Studies AnCIEnT HISTory FROM THE “NATIONAL” TO THE POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN ATHENS OF THE 6TH CENTURY BCE, AND THE EMERGENCE OF DEMOCRACY Eleni Krikona Abstract: his paper addresses the construction of a “national” identity of the Athenian inhabitants during the tyrannical governance of Peisistratos and his sons (561/0-511/0 BCE1) mainly through a series of religious practices, such as the transfer of cults from the rural areas to the city (asty) of Athens, the reorganization of the Panathenaia, the establishment of the City Dionysia, etc. he present paper investigates how this developed “national” consciousness in the late 6th century, in the sense of the citizens’ nationalization within the borders of the Athenian city-state, could enable the political uniication of Attica and the emergence of Democracy, taking into account the constitutional reforms of Kleisthenes the Alcmeonid, after the expulsion of the Peisistratidai. his paper focuses on the interpretation of the concept of political equality and the formation of a political identity of the Athenians in the late 6th century onwards, two notions which are treated here as very closely integrated. It was that political consciousness, following the constitutional changes of Kleisthenes, which led the Athenians to their irst great military victories in the early 5th century over the Persians. hese victories, which indisputably conirmed the strength of the constitution, will be brought, in short, into discussion in order to clarify the transition of Athens from the narrow borders of an archaic city-state to the rise of its naval empire in the “golden” 5th century via the newly established Democracy. Keywords: Sixth century Athens, festivals, Kleisthenes the Alcmeonid, political identity, Athenian Democracy o what extent is it safe for us to use modern terms, such as “ethnicity” and “nation” or “imperialism” concerning the archaic and classical period of Greece2? Even if the six characteristics of an ethnic group, as identiied by Antony Smith3, resemble those which are used to identify the emergent Greek city-states during the archaic period4, it is still necessary to clarify the speciic “ethnic” characteristics within the borders of a single, autonomous city-state, Athens, investigating the construction of the “national” identity in the Athenians of the sixth century and its inal equation with the political consciousness during the period of Kleisthenes’ T All dates given are BCE. On the ancient Greek ethnicity see in general HALL 1997; MALKIN 2001. 3 Meaning a collective name, a myth of common descent, a distinctive culture and history, communal solidarity and identiication with a speciic territory. See in detail SMITH 1986, 21-32. 4 Cf. MORGAN 2001, 77-80. 1 2 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 5 Department of History and Archaeology School of Philosophy National and Kapodistrian University of Athens ekrikona@gmail.com DOI: 0.14795/j.v3i1.150 ISSN 2360 – 266X ISSN–L 2360 – 266X Studies reforms onwards. he ifty years of tyrannical governance (561/0511/0), which gave the opportunity to the political reforms of Solon to be enforced and stabilized, gradually dismantled the aristocratic social structures in Athens. he political power of the aristocrats diminished as the power lied in the hands of the monarch, the tyrant. his gradually led the people -the “plēthos”- to realize that they could be ruled independently of the Athenian aristocrats, incorporating, in the meantime, themselves into the political city life. In addition, the notion of equality of all the Athenian citizens before the tyrant, even though still conventional, had been cultivated by Peisistratos and his sons, and stabilized5. In the sixth century, important religious changes took place in Athens, which pushed forward some cults as “national” festivals. hese “national” cults not only highlighted the importance of the asty, but led to the formation of “ethnic” consciousness in the Athenian inhabitants as well. Firstly, in 566/56 the Athena’s festival was reorganized from “Athenaia” to “Panathenaia”7, meaning the festival of all the Athenians, however, no literary or archeological8 source conirms that it was happened under Peisistratos, except one9. It is however certain that the tyrants, especially Hippias and Hipparchus, broadened the existing festival as well as the worship of Athena10. Yet no matter how active a role Peisistratos had or had not in 566/5, the transformation of a modest festival to a major “national” afair was a fact. he expansion of the Panathenaia as a supreme ceremonial expression of the collective identity in Athens, not only raised “ethnic” consciousness, but lessened the importance of local districts’ cults, controlled by aristocrats, as well. hrough these local cults, the aristocrats used to force a great deal of political control over the citizens of the rural demes but now their political power gradually ceased. As far as the establishment of the Great Dionysia, also known as the City Dionysia11, is concerned, there is no certain indication that Peisistratos actually brought the cult of Dionysus to Athens12. It is probably more likely that the Cf. BIrGALIAS 2009, 24-25. on the chronology of the reorganization see ZIEHEn 1949, 459, s.v. Panathenaia; HIGnETT 1952, 113; DAVISon 1958, 26-29; SHAPIro 1989, 19-20. 