hesperia yy (2008) ATHENS AND KYDONIA Pages 73-87 Agora I 7602

ABSTRACT

A Hellenistic inscription from the Athenian Agora (Agora 17602) concerning western syngeneia between Athens and Kydonia in is reedited here with full commentary. The history of Athenian relations with Kydonia is briefly authors a reconstruction of the reviewed. The propose Kydonians' arguments for mythological kinship between the two cities. Agora 17602 appears to be the earliest firm attestation of mutually accepted syngeneia between Athens and a non-Ionian city. Indeed, it is the first known inscription recording kinship between Athens and another on other than the latter s status as city grounds a at least before the Roman colony, period.

In his 2003 report, John McK. Camp II, director of the American School a of Classical Studies excavations in the Athenian Agora, offered prelimi a b.c. nary publication of fragmentary late-3rd-century Athenian decree concerning, in his view, honors for the city of Kydonia (modern ) out context inwestern Crete.1 The inscription, Agora 17602, discovered of near the Eleusinion in July 2000, contains various features of historical interest, and we offer a new edition here.

Agora I 7602 Fig. 1 corner a Upper right-hand of stele of gray ("Hymettian") marble, broken at left, above, at back, and below. m PH. 0.28, p.W. 0.20, p.Th. 0.103 L.H. 0.004-0.005 m

1. Nikoletta as well as the Camp 2003, pp. 275-277. In ologist Saraga, Nikolaos excavation September 2005, Papazar Agora team, particularly was kadas kindly granted permission John Camp, Jan Jordan, and Sylvie 1st of are by the Ephorate Prehistoric and Dumont, for their assistance. We to Classical Antiquities and the American also indebted Angelos Chaniotis and School of Classical Studies at Athens an anonymous Hesperia referee for to examine the stone in the basement comments and criticism on an earlier of He of the Stoa Attalos. thanks the draft of the manuscript. ephor, Alkestis Choremi, and archae

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 74 NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS AND PETER THONEMANN

ca. 224-201 B.c. Non-stoich. ca. 32-35

[?ni--a--?]p%ovxo? 87i[i x]rj? ?Tj[jLiri] [xpuiSo?-c--] 7cpuTav[?]ia? ?i NiKavco[p] ... [M v-c-.]? eypajijuLaTeuev ?f|ji[ou] [yriipiouocToc Bor|op]o|iicovoc [evnji K[ai] v?a[i], 5 [? c.a-Tfj? 7cpDx]ave?ac- ?K[KAT|]o[?]a ?v [xcoi] [Geaxpcoi- xcov rcpo??jpcov ?7ie\j/[ricpi?]ev KXe[. .] [-c.-Oa]A,rip??[?J Ka[i o]u[|?]7rp??Opo[i] [vacat ?'Soc^v x]coi ?fijucoi vacat [-fa:-]v efij^ev ?[7t]?i8ri Ku?covia 10 [tou (pi?oi ovx?? Kai o]uyy?V?[??] xou ?fiuou AOnvaicov [xou ??7C?oxa]?icaoiv [x]rji ?oDAfji koc[?] [xah 8r||ic?i 7t?pi x v 7t?]7tpay|i?v[c?]v rapo? ?XXr\ [aou? ?U?py?aicov K]ai 7t?pi x[cbv] 7ipo? xo?? Q[e] [o?? xijLLcov?x? ?\|;r|(pio](i?va Kai 7tapaKaAoucu[v] 15 [ouvir|p??v xf|v (piAiJav Kai oiK?i?xr|xa O7tco[?j [ca.25 -i ^ r i\ -.-J Xai? 7CO?? 22 i \ ? ~ [ca. Gl-.-JV KOU 01 7iai auxou ? [?e? -ca--8]i?^?[%0]rioav 7t?pi [-c!-aya?fji] x?%r|i- [8]??o%0ai xa>[i] 20 [Sfijicoi arcoKpivaaOai xfji] 7i?^?[i x]fji KuScovi [axcov oxi jafijLivrija?vo?]? Sfjuoc ? A[0r]vaic?v] - -ca-5- [xfj? Guyy?V??a? xfj? 7upo]ima[p]%[ouor|? -]

Critical Notes

1. [?p]xovxo? C(amp) | 1-2. [xnj? A[nj?r|xlpi?8ocJ C | 3. ?ypajaua[x?]\)?v C | 5. [?]k[kat)]g[?]o:C | 6. [?]7t?\|/[r|(pi?]?vC | 7. [-Oa]>?npe[uc] Ka[i Guja]7cp??8po[i]C | 9-10. Ku8c?viI[--] C j 12-13. [JAA[.]I[-'-] C | 13-14. Kai 7i?pi[.. .]tc[.]o[. .]ouool[- -] C | 15. O?[K]?l?XT|Xa 07t[.]l[- -] C | 16. xai? 7to?[.] C | 18. [- -]ik?,e[. ..] C: epsilon for kappa is certain |20. no[... .]r|i C |21. ? SfUuJo? oa[.. .6...] C |22. [- -]wc[- -] C a new Our text incorporates few readings, by and large insignificant. One particular divergence from the editio princeps is worth noting. The first editor allowed for very free word division across lines (NiKavcoi[p], ?r||x[olu], [xcoli]). It has, however, been observed that this particular let see ter-cutter (the "Cutter of IG II21706": below) habitually observed the principle of syllabification in his line divisions.2 Examination of the stone was our at cost some confirms that this principle followed in text, the of very cramped line ends (especially lines 2 and 7, where there is minimal space for the final rho and iota, respectively).

Translation

. . In the archonship of [. .], during the [. .] prytany, held by the tribe son was De[metrias], when Nikano[r, of..., of the deme ...], secretary; on on 2. Dow 36-37. [decrees] of the dem\os\\ the final day of the month Boedromion, 1985, pp. ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 7602 75

1. I 7602. Photo Figure Agora courtesy Agora Excavations

. an was the [. .] day of the prytany, assembly held in [the theater]; of the son proedroi, Kle[..., of..., of the deme Phajleron and his fellowproedroi to was . put the motion the vote; [it resolved] by the demos; [. .]made the motion: since the people of Kydonia, [being friends and] kinsmen of the demos [of the Athenians], have [sent in a letter?] to the boule and [the our demos] the decrees concerning the mutual [benefactions] performed by two to on peoples and concerning [the honors] the gods, and they call (us) [to preserve the friendship] and close relations (between us), in order that our [e.g., itmay persist between two] cities [in perpetuity; concerning the ... things which of Kydonia] and his so[ns] have explained concerning to to [?the kinship, with good] fortune: be it resolved by the [demos reply] the city of the Kydonians [that] the demos of the Athenians, remembering . the kinship formerly] persisting [between them ..] NIKOLAUS PAPAZARKADAS AND PETER 76 THONEMANN

