Buck, Robert J. - A History of Boeotia PDF

A History of Boeotia
Map 1. Boeotia - the Setting

A History of Boeotia
by Robert J. Buck
The University of Alberta Press
1979
Map 2. The Main Ancient Sites and Routes

First published by
The University of Alberta Press
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
1979
Copyright ® The University of Alberta Press 1979
This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian
Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Buck, Robert J., 1926-

A history of Boeotia
Bibliography: p.
ISBNO-88864-051-X
1. Boeotia - History. I. Title.

DF261.B5B82 938'.4 C78-002089-8
All rights reserved

No part of this publication
may be produced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise
without prior permission of the copyright owner.
Printed by Printing Services of

The University of Alberta
I wish to express my thanks to the University of Chicago Press for their
kindness in allowing me to use copyright material from my articles in
Classical Philology in the preparation of this work. I especially am
grateful to my wife Helen and to the late Mrs. M. Mojecko for their
work in typing the manuscript, and to my friends and colleagues,
especially John Fossey, for their help and criticism.
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction xi
1. The Land of Boeotia 1
2. Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and

Bronze Ages 33
The Neolithic Age 34
The Early Helladic Period 35
The Middle Helladic Period 36
Late Helladic I and II 37
Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB 38
Late Helladic IIIC 40
Summary and Conclusions 41

3. Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age 45
The Three Traditions 45
4. Traditions and History of the Bronze Age 55
5. The Coming of the Boiotoi 75
6. Boeotia in the Archaic Period 87
7. The Formation of the Boeotian League

520-526 B.C. 107
8. The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C. 123
9. Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 141
10. Conclusions 169
Bibliography 179
Maps
1. Boeotia - the Setting ii
2. The Main Ancient Sites and Routes iv
3. The Ancient Sites (with numerical and xiv

alphabetical indices)
4. The Late Helladic Period 32
5. The Entry of the Boiotoi 74
6. The Main Towns and Battle Sites of 86

Classical Boeotia
7. The Original Membership of the 106

Boeotian League
8. The Boeotian League in 480 B.C. 122
9. The Boeotian League in 450 B.C. 140

Introduction
The Boeotians were one of the first of the Greek stocks to make a
practicable federal state. In neighbouring Attica, an area of similar size
and, as far as can be judged, of about equal population in the Archaic
Age, it was not a federal state that ultimately emerged, but a unitary one,
Athens. The contrast is interesting. How, when and why the Boeotians
produced a federation are questions worthy of study, together with an
enquiry into how they developed the various institutions by which it was
governed. These depend in part on an examination of Boeotian society
and its classes and how they evolved, as far as the evidence and analogy to
similar Greek states permit. The Boeotians were, in their traditions,
conquering immigrants. How they treated the earlier inhabitants is part
of the enquiry as well; for in the Boeotian state there was no group
similar to the helots of Lacedaemon. To pursue this question requires a
critical examination of the historical sources and an analysis of the
various historical traditions. This in turn leads to an examination of their
validity plus an examination of the other historical evidence available,
chiefly archaeological but also linguistic and topographical. In effect the
work is a preliminary study of Boeotian history from the earliest times
down to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, as well as an
examination of the literary, archaeological and other source-material
available. It is clear that much of the previous work that has been done in
this area was based on insufficiently examined data.
How the Boeotians grappled with the problems of big-member
dominance, localism, separatism and centralism in the early stages is
perhaps instructive, and some points worthy of note emerge.
The Boeotians preferred to stay for most of the time down to the
Peloponnesian War under the rule of aristocracies or oligarchies. During
the fifth century they developed a lively and vigorous school of oligarchic
theory deriving their ideas from existing practice in the Boeotian League.
Though some of the towns came under very narrow oligarchies and
several flirted with or became attached to democracy, none, as far as we
know, was ever ruled by a tyrant. Only one town took part in the sending
out of a colony. In these respects the Boeotian towns were exceptional.
Like several northwest Greek peoples the Boeotians did not have tribes or
phratries as functional units, and, as we noted above, they did not possess
a depressed class like the helots or penestae. They were, then, exceptional
in their social organization.
This is not a study of Boeotian art, culture and literature except
incidentally. The Boeotians, it should be emphasized, had a lively and
vigorous cultural, intellectual and artistic life from the Bronze Age down
at least as far as the fifth century B.C. There is no justification for the old
gibe of "Boeotian swine."
This page intentionally left blank
Numerical Index of Sites
1. Chaeronea 38. Siphae (Tiphys) 73. Darimari (Erythrae?)
2. Orchomenus 39. Creusis 74. Vergoutiani
3. Lebadea 40. Aghios Vasilios 75. Soros (Eteonus?)
4. Itonium 41. Medeon 76. Metropoliti Bridge
5. Alalcomenae 42. Acraephia (Scolus?)
6. Coronea 43. Senkenna 77. Palaiomylai
7. Hippotae 44. Klimitari 78. Chlempotsari
8. Magoula Balomenou 45. Ptoan Apollo (Eilesion?)
9. Kalami 46. Chantsa 79. Klidhi (Schedia?)
10. Agoriani 47. Aghios loannis 80. Pyle(Sidae)
11. Tzamali 48. Pyrgos Aghias 81. Kavasala (Drymus?)
12. Polyira (Tegyra) Marinas 82. Eleutherae
13. Mavromandili 49. Gla 83. Vratsi(Stephon?)
(Eudielus) 50. Megali Katavothri 84. Tanagra
14. Magoula near Pyrgos 51. Mouriki (Schoenus?) 85. Schimatari
15. Pyrgos (Aspledon) 52. Likeri 86. Oropus
16. Stroviki 53. Aghios Elias 87. Amphiarium
17. Olmones 54. Skala Paralimnes 88. Delium
18. Hyettus (Peteon?) 89. Dramesi(Graea?)
19. Corseia 55. Oungra (Trapheia?) 90. Aulis
20. Cyrtones 56. Kastro 91. MegaloVouno
21. Copae 57. Cabirium 92. Vlicha(Hyria?)
22. Larymna 58. Heracles Hippodetes 93. Karababas
23. Tilphusium 59. Potniae 94. Chalia
24. Ocalee 60. Thebes 95. Lithosoros
25. Muses, Valley of 61. Peribolus (Salganeus)
26. Haliartus 62. Kanapetra (Knopia?) 96. Aghios Minas
27. Ascra 63. Mesovouni 97. Aghii Georgil
28. Onchestus 64. Soules (Teumessus) 98. Isos
29. Listi (Ceressus?) 65. Glisas 99. Anthedon
30. Neochorion 66. Heleon 100. Tateza(Donacon?)
31. Thespiae 67. Harma 101. Platanaki
32. Leuctra 68. Mycalessus 102. Aghios Pantaleimon
33. Eutresis 69. Mt. Messapium (Pharae?)
34. Chorsiae 70. Plataea 103. Staniates
35. Thisbe 71. Pantanassa (Hysiae) (Oenophyta?)
36. Aghios loannes 72. Aghia Triadha 104. Skroponeri (Phocae?)
37. Mavrovouni
Map 3. The Ancient Sites

Alphabetical Index of Sites
Acraephia 42 Hyria? (Vlicha) 92 Potniae 59
Aghia Triadha 72 Hysiae (Pantanassa) 71 Ptoan Apollo,
Aghii Georgii 97 Isos 98 Sanctuary of 45
Aghios Elias 53 Itonium 4 Pyle (Sidae) 80
Aghios loannes 36 Kalami 9 Pyrgos (Aspledon) 15
Aghios loannis 47 Kanapetra (Knopia?) 62 Pyrgos Aghias
Aghios Minas 96 Karababas 93 Marinas 48
Aghios Pantaleimon Kastro 56 Salganeus (Lithosoros) 95
(Pharae?) 102 Kavasala (Drymus?) 81 Schedia? (Klidhi) 79
Aghios Vasilios 40 Klidhi(Schedia') 79 Schimatari 85
Agoriani 10 Klimatari 44 Schoenus? (Mouriki) 51
Alalcomenae 5 Knopia? (Kanapetra) 62 Scolus?
Amphiarium 87 Larymna 22 (Mitropoliti Bridge) 76
Anthedon 99 Lebadea 3 Senkenna 43
Ascra 27 Leuctra 32 Sidae (Pyle) 80
Aspledon (Pyrgos) 15 Likeri 52 Siphae (Tiphys) 38
Aulis 90 Lithosoros (Salganeus) 95 Skala Paralimnes
Cabirium 27 Listi (Ceressus?) 29 (Peteon?) 54
Ceressus? (Listi) 29 Magoula near Pyrgos 14 Skroponeri (Phocae?) 104
Chaeronea 1 Magoula Balomenou 8 Soros(Eteonus?) 75
Chalia 94 Mavromandili 13 Soules (Teumessus) 64
Chantsa 46 Mavrovouni 37 Staniates
Chlempotsari Medeon 41 (Oenophyta?) 103
(Eilesion?) 78 Megalo Vouno 91 Stephen? (Vratsi) 83
Chorsiae 34 Megali Katavorthri 50 Stroviki 16
Copae. 21 Mesovouni 63 Tanagra 84
Coronea 6 Messapium (Mt.) 69 Tateza (Donacon?) 100
Corseia 19 Mitropoliti Bridge Tegyra (Polyira) 12
Creusis 39 (Scolus?) 76 Teumessus (Soules) 64
Cyrtones 20 Mouriki (Schoenus?) 51 Thebes 60
Darimari (Erythrae?) 73 Muses, Valley of 25 Therapne? (Soros) 75
Delium 88 Mycalessus 65 Thespiae 31
Donacon? (Tateza) 100 Neochorion 30 Thisbe 35
Dramesi (Graea?) 89 Ocalee 24 Tilphusium 23
Drymus? (Kavasala) 81 Oenophyta? Tiphys(Siphae) 38
Eilesion? (Staniates) 103 Trapheiai (Oungra) 55
(Chlempotsari) 78 Olmones 17 Tzamali 11
Eleutherae 82 Onchestus 28 Vergoutiani 74
Erythrae? (Darimari) 73 Orchomenus 2 Vlicha (Hyria?) 92
Eteonus? (Soros) 75 Oropus 86 Vratsi (Stephon?) 83
Eudielus? Oungra (Trapheia?) 55
(Mavromandili) 13 Palaiomylai 77
Eutresis 33 Pantanassa (Hysiae) 71
Gla 49 Peribolus 61
Glisas 65 Peteon?
Graea? (Dramesi) 89 (Skala Paralimnes) 54
Haliartus 26 Pharae? (Aghios
Harma 67 Pantaleimon) 102
Heleon 66 Phocae? (Skroponeri) 104
Heracles Hippodetes 58 Plataea 70
Hippotae 7 Platanaki 101
Hyettus 18 Polyira (Tegyra) 12
1. The Land of Boeotia
Central Greece is a long peninsula between the Gulf of Corinth and the
Straits of Euboea with Boeotia forming its central section. The arable
part of Boeotia is an elliptically shaped group of plains, about eighty
kilometres east to west and forty kilometres north to south. These plains
are part of a corridor, flanked by mountains, that extends east-southeast
from Mt. Oeta for about 125 kilometres to the Gulf of Euboea. In the
centre of this group of plains there was, until the turn of this century and
through most of antiquity, 1 a large shallow, swampy lake, Copai's, which
extended about twenty kilometres east to west and ten north to south.
The lake lay so that there were large arable areas to the east and to the
west, and rather narrow strips to the north and south. The main towns of
Boeotia lay in the larger areas, such as Thebes to the east and
Orchomenus to the west, with smaller towns such as Haliartus and
Copae scattered in the strips. The plains are, for Greece, of good quality
for farming, composed of erosible marls and clays with some alluvial soil.
The mountains flanking these plains to the south are chiefly
Mesozoic limestones and form separate large blocks connected by ridges.
They run directly east-southeast to the northern end of the Gulf of
Petalia in the Straits of Euboea. In their western part they shut off
Boeotia from the Gulf of Corinth, and in their eastern part they separate
Boeotia from Megara and Attica. The massif of Helicon dominates the
western sector and is linked by hills to Parnassus still further west, while
Cithaeron dominates the eastern part.2
Helicon itself consists of several parallel chains of mountains, the
tallest of which rises to Palaiovouno (1,799 metres), the four in the west
becoming three in the east, with spurs and smaller ranges radiating in
different directions. One spur goes northwest to join Mt. Laphystium and
forms a dividing line between Boeotia and Phocis. Another spur points
northeast in a diminishing line of hills towards Sphinx mountain and the
2 The Land of Boeotia
range along the eastern side of Copais. It marks a major division between
the eastern and western groups of Boeotian plains. A gap, the Vale of
Thespiae, lies between the eastern part of Helicon and the next massif,
Cithaeron. It is a fertile area that winds towards the coast and is linked to
the western group of plains by various valleys through Helicon. It joins
the south Boeotian plateau by easy stages.3
The easternmost series of mountains, those separating Boeotia from
Attica and Megara, consists of three parallel ranges. The most northerly
range, composed of Cithaeron and Pastra, is about thirty kilometres
long.4 The second, about five kilometres south of this, has Pateras linked
by low ridges with Parnes to form a line about sixty kilometres long.
Between the first and the second range lie three small basins: on the coast
lies Aegosthena, which was disputed in Hellenistic times between Boeotia
and Megara; inland are found the valleys of Eleutherae and of Oenoe, the
former of which was disputed between Boeotia and Athens until the
fourth century. A spur then turns southeast. This one separates the two
plains of Eleusis and Megara. The third range, Geraneia, runs across the
Isthmus of Megara and lies outside the scope of this study.5
The mountains flanking the Boeotian plains to the north are, like
those to the south, formed in a series of blocks of limestone. They are less
elevated than those in the south, but form an impressive-looking barrier
(easily crossed) between Boeotia and the coastal area of Locris. The
massif of Mount Chlomon (of dolomitic limestone) forms the principal
block in the west. It sends off to the south-southwest a smallish range,
Mt. Hedylium, which runs towards the valley of the Cephissus and the
spur moving up from Laphystium. A tangle of cream-coloured cliffs
above shaly, scrub-covered slopes, with occasional arable hollows, forms a
series of hills linking Chlomon with the next block to the east, Mt. Ptoon.
The boundaries between Boeotia and Locris are not sharply defined by
any natural division and they shifted back and forth in this rugged area
throughout the historical period. Thus Larymna and various other small
towns were at one time Boeotian, at another time Locrian. The hills
block any surface egress from Lake Copai's, which was drained by
underground sinkholes.
From Mt. Ptoon a spur goes southwest to Sphinx Mountain along
what was once the east side of Lake Copai's. Between this spur and the
parallel one from the next block lie two lakes, Iliki and Paralimni
(ancient Hylice and Trephia) and the modern drain for Copai's. The last
block is a ridge from Mt. Messapium running southwest to Hypatus. To
the east lies a coastal plain.6
Between these north and south ranges lie the plains of Boeotia. The
westernmost plain is drained by the Cephissus River and begins in Phocis
The Land of Boeotia 3
and Doris. Only the lower reaches belong to Boeotia, the line of the
frontier being marked by the Marios ravine that runs south to north just
to the east of Panopeus, and by the peak of Hedylium to the north of the
Cephissus River. This fertile and well-watered plain marks one of the
main lines of entry into Boeotia.7
The Copaic basin has good farmland along the former verges of the
lake, as well as in the very fertile former lake bed. The modern settle-
ments, like the ancient, are on the margins of the plain, close to suitable
water supplies. Some ancient sites had been moved when the levels of the
lake rose near the end of the Bronze Age.8 The lake has now been
completely drained, and the course of the Cephissus has been altered so as
to swing along the former southern side and act as a great drainage
ditch.9
Several streams other than the Cephissus entered the Copai's. The
Melas is a large perennial river. It starts in springs at the foot of
Chlomon and skirts the northern edge of the former lake eventually to
enter a sinkhole at the end of the old northeast arm. The Hercyna River
(modern Probasia) flows easterly from springs on Mt. Laphystium and
past Lebadea.10 The Phalarus (Pantzas) runs northeast from Helicon and
passes on the west side of the site of Coronea.11 The Cuarius 12 was
probably the torrent found on the east side of Coronea. The Triton13 was
another small seasonal stream, probably one slightly east of the Cuarius
near modern Solinari. The Lophis14 is probably the small stream that
starts high in Helicon, and flows east, turning north to pass to the east of
Haliartus. Most of these are not rivers or brooks, but simply "run-offs."
Only the Cephissus and the Melas are perennial. The run-offs to the
north of Lake Copais are not identified, even by conjecture.
To the east of the hills connecting Mt. Ptoon and Helicon lies the
Theban plain. It is bounded on the south by a scarp or ridge that rises up
to the south Boeotian plateau and on the east by rolling hills that separate
it from the plain of Tanagra. The northern part, the Aonian plain, lies to
the southwest of Mt. Messapium (Ktipas). It used to be somewhat
dampish, but it has been drained and produces good crops, while the hill
slopes, especially those of Ktipas, have many olive groves and orchards.
The western part, between Lake Iliki, the scarp to the south and the hills
to the west, forms the Teneric plain, the less fertile but still sufficiently
productive section. The Theban plain is drained by the Thespius
(modern Kanavari) to the west and the Ismenus to the east.
South of the scarp lies a plateau descending from the eastern slopes
of Helicon, about thirty kilometres west to east by ten kilometres north to
south. It is sometimes called the upper Asopus basin, but the south
Boeotian plateau is a better term. It is a series of bumpy hills and gulleys,
sometimes called sharply rolling plains, with a surface of easily eroded

Pliocene sands and clays that form red or brown soils. It is quite fertile
and grows much grain, vines and olives. The slopes are well forested for
Greece, and some further reforestation is in train, but there still remains
much pasture land. The Asopus is the main stream in the area, but there
are others forming different watersheds.15
The Asopus is a smallish stream, in a shallow valley, flowing
eastward well below Cithaeron and Parnes for much of its length. It
flows past the ancient site of Eutresis and past a string of small
settlements on the slopes above its valley, then through the escarpment at
its eastern end into the plain of Tanagra.16
The Thespius drains a more westerly part of the plateau, flowing
east after risng near Thespiae then turning north to join the Ismenus,
which flows past Thebes and through the Teneric plain. Once joined they
empty into Lake Iliki.17 The Oeroe (modern Stravopotamos) flows
southwest past Plataea to drain the southern part of the plateau
immediately below Cithaeron and finishes near the port of Creusis on the
Corinthian Gulf.18 The Permessus (modern Archontitza) drains the
extreme west and southwest arms of the plateau and disappears in a
swampy sinkhole near Domvraina.19
To the east of the south Boeotian plateau and of the Theban plain is
the plain of Tanagra. It is separated from the plateau by a continuation
of the scarp, which here forms a ridge culminating in the Soros and
Moustaphades hills, and is separated from the Theban plain by a saddle,
the Dritsa ridge. The plain is irregular in shape, red-soiled and fertile.
One arm swings northwest to form the area once occupied by the four
small towns called the Tetracomia. The plain ends in a low escarpment
where the land falls away to the straits of Euboea.20
Three coastal plains on the Straits of Euboea are noteworthy. First
is the plain of Oropus,21 at the mouth of the Asopus. This was long in
dispute between Athens and Boeotia. Second is the plain around Aulis,
south of the Euripus,22 the plain of Vathy. Third, north of Euripus, lies
the plain of ancient Salganeus, modern Khalia, a fertile area.23
On the south coast a small coastal plain lies at Chorsiae on the west,
a second joins the Domvraina section of the south Boeotian plateau, and a
very small third one lies at the mouth of the Oeroe.24 They provide the
main entry to Boeotia from the Peloponnese.
There are several approaches to the Boeotian plains. First is the
route by way of the Cephissus valley and Chaeronea.25 Second is the
passage from Thermopylae southeast via Hyampolis.26 Third are the
various west-east paths over and through Helicon.27 Fourth are the paths
from Chorsiae and Thisbe north through Helicon towards Coronea.28
Fifth are the paths from Siphae, Chorsiae and Thisbe up the Permessus
valley to Thespiae.29 Sixth is the route from Greusis inland to Thespiae
and Thebes.30 The ancient road itself has been traced by Pritchett31 from
Creusis towards Thespiae. Seventh are the tracks over Cithaeron from
Attica and Megara, at least four in number.32 Eighth is the route by
Oropus and Delium and then inland to Tanagra or to Thebes.33 Ninth,
the path that runs southwest from Chalcis or Aulis towards Thebes.
Tenth, the route lies from Anthedon and Larymna west to Orchomenus.34
The main natural resources of Boeotia, other than its fertile soil,
consist of limestone; cement, especially produced at Aulis; bauxite, from
east of Dhistomon; magnesite, from Mt. Ktipas; and a little iron and
nickel from Mt. Ptoon. None of these, except the limestone and perhaps
the iron, was exploited in antiquity.
The Towns
The names of several score Boeotian towns are found in the ancient
sources, chiefly in Book 2 of the Iliad, Strabo, Pausanias and Plutarch.
The locations of several, but not all, of these are known. They vary from
important centres such as Thebes and Orchomenus to obscure hamlets.
The sites of many other settlements, the ancient names of which are
either uncertain or forgotten, have been located by vigorous
archaeological exploration. In general one may say that the requirements
for a successful town-site have changed little until recently. These are
that arable land should be within walking distance of the town, but not
itself be built upon, with water conveniently nearby. Nowadays the
presence of railways and highways and the consequent convenience of
long-range and rapid transportation have led to some changes.
Nonetheless the most important ancient settlements are, in varying
degrees, still important today. Because of the number of sites, they will be
divided into seven areas for discussion: western, northern, southern, south
coast, eastern, south Boeotian plateau and the north coast.
The western region includes the settlements in the Boeotian part of
the Cephissus alley along with those in the western Copai'c plain. The
ancient town of Chaeronea, the home of Plutarch, lies at the site of the
modern village of Chaironeia (formerly Kapraina). Only the walls on the
acropolis and the theatre are visible, along with the famous lion, though
trial excavations revealed the rough limits of the lower town. Sherds show
occupation in Neolithic, Early and Late Helladic and Archaic times.35
Orchomenus lies at the tip of Mt. Acontium, about ten kilometres
northeast of Chaeronea and north of the modern village of Orchomenos
(formerly Skripou). The remains are well known, including the tholos
tomb, the acropolis and long walls, the temple of Asclepius, and so on,
and have been the subject of excavations by the German School. The site
was occupied from the Neolithic to the Classical periods.36
Lebadea is situated underneath the modern town of Livadhia, and
so it has been little explored except for rescue excavations. The nearby
hill of Trypiolithari, thought by some to be the acropolis of ancient
Lebadea, seems to be simply a cemetery. The site of the famous oracle of
Trophonius has not yet been convincingly located.37
The site of the Shrine of Itonian Athena and its attendant hamlet
has now been set a few metres northeast of the village of Alalkomenai
(formerly Mamoura), at the church of Metamorfosis, where various
squared blocks and inscriptions have been discovered, or perhaps at the
site nearby recently excavated by the Archaeological Service.38
A few kilometres further southeast, the temple of Athena
Alalcomenaea and the neighbouring hamlet of Alalcomenae are to be
placed near the modern village of Solinari, where recent excavations of
the Greek Archaeological Service have uncovered the remains of a
Classical sanctuary.39
Ancient Coronea lies sprawled desolately on a ridge south of
Itonium and southwest of Alalcomenae, east of the village of Aghios
Georgios. Scattered remains and the footings of walls are visible, and a
depression on the east side of the hill suggests the presence of a theatre. A
small excavation was carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service in
the early twenties. Neolithic, Middle and Late Helladic, Archaic,
Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds are reported.40
Hippotae (Plut. Narr. Amat. 4 / Mor. 755a) may lie in the little
valley of Koukoura between Coronea and Thisbe in the depths of
Helicon where ancient remains have been reported.41
Several ancient sites whose ancient names are unknown or uncertain
also lie in this western area, including Magoula Balomenou, Kalami or
Lioma, Agoriani and Metachorion.
Magoula Balomenou is a large mound that lies northeast of
Chaeronea by the Cephissus River. Trial excavations show that it was
occupied in the Neolithic, Early and Late Helladic periods, but with no
later occupation until Roman times. It has been tentatively identified with
Arne of the Catalogue, as a low-lying site associated with Chaeronea.42
Kalami or Lioma lies between Coronea and Lebadea below Mt.
Granitza on low-lying ground, close to the old edge of Lake Copai's. It is
a large mound, with many roof tiles visible. It has not been excavated, but
surface finds show settlement from Neolithic to the end of LH III B. As a
low-lying site associated with Lebadea, it has been identified with Midea,
with Eleusis and with Arne. Nearby to the south the sanctuary of the
Hero Charops was excavated early in this century.43
Agoriani, sometimes called Dekedhes, is a low hill south of the
village of Aghia Paraskevi (formerly Agoriani). It was occupied during
the Early, Middle and Late Helladic periods. No official excavations
have been made so far. It has been tentatively identified with Eleusis,
and, less plausibly, with Athens.44
To the north of Lake Copai's lie a series of settlements in the fertile
strip along the edge and in the hollows of the mountans separating
Boeotia from Locris. There is much dispute about the precise
identification of many of these ancient sites.
Aspledon, linked with Orchomenus in the Iliad, is said by Strabo
(9.2.41) to have been twenty stades (three and three-quarter kilometres)
from Orchomenus and across the Melas river. Pausanias (9.38.9) says
that it was abandoned for lack of water, but Strabo says it had a good,
that is western, exposure. Today the village of Tzamali lies two and
one-half kilometres (thirteen and one-half stades) from Orchomenus.
Fairly good springs, some of them sources of the Melas, lie nearby; but
the whole site has an eastern exposure and is not across the Melas. There
are Classical remains nearby that are claimed as a temple of Dionysus,
though this idea is rejected by the latest investigators.45
At Polyira, about four and one-half kilometres (twenty-four and
one-third stades) from Orchomenus, a small site has been found on a low
spur on the northern edge of the lake. The pottery collected there shows
settlement from Early Helladic to Hellenistic times.46 The present route
to the site does not cross the Melas, though earlier paths might well have
done so. It also has a plentiful water supply nearby, one of the sources of
the Melas that seems to have been flowing for a considerable time.
A few kilometres to the east of Polyira, about five and one-half
kilometres from Orchomenus in a straight line (thirty stades), lie
Hellenistic walls and foundations near Mavromandili at Avrokastro.47
Only Classical and Hellenistic pottery has been found at this site.
At Pyrgos, about eight kilometres (about forty-three stades) from
Orchomenus, on a hill above the town are the remains of a fairly large
settlement, the subject of trial excavations. Middle Helladic and
Mycenaean occupation is attested as well as Archaic and Classical. The
Classical site was apparently walled, perhaps with two circuits
(polygonal and Cyclopean), and covered the hilltop area of about 250 by
150 metres. The Mycenaean settlement seems to have been somewhat
larger and to have extended down the hill some distance. The village has
at present a plentiful supply of water, but its former name, Xeropyrgo,
suggests that its water sources are apt to change in the amount they
furnish. It is across the Melas from Orchomenus and has a western

exposure.48 At present this village seems to be favoured as the site of
Aspledon, in spite of its distance from Orchomenus, because Strabo's
mileages are often inaccurate, and all else points to its being an important
site.49 In this case Mavromandili could well be Eudielus, which Strabo
(9.2.41) says was the later name of Aspledon. Perhaps the water supply
gave out in the Hellenistic period, and the settlement transferred to
another location.50
Polyira is currently thought by most authorities to be the Tegyra of
Plutarch,51 for it seems to have been situated in this area. It had a temple
and an oracular shrine of Tegyraean Apollo near and overlooking the
townsite. The ruins of a temple on the Mycenaean site of Magoula
nearby conform to this description.52 Thus Tegyra may be located at
Polyira, which is the most popular view at present, and one supported by
the existence of a Classical temple on a nearby Mycenaean location.
Tegyra may also be at Pyrgos, which is the older but not commonly held
opinion. Aspledon may be located at Pyrgos, the present commonly held
opinion, or at Polyira, the older belief. Eudielus or perhaps Euaemon
may be set at Mavromandili. Tzamali perhaps marks the site of a temple
of Dionysus, or, more likely, a small settlement the name of which is
unknown. No identifications are possible for small sites such as Stroviki,
where no inscriptions giving place names have been found.
Several other obscure toponyms grace this region. Olmones, a mere
village,53 should lie north of Lake Copai's. It is usually set at the sparse
ruins, apparently of Classical date, that crown a hill just to the west of
the village of Pavlou.54
Hyettus, another small village,55 near a place called Dendri, has
circuit (or perhaps retaining) walls with inscriptions. These identify the
location with certainty. It lies about a kilometre east of Loutsi and about
six kilometres northeast of Pyrgos. It was the subject of some excavation
in the past century.56
Corseia was a small border village belonging at one time to Boeotia,
at another time to Locris.57 It is probably to be identified with some
hilltop remains between Martinon and Proskyna, fairly close to the
latter.58
Cyrtones is another town of uncertain location that was passed
between Boeotia and Locris.59 It is generally placed on a hill southwest of
Martinon where ancient remains have been noted.60
Copae, a more important town, has been securely located at
Topolia, underneath the modern townsite, on a small rounded hill that
projected into the Copai'c basin. Inscriptions confirm the identification. 61
Larymna is a coastal city that was sometimes held by Boeotia, but
usually by Locris. Its site is usually placed at the ruins that lie on the bay
of Larmes, on and around a small promontory.62
Several place-names belong on the southern side of Lake Copais
between Alalcomenae and Haliartus. One of these is Tilphusium, which
lay on or near Mount Tilphusius. At the base of this mountain lay the
spring Tilphusa,63 and close to the spring the temple of Apollo
Tilphusius,64 while somewhere in the neighbourhood was the sanctuary
of the Praxidicae.66 A shrine of Poseidon Hippios must have lain nearby;
its aetiological myth indicates this clearly.66 Strabo (9.2.27) mentions a
settlement, but elsewhere (9.2.36) refers to Tilphusium as a natural
strongpoint ( pv v v). Demosthenes and Diodorus67 seem to imply the
presence of a fortress on the mountain.68
Mount Tilphusius is usually identified with Petra, a ridge between
the modern villages of Ypsilantis and Solinari that is linked to the higher
ridge of Paleothivai and through it to Helicon.69
A vigorous minority maintains that Petra and Paleothivai together
make up Mt. Tilphusius, a view that seems to me to be probably
correct.70 An ancient fort, sometimes termed Vigla, lies atop Petra,71 and
a second fort called Paleothivai lies atop the hill of Paleothivai, three and
one-half kilometres southwest of Vigla.72 There is no certainty, 73 but
Fossey's suggestion that both sites should be termed Tilphusium has
merit.74 The spring from which Teiresias drank and near which he died
of a chill is usually identified with the one flowing from the foot of the
great cliff of Petra.75 Several scholars, however, argue for a much colder
fountain about three kilometres southwest at the convent of Aghios
Nikolaos, below Paleothivai.76 Others point out that no remains earlier
than the Byzantine period have been found in the area of the convent,
even though it might well be a better site for the fountain than the one
below Petra.77
Ocalea lay between Haliartus and Alalcomenae, thirty stades (five
and three-fifths kilometres) from each, according to Strabo.78 The other
ancient sources are sparse and not too helpful. 79 No site with suitable
remains has yet been found for what should have been a Mycenaean
settlement, as it was mentioned by Homer. The general consensus is that
Ocalea should lie in a little valley east of the hill of Petra, east of
Ypsilantis, and at or near the village of Siacho (sometimes referred to as
Petra, but not to be confused with the rock three and one-half kilometres
west).80 A few would prefer Ocalea near the chapel of Aghios Nikolaos
north of the railway line, about a kilometre north of Siacho, but the latest
study places it south of Siacho, near the convent of Evangelistra, about
five and one-half kilometres from Haliartus.81
The sanctuary of the Muses in Helicon was excavated in 1882 by
Stamatakis and in 1888-90 by the French School, but the excavations

have never been published. The excavators discovered a theatre, an altar,
a stoa, the crepidoma of a temple of the Muses near the stoa and a
pedestal for statues of the Muses.82 No settlement existed here, for it was
simply a sanctuary.
Haliartus has been excavated and long identified. 83 It stood on the
shore of Copais and controlled the narrow approach between east and
west Boeotia. The ancient acropolis lies west of the modern village, which
extends over the ancient lower town.
The site of Hesiod's Ascra is usually placed south of Haliartus,
forty stades (about seven and one-half kilometres) from ancient Thespiae,
around and on the conical hill Pyrgaki, where a ruined Hellenic tower
marks its location.84 Below the tower is a wall of poorly constructed
polygonal masonry. Some authorities have identified this site as Ceressus,
and put the site of Ascra south of Helicon, at or near Xeronomi.85 This
seems most unlikely.
Onchestus is placed in the area of a hillock surmounted by a ruined
farmhouse to the north of the modern Thebes-Livadhia highway, near
kilometre post eighty-seven. Fragments of walls have been noted on the
south side of the road in a cutting, and Mycenaean sherds have been
collected. The sanctuary of Poseidon has recently been uncovered.86
Ceressus was probably a location, with no permanent settlement in
Classical times. Its precise setting is uncertain,87 though Palaiouoro, a hill
with a ruined tower, and Neochorion, where ruins and inscriptions have
been recovered from a hill just northwest of the modern village, seem to
be the favourites. The latest study, however, prefers Listi.88
Thespiae lies in the Kanavari (ancient Thespius) valley, not far
from the headwaters of the Thespius river, its location marked by a large
mound on the right bank, below Erimokastro (officially Thespiai). It is a
well-known site, with material observable from the Neolithic to Classical
periods. It has not been properly excavated. The Byzantine walls that
crowned the mound were demolished by the French School for the
inscriptions contained there, as were a number of neighbouring churches
(1G1. 1719-2222).89
Leuctra, near where the great battle between the Thebans and the
Spartans took place in 371 B.C., is thought to have been an ancient
village, the precise location of which is unknown. 90 The site of the
battlefield is marked by the remains of the Theban monument, which was
excavated and restored a few years ago. It stands about one kilometre
northwest of the modern village of Parapoungia (officially Levktra). 91 An
ancient road from Thespiae to the coast at Creusis, one that runs near the
battlefield, has recently been traced. 92
A settlement with remains from Neolithic to Byzantine times was

the subject of careful excavations at Eutresis. It lies on a hill, Arkopodi,
two kilometres northeast of Parapoungia. The road from Plataea to
Thespiae ran through it,93 and it may have lain on the route from Creusis
to Thebes.94 It appears to have been abandoned between Late Helladic
III C and the Late Geometric period. An ancient settlement has been
observed at Tateza, and it has been tentatively identified as Donacon.95
The south coastal area was and is sparsely settled, with excellent
harbours and no hinterland. The most westerly ancient settlement is the
little harbour-town and fortress of Chorsiae. It lies a few minutes walk
below the monastery of Aghios Taxiarchos, about three kilometres from
the modern village of Chostia, about one and one-half kilometres inland,
at the mouth of a valley descending from Helicon. Traces of walls may be
seen at the site, and it seems to have been settled from Middle Helladic
times, with probably the usual gap at the end of the Mycenaean period. It
seems to have been a Mycenaean and Hellenic fortress, guarding the
frontier with Phocis. The identification is secured by inscriptions.96
Thisbe lay at modern Kakosi (officially Thisvi), as inscriptions
confirm. It lies about four kilometres from the sea in the Permessus
valley. Two settlements of different periods extend from the village site to
different hills. Northwest of the town, on Palaiokastro, the remains of
polygonal masonry and Middle and Late Helladic sherds show the
location of part of the Bronze Age settlement. Though this hill does reveal
signs of use in the Classical period, the main settlement at that time
apparently lay under and south of the town on a hill named Neokastro.
This forms a plateau-like, low hill with sharp slopes to the north.
Fortification walls of ashlar masonry, up to eight courses high, remaining
here and there, are traceable. Chamber tombs have been observed at the
foot of the hill. The ancient harbour was probably at Aghios loannes.97
Siphae or Tipha98 is located by traces of walls on a ridge north of
the port of Aliki, about ten kilometres southeast of Thisbe, near modern
Koromeli, at the south side of a small coastal plain. The walls are of
Classical date and extend down to the harbour and a mole. Middle and
Late Helladic pottery, as well as what seems to be a Mycenean wall,
have been observed here.99
A fortress north of Siphae, at Maurovouni, on a route from the
harbour to the hinterland, has been the subject of a close survey.100
Creusis seems to have been a principal port of Thebes and is
marked by fortifications on a hill overlooking the harbour and an ancient
quay. The lower town seems to have extended some distance to the north
along the slopes below the fort as well as east down toward the plain.
Mycenaean and Middle Helladic remains as well as Classical remains
have been observed. Traces of a road from Creusis via Leuctra to

Thespiae have been followed.101 Creusis is not the port of Plataea and no
real route joined them.102 The harbour of Plataea probably lay at Aghios
Vasilios, about three kilometres to the southeast of Creusis, at the
terminus of an overland route that avoids the rigours of the Oeroe valley.
Classical and Roman remains are noted here,103 including a temenos of
Poseidon. The name of the settlement is unknown.
The eastern area includes the settlements to the east of Copai's and
in the Teneric and Aonian plains up to the edge of the Asopus plateau.
The first of these settlements, Medeon, lies four kilometres to the north of
Onchestus, close to the modern hamlet of Davlosis at the hill Kastraki.
Bronze Age, Dark Age and Classical remains have been noted, and trial
excavations were carried out before the Second World War. Mycenaean
cemeteries have been observed in this vicinity at Kalimbaki and on the
western slopes of Mt. Sphinx (Phagas).104
Acraephia or Acraephnium105 lies directly south of the village of
Karditsa (officially Akraiphnion) on the hill of Kriaria, on the eastern
side of Copais. Walls can be observed and have been partially excavated
on the northern slopes. The settlement was fairly extensive.106
The location of Homeric Hylae is unknown, 107 but there have been
several proposals. The first was made by Col. Leake,108 who suggested a
location one and one-half kilometres north of Senkenna on a hill near the
foot of Mt. Pelagia, where he saw some walls and towers. This is a little
south of Acraephia and separated from it by a ridge. Unfortunately no
remains are now visible and recent searches have revealed no traces of a
townsite in the area.109 The second, by B lte,110 advocated the rather
barren peninsula of Klimitari that juts from the north coast into Lake
Iliki, several kilometres east of Lake Copais. Walls and rectangular
foundations are reported near the southern tip of the peninsula. 111 The
land seems incapable of supporting much of a settlement, especially one
famed for its leather-working,112 and it lies quite far from Lake Copais.
The third proposal, the site of Likeri, and the fourth one, Oungra, are
discussed below. Since Homer refers to Hylae as being at, near, or on
Lake Copai's,113 any town, including Gla, that abuts is a possibility.
Strabo (9.2.20) is more confused than usual.
The sanctuaries of Apollo Ptoos and of the hero Ptoos are near
Acraephia, the latter at Kastraki about two kilometres away, the former
at Perdikovrysi, about one-half kilometre further east. There was no
settlement attached to the shrines, which have been the subject of
extensive excavation and recent cleaning, but of which very little has been
written. Perdikovrysi lies on several terraces on the lower slopes of Mt.
Pelagia. Kastraki is on the south side of the valley between Acraephia
and the sanctuary of Apollo. Near Perdikovrysi there must have been a
theatral area for the celebrations of the Ptoa. A Mycenaean settlement
was close by, and several fortifications have been observed in the area.114
There are several other sites in the neighbourhood the names of
which are still unknown. These include: the great Mycenaean fortress of
Gla;115 the small fortress at Chantsa;116 Aghios loannis, a Mycenaean
fortress larger than Tiryns;117 Pyrgos Aghias Marinas, with its
Mycenaean walls three metres thick;118 a Mycenaean settlement with
nearby Neolithic remains at Megali Katavothri',119 and several other forts
lying west and northwest of Acraephia.
The location of Schoenus is not certain, but it is thought to be
somewhere near the modern village of Mouriki, perhaps at Aghios
Elias.120 Gell (141 f.) saw ruins on the bay of Lake Iliki near the present
village, ruins now covered by the rise in the water level of the lake.121
Professor Papadimitriou discovered remains from all three Helladic
periods in 1931, as well as Early Helladic graves, at Likeri, a site on a
small hill that extended like a peninsula into Lake Iliki (sometimes
termed Likeri) east of the common mouth of the Thespius and Ismeme
Rivers. This is occasionally thought to be Hylae and recently has been
suggested as Trapheia.122
Another place with no secure location is Peteon. It lies, according to
Strabo (9.2.26), on the road from Thebes to Anthedon. It is perhaps to be
identified with Platanaki, four and one-half kilometres northeast of
Mouriki.123 Wallace reports finding remains at Skala Paralimnes on the
shore of Lake Paralimni, 400 metres from the east end of the lake.124
These consist of the remains of public buildings and house foundations,
with a city wall and traces of a road parallel to the shore, probably the
old Thebes-Anthedon route. He tentatively identifies this site as Peteon.
Remains at the southwest end of Lake Paralimni near the village of
Oungra have been thought to be Trapheia or Hylae (sometimes in
conjunction with Klimitari) for no firmly compelling reasons.125 Another
settlement has been noted on the northwest side of the lake at Kastro,126
allegedly Greek and Roman in date.
To return to the southern part of this area, the Cabinum lies west of
Thebes near the junction of the route to Thespiae with the old highway
to Livadhia. It was excavated by the German School. It was not a
settlement, but simply a religious sanctuary. There was a Doric temple
built in Imperial times over the remains of two earlier temples, an altar, a
cult-theatre of Imperial date and various buildings from various times
built over one another. Somewhat to the north lay the temple of Demeter
Kabeira, which has not yet been excavated.127
Frazer128 notes some foundations and squared blocks of limestone,
as well as sherds, a half-hour's walk west of the Cabirium, "at a point

where the hills advance furthest into the plain." These remains he
identifies as having been the sanctuary of Heracles Hippodetes.
Further east are the remains of Potniae, a town already abandoned
in Pausanias' time.129 In and around the modern village of Tachi, ancient
blocks in the village, and sherds and tiles in the nearby fields show that
Potniae lay, as Pausanias says, ten stades (one and four-fifths kilometres)
from Thebes. No Mycenaean remains, pace Kirsten, have yet been
reported here.130
Thebes is well known, and considerable excavation has been done in
and around the modern town. The Mycenaean palace or palaces and the
rich finds, including cylinder seals from Mesopotamia and Linear B
tablets, mark it as an important location from the Bronze Age to the
present. The remains from the Classical period usually seem to be the
subject of emergency excavations and are widely scattered in an area
considerably larger than the modern town. The circuit walls have been
traced, though the precise location of the seven gates, and what their
names are, remain subjects of debate. Thebes was an important medieval
town that was reduced to its present state only in comparatively modern
times.131
Strabo(9.2.10) mentions a town of Knopia found in Theban
territory, from where the Amphiareum was transferrd to Oropus. This
occurrence is thought to have taken place between 431 and 414 B.C.132
The Scholiast on Nicander (ther.889) says that Knopia was on the
Ismenus River but its precise location is unknown. Bursian's suggestion
that it should be set at the ancient site near Syrtzi on Mt. Hypatus is not
commonly accepted.133 The ruins seen on Lake Hylice that are usually
identified with Schoenus are a possibility,133a but there is no particularly
good reason to set Knopia so far from Thebes. A peribolus south of
Thebes noted by Pausanias (9.8.3) has been suggested,134 but a peribolus
is not a town, and it is not near the Ismenus River. A cemetery and the
architectural remains of a temple excavated at Kanapetra, about two
kilometres north of Thebes,135 have also been suggested as belonging to
the Amphiareum and the village of Knopia, but nothing is as yet
confirmed.136
Teumessus was, according to Pausanias (9.19.1), seven stades (one
and one-third kilometre) from Glisas; it was near the mountain that took
its name and was on the route to Chalcis. Two possible locations have
been favoured, Mesovouni by the older authorities and Soules by the
more recent. Soules, which is situated on a small hill overlooking the
Theban plain about two kilometres south of Mesovouni, north of and
equidistant from the peaks of Soros and Moustaphades, seems the better
The Land of Boeotia \5
location. Very little of antiquity has been found at Mesovouni, while

Mycenaean and Classical sherds are reported at Soules, as well as some
marble fragments which were built into the chapel of Profitis Ilias and
some courses of an ancient wall. The distances given in Pausanias do not
agree, although this is not too serious.137
Glisas is fairly securely located at a small acropolis with walls of
polygonal masonry and pottery of Mycenaean (LH I, LH II and LH III)
and Classical dates, on the southwest slopes of Mt. Sagmatas above the
village of Syrtzi at a locale known as Tourleza. It has not been excavated.
Nearby, at the monastery of Moni Sagmata, have been noted many
ancient blocks and columns, and the re-use of walls. Perhaps this is the
site of the Sanctuary of Zeus Hypatus.138
Heleon is now generally agreed to be at a site on the flat top of a
steep hill three-quarters of a kilometre northwest of the village of Dritsa
(officially Eicon). Wall traces of the Archaic and Classical periods, much
prehistoric and classical pottery from Early Helladic to Hellenistic, and
foundations below the hill to the north, northwest, west and southwest
have been noted.139
Harma is located at Kastri, below Mt. Lykovouniou where it
approaches the Thebes-Chalcis road. A rectangular fortress can be
traced, and remains of other walls have been noted. Remains of pottery of
Mycenaean and Classical times have been observed.140
Mycalessus is usually located on a low knoll about 400 metres
southwest of the hamlet of Ritsona, some 300 metres west of the
Thebes-Chalcis road. Mycenaean and Classical sherds have been
identified, and an Archaic cemetery has been excavated.
About three kilometres west of Ritsona, on the right bank of a
stream below Mt. Messapium, Wallace reports finding the foundations of
a large building which included one apsidal structure. This site he
considers might be Mycalessus.141
The next area, the Asopus plateau, is probably better explored than
the other areas of Boeotia, but has just as many topographical problems.
The location of Plataea is well known. It lies thirteen kilometres
southwest of Thebes, on a tableland sloping to the north, just outside and
to the northeast of the village of Kokla (officially Plataiai). It has been the
object of excavations, and its identification is confirmed by inscriptions.
Walls of various periods can be traced, and a walled keep or inner
fortification marks the location of a Mycenaean settlement.142
Hysiae, Erythrae, Scolus and Eteonus (Scarphe) are four towns that
must have been in or near Plataean territory, but their precise locations
are still uncertain. The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (FGrH 66 F 1, 11.3) and
Strabo (9.2.24) say that the four towns and Plataea once formed one
state. Herodotus (9.15.3) says that the Persian camp lay along the Asopus
from Erythrae past Hysiae to the land of Plataea. Clearly, then, these
towns lie along the Asopus, with the ordering from west to east being
Plataea, Hysiae and Erythrae. Pausanias (9.1.6) says that there is a "road
that leads from Thebes to Hysiae in the direction of Eleutherae," one to
be distinguished from the Thebes-Plataea route. He also states (9.2.1)
that Hysiae and Erythrae (in that order) lie a little to the right, that is, to
the east, of the "straight road, from Eleutherae to Plataea." One may then
conclude that the two towns lie fairly close to Plataea and roughly in a
line along the Asopus.
To find Scolus, Pausanias gives fairly precise directions (9.4.4):
"Before you cross the Asopus, turn aside and follow the stream
downward, and after about 40 stades you will come to the ruins of
Scolus." As for locating Eteonus, Strabo (9.2.24) says that its name was
changed to Scarphe (or whatever is the correct manuscript reading), and
that it lay in the Parasopia. Homer (//. 2.497) calls it "many-ridged,"
which should mean that it was in or near the mountains. 143
Seven or eight ancient sites lie close enough to Plataea to be
considered possibilities for the names of the four towns that formed a
state with Plataea. First, two kilometres east of Kriekouki (officially
Erythrai) on a ridge southeast and above the chapel of Pantanassa, there
have been observed tiles, sherds, and other traces of settlement. Leake
(TNG, 2.236-39) saw walls and a cistern, which have now disappeared.
The sherds include those of Mycenaean, Classical and Hellenistic dates.
The site extends to the fields west of and below the ridge, where deep
ploughing has brought to the surface building blocks and more sherds.
This site has not been excavated.144
Second, on a ridge close to the chapel of Aghia Triadha, about two
and one-half kilometres east of the Pantanassa site, Leake (TNG,
2.237-39) saw ancient blocks, wall foundations and a Doric column and
capital, none of which is visible today. Only a fairly light scatter of
Classical sherds has been noted, and no Mycenaean material has as yet
been observed.145
Third, a fairly large site lies on top of and at the foot of a hill
(nowadays called "Katsoula" by the locals) near a ruined branch of the
monastery of Osios Meletios, close to the ruined church of Aghios
Athanasios and about one kilometre west of the village of Darimari
(officially Daphni). A large spring is nearby. The remains of buildings
and a circuit wall around the acropolis, tile fragments and Mycenaean
and Classical sherds are noted, as well as two fragments of the Edict of
Diocletian.146 Pritchett reports that local informants say that these are the
only three ancient sites in the area that is bounded by Kriekouki, the
Asopus, the foothills of Mt. Cithaeron and Darimari.147

Fourth, at the chapel of Aghia Anna west of Kriekouki, near the
Vergoutiani spring, many sherds, mostly Byzantine, have been reported.
There could not have been any large or important Classical settlement
here.148
Fifth, across the Asopus near the village of Neochorakion,
fortifications are observable on the height of Soros, with a strongly built
enceinte showing at least three different phases of walling. Mycenaean
and Hellenistic tombs have been found on the slopes of Soros as well.149
Sixth, an extensive ancient site has been noted on the ridge four
kilometres southeast of Neochorakion, just to the north of the bridge
Mitropoliti. Building blocks, tiles and numerous sherds, Geometric,
Archaic and Classical, cover an area at least 200 by 400 metres. About
one kilometre west of this site at Palaiomylai along the same ridge, the
remains of a cemetery with an archaic inscription were noted by
Pritchett.150
Seventh, near Chlempotsari (officially Asopia) on the north side of
the Asopus, on the hill Profitis Elias, the remains of walls of polygonal
and ashlar masonry can be seen, as well as building blocks and roof tiles,
along with sherds of the Early, Middle and Late Helladic, Classical and
Hellenistic periods. On Pyrgaki, two kilometres northwest of Chlempot-
sari, are Mycenaean chamber tombs.151
Eighth, near Klidhi, on the south side of the Asopus, about seven
kilometres from Chlempotsari, there are settlement traces of Classical
date, and some Mycenaean tombs have been excavated. An ancient
settlement lay on Kastro, about two kilometres north of the village.152
A further site near Pyle (formerly Derbenosialesi) has sometimes been
suggested. If it is anything it is probably, as Wallace conjectured,153
Sidae, a border town between Thebes and Athens. One scholar has
suggested that Eteonus should be set near Kavasala, but his idea is not
widely accepted.154
The four names have been variously distributed among these eight
sites, but there is no agreement at this time as to what sites should be
given what names. The site near Pantanassa has been identified as
Hysiae by some and as Erythrae by others.155 The second one, near
Aghia Triadha, has been thought to be Erythrae by some, but only a
small unidentified village by others.156 The site near Darimari is usually
identified as Scolus, but several authorities now argue for its being
Eteonus, while still others say it is Erythrae.157 The fourth site,
Vergoutiani spring, is sometimes called Hysiae, though this is usually
rejected, because it seems to most authorities that the site is probably not
Classical.158 The fifth site, Neochorakion, is sometimes thought to be
Scolus or the acropolis of Scolus.159 Another possible candidate for Scolus

is the sixth site, the one near the Mitropoliti bridge. Some, however,
consider this sixth site to be Therapnae.160 The seventh site, near
Chlempotsari, is sometimes thought to be Eteonus, sometimes Eilesion
and sometimes Pharae.161
Hysiae, then, has been set at Vergoutiani and at Pantanassa.
Erythrae has been set at Pantanassa, Aghia Triadha and Darimari.
Scolus has been placed at Darimari, Neochorakion and the Mitropoliti
bridge. Eteonus has been put at Darimari, Chlempotsari and Pyle as well
as near Kavasala. There the matter rests.
On the present evidence it seems to be the most reasonable
conjecture to place Hysiae at the Pantanassa site. Since the location
corresponds well to Pausanias' directions, Scolus might be placed at the
Mitropoliti bridge, where it could be a fertile source of dispute between
Thebes and Plataea, even though it seems to be on the wrong side of the
river. Erythrae would be better located at Darimari than at the
insignificant Aghia Triadha site, especially since Mycenaean remains
occur at Darimari.162 Eteonus is clearly not at Pyle, but should perhaps
be placed north of the Asopus at the acropolis of Neochorakion.163
Eilesion might fit best at Chlempotsari.
Therapne is a problematic name, which Strabo (or his source) may
have taken from a misunderstanding of Euripides' Bacchae
(1043-1045).164
Eleutherae was once Boeotian, and its territory bordered that of
Plataea.165 It lies south of the heights of Cithaeron, overlooking the plain
of Mazi, which lies between the chains of Pastra and Pateras. The town
is usually located at or near the fortifications of Gyphokastro (often
termed Panakton, though there is no unanimity on this point).166
Prehistoric remains are reported near Gyphokastro.167
About four kilometres southeast of Pyle (formerly Derbenosialesi) a
fort lies above the town of Kavasala. It is thought to be Eteonus-Scarphe
by some and Panakton by others. Recent studies indicate that it is
Boeotian, but its name is unknown. Drymus is the latest suggestion.168
As noted above Pharae is sometimes set at Chlempotsari, but it is
placed most recently at Aghios Panteleimon which is about five
kilometres northeast of Schimatari. Occasionally Pharae is set at a site
one-half kilometre west of Vratsi, where polygonal walls can be seen on
the hill marking the ancient acropolis, and building blocks lie in the plain
between the hill and the modern village, doubtless marking an ancient
townsite. The site west of Vratsi is occasionally thought to be Eilesion
rather than Pharae, though the latest study suggests that this site might
be the obscure Stephon. The equally obscure Schedia is placed at Klidhi. 169
Tanagra was identified and excavated in the last century and has
been considered primarily a Classical site, since until recently no
prehistoric remains had been found in the immediate area. A full range
have now been recovered. It lies five kilometres southeast of Vratsi at the
locality of Graimadha. Its walls are still visible.170 Cemeteries line the
paths leading from Tanagra, notably those paths running east at Lasi and
northwest at Bali. A Mycenaean necropolis lies about three kilometres
northwest of the Tanagra site, between Vratsi and Schimatari, but in
spite of claims to the contrary does not necessarily belong to Tanagra.171
Near Schimatari on the hill of Aghios Elias, one-half kilometre
from the church of Aghios Demetrios, "to the right of the direct road to
Dilesi," a LH house and two graves were excavated at the turn of the
century.172
The site of Oenophyta is tentatively identified with sparse settlement
remains of Neolithic, Archaic and Classical dates found southeast of
Staniates on the hill Pyrgos, or perhaps it is to be identified with the site
near Kakosalesi.172a
Oropus and the Oropia were a matter of dispute between Athens
and Boeotia for much of their history, but are usually considered
primarily Boeotian. The Oropians seem to have spoken an Ionic dialect.
Oropus itself is now generally believed to lie at modern Skala Oropou,
with the ancient remains covered by the modern construction.173 About
two kilometres east of Skala Oropou, where the narrow gauge railway
leads to an old coalmine on the seaward of the Skala Oropou-Markopoulo
road, lies an extensive Mycenaean site, but it has not yet been
published.174
The Amphiareum is a well-known shrine and oracular seat six
kilometres southeast of Oropus and two kilometres east of Markopoulo,
in the foothills of Mavrovouni. Excavations have been carried on by the
Greek Archaeological Service since the late nineteenth century.175
The north coast of Boeotia has several ancient sites, most of which
are reasonably surely identified, but some of which are most definitely
not. Delium, the locality after which the battle of 424 B.C. was named,
and site of the sanctuary of Apollo, is generally thought to lie at modern
Dilesi. The topography of the battle has been the subject of a recent
monograph.176
The site of Dramesi, on the northern edge of the village of Dramesi
(officially Paralia), has been the subject of some archaeological
investigation and a fair amount of discussion. It is clearly a prehistoric
site, and the remains of a sculptured stele have brought it some fame. The
site is usually considered to be Hyria, but there is some support for the
idea that it might be Graea,177 an idea that seems to me to be more likely.
The site of Aulis has been clearly identified by excavation. It is

about six kilometres south of the bridge to Chalkis, behind the
promontory that lies between the two harbours of Megalo Vathys and
Mikro Vathys. Aulis was in a low-lying area that extends south to the
convent of Aghios Nikolaos and seems to have been a scattered settlement.
A sanctuary and temple of Artemis have been excavated near the north
harbour, Mikro Vathys. A Mycenaean necropolis lies in the area north of
Mikro Vathys, where the cement factory is located. A rubble fortification,
has been observed on the promontory on the highest part of the hill
Yeladhovouni, also known as Nisi and Vesalas. Since no sherds have been
found in its area, it is probably not the acropolis of Aulis, but some
temporary fieldwork of Hellenistic times.178
On Megalo Vouno, about two kilometres northwest of Aulis on the
road to Chalkis, stand the well preserved remains of a large fortress
encircling the top of the hill. The plan is of an irregular oval shape, 200
metres east-west and 100 metres north-south. The walls have twelve
bastions and three gates and enclose barracks and sheds. The ceramic
remains date from Hellenistic and later times. It was thought at one time
to be the site of Mycalessus or Hyria, but the evidence of the pottery
leads to the rejection of both ideas. The latest conjecture is that it may
have been built as headquarters for Polemaeus, the general of Antigonus
the One-Eyed, between 313 and 309/308, and then served as one of the
"fetters of Greece." It may also have been thought by some of the ancients
to have been the site of Eilesion.179
From Megalo Vouno a fortification system and wall have been
traced west to Mt. Ktipas that block off the Salganeus peninsula from the
rest of Boeotia. The length is about eleven kilometres, the date is
probably Hellenistic. They have been associated with the construction of
the fortress on Megalo Vouno and the activities of Polemaeus.180
The site variously called Tseloneri, Vlicha, or Glypha lies on the
west side of Vourko Bay, about half way between Aulis and the Chalkis
bridge. Pottery from Neolithic to Late Helladic III C is noted, along with
fortification walls, house foundations and obsidian. It has been recently
suggested, probably correctly, that this is the site of Hyria. 181
The fortress on Karababas, about one-half kilometre from the
Euripus, is medieval but has ancient blocks in its walls and there are
tomb cuttings nearby. It has been identified as Salganeus, Canethus and,
most recently, as the "Euripus Fortress" of Strabo (10.1.8) and IG II2
Chalia and Hyria are coupled by Theopompus as Boeotian towns

that were close to one another.183 Chalia should lie somewhere in the
neighbourhood of modern Chalia (officially Drosia), though no such site

has yet been identified.184 The Early Helladic site at Aghios Minas,
about one kilometre from Chalia Mikra on the coast, might bear closer
examination.185
The Lithosoros is a mound on the south side of a little bay about
three kilometres west of modern Chalia (Drosia). Recent trial excavations
have confirmed that it was occupied in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages,
being abandoned at the end of Late Helladic III B. The presence of
sherds and roof tiles shows that it was reoccupied in Classical times.
Usually it is identified as the site of Salganeus but occasionally as Isos.
The latest studies suggest that it was the "Tomb Of Salganeus" of Strabo
(1.1.17, 9.2.9), with the Classical village close by.186
Isos has been placed at a spot three kilometres west of Lithosoros
and two kilometres east of Loukisia, the church of the Aghioi Georghii
where Col. Leake observed some remains that might have been Classical.
Later investigators have concluded that the material is Byzantine. Trial
excavations at the northeast end of Paralimni have revealed a site
identified as Isos by Pharaklas who was following Kirsten, perhaps
correctly.187
Anthedon lies two kilometres north of Loukisia at Mandraki, where
excavations and inscriptions have confirmed its location. It is a large and
impressive site with an acropolis, circuit walls and a harbour with moles.
Mycenaean pottery, including Late Helladic III C, as well as Geometric
and Classical sherds have been recovered, and also a large cache of
bronze.188
Phocae is perhaps to be identified with the remains noted at
Skroponeri, where circuit walls, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Hellenistic
pottery were found.189
From all this it is clear that the study of Boeotian topography is full
of problems. There are many names that are not securely linked to
specific sites, and several settlements whose ancient names are unknown.
There are several names, such as Arne, that have not been securely
located in any narrower compass than Boeotia.190 Other names, such as
Therapne, Nisa, Mysa, and Isos may or may not be textual errors or
misunderstandings.
Notes
1. The lake may have been partially drained in the Late Helladic period. See
E.J.A. Kenny, LAAA 22 (1935) 189-206; R. Hope Simpson and J.F.
Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's Iliad (Oxford, 1970) 38f.
(henceforth Hope Simpson and Lazenby).
2. For general works on the southern mountain chains see Naval Intelligence
Division, Greece 3 (London, 1944-45) 48-52; W.A. Heurtley, BSA 26
(1923-24) 38-45; A.W. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 189-210, esp. 193-95,
203-5; A.R. Burn, BSA 44 (1949) 313-23; A. Philippson, Griechischen
Landschaften2, rev. E. Kirsten (Frankfurt, 1951), 389-419; 434-66; 522-47
(henceforth Philippson).
3. For Helicon and its routes see Burn, BSA 44 (1949) 313-23; W.K. Pritchett,
Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, 1 (Berkeley, 1965) 49-58; Frazer,
Paus. 5. 148-53.
4. Probably both modern Kithairon and Pastra were called Cithaeron in ancient
times. P.W. Wallace, Strabo's Description of Boiotia (Diss., Ann Arbor,
1969) 104 (henceforth Wallace).
5. For Cithaeron see Philippson 1. 522-33; Gomme, BSA 18(1911-12) 193-95;
Frazer, Paus. 5. 2-6. Pritchett, Studies 1. 116-21; N.G.L. Hammond, BSA
49(1954) 103-22.
6. For the northern ridge see Philippson 1. 348-62, 440-99; Gomme, BSA 18
(1911-12) 195-202; P. Roesch, Thespies et la Confederation Beotienne,
(Paris, 1965) 58f., 64 (henceforth Roesch); Frazer, Paus. 5. 133f.
7. See Pritchett, A]A 62 (1958) 307-11; Frazer, Paus. 5. 205-8, 216f.; Greece 3.
60f.
8. See J.M. Fossey, Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 7-21; T. Spyropoulos, AAA 6 (1973)
201-14.
9. For a description of the Copai's before it was drained see Frazer, Paus. 5.
110-19, the best I know of. For northeast corner of Copai's see H.J. Unger
and G. Spitslberger, edd., DocumentaI; Em Kalkbrennofen am Stadtberg
Pyrgos bei Hagia Marina (Landshut, 1976).
10. Paus. 9.39.5.
11. Paus. 9.34.5.
12. Str. 9.2.29.
13. Paus. 9.33.7.
14. Paus. 9.33.4.
15. For general discussion of this area see Philippson 1. 578; Pritchett, Studies 1.
103-21; Greece 3. 63; J.M. Fossey, Topography and Population of Ancient
Boeotia (Diss., Lyon, 1976) 168f.
16. It was the subject of voluminous mythographical literature in antiquity and of
equally voluminous debates, usually centring on the battle of Plataea, in the
present. See, e.g., Philippson 1. 567, 687, 706, 729, 750.
17. The river is identified in Hesychius. See Philippson 1. 507.
18. Philippson 1. 504. For changes in its watershed near Plataea see Pritchett,
Studies 1. 115-19.
19. Wallace, 122f., identifies the Permessus with the Archontitza, following the
usual modern opinion; see also Roesch, 38. Kirsten, RE 19 (1937) s.v.
"Permessos," 869-72, favours the Zagaras, called the Lophis above. The
Archontitza is described as the Askra in Philippson 1. 459 and 672, but as
the Permessos in 503.
20. See Wallace, 139f.; Philippson 1.514-16; Frazer, Paus. 5. 76f., 80.
21. Philippson 1. 544-47; Frazer, Paus. 2. 463-65. B. Petrakos, Oropus and the
Temple of Amphiareior (Athens, 1972).
22. Philippson 1. 498f.; Frazer, Pans. 5. 73.