7 E.g. AnDErSon 2003, 174-177. on the origins of the Panathenaia see also DAVISon 1958, 25-26; roBErTSon 1985, 266-267; roBErTSon 1992, 91-93. on the festival of the Panathenaia see in general FArnELL 1896, vol. I, 294-298; DEUBnEr 1959, 22-35; PArKE 1977, 33-50; SIMon 1983, 55-72; nEILS 1996. 8 Cf. BoErSMA 2000, 49-56. 9 Sch. AELIUS ArISTIDES 13.189.4-5 (3,323 Dindorf). It is much probable, but still contains a large element of conjecture, that it was Lycurgus, the leader of the Plainsmen in the 560’s (HEroDoTUS 1.59), who took the initiative of the reorganization, and whose family, the Boutadai (later Eteoboutadai) controlled the cult of Athena Polias. See also SHAPIro 1989, 20-21; SAnCISI-WEErDEnBUrG 2000, 80 n. 4; AnDErSon 2003, 162-163. 10 on the rhapsodic competitions at the Panathenaia under the Peisistratidai see [Plato’s] Hipparchus, 228b. See also DAVISon 1958, 39-40; SHAPIro 1993, 92-107; SHAPIro 1989, 43-44; SLInGS 2000, 67-70. on the building policy of the Peisistratidai, concerning the promotion of the Panathenaic festival (old Propylon and Athena Polias temple [«Archaios neos»]) see in general BoErSMA 1970, 20-21; SHAPIro 1989, 21-24. 11 on the festival of the Great Dionysia see in general FArnELL 1909, vol. 5, 224-230; PICKArD-CAMBrIDGE 1953, 55-103; DEUBnEr 1959, 138-142; PArKE 1977, 125-135; SIMon 1983, 101-104. 12 Cf. KLEInE 1973, 26-28; SHAPIro 1989, 86. For the contrary view see e.g. PArKE 1977, 128-129; SIMon 1983, 104. on the evidence associating 5 6 6 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 cult image from Eleutherai predated Peisistratos’ tyranny13 and that the casual strategy of tyrants, concerning the two above-mentioned major festivals of Athens, was to “promote cults that had been irmly established in the irst half of the sixth century, rather to introduce new ones”, as explicitly Shapiro underlines14. Undoubtedly though, the tyrants’ policy, in the attempt to ensure their political rule, was the centralization of political power as well as the equation of the citizen body, as a whole, with the Athenian state. Towards these aims, Peisistratos and his sons extensively promoted the greatest two festivals, Panathenaia and City Dionysia, as celebrations for the whole citizenry of Athens, lessening the political power of the aristocracy in the local districts. In this way, the communal solidarity was emphasized and the abstract notion of “Athens”, and “the Athenians”, was clearly speciied to the citizenry. Now the Athenian citizens, equal to each other on this “national” basis, could identify with this collective name -the Athenians- and the process of Attica’s political uniication had inally begun15, formulating the proper basis for Athens to reach the ultimate stage of its uniication at the end of the sixth century, through Kleisthenes’ reorganization of the state. he emerging “ethnic” consciousness, shaped through constant tyrannical cult propaganda, would indirectly support the attachment of a greater meaning to the Athenian citizenship; as Ober precisely indicates “he Athenian masses were increasingly conscious of themselves not just in relation to inferior status groups within the state but in relation to other peoples and to the Athenian state itself”.16 During the tyrannical regime in Athens, the formation of an undercurrent political identity17, especially in the citizens of the asty, was in progress, mainly through the maintenance of the solonian constitutional forms18. he tyrants often summoned the Assembly, in order to inform the Athenians over their political decisions or to submit these decisions to the citizens’ judgment, seeking their ratiication19, shaping in the meantime, unwittingly, political consciousness. As a consequence, the importance of the Assembly, which from the middle sixth century took place in the Agora, increased in a political sense, such as the importance of the centralized –during the tyrannical governance- political power did, as the heart of the state, the asty, had been reinforced20. Finally, as the citizen body Peisistratos with the City Dionysia or with Dionysus Eleuthereus see KoLB 1977, 124-134. 13 But even if the cult of Dionysus was not introduced to the city by Peisistratos, this deity of popular appeal, and his festivals, was surely encouraged by the tyrants in an efort to deprive aristocrats from their political privileges, which derived from their rites in rural areas. Cf. PArKE 1977, 129. 14 SHAPIro 1989, 86. 15 on the cults and festivals as a basic part of Peisistratos’ “Uniication” of Athens see FroST 1990, 3-9. 16 oBEr 1989, 66-67. 17 Cf. oBEr 1993, 218 “he tyrants had encouraged political selfconsciousness on the part of the masses of ordinary citizens by the sponsorship of festivals and building programs”. See also BLoK 2000, 34-38. 18 AP, 16.2; PLUTArCH, Solon, 31.3; THUCyDIDES, 6.54.6. 19 Cf. HIGnETT 1952, 152. 