Fifth-Century Horoi on Aigina 233

HESPERIA 78 (2OO9) FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI Pages 231-267 ON AIGINA

A Reevaluation

ABSTRACT

In this article, the author reexamines the 14 known horos inscriptions from new Aigina in connection with the discovery of four horoi, published here for the firsttime. These additional horoi lend new support to the arguments? debated by many scholars?for the date (431-404 B.C.), occasion (Athenian occupation ofAigina during thePeloponnesianWar), authorship (Athenian), and purpose (markers of agricultural estates) of theAiginetan horoi. The article presents a fresh view ofAthenian motivations for the introduction of to on agricultural temene dedicated the gods Aigina and in other conquered territoriesduring theAthenian Empire.

INTRODUCTION

Fourteen ancient boundary inscriptions, each including the word opoq are as (horos), currently registered in the epigraphic corpora having been at on found various locations the island of Aigina (Fig. 1, Table l).1 These horoi never as a (1-14) have been discussed group.2 The date and as as authorship of these inscriptions, well theirmeaning and purpose, are amatter of are s debate.3 Beyond dispute the horoi Attic dialect and script,4 and theirAiginetan provenance. In this intriguing confluence of facts lies

to 1.A detailed discussion of thefind this work, and the epimelete of Ai (1990) included 13, but not 1 and 14, of the horoi is below. Helen for her assis in spots presented gina, Papastavrou, his study. Iwould like to thankMerle tance. All illustrations and translations 3. vol. Lang Furtwangler 1906, 1, p. 6; are don, Robert Parker, Molly Richardson, my own, unless otherwise indicated. IG IV 29-38;Welter 1954, col. 35; Bar Ron and Thomas as 2. Horoi and 13 are not ron Stroud, Figueira, 2,12, 1983;Mattingly 1996, p. 7; Smar well as the reviewers of in anonymous included IGIV; Barron (1983) did czyk 1990, pp. 109-129; Figueira 1991, for at not Hesperia, theirhelpful feedback discuss 1 (mistakingit for2), 13, pp. 115-120; Hornblower 1992, p. 183; different in the or stages preparation of 14; the editorsof IG I3 considered Parker 1996, pp. 144-145; Osborne this article. Thanks are also due to the 1 2 to same and possiblybe the horos 2000, p. 110;Mylonopoulos 2003, former director of the 2nd comment on Ephorate (see 1481), and missed pp. 49-52. the29th ofClassical 13 and 14. most scholars (now Ephorate) Subsequently, 4. IG IV, p. 10; Barron 1983, p. 10; Antiquities, George Steinhauer, for reliedon Barron 1983 and IG I3 and IGY 1481-1490. me to out were not aware of granting permission carry omissions; Smarczyk

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 232 IRENE POLINSKAYA

??>-^

V VlichadaS

^^vMarathonas As ( \\ fZeus Hellanios Sanctuary C (my \ Oros Moni jJ \y J C^^^y CC^^^jf Sphendouri

A Apollo/Poseidon Horoi /Mena ^ Figure 1. Known findspots of AnonymousAiginetan horoi 1-9,12, and 13, and _Ipossible locations of 10. H. Walda

themain interest of theAiginetan horoi for historians of ancient Greece. The present reevaluation is called for by recent developments in the field new of 5th-century Attic epigraphy and epigraphic and archaeological on findings Aigina, including four newly discovered horoi, 15-18 (Table 1). new Study of these examples supports the original interpretation of the Aiginetan horoi proposed byAdolf Furtwangler in 1906, namely, that the were horoi installed by Athenians during their occupation of the island in 431-404 B.C. tomark the bounds of newly created agricultural temene. a new on The present study also offers perspective Athenian motivations on as as for introducing temene Aigina, well in other foreign territories, during theAthenian Empire. Athenian horoi used tomark the bounds of temene have been identi case fied in several other locations besides Aigina,5 but Aiginas is of special historical interest.To appreciate the depth of intrigue presented by Attic on one boundary markers Aigina, must recall the history of relations be tween the two states.During theArchaic and Classical periods, Athens and were at times and at times enemies on the economic, Aigina rivals, outright 5. IG I3 1491-1499, and 1502, political, and ideological fronts: they represented different ethnic identities discussed below. and different 6. For on relations be (Ionic and Doric, respectively) political systems (democracy bibliography tween Athens and see Kehne and oligarchy), and they competed formarine trading routes, naval power, Aigina, 1998, pp. 48-49; and Figueira 1981, and influence in the Panhellenic arena.6The rivalrybetween the two states with references to earlier was acute to as 1991,1993, particularly due their geographic position: neighbors in the bibliography,to which shouldbe added Saronic had to share In this Gulf, they navigational space. regard,Aiginas De Ste. Croix 2004 (althoughwritten themiddle of the Saronic Gulf advantageous position?in opposite Piraeus, in 1965 or 1966, thispaper was pub to lished in 1988. the main harbor ofAthens?enabled theAiginetans obstruct the flow only 2004); Jennings FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 233

TABLE 1. CATALOGUE OF AIGINETAN HOROI

Hons Text IGYV2 IGV Barron 1983 IGIV ^ _ _ \ g02 37 xejievoc 2 h6p?q 803 14811 t?u?voc

*6p??rl3 804 1482238

hopoq xeuivoc 4 AttoMcov- 798 1483433

[o]c, IIogei 5covoc,

fropoc, 5 799 148434 t?^?4 3 nooei5covoc

hopoq

xeuivo[c] 6 AtioUcov- 800 1485535

[o]c. noa[ei]

8covo<; [hopoq xeuivoc] 7 Ati6U[cov]- 801 USSMs6 36 [o]qnoa[ei] 5covoc,

#6poc. 8 xeuivoc 792 1486729

AGevoaac.

hopOC, 9 xeuivoc 793 1487 30 10 AOevaiac

hopoq xeuevoc10 794 14881131 AOevouac ^6po[c] 11 xeuevoc 796 14898 32 AOevaiec #6poc 12 xeuivoc 797 14909 ?

ABevoueq Wopoq ?? ? 13 xeuivoc 795

AGevcaac, 14 . opoc_1074_?_?_1592 15 opoc

16 opoc;

17 opoc,

18 opoc.

The texts are of horoi 1-14 cited from IG IV2 (2007). For ease of reference, the horos numbers in IG F Barron and IG IV are (fasc. 2,1994), 1983, (1902) also supplied. 234 IRENE POLINSKAYA

to of traffic Athens at will, leading theAthenians to regard the island as "an eyesore of Piraeus."7 This situation became increasingly intolerable for as more theAthenians they came to rely and more, especially in the course on of the 5th century B.C., the supply of grain and other necessities of life two from overseas.8 Given the persistent animosity between the states, the on presence Aigina of Attic horoi, presumptive signs of land ownership, come raises two questions: when and how could the Athenians have to manage properties in the territoryof their bitter enemy? a The only known time when the Athenians had free hand in the was management ofAiginetan territorial affairs the period of the Pelopon was nesianWar. According toThucydides (2.27), theAiginetan population summer were sent removed fromAigina in the of 431, and Athenian settlers to in their place shortly afterward (ox>noXkG)).9 The first scholars publish on the horoi connected their presence Aigina with the activities ofAthenian settlers during the occupation of the island in 431-404 B.C.10This inter was on pretation prevailed until 1983, when it challenged epigraphic to move grounds by John Barron, who argued for the need the dates of some use the inscriptions back to the 450s because Aiginetan horoi three on barred sigmas and tailed rhos.11This redating of the Aiginetan horoi scenarios to epigraphic grounds prompted the invention of questionable in to the explain Athenian interference Aiginetan territorial affairs prior on arrival ofAthenian settlers the island.12The epigraphic principles that Barron used to support his dating of theAiginetan horoi have since been now cannot be sustained.13 challenged, and many epigraphists agree that they the The date of theAiginetan horoi and the related questions concerning are horoi's purpose and meaning therefore due for reexamination.

to war so andAmit 47 7. A famous remark attributed upon them. Besides, Aigina lies pp. 115-120) (1973, pp. near it Barron's Perikles (Plut. Per. 8.7), and alterna the Peloponnese, that seemed 48) accepted dating. to to send of their own to 12.Amit Barron tivelyto Demades (Ath. 3.99d): xhy safer colonists 1973, p. 48; 1983; xou the 437. Aiywav coc,^n.unv UEipaiEcoc, aye hold it, and shortly afterwards Figueira 1991, pp. 115-120; 1998, p. see were sent R. Craw 13. On the use of the three-barred Xexv keXevooli. On this phrase, settlers out" (trans. in furtherAmit 1973, p. 36. On Periklean ley,London 1993). sigma in late-5th-century Attic see 10. This was the see Chambers, Gallucci, and actions against Aigina, Figueira original explanation scriptions, Chambers 1991, pp. 111-113. offeredby Furtwangler (1906, vol. 1, Spanos 1990; 1992-1993, 8.Hopper (1979, pp. 71-92, esp. p. 6) and IGIV 29-39; followedby Wel 1993,1994; Figueira 1998, p. 442, n. Mat p. 73 with referenceto Hdt. 7.147) ter (1954, col. 35) andMattingly (1996, 41; Tsirigoti-Drakotou 2000; was in of thaiou Stroud 34-35. suggests that Aigina control p. 7), and restatedby Smarczyk (1990, 2004; 2006, pp. trade from the Pontus after 494/3 B.C. pp. 118-119). For criticism of Chambers's dating of reservations ex IG the so-called Decree, 9. Thuc. 2.27: Aveomaav 5e icai 11. In spite of the I311, Egesta to 418/7 B.C., see Alyivnxac, Tcp amcp Gepei xowcp e^ Ai pressed byMattingly (1996, pp. 6-7; Henry 1992,1993, xe was Lewis 1993. Cer yivr\q 'A0T\vaioi, amove, Kai rcaTSac, the relevant chapter originally pub 1995,1998,2001; Kai yovaiKac,, E7UKaA,Eaavx?<; oux lished in 1961) on the soundnessof tainly,Figueira's (1998, pp. 431-465) as a sure indication of an automatic downdat riKiaxa xou 7ioXejio\) acpiaiv aixiouc using letter forms warning against to the420s or 410s of all the in Eivai. Kai xhy Ai'yivav aacpa^EOXEpov dates,Barron (1983) followed thedat ing the Attic that show a three-barred ECpaiVEXO xt| nE^OTCOWTlOCp ETClKElUEVTjV ingprinciples for 5th-century scriptions iswell taken:each ccoxcov rceuyavxac, etcoikodc, ?%eiv. Kai inscriptionsoutlined inMeiggs 1966 sigma epigraphic o\) and Walbank the so-called ortho text in needs to be assessed E^?7t?|i\j/av \Sox?pov noXkto eq auxhy 1978, question summer dox view that holds that the three On the of xovq oiKT|xopac. "During the individually. unreliability the barred and the tailed rho on the basis of letter the Athenians also expelled Aigine sigma disap dating inscriptions from from the dated Attic forms see 1996 and tans with their wives and children peared securely alone, Mattingly 446/5 and Vickers 1996; Kallet Aigina, on theground of theirhaving public inscriptionsby 1999, supportedby Trevett 1999. been the chiefagents inbringing the 438/7 B.C., respectively. Figueira (1991, 1997; fifth-century horoi on aigina 235

AIGINETAN HOROI 1-14

Of the 14 Aiginetan horoi currently registered in the epigraphic corpora, on are 12 (1-12) are inscriptions marble stelae, and two (13,14) rupestral. on was Marble is not found Aigina and imported from elsewhere. Differ ent kinds of marble were used for horoi 1-12. The marble of some horoi as has been identified of "island" origin, while that used for the others is to described in IG IV2 only with respect color.14The variety of marbles used for the horoi may be explained by the supposition that theirmakers employed whatever samples ofmarble they could find in the local masons' on shops Aigina.15 a As illustrated inTable 2, the Aiginetan horoi display wide variety of forms formany letters, and especially for the letters sigma and rho.16 to Barron used the differences in letter forms place the Aiginetan horoi a in hypothetical chronological sequence, ranging from the 450s to the 440s b.c: 2-7, ca. 455; 8,11-12, either ca. 455 or ca. 445; and 9-10, ca. 445. Yet Barron's diagnostic letters, the three-barred sigma and the tailed rho, as secure which appear in some Aiginetan horoi, cannot serve indicators non b.c. ofpost quern dates?446/5 and 438/7 b.c., respectively.17The form or cannot a of rho sigma be legitimate criterion for dating anyAiginetan more ca. we horos precisely than 450-410. Therefore, must abandon not only the specific dating, but also the chronological sequence proposed by Barron for the inscribing of theAiginetan horoi; while his chronology is theoretically possible, it cannot be defended on the basis of letter forms. recent One of the implications of the revision of dating principles for b.c. an Attic epigraphy of the 5th century is that instead of abrupt shift use one to from the of type of letter form another (e.g., three-barred to four-barred sigma, tailed to untailed rho) in the period between 445 and 439 b.c., we should envision the simultaneous use of alternative forms in the entire period between ca. 445 and ca. 403 b.c., even in theAthenian state a inscriptions.18 If date after 431 is epigraphically possible for the most Aiginetan horoi, then the economical explanation for the origin of the horoi?namely, the Athenian occupation of the island?needs to be considered and evaluated anew. Besides the variations in the Attic forms of certain letters that ap on two pear horoi 1-12, other epigraphic issues must be addressed. The first is the use of on Ionic letters, in particular 4-6, and their dating. The second is the dual inscription of horoi 4-6: thewords horos temenoswere

14. Horoi made of island marble: insufficient detail in the of the use of description four-barred sigma in Ionic, 2-5, 8-10; horoi made of white marble: their provenance. Attic, and mixed Attic-Ionic dedica horoi made of blue marble: 17. For the debate over see 6,11; 1,12. dating, tions and concluded that before 450 B.C., 15. the of themarble the in n. 13 and the "for both the letter cutters of Thus, origin bibliography fol dedicatory used for the not recent treatments of in Aiginetan horoi need lowing key inscriptions and the patrons of dedica indicate the of the stoneworkers. for Athens and the the use of was origin scriptions: Egesta tions, four-barred sigma 16. An was not see autopsy possible for Decree, Matthaiou 2004; for the not considered inconsistent with the all of the horoi: 1 is not visible at Standards see native pres Decree, Hatzopoulos Attic alphabet." ent because of the it is built into a 2000-2003 and 18. Cf. way Figueira 1998, pp. 442 Tsirigoti-Drakotou 2000, modern structure IGIV2 448. In a recent of see n. (see 802); 6 study patrons of p. 98; and 45, below (on the date and 7 are and the 13 and Athenian votive lost; rupestral monuments, Keesling and contents of the decree of Archi 14 could not be located because of 412 with and n. (2005, p. table 1) compared nos), Keesling 2005, p. 411, 63. nu N/vNa/ ~/V~

p|?~TpPfre p-T"p p 50o75q7550o50q5010qq_1qqq100qqq omicron M

_1 ? Conventions:linesContinuousshowthestrokesletterpreservedproportionsinreflecttolettersandlinesDottedofotherinscription.onstonesrelationshowsamea in leftindicatetheofletter thesizeinnumberslettersuppercornerpercentagepointstohalf ininscription;therelativeotherishoros2,omicron ofsizesamee.g.,on nu 1 1A/^pha 1/V I i | A7i | 1 |A/ ||a| /V1a|a|a1a|/A|~| [ A/ [ /V | 1 11I I 1 _5_"_*_?_*_?_i_-_- Alettersdashofindicatesplacetheletterthatcertain.whereinscribed,butisrestorationsoriginallyduetodamagetheta:arevisibleOmicronnotanderosion.orawasnow

5.1-25.3-44.3-515894.1-210111223161718Letter

formsOnlylettersincludedwithcharacteristichere.Delta,lambda,theytaubecauseandomittedvariation.showareno ??- Sig""?_?_??_ EE EE_Epsilon_E_E