23. Frazer, Paus. 5. 71; Philippson 1. 499; S.C. Bakhuizen, Salganeus and the
Fortifications on its Mountains (Groningen, 1970) 1-11.
24. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 204f.; Heurtley, BSA 26 (1923-25) 38-45;
Philippson 1.456f.,505f.
25. Philippson 1.430-34.
26. See esp. J.A.O. Larsen, CP45 (1960) lOf.
27. Burn, BSA 44 (1949) 313-23; Philippson 1. 463.
28. See Burn, ibid.
29. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 203-5, points out its problems; see also Tomlinson
and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 243-63.
30. Gomme, ibid.
31. Pritchett, Studies 2. 54-56.
32. Pritchett, AJA 61 (1957) 16-21, and Studies 1. 119-21.
34. Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 205.
35. See Fossey, Topography, 452-58, for full description and bibliography, and
Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 10f.; see also Wallace, 215-19; K. Syriopoulos,
'H IIpoiaropia T s 'EXXados (Athens, 1968) 30f., no. 22 (henceforth
Syriopoulos).
36. LaufTer and Hennig, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 290-355, for
material to 1972; Fossey, Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 1 If. For excavations see
especially Schliemann,JHS 2 (1881) 122-63; de Ridder, ECH 29 (1895)
137-224; Bulle, Orchomenos I (Munich, 1908); Kunze, Orchomenos II
(Munich, 1931) and III (1934). See also Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric
Thessaly (Cambridge, 1912); Forsdyke, JHS 34 (1914) 153f.; Spyropoulos,
AAA 3 (1970) 263-67; Teiresias, 73. 1. 1.
37. For description and recent material see Fossey, Topography, 416-20, and
Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 18; Wallace 220f., and Syriopoulos, 118, no. 59 for
full bibliography to 1968. See AAA 2 (1969) 228-31, for report on an
underground chamber that may be part of the oracle.
38. Fossey, Topography, 399f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 8; Pritchett, Studies 2.
85-87, gives full discussion and earlier bibliography and an excellent
description of the site. For the new site see Spyropoulos, Praktika, 1975, B.
392-414.
39. Teiresias, 73. 1. 1; Fossey, Topography, 401-4, and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 8
and note 6, for notes on the excavation and bibliography. The identification
with the site near Agoriani supported by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 26,
following Lauffer, AA, 1940, 186, must be rejected.
40. For site and description and earlier bibliography, Fossey, Topography,
393-99. See also Frazer, Paus. 5. 170; Pieske, RE 22 (1922) s.v.
"Koroneia," 1425-31. For the excavations by Pappadhakis see BCH 44
(1920) 388; 45 (1921) 522; 47 (1923) 521f. For recent discoveries and
excavations Fossey, Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 9 notes 10, 11, and 12;
Spyropoulos, AAA 6 (1973) 385-92. See further Wallace, 178; Hope
Simpson and Lazenby, 28.
41. Fossey, Topography, 41 If., Roesch, 53, note 1.
42. Fossey, Topography, 458f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 11, 17f.
43. For Kalami and identification with Midea, Fossey, Topography, 405f., and
Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 9f. and 16f. Lauffer, AA, 1940, 181-84, argues for
Eleusis. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 688, suggests Arne. For excavations at the
Charopium see Pappadhakis, AD, 1916, 217-59.
44. For description of site and identification with Eleusis, Fossey, Topography,
404f., and Euphrosyne 6 (1974) 9, 14. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 474, 688,
and 741 no. 140, suggests Athens. For bibliography Syriopoulos, 70, no. 27;
R. Hope Simpson, Gazeteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites, B1CS, Supp. 16
(London, 1965) 119, no. 410 (henceforth Atlas); Lauffer, AA, 1940, 184f.;
Frazer, Pans. 5. 168.
45. Philippson 1. 742, no. 155, 475f. Lauffer, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v.
"Orchomenos," 325, and AA, 1940, 188.
46. Philippson 1. 476, 687f., 742, no. 156; Syriopoulos, 30, no. 20; Atlas, 114f., no.
397; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 38; Lauffer, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v.
"Orchomenos," 325-28; Fossey, Topography, 433f.
47. Frazer, Pans. 5. 195; Philippson 1. 476, 742, no. 157; Lauffer, AA, 1940, 187;
Bulle, Orchomenos I, 119f.; Fossey, Topography, 434-36.
48. Fossey, Topography, 443-48; Syriopoulos, 30, no. 21; Atlas, 115, no. 399;
Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 38; Wallace, 233f., for earlier bibliography.
49. Most modern authorities accept the identification of Pyrgos as Aspledon: Hope
Simpson and Lazenby, 38; Wallace, 233f.; V.K. Burr, Neon Katalogos
(Leipzig, 1944) 29f.; P. Guillon, La Beotie antique (Paris, 1948) 196;
Kirsten in Philippson 1. 476; Kahrstedt, AA, 1937, 16. The excavators,
Bulle, Orchomenos I, 116, identified the site as Tegyra, following Dodwell,
Tour, 233 and Frazer, Pans. 5. 195, as does Fossey, Topography, 446-48.
50. Philippson 1. 476, calls it Euaimon with a question mark added. Euaimon in
Steph. Byz. is called a city of the Orchomenians, but whether of the
Arcadians or Boeotians is not stated. This is the only citation and little
enough for the purpose of naming the site. Older authorities called it
Aspledon; Frazer, Paus. 5. 195; Bulle, Orchomenos I, 118.
51. Plut. Pelop. 16; de def. orac. 5. 8; Steph. Byz., s.v. Teyvpa
52. Bulle, Orchomenos I, 116, 121-24; Atlas, 115, no. 398, 399; Syriopoulos, 30,
no. 21; Philippson 1. 476. Lauffer, RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos,"
327, supports the identification and notes the discovery of the remains of the
temple of Apollo. Cf. AD, 1971, Chr. 239f.
53. Paus. 9. 24.3, 9.34.10; for other ancient references and the inscriptions see
Kirsten, RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Olmones," 2490-92; Fossey, Topography,
357-59.
54. Philippson 1. 352, 742, no. 160; O. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe (Oxford,
1935) 246; Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 202; Kirsten, I.e. note above;
Roesch, 59, note 5.
55. Paus. 9.24.3. Fossey, Topography, 353-57; Bolte, RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyettos,"
90-93 and Meyer, RE Supp. 12 (1970) 497. The French School is
publishing new studies, R. Etienne and D. Knoepfler, Hyettos de Beotie,
BCH, Supp. 3(1976).
56. For excavations see BCH 2 (1878) 492-507. See also Frazer, Paus. 5.133; M.
Feyel, Polybe et I'Histoire de Beotie (Paris, 1943) 192; Guillon, La Beotie
antique, 105 with pictures. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 723, note 23, sees
retaining and not fortification walls at Hyettus, like those at Delphi that
were covered with inscriptions in a similar way.
57. Paus. 9.24.5. The note by Oldfather, RE 22 (1923) s.v. "Korseia," 1438f., is
brief and imprecise.
58. Frazer, Paus. 5.133; Philippson 1. 725, note 52 and 740, no. 38.
59. Paus. 9.24.5.
60. Frazer, Paus. 5. 133; Philippson 1. 725, note 52, 740, no. 40. Pieske, RE 23
(1924) s.v. "Kyrtones," 205f., disagrees with Oldfather, ibid., who would
place it near modern Kolaka.
61. For ancient sources see Geiger, RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Kopai," 1345f. For
inscriptions, 7G 7. 2780-2807. For archaeological finds and later material,
Fossey, Topography 341-44; Wallace, 17If.; Hope Simpson and Lazenby,
26f.; Atlas, 116, no. 401; Philippson 1. 742, no. 163. See also Frazer, Paus.
5. 131f.
62. For ancient sources and inscriptions, Geiger, RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Larymna,"
880f.; for description and archaeological material, Wallace, 112-16.
63. Str. 9.2.36.
64. Paus. 9.33.1; Str. 9.2.36; Ath. 241C.
65. Paus. 9.33.7.
66. Schol. Horn. 7/.-23. 346; Fontenrose, TAP A 100 (1969) 129.
67. Dem. Or. 19. 141, 148; Diod. 4.66.5.
68. See also Diod. 15. 52.1-53.3; Xen. Hell. 6.4.3.
69. For descriptions of this area, Fontenrose, TAP A 100 (1969) 119-30; Fossey,
Teiresias Supp. 1 (1972) 1-16 and plan fig. 1. For those supporting Petra as
Mt. Tilphusius see Fontenrose, 121, note 5, and add Wallace, 211-13, and
Schober, RE 2. 11 (1936) s.v. "Tilphossion," 1044f.
70. Fossey, op. cit. note above, 15f; Fontenrose, op. cit. note above, 26f.; P.
Guillon, Etudes Beotiennes (Aix-en-Provence, 1963) 87; Philippson 1. 450
and note 3.
71. For description and plan of Vigla, Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 9f., and fig. 3; to his
bibliography add Wallace, 212; Philippson 1. 741, no. 142.
72. For description and plan, Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 6-9 and figs. 1 and 2; to his
bibliography add Schober, RE 2. 11 (1936) s.v. "Tilphossion," 1045;
Philippson 1.741, no. 139.
73. For summary, Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 15. To the Vigla group add Wallace,
212; to the Palaiothevai group add Philippson 1. 450, note 3.
74. Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 13f.
75. Wallace, 212f.; Schober, loc. cit. note 69; Roesch, 60. For illustrations,
Fontenrose, op. cit. note 69, 268, figs. 1 and 3.
76. Fontenrose, op. cit. note 69; P. Guillon, Les Trepieds du Ptoion (Paris, 1943)
105, note 2, 106; La Beotie antique, pi. 29; Etudes Beotiennes, 87f., 90, 94.
77. Ducat, REG 77 (1964) 288f.; Fossey, op. cit. note 69, 13.
78. Str. 9.2.26.
79. //. 2.501; Horn. Hym. Ap. 242. For other sources, Mylonas and Kirsten, RE
34 (1937) s.v. "Okalea," 2302f.
80. Wallace, 168f.; Fontenrose, op. cit. note 69, 127, note 17; Philippson 1. 474,
note 3, 741, no. 143; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 25f.
81. Mylonas and Kirsten, op. cit. note 79; Leake, TNG 2.205; for Evangelistra as
Ocalea, Fossey, Topography, 379-82.
82. Wallace, 159-162 with bibliography, to which add Fossey, Topography, 185f.;
Wallace, GRBS 15 (1974) 22f. Roux, 5C7/78 (1954) 22-45, is the best
article.
83. Wallace, 182-84 for description and bibliography, to which add Syriopoulos,
34, no. 28; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 28f.; Fossey, Topography, 367-73.
84. Wallace, 156, for description and bibliography, to which add Fossey,
Topography, 187-91; Wallace, GRBS IS (1974) 6-9; Buck, Teiresias Supp.
1 (1972) 35. Roux, op. cit. note 82, 45-48, gives a good description of the
tower and the hill.
85. Wilamowitz, Hesiods Erga (Berlin, 1928) 115, first argued for a southern
location for Ascra. He has been followed by Kirsten in Philippson 1. 718,
note 82 and 741, no. 144; Kirsten-Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde5
(Heidelberg, 1967) 238; Guillon, La Beotie antique, 103. For Pyrgaki as
Ascra see Buck, Teiresias Supp. 1 (1972) 31-40.
86. For bibliography, Wallace, 198f., to which add Fossey, Topography, 373-77;
Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 30f.; Syriopoulos, 71, no. 31; Spyropoulos,
AAA6(1973)375-79.
87. See Buck, op. cit. note 85, for bibliography and discussion of possible locations.
88. Ibid., but cf. Fossey, Topography, 191f.
89. For bibliography see Wallace, 152f., to which add Syriopoulos, 36, no. 31;
Fossey, Topography, 178-85. Roesch is the best work on the town.
90. Pritchett, Studies 1. 49-51; Wallace, 224f.; Fossey, Topography, 200-204.
91. For the battlefield and its bibliography see Pritchett, Studies 1. 5If.; for the
trophy, Wallace, 224f.
93. Steph. Byz. s.v. Evrpriffis.
94. Wallace, 171-74, for bibliography, to which add Syriopoulos, 37, no. 32;
Fossey, Topography, 196-200. The best work is Goldman, Eutresis
(Cambridge, Mass., 1932).
95. For Tateza, Symeonoglou, AD, 1966, Chr. 202; Fossey, Topography, 193-96.
96. Busing, AA, 1972, 74-87, gives a full description of Chorsiae. See also Fossey,
Topography, 239-48, for earlier material. For inscriptions see Roesch,
56-58. The ancient sources are Scylax Per., 38; Diod. 16.58; Dem. defals.
leg. 385; Theopompus (FGrH 115F3); Pliny NH 4.8.
97. Wallace, 175f., for bibliography, to which add Syriopoulos, 99f., no. 49;
Tomlinson and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 244; Hope Simpson and Lazenby,
27f.; Fossey, Topography, 227-35. The fortifications are well described in
Maier, AM 73 (1958) 17-25; the inscriptions in Roesch, 53f.
98. For variant forms and spellings, Frazer, Paus. 5.164.
99. Geyer, RE 2.5 (1927) s.v. "Siphai," 262f., and Wust, RE 2.12 (1937) s.v.
"Tiphys," 1426-29, give the ancient sources. Roesch, 56 and note 5, gives a
description and bibliography, to which add P. Alin, Das Ende der
Mykenischen Fundstatten aufdem griechischen Festlande (Lund, 1962)
124 (s.v. Aliki); Atlas, 123, no. 421; Syriopoulos, 100, no. 51; Tomlinson
and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 243f.; Fossey, Topography, 217-22; E.-L.
Schwandner, AA, 1977, 513-51.
100. Tomlinson and Fossey, BSA 65 (1970) 243-63; Fossey, Topography, 222f.
For inscriptions, McCreedie and Steinberg, Hesperia 29 (1960) 123-27.
101. Roesch, 217-19, with map on 218 and plates 16.2, 17.1,2. For bibliography,
Wallace, 154f., to which add Philippson 1. 505f., 742, no. 195; Syriopoulos,
72, no. 37; Fossey, Topography, 204-8. For the road north, Pritchett,
Studies 1. 53-56; Atlas, 124, no. 422.
102. Gomme,BSA 18(1911-12)204.
103. Philippson 1. 506, note 1, 742, no. 196; Gomme, BSA 18 (1911-12) 204f.;
Philios, Eph Arch, 1899, 57-61.
104. For the excavations at Davlosis, Lauffer, AM 63-64 (1938-39) 177-85. For
bibliography, Wallace, 169f., to which add Syriopoulos, 70f., no. 30; Hope
Simpson and Lazenby, 26; Fossey, Topography, 377f.; Philippson 1.742,
no. 170(Kalimbaki), 171 (Davlosis).
105. For variants see Frazer, Pans. 5.99.
106. Wallace, 204-6, for bibliography, to which add Roesch, 64; Garlan, BCH 98
(1974) 95-112; Andreomenou, AAA 1 (1974) 325-35; Fossey, Topography,
323-33, for an excellent description.
107. //. 2.500, 5.708, 7.221; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 25.
108. Leake, TNG 2.313f.
109. Wallace, 126; Philippson 1.742, no. 180, notes a Graeco-Roman settlement.
110. RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyle," 117-19.
111. Fossey, Topography, 290-94; Burr, Neon Katalogos, 23.
112. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 26.
113. 6s (sc. Oresbius) ' kv va iant... XI/U/TJI KtKXiivos K , //. 5.708f.
114. For bibliography, Wallace 202f., to which add Syriopoulos, 115, no. 63;
Atlas, 121, no. 415; Fossey, Topography, 333-35 for description of site.
115. For Gla see Syriopoulos, 117, no. 58. The bibliography is extensive.
116. Syriopoulos, 116, no. 50; Atlas, 117, no. 404.
117. Syriopoulos, 98, no. 32; Atlas, 118, no. 405; Fossey, Topography, 349;
118. Syriopoulos, 98, no. 35; Atlas, 117, no. 403; Fossey, Topography, 347f.;
119. Syriopoulos, 33, no. 24 (a) and (b); Atlas, 118, no. 406; Fossey, Topography,
348f.
120. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 21; Wallace, 132f., for bibliography, to which
add Fossey, Topography, 282-85.
121. Philippson 1.742, no. 183.
122. For the site at Likeri, Papadimitriou, Praktika Akademias, 1931, 274-76;
Fossey, Topography, 294-97. This is apparently the site called Tzavali in
Philippson 1.742, no. 182, marked "Homeric to Roman."
123. Fossey, Topography, 285-87, for latest data on Aghios Elias, correcting Hope
Simpson and Lazenby, 25.
124. Wallace, 167f.
125. Wallace, 124, for bibliography, to which add Philippson 1.742, no. 184;
Touloupa, AD, 1966, Chr. 198-202; Spyropoulos, AAA 4 (1971), 319-28;
Fossey, Topography, 287-90, 292-94.
126. Philippson 1.742, no. 185.
127. P. Wolters and G. Bruns, Das Kabinen Heiligtum bei Theben I (Berlin,
1940); H.-P. Drogemuller, Gymnasium 68 (1961) 219-27; G. Bruns, AA,

1964, 231-34, and AD, 1968, Chr. 224f.; Fossey, Topography, 261f.;
Kirsten-Kraiker, 239, 241, 823. P.R. Franke, Antike Welt 1(1970) 46-53.
128. Frazer, Paus. 5.138.
129. Paus. 9.8.1.
130. For bibliography, Wallace, 143f., to which add Andreomenou, Teiresias,
1974, 1.11; Fossey, Topography, 259-61. Andreimenou, AE, 1976, Ax,
11-17. In Philippson 1.741, no. 205, Tachi is included with Thebes, and
Potniae, no. 204 and p. 509, note 1, is wrongly placed at Loutouphi, where
"Homeric to Hellenistic" material is said to occur.
131. For bibliography see Wallace, 194-97, to which add P. Cloche, Thebes de
Beotie (Namur, 1952); F. Vian, Les Ongines de Thebes (Paris, 1963); G.
Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966) 217f., 226;
Roesch, 47-49; Kirsten-Kraiker, Gnechenlandkunde, 876; Syriopoulos, 35,
no. 30; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 30; Spyropoulos, Kadmos 9 (1970)
170-172; idem, AAA 4 (1971) 32-37, 161-64; idem, AAA 5 (1972) 16-26;
idem, AAA 6 (1973) 371-75; S. Symeonoglou, Kadmeia, I, Gothenburg,
1973; T. Spyropoulos and J. Chadwick, The Thebes Tablets, II,
Salamanca, 1975. Fossey, Topography, 250-58 (also with good
bibliography). For air photographs of Thebes, R.V. Schoder, Ancient
Greece from the Air (London, 1974) 220-22.
133. C. Bursian, Geographic von Gnechenland 1 (Leipzig, 1860) 200.
133a. Wallace, 61.
135. Touloupa, AD, 1964, Chr. 200.
136. For bibliography, Wallace, 60-62.
137. For bibliography, Wallace, 147-51, to which add Syriopoulos, 120, no. 77;
Fossey, Topography, 262-67. Fossey suggests that both sites formed the
community of Teumessus.
138. For bibliography, Wallace, 191f., to which add Syriopoulos, 119, no. 72;
Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 29f.; Fossey, Topography, 268-75. For the
sanctuary, Frazer, Paus. 5.61f.; Fossey, Topography, 275-77.
139. For bibliography, Wallace, 83-86, to which add Syriopoulos, 71, no. 33;
Fimmen, Die Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur (Leipzig, 1921) 6; Hope
Simpson and Lazenby, 24f.; Fossey, Topography, 110-19.
140. For bibliography, Wallace, 64-67, to which add Syriopoulos, 119f., no. 73;
Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 23; Fossey, Topography, 105-10.
141. For bibliography, Wallace, 62-64, to which add Hope Simpson and Lazenby,
22f.; Fossey, Topography, 101-5. For the site west of Ritsona, Wallace, 63.
142. For inscriptions, IG 1.1664-1718. For bibliography, Wallace, 185-87, to
which add Syriopoulos, 37f., no. 33; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 29;
Spyropoulos, AAA 6 (1973) 375-95; Fossey, Topography, 139-47.
143. Str. 7.36; Stat. Theb. 7.266; Steph Byz. s.v. 'Ereoj/os. Hell. Oxy. 11.3 calls it
Scaphae.
144. For bibliography, Wallace, 8If., to which add Syriopoulos, 121, no. 87;
Pritchett, Studies 1, pi. 96(a) for site; Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 24;
Fossey, Topography, 148-51. This is Philippson 1.742, no. 198.
145. For bibliography, Wallace, 82f., to which add Pritchett, Studies 2. 103f.;
Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 24; Fossey, Topography, 149. This is
146. For bibliography, Wallace, 133-35, to which add Hope Simpson and
Lazenby, 21; Pritchett, Studies 2. 180; Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 107 and
Topography, 151-54. For the fragments of the Edict, Keramopoullos, Eph
Arch, 1931,163f.
147. Pritchett, Studies 2. 180.
148. Pritchett, Studies 1. 105f.; Frazer, Paus. 5.5.
149. Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 106, and Topography, 154-63. Add Wallace, 151, to
the bibliography. Syriopoulos, 120f., no. 80, combines them with other
tombs found near Chlempotsari. Philippson 1.742, no. 209 seems to mark
the location.
150. For the settlement, Wallace, 146f. It seems to be the one noted in Philippson
1.742, no. 201, and Leake, TNG 2. 369. For the cemetery, Pritchett,
Studies 1. 107-9, and 2. 178-80.
151. For bibliography, Wallace, 138-40, in which correct Philippson to 1.742, no.
202, and to which add Syriopoulos, 120f., no. 80; Fossey, Topography,
163-66.
152. Touloupa, AD, 1964, 199f., and AD, 1969, 186f.; Wallace, 140; Syriopoulos,
121, no. 82; Fossey, Topography, 69-75.
153. Wallace, 138.
154. Kahrstedt, AM 57 (1932) 18f., 27.
155. Hysiae: Leake, TNG 2.329; Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 198; Wallace,
81f.; Pritchett, Studies 1. 107; Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 107. Erythrae:
Fimmen, Kretich-Mykemsche Kultur, 6 (with earlier authorities); Burr,
Neon Katalogos, map 4; Hope Simpson and Lazenby (hesitatingly
following Grundy), 24.
156. Erythrae: Leake, TNG 2. 327-29; Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 199;
Pritchett, A]A 61 (1957) 23; Wallace, 81-83. Small village, not Erythrae:
Pritchett, Studies 1. 103-7; Fossey, BICS 18 (171) 108, note 2.
157. Scolus: Leake, TNG 2. 330f.; Frazer, Paus. 5. 2If.; Wallace, 133-36 (with
earlier authorities cited); Pritchett, A]A 61 (1957) 9-28; Hope Simpson and
Lazenby, 21. Eteonus: Philippson 1.742, no. 200. Erythrae: Pritchett,
Studies 1. 107-9, and 2. 178-80; Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 106-8.
158. Vergoutiani as Hysiae in modern Greek belief, cf. Pritchett, Studies 1. 105f.
The sherds here are Byzantine, and any Classical settlement would have
been small and insignificant on present evidence.
159. Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 106-8.
160. Scolus: Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 201; Pritchett, Studies 1. 107-9, and
2. 178-80; Grundy first suggested it might be across the Asopus.
Therapnae: Wallace, 146f., and CP 64 (1969) 36f.
161. Eteonus: Wallace, 138-40. Eilesion: Fossey, Topography, 163-66. Pharae:
162. Fossey, Topography, 153f.
163. Against Pyle as Eteonus, Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 21. Eteonus at
Neochorakion, Fossey, Topography, 166f.
164. Fossey, BICS 18 (1971) 206-8.
165. Paus. 1.38.8, 9.1.1, 9.1.6; Str. 9.2.31.

166. Philippson 1.525, 743, no. 6; Kirsten, RE 40 (1950) s.v. "Plataia," 2260-62;
Kirsten-Kraiker, 187f. and plan 57 for Panakton, 872 for bibliography;
McCreedie, Hespena Supp. 11 (1966) 87, note 3, 92; Wiesner, RE 36.2
(1949) s.v. "Panakton," 449f.
167. Syriopoulos, 38, no. 34.
168. Description in Chandler, JHS 46 (1926) 15f., who calls it Panakton; and in
Kahrstedt, AM 57 (1932) 18f., 27, who calls it Scaphae. Kirsten, RE 40
(1950) 2262, calls it Drymus. See also Philippson 1.533; McCreedie,
Hespena Supp. 11 (1966) 84.
169. For description and bibliography of Vratsi, Wallace, 97f.; Fossey,
Topography, 66-69, with plan, 67. Vratsi is identified as Pharae by
Wallace, 97f.; as Stephon by Fossey, Topography, 66-75; as Eilesion by
Kirsten in Philippson 1.742, no. 216. For the placing of Pharae at Aghios
Pantaleimon, Fossey, Topography, 120-22.
170. Wallace, 59f.; Pritchett, Studies 2. 26f.; Roller, AJA 78 (1974) 152-56;
Fossey, Topography, 62-65.
171. Wallace, 56; Vermeule, JHS 85 (1965) 123-48; Syriopoulos, 120, no. 78;
Spyropoulos, AAA 2 (1969) 20-25; idem, Ergon, 1970, 13-22; idem, AAA 3
(1970) 184-97; Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 8, and Topography, 76f.
172. Syriopoulos, 120, no. 79, for bibliography, to which add Fossey, Topography,
76f.
172a. Fossey, Topography, 77-82.
173. Wallace, 30-32; Kirsten-Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde, 178; Fossey,
Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3f., and Topography, 42-47.
174. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 22; Atlas, 126, no. 430; Fossey, Topography,
42-47.
175. Wallace, 57f.; Fossey, Topography, 50f.; Kirsten-Kraiker,
Griechenlandkunde, 178-82 with plan, 181; B. Petrakos, Oropus and the
Amphiareion of Oropos (Athens, 1972) ibid, AE, 1968, Ax, 1-39; for
photographs, Schoder, Ancient Greece from the Air, 22f.
176. For bibliography, Wallace, 32-35, to which add Roesch, 50; Pritchett, Studies
2. 24-36; Fossey, Topography, 83-86.
177. For bibliography, Wallace, 77-80 and Syriopoulos, 34, no. 29, to which add
Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3-22 and Topography, 86f. Dramesi is
identified as Hyria by Blegen, Hespena Supp. 8 (1945) 39-42, and Atlas,
127, no. 432; as Graea by Fossey, op. oil.
178. S.C. Bakhuizen, Salganeus and the Fortifications on its Mountains
(Groningen, 1970) 152-55, for the town and excavations; 96-100, for the
fort; bibliography given for both. Wallace, 36-39; Fossey, Euphrosyne 4
(1970) 20, and Topography, 88-94; Syriopoulos, 118, no. 65; Hope
Simpson and Lazenby, 19. For air photographs and plan, Schoder, Ancient
Greece from the Air, 42-45.
179. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 43-65, for fort; 89-95 for dating; 140, 157f., for
Polemaeus and "Eilesion." Fossey, Mnemosyne 27 (1974) 104 for "fetters of
Greece." Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 18-20; Wallace, 78f. Hope Simpson
and Lazenby, 19, term it the acropolis of Aulis, a view proposed by Blegen,
but rejected by Bakhuizen.
180. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 66-95, for full and careful survey, with bibliography.
The association with Polemaeus is discussed on 130.
181. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 16f. for description, photograph and bibliography.
Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 18f., and Topography, 94-96, and Bakhuizen,
Salganeus, 147, have both suggested that this site is Hyria. See also
Syriopoulos, 33, no. 27; Atlas, 120, no. 433; Sackett, BSA 61 (1966) 66, no.
94; Vermeule, Kadmos 5 (1965) 142f.
182. Euripus fortress: Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 128. Salganeus: Wallace, 48-54, an
identification rejected by Bakuizen, 8, note 21, 107. Canethus: Frazer,
Paus. 5.71, rejected by Wallace, 49f., and Bakhuizen 22, note 84.
183. FGr//115 F211,212.
184. Kirsten, in Philippson 1. 499, notes a small Hellenistic site on the northwest
coast, though this is too late if Theopompus is talking about the prehistory
of this area. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 19 and Topography, 96-98,
following Bursian, suggests modern Chalia. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 145-47,
would have it close to Chalia.
185. Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 17; Fossey, Topography, 97f.
186. For excavations, Spyropoulos, AD, 1970, Chr. 222-27; AR, 1971-72, 13. For
identifications and bibliography, Bakhuizen, Salganeus, 6-12, to which add
Wallace, 94-96; Fossey, Mnemosyne 27 (1973) 103, and Topography, 99f.
187. Leake, TNG 2. 266-72, and Wallace, 93f., for the church. For the site on
Paralimni, Philippson 1. 742, no. 187; Pharaklas, AAA \ (1968) 139f.;
Fossey, Topography, 316-18.
188. Fossey, BSA 69 (1974) 127f., and Topography, 310-15; Hope Simpson and
Lazenby, 32f.; Syriopoulos, 116, no. 55, for bibliography to 1967; Wallace,
86-88.
189. Fossey, Topography, 318f.
190. Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 31.
2. Archaeological Evidence
from the Neolithic and
Bronze Ages
The land of Boeotia was inhabited continuously from the Neolithic

period onward and the general development of the prehistoric periods
falls into the overall Greek pattern of Early, Middle and Late Neolithic
and Early, Middle and Late Helladic.
The material so far recorded and reported is limited in value, since
little excavation has been done.1 No more than half a dozen sites have
been excavated systematically, and the excavation results of only one or
two have been adequately published.2 In most cases the results of small or
trial excavations, or the collection of sherds from the surface, give us what
evidence we possess.
At least twenty-five Neolithic sites are known, fifty Early Helladic
sites, forty Middle Helladic sites, and fifty-odd sites showing remains of
Late Helladic I, II, III A and III B, while only fourteen sites show Late
Helladic III C. It is clear that there was a fairly steady increase in the
number of settlements until the end of LH III B, with some dips and
variations occurring, notably at the end of Early Helladic II and at the
end of Middle Helladic, followed by a catastrophic drop in settlements in
LH III C.
The settlement pattern seems to be the same throughout: mostly
village settlements, not too many individual farmsteads, settlements close
to perennial water supplies and close to land that was readily worked by
wooden ard ploughs. Settlements were placed, if water supply permitted,
on defensible mounds or hillocks near the edge of the arable land. The
increase in the number of sites could, therefore, indicate an increase in
the number of inhabitants, though possible shifts in the relative sizes of
Map 4. The Late Helladic Period

34 Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages
villages must not be discounted.

There seems to be a gradual rise in the general level of prosperity
(with a few dips) up to the LH III B period, presumably because of the
gradual improvement in techniques, attendant increases in surpluses, and
hence increases in the amount of goods and services available to produce a
higher standard of living. Sharp breaks are noticeable at the end of EH II
and at the end of LH III B.
It is worth examining the various phases in some detail.
The Neolithic Age

Of the twenty-five or so sites with Neolithic remains only Orchomenus,3
Eutresis4 and Thespiae5 have been seriously studied. Chaeronea, Polyira,
Magoula, Dramesi and Soros were trial excavations and the rest of the
sites are known through casual or surface finds only.6 In the nearby land
of Phocis a full stratigraphic excavation was carried on at a site near
Elateia.7
The very sketchy picture that emerges shows Boeotia as a cross-
roads where influences from the north met and combined with influences
from the Peloponnese. The neat tripartite division of the Ceramic
Neolithic observable in the Peloponnese seems only partly applicable to
Boeotia, especially the distinction between Early and Middle Neolithic.8
A limited amount of Thessalian influence is noticeable,9 especially in the
early stages. The course of development seems to have been largely a local
evolution, as evidenced by such material as Chaeronea ware.
The change of culture known as (Peloponnesian) Middle Neolithic
eventually reached Boeotia in the later stages of its development, bringing
new styles of pottery, of burials, of statuary and, apparently, of housing.10
It was probably introduced to Greece by a new series of immigrations
about 5000 B.C.11 Boeotia, however, lay on the periphery of this culture
and Elateia in Phocis shows little of Middle Neolithic until the final
stages of the period. Local developments played a major role, as
exemplified by the Phocian-Boeotian black-on-red ware, though some ties
with the Balkans are noticeable.12
By the beginning of the Late Neolithic a cultural koine had spread
over Greece, marked by new pottery styles of Near Eastern inspiration 13
(face-jugs were not uncommon14), that had fairly rapidly replaced the
older ones. Boeotia, however, still remained on the periphery, still under
both Peloponnesian and Thessalian influences. By the end of the period
the koine had broken down into a series of local cultures. These were
quickly replaced by a new set of cultures, those of the Early Helladic.
Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages 35
There is no evidence for any violence, although the fortification walls

found around some towns in parts of Greece, though not as yet in
Boeotia, may lead to suspicions.
The Early Helladic Period

Of the fifty-five sites known to contain Early Helladic remains only
Orchomenus,15 Haliartus16 and Eutresis17 have been systematically
excavated. Trial excavations were made at Polyira, Magoula, Kastraki,
Likeri, Thebes, Dramesi and Soros.18 Only surface finds reveal the other
sites.
The period saw fairly heavy habitation, especially in the area
around Lake Copais, in the Thespian valley and in the Teneric plain. No
sharp break marks the change from Neolithic to Early Helladic, although
it seems that a new wave of immigration introduced the new culture. The
subdivisions I, II and III, as worked out in the Argolid, broadly apply to
Boeotia.
Early Helladic I, characterized by red-burnished pottery, seems to
have been long-lived in Boeotia. Eight habitation levels from this phase
have been observed at Eutresis.19 Round structures have been noted both
at Eutresis and Orchomenus,20 though rectangular buildings seem to be
more common.
The Early Helladic II phase succeeded peacefully. It is marked by
the introduction of new pottery shapes, like the sauceboat, that seem to
indicate an intensification of relations with the Cyclades. It is also marked
by the use of larger buildings.
Considerable changes mark the beginning of Early Helladic III,
which is dated around 2100 B.C.21 New types of pottery appear, notably
a grey ware sometimes termed "Proto-Minyan," the two-handled
tankards, and jugs of a Cycladic type.22 There is also a new type of house
with a horseshoe-shaped or apsidal plan.23 Some violence, marked by ash
layers at numerous EH II sites, accompanies this change in the
Peloponnese, but in Boeotia the site of Eutresis would seem to have been
temporarily spared. It has been argued that new population elements
arrived about this time and were perhaps the carriers of the language
ancestral to Greek. They also provide an economical explanation of the
changes in pottery, housing and in the general level of prosperity.24
Eutresis was destroyed at the end of EH III, approximately 1900 B.C.,
when several other sites were damaged. This devastation may mark the
entry of a second wave of kindred elements at the beginning of the
Middle Helladic,25 though many authorities deny that any such inference
should be drawn. There is no certainty about where this posited

migration came from, though at present the northern Balkans, rather
than Anatolia, seem to be preferred.26
The Middle Helladic Period

About forty sites containing evidence of Middle Helladic settlement
are known. Of these Eutresis,27 Thebes,28 Haliartus,29 Gla30 and
Orchomenus31 have been systematically excavated. Trial excavations
were made at Polyira, Magoula, Pyrgos, Aghios loannis, Davlosis and
Dramesi.32 The rest are known through surface finds or stray sherds.
The development of the period in Boeotia seems to be similar to
that seen in the rest of Greece, and the way of life seems the same.33
There is no break separating EH III from MH such as that which
occurred between EH II and EH III, and it seems more appropriate to
group EH III with MH for the purposes of analysis.34 There is a
considerable drop in prosperity from EH II during EH III and early
MH, but then a slow and steady rise until the end of the period. This, in
turn, is marked by the fairly rapid changes that came with the transition
to the Late Helladic period. Boeotia shares in the startling uniformity of
development of the Middle Helladic materials throughout Greece. The
comparative lack, however, of LH I and II pottery at Eutresis, and in
Boeotia in general, has led some authorities35 to argue that there were no
LH I and II in Boeotia, but that MH continued here until LH III. It
must be remembered that Eutresis was much denuded in its upper layers,
that LH I and II material has been found elsewhere in Boeotia, as noted
below, and that a close correspondence can be shown between the pottery
shapes and their development at Eutresis and at other MH sites in
Greece in the undisturbed strata.36 In the light of these arguments it
seems more likely that there was little or no lag in Boeotia behind the
other sections of Greece, although the possibility cannot be excluded.
The differences between Boeotia and other parts of MH Greece lie
more in the quantity of different types of ware than in the types
themselves. Red Minyan, for example, seems to be more common in
Boeotia than in the Argolid, while Black (or Argive) Minyan,
well-known in the Peloponnese, is rare in Boeotia.37 In all areas,
however, these wares are replaced by Yellow Minyan in the latter part of
MH. Developments in other wares, in housing, in graves, in the arts, and
so on, seem to be fairly uniform throughout Greece and to have been
transmitted from one area to another with some rapidity. Only in the
area of western Thessaly, the Spercheius Valley and in Aetolia can local
variation be observed.38 Fortification walls seem to be almost unknown in

MH Greece and none have been identified in Boeotia.
This period seems the most probable time for the Greek language to
have become firmly established in Greece. It has been suggested39 that the
discontinuity between the common MH and the variant culture noted in
some areas above may mark the comparative isolation necessary for the
genesis of the East Greek and West Greek divisions of the language.
Late Helladic I and II

Nineteen sites show the presence of LH I and II pottery, but few are
stratified, or, if stratified, they are unpublished.40 The number is an
apparent reduction from the total of MH sites, but it is not especially
significant. First, the proportion of sites in Boeotia with LH I and II
remains, compared to MH sites, is roughly equal to the proportion in the
rest of Greece. Second, many stratified MH sites, such as Eutresis in
Boeotia and Lerna in the Argolid, are much denuded in their upper, that
is, LH layers. Third, LH I and II pottery, even at the stratified
Peloponnesian sites of Korakou and Nemea, seems not especially common
vis-a-vis the usual MH wares. These last wares continued to be
produced, to judge from the material at Korakou, until well into LH III.
In light of the above, there seems little evidence for the supposition
that Boeotia lagged significantly behind the Argolid, or that LH I and II
material was slow in reaching, or did not reach, Boeotia. It may well be
that Boeotia was less prosperous than the Argolid at the time of Grave
Circle A, but further excavation is needed before the question can be
answered and the possibility of some lag firmly excluded.
In light of present evidence it seems clear that the periods LH I and
II are marked by an intensification of contact with Crete, of such a nature
as to transform the decorative arts and modify the domestic ones. It has
been argued that the foci for the changes lay in Messenia or Mycenae.41
The pottery itself has a vigour and originality that owe little to Crete.
The decoration is handled with a freshness that is equalled by the
technical skill.
The historical implications of this change remain unclear, but it is
certain that no political domination by Crete over Greece occurred. It
seems more likely that an exodus of artisans from Crete helped to form
the LH I style. Whether this exodus was the result of conquest by Greek
powers, or of a flight from a stricken land, or both, or simple emigration,
remain unknown.42
At any rate the development to LH III proceeds unbroken.
Late Helladic IIIA and III B

Steady growth is again observed in LH III A and LH III B. Some
twenty-nine LH III A sites and thirty-five LH III B are known in
Boeotia of which only six have been excavated.43 The remains of
Cyclopean walls are visible, however, at several sites.
The general impression is of increasing prosperity, of increasing
population, and of much construction of heavy fortifications. These
fortifications were built, apparently, in the late phases of LH III A and
in LH III B, but especially in LH III B. An acropolis could be guarded
with a circuit wall of Cyclopean masonry, or accessible approaches to a
steep acropolis could be blocked by equally massive Cyclopean stretches.
The distribution of these fortifications is instructive. They fall into
five main groups:
1. Gla, Aghios loannis, Topolia (Copae), Stroviki, Pyrgos Aghias
Marinas, Chantsa, and Davlosis (Medeon), plus a forward series of
observation posts along Mt. Ptoon form the first group. This is clearly a
system of forts to protect the drainage of Lake Copai's, with Gla as the
central base. The forward line and the placing of the system make it clear
that it was erected with a hostile power to the east in mind, most prob-
ably Thebes.44
2. The next group is composed of Haliartus, Orchomenus, and
probably Agoriani and Kalami. This series, situated around the south
and west sides of Lake Copai's, was not a system in the same sense as the
first group. Haliartus, which would have benefited enormously from the
drainage of Lake Copai's and may have had a population second to that of
Orchomenus, would guard the approach from Onchestus and link up
with Davlosis. Kalami, another large town, would guard the approach to
Copai's via the pass from Thisbe, with a link to Haliartus in Kato
Agoriani; and Orchomenus itself would guard the approaches from the
west, with, perhaps, a satellite guard at Chaeronea.
3. Forming the third group in Phocis are the fortifications at
Panopeus, Daulis, and, perhaps datable to LH, Levendi and Hyampolis.
These well-fortified sites in Phocis could have protected the Phocians
from the Orchomenians, or, possibly, have protected the lines of approach
to Orchomenus. The former seems more probable.
4. Thisbe, Chorsiae, Siphae (Aliki), Creusis (Livadostro), Eutresis
and Thebes are the fourth group of fortifications. These seem to link the
Corinthian Gulf to Thebes. Chorsiae overlooked a harbour that could
carry trade to the Peloponnese; Thisbe protected the Steveniko pass
northwest to Kalami; Siphae and Creusis were probably small forts to
protect their harbours; and Eutresis,with a circuit wall of LH III B date,
lay to the east of the route to Thebes and could protect it. None of these
fortifications seems extensive except for those of Eutresis and, doubtless,
those of Thebes. The first four clearly guarded the Gulf ports and their
approaches. Eutresis, in addition to protecting itself, could provide
security in the road against any danger from the east, and be a refuge for
travellers.
5. Glisas (Syrtzi), Harma (Kastri Lykovouniou), Heleon (Dritsa)
and Aulis form the fifth group. These guard, or at least flank, the route
northeast from Thebes to Aulis and give a measure of protection from
both east and west.
The first group of fortifications is constructed, clearly, with Thebes
in mind; group four is concerned with overseas attacks from across the
Corinthian Gulf and perhaps incursions from Attica; group five gives
protection from Orchomenus and Attica; and group two is probably
concerned with attacks from Thebes and, possibly, from the Peloponnese.
Only those fortifications in group three could possibly be construed as
defences against the north, but they could equally well be defences
against Orchomenus.
It seems that these Boeotian fortifications constructed in LH III A
and LH III B were erected primarily for protection against other
inhabitants of the Mycenaean world, especially neighbours. They were
erected against local threats, not against external forces, against hostile
(or potentially dangerous) Mycenaean powers, not against the threat of
foreign (that is, non-Mycenaean) invasion.
Such fortifications, then, indicate a Mycenaean world fractionated
into mutually hostile groups by the end of LH III A, with Thebes and
Orchomenus as major contenders in the Boeotian area. They also lead to
the inferences that the state of warfare was of a pretty sophisticated sort,
at least on a level close to that of the Near East; and that the state of
material prosperity and of technological skill was high enough to allow
massive and quite elaborate fortifications to be erected. It is true that not
much of a surplus beyond subsistence level is required to allocate
resources into such non-productive capital goods, but it may be that this
allocation of resources played a role in the collapse of the Mycenaean
world.
The fact that there is little or no trace of such massive walls before
the period of LH III A may lead to another inference: that the age of
serious internecine war began during LH III A, and replaced a less
violent phase of Mycenaean civilization. It is worth noting that LH III A
is the period in which a decline in artistic standards, though not in
technical proficiency, first becomes noticeable.45
At the site of Thebes the latest studies state that it is more probable
that there was only one palace, which was destroyed near the end of LH
III B.45a Others say that there were two successive palaces, with the first
being destroyed in the latter part of LH III A or early in LH III B. The
rebuilt second palace was burnt late in LH III B, before the end of the
period and earlier than the general destruction. In the ruins claimed to be
of the second palace a hoard of Babylonian and Kassite cylinder seals was
discovered, and from their condition they seem to have been trade goods,
raw material for manufacturing in Greece.46
Late Helladic III C

The number of sites at which LH III C remains have been observed is
fourteen: Orchomenus, Tanagra, Thebes, Eutresis, Dritsa (Heleon),
Vratsi (Eilesion?), Dramesi, Kalami, Salganeus, Mandraki (ancient
Anthedon), Oungra, Pyrgos (Aspledon?), Skroponeri, and Tseloneri.47
Clearly, a dramatic decline in the number of settlements, and presumably
in population, took place between LH III B and LH III C. Evidence of
fire is seen at some excavated sites, such as Orchomenus, Eutresis, Gla
and perhaps at Thebes.48 The same phenomena have been noted
throughout all the Mycenaean Greek mainland, 49 but whether or not the
destruction and depopulation took place in a fairly short space of time
throughout the whole area cannot be determined on archaeological
evidence.
Near the end of LH III Cl most of these sites ceased to be
occupied, which was at a time roughly contemporaneous with the final
destruction of Mycenae, Tiryns and lolcus, and with the abortive assault
on Athens.50 Thebes, Tanagra, Oungra and Orchomenus may have
suffered further devastations, but pottery from late LH III Cl and from
LH III C2 (Sub-Mycenaean) is known to come from these sites.
The reasons for the general destruction at the end of LH III B have
not been ascertained. Explanations include: climatic changes leading to
droughts, famines and consequent dislocation; local wars; internecine
feuds; class warfare; invasions by Illyrians, Thracians or West Greeks;
and various combinations of the above. No one explanation is generally
accepted.
The archaeological evidence indicates: that there was a complete
collapse at the end of LH III B throughout the Mycenaean world
accompanied by widespread destruction; that palace life and the social
organization accompanying it disappeared; that no material identifiable
as artefacts of any invaders has been found, the LH III C remains being
still Mycenaean; that there was a slight revival of Mycenaean culture in
LH III Cl among survivors, with some evidence of population shifts to

"refugee centres"; and that there was a final collapse near the end of LH
III Cl, with possible signs of new stocks (new types of cist-graves) then
appearing.
It seems, on present evidence, that two waves or phases of
destruction may be posited, one at the end of LH III B, to be dated 1220
or so, and a second at the end of LH III Cl, about 1150. The destruction
of the palace at Thebes could be set about 1240, a little before the end of
LH III B.
Summary and Conclusions

In Boeotia as in the rest of Greece, a reasonably homogeneous
Mycenaean culture developed out of the Middle Helladic period in the
seventeenth century B.C.The homogeneity of the culture speaks for
extensive intercommunication and a close and intimate cultural unity.
It lasts down to the end of LH III B. The art shows a progressive
ossification, though technical standards remain high, from the vigorous
and fresh LH I and LH II materials to the dull and sterile LH III B
materials. By the end of LH III A and during LH III B the erection of
sumptuous tombs, of strong fortifications and of elaborate palaces leads to
two inferences: a growth, or reinforcement, of particularism throughout
Mycenaean Greece, accompanied by extensive and sophisticated warfare
and a fairly high level of prosperity. Furthermore, the increase in the
number of settlements shows that a steady growth of population occurred
throughout the LH period to the end of LH III B. One may conclude
from this that Mycenaean Greece was occupied by a prosperous, growing
population, in a somewhat static civilization, rigidly controlled by palace
bureaucracies and fighting numerous wars. It was a society not so much
in fear of foreigners, as one where each district feared its neighbours.
In Boeotia there were at least two principal powers, Orchomenus
and Thebes. Orchomenus by the end of LH III B had completed an
elaborate drainage scheme for much of Copais and had found it necessary
to protect the katavothra and canals by a complex, elaborate and very
expensive system of forts. Its location indicates defence against Thebes.
The LH III B fortifications west of Orchomenus in Phocis are more
probably a Phocian protection against Orchomenus than an Orchomenian
defensive barrier against the northwest.
Thebes was a strongly fortified centre, but no defence system of a
nature comparable to that of the Copa c basin has been discovered. The
forts that may be linked with Thebes seem to protect the route from the
Corinthian Gulf to the Euripus, with the odd citadel near the Attic
frontier for local protection.
Other centres, such as Haliartus, Thespiae, Dritsa, Tanagra, Kal-
ami, Eutresis, Plataea and Anthedon appear to have been of secondary
importance compared to Thebes and Orchomenus.
The palace of Thebes was destroyed late in LH III B, but the town
remained occupied, despite devastations, down through sub-Mycenaean
times.
Boeotia appears to have been hard hit by two waves or phases of
devastation, the first at the end of LH III B and the second near the end
of LH III Cl. No evidence from artefacts, that would indicate external
influences and possible settlement of immigrants, appears until LH III
C2, and even this is problematical.
The literary and legendary evidence deserves examination for any
possible light it may shed on the Mycenaean period.
Notes
1. The best general work published is Syriopoulos who has a fairly complete
listing. Atlas discusses many of the sites, and Hope Simpson and Lazenby
repeat much of the same information. See also P. Alin, Das Ende der
Mykenischen Fundst tten; V.R. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and
their Successors (Oxford, 1964); and the appropriate fascicles of CAH2.
J.M. Fossey has completed a full topographical and demographic study of
the prehistoric and Classical Boeotian sites, Topography.
2. Orchomenus, Thebes, Gla, Haliartus, Eutresis and Plataea have been
systematically excavated. Thebes, under the modern town, is a difficult site
and excavations are continuing; Orchomenus is not yet fully published; Gla
is a special case; Haliartus was disappointing, though adequately published;
Plataea was excavated for classical remains in the latter part of the
nineteenth century; only Eutresis has been a good site adequately published.
3. E. Kunze, Orchomenos, II. For the Neolithic in general, see D. Theocharis,
Neo ) 'EAXaj (Athens, 1973).
4. J.L. and E.G. Caskey, Hespena 29 (I960), 126-67.
5. J.L. Caskey, Hespena 20 (1951), 289f.
6. See Atlas, nos. 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 401 (Topolia), 406 (Megali
Katavothra), 436 (Soros); Syriopoulos, 30-38, sites 20-34; Fossey,
Topography, 484-90 and fig. 31.
7. S. Weinberg, Hespena 31 (1962) 158-209.
8. Weinberg, CAH2, I, ch. 10, 17.
9. Ibid., 29 and Theocharis, 77.
10. Weinberg, CAH 2 , I, ch. 10, 36-39, 43; Theocharis, 77f.
11. Weinberg, 32f.
12. Ibid., 39-42.
13. Ibid., 45.
14. J.L. Caskey, Hesperia 20 (1951) 289f.

15. E. Kunze, Orchomenos, III: A.J.B. Wace, BCH 70 (1946) 628-38.
16. Austin, BSA 32 (1931-32) 190-205.
17. H. Goldman, Eutresis.
18. See Atlas, nos. 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 407 (Kastraki), 432 (Dramesi),
436 (Soros); J. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 17; Spyropoulos, AAA 5
(1972) 16-24 and AAA 6 (1973) 371-75; Fossey, Topography, esp. 485, fig.
31.
19. Caskey, Hesperia 29 (1960) 126-67.
20. Wace, BCH 70 (1946) 628-38.
21. Caskey, CAH2,1, ch. 26,18, 37.
22. See, e.g., Ibid., 11,17.
23. Ibid., 17, 19.
24. This seems to be fairly widely accepted: cf. Caskey, CAH2, II, ch. 4, 22-26;
R.J. Buck, Phoenix 20 (1966) 202f. For discussion see Haley and Blegen,
A]A 32 (1928) 141-54. Spyropoulos, AAA 5 (1972) 16-24, argues for an
Egyptian immigration.
25. Caskey, loc. cit., note above; Buck, op. cit., note above, 202-5.
26. See the contributions in R.A. Crossland and A. Birchall, editors, Bronze Age
Migrations in the Aegean (London, 1973), notably those of S. Hood, 59-67;
R.J. Howell, 73-107 and the editors 323-47, especially 325-29, 332-42,343f.
27. Goldman, Eutresis, passim; Caskey, Hesperia 29 (1960) 126-67.
28. MH Tombs, Eph. Arch., 1910, 226-35.
29. BSA 32 (1931-32) 190.
30. Threpsiades, Ergon, 1961, 39-54.
31. Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly (Cambridge, 1912) 193-96.
32. See Atlas, nos. 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 399 (Pyrgos), 405 (Aghios
loannis), 407 (Davlosis), 432 (Dramesi); for sites with surface finds,
Fossey, Topography, esp. 485, fig. 31.
33. J.L. Caskey, CAH2, II, ch. 4, 3-32; R.J. Buck, Phoenix 20 (1966) 193-209.
34. R.J. Howell, in Crossland and Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations, 73-107.
35. E.g., Goldman, Eutresis, 233; Wace, Histona 2 (1953) 88; Cf. Fossey,
Topography, 502f.
36. R.J. Buck, Hesperia 33 (1964) 282f.
37. R.J. Buck, Phoenix 20 (1966) 200.
38. Ibid., 201,201.
39. Ibid., 207.
40. Atlas, nos. 396 (Orchomenus), 397 (Polyira), 398 (Magoula), 405 (Aghios
loannis), 409 (Haliartus), 411 (Kalami), 416 (Thebes), 417 (Eutresis), 421
(Haliki), 422 (Livadostro), 426 (Tourleza), 432 (Dramesi), 436 (Soros) and
add from Fossey, Topograhy: Davlosis, Tanagra, Chlempotsari,
Skroponeri, Chorsiae and Neokhorakion.
41. J.V. Luce, Lost Atlantis (New York, 1969) 175; Marinatos, Ada II Cret.
Cong. (1967) 198-216.
42. See J.V. Luce, Lost Atlantis, for a good account and argument for associating
the eruption of Thera with the weakness and conquest of Crete. It still,
however, remains not proven, pace Warren, in Crossland and Birchall,
Bronze Age Migrations, 45.
43. Orchomenus, Atlas, 396; Pyrgos, 399; Gla, 402; Haliartus, 409; Thebes, 416;
Eutresis, 417.
44. Fossey, Topography, 465-70, argues persuasively for the same view.
45. See, e.g., Blegen, Korakou, passim.
45a. For one palace see Spyropoulos and Chadwick, Thebes, Tablets, II, 69-71,
and J.T. Hooker, Mycenaean Greece (London, 1977) 103f. For two palaces
see most recently Symeonoglou, Kadmeia, I, and J. Chadwick, The
Mycenaean World, (Cambridge, 1976) 14.
46. G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966) 204, n.,
217f.; Hooker, Mycenaean Greece, 111.
47. From Fossey, Topography, 485, fig. 31.
48. Orchomenus: Bulle, Orchomenos, I, 127. Eutresis: Goldman, Eutresis, 341.
49. Cf., e.g., R.J. Buck, Histona 18 (1969) 276-79.
50. Vermeule, 269 and O. Broneer, Antiquity 30 (1956) 9-18.
3. Legends and Traditions of
the Bronze Age
The Three Traditions

A fragment of Hecataeus says that Boeotia was occupied at an early stage
by "barbarian tribes," the Aones, Temmikes, Hyantes, Leleges and
Pelasgians.1 Ephorus lists these same tribes.2 He is clearly following
Hecataeus, or drawing on the same sources. Both belong to the same
tradition.
A completely different story is found in Pausanias (9.5.1).
The autochthonous ruler Ogygus and the Ektenes, presumably also
autochthonous, first held the territory around Thebes. The Ektenes
perished from pestilence, and their land was occupied by Aones and
Hyantes, who came from elsewhere in Boeotia. The Aones were the
dominant partners. No mention is made of any Temmikes, Leleges or
Pelasgians and the tribes are not considered "barbarians." Pausanias'
immediate source is unknown, but the important role given to the Aones
reflects the views of Philochorus3 and Hellanicus,4 as, probably, does the
place given to Ogygus and the Ektenes.5 Hellanicus, then, is the earliest
historian who may be identified as belonging to the tradition found in
Pausanias, one distinct from that found in Ephorus and Hecataeus, a
tradition that sees some of the Thebans as autochthonous.53
Ephorus6 and presumably Hecataeus say that the Aones and
Temmikes as barbarian tribes migrated from Sunium to Boeotia. In the
other tradition, Pausanias (9.5.1) implicitly denies the assertion that they
were barbarians by having them as natives of Boeotia; and Philochorus,7
in explicit denial of barbarian origin and of migration from Sunium, has
the Aones invade Attica from Boeotia in the time of Cecrops, who,
therefore, fortified his cities.
The differences and contradictions between the two traditions can
be seen to continue in their treatment of the coming of Cadmus. Ephorus8
46 Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age
and Hecataeus9 say that the Phoenices under the rule of Cadmus walled
the Cadmea, founded the city of Thebes and proceeded to rule over the
other Boeotians. Pausanias and the second tradition say that Cadmus and
his men entered a Thebes that was already in existence (since it was
founded by Ogygus), reduced the Aones to subjection, expelled the
Hyantes and then constructed the Cadmea.
The ultimate sources for these two versions remain unknown, but
should be variant local traditions, probably poetic, either from different
groups in one area (e.g., the Thebans and the Orchomenians) or from
differing accounts from different areas. They almost certainly owe little to
any generalized poetic tradition. This material is apparently used in a
third historical tradition, one first clearly observable in its version of the
founding of Thebes.
In the Odyssey (11.260-65) Thebes is founded and fortified by
Amphion and Zethus, who built its walls "when they were unable to
dwell in wide-landed Thebes unprotected, even though powerful." It was
already a well-known story, since other figures, including Asius (frg. 1
Kinkel), Eumelus (frg. 12K), Minyas (frg. 13K) and Hesiod (frg. 133Rz)
said much the same thing. Cadmus is regarded as a later ruler10 and the
Cadmeans as the later inhabitants. 11 Pherecydes and his followers 12
accepted this third tradition, one very different from the other two. That
is, though they noted a connection of Amphion and Zethus with the
Asopus valley and East Locris,13 the Pherecydans put the twins in
Thebes well before Cadmus. Ogygus seems to precede the twins, as an
early if not the first ruler of all Boeotia, but one who did not found
Thebes.14
Strabo (9.2.28), following the tradition of Ephorus and ultimately
Hecataeus,15 has Amphion and Zethus found Eutresis, not Thebes. Thus
Hecataeus and his followers, since in their view Cadmus founded Thebes,
removed the twins to another site, a treatment different from that of the
other traditions.
Hellanicus and several others stuck firmly to a rationalization of a
tradition that placed Amphion and Zethus in Thebes, but at a later time
than Cadmus was there, commonly three generations later, during the
early part of the reign of Laius.16 Some regarded the twins as usurpers, 17
and others as regents.18 A few, notably Hieronymus,19 tried to take a
compromise position by setting Amphion and Zethus in Thebes
immediately after the departure of Cadmus. In this way the twins could
re-establish the town on an abandoned site and, in a sense, be considered
as founders. They could also be expelled by the returning Cadmeans, at a
saving in the number of strange invading tribes to be accounted for.
Even the number and names of the children born to Amphion's
Legends and Traditions of the Bronze Age 47
wife, the Tantalid Niobe, vary widely. Pherecydes,20 following a tradition

traceable in Homer (11.24.602-17), names six boys and six girls.
Hellanicus21 and Armenidas22 say there were seven children, four boys
and three girls, and their names are completely different from those in
Pherecydes. Hecataeus, if one may judge from his remarks on the
Danaids,23 favoured a still smaller number of children, perhaps the two
boys and three girls mentioned by Herodorus24 or the three children who
Aulus Gellius (20.7) says were allowed by alii scriptores. The twenty or
so children found in the early poets25 and the fourteen children cited by
the dramatists and the vulgate26 seem not to have been commonly adopted
by any historians.
It is clear, then, that three distinct traditions about early Boeotia can
be observed in the work of the Greek historians, and that many possible
poetic sources remained untouched.
The treatment of the Phlegyians illustrates the differences among
the three traditions so far observed. In Ephorus,27 and probably
Hecataeus, the Phlegyians arrived with some violence in Boeotia after the
Trojan War. They eventually settled in Daulis. Probably the passage in
the Iliad (13.301-3) that puts this tribe on the borders of Thrace reflects
this same tradition.
Pherecydes,28 however, says that the walls erected by Amphion and
Zethus were for defence against the Phlegyians, who, after the death of
the twins, sacked Thebes under their leader Eurymachus. The Cadmeans
later settled the deserted site. All this, of course, happened much before
the Trojan War. The Phlegyians had come from Gyrton in northern
Thessaly and eventually settled in northern Boeotia, perhaps at
Cyrtones.29
The tradition found in Hellanicus and others is again different. The
Phlegyians were not hostile, but friendly, as stated in Pindar (Pyth. 3.8).
They came to the rescue of Thebes in its time of need.30 They occupied
Orchomenus and helped to rebuild it.31 Eventually they settled at
Panopeus.32 They are dated about the time of the Trojan War.
Hieronymus33 tries a neat trick in which the Phlegyians disappear,
because there is no place for them in the tradition, since the Cadmeans
return at an appropriate time. The presence of the tribal eponym
Phlegyas, who is slain by Lycus and Nycteus,34 is perhaps the last trace
of an effort to eliminate the tribe of Phlegyians, or is a rationalization of
its existence in the time before the Trojan War.
The conventional stemma of Cadmus, Polydorus, Labdacus, Laius,
Oedipus, Polyneices and Thersander lies behind a passage in Herodotus
(5.59-60), and, as far as can be judged, was recognized by most other
historians. The only divergence traceable is in Hecataeus, who calls
Pentheus Tentheus,35 an lonicism. It may be that Herodotus used

Hecataeus as his source, but one cannot be certain. The stemma is
probably derived from Theban poetry. Names such as Labdacus have
been regarded with suspicion by modern historians as mere genealogical
links.
Differences are observable in the treatment of Oedipus, and here
study of the use of some poetic sources is possible. Unfortunately the
historical sources become very scrappy indeed, particularly those
following Hecataeus.
In Homer (Od. 11.271-78) Oedipus married his mother Epicaste.
She committed suicide because the gods made the incest "notorious at
once." There was no time for any children to be born, and Oedipus
survived "suffering many woes," including probably another marriage to
provide descendants. Both Homer (//. 23.676-80.) and Hesiod (frg.
35Rz) mention Oedipus' death, apparently by violence,36 and some great
gathering and struggle after the funeral. Hesiod (W.D. 161-63) mentions
a war over Oedipus' sheep, one that he equates with the Trojan War in
the severity of losses. Both Homer and Hesiod know of the Seven and the
Epigoni, but neither knows anything about Oedipus' blinding of
himself.37 This is a motif added by later Theban or Boeotian epic, found
in the cyclical Thebais.38 Variations reported in the scholiasts39 have
Oedipus blinded by Polybos or by the servants of Laius. The epics gave
the wife's name as Jocasta and named the second wife variously.
It is to be noted that Hellanicus adopted the version in which
Oedipus blinds himself,40 the one that becomes the vulgate. He has little
or nothing, however, about the war of Oedipus' sheep.
Pherecydes41 lists three marriages for Oedipus: first to Jocasta, by
whom he had two boys called Phrastor and Leonytus, who were both
later killed by Erginus of Orchomenus; second to Euryganeia, daughter
of Periphas (Hyperphas in Paus. 9.5.11), by whom he had the usual four
children; and third to Astymedousa (Medusa in Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.4.5),
daughter of Sthenelus. Pherecydes obviously combines at least two
versions here.42
One of these versions was derived from the epic Oedipodia known to
Pausanias43 and followed at least in part by Peisander.44 In this, Oedipus
married Jocasta and had no children; he blinded himself after her suicide.
He then married Euryganeia by whom he had Antigone, Ismene,
Eteocles and Polyneices.45
The second version, from some other epic source,46 says that Jocasta
had two sons, Phrastor and Leonytus, and that after her death Oedipus
married Astymedousa. Perhaps the incident mentioned in the Scholion A
to Iliad 4.377, where Astymedousa falsely accuses her stepsons of
attempting to seduce her and then brings down their father's curse on
them, goes back to this source ultimately. Presumably Astymedousa had
borne the usual four children and wished to displace her stepsons.
Possibly a third version gave Jocasta four children and Astymedousa
none; this would explain the lack of children by Astymedousa in
Pherecydes.
Which, if any, of these versions was followed by Hecataeus is
unknown. The third version, or a variation of it, seems to be Hellanicus'
source, and to have provided the basis of the vulgate.
Similar variations can be seen in the story of the Curse of Oedipus.
A fragment of a cyclic Thebais47 tells how Polyneices placed the wine cup
of Laius by his father's side, and both sons were promptly cursed.
Another Thebais48 says that Polyneices and Eteocles set before their
father the haunch of a sacrificed animal instead of the shoulder, and were
consequently cursed. The third story, as mentioned above, has
Astymedousa accuse her stepsons of attempted seduction.
It is clear that widely discrepant versions of the career of Oedipus
were to be found in epic poetry and in the local legends. Some of these
were adopted by one or another historian, while others were not touched
at all. The same doubtless applies in general to all the raw materials of
early Boeotian history.
The fate of the Thebans after the Epigoni prevailed is variously
given. One version tells how the Thebans were defeated at Glisas, and
Laodamas, son of Eteocles, was killed. Most of the survivors fled north to
Histaeotis. This probably stems from a Thebaid and seems to be the
version preferred by Hellanicus and his followers.49
A second, somewhat different version,50 perhaps Hecataean,
apparently from Callinus' Thebais,51 has Laodamas, after killing
Aegidius, the son of Adrastus, survive the defeat at Glisas and go on to
lead the Theban refugees to the land of the Encheleans. Apparently they
return in a fairly brief time to join the other survivors at the site of
Thebes under Thersander, the son of Polyneices.
A variant of the second version52 has a section of the exiles recalled
from Homole in Thessaly. Correspondences have been noted between
Herodotus (5.61, 9.43) and Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F 103) which set the
Encheleis in Aetolia or Illyria. Since Hellanicus apparently sets the
Encheleis in Boeotia53 and associates them with Cadmus, and not with
the Epigoni, this variant may owe something to Hecataeus as well as to
Hellanicus.
A third version, perhaps Pherecydan, found in Diodorus (4.66-67),
has the Thebans defeated in battle and unable to resist further. Some fled
by way of Tilphossaeum or Tilphusium to Doris whence they returned to
Thebes when Creon was king. This is in reality a variation of the second
version with Thersander eliminated, or, rather, replaced by Creon.
The Trojan War appears in all traditions, but what happened in
Boeotia at the time it occurred differs widely from one tradition to
another. It may be inferred from the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad
(2.494ff.) that Homer thought that Boeotians inhabited the land, and that
Thebes was in no condition to send troops to Troy, although
"Hypothebes" did. This inference was apparently drawn by Hellanicus
and his followers. They regarded Thebes as virtually desolate but rebuilt
before the end of the Trojan War by the aid of friendly Phlegyians.54
Thucydides (1.12.3) doubtless obtained from Hellanicus the idea that "a
portion" of the Boeotians entered Boeotia before the Trojan War.
Pherecydes' position is unknown, but Creon's presence as king at
the time of the War,55 known from one or two late authors, may owe
something to Pherecydes' influence.
Hecataeus seems to have ignored Homer and to have had the
successors of Thersander ruling a segment of the Cadmeans at Thebes.56
This position lies behind Ephorus' uneasy doubling of invasions and
exiles, a doubling so arranged as to have Cadmeans at Thebes at the time
of the Trojan War.57
The Returns have left almost no trace in the extant Boeotian
traditions. Most of the the traditions agree, however, that there were
hostile attacks on Boeotia shortly after the Trojan War.
Hellanicus sets an invasion of Thracians between the Trojan War
and the Return of the Cadmeans, one that resulted in the expulsion of the
Minyans from Orchomenus to Munychia in Attica.58 A similar but
separate tradition, found in Nicolaus of Damascus,59 says that Phocians
expelled the Minyans, who fled to Thoricus in eastern Attica and thence
to Asia Minor.
A very different tradition (perhaps Pherecydan) is found in
Hieronymus (in Diod. 19.53-54), where the Thebans were expelled
during the Trojan War by Pelasgi.
Ephorus60 expels the Cadmeans for a second time from Thebes
shortly after the Trojan War by the agency of Thracians and Pelasgi. In
another passage61 he tells of a Phlegyian invasion of Boeotia, one to be set
after the Trojan War as well. Clearly Ephorus is combining the
Hellanican Thracians with the Pelasgians from the tradition later
followed by Hieronymus, and then transferring the Thracians from
Orchomenus to Thebes. This leaves his post-War Phlegyians as possible
borrowings from Hecataeus.
Hecataeus62 refers to the Thracians who held Attica and Daulis
(where the Phlegyians were thought by him or Ephorus to have settled
eventually) under Eumolpus and Tereus. If Thucydides (2.29.3) followed

him, then Hecataeus set the Thracians well before the Trojan War.
Hence the violent Phlegyians in Ephorus seem most simply explained as
a contribution from Hecataeus, who needed to clear Thebes for his
Cadmean Return.
It is clear that three very discrepant historical traditions can be seen
to deal with early Boeotian history, as the following chart makes plain:
Hecataeus Hellanicus Pherecydes

1. ?Leleges and Ogygus autochthonous *Ogygus, s. of Boeotus,
Pelasgians? king of Boeotia
2. Barbarian Aones, Founding of Thebes Founding of Thebes by
Temmikes and Hyantes by Ogygus and Amphion and Zethus
from Attica Ektenes
3. Cadmus subdues above Native Aones and Phlegyians destroy
and founds Thebes, Hyantes from else- Thebes
walling the Cadmea where in Boeotia to
Thebes. They
attack Athens.
4. Amphion and Zethus Cadmus subdues ** Cadmus refounds
found Eutresis. above; founds Thebes
Possibly here a Cadmea
Thracian incursion
5. Usual stemma Cadmus- Amphion and Zethus Cadmus-Oedipus
Oedipus as usurpers in
reign of Laius
6. Oedipus Oedipus and Jocasta Oedipus and three
wives
7. Seven and Epigoni Seven and Epigoni Seven and Epigoni
8. Expulsion of Cadmeans Expulsion of Expulsion to Doris;
to Thessaly and Cadmeans to Histiaea return to Thebes
Encheleis under or Thessaly; Laodamas under Creon
Laodamas; returnees killed
under Thersander
9. Trojan War Trojan War and Trojan War; Pelasgi
friendly Phlegyians expel Thebans
10. Phlegyians expel Thracians expel
Thebans and Minyans Minyans
11. Cadmeans return Cadmeans return Boeotians return
*Ogygus, s. of Boeotus in Corinna.