20 on the emergence of Athens as a “capital city” through various cults, under the tyrants, see nilsson 1951. of course the asty of the Athenian state was reinforced also through the development of its trade and the building projects Studies of Athens enlarged because of the tyrants, who gradually conferred political rights to more and more of their foreign supporters21, the signiicance of the citizenry boosted. Consequently, the formation of this political identity and self-consciousness in the Athenian Demos under the tyrants -even though “hypnotized”22- would lead to the beginning of a new era for the city-state of Athens; to the Emergence of Democracy23. After the defeat of Kleisthenes in the elections for the archon of the year 508/7, the Alcmeonid took the Demos into his “hetaireia”24 in order to succeed the ratiication of his reforms by the Assembly. One may wonder how Kleisthenes gained the loyalty of Demos, putting aside the powers of this year’s archon, Isagoras25. And one may answer; he simply recognized the political power of the Athenian Demos, underlining their political identity, activating their political consciousness26. Kleisthenes defeated Isagoras by recognizing the absolute authority of Demos in the political decision-making process27. he new constitutional order, at the end of the sixth century in Athens, was based on the political changes of Kleisthenes, mainly on his tribal reform28, which led to the integration of the citizenry29 and consequently, to the reorganization of Attica as a whole. he Alcmeonid also precisely deined the Athenian political identity. From 508/7 onwards, every existing citizen had to register in one of ca. 140 demes throughout Attica30. hese demes consisted of a self-deined body of citizens who would be politically equal and take the inal decisions as far as the local afairs were concerned. Via this important political role, the political consciousness of the Athenian citizens was even more emphasized and promoted, rendering the main political archonship of the decision-making process, meaning the Assembly, dominant. Kleisthenes also established an advisory council of 50031, which would be responsible for the preparations of the agenda for all the meetings of the Assembly. he delegates32, who were chosen within the demes33, had to cooperate with other citizens from all over Attica, as equals with one another. he sovereignty of Demos on the political decisionmaking process was based upon a newly introduced political idea, isēgoria, meaning the freedom of debate in the Assembly as well as the Council of 50034. Kleisthenes, by answering the claim of Demos35 to be part of the Athenian political life36, introduced the notion of equality to the citizenry as a whole. A rhetoric question inally arises; could the concept of political equality37 be simply introduced in Athens, if the “national” uniication of Attica, which was based upon the concept of equality of all citizens as “the Athenians”, had not predated? At the end of the sixth century, due to Kleisthenes’ constitutional reforms, democratic foundations were laid in the city-state of Athens, destroying once and for all the aristocratic structure of Athenian society, and the dawn of a new era for Athens had inally been reached. From now on all the Athenian citizens would take political decisions as equals, and ight their wars united38. he importance of the newly established constitution that was based upon the notion of equality stressed in the most explicit way by Herodotus who, associating it with the Athenian military force, quoted39: he Athenians accordingly increased in power; and it is evident, not by one instance only but in every way, that Equality (Isēgoria)40 is an excellent thing, since the Athenians while they were ruled by despots were not better in war that any of those who dwelt about them, whereas after they had got rid of the despots they became by far the irst. his proves that when they were kept down they were willfully slack, because they were working for a master, whereas when they had been set free, each one was eager to achieve something for himself 41. In the quotation above Herodotus clariies that AP, 21.3, 43.2. Cf. MErITT/TrAILL 1974, XV. 34 on the notion of Isēgoria see SAKELLArIoU 2008, 325. on the chronology of the introduction of this notion in Athens see GrIFFITH 1966, 115-138; ForrEST 1966, 268-269; WooDHEAD 1967, 129-140; LEWIS 1971, 129-140; oBEr 1989, 119. 35 Meaning here the poor Athenian citizens. 36 “he masses saw that these reforms [of Kleisthenes] would provide them with the institutional means to express more fully their growing sense of themselves as citizens” ober 1993, 218. 37 hough still not promoted to all sides of the political life, meaning that the concepts of isokratia and isonomia were yet to be part of the political reality until at least the middle ith century. Isonomia as «isos + nomos», meaning the equality before the law or through the law, becomes a political reality in Athens via the constitutional reforms of Kleisthenes, whereas isonomia as «isos + nemō/nomē», meaning the equal part of political power to all the Athenian citizens, becomes a political reality in the ith century onwards. on the concept of isonomia and its meaning and role during the archaic period, there is a vast debate, which is not going to concern us here. Cf. rE suppl. VII, s.v. Isonomia, 293-301 (V. Ehrenberg); EHrEnBErG 1950, 530-537; VLASToS 1953, 337-366 (Isonomia deined as «political equality maintained through the law and promoted by the law»); VLASToS 1964, 243-294; LÉVÊQUE/VIDAL-nAQUET 1964, 40; oSTWALD 1969, 119-120, 137-160; PLEKET 1972, 63-81; rAAFLAUB 1985, 115-117; BIrGALIAS 2009, 29-30 with notes 38-40, and p. 40-41. 