TABLE2.LETTERAIGINETANFORMSOFTHEHOROI E_E_E_J_E_E_E_[_EEpsilon

mm__mu_m

TTH~jHHH??(aspirate)H

NamesofDeities

letters.the J\Omega q oo? Theta other

_pi_n_r_ FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 237

names inscribed earlier and inAttic script,while the of deities (Apollo/ some exam Poseidon) were inscribed subsequently using Ionic letters, for use ple, omega.19 It must be noted, however, that in spite of the of Ionic as an letters,which Barron explains thework of Ionian cutter, the dialect remains Attic, as Barron also observes: noaeiSorvoc; appears instead of a B.C. the uncontracted noo?i8ecovoc;.20 Smarczyk allowed date after 431 as part of theAthenian trend toward using the Ionic alphabet in the late on 5th century.21 Figueira postulated the presence of Ionian residents to Aigina and their participation in the dedication of temene Apollo/ Poseidon there.22

We can, however, explain the presence of Ionic features in the inscrip a tions written inAttic dialect without postulating that Ionians formed a temene distinct group with religious interest in allotting to Apollo/ on Poseidon Aigina. In studying inscribed dedications from theAthenian ca. are Acropolis, Keesling observed that by 450 B.C., there examples of in scriptions executed by Ionian letter cutters but commissioned byAthenian we patrons, inwhich can see "an attempt by the craftsmen who carved the to own inscriptions mediate between their training in Ionic spelling and the wishes of Athenian dedicators. Instances of corrections from Ionic

into Attic spelling support this interpretation."23 The circumstances of on the production of horoi 4-6 Aigina after 431 may have been similar: an the initial carving (lines 1-2) may have been done by Athenian cutter, and at a later stage,when the names of the deities were added, an Ionian cutter at was an letter hand called upon to do the cutting for Athenian use patron and, while following theAthenian spelling, he lapsed into the masons or of the Ionic alphabet. Ionian letter cuttersmay have come from or Athens along with theAthenian settlers, perhaps theywere residents to of Aigina who had been allowed remain after the expulsion of the Aiginetans in 431. On the basis of the observations presented above, we must cannot more on conclude that horoi 1-12 be dated any precisely the

19.The addition,by differenthands, names to these horoi was necessitated ymous and named horoi could also be of names of deities to the the later of a if the same original by introduction cultic contemporaneous agricul words horos temenos can be verified of Athena That tural estate was some only precinct nearby. hy demarcated by for4 and as 6 and 7 are lost.Not does not 5, only pothesis explain, however, the horoi bearing the fullformula, and the names of the two deities on 4 and 5 uncanny similarity between the hands others the abbreviated formula. (the execution of omegas is notable: that inscribed Athena's horoi 9 and 11 20. Barron (1983, pp. 4-5) found to the on 4 and to the left and the one that cut an the leaning right anonymous forms of sigma, nu, alpha, and on but each of the two lines horos 2. If we temene as omicron on to be un 5), original understand 5 suspiciously as well were cut dif both the (horos temenos) by agricultural estates, diversity Attic, while the presence of omega is ferent hands. at least four indi of hands at work and the addition a Thus, of positively Ionic feature. He thus viduals would have worked on the in names to gods' anonymous horoi can concluded that lines 3-4 of 5 "should of 4 and 5. At the same be attributed to as scriptions time, administrative and be regarded Ionian work of this thehand that inscribedthe first two reasons: the 450 accounting original alloca [ca. B.C.] period." linesof 4 horos of tion of temene to the (a Apollo/Poseidon) agricultural gods 21. Smarczyk 1990, pp. 112-113. is similarto thehand that in have in some cases left the very may identity Barron (1983, p. 5) pointed out that the scribed the 3. This similar of the divine owners of estates of was anonymous unspec shape omega typical of the mid ledBarron to a ity (1983, p. 10) hypoth ified, but clarification could have 5th century B.C. See also n. 17, above. esize that the earlier of precinct Apollo/ become necessary later when it came 22. Figueira 1991, pp. 115-120; Poseidon was marked to the rent and by anonymous collecting accounting 1998, p. 437. and the addition of deities' for the leases horoi, of properties. The anon 23. Keesling 2005, p. 413. 238 IRENE POLINSKAYA

basis of letter forms (both Attic and Ionic) than to a range between ca. 450 and 403 B.C.24 a Rupestral horos 13, marking temenos ofAthena, was seen by Furt near wangler the church ofAyios Ioannis in the village of Sphendouri, in the south ofAigina (see Fig. I).25 Later, Hermann Thiersch observed the as on a inscription in situ, describing it written large flat slab of trachyte,26 amore as and he gave precise description of its location.27The text, provided by Thiersch, is identical to that of 8-10. My attempts to rediscover this were not no rupestral inscription successful, and since photograph survives, an was not evaluation of its letter forms possible; however, the reported a location (Sphendouri) of 13 provides link between 1-12, 14, and the are recently discovered rupestral horoi 15-18, which presented below. Horos 14, a rupestral inscription from the area of theOros, was listed was a in IGIV among the dubitanda>2%because it suspected of being modern a graffito inscribed for the sake of linguistic joke.29 But the discovery of same no 15-18 in the area longerwarrants such skepticism. IG IV gives the text of 14 as OPOI, and its location as "to the north of themountain called Oros, close to the village npevxorjpi."30 Since in the early 20th century there a or on was not village of this name, indeed any village at all, the northern was a to slope of the Oros, while there and is village of Sphendouri the south, it is clear that a mistake has been made in the description of the or at horos's location. Horos 14 must have been in the vicinity of, perhaps least in sight of, the village of Sphendouri, and therefore belongs with the series of horoi 15-18 also found in that area.31

24. The earliest use of a four-barred also in der denkbar weitesten Entfer Auf dem rechten Ufer des Rhevmas a von wie Stadt auf dem Grundstuck steht sigma in securely dated Attic inscrip nung Tempel aufgefunden. Xerospileia ist in den tion is attested in 445 b.c (Walbank Diese Inschrift merkwiirdigerweise terrassenartig aufgebauten 1978, pp. 39-41), but Keesling (2005, bisher von niemand bemerkt worden, Feldern aufgrofier, flach liegender cases on die von p. 412, table 1) lists earlier obwohl sie niemals verdeckt war." gewachsener Trachytplatte use 26. is an a im fest dedications from Athens. The latest Trachyte igneous rock, Furtwangler Fruhjahr 1905 a of andesite. Chemical HOROS TEME of three-barred sigma is less certain: relative analysis gestellte Inschrift: | are 418/7 is to each. NOS ATHENAIAS. Diese Grenz suggested dates (Chambers, necessary identify "Trachyte" | Gallucci, and Spanos 1990), and 411 and "andesite" are the terms used alter inschrift ist besonders wichtig, weil to sie in diesem Falle (Tsirigoti-Drakotou2000). The decree natively by nonspecialists describe ganz unmoglich most se central and sein hier aber ebenso of Archinos is, however, the stone originating from the verschleppt kann, cure German ein in der terminus, since after its passing southern parts of Aigina. unmoglich Athenatempel cutters to use Nahe haben kann." (403 b.c.) the letter would have language publications prefer gestanden term while 28. This is the reason been conscious of the requirement and the "trachyte," English probably use "andesite" this has as far as not simplythe option of using the Ionic language publications why inscription never, Cf. similar La the from Thiersch I been discussed in alphabet. arguments by (see, e.g., quotation know, scholarly londe (2006a, p. 89) on thedating of in n. 27, below; IG IV2 795;Washing literature. horos B (IG P 1055 B) fromthe Hill ton 1894-1895; Runnels 1981). 29. The joke presumablywould be is in thedouble entendreof a label of theNymphs inAthens. 27. The topographicdescription 6po<; vol. 6 taken from an on this mountain, 25. Furtwangler 1906, 1, p. unpublished manuscript (mountain) particular n. owe itself called Mount (= Smarczyk 1990, p. 109, 168; SEG byThiersch (n.d.). I my knowledge 'Opoq. a XLII 252 and 84): "Ich habe imFnih of the reference to the kindness of 30. IG IV 1592: In saxo sito monte zusammen mit Dr. L. Curtius Hans R. who me with dicto ad vicum jahr 1905 Goette, provided "Opoq septentriones prope die Grenz fromhis eine gleichlautende Inschrift, thefollowing passage personal FfpevTovpi. der of the 31. It is that 14 is the bezeichnung eines Temenos Athena, copy manuscript (chap. 24, possible Felsen in einem ich die Stelle auf same horos as as IG IV2 1074 auf gewachsenem abge p. 179): "bisichtigte 15, sug Tale der Sud dem ostlich des Dorfes but the archives of IG do not legenen kleinen engen Bergsattel gests, von bei der the of and spitzeder Insel, sudlich Sphenduri, Sphenduri Ag. Joannis-Kapelle. preserve photograph 14, FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 239

IT A j Taxiarchi^x^ \ I J ZeusHellanios!

^ 531. NA \ 1/00\200 LoO / *Prof llias~y* ( I ( ZeusHellanios 11 \ I \ /

^^^^ X^^^ w X ?l^rS&.nun.m Ay.loannis n tAy.Anargyroi ( ?^^^s^ \^_

Figure 2. Locations of horoi 15-18 AIGINETAN HOROI 15-18 in the area of Sphendouri, south H.Walda Aigina. course on In the of fieldwalks Aigina during 1998-1999, while searching for 13 in particular, I discovered four new rupestral horoi near the village same area of Sphendouri,32 in exactly the where Furtwangler reported are finding 13, and where it is likely that 14 also originates. Horoi 15-18 a m located within radius of about 500 from the church ofAyios Ioannis, at the eastern edge of the village of Sphendouri (Fig. 2).33 Horoi 15-17 a follow the edge of mountain saddle (north and northeast of the church a on ofAyios Ioannis) that drops into ravine its eastern side,while 18 sits at the southern foot of the peak ofAyioi Anargyroi (290 masl), which rises a immediately southeast of the church of Ayios Ioannis.34 There is clear

so cannot the proposition be tested. itythat other horoi besides 15-18 exist outside thevillage of Sphendouri, at The description inIG IV2 1074 is based or existed in the same area, we must the end of a dirt road that leads on the information about 15-18 that I therefore continue to count 14 as a throughthe village up to itseastern to turns to provided IG, but I do not thinkthat separate entity. edge, where the scenery rocky there is sufficient to 32. Horoi 15-18 were discovered on evidence subsume and mostly terraced slopes traversed by 14 within the field walks with series 15-18. Because the connected my disserta pathways used by occasional hikers and tion research on the cults of ancient topographicdescription inIG IV 1592 shepherds. was a 34. numeration of the horoi is (14) garbled,precluding compar Aigina (Polinskaya2001). My to isonwith thefindspots of 15-18, and 33. More precisely, the church, with from north south. we must its is because allow for the possibil adjacent cemetery, situated right 240 IRENE POLINSKAYA

line of sight from 15 to 16, and from 16 to 17, but the view of 18 is blocked from the other three horoi by the peak of Ayioi Anargyroi. The distance from one horos to another varies from ca. 150 to 350 m as the crow flies, and the horoi are located at different elevations.35

Catalogue

15 Horos Fig. 3 Located northeast of Sphendouri, atN 37? 41.734', E 23? 29.461'; altitude 375 masl. Cut on the almost vertical southwest face of a boulder rising ca. 1.5 m above ground.36 L.H. of initialomicron 0.13; rho 0.16; second omicron 0.1; sigma 0.15 m. OPOI Direction ofwriting: north to south.

16 Horos Fig. 4 Located northeast of Sphendouri atN 37? 41.577', E 23? 29.465'; altitude 364 masl. Cut on the horizontal rough top of a rockyboulder (about 1.8 m in height), one in a cluster at the edge of a precipitous drop.37 L.H. of initialomicron 0.09; rho 0.14; second omicron 0.09; sigma 0.09 m. OPOI Direction ofwriting: north to south.

17 Horos Fig. 5 Located east of Sphendouri at N 37? 41.299', E 23? 29.613'; altitude 235 masl. Cut on a flat horizontal bedrock face. L.H. of initialomicron 0.1; rho 0.2; second omicron 0.09; sigma 0.19 m. OPOI to Direction of writing: north south.

18 Horos Figs. 6, 7 Located southeast of Sphendouri atN 37? 41.105', E 23? 29.275'; altitude 255 masl. Cut on a loose flat slab resembling a table top,measuring approximately on two smaller rocks.38 1 xl.5 m, found resting horizontally 0.18 m. L.H. of initial omicron 0.1; rho 0.2; second omicron 0.1; sigma OPOS to south. Direction of writing: north

this slab ismov 35. All coordinates and elevations altitudeof 235 masl (northeastof the 38. Theoretically, 18 is 20 m but its size and were measured using a Garmin GPS 12 peak ofAyioi Anargyroi). able, large weight on would make such an receiver.Horoi 15 (375 masl) and 16 higher than 17, but the southwest enterprise very difficult.At the same the (364masl) are atop a relativelylevel side of thepeak ofAyioi Anargyroi. time, position is to see in of the slab is somewhat it area that stretches from the south foot 36. The inscription easy precarious: of the sun. looks as if ithad been set of theOros to the edge of thenext the rakinglight setting deliberately From the cluster of the at the of the that runs drop,where 16 is located.A drop in 37. rocks, up top slope down several and southwestfrom altitudeof about 130m froma cluster mountainside drops down south Ayioi on from which one has a of rocksmarked by 16, down a precip hundred meters the east-northeast. Anargyroi, point the One needs to climb boul view of the mountain saddle below, itous southward slope, produces atop nearby to a at its next mountain saddle, which stretches ders to spot this horos. I have thank with churchof Ayia Triada at the local who lives at southern end to the foot ofAyioi Anargyroi, rising goatherd Sphen (Fig. 7). to me. its southern end. 17 is located at an douri for showing this horos FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 241

3 Horos 15 Figure (above, left). ^^^^^^^^^^^__^___MR_B_^^_|^^^^^^^^^

4 Horos 16 Figure (above,right). BilBBM

Figure5. Horos 17 ^W^^^BBHHIIWBRWMl^^PM^Bi^^MMMBMBBi 242 IRENE POLINSKAYA

Figure 7. Horos 18,with the church Dialect, Script, Letter Forms, and Dating ofAyia Triada in the fardistance are The letter forms of 15-18 consistent with the Attic script, but the Aiginetan script cannot be ruled out.39Also, the word "horos" does not a present any opportunity for display of dialectal differences.The script and not theword itself, therefore, do help in identifying the provenance of the authors of the inscriptions with certainty.No boundary markers inscribed are or with theword "horos" known fromArchaic Early Classical Aigina,40 were and it is impossible to determine whether theAiginetans in the habit of marking boundaries with inscriptions. Rupestral horoi at Sphendouri, must a situated in relative proximity to each other, have marked boundary or boundaries, but we have no information about any state administrative on or or divisions Aigina in the Archaic Classical periods, any private or practice of marking the boundaries of estates other properties. At the same are use time,Athenians well known for their extensive of writing, including rupestral writing, tomark boundaries.41 Each of horoi 15-18 consists of four letters: omicron, rho, omicron, m sigma. The size of the letters on all four inscriptions is close: 0.09-0.13 for the diameter of omicron, and 0.14-0.2 m for the vertical of rho,while m. sigma ranges in height between 0.09 and 0.19 The letters of 15, 17, and 18 are deeply and carefully cut.42All omicrons are aligned with the

a neat 39. LSAG2, pp. 109-110. The Aigi Archaic forms(see Polinskaya 2002, bidding arrangement of three netan are in n. n. new on stone. and the Attic scripts close p. 402, 5; p. 403, 9; for letters each side of the origin,and the four lettersof theword examples, see IG IV2 756-758, 788, 41. See Ober 1995, pp. 114-123 "horos" are not among those that dis 789, 792). (summaryof debate and bibliography tinguishthe two alphabets.The Aigi 40. The textof IG IV2 790 is tenta on rupestralhoroi inAttica); and netan as script of the Classical period is tivelyrestored by the editor ^[oploq subsequentlySchiller 1996, pp. 351 not we well attested: have very few Tl?uilv]o<;, but allows other possibilities, 389 (appendixB: "Catalogue ofRu a inwhich case the examples of indisputableAiginetan e.g., personal name, pestralHoroi ofAttica"); Langdon stone a marker. If inscriptionsfrom this period, and it is might be grave the 1999; Lalonde 2006a, 2006b. assess word "temenos" had been the 42. the surface on thereforedifficult to anypossible used, Perhaps rough developmentsof the local scriptin the Doric ofAigina would require the which 16was written is to be blamed Classical period fromthe known uncontracted form temeneosy thus for for its less-than-neat appearance. The FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 243

are tops of rho and sigma. All sigmas four-barred, with splayed bars. Both the close similarity between the individual letter forms of 15-18 and the were overall appearance of the four inscriptions suggest that they cut by one on one hand, presumably occasion. a The //for aspirate is absent in 15-18, but this allows broad range use of dates. In addition, the of //for aspirate inAttic inscriptions often on depends the type of epigraphic text,43whereby boundary markers dis a even play conventional retention ofH for aspirate in conjunction with or as concerns the Ionic script.44The absence presence of //for aspirate it a case a to horoi is literally borderline in terms of dating: it is convention at a place the border exactly 400 B.C., but realistic temporal framework was a for any change, unless it instituted by decree,45must be measured in decades rather than years.46Although Attic horoi without //for aspirate no are conventionally dated earlier than 400 B.C., there are several certain cases us in the late 5th century.47Among the latter,most significant for are twoAthenian horoi ofAthena's estates on Samos, dated 439-405 B.C.48 on to The omicrons horoi 15-18 vary in size from half three-quarters are not a the size of the rho and sigma, and while they firm indicator, they are a perhaps suggestive of date in themiddle of the 5th century or later.49 are All rhos round looped and display long verticals, features consistent with a date in the Classical period. The four-barred sigma with splayed on bars, generally dated in the Classical period,50 appears each of the four a horoi. Altogether, the letter forms of 15-18 allow date roughly from the mid-5th to themid-4th century B.C.

