Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T16:47:18.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘Plain’, ‘Shore’, and ‘Hill’ in early Athens1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

Extract

All those concerned with the early history of Athens must give some consideration to the three ‘parties’ (the term used in this discussion rather than ‘faction’) which, it was believed in classical antiquity, divided Attica in the first half of the sixth century B.C. and formed the background to the career of Peisistratos. A considerable bibliography might be assembled on this subject and there would be little excuse for adding to it, did the present writer not feel that previous treatment of the problems involved has been too brief and disjointed. It is intended here first to examine at some length the questions at issue, even if this entails some repetition of generally accepted ideas, and then to hazard some general observations on Athenian affairs of the period.

There are, in fact, four heads under which the problems must be treated: (i) the reality of the existence of regional divisions of Attica such as the parties presuppose, and their localization; (ii) the question of the degree to which parties are, in the ancient sources, connected with these regions; (iii) the question how far persons of whose position and activities we know something can be connected with the regions and the parties; (iv) the validity of the generally accepted views of the aims and policy of the parties and their supposed leaders, followed by an effort to discover an issue which divided Athens and gave rise to the tradition of party strife.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbreviations additional to those in standard use

Andrewes = Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (1956).Google Scholar

French, GR = French, A., ‘The Party of Peisistratos’, Greece and Rome vi (1959) 46 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

French, JHS = French, A., ‘Solon and the Megarian Question’, Journal of Hellenic Studies lxxvii (1957) 238 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Philippson = Philippson, , Die griechischen Landschaften i. 3 (1952).Google Scholar

Wade-Gery = Wade-Gery, H. T., Essays in Greek History (1958).Google Scholar

1 The main substance of this article was given as a lecture by the author at the British School of Archaeology in Athens in 1959 as Visiting Fellow. The author wishes also to thank the University of Sheffield for financial assistance from the University Research Fund.

2 Cf. most recently Andrewes 102 ff., which presents the problems briefly and well; Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Greece (1959) 164–5Google Scholar; French, A., GR 46 ff.Google Scholar For a conventional view, cf. Philippson, 981–2.

The article of Sealey, R., ‘Regionalism in Archaic Athens’ (Historia ix (1960) 155–80)Google Scholar, came to my notice only when the present discussion was completed. There are some points of contact between my ideas and Mr. Sealey's wide-ranging observations, particularly in pp. 162–6, 170–2 of his article, which includes a discussion of the views of French, A. on Solon in JHS lxxvii (1957) 238–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar With Sealey's ‘local’ view of the parties (163–4) I cannot agree. His distinction (168) between and in Solon, fr. 3. 5–7 seems extremely dubious. I would like to believe that Kylon can be connected with Eleusis (168), but I cannot see the force of his argument. I am in agreement with him on Solon as a party man (159), and on the personal nature of the supposed parties (163), but in general I find him too easily satisfied with his interpretation of sources (cf. 161 on Solon, fr. 24. 18–20) and too assured about ‘facts’ (cf. 171 on Solon and Salamis). In his discussion of the ‘city families’ (174–5) he seems to lose sight of the point that these city associations must date from the period of the Kleisthenic reforms, and that we are largely ignorant of the position earlier. It might be observed here that it is not beyond hope that archaeology will throw some light on local aristocracies through the discovery of more local burial grounds: on such as are known, see Kerameikos vi. 1. 95 ff. Unhappily a good deal has already been lost, and it is sad that what are obviously important families (as in the Kerameikos of Athens) did not see fit to use inscribed gravestones as they did later.

3 As, for example, to the Mesogia, from Varkiza-Vari (Bay of Varkiza), from Anavyssos (Bay of Anavyssos; cf. Philippson 832 (Bay of H. Nikolaos)); from Porto Rafti and from the Bay of Vraona; farther north, from Rafina by the Megalo Rhevma inland.

4 It should here be commented that while the plural ‘Plains’ is not excluded by the Greek ‘party’ terminology, it cannot be admitted without a careful examination of the evidence.

5 Thucydides ii. 20. 1; cf. ii. 20. 4 and, on the occasion of the establishment of a fort at Dekeleia, Thucydides' of use of in vii. 19. 1–2.

6 For this wall, see BSA lii (1957) 152 ff.

7 Thucydides ii. 47 and 55.

8 In ii. 56 called

9 Cf. Philippson 873, 1001.

10 Cf. BSA lii (1957) 136. That it was less infertile in antiquity may be indicated by the large house near the Δέμα Wall, ibid. 171 f.

11 Cf. Philippson 815.

12 Cf. the fragmentary inscriptions IG i2. 840 A 12, 842 C 7; Isaeus v. 22 (property ); Lysias vii. 24 (property and sacred olives ); Dem. xlix. 11 ( owned by Timotheos, son of Konon). On the other hand, in IG ii2. 1635, 144 πεδίον does not appear to have this particular reference. Note in Plutarch, , Them. 14Google Scholar: here of some MSS. looks like a deme-name, and has been variously emended. It can hardly be connected with as the possible Inland trittys of Oineis. See n. 53 below; Wade-Gery, , Mélanges Glotz 883 ff.Google Scholar, Hesperia ix. 55.

13 Which, on grounds of fertility and general character, was equally or more important. For the survival of a separatist idea, cf. Thucydides ii. 18 on Oinoe, and the invasion of ‘Attica’ from that region (ii. 19).

14 Strabo ix. 392 = Sophocles, fr. 19 (Nauck) = fr. 24 (Pearson). See Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 107Google Scholar, Notes, nn. 6 and 15, and Harpocration, s.v. this seems to indicate a specific region, and so distinct from the use of the term in relation to the whole of Attica, which the lexicon goes on to mention ibid. The common description must also refer to particular region. This area Andrewes (103) would make the Paralia of the parties.

15 Cf. Herodotus vii. 185, of Thrace; Aristotle, Rh. 1411a11, of Epidauros; Diodorus xii. 42. 5: Polybius iii. 39. 3. For Attica, cf. Herodotus v. 81 and the usage in connexion with the Kleisthenic demes. In IG ii2. 2854, 2856, 2857 παραλία certainly means ‘sea-coast’. For the term in general, and in particular to Attica, see RE xviii. 3. 1205 ff.

16 ii. 55. See also n. 59 below. The same form also appears as qualifying a deme-name, in a prytany list of Erechtheis, of 367/6 B.C., Hesperia xi. 233.

17 Commentary ii. 162, ad loc. Indeed Attica was esepecially characterized by its coasts, cf. Harpocration, s.v. (i.e. )

18 On the likely location of Aixone, and on the ancient road through it, see Bradford, J., Ancient Landscapes (1957) 31.Google Scholar

19 Part of this seems to have been called in the inscription (of the Imperial Roman period?), quoted by Leake, , Topography of Athens ii. 50Google Scholar, found ‘at Kalo-Livadhi … about midway between Rhamnous and Oropus’. Cf. IG ii2. 1260 (of 307–304 B.C.), a reference to Sounion and Rhamnous

20 ii. 56.

21 It is very unlikely that any of their forces would use the route dividing Hymettos proper from the ‘waterless’ Hymettos, from modern Sourmena to Aghios Dhimitrios near Koropi, Philippson 804, 817 n. 3.

22 Gomme, loc. cit., accepts this route, but then suggests that the Spartans went down to the coast near Aixone or Anagyrous. Some may have done, but it is difficult to see why, for the reasons given in the following note.

23 There is in modern times something of a coastal strip south-eastwards to Sounion, with cultivated patches at intervals. There might have been more cultivation in antiquity (? lower shore-line); see Philippson 833 for neglect here, in modern times, and lack of water. The same is true north from Sounion. This area may have been more highly cultivated in ancient times than at present; cf. Young, J. H., Hesperia xxv (1956) 122 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But these coastal areas could not be compared with the plain of Athens or that of the Mesogia about Koropi, Markopoulo, and Keratea, on which see Philippson 815, 821, 830.

24 A permanent occupation, as later of Dekeleia, could impede the working of the mines; a short incursion could do little in this way, since the means of destruction available to ancient military forces were strictly limited.

25 Cf. Strabo viii. 1. 21 and 22; 2. 12 and 15.

26 ii. 55: This description seems to be the grounds for Gomme's suggestion of a descent to the coast near Aixone or Anagyrous. But it can hardly mean the literal coast for the reasons given above in n. 23.

27 Commentary ii. 162.

28 xii. 45. 1. Cf. the sparing of Dekeleia in Herodotus ix. 73.

29 ix. 1. 1: cf. ibid. 1. 2: also ix. 1. 7 (on Geraistos) and viii. 1. 22: All naturally vague if Strabo never visited Attica; on this point see AJA lxiii (1959) 253. On the ancient concept of the sea-coasts of south Attica, see Hesperia x (1941) 176 f. and notes.

30 Traditional even if odd; cf. Plato, , Critias 111aGoogle Scholar, on the shape of Attica as a promontory: and Harpocration, s.v. Ἀκτή mentioned in n. 17 above.

31 Strabo ix. 392 = Sophocles, fr. 19 (Nauck) = frag. 24 (Pearson). In RE xviii. 3. 1205 ff. (s.v. Paralia) Lenschau puts the share of Lykos, ‘das Bergland’, opposite Euboea and as far south as Brauron on the ground of Peisistratos's connexion with that place, and the Paralia in south-east Attica mainly on the basis of Thucydides. For the whole subject of the legend of the sons of Pandion, see Jacoby, , FGrH, on 328 F 107Google Scholar (Philochoros), Commentary 427–31, Notes nn. 2, 6–15, with reference also to Aristophanes, , Lys. 58Google Scholar and Scholia.

