(p.321) Appendix I Athens’ Kleruchies, Kinship, and Thucydides
(p.321) Appendix I Athens’ Kleruchies, Kinship, and Thucydides
Does a discussion of Athens’ kleruchies have a place in a study of kinship in Thucydides? This discussion aims to show that the answer to this question is Yes, first, because a kleruchy, as a settlement pattern abroad, is a social phenomenon that affects at the same time more than one sphere of life, a ‘total social fact’, in Mauss’s terminology.1 It will be argued that the presence of Athenian kleruchs had an economic, military, judicial, religious, moral, and affective side; and it cut across the private and the public spheres of life. Secondly, because the only literary documentation of a fifth-century kleruchy comes from Thucydides: the relevant passage concerns Mytilene, a city with which the Athenians had a special relationship, and its unique occurrence and position in Thucydides’ narrative influences our views about what a kleruchy is and the ways it differs from an apoikia. Before concentrating on Thucydides’ evidence, I will make a brief reference to the more recent detailed study on Athens’ kleruchies, Le cleruchie di Atene by Nicoletta Salomon, published about fifteen years ago.
Salomon studies the kleruchic experiment in its evolution across the fifth and fourth centuries, renouncing the artificial temporal fragmentation found in previous studies.2 She believes that the radical change that is usually assumed from the fifth- to the fourth-century type of kleruchy did not really take place; and that if the fourth-century kleruchy appears to us to be a more solidly organized settlement, with internal and autonomous administration and officials elected either in situ or appointed and sent by Athens, this is due to a misinterpretation of both fifth- and fourth-century sources.3 In her view, kleruchies were temporary, and were primarily garrisons against external threat or internal sedition,4 and her main thesis is that kleruchiai and apoikiai are two distinct and non-comparable phenomena, which in no way belong to the same (p.322) conceptual category.5 The establishment of a kleruchy is viewed as a prosaic and functional phenomenon, recorded in our sources as a mechanical and technical act. She observes that no names of oikists are attested, and the mythical and religious apparatus that characterize the foundation of an apoikia are lacking. The kleruchs do not leave their country for ever, in order to make a new family and start a new life in the settlement. Therefore, she argues, they do not need common myths, rituals, institutions, and language to connect them with the mother-city and flag their origin. She adds emphatically that ‘the genesis of the kleruchy is not an act which touches the emotional sphere of the Athenians’.6 Elsewhere in her study she concludes that ‘the two categories (ἄποικοι and κληροῦχοι) share nothing in common’.7
Accordingly, she concludes that the terms apoikos and kleruchos describe two distinct types of settler: the first refers to colonial population and the second to people with a military role and on a temporary mission.8 And, like Figueira, she believes that Thucydides is precise in the use of these terms, in an analogous way to that in which they are used in official decrees.9 In this respect she goes against the opposite scholarly view, argued mainly by an older generation, that in our literary sources the terms apoikos, epoikos, and kleruchos were used indifferently, and that even Thucydides’ colonial terminology at times overlapped and was not strictly technical.10 Of modern scholars, Cargill is also a recent advocate of the opposite of the Figueira/Salomon strand: sensibly basing himself on extant inscriptions from Athens and the settlements themselves, he observes that fourth-century settlers could ‘indiscriminately, but not “loosely”, since each term is correct and attested’ be called apoikoi, kleruchoi, (p.323) or epoikoi.11 Cargill’s view does much more justice to the complexity of our evidence, including the fifth century, in which I am interested, whereas those of Salomon and Figueira tend to separate too rigidly the colonial from the kleruchic phenomenon and the language used to describe them. In what follows I aim to show that such rigidity is not supported by Thucydides, nor is the assumption that the kleruchy was an entirely prosaic phenomenon permissible. It is beyond doubt that the kleruchies were an important tool for handling crises, and had a major contribution to Athens’ imperial economy,12 but this does not mean that they were not related to the cultural, ethical, and emotional matrix of the colonial enterprise.
In the History a common course of action for the Athenians after the subjugation of a city was the expulsion of the local population, often with the enslavement of women and children, and the resettlement of the place with a loyal population. These would be either Athenian citizens or kinsmen and loyal friends, or a combination of the two. This was the practice followed in Skyros, Aigina, Potidaia (apparently in a milder version), Notion, Anaktorion, Skione, Melos, and even the small city of Hykkara in Sicily.13
The kleruchy sent to Mytilene in 427 was one of the punitive measures the Athenians took after the suppression of the revolt, as we are told: they pulled down the walls of the city, they took the Mytilenaian fleet, and they sent to (p.324) Athens only those who were responsible for the revolt—a little more than one thousand—where they were put to death.14 The Athenians left the local population unharmed (cf. Diodotos’ τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους ἐᾶν οἰκεῖν15), and instead of imposing tribute on them they established a kleruchy. They divided the land into 3,000 lots, of which they set aside 300 for the gods as sacred, and the rest they gave to Athenian allotment-holders, chosen by lot, who were sent on the spot (ἀπέπεμψαν). The land of these 2,700 lots would be cultivated by local Mytilenaians, who would pay an annual rent of 200 drachmas (δύο μνᾶς) to the Athenian lease-holders.16
The influence of this dense six-line description in OCT is strongly felt in every study on Athens’ kleruchies, and, because of its uniqueness, has acquired the value of a model. But we must always be aware of the fact that it refers to a single case, and therefore it may contain both generic and particular characteristics. Arguably, Thucydides’ description of the kleruchy in Mytilene shows that kleruchy and apoikia were two different types of settlement,17 but that they also escape neat classification. Reading Thucydides’ chapter on the Mytilene kleruchy against other passages in the work, and other external evidence, we can trace not only points of difference but also affinities between these two types of settlement, which deserve attention, despite the uneasiness they might cause. This examination reveals that there are no completely safe criteria for distinguishing between a kleruchy and an apoikia, at least for the modern interpreter. Thucydides’ kleruchic passage raises important questions in relation to classification, with what he says and also with what he does not say, as usual.
Kleruchs or apoikoi?
A distinctive feature of the kleruchy is that it was populated by Athenian citizens, who retained their Athenian citizenship. This seems to be consistent with Thucydides’ report that the kleruchs sent to Mytilene were Athenian citizens (σφῶν αὐτῶν). On the other hand, the same language may be used to describe the Athenian citizens who were sent out to an apoikia, whose body of settlers was usually broader, often encompassing not only Athenians, but also anyone who wished (τὸν βουλόμενον). In the case of Ennea Hodoi in Thrace, Thucydides says that the body of settlers consisted of Athenian citizens and anyone else who wished (ἐποίκους μυρίους σφῶν τε αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τὸν βουλόμενον πέμψαντες). The same is reported for Epidamnos and Herakleia Trachinia, to recall two familiar cases settled by Dorians.18 The Dorian side is always worth looking at for some comparative material on colonization patterns, and I will return to this later.
