Bibliographie
Ager, S., 1996, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., Berkeley - Los Angeles - London (Hellenistic Culture and Society 18) [= Ager, Arbitrations].
Ager, S., 2015, Peaceful Conflict Resolution in the World of the Federal States, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, p. 471-486.
Arnaoutoglu, I., 2009-2010, Dispute Settlement between Poleis-Members of the Achaean League. A New Source, Dike, 12-13, p. 181-201.
Bechtel, F., 1917, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Halle.
Blair, D. and Tent, J., 2021, A Revised Typology of Place-Naming, Names, 69, p. 31-47.
Bravo, B., 1980, Sulân. Représailles et justice privée contre des étrangers dans les cités grecques, ASNP, ser. III, 10, p. 675-987.
Buck, C. D., 1955, The Greek Dialects, Chicago.
Buraselis, K., 2002, rev. S. L. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., Berkeley - Los Angeles - London 1996 and A. Magnetto, Gli arbitrati interstatali greci. II, Pisa 1997, Gnomon, 74, p. 224-231.
Carusi, C., 2003, Isole e peree in Asia Minore. Contributi allo studio dei rapporti tra poleis insulari e territori continentali dipendenti, Pisa (Pubblicazioni della Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 28).
Carusi, C., 2005, Nuova edizione della homologia fra Trezene e Arsinoe (IG IV 752, IG IV2 76 + 77), Studi Ellenistici, 16, p. 79-139.
Cassayre, A., 2010, La Justice dans les cités grecques. De la formation des royaumes hellénistiques au legs d’Attale, Rennes.
Chandezon, C., 2003, L’élevage en Grèce (fin ve-fin ier s. a.C.). L’apport des sources épigraphiques, Bordeaux (Scripta Antiqua 5).
Chandezon, C., 2014, L’hippotrophia et la boutrophia, deux liturgies dans les cités hellénistiques, in C. Balandier and C. Chandezon (eds.), Institutions, sociétés et cultes de la Méditerranée antique. Mélanges d’histoire ancienne rassemblés en l’honneur de Claude Vial, Bordeaux (Scripta Antiqua 58), p. 29-50.
Chaniotis, A., 1999, Milking the Mountains. Economic Activities on the Cretan Uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic Period, in A. Chaniotis (ed.), From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders. Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, Stuttgart (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 29), p. 181-220.
Chaniotis, A., 2004, Justifying Territorial Claims in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Beginnings of International Law, in E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, p. 185-213.
Daverio Rocchi, G., 1988, Frontiere e confini nella Grecia antica, Roma (CRDAC 12).
Daverio Rocchi, G., 2016, Sistems of Borders in Ancient Greece, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella and H.-J. Gehrke (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography. The Inhabited World in Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden - Boston, p. 58-77.
Dixon, M. D., 2000, Disputed Territories: Interstate Arbitrations in the Northeast Peloponnese, ca. 250-150 B.C., Columbus (Diss. The Ohio State University).
Dixon, M. D., 2001, IG IV2.1.75+ and the Date of the Arbitration Between Epidauros and Hermion, ZPE, 137, p. 169-173.
Dubois, L., 1986, Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, I-III, Louvain-La-Neuve.
Dumont, J., 1977, Liberté des mers et territoire de pêche en droit grec, RHDFE, 55, p. 53-57.
Dušanić, S., 1978, Notes Épigraphiques sur l’histoire arcadienne du ive siècle, BCH, 102, p. 333-358.
Fachard, S., 2017, The Resources of the Borderlands. Control, Inequality, and Exchange on the Attic-Boeotian Borders, in P. Derron (ed.), Économie et inégalité. Ressources, échanges et pouvoir dans l’Antiquité classique, Vandœuvres (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 63), p. 19-61.
Foxhall, L., Gill, D., Forbes, H., 1997, Appendix 2. The Inscriptions of Methana, in C. Mee and H. Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool, p. 269-277.
Funke, P. and Hallof, K., 2013, Zwei neue Staatsverträge aus Akarnanien, in F. Lang, P. Funke, L. Kolonas, E.-L. Schwandner and D. Maschek (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen in Akarnanien / Διεπιστημονικές έρευνες στην Ακαρνανία, Bonn (Akarnanien-Forschungen / Ακαρνανία Έρευνες 1), p. 55-64.
Gauthier, Ph., 1972, Symbola. Les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques, Nancy (Annales de l’Est. Mémoire 42).
Gawantka, W., 1975, Isopolitie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen in der griechischen Antike, München (Vestigia 22).
Giangiulio, M., 2001, L’eschatia. Prospettive critiche su rappresentazioni antiche e modelli moderni, in Problemi della ‘chora’ coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero. Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 29 settembre - 3 ottobre 2000, Taranto, p. 333-361.