"*Cadmus as son of Ogygus in Mythographer Phot. App. Nov. 5, 42.
None of the traditions inspires any confidence. Pherecydes, as was

long ago pointed out,63 naively contaminates several poetic sources,
though usually he is faithful to Homer and Hesiod. Hellanicus
rationalized a local poetic tradition, probably that of Thebes. Hecataeus
applied his own taste and common sense to legends and poems from
several sources. The later historians found themselves facing much the
same basic material and followed, largely, one or the other of the three
pioneers. Little or no new evidence was available, and new combination
was the only novelty.
Notes
\.FGrH\F\\9.
2.FGrH70F\\9.
3. FGrH III, 1, 396f. and III, 2, 295 in Comm. on 328 F94.
4. FGrH 4F51, where Boeotia is said to have been once called Aonia. Cf. also
Lysimachus 382 Fl.
5. L. Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford, 1939) 211-14. FGrH 328F92.
Jacoby, however, FGrH III, 1, 386, 388, does not believe that Ogygus is
found in either Hellanicus or Philochorus, though he puts them in the same
tradition.
5a. FGrH 4F 16l.
6. FGr//70F119.
7. FGr//328F94.
8. FGrH 70F119.
9. FGrHl¥20.
10. Cf. Hesiod, Theog. 978 and W.D. 162.
11. Cf., e.g., //. 4.387-93; 803-8.
12. FGr//3F41(d) and Comm. adloc., 405.
13. FCr//3F5, 124, 170.
14. FGrH 383F4, if Aristodemus is Pherecydan. Antiochus-Pherecydes, FGrH
333F3, has Ogygus and his wife Thebe found Thebes in Egypt. The link
with Thebes is apparent here, but not that with our Pherecydes. See
Jacoby, Comm. ad loc.
15. Cf. Steph Byz., s.v. "E rp s"; Eustathius on //. 16.502, pp. 268(1'.
16. See, e.g., Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrH 90F7, which Jacoby, Comm. ad loc.,
236f., considers derived from Hellanicus.
17. Paus. 2.6.1., 9.5.6; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.5; Hyginus, Fab. 9.
18. Nic. Dam., FGrH 90F7.
19. In Diodorus 19.53. See Jacoby's note comparing H. to Ephorus in his Comm.
on70F119, 68-71.
20. FGrH 3F126.
21.FGrH 4F21.
22. FGrH 378F6, both probably from Theban local sources.
23.FGrHlF19.
24. FGr//31F56.
25. Hes., frg. 34 Rz.; Bacchylides, frg. 146; Pindar, frg. 64; Mimnermus, frg. 19
and Alcman, frg. 109. Sappho, frg. 143, has only eighteen.
26. Aeschylus, p. 50N2 ; Euripides, Phoen. 159, Cresph. frg. 455; Aristophanes I,
465, 284 Kock; Diodorus 4.74; Ovid, Met. 6.146; Hyginus, Fab. 9, and 11;
Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.6.
27. FGr//70F93.
28. FGr7/3F41.
29. Strabo, 7, frg. 14, 15 mentions Gyrton in Thessaly, perhaps from Ephorus.
The first tradition, then, may also recognize Gyrton as their homeland.
Paus. 9.36.2 mentions a town of Phlegya.
30. Paus. 9.9.2 and 9.36.2.
31. Paus. 9.34.4 and 9.36.
32. Paus. 9.36.3 to end and 10.4.1.
33. Diodorus, 19.53.
34. Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.5.
35. FGrH 1F31 and Comm. adloc., 327.
36. G.A. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) 41f.
37. Cf. Schol. CW. 11.275.
38. Schol. Soph. Oed. Col. 1375.
39. Schol. Eurip. Phoen. 26 and 662.
40. FGrH 4F97 and Jacoby's Comm. ad loc., 460.
41.FGr//3F95.
42. Jacoby, Comm. on Pherecydes 3F95, pp. 416f.
43. Paus. 9.2.4, 9.5.11, 9.26.2-4, 10.5.3.
44. FGrH 16F10 and Comm. adloc., 494-496.
45. Paus. 9.5.11. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 41, suggests that dynasts who
claimed descent from Oedipus were not willing to consider themselves
descended from an incestuous marriage and therefore saw to the invention
of a normal and fruitful second marriage. But the childless marriage to
Epicaste (Jocasta) is found in Homer; it is equally possible that their
opponents first levelled accusations of descent from Jocasta at unpopular
dynasts and these somehow stuck.
46. The Oedipodia of Cinaethon of Sparta is totally unknown. Onasias of Plataea
(Paus. 9.5.11) has Eurygania as the second wife.
47. Athenaeus, 465F.
48. Schol. Soph. O.T. 1375. Cf. also Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, 41, 43 for two
Thebaids.
49. Apollodorus 3.7.3.; Hdt. 1.56; cf. Hellanicus FGrH 4F100 and Jacoby's
Comm. ad loc.
50. Hdt. 5.61; Paus. 9.5.13; 9.9.5; cf. 9.19.2.
51. Paus. 9.9.5.
52. Paus. 9.8.7.
53. FGrH 4F50 and Comm.
54. FGrH 4F100, Paus. 9.9.2 and 9.36.2. Cf. Pindar Pyth. 3.8.
55. Paus. 9.8.7 and Diod. 4.66-67.
56. See above, p. 51.
57. FGr//70F119.3 followed by Demon, 327F7. For timing see Jacoby's Comm.
adloc. and R.J. Buck, Historia 18 (1969) 289f. In general Ephorus' rule
seems to have been "If in doubt, double."
58. FGrH 3F42 (b)= 323aF 5(b).
59. FGrH 90F51.
60. FGrH 70F119.3.
61.FGrH 70F93.
62. FGrH 1F119.
63. By Bethe, Theb. Heldenl., 26 and Jacoby, FGrH, Comm. on 3F95, p. 416.
4. Traditions and History of
the Bronze Age
None of the three historical traditions so far discovered can be relied upon
for the validity of any particular incident or of any chronological
sequence. Together they provide little more than contradictions of one
another's surmises. One may reasonably doubt that anything of the
Boeotian past may be recovered from these arbitrary collections of
divergent interpretations of tendentious poetic source-material.
Nonetheless, it is worth trying to see whether there is any possibility of
observing a broad substratum of agreement amongst the three traditions
and any other available literary material. If there is, then such agreement
may reflect some common element in all the early poetic traditions. This
in turn, if it is consonant with archaeological or other external evidence,
could well be a genuine memory of the past, however distorted. It could
be equally well, of course, the reflection of a predominant poetic tradition
based on nothing more than some oral poet's imagination.
At any rate there seem to be five areas of general agreement, and
these can be placed in a chronological sequence.
1. All traditions and other sources set at the earliest time a stage of
heroes and tribes that are associated with both Boeotia and Attica, and
occasionally with other areas; they are often founders of cities, (cf.
Hecataeus 1 and 2; Hellanicus 1, 2, 3; and Pherecydes 1.)
2. All traditions place later a stage of more localized figures and
peoples, ones associated with either Boeotia or Attica or large areas of
either, but not both. These figures are credited with fortifying cities and
they are often strangers. (Cf. Hecataeus 3, 4, 5; Hellanicus 3, 4, 5;
Pherecydes 2, 3, 4.)
3. All traditions note a stage of still more localized figures, always
associated with wars, internecine struggles and destruction. They usually
are associated with one area or town of Boeotia. (Cf. Hectaeus 6, 7, 8;
Hellanicus 6, 7, 8; Pherecydes 5, 6, 7, 8.)
56 Traditions and History of the Bronze Age
4. All traditions record the Trojan War, an obvious datum.

(Cf. No. 9.)
5. All traditions note after the War a stage of disasters, invasions
and population shifts. (Cf. 10, 11.)
In the first stage, tribes from Attica overran Boeotia in one tradition
while tribes from Boeotia invaded Attica in another. Some vaguely
remembered cultural link somehow joined the two areas. The tribes
themselves are to us nothing but names. The Aonian plain north of
Thebes is either the toponym from which the tribal name Aones was
derived, or the preserver of the memory of the tribe. Some effort has been
expended to connect the words "Aones" and "lones" (that is, original
to Taofcs and then ultimately to 'I ves in one area, and to "Aoves
in the other), but with no great success.1 The Temmikes of the
Hecataean tradition were derived from, or gave, a word used occasionally
for Thebes, "Temmikion," which is first found in early local epic.2 An
Aeolic derivation has been proposed on no particular grounds.3 The
Hyantes are sometimes associated with the Abantes, who are occasionally
considered a Thracian tribe.4 The name suffix - VT - can, however, be
Greek.5 The Hyantes were thought to have settled around Onchestus and
the eastern edge of Lake Copa'is6 before they were expelled either to
Hyampolis in Phocis7 or to Aetolia.8
Ogygus seems to be a hero common to both Attica and Boeotia. The
term "Ogygian" is sometimes applied to Thebes,9 and one of the gates is
the Ogygian. The same word is also applied to Athens.10 Ogygus himself
is the autochthonous founder of Thebes in the Hellanican tradition,11 and
in the Pherecydan tradition he is an early ruler of Boeotia, and probably
the son of Boeotus, earlier than the foundation of Thebes.12 He is also
linked with western Boeotia through his daughter Alalcomena.13 Ogygus
is, however, regarded as the founder of Eleusis in several late authors,14
and as an early, or the earliest, ruler of Athens in Philochorus and
presumably the Hellanican tradition.15 It seems that he is remembered as
a shawdowy, vague figure in both Attica and Boeotia. It should be noted
that his Ektenes were also associated occasionally with Attica.16
One might also credit to this first stage of tribes and heroes
associated with both Boeotia and Attica other scraps not found in what is
left of our three traditions: the enigmatic story of an Athens and an
Eleusis covered over by Lake Copa'is; foundation legends from Thespiae,
Potniae, Delium and Onchestus; cults such as that of Cecrops at
Haliartus and ceremonies such as the Stephanephoria; and several myths
linking the two areas, such as that of Cephalus and Procris.17 There is
some legendary evidence for a belief in an early close association between
Traditions and History of the Bronze Age 57
Attica and Boeotia. Thus the theory of something underlying the three
traditions may have some merit.
The second stage is marked in each area by the presence of local
heroes, ones associated with either Attica or Boeotia, but not both, heroes
such as Cadmus, Amphion and Zethus, and Athamas for Boeotia, or
Erechtheus and Pandion for Attica. They are usually the fortifiers and
sometimes the founders of cities.
The legend of Amphion and Zethus has been regarded by several
modern authorities as an adaptation of the "abandoned twins" motif of
folktale,18 and by others as a Boeotian counterpart of the tale of the
Dioscuri.19 The presence of several sets of similar twins (or at least
brothers) in Boeotian myth, such as the builders Trophonius and
Agamedes from Orchomenus, and Leucippus and Ephippus from
Tanagra, has led to the belief by some scholars in the existence in Boeotia
of an early Mycenaean cult of divine twins. Amphion and Zethus are
associated with Thebes, Eutresis, East Locris and the upper Asopus
valley as builders and fortifiers; that is, they are local (even if divine)
figures in eastern Boeotia, just as Trophonius and Agamedes are figures
in western Boeotia and Phocis, and Leucippus and Ephippus are figures
in the lower Asopus valley. Whether these divine twins were a religious
sanction for some sort of Mycenaean double monarchy or not is
unknown, but it makes an interesting conjecture. At any rate, Amphion
and Zethus, divine or not, are local figures in eastern Boeotia associated
with the construction of fortifications, just as are the other sets of twins in
other parts of Boeotia.
The story of Cadmus and the Cadmeans, in the standard version as
we now have it, of colony-founding immigrants from overseas, may well
have originated in Asia Minor in the seventh century B.C.20 Other
sources, however, make Cadmus a native of the Boeotian area, even a son
of Ogygus. But, no matter what his origin, he is regarded as the founder
of a new dynasty at Thebes, the fortifier of the Cadmea or of all Thebes,
and the progenitor of several noble Boeotian families. There are
interesting parallels between Cadmus and the founders of new regimes
elsewhere in Greece at about his time, such as Perseus and Pelops.21
The stories in Hecataean and Hellanican traditions of the conquests
by the Aones and the expulsion of the Hyantes may simply be
rationalizations of the tales of the destruction of the Spartoi, combined
with an early Boeotian claim to Hyampolis in Phocis. On the other hand,
they may reflect, very dimly, the efforts of newly established Mycenaean
dynasts to reinforce their position and pacify their territory. The Hyantes
are supposed to have lain in the Onchestus area, on the borders of
Orchomenian areas of Lake Copai's. The inhabitants of Onchestus would
logically be victims of an aggressive Thebes interested in offence in the

Copai's area.
The discovery of Babylonian cylinder seals in the so-called Second
Palace at Thebes, the one destroyed just before the general Mycenaean
catastrophe at the end of LH III B,22 has led to some revival of belief in
the oriental origin of Cadmus.23 Such a belief is unwarranted. Traditions
of Near Eastern (trade) connections could, possibly, be vaguely
remembered, and they could easily have become confused in later memory
with stories about a new dynasty. These in turn could be further
confused, in the Archaic period, by the desire to give a mythical precedent
to the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet. Or the presence of the seals
could be simply a coincidence. If, however, the Near Eastern connections
of the Second Palace could be roughly equated with "Cadmean" rule,
then the Second Palace could be "Cadmean," and the First, if it can be
distinguished from the Second, might be credited to an earlier series of
Theban rulers, perhaps those enshrined in legend as Amphion and
Zethus.
Another figure of this second stage should be Minyas, a shadowy
personage often credited with the founding or fortification of
Orchomenus.24 His genealogical links, variously with Orchomenus,
Phocis, Thessaly and Thebes, are all inconsistent; most of them seem to
be mythological reflections of post-Mycenaean political and cult
associations. Not much more can be said but that he seems a western
Boeotian figure, primarily of Orchomenus.
Athamas is another western Boeotian figure, though he is
occasionally called king of Boeotia25 or Thessaly.26 His legends have
much to do with cult practice and the providing of aetiological myths.
Hellanicus has him live in Orchomenus,27 while Hecataeus, who places
him in the Aeolid stemma, probably has him live in the Athamantian
plain of Thessaly,28 perhaps after being transferred from around
Acraephia.29 A passage in Pausanias (9.34.7) says that Athamas ruled an
area that included Laphystium, Coronea and Haliartus as a vassal of
Andreus of Orchomenus. The source for this is unknown. Athamas is the
founder and fortifier of Olmos on Helicon30 as well as of Acraephia.
The Hecataean construction seems to depend on cult and familial
links between Halos in Thessaly and western Boeotia, links that seem to
go back to Late Helladic times31 and reflect a Mycenaean (LH III B)
influx from Boeotia into Thessaly. If this is so, then Athamas was
originally a western Boeotian figure of some sort.
In the Pherecydan tradition, based on Asius and the like,32 several
of Athamas' sons are eponymous heroes or founders of various Boeotian
localities: Ptoos of Ptoon; Coronus of Coronea; Schoeneus of Schoenus;
Onchestus of Onchestus; Erythrus of Erythrae; and (in later sources)

Haliartus of Haliartus, Orchomenus of Orchomenus and Sphingius of
Mt. Sphinx.
Though Athamas, in late sources,33 is loosely connected with
Thebes through Ino, he is primarily a city-building and fortifying figure
of western Boeotia. It is worth emphasizing that most of his associations,
with the exception of Erythrae (if it is the one near Plataea), lie within
the area that may be posited on other grounds as under Orchomenian
influence in the Late Helladic period. The belief that Athamas was the
eponym of the Athamanes is probably the result of dubious
etymologizing.34 Athamas as the founder of Teos, as Pherecydes and his
followers report,35 means no more than that western Boeotian elements
took part in the original settlement.
The third stage, of still more localized heroes involved in warfare
rather than founding or fortifying, is represented by a large group of
figures, far too many for extensive analysis. A few, however, deserve a
closer examination.
Erginus is an obscure figure, but he is not associated with fortifying
or, on the mainland, with the founding of cities. He is always placed later
than Minyas. He fights the Thebans, and he rules the Minyans of
Orchomenus. Pherecydes36 tells how he slew the children of Oedipus,
Phrastor and Leonytus, presumably in some war between Thebes and
Orchomenus. The other sources, all late, associate Erginus with Heracles
rather than Oedipus. There are two principal prose versions, one best
seen in Apollodorus (Bibl. 2.4.1) and Diodorus (4.10.3-6),37 the other, a
more rationalistic retelling, available in Pausanias (9.37). It is claimed
that both utilize, ultimately, Theban sources known to Pindar.38 The
belief, found in other sources, mostly poetic, that Erginus was the son of
Poseidon39 is omitted in both versions in favour of his paternity from a
mortal, Clymenus, king of Orchomenus.40 Clymenus is mortally wounded
or killed at Onchestus, either at the hands of Perieres, charioteer of
Menoecius (Apollodorus), or at the hands of "men of Thebes"
(Pausanias). This leads to a war in which Erginus (Apollodorus) or
Erginus and his four brothers (Pausanias) defeat the Thebans and
impose a heavy annual tribute. Heracles, at some time or other, catches
the Minyan heralds who are coming to collect the tribute and sends them
home unpleasantly mutilated (in Diodorus, Apollodorus and in Pausanias
9.25.4). War ensues in which Erginus and the Minyans are defeated,
with Heracles aided by Athena (Apollodorus), or using arms borrowed
from various temples (Diodorus), or winning by tactical ability in night
attacks and by stealing horses (Pausanias). Erginus is killed, and
Orchomenus made tributary to Thebes (Apollodorus and Diodorus), or
Erginus survives but has to make a most expensive peace (Pausanias).

Pindar, in sending Erginus off with the Argonauts, presumably had him
survive the Theban-Orchomenian wars.
These two versions are obviously based on tendentious Theban
sources. One wonders what the Orchomenian version said. Did the
Pherecydan tradition perhaps reflect it? Erginus, it is clear, is associated
with Orchomenus, with Theban-Orchomenian fighting and with
Onchestus. He is a heroic figure, a member of the Orchomenian royal
house and sometimes an Orchomenian king. Except for Onchestus and
Orchomenus he appears to have no relationships of a political or cult
nature with any other localities of western Boeotia or the Copa c area.
He is sometimes called a Milesian hero,41 but this should mean no more
than that there was an Orchomenian element in the settlement of
Miletus.42
As one of the Orchomenian leaders in the fighting at the time of
Oedipus or of Heracles, Erginus is set well before the Trojan War. The
Orchomenians were successful at first, according to the versions we have,
but the Thebans did something decisive in the area around Onchestus.
The archaeological evidence of the LH III B fortification system
protecting Lake Copais, a defensive system that could only have had
Thebes in mind and that was obviously constructed by Orchomenus, may
have some link with the events dimly reflected in the legend of Erginus.
No doubt quarrels between Thebes and Orchomenus in the Archaic Age
played some part in the preservation and development of the legend, but
the origin is surely Mycenaean.423
Onchestus was the seat of a long-lived and important cult of
Poseidon. The fact that Erginus is sometimes called a son of Poseidon and
that his mortal father, Clymenus, was slain at Onchestus clearly indicates
some Orchomenian religious and cult association with Poseidon of
Onchestus, the precise nature of which must remain obscure.43 Onchestus
is also a strategic site, on the low hills separating the CopaYc basin from
the Teneric plain, looking down towards Haliartus. It is a most fitting
spot for border battles between the holders of the Teneric plain and those
of the Copa c basin. If one considers the distribution of Mycenaean
fortresses around Lake Copai's, it is clear that Onchestus is one point
where attacks from Thebes could be readily mounted, and where they
could, if successful, easily penetrate to the southeast end of Lake Copa s
and uncover Haliartus. It is unknown whether Onchestus had a
fortification in the Mycenaean Age or not, but it should have been
fortified if it was in the Orchomenian ambit.
The stories of the Hyantes being expelled from the area near
Onchestus by the Thebans, and being settled west of Orchomenus; of the
presence of chariots;44 of the deaths of one or two Orchomenian leaders;

and the memory of various battles around Onchestus and the western
edge of the Teneric plain; all these could well indicate a long series of
struggles in the area. It was a series of struggles in which Orchomenian
efforts to cover Haliartus were ultimately unsuccessful and control of
Onchestus was lost, even though Orchomenus still maintained some claim
to it, enshrined in cult.
It is quite clear that Erginus is a localized Orchomenian hero,
closely associated with Orchomenian-Theban fighting, that is, fighting
between Mycenaean states.
Oedipus is another example of this third group. He is linked with
fighting and with family feuds, not with founding or fortifying, and
primarily with Thebes. The association of Oedipus with Attica is
probably no more than the product "of a very natural desire to
claim . . . the bones of the great if unfortunate hero."45 The tie with
Corinth may owe something to Corinthian epic, or perhaps to a
Peloponnesion domination over eastern Boeotia in LH III B.46 Neither
case moves the scene of his principal efforts from Boeotia. He is set in the
midst of a tangled series of tales about dynastic quarrels in a distracted
Theban royal house.
It should be emphasized that Oedipus is in some sense an interloper
or supplanter legitimized by a royal marriage.463 As noted above,
Oedipus is credited with putting a curse on his sons in early sources, and
Homer (//. 23.676-80) has him die, apparently in combat. The motifs of
his blinding and his exile in poverty are later additions.
It has been argued by several authorities that Oedipus is ultimately
a folklore figure that was somehow annexed to saga. If this were so, then
a period remembered in tradition as full of warfare, dynastic quarrels,
and local destruction — and a good deal of confusion — would be a good
place to make the insertion. At any rate Oedipus is clearly to be
considered a local personage, deeply involved with quarrels and warfare
at Thebes. His sons, usually named Eteocles and Polyneices, also belong
to the third group. All traditions agree that the Thebans were ultimately
defeated by the Argives and their allies shortly before the Trojan War.
This story is generally supposed to contain some kernel of truth, namely
that an Argive expedition really did subdue, at the least, Thebes and
eastern Boeotia in Mycenaean times.47 There is also strong evidence of
Argive influence on the cults and myths of Boeotia, influence credited to
Mycenaean times.48 The Epigoni are commonly held to be doublets of the
Seven, though an early invention, since they appear in the Iliad
(4.403-10).49 They may simply have served as an early established
genealogical link between the Theban and Trojan Wars.
Some scholars have thought that the War of Oedipus' Sheep, the
War of the Seven, and the War of the Epigoni are in origin variant
retellings of one Great War, one that may or may not reflect one or more
actual conflicts.50 Others hold that the War of Oedipus' Sheep should be
distinguished from the Argive attack(s).51
Given the inferences from the archaeological evidence that
Orchomenus and Thebes were hostile, and from the cult and legendary
evidence that Thebes came under Argolic influence, one might be inclined
to distinguish the War of Oedipus' Sheep from the Argive conflicts, the
former being considered as an example of heavy fighting between
Orchomenian and Theban neighbours. Sheep-raiding, it should be noted,
is commonly a neighbourly pastime, since sheep are notoriously slow to
drive any distance. Of course, it is impossible to know whether
sheep-raiding played any part in this War, in spite of its name. A fight
over the flocks of Oedipus is curiously reminiscent of the rivalry between
Atreus and Thyestes over the golden rams of Mycenae.52 If, however,
one might couple the stories of Oedipus' death by violence with Hesiod's
brief mention of very heavy casualties in hard fighting, it would be
possible to consider this war as slightly earlier than the wars with the
Argives, an opinion one can see in existence as early as Hesiod (frg. 35
Rz) who notes that Oedipus' funeral was the occasion for a visit by
Argeia, daughter of Adrastus. The wars with the Argives led to the
subduing of at least eastern Boeotia under Argolic rule. After all,
Agamemnon, an Argolic king, ruling over Argives, did set out from Aulis.
The story that is found in several traditions telling of a Theban
defeat at Glisas, northeast of Thebes, at the hands of the Argives seems
strange, because Glisas lies off the direct route from Argos. Glisas,
however, does lie on an easy approach to Thebes from Attica, the one
followed today by the modern four-lane highway and the railway, as well
as anciently by invaders such as the Athenians at the times of Tanagara,
Oenophyta and Delium. One may conclude that an Argive force moved
through western and northern Attica, by-passed any Theban defences on
the direct route and debouched into the eastern sections of Boeotia.
An Argive conquest of Thebes would also mean that Heracles
should not be considered as a member of this third group. He is, as has
long been recognized, an Argolic figure, and it is often supposed that
Argolic colonists introduced his cult and legends to Boeotia.53 The
presence of the cult of Heracles at Orchomenus may indicate an eventual
defeat of Orchomenus as well as of Thebes by the Argives and some
occupation of this area. On the other hand, the cult could have spread
later, in the Dark Ages or in the Archaic period.
At any rate it is clear that the third stage is marked by localized
heroes, not founders, who were engaged in heavy fighting; that these are
thought to fall in time between the builders of fortifications, who are less
localized, and the Trojan War; that they are, to some extent, associated
with Argive or Argolic assaults as well as local quarrels; and that their
ancestries are obscure, as if they represent some genealogical breaks in
the ruling houses.54 One may surmise that all was not well in Mycenaean
Boeotia in the interval represented by this stage, even if some Argolic
monarch claimed pre-eminence.
Thebes, or Hypothebes, was believed to have remained settled while
under Argive rule. Though the traditions are not consistent in their view
of what happened to Thebes, except that it was something disastrous, all
the different stemmata indicate a measure of continuity, either through
Creon or through the branch of Thersander, son of Polyneices, and his
descendants. The Argive associations of the names of this branch, such as
Thersander, Tisamenus and Autesion, have often been noted.55 The
whole tale of the Cadmean exile, usually believed to have been
accomplished under the leadership of the Eteoclid branch of the royal
house, has rightly been regarded with great suspicion.56 The somewhat
discrepant versions about the continuity of settlement and of rule at
Thebes (or Hypothebes); the various destinations for the exiled
Cadmeans — Attica, Aetolia, Doris, Epirus, Thessaly or various
combinations of these; the hesitancy in identifying the Cadmeans with the
Boeotians;57 the lack of any consistent traditions concerning the fate of the
Eteoclid descendants; all these points support the belief that the exile and
return of the Cadmeans are the products of early poetry. Early poems
echo the Return of the Heraclids and reflect a desire to link later
immigrants and their ruling houses with earlier inhabitants. The
Cadmean exile, then, is in all likelihood pure fiction, the germ of which
may have been derived from anachronistic handling of traditions of the
migrations after the Trojan War, or, perhaps, from the vaguely
remembered Mycenaean expansion in Thessaly during LH III B.
Thersander, son of Polyneices, is thought of as coeval with the
leaders of the Trojan War, but he is killed off in the abortive first
expedition.58 Obviously something prevented his being included in the
Trojan War, but equally obviously it was thought good to have him die
overseas in some foray against Asia Minor. It may be that the weight of
the Mycenaean tradition embodied in such material as the Homeric
Catalogue prevented his inclusion in the Trojan War; but Greek tradition
clearly believed that the Trojan War was not the only expedition against
Asia Minor, a belief that some moderns think finds support in the Hittite
archives.59 It seems, therefore, more likely that Thersander was
remembered as being killed in Asia Minor at a time roughly
contemporary with the Trojan War, but not as a participant in it. The
best that could be done in associating him with the great expedition was
to eliminate him in the first try.
The fourth stage, that of the Trojan War, is found in all the
historical traditions and in nearly all the poetic sources. Nowadays it is
generally believed to have had an historical kernel in an archaeologically
attested destruction of Troy.60 The majority of scholars follow C. W.
Blegen in equating the end of Troy Vila with the legendary sack of the
city. Many agree with him in setting it about or "before the middle stage
of ceramic style [LH] III B."61 Some, however, consider this far too early
and date it close to the end of the period.62 Still others accept a late date
for Troy Vila, but regard Vlh as the one taken by the Greeks, thereby
combining a late Troy VIIa with a sack of Troy in the middle of LH III
B.63 The excavator's interpretation should be preferred unless other
cogent evidence renders a correction necessary. Most arguments to the
contrary are based on a priori theorizing or the rejection on no solid
evidence of the excavator's interpretation of his careful excavation.
Therefore Blegen's idea seems to be preferable. Troy VIIa, destroyed
around the middle of LH III B, should be the Troy remembered in
Greek legend and saga.64
The Boeotian contingent in the Catalogue (Il. 2.494f.) was led by
five men, Peneleus, Leitus, Arcesilaus, Prothoenor and Clonius. The
Orchomenians were under the command of Ascalaphus and lalmenus
(//. 2.511-515). Very little is known of these seven apart from what the
Iliad tells us. Professor Page, in reviewing the arguments for separate
composition of the Catalogue, has pointed out that the fair degree of
consistency between the Catalogue and the rest of the Iliad should mean
that "both ultimately have a common origin in poetry about the Trojan
War."65 Furthermore, the fact that these seven names, like that of the
equally obscure Menestheus of Athens, could not be replaced by other,
more significant, characters, should mean that they are part of a
continuous tradition from Mycenaean times.66
Peneleus is associated in later sources rather loosely, as we shall see,
with the Theban royal houses.67 Leitus, son of Alectryon (//. 17.601), is
later given a grave at Plataea68 and is considered one of the few survivors
of the Trojan expedition. Clonius is made Leitus' brother is one
tradition,69 but in another he is made son of Alegenor,70 a personage
associated with the Asopus valley. Arcesilaus had a monument at
Lebadea71 and was regarded as the brother of Prothoenor, 72 who is called
in the Iliad (14.451) son of Areilycus, and who is credited with coming
from Midea. Ascalaphus and lalmenus are sons of Ares. The god is much
grieved at the death of Ascalaphus.73 Thus two or three later and variant
traditions had two leaders from eastern Boeotia, two from western, two
from Orchomenus, and only one from the Theban area. Since Thebes
was supposed to be in eclipse about this time, this distribution could be a
reflection of late Mycenaean realities in Boeotia.
The grouping of Leitus and Clonius and of Arcesilaus and
Prothoenor as brothers is probably early tradition, 74 like the combination
of lalmenus and Ascalaphus, not to mention Ajax and Teucer or
Agamemnon and Menelaus. This grouping may be a reflection of the
alleged Mycenaean double executive, or of the Mycenaean cult of twins,
as noted above, or of both.75 In the case of Peneleus he is in one
tradition76 killed at Troy, while in another he returns home. Probably the
Mycenaean tradition did not tell of his ultimate fate.
The name "Boeotian" in the Catalogue has caused trouble to
commentators from Thucydides (1.12.3) on, but it may mean no more
than that the Catalogue took final form after the immigration of the
Boeotians.77 On the other hand the fairly careful avoidance of most
anachronisms, such as the reference to Hypothebes (//. 2.505), the listing
of sites the locations of which were unknown in post-Mycenaean times,
or that were abandoned at the end of LH III B for centuries, shows a
great attention to Mycenaean detail. The Catalogue has often been
thought a Boeotian composition.78
The Little Catalogue in the Iliad (13.685-700) gives a somewhat
different, though doubtless equally Mycenaean, picture. Boeotians,
lonians, Locrians, Phthians, Epeians and Athenians march together to
defend the ships, with various commanders listed. Menestheus leads the
Athenians, with three obscure officers as "followers."79 Meges, who in the
Great Catalogue (2.627) commands the Doulichians and Western
Islanders, here leads the Epeians with two worthies not mentioned
elsewhere in the Iliad.80 The four commanders of the Epeians in the
Great Catalogue81 make no appearance here. In the Little Catalogue
Medon and Podarces lead the Phthians. In the Great Catalogue Medon
takes over the Thessalian contingent of Philoctetes (2.727), and Podarces
is the substitute commander for Protesilaus of central Thessaly (2.704).
Phthians are not mentioned elsewhere in the Iliad than in this Little
Catalogue, and neither are the lonians. The land of Phthia in the Great
Catalogue is part of the realm of Achilles (or rather of Peleus), and is
inhabited by Myrmidons (2.683). The Lesser Ajax is the leader of the
Locrians, but what we have of the Little Catalogue names no
commanders for the Boeotians or lonians.
Both Catalogues have elements in common. Medon in both is the
bastard half-brother of Lesser Ajax and is in exile. Meges in both is the
son of Phyleus, and Podarces is the son of Iphiclus, son of Phylacides.
Menestheus, son of Petheus, is the Athenian leader. But in the Little

Catalogue Medon and Podarces lead a national contingent, albeit one
from Thessaly, the Phthians, as full commanders, not substitutes for
others. Meges leads Epeians instead of an amorphous group from an area
all entangled with the kingdom of Odysseus. In the Little Catalogue
Mycenaean elements are combined in a manner different from that in
Book 2.
The listing of commanders in the Little Catalogue is, as far as it
goes, in reverse order from the list of peoples: Boeotians, lonians,
Locrians, Phthians, Epeians, Athenians with commanders going
Athenian, Epeian, Phthian and Locrian. One may conclude that this is a
fragment of a slightly longer, carefully composed list, with most if not all
of the contingents coming from Central Greece and Thessaly: Athenians
from Attica, Locrians from Locris and Phthians from Phthiotis. There is
a strong case for the belief that the Epeians were at home in later Aetolia
before their arrival in Elis.82 The lonians have often been credited with
occupying at least sections of Boeotia.83 The Phthians and Boeotians are
coupled near the end of the Little Catalogue (//. 13.699) but being
mentioned in the Little Catalogue need not imply the location of the
Boiotoi in Boeotia. Their location in Thessaly to the west of Phthiotis,
and in the neighbourhood of the Malian Gulf, that is, the southern part
of their traditional Thessalian homeland, would satisfy requirements
suitably.
It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conjecture that we have in the
Little Catalogue a scrap of information giving a fairly early
pre-migration list of tribes from Central Greece, with Epeians occupying
land north of the Corinthian Gulf and Boeotians still living in Thessaly.
It should, therefore, be considered as antecedent to the finished form of
the Great Catalogue. Whether the Little Catalogue originally referred to
some incident other than the Trojan War or is a portion of an alternative
version of the Catalogue is impossible to know. The latter seems more
probable because of the number of Trojan War heroes present.
From the Iliad and the fragments of the Epic Cycle, emerges a
general picture of the combined Myceneaen efforts under Argolic
leadership and authority, principally against Troy, but with hints about
attacks against other sections of the coast of Asia Minor and against lands
further east. The Trojan expedition was remembered as ultimately
successful, though extravagant in casualties, a Cadmean victory, so to
speak. Doubtless its casualty list suffered accretions in the retelling.
Other overseas expeditions seem to have involved heavy losses also, as far
as we can tell. The tantalizing scraps of Hittite information about the
Ahhiyawa, if they refer to the Mycenaean Greeks, do not seem to
contradict the general impression of a low rate of success for the invaders
or raiders of Asia Minor.
A series of expensive and not too successful overseas forays should, a
priori, have had repercussions in the Greek homeland. The Greek
legends of the Nostoi indicate that such was the case. The returning
heroes faced destruction at the hands of gods, family or people; expulsions
by new governments; palace revolts; popular unrest; or at best a
successful return followed by a sullen acceptance of them on the part of
the people.
There is very little evidence of this from Boeotia, but one or two
incidents indicate a resemblance to the usual pattern. The few returning
heroes, Leitus and perhaps Peneleus and lalmenus, lapse into obscurity.
Peneleus, if he returned, seems to have suffered exile,84 as apparently did
lalmenus. Regencies seem to abound, a sign of some difficulties with the
traditions; and some dynastic disturbances are traceable at Orchomenus,
with the Minyads replaced at a time about contemporaneous with the
Trojan War.
The replacing of the Labdacids at Thebes is set, in one tradition,
two generations after the Trojan War:85 Autesion, son of Tisamenus, son
of Thersander, was replaced by Damasichthon, son of Opheltas, son of
Peneleus.86 Thucydides' Boeotian invasion sixty years after the Trojan
War probably rests on this and other similar equations. It seems
reasonable to believe that some Boiotoi justified their invasion of Boeotia
by claiming family links with their predecessors.
The fifth stage, of disasters and shifts of population, is observable in
all traditions. Its beginning is placed, in the Hecataean and Hellanican
traditions, shortly after the Trojan War, in the Pherecydan tradition
during the War. It consists of invasions and expulsions by fierce
attackers, variously named Phlegyians, Pelasgi, or Thracians. Since
Phlegyians are sometimes held to be a Thracian stock87 and the
Thracians a Pelasgian people, the meaning is probably much the same:
that linked in time with the Trojan War, at the most within a couple of
generations, there was an invasion of northern tribes, with a large
Thracian component.
The presence in Classical Greece of Thracian cults and divinities or
Thracian traces in various cults,88 notably in Boeotia and Arcadia, and of
Thracian place-names, notably in Malis, Attica, Euboea and Arcadia,89
is susceptible of a simple explanation: the presence of Thracians.
Furthermore, the memory survived of fights with invading Thracians,
fights in Phocis, Boeotia, western Attica and Megara90 at times close to
the Trojan War. It seems reasonable to conclude that, after the Trojan
Wars, a Thracian incursion broke into Greece, and heavily defeated the
defenders at least in Phocis, Boeotia and Attica; it may even have broken
into the Peloponnese. Many of the survivors fled: from Orchomenus
Minyans made their way to Munychia and Thoricus and thence overseas;
and from Thebes and other Boeotian towns other refugees eventually
made their way to Asia Minor. The traditions make it clear that while
many used Attica as a staging area, many others emigrated from such
Boeotian ports as Aulis.91 The Thracians were believed to have
maintained their grip for a time on Phocis and western Boeotia at the
least, until the coming of the Boeotians broke their power.
As the above analysis indicates, something may be obtainable in
broad outline from our sources, something that matches the
archaeological evidence.
Roughly speaking, stage one might correspond to LH I, LH II and
perhaps the early phase of LH III Al, when a uniform and expanding
vigorous culture is observable over Greece; stage two corresponds to LH
III A2 and early LH III B, when palaces became walled; stage three
corresponds to LH III B, when there is clear evidence that all was not
well in Greece and some disturbances are noted, notably at Thebes and
Mycenae; stage four relates to late LH III B; and stage five points to the
great collapse at the end of LH III B and the events of LH III Cl.
It may be argued that the traditions reflect, very vaguely, a genuine
historical sequence, but the incidents, personages, and particular times for
each are so distorted and exaggerated that nothing much beyond a
blurred outline can be obtained. The historicity of any individual or any
action cannot in any way be confirmed from the three traditions. Myth,
fantasy and mythical motives have largely swamped whatever historical
events the traditions claim to relate.
Notes
1. Thumb-Scherer, Gr. Dial., 19; Schwyzer, Gr. Gr., 486; Wilamowitz, Eur.
Her. 1, 6 n. 4. See also Fimmen, NJb 29 (1912) 539; Kretschmer, Glotta 1
(1909) 9; C.D. Buck, CP2\ (1926) 23.
2. Cf. Menelaus of Aegae, FGrH 384 Fl. For later use see Nonnus, Dionys. 5.35
and Lycophron, Alex. 644.
3. Bechtel, Gr. Dial. 2,241.
4. Arrian, quoting Aristotle, FGrH 156 F 68 bis.
5. Schwyzer, Gr. Gr., 526.
6. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1242; cf. Hanell, Megansche Studien, 63.
7. Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19.
8. Apollodorus, FGrH 244 F205.
9. Lycus, FGrH 380 F3; Lysimachus, FGrH 382 Fl.
10. Aeschylus, Pers. 975; Antiochus, FGrH 333 F3; Charax, FGrH 103 F30;
Thalius, FGrH 256 F2.
IT. Paus. 9.5.1; Lysimachus, FGrH 382 Fl; Lycus, FGrH 380 F3.
12. Aristodemus, FGrH 383 F4 and see Corinna 3.551, 31 Bergk.
13. Paus. 9.33.4.
14. Castor in Eusebius, FGrH 250 F3; Oros. 1.7.3, cf. Paus. 1.38.7.
15. FGrH 328 F92. But see Jacoby's long note ad loc., esp. pp. 385-88, where he
rejects Ogygus and then a 189-year gap before Cecrops as interpolations.
Ogygus could be at best only a local king in his opinion.
16. Cauer in RE 3 (1894) s.v. "Boiotia," 641. Gommt,JHS 33 (1913) 67.
17. Athens and Eleusis in Boeotia, Paus. 9.24.2, Str. 9.2.18, St. Byz. s.v. 'A va,
Pliny N.H. 2.206; Thespius as son of Erechtheus, Diod. 4.29, as grandson
of Pandion, Paus. 9.26.6; Potniae, Paus. 9.8.1; Delium, Hdt. 6.11.8;
Onchestus, cf. Kirsten, RE 35 (1939), s.v.h., 414; Cecrops at Haliartus,
Paus. 9.33.1. It is often supposed that the shrine was established when the
Athenians occupied Haliartus in the first century B.C. Stephanephoria,
Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F3; Procris d. of Erechtheus, Pherecydes, FGrH 3
F34.
18. See, e.g., H.J. Rose, Handbook of Greek Mythology 5 (London, 1964) 288,
under "Rea Silvia."
19. Preller, Gr. Myth, s.v.; Vian, Ongines, 69-76.
20. K. Latte, RE 10 (1919) s.v. "Kadmos," 1461f., 1466; Wilamowitz, Horn.
Untersuch., 39; Gomme, JHS 33 (1913) 53-72, 223-45.
21. Sir John Myres wrote about the heroic dynasties and their genealogies long
ago in a book that still repays study, Who Were the Greeks? (Berkeley,
1930). Cf. Cloche, 15, who regards C. as a faded god or genius and Vian,
Origines, 68.
22. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, 217f. and n. 12; Vermeule,
Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago, 1964) 189, 341.
23. Schuhl, RPh (1967) 470-78, reviews three possible Near Eastern derivations
of the word Kadmos: "the Levantine;" "the Ancient;" and "Kidin-Marduk"
mentioned in one of the cylinder seals.
24. See Fisher RE 30 (1932) s.v. "Minyas" 2014-18 and Vian, Hommages
Dumezil, 215-24, for references. Hellanicus apparently did not see him as
either founder or fortifier.
25. Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.80; Schol. Plato Mm. 315C.
26. Hyginus, Fab. 14.
27. FGrH 4 F126; Schol. A.R. 2.1153 and 1-763.
28. FGrH 1 F17 and comm. p. 323; cf. Hdt. 7.197.
29. Cf. Str. 9.24.1, Steph. Byz. s.v. "A*pm0ia and Paus. 9.24.1.
30. Schol.//. 2.511.
31. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 133-40.
32. FGrH 3 F98; see also Herodorus, FGrH 31 F38.
33. King of Thebes in Schol. //. 7.86, and he fights the Seven.
34. Nilsson, Myc. Orig., 133; but see Sakellariou, La Migration grecque en lome
(Athens, 1958) 177 for a vigorous rebuttal. But S's arguments show only
that it may be linguistically possible to associate Athamas and the
Athamanes, not that anything necessitates this connection.
35. FGrH 3 F102; Steph. Byz. s.v. Teos; Str. 14.1.3; Paus. 7.3.6. There seem to be
two disparate traditions here, so probably Hecataeus also regarded A. as the

founder of Teos. See Sakellariou, op. cit. n. supra, 174-85.
36. FGrH 3 F95.
37. Probably from Matris of Thebes, FGrH 39 and comm. ad loc.
38. Cf. Ol. 4.32.
39. Ap. Rhod. 1.185, 2.896; Val. Flac. 1.145; Ps.-Orph. Arg. 150; Hyg. Fab. 14;
Schol. Find. Pyth. 4.61.
40. Cf. also Find. Ol. 4.32; Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.185; Hyg. Fab. 14 Clymenus is
known to Hesiod, frg. 277 Rz. who calls him son of Orchomenus. Pausanias
makes him son of Presbon, in a different branch of the royal House.
41. Ap. Rhod. 1.186; Ps.-Orph. Arg. 152-54; Hyg. Fab. 14.
42. Sakellariou, La Migration grecque, 72f.
42a. Cloche, 21f., sees the legends as creations of the seventh century B.C. No
doubt they were embellished and refurbished in the Archaic Age, but they
do fit the Mycenaean Age and are of Mycenaean origin.
43. Bethe, RE 11 (1907) s.v. "Erginos," 433, argues for an identity of Poseidon
and Clymenus. Perhaps some ceremony symbolically linking Onchestus and
Orchomenus by the filiation of an Orchomenian hero to Poseidon formed
part of the ceremonies, or some rite of supplanting took place there.
44. Paus. 9.26.1, to explain the presence of the shrine of Heracles Hippodetes at
the western end of the Teneric plain. But see below p. 93f.
45. Rose, Handbook, 189.
46. For the theory of Peloponnesian, specifically Argive, domination see A.
Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 1-10, and further below.
46a. Schol. Laur. Soph. Oed. Col. 1375 says that Oedipus was of "thoroughly
lowly birth." Where the scholiast got his information is unknown.
47. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 102-5 and esp. 107; Cloche 14f.; F.H. Stubbings,
CAH2 II, ch. 14, 28 (sep. fasc.), puts the war back in LH II.
48. A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 1-10.
49. See Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 120 for several references; see also A.
Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 1 and note 3.
50. Nilsson, op. cit. n. supra, 109, for example.
51. As does Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 190, for example.
52. Apollod. Epit. 11-12; Seneca, Thyestes 224fT.
53. A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 5f.
54. Sir John Myres, Who Were the Greeks?, 308-12, noted that breaks occur in
the genealogies of the great ruling families throughout Mycenaean Greece a
couple of generations before the Trojan War.
55. By e.g., Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967) 4f.
56. Ibid.; R.J. Buck, CP63 (1968) 269.
57. The earliest express identification I can find is in Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19,
from Strabo 9.2.2.
58. Cypna, p. 104 Allen; Apollod. Epit. 3.17; Paus. 9.5.14; Diet. 1.14, 2.2.
59. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (Belfast, 1960) esp. 1-23; R.J. Buck, Histona
18 (1969) 286; and Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley, 1959)
passim.
60. R. Carpenter, Folktale, Fiction and Saga (Berkeley, 1948) has his doubts
about any equations of destructions of Hissarlik with the Trojan War,
basically following Bethe (Homer I-III) and Wilamowitz SDAW, 1925,

241. Several others hesitate to equate legend and archaeology, but the great
majority do consider one of the levels of Hissarlik to be Homer's Troy. See
the group of articles in JHS 86 (1964) on the historicity of the Trojan War.
61. Blegen, The Mycenaean Age (Cincinnati, 1962) 15; cf. Troy, IV, 12; CAH2,
Troy, 14 (sep. fasc.)
62. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, 215f., and Hesperia 33 (1964)
352-80, argues for the end of LH III B for the destruction of Troy Vila.
Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 274-87, dates Troy Vila to LH III C
and the war to a brief period of recovery after the devastations at the end of
LH III B.
63. C. Nylander, Antiquity 37 (1963) 6-11 and O. Broneer, Hesperia 36 (1966)
361 f.
64. The idea that legends attached themselves to Troy no doubt has merit, but to
argue from this that the Trojan cycle is therefore not to be associated with
Troy smacks of perverseness. Cf. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 6-10; Page,
History and the Homeric Iliad, 218-96.
65. History and the Homeric Iliad, 136.
66. Ibid., 145-47.
67. Paus. 9.5.15. Cf. W st, RE 37 (1937) s.v. "Peneleos" 459f. Perhaps this stems
from the Little Iliad and reaches the later sources by way of Hellanicus.
68. Paus. 9.4.3.
69. Hyginus, Fab. 97, to be associated with Apollod. 3.130 and 1.113 as a group.
70. Diod. 4.67, Schol. BL to 2.494.
71. Paus. 9.39.3.
72. In two or three variant traditions: as sons of Areilycus (father of Prothoenor in
Il. 14.451) in Schol. BL to 2.494; as sons of Archilycus in Diod. 4.67; as
sons of Lycus in Hyg. Fab. 97.
73. Il. 15.110-18.
74. The Diodoran tradition seems to be a late schematization that owes something
to Hecataeus and his followers. It is not of much account.
75. The twin divinity seems to be common in Mycenaean-based cult. From
Boeotia alone come Amphion and Zethus, Trophonius and Agamedes,
Leucippus and Ephippus, and Prometheus and Aetnaeus as cult figures.
76. Probably from the Little Iliad, see W st, I.e.
77. H.H.I., 152.
78. Ibid.
79. 13.691, Pheidas, Stichios and Bias. Pheidas and Bias appear only here.
Stichios helps Menestheus rescue the corpse of Amphimachus (13.195) and
later gets killed (15.329), earning a posthumous mention as the hetairos of
Menestheus.
80. Amphion and Drakios.
81. 2.620f. Amphimachus, presumably the same one killed in 13.195, whose
corpse is rescued by Menestheus and Stichios, Thalpius, Diores and
Polyxeinus; Thalpius and Polyxeinus appear only in the Great Catalogue.
82. Paus. 5.1.3, and cf. Wilamowitz SDAW 69 (1906) 71-73.
83. R.J. Buck, CP 63 (1968) 276 and note 63 for references.
84. At least this gives an explanation for his son's leadership of the invading
Boeotians who captured Chaeronea.
85. See Gomme, Comm. 1. 117 ad Thuc. 1.12.3 for a good discussion. For the
variant tradition see below, p. 000.
86. Paus. 9.5.15f. ultimately from Hellanicus.
87. See R.J. Buck Historia 18 (1969) 291 and note 83.
88. M.P. Nilsson, Gr. Rel. 12, 534; R. Carpenter, Folk Tale, 117, 119-30.
89. S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (Oxford, 1926) 102-4.
90. See, e.g., Zenob. 4.37; Polyaen. 7.43; Strabo 9.2.4, 10.3.17; Hellanicus FGrll
323aF5(b); Paus. 1.41.8.
91. Cf. Ephorus FGrH 70 F119.3.
5. The Coming of the Boiotoi
The word that the Boeotians used for themselves, Boiotoi, is a Greek
tribal name of a well-known type and is the form from which the
toponym Boeotia was later created.1 Its derivation is unknown. The
ancient Greek etymologies that connect it with cattle, notably the /3oDs
K ov, or credit it to an eponymous ancestor, Boeotus, are only a little
more unlikely than the modern attempts to derive it from Mt. Boion in
Epirus.2
All traditions agree that the Boiotoi lived in Thessaly, especially in
the area around Arne, though some may have gone to the Pagasitic Gulf
before migrating to the land later termed Boeotia.3 The location of Arne
is unknown, though sometimes it is equated with Cierium in Central
Thessaly.33 The presence in Classical times in Boeotia of cults and
place-names of Thessalian origin, such as Itonia and Itonian Athena,
Homole and Homoloian Zeus, Alalcomenae, Corseia and Pharae,
confirm for most scholars the merits of these traditions.4 It is, therefore,
generally believed that the Boiotoi originated in Thessaly and lived there
as a distinct ethnos, in Phthiotis or in Thessaliotis, before they migrated
to Boeotia, no doubt taking elements with them from other parts of
Thessaly.5
Various traditions say that the Boiotoi were a combination of the
natives of the area around Arne with some immigrants, often claimed to
be Cadmeans,6 although other stocks are indicated.7 The Cadmeans are
nowadays generally rejected as a late creation, an echo of the return of
the Heraclids.8 The evidence from modern studies of dialect, however,
does suggest that something may lie behind the tradition of fusion. The
Map 5. The Entry of the Boiotoi