(p.325) Skyros was also colonized by Athenian settlers in Kimon’s operations in the north (c.476), as we are told (ἠνδραπόδισαν καὶ ᾤκισαν αὐτοί).19 Skyros is a typical case of an ab initio resettlement after the enslavement of the locals, typical of the colony type, and not of the dispatch of additional settlers, which was the case with the kleruchies. The island has a non-Greek background—the indigenous population was Dolopian—and the Hellenization aspect in the colonization of the island is typical of the Athenians’ intense interaction with non- or semi-Greek areas. Moreover, the use of the verb ᾤκισαν, a standard colonization term, and the involvement of the Delphic oracle and the mythical tradition about the transfer of Theseus’ bones to Athens by Kimon, which we do not learn from Thucydides, places the settlement on Skyros within the orbit of colonial kinship.20 On the other hand, there are some kleruchic features already in the fifth century: Skyros is absent from Thucydides’ catalogue of allies at Sicily, and from any military operation of the Athenians—in fact, Kimon’s resettlement is the only mention of the island in the entire work. Also, nowhere else is Skyros mentioned as a member of the Delian League, which may mean that the Skyrians remained Athenian citizens.21
Athenian citizens also settled Dorian Potidaia after its capitulation (ἐποίκους ἔπεμψαν ἑαυτῶν … καὶ κατῴκισαν).22 The city is considered by Figueira to be an Athenian apoikia.23 It must be noted though that, like Skyros, Potidaia does not appear in the Sicilian catalogue of allies either, which again might be taken as a kleruchic trait. The kleruchs, being part of Athens, did not normally receive separate mentions as allies, by contrast to allied cities (including the apoikiai), which were in fact separate cities fighting on the Athenian side.24 Moreover, the absence of Potidaia from the allied troops of Athens might indicate that the Athenian settlers were mostly needed on the spot and, like kleruchs, operated as a sort of garrison in strategic and vulnerable points of the Athenian ἀρχή. A speech of Brasidas makes clear how vital was the place for the Athenians, and we see them using it as a naval base for their ships.25 Salomon, trying to reconcile both dimensions, the colonial and the kleruchic, suggests that in 429 the Athenians sent a colony to Potidaia, but, sometime soon afterwards, under (p.326) the increasing pressure of war and Perdikkas’ threatening presence in the area, they also sent kleruchs. She suggests that Thucydides is silent about the kleruchy because it was something ordinary, unworthy of particular attention. Yet this is not entirely convincing given Potidaia’s prominence in Thucydides.26 If a kleruchy was indeed established in Potidaia, then it might be more appropriate to see this silence as an authorial choice, which is inevitably related to the unique mention of the kleruchy sent to Mytilene in 427. But more on the narrative implications of this unique mention later. In any case, we cannot fail to remember the Chersonese, about which we know from sources outside Thucydides that it received kleruchs in the fifth century.27 Diodorus’ language about the kleruchic settlements in Potidaia and the Chersonese is quite similar.28 Although he does not mention a kleruchy in the Chersonese, Thucydides presents the place as a safe land for the Athenians in the events of 411 and Athenian presence is implied there.29 In fact he does not even mention the early colonization of the peninsula by Miltiades, which could be another narrative choice, since the story is treated at length by Herodotus.30
Both Potidaia and the Chersonese received Athenian kleruchs in the fourth century. As just mentioned, the Chersonese had old ties of xyngeneia with Athens. It is not surprising therefore that the Chersonesitans—except for the Kardians—received cordially their xyngeneis, the Athenian kleruchs, who arrived there in 343/2 with Diopeithes. Our fourth-century source via Libanius comments on the antiquity of this relationship: ἦν μὲν γὰρ ἡ Χερρόνησος … Ἀθηναίων κτῆμα ἀρχαῖον.31 As for Potidaia, Thucydides reports that in 423 it was still under Athenian sway and Brasidas’ attempt to take the city by treason was unsuccessful.32 In 364/3 the Athenian general Timotheos took the city from the Chalkidian federation, and an inscription archon-dated to two years later records the dispatch of an Athenian kleruchy to Potidaia, in fulfilment of the plea of some pro-Athenian Potidaians, who had sent envoys to Athens to ask for additional settlers.33 As has been noticed, these Potidaians could well be descendants of the Athenian apoikoi sent to the city in the fifth century, and at any rate the ethical and emotional dimension of their plea must be related to (p.327) the old fifth-century tie between the two cities. If so, it is worth noticing that the Athenian settlement founded in Dorian Potidaia in 429, although it was a clear expression of Athens’ imperial practices, at the same time created an Athenian hub in the city, which was still operable and apparently exploitable in the 360s.34
Another Dorian city worthy of consideration is Melos. Thucydides recounts the island’s resistance to Nikias’ attack,35 and later, the usual end of the story in its cruellest version: subjugation of the island after siege, expulsion of the population (murder of the adult males and enslavement of the women and children), and establishment of 500 Athenian settlers (τὸ δὲ χωρίον αὐτοὶ ᾤκισαν, ἀποίκους ὕστερον πεντακοσίους πέμψαντες).36 Again in this passage, the words ᾤκισαν (v. οἰκίζω) and ἄποικοι are linguistic markers of a colony,37 but on the other hand the fact that the settlers were Athenians and furthermore their round number (500) have strong kleruchic overtones, as they remind us of Pericles’ similar ventures in the mid-fifth century to Naxos (with 500 kleruchs)38 and Andros (with 250 kleruchs),39 described by Plutarch, which are considered today by scholars to be clear cases of kleruchies. The siege and subjugation of Naxos are criticized by Thucydides (παρὰ τὸ καθεστηκός) in the Pentekontaetia, but we are not told about a kleruchy or any kind of Athenian settlement on the island.40
Furthermore, like Skyros and Potidaia, Melos is also absent from the catalogue of Athenian allies at Sicily. In 412/11 we find Melos as a base of Athenian forces,41 and we know from Xenophon that in 405 Lysander gathered and restored some of the original Dorian population back to the island.42 Thucydides’ terse and almost formulaic closing description of the Melians’ fate,43 leaves crucial questions unanswered: the Melians’ strong commitment to their xyngeneia with Dorian Sparta, as expressed in the Melian Dialogue which precedes in the narrative, makes the transition of the community into a status of Athenian occupation appear even more dramatic and suggests uneasy relations with this new reality.44 But it also makes us wonder whether the Melians were eventually disillusioned and alienated from their mother-city, given the absence of any initiative of the Spartans to help their xyngeneis from Thucydides’ account.45 Did (p.328) the Athenians bring their families with them? How many of the original Melian inhabitants stayed behind, and what sort of interaction and relationship was developed between the Dorian and the Ionian communities? The harsh treatment of a whole community did not exclude kinship ties on an interpersonal level: as Plutarch attests, Alcibiades, although mainly responsible for the slaughtering of the Melians, made one of the Melian women prisoners his mistress and had a son with her.46 A piece of anecdotal and personal history also comes to mind, transmitted again by Plutarch, supplemented by a fifth-century AD epigram. Paches, the Athenian general in Mytilene, slew himself in the lawcourt because he had violated two Mytilenaian women after killing their husbands.47
The interaction between the practical restrictions of the war and the emotive side of kinship can well be seen in the case of another Dorian island, that of Aigina. Aigina, like Salamis, was situated in a key position, very close to Piraeus, but also to its mother-city, Epidauros. Thucydides is silent about Aigina’s origin,48 but early in the Archaeology he pairs Aigina with Athens as rising naval powers.49 Later, Aigina’s early supremacy at sea is acknowledged,50 and the early prosperity of the island is also found in Herodotus.51 Another thing the Aiginetans had in common with the Athenians was their claim to autochthony, which, again, is not to be found in Thucydides.52 The enmity between the two cities emerges powerfully from Thucydides. Using the significant word αἰεί, Thucydides states that the enmity between Athens and Aigina was an ancient one,53 whose history we see even before the Persian Wars.54 The Athenians sent their own settlers (αὑτῶν) to this hostile terrain after the usual expulsion of the population.55 The words ἐποίκους and οἰκήτορας, used in this passage to (p.329) describe the Athenian settlers, may well apply to colonists; and so does the verb ἐξέπεμψαν.56
These Athenian colonists of Aigina are named ἄποικοι in a much discussed passage in the catalogue of allies at Syracuse.57 There, two disparate pairs of localities–Lemnos and Imbros, and Aigina and Hestiaia—constitute the very first group of Athenian allies in the catalogue, those of ἄποικοι, who are connected with them with common language and customs (φωνῇ καὶ νομίμοις), two standard cultural criteria of kinship in Thucydides,58 thus following the Athenians κατὰ ξυγγένειαν.59
