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 ??>-^<okkalaki \ r~S M2 ) \ Aphaia Sanctuary / / A V ^/^^ Mesagros {? Pa,ai0Ch0ra \ /-^ktmpos n? / KolonnayZsC_/-v ^_?^ Afi Marina ^Aigina Ay.Asomatoi (Ay. 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.