In essence Seager is responsible for sections I and II (an earlier version of which was read to the Liverpool Class. Assoc. in March 1977; thanks are due to Prof. F. W. Walbank for his comments on this draft) and the appendix, Tuplin for section III.

¹ Hdt. i 6.2 f., i 26.1–27.4.

² Hdt. i 6.2, cf. i 28.

³ Hdt. i 26.3.

⁴ Hdt. i 27.1: οἰ ἐν τῇ ᾿ Ασίῃ Ελληνεσ

⁵ Hdt. i 76.3.

⁶ Hdt. i 141.1 ff.

⁷ Hdt. i 152.1 f.

⁸ Hdt. i 152.3: γῆς τῆς Ελλάδος μηδεμίαν πόλιν σιναμωρέειν ὠς αὐτῶν οὐ περιοψομένων

⁹ Hdt. v 98.2, 100–6, 108–10, 112, 115—17, 119–24; vi 1.1, 6–22, 32.

¹⁰ Hdt. v 49.

¹¹ Hdt. v 97.1.

¹² Hdt. v 109.2, cf. 116.

¹³ Hdt. vi 11.2.

¹⁴ Hdt. viii 132.1.

¹⁵ Hdt. ix 90.2.

¹⁶ Hdt. ix 104, 106.2.

¹⁷ Diod. ix 35.1: τῶν κατὰ τὴν ᾿ Ασίαν Ελλήνων

¹⁸ Diod. ix 36.1.

¹⁹ Diod. xii 1.2.

²⁰ Diod. xi 34.2: ἐλευθερῶσαι τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿ Ασίαν Ελληνασ

²¹ Diod. xi 34.4.

²² Diod. xi 36.5. One may contrast xi 37.1 f. (Ionians and Aeolians), 3 (Ionians) in the evacuation debate; here, however, kinship with Athens is specifically relevant, as also at xi 41.4.

²³ Diod. xi 41.4.

²⁴ Thuc. i 95.1.

²⁵ Thuc. iii 10.3.

²⁶ Thuc. vi 76.3 f.

²⁷ Thuc. vi 77.1, 80.3.

²⁸ Thuc. vi 82.3, 83.2.

²⁹ Even Diodorus is relatively barren on these matters. In xi 60.1 and 4 he employs greater precision than usual in speaking of those cities liberated by persuasion or force by Cimon; cf. xii 42.5 on the allies of Athens at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.

³⁰ Lyc. 73: μή μόνον τούς τὴν Εὐρώπην ἀλλά καὶ τοὺσ τὴν ᾿ Ασίαν κατοικοῦντασ

³¹ Diod. xii 4.5; cf. xii 2.1: the Athenians forced the Persians to liberate all the cities of Asia by treaty. This is entirely consistent with Diodorus' view of Cimon's last expedition to Cyprus as a renewal of the war against the Persians on behalf of the Greeks of Asia (xii 3.1).

³² Diod. xii 26.2

³³ Thuc. viii 18, 37.

³⁴ Thuc. viii 43.3, cf. 52. On the possible exaggeration, and Persian interpretations cf. Lewis, D. M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden 1977) 90Google Scholar, 99 with n. 69.

³⁵ Thuc. viii 58.2.

³⁶ Thuc. viii 84.5. Lewis (n. 34) 110 ff., argues that Sparta's abandonment of the Asiatic Greeks after 411 was not total and that their autonomy may even have been secured in a treaty concluded by Boeotius in 407. This is possible but not compelling, (i) That Sparta was in a mood to ignore the agreements she had made is perhaps sufficient to explain the treatment of Persian garrisons at Antandrus and Cnidus (if Sparta was involved), (ii) As Lewis himself admits, it is possible that the Ionians would have been prepared to fight despite the treaties of 411: to get rid of the Athenians might seem the first priority, and Lichas had more or less promised that their cession to Persia would not be permanent, (iii) It is true that the negotiations of 397–5 do not suggest either that Sparta has changed her ground or that Persia feels cheated. But the rising of Cyrus and Sparta's support of it had produced such a different situation that it might have seemed pointless for either side to appeal to arrangements of the preceding decade, (iv) That the treaty of Boeotius deserves a place in history is true, and Lewis deserves gratitude for demonstrating its existence. But that it included a territorial clause is conjecture, and need not follow from the presence of such a clause in its predecessors.