Gill, D., Foxhall, L. and Bowden, H., 1997, Classic and Hellenistic Methana, in C. Mee and H. Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool, p. 62-76.
Grainger, J. D., 1999, The League of the Aitolians, Leiden - Boston - Köln (Mnemosyne. Supplements 200).
Habicht, C., 2012, Appendix: Ainetidas, Chiron, 42, p. 545-546.
Harter-Uibopuu, K., 1998, Das zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon. Zur friedlichen Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln - Weimar - Wien (Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 12).
Hermann, E., 1923, Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den andern indogermanischen Sprachen, Göttingen Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 2).
Hodkinson, S., 1988, Animal Husbandry in the Greek Polis, in C.R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Supplementary Volume 14), p. 35-74.
Hodkinson, S., 1990, Politics as a Determinant of Pastoralism: the Case of Southern Greece, ca. 800-300 B.C., Rivista di Studi Liguri, 56, p. 139-163.
Hough, C., 2016, Settlement Names, in C. Hough (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Name and Naming, Oxford, p. 87-103.
Jameson, M., 1953, Inscriptions of the Peloponnesos, Hesperia, 22, p. 148-171.
Kienast, D., 1964, Die Homonoiaverträge in der römischen Kaiserzeit, JNG, 14, p. 51-64.
Kralli, I., 2017, The Hellenistic Peloponnese: Interstate Relations. A Narrative and Analytic History, from the Fourth Century to 146 BC, Swansea.
Larsen, J. A. O., 1968, Greek Federal States, Oxford.
Luraghi, N. and Magnetto, A., 2012, The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New Inscription from Messene, Chiron, 42, p. 509-550.
Mackil, E., 2013, Creating a Common Polity. Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London (Hellenistic Culture and Society 55).
Magnetto, A., 1997, Gli arbitrati interstatali greci, II, Pisa (Relazioni interstatali nel mondo antico. Fonti e Studi 7) [= Magnetto, Arbitrati].
Marek, C., 1984, Die Proxenie, Frankfurt am Main - Bern - New York (Europäische Hochschulschriften III, 213).
Matijašić, I., 2022, Common Sense Geography nelle iscrizioni greche di età ellenistica. Rappresentazione e definizione dello spazio geografico, in S. L. Sørensen (ed.), Sine fine. Studies in honour of Klaus Geus on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, Stuttgart, p. 393-412.
Moretti, L., 1967, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, Firenze [= Moretti, ISE I].
Nafissi, M., 2013, La stele di Damonon (IG V 1, 213 = Moretti, IAG 16), gli Hekatombaia (Strabo 8,4,11) e il sistema festivo della Laconia d’epoca classica, Aristonothos, 8, p. 105-174.
Perono Cacciafoco, F. and Cavallaro, F., 2023, Place Names. Approaches and Perspectives in Toponymy and Toponomastics, Cambridge.
Pikoulas, Y. A., 2010-2013, Καθώς ἐστι ἁμῖν ἁ χώρα. Ἡ βόρεια μεθόριος Μεσσηνίας καὶ Ἀρκαδίας, ΗΟΡΟΣ, 22-25, p. 261-287.
Plassart, A., 1915, Orchomène d’Arcadie. Fouilles de 1913. Inscriptions, BCH, 39, p. 53-127.
Purpura, G., 2008, “Liberum Mare”, acque territoriali e riserve di pesca nel mondo antico, in J. Napoli (ed.), Ressources et activités maritimes des peuples de l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque international de Boulogne-sur-Mer 12, 13 et 14 Mai 2005, Boulogne-sur-Mer (Cahiers du Littoral 2, 6), p. 533-554.
Ræder, A., 1912, L’arbitrage international chez les Hellènes, Kristiania (Publications de l’Institut Nobel Norvegien 1).
Rizakis, A., 2015, The Achaian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, p. 118-131.
Robert, L., 1960a, Inscriptions hellénistiques de Dalmatie, in L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, XI-XII, Paris, p. 505-541.
Robert, L., 1960b, Sur un décret des Korésiens au Musée de Smyrne, in L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, XI-XII, Paris, p. 132-176.
Rousset, D., 1994, Les frontières des cités grecques. Premières réflexions à partir du recueil des documents épigraphiques, CCG, 5, p. 97-126.
Rousset, D., 2002, Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon, Athènes - Paris (BEFAR 310).
Rousset, D., 2003-2004 [2005], Épigraphie grecque et géographie historique du monde hellénique, Annuaire de l’EPHE (IVe sect.), 19, p. 119-123.
Rousset, D., 2010, De Lycie en Cabalide. La convention entre les Lyciens et Termessos près d’Oinoanda, Genève (Fouilles de Xanthos 10 / Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romain 45).