Commentary

Lines 1-5: to a The space be filled in line 1 requires rather long archons name to (up 11 letters in the genitive), for whom the secretary is as yet unknown. Not many years between 224 and 201 fulfill these conditions. Most attractive is Herakleitos (10 letters), archon of the ordinary year 212/1 (on the "low chronology" for the period 229-200 B.c.).3 Ifwe accept a nine-letter archons name in line 1, the possibilities multiply: Antiphilos (223/2), Aischron (210/9), Sostratos (209/8), and Pantiades (206/5). The see secretary, Nikanor, is known: IG II2 865, with Tracy 1990, s p. 239: NiK[av]cop M[.. .]v[-]. Tracy tentative suggestion that Nikanor is to be identified both with the deceased Nnc?vcop Mevav?poi) ?k Kn?cov (IG II2 6382) and with the anonymous secretary [? -a--?k] Kn?cov of new 223/2 (Agora XV128) appears to be ruled out by the document, since we now s know that Nikanor demotic ends in sigma (line 3). cutter new text was as The of the identified by Tracy his "Cutter of /Gil21706," whose floruit falls between 229/8 and ca. 203 b.c. The former a date constitutes fairly firm terminus post quern, since the liberation of a caesura 229 observably forms in letter-cutters' activity at Athens. The a text also provides clear internal terminus ante quern in the form of the tribe Demetrias (lines 1-2), abolished in late 201 B.c.4 The first question that arises is whether the inscription is to be dated before or after the a introduction of the tribe Ptolemais in 224/3. Assuming low date for the archon Heliodoros (228/7), the secretaries are known for the years 228/7 to 225/4; none is Nikanor. The name of the archon of 224/3 on the low seems chronology (Niketes) considerably too short for the lacuna in line 1. The archon of 229/8 is not known, and that year hence remains a formal possibility; the statistical likelihood is, however, that the decree dates to the period of the 13 tribes. was on evni The decree passed Bon?popacovo? Kai v?ai, Boedromion as an (III) ultimo, already known assembly day from IG II2 700 (archon are Thymochares, 257/6).5 There three possibilities for the arrangement of the year: (1) ordinary year, (2a) intercalary year in which intercalation has already occurred, and (2b) intercalary year in which intercalation has not we ca. yet occurred. (1) If the year is ordinary, ought to be three to six a days into the fourth prytany (with sequence of long prytanies at the start of the year), and [xpixei] and [eVcei] are both too short for the lacuna in are line 5. The two possible calendar equations Boedromion (III) ultimo = or Prytany IV 4 5, that is, [xeT?prnc] in line 2; [xexapTXi] or [Tr?ujrcei] in line 5, the first assuming that two of the first three months were hollow,

3. The absolute of the as has chronology recently been proposed, thus 229-200 is controversial. The a period providing "low" chronology for the as most or old archon list for this period, estab period 229-200, all of the archons move down a lished (with full documentation) by year (Morgan Meritt (1977, pp. 177-179), and lightly 1996; Habicht 1997, pp. v-vi; Osborne cannot modified by Habicht (1982, pp. 159 2003, p. 69). The problem be rested on the unam in 177), apparently treated detail here. of biguous dating the archon Thrasy 4. Habicht 1982, pp. 142-150. to 221/0 on the basis of 5. For the archon list for this phon IMagn. period, 16.11-16. see most If, however, Thrasyphon recently Osborne 2003, ought to be downdated to 220/19, pp. 73-74. ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 7602 77

one the second that only of them was.6 (2) If the year is intercalary, the to prytanies ought correspond reasonably closely to the months, (a) If the seems month had already been intercalated by this point?as to be standard at or in this period?we would be the very end of the fourth beginning of not the fifth prytany. The former is really possible, since the lacuna in line 5 a is not large enough to accommodate numeral in the twenties (xpiaKoaxe? seems also too long). The only possible restoration, in that case, would = be Boedromion (III) ultimo Prytany V 2, with [rc?pjcxri?] in line 2, and [oeuxepai] in line 5.7 (b) If the month had not yet been intercalated, the situation is the same, but with [xexapxnc] rather than [Tc?u-Tn?] in line 2, = that is, Boedromion (III) ultimo Prytany IV 2. We tentatively suggest, therefore, that the likeliest reconstruction of the prescript is archon Herakleitos (212/1, ordinary year), secretary from = or tribe XIII, Boedromion (III) ultimo Prytany IV (Demetrias) 4 5. we text But given the manifold uncertainties involved, prefer to leave the unrestored. a Lines 6-7: A K??av?po? OaATipeu? is attested in 4th-century^& XIX a tai record (Agora P49); it is conceivable that the proedros here is ca. descendant. Camps estimate of 16 missing letters at the start of line a 7 is lapsus. too Line 8: Camp's [eooc^ev xfji ?oi)Xfji Kai x]a>i ?fipxoi is long.The vacat a at the end of the line suggests that this is centered heading, characteristic as of the period, and often employed by this cutter, in IG II2 833, line 7; a 839, line 14; 847, line 9;Agora XV128, line 7; etc.8 This is non-probou leumatic decree: compare lines 19-20, [?]e?o%0ai xco[i I?f||icoi]. - Lines 9-10: xo? - A number [- oj-uyyevepi?] ?riuoi) xl[- Camp. large on of contemporary decrees granting inviolability toMagnesia theMaean a der begin with clause of this kind, describing the grantor's relationship are with the Magnesians. A number of combinations found (o?Ke?oi Kai Kai one common cp?Aoi, (pitan aoxDyeixovec, etc.), of the most being "friend so ship and kinship": IMagn. 33 (Gonnoi), lines 4-5: eTceiof] Mayvr|xec oi 87tiMaiavl?poi) (pilot ovxe? Kai auyyeveic Tovv?cov; IMagn. 46 (Epi xcov damnos), lines 3-4: or>yyeve?? ovxe? Kai (pilot 'Eml?auvicov; IMagn. 61 (Antioch in Persis), lines 11-12: cruyyeve?? ovxe? IKai (p?toi xo? ?fijnoi). we Here certainly have ?[7c]ei?r] Ki)ocovial[xai (pi?oi ovxe? Kai a]\)yyeve[??] xoC The Athenian 8r|uoi). decree recognizing Magnesian asylia (IMagn. em 37, lines 6-8) begins with the phrase eTiei?r)Mayvnlxec oi MaiavSpcoi o?Ke?oi Kai (p?Aoi xoC ?riuoi) xou A?rrvailcov ovxe?; hence in lines 10-11 of our inscription we restore xo? ?fiuoi) l[xo?>AOnva?cov.

6. For a from the of IV 6.Woodhead's see XVI 224 parallel period Prytany proposal Hekatombaion, Agora see an the 13 tribes, Agora XVI 227 (ordi (AgoraXVI 226) of equation Boe (226/5 or 225/4), where Metageitnion = = nary year: 219/8 or 218/7), Boedromion dromion (III) 27/28 Prytany IV 6 in (II) 27/28 Prytany III 27. This early 11 = the same is untenable: the latest of (III) Prytany III 15.This formula year placement the intercalary month seems common implies that both of the first two conceivably possible prytany date for to have been in the late were a Boedromion 28 is IV 3rd months full;with Prytany III of Prytany 5, century: Pritchett and Neugebauer = a third of 28 days, Prytany IV 1 Boedromion assuming prytany 27 days. 1947, p. 90. hence with a hollow Boedro 7. 37 or 8. For centered (III) 25; Cf., e.g., I.Magn. (209/8 headings ("perfect = where 6 = see mion, Boedromion (III) ultimo 208/7), Pyanopsion (IV) design"), Henry 1977, pp. 67-70; IV and a full V that Prytany 5, with Boedro Prytany 7, is, Boedromion (III) Tracy 1996, pp. 49-51. = = mion, Boedromion (III) ultimo ultimo Prytany V 1; for intercalated NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS AND yS PETER THONEMANN

