¹ First suggested by Panofka, Th., Res Samiorum (Berlin, 1822) 97Google Scholar; and followed by Boeckh, , CIG 2246Google Scholar, and Roehl, , IGA 8.Google ScholarCf. also, for instance, Kahrstedt, , Nachr. Gött. Ges. (1931) 168 ff.Google Scholar, Staatsgebiet u. Staatsangehörige (1934) 32; Nesselhauf, , Klio, Beih. xxx (1933) 138 f.Google ScholarGomme, A. W. rejects this interpretation, Hist. Comm. Thuc. i (Oxford, 1945) 355Google Scholar, cf. CR 1 (1936) 6–9; cf. also Beloch, , Rhein. Mus. xxxix (1884) 36 f.Google Scholar

² For the revolt the most important sources are Thuc. i 115.2–117; Plut., Per. 24.1–2, 25–28; Ar., Wasps 281–4 and schol.; SEG x 221, 39 (Hill, , Sources ² B 61–62Google Scholar). For the Geomoroi, Plut., Q. Gr. 57 (Mor. 303E–304C: oligarchs c. 600 B.C.); Thuc. viii 21.

³ Thuc. i 117.3; Diod. xii 28.3–4; Plut., Per. 28.1–3.

⁴ SEG x 304 (including Hestiaia, cf. Thuc. i 114.3); IG xii. 9 934 (Hill, Sources ² B 96(b)): cf. Plut., Per. 23.4; Aelian, , Var. Hut. vi i.Google Scholar See also ATL iii 297. Compare also the regulations for the foundation of Brea, perhaps in 447/6, SEG x 34.10: certainly referring to temene of the new colony, cf. Luria, S., Klio xxi (1927) 71 f.Google Scholar The horoi from Aigina (IG iv 29–38) seem earlier than Athens’ seizure and settlement of the island in 431 (Thuc. ii 27): v. inf., p. 44.

⁵ I am most grateful to Professor E. Homann-Wedeking for giving me permission to publish these inscriptions, and also for providing photographs of them. The information about measurements I owe to the generosity of Professor G. Dunst, who will edit the inscriptions for IG xii 6: I give (in metres) height, width, and thickness of the stones, and height of the letters, in that order. I was enabled to study the horoi in Samos in 1958 through the kindness of the late Professor E. Buschor and of Miss B. Philippaki. Various drafts of this paper, which was delivered to the London Classical Society in November 1962, have been read by Professors A. Andrewes and H. T. Wade-Gery and by Mr Russell Meiggs. I have profited greatly from their comments and suggestions.

⁶ SGDI 5653 (BCH iii (1879) 230 ff.).

⁷ V. inf., p. 45 f. and nn. 60–62.

⁸ Cf. Meisterhans, K., Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften (Berlin, 1885) 50 f. and n. 490.Google Scholar

⁹ Woodhead, A. G., The Study of Greek Inscriptions (Cambridge, 1959) 64, 91.Google Scholar Mr Meiggs tells me of one contrary example, IG i² 8, dated before 460. Its ‘litterae magnificae’ have little in common with the rough work of our horos.

¹⁰ Ibid. 64; cf. Roberts, E. S. and Gardner, E. A., Introd. to Greek Epigr. ii (Cambridge, 1905) xvi.Google Scholar Mr Meiggs notes the occurrence of the form on IG i² 400, possibly commemorating Oinophyta, but generally agreed to have been recut.

¹¹ For the contrary view, that three-barred sigma persisted much later, see Mattingly, H. B., Hist. x (1961) 148–88Google Scholar; xii (1963) 257–73; JHS lxxxi (1961) 124–32. Meriti, B. D. and Wade-Gery, H. T., JHS lxxxii (1962) 67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and lxxxiii (1963) 100–17, restate the orthodox position in reply; cf. Meiggs, R., Harv. Stud. lxvii (1963) 24–30.Google Scholar

¹² This was noticed by (among others) Hondius, J. J. E., Nov. Inscr. Atticae (Leiden, 1925) 13 n. 29Google Scholar, who asks, ‘nonne fieri potest, ut Athenienses quosdam agros Sami habuerint, ubi frumentarentur? Nam Samus erat statio classis Atheniensium’.