³⁷ Xen., Hell. iii 1.3Google Scholar: ἐπεὶ πάσης τῆς ῾Ελλάδοσ προστάται εἰσίν ἐπιμεληθῆναι καὶ σφῶν τῶν ἐν τῇ Ασίᾳ Ελλήνων ὄπως ἠ τε χώρα μή δῃοῖτο αὐτῶν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐλεύθεροι εἰεν So too in Diod. xiv 35.6 the appeal comes from the Greek cities of Asia. Apart from references to his own time, Xenophon also speaks of the Ionians, Aeolians and almost all the Greeks of Asia being forced to follow Croesus, against Cyrus (Cyrop. vi 2.10)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Xen., Hell. iii 1.16, 20Google Scholar.

³⁹ Xen., Hell. iii 2.12Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Xen., Hell. iii 2.20Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Xen., Hell. iii 4.5Google Scholar: αὐτονόμους καὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ Ασίᾳ πόλεις εἶναι ὤσπερ καὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ παρ᾿ ἠμῖν Ελλάδι Ages. 1.10.

⁴² Plut., Ages. 9.1Google Scholar, Polyaen. ii 1.8.

⁴³ Xen., Hell. iii 4.25Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Xen., Ages. 1.38Google Scholar. Some appear in his army at Coronea, (Hell. iv 3.15)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Plut., Ages. 23.1Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Xen., Ages. 2.29Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Isoc. v 63, ix 56, 68, Din. i 14, iii 17. For more detailed analysis of reactions to Cnidus, cf. JHS lxxxvii (1967) 99 ff.

⁴⁸ Dem. xx 69.

⁴⁹ Lys. ii 59 f., Isoc. iv 119, Xen., Hell. iv 8.4Google Scholar f.

⁵⁰ Xen., Hell. iv 8.14Google Scholar. The cities in Asia are mentioned later at the time of Thrasybulus', expedition (Hell. iv 8.27)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Xen., Hell. iv 8.15Google Scholar. On these matters, cf. JHS lxxxvii (1967) 104 f.

⁵² FGrH 328 F 149, cf. Diod. xiv 110.4.

⁵³ Xen., Hell. v 1.31Google Scholar: τὰς μὲν ἐν τῇ Ασιᾳ πόλεις ἐαυτοῦ εἶναι cf. Diod. xiv 110.3.

⁵⁴ Dem. xxiii 140, Isoc. xii 103, 106, cf. 59, Ep. ix 8; cf. Diod. xii 26.2. For Spartan betrayal of the Greeks of Asia in the peace, cf. Diod. xv 9.5, 19.4 (where the Greeks of Asia are contrasted with the cities of Greece proper). Cf. also Tiribazus' defence of his own achievement (Diod. xv 10.2).

⁵⁵ Especially clear in the Ionian appeal of 400 (Xen., Hell. iii 1.3Google Scholar) and Agesilaus' terms to Tissaphernes in 396 (Xen., Hell. iii 4.5Google Scholar). Later, cf. Lyc. 73, Diod. xii 1.2, xv 19.4. The notion is implicit in Herodotus: both the Spartan message to Cyrus (i 152.3) and Aristagoras' appeal (v 49) are based on Sparta's position as champion of all Greece, which is a consequence of her standing in mainland Greece proper. For Spartan liberation propaganda in the Peloponnesian War, cf. Thuc. i 69.1, 122.3 (recommended pre-war by Corinth); ii 8.4 (outbreak); ii 72.1, iii 59.4, 63.3 (Plataea); iii 13.1, 32.2 (Mytilene); iv 85.1, 5 f., 86.1, 87.3 ff., 108.2, 114.3, 120.3, 121.1, v 9.9 (Brasidas); viii 46.3, cf. 52 (exploited by Alcibiades); Xen., Hell. ii 2.23Google Scholar (end of the war).

⁵⁶ Cf. LCM ii (1977) 183 f.

⁵⁷ Cf. JHS lxxxvii (1967) 105 ff.; Cawkwell, G. L., CQ lxx (1976) 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff.