11-12: Lines Camps [?7C?Oxa]?Kaaiv is unsatisfactory. The verb re an sent a quires accusative of the thing and, usually, prepositional phrase + 7tpo? accusative of the intended recipient (IG II2 687, line 27:7upeo??ic ... a7t?ox??iKaoiv Ttp??x?v ?f|[liov]; /G IP 680, lines 14-15: a7i?Gxa?*:[aoi npoq x]?v S[fjuo]v 7ip?o??iav; I.Magn. 37, line 11; etc.). There is no space to restore here the Kydonian embassy (7tp?o??ic, TtpEo?dav), and the da tive indirect object (xfji ?ouAfji) is distressing. Grammatically preferable would be [imcjx?]XKaaiv or [a7rr|yy?]?,Kaoiv, both of which do take the dative. The difficulty with ?nayy?XXeiv is again the absence of any mention an one of embassy: would expect, for example, Ku?coviaxcov oi 7tpea?eic. we Hence tentatively prefer [?7t8cjxa]?Kaoiv. For the dative, compare, for example, IG II2 553 (Osborne 1981, D44), lines 6-7: Kal xauxa 7cp?x?p?[v x]e 87i?[axei?8..5... -KAki?]r|? rcepi [Nea?ou] xfji ?ou|X|fji Kai x[coi ?ripxoi]; xcoi Syll? 402, lines 8-9: [?7u]?axa?,K[?] ?? Ttepi xo?xcov ?r||ia)i Kai xo koivov xcov Aixco?,co[v Kai ? oxpaxriyo? Xalpic^Jevo?. The grammatical structure of what follows is unclear. ?7UGX?AA?iv, like can a or ?nayy?XXziv, take either direct accusative rcep?with the genitive; for two the constructions side by side, note, for example, /Gil2 31, lines 17-22: . . . [??ioOai ?? ?]v?pa? [o?x]ive[?] aTtayyeAooi [7t]p[o? fE?]lpu[CeA]utv [x? ?]\(/r|9i[o]jLi8va xah 8[f|]u{a>i, a7t]ay[yeAooi ??] K[ai] 7t8pi xcov vecov ... xcov our [Kai] 7i8pi ?XXc?v cb[v] a[ixoa]iv oi 7cpea?[e]c. In proposed text, [x? 8\j/r|(pio]|jiva in line 14 is the direct object of [87reaxa]Aicaoiv in xauxa line 11 (as in IG II2 553, cited above), with the two intervening un 7t8pi- phrases defining the content of the decrees. The word order is we can no means a con deniably convoluted, but find other of providing - no struction for the accusative participle -]piva. There is certainly space for another main verb.

In lines 11-12, the restoration Ka[i Ixcoi or||icoi] is certain: compare lines 3,8,10,19-21. Envoys and messengers routinely presented themselves to both boule and assembly. Compare IG II2 486 (Osborne 1981, D45), in which the monarch (Demetrios Poliorketes) addresses himself to both boule and demos (line 12: erceoxeiAev xe? [?ouA?i Kai xcoi ?f|(icoi]), while the decree our itself, like text, is non-probouleumatic (line 10: e?ocjev xcoi [?fj|icoi]). an Quite probably the boule issued openprobouleuma in both cases.9 as Lines 12-13:The evocation of old benefactions (e?epyeo?ai) proof common: of friendship is for example, I.Magn. 45, lines 18-22, ?uxpavi . . . cj?vxcov [xcov 7rpeo?euxav] x?? e?epyec?ac x?? Ttpoyeyeveipiva? urca xcov use 7tpoy?vcov auxcov, and frequently in the Magnesia dossier. The of 7rp?oG?iv is less common, but compare I.Milet 1052, lines 27-32: xo?? ?? aipeG?vxa? [se. npec^eux??] ?cpiKou?vou? a7coAoy?aao9ai... 7tepi xcov x>no xou ?f|uou 7t?7cpayMxvcovd? a?xo?? euEpyEGicov. (piAocvOpcimcovis another a possibility, though perhaps little long for the space; for its occurrence with 7ipaxx?iv, see IG II2 844, lines 59-60: emeo??v ouv eli Ttavxi Kaipcoi x? (pi??vBpcoTca 7upo?xo?? ?cj?onc 17upaxxnxai. Lines 13-14: Compare SEG XVIII 26, lines 19-20: ?ouAoji[?voc ?? Kai ?TcikXeov a?c^eiv x??] 17tpo? xo?? oeo?? xiu??. Lines 14-15: For the omission of the accusative of person after rcapa 9. For envoys at boule and assem Ka^?iv, compare, for IG II2 1008, lines 62-63: Trpoaipoupxvoi see example, bly, Rhodes 1972, p. 43. For open auxou x?rcov see Gxfjoai l[??]K?va 7uapaKaAoucuv ?7ux[cop]fj[o]ai ?auxo?? ei? probouleumata, Rhodes 1972, are [xf|v ?v?0]?Giv (similarly IG II2 1011, line 43). The Athenians being pp. 52-81. ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 7602 79