Saba, S., 2011, Epigamia in Hellenistic Interstate Treaties: Foreign and Family Policy, AncSoc, 41, p. 93-108.
Saba, S., 2020, Isopoliteia in Hellenistic Times, Leiden - Boston (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy 14).
Sartre, M., 1979, Aspects économiques et aspects religieux de la frontière dans les cités grecques, Ktema, 4, p. 213-224.
Schmitt, H. H., 1969, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, III, München [= StV III].
Schmitt, R., 1995, Entwicklung der Namen in älteren indogermanischen Sprachen, in E. Eichler, G. Hilty, H. Löffler, H. Steger and L. Zgusta (eds.), Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 11.1), Berlin - New York, p. 616-636.
Scholten, J. B., 2000, The Politics of Plunder. Aitolians and Their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C., Berkeley - Los Angeles - London (Hellenistic Culture and Society 24).
Skydsgaard, J. E., 1988, Transhumance in Ancient Greece, in C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Supplementary Volumes 14), p. 75-86.
Taylor, S., 2016, Methodology in Place-Name Research, in C. Hough (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, Oxford, p. 69-85.
Themelis, P., 2008, Κρίμα περὶ χώρας Μεσσηνίων καὶ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν, in Y. A. Pikoulas (ed.), Ιστορίες για την αρχαία Αρκαδία. Πρακτικά / Proceedings of the International Symposium in honour of James Roy 50 χρόνια Ἀρκάς (1958-2008), Stemnitsa, p. 211-222.
Thür, G., 2012, Dispute over Ownership in Greek Law: Preliminary Thoughts about a New Inscription from Messene (SEG LVIII 370), in B. Legras and G. Thür (eds.), Symposion 2011. Études d’histoire et de droit grec et hellénistique (Paris, 7–10 septembre 2011), Wien, p. 293-316.
Thür, G. and Taeuber, H., 1994, Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis: Arkadien (IPArk), Wien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte 607).
Tod, M. N., 1913, International Arbitration among the Greeks, Oxford.
Vérilhac, A.-M. and Vial, C., 1998, Le mariage grec. Du vie siècle av. J.-C. à l’époque d’Auguste, Athènes - Paris (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénistique. Supplément 32).
Vessella, C., 2018, Sophisticated Speakers. Atticistic Pronunciation in the Atticist Lexica, Berlin - Boston (Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes 55).
Weber-Pallez, C., 2016, L’Argolide, un territoire grec défini par l’emboîtement des frontières ?, in H. Berthelot, A. Boiché, P.-A. Caltot, M. Diarra, F. Réveilhac and É. Romieux-Brun (eds.), Vivre et penser les frontières dans le monde méditerranéen antique. Actes du colloque tenu à l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, les 29 et 30 juin 2013, Bordeaux (Scripta Antiqua 89), p. 55-65.
Wilhelm, A., 1911 [1974], Ἄγριοι λιμένες, in A. Wilhelm, Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1895-1951), Leipzig (Opuscula 8), p. 26-32.
Wilhelm, A., 1948, Ein Gebietsstreit in der Argolis, AAWW, 4, p. 57-79.
Youni, M. S., 2012, Remarques sur une inscription messénienne. Réponse à Gerhard Thür, in B. Legras and G. Thür (eds.), Symposion 2011. Études d’histoire et de droit grec et hellénistique (Paris, 7-10 septembre 2011), Wien, p. 317-328.
Haut de page
Notes
This piece of research has been developed within the framework of the ERC Project FeBo: Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity funded by the European Union (ERC FeBo, ERC 2021 Cog PR. No. 101043954). Directed by Elena Franchi and hosted by the University of Trento, Project FeBo aims to shed light on the strategies and policies adopted by Greek federal states for the management, control and protection of internal and external borders. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are exclusively those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. The author expresses gratitude to the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions.
A scholarly overview on this subject is still lacking. See Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39-40; Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119-121; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 124.
A scholarly overview on this subject is still lacking. See Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39-40; Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119-121; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 124.
An earlier version of this paper has been prepared for the conference TeMAES 4. Territoires multiple: façonner les régions dans le monde grec, organised by Clémence Weber-Pallez and held at the University of Toulouse II – Jean Jaurès on June 6th, 2023. I am indebted to the organiser and all the members of the research group TeMAES (Stefania De Vido, Arianna Esposito and Airton Pollini) for the kind invitation to the conference and the permission to publish in advance some preliminary thoughts set forth in Toulouse.
Fachard, 2017, p. 20.
In fact, Fachard does not ignore the complexity of borderlands in terms of organisation, ownership and resources. In his study on the Attic-Boeotian frontier, he shows that the scholarly view that looks at the border areas as territories almost uninhabited and, as it were, nearly deregulated must necessarily be blurred and reassessed on a case-by-case basis (Fachard, 2017, p. 25-27).