32 Cf. Jacoby, ibid., Commentary 430–1, who would carry the claim to the Megarid and Salamis back at any rate to the second half of the seventh century, and with it, therefore, the fourfold division in the legend. He goes on to say: ‘Further, though the “parties” of the and are mentioned only once in the sixties of the sixth century, nobody will doubt that the antagonism had developed and asserted itself for two or three generations.’ Whose antagonism and why on a local basis?

33 Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 58: See Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 107Google Scholar, Commentary 427. Repeated in Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1223, on which see Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 107Google Scholar, Notes 329 n. 1.

34 Philochoros in Schol. Eurip. Hipp. 35; Plutarch, , Thes. 13Google Scholar (from Kleidemos?). See Jacoby, op. cit., Commentary 431, Notes 337 n. 10, and passim, Commentary and Notes on 328 F 108, especially Notes 338 n. 14: ‘I am inclined to believe that the story of the Pallas War is half a century or more earlier than the return of Peisistratos.’

35 Its location is obscure: east of Hymettos or between Hymettos and Pentelikon? Discussed by Leake, , Topography of Athens (1841) ii. 25 ff.Google Scholar, and by Jacoby, op. cit., Commentary 433. Both are agreed that the Sphettian Way is a route from or through the Mesogia.

36 The position of the deme is also uncertain, but some where in the Mesogia: Leake places it at Spata, Philippson in the region of Koropi; Jacoby is not willing to locate it exactly in this area.

37 The march of Pallas and his sons through the Mesogia would not exclude the suggestion of French, (GR 52)Google Scholar that the Paralia was the extreme south-east of Attica and that the Mesogia was part of the Diakria. See below.

38 Leake, op. cit. ii. 12–13, on the basis of Hesychius, s.v. Διακρεῑς makes a distinction between Παραλιεῑς or Παράλιοι, ‘the borderers of the southern and eastern coasts’, and the Μεσογαιεῑς; or Μεσόγειοι, ‘the inhabitants of the country included within Hymettus, Pentelicum and the Paralia’. Cf. RE v. 1. 318, s.v. Diakria. Andrewes (102–3) takes the view that Paralos/Paralia can mean several things (as indeed the Kleisthenic term shows), and suggests that ‘Lycurgus’ Plain must be the main plain immediately north of Athens, and Megacles' Coast is the stretch immediately south.'

39 As (i) Euripides, Suppl. 659, on the allies of Theseus, if we read with Wilamowitz, (Hermes xxvi. 235)Google Scholar rather than (ii) Aristophanes, Lys. 58: Salamis is mentioned for the sake of the inevitable joke (59–60); Van Leeuven, ad loc., would interpret as the inhabitants in general of the sea-coasts. In both (i) and (ii) some one region would make better sense. (iii) The origins of the hero Paralos (cf. Euripides, Suppl. 659) are very obscure, with his shrine (in the Piraeus?), to which (Dem.) xlix. 25 must refer, and a college of Πάραλοι, of which IG ii2. 1254 is a decree of the later fourth century. Were they a parallel to the Salaminioi of Sounion? (iv) Equally obscure are the origins of the name of one of the state galleys ( Thuc. viii. 74, Dem. xxi. 173, Aristophanes, Av. 1204, Aristotle, , AthPol 61. 7Google Scholar, IG ii2. 1623, 225). It might be suggested that it got its name from sailing to Delos from Prasiai, if this could be demonstrated; Schol. Aristoph. Av. 147, allots the Paralos to theorika, but Schol. Dem. xxi. 216, Dindorf 570. 3 seems to name the Salaminia as going to Delos, so there appears to be nothing significant in the name in this connexion, (v) Paralos was also the name of a son of Perikles (Plut. Per. 24), brother of Xanthippos and half-brother of Kallias the son of Hipponikos. A Hipponikos was one of Solon's friends and might as a conjecture be connected with the Paralioi. There is in all these uses of the name plenty of scope for the uninhibited imagination.

40 See p. 192 n. 31 for the main references; add Aristophanes, , Vesp. 1223Google Scholar; Leake, op. cit. ii. 13; RE v. 1. 318, s.v. Diakria. For see above, p. 191 n. 26.

41 Cf., for Euboea, and Rhodes, , ATL i (1939) 480Google Scholar (under ); note that in these cases the adjective describing the inhabitants is used, as in local associations of Attica, rather than the name of the region. The Διάκριοι or in Euboea (both forms occur in List 26 and A 9 of ATL) are ‘probably to be sought in the mountainous region of Central Euboea’. For in Phokis, see Hdt. viii. 33 and Hell. Ox. xiii. 5. In Rhodes appear in a fragment of a quota-list, Hesperia viii. 51. For Παράλιοι as a μήρος of the Malians, see Thuc. iii. 92. 1–2.

42 Cf. Herodotus vi. 20, ‘the highlands’, and i. 59, which would then mean ‘men of the highlands’, rather than ‘men beyond the heights’, which is the meaning suggested by Andrewes (102), taken by him to apply to all those dwelling beyond the mountains encircling the Plain of Athens and therefore including the Diakria connected through Brauron with Peisistratos. Something of a parallel would then be provided by Xenophon, , Hell. ii. 4. 4Google Scholar where the Phyle region or thereabouts is called ‘the border region’, which it is from the standpoint of Athens, if not in strict truth. An interesting suggestion is that of Myres (in How and Wells, , A Commentary on Herodotus i. 59Google Scholar): that means the regions above the corn-line. Hyperakrioi might then mean displaced cultivators who sought a livelihood anywhere in Attica above the cultivation line at that time. Note that Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. i. 13 rather dimly understood Hyperakrioi as mountain dwellers.

43 Aristophanes, , Vesp. 1222 ff.Google Scholar: Lykos was patron of the dicasteries, cf. Vesp. 329, 389; hence jurymen are called Diakrians, his votaries. For the position of Lykos in Athens, see Wycherley, , The Athenian Agora iii, Testimonia 148.Google Scholar The references show that the idea of the region and its legend survived in the later fifth century, as in the case of the Paralia and Pedion even later. See CQ liv (1960) 247.

44 See n. 42 above.

45 As French does, op. cit., p. 192 n. 37 above.

46 See Philippson 818 (on Rafina): south of the Megalo Rhevma and Rafina, ‘ein breites Hügelland’.

47 On Brauron, see Philippson 818, 820. Pausanias i. 33. 1–2 seems to take Brauron as the dividing area.

48 Cf. Hesychius, s.v. in which an ‘inhabitant’ name is used for the region. Unfortunately the text is corrupt.

49 Ure, , Origins of Tyranny 37 ff.Google Scholar; CR xxxix (1925) 155–6, in answer to S. Casson, ibid. 5–7; Thomson, G., Aeschylus and Athens 90.Google Scholar Rejected by Seltman, , Athens, Its History and Coinage 38 n. 4.Google Scholar See Appendix below.

50 13. 5.

51 Solon 13. Πόλις would here most naturally mean the whole state. It might mean Athens in the narrower sense; cf. Solon 29:

52 i. 59. 3:

53 Note that Herodotus does not give a name to the faction The term is used by Aristotle (see below, n. 56), by other sources. may also be the name of a Kleisthenic trittys, cf. SEG x. 373 (c. 450, of the Oeneis tribe), Hesperia ix. 55 n. 3, but heavily restored See Philippson 1001. In Plutarch, , Them. 14Google Scholar looks like a deme-name. The form given in the Suda, s.v. viz. is certainly a corruption.

54 Solon 13: (here placed, like the other parties, before Solon's reforms (cf. Moralia 763D, 805D), a dating rejected by Sandys, note to AthPol 13. 5) and ibid. 29:

55 i. 2. 58.

56 1305a 24.

57 13. 4.

58 Solon 13.

59 i. 59. The adjective generally means ‘by’ or ‘near’ the sea, Sophocles, , Ajax 413Google Scholar, Euripides, , Ion 1584Google Scholar, or ‘concerned with the sea’, ‘naval’, Herodotus vii. 161.

60 ii. 55.

61 Solon 13: Also in Diogenes Laertius i. 58, Plutarch, , Moralia 763DGoogle Scholar, Suda, s.v. See also p. 193 n. 39 above.

62 13. 4.

63 Moralia 805D. As in the other two passages of Plutarch (n. 61), the existence of the faction is here inferred before Solon's reforms but order is not Plutarch's strong point.

64 13. 4.

65 Solon 13.

66 AthPol 5. 3:

67 i. 59. Cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. i. 13, and Schol. Dem. 623. 2 (Dindorf). See p. 193 n. 42 above.

68 Aristoteles und Athen i. 31.

69 The Greek Tyrants 13. See p. 193 n. 42 above.

70

71 13.4.

72 Sclon 13 and 29, Moralia 805D, but in Moralia 763D. On see the Appendix below. Etym. Magn. mentions worshipped on Hymettos and Parnes.

73 There are two relevant passages, 13. 3 and 13. 4, of which (3) gives two main divisions (apart from the which must be in reference to the archonship mentioned in (2)): (a) those who had as basis and theme of their discontent the because they had become poor; (b) those displeased with the constitution, because of its modification (μεταβολή, technical term). Then follow the three στάσεις, two of which are clearly intended to balance (a) and (b) above, with the παράλιοι between. The Πεδιακοί are characterized by a political aim, and must correspond to (b) above: the rich and noble, who were the former oppressors economically as well as politically before the seisachtheia and the Solonian constitution. Part of the Diakrioi are characterized as cf. the of (a), and their corresponds to the πένησιν of (a). They appear to be separate from (b). Whatever the ambiguities of language (χρέα can apply to both debtor and creditor, and so can ), poverty is the characteristic of this category. It is impossible to believe that any part of the pre-Solonian creditor class was so deeply committed to loans to the debtor class that when the seisachtheia took place and the land was freed (whatever that might mean) any of the former rich were so reduced as to be in a state of ἀπορία (so Aly, , RE series 2, iii. 957Google Scholar). It introduces less illogic politically and economically to say that were those freed from debt, and that they found themselves in the sense that they no no longer had any claim to any sort of income, e.g. as Hektemors, or even to maintenance as slaves.