choice of the surface 400 b.c. Lalonde imperfect suggests E.g., mAgoraXDi, (1992, p. 18) notes theuse of the Ionic that a rather location was an Meritt's first con in precise following editions, alphabet Athens "during the Archi criterion for the maker of the dates to the 4th b.c. war and with some important sistently century damian frequency horos and that the exis those horoi from the Athenian in the of the restored inscription's Agora period democracy tence was more than its not important thatdo display //foraspirate; the between 410 and 404." Thus, the ab are visibility. only exceptions hisH68 (I 2170) sence ofHfor aspirate (as is typicalfor 43. As Threatte and saec. (1980, p. 494) H69 (I 2528), dated "fin. V the Ionic alphabet) on theAiginetan after 450 b.c. "occasional omis notes, vel init. IV a." In IG IP, several horoi horoi may also be consistent with this sion oiH- is not unusual that look like ours //for as [h] certainly (absent late-5th-century trend inAthens, in state and "a few and a decrees," texts, pirate, four-barred sigma with rather than indicative of a date after state avoid are not a chiefly decrees, consistently splayed bars) assigned spe 400. H= are [h], although they otherwise cificdate (2516,2526,2551,2612), 47. IGF 1132,1135,1136. in entirely Attic script." while one, 2511, is dated in the4th 48. IG I3 1494 (= Barron 1964, 44. Threatte 24. b.c. 1980, p. century In dating Athenian horoi pp. 36-37, no. 3) and IG I31495 45. The historian Theo 4th-century in thepublic domain,Ritchie (1985, (= Barron 1964, pp. 36-37, no. 4). ofChios testified follows an a pompus (FGrH p. 91) priori approach, 49.Walbank (1978, pp. 40-41) 115 thata an as Fl55) decree proposed by assuming that the absence of advised that the full-size omicron dis Archinos in the ofEuklides indicates a date 400 archonship pirate after b.c., appeared fromAttic inscriptionsby institutedthe use (403/2 b.c.) of the e.g., his catalogue item TAI7 (Kera 460 b.c, and an omicron a third of the Ionic in officialAthenian meikosMuseum I size of other not alphabet 405; SEGXX1 651). letters does appear but use of the we inscriptions, sporadic If look outside Attica, there is, e.g., until 445 b.c, but these observations Ionic this a rock-cut horos do not ante or alphabetpredates decree; inscription (without provide termini quern seeWoodhead 18-19. On //for from the southern 1992, pp. aspirate) post quern for omicrons that are less the introduction of the Ionic that the script Argolid "marks boundary than full size. to see now Athens, Keesling 2005, between the territories of Hermion and 50.Woodhead (1992, p. 64) notes pp. 408-414, and n. 71 with references Philanoreia in the (Fournoi) Classical that the splayedbars of sigmabecome to earlier for which a broad date is horizontal bibliography. period," very "during the third and second 46. It is a matter of convention estimated: "sometime within cent. VI centuries."Langdon (1999, p. 492) Attic to IV b.c" and Munn takes the of bars as a among epigraphiststoday (Runnels 1994, splaying in sigma date the absence ofH for after no. Woodhead of a aspirate pp. 531-532, E15). sign pre-4th-century date. 244 IRENE POLINSKAYA

HOROI OF TEMENE ON AIGINA: MARKERS OF AGRICULTURAL ESTATES

a not The 18 known Aiginetan horoi constitute related though homo geneous group. Horoi 1-12, in spite of the variety of letter forms used on a them, constitute cohesive subgroup because of the physical and linguistic on characteristics that they share: these horoi appear marble stelae; they are as all explicitly labeled horoi of temene; and they all bear distinct features of theAttic script and dialect. The rupestral horoi 14-18 also constitute a same manner distinct subgroup in that they share the text, lettering, of inscribing, and especially location. The rupestral horos of Athena (13) two the same text as its bridges the subgroups because itbears 8-12, while nature rupestral and its location align itwith 14-18.51 This overlap between a common the subgroups that include all Aiginetan horoi suggests that historical reason and a common function may underlie their inscription. a Because the letter forms on theAiginetan horoi indicate only broad range to B.C. lower of possible dates, from themid-5th themid-4th century (the a moment limit for 14-18), and cannot pinpoint specific historical for their we must answers. inscription, turn to other forms of historical evidence for I must what the Before proceeding with this inquiry, however, establish word "temenos" means in the context of theAiginetan horoi. on must The controversy over the meaning of "temenos" horoi 1-13 estate or be put to rest.The basic meaning of the term is "a landed precinct a to a to two consecrated to deity," but an estate belonging deity could be put uses: or terms estate" and agricultural cultic.521 thus employ the "agricultural to two uses of "cultic precinct" distinguish between these religious properly. estate For the purposes of this study, the former termwill denote the landed a while the latterwill of deity used exclusively for agricultural purposes, s s denote a landed estate used for rituals ofworship. Harland andWelter term on the horoi opinion that the appearance of the "temenos" Aiginetan a was for decades and still finds signified "cultic precinct" prevalent many adherents.53Most recent scholars, however, agree with Furtwangler and as for favor interpreting the term "agricultural estate," but justifications are In I defend the this interpretation rarely given.54 the following pages, the distribution agricultural interpretation by considering geographical of the areas where the of the horoi, and the topography and archaeology horoi were found.

51. See thephysical description of Distribution of Horoi 1-14 13, nn. 25 and 27, above. 52. On "temenos" as The horoi were found so far from each other and at such agricultural Aiginetan apart see estate, Isager and Skydsgaard 1992, distinct locations on that any that a subset geographically Aigina possibility p. 182. a continuous landed domain of them may have originally circumscribed 53. Harland 1925, p. 47;Welter as Amit has to be ruled out.While horoi 13 and 14 can safelybe regarded having 1954, cols. 35-36, followedby were on 1-12 cannot 1973, 48; Barron 1983, 6; been found in situ because they inscribed bedrock, p. p. Figueira a 1991, pp. 115-118;Mylonopoulos be considered as such, and it is that such wide extremely improbable 51-52. on the result of 2003, pp. of the horoi as we find Aigina could have been scattering 54. See Furtwangler 1906, vol. 1, from one or two locations. It ismore that, dispersal only likely although p. 6; Smarczyk 1990, pp. 70-71; Horn structures not in situ, the stones would have been incorporated into later blower 1992, p. 183; Parker 1996, were Osborne 2000, 110. in the vicinity of the locations where they originally positioned. pp. 144-145; p. FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 245

out on are The findspots of four of six horoi ofAthena Aigina known see were (8, 9, 11, 13; Fig. I).55 Three (8, 9, 11) found along the mod ern to at (and probably ancient) road from Kolonna Aphaia, intervals was of roughly 2-3 km,56while 13 found south of the Oros. Horos 10 comes probably from the east coast, south of the bay of Ayia Marina (Fig. I).57We also know the findspots of three out of four horoi ofApollo/ Poseidon?in the northwest (4), the southwest (5), and the center (6) of one the island58?and the location of anonymous horos (2).59Already in saw as an 1906, Furtwangler the scattered findspots of theAthena horoi indication that "Athena offenbar an den verschiedenen Punkten der Insel von ihr den attischen Kleruchen zugeteilte Grundstiicke besass."60 The at was discovery of the horos ofAthena Sphendouri (13) for Furtwangler were the final proof of his theory. Indeed, only if the temene of the gods a multiple agricultural estates rather than single cultic precinct could we a across explain such wide scattering of the horoi the territory of the island. The findspots of the horoi therefore negate the possibility that a temenos they defined single forAthena and another forApollo/Posei town or a don inAigina elsewhere, conclusion that Barron would surely aware or have also reached had he been of 13 considered the findspots of the horoi.61

Topography of the Findspots

a Apart from 8, horos ofAthena inAigina town,62 all other horoi whose are come areas findspots known from that have been used since antiquity for agricultural production (see Fig. 1). The primary distribution of the is in a horoi the northern half of the island,which consists of coastal plain in the northwest, still densely settled and developed today, and the inland at valleys Palaiochora andMesagros. Horos 10, as mentioned above, may

55. IGW 30 9 as found in is of unknown but reported provenance, may also the village ofMarathonas, about 4 km in a at have come from Palaiochora dis town on west situ, vineyard Ayioi Asomatoi, (see south of Aigina the coast; standingupright propped up by small cussion inIGIV2 797). and 6 from Palaiochora, 4.5 km east of rocks.We on 57. Horos 10 is either from vil town. cannot, however, rely the Aigina these circumstances of as of east discovery lage Mesagros, about 7 km of 59. Horos 2 was found near Kok indicators of the or on positive original place Aigina town, from the village of kalaki, which is shown Thiersch's ment of the some about 2 km south of the n. as an area horos, 2,400 years Vlichada, map (see 57) stretching The fact that the block was of at the south end from the northern coast at prior. sanctuary Aphaia, of Aigina other rocks of the propped up by indicates bay of Ayia Marina. The possi Souvala southward to the northern foot that itwas a loose and therefore that9 piece, bility and 10may have been of Dragonera. movable. The "in the same hand n. 60. easily designation engraved by (see 76, Furtwangler 1906, vol. 1, p. 6. situ" in this case serves to under is not decisive for only below) preferring the 61. Barron (1983, p. 6) translated score the contrast between the situation area of as Mesagros the location of 10. temenos as "sacred estate," and assumed of 9 and incontrovertible cases of sec The area of Vlichada, south of Ayia that2 and 3 (anonymous) alongwith when an ancient stone as an ondary use, Marina, ismarked ancient settle 4-7 (Apollo/Poseidon) circumscribed block was reused in later ment on the that Thiersch created the same construction, map temenos, although the divine as was the case with many Aiginetan (inFurtwangler 1906, vol. 2, foldoutpi.) names on 4-6 were inscribed later. 11. on horoi, e.g., 1,5, 6,10, and the basis of information derived According toBarron (1983, p. 10), 56. Horos 8 comes from the harbor from small excavations and field walks a 8-12 outlined separate temenos, that of town,and is the closest to the conducted German of located in Aigina by archaeologists Athena, Ayioi Asomatoi, ancient 9 is fromthe of on city; village Aigina in the firstdecade of the the provenance of 9. about 3 km east of 20th 62. This near Ayioi Asomatoi, century. horos, although found town; and 11 is about 4.5 km 58. Horos 4 comes from Misokam the have been in Aigina harbor, may brought east of town, at Palaiochora. Horos 12 1 km northeast of 5 from from a pos, Kolonna; nearby field. 246 IRENE POLINSKAYA

come or have fromMesagros in the north, alternatively from Vlichada,63 a a cuts a valley formed by seasonal stream that through mountain ridge to east coast at a a Aiginas point south of the bay of Ayia Marina. It is an distinct wedge of agricultural land in otherwise rocky landscape. A a similar landscape, wedge of agricultural land adjacent to the western at a coast and formed by alluviation the mouth of seasonal stream that cleaved through the rocky coastal ridge, marks the findspot of 5, in the bay ofMarathonas. Thus, the findspots of theAiginetan horoi, while scat across areas tered the island, consistently fallwithin suited to agriculture. are Horoi generally absent from the central and southern parts of the are island, which occupied by mountains of volcanic origin that are little to are to as susceptible erosion; they less suited agriculture today, just they were areas in antiquity.64 Instead, these have traditionally been the foci of the production of andesite millstones.65 area Indeed, the topography and archaeology of the of Sphendouri, were where the rupestral horos of Athena (13) and horoi 14-18 found, were tend to confirm that temene marked by theAiginetan horoi agricul an area was tural estates.66These horoi define that suited to agriculture, and the archaeological remains nearby suggest premodern, and probably ancient, farming activities. In addition, the volcanic geology of southern in the Aigina where Sphendouri lies ensured that little change occurred in topographic and ecological conditions of that part of the island the last four or fivemillennia; thus, land that is cultivable today would have been cultivable when the Athenians took possession of Aigina. Horoi 15-18, near an area consists a mountain Sphendouri, define (see Fig. 2) that of on saddle with wide tiers of land stretching north to south, overshadowed a at the north and west by precipitous terraced slope (with 15 and 16 the on east with that top), flanked the by another terraced slope (marked 17) on a a descends into a ravine, and marked the south by peak with chapel at a Ioannis at its northern ofAyioi Anargyroi its top, and church ofAyios near and foot.67All around the church ofAyios Ioannis, which Furtwangler numerous Thiersch located horos 13, are extensive remains of rectangular enclosures built with local andesite stone. The area has been identified by Thiersch and Faraklas as an ancient settlement.68

and references to survive until the time. 63. See n. 57, above. p. 412) provide present Lohmann Rackham 68. The site ismarked on Thiersch's 64. Cf. Washington 1894-1895, (1992, p. 51), and foldout in vol. 2:8, pp. 793-801. andMoody (1992, p. 129), Wells, map Furtwangler 1906, no. 65. Runnels 1981, pp. 225-232. Runnels, and Zangger (1990, pp. 227 vol. 2; in Faraklas 1980, it is site 43 a surface investi as of theview that on the 66. Only general 228) proponents (marked map, p. 24, fig. 11). area terraces existed in Classi Faraklas an gation of the in thevicinity of agricultural (p. 58) reportedseeing earlier. Foxhall cient architecturalblocks built into the Ayios Ioannis of Sphendouri has been cal times and perhaps so to conduct a cautions that churchof Ioannis and conducted far. I hope (2007, pp. 61-68) against Ayios potsherds more the notion. and of the "Classical and Roman as thorough study of archaeo Isager Skydsgaard (1992, periods, remains in this area in the stress that our sources do well as other but not logical pp. 81-82) potsherds, perhaps not an ancient of the Archaic and Hellenistic future. provide unambiguous certain, terraces on Greek term that could It must be added that 67. On agricultural designate agri periods." prehis but the toric are also visible on the Methana, see Mee and Forbes 1997, cultural terraces, they uphold potsherds nn. an notion that such terraces were in use unmistakable pp. 27-28, 80, 81; they cite opin surface, including Myce were a care naean ion that the terraces are of Classi and built with and preci pieces. sion that allowed some of them to cal date (James, Mee, and Taylor 1994, FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 247