76 The Coming of the Boiotoi
dialect of the Boeotians in Classical times shows both East Greek and
West Greek characteristics, mostly Aeolic and Northwest Greek.
Elsewhere I have argued that the Boeotian dialect evolved in Thessaly
before the emigration of the Boiotoi, as a transitional dialect.9 The
traditions, then, would reflect the memory of the original location of the
Boiotoi in a march area exposed to both Aeolic and Northwest Greek
influences.
The archaeological remains show that the eastern coast of Thessaly
had been part of the mainland cultural koine from Middle Helladic
times, and that it continued to be so until the breakdown at the end of
LH III B.10 An expansion of Mycenaean culture occurred in LH III B,
but gradually faded out in the western reaches. The western section of
Thessaly, like Eurytania and Epirus, seems to have lain outside the
Mycenaean orbit during Late Helladic times and seems to have possessed
a somewhat different culture. As far as can be ascertained on the very
limited evidence available, it was a continuation of a rather
poverty-stricken Middle Helladic type, the people of which continued to
use simple wares of Middle Helladic design and to bury their dead in cist
graves.11 Central Thessaly12 lay on the periphery of Mycenaean
civilization and was a march area. One may infer, then, that the
homeland of the Boiotoi, though within the orbit of Mycenaean culture,
was on the outer limits, and that they, though superficially Mycenaean,
were borderers, a conclusion that agrees with the linguistic evidence.
The Boiotoi lived around Arne, that is, somewhere in central
Thessaly, for a considerable time; a span of several centuries would be
consistent with the linguistic and the archaeological evidence. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude that the Boeotians who occur in the
Homeric and other material about the Trojan War were, if the material
goes back to Mycenaean times, originally conceived of as the Boiotoi of
Thessaly. If the modern critics are right in arguing for a substantially
Mycenaean origin for the story of the Trojan expedition; if, as seems
likely, the Boiotoi moved to Boeotia after the Trojan War; then, as has
been argued above, the references to Boeotians, as in Iliad 13.685ff., the
Little Catalogue, should originally have assumed a Thessalian homeland
for them. The Great Catalogue of Book 2 with its Boeotians in Boeotia
should be a modification of Mycenaean traditions made in
post-Mycenaean times to conform to post-Mycenaean realities. The
of Thucydides (1.12) is the product of still later attempts to
square the Catalogue with common traditions.
Though one source says it was by the Thracians,12a all the others
agree that the Boiotoi were expelled some time after the Trojan War by
the Thessalians; that the latter had come over Pindus from Epirus; and
The Coming of the Boiotoi 77
that something crucial happened two generations after the War. They
disagreed about what it was precisely.
One tradition says that the Boiotoi were expelled by the Thessalians
who were led by Thessalus, son of Aiatus, son of Pheidippus, son of
another Thessalus.13 Pheidippus appears in the Catalogue
(Iliad 2.676-79) as one of the commanders of the force from Cos and
Carpathus. He was thought to have been driven to Epirus after the war
and to have settled at Ephyra in the Thesprotid.14 Hence the Boiotoi were
expelled two generations after the Trojan War. Hellanicus is probably
the source of this tradition, and the source of Thucydides' "sixtieth year,"
that is, two generations of thirty years.15
A second tradition puts the expulsion of the Boiotoi in the reign of
Aiatus, one generation after the War.16 To this should also belong the
story in Plutarch (cim. 1), which tells how Opheltas king of the Boiotoi
took Chaeronea "by force from the barbarians." Opheltas is the son of
Peneleus, one of the leaders of the Boeotian contingent in the
Catalogue,17 and living one generation after the War. It is not until the
reign of Damasichthon, son of Opheltas, that control of Thebes was
gained by the Boiotoi.19 Hence in this tradition one generation after the
War, the Boiotoi were expelled and western Boeotia was invaded; two
generations after the War, Thebes was won.
Not surprisingly a third tradition combines the other two: the two
generations until the expulsion from Thessaly after the War and the two
generations until Thebes is gained give the four generations cited by
Hieronymus (Diod. 19.53) in his tale of the Cadmean return to Thebes
after the War.
The entry-point to Boeotia seems to be put in the same general area.
The second tradition gives Chaeronea as the first place attacked,19 while
the first says that Coronea and Orchomenus were captured virtually
simultaneously20 and then the sanctuary of Itonian Athena was founded.
It is clear that both traditions envisaged the Boiotoi as following a
well-known invasion route from Thessaly, the one via Thermopylae and
Hyampolis to Chaeronea, where the invaders would be poised to attack
both Orchomenus and Coronea.21
Having gained control of Chaeronea, Orchomenus and Coronea,
and their territories, the Boiotoi seem to have paused to digest western
Boeotia; the generation or two before Thebes was captured marks this
pause in all traditions. The siting close to Coronea of the sanctuary of
Itonian Athena, and the celebration of the Pamboeotia there,22 together
with the renaming of rivers and other toponyms,23 and the sanctity
attached to the neighbouring settlement of Alalcomenae,24 all strengthen
the belief that this western section was the area where the first Boeotian
settlement took place, and where Boeotian institutions were first

established in the new homeland. These sites and toponyms also imply
that this area was the Boeotian centre long enough for the religious sites
to become so sanctified as not to be easily moved, at a time when Thebes
played no part.25 It is likely that the traditional one or two generations
are a considerable underestimate of the actual length of stay in western
Boeotia before proceeding eastward.
The advance eastward eventually proceeded both to the north and to
the south of Copai's. On the north side it ultimately reached Anthedon, a
town credited with once having been occupied by the Thracians.26 On the
south side it came as far as Thebes and Thespiae. In Thebes, according to
one version, Damasichthon took the rule from Autesion, son of
Tisamenus, son of Thersander, another stemma that puts the Boeotians
in Thebes two generations after the Trojan War.27 The tradition
intimates that there was a peaceful take-over, with Autesion joining the
Dorians. There must have been another pause for some time. The next
advance, into the Asopus valley, was led by Xanthus, son of Ptolemy, son
of Damasichthon, that is, two generations after the gaining of Thebes.28
The Thebans remembered, according to Thucydides (3.61), that the
Asopus valley and Plataea were reduced later than the rest of Boeotia and
were occupied in accordance with an agreed plan.
The Boeotian advance was apparently stalled on what became the
Athenian-Boeotian frontier, by the efforts of local forces, if the legend of
Xanthus and Melanthus has any historical significance.29 In any event
the death of Xanthus symbolized traditionally the completion of the
conquest of Boeotia under the kings and the consequent immediate
extinction of the kingship. In fact the reduction of Plataea, Tanagra and
the Asopus valley in general must have been a long, drawn-out process,
done piecemeal. Even in the fifth century there were still patches of
no-man's land between Attica and Boeotia,30 and districts of which the
juridical status remained uncertain.31 Most of these, if not all, spoke a
non-Attic, but Ionic dialect, that of Oropus being the best known and the
most thoroughly analyzed.
The fate of the earlier, non-Boeotian inhabitants is traceable, at least
in broad outline. Ephorus 32 says that the invading Boiotoi had to defeat
three peoples in a series of battles, the Thracians,33 the Hyantes and the
Pelasgians. This version is clearly a composite one, with the Thracians from
Hellanicus', the Hyantes from Hecataeus' and the Pelasgians probably
from Pherecydes' tradition.34 It is, incidentally, possible to note another type
of material used by Hellanicus in addition to poetry, that of aetiology. The
presence of Thracians is the aition for the peculiarities of several cults on
Helicon and Parnassus, probably correctly.35
The Boeotians, then, met and defeated some Thracian groups in

western Boeotia and north of Copais, driving them up into Helicon and
Parnassus.36 One battle was fought near Chaeronea. The Hyantes of
Hecataeus provide for him the origin for the name of Hyampolis, just as
the Abantes may do for Abae; but it is actually a reasonable hypothesis
that some survivors of previous disasters had made their way to the hill
country under Thracian pressure and stayed there under Boeotian
pressure, nursing their traditions.
The Pelasgians may have been considered by Pherecydes to be a
tribe of Barbarian invaders, but this was a view not shared by others.
To Herodotus (1.57), Thucydides (1.3.2) and probably Hecataeus the
Pelasgians were barbarian in speech (whatever that may mean) but
aboriginal. This explains why the Arcadians,37 the inhabitants of
Achaea,38 and the lonians as well as the Athenians were thought to be
Pelasgians. The presence of the Pelasgians in Boeotia should represent in
some traditions the original inhabitants, many, if not most, of whom were
expelled to Athens. The confused story in Herodotus (6.137) about the
expulsion of some (non-Athenian) Pelasgians from Athens may be a dim
memory of the forwarding of refugees, closely akin to the Athenians in
speech and custom, to the Ionian colonies.
There are straightforward stories about the driving out of the
Abantes from western Boeotia to Euboea39 and of the Gephyraioi from
eastern Boeotia to Attica40. There are, in addition, several curious but
vague links between Boeotia and Euboea, many of which deal with
colonizings and the struggle with the Boeotians. Eleutheris (sic) was the
foundation (or birthplace) of Kothos and Aiklos,41 who are commonly
held to be the founders of Eretria, Cerinthus and sometimes Chalcis.42
Eretria was once called Melaneis, a name reminiscent of Melainai,
Melaneus, and Melanthus, all associated with the Asopus valley.43
Narkissos, son of Eretrieus, eponym of Eretria, had a tomb near
Oropus.44 Chalkis, the eponym, is related to Asopus and Melaneus45 as is
Kerkyra, eponym of the island Kerkyra (once a Chalcidian colony).46
Ellops, eponym of the Ellopes who lived in Euboea, is called a son of Ion
and brother of Kothos and Aiklos,47 and the Ellopes are sometimes
derived from western Boeotia.48 All in all one can make a fairly strong
argument for the settlement in Euboea as well as in Attica of substantial
bodies of earlier inhabitants expelled by the Boiotoi.
Furthermore, numerous traditions claim that elements in the bodies
that founded various Aeolian and Ionian colonies came from various
Boeotian districts.49 Some of the traditions, notably those telling of the
emigration to Aeolis via Aulis as well as overland, perhaps indicate some
direct migration to Asia Minor by some Boiotoi as well as their

predecessors.50 Many of the traditions, however, claim that Athens was
the staging area for their groups. All this indicates a very confused
situation, one reflecting reality.
Some, however, stayed in Boeotia. The Thracians, driven into the
hills, survived as a stock long enough to leave cult traces, but were
ultimately absorbed into the Boeotians. A somewhat more rapid
integration of the Boiotoi and the previous inhabitants may have taken
place at Thespiae, if Wilamowitz is right in considering that the story of
the exploits of Heracles amongst the daughters of Thespius indicates
intermarriage and the preservation of the land by the old families. 51 In
eastern Boeotia the distinction between the Thebaioi and the Thebageneis
shows that some of the older inhabitants remained in some way
segregated from, and in a status subordinate to, the newcomers;52 these
distinctions were still felt in the fifth century. 53 The contemptuous
remarks of the Thebans at Plataea about "mixed populations" may lead
one to infer that the lot of the "mixed" stocks left was not a happy one,
though not comparable to that of the helots or penestae. There is no
evidence for any enslaving of the previous inhabitants; at the worst they
were perioecic.
From the traditions it may be concluded that after conquering
western Boeotia and defeating Thracian tribes the invading Boiotoi
slowly extended their authority over the rest of Boeotia. In some cases
they may have coalesced with the survivors of the previous inhabitants;
these were probably speakers of a dialect ancestral to Ionic; while in other
cases the Boiotoi reduced the natives to a subordinate, perioecic status. In
most areas, however, they expelled their predecessors to Euboea and
Attica or perhaps overseas, but in a few localities a semblance of
independence was maintained for some time by speakers of what later
developed into an Ionic dialect.
The traditional dates of 1124 for entry into Boeotia and 1064 for
the death of Xanthus are not too helpful. The archaeological evidence is
limited and sparse. In Thessaly invaders from Epirus left their pottery in
a few locations, notably Hexalophos on the western marches. These pots
are datable to the second half of the twelfth century. 54 From Attica signs
of an influx from Boeotia have been observed, to be dated to the later part
of the twelfth century B.C.55 On the other hand by the middle of the
tenth century links with Euboea and Attica can be observed in Boeotian
pottery;56 the Athenian influence is so strong that an immigration from
Athens to Orchomenus has been posited.57 Things have clearly settled
down. The careful study of settlements, ceramic remains and population
patterns recently completed by Professor Fossey,58 shows the following
distribution of pottery in Boeotia: sites with LH III C remains, fourteen;

with sub-Mycenaean remains, five; with Protogeometric remains, seven;
with Geometric remains, thirty-one, with only a few (six to eight)
showing Early Geometric pottery. It forms a strikingly regular curve,
reaching its nadir in sub-Mycenaean times. If it reflects population
trends, then the low point was reached in sub-Mycenaean times, roughly
contemporaneous with the entry of the Boiotoi and the extensive
emigration of the surviving inhabitants. There was then a slow recovery,
which did not begin to bring population back to anything like Bronze Age
levels until Middle Geometric, about 850-800 B.C.
It may be, of course, that larger communities were preferred in
sub-Mycenaean and Early Geometric times; or that the pottery types and
fashions were radiating out from another centre and that Boeotia lay on
the periphery. But the pattern does correspond to what other evidence we
possess of a very gradual Boeotian recovery, beginning in the second half
of the tenth century. Little more can be obtained from present evidence
than rough upper and lower limits for the Boeotian conquest: the new
materials in Thessaly and the disturbance in Boeotia fall towards the end
of the twelfth century, not too far off the traditional date. The relatively
peaceful conditions by 950 speak for the practical completion of the
Boeotian conquest by then. A minimum span of a century and a half,
1100-950, and an optimum of two, 1150-950, would be as precise as we
can be, on present evidence, about the length of time of the Boeotian
conquest.
To summarize, the Boiotoi lived in Thessaly for several centuries in
the Bronze Age, long enough to be recognized as a distinct stock. They
were of Myceneanized culture, probably not very deeply, and spoke a
dialect transitional between Aeolic and Northwest Greek. They were
expelled from Thessaly after the great collapse at the end of LH III B,
probably in sub-Mycenaean times, or at the beginning of the Dark Ages,
around 1150-1100. Their traditions claim that they moved in an
organized manner under one king, and that they followed a route from
Thessaly that led them into Boeotia close to Chaeronea. Their kings are
not convincingly linked to any other royal house. The Boiotoi occupied
Boeotia in three phases: western Boeotia; then, after an appreciable time,
Thebes and Thespiae; and finally, after a still longer time, at least two
generations in tradition, most of the Asopus valley. The earlier
inhabitants of Boeotia were largely expelled or subdued. The Mycenaean
predecessors had spoken a form of Greek that, like the speech of Attica,
later evolved into an Ionic dialect, but most of the survivors in Boeotia
gradually adopted the speech of the conquerors. By 950 B.C. the conquest
was for practical purposes complete.
Notes
1. Gschnitzer, Wiener Studien 68 (1955) 128. Ephorus, in Str. 13.1.13, had had
the same idea.
2. C.D. Buck, Greek Dialects2, p. 5. Why not Boion in Doris for that matter?
3. Thuc. 1.12; Polyaen. 1.12, 8.44; Paus. 10.8.3; Paus. Att. F204 Schwabe;
Charax, FGrH 103 F6; Vell. Pat. 1.3.1.; Diod. 4.67. Most if not all of these
derive ultimately from Hellanicus. A somewhat different but consonant
tradition is seen in Diod. 19.53 from Hieronymus. For the Pagasitic Gulf
see Eustathius (1746, 61 to 1747); Zenobius, FGrH 482 F3. See also G.
Huxley, GRBS 8 (1967) 199-202.
3a. Steph. Byz. s.v. "A.pvn).
4. For Itonia see Paus. 9.1.1, 9.34.1; Callim. Cest. 747; Alexander Polyhistor,
FGrH 273 F97; Nicocrates, FGrH 376 F5; Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F2;
Armenidas, FGrH 378 Fl; Preller-Robert I4, 219, 220f. For Homole and
Homoloian Zeus see Steph. Byz. s.vv.; Ephorus, FGrH 70 F228;
Aristophanes of Thebes, FGrH 379 F2; Aristodemus, FGrH 383 F5; M.P.
Nilsson, Gr. Feste, 12f. For Alalcomenae cf. Str. 7.7.9. For Corseia see
Oldfather, RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Korseia," 1438f.; for Olmones, Kirsten, RE
34 (1937) s.v. "Olmones," 2490f. Other names duplicated in Boeotia and
Thessaly, such as Thebes and Thespiae, are somewhat inconsistently, but
reasonably, thought not to have been taken from Thessaly to Boeotia.
5. Sordi, La lega tessala, 5-10; G. Huxley, GRBS 8 (1967) 199-202.
6. Hdt. 1.56 mentions Cadmeans in Thessaly, while in 5.61 the Cadmeans are
expelled to Aetolia. Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19, is the earliest author I can
find who makes an explicit association of the Boiotoi and Cadmeans.
7. Pelasgi in Thessaly linked to Boeotian stemma, Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F4 and
Jacoby's comm.; Schol. B to //. 2.681. Athamanes from Epirus, cf.
Hellanicus, FGrH 4 Fl26; Hdt. 7.197.
8. See previous chapter, p. 63.
9. R.J. Buck, CP 63 (1968) 268-80. See also Collinge in Crossland and Birchall,
Bronze Age Migrations, 293-304 and the remarks of the editors, 341-43.
10. For sites in Thessaly see Atlas, s.v. "Thessaly" for a general survey.
11. See Atlas, nos. 546-51; Hammond, CAH2, II, ch. 36, 27 (sep. fasc.); Hammond
in Crossland and Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations, 189-98.
12. See Atlas, nos. 539-45.
12a. Paus. Att. F5.
13. Vell. Pat. 1.3.1; Polyaen, 1.12; Charax, FGrH 103 F6.
14. Vell. Pat. 1.1; [Arist.] Auth. Graec. 1, 181.
15. Cf. Gomme, Comm. 1.117 ad loc. for Hellanicus as source. Probably Ephorus,
FGrH 70 Fl 19 and Str. 13.1.3 belong in this grouping.
16. Polyaen. 8.44 (with an attempt to smooth over the contradiction with 1.12);
Paus. Att. F204 Schwabe; Zenob. Prov. 4.29.
17. Paus. 9.5.8; Sch. Townl. Il.13.92. For Peneleus see previous chapter, p. 64.
We may have here an alternative to the Return of the Cadmeans.
18. Paus. 9.5.8.
19. Plut. Cim. 1, cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F116.
20. Str. 9.2.29, probably a summary from Ephorus. Cf. 9.2.3. = 70 F119.3.
21. For this route see J.A.O. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 1-10 and Greek Federal
States, 28.
22. Paus. 9.34.1; Str. 9.2.29. For precise location see ch. 1, p. 6.
23. Str. 9.2.29.
24. Str. 9.2.36; Paus. 9.33.5.
25. Busolt-Swoboda, 1411; Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 110; Sordi, La lega
tessala, 5-10.
26. Lycophron, 754. Where he obtained his information is unknown.
27. Paus. 9.5.15. This stemma must also belong to our second, the non-Hellanican,
tradition.
28. Ibid., probably not from Hellanicus who seems to have a different set of
stemmata, see below n. 29.
29. Xanthus and Melanthus: Str. 9.1.7 (prob. from Ephorus, cf. FGrH 70 F22);
Polyaen. 1.19; Frontin. Strat. 2.5.41; Conon, FGrH 26 F1.39; all in same
tradition as Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F125; Paus. 9.5.16 (X. killed by
Andropompus, father of M.) belongs to a different tradition. Wilamowitz,
Hermes 21 (1886) 112 n. 2, makes an interesting argument tracing this tale
to local saga.
30. Thuc. 5.42.
31. Oropus is well known, but Eleutherae and Melainai were in a similar
position.
32. FGrH 70 F119.3.
33. For a battle see also Polyaen. 7.43.
34. See Chapter 3. The Hyantes according to Hellanicus were expelled by the
Cadmeans much earlier than the Trojan War. Hecataeus has Thracians
enter generations before the War but has Phlegyians and Hyantes (both of
Thracian descent) expelled to Phocis after the Trojan War. Hieronymus
(probably from Pherecydes) has the Pelasgians drive out the Cadmeans so
as to be expelled in turn by the returning Boeotians.
35. For Thracian parallels see Nilsson, Gr. Rel. I2, 534. It is worth emphasizing
that Dionysus and Semele both have Thracian affinities, and both are
claimed as Thebans.
36. Buck, Historia 18 (1969) 290-96.
37. Paus. 8.4.1.
38. Hdt. 7.94.
39. Str. 10.1.3; Ephorus, FGrH 20 F24; see Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 110.
40. Hdt. 7.57; Str. 9.2.10; cf. Hecataeus FGrH 1 F18.
41.Charax,FGrH 103 F95.
42. Str. 10.1.8.
43. Str. 10.1.10. For Melaneus cf. Paus. 4.2.2.
44. Str. 9.2.10; cf. Apollodorus, FGrH 244 F155.
45. Paus. 4.2.2; Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F129; Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F82.
46. Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F77.
47. Str. 10.1.3.
48. Wilamowitz, Eur. Her., 14.
49. See Sakellariou, La Migration grecque, passim; V.R. Desborough, The Last
Mycenaeans and their Successors (Oxford, 1966) 158-63; Fossey,
Topography, 514f., for good summary.
50. Cf. previous chapter. Ephorus, FGrH 70 Fl 19.3.

51. Hermes 21 (1886) 110.
52. Ephorus, FGrH 70 F21 and Jacoby's commentary; Diod. 19.53. See also
Sordi., AR, 1966, 18-20.
53. Cf. Thuc. 4.93.4 and Gomme's Commentary ad loc.
54. V.R. Desborough, The Greek Dark Ages (London, 1972) 338f.; for
Hexalophos 98f., where D. would set the material a little later than the
excavator. For report see AAA 1 (1968) 289ff.
55. J.N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968) 336.
56. Desborough, Dark Ages, 202.
57. Coldstream, Geom. Pottery, 343.
58. Fossey, Topography, 510-25.1 must emphasize that the inferences are mine
and not his. Fossey argues for extensive emigration to Asia Minor until
Middle Geometric and for the entry of the Boiotoi before the Trojan War.
6. Boeotia in the Archaic
Period
Though their gradual expansion eastward doubtless continued for several

centuries, the Boiotoi controlled most of the fertile lands of Boeotia by
around 950 B.C. The archaeological evidence indicates a general and
steady rise in both population and prosperity from 900 to 500 B.C. The
number of sites occupied shows a continuing increase: from thirty-one
showing Geometric pottery (the majority showing only Late Geometric),
to forty-two with Archaic pottery, to fifty-five with Black-Glaze pottery,
to fifty-seven with Classical material. The last two categories have totals
even larger than the number of sites with LH III pottery. Whether this
signifies a substantially larger population or a more scattered set of farms
and villages is uncertain, but the general opinion, backed by the obvious
rise in the level of prosperity, is that there was a steady increase in
population, and that even in Hesiod's time there was the beginning of a
land shortage.1 Clearly many sites, such as Eutresis, were resettled or
rebuilt; artefacts become more common the later the date. A few shifts in
settlement patterns can be observed, especially in the area of Lake
Copais, where changes in water levels led to the abandonment of several
villages and the founding of new ones.
Boeotia, to judge by its pottery, was influenced by Attica in the
latter half of the tenth century, although some acquaintance with
northern neighbours is observable. Between 925 and 900 Orchomenus
may have received Attic settlers, or perhaps professional potters.2 Closer
links with Euboea than with Attica are forged between 900 and 875, but
then Athenian influence predominates and continues on to the middle of
the eighth century.3 In the latter half of the eighth century Thebes
Map 6. The Main Towns and Battle Sites of Classical Boeotia

88 Boeotia in the Archaic Period
becomes "the chief centre of Boeotian art," and by 700 Boeotia,

dominated artistically by Thebes, was becoming isolated, though very
prosperous.4 In other areas of artistic endeavour, including poetry,
Boeotia had become by 700 B.C. a centre from which influence
emanated.5
The development of Boeotian institutions and society remains
obscure until the latter part of the sixth century. The legend of the death
of Xanthus, the last king, shows that it was widely believed that the
kingship survived no more than a century or so after the Boeotian
immigration, and that the various Boeotian states proceeded quite
independently from that time on. Some modern authorities, however,
have attempted to link the archonship at Onchestus with the Boeotian
monarchy.6 They have argued that the kingship survived with steadily
diminishing powers until well on into the Archaic period. Eventually the
king found himself transmuted into a sacred official with limited
sacerdotal functions, holding office for a fixed term, and finally for only a
year. This analogy with the development of the office of the archon
basileus at Athens is not unreasonable, but it must be noted that we have
no knowledge of the Archon at Onchestus except from inscriptions and no
trace of his existence before 379.7 At any rate, one may infer that the
institution of monarchy had little or no significance in Boeotia by the time
that systematic enquiries into the past were made, and that it had been
replaced by other, local forms of rule.
The Boeotians, however, did preserve a feeling of ethnic and
cultural kinship as well as a common dialect. This feeling did not prevent
them from hating and fighting one another, but it manifested itself in
several ways, most obviously in the religious sphere: the use of a common
calendar; the common veneration of certain cults; and the common
celebration of certain festivals. The most important of these festivals were
the Pamboeotia held at the shrine of Itonian Athena, an area with so
many reminiscences of Thessaly that it must be one of the areas settled
earliest by the Boeotians.8 The Pamboeotia were celebrated in honour of
Athena Itonia annually in the month named from them, Pamboiotos, the
tenth of the Boeotian calendar. By the time that inscriptional evidence
becomes available, in the Hellenistic period, the competitions were
primarily of a military nature and included spear throwing, trumpeting,
heralding, mock cavalry and infantry battles, torch racing and horse
racing.9 Though particular events may have been added later, the
essential military character is thought to go back to the inception of the
festival, to a time shortly after the Boeotian invasion.10 The Pamboeotia
were open to all Boeotians, including Orchomenians, but only to those
representing Boeotian cities.11 The Pamboeotia provided a place where
Boeotia in the Archaic Period 89
common actions could be discussed and even on occasion agreed upon.12

At the very least the shrine and priestess had to be cared for, and
arrangements made for administering the Games. Since amphictyonies as
devices for supervising sacred sites were well known in central Greece,
and since in Hellenistic and Roman times the priestess of the shrine of
Itonian Athena was appointed by the League, not by local authorities,13
it seems most probable that the shrine of Itonian Athena and the
Pamboeotia were supervised by an amphictyony of delegates chosen by
and from the constituent Boeotian states. The meetings of such an
amphictyony could also have been where the delegates were chosen for
the Delphic amphictyony when it became necessary.133
The title of the delegates to the synod controlling the Pamboeotia is
unknown. In late inscriptions the term naopoioi is found,14 but the
Boeotarchs play an important role in the Pamboeotia as organizers,
presiding officials and eponymous figures.15 The naopoioi and the
Boeotarchs work jointly at one point in the third century, but the former
seem to be Hellenistic officials.16 It may be that the Boeotarchs were
brought in to add lustre to the Pamboeotia, or took part to get themselves
popular exposure, at some time after they had already become important
officials in the Boeotian Confederacy. On the other hand, it may be that
the title of the delegates to the synod was originally that of the
Boeotarchs, a title that could be considered analogous to that of the
Hellenodikai at Olympia. When the amphictyony took on more
responsibilities and became a political and military league, the Boeotarchs
had their duties enlarged. Eventually part of their religious
responsibilities would have been transferred to other sets of officials,
arriving in due course at the naopoioi.17
The number of delegates to the synod is unknown, but seven or
eleven seems most probable.18 Eleven is the number of Boeotarchs in
42419 and in 395,20 and seven is the number of Boeotarchs in the 360s,21
and these numbers, as will be seen below, recur frequently in Boeotian
sub-units.
A second common Boeotian festival is thought to have existed at
Onchestus, and its governing amphictyony to have met at the shrine of
Poseidon.22 The festival, to judge by the aetiological legends,23 was
believed to possess a high antiquity and to have originated in the Bronze
Age. This should mean that it went back at least to the Dark Ages, to a
time before Thebes had become an important Boeotian city. 24 The events
seem to have been less militaristic than those at the Pamboeotia.
Associated in some manner is the official termed the "Archon at
Onchestus." He is known only from fourth-century inscriptions, 25 but, as
noted above, is sometimes believed to have had sacerdotal functions and to
have originated much earlier, perhaps from the decline of the kingship.
Membership in the festival was, apparently, completely open to the older,
non-Boeotian, stocks in Boeotia, such as the Oropians, and to the
inhabitants of trans-Asopid territories,26 as well as to all Boeotian
peoples. It has been suggested that the Boeotian section of the Catalogue
of Ships in the Iliad really lists the membership of the Onchestian
amphictyony.27 This seems a desperate attempt to explain the absence of
Itonia and Alalcomenae from the Catalogue, and it is not acceptable.
Neither the amphictyony at Itonia nor that at Onchestus, it should be
emphasized, was a political or military federation in any way resembling
the later Boeotian League.
Whether the Boeotians ever possessed phylae or phratries as social
or political sub-divisions is a matter of dispute. On the one hand, the
virtual absence of any reference to phylae or phratries in inscriptions or
in historical sources has led some authorities to argue that the Boeotians,
like several Northwest Greek stocks, never had them.28 On the other
hand, a few archaic inscriptions mention what may be tribal or phratry
names and one mentions a "phatra."29 Pausanias (9.34.10) refers to two
Orchomenian tribes, Cephisias and Eteokleias, dated, to be sure, to
Heroic times. They correspond, however, to the number of Orchomenian
commanders in the Catalogue (//. 2.512). These two, plus the five
Boeotian commanders, might lead one to infer that the Boeotians had had
seven phylae at an early stage, two largely in the Orchomenian area, plus
five, and fragments of the other two, well scattered throughout the
twenty-nine towns remembered in the Boeotian Catalogue. It could be
argued that the memory of these seven phylae was dimly preserved in the
number of the seven defenders of the seven-gated Thebes, the seven
demouchoi at Thespiae,30 the seven heroes of Plataea,31 the seven
apomneumones and the college of seven Boeotarchs that appears from
time to time. Some of the terms that bedevil Boeotian history, Ektenes,
Encheleis, and so on, may once have been phyle or phratry names. This
is all very tenuous, however, and the most that can be said is that, if
phylae and phratries ever existed (and what evidence there is leans in
that direction), they lost their importance fairly early to other social
institutions, and to other methods of grouping families.
By the time of any historical records the most important method of
grouping the Boeotians was by area, in the districts in which they settled.
It has been noted that most of Boeotia was parcelled out among various
Boeotian communities by 950 at the latest; by the end of the ninth
century B.C. several poleis had been formed, often by synoecism of local
villages on a convenient (and often Mycenaean) site, sometimes as
continuations of Mycenaean centres. The new poleis included
Orchomenus, Thebes, Thespiae, Goronea, Haliartus, Plataea and

Tanagra. Various "communes" or districts composed of villages with no
polis, though perhaps with a cult centre and place of refuge, still survived
as more or less independent units, including as it seems Chaeronea,
Lebadea, Copae, Ascra, the Tetracomia and Oropus.32
No direct evidence, except from Hesiod, exists for the family
structure within each community; but clearly the extended patriarchal
and patrilineal family, what might be termed the small clan, the genos,
was the important unit. Normally in Greece this type of family restricted
itself to no more than eight degrees of kinship and was "mildly
endogamous."33 In some cases it is probable that groups of immigrant
gene settled together to form communities;34 in other cases, no doubt, the
nuclear families of immigrants formed several cult associations, each of
which became a genos.35 The community at first existed, it is plain, for
and through the gene, the families: first, as a device for common defence,
especially true of the polis;36 second, as a reconciliation device for the
gene;37 third, as a channel for all gene to the gods; and fourth, as a mode
for carrying out various inter-family functions of a religious, social and
legal kind. These Boeotian communities were, like those in the rest of
Greece, family-centred.
Within each community various families became predominant,
families not grouped by tribe or phratry, but forming themselves in a
fairly short time into a discrete intermarrying group. This group formed
an incipient noble class and their leaders became the local governing
body. These leaders replaced the king, and any local successor he may
have had, and were themselves termed "kings" by Hesiod (W.D. 38f.,
248). The causes of the prominence of such families seem fairly obvious.
Some, if not all, were the holders of the best land; some controlled
important cults; some were profit-making warriors; and others, no doubt,
combined these attributes in varying but ultimately satisfactory amounts.
When the gene emerge into the light of history, nearly all of them boast
descent from the heroes of myth, epic or cult.38
It was believed in later times that the land of the various Boeotian
communities had been divided at the time of capture into lots, of roughly
equal size and quality, as was supposed to have happened elsewhere in
Greece.39 These lots were to be held by warriors and transmitted through
their families. An assumption underlies this belief, that the lots were
inalienable. By Hesiod's time, however, the dowry system seems to have
been operating, and land could be and was bought and sold.40 It may be
that when Hesiod refers to land sales he is talking about land made
available to newcomers and poor men, and that the rich bottom land, the
original possession of the immigrant Boeotian families, was never even
thought of as vendible, for a variety of social and economic reasons.41

But even if this argument is accepted, the role of the dowry system as a
mechanism for property exchange and accumulation must be noted and
emphasized.42 It seems probable that the theory of an early division into
inalienable lots that is found in Aristotle is a late analogy from colonial
practice, Sparta, traditional inheritance patterns and some political
mythology.
It is more likely that the groups entering Boeotia occupied the best
land, in amounts varying according to the status of the families at the
time of the invasion. It is probable that the Boeotians followed the usual
Greek inheritance pattern, which was equal division among the sons, on
the death of the father, of the paternal land plus the maternal dowry, less
the amount necessary to dower sisters.43 Therefore a goodly amount of
exchange and accumulation of land, even of "inalienable" land, took place
through dowries. Under this system it could seem to the advantage of a
land-owning family to restrict the number of offspring, particularly of
females, in order to accumulate as much land as possible in one unit,
under one hand, and to avoid sub-division, though there was always a
risk of death extinguishing a family with too few children.44 One may
infer that it took a considerable amount of time, probably to a date later
than Hesiod's, for land tenure to become an acute problem in Boeotia and
that cadets of old families and newcomers opened new land, alienable it
seems, and not as good as the bottom land. Eventually, when some senior
branches of families died out, other branches got into difficulties, and new
social and political conditions intervened, things had to be sorted out.
Hence there were lawgivers. Rules about adoption and inheritance had to
be formulated. Provisions for the disposition of land became so flexible
that lawsuits were necessary for settlement.45 We see the beginnings of
this process in the time of Hesiod, about 700 B.C.
At any rate, it seems a reasonable assumption that in the various
Boeotian cities much land became concentrated in the hands of certain
families by marriage and dowry, by inheritance, by limitation of
offspring, by purchase and by the destruction of other families. These
families, who formed an intermarrying class and were distinguished from
the small farmers and the upland peasants, became the nobility.
The noble families, the basileis of Hesiod (W. D. 38f., 248f.),
governed their communities through the usual Greek method of councils
of the heads of the gene, the chiefs. The continuation in many parts of
Greece of a rule that forbade the seating in the Boule of someone who
had a living father or elder brother46 is obviously a widespread survival of
an equally widespread custom, one dating from the time when councils
were composed of heads of great families. To judge from Hesiod's
remarks, the councils did not govern particularly well, though the opinion
of a losing contestant may be somewhat jaundiced.
The magistrates of the Boeotian communities seem, if later evidence
may be employed, to have all had a similar system of titulature and to
have been drawn from the nobility. The first magistrate in any
community was the Archon, known from inscriptions to have existed in
Coronea and Acraephia by the middle of the sixth century B.C.47 But the
tabus and insignia of the Archon at Thebes, where he wore a crown and
carried a spear as symbols of his religious and military functions;48 at
Chaeronea, where he could not touch metal, cross into Phocis, taste fruit
before the autumnal equinox or cut vines before the vernal equinox;49
and at Plataea, where he wore white and could not touch iron, except on
the anniversary of the Battle of Plataea, when he wore purple and carried
a sword;50 all speak for the antiquity and the sanctity of these local
magistracies. It is clear that the Archons took over the functions of the
king; one of Hesiod's basileis became the basileus par excellence,
especially for sacral functions.51 The use of Archons by the middle of the
sixth century for dating shows that they were by that time chosen for
annual terms.52
The Polemarch is known only from 383 B.C. in literature (at
Thebes)53 and from 338 B.C. in inscriptions. Thespiae and Thebes in
the fourth century had three of them; the title is undoubtedly of high
antiquity, though the board may be a later creation.54 The Hipparch is
another local title, but when it was adopted is completely unknown.
In Boeotia, as in the rest of Greece, the nobility formed the most
important fighting class. How and with what they fought in the period
before the change to hoplite warfare has been the subject of much recent
study.55 It is now generally believed that chariots were not used in combat
at all after the Mycenaean Age, except in Cyprus.56 When chariots are
portrayed, they are merely "heroic property" reflecting a dim memory of
Mycenaean tradition,57 though perhaps they might be used as simple
transport to a battle and occasionally for carrying off fallen warriors after
a battle.58 Even this last proposal seems unlikely to some authorities; for a
very careful study shows that nearly all the chariots portrayed in
Geometric art are really varieties of the light-weight, racing models then
in current use, types hardly suitable for combat or for transport even of
the dead.59 Nonetheless it has been thought that the Boeotians may have
used chariots in warfare in the Geometric period.60 This belief is based
on three points. First is the set of titles used by the Sacred Band at
Thebes, tyioxpi /cm irapaftaTai, charioteers and crewmen,61 good
Homeric terms for the occupants of a chariot.62 These words are
appropriate for chariot warfare; hence the Sacred Band must be the
descendant or survival of the Theban chariot force of the Geometric Age.

Second, the legends of the wars between Heracles and the Orchomenians
speak of chariot warfare. If these are not Mycenaean survivals they must
refer to the Dark Age or the Geometric Age.63 Third, the only portrayal
of actual combat in a chariot, as opposed to fighting by warriors climbing
out of (or into) a chariot or battling near a chariot, comes from Boeotia. It
shows a two-man chariot of an otherwise unknown type, with the
crewman levelling a spear at someone ahead, while the charioteer leans
over the reins.64
These points are not strong. The argument about the Sacred Band
is likely to produce an ignotum per ignotius, since no one knows when the
Sacred Band was formed. Plutarch (Pelop. 18.1) says it was raised by
Gorgidas in 378 B.C., while Diodorus (12.70.1) places it in the hoplite
ranks at Delium in 424 B.C. Although most authorities argue that
Plutarch refers to a reforming of the Sacred Band after the liberation of
Thebes,65 there is really no firm reason to set the antiquity of the Sacred
Band too high. The good Homeric titles could be the result of conscious
archaism or of romantic antiquarianism; or they could refer to an original
use of the terms for a formal parade group in Dark Age and Archaic
funeral processions and games.66 Second, the legends referred to are
cheerfully inconsistent about horses and chariots, a state to be explained
either by the influence of epic tradition on Heraclean legend or by
modifications of dimly remembered Mycenaean traditions. In either case
no strong support is given for any theories of fighting with chariots.
Third, the combat portrayed on the sub-Geometric Boeotian amphora is
unique. There is no way as yet of ascertaining the iconography or
iconology of the scene. The crewman is aiming his spear ahead, but no
victim is readily apparent. This is really no strong evidence for chariot
warfare. The most that could possibly be made from all this is that
experiments, probably not too successful, might have been made in the
plains of Boeotia with combat chariots well before 700 B.C.
The more generally accepted opinion, now backed by Greenhalgh's
careful study, is that the aristocratic horsemen of Aristotle (Pol. 1297b
16-19) were heavily armed foot-soldiers who used their riding horses
primarily for transportation.67 They seem to have been accompanied by
mounted squires. A battle must have been a matter of swirling and
disorganized clashes, with individuals as the leaders of clumps of
warriors. This is the style of fighting shown on Geometric vases and
reflected fairly often in the Homeric poems.68 The Lelantine wars, if
datable to around 700 B.C., would be the last ones where this "heroic"
warfare, with the "horsemen" playing the predominant role, was the
principal mode of fighting.
From an early stage the nobility was excluded from manual labour
or trade, as is seen in the laws of Thespiae69 and Thebes.70 What idea, if
any, lay behind this rule is unknown, but the result was to leave the
nobility free for judging, governing and fighting. The improvements that
led to hoplite warfare may have resulted from this specialization of
activity.
There is good evidence that the lower classes and tradesmen
received some reinforcement of members by an immigration into Boeotia
before 700 B.C., which included elements from Asia Minor, among them
Hesiod's father.71
By the turn of the eighth to the seventh century B.C., some
adjustments had to be made in society, especially to the position and
status of the nobility. At Thebes a lawgiver from Corinth, a Bacchiad
named Philolaus, had been summoned to reorganize affairs, probably in
the middle of the seventh century.72 Among the reforms he promulgated
were laws of adoption "in order that the number of lots might be
preserved." If comparison with other states is helpful, this was an effort
to prevent the concentration of land in larger and larger blocs in fewer
and fewer hands by permitting, or even compelling, adoptions and by
protecting heiresses.73 This emphasis on keeping a certain number of lots,
that is, on maximizing numbers, is to be associated with the coming into
fashion of hoplite tactics and the consequent necessity of having as large a
force in the phalanx as possible.74 It seems clear that Philolaus put
forward some changes in inheritance and dowry laws in order to preserve
and ensure as large a number of fighting men as possible.
It is often noted that hoplites were equipped at their own expense in
most Greek states,75 and one may believe that this was the case in Archaic
Boeotia. It is, however, less often noted that the hoplites required estates,
estates large enough to provide surpluses that could be used to purchase
and replace equipment, to maintain assistants, to provide such other items
as were needful for those in the hoplite class and to produce the rations
necessary for the usual short Greek campaign.76 A maximum number of
estates, each large enough to support one or more hoplites, was essential
for most Greek cities. The establishment of a procedure to ensure this in
Thebes is what Philolaus' reforms intended. The surpluses, incidentally,
if not used for weaponry, could be a loss to the state concerned and to its
safety. No doubt Archaic and Classical strictures on luxury and
conspicuous consumption should be read with this point in mind. This
system of surplus does not imply the introduction of coinage: other media
of exchange, including barter, were available.
The remark about adoption may also mean some adjustment to or
revision of the clan structure. It seems reasonable to posit the introduction
of some process whereby prosperous non-nobles could be incorporated

into the family and the lot system. At any rate, the symbolism of the
Cadmus myth, of armed men rising from the ploughed land, would be
most appropriate as a mythical precedent for the reforms of Philolaus.
The Thebans, as Thucydides (3.61) makes clear, had been governed
by a narrow clique before the Persian Wars, a clique from which most of
the nobles were excluded. How far back this rule of an inner circle
extends remains unknown, but the reforms of Philolaus could have led to
a division between newcomers and holders of newly assigned lots on the
one hand, and the "old guard" on the other. Add to the newcomers the
nobility of any perioecic communities, and one has a considerable number
of nobles who could be excluded from the government. The myth of the
serpent's teeth says that only five warriors were preserved as aides to
Cadmus.
The Thespians met the problem of the changes arising from the
introduction of hoplite tactics in a different way. Heraclides Ponticus
(FHG fr. 43) says that because of poverty the Thespian nobility began to
depend more and more on Thebes. This statement best refers to the latter
half of the seventh century. It should mean that the really prosperous
Thespian nobles were very few; that is, that the best land was mostly
concentrated in the hands of a very small number, and that most of the
nobility were poor, too poor to equip themselves as effective hoplites.
When phalanx tactics became a matter of military necessity, the
Thespian establishment had a choice: either to change the system of land
tenure and reassign more land to the more impoverished nobles (to the
great discomfort of the wealthy landowners) or to rely on others for
protection. The latter course was chosen, and Thespiae became, as
Herodotus says (5.79), a close friend of Thebes. Sometime later, probably
in the sixth century, there was a change, and by the time of the Persian
Wars Thespiae could field 700 hoplites at Thermopylae,77 and 1,800
light-armed troops at Plataea.78
For the other Boeotian cities no information is available. In general,
however, between 700 and 650 hoplite phalanx tactics became the usual
mode of warfare, and social organizations should have been adjusted
accordingly. Cavalry seems to have become comparatively unimportant
in battle, if not socially; Boeotian cavalry as a tactical force, and not as
mounted infantry, is not met until the Persian Wars. The number of
armoured hoplites was increased in some Boeotian towns, notably
Thebes, and perhaps Tanagra, Orchomenus and Plataea, by some
changes in landholding and in social structures. In others, notably
Thespiae, hoplite forces were neglected at first, and instead they relied
on their limited number of "horsemen" and the support of larger towns.
It is not possible to trace disputes among the Boeotian cities in any

detail, but there is some evidence that Orchomenus, before the end of the
eighth century, attempted to gain supremacy over all Boeotia. It was one
of the first Boeotian towns to revive79and the tangled stemmata of the
family of Minyas reveal its associations with Thessaly, Phocis, Athens,
central Boeotia and Thebes,80 with many of the ties apparently dating
from the Dark and Archaic Ages. The association of Orchomenus with
the Calaurian amphictyony reveals interests, probably of Archaic origin,
far beyond Boeotia,80a and Orchomenus dominated Chaeronea and
Hyettus,81 Olmones,82 Hyria,83 and Lebadea84 and perhaps Coronea and
Copae before and during the time of Hesiod. Not all the legends about
Orchomenus dominating Thebes, but being eventually defeated by it and
Heracles, can be convincingly set in Mycenaean times. Some of the stories
must have been refurbished in the Archaic period.85 It is agreed by most
authorities that at least some of the legends refer to a post-Mycenaean
war,86 although the spread of the cult of Heracles may go back to
Mycenaean times,87 and, as well, the hostility between Orchomenus and
Thebes.88 The legends provided a mythical precedent for much later
happenings.
The sanctuaries of Alalcomenae and of Itonian Athena lay fairly
close to Orchomenus. The Pamboeotia, if Orchomenus were expanding,
would be under its effective control. Festivals brought people flocking,
and consequently could be a source of wealth and prosperity for the
controlling state. It should be remembered that control of festivals was
eagerly sought; the Olympic Games changed hands between the Pisatans
and Eleans more than once.
The important role of Onchestus in the Heraclean legend should
also be noted: it was the site of the festival where Glymenus was killed,
the start of the troubles;89 it was nearby that Heracles mutilated the
Orchomenian heralds;90 and in the adjacent Teneric plain is the shrine of
Heracles Hippodetes, where the Orchomenians had their chariot
horses (!) stolen by Heracles and an encampment massacred.91 Though
these legends all refer back to the Mycenaean Age, it seems reasonable to
conclude that they survived and were preserved because Onchestus still
had relevance to Orchomenus. One of the prizes for which the
Orchomenians were striving in the Archaic period was the control of the
shrine and the festival of Onchestus, as crucial a spot then as in the
Mycenaean period. Somewhere nearby the Orchomenians were finally
defeated. The reason given for the blocking of the katavothra of Lake
Copai's by the Thebans in order to restrict the Orchomenian use of their
horsemen,92 would fit best a period before the onset of hoplite tactics, a
period when mounted infantry, if not chariots, rode to battle.93 The

Orchomenian war against Thebes failed, and the Orchomenians
withdrew.
Two other items of evidence may help to support the idea of an
unsuccessful attempt at domination by Orchomenus before the end of the
eighth century. There is a tradition, reported by Aristotle and others, that
the people of Ascra were overwhelmed by the Thespians sometime after
the death of Hesiod. They fled, not to nearby Haliartus or Coronea, but
to Orchomenus where they were kindly received.94 Then there is the
related tradition that the bones of Hesiod were removed to Orchomenus
with the refugees. Clearly as late as the end of the eighth century (or
whenever Hesiod died) the Orchomenians were interested in central
Boeotia, but, a few years after Hesiod's death, they were in no position to
back up this interest. Nonetheless they were regarded as friendly by the
Ascraeans. The most economical explanation for all this is that there had
been an Orchomenian expansion in the latter part of the eighth century,
one no doubt accompanied by negotiations with and friendship for the
smaller towns. Sometime around 700 B.C. this expansion was halted by
Thebes near Onchestus, and the Orchomenians fell back.
An element contributing towards the support of Orchomenus by the
smaller towns probably came from the smaller towns' uneasy position
vis-a-vis larger neighbours. The support may even have been more
fervent as Orchomenus grew weaker, because the support of a
comparatively distant Orchomenus against a nearby Thespiae or Thebes
would enable these smaller towns to preserve some freedom of manoeuvre
and a precarious liberty.
The development of the Boeotian concept of the district, that is, of
the coalescing of various neighbouring towns for the purposes of paying
assessments, of furnishing supplies and of naming various competitors
and officials, seems to be based on early happenings in Boeotia. These
include the series of incorporations of smaller towns into the territories of
neighbouring larger states that began in the first half of the seventh
century B.C. In some cases the older population was expelled, as in the
case at Ascra; in others it was reduced to a perioecic status, as at
Chaeronea; and in still others it was absorbed into the larger citizen body,
as apparently happened to Potniae at the hands of Thebes.95 At about the
same time or a little later some of the old Mycenaean sites not used
hitherto began to be resettled,96 and much of the refounding took place in
the latter half of the seventh or in the early sixth century B.C. It must be
concluded from this that a substantial increase in population occurred
during the seventh century.
The Thespians, as we have noted, destroyed Ascra, probably
between 700 and 650, but then they had some trouble, reflected in a
tradition mentioned previously, in adopting the hoplite phalanx and in
accepting the attendant social adjustments. They were able to settle
Eutresis by 600 - 550; therefore by that time they should have been able
to reorganize themselves and should have ceased to rely unduly on
Thebes. The Thespians' attention during the sixth century probably
turned south and southwest, towards Creusis, Siphae, Thisbe and
Chorsiae. Precisely when Thespiae gained control of these towns is
unknown, but a date sometime in the late sixth century seems not
unreasonable.97
Plataea began to expand eastward, gaining control of the villages of
Hysiae, Erythrae and probably Scolus and Scaphae (Eteonus).98 These
were apparently part of a strip of Ionic-speaking "survival folk" who
lived along the Boeotian-Athenian frontier from Oropus up to the
neighbourhood of Plataea.99 They were probably still free of the control
of any other Boeotian town in 700 B.C.100 The Plataean expansion, then,
should be placed in the seventh century at the earliest, and more probably
in the sixth century, since it was never fully completed.
Eleutherae seems not to have fallen under Plataean control, even
though it was reckoned to have been within Boeotia.101 It seems probable
that the accession of Eleutherae to Athens should be put in the later sixth
century, near the time of Pegasus of Eleutherae and his introduction of a
cult of Dionysus to Athens. 102 This, in turn, should be associated with
the increase in importance of the Dionysiac cults during the rule of
Peisistratus and the Peisistratids. This accession of Eleutherae to Athens
would be somewhat earlier than the adherence of Plataea to the Athenian
alliance.103 It is, therefore, likely that Eleutherae stayed an independent
Boeotian, Ionic-speaking commune until it became an ally of Athens.
During the seventh or sixth century Tanagra absorbed Graea,
which then disappears from history, and gained control of Aulis. By
560-550 B.C. it shared with Megara in the foundation of Pontic
Heraclea.104
Thebes, as far as can be judged, expanded its sway at about the
same time as other states such as Thespiae and Tanagra. The central
area east of Lake Copais, from Medeon and Ptoon to the ridges
separating it from the plain around Tanagra, was clearly under Theban
rule by 500 B.C. The Tetracomia composed of Mycalessus, Pharae,
Heleon and Harma seems to have been pressed between Thebes and
Tanagra. It as well as Aulis was under Theban control by the time of the
Persian Wars.105
In western Boeotia the process was, for a time, reversed; Lebadea
and Coronea, probably after the defeat of Orchomenus by Thebes, broke
loose and became independent if minor states. A fight between

Orchomenus and Coronea, with victory claimed by the former, occurred
between 550 and 525.106 Copae and Acraephium held a precarious
liberty between Orchomenus and Thebes by forming a small coalition,
although Thebes held the adjacent and important shrine of Apollo by 520
B.C.107
Oropus managed to preserve its freedom, probably with the aid of
an alliance with Eretria.108 The legends of Heracles' fights with the
Euboeans, with all their topographical uncertainties, may be
mythological precedents that reflect some Theban or Tanagran activity at
the end of the eighth century, perhaps something to do with the Lelantine
war. If the Orchomenians were allied with Eretria and the Thebans or
Tanagrans with Chalcis, then Thucydides' (1.13) remarks on the
panhellenic nature of the war would be apropos.
Most of the smaller towns, it is clear, were not destroyed or
absorbed; they were simply given perioecic status. Their nobility,
however, was generally excluded from any part in the government of the
chief city of the district. This would be ruled by its own nobility or a
section thereof, a minority of the total nobility. The remarks of later
Boeotians109 about how some of their towns were ruled by small cliques
before the Persian Wars, may in part be explained as the product of a
long development.
By 600 B.C. Boeotia was divided among several districts, each
composed of various communities, some of which were in the process of
annexing others. Orchomenus had tried early on to reduce much of
Boeotia and had failed. Thebes, though culturally influential and
politically important, was not yet the dominant city. Most communities
were ruled by aristocratic oligarchies, and each had its own archon and
other magistrates. A festival, the Pamboeotia, was held annually at Itonia
for Boeotians only and another, probably for all the inhabitants of
Boeotia, met at Onchestus.
There is no evidence until shortly before 520 B.C. for a formal
military-political Boeotian League.110 The amphictyonies for control of
the Pamboeotia and the festival at Onchestus remained religious only, as
far as we can tell. It may be that the amphictyony for the Pamboeotia
provided the apparatus and structures that were later used in the nascent
political league, like the Boeotarchs and a council and a grouping by
districts, but there is virtually no evidence.
Inhabitants of Boeotia who were not of Boeotian stock had, it seems,
not too pleasant a time, if one may draw an inference from the Theban
attitude towards Thebageneis as opposed to Thebaioi.111 These
inhabitants would include the Ionic speakers of the Asopus valley and
probably the Thracian groups on Helicon. They were not a class like the
helots, but they were at the worst perioeci, at the best independent.
In foreign affairs the Boeotians possessed no identifiable unity of
action before 520.112 The Thebans were allies of Cleisthenes of Sicyon;
the Orchomenians were friendly to Thessaly; but there is no coherent
foreign policy followed by the Boeotians as a group. In fact they were not
a group. They were people sharing the same Greek dialect, the same
social attitudes, the same cults, and much hatred for one another.
Notes
1. Fossey, Topography, 521-27, gives a clear analysis of the material.
2. J.N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 337, 343; V.R. Desborough, The
Greek Dark Ages, 202f.
3. Coldstream, 341,344, 354.
4. Ibid., 367f.
5. P. Walcot, Hesiod and the Near East, (Cardiff, 1966), 124 and note 52.
6. Busolt-Swoboda, 1411, 1418; cf. Roesch, Thespiae, 78.
7. Or a little later. See C. Barratt, JHS 52 (1932) 72-115.
8. See preceding chapter p. 77f; see also M. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 57. For the
Pamboeotia, Paus. 9.34.1, Str. 9.2.29, Plut. Amat. Narr. 4,774F, Polyb.
4.3.5, 9.34.11. See also Schachter, Cahier des etudes Anciennes 8 (1978)
81-107.
9. IG 7.2871, 3087 and 3088 give lists of victors in events. Number 2871 may be
from the Basileia at Lebadea rather than the Pamboeotia (Roesch,
Thespies, 93f.), though this is not now believed likely. Schachter, op. cit.
(n. 8).
10. For early date see L. Ziehen RE 36 (1949) s.v. "Pamboiotia," 287. For
military character, Roesch, Thespies, 107f.; M. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 57f.
11. Roesch, Thespies, 107; Ziehen, I.e. n.10. The inscription IG 7.2871 has a
"Roman winner" in one event, but in the first century A.D. this should not
be thought to destroy the point.
12. If later inscriptions may preserve a hint of custom, such custom might explain
the presence of a series of proxeny decrees of the third century B.C. passed
by the League, IG 7. 2858-69.
13. IG 7.3426.
13a. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 63f., discusses briefly the First Sacred War, the lack
of any Boeotian contribution to the putative campaign, and the role of
Boeotia in the new amphictyony.
14. IG1. 3073; 3074; 2711;5C7/20 (1896), 318ff., 11. 14-41.
15. Roesch, Thespies, 107; SEC 3.354, 25, 553, 556; IG 7. 3087; BCH 50 (1926)
396, no. 16 for dating by Boeotarchs at the Pamboeotia.
16. IG 1. 3073 and cf. Roesch, Thespies, 107; the naopoioi were originally
appointed to supervise the construction of the temple of Zeus at Lebadea.
17. Roesch, Thespies, 201, sees the naopoioi as performing duties in Roman times
earlier carried out by other officials.
18. Wilamowitz, Hermes 8 (1874) 431-41, emphasizes the importance of the

number seven.
19. Thuc. 4.91.
20. Hell. Oxy. FGrH66 Fl.11.3.
21. IG 1. 2407 and 2408; for the date, after the re-organization of 379, see M
Gary, JHS 42 (1922) 190.
22. Str. 9.2.33 uses the term TO 'AnolltvoviKW of the council. The term should not
in origin mean simply the Boeotian federal council, as Wallace, 199, thinks.
24. Busolt-Swoboda, 1411; Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886) 110; P. Cloche,
Thebes de Beotie (Namur, 1952), (henceforth Cloche) 17f.
26. Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886), 110; Kirsten, RE 35 (1939), s.v. "Onchestus,"
414.
27. Kirsten, I.e. and Meyer, G.d.A., 32, 309.
28. Latte, RE 39 (1941), s.v. "Phyle," 995; Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 22f.
29. IG 7.547 from Tanagra mentions the Myllichidai; 2560 from Thebes refers to
an individual as an "Hesponideus;" 526 consists of the word "phatra."
30. Diod. 4.29.1; cf. Apollodorus, Bib1. 2.7.6.
31. Plut.Anstidesll.l.
32. For a lively general discussion of synoecism and related matters see A.R. Burn,
The Lyric Age of Greece (London, 1960), 11-37; see also W.K. Lacey, The
Family in Classical Greece (London, 1968), 51-54 (henceforth Lacey).
33. For the family in Dark Age and Archaic Greece see Lacey, 51-83 and M.
Broadbent, Studies in Greek Genealogy (Leiden, 1968), 240-339. The quo-
tation is from H.H. Turney-High, Man and System (New York, 1968), 342.
34. So Lacey, 5If.
35. So Broadbent, op. at. 283f.
36. Lacey, 52f.
37. Ibid., 54.
38. See Huxley, Early Epic, passim, for examples and explanations,and
Broadbent, op. cit. 283f., for a discussion of the Thespian nobility and their
origin in cult collegiality as well as a survey of their legendary ancestry.
39. Aristotle, Pol., 1274 a 31- b6, assumes pre-existing lots for Philolaus to reform.
For Philolaus and his reforms see below.
40. JF.ZX341.
41. Lacey, 333-35.
42. For dowries as mechanisms for property exchange see Aristotle, Pol., 1266 a-b
quoting Phaleas who wanted to equalize property and wealth by the dowry
system. Lacey, 225f. for general remarks. W.G. Forrest, A History of Sparta
(London, 1968), 135f. for Sparta.
43. Broadbent, 199-202. She speaks of Athens, but inferentially of Boeotia, 215f.,
283f.
44. Forrest's remarks on Sparta, op. cit. 136f., apply mutatis mutandis to Boeotia.
45. Arist. Pol., 1274 b 1-6; Broadbent, 218.
46. Arist. Pol., 1305 b 5-10.
47. Acraephia: SEG 22.428 (mid sixth), 430 (late sixth). Coronea: AD, 1930-31,
), 226f.
48. Plut. Gen. Socr. 597 AB.