74 Mentioned in 13. 5; see Sandys's note ad loc.

75 Plutarch, , Solon 24.Google Scholar

76 French, , GR 46.Google Scholar

77 Solon 13.

78 Ibid. 29.

79 Herodotus i. 59; Aristotle, , AthPol 13. 4 and 14. 3Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Solon 29.Google Scholar

79a To the clan of the Eteoboutadai belonged the hereditary priesthoods of Apollo Erechtheus and Athena Polias, which seems to argue a close connexion with Athens itself. But need all members of the clan have this association, even supposing we could be sure that the earlier Lykourgos belonged to it?

80 On the Alkmeonids in general see RE i. 1555 ff.; Hesperia xv. 275 for a stemma; Hesperia xix. 376 ff.; for those of the name of Megakles, see RE xv. 125 ff.; chronology, Hammond, N. G. L., CQ vi (1956) 47Google Scholar; archon list, Cadoux, T. J., JHS lxviii (1949) 70 ff.Google Scholar On the Alkmeonid οἰκία rather than γένος, see Wade-Gery 106 ff.; a different view is held by Ferguson, W. S., Hesperia vii (1938) 43 n. 3.Google Scholar

81 Wilamowitz, , Aristoteles und Athen ii. 75.Google Scholar The argument is the attempted seizure of by the Alkmeonids and others, in one of the attempts to expel Hippias, Herodotus v. 62, AthPol 19. 3, and Sandys's note ad loc. on it is suggested that this site on Parnes might have been their native place, on the fringe of the Pedion.

82 Pausanias ii. 18. 9. Cf. Toepffer, , Att. Geneal. 225 ff.Google Scholar They may have been ‘new nobility’ and so claimed Pylian blood when given access to the Areopagus by Solon's arrangements (Wade-Gery 108), but this says nothing of their local connexions. In desperation one might try to connect Megakles with the Mesogia (and so with the Paralia) in that he and Peisistratos enlisted Phye from Paiania (if she didn't come from the later city deme of Kollytos, the deme of some later Peisistratids), but Athena might be expected in any case to come from this direction at the restoration. Myron of Phlya, one of those responsible for the expulsion of the Alkmeonids, probably came from the district of the Pedion associated with the Lykomidai (see Paus. i. 22. 7, iv. 1. 4; Plutarch, , Them. 1Google Scholar; IG ii2. 2670), but there is no reason to suppose a local enmity.

83 Kirchner, PA no. 9689, &c. (stemma, 53); for other demes, cf. Kallixenos, son of Aristonymos, of Xypete (Hesperia xix (1950) 376 ff.), and Leobotes of Agryle (PA 9071), ‘… both probably connected with the Alkmeonidai through the female line’ (Hesperia xix. 378). See also Wade-Gery 107 n. 1.

84 Wade-Gery 101.

85 Herodotus v. 62: AthPol 19. 3: From Isocrates xvi. 26 it appears that Alkibiades I was one of these, cf. Hatzfeld, , Alcibiade 11.Google Scholar So, too, may have been the great-grandfather of Andocides on the best interpretation of De Myst. 106 and De reditu 26, and the grandfather of Antiphon of Rhamnous (Antiphon, fr. 1, cf. Wilamowitz, , A.u.A. ii. 76 n. 6).Google Scholar See also RE xix. 175 for the suggestion that among those in exile after Peisistratos' final return was Kallias the son of Phainippos, Herodotus vi. 121, PA 7833. The coin evidence for the Eteoboutadai (Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 115Google Scholar, Notes 359 n. 8) is much more doubtful. Such as these may have determined the choice of Leipsydrion.

86 Convenient of access from Central Greece. We cannot attach too much importance to its name as a ‘waterless spot’; see Sandys, note to AthPol 19. 3.

87 Alkmeon II: though there is some uncertainty about individuals of this name (see PA 651) who appear in various connexions (Toepffer, , in RE i. 1555 ff.Google Scholar), this member of the οἰκία of the Alkmeonids is generally accepted as the one who was enriched by a Lydian king, whatever lies behind the story; cf. Herodotus vi. 125. Though there may be uncertainty about the date of his chariot victory at Olympia (Herodotus, loc. cit., ? 592 B.C.) which presupposes wealth, the dates of Kroisos (560–547 B.C.) as the ruler who enriched him will not fit, and the story must be transferred to Alyattes (c. 607–560 B.C.; see Kaletsch, H., Historia vii (1958) 1 ff.).Google Scholar The interest of the story (as Toepffer, loc. cit., infers in calling it ‘offenbar erfunden’) is that it illustrates the interest in the sources of Alkmeonid wealth, and the puzzlement as to how the much-exiled house possessed lands (it is to be presumed) and wealth as well as prestige and influence. In reality, perhaps, its wealth need not have been very great, and no doubt Megakles II owed something to his father-in-law, as Wade-Gery infers, op. cit. 106.

The date of his return is bound up with the question of the Solonian amnesty-law (see Ledi, , Studien zur älteren athenischen Verfassungsgeschichte 100 ff.Google Scholar; its historicity is doubted by Hignett, , A History of the Athenian Constitution 311–14Google Scholar, and therefore its application to Alkmeon); if it applied to him he may have returned (enriched by Alyattes) in or immediately after 594/3 B.C. while Solon was still in Athens, or after the latter's departure (cf. RE i. 1560), whenever that was (593 or 591 (Hammond)). His chariot victory at Olympia (? 592 B.C.) is no help; if he commanded the forces of Athens in the Sacred War 591/90 B.C. his position must have been official, and his return or recognition secured before the anarchia of 590/89 B.C.

88 Though his rivals and the old enemies of the family were not likely to be less influential there than in the Pedion.

89 Cf. Wade-Gery 104.

90 Herodotus i. 59.

90a Herodotus v. 65.

91 Pausanias ii. 24. 7. For the restoration of the date, see Cadoux, T. J., JHS lxviii (1949) 90.Google Scholar

92 For Herodotus v. 65 (the Peisistratids) and Pausanias ii. 18. 9 (Paionidai and Alkmeonidai) and the question of sources, see Jacoby, FGrH 323a F 23Google Scholar, Notes 49 n. 1. See also Thucydides i. 2. 6 and Strabo ix. 392 for the idea of this immigration. A natural deduction was that the Peisistratids and the Alkmeonids were συγγενεῖς, cf. Isocrates, xvi 25. It might be suggested that, if the tradition recorded by Pausanias was current in the early sixth century in the detail the idea of Hippokrates in naming his son Peisistratos was to deny the idea of kinship with the Alkmeonids if they made claims of Neleid descent at that time. The idea of such descent was extended also to Solon: Plutarch, Solon 1. 2, Diogenes Laertius iii. 1. On this see Jacoby, , FGrH 323a F 23Google Scholar, Notes 63 n. 70; this seems likely to be due to the relationship believed to exist between Peisistratos and Solon (Plutarch, Solon 1 from Herakleides Pontikos), and belongs first to Peisistratos. The Neleid connexion must have been claimed to establish a bond with Ionia in the case of certain families; significant in this connexion is Solon's ‘Oldest Ionian land’, and Athens' reward of one of the Ionian seats on the Amphiktyonic Council as a result of the Sacred War. The date to which it might go back is obscure; see Jacoby 323a F 11, Commentary 32 (rather late); it depends in part on the earlier Peisistratos of the archon-list. Is it too fanciful to suggest that this Ionian stress argues also a pro-Dorian element in Athens?

93 Wade-Gery 101.

94 Plutarch, , Solon 10Google Scholar, in relating the legend of the gift of Salamis by the sons of Ajax, who settled in Brauron and Melite. Note that a divergent legend on Salamis made Eurysakes only (Sophocles, , Ajax 530 ff.Google Scholar) or Philaios only (Herodotus vi. 35; Pherekydes, , Jacoby, , FGrH 3 F 2Google Scholar) son of Ajax and giver of Salamis to Athens.

95 The site of the temple of Artemis Brauronia (which Schol. Aristoph. Av. 873 connects with Philaidai) seems now to be well established by recent excavations; in modern times there are two villages of Vraona inland. Leake, , Topography of Attica ii. 75Google Scholar, suggested Velanidheza as in the area of Philaidai, using, it would seem, the stele of Aristion as evidence because of Peisistratos' supporter (AthPol 14. 4) of that name. The evidence of the stele appears to be of doubtful value. See also Philippson 819; Jacoby 325 F 14 on Brauron, Iphigeneia, and Artemis; connexion of Brauron, Miltiades II, and Lemnos, ibid., Notes 311 n. 22.

96 For the genealogy of the genos (a Miltiades appears as archon in the seventh century, Cadoux, T. J., JHS lxviii (1949) 90)Google Scholar, see Jacoby 3 F 2 (Pherekydes) and Commentary 388 on 328 F 92; Hammond, N. G. L., CQ xlix (1956) 113 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97 Herodotus i. 62.

98 Herodotus vi. 103.

99 Cf. Herodotus i. 61: aid from the Thebans (why does Herodotus say (ibid.) that states were under an obligation to Peisistratos?); AthPol 15: from the of Eretria, politically odd and therefore suggesting some personal connexion (but not with Chalcis). See Strabo ix. 1. 1 and 6 for the connexion of the Marathonian tetrapolis and Steiria with Eretria and south Euboea.

