temple of Apollo Tilphusius,64 while somewhere in the neighbourhood was the sanctuary of the Praxidicae.66 A shrine of Poseidon Hippios must have lain nearby; its aetiological myth indicates this clearly.66 Strabo (9.2.27) mentions a settlement, but elsewhere (9.2.36) refers to Tilphusium as a natural strongpoint ( pv v v). Demosthenes and Diodorus67 seem to imply the presence of a fortress on the mountain.68 Mount Tilphusius is usually identified with Petra, a ridge between the modern villages of Ypsilantis and Solinari that is linked to the higher ridge of Paleothivai and through it to Helicon.69 A vigorous minority maintains that Petra and Paleothivai together make up Mt. Tilphusius, a view that seems to me to be probably correct.70 An ancient fort, sometimes termed Vigla, lies atop Petra,71 and a second fort called Paleothivai lies atop the hill of Paleothivai, three and one-half kilometres southwest of Vigla.72 There is no certainty, 73 but Fossey's suggestion that both sites should be termed Tilphusium has merit.74 The spring from which Teiresias drank and near which he died of a chill is usually identified with the one flowing from the foot of the great cliff of Petra.75 Several scholars, however, argue for a much colder fountain about three kilometres southwest at the convent of Aghios Nikolaos, below Paleothivai.76 Others point out that no remains earlier than the Byzantine period have been found in the area of the convent, even though it might well be a better site for the fountain than the one below Petra.77 Ocalea lay between Haliartus and Alalcomenae, thirty stades (five and three-fifths kilometres) from each, according to Strabo.78 The other ancient sources are sparse and not too helpful. 79 No site with suitable remains has yet been found for what should have been a Mycenaean settlement, as it was mentioned by Homer. The general consensus is that Ocalea should lie in a little valley east of the hill of Petra, east of Ypsilantis, and at or near the village of Siacho (sometimes referred to as Petra, but not to be confused with the rock three and one-half kilometres west).80 A few would prefer Ocalea near the chapel of Aghios Nikolaos north of the railway line, about a kilometre north of Siacho, but the latest study places it south of Siacho, near the convent of Evangelistra, about five and one-half kilometres from Haliartus.81 The sanctuary of the Muses in Helicon was excavated in 1882 by

10

The Land of Boeotia

Stamatakis and in 1888-90 by the French School, but the excavations have never been published. The excavators discovered a theatre, an altar, a stoa, the crepidoma of a temple of the Muses near the stoa and a pedestal for statues of the Muses.82 No settlement existed here, for it was simply a sanctuary. Haliartus has been excavated and long identified. 83 It stood on the shore of Copais and controlled the narrow approach between east and west Boeotia. The ancient acropolis lies west of the modern village, which extends over the ancient lower town. The site of Hesiod's Ascra is usually placed south of Haliartus, forty stades (about seven and one-half kilometres) from ancient Thespiae, around and on the conical hill Pyrgaki, where a ruined Hellenic tower marks its location.84 Below the tower is a wall of poorly constructed polygonal masonry. Some authorities have identified this site as Ceressus, and put the site of Ascra south of Helicon, at or near Xeronomi.85 This seems most unlikely. Onchestus is placed in the area of a hillock surmounted by a ruined farmhouse to the north of the modern Thebes-Livadhia highway, near kilometre post eighty-seven. Fragments of walls have been noted on the south side of the road in a cutting, and Mycenaean sherds have been collected. The sanctuary of Poseidon has recently been uncovered.86 Ceressus was probably a location, with no permanent settlement in Classical times. Its precise setting is uncertain,87 though Palaiouoro, a hill with a ruined tower, and Neochorion, where ruins and inscriptions have been recovered from a hill just northwest of the modern village, seem to be the favourites. The latest study, however, prefers Listi.88 Thespiae lies in the Kanavari (ancient Thespius) valley, not far from the headwaters of the Thespius river, its location marked by a large mound on the right bank, below Erimokastro (officially Thespiai). It is a well-known site, with material observable from the Neolithic to Classical periods. It has not been properly excavated. The Byzantine walls that crowned the mound were demolished by the French School for the inscriptions contained there, as were a number of neighbouring churches (1G1. 1719-2222).89 Leuctra, near where the great battle between the Thebans and the Spartans took place in 371 B.C., is thought to have been an ancient village, the precise location of which is unknown. 90 The site of the battlefield is marked by the remains of the Theban monument, which was excavated and restored a few years ago. It stands about one kilometre northwest of the modern village of Parapoungia (officially Levktra). 91 An ancient road from Thespiae to the coast at Creusis, one that runs near the battlefield, has recently been traced. 92

The Land of Boeotia

11

A settlement with remains from Neolithic to Byzantine times was the subject of careful excavations at Eutresis. It lies on a hill, Arkopodi, two kilometres northeast of Parapoungia. The road from Plataea to Thespiae ran through it,93 and it may have lain on the route from Creusis to Thebes.94 It appears to have been abandoned between Late Helladic III C and the Late Geometric period. An ancient settlement has been observed at Tateza, and it has been tentatively identified as Donacon.95 The south coastal area was and is sparsely settled, with excellent harbours and no hinterland. The most westerly ancient settlement is the little harbour-town and fortress of Chorsiae. It lies a few minutes walk below the monastery of Aghios Taxiarchos, about three kilometres from the modern village of Chostia, about one and one-half kilometres inland, at the mouth of a valley descending from Helicon. Traces of walls may be seen at the site, and it seems to have been settled from Middle Helladic times, with probably the usual gap at the end of the Mycenaean period. It seems to have been a Mycenaean and Hellenic fortress, guarding the frontier with Phocis. The identification is secured by inscriptions.96 Thisbe lay at modern Kakosi (officially Thisvi), as inscriptions confirm. It lies about four kilometres from the sea in the Permessus valley. Two settlements of different periods extend from the village site to different hills. Northwest of the town, on Palaiokastro, the remains of polygonal masonry and Middle and Late Helladic sherds show the location of part of the Bronze Age settlement. Though this hill does reveal signs of use in the Classical period, the main settlement at that time apparently lay under and south of the town on a hill named Neokastro. This forms a plateau-like, low hill with sharp slopes to the north. Fortification walls of ashlar masonry, up to eight courses high, remaining here and there, are traceable. Chamber tombs have been observed at the foot of the hill. The ancient harbour was probably at Aghios loannes.97 Siphae or Tipha98 is located by traces of walls on a ridge north of the port of Aliki, about ten kilometres southeast of Thisbe, near modern Koromeli, at the south side of a small coastal plain. The walls are of Classical date and extend down to the harbour and a mole. Middle and Late Helladic pottery, as well as what seems to be a Mycenean wall, have been observed here.99 A fortress north of Siphae, at Maurovouni, on a route from the harbour to the hinterland, has been the subject of a close survey.100 Creusis seems to have been a principal port of Thebes and is marked by fortifications on a hill overlooking the harbour and an ancient quay. The lower town seems to have extended some distance to the north along the slopes below the fort as well as east down toward the plain. Mycenaean and Middle Helladic remains as well as Classical remains

12

The Land of Boeotia

have been observed. Traces of a road from Creusis via Leuctra to Thespiae have been followed.101 Creusis is not the port of Plataea and no real route joined them.102 The harbour of Plataea probably lay at Aghios Vasilios, about three kilometres to the southeast of Creusis, at the terminus of an overland route that avoids the rigours of the Oeroe valley. Classical and Roman remains are noted here,103 including a temenos of Poseidon. The name of the settlement is unknown. The eastern area includes the settlements to the east of Copai's and in the Teneric and Aonian plains up to the edge of the Asopus plateau. The first of these settlements, Medeon, lies four kilometres to the north of Onchestus, close to the modern hamlet of Davlosis at the hill Kastraki. Bronze Age, Dark Age and Classical remains have been noted, and trial excavations were carried out before the Second World War. Mycenaean cemeteries have been observed in this vicinity at Kalimbaki and on the western slopes of Mt. Sphinx (Phagas).104 Acraephia or Acraephnium105 lies directly south of the village of Karditsa (officially Akraiphnion) on the hill of Kriaria, on the eastern side of Copais. Walls can be observed and have been partially excavated on the northern slopes. The settlement was fairly extensive.106 The location of Homeric Hylae is unknown, 107 but there have been several proposals. The first was made by Col. Leake,108 who suggested a location one and one-half kilometres north of Senkenna on a hill near the foot of Mt. Pelagia, where he saw some walls and towers. This is a little south of Acraephia and separated from it by a ridge. Unfortunately no remains are now visible and recent searches have revealed no traces of a townsite in the area.109 The second, by B lte,110 advocated the rather barren peninsula of Klimitari that juts from the north coast into Lake Iliki, several kilometres east of Lake Copais. Walls and rectangular foundations are reported near the southern tip of the peninsula. 111 The land seems incapable of supporting much of a settlement, especially one famed for its leather-working,112 and it lies quite far from Lake Copais. The third proposal, the site of Likeri, and the fourth one, Oungra, are discussed below. Since Homer refers to Hylae as being at, near, or on Lake Copai's,113 any town, including Gla, that abuts is a possibility. Strabo (9.2.20) is more confused than usual. The sanctuaries of Apollo Ptoos and of the hero Ptoos are near Acraephia, the latter at Kastraki about two kilometres away, the former at Perdikovrysi, about one-half kilometre further east. There was no settlement attached to the shrines, which have been the subject of extensive excavation and recent cleaning, but of which very little has been written. Perdikovrysi lies on several terraces on the lower slopes of Mt. Pelagia. Kastraki is on the south side of the valley between Acraephia

The Land of Boeotia

13

and the sanctuary of Apollo. Near Perdikovrysi there must have been a theatral area for the celebrations of the Ptoa. A Mycenaean settlement was close by, and several fortifications have been observed in the area.114 There are several other sites in the neighbourhood the names of which are still unknown. These include: the great Mycenaean fortress of Gla;115 the small fortress at Chantsa;116 Aghios loannis, a Mycenaean fortress larger than Tiryns;117 Pyrgos Aghias Marinas, with its Mycenaean walls three metres thick;118 a Mycenaean settlement with nearby Neolithic remains at Megali Katavothri',119 and several other forts lying west and northwest of Acraephia. The location of Schoenus is not certain, but it is thought to be somewhere near the modern village of Mouriki, perhaps at Aghios Elias.120 Gell (141 f.) saw ruins on the bay of Lake Iliki near the present village, ruins now covered by the rise in the water level of the lake.121 Professor Papadimitriou discovered remains from all three Helladic periods in 1931, as well as Early Helladic graves, at Likeri, a site on a small hill that extended like a peninsula into Lake Iliki (sometimes termed Likeri) east of the common mouth of the Thespius and Ismeme Rivers. This is occasionally thought to be Hylae and recently has been suggested as Trapheia.122 Another place with no secure location is Peteon. It lies, according to Strabo (9.2.26), on the road from Thebes to Anthedon. It is perhaps to be identified with Platanaki, four and one-half kilometres northeast of Mouriki.123 Wallace reports finding remains at Skala Paralimnes on the shore of Lake Paralimni, 400 metres from the east end of the lake.124 These consist of the remains of public buildings and house foundations, with a city wall and traces of a road parallel to the shore, probably the old Thebes-Anthedon route. He tentatively identifies this site as Peteon. Remains at the southwest end of Lake Paralimni near the village of Oungra have been thought to be Trapheia or Hylae (sometimes in conjunction with Klimitari) for no firmly compelling reasons.125 Another settlement has been noted on the northwest side of the lake at Kastro,126 allegedly Greek and Roman in date. To return to the southern part of this area, the Cabinum lies west of Thebes near the junction of the route to Thespiae with the old highway to Livadhia. It was excavated by the German School. It was not a settlement, but simply a religious sanctuary. There was a Doric temple built in Imperial times over the remains of two earlier temples, an altar, a cult-theatre of Imperial date and various buildings from various times built over one another. Somewhat to the north lay the temple of Demeter Kabeira, which has not yet been excavated.127 Frazer128 notes some foundations and squared blocks of limestone,

14

The Land of Boeotia

as well as sherds, a half-hour's walk west of the Cabirium, "at a point where the hills advance furthest into the plain." These remains he identifies as having been the sanctuary of Heracles Hippodetes. Further east are the remains of Potniae, a town already abandoned in Pausanias' time.129 In and around the modern village of Tachi, ancient blocks in the village, and sherds and tiles in the nearby fields show that Potniae lay, as Pausanias says, ten stades (one and four-fifths kilometres) from Thebes. No Mycenaean remains, pace Kirsten, have yet been reported here.130 Thebes is well known, and considerable excavation has been done in and around the modern town. The Mycenaean palace or palaces and the rich finds, including cylinder seals from Mesopotamia and Linear B tablets, mark it as an important location from the Bronze Age to the present. The remains from the Classical period usually seem to be the subject of emergency excavations and are widely scattered in an area considerably larger than the modern town. The circuit walls have been traced, though the precise location of the seven gates, and what their names are, remain subjects of debate. Thebes was an important medieval town that was reduced to its present state only in comparatively modern times.131 Strabo(9.2.10) mentions a town of Knopia found in Theban territory, from where the Amphiareum was transferrd to Oropus. This occurrence is thought to have taken place between 431 and 414 B.C.132 The Scholiast on Nicander (ther.889) says that Knopia was on the Ismenus River but its precise location is unknown. Bursian's suggestion that it should be set at the ancient site near Syrtzi on Mt. Hypatus is not commonly accepted.133 The ruins seen on Lake Hylice that are usually identified with Schoenus are a possibility,133a but there is no particularly good reason to set Knopia so far from Thebes. A peribolus south of Thebes noted by Pausanias (9.8.3) has been suggested,134 but a peribolus is not a town, and it is not near the Ismenus River. A cemetery and the architectural remains of a temple excavated at Kanapetra, about two kilometres north of Thebes,135 have also been suggested as belonging to the Amphiareum and the village of Knopia, but nothing is as yet confirmed.136 Teumessus was, according to Pausanias (9.19.1), seven stades (one and one-third kilometre) from Glisas; it was near the mountain that took its name and was on the route to Chalcis. Two possible locations have been favoured, Mesovouni by the older authorities and Soules by the more recent. Soules, which is situated on a small hill overlooking the Theban plain about two kilometres south of Mesovouni, north of and equidistant from the peaks of Soros and Moustaphades, seems the better

The Land of Boeotia

\5

location. Very little of antiquity has been found at Mesovouni, while Mycenaean and Classical sherds are reported at Soules, as well as some marble fragments which were built into the chapel of Profitis Ilias and some courses of an ancient wall. The distances given in Pausanias do not agree, although this is not too serious.137 Glisas is fairly securely located at a small acropolis with walls of polygonal masonry and pottery of Mycenaean (LH I, LH II and LH III) and Classical dates, on the southwest slopes of Mt. Sagmatas above the village of Syrtzi at a locale known as Tourleza. It has not been excavated. Nearby, at the monastery of Moni Sagmata, have been noted many ancient blocks and columns, and the re-use of walls. Perhaps this is the site of the Sanctuary of Zeus Hypatus.138 Heleon is now generally agreed to be at a site on the flat top of a steep hill three-quarters of a kilometre northwest of the village of Dritsa (officially Eicon). Wall traces of the Archaic and Classical periods, much prehistoric and classical pottery from Early Helladic to Hellenistic, and foundations below the hill to the north, northwest, west and southwest have been noted.139 Harma is located at Kastri, below Mt. Lykovouniou where it approaches the Thebes-Chalcis road. A rectangular fortress can be traced, and remains of other walls have been noted. Remains of pottery of Mycenaean and Classical times have been observed.140 Mycalessus is usually located on a low knoll about 400 metres southwest of the hamlet of Ritsona, some 300 metres west of the Thebes-Chalcis road. Mycenaean and Classical sherds have been identified, and an Archaic cemetery has been excavated. About three kilometres west of Ritsona, on the right bank of a stream below Mt. Messapium, Wallace reports finding the foundations of a large building which included one apsidal structure. This site he considers might be Mycalessus.141 The next area, the Asopus plateau, is probably better explored than the other areas of Boeotia, but has just as many topographical problems. The location of Plataea is well known. It lies thirteen kilometres southwest of Thebes, on a tableland sloping to the north, just outside and to the northeast of the village of Kokla (officially Plataiai). It has been the object of excavations, and its identification is confirmed by inscriptions. Walls of various periods can be traced, and a walled keep or inner fortification marks the location of a Mycenaean settlement.142 Hysiae, Erythrae, Scolus and Eteonus (Scarphe) are four towns that must have been in or near Plataean territory, but their precise locations are still uncertain. The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (FGrH 66 F 1, 11.3) and Strabo (9.2.24) say that the four towns and Plataea once formed one

16

The Land of Boeotia

state. Herodotus (9.15.3) says that the Persian camp lay along the Asopus from Erythrae past Hysiae to the land of Plataea. Clearly, then, these towns lie along the Asopus, with the ordering from west to east being Plataea, Hysiae and Erythrae. Pausanias (9.1.6) says that there is a "road that leads from Thebes to Hysiae in the direction of Eleutherae," one to be distinguished from the Thebes-Plataea route. He also states (9.2.1) that Hysiae and Erythrae (in that order) lie a little to the right, that is, to the east, of the "straight road, from Eleutherae to Plataea." One may then conclude that the two towns lie fairly close to Plataea and roughly in a line along the Asopus. To find Scolus, Pausanias gives fairly precise directions (9.4.4): "Before you cross the Asopus, turn aside and follow the stream downward, and after about 40 stades you will come to the ruins of Scolus." As for locating Eteonus, Strabo (9.2.24) says that its name was changed to Scarphe (or whatever is the correct manuscript reading), and that it lay in the Parasopia. Homer (//. 2.497) calls it "many-ridged," which should mean that it was in or near the mountains. 143 Seven or eight ancient sites lie close enough to Plataea to be considered possibilities for the names of the four towns that formed a state with Plataea. First, two kilometres east of Kriekouki (officially Erythrai) on a ridge southeast and above the chapel of Pantanassa, there have been observed tiles, sherds, and other traces of settlement. Leake (TNG, 2.236-39) saw walls and a cistern, which have now disappeared. The sherds include those of Mycenaean, Classical and Hellenistic dates. The site extends to the fields west of and below the ridge, where deep ploughing has brought to the surface building blocks and more sherds. This site has not been excavated.144 Second, on a ridge close to the chapel of Aghia Triadha, about two and one-half kilometres east of the Pantanassa site, Leake (TNG, 2.237-39) saw ancient blocks, wall foundations and a Doric column and capital, none of which is visible today. Only a fairly light scatter of Classical sherds has been noted, and no Mycenaean material has as yet been observed.145 Third, a fairly large site lies on top of and at the foot of a hill (nowadays called "Katsoula" by the locals) near a ruined branch of the monastery of Osios Meletios, close to the ruined church of Aghios Athanasios and about one kilometre west of the village of Darimari (officially Daphni). A large spring is nearby. The remains of buildings and a circuit wall around the acropolis, tile fragments and Mycenaean and Classical sherds are noted, as well as two fragments of the Edict of Diocletian.146 Pritchett reports that local informants say that these are the only three ancient sites in the area that is bounded by Kriekouki, the

The Land of Boeotia

17

Asopus, the foothills of Mt. Cithaeron and Darimari.147 Fourth, at the chapel of Aghia Anna west of Kriekouki, near the Vergoutiani spring, many sherds, mostly Byzantine, have been reported. There could not have been any large or important Classical settlement here.148 Fifth, across the Asopus near the village of Neochorakion, fortifications are observable on the height of Soros, with a strongly built enceinte showing at least three different phases of walling. Mycenaean and Hellenistic tombs have been found on the slopes of Soros as well.149 Sixth, an extensive ancient site has been noted on the ridge four kilometres southeast of Neochorakion, just to the north of the bridge Mitropoliti. Building blocks, tiles and numerous sherds, Geometric, Archaic and Classical, cover an area at least 200 by 400 metres. About one kilometre west of this site at Palaiomylai along the same ridge, the remains of a cemetery with an archaic inscription were noted by Pritchett.150 Seventh, near Chlempotsari (officially Asopia) on the north side of the Asopus, on the hill Profitis Elias, the remains of walls of polygonal and ashlar masonry can be seen, as well as building blocks and roof tiles, along with sherds of the Early, Middle and Late Helladic, Classical and Hellenistic periods. On Pyrgaki, two kilometres northwest of Chlempotsari, are Mycenaean chamber tombs.151 Eighth, near Klidhi, on the south side of the Asopus, about seven kilometres from Chlempotsari, there are settlement traces of Classical date, and some Mycenaean tombs have been excavated. An ancient settlement lay on Kastro, about two kilometres north of the village.152 A further site near Pyle (formerly Derbenosialesi) has sometimes been suggested. If it is anything it is probably, as Wallace conjectured,153 Sidae, a border town between Thebes and Athens. One scholar has suggested that Eteonus should be set near Kavasala, but his idea is not widely accepted.154 The four names have been variously distributed among these eight sites, but there is no agreement at this time as to what sites should be given what names. The site near Pantanassa has been identified as Hysiae by some and as Erythrae by others.155 The second one, near Aghia Triadha, has been thought to be Erythrae by some, but only a small unidentified village by others.156 The site near Darimari is usually identified as Scolus, but several authorities now argue for its being Eteonus, while still others say it is Erythrae.157 The fourth site, Vergoutiani spring, is sometimes called Hysiae, though this is usually rejected, because it seems to most authorities that the site is probably not Classical.158 The fifth site, Neochorakion, is sometimes thought to be

18

The Land of Boeotia

Scolus or the acropolis of Scolus.159 Another possible candidate for Scolus is the sixth site, the one near the Mitropoliti bridge. Some, however, consider this sixth site to be Therapnae.160 The seventh site, near Chlempotsari, is sometimes thought to be Eteonus, sometimes Eilesion and sometimes Pharae.161 Hysiae, then, has been set at Vergoutiani and at Pantanassa. Erythrae has been set at Pantanassa, Aghia Triadha and Darimari. Scolus has been placed at Darimari, Neochorakion and the Mitropoliti bridge. Eteonus has been put at Darimari, Chlempotsari and Pyle as well as near Kavasala. There the matter rests. On the present evidence it seems to be the most reasonable conjecture to place Hysiae at the Pantanassa site. Since the location corresponds well to Pausanias' directions, Scolus might be placed at the Mitropoliti bridge, where it could be a fertile source of dispute between Thebes and Plataea, even though it seems to be on the wrong side of the river. Erythrae would be better located at Darimari than at the insignificant Aghia Triadha site, especially since Mycenaean remains occur at Darimari.162 Eteonus is clearly not at Pyle, but should perhaps be placed north of the Asopus at the acropolis of Neochorakion.163 Eilesion might fit best at Chlempotsari. Therapne is a problematic name, which Strabo (or his source) may have taken from a misunderstanding of Euripides' Bacchae (1043-1045).164 Eleutherae was once Boeotian, and its territory bordered that of Plataea.165 It lies south of the heights of Cithaeron, overlooking the plain of Mazi, which lies between the chains of Pastra and Pateras. The town is usually located at or near the fortifications of Gyphokastro (often termed Panakton, though there is no unanimity on this point).166 Prehistoric remains are reported near Gyphokastro.167 About four kilometres southeast of Pyle (formerly Derbenosialesi) a fort lies above the town of Kavasala. It is thought to be Eteonus-Scarphe by some and Panakton by others. Recent studies indicate that it is Boeotian, but its name is unknown. Drymus is the latest suggestion.168 As noted above Pharae is sometimes set at Chlempotsari, but it is placed most recently at Aghios Panteleimon which is about five kilometres northeast of Schimatari. Occasionally Pharae is set at a site one-half kilometre west of Vratsi, where polygonal walls can be seen on the hill marking the ancient acropolis, and building blocks lie in the plain between the hill and the modern village, doubtless marking an ancient townsite. The site west of Vratsi is occasionally thought to be Eilesion rather than Pharae, though the latest study suggests that this site might be the obscure Stephon. The equally obscure Schedia is placed at Klidhi. 169

The Land of Boeotia

19

Tanagra was identified and excavated in the last century and has been considered primarily a Classical site, since until recently no prehistoric remains had been found in the immediate area. A full range have now been recovered. It lies five kilometres southeast of Vratsi at the locality of Graimadha. Its walls are still visible.170 Cemeteries line the paths leading from Tanagra, notably those paths running east at Lasi and northwest at Bali. A Mycenaean necropolis lies about three kilometres northwest of the Tanagra site, between Vratsi and Schimatari, but in spite of claims to the contrary does not necessarily belong to Tanagra.171 Near Schimatari on the hill of Aghios Elias, one-half kilometre from the church of Aghios Demetrios, "to the right of the direct road to Dilesi," a LH house and two graves were excavated at the turn of the century.172 The site of Oenophyta is tentatively identified with sparse settlement remains of Neolithic, Archaic and Classical dates found southeast of Staniates on the hill Pyrgos, or perhaps it is to be identified with the site near Kakosalesi.172a Oropus and the Oropia were a matter of dispute between Athens and Boeotia for much of their history, but are usually considered primarily Boeotian. The Oropians seem to have spoken an Ionic dialect. Oropus itself is now generally believed to lie at modern Skala Oropou, with the ancient remains covered by the modern construction.173 About two kilometres east of Skala Oropou, where the narrow gauge railway leads to an old coalmine on the seaward of the Skala Oropou-Markopoulo road, lies an extensive Mycenaean site, but it has not yet been published.174 The Amphiareum is a well-known shrine and oracular seat six kilometres southeast of Oropus and two kilometres east of Markopoulo, in the foothills of Mavrovouni. Excavations have been carried on by the Greek Archaeological Service since the late nineteenth century.175 The north coast of Boeotia has several ancient sites, most of which are reasonably surely identified, but some of which are most definitely not. Delium, the locality after which the battle of 424 B.C. was named, and site of the sanctuary of Apollo, is generally thought to lie at modern Dilesi. The topography of the battle has been the subject of a recent monograph.176 The site of Dramesi, on the northern edge of the village of Dramesi (officially Paralia), has been the subject of some archaeological investigation and a fair amount of discussion. It is clearly a prehistoric site, and the remains of a sculptured stele have brought it some fame. The site is usually considered to be Hyria, but there is some support for the idea that it might be Graea,177 an idea that seems to me to be more likely.

20

The Land of Boeotia

The site of Aulis has been clearly identified by excavation. It is about six kilometres south of the bridge to Chalkis, behind the promontory that lies between the two harbours of Megalo Vathys and Mikro Vathys. Aulis was in a low-lying area that extends south to the convent of Aghios Nikolaos and seems to have been a scattered settlement. A sanctuary and temple of Artemis have been excavated near the north harbour, Mikro Vathys. A Mycenaean necropolis lies in the area north of Mikro Vathys, where the cement factory is located. A rubble fortification, has been observed on the promontory on the highest part of the hill Yeladhovouni, also known as Nisi and Vesalas. Since no sherds have been found in its area, it is probably not the acropolis of Aulis, but some temporary fieldwork of Hellenistic times.178 On Megalo Vouno, about two kilometres northwest of Aulis on the road to Chalkis, stand the well preserved remains of a large fortress encircling the top of the hill. The plan is of an irregular oval shape, 200 metres east-west and 100 metres north-south. The walls have twelve bastions and three gates and enclose barracks and sheds. The ceramic remains date from Hellenistic and later times. It was thought at one time to be the site of Mycalessus or Hyria, but the evidence of the pottery leads to the rejection of both ideas. The latest conjecture is that it may have been built as headquarters for Polemaeus, the general of Antigonus the One-Eyed, between 313 and 309/308, and then served as one of the "fetters of Greece." It may also have been thought by some of the ancients to have been the site of Eilesion.179 From Megalo Vouno a fortification system and wall have been traced west to Mt. Ktipas that block off the Salganeus peninsula from the rest of Boeotia. The length is about eleven kilometres, the date is probably Hellenistic. They have been associated with the construction of the fortress on Megalo Vouno and the activities of Polemaeus.180 The site variously called Tseloneri, Vlicha, or Glypha lies on the west side of Vourko Bay, about half way between Aulis and the Chalkis bridge. Pottery from Neolithic to Late Helladic III C is noted, along with fortification walls, house foundations and obsidian. It has been recently suggested, probably correctly, that this is the site of Hyria. 181 The fortress on Karababas, about one-half kilometre from the Euripus, is medieval but has ancient blocks in its walls and there are tomb cuttings nearby. It has been identified as Salganeus, Canethus and, most recently, as the "Euripus Fortress" of Strabo (10.1.8) and IG II2 Chalia and Hyria are coupled by Theopompus as Boeotian towns that were close to one another.183 Chalia should lie somewhere in the

The Land of Boeotia

21

neighbourhood of modern Chalia (officially Drosia), though no such site has yet been identified.184 The Early Helladic site at Aghios Minas, about one kilometre from Chalia Mikra on the coast, might bear closer examination.185 The Lithosoros is a mound on the south side of a little bay about three kilometres west of modern Chalia (Drosia). Recent trial excavations have confirmed that it was occupied in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, being abandoned at the end of Late Helladic III B. The presence of sherds and roof tiles shows that it was reoccupied in Classical times. Usually it is identified as the site of Salganeus but occasionally as Isos. The latest studies suggest that it was the "Tomb Of Salganeus" of Strabo (1.1.17, 9.2.9), with the Classical village close by.186 Isos has been placed at a spot three kilometres west of Lithosoros and two kilometres east of Loukisia, the church of the Aghioi Georghii where Col. Leake observed some remains that might have been Classical. Later investigators have concluded that the material is Byzantine. Trial excavations at the northeast end of Paralimni have revealed a site identified as Isos by Pharaklas who was following Kirsten, perhaps correctly.187 Anthedon lies two kilometres north of Loukisia at Mandraki, where excavations and inscriptions have confirmed its location. It is a large and impressive site with an acropolis, circuit walls and a harbour with moles. Mycenaean pottery, including Late Helladic III C, as well as Geometric and Classical sherds have been recovered, and also a large cache of bronze.188 Phocae is perhaps to be identified with the remains noted at Skroponeri, where circuit walls, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Hellenistic pottery were found.189 From all this it is clear that the study of Boeotian topography is full of problems. There are many names that are not securely linked to specific sites, and several settlements whose ancient names are unknown. There are several names, such as Arne, that have not been securely located in any narrower compass than Boeotia.190 Other names, such as Therapne, Nisa, Mysa, and Isos may or may not be textual errors or misunderstandings.

Notes 1. The lake may have been partially drained in the Late Helladic period. See E.J.A. Kenny, LAAA 22 (1935) 189-206; R. Hope Simpson and J.F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's Iliad (Oxford, 1970) 38f. (henceforth Hope Simpson and Lazenby).

22

The Land of Boeotia

2. For general works on the southern mountain chains see Naval Intelligence Division, Greece 3 (London, 1944-45) 48-52; W.A. Heurtley, BSA 26 (1923-24) 38-45; A.W. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 189-210, esp. 193-95, 203-5; A.R. Burn, BSA 44 (1949) 313-23; A. Philippson, Griechischen Landschaften2, rev. E. Kirsten (Frankfurt, 1951), 389-419; 434-66; 522-47 (henceforth Philippson). 3. For Helicon and its routes see Burn, BSA 44 (1949) 313-23; W.K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, 1 (Berkeley, 1965) 49-58; Frazer, Paus. 5. 148-53. 4. Probably both modern Kithairon and Pastra were called Cithaeron in ancient times. P.W. Wallace, Strabo's Description of Boiotia (Diss., Ann Arbor, 1969) 104 (henceforth Wallace). 5. For Cithaeron see Philippson 1. 522-33; Gomme, BSA 18(1911-12) 193-95; Frazer, Paus. 5. 2-6. Pritchett, Studies 1. 116-21; N.G.L. Hammond, BSA 49(1954) 103-22. 6. For the northern ridge see Philippson 1. 348-62, 440-99; Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 195-202; P. Roesch, Thespies et la Confederation Beotienne, (Paris, 1965) 58f., 64 (henceforth Roesch); Frazer, Paus. 5. 133f. 7. See Pritchett, A]A 62 (1958) 307-11; Frazer, Paus. 5. 205-8, 216f.; Greece 3. 60f. 8. See J.M. Fossey, Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 7-21; T. Spyropoulos, AAA 6 (1973) 201-14. 9. For a description of the Copai's before it was drained see Frazer, Paus. 5. 110-19, the best I know of. For northeast corner of Copai's see H.J. Unger and G. Spitslberger, edd., DocumentaI; Em Kalkbrennofen am Stadtberg Pyrgos bei Hagia Marina (Landshut, 1976). 10. Paus. 9.39.5. 11. Paus. 9.34.5. 12. Str. 9.2.29. 13. Paus. 9.33.7. 14. Paus. 9.33.4. 15. For general discussion of this area see Philippson 1. 578; Pritchett, Studies 1. 103-21; Greece 3. 63; J.M. Fossey, Topography and Population of Ancient Boeotia (Diss., Lyon, 1976) 168f. 16. It was the subject of voluminous mythographical literature in antiquity and of equally voluminous debates, usually centring on the battle of Plataea, in the present. See, e.g., Philippson 1. 567, 687, 706, 729, 750. 17. The river is identified in Hesychius. See Philippson 1. 507. 18. Philippson 1. 504. For changes in its watershed near Plataea see Pritchett, Studies 1. 115-19. 19. Wallace, 122f., identifies the Permessus with the Archontitza, following the usual modern opinion; see also Roesch, 38. Kirsten, RE 19 (1937) s.v. "Permessos," 869-72, favours the Zagaras, called the Lophis above. The Archontitza is described as the Askra in Philippson 1. 459 and 672, but as the Permessos in 503. 20. See Wallace, 139f.; Philippson 1.514-16; Frazer, Paus. 5. 76f., 80. 21. Philippson 1. 544-47; Frazer, Paus. 2. 463-65. B. Petrakos, Oropus and the Temple of Amphiareior (Athens, 1972).

The Land of Boeotia

23

22. Philippson 1. 498f.; Frazer, Pans. 5. 73. 23. Frazer, Paus. 5. 71; Philippson 1. 499; S.C. Bakhuizen, Salganeus and the Fortifications on its Mountains (Groningen, 1970) 1-11. 24. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 204f.; Heurtley, BSA 26 (1923-25) 38-45; Philippson 1.456f.,505f. 25. Philippson 1.430-34. 26. See esp. J.A.O. Larsen, CP45 (1960) lOf. 27. Burn, BSA 44 (1949) 313-23; Philippson 1. 463. 28. See Burn, ibid. 29. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 203-5, points out its problems; see also Tomlinson and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 243-63. 30. Gomme, ibid. 31. Pritchett, Studies 2. 54-56. 32. Pritchett, AJA 61 (1957) 16-21, and Studies 1. 119-21. 33. Pritchett, Studies 2. 27-31. 34. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 205. 35. See Fossey, Topography, 452-58, for full description and bibliography, and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 10f.; see also Wallace, 215-19; K. Syriopoulos, 'H IIpoiaropia T s 'EXXados (Athens, 1968) 30f., no. 22 (henceforth Syriopoulos). 36. LaufTer and Hennig, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 290-355, for material to 1972; Fossey, Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 1 If. For excavations see especially Schliemann,JHS 2 (1881) 122-63; de Ridder, ECH 29 (1895) 137-224; Bulle, Orchomenos I (Munich, 1908); Kunze, Orchomenos II (Munich, 1931) and III (1934). See also Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly (Cambridge, 1912); Forsdyke, JHS 34 (1914) 153f.; Spyropoulos, AAA 3 (1970) 263-67; Teiresias, 73. 1. 1. 37. For description and recent material see Fossey, Topography, 416-20, and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 18; Wallace 220f., and Syriopoulos, 118, no. 59 for full bibliography to 1968. See AAA 2 (1969) 228-31, for report on an underground chamber that may be part of the oracle. 38. Fossey, Topography, 399f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 8; Pritchett, Studies 2. 85-87, gives full discussion and earlier bibliography and an excellent description of the site. For the new site see Spyropoulos, Praktika, 1975, B. 392-414. 39. Teiresias, 73. 1. 1; Fossey, Topography, 401-4, and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 8 and note 6, for notes on the excavation and bibliography. The identification with the site near Agoriani supported by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 26, following Lauffer, AA, 1940, 186, must be rejected. 40. For site and description and earlier bibliography, Fossey, Topography, 393-99. See also Frazer, Paus. 5. 170; Pieske, RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Koroneia," 1425-31. For the excavations by Pappadhakis see BCH 44 (1920) 388; 45 (1921) 522; 47 (1923) 521f. For recent discoveries and excavations Fossey, Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 9 notes 10, 11, and 12; Spyropoulos, AAA 6 (1973) 385-92. See further Wallace, 178; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 28. 41. Fossey, Topography, 41 If., Roesch, 53, note 1. 42. Fossey, Topography, 458f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 11, 17f.

24

The Land of Boeotia

43. For Kalami and identification with Midea, Fossey, Topography, 405f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 9f. and 16f. Lauffer, AA, 1940, 181-84, argues for Eleusis. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 688, suggests Arne. For excavations at the Charopium see Pappadhakis, AD, 1916, 217-59. 44. For description of site and identification with Eleusis, Fossey, Topography, 404f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 9, 14. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 474, 688, and 741 no. 140, suggests Athens. For bibliography Syriopoulos, 70, no. 27; R. Hope Simpson, Gazeteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites, B1CS, Supp. 16 (London, 1965) 119, no. 410 (henceforth Atlas); Lauffer, AA, 1940, 184f.; Frazer, Pans. 5. 168. 45. Philippson 1. 742, no. 155, 475f. Lauffer, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 325, and AA, 1940, 188. 46. Philippson 1. 476, 687f., 742, no. 156; Syriopoulos, 30, no. 20; Atlas, 114f., no. 397; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 38; Lauffer, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 325-28; Fossey, Topography, 433f. 47. Frazer, Pans. 5. 195; Philippson 1. 476, 742, no. 157; Lauffer, AA, 1940, 187; Bulle, Orchomenos I, 119f.; Fossey, Topography, 434-36. 48. Fossey, Topography, 443-48; Syriopoulos, 30, no. 21; Atlas, 115, no. 399; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 38; Wallace, 233f., for earlier bibliography. 49. Most modern authorities accept the identification of Pyrgos as Aspledon: Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 38; Wallace, 233f.; V.K. Burr, Neon Katalogos (Leipzig, 1944) 29f.; P. Guillon, La Beotie antique (Paris, 1948) 196; Kirsten in Philippson 1. 476; Kahrstedt, AA, 1937, 16. The excavators, Bulle, Orchomenos I, 116, identified the site as Tegyra, following Dodwell, Tour, 233 and Frazer, Pans. 5. 195, as does Fossey, Topography, 446-48. 50. Philippson 1. 476, calls it Euaimon with a question mark added. Euaimon in Steph. Byz. is called a city of the Orchomenians, but whether of the Arcadians or Boeotians is not stated. This is the only citation and little enough for the purpose of naming the site. Older authorities called it Aspledon; Frazer, Paus. 5. 195; Bulle, Orchomenos I, 118. 51. Plut. Pelop. 16; de def. orac. 5. 8; Steph. Byz., s.v. Teyvpa 52. Bulle, Orchomenos I, 116, 121-24; Atlas, 115, no. 398, 399; Syriopoulos, 30, no. 21; Philippson 1. 476. Lauffer, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 327, supports the identification and notes the discovery of the remains of the temple of Apollo. Cf. AD, 1971, Chr. 239f. 53. Paus. 9. 24.3, 9.34.10; for other ancient references and the inscriptions see Kirsten, RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Olmones," 2490-92; Fossey, Topography, 357-59. 54. Philippson 1. 352, 742, no. 160; O. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe (Oxford, 1935) 246; Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 202; Kirsten, I.e. note above; Roesch, 59, note 5. 55. Paus. 9.24.3. Fossey, Topography, 353-57; Bolte, RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyettos," 90-93 and Meyer, RE Supp. 12 (1970) 497. The French School is publishing new studies, R. Etienne and D. Knoepfler, Hyettos de Beotie, BCH, Supp. 3(1976). 56. For excavations see BCH 2 (1878) 492-507. See also Frazer, Paus. 5.133; M. Feyel, Polybe et I'Histoire de Beotie (Paris, 1943) 192; Guillon, La Beotie antique, 105 with pictures. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 723, note 23, sees

The Land of Boeotia

25

retaining and not fortification walls at Hyettus, like those at Delphi that were covered with inscriptions in a similar way. 57. Paus. 9.24.5. The note by Oldfather, RE 22 (1923) s.v. "Korseia," 1438f., is brief and imprecise. 58. Frazer, Paus. 5.133; Philippson 1. 725, note 52 and 740, no. 38. 59. Paus. 9.24.5. 60. Frazer, Paus. 5. 133; Philippson 1. 725, note 52, 740, no. 40. Pieske, RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Kyrtones," 205f., disagrees with Oldfather, ibid., who would place it near modern Kolaka. 61. For ancient sources see Geiger, RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Kopai," 1345f. For inscriptions, 7G 7. 2780-2807. For archaeological finds and later material, Fossey, Topography 341-44; Wallace, 17If.; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 26f.; Atlas, 116, no. 401; Philippson 1. 742, no. 163. See also Frazer, Paus. 5. 131f. 62. For ancient sources and inscriptions, Geiger, RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Larymna," 880f.; for description and archaeological material, Wallace, 112-16. 63. Str. 9.2.36. 64. Paus. 9.33.1; Str. 9.2.36; Ath. 241C. 65. Paus. 9.33.7. 66. Schol. Horn. 7/.-23. 346; Fontenrose, TAP A 100 (1969) 129. 67. Dem. Or. 19. 141, 148; Diod. 4.66.5. 68. See also Diod. 15. 52.1-53.3; Xen. Hell. 6.4.3. 69. For descriptions of this area, Fontenrose, TAP A 100 (1969) 119-30; Fossey, Teiresias Supp. 1 (1972) 1-16 and plan fig. 1. For those supporting Petra as Mt. Tilphusius see Fontenrose, 121, note 5, and add Wallace, 211-13, and Schober, RE 2. 11 (1936) s.v. "Tilphossion," 1044f. 70. Fossey, op. cit. note above, 15f; Fontenrose, op. cit. note above, 26f.; P. Guillon, Etudes Beotiennes (Aix-en-Provence, 1963) 87; Philippson 1. 450 and note 3. 71. For description and plan of Vigla, Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 9f., and fig. 3; to his bibliography add Wallace, 212; Philippson 1. 741, no. 142. 72. For description and plan, Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 6-9 and figs. 1 and 2; to his bibliography add Schober, RE 2. 11 (1936) s.v. "Tilphossion," 1045; Philippson 1.741, no. 139. 73. For summary, Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 15. To the Vigla group add Wallace, 212; to the Palaiothevai group add Philippson 1. 450, note 3. 74. Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 13f. 75. Wallace, 212f.; Schober, loc. cit. note 69; Roesch, 60. For illustrations, Fontenrose, op. cit. note 69, 268, figs. 1 and 3. 76. Fontenrose, op. cit. note 69; P. Guillon, Les Trepieds du Ptoion (Paris, 1943) 105, note 2, 106; La Beotie antique, pi. 29; Etudes Beotiennes, 87f., 90, 94. 77. Ducat, REG 77 (1964) 288f.; Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 13. 78. Str. 9.2.26. 79. //. 2.501; Horn. Hym. Ap. 242. For other sources, Mylonas and Kirsten, RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Okalea," 2302f. 80. Wallace, 168f.; Fontenrose, op. cit. note 69, 127, note 17; Philippson 1. 474, note 3, 741, no. 143; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 25f.

26

The Land of Boeotia

81. Mylonas and Kirsten, op. cit. note 79; Leake, TNG 2.205; for Evangelistra as Ocalea, Fossey, Topography, 379-82. 82. Wallace, 159-162 with bibliography, to which add Fossey, Topography, 185f.; Wallace, GRBS 15 (1974) 22f. Roux, 5C7/78 (1954) 22-45, is the best article. 83. Wallace, 182-84 for description and bibliography, to which add Syriopoulos, 34, no. 28; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 28f.; Fossey, Topography, 367-73. 84. Wallace, 156, for description and bibliography, to which add Fossey, Topography, 187-91; Wallace, GRBS IS (1974) 6-9; Buck, Teiresias Supp. 1 (1972) 35. Roux, op. cit. note 82, 45-48, gives a good description of the tower and the hill. 85. Wilamowitz, Hesiods Erga (Berlin, 1928) 115, first argued for a southern location for Ascra. He has been followed by Kirsten in Philippson 1. 718, note 82 and 741, no. 144; Kirsten-Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde5 (Heidelberg, 1967) 238; Guillon, La Beotie antique, 103. For Pyrgaki as Ascra see Buck, Teiresias Supp. 1 (1972) 31-40. 86. For bibliography, Wallace, 198f., to which add Fossey, Topography, 373-77; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 30f.; Syriopoulos, 71, no. 31; Spyropoulos, AAA6(1973)375-79. 87. See Buck, op. cit. note 85, for bibliography and discussion of possible locations. 88. Ibid., but cf. Fossey, Topography, 191f. 89. For bibliography see Wallace, 152f., to which add Syriopoulos, 36, no. 31; Fossey, Topography, 178-85. Roesch is the best work on the town. 90. Pritchett, Studies 1. 49-51; Wallace, 224f.; Fossey, Topography, 200-204. 91. For the battlefield and its bibliography see Pritchett, Studies 1. 5If.; for the trophy, Wallace, 224f. 92. Pritchett, Studies 1. 52-56. 93. Steph. Byz. s.v. Evrpriffis. 94. Wallace, 171-74, for bibliography, to which add Syriopoulos, 37, no. 32; Fossey, Topography, 196-200. The best work is Goldman, Eutresis (Cambridge, Mass., 1932). 95. For Tateza, Symeonoglou, AD, 1966, Chr. 202; Fossey, Topography, 193-96. 96. Busing, AA, 1972, 74-87, gives a full description of Chorsiae. See also Fossey, Topography, 239-48, for earlier material. For inscriptions see Roesch, 56-58. The ancient sources are Scylax Per., 38; Diod. 16.58; Dem. defals. leg. 385; Theopompus (FGrH 115F3); Pliny NH 4.8. 97. Wallace, 175f., for bibliography, to which add Syriopoulos, 99f., no. 49; Tomlinson and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 244; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 27f.; Fossey, Topography, 227-35. The fortifications are well described in Maier, AM 73 (1958) 17-25; the inscriptions in Roesch, 53f. 98. For variant forms and spellings, Frazer, Paus. 5.164. 99. Geyer, RE 2.5 (1927) s.v. "Siphai," 262f., and Wust, RE 2.12 (1937) s.v. "Tiphys," 1426-29, give the ancient sources. Roesch, 56 and note 5, gives a description and bibliography, to which add P. Alin, Das Ende der Mykenischen Fundstatten aufdem griechischen Festlande (Lund, 1962) 124 (s.v. Aliki); Atlas, 123, no. 421; Syriopoulos, 100, no. 51; Tomlinson and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 243f.; Fossey, Topography, 217-22; E.-L. Schwandner, AA, 1977, 513-51.

The Land of Boeotia

27

100. Tomlinson and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 243-63; Fossey, Topography, 222f. For inscriptions, McCreedie and Steinberg, Hesperia 29 (1960) 123-27. 101. Roesch, 217-19, with map on 218 and plates 16.2, 17.1,2. For bibliography, Wallace, 154f., to which add Philippson 1. 505f., 742, no. 195; Syriopoulos, 72, no. 37; Fossey, Topography, 204-8. For the road north, Pritchett, Studies 1. 53-56; Atlas, 124, no. 422. 102. Gomme,BSA 18(1911-12)204. 103. Philippson 1. 506, note 1, 742, no. 196; Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 204f.; Philios, Eph Arch, 1899, 57-61. 104. For the excavations at Davlosis, Lauffer, AM 63-64 (1938-39) 177-85. For bibliography, Wallace, 169f., to which add Syriopoulos, 70f., no. 30; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 26; Fossey, Topography, 377f.; Philippson 1.742, no. 170(Kalimbaki), 171 (Davlosis). 105. For variants see Frazer, Pans. 5.99. 106. Wallace, 204-6, for bibliography, to which add Roesch, 64; Garlan, BCH 98 (1974) 95-112; Andreomenou, AAA 1 (1974) 325-35; Fossey, Topography, 323-33, for an excellent description. 107. //. 2.500, 5.708, 7.221; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 25. 108. Leake, TNG 2.313f. 109. Wallace, 126; Philippson 1.742, no. 180, notes a Graeco-Roman settlement. 110. RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyle," 117-19. 111. Fossey, Topography, 290-94; Burr, Neon Katalogos, 23. 112. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 26. 113. 6s (sc. Oresbius) ' kv va iant... XI/U/TJI KtKXiivos K , //. 5.708f. 114. For bibliography, Wallace 202f., to which add Syriopoulos, 115, no. 63; Atlas, 121, no. 415; Fossey, Topography, 333-35 for description of site. 115. For Gla see Syriopoulos, 117, no. 58. The bibliography is extensive. 116. Syriopoulos, 116, no. 50; Atlas, 117, no. 404. 117. Syriopoulos, 98, no. 32; Atlas, 118, no. 405; Fossey, Topography, 349; Philippson 1.742, no. 164. 118. Syriopoulos, 98, no. 35; Atlas, 117, no. 403; Fossey, Topography, 347f.; Philippson 1.742, no. 166. 119. Syriopoulos, 33, no. 24 (a) and (b); Atlas, 118, no. 406; Fossey, Topography, 348f. 120. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 21; Wallace, 132f., for bibliography, to which add Fossey, Topography, 282-85. 121. Philippson 1.742, no. 183. 122. For the site at Likeri, Papadimitriou, Praktika Akademias, 1931, 274-76; Fossey, Topography, 294-97. This is apparently the site called Tzavali in Philippson 1.742, no. 182, marked "Homeric to Roman." 123. Fossey, Topography, 285-87, for latest data on Aghios Elias, correcting Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 25. 124. Wallace, 167f. 125. Wallace, 124, for bibliography, to which add Philippson 1.742, no. 184; Touloupa, AD, 1966, Chr. 198-202; Spyropoulos, AAA 4 (1971), 319-28; Fossey, Topography, 287-90, 292-94. 126. Philippson 1.742, no. 185. 127. P. Wolters and G. Bruns, Das Kabinen Heiligtum bei Theben I (Berlin,

28

The Land of Boeotia

1940); H.-P. Drogemuller, Gymnasium 68 (1961) 219-27; G. Bruns, AA, 1964, 231-34, and AD, 1968, Chr. 224f.; Fossey, Topography, 261f.; Kirsten-Kraiker, 239, 241, 823. P.R. Franke, Antike Welt 1(1970) 46-53. 128. Frazer, Paus. 5.138. 129. Paus. 9.8.1. 130. For bibliography, Wallace, 143f., to which add Andreomenou, Teiresias, 1974, 1.11; Fossey, Topography, 259-61. Andreimenou, AE, 1976, Ax, 11-17. In Philippson 1.741, no. 205, Tachi is included with Thebes, and Potniae, no. 204 and p. 509, note 1, is wrongly placed at Loutouphi, where "Homeric to Hellenistic" material is said to occur. 131. For bibliography see Wallace, 194-97, to which add P. Cloche, Thebes de Beotie (Namur, 1952); F. Vian, Les Ongines de Thebes (Paris, 1963); G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966) 217f., 226; Roesch, 47-49; Kirsten-Kraiker, Gnechenlandkunde, 876; Syriopoulos, 35, no. 30; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 30; Spyropoulos, Kadmos 9 (1970) 170-172; idem, AAA 4 (1971) 32-37, 161-64; idem, AAA 5 (1972) 16-26; idem, AAA 6 (1973) 371-75; S. Symeonoglou, Kadmeia, I, Gothenburg, 1973; T. Spyropoulos and J. Chadwick, The Thebes Tablets, II, Salamanca, 1975. Fossey, Topography, 250-58 (also with good bibliography). For air photographs of Thebes, R.V. Schoder, Ancient Greece from the Air (London, 1974) 220-22. 132. Frazer, Paus. 5.31. 133. C. Bursian, Geographic von Gnechenland 1 (Leipzig, 1860) 200. 133a. Wallace, 61. 134. Frazer, Paus. 5.31. 135. Touloupa, AD, 1964, Chr. 200. 136. For bibliography, Wallace, 60-62. 137. For bibliography, Wallace, 147-51, to which add Syriopoulos, 120, no. 77; Fossey, Topography, 262-67. Fossey suggests that both sites formed the community of Teumessus. 138. For bibliography, Wallace, 191f., to which add Syriopoulos, 119, no. 72; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 29f.; Fossey, Topography, 268-75. For the sanctuary, Frazer, Paus. 5.61f.; Fossey, Topography, 275-77. 139. For bibliography, Wallace, 83-86, to which add Syriopoulos, 71, no. 33; Fimmen, Die Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur (Leipzig, 1921) 6; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 24f.; Fossey, Topography, 110-19. 140. For bibliography, Wallace, 64-67, to which add Syriopoulos, 119f., no. 73; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 23; Fossey, Topography, 105-10. 141. For bibliography, Wallace, 62-64, to which add Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 22f.; Fossey, Topography, 101-5. For the site west of Ritsona, Wallace, 63. 142. For inscriptions, IG 1.1664-1718. For bibliography, Wallace, 185-87, to which add Syriopoulos, 37f., no. 33; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 29; Spyropoulos, AAA 6 (1973) 375-95; Fossey, Topography, 139-47. 143. Str. 7.36; Stat. Theb. 7.266; Steph Byz. s.v. 'Ereoj/os. Hell. Oxy. 11.3 calls it Scaphae. 144. For bibliography, Wallace, 8If., to which add Syriopoulos, 121, no. 87; Pritchett, Studies 1, pi. 96(a) for site; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 24; Fossey, Topography, 148-51. This is Philippson 1.742, no. 198.

The Land of Boeotia

29

145. For bibliography, Wallace, 82f., to which add Pritchett, Studies 2. 103f.; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 24; Fossey, Topography, 149. This is Philippson 1.742, no. 199. 146. For bibliography, Wallace, 133-35, to which add Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 21; Pritchett, Studies 2. 180; Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 107 and Topography, 151-54. For the fragments of the Edict, Keramopoullos, Eph Arch, 1931,163f. 147. Pritchett, Studies 2. 180. 148. Pritchett, Studies 1. 105f.; Frazer, Paus. 5.5. 149. Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 106, and Topography, 154-63. Add Wallace, 151, to the bibliography. Syriopoulos, 120f., no. 80, combines them with other tombs found near Chlempotsari. Philippson 1.742, no. 209 seems to mark the location. 150. For the settlement, Wallace, 146f. It seems to be the one noted in Philippson 1.742, no. 201, and Leake, TNG 2. 369. For the cemetery, Pritchett, Studies 1. 107-9, and 2. 178-80. 151. For bibliography, Wallace, 138-40, in which correct Philippson to 1.742, no. 202, and to which add Syriopoulos, 120f., no. 80; Fossey, Topography, 163-66. 152. Touloupa, AD, 1964, 199f., and AD, 1969, 186f.; Wallace, 140; Syriopoulos, 121, no. 82; Fossey, Topography, 69-75. 153. Wallace, 138. 154. Kahrstedt, AM 57 (1932) 18f., 27. 155. Hysiae: Leake, TNG 2.329; Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 198; Wallace, 81f.; Pritchett, Studies 1. 107; Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 107. Erythrae: Fimmen, Kretich-Mykemsche Kultur, 6 (with earlier authorities); Burr, Neon Katalogos, map 4; Hope Simpson and Lazenby (hesitatingly following Grundy), 24. 156. Erythrae: Leake, TNG 2. 327-29; Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 199; Pritchett, A]A 61 (1957) 23; Wallace, 81-83. Small village, not Erythrae: Pritchett, Studies 1. 103-7; Fossey, BICS 18 (171) 108, note 2. 157. Scolus: Leake, TNG 2. 330f.; Frazer, Paus. 5. 2If.; Wallace, 133-36 (with earlier authorities cited); Pritchett, A]A 61 (1957) 9-28; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 21. Eteonus: Philippson 1.742, no. 200. Erythrae: Pritchett, Studies 1. 107-9, and 2. 178-80; Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 106-8. 158. Vergoutiani as Hysiae in modern Greek belief, cf. Pritchett, Studies 1. 105f. The sherds here are Byzantine, and any Classical settlement would have been small and insignificant on present evidence. 159. Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 106-8. 160. Scolus: Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 201; Pritchett, Studies 1. 107-9, and 2. 178-80; Grundy first suggested it might be across the Asopus. Therapnae: Wallace, 146f., and CP 64 (1969) 36f. 161. Eteonus: Wallace, 138-40. Eilesion: Fossey, Topography, 163-66. Pharae: Philippson 1.742, no. 202. 162. Fossey, Topography, 153f. 163. Against Pyle as Eteonus, Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 21. Eteonus at Neochorakion, Fossey, Topography, 166f. 164. Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 206-8.

