Defeating the New Persians:



A Lost Local Memory: Thermopylai, the battle of Delion and the Thespian polyandrionRoy van Wijk This paper aims to re-evaluate a specific monument pertaining to the Battle of Delion that took place in 424 B.C.E., namely the Thespian Polyandrion for the fallen soldiers of Thespiai. It emphasises the local perspective that is stored in this memorial, but hitherto has been largely ignored or dismissed. Instead, analyses of the polyandrion have relied on viewing the monument as an exceptional example of a familiar phenomenon, rather than treating the Thespian polyandrion as an idiosyncratic monument that is embedded in the local narrative. At the same time, this local perspective is married with the Boiotian koinon’s discourse during the Peloponnesian War, to show that the epichoric and regional, pan-hellenic ideologies were not mutually exclusive. The Battle of Delion in 424 took place on the borders of Attica and Boiotia. This military encounter left a long-lasting legacy among its participants. The battle resulted in a devastating Athenian loss, and a grandiose Boiotian victory. In Athens, it was perceived as the act of an immortal being that had intervened on behalf of the Boiotians, rendering the outcome of the struggle less surprising. It was perceived as a turning point in the neighbourly relations, with the koinon becoming increasingly assertive vis-à-vis its Athenian neighbours, rather than the other way around, as Xenophon remembers in his Memorabilia. Similarly, it constituted the first major defeat for the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, arresting their string of successes. For the victorious Boiotian koinon Delion formed a pivotal event. It marked the transition from an atomised, incohesive region that was regularly bullied around by its Attic neighbour, into a unified front that would hold its own against the dominant superpower of the day – the Athenians – without any help from the Peloponnesians. The luscious celebrations inaugurated under Theban auspices, according to Diodorus, demonstrate this new-found confidence. In the shadow of these celebrations stood a different, more reflective memorial: the Thespian polyandrion. It is this memorial that I will be treating.The first traces of the monument were found by Stamatakis in the 19th century and further excavation by Keramopoullos in the early 20th century revealed the extent of the polyandrion, as well as the offerings made to the victims. A full overview of the findings was not published until 1977, when Schilardi tackled the muddled archaeological reports in his dissertation. It revealed the impressive size of the gravesite, as well as the gifts that accompanied the fallen Thespians. From reconstruction it has become clear that there were 30 casualty lists, which also mentioned the names of two pan-hellenic victors. The men had been cremated before being buried. Considering the wealth of archaeological findings from the polyandrion, including all kinds of graves offerings normally associated with the dead, it seems the Thespians venerated their fallen as heroes of the polis, in accordance with the customs observed elsewhere. Topping the burial mound was the statue of a seated lion, about 3 metres high, which was rather rudimentary in style but still granted a sense of grandeur to the memorial. The memorial likely did not exist in isolation, and was presumably flanked by other memorials. Other casualty lists have been found, one even pre-dating the Delion memorial, but the size of these lists provides a stark contrast to the momentous dimension of the Delion polyandrion. Until now, the monument has been perceived as testimony to the heroic efforts of the Thespians, whose exploits continued to be remembered in later times, as can be perceived from the grave offerings (Schilardi 1977), or on the other hand, as an example against the notion that the polyandreia and the casualty list were a peculiarly Athenian, democratic phenomenon (Low 2003). Indeed, the emerging picture from new exciting epigraphical finds from Thebes shows public funeral games may have been held there as well, contrary to Demosthenes’ claims about its Athenian idiosyncrasy (Papazarkadas 2014). Nevertheless, these interpretations do not appreciate the epichoric outlook of the monument, or adequately take Thespian history into consideration. Schilardi briefly remarks on the possibility of a link between the Thespian Delion memorial and the funeral lion grave for the fallen Peloponnesians at Thermopylai, but goes on to dismiss this connection, preferring to view the Delion memorial as a last grasp of Thespian independence before the Theban intervention a year later. This sentiment is shared by Ma, who views the Thespian polyandrion as reflecting internecine friction in Boiotia, rather than acting as a possible reference to Thermopylai and through that, the