¹ SEG xxxi (1981) 985; McCabe, Donald F. and Plunkett, Mark A., Teos inscriptions (Princeton 1985) 262Google Scholar; admirable editio princeps with rich commentary by Herrmann, P., ‘Teos und Abdera im 5 Jahrhundert v. Chr.’, Chiron xi (1981) 1–30.Google Scholar

² Cf. the perhaps rather intemperate criticisms of the strategy of excavation by Dimadis, K. A., ‘Le théatre d'Abdera’, Balkan Studies xv (1974) 308–21.Google Scholar

³ Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian (Amsterdam). I refer to this work henceforth by the author's name alone.

⁴ With the honourable exception of Huxley, G. (‘Teos in Pindar’, Studies presented to Sterling Dow on his eightieth birthday [Durham NC 1984] 149–52)Google Scholar, commentators on the new inscription of Public Imprecations from Teos (n.1) did not mention Pindar's Second Paean, though it is obviously relevant; see my ‘Adopted Teians: a passage in the new inscription of Public Imprecations from Teos’, JHS cxi (1991) 176–8. It is notable too that B. Isaac, although he cites Radt's work, reverts to earlier interpretations which Radt decisively refuted; see The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest (Leiden 1986) 86, 90–3, for example. Earlier J. and L. Robert showed by the interpretation they accepted that they were unaware of Radt's work; see ‘Une inscription grecque de Téos en Ionie. L'union de Téos et de Kyrbissos’, Journal des Savants (1976) 153–235, at 213 n.238.

⁵ Ptol. Geog. iv 3.9; cf. RE s.v. Abdira.

⁶ Strabo iii 4.3, C157, among many other mentions; cf. RE s.v. Abdera, 2.

⁷ See Vives, A. y Escudero, , La moneda hispnica (Madrid 1924) 3, 16–19Google Scholar, plate LXXXI and, for a more recent treatment, Jenkins, G. K., Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum 43, Copenhagen (Copenhagen 1979) Spain, 67, 68.Google Scholar

⁸ E.g. Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums ii.2 ² (Stuttgart and Berlin 1931) 93Google Scholar; Bérard, V., Les Phéniciens et l'Odyssée (Paris 1903) ii 20 f.Google Scholar; Dietrich, A., ‘Phönikische Ortsnamen in Spanien’, Ahhand. für die Kunde des Morgenlandes xxi.2 (Leipzig 1936) 10 f.Google Scholar, and, recently, Isaac, op. cit. 76 f.

⁹ Sappho und Simonides (Berlin 1919) 255 f. For a similar idea, though not developed, see also C. van Holzinger in his edition of Lycophron (Leipzig 1895) 237. On the epithet and evidence about it, see Radt, 29 f.

¹⁰ Ὁ ὲξελληνισμὸς τῆς Θρᾴκης κατὰ Ἐλληνικὴ καὶ Ῥωμαικὴ ἀρχαιότητα (Thessalonike 1980) 240.

¹¹ A. Dietrich's statement to this effect (n.8) is unfortunately still true.

¹² E.g. Macdonald, George, Catalogue of Greek coins in the Hunterian Collection iii (Glasgow 1905) 658.Google Scholar I am very grateful to Dr J. D. Bateson for kindly confirming the reading of the two coins in question and for sending me photographs.

¹³ This is the opinion of G. K. Jenkins (n.7).

¹⁴ E.g. Mionnet, T. E., Description des médailles antiques, grecques et romaines (Paris 1806–1837)Google Scholar Suppl. i, plate 5 no.1; Gesenius, W., Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta quoi supersunt (Leipzig 1837) 311 and plate 41Google Scholar, xvii, H. M. Jean-Baptiste Giard kindly informed me that this coin cannot be found in the Cabinet des Médailles.

¹⁵ See Segert, S., A grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich 1976) 87Google Scholar; Harris, Zellig, A grammar of the Phoenician language (New Haven, CT 1936) 58 f.Google Scholar I am grateful to the Reverend Professor J. A. Emerton for guidance on this and other matters of language.

¹⁶ Cf. e.g. Benz, Frank L., Personal names in the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions (Rome 1972) 148–64.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Gadeira, Hdt. iv 8.2. e.g.; Cythera, Hdt. i 105.3; cf. Brown, J. P., ‘Kothar, Kinyras and Kythereia’, John. Semitic Studies x (1965) 197–219, at 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Thanks are expressed here to all those not mentioned in previous notes, who generously helped me in a field in which I am not expert: on the coins, Dr C. Arnold-Biucchi (American Numismatic Society), Dr M. J. Price (British Museum) and Mr T. Volk (Fitzwilliam Museum); on matters of language, Dr Y. L. Arbeitman, Professor J. Pritchard, Dr J. D. Ray.