100 Cf. Herodotus i. 61–62 for Argives and Naxians. For its tactical advantages (good for cavalry and very near Eretria), cf. Herodotus vi. 103.

101 Herodotus i. 62. For the cf. those who joined the anti-Hippias forces at Leipsydrion.

102 Ibid.:

103 See above, p. 193, n. 48, and on its location, p. 193 n. 47 and n. 95.

104 Definite evidence is lacking. That afforded by the stele of Aristion is poor. The survival of memories of Peisistratos' association with the Diakria may account for the appearance of his rare name in the feminine form in IG ii–iii2. 5696: if this deme is in fact represented by modern Rafina in the Diakria. Wilamowitz, (A.u.A. ii. 76 n. 6)Google Scholar suggests as a supporter of Peisistratos the grandfather of Antiphon of Rhamnous, which seems to be a misunderstanding of Antiphon, fr. 1 (see p. 197 n. 85 above). It is easier to connect certain contemporaries of the Peisistratids (Hippias and Hipparchos) with the Diakria than to show them supporters of the tyrant house. Thus Wilamowitz (ibid.) suggests Isagoras ‘the friend of the tyrants’ (AthPol 20. 1, which might not mean very much to judge from ibid. 16. 9) as a Diakrian: ‘da sein Familienkult der Zeus Kariös war, der boeotisch ist, möchte man an diakrischer Heimat glauben: am liebsten möchte ich ihn den Tyrannenmördern verwandt glauben’. Certainly Zeus Karios was associated with Ikaria in the Diakria, cf. IG i2. 186–7. His inference that Harmodios and Aristogeiton were Diakrians may also have something in it: the clan of the Gephyraioi to which they belonged (Herodotus v. 55: ) claimed, indeed, Eretria as its place of origin rather than Tanagra (Herodotus, ibid. 57, cf. Eretria as Peisistratos' base and his connexion with Boeotia), but Hyperides ii (iii) 3 (against Philippides) mentions Demokrates of Aphidnai as descendant of the tyrant-slayers and recipient of the honours paid to their descendants: presumably on this basis rests the restoration of the very defective inscription IG ii–iii2. 5765 (of the beginning of the fourth century B.C.): On the other hand, a member of the Gephyraioi appears to belong to the deme of Paiania; see Hesperia viii (1939) 80; ix (1940) 86 ff. The evidence is very thin, but it is tempting to suggest a fatal enmity of close associates and local supporters of the Peisistratids; the enmity, if enmity it was, of Miltiades I towards Peisistratos was perhaps similar. We cannot localize the Kallias who was father of Myrrhine, wife of Hippias (Thucydides vi. 55. 1); RE xix. 154, s.v. Peisistratiden places the marriage in the second exile and concludes that Kallias was a supporter of Peisistratos who left Athens with him.

104a Cf. Plutarch, Solon I: and descended from an ancient house of Athens: but see pp. 197 f. n. 92 above, and Jacoby, FGrH 323a F 23 Notes 63 n. 70 on this.

105 See p. 196 n. 82 and pp. 197 f. n. 92 above.

106 Plutarch, Solon 1: In after time it was obviously felt to be wrong that Solon, of noble descent, should be concerned or interested in trade; hence the story of the reduced circum stances of his father (Plutarch, , Solon 2Google Scholar).

107 Cf. AthPol 5. 3:

108 6. 3:

109 6. 2. Is it one of the later attacks on ‘demagogues’? Even if the idea of the freeing of land for purchase is accepted, there is the difficulty that the story placed the transactions before the and therefore before the freeing of the land! The story also depends on the assumption of a total cancellation of debts, which can hardly be accepted; cf. Mühl, M., RhM xcvi (1953) 220 f.Google Scholar

110 Solon 15.

111 Ibid.

112 Moralia 807D–E.

113 On Alkmeon see p. 197 n. 87 above; for Kallias, , Plutarch, , Arist. 5.Google Scholar

114 Lysias xix. 49. See Sandys, Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, ad loc. Another was Hagnon; see the fragment of the of Kratinos, in Page's Greek Literary Papyri (Loeb) 200Google Scholar, line 32.

115 For the suggestion that the form (Solon 15) is modelled on Ἑρμοκοπίδαι and is a form of attack on Alkibiades III, cf. Wilamowitz, , A.u.A. 62, 63Google Scholar, and RE iii. 2447, s.v., iii (ser. 2) 957, s.v. Solon. Rejected by Hatzfeld, , Alcibiade 9Google Scholar: ‘Si les oligarques avaient voulu, en créant cette légende, compromettre des familles favorables à la démocratie, on s'étonne de ne pas voir compter, au nombre des χρεοκοπίδαι, des Alcméonides ou des Bouzuges.’

116 Kirchner, , PA 8707Google Scholar

117 See PA 8510–12; a relation, Kleinias son of Kleopompos, PA 8503. Skambonidai was a city deme of Leontis; its location in south-east Attica is rejected by Kirsten in Philippson 850 n. 2. There were others of Alopeke (PA 8507), and of Xypete (PA 8509), both of the late fourth century, and a very late one of Kothokidai (PA 8508); of some the demes are not known (PA 8502–6). See also, for ostraka, Hesperia xxi (1952) 1 ff.; note ibid. 8 n. 15 the use of patronymic and not demotic for some members of famous families. It is suggested by Vanderpool (ibid. 6) that Kleinias, ‘friend’ of Solon, might be the father of Alkibiades I who joined with Kleisthenes in the anti-tyrant action, which is what Dem. xxi. 144 refers to rather than relationship. There is abo the interesting point that the later Kleinias and Alkibiades traced their descent from Eury-sakes, son of the Telamonian Ajax, and were probably associated with the Salaminioi, see Wade-Gery no; Hatzfeld, , Alcibiade 3.Google Scholar

118 See RE viii. 2. 1907 ff., s.v. Hipponikos: ibid. x. 2. 1615 ff., s.v. Kallias; Kirchner, , PA 7825Google Scholar, &c, and possible stemma under 7833; Lewis, D. M., BSA 1 (1955) 1314.Google Scholar

119 See BSA xlviii. 245.

120 Or if it was Melite (as in Sehol. Lucian. 83 R from Aristophanes), this was also a city deme.

121 See Gomme, , The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. 44.Google Scholar

122 For movement into the city, cf. Pausanias ii. 18.

123 PA 9693 ff. Relations of the family (Hesperia xix (1950) 376 ff.): Kallixenos of Xypete (city deme of Kekropis), Leobotes of Agryle (PA 9071; city deme of Erechtheis).

124 PA 11169.

125 PA 7600, 15520.

126 PA 8429, 10212; Milchhoefer, , Demenordnung 27.Google Scholar On the relationship of the ‘house of Miltiades’, see Wade-Gery 164, and the stemma in How and Wells, , A Commentary on Herodotus ii. 77.Google Scholar

127 13. 5.

128 Solon 29.

129 i. 2. 58.

130 i. 59. 5.

131 Solon 13. Cf. Herodotus i. 60 and AthPol 14. 4 on and Phye as Athena.

132 Ibid. 29.

133 In the case of Peisistratos' faction, or part of it, it is indeed true that there is no certainty that those who had been released from debt, but had not been given land, inhabited the city or its environs. They might hang about the villages or squat on undeveloped land, but it is at least as likely that they went to Athens in some numbers. In this connexion note Peisistratos' procedure (as it is represented in AthPol 16. 3, unless this is a piece of Aristotelian theory, cf. Pol. 1292b 25, 1319a30) in dealing with the lower class, to help them as cultivators, to keep them from in the city, and to scatter them in the country; cf. the and Herodotus i. 59:

134 As AthPol 13. 5 would suggest. See Andrewes 104.

135 As Andrewes aptly points out, 103–4.

136 The conception of the Paralioi as a political force may come from the interpretation of Solon as seen in his poems; cf. AthPol 13. 4, in general very confused and obscure as to the origins of the parties; see p. 195 n. 73 above.

137 Representing an inseparable connexion between coast and inland. For Brauron, , see RE iii. 822 ff.Google Scholar; Philippson 819. It is to some extent cut off from the south by Mt. Perati, but access from it and from the interior to Porto Rafti is not difficult (despite Philippson 820). Prasiai on the south shore of the Gulf of Porto Rafti had a traditional importance in connexion with Delos, as a station on the Hyperborean route: see Jacoby, , FGrH 325 F 2Google Scholar, Commentary 176 and 177 on the Hyperborean Maidens; 328 F 14–16, Notes 206 n. 84, on Prasiai (and Phaleron) as ports. The regular Attic theoria went from via Phaleron, Athens (CR xli (1927) 113 f.).Google Scholar For the practical importance of Prasiai at an early period, see Seltman, , Athens, Its History and Coinage 1112.Google Scholar On the north shore of the Gulf is located the deme of Steiria (Mycenaean tombs; RE iii, ser. 2), 2305–6, s.v., Philippson 821 and note), to which the led from Athens. It appears from Hell. Ox. i. 1 and iii. 1–2 (on Demainetos who sails off to join Conon) that even those who set sail from Piraeus to the south-east might put in at an eastcoast port, in this case Thorikos.