The Lemnians, who are usually paired with the Imbrians, were steady and valuable allies of the Athenians throughout the war,60 and had ancient ties of xyngeneia with them. Thucydides’ phrase φωνῇ καὶ νομίμοις resonates with Herodotus’ γλῶσσάν τε τὴν Ἀττικὴν καὶ τρόπους τοὺς Ἀθηναίων, which were taught on Lemnos in early times by Athenian mothers.61 As in the case of the Skyrians, the Hellenic life of the Lemnians too is assumed to start with the Athenians, and even their common Pelasgian background is a further point of ancient pre-Hellenic connection.62 The colonization of Lemnos by Miltiades receives a memorable mention in Herodotus, which may not be irrelevant with the absence of any reference to Lemnos’ colonial origin from Thucydides: as we saw, this is also the case with the Chersonese, whose occupation by Miltiades’ maternal uncle, Miltiades the Elder, is interconnected with that of Lemnos in Herodotus’ account.63 Moreover, the xyngeneia of Lemnos and Imbros with Athens and the two islands’ cultural affinity with their metropolis, as attested in Thucydides’ catalogue of allies in Sicily, was a major reason for their exclusion (together with Skyros) from the King’s peace in 386, which (p.330) stipulated that these three islands were to belong to Athens ‘as of old’ (ὥσπερ τὸ ἀρχαῖον).64
The identity of the peoples described by the ethnics ‘Lemnians’ and ‘Imbrians’ in Thucydides’ catalogue is a challenging question though. Thucydides calls them apoikoi, so it may be inferred that they had not retained the status of Athenian citizenship, and had formed new communities, who spoke the same language with their metropolis and had the same customs and probably common institutions. On the other hand, it is believed that Lemnos (and Imbros) received kleruchs as additional settlers around the middle of the fifth century, which complicates things even more, because in this case we have to reconcile the kleruchic with the tributary status of the community of Lemnos. Scholars have put forward a number of suggestions and options but the problem remains open. Unsettling though they may be, such puzzles have a sobering effect on our fragmentary vision of complex phenomena, at times shaking even the most axiomatic of our beliefs, such as that tribute was assessed for dependent allies only and not for kleruchs, who, in our interpetations, are always thought of as Athenian citizens.65
What about the second pair, Hestiaia and, even more, Dorian Aigina? The Hestiaians were at least Euboians, hence Ionians, but their Ionic dialect was not identical to Attic.66 Besides, Eretria’s conduct in the events of 412/11,67 but also the recalcitrant behaviour of Mende and Eion in Thrace, Eretria’s daughter and granddaughter city respectively,68 reminds us of the in-spite-of-xyngeneia category, since they were Ionian kinsmen of Athens who did not entertain friendly feelings towards them. There was an important qualitative difference between the xyngeneia relationship the Hestiaians had with the Athenians, and that of the Lemnians and the Imbrians. The Hestiaians were Ionians and more specifically colonists of the Athenians; but this colonial tie was a recent one. The Hestiaians, referred to by Thucydides in the catalogue as having the same language and customs/institutions with the Athenians, are the first generation of the Athenian settlers who were sent to the city in 445, after Pericles subdued the (p.331) whole of Euboia. The settlement is considered a colony, although the punitive overtones of Thucydides’ statement might point to a kleruchic aspect as well: Ἑστιαιᾶς δὲ ἐξοικίσαντες αὐτοὶ τὴν γῆν ἔσχον.69
As for the Aiginetans, it is clear that they were the Athenians who had been sent to settle Aigina eighteen years earlier, and therefore the ethnic is used here with its geographical dimension.70 Thucydides specifies that then (i.e. in 413) those Athenian Aiginetans were living on the island (οἵ τότε Αἴγιναν εἶχον), which is probably an indication that this passage was written after 405, when the island had been delivered to its original inhabitants by Lysander.71 Considering the deep and long-standing enmity between Athens and Aigina, whose background is well documented by Herodotus,72 the appropriation of the ethnic of the occupied by the occupier may be viewed as a symbol of Athenian dominance and control. It is a reminder of the assimilative power of ethnic names and the versatility of Athenian mechanisms of intercommunal kinship. From an Aiginetan angle, the use of the ethnic ‘Aiginetan’ must have felt as an act of oppression and a violent appropriation of the Dorian and local identity of the native population of the island by the Ionian Athenians.73 In the course of the war, the Athenians were relentless with the indigenous Aiginetans, whom they had expelled. In 429, the Athenian ships go out of their way to attack the Cretan city Kydonia,74 one of the very few colonies of Aigina—the colonial tie, as we saw, is not attested by Thucydides75—where some Aiginetans had also found refuge after their expulsion from the island in 431.76 Five years later the Athenians killed and chased them also out of Thyrea, which they had been given to live in by the Spartans.77
Despite the deep chasm between the two areas, some ties of kinship can be traced. First, Herodotus mentions an eminent Aiginetan named Nikodromos, who attempted to betray the island to the Athenians, but, when he failed, the Athenians gave him and his pro-Athenian faction land in Sounion to live (τοῖσι Ἀθηναῖοι Σούνιον οἰκῆσαι ἔδοσαν).78 The offer of land itself is a highly significant act, which confirms and consolidates an intimate connection between two peoples. As we saw, the Aiginetans who were expelled by the Athenians were offered Thyrea by the Spartans, Dorian xyngeneis, and privileged friends (p.332) (ἔδοσαν Θυρέαν οἰκεῖν καὶ τὴν γῆν νέμεσθαι, κατά τε τὸ Ἀθηναίων διάφορον καὶ ὅτι σφῶν εὐεργέται ἦσαν).79 We may also recall the case of the uprooted Plataians, who were given Skione. Skione, a city of Achaian descent from the Peloponnese, as we are told, was a typical case of fifth-century Athenian occupation and resettlement, with a clear punitive purpose and military, and economic character.80 According to the usual pattern, after the murder and the enslavement of the Skionaians, we would have expected to see Athenian citizens settling the place, and in some sense we did, because the Plataians sent there were in fact Athenians.81
Another point of affinity between Aigina and Athens was the geographical proximity of both Aigina and Salamis to Attika. It can be argued that the geographical closeness of these two islands with the land of Attika intensified the latter’s (self-)image as a metaphorical island, which was an essential element of the Athenian identity and empire.82 Also Herodotus points out that the Athenian Miltiades the Elder, the distinguished colonizer of the Chersonese, was of Aiginetan origin: he traced his ancestry to Aiakos and Aigina, and through him to Philaios, son of Ajax, who was the first Aiakid to become an Athenian.83 The Philaid genealogy was part of Athens’ ‘manipulation of cult and legend connected with [its] claim to Salamis’,84 but at the same time established the link between Athens and Aigina through the mythical figure of Aiakos. Aiakos was the ancestral hero of Aigina, born to Zeus by the eponymous nymph, daughter of the river Asopos, on the borders of Boiotia and Attika, and was worshipped in Athens.85 One of Aiakos’ sons was Telamon, who settled in Salamis and became king there, and he too enjoyed a hero-cult.86 His son, the great Ajax, gave his name to one of the ten Kleisthenic tribes of Athens (Αἰαντίς), the only one that was not inspired by a legendary figure of Attika. Ajax had an ancient presence in Athens, and his cult made use of existing religious structures, since his (p.333) son Eurysakes had an old shrine on Attic soil (the Eurysakeion) in the deme of Melite.87
There is no mention in Thucydides of an Athenian kleruchy or a colony on Salamis, the other proximate island in the Saronic Gulf. Salamis, though, appears steadily under Athenian control throughout the History, as a land physically and emotionally very close to Athens.88 Salamis was in fact a typical case of a dear and dangerous offshore island, in a similar manner to which Dorian Kythera was for its metropolis, Sparta, and the land of Lakonike.89 In the bold attack against Piraeus in 429 by the Peloponnesians, the ravaging of Salamis is reported as having caused the greatest consternation of the war to the Athenians (ἔκπληξις ἐγένετο οὐδεμιᾶς τῶν κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἐλάσσων).90 This high-pitched formula is used almost identically for the Athenian disaster in Sicily and the loss of Euboia in 411.91 On the Dorian side, it is also used for the loss of Kythera (παρὰ λόγον αὐτοῖς ἔκπληξιν μεγίστην παρεῖχε), suggestively underscoring the analogies between Kythera and Salamis.92 It should be noticed, though, that nowhere in the History are the Salaminians referred to as ‘Athenians’, as the Kytherians are named ‘Lakedaimonians’.93 But we do hear from Pindar about the Athenian Timodemos, from the deme of Acharnai, winner in the pancratium, who was reared in Salamis.94 It has been suggested that this man could have been a kleruch on the island, of a status analogous to that of the Aiginetan/Athenians, but of an earlier sixth-century type.95 We have further literary evidence about this early kleruchy or settlement on Salamis from Plutarch, who talks about 500 men (observe again the round number of kleruchic type) led by Solon at the fulfilment of a Delphic oracle. The involvement of Apollo in the enterprise and the propitiation of local heroes, on the other hand, have strong colonization overtones.96 Plutarch expands on the long-standing and fierce rivalry between the Megarians and the Athenians over Salamis, and it is again with the intervention of Pythian oracles that this rivalry ended in an Athenian triumph, and Solon’s personal one: the god named (p.334) Salamis Ionian (ὁ θεὸς Ἰαονίαν τὴν Σαλαμῖνα προσηγόρευσε).97 The old rivalry between Megara and Athens is also suggested by Thucydides’ description of the sudden Peloponnesian attack against Piraeus, where the Megarians had an instrumental role (διδαξάντων τῶν Μεγαρέων).98 In epigraphic terms, we have a document of the early fifth century, which, as restored by most editors, appears to refer to Athenians kleruchs living on the island.99