¹⁹ Hdt. ii 44.3–4, vi 47.1–2; cf. my remarks in ‘The foundation of Thasos’, BSA lxxiii (1978) 61–98, at 88–92. For the evidence on the ground of the mining mentioned by Herodotus in the second passage, see des Courtils, J., Kozelj, T., Muller, A. ‘Des mines d'or à Thasos’, BCH cvi (1982) 409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ ‘The Teians also acted similarly to these men (the Phocaeans). For when Harpagus had captured their wall with the siege-mound, they all embarked in their ships and sailed away to Thrace, and colonized there the city of Abdera, which the Clazomenian Timesios had founded before them, but had had no joy of it. He was expelled by the Thracians and now receives honours as a hero from the Teians in Abdera.’ Although the Herodotean tradition spells the name of the oikistes Timesios, it appears as Timesias in later authors, such as those mentioned below. It is hardly possible for us to determine the correct form, but I shall follow the Herodotean tradition in this paper.

²¹ Lateiner, D., The historical method of Herodotus (Toronto 1989) 59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discusses the explicit evidence for Herodotus' selectivity.

²² My own earlier opinion; see CAH iii². 3, 117.

²³ A useful table of Eusebian foundation dates was given by Cook, R. M. in his ‘Ionia and Greece, 800–600 BC’, JHS lxvi (1946) 67–98, at 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ De amicorum multitudine 96 B: ‘Swarms (LSJ s.v. σμῆνος note the htroclite plural) of bees will soon be wasps.’

²⁵ Plut. Praecepta reipublicae gerendae 812a–b; Aelian, V.H. xii 9.

²⁶ A history of the Delphic oracle (Oxford 1956) i 61.

²⁷ A. Demandt, RE Suppl. xiv s.v. Timesios; Malkin, I., Religion and colonization in ancient Greece (Leiden 1987) 54–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar (a full and perceptive discussion).

²⁸ Iulii Solini, C.Collectanea rerum memorabilim (ed. Mommsen, , Berlin 1864) 10.10.Google Scholar

²⁹ Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., ‘Abdera and the Thracians’, Thracia Pontica iii (1986) 82–98Google Scholar, at 84.

³⁰ Op. cit. 82 f.; Skarlatidou, E., ‘The Archaic Cemetery of Abdera’, Thracia Pontica iii (1986) 99–108Google Scholar; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, , Ergon 1987, 17 f.Google Scholar; cf. Arch. Rep for 1988–9, 85.

³¹ See Skarlatidou, op. cit. Although Koukouli-Chrysanthaki has suggested that the early wall circuit she has investigated may be Clazomenian, Thracia Pontica iii, 83 f., she kindly told me in person that the wall is not certainly dated. No buildings dating to the period of the early cemetery have so far been discovered. I am also grateful to E. Skarlatidou for verbal information on these questions.

³² Op. cit. (n.4) 79 f.

³³ Archilochus 5 West, the famous shield poem: ἀσπίδι μὲν Σαἰων τις άγάλλεται κτλ..

³⁴ Strabo x 2.17, C 457.

³⁵ The clearest evidence is Philochorus, FGH 328 F 43. For the correct geographical position of Stryme, i.e. West of Maronea, see Bakaiakis, G., Proanaskaphikes erevnes sti Thraki (Thessaloniki 1958) 91–7.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Skarlatidou (n. 30) 105.

³⁷ Skarlatidou, ibid., assumes that Herodotus was in error.

³⁸ See Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., Ergon 1982, 11 f.Google Scholar; 1983, 16.

³⁹ Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., Ergon 1984, 12 f.Google Scholar; cf. Arch. Rep. for 1985–6, 70 f. There is also archaeological confirmation for the date of the foundation of Phanagoria; see J. G. F. Hind, Arch. Rep. for 1983–4, 90.

⁴⁰ Radt (57 f.) effectively refutes the idea that there is a reference to the Clazomenian colonists here.

⁴¹ Sappho und Simonides, 250.

⁴² Cf. Radt, 60.

⁴³ Hdt. v 1; cf. Radt, ibid. and Hammond's remarks in Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T., History of Macedonia ii (Oxford 1979) 55–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Hammond, ibid., who cites, in addition to Herodotus, Strabo vii frg. 41, but, regrettably, not this passage of Pindar.

⁴⁵ Strabo, ibid.

⁴⁶ See May, J. M. F., The coinage of Abdera (London 1966) especially 1–17.Google Scholar I gave reasons for rejecting the more recent downdating of the early coins of Abdera in my ‘Adopted Teians etc.’ (see n.4) n.18.

⁴⁷ Even Radt mistakenly follows the earlier commentators here (60).

⁴⁸ See Radt, 62 f.

