Creating a Common Polity. Emily Mackil

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Str. 8.3.2 describes the communities of the Peloponnese mentioned by Homer as “systems of demes, each comprised of multiple [demes], from which later the well-known poleis were synoikized” and provides Aigion, Patrai, and Dyme as Achaian examples. Systēma is used by Strabo elsewhere (14.2.25) to describe the Chrysaoric koinon in Karia.

      120. Koerner 1974: 467–69 dated the synoikism of the Achaian poleis between the “period of colonization” and the mid-fifth century. His argument has to be abandoned in the face of archaeological evidence that has since come to light. For discussion, primarily of the literary evidence, see Moggi 1976: 93, 124, 126; Demand 1990: 61–64.

      121. Papakosta 1991.

      122. Vordos 2001, 2002. For the identification of Trapezá as Rhypes, on the grounds of Paus. 7.23.4, see D. Müller 1987: 841; Rizakis 1995: 193; Morgan and Hall 1996: 179.

      123. Vordos 2002: 227–31.

      124. Paus. 7.18.5. Mesatis has now been located at Voudeni: Petropoulos 2001–2.

      125. Petropoulos and Rizakis 1994.

      126. Morgan and Hall 1996: 186–89. The survey evidence is presented by Lakakis and Rizakis 1990, 1992a, b. There have been attempts to date the synoikism of Dyme more precisely on the basis of the use of ethnics reported in Pausanias (Paus. 5.9.1 = Moretti 1957: no. 171 with Koerner 1974: 469; Paus. 7.17.7, cf. 6.3.8 = Moretti 1957: no. 6 with Morgan and Hall 2004: 481). However, we have no ability to assess the relationship between synoikism and the use of the name Dyme, and indeed the archaeological record suggests that in this case synoikism was a gradual process, with rural sites in the surrounding area continuing to be inhabited throughout the classical and Hellenistic periods.

      127. Str. 8.7.5; Steph. Byz. and Etym. Magn. s.v. Dymē. The name seems to appear for the first time in Ps.-Skylax 42. The idea that the region was unified by its inhabitants, rather than the other way around, is suggested also by Paus. 7.1.1. Cf. Gschnitzer 1955: 128; Koerner 1974: 458.

      128. Hdt. 1.145; Th. 3.92.5; cf. Morgan and Hall 1996: 197; J. M. Hall 1997: 43, 52, 72–73, 137.

      129. Paus. 7.1.8. The episode can be dated only by its similarity to the Spartans’ collection of the bones of Orestes from Tegea (Hdt. 1.67.2–68.6), ca. 560, both construed as a strategy for connecting to the pre-Dorian Spartan past as a means of expanding Spartan power in the Peloponnese. For discussion see Leahy 1955; Moreau 1990; Boedeker 1993; Malkin 1994: 28–30.

      130. Collective and internal: Paus. 5.25.8 and below, pp. 176–77. Individual, internal use: Paus. 7.17.7, ca. 460. Individual, external use: IG I³ 174; IG II² 13 (SEG 40.54); IG V.1.1 with Loomis 1992: 297–308.

      131. Polyb. 2.39.5–6 with Morgan and Hall 1996: 195–96 (cf. Morgan and Hall 2004: 474–75) contra F. W. Walbank 1957–79: I.224–26. Polybios gives Homarios as the epiklesis of Zeus at Aigion. Hamarios (T39 l. 8) and Homagyrios (Paus. 7.24.2) are also attested. I generally use Homarios, except where explicit discussion of the epiklesis requires use of the variant forms (e.g., T39 l. 8).

      132. F. W. Walbank 2000.

      133. Diod. Sic. 12.22.1.

      134. Possible: Mele 1983: 86 n. 546; Giangiulio 1989: 177 n. 52, 197. Destruction of Sybaris on the Traeis: Diod. Sic. 12.22.1.