30

The Land of Boeotia

165. Paus. 1.38.8, 9.1.1, 9.1.6; Str. 9.2.31. 166. Philippson 1.525, 743, no. 6; Kirsten, RE 40 (1950) s.v. "Plataia," 2260-62; Kirsten-Kraiker, 187f. and plan 57 for Panakton, 872 for bibliography; McCreedie, Hespena Supp. 11 (1966) 87, note 3, 92; Wiesner, RE 36.2 (1949) s.v. "Panakton," 449f. 167. Syriopoulos, 38, no. 34. 168. Description in Chandler, JHS 46 (1926) 15f., who calls it Panakton; and in Kahrstedt, AM 57 (1932) 18f., 27, who calls it Scaphae. Kirsten, RE 40 (1950) 2262, calls it Drymus. See also Philippson 1.533; McCreedie, Hespena Supp. 11 (1966) 84. 169. For description and bibliography of Vratsi, Wallace, 97f.; Fossey, Topography, 66-69, with plan, 67. Vratsi is identified as Pharae by Wallace, 97f.; as Stephon by Fossey, Topography, 66-75; as Eilesion by Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 216. For the placing of Pharae at Aghios Pantaleimon, Fossey, Topography, 120-22. 170. Wallace, 59f.; Pritchett, Studies 2. 26f.; Roller, AJA 78 (1974) 152-56; Fossey, Topography, 62-65. 171. Wallace, 56; Vermeule, JHS 85 (1965) 123-48; Syriopoulos, 120, no. 78; Spyropoulos, AAA 2 (1969) 20-25; idem, Ergon, 1970, 13-22; idem, AAA 3 (1970) 184-97; Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 8, and Topography, 76f. 172. Syriopoulos, 120, no. 79, for bibliography, to which add Fossey, Topography, 76f. 172a. Fossey, Topography, 77-82. 173. Wallace, 30-32; Kirsten-Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde, 178; Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3f., and Topography, 42-47. 174. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 22; Atlas, 126, no. 430; Fossey, Topography, 42-47.

175. Wallace, 57f.; Fossey, Topography, 50f.; Kirsten-Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde, 178-82 with plan, 181; B. Petrakos, Oropus and the Amphiareion of Oropos (Athens, 1972) ibid, AE, 1968, Ax, 1-39; for photographs, Schoder, Ancient Greece from the Air, 22f. 176. For bibliography, Wallace, 32-35, to which add Roesch, 50; Pritchett, Studies 2. 24-36; Fossey, Topography, 83-86. 177. For bibliography, Wallace, 77-80 and Syriopoulos, 34, no. 29, to which add Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3-22 and Topography, 86f. Dramesi is identified as Hyria by Blegen, Hespena Supp. 8 (1945) 39-42, and Atlas, 127, no. 432; as Graea by Fossey, op. oil. 178. S.C. Bakhuizen, Salganeus and the Fortifications on its Mountains (Groningen, 1970) 152-55, for the town and excavations; 96-100, for the fort; bibliography given for both. Wallace, 36-39; Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 20, and Topography, 88-94; Syriopoulos, 118, no. 65; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 19. For air photographs and plan, Schoder, Ancient Greece from the Air, 42-45. 179. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 43-65, for fort; 89-95 for dating; 140, 157f., for Polemaeus and "Eilesion." Fossey, Mnemosyne 27 (1974) 104 for "fetters of Greece." Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 18-20; Wallace, 78f. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 19, term it the acropolis of Aulis, a view proposed by Blegen, but rejected by Bakhuizen.

The Land of Boeotia

31

180. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 66-95, for full and careful survey, with bibliography. The association with Polemaeus is discussed on 130. 181. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 16f. for description, photograph and bibliography. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 18f., and Topography, 94-96, and Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 147, have both suggested that this site is Hyria. See also Syriopoulos, 33, no. 27; Atlas, 120, no. 433; Sackett, BSA 61 (1966) 66, no. 94; Vermeule, Kadmos 5 (1965) 142f. 182. Euripus fortress: Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 128. Salganeus: Wallace, 48-54, an identification rejected by Bakuizen, 8, note 21, 107. Canethus: Frazer, Paus. 5.71, rejected by Wallace, 49f., and Bakhuizen 22, note 84. 183. FGr//115 F211,212. 184. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 499, notes a small Hellenistic site on the northwest coast, though this is too late if Theopompus is talking about the prehistory of this area. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 19 and Topography, 96-98, following Bursian, suggests modern Chalia. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 145-47, would have it close to Chalia. 185. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 17; Fossey, Topography, 97f. 186. For excavations, Spyropoulos, AD, 1970, Chr. 222-27; AR, 1971-72, 13. For identifications and bibliography, Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 6-12, to which add Wallace, 94-96; Fossey, Mnemosyne 27 (1973) 103, and Topography, 99f. 187. Leake, TNG 2. 266-72, and Wallace, 93f., for the church. For the site on Paralimni, Philippson 1. 742, no. 187; Pharaklas, AAA \ (1968) 139f.; Fossey, Topography, 316-18. 188. Fossey, BSA 69 (1974) 127f., and Topography, 310-15; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 32f.; Syriopoulos, 116, no. 55, for bibliography to 1967; Wallace, 86-88. 189. Fossey, Topography, 318f. 190. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 31.

2. Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

The land of Boeotia was inhabited continuously from the Neolithic period onward and the general development of the prehistoric periods falls into the overall Greek pattern of Early, Middle and Late Neolithic and Early, Middle and Late Helladic. The material so far recorded and reported is limited in value, since little excavation has been done.1 No more than half a dozen sites have been excavated systematically, and the excavation results of only one or two have been adequately published.2 In most cases the results of small or trial excavations, or the collection of sherds from the surface, give us what evidence we possess. At least twenty-five Neolithic sites are known, fifty Early Helladic sites, forty Middle Helladic sites, and fifty-odd sites showing remains of Late Helladic I, II, III A and III B, while only fourteen sites show Late Helladic III C. It is clear that there was a fairly steady increase in the number of settlements until the end of LH III B, with some dips and variations occurring, notably at the end of Early Helladic II and at the end of Middle Helladic, followed by a catastrophic drop in settlements in LH III C. The settlement pattern seems to be the same throughout: mostly village settlements, not too many individual farmsteads, settlements close to perennial water supplies and close to land that was readily worked by wooden ard ploughs. Settlements were placed, if water supply permitted, on defensible mounds or hillocks near the edge of the arable land. The increase in the number of sites could, therefore, indicate an increase in the number of inhabitants, though possible shifts in the relative sizes of

Map 4. The Late Helladic Period

34

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

villages must not be discounted. There seems to be a gradual rise in the general level of prosperity (with a few dips) up to the LH III B period, presumably because of the gradual improvement in techniques, attendant increases in surpluses, and hence increases in the amount of goods and services available to produce a higher standard of living. Sharp breaks are noticeable at the end of EH II and at the end of LH III B. It is worth examining the various phases in some detail.

The Neolithic Age Of the twenty-five or so sites with Neolithic remains only Orchomenus,3 Eutresis4 and Thespiae5 have been seriously studied. Chaeronea, Polyira, Magoula, Dramesi and Soros were trial excavations and the rest of the sites are known through casual or surface finds only.6 In the nearby land of Phocis a full stratigraphic excavation was carried on at a site near Elateia.7 The very sketchy picture that emerges shows Boeotia as a crossroads where influences from the north met and combined with influences from the Peloponnese. The neat tripartite division of the Ceramic Neolithic observable in the Peloponnese seems only partly applicable to Boeotia, especially the distinction between Early and Middle Neolithic.8 A limited amount of Thessalian influence is noticeable,9 especially in the early stages. The course of development seems to have been largely a local evolution, as evidenced by such material as Chaeronea ware. The change of culture known as (Peloponnesian) Middle Neolithic eventually reached Boeotia in the later stages of its development, bringing new styles of pottery, of burials, of statuary and, apparently, of housing.10 It was probably introduced to Greece by a new series of immigrations about 5000 B.C.11 Boeotia, however, lay on the periphery of this culture and Elateia in Phocis shows little of Middle Neolithic until the final stages of the period. Local developments played a major role, as exemplified by the Phocian-Boeotian black-on-red ware, though some ties with the Balkans are noticeable.12 By the beginning of the Late Neolithic a cultural koine had spread over Greece, marked by new pottery styles of Near Eastern inspiration 13 (face-jugs were not uncommon14), that had fairly rapidly replaced the older ones. Boeotia, however, still remained on the periphery, still under both Peloponnesian and Thessalian influences. By the end of the period the koine had broken down into a series of local cultures. These were quickly replaced by a new set of cultures, those of the Early Helladic.

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

35

There is no evidence for any violence, although the fortification walls found around some towns in parts of Greece, though not as yet in Boeotia, may lead to suspicions.

The Early Helladic Period Of the fifty-five sites known to contain Early Helladic remains only Orchomenus,15 Haliartus16 and Eutresis17 have been systematically excavated. Trial excavations were made at Polyira, Magoula, Kastraki, Likeri, Thebes, Dramesi and Soros.18 Only surface finds reveal the other sites. The period saw fairly heavy habitation, especially in the area around Lake Copais, in the Thespian valley and in the Teneric plain. No sharp break marks the change from Neolithic to Early Helladic, although it seems that a new wave of immigration introduced the new culture. The subdivisions I, II and III, as worked out in the Argolid, broadly apply to Boeotia. Early Helladic I, characterized by red-burnished pottery, seems to have been long-lived in Boeotia. Eight habitation levels from this phase have been observed at Eutresis.19 Round structures have been noted both at Eutresis and Orchomenus,20 though rectangular buildings seem to be more common. The Early Helladic II phase succeeded peacefully. It is marked by the introduction of new pottery shapes, like the sauceboat, that seem to indicate an intensification of relations with the Cyclades. It is also marked by the use of larger buildings. Considerable changes mark the beginning of Early Helladic III, which is dated around 2100 B.C.21 New types of pottery appear, notably a grey ware sometimes termed "Proto-Minyan," the two-handled tankards, and jugs of a Cycladic type.22 There is also a new type of house with a horseshoe-shaped or apsidal plan.23 Some violence, marked by ash layers at numerous EH II sites, accompanies this change in the Peloponnese, but in Boeotia the site of Eutresis would seem to have been temporarily spared. It has been argued that new population elements arrived about this time and were perhaps the carriers of the language ancestral to Greek. They also provide an economical explanation of the changes in pottery, housing and in the general level of prosperity.24 Eutresis was destroyed at the end of EH III, approximately 1900 B.C., when several other sites were damaged. This devastation may mark the entry of a second wave of kindred elements at the beginning of the Middle Helladic,25 though many authorities deny that any such inference

36

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

should be drawn. There is no certainty about where this posited migration came from, though at present the northern Balkans, rather than Anatolia, seem to be preferred.26

The Middle Helladic Period About forty sites containing evidence of Middle Helladic settlement are known. Of these Eutresis,27 Thebes,28 Haliartus,29 Gla30 and Orchomenus31 have been systematically excavated. Trial excavations were made at Polyira, Magoula, Pyrgos, Aghios loannis, Davlosis and Dramesi.32 The rest are known through surface finds or stray sherds. The development of the period in Boeotia seems to be similar to that seen in the rest of Greece, and the way of life seems the same.33 There is no break separating EH III from MH such as that which occurred between EH II and EH III, and it seems more appropriate to group EH III with MH for the purposes of analysis.34 There is a considerable drop in prosperity from EH II during EH III and early MH, but then a slow and steady rise until the end of the period. This, in turn, is marked by the fairly rapid changes that came with the transition to the Late Helladic period. Boeotia shares in the startling uniformity of development of the Middle Helladic materials throughout Greece. The comparative lack, however, of LH I and II pottery at Eutresis, and in Boeotia in general, has led some authorities35 to argue that there were no LH I and II in Boeotia, but that MH continued here until LH III. It must be remembered that Eutresis was much denuded in its upper layers, that LH I and II material has been found elsewhere in Boeotia, as noted below, and that a close correspondence can be shown between the pottery shapes and their development at Eutresis and at other MH sites in Greece in the undisturbed strata.36 In the light of these arguments it seems more likely that there was little or no lag in Boeotia behind the other sections of Greece, although the possibility cannot be excluded. The differences between Boeotia and other parts of MH Greece lie more in the quantity of different types of ware than in the types themselves. Red Minyan, for example, seems to be more common in Boeotia than in the Argolid, while Black (or Argive) Minyan, well-known in the Peloponnese, is rare in Boeotia.37 In all areas, however, these wares are replaced by Yellow Minyan in the latter part of MH. Developments in other wares, in housing, in graves, in the arts, and so on, seem to be fairly uniform throughout Greece and to have been transmitted from one area to another with some rapidity. Only in the area of western Thessaly, the Spercheius Valley and in Aetolia can local

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

37

variation be observed.38 Fortification walls seem to be almost unknown in MH Greece and none have been identified in Boeotia. This period seems the most probable time for the Greek language to have become firmly established in Greece. It has been suggested39 that the discontinuity between the common MH and the variant culture noted in some areas above may mark the comparative isolation necessary for the genesis of the East Greek and West Greek divisions of the language.

Late Helladic I and II Nineteen sites show the presence of LH I and II pottery, but few are stratified, or, if stratified, they are unpublished.40 The number is an apparent reduction from the total of MH sites, but it is not especially significant. First, the proportion of sites in Boeotia with LH I and II remains, compared to MH sites, is roughly equal to the proportion in the rest of Greece. Second, many stratified MH sites, such as Eutresis in Boeotia and Lerna in the Argolid, are much denuded in their upper, that is, LH layers. Third, LH I and II pottery, even at the stratified Peloponnesian sites of Korakou and Nemea, seems not especially common vis-a-vis the usual MH wares. These last wares continued to be produced, to judge from the material at Korakou, until well into LH III. In light of the above, there seems little evidence for the supposition that Boeotia lagged significantly behind the Argolid, or that LH I and II material was slow in reaching, or did not reach, Boeotia. It may well be that Boeotia was less prosperous than the Argolid at the time of Grave Circle A, but further excavation is needed before the question can be answered and the possibility of some lag firmly excluded. In light of present evidence it seems clear that the periods LH I and II are marked by an intensification of contact with Crete, of such a nature as to transform the decorative arts and modify the domestic ones. It has been argued that the foci for the changes lay in Messenia or Mycenae.41 The pottery itself has a vigour and originality that owe little to Crete. The decoration is handled with a freshness that is equalled by the technical skill. The historical implications of this change remain unclear, but it is certain that no political domination by Crete over Greece occurred. It seems more likely that an exodus of artisans from Crete helped to form the LH I style. Whether this exodus was the result of conquest by Greek powers, or of a flight from a stricken land, or both, or simple emigration, remain unknown.42 At any rate the development to LH III proceeds unbroken.

38 Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

Late Helladic IIIA and III B Steady growth is again observed in LH III A and LH III B. Some twenty-nine LH III A sites and thirty-five LH III B are known in Boeotia of which only six have been excavated.43 The remains of Cyclopean walls are visible, however, at several sites. The general impression is of increasing prosperity, of increasing population, and of much construction of heavy fortifications. These fortifications were built, apparently, in the late phases of LH III A and in LH III B, but especially in LH III B. An acropolis could be guarded with a circuit wall of Cyclopean masonry, or accessible approaches to a steep acropolis could be blocked by equally massive Cyclopean stretches. The distribution of these fortifications is instructive. They fall into five main groups: 1. Gla, Aghios loannis, Topolia (Copae), Stroviki, Pyrgos Aghias Marinas, Chantsa, and Davlosis (Medeon), plus a forward series of observation posts along Mt. Ptoon form the first group. This is clearly a system of forts to protect the drainage of Lake Copai's, with Gla as the central base. The forward line and the placing of the system make it clear that it was erected with a hostile power to the east in mind, most probably Thebes.44 2. The next group is composed of Haliartus, Orchomenus, and probably Agoriani and Kalami. This series, situated around the south and west sides of Lake Copai's, was not a system in the same sense as the first group. Haliartus, which would have benefited enormously from the drainage of Lake Copai's and may have had a population second to that of Orchomenus, would guard the approach from Onchestus and link up with Davlosis. Kalami, another large town, would guard the approach to Copai's via the pass from Thisbe, with a link to Haliartus in Kato Agoriani; and Orchomenus itself would guard the approaches from the west, with, perhaps, a satellite guard at Chaeronea. 3. Forming the third group in Phocis are the fortifications at Panopeus, Daulis, and, perhaps datable to LH, Levendi and Hyampolis. These well-fortified sites in Phocis could have protected the Phocians from the Orchomenians, or, possibly, have protected the lines of approach to Orchomenus. The former seems more probable. 4. Thisbe, Chorsiae, Siphae (Aliki), Creusis (Livadostro), Eutresis and Thebes are the fourth group of fortifications. These seem to link the Corinthian Gulf to Thebes. Chorsiae overlooked a harbour that could carry trade to the Peloponnese; Thisbe protected the Steveniko pass northwest to Kalami; Siphae and Creusis were probably small forts to protect their harbours; and Eutresis,with a circuit wall of LH III B date,

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

39

lay to the east of the route to Thebes and could protect it. None of these fortifications seems extensive except for those of Eutresis and, doubtless, those of Thebes. The first four clearly guarded the Gulf ports and their approaches. Eutresis, in addition to protecting itself, could provide security in the road against any danger from the east, and be a refuge for travellers. 5. Glisas (Syrtzi), Harma (Kastri Lykovouniou), Heleon (Dritsa) and Aulis form the fifth group. These guard, or at least flank, the route northeast from Thebes to Aulis and give a measure of protection from both east and west. The first group of fortifications is constructed, clearly, with Thebes in mind; group four is concerned with overseas attacks from across the Corinthian Gulf and perhaps incursions from Attica; group five gives protection from Orchomenus and Attica; and group two is probably concerned with attacks from Thebes and, possibly, from the Peloponnese. Only those fortifications in group three could possibly be construed as defences against the north, but they could equally well be defences against Orchomenus. It seems that these Boeotian fortifications constructed in LH III A and LH III B were erected primarily for protection against other inhabitants of the Mycenaean world, especially neighbours. They were erected against local threats, not against external forces, against hostile (or potentially dangerous) Mycenaean powers, not against the threat of foreign (that is, non-Mycenaean) invasion. Such fortifications, then, indicate a Mycenaean world fractionated into mutually hostile groups by the end of LH III A, with Thebes and Orchomenus as major contenders in the Boeotian area. They also lead to the inferences that the state of warfare was of a pretty sophisticated sort, at least on a level close to that of the Near East; and that the state of material prosperity and of technological skill was high enough to allow massive and quite elaborate fortifications to be erected. It is true that not much of a surplus beyond subsistence level is required to allocate resources into such non-productive capital goods, but it may be that this allocation of resources played a role in the collapse of the Mycenaean world. The fact that there is little or no trace of such massive walls before the period of LH III A may lead to another inference: that the age of serious internecine war began during LH III A, and replaced a less violent phase of Mycenaean civilization. It is worth noting that LH III A is the period in which a decline in artistic standards, though not in technical proficiency, first becomes noticeable.45 At the site of Thebes the latest studies state that it is more probable

40

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

that there was only one palace, which was destroyed near the end of LH III B.45a Others say that there were two successive palaces, with the first being destroyed in the latter part of LH III A or early in LH III B. The rebuilt second palace was burnt late in LH III B, before the end of the period and earlier than the general destruction. In the ruins claimed to be of the second palace a hoard of Babylonian and Kassite cylinder seals was discovered, and from their condition they seem to have been trade goods, raw material for manufacturing in Greece.46

Late Helladic III C The number of sites at which LH III C remains have been observed is fourteen: Orchomenus, Tanagra, Thebes, Eutresis, Dritsa (Heleon), Vratsi (Eilesion?), Dramesi, Kalami, Salganeus, Mandraki (ancient Anthedon), Oungra, Pyrgos (Aspledon?), Skroponeri, and Tseloneri.47 Clearly, a dramatic decline in the number of settlements, and presumably in population, took place between LH III B and LH III C. Evidence of fire is seen at some excavated sites, such as Orchomenus, Eutresis, Gla and perhaps at Thebes.48 The same phenomena have been noted throughout all the Mycenaean Greek mainland, 49 but whether or not the destruction and depopulation took place in a fairly short space of time throughout the whole area cannot be determined on archaeological evidence. Near the end of LH III Cl most of these sites ceased to be occupied, which was at a time roughly contemporaneous with the final destruction of Mycenae, Tiryns and lolcus, and with the abortive assault on Athens.50 Thebes, Tanagra, Oungra and Orchomenus may have suffered further devastations, but pottery from late LH III Cl and from LH III C2 (Sub-Mycenaean) is known to come from these sites. The reasons for the general destruction at the end of LH III B have not been ascertained. Explanations include: climatic changes leading to droughts, famines and consequent dislocation; local wars; internecine feuds; class warfare; invasions by Illyrians, Thracians or West Greeks; and various combinations of the above. No one explanation is generally accepted. The archaeological evidence indicates: that there was a complete collapse at the end of LH III B throughout the Mycenaean world accompanied by widespread destruction; that palace life and the social organization accompanying it disappeared; that no material identifiable as artefacts of any invaders has been found, the LH III C remains being still Mycenaean; that there was a slight revival of Mycenaean culture in

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

41

LH III Cl among survivors, with some evidence of population shifts to "refugee centres"; and that there was a final collapse near the end of LH III Cl, with possible signs of new stocks (new types of cist-graves) then appearing. It seems, on present evidence, that two waves or phases of destruction may be posited, one at the end of LH III B, to be dated 1220 or so, and a second at the end of LH III Cl, about 1150. The destruction of the palace at Thebes could be set about 1240, a little before the end of LH III B.

Summary and Conclusions In Boeotia as in the rest of Greece, a reasonably homogeneous Mycenaean culture developed out of the Middle Helladic period in the seventeenth century B.C.The homogeneity of the culture speaks for extensive intercommunication and a close and intimate cultural unity. It lasts down to the end of LH III B. The art shows a progressive ossification, though technical standards remain high, from the vigorous and fresh LH I and LH II materials to the dull and sterile LH III B materials. By the end of LH III A and during LH III B the erection of sumptuous tombs, of strong fortifications and of elaborate palaces leads to two inferences: a growth, or reinforcement, of particularism throughout Mycenaean Greece, accompanied by extensive and sophisticated warfare and a fairly high level of prosperity. Furthermore, the increase in the number of settlements shows that a steady growth of population occurred throughout the LH period to the end of LH III B. One may conclude from this that Mycenaean Greece was occupied by a prosperous, growing population, in a somewhat static civilization, rigidly controlled by palace bureaucracies and fighting numerous wars. It was a society not so much in fear of foreigners, as one where each district feared its neighbours. In Boeotia there were at least two principal powers, Orchomenus and Thebes. Orchomenus by the end of LH III B had completed an elaborate drainage scheme for much of Copais and had found it necessary to protect the katavothra and canals by a complex, elaborate and very expensive system of forts. Its location indicates defence against Thebes. The LH III B fortifications west of Orchomenus in Phocis are more probably a Phocian protection against Orchomenus than an Orchomenian defensive barrier against the northwest. Thebes was a strongly fortified centre, but no defence system of a nature comparable to that of the Copa c basin has been discovered. The forts that may be linked with Thebes seem to protect the route from the

42

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

Corinthian Gulf to the Euripus, with the odd citadel near the Attic frontier for local protection. Other centres, such as Haliartus, Thespiae, Dritsa, Tanagra, Kalami, Eutresis, Plataea and Anthedon appear to have been of secondary importance compared to Thebes and Orchomenus. The palace of Thebes was destroyed late in LH III B, but the town remained occupied, despite devastations, down through sub-Mycenaean times. Boeotia appears to have been hard hit by two waves or phases of devastation, the first at the end of LH III B and the second near the end of LH III Cl. No evidence from artefacts, that would indicate external influences and possible settlement of immigrants, appears until LH III C2, and even this is problematical. The literary and legendary evidence deserves examination for any possible light it may shed on the Mycenaean period.

Notes 1. The best general work published is Syriopoulos who has a fairly complete listing. Atlas discusses many of the sites, and Hope Simpson and Lazenby repeat much of the same information. See also P. Alin, Das Ende der Mykenischen Fundst tten; V.R. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (Oxford, 1964); and the appropriate fascicles of CAH2. J.M. Fossey has completed a full topographical and demographic study of the prehistoric and Classical Boeotian sites, Topography. 2. Orchomenus, Thebes, Gla, Haliartus, Eutresis and Plataea have been systematically excavated. Thebes, under the modern town, is a difficult site and excavations are continuing; Orchomenus is not yet fully published; Gla is a special case; Haliartus was disappointing, though adequately published; Plataea was excavated for classical remains in the latter part of the nineteenth century; only Eutresis has been a good site adequately published. 3. E. Kunze, Orchomenos, II. For the Neolithic in general, see D. Theocharis, Neo ) 'EAXaj (Athens, 1973). 4. J.L. and E.G. Caskey, Hespena 29 (I960), 126-67. 5. J.L. Caskey, Hespena 20 (1951), 289f. 6. See Atlas, nos. 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 401 (Topolia), 406 (Megali Katavothra), 436 (Soros); Syriopoulos, 30-38, sites 20-34; Fossey, Topography, 484-90 and fig. 31. 7. S. Weinberg, Hespena 31 (1962) 158-209. 8. Weinberg, CAH2, I, ch. 10, 17. 9. Ibid., 29 and Theocharis, 77. 10. Weinberg, CAH 2 , I, ch. 10, 36-39, 43; Theocharis, 77f. 11. Weinberg, 32f. 12. Ibid., 39-42. 13. Ibid., 45.

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

43

14. J.L. Caskey, Hesperia 20 (1951) 289f. 15. E. Kunze, Orchomenos, III: A.J.B. Wace, BCH 70 (1946) 628-38. 16. Austin, BSA 32 (1931-32) 190-205. 17. H. Goldman, Eutresis. 18. See Atlas, nos. 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 407 (Kastraki), 432 (Dramesi), 436 (Soros); J. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 17; Spyropoulos, AAA 5 (1972) 16-24 and AAA 6 (1973) 371-75; Fossey, Topography, esp. 485, fig. 31. 19. Caskey, Hesperia 29 (1960) 126-67. 20. Wace, BCH 70 (1946) 628-38. 21. Caskey, CAH2,1, ch. 26,18, 37. 22. See, e.g., Ibid., 11,17. 23. Ibid., 17, 19. 24. This seems to be fairly widely accepted: cf. Caskey, CAH2, II, ch. 4, 22-26; R.J. Buck, Phoenix 20 (1966) 202f. For discussion see Haley and Blegen, A]A 32 (1928) 141-54. Spyropoulos, AAA 5 (1972) 16-24, argues for an Egyptian immigration. 25. Caskey, loc. cit., note above; Buck, op. cit., note above, 202-5. 26. See the contributions in R.A. Crossland and A. Birchall, editors, Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (London, 1973), notably those of S. Hood, 59-67; R.J. Howell, 73-107 and the editors 323-47, especially 325-29, 332-42,343f. 27. Goldman, Eutresis, passim; Caskey, Hesperia 29 (1960) 126-67. 28. MH Tombs, Eph. Arch., 1910, 226-35. 29. BSA 32 (1931-32) 190. 30. Threpsiades, Ergon, 1961, 39-54. 31. Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly (Cambridge, 1912) 193-96. 32. See Atlas, nos. 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 399 (Pyrgos), 405 (Aghios loannis), 407 (Davlosis), 432 (Dramesi); for sites with surface finds, Fossey, Topography, esp. 485, fig. 31. 33. J.L. Caskey, CAH2, II, ch. 4, 3-32; R.J. Buck, Phoenix 20 (1966) 193-209. 34. R.J. Howell, in Crossland and Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations, 73-107. 35. E.g., Goldman, Eutresis, 233; Wace, Histona 2 (1953) 88; Cf. Fossey, Topography, 502f. 36. R.J. Buck, Hesperia 33 (1964) 282f. 37. R.J. Buck, Phoenix 20 (1966) 200. 38. Ibid., 201,201. 39. Ibid., 207. 40. Atlas, nos. 396 (Orchomenus), 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 405 (Aghios loannis), 409 (Haliartus), 411 (Kalami), 416 (Thebes), 417 (Eutresis), 421 (Haliki), 422 (Livadostro), 426 (Tourleza), 432 (Dramesi), 436 (Soros) and add from Fossey, Topograhy: Davlosis, Tanagra, Chlempotsari, Skroponeri, Chorsiae and Neokhorakion. 41. J.V. Luce, Lost Atlantis (New York, 1969) 175; Marinatos, Ada II Cret. Cong. (1967) 198-216. 42. See J.V. Luce, Lost Atlantis, for a good account and argument for associating the eruption of Thera with the weakness and conquest of Crete. It still, however, remains not proven, pace Warren, in Crossland and Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations, 45.

44

Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages

43. Orchomenus, Atlas, 396; Pyrgos, 399; Gla, 402; Haliartus, 409; Thebes, 416; Eutresis, 417. 44. Fossey, Topography, 465-70, argues persuasively for the same view. 45. See, e.g., Blegen, Korakou, passim. 45a. For one palace see Spyropoulos and Chadwick, Thebes, Tablets, II, 69-71, and J.T. Hooker, Mycenaean Greece (London, 1977) 103f. For two palaces see most recently Symeonoglou, Kadmeia, I, and J. Chadwick, The Mycenaean World, (Cambridge, 1976) 14. 46. G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966) 204, n., 217f.; Hooker, Mycenaean Greece, 111. 47. From Fossey, Topography, 485, fig. 31. 48. Orchomenus: Bulle, Orchomenos, I, 127. Eutresis: Goldman, Eutresis, 341. 49. Cf., e.g., R.J. Buck, Histona 18 (1969) 276-79. 50. Vermeule, 269 and O. Broneer, Antiquity 30 (1956) 9-18.

3. Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

The Three Traditions A fragment of Hecataeus says that Boeotia was occupied at an early stage by "barbarian tribes," the Aones, Temmikes, Hyantes, Leleges and Pelasgians.1 Ephorus lists these same tribes.2 He is clearly following Hecataeus, or drawing on the same sources. Both belong to the same tradition. A completely different story is found in Pausanias (9.5.1). The autochthonous ruler Ogygus and the Ektenes, presumably also autochthonous, first held the territory around Thebes. The Ektenes perished from pestilence, and their land was occupied by Aones and Hyantes, who came from elsewhere in Boeotia. The Aones were the dominant partners. No mention is made of any Temmikes, Leleges or Pelasgians and the tribes are not considered "barbarians." Pausanias' immediate source is unknown, but the important role given to the Aones reflects the views of Philochorus3 and Hellanicus,4 as, probably, does the place given to Ogygus and the Ektenes.5 Hellanicus, then, is the earliest historian who may be identified as belonging to the tradition found in Pausanias, one distinct from that found in Ephorus and Hecataeus, a tradition that sees some of the Thebans as autochthonous.53 Ephorus6 and presumably Hecataeus say that the Aones and Temmikes as barbarian tribes migrated from Sunium to Boeotia. In the other tradition, Pausanias (9.5.1) implicitly denies the assertion that they were barbarians by having them as natives of Boeotia; and Philochorus,7 in explicit denial of barbarian origin and of migration from Sunium, has the Aones invade Attica from Boeotia in the time of Cecrops, who, therefore, fortified his cities. The differences and contradictions between the two traditions can be seen to continue in their treatment of the coming of Cadmus. Ephorus8

46

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

and Hecataeus9 say that the Phoenices under the rule of Cadmus walled the Cadmea, founded the city of Thebes and proceeded to rule over the other Boeotians. Pausanias and the second tradition say that Cadmus and his men entered a Thebes that was already in existence (since it was founded by Ogygus), reduced the Aones to subjection, expelled the Hyantes and then constructed the Cadmea. The ultimate sources for these two versions remain unknown, but should be variant local traditions, probably poetic, either from different groups in one area (e.g., the Thebans and the Orchomenians) or from differing accounts from different areas. They almost certainly owe little to any generalized poetic tradition. This material is apparently used in a third historical tradition, one first clearly observable in its version of the founding of Thebes. In the Odyssey (11.260-65) Thebes is founded and fortified by Amphion and Zethus, who built its walls "when they were unable to dwell in wide-landed Thebes unprotected, even though powerful." It was already a well-known story, since other figures, including Asius (frg. 1 Kinkel), Eumelus (frg. 12K), Minyas (frg. 13K) and Hesiod (frg. 133Rz) said much the same thing. Cadmus is regarded as a later ruler10 and the Cadmeans as the later inhabitants. 11 Pherecydes and his followers 12 accepted this third tradition, one very different from the other two. That is, though they noted a connection of Amphion and Zethus with the Asopus valley and East Locris,13 the Pherecydans put the twins in Thebes well before Cadmus. Ogygus seems to precede the twins, as an early if not the first ruler of all Boeotia, but one who did not found Thebes.14 Strabo (9.2.28), following the tradition of Ephorus and ultimately Hecataeus,15 has Amphion and Zethus found Eutresis, not Thebes. Thus Hecataeus and his followers, since in their view Cadmus founded Thebes, removed the twins to another site, a treatment different from that of the other traditions. Hellanicus and several others stuck firmly to a rationalization of a tradition that placed Amphion and Zethus in Thebes, but at a later time than Cadmus was there, commonly three generations later, during the early part of the reign of Laius.16 Some regarded the twins as usurpers, 17 and others as regents.18 A few, notably Hieronymus,19 tried to take a compromise position by setting Amphion and Zethus in Thebes immediately after the departure of Cadmus. In this way the twins could re-establish the town on an abandoned site and, in a sense, be considered as founders. They could also be expelled by the returning Cadmeans, at a saving in the number of strange invading tribes to be accounted for. Even the number and names of the children born to Amphion's

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

47

wife, the Tantalid Niobe, vary widely. Pherecydes,20 following a tradition traceable in Homer (11.24.602-17), names six boys and six girls. Hellanicus21 and Armenidas22 say there were seven children, four boys and three girls, and their names are completely different from those in Pherecydes. Hecataeus, if one may judge from his remarks on the Danaids,23 favoured a still smaller number of children, perhaps the two boys and three girls mentioned by Herodorus24 or the three children who Aulus Gellius (20.7) says were allowed by alii scriptores. The twenty or so children found in the early poets25 and the fourteen children cited by the dramatists and the vulgate26 seem not to have been commonly adopted by any historians. It is clear, then, that three distinct traditions about early Boeotia can be observed in the work of the Greek historians, and that many possible poetic sources remained untouched. The treatment of the Phlegyians illustrates the differences among the three traditions so far observed. In Ephorus,27 and probably Hecataeus, the Phlegyians arrived with some violence in Boeotia after the Trojan War. They eventually settled in Daulis. Probably the passage in the Iliad (13.301-3) that puts this tribe on the borders of Thrace reflects this same tradition. Pherecydes,28 however, says that the walls erected by Amphion and Zethus were for defence against the Phlegyians, who, after the death of the twins, sacked Thebes under their leader Eurymachus. The Cadmeans later settled the deserted site. All this, of course, happened much before the Trojan War. The Phlegyians had come from Gyrton in northern Thessaly and eventually settled in northern Boeotia, perhaps at Cyrtones.29 The tradition found in Hellanicus and others is again different. The Phlegyians were not hostile, but friendly, as stated in Pindar (Pyth. 3.8). They came to the rescue of Thebes in its time of need.30 They occupied Orchomenus and helped to rebuild it.31 Eventually they settled at Panopeus.32 They are dated about the time of the Trojan War. Hieronymus33 tries a neat trick in which the Phlegyians disappear, because there is no place for them in the tradition, since the Cadmeans return at an appropriate time. The presence of the tribal eponym Phlegyas, who is slain by Lycus and Nycteus,34 is perhaps the last trace of an effort to eliminate the tribe of Phlegyians, or is a rationalization of its existence in the time before the Trojan War. The conventional stemma of Cadmus, Polydorus, Labdacus, Laius, Oedipus, Polyneices and Thersander lies behind a passage in Herodotus (5.59-60), and, as far as can be judged, was recognized by most other historians. The only divergence traceable is in Hecataeus, who calls

48

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

Pentheus Tentheus,35 an lonicism. It may be that Herodotus used Hecataeus as his source, but one cannot be certain. The stemma is probably derived from Theban poetry. Names such as Labdacus have been regarded with suspicion by modern historians as mere genealogical links. Differences are observable in the treatment of Oedipus, and here study of the use of some poetic sources is possible. Unfortunately the historical sources become very scrappy indeed, particularly those following Hecataeus. In Homer (Od. 11.271-78) Oedipus married his mother Epicaste. She committed suicide because the gods made the incest "notorious at once." There was no time for any children to be born, and Oedipus survived "suffering many woes," including probably another marriage to provide descendants. Both Homer (//. 23.676-80.) and Hesiod (frg. 35Rz) mention Oedipus' death, apparently by violence,36 and some great gathering and struggle after the funeral. Hesiod (W.D. 161-63) mentions a war over Oedipus' sheep, one that he equates with the Trojan War in the severity of losses. Both Homer and Hesiod know of the Seven and the Epigoni, but neither knows anything about Oedipus' blinding of himself.37 This is a motif added by later Theban or Boeotian epic, found in the cyclical Thebais.38 Variations reported in the scholiasts39 have Oedipus blinded by Polybos or by the servants of Laius. The epics gave the wife's name as Jocasta and named the second wife variously. It is to be noted that Hellanicus adopted the version in which Oedipus blinds himself,40 the one that becomes the vulgate. He has little or nothing, however, about the war of Oedipus' sheep. Pherecydes41 lists three marriages for Oedipus: first to Jocasta, by whom he had two boys called Phrastor and Leonytus, who were both later killed by Erginus of Orchomenus; second to Euryganeia, daughter of Periphas (Hyperphas in Paus. 9.5.11), by whom he had the usual four children; and third to Astymedousa (Medusa in Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.4.5), daughter of Sthenelus. Pherecydes obviously combines at least two versions here.42 One of these versions was derived from the epic Oedipodia known to Pausanias43 and followed at least in part by Peisander.44 In this, Oedipus married Jocasta and had no children; he blinded himself after her suicide. He then married Euryganeia by whom he had Antigone, Ismene, Eteocles and Polyneices.45 The second version, from some other epic source,46 says that Jocasta had two sons, Phrastor and Leonytus, and that after her death Oedipus married Astymedousa. Perhaps the incident mentioned in the Scholion A to Iliad 4.377, where Astymedousa falsely accuses her stepsons of

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

49

attempting to seduce her and then brings down their father's curse on them, goes back to this source ultimately. Presumably Astymedousa had borne the usual four children and wished to displace her stepsons. Possibly a third version gave Jocasta four children and Astymedousa none; this would explain the lack of children by Astymedousa in Pherecydes. Which, if any, of these versions was followed by Hecataeus is unknown. The third version, or a variation of it, seems to be Hellanicus' source, and to have provided the basis of the vulgate. Similar variations can be seen in the story of the Curse of Oedipus. A fragment of a cyclic Thebais47 tells how Polyneices placed the wine cup of Laius by his father's side, and both sons were promptly cursed. Another Thebais48 says that Polyneices and Eteocles set before their father the haunch of a sacrificed animal instead of the shoulder, and were consequently cursed. The third story, as mentioned above, has Astymedousa accuse her stepsons of attempted seduction. It is clear that widely discrepant versions of the career of Oedipus were to be found in epic poetry and in the local legends. Some of these were adopted by one or another historian, while others were not touched at all. The same doubtless applies in general to all the raw materials of early Boeotian history. The fate of the Thebans after the Epigoni prevailed is variously given. One version tells how the Thebans were defeated at Glisas, and Laodamas, son of Eteocles, was killed. Most of the survivors fled north to Histaeotis. This probably stems from a Thebaid and seems to be the version preferred by Hellanicus and his followers.49 A second, somewhat different version,50 perhaps Hecataean, apparently from Callinus' Thebais,51 has Laodamas, after killing Aegidius, the son of Adrastus, survive the defeat at Glisas and go on to lead the Theban refugees to the land of the Encheleans. Apparently they return in a fairly brief time to join the other survivors at the site of Thebes under Thersander, the son of Polyneices. A variant of the second version52 has a section of the exiles recalled from Homole in Thessaly. Correspondences have been noted between Herodotus (5.61, 9.43) and Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F 103) which set the Encheleis in Aetolia or Illyria. Since Hellanicus apparently sets the Encheleis in Boeotia53 and associates them with Cadmus, and not with the Epigoni, this variant may owe something to Hecataeus as well as to Hellanicus. A third version, perhaps Pherecydan, found in Diodorus (4.66-67), has the Thebans defeated in battle and unable to resist further. Some fled by way of Tilphossaeum or Tilphusium to Doris whence they returned to

50

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

Thebes when Creon was king. This is in reality a variation of the second version with Thersander eliminated, or, rather, replaced by Creon. The Trojan War appears in all traditions, but what happened in Boeotia at the time it occurred differs widely from one tradition to another. It may be inferred from the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad (2.494ff.) that Homer thought that Boeotians inhabited the land, and that Thebes was in no condition to send troops to Troy, although "Hypothebes" did. This inference was apparently drawn by Hellanicus and his followers. They regarded Thebes as virtually desolate but rebuilt before the end of the Trojan War by the aid of friendly Phlegyians.54 Thucydides (1.12.3) doubtless obtained from Hellanicus the idea that "a portion" of the Boeotians entered Boeotia before the Trojan War. Pherecydes' position is unknown, but Creon's presence as king at the time of the War,55 known from one or two late authors, may owe something to Pherecydes' influence. Hecataeus seems to have ignored Homer and to have had the successors of Thersander ruling a segment of the Cadmeans at Thebes.56 This position lies behind Ephorus' uneasy doubling of invasions and exiles, a doubling so arranged as to have Cadmeans at Thebes at the time of the Trojan War.57 The Returns have left almost no trace in the extant Boeotian traditions. Most of the the traditions agree, however, that there were hostile attacks on Boeotia shortly after the Trojan War. Hellanicus sets an invasion of Thracians between the Trojan War and the Return of the Cadmeans, one that resulted in the expulsion of the Minyans from Orchomenus to Munychia in Attica.58 A similar but separate tradition, found in Nicolaus of Damascus,59 says that Phocians expelled the Minyans, who fled to Thoricus in eastern Attica and thence to Asia Minor. A very different tradition (perhaps Pherecydan) is found in Hieronymus (in Diod. 19.53-54), where the Thebans were expelled during the Trojan War by Pelasgi. Ephorus60 expels the Cadmeans for a second time from Thebes shortly after the Trojan War by the agency of Thracians and Pelasgi. In another passage61 he tells of a Phlegyian invasion of Boeotia, one to be set after the Trojan War as well. Clearly Ephorus is combining the Hellanican Thracians with the Pelasgians from the tradition later followed by Hieronymus, and then transferring the Thracians from Orchomenus to Thebes. This leaves his post-War Phlegyians as possible borrowings from Hecataeus. Hecataeus62 refers to the Thracians who held Attica and Daulis (where the Phlegyians were thought by him or Ephorus to have settled

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

51

eventually) under Eumolpus and Tereus. If Thucydides (2.29.3) followed him, then Hecataeus set the Thracians well before the Trojan War. Hence the violent Phlegyians in Ephorus seem most simply explained as a contribution from Hecataeus, who needed to clear Thebes for his Cadmean Return. It is clear that three very discrepant historical traditions can be seen to deal with early Boeotian history, as the following chart makes plain: Hellanicus

Pherecydes

1. ?Leleges and Pelasgians?

Ogygus autochthonous

*Ogygus, s. of Boeotus, king of Boeotia

2.

Barbarian Aones, Temmikes and Hyantes from Attica

Founding of Thebes by Ogygus and Ektenes

Founding of Thebes by Amphion and Zethus

3.

Cadmus subdues above and founds Thebes, walling the Cadmea

Native Aones and Hyantes from elsewhere in Boeotia to Thebes. They attack Athens.

Phlegyians destroy Thebes

4.

Amphion and Zethus found Eutresis. Possibly here a Thracian incursion

Cadmus subdues above; founds Cadmea

** Cadmus refounds Thebes

5.

Usual stemma CadmusOedipus

Amphion and Zethus as usurpers in reign of Laius

Cadmus-Oedipus

6.

Oedipus

Oedipus and Jocasta

Oedipus and three wives

7.

Seven and Epigoni

Seven and Epigoni

Seven and Epigoni

8.

Expulsion of Cadmeans to Thessaly and Encheleis under Laodamas; returnees under Thersander

Expulsion of Cadmeans to Histiaea or Thessaly; Laodamas killed

Expulsion to Doris; return to Thebes under Creon

9.

Trojan War

Trojan War and friendly Phlegyians

Trojan War; Pelasgi expel Thebans

10.

Phlegyians expel Thebans and Minyans

Thracians expel Minyans

11.

Cadmeans return

Cadmeans return

Hecataeus

Boeotians return

*Ogygus, s. of Boeotus in Corinna. "*Cadmus as son of Ogygus in Mythographer Phot. App. Nov. 5, 42.

52

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

None of the traditions inspires any confidence. Pherecydes, as was long ago pointed out,63 naively contaminates several poetic sources, though usually he is faithful to Homer and Hesiod. Hellanicus rationalized a local poetic tradition, probably that of Thebes. Hecataeus applied his own taste and common sense to legends and poems from several sources. The later historians found themselves facing much the same basic material and followed, largely, one or the other of the three pioneers. Little or no new evidence was available, and new combination was the only novelty.

Notes \.FGrH\F\\9. 2.FGrH70F\\9. 3. FGrH III, 1, 396f. and III, 2, 295 in Comm. on 328 F94. 4. FGrH 4F51, where Boeotia is said to have been once called Aonia. Cf. also Lysimachus 382 Fl. 5. L. Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford, 1939) 211-14. FGrH 328F92. Jacoby, however, FGrH III, 1, 386, 388, does not believe that Ogygus is found in either Hellanicus or Philochorus, though he puts them in the same tradition. 5a. FGrH 4F 16l. 6. FGr//70F119. 7. FGr//328F94. 8. FGrH 70F119. 9. FGrHl¥20. 10. Cf. Hesiod, Theog. 978 and W.D. 162. 11. Cf., e.g., //. 4.387-93; 803-8. 12. FGr//3F41(d) and Comm. adloc., 405. 13. FCr//3F5, 124, 170. 14. FGrH 383F4, if Aristodemus is Pherecydan. Antiochus-Pherecydes, FGrH 333F3, has Ogygus and his wife Thebe found Thebes in Egypt. The link with Thebes is apparent here, but not that with our Pherecydes. See Jacoby, Comm. ad loc. 15. Cf. Steph Byz., s.v. "E rp s"; Eustathius on //. 16.502, pp. 268(1'. 16. See, e.g., Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrH 90F7, which Jacoby, Comm. ad loc., 236f., considers derived from Hellanicus. 17. Paus. 2.6.1., 9.5.6; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.5; Hyginus, Fab. 9. 18. Nic. Dam., FGrH 90F7. 19. In Diodorus 19.53. See Jacoby's note comparing H. to Ephorus in his Comm. on70F119, 68-71. 20. FGrH 3F126. 21.FGrH 4F21. 22. FGrH 378F6, both probably from Theban local sources. 23.FGrHlF19.

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

53

24. FGr//31F56. 25. Hes., frg. 34 Rz.; Bacchylides, frg. 146; Pindar, frg. 64; Mimnermus, frg. 19 and Alcman, frg. 109. Sappho, frg. 143, has only eighteen. 26. Aeschylus, p. 50N2 ; Euripides, Phoen. 159, Cresph. frg. 455; Aristophanes I, 465, 284 Kock; Diodorus 4.74; Ovid, Met. 6.146; Hyginus, Fab. 9, and 11; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.6. 27. FGr//70F93. 28. FGr7/3F41. 29. Strabo, 7, frg. 14, 15 mentions Gyrton in Thessaly, perhaps from Ephorus. The first tradition, then, may also recognize Gyrton as their homeland. Paus. 9.36.2 mentions a town of Phlegya. 30. Paus. 9.9.2 and 9.36.2. 31. Paus. 9.34.4 and 9.36. 32. Paus. 9.36.3 to end and 10.4.1. 33. Diodorus, 19.53. 34. Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.5. 35. FGrH 1F31 and Comm. adloc., 327. 36. G.A. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) 41f. 37. Cf. Schol. CW. 11.275. 38. Schol. Soph. Oed. Col. 1375. 39. Schol. Eurip. Phoen. 26 and 662. 40. FGrH 4F97 and Jacoby's Comm. ad loc., 460. 41.FGr//3F95. 42. Jacoby, Comm. on Pherecydes 3F95, pp. 416f. 43. Paus. 9.2.4, 9.5.11, 9.26.2-4, 10.5.3. 44. FGrH 16F10 and Comm. adloc., 494-496. 45. Paus. 9.5.11. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 41, suggests that dynasts who claimed descent from Oedipus were not willing to consider themselves descended from an incestuous marriage and therefore saw to the invention of a normal and fruitful second marriage. But the childless marriage to Epicaste (Jocasta) is found in Homer; it is equally possible that their opponents first levelled accusations of descent from Jocasta at unpopular dynasts and these somehow stuck. 46. The Oedipodia of Cinaethon of Sparta is totally unknown. Onasias of Plataea (Paus. 9.5.11) has Eurygania as the second wife. 47. Athenaeus, 465F. 48. Schol. Soph. O.T. 1375. Cf. also Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 41, 43 for two Thebaids. 49. Apollodorus 3.7.3.; Hdt. 1.56; cf. Hellanicus FGrH 4F100 and Jacoby's Comm. ad loc. 50. Hdt. 5.61; Paus. 9.5.13; 9.9.5; cf. 9.19.2. 51. Paus. 9.9.5. 52. Paus. 9.8.7. 53. FGrH 4F50 and Comm. 54. FGrH 4F100, Paus. 9.9.2 and 9.36.2. Cf. Pindar Pyth. 3.8. 55. Paus. 9.8.7 and Diod. 4.66-67. 56. See above, p. 51.

54

Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age

57. FGr//70F119.3 followed by Demon, 327F7. For timing see Jacoby's Comm. adloc. and R.J. Buck, Historia 18 (1969) 289f. In general Ephorus' rule seems to have been "If in doubt, double." 58. FGrH 3F42 (b)= 323aF 5(b). 59. FGrH 90F51. 60. FGrH 70F119.3. 61.FGrH 70F93. 62. FGrH 1F119. 63. By Bethe, Theb. Heldenl., 26 and Jacoby, FGrH, Comm. on 3F95, p. 416.

4. Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

None of the three historical traditions so far discovered can be relied upon for the validity of any particular incident or of any chronological sequence. Together they provide little more than contradictions of one another's surmises. One may reasonably doubt that anything of the Boeotian past may be recovered from these arbitrary collections of divergent interpretations of tendentious poetic source-material. Nonetheless, it is worth trying to see whether there is any possibility of observing a broad substratum of agreement amongst the three traditions and any other available literary material. If there is, then such agreement may reflect some common element in all the early poetic traditions. This in turn, if it is consonant with archaeological or other external evidence, could well be a genuine memory of the past, however distorted. It could be equally well, of course, the reflection of a predominant poetic tradition based on nothing more than some oral poet's imagination. At any rate there seem to be five areas of general agreement, and these can be placed in a chronological sequence. 1. All traditions and other sources set at the earliest time a stage of heroes and tribes that are associated with both Boeotia and Attica, and occasionally with other areas; they are often founders of cities, (cf. Hecataeus 1 and 2; Hellanicus 1, 2, 3; and Pherecydes 1.) 2. All traditions place later a stage of more localized figures and peoples, ones associated with either Boeotia or Attica or large areas of either, but not both. These figures are credited with fortifying cities and they are often strangers. (Cf. Hecataeus 3, 4, 5; Hellanicus 3, 4, 5; Pherecydes 2, 3, 4.) 3. All traditions note a stage of still more localized figures, always associated with wars, internecine struggles and destruction. They usually are associated with one area or town of Boeotia. (Cf. Hectaeus 6, 7, 8; Hellanicus 6, 7, 8; Pherecydes 5, 6, 7, 8.)