lion monument for Chaironeia. Yet at the same time, Ma has illustrated how that latter example was steeped in the local history and historiography, and enviously gazed at Thermopylai in an attempt to create a visual link between the past and present and the battles at the Hot Gates and Chaironeia. I believe a similar invocation may have been at play in Thespiai. By placing the monument in its rightful context – Thespian history and the ideological warfare during the Peloponnesian War, I hope to employ a different lens on this enigmatic memorial.The polyandrion for Delion was not a singular monument in the sense that there existed other polyandreia in Thespiai, of which only the casualty lists have survived. Thanks to the publication of the Inscriptions de Thespies, we now know there was an earlier polyandrion, allowing us to compare the different monuments in the Thespian funerary landscape. This early polyandrion was significantly smaller in size; similarly, later polyandreia appear to have been of a lesser scale. Additionally, there is no guarantee that all these memorials were topped by a funerary lion statue, although Schilardi suggested that possibility. He adduced the recorded find of another lion statue, circa 1.3 metres high and dated to the late 5th-early 4th century. Schilardi viewed this as an indication of another mass grave, but the original excavators were less certain and assigned it a different status, perhaps as a marker for an individual grave. Admittedly, lions grazed the funeral landscape as markers of graves since the 7th century, when the motif as a lion showing the valour of the deceased started to appear; but the animal’s role as a warden for mass graves in less well attested. Vermeule writes that “He (the lion) is the only beast, outside of Attica at least, who had a demonstrable connection with Greek history, rather than being mere private sepulchral commemoration. At Amphipolis in Macedonia and Chaeroneia in Boeotia colossal marble lions on massive architectural bases watched over those who fell in famous battles of the fourth century.” This again confirms that the later monuments were not stereotypical common grave markers. But both cases were later examples, post-dating Delion. Thermopylai therefore still stands as the first grave that marked the fallen of a battle en masse, and perhaps formed the blueprint for the Thespians as well. That is not to say the Delion monument inspired the later memorials, but it makes it more plausible that the Thespians looked to Thermopylai, rather than simply following tradition.Defeating the New Persians: the propaganda of the Peloponnesian WarTo fully appreciate the impact of the monument the background to the Battle of Delion and the propagandistic components of the Peloponnesian War in which it took place should be revisited. In 424 the Athenians conceived of a plan to establish permanent footholds in Boiotia from which to erode the cohesion of the koinon. The two-pronged attack consisted of two simultaneous attacks, one by Demosthenes in the western edge of the region, around Siphai and Chaironeia, while a second army under Hippocrates would invade Boiotia via the Oropia and fortify and the Apollo sanctuary at Delion. The idea was to prevent a centralised response from the Boiotians and thus allow the establishment of Athenian enclaves in this strategically important region. Demosthenes’ part of the plain failed, however, leaving Hippocrates to salvage the operation. Confronted with the entire Boiotian army, the Athenian general decided to fortify the sanctuary and withdraw most of his troops. Most of the Boiotian leaders accepted this withdrawal, until one of their peers, Pagondas, gave a rousing speech to convince them otherwise. The most intriguing part of the speech, permeated as it is with references to abrasive Athenian behaviour and Boiotian history in an on-going dyadic rivalry, is the following phrase uttered by the general: “It is your national habit, in your country or out of it, to oppose the same resistance to a foreign invader; and when that invader is Athenian, and lives upon your frontier besides, it is doubly imperative to do so.”Ο? γ?ρ τ? προμηθ??, ο?? ?ν ?νλλο? ?πι?, περ? τ?? σφετ?ρα? ?μο?ω? ?νδ?χεται λογισμ?ν κα? ?στι? τ? μ?ν ?αυτο? ?χει, το? πλ?ονο? δ? ?ρεγ?μενο? ?κ?ν τινι ?π?ρχεται. Π?τρι?ν τε ?μ?ν στρατ?ν ?λλ?φυλον ?πελθ?ντα κα? ?ν τ? τ?ν π?λα? ?μο?ω? ?μ?νεσθαι.The words I have highlighted here – Π?τρι?ν and ?λλ?φυλον - represent key facets of Pagondas’ speech. Π?τρι?ν is used here to assert a national characteristic of the Boiotians, that is, to defend against foreign invaders. More saliently is the use of ?λλ?