⁵⁸ Or even Phanagoria, on the east side of L. Maeotis, regarded by some as a boundary of Europe and Asia (Hippocr., Airs, Waters, Places 13Google Scholar).

⁵⁹ Contra Hdt. ii 15 f.; iv 36 f.

⁶⁰ Cf. Hippocr, . Airs, Waters, Places 12Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Ibid. 12 f. (a comparison of the relation between climate and physiognomy/character in Asia and Europe) does not fit the bill, since ὁκόσοι γὰρ ἐν τῇ Ασίῃ Ελληνεσ ἦ βάρβαροι μὴ δεσπόζονται ἀλλ᾿ αὐτόνομοί εἰσι καὶ ἐωυτοῖσι ταλαιπωρεῦσιν οὐτοι μαχιμώτατπό εἰσι πάντων does not confer the title ‘Greeks of Asia’ on anyone. If one thought of Asiatic Greeks as soft, this was because of Ionian history (cf. Hdt. i 143) and likely to be expressed in those terms.

⁶² Many of the western Dorians were not mainlanders, of course. See below.

⁶³ Cf. Cary, M., The Geographic Background of Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1949) 162–3Google Scholar. The apparent non-participation of the Dorians in the ‘Ionian Revolt’ is notable in this context.

⁶⁴ Hdt. i 157.

⁶⁵ The joint participation of Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians in the Naucratis Hellenion (Hdt. ii 178.2) naturally demonstrates nothing about relations within Asia Minor.

⁶⁶ E.g. the only Aeolians involved in Naucratis (cf. n. 65) were Lesbian.

⁶⁷ Only Cyme was at all considerable (and Ephoros', attempts to make it seem more so were found laughable, FGrH 70Google Scholar F 236). Descendants of the philo-Persians of the 480s still ruled communities in the Caicus valley in the 390s (Xen., Hell. iii 1.6Google Scholar). On Troadic Aeolis, see Cook, J. M., The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study (Oxford 1973) 363Google Scholar. Herodotus' brief comment (i 149.2, cf. 142.1) that Cymean Aeolis had better land but worse climate than Ionia may have some pertinence to the different development of the areas. The contrast drawn between Ionia and Aeolis may to some extent apply between Ionia and Doris as well (cf. Cook, J. M., The Greeks in Ionia and the East [London 1962] 30Google Scholar).

⁶⁸ See Hdt. v 37.2; ix 106.2; Thuc. viii 86.4. And contrast Hdt. iv 138 with iv 89, 97, 128, 133, 134, 136; iv 98 (‘Ionian’ tyrants) with iv 97 (Aristagoras of Cyme), 138 (Coes of Mytilene); i 6, 28 with i 92; ii 152–4 with iii 4 (and ML no. 7).

⁶⁹ The cases of the Ionians and Dorians are obvious. The two groups of Aeolians were quite separated by Mysians, north of the Caicus valley: cf. Cook, J. M., Creeks in Ionia 27Google Scholar, D. M. Lewis (n. 34) 56.

⁷⁰ See Hdt. i 142 fF. Even within this group notice (i) the existence of four dialect groups (Hdt. i 142.4) two of which at least had, acc. Hdt., nothing in common; (ii) the way that Ephesus looked to the hinterland rather than the sea and was heavily orientalized: cf. Cary (n. 63) 163; Meiggs, R., Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 51Google Scholar; Lewis (n. 34) 116; Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece: The City-States c. 700–500 B.C. (London 1976) 222Google Scholar; (iii) the non-participation of Ephesus and Colophon in the Apatouria, the festival regarded by Hdt. as the true distinctive feature of the Ionians (i 147.2).

⁷¹ Originally Aeolic, but captured by Colophonians, though never admitted to the Panionion league: Hdt. i 150; Mimn. 12D=9W; Paus. v 8.7, iv 21.4. On Strab. 6330 see Roebuck, C., CPh 1 (1955) 38Google Scholar n. 37.

⁷² I.e. Cnidus, Cos, Lindos, Cameirus, Ialysus, all sharing the cult of Apollo at Triopion: Hdt. i 144; D.H., AR iv 25Google Scholar; Ps.-Scylax 99; Schol. Theoc. xvii 68/9. On the site see Bean, G. E., Cook, J. M.BSA xlvii (1952) 208Google Scholar f.

