We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2013
Viewed from the promontory of Perachora—and especially by night—there is a great contrast between the southern shores of the Gulf of Corinth and the northern shore of the Halcyonic gulf. To the south an almost continuous line of habitation is clearly visible—to the north, only the darkness of a coast where the mountains appear to drop directly into the sea. These mountains constitute a considerable barrier, beginning with the greatest of them, Helicon, to the west, set a little inland: next, on the very edge of the sea, Korombili; and then, further over to the east, the outliers of Cithaeron, which leave only the notoriously difficult route round the coast to Aegosthena by which a Spartan army precariously escaped. It is not surprising that the cities of the Boeotian hinterland largely turned their backs on the sea: except for certain events, to be considered below, this coast played little part in Boeotian history.
There are three significant harbours, or usable beaches, along this Boeotian coast (Fig. 1a). To the east, at the end of the bay between Cithaeron and Korombili is the beach of Livadhostro, the ancient Creusis. It is not a good beach, being open and exposed to the wind. Communication with the hinterland is not easy, and there is no modern road. The Thebans, in the year of Leuctra, kept a small fleet there, perhaps through compulsion rather than choice. At the extreme western end of this section of coast is the harbour of Sarandi. Between these two harbours, and to the west of Korombili, is the great landlocked bay of Domvraina. Even within this bay much of the coast is mountainous and abrupt, but there are two small harbours at the western end, and a reasonably large, very well-sheltered beach and harbour at the eastern end.
In this survey, carried out in April 1968, we were assisted by P. A. Rahtz. The sections on the finds from the sanctuary (mostly) and the fourth-century watchtower are by J. M. Fossey; the rest by R. A. Tomlinson, though we have worked over the complete text together. We disagree over the transliteration of Greek names, and this has caused (if it does not excuse) the inconsistencies (e.g. Boeotia and Thespiai.)
1 Heurtley, W. A., ‘Notes on the harbours of South Boeotia’, BSA xxvi (1923/1925) 38.Google Scholar
2 This is the form of the name used by Thucydides (iv. 76) and implied by IG vii. 207. Pausanias ix. 32. 4 calls it Tipha. For simplicity we use the Thucydidean form throughout. The identification of the ruins at Aliki with Siphai has been disputed (see Frazer's note to Pausanias, loc. cit.). Since our conclusions depend on this identification, the reasons in favour of it must be stated. The order followed by Pausanias in his description of this region is Creusis–Thisbe–Tipha/Siphai. Frazer comments ‘if then Aliki is Tipha we must suppose that Pausanias first passed it on his way westward from Creusis to the port of Thisbe, and then, after describing Thisbe, retraced his course eastward to Tipha. This seems improbable.’ On the other hand, the only other known site on the south coast of Boeotia to the west of Thisbe is proved by inscriptions to be Khorsiai, and by a process of elimination Aliki can only be Siphai. Thucydides' description 
suggests that Siphai is east, not west of Thisbe. If Pausanias' account does in fact derive from an actual journey he made, the inconsistency might be explained by the supposition that this section represents an excursion from Thespiai (ix. 32. 5, the next section, begins 
): that Pausanias went by boat from Creusis to the harbour of Thisbe, not calling at or noticing Siphai, and then inland to Thisbe, and finally by land back to Thespiai. On his way from Thisbe to Thespiai he would have passed the road from Siphai, which prompted him to describe the town itself.
3 Cf. the routes over Geraneia, etc., described by Hammond, N. G. L., BSA xlix (1954) 103.Google Scholar
4 Described as an ‘Ancient Greek or Hellenistic fortress’ by Frazer (note to Paus. ix. 32. 4: cf. Heurtley, loc. cit., Pritchett, W. K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography i. 53).Google ScholarMcCredie, and Steinberg, , Hesperia xxix (1960) 123 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, publish two inscribed bases from the enclosure: their name for the mountain is Goulas.
5 Many fragments of blocks are scattered over the field. M. Paul Roesch kindly informs us that they come from at least two different quarries some small distance away—those of Domvraina (near ancient Thisbe) and Parapounyia (near Leuktra).
6 e.g. at Aulis.
7 Loc. cit. (inscriptions: SEG xviii. 166–7).
8 We are deeply grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Roger Green for their very thorough search of this field, and to Mrs. Green in particular for the time she gave subsequently to drawing the pottery. Other material found on the site by John M. Fossey has been added.