The architectural remains atAyios Ioannis should probably be grouped ca. m to on togetherwith those 150 the east, the eastward extension of the mountain saddle marked by horos 17.69These remains also include rectangu as as one one lar enclosures, well circular enclosure and figure-eight-shaped stone structure.There are also the very weathered remains of two circular threshing floors, outlined with upright stones. The presence of threshing floors indicates agricultural activity at the site, namely the growing and was processing of grain. A largewater cistern (probably ancient, although it m likely enlarged inmodern times)70 lies ca. 100 southwest of the enclosures near and threshing floors, the church ofAyios Ioannis. are are How old these remains? The enclosures and threshing floors certainly premodern, but their precise age is difficult to determine. Surface finds around the structures include fragments of flat red- and brown to glossed roof tiles and black-glaze pottery datable the Classical period. The tiles indicate that there were one or more roofed structures at the

site. It is possible that the physical remains of ancient habitation and at are agricultural activities the site (which generally difficult to date) should be associated with the surface finds of Classical pottery, but this cannot be validated without excavation. The least that can be concluded from the archaeological remains is that the sitewas deemed suitable for cultivation sometime in the premodern period. a seen Nevertheless, in landscape that has not much change since to prehistoric times, similar that of neighboring Methana, such signs of serve as premodern agricultural activity may reliable indicators of long term trends extending back for centuries and even millennia. The relative on shortage of cultivable land Aigina, where the greater portion of the a island is occupied by mountains of volcanic origin, must have exerted on powerful pressure its inhabitants already in antiquity.Many mountain in the and east are slopes west, south, of the island densely terraced today, a as a method that has been recognized since antiquity strategy formaximiz the amount of land for ing available cultivation.71Thus, the hypothesis of an temenos in area areas agricultural this is supported by the suitability for agriculture and the archaeological evidence for itsuse in premodern times. Moreover, the surface finds of tileswould be consistent with the presence a of farmstead there in the Classical period. a Evidence for second possible farmstead lies in a mountain saddle south of horos 18. The at southernmost of the horoi Sphendouri, 18 is located on the southwest side of the peak ofAyioi Anargyroi, near 15-17, 69. A dozen meters the couple up but out of sight. It looks down and south to a mountain saddle with similar west of 17. slope, more topography and similar?albeit impressive?architectural remains. 70.This cisternis built up with Like the area between 16 and 17, the southern of the of layers of worked stone on its northern slope peak Ayioi is terraced all the down from the side, in a manner similar to the con Anargyroi way point marked by 18. At struction of a lower cistern at the fes the bottom it turns into a mountain a saddle with series of strips of land on tival grounds of Zeus Hellanios divided low while the overall area is on east by walls, lined the and west by thenorthern side of theOros (cf. massive rubble walls made of field boulders. Goette 2001, p. 348). This area also seems to have been an ancient farmstead.At the southern 71. See n. 67, above. end of at 72. Thiersch records neither the the saddle, the foot of another hill, stands the modern church of ancient remains nor the church on his AyiaTriada (in the far distance in Fig. 7), built sometime in themiddle in 2. map Furtwangler 1906, vol. ofthe 20th century.72Two massive andesite blocks (ca. 1.5 x 0.7 x 0.65 m) 248 IRENE POLINSKAYA

use are showing signs of previous architectural built into thewestern wall on of the church and line the doorway either side.73The peribolos wall a of the church partially overlays larger circuit of walls, suggesting that the site had experienced several phases of construction and reuse, but it is on impossible to date thewalls the basis of visual inspection. The earlier walls that underlie themodern peribolos extend east beyond the perimeter a of the church and display dressed upright blocks, flat paving blocks, and a well-preserved section of double-sided wall. Numerous fragments of flat brown- and black-glossed roof tiles of are the Classical period scattered around the perimeter of the church. are a There also fragments of black-glaze pottery, including the base of to black-glaze skyphos datable the last quarter of the 5th century B.C.74 a one a Finally, fragments of large mortar, along with fragment of hopper mill, a type that first appears in the late 5th century B.C.,75 are found next to the church. There are water sources at the site: threewatering holes are located within 5-15 m of the church, at the foot of the hill. The roof tiles, as as the land and potsherds, and fragmentary hopper mill, well the lay of sources was site nearby ofwater, suggest thatAyia Triada probably the of an ancient farmstead in the Classical period, and possibly earlier and/or later aswell. The architectural remains are difficult to date, but theywould a be consistent with farm buildings of Classical date. at near the Thus, the archaeological remains Sphendouri, church of near of Ayios Ioannis, and south of Sphendouri, the church Ayia Triada, were at two in area in indicate that there probably least separate farms the the Classical period. It is very likely that the rupestral horoi demarcated one or to a the territory of both of them. Perhaps horoi 13-18 belonged one the full while the rest single estate, and only horos (13) carried text, estate. I that the simply marked the perimeter of the noted above rupes same as tral horos ofAthena (13) from Sphendouri bears the inscription to horoi 8-12, from other parts of the island, and therefore belongs the an area to serve as same subgroup; its location in suited cultivation may further corroboration of the thesis that all the known temene marked by were theAiginetan horoi agricultural. One last observation may be offered in support of the agricultural on the horoi. The wide interpretation of the word "temenos" Aiginetan on the that the variety of letter forms used horoi suggests inscriptions not at different times.76 were engraved by different hands, but necessarily

74. The base is in 75. For and illustrations of 73. The passageway created by the skyphos glazed parallels side and but is on the seeCurtis 282 massive blocks iswider than the present out, unglazed hoppermills, 2001, pp. and the between the bottom, for a brownish 20, 21 rubbers doorway, gap except ring 286, fig. pi. (hopper and the stone block the circumference: Th. of walls from modern doorjamb along Olynthos). to ca. Diam. 0.078 m. Cf. 76. Cf. Barron 4, who on the rightside of thedoor had be 0.006-0.008; (1983, pp. 9), no. 346 on the basis of filledwith bricks.This suggeststhat the AgoraXII.2, pi. 16, (P 17165, suggested, apparently of the massive blocks ca. 420 no. 347 23823,420 the of the inscrip position repre b.c), (P general appearance 400 no. 348 ca. 400 that3 and the first sents an architectural stage earlier than b.c), (P 24151, b.c). tions, (anonymous) were the construction of the modern church. The vessel isnot laterthan the end of two linesof 5 (Apollo/Poseidon) a on one the 5th the wall meets the same hand," and that the There is lengthwise groove century: straight "plainly by a on the base at a and no inward two horoi of 9 and 10, were of the blocks and large socket the sharp angle, Athena, an ear curve in the lower of the is also the same al other, features that may reflect part body "clearly by hand," serve no in as is of a different hand from the one lier use, since they function apparent, typical 4th-century though use. XII. for 3 and 5. the blocks' present structural skyphoi(see Agora 1, p. 85). responsible fifth-century horoi on aigina 249

As I noted earlier, the second half of the 5th century b.c. seems to have been characterized by the simultaneous use of variant letter forms inAthe on nian inscriptions.77 Thus, the variety of letter forms the Aiginetan horoi could reflect the personal preferences of several individuals involved in cutting the horoi and choosing from the repertoire of current forms.78 a were This could easily have happened if number of people simultane on ously charged with themarking of agricultural estates Aigina and given the responsibility of inscribing the horoi and setting them up in different parts of the island.

THE PURPOSE OF THE ATHENIAN TEMENE ON AIGINA

our Neither Thucydides, who is main source for relations between Athens nor and Aigina during the Pentakontaetia and the Peloponnesian War, any other ancient author provides explicit information on the Athenian temene on at establishment of Aigina any point in history. If the temene marked as agricultural estates, argued in the preceding section, then they must a were have been erected during historical moment when Aiginetans to resources or stripped of the right manage land in their territory, when or they willingly allowed Athenians to appropriate their land, permit use a ted the limited of their territory for special purpose. Each scenario implies that itwould have been the initiative of the Athenians to create and delineate the temene.79 The period between 457 and 404 b.c. was the of period direct Athenian involvement inAiginetan political affairs. Sometime after 457 after at sea b.c., being defeated and besieged by the was Athenians,80 Aigina forced to give up its fleet, demolish its fortifica and to the tions, agree payment of tribute in the future.81Aigina appears in the Athenian tribute in quota lists 454-449 b.c., then disappears for several years, reappearing in 444 to continue payments until 432, when a only partial payment was made.82 At what point between 457 and 404 b.c., the years of Athenian in were volvement inAigina, the temene established? Itwas between 431 and 404 to b.c, according Furtwangler, but between 455 and 445, according to

77. See 235 and n. above. the outbreak of the naval record. Here are for p. 18, hostilities, grounds suspecting 78. Cf. observations made and the of the that was by defeat, laying siege. Aigina disaffected and resisted Cf. Hornblower 222. Tsirigoti-Drakotou (2000, p. 107) 2004, p. the reimposition of tribute after the and 81. Thuc. 1.108.4: 8e Keesling (2005, pp. 408-414). (buoA-oynaav Peace of Kallias.The compromise of 79. So Koci ol xauxa the her Meiggs 1972, pp. 295-298; AiyivnTOu (lexa [after reincorporation in the alliance, but Barron 10. battles of as 1983, p. Smarczyk (1990, Tanagra, Oenophyta, and autonomous, appears to have been 77) arrives at the same conclusions the of the in p. finishing LongWalls] xoic, enshrined the Thirty Years' Peace of with to other locations where xe regard A0nvouoi<;, xeixn nepieXovxEq Kai 446 (Thuc. 1.67.2, cf. 1.139.1,1.140.3); temene of Attic were gods introduced. vatic, 7iapa56vxe<; (popov xe xacjdjievoi and that is reflected in her return to the denies xov e7teixa lists." Figueira (1991, pp. 115-120) xpovov. Barron therefore speculates that that the Athenian state took the initi a 82.ATL I, pp. 218-219; III, pp. 38, shortly after 446, temenos of Athena ative and credits individuals 303. As Barron have been on (return 57, (1983, p. 12) notes, may expanded Aigina, exiles and Ionians re "is the state to ing Aiginetan Aigina only of her district leading the addition of two new on with to as siding Aigina) establishing be recorded paying in449 and horoi (9 and 10) thatappear to Barron the temene. in absent 447 and 446; and in all dis to be slightlylater than 8,11, and 12. 80. a rare Thucydides (1.105.2) describes tricts together this is pattern of 250 IRENE POLINSKAYA

Barron.83 The dates proposed by Furtwangler and Barron imply alterna a tive scenarios: the former scenario envisions that portion of the overall was as volume of land appropriated in 431 dedicated temene; the latter presumes that Athenians conducted some isolated confiscations of land on Aigina, without any general confiscation, and dedicated these estates to the gods. Neither Thucydides (1.105.2) nor any other source reports any on to confiscation of land Aigina subsequent its defeat in 457.84 For the we period of theAthenian occupation ofAigina in 431-404 b.c., however, have definite evidence of land distributions toAthenians.85 To determine s or s more we whether Furtwangler Barron scenario is plausible, need to to furtherprobe theAthenian principles that guided land allotments the gods, especially in conjunction with land confiscations and general alloca tions of land.

The Athenian Practice of Allotting Temene in Conquered Territories

case to The only securely dated of land allotments the gods by Athenians outside ofAttica is the distribution of confiscated land on Lesbos in 427, to following the suppression of the revolt. In reference this event,Thucy dides (3.50) states:

The Athenians also demolished thewalls of theMytilenians, not and took possession of their ships. Afterward, they did a allotments impose tribute upon the Lesbians, but making 3,000 of land [kleroi], except in the land of theMethymnians, they as to to rest sent out their set aside 300 sacred the gods; the they a own cleruchs chosen by lot.With these, the Lesbians arranged payment of two minae per year for each allotment, and cultivated the land themselves.86

Another instance (of uncertain date)87 of the dedication of landed es a is tates (here actually called temene) byAthenians in conquered territory the Chalki described by Aelian (VH 6.1): "The Athenians overpowered deans and divided their land, the area called Hippobotos, into 2,000 lots, temene to Athena in the called Lelantos. The and they dedicated place to the stelae erected in front of remaining [land] they leased, according

vol. 86. mi MAm^nvcdcov KocGet are the demos that was 83. Furtwangler 1906, 1, p. 6; Tei%r\ presumably Se in the executions of the leaders Barron 1983, pp. 9-10. Xov mi vatic, rcapetaxpov. ticxepov spared o\)k of the rebellion:Gomme 84. Figueira (1991, p. 116) also 9opov jxev exacâv Aeopioic,, kA,t| (1956, notes this fact. po\><; 8e rcovnaavxec, xr\c,yr\c, nXy\v xfjc; pp. 327-328) envisionsAthenian as absentee Horn 85. Plut. Per. 34.2 (k^npoDxiaq Mr|0\)|iva{cov xpioxiAaorjc,, xpiaKoaiouc, cleruchs owners; sees themas a eypa(p8v. Aiyivrixac, yap ztfiXacaq |ievxoiq Geoiq iepotiqecjeTXov, erci Se blower (1991, p. 440) of resident Cart anavxaq, 5ieveiu? xr|v vfjaov AOnvoucov xotic, aXXovq acpcov atixcov k^npotixcnx; "garrison hoplites"; 12.44.2 allows fora xoic, Xa%ovo\v); Diod. Sic. xotiqXa%6vxaq animâv. oiq apytipiov wright (1997, p. 148) gar ektceu xoti eKaoxoi) rison thatderives its livelihoodfrom (ek 8e xcov noXw&v oiicrixopac, Aeapioi xacjajievoi kXt)po\) the rent of kleroi. \j/avxe<; KaxeicXripovxrioav xt)v xe Aiyi xoti eviauxoti 8tio uvac, (pepeiv atixol 87.ATL vav Kai xryv%copav); Strabo 8.6.16 eipydôvxoxf)v yfjv. The Lesbians with III, pp. 294-295, argues make an for446 the of [C 375-376] (KaxeKA,ripo\)xr|Gav xr|v whom the Athenians arrange b.c, during cleruchy Tolmides. vfjoov A6r|vaToi). ment about the cultivation of the land FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 251

the Royal Stoa, which bear thememoranda of the leases."88Thus, at both Mytilene and Chalkis, Athenians dedicated multiple temene to Athena were and other gods, which clearly agricultural estates. In each of these two episodes, theAthenian dedication of agricultural estates to a a the gods followed the defeat of state and large-scale appropria on were tion of land which agricultural estates simultaneously established a formortals and gods. In both cases, the gods received portion (on Lesbos, a tenth)89 of the total number of estates created. There is further evidence to suggest that the dedication of agricultural temene to the gods was for Athenians a in resources typical step the allocation of land in conquered territories.A lease record fromAthens, dated ca. 430-410 B.C., refers to the temene on at was leasing of Euboia, Chalkis and Eretria.90This most likely a a record of public lease of the sacred properties rented toAthenians, pre sumably cleruchs, on Euboia.91 The maintenance of these records, at least in was the 4 th century, in the purview of theArchon Basileus.92 Another lease to record fromAthens, dated 387/6, indisputably sets up provisions for the to on leasing cleruchs of the land allotted to the gods the island of Lemnos.93 both Thus, textual and epigraphic evidence suggests that the practice of al estates to went lotting agricultural the gods hand in hand with the general a distribution of appropriated land in conquered territory,and that itwas a standard Athenian practice during the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.94 common use The most of agricultural temene was to lease them, and to the rental income deposit in the treasuries of the respective deities. The monies could to then be used finance religious festivals in their honor. Various were deities besides Athena allotted agricultural estates outside