⁷³ Originally part of the Triopion league, but later excluded perhaps not just for the reason Hdt. gives (i 144.2–3) but because the city remained very Carian (and the Greeks there spoke Ionic); see Jeffery (n. 70) 195, Cook, , Greeks in Ionia 30Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Cf. Hdt. i 144.1 for ref. to them. A glance at a map will show that there were plenty of communities both in the Dorian area and the Ionian one, which were outside the religious leagues and cannot all have been mere subject possessions of league cities. There are also odd cases such as Iasos, (alleged Argive foundation, but in fact Ionic in character, RE ix (1914) 788)Google Scholar or Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum (Aeolic acc. Strabo 647c, and certainly non-Ionic, despite its position).

⁷⁵ Hdt. i 149.1 lists eleven such communities.

⁷⁶ Cf. Cook, , Troad 360–3Google Scholar. The two areas are clearly distinguished in e.g. Hdt. i 151; v 122—3 and (vis-à-vis the Persian satrapies) Xen., Hell. iii 1.6Google Scholar, 10. They fall into different panels in the Athenian Tribute Lists.

⁷⁷ Cf. merely exempli causa, Jeffery, (n. 70) 209Google Scholar, 212, 221, 222, 223, 225, 232.

⁷⁸ I am unconvinced that there was any intrinsically and regularly political character to the Panionion league (compare Roebuck [n. 71] 26 ff., esp. 31—though a more extreme position could be argued), so any special unity there may have been would have been at the level of the élitist self-congratulation attacked by Hdt. (i 146.1–147.2).

⁷⁹ Jeffery, (n. 70) 207, notes that one can sail from Samos to Athens without ever losing sight of land.

⁸⁰ Cf. Hdt. iii 124, iv 35; Thuc. i 12, vi 77, vii 5, viii 56, 96. In the archaic period this was expressed by the Delian panegyris (Thuc. iii 104).

⁸¹ Hence the Sea of Marmara was the Propontis.

⁸² Cf. e.g. Hdt. iv 95; Xen., Hell. iii 4.11Google Scholar, iv 3.17; and p. 150 below.

⁸³ Hdt. iii 90, vii 75 (Thracians); iii 94, vii 69 (Ethiopians); iii 90 (Magnesians); viii 136 (Amyntas).

⁸⁴ We find ‘Dorians in Asia’ (Hdt. i 6, vii 93; Plut., Per. 17Google Scholar), but not, I think, ‘Ionians in Asia’, ‘Aeolians in Asia’. The distinction perhaps arises because mainland Ionians and Aeolians did not commonly describe themselves as such (cf. Hdt. i 143 on Athens), whereas the Spartans e.g. did use the title ‘Dorian’.

⁸⁵ This applies both to the lists of peoples in the empire discussed below, on whose character see Cameron, , JNES xxxii (1973) 47Google Scholar f., and to refs to smaller groups of Greeks working in Susa and Persepolis. Cf. Kent, R. G., Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon ² (New Haven 1953)Google Scholar D Sf 33–4, 42 f., 48–9 (Elamite version in Hinz, W., JNES ix [1950] 1Google Scholar f.); Vallat, F., Rev. ďAssyriologie lxiv (1970) D Sz 30Google Scholar, 45; Hallock, R. T., Persepolis Fortification Tablets (Chicago 1969)Google Scholar (hereafter=PF) 1224.8 f.; 2072.84 f.; Cameron, G., Persepolis Treasury Tablets (Chicago 1948)Google Scholar (hereafter=PTT) 15.6. On these Greek workers see also e.g. Goosens, , Nouvelle Clio i (1949) 32 f.Google Scholar; Guepin, J., Persica i (1963/1964) 34 f.Google Scholar; Pugliese-Caratelli, G., East & West xvi (1966) 31Google Scholar f. (cf. PF 1.71); Nylander, C., Ionians at Pasargadae (Uppsala 1970)Google Scholarpassim. Yauna even appears as a personal name; PTT 21.21; PF 1798.19; 1799.17; 1800.20; 1808.14; 1810.17; 1942.27; 1965.29 (Lewis [n. 34] 12 suggests that more than one individual is involved). People who resorted to naming individuals Yauna were unlikely to be any more concerned about precise ethnic status than were the Greeks who called slaves Skythes or Kar.