49. Plut. A.R. 274 BC.
50. Plut. Arist. 21.
5l.Roesch, 158; Cloche, 22f.
52. Roesch, 157f.; Busolt-Swoboda, 1439f.
53. Roesch, 162.
54. Ibid. Xen. Hell. S. 4. 4ff.
55. See especially A.M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons
(Edinburgh, 1964), henceforth Snodgrass; G. Ahlberg, Fighting on land
and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm, 1971), henceforth Ahlberg;
P.A.L. Greenhalgh, Early Greek Warfare (Cambridge, 1973) henceforth
Greenhalgh; J.K. Anderson, A]A 79 (1975) 175-87, with good
bibliography.
56. Snodgrass, 159-63; Greenhalgh, 7-39; Ahlberg, 42, 55f., 107. But see
Anderson, op. cit. (n. 55) for vigorous rebuttal.
57. Snodgrass, 160 and Greenhalgh, 17f.
58. Ahlberg, 56.
59. Greenhalgh, 14-39.
60. Larsen, GFS, 106-8; J.K. Anderson, Military Theory and Practice in the Age
of Xenophon (Berkeley, 1970), 158f. and note 35; Anderson, A]A 79 (1975)
177-81.
61. Diodorus 12.70.
62.7 Iliad,23.132.
63. For the legends see above, p. 45ff.
64. Greenhalgh, p. 13, frg. e; Ahlberg, 42f. and fig. 46, sub-Geometric of about
700 B.C. Greenhalgh, 188, says the chariot is of a type similar to his G3e,
but elongated.
65. See, e.g., Anderson, Mil. Theory, 159, note 37.
66. For chariots in the ekphora as well as in funeral and other games, D.C. Kurtz
and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs (London, 1971) 60f.
67. Greenhalgh, 40-75.
68. Greenhalgh, 63f; Ahlberg, 108; but cf. Anderson, AJA 79 (1975) 179-84.
69. Heracl. Pont., FHG fr. 43.
70. Arist. Pol. 1278 a 25-27. In later times this was relaxed to allow office-holding
ten years after ceasing from trade. Cf. Cloche, 13f.
71. P. Walcot, Hesiod and the Near East, 108f.
72. Aristotle (Pol., 1274 a 31-b6) associated Philolaus with Diocles, the Olympic
victor, dated by Eusebius, Chron, 1.28 to 728 B.C. This date is by no means
secure and is regarded as far too high by many authorities (Busolt, I, 266;
Beloch, 1.1.350; Burn, World of Hesiod, 230; Cloche, 26f.); though a
minority (e.g., Moretti, Ricerche sulle Leghe greche, 101), accept it. A date
when the Bacchiads were still prestigious, since Philolaus was a Bacchiad,
would be reasonable. But the fact that he never returned to Corinth would
argue for a date after the assumption of the tyranny by Cypselus. The
reason given by Aristotle for the refusal to return is clearly an aition for the
siting of the graves.
73. Cf. Aristotle, Pol., 1265 b 1-12; 1266 a 39-b6; 1266 b 20-24; 1274 b 23-26.
I. Shishova, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 114 (1970) 64-72, argues that Philolaus
introduced the laws to preserve a free peasantry.
74. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (London, 1967) 57 and
Greenhalgh, 71-74, date the transition to hoplite phalanx tactics between
700 and 650. See also Greenhalgh's remarks on the necessity to have as
many men in the phalanx as possible, 74-78. Cf. Aristotle, Politics 1297 b
22-24. Most recently see P. Cartledge, JHS 97 (1977) 11-27 and J. Salmon
ibid., 84-101.
75. Greenhalgh, 74, for example.
76. For the equipment, rations and scale of support necessary in Archaic times see
J.K. Anderson, Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon,
13-40, 45f. See Snodgrass,JHS 85 (1965), 110-22, for the importance of
wealth to the establishment and continuation of a hoplite class. Detienne,
in J.P. Vernant, Problemes de la Guerre en Grece ancienne (Paris, 1968)
129f. and Shishova, op. cit. (note 73) 70f., go too far in the belief that the
hoplite reforms led to a "promotion des ruraux" and the predominance of
the rural free peasantry.
77. Hdt. 7.202.
78. Ibid. 9.30.
79. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 337, 345.
80. See Fiehn, RE 30 (1932) s.v. "Minyas," 2014-18.
80a. Str. 8.6.14; see T. Kelly, A]A 70 (1966) 113-22.
81. Hes. frg. 144; cf. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 19; Paus. 9.36.6.
82. Paus. 9.24.3.
83. Hes. frg. 143, birthplace of Argonaut Euphemus.
84. Pindaros, 18f.
85. See above p. 59f. For the defeat of Orchomenus see above and Euripides,
Heracles 48-59, 220; Apollod. 2.4.11; Diod. 4.10, 4.18; Paus. 9.17.1, 9.25.4,
9.26.1, 9.37.2, 9.38.7; Pherecydes, FGrH 4 F95; Isocrates 14.10; Strabo
9.2.40; Pindar, frg. 29.2, Polyaenus 1.3.5; 1C 14.1293.
86. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 23, 47; Salmon, REA 58 (1956), 59; Cloche, 21f.;
Fimmen, NJb 29 (1912) 538. Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 152f., puts the
war in Mycenaean times only.
88. See above, p. 59f. For Orchomenian-Theban hostility in the Archaic Age see,
e.g., Sordi, Aft, 1966, 21 f.
89. Apollod. 2.67; cf. Paus. 9.37.
90. Diod. 4.10; Paus. 9.24.4.
91. Paus. 9.26.1.
92. Diod. Sic. 4.18.7; Polyaen. 1.3.5.
93. Cf. Greenhalgh, 63-83.
94. Aristotle, FHG, frg. 115c; Proclus, Schol. on W.D.. 631, quoting Plutarch.
95. Str. 9.2.22.
96. Eutresis was refounded in the late seventh or early sixth century. H. Goldman,
Eutresis (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), 8, 237; Plut. Narr. amat. 3. Some
Geometric sherds were found on the site.
97. Siphae was held by Thespiae by 424 (Thuc. 4.76) and, therefore, so must
Creusis have been held. Thisbe, and apparently Chorsiae with it, are under
Thespiae by 396, Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 Fl.ll. Their status was probably
perioecic, Roesch, 37f.
98. Hell. Oxy., FGrH66 Fl.ll, clearly links the Plataeans, Scolus, Scaphae and
Erythrae "and other territories formerly united with them (sc. the
Plataeans)." It could not be clearer. Nonetheless P. Salmon, RE A 58 (1956)
52-58, argues that, except for Hysiae (Hdt. 9.15.3, 9.25), Thebes had
dominated these towns until 509. Scolus was Theban in 479 according to
Herodotus (9.15.2), but wartime annexation need not mean much,
especially since Strabo (9.2.24) and Herodotus (6.108) support the idea that
Plataea controlled this territory. See, e.g., Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 271-78.
99. See Buck, CP 63 (1968) 269f., 279.
100. See preceding chapter, p. 78-80.
101. Paus. 1.38.8. See next chapter for discussion of the circumstances of the
accession.
102. Paus. 1.2.5.
103. Paus. 1.38.8 merely says that Eleutherae joined Athens out of hatred for
Thebes. Frazer, Paus. 2.518, argues that Eleutherae became Athenian in
the fourth century, somewhat late. More probably Pausanias is referring to
the preliminaries to establishing the Boeotian League in the sixth century.
MilchhofFer, RE 10 (1905) s.v. "Eleutherai" 2345, says it formed an
alliance with Athens in the time of Preisistratus. See below p. 113.
104. For Graea see J.M. Fossey, Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3-22, who identifies it with
Dramesi. For Heraclea, Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 65.
105. Str. 9.2.14 Salmon, "REA" 58 (1956) 61f., says by 395, but this is excessively
cautious, since Pharae was coining before the Persian Wars, but not after.
106. Dedication at Olympia, Jeffery, LSAG, 95 no. 11 and SEG XI, 1205, dated
to third quarter of sixth century by Jeffery.
107. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 18, gives sensible reasons for accepting such a
coalition, in spite of Pausanias (9.23.3) who says Acraephium was always a
dependency of Thebes. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 65f., argues for a date
between 540-530 on wrong grounds, see below.
108. Wilamowitz, Hermes 21 (1886)91-118.
109. Thuc. 3.61.
110. See below, next chapter.
111. Ephorus, FGrH 10 F21 and Jac. Comm.; Diod. 19-53.
112. See below, next chapter.
7. The Formation of the
Boeotian League
520-506 B.C.
The Boeotian League, as a politico-military confederacy, makes its

earliest appearance in the sources at the time when the Thebans
unsuccessfully attempted to force the Plataeans to join it. The latter,
however, allied themselves with Athens. After various negotiations the
Athenians and Plataeans defeated a Theban assault.1 Commonly the
Athenian-Plataean alliance is dated to 519, although some authorities
prefer 509.2 Clearly the Boeotian League (in the sense of an association
with more than religious functions) was in existence before the Theban
pressure on Plataea, but the question is how much earlier. The few early
League coins that there are prove little, since their dating depends upon
the numismatists' interpretation of history; and, in the light of recent
research, these coins may have been dated far too early; the latest
arguments, based on the forms of the letters, would date them at
approximately 525.3 There is also a tradition telling of a Thessalian
invasion of Boeotia that ended with a defeat at Ceressus and the death of
the Thessalian ruler Lattamyas, a victory that, like Leuctra, "set the
Greeks free."4 The battle is variously dated between 571 and 486.5 It
seems probable that the Thessalian invasion and the victory that set the
Greeks free should be in some way associated with the formation of the
Boeotian League, and that both should be placed around 520 B.C.
It is generally accepted that the Thessalians overran Phocis early in
the sixth century. The Phocians were finally subdued, their cities were
placed under the rule of pro-Thessalian tyrants and hostages were taken,
at the latest by the middle of the century.6 The Thessalians proceeded to
extend their influence as far as Athens. The fact that Peisistratus named
Map 7. The Original Membership of the Boeotian League

108 The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C.
one of his sons Thessalus indicates a close relationship between the

tyrant and Thessaly; therefore the alliance known to exist with the
Peisistratids probably goes back to his time. 7
As for the Boeotian cities, Orchomenus had a long-standing, close
and friendly relationship with Thessaly, to judge by the numerous
legends and myths linking the two (many of which may have been given
their Classical form fairly late).8 If, on the one hand, the legends were
ancient, their survival would speak for continuing contact, to keep them
fresh and vigorous; if, on the other hand, the legends were modified in
Archaic times, the changes would imply that there was some reason to
link the two. In either case the tone of the legends speaks for amiable
relations. Furthermore, the approach route to Boeotia and Athens from
Thessaly by way of Thermopylae and Hyampolis led through
Orchomenian territory;9 it would be much more readily traversed if
Orchomenus were friendly.
The Thebans co-operated with Cleisthenes of Sicyon, an ally of
Thessaly,10 and they aided Peisistratus when he was attempting to return
from one of his exiles.11 They are generally thought to have had cordial
relations with him throughout his reign, although the most recent datings
for the dedications at the sanctuary of Apollo at Ptoon may be interpreted
to indicate a certain coolness at some stages.12 At the least, then, the
Thebans were the friends of Thessalian allies for much of the sixth
century, and one may conclude that amiable relations, if not an alliance,
existed between Thebes and Thessaly for a considerable time.
At some stage, however, the Thessalians invaded Boeotia under the
command of Lattamyas, gaining control as far as Thespiae according to
Plutarch (de Hdt. mal. 33, Mor. 866 E). In one place (Cam. 19) he dates
the invasion and the consequent battle to "more than 200 years earlier"
than Leuctra (wpdrepov ercai TrXdoaiv r) diotKoaiois), that is, earlier than
571. In another (de Hdt. mal. 33, Mor. 866 E) the invasion is dated to
"shortly before" (evarxos) the invasion of Xerxes, that is, close to 480.
Clearly these two accounts cannot be reconciled. Since numbers are more
easily altered in transmission than general phrases and since there are
good reasons to suspect the date of 571, many authorities have rejected it,
sometimes emending the account to read "one hundred" years earlier,
sometime before 471, and so to be placed as close to the Persian Wars as
possible.13 Rejection of the one, however, does not necessarily mean
acceptance of the other. The passage in de Hdt. mal. is rhetorical and
hyperbolic. Plutarch is, as usual, attacking Herodotus. According to the
latter (7.233) the Thebans had been spared at Thermopylae because they
pleaded that they had previously medized and had then been compelled to
come to Thermopylae. Their plea was supported by the Thessalians.
The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C. 109
Plutarch takes violent exception to all this, especially to the very idea of
Thessalian support.
Just imagine such a plea being used in such a situation, amid the
barbarians' shrieks and the confused shouting of flight and
pursuit! And imagine the witnesses being questioned. With men
being killed and trampled underfoot all around them in the
narrow pass, the Thessalians supported the Thebans' plea by
saying: 'Until recently we controlled Greece as far as Thespiae,
but they defeated us in battle and drove us back, killing our
commander Lattamyas.' That was how Boeotians and
Thessalians stood towards one another at the time; there was
nothing warm or friendly in their relationship.14
It should be emphasized that this passage from Plutarch flatly
contradicts Herodotus. To Plutarch the Thessalian support for the
Thebans implies friendly relations, which he hastens to deny in this
tendentious bit of rhetoric. One must agree with Plutarch that it is
difficult to believe that the Thessalians would have supported the
Thebans, had the defeat at Ceressus happened "shortly before" the
Persian Wars. But Herodotus is the better witness, one whose testimony
is to be preferred to Plutarch, particularly the Plutarch of this essay.
Therefore the fact, reported in Herodotus, that the Thebans were spared
by the aid of the Thessalians would speak for there being no recent
hostility between Thebes and Thessaly by 480. Therefore the testimony
of Plutarch about the time of their battle can be safely rejected. Other
difficulties arise if the Thessalian attack is placed too close to the Persian
Wars, amongst them those asssociated with Lattamyas.
This rare name, or a by-form of it, as a Thessalian inscription
makes clear,15 is found in the Echecratid family, one that provided several
tagoi for the Thessalian federation. Plutarch (de Hdt. mal. 33) says that
Lattamyas was apxovra QerTotX&v, which might mean that he was a
tagos, not a subordinate official, a ruler, not simply a local commander, as
Beloch has argued. If he was a tagos, Lattamyas cannot be put after 500,
since the Aleuad Thorax and his brothers held power from 498 to 476.16
There can be no place for him between 511 and 498, since Cineas ruled
in 511, and, presumably, for several years afterward, 17 and time should
also be allotted to Aleuas, son of Simus and father of Thorax.18 It is also
difficult to set Lattamyas between 520 and 511, since Antiochus, son of
Echecratides I, fits best in this decade, especially from 516 on.19
Therefore if Lattamyas was tagos, he does not fit much after 520, at the
latest. A dating around 520 would make it necessary for him to be a son
of Echecratides I and brother of Antiochus, a not unreasonable hypothesis
in light of the Thessalian inscription mentioned above.20

Lattamyas can be dated after 500 only if he was not a tagos. The
word archon that Plutarch uses may mean simply "commander" or the
like, but it should be noted that the word was the regular Thessalian term
for the supreme ruler in later times,21 and it could have been meant in
that sense here. Furthermore, the Echecratids and the Aleuads were not
on friendly terms. An Echecratid leading a major expedition under an
Aleuad regime might be possible under the loose-jointed Thessalian
constitution, but not very probable. Finally, the passage from de Hdt.
mal., as was noted above, is to be rejected as testimony on the time of the
battle, which need not be set after 500. Therefore it seems, on balance,
most reasonable to conclude that Lattamyas was killed under an
Echecratid regime, that is, before 510 and probably before 520; and that
he may well have been tagos, and, if so, must be set before 520, though, as
Beloch (1.2.205) has cogently argued, not so far back as 571.
There are several possible reasons why the Thessalians chose to
invade Boeotia. Most popularly they are considered to have aided the
Thebans against Thespiae and other Boeotian cities in the cause of
Theban domination.22 But Herodotus (5.79), while dealing with the
Aeginetan-Theban alliance (ca. 505), says that Thebes and Thespiae
were good friends and allies, and had been so for a long time. Plutarch in
his two citations (de Hdt. mal 33 and Cam. 19) implies Theban
participation at Ceressus; in fact his remarks become pointless unless the
Thebans were in the fight against the Thessalians at Ceressus. Pausanias
(9.14.2), in a passage discussing the long-standing (later) feud between
Thespiae and Thebes, refers only to the Thessalian attack at Ceressus,
not to any Theban one. The idea that the Thessalians were helping the
Thebans gain domination may be rejected.23
A second possibility may have more credibility: that the
Orchomenians were aided by the Thessalians against the other Boeotians.
Certainly the Thessalian invasion route via Hyampolis lay through
Orchomenian territory and would be more easily traversed if
Orchomenus were friendly or at least passive. There is evidence of a
long-standing friendship between Orchomenus and Thessaly, as
mentioned above, one that might provide a pretext for Thessalian
intervention in Boeotia. Orchomenus, to judge by the coin types, stood
apart from the Boeotian League for some time after the League was
finally formed. It defeated, in the third quarter of the sixth century,
Coronea, one of the first members of the new League.233 Therefore it is
very likely that Orchomenus, in fear of a Theban dominated political
federation, sought the aid of Thessaly to withstand its pressure, much in
the same way that Plataea sought the aid of Athens. A Boeotia reduced to
The Formation of the Boeotian League 520-506 B.C. Ill
the status of a Phocis under Thessaly seemed infinitely preferable to the

Orchomenian leaders, since, no doubt, Orchomenus would be in a
premier position, as opposed to a Boeotia ruled by Thebes.
A third possibility is simply that Thessaly decided it would take
over Boeotia in much the same way that it took over Phocis, and that
Orchomenus acquiesced. This does not seem so likely as the previous
possibility, since it does not provide an explanation for the Orchomenian
independence that continued for many years afterwards.
Most probably, then, an eager Thessaly, already concerned by
Theban efforts to form a military league, readily seized upon a request
for aid from Orchomenus as a pretext for invading Boeotia. Under their
commander Lattamyas, some time around 520 or, at the latest, early 519,
the Thessalians marched on eastern Boeotia.
The invasion was opposed by "the Boeotians," by which is meant,
presumably, the members of the Theban-led military league. This league
must be carefully distinguished from any previous religious
amphictyonies that embraced all the Boeotians, cared for Onchestus and
the shrine of Itonian Athena, and sent delegates to the Delphian
assemblage.24 The statement in Herodotus (5.79) about Thebes and its
long-associated allies pertains to the original membership. This consisted
of the states that the Thebans immediately thought of as "dwelling
nearest" and "always fighting eagerly on their side," namely those of
Tanagra, Coronea and Thespiae: Tanagra to the east; Thespiae to the
south; Coronea to the west; with Thebes itself to the north. These cities
clearly mark the limits of the first core of the League, those that had
"always" fought at the side of Thebes. Haliartus, Acraephia and several
minor places such as the Tetracomia, the villages north of Thebes, and
towns like Aulis that were adjacent to the Euripus all fall within these
limits of "those dwelling nearest." They should, therefore, be included in
this first core of members, even though not specifically mentioned. It
should be these that struck the earliest datable League coinage about
525-520.25
It is impossible to do more than guess why the League came into
existence about or shortly before 520. Perhaps an increasing suspicion of
Thessalian intentions on Boeotia after the reduction of Phocis played its
part; perhaps simply Theban and Boeotian aggressiveness, favoured by
the reasonable prosperity which was evidenced by the ability and
willingness to coin; or perhaps the Orchomenian defeat of Goronea
created a fear of further troubles in Boeotia.
The Thessalians got as far as Ceressus, a locality in Thespian
territory. Although its exact site is unknown, it lay near the main route
south of Lake Copais between east and west Boeotia.26 The Thessalians,
striking from Phocis by way of Orchomenian territory, were proceeding

towards Thebes, skirting Lake Copais and by-passing Haliartus to the
south. The Boeotians concentrated their forces at a defensible spot close to
the route, while the Thespians, to judge from Pausanias (9.14.1),
provided supplies and bivouacking materials. The Thessalians turned to
deal with the enemy forces and were smartly repulsed, losing Lattamyas
in the process. They withdrew from Boeotia, and the victory by the
Boeotians marked a "beginning" of a freedom for the Greeks, a beginning
only, since the liberation of various territories took some time to bring to
pass.
As long as the Thessalians held Phocis, and Orchomenus was their
friend, there was danger. Athens on the other side of Boeotia was a
Thessalian ally. Boeotia was surrounded. Some of the Boeotian states,
such as Plataea and probably Lebadea, Anthedon, Copae and Oropus,
were uncommitted. Clearly it would be to the advantage of the league to
recruit as many Boeotian states as possible.
It seems probable that a new coinage was issued, with the name of
the town minting (or, more likely, sponsoring) on the reverse. The
coinage should imply some sort of reorganization of the League; the use
of town names may mean that it was something on the line of more
clearly defining local autonomy, in an effort to render the League more
attractive to the holdouts. Perhaps the federal Council was now
structured to give representation to all areas, and to have them all present
on each of the four divisions.
Plataea was one of the most important of those who were not yet
members. The League put on pressure, but the Plataeans, on Spartan
advice, reacted by allying themselves with Athens and with the aid of
Athens defeated an attempt to enrol them by force.27 Thucydides (3.68.5)
gives a date of 520/519 to the alliance.28 Herodotus (6.108), however, has
Cleomenes, with an army in the vicinity of Plataea, playing a crucial part
in persuading the Plataeans to ally themselves with the Athenians. The
presence of a Spartan army, or Cleomenes, on the border of Boeotia in
519 seems unlikely to many authorities, who therefore transfer the whole
incident to 509 and emend Thucydides' date.29 But there is no evidence of
any textual difficulties in that section of Thucydides, and the reasons for
emending are not very strong. Furthermore, the arguments for a date of
509 fail to account for the fact that the Thebans, long-time friends of the
Peisistratids, aided the Alcmeonids against the Peisistratids before 511
B.C.30 If the adherence of the Plataeans to Athens preceded the Theban
support for the anti-Peisistratid Athenian dissidents, then an economical
explanation exists. (The dedication of Hipparchus is not firmly enough
dated to be evidence for the date of the Theban-Peisistratid rupture.)
The only other possible explanation that comes to mind for a

Theban-Peisistratid break around 520 is the behaviour of Eleutherae.
We do not know exactly when it allied itself to Athens, but there is
nothing intrinsically impossible in its doing so between 520 and
511 B.C. although an earlier date might be preferable. Pausanias (1.38.8)
says only that it allied itself to Athens partly because of a desire to share
Athenian citizenship and partly because of a hatred of Thebes. Herodotus
(5.74) and Thucydides (2.18) both term Oenoe a border fortress;
therefore in the fifth century Eleutherae, whatever its state of alliance
was with Athens, was still felt to be part of Boeotia, in much the same
way as Plataea was. Since Eleutherae is shielded from Thebes by Hysiae
and the territory of Plataea, its "hatred of Thebes" might indicate a date
about contemporaneous with Plataea's rejection of Theban overtures. A
slightly prior association of Eleutherae with Athens might make Plataea's
ready acceptance of Spartan advice and Athenian alliance more
understandable. The "sharing of citizenship," if it is not an anachronism,
might be thought more appropriately arranged under a tyranny than
under another form of government in which citizenship became even
more valuable than in the time of the tyrants.
Pegasus of Eleutherae introduced Dionysus to Athens, that is, he
brought in the archaic wooden statue that was still paraded annually to
the Academy in Pausanias' time.31 (A copy of the image was kept at
Eleutherae.) It is possible, as was noted in the previous chapter, that the
transferral of the cult image and the alliance should be associated. The
interest of Peisistratus and his sons in the cults of Dionysus has often
been noted, and consequently the alliance might go back as early as the
reign of Peisistratus himself, or to the time of Hippias. The silly
aetiological myth reported by the Scholiast to Aristophanes (Acharnians
243), if it has any merit, would tend to place the date as early as possible.
The actual union of Eleutherae with Athens must be no earlier than the
fourth century. If the alliance were much earlier than 520, then the
Theban-Peisistratid hostility should require some more immediate cause,
such as the activities of Plataea. It is difficult to see Eleutherae alone
causing the Theban-Peisistratid hostility which was still apparent in the
time of the raid on Leipsydrium.
Spartan persuasion and the presence of Cleomenes may be two
different things, but Herodotus and Thucydides bear out each other so
well that several scholars have argued that Thucydides was following
Herodotus.32 Though doubts that Cleomenes was in an area convenient
to Plataea, or that he was king at the time, are understandable (it may be
significant that Thucydides talks of Spartan persuasion rather than
Cleomenes'), nevertheless it seems methodologically sounder to use this

evidence to set Cleomenes' date of accession rather than to emend the text
to fit a priori theories about his life. There is nothing improbable in a
Spartan force being near Boeotia in 519. It may well be that Cleomenes,
who seems to have been friendly to Thessaly,33 was bringing up a
Peloponnesian force in an effort to aid Lattamyas. They arrived in the
neighbourhood of Plataea after Ceressus and took the opportunity to
make things awkward for Thebes, while avoiding Spartan involvement in
a losing cause for absent partners. On the other hand, it might be that the
Peloponnesian army was on other business or was coming to the aid of
the Boeotian League, but after the battle at Ceressus they returned home
without intervening. Thebes, however, may have seemed to need some
counterpoise, a role that Athens was able to fit. At any rate, the date of
519 for the Plataean-Athenian alliance is reasonable and consonant with
the evidence.
A state of comparative quiet lasted until 510 or so. The erosion of
Thessalian power and prestige in this decade is indicated by the
difficulties its government was having with the Delphic amphictyony. 34
The Thebans, naturally, were hostile to the Peisistratids and gave aid to
their Athenian rivals the Alcmeonids. They permitted them to use
Boeotian territory as a base for the abortive raid on Leipsydrium, as
noted above. It may be during this period that some minor states such as
Copae and Lebadea joined the League.
The Thessalians were able to pass cavalry down to Athens from
time to time during this decade, but this does not necessarily imply any
lessening of hostility between the Thessalians and the Boeotians. It is
always possible to run a cavalry force through open, though hostile,
territory, especially if no cavalry are ready to oppose it, as any student of
the American Civil War can testify. This ability became very important
to the Peisistratids, especially after the disarmament of the Athenian
hoplites by Hippias in 514.35 The importance attached to this alliance by
the Thessalians can be measured by the presence of the tagos Cineas with
the 1,000 horse in Athens in 510. The presence of Thessalians in Athens
in 510 also means that they still controlled Phocis; for a cavalry
movement through the narrow passes of Phocis in the face of active
Phocian hostility would be very risky indeed. The favourite Thessalian
route via Thermopylae and Hyampolis would be impossible.
In 510 the Thessalian force, after initial successes, was defeated by
the Spartans, apparently as the result of new anti-cavalry tactics.36
Cineas and his forces withdrew, and Hippias fell. It is not necessary here
to follow the intrigues, quarrels, Spartan interventions and constitutional
changes that followed the expulsion of the Peisistratids, but it is clear that
Athens was not militarily strong for a few years and was in no condition
to compose any coherent foreign policy or to become engaged in foreign
wars. Furthermore, the Athenians had to reorganize their tribal levies
and had to have time to get their forces into fighting trim. A date of 509
for the adherence of Plataea to Athens seems most improbable.
It is surprising that Thebes and the Boeotian League delayed taking
any action against Athens and Plataea until 506. In the absence of any
clear ancient evidence at least two plausible reasons can be put forward.
First, the Boeotians were not sure of the policies of Sparta or of the new
Athenian state, and they did not want to precipitate anything. On the one
hand the oligarchs and Isagoras seemed to have had the support of an
important Spartan faction, and Spartan allies were dangerous to attack.
On the other hand, the Alcmeonids, who by 508/7 were emerging as
victors in the power struggle against Athens, had been friendly to Boeotia.
The Plataean alliance had been contracted by the Peisistratids, and so, if
things went well, might not be honoured by the new government. The
Boeotians were making alliances with neighbouring states such as
Chalcis;37 the new Athenian state, be it oligarchic or democratic, had no
reason to be fond of the Thessalians; the Boeotians had been helpful; a
network of central Greek alliances might be useful; the Athenians might
be willing to let Plataea go for the benefits accruing from Boeotian
friendship. All in all, from the Boeotian point of view, nothing would be
gained by moving against Athens, and much might be lost.
Second, and perhaps more to the point, the Boeotians probably had
their attention turned elsewhere, and so could not deal effectively with
Athens and Plataea at the time. The most obvious direction for any such
activity is in that of the other holdout, Orchomenus. This town was part
of the Boeotian League by the time of the Persian Wars.38 The Boeotians
were able to put forth in 506 a "united force" against Athens, according to
Herodotus (5.74.2); this should mean an army of all the Boeotians
(except Plataea), and so might well include Orchomenus.383 The most
appropriate time, then, for Orchomenian adherence to the League would
be between 510 and 507. If this is so, then Thessaly was no longer in a
position to support its Boeotian ally effectively at the time of its joining
the League. This, in turn, should mean that Thessalian forces could not
easily pass through Phocis to aid Orchomenus, and so would put the
Thessalian defeat in Phocis after the debacle at Athens, but before the
Boeotian invasion of Attica in 506.
If the argument has validity, it is clear that the defeat of Cineas by
the Spartans had important effects far beyond the boundaries of Athens.
The Phocians, encouraged by the report and adopting the new tactics,
rose in revolt shortly after the downfall of Hippias and defeated the
Thessalians in two battles, the Battle of Phocian Desperation fought

near Cleonae of Hyampolis and the Battle of the Whitened Bodies also
near Hyampolis.39 The Phocians' obtaining of independence should be
set around 509. Such a date is given a rough chronological check by the
presence of Tellias of Elis on the Phocians' side. Since Telliads are
present in the Persian Wars,40 Tellias should be at least one generation
earlier, some thirty years earlier, about 510. The Thessalians, held
beyond Thermopylae, could not readily intervene in Boeotia after the loss
of Phocis. The Orchomenians, then, probably joined the League by 507.
By that date it did not seem to matter much to the Boeotians
whether Athens was friendly or not. Sparta under Cleomenes had turned
hostile to Athens and was determind to crush the new state. It must have
seemed folly to the Boeotians to do anything but join the Peloponnesian
attack and get what pickings were available, including, no doubt,
Eleutherae and Plataea. By prior agreement,41 the forces of the Boeotians
and Chalcidians marched on the Parasopia (that is, the regions south of
the Asopus) and Attica, at the same time as the Peloponnesians under
Cleomenes reached Eleusis. The Boeotians occupied Oenoe and Hysiae,
thus gaining a firm base in the Parasopia. Cleomenes, however, had
over-estimated his support, and the Peloponnesian contingent dissolved
and went home. The Boeotians and Chalcidians were left to face Athens
by themselves. The Athenians advanced on the Euripus. The Boeotians
abandoned Hysiae and Oenoe and hastened to join the Chalcidians. The
Athenians gave battle and defeated the Boeotians, taking 700 prisoners.
They then defeated the Chalcidians. As a result Chalcis received an
occupying garrison and, naturally, dropped its alliance with Boeotia;
Plataea and the areas south of the Asopus, such as Hysiae and Oropus,
were left under Athenian protection; and thus Boeotian ambitions were
sharply checked. It would not be surprising if Boeotian, and particularly
Theban, confidence in Spartan leadership ebbed, and that the leaders of
the Theban oligarchy felt that Sparta was not to be trusted in grave
situations. Such a Theban attitude may well have had its effect on
Theban, and Boeotian, policy and plans during the Persian Wars.
To summarize: the Thessalians occupied Phocis during the sixth
century, at the latest by the middle of the century. They then had an
entry into central Greece. The Boeotians were at first friendly to the
Thessalians, like Orchomenus, or neutral, like Thebes, while Athens
under Peisistratus and his sons was allied to Thessaly. About 525/520
some of the Boeotians, under the leadership of Thebes, and on the basis
of the existing religious association, began to form a new military
federation, because they were becoming suspicious, perhaps, of
Thessalian intentions. The nucleus consisted of Thebes, Coronea,
Haliartus, Tanagra and Thespiae. They issued a federal coinage.

Orchomenus and Plataea declined to join. In late 520 or early 519 the
Thessalians decided to occupy Boeotia as they had occupied Phocis,
probably using their friendship with Orchomenus as a pretext. The
invaders were defeated at Ceressus and lost their tagos Lattamyas. The
new League attempted to draw in the remaining Boeotian cities. Some
change was made in constitutional arrangements, a change perhaps
symbolized by the placing of the name of the sponsoring city on the
League coinage. Orchomenus, with Thessalian support, was able to
withstand the pressure, and it issued its own coinage. Plataea, thanks to
Spartan advice and Athenian help, also stayed aloof.
The Thessalian reverse in Athens in 510 had wide repercussions.
The Phocians were emboldened to attempt a rebellion that turned out
successfully. Orchomenus, thereupon isolated, was constrained to join the
League by 507. In 506 the Boeotians, in agreement with the Chalcidians,
opportunistically joined Sparta in an attack on Athens in the hopes of
gaining Plataea. The dissolution of the Peloponnesian force enabled
Athens to defeat Boeotia and Chalcis. Plataea and the regions across the
Asopus remained outside the League. The Boeotians, the Thebans in
particular, learned that Sparta could be very unreliable in action, a lesson
that doubtless played a significant part in forming Boeotian policy a few
years later in the Persian Wars.
Notes
1. Thuc. 3.61.2 and Hdt. 6.108.
2. Thuc. 3.68.5. For the dating see below.
3. For recent attempts to lower the dates of Greek coinage, especially Athenian, see
C.M. Kraay, NC, 1956, 43-68; JVC, 1962, 417-23; see also W.P. Wallace,
NC, 1962, 23-42, especially 38 and note 1 in regard to Boeotian coins,
Kraay JHSS4 (1964) 76-91, especially 80, and J. Ducat, BCH97 (1973)
61f.; R.T. Williams, NC, 1966, 9-13; R.M. Cook, Historia 7 (1958) 247,
argues that the original purpose of coinage was to pay mercenaries, an idea
not widely accepted; J.A.O. Larsen, GFS, 37, note 5, puts the problem
aptly, though for a different context.
4. Plut. Cam. 19.2 and de Hdt. mat. 33 (Mor. 866 F); Paus. 9.14.2.
5. For discussion see below.
6. For Thessalian-Phocian warfare: Hdt. 8.28, Paus. 10.1.3, Polyaen. 6.18.2
(Battle of the Amphoras); Paus. 10.1.5-10, Plut. de mul. virt.(Mor. 244),
Polyaen. 8.65, Polyb. 16.32.1-2 (Battle of Desperation); Hdt. 8.27, Paus.
10.1.11 (Battle of the Whitened Bodies); Hdt. 7.176.4 (Phocian Wall);
Paus. 10.13.7 (Phocian victory monuments).
For modern comments: G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, 1 (Gotha,
1893), 699f.; G. Macan, Herodotus, 5 (London, 1908), 393-95; M. Sordi,

La lega tessala, 78-89; L. Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche, 11 If.; J.A.O.
Larsen, CP55 (1960) 231 f. and GFS, 108-14.
7. Thuc. 6.55.1. Sordi, La lega tessala, 55, and Larsen, GFS, 112, draw the
inference for the alliance's origin in Peisistratus' time.
8. On Archaic mythopoesis see M.P. Nilsson, History of Greek Religion'2 (Oxford,
1949) 237-42 and his Geschichte der gnechische Religion* 1 (Munich,
1967)711-14.
9. The route through Hyampolis is argued for by Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 232f., and
GFS, 109-11.
10. Hdt. 5.67.
11. Hdt. 1.61 and Arist. Ath. Pol. 15.
12. The dedication of the Alcmeonids is dated by Ducat (Kouroi du Ptoion [Paris,
1967] 242-51 and BCH 97 [1973] 65f.) about 550-540 B.C. If Thebes was
in control of the sanctuary then, one might infer either (a) that Thebes was
at the time cool to Peisistratus, since it was allowing dedications from his
opponents; or (b) that the dedication was made when the Alcmeonids and
Peisistratus were on good terms temporarily, a not unlikely happening in
Athenian politics; or (c) that Thebes was trying to be on good terms with
various Athenian factions. If Thebes was not in control of the sanctuary,
one might infer either (a) that the authorities were quite willing to receive
dedications from rivals of Peisistratus since it would not matter to them; or
(b) that Ptoon was hostile to Thebes and to Theban friends and so friendly
to their enemies or rivals. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973), 65f., argues that the
dedication, given the known friendliness of Thebes and Peisistratus, must
mean that the sanctuary was not under Theban control at the time. This
proposition is of no greater or less merit than the converse of any of the
propositions outlined above. On present evidence, the dating of the
dedication cannot bear the weight of showing that Ptoon was independent of
Thebes around 550-540.
The dedication of Hipparchus is dated by Ducat (Kouroi du Ptoion,
251-58; BCH 97 [1973], 66) about 515. Since the sanctuary was in all
likelihood under Theban control by then, such a date poses problems. First,
it would render unlikely a Plataean adherence to Athens in 519 (cf. Ducat,
67f.), since the alliance caused a rupture between Athens and Thebes.
Second, it would make the known support of the Thebans for the
Alcmeonids in the years preceding the overthrow of the tyranny of Hippias
a most sudden and inexplicable reversal. The dedication might better be
dated before 520. This would do no violence to the epigraphic and stylistic
criteria and could put the material where it would not be caught up
needlessly in controversy. As it is, it could well fit the idea of a sudden break
in relations in 519 if it is dated 520 or a little earlier.
13. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1. 2. 205; Sordi, La lega tessala, 87, who adopts the change
to 100 followed by Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe greche, 111f.and 167, note
27; Larsen, GFS, 113f., and CP 55 (1960) 236f. But cf. Hammond, History
of Greece, 2 137.
14. Plut., de Hdt. mal., L. Pearson's tr. in LCL, Moralia XI, 83-85.
15. 1C, 9.2.469, a dedication calling on Aattane 'Exekpatrigou; Sordi, La lega
tessala, 87. It is a rare name: Pape-Benssler, Gr. Eig., 816, mention only
the Lattamyas killed at Ceressus.
16. Hdt. 7.6, 9.1, 9.58; Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1.2.206.
17. Hdt. 5.63.
18. Sordi, La lega tessala, 87-90 would have Aleuas a tagos; Beloch, Gr. Gesch.
1.2.206, does not think so, but has Cineas ruler to the end of the century.
19. As Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 1.2.203 argues cogently.
20. This dating is considerably lower than Beloch's date of 540 for Lattamyas, but
he made Lattamyas a predecessor of Echecratides I, though in the same
family. Beloch paid too much atention to Plutarch's date of 571 in Camillus
19, and so put Lattamyas too high. My own view is that Echecratides I had
two sons, Lattamyas and Antiochus, with the latter succeeding the former.
21. Beloch 1.2.201; Larsen, GFS, 110.
22. Sordi, La lega tessala, 86; followed by Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 236f. and GFS,
30f.
23. R.J. Buck, CP 68 (1972) 96 and Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 70, support this view.
23a. See above p. 100 and note 106 in previous chapter.
24. On the early religious leagues see previous chapter, pp. 88-90.
25. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 61f., for the date of 525 or so. He suggests that the
development of coinage from unlettered to inscribed, usually accepted (cf.
Buck, CP 68 [1972] 97, and note 23) is unsubstantiated.
26. For the latest discussion of the site see R.J. Buck, Teiresias, Supp. 1 (1972)
31-40, which suggests a location at Listi, northwest of Thespiae. It has
usually been set at Palaiovoro or Pyrgaki by most modern authorities, sites
also northwest of Thespiae with a view over the CopaYc plain. Older
authorities, such as Leake, favoured Neochorion due west of Thespiae at
the junction of the Permessus and Thespius valleys.
27. Hdt. 6.108; Thuc. 3.55 and 61.
28. For the date and bibliography see N.G.L. Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 389
and Cloche, 30-32, and add Sealey, History, 144f.
29. Grote, 2.442, n. 54, followed by Busolt, Gr. Gesch. 2.399 n. 4 and several
others, most recently M. Amit, AC 39 (1970) 414-26 (with bibliography),
and Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 67f. A variant found in Moretti, Ricerche sulle
leghe greche, 105-8, holds for Thucydides' date, but rejects the Herodotean
story as a fabrication. This neglects Thuc. 3.55.1, where Spartan advice is
mentioned.
30. Hdt. 5.62.2 and Arist. A.P. 19. Cf. Sordi, AR, 1966, 22, and Sealey, History,
142f.
31. Paus. 1.2.5; 1.20.3; 1.29.2; 1.38.8.
32. Gomme, Comm. 2.358.
33. Cleomenes when exiled stayed in Thessaly, Hdt. 6.74.1. A suggested
emendation to Sellasia (D. Hereward, CR 65 [1951] 146) is not logical.
34. As Sordi, La lega tessala, 56, has noted.
35. Thuc. 6.58. Aristotle, A.P. 15.3-4, dates the disarmament to Peisistratus' time,
but see Larsen, GFS, 112. The Boeotians had very good cavalry by 480, and
it is possible that the force was originally raised to counter Thessalian
passage. I do not think that the Boeotian cavalry was an effective force,
however, before 506, if then. Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 68, n. 42, is sceptical of
the idea of crossing Boeotia de vive force and wonders why the Thessalians
took a dozen years to react to their defeat in Boeotia. I should guess that
troubles with Delphi, with other areas, and internal problems distracted
them. We know of no Thessalian contingents in Athens before that of
Cineas in 511 from the time of the death of Peisistratus, though no doubt
there must have been some, especially after 514.
36. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 236.
37. Or so it is sometimes believed on the evidence of Hdt. 5.74 and coin types, as in
Seltman, Greek Coins2, 57. But see Larsen, GFS, 98f., for hesitation in
affirming a formal alliance.
38. Hdt. 8.34; 9.18.
38a. The ancients did use ethnic terms ambiguously, and so one cannot be quite
certain that the Orchomenians were included.
39. Plut. de mul.virt. (Mor. 244); Paus. 10.1.8; Hdt. 8.27; Paus. 10.1.11; see also
Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 232. The melodramatic titles are established by
usage, and no one has come up with better ones.
40. Hdt. 9.33-35 and 37.1.
41. Hdt. 5.74.2.
8. The Early Boeotian League
506-479 B.C.
After its defeat in 506 B.C. the Boeotian League had its eastern frontier
restricted approximately to the left bank of the Asopus. Opposite Thebes
the stream formed the boundary, but further downstream Tanagraean
territory overlapped to the right bank. Between the Asopus, roughly
speaking, and the limits of Attica, there was a series of Boeotian
communities that were not under the control of the League; these formed
a sort of buffer between the League and Athens, as well as a source of
dispute. Plataea was the largest of these, and the best known, but there
were several others. Erythrae and Hysiae were apparently not parts of
Plataea though they were dependent on it then, as later;1 Eleutherae,
Psaphis and Oropus2 were, as it seems, nominally independent. In fact
they were all so dependent on Athenian protection that Hysiae and
Eleutherae could sometimes be considered villages of Attica.3 Scolus, if
the location on the left bank is secure,4 may have been under Theban
control, as it was during the Persian Wars.5
Thebes, as we are often told, dominated the League,6 and those
who did not join the League are credited with being suspicious of or
having a hatred for Thebes.7 Language or dialect made little or no
difference. Oropus and probably Eleutherae used a form of Ionic, while
Plataea spoke Boeotian.8
In the western part of Boeotia the boundaries of the League
probably extended, by 506, as far as the Phocian frontier. Orchomenus,
Lebadea, Chaeronea and Hyettus were probably recent additions to the
League, as argued previously. At any rate, Orchomenus was a member
by the time of the Persian Wars.9 The existence of two distinct stages in
Map 8. The Boeotian League in 480 B.C.

124 The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C.
the early growth of the League, with Orchomenus and other cities being
added later than its first formation, has a bearing on the problem of the
selection, numbers and powers of the Boeotarchs.
By the time of the Persian Wars the Boeotarchs were federal
officials with military responsibilities. From the casual way that
Herodotus (9.15) refers to them it may be inferred that they were
familiar to the other Greeks, and that they must have had these functions
for some time, from the inception of the League as a military alliance. If,
as was suggested above, the Boeotarchs acted as the executive officials of
an amphictyony before the League was formed, they must, like the later
Aphedriates,10 have represented various towns and, by extension, districts
of Boeotia. The principle of selection by districts, then, would have been
ancient, one naturally taken over by the League and one that was with
the League from its inception.11 The suggested early reform of the
League may have been responsible for some change in the areas that
returned Boeotarchs, though this does not seem likely. Presumably
narrow oligarchies in the several districts elected them, to judge by the
evidence from Thebes.12 Whether a Boeotarch could be re-elected is
unknown, though re-election may have been possible.13
It is not known how many Boeotarchs there were, but an original
number of seven is proposed: one each from Thebes, Tanagra, Thespiae,
Coronea, Haliartus, Acraephia and the Tetracomia. When Orchomenus
and the others were added, the number was increased to eleven: one each
from Orchomenus, Lebadea, Cbpae and Anthedon (or perhaps
Chaeronea). The vagaries of early constitutional development may
explain the casual-seeming attitude of the later League to the number of
Boeotarchs. The Koiva TwV iiavtuv Boi6ora>i> irarpiot (Thuc. 3.65.2; cf.
2.2.4.) were obviously elastic in matters of such detail.
It is probable that the custom of giving two Boeotarchs to some of
the larger towns such as Thebes may have resulted from early actions. By
the time of the Persian Wars Thebes had gained control of the
Tetracomia.14 Its Boeotarch was, for all practical purposes, named by the
Theban oligarchy. The Boeotians soon became accustomed to the
Thebans' effective possession of two, and so to the principle that larger
towns might have two, one for themselves and one for the territory that
they controlled. There was, probably, a provision for Boeotian
non-members of the League to return Boeotarchs if they joined the
League. To judge by later constitutions Plataea was eligible for one seat,
and the Parasopid towns for another.15
The duties of the Boeotarchs as officials of the League were
primarily military and consequently (to the Greek mind) concerned also
with the supervision of foreign affairs.16 They were responsible for the
The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C. 125
drafting and the command of any federal contingent. Any Boeotian force
was under the general command of one or more Boeotarchs, with
subordinate officers from the districts supplying the troops.17 They were
also responsible for the preliminary negotiations with other states and for
making recommendations. If the Boeotarchs had had any religious or
amphictyonic functions, it is most likely that they lost them or delegated
them to other officials soon after 520 B.C. The Aphedriates, about whose
precise duties there has been some controversy, though it is agreed that
they are religious, could well have commenced as the replacements for or
delegates of the Boeotarchs. They are federal officials, chosen from
districts and usually number seven, or, rather, match the number of
Boeotarchs. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, no evidence attests
their existence before the early third century B.C., and what evidence
there is is inscriptional.18
A Federal Council for the League existed as part of the koina patna
probably from the beginning, or from the first reform, but certainly from
an early stage. Herodotus (5.79) mentions a halia that by its actions
should be this council: it hears such important religious matters as
messages from oracles and sets policy for negotiations with foreign
powers. Herodotus thought of it as a Theban body because it was
dominated by Thebes, but he was not very clear about the fine points of
Boeotian institutions and preferred to work with realities.19 The council
was a suitable mechanism to control the Boeotarchs, to set policy, to
assign tasks, to receive recommendations, to ratify agreements with other
states and finally to preserve continuity and Theban domination. In a
word it had much the same range of rights and duties as most oligarchic
councils, the Roman Senate being a standard example. The proportion of
sixty councillors to each Boeotarch is odd enough to date back to the
beginning of the League, as is the quadripartite division found later in
the fifth century,20 and into the fourth century. A summoning of the other
three sections by the fourth section in the manner described by
Thucydides,21 could well be Herodotus' halia. Meetings of the council
were held at Thebes (if later practice was followed), and so a heavier
attendance of Thebans than of others could normally be expected. This,
plus the support of a few of the smaller towns, would normally give
Thebes a stable majority against the other fairly large towns in all four
sections of the Council.
At some time after 506 B.C., according to Herodotus (5.79-81,89),
the Thebans (sc. the Boeotian League) in order to get revenge on Athens
made an alliance with Aegina in accordance with a Delphic oracle.
Aegina was a long-standing enemy of Athens, 22 and, since the eponymous
nymphs Thebe and Aegina were daughters of Asopus, the island stood
"closest" to Thebes and hence to the Boeotian League. The negotiations

were presumably carried out by the Boeotarchs and ratified by the
Federal Council. The sequel is interesting. The Aeginetans sent the cult
images of the Aeacidae to aid the Boeotians, but took no direct military
action. The whole story of the Athenian-Aeginetan dispute, incidentally,
revolves so closely around the stealing, attempts at recovery and the
borrowing and the use of cult images, that this incident fits right in with
the others. Suspicion of the historicity is unwarranted and the importance
of religious motivation in the sixth century should not be underestimated.
Still, other factors, as Herodotus (5.81) mentions, could prompt Boeotian
and Aeginetan religious enthusiasm.
The Boeotians attacked Athens, were met by the full force of the
Athenians on some unknown battlefield and were soundly defeated.
Herodotus (5.81.2 and 89) says that the Thebans hastily returned the
Aeacidae with an urgent plea for military intervention. Since later events
show that Aegina was not inhibited from attacking Athens by the attitude
of other powers, such as Sparta (until the Spartan kings intervened
several years later), one may conclude that Aeginetan military aid had not
been previously requested,23 and that its navy was ready to move on short
notice. The Aeginetan navy, then, while the Athenian forces were still
engaged against the Boeotians (5.81.3), raided Phalerum and other
Athenian coastal districts, doing considerable damage. It is clear that the
Athenians were entering Boeotia in full force for a serious invasion when
the Boeotians begged the Aeginetans for help. The Aeginetans distracted
the Athenians and, since the Athenian fleet was probably drawn up on
the beaches of Phalerum, one may conclude that the Aeginetans handled
the Athenian navy roughly. The Athenians broke off their attack on
Boeotia and returned to defend their coasts. The fortification of the
Piraeus may have been one of the eventual results of this war. The
evidence, however, peters out and Herodotus neglects to tell us what
happened at the end of the war against Thebes. Clearly Athenian
attention, and Herodotus' attention, shifted from Boeotia to Aegina. The
strategy of the Aeginetan-Theban alliance was reasonably successful, at
least in saving Boeotia.24 At some time a peace between Boeotia and
Athens must have been made, so that Athens was able to communicate
easily with its cleruchy in Chalcis. Apparently the status quo ante
prevailed.
The time of this series of events is a matter of dispute, as it forms
part of the chronology of the "Undeclared War" between Athens and
Aegina.25 Many of the difficulties arise from varying interpretations of
what is implied by Herodotus' reference (5.89.2.) to an oracle that
ordered a delay of Athenian retaliation for thirty years; but if the
Athenians did not hold off, they would still prevail in the end. Since
Aegina was reduced by Athens in 457, then 487 might well be the date of
the raid on Phalerum. That would mean that the sequence of events in
Herodotus is badly mixed up, and some of the incidents must be
transferred from an apparent date before the Ionian Revolt to a proper
one after Marathon. It seems to me, in the absence of any very
compelling reason to reject the sole source we possess, that those like
Hammond who argue that Herodotus' sequence of events, as he gives it,
hangs together and forms the basis of a satisfactory chronology are
broadly correct.26 Athens, it must be emphasized, did not obey the oracle.
Surely the meaning of the oracle should be that it took much longer than
thirty years until the final reduction of Aegina.
If Herodotus' narration stands, then the Athenian-Boeotian dispute
must lie between 506 and the visit of Aristagoras in 498, but before the
abortive attempt of Cleomenes to mount a Peloponnesian invasion of
Attica in support of Hippias.27 On the one hand time must be allowed
after the first Boeotian defeat by Athens to arrange an armistice, to return
the prisoners28 and to settle cleruchs in Chalcis before the second battle.
Then, too, there had to be time for Boeotian negotiations with Aegina
and the receipt of the Aeacidae. The year 505 is the earliest possible date
for the second Boeotian campaign after all this had taken place.29 On the
other hand Herodotus (5.96) seems to indicate that Cleomenes'
negotiations with Hippias (and the subsequent congress, the incident that
delayed Athenian retaliation), Hippias' intrigues and Athenian dealings
with Persia all took place fairly close to the visit of Aristagoras to Athens
in 498. Therefore early 498 B.C. is the latest possible date for the
Boeotian campaign and the Aeginetan raids.30 But time should be
allowed between the Aeginetan attack on Phalerum and Aristagoras'
visit: for Hippias and the Peloponnesian allies to have their congress; for
Hippias to get to Sigeum and then to start promoting anti-Athenian
feelings among the Persian authorities; for news of his deeds to reach
Athens; and for Athenian negotiators to reach Sardis and to return home
(complicated if the Ionian Revolt was in progress). Time should also be
allowed for a cooling-off between Athens and Aegina, so that Athens
could even contemplate sending twenty ships to Ionia.31 Therefore it
seems to me that a date a few years earlier than 498 and somewhat after
505 is more probable. The change in the establishment of the strategia in
502/1 (A.P.22) has been thought to signify that up to that date the
Athenians were righting for much of the time and had little opportunity
to put into effect many of the changes arising from Cleisthenes' reform.32
A date of 504 for the Boeotian attack and defeat, the Athenian
counter-attack and the Aeginetan raid, and a date of 503 for the
Cleomenean debate and Athenian deferral of effort seems reasonable.

Five years or so would give sufficient time for the Aeginetan-Athenian
enmity to calm down enough for the Athenians to risk sending even
twenty ships to Ionia. If the Boeotian League signed a peace agreement
with Athens in 503/2, then Athens could turn its attention to other
affairs.
To summarize: in 505 the Boeotians got back 700 members of their
army who had been held as prisoners by Athens and negotiated with
Aegina; in 504 they attacked again and were defeated again; Aegina
raided Phalerum; in 503 the Peloponnesian League refused to back
Cleomenes' latest scheme, and the Boeotian League made peace with
Athens; and in 502/1 the Athenians reorganized or established the
strategia.
Little is known of what happened in Boeotia in the time between
the alliance with Aegina and the invasion of Xerxes. In 490 the League
stayed neutral, neither helping nor hindering the Athenians and
Plataeans. It may be that the attitude of Sparta and the treatment of
Aegina, which was forced to hand over hostages to Athens, may have
played some part in shaping Boeotian behaviour. Neutrality, too, had its
problems; an unauthorized raid was made by elements of the Persian fleet
on the sanctuary of Delium in Theban territory during the capture of
Eretria. Datis, the Persian commander, as the result of a dream,
confiscated some of the booty from a Phoenician ship, namely a gilded
statue of Apollo, and gave it to the inhabitants of the island of Delos, with
instructions for them to return it to Delium of Thebes. The Delians did
not do so, and only in 470 did the Thebans finally recover the statue. 33
Since Delium was Theban, Tanagra had lost some coastal territory to its
neighbour at some time before 490. It may be, to judge by the behaviour
of Thespiae during the invasion of Xerxes, that Theban control over the
League weakened slightly during the decade before 480.
In the autumn of 48134 the Congress of Allies met at the Isthmus to
concert actions against Persia. The role of Boeotia vis-a-vis the Allies has
been since antiquity the subject of much angry argument. The facts are
that Boeotia, except for Thespiae and Plataea, medized, and that after
Thermopylae Boeotian forces took a vigorous, if discreditable, part in
operations against the Greek Allies. This vigorous behaviour, as well as
the comments in Herodotus on Boeotian attitudes, have led many to
conclude that Thebes and most of her League were disaffected with the
Allies much earlier than Thermopylae. Some have claimed that neither
Thebes nor any member of the League, with the possible exception of
Thespiae, was present at the Congress.35 Thebes, so the argument runs,
was as unlikely as Argos to join an alliance headed by Athens and Sparta,
because she hated Athens as much as Argos hated Sparta. It is more

probable that, as Herodotus says (7.205.3), the Boeotians desired a
Persian victory from the start and sent, under Allied pressure, only 400
Thebans to Thermopylae.36 Stories that tend to show Thebes in a more
favourable light, such as that of the alleged Theban participation in the
expedition to Tempe, come from sources like Aristophanes of Boeotia,
who are claimed to be tainted.37 In fact, the Allied expedition to Tempe
sailed to Halos for the specific purpose of by-passing Boeotia.38
On the other side some, from Plutarch on, have argued that
Herodotus, over-influenced by his Athenian sources, painted the Boeotian
medism far blacker than it really was. If, for example, Boeotia was as
disaffected as is sometimes claimed, how could the Allies have even
planned to hold Thermopylae? Aegina, which had a bitter enmity
towards Athens, much longer standing and more recently exercised than
that of the Thebans, joined the alliance and served loyally against Persia.
The Athenian-Aeginetan dispute was settled by the Allies, who tried to
subdue all outstanding feuds.39 Could not the same have been done for
the Boeotians? Thebes surely was as willing as Aegina to join the
alliance.
The case against Aristophanes of Boeotia is very important in
assessing non-Herodotean evidence. It is based on material in Plutarch's
de Herodoti malignitate (32) that Jacoby considered far more likely to
have come from the dubious Callisthenes, certainly not from
Aristophanes, on chronological grounds.40 Jacoby restricts the
Aristophanic material to two cited fragments, though he admits that other
material in this chapter may come from him. One of these fragments41
says that the Theban commander at Thermopylae was not Leontiades, as
Herodotus says, but Alexandros. This is cited from fa kar' apxovtas
viionvnata. Quite possibly Plutarch, in correcting Herodotus, has
misled himself and us. Aristophanes' work is concerned with Theban, not
League, officials and records, a point that Jacoby42 makes clear. Its
proper title may or may not have been Qnbaiwv "fipoi, but it dealt with
Theban magistrates, not Boeotarchs or other League officials, such as the
archons at Onchestus.43 Because subordinate officials would be subsumed
under the headings of the annual Theban archons, Alexandros must have
been a Theban, not a League officer, probably the polemarch of the
Theban contingent.44 One may conclude that since there is a good
likelihood that written evidence was available, in the Hypomnemata,
Aristophanes preserves genuine Theban material, that Alexandros was
the name of the Theban polemarch when Leontiades was Boeotarch.45
There are few grounds for the scepticism often expressed46 over the
statements in the other fragment47 that Herodotus sought money in
130 The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B. C.
Thebes, but was forbidden by the magistrates from talking to or

instructing the young men. It is known that he visited Thebes; that he
gave public recitations is commonly accepted;48 and that he was stopped
by the magistrates seems reasonable and may be known to Aristophanes
from personal experience.49 The comments on his hatred for Thebes are,
as we have them, clearly Plutarch's, not Aristophanes'. Thus the
credibility of Aristophanes should be restored in some respects, and a few
pieces of evidence outside Herodotus become available to make a picture
slightly different from his. The material about Mnamias and the Theban
contingent at Tempe may be from Aristophanes and may be historically
valid.
It is probable, then, that the members of the Boeotian League sent
delegates as probouloi to the Congress of the Allies in 481, and that their
dispute with Athens was, like Aegina's, somehow reconciled. Perhaps
some adjustment in the Parasopia was the price. It is noteworthy that
Herodotus does not mention the Boeotians, who, after all, lived on top of
the lines of communication to Thermopylae, as holdouts from the Con-
gress like Argos.
One of the decisions of the probouloi was to send the expeditionary
force to Tempe in Thessaly. It went by sea to Halos, passing the Euripus
on the way, and it could have taken on the Boeotians there. There is no
suggestion in Herodotus or any other ancient source that the expedition
was seaborne to avoid Boeotia. That would surely have been picked up by
Herodotus' sources if it had been a current charge. One can only guess
why the force was sent by sea. It was quicker, but also the Phocians were
undecided until the attitude of Thessaly became clear,50 and perhaps no
one wished to precipitate matters. Or perhaps the fleet needed combined
exercises to shake down its organization, and a seaborne expedition
seemed a good way to get them. The presence of Themistocles51 may lend
some support to this idea.
The Theban contingent of five hundred in the 10,000-man force
was presumably part of a League effort, with Mnamias as the Theban
commander under the Boeotarchs.52 It is quite possible that the Boeotian
League began to think again about its position after the expedition to
Tempe failed in its purpose to hold Thessaly for the Allies. The unhappy
earlier Boeotian experience with the Spartans may still have had some
influence.
In 480, just before the invasion53 when Xerxes had arrived in
Pieria, Persian heralds, who had been sent out previously, perhaps while
he was still in Sardis,54 reached him, some bearing earth and water, the
symbols of submission. Herodotus (7.132.1) then says, "Among those
giving them were the following: Thessalians, Dolopians, Ainianes,
Perrhaiboi, Locrians, Magnetes, Malians, Phthiotic Achaeans and

Thebans and the other Boeotians except Thespians and Plataeans." The
text itself has a peculiarity; it lists the names with no conjunction until
"and Thebans and the other Boeotians," as if Herodotus had made a later
addition. It also looks as if earth and water were demanded state by state,
not league by league, in a manner reminiscent of the Persian policy much
later, at the time of the King's Peace. The list is followed by the taking of
the oath by the Allies to tithe those medizing, except those compelled by
necessity (a hit, it is clear, at Argos). The sequence in Herodotus is
straight forward enough: Darius arrives in Pieria; Persian heralds bring
earth and water from states that have medized; and the Allies take an
oath to punish medizers. The question arises, however, whether
Herodotus in compiling a fairly complete list of medizers ignored
chronological constraints, and more particularly whether the Boeotians
and the Locrians medized then or after Thermopylae.
On the one hand, Locrian forces and Boeotian contingents took part
at Thermopylae, the latter as parts of properly constituted forces of the
Boeotian League under Boeotarchs.55 There is also some evidence for the
League's participation in the expedition to Tempe, as well as in the
Congress of the Allies. It is very hard to believe that a battle at
Thermopylae, with Locrian and Boeotian League support, would have
been feasible if Locris and Boeotia had already medized. All these points
might lead one to conclude that Herodotus had violated chronology for
the convenience of listing the important medizing states.
On the other hand, when the Thebans surrendered at Thermopylae
they said that they had previously medized and had been compelled to
fight.56 The Thessalians put in a good word for them, and the majority
survived, branded with the royal mark, from Leontiades, the general, on
down. This version has clearly come into Herodotus from bitterly
anti-Theban sources.57 Plutarch's indignant denials58 are not particularly
cogent, but even if one rejects the branding and the circumstantial
conversation of the Thessalians, there has to be an explanation for the
survival of the Thebans. Herodotus supplies it: they had medized pre-
viously. It should also be noted that in the event Boeotia apparently es-
caped ravaging, except for Thespiae and Plataea. Thus one can make a
case that Herodotus is following chronology.
It does not seem possible to reject the evidence of Herodotus in the
several passages, that at least some steps were taken towards medism by
Locris and the Boeotian League between the time of the expedition to
Tempe and the arrival of Xerxes in Pieria.59 At the least, during the time
between Tempe and Thermopylae the Thebans and other Boeotians, as
well as the Locrians, joined the Thessalians in sending earth and water, if
only as an insurance policy, while the Phocians (in part) turned firmly to
the Allies. Probably several other states, like the Dorians and part of the
Phocians, did what the Boeotians did. It does not seem to have been an
uncommon practice: Aegina submitted in the same way before Marathon
while still a member of the Peloponnesian League.60
The Boeotian League, notwithstanding its insurance policy with
Xerxes, played its part loyally on the Allied side until Thermopylae. The
700 Thespians may represent the whole hoplite force of that town, 61 but
the 400 Thebans are clearly a small proportion of their total. The size of
the contingents has sometimes been taken as an index of Thespian and
Theban loyalty to the Alliance.62 Ephorus63 guessed, perhaps somewhat
inconsistently with what Herodotus (7.205.3) says, that only pro-Allied
Thebans were sent out. Both these inferences are unwarranted. It should
be noted that 300 or 400 men seems the size of a Boeotian or Greek
tactical sub-unit, perhaps the lochos. This is about the number sent to
Plataea in the opening phases of the Peloponnesian war64 under two
Boeotarchs; or the number sent to Sicily in 41365 under three Boeotarchs;
or the number left as a garrison in Plataea after the siege started;66 or the
number sent to Thermopylae by Corinth or by the Arcadian states.67 It
looks as if three units were sent by the Boeotian League to Thermopylae,
two Thespian and one Theban. Two Boeotarchs commanded the
contingent, Demophilus, son of Diadromes, over the Thespians (7.222)
and Leontiades, son of Eurymachus, over the Thebans (7.205.2, 233).
Under them as local officers were Alexandros as the Theban polemarch68
and perhaps Dithyrambus son of Harmatides69 as the Thespian
equivalent.
At Thermopylae the Thespian contingent was completely wiped out
and the Theban survivors surrendered after fighting well for several days,
just before the rally for the last stand. As was noted above, it is alleged
that they were branded by the Persians. As soon as the Allied forces
withdrew from its territory, the Boeotian League medized officially.70
At least the Boeotians did not interfere with the Allied retreat.
The Thespians did not medize with the rest of the Boeotian League.
Clearly Thespiae was not at the time following League policy. One ought
not, however, to infer that Thespiae before Thermopylae was outside the
League as Plataea was. The Theban and Thespian troops were parts of a
League contingent under two Boeotarchs. It is more probable that a split
had arisen in the League after the abortive expedition to Tempe. As
noted above the Persians demanded submission state by state, not league
by league, and while Thebes and the other cities sent off the earth and
water, Thespiae did not. No doubt the backing of the Allies helped the
latter maintain its stance, and, after Thermopylae Thespiae must have
withdrawn from the League. It is probable that the destruction of the

Thespian hoplite force also destroyed the main Thespian body of support
for the League, even if a separate path on medism was being followed.
After Thermopylae the rest of the citizenry were ready and willing to
follow an anti-Theban, pro-Allied policy, and they were evacuated to the
Peloponnese.71 Some 1,800 citizens without hoplite armour served as
light-armed troops at Plataea.72 The Thebans saw to it that their town,
like Plataea, was burnt. 73
The League's behaviour in promptly medizing and in taking steps
against recalcitrants such as Thespiae and holdouts such as Plataea
clearly gave rise to the charge found in Herodotus (7.222) that the
Theban forces at Thermopylae were hostages. It is false. The league
simply changed quickly. This change, plus their previous actions in
sending earth and water to Pieria, and the help of the Macedonians,
saved most of the Boeotian cities from destruction.74 It may not be very
glorious, but only Thespiae and Plataea, cities that had been emptied of
their inhabitants, suffered damage.75 The Boeotians were a pragmatic,
realistic people. They could have been loyal to the Allied cause until
Thermopylae (the earth and water being an insurance policy), but when
they turned, they turned whole-heartedly. Many close analogies,
especially from the unhappy twentieth century, suggest that this could
well be the case: as shown in the conduct of various nations that changed
sides in the Second World War such as Italy, Rumania and Bulgaria; and
as seen in the careers of various individuals like Joseph Darnand.
Herodotus, however, does give us the name of at least one Boeotian
informant, Thersander of Orchomenus,76 one of the four sources for
whom he gives names, in telling of the doings at Thebes before Plataea.
Thersander should have been able to give Herodotus a corrective to his
rather severe view of Boeotian behaviour, if there was one to give, or if it
sounded as convincing as the version from Athenian informants.
There are some rather unconvincing hints that not all the Boeotians
from the cities other than Thespiae and Plataea were entirely happy over
the medism. A passage in Diodorus (17.110.4-6) tells us that in the
summer of 324 B.C., while Alexander was marching from Susa to
Ecbatana, he found a Boeotian community at a place called Celonae that
had been "deported at the time of the campaign of Xerxes." Textually the
passage is sound,77 although there are some grounds for believing that the
story was made of whole cloth by pro-Boeotian scholars in the Hellenistic
Age.78 Some have argued that these Boeotians were the descendants of the
400 Theban prisoners,79 but it is hard to understand why Leontiades was
able to survive the war at Thebes80and why the community was Boeotian
and not Theban. If there is anything to the tale, the Boeotians were
descendants of those drawn from several of the towns, deposited by the

Persians after the League had medized. One can only conclude that the
deportees were those regarded by the Persian and Boeotian authorities as
of dubious loyalty, anti-medizers.81
The Boeotian army in full strength, except for Thespiae and
Plataea,82 entered Attica before Salamis. We may conclude that the
Parasopia was annexed to the League, including Eleutherae and Oropus.
The Boeotians returned to Attica in 479, when their leaders gave
Mardonius the sensible advice not to undertake active operations against
the Allies, but rather to try some graft and corruption.83 The advice was
not taken.
When the Allies advanced from the Isthmus, the Persian forces
withdrew to Boeotia. The Boeotarchs organized guiding parties from
among the men of the Asopus valley, to get the Persian forces to
Sphendale and eventually to Tanagra.84 This act does not necessarily
mean that the Parasopia had been annexed to the Boeotian League, but it
does strongly suggest it.
The presence of the Boeotarchs, however, confirms that the League
was in existence and was active. Presumably the tally of Boeotarchs could
be kept up by having Creusis, Siphae and the rest of the territory
formerly controlled by Thespiae return a new "Thespian" Boeotarch. An
"election" of this type could help to explain why in later times Thespiae
had two Boeotarchs, one for the city and one for the districts under its
control. Perhaps, too, the newly added Parasopia returned one or two
members, and surely Plataea was nominally incorporated into the
League. Herodotus' careful exception of Thespiae and Plataea in several
places85 might be explained by the annexation of their territories and
dependencies into the Boeotian League.
One of the Theban Boeotarchs was probably Timagenidas, who
offers military advice to Mardonius.86 Attaginus was a prominent
oligarch, though not necessarily a Boeotarch, who is one of those held
responsible for Theban conduct, and who entertains fifty of the most
prominent Persians to a banquet.87 The Orchomenian Boeotarch is very
likely Herodotus' informant, the very prominent Thersander. Asopodorus
is mentioned as the hipparch of the Theban (sc. Boeotian) horse.88
The Boeotians describe for Mardonius the Allied order of battle.89
They end up opposite the Athenian, Plataean and Megarian units.
The course of the battle of Plataea need not be discussed here. The
Boeotian infantry fought well,90 but was broken leaving 300 dead, while
the cavalry inflicted heavy losses on the Peloponnesian infantry. 91 After
the defeat the Allies moved up to besiege Thebes, which capitulated after
a couple of weeks.
The Boeotians, to judge by what Herodotus tells us, got off very
lightly. Thebes turned over Timagenidas and some other leaders for trial
and execution while Attaginus escaped. Theban territory had been
ravaged but, as far as we know, no other penalties were laid on the
Boeotians. The Spartans tried to have Thebes (sc. the League) expelled
from the Delphic amphictyony, a manoeuvre that was firmly opposed by
the Athenians.92 But that is all that happened. The domination of Thebes
over the League at the time could not be more graphically illustrated. It
may well be believed that the Allies took steps to break the Theban
hegemony,93 though we may be ignorant of precisely what these steps
were.
It does not follow from the light penalties incurred that only the
oligarchs can be blamed for the Boeotian and Theban medizing, as later
Thebans maintained.94 Herodotus (9.98) has Timagenidas firmly
emphasize that all Thebans were equally responsible for medizing, since
the policy was backed by the masses. "It was, perhaps, a favourite
Theban technique to shift responsibility for inconvenient acts from the
citizens in general to their leaders; Xenophon shows that it could be used
even when Thebes was governed by the hoplite class."95
It may be believed that any Parasopid annexations were almost
immediately annulled, and that Athenian influence replaced Theban in
Eleutherae and Oropus. The League played an important if inglorious
role during the Persian Wars and must have been restricted once again to
the boundaries established around 506.
Notes
1. Hdt. 5.74.2 and 6.108.6 implies that Hysiae is to be distinguished from

Plataea, as do 9.15.3 for both Hysiae and Erythrae and 9.19.3 for Erythrae.
2. For Eleutherae see pp. 99, 113. Oropus and Psaphis probably came under
Athenian protection by 506 as well. See Salmon, RE A 58 (1956) 64; cf.
Hdt. 6.101.1.
3. Cf. Hdt. 5.74.2 and preceding chapter.
4. See above, pp. 15, 18.
5. Hdt. 9.15.2.
6. Hdt. 6.108.5 is one of the earliest.
7. Suspicious: Thuc. 3.61; hatred: Paus. 1.38.8.
8. R.J. Buck, CP 63 (1968) 268-80, with references.
9. Hdt. 9.16; 8.34; 8.50; 8.66.2 implies Orchomenian participation, since only
Thespians and Plataeans are excluded from the full Boeotian levy.
10. See below, pp. 157f.
136 The Early Boeotian League 506-4 79 B. C.
11. Walker, Hell. Oxy., 135-38, suggested long ago that the Boeotarchs and their
districts preceded the "secession" of Plataea. His confusion of a religious
federation and a politico-military league did not help his case.
12. Hdt. 9.88; Thuc. 3.63.2; cf. Larsen, GFS, 32.
13. Roesch,97.
14. See above, p. 99 and note 105.
15.FGrH 60 Fl.ll.
16. Roesch, 105f.
17. Cf. R.J. Buck, CP69 (1974) 47f.
18. For the Aphedriate see Roesch, 103f., 135-41 and below p. 157f.
19. M. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 58, considers the halia to be the Theban popular
assembly. But that would be an unusual body in an oligarchy for initiating
negotiations with foreign powers. It is far more likely that a discussion took
place in a Theban council, or better a Theban-dominated federal council.
20. Thuc. 5.38. Larsen, TAP A 86 (1955) 41, suggests that the system "was not a
product of mere growth and development but the conscious creation of
constitution makers obsessed by theories." This may be the case for the local
councils, which were clearly imitative of the federal council, but the latter
may well have adopted a quadripartite system for convenience. Rotating
councils were a mark of fifth-century oligarchic theory and fourth-century
model-making, but were based on sixth-century oligarchic practice.
21. Thuc. 5.38.
22. Hdt. 5.82-88 explains the cause. The enmity should date at least from the
middle of the sixth century, if not earlier. M. Amit, Great and Small Poleis
(Brussels, 1973) 17-22, (henceforth GSP), and Moretti, Ricerche, 42-45
and note 49, for references.
23. Amit, GSP, 34f., argues for a total of about 500 Aeginetan hoplites.
24. Cf. Hdt. 6.87.
25. Amit, GSP, 17-29, summarizes the problem and gives the bibliography to
1972.
26. Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 406-11. Cf. L.H. JefTery, AJPB5 (1962) 44-54.
27. Leahy, CP 49 (1955) 232 and note 7, summarizes older views conveniently.
28. Amit, GSP, 23, puts the armistice and return of prisoners after the second
defeat.
29. A date advocated by Hammond, Historia 4 (1955) 409, which is adopted by
Amit, GSP, 22 and L.H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece (London, 1976) 104.
30. A date accepted, e.g., by Meiggs-Bury,4 (London, 1975) 162.
31. A.R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks (London, 1962) 199, suggests that Eretrian
sea-power helped effectively to keep Aegina quiet. No doubt, but Athens
must have been over the first flush of rage. If the Athenian fleet had been
damaged in the raid on Phalerum, then time must also be allowed for
repairs, so that twenty ships would be available for service across the
Aegean.
32. E. Badian, Antichthon 5 (1971) 29. This is part of a vigorous defence of
Herodotus and a chastisement of others.
33. Hdt. 6.118.
34. Hdt. 7.145.2; cf. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece (Oxford, 1963) 98.
35. Hignett, 100.
36. E.g., Hignett, 117.