Eretria has already been mentioned in relation to its consistent hostility towards Athens and its vital role in the loss of Euboia.100 In this episode, we see the Eretrians slaughtering the Athenians who sought refuge in the city, assuming that it was friendly (ὡς φιλίαν). Most probably this assumption was based more on political/constitutional criteria and an error of judgement on this occasion (Eretria had turned oligarchic just a few months ago), rather than racial criteria. But those of the Athenians who escaped to the fort in the Eretrian territory, which they themselves held, were saved: οἳ δὲ ἐς τὸ ἐπιτείχισμα τὸ ἐν τῇ Ἐρετρίᾳ, ὃ εἶχον αὐτοί, περιγίγνονται.101 If this fortified position could be connected with the kleruchy we believe the Athenians had in Eretria,102 then it is a further indication of the vital military role of the kleruchic settlement. If there was a kleruchy, the episode also suggests rather loose connections between the kleruchic population and the Eretrians in the city, at least in the present anti-Athenian political circumstances in Eretria. Yet interpersonal and family connections surely existed in such environments. Lysias refers to intermarriages (ἐπιγαμίαι) between the Athenian and the Euboian communities in the fourth century,103 which remind us of the fifth-century personal stories of Alcibiades and Paches already mentioned.104
Sinope in the Pontic region does not feature in Thucydides, but the colonial activity of Megara in the area is mentioned, and Athenian presence is also implied, as we saw in relation to the kind treatment Lamachos received there.105 (p.335) Plutarch’s testimony about Pericles sending 600 settlers to Sinope provides a useful context for Thucydides’ hint at the Athenian connection with the area.106 Plutarch does not characterize the settlement as a kleruchy or a colony, nor does he include it in the list of kleruchies and colonies in ch. 11 of his Pericles. But again, the number of settlers is typically kleruchic, along with the division of land.107
Further points on terminology
The term κληροῦχος is used once in Thucydides for the kleruchy sent to Lesbos.108 The standard terms used for the colonists are οἰκήτορες,109 ἄποικοι,110 or ἔποικοι.111 There are instances when Thucydides uses more than one term for the same settlers, as he does for Aigina, where both οἰκήτορες and ἔποικοι are used for the Athenians who were sent to Aigina in 431.112 A comparable case is Ennea Hodoi, where these two terms are used for the same dispatch in two different passages.113 So, these two terms may coexist, and as Figueira notices, ἔποικοι might mean ‘subsequent’ of ‘reinforcing’ settlers, i.e. either settlers sent to a place where the population has been expelled, or additional settlers to an existing community. Therefore, the kleruchs in Mytilene could elsewhere have been named by Thucydides as ἔποικοι, since ‘the kleruchs are always ἔποικοι … but not all ἔποικοι are kleruchs’.114 A good example of the semantic range of the word in Thucydides can be seen in the use of the word ἔποικοι for the settlers of Gela, although it is generally thought that the city was colonized from scratch.115 Nevertheless, the word used for the 500 settlers sent to Melos is ἄποικοι (and not ἔποικοι, as one might have expected).116
The verb ἀπέπεμψαν in the passage on the kleruchs sent to Mytilene might be a linguistic indication that a kleruchy is something different from a colony. As has already been mentioned, the normal verbs for the dispatch of a colony are ἐκπέμπω or πέμπω.117 The verb ἀποπέμπω for such an enterprise is an (p.336) anomaly. In fact, this is the only time in the entire work that ἀποπέμπω applies to a body of citizens who leave the city to inhabit another place,118 and this semantic hapax of the verb is congruent with the hapax of a kleruchy in Thucydides. The meaning of the verb in this passage has the aspect of a purpose, or specific mission, because it is found in the typical structure ἀποπέμπω ἐπί τι (ἐπί δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους [κλήρους] … ἀπέπεμψαν).119 However, there is no reason to believe that one of the standard verbs normally used for the dispatch of settlers or the foundation of a new city could not have been used by Thucydides occasionally to describe a kleruchy.
The military and economic dimensions
The Athenian kleruchy sent to Mytilene was going to have a clear military and economic character. The kleruchs were meant to act as a garrison that would keep the Mytilenaians under control, and at the same time would serve as a basis for military operations of the Athenians in the area.120 We are told that the Athenians also took the cities in the mainland that the Mytilenaians controlled by then,121 so the kleruchs must have contributed to the protection of these areas as well. As has already been observed, it is odd that these kleruchs disappear after their first and only mention in the work. They are not involved in the event of the assault against Antandros in 424 by the Mytilenaian exiles and the recovery of the place by the Athenians.122
When exactly the kleruchs were removed from Mytilene is another point where scholars disagree with each other. One possibility is that the Athenian kleruchy on Mytilene was short-lived.123 But it is also possible that they could have stayed on until the end of the Peloponnesian War.124 Thucydides speaks of the Athenian garrison in Mytilene in 411 (οἱ ἐκ τῆς Μυτιλήνης Ἀθηναῖοι φρουροί).125 It would be reasonable and economical for the Athenians to use kleruchs in this garrison and it would be a case potentially comparable to Eretria discussed earlier.126 Perhaps there is no compelling reason to rule out this possibility, with Figueira, who considers that these φρουραί or φυλακαί were a standard way of defence, and should not be mingled with the functions of the (p.337) kleruchs and colonists.127 In a Dorian context, we may recall the paradigmatic section of the Kerkyraika. In this episode, we had seen the Korinthians sending a composite body of people to Epidamnos, consisting of ‘anyone who wished to go as settlers and a garrison of Ambrakiots, Leukadians and themselves’.128 If the colonizing city here was not Korinth, but Athens, we might have been tempted perhaps to see this venture as a remarkable combined dispatch of an apoikia reinforced by some sort of kleruchs, who would undertake a protective and military role. In any case, we would definitely have wondered about the possibility of a kleruchic dimension in these φρουροί, who were Korinthians (from the mother-city itself (ἑαυτῶν) and colonial xyngeneis from the Korinthian settlements of Ambrakia and Leukas), and, thus, must be distinguished from the colonizers (observe the formula τὸν βουλόμενον).
Furthermore, the number of the Athenian kleruchs in Mytilene (2,700) was such that they could be recalled in groups, so that a smaller number could have stayed behind until a later date. It is worth noticing that the Chian ships start their attempt to cause Lesbos to revolt with Methymna, the most loyal to Athens of all the Lesbian cities.129 This might be pressed to indicate a kleruchic presence perhaps still in Mytilene. Also, in terms of epigraphic evidence, the fragmentary Athenian decree regulating issues of the relationship between the Athenian demos, the kleruchs, and the Mytileneans (c.427/6) might not necessarily mandate the withdrawal of the kleruchs and the complete autonomy of the locals. It could be something more nuanced and conditional.130 At any rate, what is remarkable about these decrees with respect to the kinship theme is that they show that the kleruchy, albeit of punitive character, was not able to disrupt the special relatedness between Athens and Mytilene, and even the possibility of a warm relationship. This is an important point, which should be added to the rest of our observations about the interaction of relatedness with the kleruchic phenomenon.
As for the economic benefits, Thucydides’ statement by negation is telling: φόρον μὲν οὐκ ἔταξαν.131 The city’s indirect revenue from the kleruchy would be considerable. Two thousand seven hundred Athenian citizens would have an annual income of 200 drachmas, which corresponded to the two-thirds of the annual payment an Athenian hoplite received at the siege of Potidaia (without his attendant). It was in fact the minimum hoplite wage in emergency wartime, and therefore a considerable relief for the Athenian treasury in these difficult circumstances.132
(p.338) The religious dimension
So far, the analysis on Athens’ kleruchies, or apoikiai with some kleruchic features, has shown that they were two different types of settlement, whose description, however, from Thucydides and the rest of our sources, often portrays them as part of a quite complex reality that we are not able to fully grasp, justify, and classify on the basis of our present evidence. Yet the ‘anxiety’ caused by our uncertainties leads at times to rigid and technical distinctions that in turn restrict our patterns of interpretation. As we have seen, Thucydides and the rest of our sources leave no doubt about the religious and other cultural affinities between the dynamic triangle formed by the mother-city, the new settlement, and the indigenous environment in which the new settlement is implanted. But although the dynamic field of mutual cultural influences is duly acknowledged for the colonies, in the case of kleruchies attention has mainly centred on technical issues concerning the community itself, its functions and relationship with Athens (economic, military, administrative, and so on), while the cultural interaction of the kleruchy with the indigenous environment has been underplayed. Salomon, for example, speaks of a symbiosis of the local population and the Athenian settlers ‘in different zones’ in kleruchies such as that on Lesbos, but also in Euboia (fifth century) and the Chersonese (fourth century), at the same time considering the kleruchy a completely prosaic phenomenon, as we saw.133 We need to ask how impermeable these ‘zones’ really were and what were the cultural repercussions of such a symbiosis.