⁴⁹ Wilamowitz' perverse idea that the battle at Melamphyllon was a defeat for the Abderites is easily refuted. See Radt, 61 f., whose fine and convincing treatment of lines 63–70 I have followed closely. This establishes the three stages noted. Isaac, however, op. cit. (n.4) 86, still follows Wilamowitz.

⁵⁰ For the creation of the Thracian satrapy, see Hdt. v 1.1; 2 (cf. iv 143–4). There are very useful modern discussions by Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The extent of Persian occupation in Thrace’, Chiron x (1980) 53–61Google Scholar, and Pajadowsky, W., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur Lokalisierung der persischen Provinz (Satrapie) Skudra’, Eos lxxi (1983) 243–55Google Scholar, who wrote before he had read Hammond (255 n.56). For the deportation of the Paeonians, see Hdt. v 12–14.1; cf. Hammond, 56–8, who dates it c. 512–10.

⁵¹ See Balcer, J. M., ‘The date of Hdt. IV.1’, HSCP lxxvi (1972) 99–132Google Scholar, a detailed argument for a high date, 519, which the author has since withdrawn; see Sparda by the Bitter Sea (Chico CA 1984) 474 n.69. The only recorded date from Antiquity, 513/12, is preserved in the so-called Chronicon Romanum (IG xiv 1297 = FGH 252) B(8) and monuments derived from it; see now Burstein, S. M., ‘A New Tabula Iliaca: the Vasek Polak Chronicle’, The Paul J. Getty Museum Journal xii (1984) 153–62.Google ScholarGardiner-Garden's, J. R. survey of the problem (‘Dareios’ Scythian Expedition and its aftermath', Klio lxix [1987] 326–50, at 326–30)Google Scholar makes abundant reference to modern scholarship, but does not mention Baker's palinode nor Burstein.

⁵² Hdt. v 11.2; cf. Hammond, 59.

⁵³ Lazarides, D., Ἃβδηρα καί Δίκαια (Athens 1971)Google Scholar, with its many maps and plans, is still very useful for the topography, even if now outdated archaeologically. The accounts of Skarlatidou and Koukouli-Chrysanthaki (nn.29, 30) make use of the more recent discoveries.

⁵⁴ See Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 83 f., but see also above n.30.

⁵⁵ Op. cit. p.2. These limits are also accepted by Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, 84 f., 89. She also follows Lazarides in arguing that the early chora certainly extended at least c. 7 km. to the North of the city, because the colonists were using the limestone quarries in the vicinity of the modern villages of Mandra and Abdera by the end of the sixth century.

⁵⁶ That this is the correct way to take Herodotus' words, ὅ τε δι' Ἀβδήρων ῥέων ποταμὸς Νέστος, was recognized long ago. See, e.g., How and Wells, Commentary ad loc., who compare Herodotus' use of ἐς Μιλητόν in i 15, which certainly refers to the territory only. Note also Pausanias' explicit statement that the Nestos runs through the land of the Abderites (vi 5.4). Thus Isaac is seriously astray in stating that the river ‘passed by the walls of Abdera’; op. cit. (n.4) 73.

⁵⁷ See May, Coinage of Abdera, 1–4.

⁵⁸ The largely complete lines 50–58 and the tantalizing political allusions in the corrupt scholion to line 48 tempt speculation, but Radt's careful discussion (49–57) of the possibilities and the suggestions that have been made shows that we are reduced to mere guesswork. Even his modest conclusion (51) that lines 48–50 certainly refer to internal strife in Abdera, in which some immigrants played a part, may be a little optimistic.

⁵⁹ See ‘Adopted Teians etc.’ (n.4).

⁶⁰ See Kraay, C. M., Archaic and Classical Greek coins (London 1976) 35Google Scholar, and cf. my ‘Adopted Teians etc’.

⁶¹ See Herrmann (n. 1) 1–2, for the epigraphical history of the inscription, and SEG xxxi (1981) 984 for the improvements in the readings of the text resulting from the discovery of the new one. See also McCabe and Plunkett (n. 1)261.

⁶² See n. 1. I refer to Herrmann's paper hereafter by the author's name alone.

⁶³ Herrmann, 6.

⁶⁴ Herrmann, 3 with n. 10. On the dating cf. e.g., ML 30 and SEG xxxi 984.

⁶⁵ See my ‘Adopted Teians etc.’ (n. 4).

⁶⁶ See Herrmann's enlightening discussion, 13 f.

⁶⁷ For the difficulties of interpretation here, see Herrmann, 11–12. I follow the suggestion of Wörrle reported in Herrmann, n. 29.

⁶⁸ For the number of the quorum at Teos, probably 200, see Lewis, D. M., ‘On the new text of Teos’, ZPE xxxxvii (1982) 71 f.Google Scholar, who adduces illuminating parallels and stresses the democratic significance of these relatively large bodies.