56

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

4. All traditions record the Trojan War, an obvious datum. (Cf. No. 9.) 5. All traditions note after the War a stage of disasters, invasions and population shifts. (Cf. 10, 11.) In the first stage, tribes from Attica overran Boeotia in one tradition while tribes from Boeotia invaded Attica in another. Some vaguely remembered cultural link somehow joined the two areas. The tribes themselves are to us nothing but names. The Aonian plain north of Thebes is either the toponym from which the tribal name Aones was derived, or the preserver of the memory of the tribe. Some effort has been expended to connect the words "Aones" and "lones" (that is, original to Taofcs and then ultimately to 'I ves in one area, and to "Aoves in the other), but with no great success.1 The Temmikes of the Hecataean tradition were derived from, or gave, a word used occasionally for Thebes, "Temmikion," which is first found in early local epic.2 An Aeolic derivation has been proposed on no particular grounds.3 The Hyantes are sometimes associated with the Abantes, who are occasionally considered a Thracian tribe.4 The name suffix - VT - can, however, be Greek.5 The Hyantes were thought to have settled around Onchestus and the eastern edge of Lake Copa'is6 before they were expelled either to Hyampolis in Phocis7 or to Aetolia.8 Ogygus seems to be a hero common to both Attica and Boeotia. The term "Ogygian" is sometimes applied to Thebes,9 and one of the gates is the Ogygian. The same word is also applied to Athens.10 Ogygus himself is the autochthonous founder of Thebes in the Hellanican tradition,11 and in the Pherecydan tradition he is an early ruler of Boeotia, and probably the son of Boeotus, earlier than the foundation of Thebes.12 He is also linked with western Boeotia through his daughter Alalcomena.13 Ogygus is, however, regarded as the founder of Eleusis in several late authors,14 and as an early, or the earliest, ruler of Athens in Philochorus and presumably the Hellanican tradition.15 It seems that he is remembered as a shawdowy, vague figure in both Attica and Boeotia. It should be noted that his Ektenes were also associated occasionally with Attica.16 One might also credit to this first stage of tribes and heroes associated with both Boeotia and Attica other scraps not found in what is left of our three traditions: the enigmatic story of an Athens and an Eleusis covered over by Lake Copa'is; foundation legends from Thespiae, Potniae, Delium and Onchestus; cults such as that of Cecrops at Haliartus and ceremonies such as the Stephanephoria; and several myths linking the two areas, such as that of Cephalus and Procris.17 There is some legendary evidence for a belief in an early close association between

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

57

Attica and Boeotia. Thus the theory of something underlying the three traditions may have some merit. The second stage is marked in each area by the presence of local heroes, ones associated with either Attica or Boeotia, but not both, heroes such as Cadmus, Amphion and Zethus, and Athamas for Boeotia, or Erechtheus and Pandion for Attica. They are usually the fortifiers and sometimes the founders of cities. The legend of Amphion and Zethus has been regarded by several modern authorities as an adaptation of the "abandoned twins" motif of folktale,18 and by others as a Boeotian counterpart of the tale of the Dioscuri.19 The presence of several sets of similar twins (or at least brothers) in Boeotian myth, such as the builders Trophonius and Agamedes from Orchomenus, and Leucippus and Ephippus from Tanagra, has led to the belief by some scholars in the existence in Boeotia of an early Mycenaean cult of divine twins. Amphion and Zethus are associated with Thebes, Eutresis, East Locris and the upper Asopus valley as builders and fortifiers; that is, they are local (even if divine) figures in eastern Boeotia, just as Trophonius and Agamedes are figures in western Boeotia and Phocis, and Leucippus and Ephippus are figures in the lower Asopus valley. Whether these divine twins were a religious sanction for some sort of Mycenaean double monarchy or not is unknown, but it makes an interesting conjecture. At any rate, Amphion and Zethus, divine or not, are local figures in eastern Boeotia associated with the construction of fortifications, just as are the other sets of twins in other parts of Boeotia. The story of Cadmus and the Cadmeans, in the standard version as we now have it, of colony-founding immigrants from overseas, may well have originated in Asia Minor in the seventh century B.C.20 Other sources, however, make Cadmus a native of the Boeotian area, even a son of Ogygus. But, no matter what his origin, he is regarded as the founder of a new dynasty at Thebes, the fortifier of the Cadmea or of all Thebes, and the progenitor of several noble Boeotian families. There are interesting parallels between Cadmus and the founders of new regimes elsewhere in Greece at about his time, such as Perseus and Pelops.21 The stories in Hecataean and Hellanican traditions of the conquests by the Aones and the expulsion of the Hyantes may simply be rationalizations of the tales of the destruction of the Spartoi, combined with an early Boeotian claim to Hyampolis in Phocis. On the other hand, they may reflect, very dimly, the efforts of newly established Mycenaean dynasts to reinforce their position and pacify their territory. The Hyantes are supposed to have lain in the Onchestus area, on the borders of Orchomenian areas of Lake Copai's. The inhabitants of Onchestus would

58

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

logically be victims of an aggressive Thebes interested in offence in the Copai's area. The discovery of Babylonian cylinder seals in the so-called Second Palace at Thebes, the one destroyed just before the general Mycenaean catastrophe at the end of LH III B,22 has led to some revival of belief in the oriental origin of Cadmus.23 Such a belief is unwarranted. Traditions of Near Eastern (trade) connections could, possibly, be vaguely remembered, and they could easily have become confused in later memory with stories about a new dynasty. These in turn could be further confused, in the Archaic period, by the desire to give a mythical precedent to the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet. Or the presence of the seals could be simply a coincidence. If, however, the Near Eastern connections of the Second Palace could be roughly equated with "Cadmean" rule, then the Second Palace could be "Cadmean," and the First, if it can be distinguished from the Second, might be credited to an earlier series of Theban rulers, perhaps those enshrined in legend as Amphion and Zethus. Another figure of this second stage should be Minyas, a shadowy personage often credited with the founding or fortification of Orchomenus.24 His genealogical links, variously with Orchomenus, Phocis, Thessaly and Thebes, are all inconsistent; most of them seem to be mythological reflections of post-Mycenaean political and cult associations. Not much more can be said but that he seems a western Boeotian figure, primarily of Orchomenus. Athamas is another western Boeotian figure, though he is occasionally called king of Boeotia25 or Thessaly.26 His legends have much to do with cult practice and the providing of aetiological myths. Hellanicus has him live in Orchomenus,27 while Hecataeus, who places him in the Aeolid stemma, probably has him live in the Athamantian plain of Thessaly,28 perhaps after being transferred from around Acraephia.29 A passage in Pausanias (9.34.7) says that Athamas ruled an area that included Laphystium, Coronea and Haliartus as a vassal of Andreus of Orchomenus. The source for this is unknown. Athamas is the founder and fortifier of Olmos on Helicon30 as well as of Acraephia. The Hecataean construction seems to depend on cult and familial links between Halos in Thessaly and western Boeotia, links that seem to go back to Late Helladic times31 and reflect a Mycenaean (LH III B) influx from Boeotia into Thessaly. If this is so, then Athamas was originally a western Boeotian figure of some sort. In the Pherecydan tradition, based on Asius and the like,32 several of Athamas' sons are eponymous heroes or founders of various Boeotian localities: Ptoos of Ptoon; Coronus of Coronea; Schoeneus of Schoenus;

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

59

Onchestus of Onchestus; Erythrus of Erythrae; and (in later sources) Haliartus of Haliartus, Orchomenus of Orchomenus and Sphingius of Mt. Sphinx. Though Athamas, in late sources,33 is loosely connected with Thebes through Ino, he is primarily a city-building and fortifying figure of western Boeotia. It is worth emphasizing that most of his associations, with the exception of Erythrae (if it is the one near Plataea), lie within the area that may be posited on other grounds as under Orchomenian influence in the Late Helladic period. The belief that Athamas was the eponym of the Athamanes is probably the result of dubious etymologizing.34 Athamas as the founder of Teos, as Pherecydes and his followers report,35 means no more than that western Boeotian elements took part in the original settlement. The third stage, of still more localized heroes involved in warfare rather than founding or fortifying, is represented by a large group of figures, far too many for extensive analysis. A few, however, deserve a closer examination. Erginus is an obscure figure, but he is not associated with fortifying or, on the mainland, with the founding of cities. He is always placed later than Minyas. He fights the Thebans, and he rules the Minyans of Orchomenus. Pherecydes36 tells how he slew the children of Oedipus, Phrastor and Leonytus, presumably in some war between Thebes and Orchomenus. The other sources, all late, associate Erginus with Heracles rather than Oedipus. There are two principal prose versions, one best seen in Apollodorus (Bibl. 2.4.1) and Diodorus (4.10.3-6),37 the other, a more rationalistic retelling, available in Pausanias (9.37). It is claimed that both utilize, ultimately, Theban sources known to Pindar.38 The belief, found in other sources, mostly poetic, that Erginus was the son of Poseidon39 is omitted in both versions in favour of his paternity from a mortal, Clymenus, king of Orchomenus.40 Clymenus is mortally wounded or killed at Onchestus, either at the hands of Perieres, charioteer of Menoecius (Apollodorus), or at the hands of "men of Thebes" (Pausanias). This leads to a war in which Erginus (Apollodorus) or Erginus and his four brothers (Pausanias) defeat the Thebans and impose a heavy annual tribute. Heracles, at some time or other, catches the Minyan heralds who are coming to collect the tribute and sends them home unpleasantly mutilated (in Diodorus, Apollodorus and in Pausanias 9.25.4). War ensues in which Erginus and the Minyans are defeated, with Heracles aided by Athena (Apollodorus), or using arms borrowed from various temples (Diodorus), or winning by tactical ability in night attacks and by stealing horses (Pausanias). Erginus is killed, and Orchomenus made tributary to Thebes (Apollodorus and Diodorus), or

60

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

Erginus survives but has to make a most expensive peace (Pausanias). Pindar, in sending Erginus off with the Argonauts, presumably had him survive the Theban-Orchomenian wars. These two versions are obviously based on tendentious Theban sources. One wonders what the Orchomenian version said. Did the Pherecydan tradition perhaps reflect it? Erginus, it is clear, is associated with Orchomenus, with Theban-Orchomenian fighting and with Onchestus. He is a heroic figure, a member of the Orchomenian royal house and sometimes an Orchomenian king. Except for Onchestus and Orchomenus he appears to have no relationships of a political or cult nature with any other localities of western Boeotia or the Copa c area. He is sometimes called a Milesian hero,41 but this should mean no more than that there was an Orchomenian element in the settlement of Miletus.42 As one of the Orchomenian leaders in the fighting at the time of Oedipus or of Heracles, Erginus is set well before the Trojan War. The Orchomenians were successful at first, according to the versions we have, but the Thebans did something decisive in the area around Onchestus. The archaeological evidence of the LH III B fortification system protecting Lake Copais, a defensive system that could only have had Thebes in mind and that was obviously constructed by Orchomenus, may have some link with the events dimly reflected in the legend of Erginus. No doubt quarrels between Thebes and Orchomenus in the Archaic Age played some part in the preservation and development of the legend, but the origin is surely Mycenaean.423 Onchestus was the seat of a long-lived and important cult of Poseidon. The fact that Erginus is sometimes called a son of Poseidon and that his mortal father, Clymenus, was slain at Onchestus clearly indicates some Orchomenian religious and cult association with Poseidon of Onchestus, the precise nature of which must remain obscure.43 Onchestus is also a strategic site, on the low hills separating the CopaYc basin from the Teneric plain, looking down towards Haliartus. It is a most fitting spot for border battles between the holders of the Teneric plain and those of the Copa c basin. If one considers the distribution of Mycenaean fortresses around Lake Copai's, it is clear that Onchestus is one point where attacks from Thebes could be readily mounted, and where they could, if successful, easily penetrate to the southeast end of Lake Copa s and uncover Haliartus. It is unknown whether Onchestus had a fortification in the Mycenaean Age or not, but it should have been fortified if it was in the Orchomenian ambit. The stories of the Hyantes being expelled from the area near Onchestus by the Thebans, and being settled west of Orchomenus; of the

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

61

presence of chariots;44 of the deaths of one or two Orchomenian leaders; and the memory of various battles around Onchestus and the western edge of the Teneric plain; all these could well indicate a long series of struggles in the area. It was a series of struggles in which Orchomenian efforts to cover Haliartus were ultimately unsuccessful and control of Onchestus was lost, even though Orchomenus still maintained some claim to it, enshrined in cult. It is quite clear that Erginus is a localized Orchomenian hero, closely associated with Orchomenian-Theban fighting, that is, fighting between Mycenaean states. Oedipus is another example of this third group. He is linked with fighting and with family feuds, not with founding or fortifying, and primarily with Thebes. The association of Oedipus with Attica is probably no more than the product "of a very natural desire to claim . . . the bones of the great if unfortunate hero."45 The tie with Corinth may owe something to Corinthian epic, or perhaps to a Peloponnesion domination over eastern Boeotia in LH III B.46 Neither case moves the scene of his principal efforts from Boeotia. He is set in the midst of a tangled series of tales about dynastic quarrels in a distracted Theban royal house. It should be emphasized that Oedipus is in some sense an interloper or supplanter legitimized by a royal marriage.463 As noted above, Oedipus is credited with putting a curse on his sons in early sources, and Homer (//. 23.676-80) has him die, apparently in combat. The motifs of his blinding and his exile in poverty are later additions. It has been argued by several authorities that Oedipus is ultimately a folklore figure that was somehow annexed to saga. If this were so, then a period remembered in tradition as full of warfare, dynastic quarrels, and local destruction — and a good deal of confusion — would be a good place to make the insertion. At any rate Oedipus is clearly to be considered a local personage, deeply involved with quarrels and warfare at Thebes. His sons, usually named Eteocles and Polyneices, also belong to the third group. All traditions agree that the Thebans were ultimately defeated by the Argives and their allies shortly before the Trojan War. This story is generally supposed to contain some kernel of truth, namely that an Argive expedition really did subdue, at the least, Thebes and eastern Boeotia in Mycenaean times.47 There is also strong evidence of Argive influence on the cults and myths of Boeotia, influence credited to Mycenaean times.48 The Epigoni are commonly held to be doublets of the Seven, though an early invention, since they appear in the Iliad (4.403-10).49 They may simply have served as an early established genealogical link between the Theban and Trojan Wars.

62

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

Some scholars have thought that the War of Oedipus' Sheep, the War of the Seven, and the War of the Epigoni are in origin variant retellings of one Great War, one that may or may not reflect one or more actual conflicts.50 Others hold that the War of Oedipus' Sheep should be distinguished from the Argive attack(s).51 Given the inferences from the archaeological evidence that Orchomenus and Thebes were hostile, and from the cult and legendary evidence that Thebes came under Argolic influence, one might be inclined to distinguish the War of Oedipus' Sheep from the Argive conflicts, the former being considered as an example of heavy fighting between Orchomenian and Theban neighbours. Sheep-raiding, it should be noted, is commonly a neighbourly pastime, since sheep are notoriously slow to drive any distance. Of course, it is impossible to know whether sheep-raiding played any part in this War, in spite of its name. A fight over the flocks of Oedipus is curiously reminiscent of the rivalry between Atreus and Thyestes over the golden rams of Mycenae.52 If, however, one might couple the stories of Oedipus' death by violence with Hesiod's brief mention of very heavy casualties in hard fighting, it would be possible to consider this war as slightly earlier than the wars with the Argives, an opinion one can see in existence as early as Hesiod (frg. 35 Rz) who notes that Oedipus' funeral was the occasion for a visit by Argeia, daughter of Adrastus. The wars with the Argives led to the subduing of at least eastern Boeotia under Argolic rule. After all, Agamemnon, an Argolic king, ruling over Argives, did set out from Aulis. The story that is found in several traditions telling of a Theban defeat at Glisas, northeast of Thebes, at the hands of the Argives seems strange, because Glisas lies off the direct route from Argos. Glisas, however, does lie on an easy approach to Thebes from Attica, the one followed today by the modern four-lane highway and the railway, as well as anciently by invaders such as the Athenians at the times of Tanagara, Oenophyta and Delium. One may conclude that an Argive force moved through western and northern Attica, by-passed any Theban defences on the direct route and debouched into the eastern sections of Boeotia. An Argive conquest of Thebes would also mean that Heracles should not be considered as a member of this third group. He is, as has long been recognized, an Argolic figure, and it is often supposed that Argolic colonists introduced his cult and legends to Boeotia.53 The presence of the cult of Heracles at Orchomenus may indicate an eventual defeat of Orchomenus as well as of Thebes by the Argives and some occupation of this area. On the other hand, the cult could have spread later, in the Dark Ages or in the Archaic period. At any rate it is clear that the third stage is marked by localized

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

63

heroes, not founders, who were engaged in heavy fighting; that these are thought to fall in time between the builders of fortifications, who are less localized, and the Trojan War; that they are, to some extent, associated with Argive or Argolic assaults as well as local quarrels; and that their ancestries are obscure, as if they represent some genealogical breaks in the ruling houses.54 One may surmise that all was not well in Mycenaean Boeotia in the interval represented by this stage, even if some Argolic monarch claimed pre-eminence. Thebes, or Hypothebes, was believed to have remained settled while under Argive rule. Though the traditions are not consistent in their view of what happened to Thebes, except that it was something disastrous, all the different stemmata indicate a measure of continuity, either through Creon or through the branch of Thersander, son of Polyneices, and his descendants. The Argive associations of the names of this branch, such as Thersander, Tisamenus and Autesion, have often been noted.55 The whole tale of the Cadmean exile, usually believed to have been accomplished under the leadership of the Eteoclid branch of the royal house, has rightly been regarded with great suspicion.56 The somewhat discrepant versions about the continuity of settlement and of rule at Thebes (or Hypothebes); the various destinations for the exiled Cadmeans — Attica, Aetolia, Doris, Epirus, Thessaly or various combinations of these; the hesitancy in identifying the Cadmeans with the Boeotians;57 the lack of any consistent traditions concerning the fate of the Eteoclid descendants; all these points support the belief that the exile and return of the Cadmeans are the products of early poetry. Early poems echo the Return of the Heraclids and reflect a desire to link later immigrants and their ruling houses with earlier inhabitants. The Cadmean exile, then, is in all likelihood pure fiction, the germ of which may have been derived from anachronistic handling of traditions of the migrations after the Trojan War, or, perhaps, from the vaguely remembered Mycenaean expansion in Thessaly during LH III B. Thersander, son of Polyneices, is thought of as coeval with the leaders of the Trojan War, but he is killed off in the abortive first expedition.58 Obviously something prevented his being included in the Trojan War, but equally obviously it was thought good to have him die overseas in some foray against Asia Minor. It may be that the weight of the Mycenaean tradition embodied in such material as the Homeric Catalogue prevented his inclusion in the Trojan War; but Greek tradition clearly believed that the Trojan War was not the only expedition against Asia Minor, a belief that some moderns think finds support in the Hittite archives.59 It seems, therefore, more likely that Thersander was remembered as being killed in Asia Minor at a time roughly

64

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

contemporary with the Trojan War, but not as a participant in it. The best that could be done in associating him with the great expedition was to eliminate him in the first try. The fourth stage, that of the Trojan War, is found in all the historical traditions and in nearly all the poetic sources. Nowadays it is generally believed to have had an historical kernel in an archaeologically attested destruction of Troy.60 The majority of scholars follow C. W. Blegen in equating the end of Troy Vila with the legendary sack of the city. Many agree with him in setting it about or "before the middle stage of ceramic style [LH] III B."61 Some, however, consider this far too early and date it close to the end of the period.62 Still others accept a late date for Troy Vila, but regard Vlh as the one taken by the Greeks, thereby combining a late Troy VIIa with a sack of Troy in the middle of LH III B.63 The excavator's interpretation should be preferred unless other cogent evidence renders a correction necessary. Most arguments to the contrary are based on a priori theorizing or the rejection on no solid evidence of the excavator's interpretation of his careful excavation. Therefore Blegen's idea seems to be preferable. Troy VIIa, destroyed around the middle of LH III B, should be the Troy remembered in Greek legend and saga.64 The Boeotian contingent in the Catalogue (Il. 2.494f.) was led by five men, Peneleus, Leitus, Arcesilaus, Prothoenor and Clonius. The Orchomenians were under the command of Ascalaphus and lalmenus (//. 2.511-515). Very little is known of these seven apart from what the Iliad tells us. Professor Page, in reviewing the arguments for separate composition of the Catalogue, has pointed out that the fair degree of consistency between the Catalogue and the rest of the Iliad should mean that "both ultimately have a common origin in poetry about the Trojan War."65 Furthermore, the fact that these seven names, like that of the equally obscure Menestheus of Athens, could not be replaced by other, more significant, characters, should mean that they are part of a continuous tradition from Mycenaean times.66 Peneleus is associated in later sources rather loosely, as we shall see, with the Theban royal houses.67 Leitus, son of Alectryon (//. 17.601), is later given a grave at Plataea68 and is considered one of the few survivors of the Trojan expedition. Clonius is made Leitus' brother is one tradition,69 but in another he is made son of Alegenor,70 a personage associated with the Asopus valley. Arcesilaus had a monument at Lebadea71 and was regarded as the brother of Prothoenor, 72 who is called in the Iliad (14.451) son of Areilycus, and who is credited with coming from Midea. Ascalaphus and lalmenus are sons of Ares. The god is much grieved at the death of Ascalaphus.73 Thus two or three later and variant

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

65

traditions had two leaders from eastern Boeotia, two from western, two from Orchomenus, and only one from the Theban area. Since Thebes was supposed to be in eclipse about this time, this distribution could be a reflection of late Mycenaean realities in Boeotia. The grouping of Leitus and Clonius and of Arcesilaus and Prothoenor as brothers is probably early tradition, 74 like the combination of lalmenus and Ascalaphus, not to mention Ajax and Teucer or Agamemnon and Menelaus. This grouping may be a reflection of the alleged Mycenaean double executive, or of the Mycenaean cult of twins, as noted above, or of both.75 In the case of Peneleus he is in one tradition76 killed at Troy, while in another he returns home. Probably the Mycenaean tradition did not tell of his ultimate fate. The name "Boeotian" in the Catalogue has caused trouble to commentators from Thucydides (1.12.3) on, but it may mean no more than that the Catalogue took final form after the immigration of the Boeotians.77 On the other hand the fairly careful avoidance of most anachronisms, such as the reference to Hypothebes (//. 2.505), the listing of sites the locations of which were unknown in post-Mycenaean times, or that were abandoned at the end of LH III B for centuries, shows a great attention to Mycenaean detail. The Catalogue has often been thought a Boeotian composition.78 The Little Catalogue in the Iliad (13.685-700) gives a somewhat different, though doubtless equally Mycenaean, picture. Boeotians, lonians, Locrians, Phthians, Epeians and Athenians march together to defend the ships, with various commanders listed. Menestheus leads the Athenians, with three obscure officers as "followers."79 Meges, who in the Great Catalogue (2.627) commands the Doulichians and Western Islanders, here leads the Epeians with two worthies not mentioned elsewhere in the Iliad.80 The four commanders of the Epeians in the Great Catalogue81 make no appearance here. In the Little Catalogue Medon and Podarces lead the Phthians. In the Great Catalogue Medon takes over the Thessalian contingent of Philoctetes (2.727), and Podarces is the substitute commander for Protesilaus of central Thessaly (2.704). Phthians are not mentioned elsewhere in the Iliad than in this Little Catalogue, and neither are the lonians. The land of Phthia in the Great Catalogue is part of the realm of Achilles (or rather of Peleus), and is inhabited by Myrmidons (2.683). The Lesser Ajax is the leader of the Locrians, but what we have of the Little Catalogue names no commanders for the Boeotians or lonians. Both Catalogues have elements in common. Medon in both is the bastard half-brother of Lesser Ajax and is in exile. Meges in both is the son of Phyleus, and Podarces is the son of Iphiclus, son of Phylacides.

66

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

Menestheus, son of Petheus, is the Athenian leader. But in the Little Catalogue Medon and Podarces lead a national contingent, albeit one from Thessaly, the Phthians, as full commanders, not substitutes for others. Meges leads Epeians instead of an amorphous group from an area all entangled with the kingdom of Odysseus. In the Little Catalogue Mycenaean elements are combined in a manner different from that in Book 2. The listing of commanders in the Little Catalogue is, as far as it goes, in reverse order from the list of peoples: Boeotians, lonians, Locrians, Phthians, Epeians, Athenians with commanders going Athenian, Epeian, Phthian and Locrian. One may conclude that this is a fragment of a slightly longer, carefully composed list, with most if not all of the contingents coming from Central Greece and Thessaly: Athenians from Attica, Locrians from Locris and Phthians from Phthiotis. There is a strong case for the belief that the Epeians were at home in later Aetolia before their arrival in Elis.82 The lonians have often been credited with occupying at least sections of Boeotia.83 The Phthians and Boeotians are coupled near the end of the Little Catalogue (//. 13.699) but being mentioned in the Little Catalogue need not imply the location of the Boiotoi in Boeotia. Their location in Thessaly to the west of Phthiotis, and in the neighbourhood of the Malian Gulf, that is, the southern part of their traditional Thessalian homeland, would satisfy requirements suitably. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conjecture that we have in the Little Catalogue a scrap of information giving a fairly early pre-migration list of tribes from Central Greece, with Epeians occupying land north of the Corinthian Gulf and Boeotians still living in Thessaly. It should, therefore, be considered as antecedent to the finished form of the Great Catalogue. Whether the Little Catalogue originally referred to some incident other than the Trojan War or is a portion of an alternative version of the Catalogue is impossible to know. The latter seems more probable because of the number of Trojan War heroes present. From the Iliad and the fragments of the Epic Cycle, emerges a general picture of the combined Myceneaen efforts under Argolic leadership and authority, principally against Troy, but with hints about attacks against other sections of the coast of Asia Minor and against lands further east. The Trojan expedition was remembered as ultimately successful, though extravagant in casualties, a Cadmean victory, so to speak. Doubtless its casualty list suffered accretions in the retelling. Other overseas expeditions seem to have involved heavy losses also, as far as we can tell. The tantalizing scraps of Hittite information about the Ahhiyawa, if they refer to the Mycenaean Greeks, do not seem to

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

67

contradict the general impression of a low rate of success for the invaders or raiders of Asia Minor. A series of expensive and not too successful overseas forays should, a priori, have had repercussions in the Greek homeland. The Greek legends of the Nostoi indicate that such was the case. The returning heroes faced destruction at the hands of gods, family or people; expulsions by new governments; palace revolts; popular unrest; or at best a successful return followed by a sullen acceptance of them on the part of the people. There is very little evidence of this from Boeotia, but one or two incidents indicate a resemblance to the usual pattern. The few returning heroes, Leitus and perhaps Peneleus and lalmenus, lapse into obscurity. Peneleus, if he returned, seems to have suffered exile,84 as apparently did lalmenus. Regencies seem to abound, a sign of some difficulties with the traditions; and some dynastic disturbances are traceable at Orchomenus, with the Minyads replaced at a time about contemporaneous with the Trojan War. The replacing of the Labdacids at Thebes is set, in one tradition, two generations after the Trojan War:85 Autesion, son of Tisamenus, son of Thersander, was replaced by Damasichthon, son of Opheltas, son of Peneleus.86 Thucydides' Boeotian invasion sixty years after the Trojan War probably rests on this and other similar equations. It seems reasonable to believe that some Boiotoi justified their invasion of Boeotia by claiming family links with their predecessors. The fifth stage, of disasters and shifts of population, is observable in all traditions. Its beginning is placed, in the Hecataean and Hellanican traditions, shortly after the Trojan War, in the Pherecydan tradition during the War. It consists of invasions and expulsions by fierce attackers, variously named Phlegyians, Pelasgi, or Thracians. Since Phlegyians are sometimes held to be a Thracian stock87 and the Thracians a Pelasgian people, the meaning is probably much the same: that linked in time with the Trojan War, at the most within a couple of generations, there was an invasion of northern tribes, with a large Thracian component. The presence in Classical Greece of Thracian cults and divinities or Thracian traces in various cults,88 notably in Boeotia and Arcadia, and of Thracian place-names, notably in Malis, Attica, Euboea and Arcadia,89 is susceptible of a simple explanation: the presence of Thracians. Furthermore, the memory survived of fights with invading Thracians, fights in Phocis, Boeotia, western Attica and Megara90 at times close to the Trojan War. It seems reasonable to conclude that, after the Trojan Wars, a Thracian incursion broke into Greece, and heavily defeated the

68

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

defenders at least in Phocis, Boeotia and Attica; it may even have broken into the Peloponnese. Many of the survivors fled: from Orchomenus Minyans made their way to Munychia and Thoricus and thence overseas; and from Thebes and other Boeotian towns other refugees eventually made their way to Asia Minor. The traditions make it clear that while many used Attica as a staging area, many others emigrated from such Boeotian ports as Aulis.91 The Thracians were believed to have maintained their grip for a time on Phocis and western Boeotia at the least, until the coming of the Boeotians broke their power. As the above analysis indicates, something may be obtainable in broad outline from our sources, something that matches the archaeological evidence. Roughly speaking, stage one might correspond to LH I, LH II and perhaps the early phase of LH III Al, when a uniform and expanding vigorous culture is observable over Greece; stage two corresponds to LH III A2 and early LH III B, when palaces became walled; stage three corresponds to LH III B, when there is clear evidence that all was not well in Greece and some disturbances are noted, notably at Thebes and Mycenae; stage four relates to late LH III B; and stage five points to the great collapse at the end of LH III B and the events of LH III Cl. It may be argued that the traditions reflect, very vaguely, a genuine historical sequence, but the incidents, personages, and particular times for each are so distorted and exaggerated that nothing much beyond a blurred outline can be obtained. The historicity of any individual or any action cannot in any way be confirmed from the three traditions. Myth, fantasy and mythical motives have largely swamped whatever historical events the traditions claim to relate.

Notes 1. Thumb-Scherer, Gr. Dial., 19; Schwyzer, Gr. Gr., 486; Wilamowitz, Eur. Her. 1, 6 n. 4. See also Fimmen, NJb 29 (1912) 539; Kretschmer, Glotta 1 (1909) 9; C.D. Buck, CP2\ (1926) 23. 2. Cf. Menelaus of Aegae, FGrH 384 Fl. For later use see Nonnus, Dionys. 5.35 and Lycophron, Alex. 644. 3. Bechtel, Gr. Dial. 2,241. 4. Arrian, quoting Aristotle, FGrH 156 F 68 bis. 5. Schwyzer, Gr. Gr., 526. 6. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1242; cf. Hanell, Megansche Studien, 63. 7. Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19. 8. Apollodorus, FGrH 244 F205. 9. Lycus, FGrH 380 F3; Lysimachus, FGrH 382 Fl. 10. Aeschylus, Pers. 975; Antiochus, FGrH 333 F3; Charax, FGrH 103 F30; Thalius, FGrH 256 F2.

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

69

IT. Paus. 9.5.1; Lysimachus, FGrH 382 Fl; Lycus, FGrH 380 F3. 12. Aristodemus, FGrH 383 F4 and see Corinna 3.551, 31 Bergk. 13. Paus. 9.33.4. 14. Castor in Eusebius, FGrH 250 F3; Oros. 1.7.3, cf. Paus. 1.38.7. 15. FGrH 328 F92. But see Jacoby's long note ad loc., esp. pp. 385-88, where he rejects Ogygus and then a 189-year gap before Cecrops as interpolations. Ogygus could be at best only a local king in his opinion. 16. Cauer in RE 3 (1894) s.v. "Boiotia," 641. Gommt,JHS 33 (1913) 67. 17. Athens and Eleusis in Boeotia, Paus. 9.24.2, Str. 9.2.18, St. Byz. s.v. 'A va, Pliny N.H. 2.206; Thespius as son of Erechtheus, Diod. 4.29, as grandson of Pandion, Paus. 9.26.6; Potniae, Paus. 9.8.1; Delium, Hdt. 6.11.8; Onchestus, cf. Kirsten, RE 35 (1939), s.v.h., 414; Cecrops at Haliartus, Paus. 9.33.1. It is often supposed that the shrine was established when the Athenians occupied Haliartus in the first century B.C. Stephanephoria, Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F3; Procris d. of Erechtheus, Pherecydes, FGrH 3 F34. 18. See, e.g., H.J. Rose, Handbook of Greek Mythology 5 (London, 1964) 288, under "Rea Silvia." 19. Preller, Gr. Myth, s.v.; Vian, Ongines, 69-76. 20. K. Latte, RE 10 (1919) s.v. "Kadmos," 1461f., 1466; Wilamowitz, Horn. Untersuch., 39; Gomme, JHS 33 (1913) 53-72, 223-45. 21. Sir John Myres wrote about the heroic dynasties and their genealogies long ago in a book that still repays study, Who Were the Greeks? (Berkeley, 1930). Cf. Cloche, 15, who regards C. as a faded god or genius and Vian, Origines, 68. 22. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, 217f. and n. 12; Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago, 1964) 189, 341. 23. Schuhl, RPh (1967) 470-78, reviews three possible Near Eastern derivations of the word Kadmos: "the Levantine;" "the Ancient;" and "Kidin-Marduk" mentioned in one of the cylinder seals. 24. See Fisher RE 30 (1932) s.v. "Minyas" 2014-18 and Vian, Hommages Dumezil, 215-24, for references. Hellanicus apparently did not see him as either founder or fortifier. 25. Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.80; Schol. Plato Mm. 315C. 26. Hyginus, Fab. 14. 27. FGrH 4 F126; Schol. A.R. 2.1153 and 1-763. 28. FGrH 1 F17 and comm. p. 323; cf. Hdt. 7.197. 29. Cf. Str. 9.24.1, Steph. Byz. s.v. "A*pm0ia and Paus. 9.24.1. 30. Schol.//. 2.511. 31. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 133-40. 32. FGrH 3 F98; see also Herodorus, FGrH 31 F38. 33. King of Thebes in Schol. //. 7.86, and he fights the Seven. 34. Nilsson, Myc. Orig., 133; but see Sakellariou, La Migration grecque en lome (Athens, 1958) 177 for a vigorous rebuttal. But S's arguments show only that it may be linguistically possible to associate Athamas and the Athamanes, not that anything necessitates this connection. 35. FGrH 3 F102; Steph. Byz. s.v. Teos; Str. 14.1.3; Paus. 7.3.6. There seem to be

70

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

two disparate traditions here, so probably Hecataeus also regarded A. as the founder of Teos. See Sakellariou, op. cit. n. supra, 174-85. 36. FGrH 3 F95. 37. Probably from Matris of Thebes, FGrH 39 and comm. ad loc. 38. Cf. Ol. 4.32. 39. Ap. Rhod. 1.185, 2.896; Val. Flac. 1.145; Ps.-Orph. Arg. 150; Hyg. Fab. 14; Schol. Find. Pyth. 4.61. 40. Cf. also Find. Ol. 4.32; Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.185; Hyg. Fab. 14 Clymenus is known to Hesiod, frg. 277 Rz. who calls him son of Orchomenus. Pausanias makes him son of Presbon, in a different branch of the royal House. 41. Ap. Rhod. 1.186; Ps.-Orph. Arg. 152-54; Hyg. Fab. 14. 42. Sakellariou, La Migration grecque, 72f. 42a. Cloche, 21f., sees the legends as creations of the seventh century B.C. No doubt they were embellished and refurbished in the Archaic Age, but they do fit the Mycenaean Age and are of Mycenaean origin. 43. Bethe, RE 11 (1907) s.v. "Erginos," 433, argues for an identity of Poseidon and Clymenus. Perhaps some ceremony symbolically linking Onchestus and Orchomenus by the filiation of an Orchomenian hero to Poseidon formed part of the ceremonies, or some rite of supplanting took place there. 44. Paus. 9.26.1, to explain the presence of the shrine of Heracles Hippodetes at the western end of the Teneric plain. But see below p. 93f. 45. Rose, Handbook, 189. 46. For the theory of Peloponnesian, specifically Argive, domination see A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 1-10, and further below. 46a. Schol. Laur. Soph. Oed. Col. 1375 says that Oedipus was of "thoroughly lowly birth." Where the scholiast got his information is unknown. 47. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 102-5 and esp. 107; Cloche 14f.; F.H. Stubbings, CAH2 II, ch. 14, 28 (sep. fasc.), puts the war back in LH II. 48. A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 1-10. 49. See Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 120 for several references; see also A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 1 and note 3. 50. Nilsson, op. cit. n. supra, 109, for example. 51. As does Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 190, for example. 52. Apollod. Epit. 11-12; Seneca, Thyestes 224fT. 53. A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 5f. 54. Sir John Myres, Who Were the Greeks?, 308-12, noted that breaks occur in the genealogies of the great ruling families throughout Mycenaean Greece a couple of generations before the Trojan War. 55. By e.g., Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 4f. 56. Ibid.; R.J. Buck, CP63 (1968) 269. 57. The earliest express identification I can find is in Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19, from Strabo 9.2.2. 58. Cypna, p. 104 Allen; Apollod. Epit. 3.17; Paus. 9.5.14; Diet. 1.14, 2.2. 59. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (Belfast, 1960) esp. 1-23; R.J. Buck, Histona 18 (1969) 286; and Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley, 1959) passim. 60. R. Carpenter, Folktale, Fiction and Saga (Berkeley, 1948) has his doubts about any equations of destructions of Hissarlik with the Trojan War,

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

71

basically following Bethe (Homer I-III) and Wilamowitz SDAW, 1925, 241. Several others hesitate to equate legend and archaeology, but the great majority do consider one of the levels of Hissarlik to be Homer's Troy. See the group of articles in JHS 86 (1964) on the historicity of the Trojan War. 61. Blegen, The Mycenaean Age (Cincinnati, 1962) 15; cf. Troy, IV, 12; CAH2, Troy, 14 (sep. fasc.) 62. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, 215f., and Hesperia 33 (1964) 352-80, argues for the end of LH III B for the destruction of Troy Vila. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 274-87, dates Troy Vila to LH III C and the war to a brief period of recovery after the devastations at the end of LH III B. 63. C. Nylander, Antiquity 37 (1963) 6-11 and O. Broneer, Hesperia 36 (1966) 361 f. 64. The idea that legends attached themselves to Troy no doubt has merit, but to argue from this that the Trojan cycle is therefore not to be associated with Troy smacks of perverseness. Cf. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 6-10; Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, 218-96. 65. History and the Homeric Iliad, 136. 66. Ibid., 145-47. 67. Paus. 9.5.15. Cf. W st, RE 37 (1937) s.v. "Peneleos" 459f. Perhaps this stems from the Little Iliad and reaches the later sources by way of Hellanicus. 68. Paus. 9.4.3. 69. Hyginus, Fab. 97, to be associated with Apollod. 3.130 and 1.113 as a group. 70. Diod. 4.67, Schol. BL to 2.494. 71. Paus. 9.39.3. 72. In two or three variant traditions: as sons of Areilycus (father of Prothoenor in Il. 14.451) in Schol. BL to 2.494; as sons of Archilycus in Diod. 4.67; as sons of Lycus in Hyg. Fab. 97. 73. Il. 15.110-18. 74. The Diodoran tradition seems to be a late schematization that owes something to Hecataeus and his followers. It is not of much account. 75. The twin divinity seems to be common in Mycenaean-based cult. From Boeotia alone come Amphion and Zethus, Trophonius and Agamedes, Leucippus and Ephippus, and Prometheus and Aetnaeus as cult figures. 76. Probably from the Little Iliad, see W st, I.e. 77. H.H.I., 152.

78. Ibid. 79. 13.691, Pheidas, Stichios and Bias. Pheidas and Bias appear only here. Stichios helps Menestheus rescue the corpse of Amphimachus (13.195) and later gets killed (15.329), earning a posthumous mention as the hetairos of Menestheus. 80. Amphion and Drakios. 81. 2.620f. Amphimachus, presumably the same one killed in 13.195, whose corpse is rescued by Menestheus and Stichios, Thalpius, Diores and Polyxeinus; Thalpius and Polyxeinus appear only in the Great Catalogue. 82. Paus. 5.1.3, and cf. Wilamowitz SDAW 69 (1906) 71-73. 83. R.J. Buck, CP 63 (1968) 276 and note 63 for references.

72

Traditions and History of the Bronze Age

84. At least this gives an explanation for his son's leadership of the invading Boeotians who captured Chaeronea. 85. See Gomme, Comm. 1. 117 ad Thuc. 1.12.3 for a good discussion. For the variant tradition see below, p. 000. 86. Paus. 9.5.15f. ultimately from Hellanicus. 87. See R.J. Buck Historia 18 (1969) 291 and note 83. 88. M.P. Nilsson, Gr. Rel. 12, 534; R. Carpenter, Folk Tale, 117, 119-30. 89. S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (Oxford, 1926) 102-4. 90. See, e.g., Zenob. 4.37; Polyaen. 7.43; Strabo 9.2.4, 10.3.17; Hellanicus FGrll 323aF5(b); Paus. 1.41.8. 91. Cf. Ephorus FGrH 70 F119.3.

This page intentionally left blank

5. The Coming of the Boiotoi

The word that the Boeotians used for themselves, Boiotoi, is a Greek tribal name of a well-known type and is the form from which the toponym Boeotia was later created.1 Its derivation is unknown. The ancient Greek etymologies that connect it with cattle, notably the /3oDs K ov, or credit it to an eponymous ancestor, Boeotus, are only a little more unlikely than the modern attempts to derive it from Mt. Boion in Epirus.2 All traditions agree that the Boiotoi lived in Thessaly, especially in the area around Arne, though some may have gone to the Pagasitic Gulf before migrating to the land later termed Boeotia.3 The location of Arne is unknown, though sometimes it is equated with Cierium in Central Thessaly.33 The presence in Classical times in Boeotia of cults and place-names of Thessalian origin, such as Itonia and Itonian Athena, Homole and Homoloian Zeus, Alalcomenae, Corseia and Pharae, confirm for most scholars the merits of these traditions.4 It is, therefore, generally believed that the Boiotoi originated in Thessaly and lived there as a distinct ethnos, in Phthiotis or in Thessaliotis, before they migrated to Boeotia, no doubt taking elements with them from other parts of Thessaly.5 Various traditions say that the Boiotoi were a combination of the natives of the area around Arne with some immigrants, often claimed to be Cadmeans,6 although other stocks are indicated.7 The Cadmeans are nowadays generally rejected as a late creation, an echo of the return of the Heraclids.8 The evidence from modern studies of dialect, however, does suggest that something may lie behind the tradition of fusion. The

Map 5. The Entry of the Boiotoi

76

The Coming of the Boiotoi

dialect of the Boeotians in Classical times shows both East Greek and West Greek characteristics, mostly Aeolic and Northwest Greek. Elsewhere I have argued that the Boeotian dialect evolved in Thessaly before the emigration of the Boiotoi, as a transitional dialect.9 The traditions, then, would reflect the memory of the original location of the Boiotoi in a march area exposed to both Aeolic and Northwest Greek influences. The archaeological remains show that the eastern coast of Thessaly had been part of the mainland cultural koine from Middle Helladic times, and that it continued to be so until the breakdown at the end of LH III B.10 An expansion of Mycenaean culture occurred in LH III B, but gradually faded out in the western reaches. The western section of Thessaly, like Eurytania and Epirus, seems to have lain outside the Mycenaean orbit during Late Helladic times and seems to have possessed a somewhat different culture. As far as can be ascertained on the very limited evidence available, it was a continuation of a rather poverty-stricken Middle Helladic type, the people of which continued to use simple wares of Middle Helladic design and to bury their dead in cist graves.11 Central Thessaly12 lay on the periphery of Mycenaean civilization and was a march area. One may infer, then, that the homeland of the Boiotoi, though within the orbit of Mycenaean culture, was on the outer limits, and that they, though superficially Mycenaean, were borderers, a conclusion that agrees with the linguistic evidence. The Boiotoi lived around Arne, that is, somewhere in central Thessaly, for a considerable time; a span of several centuries would be consistent with the linguistic and the archaeological evidence. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the Boeotians who occur in the Homeric and other material about the Trojan War were, if the material goes back to Mycenaean times, originally conceived of as the Boiotoi of Thessaly. If the modern critics are right in arguing for a substantially Mycenaean origin for the story of the Trojan expedition; if, as seems likely, the Boiotoi moved to Boeotia after the Trojan War; then, as has been argued above, the references to Boeotians, as in Iliad 13.685ff., the Little Catalogue, should originally have assumed a Thessalian homeland for them. The Great Catalogue of Book 2 with its Boeotians in Boeotia should be a modification of Mycenaean traditions made in post-Mycenaean times to conform to post-Mycenaean realities. The of Thucydides (1.12) is the product of still later attempts to square the Catalogue with common traditions. Though one source says it was by the Thracians,12a all the others agree that the Boiotoi were expelled some time after the Trojan War by the Thessalians; that the latter had come over Pindus from Epirus; and

The Coming of the Boiotoi

77

that something crucial happened two generations after the War. They disagreed about what it was precisely. One tradition says that the Boiotoi were expelled by the Thessalians who were led by Thessalus, son of Aiatus, son of Pheidippus, son of another Thessalus.13 Pheidippus appears in the Catalogue (Iliad 2.676-79) as one of the commanders of the force from Cos and Carpathus. He was thought to have been driven to Epirus after the war and to have settled at Ephyra in the Thesprotid.14 Hence the Boiotoi were expelled two generations after the Trojan War. Hellanicus is probably the source of this tradition, and the source of Thucydides' "sixtieth year," that is, two generations of thirty years.15 A second tradition puts the expulsion of the Boiotoi in the reign of Aiatus, one generation after the War.16 To this should also belong the story in Plutarch (cim. 1), which tells how Opheltas king of the Boiotoi took Chaeronea "by force from the barbarians." Opheltas is the son of Peneleus, one of the leaders of the Boeotian contingent in the Catalogue,17 and living one generation after the War. It is not until the reign of Damasichthon, son of Opheltas, that control of Thebes was gained by the Boiotoi.19 Hence in this tradition one generation after the War, the Boiotoi were expelled and western Boeotia was invaded; two generations after the War, Thebes was won. Not surprisingly a third tradition combines the other two: the two generations until the expulsion from Thessaly after the War and the two generations until Thebes is gained give the four generations cited by Hieronymus (Diod. 19.53) in his tale of the Cadmean return to Thebes after the War. The entry-point to Boeotia seems to be put in the same general area. The second tradition gives Chaeronea as the first place attacked,19 while the first says that Coronea and Orchomenus were captured virtually simultaneously20 and then the sanctuary of Itonian Athena was founded. It is clear that both traditions envisaged the Boiotoi as following a well-known invasion route from Thessaly, the one via Thermopylae and Hyampolis to Chaeronea, where the invaders would be poised to attack both Orchomenus and Coronea.21 Having gained control of Chaeronea, Orchomenus and Coronea, and their territories, the Boiotoi seem to have paused to digest western Boeotia; the generation or two before Thebes was captured marks this pause in all traditions. The siting close to Coronea of the sanctuary of Itonian Athena, and the celebration of the Pamboeotia there,22 together with the renaming of rivers and other toponyms,23 and the sanctity attached to the neighbouring settlement of Alalcomenae,24 all strengthen the belief that this western section was the area where the first Boeotian

78

The Coming of the Boiotoi

settlement took place, and where Boeotian institutions were first established in the new homeland. These sites and toponyms also imply that this area was the Boeotian centre long enough for the religious sites to become so sanctified as not to be easily moved, at a time when Thebes played no part.25 It is likely that the traditional one or two generations are a considerable underestimate of the actual length of stay in western Boeotia before proceeding eastward. The advance eastward eventually proceeded both to the north and to the south of Copai's. On the north side it ultimately reached Anthedon, a town credited with once having been occupied by the Thracians.26 On the south side it came as far as Thebes and Thespiae. In Thebes, according to one version, Damasichthon took the rule from Autesion, son of Tisamenus, son of Thersander, another stemma that puts the Boeotians in Thebes two generations after the Trojan War.27 The tradition intimates that there was a peaceful take-over, with Autesion joining the Dorians. There must have been another pause for some time. The next advance, into the Asopus valley, was led by Xanthus, son of Ptolemy, son of Damasichthon, that is, two generations after the gaining of Thebes.28 The Thebans remembered, according to Thucydides (3.61), that the Asopus valley and Plataea were reduced later than the rest of Boeotia and were occupied in accordance with an agreed plan. The Boeotian advance was apparently stalled on what became the Athenian-Boeotian frontier, by the efforts of local forces, if the legend of Xanthus and Melanthus has any historical significance.29 In any event the death of Xanthus symbolized traditionally the completion of the conquest of Boeotia under the kings and the consequent immediate extinction of the kingship. In fact the reduction of Plataea, Tanagra and the Asopus valley in general must have been a long, drawn-out process, done piecemeal. Even in the fifth century there were still patches of no-man's land between Attica and Boeotia,30 and districts of which the juridical status remained uncertain.31 Most of these, if not all, spoke a non-Attic, but Ionic dialect, that of Oropus being the best known and the most thoroughly analyzed. The fate of the earlier, non-Boeotian inhabitants is traceable, at least in broad outline. Ephorus 32 says that the invading Boiotoi had to defeat three peoples in a series of battles, the Thracians,33 the Hyantes and the Pelasgians. This version is clearly a composite one, with the Thracians from Hellanicus', the Hyantes from Hecataeus' and the Pelasgians probably from Pherecydes' tradition.34 It is, incidentally, possible to note another type of material used by Hellanicus in addition to poetry, that of aetiology. The presence of Thracians is the aition for the peculiarities of several cults on Helicon and Parnassus, probably correctly.35

The Coming of the Boiotoi

79

The Boeotians, then, met and defeated some Thracian groups in western Boeotia and north of Copais, driving them up into Helicon and Parnassus.36 One battle was fought near Chaeronea. The Hyantes of Hecataeus provide for him the origin for the name of Hyampolis, just as the Abantes may do for Abae; but it is actually a reasonable hypothesis that some survivors of previous disasters had made their way to the hill country under Thracian pressure and stayed there under Boeotian pressure, nursing their traditions. The Pelasgians may have been considered by Pherecydes to be a tribe of Barbarian invaders, but this was a view not shared by others. To Herodotus (1.57), Thucydides (1.3.2) and probably Hecataeus the Pelasgians were barbarian in speech (whatever that may mean) but aboriginal. This explains why the Arcadians,37 the inhabitants of Achaea,38 and the lonians as well as the Athenians were thought to be Pelasgians. The presence of the Pelasgians in Boeotia should represent in some traditions the original inhabitants, many, if not most, of whom were expelled to Athens. The confused story in Herodotus (6.137) about the expulsion of some (non-Athenian) Pelasgians from Athens may be a dim memory of the forwarding of refugees, closely akin to the Athenians in speech and custom, to the Ionian colonies. There are straightforward stories about the driving out of the Abantes from western Boeotia to Euboea39 and of the Gephyraioi from eastern Boeotia to Attica40. There are, in addition, several curious but vague links between Boeotia and Euboea, many of which deal with colonizings and the struggle with the Boeotians. Eleutheris (sic) was the foundation (or birthplace) of Kothos and Aiklos,41 who are commonly held to be the founders of Eretria, Cerinthus and sometimes Chalcis.42 Eretria was once called Melaneis, a name reminiscent of Melainai, Melaneus, and Melanthus, all associated with the Asopus valley.43 Narkissos, son of Eretrieus, eponym of Eretria, had a tomb near Oropus.44 Chalkis, the eponym, is related to Asopus and Melaneus45 as is Kerkyra, eponym of the island Kerkyra (once a Chalcidian colony).46 Ellops, eponym of the Ellopes who lived in Euboea, is called a son of Ion and brother of Kothos and Aiklos,47 and the Ellopes are sometimes derived from western Boeotia.48 All in all one can make a fairly strong argument for the settlement in Euboea as well as in Attica of substantial bodies of earlier inhabitants expelled by the Boiotoi. Furthermore, numerous traditions claim that elements in the bodies that founded various Aeolian and Ionian colonies came from various Boeotian districts.49 Some of the traditions, notably those telling of the emigration to Aeolis via Aulis as well as overland, perhaps indicate some

80

The Coming of the Boiotoi

direct migration to Asia Minor by some Boiotoi as well as their predecessors.50 Many of the traditions, however, claim that Athens was the staging area for their groups. All this indicates a very confused situation, one reflecting reality. Some, however, stayed in Boeotia. The Thracians, driven into the hills, survived as a stock long enough to leave cult traces, but were ultimately absorbed into the Boeotians. A somewhat more rapid integration of the Boiotoi and the previous inhabitants may have taken place at Thespiae, if Wilamowitz is right in considering that the story of the exploits of Heracles amongst the daughters of Thespius indicates intermarriage and the preservation of the land by the old families. 51 In eastern Boeotia the distinction between the Thebaioi and the Thebageneis shows that some of the older inhabitants remained in some way segregated from, and in a status subordinate to, the newcomers;52 these distinctions were still felt in the fifth century. 53 The contemptuous remarks of the Thebans at Plataea about "mixed populations" may lead one to infer that the lot of the "mixed" stocks left was not a happy one, though not comparable to that of the helots or penestae. There is no evidence for any enslaving of the previous inhabitants; at the worst they were perioecic. From the traditions it may be concluded that after conquering western Boeotia and defeating Thracian tribes the invading Boiotoi slowly extended their authority over the rest of Boeotia. In some cases they may have coalesced with the survivors of the previous inhabitants; these were probably speakers of a dialect ancestral to Ionic; while in other cases the Boiotoi reduced the natives to a subordinate, perioecic status. In most areas, however, they expelled their predecessors to Euboea and Attica or perhaps overseas, but in a few localities a semblance of independence was maintained for some time by speakers of what later developed into an Ionic dialect. The traditional dates of 1124 for entry into Boeotia and 1064 for the death of Xanthus are not too helpful. The archaeological evidence is limited and sparse. In Thessaly invaders from Epirus left their pottery in a few locations, notably Hexalophos on the western marches. These pots are datable to the second half of the twelfth century. 54 From Attica signs of an influx from Boeotia have been observed, to be dated to the later part of the twelfth century B.C.55 On the other hand by the middle of the tenth century links with Euboea and Attica can be observed in Boeotian pottery;56 the Athenian influence is so strong that an immigration from Athens to Orchomenus has been posited.57 Things have clearly settled down. The careful study of settlements, ceramic remains and population patterns recently completed by Professor Fossey,58 shows the following

The Coming of the Boiotoi

81

distribution of pottery in Boeotia: sites with LH III C remains, fourteen; with sub-Mycenaean remains, five; with Protogeometric remains, seven; with Geometric remains, thirty-one, with only a few (six to eight) showing Early Geometric pottery. It forms a strikingly regular curve, reaching its nadir in sub-Mycenaean times. If it reflects population trends, then the low point was reached in sub-Mycenaean times, roughly contemporaneous with the entry of the Boiotoi and the extensive emigration of the surviving inhabitants. There was then a slow recovery, which did not begin to bring population back to anything like Bronze Age levels until Middle Geometric, about 850-800 B.C. It may be, of course, that larger communities were preferred in sub-Mycenaean and Early Geometric times; or that the pottery types and fashions were radiating out from another centre and that Boeotia lay on the periphery. But the pattern does correspond to what other evidence we possess of a very gradual Boeotian recovery, beginning in the second half of the tenth century. Little more can be obtained from present evidence than rough upper and lower limits for the Boeotian conquest: the new materials in Thessaly and the disturbance in Boeotia fall towards the end of the twelfth century, not too far off the traditional date. The relatively peaceful conditions by 950 speak for the practical completion of the Boeotian conquest by then. A minimum span of a century and a half, 1100-950, and an optimum of two, 1150-950, would be as precise as we can be, on present evidence, about the length of time of the Boeotian conquest. To summarize, the Boiotoi lived in Thessaly for several centuries in the Bronze Age, long enough to be recognized as a distinct stock. They were of Myceneanized culture, probably not very deeply, and spoke a dialect transitional between Aeolic and Northwest Greek. They were expelled from Thessaly after the great collapse at the end of LH III B, probably in sub-Mycenaean times, or at the beginning of the Dark Ages, around 1150-1100. Their traditions claim that they moved in an organized manner under one king, and that they followed a route from Thessaly that led them into Boeotia close to Chaeronea. Their kings are not convincingly linked to any other royal house. The Boiotoi occupied Boeotia in three phases: western Boeotia; then, after an appreciable time, Thebes and Thespiae; and finally, after a still longer time, at least two generations in tradition, most of the Asopus valley. The earlier inhabitants of Boeotia were largely expelled or subdued. The Mycenaean predecessors had spoken a form of Greek that, like the speech of Attica, later evolved into an Ionic dialect, but most of the survivors in Boeotia gradually adopted the speech of the conquerors. By 950 B.C. the conquest was for practical purposes complete.

82

The Coming of the Boiotoi

Notes 1. Gschnitzer, Wiener Studien 68 (1955) 128. Ephorus, in Str. 13.1.13, had had the same idea. 2. C.D. Buck, Greek Dialects2, p. 5. Why not Boion in Doris for that matter? 3. Thuc. 1.12; Polyaen. 1.12, 8.44; Paus. 10.8.3; Paus. Att. F204 Schwabe; Charax, FGrH 103 F6; Vell. Pat. 1.3.1.; Diod. 4.67. Most if not all of these derive ultimately from Hellanicus. A somewhat different but consonant tradition is seen in Diod. 19.53 from Hieronymus. For the Pagasitic Gulf see Eustathius (1746, 61 to 1747); Zenobius, FGrH 482 F3. See also G. Huxley, GRBS 8 (1967) 199-202. 3a. Steph. Byz. s.v. "A.pvn). 4. For Itonia see Paus. 9.1.1, 9.34.1; Callim. Cest. 747; Alexander Polyhistor, FGrH 273 F97; Nicocrates, FGrH 376 F5; Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F2; Armenidas, FGrH 378 Fl; Preller-Robert I4, 219, 220f. For Homole and Homoloian Zeus see Steph. Byz. s.vv.; Ephorus, FGrH 70 F228; Aristophanes of Thebes, FGrH 379 F2; Aristodemus, FGrH 383 F5; M.P. Nilsson, Gr. Feste, 12f. For Alalcomenae cf. Str. 7.7.9. For Corseia see Oldfather, RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Korseia," 1438f.; for Olmones, Kirsten, RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Olmones," 2490f. Other names duplicated in Boeotia and Thessaly, such as Thebes and Thespiae, are somewhat inconsistently, but reasonably, thought not to have been taken from Thessaly to Boeotia. 5. Sordi, La lega tessala, 5-10; G. Huxley, GRBS 8 (1967) 199-202. 6. Hdt. 1.56 mentions Cadmeans in Thessaly, while in 5.61 the Cadmeans are expelled to Aetolia. Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19, is the earliest author I can find who makes an explicit association of the Boiotoi and Cadmeans. 7. Pelasgi in Thessaly linked to Boeotian stemma, Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F4 and Jacoby's comm.; Schol. B to //. 2.681. Athamanes from Epirus, cf. Hellanicus, FGrH 4 Fl26; Hdt. 7.197. 8. See previous chapter, p. 63. 9. R.J. Buck, CP 63 (1968) 268-80. See also Collinge in Crossland and Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations, 293-304 and the remarks of the editors, 341-43. 10. For sites in Thessaly see Atlas, s.v. "Thessaly" for a general survey. 11. See Atlas, nos. 546-51; Hammond, CAH2, II, ch. 36, 27 (sep. fasc.); Hammond in Crossland and Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations, 189-98. 12. See Atlas, nos. 539-45. 12a. Paus. Att. F5. 13. Vell. Pat. 1.3.1; Polyaen, 1.12; Charax, FGrH 103 F6. 14. Vell. Pat. 1.1; [Arist.] Auth. Graec. 1, 181. 15. Cf. Gomme, Comm. 1.117 ad loc. for Hellanicus as source. Probably Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19 and Str. 13.1.3 belong in this grouping. 16. Polyaen. 8.44 (with an attempt to smooth over the contradiction with 1.12); Paus. Att. F204 Schwabe; Zenob. Prov. 4.29. 17. Paus. 9.5.8; Sch. Townl. Il.13.92. For Peneleus see previous chapter, p. 64. We may have here an alternative to the Return of the Cadmeans. 18. Paus. 9.5.8. 19. Plut. Cim. 1, cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F116.

The Coming of the Boiotoi

83

20. Str. 9.2.29, probably a summary from Ephorus. Cf. 9.2.3. = 70 F119.3. 21. For this route see J.A.O. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 1-10 and Greek Federal States, 28. 22. Paus. 9.34.1; Str. 9.2.29. For precise location see ch. 1, p. 6. 23. Str. 9.2.29. 24. Str. 9.2.36; Paus. 9.33.5. 25. Busolt-Swoboda, 1411; Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 110; Sordi, La lega tessala, 5-10. 26. Lycophron, 754. Where he obtained his information is unknown. 27. Paus. 9.5.15. This stemma must also belong to our second, the non-Hellanican, tradition. 28. Ibid., probably not from Hellanicus who seems to have a different set of stemmata, see below n. 29. 29. Xanthus and Melanthus: Str. 9.1.7 (prob. from Ephorus, cf. FGrH 70 F22); Polyaen. 1.19; Frontin. Strat. 2.5.41; Conon, FGrH 26 F1.39; all in same tradition as Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F125; Paus. 9.5.16 (X. killed by Andropompus, father of M.) belongs to a different tradition. Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 112 n. 2, makes an interesting argument tracing this tale to local saga. 30. Thuc. 5.42. 31. Oropus is well known, but Eleutherae and Melainai were in a similar position. 32. FGrH 70 F119.3. 33. For a battle see also Polyaen. 7.43. 34. See Chapter 3. The Hyantes according to Hellanicus were expelled by the Cadmeans much earlier than the Trojan War. Hecataeus has Thracians enter generations before the War but has Phlegyians and Hyantes (both of Thracian descent) expelled to Phocis after the Trojan War. Hieronymus (probably from Pherecydes) has the Pelasgians drive out the Cadmeans so as to be expelled in turn by the returning Boeotians. 35. For Thracian parallels see Nilsson, Gr. Rel. I2, 534. It is worth emphasizing that Dionysus and Semele both have Thracian affinities, and both are claimed as Thebans. 36. Buck, Historia 18 (1969) 290-96. 37. Paus. 8.4.1. 38. Hdt. 7.94. 39. Str. 10.1.3; Ephorus, FGrH 20 F24; see Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 110. 40. Hdt. 7.57; Str. 9.2.10; cf. Hecataeus FGrH 1 F18. 41.Charax,FGrH 103 F95. 42. Str. 10.1.8. 43. Str. 10.1.10. For Melaneus cf. Paus. 4.2.2. 44. Str. 9.2.10; cf. Apollodorus, FGrH 244 F155. 45. Paus. 4.2.2; Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F129; Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F82. 46. Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F77. 47. Str. 10.1.3. 48. Wilamowitz, Eur. Her., 14. 49. See Sakellariou, La Migration grecque, passim; V.R. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (Oxford, 1966) 158-63; Fossey, Topography, 514f., for good summary.

84

The Coming of the Boiotoi

50. Cf. previous chapter. Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19.3. 51. Hermes 21 (1886) 110. 52. Ephorus, FGrH 70 F21 and Jacoby's commentary; Diod. 19.53. See also Sordi., AR, 1966, 18-20. 53. Cf. Thuc. 4.93.4 and Gomme's Commentary ad loc. 54. V.R. Desborough, The Greek Dark Ages (London, 1972) 338f.; for Hexalophos 98f., where D. would set the material a little later than the excavator. For report see AAA 1 (1968) 289ff. 55. J.N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968) 336. 56. Desborough, Dark Ages, 202. 57. Coldstream, Geom. Pottery, 343. 58. Fossey, Topography, 510-25.1 must emphasize that the inferences are mine and not his. Fossey argues for extensive emigration to Asia Minor until Middle Geometric and for the entry of the Boiotoi before the Trojan War.