on or called either to "renew" (avavecboaoOai) to "preserve" (oiacpuA-aoaeiv, ?iaxnpe?v, owxripe?v) their friendship and kinship with the Kydonians. avavecboaoOai and ?iacpD?-aaoeiv both appear to be too long; there is no way to choose between ?iaxnpe?v and cruvxripe?v. For the sense, com pare Milet 1.3 138, lines 36-37: TcapaKa?-e?v avxbv [se. x?v ?fjuov x?v Kvi?icov] xr|v xe eiSvoiav Kai xfrv (pi?-iav ?iaqyuAxxaaew Tcpo? xfjv ttoaiv xfjv rijiex?pav x?v ?ei %p?vov; Syll? 426, lines 35-37: TcapaKaAo?ow x?v ?fjuov x?v Tn'?cov e?? [xe]l x?v aoitcov %p?vov Oia?putaxacjeiv xrjv (piAaav xfjv [i)l7c]?pxoi)aav xa?? 7t?AEOircpo? ?XX^Xa?. For the verb cruvxrjpew in this context, compare, for example, Miletl.3 152a, lines 16-17: rcapaKaAEaoei Kai eux Mi?,acrioi? x?v xe cruyyeveiav Kai cpi?alav e?voiav oDvxnp?ovxa? Tt?iov ai)?;eiv; SEGIV 600, lines 5-8: orcai cbv [KaxaKOAcmOiovxec] xo?? . . . im' a?xcov 7iapKa5lio|i?[voi?] x?v rcoxi [Tnio? cruyy?vei]av (paivcbjieOa ODvxripiovxe?; IG VII 4139, lines 14-15: [K]a0f|Kei ?icj?e?cnv oDvxr|pe?v . . xf|v xe 7ipo? xrjv I[7c]oaiv xcov AKpaicpieicov qn?aav Kai croyyeveiav,. For the simple xnpe?v, compare IMagn. 37, line 22. on Line 15-17: We understand the orcco? clause to be dependent the can preceding 7tapaKa5u?)Gi[v owcnpeiv]. The precise phraseology here sense not be recovered. The is presumably something like "in order that it (i.e., friendship and close relations) may persist (?)7t?p%r|i?)between the two cities ([?uxpox?pai?] xa?? 7??aeI[oi], xa?? 7ioaeI[ot Tcpo??^AT|?ux?]) in perpetuity (x?v ?ei xp?vov, ei? x?v obiavxa/Aout?v %p?vov)." to us Lines 17-19: Angelos Chaniotis has proposed the restoration ?]ie^?[%0]r|Gav. We understand the structure here to be [rcepi cbv (name)]v Kai oi 7ua?l[?e? a\)xo? ?Ki)?coviaxai 5]ie??[xO]r|aav rcepi l[xfj? cruyyeveia?, ?yaOrji] x?%rji_The repeated 7iep? is unproblematic: compare, for example, IG II2 337,7cepi cbvAiyoDorv oi Kixie?? rcepi xrj? i?puoeico? xfji Acppooixni . . . xo? iepo?, ?\[rn(p?G0ai. The individual named in line 17 and his sons would have been Kydonian ambassadors charged with the delivery of the Kydonian letter and decrees. For ambassadors performing this function, compare, for example, Syll? 683, lines 3-8: Ttpeo?eDxav 7iapayevo|Li?vc?v ... Ttap? xa? tcoaioc Ixcoji Meoaavicov Kai x? yp?juuccxa a7too?vxcov ?v oi? ?ieaalcpe?xo ?vavecoaau?voD? x?v ?m?pxoDcjav ODyy?veilav kgc[i] (pi?iav; fines 12-15: aTtooovxcov I?? xcoji 7cpeo?ei)xav Kai e7cioxo?,?|i rcapa Miatjotc?v Ieacppayiauevav ..., ?ia?ey?vxcov ?? K[ai xco]p, Ttpea?eDxav ockoa.[o\)]I0c?? xo?? yeypajipivoi?. It is just conceivable that the individual concerned is son a [Xapuico]v, of Eumaridas, member of family that had close relations see with Athens at this period: below, page 81. There does not seem to be names sufficient space to restore the of the two sons in line 18. Possibly we we ought to restore here the ethnic KD?coviaxai; alternatively, may have the indirect object of the verb ?]ie?,?[%9]r|oav, that is, rcpo? fjua? or xcoi ?r|(ic?i. The absence of patronym and (possibly) ethnic for the lead ambassador is unproblematic: compare, for example, IG IP 844, where the honorand is name introduced by alone (line 4, ?nei?r] Euuccpi?a? rcpoxepov xe) with his patronym and ethnic recorded only later (line 23, ejcaiv?crai E?uapi?av one our we navK?ioD? Ku?coviaxrrv). Pace of referees, consider it less likely that the individuals concerned here were Athenians. 10. ?naiv?oai + dative is not found Lines to inAttic decrees of theHellenistic 20-21: The infinitive of decision be supplemented in line 20 must a out an infinitive of In period: see, e.g., Meisterhans 1900, govern dative, ruling praise (e7caiv?oai).10 n. p. 211;Mattingly 1974, p. 284, 11. line 21, the nominative ? ?fjuo? must be part of a subordinate clause, 8o NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS AND PETER THONEMANN

an an ruling out infinitive of grant (?e?oaGai, ?m?pxeiv), since such infini tive would necessarily be followed by accusatives signifying the content of the grant. Hence the decision must be "to reply" [arcoKpivaoGai], and the relative clause gives the content of the reply, [?xi]; for the structure, no. compare, for example, Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 64, lines 11-13: ?%o Kpi[v]ao0ai au[x]o?[?] [se. Ijiapx?KCOi Kai flaipicra?ei] ?xi ? [?fijluo? ? A0r| va?cov 87iaiV8? S7i?px[o]Kov Kai nailpio?onv. Lines 21-22: In line 21, we had considered restoring [?xi r\ ?oi)AT| Kai] as ? ?fjuo? ? A[0T|va?cov], the Kydonians addressed themselves to both boule a and demos, and itwould be natural for both to respond. This is, however, to assume answer little short for the lacuna.We prefer that the Athenians' was a introduced by participial clause with ji?|xvn,(i?vo?. Compare I.Magn. . . . 38, lines 29-32: ?io ? n?Xiq jneuvapiva xa? xe ouyyeveia? Kai (pi?ia? a7ro??%8xai x?? Guaia?; I.Magn. 53, lines 62-64: ei? x? ?o[i]7t6[v] ?? ? ?f?uo? ji8(ivr|(i?vo? xcov 17tpo?7tap%?vxcovauxcoi 7cpo?M?yvr|xa? oikeicov I Kai (piAoev0pc07icov;ICI xiv 1, lines 26-27: jneuvapivoi xa? 7tpoimap%oulo"a? xa?? koXzgi auyyeveia?. For the reversal of subject and verb after oxi, compare I.Magn. 87, lines 14-15: a7toKp?vaa0ai M?yvnaiv ?xi a7io?8%8xai ? ?fjuo? x? 87rr|yy8A|i8lva.

ATHENS AND KYDONIA: A SHORT HISTORY

on In the summer of 429 b.c., the encouragement of the proxenos Nikias a of , the Athenians sent out small fleet of 20 ships with the aim western of capturing the hostile (rco?euiav) city of Kydonia in Crete us (Thuc. 2.85.5-6). Thucydides tells little about the nature and aims of to the expedition. The motives of Nikias evidently relate internal Cretan politics (assistance to the Polichnitai against Kydonia).11 The Athenians' were more was an aims complex. Kydonia apparently Aiginetan colony (founded ca. 519 B.c.), and the essentially Aiginetan character of the city in the 5th century b.c. is clear from both epigraphical and numismatic evi dence.12 Aiginetan exiles had probably taken refuge in Kydonia after their to account expulsion in 431, but this hardly suffices for the Athenian raid. cause was More likely the main of the Athenian attack the key position of on was western Crete what presumably the main Spartan merchant ship to ping route from North Africa. The expedition Kydonia could therefore seen as an to in perhaps be abortive precursor the occupation of Kythera 424, one of the main purposes of which is explicitly stated by Thucydides to have been the disruption of the Spartans' Libyan supply route.13 At any

11. A reconstruc 13. On see Mikro but we do not know very speculative Aiginetan exiles, bibliography), about the or tion of the internal Cretan politics giannakes 1971, pp. 420-424; Figueira enough politics strategic is in 538-542. On of Crete underlying this conflict found 1988, pp. Spartan ship importance late-5th-century see van 36 to be able to this. Sekunda 2000, pp. 327-337. ping, Effenterre 1948, pp. say See, however, see now a 12. Implied by Hdt. 3.59.3; explicit 40. On Kythera, Thuc. 4.53-57. Erickson 2005, who makes case for the commercial in Strabo 8.6.16. For 5th-century Strabo (10.4.13) conceptualizes Kydo strong signifi in nia as towards Lakonia." More cance of and in Kydonian inscriptions Aiginetan "looking Crete, Kydonia partic see 314. one modern scholar has described inter the Athe script, Jeffery 1990, p. Kydo than ular, discussing, alia, nian uses from the Athenian raid of 429 as nian 429 coinage Aiginetan types "folly" (e.g., expedition of (pp. 621-622, its introduction ca. 470 b.c. down to ca. Hornblower 1991, p. 266; see now Fan 656). 330/20: see Stefanakis 1999. tasia 2003, pp. 554-557, with earlier ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 8l 7602

