Roy van Wijk

Athens and Boiotia Were Athenians and Boiotians natural enemies in the Archaic and Classical periods? The scholarly consensus is yes. Roy van Wijk, however, re-evaluates this commonly held assumption and shows that, far from perpetually hostile, their relationship was distinctive and complex. Moving between diplomatic normative behaviour, commemorative practice and the lived experience in the borderlands, he offers a close analysis of literary sources, combined with recent archaeological and epigraphic material, to reveal an aspect to neighbourly relations that has hitherto escaped attention. He argues that case studies such as the Mazi plain and Oropos show that territorial disputes were not a mainstay in diplomatic interactions and that commemorative practices in Panhellenic and local sanctuaries do not reflect an innate desire to castigate the neighbour. The book breaks new ground by reconstructing a more positive and polyvalent appreciation of neighbourly relations based on the local lived experience. This title is available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.    is SNFS Postdoc Mobility Fellow at the University of Münster. He co-edited Empires of the Sea: Maritime Power Networks in World History (2019) and currently works on river valleys across mainland Greece.

This article demonstrates how a riverine prism offers different insights into the
lived experience of communities in the Alpheios valley in the western Peloponnese. This
analysis includes an Iron Age material koine, a religious network of the fifth century BC,
and the example of Megalopolis’ foundation in 370 BC to highlight the strength of local
religious, economic, and social networks in Archaic and Classical Greece. This forms part
of a wider research project into the resiliency of local networks in three river valleys
across mainland Greece between 800 and 146 BC.

The theme of this article is the Thespian Polyandrion and its mnemonic connections to local history, especially the Thespian role during the Persian Wars (480-79) and the Peloponnesian War (431-404). The Polyandrion was constructed after the Battle of Delion (424), a Boiotian victory over the Athenians. It will be argued that the sculptural scheme was shaped in reference to Leonidas' memorial at Thermopylai. The reference was inspired by Thespian history; the city's history was largely overshadowed in the memorial landscape of the battlefield, and in narrative traditions of the Persian Wars Thespian efforts were often overlooked. As the Athenians were framed as the new Persians during the Peloponnesian War, the Battle of Delion and its aftermath provided the ideal opportunity to cultivate a lasting memory of Thespian contributions to the freedom of the Greeks.

The speech should not be read as satirical condemnation of Athenians’ desire for arche, but as a Xenophontic insight into the workings of the democracy, with Thrasybulus admitting the risks but citing the prospect of significant gains. This helps to illuminate how the understanding of risk was an important aspect of democratic deliberation and decision-making and reveals Xenophon's thinking of the workings of democracy was perhaps closer to Thucydides than previously assumed

A Dutch proverb holds that a good neighbour is better than a
faraway friend and nowhere does this adage ring truer than in the case of Attica and Boiotia. Intertwined through their geographical proximity, events in one region inevitably had ramifications for the other. Most clearly this could be felt alongside the border territories flanking the Mount Kithairon- Parnes range. Nevertheless, Boiotia’s location on the crossroads between Northern and Southern Greece, as well as its connection between the Euboic and Corinthian Gulfs, meant that it held the reigns to several vital strategic locations across Greece. Moreover, with Boiotia’s suitability for hoplite warfare, its relatively easily defendable entry points at places in both its southern and northern hemisphere, and its capability to muster substantial military forces, the Boiotians were the ideal partner for the Athenians and their maritime prowess. Normally, however, scholars have tended to focus on
the dangers the northern neighbour posed to Attica’s security, or how other areas such as the Thraceward region were of more paramount importance to the Athenians to maintain and hold. In this article, on the other hand, it will be argued that control over, or collaboration with the Boiotians was essential to Athenian strategy and the maintenance of its control over the Aegean, in both a positive and a negative sense. A hostile Boiotia was detrimental to the security of Athenian rule, whereas a cordial neighbour provided all the security it needed to establish hegemony over the Aegean. In various cases, it acted as the ideal “buffer” state, prohibiting troop movements across Central Greece, whether coming from the Peloponnese or the north. The use of Boiotia as a buffer for Athenian defence, and interests, will therefore be shown to have run like a red thread throughout Athenian history and strategy.

One of the key events in the relations between the Athenians and Thebans was the Plataian decision to align themselves with the Athenians at the end of the sixth century BCE. This decision shook up the contemporary political landscape and proved to be a source of hostility between the two neighbouring polities throughout the fifth and fourth centuries. The orthodox view holds that the original alignment took place in 519 during the Peisistratid tyranny, based on the date given by Thucydides 3.68.5. This date, in the mind of some scholars, seems contradictory with the story of the Plataian alignment as given by Herodotus (6.108.1-6.). This inconsistency resulted in a search for alternatives that fit the Herodotean narrative better. To accommodate this change, they relied on emendating the Thucydidean text, but there is no sign of corruption in this part. Emendation of a text is best avoided, although the controversy merits attention. Therefore, in this article it will be argued that the two narratives – the Thucydidean and the Herodotean – need to be separated. What follows is a renewed chronology of Plataian-Athenian relations. The orthodox date (519) was the date of an original Peisistratid-Plataian alliance that did not lead to hostilities with Thebes. Instead, it is in the context of the foundation of the Athenian democracy and the subsequent clashes with Thebes after 507/6 that the Herodotean narrative should be placed. * First and foremost I would like express my gratitude to Albert Schachter, who made invaluable suggestions to improve this article. Another note goes out to Fabienne Marchand, who pointed to numerous mistakes in the article. A further acknowledgement is to professor Nikolaos Papazarkadas, who suggested the similarities between sympoliteia and the Eleutherai inscription mentioned later on. I would also to thank the audience at Durham, where an earlier version of this paper has been given, for their comments. A last note of gratitude goes to the anonymous reviewer, whose advice radically improved this article. Finally, I would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for generously supporting me to carry out research on Athenian-Boiotian relations.

This article discusses the Athenian introduction of the Epidaurian Asklepios in 420 / 19 B. C., from the perspective of the international relations in the Classical Period. Contacts between Athens and Epidauros had existed since the early Archaic Period and continued during the Peloponnesian War, which enabled both poleis to cooperate on this particular instance. The delicate equilibrium between the Spartan and Athenian alliance that the Peace of Nikias encompassed was the outcome of changes in the political atmosphere in both camps, as politicians striving towards rapprochement and consolidation accumulated sufficient influence. Instead of regarding the cultic foundation as the result of Athenian imperialist design, the Athenian introduction of Asklepios must be regarded as a symbol of reconciliation between Athens and Epidauros that demonstrates the utilisation of sanctuaries to obtain political goals besides imperial aims.

Dans l’ombre d’Achéloos: existe-t-il une identité fluviale ?

L’Achéloos est peut-être le fleuve le plus connu dans la Grèce ancienne. Son cours, qui traverse l’Etolie et l’Acarnanie, a occupé une place très importante dans l’imaginaire grec. Son rôle, comme une frontière entre les deux régions déjà mentionnées, est également réputé, grâce à une inscription fameuse qui concerne leur alliance.  Malgré cette réputation, il n’est pas vraiment clair si le fleuve a influencé la formation d’une identité commune qui pouvait jouer un rôle formatif pour solidariser les communautés qui se trouvaient aux berges. Donc, le but de cette communiquée est d’essayer de retrouver la place occupée par l’Achéloos dans la formation des identités locales a la vallée propre, grâce à l’inscription citée au-dessus et un exemple plus intéressant, la grotte de Mastro.