9 Loc. cit.
10 Cf. a similar piece from the site of Khorsiai further along the south coast, BSA xxxv (1934–5) 132 f.
11 Mr. V. R. Desborough has kindly examined this sherd and confirms that it could be Protogeometric, but that certainty is impossible.
11a ‘Perhaps from a krater’ (J.N. Coldstream).
12 We have given reference letters to 52. Some of these may be terrace walls rather than complete buildings; but walls that definitely appear to be terrace supports are not included.
13 Though we do not expect that many have been completely omitted.
14 It is too remote to be even a ‘dark-age’ refuge settlement, quite apart from the absence of material remains which could belong to that period.
15 We estimate that each building could easily provide accommodation for ten men and could possibly accommodate twenty.
16 It was part of Thespian territory in 424 (Thuc. iv. 76). Pausanias calls it πόλισμα, not πόλις (ix. 32. 4).
17 Thuc. loc. cit.
18 Studies in Ancient Greek Topography i, 52 f.
19 Xen. Hell. v. i. 28–9.
20 Xen. Hell. v. i. 36.
21 See below, n. 24.
22 Xen. Hell. v. iv. 60.
23 Xen. Hell. v. iv. 62.
24 There is no indication in Xenophon or Diodorus that Cleombrotus and the army were recalled. Beloch argued that they were, Hatzfeld that they remained. Ryder, T. T. B. (Koine Eirene 59 n. 3)Google Scholar discusses this and suggests that if Cawkwell's argument—that the peace of 375 was effective for at least a year—is correct, then the army must have been recalled. The omission of such a detail in the abbreviated narrative of Xenophon is not surprising.
25 They nearly succeeded after Agesilaus' second campaign. The Thebans were forced to seek to import corn from Pagasai (Xen. Hell. v. iv. 46). A Spartan attempt to prevent this was circumvented, and thereafter—during Cleombrotus' year of command—invasions of Theban territory were rather pointless.
26 Xen. Hell. vi. ii. 1.
27 Xen. Hell. v. iv. 36.
28 Xen. Hell. v. iv. 47.
29 Pritchett (op. cit.) argues that he secured all the little towns along the south coast including Khorsiai and Siphai. Our impression is that Cleombrotus would not have wasted time and given warning of his approach in this way. He would seem to have taken Creusis by surprise.
30 Xen. Hell. v. iv. 60.
31 Xen. Hell. v. iv. 20.
32 Thuc. iv. 133.
33 Isocrates xiv. 13 (Plataïkos), which is in the form of a speech delivered by a Plataean asking Athens for help against Thebes (which had by then destroyed Plataea), points a contrast between the Spartan presence at Plataea before 375, consisting of a harmost and garrison (φρούρα), and the sizeable army of Thespiai τηλικούτου στρατεύματος ὅντος ⊖εσπιᾶσιν. Is it not more likely that an army—as opposed to a garrison—had a separate base outside the town?
34 Paus. ix. 14. 2–3; cf. Frazer's note, ad. loc.
35 T. T. B. Ryder, Koine Eirene, loc. cit., states that the Spartans withdrew their garrison from Boeotia (and their army from Phocis) after the signing of the peace of 375/4. This depends on Diodorus xv. 38. 2 where it is stated that not only was it a condition of the peace that the Greek cities (as in the King's Peace of 387) were to be αὐτονόμους καὶ ἀφρουρήτους, but the Greeks appointed ἐξαγωγεϊς to supervise the withdrawal of garrisons. Xenophon; however (v. iv. 63 and again vi. i. 1), states that the Thebans had regained τασ περιοικίδασ πόλεις, which ought to include Thespiai, before the attacks on Phocis, and certainly before the peace negotiations.
36 It could have another function as an intermediate stage in a line of communication from the Peloponnese to Thespiai. Beacon or smoke signals could easily be transmitted from Acrocorinth or the mountains above Nemea to the post on the ‘Acropolis’ of Perachora and thence to Mavrovouni, which could pass them on direct to Thespiai. It may have been by this way that the message was sent from Agesilaus to the polemarch at Thespiai, to seize the heights above the road over Cithaeron.
37 In which case there would have been no need to ‘secure’ Siphai; but this is only a guess.
38 A full account of this system is in preparation by J. M. Fossey.
39 Burn, , BSA xliv (1949) 319.Google Scholar
40 Diehl, C., L'Afrique byzantine 207 f. and fig. 43.Google Scholar
41 Diehl, op. cit.
42 Photograph in Monterde, R. and Poidebard, A., Le limes de Chalcis, pl. 74.Google Scholar
43 Diehl, op. cit. 603, fig. 72.