This page intentionally left blank

6. Boeotia in the Archaic Period

Though their gradual expansion eastward doubtless continued for several centuries, the Boiotoi controlled most of the fertile lands of Boeotia by around 950 B.C. The archaeological evidence indicates a general and steady rise in both population and prosperity from 900 to 500 B.C. The number of sites occupied shows a continuing increase: from thirty-one showing Geometric pottery (the majority showing only Late Geometric), to forty-two with Archaic pottery, to fifty-five with Black-Glaze pottery, to fifty-seven with Classical material. The last two categories have totals even larger than the number of sites with LH III pottery. Whether this signifies a substantially larger population or a more scattered set of farms and villages is uncertain, but the general opinion, backed by the obvious rise in the level of prosperity, is that there was a steady increase in population, and that even in Hesiod's time there was the beginning of a land shortage.1 Clearly many sites, such as Eutresis, were resettled or rebuilt; artefacts become more common the later the date. A few shifts in settlement patterns can be observed, especially in the area of Lake Copais, where changes in water levels led to the abandonment of several villages and the founding of new ones. Boeotia, to judge by its pottery, was influenced by Attica in the latter half of the tenth century, although some acquaintance with northern neighbours is observable. Between 925 and 900 Orchomenus may have received Attic settlers, or perhaps professional potters.2 Closer links with Euboea than with Attica are forged between 900 and 875, but then Athenian influence predominates and continues on to the middle of the eighth century.3 In the latter half of the eighth century Thebes

Map 6. The Main Towns and Battle Sites of Classical Boeotia

88 Boeotia in the Archaic Period

becomes "the chief centre of Boeotian art," and by 700 Boeotia, dominated artistically by Thebes, was becoming isolated, though very prosperous.4 In other areas of artistic endeavour, including poetry, Boeotia had become by 700 B.C. a centre from which influence emanated.5 The development of Boeotian institutions and society remains obscure until the latter part of the sixth century. The legend of the death of Xanthus, the last king, shows that it was widely believed that the kingship survived no more than a century or so after the Boeotian immigration, and that the various Boeotian states proceeded quite independently from that time on. Some modern authorities, however, have attempted to link the archonship at Onchestus with the Boeotian monarchy.6 They have argued that the kingship survived with steadily diminishing powers until well on into the Archaic period. Eventually the king found himself transmuted into a sacred official with limited sacerdotal functions, holding office for a fixed term, and finally for only a year. This analogy with the development of the office of the archon basileus at Athens is not unreasonable, but it must be noted that we have no knowledge of the Archon at Onchestus except from inscriptions and no trace of his existence before 379.7 At any rate, one may infer that the institution of monarchy had little or no significance in Boeotia by the time that systematic enquiries into the past were made, and that it had been replaced by other, local forms of rule. The Boeotians, however, did preserve a feeling of ethnic and cultural kinship as well as a common dialect. This feeling did not prevent them from hating and fighting one another, but it manifested itself in several ways, most obviously in the religious sphere: the use of a common calendar; the common veneration of certain cults; and the common celebration of certain festivals. The most important of these festivals were the Pamboeotia held at the shrine of Itonian Athena, an area with so many reminiscences of Thessaly that it must be one of the areas settled earliest by the Boeotians.8 The Pamboeotia were celebrated in honour of Athena Itonia annually in the month named from them, Pamboiotos, the tenth of the Boeotian calendar. By the time that inscriptional evidence becomes available, in the Hellenistic period, the competitions were primarily of a military nature and included spear throwing, trumpeting, heralding, mock cavalry and infantry battles, torch racing and horse racing.9 Though particular events may have been added later, the essential military character is thought to go back to the inception of the festival, to a time shortly after the Boeotian invasion.10 The Pamboeotia were open to all Boeotians, including Orchomenians, but only to those representing Boeotian cities.11 The Pamboeotia provided a place where

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

89

common actions could be discussed and even on occasion agreed upon.12 At the very least the shrine and priestess had to be cared for, and arrangements made for administering the Games. Since amphictyonies as devices for supervising sacred sites were well known in central Greece, and since in Hellenistic and Roman times the priestess of the shrine of Itonian Athena was appointed by the League, not by local authorities,13 it seems most probable that the shrine of Itonian Athena and the Pamboeotia were supervised by an amphictyony of delegates chosen by and from the constituent Boeotian states. The meetings of such an amphictyony could also have been where the delegates were chosen for the Delphic amphictyony when it became necessary.133 The title of the delegates to the synod controlling the Pamboeotia is unknown. In late inscriptions the term naopoioi is found,14 but the Boeotarchs play an important role in the Pamboeotia as organizers, presiding officials and eponymous figures.15 The naopoioi and the Boeotarchs work jointly at one point in the third century, but the former seem to be Hellenistic officials.16 It may be that the Boeotarchs were brought in to add lustre to the Pamboeotia, or took part to get themselves popular exposure, at some time after they had already become important officials in the Boeotian Confederacy. On the other hand, it may be that the title of the delegates to the synod was originally that of the Boeotarchs, a title that could be considered analogous to that of the Hellenodikai at Olympia. When the amphictyony took on more responsibilities and became a political and military league, the Boeotarchs had their duties enlarged. Eventually part of their religious responsibilities would have been transferred to other sets of officials, arriving in due course at the naopoioi.17 The number of delegates to the synod is unknown, but seven or eleven seems most probable.18 Eleven is the number of Boeotarchs in 42419 and in 395,20 and seven is the number of Boeotarchs in the 360s,21 and these numbers, as will be seen below, recur frequently in Boeotian sub-units. A second common Boeotian festival is thought to have existed at Onchestus, and its governing amphictyony to have met at the shrine of Poseidon.22 The festival, to judge by the aetiological legends,23 was believed to possess a high antiquity and to have originated in the Bronze Age. This should mean that it went back at least to the Dark Ages, to a time before Thebes had become an important Boeotian city. 24 The events seem to have been less militaristic than those at the Pamboeotia. Associated in some manner is the official termed the "Archon at Onchestus." He is known only from fourth-century inscriptions, 25 but, as noted above, is sometimes believed to have had sacerdotal functions and to

90

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

have originated much earlier, perhaps from the decline of the kingship. Membership in the festival was, apparently, completely open to the older, non-Boeotian, stocks in Boeotia, such as the Oropians, and to the inhabitants of trans-Asopid territories,26 as well as to all Boeotian peoples. It has been suggested that the Boeotian section of the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad really lists the membership of the Onchestian amphictyony.27 This seems a desperate attempt to explain the absence of Itonia and Alalcomenae from the Catalogue, and it is not acceptable. Neither the amphictyony at Itonia nor that at Onchestus, it should be emphasized, was a political or military federation in any way resembling the later Boeotian League. Whether the Boeotians ever possessed phylae or phratries as social or political sub-divisions is a matter of dispute. On the one hand, the virtual absence of any reference to phylae or phratries in inscriptions or in historical sources has led some authorities to argue that the Boeotians, like several Northwest Greek stocks, never had them.28 On the other hand, a few archaic inscriptions mention what may be tribal or phratry names and one mentions a "phatra."29 Pausanias (9.34.10) refers to two Orchomenian tribes, Cephisias and Eteokleias, dated, to be sure, to Heroic times. They correspond, however, to the number of Orchomenian commanders in the Catalogue (//. 2.512). These two, plus the five Boeotian commanders, might lead one to infer that the Boeotians had had seven phylae at an early stage, two largely in the Orchomenian area, plus five, and fragments of the other two, well scattered throughout the twenty-nine towns remembered in the Boeotian Catalogue. It could be argued that the memory of these seven phylae was dimly preserved in the number of the seven defenders of the seven-gated Thebes, the seven demouchoi at Thespiae,30 the seven heroes of Plataea,31 the seven apomneumones and the college of seven Boeotarchs that appears from time to time. Some of the terms that bedevil Boeotian history, Ektenes, Encheleis, and so on, may once have been phyle or phratry names. This is all very tenuous, however, and the most that can be said is that, if phylae and phratries ever existed (and what evidence there is leans in that direction), they lost their importance fairly early to other social institutions, and to other methods of grouping families. By the time of any historical records the most important method of grouping the Boeotians was by area, in the districts in which they settled. It has been noted that most of Boeotia was parcelled out among various Boeotian communities by 950 at the latest; by the end of the ninth century B.C. several poleis had been formed, often by synoecism of local villages on a convenient (and often Mycenaean) site, sometimes as continuations of Mycenaean centres. The new poleis included

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

91

Orchomenus, Thebes, Thespiae, Goronea, Haliartus, Plataea and Tanagra. Various "communes" or districts composed of villages with no polis, though perhaps with a cult centre and place of refuge, still survived as more or less independent units, including as it seems Chaeronea, Lebadea, Copae, Ascra, the Tetracomia and Oropus.32 No direct evidence, except from Hesiod, exists for the family structure within each community; but clearly the extended patriarchal and patrilineal family, what might be termed the small clan, the genos, was the important unit. Normally in Greece this type of family restricted itself to no more than eight degrees of kinship and was "mildly endogamous."33 In some cases it is probable that groups of immigrant gene settled together to form communities;34 in other cases, no doubt, the nuclear families of immigrants formed several cult associations, each of which became a genos.35 The community at first existed, it is plain, for and through the gene, the families: first, as a device for common defence, especially true of the polis;36 second, as a reconciliation device for the gene;37 third, as a channel for all gene to the gods; and fourth, as a mode for carrying out various inter-family functions of a religious, social and legal kind. These Boeotian communities were, like those in the rest of Greece, family-centred. Within each community various families became predominant, families not grouped by tribe or phratry, but forming themselves in a fairly short time into a discrete intermarrying group. This group formed an incipient noble class and their leaders became the local governing body. These leaders replaced the king, and any local successor he may have had, and were themselves termed "kings" by Hesiod (W.D. 38f., 248). The causes of the prominence of such families seem fairly obvious. Some, if not all, were the holders of the best land; some controlled important cults; some were profit-making warriors; and others, no doubt, combined these attributes in varying but ultimately satisfactory amounts. When the gene emerge into the light of history, nearly all of them boast descent from the heroes of myth, epic or cult.38 It was believed in later times that the land of the various Boeotian communities had been divided at the time of capture into lots, of roughly equal size and quality, as was supposed to have happened elsewhere in Greece.39 These lots were to be held by warriors and transmitted through their families. An assumption underlies this belief, that the lots were inalienable. By Hesiod's time, however, the dowry system seems to have been operating, and land could be and was bought and sold.40 It may be that when Hesiod refers to land sales he is talking about land made available to newcomers and poor men, and that the rich bottom land, the original possession of the immigrant Boeotian families, was never even

92

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

thought of as vendible, for a variety of social and economic reasons.41 But even if this argument is accepted, the role of the dowry system as a mechanism for property exchange and accumulation must be noted and emphasized.42 It seems probable that the theory of an early division into inalienable lots that is found in Aristotle is a late analogy from colonial practice, Sparta, traditional inheritance patterns and some political mythology. It is more likely that the groups entering Boeotia occupied the best land, in amounts varying according to the status of the families at the time of the invasion. It is probable that the Boeotians followed the usual Greek inheritance pattern, which was equal division among the sons, on the death of the father, of the paternal land plus the maternal dowry, less the amount necessary to dower sisters.43 Therefore a goodly amount of exchange and accumulation of land, even of "inalienable" land, took place through dowries. Under this system it could seem to the advantage of a land-owning family to restrict the number of offspring, particularly of females, in order to accumulate as much land as possible in one unit, under one hand, and to avoid sub-division, though there was always a risk of death extinguishing a family with too few children.44 One may infer that it took a considerable amount of time, probably to a date later than Hesiod's, for land tenure to become an acute problem in Boeotia and that cadets of old families and newcomers opened new land, alienable it seems, and not as good as the bottom land. Eventually, when some senior branches of families died out, other branches got into difficulties, and new social and political conditions intervened, things had to be sorted out. Hence there were lawgivers. Rules about adoption and inheritance had to be formulated. Provisions for the disposition of land became so flexible that lawsuits were necessary for settlement.45 We see the beginnings of this process in the time of Hesiod, about 700 B.C. At any rate, it seems a reasonable assumption that in the various Boeotian cities much land became concentrated in the hands of certain families by marriage and dowry, by inheritance, by limitation of offspring, by purchase and by the destruction of other families. These families, who formed an intermarrying class and were distinguished from the small farmers and the upland peasants, became the nobility. The noble families, the basileis of Hesiod (W. D. 38f., 248f.), governed their communities through the usual Greek method of councils of the heads of the gene, the chiefs. The continuation in many parts of Greece of a rule that forbade the seating in the Boule of someone who had a living father or elder brother46 is obviously a widespread survival of an equally widespread custom, one dating from the time when councils were composed of heads of great families. To judge from Hesiod's

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

93

remarks, the councils did not govern particularly well, though the opinion of a losing contestant may be somewhat jaundiced. The magistrates of the Boeotian communities seem, if later evidence may be employed, to have all had a similar system of titulature and to have been drawn from the nobility. The first magistrate in any community was the Archon, known from inscriptions to have existed in Coronea and Acraephia by the middle of the sixth century B.C.47 But the tabus and insignia of the Archon at Thebes, where he wore a crown and carried a spear as symbols of his religious and military functions;48 at Chaeronea, where he could not touch metal, cross into Phocis, taste fruit before the autumnal equinox or cut vines before the vernal equinox;49 and at Plataea, where he wore white and could not touch iron, except on the anniversary of the Battle of Plataea, when he wore purple and carried a sword;50 all speak for the antiquity and the sanctity of these local magistracies. It is clear that the Archons took over the functions of the king; one of Hesiod's basileis became the basileus par excellence, especially for sacral functions.51 The use of Archons by the middle of the sixth century for dating shows that they were by that time chosen for annual terms.52 The Polemarch is known only from 383 B.C. in literature (at Thebes)53 and from 338 B.C. in inscriptions. Thespiae and Thebes in the fourth century had three of them; the title is undoubtedly of high antiquity, though the board may be a later creation.54 The Hipparch is another local title, but when it was adopted is completely unknown. In Boeotia, as in the rest of Greece, the nobility formed the most important fighting class. How and with what they fought in the period before the change to hoplite warfare has been the subject of much recent study.55 It is now generally believed that chariots were not used in combat at all after the Mycenaean Age, except in Cyprus.56 When chariots are portrayed, they are merely "heroic property" reflecting a dim memory of Mycenaean tradition,57 though perhaps they might be used as simple transport to a battle and occasionally for carrying off fallen warriors after a battle.58 Even this last proposal seems unlikely to some authorities; for a very careful study shows that nearly all the chariots portrayed in Geometric art are really varieties of the light-weight, racing models then in current use, types hardly suitable for combat or for transport even of the dead.59 Nonetheless it has been thought that the Boeotians may have used chariots in warfare in the Geometric period.60 This belief is based on three points. First is the set of titles used by the Sacred Band at Thebes, tyioxpi /cm irapaftaTai, charioteers and crewmen,61 good Homeric terms for the occupants of a chariot.62 These words are appropriate for chariot warfare; hence the Sacred Band must be the

94

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

descendant or survival of the Theban chariot force of the Geometric Age. Second, the legends of the wars between Heracles and the Orchomenians speak of chariot warfare. If these are not Mycenaean survivals they must refer to the Dark Age or the Geometric Age.63 Third, the only portrayal of actual combat in a chariot, as opposed to fighting by warriors climbing out of (or into) a chariot or battling near a chariot, comes from Boeotia. It shows a two-man chariot of an otherwise unknown type, with the crewman levelling a spear at someone ahead, while the charioteer leans over the reins.64 These points are not strong. The argument about the Sacred Band is likely to produce an ignotum per ignotius, since no one knows when the Sacred Band was formed. Plutarch (Pelop. 18.1) says it was raised by Gorgidas in 378 B.C., while Diodorus (12.70.1) places it in the hoplite ranks at Delium in 424 B.C. Although most authorities argue that Plutarch refers to a reforming of the Sacred Band after the liberation of Thebes,65 there is really no firm reason to set the antiquity of the Sacred Band too high. The good Homeric titles could be the result of conscious archaism or of romantic antiquarianism; or they could refer to an original use of the terms for a formal parade group in Dark Age and Archaic funeral processions and games.66 Second, the legends referred to are cheerfully inconsistent about horses and chariots, a state to be explained either by the influence of epic tradition on Heraclean legend or by modifications of dimly remembered Mycenaean traditions. In either case no strong support is given for any theories of fighting with chariots. Third, the combat portrayed on the sub-Geometric Boeotian amphora is unique. There is no way as yet of ascertaining the iconography or iconology of the scene. The crewman is aiming his spear ahead, but no victim is readily apparent. This is really no strong evidence for chariot warfare. The most that could possibly be made from all this is that experiments, probably not too successful, might have been made in the plains of Boeotia with combat chariots well before 700 B.C. The more generally accepted opinion, now backed by Greenhalgh's careful study, is that the aristocratic horsemen of Aristotle (Pol. 1297b 16-19) were heavily armed foot-soldiers who used their riding horses primarily for transportation.67 They seem to have been accompanied by mounted squires. A battle must have been a matter of swirling and disorganized clashes, with individuals as the leaders of clumps of warriors. This is the style of fighting shown on Geometric vases and reflected fairly often in the Homeric poems.68 The Lelantine wars, if datable to around 700 B.C., would be the last ones where this "heroic" warfare, with the "horsemen" playing the predominant role, was the principal mode of fighting.

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

95

From an early stage the nobility was excluded from manual labour or trade, as is seen in the laws of Thespiae69 and Thebes.70 What idea, if any, lay behind this rule is unknown, but the result was to leave the nobility free for judging, governing and fighting. The improvements that led to hoplite warfare may have resulted from this specialization of activity. There is good evidence that the lower classes and tradesmen received some reinforcement of members by an immigration into Boeotia before 700 B.C., which included elements from Asia Minor, among them Hesiod's father.71 By the turn of the eighth to the seventh century B.C., some adjustments had to be made in society, especially to the position and status of the nobility. At Thebes a lawgiver from Corinth, a Bacchiad named Philolaus, had been summoned to reorganize affairs, probably in the middle of the seventh century.72 Among the reforms he promulgated were laws of adoption "in order that the number of lots might be preserved." If comparison with other states is helpful, this was an effort to prevent the concentration of land in larger and larger blocs in fewer and fewer hands by permitting, or even compelling, adoptions and by protecting heiresses.73 This emphasis on keeping a certain number of lots, that is, on maximizing numbers, is to be associated with the coming into fashion of hoplite tactics and the consequent necessity of having as large a force in the phalanx as possible.74 It seems clear that Philolaus put forward some changes in inheritance and dowry laws in order to preserve and ensure as large a number of fighting men as possible. It is often noted that hoplites were equipped at their own expense in most Greek states,75 and one may believe that this was the case in Archaic Boeotia. It is, however, less often noted that the hoplites required estates, estates large enough to provide surpluses that could be used to purchase and replace equipment, to maintain assistants, to provide such other items as were needful for those in the hoplite class and to produce the rations necessary for the usual short Greek campaign.76 A maximum number of estates, each large enough to support one or more hoplites, was essential for most Greek cities. The establishment of a procedure to ensure this in Thebes is what Philolaus' reforms intended. The surpluses, incidentally, if not used for weaponry, could be a loss to the state concerned and to its safety. No doubt Archaic and Classical strictures on luxury and conspicuous consumption should be read with this point in mind. This system of surplus does not imply the introduction of coinage: other media of exchange, including barter, were available. The remark about adoption may also mean some adjustment to or revision of the clan structure. It seems reasonable to posit the introduction

96

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

of some process whereby prosperous non-nobles could be incorporated into the family and the lot system. At any rate, the symbolism of the Cadmus myth, of armed men rising from the ploughed land, would be most appropriate as a mythical precedent for the reforms of Philolaus. The Thebans, as Thucydides (3.61) makes clear, had been governed by a narrow clique before the Persian Wars, a clique from which most of the nobles were excluded. How far back this rule of an inner circle extends remains unknown, but the reforms of Philolaus could have led to a division between newcomers and holders of newly assigned lots on the one hand, and the "old guard" on the other. Add to the newcomers the nobility of any perioecic communities, and one has a considerable number of nobles who could be excluded from the government. The myth of the serpent's teeth says that only five warriors were preserved as aides to Cadmus. The Thespians met the problem of the changes arising from the introduction of hoplite tactics in a different way. Heraclides Ponticus (FHG fr. 43) says that because of poverty the Thespian nobility began to depend more and more on Thebes. This statement best refers to the latter half of the seventh century. It should mean that the really prosperous Thespian nobles were very few; that is, that the best land was mostly concentrated in the hands of a very small number, and that most of the nobility were poor, too poor to equip themselves as effective hoplites. When phalanx tactics became a matter of military necessity, the Thespian establishment had a choice: either to change the system of land tenure and reassign more land to the more impoverished nobles (to the great discomfort of the wealthy landowners) or to rely on others for protection. The latter course was chosen, and Thespiae became, as Herodotus says (5.79), a close friend of Thebes. Sometime later, probably in the sixth century, there was a change, and by the time of the Persian Wars Thespiae could field 700 hoplites at Thermopylae,77 and 1,800 light-armed troops at Plataea.78 For the other Boeotian cities no information is available. In general, however, between 700 and 650 hoplite phalanx tactics became the usual mode of warfare, and social organizations should have been adjusted accordingly. Cavalry seems to have become comparatively unimportant in battle, if not socially; Boeotian cavalry as a tactical force, and not as mounted infantry, is not met until the Persian Wars. The number of armoured hoplites was increased in some Boeotian towns, notably Thebes, and perhaps Tanagra, Orchomenus and Plataea, by some changes in landholding and in social structures. In others, notably Thespiae, hoplite forces were neglected at first, and instead they relied on their limited number of "horsemen" and the support of larger towns.

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

97

It is not possible to trace disputes among the Boeotian cities in any detail, but there is some evidence that Orchomenus, before the end of the eighth century, attempted to gain supremacy over all Boeotia. It was one of the first Boeotian towns to revive79and the tangled stemmata of the family of Minyas reveal its associations with Thessaly, Phocis, Athens, central Boeotia and Thebes,80 with many of the ties apparently dating from the Dark and Archaic Ages. The association of Orchomenus with the Calaurian amphictyony reveals interests, probably of Archaic origin, far beyond Boeotia,80a and Orchomenus dominated Chaeronea and Hyettus,81 Olmones,82 Hyria,83 and Lebadea84 and perhaps Coronea and Copae before and during the time of Hesiod. Not all the legends about Orchomenus dominating Thebes, but being eventually defeated by it and Heracles, can be convincingly set in Mycenaean times. Some of the stories must have been refurbished in the Archaic period.85 It is agreed by most authorities that at least some of the legends refer to a post-Mycenaean war,86 although the spread of the cult of Heracles may go back to Mycenaean times,87 and, as well, the hostility between Orchomenus and Thebes.88 The legends provided a mythical precedent for much later happenings. The sanctuaries of Alalcomenae and of Itonian Athena lay fairly close to Orchomenus. The Pamboeotia, if Orchomenus were expanding, would be under its effective control. Festivals brought people flocking, and consequently could be a source of wealth and prosperity for the controlling state. It should be remembered that control of festivals was eagerly sought; the Olympic Games changed hands between the Pisatans and Eleans more than once. The important role of Onchestus in the Heraclean legend should also be noted: it was the site of the festival where Glymenus was killed, the start of the troubles;89 it was nearby that Heracles mutilated the Orchomenian heralds;90 and in the adjacent Teneric plain is the shrine of Heracles Hippodetes, where the Orchomenians had their chariot horses (!) stolen by Heracles and an encampment massacred.91 Though these legends all refer back to the Mycenaean Age, it seems reasonable to conclude that they survived and were preserved because Onchestus still had relevance to Orchomenus. One of the prizes for which the Orchomenians were striving in the Archaic period was the control of the shrine and the festival of Onchestus, as crucial a spot then as in the Mycenaean period. Somewhere nearby the Orchomenians were finally defeated. The reason given for the blocking of the katavothra of Lake Copai's by the Thebans in order to restrict the Orchomenian use of their horsemen,92 would fit best a period before the onset of hoplite tactics, a

98

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

period when mounted infantry, if not chariots, rode to battle.93 The Orchomenian war against Thebes failed, and the Orchomenians withdrew. Two other items of evidence may help to support the idea of an unsuccessful attempt at domination by Orchomenus before the end of the eighth century. There is a tradition, reported by Aristotle and others, that the people of Ascra were overwhelmed by the Thespians sometime after the death of Hesiod. They fled, not to nearby Haliartus or Coronea, but to Orchomenus where they were kindly received.94 Then there is the related tradition that the bones of Hesiod were removed to Orchomenus with the refugees. Clearly as late as the end of the eighth century (or whenever Hesiod died) the Orchomenians were interested in central Boeotia, but, a few years after Hesiod's death, they were in no position to back up this interest. Nonetheless they were regarded as friendly by the Ascraeans. The most economical explanation for all this is that there had been an Orchomenian expansion in the latter part of the eighth century, one no doubt accompanied by negotiations with and friendship for the smaller towns. Sometime around 700 B.C. this expansion was halted by Thebes near Onchestus, and the Orchomenians fell back. An element contributing towards the support of Orchomenus by the smaller towns probably came from the smaller towns' uneasy position vis-a-vis larger neighbours. The support may even have been more fervent as Orchomenus grew weaker, because the support of a comparatively distant Orchomenus against a nearby Thespiae or Thebes would enable these smaller towns to preserve some freedom of manoeuvre and a precarious liberty. The development of the Boeotian concept of the district, that is, of the coalescing of various neighbouring towns for the purposes of paying assessments, of furnishing supplies and of naming various competitors and officials, seems to be based on early happenings in Boeotia. These include the series of incorporations of smaller towns into the territories of neighbouring larger states that began in the first half of the seventh century B.C. In some cases the older population was expelled, as in the case at Ascra; in others it was reduced to a perioecic status, as at Chaeronea; and in still others it was absorbed into the larger citizen body, as apparently happened to Potniae at the hands of Thebes.95 At about the same time or a little later some of the old Mycenaean sites not used hitherto began to be resettled,96 and much of the refounding took place in the latter half of the seventh or in the early sixth century B.C. It must be concluded from this that a substantial increase in population occurred during the seventh century. The Thespians, as we have noted, destroyed Ascra, probably

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

99

between 700 and 650, but then they had some trouble, reflected in a tradition mentioned previously, in adopting the hoplite phalanx and in accepting the attendant social adjustments. They were able to settle Eutresis by 600 - 550; therefore by that time they should have been able to reorganize themselves and should have ceased to rely unduly on Thebes. The Thespians' attention during the sixth century probably turned south and southwest, towards Creusis, Siphae, Thisbe and Chorsiae. Precisely when Thespiae gained control of these towns is unknown, but a date sometime in the late sixth century seems not unreasonable.97 Plataea began to expand eastward, gaining control of the villages of Hysiae, Erythrae and probably Scolus and Scaphae (Eteonus).98 These were apparently part of a strip of Ionic-speaking "survival folk" who lived along the Boeotian-Athenian frontier from Oropus up to the neighbourhood of Plataea.99 They were probably still free of the control of any other Boeotian town in 700 B.C.100 The Plataean expansion, then, should be placed in the seventh century at the earliest, and more probably in the sixth century, since it was never fully completed. Eleutherae seems not to have fallen under Plataean control, even though it was reckoned to have been within Boeotia.101 It seems probable that the accession of Eleutherae to Athens should be put in the later sixth century, near the time of Pegasus of Eleutherae and his introduction of a cult of Dionysus to Athens. 102 This, in turn, should be associated with the increase in importance of the Dionysiac cults during the rule of Peisistratus and the Peisistratids. This accession of Eleutherae to Athens would be somewhat earlier than the adherence of Plataea to the Athenian alliance.103 It is, therefore, likely that Eleutherae stayed an independent Boeotian, Ionic-speaking commune until it became an ally of Athens. During the seventh or sixth century Tanagra absorbed Graea, which then disappears from history, and gained control of Aulis. By 560-550 B.C. it shared with Megara in the foundation of Pontic Heraclea.104 Thebes, as far as can be judged, expanded its sway at about the same time as other states such as Thespiae and Tanagra. The central area east of Lake Copais, from Medeon and Ptoon to the ridges separating it from the plain around Tanagra, was clearly under Theban rule by 500 B.C. The Tetracomia composed of Mycalessus, Pharae, Heleon and Harma seems to have been pressed between Thebes and Tanagra. It as well as Aulis was under Theban control by the time of the Persian Wars.105 In western Boeotia the process was, for a time, reversed; Lebadea and Coronea, probably after the defeat of Orchomenus by Thebes, broke

100

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

loose and became independent if minor states. A fight between Orchomenus and Coronea, with victory claimed by the former, occurred between 550 and 525.106 Copae and Acraephium held a precarious liberty between Orchomenus and Thebes by forming a small coalition, although Thebes held the adjacent and important shrine of Apollo by 520 B.C.107 Oropus managed to preserve its freedom, probably with the aid of an alliance with Eretria.108 The legends of Heracles' fights with the Euboeans, with all their topographical uncertainties, may be mythological precedents that reflect some Theban or Tanagran activity at the end of the eighth century, perhaps something to do with the Lelantine war. If the Orchomenians were allied with Eretria and the Thebans or Tanagrans with Chalcis, then Thucydides' (1.13) remarks on the panhellenic nature of the war would be apropos. Most of the smaller towns, it is clear, were not destroyed or absorbed; they were simply given perioecic status. Their nobility, however, was generally excluded from any part in the government of the chief city of the district. This would be ruled by its own nobility or a section thereof, a minority of the total nobility. The remarks of later Boeotians109 about how some of their towns were ruled by small cliques before the Persian Wars, may in part be explained as the product of a long development. By 600 B.C. Boeotia was divided among several districts, each composed of various communities, some of which were in the process of annexing others. Orchomenus had tried early on to reduce much of Boeotia and had failed. Thebes, though culturally influential and politically important, was not yet the dominant city. Most communities were ruled by aristocratic oligarchies, and each had its own archon and other magistrates. A festival, the Pamboeotia, was held annually at Itonia for Boeotians only and another, probably for all the inhabitants of Boeotia, met at Onchestus. There is no evidence until shortly before 520 B.C. for a formal military-political Boeotian League.110 The amphictyonies for control of the Pamboeotia and the festival at Onchestus remained religious only, as far as we can tell. It may be that the amphictyony for the Pamboeotia provided the apparatus and structures that were later used in the nascent political league, like the Boeotarchs and a council and a grouping by districts, but there is virtually no evidence. Inhabitants of Boeotia who were not of Boeotian stock had, it seems, not too pleasant a time, if one may draw an inference from the Theban attitude towards Thebageneis as opposed to Thebaioi.111 These inhabitants would include the Ionic speakers of the Asopus valley and

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

101

probably the Thracian groups on Helicon. They were not a class like the helots, but they were at the worst perioeci, at the best independent. In foreign affairs the Boeotians possessed no identifiable unity of action before 520.112 The Thebans were allies of Cleisthenes of Sicyon; the Orchomenians were friendly to Thessaly; but there is no coherent foreign policy followed by the Boeotians as a group. In fact they were not a group. They were people sharing the same Greek dialect, the same social attitudes, the same cults, and much hatred for one another.

Notes 1. Fossey, Topography, 521-27, gives a clear analysis of the material. 2. J.N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 337, 343; V.R. Desborough, The Greek Dark Ages, 202f. 3. Coldstream, 341,344, 354. 4. Ibid., 367f. 5. P. Walcot, Hesiod and the Near East, (Cardiff, 1966), 124 and note 52. 6. Busolt-Swoboda, 1411, 1418; cf. Roesch, Thespiae, 78. 7. Or a little later. See C. Barratt, JHS 52 (1932) 72-115. 8. See preceding chapter p. 77f; see also M. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 57. For the Pamboeotia, Paus. 9.34.1, Str. 9.2.29, Plut. Amat. Narr. 4,774F, Polyb. 4.3.5, 9.34.11. See also Schachter, Cahier des etudes Anciennes 8 (1978) 81-107. 9. IG 7.2871, 3087 and 3088 give lists of victors in events. Number 2871 may be from the Basileia at Lebadea rather than the Pamboeotia (Roesch, Thespies, 93f.), though this is not now believed likely. Schachter, op. cit. (n. 8). 10. For early date see L. Ziehen RE 36 (1949) s.v. "Pamboiotia," 287. For military character, Roesch, Thespies, 107f.; M. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 57f. 11. Roesch, Thespies, 107; Ziehen, I.e. n.10. The inscription IG 7.2871 has a "Roman winner" in one event, but in the first century A.D. this should not be thought to destroy the point. 12. If later inscriptions may preserve a hint of custom, such custom might explain the presence of a series of proxeny decrees of the third century B.C. passed by the League, IG 7. 2858-69. 13. IG 7.3426. 13a. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 63f., discusses briefly the First Sacred War, the lack of any Boeotian contribution to the putative campaign, and the role of Boeotia in the new amphictyony. 14. IG1. 3073; 3074; 2711;5C7/20 (1896), 318ff., 11. 14-41. 15. Roesch, Thespies, 107; SEC 3.354, 25, 553, 556; IG 7. 3087; BCH 50 (1926) 396, no. 16 for dating by Boeotarchs at the Pamboeotia. 16. IG 1. 3073 and cf. Roesch, Thespies, 107; the naopoioi were originally appointed to supervise the construction of the temple of Zeus at Lebadea. 17. Roesch, Thespies, 201, sees the naopoioi as performing duties in Roman times earlier carried out by other officials.

102

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

18. Wilamowitz, Hermes 8 (1874) 431-41, emphasizes the importance of the number seven. 19. Thuc. 4.91. 20. Hell. Oxy. FGrH66 Fl.11.3. 21. IG 1. 2407 and 2408; for the date, after the re-organization of 379, see M Gary, JHS 42 (1922) 190. 22. Str. 9.2.33 uses the term TO 'AnolltvoviKW of the council. The term should not in origin mean simply the Boeotian federal council, as Wallace, 199, thinks. 23. See above, p. 60. 24. Busolt-Swoboda, 1411; Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 110; P. Cloche, Thebes de Beotie (Namur, 1952), (henceforth Cloche) 17f. 25. See above, p. 88. 26. Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886), 110; Kirsten, RE 35 (1939), s.v. "Onchestus," 414. 27. Kirsten, I.e. and Meyer, G.d.A., 32, 309. 28. Latte, RE 39 (1941), s.v. "Phyle," 995; Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 22f. 29. IG 7.547 from Tanagra mentions the Myllichidai; 2560 from Thebes refers to an individual as an "Hesponideus;" 526 consists of the word "phatra." 30. Diod. 4.29.1; cf. Apollodorus, Bib1. 2.7.6. 31. Plut.Anstidesll.l. 32. For a lively general discussion of synoecism and related matters see A.R. Burn, The Lyric Age of Greece (London, 1960), 11-37; see also W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece (London, 1968), 51-54 (henceforth Lacey). 33. For the family in Dark Age and Archaic Greece see Lacey, 51-83 and M. Broadbent, Studies in Greek Genealogy (Leiden, 1968), 240-339. The quotation is from H.H. Turney-High, Man and System (New York, 1968), 342. 34. So Lacey, 5If. 35. So Broadbent, op. at. 283f. 36. Lacey, 52f. 37. Ibid., 54. 38. See Huxley, Early Epic, passim, for examples and explanations,and Broadbent, op. cit. 283f., for a discussion of the Thespian nobility and their origin in cult collegiality as well as a survey of their legendary ancestry. 39. Aristotle, Pol., 1274 a 31- b6, assumes pre-existing lots for Philolaus to reform. For Philolaus and his reforms see below. 40. JF.ZX341. 41. Lacey, 333-35. 42. For dowries as mechanisms for property exchange see Aristotle, Pol., 1266 a-b quoting Phaleas who wanted to equalize property and wealth by the dowry system. Lacey, 225f. for general remarks. W.G. Forrest, A History of Sparta (London, 1968), 135f. for Sparta. 43. Broadbent, 199-202. She speaks of Athens, but inferentially of Boeotia, 215f., 283f. 44. Forrest's remarks on Sparta, op. cit. 136f., apply mutatis mutandis to Boeotia. 45. Arist. Pol., 1274 b 1-6; Broadbent, 218. 46. Arist. Pol., 1305 b 5-10. 47. Acraephia: SEG 22.428 (mid sixth), 430 (late sixth). Coronea: AD, 1930-31, ), 226f.

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

103

48. Plut. Gen. Socr. 597 AB. 49. Plut. A.R. 274 BC. 50. Plut. Arist. 21. 5l.Roesch, 158; Cloche, 22f. 52. Roesch, 157f.; Busolt-Swoboda, 1439f. 53. Roesch, 162. 54. Ibid. Xen. Hell. S. 4. 4ff. 55. See especially A.M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons (Edinburgh, 1964), henceforth Snodgrass; G. Ahlberg, Fighting on land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm, 1971), henceforth Ahlberg; P.A.L. Greenhalgh, Early Greek Warfare (Cambridge, 1973) henceforth Greenhalgh; J.K. Anderson, A]A 79 (1975) 175-87, with good bibliography. 56. Snodgrass, 159-63; Greenhalgh, 7-39; Ahlberg, 42, 55f., 107. But see Anderson, op. cit. (n. 55) for vigorous rebuttal. 57. Snodgrass, 160 and Greenhalgh, 17f. 58. Ahlberg, 56. 59. Greenhalgh, 14-39. 60. Larsen, GFS, 106-8; J.K. Anderson, Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley, 1970), 158f. and note 35; Anderson, A]A 79 (1975) 177-81. 61. Diodorus 12.70. 62.7 Iliad,23.132. 63. For the legends see above, p. 45ff. 64. Greenhalgh, p. 13, frg. e; Ahlberg, 42f. and fig. 46, sub-Geometric of about 700 B.C. Greenhalgh, 188, says the chariot is of a type similar to his G3e, but elongated. 65. See, e.g., Anderson, Mil. Theory, 159, note 37. 66. For chariots in the ekphora as well as in funeral and other games, D.C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs (London, 1971) 60f. 67. Greenhalgh, 40-75. 68. Greenhalgh, 63f; Ahlberg, 108; but cf. Anderson, AJA 79 (1975) 179-84. 69. Heracl. Pont., FHG fr. 43. 70. Arist. Pol. 1278 a 25-27. In later times this was relaxed to allow office-holding ten years after ceasing from trade. Cf. Cloche, 13f. 71. P. Walcot, Hesiod and the Near East, 108f. 72. Aristotle (Pol., 1274 a 31-b6) associated Philolaus with Diocles, the Olympic victor, dated by Eusebius, Chron, 1.28 to 728 B.C. This date is by no means secure and is regarded as far too high by many authorities (Busolt, I, 266; Beloch, 1.1.350; Burn, World of Hesiod, 230; Cloche, 26f.); though a minority (e.g., Moretti, Ricerche sulle Leghe greche, 101), accept it. A date when the Bacchiads were still prestigious, since Philolaus was a Bacchiad, would be reasonable. But the fact that he never returned to Corinth would argue for a date after the assumption of the tyranny by Cypselus. The reason given by Aristotle for the refusal to return is clearly an aition for the siting of the graves. 73. Cf. Aristotle, Pol., 1265 b 1-12; 1266 a 39-b6; 1266 b 20-24; 1274 b 23-26.

104

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

I. Shishova, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 114 (1970) 64-72, argues that Philolaus introduced the laws to preserve a free peasantry. 74. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (London, 1967) 57 and Greenhalgh, 71-74, date the transition to hoplite phalanx tactics between 700 and 650. See also Greenhalgh's remarks on the necessity to have as many men in the phalanx as possible, 74-78. Cf. Aristotle, Politics 1297 b 22-24. Most recently see P. Cartledge, JHS 97 (1977) 11-27 and J. Salmon ibid., 84-101. 75. Greenhalgh, 74, for example. 76. For the equipment, rations and scale of support necessary in Archaic times see J.K. Anderson, Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, 13-40, 45f. See Snodgrass,JHS 85 (1965), 110-22, for the importance of wealth to the establishment and continuation of a hoplite class. Detienne, in J.P. Vernant, Problemes de la Guerre en Grece ancienne (Paris, 1968) 129f. and Shishova, op. cit. (note 73) 70f., go too far in the belief that the hoplite reforms led to a "promotion des ruraux" and the predominance of the rural free peasantry. 77. Hdt. 7.202. 78. Ibid. 9.30. 79. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 337, 345. 80. See Fiehn, RE 30 (1932) s.v. "Minyas," 2014-18. 80a. Str. 8.6.14; see T. Kelly, A]A 70 (1966) 113-22. 81. Hes. frg. 144; cf. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 19; Paus. 9.36.6. 82. Paus. 9.24.3. 83. Hes. frg. 143, birthplace of Argonaut Euphemus. 84. Pindaros, 18f. 85. See above p. 59f. For the defeat of Orchomenus see above and Euripides, Heracles 48-59, 220; Apollod. 2.4.11; Diod. 4.10, 4.18; Paus. 9.17.1, 9.25.4, 9.26.1, 9.37.2, 9.38.7; Pherecydes, FGrH 4 F95; Isocrates 14.10; Strabo 9.2.40; Pindar, frg. 29.2, Polyaenus 1.3.5; 1C 14.1293. 86. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 23, 47; Salmon, REA 58 (1956), 59; Cloche, 21f.; Fimmen, NJb 29 (1912) 538. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 152f., puts the war in Mycenaean times only. 87. See above, p. 62. 88. See above, p. 59f. For Orchomenian-Theban hostility in the Archaic Age see, e.g., Sordi, Aft, 1966, 21 f. 89. Apollod. 2.67; cf. Paus. 9.37. 90. Diod. 4.10; Paus. 9.24.4. 91. Paus. 9.26.1. 92. Diod. Sic. 4.18.7; Polyaen. 1.3.5. 93. Cf. Greenhalgh, 63-83. 94. Aristotle, FHG, frg. 115c; Proclus, Schol. on W.D.. 631, quoting Plutarch. 95. Str. 9.2.22. 96. Eutresis was refounded in the late seventh or early sixth century. H. Goldman, Eutresis (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), 8, 237; Plut. Narr. amat. 3. Some Geometric sherds were found on the site. 97. Siphae was held by Thespiae by 424 (Thuc. 4.76) and, therefore, so must Creusis have been held. Thisbe, and apparently Chorsiae with it, are under

Boeotia in the Archaic Period

105

Thespiae by 396, Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 Fl.ll. Their status was probably perioecic, Roesch, 37f. 98. Hell. Oxy., FGrH66 Fl.ll, clearly links the Plataeans, Scolus, Scaphae and Erythrae "and other territories formerly united with them (sc. the Plataeans)." It could not be clearer. Nonetheless P. Salmon, RE A 58 (1956) 52-58, argues that, except for Hysiae (Hdt. 9.15.3, 9.25), Thebes had dominated these towns until 509. Scolus was Theban in 479 according to Herodotus (9.15.2), but wartime annexation need not mean much, especially since Strabo (9.2.24) and Herodotus (6.108) support the idea that Plataea controlled this territory. See, e.g., Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 271-78. 99. See Buck, CP 63 (1968) 269f., 279. 100. See preceding chapter, p. 78-80. 101. Paus. 1.38.8. See next chapter for discussion of the circumstances of the accession. 102. Paus. 1.2.5. 103. Paus. 1.38.8 merely says that Eleutherae joined Athens out of hatred for Thebes. Frazer, Paus. 2.518, argues that Eleutherae became Athenian in the fourth century, somewhat late. More probably Pausanias is referring to the preliminaries to establishing the Boeotian League in the sixth century. MilchhofFer, RE 10 (1905) s.v. "Eleutherai" 2345, says it formed an alliance with Athens in the time of Preisistratus. See below p. 113. 104. For Graea see J.M. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3-22, who identifies it with Dramesi. For Heraclea, Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 65. 105. Str. 9.2.14 Salmon, "REA" 58 (1956) 61f., says by 395, but this is excessively cautious, since Pharae was coining before the Persian Wars, but not after. 106. Dedication at Olympia, Jeffery, LSAG, 95 no. 11 and SEG XI, 1205, dated to third quarter of sixth century by Jeffery. 107. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 18, gives sensible reasons for accepting such a coalition, in spite of Pausanias (9.23.3) who says Acraephium was always a dependency of Thebes. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 65f., argues for a date between 540-530 on wrong grounds, see below. 108. Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886)91-118. 109. Thuc. 3.61. 110. See below, next chapter. 111. Ephorus, FGrH 10 F21 and Jac. Comm.; Diod. 19-53. 112. See below, next chapter.

7. The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

The Boeotian League, as a politico-military confederacy, makes its earliest appearance in the sources at the time when the Thebans unsuccessfully attempted to force the Plataeans to join it. The latter, however, allied themselves with Athens. After various negotiations the Athenians and Plataeans defeated a Theban assault.1 Commonly the Athenian-Plataean alliance is dated to 519, although some authorities prefer 509.2 Clearly the Boeotian League (in the sense of an association with more than religious functions) was in existence before the Theban pressure on Plataea, but the question is how much earlier. The few early League coins that there are prove little, since their dating depends upon the numismatists' interpretation of history; and, in the light of recent research, these coins may have been dated far too early; the latest arguments, based on the forms of the letters, would date them at approximately 525.3 There is also a tradition telling of a Thessalian invasion of Boeotia that ended with a defeat at Ceressus and the death of the Thessalian ruler Lattamyas, a victory that, like Leuctra, "set the Greeks free."4 The battle is variously dated between 571 and 486.5 It seems probable that the Thessalian invasion and the victory that set the Greeks free should be in some way associated with the formation of the Boeotian League, and that both should be placed around 520 B.C. It is generally accepted that the Thessalians overran Phocis early in the sixth century. The Phocians were finally subdued, their cities were placed under the rule of pro-Thessalian tyrants and hostages were taken, at the latest by the middle of the century.6 The Thessalians proceeded to extend their influence as far as Athens. The fact that Peisistratus named

Map 7. The Original Membership of the Boeotian League

108

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

one of his sons Thessalus indicates a close relationship between the tyrant and Thessaly; therefore the alliance known to exist with the Peisistratids probably goes back to his time. 7 As for the Boeotian cities, Orchomenus had a long-standing, close and friendly relationship with Thessaly, to judge by the numerous legends and myths linking the two (many of which may have been given their Classical form fairly late).8 If, on the one hand, the legends were ancient, their survival would speak for continuing contact, to keep them fresh and vigorous; if, on the other hand, the legends were modified in Archaic times, the changes would imply that there was some reason to link the two. In either case the tone of the legends speaks for amiable relations. Furthermore, the approach route to Boeotia and Athens from Thessaly by way of Thermopylae and Hyampolis led through Orchomenian territory;9 it would be much more readily traversed if Orchomenus were friendly. The Thebans co-operated with Cleisthenes of Sicyon, an ally of Thessaly,10 and they aided Peisistratus when he was attempting to return from one of his exiles.11 They are generally thought to have had cordial relations with him throughout his reign, although the most recent datings for the dedications at the sanctuary of Apollo at Ptoon may be interpreted to indicate a certain coolness at some stages.12 At the least, then, the Thebans were the friends of Thessalian allies for much of the sixth century, and one may conclude that amiable relations, if not an alliance, existed between Thebes and Thessaly for a considerable time. At some stage, however, the Thessalians invaded Boeotia under the command of Lattamyas, gaining control as far as Thespiae according to Plutarch (de Hdt. mal. 33, Mor. 866 E). In one place (Cam. 19) he dates the invasion and the consequent battle to "more than 200 years earlier" than Leuctra (wpdrepov ercai TrXdoaiv r) diotKoaiois), that is, earlier than 571. In another (de Hdt. mal. 33, Mor. 866 E) the invasion is dated to "shortly before" (evarxos) the invasion of Xerxes, that is, close to 480. Clearly these two accounts cannot be reconciled. Since numbers are more easily altered in transmission than general phrases and since there are good reasons to suspect the date of 571, many authorities have rejected it, sometimes emending the account to read "one hundred" years earlier, sometime before 471, and so to be placed as close to the Persian Wars as possible.13 Rejection of the one, however, does not necessarily mean acceptance of the other. The passage in de Hdt. mal. is rhetorical and hyperbolic. Plutarch is, as usual, attacking Herodotus. According to the latter (7.233) the Thebans had been spared at Thermopylae because they pleaded that they had previously medized and had then been compelled to come to Thermopylae. Their plea was supported by the Thessalians.

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

109

Plutarch takes violent exception to all this, especially to the very idea of Thessalian support. Just imagine such a plea being used in such a situation, amid the barbarians' shrieks and the confused shouting of flight and pursuit! And imagine the witnesses being questioned. With men being killed and trampled underfoot all around them in the narrow pass, the Thessalians supported the Thebans' plea by saying: 'Until recently we controlled Greece as far as Thespiae, but they defeated us in battle and drove us back, killing our commander Lattamyas.' That was how Boeotians and Thessalians stood towards one another at the time; there was nothing warm or friendly in their relationship.14 It should be emphasized that this passage from Plutarch flatly contradicts Herodotus. To Plutarch the Thessalian support for the Thebans implies friendly relations, which he hastens to deny in this tendentious bit of rhetoric. One must agree with Plutarch that it is difficult to believe that the Thessalians would have supported the Thebans, had the defeat at Ceressus happened "shortly before" the Persian Wars. But Herodotus is the better witness, one whose testimony is to be preferred to Plutarch, particularly the Plutarch of this essay. Therefore the fact, reported in Herodotus, that the Thebans were spared by the aid of the Thessalians would speak for there being no recent hostility between Thebes and Thessaly by 480. Therefore the testimony of Plutarch about the time of their battle can be safely rejected. Other difficulties arise if the Thessalian attack is placed too close to the Persian Wars, amongst them those asssociated with Lattamyas. This rare name, or a by-form of it, as a Thessalian inscription makes clear,15 is found in the Echecratid family, one that provided several tagoi for the Thessalian federation. Plutarch (de Hdt. mal. 33) says that Lattamyas was apxovra QerTotX&v, which might mean that he was a tagos, not a subordinate official, a ruler, not simply a local commander, as Beloch has argued. If he was a tagos, Lattamyas cannot be put after 500, since the Aleuad Thorax and his brothers held power from 498 to 476.16 There can be no place for him between 511 and 498, since Cineas ruled in 511, and, presumably, for several years afterward, 17 and time should also be allotted to Aleuas, son of Simus and father of Thorax.18 It is also difficult to set Lattamyas between 520 and 511, since Antiochus, son of Echecratides I, fits best in this decade, especially from 516 on.19 Therefore if Lattamyas was tagos, he does not fit much after 520, at the latest. A dating around 520 would make it necessary for him to be a son of Echecratides I and brother of Antiochus, a not unreasonable hypothesis

110

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

in light of the Thessalian inscription mentioned above.20 Lattamyas can be dated after 500 only if he was not a tagos. The word archon that Plutarch uses may mean simply "commander" or the like, but it should be noted that the word was the regular Thessalian term for the supreme ruler in later times,21 and it could have been meant in that sense here. Furthermore, the Echecratids and the Aleuads were not on friendly terms. An Echecratid leading a major expedition under an Aleuad regime might be possible under the loose-jointed Thessalian constitution, but not very probable. Finally, the passage from de Hdt. mal., as was noted above, is to be rejected as testimony on the time of the battle, which need not be set after 500. Therefore it seems, on balance, most reasonable to conclude that Lattamyas was killed under an Echecratid regime, that is, before 510 and probably before 520; and that he may well have been tagos, and, if so, must be set before 520, though, as Beloch (1.2.205) has cogently argued, not so far back as 571. There are several possible reasons why the Thessalians chose to invade Boeotia. Most popularly they are considered to have aided the Thebans against Thespiae and other Boeotian cities in the cause of Theban domination.22 But Herodotus (5.79), while dealing with the Aeginetan-Theban alliance (ca. 505), says that Thebes and Thespiae were good friends and allies, and had been so for a long time. Plutarch in his two citations (de Hdt. mal 33 and Cam. 19) implies Theban participation at Ceressus; in fact his remarks become pointless unless the Thebans were in the fight against the Thessalians at Ceressus. Pausanias (9.14.2), in a passage discussing the long-standing (later) feud between Thespiae and Thebes, refers only to the Thessalian attack at Ceressus, not to any Theban one. The idea that the Thessalians were helping the Thebans gain domination may be rejected.23 A second possibility may have more credibility: that the Orchomenians were aided by the Thessalians against the other Boeotians. Certainly the Thessalian invasion route via Hyampolis lay through Orchomenian territory and would be more easily traversed if Orchomenus were friendly or at least passive. There is evidence of a long-standing friendship between Orchomenus and Thessaly, as mentioned above, one that might provide a pretext for Thessalian intervention in Boeotia. Orchomenus, to judge by the coin types, stood apart from the Boeotian League for some time after the League was finally formed. It defeated, in the third quarter of the sixth century, Coronea, one of the first members of the new League.233 Therefore it is very likely that Orchomenus, in fear of a Theban dominated political federation, sought the aid of Thessaly to withstand its pressure, much in the same way that Plataea sought the aid of Athens. A Boeotia reduced to

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

Ill

the status of a Phocis under Thessaly seemed infinitely preferable to the Orchomenian leaders, since, no doubt, Orchomenus would be in a premier position, as opposed to a Boeotia ruled by Thebes. A third possibility is simply that Thessaly decided it would take over Boeotia in much the same way that it took over Phocis, and that Orchomenus acquiesced. This does not seem so likely as the previous possibility, since it does not provide an explanation for the Orchomenian independence that continued for many years afterwards. Most probably, then, an eager Thessaly, already concerned by Theban efforts to form a military league, readily seized upon a request for aid from Orchomenus as a pretext for invading Boeotia. Under their commander Lattamyas, some time around 520 or, at the latest, early 519, the Thessalians marched on eastern Boeotia. The invasion was opposed by "the Boeotians," by which is meant, presumably, the members of the Theban-led military league. This league must be carefully distinguished from any previous religious amphictyonies that embraced all the Boeotians, cared for Onchestus and the shrine of Itonian Athena, and sent delegates to the Delphian assemblage.24 The statement in Herodotus (5.79) about Thebes and its long-associated allies pertains to the original membership. This consisted of the states that the Thebans immediately thought of as "dwelling nearest" and "always fighting eagerly on their side," namely those of Tanagra, Coronea and Thespiae: Tanagra to the east; Thespiae to the south; Coronea to the west; with Thebes itself to the north. These cities clearly mark the limits of the first core of the League, those that had "always" fought at the side of Thebes. Haliartus, Acraephia and several minor places such as the Tetracomia, the villages north of Thebes, and towns like Aulis that were adjacent to the Euripus all fall within these limits of "those dwelling nearest." They should, therefore, be included in this first core of members, even though not specifically mentioned. It should be these that struck the earliest datable League coinage about 525-520.25 It is impossible to do more than guess why the League came into existence about or shortly before 520. Perhaps an increasing suspicion of Thessalian intentions on Boeotia after the reduction of Phocis played its part; perhaps simply Theban and Boeotian aggressiveness, favoured by the reasonable prosperity which was evidenced by the ability and willingness to coin; or perhaps the Orchomenian defeat of Goronea created a fear of further troubles in Boeotia. The Thessalians got as far as Ceressus, a locality in Thespian territory. Although its exact site is unknown, it lay near the main route south of Lake Copais between east and west Boeotia.26 The Thessalians,

112

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

striking from Phocis by way of Orchomenian territory, were proceeding towards Thebes, skirting Lake Copais and by-passing Haliartus to the south. The Boeotians concentrated their forces at a defensible spot close to the route, while the Thespians, to judge from Pausanias (9.14.1), provided supplies and bivouacking materials. The Thessalians turned to deal with the enemy forces and were smartly repulsed, losing Lattamyas in the process. They withdrew from Boeotia, and the victory by the Boeotians marked a "beginning" of a freedom for the Greeks, a beginning only, since the liberation of various territories took some time to bring to pass. As long as the Thessalians held Phocis, and Orchomenus was their friend, there was danger. Athens on the other side of Boeotia was a Thessalian ally. Boeotia was surrounded. Some of the Boeotian states, such as Plataea and probably Lebadea, Anthedon, Copae and Oropus, were uncommitted. Clearly it would be to the advantage of the league to recruit as many Boeotian states as possible. It seems probable that a new coinage was issued, with the name of the town minting (or, more likely, sponsoring) on the reverse. The coinage should imply some sort of reorganization of the League; the use of town names may mean that it was something on the line of more clearly defining local autonomy, in an effort to render the League more attractive to the holdouts. Perhaps the federal Council was now structured to give representation to all areas, and to have them all present on each of the four divisions. Plataea was one of the most important of those who were not yet members. The League put on pressure, but the Plataeans, on Spartan advice, reacted by allying themselves with Athens and with the aid of Athens defeated an attempt to enrol them by force.27 Thucydides (3.68.5) gives a date of 520/519 to the alliance.28 Herodotus (6.108), however, has Cleomenes, with an army in the vicinity of Plataea, playing a crucial part in persuading the Plataeans to ally themselves with the Athenians. The presence of a Spartan army, or Cleomenes, on the border of Boeotia in 519 seems unlikely to many authorities, who therefore transfer the whole incident to 509 and emend Thucydides' date.29 But there is no evidence of any textual difficulties in that section of Thucydides, and the reasons for emending are not very strong. Furthermore, the arguments for a date of 509 fail to account for the fact that the Thebans, long-time friends of the Peisistratids, aided the Alcmeonids against the Peisistratids before 511 B.C.30 If the adherence of the Plataeans to Athens preceded the Theban support for the anti-Peisistratid Athenian dissidents, then an economical explanation exists. (The dedication of Hipparchus is not firmly enough dated to be evidence for the date of the Theban-Peisistratid rupture.)