88. AOnvaioi Xoctaa the on KpaTnaavt?<; about inscribing of the leases boards are the same as the stelae men 5ecov avtcov stelae should be considered or KaT?k^r|po'6xr|Gav tt|v yr)v alongside tionedby Aelian, theyhad different n. kq SicxiXio'oc, kXtipodc;, rhy 'ItctcoPotov Arista. Pol. 47.4 (see 92, below). purposes, or both were used for the 8e 89. and at KaXo\)|Li?vt|v %copav, i?U?vr| dvfjKav Isager Skydsgaard 1992, inscribing of leases, but different ev xco xf[AGnva Ar\kavxw ovouaôuivcp pp. 173-174: "It seems that the share times. xoTcco, 8e Koctd connected with the was often 93. thy touchy qjiaOcoaav gods Four fragments of the lease axoa and that in fact were to were found on the Athenian xdc,GTf\Xaq xdc, npbq xfjfiaaikem one-tenth, they Acropolis ?axr|Kmac,, ai7i?p ouv id xcov have a tenth of one's be itwar or and one in jiia6cba?cov profit, the Agora; the archon's \)7cojj,vt|jLiata dôv. Horster (2004, peace." SeeATL III, p. 337, for the name is fullypreserved in line 1. See inmind the well-known formula of p. 71), perhaps keeping confiscation: AgoraXIX, p. 172,L3 (fivefrag dedication of as a temenos Lekythos by "He shall be disfranchised and his ments: [a] EM 6916, [b]EM 6904, Brasidas thinks of shall state (Thuc. 4.113, 4.116), money become property and [c] EM 6905, [d] EM 12964, [e]Agora Lelantos as a walled which was as the a city, Goddess shall take tenth" ('Axiuoq I 5588). The semantic distinction be a whole dedicated toAthena. Aelians eaxco mi id amou Snuooia tween xpôcxoc apoikia and cleruchy in reference temene text, however, speaks of (in eaxco kou xfjc,6eou xo emSeKaxov). to Athenian settlements abroad had the situated in the called 90. L2 plural) "place AgoraXIX, p. 171, (two frag mostly disappeared in the 4th century Lelantos." These temene therefore have ments: [a] EM 6752, fromthe western (Figueira 1991, pp. 45-48). to be understood as estates. agricultural slope of theAcropolis, and [b]Agora 94. Schiller (1996, pp. 144-147) A horos that have marked one of may I 4068). argues that confiscated land in cleru those temene of Athena survives: IG I3 91.Whether these temene are iden chies became part ofAthenian public 1502 IGXLl I to (= 9.934), [Tjeuevoc, tical thosementioned byAelian (see domain, to be divided and distributed dated a. 446?" n. is to [AjBnyavnc, "post Prope 88, above) impossible ascertain. to cleruchs, or that itwas leased to the vicum Aovicoq in IJsi. Tabula vel 92. Cf. Aikt.Atf). Pol. which with the to regione 47.4, locals, proceeds going the oros marmoris albi, states that leases of sacred estates were or quae tegebatputeum, Athenian public treasury treasuries nunc autem in ima recorded on whitened boards of the parteputei inaedificata (ypauurjc Athenian gods. non iam Aelians detail xeia videripotest. êê-DKcojieva). Perhaps whitened 252 IRENE POLINSKAYA

Attica and derived income from them.95 In addition to financing the cults, serve as treasuries of the gods could banks, accumulating surpluses of cash that the state could utilize in the form of loans. In the second half of the 5th century B.C.,Athenians used the treasuries of numerous deities in this way, often financing whole military campaigns from such funds.96 to temene on What exactly happened with respect theAthenian Aigina is not clear.Were the temene products of isolated targeted confiscations, or were a they the result of single large-scale land confiscation, whereby were to some to some estates dedicated the gods and distributed individual can temene Athenians? The same questions be asked about theAthenian on Samos, Kos, and Euboia (Chalkis), where the only pieces of evidence forAthenian land confiscations are the horoi ofAthena theRuler ofAthe

nians, and the horoi of Ion and the Eponymous Heroes.97 These horoi, for on a the same reasons as those Aigina, allow broad range of dates,98 and to together they show remarkable similarities the Aiginetan horoi, both with regard to individual letter forms and the range of variants.99 In addi too were to several tion, they inscribed by several individuals, dedicated to not deities, and most certainly used mark agricultural estates, cultic pre on cincts.100The similarities between theAthenian horoi Aigina, Samos, not Kos, and Euboia raise the possibility that similar,while necessarily identical, circumstances prompted their installation.101

on a revolt on 95. Cf. Thuc. 3.50 (the Athenians sions. Also Samos, horos of Ion after the suppression of the temene at is dedicate Mytilene toTc. (IG P 1496) with three-barredsigma Samos). as as to 450-440 while the horoi 101. In Barrons reconstruction 0?oTcJ, well epigraphic records dated b.c., neither thehoroi from of loans of money from the treasuries of theEponymous Heroes, IG I31497 (1964,1983), nor those from and of oi txXkox9eoi: in the430s and 420s, and 1498, with three-barred sigma, and Aigina Samos, Kos, borrowed 1499 forms are dated Euboia are connected to the establish Athenians regularly money (letter uncertain) ca. b.c The horos Athenas ment of Athenian settlements in these (at great interest) from the treasuries 439-425 in to Athenon medeouses from IG I3 but Barron thinks of them as of various gods inAthens order Kos, locations, wars ML dated with four-barred and horoi of cultic not finance their (e.g., 72, 1491, sigma precincts, agricul no to 426/5 and 423/2 b.c). rounded untailed rho, is dated ca. 425 tural estates. We have evidence that ever sent to 96. See n. 95, above, and^/TL III, 405 b.c; for the Samian group as a Athenians settlers Samos, with nor that Samos ever but pp. 326-345; Samons 2000, pp. 28-83. whole,Meiggs (1972, p. 298) sides paid tribute, similar 97. IGF 1491-1499,1502. Barron (1964) in favor of 454-440 b.c, they may have done something n. to did on Lesbos: con 98. For thedating of theAiginetan and Samons (2000, p. 45, 79) argues there what they a 445. a much smaller scale than horoi, see pp. 235-238,242-243, above. for date before fiscating (on Three Samian horoi of Athena?IG I3 99. Individual horoi show consis on Lesbos) and dividing the land, and use of letter forms in effect thedivided land back to 1492,1493,1493bis?(with three tency in the specific giving tailed are dated for and but nu and the Samians to use, while at the same barred sigma and rho) sigma rho, epsilon a of forms even time income from rent for in IG I3 to 450-440(?) b.c, and two show great variety deriving a P 1496 themselves and for Athenian others?1494,1495 (with four-barred within single text:e.g., IG gods (see untailed 439 and 1497 each use threedifferent also n. 86, above). The Athenian horoi sigma and rho)?to b.c. are of and IG P inwhich would then derive from such 405 Different dates proposed forms nu, 1498, agricul uses tural temene there. Cf. for the fivehoroi in spiteof thefact nu appears five times, four differ Meiggs 1972, texts. The iden ent forms. also in dif 295,298. the monies listed that they bear identical Epsilon appears pp. Perhaps on same in the treasuries of Athena for the 420s tical layout in four lineson IG I31492 ferent forms the inscriptions 410s as "from the Samians" and 1493, and a differentlayout in five (IGV 1493^,1497). and being to linesfor horoi IG I3 1494 and 1495, as 100. Hornblower and Greenstock (ATL III, p. 334) are be associated a in on Hornblower 183: with the income derived from the leas well as third layout three lines 1984, p. 145; 1992, p. hands temene are of temene of the Athenian on 1493bis, suggest that different "expropriated property" ing gods were that be leased out to individ Samos. were at work, not that they made "might at different times or on different occa ual Athenians" (after 440 b.c, i.e., FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 253

The Athenian Rationale for Allotting Temene in Conquered Territories

answer were To the question ofwhether the temene on Aigina linked to or a isolated seizures of land were the result of single large-scale confisca on to tion the island, it is necessary consider the principles that guided temene on the Athenian establishment of foreign soil. In this section, I a temene as an not a argue that dedication of isolated act accompanied by on general confiscation of land Aigina would have contradicted the typical to Athenian rationale for allotting agricultural estates the gods in conquered com territories.Athenian dedications of temene in foreign territorieshave seen as a or as or as monly been form of punishment, political sanctions, acts of interference in local affairs intended to serve as constant reminders over of Athenian domination the local population.102 But the scholarly on focus the effectswrought by the establishment of temene upon local to communities has drawn attention away from theAthenian gods whom temene were were the dedicated. I contend that the gods the primary target on of theAthenians' actions, and that the effect the subjugated local popu lations was incidental. The dedication of temene in territories 102. See Barron 1964;Meiggs 1972, conquered was first and foremost an ofAthenians' pp. 291-305. expression religious consciousness: 103.On the see a self-interested aimed at generalprinciple, action keeping theAthenians in good standing Burkert 1985, 66-75; Rudhardt same were pp. with the gods that credited with insuring their success. 1992, pp. 198,219-222,224-230; It was a axiom general of ancient Greek religious thinking that any Isager and 1992, p. 170, Skydsgaard form of had to be attributed to the and that the fruits of with reference to Xen. prosperity gods, Symp. 4.49, had to be shared with the the divine where Hermogenes succinctly formu prosperity consequently gods; portion often or as lates the principleof religiousduty to took the form of aparche dekate.m The role ofAthens the leader the with to of theDelian gods regard profitacquired League and later of theAthenian alliance meant that the city from any human activity: "I a always enjoyed steady profit from the overseas territories under its control. This restore to them of part what they give profit accrued toAthens in two main forms, cash and land, and itwas the me" (cbv xe 8i56cxaiv del av rcapexoum). Athenians' to share their with the as a of Regarding the aparche and dekate, religious duty profits gods way their vital role in human success. Isager and Skydsgaard (1992, p. 170) acknowledging stress was or "that it part of, at least It appears that the form of the profit determined how Athenians shared part of, it represented something greater; with the gods. When profit reached Athens in the form of monetary was and that this part offered so as to tribute,Athenians dedicated a the (= 1/60 of the show at portion, aparche phoros), one's gratitude received having to Athena Polias and it in the when ac the whole. . . . it often deposited city's treasury; Therefore, hap profit crued toAthens in the form of real Athenians a of pens that dekate (a tenth') is used syn property, gave portion with See also the land to the as temene. The two onymously aparche!' appropriated gods models of fulfilling Horster 2004, p. 71. have not religious obligations may been alternatives, if mutually exclusive.104 104.This is illustratedby the case of Athenian allies and Athenian apoikists, both ofwhom tilled their own land Lesbos in 427 b.c. (Thuc. 3.50), where and hence controlled its were to the the confiscation of land and the allot produce, obliged acknowledge gods by ment of temene to an the in the form of Both allies and also the gods is alter sharing produce aparche. apoikists native to the of had the of a cow and a toAthena imposition tribute. responsibility sending panoply Polias and 105.These a to religiousobligations may phallus theDionysia (cf. theDecree of Brea, ML 49), aswell as, in the not on have been imposed the allies case of first to allies, fruits the Eleusinian goddesses (ML 73).105 until themiddle of the 5th b.c century When land was to as dedicated the gods temene, a different line of (ML 40, Regulations forErythrai). In was The to share a with the the420s (ML 73), firstfruits donated reasoning applied. obligation profit gods was, to in the case of fulfilled the allocation of the source the Eleusinian goddesses consisted appropriated land, by of 1/600 of thebarley harvest and of income?namely, the land?rather than of the income itself,whether 1/1200 of the wheat harvest. or cash. The overall was agricultural produce bulk of appropriated land 254 IRENE POLINSKAYA

divided between gods and people, and henceforward, the profits of mor tals' land belonged to themortals, and the profits of temene belonged to as the gods. Viewed the fulfillment of religious obligations by Athenians as a rather than sanction against the subjected locals, the dedication of can seen as a temene thus be way of sharing state profits with the gods. were Whether Athenians dealing with land acquired through conquest or and appropriation, with land confiscated from private individuals, their was typical procedure to divide and share the profit between the people and an in a the gods.106Thus, isolated confiscation of agricultural land foreign not territory for the purpose of dedicating the entire parcel?and simply a not seem portion?to the gods does square well with the principles that reason to have governed Athenian practice.107We therefore have another to doubt the scenario advocated by Barron and Figueira, which dates the on to ca. b.c. Athenian temene Aigina 457 and hence presupposes that the dedication of temene (undertaken in two stages, according to Barron) was a not accompanied by general confiscation of land.

The Date of the Athenian Temene on Aigina

A close analysis of the evidence forAthenian-Aiginetan relations in the b.c. our the dedica period between 457 and 404 confirms contention that tion of temene would have taken place after the appropriation of thewhole island and the arrival of Athenian settlers.Thucydides (2.27) states that was in the Aigina occupied by theAthenians 431.108The exile of Aiginetans at that time enacted one of the fourmeasures thatAthenians usually took a of against defeated enemy. The other measures?the demolition city walls and the confiscation of the fleet, and the imposition of the terms of assessment to the alliance (including the of tribute)?had been applied in after a successful Aigina after its earlier defeat, 457. As observed above, either in the conquest, Athenians shared the profitswith their patron gods or in of landed estates.We know form of aparche from tribute the form was a state in and in 444-432.109 As a thatAigina tributary 454-449 again to for the festivals 106. Horster 2004, pp. 70-91. nominal ally, itmay have had contribute the regular gifts 107. Such confiscation should be ofAthena, Dionysos, and the Eleusinian deities.110 from the acqui The that concerns us here iswhether the temene were estab distinguished private question sitionof land (throughgift or purchase) lished at this time or later. Itwould that from theAthenian dedication as a appear point and its subsequent the fromwhich was temenos to of view, the payment of tribute by Aiginetans, aparche (e.g., Xenophon Artemis, of to the Athenian An. or an ex voto dedication taken, along with their presumed contribution gifts 5.3.4-13), Brasidas s dedication of Lekythos, deities, would have been a sufficient fulfillment of theAthenians' religious (cf. Thuc. 4.113 and from their control of The situation must have 4.116). obligations deriving Aigina. 108. We have no detailed informa in 431. No a state, was changed dramatically longer tribute-paying Aigina tion about the removal of the Aigi relation now an Athenian territorial holding. As the social and political netans from the island and their arrival at this so the at the area that the ship between Athens and Aigina cardinally changed point, Thyrea, asylum to for the exiles;nor do formula ofAthenian religious duties had change. Spartans provided we theirlife in exile on took knowmuch about Our task of demonstrating that land distributions Aigina place (see Figueira 1993, pp. 293-310). in a fashion after 431 would be made easier ifwe had clear customary 109. See n. 82, above. at became either a or an evidence that this time Aigina cleruchy apoikia, 110. See n. 105, above. overseas All the octcoi two common types ofAthenian settlements.111 evidence, 111. Cf. IG F 237.8-9: tcxI]c Athenian settlement on Kiac Kai KA,epo%ia[ig. on the contrary, points to the fact that the Aigina FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 255

was a case. some during the Peloponnesian War special In other cases, a came where the territory of whole island under Athenian control?for was example, Lesbos in 427?not all of the population removed. Aigina was was different in that both the entire population of the island removed an and the whole territorybecame Athenian possession.112 That Aigina was a case can special be gleaned from the fact thatThucydides carefully terms to avoided the klerouchoi and apoikoi in reference Athenian settlers on term Aigina. Instead he called them epoikoi and oiketores.The latter is neutral, and the former must be deliberate, as a scholion toThuc. 2.27.1 are sent to in while explains: "apoikoi those settle uninhabited places, epoikoi are a those sent to settle in poleis that already exist."113Since "colony might or be sent to the land either partially wholly dispossessed,"114 and in 431 was new were Aigina wholly dispossessed, the settlers by this definition were sent to a apoikists, but since they place that had been previously a were inhabited by political community, they, according to the scholion, properly called by Thucydides epoikoi. not in it an If name, might appear thatAigina would have been apoi was a a kia in essence, for it definitely not klerouchia: cleruchy "always implied the continued existence of the original city-state towhose terri was no on tory it sent,"115but political community remained Aigina when Athenian settlers arrived there. Besides using the neutral term oiketores, as as correct term well the technically epoikoi,Thucydides also called the Athenian settlers simply "Aiginetans" (5.74.3). This appellation, when to on used with reference themilitary duties ofAthenian settlers Aigina, as could be taken further evidence of the apoikist status of the residents, were as since cleruchs usually listed "Athenians,"116 but the description to sense is likely have been applied in the of residency, not in terms of status. use name was The of the geographic appropriate, since Athenians were at presumably the sole inhabitants of the island the time, although a on the population may have included few metics, either resident Aigina to or before the occupation and allowed remain, brought along by theAthe nians. In was to either case, however, Thucydides prompted distinguish