⁸⁶ I take passages such as Hdt. iii 90 f.; vii 9a; vii 93 to be ‘hellenizations’.

⁸⁷ Ionia/Ionians: D B 115 Na 28; D Sm 8; D Saa 18 f. in Vallat, F., Syria xlviii (1971) 58Google Scholar; A? P 23. Ionians on the dry land: D Pe 13. Refs to old Persian Documents are taken, unless otherwise indicated, from Kent (n. 85).

⁸⁸ X Ph 23 (Elamite version in Cameron, G., Welt des Orients ii [1954–1959] 470 f.)Google Scholar; D Pe 14; D Se 27.

⁸⁹ D Se 28; X Ph 24; D Pe 14.

⁹⁰ D Na 29; D Sm 10–11; A? P 26.

⁹¹ Thus Olmstead, A. T., CPh xxxiv (1939) 307Google Scholar; Kent, R. G., JNES ii (1943) 304 n. 12Google Scholar; Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks (London 1962) 109Google Scholar; Schmitt, R., Historia xxi (1972) 522 f.Google Scholar; Lewis (n. 34) 51; 83 n. 10. Cf. also Hdt. iii 90 f.; Aesch., Pers. 865Google Scholar f.

⁹² Cf. the hieroglyphic Canal inscriptions (in Posener, G., La Première Domination Perse en Egypte [Cairo 1936] nos 8–10, with pp. 181–8Google Scholar) which leave only one cartouche for Ionia: cf. Cameron, , JNES ii (1943) 308Google Scholar. Even if the cartouche included two Ionias (as that for Scythia perhaps included two Scythias of arguable identity—cf. Posener, 54, 184 f.; Cameron (n. 85) 55 n. 48) such a layout would correspond to a view that Ionia was really a single unit. (I am assuming that the ‘Peoples by the Sea’ and ‘Lands of the Sea’ in D B and D Saa are not equivalent to the ‘Ionians on the Sea’).

⁹³ Junge, , Klio xxxiv (1941) 9 n. 4, 40 n. 6Google Scholar; Walser, G., Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis (Berlin 1966) 29, 47Google Scholar; Herzfeld, E., The Persian Empire (Wiesbaden 1968) 92Google Scholar, 293, 309; other authors quoted in Schmitt (n. 91) 523–4, nn. 9–17.

⁹⁴ D H; D Ph; Yoyotte, J., J. Asiat. cclx (1972) 253Google Scholar f. The tablets (pre-Scythian Expedition) show Sparda (=Sardis) as the NW limit of the empire. Since the acquisition of the Greek cities had been simply a clearing-up operation after the conquest of their previous overlord (viz. Lydia) this need not be surprising; the Greeks might be subsumed under the title of the capital of their erstwhile rulers, from which they were still governed: cf. Lewis (n. 34) 118 f. The hieroglyph inscription is rather more remarkable, since it is argued that it belongs towards the end of Darius' reign (cf. Vallat, F.. J. Asiat. cclx (1972) 251Google Scholar; J. Yoyotte, ibid. 265 f). It might be contemporary with the Ionian Revolt; but would the composers of official documents have been scrupulous enough to allow that to affect the matter? it is perhaps germane to note that the Persians perceived similarities between Ionians and Lydians in some external customs, e.g. hairstyles: cf. Barnett, R. D., Iraq xix (1957) 68–9Google Scholar; Walser (n. 93) 54, 56; Hinz, W., Altiranische Funde und Forschungen (Berlin 1969) 98Google Scholar. Perhaps one could think of Ionians and Lydians as all of a piece; Hdt. (i 94) could write Λυδοὶ δὲ νόμοισι μὲν παραπλησίοιοι ξρέωνται καὶ Ελληνες χωρὶς ἠ ὄτι τὰ θήλεα τέκνα καταπορνεύουσι and cf. Xenophan. 3 W (on Colophon) and Hippias, FGrH 421Google Scholar F 1 (on Erythrae). For a similar looseness, compare the Babylonians in D Sf 53 (really Greeks resident in Babylon, acc. Kent [n. 85] 143). An example of the reverse phenomenon at a much earlier date is afforded by Esarhaddon's description of people with distinctly non-Greek names as ‘Ionian’: Weidner, E., Mélanges … R. Dussaud ii (Paris 1939) 932Google Scholar; Goetze, A., J. Cun. Stud. xvi (1962) 54Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Junge (n. 93) 12; Ehtécham, M., l'Iran sous les Achémenides (Fribourg 1946) 141–2Google Scholar; Walser (n. 93) 29. An unlikely hypothesis, however: Kent (n. 91).