138 On modern harbours and conditions (and bearing in mind that it has been suggested that the sea-level has risen, or rather the land has sunk, since antiquity (see AJA lxiii (1959) 255–6), possibly by 3·5 metres, the effects of which are difficult to estimate), see Mediterranean Pilot iv (1918) ed. 5: Sounion to Piraeus (124–33): Port Colonna (124), Legrana Bay (124), Port Aghios Nikolaos (125) = the Bay of Anavyssos; Vari Bay and Vouliagmeni Bay suffer from certain disadvantages; Cape Zostir is said to be dangerous (125, but see Xen. Hell. v. 1. 9), and the stretch from Phleva Island to Phaleron is not good. To some degree this depends on wind and weather. Sounion to Marathon Bay (143–51): one is struck by the way names indicate harbours: Pasa Limani, Frangolimani, Tourcolimani; there are also Ergasteri Bay (Laurion), Porto Mandri (on these see Philippson 845–6, 849), Porto Rafti (exposed from the eastward), Marathon Bay. There is also Rafina (Philippson 818), now a port for Euboea.

139 On rounding Sounion, see Philippson 843. For one route across Attica, see Thucydides vii. 28. 1. Does the of vi. 91. 7 mean this also? Some of the other routes from east-coast harbours would seem to the present writer even more useful.

140 French, A., GR 53.Google Scholar

141 The stream at Rafina (ancient deme of Araphen?) might there mark the boundary of the Diakria.

142 As they must have developed in the fifth century, to give employment to a large proportion of the slaves who later fled to Dekeleia (Thucydides vii. 27. 5). In vi. 91. 7 probably also refers to slaves. They cannot all or predominantly have been miners.

143 Not clearly important at an early date. The argument is e silentio on both sides. The earlier coinage of Athens does not argue an extensive production of silver (even if the so-called Wappenmünzen are accepted as entirely Attic). The earlier tetradrachms are certainly to be placed some-what later than in Seltman's arrangement. In any case the supposed antiquity of the mines rests on a conjecture of Xenophon (π. πορ. iv. 2), and the first evidence we have of what might be extensive development is the mention of the discovery of the vein which provided the resources for Themistokles' navy in the late eighties (Herodotus vii. 144; AthPol 22. 7).

144 See p. 194 n. 49 above and the Appendix.

145 As French, GR, whose theory is highly ingenious but unconvincing.

146 For recent observations on this, see French, JHS lxxvii (1959) 238 ff.Google Scholar See also Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Greece (1959) 157 ff.Google Scholar for some interesting suggestions on clansmen and guildsmen in this connexion.

147 Even in the Pedion there would be marginal and less profitable land. In this connexion note the term Harpocration s.v. The meaning ‘border land’ can mean land on the border between cultivated and uncultivated unareas, as seems clear from Aesch. C. Tim. 98:

148 CAH iv 38. Cf. French's comment on this view and the reverse of it, CQ vi (1956) 23–24. It seems implied in RE xix. 161, s.v. Peisistratos. RE series 2, iii. 957, s.v. Solon, does not appear prepared to hazard an expression of opinion on this point. Woodhouse, , Solon the Liberator 190–4Google Scholar, is quite certain of a distribution of land; on the other hand, Freeman, K., The Work and Life of Solon 8589Google Scholar, does not appear to consider the question in her account of the Seisachtheia; the attitude of Linforth, , Solon the Athenian 65Google Scholar, is not very clear.

149 CAH iv. 60.

150 See Andrewes 102–3, and pp. 192 f. n. 38 above.

151 Strabo ix. 1. 1 and 1. 6.

152 See below, p. 214.

153 Wade-Gery 104.

154 Ibid. 98–99.

155 Cf. Wade-Gery's inference, ibid. 104. On this question see the rather obscure discussion of Aly, in RE series 2, iii. 972.Google Scholar It is hard to see how the Solonian system could function without some sort of money evaluation, possibly of an arbitrary sort, not unlike the evaluations of sacrificial animals said to have been laid down by Solon; see Jacoby, , FGrH on 328 F 200Google Scholar, Notes 459 n. 27.

156 Circumstances can hardly have been the same as in Athens of the classical period. There may have been, of course, a separate interest represented by those concerned with manufactured goods, such as pottery, but these would be middle-men rather than sea-soing merchants. It may also be said (i) that the strong influence of merchants as a class would not be exerted until the full development of Athenian interest in trade, which comes later than the ‘parties’; (ii) merchants who traded to and from Athens and Attica were not exclusively or even as a majority Athenian citizens. This seems clear in the fourth century and there is no reason to believe that conditions were different at any time in the sixth.

157 Plutarch, , Solon 2Google Scholar: (note the following less ‘banausic’ explanation). Cf. ibid. 3. On this ‘noble’ birth of Solon, see above, p. 199 n. 104a. It is reasonable to suppose that he would need to be a Eupatrid to become archon, but Aly (op. cit. 949) suggests that he represented a break with tradition, and was therefore not necessarily ‘noble’, and that he was a Pentakosiomedimnos, which is contrary to the tradition, and surely an anachronism. Jacoby would regard Solon's ‘Neleid nobility’ as ‘derived from that of Peisistratos’, FGrH 323a F 23, Notes 63 n. 70.

158 See above, p. 201 and n. 133.

159 Cornelius, , Die Tyrannis in Athen 15 ff.Google Scholar; Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 205–6Google Scholar, Notes 468 n. 4. There is an element of truth in Cornelius's suggestion wrongly rejected by Jacoby. On the other hand, though it is certainly true that Peisistratos was not hostile to the peasants, he would want to scatter them in the country once he attained power (see p. 201 n. 133). The idea of concentration is revived by French.

160 French, A., GR 46 ff.Google Scholar

161 On Damasias and the sequel to his ‘tyranny’, see Wade-Gery 102–4.

162 Wade-Gery 104, suggests: ‘Even the Pedieis are soon glad to coalesce with Megakles’, i.e. after the merging of ‘old’ and ‘new’ rich, and the disappearance of ‘the Eupatrid claim to monopolise government’.

163 But note Hippokleides, son of Teisandros (this name appears again as that of the father of Isagoras (Herodotus v. 66), of whom Herodotus makes his very odd statement: was he a connexion of the Philaidai disowned for his conduct?), suitor of Agariste (Herodotus vi. 128. 2; see How and Wells, ad loc., for the suggestion that he may have been brother of the Philaid Kypselos). Pherekydes (FGrH 3 F 2) states: For the date 566/5 B.C. of the establishment of the festival, and therefore of his archonship, see Cadoux, T. J., JHS lxviii (1949) 104.Google Scholar Jacoby, in an important note, FGrH 334 F 4, Notes 508 n. 2, suggests a possibility of rivalry with Peisistratos.

164 i. 59, after the statement Herodotus adds: Here are significant.

165 Plutarch, , Solon 29Google Scholar:

166 Ibid.,

167 Ibid.,

168 i. 59.

169 Cf. ibid., the reason for his successful appeal: Some support from the hoplite class?

170 i. 60.

171 i. 62.

172 vi. 35.

173 We do not know when Miltiades I went off to the Thracian Chersonese, i.e. whether before the battle of Pallene or after. His dislike of Peisistratos' ἀρχέ does not necessarily argue basic enmity, and it is unlikely that Peisistratos would have let him go if he had reason to fear his hostility; cf. RE xix. 175, s.v. Peisistratos. Kimon Koalemos was later in exile for reasons we cannot guess (Plutarch, , Cimon 4Google Scholar; Herodotus vi. 103); they may have been personal. He was recalled after his second chariot victory (528–527 B.C.) and murdered after his third (Herodotus ibid.), but this happened in the reign of Hippias. On the Kimonids in the Thracian Chersonese, and for arguments for the departure of Miltiades I from Attica, see Hammond, N. G. L., CQ 1956, 113 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

174 Cf. Herodotus i. 64. For the problem of what happened, see Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 115Google Scholar, Notes 358 n. 7. Plut., Sol. 30, represents Megakles as fleeing with the rest of the Alkmeonids immediately on Peisistratos’ seizure of the Acropolis.

175 Cadoux, T. J., JHS lxviii (1949) 77 and 109–10Google Scholar, the fragment of an archon-list published in Hesperia viii (1939) 59–65.

176 But note the comment of AthPol 16. 9 from (?)Androtion: Cf. Wade-Gery 157, 164, for his ‘union of hearts’ and suggestions on the position in the first years of Hippias's rule.

177 AthPol 20. 1. On his possible local connexion with the Diakria, see above, p. 199 n. 104 (Plato, Gorgias 487c, quoted by Wilamowitz, , A.u.A. ii. 76 n. 6Google Scholar, does not appear very relevant). On Herodotus' odd statement in v. 66, see above, p. 205 n. 163. For Kleomenes' intention to establish him as tyrant, see Herodotus v. 74.

178 Cf. Herodotus i. 60: the of Megakles and Lykourgos unite to expel him:

179 i.61.

180 Herodotus i. 60 and AthPol 14. 4.

181 Herodotus i. 61: (Megakles)

182 See Diehl, , Anth. Lyr. Grace. i 4 (1953) fr. 3 passim, fr. 4. 512Google Scholar; cf. Plutarch's comment (Solon 3. 2) on this quotation (lines 9–12): Cf. AthPol 5. 3(comment on lines 5–8): In lines 7–8 the partisanship is clear enough; cf. fr. 23. 13 ff., where Solon makes it clear he was expected to act in a partisan manner. He is called in Aristophanes, , Nubes 1187.Google Scholar

182a Cf. Plut., Solon 14, and the The alternative to the suggestion of a party is the idea, which Plutarch, ibid., quotes from Phanias of Eresos, that Solon deceived both sides. The former is the easier suggestion to accept. The trouble is that Solon's position and actions, and his relations to Peisistratos, were the subject of philosophical interest (cf. RhM xcix. 319 ff.) which did not help the tradition.

183 Cf. the normal interpretation of of AthPol 13.5: but see p. 195 n. 73 above. These are represented as joining Peisistratos.