rate, Kydonia's political and cultural affiliations in the 5th century were evidently not with Athens. The only unambiguous evidence for Athenian-Kydonian relations in the 4th century derives from an honorific decree of 327 B.c., inwhich the a name a a Athenians honor Kydonian by the of Eurylochos, member of ran family that had served Athenian interests well in the past by having a are somed number of Athenian prisoners from their Cretan captors. There some hints of good relations between the two cities earlier in the century: a very fragmentary inscription, probably of the 350s, lays down the terms a of judicial agreement concerning private lawsuits between Athens and a on an Cretan city the model of earlier agreement between Athens and . The attribution to Kydonia is, however, not quite certain. At any at a rate, Athenian craftsmen had already been working Kydonia for gen or more a eration by this point; fine dedicatory base from Kydonia of the early 4th century shows unmistakable evidence of Athenian craftsmanship and letter-cutting.14 None of this is particularly revealing.15 son More important is the great stele recording honors for Eumaridas son of Pankles of Kydonia and his Charmion. Eumaridas was the descen an dant of old Kydonian family, already wealthy in the late 4th century B.c.; two ancestors were a of his interred in large funerary complex excavated at modern Chania.16 The first decree for Eumaridas, dating to the archon or ship of Heliodoros (229/8 228/7), honors him for services to Athenian on prisoners Crete during the Demetrian war, and for the assistance he provided to Athenian ambassadors to Crete in the immediate aftermath to of the city's liberation.17 The second decree, dating the archonship of or a Archelaos (212/1 211/0), provides for the erection of bronze statue for Eumaridas in the shrine of Demos and the Charit?s, no trivial honor.18 to A third decree, dating the archonship of Phanarchides (193/2), honors son at on Eumaridas's Charmion, who had stopped in Piraeus while his way to as a assure theoros, and took the opportunity to the boule of his family's continuing goodwill. As noted above, it is possible that Charmion represented the Kydonians in the negotiations that led to the passing of the decree considered here. Good relations between Athens and Kydonia in a an persisted later periods: Kydonianproxenos is found dedicating hon at orific statue Athens in the 1st century B.c.19 But by this time economic at interaction, least, between Athens and Crete had become generalized: Athenian coinage starts entering Crete in substantial quantities in the mid in a 2nd century, and the late 2nd century number of Cretan cities, including Kydonia, had begun minting imitation Athenian tetradrachms.20

14. On see 16. Eurylochos, IG IF 399, Funerary inscriptions of Ecociuoc 17. IG IP 844; see Br?l? 1978, with Bielman 1994, pp. 18-22. On nocyK??o? and nayK?fj? IlayK?io?, pp. 17-24; Bielman 1994, pp. 119-125. see XVI 51. On Athe and ances symbolai, Agora perhaps siblings, presumably An obsolete chronology is followed by nian at see van tors see craftsmen Kydonia, of Eumaridas: Markoulaki and Camp (2003, p. 277), who has been Effenterre, Liesenfelt, and Papaoikono Niniou-Kindeli 1990; SEGXL 776, misled by de Souza (1999, p. 66). mou for the nos. 3. The names of the deceased 18. For the 1983, pp. 408-410,416; 2, ideological significance see also CEGII are dedicatory inscription, accompanied by the words ^e%co of this cult in the final decades of the 3rd SEG XL and see 846; 775. ?p?io(p(XTa? respectively, signify century, Habicht 1982, pp. 84-90. 15. Nor can much be made of the a ing "dead in childbirth" (Robert 1963, 19. IG IP 3882. For contemporary mention of in the and "killed inwar" monument of a at "Kydonians" frag pp. 367-372) (BullEp funerary Kydonian Athenian IG II2 mentary inscription 1991, p. 209, citing I.Rhod. Peraia 331, Athens, see Osborne 1988, p. 25, no. 128. 745 (early 3rd century). line 5, ?v?po? apeiocpaxoi)). 20. Le Rider [1968] 1999. 82 NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS AND PETER THONEMANN

our re None of this makes Agora I 7602 any the less unexpected. If construction of the text is correct, relations between the cities turn out to have been closer than anyone could have imagined. Claims to croyy?veia, as "kinship," part of the rhetoric of diplomatic interaction between Greek recent cities in the , have been intensively studied in years.21 The cities took mythological kinship seriously; it had serious dip went lomatic consequences. Significant effort and expense into presenting a plausible claim, backed up by reputable literary and mythographical arguments. The Athenians, as is well known, showed a certain reluctance to acknowledge relationships of this kind with other Greek cities.22 The was not problem Athenian autochthony, which did sit easily with the idea was of common mythological origins. It "close relations and friendship" (o?K?i?xr|c Kai cpiA?a), rather than "kinship" (ouyy?veia), that the Athenians to professed in the mid-3rd century in relation their traditional ally Argos; a what Orestes created was an alliance, not blood-link.23 Naturally, colonies were a different matter. In the late 4th and late 3rd centuries, respectively, to the Ionian settlements of Priene and Pharos found it helpful to claim to be Athenian colonies and therefore syngeneis the Athenians.24 However, this may well not have been the Athenians' preferred terminology: in the status late 4th century, the Athenians recognized Colophon's (qua Ionian) term not as an Athenian colony, but the used is o?Kei?xric, ouyy?veia.25 case Even in the of mother-city and colony, the Athenians thought in as we terms of "close relations" rather than "kinship." So far knew before our of whom the Athenians were the publication of text, the only Greeks to use term were inhabitants of Lemnos in the prepared the ouyyeve?? the 1st and were of course Athenian settlers.26 late century B.c., they If our restoration of lines 10-11 of the text is correct, it emerges that an the Athenians were willing to grant this status to the Kydonians, Aigi netan colony of Dorian Crete: "the Kydonians, being friends and kinsmen (ouyyeve??) of the Athenian demos." This is remarkable and unexpected. Here is the first firm attestation of mutually accepted Guyy?veia between case Athens and a non-Ionian city; indeed, the first of kinship with Athens on as a based something other than status colony. The practical diplomatic

to 25. IG IP lines 14-15: enconan 21. See especially Curty 1995; Jones corresponds o?K?i?rr|Ta (line 15); but 456, 1999; L?cke 2000; Curty 2001; Erskine the near total absence of the term ovxe? Tou ?ri[uou oiacp-utaxrcouoiv xfiv 2002; Curty 2005 (decisive response to cruyyeveioc from other Athenian texts o?K]lei?TT|Ta TTiji 7tp?c t?v ?fjfuov]. The can Milesians have claimed oikeiotes L?cke's criticisms). hardly be coincidental. may same 22. Noted by Jones (1999, pp. 44, 24. IPriene 5, lines 5-6: Tfj??c^ with Athens at around the time: Kai I IG IP lines 9-10 60). The role played by kinship rela ?p%fj? cruyyeveiot? (piXia? t?ji?v 1129, (restoring for the con tions in the 5th-century Athenian ?Ttapxouari? rcpo? a?iou?; o?K[?il?Trrua]). and has Athenian decrees concern 26. SEGXLVU decree empire is somewhat different, temporary 143, 1, no on the in the Hel see 782 line 62. that there is lit bearing situation ing Priene, Wilhelm 1974, pp. Note, however, see 791. In the late 2nd Priene evidence for between lenistic period: Alty 1982; Curty century b.c., erary syngeneia was oikeiotes with Athens and Phokis in the 2nd 1994; Hornblower 1996, p. 73. still claiming Athens century as lines b.c.: s.v. 23. IG II2 774b, lines 4-5; cf. Aesch. her colony: IPriene 109, 51-52. Suda, no^ejicov (U 1888): ... TCOV 710 Eum. 289-291, 669-673, 762-774. The For Pharos, the most recent edition of ?ypoc\|/? KrioEi? ?V Oc?k??i is 1991. We ex Xmv Kai distinction between oiKeiornc and cruy inscriptions Derow 7i?p? Tfj? 7ipo? AOnvaiou? auy a\)xcbv. See y?veiot remains controversial: see, e.g., clude from consideration Curty 1995, y?V??a? Perrin-Saminadayar, 81 on Curty 1999, pp. 184-194. Admittedly, pp. 204-205, doc. (Kibyra), forthcoming. of date. in our text ouyyeve?? (line 10) evidently grounds ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 7602 83