⁹⁶ D Na 28–9; A? P 24.

⁹⁷ Cf. n. 90.

⁹⁸ D BV 22; D Na 25; D N XV; X Ph 26–7; A? P 15.

⁹⁹ For the (conquered) world bounded by the Upper and Lower Seas, cf. Sayce, A. H., Essays in Aegean Archaeology presented to Sir Arthur Evans, ed. Casson, S. (Oxford 1927) 107Google Scholar; A. L. Oppenheim ap. Pritchard, J. B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton 1969) 267bGoogle Scholar, 269a, 276b–277a, 297b bis, 307a. The Upper Sea is referred to by itself in ibid. 269a, 283b. For the world bounded by the Seas of the Amurru-country and the Nairi-country, cf. ibid. 275b, 277a, the latter of which also mentions the Sea of the Zamua-country. The Sea of the Amurru-country (approx.=Phoenicia)=the Upper Sea (cf. ibid. 278a). Adad-Nirari III (ibid. 281b) speaks of the Great Seas of the Setting and Rising Sun. In many of these cases the monarch also claims to rule everything ‘within the four rims of the earth’, so it is legitimate to regard the seas as being held to bound the known world.

¹⁰⁰ Hdt. i 157 ff.

¹⁰¹ Hdt. i 143. Contrast however i 169.2 (after the suppression of Paktyes).

¹⁰² Hdt. v 116 f., 122 f.; vi 33.

¹⁰³ Contrasting views on its extent in Castritius, H., Chiron ii (1972) 1Google Scholar ff. and Hammond, N. G. L.—Griffith, G. T., History of Macedonia ii (Oxford 1979) 58Google Scholar f.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Thuc. viii 18. 37, treaties recognising the King's right to all ancestrally held land (cf. also Thuc. viii 43). Lewis, (n. 34) 90, believes that ‘it is unlikely that either party had more than Asia Minor in mind’. The Spartans may have been that insouciant, but I doubt that Tissaphernes was. This is not to say that he actually expected to get ancestral holdings outside Asia in the immediate future or cared greatly when a more restricted formulation was devised in 411 (Thuc. viii 58). Notice though that on Lewis' reading (101 f.) Tissaphernes was quite happy to acquiesce in Alcibiades' demand that Athens give up off-shore islands (Thuc. viii 56.4).

¹⁰⁵ Hdt. i 27.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Lewis (n. 34) 99 n. 69, 155 n. 125. These passages can surely stand as fifth-century estimates of the Persian view of things.

¹⁰⁷ Hemerdinger's, B. unlikely idea that Ἀσία derives from Akk. ša sīt, as in mā ša sīt šam ši=land of the rising sun (Helikon vii [1967] 239)Google Scholar does not affect the issue since the Akk. phrase is not equivalent in use to Ἀσία. The same goes for Egyptian setjet, translated as ‘Asia’ in Wilson, J. A.ap. Pritchard, J. B. (n. 99) 227Google Scholar, and for a rather better candidate as source of Ἀσία, viz Hitt. Assuwa: cf. Durnford, S. P. B., Rev. Hitt. xxxiii (1975) 53Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Pers. 763–4; Hdt. i 95, 107, 130, 192, 209; iii 67, 88, 137, 138; iv 1, 44; v 49, 97; vi 24, 70, 116, 118, 119. Cf. Thuc. i 109, ii 67 etc.