φυλον, as Jonathan Price rightly identified. This word sets the Athenians apart from the Boiotians as a foreign race, perhaps the distinction between Aeolian and Ionian. I would venture further, however. In the next part of the speech, Pagondas compares the Athenians to the Persians by touting the ideological line of the anti-Athenian coalition during the Peloponnesians, namely, that the Athenians are the new Persians, intent on subduing all of Hellas and taking away the eleutheria of other poleis.“Between neighbours freedom generally means a simple determination to hold one’s own (lands), but with neighbours like these (the Athenians), who are trying to enslave near and far alike, there is no other option but to fight it out to the last.?Just take an example from the condition of the Euboeans and of most of the rest of?Hellas” (own translation).By utilising these rhetorical tools, Pagondas almost frames the conflict as a new Persian Wars. Similar to that war, the Boiotians were invaded by foreigners – in this case the un-Greek Athenians – placing the subsequent engagement at Delion in a similar line of battles for Greek freedom, such as Thermopylai, where the Boiotians arguably made a stand against the invading Persians in the name of the Greeks. The invocation of “persianity”, of course, did not stand on its own, nor was it a Boiotian peculiarity. Following Thucydides’ own words, it is clear that the Spartans and their allies portrayed the Athenians as the new Persians, intent on enslaving the Greeks. What made it worse was their own Greek origins, a sentiment echoed by the Thebans in the Plataian Debate when they accuse the Plataians of attikismos. More importantly, the Spartans rallied their allies and other Athenian opponents around the notion of eleutheria in an attempt to recapture it from the abrasive Athenians, who had used exactly that slogan to devise the Delian League and carry on the war against the Persians. The Peloponnesian War therefore struck a chord and was especially aimed at striking at the heart of the Athenians’ ideological message, something reflected in the dedications made after the war in Delphi – like the Aegispotami monument that directly competed with the Athenian Marathon monument and eclipsed its counterpart in all facets. Similarly, the dissolution of the Delian League in 404/3, was exemplified by the Spartan decree liberating Delos, which embodied this rallying cry for freedom against what the Athenians stood for. For Pagondas to frame the Athenians as the new Persians thus found its resonance in the Peloponnesian War in general, perhaps more fittingly at the site of Delion, with its cultic connections to Delos. Because of these connotations, and the fact that the brunt of the battle was fought out between the two neighbours, the victory at Delion can be viewed as a Boiotian victory for freedom against the repressive Athenians – a reversal of the roles normally ascribed to them in Athenian discourse – especially as it came at a time when medism re-entered the Athenians’ psyche and commemorative practices. Judging from the way the victory was celebrated in Thebes and Delion, according to Diodorus, the victors perceived the battle as a seminal moment in their history, perhaps intimately connected to the notion of eleutheria, but this time for Boiotia in particular. A grand stoa was erected in the Agora, embellished by the bronze statues made from the Athenian armour. Other booty was hung around temples and stoas in the city’s heart, transforming this civic centre into a visual testimony of the victory, and more importantly, the grandeur of Thebes and the koinon, finally united against the common foe whose contriving ambitions in Boiotia had been stifled by the united defence of Boiotia. Embodying this grandeur was the pièce de résistance, the inauguration of the Delia festival in Delion. Since there had been sacred buildings at the site prior, combined with Herodotus’ testimony of the re-dedication of an Apollo statue at Delion in 470, there is uncertainty whether the Delia was a new festival, or the adaptation of a pre-existing festival. Perhaps the Delia were transformed from a local affair into a pan-Boiotian festival, as it was in the late 2nd century. Regardless of its repercussions for the festival scene in Boiotia, it was most certainly a sneer at the Athenians. Their empire was founded on the notion of Delos as the religious centre of a pan-Ionian alliance. There, the Delia were celebrated in grand style under Athenian wardenship. The jab must have resonated all the more considering the recent purification of the island of Delos, and the subsequent re-organisation of the festival by the Athenians in 426. By creating a “mirror-Delia” in Boiotia, the koinon undermined the Athenians’ prestige, affirming the importance of “symbolic capital” in interstate affairs. The “centralised” message of the koinon thus aimed to tarnish the Athenians’ reputation, which tallies well with the overall propagandistic battle raging during the Peloponnesian War. Considering this ideological framework was at play in the recollections of the koinon