Marek, 1984, p. 147-149; Hodkinson, 1988, p. 51-53, 62-63; Chandezon, 2003, p. 351-389.
Rousset, 2010, p. 48-50. On the timber trade in the Peloponnese, see Mackil, 2013, p. 275-276.
See Mackil, 2013, p. 258-260, for the privileges exercised by proxenoi throughout the territories of Boeotia and Achaea.
Cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 122-123.
For the economic weight of some sub-regions like the koinai chorai, see Mackil, 2013, p. 257.
Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119.
Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39.
Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 40.
As Fachard has pointed out, exploiting a (border)land is a strategy to possess and control it (Fachard, 2017, p. 37-38).
Mackil, 2013, p. 313-314 underestimates the role of the Achaean koinon in the resolution of the disputes amongst its members.
Ager, 2015, p. 476-480. For the case of the Achaean koinon, see also Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 119-129 and Rizakis, 2015, p. 128-131.
For some criticism to established patterns relating to fringe areas (eschatiai), see Giangiulio, 2001 (esp. p. 341-343).
See already Wilhelm, 1948, p. 69.
See, for example, Skydsgaard, 1988, p. 80 (« Finally, if one focuses on the borderland between city states a common pasture is often found. We have already noticed Mount Cithaeron […]. A similar no man’s land existed on the Mount Parnassus and caused the outbreak of the Corinthian War »); Chaniotis, 1999, p. 198 (« Instead of setting boundaries for a disputed frontier region, the cities involved agreed to use these areas in common, as koinai chorai »); Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121 (« Les régions communes, à la difference des zones désertes ou neutres, sont la coproprieté indivise de deux cites, et se caractérisent par la possibilité d’une exploitation économique »); Daverio Rocchi, 2016, p. 73 (« Interest in exploiting woodland resources compelled the poleis to making agreements in order to subject these middle-lands [altogether or partly] to a regime of shared use [koinai chorai] »).
Chaniotis, 2004, p. 187-190 with the remarks of Fachard, 2017, p. 26.
Carusi, 2005, p. 109; cf. Fachard, 2017, p. 26.
369 BCE: Plassart, 1915, p. 62-69. 369-361 BCE: Dušanić, 1978, p. 348-351; Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 96-99; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 124-129. For a later chronology, see Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121. For the involvement of the Arcadian koinon in the dispute, see Mackil, 2013, p. 314.
Rousset, 1994, p. 117-118.
Plassart, 1915, p. 56, 82; Dubois, 1986, II, p. 141-143.
While scholarship usually identifies Methydrion as the polis sharing the borders with Orchomenos (Plassart, 1915, p. 69; Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 97), Slobodan Dušanić rather opted for Torthyneion (Dušanić, 1978, p. 351-355).
Cf. Rousset, 2002, p. 176 (« Sur les confins des cités grecques, la stricte définition d’une ligne-frontière pouvait en effet expressément laisser place, en tel point d’une délimitation, à des zones communes, comme on le voit sur les confins d’Orchomène d’Arcadie […]. On peut donc concevoir que le territoire d’une cité ait été ici limité par une ligne, tandis qu’ailleurs il se perdait dans une zone laissée à l’usage de tous »).
See Robert, 1960a, p. 534; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 123-125.
For some other editions and commentaries, see, for example, Schmitt, 1969, p. 182-185 (= StV III, 495); Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-164; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 295-301 (= IPArk 28); Ager, 1996, p. 119-124 (No. 40); Magnetto, 1997, p. 230-237 (No. 38); Saba, 2020, p. 170-175 (No. 39).
IG V 1, 419, ll. 13-15.
See, for example, Robert, 1960a, p. 534; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 300; Ager, 1996, p. 123; Magnetto, 1997, p. 234; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 47-48.
IG V 2, 419, l. 15. Kienast, 1964, p. 62 translates IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 implying that the Messenians owned the region and they allowed the Phigaleians to exploit it jointly (« Das Land aber sollen sie beide nutzen […], die Messenier und die Phigaleer, wie auch wir [d. h. die Messenier] es jetzt nutzen »). Indeed, the subject of καρπιζόμεθα is not obvious.
The ambiguity of IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 was pointed out by Robert, 1960a, p. 234 (« les deux peuples de Messène et de Phigalie […] exploitent en commun un territoire, il « n’appartient » à aucun des deux […], ou ils décident, dans leur accord, d’exploiter chacun leur territoire, sans soulever les questions de propriété qui les divisent au sujet de leurs frontières »). Gawantka, 1975, p. 67 n. 60 has stressed the differences between ἑκάτερος and ἀμφότερος, still without ruling out the existence of a koine chora along the borders between Phigaleia and Messene (cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-163 n. 1; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 300). As it happens, the general formulations of IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 have led some scholars to raise doubts on the very existence of this common borderland. According to Buraselis, 2002, p. 228, this passage is to be regarded as a diplomatic formula pointing to reassert the exploitation rights of each community over its own territory (see now Saba, 2020, p. 172 n. 19). Indeed, the point made by Kostas Buraselis deserves some further thoughts, which must however reconsider the entire passage in its epigraphical and historical context.
Cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-163 n. 1. In fact, one may wonder if ἑκατέρως could imply the distribution of personal properties – of both Phigaleian and Messenian citizens – within the χώρα itself (cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 216: « Ce qui importe pour nous ici, c’est de constater que la cité se conduit à l’égard de sa frontière comme un propriétaire en ce qui concerne les limites de son champ. D’ailleurs, il est probable que la cité ne fait, le plus souvent, dans ces querelles, qu’épouser la cause d’un citoyen ou d’un groupe de citoyens propriétaires aux frontières »; Fachard, 2017, p. 24: « Greek borderlands, when exploited and inhabited, are areas of interactions at the public and private levels. »; my emphasis). The presence of private domains in a koine chora is certain for the homologia between Troezenians and Arsinoeans/Methanians (SEG 55, 425, l. 25; see Carusi, 2005, p. 109 and below). It is worth observing that the prescription preceding ll. 13-15 concerns the drafting of a συμβολά intended to settle private controversies (IG V 2, 419, ll. 12-13: ποιήσασθαι δὲ καὶ συνβολάν, ἅ|[νπερ δοκεῖ] ἀνφοτέραις ταῖς πολέοις [« they shall also establish a judicial agreement that pleases both cities »; transl. S. Saba]; cf. Gauthier, 1972, p. 366-368; Ager, 1996, p. 123).
Noteworthy is most of all the exchange of the isopoliteia and epigamia (see Gawantka, 1975; Vérilhac, Vial, 1998, p. 68-69, 71-82; Saba, 2011, esp. p. 103-106; Saba, 2020, esp. p. 170-175).
See already Ræder, 1912, p. 95-97 (No. LI); Tod, 1913, p. 9-10 (No. V-VII); Gawantka, 1975, p. 114 n. 46. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 164 has raised doubts on this interpretation.
IG V 1, 1429 and 1430. See Ager, 1996, p. 123.
Magnetto, 1997, p. 236 n. 8; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 47-50.
Strab. VIII 3, 22.
Larsen, 1968, p. 203, 206-207; Scholten, 2000, p. 116-123; Mackil, 2013, p. 116-117.
See Grainger, 1999, p. 159-161; Kralli, 2017, p. 278-281.
Some preliminary notes on the text were provided in Themelis, 2008. See also Arnaoutoglu, 2009-2010; Thür, 2012 and D. Rousset in BE 2013, No. 153-154.
Habicht, 2012.
Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012.
Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 529.
A commentary on the different stages of this arbitration can be found in Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 525-533. The last phase of this arbitration, which was resolved by a panel of six Milesian judges, focused on the validity of the fine imposed by federal damiourgoi (see Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 535).
The expression koine chora does not properly mirror the situation at the borderlands between Messene and Megalopolis (for a different view, see Youni, 2012, p. 326). There can be no doubt that what results from the dossier is definitely the Messenian ownership of the contended χώρα and the existence of previous (formalised?) agreements between Messene and Megalopolis about some sort of joint exploitation of the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis (cf. Thür, 2012, p. 299-300). Accordingly, the ‘semi-common’ nature of both sub-regions takes shape only in relation to the exploitation rights in force over them, not in relation to their ownership (see esp. Thür, 2012 and Youni, 2012). One might wonder whether this twofold facet of the Messenian chora (exploitation vs. ownership) discloses in fact another possible sense of μεσόκοινος, being the term not only tied to the produce of these borderlands but extending somehow to the status of the contested χώρα (on μεσόκοινος, see Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 533-534 n. 78). What is published from this long text does not say anything about the circumstances resulting in this Messenian-Megalopolitan agreement on the joint exploitation (cf. Youni, 2012, p. 321).
A topographical study on the contents of SEG 58, 370, which Rousset has hoped for (in BE 2013, No. 153), has been undertaken in Pikoulas, 2010-2013.
Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 270-272.
Themelis, 2008, p. 215-216; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526. For the πόλις Πυλανέων in SEG 11, 979, l. 23 (2nd or 1st cent. BCE), see Themelis, 2008, p. 216; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 522-523 (who posit the location of the ancient site around modern Kato Melpeia); Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 268-269.
It is worth noticing that an unpublished passage that reproduces the πρόκλησις of the Megalopolitans is reported to refer to the τέρμονες of the Akreiatis (ll. 119-120); see Thür, 2012, p. 301-302; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.