¹⁰⁹ ML no. 12. τοὺς πέραν τοῦ Εὐφράτου καρπούσ (in the same text) is also not identical with oriental usage: cf. van den Hout, M., Mnem. ⁴ ii (1949) 150Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ E.g. Darius ruled over ‘many lands, Persia, Media, other lands, other tongues, (where are) mountains and plains, on this the nearer shore of the Bitter Sea and on that the farther shore of the Bitter Sea, (as well as) on this the near side of the region of thirst (the desert) and on that the farther side of the region of thirst’: D Pg in Weissbach, F. H., Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden (Leipzig 1911) 85–7Google Scholar; trans. Cameron (n. 85) 54. The King is ‘King of peoples with many kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide’ (D E 14–19; X Pa 7–9; X Pb 14–19; X Pd 10–13; X Pf 10–13; X Ph 8–11; X E 16–18; X V 11–14; A¹ Pa 11–14; Lewis (n. 34) 78 n. 132. Cf. also D Na 9f and the shorter version of the formula found in X Pj 1–2 and many other documents. Is Hdt. ix 122.2 ὄτε γε ἀνθρώπων τε πολλῶν ἄρχομεν πάσης τε τῆς Ασίασ perhaps a reflection of this type of formula?

¹¹¹ Judging from the presence of Leros and the Icarian cities (Thermae and Oine) in the Ionian panel.—From 438 Caria, and Ionia, were amalgamated. For ‘Ionia’ cf. also e.g. Hesp. xxxii (1963) 39Google Scholar, ἄ]ρχοντας τ[ὸς ἐκ το῀ν πολέον το῀ν ἐν] ᾿ Ιονίαι

¹¹² Plut., Per. 17Google Scholar. Its authenticity is of course disputed. The thesis of the present study would indicate another anachronism, viz: πάντας Ελλήνας τοὺς ὀποίποτε κατοικοῦντας Εὐρώπης ἠ τῆς Ασίας παρακαλεῖν

¹¹³ A reflection of that is found in the form of partial atimia which forbade a man to sail to Hellespont or Ionia (Andoc. i 76).

¹¹⁴ Thuc. viii 58.

¹¹⁵ Lewis' new reading of the situation between 412/11 and 400/399, (n. 34) chs 5 and 6, would qualify this statement in certain respects, but not enough, I think, substantially to affect the point at issue here.

¹¹⁶ Hell. iii 4.5.

¹¹⁷ Hdt. viii 132; ix 90.

¹¹⁸ Hdt. ix 106; Diod. xi 57.

¹¹⁹ Hence no prosecution of the siege of Sestus in winter 479/8; Hdt. ix 114; Thuc. i 89.

¹²⁰ Cf. Meiggs (n. 70) 38–9, though he does not put the matter quite thus.

¹²¹ Hdt. viii 3; Thuc. i 75, 96; Xen., Vect. v 5Google Scholar; Isoc. xii 52; Aristod., FGrH 104 F 1 § 7Google Scholar; Diod. xi 46–7; Nep. Arist. 2.2–3; Plut., Aristid. 23–5Google Scholar, Cim. 6. The fact that the Delian League was a supplement to rather than a total replacement of the Hellenic League (which continued in existence, Thuc. i 102.4) does not affect the point.

¹²² The form of the oath (sinking of μύδροι) may be characteristically Ionian—Hdt. i 165.3, Jeffery (n. 70) 228—a reflection of the predominantly Ionian make-up of the original Delian League.

¹²³ Thuc. iii 10.

¹²⁴ Pl. Menex. 241d.

¹²⁵ Pl. Menex. 242a, one of the few ancient passages which recognizes that Eurymedon was in a sense the final battle of the ‘Persian Wars’; cf. also Plut., Cim. 12Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Accordingly the Athenians never developed the doctrinaire attitude that would have required the elimination of persophile local dynasts such as the Gongylids and Demaratids: cf. de Ste Croix, G. E. M., Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972) 38Google Scholar f. Liberation of the Greeks of Asia interpreted pedantically should have entailed their removal. Cook's, J. M. views on land-holding in Asia Minor, PCPS vii (1961) 9 f.Google Scholar, would also be pertinent here, if one could feel sure they were correct.

¹²⁷ I assume argumenti causa that this existed. Even if it did not—and cf. now the very full argument of that case in Schrader, C., La Paz de Calias: testimonios e interpretación (Barcelona 1976)Google Scholar—some of the comments here can be applied mutatis mutandis to the de facto attitudes of the Athenians.