⁶⁹ A.3, B.3 (if we accept the new texts proposed by Herrmann and Merkelbach; see SEG xxxi 984, B.25.

⁷⁰ Herrmann is closely followed by Huxley in his short discussion, Studies … Dow, 151.

⁷¹ See my discussion, Colony and mother city in ancient Greece, 2nd ed. (Chicago 1983) 83–5.

⁷² As Lewis pointed out (see n. 68), the quorums established for serious criminal justice in the two cities are in the same proportion, 5:2, as the tribute they regularly paid in the Athenian Empire, 15 and 6T.

⁷³ Admitted tentatively as a possibility by Ehrhardt, N., Milet und seine Kolonien (Frankfurt 1983) 234.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Journ. des Savants (1976) 212 f.

⁷⁵ The size of quorum and the name of the Festival of Zeus.

⁷⁶ See my Colony and mother city, 14 f. and now the very useful work by Ehrhardt, op. cit. (n.73).

⁷⁷ Eupolis fr. 157 Kassel-Austin; cf. Diog. Laert. ix 50.

⁷⁸ I collected some in Colony and mother city, 103–5.

⁷⁹ See above p.55.

⁸⁰ I discuss Athenian cleruchies in Colony and mother city, 167–92. This is not the place to enter into the still lively arguments about their nature and purpose; see Figueira, T. J., Athens and Aigina in the age of imperial colonization (Baltimore 1991), especially 40–73Google Scholar, with full bibliography.

⁸¹ ATL i, Register s.v.v.

⁸² See my Colony and mother city, 83–90.

⁸³ The issue has been well argued by Martin, T. R., Sovereignty and coinage in Classical Greece (Princeton 1985)Google Scholar; cf. also my own brief treatment, Colony and mother city, 121–8.

⁸⁴ Thuc. i56.2.

⁸⁵ I discuss Corinth's relations with her colonies in Colony and mother city, chapter 7, and the epidemiourgoi at Potidaea at 136 f. On the latter no advance seems to be offered by Salmon's, J. B. treatment, Wealthy Corinth (Oxford 1984) 392–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ On Dorieus see Meiggs, Athenian Empire, 368 f., with further ancient evidence.

⁸⁷ Athens' imperial jurisdiction is discussed in general by Meiggs, 220–33.

⁸⁸ Journ. des Savants 1976, 213.

⁸⁹ IG xii Suppl. 412; see my discussion in Colony and mother city, 74–6.

⁹⁰ IG xii.5.114, which I discuss ibid., 79–81.

⁹¹ See Robert, L., ‘Inscription hellénistique de Dalmatie’, BCH lix (1935) 489–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 500 (= Opera minora selecta i 302–26, at 313); cf. Joum. des Savants (1976) 212 f.

⁹² As they were by me, ibid. However, had the evidence about Abdera and Teos been available at that time, I might have written differently.

⁹³ Colony and mother city, 97.

⁹⁴ See nn. 68, 72.

⁹⁵ See above, p.53.

⁹⁶ ATL i Register s.v. ‘List 25’ of ATL (= IG i³ 281), attributed to 430/29, cannot be certainly dated; cf. Meiggs' discussion, Athenian empire, 531–7.

⁹⁷ ATL ii A9 = IG i³ 71 = ML 69 (selections).

⁹⁸ The Athenian assessment of 425 BC (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series xxxiii; Ann Arbor 1934) 80.

⁹⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰⁰ See ATL i 119, fig. 173.

¹⁰¹ West and Meriti (n. 98) 80, n.l.

¹⁰² See ATL i 115, fig. 36.

¹⁰³ See ibid.

¹⁰⁴ ATL i Register s.v.

¹⁰⁵ Isaac accepts that Abdera and Dicaea actually paid 75T; op. cit. (n. 4) 98 f.

¹⁰⁶ ATL i Register s.v. Isaac notes how few cities in the Athenian Empire paid more than 15T; op. cit. 94.

¹⁰⁷ Even the assumption that the cities were in the Chersonese depends on the completely restored name in lines 13 f. The editors of ATL offered their own text with slightly different restorations; see ATL ii T 78D.

¹⁰⁸ Commentary on Thuc. ii 97.3.

¹⁰⁹ As Gomme, Commentary ad loc.

¹¹⁰ ATL i Register s.v.

¹¹¹ Thuc. ii 29.

¹¹² The reduction has been associated with a lower emission of coinage to suggest a fall in prosperity at Abdera; see May (though cautiously), Coinage of Abdera 143–6; Isaac, op. cit. (n. 4) 98 f. Apart from the uncertainty of such a deduction, one weakness of such theories is the difficulty in precisely dating the coinage; cf. the different views of Mattingly, H., ‘The second Athenian Coinage Decree’, Klio lix (1977) 83–100, at 92–5.Google Scholar

¹¹³ ATL i Register s.v.