in toto, what can it reveal about the Thespian polyandrion?Like their Boiotian brethren, the victory at Delion must have been a great cause for celebration in Thespiai, despite their long-standing friendly relations with the Athenians. The battle had a more profound impact on the polis on a mundane level, in comparison to their Boiotian neighbours. From the Boiotian contingent that fought at Delion, far and away the Thespians suffered the greatest amount of casualties. They had performed heroic deeds in the heat of battle, as Thucydides vividly describes: The Thespians in that part of the field suffered most severely.?The troops alongside them having given way, they were surrounded in a narrow space and cut down fighting hand to hand?ποχωρησ?ντων?γ?ρ?α?το???τ?ν?παρατεταγμ?νων,?κα??κυκλωθ?ντων??ν??λ?γ?,?ο?περ?διεφθ?ρησανΘεσπι?ν,??ν?χερσ?ν??μυν?μενοι?κατεκ?πησανThe situation is almost similar to their struggle at Thermopylai, where the Thespians fought until their deaths in a desperate position on the battlefield. Therefore, it is less remarkable that the legacy of the battle left the most traces in Thespiai. Their polyandrion far outshone competitors in the commemorative landscape, like the polyandrion in Tanagra for instance, and demonstrates that the memorial was meant to impress, rather than another copy in a line of standard monuments. Monopolising a Memory: Sparta and the Battle of ThermopylaiThere are discrepancies between the Thermopylai and Delion memorials. Unlike Leonidas and his men, the Thespians were not buried on site, nor did the Thermopylai monument contain casualty lists as far as we can tell. These were either Thespian peculiarities or remnants of Athenian influence. Nevertheless, the similarities are striking. Both monuments marked the communal graves for heroes that fell in the defence of ta patria. The similarity becomes more salient when taking into consideration the Thespian contributions to the defence of Thermopylai. All 700 of its men perished in the battle, an ultimate sacrifice that left the population decimated. In fact, it constituted a much greater sacrifice than the more famous Spartan 300, immortalised both in the past and today for their exploits. Moreover, it was the Spartans that gained all the glory, as can be gathered from the inscription Herodotus relates when talking of the memorial commemorating the battle at Thermopylai: “Here four thousand from the Peloponnese once fought three million” Even if we include the contingents from Thebes and Thespiai among these four thousand – and that is not certain, as it could be all the Peloponnesians, helots included – it deliberately omits the origins of the Thespians, and instead directs all the glory to the Peloponnesians. Even a memorial dedicated to a non-Spartan brings the Spartan view back into prominence: “This is a monument to the renowned MegistiasSlain by the Medes who crossed the Spercheius-riverThe Seer knew well his coming doomBut endured not to abandon the leaders of Sparta”The barrage of Spartan commemoration continued through the other memorials present near the battlefield: “This hill is at the mouth of the pass, where the stone lion in honour of?Leonidas?now stands.” Arguably, the Thespians were buried in this memorial, together with the Spartans. As Jacoby concluded, in the aftermath of the battle it would have been impossible to discern the identity of the fallen that easily for them to be separated. Herodotus also refers to the bravery of the Thespians; but he nevertheless ignores the Thespians by simply referring to the lion as Leonidas’ memorial. Perhaps this was also deliberate Spartan policy after the Persian Wars – to debilitate the Thespians’ contributions, or the Boiotians altogether and solely focus on the Spartan achievements by framing the entire Persian Wars as a Spartan victory. In other cases that betray Spartan agency, the Thespians were forgotten as well. For instance, the difference in the lists accompanying the victory dedications at Olympia and Delphi after the Persian Wars: The Thespians were on the Serpent column but omitted from the Zeus statue. Inclusion on the list mattered, as is confirmed by the additions of more poleis on the Serpent column, but also by the references made by the Plataians during their trial in 427, when they refer to their appearance on the Serpent Column. Such a snub must have weighed on the Thespians, leaving an indelible mark concerning their participation in the Persian Wars and other Greeks’ views on their efforts. The Delion polyandrion could have been a subtle attempt to erase that memory, or rather, amnesia, over their contributions to the liberty of the Greeks, thereby merging the pan-hellenic and local discourse. Moreover, if the Delian polyandrion is seen as a physical link to Thermopylai, it sheds a different light on the commemoration of the battle. Shortly after Delion, the