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

113

The only other possible explanation that comes to mind for a Theban-Peisistratid break around 520 is the behaviour of Eleutherae. We do not know exactly when it allied itself to Athens, but there is nothing intrinsically impossible in its doing so between 520 and 511 B.C. although an earlier date might be preferable. Pausanias (1.38.8) says only that it allied itself to Athens partly because of a desire to share Athenian citizenship and partly because of a hatred of Thebes. Herodotus (5.74) and Thucydides (2.18) both term Oenoe a border fortress; therefore in the fifth century Eleutherae, whatever its state of alliance was with Athens, was still felt to be part of Boeotia, in much the same way as Plataea was. Since Eleutherae is shielded from Thebes by Hysiae and the territory of Plataea, its "hatred of Thebes" might indicate a date about contemporaneous with Plataea's rejection of Theban overtures. A slightly prior association of Eleutherae with Athens might make Plataea's ready acceptance of Spartan advice and Athenian alliance more understandable. The "sharing of citizenship," if it is not an anachronism, might be thought more appropriately arranged under a tyranny than under another form of government in which citizenship became even more valuable than in the time of the tyrants. Pegasus of Eleutherae introduced Dionysus to Athens, that is, he brought in the archaic wooden statue that was still paraded annually to the Academy in Pausanias' time.31 (A copy of the image was kept at Eleutherae.) It is possible, as was noted in the previous chapter, that the transferral of the cult image and the alliance should be associated. The interest of Peisistratus and his sons in the cults of Dionysus has often been noted, and consequently the alliance might go back as early as the reign of Peisistratus himself, or to the time of Hippias. The silly aetiological myth reported by the Scholiast to Aristophanes (Acharnians 243), if it has any merit, would tend to place the date as early as possible. The actual union of Eleutherae with Athens must be no earlier than the fourth century. If the alliance were much earlier than 520, then the Theban-Peisistratid hostility should require some more immediate cause, such as the activities of Plataea. It is difficult to see Eleutherae alone causing the Theban-Peisistratid hostility which was still apparent in the time of the raid on Leipsydrium. Spartan persuasion and the presence of Cleomenes may be two different things, but Herodotus and Thucydides bear out each other so well that several scholars have argued that Thucydides was following Herodotus.32 Though doubts that Cleomenes was in an area convenient to Plataea, or that he was king at the time, are understandable (it may be significant that Thucydides talks of Spartan persuasion rather than

114

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

Cleomenes'), nevertheless it seems methodologically sounder to use this evidence to set Cleomenes' date of accession rather than to emend the text to fit a priori theories about his life. There is nothing improbable in a Spartan force being near Boeotia in 519. It may well be that Cleomenes, who seems to have been friendly to Thessaly,33 was bringing up a Peloponnesian force in an effort to aid Lattamyas. They arrived in the neighbourhood of Plataea after Ceressus and took the opportunity to make things awkward for Thebes, while avoiding Spartan involvement in a losing cause for absent partners. On the other hand, it might be that the Peloponnesian army was on other business or was coming to the aid of the Boeotian League, but after the battle at Ceressus they returned home without intervening. Thebes, however, may have seemed to need some counterpoise, a role that Athens was able to fit. At any rate, the date of 519 for the Plataean-Athenian alliance is reasonable and consonant with the evidence. A state of comparative quiet lasted until 510 or so. The erosion of Thessalian power and prestige in this decade is indicated by the difficulties its government was having with the Delphic amphictyony. 34 The Thebans, naturally, were hostile to the Peisistratids and gave aid to their Athenian rivals the Alcmeonids. They permitted them to use Boeotian territory as a base for the abortive raid on Leipsydrium, as noted above. It may be during this period that some minor states such as Copae and Lebadea joined the League. The Thessalians were able to pass cavalry down to Athens from time to time during this decade, but this does not necessarily imply any lessening of hostility between the Thessalians and the Boeotians. It is always possible to run a cavalry force through open, though hostile, territory, especially if no cavalry are ready to oppose it, as any student of the American Civil War can testify. This ability became very important to the Peisistratids, especially after the disarmament of the Athenian hoplites by Hippias in 514.35 The importance attached to this alliance by the Thessalians can be measured by the presence of the tagos Cineas with the 1,000 horse in Athens in 510. The presence of Thessalians in Athens in 510 also means that they still controlled Phocis; for a cavalry movement through the narrow passes of Phocis in the face of active Phocian hostility would be very risky indeed. The favourite Thessalian route via Thermopylae and Hyampolis would be impossible. In 510 the Thessalian force, after initial successes, was defeated by the Spartans, apparently as the result of new anti-cavalry tactics.36 Cineas and his forces withdrew, and Hippias fell. It is not necessary here to follow the intrigues, quarrels, Spartan interventions and constitutional changes that followed the expulsion of the Peisistratids, but it is clear that

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

115

Athens was not militarily strong for a few years and was in no condition to compose any coherent foreign policy or to become engaged in foreign wars. Furthermore, the Athenians had to reorganize their tribal levies and had to have time to get their forces into fighting trim. A date of 509 for the adherence of Plataea to Athens seems most improbable. It is surprising that Thebes and the Boeotian League delayed taking any action against Athens and Plataea until 506. In the absence of any clear ancient evidence at least two plausible reasons can be put forward. First, the Boeotians were not sure of the policies of Sparta or of the new Athenian state, and they did not want to precipitate anything. On the one hand the oligarchs and Isagoras seemed to have had the support of an important Spartan faction, and Spartan allies were dangerous to attack. On the other hand, the Alcmeonids, who by 508/7 were emerging as victors in the power struggle against Athens, had been friendly to Boeotia. The Plataean alliance had been contracted by the Peisistratids, and so, if things went well, might not be honoured by the new government. The Boeotians were making alliances with neighbouring states such as Chalcis;37 the new Athenian state, be it oligarchic or democratic, had no reason to be fond of the Thessalians; the Boeotians had been helpful; a network of central Greek alliances might be useful; the Athenians might be willing to let Plataea go for the benefits accruing from Boeotian friendship. All in all, from the Boeotian point of view, nothing would be gained by moving against Athens, and much might be lost. Second, and perhaps more to the point, the Boeotians probably had their attention turned elsewhere, and so could not deal effectively with Athens and Plataea at the time. The most obvious direction for any such activity is in that of the other holdout, Orchomenus. This town was part of the Boeotian League by the time of the Persian Wars.38 The Boeotians were able to put forth in 506 a "united force" against Athens, according to Herodotus (5.74.2); this should mean an army of all the Boeotians (except Plataea), and so might well include Orchomenus.383 The most appropriate time, then, for Orchomenian adherence to the League would be between 510 and 507. If this is so, then Thessaly was no longer in a position to support its Boeotian ally effectively at the time of its joining the League. This, in turn, should mean that Thessalian forces could not easily pass through Phocis to aid Orchomenus, and so would put the Thessalian defeat in Phocis after the debacle at Athens, but before the Boeotian invasion of Attica in 506. If the argument has validity, it is clear that the defeat of Cineas by the Spartans had important effects far beyond the boundaries of Athens. The Phocians, encouraged by the report and adopting the new tactics, rose in revolt shortly after the downfall of Hippias and defeated the

116

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

Thessalians in two battles, the Battle of Phocian Desperation fought near Cleonae of Hyampolis and the Battle of the Whitened Bodies also near Hyampolis.39 The Phocians' obtaining of independence should be set around 509. Such a date is given a rough chronological check by the presence of Tellias of Elis on the Phocians' side. Since Telliads are present in the Persian Wars,40 Tellias should be at least one generation earlier, some thirty years earlier, about 510. The Thessalians, held beyond Thermopylae, could not readily intervene in Boeotia after the loss of Phocis. The Orchomenians, then, probably joined the League by 507. By that date it did not seem to matter much to the Boeotians whether Athens was friendly or not. Sparta under Cleomenes had turned hostile to Athens and was determind to crush the new state. It must have seemed folly to the Boeotians to do anything but join the Peloponnesian attack and get what pickings were available, including, no doubt, Eleutherae and Plataea. By prior agreement,41 the forces of the Boeotians and Chalcidians marched on the Parasopia (that is, the regions south of the Asopus) and Attica, at the same time as the Peloponnesians under Cleomenes reached Eleusis. The Boeotians occupied Oenoe and Hysiae, thus gaining a firm base in the Parasopia. Cleomenes, however, had over-estimated his support, and the Peloponnesian contingent dissolved and went home. The Boeotians and Chalcidians were left to face Athens by themselves. The Athenians advanced on the Euripus. The Boeotians abandoned Hysiae and Oenoe and hastened to join the Chalcidians. The Athenians gave battle and defeated the Boeotians, taking 700 prisoners. They then defeated the Chalcidians. As a result Chalcis received an occupying garrison and, naturally, dropped its alliance with Boeotia; Plataea and the areas south of the Asopus, such as Hysiae and Oropus, were left under Athenian protection; and thus Boeotian ambitions were sharply checked. It would not be surprising if Boeotian, and particularly Theban, confidence in Spartan leadership ebbed, and that the leaders of the Theban oligarchy felt that Sparta was not to be trusted in grave situations. Such a Theban attitude may well have had its effect on Theban, and Boeotian, policy and plans during the Persian Wars. To summarize: the Thessalians occupied Phocis during the sixth century, at the latest by the middle of the century. They then had an entry into central Greece. The Boeotians were at first friendly to the Thessalians, like Orchomenus, or neutral, like Thebes, while Athens under Peisistratus and his sons was allied to Thessaly. About 525/520 some of the Boeotians, under the leadership of Thebes, and on the basis of the existing religious association, began to form a new military federation, because they were becoming suspicious, perhaps, of Thessalian intentions. The nucleus consisted of Thebes, Coronea,

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

117

Haliartus, Tanagra and Thespiae. They issued a federal coinage. Orchomenus and Plataea declined to join. In late 520 or early 519 the Thessalians decided to occupy Boeotia as they had occupied Phocis, probably using their friendship with Orchomenus as a pretext. The invaders were defeated at Ceressus and lost their tagos Lattamyas. The new League attempted to draw in the remaining Boeotian cities. Some change was made in constitutional arrangements, a change perhaps symbolized by the placing of the name of the sponsoring city on the League coinage. Orchomenus, with Thessalian support, was able to withstand the pressure, and it issued its own coinage. Plataea, thanks to Spartan advice and Athenian help, also stayed aloof. The Thessalian reverse in Athens in 510 had wide repercussions. The Phocians were emboldened to attempt a rebellion that turned out successfully. Orchomenus, thereupon isolated, was constrained to join the League by 507. In 506 the Boeotians, in agreement with the Chalcidians, opportunistically joined Sparta in an attack on Athens in the hopes of gaining Plataea. The dissolution of the Peloponnesian force enabled Athens to defeat Boeotia and Chalcis. Plataea and the regions across the Asopus remained outside the League. The Boeotians, the Thebans in particular, learned that Sparta could be very unreliable in action, a lesson that doubtless played a significant part in forming Boeotian policy a few years later in the Persian Wars.

Notes 1. Thuc. 3.61.2 and Hdt. 6.108. 2. Thuc. 3.68.5. For the dating see below. 3. For recent attempts to lower the dates of Greek coinage, especially Athenian, see C.M. Kraay, NC, 1956, 43-68; JVC, 1962, 417-23; see also W.P. Wallace, NC, 1962, 23-42, especially 38 and note 1 in regard to Boeotian coins, Kraay JHSS4 (1964) 76-91, especially 80, and J. Ducat, BCH97 (1973) 61f.; R.T. Williams, NC, 1966, 9-13; R.M. Cook, Historia 7 (1958) 247, argues that the original purpose of coinage was to pay mercenaries, an idea not widely accepted; J.A.O. Larsen, GFS, 37, note 5, puts the problem aptly, though for a different context. 4. Plut. Cam. 19.2 and de Hdt. mat. 33 (Mor. 866 F); Paus. 9.14.2. 5. For discussion see below. 6. For Thessalian-Phocian warfare: Hdt. 8.28, Paus. 10.1.3, Polyaen. 6.18.2 (Battle of the Amphoras); Paus. 10.1.5-10, Plut. de mul. virt.(Mor. 244), Polyaen. 8.65, Polyb. 16.32.1-2 (Battle of Desperation); Hdt. 8.27, Paus. 10.1.11 (Battle of the Whitened Bodies); Hdt. 7.176.4 (Phocian Wall); Paus. 10.13.7 (Phocian victory monuments). For modern comments: G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, 1 (Gotha,

118

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

1893), 699f.; G. Macan, Herodotus, 5 (London, 1908), 393-95; M. Sordi, La lega tessala, 78-89; L. Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche, 11 If.; J.A.O. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 231 f. and GFS, 108-14. 7. Thuc. 6.55.1. Sordi, La lega tessala, 55, and Larsen, GFS, 112, draw the inference for the alliance's origin in Peisistratus' time. 8. On Archaic mythopoesis see M.P. Nilsson, History of Greek Religion'2 (Oxford, 1949) 237-42 and his Geschichte der gnechische Religion* 1 (Munich, 1967)711-14. 9. The route through Hyampolis is argued for by Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 232f., and GFS, 109-11. 10. Hdt. 5.67. 11. Hdt. 1.61 and Arist. Ath. Pol. 15. 12. The dedication of the Alcmeonids is dated by Ducat (Kouroi du Ptoion [Paris, 1967] 242-51 and BCH 97 [1973] 65f.) about 550-540 B.C. If Thebes was in control of the sanctuary then, one might infer either (a) that Thebes was at the time cool to Peisistratus, since it was allowing dedications from his opponents; or (b) that the dedication was made when the Alcmeonids and Peisistratus were on good terms temporarily, a not unlikely happening in Athenian politics; or (c) that Thebes was trying to be on good terms with various Athenian factions. If Thebes was not in control of the sanctuary, one might infer either (a) that the authorities were quite willing to receive dedications from rivals of Peisistratus since it would not matter to them; or (b) that Ptoon was hostile to Thebes and to Theban friends and so friendly to their enemies or rivals. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973), 65f., argues that the dedication, given the known friendliness of Thebes and Peisistratus, must mean that the sanctuary was not under Theban control at the time. This proposition is of no greater or less merit than the converse of any of the propositions outlined above. On present evidence, the dating of the dedication cannot bear the weight of showing that Ptoon was independent of Thebes around 550-540. The dedication of Hipparchus is dated by Ducat (Kouroi du Ptoion, 251-58; BCH 97 [1973], 66) about 515. Since the sanctuary was in all likelihood under Theban control by then, such a date poses problems. First, it would render unlikely a Plataean adherence to Athens in 519 (cf. Ducat, 67f.), since the alliance caused a rupture between Athens and Thebes. Second, it would make the known support of the Thebans for the Alcmeonids in the years preceding the overthrow of the tyranny of Hippias a most sudden and inexplicable reversal. The dedication might better be dated before 520. This would do no violence to the epigraphic and stylistic criteria and could put the material where it would not be caught up needlessly in controversy. As it is, it could well fit the idea of a sudden break in relations in 519 if it is dated 520 or a little earlier. 13. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1. 2. 205; Sordi, La lega tessala, 87, who adopts the change to 100 followed by Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche, 111f.and 167, note 27; Larsen, GFS, 113f., and CP 55 (1960) 236f. But cf. Hammond, History of Greece, 2 137. 14. Plut., de Hdt. mal., L. Pearson's tr. in LCL, Moralia XI, 83-85. 15. 1C, 9.2.469, a dedication calling on Aattane 'Exekpatrigou; Sordi, La lega

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

119

tessala, 87. It is a rare name: Pape-Benssler, Gr. Eig., 816, mention only the Lattamyas killed at Ceressus. 16. Hdt. 7.6, 9.1, 9.58; Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1.2.206. 17. Hdt. 5.63. 18. Sordi, La lega tessala, 87-90 would have Aleuas a tagos; Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1.2.206, does not think so, but has Cineas ruler to the end of the century. 19. As Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1.2.203 argues cogently. 20. This dating is considerably lower than Beloch's date of 540 for Lattamyas, but he made Lattamyas a predecessor of Echecratides I, though in the same family. Beloch paid too much atention to Plutarch's date of 571 in Camillus 19, and so put Lattamyas too high. My own view is that Echecratides I had two sons, Lattamyas and Antiochus, with the latter succeeding the former. 21. Beloch 1.2.201; Larsen, GFS, 110. 22. Sordi, La lega tessala, 86; followed by Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 236f. and GFS, 30f. 23. R.J. Buck, CP 68 (1972) 96 and Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 70, support this view. 23a. See above p. 100 and note 106 in previous chapter. 24. On the early religious leagues see previous chapter, pp. 88-90. 25. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 61f., for the date of 525 or so. He suggests that the development of coinage from unlettered to inscribed, usually accepted (cf. Buck, CP 68 [1972] 97, and note 23) is unsubstantiated. 26. For the latest discussion of the site see R.J. Buck, Teiresias, Supp. 1 (1972) 31-40, which suggests a location at Listi, northwest of Thespiae. It has usually been set at Palaiovoro or Pyrgaki by most modern authorities, sites also northwest of Thespiae with a view over the CopaYc plain. Older authorities, such as Leake, favoured Neochorion due west of Thespiae at the junction of the Permessus and Thespius valleys. 27. Hdt. 6.108; Thuc. 3.55 and 61. 28. For the date and bibliography see N.G.L. Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 389 and Cloche, 30-32, and add Sealey, History, 144f. 29. Grote, 2.442, n. 54, followed by Busolt, Gr. Gesch. 2.399 n. 4 and several others, most recently M. Amit, AC 39 (1970) 414-26 (with bibliography), and Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 67f. A variant found in Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche, 105-8, holds for Thucydides' date, but rejects the Herodotean story as a fabrication. This neglects Thuc. 3.55.1, where Spartan advice is mentioned. 30. Hdt. 5.62.2 and Arist. A.P. 19. Cf. Sordi, AR, 1966, 22, and Sealey, History, 142f. 31. Paus. 1.2.5; 1.20.3; 1.29.2; 1.38.8. 32. Gomme, Comm. 2.358. 33. Cleomenes when exiled stayed in Thessaly, Hdt. 6.74.1. A suggested emendation to Sellasia (D. Hereward, CR 65 [1951] 146) is not logical. 34. As Sordi, La lega tessala, 56, has noted. 35. Thuc. 6.58. Aristotle, A.P. 15.3-4, dates the disarmament to Peisistratus' time, but see Larsen, GFS, 112. The Boeotians had very good cavalry by 480, and it is possible that the force was originally raised to counter Thessalian passage. I do not think that the Boeotian cavalry was an effective force, however, before 506, if then. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 68, n. 42, is sceptical of

120

The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.

the idea of crossing Boeotia de vive force and wonders why the Thessalians took a dozen years to react to their defeat in Boeotia. I should guess that troubles with Delphi, with other areas, and internal problems distracted them. We know of no Thessalian contingents in Athens before that of Cineas in 511 from the time of the death of Peisistratus, though no doubt there must have been some, especially after 514. 36. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 236. 37. Or so it is sometimes believed on the evidence of Hdt. 5.74 and coin types, as in Seltman, Greek Coins2, 57. But see Larsen, GFS, 98f., for hesitation in affirming a formal alliance. 38. Hdt. 8.34; 9.18. 38a. The ancients did use ethnic terms ambiguously, and so one cannot be quite certain that the Orchomenians were included. 39. Plut. de mul.virt. (Mor. 244); Paus. 10.1.8; Hdt. 8.27; Paus. 10.1.11; see also Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 232. The melodramatic titles are established by usage, and no one has come up with better ones. 40. Hdt. 9.33-35 and 37.1. 41. Hdt. 5.74.2.

This page intentionally left blank

8. The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

After its defeat in 506 B.C. the Boeotian League had its eastern frontier restricted approximately to the left bank of the Asopus. Opposite Thebes the stream formed the boundary, but further downstream Tanagraean territory overlapped to the right bank. Between the Asopus, roughly speaking, and the limits of Attica, there was a series of Boeotian communities that were not under the control of the League; these formed a sort of buffer between the League and Athens, as well as a source of dispute. Plataea was the largest of these, and the best known, but there were several others. Erythrae and Hysiae were apparently not parts of Plataea though they were dependent on it then, as later;1 Eleutherae, Psaphis and Oropus2 were, as it seems, nominally independent. In fact they were all so dependent on Athenian protection that Hysiae and Eleutherae could sometimes be considered villages of Attica.3 Scolus, if the location on the left bank is secure,4 may have been under Theban control, as it was during the Persian Wars.5 Thebes, as we are often told, dominated the League,6 and those who did not join the League are credited with being suspicious of or having a hatred for Thebes.7 Language or dialect made little or no difference. Oropus and probably Eleutherae used a form of Ionic, while Plataea spoke Boeotian.8 In the western part of Boeotia the boundaries of the League probably extended, by 506, as far as the Phocian frontier. Orchomenus, Lebadea, Chaeronea and Hyettus were probably recent additions to the League, as argued previously. At any rate, Orchomenus was a member by the time of the Persian Wars.9 The existence of two distinct stages in

Map 8. The Boeotian League in 480 B.C.

124

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

the early growth of the League, with Orchomenus and other cities being added later than its first formation, has a bearing on the problem of the selection, numbers and powers of the Boeotarchs. By the time of the Persian Wars the Boeotarchs were federal officials with military responsibilities. From the casual way that Herodotus (9.15) refers to them it may be inferred that they were familiar to the other Greeks, and that they must have had these functions for some time, from the inception of the League as a military alliance. If, as was suggested above, the Boeotarchs acted as the executive officials of an amphictyony before the League was formed, they must, like the later Aphedriates,10 have represented various towns and, by extension, districts of Boeotia. The principle of selection by districts, then, would have been ancient, one naturally taken over by the League and one that was with the League from its inception.11 The suggested early reform of the League may have been responsible for some change in the areas that returned Boeotarchs, though this does not seem likely. Presumably narrow oligarchies in the several districts elected them, to judge by the evidence from Thebes.12 Whether a Boeotarch could be re-elected is unknown, though re-election may have been possible.13 It is not known how many Boeotarchs there were, but an original number of seven is proposed: one each from Thebes, Tanagra, Thespiae, Coronea, Haliartus, Acraephia and the Tetracomia. When Orchomenus and the others were added, the number was increased to eleven: one each from Orchomenus, Lebadea, Cbpae and Anthedon (or perhaps Chaeronea). The vagaries of early constitutional development may explain the casual-seeming attitude of the later League to the number of Boeotarchs. The Koiva TwV iiavtuv Boi6ora>i> irarpiot (Thuc. 3.65.2; cf. 2.2.4.) were obviously elastic in matters of such detail. It is probable that the custom of giving two Boeotarchs to some of the larger towns such as Thebes may have resulted from early actions. By the time of the Persian Wars Thebes had gained control of the Tetracomia.14 Its Boeotarch was, for all practical purposes, named by the Theban oligarchy. The Boeotians soon became accustomed to the Thebans' effective possession of two, and so to the principle that larger towns might have two, one for themselves and one for the territory that they controlled. There was, probably, a provision for Boeotian non-members of the League to return Boeotarchs if they joined the League. To judge by later constitutions Plataea was eligible for one seat, and the Parasopid towns for another.15 The duties of the Boeotarchs as officials of the League were primarily military and consequently (to the Greek mind) concerned also with the supervision of foreign affairs.16 They were responsible for the

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

125

drafting and the command of any federal contingent. Any Boeotian force was under the general command of one or more Boeotarchs, with subordinate officers from the districts supplying the troops.17 They were also responsible for the preliminary negotiations with other states and for making recommendations. If the Boeotarchs had had any religious or amphictyonic functions, it is most likely that they lost them or delegated them to other officials soon after 520 B.C. The Aphedriates, about whose precise duties there has been some controversy, though it is agreed that they are religious, could well have commenced as the replacements for or delegates of the Boeotarchs. They are federal officials, chosen from districts and usually number seven, or, rather, match the number of Boeotarchs. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, no evidence attests their existence before the early third century B.C., and what evidence there is is inscriptional.18 A Federal Council for the League existed as part of the koina patna probably from the beginning, or from the first reform, but certainly from an early stage. Herodotus (5.79) mentions a halia that by its actions should be this council: it hears such important religious matters as messages from oracles and sets policy for negotiations with foreign powers. Herodotus thought of it as a Theban body because it was dominated by Thebes, but he was not very clear about the fine points of Boeotian institutions and preferred to work with realities.19 The council was a suitable mechanism to control the Boeotarchs, to set policy, to assign tasks, to receive recommendations, to ratify agreements with other states and finally to preserve continuity and Theban domination. In a word it had much the same range of rights and duties as most oligarchic councils, the Roman Senate being a standard example. The proportion of sixty councillors to each Boeotarch is odd enough to date back to the beginning of the League, as is the quadripartite division found later in the fifth century,20 and into the fourth century. A summoning of the other three sections by the fourth section in the manner described by Thucydides,21 could well be Herodotus' halia. Meetings of the council were held at Thebes (if later practice was followed), and so a heavier attendance of Thebans than of others could normally be expected. This, plus the support of a few of the smaller towns, would normally give Thebes a stable majority against the other fairly large towns in all four sections of the Council. At some time after 506 B.C., according to Herodotus (5.79-81,89), the Thebans (sc. the Boeotian League) in order to get revenge on Athens made an alliance with Aegina in accordance with a Delphic oracle. Aegina was a long-standing enemy of Athens, 22 and, since the eponymous nymphs Thebe and Aegina were daughters of Asopus, the island stood

126

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

"closest" to Thebes and hence to the Boeotian League. The negotiations were presumably carried out by the Boeotarchs and ratified by the Federal Council. The sequel is interesting. The Aeginetans sent the cult images of the Aeacidae to aid the Boeotians, but took no direct military action. The whole story of the Athenian-Aeginetan dispute, incidentally, revolves so closely around the stealing, attempts at recovery and the borrowing and the use of cult images, that this incident fits right in with the others. Suspicion of the historicity is unwarranted and the importance of religious motivation in the sixth century should not be underestimated. Still, other factors, as Herodotus (5.81) mentions, could prompt Boeotian and Aeginetan religious enthusiasm. The Boeotians attacked Athens, were met by the full force of the Athenians on some unknown battlefield and were soundly defeated. Herodotus (5.81.2 and 89) says that the Thebans hastily returned the Aeacidae with an urgent plea for military intervention. Since later events show that Aegina was not inhibited from attacking Athens by the attitude of other powers, such as Sparta (until the Spartan kings intervened several years later), one may conclude that Aeginetan military aid had not been previously requested,23 and that its navy was ready to move on short notice. The Aeginetan navy, then, while the Athenian forces were still engaged against the Boeotians (5.81.3), raided Phalerum and other Athenian coastal districts, doing considerable damage. It is clear that the Athenians were entering Boeotia in full force for a serious invasion when the Boeotians begged the Aeginetans for help. The Aeginetans distracted the Athenians and, since the Athenian fleet was probably drawn up on the beaches of Phalerum, one may conclude that the Aeginetans handled the Athenian navy roughly. The Athenians broke off their attack on Boeotia and returned to defend their coasts. The fortification of the Piraeus may have been one of the eventual results of this war. The evidence, however, peters out and Herodotus neglects to tell us what happened at the end of the war against Thebes. Clearly Athenian attention, and Herodotus' attention, shifted from Boeotia to Aegina. The strategy of the Aeginetan-Theban alliance was reasonably successful, at least in saving Boeotia.24 At some time a peace between Boeotia and Athens must have been made, so that Athens was able to communicate easily with its cleruchy in Chalcis. Apparently the status quo ante prevailed. The time of this series of events is a matter of dispute, as it forms part of the chronology of the "Undeclared War" between Athens and Aegina.25 Many of the difficulties arise from varying interpretations of what is implied by Herodotus' reference (5.89.2.) to an oracle that ordered a delay of Athenian retaliation for thirty years; but if the

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

127

Athenians did not hold off, they would still prevail in the end. Since Aegina was reduced by Athens in 457, then 487 might well be the date of the raid on Phalerum. That would mean that the sequence of events in Herodotus is badly mixed up, and some of the incidents must be transferred from an apparent date before the Ionian Revolt to a proper one after Marathon. It seems to me, in the absence of any very compelling reason to reject the sole source we possess, that those like Hammond who argue that Herodotus' sequence of events, as he gives it, hangs together and forms the basis of a satisfactory chronology are broadly correct.26 Athens, it must be emphasized, did not obey the oracle. Surely the meaning of the oracle should be that it took much longer than thirty years until the final reduction of Aegina. If Herodotus' narration stands, then the Athenian-Boeotian dispute must lie between 506 and the visit of Aristagoras in 498, but before the abortive attempt of Cleomenes to mount a Peloponnesian invasion of Attica in support of Hippias.27 On the one hand time must be allowed after the first Boeotian defeat by Athens to arrange an armistice, to return the prisoners28 and to settle cleruchs in Chalcis before the second battle. Then, too, there had to be time for Boeotian negotiations with Aegina and the receipt of the Aeacidae. The year 505 is the earliest possible date for the second Boeotian campaign after all this had taken place.29 On the other hand Herodotus (5.96) seems to indicate that Cleomenes' negotiations with Hippias (and the subsequent congress, the incident that delayed Athenian retaliation), Hippias' intrigues and Athenian dealings with Persia all took place fairly close to the visit of Aristagoras to Athens in 498. Therefore early 498 B.C. is the latest possible date for the Boeotian campaign and the Aeginetan raids.30 But time should be allowed between the Aeginetan attack on Phalerum and Aristagoras' visit: for Hippias and the Peloponnesian allies to have their congress; for Hippias to get to Sigeum and then to start promoting anti-Athenian feelings among the Persian authorities; for news of his deeds to reach Athens; and for Athenian negotiators to reach Sardis and to return home (complicated if the Ionian Revolt was in progress). Time should also be allowed for a cooling-off between Athens and Aegina, so that Athens could even contemplate sending twenty ships to Ionia.31 Therefore it seems to me that a date a few years earlier than 498 and somewhat after 505 is more probable. The change in the establishment of the strategia in 502/1 (A.P.22) has been thought to signify that up to that date the Athenians were righting for much of the time and had little opportunity to put into effect many of the changes arising from Cleisthenes' reform.32 A date of 504 for the Boeotian attack and defeat, the Athenian counter-attack and the Aeginetan raid, and a date of 503 for the

128

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

Cleomenean debate and Athenian deferral of effort seems reasonable. Five years or so would give sufficient time for the Aeginetan-Athenian enmity to calm down enough for the Athenians to risk sending even twenty ships to Ionia. If the Boeotian League signed a peace agreement with Athens in 503/2, then Athens could turn its attention to other affairs. To summarize: in 505 the Boeotians got back 700 members of their army who had been held as prisoners by Athens and negotiated with Aegina; in 504 they attacked again and were defeated again; Aegina raided Phalerum; in 503 the Peloponnesian League refused to back Cleomenes' latest scheme, and the Boeotian League made peace with Athens; and in 502/1 the Athenians reorganized or established the strategia. Little is known of what happened in Boeotia in the time between the alliance with Aegina and the invasion of Xerxes. In 490 the League stayed neutral, neither helping nor hindering the Athenians and Plataeans. It may be that the attitude of Sparta and the treatment of Aegina, which was forced to hand over hostages to Athens, may have played some part in shaping Boeotian behaviour. Neutrality, too, had its problems; an unauthorized raid was made by elements of the Persian fleet on the sanctuary of Delium in Theban territory during the capture of Eretria. Datis, the Persian commander, as the result of a dream, confiscated some of the booty from a Phoenician ship, namely a gilded statue of Apollo, and gave it to the inhabitants of the island of Delos, with instructions for them to return it to Delium of Thebes. The Delians did not do so, and only in 470 did the Thebans finally recover the statue. 33 Since Delium was Theban, Tanagra had lost some coastal territory to its neighbour at some time before 490. It may be, to judge by the behaviour of Thespiae during the invasion of Xerxes, that Theban control over the League weakened slightly during the decade before 480. In the autumn of 48134 the Congress of Allies met at the Isthmus to concert actions against Persia. The role of Boeotia vis-a-vis the Allies has been since antiquity the subject of much angry argument. The facts are that Boeotia, except for Thespiae and Plataea, medized, and that after Thermopylae Boeotian forces took a vigorous, if discreditable, part in operations against the Greek Allies. This vigorous behaviour, as well as the comments in Herodotus on Boeotian attitudes, have led many to conclude that Thebes and most of her League were disaffected with the Allies much earlier than Thermopylae. Some have claimed that neither Thebes nor any member of the League, with the possible exception of Thespiae, was present at the Congress.35 Thebes, so the argument runs, was as unlikely as Argos to join an alliance headed by Athens and Sparta,

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

129

because she hated Athens as much as Argos hated Sparta. It is more probable that, as Herodotus says (7.205.3), the Boeotians desired a Persian victory from the start and sent, under Allied pressure, only 400 Thebans to Thermopylae.36 Stories that tend to show Thebes in a more favourable light, such as that of the alleged Theban participation in the expedition to Tempe, come from sources like Aristophanes of Boeotia, who are claimed to be tainted.37 In fact, the Allied expedition to Tempe sailed to Halos for the specific purpose of by-passing Boeotia.38 On the other side some, from Plutarch on, have argued that Herodotus, over-influenced by his Athenian sources, painted the Boeotian medism far blacker than it really was. If, for example, Boeotia was as disaffected as is sometimes claimed, how could the Allies have even planned to hold Thermopylae? Aegina, which had a bitter enmity towards Athens, much longer standing and more recently exercised than that of the Thebans, joined the alliance and served loyally against Persia. The Athenian-Aeginetan dispute was settled by the Allies, who tried to subdue all outstanding feuds.39 Could not the same have been done for the Boeotians? Thebes surely was as willing as Aegina to join the alliance. The case against Aristophanes of Boeotia is very important in assessing non-Herodotean evidence. It is based on material in Plutarch's de Herodoti malignitate (32) that Jacoby considered far more likely to have come from the dubious Callisthenes, certainly not from Aristophanes, on chronological grounds.40 Jacoby restricts the Aristophanic material to two cited fragments, though he admits that other material in this chapter may come from him. One of these fragments41 says that the Theban commander at Thermopylae was not Leontiades, as Herodotus says, but Alexandros. This is cited from fa kar' apxovtas viionvnata. Quite possibly Plutarch, in correcting Herodotus, has misled himself and us. Aristophanes' work is concerned with Theban, not League, officials and records, a point that Jacoby42 makes clear. Its proper title may or may not have been Qnbaiwv "fipoi, but it dealt with Theban magistrates, not Boeotarchs or other League officials, such as the archons at Onchestus.43 Because subordinate officials would be subsumed under the headings of the annual Theban archons, Alexandros must have been a Theban, not a League officer, probably the polemarch of the Theban contingent.44 One may conclude that since there is a good likelihood that written evidence was available, in the Hypomnemata, Aristophanes preserves genuine Theban material, that Alexandros was the name of the Theban polemarch when Leontiades was Boeotarch.45 There are few grounds for the scepticism often expressed46 over the statements in the other fragment47 that Herodotus sought money in

130

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B. C.

Thebes, but was forbidden by the magistrates from talking to or instructing the young men. It is known that he visited Thebes; that he gave public recitations is commonly accepted;48 and that he was stopped by the magistrates seems reasonable and may be known to Aristophanes from personal experience.49 The comments on his hatred for Thebes are, as we have them, clearly Plutarch's, not Aristophanes'. Thus the credibility of Aristophanes should be restored in some respects, and a few pieces of evidence outside Herodotus become available to make a picture slightly different from his. The material about Mnamias and the Theban contingent at Tempe may be from Aristophanes and may be historically valid. It is probable, then, that the members of the Boeotian League sent delegates as probouloi to the Congress of the Allies in 481, and that their dispute with Athens was, like Aegina's, somehow reconciled. Perhaps some adjustment in the Parasopia was the price. It is noteworthy that Herodotus does not mention the Boeotians, who, after all, lived on top of the lines of communication to Thermopylae, as holdouts from the Congress like Argos. One of the decisions of the probouloi was to send the expeditionary force to Tempe in Thessaly. It went by sea to Halos, passing the Euripus on the way, and it could have taken on the Boeotians there. There is no suggestion in Herodotus or any other ancient source that the expedition was seaborne to avoid Boeotia. That would surely have been picked up by Herodotus' sources if it had been a current charge. One can only guess why the force was sent by sea. It was quicker, but also the Phocians were undecided until the attitude of Thessaly became clear,50 and perhaps no one wished to precipitate matters. Or perhaps the fleet needed combined exercises to shake down its organization, and a seaborne expedition seemed a good way to get them. The presence of Themistocles51 may lend some support to this idea. The Theban contingent of five hundred in the 10,000-man force was presumably part of a League effort, with Mnamias as the Theban commander under the Boeotarchs.52 It is quite possible that the Boeotian League began to think again about its position after the expedition to Tempe failed in its purpose to hold Thessaly for the Allies. The unhappy earlier Boeotian experience with the Spartans may still have had some influence. In 480, just before the invasion53 when Xerxes had arrived in Pieria, Persian heralds, who had been sent out previously, perhaps while he was still in Sardis,54 reached him, some bearing earth and water, the symbols of submission. Herodotus (7.132.1) then says, "Among those giving them were the following: Thessalians, Dolopians, Ainianes,

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

131

Perrhaiboi, Locrians, Magnetes, Malians, Phthiotic Achaeans and Thebans and the other Boeotians except Thespians and Plataeans." The text itself has a peculiarity; it lists the names with no conjunction until "and Thebans and the other Boeotians," as if Herodotus had made a later addition. It also looks as if earth and water were demanded state by state, not league by league, in a manner reminiscent of the Persian policy much later, at the time of the King's Peace. The list is followed by the taking of the oath by the Allies to tithe those medizing, except those compelled by necessity (a hit, it is clear, at Argos). The sequence in Herodotus is straight forward enough: Darius arrives in Pieria; Persian heralds bring earth and water from states that have medized; and the Allies take an oath to punish medizers. The question arises, however, whether Herodotus in compiling a fairly complete list of medizers ignored chronological constraints, and more particularly whether the Boeotians and the Locrians medized then or after Thermopylae. On the one hand, Locrian forces and Boeotian contingents took part at Thermopylae, the latter as parts of properly constituted forces of the Boeotian League under Boeotarchs.55 There is also some evidence for the League's participation in the expedition to Tempe, as well as in the Congress of the Allies. It is very hard to believe that a battle at Thermopylae, with Locrian and Boeotian League support, would have been feasible if Locris and Boeotia had already medized. All these points might lead one to conclude that Herodotus had violated chronology for the convenience of listing the important medizing states. On the other hand, when the Thebans surrendered at Thermopylae they said that they had previously medized and had been compelled to fight.56 The Thessalians put in a good word for them, and the majority survived, branded with the royal mark, from Leontiades, the general, on down. This version has clearly come into Herodotus from bitterly anti-Theban sources.57 Plutarch's indignant denials58 are not particularly cogent, but even if one rejects the branding and the circumstantial conversation of the Thessalians, there has to be an explanation for the survival of the Thebans. Herodotus supplies it: they had medized previously. It should also be noted that in the event Boeotia apparently escaped ravaging, except for Thespiae and Plataea. Thus one can make a case that Herodotus is following chronology. It does not seem possible to reject the evidence of Herodotus in the several passages, that at least some steps were taken towards medism by Locris and the Boeotian League between the time of the expedition to Tempe and the arrival of Xerxes in Pieria.59 At the least, during the time between Tempe and Thermopylae the Thebans and other Boeotians, as well as the Locrians, joined the Thessalians in sending earth and water, if

132

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

only as an insurance policy, while the Phocians (in part) turned firmly to the Allies. Probably several other states, like the Dorians and part of the Phocians, did what the Boeotians did. It does not seem to have been an uncommon practice: Aegina submitted in the same way before Marathon while still a member of the Peloponnesian League.60 The Boeotian League, notwithstanding its insurance policy with Xerxes, played its part loyally on the Allied side until Thermopylae. The 700 Thespians may represent the whole hoplite force of that town, 61 but the 400 Thebans are clearly a small proportion of their total. The size of the contingents has sometimes been taken as an index of Thespian and Theban loyalty to the Alliance.62 Ephorus63 guessed, perhaps somewhat inconsistently with what Herodotus (7.205.3) says, that only pro-Allied Thebans were sent out. Both these inferences are unwarranted. It should be noted that 300 or 400 men seems the size of a Boeotian or Greek tactical sub-unit, perhaps the lochos. This is about the number sent to Plataea in the opening phases of the Peloponnesian war64 under two Boeotarchs; or the number sent to Sicily in 41365 under three Boeotarchs; or the number left as a garrison in Plataea after the siege started;66 or the number sent to Thermopylae by Corinth or by the Arcadian states.67 It looks as if three units were sent by the Boeotian League to Thermopylae, two Thespian and one Theban. Two Boeotarchs commanded the contingent, Demophilus, son of Diadromes, over the Thespians (7.222) and Leontiades, son of Eurymachus, over the Thebans (7.205.2, 233). Under them as local officers were Alexandros as the Theban polemarch68 and perhaps Dithyrambus son of Harmatides69 as the Thespian equivalent. At Thermopylae the Thespian contingent was completely wiped out and the Theban survivors surrendered after fighting well for several days, just before the rally for the last stand. As was noted above, it is alleged that they were branded by the Persians. As soon as the Allied forces withdrew from its territory, the Boeotian League medized officially.70 At least the Boeotians did not interfere with the Allied retreat. The Thespians did not medize with the rest of the Boeotian League. Clearly Thespiae was not at the time following League policy. One ought not, however, to infer that Thespiae before Thermopylae was outside the League as Plataea was. The Theban and Thespian troops were parts of a League contingent under two Boeotarchs. It is more probable that a split had arisen in the League after the abortive expedition to Tempe. As noted above the Persians demanded submission state by state, not league by league, and while Thebes and the other cities sent off the earth and water, Thespiae did not. No doubt the backing of the Allies helped the latter maintain its stance, and, after Thermopylae Thespiae must have

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

133

withdrawn from the League. It is probable that the destruction of the Thespian hoplite force also destroyed the main Thespian body of support for the League, even if a separate path on medism was being followed. After Thermopylae the rest of the citizenry were ready and willing to follow an anti-Theban, pro-Allied policy, and they were evacuated to the Peloponnese.71 Some 1,800 citizens without hoplite armour served as light-armed troops at Plataea.72 The Thebans saw to it that their town, like Plataea, was burnt. 73 The League's behaviour in promptly medizing and in taking steps against recalcitrants such as Thespiae and holdouts such as Plataea clearly gave rise to the charge found in Herodotus (7.222) that the Theban forces at Thermopylae were hostages. It is false. The league simply changed quickly. This change, plus their previous actions in sending earth and water to Pieria, and the help of the Macedonians, saved most of the Boeotian cities from destruction.74 It may not be very glorious, but only Thespiae and Plataea, cities that had been emptied of their inhabitants, suffered damage.75 The Boeotians were a pragmatic, realistic people. They could have been loyal to the Allied cause until Thermopylae (the earth and water being an insurance policy), but when they turned, they turned whole-heartedly. Many close analogies, especially from the unhappy twentieth century, suggest that this could well be the case: as shown in the conduct of various nations that changed sides in the Second World War such as Italy, Rumania and Bulgaria; and as seen in the careers of various individuals like Joseph Darnand. Herodotus, however, does give us the name of at least one Boeotian informant, Thersander of Orchomenus,76 one of the four sources for whom he gives names, in telling of the doings at Thebes before Plataea. Thersander should have been able to give Herodotus a corrective to his rather severe view of Boeotian behaviour, if there was one to give, or if it sounded as convincing as the version from Athenian informants. There are some rather unconvincing hints that not all the Boeotians from the cities other than Thespiae and Plataea were entirely happy over the medism. A passage in Diodorus (17.110.4-6) tells us that in the summer of 324 B.C., while Alexander was marching from Susa to Ecbatana, he found a Boeotian community at a place called Celonae that had been "deported at the time of the campaign of Xerxes." Textually the passage is sound,77 although there are some grounds for believing that the story was made of whole cloth by pro-Boeotian scholars in the Hellenistic Age.78 Some have argued that these Boeotians were the descendants of the 400 Theban prisoners,79 but it is hard to understand why Leontiades was able to survive the war at Thebes80and why the community was Boeotian and not Theban. If there is anything to the tale, the Boeotians were

134

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

descendants of those drawn from several of the towns, deposited by the Persians after the League had medized. One can only conclude that the deportees were those regarded by the Persian and Boeotian authorities as of dubious loyalty, anti-medizers.81 The Boeotian army in full strength, except for Thespiae and Plataea,82 entered Attica before Salamis. We may conclude that the Parasopia was annexed to the League, including Eleutherae and Oropus. The Boeotians returned to Attica in 479, when their leaders gave Mardonius the sensible advice not to undertake active operations against the Allies, but rather to try some graft and corruption.83 The advice was not taken. When the Allies advanced from the Isthmus, the Persian forces withdrew to Boeotia. The Boeotarchs organized guiding parties from among the men of the Asopus valley, to get the Persian forces to Sphendale and eventually to Tanagra.84 This act does not necessarily mean that the Parasopia had been annexed to the Boeotian League, but it does strongly suggest it. The presence of the Boeotarchs, however, confirms that the League was in existence and was active. Presumably the tally of Boeotarchs could be kept up by having Creusis, Siphae and the rest of the territory formerly controlled by Thespiae return a new "Thespian" Boeotarch. An "election" of this type could help to explain why in later times Thespiae had two Boeotarchs, one for the city and one for the districts under its control. Perhaps, too, the newly added Parasopia returned one or two members, and surely Plataea was nominally incorporated into the League. Herodotus' careful exception of Thespiae and Plataea in several places85 might be explained by the annexation of their territories and dependencies into the Boeotian League. One of the Theban Boeotarchs was probably Timagenidas, who offers military advice to Mardonius.86 Attaginus was a prominent oligarch, though not necessarily a Boeotarch, who is one of those held responsible for Theban conduct, and who entertains fifty of the most prominent Persians to a banquet.87 The Orchomenian Boeotarch is very likely Herodotus' informant, the very prominent Thersander. Asopodorus is mentioned as the hipparch of the Theban (sc. Boeotian) horse.88 The Boeotians describe for Mardonius the Allied order of battle.89 They end up opposite the Athenian, Plataean and Megarian units. The course of the battle of Plataea need not be discussed here. The Boeotian infantry fought well,90 but was broken leaving 300 dead, while the cavalry inflicted heavy losses on the Peloponnesian infantry. 91 After the defeat the Allies moved up to besiege Thebes, which capitulated after a couple of weeks.

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

135

The Boeotians, to judge by what Herodotus tells us, got off very lightly. Thebes turned over Timagenidas and some other leaders for trial and execution while Attaginus escaped. Theban territory had been ravaged but, as far as we know, no other penalties were laid on the Boeotians. The Spartans tried to have Thebes (sc. the League) expelled from the Delphic amphictyony, a manoeuvre that was firmly opposed by the Athenians.92 But that is all that happened. The domination of Thebes over the League at the time could not be more graphically illustrated. It may well be believed that the Allies took steps to break the Theban hegemony,93 though we may be ignorant of precisely what these steps were. It does not follow from the light penalties incurred that only the oligarchs can be blamed for the Boeotian and Theban medizing, as later Thebans maintained.94 Herodotus (9.98) has Timagenidas firmly emphasize that all Thebans were equally responsible for medizing, since the policy was backed by the masses. "It was, perhaps, a favourite Theban technique to shift responsibility for inconvenient acts from the citizens in general to their leaders; Xenophon shows that it could be used even when Thebes was governed by the hoplite class."95 It may be believed that any Parasopid annexations were almost immediately annulled, and that Athenian influence replaced Theban in Eleutherae and Oropus. The League played an important if inglorious role during the Persian Wars and must have been restricted once again to the boundaries established around 506.

Notes 1. Hdt. 5.74.2 and 6.108.6 implies that Hysiae is to be distinguished from Plataea, as do 9.15.3 for both Hysiae and Erythrae and 9.19.3 for Erythrae. 2. For Eleutherae see pp. 99, 113. Oropus and Psaphis probably came under Athenian protection by 506 as well. See Salmon, RE A 58 (1956) 64; cf. Hdt. 6.101.1. 3. Cf. Hdt. 5.74.2 and preceding chapter. 4. See above, pp. 15, 18. 5. Hdt. 9.15.2. 6. Hdt. 6.108.5 is one of the earliest. 7. Suspicious: Thuc. 3.61; hatred: Paus. 1.38.8. 8. R.J. Buck, CP 63 (1968) 268-80, with references. 9. Hdt. 9.16; 8.34; 8.50; 8.66.2 implies Orchomenian participation, since only Thespians and Plataeans are excluded from the full Boeotian levy. 10. See below, pp. 157f.

136

The Early Boeotian League 506-4 79 B. C.

11. Walker, Hell. Oxy., 135-38, suggested long ago that the Boeotarchs and their districts preceded the "secession" of Plataea. His confusion of a religious federation and a politico-military league did not help his case. 12. Hdt. 9.88; Thuc. 3.63.2; cf. Larsen, GFS, 32. 13. Roesch,97. 14. See above, p. 99 and note 105. 15.FGrH 60 Fl.ll. 16. Roesch, 105f. 17. Cf. R.J. Buck, CP69 (1974) 47f. 18. For the Aphedriate see Roesch, 103f., 135-41 and below p. 157f. 19. M. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 58, considers the halia to be the Theban popular assembly. But that would be an unusual body in an oligarchy for initiating negotiations with foreign powers. It is far more likely that a discussion took place in a Theban council, or better a Theban-dominated federal council. 20. Thuc. 5.38. Larsen, TAP A 86 (1955) 41, suggests that the system "was not a product of mere growth and development but the conscious creation of constitution makers obsessed by theories." This may be the case for the local councils, which were clearly imitative of the federal council, but the latter may well have adopted a quadripartite system for convenience. Rotating councils were a mark of fifth-century oligarchic theory and fourth-century model-making, but were based on sixth-century oligarchic practice. 21. Thuc. 5.38. 22. Hdt. 5.82-88 explains the cause. The enmity should date at least from the middle of the sixth century, if not earlier. M. Amit, Great and Small Poleis (Brussels, 1973) 17-22, (henceforth GSP), and Moretti, Ricerche, 42-45 and note 49, for references. 23. Amit, GSP, 34f., argues for a total of about 500 Aeginetan hoplites. 24. Cf. Hdt. 6.87. 25. Amit, GSP, 17-29, summarizes the problem and gives the bibliography to 1972. 26. Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 406-11. Cf. L.H. JefTery, AJPB5 (1962) 44-54. 27. Leahy, CP 49 (1955) 232 and note 7, summarizes older views conveniently. 28. Amit, GSP, 23, puts the armistice and return of prisoners after the second defeat. 29. A date advocated by Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 409, which is adopted by Amit, GSP, 22 and L.H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece (London, 1976) 104. 30. A date accepted, e.g., by Meiggs-Bury,4 (London, 1975) 162. 31. A.R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks (London, 1962) 199, suggests that Eretrian sea-power helped effectively to keep Aegina quiet. No doubt, but Athens must have been over the first flush of rage. If the Athenian fleet had been damaged in the raid on Phalerum, then time must also be allowed for repairs, so that twenty ships would be available for service across the Aegean. 32. E. Badian, Antichthon 5 (1971) 29. This is part of a vigorous defence of Herodotus and a chastisement of others. 33. Hdt. 6.118. 34. Hdt. 7.145.2; cf. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece (Oxford, 1963) 98. 35. Hignett, 100.

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

137

36. E.g., Hignett, 117. 37. See, e.g., Hignett, 22f., on Aristophanes, following Schwartz, RE 2 (1899) s.i>. "Aristophanes," 494. 38. Hignett, 103 n. 1. 39. Hdt. 7.145. 40. FGrH III b, Comm. 162. Jacoby puts A. well before Epaminondas, perhaps even in the late fifth century (160). Hignett, 22, uses the material to date A. after the collapse of the Theban hegemony, a date far too low in Jacoby's opinion. 41.KGrH 379 F6. 42. Loc. cit.(n. supra) and note 15 (Noten p, 109). 43. For archons at Onchestus see above, p. 88. They seem not to have been eponymous officials prior to 379 B.C. 44. The title of polemarch at Thebes seems to be old. See Schaefer, RE Supp. 8 (1956) s.v. "Polemarchos" 1097-1134, and Roesch, 162. 45. Buck, CP 69(1974) 48f. 46. Cf. Hignett, 22f. 47. FGrH 379 F5. 48. Jacoby, FGrH III, Comm. 162. 49. Ibid., note 17, Noten, 160. 50. Hdt. 8.30.1 makes this clear. 51. Hdt. 7.173. 52. If Plutarch is using Aristophanes' monograph on Theban Horoi as argued above. 53. Late August, according to Hignett, 18. 54. Ibid., 95f. 55. Buck, CP 69(1974) 47f. 56. Hdt. 7.233. 57. Hignett, 147. 58. de Hdt. mal. 32. 59. Cf. Hdt. 7.205.3; see also 7.233 and 7.132.1. 60. Hdt. 6.49. Beloch, 22.1.86, criticizes this as unhistorical on a priori grounds. See also Sealey, History, 196. 61. Hignett, 117f., 376-78. 62. Hignett, 117f. 63. Diod. 11.4.6-7. 64. Thuc. 2.2.1. 65. Thuc. 7.25.3-4; cf. Roesch, 98. 66. Thuc. 2.78.3. 67. Hdt. 7.202. 68. Buck, CP 69 (1974) 47. 69. Hdt. 7.227. Cf. Burn, Persia and the Greeks, 419. 70. Hdt. 8.34; cf. Hignett, 99. 71. Hdt. 8.50.2. See also Larsen's remarks, TAP A 86 (1955) 47-49, on the analogous situation created in Thespiae after Delium and the heavy Thespian loss of hoplites. 72. Hdt. 9.30. 73. Hdt. 8.50.

138

The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.

74. Hdt. 8.34. 75. Pausanias, 9.32.5, 10.35.3, claims that Haliartus was destroyed at this time, but no other author and no archaeological data support his assertion. It is generally believed that Pausanias made a mistake (cf. Holleaux, RPh 19[1895] 109-15; Frazer, Pans. 5.166), although some authorities (e.g., Salmon, RE A 58 [1956] 62) still believe him. 76. Hdt. 9.16; the other three places where informants are cited by name are 2.55, 3.55 and 4.76. 77. There is no warrant for changing "Boeotian" to "Euboean" as suggested by Dindorf. Moretti, 121f.; U. Cozzoli, RFC 36 (1958) 280-84. 78. Moretti, 122. 79. Cozzoli, op. cit., 282. 80. Hdt. 7.233. 81. Bizard, BCH 47 (1920) 236, associates the behaviour of the oracle of Ptoon to Mys the Carian in 479 with an underground opposition to Thebes. It seems far-fetched to most. Cf. Moretti, 115f. 82. Hdt. 8.66. 83. Hdt. 9.2. 84. Hdt. 9.15. 85. E.g., Hdt. 7.132, 8.66. 86. Hdt. 9.38. 87. Hdt. 9.16 and 9.88. 88. Roesch, 109f., sees him as the earliest mentioned federal commander, though Herodotus (9.69) calls him a commander of the Thebans. H. probably speaks loosely here. Asopodorus is probably the father of Pindar's victorious Herodotus. 89. Hdt. 9.31.2. 90. Hdt. 9.67. 91. Hdt. 9.69. 92. Plut. Them. 20. 93. Diod. 11.81.1. 94. Thuc. 3.62.3-4. 95. Hignett, 23f.Xen. Hell. 3. 5. 8.

This page intentionally left blank

9. Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

After the Battle of Plataea, Thebes and most of the other Boeotian towns must have been in a depressed and impoverished condition. The territory of Thebes had been devastated by the Allies; that of Thespiae by the Persians; those of Plataea and Tanagra had been campaigned through and fought over; and the rest were certainly not spared.1 The Boeotians, even if the Allies had permitted them, were in no condition to take much part in Greek affairs for a few years. In the Amphictyonic League only the influence of Athens kept them on as members in the face of Spartan hostility.2 Until recently the generally accepted opinion was that the Boeotian League had been dissolved by the Allies immediately upon the Theban capitulation. This is now rejected by many as an unwarranted inference. 3 Diodorus (11.81.2) states that Thebes was brought into a lowly condition and no longer had its ancestral power and authority. Justin (3.6.10) says that Thebes had lost its hegemony. Neither of these two nor any other ancient source says that the League was dissolved. If anything the inference should be that the League continued in existence under some other hegemon. The evidence of coins is sometimes liable to involve one in a circular argument,4 but several Boeotian coins that show the federal shield and inscription, namely the series from Tanagra, are reasonably dated to the period from 479 to 458.5 In addition there are others credited to this twenty-year period, from Tanagra, Thebes, Acraephium, Goronea and Haliartus, that show only the shield without the federal inscription BOI.6 These are sometimes thought to signify that the towns considered themselves members of the League, even though the coins themselves are

Map 9. The Boeotian League in 450 B.C.