112. was render as Skyros another island that could the last phrase "places merely thepoint of view fromwhich was of its Dolo that have been inhabited." the writer stripped population (of previously envisaged the process of pian pirates) and settled(oiki^co is the The impliedcontinuity is thatof place colonization: either from the mother verb used 1.98.2 and Plut. of not or to new byThuc. habitation, of community. There city the location.... Al Cim. Athenians. As anAthenian is no to the to 8) by reason, therefore, interpret epoi though Athenian apoikos (e.g., it never but its koi as "additional and an settlement, paid tribute, settlers," certainly Amphipolis) remained Athenian by status as of the Athenian not as as there was no ius political part "subsequent reinforcements," blood, sanguinis which domain was not clarified him an (to dpxouov) Figueira (1991, pp. 7-39) argues.The kept politically Athenian, and until the Peace of Antalkidas latter in some no (Xen. meaning may apply only indeedhe had Athenian political Hell. the and as an additional to on 5.1.31). Thus, political specific cases, shade rights. The Athenian klerouchos, the of the the otherwise of other at was an ideological implications depopu ever-present meaning hand (e.g., Lesbos), lation and of "a new in a subsequent occupation settler previously inhab Athenian by blood, but he kept enroll and are not Aigina Skyros comparable. ited place." ment inhis deme and had political Cf. alsoATL III, p. 286. 114.ATL III, p. 289.ATL III, rightsand duties like thoseof Athe 113. cbtoiKoi oi 285: "We take it as certain that nians jnev epfijiouc; tokovc, p. apoi who lived inAthens." VOl E7C01K01 01 are 7C?JLLTc6jLl OlKTjGCU, 5e koi and epoikoi the same,differing 115.^7X111, p. 289. vtiv. The use in as our noXeiq, cooTtep of ol noXeiq only meaning do words emi 116. See Amitl973,p. 53. here is not social: we and and clearly spatial, grant' 'immigrant,' reflecting 256 IRENE POLINSKAYA

the traditional Aiginetans from the Athenian occupants of Aigina by as referring to the latter "Aiginetans who held Aigina at that time [tote, i.e., during the Peloponnesian War]" (7.57.2). on In most senses, then, the Athenian presence Aigina during the can as an Peloponnesian War be understood apoikia, and yet it appears that was not a one. on were it typical How theAthenian settlers Aigina socially a new com organized is unclear, but apparently they did not form political munity distinct fromAthens. The expression used byThucydides (5.74.2) is telling: in the battle ofMantinea, in 418 B.C., the casualties ofAthenians on are and Athenian residents Aigina listed together (kocIA0t]vaicov J;\)v AiyivriTcag Siockocuoi Kai oi OTparnyoi auxpoTepoi), emphasizing that al one though geographically distinct, they belong to civic group. Residents as of Aigina such Ariston, the father of Plato, and the comic playwright were not Aristophanes from theAthenian upper classes and apparently did trade in theirAthenian franchise for apoikist status.117Thus, in political to an terms,Aigina appears have been extension ofAttica.118 as Territorially well, itwould appear fromThucydides 5.56 thatAigina was considered part of the Athenian territorial domain. For example, in an 419, the Argives complained that theAthenians allowed enemy fleet was a an ar to pass by their territory,that is,Aigina, which violation of a ticle of previous agreement (the Athens-Argos-Elis-Mantinea alliance, to seems Thuc. 5.47.5).119 Indeed, the islands physical proximity Athens a status to have virtually precluded typical apoikic territorial forAigina.120 on status Both Figueira and Amit, although differing the of Athenians on a Aigina, agree that in practical political and territorial sense, Aigina an corner was essentially extension of Attica.121 The northeastern of Ai to was for gina, being the closest Attica, perhaps of particular importance communication between the two coasts, and may have been an attractive settlement area for theAthenians who, no doubt, would have been inter ested in close interactionswith Attica. For example, Aristophanes (inWasps a to a session at 121-124, staged in 422) regards trip Aigina for healing

117. For testimonia and discussion, tion between the two states that pre Finley 1978, p. 120). Some apoikiai War. on and seeFigueira 1991, pp. 57-62 (Ariston), ceded the Peloponnesian The (e.g., Euboia, Skyros, Melos) came to with were not as far from Attica as 79-93 (Aristophanes),and 94-101 Athenians surely Aigina away own others those on but also (other colonists). their institutions, social principles, (e.g., Sicily), cannot administrative In this not in the same immediate as 118.1 agree with Figueira and procedures. vicinity to (1991, pp. 32-33) when he interprets sense, itwas a case of the Athenian Aigina. The proximityof Aigina a the fact that alli the existence of sanctuary inventories, politypowerfully extending itselfinto Athens, plus political the island ances in the area of the Saronic Gulf (e.g.,IG IV2 787) as a sign that the neighboringgeographic area, over and not of Athenian settlers were established and Athenians took the existing cults of Aigina, long clearly was not as a to and embrace the meant that a and that "Aigina destroyed coming adopt defined, typical colony frameworkof their would have no on polis somuch as that theAiginetans preexistingpolitical purpose Aigina. were within a con rival. 121. 67: is themselves replaced long-term Figueira 1991, p. "Aegina 399-400. so close toAthens it tinuingpolity." The Aiginetan polity 119. Cf. Schiller 1996, pp. [that is] effectively sent in the nearer sea than in the could continueonly ifthe Athenian 120.Athenians apoikiai by many places b.c to far interiorof Amit 53: settlers chose to preserve the traditional 5th century predominantly Attica"; 1973, p. social North "The Athenian settlers in were Aiginetan structure, including away places (the Aegean islands, Aegina the Chersonesos so near Attica for so as Athens their forms of government and admin peninsula, Thrace, that, long an retained control of the were istration. We have no evidence that Sicily) in order to establish Athenian sea, they areas at and were not in theydid so, and it ishard to imagine foothold in of strategic impor practically home, any the decades or to secure trade routes for serious that they could, considering tance, danger." and confronta and timber of ideological political grain, metals, (see, e.g., FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 257

as a theAsklepieion short overnight affair.A probable resident ofAigina himself, the playwright would have traveled toAthens at frequent intervals to attend to social and theatrical affairs.The northeastern corner of the

island, especially the coastal area, contained, at least at the beginning of the numerous 20th century, remains of ancient structures, including towers.122 Some of these structures, and in particular the towers,would have been of use to great Athenian settlers concerned with the security and control of even the coastline, and may have been built by them, but could alternatively to or date theHellenistic Roman periods. as a Considering that Aigina would scarcely be attractive cleruchy nor given its limited agricultural resources,123 would itbe an obvious candi an to a date for apoikia given its proximity Attica, certain reluctance may have been present in the Athenian decision to possess Aigina. In fact, although the exile of theAiginetan population was carried out immedi at ately the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, the decision to resettle to as a concerns Aigina had be further justified security issue.The military were so that no to strong Athenians had other option but repopulate the island.124

All the attributes of Aigina made its political and territorial status as an Athenian a case. as holding special Be that itmay, the repopulation an of Aigina meant that island-wide allocation of real property had to take place with the arrival ofAthenian settlers, as all textual sources after indicate their Thucydides by choice of cleruchic terminology125 Specific historical from examples Lesbos and Euboia confirm that the "sharing" of state was profitswith the gods the principle that guided the allotment ofAthenian temene to the in gods conquered territories.Whatever hap on before pened Aigina 431, the principle of sharing certainly had to be applied afterAigina fell into the hands of theAthenians in that year. At that Athenians would to point, have been compelled acknowledge the role of the gods in their acquisition ofAigina and to share with them the profits of the newly acquired property; hence temene had to be allocated to the gods in conjunction with the general allocation of estates to the Athenian settlers.

122. Thiersch's visible at map (in Furtwangler another, barely now, Cape vol. shows three now east 1906, 2) towers, Pyrgos, of the bay of Klima. The at the northeastern of latter is in a gone, extremity strategically important the island the coast: near location in the along Rapana, south: perfect for observ and These coastal the marine to Nisida, Pyrgaki. ing approaches Attica towers have been used the from the may by Peloponnese and the Aegean, island residents at various points in and perhaps capable of controllingthe to observe and control traffic at history anchorage the bay of Klima. in a the 123. was not strategically important place: It agriculture that straits of the Saronic Gulf between made an independent Aigina power coast Aigina and the of Attica. Besides ful, but rather the island's extensive the towers in this area, Thiersch indi overseas trade and commerce. cates dense population clusters, walls, 124. See n. 9, above. As stated ear and perhaps quarries (markedwith lier (n. 113), however, there is no need He also indicates two to crosshatching). understand theAiginetan epoikoi more towers on Aigina: one, still as "reinforcements" or to look for a in the center of the island at standing, preceding contingent that would have Bourdechti of (perhaps Archaic date; greeted the arrivals of 431 b.c. see Goette 2001, pp. 340-341); and 125. See n. 85, above. 258 IRENE POLINSKAYA

Divine Owners of the Athenian Temene on Aigina

temene on The identity of the deities towhom Athenians dedicated Ai as a as gina is much matter of debate the date of their establishment. The on preceding analysis has shown that the temene dedicated by Athenians were Aigina agricultural. I have also argued that the dedication of agri was a cultural temene typical Athenian practice in conquered territories a or and was associated with general mass confiscation of land; thus, it same on is reasonable to infer that the process occurred Aigina after its owners occupation in 431. In accordance with this pattern, the of the on Athenian temene Aigina must have been Athenian deities. Some have or a suggested, however, thatAiginetan deities, combination ofAiginetan were owners and foreign deities, the of the temene, and these opinions comment. require

Athena

no temene on were There is virtually doubt that the of Athena Aigina to those of Athena Polias, who probably always had be included among the divine beneficiaries ofAthenian acquisitions of real property abroad. an was owner temene The opinion that Aiginetan Athena the of the is based on the absence from the Aiginetan horoi of the epithet A0nvcuv on |ie880\)on(;,which is present, for example, the Samian horoi.126 Perhaps on on the key difference between the situation Aigina and those Samos, was Kos, and Chalkis is that after 431, Aigina emptied of its local popula tion, and for the Athenian settlers to use the epithet A6nvcov laeSeouonc, we in their own territorywould have been superfluous.127 In addition, may on note that the evidence for the existence of a local cult ofAthena Aigina (IGIV2 755 and Hdt. 3.59.3-4) is inconclusive.128What ismore important, however, is that theAthenians' need to acknowledge their own Athena and temene to been unrelated to to allocate agricultural her would have entirely on the presence or absence of a local cult ofAthena Aigina. However the Athenians may have chosen to treat local cults, they still owed traditional own homage to their gods.

to 126. Welter 1954, col. 35: "Das tion of L. Curtius need not indicate the it seemed suspect already Furtwang a of Athena: the ler vol. who Fehlen der naheren Bestimmung A0r| presence of sanctuary (1906, 1, p. 6), accepted have been made in the a ofKurz that theword vcov jaeSeoiacrnc, auf den aiginetischen dedication could hypothesis zum Athenaias in Herodotos was a scribal Grenzsteinen bedeutet, dass sie sanctuary of another deity. SEG XLII 253 the as a dedi emendation of an unfamiliar Besitz der lokalen Athena gehoren." describes inscription Aphaias. as is for This isworth Smarczyk (1990, p. 125) holds the cation, it normal perirrhanteria hypothesis considering, same to be dedicated. References to the as thededication of of to opinion. prows ships once were same Welter who her other func 127. Also, the Aiginetans inscription: 1949, p. 151; Aphaia, among there would have been no Thiersch n.d. n. tions was the of sailors, would expelled, (see 27, above), p. 182, patroness for The n. Schafer n. 9. The tes make sense. the evidence need propaganda. epithet 3; 1992, p. 30, good Among a force in the of Herodotos ektco for the marine role of are IxeSeoDCia has peculiar timony (3.59.3-4: Aphaia models of T contextof these inscriptions,implying 8e exe'i Aiywrixai amove, vauuaxvn. ships:Aphaia 19-25, discussion of that while Athenians rule Samians, viKtiaavcec, rivSparcoSiaavxo fiexa T 140, andT 328. Further vecov to the Koans, and Chalkideans, Athena in Kprjxcbv, Kai xcov Ka7tpio\)(; exou the evidencepertaining possible on is to be found turn rules Athenians. aetov xdg rcpeppac, fjKpcoxripiaaav Kai cult ofAthena Aigina stone xo ev in on cults 128. An inscribed perirrhante dveBeoav ec, ipov xfjc,AGnvavnc, my monograph Aiginetan = to in rion reportedby Welter (1954, col. 35 Aiyivn) is the only textual reference (now preparation). a on and IG IV2 755) from the oral communica sanctuary of Athena Aigina, fifth-century horoi on aigina 259

Apollo/Poseidon

on The identities ofApollo and Poseidon theAiginetan horoi 4-7 pose on a complicated question, which perhaps cannot be fully answered the basis of the available evidence.129 The sequence of divine names in the text as not is probably to be understood asyndeton, but its purpose is im a mediately clear.130We may look for pairing of the two deities among or or theAthenian, the Panhellenic and Panionian, theAiginetan cults, but it is nowhere attested in Archaic or Classical times.131To be sure, were on Poseidon and Apollo worshipped both Aigina and at Athens, a but in separate cults.Welter's suggestion of joint Apollo-Poseidon cult on no names Aigina has evidentiary support beyond the pairing of their on these horoi.132 a Figueira suggested hybrid joint cult of theAiginetan Apollo (wor at shipped Kolonna) and Poseidon of Sounion.133 This scenario, which a a as requires non-Athenian initiative134 and date before 431 b.c., well as an to unparalleled wedding of cults from two different locations, has a more be ruled out. Smarczyk envisioned nuanced scenario whereby the b.c. over Athenian settlers coming to Aigina in 431 took the mainte nance own of the local Aiginetan cults while introducing their customs new to of worship and dedicating temene, perhaps agricultural, these

to for a and cult of evidence for such an associa 129.When referring theAigi sanctuary Apollo positive netan there. It testifies to the fact n. horoi that mention Apollo and simply tion.Smarczyk (1990, p. 128, 216) as were Poseidon, I have rendered the deities' that, is expected, many deities and Felten (2001, p. 128) are too names as in of in English Apollo/Poseidon worshipped the deme Soumon hasty in accepting Welter's hypothesis, because the exact nature of the relation (see Goette 2000, pp. 51-55,106-108). aswell as ingiving theweight of between the two names and deities evidence to ship To my knowledge,only in Spartamay material mythological in the context of these horoi is not Karneios Oiketes (=Apollo) and Po accounts. clear. Most scholars assume that we seidon (Domatites) have been related, 133. Figueira (1991, p. 118) postu should restore a as seem to a a conjunction "and" they have shared heredi lates specialgroup ofAiginetans who = between the deities' names, and this is tarypriestess (IG V [1] 497 CIG could be behind a hybridAthenian/ most at same the likelypossibility; the 1446), but the evidence is ofRoman Aiginetan Apollo-Poseidon cult: the two in date. It is that of damos time,the coupling of the cult noteworthy, however, representatives the Aiginetan on is not and we the other instance of the Aigina attested, only cultic who fledfrom Aigina in the early5th should not close the door on other Domatites is from were epithet Aigina, and century (ca. 490-480 b.c.) and inter it is to in possibilitiesby indiscriminately attributed Apollo, also titled given refuge Athens, somewhere an "and." Oikistes Pind. Nem. near polating (schol. 5.44). Sounion (Hdt. 6.90). Presumably, 130. Other of such I these data further in could have come to examples asyn investigate they back Aigina deta include altar in on C the Sanctuary of my monograph Aiginetan cults after 457 and become the founders of a the Twelve Gods on inscribed new temenos of the Delos, (in preparation). Aiginetan Apollo A0HNAI AIOI HPAI (IDelos 2471) and 132.Welter (1954, cols. 40-43) and the Sounian Poseidon. dated to the 3rd B.C. But a early century hypothesized 5th-century joint cult 134. Figueira (1991, p. 119), stress the triad of and of and Poseidon on the Kolonna some family Zeus, Hera, Apollo ing the Ionic featuresof Apollo/ Athena is unlike hill on thebasis of readily understood, thehoroi. At the Poseidon horoi and the "variety of the of and Poseidon. same he on and in coupling Apollo time, postulated, relying lettering layout," postulates, An Poseidon Artemis accounts addition to Apollo (as, e.g., mythological (Paus. 2.33.2, returning Aiginetan exiles, or Hekate, Zeus Asklepios, Artemis 10.5.6), that Poseidon's cult at Kolonna the initiative of Ionian residents on is also was older than and he asso Iphigenia) theoreticallypossible, Apollo's, Aigina, "individuals rather than the but ciated an structure with Athenian or unprecedented. apsidal deposits Aiginetan states." While 131. In the inscribed votive of and some Ionian residents on Attica, Protogeometric skyphoi ampho Aigina may base or column of L ras in the immediate of the have been hired to carve Apollo (SEG 208) vicinity the inscrip of unknown date in the citadel at Sou Classical templewith the earlycult of tions, the commission had to be nion in (discussed Goette 2000, p. 52, Poseidon (see alsoWelter 1925, p. 319; Athenian (see n. 23, above). n. 308) does not constitute evidence 1938, p. 52; 1949, p. 151).There isno 260 IRENE POLINSKAYA