For a different view, see Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.
Themelis, 2008, p. 215.
Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 527; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.
The text of this κρίμα is preserved by two copies, the one found in Epidauros (IG IV2 1, 75+ = SEG 31, 328), the other from Hermione (SEG 11, 377 + 51, 431). Both are re-edited and commented by Moretti, 1967, p. 100-105 (Moretti, ISE I 43 = SEG 25, 375); Ager, 1996, p. 170-173 (No. 63), Magnetto, 1997, p. 405-416 (No. 69) and Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 72-80 (No. 10). A likely chronology for this judgement has been offered by Dixon, 2001 (= SEG 51, 431; 175-172 BCE), based on prosopography of some Rhodian judges appearing in IG IV2 1, 75, fr. B, ll. 25-28 and Polyb. XXVIII 7, 9.
Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 1-2, 15.
Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 539-540.
On the πρόκλησις, see Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 75 and Cassayre, 2010, p. 234, 243.
On the identification of the topographical references mentioned in these inscriptions, see esp. Jameson, 1953, p. 160-167, Moretti, 1967, p. 102-104 and Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 78-80. For a state-of-art, see also Dixon, 2000, p. 157-166.
Paus. II 36, 3.
Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 57-58, 159. On the description and representation of spaces and distances in Greek arbitration inscriptions, see Matijašić, 2022 (esp. p. 397-398 for the arbitration between Hermione and Epidauros).
Weber-Pallez, 2016 (esp. p. 60).
Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 157.
For the dispute between Epidauros and Corinth (ca. 242-238 BCE), which was mediated by Megarian judges, see IG IV2 1, 70-71, with some commentary in Ager, 1996, p. 113-117 (No. 38); Magnetto, 1997, p. 212-224 (No. 36); Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 16-23 (No. 3); cf. also Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 156-159.
The text provided by the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum reproduces the revised edition of IG IV2 1, 76-77 in Carusi, 2005, p. 93-95. Cf. Ager, 1996, p. 381-385 (No. 138); Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 97-109 (No. 12).
For the revised edition IG IV 741, see again Carusi, 2005, p. 86-87.
For the chronological frame of this agreement, see Carusi, 2005, p. 126-136. For some prosopographic remarks and the uncommon name Γνίκων (SEG 55, 425, l. 3), see Dixon, 2000, p. 222-224. On the history of Methana, the Ptolemaic control of the peninsula and the name change to Arsinoe, see Gill, Foxhall, Bowden, 1997, p. 74-75.
See Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 108-109; Dixon, 2000, p. 227-236; Carusi, 2005, p. 102-103.
SEG 55, 425, l. 8.
SEG 55, 425, ll. 6-8; see Carusi, 2005, p. 102, 107. There are other fragmentary references to a common region (ll. 24, 34), as well as to common income from tuna fishing (ll. [24], 39, 43/44, 49). For the latter point, see below.
SEG 55, 425, ll. 20-27. On the nature of this fortification, which could be linked to the τείχη or the φρούριον in Thuc. IV, 45, 2, see again Gill, Foxhall, Bowden, 1997, p. 74-75, followed by Dixon, 2000, p. 229-230 and Carusi, 2005, p. 107-108. On the private estates in the koine chora and on the issues of legal nature they raise, see Carusi, 2005, p. 109.
Another possible testimony concerning an area of joint exploitation in Arcadia might be the arbitration between Alipheira and Lepreon that has been dated to 194/3 BCE (IPArk 26 = SEG 25, 449; for some commentary, see Ager, 1996, p. 226-228 [No. 82]; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 41-46 [No. 6]). The word πολύκοινος occurs in the boundary demarcation which likely follows the final part of the verdict and precedes a list of judges called for a sentence (IPArk 26, l. 25: [---]σιν τὰν πολύκοινο[ν]). The poor condition of the inscription and the lack of a clear context do not allow us to speculate much on the existence of an area of shared exploitation between the territories of Alipheira and Lepreion. However, the presence of a (border)land ‘common to many’ (alluding perhaps even to other communities besides Alipheirans and Lepreatai) has been suggested by Laurent Dubois (1986, II, p. 253: « s’agirait-il d’une ἐσχατιά commune à plusieurs cites ? »; cf. Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 46).