38 he Athenian army is from now on organized according to the tribal reform. Cf. AP, 22.2, 61. 39 5.78. 40 on the concept of Isēgoria within the works of Herodotus see ToULoUMAKoS 1979, 120 n. 8; nAKATEGAWA 1988, 257-275. 41 Τr. G. C. Macaulay. 32 33 mainly of the Peisistratidai (e.g. AnGIoLILLo 1997, 9-100; SAnCISIWEErDEnBUrG 2000, 80 n. 3; yoUnG 1980, 166 f.). It is also reasonable enough, but still contains a large element of conjecture, the construction of the archaic city wall (Cf. HEroDoTUS 7.140; STrABo, 9.396; THUCyDIDES, 1.89.3, 1.93.2) under the tyrants, which determined decisively the public character of the Agora. 21 on Peisistratos and party politics see FrEnCH 1959, 50. on his supporters who received political rights the testimony is indirect; Cf. AP, 13.5: «μετά τήν τῶν τυράννων κατάλυσιν ἐποίησαν διαψηφισμόν», meaning that ater the expulsion of the Peisistratidai the Athenians doubted the right of «οἱ τῷ γένει μή καθαροί» (most probably the foreign supporters of the tyrants) to possess Athenian citizenship. See also HIGnETT 1952, 112, 133. 22 See also oBEr 1993, 218. 23 Cf. EHrEnBErG 1950, 515-548; oSTWALD 1969; rAAFLAUB/oBEr/ WALLACE 2007. 24 HEroDoTUS 5.66; AP, 20.1. 25 he questions of how, when and in which form he passed into the Athenian Assembly his political reforms are not going to concern us here. 26 on the watchword isonomia as a banner of Kleisthenes, aiming at taking the Demos into his political side, see oSTWALD 1969, 155-157 with note 2 p. 157; oBEr 1989, 74; oBEr 1993, 228. 27 «ἀποδιδούς τῷ πλήθει τήν πολιτείαν» (AP, 20.1-2). on the vast debate concerning the meaning of this quote see WADE-GEry 1933, 21; HIGnETT 1952, 126 f., 130, 393-394; oSTWALD 1969, 155 f.; LÉVÊQUE/VIDALnAQUET 1964, 51-53; rHoDES 1993, 248. 28 HEroDoTUS 5.66.2, 5.69; AP, 21; Aristotle’s Politics, 6.1319b 23-29. 29 E.g. LEWIS 1963, 22-40; TrAILL 1975. 30 Cf. LAMBErT 1993, 29-30; ISMArD 2007, 28-30. 31 AP, 21.3. on the Boule see rHoDES 1972. Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 7 Studies Athens, meaning the Athenians themselves who are at last identiied with their own state, is strong and conscious of its strength because of the newly born constitution, which is closely integrated here with the concept of freedom. he most explicit proof for Herodotus’ statement came a few years after the political reforms of Kleisthenes, when Athens was called to support the cause of the Ionian revolt in the early ifth century42. he Athenians answered positively to Aristagoras’ call for military help for Miletus. Even though the Ionian revolt failed43, Athens was the only Hellenic city-state44 that doubted, for the irst time ever, the rule of the vast Persian Empire. he Persians did not hesitate to declare the war against a small Greek polis, somewhere in the West, as they would have surely perceived Athens. To say in detail the course of military enterprises during the decade 490-479 is hardly necessary and would take us too far aield45, for we are interested only in the political meaning of the Athenian victories over the Persians in the battle of Marathon (490) and the naval battle of Salamis (480). Athens, in the early ifth century, opposed the “slavery” of the Persian monarchy choosing its freedom, in other words its Democracy, which was irmly integrated to the notion of liberty, as Herodotus concludes above. Athens defeated Persia thanks to its constitution; the Athenians, due to their increased political consciousness, chose to defend their state, their constitution, themselves46. It was that political consciousness that won these battles against the Persians, conirming in the most explicit way the constitutional strength of Athens. And it was then the critical moment for the Athenians to establish a marine Confederacy47 with its center at Delos48 (478/7-454/3), which would have as its main purpose to bring freedom over the enslaved Ionian states as well as to protect the independence of the states that took part in this Federacy, as allies. It is hardly surprising that in the period of the Persian wars, the Athenians began to feel more aware of the new political order and the dawn of a new era in their state. It was during this period when the law of Ostracism was enforced for the very irst time49, the political power of the nine Archons reduced50, and two of the most important constitutional communal bodies, meaning the Council of 500 and the tribunal of Heliaia, started to operate. he most important political fact though, as a consequence of the Persian wars, was that the political role of the hetes, the poorest Athenian citizens, increased as it was mainly because of them that Athens won the naval battle of Salamis. Yet above all, it was the hetes who moved the Athenian leet, which would gradually rule the Aegean defending the vital interests of the state. HEroDoTUS 5.38.2. E.g. HUXLEy 1966, 144-153. 44 Eretria sent military forces as well, consisting of ive ships, out of loyalty to their old friendship with Miletus. 