Religion, in particular the three hundred sacred allotments set aside for the gods (κλήρους … τριακοσίους τοῖς θεοῖς ἱεροὺς ἐξεῖλον) in the kleruchy sent to Mytilene, is the obvious place to start.134 Like all 3,000 landholdings, which were Athenian public properties, the revenue from these sacred ones was used to finance not only cultic activity taking place in the temene (land ‘taken out’ for the gods) of the divine payees, but also military undertakings.135 I am not concerned here with technical questions about these temene (the proportion of arable land, terms of leasing, etc.), but with their cultural significance and potential, as hubs of Athenian cult on a foreign terrain, where, it must not be forgotten, religious and cultural life continued to exist in parallel with the Athenian kleruchic settlement.136 ‘Cleruchs regularly respected the gods that (p.339) were there before them,’ which is also congruent with Thucydides’ own reporting of the general Greek custom, according to which the newcomers normally respected the gods of the area that had received them.137
Especially with respect to the Athenian settlements on Aigina and Samos, scholars have drawn our attention to evidence of Athenian protection and endorsement of forms of local cults and to a degree of hybridity in the cultic practices of the Athenian kleruchs (or apoikoi).138 For example, the shrine of Asklepios in Aigina was apparently available for consultation in 422, which suggests that the local cult of the god continued after 431, when the Athenian settlement was established.139 Similarly, on the basis of epigraphic evidence from the Athenian temene of Apollo and Poseidon in Aigina, two deities besides closely associated with the local hero Aiakos in the island’s mythical tradition, an attractive and persuasive case has been made for the adoption and continuation of the two gods’ local cult by the Athenian settlers.140 Conversely, Athenian religion too surely exerted some influence on local religious practices, as for example group dedications on the Athenian Acropolis attest, or hybrid cultic forms in the Athenian settlement, which were the result of Athenian adaptations of local cults. A case in point from the late fourth century is the cult of the ‘Great Gods’ or Kabeiroi on Lemnos.141 For the Athenian kleruchy on Mytilene itself, we are in the dark about the divine owners of the 300 sacred kleroi; but it has been suggested that the kleruchs used some of the revenue to finance local filial cults.142 Nevertheless it is inconceivable, both in theory and in practice, as we saw looking at other analogous cases, that a degree of cultural interaction did not take place between the kleruchic settlement and the native environment, with religion having a focal role.
If the anonymity of the gods who became the owners of the 300 lots in the Athenian kleruchy at Mytilene is one of the challenges of Thucydides’ description,143 the absence of a reference to a sort of an oikist, or indeed any official, is another. Salomon views the absence of oikists from the existing (p.340) evidence on kleruchies as part of the prosaic and functional character of this type of settlement.144 It is true that the establishment of a kleruchy appears to lack in our sources the mytho-historical apparatus of the foundation of a colony, especially in the archaic period, where the founder holds a central place. On the other hand, it would be an oversimplification to think that the kleruchy is devoid of any foundational and emotional significance, or, on the other hand, to fail to acknowledge the evolution in colonial practices from the archaic to classical times. We have already referred to the evolution of the role of the oikist in the course of the fifth century, in relation to ‘clear’ cases of colonies, such as Amphipolis145 or Herakleia Trachinia.146 We pointed out that Hagnon, or the oikist-committee of the three Spartan oikists of Herakleia in Trachis appear as much more functional—and in that sense prosaic—figures than Miltiades in the Chersonese, for example, an athletic victor and a much more archaic figure altogether in Herodotus’ account.147
The foundation of Notion is another Athenian/Ionian example suggesting evolution and multiplicity of practices. Thucydides reports that in 429 the Athenians delivered Notion, a foundation of Kolophon (Νότιον τὸ Κολοφωνίων),148 back to its mother-city, after having expelled Arkadians and barbarians. We know from Herodotus that Kolophon was Ionian.149 Thucydides says that the Athenians sent ‘founders’ (οἰκιστάς) and colonized the city of Ionian Notion, according to their own institutions (κατὰ τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νόμους κατῴκισαν).150 The description probably refers to a fifth-century type of colony populated by a good number of non-Athenian settlers (ξυναγαγόντες πάντας ἐκ τῶν πόλεων). As has been observed, the plural οἰκιστάς has a technical dimension, and suggests perhaps a group of officials, who acted as organizers of the settlement.151 A comparable and later attestation of this plural is found in a naval inscription of 353/2, which ‘lists triremes in various places, including “those which the oikistai have in the Chersonesos”’.152
Thurii, a famous omission of the Pentekontaetia narrative, is a well-known example of the evolution of colonization practices in the course of the fifth century, and of the fact that ‘[t]he role of the “founder” too [had] lost its sharpness of outline, amid a haze of characteristically Athenian boards of ten and the like’.153 On the other hand, the traditional religious functions of the founder are well represented in the central figure of Lampon, the Athenian seer, (p.341) and even more so by the fact that eventually the oikist of the city was considered to be Apollo himself.154
All in all, we have come full circle to the notion of the total social fact, with which this discussion started. In both apoikiai and kleruchies there was a need for one or more individuals, or some form of mechanism, to perform certain civic, legal, military, and religious duties for the foundation of a new settlement. The division of secular and sacred land in the kleruchy on Lesbos is a traditional pattern, of not only practical but also symbolic significance, which represents the creation of a new social and cultural order in the native environment, and needs officials to be carried out.155 We know of the so-called horistai, for example, the Athenian magistrates whose duties entailed the marking-out of sacred land or the boundaries of private and public buildings.156 It is reasonable to assume that kleruchies must have had some leading figure(s) to perform the necessary duties on the spot, whether they were called oikists or not. Besides oikists themselves had rigorous military functions to perform, planted as their colonies were in often hostile terrain, and the same was true to some extent of kleruchies.
The end of the Mytilene and Plataia narratives: 3. 50. 2 and 3. 68. 3–5
Although it is an institution of the Athenian democracy, the kleruchic phenomenon should not be studied in isolation from the colonizing practices of the Dorian world.157 The kleruchy was after all a pattern of settlement abroad, thus possessing a comparative potential in all its dimensions (economic, military, political, sociocultural), whose awareness may enlighten our understanding of ancient Greek colonization. This I have tried to show so far by bringing into the discussion some Dorian analogies. Another case that affords comparison is the ravaging of Hysiai in the Argive territory by the Spartans and the massacring of all its free inhabitants.158 The pattern shares much in common with Athenian (p.342) expeditions against recalcitrant cities. Analogies with the description of the brutal treatment of Skione (or Melos) have already been observed, but there is also the important difference that we do not hear about occupation: no settlers seem to have been sent there, nor even a garrison. Could this be relevant at all to the fact that Hysiai is termed by Thucydides as a χωρίον (smaller place) and not a polis?159 Or might it be an indication of different Spartan practices and psychology? Hysiai was the site of a great Argive defeat of the Spartans in 669 BC, and Lazenby wonders if by this atrocity (‘on the whole out of character’) the Spartans were symbolically paying off a score from very long ago.160
The case of Hysiai brings us to a final note on the denouement of two major interweaving narratives that were the subject of Chapter 3: Mytilene and Plataia. The similarities in the concluding narratives of the two episodes have already been noticed.161 I would like to suggest that a closer look at the differences too might contribute to our view of kleruchic practices in the ancient Greek world, even if by suggesting more questions and not necessarily answers. Both stories end in slaughter; but we are told that the Spartans in Plataia killed all males left in the city without exception (καὶ ἐξαίρετον ἐποιήσαντο οὐδένα), and enslaved the women.162 The Athenians in Mytilene, on the other hand, punished with death only the culprits of the revolt. The Spartans, as we saw, were also brutal to the physical space of the city: they rased it to the ground (the Greek reads ‘from the foundations’, ἐκ θεμελίων). The building of the καταγώγιον (host) for the visitors of the various festivals that were going to be continued has been considered an indication of Spartan piety. However their typically ‘barbaric’ behaviour inside the city subtly, but effectively, undermines their pious profile.163 Thucydides’ strong language (ἐκ θεμελίων) suggests that the sacred places inside the civic space (such as hearths and altars) were not spared. The sacrilegiousness of the assault is powerfully brought out when read against the testimony of the geographer Agatharchides concerning Alexander’s similar behaviour in Boiotian Thebes.164 Besides, the tragic fate of Plataia was only the culminating moment of an escalating brutality, whose diplomatic and judicial expression we saw in the mock trial of the Plataians, a harbinger of what was to come. By contrast, the establishment of an Athenian kleruchy at Mytilene was the product of a democratic debate, and arguably a happy moment in the post-Periclean era of Athenian democracy, since the sensible voice of Diodotus prevailed. This is not the place for an analysis of the moral dimension of Diodotus’ words, and the (p.343) mixture of motives that finally led the Athenians to endorse his suggestions. In the light of Diodotus’ conciliatory and sensible language in the Mytilene debate, the establishment of an Athenian kleruchy in Mytilene emerges as an institution of punitive character, but within the measures of a civilized social order, compared to the brutal punishment of Plataia, which is reported after the end of the Mytilene episode and the creation of the kleruchy.