184 AthPol 13. 3.

185 See Wade-Gery 104 for their subsequent assimilation.

186 Something like thirty years, on the usual chronology, or more. This is in part the reason why Hignett, , A History of the Athenian Constitution 321Google Scholar, would put Solon's legislation ‘late in the third decade of the sixth century’. The problem of Philokypros (ibid. 320) is less important.

187 Again, if the normal chronology is accepted, it is difficult to believe that Solon is referring to Peisistratos in Diehl i4. 8. 9 and 10, despite the opinions of later writers who connect these comments of Solon with the bodyguard obtained by Peisistratos, and elaborated the story of Solon the lone protestor (variously treated by Peisistratos according to the picture intended to be given of the latter's character), on which see von Stern, E., Hermes xlviii. 426 ff.Google Scholar, and Semenov, , BphW 1908, 604 f.Google Scholar

188 Aigina was the other important maritime state of the Saronic Gulf, but of her earlier history surprisingly little is known. It is, however, certain that with any growth of Athenian interest in maritime affairs Aigina was likely to be a greater rival ultimately than Megara, as the later events of the sixth and early fifth centuries show. It is not unreasonable to suggest that just as Megara was an issue earlier, so too Aigina became one later: an issue not unconnected with that of the character of Athens' military effort: land-forces (hoplites) or fleet, the hostility of Themistokles and Aristeides side by side with that between Athens and Aigina. It is not without significance that Aristeides went into exile to Aigina (Dem. xxvi. 6). If Raubitschek's interpretation of an interesting ostrakon is correct (‘Das Datislied’ in Schauenburg, K., Charities 234–42Google Scholar), the involvement of Aristeides in pro-Persian charges there indicated may stem from this issue: pro-hoplite, pro-Aigina, and anti-fleet, therefore pro-Persian. Note that Guarducci, M. suggests (RFC lxxvi (1948) 226)Google Scholar that the cult of Aiakos (mentioned by Hdt. v. 89 as given a temenos by the Athenians on the advice of Delphi) might express something like a claim to Aigina, as did that of Eurysakes to Salamis.

189 Thucydides i. 5–6, a firmly held tradition, out of which the legend of the Pylos connexion must have developed. See Gomme, Commentary, ad loc. For the many problems of this obscure period, see Desborough, V., Protogeometric Pottery 297 ff.Google Scholar

190 For the synoecism in relation to the Eupatridai, see Wade-Gery 92 ff. Earlier and more recent archaeological finds demonstrate the importance of the countryside of Attica, and the lexicographers the earlier divisions in cult organizations. On Mycenaean Attica and the local centres, see Stubbings, F., BSA xlii (1947) 29Google Scholar (up to 1938); the material finds have considerably increased since.

191 Desborough, op. cit.; note particularly (299) the spread of Protogeometric and (299–301) the possibility of trade from Athens. A good deal is still obscure, and this is true also of the following Geometric period from 900 to 875 B.C. on, and of the interrelations of Geometric styles: cf. Desborough 302 for the close connexion of Attic, Corinthian, and Argive Geometric (? in the early stages).

192 Cf. Thucydides i. 2. 5: whence, in Thucydides' opinion, its freedom from conquest and disturbance, and the need to expedite refugees to colonies. Plutarch, , Solon 23Google Scholar: so too ibid. 22: most of the country hence Solon's development of crafts to provide means of exchange for overseas trade.

193 See Strabo ix. 392 and p. 192 n. 31 above. On early Megara, see Hammond, , BSA xlix (1954) 93 ff.Google Scholar

194 Something is done to this effect for the relations of Athens, Epidauros, Aigina, and Argos by Dunbabin, T. J. in BSA xxxvii (1936/1937) 83 ff.Google Scholar, on Herodotus v. 88. 2, with an incidental demonstration of the weakness of archaeological evidence. On Athenian commercial ‘backwardness’ see 88–89; on the nature of finds of Attic Geometric and Protoattic abroad, ibid. 88 and Cook, J. M., BSA xxxv (1934/1935) 204Google Scholar; Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks 240 n. 3.Google Scholar New finds would indeed have to be spectacular to reverse or eliminate the contrast of Protocorinthian and Protoattic.

195 See Hammond, , BSA xlix (1954) 91, 96, 101Google Scholar: Dorian conquest dated 1050–1000 B.C.; synoecism of Megara polis c. 750 B.C.

196 Fullest account in Thucydides i. 126; Herodotus v. 70; Plutarch, , Solon 12.Google Scholar For the question of date, see Cadoux, , JHS lxviii (1949) 91Google Scholar: Olympic victory of Kylon, 640/39 B.C.; conspiracy, and archonship of Megakles, 636/5 or 632/1 B.C. See also Gomme, Commentary on Thucydides i. 126; and Hignett, , A History of the Athenian Constitution 8687Google Scholar, for good general comment; note Hignett's point on blood-feuding subsequently, which would imply considerable support for Kylon. Another chronological problem is the length of the interval between the murder of the Kylonians and the condemnation of the Alkmeonids; Ledl, (Studien zur älteren athenischen Verfassungsgeschichte 8687)Google Scholar regarded it as very short; so too Lenschau, (Philologus xci (1937) 286 f.)Google Scholar, using the low Corinthian tyrant-chronology, puts a relatively short interval between Kylon and Solon. This is surely wrong.

197 Thucydides i. 126. He is dated by Kylon. On Theagenes, see Highbarger, , History of Megara 120 ff.Google Scholar His famous fountain (BCH lxxxii (1958) 688 ff.) appears to provide no chronological evidence.

198 See Hignett, op. cit. 87. It is to be wondered how the traditional codification of the law by Draco, if it took place (in 624–620 B.C.; see Cadoux, op. cit. 92), fits into these troubles. As Hignett points out (op. cit. 84), harsh law would be more harshly administered by Eupatrid magistrates. Did the code start the serious oppression of the small farmers, i.e. in pursuit of the policy of corn export mentioned below? It does not appear as if at the time of the conspiracy conditions were ripe for a tyranny; cf. the anti-Kylonian side taken by Kylon, however, may have been regarded as personally unsuitable, and there was the Megarian issue.

199 See above, p. 192 n. 31 and p. 209 n. 193.

200 Cf. Plutarch, , Solon 10Google Scholar and the archaeological argument.

201 Plutarch, , Solon 10Google Scholar, and p. 198 n. 94 above.

202 The organization of the Salaminioi is discussed at length in Hesperia vii (1938) 1 ff., but there appears to be no evidence for the date of the institution of the cult organization. The origins, date, and purpose of the genos, with its ancient-seeming cult connexions, are debated variously the interesting articles of W. S. Ferguson, Hesperia, loc. cit., Nilsson, M. P., AJP lix (1938) 387 ff.Google Scholar, and Guarducci, M., RFC lxxvi (1948) 233 ff.Google Scholar They are agreed on the purpose; the question of the date and of the division of the genos between Athens and Phaleron and Sounion present serious difficulties of explanation.

203 Probably, in view of its position, it was inhabited by elements with affinities to both states. It seems unlikely that the Dorian conquest of Megara left Salamis untouched, even if no part of it was incorporated in the Dorian state.

204 i.e. the late eighth or early seventh century B.C. The question of the acquisition of Eleusis and the relation of this event to matters concerning Megara present considerable difficulties; cf. Allen, and Halliday, , The Homeric Hymns 2111 ff.Google Scholar For various reasons M. Guarducci, op. cit. 229 f., seems constrained to put it too early, and W. S. Ferguson, op. cit. 42, too late.

205 Plutarch, , Solon 8Google Scholar, for the ‘long and tedious’ war with the Megarians; note See Sandys, note to AthPol 14. 1, on the problem of Solon's participation and the question of Peisistratos. Plutarch's account is clearly not to be taken chronologically (see p. 212 n. 211 below), as is abundantly evident from chapters 11 and 12; see Ledl, op.cit. 95 for the organization by Plutarch of events ‘nach inhaltlichen Gesichtspunkten’, whatever his ultimate sources (ibid. 95–97).

206 Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. (1885) 500Google Scholar: ‘Wäre der Staats-streich Kylons gelungen, so würde Athen von Megara auch politisch abhängig geworden sein, wie es wahrscheinlich bereits in wirtschaftlicher Abhängigkeit stand.’

207 At first sight Thucydides seems to indicate an attempt of small dimensions, but note Hignett's suggestion of marriage connexions (op. cit. 87); what does Solon 12 mean:

208 See n. 196 above; also Forrest, G., BCH lxxx (1956) 39 ff.Google Scholar Thucydides mentions the opposition of the archons as a body (on the instruction of the Assembly?), which does not necessarily mean that they were all equally bitterly opposed to Kylon and his supporters. The support for anti-Kylonian side was which Gomme is probably correct in explaining on the ground that Athens itself was small, or, more correctly, that residence was predominantly in the country. The server partisan trouble started at the murder of Kylon's supporters. See Gomme's note to Thucydides i 126. 11 for the responsibility of Megakles as chief archon. Plutarch, , Solon 12Google Scholar, shares out the responsibility between all nine archons, but only the Alkmeonids (or the descendants of Megakles?) were later banished. The account of Herodotus (v. 70), which gives the responsibility to the may well be a pro-Alkmeonid version, but also infers the political nature of the blood-guilt charge.

209 The flight of Kylon and his brother, Thucydides i. 126. We are not informed where they sought refuge, but it is natural to suppose that they did so in Megara, possibly to continue hostilities from there.