¹³ Schede, , Ath. Mitt. xliv (1919) 3Google Scholar; dismissing the suggestion of Collitz and Bechtel (on SGDI 5701) that the cleruchy of 365 was the occasion.

¹⁴ The argument would be even stronger if we could be certain that the ‘forged’ horos of Ion was in fact a Hellenistic replacement, not a modern copy. For Hellenistic Samos was certainly not of such a temperament as to keep alive a memorial of her conquest by Athens. If she still kept up the temenos, then it must have been founded on another occasion.

¹⁵ Hdt. v 66.2, Cf. Arist., Ἀθ. Πολ. 21. The old tribes retained some sort of existence for religious purposes in the early fourth century: Oliver, J. H., Hesp. iv (1935) 21Google Scholar, ll. 33–53.

¹⁶ Agora, Paus. i 5.1; earliest mention in 421, Ar., Peace 1183 f. and schol, (in the light of Arist., Ἀθ. Πολ. 53.4; Andoc. i 83, et al.); perhaps also in 424, Ar., Knights 977–80. Delphoi, Paus. x 10.1: by Pheidias, from the spoils of Marathon, and so, presumably, part of the same programme as Pheidias’ Athena Promachos (cf. Paus. i 28.1), now securely dated c.; 460–50 by B. D. Meritt, Hesp. v (1936) 373. (The lettering on two stones identified as part of the base of the Promachos by Raubitschek, A. E. and Stevens, G. P., Hesp. xv (1946) 107 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, would suggest a rather earlier date; but the identification is not certain.)

¹⁷ Hdt. v 69; Cassola, F., La Ionia nel Mondo Miceneo (Naples, 1957) 248 ff.Google Scholar; Sakellariou, M. B., La Migration grecque en Ionie (Paris, 1958) pt. iiGoogle Scholar; Roebuck, C., TAPA xcii (1961) 495–507.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Mordtmann, J. H., Rev. Arch. xxxvi (1878) 302 f.Google Scholar (cf. id., Ath. Mitt. vi (1881) 49). The statement in the Etjm. Mag. 160.22, s.v. Ἀστνπάλαια, that Samos was divided into two tribes, Chesieis and Astypalaieis, is only true of the Hellenistic period (pace Beloch, Gr. Gesch. i 1² 375).

¹⁹ SIG ³ 57.2, Οπληθων. For the other Ionic tribes at Miletos, argued from their presence at Kyzikos, see Mordtmann, , Ath. Mitt. vi 48 f.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. Wycherley, R. E., The Athenian Agora iii: Testimonia (Princeton, 1957) p. 87 no. 237.Google Scholar

²¹ IG i² 188.48; cf. Thuc. i 20 for the Leokoreion.

²² IG i² 310.35.

²³ IG i² 372.9, 59, etc.; IG ii² 1156. 35 (334/3). The Kekropion is restored in the Hekatompedon inscription of 485/4, SEG x 5.10.

²⁴ IG ii² 1138.8; 1140.18f.; 1144.8f.; 1152; etc.

²⁵ IG ii² 1146. Literary evidence, of course, goes back much earlier: Odyss. vii 80 f.; Hdt. v 82.3, viii 55.

²⁶ SEG iii 115.23.

²⁷ IG ii² 1149.5 f., 1163.26; cf. Paus. i 38.4.

²⁸ IG ii² 1166.

²⁹ IG i² 91 (Tod, GHI 51A); cf. IG i² 310.

³⁰ Preuner, E., Ath. Mitt. xlix (1924) 31 ff.Google Scholar

³¹ Recently by Lewis, D. M., CQ N.S. xi (1961) 62Google Scholar; Habicht, Chr., Hermes lxxxix (1961) 4.Google Scholar

³² See Rumpf, A., Ἀθηνᾶ Ἀθηνῶν Μεδέουδα, JDAI li (1936) 65–71.Google Scholar

³³ In early dedications: Raubitschek, A. E. and Jeffery, L. H., Ded. from the Ath. Akropolis (Cambridge, Mass., 1949) nos. 3, 53, 233Google Scholar; cf. Herington, C. J., Athena Parthenos and Athena Polios (Manchester, 1955) 8 n. 1.Google Scholar

³⁴ Jameson, M. H., Hesp. xxix (1960) 198–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; xxxi (1962) 310–15.

