Ή μελέτη του έκτύπου μιας, χαμένης σήμερα, επιγραφής, καί μία «γλώσσα» του 'Ησυχίου οδηγούν στην ερμηνεία δύο μυστηριωδών επικλήσεων τής Αρτέμιδος, « Βλαγανϊτις » καί « Διγαία », γνωστών άπό ένα βωμό πού βρέθηκε πρίν άπό τόν τελευταίο πόλεμο στό Μετόχι 'Ημαθίας. Έπί πλέον επιτρέπουν μερικές διαπιστώσεις γιά τήν φωνολογία τής αρχαίας μακεδόνικης διαλέκτου.

Πρό εξήντα σχεδόν ετών ο L. Robert δημοσίευε σε άρθρο του P. Collart απότμημα ελληνιστικής επιγραφής των Φιλίππων, που ερμήνευσε ως ψήφισμα προς τιμήν ευεργέτη της πόλεως. Πέντε χρόνια αργότερα ο Ch. Edson ταύτισε άλλα έξι αποτμήματα της ίδιας επιγραφής. Τα αποτμήματα αυτά φαίνεται ότι έχουν σήμερα χαθεί χωρίς να δημοσιευθούν ποτέ, αλλά η μελέτη των εκτύπων του Edson μας επέτρεψε την αποκατάσταση του κειμένου, η οποία επιβεβαιώνει τις συμπληρώσεις και την ερμηνεία που πρότεινε άλλοτε ο L. Robert και συγχρόνως (...) μας παρέχει πολύτιμα στοιχεία για τους θεσμούς και την ιστορία των Φιλίππων κατά την ελληνιστική περίοδο. (shrink)

Jusqu'ici l'emplacement de l'antique Méthone n'avait pu être exactement déterminé : on la mettait le plus souvent au Sud du village de Néa Agathoupolis, près de l'actuelle Méthoni, où cependant il n'y a plus de vestiges antiques (mis à part quelques tombes). La localisation désormais assurée de Pydna et d'Aloros, cités entre lesquelles se trouvait Méthone selon les sources écrites (notamment Strabon, avec indication des distances) permet de situer cette ville juste au Nord de Néa Agathoupolis. De fait, les auteurs (...) ont repéré là deux sites importants, l'un tout proche du village et caractérisé par une céramique essentiellement archaïque et classique, l'autre un peu plus éloigné et datant visiblement d'une époque plus tardive. Il semble donc que le premier puisse être identifié de façon sûre avec la ville fondée (à la fin du vme siècle?) par des Érétriens et détruite en 354 av. J.-C. par Philippe II, tandis que l'autre pourrait être la bourgade hellénistique, puis romaine, où les survivants du siège avaient reçu l'autorisation de s'installer. Les témoignages antiques sur l'histoire de Méthone sont réexaminés à la lumière de cette double identification. Chemin faisant, les auteurs proposent de rapporter à Méthone de Magnésie une citation de l'historien Théopompe qui, d'après Strabon (VII fr. 20C et VIII 6,15; cf. FGrH 115 F 384) concernerait la ville de Piérie, Méthone dite tantôt de Macédoine, tantôt (plus anciennement) de Thrace. (shrink)

La chronologie de la grande liste delphique des thèarodoques a été l'objet, au cours des dernières décennies, de vives discussions. La publication d'une photographie de la liste des gymnasiarques d'Amphipolis fournit maintenant la solution du problème. Le théarodoque de Delphes à Amphipolis [ ]τιμος Έπικράτου est identifié comme le Ξενότιμος Έπικράτου, l'un des prêtres éponymes d'Asklépios dans la liste des gymnasiarques. La mention de la 9e année du règne de Philippe V comme terminus ante quem de la rédaction de cette (...) liste ne laisse aucun doute : la liste delphique date bien de la décennie 230-220 av. J.-C. (shrink)