are no gods.135 But there parallels to support the proposition thatAthenians or over either enthusiastically embraced endeavored to take the ritual activ a ityof the local cults in conquered territory. as owners Concerning the notion ofAthenian gods of theAiginetan temene marked by the Athenian horoi, Barron's suggestion that Apollo was Delios, the patron of theDelian League, is plausible, because his cult continued to be important forAthenians even after the treasury of the was to new Delian League moved Athens, and Athena became the patron ess of the League.136 The other candidate proposed by Barron, Poseidon owner as Helikonios, is less likely to be the of the Aiginetan temene, he was never apparently of great consequence atAthens.137 owners When seeking to identify the probable of the Aiginetan we were temene, should be guided by the consideration that the temene were to on a agricultural and allotted Athenian gods Aigina with view to the income theywould produce for those gods. Thus, the gods of the temene must have been property-owning gods with cults and treasuries in Attica. The income from the rent of the temene had to be directed to an

existing treasury. In the accounts of loans from theAthenian treasuries of numerous are the gods for the years 426/5 and 423/2, cults listed, among them Poseidon of Sounion (ML 72.62,83), Apollo Zosterios (ML 72.67), not Apollo with epithet preserved (ML 72.68, 72, 89), and Poseidon of are Kalaureia (ML 72.74).138 These cults ofApollo and Poseidon known to have possessed treasuries in the period under consideration, and theo owners retically any two of them could have been the of the Aiginetan temene.While Poseidon was widely worshipped in his various hypostases at state itwas by Athenian demes, phratries, and other groups, the level was on Poseidon Erechtheus who worshipped the Acropolis.139 Both as Poseidon, in his role as the father ofTheseus,140 and Apollo, patron of were the Delian League, especially prominent in Athenian ideological discourse and visual arts during the second half of the 5th century B.C.141

on there is no 135. Smarczyk 1990, pp. 118-119 both worshipped Delos, 139. On the priests of Poseidon were see Parker 290 (temene of Athena), 123-124 (temene evidence that they celebrated in Erechtheus, 1996, pp. common or ofApollo/Poseidon). His is the latest festivals worshipped 294. horoi 2-13. in there. 140. Parker 169-170: "As interpretation of Consider together any other way 1996, pp. horoi as of his mono On see a son of Poseidon he ing these part 137. Poseidon Helikonios, [i.e., Theseus] a graphic studyof the religiouspolicies Farnell 1907, pp. 10-11,29-33; Prinz could become symbol of Athenian sea as as it and political propaganda ofAthens 1979, pp. 343-345. Kleidemos {FGrH heroism by well by land and a at to during the timeof theDelian and 323F) mentions a sanctuary of Heli was with great sacrifice Rhion seems to him and his father commemo Athenian alliances, Smarczyk, unlike konios inAgrai, but imply (duly into consid an connection with the an at that Barron and Figueira, took etiological ratedby inscription Delphi) Phormio's fleet celebrated its victories eration 13, and acknowledged Furt name of the local hill,Helikon, and s and so no to the Io in in429." wangler point about the multiple perhaps relationship theCorinthian gulf horoi. nian but the is also 141.Mills notes that scattered findspots of the cult, opposite possi (1997, p. 38) name to s 136. Hornblower 1992, pp. 182 ble, i.e., that the cult gave its Theseus meeting with "his sea-god to 184; Shapiro 1996. Poseidon was also thehill. father expresses Athenian claims on Delos: an altar to Posei and in the of worshipped 138. Incidentally,Andreyev (1974, power by sea, earlyyears on don Nauklarios (IDelos 2483) in the p. 45) observes thatApollo, Athena, the Delian League, the emphasis Poseidon were Theseus s divine is Agora ofTheophrastos (Guidede Delos and especially among paternity revealing. 2005, site49) and perhaps inside the the Athenian deities who were the last By identifyingwith thenational hero, to of temene Athenian could have a share in Sanctuary of the Twelve Gods?an receive grants agricultural every and Her in behind the of whose altar shared with Aphrodite Attica, Herakles, Dionysos, protection Poseidon, mes. and Poseidon were Demeter Kore. with Theseus must have While Apollo and and relationship fifth-century horoi on aigina 261

Apollo Delios, the original patron of the Delian League who continued a to be highly visible inAthenian religious activities, owned sanctuary in Attica, and hence his treasury could certainly have been the destination forAiginetan profits.142 Around 430-429 b.c, soon afterAthenian settlers took possession of Aigina, both Apollo and Poseidon received special attention from the new was to Athenians. A sanctuary apparently dedicated Apollo Delios at Phaleron ca. 430.143 In 429 theAthenian admiral Phormio achieved a great over a victory the Peloponnesian fleet in theCorinthian Gulf, and captured was to on ship dedicated Poseidon the spot of the victory (at Poseidon's at a sanctuary Rhion), perhaps accompanied by sacrifice to Poseidon and Theseus. In addition, theAthenians made a dedication of armor and prows to at of ships Apollo Delphi in commemoration of Phormio's victory.144 a The possibility of direct connection between these historical events and on the allotment of real property Aigina toApollo and Poseidon at about the same time (430-429 b.c.) is remote, but the singular attention (appar ent from this evidence) given to the two deities by theAthenians at the time to could have informed the choice of the deities whom theAiginetan properties were allocated. In sum, as attested owners of cults, and also inmost cases of treasuries in Poseidon or or Athens, Erechtheus, Sounios, Kalaureios, and Apollo or are Delios, less likely,Zosterios, all possible candidates for the owners temene. so of theAiginetan The evidence collected far points to separate of to cults Apollo and Poseidon. We have acknowledge, however, that iftwo deities were as co-owners designated of theAiginetan temene, theyprobably had to share an income from common property: unless their income was meant to a common be deposited in treasury, therewould be little reason to dedicate temene to two at some deities once, rather than dedicating to some Apollo and to Poseidon.145 Since we are not aware of a common cult or of and in treasury Apollo Poseidon Athens (or elsewhere), the pairing of the two on the horoi gods Aiginetan remains puzzling.

seemed especially credible after the possible evidence forApollo Delios at Stoa of theArchaic period inClassical miraculous success of and the seeLewis 1960.On times should not be the 480, Phaleron, Apollo surprising. On choice of this scene to [Theseus's visit Delios inAthens, see also the discus shrine of Poseidon at Rhion, see Strabo the underwater of as a palace Poseidon] sion in Parker 1996, pp. 149-154. 8.2.3 [C 336]. decoration of the wall of the Theseion 143. See n. above. 145. a 142, Perhaps depository in the is In on 144. Pausanias of the highly significant." addition, (10.11.6) reports opisthodomos Athena temple the Parthenon Poseidon and inscribed dedications of bronze on the frieze, seeing Athenian Acropolis, where E38 and are shields and of at Apollo (figures E39) prows ships the Stoa the revenues of the Other Gods were seated next to each in of theAthenians at xcov other, engaged Delphi, which he collected by the icxuiai aXkwv conversation attributes to (Neils 2001, pp. 161-164, Phormio's victory in 429, 6ecovafter 434/3 (IG P 52), could I thank and so Parker n. have been a common fig. 86). ChryssanthiPapado (1996, p. 70, 59) takes such treasury, for thisdetail to it as poulou bringing my "prima facie evidence for Athenian but the accounts of these Treasurers attention. The of the two access to placement Delphi in 429"; cf.Thuc. (e.g.,IG P 383, 429/8) show thatal deities next to each other must have 2.83-92. The on the housed inscription top though together, the property had a in the of the at special significance step Athenian Stoa Delphi of individualgods was kept distinct of symbolic message the frieze. dated to 479(?) (ML 25) cannot be within them (Linders 1975, p. 35). In 142. In 429/8 B.C., Delios the one that Pausanias for extant Apollo describes, the fragments of these accounts, had a in whose the latter to no sanctuary Phaleron, was, according Pausanias, thereis evidence of any jointprop accounts were in the hands of the on the votive gifts themselves: to 5e ertyof Apollo and Poseidon (see also Treasurers of theOther Gods I3 to en (IG ?7uypocu|ia amoiq. That Athe n. 142, above). 383, lines 153-154). On IG I3130 as nians would have continued to use the 262 IRENE POLINSKAYA

Athenian Motives for the Allotment of Temene on Aigina

contrast to In Furtwanglers original theory, all subsequent explanations on offered for the presence ofAthenian horoi Aigina have presumed that temene was the primary function of the cultic.Welter envisaged Athenian cleruchs dedicating cultic precincts to the Aiginetan deities.146 In 1964, to B.C. as a mo Barron cited Athenian "religious propaganda" prior 431 tive for the creation of cultic precincts for the gods of theDelian League/ on Athenian alliance Aigina.147 More recently,however, Barron has avoided that formula and suggested instead that the dedication of land [to the gods] a "would be natural sequel to conquest," referring to theAthenian defeat of the Aiginetans in 457 B.C.148Figueira postulated "Atticizing cults" of local initiative, promoted by Aiginetan exiles returning from Attica and on by Ionian residents Aigina.149 Smarczyk proposed that agricultural estates were consecrated, in conjunction with local preexisting sanctuaries, to by Athenian cleruchs who wished maintain the preexisting cults while adding elements ofworship from theAthenian tradition.150 The models that invoke Athenian religious propaganda, Atticizing a cults, or themaintenance of syncretized cult, although they appreciate in varying degrees the interdependence of political, economic, and religious motives in the actions of theAthenians,151 have to be dismissed because they are on use temene as or on their use in predicated the of the cultic precincts on This claim is not conjunction with preexisting ritualworship the island. that is supported by the accumulated evidence. The only explanation sup in 1906 ported by the evidence is that articulated by Furtwangler, namely, that the temene of the gods marked by the Aiginetan horoi represented more of nothing than land grants associated with theAthenian occupation be that forAthenians Aigina after 431 B.C.152 It should stressed, however, a this act was informed by religious rationale and purpose. temene in the land of The religious rationale behind the dedication of case a defeated subject-state is perhaps best illustrated by the ofMytilene, where 300 lots (a tenth of the overall number of lots created) were dedi The were included cated to unspecified Athenian gods (xoTq GeoTq). gods as a in the distribution of property that came intoAthenian hands result of conquest. The mathematical principle involved in the apportionment a fair division illustrates theAthenian (and perhaps Panhellenic) notion of and divinities. Even we do not know how of spoils between mortals though were on the many temene altogether established Aigina by Athenians,153

of theAthenians. Both 146.Welter 1954, cols. 35-36 (see 148. Barron 1983, p. 10. physical arrival found ithard to that the n. 126, above). 149. Figueira 1991, pp. 115-120. imagine Aigi netans would have been to 147. Barron 1964, pp. 44-45. 150. Smarczyk 1990, p. 119.Thucy willing "Hu dides testifies that an of nonnative cults Figueira (1991, p. 116) objects: (4.98.2), however, accept imposition subordination Athenians held that the in their miliating rituals of conquerors territory. out in a minor on were not to make to 152. 1906, vol. 1, p. 6. played way Aigina changes preexist Furtwangler not world in forms of at sanctuaries in 153. As we do not know the total would impress the Greek ing worship on we the of lands. number of kleroi created general with magnificence conquered Aigina, and cannot calculate what were' Athens. One may believe that the 151. For Figueira (1991, p. 116) percentage in con temene of the Also, the Athenians took pleasure gratuitous Smarczyk (1990, p. 112), religious gods. surviving siderations are the reason to horoimost do not include all the exercises of power, but such imprudent question likely was out of Barron's that there were horoi that were erected; some must imperialism generally proposition cultson before the have over time. keepingwith imperialpolicy." Athenian Aigina surely disappeared FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 263

we can same a still recognize the religious rationale behind their actions: to need sharewith the gods the fruits of victory. on Thus, among theAthenians' motives for dedicating temene Aigina was after 431 B.C., first and foremost the fulfillment of their religious obligations toward their Athenian gods, stemming from the acknowl edgment of the role of the divine in human success. In the Greek mind, were a expressions of gratitude necessarily bound up with related concern to avert the gods' potential jealousy over human good fortune. The two vo notions together underlie the logic of such ritual acts as prayers and a tive dedications.154 Thus, sharing with the gods portion of thematerial or signs of success?whether in the form of military spoils, firstfruits, as a measure special gifts?always served precautionary to guarantee that or the gods would not be jealous of present future human successes. So as a a itwas, too,with the acquisition of land result of conquest: portion to to was a new had be given the gods.155As Aigina territorial acquisition forAthens in 431, the distribution of land toAthenians had to include deities as beneficiaries. to A useful side-effect the religious purpose of allocating temene to the in gods conquered territories could have been the strengthening of Athenian rights to the confiscated land fromwhich temene were cut. a to By making gift of land theAthenian gods in foreign territories, the dedicants made the in gods accomplices the possession of appropriated land. reverence Because for the gods and what belonged to them was an unwritten law of international conduct in theGreek world,156 aGreek could not violate a a or a sanctuary, parcel of sacred land, sacred object without conscious of we being the possibility of divine retribution.157May not consider the establishment of temene of the gods in occupied territories as an secure of especially way appropriating land from the local population? The local inhabitants would be wary of claiming that land back for secular use even if they resumed political control of their territory We may thus view the practice of allotting real property to theAthenian in areas as a gods newly subjected way of marking that land as Athenian. Perhaps the underlying notion was thatAthenian land was thatwhich the Athenian gods possess and consequently protect: gods of the state are those that own land within it. Incidentally, this made the gods landowners in a status thatwas reserved Attica, only for citizens. By endowing Athenian with real in gods properly conquered lands,Athenians thereby legitimized their own of ownership those lands. After instituting gods as owners in as foreign lands, Athenians could then act righteous defenders of the di vinities' property.Thus, the confiscation of land in foreign territoriesmay have were implied that theAthenian gods primary owners, and Athenian citizens the co-owners, rather than the other way around. A second motive for the establishment of temene on cannot 154. Versnel 1981; see esp. Van Aigina be overlooked: the financial Straten 1981. namely, advantage gained by the Athenians 155. See n. above. in the of leasable estates of 103, propagation agricultural the gods in conquered 156. Thuc. 4.97.2,4.98.2. in the time territories, especially of the Peloponnesian War. Athenians 157. Athenians revealed this con relied on the treasuries of their gods for the monies to cern in their treatment of the land of necessary support theirwar efforts, and the creation of fresh sources of revenue the Oropos granted to themby Philip in through 338 a of established sacred could the b.c, portion of which was sacred leasing newly properties help replenish to the hero Euxe treasuries of the for Amphiaraos (Hyp. gods, providing the repayment of old loans, as well as new ones. nippus 14-17). enabling 264 IRENE POLINSKAYA

on Finally, the establishment of temene Aigina may have reflected concerns Athenian strategic during the Peloponnesian War. The distribu a tion of temene, roughly indicated by the findspots of the horoi, shows wide coverage of Aigina, and is linked to agriculturally productive areas. a But the placement of temenos of Athena near Sphendouri, where the a to soil is rocky, suggests possible strategic purpose: establish settlers in areas fromwhich marine traffic in the Saronic Gulf could be observed, or serve as in locations that could beachheads and bases of operations for the concern to Peloponnesians. Thucydides (2.27) is explicit about theAthenian a on so not on maintain presence Aigina that the Spartans would land the island and use it as a base.158The presence of coastal towers in the northeast on coast and especially in the south of the island (directly the down from the area marked by 13-18) accords well with this hypothesis.159