The only mention of an Athenian kleruchy in the work, under this name, at this point in the narrative is particularly effective. The institution is presented in the framework of the Athenians’ democratic constitution and decision-making. On this occasion at least, it is not the brutality of occupation that crowns the episode, but a new social formation that is presented as a civilized and technically advanced mechanism of the Athenian empire, whose superiority is to be sought in its democratic processes. An important kleruchic criterion in my discussion more generally has been the number of settlers sent, and in the case of Mytilene the considerable number of 2,700 kleruchs may be taken as an indication of evolution and sophistication. It supersedes the numbers of kleruchs taking part in similar ventures of Pericles in the mid-fifth century (see p. 327), although we must not forget the early kleruchy to Chalkis with 4,000 Athenians, mentioned by Herodotus.165 Once more the issue of the author’s Athenian identity is posed, and the extent to which this has influenced his representations. On the other hand, the end of Plataia invites us to observe familiar patterns seen so far from both belligerent sides. For example, the Megarian exiles who were given the land of Plataia for a year were Dorian xyngeneis of the Spartans. This is analogous with the Athenians granting Skione to the Plataians, with whom they had exceptionally close ties of relatedness. And the confiscation and leasing of the land of Plataia to the Thebans for ten years (δημοσιώσαντες ἀπεμίσθωσαν ἐπὶ δέκα ἔτη) is analogous to the public ownership of the kleruchic land by Athens and to the temporary and economic character of a kleruchy.166
In addition to the attestation of the establishment of an Athenian kleruchy on Lesbos in 427 BC, Thucydides has other valuable evidence to offer on fifth-century settlement practices. Reading this evidence against external sources and inscriptional evidence, I have argued against the view of the kleruchic settlement as a technical and perfunctory phenomenon. I have urged closer attention to its cultural dimension and the need for taking on board Spartan/Doric analogies, in order to have a fuller view of the problem.
(3) ‘Vedremo che questi caratteri fondamentali e distintivi … dal V al IV secolo’; Salomon 1997: 26. On the one hand, Salomon thinks that the inadequacy of the fifth-century documentation produces a hazy image of these older kleruchic communities (Lesbos, Potidaia, Chalkis), and on the other, she suggests that the Athenian citizens mentioned in the fourth-century decrees from Lemnos and Imbros were not kleruchs, but naturalized Athenians (cf. the case of Samos), to whom the kleruchs were later added. Salomon 1997: 74–5; on possible dates of the Lemnian naturalization, pp. 78–9.
(8) ‘ἄποικοι e κληροῦχοι possono essere davvero considerati come appartenenti a due differenti categorie, i primi come coloni di popolamento, i secondi come soggetti con funzione militare e mandato temporaneo’; Salomon 1997: 219. As for the term ἔποικος she believes that it is semantically more diverse, and does not correspond to a particular type of colony (‘il termine ἔποικος non denoti l’abitante di una colonia di tipo particolare, ma afferisca a une diversa area semantica’, p. 220). But she seems to be contradicting herself in this, because a little earlier she states that ‘ἄποικος, ἔποικος and κληροῦχος define three distinct types of colonist, each one belonging to a settlement with particular traits and institutions’ (ἄποικος, ἔποικος e κληροῦχος individuino tre distinti tipi di colono, ciascuno appartenente a una fondazione con tratti e istituzioni peculiari’, p. 219).
(11) Of the extant Athenian inscriptions only one refers to an apoikia and none to any kleruchia, although groups of settlers are called ‘kleruchoi’. In the extant inscriptions from the settlements themselves ‘no group of settlers … refers either to its settlement as a kleruchy or to itself as kleruchs … The settlers called themselves simply Athenians’, Cargill 1995: 138. Cf. Rhodes 1994: 214. On the terms in Thucydides, see Ch. 2.
(13) Respectively: 1. 98. 2, 2. 27, 2. 70, 3. 34, 4. 49, 5. 32, 5. 116, 6. 62. 3. Anaktorion was in fact colonized by Akarnanians, who had ties of relatedness with the Athenians; the Athenians were heavily involved in the operation (4. 49). It is this normal practice that makes the treatment of Lampsakos (8. 62. 2) so remarkable: the Athenian general Strombichides, after taking the city and making booty of goods and slaves as usual, restored the free men to their homes. Lampsakos was an Ionian foundation; our traditions agree (see CT iii. 936), although Thucydides is silent about the city’s pedigree (but he does note the Milesian descent of Abydos in the vicinity, 8. 61. 1). Could the Ionian background of Lampsakos and/or the special ties some Athenians had with the place have been relevant to this favourable treatment? We have been told that Themistokles had been given the plentiful vineyards of Lampsakos (πολυοινότατον) by the Persian king (1. 138. 5) and that the Peisistratids had family ties by marriage with the tyrannical family of Lampsakos (6. 59. 3). On the other hand ‘the site was too important to abandon’ (Pritchett v. 301), and military reasons could have been responsible for this exceptional treatment. Chalkidic Torone is also a different case: women and children were indeed enslaved, but the (only 700) men did not fare that badly. The city did not receive any kind of settlers or kleruchs, but Kleon set a guard (φυλακήν) there before leaving (3. 4–6). On the Euboian/Ionian origin of the Chalkidians of Thrace, see pp. 217–18. A comparable case is that of Eion, which was taken after siege in c.476, and its population was enslaved, but we are not told about sending settlers there, at least not immediately (1. 98. 1). Of course, elsewhere (1. 100, 4. 102), Thucydides tells us about the colonization of Ennea Hodoi, which was a few miles north.
(14) 3. 50. 1.
(15) 3. 48. 1.
(16) 3. 50. 2.
(17) The stronger epigraphic evidence for this distinction is IG I3 237. 8–9, where apoikiai and klerouchiai are referred to as two different categories.
(18) Ennea Hodoi: 4. 102. 2, with 1. 100. 3 (πέμψαντες μυρίους οἰκήτορας αὑτῶν καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων); for the term epoikos see below. Epidamnos: 1. 26. 1, 5; Herakleia Trachinia: 3. 92. 5 (but see πλὴν Ἰώνων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν καὶ ἔστιν ὧν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν; see sect. 5.1.1 in this volume).
(19) 1. 98. The verb ᾤκισαν is a standard colonial term, see pp. 37–8.
(20) Plut. Thes. 36. 1, Cim. 8. 5f. Salomon is perplexing on Skyros: she stresses the importance of the Delphic oracle in the settlements of Lemnos and Skyros, and takes them as clear indications that the Athenians sent to the two islands were colonists and not kleruchs (Salomon 1997: 42–3), but elsewhere is hesitant about the historicity of information about Skyros (p. 68). Figueira (1991: 175, 179) thinks Skyros was a colony.
(21) IACP p. 774. But see IG XII. 8 668, a decree possibly datable to the fourth century, mentioning ‘the Athenian demos’ and/or others (?) living in Skyros, with Cargill 1995: 62, 106–7, 357 (no. 884).
(22) 2. 70. 4. Cf. ML 66, and IG I3 62. 8, 19–20 (οἱ ἔποικοι οἱ Ἀθηναίων οἱ Ποτείδαιαν ἔχοντες).
(24) On account of xyngeneia, constraint, or profit, as Thucydides says (7. 57. 1).
(25) Cf. 4. 120. 3 Ἀθηναίων Ποτείδαιαν ἐχόντων, 4. 121. 2, 4. 135. 1 (Brasidas’ attempt against the city); naval base 4. 129. 3. Diodorus (12. 46. 7) mentions the kleruchy: he speaks of 1,000 settlers, and uses the standard verb κατεκληρούχησαν.
(27) Plut. Per. 11. 5, 19.
(28) One thousand settlers were sent to both places and κατεκληρούχησε is used in both cases: Diod. 11. 88. 3 (the Chersonese); Diod. 12. 46. 7 (Potidaia).
(29) 8. 62. 3, 102. 1, 104. 2.
(30) Hdt. 6. 34–8. Later, at the end of the fourth century BC, the fates of the two areas meet: Kassander synoikized the cities of Potidaia and the Chersonese in the new city of Kassandreia, founded on the site of the older Potidaia (Diod. 19. 52. 2). For the complementary relation in the distribution of colonial information in Thucydides and Herodotus, see Appendix II.
(31) Liban. Hyp. Dem. 8 [Chers.], 1–3. Cf. Schol. Thuc. 1. 11, Akamas and Antilochos led a colonial initiative in the Chersonese, cf. p. 269. But see Cargill 1995: 26–7, for a discussion of Chares’ cruel treatment of Sestos in 353/2, and the ensuing sending of the first wave of fourth-century kleruchs (Diod. 16. 34. 3ff.).
(32) 4. 135. 1, with 4. 121. 2 and 4. 120. 3.
(33) Diod. 15. 81. 6. IG II2 114.
(35) 3. 91. 1–3.
(36) 5. 116. 4. Cf. p. 162.
(38) Plut. Per. 11. 5; cf. Diod. 11. 88. 3.
(39) Plut. Per. 11. 5.
(40) 1. 98. 4.
