This chapter explores stoneworking practices characteristic of the LH IIIB Argolid that are evident also in elite Boeotian stonework. Particular attention is given to the Treasury of Minyas at Orchomenos and the Melathron complex at Gla, as these structures exhibit robust craft ties to Mycenae and Tiryns.

This chapter analyzes historical declamation as an advanced stage of fiction training in the Roman rhetorical curriculum. It argues that rhetorical exercises, especially controversiae and suasoriae, fostered the skills of fictionalization through revisionist reimaginings of the Greek past. Exploring a wide corpus of exercises about Alexander the Great, the chapter demonstrates how students were trained to compose plausible fictions within recognizable historical frameworks. Drawing on rhetorical handbooks, school papyri, and declamations, it reconstructs four dominant themes: impersonations of Alexander and his circle; inter-polis disputes in the shadow of Macedonian conquest; “travel advisories” debating the limits of Alexander’s empire; and “postmortem” scenarios reflecting Alexander’s legacy. These exercises strengthened students’ command over the techniques of impersonation, pseudo-documentarism, and meta-exemplarity. The chapter also shows how historical declamations modelled indirect reflection on imperial power. Rather than transmitting historical truth, revisionist fictions taught students how to manipulate exempla and construct immersive alternatives to the Roman present.

This chapter argues that the Alexander Romance mounts a subversive critique of rhetorical education in the Roman world. Though long dismissed as ahistorical fantasy, the novel draws extensively on the declamatory school tradition, only to parody its constraints and elevate Alexander as a master rhetorician beyond the reach of paideia. Through close readings of episodes involving Aristotle, the Attic orators, Darius, and the Theban flautist Ismenias, the chapter shows how the Romance reframes Alexander not as a pupil of canonical figures but as their superior and eventual replacement. By satirizing epistolary fiction, impersonation exercises, and the “travel advisories” suasoriae from chapter 4, the novel rewrites Classical history to suit Alexander’s anti-sophistic persona. His distinctive voice – described as “divinely inspired” – becomes the true marker of kingship and character, in contrast to the pedantry of rhetorical mimesis. Ultimately, the Romance envisions an alternative model of fiction mastery and learning that dethrones classical exempla and reconfigures the boundaries of elite education.

This chapter confronts the primary obstacle to determining the frequency of stasis: the silence of our sources concerning the occurrence of stasis in almost all the roughly 200,000 polis-years that constitute Greek history 500–301. First, it uses the proxies for prominence introduced in Chapter 4, together with the results obtained in Chapter 5 and a set of case studies, to show that our sources rarely provide any positive evidence for stability (i.e., the absence of stasis); and that their silence is, consequently, our only source of evidence for stability in most polis-years. Second, it shows that, contrary to prevailing assumptions in existing scholarship, silence has no explanatory value vis-à-vis stability in most polis-years. In other words, the fact that no extant source indicates the occurrence of stasis in a given polis-year very rarely militates against the possibility that stas(e)is occurred. Finally, it concludes that the extant sources provide us with evidence for stability in only a few, exceptional cases. Consequently, we have to recognize that unattested staseis could potentially have occurred in almost any of the 200,000 polis-years under consideration.

This chapter presents a set of stasis-narratives that flesh out the abstract discussion provided in Chapter 1. The narratives focus on the poleis of Plataia, Elis, Rhodos, Thebes, Tegea, Argos, and Telos, and are based primarily on the following sources: Thucydides (Plataia), the Oxyrhynchus Historian (Rhodos), Xenophon (Elis, Thebes, and Tegea), Aineias the Tactician (Argos), and IG XII.4.132 (Telos).

This chapter discusses the frequency of stasis at Thebes. In contrast to existing scholarship, which focuses exclusively on cases that can be diagnosed with (near) certainty, it estimates the total number of staseis that occurred. This approach frees me to think probabilistically and thus factor into my analysis events that probably involved stasis, contextual factors that increased the likelihood of stasis, and – most significantly – the knowledge, acquired in Chapters 5 and 6, that the absence of evidence for stasis cannot be interpreted as evidence of absence except in a tiny minority of the polis-years under consideration. Through comprehensive analysis of the relevant evidence, it argues that Thebes experienced between 17 and 23 staseis during the fifth and fourth centuries; and thus that the Thebans experienced stasis at an average rate of between once every 8 and once every 11 years.