37. See, e.g., Hignett, 22f., on Aristophanes, following Schwartz, RE 2 (1899) s.i>.
"Aristophanes," 494.
38. Hignett, 103 n. 1.
39. Hdt. 7.145.
40. FGrH III b, Comm. 162. Jacoby puts A. well before Epaminondas, perhaps
even in the late fifth century (160). Hignett, 22, uses the material to date A.
after the collapse of the Theban hegemony, a date far too low in Jacoby's
opinion.
41.KGrH 379 F6.
42. Loc. cit.(n. supra) and note 15 (Noten p, 109).
43. For archons at Onchestus see above, p. 88. They seem not to have been
eponymous officials prior to 379 B.C.
44. The title of polemarch at Thebes seems to be old. See Schaefer, RE Supp. 8
(1956) s.v. "Polemarchos" 1097-1134, and Roesch, 162.
45. Buck, CP 69(1974) 48f.
46. Cf. Hignett, 22f.
47. FGrH 379 F5.
48. Jacoby, FGrH III, Comm. 162.
49. Ibid., note 17, Noten, 160.
50. Hdt. 8.30.1 makes this clear.
51. Hdt. 7.173.
52. If Plutarch is using Aristophanes' monograph on Theban Horoi as argued
above.
53. Late August, according to Hignett, 18.
54. Ibid., 95f.
55. Buck, CP 69(1974) 47f.
56. Hdt. 7.233.
57. Hignett, 147.
58. de Hdt. mal. 32.
59. Cf. Hdt. 7.205.3; see also 7.233 and 7.132.1.
60. Hdt. 6.49. Beloch, 22.1.86, criticizes this as unhistorical on a priori grounds.
See also Sealey, History, 196.
61. Hignett, 117f., 376-78.
62. Hignett, 117f.
63. Diod. 11.4.6-7.
64. Thuc. 2.2.1.
65. Thuc. 7.25.3-4; cf. Roesch, 98.
66. Thuc. 2.78.3.
67. Hdt. 7.202.
68. Buck, CP 69 (1974) 47.
69. Hdt. 7.227. Cf. Burn, Persia and the Greeks, 419.
70. Hdt. 8.34; cf. Hignett, 99.
71. Hdt. 8.50.2. See also Larsen's remarks, TAP A 86 (1955) 47-49, on the
analogous situation created in Thespiae after Delium and the heavy
Thespian loss of hoplites.
72. Hdt. 9.30.
73. Hdt. 8.50.
74. Hdt. 8.34.

75. Pausanias, 9.32.5, 10.35.3, claims that Haliartus was destroyed at this time,
but no other author and no archaeological data support his assertion. It is
generally believed that Pausanias made a mistake (cf. Holleaux, RPh
19[1895] 109-15; Frazer, Pans. 5.166), although some authorities (e.g.,
Salmon, RE A 58 [1956] 62) still believe him.
76. Hdt. 9.16; the other three places where informants are cited by name are 2.55,
3.55 and 4.76.
77. There is no warrant for changing "Boeotian" to "Euboean" as suggested by
Dindorf. Moretti, 121f.; U. Cozzoli, RFC 36 (1958) 280-84.
78. Moretti, 122.
79. Cozzoli, op. cit., 282.
80. Hdt. 7.233.
81. Bizard, BCH 47 (1920) 236, associates the behaviour of the oracle of Ptoon to
Mys the Carian in 479 with an underground opposition to Thebes. It seems
far-fetched to most. Cf. Moretti, 115f.
82. Hdt. 8.66.
83. Hdt. 9.2.
84. Hdt. 9.15.
85. E.g., Hdt. 7.132, 8.66.
86. Hdt. 9.38.
87. Hdt. 9.16 and 9.88.
88. Roesch, 109f., sees him as the earliest mentioned federal commander, though
Herodotus (9.69) calls him a commander of the Thebans. H. probably
speaks loosely here. Asopodorus is probably the father of Pindar's victorious
Herodotus.
89. Hdt. 9.31.2.
90. Hdt. 9.67.
91. Hdt. 9.69.
92. Plut. Them. 20.
93. Diod. 11.81.1.
94. Thuc. 3.62.3-4.
95. Hignett, 23f.Xen. Hell. 3. 5. 8.
9. Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
After the Battle of Plataea, Thebes and most of the other Boeotian towns
must have been in a depressed and impoverished condition. The territory
of Thebes had been devastated by the Allies; that of Thespiae by the
Persians; those of Plataea and Tanagra had been campaigned through
and fought over; and the rest were certainly not spared.1 The Boeotians,
even if the Allies had permitted them, were in no condition to take much
part in Greek affairs for a few years. In the Amphictyonic League only
the influence of Athens kept them on as members in the face of Spartan
hostility.2
Until recently the generally accepted opinion was that the Boeotian
League had been dissolved by the Allies immediately upon the Theban
capitulation. This is now rejected by many as an unwarranted inference. 3
Diodorus (11.81.2) states that Thebes was brought into a lowly condition
and no longer had its ancestral power and authority. Justin (3.6.10) says
that Thebes had lost its hegemony. Neither of these two nor any other
ancient source says that the League was dissolved. If anything the
inference should be that the League continued in existence under some
other hegemon. The evidence of coins is sometimes liable to involve one in
a circular argument,4 but several Boeotian coins that show the federal
shield and inscription, namely the series from Tanagra, are reasonably
dated to the period from 479 to 458.5 In addition there are others credited
to this twenty-year period, from Tanagra, Thebes, Acraephium, Goronea
and Haliartus, that show only the shield without the federal inscription
BOI.6 These are sometimes thought to signify that the towns considered
themselves members of the League, even though the coins themselves are
Map 9. The Boeotian League in 450 B.C.

142 Boeotm 479-431 B.C.
probably not federal, but local. The argument is that the federal coins,
that is, those with both shield and inscription, were issued at various
times by Tanagra in the name of all the Boeotians. Therefore at certain
times, though not at all times during this twenty-year period (to explain
the occasional presence of local Tanagran issues), Tanagra must have
claimed the hegemony of Boeotia. This view is fairly widely held at
present.7 The only hint from literary sources that may support this idea is
the mention in Thucydides (1.107-108) of the movement of the Spartan
forces to Tanagra (not Thebes) and of the subsequent destruction of its
walls (not those of Thebes) by the Athenians after the Battle of
Oenophyta.8
On the other hand it seems highly unlikely that the loss of 300
hoplites, the removal of a few leaders, the devastation of its land and any
loss of prestige in Boeotia could have forced Thebes to remain quiescent
for all of the twenty-year period from 479 to 458. The Theban recovery
of the gilded statue from Delos in 470, which was stolen from Delium in
490,9 points to some re-awakening of Theban activity at this time. The
control of Delium by Thebes, instead of by Tanagra is implied by the
recovery of the statue (and specifically stated for the time of the
Marathon Campaign by Herodotus) and may signify some shift in
territorial boundaries at this time and, also some shift in control of the
League in 470. Since, however, Thebes had clearly slipped from any
pre-eminent position by 460, one could posit on the basis of the coins an
uneasy hegemony sporadically exercised by Tanagra, with Thebes
attempting to get it back from time to time, but not being quite strong
enough to do so.
Orchomenus is credited with coining some issues during this period
with no federal shield at all, only the Orchomenian sprouting grain. 1 0
Since the shield does not appear on Orchomenian coins until well into the
fourth century, it does not necessarily signify anything about the
Orchomenian status in or out of the League, any more than does the
complete absence of any Thespian coins. But it is likely that Orchomenus
had withdrawn, at least temporarily, much as it did in 395.n
Plataea's position vis-a-vis the League remains unknown. Some 12
have argued that Plataea joined the League after 479, while others 13
argue that it did not. There is really no evidence one way or the other,
and the probabilities depend on the view one takes of the nature of the
League at this time. If, on the one hand, the modern view is correct, that
Plataea's integrity was guaranteed by the other Allied states, so long as
the Plataeans tended the graves and celebrated the Eleutheria, then there
seems little necessity to argue for a Plataean membership in any
politico-military League.14 If, on the other hand, the nature of the
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 143
League was primarily religious and economic, with very loose political
ties, then the two shares of authority exercised later for Plataea and her
Parasopid territories may well date back to this period. The probabilities
favour the first choice. It is clear, however, that Plataea was again
awarded the Parasopia, including Hysiae and Erythrae and perhaps
Scolus and Scaphae (Eteonus) as well, at the expense of Thebes.15
Eleutherae, Oropus and other towns south of the Asopus remained, for
practical purposes, Athenian perioecic communities.
The majority of the governments in Boeotia immediately after the
Persian Wars were oligarchic, just as before the Wars, and doubtless
were pro-Allied instead of pro-Persian. Nothing is said anywhere about
any change in the type of government. 16 Plataea may have become a
democracy in the period between Marathon and Salamis, which would
make more sense of an account of an oligarchic plot in Plutarch (Arist.
13).17 It has been argued that a democracy was established at Thebes
immediately after the capitulation, on the evidence of the Old Oligarch
([Xen.] 3.11) and Plato's Menexenus (242a).18 These, however, must
refer to a later stage of Boeotian history, probably to the time of the
Athenian domination in the 450s. No more than a change of oligarchic-
faction need be posited at this time.
By the late 460s the Athenian-Spartan entente had almost
disappeared. The treaty between Athens and Megara, together with the
invasion of the Megarid by Corinth and her allies (461-460),19 brought
fighting very close to Boeotia. There followed the dispute between Phocis
and Doris in 459, which in turn led to the Spartan intervention of
459/8.20 By this time, according to Thucydides (3.62.5 and 4.92.6), there
was stasis in Boeotia.
An army of 1,500 Spartans and 10,000 allies compelled the
Phocians to give up their gains and withdraw from Doris.21 Some
question has arisen about the composition of the allied 10,000. A few
scholars22 suppose that a small number came from the Peloponnese,
about 4,000, and that the tally was made up by Boeotian forces after the
arrival in Phocis. No source gives any support for this supposition.
Thucydides clearly implies that the 11,500 were all from the
Peloponnese,23 and Diodorus (11.79.5) specifically says this. Diodorus
does say that the Thebans became Spartan allies, but after the Phocian
campaign.24
When the time came to return to the Peloponnese, the Spartans
faced a problem. An Athenian fleet, of fifty ships according to Diodorus
(11.80.1), had sailed around the Peloponnese in the meantime, and it
prevented the Spartan army from returning by sea.25 Athenian troops
blocked the passes of Geranea, so that a land march via the Megarid was
144 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
out of the question. The Spartan forces, meanwhile, moved down into
Boeotia and finally towards Tanagra.
Thucydides emphasizes two points: one, that the Spartans were
delaying in Boeotia while trying to find a way to get home; two, that the
Spartans had been "secretly" approached by Athenian oligarchs "who
hoped to put a stop to democracy and to the building of the long walls"
(1.107.4). There is nothing about restoring any Theban hegemony. The
inferences are plain: the Spartans, neatly trapped by the Athenians, were
going where they could get control of Boeotia and consequently get
supplies, while they pondered what to do next; a result of their presence
in eastern Boeotia was to encourage hopes for an oligarchic coup at
Athens, one day's march away. Thucydides makes no mention of a
Theban alliance or support for Thebes at all. It is clear that the Spartans
moved against Tanagra as if it were the hegemon of the Boeotian League,
even if there was stasis.
Thucydides goes on to describe the Battle of Tanagra. The
Athenians in full force (they had to withdraw the bulk of their troops
from Megara in order to have sufficient numbers) 26 and 1,000 Argives,
along with lonians, Cleonaeans, Plataeans and Thessalians entered
Boeotia with a total of 14,000 men.27 An escape route now lay open for
the Peloponnesians, once the Athenians had been dealt with. The armies
met at Tanagra, probably in June 458,28 and after a severe fight with
heavy casualties, and after a change of sides by the Thessalians, the
Spartans prevailed. Thucydides does not say precisely when, but the
Peloponnesians withdrew homeward, devastating the Megarid in passing.
On the sixty-second day after the Battle of Tanagra the Athenians,
under Myronides, met "the Boeotians" at Oenophyta and defeated them.
This victory made the Athenians the masters of Boeotia and Phocis. They
took hostages from Locris, and they destroyed the walls of Tanagra. 29
Thucydides says nothing about what happened in the time between the
battles of Tanagra and Oenophyta, except that the Peloponnesians went
home. Diodorus, however, says that a great many things happened, and,
as a result, several different interpretations of the evidence exist.
Diodorus' account is so different from that of Thucydides, so
involved and so doubtful, that it is worth summarizing it briefly. The
Lacedaemonians came to Tanagra in 458/7 after their intervention in
Phocis. They entered Boeotia after the Athenians, together with Argive
and Thessalian allies, making a total of 14,000, had closed the passes of
Geranea and had fifty ships suitably deployed (80.1). There is nothing
here about oligarchic conspiracies. A battle ensued in which the
Thessalians changed sides; then there was an attack by night on an
Athenian convoy, followed by another indecisive engagement. A
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 145
four-month truce was then arranged (80.6), something not mentioned by

Thucydides.
In the next year (457/6), while the Spartan forces were still around
Tanagra, the Thebans, anxious to recover their former predominance,
approached the Spartans for help. "They (sc. the Thebans) promised
them for this favour that they would fight Athens by themselves, so that
there would be no necessity for the Spartans to employ an infantry force
outside the Peloponnese. The Spartans thought that what they had to say
was expedient and that Thebes, if it became stronger, would be a sort of
counterpoise to Athens" (81.2-3). According to Diodorus the Spartans
then enlarged the circuit wall of Thebes (81.3). No mention of any of this
is found in Thucydides. Apparently at this point they evacuated Boeotia
or at least we hear no more about them. Diodorus goes on to describe two
battles in the next campaigning season (456 B.C.):30 one an Athenian
victory at an unnamed locality under Myronides, after which the walls of
Tanagra were levelled (82); and the other, an even more decisive victory
at Oenophyta, still under Myronides (83), which led to Athenian control
of all Boeotia "except Thebes" and of Locris and Phocis.
Most authorities agree that Ephorus is the source for all this, and
the one responsible for most of the obvious mistakes, apart from the
chronological blunders stemming from the equating of consuls and
archons.31 It is worth reviewing some of the more obvious discrepancies
between Ephorus and Thucydides. First, Ephorus cites two battles of
Tanagra and two Athenian victories over the Boeotians, while
Thucydides notes one apiece. Second, Ephorus places the destruction of
the walls of Tanagra between his two victories over the Boeotians, that is,
before Oenophyta, while Thucydides places it after Oenophyta. Third,
Ephorus notes the signing of a four-month truce after the battle of
Tanagra, after the expiry of which, apparently, there was an unknown
span of time until the twin Athenian victories over the Boeotians;
Thucydides allows sixty-one days between Tanagra and Oenophyta, the
latter being fought on the sixty-second day after the former. 32 Fourth,
Ephorus relates a circumstantial tale of the Spartan-Theban negotiations
at Tanagra after the battle, the (assumed) move of the Spartans to
Thebes and the enlargement of the circuit wall, and hence the restoration
of Thebes to its former pre-eminence; Thucydides says nothing about any
of this, but instead has the Spartans move off home after the battle. Fifth,
Ephorus says that all Boeotia except Thebes came under Athenian
domination after Oenophyta; Thucydides makes no exception. Sixth,
there is no mention of the oligarchic conspiracy or of the devastation of
the Megarid in Ephorus, as pointed out by Thucydides.
146 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
Of these half-dozen obvious and serious discrepancies, two are

crucial for this study, the one concerning the truce and the one concerning
the Theban restoration. In Thucydides' account the Spartans ravage the
Megarid on the way home, and the Athenians attack Boeotia after
sixty-odd days, both sides behaving as if there were no truce at all. 33 The
Spartans in Thucydides did not delay in Boeotia for more than a few
days, certainly not as many as sixty-two. Of course it may be argued that
the truce was abortive, or that it did not apply to the Boeotians and
Megareans; either is possible. But the four-month span of the truce does
have a bearing on the opportunity for the alleged restoration of the
Theban hegemony over the Boeotians. Ephorus sets the Theban-Spartan
negotiations firmly after the battle of Tanagra and after the signing of the
four-month truce. Time would be needed for negotiation, for referral to
Sparta, for the construction of the enlarged circuit walls, for the task of
persuading other Boeotian cities to accept Thebes again as the hegemon
and for the Spartans to carry out their retirement. Even four months
seem somewhat short to include all these activities. Their completion in
considerably less than the sixty-two days that Thucydides gives between
the battles of Tanagra and Oenophyta seems highly unlikely, especially
when one considers that the Spartan forces had suffered heavy losses and
were anxious to get home before the Athenians closed the passes again.
They must have left Boeotia within a very few days after the battle. At
any rate Ephorus' version seems, on the face of it, improbable and far less
acceptable than Thucydides', and it should be rejected.
The Spartan-Theban negotiations and the restoration of Thebes to
the hegemony have long been generally accepted.34 But if Thucydides is
correct, and only sixty-one days fall between Tanagra and Oenophyta,
and if the Spartans marched home as soon as possible (devastating the
Megarid in passing), then there is little time for all the negotiations, the
construction of circuit walls, and so on, between Tanagra and the Spartan
withdrawal. Either the negotiations must be set before the battle of
Tanagra, or the whole story of the restoration, like that of the truce,
should be rejected. There is no justification from the sources for placing
the negotiations earlier than Tanagra. Diodorus sets them after the battle.
One may argue for back-dating only from a priori theorizing. Therefore
the negotiations and the Theban restoration should be rejected, along
with the four-month truce, the doubling of battles and the anecdotes
about Myronides.
Ephorus often read back the contemporary or nearly contemporary
into past situations.35 The Thebans under Epaminondas had, in Ephorus'
lifetime, defeated Sparta and helped to found various leagues, including
the short-lived Arcadian League. They had also helped to build the walls
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 147
around Messene and perhaps Megalopolis. Sparta was, in Ephorus'

mind, engaged in analogous activities in 458. After defeating the
dominant power, Athens, Sparta must have founded, or supported, a
short-lived federation and must have helped in building the walls of its
capital, all this with motives analogous to those of the Thebans a century
later. It forms a neat parallel and a piquant contrast, but one that is
totally without foundation.
With the rejection of the crucial discrepancies of Ephorus and the
chronological errors of Diodorus, Thucydides remains as the main source.
He says (3.62.5; 4.92.6) that Boeotia was in stasis at the time of the
Tanagra campaign. What exactly was the nature of this stasis remains
unknown. Usually the word means quarrels between factions, but in
Boeotian terms it could mean disputes between rival candidates for the
hegemony. The disputes could equally well be between oligarchs and
democrats, pro-Athenians and pro-Spartans, or varying mixtures of these.
It is, however, clear that the Spartans marched into a land disunited, and
unable or unwilling to put up any defence, and that they occupied its
leading city, with much the same opportunism that they showed in 382,
when they occupied Thebes. This does not mean that there was a revival
of the Boeotian League under Theban leadership. More probably, since
the League was already in being, and since Thucydides mentions Phocis
and Locris along with Boeotia, the Spartans gave aid to pro-Spartans
throughout Boeotia, Phocis and Locris. In Boeotia, following the
occupation of Tanagra, the Spartans doubtless saw to it that the League
was in proper hands, and it may be safely believed that these belonged to
pro-Spartan oligarchs based at Tanagra.36
Then came the battle of Tanagra and the Athenian defeat. Some
evidence exists for the presence of Boeotians at the battle, 37 and it seems
reasonable to expect that some sort of assistance for the Spartans came
from their partisans. The Spartans soon moved home, leaving their
supporters in control of Phocis, Locris and Boeotia, but they did not leave
a Theban hegemony. The Boeotian League under Tanagra led forth "the
Boeotians" against the Athenian invaders at Oenophyta, sixty-two days
after the battle of Tanagra.
The victory at Oenophyta made the Athenians masters of Boeotia.
The story in Diodorus (11.83.1) stating that Thebes escaped Athenian
domination is just another example of Ephorus' reading back of parallels
to contemporary situations. Just as Sparta or Megalopolis remained
unconquered when its League collapsed, so Thebes would have had to
remain untouched when Myronides defeated "the Boeotians." It is,
therefore, reasonable to reject the exception of Thebes, especially as
Aristotle clearly implies the establishment of a democracy in Thebes after
148 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
the battle.38 It is also worth noting that this time the Thessalians
supported the Athenians, to judge from a dedication at Delphi. 39
The sequel in Thucydides bears out the idea that the defeated
Boeotians were members of a pro-Spartan League dominated by Tan-
agra. The walls of Tanagra, not Thebes, were destroyed and "Boeotians,"
not simply Thebans, were exiled, which was a difference from 479 when
only the Thebans suffered.
Athens naturally supported pro-Athenian factions in the several
Boeotian towns. No doubt in some of these towns these groups established
democracies; in others, however, pro-Athenian replaced pro-Spartan
oligarchies. This seems a reasonable inference judging from a remark of
the Old Oligarch about what little profit the Athenians obtained from
supporting oligarchs, as in Boeotia, for instance. 40 Athens wanted to
ensure that she retained her power without being obliged to occupy the
country, and so long as a town supported her, she apparently did not
overly concern herself with how it was governed. One of the generally
held beliefs is that Athens established democracies throughout Boeotia.41
There is no evidence for this at all. It is clear from the presence of
oligarchies in the Delian League (in Lesbos until well after the outbreak
of the Peloponnesian War, for example) that the Athenians were more
concerned with local support than with establishing any democracies.
They had no objection to democracies, but they were more interested in
gaining support.42 Thebes, Thespiae and Plataea were almost certainly
all democracies. We may suspect that the unwalled city of Tanagra was
democratic. The rest were probably controlled by pro-Athenian
oligarchies.
To judge by the coin types and by the fact that "the Boeotians"
operated as Athenian allies, we may conclude that the League still
existed.43 Thebes was clearly not dominant, and obviously the League
had no internal hegemon. Presumably the usual district organization
continued to be used. It is sometimes thought that Plataea joined the
League, or at least obtained a privileged position within it, at this time. 44
The fact that Plataea and the Parasopid towns linked to her (oru/iioxitevou
vwv) have two Boeotarchs and two shares of troops, councillors,
and so on, listed in the Hellenica Oxyrhynchm (11.3), even if these
were chosen and drawn by Thebes at the time the work refers to, should
mean that Plataea must have belonged to the League at some stage
to have been actually allotted these shares. Second, the Thebans, after
their night attack on Plataea,45 urged Plataea to become an ally in
accordance with the patria of all Boeotians, the implication being that the
patria once applied to the Plataeans, since they were surely Boeotian.
Third, during the trial of the Plataeans in 427 the Thebans tell 46 how the
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 149
Plataean oligarchs desired to cease from the external alliance and wished
to establish (or enter into, KoraoTijow) the common patna of all
Boeotians, again with the implication that they were once common to the
Plataeans as well. These points give some credence to the idea of
membership in the League by Plataea at some time. Since membership
before the Persian Wars is excluded, and since membership between the
Wars and Oenophyta seems unlikely, then membership during the period
of Athenian domination seems the most reasonable. On the other hand,
since the Thebans do not say clearly that the Plataeans were ever
members, and since they do not urge them to rejoin or re-establish their
position, one may regard the Theban remarks about the noiva irarpux and
"all the Boeotians" as rhetorical flourishes, to be discarded as historical
evidence. The two Boeotarchs and shares may have been provided for if
Plataea joined and were not made operative until after the annexation of
Plataea by Thebes. Of these two arguments, on balance it seems more
likely that Plataea joined the League sometime during the period of
Athenian domination. The two Boeotarchs and shares look more as if
they result from an actual occurrence than from some abstract provision;
furthermore, the remarks of the Thebans seem to be more relevant to a
recently lapsed membership in the League than to a recruitment de novo.
It is better not to discard evidence from Thucydides unless there are
compelling reasons to do so. It may be that Orchomenus was persuaded to
join the League at the same time as Plataea and similarly given two
Boeotarchs and shares, as was Thespiae. The support of these towns,
each with the equal weight of Thebes, would give Athens a clear majority
in the League's deliberations.47
The League took a fairly active part in the alliance with Phocis and
Athens. A treaty with the Amphictyonic League set the seal on Athenian
predominance in central Greece.48 The Allies marched into Thessaly to
support Orestes, son of Echecratides, in a bid for power about 454, but
without much success.49 Possibly, too, the expedition was intended to
chase out Boeotian and Euboean exiles who were too close to their
homelands.
The internal history of the Boeotian states remains obscure during
the 450s. The democracies were probably of the type known from Athens
itself and from the Delian League, with a sovereign popular assembly,
with a council chosen by lot, and with most magistracies also chosen by
lot.50 The assembly would be composed of all (loyal) adult males. Most of
these citizens would have had little or no political or administrative
experience and those that did have would not be available, being oligarchs
in exile. A pro-Athenian oligarchy would have similar problems in
obtaining enough experienced men loyal to Athens. Then, too, any
150 Boeotm 479-431 B.C.
attempts by other oligarchs or anti-Athenian exiles to subvert these

governments would further complicate matters. Certainly "anarchy" and
"disorder," as Aristotle (Pol. 1302b29) indicates, would be the result of
the "dislike" of the opposition in these circumstances. Gomme's
supposition, that the Boeotian democracies were mostly incompetent,
seems reasonable,51 and one may believe that the pro-Athenian
oligarchies were not particularly loyal to Athens nor efficient. 5 -
By 447 the Athenians were encountering problems in central
Greece. The collapse of the Egyptian expedition, the attempts of many
states to withdraw from the Delian League, the negotiations with Sparta
and, doubtless, with Persia, and the flaring up of the Second Sacred War
(449-448) had prevented the Athenians from paying close enough
attention to developments that were taking place in Boeotia. Athens
intervened in the Second Sacred War in 447, sending a force under
Pericles to restore the situation in Phocis and the Phocian alliance. 53
Something, however, must have gone awry. In the winter of 447/6
Boeotian exiles seized Orchomenus and Chaeronea.54 It is probable that
they entered Boeotia from Thessaly, or at least from the northwest, and
that they took Orchomenus by a coup-de-main, in the manner of the
attempt on Plataea fifteen years later.55They were known as the
"Orchomenizers" and were led by one Sparton. 56 The term should mean
that the Orchomenizers in some peculiar way "sided with the
Orchomenians" or "behaved like Orchomenians," but in what sense it is
to be understood is uncertain.57 It is clear, however, that they were not
themselves Orchomenian, but rather other Boeotians;58 it is probable that
their leadership was Theban, since Sparton's name is suspiciously
Theban, and the Thebans constantly claimed credit later for the battle of
Coronea,59 even though the exiles were joined by Locrians, Euboean
exiles and "like-minded adherents," that is, Boeotians who were not in
exile. They were certainly some sort of identifiable body with a
recognizable common goal. Perhaps it was after the initial coup that the
Orchomenians took the lead and the Orchomenizers supported them, as
Larsen has argued,60 or perhaps, as Thucydides seems to read, the exiles,
that is the Orchomenizers (although Thucydides does not use the term),
kept the leadership. Whichever is correct it is certain that the
Orchomenians joined in the rebellion. Thucydides (1.113.1) tells us that
the area was hostile to the Athenians, and that Chaeronea was enslaved.
Enslavement, if the reading is acceptable,61 is a severe penalty to inflict
on a passive or constrained population even in the 440s, but is the usual
one for a city actively resisting.62 Thus the Orchomenizers were joined by
the inhabitants of Orchomenus and the Orchomenian territories in the
rebellion against Athens.
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 151
The Athenians decided to send out 1,000 hoplites, plus

allied contingents under Tolmides, against Orchomenus and the
Orchomenizers, probably in the spring of 446.63 This seems a small force
for a venture into western Boeotia.64 Perhaps the Athenians were rashly
over-confident, as Plutarch (Per. 18) implies in his anecdote about
Pericles asking for a delay in sending out this force. After taking
Chaeronea, however, it withdrew without making any attempt on
Orchomenus, an unusual action for a rash and over-confident army.
Faulty intelligence might seem more likely. A small punitive
expedition was sent, it could be argued, to deal with a small-scale attack
on Orchomenian territory. On arrival it was quickly realized that the
situation was far more serious than had been thought. There was
precipitate withdrawal to regroup and reinforce. But why, then, would
Pericles be opposed to the sending out of the force and ask for a delay,
especially if there were no information of serious troubles? To hold this
view, one should reject the anecdote by Plutarch. Furthermore, there is
some evidence that the Athenians had in mind an elaborate plan of
operations. It has been argued that Tolmides' planting of cleruchies in
Euboea in 447/6 was part of the strategy of his campaign, "partly to
prevent communication through Chalkis between disaffected elements on
the island and exiles in Boeotia," and partly to keep the area quiet.65 The
implication is that the Athenians regarded the trouble at Orchomenus as
very serious indeed and were preparing a full-scale operation in the area.
Far more probable is a third explanation, that the Athenians were
well informed, but that their forces were temporarily fully extended; that
some Orchomenizing initiative was thought to require an immediate
Athenian response; and that 1,000 hoplites plus allies were all that were
then available. At this time, spring 446, there was a garrison in Megara
and Nisaea; there was fighting in the Chersonnese and in Thrace;66 there
was some reluctance in paying tribute in the Delian League, and no
doubt fairly substantial forces were required to aid the collection;67 and
garrisons and cleruchies had to be provided for Imbros, Chalcis, Eretria,
Pegae and some ports in Achaea. Pnma facie the Athenians could not
have had too many troops available for operations in Boeotia without
regrouping. It seems probable that the Orchomenizers struck first, before
Athenian dispositions were completed for a Boeotian campaign in the
summer of 446.
If this is so, then Pericles' desire to delay things becomes as
understandable as the majority's anxiety to march at once. On the one
hand, a wise policy might be to keep plans unchanged, to hold off until
strong forces were available, so that the Orchomenizers could be firmly
crushed. On the other hand, in view of the changed circumstances (the
152 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
Orchomenizing initiative must have been very disturbing) delay might be

very dangerous and lead to a temporary loss of all Boeotia. Recovery
could be difficult and expensive. Thus the problem was to decide which
would be the better course: to delay, as Pericles suggested, until troops
could be gathered and then risk having to fight a costly and dangerous
campaign; or to move immediately, take a chance and hope that the
trouble could be stopped before it got too far. This dilemma provides an
economical explanation of the Athenian action. The latter opinion,
probably that of the commander Tolmides, prevailed, that something had
to be done, and fast. The presence of allies indicates that the Athenians
hoped to provide a nucleus around which pro-Athenian Boeotians would
rally, much as the Orchomenizers were providing one for the Locrians,
Euboean exiles, and like-minded Boeotians who were all anti-Athenian.
The expedition proceeded to capture Chaeronea and to enslave the
garrison and the inhabitants. Orchomenus was obviously too much for
this small force to tackle, and the hope was that the garrison in
Chaeronea would seal it off temporarily.68 The strategy seems to be
Tolmides', one very similar to that employed in Euboea.
The main force, less the garrison of Chaeronea, fell back towards
Haliartus, perhaps to sit down and wait for reinforcements at Thebes and
to ensure the safety of central Boeotia.69 To judge by the speed with
which Pericles was later able to send troops into Euboea, a substantial
Athenian force was in the process of being concentrated in Athens at the
time when Tolmides was marching toward Haliartus; its elements were
probably still at sea or otherwise on their way to Athens. Since the
Euboeans then seemed well in hand, 70 and the Megarean revolt came as a
complete surprise,71 the conclusion must be that the force was originally
being assembled for operations with Tolmides in Boeotia. But the
Orchomenizers again moved too fast. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of
Coronea, Tolmides and his small force was ambushed and slaughtered. 72
This defeat changed the whole strategic picture. The striking force
and rallying point was gone; the nearest Athenian army was in process of
formation at Athens, with most of its elements still on their way;
Chaeronea and the Euboean cleruchies, plus any other garrisons there
might be in Boeotia, were now isolated and themselves in need of rescue;
a substantial body of Athenian prisoners was now in Boeotian hands;
and, most importantly, Tolmides, the architect of the Athenian strategy,
was dead. The Athenians had gambled and lost.73 The credit for the
victory accrued to the Orchomenizers, and to some extent, no doubt, to
Orchomenus.74 They were now in a position to exploit their victory. The
remarks in the Old Oligarch about Athenian support for oligarchs
proving disastrous, and in Aristotle about Thebes abandoning democracy,
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 153
would be apropos to the time immediately after Coronea, with city after
city declaring support for the Orchomenizers and for oligarchy. 75
The Athenians, however, were still dangerous. Their army could
march into Boeotia as soon as it was ready. The Athenians had won
many victories over the Boeotians, and the prospect of facing them must
have been daunting to the Boeotian leaders. The Athenians could rally
their friends, especially the Plataeans and Thespians.76 On the other
hand, from the Athenian point of view it might be a bloody and expensive
business; there were the isolated garrisons and the prisoners to consider
as well. The Euboeans were restless, and with Boeotian help might very
well succeed in breaking loose from Athens. The Spartans were
threatening. Obviously there was ample reason on both sides to negotiate,
and the ensuing negotiations led to what I think was a mutually
beneficial and satisfactory set of arrangements. It is tempting to believe
that the Thespians honoured in a contemporary decree may have been
instrumental in bringing about the agreement.77
We learn from Thucydides (1.113.3) that the Athenians agreed to
evacuate "all Boeotia" and obtained the prisoners in exchange. But other
points not mentioned by Thucydides may be inferred from later actions.
First, the Boeotians agreed not to help Euboea. At least no Boeotians
aided the Euboeans when they revolted, in spite of their previous services.
Second, the Athenians were granted right of passage through Boeotia for
military purposes. Athenian forces proceeded to Pegae and to Chalcis by
way of Boeotian territory.78 Third, all Boeotian states were to be
autonomous; that is, some states such as Plataea and perhaps Thespiae
might be democracies, while others might employ other forms of
government. This idea is implicit in Thucydides (1.113.4). Fourth,
Oropus and the other march areas like Eleutherae were to remain under
Athenian control. Fifth, Plataea was to continue as an ally of Athens. By
and large Athens made the best of a rather difficult situation and
extracted pretty well all she could from the bargaining. The Athenians
went on to cope with Megara and Euboea and to deal with Sparta, while
Boeotia watched and re-organized.
Whether Plataea remained in the League is a matter of dispute.
Some79 have argued that she did, though on hostile terms with Thebes.
As Thucydides (2.2.1-2) states, Plataea was part of Boeotia, when
Thebes tried to annex her as well as subvert her constitution at the
outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Most,80 however, argue that Plataea,
if she was in the League at all, must have withdrawn when Athens lost
control. Two passages in the Theban speeches in Thucydides (2.2.4 and
3.65.2) should imply that Plataea was not a member at the time of the
Theban attack. The latter passage makes it clear that alliance with
154 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
Athens was, in Theban eyes, incompatible with membership in the

League. We may conclude that Plataea was not in the League at this
time. The urgings to form an alliance in accordance with ancestral
custom make little sense unless Plataea was not a member of the League.
It is true that Plataea was geographically part of Boeotia, as Thucydides
(2.2.1-2) says, but the verb he uses (Iipooiioinoal) for what the
conspirators were planning to do could describe enrolment in the League
under Theban hegemony as much as Theban annexation. The conclusion
that Plataea was not part of the League in 431 seems inescapable; she
probably left it after Coronea, if she had, in fact, been a member during
the period of Athenian domination.
Whether or not Plataea retained control of the Parasopia is another
matter of dispute with little evidence one way or the other. The district
was united with Plataea at one time81 but was annexed by Thebes at the
latest by 427. Some authorities 82 argue that Thebes recovered it
immediately after Coronea, on the grounds of general probability because
Athens abandoned "all Boeotia," and it would be probable that Thebes
would regain her ancient possessions when she had the chance. Oenoe lies
on the Athenian-Boeotian border, and Hysiae and Erythrae are called
"villages of Boeotia" by the scholiast on Thucydides. 83 To several84 this
argument seems to lack weight. "Boeotia" is used by Thucydides and his
scholiast as a geographic term as well as a political one; Plataea is, to be
sure, "Boeotian" (2.2.1) and the frontier does lie near Oenoe. On the
other side, Plataea was an Athenian ally, and Thebes did eventually hold
two Boeotarchs and two shares "for the Plataeans and Scolus and
Erythrae and Scaphae and the other villages formerly united with them,"
as if for one distinct area.85 Most probably, then, Plataea held these lands
until they were annexed by Thebes in the opening stages of the
Peloponnesian War, de jure until 427.
The constitution described in Hell. Oxy. is generally believed to be
the one that was in effect in 446, with several changes that arose from the
eventual overlordship of Thebes.86 There are, however, no compelling
grounds for accepting the widely held belief that the constitution was
created then,87 a belief based on the older view that the League was
dissolved after the Persian Wars and was not re-established until after
the Battle of Coronea. If the League had not been dissolved, then all that
need have happened after Coronea was that some adjustments were made
to the existing constitution. No doubt these depended upon the internal
politics of the time.
Plataea withdrew from the League, leaving her two positions and
shares vacant. It has been argued by some88 that Orchomenus held the
hegemony for a time after Coronea and was backed by Thespiae and
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 155
perhaps, briefly, by Plataea, an arrangement acquiesced by Athens. 89 On

the other hand, the Orchomenizers were led or dominated by Thebans;
the Thebans later claimed credit for Coronea; and only Thebes minted
coins between 446 and 387.90 These points have led several to argue that
the role of Thebes has been underemphasized, 91 and that its importance
in contributing to the expulsion of the Athenians must be remembered.
The most economical explanation of the evidence is that Thebes and the
smaller states simply agreed to continue an arrangement of double shares
in favour of Thespiae and Orchomenus, to get them to stay in the
liberated League, and perhaps reward them for it. 92 Thebes, then, agreed
to a nominal sharing of the hegemony.93 This was done either in a spirit
of self-denying altruism for the good of the federation, or in the cynical,
but well-founded, belief that Thebes would control the League anyway.
With Plataea gone there were nine Boeotarchs and shares in the
council.94 Thebes and the smaller cities together controlled five, while
Orchomenus was oligarchic and pro-Theban.95 The league gradually
became, by a series of Theban encroachments covered by the appearance
of legality, a political instrument at the complete disposal of the Theban
establishment.
The divisions among the members of the League by 446 seem to
have continued down to 395 with further minor changes, most of which
were made after 424.96 Orchomenus controlled Chaeronea and the area
north of Copai's around Hyettos.97 At some stage between the Battle of
Delium and the year 396 Chaeronea must have been lost, because in the
Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (11.3) it is grouped with Copae and Acraephia.
Orchomenus provided two Boeotarchs, 120 federal councillors, 2,000
infantry, 200 cavalry and two quotas of federal dicasts and two shares of
taxes, when these were required.
Thespiae controlled much of southern Boeotia, including Eutresis,
Siphae, Thisbe and Chorsiae. It also provided two Boeotarchs, 120
federal councillors, 2,000 infantry, 200 cavalry and two shares of dicasts
and taxes.
Plataea though outside of the League controlled the area below
Cithaeron and south of the Asopus, the Parasopia. After 427 and the
reduction of the town, all Plataea was annexed by Thebes, which thus
gained control of the two Boeotarchs allotted to Plataea and the two
shares of federal councillors, troops, cavalry, dicasts and taxes. The
population of Thebes was actually doubled before Delium by the influx
of refugees from areas under its control.98 The number of shares, it could
be argued, was about right for its size.
Tanagra possessed a small area of eastern Boeotia and by this time
it almost certainly included Delium, which it controlled by 424.99
156 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
Tanagra provided one Boeotarch, 60 councillors, 1,000 infantry, 100

cavalry and one share of dicasts and of taxes.
Haliartus, Coronea and Lebadea100 shared the south side of Lake
Copais and the land south of Chaeronea. Together they shared one
Boeotarch, 60 councillors, 1,000 infantry, 100 cavalry and one portion of
dicasts and of taxes. It is generally thought that each provided one-third
of these quotas and named a Boeotarch once every third year.101
Copae and Acraephia had Chaeronea added to them some time after
424102 and formed one division. They shared offices in the same manner
as the preceding group. It may be that these small towns found it difficult
to meet the quotas of troops and taxes, and so were willing to accept the
transfer of Chaeronea and the consequent dilution of privileges.
Finally Thebes, which controlled the central area to the Euripus
and Anthedon in the north and northeast, to the Asopus in the south, to
Pharae in the east and to Onchestus and Copais in the west, had two
Boeotarchs and two shares in troops, councillors, dicasts and taxes. After
427 Thebes also controlled Plataea's shares.
It is important to ascertain whether the towns with two shares, such
as Thespiae, Thebes, Plataea and Orchomenus, simply had districts of
double size, or whether each of these towns controlled another district
besides its own.103 From the material we have seen so far the latter seems
to be the case; towns such as Thespiae and Thebes returned both
Boeotarchs, the 120 councillors and the dicasts, but drew the taxes and
the military contingents from both sections. The advantages of double
weight of influence for a single weight of expense was obvious; the
principle of annexation of, and drawing benefits from, subordinate areas
was long established. Thebes was simply following familiar practice in
her annexation of Plataea.
The Boeotarchs, the councillors and the dicasts were all returned by
their respective districts. How the elections were carried out, or who was
eligible to stand for election is unknown. There were financial restrictions
and limitations on walks of life for local officials by 395 (if not earlier for
oligarchic cities),104 but there do not appear to be any on federal officials,
who are even paid.105 All this leads to the conclusion that the required
qualifications for candidacy and the manner of election were matters to be
regulated by the local division. No doubt they varied between Thebes and
Thespiae.
The nine Boeotarchs (eleven after 427) continued to be the chief
executive and military officials of the League. They had general, but not
immediate tactical, command of the federal troops, as at Delium. 106 This
looseness of tactical control must have tended to keep the feeling of
separatism alive in the local states. The Boeotarchs may have exercised a
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 157
more direct control as time went on, with local commanders playing a less
important role even by the time of the Sicilian expedition. 107 As a body
they commanded the army and formed a council of war, and individuals
or small groups of them could be detached for special purposes. It is likely
that by the time of Delium the Theban Boeotarchs held the chief
command, though it is by no means certain .108 The Boeotarchs continued
to supervise foreign affairs. They were elected for one year.
The Boeotarchs, however, were constitutionally answerable to the
Federal Council109 and they were assigned specific tasks by its
authority.110 This is the "Council of the Boeotians" that met on the
Cadmea and had a total membership of 540 members (660 after 427). It
was in reality powerful enough that political groups attempted to control
it.111 The full council is not believed to have met too often, if only for the
sake of economy, since the representatives were paid. 112 It did meet,
however, at regular intervals as well as for special sessions to elect some
federal officials and to decide some policy matters. 113 If the halia of
Herodotus (5.79) means this group, then its earliest mention is about 505.
The council probably dates from a time close to the founding of the
League.114
By the time of the Peloponnesian War, and probably much earlier,
the council was normally divided into four sub-councils (also called boulai
in the texts), each of 135 members (165 after 427).115 In this way the
federal council could always have some representatives present on the
Cadmea, so as to ensure continuity, to handle routine business and to
prepare material for submission to the other three councils. All decisions
had to receive the approval of all four sub-councils. How the 135
members in each of the four were actually selected, and for how long each
sub-council exercised power is unknown. Since, however, the Boeotarchs
were elected annually, and troops and taxes were levied annually, the
councillors were surely returned annually. A three-month term as the
"executive committee" for each sub-council (since Hell. Oxy. 11.2 speaks
of regular rotation) would, then, be reasonable. The councils probably
met on stated days, as well as when summoned by the Boeotarchs. It is
not known who their presiding officers were.
The number of dicasts returned by each district is unknown, as is
the jurisdiction of the federal courts. No doubt they tried offences against
the League, but we do not know what else. It has been suggested that the
obscure Thesmophylakes, who were federal officials in Hellenistic times,
may have some connection with the federal courts, but it is not certain. 116
The Aphedriates, known only from inscriptions, the earliest of
which date from 312 B.C.,117 are a college of officials with religious
functions, elected by the divisions of the League.118 Perhaps, as suggested
158 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
above, they were created at an early stage of the League, in order to

relieve the Boeotarchs of their religious functions. Their number seems to
be the same as that of the Boeotarchs.
The Agonarchs, whose title is a Boeotian dialect form of
agoranomoi119, are attested only from Hellenistic times. They were
elected by the districts, and their function seems to have been to
superintend the business side of the festivals under federal control, such
as the Pamboeotia. Whether they carried on this function in earlier times
is unknown, but it is likely.
There were, in addition, some federal officials not named by the
districts, but named by the federal council or by the Boeotarchs. Among
these are the hipparch and, when circumstances required, the navarch.
The hipparch may be found as early as the Persian Wars 120 and
exercised command under the Boeotarchs. The navarchy was in existence
by the time of the Peloponnesian Wars. 121 Their terms of office are
unknown, but were probably annual, and they were probably in existence
by 446. The federal eponymous archon is known, as noted above, only
from the fourth century, but may be an official of considerable
antiquity. 122 Perhaps he was not "federalized" until after 379, that is,
taken into the federal government, having been only a locally appointed
figurehead before then. If he were somehow associated with the League
earlier, then the council would be the appropriate body to nominate
him.123 He had, apparently, no executive functions in any historical
period.
The federal army consisted in 395 (and presumably at earlier
periods) of 11,000 infantry and 1,100 cavalry, drawn from the eleven
districts when necessary. There is no information on the number of
light-armed or specialized troops who were available or how they were
mustered. Were the peltasts, for example, drawn from the districts or
were they recruited outside the districts as federal troops? It is guessed,
on the basis of the figures for the battles of Delium and Phlius, that each
district was to furnish about 1,000 light-armed troops. 124 The 10 percent
proportion of cavalry to infantry seems to be the usual one for Greece at
the time of the Peloponnesian Wars.
The cavalry was distributed in squadrons 125 and commanded by the
hipparch. There was also a special troop of harnippoi, who were
probably mounted infantry. 126
The infantry were divided into lochoi of about 300 to 400 men, 127
and morai of unknown size.128 The crack formation of heniochoi km
parabatai presumably formed part of the Theban quota. It provided the
genesis of the Sacred Band.129 The armament was the usual standard
equipment consisting of helmet, shield, thrusting spear, cuirass and
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 159
greaves. The helmet was of a different form from the usual Greek
pattern, and the shield was decorated with the club, the symbol of
Heracles.130
It has been suggested that the League could not bring out the full
forces of the districts, but instead only two-thirds of the troops, in the
same manner that Sparta could mobilize only two-thirds of the forces of
her allies, with the exception that the district being attacked would
mobilize fully. 131 Though something like this was devised for the late
medieval Holy Roman Empire, it seems to most authorities unnecessarily
involved for a comparatively small, compact area like Boeotia. It is based
on the figures of troops at Delium; but if a proportion of the army was
away watching and garrisoning towns believed to be disaffected, such as
Thespiae, the difference could be readily explained. 132 Furthermore the
cavalry, 1,000 at Delium, were in nearly full strength, far over their
two-thirds proportion. Finally, Delium is the only battle where the
figures even remotely correspond to the "two-thirds rule."133 It seems
more probable that the Boeotarchs indented on the districts or some of the
districts, to obtain the troops estimated necessary for a forthcoming
campaign.
In 446 the individual states each had their own autonomous
governments. Sometime before 395 and the time of the Hellenica
Oxyrhynchia there was a very successful attempt to impose on all cities
the use of a uniform oligarchic constitution. Under this constitution the
number of citizens optimo jure in each town was limited on the basis of
wealth and occupation.134 From this limited class it was permitted to
draw the membership of the town council. This council was organized,
like the federal council, into four sub-councils with the usual rotation of
executive duties among them. This oligarchic type of government is
almost certanly the Koiva iiatpia of the Thebans;135 it might be
traditional, or thought to be traditional, or given a spurious antiquity like
the "Solonian" or "ancestral constitution," beloved by the Athenian
oligarchs. Most likely it is a fifth-century invention based on the existing
federal council.136
Most of the cities, like Orchomenus, had adopted oligarchies at the
time of the Athenian expulsion, and by 432 all, except Plataea, had done
so. If the tactics employed at Orchomenus and Plataea are any guide, the
procedure, whenever it became necessary, would be simply to use a
modicum of force. Disaffected elements in the town, oligarchs like
Naucleides of Plataea, would arrange with the League or Theban
authorities for a coup. The Thebans or other federal troops under their
Boeotarchs would move in. By a combination of firmness and mercy, 137
they would swing the town into the oligarchic rank. At Thespiae, for
160 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
example, the hoplites were supporters of the oligarchy and the League, so
much so that, when they had suffered heavy casualties at Delium, the
Thebans took steps to ensure the continuity of the oligarchy in view of the
hoplites' diminished numbers.138
By 432 Thebes was firmly leading the League and was well-nigh in
full control of it as well, but the towns did have their own local officials
and magistrates. Each had its own archon, as mentioned previously, but
by the fifth century he had lost most military and political functions, and
was acting solely in the religious sphere.139 The council was competent to
carry out political responsibilities. The polemarchs were still military
officials. They took the places assigned to them in the line of battle by the
Boeotarchs and exercised their own discretion about the formation of
their own forces as late as Delium. 140 By the fourth century the
polemarchs gradually lost their military role and became collegiate,
taking over much of the administration of their cities.141 It should be
noted that, when the military function was on occasion revived, one
polemarch only was given the job.142 The hipparch was the field
commander of the local cavalry contingent and remained as such from the
Persian Wars down to Hellenistic times.143 Various other officials,
hieromnemones, naopoioi, hierarchs, katoptai, hendekarchs, hodagoi and
syndikoi, make their appearance in the inscriptions of the third and
second centuries B.C. How many of these were active in the fifth century
is unknown. 144
The population of Boeotia can only be guessed at. Moretti (149f.),
following Beloch, estimates the total population of Boeotia in the late fifth
century as about 150,000, of whom 135,000 were free. Thebes, then,
would have had a population of about 30,000. When the people of the
outlying areas moved to Thebes for protection in 425 B.C. 145 it must have
risen to 50,000 or 60,000. But projections based on the size of the army at
Delium and from the quotas of the districts are very unreliable.
At any rate Thebes re-established its leadership over the League
soon after 446. By 432 leadership had hardened into control. There is no
evidence that Orchomenus played any significant role after the defeat of
the Athenians at Coronea, or that Plataea stayed in the League after
Coronea. Tanagra competed with Thebes for the hegemony after the
Persian Wars, until its walls were demolished by the Athenians after
Oenophyta, but it posed no threat at all to Thebes by 432. Democracy
was not adopted by Boeotia, but pro-democratic exiles from Boeotia were
a familiar feature at Athens until well into the Peloponnesian War. I45a
Thebes continued to be controlled by an oligarchy. At the time of
the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War one of the principal leaders, if not
the principal, was Eurymachus, son of Leontiades.146 Leontiades was the
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 161
Boeotarch who surrendered the Theban force to the Persians at

Thermopylae.147 Eurymachus' son, another Leontiades, was the leader of
a pro-Spartan party who later surrendered the Cadmea to Phoebidas, the
Spartan, in 383/2.148 Eurymachus was remembered as the one who
started the Peloponnesian War and who was killed by the Plataeans.149
In 431, probably on the night of March 6-7 or 7-8,15° a force of 300
or so Thebans, under two Boeotarchs, moved against Plataea. With the
aid of a Plataean faction under the leadership of Naucleides, probably of
the well-to-do, the Thebans got into the unguarded town through opened
gates. The Plataean group had hoped to "gain power for themselves,
destroy their opponents and attach their city to the Thebans," that is, to
set up an oligarchy and to rejoin the Boeotian League. "After the
Thebans had grounded arms in the market place, those who had invited
them in wished them to get to work at once and go to their enemies'
houses. This, however, the Thebans refused to do, but determined to
make a conciliatory proclamation and if possible come to a friendly
understanding with the citizens. Their herald accordingly invited any
who wished to resume their old place in the confederacy of their
countrymen to ground arms with them, for they thought that in this way
the city would readily join them."151 The Plataeans, it should be noted,
first agreed to the terms, but then quite unexpectedly turned on the
Thebans, and eventually defeated them, captured the survivors and
finally massacred the prisoners.
There are several points that should be made from this. First, the
presence of two Boeotarchs, even if two Thebans, indicates that this was a
federal, not merely a Theban, venture.152 The League was responsible,
nominally, for this pre-emptive strike against an Athenian ally and
non-member. Second, the small size of the raiding force to be led by two
Boeotarchs is surprising. It is clearly one of the lochoi, the 300-man or
400-man units previously discussed, but why not two? The inference
must be that the Thebans expected no serious resistance; the command by
both Boeotarchs was purely symbolic of the importance the League
attached to Plataea's rejoining. Third, the Thebans refused to butcher
their Plataean opponents and prevented their Plataean supporters from
doing so, apparently considering that conciliatory statements and
generous treatment would get them more support. 153 In this case they
were wrong. But, fourth, the Plataeans did at first come to terms. It was
only when they realized how few their invaders were that they turned on
them. Clearly, Eurymachus had misread the situation in Plataea and,
perhaps misunderstanding Naucleides, brought a force large enough to
have lopped off the head of any pro-Athenian resistance, but too small to
have overawed the Plataean populace. Clearly the Thebans hoped that
162 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
the Plataeans would join the cause en masse, a reaction conditioned, I

suggest, by their success at Orchomenus some fifteen years before and
perhaps by some other successes since that time. It did not work at
Plataea, and the savage and vicious brutality of the first clash proved a
prophetic and sad precedent for the rest of the war.
Notes
1. Hdt. 9.86-87 for Thebes, 9.15 for Tanagra, 9 passim for Plataea, 8.50 for
Thespiae (the lands of these last two must have remained uncultivated until
the people returned from the Peloponnese). See also Diod. 11.81.
2. Plut. Them. 20, says Thebans, but surely Boeotians is meant here.
3. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 44-64 and GSP, 86f.; Buck, CP 65 (1970) 217f.; Fowler,
Phoenix 11 (1957) 168; Sordi AR, 1968, 66f. For the supporters of the idea
of the dissolution of the League see Amit, op. cit., 44f. These include
Beloch, Busolt, Glotz, Larsen, Moretti and Walker.
4. Note the remarks of Ducat, BCH 97 (1973) 62 and n. 14.
5. Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168. The wheel reverse issues with the federal shield
and inscription are those under consideration.
6. Ibid. 166 and Hill, Sources 2 , 328f.
7. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 54f., 62 and GSP, 87; Buck, CP 65 (1970) 218, n. 9;
Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168f.; Moretti (somewhat inconsistently with
his belief in the dissolution of the League on p. 124) 126; Sordi, AR, 1968,
66.
8. As pointed out by Fowler, Phoenix 11 (1957) 168-70.
9. Hdt. 6.118 and above, p. 128.
10. Hill, Sources2, 328.
11. For the withdrawal see Roesch, 4 I f .
12. E.g., Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63 and n. 55;GSP 87.
13. Sordi, AR, 1968,70.
14. For guarantee, Thuc. 2.71.2 and 3.58.4; for references Amit, GSP, 84f., and
Brunt, Histona 2 (1953) 153.
15. Salmon, RE A 58 (1956) 52-58, esp. 55; Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 56.
16. Hdt. 9.86-88; Thuc. 3.62.3. See Moretti, 126 and Larsen, GFS, 32.
17. It is noteworthy that 1,000 Plataean hoplites, according to Justin 2.9.9 and
Nepos, Milt. 5.1, fought at Marathon while only 600 appear at the Battle of
Plataea. If the numbers in Justin and Nepos have any real significance, they
may show some dissatisfaction among the wealthier Plataeans. Kirsten (RE
20 [1950] s.v. "Plataiai," 2302) and others suppose that the thousand
actually consisted of 600 hoplites and 400 light-armed troops. At the lime of
Plataea the 400 were off with the fleet.
18. Busolt, 3.1.120; Moretti, 126; V. Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates- (London,
1975) 212; Ed. Meyer, 43. 560.
19. Thuc. 1.103.4, 106; Diod. 11.73.
20. Thuc. 1.107.1. I follow the chronology given in ATL 3, 165-80. See my article
CP 65 (1970) 218, n. 11 for the explanation. It requires the well-known
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 163
emendation of SfKaroot to Teraprwi in 1.103.1, about which there has been a

voluminous controversy.
21. Thuc. 1.107.2; Diod. 11.79.4-6.
22. Reece,JHS 70 (1950) 75f.; Steup, Comm. 1.108.1.
23. As Gomme, Comm. 1.313F., points out.
24. Diod. 11.81. Reece, JHS 70 (1950) 76, sees this point and has Thucydides
confuse the Peloponnesian and Boeotian strength at the Battle of Tanagra
with the number of the forces invading Phocis. This contradicts both
Diodorus and Thucydides; it should be rejected. A possible motive for the
Spartan expedition, in addition to aid for the Dorians, might be to help the
Locrians, who had recently been dispossessed of Naupactus, if A 7 L is right
in its chronology, pace Accame RFTC 30 (1952) 114f. and Sealey, History,
270.
25. Thuc. 1.107.3. Naupactus, if the Peloponnesian transports were concentrated
near Cirrha, would be a better base than Pegae. Even if the transports had
dispersed, Naupactus in conjunction with Pegae would be necessary to
prevent any sailing by a westward route, as ATL 3.165, points out. A
crossing on a dirty night sounds a risky proposition for 11,500 men, pace
Hammond, Histona 4 (1955) 405, n. 3.
26. Gomme, Comm. 1.316.
27. Thuc. 1.107.5. lonians: Paus. 5.10.4 and Tod GHI 1.27. Cleonaeans: Paus.
1.29.7 and Tod GHI 1.28 with notes. The Plataeans were probably there,
since they are accused by the Theban in Thuc. 3.63.2 and 3.64.3 of assisting
the Athenians "in their attacks upon others" and of having "aided in the
enslavement of the Aeginetans and other allies."
28. Thuc. 1.107.7; for other sources see Hill, Sources 2 , 342. For the date see ATL
3.165-72, 177.
29. Thuc. 1.108.1-3.
30. Gomme, Comm. 1.4 and 316.
31. Ephorus as the source for Diodorus in this section, Jacoby, FGrII II C, 33 and
comm. on 70 F 231; Busolt, 3.319, n. 2; cf. Barber, The Historian Ephorus
(Cambridge, 1935) 93f. L.H. JefTery, BSA 60 (1965) 57, suggests that
Ephorus confused the battles of Oenoe and Oenophyta.
32. Gomme, Comm. 1.317, on how the sixty-second day was remembered in
tradition.
33. Gomme, Comm. 1.316, is inclined to doubt the likelihood of this truce, though
Busolt, 3.316 and Moretti, 127f., accept it.
34. Ehrenberg, From Solon to Socrates,'2 212; Larsen CP 55 (1960) 9 and GFS, 32;
Hammond, History'2, 294f.; Gomme, Comm. 1.316; Cloche, Thebes de
Beotie, 66f.; Walker, CAH 5.80; Busolt, 3. 312; Beloch, 2.1.169; Moretti,
126; Amit, RSA 1 (1971)51.
35. As noted, e.g., by Jacoby, FGrll II C, 23-25, 70. Barber, The Historian
Ephorus, 75-83, discusses the influence of Isocrates and its pernicious
effects on Ephorus' historiography.
36. Busolt, 3. 320f., argued that the Spartans encouraged democracies after
Tanagra; but see Gomme, Comm. 1.318. It is not necessarily the case that
all oligarchs were pro-Spartan.
37. The only mentions of Boeotians at Tanagra are in Plato, Ale. mai. 112C and
164 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
Paus. 1.29.9. Both are highly compressed narratives, and Plato may well
mean the whole Boeotian adventure, since he talks about Athenians,
Lacedaemonians and Boeotians dying at Tanagra and Coronea. Pausanias
with his two days of battle sounds like a repeat of Ephorus, but he may have
inscriptional support for his claim of Boeotians at Tanagra, since he is
discussing the Argive monument at Athens.
38. Aristotle, Pol. 1302 b 29-32, refers to democracy in Thebes after Oenophyta
that was subverted by bad government. The exception of Thebes is
supported by Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 9f., with the hypothesis that the
Athenians first controlled and then very shortly after Oenophyta lost their
control of Thebes. This is far too deferential to Ephorus. Busolt, 3.319f. and
n. 3, supports Diodorus, because it fits his theory that a pro-Spartan
democracy was overthrown by oligarchs, whom the Athenians could safely
ignore. Walker, CAH 5.469, Hammond, History2, 295, Ehrenberg, From
Solon to Socrates,2 and Moretti, 129f. support the idea of Theban
independence; but most others from Miiller, Geschichte Thebens, 64 to
Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63, reject it on grounds of general probability.
39. SEG 17.243; see Larsen, GFS, 125 and n. 3.
40. [Xen.] 3.10-11. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 17, n. 2, would place Athenian support
for Boeotian oligarchs during some unknown situation between 479 and
462,1 think wrongly.
41. Cf. Amit,RSA 1 (1971)63.
42. Aristotle, Pol. 1296a33 says that Athens established democracies in her areas
of authority, but he is speaking in the context of faction fights, when
obviously she had to step in to restore control. See ATL 3.149-54 for a good
general discussion.
43. Coins with the League shield that can be dated between the battles of Tanagra
and Coronea come from Thebes, Haliartus, Tanagra and Acraephium.
None have the legend BOI. Hill, Sources'2, 328f.
44. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 12; Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63, and GSP, 86f.
45. Thuc. 2.2.4.
46. Thuc. 3.65.2.
47. This is probably a better interpretation than my suggestion, in CP 65 (1970)
226, that the two Boeotarchs, etc., for Plataea were established in 446 as
part of a deal between Orchomenus and Athens.
48.1C I2, 26; Larsen, GFS, 125, 126n. 1; Meritt, AJP 69 (1948) 312-14.
49. Thuc. 1.111; Diod. 11.83, 84. See Larsen, GFS, 125, for Thessalian politics.
For the date, A TL 3.178.
50. For Athens, Arist. Ath. Pol. 22.5 el passim. For the Delian League see the
nearly contemporary Erythrae Decree (1C I2, 10; ATL 2, D 10 of 453/2).
51. Gomme, Comm. 1.318.
52. Moretti, 130.
53. Thuc. 1.112.5; Plut. Per. 21; Philochorus, FGrll 328 F 34. For date see A 'I L
3.178 and Gomme Comm. 1.409.
54. Thuc. 1.113.1. Cf. Steph Byz., s.v. Xmpoweia, from which are drawn
Hellanicus, FGrll 4 F81, Theopompus 115 F407 and Aristophanes of
Boeotia 379 F3. For the date 447/6 see A I'L 3.173f.
55. For the direction of entry, Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 10; for the coup-de-main,
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 165
Scholia Thuc. 1.113. Cf. Thuc. 2.2 for the attempt on Plataea.
56. For Orchomenizers, Steph. Byz., loc. at., for Sparton, Plut. Ages. 19.
57. Cf. Dull, CP12 (1977) 31 Of. and notes 29, 36.
58. Cf. Dull, op. cit. (n. sup.) 309f.
59. Thuc. 3.62; Xen. Mem. 3.5.4. Cf. Dull, op. cit. (n. 57) 312.
60. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 11 and GFS, 33, followed by Sordi, AR, 1968, 68f. and
Buck, CP 65 (1970) 223-25.
61. Dull, CP 72 (1977) 307 and n. 11 for textual difficulties here.
62. Gomme, Comm. 1.338, says that the enslavement was only of oligarchs, not of
the entire city. Cf. Xen. Hell. 1.6.14 where the Methymnaeans who were
thought to be constrained were not enslaved.
63. ATL 3.179 and Gomme, Comm. 1.409.
64. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 10, makes this point.
65. ATL 3.294.
66. Megara: Thuc. 1.114.1. Chersonnese and Thrace: Plut. Per. 19.1 and ATL
3.299.
67. ATL3.299f.
68. As Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 10, notes.
69. Cf. Dull, CP72 (1977) 308, n. 18.
70. The Euboean towns had apparently paid their tribute in the spring of 446
(Gomme, Comm. 1.340 and ATL 3.294) and as well were controlled by
Tolmides' cleruchies.
71. Thuc. 1.114.1.
72. Thuc. 1.113.3.4. Death of Tolmides: Plut. Per. 18.2 and Ages. 19.2; Diod.
12.6.2; Paus. 1.29.14. Cleinias, father of Alcibiades, also among the slain:
Plato, Alc. mai. 1.112 C. The site of the battle is unknown. Plut. Ages. 19.2,
says it was near the temple of Itonian Athena; Paus. 1.27.5 says the
Athenians were on their way to Haliartus; but Xen., Mem. 3.5.4, says it
was near Lebadea. Probably, then, it was close to modern Alalkomenai,
somewhat west, near the border of Coronea and Lebadea.
73. The Athenians honoured Tolmides and his seer with a memorial, Paus. 1.27.5.
An inscription from the grave of the Athenian dead blames some demigod
(Hill, Sources2, 301 f. and SEG 10.410). Evidently it was felt that the defeat
was not Tolmides' fault but a "bad break." Dull, CP12 (1977) 314, n. 52,
thinks that the representation of Heracles on Theban coins from Coronea is
a tribute to his role in the battle as "some demigod."
74. So Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 11, and GFS, 33. The helmet often cited as
supporting evidence must be dated a century earlier, cf. Dull, CP72 (1977)
308f.
75. Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 284.
76. The Plataeans stayed loyal to Athens; the Thespians could be suspected of
Atticism even in the Peloponnesian War. Thuc. 4.93, 96.
77. IG I2, 36.
78. These two points are made by Gomme, Comm. 1.342.
79. E.g., Larsen, CP55 (1960) 12 and GFS, 33; Buck CP 65 (1970) 226.
80. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 63f. and GSP 87; Moretti, 134; Sordi, AR, 1968,70;
I.A.F. Bruce, Commentary on the 'Hellenica Oxyrhynchia' (Cambridge,
1967) 105, 106, 160f.
166 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
81. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.3.