This article attempts to gather the evidence for panhellenism in the fifth century B.C. and to trace its development both as a political program and as a popular ideology. Panhellenism is here defined as the idea that the various Greek city-states could solve their political disputes and simultaneously enrich themselves by uniting in common cause and conquering all or part of the Persian empire. An attempt is made to trace the evidence for panhellenism throughout the fifth century by combining different (...) kinds of evidence: that is, both poetic and historical texts, as well as the testimonia for monuments which are no longer extant. Any thought of a panhellenic crusade was impossible before the Persian invasions, but such an expedition, under the dual leadership of Athens and Sparta, was espoused by Cimon. After his death it remained an item of popular talk for the rest of the century and this talk intensified during the second half of the Peloponnesian War. The paper has six parts: the first finds hints of panhellenist ideology in the fragments of Simonides' Plataea elegy and in Aeschylus' Persians. The second part attempts to explain several puzzling passages in Herodotus in terms of his reflecting contemporary panhellenist discourse, especially in his account of Aristagoras of Miletus at Sparta. Part three reconstructs Cimon' s belief in dual hegemony and his plans for a joint Athenian-Spartan expedition against the Persian empire. Part four connects an anecdote about Miltiades with the Cimonian monuments and argues that the artistic program of the Stoa Poikile was intended to support Cimon's panhellenist aspirations. Part five discusses panhellenist sentiments in late fifth-century Greek poetry, and dates the Olympic Oration and Funeral Oration of Gorgias to the period 408-405 B.C., Finally, part six relates the panhellenist writings of Isocrates to earlier developments. (shrink)

This paper presents the case for reading the Hephaisteion as a temple planned and begun by the Philaid family early in the fifth century. It was originally designed to give a house to Hephaestus in Athens after the successful campaign of Miltiades brought the island of Lemnos, traditionally the home of Hephaestus, under Athenian control. Work on the temple was interrupted by the death of Miltiades but resumed in the wake of Cimon’s successful northern ventures. The strong association (...) of Miltiades and Cimon with the strategic islands of the northern Aegean suggests that the correct interpretation of the Hephaisteion’s east frieze is the expulsion of the Pelasgians from Athens. Their punishment is interpreted here as a mythological analogue for the annexation of the Pelasgians’ island, Lemnos. Evidence from the island demonstrates that the Athenian cleruchs on Lemnos were eager to distinguish themselves from the Lemnians. The Pelasgian episode enabled them to demonstrate this, and to emphasize their Athenian identity. (shrink)

Thucydides the Historian identifies himself as the son of a certain Oloros and, since Thucydides was by birth an Athenian , and Oloros is a Thracian name, the question arises how he acquired this Thracian patronymic. According to the view which has gained almost general acceptance, Thucydides of the deme Halimous in Attica owed his Thracian patronymic to a connexion by marriage. The hypothetical reconstruction of the family tree is that Thucydides' Athenian grandfather had married a daughter of Miltiades (...) the Athenian and Hegesipyle, daughter of the Thracian ruler Oloros, and a son of this marriage was called Oloros after his maternal great-grandfather. This Athenian Oloros became, as shown in Figure, the father of Thucydides the historian – an Athenian with a Thracian patronymic. (shrink)

The discovery of the inscription with the name of [M]iltiades, which confirmed the statement in Dionysius Halicarnassensis 7. 3. 1 that a Miltiades was archon at Athens in 524/3, prompts a reconsideration of the problems presented by the accounts in Herodotus and in Marcellinus Life of Thucydides concerning the Philaid family. To the question, who is this Miltiades, the following answers have been given. ‘He is not a Philaid.’ The objection to this answer is that the Peisistratids either (...) occupied the archonship themselves or gave it to members of leading families, such as Cleisthenes the Alcmeonid in 525/4; if then this Miltiades was a member of a leading family, he is almost certainly a member of the Philaid family. ‘He is the elder Miltiades who founded the settlement in the Chersonese.’ In Herodotus' account Miltiades left Athens, where he was already powerful, at the beginning of a tyranny by Peisistratus; then after several operations in the Chersonese Miltiades was rescued by Croesus. The year in which Miltiades left Athens was either 561/0 or 556/5 and almost certainly the latter; for in 561/0 Croesus was not on the throne. The year 546 may be excluded; for in 546 autumn and winter Croesus had neither the time nor the opportunity to concern himself with Miltiades, since Cyrus was then at war with Lydia and seized Sardis.2 If Miltiades was powerful in 556/5, he was at that date no youngster but at least in his thirties—a man born say c. 590. In 524/3, being well on in his sixties and having spent thirty years and more in the Chersonese, this Miltiades is unlikely to have been the eponymous archon. We conclude, then, that the archon Miltiades in 524/3 was a different and younger Miltiades. Having cleared the ground on these two points, I turn to the central problem, whether there were two men called Miltiades, one born c. 590 and the other the general who died of a wound soon after 489, or whether there were three men called Miltiades, one of whom was in a generation intermediate between Miltiades born c. 590 and Miltiades dead c. 489. Either solution is chronologically possible. (shrink)