³⁵ Cf. Herington, op. cit. 17 ff.; Paton, J. M. (ed.), The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass., 1927) 459–78.Google Scholar For the inscriptions, see ibid. 466 n. 2.

³⁶ If it had, the Caryatid porch would have been hidden from view: this aesthetic argument seems to me conclusive (see Paton, op. cit. 459 f.).

³⁷ IG ii² 1654: for the date, Dinsmoor, W. B., Harv. St. suppl. i (1940) 173–5Google Scholar (superseding his earlier arguments, AJA xxxvi (1932) 143–60).

³⁸ S1G ³ 129 (Tod, GHI ii 110) 11. 8 ff.: for the date, Foucart, , BCH xii (1888) 153–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Dinsmoor, , AJA xxxvi 155 f.Google Scholar; citing other authorities.

³⁹ Dinsmoor, op. cit. 155–60, cf. Harv. St. suppl. i 179 n. 2, dates the inscription c. 377/6. Even if he were right, our argument would not be affected; for Dinsmoor agrees that the temple is the Erechtheion, in which he detects signs of repairs c.; 375 (AJA xxxvi 170–2).

⁴⁰ The western end may have been preserved as the treasury known as the Opisthodomos: see Dinsmoor, op. cit. 307–26. We need not here examine this theory.

⁴¹ Rumpf, A. denies that the temple was on the Akropolis: JDAI li (1936) 65–71.Google Scholar He identifies it with the παλαιὸς νεώς; then argues that since any thing there which could be called παλαιός had been destroyed by the Persians, a παλαὸς νεώς must necessarily be elsewhere. But the adjective might well be attached to a repaired pre-Persian temple. In any case, even if Rumpf's argument seemed conclusive, it would still depend upon a conjecture, that the temple for which the Eteokarpathians gave the timber was in fact the παλαιὸς νεώς: we only know that it was a temple of Athena; and that the Erechtheion, also a temple of Athena, had been damaged by fire. For Rumpf's other main argument, see below.

⁴² Op. cit. 68.

⁴³ See for example Habicht, Chr., ‘False Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes lxxxix (1961) 1–35Google Scholar (for forgery); and Lewis, D. M., ‘Notes on the Decree of Themistocles’, CQ N.S. xi (1961) 61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Further bibliography by Dow, S., Class. World lv (1961–1962) 105–8Google Scholar; SEG xviii pp. 246 f., xix pp. 101 ff.

⁴⁴ Meritt, B. D., Greek Historical Studies (Cincinnati, 1962) 21–34, esp. 27–30.Google Scholar I am grateful to Professor Meritt for sending me a copy of these lectures.

⁴⁵ Preuner, E., Ath. Mitt. xlix (1924) 31 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Paton, W. R. and Hicks, E. L., Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891) 160 no. 148Google Scholar, whence my fig. 1: 0·90; 0·32; height of inscription 0·22. As at Samos, the lower part of the stone is left rough.

⁴⁷ Foucart, ap. Paton and Hicks, loc. cit.: followed by Preuner, op. cit. 31.

⁴⁸ Cf. for instance IG ii² 2545, 2555, etc.

⁴⁹ Paton and Hicks, op. cit. xxv f.; see also, for a different interpretation, Bean, G. E. and Cook, J. M., BSA lii (1957) 124 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Jeffery, L. H., Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961) 352 f.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid., no. 39, pl. 69; Herzog, , Koische Forschungen (1899) 69Google Scholar no. 36, pl. 2.1.

⁵² Jeffery, op. cit., 345 ff.

⁵³ Cf. BMC Caria, pl. 34.12, Kamiros C. 475–50; Jeffery, op. cit., pl. 69 no. 41 1. 3, Halikarnassos C. 475.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 350, 357, pl. 68 no. 30.

⁵⁵ Ibid. 357 no. 27; JHS vi (1885) 372 f. and fig. The sign is used for both eta and the aspirate in Jeffery, op. cit. pl. 67 no. 5.

⁵⁶ Thuc. ii 27.1: M. Fraenkel, IG iv ad loc.; cf. G. Busolt, Gr. Gesch. iii.2 (1904) 936 f. There was also on Aigina a temenos of Apollo and Poseidon, jointly. The boundary stones (IG iv 33–8) are inscribed hορος | τεμενος in Attic script and dialect, with the words Απολλωνος Ποσειδωνος added at a later date in Ionic. I propose to discuss this temenos in a separate paper.