Thebans intervened in Thespiai on accounts of its attikismos. Habitually, scholars perceived this intervention as a suppressive measure, but as Buck rightfully pointed out, the Thespians had lost the “flower of their youth”, as Thucydides has it, many of which probably had pro-koinon sympathies. This action therefore aimed to protect the – now minority – pro-koinon faction in the polis. With the Thebans firmly in charge, the message of the polyandrion could have resonated more, since the Battle of Delion was framed as a similar struggle of survival as the Persians Wars. A stronger Theban hand in the erection of the monument is not implausible. The monument probably took some time to construct and may have been finished after the Theban intervention. The lettering of the casualty lists is precise and carefully crafted, without the sloppy additions of names at the side or bottom of the stone, as some Athenian lists display. Jeffery states that the lettering is “… a good example of the fine, sophisticated work that could be produced for a public monument by a mason with an individual style.” That takes on added importance when considering the burial of several men after the initial burial, presumably because they succumbed to their wounds later on. In that case, the lack of hasty additions implies sufficient time was taken to finish the monument. Perhaps the Thebans were the ones to stimulate this desire for a grandiose memorial that outshine all others in the Thespian public cemetery, especially if it was the only one adorned with a lion statue. This would further amplify the sacrifice of these men, providing a physical memento for the current Thespian pro-Theban regime, as it signified their righteous struggle. Conversely, it could have been a deliberate attempt by these leaders to show their unwavering support for the koinon and commitment to the cause. In either case, a deliberate reference to Thermopylai’s lion statue could work, as it would place the sacrifices of these men against the new Persians on par with the exploits of their illustrious predecessors, who fell fighting for the survival of Boiotia against a foreign invader. Moreover, it fits well with new research into commemorative practice, albeit in Athens, that stresses that these men were not just perceived as heroes of the polis because of their sacrifice, but also embodied the struggle and beauty of dying for one’s polis, or in this case, the greater good of the koinon.The Nachleben of the Thespian PolyandrionThat leaves open the question of the monument’s Nachleben. One part concerns the break in cultic activity at the site, as argued by Schilardi on account of the datable pottery. Another part has to deal with the apparent dearth of references to the monument in our written sources. If the polyandrion embodied such an important landmark in Thespian history, aimed at recollecting their heroic exploits at Delion and simultaneously hint at their past efforts in the Persian Wars, why is there a detectable break in the cult and silence in our written sources?First, the apparent discontinuity in cult activity at the polyandrion requires elucidation. According to the datable pottery, there appears to have been a break in the sequence of offerings given to the fallen heroes. Most grave gifts can be dated immediately after the construction of the memorial and pick up again in the first quarter of the 4th century, after an interlude of about twenty years. Schilardi views this interruption as the result of the Theban intervention in 423. In his interpretation, the Thebans would not allow rites to be performed for the Thespian heroes as this would constitute a form of independent action incommensurate with the Theban worldview of a united koinon. But one can wonder whether a radical political break instigated by the Thebans caused the cultic discontinuity. I would contend there is no reason to believe a “top-down” intervention from the koinon subdued the expression of a local Thespian memory. My new interpretation of the monument would have it align with the Thebans’ perspective on the Peloponnesian War and thus contradict Schilardi’s internecine interpretation. Moreover, their intervention was aimed at protecting precisely that class which had suffered so badly at the Battle of Delion, the hoplites. If the monument captured the destitution of that class, who were presumably pro-koinon, why would the Thebans venture to obstruct cultic activity at the polyandrion? Another layer of criticism can be aimed at the need to search for a radical political break. The archaeological finds are not as conclusive as Schilardi assumes since the excavated material can be dated throughout the classical period. That could have further repercussions because of the upheavals experienced by the Thespians and the subsequent erosion of their community in the 370s. This could have caused the discontinuities