210 Cf. Plutarch, , Solon 12Google Scholar:

211 Plutarch, , Solon 12Google Scholar: The whole narrative of Plutarch is confused in detail and order (see n. 205) and complicated by reference to Nisaia. Ledl, op. cit. 83, therefore casts doubt on On the other hand, if we can trust the information of an orator, Demosthenes (xix. 252) mentions (before the enactment of the law imposing the death penalty, and the poem of Solon):

212 Plutarch, , Solon 12Google Scholar: Solon His age would naturally depend on his birth date (see Aly, RE series 2, iii. 949. for discussion; he places it before 624 B.C.; Freeman, K., The Work and Life of Solon 153 f.Google Scholar, suggests c. 639 B.C.) and the date when this stasis took place. If were born c. 640 B.C., and if these events had any connexion with Draco (624 B.C.) he would be far too young. If they are put towards the end of the century they are too much compressed with the following events which have to be fitted in. The purification by Epimenides (closely?) connected with the expulsion was traditionally dated 597/6 or 596/5, and therefore just before Solon's archonship, but AthPol seems to infer a certain space of time between, into which has to be fitted the recapture of Salamis through the agency of Solon. The story of this earlier prominence of Solon is rejected by Ledl, op. cit. 84, who also (89 ff., 100) transfers Myron of Phlya to the later expulsion of the ἐναγεῖς in Thucydides i. 126, 12, with which the purification of Epimenides has also been associated (see Sandys, note to AthPol, ad loc.). Freeman, op cit. 163, dates the trial between 610 and 600 B.C. ‘probably preceding the capture of Salamis’, which means dating it in reality more or less at the end of the century to give Solon sufficient standing in age. She then has to place the purification after the capture of Salamis. This arrangement is just possible, but the placing of the purification is unsatisfactory.

213 Note the expression of Plutarch, , Solon 12Google Scholar:

214 See Plutarch, , Solon 12Google Scholar, for superstition and explained by the priests. Parke, , The Delphic Oracle i 2. 111Google Scholar (on Epimenides and the Eupatrids), places the Alkmeonids already in exile at Delphi; but it is surely better to place the onset and exploitation of superstitious fears before the expulsion of the whose presence would be used as an explanation of Athens's troubles, including the loss of Salamis. Then would come the expulsion and the purification.

215 This is what the supposed law sounds like, Plutarch, , Solon 8Google Scholar, separated by him in odd fashion from the Kylonian and the following episodes. Very curious is the reference to Mounychia ascribed to Epimenides, and the suggestion by him that it would in the future do harm to Athens. It may be suggested that, if the story does not arise from the fortification of Mounychia by Hippias, it indicates a certain appreciation among those who fabricated it that the events which brought Epimenides to Athens involved not only Salamis and the Kylonian ἄγος but the whole question of Athens's trading interests and her future on the sea (seen from the point of view of those opposed to it.)

216 Diehl, , Anth. Lyr. Grace. i 4 (1954) fr. 2, 78.Google Scholar This poem has been felt to be ‘youthful in tone’ and therefore not of Solon's old age (RE series 2, iii. 950, 952); cf. Plutarch, , Solon 8Google Scholar, for Solon as champion of the young men: On the whole question see Weber, L., Klio xx (1926) 385 ff.Google Scholar, for a number of acute observations.

217 Plutarch, , Solon 9Google Scholar (note the Delphic oracle); Linforth, , Solon the Athenian 4445.Google Scholar It may be pointed out here that an important issue must have arisen. As clearly shown by Croix, Ste (CR lxxi (1957) 58)Google Scholar in his review of Westermann, slavery (and we may add serfdom) is the only ancient means of the production of a surplus over and above bare consumption needs from land of poor fertility. Hence the policy on the one hand, as suggested below, of serf and slave production in agriculture preferred by some Attic land owners (cf. the suggestion of Ehrenberg, , Aspects of the Ancient World 116Google Scholar, that there was no Athenian colonization because serfs were kept at home), and the policy, on the other, of Solon and his supporters, a policy of industry, trade, and foreign settlement.

218 The best account of this puzzling event and the sources is in Page, D., Sappho and Alcaeus 152 ff.Google Scholar See also Ehrenberg, V., ‘Zur älteren athenischen Kolonisation’, Eunomia i (1939) 11 ff.Google Scholar = Aspects of the Ancient World 117, who regards it as an effort at colonization and dates it to the end of the seventh century. The death of Phrynon at the hand of Pittakos is generally placed in 607/6 B.C., therefore in the period of stress at Athens and before the traditional date of the purification by Epimenides; also before the recovery of Salamis as dated in this discussion. As page points out (op. cit. 158), there are curious points about the story and Athene's use of resources at this time for a distant venture; it is not easy to see why Sigeion was chosen and not the Thracian Chersonese (in which, indeed, a late authority suggests Solon also took an interest, Diogenes Laertius i. 47). Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. 513Google Scholar, dates the venture to 610 B.C. and calls it an effort of the ‘Adelsregierung’, which it would in any case be by pre-Solonian definition. It might even be explained as a ‘Kylonian’ effort in concert with Megara. It makes better sense, however, to put it later around about the time of the recapture of Megara. If the date of the celebrated Sigeion inscription (SGDI 5531), which has an Attic version, could be accurately established (’early in the sixth century’ is not very satisfactory), it would provide a terminus ante quem for the capture of Sigeion and the presence of Athenians there. As it is, we are at sea amid the problems of one or two captures, and dates varying from the late seventh century to the period of Peisistratos, all bound up with the chronology of the Corinthian tyrants, Lesbos and Pittakos The latest discussion, of Talamo, C., Ann. della Fac. di lettere e filos. (Napoli), viii (19581959) 517Google Scholar, certainly casts no new light on the matter: a first capture can hardly be put as late as Peisistratos, unless another later Phrynon is postulated. She also repeats the ‘commercial’ argument for the venture, which is not altogether satisfactory. Perhaps the Athenians were attracted by the purple-fisheries: Aristotle, , HA 547a5.Google Scholar

219 See above, and Hignett, op. cit. 88. The capture of Salamis (and therefore the Salamis poem) is placed before the archonship of Solon by Aly, , RE series 2, iii. 950, 952Google Scholar; cf. Freeman, op. cit. 169. Note that Aly, ibid. 949, seems to think that Solon's election was a break with tradition; if so, all the more in need of support?

220 See n. 87 above.

221 A useful summary of details concerning the war by Cadoux, , JHS lxviii (1949) 100.Google Scholar Alkmeon appears as commander (‘in the Delphic register’), Plutarch, , Solon 11Google Scholar, but Solon is made to play a considerable part, i.e. in the initiation of the war, cf. Aeschines iii. 107 ff. For a restrained estimate of Athene's part see Parke, , The Delphic Oracle i 2. 104–5Google Scholar, who infers that Athens must have been member of the Amphiktyonic League to participate in the war. See also Wade-Gery, 22 ff.

222 The war came more or less at a time when Ionian and Pylian connexions were in men's minds; cf. the name of Peisistratos, Solon's words: and Plutarch, , Solon 10Google Scholar: though this latter comes in the context of the arbitration and therefore later despite the mention of Solon.

223 See n. 221 above.

224 See Forrest, G., BCH lxxx (1956) 33 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a very attractive suggestion relating to the ‘threat’ in the Hymn to Apollo 540–4 (for a post eventum retrospect, see Parke, op. cit. i2. 108, and Wade-Gery 24), of a sacred war against a Delphi which was pro-Kylonian and anti-Alkmeonid. It is to be wondered, of course, how the oracles are to be fitted in, i.e. Parke 12 (Kylon) and 13 (Epimenides' purification). What of the responses Parke 15 and 16? It might be suggested that they come too late (if from the reformed oracle), unless Solon's legislation is put later than the traditional date, as some would have it. Or are responses incitements to tyranny, 15 addressed to Solon, and 16 general?

225 Herodotus i. 59; Sandys's note to AthPol 14. 1. This seems to fit the story in Frontinus, , Strat. ii. 9. 9Google Scholar, though his reference in iv. 1.8 to ‘Theagenes Atheniensis (sic), cum exercitum Megaram (sic) duceret’ does not inspire confidence in his use of his sources.

226 Note Milne's, observation, Hesperia xiv (1945) 236Google Scholar: ‘The country was split up between agriculturists and traders and there was a severe clash between them when Cylon … attempted to establish himself as tyrant.’ The Alkmeonids he represents as later ‘continually identified with business interests’. There is something in the general idea, but it is much overdone by Milne.

227 French, A., JHS 238.Google Scholar Cf. Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. 500Google Scholar: ‘… denn Megara verfügte über die pontische Ausfuhr und scheint damals hauptsächlich den Mehrbedarf Attikas an Getreide gedeckt zu haben’.

228 Cf. RE xv. 171–2; the poverty of the soil, however, is not to be exaggerated (172); but note 173: ‘neben diesem gartenmässigen Anbau spielte das Getreide eine geringere Rolle, Megara war hierfür auf Einfuhr vor allem dem athenischen Markte angewiesen’. See also Philippson, 946–7, and Isoc., De Pace 117:

229 Cf. on modern Aigina Philippson iii. 52–53: vines the ‘Gebirgsland’; an area around the city is cultivated, some 10 kilometres square, but it is short of water. Even if there was more cultivation in antiquity, it would not be very much more. Aigina is a conspicuously stony island. For the ancient import of corn from the Euxine, cf. Herodotus vii. 147, 2. Note the difficult point that for all this Aigina did not (as a state) colonize to solve population problems. It is no doubt with this in mind that Milne, (Hesperia xiv (1945) 233)Google Scholar suggests that the Aiginetans imported corn from Egypt, as more dependable than ‘the uncertain Attic harvests’, and that they used their control of silver (from Siphnos?) with its great purchasing power in Egypt, to obtain it. There may be something in this, but he seems to go too far when he speaks of the Aiginetans as ‘flooding the Greek markets with cheap corn’.