The Archidamian War was in Thucydides’ view caused mainly by Sparta wanting to ‘take down’ the power of Athens, while its course was shaped largely by Sparta’s reliance on conventional tactics and limited resources, compounded by its ‘slowness’ to act. This notion of a mismatch between highly ambitious strategic objectives and deeply inadequate tactical means remains pervasive in scholarship on the war. However, Thucydides’ record of Spartan actions is open to a different interpretation: Sparta’s main strategic goal was merely to preserve its hegemony over its allies, and accordingly it needed to support the military ambitions of the latter, especially Corinth and Thebes on whose military resources Sparta was dependent. Sparta initially did the minimum necessary to keep Corinth and Thebes onside but, in the face of Athens’ refusal to compromise, gradually developed more ambitious strategic goals of its own. When Sparta applied conventional tactics and limited resources it was in pursuit of specific, restricted strategic aims, but when Sparta pursued more ambitious strategies it developed new, complex and often daring tactics to match. Their ultimate lack of success was largely the result of Sparta having to make concessions to the mutually incompatible strategic interests of Corinth and Thebes.

Chapter 2 examines the Vedic sacrificial post called the yūpa and its role in ritual performances. A Mycenaean Greek cognate term and comparable ritual implement lies behind the Linear B form spelled u-po – that is, hûpos (ὗπος). Among other topics treated in this chapter are the Mycenaean deity called the po-ti-ni-ja, a-si-wi-ja, the Asian Potnia, and the u-po-jo po-ti-ni-ja, the Potnia of the u-po (that is, húpoio Pótnia [ὕποιο Πότνια]), a term matched exactly by Sanskrit patnī-yūpá-.

Chapter 6 examines Iranian cult and myth as evidenced in the Nart sagas of Transcaucasia, but also among Scythians as well as in Zoroastrian tradition, including the psychotropic cult substances Haoma (Iranian) and Soma (Indic). The Greek polis of Dioscurias in the Caucasus is explored as a place where Hellenic and Indo-Iranian divine-twin myth and cult affiliation meet, as indeed they do in the Pontic polis of Sinope. Aeolian connections are conspicuous at both locales.

Chapter 1 examines Pylos tablet Tn 316 in depth, giving particular attention to the Linear B forms spelled po-re-na, po-re-si, and po-re-no-, and related Sanskrit forms, and to the especial closeness of post-Mycenaean Aeolic to ancestral Helleno-Indo-Iranian in regard to this matter.

Chapter 3 examines the Mycenaean wanaks and lāwāgetās, figures responsible for leading Mycenaean society in specific ways and who correspond notionally to figures implicit in Indic and Iranian social structures – figures who descend from still more ancient Indo-European antecedents charged with the task of leading society through the spaces of the Eurasian Steppes and in migrations southward out of the Steppes.

Examination of the foundation traditions of Magnesia on the Maeander, an Aeolian polis of western Anatolia, and the various Aeolian mythic traditions attached to this city located within Caria.

The investigation of Aeolian foundation myths continues in this chapter, with examination of traditions of the founding of Boeotian Thebes. Ancestral Indo-European tradition is again evident, as is an Anatolian stratum, one which foregrounds technological expertise of Asian origin.

Examination of Luvian patronymic adjectives and their diffusion into the Mycenaean dialect of Anatolia – that is, Ur-Aeolic – and their distinctive use in post-Mycenaean Aeolic. Also, discussion of hekwetai ‘warrior allies’ that appear in the Linear B documents, whose names are commonly identified by the use of the Aeolic patronymic formation of Luvian origin, and discussion of other sacralized warrior relationships with Anatolian ties.

A synthetic, concluding discussion addressing the relationship between Ur-Aeolic and Special Mycenean and providing a historical framework for, especially, the introduction of Aeolic language and culture (pre-Thessalian/Boeotian) into European Greece following the Bronze-Age collapses and for the spread of pre-Aeolians (Iron-Age Ahhiyawans) eastward into Cilicia.

An investigation of the Hittite cult implement called the kurša and its relationship to the breast iconography of Ephesian Artemis, to various Greek implements within the context of both Bronze-Age Anatolia and Indo-European cult, and to Aeolian myth as expressed in, especially, Argonautic tradition.

Exploration of the mythic concept of Aia, region of the rising sun, and its Hurrian and Luvo-Hittite background, its introduction to European Mycenaean Greeks by the Ur-Aeolians (Ahhiyawans) of Anatolia, and Aeolian Argonautic elaborations.

Exploration of Aeolian foundation traditions and the localizing of such traditions in both the eastern Aegean and Magna Graecia, and of the reflexivity and reciprocality of Aeolian ethnic identity that these mythic traditions entail.

Investigation of the Bee-nymphs of Mt. Parnassus and the ancestral Indo-European strain and Anatolian strains of divination introduced into European Hellas by migrant pre-Aeolian communities.