¹¹⁴ I agree with Gomme, Commentary 1, 212, that the editors of ATL were wrong to change the old restoration, ΗΗΗ [Μαρονῖται] to ΗΗΗ [Μεθοναῖοι] in list 23 (= IG i³ 280) Col. II line 67. The old restoration is well supported by their lists 25 and 26, and the ‘Absent from full panel’ for Maronea is unique for the city and unexplained.

¹¹⁵ ATL i Register s.v.

¹¹⁶ ATL iii 309–13; Meiggs, Athenian empire, 249, 253.

¹¹⁷ As Isaac suggests, op. cit. (n. 4) 98.

¹¹⁸ For Byzantium's sufferings at the hands of the Thracians at a later date, see Polybius iv 44.11–46.6.

¹¹⁹ Radt expressed some serious objections to this restoration and suggested that an epithet of Apollo would be more suitable here (81).

¹²⁰ See Rack's discussion, 65–75.

¹²¹ That the exact words of the oracle are not cited, but the whole passage remains narrative, is argued convincingly by Radt, 66 f.

¹²² See Radt, 69 f.

¹²³ On Radt's analysis (69), the previous episode closes with the climax of the battle at Melamphyllon, and a new topic is introduced with the new triad.

¹²⁴ For all these points, see Radt, 71.

¹²⁵ Koukouli-Chrysanthaki also takes the river to be the Nestos, op. cit. (n. 29) 88 f., but her attempt to identify Abdera's enemies by archaeological survey seems too uncertain to carry conviction.

¹²⁶ Cf., e.g., Hdt. v 3; Thuc. ii 95–7.

¹²⁷ See Radt's discussion, 17–19. Huxley regards c. 494 as a firm terminus post quern, since he thinks that Pindar certainly referred to the destruction of Teos after the Ionian Revolt; Studies … Dow, 152. However, that is not strictly certain; see my ‘Adopted Teians etc.’ (n. 4).

¹²⁸ Hammond believes that Persian power in inland Thrace persisted down to the 460s, when the build-up of the Odrysian kingdom began; see Chiron x (1980) 61. The basis for this is Plutarch's statement that Persians in the Chersonese summoned help from Thracians of the interior at a time just before the revolt of Thasos (Cim. 14.1). But Plutarch's information seems to conflict with Herodotus', who implies that Persian power in this area was broken by the capture of Sestus in the winter 479/8 (ix 114–18) and that only Doriscus continued to be held by Persians for any length of time after the Persian Wars (vii 106.2). Nor does the combination of Plutarch with the casualty list IG i² 928 seem compelling. For the difficulties and uncertainties here, cf. Meiggs, Athenian empire, 79 f., 416.

¹²⁹ See previous note. For different views on this uncertain topic, see Isaac, op. cit. (n.4) 96 f.

¹³⁰ There is a useful, short and well-documented account of Pindar's life in Sandys' Introduction to his Loeb edition, vii–xvi.

¹³¹ In Dindorf's edition, iii 275, 282 f.

¹³² It is generally believed that Ephorus was Diodorus' source for all the Greek history in books xi–xv. This theory was very strongly established by Volquardsen, V. A., Untersuchungen über die Quellen der griechischen und sicilischen Geschichten hei Diodor, Buch XI his XVI (Kiel 1868)Google Scholar; see p. 66 for all the passages where there is a clear indication of Ephoran origin, and p. 71 for his conclusion. This view is accepted by modern scholars; see, e.g., Drews, R., ‘Diodorus and his sources’, AJP lxxxiii (1962) 383–92Google Scholar, and Reid, C. I., ‘Diodorus and his sources’, HSCP lxxv (1971) 205–7.Google Scholar

¹³³ This is to combine the information in the two scholia, 172.7 and 173.17 (Dindorf). It has long been recognized that the scholion to 172.7 is misplaced; see Schaefer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit i ² (Leipzig 1885) 43 f.Google Scholar At 172.7 (= section 292 in the Loeb edition) Aristides is concerned with the events of the Corinthian War. The scholion properly belongs to 173.17 (= 297, Loeb), where Aristides lists the Battle of Naxos (376), actions round Corcyra (Timotheus, 375), the defence of Greece in Thrace (Abdera, 375), the events in Acarnania (Timotheus, 375). The present scholion to 173.17 says merely that Chabrias reconciled Abdera and Maronea, but that is easily combined with the information in the earlier one that Maronea fought against Abdera, and enables us to understand the rather confused statement about reconciliation there, which has clearly been adapted in an attempt to make the scholion fit the statement in 172.7 (= 292) that it now aspires to explain, i.e. Athens' reconciliation of Thracian kings.