142

Boeotm 479-431 B.C.

probably not federal, but local. The argument is that the federal coins, that is, those with both shield and inscription, were issued at various times by Tanagra in the name of all the Boeotians. Therefore at certain times, though not at all times during this twenty-year period (to explain the occasional presence of local Tanagran issues), Tanagra must have claimed the hegemony of Boeotia. This view is fairly widely held at present.7 The only hint from literary sources that may support this idea is the mention in Thucydides (1.107-108) of the movement of the Spartan forces to Tanagra (not Thebes) and of the subsequent destruction of its walls (not those of Thebes) by the Athenians after the Battle of Oenophyta.8 On the other hand it seems highly unlikely that the loss of 300 hoplites, the removal of a few leaders, the devastation of its land and any loss of prestige in Boeotia could have forced Thebes to remain quiescent for all of the twenty-year period from 479 to 458. The Theban recovery of the gilded statue from Delos in 470, which was stolen from Delium in 490,9 points to some re-awakening of Theban activity at this time. The control of Delium by Thebes, instead of by Tanagra is implied by the recovery of the statue (and specifically stated for the time of the Marathon Campaign by Herodotus) and may signify some shift in territorial boundaries at this time and, also some shift in control of the League in 470. Since, however, Thebes had clearly slipped from any pre-eminent position by 460, one could posit on the basis of the coins an uneasy hegemony sporadically exercised by Tanagra, with Thebes attempting to get it back from time to time, but not being quite strong enough to do so. Orchomenus is credited with coining some issues during this period with no federal shield at all, only the Orchomenian sprouting grain. 1 0 Since the shield does not appear on Orchomenian coins until well into the fourth century, it does not necessarily signify anything about the Orchomenian status in or out of the League, any more than does the complete absence of any Thespian coins. But it is likely that Orchomenus had withdrawn, at least temporarily, much as it did in 395.n Plataea's position vis-a-vis the League remains unknown. Some 12 have argued that Plataea joined the League after 479, while others 13 argue that it did not. There is really no evidence one way or the other, and the probabilities depend on the view one takes of the nature of the League at this time. If, on the one hand, the modern view is correct, that Plataea's integrity was guaranteed by the other Allied states, so long as the Plataeans tended the graves and celebrated the Eleutheria, then there seems little necessity to argue for a Plataean membership in any politico-military League.14 If, on the other hand, the nature of the

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

143

League was primarily religious and economic, with very loose political ties, then the two shares of authority exercised later for Plataea and her Parasopid territories may well date back to this period. The probabilities favour the first choice. It is clear, however, that Plataea was again awarded the Parasopia, including Hysiae and Erythrae and perhaps Scolus and Scaphae (Eteonus) as well, at the expense of Thebes.15 Eleutherae, Oropus and other towns south of the Asopus remained, for practical purposes, Athenian perioecic communities. The majority of the governments in Boeotia immediately after the Persian Wars were oligarchic, just as before the Wars, and doubtless were pro-Allied instead of pro-Persian. Nothing is said anywhere about any change in the type of government. 16 Plataea may have become a democracy in the period between Marathon and Salamis, which would make more sense of an account of an oligarchic plot in Plutarch (Arist. 13).17 It has been argued that a democracy was established at Thebes immediately after the capitulation, on the evidence of the Old Oligarch ([Xen.] 3.11) and Plato's Menexenus (242a).18 These, however, must refer to a later stage of Boeotian history, probably to the time of the Athenian domination in the 450s. No more than a change of oligarchicfaction need be posited at this time. By the late 460s the Athenian-Spartan entente had almost disappeared. The treaty between Athens and Megara, together with the invasion of the Megarid by Corinth and her allies (461-460),19 brought fighting very close to Boeotia. There followed the dispute between Phocis and Doris in 459, which in turn led to the Spartan intervention of 459/8.20 By this time, according to Thucydides (3.62.5 and 4.92.6), there was stasis in Boeotia. An army of 1,500 Spartans and 10,000 allies compelled the Phocians to give up their gains and withdraw from Doris.21 Some question has arisen about the composition of the allied 10,000. A few scholars22 suppose that a small number came from the Peloponnese, about 4,000, and that the tally was made up by Boeotian forces after the arrival in Phocis. No source gives any support for this supposition. Thucydides clearly implies that the 11,500 were all from the Peloponnese,23 and Diodorus (11.79.5) specifically says this. Diodorus does say that the Thebans became Spartan allies, but after the Phocian campaign.24 When the time came to return to the Peloponnese, the Spartans faced a problem. An Athenian fleet, of fifty ships according to Diodorus (11.80.1), had sailed around the Peloponnese in the meantime, and it prevented the Spartan army from returning by sea.25 Athenian troops blocked the passes of Geranea, so that a land march via the Megarid was

144

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

out of the question. The Spartan forces, meanwhile, moved down into Boeotia and finally towards Tanagra. Thucydides emphasizes two points: one, that the Spartans were delaying in Boeotia while trying to find a way to get home; two, that the Spartans had been "secretly" approached by Athenian oligarchs "who hoped to put a stop to democracy and to the building of the long walls" (1.107.4). There is nothing about restoring any Theban hegemony. The inferences are plain: the Spartans, neatly trapped by the Athenians, were going where they could get control of Boeotia and consequently get supplies, while they pondered what to do next; a result of their presence in eastern Boeotia was to encourage hopes for an oligarchic coup at Athens, one day's march away. Thucydides makes no mention of a Theban alliance or support for Thebes at all. It is clear that the Spartans moved against Tanagra as if it were the hegemon of the Boeotian League, even if there was stasis. Thucydides goes on to describe the Battle of Tanagra. The Athenians in full force (they had to withdraw the bulk of their troops from Megara in order to have sufficient numbers) 26 and 1,000 Argives, along with lonians, Cleonaeans, Plataeans and Thessalians entered Boeotia with a total of 14,000 men.27 An escape route now lay open for the Peloponnesians, once the Athenians had been dealt with. The armies met at Tanagra, probably in June 458,28 and after a severe fight with heavy casualties, and after a change of sides by the Thessalians, the Spartans prevailed. Thucydides does not say precisely when, but the Peloponnesians withdrew homeward, devastating the Megarid in passing. On the sixty-second day after the Battle of Tanagra the Athenians, under Myronides, met "the Boeotians" at Oenophyta and defeated them. This victory made the Athenians the masters of Boeotia and Phocis. They took hostages from Locris, and they destroyed the walls of Tanagra. 29 Thucydides says nothing about what happened in the time between the battles of Tanagra and Oenophyta, except that the Peloponnesians went home. Diodorus, however, says that a great many things happened, and, as a result, several different interpretations of the evidence exist. Diodorus' account is so different from that of Thucydides, so involved and so doubtful, that it is worth summarizing it briefly. The Lacedaemonians came to Tanagra in 458/7 after their intervention in Phocis. They entered Boeotia after the Athenians, together with Argive and Thessalian allies, making a total of 14,000, had closed the passes of Geranea and had fifty ships suitably deployed (80.1). There is nothing here about oligarchic conspiracies. A battle ensued in which the Thessalians changed sides; then there was an attack by night on an Athenian convoy, followed by another indecisive engagement. A

Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 145

four-month truce was then arranged (80.6), something not mentioned by Thucydides. In the next year (457/6), while the Spartan forces were still around Tanagra, the Thebans, anxious to recover their former predominance, approached the Spartans for help. "They (sc. the Thebans) promised them for this favour that they would fight Athens by themselves, so that there would be no necessity for the Spartans to employ an infantry force outside the Peloponnese. The Spartans thought that what they had to say was expedient and that Thebes, if it became stronger, would be a sort of counterpoise to Athens" (81.2-3). According to Diodorus the Spartans then enlarged the circuit wall of Thebes (81.3). No mention of any of this is found in Thucydides. Apparently at this point they evacuated Boeotia or at least we hear no more about them. Diodorus goes on to describe two battles in the next campaigning season (456 B.C.):30 one an Athenian victory at an unnamed locality under Myronides, after which the walls of Tanagra were levelled (82); and the other, an even more decisive victory at Oenophyta, still under Myronides (83), which led to Athenian control of all Boeotia "except Thebes" and of Locris and Phocis. Most authorities agree that Ephorus is the source for all this, and the one responsible for most of the obvious mistakes, apart from the chronological blunders stemming from the equating of consuls and archons.31 It is worth reviewing some of the more obvious discrepancies between Ephorus and Thucydides. First, Ephorus cites two battles of Tanagra and two Athenian victories over the Boeotians, while Thucydides notes one apiece. Second, Ephorus places the destruction of the walls of Tanagra between his two victories over the Boeotians, that is, before Oenophyta, while Thucydides places it after Oenophyta. Third, Ephorus notes the signing of a four-month truce after the battle of Tanagra, after the expiry of which, apparently, there was an unknown span of time until the twin Athenian victories over the Boeotians; Thucydides allows sixty-one days between Tanagra and Oenophyta, the latter being fought on the sixty-second day after the former. 32 Fourth, Ephorus relates a circumstantial tale of the Spartan-Theban negotiations at Tanagra after the battle, the (assumed) move of the Spartans to Thebes and the enlargement of the circuit wall, and hence the restoration of Thebes to its former pre-eminence; Thucydides says nothing about any of this, but instead has the Spartans move off home after the battle. Fifth, Ephorus says that all Boeotia except Thebes came under Athenian domination after Oenophyta; Thucydides makes no exception. Sixth, there is no mention of the oligarchic conspiracy or of the devastation of the Megarid in Ephorus, as pointed out by Thucydides.

146

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

Of these half-dozen obvious and serious discrepancies, two are crucial for this study, the one concerning the truce and the one concerning the Theban restoration. In Thucydides' account the Spartans ravage the Megarid on the way home, and the Athenians attack Boeotia after sixty-odd days, both sides behaving as if there were no truce at all. 33 The Spartans in Thucydides did not delay in Boeotia for more than a few days, certainly not as many as sixty-two. Of course it may be argued that the truce was abortive, or that it did not apply to the Boeotians and Megareans; either is possible. But the four-month span of the truce does have a bearing on the opportunity for the alleged restoration of the Theban hegemony over the Boeotians. Ephorus sets the Theban-Spartan negotiations firmly after the battle of Tanagra and after the signing of the four-month truce. Time would be needed for negotiation, for referral to Sparta, for the construction of the enlarged circuit walls, for the task of persuading other Boeotian cities to accept Thebes again as the hegemon and for the Spartans to carry out their retirement. Even four months seem somewhat short to include all these activities. Their completion in considerably less than the sixty-two days that Thucydides gives between the battles of Tanagra and Oenophyta seems highly unlikely, especially when one considers that the Spartan forces had suffered heavy losses and were anxious to get home before the Athenians closed the passes again. They must have left Boeotia within a very few days after the battle. At any rate Ephorus' version seems, on the face of it, improbable and far less acceptable than Thucydides', and it should be rejected. The Spartan-Theban negotiations and the restoration of Thebes to the hegemony have long been generally accepted.34 But if Thucydides is correct, and only sixty-one days fall between Tanagra and Oenophyta, and if the Spartans marched home as soon as possible (devastating the Megarid in passing), then there is little time for all the negotiations, the construction of circuit walls, and so on, between Tanagra and the Spartan withdrawal. Either the negotiations must be set before the battle of Tanagra, or the whole story of the restoration, like that of the truce, should be rejected. There is no justification from the sources for placing the negotiations earlier than Tanagra. Diodorus sets them after the battle. One may argue for back-dating only from a priori theorizing. Therefore the negotiations and the Theban restoration should be rejected, along with the four-month truce, the doubling of battles and the anecdotes about Myronides. Ephorus often read back the contemporary or nearly contemporary into past situations.35 The Thebans under Epaminondas had, in Ephorus' lifetime, defeated Sparta and helped to found various leagues, including the short-lived Arcadian League. They had also helped to build the walls

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

147

around Messene and perhaps Megalopolis. Sparta was, in Ephorus' mind, engaged in analogous activities in 458. After defeating the dominant power, Athens, Sparta must have founded, or supported, a short-lived federation and must have helped in building the walls of its capital, all this with motives analogous to those of the Thebans a century later. It forms a neat parallel and a piquant contrast, but one that is totally without foundation. With the rejection of the crucial discrepancies of Ephorus and the chronological errors of Diodorus, Thucydides remains as the main source. He says (3.62.5; 4.92.6) that Boeotia was in stasis at the time of the Tanagra campaign. What exactly was the nature of this stasis remains unknown. Usually the word means quarrels between factions, but in Boeotian terms it could mean disputes between rival candidates for the hegemony. The disputes could equally well be between oligarchs and democrats, pro-Athenians and pro-Spartans, or varying mixtures of these. It is, however, clear that the Spartans marched into a land disunited, and unable or unwilling to put up any defence, and that they occupied its leading city, with much the same opportunism that they showed in 382, when they occupied Thebes. This does not mean that there was a revival of the Boeotian League under Theban leadership. More probably, since the League was already in being, and since Thucydides mentions Phocis and Locris along with Boeotia, the Spartans gave aid to pro-Spartans throughout Boeotia, Phocis and Locris. In Boeotia, following the occupation of Tanagra, the Spartans doubtless saw to it that the League was in proper hands, and it may be safely believed that these belonged to pro-Spartan oligarchs based at Tanagra.36 Then came the battle of Tanagra and the Athenian defeat. Some evidence exists for the presence of Boeotians at the battle, 37 and it seems reasonable to expect that some sort of assistance for the Spartans came from their partisans. The Spartans soon moved home, leaving their supporters in control of Phocis, Locris and Boeotia, but they did not leave a Theban hegemony. The Boeotian League under Tanagra led forth "the Boeotians" against the Athenian invaders at Oenophyta, sixty-two days after the battle of Tanagra. The victory at Oenophyta made the Athenians masters of Boeotia. The story in Diodorus (11.83.1) stating that Thebes escaped Athenian domination is just another example of Ephorus' reading back of parallels to contemporary situations. Just as Sparta or Megalopolis remained unconquered when its League collapsed, so Thebes would have had to remain untouched when Myronides defeated "the Boeotians." It is, therefore, reasonable to reject the exception of Thebes, especially as Aristotle clearly implies the establishment of a democracy in Thebes after

148 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

the battle.38 It is also worth noting that this time the Thessalians supported the Athenians, to judge from a dedication at Delphi. 39 The sequel in Thucydides bears out the idea that the defeated Boeotians were members of a pro-Spartan League dominated by Tanagra. The walls of Tanagra, not Thebes, were destroyed and "Boeotians," not simply Thebans, were exiled, which was a difference from 479 when only the Thebans suffered. Athens naturally supported pro-Athenian factions in the several Boeotian towns. No doubt in some of these towns these groups established democracies; in others, however, pro-Athenian replaced pro-Spartan oligarchies. This seems a reasonable inference judging from a remark of the Old Oligarch about what little profit the Athenians obtained from supporting oligarchs, as in Boeotia, for instance. 40 Athens wanted to ensure that she retained her power without being obliged to occupy the country, and so long as a town supported her, she apparently did not overly concern herself with how it was governed. One of the generally held beliefs is that Athens established democracies throughout Boeotia.41 There is no evidence for this at all. It is clear from the presence of oligarchies in the Delian League (in Lesbos until well after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, for example) that the Athenians were more concerned with local support than with establishing any democracies. They had no objection to democracies, but they were more interested in gaining support.42 Thebes, Thespiae and Plataea were almost certainly all democracies. We may suspect that the unwalled city of Tanagra was democratic. The rest were probably controlled by pro-Athenian oligarchies. To judge by the coin types and by the fact that "the Boeotians" operated as Athenian allies, we may conclude that the League still existed.43 Thebes was clearly not dominant, and obviously the League had no internal hegemon. Presumably the usual district organization continued to be used. It is sometimes thought that Plataea joined the League, or at least obtained a privileged position within it, at this time. 44 The fact that Plataea and the Parasopid towns linked to her (oru/iioxitevou vwv) have two Boeotarchs and two shares of troops, councillors, and so on, listed in the Hellenica Oxyrhynchm (11.3), even if these were chosen and drawn by Thebes at the time the work refers to, should mean that Plataea must have belonged to the League at some stage to have been actually allotted these shares. Second, the Thebans, after their night attack on Plataea,45 urged Plataea to become an ally in accordance with the patria of all Boeotians, the implication being that the patria once applied to the Plataeans, since they were surely Boeotian. Third, during the trial of the Plataeans in 427 the Thebans tell 46 how the

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

149

Plataean oligarchs desired to cease from the external alliance and wished to establish (or enter into, KoraoTijow) the common patna of all Boeotians, again with the implication that they were once common to the Plataeans as well. These points give some credence to the idea of membership in the League by Plataea at some time. Since membership before the Persian Wars is excluded, and since membership between the Wars and Oenophyta seems unlikely, then membership during the period of Athenian domination seems the most reasonable. On the other hand, since the Thebans do not say clearly that the Plataeans were ever members, and since they do not urge them to rejoin or re-establish their position, one may regard the Theban remarks about the noiva irarpux and "all the Boeotians" as rhetorical flourishes, to be discarded as historical evidence. The two Boeotarchs and shares may have been provided for if Plataea joined and were not made operative until after the annexation of Plataea by Thebes. Of these two arguments, on balance it seems more likely that Plataea joined the League sometime during the period of Athenian domination. The two Boeotarchs and shares look more as if they result from an actual occurrence than from some abstract provision; furthermore, the remarks of the Thebans seem to be more relevant to a recently lapsed membership in the League than to a recruitment de novo. It is better not to discard evidence from Thucydides unless there are compelling reasons to do so. It may be that Orchomenus was persuaded to join the League at the same time as Plataea and similarly given two Boeotarchs and shares, as was Thespiae. The support of these towns, each with the equal weight of Thebes, would give Athens a clear majority in the League's deliberations.47 The League took a fairly active part in the alliance with Phocis and Athens. A treaty with the Amphictyonic League set the seal on Athenian predominance in central Greece.48 The Allies marched into Thessaly to support Orestes, son of Echecratides, in a bid for power about 454, but without much success.49 Possibly, too, the expedition was intended to chase out Boeotian and Euboean exiles who were too close to their homelands. The internal history of the Boeotian states remains obscure during the 450s. The democracies were probably of the type known from Athens itself and from the Delian League, with a sovereign popular assembly, with a council chosen by lot, and with most magistracies also chosen by lot.50 The assembly would be composed of all (loyal) adult males. Most of these citizens would have had little or no political or administrative experience and those that did have would not be available, being oligarchs in exile. A pro-Athenian oligarchy would have similar problems in obtaining enough experienced men loyal to Athens. Then, too, any

150

Boeotm 479-431 B.C.

attempts by other oligarchs or anti-Athenian exiles to subvert these governments would further complicate matters. Certainly "anarchy" and "disorder," as Aristotle (Pol. 1302b29) indicates, would be the result of the "dislike" of the opposition in these circumstances. Gomme's supposition, that the Boeotian democracies were mostly incompetent, seems reasonable,51 and one may believe that the pro-Athenian oligarchies were not particularly loyal to Athens nor efficient. 5 By 447 the Athenians were encountering problems in central Greece. The collapse of the Egyptian expedition, the attempts of many states to withdraw from the Delian League, the negotiations with Sparta and, doubtless, with Persia, and the flaring up of the Second Sacred War (449-448) had prevented the Athenians from paying close enough attention to developments that were taking place in Boeotia. Athens intervened in the Second Sacred War in 447, sending a force under Pericles to restore the situation in Phocis and the Phocian alliance. 53 Something, however, must have gone awry. In the winter of 447/6 Boeotian exiles seized Orchomenus and Chaeronea.54 It is probable that they entered Boeotia from Thessaly, or at least from the northwest, and that they took Orchomenus by a coup-de-main, in the manner of the attempt on Plataea fifteen years later.55They were known as the "Orchomenizers" and were led by one Sparton. 56 The term should mean that the Orchomenizers in some peculiar way "sided with the Orchomenians" or "behaved like Orchomenians," but in what sense it is to be understood is uncertain.57 It is clear, however, that they were not themselves Orchomenian, but rather other Boeotians;58 it is probable that their leadership was Theban, since Sparton's name is suspiciously Theban, and the Thebans constantly claimed credit later for the battle of Coronea,59 even though the exiles were joined by Locrians, Euboean exiles and "like-minded adherents," that is, Boeotians who were not in exile. They were certainly some sort of identifiable body with a recognizable common goal. Perhaps it was after the initial coup that the Orchomenians took the lead and the Orchomenizers supported them, as Larsen has argued,60 or perhaps, as Thucydides seems to read, the exiles, that is the Orchomenizers (although Thucydides does not use the term), kept the leadership. Whichever is correct it is certain that the Orchomenians joined in the rebellion. Thucydides (1.113.1) tells us that the area was hostile to the Athenians, and that Chaeronea was enslaved. Enslavement, if the reading is acceptable,61 is a severe penalty to inflict on a passive or constrained population even in the 440s, but is the usual one for a city actively resisting.62 Thus the Orchomenizers were joined by the inhabitants of Orchomenus and the Orchomenian territories in the rebellion against Athens.

Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 151

The Athenians decided to send out 1,000 hoplites, plus allied contingents under Tolmides, against Orchomenus and the Orchomenizers, probably in the spring of 446.63 This seems a small force for a venture into western Boeotia.64 Perhaps the Athenians were rashly over-confident, as Plutarch (Per. 18) implies in his anecdote about Pericles asking for a delay in sending out this force. After taking Chaeronea, however, it withdrew without making any attempt on Orchomenus, an unusual action for a rash and over-confident army. Faulty intelligence might seem more likely. A small punitive expedition was sent, it could be argued, to deal with a small-scale attack on Orchomenian territory. On arrival it was quickly realized that the situation was far more serious than had been thought. There was precipitate withdrawal to regroup and reinforce. But why, then, would Pericles be opposed to the sending out of the force and ask for a delay, especially if there were no information of serious troubles? To hold this view, one should reject the anecdote by Plutarch. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the Athenians had in mind an elaborate plan of operations. It has been argued that Tolmides' planting of cleruchies in Euboea in 447/6 was part of the strategy of his campaign, "partly to prevent communication through Chalkis between disaffected elements on the island and exiles in Boeotia," and partly to keep the area quiet.65 The implication is that the Athenians regarded the trouble at Orchomenus as very serious indeed and were preparing a full-scale operation in the area. Far more probable is a third explanation, that the Athenians were well informed, but that their forces were temporarily fully extended; that some Orchomenizing initiative was thought to require an immediate Athenian response; and that 1,000 hoplites plus allies were all that were then available. At this time, spring 446, there was a garrison in Megara and Nisaea; there was fighting in the Chersonnese and in Thrace;66 there was some reluctance in paying tribute in the Delian League, and no doubt fairly substantial forces were required to aid the collection;67 and garrisons and cleruchies had to be provided for Imbros, Chalcis, Eretria, Pegae and some ports in Achaea. Pnma facie the Athenians could not have had too many troops available for operations in Boeotia without regrouping. It seems probable that the Orchomenizers struck first, before Athenian dispositions were completed for a Boeotian campaign in the summer of 446. If this is so, then Pericles' desire to delay things becomes as understandable as the majority's anxiety to march at once. On the one hand, a wise policy might be to keep plans unchanged, to hold off until strong forces were available, so that the Orchomenizers could be firmly crushed. On the other hand, in view of the changed circumstances (the

152

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

Orchomenizing initiative must have been very disturbing) delay might be very dangerous and lead to a temporary loss of all Boeotia. Recovery could be difficult and expensive. Thus the problem was to decide which would be the better course: to delay, as Pericles suggested, until troops could be gathered and then risk having to fight a costly and dangerous campaign; or to move immediately, take a chance and hope that the trouble could be stopped before it got too far. This dilemma provides an economical explanation of the Athenian action. The latter opinion, probably that of the commander Tolmides, prevailed, that something had to be done, and fast. The presence of allies indicates that the Athenians hoped to provide a nucleus around which pro-Athenian Boeotians would rally, much as the Orchomenizers were providing one for the Locrians, Euboean exiles, and like-minded Boeotians who were all anti-Athenian. The expedition proceeded to capture Chaeronea and to enslave the garrison and the inhabitants. Orchomenus was obviously too much for this small force to tackle, and the hope was that the garrison in Chaeronea would seal it off temporarily.68 The strategy seems to be Tolmides', one very similar to that employed in Euboea. The main force, less the garrison of Chaeronea, fell back towards Haliartus, perhaps to sit down and wait for reinforcements at Thebes and to ensure the safety of central Boeotia.69 To judge by the speed with which Pericles was later able to send troops into Euboea, a substantial Athenian force was in the process of being concentrated in Athens at the time when Tolmides was marching toward Haliartus; its elements were probably still at sea or otherwise on their way to Athens. Since the Euboeans then seemed well in hand, 70 and the Megarean revolt came as a complete surprise,71 the conclusion must be that the force was originally being assembled for operations with Tolmides in Boeotia. But the Orchomenizers again moved too fast. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of Coronea, Tolmides and his small force was ambushed and slaughtered. 72 This defeat changed the whole strategic picture. The striking force and rallying point was gone; the nearest Athenian army was in process of formation at Athens, with most of its elements still on their way; Chaeronea and the Euboean cleruchies, plus any other garrisons there might be in Boeotia, were now isolated and themselves in need of rescue; a substantial body of Athenian prisoners was now in Boeotian hands; and, most importantly, Tolmides, the architect of the Athenian strategy, was dead. The Athenians had gambled and lost.73 The credit for the victory accrued to the Orchomenizers, and to some extent, no doubt, to Orchomenus.74 They were now in a position to exploit their victory. The remarks in the Old Oligarch about Athenian support for oligarchs proving disastrous, and in Aristotle about Thebes abandoning democracy,

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

153

would be apropos to the time immediately after Coronea, with city after city declaring support for the Orchomenizers and for oligarchy. 75 The Athenians, however, were still dangerous. Their army could march into Boeotia as soon as it was ready. The Athenians had won many victories over the Boeotians, and the prospect of facing them must have been daunting to the Boeotian leaders. The Athenians could rally their friends, especially the Plataeans and Thespians.76 On the other hand, from the Athenian point of view it might be a bloody and expensive business; there were the isolated garrisons and the prisoners to consider as well. The Euboeans were restless, and with Boeotian help might very well succeed in breaking loose from Athens. The Spartans were threatening. Obviously there was ample reason on both sides to negotiate, and the ensuing negotiations led to what I think was a mutually beneficial and satisfactory set of arrangements. It is tempting to believe that the Thespians honoured in a contemporary decree may have been instrumental in bringing about the agreement.77 We learn from Thucydides (1.113.3) that the Athenians agreed to evacuate "all Boeotia" and obtained the prisoners in exchange. But other points not mentioned by Thucydides may be inferred from later actions. First, the Boeotians agreed not to help Euboea. At least no Boeotians aided the Euboeans when they revolted, in spite of their previous services. Second, the Athenians were granted right of passage through Boeotia for military purposes. Athenian forces proceeded to Pegae and to Chalcis by way of Boeotian territory.78 Third, all Boeotian states were to be autonomous; that is, some states such as Plataea and perhaps Thespiae might be democracies, while others might employ other forms of government. This idea is implicit in Thucydides (1.113.4). Fourth, Oropus and the other march areas like Eleutherae were to remain under Athenian control. Fifth, Plataea was to continue as an ally of Athens. By and large Athens made the best of a rather difficult situation and extracted pretty well all she could from the bargaining. The Athenians went on to cope with Megara and Euboea and to deal with Sparta, while Boeotia watched and re-organized. Whether Plataea remained in the League is a matter of dispute. Some79 have argued that she did, though on hostile terms with Thebes. As Thucydides (2.2.1-2) states, Plataea was part of Boeotia, when Thebes tried to annex her as well as subvert her constitution at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Most,80 however, argue that Plataea, if she was in the League at all, must have withdrawn when Athens lost control. Two passages in the Theban speeches in Thucydides (2.2.4 and 3.65.2) should imply that Plataea was not a member at the time of the Theban attack. The latter passage makes it clear that alliance with

154

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

Athens was, in Theban eyes, incompatible with membership in the League. We may conclude that Plataea was not in the League at this time. The urgings to form an alliance in accordance with ancestral custom make little sense unless Plataea was not a member of the League. It is true that Plataea was geographically part of Boeotia, as Thucydides (2.2.1-2) says, but the verb he uses (Iipooiioinoal) for what the conspirators were planning to do could describe enrolment in the League under Theban hegemony as much as Theban annexation. The conclusion that Plataea was not part of the League in 431 seems inescapable; she probably left it after Coronea, if she had, in fact, been a member during the period of Athenian domination. Whether or not Plataea retained control of the Parasopia is another matter of dispute with little evidence one way or the other. The district was united with Plataea at one time81 but was annexed by Thebes at the latest by 427. Some authorities 82 argue that Thebes recovered it immediately after Coronea, on the grounds of general probability because Athens abandoned "all Boeotia," and it would be probable that Thebes would regain her ancient possessions when she had the chance. Oenoe lies on the Athenian-Boeotian border, and Hysiae and Erythrae are called "villages of Boeotia" by the scholiast on Thucydides. 83 To several84 this argument seems to lack weight. "Boeotia" is used by Thucydides and his scholiast as a geographic term as well as a political one; Plataea is, to be sure, "Boeotian" (2.2.1) and the frontier does lie near Oenoe. On the other side, Plataea was an Athenian ally, and Thebes did eventually hold two Boeotarchs and two shares "for the Plataeans and Scolus and Erythrae and Scaphae and the other villages formerly united with them," as if for one distinct area.85 Most probably, then, Plataea held these lands until they were annexed by Thebes in the opening stages of the Peloponnesian War, de jure until 427. The constitution described in Hell. Oxy. is generally believed to be the one that was in effect in 446, with several changes that arose from the eventual overlordship of Thebes.86 There are, however, no compelling grounds for accepting the widely held belief that the constitution was created then,87 a belief based on the older view that the League was dissolved after the Persian Wars and was not re-established until after the Battle of Coronea. If the League had not been dissolved, then all that need have happened after Coronea was that some adjustments were made to the existing constitution. No doubt these depended upon the internal politics of the time. Plataea withdrew from the League, leaving her two positions and shares vacant. It has been argued by some88 that Orchomenus held the hegemony for a time after Coronea and was backed by Thespiae and

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

155

perhaps, briefly, by Plataea, an arrangement acquiesced by Athens. 89 On the other hand, the Orchomenizers were led or dominated by Thebans; the Thebans later claimed credit for Coronea; and only Thebes minted coins between 446 and 387.90 These points have led several to argue that the role of Thebes has been underemphasized, 91 and that its importance in contributing to the expulsion of the Athenians must be remembered. The most economical explanation of the evidence is that Thebes and the smaller states simply agreed to continue an arrangement of double shares in favour of Thespiae and Orchomenus, to get them to stay in the liberated League, and perhaps reward them for it. 92 Thebes, then, agreed to a nominal sharing of the hegemony.93 This was done either in a spirit of self-denying altruism for the good of the federation, or in the cynical, but well-founded, belief that Thebes would control the League anyway. With Plataea gone there were nine Boeotarchs and shares in the council.94 Thebes and the smaller cities together controlled five, while Orchomenus was oligarchic and pro-Theban.95 The league gradually became, by a series of Theban encroachments covered by the appearance of legality, a political instrument at the complete disposal of the Theban establishment. The divisions among the members of the League by 446 seem to have continued down to 395 with further minor changes, most of which were made after 424.96 Orchomenus controlled Chaeronea and the area north of Copai's around Hyettos.97 At some stage between the Battle of Delium and the year 396 Chaeronea must have been lost, because in the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (11.3) it is grouped with Copae and Acraephia. Orchomenus provided two Boeotarchs, 120 federal councillors, 2,000 infantry, 200 cavalry and two quotas of federal dicasts and two shares of taxes, when these were required. Thespiae controlled much of southern Boeotia, including Eutresis, Siphae, Thisbe and Chorsiae. It also provided two Boeotarchs, 120 federal councillors, 2,000 infantry, 200 cavalry and two shares of dicasts and taxes. Plataea though outside of the League controlled the area below Cithaeron and south of the Asopus, the Parasopia. After 427 and the reduction of the town, all Plataea was annexed by Thebes, which thus gained control of the two Boeotarchs allotted to Plataea and the two shares of federal councillors, troops, cavalry, dicasts and taxes. The population of Thebes was actually doubled before Delium by the influx of refugees from areas under its control.98 The number of shares, it could be argued, was about right for its size. Tanagra possessed a small area of eastern Boeotia and by this time it almost certainly included Delium, which it controlled by 424.99

156

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

Tanagra provided one Boeotarch, 60 councillors, 1,000 infantry, 100 cavalry and one share of dicasts and of taxes. Haliartus, Coronea and Lebadea100 shared the south side of Lake Copais and the land south of Chaeronea. Together they shared one Boeotarch, 60 councillors, 1,000 infantry, 100 cavalry and one portion of dicasts and of taxes. It is generally thought that each provided one-third of these quotas and named a Boeotarch once every third year.101 Copae and Acraephia had Chaeronea added to them some time after 424102 and formed one division. They shared offices in the same manner as the preceding group. It may be that these small towns found it difficult to meet the quotas of troops and taxes, and so were willing to accept the transfer of Chaeronea and the consequent dilution of privileges. Finally Thebes, which controlled the central area to the Euripus and Anthedon in the north and northeast, to the Asopus in the south, to Pharae in the east and to Onchestus and Copais in the west, had two Boeotarchs and two shares in troops, councillors, dicasts and taxes. After 427 Thebes also controlled Plataea's shares. It is important to ascertain whether the towns with two shares, such as Thespiae, Thebes, Plataea and Orchomenus, simply had districts of double size, or whether each of these towns controlled another district besides its own.103 From the material we have seen so far the latter seems to be the case; towns such as Thespiae and Thebes returned both Boeotarchs, the 120 councillors and the dicasts, but drew the taxes and the military contingents from both sections. The advantages of double weight of influence for a single weight of expense was obvious; the principle of annexation of, and drawing benefits from, subordinate areas was long established. Thebes was simply following familiar practice in her annexation of Plataea. The Boeotarchs, the councillors and the dicasts were all returned by their respective districts. How the elections were carried out, or who was eligible to stand for election is unknown. There were financial restrictions and limitations on walks of life for local officials by 395 (if not earlier for oligarchic cities),104 but there do not appear to be any on federal officials, who are even paid.105 All this leads to the conclusion that the required qualifications for candidacy and the manner of election were matters to be regulated by the local division. No doubt they varied between Thebes and Thespiae. The nine Boeotarchs (eleven after 427) continued to be the chief executive and military officials of the League. They had general, but not immediate tactical, command of the federal troops, as at Delium. 106 This looseness of tactical control must have tended to keep the feeling of separatism alive in the local states. The Boeotarchs may have exercised a

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

157

more direct control as time went on, with local commanders playing a less important role even by the time of the Sicilian expedition. 107 As a body they commanded the army and formed a council of war, and individuals or small groups of them could be detached for special purposes. It is likely that by the time of Delium the Theban Boeotarchs held the chief command, though it is by no means certain .108 The Boeotarchs continued to supervise foreign affairs. They were elected for one year. The Boeotarchs, however, were constitutionally answerable to the Federal Council109 and they were assigned specific tasks by its authority.110 This is the "Council of the Boeotians" that met on the Cadmea and had a total membership of 540 members (660 after 427). It was in reality powerful enough that political groups attempted to control it.111 The full council is not believed to have met too often, if only for the sake of economy, since the representatives were paid. 112 It did meet, however, at regular intervals as well as for special sessions to elect some federal officials and to decide some policy matters. 113 If the halia of Herodotus (5.79) means this group, then its earliest mention is about 505. The council probably dates from a time close to the founding of the League.114 By the time of the Peloponnesian War, and probably much earlier, the council was normally divided into four sub-councils (also called boulai in the texts), each of 135 members (165 after 427).115 In this way the federal council could always have some representatives present on the Cadmea, so as to ensure continuity, to handle routine business and to prepare material for submission to the other three councils. All decisions had to receive the approval of all four sub-councils. How the 135 members in each of the four were actually selected, and for how long each sub-council exercised power is unknown. Since, however, the Boeotarchs were elected annually, and troops and taxes were levied annually, the councillors were surely returned annually. A three-month term as the "executive committee" for each sub-council (since Hell. Oxy. 11.2 speaks of regular rotation) would, then, be reasonable. The councils probably met on stated days, as well as when summoned by the Boeotarchs. It is not known who their presiding officers were. The number of dicasts returned by each district is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of the federal courts. No doubt they tried offences against the League, but we do not know what else. It has been suggested that the obscure Thesmophylakes, who were federal officials in Hellenistic times, may have some connection with the federal courts, but it is not certain. 116 The Aphedriates, known only from inscriptions, the earliest of which date from 312 B.C.,117 are a college of officials with religious functions, elected by the divisions of the League.118 Perhaps, as suggested

158 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

above, they were created at an early stage of the League, in order to relieve the Boeotarchs of their religious functions. Their number seems to be the same as that of the Boeotarchs. The Agonarchs, whose title is a Boeotian dialect form of agoranomoi119, are attested only from Hellenistic times. They were elected by the districts, and their function seems to have been to superintend the business side of the festivals under federal control, such as the Pamboeotia. Whether they carried on this function in earlier times is unknown, but it is likely. There were, in addition, some federal officials not named by the districts, but named by the federal council or by the Boeotarchs. Among these are the hipparch and, when circumstances required, the navarch. The hipparch may be found as early as the Persian Wars 120 and exercised command under the Boeotarchs. The navarchy was in existence by the time of the Peloponnesian Wars. 121 Their terms of office are unknown, but were probably annual, and they were probably in existence by 446. The federal eponymous archon is known, as noted above, only from the fourth century, but may be an official of considerable antiquity. 122 Perhaps he was not "federalized" until after 379, that is, taken into the federal government, having been only a locally appointed figurehead before then. If he were somehow associated with the League earlier, then the council would be the appropriate body to nominate him.123 He had, apparently, no executive functions in any historical period. The federal army consisted in 395 (and presumably at earlier periods) of 11,000 infantry and 1,100 cavalry, drawn from the eleven districts when necessary. There is no information on the number of light-armed or specialized troops who were available or how they were mustered. Were the peltasts, for example, drawn from the districts or were they recruited outside the districts as federal troops? It is guessed, on the basis of the figures for the battles of Delium and Phlius, that each district was to furnish about 1,000 light-armed troops. 124 The 10 percent proportion of cavalry to infantry seems to be the usual one for Greece at the time of the Peloponnesian Wars. The cavalry was distributed in squadrons 125 and commanded by the hipparch. There was also a special troop of harnippoi, who were probably mounted infantry. 126 The infantry were divided into lochoi of about 300 to 400 men, 127 and morai of unknown size.128 The crack formation of heniochoi km parabatai presumably formed part of the Theban quota. It provided the genesis of the Sacred Band.129 The armament was the usual standard equipment consisting of helmet, shield, thrusting spear, cuirass and

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

159

greaves. The helmet was of a different form from the usual Greek pattern, and the shield was decorated with the club, the symbol of Heracles.130 It has been suggested that the League could not bring out the full forces of the districts, but instead only two-thirds of the troops, in the same manner that Sparta could mobilize only two-thirds of the forces of her allies, with the exception that the district being attacked would mobilize fully. 131 Though something like this was devised for the late medieval Holy Roman Empire, it seems to most authorities unnecessarily involved for a comparatively small, compact area like Boeotia. It is based on the figures of troops at Delium; but if a proportion of the army was away watching and garrisoning towns believed to be disaffected, such as Thespiae, the difference could be readily explained. 132 Furthermore the cavalry, 1,000 at Delium, were in nearly full strength, far over their two-thirds proportion. Finally, Delium is the only battle where the figures even remotely correspond to the "two-thirds rule."133 It seems more probable that the Boeotarchs indented on the districts or some of the districts, to obtain the troops estimated necessary for a forthcoming campaign. In 446 the individual states each had their own autonomous governments. Sometime before 395 and the time of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia there was a very successful attempt to impose on all cities the use of a uniform oligarchic constitution. Under this constitution the number of citizens optimo jure in each town was limited on the basis of wealth and occupation.134 From this limited class it was permitted to draw the membership of the town council. This council was organized, like the federal council, into four sub-councils with the usual rotation of executive duties among them. This oligarchic type of government is almost certanly the Koiva iiatpia of the Thebans;135 it might be traditional, or thought to be traditional, or given a spurious antiquity like the "Solonian" or "ancestral constitution," beloved by the Athenian oligarchs. Most likely it is a fifth-century invention based on the existing federal council.136 Most of the cities, like Orchomenus, had adopted oligarchies at the time of the Athenian expulsion, and by 432 all, except Plataea, had done so. If the tactics employed at Orchomenus and Plataea are any guide, the procedure, whenever it became necessary, would be simply to use a modicum of force. Disaffected elements in the town, oligarchs like Naucleides of Plataea, would arrange with the League or Theban authorities for a coup. The Thebans or other federal troops under their Boeotarchs would move in. By a combination of firmness and mercy, 137 they would swing the town into the oligarchic rank. At Thespiae, for

160 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

example, the hoplites were supporters of the oligarchy and the League, so much so that, when they had suffered heavy casualties at Delium, the Thebans took steps to ensure the continuity of the oligarchy in view of the hoplites' diminished numbers.138 By 432 Thebes was firmly leading the League and was well-nigh in full control of it as well, but the towns did have their own local officials and magistrates. Each had its own archon, as mentioned previously, but by the fifth century he had lost most military and political functions, and was acting solely in the religious sphere.139 The council was competent to carry out political responsibilities. The polemarchs were still military officials. They took the places assigned to them in the line of battle by the Boeotarchs and exercised their own discretion about the formation of their own forces as late as Delium. 140 By the fourth century the polemarchs gradually lost their military role and became collegiate, taking over much of the administration of their cities.141 It should be noted that, when the military function was on occasion revived, one polemarch only was given the job.142 The hipparch was the field commander of the local cavalry contingent and remained as such from the Persian Wars down to Hellenistic times.143 Various other officials, hieromnemones, naopoioi, hierarchs, katoptai, hendekarchs, hodagoi and syndikoi, make their appearance in the inscriptions of the third and second centuries B.C. How many of these were active in the fifth century is unknown. 144 The population of Boeotia can only be guessed at. Moretti (149f.), following Beloch, estimates the total population of Boeotia in the late fifth century as about 150,000, of whom 135,000 were free. Thebes, then, would have had a population of about 30,000. When the people of the outlying areas moved to Thebes for protection in 425 B.C. 145 it must have risen to 50,000 or 60,000. But projections based on the size of the army at Delium and from the quotas of the districts are very unreliable. At any rate Thebes re-established its leadership over the League soon after 446. By 432 leadership had hardened into control. There is no evidence that Orchomenus played any significant role after the defeat of the Athenians at Coronea, or that Plataea stayed in the League after Coronea. Tanagra competed with Thebes for the hegemony after the Persian Wars, until its walls were demolished by the Athenians after Oenophyta, but it posed no threat at all to Thebes by 432. Democracy was not adopted by Boeotia, but pro-democratic exiles from Boeotia were a familiar feature at Athens until well into the Peloponnesian War. I45a Thebes continued to be controlled by an oligarchy. At the time of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War one of the principal leaders, if not the principal, was Eurymachus, son of Leontiades.146 Leontiades was the

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

161

Boeotarch who surrendered the Theban force to the Persians at Thermopylae.147 Eurymachus' son, another Leontiades, was the leader of a pro-Spartan party who later surrendered the Cadmea to Phoebidas, the Spartan, in 383/2.148 Eurymachus was remembered as the one who started the Peloponnesian War and who was killed by the Plataeans.149 In 431, probably on the night of March 6-7 or 7-8,15° a force of 300 or so Thebans, under two Boeotarchs, moved against Plataea. With the aid of a Plataean faction under the leadership of Naucleides, probably of the well-to-do, the Thebans got into the unguarded town through opened gates. The Plataean group had hoped to "gain power for themselves, destroy their opponents and attach their city to the Thebans," that is, to set up an oligarchy and to rejoin the Boeotian League. "After the Thebans had grounded arms in the market place, those who had invited them in wished them to get to work at once and go to their enemies' houses. This, however, the Thebans refused to do, but determined to make a conciliatory proclamation and if possible come to a friendly understanding with the citizens. Their herald accordingly invited any who wished to resume their old place in the confederacy of their countrymen to ground arms with them, for they thought that in this way the city would readily join them."151 The Plataeans, it should be noted, first agreed to the terms, but then quite unexpectedly turned on the Thebans, and eventually defeated them, captured the survivors and finally massacred the prisoners. There are several points that should be made from this. First, the presence of two Boeotarchs, even if two Thebans, indicates that this was a federal, not merely a Theban, venture.152 The League was responsible, nominally, for this pre-emptive strike against an Athenian ally and non-member. Second, the small size of the raiding force to be led by two Boeotarchs is surprising. It is clearly one of the lochoi, the 300-man or 400-man units previously discussed, but why not two? The inference must be that the Thebans expected no serious resistance; the command by both Boeotarchs was purely symbolic of the importance the League attached to Plataea's rejoining. Third, the Thebans refused to butcher their Plataean opponents and prevented their Plataean supporters from doing so, apparently considering that conciliatory statements and generous treatment would get them more support. 153 In this case they were wrong. But, fourth, the Plataeans did at first come to terms. It was only when they realized how few their invaders were that they turned on them. Clearly, Eurymachus had misread the situation in Plataea and, perhaps misunderstanding Naucleides, brought a force large enough to have lopped off the head of any pro-Athenian resistance, but too small to have overawed the Plataean populace. Clearly the Thebans hoped that

162

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

the Plataeans would join the cause en masse, a reaction conditioned, I suggest, by their success at Orchomenus some fifteen years before and perhaps by some other successes since that time. It did not work at Plataea, and the savage and vicious brutality of the first clash proved a prophetic and sad precedent for the rest of the war.

Notes 1. Hdt. 9.86-87 for Thebes, 9.15 for Tanagra, 9 passim for Plataea, 8.50 for Thespiae (the lands of these last two must have remained uncultivated until the people returned from the Peloponnese). See also Diod. 11.81. 2. Plut. Them. 20, says Thebans, but surely Boeotians is meant here. 3. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 44-64 and GSP, 86f.; Buck, CP 65 (1970) 217f.; Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168; Sordi AR, 1968, 66f. For the supporters of the idea of the dissolution of the League see Amit, op. cit., 44f. These include Beloch, Busolt, Glotz, Larsen, Moretti and Walker. 4. Note the remarks of Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 62 and n. 14. 5. Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168. The wheel reverse issues with the federal shield and inscription are those under consideration. 6. Ibid. 166 and Hill, Sources 2 , 328f. 7. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 54f., 62 and GSP, 87; Buck, CP 65 (1970) 218, n. 9; Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168f.; Moretti (somewhat inconsistently with his belief in the dissolution of the League on p. 124) 126; Sordi, AR, 1968, 66. 8. As pointed out by Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168-70. 9. Hdt. 6.118 and above, p. 128. 10. Hill, Sources2, 328. 11. For the withdrawal see Roesch, 4 I f . 12. E.g., Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63 and n. 55;GSP 87. 13. Sordi, AR, 1968,70. 14. For guarantee, Thuc. 2.71.2 and 3.58.4; for references Amit, GSP, 84f., and Brunt, Histona 2 (1953) 153. 15. Salmon, RE A 58 (1956) 52-58, esp. 55; Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 56. 16. Hdt. 9.86-88; Thuc. 3.62.3. See Moretti, 126 and Larsen, GFS, 32. 17. It is noteworthy that 1,000 Plataean hoplites, according to Justin 2.9.9 and Nepos, Milt. 5.1, fought at Marathon while only 600 appear at the Battle of Plataea. If the numbers in Justin and Nepos have any real significance, they may show some dissatisfaction among the wealthier Plataeans. Kirsten (RE 20 [1950] s.v. "Plataiai," 2302) and others suppose that the thousand actually consisted of 600 hoplites and 400 light-armed troops. At the lime of Plataea the 400 were off with the fleet. 18. Busolt, 3.1.120; Moretti, 126; V. Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates- (London, 1975) 212; Ed. Meyer, 43. 560. 19. Thuc. 1.103.4, 106; Diod. 11.73. 20. Thuc. 1.107.1. I follow the chronology given in ATL 3, 165-80. See my article CP 65 (1970) 218, n. 11 for the explanation. It requires the well-known

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

163

emendation of SfKaroot to Teraprwi in 1.103.1, about which there has been a voluminous controversy. 21. Thuc. 1.107.2; Diod. 11.79.4-6. 22. Reece,JHS 70 (1950) 75f.; Steup, Comm. 1.108.1. 23. As Gomme, Comm. 1.313F., points out. 24. Diod. 11.81. Reece, JHS 70 (1950) 76, sees this point and has Thucydides confuse the Peloponnesian and Boeotian strength at the Battle of Tanagra with the number of the forces invading Phocis. This contradicts both Diodorus and Thucydides; it should be rejected. A possible motive for the Spartan expedition, in addition to aid for the Dorians, might be to help the Locrians, who had recently been dispossessed of Naupactus, if A 7 L is right in its chronology, pace Accame RFTC 30 (1952) 114f. and Sealey, History, 270. 25. Thuc. 1.107.3. Naupactus, if the Peloponnesian transports were concentrated near Cirrha, would be a better base than Pegae. Even if the transports had dispersed, Naupactus in conjunction with Pegae would be necessary to prevent any sailing by a westward route, as ATL 3.165, points out. A crossing on a dirty night sounds a risky proposition for 11,500 men, pace Hammond, Histona 4 (1955) 405, n. 3. 26. Gomme, Comm. 1.316. 27. Thuc. 1.107.5. lonians: Paus. 5.10.4 and Tod GHI 1.27. Cleonaeans: Paus. 1.29.7 and Tod GHI 1.28 with notes. The Plataeans were probably there, since they are accused by the Theban in Thuc. 3.63.2 and 3.64.3 of assisting the Athenians "in their attacks upon others" and of having "aided in the enslavement of the Aeginetans and other allies." 28. Thuc. 1.107.7; for other sources see Hill, Sources 2 , 342. For the date see ATL 3.165-72, 177. 29. Thuc. 1.108.1-3. 30. Gomme, Comm. 1.4 and 316. 31. Ephorus as the source for Diodorus in this section, Jacoby, FGrII II C, 33 and comm. on 70 F 231; Busolt, 3.319, n. 2; cf. Barber, The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge, 1935) 93f. L.H. JefTery, BSA 60 (1965) 57, suggests that Ephorus confused the battles of Oenoe and Oenophyta. 32. Gomme, Comm. 1.317, on how the sixty-second day was remembered in tradition. 33. Gomme, Comm. 1.316, is inclined to doubt the likelihood of this truce, though Busolt, 3.316 and Moretti, 127f., accept it. 34. Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates,'2 212; Larsen CP 55 (1960) 9 and GFS, 32; Hammond, History'2, 294f.; Gomme, Comm. 1.316; Cloche, Thebes de Beotie, 66f.; Walker, CAH 5.80; Busolt, 3. 312; Beloch, 2.1.169; Moretti, 126; Amit, RSA 1 (1971)51. 35. As noted, e.g., by Jacoby, FGrll II C, 23-25, 70. Barber, The Historian Ephorus, 75-83, discusses the influence of Isocrates and its pernicious effects on Ephorus' historiography. 36. Busolt, 3. 320f., argued that the Spartans encouraged democracies after Tanagra; but see Gomme, Comm. 1.318. It is not necessarily the case that all oligarchs were pro-Spartan. 37. The only mentions of Boeotians at Tanagra are in Plato, Ale. mai. 112C and

164

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

Paus. 1.29.9. Both are highly compressed narratives, and Plato may well mean the whole Boeotian adventure, since he talks about Athenians, Lacedaemonians and Boeotians dying at Tanagra and Coronea. Pausanias with his two days of battle sounds like a repeat of Ephorus, but he may have inscriptional support for his claim of Boeotians at Tanagra, since he is discussing the Argive monument at Athens. 38. Aristotle, Pol. 1302 b 29-32, refers to democracy in Thebes after Oenophyta that was subverted by bad government. The exception of Thebes is supported by Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 9f., with the hypothesis that the Athenians first controlled and then very shortly after Oenophyta lost their control of Thebes. This is far too deferential to Ephorus. Busolt, 3.319f. and n. 3, supports Diodorus, because it fits his theory that a pro-Spartan democracy was overthrown by oligarchs, whom the Athenians could safely ignore. Walker, CAH 5.469, Hammond, History2, 295, Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates,2 and Moretti, 129f. support the idea of Theban independence; but most others from Miiller, Geschichte Thebens, 64 to Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63, reject it on grounds of general probability. 39. SEG 17.243; see Larsen, GFS, 125 and n. 3. 40. [Xen.] 3.10-11. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 17, n. 2, would place Athenian support for Boeotian oligarchs during some unknown situation between 479 and 462,1 think wrongly. 41. Cf. Amit,RSA 1 (1971)63. 42. Aristotle, Pol. 1296a33 says that Athens established democracies in her areas of authority, but he is speaking in the context of faction fights, when obviously she had to step in to restore control. See ATL 3.149-54 for a good general discussion. 43. Coins with the League shield that can be dated between the battles of Tanagra and Coronea come from Thebes, Haliartus, Tanagra and Acraephium. None have the legend BOI. Hill, Sources'2, 328f. 44. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 12; Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63, and GSP, 86f. 45. Thuc. 2.2.4. 46. Thuc. 3.65.2. 47. This is probably a better interpretation than my suggestion, in CP 65 (1970) 226, that the two Boeotarchs, etc., for Plataea were established in 446 as part of a deal between Orchomenus and Athens. 48.1C I2, 26; Larsen, GFS, 125, 126n. 1; Meritt, AJP 69 (1948) 312-14. 49. Thuc. 1.111; Diod. 11.83, 84. See Larsen, GFS, 125, for Thessalian politics. For the date, A TL 3.178. 50. For Athens, Arist. Ath. Pol. 22.5 el passim. For the Delian League see the nearly contemporary Erythrae Decree (1C I2, 10; ATL 2, D 10 of 453/2). 51. Gomme, Comm. 1.318. 52. Moretti, 130. 53. Thuc. 1.112.5; Plut. Per. 21; Philochorus, FGrll 328 F 34. For date see A 'I L 3.178 and Gomme Comm. 1.409. 54. Thuc. 1.113.1. Cf. Steph Byz., s.v. Xmpoweia, from which are drawn Hellanicus, FGrll 4 F81, Theopompus 115 F407 and Aristophanes of Boeotia 379 F3. For the date 447/6 see A I'L 3.173f. 55. For the direction of entry, Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 10; for the coup-de-main,

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

165

Scholia Thuc. 1.113. Cf. Thuc. 2.2 for the attempt on Plataea. 56. For Orchomenizers, Steph. Byz., loc. at., for Sparton, Plut. Ages. 19. 57. Cf. Dull, CP12 (1977) 31 Of. and notes 29, 36. 58. Cf. Dull, op. cit. (n. sup.) 309f. 59. Thuc. 3.62; Xen. Mem. 3.5.4. Cf. Dull, op. cit. (n. 57) 312. 60. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 11 and GFS, 33, followed by Sordi, AR, 1968, 68f. and Buck, CP 65 (1970) 223-25. 61. Dull, CP 72 (1977) 307 and n. 11 for textual difficulties here. 62. Gomme, Comm. 1.338, says that the enslavement was only of oligarchs, not of the entire city. Cf. Xen. Hell. 1.6.14 where the Methymnaeans who were thought to be constrained were not enslaved. 63. ATL 3.179 and Gomme, Comm. 1.409. 64. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 10, makes this point. 65. ATL 3.294. 66. Megara: Thuc. 1.114.1. Chersonnese and Thrace: Plut. Per. 19.1 and ATL 3.299. 67. ATL3.299f. 68. As Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 10, notes. 69. Cf. Dull, CP72 (1977) 308, n. 18. 70. The Euboean towns had apparently paid their tribute in the spring of 446 (Gomme, Comm. 1.340 and ATL 3.294) and as well were controlled by Tolmides' cleruchies. 71. Thuc. 1.114.1. 72. Thuc. 1.113.3.4. Death of Tolmides: Plut. Per. 18.2 and Ages. 19.2; Diod. 12.6.2; Paus. 1.29.14. Cleinias, father of Alcibiades, also among the slain: Plato, Alc. mai. 1.112 C. The site of the battle is unknown. Plut. Ages. 19.2, says it was near the temple of Itonian Athena; Paus. 1.27.5 says the Athenians were on their way to Haliartus; but Xen., Mem. 3.5.4, says it was near Lebadea. Probably, then, it was close to modern Alalkomenai, somewhat west, near the border of Coronea and Lebadea. 73. The Athenians honoured Tolmides and his seer with a memorial, Paus. 1.27.5. An inscription from the grave of the Athenian dead blames some demigod (Hill, Sources2, 301 f. and SEG 10.410). Evidently it was felt that the defeat was not Tolmides' fault but a "bad break." Dull, CP12 (1977) 314, n. 52, thinks that the representation of Heracles on Theban coins from Coronea is a tribute to his role in the battle as "some demigod." 74. So Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 11, and GFS, 33. The helmet often cited as supporting evidence must be dated a century earlier, cf. Dull, CP72 (1977) 308f. 75. Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 284. 76. The Plataeans stayed loyal to Athens; the Thespians could be suspected of Atticism even in the Peloponnesian War. Thuc. 4.93, 96. 77. IG I2, 36. 78. These two points are made by Gomme, Comm. 1.342. 79. E.g., Larsen, CP55 (1960) 12 and GFS, 33; Buck CP 65 (1970) 226. 80. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63f. and GSP 87; Moretti, 134; Sordi, AR, 1968,70; I.A.F. Bruce, Commentary on the 'Hellenica Oxyrhynchia' (Cambridge, 1967) 105, 106, 160f.