reasons to that the Kydonians may have had for sending their embassy Athens, and which Athenians may have had for accepting the Kydonians' are was to offer, unknown.27 It isworth noting, however, that Athens keen improve her relations with the cities of Crete in the late 3rd and early 2nd no as a centuries B.c., doubt largely consequence of Cretan piracy, from which Athens was not immune. at A fragmentary inscription of the early 2nd century B.c., inscribed Athens, carries the remains of three related documents in Cretan dialect. a The first is rather complex decree in which the Cretan city concerned a on appears to make commitment not to carry out pillaging raids Attica, a with penalties laid down for contraventions; the decree includes grant of to two son proxeny and euergesia Athenians, Lysikles and Thrasippos of Kallias, presumably Athenian ambassadors. Below this decree is inscribed a some a narrative text of kind (an extract from letter?), describing the a ransoming of group of Athenian ambassadors, most likely Lysikles and Thrasippos themselves, who had been imprisoned by bandits in the Cre a a tan mountains; of third text, possibly another decree, only few letters an survive.28 Most interesting for our purposes is isolated clause in lines 4-5, where it is very tempting to restore xa? tcoaio? 7copx[i] x?v n?Xxv an oiK8l[i?xaxa], signifying especially close connection between Athens cannot and this particular Cretan city. Unfortunately, the city concerned a be determined with certainty. The text has been restored to give refer ence to the part of western Crete known as Oreia, but the restoration is very insecure; moreover, there are strong dialectal reasons to attribute the decree to a city of central Crete.29 Practical politics aside, it isworth considering what might have been or the mythological historical links by which the Kydonians persuaded to cases the Athenians acknowledge this unlikely kinship. Parallel do not provide much assistance. In the last years of the 3rd century B.c., Kydonia, a a along with number of other Cretan cities, sent positive reply to the as Teians' request to have their country recognized sacred and inviolable. The Kydonians made repeated reference to their ancestral kinship with a com the Teians, relationship confirmed by, but not consisting in, their mon no respect for the god Dionysos.30 Although there is direct evidence as to the nature of the Kydonians' kinship withTeos, the sheer number of (Dorian) Cretan cities that claimed kinship with (Ionian) Teos strongly was suggests that, unlike the Athenian case, the link not specific to Kydonia, but was common to all the cities of Crete.31

we son in 122-123 27. As have seen, the precise 1994, pp. 200-202. Thrasippos of (ace. pi. -v?), (7iopx?).The cannot was a native could be reexamined. date of the document be deter Kallias almost certainly question profitably it to s.v. 30. ICII x lines 16-18: mined, although certainly dates of the deme Gargettos (LGPNU, 2, aTcoKpi b.c. the last quarter of the 3rd century 0pacuc7i;o? 10-16). The patronym and vaoOai Tnioi? (pi?oi? Kai o?k??[oic ?coaiv are t?v Ai?vuaov Kai auToi For the internal in this deme of Lysikles unknown. ?i]IOTi 0??ou?6a see 35-41. lines ?v xai Kai t?v ovia period, Chaniotis 1996, pp. 29. Oreia: 13-14, 'Opd Tn?co[v ?ajiov]l ouyyEv?a no reason to connect our There is de [ai] (thus Bielman 1994, p. 200; Sekun ?o7ca?o|X?9a.... For the Kydonian cult cree to wave of da n. But we could of the bust of any particular hostilities 2000, p. 337, 7; etc.). Dionysos, compare in xai "in on the obverse of Crete. For Athens' policy of diplo equally well have ?v op?i[vai], Dionysos Kydonian see Robert staters of the 2nd b.c. matic neutrality after 229, Habicht the mountains" (thus and Ro early century n. 1997, pp. 185-193. bert 1983, p. 104, 46). Dialect: see, (Stefanakis 2000, p. 80, fig. 2). 28. IG IP 1130; ICII xxx 3; Bielman e.g., Brixhe 1991, pp. 67 (iv), 112-115 31. Curty 1995, pp. 104-106. 84 NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS AND PETER THONEMANN

our case Conceivably the crucial factor in is the supposed original a ca. foundation of Kydonia by group of Samian rebels in 524 b.c., ac to cording Herodotos. For five years they prospered; in the sixth year after their arrival, the Aiginetans defeated them in a sea battle and enslaved the remaining Samian inhabitants of Kydonia. Herodotos adds that it was were the Samians who responsible for the construction of the shrines were of Kydonia, including the Temple of Diktynna, which visible in his own day.32 The historical basis of this story cannot be proven, as there is no at or independent evidence any period of Samian culture, religious otherwise, in Kydonia.33 More pertinently, the Aiginetan maltreatment and enslavement of the putative Samian colonizers of Kydonia do not form the most obvious basis for claims of ancestral friendship and kinship between Kydonians and Ionians. we to More generally, suspect that any attempt explain the kinship between Athens and Kydonia in purely historical terms ismisguided. We to prefer think in terms of mythological origins. Two different versions of concern us the legendary origins of Kydonia may in particular. According to Pausanias, the Cretans themselves say that Kydonia was named after son the hero Kydon, of and Akakallis, daughter ofMinos; this was also the version provided by theMilesian historian Alexander Polyhistor in his Kretika, with the addition that Akakallis bore Kydon to Hermes, and to a Naxos .34 More important is variant of this tradition, without a attribution, preserved in Stephanos of Byzantium's Ethnika: "Kydonia, in as son city Crete, formerly known Apollonia; derived from Kydon, of Apollo and Akakallis, daughter ofMinos."35 The importance of Apollo, father of Kydon, in Kydonian cult iswell attested in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods. The earliest evidence comes a from Kydonian public dedication to Apollo, , and Leto of B.c. name the early 4th century A Kydonian by the of Ikadion appears in a as list of contributors to the Delphic sanctuary in 360 B.c.; we have seen, was on a Charmion sacred embassy to Delphi when he visited Athens in late summer to 193.36 In his Hymn Artemis, Kallimachos has the young goddess to me too a a ask the Cyclopes make "for Kydonian bow and arrows, and for the I am a no hollow quiver shafts; for child of Leto, less than Apollo" a (Kallim. Hymn 3.81-83); the implication is that the archer Apollo had particular association with Kydonia. We might conjecture that the nude on male archer who appears the earliest Hellenistic coinage of Kydonia is to at on two be identified with Apollo; any rate, Kydonian coin types of we a a the 2nd century B.c., find bust of Apollo with quiver clearly visible over his shoulder.37