CONCLUSIONS

temene I have argued above that theAiginetan marked byAthenian horoi were as a 1-13 agricultural estates thatwould have been allotted part of gen eral distribution of land toAthenian settlers following the expulsion of the in 431 b.c. indigenous residents and the occupation ofAigina byAthenians The temene were dedicated to theAthenian deities in fulfillment of the to in of religious obligations that theAthenians had honor consequence estates their acquisition ofAigina. The Athenian allocation of agricultural on to was in the Aigina the Athenian gods accordance with historically state from attested practice of theAthenians in dealing with profits derived overseas in turn the conquest and exploitation of resources, which reflects must humans and their the principle that such income be shared between treatment divine patrons. Thus, the Athenian of the occupied Aiginetan a even the status of land complied with standard procedure, though Aigina status of theAthenian as a territorial holding ofAthens and the political community on the island during the time of the Peloponnesian War escape standard classification. For two and a half rather than the of decades, then, being "eyesore 158. See n. 9, above. Another indi theAthenians not with a of value of is Piraeus," Aigina provided only place healing cation of the strategic Aigina some measure of mili that the Athenians considered at the local sanctuary ofAsklepios, but also with bringing the so a to the Epidauros into Argive alliance, tary security, by denying base of operations Peloponnesian fleet, that could send aid to di and Athenians with an to fulfill their they Argos by providing opportunity religious route rectly via the Aigina-Epidauros and increase their financial through the leases obligations gain, acquired rather than by sailing around Cape While in so other in the to hold of temene.160 failing many places attempt Scyllaion (Thuc. 5.53). Cf. ATL III, on Athenians found the certain 320. their empire together, Aigina the only p. once and for all: the 159. See n. 122, above. formula of success for undercutting Aiginetan power 160. See n. on the transfer of the local with its near-annihilation 7, above, "eyesore population, subsequent for of Piraeus," and Ar. Vesp. 121-124 in exile 4.56.2-57.5), and the of Aiginetan (Thuc. physical occupation theAthenian use of theAsklepieion on After the War, would never rise territory. Peloponnesian Aigina again Aigina. an or to the level of itsArchaic glory as economic military powerhouse 161. See Polinskaya 2002, p. 405, n. of Greece.161 20. FIFTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 265

REFERENCES

= The Athenian Results with in the Year of Anti Agora Agora: of Egesta theAmer inActa the Excavations Conducted by phon," of Universityof Classical Studies at New International Seminar ican School of England Athens, Princeton onGreek and Latin Epigraphy, = B. and L. Tal ed. I. 38-63 XII A. Sparkes Worthington, Bonn, pp. the cott, Black and Plain Pottery of [= ZP?83,pp. 38-63]. 6th, 5th, and4th Centuries B.C., Curtis, R. I. 2001. Ancient Food Technol 1970. ogy, Leiden. = XIX G. V. Lalonde, M. K. De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 2004. "But and M. B. What about inAthenian Langdon, Walbank, Aegina?" Poletai Democratic and Other Inscriptions: Horoi, Records, Origins Essays, Public 1991. ed. D. and R. Ox Leases of Lands, Harvey Parker, Amit, M. 1973. Great and Small Poleis: ford, pp. 371-420. A in theRelations between the N. 1980. Study Faraklas, "Ap^aia Aiyiva: Great Powers and the Small Cities in fHdvOpcoTtivn KaxoiKnon" (diss. Ancient Greece, Brussels. Univ. of Athens). V. N. 1974. "Some L. R. 1907. The Cults the Andreyev, Aspects Farnell, of inAttica in Greek States Oxford. of Agrarian Conditions 4, in the Fifth to Third Centuries B.C.," Felten, F. 2001. "Kulte Aigina in Zona Eirene 12, pp. 5-46. Kolonna," archeologica: - Hans Peter Isler zum ATL The Athenian Tribute Lists Festschrift fur = 60. ed. S. Buzzi et I B.D. Meritt,H.T.Wade Geburtstag, al., F. 127-134. Gery, and M. McGregor, The Bonn, pp. and Athenian Tribute Lists I, Cambridge, Figueira, T. J. 1981. Aegina: Society Mass., 1939. Politics, New York. = -. and in Ill B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade 1991. Athens Aigina M. F. The Gery, and McGregor, theAge ofImperial Colonization, Athenian Tribute Lists III, Princeton Baltimore. -. Excursions in 1950. 1993. Epichoric 1964. Barron, J. P. "Religious Propa History: Aiginetan Essays, Lanham, ganda of theDelian League," ]HS Md. -. Power 84, pp. 35-48. 1998. The ofMoney -. 1983. and Politics in the ian "The Fifth-Century Coinage Athen 1? Horoi of Aegina,"fHS 103, pp. Empire, Philadelphia. 12. Finley, M. 1.1978. "The Fifth-Century 1985. Greek trans. A Balance Burkert,W. Religion, Athenian Empire: Mass. in in theAncient J. Raffan, Cambridge, Sheet," Imperialism D. A Cartwright, 1997. Historical Com World:The CambridgeUniversity on A Research Seminar inAncient mentary Thucydides: Companion History, to Rex Warners ed. P. D. C. Penguin Translation, A. Garnsey and R. Ann Arbor. Whittaker, Cambridge, pp. 103 Chambers, M. H. 1992-1993. "Photo 126. a graphic Enhancement and Greek Foxhall, L. 2007. Olive Cultivation in 25-31. Ancient Greece: Inscription," Cf 88, pp. Seeking theAncient -. 1993. "The Archon's Name Economy, Oxford. in the Alliance 1906. Athens-Egesta (IG Furtwangler, A. Aegina: Das 2 I311)," ZPE 98, pp. 171-174. Heiligtum derAphaia, vols., -. 1994. "Reading Illegible Greek Munich. Inscriptions: Athens and Egesta," Goette, H. R. 2000. O a^wXoyog Sijjuog Thetis: Mannheimer zur lovviov: Beitrage Landeskundliche Studien klassischen und Geschichte in Archdologie Siidost-Attika (Internationale Griechenlands und 49 Zyperns 1, pp. Archaologie 59), Rahden. 52. -. 2001. Athens, Attica, and the M. R. and Chambers, H., Gallucci, Megarid:An Archaeological Guide, P. rev. Spanos. 1990. "Athens' Alliance ed., London. 266 IRENE POLINSKAYA

1956. A Historical Com P. 1998. zur Gomme, A. W. Kehne, Studienbibliographie on mentary Thucydides 2, Oxford. griechischen Geschichte in klassischer P. 1925. Zeit v. Unter beson Harland, J. Prehistoric Aigina: (500-404 Chr.): A Island in derer der Bezie History ofthe theBronze Berucksichtigung Paris. zwischen Athen Age, hungen undAgina, octco Hatzopoulos, M. 2000-2003. "Neo Hannover. = Tur|ua ano my Acpim tod (xttikoi) Kerameikos I W. Kraiker, Die Nekro des 12. bis 10. \j/r|(p{ajLiaTO(;rcepi vouiauaToc,, otccG polen Jahrhunderts jicbvKai jxeTpcov,"Horos 14-16, (Kerameikos I), Berlin 1939. pp. 31-43. Lalonde, G. V. 2006a. Horos Dios: 1992. a Henry, A. "Through Laser An Athenian Shrineand Cult ofZeus Beam Darkly: Space Age Tech (Monumenta graeca et romana 11), nology and the Egesta Decree Leiden. (JGF 11),"ZPE 91, pp. 137-146. -. 2006b. "IG I3 1055 B and the -. and ofMelete and 1993. "Athens Egesta," Boundary Kollytos," Ancient Bulletin 49 83-119. History 7, pp. Hesperia 75, pp. 1999. 53. Langdon, M. K. "Hymettiana III: -. 1995. "Pour encourager les The Boundary Markers of Alepo autres: 481-508. Athens and Egesta encore," vouni," Hesperia 68, pp. D. CQ 45, pp. 237-240. Lewis, M. 1960. "Apollo Delios," -. 1998. "The Sigma Enigma," BSA 55, pp. 190-194. -. ZPE 120, pp. 45-48. 1993. Rev. of I.Worthington, -. 2001. "The New Sigma Stigma," td.yActa ofthe University of International Seminar on ZPE 137, pp. 93-105. England 1979. Trade and and inCR Hopper, R. J. Industry Greek Latin Epigraphy, in Classical Greece, London. 43, pp. 460-461. on T. 1975. The Treasurers Hornblower, S. 1991.^ Commentary Linders, of Oxford. Gods in and Their Thucydides 1, theOther Athens -. Dimen Functions zur klassischen 1992. "The Religious (Beitrage to or sion the Peloponnesian War, Philologie 62),Meisenheim. What Thucydides Does Not Tell Lohmann, H. 1992. "Agriculture and in Classical Us," HSCP 94, pp. 169-197. Country Life Attica," -. and Pindar: in inAncient Greece. 2004. Thucydides Agriculture the Seventh Interna Historical Narrative and theWorld of Proceedings of Oxford. tional at the Swedish Epinikian Poetry, Symposium at Hornblower, S., and M. C. Greenstock, Institute Athens, 16-17 May 1990, ed. B. 29-57. eds. 1984. The Athenian Empire Wells, Stockholm, pp. = (LACTOR 1), 3rd ed.,London. LSAG2 L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts Greece:A theOri Horster, M. 2004. Landbesitz grie ofArchaic Studyof in archaischer theGreek and Its chischerHeiligtumer gin of Alphabet und klassischer Zeit, Berlin. Developmentfrom theEighth to the E. 1992. Centuries B.C., rev. with a Isager, S., and J. Skydsgaard. Fifth ed., An Intro A. W. Ancient Greek Agriculture: supplement by Johnston, duction, London. Oxford 1990. A. 2004. IG James, P. A., C. B. Mee, and G. J.Tay Matthaiou, "Ilepi xn<; I311," lor. 1994. "Soil Erosion and the in Attikcci emypayai: IJpaKTiKd of Wilhelm Archaeological Landscape Iv^LKoaiov eig ixvr\fir\vAdolf ed. A. Methana, Greece," JFA 21, pp. 395 (1864-1950), Matthaiou, 416. Athens, pp. 99-122. 1988. H. 1996. TheAthenian Jennings, J. E. "Aeginetan Trade, Mattingly, and 650-457 b.c: A Re-Examination" EmpireRestored: Epigraphic (diss.Univ. of Illinois atChicago). Historical Studies, Ann Arbor. -. Kallet, L. 1997. Rev. ofMattingly 1996, 1999. "WhatAre theRight inPhoenix 51, pp. 419-420. Dating Criteria forFifth-Century M. 2005. "Patrons of Attic Texts?" ZPE 117 Keesling, C. 126, pp. Athenian Votive Monuments of 122. the Archaic and Classical Periods: Mee, C, and H. Forbes, eds. 1997. A and Place: The Land Three Studies," Hesperia 74, Rough Rocky and Settlement the pp. 395-426. scape History of FI FTH-CENTURY HOROI ON AIGINA 267

Greece: Results International at the H. Methana Peninsula, Symposium Thiersch, [n.d.] "Aginetische Institute at 16-17 of theMethana Survey Project, Spon Swedish Athens, Studien," unpublished manuscript, at ed. B. of the sored by the British School Athens May, 1990, Wells, Stockholm, Archives Bayerische Aka and the 123-130. demie der Munich. University ofLiverpool, pp. Wissenschaften, C. 1985. "The L. 1980. Liverpool. Ritchie, E., Jr. Athenian Threatte, The Grammar of of Stones of Public Domain" Attic 1: Meiggs, R. 1966. "The Dating Boundary Inscriptions Phonology, Attic Univ. of Berlin. Fifth-Century Inscriptions," (diss. Colorado). 1992. 1999. Rev. of JHS 86, pp. 86-98. Rudhardt, J. Notionsfondamen Trevett, J. Mattingly -. 1972. Athenian tales de et actes The Empire, lapensee religieuse 1996, inJHS 119, pp. 205-206. Oxford. constitutifs du culte dans la Grece Tsirigoti-Drakotou, I. 2000. "Nea S. 1997. and the 2nd Paris. ano to Mills, Theseus, Tragedy, classique, ed., ott)Xt| 7iea6vTcov Atiuootov C. N. 1981. Diachronic Athenian Empire, Oxford. Runnels, "A Xn.ua: Mia sparer) Ttapouaiaan.," ML = R. and Meiggs and D. Lewis, eds., Study Economic Analysis ArchDelt 55A, pp. 87-112. A Greek Selection of Historical In ofMillstones fromthe Argolid, Van Straten, F. 1981. "Gifts for the to scriptions theEnd ofthe Fifth Cen Greece" (diss. Indiana Univ.). Gods," in Versnel 1981, pp. 65-151. B.C., rev. Oxford 1988. C. and M. H. Munn. H. S. 1981. and tury ed., Runnels, N., Versnel, Faith, Hope, Mylonopoulos, J. 2003. nehonovvnoog 1994. "AppendixA: A Register of Worship:Aspects ofReligious Mental in H. oncrjrripiov noGeiScovoq/Heiligtumer Sites," M. Jameson, C. N. ityin theAncient World (Studies und Kulte des Poseidon der Pelo and T. H. van in auf Runnels, Andel, Greek and Roman Religion 2), A Greek ponnes (KernosSuppl. 13), Liege. Countryside: The Southern Leiden. 2001. The Parthenon to the Present M. 1996. "Fifth Neils, J. Frieze, Argolidfrom Prehistory Vickers, Century Cambridge. Day, Stanford, pp. 415-538. Chronology and theCoinage 1995. "Greek Horoi: Artifac L. 2000. the Owl: Decree" Ober, J. Samons, J. Empire of JHS 116, pp. 171-174. tual Texts and the of Contingency Athenian Imperial Finance, Stuttgart. Walbank, M. B. 1978. Athenian Proxe inMethods in theMedi T 1992. nies Meaning," Schafer, "Aegina: Aphaia of theFifth Century b.c, Toronto. terranean: Historical and XV: und Archaeologi Tempel Becken Stander Washington, H. S. 1894-1895. "A cal Views on Texts and aus Archaeology Marmor und Kalkstein," AA 30, PetrographicalSketch ofAegina ed. D. B. 7-37. (Mnemosyne Suppl. 135), pp. and Methana, Parts I?III/' The Small, Leiden, pp. 91-123. Schiller, A. K. 1996. "Political Terri fournal ofGeology 2:8 (1894), ed. 2000. Osborne, R., The Athenian Em toriality of the Classical Athenians, pp. 789-813; 3:1 (1895), pp. 21-46; pire (LACTOR 1), 4th ed.,London. 508-338 b.c." (diss. Univ. ofWis 3:2 (1895), pp. 138-168. R. 1996. Athenian C. and E. Parker, Religion: consin). Wells, B., Runnels, Zang A Oxford. A. H. History, Shapiro, 1996. "Athena, Apollo, ger. 1990. "The Berbati-Limnes I. 2001. Local and the Polinskaya, "Defining Religious Propaganda of the Archaeological Survey:The 1988 inAncient Athenian in and Religious Systems Empire," Religion Season," OpAth 18, pp. 207-238. Greece: The Case of the Power in theAncient Greek World. G. Study Welter, 1925. "Forschungen auf Pantheon" Aiginetan (diss. Stanford Proceedingsof the Uppsala Sympo Agina,"^ 1925, pp. 1-12, 317 Univ.). sium 1993, ed. P. Hellstrom and 321. -. 2002. "A New Inscribed B. 101-113. -. 1938. Berlin. Alroth, Uppsala, pp. Aigina, Monument from B. 1990. zur -. Funerary Aigina," Smarczyk, Untersuchungen 1949. "Apxaio^oyiKai Kai Igto 399-413. Pro Hesperia 71, pp. Religionspolitik undpolitischen piKai jie^eTai 1-60," IJoXejucov 4, F. 1979. und im Prinz, Griindungsmythen paganda Athens Delisch-Attischen pp. 141-153. (Zetemata Seebund und -. 1954. Sagenchronologie 72), (Quellen Forschungen "Aeginetica XXV Munich. zur antiken Welt 5), Munich. XXXVI," AA 1954, cols. 28-48. and A. 1992. R. 2006. The Rackham, O., J. Moody. Stroud, Athenian Empire Woodhead, A. G. 1992. The Studyof "Terraces," in inAncient on Stone: David M. Lewis Memorial Greek Agriculture Inscriptions, 2nd ed., Norman, Greece. the Seventh Proceedings of Lecture, Oxford, 2006, Athens. Okla.

Irene Polinskaya King's College London department of classics

strand

london wc2r 2ls

united kingdom

[email protected]