¹³⁴ See C. A. Behr in the Loeb edition of Aristides, vol. i, p. xvii.

¹³⁵ Compare the damage they later inflicted on Philip of Macedon; see Justin ix 3.1–3 and Griffith, in History of Macedonia ii 583.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Reasons for such a gross error are hard to find. Eduard Meyer's suggestion that it was caused by heavy abbreviations (Geschichte des Altertums [Stuttgart and Berlin 1902] v 396) will hardly do, since Diodorus thinks that Chabrias' murder led to the appointment of Timotheus as admiral (xv 36.4–5).

¹³⁷ The events related by Diodorus and briefly listed by Aristides, Panathenaicus 297 (n. 133) seem well confirmed by the contemporary epigraphic sources, Tod ii 123, 126. The latter is Athens' alliance with Corcyra, Acarnania and Cephallenia, made in autumn 375 and so confirming Diodorus' and Aristides' mentions of Timotheus' activities in the North West. In the former Abdera is listed as a member of the Second Athenian League at line 99, among the names at the side, which would suit its accession in 375, and that is generally assumed; see Tod's commentary, 67, and Cargill, J.The Second Athenian League (Berkeley 1981) 42.Google Scholar Maronea is listed as a member in line 87, among the names at the end of the inscription, which might be thought to imply an earlier accession. However, Cargill (38) has pointed out the uncertainty of the dates of accession even of the allies in this list, so the scholiast to Aristides is not necessarily wrong in stating that Chabrias brought in both Abdera and Maronea in 375.

¹³⁸ I have not found a really full, satisfactory modern account of this war. There is no help in Whitehead, D., Aineas the Tactician (Oxford 1990) 139 f.Google Scholar, whose short notes follow closely Hunter, I. W., ΑΙΝΕΙΟΥ ΠΟΛΙΟΡΚΗΤΙΚΑ: Aeneas on Siegecraft, rev. Handford, S. A. (Oxford 1927) 148Google Scholar, and thus miss the scholia to Aristides. Isaac mentions the war briefly without source criticism, op. cit. (n. 4) 106, and May gave a good short treatment, Coinage of Abdera 241 f. Danov, C.Altthrakien (Berlin, New York) 349Google Scholar, follows Wiesner, J., Die Thraker (Stuttgart 1963)Google Scholar, whose account has many deficiencies. He misses Aeneas Tacticus and makes several assumptions that the sources do not justify, as that the Triballi were forced to emigrate by pressure of Celtic migration, that they went as a complete tribe with women and children (this presumably from a misunderstanding of Diodorus' πανδημεί), and that they attacked the territory of Maronea as well as Abdera. On the other hand, there is a good treatment, which respects the ancient sources, in the old work of Schaefer, ibid. (n. 133).

¹³⁹ See pp. 61 f.

¹⁴⁰ He is well treated by Isaac, op. cit. 99–104.

¹⁴¹ See Isaac, 100.

¹⁴² We can combine Thucydides' fuller account, ii 67, with the shorter statement of Herodotus, vii 137.2–3, which nevertheless contains two facts, Nymphodorus' participation and the place of seizure, not mentioned by Thucydides. It has long been recognized that the two accounts are not in conflict, and the differences merely reflect the different interests of the two historians; see Isaac, ibid., and Gomme, Commentary to ii 67.1.

¹⁴³ Thuc. ii 29.5; 95–101.

¹⁴⁴ As Isaac, 101.

¹⁴³ May, Coinage of Abdera, nos. 140, 141; 30, 131. Cf. Isaac 103.

¹⁴⁴ As by May, 149 f., if cautiously (150 n. 1), and Mattingly, Klio lix (1977) 93Google Scholar, though with different dating. The difficulties for the identification perhaps caused by the chronology (Isaac, ibid.) are smaller with the lower dating suggested by the recently discovered ‘Decadrachm Hoard’ see Price, M. J., ‘The coinage of the northern Aegean’, Coinage and administration in the Athenian and Persian empires, ed. Carradice, I.BAR International Series ccxliii (Oxford 1987) 43–7, at 45.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ On this topic see Radt (73) and Isaac 107 f.

¹⁴⁸ Above p. 44.

¹⁴⁹ Altthrakien 162 f., 348 f., but the analogy does not seem very close. For these names see Detschew, D., Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Öst. Akad. Wiss. Phil. Hist. Kl., Schriften der Balkancommission, Linguistische Abteilung xiv (Vienna 1957) s.w.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ See Detschew, D., ‘Die Ethnika auf -ανός, -ηνός’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung lxiii (1936) 227–40.Google Scholar The more recent paper of Gočeva, Z., ‘Epitheta des Apollon in Thrakien’, Thracia iv (1977) 207–23Google Scholar, argues that many of the epithets ending in this way are probably local. Unfortunately, she misses Derenos, a bad gap.