32. Hdt. 3.59. Schol. Horn. Od. 19.176: 3.44.1; Ku?c?ve? o? pp. 285-287). For Kydonian "autoch 33. For an overview of ano xo? see Kydonian amox0ov?? Kpfjx??, K/u5covo? thony," Sekunda 2000, pp. 330 see 268-281. is no reason to cults, Sporn 2002, pp. atco??covo?. There give 332. 34. Paus. Alexander to statement 8.53.4; Poly any credence Stephanos's 36. Dedication: CEGll 846. Ika was histor, FGrH273 F30. For Akakallis that Kydonia itself previously called dion: CID II 4, col. Ill, lines 58-59. and her see now Sourvinou it is that children, Apollonia; possible confusion Charmion: IG IP 844. See further Inwood 291-297. has arisen the more 2005, pp. from sympoliteia, or, Sporn 2002, pp. 269-270. s.v. 35. Steph. Byz., Kydonia: Ku?co likely, isopoliteia,which Kydonia had 37. Archer: Svoronos 1890, pp. 99 A7lO??C0 v?a, TtO?l? KpT|Tr|?, f] 7lpOT?pOV enjoyed with the north Cretan city of 103; Le Rider 1966, p. 194 (ca. 320 arc? tou Kai v?a, Ku?covo? Atc?AAcovoc Apollonia before destroying it in 171 280/70 b.c.). Apollo with quiver: Svo AKaKaMi?o? xfjc M?vco Guyaipo?; (Polyb. 28.14, with Chaniotis 1996, ronos 1890, p. 107, nos. 59, 60. ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 7602 85

one In version, then, of the mythological ancestry of Kydonia, the were city's forefathers the eponymous Kydon and his father, Apollo. This is a son important because the Athenians, too, had of Apollo in their family son tree: Ion, of Apollo by Kreousa, the daughter of Erechtheus. Before the as son 5th century, Ion had generally been regarded the of the Athenian son Kreousa and the Peloponnesian Xouthos, of Hellen. The Athenians was was knew better. It Euripides, in his Ion, who first announced that Ion son an the not of Xouthos but of the god Apollo. Ion thereby becomes race was on one unambiguously Athenian figure: the Ionian descended the on side from the god Apollo, and the other from the earthborn Athenians. This variant did not, to all appearances, ever become the standard version more of Ion's parentage, but remained an Athenian vanity. All the reason, a to to then, for foreign state attempting win Athenian favor invoke it in kinship negotiations.38 we With the above points inmind, tentatively propose that the mytho as logical link invoked by the Kydonians, and accepted by the Athenians a was common valid proof of cruyy?veia, the parentage of Kydon and Ion, the eponymous hero of Kydonia and the Athenian archegetes of the Ioni a common ans. The Athenians and Kydonians would thus have enjoyed divine ancestry, arc? xo? Oeo? xiiv ?pxr|v xfj? cruyyeveiac ei?-n?oxe?, as the as Milesians say of their kinship with the Cretans (also through Apollo, it happens).39 All this is necessarily speculative. The crucial and surprising point is were a that the Athenians prepared to accept the Kydonians' offer of shared we cause was mythological parentage. As have suggested above, the root a probably the desire to improve their relations with Cretan maritime state on potentially able to prevent piratical raids the Attic coast. The striking our point from perspective is that the two states chose to frame their al liance in terms of kinship relations. Andrew Erskine has argued that kin was most ship diplomacy in the Hellenistic period important for precisely states not a contact those that did enjoy history of regular diplomatic with one another: "Where there is regular and frequent contact between two so an states, there is not much need to ground appeal in kinship terms, a because framework already exists. But paradoxically the less familiarity more we are there is, the likely to find kinship arguments."40 The richness was of the common Greek mythological tradition such that, with a little effort, almost any given state could be argued to be the relative of almost as any other. Even if two states such Athens and Kydonia had little to as was show in the way of real historical relations, long as the political will one a present, could always locate mythological variant that permitted the two states to an claim ancient consanguinity. Therein lay the advantage of kinship diplomacy.

38. Parker 1987, pp. 205-207. For 1582 (Magnesia and Same), lines 13 see now 14: Euripides' genealogy, Zacharia t?c? oikeiotcxto? xa? VTtapxouoa? 2003, pp. 44-55. Recall that Hermokles MayvrjToi? tcoti Keqxx???cva? IKocx? tocv of Chios invoked Ion in arguing for croyy?veiav x?\i MayvrjTo? Kai KeqxxAou ancestral between and xov were o?k?iott|? Chios Arjiovo?. Magnes and Deion Delphi: seeFdD III.3 224, line 5. the sons of Aeolos. 39. Milet 1.3 37, lines 4-5, through 40. Erskine 2002, p. 110. Apollo Delphinios. Cf., e.g., IG IX l2 4 86 NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS AND PETER THONEMANN

