Volume 5, Issue 2

One of the key events in the relations between the Athenians and Thebans was the Plataian decision to align themselves with the Athenians at the end of the sixth century BCE. This decision shook up the contemporary political landscape and proved to be a source of hostility between the two neighbouring polities throughout the fifth and fourth centuries. The orthodox view holds that the original alignment took place in 519 during the Peisistratid tyranny, based on the date given by Thucydides 3.68.5. This date, in the mind of some scholars, seems contradictory with the story of the Plataian alignment as given by Herodotus (6.108.1–6). This inconsistency resulted in a search for alternatives that fit the Herodotean narrative better. To accommodate this change, they relied on emendating the Thucydidean text, but there is no sign of corruption in this part. Emendation of a text is best avoided, although the controversy merits attention. Therefore, in this article it will be argued that the two narratives – the Thucydidean and the Herodotean – need to be separated. What follows is a renewed chronology of Plataian-Athenian relations. The orthodox date (519) was the date of an original Peisistratid-Plataian alliance that did not lead to hostilities with Thebes. Instead, it is in the context of the foundation of the Athenian democracy and the subsequent clashes with Thebes after 507/6 that the Herodotean narrative should be placed.

The article explores aspects of the monetization of the Greek sanctuaries, more specifically how space was created to accommodate coins as objects and their use within the sacred sphere. Except in a limited number of cases, our understanding is still quite fragmented. Where most research has focused on analyzing the coin material or the epigraphic evidence, the intention here is to look more widely at the archaeological evidence connected with coins and coin-related material. This is done in an attempt to appreciate the significance of the progressing monetization and ritualization of the use of coins and in extension to develop an understanding of the possible changes in human behavior in the sanctuaries based on this evidence.

In this article, I look at Herodotus’ engagement with other prose writers regarding genealogy, namely Hecataeus, Hellanicus and Pherecydes. Through a comparative discussion, I expect to shed light on the main differences in their approach to genealogy-making on the one hand, and individuate Herodotus’ own contribution to the debate on the other. Based on this comparative analysis, I suggest that Herodotus deliberately takes issue with Hecataeus by name at Hdt. 2.143 in order to acknowledge the authority of Hecataeus’ genealogical model as the best one available in his time, and at the same time to ensure the authority of his own model as superior to the excellence of Hecataeus on this matter.

Soon after their victory over the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE, the Thebans asserted their claim to Panhellenic leadership, but that hegemonic experiment turned out to be a brief affair in classical Greek history. It is the purpose of this paper to explain this failure by comparing the Theban approach to interstate relations with that of the earlier and more successful Athenian and Spartan models. The first section reexamines those hegemonic precedents and their supporting alliances (συμμαχίαι) which served both military and social functions. The next section looks closely at the attempt of the Thebans, under the leadership of Epaminondas and Pelopidas, to extend their own political and military power through the construction of seven alliances or groups of alliances from 370 to 364 BCE. Although the Thebans’ alliance treaties were designed according to conventional principles and provisions, their alliance network proved incapable of sustaining their Panhellenic aspirations. The final section seeks out answers to why the Thebans failed where others had previously succeeded. Whereas modern scholarship points to institutional and structural deficiencies or personal hatreds, this paper adds a further reason: that the Thebans neglected to cultivate interpersonal ties with their new allies that could transcend the temporary objectives and inspire the parties to continue their relationship in the long term. Consequently, the alliances, and thus the whole Theban hegemonic experiment, collapsed within only a short time of their inception.

This article offers a new date and interpretation for IG IV 556, more commonly known as the Reply to the Satraps inscription. Most scholars associate it with the Common Peace of 362/1, and interpret it as a response to satraps seeking military aid against King Artaxerxes II during the Great Satraps Revolt. Yet the inscription contains no evidence that the satraps the inscription addresses were in rebellion. After consideration of its find location and potential authors, it better fits the historical context of the Common Peace imposed on Greece by Philip II of Macedon following his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338.

Two buildings in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace have elicited debate concerning their identification and functions. First, the Hall of Choral Dancers, currently named after its frieze of dancing women, formerly called Temenos on the assumption that it was not a roofed building, was revealed to be a substantial building by new excavation in 1993–1994. The present analysis supports and confirms the suggestion put forward by Austrian archeologists in 1880 that the building is the Anaktoron (Telesterion) mentioned by Hippolytus Haer . 5.8.9–10. It is the largest building in the sanctuary; the axis of the Propylon points towards its entrance; and the recently excavated processional way leads to its entrance. The fact that no evidence has been found for seating (benches) within it is not a counter-argument but rather another argument in favor of the identification. Second, the Hieron with its cave-like internal apse, so named by American excavators on the basis of a prohibition inscription found nearby (by the Austrian archaeologists’ “New Temple”), has been the subject of discussion concerning its function, and is currently under ongoing investigation of its technical features. The interim analysis presented here discusses several hypotheses—telesterion, oracle, cave-shrine of Dionysus, temple- hestiatorion of the Great Gods—and concludes that the latter designation best fits its characteristics as currently understood.