¹⁵¹ See May, Coinage of Abdera and Mattingly, op. cit. (n. 112) 98; cf. Isaac 103 f.

¹⁵² P. 158.

¹⁵³ See the sensible remarks of Best, J. G. P., Thracian peltasts and their influence on Greek warfare (Groningen 1969) 12 f.Google Scholar Thucydides mentioned peltasts from Chalcidice, Aenus, Lemnos and Imbros, Olynthus, all places in contact with Thrace: see iv 28.4; 111.1; 123.4; 129.2; ii 79.4.

¹⁵⁴ See May, Coinage of Abdera, 243.

¹⁵⁵ See my remarks in ‘Commercial interchanges between Greeks and natives’, Ancient World x (1984) 3–10, at 7.

¹⁵⁶ P. 57.

¹⁵⁷ See Graham, J. W., ‘Houses at Abdera and Himera’, AJA lxxvi (1972) 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁸ See my remarks in CAH iii². 3, 142 f.

¹⁵⁹ See ibid.

¹⁶⁰ Well illustrated by the failures to colonize Nine Ways before the final success in 437, when Amphipolis was established; see Thuc. iv 102.2–3; cf. i 100.3; Hdt. v 126; ix 75.

¹⁶¹ Bisanthe: because Sadocus was able to seize the Peloponnesian ambassadors there; see above p. 66; and because the Thracian prince Seuthes was later able to promise it to Xenophon; see Anab. vii 2.38. Cf. Isaac, op. cit. (n. 4) 212 f., who notes that Bisanthe did not pay tribute to Athens. However, it was assessed for two talents in AIO (=IG i³ 77) col. IV line 10. Byzantium: see above p. 62 and n. 118. Mesembria in the Pontus: the inscription IGBR i² 307, recording an agreement between Mesembria and a Thracian ruler called Sadalas, shows that Mesembria paid him an annual tribute, and may have had similar relations to three of his predecessors. (The dating of this inscription is uncertain and controversial; cf. SEG xxx [19807] 701; 31 [981] 678, 679; but that need not be pursued here). Olbia: see my remarks in CAH iii².3, 127.

¹⁶² See above p. 50 and n. 46. For some inevitably uncertain speculations on this topic, see Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, op. cit. (n. 29) 89 f.

¹⁶³ See above p. 54.

¹⁶⁴ Syll.³ 656, but many improvements in both readings and interpretation were made by Robert, L., BCH lix (1935) 507–13Google Scholar (= Opera minora selecta i 320–6) and by Herrmann, , ‘Zum Beschluss von Abdera aus Teos, Syll. 656’, ZPE vii (1971) 72–7.Google Scholar Thus McCabe and Plunkett were able to publish a much better text, Teos inscriptions 35. There is also another honorary decree of Abdera on an inscription of Teos, but it is still unpublished; see Teos inscriptions 38.5.

¹⁶⁵ See above p. 53.

¹⁶⁶ See my Colony and mother city, especially 64–7, 144 f. The refoundations in fourth-century Sicily broaden the concept from mother cities to wider kin; cf. SEC xii 379, 380 and Talbert, R. J. A., Timoleon and the revival of Greek Sicily (Cambridge 1974) 150, 204 f.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ See Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks (Oxford 1948) 155 f.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ The simultaneous appearance of the Sybarite type on the reverse of the coins of Posidonia and adoption of the Achaean standard have long led to this assumption; see e.g., my Colony and mother city, 114. Kraay downdated these coins, putting their beginning no later than the decade 470–60; see ‘The coinage of Sybaris after 510 BC’, Num. Chron. sixth series, xxxiii (1958) 13–37, at 18–20; but his arguments do not seem decisive to me, and, in any case, the assumed significance of the coins is unchanged.

If the first coins of Laus were the result of the arrival of the Sybarite refugees, as is often assumed (see e.g. Guzzo, P. G., ‘Tra Sibari e Thurii’, Klearchos xviii [1976] 27–64, at 38)Google Scholar, they would provide an analogy to support the suggested interpretation of the coins of Posidonia. But the first coins of Laus need not have been so caused; the man-headed bull is, in any case, not the same as the type of Sybaris.

¹⁶⁹ Kraay's bold hypotheses illustrate the point clearly. Guzzo's thorough treatment is rightly much more cautious.

¹⁷⁰ See Guzzo, 51.

¹⁷¹ Especially controversial is the hypothesis of an immediate re-occupation of the site of Sybaris under the rule of Croton; see Kraay, 14–16. This is well criticized by Bicknell, P. J., ‘The tyranny of Kleinias at Kroton’, Klearchos xviii (1976) 5–25, at 20 f.Google Scholar, whose objections are not removed by Guzzo's concept of ‘economic’ re-occupation under the rule of Croton (27–31).