      135. Didrachma: Kraay 1976: 101 with pl. 318.

      136. Herakleides Pontikos fr. 46a (Wehrli 1953) and below, pp. 194–202.

      137. Livy 38.30.2.

      138. Paus. 7.7.2.

      139. Th. 1.111.3 (cf. Diod. Sic. 11.85; Plut. Per. 19; Paus. 4.25) is inconclusive evidence for the existence of an Achaian state in the mid-fifth century. Cf. Th. 1.115.1, 4.21.3, regularly cited as evidence for an early Achaian koinon, but from which it is impossible to conclude anything. For a more accepting view see Larsen 1953.

      140. Th. 2.9.2–3; cf. Ar. Lys. 996.

      141. Th. 2.83–86.

      142. IG V.1.1 ll. 6–8 with Matthaiou and Pikoulas 1989 (SEG 39.370); Loomis 1992.

      143. That the Spartan relationship with Achaia was relatively weak (if generally positive) is suggested by the fact that Achaians were excluded by the Spartans, on ethnic grounds, from participation in the Dorian settlement of Herakleia Trachinia: Th. 3.92.5.

      144. Th. 5.52.2; Plut. Alc. 15.4–6. Traces of these walls have been discovered: AD 52 (1997) Chron. B1: 273–75. The move followed the Athenian alliance with Elis, Mantineia, and Argos in 420 (Th. 5.47).

      145. Th. 5.82.1, trans. Hornblower 1991–2008: III.208. This may imply the installation or promotion of oligarchies: cf. Th. 5.81.2 (with Hornblower 1991–2008: III.207–8 ) and Xen. Hell. 7.1.43 (with F. W. Walbank 2000: 23). However, Xenophon’s account records the establishment of democracies in 371 under Theban auspices; it is in no way safe to conclude that the oligarchies that were implicitly toppled in the process had been set up by the Spartans nearly fifty years before. Indeed, as we shall see below, we know a good deal about Achaian political organization in the intervening time, and there are no further indications of behavior driven by allegiance or obligation to Sparta.

      146. Freitag 2009: 16–17 seems undecided. If Achaia as a single entity were the member, it would be our earliest evidence for regional political unity.

      147. Th. 1.103.3; Diod. Sic. 11.84.7. See Badian 1990 for detailed discussion of the seizure of Naupaktos.

      148. This cooperation may be the result of a formal treaty by which the Messenians and Naupaktians established the terms of their cohabitation of Naupaktos, which has now been published by Matthaiou and Mastrokostas 2000–2003 (SEG 49.583). The editors place the inscription in the period ca. 430–420, primarily on the basis of letter forms and dialect. Luraghi 2008: 193 n. 73, however, suggests that because of the perfect stoichedon style and Ionian-influenced letter forms, the stone may have been inscribed by an Athenian stonecutter, which would require that we look for stylistic parallels in Attic inscriptions, with the result that “an earlier date, closer to the migration of the Messenians to Naupaktos, would be more likely.”

      149. Chalkis: Th. 1.108.5. Corinthian control of Chalkis may have been a function of Corinthian attempts to secure control of commercial traffic through the Corinthian Gulf: Freitag, Funke, and Moustakis 2004: 383; Freitag 2000: 55. The Athenians made another attack on Corinthian interests in this period with their unsuccessful attack on Oiniadai ca. 454/3 (Th. 1.111.3 with Diod. Sic. 11.85.2). Cf. Paus. 4.25 for the (perhaps confused) claim that the Messenians seized Oiniadai. Chalkis as Aitolian in early literary sources: Hom. Il. 2.639; Alcman fr. 24 Calame.

      150. Larsen 1953: 799.

      151. For Kalydon in Aitolian mythic history see Hom. Il. 2.640, 9.531, etc.

      152. Th. 3.102.5. We shall see below (p. 62) that Kalydon had come under the control of the Achaian koinon by 389; Bommeljé 1988: 314 suggests that Achaian control stemmed at least as far back as 426, the context of Thucydides’ report. This seems highly unlikely given what we know of the limits on Achaian cooperation and action outside their own territory in the late fifth century.

      153. The date of this inscription has been vigorously contested since its initial publication in 1974; see the commentary to T48 in the epigraphic dossier for full discussion.

      154. On asymmetry as a characteristic of Spartan treaties in the early classical period see Bolmarcich СКАЧАТЬ