in the material. The unclarity of the material can therefore not offer conclusiveness for the cultic disruption – the firm lines established by Schilardi can easily have morphed into blurred divisions that suggest a less radical interpretation of the material. Nevertheless, that does not explain the apparent revival of the cult for the fallen Thespian heroes at the start of the 4th century. Why now? Perhaps the memory of the fallen at Delion became pertinent again at the time. Spartan invasions of Boiotian soil – and their subsequent repelling – could have triggered recollections of the Peloponnesian War, especially with the Spartans now forming the biggest threat to the freedom of the Greeks. In the wake of this foreign aggression and the survival of the koinon at stake, the situation could have been ripe for a reinvigorated enthusiasm for the veneration of these fallen Thespian heroes. That leaves the apparent cessation of commemorations after the 4th century, which is remarkable. Again, the dispersion of the settlement in the 370s and the dissemination of the population could have caused this discontinuity. Other issues could have been at stake too. Christophe Chandezon noted that the Thespians could have decided there was no need to commemorate their pan-Boiotian valour vis-à-vis the Thebans in the new koinon inaugurated after the destruction of Thebes in 335. Or maybe the reconfiguration of the polis and its walls caused some disruption or unfamiliarity with this grandiose site. Perhaps one can push it further and speculate whether the polyandrion and its destruction or covering up was a result of Thespiai’s subjugation in the 370s, since it lay so far out of the urban context.That brings us to the question of the literary sources. If it was such an important landmark, why would Plutarch, the famous connoisseur of Boiotian affairs, or the traveller Pausanias not mention it during his travels? A possible destruction of the monument could account for both omissions, especially if the destruction was a result of internecine quarrels within Boiotia in the 370s. Plutarch would then perhaps be less inclined to mention them. It could also account for Pausanias’ omission of the monument. It could have fallen in disuse, which, considering its rural location, was not unlikely. In addition, one can look at the changes in the demography and habitation patterns of Thespiai in the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods. As John Bintliff has argued, these times witnessed the decrease of populations in Thespiai (and Boiotia in general) and could account for the polyandrion’s descent into oblivion. It could therefore have been of no interest to the Perieget, or, perhaps more likely, it was simply the choice of the traveller to not include a monument that commemorated an intra-Greek struggle. ConclusionI have argued that the Thespian polyandrion was an expression of the local narrative merging with a larger Panhellenic discourse that was promulgated by the koinon. By moving away from the more common interpretations of the monument – either as a last grasp of Thespian independence before Theban subjugation or as a testimony to internecine struggle in Boiotia – the Delion polyandrion should be viewed as the ideal marriage of the Thespian local narrative and the propagandistic context of the on-going Peloponnesian War. For the Thespians, it was an attempt to recapture and rekindle their glorious past of the Persian Wars, which also served as a testament to their persistent loyalty in defending Boiotia against foreign aggressors, whether Athenian or Persian. Indeed it is that sentiment that Pagondas appeals to when he exhorts his fellow Boiotians before the Battle of Delion: ‘…let us advance to meet them and show that if they would get what they covet they must attack those who will not defend themselves, but that men whose noble spirit impels them always to fight for the liberty of their own land and not enslave that of others unjustly will never let them depart without a battle.’…κα? δε?ξαι ?τι ?ν μ?ν ?φ?ενται πρ?? το?? μ? ?μυνομ?νου? ?πι?ντε? κτ?σθων, ο?? δ? γεννα?ον τ?ν τε α?τ?ν α?ε? ?λευθερο?ν μ?χ? κα? τ?ν ?λλων μ? δουλο?σθαι ?δ?κω?, ?ναταγ?νιστοι ?π’?α?τ?ν?ο?κ ?π?ασι.BibliographyIG = Inscriptiones Graecae.IThesp=P. Roesch, Les Inscriptions de Thespies: online corpus available at hisoma.mom.fr/production-scientifique/lesinscriptions-de-thespies (2007[2009]).ML= R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, rev. edn., Oxford (1988).NIO = P. Siewert and H. Taeuber, Neue Inschriften von Olympia. Die ab 1896 ver?ffentlichten Texte, Vienna (2013).RO =P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC, Oxford (revised edn. 2007)Arrington, N. (2012). 