REFERENCES

= Athenian Results -. contro rev. Agora The Agora: of 2005. "Un usage fort opment, ed., with supplement by Excavations Conducted the Amer vers?: La le A. W. by parent? dans langage Johnston, Oxford. ican School Classical Studies at P. of diplomatique de l'?poque hell?nisti Jones, C. 1999. Kinship Diplomacy in Princeton Ancient 101? Athens, que," Society 35, pp. theAncient World (Revealing Antiq = XV B.D.MerittandJ.S. 117. uity 12), Cambridge, Mass. Athenian 1991. Traill, Inscriptions: The Derow, P. "Pharos and Rome," Le Rider, G. 1966. Monnaies Cretoises du Councillors, 1974. ZPE 88, pp. 261-270. Ve au Ier si?cle av. J.-C, Paris. XVI = A. G. de P. 1999. in the Graeco -. Woodhead, Inscrip Souza, Piracy [1968] 1999. "Un groupe de tions: 1997. Roman monnaies ? The Decrees, World, Cambridge. Cretoises types ath?ni XIX = S. 1985. "Cult of the Hero Doc inHumanisme G.V.Lalonde,M.K. Dow, ens," actif: M?langes and M. B. BASP d'art et de litt?rature ? Langdon, Walbank, tor," 22, pp. 33-47. offerts Julien Poletai B. in Inscriptions: Horoi, Records, Erickson, 2005. "Archaeology of Cain, Paris, pp. 313-335, repr. Leases Public 1991. in Etudes mon?taire et of Land, Empire: Athens and Crete the d'histoire finan Alty, J. 1982. " and Ionians," Fifth Century b.c.," AJA 109, ci?re du monde grec: Ecrits 1958?1998 619-663. E. F. JHS 102, pp. 1-14. pp. 1, ?d. Papaefthymiou, de Cal A. 1994. Retour ? la libert?: Bielman, Erskine, A. 2002. "O Brother, Where latay, and F. Queyrel, Athens, Lib?ration et des sauvetage prisonniers Art Thou? Tales of Kinship and pp. 297-323. en Gr?ce ancienne: Recueil in LGPNll = d'inscrip Diplomacy," The Hellenistic World: M. J. Osborne and S. G. tions honorant des sauveteurs et ana New ed. D. A Lexicon Greek Personal Perspectives, Ogden, Byrne, of Lausanne. 97-115. Names II: Oxford 1994. lyse critique, London, pp. Attica, ?d. 1991. Sur la Cr?te an U. 2003. Tucidide: La S. 2000. Brixhe, C, Fantasia, guerra L?cke, Syngeneia: Epigraphisch del libro Pisa. historische Studien zu einem tique: Histoire, ?critures, langues, Peloponneso, II, Ph?no FdD III.3 = G. Ins men der antiken Nancy. Daux, Epigraphie: griechischen Diplo P. 1978. La cr?toise hell? le tr?sor des Ath?niens Frankfurt. Br?l?, piraterie criptions depuis matie, Paris. bases de G?lon and V. Niniou-Kindeli. nistique, jusqu'aux (FdD III.3), Markoulaki, S., Camp, J.McK., IL 2003. "Excavations Paris 1943. 1990. "E?At|vigtikoc Xa^em?q in the on Athenian Agora: 1998-2001," Figueira, T. J. 1988. "Four Notes the Tot(po? Xocv?cov," ArchDelt 37, A' 241-280. in Hesperia 72, pp. Aiginetans Exile," Athenaeum 66, [1982], pp. 7-119. = CEGII P. A. Hansen, ed., Carmina pp. 523-551. Mattingly, H. B. 1974. "The Protected Epigraphica Graeca II: Saeculi IV Habicht, C. 1982. Studien zur Geschi Fund in theAthenian Coinage a.Chr.n., Berlin 1989. chte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit, Decree (ATLD14, par. 7f),"AJP95, A. 1996. Die zwi 280-285. Chaniotis, Vertr?ge G?ttingen. pp. schen Poleis in der -. 1997. Athens Alexander K. 1900. Grammatik der kretischen helleni from Meisterhans, Zeit to trans. L. attischen 3rd rev. stischen (Heidelberger althisto Antony, D. Schneider, Inschriften, ed., by E. Berlin. rische Beitr?ge und epigraphische Cambridge, Mass. Schwyzer, Studien A. S. 1977. B. D. 1977. "Athenian Archons 24), Stuttgart. Henry, The Prescripts of Meritt, CID = des de Athenian Decrees 347/6-48/7 Historia Corpus inscriptions Delphes, (Mnemosyne b.c.," 26, 161-191. Paris 1977-. Suppl. 49), Leiden. pp. on E. 1971. "fH tcov Curty, 0.1994. "La notion de la pa Hornblower, S. 1991. yf Commentary Mikrogiannakes, t?%t| rent? entre chez 1: Oxford. vko t v cit?s Thucydide," Thucydides Books I-III, A0r|va?cov ??oiKiaO?vtcov -. on CretChron 395 MusHelv 51, pp. 193-197. 1996.^4 Commentary Thucy Aiyivr|TC?v," 23, pp. -. Les dides 2: Books Oxford. 424. 1995. parent?s l?gendaires IV-V.24, entre cit?s raisonn? = O. Die Milet 1.3 = G. Kawerau and A. grecques: Catalogue IMagn. Kern, ed., Inschriften Rehm, des contentant le terme von am Berlin Das in Berlin 1914. inscriptions Magnesia Maeander, Delphinion Milet, et Geneva. D. 1996. "The Calendar and syngeneia analyse critique, 1900. Morgan, J. -. 1999. "La = vonMilet the of parent? l?gendaire I.Milet Inschriften (Milet Chronology Athens," AJA ? l'?poque hell?nistique: Pr?cisions VI), Berlin 1997-2006. 100, p. 395 (abstract). Kernos IPriene = F. Hiller von M. 1981. Naturalization in m?thodologiques," 12, Gaertringen, Osborne, J. von 1906. 1:A Athenian De pp. 167-194. Inschriften Priene, Berlin Athens Corpus of -. entre cit?s Peraia = Die crees Brussels. 2001. "Les parent?s I.Rhod. W. Blumel, ed., Granting Citizenship, der -. 1988. "Attic A chez Polybe, Strabon, Plutarque, Inschriften Rhodischen Peraia, Epitaphs: Sup et in Gentium Bonn 1991. Ancient 5? Pausanias," Origines plement," Society 19, pp. (Ausonius: Publications Etudes 7), Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of 60. ?d. V. Fromentin and S. Gotteland, Archaic Greece:A Study of the Origin -. 2003. "Shadowland: Athens 49-56. Its Devel under Gonatas and His Bordeaux, pp. of the GreekAlphabet and Antigonos ATHENS AND KYDONIA: AGORA I 7602 8j

et Successor," in The Macedonians in historique de l'Institut fran?ais Problem of Interpreting Cretan b.c. Paris. Eulimene 79-90. Athens, 322-229 Proceedings of d'arch?ologie d'Istanbul 13), Coin Types," 1, pp. an International Held at and Robert. 1983. Fouilles 1890. Conference Robert, L., J. Svoronos, J.-N. Numismatique the en Carie I: his de la Cr?te de University ofAthens, May 24?26, dAmyzon Exploration, ancienne, accompagn?e ed. O. and S. V. et Paris. la et la 2001, Palagia Tracy, toire, monnaies, inscriptions, l'histoire, g?ographie, mytholo 67-75. N. V. 2000. de Ma?on. Oxford, pp. Sekunda, "Land-Use, gie l'?le, 1987. of in 1990. Attic Letter-Cutters Parker, R. "Myths Early Ethnicity, and Federalism West Tracy, S. V. of in Greek in Alternatives toAthens: 229 to 86 b.c. Culture Athens," Interpretations of Crete," (Hellenistic ed. Varieties Political and Mythology, J. Bremmer, London, of Organization Society 6), Berkeley. -. pp. 187-214. and Community inAncient Greece, 1996. "Athenian Letter E. ed. R. Brock and S. on in Perrin-Saminadayar, Forthcoming. Hodkinson, Cutters and Lettering Stone to "Une inscription d'Osios Loukas, Oxford, pp. 327-348. 5th 1st Centuries b.c.," in Greek et 2005. Letters: From Tablets to l'alliance d'Ath?nes de Stiris, Sourvinou-Inwood, C. Hylas, the Pixels, et des amis et du and ?d. M. S. New l'?7iooo%r| alli?s Nymphs, Dionysos, Others: Myth, Macrakis, Castle, in Attica peuple," Epigraphica: Ritual, Ethnicity (SkrAth 8?, 19), Del, pp. 43-53. A inHonour van H. et le Symposium of Christian Stockholm. Effenterre, 1948. La Cr?te ed. N. and K. 2002. und Kulte monde de Platon ? Paris. Habicht, Papazarkadas Sporn, Heiligt?mer grec Polybe, A. A. Themos, Athens. Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer van Effenterre, H, A.-M. Liesenfelt, Zeit zur Pritchett, W. K., and O. Neugebauer. (Studien antiken Heiligt? and I. Papaoikonomou. 1983. "Base 1947. Calendars Cam mer The ofAthens, 3), Heidelberg. inscrite de Kydonia," BCH 107, bridge, Mass. Stefanakis, M. 1.1999. "The Introduc pp. 405-419. P. 1972. The Athenian tion of A. 19774. Rhodes, J. Boule, Monetary Economy and the Wilhelm, Akademieschriften Oxford. zur Beginning of Local Minting in griechischen Inschriftenkunde P. and R. eds. in From Minoan Farmers to 1:Neue zur Rhodes, J., Osborne, Crete," Beitr?ge griechischen 2003. Greek Historical Roman Traders: on the Econ Inscriptions: Sidelights Inschriftenkunde Attische Urkunden, 404-323 Ancient A. b.c., Oxford. omy of Crete, ed. Chani Leipzig. L. 1963. Noms dans 247-268. K. 2003. Robert, indig?nes otis, Stuttgart, pp. Zacharia, Converging Truths: VAsie Mineure 1 -. 2000. the Oikist or and the gr?co-romaine "Kydon Euripides'Ion Athenian (Biblioth?que arch?ologique Zeus Cretagenes Kynotraphes? The Questfor Self-Definition, Leiden.

Nikolaos Papazarkadas

University of California, Berkeley department of classics

hall 7233 dwinelle california berkeley, 9472o-252o

[email protected]

Peter Thonemann

Oxford University

wadham college

parks road

oxford oxi 3pn united kingdom

[email protected]