82. Salmon, REA 58 (1956) 55, 68, followed by Roesch, Map. 1 and Amit, RSA 1
(1971)63f. andCSP, 87.
83. Schol. Thuc. ad 3.24.
84. Sordi, AR, 1968, 55f. and n. 12; Buck, CP 65 (1970) 226f.
85. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.3.
86. Larsen, GFS, 33f., for references, Bruce Curnrn. 103.
87. Larsen, ibid.; Ehrenberg, Staat der Griecheri2, 140f.; Moretti, 132; Botsford,
PSQ25 (1910) 284f., 290; Meyer, G.d.A. 43. 584; Glotz, Ilistoire greccque
2.161. On the other side, Walker, Hell. Oxy., 134-49; Amit, RSA \ (1971)
49-59.
88. Larsen, CP55 (1960) 11 and GFS, 33; followed by Buck, CP 65 (1970) 226;
Sordi, AR, 1968, 68; Walbank, CR 18 (1968) 324; and Hennig, RE, Supp.
14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 346, 347.
89. So Buck, CP65 (1970) 226.
90. Amit, RSA 1 (1971) 61, following Botsford, PSQ25 (1910) 284, and Head,
Greek Coins 8. ix and NC, 1881, 179f.
91. Dull, CP12 (1977) 305-14, and Roesch, 42, n. 1.
92. Larsen, CP 55 (1960) 9-18 and GFS tt, argues that Orchomenus was
awarded three Boeotarchs and shares. He does this to provide an
explanation for the Orchomenian retention of two Boeotarchs after the loss
of Chaeronea in 424. This theory has not been widely accepted, most
authorities preferring the position of Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 286f., that
the Thebans weakened Orchomenus in actual power, but left its position
untouched.
93. Cf. Moretti, 131, and Roesch, 43, "...a 1'origine une impression d'equilibre
entre les grand cites (Thebes, Thespies, Orchomene)...."
94. Sordi, AR, 1968, 7If. Cf. Bruce, Comm. 105.
95. Democratic exiles from Thebes and Orchomenus were co-operating with
Athens twenty years later in 424, Thuc. 4.76. Cf. the inscriptions in honour
of Potamodorus and his son Eurytion, IG I2 68, 69 and SEC 10.81.
96. Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 286; Moretti, 133-35.
97. Thuc. 4.93.4.
98. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.12.3. Bruce, Comm. 106.
99. Thuc. 4.76.4.
100. Thuc. 4.93.4 does not mention Lebadea, but they can be grouped together in
light of Hell. Oxy. 11.3. It is not, however, the usual division as seen in
Botsford, PSQ25 (1910) 285, and Moretti, 140; but cf. Roesch, 37f., where
the more recent opinion is succinctly given.
101. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66F 1.11.3; Roesch, 43; Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 287.
102. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.1 and Thuc. 4.76.3.
103. Roesch has discussed the matter, 40. Bruce, Comm. 104.
104. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.2; Arist. Pal. 132la, 24-30, for Thebes.
105. For payment, Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.4; for discussion of lack of
restrictions, Roesch, 97-124. Cf. Bruce, Comm. 108.
106. Roesch, 97, argues that they were directly in command of the Boeotian forces,
but see the responsibilities of the local commanders at Delium in actually
drawing up and arranging their own forces. Thuc. 4.93.4-5.
Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 167
107. Thuc. 7.19.3.

108. Roesch, 98, and Bruce, Comm. 105, for discussions.
109. Thuc. 5.37-38; Gomme et al., Comm. 4.42; Roesch, 99, 123f.; Moretti,
142-44.
110. Cf. Diod. 15.71.7.
111. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.12.2.
112. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.4.
113. Roesch, 123; Moretti, 143.
114. See preceding chapter, p. 125.
115. Thuc. 5.79; Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.2-4. Some have argued that the
"councils" referred to are those of the towns or districts, cf. Walker, Hell.
Oxy., 143-45; Meyer, Theopomps Hellemka (Halle, 1909) 93; Botsford,
PSQ25 (1910) 290f. This seems improbable to most modern authorities on
practical grounds, such as the difficulty of getting a decision, cf. Moretti,
143f., and Roesch, 99 and 123f.
116. Roesch, 149f.
117. IG 7.2724, 2724a, 2724b.
118. Roesch, 135-41.
119. Roesch, 141-45, esp. 143.
120. See above, p. 134 and Hdt. 9.69, Thuc. 4.72.3, Polyb. 20.5.8 and Plut. de
Gemo Soc. 5.
121. Thuc. 4.91.
123. He is sometimes termed the "allotted" archon, but a slate must have been
selected from which the winner was chosen.
124. Botsford, PSQ 25 (1910) 289f.; Moretti, 146f.
125. Thuc. 4.96.
126. Thuc. 4.96; 5.57.2; Xen. Hell. 7.5.24.
127. Note the discrepancy between Herodotus' 400 men entering Plataea
(7.233.2) and Thucydides' 300 (2.2.1).
128. Thuc. 4.93.4 and Gomme, Comm. 3.563 ad loc.
129. Moretti, 146 and above, pp. 93f.
130. Xen. Hell. 7.5.20.
131. Seymour, CR 36 (1922) 70, and 37 (1923) 63, followed by Salmon, AC 22
(1953) 347f.
132. Gomme, Comm. 3.563.
133. Moretti, 147-49.
134. Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.11.2 and Arist. Pol 1321a29. Cf. Bruce,
Comm. 103.
135. Thuc. 2.2.2 and 3.62.3.
136. Cf. Larsen, TAPA 86 (1955) 41-45.
137. The Thebans in 4.92.6 emphasize the lack of stasis and the tranquillity under
their guidance. Cf. also Thuc. 2.2.4 where they refused to massacre the
Plataean democrats.
138. Larsen, TAPA 86 (1955) 47-50.
139. Roesch, 158.
140. Thuc. 4.93.4.
141. A. Schaefer, RE Supp. 8 (1956) s.v. "Polemarchos," 1097-1134.
168 Boeotia 479-431 B.C.
142. Roesch, 169f.

143. Roesch, 176-78.
144. For an excellent discussion of these officials see Roesch, 155-248.
145. Hell. Oxy.,FGrH 66 F 1.12.3.
145a. Thuc. 4.76.
146. Thuc. 2.2.3.
147. Hdt. 7.233 and above, p. 132.
148. Pro-Spartans, Hell. Oxy., FGrH 66 F 1.12.1; the Cadmea, Xen. Hell.
5.2.25f. Bruce, Comm. III.
149. Thuc. 2.5.7.; Hdt. 7.233.
150. Gomme, Comm. 2.2.
151. Thuc. 2.2.4, Crawley's translation.
152. Gomme, Comm. 2.3, makes the same point.
153. Amit, GSP, 92, has some perceptive remarks on this point.
Conclusions
The geographical features of Boeotia have not changed extensively since

Classical times, except that Lake CopaYs has been drained, consequently
increasing the amount of highly fertile land. The parallel ranges of
mountains still flank the Boeotian plains to the north and south, and the
same seasonal streams drain them. The distribution of population has
altered somewhat; many ancient settlements now lie abandoned, and new
settlements have arisen in different localities. Several ancient towns such
as Thebes and Orchomenus are still inhabited, while some like Livadhia
(anc. Lebadea), formerly of second rank, are now among the most
important. The pattern of habitation, of a fairly large number of small
towns or large villages, housing a reasonably large farming population,
seems much as it was in Classical times and in some earlier phases.
Although what evidence we have comes largely from surface
explorations, the archaeological remains indicate that the custom of living
in villages rather than in farmsteads goes back to Neolithic times. The
number of sites discovered indicates also that there was a gradual and
generally steady increase in population throughout the Neolithic, Early
Helladic, Middle Helladic and most of the Late Helladic periods, until
the end of LH III B. There was then a catastrophic drop of some 80 per
cent in the number of inhabited sites. The reasons for this remain
obscure. Before the collapse, however, extensive fortifications had been
erected in Boeotia as in the rest of Mycenaean Greece. Apparently they
were built as defences against other Mycenaean powers, not against any
external, non-Mycenaean threats, if one may judge from the forts around
the east and northeast of Lake CopaYs. These were constructed, it is clear,
by Orchomenus to protect the eastern shore and the drainage channels of
the lake from Thebes. The palace at Thebes was burnt during LH III B,
somewhat earlier than the general destruction that occurred in the great
catastrophe at the end of the period. Boeotia seems to have suffered still
170 Conclusions
another phase of devastation near the end of LH III Cl.

The historical sources, the legends and tales of the Bronze and Dark
Ages utilized by the Greek historians, can be seen to group themselves
into three different traditions, but only three, which I have termed
Hellanican, Hecataean and Pherecydan after their earliest identified
authorities. Much poetic and other literary material remained unused;
varying combinations of the three strands (plus the very occasional
invention) seem the only novelties observable in later writers. What
precisely was the source material drawn upon by each of the three
traditions is unclear, but it seems most likely that the Pherecydan used
some generalized poetic tradition uncritically, while the other two relied
on more localized poetry and legends, modified by common sense and
learned theory.
None of this material is reliable. No tradition is more credible than
another. Combined they may be useful in contemplating some historical
events, but only in the broadest outline and only when supported by other
evidence. Thus what they present is so vague as to be virtually useless.
A few points, however, do emerge for Bronze and Dark Age history.
First, the faint hints noted in the three traditions of some linkage or
association between Attica and Boeotia correspond in some measure to
two pieces of other evidence: one, to the archaeologically observed
uniformity of material culture from the Middle Helladic onward at least
to LH III A that extends throughout the Mycenaean world; and two, to
the evidence that the precursor of the Ionic dialect was spoken in much of
Boeotia as well as in Attica. The fit is not exact, but it is
thought-provoking.
Second, the defences around the northeastern corner of Lake Copai's
have been thought, on purely archaeological and military grounds, to be a
defensive system erected against Thebes in the interest of Orchomenus.
This is consonant with the legends of Theban-Orchomenian rivalry,
legends that emphasize the importance of Lake Copai's. There are several
other fortifications of the Bronze Age throughout Boeotia. It is worth
noting that two strata of heroes can be distinguished: an earlier, builders
and fortifiers; and a later, occupied with wars and destruction but not
builders. This latter stage could be linked with the disturbances that
culminated in the burning of Thebes earlier than the catastrophe at the
end of LH III B, and with the stories found in all three traditions (and in
poetry not drawn upon) of the Argive attack and conquest of Thebes.
Third, the Trojan War is generally dated to the latter part of LH
III B, and seems to be archaeologicaly attested. The traditions all say that
the expedition, under Argive direction, left from Boeotian Aulis, a
Mycenaean site.
171
Fourth, the archaeological evidence indicates that Boeotia was hard

hit at the end of LH III B in the great catastrophe. On most systems of
dating it should have taken place some twenty to thirty years or so after
the capture of Troy and should have lasted for some time. All traditions
agree that something dreadful happened within a generation of the
Trojan war, with refugees fleeing to Athens and other places of security
and going overseas; they note incursions at that time by some foreign
stocks, usually Thracians or Phlegyians. In other words, a foreign
invasion was dimly remembered, but it is not known whether it was the
cause or one of the results of the great catastrophe.
Fifth, all three traditions, as well as some poetic material not drawn
upon, remembered that the Boiotoi had lived in Thessaly for some
considerable time, in the central region, around Arne on the periphery of
the Mycenaean world. The evidence of the Boeotian dialect renders it
likely that the Boiotoi had originally occupied a linguistic position
transitional between East Greek and West Greek and, therefore, occupied
most probably a similar geographic position while the two groups were
developing. In all probability they remained in Thessaly until after the
Trojan war, a view that the Little Catalogue in Book 13 of the Iliad fits
comfortably, though it contradicts the Great Catalogue of Book 2.
Sixth, all traditions have the Boiotoi abandon their homeland under
pressure from the Thessalians and invade their new territory after the
Trojan War, variously one or two generations after, but in all cases
subsequent to the foreign attacks on Boeotia. This is consonant with the
archaeological evidence in Thessaly of new incursions from Epirus in LH
III C, either a little before or contemporaneous with the second phase of
destruction in Boeotia, which may also be significant for the traditions.
The genealogical links between the Boeotian royal house and the
Cadmeans, or Peneleus or other heroes of the Trojan War, are obviously
attempts to connect the newcomers with their predecessors and so give
them some spurious rights of possession.
Seventh, all traditions agree that the Boiotoi were invaders who
eventually conquered Boeotia. They all say that it took a considerable
time to subdue Boeotia and that the Boiotoi worked steadily from west to
east. They had to defeat the Thracians, Phlegyians and similar foreign
stocks; they also conquered the natives, Pelasgians and other survivors.
The traditional dates, 1124 for the entry into Boeotia and 1064 for the
death of Xanthus and the completion of the conquest, seem far too close
together. The incursion of LH III C can be roughly dated to 1150 B.C.;
conditions were relatively peaceful by 950. Two hundred years seem as
reasonable a duration as is possible on the evidence to allow for the
conquest of Boeotia, with the minimum being 150 years.
172 Conclusions
For the rest of the Dark Age and for the early Archaic period the
historical evidence becomes very scrappy. Our three traditions fade out
and Hesiod does not really fill the gap. Much of the reconstruction is
based on retrojection and analogy. The Boeotians did not, as it seems,
follow the settlement pattern of the Dorians and Thessalians, who used
the former inhabitants as a subordinate class like the helots or penestae.
There is no evidence for a serf class ethnically different from the
governing group. The Boeotians, too, may have formed only one tribe, not
a combination of several like the Dorians, and there is no compelling
evidence for the presence of tribes and phratries among them. On the
other hand some names, some institutional peculiarities and some
inscriptional evidence may indicate the presence of seven tribes at an
early stage and the use of phratries. If this is so, they had no functional
importance in Boeotian culture and politics by historical times.
The Boeotians moved into Boeotia under kings, or at least all
traditions so claim. They also all agree, probably rightly, that the
monarchy disappeared about the time of the completion of the conquest.
Some modern authorities have professed to see some link between the
Archon at Onchestus and the vestiges of a Boeotian kingship, but any
connection is obscure. The Boeotians settled down in various communities
and developed local ruling groups as aristocracies, in a manner similar to
that in other parts of Greece. The Boeotians formed a religious
association that persisted after political unity had faded, and one that
controlled the calendar and festivals such as the Pamboeotia.
The aristocratic oligarchies continued to be the predominant form of
government in Boeotia for much of later history. They must have
presided over the synoecisms of the various towns and over the expansion
of some of these new poleis at an early stage.
Orchomenus, it is clear from archaeological evidence, was one of the
first cities to revive. It is equally clear from tradition that it attempted to
procure an hegemony over the rest of Boeotia. The attempt was
unsuccessful, with Thebes claiming the credit for its defeat. The smaller
towns like Ascra attempted for some time around 700 B.C. to use
Orchomenian influence to counter the pressure of neighbours such as
Thespiae and Thebes. This should mean that Orchomenian power was
waning by that time.
From between 750 and 700 down to the destruction of Thebes by
Alexander there was a clear pattern in Boeotia of internal, opportunistic
aggrandizement and aggression. Several towns enlarged their territories
by the domination or absorption of smaller neighbours, as well as by
establishing new settlements. Thespiae, for example, destroyed Ascra and
annexed its territory about 700; it settled a new village on the abandoned
Conclusions 173
Mycenaean site of Eutresis about 600; and it gained control of Siphae

and the adjacent coastal towns by 500. Thebes annexed Potniae at an
early stage, and transferred its population to Thebes; it gained control of
territory as far as the Euripus by 520, including the Tetracomia; and it
had wrested control of Delium from Tanagra by 490. Tanagra in the
same manner had previously annexed territory as far as Graea.
There were some failures. The small towns of Lebadea, Coronea
and Haliartus, as well as Copae and Acraephia, warded off aggression
and preserved a precarious independence. Eleutherae by the third quarter
of the sixth century turned to Athens for protection, as did Plataea in 519
and eventually Oropus and other towns in the area of the Asopus valley.
Changes in the modes of warfare brought in their train some
changes in society. The shift to the hoplite phalanx and the panoply of
the armoured foot-lancer, a process especially emphasized in Greece
between 700 and 650, brought about certain modifications in land tenure
and no doubt in the balance of groups and classes in the state. The
reforms of Philolaus at Thebes, to be dated to the end of this shift, around
650 B.C., reflect the importance of maximizing the number of hoplites to
produce a decent phalanx and the interest of the state in seeing that this
was done. Thespiae was slower in changing over, and it relied on Theban
support for its aristocracy for a time. Eventually it too had to readjust and
had apparently done so by the time of the settlement at Eutresis. By 600
a new equilibrium was reached, with an inner and aristocratic circle
(doubtless with some new faces) governing in most of the towns.
By the late sixth century Boeotia was coming under increasing
Thessalian pressure. The Thessalians already controlled Phocis and had
an alliance with the Athenian tyrants, to whom they supplied cavalry.
Boeotia lay in between. The Thessalian pressure culminated in an
invasion no earlier than 525 B.C. and probably close to 520. A nascent
political and military federation of some Boeotian states under Theban
leadership opposed the invasion and defeated the Thessalians, and
Lattamyas their leader, at Ceressus. Whether the federation was formed
under Thessalian threats, or whether Thessalian forces invaded to
dissolve a new and dangerous alliance remains unknown. The federation,
however, continued to demonstrate the usual Boeotian pattern of internal
aggression and aggrandizement, with Thebes attempting to dominate all
Boeotia in much the same way that the various Boeotian states had
behaved towards their neighbours.
Plataea had refused to join this Theban-dominated federation, and
in 519 on the advice of Sparta and Corinth it sought the friendship of
Athens as a counterweight to Thebes. This incident marks one of the
earliest Spartan forays north of the Peloponnese. The result was a neat
174 Conclusions
ploy to keep the two major cities of central Greece mutually hostile.
Athens and Plataea defeated Thebes and her League, and so Plataea
remained, like Eleutherae, independent.
Orchomenus, which had been a Thessalian ally before the battle at
Ceressus, was eventually brought into the Boeotian League, between 510
and 507. The Thessalians lost Phocis around 510 and with it the power
to move troops rapidly into western Boeotia.
The Boeotian League intervened in Attica at the time of Cleomenes'
abortive invasion in 506. They were defeated again by the Athenians and
lost 700 prisoners. A little later, probably in 504, they tried another
attack, this time with Aegina as an ally, but were defeated once more.
Their ally's efforts barely saved them from a full-scale invasion, and some
time before 502/1 the League made a peace, abandoning their alliance
with Aegina. They kept this peace for about twenty years, until the
invasion of Xerxes, staying neutral during the Marathon campaign. The
shrine of Apollo at Delium was looted, apparently in error, by the
Persians at about the time of the capture of Eretria.
The organization of the Boeotian League at its inception in 520 or
so took over some features from the earlier religious amphictyony, notably
the division of Boeotia into districts and the drawing of representatives
from these districts, thereby passing on a procedure still standard in the
later Boeotian League. It seems most probable that the new League had
seven districts; for the number recurs frequently in Boeotian politics.
Other districts could be added (and dropped) from time to time. The
double representation granted to cities such as Thebes, Orchomenus and
Thespiae seems to have originated at an early stage, as a result of the
domination of adjacent districts by the larger towns and the consequent
addition of these districts to the League in a subordinate status. The
Boeotarchs were from the beginning of the League the supreme military
and administrative officials. Apparently they had no judicial or legislative
responsibilities.
The federal council of sixty members elected from each district was
the body to which the Boeotarchs were answerable to by 446 and
probably from the beginning. The electing was done probably from the
beginning, by those possessing a property qualification, namely the
hoplite class. When the quadripartite division, in which each quarter took
its turn to act as a probouleutic body, was first adopted is unknown, but it
is likely that it too was adopted at an early stage, if only to make life
easier for the councillors. At a later time the Boeotian type of election and
rotation became a hallmark of oligarchy. When the dicasts mentioned in
the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia were first created, is unknown.
At the time of the invasion of Xerxes the League played an
Conclusions 175
equivocal role. It was probably a member of the Congress at the Isthmus

and a participant in the expedition to Tempe; and it had also sent at some
stage, earth and water to the king, or rather the individual members had,
with the exception of Thespiae.
The League, however, did provide a substantial part of Leonidas'
advance force at Thermopylae, about one-third of it according to
Pausanias and Herodotus. There is no compelling evidence that the
Boeotian force was sent under compulsion, and it fought bravely until the
last stand; when the situation was clearly hopeless, the Thebans
surrendered. No part of the Boeotian contingent withdrew with the
Peloponnesians. The League did not medize officially until the
Peloponnesians had cleared the country. It should be emphasized that the
Boeotian action spared their towns from devastation and their people
from slaughter, or at least from an unpleasant and dangerous sojourn on
Helicon and Chlomon. Only the abandoned towns of Thespiae and
Plataea suffered damage, and there were no people to be hurt in either of
them. (The latter town, to the Boeotian mind, doubtless deserved it.)
When the Boeotians transferred to the Persian side, they all, with
the exception of Thespiae, did so whole-heartedly. They played an
important part in the Persian deliberations and manoeuvres that led up to
the Battle of Plataea. In the battle itself their cavalry handled the Allied
centre very roughly, and their infantry fought bravely and well, suffering
heavy casualties. After the battle Thebes was forced to capitulate and to
hand over for trial some of its leaders. Very few, it seems, were actually
executed.
The Boeotian League was not dissolved after the Persian Wars, but
apparently continued to exist. Thebes no longer held the position of
hegemon, but Tanagra attempted to exercise supreme control, with some
success, if one may draw conclusions from the coin types. At Theban
expense, Tanagra seems to have temporarily increased its territory as far
as Euripus and to have prospered for a time. Orchomenus may have
withdrawn from the League. By 460, however, the Boeotians were in
stasis. When the Spartans, having completed their campaign in Phocis
and Doris, then found themselves prevented by an Athenian squadron
from returning across the Corinthian Gulf, they opportunistically entered
Boeotia and occupied Tanagra. They were expeditious in the
establishment of pro-Spartan regimes throughout Phocis, Locris and
Boeotia as they did so. They did not re-establish Theban hegemony, in
spite of Ephorus' testimony. The Athenians attacked and were defeated at
Tanagra. The Spartans then withdrew by way of Megara and the
Isthmus, since this route was now open. Sixty-two days later the
Athenians again attacked; this time they met the Boeotians alone and
176 Conclusions
defeated them at Oenophyta. Athens promptly established its authority

over Boeotia, and over Phocis and Locris as well. The Athenians
dismantled the walls of Tanagra, thus placing the Boeotian capital at
their mercy. In many towns, including Thebes, democracies were
established, in others pro-Athenian oligarchies. Many pro-Spartans,
along with many oligarchs, were exiled from the democratic towns,
including Thebes.
The Athenian-dominated League obviously had no internal
hegemon, and it did not need one. Very probably the unwalled city of
Tanagra, conveniently close to the borders of Attica, remained the
nominal capital. It is likely that Plataea became a member after
Oenophyta, if only to voice Athenian interests in League meetings. The
League cooperated with Athens from 458 to 447, notably in an expedition
to Thessaly. By 448, however, there were some warnings of trouble. The
democracies, it seems, had mostly proved incompetent, and the
pro-Athenian oligarchies were unpopular. In the winter of 447/6 some
oligarchic exiles under Theban leadership seized Orchomenus. They
were immediately joined by the inhabitants, and by sympathizers who
had not been exiled, and formed a base of operations against Athens and
her Boeotian supporters. A small Athenian force was sent out in the
spring of 446. It captured Chaeronea, but was ambushed and slaughtered
near Coronea as it was withdrawing. Athenian rule was effectively
ended. The oligarchs proceeded to overturn democracies in Boeotia,
notably at Thebes, and to make a satisfactory peace with Athens. No
doubt Plataea then withdrew from the League.
Theban hegemony, with checks and balances and with
Orchomenian participation, was re-established. The "Orchomenizers"
were under Theban leaders, and the newly returned oligarchs were
largely pro-Theban. The next few years saw a gradual erosion of the
checks and balances, and a gradual tightening of Theban control over the
rest of the League.The other states were gradually reduced to a
subordinate status.
One of the last important Boeotian cities that was still not a member
was Plataea. In 431 a raid was mounted against it by leading Theban
politicians with the connivance of Plataean oligarchs. It was modelled on
the oligarchic success at Orchomenus some fifteen years earlier, and it
very nearly succeeded. The Plataeans, however, when they found out that
their democratic leaders had been spared, and that the Thebans were few
in number, even though commanded by two Boeotarchs, overwhelmed,
captured and eventually massacred the whole lot. Boeotian participation
in the Archidamian War was now assured, and its vicious tone was
apparent from the start.
Conclusions 177
The Boeotians appear to emerge from this study as a rather

opportunistic group of Hellenes, with the usual social gradations.
Amongst their political divisions there were enough rivalry and
particularism to prevent any union such as that of Attica with and into
Athens, even though Boeotia was not much larger in area. Aristocracies
gradually changed to oligarchies in a familiar pattern, and the Boeotians
themselves seem to have been wary of rapid change. The impetus for a
federation came from external threat and Theban drive. The Thebans
probably drew their inspiration from the recently organized and
successful Peloponnesian League across the Gulf in their sponsorship of a
politico-military federal institution. But the constitution and internal
organization owe nothing to anyone else; they are entirely Boeotian
inventions. To the Boeotians must go the credit for evolving an ethnic
political federation that had some permanence, that gave some rights to
the smaller states vis-a-vis the principal one; and for inventing for it a
viable oligarchic, but representative, constitution that in general remained
serviceable for nearly 150 years.
The Boeotians were lively, original and practical political thinkers,
who deserve far more credit than has usually been given them.
Bibliography
In addition to the standard abbreviations, the following are used:
ATL The Athenian Tribute Lists (see Meritt, B.D. et al.)

GFS Greek Federal States (see Larsen, J.A.O.)
GSP Great and Small Poleis (see Amit, M.)
KP Der Kleine Pauly (Stuttgart, 1967- ).
Accame, S., "Note storiche su epigrafi attiche del quinto secolo," RFIC 30 (1952)
111-36,222-45.
Ahlberg, G., Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art, Stockholm, 1971.
Alin, P., Das Ende der Mykenischen Funds-fatten auf dem griechischen Festlande,
Lund, 1962.
Amit, M., "La date de 1'alliance entre Athenes et Platees," AC 39 (1970) 414-26.
Great and Small Poleis, Brussels, 1973.
"The Boeotian Confederation during the Pentakontaetia," RSA 1 (1971)
49-64.
Anderson, J.K., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, Berkeley,
1970.
"Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry," A]A 79 (1975) 175-87.
Andreomenou, A.K., "Takhi," Teiresias, 1974, 2-7.
Austin, R.P., "Excavations at Haliartus, 1926," USA 27 (1925-26) 81-91.
"Excavations at Haliartus, II," BSA 28 (1926-27) 128-40.
"Excavations at Haliartus, 1931," BSA 32 (1931 -32) 180-212.
Badian, E., "Archons and Strategoi," Antichthon 5 (1971) 1-34.

Bakhuizen, S.C., Salganeus and the Fortifications on its Mountains, Groningen,
1970.
Barber, E.A., The Historian Ephorus, Cambridge, 1935.
Barratt, C., "The Chronology of the Eponymous Archons of Boeotia," JIIS 52
(1932)72-115.
Bechtel, F., Die Gnechische Dialekte, Berlin, 1921-24 (repr. 1963).
Bellen, H., KP 4 (1972) s.v. "Polemarchoi," 968f.
Beloch, K.J., Gnechische Geschichte2, Strassburg and Berlin, 1912-27.
180 Bibliography
Bethe, E., Homer, Dichtungund Sage, Leipzig, 1914-22.

Thebamsche Heldenlieder, Leipzig, 1891.
RE 11 (1907) s.v. "Erginos," 432-34.
Bizard, L., "Inscriptions du Ptoion," BCH 44 (1920) 227-62.
Blegen, C.W., "Hyria," Hesperia, Supp. 8 (1945) 39-42.
The Mycenaean Age, Cincinnati, 1962.
"Troy," CAH*1, ch. 18, 24; II, ch. 15, 21 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1961.
"Troy I-II," CAH3 1.2, ch. 18, 411-16.
"Troy III, IV, V," CAH3 1.2, ch. 24, 704-6, Cambridge, 1971.
Blegen, C.W., et al. Troy: Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati,
1932-1938, Princeton, 1950-58.
Bolte, E., RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyettos," 90-93.
RE 17 (1914) s.v. "Hyle," 117-19.
Botsford, G.W., "The Constitution and Politics of the Boeotian League," PSQ 25
(1910)271-96.
Broadbent, M., Studies in Greek Genealogy, Leiden, 1968.
Broneer, O., "Athens in the Late Bronze Age," Antiquity 30 (1956) 9-18.
"The Cyclopean Wall on the Isthmus of Corinth and its Bearing on Late
Bronze Age Chronology," Hesperia 35 (1966) 346-62.
Bruce, I.A.F. An Historical Commentary on the 'Hellemca Oxyrhynchia',
Cambridge, 1970.
Bruns, G., "Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben. Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber
Grabungskampagnen 1959 und 1962," AA, 1964, 232-65.
"Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Grabung im Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben,"
AD, 1968, Chr. 224f.
Brunt, P.A., "The Hellenic League against Persia," Histona 2 (1953) 135-63.
Buck, C.D., Greek Dialects'1, Chicago, 1955.
"The Language Situation in and about Greece in the Second Milennium
B.C.,"CP21 (1926) 1-27.
Buck, R.J., "The Aeolic Dialect in Boeotia," CP 63 (1968) 268-80.
"The Athenian Domination of Boeotia," CP 65 (1970) 217-27.
"Boeotarchs at Thermopylae," CP 69 (1974) 47f.
"The Formation of the Boeotian League," CP 68 (1972) 94-101.
"The Middle Helladic Period," Phoenix 20 (1966) 193-209.
"The Mycenaean Time of Troubles," Histona 18 (1969) 276-98.
"The Site of Ceressus," Teiresias, Supp. 1 (1972) 31-40.
Bulle, H., Orchomenos, I, Munich, 1908.
Burchner, L., RE 6 (1899) s.v. "Chorsiai," 2443.
Burn, A.R., The Lyric Age of Greece, London, 1960.
Persia and the Greeks, New York & London, 1962.
The WorldofHesiod1, New York, 1966.
"Helikon in History," BSA 44 (1949) 313-23.
Burr, V., Neon Katalogos (Klio, Beih. 49), Leipzig, 1944.
Bursian, C., Geographie von Gnechenland,Leipzig, 1860-71.
Bury, J.B., History of Greece4, rev. by R. Meiggs, London, 1975.
Busing, H. and A., "Chorsiai. Eine Boiotische Festung," AA, 1972, 74-87.
Busolt, G., Griechische Geschichte1, Gotha, 1893-1904.
Busolt, G. and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde 3 , Munich, 1920-26.
Bibliography 181
Carpenter, R., Discontinuity in Greek Civilization, Cambridge, 1968 (Repr. New

York, 1968).
Folktale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics, Berkeley, 1946. (Repr.
1962).
Cartledge, P. "Hoplites and Homer," JHS 97 (1977) 11-27.
Gary, M., "Notes on the apiarda of Thebes," JHS 42 (1922) 184-91.
Caskey, J.L., "Greece, Crete, and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age,"
CAH2 I, ch. 26, 3-44 (sep. fasc.) Cambridge, 1964.
"Greece, Crete and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age," CAH3 1.2,
ch. 26, 771-807, Cambridge, 1970.
"Greece and the Aegean Islands in the Middle Bronze Age," CAH'2 II, ch.
4, pp. 3-32 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1966.
"Neolithic Sherds from Thespiai," Hesperia 20 (1951) 289f.
Caskey, J.L. & E.G., "The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis. Supplementary
Excavations," Hesperia 29 (1960) 126-67.
Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyna, London, 1926.
Cauer, P., RE 5 (1894) s.v. "Boiotia," 637-63.
Chadwick, J., The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, 1976.
Chandler, L., "The North-west Frontier of Attica," JHS 46 (1926) 1-22.
Cloche, P., Thebes de Beotie, Namur, 1952.
Coldstream, J.N., Greek Geometric Pottery, London, 1968.
Cook, R.M., "Speculations on the Origins of Coinage," Histona 7 (1958) 257-62.
Cozzoli, U., "La Beozia durante il conflitto tra 1'Ellade e la Persia," RFC 36
(1958) 264-84.
Grassland, R.A. and A. Birchall, edd. Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean,
London, 1973.
Davies, O., Roman Mines in Europe, Oxford, 1935.

Desborough, V.R., The Greek Dark Ages, London, 1972.
The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, Oxford, 1966.
Drogemiiller, H.-P., Bericht iiber neuere Ausgrabungen in Griechenland,"
Gymnasium 68 (1961) 193-229, esp. 219-27.
Ducat, J., "Le ptoion et 1'histoire de la Beotie a 1'epoque archai'que," REG 77
(1964)283-90.
Kouroi du Ptoion, Paris, 1967.
"La Confederation Beotienne et 1'expansion Thebaine a 1'epoque
archaique," BC7/97 (1973) 59-73.
Dull, C.J., "Thucydides 1.113 and the Leadership of Orchomenus," CP 72 (1977)
305-14.
Ehrenberg, V., From Solon to Socrates2, London, 1973.

Die Staat der Griechen2, Stuttgart, 1965.
Etienne, R. and D. Knoepfler, Hyettos de Beotie (BCH, Supp. 3), Paris, 1976.
Feyel, M., Polybe et I'Histoire de Beotie, Paris, 1942.

Fiehn, C., RE 30 (1932) s.v. "Minyas," 2014-18.
Fimmen, D., Die Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, Leipzig, 1921.
"Die Besiedlung Bootiens bis in fruhgriechische Zeit," NJb 29 (1912)521-41.
182 Bibliography
Fontenrose, J., "The Spring Telphusa," TAP A 100 (1969) 129.

Forrest, W.G., A History of Sparta, London, 1968.
Forsdyke, E.J., "The Pottery called Minyan Ware," JIIs 34 (1914) 126-56.
Fossey, J.M., "The End of the Bronze Age in the South West Copaic,"
Eufihrosyne6(\974)7-2\.
"The Identification of Graia," Euphrosyne 4 (1970) 3-22.
"Some Unpublished Boiotian Tombstones," BSA 69 (1974) 121-28.
"Therapnai and Skolos in Boiotia," B1CS 18 (1971) 106-9.
"Tilphosaion?" 7^eiresms,Supp. 1 (1972) 1-16.
Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia, Unpub. Diss., Lyons, 1976.
Review of Bakhuizen in Mnemosyne 27 (1974) 103-5.
Fowler, B.H., "Thucydides 1.107-8 and the Tanagran Federal Issues," Phoenix
11 (1957) 164-70.
Franke, P.R., "Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theban," Antike Welt 1 (1970) 46-52.
Frazer, Sir James, Pausanias' Description of Greece, London, 1913 (repr. New
York, 1965).
Garlan, A.Y., "Recerches sur le Fortifications d'Akraiphia," ECU 98(1974)

95-112.
Geiger, A., RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Larymna," 880f.
RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Kopai," 1345f.
Geisau, H.von, KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Kadmos," 40f.
A7>3 (1969) s.v. "Minyas," 1344f.
KP4 (1972) .s.v. "Peneleos," 612.
Gell, Sir W., Itinerary of Greece, London, 1819.
Geyer, F., RE 2.5 (1927) s.v. "Siphai," 262f.
Girard, P., "Inscriptions d'Hyettes et d'Akraiphia," BCH 2 (1878) 492-508.
Glotz, G., and R. Cohen, Histoire grecque, Paris 1938-.
Goldman, H., Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, Mass., 1931.
Gomme, A.W., "The Topography of Boeotia," BSA 18(1911-12) 189-210.
"The Legend of Cadmus and the Logographi,"JHS (1913) 53-72, 223-45.
Commentary on Thucydides, Oxford, 1945-70, vol. 4 completed by A.
Andrewes and K.J. Dover.
Greenhalgh, P.A.M., Early Greek Warfare, Cambridge, 1973.
Gschnitzer, F., "Stammes - und Ortsgemeinden im alien Griechenland," WS 68
(1955) 120-44.
Guillon, P., La Beotie antique, Paris, 1948.
Etudes Beotiennes, Aix-en-Provence, 1963.
Les Trepieds du Ptoion, Paris, 1943.
Haley, A.J. and C.W. Blegen, "The Coming of the Greeks," AJA 32 (1928)
141-54.
Hammond, N.G.L., "The Main Road from Boeotia to the Peloponnese through
the Northern Megarid," BSA 49 (1954) 103-22.
"Studies in Greek Chronology of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.,"
Histona 4 (1955) 371-411.
History of Greece to 322 B.C.2, Oxford, 1967.
Hanell, K., Megansche Studien, Lund, 1934.
Bibliography 183
Head, B.V., Catalogue of Greek Coins, Central Greece, London, 1884 (repr.
Bologna, 1963).
Histona Numorum2, London, 1911 (repr. Chicago, 1967).
"On the Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Boeotia," NC, 1881,
177-275.
Hennig, D., RE Supp. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 333-55.
Hereward, D., " Herodotus vi 74," CR 65 (1951) 146.
Heurtley, W.A., "Notes on the Harbours of South Boeotia," BSA 26 (1923-25)
38-45.
Hignett, C., Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1963.
Hill, G.F., Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian
Wars2, Oxford, 1951.
Holleaux, M., "Pausanias et la destruction d'Haliarte," RPh 19 (1895) 109-15.
Hooker, J.T., Mycenaean Greece, London, 1977.
Hope Simpson, R., Gazeteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites (BICS, Supp. 16),
London, 1965.
Hope Simpson, R. and J.F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's Iliad,
Oxford, 1970.
Huxley, G.A., Greek Epic Poetry, Cambridge, Mass., 1969.
Achaeans and Hittites, Belfast, 1960.
"White Ravens," GRBS 8 (1967) 199-202.
Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden, 1955- .

Jeffery, L.H.,"The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile. A Problem in Greek Art
and History," BSA 60 (1965) 42-57.
Archaic Greece, London, 1976.
"The Campaign between Athens and Aegina in the Years before Salamis,"
AJP 83 (1962)| 44-54.
The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford, 1963.
Kahrstedt, U., "Die Landgrenzen Athens," AM 57 (1932) 8-28.

Kelly, T., "The Calaurian Amphictyony," A]A 70 (1966) 113-22.
Kenny, E.J.A., "The Ancient Drainage of the Copais," LAAA 22 (1935) 189-206.
Keramopoulos, A.,
Boiomas," Arch Eph, 1931, 163f.
Kirsten, E., RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Olmones," 2490-92.
RE 35 (1939) s.v. "Onchestos," 412-17.
RE 37 (1937) s.v. "Permessos," 869-72.
RE 40 (1950) s.v. "Plataia," 2255-2332.
Kirsten, E. and W. Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde5, Heidelberg, 1967.
Kraay, C.M., "The Archaic Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology," ;VC,
1956,43-68.
"The Early Coinage of Athens: a Reply," NC, 1962, 417-23.
"Hoards, Small Change and the Origin of Coinage,"JHS'84 (1964) 76-91.
Kretschmer, P., "Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte," Glotta 1 (1909) 9-59.
Kunze, E., Orchomenos, II and III, Munich, 1931 and 1934.
Kurtz, D.C. and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, London, 1971.
184 Bibliography
Larsen, J.A.O., "The Boeotian Confederacy and Fifth-century Oligarchic-

Theory," TAPA 86 (1955) 41-50.
Greek Federal States, Oxford, 1968.
"Orchomenus and the Formation of the Boeotian Confederacy," CP 55
(1960)9-18.
Latte, K., RE 20 (1919) s.v. "Kadmos, 1," 1460-72.
RE W (\94\) s.v. "Phyle, 1," 994-1011.
Lauffer, S., "Die Kopaisgebiete," AA, 1940, 184-90.
RE Suppl. 14 (1974) s.v. "Orchomenos," 290-333.
"Medeon," AM 63-64 (1938-39) 177-85.
Leahy, D.M., "Aegina and the Peloponnesian League," CP 49 (1955) 232.
Leake, W.M., Travels in Northern Greece, London, 1835.
Luce, J.V., Lost Atlantis, New York, 1969.
Macan, G., Herodotus, Books VII, VIII, IX, London, 1908.

Maier, F.G., "Die Stadtmauer von Thisbe," AM 73 (1958) 17-25.
McCredie, J.R., "Fortified Military Camps in Attica," Hespena, Supp. 11 (1966).
McCredie, J.R. and A. Steinberg, "Two Boeotian Dedications," Hespena 29
(1960) 123-25.
Meiggs, R. and D.M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the
End of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1969.
Meritt, B.D., "Athens and the Amphictyonic League," AJP69 (1948) 312-14.
Meritt, B.D., H.T. Wade-Gery and M.F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute
Lists, 4 vols., I, Cambridge, Mass., II-IV Princeton, 1939-53.
Meyer, E., KP 1 (1964) s.v. "Boiotia," 920-22.
RE Supp. 12 (1970) s.v. "Hyettos," 497.
KP2(\967) s.v. "Hyettos," 1262.
KP 2 (1967) s.v. "Eleutherai," 246f.
KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Kopai,"295.
KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Koroneia," 309.
KP 3 (1969) s.v. "Larymna," 503.
KP4 (1972) s.v. "Onchestos," 30If.
KP4(1972) s.v. "Panakton," 448f.
KP4(\972) s.v. "Permessos," 643.
KP4(\972) s.v. "Plataia," 893f.
Meyer, Ed., Geschichte des Altertums4, Darmstadt, 1965- .
Theopomps Hellemka, Halle, 1909.
Milchhofer, A., RE 10 (1905) s.v. "Eleutherai," 2345.
Mossi, M. "II sinecismo di Tebe e la costituzione federale della Beozia nel V
Secolo a.c.," Critica Stonca 13 (1976) 193-206.
Miiller, C. and Th., Fragmenta histoncum graecorum, Paris, 1841-51.
Miiller, M., Geschichte Thebens, Diss., Leipzig, 1879.
Moretti, L., Ricerche suite Leghe greche, Rome, 1962.
Mylonas, G., Athens, 1
Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, Princeton, 1966.
"Priam's Troy and the Date of its Fall," Hespena 33 (1964) 352-80.
Mylonas, G. and E. Kirsten, RE 34 (1937) s.v. "Okalea," 2302f.
Myres, J.L., Who Were the Greeks?, Berkeley, 1930.
Bibliography 185
Naval Intelligence Division, Greece, III, London, 1944-45.

Nilsson, M.P., "Der Oidipusmythus," GGA, 1922, 36-46 (rep. Op. Set., I, 1951,
335-48).
History of Greek Religion2, Oxford, 1949.
Geschichte der griechischen Religion 3 , I, Munich, 1967.
The Mycenaean Origins of Greek Mythology, Berkeley, 1932.
Nylander, C., "The Fall of Troy," Antiquity 37 (1963) 6-11.
Oldfather, W., RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Korseia," 1438f.

RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Kyrtones," 205.
Page, D.L., History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley, 1959.

Papadimitriou, I.,'
PAA 6 (1931) 274-76.
Pape, W. and G. Benseler, Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennameri*, Graz,
1959.
Pappadhakis, N., Praktika, 1911, 132-42.
'Tlepi TO XapOTraoi' rrjs Kopoweias," AD, 1916, 217-59.
"Movada" AD, 1916, parart. 42.
Pearson, L., Early Ionian Historians, Oxford, 1939.
Petrakos, B., Oropus and the Temple of Amphiareios, Athens, 1972.
Pharaklas, N., Eph Arch, 1967,
Chron. 20-29.
Pharaklas, N. and T. Spyropoulos, "Boioma," AD, 1969, 173-87.
Philippson, A., RE 11 (1907) s.v. "Euaimon," 834.
Griechischen Landschaften2, rev. E. Kirsten, Frankfurt, 1951.
Pieske, E., RE 22 (1922) s.v. "Koroneia," 1425-31.
RE 23 (1924) s.v. "Kyrtones," 205f.
Preller, L., and C. Robert, Gnechische Mythologie5, Berlin, 1964-67.
Pritchett, W.K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Berkeley, 1965, 1969.
"New Light on Plataea," A]A 61 (1957) 9-28.
"Observations on Chaironeia," A]A 62 (1958) 307-11.
Reece, D.W., "The Battle of Tanagra," JHS 70 (1950) 75f.

Roesch, P., Thespies et la confederation Beotienne, Paris, 1965.
Roller, D.W., "A New Map of Tanagra," A]A 78 (1974) 152-56, map p. 153.
"The Date of the Walls at Tanagra," Hesperia 43 (1974) 260-63.
Rose, H.J., Handbook of Greek Mythology5, London, 1964.
Roux, G., "Le Val des Muses et les Musees chez les auteurs anciens," BCU 78
(1954) 22-48.
Sackett, L.H., et al., "Prehistoric Euboea. Contributions toward a survey," BSA

61 (1966) 33-112.
Sakellariou, M., La Migration grecque en lonie, Athens, 1958.
Salmon, J. "Political Hoplites ?"JHS 97 (1977) 84-101.
Salmon, P., "L'Armee federale des Beotiens," AC 22 (1953) 347-60.
"Les Districts Beotiens," REA 58 (1956) 51-70.
Schachter, A., "The Theban Wars," Phoenix 21 (1967) 1-10.
186 Bibliography
Schaefer, A., RE Supp. 8 (1956) s.v. "Polemarchos," 1097-1134.

Schliemann, H., "Exploration of the Boeotian Orchomenus," JHS 2 (1881)
122-63.
Schober, F., RE 2.10 (1934) s.v. "Thebai," 1423-92.
RE 2.11 (1936) s.v. "Tilphossion," 1044f.
Schoder, R.V., Ancient Greece from the Air, London, 1974.
Schuhl, P.M., "Garnet de notes," R Phil, 1967, 461-74.
Schwartz, E., RE 3 (1899) s.v. "Aristophanes, 13," 994.
Schwandner, E.-L., "Die bootische Hafenstadt Siphae," AA, 1977, 513-51.
Schwyzer, E., Gnechische Grammatik, Munich, 1953-71.
Sealey, R., A History of the Greek City-Stales ca. 700-338 B.C., Berkeley, 1976.
Seltman, C., Greek Coins'2, London, 1955.
Seymour, P.A., "Note on the Boeotian League," CR 36 (1922) 70.
"Further Note on the Boeotian League," CR 37 (1923) 63.
Shishova, I.A., "The Reforms of Philolaus," Vestmk Drevnij Islorii 114 (1970)
64-72 (in Russian).
Snodgrass, A.M., "The Hoplite Reform and History,"//AV 85 (1965) 110-22.
Early Greek Armour and Weapons, Edinburgh, 1964.
Arms and Armour of the Greeks, London, 1967.
Sordi, M., La lega tessala, Rome, 1958.
"Mitologia e propaganda nella Beozie arcaica," AR, 1966, 16-24.
"Aspetti del federalismo greco arcaico: autonomia e egemonia nel Koinon
Beotico." AR. 1968.66-75.
Spyropoulos. T.. AAA 5(1972) 16-26.
"The Discovery of the Palace Archives of Boeotian Thebes,' Kadmos 9
H970^ 170-72.
4446(1973)375-95.
4446(1973)201-14.
4444(1971)319-31.
444 1 (1968)
140-43.
AD, 1969, chr. 28-46.
AD, 1970, chr. 211-45.
A A A, 4 (1971)
161-64.
4AA 4 (1971)32-37.
AAA 3 (1970) 263-67.
AAA 3
(1970) 184-97.
A AA 2 (1969) 20-25.
Spyropoulos, T. and J. Chadwick, The Thebes Tablets, II, (Minos, Supp. 4)
Salamanca, 1975.
Spyropoulos, T. and T. Tzavella-Evjen, "Lithares. An Early Helladic settlement
near Thebes," AAA 6 (1973) 371-75.
Stubbings, F.H., "The Recession of Mycenaean Civilization," CAH- II, ch. 27,
3-21 (sep. fasc.), Cambridge, 1965.
"The Expansion of Mycenaean Civilization," CAH'2 II, ch. 22, 3-25 (sep.
fasc.), Cambridge, 1964.
Bibliography \ 87
Symeonoglou, S., Kadmeia, I, Gothenburg, 1973.

Syriopoulos, E., Athens, 1968
Theochares, D., Athens, 1973

Thumb, A. and E. Kieckers, Handbuch der gnechischen Dialekte2,
Heidelberg, 1932.
Tod, M.N., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions1, I, Oxford, 1946.
Tomlinson, R.A. and J.M. Fossey, "Ancient Remains on Mount Mavrovouni,
South Boeotia," BSA 65 (1970) 243-63.
Touloupa, E., " AD, 1964, chr. 191-204.
Turney-High, H.H., Man and System, New York, 1968.
Unger, H.J. and G. Spitslberger, edd. Documenta I. Em Kalkbrcnnofen am

Stadtberg Pyrgos bei Haghia Marina (Landshutt, 1976).
Vermeule, E.T., "A Mycenaean Dipinto and Graflito," Kadmos 5 (1966) 142-46.
"Painted Mycenaean Larnakes," ///S 85 (1965) 123-48.
Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago, 1964.
Vernet, J.P., Problemes de la Guerre en Grece ancienne, Paris, 1968.
Vian, F., Les Origmes de Thebes, Paris, 1963.
"La triade des rois d'Orchomene: Eteocles, Phlegyas, Minyas," llommages
a Georges Dumezil, Brussels, 1960.
Wace, A.J.B., "The History of Greece in the Third and Second Milleniums B.C.,'
Historia 2 (1953) 74-94.
"The Prehistoric Exploration of the Greek Mainland," BCII 70 (1946)
628-38.
Wace, A.J.B. and M.S. Thomson, Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge, 1912.
Walcot, P., Hesiod and the Near East, Cardiff, 1966.
Walker, E.M., The Hellemca Oxyrhynchia, Oxford, 1913.
Wallace, P.W., Strabo's Description of Bowtia, Diss. Ann Arbor, 1969.
"The Boeotian Therapnae," CP 64 (1969) 36f.
"Hesiod and the Valley of the Muses," GRBS 15 (1974) 5-24.
Wallace, W.P., "The Early Coinages of Athens and Euboia," NC, 1962, 23-42.
Weinberg, S., "Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959," Hesperia 31 (1962)
158-209.
"The Stone Age in the Aegean," CM//'2, 1, ch. 10, 3-68 (sep. fasc.)
Cambridge, 1965.
"The Stone Age in the Aegean," CM//3, 1, ch. 10, 557-618, Cambridge,
1970.
Wiesner, J., RE 36.2 (1949) s.v. "Panakton," 449f.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, "Abrechnung eines Boiotischen Hipparchen,"
//erm^- 8 (1874) 431 -41.
"Oropos und die Graier," //<?rm£>.s 21 (1886) 91-115.
"Uber die ionische Wanderung," SPA W, 1906, 59-79.
Pmdaros, Berlin, 1922.
"Die griechische Heldensage," SPA W, 1925, 214-42.
Hesiods Erga, Berlin, 1928.
Eunpidis Herakles, Berlin, 1923.
188 Bibliography
Willetts, R.F., Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, London, 1955.

Williams, R.T., "The Owls and Hippias," NC, 1966, 9-13.
Wolters, P. and G. Bruns, Das Kabinen Heiligturn bei Thebens,, I, Berlin, 1940;
II, Stuttgart, 1975.
Wust, E., RE 37 (1937) s.v. "Peneleos," 459f.
RE 2.12 (1937) s.v. "Tiphys," 1426-29.
Ziehen, L., RE 36.2 (1949) s.v. "Pamboiotia," 288f.

RE 2.10 (1934) s.v. "Thebai," 1492-1553.
Index
Abae: Phocian town, settled by Abantes, 79. Aghios Athanasios, church of: ancient site, 1
Abantes: expelled from western Boeotia, 79. km west of Darimari, 16.
Achilles, and Phthia, 65. Aghios Elias at Mouriki: ancient site,
Acontium: mountain near Orchomenus, 5. possibly Schoenus, 13.
Acraephia (Acraephnium): 12,13; Athamas Aghios Elias, hill of near Schimatari: LH
founds, 58; archon at by 550,93; site on, 19.
precarious independence, 100,173; Aghios loannes, near Thisbe: ancient
original member of Boeotian League, harbour of Thisbe, 11.
111; returned Boeotarch, 124; coins of, Aghios loannis: Mycenaean fortress near
141; grouped with Copae and Gla, 13,36,38.
Chaeronea, 156,157. Aghios Minas: EH site near Chalia Mikra,
Acraephnium: see Acraephia. 21.
Aeacidae: cult images and the Aghios Nikolaos, chapel of, near Siacho,
Aeginetan-Boeotian alliance, 126,127. possible site of Ocalea, 9.
Aegidius, s. of Adrastus, killed by Laodamas, Aghios Nikolaos, convent of, at Aulis: part of
s. of Eteocles, 49. ancient town nearby, 20.
Aegina: alliance with Thebes (Boeotian Aghios Nikolaos, convent of, near
League) against Athens, 125f., 174; Paleothivai: possible site of spring
chronology of the "Undeclared War," Tilphusa, 9.
126-28; military intervention against Aghios Pantaleimon, 5 km northeast of
Athens, 127; joins against Persia in Schimatari, possible site of Pharae, 18.
480,129; medism before Marathon, Aghios Taxiarchos, monastery of, near site of
132; reduced by Athens in 457,127. Chorsiae, 11.
Aegosthena: Megarean village, 2. Aghios Vasilios, ancient remains at, probable
Aetolia: Cadmeans expelled to, 63; Hyantes harbour of Plataea, 12.
expelled to, 56; variations in MH Agonarchs: federal officials equivalent to
culture of, 36f. agoranomoi, \ 58.
Agamedes, brother of Trophonius, as part of Agoriani (Dekedhes): near Aghia Paraskevi,
cult of twins in Boeotia, 57. EH, MH and LH settlement, 7, 38.
Aghia Anna, chapel of, near Vergoutiani Ahhiyawa: mentioned in Hittite records, 66.
spring, possible ancient site, 17. Aiatus, s. of Pheidippus: expelled the
Aghia Paraskevi: see Agoriani. Boiotoi, 77.
Aghia Triadha, chapel of: ancient site near, Aiklos, brother of Kothos: legendary links of
16,17,18. with Boeotia and Euboea, 79.
Aghioi Georgii, church of: Byzantine Ajax, the Lesser, 65.
remains at, 21. Alalcomena, daughter of Ogygus, 56.
190 Index
Alalcomenae: ancient village near Solinari, Arcesilaus, Boeotian commander in the

6, 9; absent from Catalogue, 90; settled Trojan War, possibly brother of
by Boiotoi, 77. Prothoenor, 64; associated with
Alalkomenai (Mamoura), see Athena Itonia. Lebadea, 64.
Aleuadae, Thessalian family, 109f. Archon at Onchestus: possibly linked to
Alexandras: Theban polemarch at monarchy, 88,172; associated with
Thermopylae, 129f., 132. festival at Onchestus, 89; as Federal
Aliki: modern port, close to Siphae, 11. eponymous official, 158.
Amphiareum: 1. sanctuary near Thebes, 14; Archon, local: antiquity of office, 93; attested
perhaps at Kanapetra, 14; transferred by 550 at Acraephia and Coronea, 93;
to near Oropus, 14; 2. sanctuary east of duties of by fifth century, 160; replaces
Markopoulo near Oropus, 19. kingship, 93; tabus on, 93.
Amphictyony, Boeotian: at Itonium, 89; at Archontitza River, see Permessus.
Onchestus, 89f.; distinguished from Ares, Father of lalmenus and Ascalaphus,
later politico-military league, 89f, 100, 64.
111. Argos and Argives: alleged conquest of
Amphictyony, Calaurian, 97. Thebes, 62f. ,170; Argive cults in
Amphictyony, Delphian: Boeotian delegates Boeotia, 62f.; Leadership of Greeks in
chosen at Itonium, 89; Sparta attempts Trojan War, 66; hatred of Sparta, 129;
to exclude Boeotians from, 141; treaty at the battle of Tanagra, 144; see also
with Athens, 149. Seven, Epigoni.
Amphion, brother of Zethus: founder and Aristagoras of Miletus, at Athens in 498,
fortifier of Thebes, 46f.; 55f.;as part of 127.
cult of twins, 57; as usurper, 46f.; Aristophanes of Boeotia: assessment of,
historical traditions of, 57. 129f., discusses Theban officials only,
Andreus, king of Orchomenus, 58. 129f.
Anthedon (Mandraki): location and Aristotle, on Ascra, 98; on democracies in
remains, 21; on ancient route to Boeotia, 150.
Thebes, 5, 13; of secondary importance Armenidas, on the Niobids, 47.
in LH period, 42; LH IIIC remains, Army, Boeotian: organization, 158f.;
40; joined Boeotian League, 112; mobilization of, 159; shield decoration
perhaps returned Boeotarch, 124. of, 159; see also Lochos, Cavalry.
Antigone, daughter of Oedipus, 48. Arne, Boeotian: town, location uncertain, 21;
Antigonus, 20. possibly at Magoula Balomenou, 6;
Aones, ancient tribe: in the Hecataean possibly at Kalami, 6f.
tradition, 45; in the Hellanican Arne, Thessalian: homeland of Boiotoi near,
tradition, 45; derivation of name, 56; 75f., 171; possibly at Cierium, 75.
historicity of, 56. Artemis, temple of, at Aulis, 20.
Aonian plain, northern part of Theban Ascalaphus, s. of Ares, brother of lalmenus,
plain, 3, 12, 56. 64; Orchomenian commander in
Aphedriates, Boeotian officials: possible Trojan War, 64.
relationship to Boeotarchs, 125, 157f.; Ascra: located at Pyrgaki, 10; Archaic
religious duties, 125, 157f. commune, 91; captured by Thespiae,
Apollo, Delian, see Delium. 98, 172; Hesiod's bones removed to
Apollo Ptoos, sanctuary of: location at Orchomenus, 98; population expelled,
Perdikovrysi, 12f.; controlled by 98f.
Thebes by 520, 100; games at, 13. Asopodorus, Theban hipparch of League
Apollo Pythius, see Delphi. cavalry, 134.
Apollo, Tegyrean: location of oracular shrine Asopus River, 16, 17, 57, 64, 134; location, 4;
at Magoula near Polyira, 8. legendary emigration from valley of,
Apollo Tilphusius, temple of located near 79; legendary links with Aegina, 125f.;
spring Tilphusa, 9. with Euboea, 79; Boiotoi conquer
Apomneumones, Boeotian officials, 90. valley quite late, 78; border of League,
123.
Index 191
Aspledon, probably at Pyrgos, 7f.; possibly at port of emigration for refugees, 68, 79;
Polyira, 8. controlled by Tanagra, 99, by Thebes,
Astymedousa, wife of Oedipus, 48; accuses 99,111.
stepsons of attempted seduction, 48f. Autesion, s. of Tisamenus, stemma, 63;
Athamanes, 57. replaced by Damasichthon as king and
Athamantian plain of Thessaly, 58. joins Dorians, 78.
Athamas: traditions concerning, 58; sons as
eponyms of towns, 58. Balkans, links in Middle Neolithic, 34.
Athena Alalcomenaea, sanctuary of, 6; once Beloch,K.J.,109,110.
controlled by Orchomenus, 97; see also Blegen,C.W.,64.
Alalcomenae. Boeotarchs, Federal officials: possible links
Athena Itonia, sanctuary of, 6; time of with the Pamboeotia, 89; from
foundation, 77; Pamboeotia at, 88f., inception of League, 124,174; number
100; not in Catalogue, 90; once of varies, often seven, 90, 124; eleven,
controlled by Orchomenus, 97; 124; nine, 155f.; two to larger towns,
supervised by Amphictyony, 89,111; 124,149,155f., 174; districts drawn
see also Festivals and Games. from, 154-56; duties and
Athens: and Athenians: route to, 18; in Little responsibilities, 124f., 156f.;at
Catalogue, 65f.; and Boeotian refugees, Thermopylae, 129., 132.; Plataea, 479,
50f, 80; early ties with Orchomenus, 134; Plataea, 432, 132,161 f.; to Sicily,
87, 97; alliance with Eleutherae, 99, 413,132.
113; alliance with Thessaly, 108,112; Boeotia and Boeotians: see also Boiotoi;
alliance with Plataea, 112f., 117,173, geography, 1-5; towns of, 5-21;
174; dispute with Thebes and the archaeological evidence from, 32-42,
League, 112-14,174; fall of tyrants, 80f., 87f.; legends and traditions of,
114f., 117; invasion by and defeat of 45-52,170; historicity of traditions and
Boeotians and Chalcis, 116,174; legendary figures, 55-68; early links
Aeginetan-Boeotian alliance against, with Attica, 55-57,170; alleged
125f., 174; "Undeclared War," 126-28; conquest by Argives, 61-63,170;
alliance with Megara, 143; campaigns Trojan War, 64-67, 170; post-War
of Tanagra and Oenophyta, 144-46; population shifts, 67f.; coming of
domination of Boeotia, 147-53,176; Boiotoi, 75-78,171; fate of non-Boiotoi,
loses Boeotia, 150-53; battle of 78f., 171; traditional links with
Coronea, 151-53, 176; agreement with Euboea, 79; with Ionian colonization,
Boeotian League, 153. 80; controlled by Boiotoi by 950, 80f.,
Athens, Boeotian, possibly located at 171; in Archaic period, 87-101,172f.;
Agoriani, 7; covered by Lake Copais, artistic influences, 87f.; development of
56. institutions, 88-95; districts of, see
Attaginus, Theban oligarch, 134,135; Districts; Orchomenus attempts
escaped after Plataea, 135. hegemony, 97f., 172; growth of chief
Attica, 2; ancient routes to, 5; Argive towns, 97-101,172f.; development of
invasion by way of, 62; LH Boeotian Amphictyonies, see Amphictyony,
forts erected against, 39; Boeotians flee Boeotian; development of
to, 50f., 79f.; early and legendary links politico-military League, see League,
with Boeotia, 55f., 170; Cadmeans flee Boeotian; oligarchies, see Oligarchy;
to, 63, 68; Pelasgians expelled from, Boeotian; democracies, see Democracy,
79; emigration to Orchomenus from, Boeotian; domination by Thebes, 100,
80, 87f., influence on Archaic Boeotian 155; in Persian Wars, 128-35; see also
art, 87; Boeotian invasion of in 506, Persian Wars; campaign of 458,
116; in 480-79,134. 143-47; domination by Athens, 147-53,
Aulis, 4, 5; location of and remains at, 20; 176; regains freedom, 150-53;
LH fortifications at, 39; port of population of, see Population; exiles
embarkation for Trojan War, 62, 170; from at Celonae in Persia, 133f.
192 Index
Boion, mountain in Epirus, 75. Chaironeia, see Chaeronea.