(41) 8. 39. 3.
(42) Xen. Hell. 2. 2. 9.
(44) 5. 84. 2, 104, 106, 112. 2. Cf. Hdt. 8. 48.
(45) In the fragmentary decree of granting citizenship to Aristolas and Sostratos from the Athenian Agora there is an intriguing—but rather slight—possibility that some Melians are mentioned as recipients of Athenian πολιτεία, Agora XVI 162, between 300/299 and 295/4; for other candidates for the five missing letters (l. 20), see Agora XVI 234, with Osborne ii. 143.
(46) Plut. Alc. 16. 4. Such unions between (usually male) ‘occupiers’ and (usually female) ‘occupied’ and the social stigma they entailed for the latter are common in later history as well. The film Hiroshima Mon Amour is one of the most famous and poetic crystallizations of the theme on screen (Alain Resnais, 1959; screenplay Marguerite Duras). Cf. Young 1995, on the relationship between racism and sexuality from a post-colonial cultural perspective.
(47) Plut. Nik. 6. 1; Arist. 26. 5; Anth. Pal. VII 614 [Agathias]. Westlake (1989) doubted the historicity of the story, but Tuplin (1982) has defended it. For ἐπιγαμίαι with Euboia, see below p. 334.
(48) But see Hdt. 8. 46. 1.
(49) 1. 14. 3.
(50) 1. 41. 2; cf. Hdt. 6. 89.
(51) Hdt. 5. 81. 2.
(53) 4. 57. 5 διὰ τὴν προτέραν αἰεί ποτε ἔχθραν.
(54) 1. 14. 3, 41. 2, 1. 105. 2, 108. 5. Herodotus too complements valuably our knowledge of the period before the Persian Wars (6. 89ff.), but also recounts the start of the feud in early times (5. 82–8).
(55) 2. 27. 1.
(56) ἐξέπεμψαν: 1. 2. 6, 2. 27. 2, 3. 92. 5 (cf. 1. 34. 1, 38. 1, 3. 92. 4, 4. 49, 102. 3, 6. 6. 2); or ἔπεμψαν: 1. 26. 3, 2. 70. 4, 8. 69. 4. See also discussion below on ἀπέπεμψαν. Figueira (1991) considers the Athenian settlement on Aigina a clear case of a colony. Verbs used for the foundation of a new city: οἰκίζω (1. 13. 6 Massalia, Skyros 1. 98. 2, Ennea Hodoi 1. 100. 3, Argos Amphilochikon 2. 68. 7, Amphipolis 4. 102. 4, Melos 5. 116. 4, 6. 3. 1, 4. 1, 4 et passim, 6. 23. 2), (and compounds such as κατοικίζω 6. 5. 3 or ξυνοικίζω 6. 5. 1, ξυγκατοικίζω 6. 8. 2); κτίζω (Argos Amphilochikon 2. 68. 3—observe the uses of both οἰκίζω and κτίζω for Argos Amphilochikon, 6. 4. 2, 3), or expressions such as ἀποικίαν ἄγω 6. 4, ἔρχομαι ἐς ἀποικίαν 6. 5. See also Ch. 2. Cf. Casevitz 1985.
(57) 7. 57. 2.
(58) 1. 6. 3, 6. 4. 3, 4, 5. 1. Cf. Hdt. 8. 144.
(59) 7. 57. 1.
(60) 3. 5. 1, 4. 28. 4, 5. 8. 2, 7. 57. 2, 8. 102. 2.
(61) Hdt. 6. 138. 2. Lemnos’ relation with the Attic language is significantly depicted on the Sophoclean stage (Phil. 225) φωνῆς δ’ ἀκοῦσαι βούλομαι, 234–5 ὦ φίλτατον φώνημα· φεῦ τὸ καὶ λαβεῖν | πρόσφθεγμα τοιοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς ἐν χρόνῳ μακρῷ. The very first sound of human language Philoctetes hears on Lemnos, after a prolonged period of silence and lack of any human presence, is Attic Greek.
(65) Cargill’s (1995: 5) apt remark. The reinforcement of kleruchs is not attested directly, but is inferred from the fluctuation in the island’s tribute quotas, Cargill 1995: 7. Salomon (1997: 58–63) believes that they are apoikoi, and not kleruchs.
(67) 8. 60. 1–2, 95. 6. Eretrians are Ionians: 7. 57. 4; Hdt. 8. 46. 2. See p. 334, on Eretria as Athenian kleruchy. I thank Professor Denis Knoepfler for his point that the massacring of the Athenian soldiers by the Eretrians (8. 95. 6) is related to the recent change of government in Eretria into an oligarchy, and should be read in the light of the paradigmatic treatment of the same phenomenon in Thasos (8. 64. 2–5). Yet, see Hdt. 5. 99. 1 οὐ τὴν Ἀθηναίων χάριν, and Hdt. 6. 100, for the earlier background of bad relations between Eretria and Athens.
(68) 4. 7, 123. 1. (This Eion in Thrace is unlocated, and should be distinguished from Eion on the Strymon, the harbour of Amphipolis.) Cf. the Argilians (Andrian colonists), 4. 103. 3–4. But Methone, an Eretrian colony too (the colonial tie not in Thucydides; Hammond and Griffith 1979: 124ff.), fought on the side of the Athenians: 4. 129. 4, 6. 7. 3. Cf. ML 65.
(69) 1. 114. 3. Observe the similar language with 8. 95. 7 πλὴν Ὠρεοῦ (ταύτην δὲ αὐτοὶ Ἀθηναῖοι εἶχον); Oreos was another name for Hestiaia.
(70) These Athenian ἔποικοι are referred to as Aiginetans also in 5. 74. 2 and 8. 69. 3.
(72) Hdt. 5. 81–8 (Αἰγινῆται … ἔχθρης παλαιῆς ἀναμνησθέντες ἐχούσης ἐς Ἀθηναίους, 5. 81. 2).
(73) Consider the standard contempt of the Dorians for the Ionians, e.g. 6. 77. 1.
(74) 2. 85. 5.
(75) See p. 277.
(76) Figueira 1993: 310–15. The view that the presence of Aiginetan exiles in Kydonia ‘hardly suffices to account for the Athenian raid’ (Papazarkadas and Thonemann 2008: 80) has to be reconsidered in the light of Athens’ relentlessness, and, in particular, the expulsion of the Aiginetans from Thyrea that soon followed (4. 57. 3).
(77) 4. 57. 3–4; 2. 27. 2.
(78) Hdt. 6. 90.
(79) 2. 27. 2.
(80) 5. 32. 1; 4. 120. 1. Observe the use of the infinitive νέμεσθαι, with economic connotations (5. 32. 1). On the ‘special cultural/economic reference’ of νέμειν, νέμεσθαι, see Hurst and Owen 2005: 177, with n. 3.
(81) For the relatedness between the Athenians and the Plataians, see pp. 134–7. Cf. 6. 62. 3 Sicilian Hykkara is given by the Athenians to the Egestaians; 1. 103. 3 Naupaktos given to the Messenians, who had been driven out of the Peloponnese; cf. 5. 35. 7.
(82) Cf. 1. 143. 4–5 μέγα γὰρ τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης κράτος … εἰ γὰρ ἦμεν νησιῶται . . .; Ps.-Xen. Ath.Pol. 2. 14. On Athens as a metaphorical island, Hornblower 2004: 217. For the dangers of this proximity, see Arist. Rhet. 1411a15 (Aigina being the ‘eyesore’ of Athens). On the imagery of insularity in Athenian self-representation, Constantakopoulou 2007: 137–75.
(83) Hdt. 6. 35. 1.
(86) Apollod. 3. 12; Hdt. 8. 64. 2.
(87) For Aiakos and Aias, see Kearns 1989: 141–2. Cf. Parker 1996: 119 (Eurysakeion); and 118 for the list of ten names that were chosen for the Athenian tribes; Osborne 1996: 326. The annual festival of the Αἰάντεια at Salamis was another point of religious closeness. It was possibly established or revived after the battle of Salamis, and Athenian and Salaminian ephebes took part in it; Parker 2005: 456.
(90) 2. 94. 1.
(91) Sicily: 7. 71. 7 (cf. 7. 70. 6, 72. 4, 8. 1. 2 κατάπληξις); Euboia: 8. 96. 1. The repetition of the phrase has a primarily literary character, but this does not mean that the Athenians could not have felt this way about these three events at different moments of the war.
(92) 4. 55. 3.
(93) 4. 54. 3.
(96) Plut. Sol. 9. 2.
(98) 2. 93. 1. Cf. 1. 139. 2.
(99) ML 14; cf. Figueira 1991: 144–5. IACP p. 638. Cargill 1995: p. xxiv ‘Salamis, although just off the coast of Attike, did not become an Attic deme (or demes), and was in some sense an overseas settlement, although quite likely of a unique type.’