'The Form(s) and Date(s) of a Classical War Monument: Re-evaluating IG 13 1163 and the Case for Delion', ZPE, 181, 61-75. (2015) Ashes, Images, and Memories: The Presence of the War Dead in Fifth-Century Athens (New York: OUP).Beck, H. (2020). Localism and The Ancient Greek City-State. Chicago.Bintliff, J. et al. (2017). Boeotia Project, Volume II: The city of Thespiai Survey at a complex urban site (Oxford: Oxbow).Bradeen, D.W. (1969) “The Athenian Casualty Lists”, CQ 19, 145-59.Brélaz, C., Andreiomenou, A.K., and Ducrey, P. (2007), 'Les premiers comptes du sanctuaire d'Apollon à Délion et le concours pan-béotien des Delia', BCH, 131, 235-308.Buck, R. (1994) Boeotia and the Boeotian League 432-371 B.C. (Alberta: University of Alberta Press).Clairmont, C.W. (1983), Patrios Nomos. Public Burial in Athens during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C (Oxford: BAR International).De Ridder, A. (1922). ‘Fouilles de Thespies et l’Hiéron des Muses de l’Hélicon (P. Jamot?:1888-1889-1890, P. Jamot et A. de Ridder?: 1891), BCH 46, 217-306.Jacoby, F. (1944) ‘Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery‘, JHS 64, 37-66Jeffery, L.H. (1990), The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (2nd edn.; Oxford: Clarendon Press).Kalliontzis, Y. (2014), 'Digging in Storerooms for Inscriptions: An Unpublished Casualty List from Plataia in the Museum of Thebes and the Memory of War in Boeotia', in N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. New Finds. New Prospects (Leiden/ Boston), 332-72.Keramopoullos, A. D. (1911) ‘Anaskaphi Thespikou polyandriou tou 424 p’. Ch. Praktika, 153-63.(1920) ‘Eikones polemiston tes en Dilioi maches (424 p. Ch.).’ Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1-36.Liddel, P. (2009), 'The Decree Cultures of the Ancient Megarid', CQ, 59 (2), 411-36.Loraux, N. (1981) L’invention d'Athènes. Histoire de l'oraison funèbre dans la “cité classique”. Paris.Low, P. (2003) 'Remembering War in Fifth-Century Greece: Ideologies, Societies and Commemoration beyond Democratic Athens', World Archaeology, 35 (1), 98-111.Ma, J. (2008) “Chaironeia 338: Topographies of Commemoration”, JHS, 128, 72-91.(2017) 'The Autonomy of the Boiotian Poleis', in S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 32-58.Raaflaub, K. (2004). The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Papazarkadas, N. ‘Two New Epigrams from Thebes.’ In N. Papazarkadas (ed.) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. New Finds. New Prospects (Leiden/ Boston: Brill), 223-51.(2017) ‘The Epigraphic Habit(s) in Fourth-Century Boiotia', in S.D. Gartland(ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 121-46.Price, J. (2001), Thucydides and Internal War (Cambridge: CUP).Schachter, A. and F. Marchand (2012), 'Fresh light on the institutions and religious life of Thespiai: six new inscriptions from the Thespiai Survey', in M. Paraskevi and N. Papazarkadas (eds.), Epigraphica lApproaches to the Post-classical Polis. Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD (Oxford: OUP), 277-300.Schachter, A. (1981) Cults of Boeotia: Volume I. Achelo?s to Hera. (London: ICS).(1996) “Reconstructing Thespiai.”, in A. Hurst and A. Schachter (eds.) Le Montagne des Muses (Geneva), 99-126.(2016) Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers. (Cambridge: CUP).(2017). ‘Toward a revised chronology of the Theban magistrates' coins’, in S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C. Philadelphia: 42-58.Schilardi, D. (1977), 'The Thespian Polyandrion (424 B.C.): the excavations and finds from a Thespian state burial.', (Princeton).Stamatakis, P. (1883a) ‘Ekthesis peri t6n en Boiotiai ergon en etei 1882.’ Praktika, 63-74. (1883b) ‘Esphalmenes ekdoches epanorthosis.’ Archaiologike Ephemeris, 191.Steinbock, B. (2013), Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).Stupperich, R. (1977) Staatsbegrabnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen. Doctoral dissertation, Münster.Symeonoglou, S. (1985). The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times. Princeton.Thomas, R. (2019). Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World. Cambridge.Tufano, S. (2019). Boiotia from Within. The Beginnings of Boiotian Historiography. Teiresias Supplements 2. Münster.Van Wees, H. (2019). ‘Thermopylai: Herodotus versus the Legend.’ in: L. W. van Gils, I. J. F. de Jong and C. H. M. Kroon (eds.), Textual Strategies in Ancient War Narrative Leiden/Boston: 19–53.Venencie, J. (1960), 'Inscriptions de Tanagra en alphabet épichorique', BCH, 84, 589-616.Vermeule, C. (1972) ‘Greek Funerary Animals, 450-300 B.C.’ AJA 76, 49-59.Willemsen, F. (1959) Die L?wenkopf-wassenspeier vom Dach des Zeustempels (Olympische Forschungen 4. (Berlin).Yates, D. (2019). States of Memory: The Polis, Panhellenism and the Persian War. Oxford.Map with location of Thespiai, Delion and ThermopylaiMap of City of Thespiai and its cemeteries, taken from Bintliff et al 2017 Image of the reconstructed Polyandrion, from Low 2003 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download