230 Cf. Milne, ibid. 232: ‘… these three cities, Chalcis, Corinth and Aegina were in the 7th century certainly the most considerable manufacturing and shipping communities in European Greece till almost the end of the century. Athens, with these examples of prosperity on her borders and with what would seem to be equal material advantages, showed no signs of a desire to share in their fortunes.’ Contrast the Salaminioi of Athens, if the origin and purpose of this organization are understood aright.

231 Especially in his attempt to remove the opportunities for rack-renting.

232 But see above, n. 218; it is not altogether easy to explain the interest in and choice of Sigeion.

233 Herodotus vi. 127–9. For Kleisthenes as the anti-Dorian tyrant, see P. de la Coste-Messelière, Au Musée de Delphes, on the Sikyonian monopteros. On the chronological problem see Lenschau, , Philologus xci (1937) 391Google Scholar; he places Leokedes at the wooing, which he dates between 580 and 575 B.C., among the older suitors as aged about fifty and so born c. 630 B.C. Thus Pheidon has to be placed in the second half of the seventh century. A more recent discussion by Huxley, G., in BCH lxxxii (1958) 588 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, returns to an eighth-century date or another Pheidon be discovered: cf. McGregor, M. F., TAPA lxxii (1941) 266 ff.Google Scholar

234 See How and Wells, Commentary, note to vi. 128, 2. In respect to Megara, Corinth would be likely to be on Athene's side, cf. Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. 461 n. 1Google Scholar, and 460. Note that despite this friendship, the presence of a Philaid at the wooing of Agariste seems to indicate that pro-Dorian and anti-Dorian considerations did not influence at least one Philaid. It could, of course, always be argued that Corinth was at that time in decline as far as the tyranny was concerned, and therefore Philaids might look elsewhere. On all this see McGregor, loc. cit. He places the marriage of Agariste in 575 B.C., after the fall of the tyranny at Corinth in 582 B.C. at the latest.

235 ‘Herodotus vi. 127–9. On the Philaidai and Corinth, Eetion the father of Kypselos and Eetioneia, Philaios son of the Lapith Koronos, and much else, see Jacoby, , FGrH 328 F 72Google Scholar, Commentary 351.

236 Herodotus, ibid.

237 The present picture of exports from Attica (as indicated by the presence of pottery on Mediterranean sites) shows a vast preponderance in the west, but it is clear that as excavation progresses in the eastern Mediterranean, including Asia Minor, the evidence of exports to these regions will also increase. More work is also needed on the Athenian plain ‘SOS’ amphorae in which oil must been exported: cf. Bailey, B., JHS lx (1940) 60 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jeffery, L. H., BSA 1 (1955) 67 ff.Google Scholar; Hesperia ii (1933) 570–1; and the British excavations at Smyrna. The same will apply to Protocorinthian and Corinthian exports eastwards, and to the part played by the East Greek cities in this trade (see n. 238 and Roebuck, C., Ionian Trade and Colonisation (1959) 77 f.)Google Scholar

238 In the case of the vase evidence, the gradual increase can be worked out from Beazley, , Attic Black-Figure (1956).Google ScholarBailey's, B. observations are now somewhat out of date (JHS lx (1940) 60 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and overstress the role of Corinth as carrier. For a possible Phocaian and Samian part in the carrying trade (especially in relation to Massilia) cf. Villard, F., La Céramique grecque de Marseille (1960) 35 f., 55 f.Google Scholar, which includes the question of ‘luxury’ and ‘colonial’ vase imports.

239 French, , JHS 244.Google Scholar On Aigina and the silver supply, see above, n. 229.

240 Solon and Egypt, Plutarch, , Solon 26Google Scholar (and the quotations there = Diehl i4, frs. 6 and 7); Cyprus, Plutarch, ibid. He is unlikely to have been the only one to undertake such travels, and he and others must have become aware of the importance of the eastern Mediterranean, and of the north–south Aegean trade route, from Macedonia, and Thasos, (cf. Études thasiennes iii (1954) 34 ff.)Google Scholar, perhaps via Paros (and Naxos?) to Syria and Egypt. It is not easy to say who participated in this important trade, except, in general terms the states which were closely associated with Naukratis, among which appeared Aigina (Herodotus ii. 178). Corinth had no special connexion with Naukratis, but the city was clearly a centre concerned with oriental products and influences. It also had its connexion with the north Aegean (Potidaia). For the important Egyptian hoard-evidence, which is later and sometimes difficult to interpret, but which gives some indications on this north–south Aegean and east Mediterranean trade, see Pouilloux, , Études thasiennes iii. 5253Google Scholar, and the references there. On the other hand it must not be forgotten that the connexion of Athens with Corinth (see n. 234 above, especially the connexion of Teisandros the Philaid and the Kypselids (Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. i. 362Google Scholar); cf. later the fact that Timonassa, the Argive wife of Peisistratos, was previously married to the Kypselid Archinos of Ambracia (AthPol 17, 3)) would serve to make Athens aware of the West. Note in this connexion the importance of the diolkos, BCH lxxxi (1957) 526–9; lxxxii (1958) 693 ff.; AM lxxi (1956) 51 ff. An early date is suggested in the latter account (last quarter of the seventh century), but doubted in BCH lxxxii (1958) 693 n. 1.

241 Cf. Thucydides vii. 28, 1; see also n. 139 above. The Euripos could be something of an artery of trade, hence the importance of friendship with the Chalcidian states. Chalcis might be expected to be of chief importance, but Peisistratos's connexion seems to have been with Eretria. There is an indication that Eretria sought to control the channel, cf. IG xii. 9. 1273, 1274 (cf. Ziebarth, , Seeraub und Seehandel 123Google Scholar), unfortunately of uncertain sixth-century date. A good deal of importance on trade routes is certainly concealed from us: so, e.g., a possible connexion of trade routes from Atalante (in Malis) to the Corinthian Gulf (see Gomme, , Essays in Greek History and Literature 31 ff., 41Google Scholar) with the Sacred War; but Athenian participation in this war is not likely to have been influenced by such considerations. It is not clear whether Attic trade with Boeotia was mainly by land or sea, but it could be important in the Solonian system: Boeotia had good cornland (Gomme, op. cit. 39–40) but was not well suited to olives; therefore no market for Athenian corn, but a good one for oil. There certainly appears to have been a connexion; cf. Thebes' contribution of aid to Peisistratos's return, Herodotus i. 62, AthPol 15. 2; later the dedication of Hipparchos in the Ptoion, and also of Alkmeonids (? before 519 B.C.), BCH xliv (1920) 237 ff., Hermes lvii (1922) 476 ff.

242 As did the archon-system temporarily in the periods of anarchia 590–589 B.C., 586–585 B.C., and in the tyranny of Damasias 582–579 B.C., followed by a brief replacement of the archonship by a commission of Eupatridai, Agroikoi, and Demiourgoi.

243 See nn. 188 and 229 above. The colonization of Herakleia Pontika at about this time need not indicate prosperity.

244 Herodotus v. 94 and n. 218 above. We do not know the circumstances of its loss.

245 See n. 173 above.

246 Cf. the imports to Massilia of increasing amounts of Attic pottery, especially after c. 550 B.C. F. Villard (see n. 238 above) stresses the activity of Phokaia and Samos westward between 580 and 540 B.C. Merchants from these states may have called at the port of Athens, but the apparent decline of East Greek imports to Massilia after 540 B.C. (which Villard would connect with events in Gaul, though the Persian conquest of East Greece could be an alternative reason—which would need to be checked against the state of imports to Italy and Sicily), which goes side by side with an increase of Attic imports, shows that others were also involved. Mediterranean commerce at this time was no doubt in the hands of as diverse a body of merchants as in the fourth century. The fact that contact between Athens and the West is so strongly demonstrated from mid-century by the presence of Attic pots in this region need not prove any close connexion or friendship of Athens and Corinth, but shows that those who travelled west frequented the port of Athens or had contact with those who did. This seems to show that the absence of any clear evidence of a particular association of Peisistratos with Corinth, and his lack of any connexion with Olympia (contrast the Philaidai: Herodotus vi. 36 and 103, Plutarch, , Cimon 4Google Scholar, Pausanias vi. 10. 8 and 19. 6) cannot be related to questions of trade. The conspicuous connexions of the tyrant with North Greece and the Aegean (Delos, Lygdamis of Naxos, possibly Samos, if Samos had a tyranny under Polykrates' father, cf. White, M., JHS lxxiv (1954) 43)Google Scholar are political in significance. It should also be noted here that the period of the parties in Athens was one in which there was a good deal of activity in the eastern Mediterranean which could not fail to attract Athenian attention, and make some forward-looking Athenians ponder the place and potentialities of Athens: among these events may be numbered the peace of Alyattes with Media (585 B.C.) and the expansion of Lydian power, Apries' attack on Cyrene c. 570 B.C., his fall and replacement by Amasis, and the latter's policy to the Greeks.

247 For a discussion of the nature of the Mesogioi as a cult association centred ‘just outside the walls of Athens’, possibly an artificial genos like the Salaminioi, see Schlaifer, R., CP xxxix (1944) 22 ff.Google Scholar

248 Or for that matter IG ii. 1233, a decree of the Medontidai found at Kypsele in the northern environs of Athens, though this and indeed the others may have been moved from their original positions. On these, and the more recently found inscription Agora I 5509, as possibly relating to a phratry of the Medontidai, see Jacoby, , FGrH 323a F 23Google Scholar, Notes 63 n. 70.