¹⁷² See Kraay, 22–4.

¹⁷³ See Kraay, 17, 21–3 and, just possibly, the problematic coins discussed at 31–5, on which see also Bicknell, 23.

¹⁷⁴ ML 10. The argument for a late dating of this document was well put by Mattingly, H. B., ‘Athens and the Western Greeks, c 500–413 BC’ Atti del I convegno del Centro Internazionale di Studi Numismatici (Rome 1969) 201–21Google Scholar, at 209–11. The strange interpretation of the inscription by Van Effenterre, H., ‘La fondation de Paestum’, PP xxxv (1980) 161–75Google Scholar (cf. SEG xxxi [1981] 357), may safely be ignored. It offends against both the Greek and all historical probability.

¹⁷⁵ See the commentary in ML.

¹⁷⁶ Dunbabin, Western Greeks 106 f.

¹⁷⁷ Hdt. i 161; vi 8.1. We are not told how it was resettled.

¹⁷⁸ See, for instance, Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen i (Munich 1967) 106Google Scholar, who thinks that the city gradually grew up again in the 480s and tentatively suggests that the tyrant Aristogenes, stated by Plutarch (de Herod. mal. 21, 859 d) to have been expelled by the Spartans, might have been a pro-Persian creature, who ruled at that time and was expelled after Mycale. But the Plutarch passage is full of uncertainties and unknowns and there are many earlier possible occasions.

¹⁷⁹ See Hiller von Gaertringen, F., RE s.v. Miletos (1933) 1595Google Scholar; Virgilio, B., Commento storico al quinto libro delle ‘storie’ di Erodoto (Pisa 1975) 63–4Google Scholar; Robertson, N., ‘Government and society at Miletus, 525–422 BC’, Phoenix xli (1987) 356–98, at 375–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This argument is widely accepted; see, e.g. Tozzi, P., La rivolta ionica (Pisa 1978) 205Google Scholar; Balcer, J.M., ‘Miletos (IG i² 22 [IG i³ 21]) and the structure of alliances’, Studien zum attischen Seebund, ed. Balcer, J.M. (Konstanz 1984) 11–30, at 16–18.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ See Rehm, A. and Kawerau, G., Das Delphinion in Milet (Milet i.3, Berlin 1914) 241 f.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Ibid. Balcer's arguments (op. cit. 17) that members of three or four aristocratic families served either before and after or during and after the Revolt, and that two brothers of Aristagoras held the office, depend on the assumption that there was no gap unstated by the list.

¹⁸² On the dates of Thrasybulus see Virgilio, ibid., and Robertson, 376. Cook, J. M., CAH iii ².3, 201Google Scholar, rightly states that we do not know the dates of the civil strife or of the Parian arbitration.

¹⁸³ See Tozzi, op. cit. 77 f. and plate xiv.

¹⁸⁴ See Mallwitz, A. and Schiering, W., ‘Der alte Athena-Tempel von Milet’, Ist. Mitt. xviii (1968) 85–160, at 122–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ See, e.g., recently, Parke, H.W., ‘The massacre of the Branchidae’, JHS cv (1985) 59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 61, and Cook, R. M., ‘The Francis-Vickers chronology’, JHS cix (1989) 164–70, at 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸⁶ I discuss these relations in Colony and mother city, chapter 6. See now Ehrhardt, Milet und seine Kolonien, 233–40.

¹⁸⁷ See Auberson, P. and Schefold, K., Führer durch Eretria (Berne 1972) 30.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Auberson and Schefold, ibid., do follow Philostratus.

¹⁸⁹ Hdt. viii 1.2,46.2; ix 28.5 (600 Eretrians and Styrians).

¹⁹⁰ On the relations of Chalcis and her colonies, see my Colony and mother city, 18, 76. The remarkable solidarity of Chalcidian colonists, on which I commented in CAH iii².3, 193, is hard to explain without close relations with the mother city.

¹⁹¹ See Herrmann, 27. Ehrhardt, op. cit. 234 f., takes the same view, but his argument for so doing, that no contacts are provable between Teos and Phanagoria, is obviously e silentio. Robert, J. and Robert, L., Journ. des Savants (1976) 212 f.Google Scholar, while seeing the banning clause in the decree about Kyrbissos as a particular example of a very close colonymetropolis relationship, think that it was ‘perhaps very rare’.

¹⁹² Colony and mother city, 212 f.

¹⁹³ Cf. also my remarks in Gnomon lix (1987) 128 f.

¹⁹⁴ I am most grateful to my friends, Professors T. J. Figueira and N. G. L. Hammond, who kindly read a draft of this paper and made many helpful suggestions.