45 See in general BUrn 1984; CAH 1988, vol. IV, 491-622. 46 «ἕκαστος ἑωυτῷ προθεθυμέετο κατεργάζεσθαι» (HEroDoTUS 5.78). 47 AP, 23.5; PLUTArCH, Aristides, 24; THUCyDIDES, 1.96. 48 on the Delian league see in general MEIGGS 1972, 42 f; CAH 1988, vol. IV, 461-490. 49 Cf. AP, 22.3: «θαρροῦντος ἤδη τοῦ δήμου τότε πρῶτον ἐχρήσαντο τῷ νόμῳ τῷ περί τόν ὀστρακισμόν»; Arpokration, FGrHist IIIB, 64 (F 6); Filochorus, FGrHist IIIB, 107 f. (F 30). 50 As the procedure of the archons’ selection changes; Cf. AP, 22.5. 42 43 8 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 he constitutional reforms of Ephialtes51 and Pericles52 irmly established the political rule of Demos, concerning not only the decision-making process, in which Demos’ rule was sovereign and undisputed from the Kleisthenic period onwards, but the command of the state afairs as well, which in the last decade of the sixth century and the early ifth was still in the hands of the aristocrats53. Due to the fact that the military force of the Athenian state derived from its constitution, it was highly necessary that Democracy would be supported not only by the state laws but by the religious practices as well54. For this purpose the political cult of the “Ten Eponymous Heroes” was created55, through which the Athenians worshiped the uniication of Athens and the communal solidarity. he Athenians also emphasized the worship of the Tyrannicides56 in honor of the beginnings of their political freedom from the tyrannical-monarchical bonds. In addition, the worship of heseus, the Hero of Democracy, as the main person responsible for Attica’s uniication and mythical founder of Democracy57, in contrast to Hercules, the Hero of Tyranny58, reached its peak59. Athens also highly projected the concept of autochthony60 that was proven as the most powerful way for the Athenians to identify themselves with the territory of Attica. Moreover, the Panathenaia, the festival of all the Athenians, was decisively promoted under Democracy61. Finally, it was not at all by chance that the Periclean building program mainly concerned a city zone strictly religious in character, the Acropolis of Athens. Consequently, through this well organized religious policy in support of Democracy, the “national” consciousness of the Athenian citizens was further raised, serving though now clearly political purposes62. he obvious supremacy of the Athenians in comparison to their allies of the Delian Confederacy63, inevitably drove Athens to claim the absolute rule of the Aegean. And as Rostovtzef most explicitly states “here were now two alternatives before Athens; either to renounce the mastery of the Aegean and revert to the state of things before the Persian wars, or to convert the confederation into E.g. JonES 1987, 53-76; PICCIrILLI 1988. E.g. WEBEr 1985; BrULÉ 1994. 53 here is no literal testimony that Kleisthenes diminished the political power of the nine archons or the aristocratic Boule of Areios Pagos. Cf. MoSSÉ 1971, 30; BIrGALIAS 2007, 135. he Alcmeonid also maintained the ancient religious units intact (AP, 21.6). 54 on religion and politics in democratic Athens see BUrKErT 1996, 51-65; SHAPIro 1994, 123-129. on the political iconography of the ith century Athens see BoEDEKEr/rAAFLAUB (eds.) 1998, esp. HӦLSCHEr 153-183. 55 on the cult of the ten Eponymous Heroes see KEArnS 1989; PArKEr 1996, 155-156, 173-175. See also MATTUSCH 1994, 73-81. 56 AP, 58.1; Δημοσθένης, 19.280; IG Iᶟ 131. See also PoDLECKI 1966, 129141; FornArA 1970, 155-180; Taylor 1981. 57 EUrIPIDES, Suppliants, 353, 404-408, 433-441; PAUSAnIAS 1.3.3-4; PLUTArCH, heseus, 24; SoPHoCLES, Oedipus at Colonus, 911 f. See also rE suppl. XIII, s.v. heseus, 1212 f. (H. Herter). 58 E.g. BoArDMAn 1972, 57-72; BoArDMAn 1975, 1-12. See also BLoK 1990, 17-28. 59 on heseus in association with the Panathenaia and Democracy see TIVErIoS 1994, 131-142. 60 Cf. SHAPIro 1998, 127-151. on the autochthony of the Athenians see e.g. hucydides, 2.36.1 «τήν γάρ χώραν οἱ αὐτοί [οἱ πρόγονοι] αἰεί οἰκοῦντες … ἐλευθέραν…παρέδοσαν». 61 Cf. SHAPIro 1996, 215-225. 62 on the ethnic identity in democratic Athens see also CoHEn 2001, 235-274. 63 Concerning the wealth, the military strength, and the constitutional forms. 51 52 Studies an Athenian Empire”64. Athens chose to rule over the states of the Delian Confederacy instead of presiding them because it would be impossible to take the alternative way. he Athenians’ demand over the allies65 was that they would pay tribute to Athens66, a condition whose maintenance was to be secured by force, in exchange for their protection. But it was not only because of this demand that Athens had inally become a naval Empire. he further victories of Cimon over the Persians, the gradual choice for more and more allies to contribute to the Confederacy by paying tribute instead of ofering ships, the uprisings of the allies (e.g. Naxos, hasos) and their ensuing suppression, the fortiication of Athens and Piraeus with the “Long Walls”, which secured the city as well as the harbor from possible attacks by land, permitting to Athens to carry on its activities freely, the gradual increase of its military forces, and inally the transfer of the federal funds from Delos to the Acropolis of