¹²⁸ This accorded with the strategic need to keep the Persians away from the Aegean coast, not just from Greek cities. For the land-limits cf. the tabulation in Meiggs (n. 70) 487–8.

¹²⁹ iv 120.

¹³⁰ Lycurgus, (in Leoc. 73)Google Scholar said that the Athenians imposed boundaries on the barbarians εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆσ ῾ Ελλάδοσ (i.e. all Greece) and dictated that τοὺς Ελληνασ αὐτονόμους εἶναι The fact that he adds μή μόνον τοὺς τὴν Εὐρώπην ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τὴν Ασίαν κατοικοῦντασ merely reflects fourth-century contrast with the King's Peace; it does not prove that the distinction of European and Asiatic Greeks was in the Peace terms. The same goes for Suda s.v. ‘Kimon’. Αὐτονόμους τε εἶναι τοὺς Ελληνας καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ασὶᾳ could be taken as an indication that the peace talked about all Greeks.

¹³¹ ii 57.

¹³² If Wade-Gery's conjecture about ἔστε ἐπί Αἴγυπτον καὶ Λιβύην τὼ πόλεε (Craterus, FGrH 342Google Scholar F 18) were right (Essays in Greek History [Oxford 1958] 232) that would be another indication that the scope was wider than just Asia Minor.

¹³³ Cf. n. 104.

¹³⁴ E.g. the Panhellenism of Pericles, if it existed (cf. Perlman, S., Historia xxv [1976] 6–17Google Scholar), unlike fourth-century Panhellenism was not about the ‘Greeks of Asia’. The Ionian colonization propaganda of the Athenian Empire (cf. Barron, J., JHS lxxxiv [1964] 46 f.Google Scholar; Meiggs [n. 70] 43, 119–20, 298 f.), the separate existence for fiscal purposes of probable former dependencies of Dodecapolis cities (cf. tables in Meiggs [n. 70] 540 f.), the possible disappearance of the Panionion league (but the evidence on that—Hdt. i 148.1; Thuc. iii 104, ?cf. Dion. Hal. AR iv 25; Diod. xv 49; Timoth., Pers. 246Google Scholar f.—is a model of imponderability) are factors whose effect on the general situation is hard to judge.

¹³⁵ Until 412. The activities of Pissouthnes were not of a scope radically to alter the status quo, and until 412 the Dascylium satraps caused no serious trouble to Athens: Lewis (n. 34) 59 f. Nothing we know of the Peace of Epilycus appears likely to have affected the matter either.

¹³⁶ Thuc. viii 5.5, 6.1.

¹³⁷ Thuc. viii 46.3.

¹³⁸ That Thuc. does not actually use the phrase is perhaps an indication that it did not achieve cliché status during his lifetime. Note that at 56.4 he returns to talking about Ἰωνίαν … πȃσαν.

¹³⁹ Op. cit. (n. 60) 90. Cf. n. 104.

¹⁴⁰ A referee makes the suggestion that the Treaty of Boeotius, Lewis (n. 34) 122 ff., might have used the phrase. This is not implausible (and n. 138 would not stand against it) but, of course, unverifiable on present evidence.

¹⁴¹ Lewis (n. 34) 155.

¹⁴² The author of this section wishes to express his thanks to Robin Seager for the invitation to contribute it (and for subsequent discussion) and to Alan Millard (School of Oriental Studies, Univ. of Liverpool) for valuable assistance with the Near Eastern material.

¹⁴³ Thuc. vi 13.1.

¹⁴⁴ Thuc. iv 64.3.

¹⁴⁵ The imprecise use of ‘Ionians’ to include some or all of the other Greeks of Asia in addition to the Ionians proper does not invalidate this point: it merely underlines it.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Thuc. vii 58.3; Diod. xi 1.4, 23.2, xiv 47.5, xvi 73.2.

¹⁴⁷ Thuc. vi 44.3; Diod. xiii 3.5.

¹⁴⁸ Diod. xiv 91.3, 100.1, 101.1, 103.4, 104.4.

¹⁴⁹ Dionysius: Diod. xiv 46.5, 47.2, xv 15.4; Dion: Diod. xvi 10.3; Timoleon: Diod. xvi 65.9, 82.3, 90.1.