(100) Methone, though, an Eretrian colony (IACP p. 804), fought on the side of the Athenians: 4. 129. 4, 6. 7. 3.
(101) 8. 95. 6. For ἐπιτείχισμα as preferable to τείχισμα, see CT iii. 1028 (following Knoepfler).
(103) Lys. 34. 3 καὶ Εὐβοεῦσιν ἐπιγαμίαν ἐποιούμεθα.
(104) Moreno in his latest discussion of Athens’ kleruchies seems to view the practice of ἐπιγαμίαι as rather marginal (he adduces only Lys. 34. 3, but omits the cases of Alcibiades and Paches), by saying that ‘(if it [= intermarriage] had been more widely used) [it] might have provided Athenians with a sustainable way of running and preserving the cleruchic project’ (Moreno 2009: 217). But the kleruchic project had been preserved for quite a long period of time (about three centuries), as he himself acknowledges (p. 216) by placing the start of the kleruchies in the Solonian period.
(105) Chalkedon, Megarian foundation, 4. 75. 2. See p. 264.
(106) Plut. Per. 20. 2.
(107) Indicative of the problem of classification is that Stadter (1989: 219) finds similarities with Aigina (normally thought of as kleruchy, Plut. Per. 34. 2) and with Brea, thought of as colony (ML 49, ll. 6–8, the ten γεωνόμοι).
(108) 3. 50. 2.
(109) e.g. Epidamnos 1. 26. 3, Ennea Hodoi 1. 100. 3, Aigina 2. 27. 1, Herakleia Trachinia 3. 92. 5, Anaktorion 4. 49.
(110) Hipponion and Medma 5. 5. 1, Melos 5. 116, Lemnos, Imbros, Aigina, Hestiaia in the catalogue of allies, 7. 57.
(111) Aigina 2. 27. 1 and 8. 69. 3, Potidaia 2. 70. 4, Ennea Hodoi 4. 102. 4, Epizephyrian Lokrians in Messene 5. 5. 1, Gela 6. 4. 3. On colonial terminology, see Ehrenberg 1952 (especially on Thucydides), Figueira 1991: 7–78. Cf. Ch. 2.
(112) 2. 27. 1 ἔποικοι and οἰκήτορες, and 8. 69. 3 ἔποικοι.
(113) 1. 100. 3 οἰκήτορες, and 4. 102. 2 ἔποικοι.
(116) 5. 116. 4.
(117) See p. 329, with n. 56.
(118) In 1. 26. 4 is also used in a colonial context, but with the meaning of ‘dismiss’, ‘remove’.
(119) See LSJ9 ἀποπέμπω ἐπί τι, ‘send for a purpose’. Cf. also the use of the verb in the same chapter (3. 50. 1 οὓς ὁ Πάχης ἀπέπεμψεν), meaning ‘sent to Athens’. For the verb in a different semantic context (rejection of supplication), see p. 68 in this volume.
(121) 3. 50. 3.
(125) 8. 100. 3. These must not be confused with the scouts (σκοποί) mentioned earlier in the same chapter, watching for Mindaros’ ships, 8. 100. 2.
(126) 8. 95. 6; cf. p. 334.
(128) 1. 26. 1 οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἔπεμπον … οἰκήτορά τε τὸν βουλόμενον … καὶ Ἀμπρακιωτῶν καὶ Λευκαδίων καὶ ἑαυτῶν φρουρούς; cf. 1. 26. 3 οἰκήτορας καὶ φρουρούς.
(129) 8. 22. 2.
(131) 3. 50. 2.
(134) 3. 50. 2.
(136) On temene and their sanctity, see Isager and Skydsgaard 1992: 182; Parker 1983: 160ff., cultivated or not. For the close connection of leasing and cult, see Osborne 1988; Parker 1996: 110 (esp. in connection with IG II2 2499, the lease of the temple of Egretes, Athens 306/5 BC. Egretes was an obscure hero of Attika; Kearns 1989: 157; Kloppenborg and Ascough 2011: 48–52). Discussing this and other documents, Papazarkadas (2011: 140) demonstrates the ‘close bond between leasing and religious performance … at all levels of Athenian administration’.
(138) Cf. Parker’s caveat (1994: 341) that it is not easy to distinguish between the two types of settlement, but not necessary either as far as the religious life of Athenian settlers abroad is concerned.
(139) Parker 1994: 342. Parker considers the settlement at Aigina a kleruchy. Cf. IG I3 1455 (Aigina town), 1456 (Aphaia), 430–404 BC, inventories of the property of the Aiginetan cults of ‘Mnia and Auxesia’ and Aphaia, in Attic dialect (inscribed by the Athenians who settled on Aigina). Cf. G. Shipley 1987: 157–8, for a similar practice on Samos (fourth century).
(140) Smarczyk 1990: 120–9, on IG I3 1483–5. Pi. O 8. 30–6, Aiakos, the local Aiginetan hero, summoned by Apollo and Poseidon as assistant in the building of the walls of Troy. Cf. Figueira 1991: 118.
(141) Paus. 1. 28. 2, on the Lemnian dedication of the statue of Athena, work of Pheidias; with Lactor 1: 99. For the Kabeiroi: Lactor 1: 99 and Parker 1994: 344–5 (‘cleruchy and mystery-cult could scarcely be more intimately associated’, p. 345).
(145) 4. 102.
(147) Hdt. 6. 36–8.
(148) 3. 34. 1.
(149) Hdt. 1. 142. 3.
(150) 3. 34. 4.
(151) Malkin 1987: 101–2 nn. 69, 256. Cf. ἀποικισταί in the Brea decree (ML 49, ll. 4–5). The suggestion of accepting a low date for IG I3 37 (and not c.447/6 BC as by ML, but also recently by Rhodes (2007: 22) and Bolmarcich (2007: 32)) is tempting (so Papazarkadas 2009: 70; Rubinstein in IACP p. 1078). If so, the decree probably regulates relations between the Kolophonians and the Athenian colonists; see l. 20 mentioning (perhaps five) oikists.
(156) e.g. IG I3 84, l. 7 (418/17), horistai marking out the boundaries of the temenos of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile. Cf. Hyp. Eux. 17 τοὺς ὁριστὰς τοὺς πεντήκοντα ἐξελόντας αὐτὸ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀφορίσαντας (fifty boundary commissioners allotting land in the hills of Oropos to Amphiaraos); in connection with the Hyperides’ passage, Whitehead (2000: 211) adduces Thucydides’ τριακοσίους … τοῖς θεοῖς ἱεροὺς ἐξεῖλον ‘for both terminology and substance’. For horistai in the hybrid ethnic environment, and apparently state infrastructure, of (late fourth-century) Herakleia in south Italy (IACP no. 52), see Lomas 2000: 178–80.
(157) That ‘[c]leruchies were a unique Athenian institution, unparalleled in other city-states’ is methodologically too restrictive a statement, Papazarkadas 2011: 225–6. Moreno (2009: 216) rightly points out that the study of the annexation of Messenia by Sparta in the seventh century and the distribution of its land in the form of kleroi may enlighten our understanding of the Athenian kleruchy; cf. Moreno 2007: 320.
(158) 5. 83. 2. (These Argive Hysiai should be distinguished from Hysiai in Boiotia, 3. 24. 2.)
(159) In IACP p. 601, Hysiai is listed among ‘Pre-hellenistic Settlements not Attested as Poleis’ of Argolis.
(162) 3. 68. 2.
(163) But see 4. 116. 2 for a truly pious Spartan attitude after the sack of Lekythos (belonging to Chalkidian Torone, 4. 114. 1) attributed to Brasidas. Cf. Pritchett ii. 277 n. 6.
(164) Agatharchides, De mari Erythraeo 21. 123–6 (GGM 1. 122) ἀλλὰ γὰρ ὁ Δημοσθένης, φησί (Agatharchides), μετενέγκας τοὺς λόγους ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον οὕτω δεδήλωκε· τὴν μὲν πόλιν ἐξώρυξεν ἐκ τῶν θεμελίων, ὥστε μηδὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἑστίαις καταλιπεῖν τὴν τέφραν. Cf. Pritchett ii. 277 n. 6.
(165) Hdt. 5. 77, 6. 100. The kleruchy is dated in 506 BC. According to Salomon (1997: 2009), this was the first of the three successive waves of kleruchs Euboia received from the very end of the sixth century until the 440s. Cf. the Chersonese with 1,000 settlers, Plut. Per. 11. 5, 19. 1. See Figueira 1991: 260–2, on its status. Figueira (2008: 435–62) suggests that the kleruchy at Mytilene might have been aberrant in some ways.