⁵⁷ Cf. Jeffery, op. cit., pl. 17 nos. 19, 21 (both c.; 450 ?), for both letter-forms. It should be noticed that is an early form of rho in Aiginetan (cf. for instance IG iv 61 (Jeffery, op. cit. 113 no. 8), probably c.; 550–500), and that and Σ Occur together on the tombstone of Choiros, , IG iv 71.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ SEG X 17 (ATL ii D 15) 1. 14: ]αθενονμεδεοσ[ (see Meritt, op. cit. 28 n. 36, for the reading). Conomis, N. C., Klio xl (1962) 49Google Scholar, proposes a similar date for the Themistokles decree, on literary grounds.

⁵⁹ RE ‘Kephale’, following Koehle, U., Ath. Mitt. x (1885) 110Google Scholar, who argued from funerary inscriptions, cf. IG ii² 6345 etc.

⁶⁰ Cf. Beazley, J. D., AJA lii (1948) 336CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jacobsthal, P., GGA cxcv (1933) 10Google Scholar; Kretschmer, P., Gr. Vaseninschr. (1894) p. 96 sect. 74Google Scholar and n. The form first appears at the end of the sixth century: cf. a b.f. olpe in the Villa Giulia belonging to the Leagros Group (ABV 378.251; Mingazzini, , Vasi della Coll. Castellani pl. 85.1Google Scholar); also a r.f. neck amphora in Vienna, Oest. Mus. 319 (ARV 13.γ). It was especially popular with Douris in his middle period, c. 495–80: ARV 279 ff. transcribes from 23 vases, Δ from six, but records the form on no vase of Douris' earlier or later periods. Forgers of his work wrote evidently recognising the delta as a peculiarity of his script: Cartellino Painter, ARV 297 f.; Triptolemos Painter, ibid. 241.27 and note on p. 239. The relevance of Douris to our horoi was observed by Preuner, ap. Schede, , Ath. Mitt. xliv (1919) 2.Google Scholar Among works of c. 490–480 by other painters we may notice a woman's head vase in Rhodes (ARV 897.19); a cup in London by the Brygos Painter (E 65: ibid. 247.13); another in Boston by the Tyszkiewicz Painter (ibid. 185.1); a stamnos in Vienna by the Argos Painter (ibid. 176.1); and a pelike in Berlin by the same artist (ibid. 176.5). Rather later, c. 470, is a lekythos ‘related to the school of Douris’ belonging to M. Henri Seyrig (Beazley, , AJA lii (1948) 336 ff., pl. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar). The form reappears on stamnoi of Polygnotos and his Group: Oxford 1916.68 (ARV 677.3); Gotha 51 (ARV 677.5); London E 454 (ibid. 678.8); London E 456 (ibid. 695.8); London E 450 (ibid. 689.1); Villa Giulia (ibid. 696.16); Boston 95.21 (ibid. 696.18). I owe much of this information to the kindness of Sir John Beazley, Mr Meiggs, and Professor E. Vanderpool.

⁶¹ Vanderpool, E., Hesp. Suppl. viii (1949) 339 no. 12aGoogle Scholar, pl. 58 (Inv. P 7894), Kritias Leaidou. Through the kindness of Professor Vanderpool I am able to add the following unpublished pieces: P 6127, Aristeides Lysimachou; P 15602, P 17951, both Hippokrates Alkmeonidou; also P 7247, kylix foot of the second quarter of the fifth century inscribed with an abecedarium.

⁶² Persian helmet dedicated by the Athenians to Zeus at Olympia: Kunze, E., VII Bericht über die Ausgrab, in Olymp. (1961) 129–37, esp. 135, fig. 75, pls. 56–7.Google ScholarCf. also IG i² 418, 440, 448, from the Perserschutt.