Boiotoi: see also Boeotia; origin in Thessaly, Chalcis: attacks with Boeotia on Athens,
66, 75-77,171; dialect of, 75f., 171; in 116,117; defeat and occupation by
Little Catalogue, 65-67, 76; in Great Athens, 116,126,151; legendary links
Catalogue, 50, 65f.; question of with Boeotia, 79; Lelantine war of and
presence in Boeotia before Trojan Boeotia, 100; route from Thebes to, 5.
War, 50, 65f.; enter Boeotia, 75-81; Chalia, probable location of at modern
expulsion from Thessaly, 76f., 171; by Chalia(Drosia),21.
Thessalus, 77; by Aiatus, 77; defeat Chalia Mikra, modern village, 21.
and expulsion of previous inhabitants, Chalkis, modern city, 20.
78-80; reduction to perioeci, 80; Chantsa, Mycenaean fort, 13, 38.
chronology of conquest, 80f., 171; Chariots, probably used in LH
control Boeotia by 950, 81, 87, 171; Theban-Orchomenian warfare, 59-61,
found festivals and cults, 77. 97f.; probably not used in Archaic age
Bolte, E., 12. Theban-Orchomenian warfare, 93f.
Boule, see Council. Charops, hero shrine of, located, 7.
Chlempotsari (Asopia), remains on hill of
Cabirium, location of sanctuary of, 13. Profitis Elias near, 17; possibly
Cadmeans: legendary settlings and Eteonus, Pharae or Eilesion, 18; most
expulsions, 46-49; second expulsion, likely Eilesion, 18; probably not
50; little if any historicity in traditions, Pharae, 19.
57f., 62f., 75; not to be linked with Chlomon, mountain between Boeotia and
Boiotoi, 63. Locris, 2, 3,175.
Cadmus: at Thebes, 45f.; stemma, 47f., links Chorsiae, 4, 5; location and remains, 11; LH
with Encheleans, 49; traditions of, 57f. fort at, 39; controlled by Thespiae, 99,
Callinus, poet of a Thebais, 49. 155.
Callisthenes, historian of no worth, 129. Chostia, modern village 3 km from Chorsiae,
Canethus, possible identification of 11.
Karababas as, 20. Cineas, tagos of Thessaly, 109; at Athens
Cavalry, use in Archaic period, 94; 510,114.
unimportance by 600, 96; importance Cithaeron, 2, 4, 5, 17.
in battle of Plataea, 134. Cleisthenes of Sicyon, 108.
Cecrops, fortifies cities against Aones, 45; Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and
cult of at Haliartus, 56. Athenian-Plataean alliance, 112-114;
Celonae, Persian town, Boeotian exiles at, with army near Boeotia, 112, 114;
134. friendly to Thessaly, 114; hostile to
Cephalus, myth of linking Athens and Athens, 116; second attempt on Athens,
Boeotia, 56. 127f.
Cephisias, Orchomenian tribe, 90. Clonius, Brother of Leitus, 64; or s. of
Cephisus River, 3, 5, 6. Alegenor, 64; Boeotian commander in
Ceressus: location of, 10,111; battle of, 107, Trojan War, 64; associated with
111, 173; chronology of battle, 108-10, Plataea and Asopus valley, 64.
importance of, 107,112. Clymenus, king of Orchomenus and father of
Chaeronea: location at Kapraina and Erginus, 59; killed at Onchestus, 59,
remains, 5f.; Neolithic site, 34; taken 97.
by Boiotoi and Opheltas, 77, 79; Coins, Boeotian: first introduced about 525,
Archaic commune, 91; tabus on 107, 111; modified, 112,117; types
archons, 93; dominated by 479-458, 141f.; Orchomenian 479-458,
Orchomenus, 97, 98, 155; joins 142; types 458-446, 148; only Thebes
League, 123; Boeotarch from, 124; minting 446-387,155.
joins Orchomenizers, 150; captured by Copae, small Boeotian city, 1; location and
Athens, 150,151f., 176; Orchomenus remains, 9; LH fortifications, 38;
loses C., and C. is grouped with Copae Archaic commune, 91; domination by
and Acraephia, 155, 156. Orchomenus, 97; precarious
Index 193
independence, 100,173; joined League, Davlosis, modern village, site of Medeon, 12;
114; grouped with Acraephia and MH settlement at, 36.
Chaeronea, 155,156. Dekedhes, see Agoriani.
Copais, Lake, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9,10,12, 75; Delium, battle of, 62,155, 156,157,158,
location, 3; Athens and Eleusis covered 159,160.
by, 57; controlled in Bronze Age by Delium, sanctuary of Apollo at: location of,
Orchomenus, 41; drained, 3,169; 19; foundation legends and links to
Hyantes settled on east side of, 56, 57f.; Attica, 56; Theban control from
protected by LH forts, 38, 41,169,170; Tanagra before 490,128, 142,173;
wars near, 59f., 98. Persian loot from in 490, 128,142;
Corinth, and Athenian-Plataean alliance, booty returned to, 142.
112-14,174. Delos, 128,142.
Corinthian Gulf, 4, 143. Delphi, and Aeginetan-Boeotian alliance,
Coronea, battle of, 150,151-53,154,176. 125f.; Thessalian dedication at, 148.
Coronea, city of, 3, 5; location and remains, Demeter Kabeira, temple of, 13.
6; ruled by Athamas, 58; captured by Democracy, Boeotian: at Plataea, 143,148,
Boiotoi, 76; Archaic polis, 91; archon at 149; at Thebes after 458,148; in
by 550, 93; domination by Boeotia 458-446,148,149f.; at
Orchomenus, 97; freedom from Thespiae, 148; possibly at Tanagra,
Orchomenus, 99,173; defeat by 148; incompetence of, 150. See also
Orchomenus 550-525,100,110; Oligarchy, Society.
original member of League, 111, 116; Demophilus, s. of Diadromes, Thespian
returned Boeotarch, 124; coins from, Boeotarch at Thermopylae, 132.
141; grouped with Haliartus and Demosthenes, 9.
Lebadea, 156. Demouchoi, at Thespiae, 90.
Coronus, s. of Athamas, founder of Coronea, Dendri, see Hyettus.
58. Derbenosialesi (Pyle), modern village, 17,
Corseia, Boeotian-Locrian border village, 8. 18.
Council, federal: at inception of League, 112, Dhistomon, modern village, 5.
174; probably halia of Herodotus, 125, Dicasts: districts drawn from, 155f., 175;
157; controlled by Thebes, 125; duties, duties, 157; associated with
125, 157,174; quadripartite structure, Thesmophylakes, 157. See also
125,157., 174; terms of office, 157. League, Boeotian.
Council, local: aristocratic in Archaic period, Dilesi, see Delium.
92f.; patterned on federal Council after Diocletian, Edict of, fragments found, 16.
446,159. Diodorus Siculus, follows Ephorus for
Creon, king of Thebes, Cadmeans return in Tanagra-Oenophyta campaign, 145;
reign of, 50. testimony of, 141,144f.; rejected, 147.
Crete, influence of on LH land LH II, 37. Dionysus, temple of, claimed at Tzamali, 7,
Creusis, 4,5,11; location and remains of, 12; 8.
LH fort at, 38; dominated by Thespiae, Districts, Boeotian: for Pamboeotia, 89;
99. developments of concept of, 98-100,
Cuarius River, 3. 173; status of subordinate groups in,
Cyclades, influence of on EH, 35. 99; status of smaller towns, 100. See
Cyrtones, Boeotian-Locrian border town, also Boeotia, Perioeci.
location of, 8f.; home of Phlegyians, 47. Dithyrambus, s. of Harmatides, Thespian
polemarch at Thermopylae, 132.
Damasichthon, s. of Ophelias, king of Dolopians, Ainianes and Perrhaiboi, medize
Boeotia, occupies Thebes, 77; replaces in 480,132f.
Autesion, 78. Domvraina, modern village, 4.
Darimari (Daphni), site at Katsoula 1 km Donacon, possible site of at Tateza, 11.
from, 16f.; probably site of Erythrae, Doris, 3; refuge of Cadmeans, 49, 63; dispute
18. with Phocis in 459 and Spartan
Daulis, Phocian town, LH forts at, 38; intervention, 143, 175.
Phlegyians settle at, 47.
194 Index
Dowry, as mechanism for property Erechtheus, king of Athens, 57.

exchange, 92. See also Landholding, Eretria: legendary links with Boeotia, 79;
Family. allied to Oropus, 100; perhaps allied to
Dramesi (Paralia): remains at possibly Orchomenus in Lelantine War, 100;
Hyria, probably Graea, 19f.; Neolithic Persians capture in 490, 128,174;
remains, 34; MH remains, 36; LH III Athenian garrison at, 151.
C remains, 40. Erginus, king of Orchomenus, s. of
Dritsa, see Heleon. Clymenus or Poseidon, 59; slays
Drosia, see Chalia. Phrastor and Leonytus, sons of
Drymus, ancient town perhaps located at Oedipus, 48, 59; variant traditions on,
Kavasala, 18. 59f.; fight with Heracles, 59f.; joins
Argonauts, 60.
Echecratidae, Thessalian family; Lattamyas Erimokastro (Thespiai), modern village, 10.
a member of, 109f.; tagoi before 511, Erythrae: possible locations, 15-18; probably
109f. at Darimari, 18; eponym s. of
Eilesion, ancient town, probably at Athamas, 58; under Plataean control,
Chlempotsari, 18; possibly at Vratsi, 99,123,143,154.
18; unlikely at Megalo Vouno, 20. Erythrus, s. of Athamas, eponym of
Ektenes, ancient tribe, associated with Erythrae, 58.
Attica, 57; autochthonous in Boeotia, Eteocles, s. of Oedipus, cursed by father, 49;
45; possibly Boeotian phyle term, 90. traditions on, 61; fate of descendants,
Elateia, Phocian site, Neolithic settlement, 63.
34. Eteokleias, Orchomenian tribe, 90.
Eleusis, in Attica, Ogygus as founder of, 56. Eteonus (Scarphe or Scaphae): possible
Eleusis, in Boeotia, possibly at Agoriani, 7; locations of, 15-18; perhaps at
covered by Lake Copais, 56. Neochorakion, 18; under Plataean
Eleutherae, 2, 16; location at Gyphokastro, influence, 99; controlled by Plataea
18; shielded from Thebes, 113,123, 479-432,143,154.
174; alliance with Athens, 99, 113., Euboea, 4; traditional links with Boeotia, 79;
123,173; Ionic dialect in, 123; not influence on Archaic Boeotia, 87; exiles
cause of Theban-Athenian hostility, from join Orchomenizers, 150;
113; cult of Dionysus, 99, 113; Tolmides' strategy in, 151; rebellion of
perioecic to Athens, 143, 153; united to not aided by Boeotia, 153.
Athens in fourth century, 113. Eudielus, ancient town, perhaps at
Ellopes, legendary links with Boeotia, 79. Mavromandili, 8.
Encheleans (Encheleis), Cadmeans flee to, Euripus, 4, 21,123.
49; Herodotus and Hecataeus on, 49; "Euripus Fortress" perhaps at Karababas,
locations of, 49,90. 20.
Epaminondas, 146. Euryganeia, wife of Oedipus, 48.
Epeians, in Little Catalogue, 65f. Eurymachus, leader of the Phlegyians, 47.
Ephippus, brother of Leucippus, and cult of Eurymachus, s. of Leontiades, Theban
twins, 57. leader killed by Plataeans, 160f.
Ephorus: follows Hecataeus for early Eutresis, 4; location and remains, 11;
traditions, 45f.; on Phlegyians, 47; on neolithic site, 34; EH site, 35; MH, 36;
Cadmeans, 50; on expulsion of LH fortifications, 39; LH III C
pre-Boiotoi, 78f.; rejected on remains, 40; of secondary importance
Tanagra-Oenophyta campaign and in LH, 42; Amphion and Zethus at, 57;
Spartan-Theban relations, 145-47, refounded by Thespiae, 99, 173;
176. controlled by Thespiae, 155.
Epicaste, mother of Oedipus, 48. See also Evangelistra, convent of, south of Siacho,
Jocasta. possible location of Ocalea, 10.
Epigoni, 49, 6If.
Epirus, Cadmeans expelled to, 63, Family (Genos): classes and, 91 f.; councils
Thessalians enter Thessaly from, 76, from heads of noble, 92f., hoplite
77.
Index 195
reforms and the, 95f.; importance of, Hecataeus: and early traditions, 45-51;
91; landholding and the, 92. See also compared to Hellanicus and
Dowry, Land, Society. Pherecydes, 5If., 170; historical value
Festivals and Games, Boeotian: Basileia 101 of, 55-68.
note 9; at Onchestus, 89f., 100, 111; Hedylium, mountain, 2, 3.
once controlled by Orchomenus, 97f.; Heleon: location, 15; LH fortifications, 39;
supervisory amphictyony, 89; LH III C remains, 40; of secondary
Pamboeotia, founded in Dark Ages, 77; importance in LH, 42; part of
celebration of, 88f., 97,172; once Tetracomia, 99.
controlled by Orchomenus, 97; Helicon, 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 9,10,11; Thracian
supervisory amphictyony, 89. Ptoa, 13. cults on, 79.
Fortifications: near Aulis, 20; near Euripus, Helladic, Early, 35f.
20; at Megalo Vouno, 20; from Megalo Helladic, Late I and II (LH I & II), 37; lack
Vouno to Mt. Ktipas, 20; at of Boeotian, 36, 37; expanding culture,
Tilphusium, 9; LH III system of, 38f. 68.
Frazer, Sir J.G.,14. Helladic, Late IIIA and B (LH IIIA and B),
38-40; fortifications in, 38-40, 68;
Games, see Festivals and Games, Boeotian. decline in artistic standards, 39, 41;
Gell, Sir W., 13. collapse and destruction at end of, 40f.,
Genos, see Family. 169,171; growth of population during,
Gephyraioi, expelled from Boeotia, 79. 38,41; wars in, 39, 67f., 170.
Geraneia, mountain, 2; passes blocked by Helladic, Late III C (LH III C), 40f.;
Athenians, 143f. decline of population, 40; destruction
Gla, Mycenaean fortress, 13, 36, 38, 40. in, 40f.; period of collapse, 40f., 169.
Glisas, location and remains at Tourleza Helladic, Middle, 36f.
near Syrtzi, 15; LH fort at, 39; defeat Hellanicus: and early traditions, 45-51;
of Thebans by Epigoni at, 49, 62. compared to Hecataeus and
Glypha, see Tseloneri. Pherecydes, 5If., 170; historical value
Gomme, A. W.,150. of, 55-68.
Gorgidas, and formation of Sacred Band, 94. Heniochoi kai Parabatai, see Sacred Band.
Graea, probably located at Dramesi, 19f.; Heraclea Pontica, colony founded by
annexed by Tanagra, 99. Tanagra and Megara, 99.
Graimadha, see Tanagra. Heracles: and chariots in war, 59f., 94; cults
Granitza, mountain, 7. and traditions of in Boeotia, 62; war
Greenhalgh, P. A. L., 94. with Erginus, 59f.
Gyphokastro, probable location of Heracles Hippodetes, shrine of; location,
Eleutherae, 18. 13f.; battle near, 97.
Gyrton, home of Phlegyians, 47. Hercyna River (Probasia), 3.
Herodorus, 47.
Halia, see Council, Federal. Herodotus: on Boeotians, 129f., 133;
Haliartus, 1, 3, 9, 60; location and remains, contradicted by Plutarch, 109; followed
10; MH site, 36; LH fortifications, 38; by Thucydides, 113f.; on Thebans,
of secondary importance in LH, 42; 129f.; on "Undeclared War," 126f.
cult of Cecrops at, 56; ruled by Hesiod, 10, 52, 92,172; bones of to
Athamas, 58; Archaic polis, 91, 173; Orchomenus, 98; evidence for family
original member of League, 111, 117; life, 91 f.; for land tenure, 92; father an
Boeotarch from, 124; coins from, 141; immigrant, 95.
and Coronea campaign 446,152; Hieromnemones, local officials, 160.
grouped with Coronea and Lebadea, Hieronymus, historian, 46,47, 50,77.
156. Hipparch, federal magistracy, 158; local
Haliartus, s. of Athamas, eponym, 58. magistracy, 93, 160; at battle of
Hamippoi, special mounted infantry, 158. Plataea, 134.
Hammond, N. G. L., 127. Hippotae, location of, 6.
Harma, location and remains, 15; LH fort, Histaeotis, as place of refuge for Thebans,
39; part of Tetracomia, 99. 49.
196 Index
Hittites, archives of, 63, 66. Jacoby, F., 129.

Homer, 12; Great Catalogue of, 50, 64f., 76, Jocasta, mother of Oedipus, 48. See also
90; Little Catalogue of, 65-67,76. Epicaste.
Homole, Thebans return from, 49.
Hoplites: and reforms of Philolaus, 95f., 173; Kakosalesi, site of Oenophyta possibly
and family, 95f.; and Thebes, 95, 97, nearby, 19.
173;and Thespiae, 96,173; and other Kakosi (Thisvi), see Thisbe.
towns, 96. See also Army, Cavalry. Kalami (Lioma), location of, possibly
Hyampolis, Phocian town, 5; LH Midea, Eleusis or Arne, 6; LH
fortifications, 38; Hyantes settle at, 56, fortifications, 38; LH III C remains,
79; on invasion route, 77, 108,114; 40; of secondary importance in LH, 42.
Phocian battles against Thessalians Kalimbaki, Mycenaean cemetery at, 12.
near, 116. Kanapetra, cemetery at, 14.
Hyantes, early tribe in Hecataeus and Kanavari River, see Thespius River, 3.
Hellanicus, 45, 46; traditions on, 56; Kapraina, see Chaeronea.
expelled from Boeotia, 56, 57, 60; home Karababas, probably "Euripus Fortress," 20.
near Onchestus, 56, 57, 60; defeated by Karditsa (Akraiphnion), modern town, 12.
Boiotoi, 78, 79. Kastraki near Karditsa, site of heroum of
Hyettus, location and remains, 8; dominated Ptoos, 12.
by Orchomenus, 97; joined League, Kastraki below Sphinx, see Medeon.
123. Kastri below Lykovouniou, 15, 38; see also
Hylae, Homeric town, possible locations of, Harma.
12f. Kastro near Klidhi, ancient settlement at, 17.
Hylice, Lake (Iliki), 2,14. Kastro on Lake Iliki, ancient site at, 13.
Hypatus, mountain, 2, 14. Katsoula near Darimari, 16; probably
Hyperphas, see Periphas. Erythrae, 18.
Hypothebes: in Catalogue, 50, 63; sends Kavasala, site near, 17; perhaps Eteonus,
force to Trojan War, 50; under Argive Panakton or Drymus, 18.
rule, 63. Khalia, see Salganeus.
Hyria: possibly at Dramesi, 19; probably at Kingship, Boeotian: early, 77, 78, 81, 172;
Tseloneri, 20; Archaic domination by extinction of, 78,91; linked to archon at
Orchomenus, 97. Onchestus, 88; nobles termed "kings,"
Hysiae: possible locations of, 15-18; 91; replaced locally by archons, 93,
probably at Pantanassa, 18; occupied 172.
by League in 506,116; buffer state, Kirsten.E., 14,21.
113,123; under Plataean control, 99, Klidhi, Classical site at, 17; perhaps Schedia,
123,143,154. 18f.
Klimitari, remains at possibly Hylae, 12; or
lalmenus, s. of Ares, brother of Ascalaphus, Trapheia, 13.
64; Orchomenian leader in Trojan Knopia, possible location, 14.
War, 64; returns to obscurity, 67. Kokla (Plataia), modern village next to
Iliki,Lake(Hylice),2,3,4, 12, 13. Plataea, 15.
Illyrians, alleged invasion by of Mycenaean Kothos, brother of Aiklos, and legendary
Greece, 40. links with Boeotia and Euboea of, 79.
Inscriptions, 10,11, 16,21,153. Koukoura, valley of, 6.
lolcus, Thessalian city destroyed in LH III Kriekouki (Erythrai), modern village, 16.
C,40. Ktipas, mountain, 3, 5, 20. See also
lonians, in Little Catalogue, 65f.; originally Messapium.
in Boeotia, 66, 78,170; at Tanagra
458,144. Labdacidae, Theban dynasty: stemma, 47;
Ismene, daughter of Oedipus, 48. replaced after Trojan War, 67.
Ismenus River, 3, 4, 14. Labdacus, Theban king, 47f.
Isos, possible locations, 21. Laius, Theban king, 46, 47.
Itonian Athena, see Athena Itonia.
Index 197
Land and Landholding: dowry system and, 112,123; Boeotarch, 124; grouped with
91 f.; and hoplites, 95-97; inalienable Coronea and Haliartus, 156.
lots, belief in, 91 f.; lawsuits and, 92; Leitus, s. of Alectryon, 64; brother of
reforms by Philolaus at Thebes, 95f.; Clonius, 64; Boeotian commander in
selling and buying of, 91f.; Trojan War, 64; associated with
transmission of, 92. Plataea, 64; returns to obscurity, 67.
Laodamas, s. of Eteocles, variant traditions Lelantine Wars, heroic warfare in, 94;
on, 49. Oropus, Orchomenus allied to Eretria
Laphystium, mountain, 1, 2, 3, 58. in, 100; Thebes and Tanagra with
Larymna, Locrian town, 2, 5, 9. Chalcisin, 100.
Lattamyas, Thessalian: Echecratid, possibly Leleges, 45.
tagos, 109f.; invaded Boeotia, 108; date, Leontiades (I), s. of Eurymachus, Theban
109f.; defeat and death of, 107,109, Boeotarch at Thermopylae, 129,131,
112,117,174; L. and Cleomenes, 114. 132,152; survived war at Thebes, 133.
League, Arcadian, 146. Leontiades (II), s. of Eurymachus, leader of
League, Boeotian: distinguished from pro-Spartan party at Thebes in 383,
religious amphictyonies, 89f., 100; 161.
formation of, 107-17,173; original Leonytus, s. of Oedipus, accused of seduction
membership, 111; coins of, see Coins; of step-mother, 48f.; killed by Erginus,
dominated by Thebes to 479,111,123, 48, 59.
125,173; Plataea refuses to join, but Leucippus, brother of Ephippus, and twin
allies self to Athens, 112-14,117,174; cults, 57.
enlargement of membership, 112,117; Leuctra, location of, 10; and chronology of
absorbs Orchomenus, 115f., 117,123, Ceressus, 108.
174; defeat by Athens 506,116,117, Levendi, Phocian, LH fortifications of, 38.
174; early organization of, 124f., 174; Likeri, ancient site, 12; possibly Trapheia,
oligarchies in, see Oligarchy; 13.
Boeotarchs, 124f.; Council, 125; double Linear B at Thebes, 14.
districts, 124,156,174; alliance with Lioma, see Kalami.
Aegina and defeat by Athens, 125-27; Listi, possible site of Ceressus, 10.
neutral at Marathon, 128,174; medism Lithosoros, possibly "Tomb of Salganeus,"
in 480,128-34; at Tempe, 130,175; at 21.
Thermopylae, 131f., 175; alleged Livadhia, modern town, 6,10.
deportation of anti-medizers, 133f.; at Lochos, tactical unit, 132,158; at
Plataea, 134f., 175; punishment, 135, Thermopylae, 132; to Plataea in 431,
175; hegemony of Tanagra, 479-458, 132,161; to Sicily in 413,132.
141f., 144,148,175; withdrawal of Locris, 2, 8, 9; Amphion and Zethus in, 57;
Orchomenus, 142,175; status of L. in Little Catalogue, 65f.; medized,
Plataea, 142f; Spartan intervention, 131; Athenian rule, 144,147,176;
143-47,175; alleged Theban revival, exiles join Orchomenizers, 150.
145-47,175; Athenian domination, Lophis River, 3.
147-53,176; Plataea 458-446,148f., Loukisia, modern village, 21.
176; Orchomenus, 149; rebellion, Loutsi, modern village, 8.
150-55; agreement with Athens, 154f.; Lycus, slays Phlegyas, 47.
Theban hegemony 446-387,155,161 f., Lykovouniou, mountain, 15.
176; government of, 155-59; attack on
Plataea, 161; annexation of Plataea, Magoula Balomenou, possibly Arne, 6.
155,176. Magoula near Polyira, location of shrine of
Leake,W. M., 12,16, 20. Tegyrean Apollo, 8; neolithic site, 34;
Lebadea, 3,7; location, 6; Arcesilaus MH site, 36.
associated with, 64; Archaic commune, Mandraki, see Anthedon.
91; Archaic domination by Mardonius, 134.
Orchomenus, 97; freedom from Mamoura, see Athena Itonia.
Orchomenus, 99,173; joined League, Markopoulo, modern town, 19.
198 Index
Martinon, modern village near Corseia and Naucleides, Plataean oligarchic

Cyrtones, 8, 9. sympathizer, 159; invites Thebans,
Mavromandili, site possibly of Eudielus, 7, 161.
8. Navarch, federal official, 158.
Mavrovouni, Classical fort near Siphae, 11. Neochorakion, 17; possible site of Scolus or
Mavrovouni, hill on Attic-Boeotian border, Eteonus, 18.
19. Neochorion, possible site of Ceressus, 10.
Mazi, plain of, 18. Neokastro, site of Classical Thisbe, 11.
Medeon, located at Kastraki near Davlosis, Neolithic, 34f.
12; LH site, 36; LH fortification, 38; Nicander, Scholiast on, 14.
controlled by Thebes, 100. Nicolaus, 50.
Medon, variant roles in Homer, 65f. Niobe, 47.
Medusa, see Astymedousa. Niobids, variation in numbers of, 47.
Megali Katavothri, 13. Nisa, existence of uncertain, 21.
Megalopolis, walls of, 147. Nobility, origins of in Archaic, 91 f., 172;
Megalo Vouno, hill fort near Aulis, 20. families of, 91; estates of, 92; termed
Megara, 2, 5; with Tanagra founds Heraclea kings, 91; governed towns, 92f.;
Pontica, 99; alliance with Athens, 143; fighting class, 93f.; excluded from
devastated by Sparta, 144-46; manual labour, 95; at Thebes, 95, 96,
Athenian garrisons in, 151; rebellion in 100; at Thespiae, 96; in smaller towns,
152, 153. 96. See also Society, Family, Kingship.
Meges, variant roles in Homer, 65f. Nostoi, 67.
Melanthus, kills Xanthus on frontier, 78. Nycteus, brother of Lycus, slays Phlegyas,
Melas River, 3, 7, 8. 47.
Menestheus of Athens, 64, 65, 66.
Mesovouni, possible site of Teumessus, 14f. Ocalea, possible locations of, 90.
Messapium, mountain (Ktipas), 2, 3,15. Oedipodia, epic, 48.
Messene, centre for LH development, 37; Oedipus, in conventional stemma, 47;
fourth century walls of, 147. variant traditions on, 47f., 59, 61f.;
Metachorion, 6. children of, 48f.; curse of, 49; associated
Midea, possibly at Kalami, 7; home of with wars, 61f.; an interloper, 61.
Prothoenor, 64. Oedipus' Sheep, war of, 48, 61, 62;
Minyans, expelled from Orchomenus to distinguished from Argive War, 62.
Munychia, 50, 68; to Thoricus, 50, 68. Oenoe, Athenian town, 2; border fortress,
Minyas, king of Orchomenus, 58. 113; Boeotians seize in 506, 116.
Mitropoliti bridges and site, location of, 17; Oenophyta, battle of, 62, 142,144, 145, 146,
possibly Scolus, 18. 147, 149, 176.
Mnamias, Theban polemarch at Tempe, Oenophyta, village, location of, 19.
130. Oeroe River (Stravopotamos), 4.
Mouriki, modern village, 13. Ogygus, s. of Boeotus, 51f; autochthonous,
Moustaphades hill, 4,14. 45, 46, 51, 56; variant traditions on, 56;
Muses, sanctuary of the: location and legendary links with Attica and
remains of, 9f. Eleusis, 56; father of Cadmus, 57.
Mycalessus, possible locations for, 15, 20; Old Oligarch, see [Xenophon].
part of Tetracomia, 99. Oligarchy, Boeotian: developed from
Mycenae, centre for LH changes, 37; aristocracies, 95f., 172; and hoplite
destroyed in LH III C, 40; legendary reform, 95f., 173; and League, 124,
golden rams of, 62. 143; in stasis, 143, 144, 147; under
Myronides, Athenian general, 144; wins Athenian domination, 148; and
Oenophyta, 144, 145. rebellion, 150, 152; theories of and of
Mysa, existence of uncertain, 21. local government, 159f.; "Patria
Koina" an o. catch-phrase, 159. See
Naopoioi, Hellenistic officials, 89, 160. also Social Classes, Democracy.
Index 199
Olmones, location of, 8; Archaic domination Orchomenus, s. of Athamas, founds

of by Orchomenus, 97. Orchomenus, 58.
Olmos, settlement on Helicon founded by Orestes, s. of Echecratides, supported by
Athamas, 58. Athenian-Boeotian force, 149.
Onchestus: location of, 10; Hyantes in, 56, Oropus: location, 19; dialect of, 78, 99, 123;
57, 60; foundation legends and links links to Eretria, 79, 100; membership
with Attica, 56 and n. 17; founded by in Arnphictyony at Onchestus, 90;
O., s. of Athamas, 58; death of Archaic commune, 91; allied to
Clymenus at, 59; battles near, 59-61, Orchomenus, 100; dependency of
97f.; linked to Orchomenus, 60f., 97f.; Athens, 123, 143, 153, 173.
cult of Poseidon, 60, 89f.; festival at, Osios Meletios, monastery of, 16.
See Festivals; archon at, 88, 89; defeat Oungra, possible site of Hylae, 12; or of
of Orchomenus near, 97f.; see also Trapheia, 13; LH III C remains at, 40.
Festivals and Games.
Onchestus, s. of Athamas, founds Onchestus, Page, D. L., 64.
58. Palaiokastro, site of Bronze Age Thisbe, 11.
Opheltas, s. of Peneleus, king of Boiotoi, Palaiomylai, cemetery near Mitropoliti
captures Chaeronea, 77. bridge, 17.
Orchomenizers, probably Palaiovoro, possible site of Ceressus, 10.
Theban-dominated exiles, 150, 155, Pamboeotia, see Festivals and Games.
177; seize Orchomenus and lead Paleothivai, fort and mountain, 9.
rebellion, 150,152f; instrumental in Panakton, 18.
Athenian defeat at Coronea, 150,151, Pandion, king of Athens, 57.
152. Panopeus, Phocian site, 3; LH fort, 38;
Orchomenus, 1, 5, 7, 8, 33, 34, 36,133,134, settled by Phlegyians, 47.
160, 169; location and remains, 5f.; LH Pantanassa, chapel of, 16, 17; probable site
rivalry with Thebes, 39, 41, 59f., 170; of Hysiae, 18.
in LH III C, 40; LH fortification Pantzas River, see Phalarus.
system of, 38; occupied by Phlegyians, Paralia, see Dramesi.
47; Minyans expelled from, 50; Paralimni Lake (Trephia), 2,13.
Minyas king of, 58; Andreus king of, Parapoungia (Levktra), modern village, 11.
58; eponym O., 59; Clymenus king of, Parasopia, 15f.; invaded by League 506,116;
59; Erginus king of, 60; Trojan buffer between League and Athens,
commanders of, 64; LH dynastic 123; annexed by League 480-479, 134;
disturbances at, 67; captured by Plataean to 432, 143, 154, 155;
Boiotoi, 77; immigration into from Boeotarch from after 427,155.
Athens, 80, 87; tribes of, 90; Archaic Parnassus, mount, Thracian cults on, 78f.
polis, 91; attempted hegemony over Parnes, mount, 2.
Boeotia, 97f., 172; Calaurian Pastra, mount, 2, 18.
arnphictyony, 97, defeat by Thebes, Pateras, mount, 2, 18.
97f.; ties with Thessaly, 97,108; with Patria koina, Boeotian catchphrase for
Ascra, 98; loss of Lebadea and oligarchy, 159.
Coronea, 99f; victory over Coronea Pausanias, 5, 7, 14.
550-525,100; in Lelantine war with Pavlou, modern village, 8.
Eretria, 100; alliance with Thessaly Pegae, 153.
against League, 110f., 112,116,174; Pegasus of Eleutherae, introduced cult of
absorbed into League, 115,117,123; Dionysus to Athens, 113.
returned Boeotarch, 124; out of League Peisander, 48.
479-458,142,176; coins of, 142; in Peisistratus, 107, 108.
League 458-446,149; seized by Pelagia, mount, 12, 13.
Orchomenizers, 150; joins revolt Pelasgians: in Hecataeus, 45; expel
against Athens, 150f., 152, 153; posited Thebans, 50, 67; defeated by Boiotoi,
hegemony over League, 154f.; position 78; aboriginal inhabitants of Greece,
in League 446-387, 154f.; oligarchic, 79; expelled from Boeotia and Athens,
159. 79.
200 Index
Peneleus, Boeotian commander in Trojan Phrastor, s. of Oedipus, accused of seduction

War, 64; associated with Thebes, 64; of stepmother, 48f.; killed by Erginus,
possible return and exile, 67; son 48, 59.
captures Chaeronea, 77; ultimate fate Phratries, probable absence of in Boeotia, 90,
uncertain, 65. 172. See also Family, Phylae.
Pentheus, called Tentheus by Hecataeus, 48. Phthians, in Little Catalogue, 65f.
Perdikovrysi, site of sanctuary of Apoll Phylae, probable absence in Boeotia, 90, 172;
Ptoos, 12,13. possible vestiges of seven tribes, 90,
Pericles: expedition to Phocis, 150; urges 172.
delay in sending force to Orchomenus, Plataea, battle of, 134.
151. Plataea, city of, 4, 12, 18, 64, 79, 90, 97;
Perioeci: Eleutherae and Oropus as location of, 15, 113; of secondary rank
Athenian, p., 143; and Plataea, 99; in LH, 42; occupied by Boiotoi, 78,
smaller towns under larger as p., 98f.; Archaic polis, 91; tabus on archons, 93;
status of non-Bowtoi, 80, 100; early control of Parasopia, 99; refuses
Thebageneis as, 80, 172; p. and to join League and allies self to Athens,
Thespiae, 98f. 112-14, 116, 173, 174; buffer state,
Periphas, 48. 123; hatred of Thebes, 123; in Persian
Permessus River (Archontitza), 4, 11. Wars, 131, 133, 134, 175; ravaged,
Peteon, probably to be placed at Platanaki, 133, 141; not in League 479-458, 142f.;
13; perhaps at Skala Paralimnes, 13. control of Parasopia to 432, 143, 154;
Petra, ridge, 9. democracy in, 143, 148; in Tanagra
Petra, modern village, see Siacho. campaign, 144; in League 458-446,
Phalarus River, (Pantzas), 3. 148f., 176; out of League 446-427,
Pharae, possibly to be located at 153f., 177; Theban attack on, 149,
Chlempotsari, 18; or Aghios 161f.
Pantaleimon, 18; part of Tetracomia, Platanaki, probable site of Peteon, 13.
99. Plutarch, 5, 8; contradicts Herodotus, 109,
Pharaklas, C., 21. 129; testimony on chronology of
Pheidippus, settles in Ephyra, 77. Ceressus rejected, 108-10.
Pherecydes: early traditions in, 46-50; Podarces, 65.
compared to Hellanicus and Polemaeus, Hellenistic general, 20.
Hecataeus, 51 f., 169; on early Boeotian Polemarch; early title, 93; in tactical control
history, 55f.,58f., 78. of local forces, 129f.; at Tempe and
Philochorus, 45, 46, 56. Thermopylae, 129f., 132; in fifth
Philoctetes, variant traditions on in Homer, century and at Delium, 160; civil
65. officials in fourth century, 160.
Philolaus, Corinthian lawgiver at Thebes, Polybos, 48.
95., 173. Polydorus, in conventional stemma, 47.
Phlegyians: in early historical traditions, 47; Polyira: location, 7; probably Tegyra,
as friendly in Hellanicus, 47; enter possibly Aspledon, 8; prehistoric
Boeotia,67, 171. remains, 34, 36.
Phlegyas, tribal eponym, 47. Polyneices, s. of Oedipus, 48; in conventional
Phocae, located probably at Skroponeri, 21. stemma, 47; cursed by Oedipus, 49;
Phocian Desperation, battle of, 116. traditions on, 61.
Phocis, 1, 3, 34; LH fortifications in against Population: growth of in prehistoric times,
Orchomenus, 38, 39, 41; Trophonius 41, 169; catastrophic drop in LH III C,
and Agamedes in, 57; Minyas linked 40f., 169; nadir in Dark Ages, 80f.;
to, 58; early ties to Orchomenus, 97; gradual recovery, 87; population
subdued by Thessaly, 107,112,114, estimates in 432, 160.
116; liberated from Thessaly, 115f., Poseidon, father of Erginus, 59.
117; in Persian wars, 130, 132; dispute Poseidon Hippios, shrine of, location, 9.
with Doris, 143, 176; Athenian Poseidon, sanctuary of at Onchestus, 10.
domination, 144, 145, 147, 176; Poseidon, temenos of at Aghios Vasilios, 12.
Pericles sent to restore situation, 150.
Index 201
Potniae: location, 14; foundation legends and Thermopylae-Elateia-Chaeronea, 4,

links with Attica, 56 and n. 17; 77, 108, 114; east-west routes over
absorbed by Thebes, 98,173. Helicon, 4.
Pottery: Geometric, with depictions of Roman and Byzantine material, 12, 13, 17,
warfare, 93-95; EH, 35; LH I&II, 37, 21.
III, 39; MH, 36f.; sub-Mycenaean,
40f. Sacred Band (Heniochoi kai Parabatai):
Praxidicae, sanctuary of the: location, 9. Archaic parade group, 93f.; at Delium,
Pritchett, W. K.,5. 94; when formed as combat group, 94;
Probasia River, see Hercyna. in Federal army, 158.
Procris, myth of linking Attica and Boeotia, Sagmata, monastery of, possible site of
56. sanctuary of Zeus Hypatus, 15.
Profitis Ilias, chapel of, near Soules, possible Sagmatas, Mount, 15.
location of Teumessus, 15. Salganeus (Khalia), 4; location, 20f.; LH III
Profitis Ilias, hill of, near Chlempotsari, 17; C remains, 40.
see Chlempotsari. Salganeus, Tomb of, probably at Lithosoros,
Proskyna, modern village, 8. 21.
Protesilaus, 65. Scaphae, see Eteonus.
Prothoenor, s. of Areilycus, brother of Scarphe, see Eteonus.
Arcesilaus, 64; Boeotian commander in Schedia, possibly located at Klidhi, 18f.
Trojan War, 64; from western Boeotia, Schimitari, modern village, 18.
64. Schoeneus, s. of Athamas, founder of
Psaphis, Boeotian community dependent on Schoenus, 58.
Athens, 123. Schoenus, perhaps at Aghios Elias near
Ptoa, see Festivals and Games. Mouriki, 13; or at Likeri, 13;
Ptoon, mount, 2, 3, 5; LH forts on, 38; Schoeneus the eponym, 58.
settlement founded by Ptoos, son of Scolus, possible locations, 15-18; perhaps at
Athamas, 58; controlled by Thebes, Mitropoliti bridge, 18; under Plataean
100. control in Archaic, 99; under Theban
Ptoos, s. of Athamas, founds settlement, 58; by 506,123; Plataean 479-432, 143,
location of hero shrine of at Kastraki, 154.
12. Seals, cylinder, Mesopotamian, 14, 40, 58.
Pyle, see Derbenosialesi. Senkenna, site of Hylae perhaps near to, 12.
Pyrgaki, site of Ascra, 10. Seven against Thebes, 48, 61.
Pyrgos, probable site of Aspledon, 7f.; or Siacho (Petra), modern village, 10.
possibly Tegyra, 8; MH remains, 36; Sidae, possible indentification for site near
LH III C remains at, 40. Derbenosialesi, 17.
Pyrgos Aghias Marinas, Mycenaean Siphae (Tipha), 5; location and remains, 11;
fortress, 13, 38. LH fortifications at, 39; controlled by
Pyrgos, hill near Staniates, possible site of Thespiae, 99, 155, 173.
Oenophyta, 19. Skala Oropou (Oropus) 19.
Skala Paralimnes, possibly Peteon, 13.
Ritsona, modern village near Mycalessus, Skripou (Orchomenos), modern village, 6.
15. Skroponeri, probably Phocae, 21; LH III C
Roads and Routes, ancient: remains, 40.
Anthedon-Thebes, 13; Society: and family, 9If.; and hoplite
Chalcis-Thebes, 5, 15; reforms, 95f.; districts and, 90f.; land
Eleutherae-Hysiae-Thebes, 5,16; and, 90f.; oligarchy and, 125,143,159;
Lebadea-Thebes, 13; Oropus-Thebes, organization of, 90-93; rise of social
5,62; Creusis-Thespiae, 5, 11,12; classes, 91 f. See also Family, Nobility,
Plataea-Thespiae, 11; Plataea-Thebes, Kingship, Dowry, Oligarchy,
16; Plataea-Aghios Vasilios, 12; Democracy.
Plataea-Scolus, 16; Solinari, modern village, 3, 9; near
Daulis-Panopeus-Chaeronea, 4; Alalcomenae, 6.
202 Index
Soros, peak, 4,14,17, 34. Tempe: allied expedition to in 480, 129, 132;
Soules, probable location of Teumessus, 14f. Boeotian participation in, 129f.;
Sparta: influence on Athenian-Plataean Theban officials in, 129f.
alliance, 112-14,174; overthrows Teneric Plain, 3, 4,12,60,97.
Peisistratids, 114f.; with League Teos, Athamas as founder of, 58.
against Athens, 116; intervention in Tetracomia, 4: Archaic communes in, 91;
Phocian-Dorian dispute, 143; invasion pressed by Thebes and Tanagra, 99;
of Boeotia, 143-45; at Tanagra, 144f.; controlled by Thebes, 99; members of
alleged alliance with Thebes, 143, League, 111; Boeotarch from named by
145-47; negotiations with Athens, 150. Thebes, 124. See also Harma, Heleon,
Sparton, leader of Orchomenizers, probably Mycalessus, Pharae.
Theban, 150. Teumessus, ancient town, probably at
Sphendale, border town, 134. Soules, possibly at Mesovouni, 14f.
Sphingius, s. of Athamas, founds settlement Thebawi and Thebageneis, distinction
on Mt. Sphinx, 59. between, 80, 100.
Sphinx Mountain, 2; settlement by Thebais, title of at least three epics, 48, 49.
Sphingius, 59. Theban plain, 3, 4.
Stamatakis, 10. Thebes, 4, 5,10,11, 13,16,17, 35, 38, 39,
Stephanephoria, festival with links with 89; remains of, 14; LH fortifications of,
Athens, 56. 38; LH fortification system of Lake
Stephon, ancient site, 18. Copai's against, 39; LH rivalry with
Sthenelus, 48. Orchomenus, 38f., 41, 59f., 62, 170;
Strabo, 5, 7, 8. LH palaces at, 39f.; LH III C remains,
Stravopotamos, see Oeroe. 40; early traditions on, 45-52;
Stroviki, Mycenaean site, 8, 38. Phlegyians at, 47; termed
Syrtzi: not site of Knopia, 14; probably "Temmikion," 56; Amphion and
Glisas, 15. Zethus at, 46, 57, 58; Cadmus and,
45f.; Minyas linked to, 58; LH war
Tachi, site of Potniae, 14. with Argos, 49f., 62f., 170; under
Tanagra, battle of, 62, 144-46,147, 176. Argive rule, 63,170; Peneleus from,
Tanagra (Graimadha), 3, 4, 5, 42; location 64; replacement of Labdacids at, 67,
and remains, 19; LH III C occupation 78; taken by Boiotoi, 78; domination of
of, 40; Leucippus and Ephippus in, 57; Archaic art by, 87f.; Archaic polis, 91;
occupied by Boiotoi, 78; Archaic polis, archon, tabus on, 93; nobility of
91; absorbed Graea, 99,173; controlled excluded from manual labour, 95; ally
Aulis, 99; allied with Thebes and of Tanagra and Chalcis in Lelantine
Chalcis in Lelantine War, 100; War, 100; Philolaus at, 95; oligarchy
founded Heraclea Pontica with at, 96, 124; eighth century defeat of
Megara, 99; original member of Orchomenus, 97f.; absorbs Potniae, 98,
League, 111, 116f.; one Boeotarch, 173; control of Medeon-Ptoon area, 99,
124; lost Delium to Thebes, 128,173; 173; controls Tetracomia, 99, 173;
in Persian Wars, 134; hegemon of organizes League, 110-16, 123; defeats
League 479-458,141f., 143, 147, 148, Thessalian invasion, 107-09,116;
176; Spartans occupy, 143f., 147, 176; dominates League to 479, 123, 173f.;
Athenians destroy walls, 142,144f., hatred of by some other Boeotians, 123;
148,176; democracy at, 148; position controlled two Boeotarchs, 124;
in League 446-387,155f. hostility to Athens, 112-14; alliance
Tateza, ancient site, possibly Donacon, 11. with Aegina, 125-28; gains Delium
Tegyra, probably located at Polyira, possibly from Tanagra, 128, 173; in Persian
at Pyrgos, 8. Wars, 128-35; medizes, 128, 130f.,
Teiresias, dies at spring Tilphusa, 9. 133; troops at Thermopylae, 131 f.; at
Temmikes, ancient tribe: in Hecataeus, 45; battle of Plataea, 134; loses hegemony
invade Boeotia, 45; variant traditions of League, 135, 141f., 176; alleged
on, 56; "Temmikion" as name for alliance with Sparta and restoration of
Thebes, 56. hegemony, 143, 145-47; T. and
Index 203
Athenian domination of Boeotia, 147f.; Thessaly: neolithic influences from, 34;

democracy at, 143,148,176; regains variant cultures in MH, 36f., 76;
hegemony of League and frees Boeotia, Thebans flee to, 49, 63; Thebans
150-54,159,176; attacks Plataea, 149, return from, 50; Minyans linked to, 58;
154, 160f.; oligarchic, 159, 160, 176; Athamas king in, 58; LH Boeotian
population of, 156, 160. influx into, 40; homeland of Boiotoi,
Thebes, Peribolus near, 14. 66, 75-77; cults from in Boeotia, 75;
Themistocles, at Tempe, 130. place-names from in Boeotia, 75;
Theopompus, 20. Thessalians enter, 76f.; Archaic ties
Therapnae, possibly at Mitropoliti bridge, with Orchomenus, 97, 108, 117;
18; perhaps name an error, 18, 21. subdued Phocis, 107f.; invasion of
Thermopylae, 5; on invasion route, 77, 108, Boeotia, 107, 108-11, 116, 173; battle
114; Boeotian role in battle of, 128f., of Ceressus and death of Lattamyas,
124-26; commanders at, 129, 132; 107, 109, l l l f . , 117, 173; date of
Thebans surrender, 131. Ceressus, 108-10; allied with
Thersander of Orchomenus, Herodotus' Orchomenus, llOf., 174; Cleomenes
informant, 126; possibly Boeotarch, friendly to, 114; cavalry in Athens
133. defeated by Spartans, 114,117;
Thersander, s. of Polyneices: in conventional defeated by Phocians, 115f., 117,174;
stemma, 47; returns to Thebes, 48; medized, 130f.; save Thebans at
replaced by Creon in some variants, 50; Thermopylae, 108f., 131; at battle of
rules at Thebes, 63; Argive association Tanagra, 144; at Oenophyta, 148;
of, 63; killed in first Trojan expedition, Boeotian exiles in at time of
63f. Athenian-Boeotian invasion, 149,176.
Thesmophylakes: associated with dicasts, Thisbe, 5, 6; location and remains, 11; LH
157. fort at, 39; controlled by Thespiae, 99,
Thespiae, 4, 5, 11,13; location and remains, 155.
10; neolithic site, 34; of secondary Thrace: Phlegyians from, 47; Athenian
importance in LH, 42; legends and garrisons in, 151.
Athenian links, 56; taken by Boiotoi, Thracians: invade Mycenaean Greece, 40,
78; integration of Boiotoi and previous 67,171; expel Cadmeans, 50; battles
inhabitants, 80; Archaic polis, 91; with local inhabitants, 67; cults of in
nobles excluded from manual labour, Greece, 67, 78f., expel Boeotians, 76;
95; dependence on Thebes in seventh defeated by Boiotoi, 78f.; driven into
century, 96, 99; hoplite warfare and mountains, 80.
problems, 96, 99; captured Ascra, 98; Tilphusa, spring, 9.
173; settled Eutresis, 99, 173; Tilphusium, location of, 9; Thebans flee
dominated Creusis, Siphae, Thisbe, through, 49.
Chorsiae, 99, 173; allied with Thebes Tilphusius, Mount, 9.
against Thessalians, 110; original Timagenidas: possibly Theban Boeotarch,
member of League, 111, 117; 134; executed by Allies after Plataea,
Boeotarch from, 124; did not medize, 135; emphasizes that all Thebans
128, 129, 131, 132f.; at Thermopylae, supported medism, 135.
132; citizens evacuated and land Tipha, see Siphae.
ravaged, 131, 133, 141; at battle of Tiryns, 13, 40.
Plataea, 133; democracy at, 148; Tisamenus, 63.
controlled two Boeotarchs, 134,149, Tolmides: Athenian force under defeated at
155; position in League 446-387, 155; Coronea, 151-53.
oligarchy at 446-387, 159f. Topolia, see Copae.
Thespiae, vale of, 2. Tourleza, locality, probable site of Glisas,
Thespius River (Kanavari), 3, 15.
Thessalus, s. of Aiatus, expels Boiotoi from Trapheia, ancient town, possibly located at
Thessaly, 77f. Likeri, 13.
Thessalus, s. of Peisistratus, 108. Trephia, Lake (Paralimni), 2.
204 Index
Tribes, see Phylae. hoplite reforms, 95f.; 173; Thessalians

Triton River, 3. and League, 107-12; Phocian, 116;
Trojan War, 47, 48, 63; historicity of Athenians and League, 112-14,
traditions on, 64-67, 170; dating of, 64, 125-28; Persian Wars, 128-35; fifth
170; Catalogues and, 65f.; as part of century, 143-48, 150-55,161.
LH campaign in Asia Minor, 66f. Whitened Bodies, battle of, 116.
Trophonius, brother of Agamedes, 6; as part Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, 80.
of cult of twins in Boeotia, 57.
Troy, 64. Xanthus, king of Thebes, killed on Attic
Trypiolithari, hill, 6. frontier, 78, 80, 88; date of death, 80,
Tseloneri (Vlicha, Glypha), probably site of 171.
Hyria, 20; LH III C remains at, 40. [Xenophon] "Old Oligarch", 143; on
Twins, cult of in Boeotia, 57, 65. Athenian support for Boeotian
Tzamali, modern village, 7, 8. oligarchs, 152.
Xeronomi, modern village, 10.
Vathy, 4. Xeropyrgo, see Pyrgos.
Vergoutiani, spring near chapel of Aghia Xerxes, Persian king, 128, 133; receives
Anna, 17, 18. heralds in Pieria, 130f.; alleged
Vigla, ancient fort on Petra, 9. deportation of Boeotians under, 133f.
Vlicha, see Tseloneri.
Vratsi, possible site of Pharae, or Eilesion, or Ypsilantis, modern village, 9, 10.
perhaps Stephon, 18; LH III C
remains, 40. Zethus, brother of Amphion: founder and
fortifier of Thebes, 46, 57; as part of
Wallace, P. W., 13, 15, 17. twin cults, 57; as usurpers, 46; variant
Walls, ancient: 6,11 tns, 12 passim, 15, 16, traditions on, 57.
17 bis, 18, 20 bis, 21; LH III walls, 38f. Zeus Hypatus, sanctuary of, 15.
Warfare: Bronze Age, 59-63; Archaic, 93f.;
Index
Auctorum
Apollodorus, Bibl, 2.4.1, 59; 3.4.5, 48. 23.676-80, 48, 61; 24.602-17, 47.
Aristophanes, Schol. Ach. 243, 113. Odyssey 11.260-65,46; 11.271-78,48.
Aristotle, A.P. 22, 127; Pol. 1297bl 6-19, 94;
1302b29, 150. Inscnpliones Graecae: 22.469, 20;
Asius,frg. IK, 46. 7.1719-2222,10.
Diodorus Siculus, 4.10.3-6, 59; 4.66-67, 49; Justin, 3.610,141.

11.79.5, 143; 11.80.1, 143f.; 11.80.6,
145; 11.81.2-3,141, 145; 11.82, 145; Minyas.frg. 13K,46.
11.83, 145; 12.70.1, 94; 17.110.4-6,
133f.; 19.53-54, 50,77. Nicander, Schol. Ther. 889, 14.
Eumelus, frg. 12K, 46. Pausanias 1.38.8, 113; 9.1.6,16;9.2.1,16;

Euripides, Bacch. 1043-45,18. 9.4.4, 16; 9.5.1, 45; 9.5.11, 48; 9.8.3,
14;9.14.1,112;9.14.2,110;9.19.1,14;
Gellius,Aulus, 20.7,47. 9.25.4, 59; 9.34.7, 58; 9.34.10, 90; 9.37,
59; 9.38.9,7.
HellenicaOxyrhynchia, 11.2, 157; 11.3, 15; Pindar, Pyth. 3.8,47.
148,154, 155, 175. Plato, Menex. 242a, 143.
Heraclides Ponticus, FHG, frg. 43, 96. Plutarch, Arist. 13, 143; Cam. 19, 108, 110;
Herodotus, 1.57, 79; 5.59-60, 47; 5.61, 49; 77; de Hdt. mat. 33, 129; 133;
Cim.
5.74, 113; 5.74.2, 115; 5.79,96, llOf., 108-110; Narr. Amat. 4, 6; Pelop. 18.1,
125, 157; 5.81, 126; 5.89, 126-28; 5.96 94; Per. 18,151.
127;6.108,112; 6.137, 79;7.132.1,
130; 7.205.2,132; 7.205.3,129, 132; Strabol.l.l7,21;9.2.9,21;9.2.10, 14;
7.222,133; 7.233, 132;9.15, 124; 9.2.20, 12; 9.2.24, 15, 16;9.2.26, 13;
9.15.3, 16; 9.43, 49; 9.98,135. 9.2.27, 9; 9.2.28, 46, 9.2.36,9; 9.2.41,
Hesiod, W.D. 38f., 91, 92; 248f., 91, 92; 7; 10.1.8,20.
161-163, 48; frg. 35Rz, 48, 62; frg.
133Rz, 46. Thucydides 1.3.2,79; 1.12.3, 50,65,76;!.
Homer: Iliad, Bk. 2: 5, 64, 76, 85; 2.494ff., 107.4, 144; 1. 107-108,142; 1.113.1,
50, 64; 2.497,16; 2.505, 65; 2.511-15, 150;1.113.3,153;!.113.4,153;
64; 2.512, 90; 2.627, 65; 2.676-79, 77; 2.2.1-2, 154; 2.2.4, 124, 153; 2.18, 113;
2.683, 65; 2.704, 65; 2.727, 65; 4.377 3.61, 78, 96; 3.62.5,13,147; 3.65.2,
Schol.A, 48; 4.403-10, 61; 4.451, 64; 124,153; 3.68.5, 112; 4.92.6, 143,147.
13.301-30, 47; 13.685-700, 65-67, 76;
13.699,66; 14.451, 64; 17.601, 64; [Xenophon]3.11,143.

Buck, Robert J. - A History of Boeotia PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Buck, Robert J. - A History of Boeotia PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A History of Boeotia

Map 1. Boeotia - the Setting

The University of Alberta Press

Map 2. The Main Ancient Sites and Routes

Copyright ® The University of Alberta Press 1979

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Buck, Robert J., 1926-

1. Boeotia - History. I. Title.

All rights reserved

Printed by Printing Services of

1. The Land of Boeotia 1

2. Archaeological Evidence from the Neolithic and

The Neolithic Age 34

The Early Helladic Period 35

The Middle Helladic Period 36

Late Helladic I and II 37

Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB 38

Late Helladic IIIC 40

Summary and Conclusions 41

The Three Traditions 45

4. Traditions and History of the Bronze Age 55

5. The Coming of the Boiotoi 75

6. Boeotia in the Archaic Period 87

7. The Formation of the Boeotian League

8. The Early Boeotian League 506-479 B.C. 123

9. Boeotia 479-431 B.C. 141

10. Conclusions 169

1. Boeotia - the Setting ii

2. The Main Ancient Sites and Routes iv

3. The Ancient Sites (with numerical and xiv

4. The Late Helladic Period 32

5. The Entry of the Boiotoi 74

6. The Main Towns and Battle Sites of 86

7. The Original Membership of the 106

8. The Boeotian League in 480 B.C. 122

9. The Boeotian League in 450 B.C. 140

Map 3. The Ancient Sites

sometimes called sharply rolling plains, with a surface of easily eroded

furnish. It is across the Melas from Orchomenus and has a western

Stamatakis and in 1888-90 by the French School, but the excavations

A settlement with remains from Neolithic to Byzantine times was

have been observed. Traces of a road from Creusis via Leuctra to

as well as sherds, a half-hour's walk west of the Cabirium, "at a point

location. Very little of antiquity has been found at Mesovouni, while

Asopus, the foothills of Mt. Cithaeron and Darimari.147

Scolus or the acropolis of Scolus.159 Another possible candidate for Scolus

The site of Aulis has been clearly identified by excavation. It is

Chalia and Hyria are coupled by Theopompus as Boeotian towns

neighbourhood of modern Chalia (officially Drosia), though no such site

22. Philippson 1. 498f.; Frazer, Pans. 5. 73.

1940); H.-P. Drogemuller, Gymnasium 68 (1961) 219-27; G. Bruns, AA,

165. Paus. 1.38.8, 9.1.1, 9.1.6; Str. 9.2.31.

The land of Boeotia was inhabited continuously from the Neolithic

Map 4. The Late Helladic Period

villages must not be discounted.

The Neolithic Age

There is no evidence for any violence, although the fortification walls

The Early Helladic Period

should be drawn. There is no certainty about where this posited

The Middle Helladic Period

variation be observed.38 Fortification walls seem to be almost unknown in

Late Helladic I and II

Late Helladic IIIA and III B