According to Paus. II 36, 3, the inner route connecting the Cape Strouthous (modern Kavo Iri) with Philanorion (Phournoi ?) – both being the opposite limits of the territory disputed between Epidauros and Hermione – was about 250 stadia long (ca. 50 km), a distance that has been rightly regarded by scholars as exaggerated (see below for further considerations). According to Ps. Scylax 50 (mid-4th century), the shoreline under Epidaurian control stretched for 30 stadia (more than 5,5 km) along the Argolic Gulf and the coastline from the territory of Argos to Halieis (mod. Porto Cheli) amounted to 100 stadia (ca. 20 km). On the other hand, the dispute between Methana and Troezen mainly concerned the thin strip of land that binds the volcanic peninsula of Methana with the mainland (1,3 km long × 0,3 large, according to Robert 1960b, p. 158). The other two territories mentioned in the homologia and perhaps pertaining to the koine chora (Chersonasos and Praxoneion) are likely to pinpoint at the immediate borders of the isthmus (see Carusi, 2005, p. 109: « gli elementi forniti dalla moderna toponomastica sembrano confermare che la zona oggetto dell’accordo tra le due città gravitasse intorno al sottile istmo che univa la penisola di Methana alla terraferma »).
The presence of a χάραξ on the isthmus of Methana is just one example of the military importance that a given territory could assume for the control of a larger region. From the strategic point of view, on the other hand, one can consider the importance of the route connecting Messene and Megalopolis: passing through the areas under contention in SEG 58, 370, this route gave access to the Messenian lowlands and, further beyond, to the Western coast of the Peloponnese through the Aulon of Messenia (Strab. VIII 3, 25; Paus. IV 36, 7). Just a few years before the events of SEG 58, 370, for instance, the same route was likely followed by the Achaean στρατηγός Diophanes to launch assaults on Messene in order to restore the city under Achaean control (summer 191 BCE; see Liv. XXXVI 31, 1-5). What is more, a meeting between Flamininus and Diophanes took place at Andania, where the Achaeans were warned not to attack Messenians anymore (Liv. XXXVI 31, 7-8).
See for example Schmitt, 1995, p. 633-634.
Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 134-137.
Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 15-16: εἶναι ταύτην (scil. χώραν) κοινὴν Ἑρμιονέων καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίων | οὖσαν τῆς Διδυμίας κτλ.
IPArk 14, ll. 18-19, 22-23; cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 98.
For some general remarks concerning the study of toponymy, see Taylor, 2016 and Hough, 2016. For the relationships between toponymy and landscape in a comparative perspective, see Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 134-157. For toponymy and natural habitat in the ancient world, see Daverio Rocchi, 2016, p. 73.
For some examples of interchangeable place names from the area of Mycale (Κάριον/Χάραξ; Θίνιχος πάγος/οἱ κατὰ Σανίδειαν τόποι), see Carusi, 2003, p. 147-149.
A useful classification based on the practices of place-naming can be found in Blair, Tent, 2021. On the practical function of landscape toponymy, see Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 136 (« Toponyms, by alluding to and describing the related landscapes, helped people to orientate themselves in the spaces and, in the absence of drawing tools and writing systems, facilitated the sketching of a mental, oral, and ideal map of their territory »).
See also Hesych. s.v. Ἄγριοι λιμένες [α 803 Latte]; cf. Wilhelm, 1911 [1974].
J. and L. Robert in BE 1949, No. 68 and BE 1954, No. 116; Jameson, 1953, p. 161-165; Moretti, 1967, p. 103-104. A similar toponymic persistence may be observed for the territory corresponding to the koine chora between Troezen and Methana (see Robert, 1960b, p. 159-160; Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 120; Carusi, 2005, p. 102-103).
See also Paus. II 36, 3.
See already Thür, 2012, p. 299 (« In the course of the dispute it [scil. the Akreiatis] became connected with Bipeiatis, most probably unfertile pastureland close by or surrounding it »). For some more consideration on Bipeiatis, see below in Appendix.
For the Praxoneion, see Carusi, 2005, p. 103; for Philanoreia or Philanorion (Paus. II 36, 3), see Wilhelm, 1948, p. 72-73.
See Paus. II 36, 3: ἀπὸ Μάσητος δὲ ὁδὸς ἐν δεξιᾷ ἐστιν ἐπὶ ἄκραν καλουμένην Στρουθοῦντα. Στάδιοι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας ταύτης κατὰ τῶν ὀρῶν τὰς κορυφὰς πεντήκοντά εἰσι καὶ διακόσιοι ἐς Φιλανόριόν τε καλούμενον καὶ ἐπὶ Βολεούς∙ οἱ δὲ Βολεοὶ οὗτοι λίθων εἰσὶ σωροὶ λογάδων (« From Mases there is a road on the right to a headland called Struthous [Sparrow Peak]. From this headland by way of the summits of the mountains the distance to the place called Philanorium and to the Boleoi is two hundred and fifty stades. These Boleoi are heaps of unhewn stones. »; transl. W.H.S. Jones). For the distance of 250 stades, see the emendation proposed by Wilhelm, 1948, p. 79 (55 stades).