166 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

81. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.3. 82. Salmon, REA 58 (1956) 55, 68, followed by Roesch, Map. 1 and Amit, RSA 1 (1971)63f. andCSP, 87. 83. Schol. Thuc. ad 3.24. 84. Sordi, AR, 1968, 55f. and n. 12; Buck, CP 65 (1970) 226f. 85. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.3. 86. Larsen, GFS, 33f., for references, Bruce Curnrn. 103. 87. Larsen, ibid.; Ehrenberg, Staat der Griecheri2, 140f.; Moretti, 132; Botsford, PSQ25 (1910) 284f., 290; Meyer, G.d.A. 43. 584; Glotz, Ilistoire greccque 2.161. On the other side, Walker, Hell. Oxy., 134-49; Amit, RSA \ (1971) 49-59. 88. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 11 and GFS, 33; followed by Buck, CP 65 (1970) 226; Sordi, AR, 1968, 68; Walbank, CR 18 (1968) 324; and Hennig, RE, Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 346, 347. 89. So Buck, CP65 (1970) 226. 90. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 61, following Botsford, PSQ25 (1910) 284, and Head, Greek Coins 8. ix and NC, 1881, 179f. 91. Dull, CP12 (1977) 305-14, and Roesch, 42, n. 1. 92. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 9-18 and GFS tt, argues that Orchomenus was awarded three Boeotarchs and shares. He does this to provide an explanation for the Orchomenian retention of two Boeotarchs after the loss of Chaeronea in 424. This theory has not been widely accepted, most authorities preferring the position of Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 286f., that the Thebans weakened Orchomenus in actual power, but left its position untouched. 93. Cf. Moretti, 131, and Roesch, 43, "...a 1'origine une impression d'equilibre entre les grand cites (Thebes, Thespies, Orchomene)...." 94. Sordi, AR, 1968, 7If. Cf. Bruce, Comm. 105. 95. Democratic exiles from Thebes and Orchomenus were co-operating with Athens twenty years later in 424, Thuc. 4.76. Cf. the inscriptions in honour of Potamodorus and his son Eurytion, IG I2 68, 69 and SEC 10.81. 96. Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 286; Moretti, 133-35. 97. Thuc. 4.93.4. 98. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.12.3. Bruce, Comm. 106. 99. Thuc. 4.76.4. 100. Thuc. 4.93.4 does not mention Lebadea, but they can be grouped together in light of Hell. Oxy. 11.3. It is not, however, the usual division as seen in Botsford, PSQ25 (1910) 285, and Moretti, 140; but cf. Roesch, 37f., where the more recent opinion is succinctly given. 101. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66F 1.11.3; Roesch, 43; Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 287. 102. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.1 and Thuc. 4.76.3. 103. Roesch has discussed the matter, 40. Bruce, Comm. 104. 104. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.2; Arist. Pal. 132la, 24-30, for Thebes. 105. For payment, Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.4; for discussion of lack of restrictions, Roesch, 97-124. Cf. Bruce, Comm. 108. 106. Roesch, 97, argues that they were directly in command of the Boeotian forces, but see the responsibilities of the local commanders at Delium in actually drawing up and arranging their own forces. Thuc. 4.93.4-5.

Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

167

107. Thuc. 7.19.3. 108. Roesch, 98, and Bruce, Comm. 105, for discussions. 109. Thuc. 5.37-38; Gomme et al., Comm. 4.42; Roesch, 99, 123f.; Moretti, 142-44. 110. Cf. Diod. 15.71.7. 111. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.12.2. 112. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.4. 113. Roesch, 123; Moretti, 143. 114. See preceding chapter, p. 125. 115. Thuc. 5.79; Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.2-4. Some have argued that the "councils" referred to are those of the towns or districts, cf. Walker, Hell. Oxy., 143-45; Meyer, Theopomps Hellemka (Halle, 1909) 93; Botsford, PSQ25 (1910) 290f. This seems improbable to most modern authorities on practical grounds, such as the difficulty of getting a decision, cf. Moretti, 143f., and Roesch, 99 and 123f. 116. Roesch, 149f. 117. IG 7.2724, 2724a, 2724b. 118. Roesch, 135-41. 119. Roesch, 141-45, esp. 143. 120. See above, p. 134 and Hdt. 9.69, Thuc. 4.72.3, Polyb. 20.5.8 and Plut. de Gemo Soc. 5. 121. Thuc. 4.91. 122. See above, p. 77. 123. He is sometimes termed the "allotted" archon, but a slate must have been selected from which the winner was chosen. 124. Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 289f.; Moretti, 146f. 125. Thuc. 4.96. 126. Thuc. 4.96; 5.57.2; Xen. Hell. 7.5.24. 127. Note the discrepancy between Herodotus' 400 men entering Plataea (7.233.2) and Thucydides' 300 (2.2.1). 128. Thuc. 4.93.4 and Gomme, Comm. 3.563 ad loc. 129. Moretti, 146 and above, pp. 93f. 130. Xen. Hell. 7.5.20. 131. Seymour, CR 36 (1922) 70, and 37 (1923) 63, followed by Salmon, AC 22 (1953) 347f. 132. Gomme, Comm. 3.563. 133. Moretti, 147-49. 134. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.2 and Arist. Pol 1321a29. Cf. Bruce, Comm. 103. 135. Thuc. 2.2.2 and 3.62.3. 136. Cf. Larsen, TAPA 86 (1955) 41-45. 137. The Thebans in 4.92.6 emphasize the lack of stasis and the tranquillity under their guidance. Cf. also Thuc. 2.2.4 where they refused to massacre the Plataean democrats. 138. Larsen, TAPA 86 (1955) 47-50. 139. Roesch, 158. 140. Thuc. 4.93.4. 141. A. Schaefer, RE Supp. 8 (1956) s.v. "Polemarchos," 1097-1134.

168 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.

142. Roesch, 169f. 143. Roesch, 176-78. 144. For an excellent discussion of these officials see Roesch, 155-248. 145. Hell. Oxy.,FGrH 66 F 1.12.3. 145a. Thuc. 4.76. 146. Thuc. 2.2.3. 147. Hdt. 7.233 and above, p. 132. 148. Pro-Spartans, Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.12.1; the Cadmea, Xen. Hell. 5.2.25f. Bruce, Comm. III. 149. Thuc. 2.5.7.; Hdt. 7.233. 150. Gomme, Comm. 2.2. 151. Thuc. 2.2.4, Crawley's translation. 152. Gomme, Comm. 2.3, makes the same point. 153. Amit, GSP, 92, has some perceptive remarks on this point.

Conclusions

The geographical features of Boeotia have not changed extensively since Classical times, except that Lake CopaYs has been drained, consequently increasing the amount of highly fertile land. The parallel ranges of mountains still flank the Boeotian plains to the north and south, and the same seasonal streams drain them. The distribution of population has altered somewhat; many ancient settlements now lie abandoned, and new settlements have arisen in different localities. Several ancient towns such as Thebes and Orchomenus are still inhabited, while some like Livadhia (anc. Lebadea), formerly of second rank, are now among the most important. The pattern of habitation, of a fairly large number of small towns or large villages, housing a reasonably large farming population, seems much as it was in Classical times and in some earlier phases. Although what evidence we have comes largely from surface explorations, the archaeological remains indicate that the custom of living in villages rather than in farmsteads goes back to Neolithic times. The number of sites discovered indicates also that there was a gradual and generally steady increase in population throughout the Neolithic, Early Helladic, Middle Helladic and most of the Late Helladic periods, until the end of LH III B. There was then a catastrophic drop of some 80 per cent in the number of inhabited sites. The reasons for this remain obscure. Before the collapse, however, extensive fortifications had been erected in Boeotia as in the rest of Mycenaean Greece. Apparently they were built as defences against other Mycenaean powers, not against any external, non-Mycenaean threats, if one may judge from the forts around the east and northeast of Lake CopaYs. These were constructed, it is clear, by Orchomenus to protect the eastern shore and the drainage channels of the lake from Thebes. The palace at Thebes was burnt during LH III B, somewhat earlier than the general destruction that occurred in the great catastrophe at the end of the period. Boeotia seems to have suffered still

170

Conclusions

another phase of devastation near the end of LH III Cl. The historical sources, the legends and tales of the Bronze and Dark Ages utilized by the Greek historians, can be seen to group themselves into three different traditions, but only three, which I have termed Hellanican, Hecataean and Pherecydan after their earliest identified authorities. Much poetic and other literary material remained unused; varying combinations of the three strands (plus the very occasional invention) seem the only novelties observable in later writers. What precisely was the source material drawn upon by each of the three traditions is unclear, but it seems most likely that the Pherecydan used some generalized poetic tradition uncritically, while the other two relied on more localized poetry and legends, modified by common sense and learned theory. None of this material is reliable. No tradition is more credible than another. Combined they may be useful in contemplating some historical events, but only in the broadest outline and only when supported by other evidence. Thus what they present is so vague as to be virtually useless. A few points, however, do emerge for Bronze and Dark Age history. First, the faint hints noted in the three traditions of some linkage or association between Attica and Boeotia correspond in some measure to two pieces of other evidence: one, to the archaeologically observed uniformity of material culture from the Middle Helladic onward at least to LH III A that extends throughout the Mycenaean world; and two, to the evidence that the precursor of the Ionic dialect was spoken in much of Boeotia as well as in Attica. The fit is not exact, but it is thought-provoking. Second, the defences around the northeastern corner of Lake Copai's have been thought, on purely archaeological and military grounds, to be a defensive system erected against Thebes in the interest of Orchomenus. This is consonant with the legends of Theban-Orchomenian rivalry, legends that emphasize the importance of Lake Copai's. There are several other fortifications of the Bronze Age throughout Boeotia. It is worth noting that two strata of heroes can be distinguished: an earlier, builders and fortifiers; and a later, occupied with wars and destruction but not builders. This latter stage could be linked with the disturbances that culminated in the burning of Thebes earlier than the catastrophe at the end of LH III B, and with the stories found in all three traditions (and in poetry not drawn upon) of the Argive attack and conquest of Thebes. Third, the Trojan War is generally dated to the latter part of LH III B, and seems to be archaeologicaly attested. The traditions all say that the expedition, under Argive direction, left from Boeotian Aulis, a Mycenaean site.

171

Fourth, the archaeological evidence indicates that Boeotia was hard hit at the end of LH III B in the great catastrophe. On most systems of dating it should have taken place some twenty to thirty years or so after the capture of Troy and should have lasted for some time. All traditions agree that something dreadful happened within a generation of the Trojan war, with refugees fleeing to Athens and other places of security and going overseas; they note incursions at that time by some foreign stocks, usually Thracians or Phlegyians. In other words, a foreign invasion was dimly remembered, but it is not known whether it was the cause or one of the results of the great catastrophe. Fifth, all three traditions, as well as some poetic material not drawn upon, remembered that the Boiotoi had lived in Thessaly for some considerable time, in the central region, around Arne on the periphery of the Mycenaean world. The evidence of the Boeotian dialect renders it likely that the Boiotoi had originally occupied a linguistic position transitional between East Greek and West Greek and, therefore, occupied most probably a similar geographic position while the two groups were developing. In all probability they remained in Thessaly until after the Trojan war, a view that the Little Catalogue in Book 13 of the Iliad fits comfortably, though it contradicts the Great Catalogue of Book 2. Sixth, all traditions have the Boiotoi abandon their homeland under pressure from the Thessalians and invade their new territory after the Trojan War, variously one or two generations after, but in all cases subsequent to the foreign attacks on Boeotia. This is consonant with the archaeological evidence in Thessaly of new incursions from Epirus in LH III C, either a little before or contemporaneous with the second phase of destruction in Boeotia, which may also be significant for the traditions. The genealogical links between the Boeotian royal house and the Cadmeans, or Peneleus or other heroes of the Trojan War, are obviously attempts to connect the newcomers with their predecessors and so give them some spurious rights of possession. Seventh, all traditions agree that the Boiotoi were invaders who eventually conquered Boeotia. They all say that it took a considerable time to subdue Boeotia and that the Boiotoi worked steadily from west to east. They had to defeat the Thracians, Phlegyians and similar foreign stocks; they also conquered the natives, Pelasgians and other survivors. The traditional dates, 1124 for the entry into Boeotia and 1064 for the death of Xanthus and the completion of the conquest, seem far too close together. The incursion of LH III C can be roughly dated to 1150 B.C.; conditions were relatively peaceful by 950. Two hundred years seem as reasonable a duration as is possible on the evidence to allow for the conquest of Boeotia, with the minimum being 150 years.

172

Conclusions

For the rest of the Dark Age and for the early Archaic period the historical evidence becomes very scrappy. Our three traditions fade out and Hesiod does not really fill the gap. Much of the reconstruction is based on retrojection and analogy. The Boeotians did not, as it seems, follow the settlement pattern of the Dorians and Thessalians, who used the former inhabitants as a subordinate class like the helots or penestae. There is no evidence for a serf class ethnically different from the governing group. The Boeotians, too, may have formed only one tribe, not a combination of several like the Dorians, and there is no compelling evidence for the presence of tribes and phratries among them. On the other hand some names, some institutional peculiarities and some inscriptional evidence may indicate the presence of seven tribes at an early stage and the use of phratries. If this is so, they had no functional importance in Boeotian culture and politics by historical times. The Boeotians moved into Boeotia under kings, or at least all traditions so claim. They also all agree, probably rightly, that the monarchy disappeared about the time of the completion of the conquest. Some modern authorities have professed to see some link between the Archon at Onchestus and the vestiges of a Boeotian kingship, but any connection is obscure. The Boeotians settled down in various communities and developed local ruling groups as aristocracies, in a manner similar to that in other parts of Greece. The Boeotians formed a religious association that persisted after political unity had faded, and one that controlled the calendar and festivals such as the Pamboeotia. The aristocratic oligarchies continued to be the predominant form of government in Boeotia for much of later history. They must have presided over the synoecisms of the various towns and over the expansion of some of these new poleis at an early stage. Orchomenus, it is clear from archaeological evidence, was one of the first cities to revive. It is equally clear from tradition that it attempted to procure an hegemony over the rest of Boeotia. The attempt was unsuccessful, with Thebes claiming the credit for its defeat. The smaller towns like Ascra attempted for some time around 700 B.C. to use Orchomenian influence to counter the pressure of neighbours such as Thespiae and Thebes. This should mean that Orchomenian power was waning by that time. From between 750 and 700 down to the destruction of Thebes by Alexander there was a clear pattern in Boeotia of internal, opportunistic aggrandizement and aggression. Several towns enlarged their territories by the domination or absorption of smaller neighbours, as well as by establishing new settlements. Thespiae, for example, destroyed Ascra and annexed its territory about 700; it settled a new village on the abandoned

Conclusions

173

Mycenaean site of Eutresis about 600; and it gained control of Siphae and the adjacent coastal towns by 500. Thebes annexed Potniae at an early stage, and transferred its population to Thebes; it gained control of territory as far as the Euripus by 520, including the Tetracomia; and it had wrested control of Delium from Tanagra by 490. Tanagra in the same manner had previously annexed territory as far as Graea. There were some failures. The small towns of Lebadea, Coronea and Haliartus, as well as Copae and Acraephia, warded off aggression and preserved a precarious independence. Eleutherae by the third quarter of the sixth century turned to Athens for protection, as did Plataea in 519 and eventually Oropus and other towns in the area of the Asopus valley. Changes in the modes of warfare brought in their train some changes in society. The shift to the hoplite phalanx and the panoply of the armoured foot-lancer, a process especially emphasized in Greece between 700 and 650, brought about certain modifications in land tenure and no doubt in the balance of groups and classes in the state. The reforms of Philolaus at Thebes, to be dated to the end of this shift, around 650 B.C., reflect the importance of maximizing the number of hoplites to produce a decent phalanx and the interest of the state in seeing that this was done. Thespiae was slower in changing over, and it relied on Theban support for its aristocracy for a time. Eventually it too had to readjust and had apparently done so by the time of the settlement at Eutresis. By 600 a new equilibrium was reached, with an inner and aristocratic circle (doubtless with some new faces) governing in most of the towns. By the late sixth century Boeotia was coming under increasing Thessalian pressure. The Thessalians already controlled Phocis and had an alliance with the Athenian tyrants, to whom they supplied cavalry. Boeotia lay in between. The Thessalian pressure culminated in an invasion no earlier than 525 B.C. and probably close to 520. A nascent political and military federation of some Boeotian states under Theban leadership opposed the invasion and defeated the Thessalians, and Lattamyas their leader, at Ceressus. Whether the federation was formed under Thessalian threats, or whether Thessalian forces invaded to dissolve a new and dangerous alliance remains unknown. The federation, however, continued to demonstrate the usual Boeotian pattern of internal aggression and aggrandizement, with Thebes attempting to dominate all Boeotia in much the same way that the various Boeotian states had behaved towards their neighbours. Plataea had refused to join this Theban-dominated federation, and in 519 on the advice of Sparta and Corinth it sought the friendship of Athens as a counterweight to Thebes. This incident marks one of the earliest Spartan forays north of the Peloponnese. The result was a neat

174

Conclusions

ploy to keep the two major cities of central Greece mutually hostile. Athens and Plataea defeated Thebes and her League, and so Plataea remained, like Eleutherae, independent. Orchomenus, which had been a Thessalian ally before the battle at Ceressus, was eventually brought into the Boeotian League, between 510 and 507. The Thessalians lost Phocis around 510 and with it the power to move troops rapidly into western Boeotia. The Boeotian League intervened in Attica at the time of Cleomenes' abortive invasion in 506. They were defeated again by the Athenians and lost 700 prisoners. A little later, probably in 504, they tried another attack, this time with Aegina as an ally, but were defeated once more. Their ally's efforts barely saved them from a full-scale invasion, and some time before 502/1 the League made a peace, abandoning their alliance with Aegina. They kept this peace for about twenty years, until the invasion of Xerxes, staying neutral during the Marathon campaign. The shrine of Apollo at Delium was looted, apparently in error, by the Persians at about the time of the capture of Eretria. The organization of the Boeotian League at its inception in 520 or so took over some features from the earlier religious amphictyony, notably the division of Boeotia into districts and the drawing of representatives from these districts, thereby passing on a procedure still standard in the later Boeotian League. It seems most probable that the new League had seven districts; for the number recurs frequently in Boeotian politics. Other districts could be added (and dropped) from time to time. The double representation granted to cities such as Thebes, Orchomenus and Thespiae seems to have originated at an early stage, as a result of the domination of adjacent districts by the larger towns and the consequent addition of these districts to the League in a subordinate status. The Boeotarchs were from the beginning of the League the supreme military and administrative officials. Apparently they had no judicial or legislative responsibilities. The federal council of sixty members elected from each district was the body to which the Boeotarchs were answerable to by 446 and probably from the beginning. The electing was done probably from the beginning, by those possessing a property qualification, namely the hoplite class. When the quadripartite division, in which each quarter took its turn to act as a probouleutic body, was first adopted is unknown, but it is likely that it too was adopted at an early stage, if only to make life easier for the councillors. At a later time the Boeotian type of election and rotation became a hallmark of oligarchy. When the dicasts mentioned in the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia were first created, is unknown. At the time of the invasion of Xerxes the League played an

Conclusions

175

equivocal role. It was probably a member of the Congress at the Isthmus and a participant in the expedition to Tempe; and it had also sent at some stage, earth and water to the king, or rather the individual members had, with the exception of Thespiae. The League, however, did provide a substantial part of Leonidas' advance force at Thermopylae, about one-third of it according to Pausanias and Herodotus. There is no compelling evidence that the Boeotian force was sent under compulsion, and it fought bravely until the last stand; when the situation was clearly hopeless, the Thebans surrendered. No part of the Boeotian contingent withdrew with the Peloponnesians. The League did not medize officially until the Peloponnesians had cleared the country. It should be emphasized that the Boeotian action spared their towns from devastation and their people from slaughter, or at least from an unpleasant and dangerous sojourn on Helicon and Chlomon. Only the abandoned towns of Thespiae and Plataea suffered damage, and there were no people to be hurt in either of them. (The latter town, to the Boeotian mind, doubtless deserved it.) When the Boeotians transferred to the Persian side, they all, with the exception of Thespiae, did so whole-heartedly. They played an important part in the Persian deliberations and manoeuvres that led up to the Battle of Plataea. In the battle itself their cavalry handled the Allied centre very roughly, and their infantry fought bravely and well, suffering heavy casualties. After the battle Thebes was forced to capitulate and to hand over for trial some of its leaders. Very few, it seems, were actually executed. The Boeotian League was not dissolved after the Persian Wars, but apparently continued to exist. Thebes no longer held the position of hegemon, but Tanagra attempted to exercise supreme control, with some success, if one may draw conclusions from the coin types. At Theban expense, Tanagra seems to have temporarily increased its territory as far as Euripus and to have prospered for a time. Orchomenus may have withdrawn from the League. By 460, however, the Boeotians were in stasis. When the Spartans, having completed their campaign in Phocis and Doris, then found themselves prevented by an Athenian squadron from returning across the Corinthian Gulf, they opportunistically entered Boeotia and occupied Tanagra. They were expeditious in the establishment of pro-Spartan regimes throughout Phocis, Locris and Boeotia as they did so. They did not re-establish Theban hegemony, in spite of Ephorus' testimony. The Athenians attacked and were defeated at Tanagra. The Spartans then withdrew by way of Megara and the Isthmus, since this route was now open. Sixty-two days later the Athenians again attacked; this time they met the Boeotians alone and

176

Conclusions

defeated them at Oenophyta. Athens promptly established its authority over Boeotia, and over Phocis and Locris as well. The Athenians dismantled the walls of Tanagra, thus placing the Boeotian capital at their mercy. In many towns, including Thebes, democracies were established, in others pro-Athenian oligarchies. Many pro-Spartans, along with many oligarchs, were exiled from the democratic towns, including Thebes. The Athenian-dominated League obviously had no internal hegemon, and it did not need one. Very probably the unwalled city of Tanagra, conveniently close to the borders of Attica, remained the nominal capital. It is likely that Plataea became a member after Oenophyta, if only to voice Athenian interests in League meetings. The League cooperated with Athens from 458 to 447, notably in an expedition to Thessaly. By 448, however, there were some warnings of trouble. The democracies, it seems, had mostly proved incompetent, and the pro-Athenian oligarchies were unpopular. In the winter of 447/6 some oligarchic exiles under Theban leadership seized Orchomenus. They were immediately joined by the inhabitants, and by sympathizers who had not been exiled, and formed a base of operations against Athens and her Boeotian supporters. A small Athenian force was sent out in the spring of 446. It captured Chaeronea, but was ambushed and slaughtered near Coronea as it was withdrawing. Athenian rule was effectively ended. The oligarchs proceeded to overturn democracies in Boeotia, notably at Thebes, and to make a satisfactory peace with Athens. No doubt Plataea then withdrew from the League. Theban hegemony, with checks and balances and with Orchomenian participation, was re-established. The "Orchomenizers" were under Theban leaders, and the newly returned oligarchs were largely pro-Theban. The next few years saw a gradual erosion of the checks and balances, and a gradual tightening of Theban control over the rest of the League.The other states were gradually reduced to a subordinate status. One of the last important Boeotian cities that was still not a member was Plataea. In 431 a raid was mounted against it by leading Theban politicians with the connivance of Plataean oligarchs. It was modelled on the oligarchic success at Orchomenus some fifteen years earlier, and it very nearly succeeded. The Plataeans, however, when they found out that their democratic leaders had been spared, and that the Thebans were few in number, even though commanded by two Boeotarchs, overwhelmed, captured and eventually massacred the whole lot. Boeotian participation in the Archidamian War was now assured, and its vicious tone was apparent from the start.

Conclusions

177

The Boeotians appear to emerge from this study as a rather opportunistic group of Hellenes, with the usual social gradations. Amongst their political divisions there were enough rivalry and particularism to prevent any union such as that of Attica with and into Athens, even though Boeotia was not much larger in area. Aristocracies gradually changed to oligarchies in a familiar pattern, and the Boeotians themselves seem to have been wary of rapid change. The impetus for a federation came from external threat and Theban drive. The Thebans probably drew their inspiration from the recently organized and successful Peloponnesian League across the Gulf in their sponsorship of a politico-military federal institution. But the constitution and internal organization owe nothing to anyone else; they are entirely Boeotian inventions. To the Boeotians must go the credit for evolving an ethnic political federation that had some permanence, that gave some rights to the smaller states vis-a-vis the principal one; and for inventing for it a viable oligarchic, but representative, constitution that in general remained serviceable for nearly 150 years. The Boeotians were lively, original and practical political thinkers, who deserve far more credit than has usually been given them.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

In addition to the standard abbreviations, the following are used: ATL GFS GSP KP

The Athenian Tribute Lists (see Meritt, B.D. et al.) Greek Federal States (see Larsen, J.A.O.) Great and Small Poleis (see Amit, M.) Der Kleine Pauly (Stuttgart, 1967- ).

Accame, S., "Note storiche su epigrafi attiche del quinto secolo," RFIC 30 (1952) 111-36,222-45. Ahlberg, G., Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art, Stockholm, 1971. Alin, P., Das Ende der Mykenischen Funds-fatten auf dem griechischen Festlande, Lund, 1962. Amit, M., "La date de 1'alliance entre Athenes et Platees," AC 39 (1970) 414-26. Great and Small Poleis, Brussels, 1973. "The Boeotian Confederation during the Pentakontaetia," RSA 1 (1971) 49-64. Anderson, J.K., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, Berkeley, 1970. "Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry," A]A 79 (1975) 175-87. Andreomenou, A.K., "Takhi," Teiresias, 1974, 2-7. Austin, R.P., "Excavations at Haliartus, 1926," USA 27 (1925-26) 81-91. "Excavations at Haliartus, II," BSA 28 (1926-27) 128-40. "Excavations at Haliartus, 1931," BSA 32 (1931 -32) 180-212. Badian, E., "Archons and Strategoi," Antichthon 5 (1971) 1-34. Bakhuizen, S.C., Salganeus and the Fortifications on its Mountains, Groningen, 1970. Barber, E.A., The Historian Ephorus, Cambridge, 1935. Barratt, C., "The Chronology of the Eponymous Archons of Boeotia," JIIS 52 (1932)72-115. Bechtel, F., Die Gnechische Dialekte, Berlin, 1921-24 (repr. 1963). Bellen, H., KP 4 (1972) s.v. "Polemarchoi," 968f. Beloch, K.J., Gnechische Geschichte2, Strassburg and Berlin, 1912-27.

180

Bibliography

Bethe, E., Homer, Dichtungund Sage, Leipzig, 1914-22. Thebamsche Heldenlieder, Leipzig, 1891. RE 11 (1907) s.v. "Erginos," 432-34. Bizard, L., "Inscriptions du Ptoion," BCH 44 (1920) 227-62. Blegen, C.W., "Hyria," Hesperia, Supp. 8 (1945) 39-42. The Mycenaean Age, Cincinnati, 1962. "Troy," CAH*1, ch. 18, 24; II, ch. 15, 21 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1961. "Troy I-II," CAH3 1.2, ch. 18, 411-16. "Troy III, IV, V," CAH3 1.2, ch. 24, 704-6, Cambridge, 1971. Blegen, C.W., et al. Troy: Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932-1938, Princeton, 1950-58. Bolte, E., RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyettos," 90-93. RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyle," 117-19. Botsford, G.W., "The Constitution and Politics of the Boeotian League," PSQ 25 (1910)271-96. Broadbent, M., Studies in Greek Genealogy, Leiden, 1968. Broneer, O., "Athens in the Late Bronze Age," Antiquity 30 (1956) 9-18. "The Cyclopean Wall on the Isthmus of Corinth and its Bearing on Late Bronze Age Chronology," Hesperia 35 (1966) 346-62. Bruce, I.A.F. An Historical Commentary on the 'Hellemca Oxyrhynchia', Cambridge, 1970. Bruns, G., "Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben. Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber Grabungskampagnen 1959 und 1962," AA, 1964, 232-65. "Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Grabung im Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben," AD, 1968, Chr. 224f. Brunt, P.A., "The Hellenic League against Persia," Histona 2 (1953) 135-63. Buck, C.D., Greek Dialects'1, Chicago, 1955. "The Language Situation in and about Greece in the Second Milennium B.C.,"CP21 (1926) 1-27. Buck, R.J., "The Aeolic Dialect in Boeotia," CP 63 (1968) 268-80. "The Athenian Domination of Boeotia," CP 65 (1970) 217-27. "Boeotarchs at Thermopylae," CP 69 (1974) 47f. "The Formation of the Boeotian League," CP 68 (1972) 94-101. "The Middle Helladic Period," Phoenix 20 (1966) 193-209. "The Mycenaean Time of Troubles," Histona 18 (1969) 276-98. "The Site of Ceressus," Teiresias, Supp. 1 (1972) 31-40. Bulle, H., Orchomenos, I, Munich, 1908. Burchner, L., RE 6 (1899) s.v. "Chorsiai," 2443. Burn, A.R., The Lyric Age of Greece, London, 1960. Persia and the Greeks, New York & London, 1962. The WorldofHesiod1, New York, 1966. "Helikon in History," BSA 44 (1949) 313-23. Burr, V., Neon Katalogos (Klio, Beih. 49), Leipzig, 1944. Bursian, C., Geographie von Gnechenland,Leipzig, 1860-71. Bury, J.B., History of Greece4, rev. by R. Meiggs, London, 1975. Busing, H. and A., "Chorsiai. Eine Boiotische Festung," AA, 1972, 74-87. Busolt, G., Griechische Geschichte1, Gotha, 1893-1904. Busolt, G. and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde 3 , Munich, 1920-26.

Bibliography

181

Carpenter, R., Discontinuity in Greek Civilization, Cambridge, 1968 (Repr. New York, 1968). Folktale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics, Berkeley, 1946. (Repr. 1962). Cartledge, P. "Hoplites and Homer," JHS 97 (1977) 11-27. Gary, M., "Notes on the apiarda of Thebes," JHS 42 (1922) 184-91. Caskey, J.L., "Greece, Crete, and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age," CAH2 I, ch. 26, 3-44 (sep. fasc.) Cambridge, 1964. "Greece, Crete and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age," CAH3 1.2, ch. 26, 771-807, Cambridge, 1970. "Greece and the Aegean Islands in the Middle Bronze Age," CAH'2 II, ch. 4, pp. 3-32 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1966. "Neolithic Sherds from Thespiai," Hesperia 20 (1951) 289f. Caskey, J.L. & E.G., "The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis. Supplementary Excavations," Hesperia 29 (1960) 126-67. Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyna, London, 1926. Cauer, P., RE 5 (1894) s.v. "Boiotia," 637-63. Chadwick, J., The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 1976. Chandler, L., "The North-west Frontier of Attica," JHS 46 (1926) 1-22. Cloche, P., Thebes de Beotie, Namur, 1952. Coldstream, J.N., Greek Geometric Pottery, London, 1968. Cook, R.M., "Speculations on the Origins of Coinage," Histona 7 (1958) 257-62. Cozzoli, U., "La Beozia durante il conflitto tra 1'Ellade e la Persia," RFC 36 (1958) 264-84. Grassland, R.A. and A. Birchall, edd. Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, London, 1973. Davies, O., Roman Mines in Europe, Oxford, 1935. Desborough, V.R., The Greek Dark Ages, London, 1972. The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, Oxford, 1966. Drogemiiller, H.-P., Bericht iiber neuere Ausgrabungen in Griechenland," Gymnasium 68 (1961) 193-229, esp. 219-27. Ducat, J., "Le ptoion et 1'histoire de la Beotie a 1'epoque archai'que," REG 77 (1964)283-90. Kouroi du Ptoion, Paris, 1967. "La Confederation Beotienne et 1'expansion Thebaine a 1'epoque archaique," BC7/97 (1973) 59-73. Dull, C.J., "Thucydides 1.113 and the Leadership of Orchomenus," CP 72 (1977) 305-14. Ehrenberg, V., From Solon to Socrates2, London, 1973. Die Staat der Griechen2, Stuttgart, 1965. Etienne, R. and D. Knoepfler, Hyettos de Beotie (BCH, Supp. 3), Paris, 1976. Feyel, M., Polybe et I'Histoire de Beotie, Paris, 1942. Fiehn, C., RE 30 (1932) s.v. "Minyas," 2014-18. Fimmen, D., Die Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, Leipzig, 1921. "Die Besiedlung Bootiens bis in fruhgriechische Zeit," NJb 29 (1912)521-41.

182

Bibliography

Fontenrose, J., "The Spring Telphusa," TAP A 100 (1969) 129. Forrest, W.G., A History of Sparta, London, 1968. Forsdyke, E.J., "The Pottery called Minyan Ware," JIIs 34 (1914) 126-56. Fossey, J.M., "The End of the Bronze Age in the South West Copaic," Eufihrosyne6(\974)7-2\. "The Identification of Graia," Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3-22. "Some Unpublished Boiotian Tombstones," BSA 69 (1974) 121-28. "Therapnai and Skolos in Boiotia," B1CS 18 (1971) 106-9. "Tilphosaion?" 7^eiresms,Supp. 1 (1972) 1-16. Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia, Unpub. Diss., Lyons, 1976. Review of Bakhuizen in Mnemosyne 27 (1974) 103-5. Fowler, B.H., "Thucydides 1.107-8 and the Tanagran Federal Issues," Phoenix 11 (1957) 164-70. Franke, P.R., "Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theban," Antike Welt 1 (1970) 46-52. Frazer, Sir James, Pausanias' Description of Greece, London, 1913 (repr. New York, 1965). Garlan, A.Y., "Recerches sur le Fortifications d'Akraiphia," ECU 98(1974) 95-112. Geiger, A., RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Larymna," 880f. RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Kopai," 1345f. Geisau, H.von, KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Kadmos," 40f. A7>3 (1969) s.v. "Minyas," 1344f. KP4 (1972) .s.v. "Peneleos," 612. Gell, Sir W., Itinerary of Greece, London, 1819. Geyer, F., RE 2.5 (1927) s.v. "Siphai," 262f. Girard, P., "Inscriptions d'Hyettes et d'Akraiphia," BCH 2 (1878) 492-508. Glotz, G., and R. Cohen, Histoire grecque, Paris 1938-. Goldman, H., Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, Mass., 1931. Gomme, A.W., "The Topography of Boeotia," BSA 18(1911-12) 189-210. "The Legend of Cadmus and the Logographi,"JHS (1913) 53-72, 223-45. Commentary on Thucydides, Oxford, 1945-70, vol. 4 completed by A. Andrewes and K.J. Dover. Greenhalgh, P.A.M., Early Greek Warfare, Cambridge, 1973. Gschnitzer, F., "Stammes - und Ortsgemeinden im alien Griechenland," WS 68 (1955) 120-44. Guillon, P., La Beotie antique, Paris, 1948. Etudes Beotiennes, Aix-en-Provence, 1963. Les Trepieds du Ptoion, Paris, 1943. Haley, A.J. and C.W. Blegen, "The Coming of the Greeks," AJA 32 (1928) 141-54. Hammond, N.G.L., "The Main Road from Boeotia to the Peloponnese through the Northern Megarid," BSA 49 (1954) 103-22. "Studies in Greek Chronology of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.," Histona 4 (1955) 371-411. History of Greece to 322 B.C.2, Oxford, 1967. Hanell, K., Megansche Studien, Lund, 1934.

Bibliography

183

Head, B.V., Catalogue of Greek Coins, Central Greece, London, 1884 (repr. Bologna, 1963). Histona Numorum2, London, 1911 (repr. Chicago, 1967). "On the Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Boeotia," NC, 1881, 177-275. Hennig, D., RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 333-55. Hereward, D., " Herodotus vi 74," CR 65 (1951) 146. Heurtley, W.A., "Notes on the Harbours of South Boeotia," BSA 26 (1923-25) 38-45. Hignett, C., Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1963. Hill, G.F., Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars2, Oxford, 1951. Holleaux, M., "Pausanias et la destruction d'Haliarte," RPh 19 (1895) 109-15. Hooker, J.T., Mycenaean Greece, London, 1977. Hope Simpson, R., Gazeteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites (BICS, Supp. 16), London, 1965. Hope Simpson, R. and J.F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's Iliad, Oxford, 1970. Huxley, G.A., Greek Epic Poetry, Cambridge, Mass., 1969. Achaeans and Hittites, Belfast, 1960. "White Ravens," GRBS 8 (1967) 199-202. Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden, 1955- . Jeffery, L.H.,"The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile. A Problem in Greek Art and History," BSA 60 (1965) 42-57. Archaic Greece, London, 1976. "The Campaign between Athens and Aegina in the Years before Salamis," AJP 83 (1962)| 44-54. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford, 1963. Kahrstedt, U., "Die Landgrenzen Athens," AM 57 (1932) 8-28. Kelly, T., "The Calaurian Amphictyony," A]A 70 (1966) 113-22. Kenny, E.J.A., "The Ancient Drainage of the Copais," LAAA 22 (1935) 189-206. Keramopoulos, A., Boiomas," Arch Eph, 1931, 163f. Kirsten, E., RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Olmones," 2490-92. RE 35 (1939) s.v. "Onchestos," 412-17. RE 37 (1937) s.v. "Permessos," 869-72. RE 40 (1950) s.v. "Plataia," 2255-2332. Kirsten, E. and W. Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde5, Heidelberg, 1967. Kraay, C.M., "The Archaic Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology," ;VC, 1956,43-68. "The Early Coinage of Athens: a Reply," NC, 1962, 417-23. "Hoards, Small Change and the Origin of Coinage,"JHS'84 (1964) 76-91. Kretschmer, P., "Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte," Glotta 1 (1909) 9-59. Kunze, E., Orchomenos, II and III, Munich, 1931 and 1934. Kurtz, D.C. and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, London, 1971.

184

Bibliography

Larsen, J.A.O., "The Boeotian Confederacy and Fifth-century OligarchicTheory," TAPA 86 (1955) 41-50. Greek Federal States, Oxford, 1968. "Orchomenus and the Formation of the Boeotian Confederacy," CP 55 (1960)9-18. Latte, K., RE 20 (1919) s.v. "Kadmos, 1," 1460-72. RE W (\94\) s.v. "Phyle, 1," 994-1011. Lauffer, S., "Die Kopaisgebiete," AA, 1940, 184-90. RE Suppl. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 290-333. "Medeon," AM 63-64 (1938-39) 177-85. Leahy, D.M., "Aegina and the Peloponnesian League," CP 49 (1955) 232. Leake, W.M., Travels in Northern Greece, London, 1835. Luce, J.V., Lost Atlantis, New York, 1969. Macan, G., Herodotus, Books VII, VIII, IX, London, 1908. Maier, F.G., "Die Stadtmauer von Thisbe," AM 73 (1958) 17-25. McCredie, J.R., "Fortified Military Camps in Attica," Hespena, Supp. 11 (1966). McCredie, J.R. and A. Steinberg, "Two Boeotian Dedications," Hespena 29 (1960) 123-25. Meiggs, R. and D.M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1969. Meritt, B.D., "Athens and the Amphictyonic League," AJP69 (1948) 312-14. Meritt, B.D., H.T. Wade-Gery and M.F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, 4 vols., I, Cambridge, Mass., II-IV Princeton, 1939-53. Meyer, E., KP 1 (1964) s.v. "Boiotia," 920-22. RE Supp. 12 (1970) s.v. "Hyettos," 497. KP2(\967) s.v. "Hyettos," 1262. KP 2 (1967) s.v. "Eleutherai," 246f. KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Kopai,"295. KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Koroneia," 309. KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Larymna," 503. KP4 (1972) s.v. "Onchestos," 30If. KP4(1972) s.v. "Panakton," 448f. KP4(\972) s.v. "Permessos," 643. KP4(\972) s.v. "Plataia," 893f. Meyer, Ed., Geschichte des Altertums4, Darmstadt, 1965- . Theopomps Hellemka, Halle, 1909. Milchhofer, A., RE 10 (1905) s.v. "Eleutherai," 2345. Mossi, M. "II sinecismo di Tebe e la costituzione federale della Beozia nel V Secolo a.c.," Critica Stonca 13 (1976) 193-206. Miiller, C. and Th., Fragmenta histoncum graecorum, Paris, 1841-51. Miiller, M., Geschichte Thebens, Diss., Leipzig, 1879. Moretti, L., Ricerche suite Leghe greche, Rome, 1962. Mylonas, G., Athens, 1 Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, Princeton, 1966. "Priam's Troy and the Date of its Fall," Hespena 33 (1964) 352-80. Mylonas, G. and E. Kirsten, RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Okalea," 2302f. Myres, J.L., Who Were the Greeks?, Berkeley, 1930.

Bibliography

185

Naval Intelligence Division, Greece, III, London, 1944-45. Nilsson, M.P., "Der Oidipusmythus," GGA, 1922, 36-46 (rep. Op. Set., I, 1951, 335-48). History of Greek Religion2, Oxford, 1949. Geschichte der griechischen Religion 3 , I, Munich, 1967. The Mycenaean Origins of Greek Mythology, Berkeley, 1932. Nylander, C., "The Fall of Troy," Antiquity 37 (1963) 6-11. Oldfather, W., RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Korseia," 1438f. RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Kyrtones," 205. Page, D.L., History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley, 1959. Papadimitriou, I.,' PAA 6 (1931) 274-76. Pape, W. and G. Benseler, Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennameri*, Graz, 1959. Pappadhakis, N., Praktika, 1911, 132-42. 'Tlepi TO XapOTraoi' rrjs Kopoweias," AD, 1916, 217-59. "Movada" AD, 1916, parart. 42. Pearson, L., Early Ionian Historians, Oxford, 1939. Petrakos, B., Oropus and the Temple of Amphiareios, Athens, 1972. Pharaklas, N., Eph Arch, 1967, Chron. 20-29. Pharaklas, N. and T. Spyropoulos, "Boioma," AD, 1969, 173-87. Philippson, A., RE 11 (1907) s.v. "Euaimon," 834. Griechischen Landschaften2, rev. E. Kirsten, Frankfurt, 1951. Pieske, E., RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Koroneia," 1425-31. RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Kyrtones," 205f. Preller, L., and C. Robert, Gnechische Mythologie5, Berlin, 1964-67. Pritchett, W.K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Berkeley, 1965, 1969. "New Light on Plataea," A]A 61 (1957) 9-28. "Observations on Chaironeia," A]A 62 (1958) 307-11. Reece, D.W., "The Battle of Tanagra," JHS 70 (1950) 75f. Roesch, P., Thespies et la confederation Beotienne, Paris, 1965. Roller, D.W., "A New Map of Tanagra," A]A 78 (1974) 152-56, map p. 153. "The Date of the Walls at Tanagra," Hesperia 43 (1974) 260-63. Rose, H.J., Handbook of Greek Mythology5, London, 1964. Roux, G., "Le Val des Muses et les Musees chez les auteurs anciens," BCU 78 (1954) 22-48. Sackett, L.H., et al., "Prehistoric Euboea. Contributions toward a survey," BSA 61 (1966) 33-112. Sakellariou, M., La Migration grecque en lonie, Athens, 1958. Salmon, J. "Political Hoplites ?"JHS 97 (1977) 84-101. Salmon, P., "L'Armee federale des Beotiens," AC 22 (1953) 347-60. "Les Districts Beotiens," REA 58 (1956) 51-70. Schachter, A., "The Theban Wars," Phoenix 21 (1967) 1-10.

186

Bibliography

Schaefer, A., RE Supp. 8 (1956) s.v. "Polemarchos," 1097-1134. Schliemann, H., "Exploration of the Boeotian Orchomenus," JHS 2 (1881) 122-63. Schober, F., RE 2.10 (1934) s.v. "Thebai," 1423-92. RE 2.11 (1936) s.v. "Tilphossion," 1044f. Schoder, R.V., Ancient Greece from the Air, London, 1974. Schuhl, P.M., "Garnet de notes," R Phil, 1967, 461-74. Schwartz, E., RE 3 (1899) s.v. "Aristophanes, 13," 994. Schwandner, E.-L., "Die bootische Hafenstadt Siphae," AA, 1977, 513-51. Schwyzer, E., Gnechische Grammatik, Munich, 1953-71. Sealey, R., A History of the Greek City-Stales ca. 700-338 B.C., Berkeley, 1976. Seltman, C., Greek Coins'2, London, 1955. Seymour, P.A., "Note on the Boeotian League," CR 36 (1922) 70. "Further Note on the Boeotian League," CR 37 (1923) 63. Shishova, I.A., "The Reforms of Philolaus," Vestmk Drevnij Islorii 114 (1970) 64-72 (in Russian). Snodgrass, A.M., "The Hoplite Reform and History,"//AV 85 (1965) 110-22. Early Greek Armour and Weapons, Edinburgh, 1964. Arms and Armour of the Greeks, London, 1967. Sordi, M., La lega tessala, Rome, 1958. "Mitologia e propaganda nella Beozie arcaica," AR, 1966, 16-24. "Aspetti del federalismo greco arcaico: autonomia e egemonia nel Koinon Beotico." AR. 1968.66-75. Spyropoulos. T.. AAA 5(1972) 16-26. "The Discovery of the Palace Archives of Boeotian Thebes,' Kadmos 9 H970^ 170-72. 4446(1973)375-95. 4446(1973)201-14. 4444(1971)319-31. 444 1 (1968) 140-43. AD, 1969, chr. 28-46. AD, 1970, chr. 211-45. A A A, 4 (1971) 161-64. 4AA 4 (1971)32-37. AAA 3 (1970) 263-67. AAA 3 (1970) 184-97. A AA 2 (1969) 20-25. Spyropoulos, T. and J. Chadwick, The Thebes Tablets, II, (Minos, Supp. 4) Salamanca, 1975. Spyropoulos, T. and T. Tzavella-Evjen, "Lithares. An Early Helladic settlement near Thebes," AAA 6 (1973) 371-75. Stubbings, F.H., "The Recession of Mycenaean Civilization," CAH- II, ch. 27, 3-21 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1965. "The Expansion of Mycenaean Civilization," CAH'2 II, ch. 22, 3-25 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1964.

Bibliography

Symeonoglou, S., Kadmeia, I, Gothenburg, 1973. Syriopoulos, E.,

\ 87

Athens, 1968

Athens, 1973 Theochares, D., Thumb, A. and E. Kieckers, Handbuch der gnechischen Dialekte2, Heidelberg, 1932. Tod, M.N., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions1, I, Oxford, 1946. Tomlinson, R.A. and J.M. Fossey, "Ancient Remains on Mount Mavrovouni, South Boeotia," BSA 65 (1970) 243-63. Touloupa, E., " AD, 1964, chr. 191-204. Turney-High, H.H., Man and System, New York, 1968.

Unger, H.J. and G. Spitslberger, edd. Documenta I. Em Kalkbrcnnofen am Stadtberg Pyrgos bei Haghia Marina (Landshutt, 1976). Vermeule, E.T., "A Mycenaean Dipinto and Graflito," Kadmos 5 (1966) 142-46. "Painted Mycenaean Larnakes," ///S 85 (1965) 123-48. Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago, 1964. Vernet, J.P., Problemes de la Guerre en Grece ancienne, Paris, 1968. Vian, F., Les Origmes de Thebes, Paris, 1963. "La triade des rois d'Orchomene: Eteocles, Phlegyas, Minyas," llommages a Georges Dumezil, Brussels, 1960. Wace, A.J.B., "The History of Greece in the Third and Second Milleniums B.C.,' Historia 2 (1953) 74-94. "The Prehistoric Exploration of the Greek Mainland," BCII 70 (1946) 628-38. Wace, A.J.B. and M.S. Thomson, Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge, 1912. Walcot, P., Hesiod and the Near East, Cardiff, 1966. Walker, E.M., The Hellemca Oxyrhynchia, Oxford, 1913. Wallace, P.W., Strabo's Description of Bowtia, Diss. Ann Arbor, 1969. "The Boeotian Therapnae," CP 64 (1969) 36f. "Hesiod and the Valley of the Muses," GRBS 15 (1974) 5-24. Wallace, W.P., "The Early Coinages of Athens and Euboia," NC, 1962, 23-42. Weinberg, S., "Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959," Hesperia 31 (1962) 158-209. "The Stone Age in the Aegean," CM//'2, 1, ch. 10, 3-68 (sep. fasc.) Cambridge, 1965. "The Stone Age in the Aegean," CM//3, 1, ch. 10, 557-618, Cambridge, 1970. Wiesner, J., RE 36.2 (1949) s.v. "Panakton," 449f. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, "Abrechnung eines Boiotischen Hipparchen," //erm^- 8 (1874) 431 -41. "Oropos und die Graier," //.s 21 (1886) 91-115. "Uber die ionische Wanderung," SPA W, 1906, 59-79. Pmdaros, Berlin, 1922. "Die griechische Heldensage," SPA W, 1925, 214-42. Hesiods Erga, Berlin, 1928. Eunpidis Herakles, Berlin, 1923.

188

Bibliography

Willetts, R.F., Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, London, 1955. Williams, R.T., "The Owls and Hippias," NC, 1966, 9-13. Wolters, P. and G. Bruns, Das Kabinen Heiligturn bei Thebens,, I, Berlin, 1940; II, Stuttgart, 1975. Wust, E., RE 37 (1937) s.v. "Peneleos," 459f. RE 2.12 (1937) s.v. "Tiphys," 1426-29. Ziehen, L., RE 36.2 (1949) s.v. "Pamboiotia," 288f. RE 2.10 (1934) s.v. "Thebai," 1492-1553.

Index

Abae: Phocian town, settled by Abantes, 79. Abantes: expelled from western Boeotia, 79. Achilles, and Phthia, 65. Acontium: mountain near Orchomenus, 5. Acraephia (Acraephnium): 12,13; Athamas founds, 58; archon at by 550,93; precarious independence, 100,173; original member of Boeotian League, 111; returned Boeotarch, 124; coins of, 141; grouped with Copae and Chaeronea, 156,157. Acraephnium: see Acraephia. Aeacidae: cult images and the Aeginetan-Boeotian alliance, 126,127. Aegidius, s. of Adrastus, killed by Laodamas, s. of Eteocles, 49. Aegina: alliance with Thebes (Boeotian League) against Athens, 125f., 174; chronology of the "Undeclared War," 126-28; military intervention against Athens, 127; joins against Persia in 480,129; medism before Marathon, 132; reduced by Athens in 457,127. Aegosthena: Megarean village, 2. Aetolia: Cadmeans expelled to, 63; Hyantes expelled to, 56; variations in MH culture of, 36f. Agamedes, brother of Trophonius, as part of cult of twins in Boeotia, 57. Aghia Anna, chapel of, near Vergoutiani spring, possible ancient site, 17. Aghia Paraskevi: see Agoriani. Aghia Triadha, chapel of: ancient site near, 16,17,18. Aghioi Georgii, church of: Byzantine remains at, 21.

Aghios Athanasios, church of: ancient site, 1 km west of Darimari, 16. Aghios Elias at Mouriki: ancient site, possibly Schoenus, 13. Aghios Elias, hill of near Schimatari: LH site on, 19. Aghios loannes, near Thisbe: ancient harbour of Thisbe, 11. Aghios loannis: Mycenaean fortress near Gla, 13,36,38. Aghios Minas: EH site near Chalia Mikra, 21. Aghios Nikolaos, chapel of, near Siacho, possible site of Ocalea, 9. Aghios Nikolaos, convent of, at Aulis: part of ancient town nearby, 20. Aghios Nikolaos, convent of, near Paleothivai: possible site of spring Tilphusa, 9. Aghios Pantaleimon, 5 km northeast of Schimatari, possible site of Pharae, 18. Aghios Taxiarchos, monastery of, near site of Chorsiae, 11. Aghios Vasilios, ancient remains at, probable harbour of Plataea, 12. Agonarchs: federal officials equivalent to agoranomoi, \ 58. Agoriani (Dekedhes): near Aghia Paraskevi, EH, MH and LH settlement, 7, 38. Ahhiyawa: mentioned in Hittite records, 66. Aiatus, s. of Pheidippus: expelled the Boiotoi, 77. Aiklos, brother of Kothos: legendary links of with Boeotia and Euboea, 79. Ajax, the Lesser, 65. Alalcomena, daughter of Ogygus, 56.

190

Index

Alalcomenae: ancient village near Solinari, 6, 9; absent from Catalogue, 90; settled by Boiotoi, 77. Alalkomenai (Mamoura), see Athena Itonia. Aleuadae, Thessalian family, 109f. Alexandras: Theban polemarch at Thermopylae, 129f., 132. Aliki: modern port, close to Siphae, 11. Amphiareum: 1. sanctuary near Thebes, 14; perhaps at Kanapetra, 14; transferred to near Oropus, 14; 2. sanctuary east of Markopoulo near Oropus, 19. Amphictyony, Boeotian: at Itonium, 89; at Onchestus, 89f.; distinguished from later politico-military league, 89f, 100, 111. Amphictyony, Calaurian, 97. Amphictyony, Delphian: Boeotian delegates chosen at Itonium, 89; Sparta attempts to exclude Boeotians from, 141; treaty with Athens, 149. Amphion, brother of Zethus: founder and fortifier of Thebes, 46f.; 55f.;as part of cult of twins, 57; as usurper, 46f.; historical traditions of, 57. Andreus, king of Orchomenus, 58. Anthedon (Mandraki): location and remains, 21; on ancient route to Thebes, 5, 13; of secondary importance in LH period, 42; LH IIIC remains, 40; joined Boeotian League, 112; perhaps returned Boeotarch, 124. Antigone, daughter of Oedipus, 48. Antigonus, 20. Aones, ancient tribe: in the Hecataean tradition, 45; in the Hellanican tradition, 45; derivation of name, 56; historicity of, 56. Aonian plain, northern part of Theban plain, 3, 12, 56. Aphedriates, Boeotian officials: possible relationship to Boeotarchs, 125, 157f.; religious duties, 125, 157f. Apollo, Delian, see Delium. Apollo Ptoos, sanctuary of: location at Perdikovrysi, 12f.; controlled by Thebes by 520, 100; games at, 13. Apollo Pythius, see Delphi. Apollo, Tegyrean: location of oracular shrine at Magoula near Polyira, 8. Apollo Tilphusius, temple of located near spring Tilphusa, 9. Apomneumones, Boeotian officials, 90.

Arcesilaus, Boeotian commander in the Trojan War, possibly brother of Prothoenor, 64; associated with Lebadea, 64. Archon at Onchestus: possibly linked to monarchy, 88,172; associated with festival at Onchestus, 89; as Federal eponymous official, 158. Archon, local: antiquity of office, 93; attested by 550 at Acraephia and Coronea, 93; duties of by fifth century, 160; replaces kingship, 93; tabus on, 93. Archontitza River, see Permessus. Ares, Father of lalmenus and Ascalaphus, 64. Argos and Argives: alleged conquest of Thebes, 62f. ,170; Argive cults in Boeotia, 62f.; Leadership of Greeks in Trojan War, 66; hatred of Sparta, 129; at the battle of Tanagra, 144; see also Seven, Epigoni. Aristagoras of Miletus, at Athens in 498, 127. Aristophanes of Boeotia: assessment of, 129f., discusses Theban officials only, 129f. Aristotle, on Ascra, 98; on democracies in Boeotia, 150. Armenidas, on the Niobids, 47. Army, Boeotian: organization, 158f.; mobilization of, 159; shield decoration of, 159; see also Lochos, Cavalry. Arne, Boeotian: town, location uncertain, 21; possibly at Magoula Balomenou, 6; possibly at Kalami, 6f. Arne, Thessalian: homeland of Boiotoi near, 75f., 171; possibly at Cierium, 75. Artemis, temple of, at Aulis, 20. Ascalaphus, s. of Ares, brother of lalmenus, 64; Orchomenian commander in Trojan War, 64. Ascra: located at Pyrgaki, 10; Archaic commune, 91; captured by Thespiae, 98, 172; Hesiod's bones removed to Orchomenus, 98; population expelled, 98f. Asopodorus, Theban hipparch of League cavalry, 134. Asopus River, 16, 17, 57, 64, 134; location, 4; legendary emigration from valley of, 79; legendary links with Aegina, 125f.; with Euboea, 79; Boiotoi conquer valley quite late, 78; border of League, 123.