Athens (454/3), led to the conversion of the Delian League into the vast Athenian Empire67. In conclusion, within the period of ca. a century, from the middle sixth to the middle ifth century, Athens was transformed from a small archaic city-state, with no political or military signiicance whatsoever, into a united conscious political community, which ran the internal afairs of the Athenian “nation-state” democratically and the external ones following imperialistic practices68. here was only one Greek polis that could and would doubt the sole dominance of Athens in the Hellenic territory in the ifth century; Sparta, supported by its allies of the Peloponnesian League. he Peloponnesian war would be soon upon them and Athens not only would face a harsh defeat but most importantly, would sufer the forced overthrow of Democracy temporarily and the loss of the leadership in the Aegean permanently69. ABBREVIATIONS AP: [Aristotle’s] Athenaion Politeia FGrHist: F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin-Leiden 1923-1958. IG I3: Inscriptiones Graecae I: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores, 3rd edition, vol. I, ed. by D. Lewis, Berlin 1981. REFERENCES he footnotes, which indicate translated bibliography, follow the chronology of the prototype’s edition, but the pages cited refer to the translated edition. ANDERSON 2003 roSToVTZEFF 1930, 266. Cf. MEIGGS 1972, map 1, I-VI. 66 on the Athenian tribute lists see MErITT/WADE-GEry/McGrEGor 1939-1953. 67 on the facts that led to the conversion of the Delian Confederacy into the Athenian Empire see hucydides, 1.97 f. on the Athenian Empire see MEIGGS 1972 with further bibliographic references. 68 E.g. hucydides, 5.84-116. See also roMILLy 1951; McGrEGor 1967. 69 he paper is dedicated to my precious mentor, nikos Birgalias, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek History in the Department of History and Archaeology of the national and Kapodistrian University of Athens, whose premature and sudden death consisted of a great loss to anyone who had the chance of his acquaintance. I personally owe everything to his teachings, his support, his appreciation. 64 65 Anderson, G., he Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 B.C. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). ANGIOLILLO 1997 Angiolillo, S., Arte e cultura nell’Atene di Pisistrato e dei Pisistratidi (Bari: Edipuglia). BIRGALIAS 2007 Birgalias, N., Μεικτό σπαρτιατικό πολίτευμα και πάτριος αθηναϊκή πολιτεία. In: Birgalias, N./Burazelis, K./Cartledge, P. (eds.), he Contribution of Sparta to Political hought and Practice (Athens: Alexandreia), 117-142. BIRGALIAS 2009 Birgalias, N., Από την κοινωνική στην πολιτική πλειονοψηφία: Το στάδιο της Ισονομίας (Athens). BLOK 1990 Blok, J. H., Patronage and the Pisistratidae, Bulletin antieke beschaving 65, 17-28. BOARDMAN 1972 Boardman, J., Herakles, Peisistratos and Sons, Revue Archéologique 1, 57-72. BOARDMAN 1975 Boardman, J., Herakles, Peisistratos and Eleusis, he Journal of Hellenic studies 95, 1-12. BOEDEKER/RAAFLAUB 1998 Boedeker, D./Raalaub, K.A. (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in ifth-century Athens (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). BOERSMA 1970 Boersma, J. S., Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C. (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof Publishing). BOERSMA 2000 Boersma, J. S., Peisistratos’ building activity reconsidered. In: Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben), 49-56. BRULÉ 1994 Brulé, P., Périclès: l’apogée d’Athènes (Paris: Gallimard). BURKERT 1996 Burkert, W., Isonomia und Polisreligion im Kleisthenischen Athen. In: Sakellariou, M. V. (ed.), Démocratie Athénienne et Culture (Athens: Académie d’Ath̀nes), 51-65. BURN 1984 Burn, A.R., he Persian Wars. he Greeks and the Defence of the West, c. 546-478 BC (Cambridge). CAH 1988 Boardman, J./ Hammond, N. G. L./Lewis, D. M./Ostwald, M. 9 (eds.), he Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IV: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c. 525 to 479 B.C., 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). COHEN 2001 Cohen, B., Ethnic Identity in Democratic Athens and the Visual Vocabulary of Male Costume. In: Malkin, I. (ed.), Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity (WashingtonCambridge: Harvard University Press), 235-274. COULSON/PALAGIA/SHEAR/SHAPIRO/FROST 1994 Coulson, W. D. E./Palagia, O./Shear, T. L./Shapiro, H. A./ Frost, F. J. (eds.), he Archeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monograph 37) (Oxford: Oxbow Books). DAVISON 1958 Davison, J. A., Notes on the Panathenaea, he Journal of Hellenic studies 78, 23-42. DE SANCTIS 1898 De Sanctis, G., Atthis: storia della repubblica ateniese dalle origini alle riforme di Clistene (Roma: Tipograia poliglotta). DEUBNER 1959 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 9 Studies Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Hildesheim). DOUGHERTY/KURKE 1993 Dougherty, C./Kurke, L. (eds.), Cultural poetics in archaic Greece: cult, performance, politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). EHRENBERG 1940 Ehrenberg, V. 1940, Isonomia, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband 7, 293-301. EHRENBERG 1950 Ehrenberg, V., Origins of Democracy, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 1, 515-548. FARNELL 1896-1909 Farnell, L. R., he cults of the Greek states, vol. I-V (Oxford: Clarendon Press). FORNARA 1970 Fornara, C. W., he Cult of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Philologus: Zeitschrift für antike Literatur und ihre Rezeption 114, 155-180. FORREST 1966 Forrest, W. G., he emergence of Greek democracy: the character of Greek politics, 800-400 B.C. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson). FRENCH 1959 French, A., he Party of Peisistratos, Greece and Rome 6, 46-57. FROST 1990 Frost, F. J., Peisistratos, the cults, and the uniication of Attica, he Ancient world: a scholarly journal for the study of antiquity 21, 3-9. GRIFFITH 1966 Griith, G. T., Isegoria in the Assembly at Athens. In: Badian, E. (ed.), Ancient society and institutions: studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday (Oxford: Blackwell),115-138. HALL 1997 Hall, J. M., Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). HERTER 1973 Herter, H., heseus, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband 13, 1045-1238. HIGNETT 1952 Hignett, C., A history of the Athenian constitution to the end of the ifth century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). HÖLSCHER 1998 Hölscher, T., Images and political identity. he case of Athens. In: Boedeker, D./Raalaub, K. A. (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in ifth-century Athens (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 153-183. HUXLEY 1966 Huxley, G. L., he Early Ionians (London: Faber). ISMARD 2007 Ismard, P., Les associations en Attique de Solon à Clisth̀ne. In: Couvenhes, J. C.; Milanezi, S. (eds.), Individus, groupes et politique à Ath̀nes de Solon à Mithridate (Tours: Presses universitaires Fraņois Rabelais), 17-33. JONES 1987 Jones, L. A., he Role of Ephialtes in the Rise of Athenian Democracy, Cahiers archéologiques 6, 53–76. KEARNS 1989 Kearns, E., he heroes of Attica (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, supplements 57) (London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies). KLEINE 1973 Kleine, J., Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der attischen Kunst von Peisistratos bis hemistokles (Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth). KOLB 1977 10 Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 Kolb, F., Die Bau-, Religions- und Kulturpolitik der Peisistratiden, Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 92, 99-138. LAMBERT 1993 Lambert, S.D., he Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). LÉVÊQUE/VIDAL-NAQUET 1964 Lévêque, P./Vidal-Naquet, P., Clisthène l’Athénien: essai sur la représentation de l’espace et du temps dans la pensée politique grecque de la in du VIe siècle à la mort de Platon (Paris: Les Belles Lettres) (Gr. transl.: Στ. Γεωργοπούλου, Κλεισθένης ο Αθηναίος, Athens 1989). LEWIS 1963 Lewis, D. M., Cleisthenes and Attica, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 12, 22-40. LEWIS 1971 Lewis, J. D., Isegoria at Athens: When Did It Begin?, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 20, 129-140. MALKIN 2001 Malkin, I. (ed.), Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity (Washington-Cambridge: Harvard University Press). MATTUSCH 1994 Mattusch, C. C., he Eponymous Heroes. he idea of sculptural groups. In: Coulson, W. D. E./Palagia, O./Shear, T./L./Shapiro, H./A./Frost, F./J. (eds.), he Archeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monograph 37) (Oxford: Oxbow Books), 73-81. MCGREGOR 1967 McGregor, M. F., Athenian policy, at home and abroad (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati). MEIGGS 1972 Meiggs, R., he Athenian Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press). MERITT/TRAILL 1974 Meritt, B. D./Traill, J. S., he Athenian Agora XV: Inscriptions: he Athenian Councillors (Princeton: he American School of Classical Studies at Athens). MERITT/WADE-GERY/MCGREGOR 1939-1953 Meritt, B. D./Wade-Gery, H. T./McGregor, M. F., he Athenian tribute lists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). MORGAN 2001 Morgan, C., Ethne, Ethnicity, and Early Greek States, ca. 1200-480 B.C.: An Archeological Perspective. In: Malkin, I. (ed.), Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity (WashingtonCambridge: Harvard University Press), 75-112. MOSSÉ 1971 Mossé, Cl., Histoire d’une démocratie: Athènes. Des origines à la conquête macédonienne (Paris: Éditions du Seuil). NAKATEGAWA 1988 Nakategawa, Y., Isegoria in Herodotus, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 37, 257-275. NEILS 1996 Neils, J. (ed.), Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press). NILSSON 1951 Nilsson, M. P., Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece (Lund). OBER 1989 Ober, J., Mass and elite in Democratic Athens: rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people (Princeton: Princeton University Press). OBER 1993 Ober, J., he Athenian revolution of 508/7 B.C.E. Violence, authority, and the origins of democracy. In: Dougherty, C./Kurke, L. (eds.), Cultural poetics in archaic Greece: cult, performance, politics (Cambridge), 215-232. Studies OSTWALD 1969 Ostwald, M., Nomos