⁶³ IG i² 354 (on the date, Dinsmoor, , Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1937, 507Google Scholar). Some examples from the fifties and forties: Alliance with Segesta, 458/7 (IG i¹ 20—IG i² 19 has B, a misprint—A. E. Raubitschek, TAPA lxxv (1944) 10 and n. 3); Sigeion decree, 451/0 (SEG x 13; Hesp. v (1936) 360 ff. and fig.); sporadically and irregularly in some early tribute lists (heading of IV, 451/0; V ii 34, 450/49; VII iv 34, 448/7; not later); Brea, ?447/6 (IG i² 45; SEG x 34); here and there in the Chalkis decree, 446/5 (IG i² 39; ATL ii pl. x); horoi of Hippodamos' replanning of the Peiraeus, probably before 443 (AJA xxxvi (1932) 254 ff.).

⁶⁴ Barron, J. P., JHS lxxxii (1962) 6 and n. 40.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Suidas, s.v. ‘Panyassis’; cf. Stoessl, F., RE. Hdt. i 146Google Scholar may be an attack on Panyassis' account; cf. also Hdt. ii 45 with Panyassis F 26 Kinkel, ap. Athen. 172d, on Bousiris. In both places, however, Herodotos may be attacking Pherekydes, not Panyassis.

⁶⁶ Paus. x 10.1: v. sup., n. 16.

⁶⁷ When Pausanias saw the group, it contained Antigonos, Demetrios, and Ptolemy, but only seven tribal heroes; presumably the newcomers had replaced them, retaining the original base.

⁶⁸ Barron, J. P., ‘Milesian Politics and Athenian Propaganda, c. 460–440 B.C.’, JHS lxxxii (1962) 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁹ JHS lxxxii 69–71.

⁷⁰ Paros c. 372/1: Oliver, J. H., AJA xl (1936) 461 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Accame, S., La Lega Ateniese del Sec. IV a.C. (1941) 230.Google Scholar Priene shortly before 325: Inschr. v. Priene (1906) 5.2–6, also mentioning Athena Polias. Kolophon 307: IG ii² 456 a 7–9, b 3–8. Cf. also schol. on Ar., Clouds 386.

⁷¹ IG i² 45 (Tod, GHI i² 44) ll. 11 f. On the date, see ATL iii 286 n. 49.

⁷² SEG x 31.41–3; date, ATL iii 281, 299.

⁷³ IG i² 10, 11, 12/13a (Hill, Sources ² B 26); date, ATL ii 57, iii 254, following the suggestion of Meiggs, R., JHS lxiii (1943) 34.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Op. cit. 71; cf. Stevens, G. P., Hesp. Suppl. iii (1940) 9, 36.Google Scholar

^74a Thuc. iii. 104; cf. Highby, , Klio Beih. xxxvi (1936) 11–13.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Tod, GHI i²; 66 (IG i² 63; ATL i 154 f., cf. ATL ii 40 ff., A 9) ll. 54–8.

⁷⁶ Clouds 386 f. and schol.; cf. Meritt and WadeGery, op. cit. 70 and n. 10.

⁷⁷ IG i² 94, surmounted by a relief of an old man seated and a younger man on horseback, presumably Kodros and Neileus. Wycherley, R. E., ‘Neleion’, BSA lv (1960) 60–6Google Scholar, referring to previous discussions.

⁷⁸ Op. cit. 61 f.

⁷⁹ Austin, R. P., JHS li (1931) 287 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁰ Op. cit. 64; cf. Martin, R., Rev. Phil. 3rd Ser. xxxi (1957) 72 ff.Google Scholar

⁸¹ The period 412–408 seems most likely: Schmid-Stählin, , Gesch. d. Griech. Lit. iii.1 (Munich, 1940) 539 f.Google Scholar

⁸² Owen, A. S., Euripides: Ion (Oxford, 1939) xxxix–xl.Google Scholar

⁸³ The Ionic horoi of Athena in Samos may perhaps be associated with the renewed emphasis on the legend during the Peloponnesian War, or may be an assurance of solidarity when Samos was Athens’ base at the end of the war.

⁸⁴ Kolophon, as an original Ionian colony; the Eteokarpathians, tributary members of the Delian League, adopted as colonists by Thoudippos' decree: ATL i 157 1. 130 with 155 ll. 54–8.

⁸⁵ According to Plutarch, the proposal was made to Aristeides, who was of course dead by 454. I follow ATL iii 262, against Gomme, , Comm. i 370 n. 2Google Scholar, and also against Dundas, R. H., CR xlvii (1933) 62.Google Scholar