Index

Aspledon, probably at Pyrgos, 7f.; possibly at Polyira, 8. Astymedousa, wife of Oedipus, 48; accuses stepsons of attempted seduction, 48f. Athamanes, 57. Athamantian plain of Thessaly, 58. Athamas: traditions concerning, 58; sons as eponyms of towns, 58. Athena Alalcomenaea, sanctuary of, 6; once controlled by Orchomenus, 97; see also Alalcomenae. Athena Itonia, sanctuary of, 6; time of foundation, 77; Pamboeotia at, 88f., 100; not in Catalogue, 90; once controlled by Orchomenus, 97; supervised by Amphictyony, 89,111; see also Festivals and Games. Athens: and Athenians: route to, 18; in Little Catalogue, 65f.; and Boeotian refugees, 50f, 80; early ties with Orchomenus, 87, 97; alliance with Eleutherae, 99, 113; alliance with Thessaly, 108,112; alliance with Plataea, 112f., 117,173, 174; dispute with Thebes and the League, 112-14,174; fall of tyrants, 114f., 117; invasion by and defeat of Boeotians and Chalcis, 116,174; Aeginetan-Boeotian alliance against, 125f., 174; "Undeclared War," 126-28; alliance with Megara, 143; campaigns of Tanagra and Oenophyta, 144-46; domination of Boeotia, 147-53,176; loses Boeotia, 150-53; battle of Coronea, 151-53, 176; agreement with Boeotian League, 153. Athens, Boeotian, possibly located at Agoriani, 7; covered by Lake Copais, 56. Attaginus, Theban oligarch, 134,135; escaped after Plataea, 135. Attica, 2; ancient routes to, 5; Argive invasion by way of, 62; LH Boeotian forts erected against, 39; Boeotians flee to, 50f., 79f.; early and legendary links with Boeotia, 55f., 170; Cadmeans flee to, 63, 68; Pelasgians expelled from, 79; emigration to Orchomenus from, 80, 87f., influence on Archaic Boeotian art, 87; Boeotian invasion of in 506, 116; in 480-79,134. Aulis, 4, 5; location of and remains at, 20; LH fortifications at, 39; port of embarkation for Trojan War, 62, 170;

191

port of emigration for refugees, 68, 79; controlled by Tanagra, 99, by Thebes, 99,111. Autesion, s. of Tisamenus, stemma, 63; replaced by Damasichthon as king and joins Dorians, 78. Balkans, links in Middle Neolithic, 34. Beloch,K.J.,109,110. Blegen,C.W.,64. Boeotarchs, Federal officials: possible links with the Pamboeotia, 89; from inception of League, 124,174; number of varies, often seven, 90, 124; eleven, 124; nine, 155f.; two to larger towns, 124,149,155f., 174; districts drawn from, 154-56; duties and responsibilities, 124f., 156f.;at Thermopylae, 129., 132.; Plataea, 479, 134; Plataea, 432, 132,161 f.; to Sicily, 413,132. Boeotia and Boeotians: see also Boiotoi; geography, 1-5; towns of, 5-21; archaeological evidence from, 32-42, 80f., 87f.; legends and traditions of, 45-52,170; historicity of traditions and legendary figures, 55-68; early links with Attica, 55-57,170; alleged conquest by Argives, 61-63,170; Trojan War, 64-67, 170; post-War population shifts, 67f.; coming of Boiotoi, 75-78,171; fate of non-Boiotoi, 78f., 171; traditional links with Euboea, 79; with Ionian colonization, 80; controlled by Boiotoi by 950, 80f., 171; in Archaic period, 87-101,172f.; artistic influences, 87f.; development of institutions, 88-95; districts of, see Districts; Orchomenus attempts hegemony, 97f., 172; growth of chief towns, 97-101,172f.; development of Amphictyonies, see Amphictyony, Boeotian; development of politico-military League, see League, Boeotian; oligarchies, see Oligarchy; Boeotian; democracies, see Democracy, Boeotian; domination by Thebes, 100, 155; in Persian Wars, 128-35; see also Persian Wars; campaign of 458, 143-47; domination by Athens, 147-53, 176; regains freedom, 150-53; population of, see Population; exiles from at Celonae in Persia, 133f.

192

Index

Boion, mountain in Epirus, 75. Boiotoi: see also Boeotia; origin in Thessaly, 66, 75-77,171; dialect of, 75f., 171; in Little Catalogue, 65-67, 76; in Great Catalogue, 50, 65f.; question of presence in Boeotia before Trojan War, 50, 65f.; enter Boeotia, 75-81; expulsion from Thessaly, 76f., 171; by Thessalus, 77; by Aiatus, 77; defeat and expulsion of previous inhabitants, 78-80; reduction to perioeci, 80; chronology of conquest, 80f., 171; control Boeotia by 950, 81, 87, 171; found festivals and cults, 77. Bolte, E., 12. Boule, see Council. Cabirium, location of sanctuary of, 13. Cadmeans: legendary settlings and expulsions, 46-49; second expulsion, 50; little if any historicity in traditions, 57f., 62f., 75; not to be linked with Boiotoi, 63. Cadmus: at Thebes, 45f.; stemma, 47f., links with Encheleans, 49; traditions of, 57f. Callinus, poet of a Thebais, 49. Callisthenes, historian of no worth, 129. Canethus, possible identification of Karababas as, 20. Cavalry, use in Archaic period, 94; unimportance by 600, 96; importance in battle of Plataea, 134. Cecrops, fortifies cities against Aones, 45; cult of at Haliartus, 56. Celonae, Persian town, Boeotian exiles at, 134. Cephalus, myth of linking Athens and Boeotia, 56. Cephisias, Orchomenian tribe, 90. Cephisus River, 3, 5, 6. Ceressus: location of, 10,111; battle of, 107, 111, 173; chronology of battle, 108-10, importance of, 107,112. Chaeronea: location at Kapraina and remains, 5f.; Neolithic site, 34; taken by Boiotoi and Opheltas, 77, 79; Archaic commune, 91; tabus on archons, 93; dominated by Orchomenus, 97, 98, 155; joins League, 123; Boeotarch from, 124; joins Orchomenizers, 150; captured by Athens, 150,151f., 176; Orchomenus loses C., and C. is grouped with Copae and Acraephia, 155, 156.

Chaironeia, see Chaeronea. Chalcis: attacks with Boeotia on Athens, 116,117; defeat and occupation by Athens, 116,126,151; legendary links with Boeotia, 79; Lelantine war of and Boeotia, 100; route from Thebes to, 5. Chalia, probable location of at modern Chalia(Drosia),21. Chalia Mikra, modern village, 21. Chalkis, modern city, 20. Chantsa, Mycenaean fort, 13, 38. Chariots, probably used in LH Theban-Orchomenian warfare, 59-61, 97f.; probably not used in Archaic age Theban-Orchomenian warfare, 93f. Charops, hero shrine of, located, 7. Chlempotsari (Asopia), remains on hill of Profitis Elias near, 17; possibly Eteonus, Pharae or Eilesion, 18; most likely Eilesion, 18; probably not Pharae, 19. Chlomon, mountain between Boeotia and Locris, 2, 3,175. Chorsiae, 4, 5; location and remains, 11; LH fort at, 39; controlled by Thespiae, 99, 155. Chostia, modern village 3 km from Chorsiae, 11. Cineas, tagos of Thessaly, 109; at Athens 510,114. Cithaeron, 2, 4, 5, 17. Cleisthenes of Sicyon, 108. Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and Athenian-Plataean alliance, 112-114; with army near Boeotia, 112, 114; friendly to Thessaly, 114; hostile to Athens, 116; second attempt on Athens, 127f. Clonius, Brother of Leitus, 64; or s. of Alegenor, 64; Boeotian commander in Trojan War, 64; associated with Plataea and Asopus valley, 64. Clymenus, king of Orchomenus and father of Erginus, 59; killed at Onchestus, 59, 97. Coins, Boeotian: first introduced about 525, 107, 111; modified, 112,117; types 479-458, 141f.; Orchomenian 479-458, 142; types 458-446, 148; only Thebes minting 446-387,155. Copae, small Boeotian city, 1; location and remains, 9; LH fortifications, 38; Archaic commune, 91; domination by Orchomenus, 97; precarious

Index

independence, 100,173; joined League, 114; grouped with Acraephia and Chaeronea, 155,156. Copais, Lake, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9,10,12, 75; location, 3; Athens and Eleusis covered by, 57; controlled in Bronze Age by Orchomenus, 41; drained, 3,169; Hyantes settled on east side of, 56, 57f.; protected by LH forts, 38, 41,169,170; wars near, 59f., 98. Corinth, and Athenian-Plataean alliance, 112-14,174. Corinthian Gulf, 4, 143. Coronea, battle of, 150,151-53,154,176. Coronea, city of, 3, 5; location and remains, 6; ruled by Athamas, 58; captured by Boiotoi, 76; Archaic polis, 91; archon at by 550, 93; domination by Orchomenus, 97; freedom from Orchomenus, 99,173; defeat by Orchomenus 550-525,100,110; original member of League, 111, 116; returned Boeotarch, 124; coins from, 141; grouped with Haliartus and Lebadea, 156. Coronus, s. of Athamas, founder of Coronea, 58. Corseia, Boeotian-Locrian border village, 8. Council, federal: at inception of League, 112, 174; probably halia of Herodotus, 125, 157; controlled by Thebes, 125; duties, 125, 157,174; quadripartite structure, 125,157., 174; terms of office, 157. Council, local: aristocratic in Archaic period, 92f.; patterned on federal Council after 446,159. Creon, king of Thebes, Cadmeans return in reign of, 50. Crete, influence of on LH land LH II, 37. Creusis, 4,5,11; location and remains of, 12; LH fort at, 38; dominated by Thespiae, 99. Cuarius River, 3. Cyclades, influence of on EH, 35. Cyrtones, Boeotian-Locrian border town, location of, 8f.; home of Phlegyians, 47. Damasichthon, s. of Ophelias, king of Boeotia, occupies Thebes, 77; replaces Autesion, 78. Darimari (Daphni), site at Katsoula 1 km from, 16f.; probably site of Erythrae, 18. Daulis, Phocian town, LH forts at, 38; Phlegyians settle at, 47.

193

Davlosis, modern village, site of Medeon, 12; MH settlement at, 36. Dekedhes, see Agoriani. Delium, battle of, 62,155, 156,157,158, 159,160. Delium, sanctuary of Apollo at: location of, 19; foundation legends and links to Attica, 56; Theban control from Tanagra before 490,128, 142,173; Persian loot from in 490, 128,142; booty returned to, 142. Delos, 128,142. Delphi, and Aeginetan-Boeotian alliance, 125f.; Thessalian dedication at, 148. Demeter Kabeira, temple of, 13. Democracy, Boeotian: at Plataea, 143,148, 149; at Thebes after 458,148; in Boeotia 458-446,148,149f.; at Thespiae, 148; possibly at Tanagra, 148; incompetence of, 150. See also Oligarchy, Society. Demophilus, s. of Diadromes, Thespian Boeotarch at Thermopylae, 132. Demosthenes, 9. Demouchoi, at Thespiae, 90. Dendri, see Hyettus. Derbenosialesi (Pyle), modern village, 17, 18.

Dhistomon, modern village, 5. Dicasts: districts drawn from, 155f., 175; duties, 157; associated with Thesmophylakes, 157. See also League, Boeotian. Dilesi, see Delium. Diocletian, Edict of, fragments found, 16. Diodorus Siculus, follows Ephorus for Tanagra-Oenophyta campaign, 145; testimony of, 141,144f.; rejected, 147. Dionysus, temple of, claimed at Tzamali, 7, 8. Districts, Boeotian: for Pamboeotia, 89; developments of concept of, 98-100, 173; status of subordinate groups in, 99; status of smaller towns, 100. See also Boeotia, Perioeci. Dithyrambus, s. of Harmatides, Thespian polemarch at Thermopylae, 132. Dolopians, Ainianes and Perrhaiboi, medize in 480,132f. Domvraina, modern village, 4. Donacon, possible site of at Tateza, 11. Doris, 3; refuge of Cadmeans, 49, 63; dispute with Phocis in 459 and Spartan intervention, 143, 175.

194

Index

Dowry, as mechanism for property exchange, 92. See also Landholding, Family. Dramesi (Paralia): remains at possibly Hyria, probably Graea, 19f.; Neolithic remains, 34; MH remains, 36; LH III C remains, 40. Dritsa, see Heleon. Drosia, see Chalia. Drymus, ancient town perhaps located at Kavasala, 18. Echecratidae, Thessalian family; Lattamyas a member of, 109f.; tagoi before 511, 109f. Eilesion, ancient town, probably at Chlempotsari, 18; possibly at Vratsi, 18; unlikely at Megalo Vouno, 20. Ektenes, ancient tribe, associated with Attica, 57; autochthonous in Boeotia, 45; possibly Boeotian phyle term, 90. Elateia, Phocian site, Neolithic settlement, 34. Eleusis, in Attica, Ogygus as founder of, 56. Eleusis, in Boeotia, possibly at Agoriani, 7; covered by Lake Copais, 56. Eleutherae, 2, 16; location at Gyphokastro, 18; shielded from Thebes, 113,123, 174; alliance with Athens, 99, 113., 123,173; Ionic dialect in, 123; not cause of Theban-Athenian hostility, 113; cult of Dionysus, 99, 113; perioecic to Athens, 143, 153; united to Athens in fourth century, 113. Ellopes, legendary links with Boeotia, 79. Encheleans (Encheleis), Cadmeans flee to, 49; Herodotus and Hecataeus on, 49; locations of, 49,90. Epaminondas, 146. Epeians, in Little Catalogue, 65f. Ephippus, brother of Leucippus, and cult of twins, 57. Ephorus: follows Hecataeus for early traditions, 45f.; on Phlegyians, 47; on Cadmeans, 50; on expulsion of pre-Boiotoi, 78f.; rejected on Tanagra-Oenophyta campaign and Spartan-Theban relations, 145-47, 176. Epicaste, mother of Oedipus, 48. See also Jocasta. Epigoni, 49, 6If. Epirus, Cadmeans expelled to, 63, Thessalians enter Thessaly from, 76, 77.

Erechtheus, king of Athens, 57. Eretria: legendary links with Boeotia, 79; allied to Oropus, 100; perhaps allied to Orchomenus in Lelantine War, 100; Persians capture in 490, 128,174; Athenian garrison at, 151. Erginus, king of Orchomenus, s. of Clymenus or Poseidon, 59; slays Phrastor and Leonytus, sons of Oedipus, 48, 59; variant traditions on, 59f.; fight with Heracles, 59f.; joins Argonauts, 60. Erimokastro (Thespiai), modern village, 10. Erythrae: possible locations, 15-18; probably at Darimari, 18; eponym s. of Athamas, 58; under Plataean control, 99,123,143,154. Erythrus, s. of Athamas, eponym of Erythrae, 58. Eteocles, s. of Oedipus, cursed by father, 49; traditions on, 61; fate of descendants, 63. Eteokleias, Orchomenian tribe, 90. Eteonus (Scarphe or Scaphae): possible locations of, 15-18; perhaps at Neochorakion, 18; under Plataean influence, 99; controlled by Plataea 479-432,143,154. Euboea, 4; traditional links with Boeotia, 79; influence on Archaic Boeotia, 87; exiles from join Orchomenizers, 150; Tolmides' strategy in, 151; rebellion of not aided by Boeotia, 153. Eudielus, ancient town, perhaps at Mavromandili, 8. Euripus, 4, 21,123. "Euripus Fortress" perhaps at Karababas, 20. Euryganeia, wife of Oedipus, 48. Eurymachus, leader of the Phlegyians, 47. Eurymachus, s. of Leontiades, Theban leader killed by Plataeans, 160f. Eutresis, 4; location and remains, 11; neolithic site, 34; EH site, 35; MH, 36; LH fortifications, 39; LH III C remains, 40; of secondary importance in LH, 42; Amphion and Zethus at, 57; refounded by Thespiae, 99, 173; controlled by Thespiae, 155. Evangelistra, convent of, south of Siacho, possible location of Ocalea, 10. Family (Genos): classes and, 91 f.; councils from heads of noble, 92f., hoplite

Index

reforms and the, 95f.; importance of, 91; landholding and the, 92. See also Dowry, Land, Society. Festivals and Games, Boeotian: Basileia 101 note 9; at Onchestus, 89f., 100, 111; once controlled by Orchomenus, 97f.; supervisory amphictyony, 89; Pamboeotia, founded in Dark Ages, 77; celebration of, 88f., 97,172; once controlled by Orchomenus, 97; supervisory amphictyony, 89. Ptoa, 13. Fortifications: near Aulis, 20; near Euripus, 20; at Megalo Vouno, 20; from Megalo Vouno to Mt. Ktipas, 20; at Tilphusium, 9; LH III system of, 38f. Frazer, Sir J.G.,14. Games, see Festivals and Games, Boeotian. Gell, Sir W., 13. Genos, see Family. Gephyraioi, expelled from Boeotia, 79. Geraneia, mountain, 2; passes blocked by Athenians, 143f. Gla, Mycenaean fortress, 13, 36, 38, 40. Glisas, location and remains at Tourleza near Syrtzi, 15; LH fort at, 39; defeat of Thebans by Epigoni at, 49, 62. Glypha, see Tseloneri. Gomme, A. W.,150. Gorgidas, and formation of Sacred Band, 94. Graea, probably located at Dramesi, 19f.; annexed by Tanagra, 99. Graimadha, see Tanagra. Granitza, mountain, 7. Greenhalgh, P. A. L., 94. Gyphokastro, probable location of Eleutherae, 18. Gyrton, home of Phlegyians, 47. Halia, see Council, Federal. Haliartus, 1, 3, 9, 60; location and remains, 10; MH site, 36; LH fortifications, 38; of secondary importance in LH, 42; cult of Cecrops at, 56; ruled by Athamas, 58; Archaic polis, 91, 173; original member of League, 111, 117; Boeotarch from, 124; coins from, 141; and Coronea campaign 446,152; grouped with Coronea and Lebadea, 156.

Haliartus, s. of Athamas, eponym, 58. Hamippoi, special mounted infantry, 158. Hammond, N. G. L., 127. Harma, location and remains, 15; LH fort, 39; part of Tetracomia, 99.

195

Hecataeus: and early traditions, 45-51; compared to Hellanicus and Pherecydes, 5If., 170; historical value of, 55-68.

Hedylium, mountain, 2, 3. Heleon: location, 15; LH fortifications, 39; LH III C remains, 40; of secondary importance in LH, 42; part of Tetracomia, 99. Helicon, 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 9,10,11; Thracian cults on, 79. Helladic, Early, 35f. Helladic, Late I and II (LH I & II), 37; lack of Boeotian, 36, 37; expanding culture, 68. Helladic, Late IIIA and B (LH IIIA and B), 38-40; fortifications in, 38-40, 68; decline in artistic standards, 39, 41; collapse and destruction at end of, 40f., 169,171; growth of population during, 38,41; wars in, 39, 67f., 170. Helladic, Late III C (LH III C), 40f.; decline of population, 40; destruction in, 40f.; period of collapse, 40f., 169. Helladic, Middle, 36f. Hellanicus: and early traditions, 45-51; compared to Hecataeus and Pherecydes, 5If., 170; historical value of, 55-68.

Heniochoi kai Parabatai, see Sacred Band. Heraclea Pontica, colony founded by Tanagra and Megara, 99. Heracles: and chariots in war, 59f., 94; cults and traditions of in Boeotia, 62; war with Erginus, 59f. Heracles Hippodetes, shrine of; location, 13f.; battle near, 97. Hercyna River (Probasia), 3. Herodorus, 47. Herodotus: on Boeotians, 129f., 133; contradicted by Plutarch, 109; followed by Thucydides, 113f.; on Thebans, 129f.; on "Undeclared War," 126f. Hesiod, 10, 52, 92,172; bones of to Orchomenus, 98; evidence for family life, 91 f.; for land tenure, 92; father an immigrant, 95. Hieromnemones, local officials, 160. Hieronymus, historian, 46,47, 50,77. Hipparch, federal magistracy, 158; local magistracy, 93, 160; at battle of Plataea, 134. Hippotae, location of, 6. Histaeotis, as place of refuge for Thebans, 49.

196

Index

Hittites, archives of, 63, 66. Homer, 12; Great Catalogue of, 50, 64f., 76, 90; Little Catalogue of, 65-67,76. Homole, Thebans return from, 49. Hoplites: and reforms of Philolaus, 95f., 173; and family, 95f.; and Thebes, 95, 97, 173;and Thespiae, 96,173; and other towns, 96. See also Army, Cavalry. Hyampolis, Phocian town, 5; LH fortifications, 38; Hyantes settle at, 56, 79; on invasion route, 77, 108,114; Phocian battles against Thessalians near, 116. Hyantes, early tribe in Hecataeus and Hellanicus, 45, 46; traditions on, 56; expelled from Boeotia, 56, 57, 60; home near Onchestus, 56, 57, 60; defeated by Boiotoi, 78, 79. Hyettus, location and remains, 8; dominated by Orchomenus, 97; joined League, 123. Hylae, Homeric town, possible locations of, 12f. Hylice, Lake (Iliki), 2,14. Hypatus, mountain, 2, 14. Hyperphas, see Periphas. Hypothebes: in Catalogue, 50, 63; sends force to Trojan War, 50; under Argive rule, 63. Hyria: possibly at Dramesi, 19; probably at Tseloneri, 20; Archaic domination by Orchomenus, 97. Hysiae: possible locations of, 15-18; probably at Pantanassa, 18; occupied by League in 506,116; buffer state, 113,123; under Plataean control, 99, 123,143,154. lalmenus, s. of Ares, brother of Ascalaphus, 64; Orchomenian leader in Trojan War, 64; returns to obscurity, 67. Iliki,Lake(Hylice),2,3,4, 12, 13. Illyrians, alleged invasion by of Mycenaean Greece, 40. Inscriptions, 10,11, 16,21,153. lolcus, Thessalian city destroyed in LH III C,40. lonians, in Little Catalogue, 65f.; originally in Boeotia, 66, 78,170; at Tanagra 458,144. Ismene, daughter of Oedipus, 48. Ismenus River, 3, 4, 14. Isos, possible locations, 21. Itonian Athena, see Athena Itonia.

Jacoby, F., 129. Jocasta, mother of Oedipus, 48. See also Epicaste. Kakosalesi, site of Oenophyta possibly nearby, 19. Kakosi (Thisvi), see Thisbe. Kalami (Lioma), location of, possibly Midea, Eleusis or Arne, 6; LH fortifications, 38; LH III C remains, 40; of secondary importance in LH, 42. Kalimbaki, Mycenaean cemetery at, 12. Kanapetra, cemetery at, 14. Kanavari River, see Thespius River, 3. Kapraina, see Chaeronea. Karababas, probably "Euripus Fortress," 20. Karditsa (Akraiphnion), modern town, 12. Kastraki near Karditsa, site of heroum of Ptoos, 12. Kastraki below Sphinx, see Medeon. Kastri below Lykovouniou, 15, 38; see also Harma. Kastro near Klidhi, ancient settlement at, 17. Kastro on Lake Iliki, ancient site at, 13. Katsoula near Darimari, 16; probably Erythrae, 18. Kavasala, site near, 17; perhaps Eteonus, Panakton or Drymus, 18. Khalia, see Salganeus. Kingship, Boeotian: early, 77, 78, 81, 172; extinction of, 78,91; linked to archon at Onchestus, 88; nobles termed "kings," 91; replaced locally by archons, 93, 172. Kirsten.E., 14,21. Klidhi, Classical site at, 17; perhaps Schedia, 18f. Klimitari, remains at possibly Hylae, 12; or Trapheia, 13. Knopia, possible location, 14. Kokla (Plataia), modern village next to Plataea, 15. Kothos, brother of Aiklos, and legendary links with Boeotia and Euboea of, 79. Koukoura, valley of, 6. Kriekouki (Erythrai), modern village, 16. Ktipas, mountain, 3, 5, 20. See also Messapium. Labdacidae, Theban dynasty: stemma, 47; replaced after Trojan War, 67. Labdacus, Theban king, 47f. Laius, Theban king, 46, 47.

Index

Land and Landholding: dowry system and, 91 f.; and hoplites, 95-97; inalienable lots, belief in, 91 f.; lawsuits and, 92; reforms by Philolaus at Thebes, 95f.; selling and buying of, 91f.; transmission of, 92. Laodamas, s. of Eteocles, variant traditions on, 49. Laphystium, mountain, 1, 2, 3, 58. Larymna, Locrian town, 2, 5, 9. Lattamyas, Thessalian: Echecratid, possibly tagos, 109f.; invaded Boeotia, 108; date, 109f.; defeat and death of, 107,109, 112,117,174; L. and Cleomenes, 114. League, Arcadian, 146. League, Boeotian: distinguished from religious amphictyonies, 89f., 100; formation of, 107-17,173; original membership, 111; coins of, see Coins; dominated by Thebes to 479,111,123, 125,173; Plataea refuses to join, but allies self to Athens, 112-14,117,174; enlargement of membership, 112,117; absorbs Orchomenus, 115f., 117,123, 174; defeat by Athens 506,116,117, 174; early organization of, 124f., 174; oligarchies in, see Oligarchy; Boeotarchs, 124f.; Council, 125; double districts, 124,156,174; alliance with Aegina and defeat by Athens, 125-27; neutral at Marathon, 128,174; medism in 480,128-34; at Tempe, 130,175; at Thermopylae, 131f., 175; alleged deportation of anti-medizers, 133f.; at Plataea, 134f., 175; punishment, 135, 175; hegemony of Tanagra, 479-458, 141f., 144,148,175; withdrawal of Orchomenus, 142,175; status of Plataea, 142f; Spartan intervention, 143-47,175; alleged Theban revival, 145-47,175; Athenian domination, 147-53,176; Plataea 458-446,148f., 176; Orchomenus, 149; rebellion, 150-55; agreement with Athens, 154f.; Theban hegemony 446-387,155,161 f., 176; government of, 155-59; attack on Plataea, 161; annexation of Plataea, 155,176. Leake,W. M., 12,16, 20. Lebadea, 3,7; location, 6; Arcesilaus associated with, 64; Archaic commune, 91; Archaic domination by Orchomenus, 97; freedom from Orchomenus, 99,173; joined League,

197

112,123; Boeotarch, 124; grouped with Coronea and Haliartus, 156. Leitus, s. of Alectryon, 64; brother of Clonius, 64; Boeotian commander in Trojan War, 64; associated with Plataea, 64; returns to obscurity, 67. Lelantine Wars, heroic warfare in, 94; Oropus, Orchomenus allied to Eretria in, 100; Thebes and Tanagra with Chalcisin, 100. Leleges, 45. Leontiades (I), s. of Eurymachus, Theban Boeotarch at Thermopylae, 129,131, 132,152; survived war at Thebes, 133. Leontiades (II), s. of Eurymachus, leader of pro-Spartan party at Thebes in 383, 161. Leonytus, s. of Oedipus, accused of seduction of step-mother, 48f.; killed by Erginus, 48, 59. Leucippus, brother of Ephippus, and twin cults, 57. Leuctra, location of, 10; and chronology of Ceressus, 108. Levendi, Phocian, LH fortifications of, 38. Likeri, ancient site, 12; possibly Trapheia, 13. Linear B at Thebes, 14. Lioma, see Kalami. Listi, possible site of Ceressus, 10. Lithosoros, possibly "Tomb of Salganeus," 21.

Livadhia, modern town, 6,10. Lochos, tactical unit, 132,158; at Thermopylae, 132; to Plataea in 431, 132,161; to Sicily in 413,132. Locris, 2, 8, 9; Amphion and Zethus in, 57; L. in Little Catalogue, 65f.; medized, 131; Athenian rule, 144,147,176; exiles join Orchomenizers, 150. Lophis River, 3. Loukisia, modern village, 21. Loutsi, modern village, 8. Lycus, slays Phlegyas, 47. Lykovouniou, mountain, 15. Magoula Balomenou, possibly Arne, 6. Magoula near Polyira, location of shrine of Tegyrean Apollo, 8; neolithic site, 34; MH site, 36. Mandraki, see Anthedon. Mardonius, 134. Mamoura, see Athena Itonia. Markopoulo, modern town, 19.

198

Index

Martinon, modern village near Corseia and Cyrtones, 8, 9. Mavromandili, site possibly of Eudielus, 7, 8. Mavrovouni, Classical fort near Siphae, 11. Mavrovouni, hill on Attic-Boeotian border, 19. Mazi, plain of, 18. Medeon, located at Kastraki near Davlosis, 12; LH site, 36; LH fortification, 38; controlled by Thebes, 100. Medon, variant roles in Homer, 65f. Medusa, see Astymedousa. Megali Katavothri, 13. Megalopolis, walls of, 147. Megalo Vouno, hill fort near Aulis, 20. Megara, 2, 5; with Tanagra founds Heraclea Pontica, 99; alliance with Athens, 143; devastated by Sparta, 144-46; Athenian garrisons in, 151; rebellion in 152, 153. Meges, variant roles in Homer, 65f. Melanthus, kills Xanthus on frontier, 78. Melas River, 3, 7, 8. Menestheus of Athens, 64, 65, 66. Mesovouni, possible site of Teumessus, 14f. Messapium, mountain (Ktipas), 2, 3,15. Messene, centre for LH development, 37; fourth century walls of, 147. Metachorion, 6. Midea, possibly at Kalami, 7; home of Prothoenor, 64. Minyans, expelled from Orchomenus to Munychia, 50, 68; to Thoricus, 50, 68. Minyas, king of Orchomenus, 58. Mitropoliti bridges and site, location of, 17; possibly Scolus, 18. Mnamias, Theban polemarch at Tempe, 130. Mouriki, modern village, 13. Moustaphades hill, 4,14. Muses, sanctuary of the: location and remains of, 9f. Mycalessus, possible locations for, 15, 20; part of Tetracomia, 99. Mycenae, centre for LH changes, 37; destroyed in LH III C, 40; legendary golden rams of, 62. Myronides, Athenian general, 144; wins Oenophyta, 144, 145. Mysa, existence of uncertain, 21. Naopoioi, Hellenistic officials, 89, 160.

Naucleides, Plataean oligarchic sympathizer, 159; invites Thebans, 161. Navarch, federal official, 158. Neochorakion, 17; possible site of Scolus or Eteonus, 18. Neochorion, possible site of Ceressus, 10. Neokastro, site of Classical Thisbe, 11. Neolithic, 34f. Nicander, Scholiast on, 14. Nicolaus, 50. Niobe, 47. Niobids, variation in numbers of, 47. Nisa, existence of uncertain, 21. Nobility, origins of in Archaic, 91 f., 172; families of, 91; estates of, 92; termed kings, 91; governed towns, 92f.; fighting class, 93f.; excluded from manual labour, 95; at Thebes, 95, 96, 100; at Thespiae, 96; in smaller towns, 96. See also Society, Family, Kingship. Nostoi, 67. Nycteus, brother of Lycus, slays Phlegyas, 47. Ocalea, possible locations of, 90. Oedipodia, epic, 48. Oedipus, in conventional stemma, 47; variant traditions on, 47f., 59, 61f.; children of, 48f.; curse of, 49; associated with wars, 61f.; an interloper, 61. Oedipus' Sheep, war of, 48, 61, 62; distinguished from Argive War, 62. Oenoe, Athenian town, 2; border fortress, 113; Boeotians seize in 506, 116. Oenophyta, battle of, 62, 142,144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 176. Oenophyta, village, location of, 19. Oeroe River (Stravopotamos), 4. Ogygus, s. of Boeotus, 51f; autochthonous, 45, 46, 51, 56; variant traditions on, 56; legendary links with Attica and Eleusis, 56; father of Cadmus, 57. Old Oligarch, see [Xenophon]. Oligarchy, Boeotian: developed from aristocracies, 95f., 172; and hoplite reform, 95f., 173; and League, 124, 143; in stasis, 143, 144, 147; under Athenian domination, 148; and rebellion, 150, 152; theories of and of local government, 159f.; "Patria Koina" an o. catch-phrase, 159. See also Social Classes, Democracy.

Index

Olmones, location of, 8; Archaic domination of by Orchomenus, 97. Olmos, settlement on Helicon founded by Athamas, 58. Onchestus: location of, 10; Hyantes in, 56, 57, 60; foundation legends and links with Attica, 56 and n. 17; founded by O., s. of Athamas, 58; death of Clymenus at, 59; battles near, 59-61, 97f.; linked to Orchomenus, 60f., 97f.; cult of Poseidon, 60, 89f.; festival at, See Festivals; archon at, 88, 89; defeat of Orchomenus near, 97f.; see also Festivals and Games. Onchestus, s. of Athamas, founds Onchestus, 58. Opheltas, s. of Peneleus, king of Boiotoi, captures Chaeronea, 77. Orchomenizers, probably Theban-dominated exiles, 150, 155, 177; seize Orchomenus and lead rebellion, 150,152f; instrumental in Athenian defeat at Coronea, 150,151, 152. Orchomenus, 1, 5, 7, 8, 33, 34, 36,133,134, 160, 169; location and remains, 5f.; LH rivalry with Thebes, 39, 41, 59f., 170; in LH III C, 40; LH fortification system of, 38; occupied by Phlegyians, 47; Minyans expelled from, 50; Minyas king of, 58; Andreus king of, 58; eponym O., 59; Clymenus king of, 59; Erginus king of, 60; Trojan commanders of, 64; LH dynastic disturbances at, 67; captured by Boiotoi, 77; immigration into from Athens, 80, 87; tribes of, 90; Archaic polis, 91; attempted hegemony over Boeotia, 97f., 172; Calaurian arnphictyony, 97, defeat by Thebes, 97f.; ties with Thessaly, 97,108; with Ascra, 98; loss of Lebadea and Coronea, 99f; victory over Coronea 550-525,100; in Lelantine war with Eretria, 100; alliance with Thessaly against League, 110f., 112,116,174; absorbed into League, 115,117,123; returned Boeotarch, 124; out of League 479-458,142,176; coins of, 142; in League 458-446,149; seized by Orchomenizers, 150; joins revolt against Athens, 150f., 152, 153; posited hegemony over League, 154f.; position in League 446-387, 154f.; oligarchic, 159.

199

Orchomenus, s. of Athamas, founds Orchomenus, 58. Orestes, s. of Echecratides, supported by Athenian-Boeotian force, 149. Oropus: location, 19; dialect of, 78, 99, 123; links to Eretria, 79, 100; membership in Arnphictyony at Onchestus, 90; Archaic commune, 91; allied to Orchomenus, 100; dependency of Athens, 123, 143, 153, 173. Osios Meletios, monastery of, 16. Oungra, possible site of Hylae, 12; or of Trapheia, 13; LH III C remains at, 40. Page, D. L., 64. Palaiokastro, site of Bronze Age Thisbe, 11. Palaiomylai, cemetery near Mitropoliti bridge, 17. Palaiovoro, possible site of Ceressus, 10. Pamboeotia, see Festivals and Games. Paleothivai, fort and mountain, 9. Panakton, 18. Pandion, king of Athens, 57. Panopeus, Phocian site, 3; LH fort, 38; settled by Phlegyians, 47. Pantanassa, chapel of, 16, 17; probable site of Hysiae, 18. Pantzas River, see Phalarus. Paralia, see Dramesi. Paralimni Lake (Trephia), 2,13. Parapoungia (Levktra), modern village, 11. Parasopia, 15f.; invaded by League 506,116; buffer between League and Athens, 123; annexed by League 480-479, 134; Plataean to 432, 143, 154, 155; Boeotarch from after 427,155. Parnassus, mount, Thracian cults on, 78f. Parnes, mount, 2. Pastra, mount, 2, 18. Pateras, mount, 2, 18. Patria koina, Boeotian catchphrase for oligarchy, 159. Pausanias, 5, 7, 14. Pavlou, modern village, 8. Pegae, 153. Pegasus of Eleutherae, introduced cult of Dionysus to Athens, 113. Peisander, 48. Peisistratus, 107, 108. Pelagia, mount, 12, 13. Pelasgians: in Hecataeus, 45; expel Thebans, 50, 67; defeated by Boiotoi, 78; aboriginal inhabitants of Greece, 79; expelled from Boeotia and Athens, 79.

200

Index

Peneleus, Boeotian commander in Trojan War, 64; associated with Thebes, 64; possible return and exile, 67; son captures Chaeronea, 77; ultimate fate uncertain, 65. Pentheus, called Tentheus by Hecataeus, 48. Perdikovrysi, site of sanctuary of Apoll Ptoos, 12,13. Pericles: expedition to Phocis, 150; urges delay in sending force to Orchomenus, 151. Perioeci: Eleutherae and Oropus as Athenian, p., 143; and Plataea, 99; smaller towns under larger as p., 98f.; status of non-Bowtoi, 80, 100; Thebageneis as, 80, 172; p. and Thespiae, 98f. Periphas, 48. Permessus River (Archontitza), 4, 11. Peteon, probably to be placed at Platanaki, 13; perhaps at Skala Paralimnes, 13. Petra, ridge, 9. Petra, modern village, see Siacho. Phalarus River, (Pantzas), 3. Pharae, possibly to be located at Chlempotsari, 18; or Aghios Pantaleimon, 18; part of Tetracomia, 99.

Pharaklas, C., 21. Pheidippus, settles in Ephyra, 77. Pherecydes: early traditions in, 46-50; compared to Hellanicus and Hecataeus, 51 f., 169; on early Boeotian history, 55f.,58f., 78. Philochorus, 45, 46, 56. Philoctetes, variant traditions on in Homer, 65. Philolaus, Corinthian lawgiver at Thebes, 95., 173. Phlegyians: in early historical traditions, 47; as friendly in Hellanicus, 47; enter Boeotia,67, 171. Phlegyas, tribal eponym, 47. Phocae, located probably at Skroponeri, 21. Phocian Desperation, battle of, 116. Phocis, 1, 3, 34; LH fortifications in against Orchomenus, 38, 39, 41; Trophonius and Agamedes in, 57; Minyas linked to, 58; early ties to Orchomenus, 97; subdued by Thessaly, 107,112,114, 116; liberated from Thessaly, 115f., 117; in Persian wars, 130, 132; dispute with Doris, 143, 176; Athenian domination, 144, 145, 147, 176; Pericles sent to restore situation, 150.

Phrastor, s. of Oedipus, accused of seduction of stepmother, 48f.; killed by Erginus, 48, 59. Phratries, probable absence of in Boeotia, 90, 172. See also Family, Phylae. Phthians, in Little Catalogue, 65f. Phylae, probable absence in Boeotia, 90, 172; possible vestiges of seven tribes, 90, 172. Plataea, battle of, 134. Plataea, city of, 4, 12, 18, 64, 79, 90, 97; location of, 15, 113; of secondary rank in LH, 42; occupied by Boiotoi, 78, Archaic polis, 91; tabus on archons, 93; early control of Parasopia, 99; refuses to join League and allies self to Athens, 112-14, 116, 173, 174; buffer state, 123; hatred of Thebes, 123; in Persian Wars, 131, 133, 134, 175; ravaged, 133, 141; not in League 479-458, 142f.; control of Parasopia to 432, 143, 154; democracy in, 143, 148; in Tanagra campaign, 144; in League 458-446, 148f., 176; out of League 446-427, 153f., 177; Theban attack on, 149, 161f. Platanaki, probable site of Peteon, 13. Plutarch, 5, 8; contradicts Herodotus, 109, 129; testimony on chronology of Ceressus rejected, 108-10. Podarces, 65. Polemaeus, Hellenistic general, 20. Polemarch; early title, 93; in tactical control of local forces, 129f.; at Tempe and Thermopylae, 129f., 132; in fifth century and at Delium, 160; civil officials in fourth century, 160. Polybos, 48. Polydorus, in conventional stemma, 47. Polyira: location, 7; probably Tegyra, possibly Aspledon, 8; prehistoric remains, 34, 36. Polyneices, s. of Oedipus, 48; in conventional stemma, 47; cursed by Oedipus, 49; traditions on, 61. Population: growth of in prehistoric times, 41, 169; catastrophic drop in LH III C, 40f., 169; nadir in Dark Ages, 80f.; gradual recovery, 87; population estimates in 432, 160. Poseidon, father of Erginus, 59. Poseidon Hippios, shrine of, location, 9. Poseidon, sanctuary of at Onchestus, 10. Poseidon, temenos of at Aghios Vasilios, 12.

Index

Potniae: location, 14; foundation legends and links with Attica, 56 and n. 17; absorbed by Thebes, 98,173. Pottery: Geometric, with depictions of warfare, 93-95; EH, 35; LH I&II, 37, III, 39; MH, 36f.; sub-Mycenaean, 40f. Praxidicae, sanctuary of the: location, 9. Pritchett, W. K.,5. Probasia River, see Hercyna. Procris, myth of linking Attica and Boeotia, 56. Profitis Ilias, chapel of, near Soules, possible location of Teumessus, 15. Profitis Ilias, hill of, near Chlempotsari, 17; see Chlempotsari. Proskyna, modern village, 8. Protesilaus, 65. Prothoenor, s. of Areilycus, brother of Arcesilaus, 64; Boeotian commander in Trojan War, 64; from western Boeotia, 64. Psaphis, Boeotian community dependent on Athens, 123. Ptoa, see Festivals and Games. Ptoon, mount, 2, 3, 5; LH forts on, 38; settlement founded by Ptoos, son of Athamas, 58; controlled by Thebes, 100. Ptoos, s. of Athamas, founds settlement, 58; location of hero shrine of at Kastraki, 12. Pyle, see Derbenosialesi. Pyrgaki, site of Ascra, 10. Pyrgos, probable site of Aspledon, 7f.; or possibly Tegyra, 8; MH remains, 36; LH III C remains at, 40. Pyrgos Aghias Marinas, Mycenaean fortress, 13, 38. Pyrgos, hill near Staniates, possible site of Oenophyta, 19. Ritsona, modern village near Mycalessus, 15. Roads and Routes, ancient: Anthedon-Thebes, 13; Chalcis-Thebes, 5, 15; Eleutherae-Hysiae-Thebes, 5,16; Lebadea-Thebes, 13; Oropus-Thebes, 5,62; Creusis-Thespiae, 5, 11,12; Plataea-Thespiae, 11; Plataea-Thebes, 16; Plataea-Aghios Vasilios, 12; Plataea-Scolus, 16; Daulis-Panopeus-Chaeronea, 4;

201

Thermopylae-Elateia-Chaeronea, 4, 77, 108, 114; east-west routes over Helicon, 4. Roman and Byzantine material, 12, 13, 17, 21. Sacred Band (Heniochoi kai Parabatai): Archaic parade group, 93f.; at Delium, 94; when formed as combat group, 94; in Federal army, 158. Sagmata, monastery of, possible site of sanctuary of Zeus Hypatus, 15. Sagmatas, Mount, 15. Salganeus (Khalia), 4; location, 20f.; LH III C remains, 40. Salganeus, Tomb of, probably at Lithosoros, 21. Scaphae, see Eteonus. Scarphe, see Eteonus. Schedia, possibly located at Klidhi, 18f. Schimitari, modern village, 18. Schoeneus, s. of Athamas, founder of Schoenus, 58. Schoenus, perhaps at Aghios Elias near Mouriki, 13; or at Likeri, 13; Schoeneus the eponym, 58. Scolus, possible locations, 15-18; perhaps at Mitropoliti bridge, 18; under Plataean control in Archaic, 99; under Theban by 506,123; Plataean 479-432, 143, 154. Seals, cylinder, Mesopotamian, 14, 40, 58. Senkenna, site of Hylae perhaps near to, 12. Seven against Thebes, 48, 61. Siacho (Petra), modern village, 10. Sidae, possible indentification for site near Derbenosialesi, 17. Siphae (Tipha), 5; location and remains, 11; LH fortifications at, 39; controlled by Thespiae, 99, 155, 173. Skala Oropou (Oropus) 19. Skala Paralimnes, possibly Peteon, 13. Skripou (Orchomenos), modern village, 6. Skroponeri, probably Phocae, 21; LH III C remains, 40. Society: and family, 9If.; and hoplite reforms, 95f.; districts and, 90f.; land and, 90f.; oligarchy and, 125,143,159; organization of, 90-93; rise of social classes, 91 f. See also Family, Nobility, Kingship, Dowry, Oligarchy, Democracy. Solinari, modern village, 3, 9; near Alalcomenae, 6.

202

Index

Soros, peak, 4,14,17, 34. Soules, probable location of Teumessus, 14f. Sparta: influence on Athenian-Plataean alliance, 112-14,174; overthrows Peisistratids, 114f.; with League against Athens, 116; intervention in Phocian-Dorian dispute, 143; invasion of Boeotia, 143-45; at Tanagra, 144f.; alleged alliance with Thebes, 143, 145-47; negotiations with Athens, 150. Sparton, leader of Orchomenizers, probably Theban, 150. Sphendale, border town, 134. Sphingius, s. of Athamas, founds settlement on Mt. Sphinx, 59. Sphinx Mountain, 2; settlement by Sphingius, 59. Stamatakis, 10. Stephanephoria, festival with links with Athens, 56. Stephon, ancient site, 18. Sthenelus, 48. Strabo, 5, 7, 8. Stravopotamos, see Oeroe. Stroviki, Mycenaean site, 8, 38. Syrtzi: not site of Knopia, 14; probably Glisas, 15. Tachi, site of Potniae, 14. Tanagra, battle of, 62, 144-46,147, 176. Tanagra (Graimadha), 3, 4, 5, 42; location and remains, 19; LH III C occupation of, 40; Leucippus and Ephippus in, 57; occupied by Boiotoi, 78; Archaic polis, 91; absorbed Graea, 99,173; controlled Aulis, 99; allied with Thebes and Chalcis in Lelantine War, 100; founded Heraclea Pontica with Megara, 99; original member of League, 111, 116f.; one Boeotarch, 124; lost Delium to Thebes, 128,173; in Persian Wars, 134; hegemon of League 479-458,141f., 143, 147, 148, 176; Spartans occupy, 143f., 147, 176; Athenians destroy walls, 142,144f., 148,176; democracy at, 148; position in League 446-387,155f. Tateza, ancient site, possibly Donacon, 11. Tegyra, probably located at Polyira, possibly at Pyrgos, 8. Teiresias, dies at spring Tilphusa, 9. Temmikes, ancient tribe: in Hecataeus, 45; invade Boeotia, 45; variant traditions on, 56; "Temmikion" as name for Thebes, 56.

Tempe: allied expedition to in 480, 129, 132; Boeotian participation in, 129f.; Theban officials in, 129f. Teneric Plain, 3, 4,12,60,97. Teos, Athamas as founder of, 58. Tetracomia, 4: Archaic communes in, 91; pressed by Thebes and Tanagra, 99; controlled by Thebes, 99; members of League, 111; Boeotarch from named by Thebes, 124. See also Harma, Heleon, Mycalessus, Pharae. Teumessus, ancient town, probably at Soules, possibly at Mesovouni, 14f. Thebawi and Thebageneis, distinction between, 80, 100. Thebais, title of at least three epics, 48, 49. Theban plain, 3, 4. Thebes, 4, 5,10,11, 13,16,17, 35, 38, 39, 89; remains of, 14; LH fortifications of, 38; LH fortification system of Lake Copai's against, 39; LH rivalry with Orchomenus, 38f., 41, 59f., 62, 170; LH palaces at, 39f.; LH III C remains, 40; early traditions on, 45-52; Phlegyians at, 47; termed "Temmikion," 56; Amphion and Zethus at, 46, 57, 58; Cadmus and, 45f.; Minyas linked to, 58; LH war with Argos, 49f., 62f., 170; under Argive rule, 63,170; Peneleus from, 64; replacement of Labdacids at, 67, 78; taken by Boiotoi, 78; domination of Archaic art by, 87f.; Archaic polis, 91; archon, tabus on, 93; nobility of excluded from manual labour, 95; ally of Tanagra and Chalcis in Lelantine War, 100; Philolaus at, 95; oligarchy at, 96, 124; eighth century defeat of Orchomenus, 97f.; absorbs Potniae, 98, 173; control of Medeon-Ptoon area, 99, 173; controls Tetracomia, 99, 173; organizes League, 110-16, 123; defeats Thessalian invasion, 107-09,116; dominates League to 479, 123, 173f.; hatred of by some other Boeotians, 123; controlled two Boeotarchs, 124; hostility to Athens, 112-14; alliance with Aegina, 125-28; gains Delium from Tanagra, 128, 173; in Persian Wars, 128-35; medizes, 128, 130f., 133; troops at Thermopylae, 131 f.; at battle of Plataea, 134; loses hegemony of League, 135, 141f., 176; alleged alliance with Sparta and restoration of hegemony, 143, 145-47; T. and

Index

Athenian domination of Boeotia, 147f.; democracy at, 143,148,176; regains hegemony of League and frees Boeotia, 150-54,159,176; attacks Plataea, 149, 154, 160f.; oligarchic, 159, 160, 176; population of, 156, 160. Thebes, Peribolus near, 14. Themistocles, at Tempe, 130. Theopompus, 20. Therapnae, possibly at Mitropoliti bridge, 18; perhaps name an error, 18, 21. Thermopylae, 5; on invasion route, 77, 108, 114; Boeotian role in battle of, 128f., 124-26; commanders at, 129, 132; Thebans surrender, 131. Thersander of Orchomenus, Herodotus' informant, 126; possibly Boeotarch, 133. Thersander, s. of Polyneices: in conventional stemma, 47; returns to Thebes, 48; replaced by Creon in some variants, 50; rules at Thebes, 63; Argive association of, 63; killed in first Trojan expedition, 63f. Thesmophylakes: associated with dicasts, 157. Thespiae, 4, 5, 11,13; location and remains, 10; neolithic site, 34; of secondary importance in LH, 42; legends and Athenian links, 56; taken by Boiotoi, 78; integration of Boiotoi and previous inhabitants, 80; Archaic polis, 91; nobles excluded from manual labour, 95; dependence on Thebes in seventh century, 96, 99; hoplite warfare and problems, 96, 99; captured Ascra, 98; 173; settled Eutresis, 99, 173; dominated Creusis, Siphae, Thisbe, Chorsiae, 99, 173; allied with Thebes against Thessalians, 110; original member of League, 111, 117; Boeotarch from, 124; did not medize, 128, 129, 131, 132f.; at Thermopylae, 132; citizens evacuated and land ravaged, 131, 133, 141; at battle of Plataea, 133; democracy at, 148; controlled two Boeotarchs, 134,149, 155; position in League 446-387, 155; oligarchy at 446-387, 159f. Thespiae, vale of, 2. Thespius River (Kanavari), 3, Thessalus, s. of Aiatus, expels Boiotoi from Thessaly, 77f. Thessalus, s. of Peisistratus, 108.

203

Thessaly: neolithic influences from, 34; variant cultures in MH, 36f., 76; Thebans flee to, 49, 63; Thebans return from, 50; Minyans linked to, 58; Athamas king in, 58; LH Boeotian influx into, 40; homeland of Boiotoi, 66, 75-77; cults from in Boeotia, 75; place-names from in Boeotia, 75; Thessalians enter, 76f.; Archaic ties with Orchomenus, 97, 108, 117; subdued Phocis, 107f.; invasion of Boeotia, 107, 108-11, 116, 173; battle of Ceressus and death of Lattamyas, 107, 109, l l l f . , 117, 173; date of Ceressus, 108-10; allied with Orchomenus, llOf., 174; Cleomenes friendly to, 114; cavalry in Athens defeated by Spartans, 114,117; defeated by Phocians, 115f., 117,174; medized, 130f.; save Thebans at Thermopylae, 108f., 131; at battle of Tanagra, 144; at Oenophyta, 148; Boeotian exiles in at time of Athenian-Boeotian invasion, 149,176. Thisbe, 5, 6; location and remains, 11; LH fort at, 39; controlled by Thespiae, 99, 155. Thrace: Phlegyians from, 47; Athenian garrisons in, 151. Thracians: invade Mycenaean Greece, 40, 67,171; expel Cadmeans, 50; battles with local inhabitants, 67; cults of in Greece, 67, 78f., expel Boeotians, 76; defeated by Boiotoi, 78f.; driven into mountains, 80. Tilphusa, spring, 9. Tilphusium, location of, 9; Thebans flee through, 49. Tilphusius, Mount, 9. Timagenidas: possibly Theban Boeotarch, 134; executed by Allies after Plataea, 135; emphasizes that all Thebans supported medism, 135. Tipha, see Siphae. Tiryns, 13, 40. Tisamenus, 63. Tolmides: Athenian force under defeated at Coronea, 151-53. Topolia, see Copae. Tourleza, locality, probable site of Glisas, 15. Trapheia, ancient town, possibly located at Likeri, 13. Trephia, Lake (Paralimni), 2.

204

Index

Tribes, see Phylae. Triton River, 3. Trojan War, 47, 48, 63; historicity of traditions on, 64-67, 170; dating of, 64, 170; Catalogues and, 65f.; as part of LH campaign in Asia Minor, 66f. Trophonius, brother of Agamedes, 6; as part of cult of twins in Boeotia, 57. Troy, 64. Trypiolithari, hill, 6. Tseloneri (Vlicha, Glypha), probably site of Hyria, 20; LH III C remains at, 40. Twins, cult of in Boeotia, 57, 65. Tzamali, modern village, 7, 8. Vathy, 4. Vergoutiani, spring near chapel of Aghia Anna, 17, 18. Vigla, ancient fort on Petra, 9. Vlicha, see Tseloneri. Vratsi, possible site of Pharae, or Eilesion, or perhaps Stephon, 18; LH III C remains, 40. Wallace, P. W., 13, 15, 17. Walls, ancient: 6,11 tns, 12 passim, 15, 16, 17 bis, 18, 20 bis, 21; LH III walls, 38f. Warfare: Bronze Age, 59-63; Archaic, 93f.;

hoplite reforms, 95f.; 173; Thessalians and League, 107-12; Phocian, 116; Athenians and League, 112-14, 125-28; Persian Wars, 128-35; fifth century, 143-48, 150-55,161. Whitened Bodies, battle of, 116. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, 80. Xanthus, king of Thebes, killed on Attic frontier, 78, 80, 88; date of death, 80, 171. [Xenophon] "Old Oligarch", 143; on Athenian support for Boeotian oligarchs, 152. Xeronomi, modern village, 10. Xeropyrgo, see Pyrgos. Xerxes, Persian king, 128, 133; receives heralds in Pieria, 130f.; alleged deportation of Boeotians under, 133f. Ypsilantis, modern village, 9, 10. Zethus, brother of Amphion: founder and fortifier of Thebes, 46, 57; as part of twin cults, 57; as usurpers, 46; variant traditions on, 57. Zeus Hypatus, sanctuary of, 15.

Index Auctorum

Apollodorus, Bibl, 2.4.1, 59; 3.4.5, 48. Aristophanes, Schol. Ach. 243, 113. Aristotle, A.P. 22, 127; Pol. 1297bl 6-19, 94; 1302b29, 150. Asius,frg. IK, 46.

23.676-80, 48, 61; 24.602-17, 47. Odyssey 11.260-65,46; 11.271-78,48. Inscnpliones Graecae: 22.469, 20; 7.1719-2222,10.

Diodorus Siculus, 4.10.3-6, 59; 4.66-67, 49; 11.79.5, 143; 11.80.1, 143f.; 11.80.6, 145; 11.81.2-3,141, 145; 11.82, 145; 11.83, 145; 12.70.1, 94; 17.110.4-6, 133f.; 19.53-54, 50,77.

Justin, 3.610,141.

Eumelus, frg. 12K, 46. Euripides, Bacch. 1043-45,18.

Pausanias 1.38.8, 113; 9.1.6,16;9.2.1,16; 9.4.4, 16; 9.5.1, 45; 9.5.11, 48; 9.8.3, 14;9.14.1,112;9.14.2,110;9.19.1,14; 9.25.4, 59; 9.34.7, 58; 9.34.10, 90; 9.37, 59; 9.38.9,7. Pindar, Pyth. 3.8,47. Plato, Menex. 242a, 143. Plutarch, Arist. 13, 143; Cam. 19, 108, 110;

Gellius,Aulus, 20.7,47. HellenicaOxyrhynchia, 11.2, 157; 11.3, 15; 148,154, 155, 175. Heraclides Ponticus, FHG, frg. 43, 96. Herodotus, 1.57, 79; 5.59-60, 47; 5.61, 49; 5.74, 113; 5.74.2, 115; 5.79,96, llOf., 125, 157; 5.81, 126; 5.89, 126-28; 5.96 127;6.108,112; 6.137, 79;7.132.1, 130; 7.205.2,132; 7.205.3,129, 132; 7.222,133; 7.233, 132;9.15, 124; 9.15.3, 16; 9.43, 49; 9.98,135. Hesiod, W.D. 38f., 91, 92; 248f., 91, 92; 161-163, 48; frg. 35Rz, 48, 62; frg. 133Rz, 46. Homer: Iliad, Bk. 2: 5, 64, 76, 85; 2.494ff., 50, 64; 2.497,16; 2.505, 65; 2.511-15, 64; 2.512, 90; 2.627, 65; 2.676-79, 77; 2.683, 65; 2.704, 65; 2.727, 65; 4.377 Schol.A, 48; 4.403-10, 61; 4.451, 64; 13.301-30, 47; 13.685-700, 65-67, 76; 13.699,66; 14.451, 64; 17.601, 64;

Minyas.frg. 13K,46. Nicander, Schol. Ther. 889, 14.

77; de Hdt. mat. 33, 129; 133; Cim. 108-110; Narr. Amat. 4, 6; Pelop. 18.1, 94; Per. 18,151. Strabol.l.l7,21;9.2.9,21;9.2.10, 14; 9.2.20, 12; 9.2.24, 15, 16;9.2.26, 13; 9.2.27, 9; 9.2.28, 46, 9.2.36,9; 9.2.41, 7; 10.1.8,20. Thucydides 1.3.2,79; 1.12.3, 50,65,76;!. 107.4, 144; 1. 107-108,142; 1.113.1, 150;1.113.3,153;!.113.4,153; 2.2.1-2, 154; 2.2.4, 124, 153; 2.18, 113; 3.61, 78, 96; 3.62.5,13,147; 3.65.2, 124,153; 3.68.5, 112; 4.92.6, 143,147. [Xenophon]3.11,143.