and the beginnings of the Athenian Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon Press). PARKE 1977 Parke, H. W., Festivals of the Athenians (London: hames and Hudson). PARKER 1996 Parker, R., Athenian religion: a history (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (Gr. Transl.: Μ. Τριανταφύλλου, Η θρησκεία στην αρχαία Αθήνα. Ιστορική επισκόπηση, Athens 2005). PICCIRILLI 1988 Piccirilli, L., Eialte (Genova: Il Melangolo). PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE 1953 Pickard-Cambridge A., he dramatic festivals of Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press). PLEKET 1972 Pleket, H. W., Isonomia and Kleisthenes: A Note, Τάλαντα: proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 4, 63-81. PODLECKI 1966 Podlecki, A. J., he Political Signiicance of the Athenian “Tyrannicide” Cult”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 15, 129-141. RAAFLAUB 1985 Raalaub, K. A., Die Entdeckung der Freiheit (Vestigia 37; München). RAAFLAUB/OBER/WALLACE 2007 Raalaub, K. A./Ober, J./Wallace, R. W. (eds.), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece (Berkeley: University of California Press). RHODES 1972 Rhodes, P. J., he Athenian boule (Oxford: Clarendon Press). RHODES 1993 Rhodes, P. J. 1993, A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion politeia (Rev. ed.; Oxford). ROBERTSON 1985 Robertson, N., he origin of the Panathenaea, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 128, 231-295. ROBERTSON 1992 Robertson, N., Festivals and Legends: he Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). ROMILLY 19512 Romilly, J. de, hucydide et l’impérialisme athénien (Paris). ROSTOVTZEFF 1930 Rostovtzef, M., A history of the ancient world. I. he Orient and Greece (translated from the Russian by J. D. Duf; Oxford). SAKELLARIOU 20084 Sakellariou, Μ. V., Η Αθηναϊκή δημοκρατία (Heraklion). SANCISI-WEERDENBURG 2000 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben). SHAPIRO 1989 Shapiro, H. A., Art and cult under the tyrants in Athens (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern). SHAPIRO 1993 Shapiro, H.A., Hipparchus and the Rhapsodes. In: Dougherty, C; Kurke, L. (eds.), Cultural poetics in archaic Greece: cult, performance, politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 92-107. SHAPIRO 1994 Shapiro, H.A, Religion and politics in democratic Athens. In: Coulson, W.D.E.; Palagia, O.; Shear, T.L.; Shapiro, H.A.; Frost, F.J. (eds.), he Archeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monograph 37) (Oxford: Oxbow Books), 123-129. SHAPIRO 1996 Shapiro, H. A., Democracy and Imperialism: he Panathenaia in the Age of Perikles. In: Neils, J. (ed.), Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press), 215-225. SHAPIRO 1998 Shapiro, H. A., Autochthony and the visual arts in ifthcentury Athens. In: Boedeker, D.; Raalaub, K. A. (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in ifth-century Athens (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 127-151. SIMON 1983 Simon, E., Festivals of Attica: an archaeological commentary (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press). SLINGS 2000 Slings, S. R., Literature in Athens, 566 - 510 B.C.. In: SancisiWeerdenburg, H. (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben), 57-77. SMITH 1986 Smith, A. D., he Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford-New York: B. Blackwell). SNODGRASS 1980 Snodgrass, A. M., Archaic Greece:the age of experiment (London: J. M. Dent). STARR 1986 Starr, Ch., Individual and community: the rise of the polis, 800500 B.C. (New York: Oxford University Press). TAYLOR 1981 Taylor, M. W., he Tyrant Slayers: he Heroic Image in the Fifth Century B.C. Athenian Art and Policy. (Monographs in classical studies) (New York: Arno Press). TIVERIOS 1994 Tiverios, M., Θησεύς και Παναθήναια. In: Coulson, W.D.E.; Palagia, O.; Shear, T.L.; Shapiro, H. A./Frost, F. J. (eds.), he Archeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxbow Monograph 37) (Oxford: Oxbow Books), 131-142. TOULOUMAKOS 1979 Touloumakos, Ι. S., Η θεωρητική θεμελίωση της δημοκρατίας στην κλασσική Ελλάδα (Athens). TRAILL 1975 Traill, J. S., he Political Organization of Attica. A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylai, and heir Representation in the Athenian Council (Hesperia Supplements Vol. XIV) (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens). VLASTOS 1953 Vlastos, Gr., Isonomia, American journal of philology 74, 337-366. VLASTOS 1964 Vlastos, Gr. 1964, ΙΣΟΝΟΜΙΑ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ. In: Vlastos Gr., Πλατωνικές μελέτες (Athens 2000), 243-294. WADE-GERY 1933 Wade-Gery H. T., Studies in the Structure of Attic Society: II. he Laws of Kleisthenes, Classical quarterly 27, 17-29. WEBER 1985 Weber, C. W., Pericles. Das goldene Zeitalter in Athen (München: List). WOODHEAD 1967 Woodhead, A.G., Isēgoria and the Council of 500, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 16, 129-140. YOUNG 1980 Young, P. H., Building projects and archaic Greek tyrants. hesis/dissertation (Pennsylvania). ZIEHEN 1949 Ziehen, L., Panathenaia, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 18, 457-489. Journal of Ancient History and Archeology No. 3.1/2016 11