SEG 58, 370, ll. 29-33: …, ἀποδόν|τες οἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται ὅρους Ἀπολλωνί|δαι τῶι στραταγῶι τᾶς τε Ἐνδανικᾶς | καὶ Πυλανικᾶς καὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος καὶ | Βιπειάτιος, … (« and the Megalopolitans gave the στραταγός Apollonidas the borders of the territories of Endania and Pylana and of Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, … »); ll. 39-43: καὶ γενομένας (i.e.: τῶν δικαστᾶν) | [ἐν] τ̣ῶι Καρνειασίωι δικαιολογίας ἐπὶ | [δύο ἁ]μέρας μεθ’ ὕδατος, ἀπὸ μὲν τᾶς | [Ἀκρειά]τιος καὶ Βιπειάτιος ἀποστ̣άντων | τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν (« and after in the Karneiasion a debate took place over two days, with speakers’ time measured by water-clock, the Megalopolitans renounced Akreiatis and Bipeiatis »); ll. 48-50: ἁμῶν δὲ συ|[--- ca. 9-10 --- κρί]σιν ποτί τε Καλιάτας | [καὶ Μεγαλοπολίτ]ας περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος | [καὶ Βιπειάτιος] … (« and since we agreed to be judged against the Megalopolitans and the Kaliatai regarding Akreiatis and Bipeiatis … »); ll. 52-56: Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν | [μὲν? --- ca. 11 --- ὅτι] Ἀκρειᾶτις | καὶ Βιπειᾶτις Ἀρκαδία ε[ἴη καὶ] Μ̣ε|γαλοπολῖτις, ἁμῶν δὲ δι[δ]α̣σκόν|των ὁτι Μεσσανία εἴη (« the Megalopolitans [argued] that Akreiatis and Bipeiatis were Arkadian and Megalopolitan, and we showed that they are Messenian »), ll. 61-64: κρινάντων Μεσσανίαν εἶ|μεν τὰν χώραν τὰν Ακρειᾶτιν καὶ | Βιπειᾶτιν κατὰ τοὺς ὅρους οὕς ἀπε|δώκαμες τοῖς κοινοῖς δαμιοργοῖς (« [in a court of 147 judges], who judged that Akreiatis and Bipeiatis were Messenian according to the borders we had indicated to the common δαμιοργοί »); ll. 71-73: ἁμὲ προεκα|λέσατο ἁ πόλις τῶν Μεγαλοπο|λιτᾶν περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος χώρας (« the polis of the Megalopolitans challenged us again to undergo a judgment regarding the Akreiatis territory »); ll. 79-84: καὶ εἰσαγαγόντων (i.e. τῶν κοινῶν δαμιοργῶν) εἰς τὸ | δικαστήριον τῶν Μιλησίων ἐνικά|σαμεν πάσαις ταῖς ψάφοις καθότι | εἴημεν κεκριμένοι περί τε ταύτας | τᾶς χώρας καὶ τᾶς Βιπειάτιος πο|τὶ Μεγαλοπολίτας (« and [the common δαμιοργοί] introduced us into the court of the Milesians, we won receiving all the votes, which confirmed that we had indeed already been judged regarding this territory and the Bipeiatis against the Megalopolitans »). English translations are drawn from Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012.
SEG 55, 418, ll. 16-19 ≈ SEG 55, 425, ll. 53-56: οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι (ἐξ Ἀθανᾶν) τὰ γεγονότα αὐτοῖς ὁμόλογα ἐπικρίναντες ἀναθεσοῦνται ἐν στάλαις είς τὰ ἱερὰ τὸ ἐγ Καλαυρείαι τοῦ Ποσειδᾶνος καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρωι τοῦ Ἀσκλαπίου καὶ τὸ έν Ἀθάναις ἐν ἀκροπόλει τᾶς Ἀθάνας (« those who have come [from Athens] and verified the agreements between them [i.e. the Epidaurians and the Hermioneans] shall take care of the publication on stelae in the sanctuaries of Poseidon at Kalaureia and Asclepios at Epidauros and Athena on the Acropolis of Athens »; my translation).
Interventions of foreigners in the border disputes at issue: Aetolians in the dispute between Messenians and Phigaleians; Achaeans and a board of Milesian judges in the dispute between Messenians and Megalopolitans; Milesians and Rhodians in the contention between Epidauros and Hermione; a Lagid king in the conflict between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana.
Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 128-129; Mackil, 2013, p. 316-318, 361-362.
On the Greek vocabulary of ‘exploitation’ and its occurrence in Greek epigraphy, see esp. Robert, 1960a, p. 533-535 and also Sartre, 1979, p. 214; Fachard, 2017, p. 20.
IG V 1, 419, ll. 14-16: τὰν δὲ χ|[ώραν καρπ]ίζεσσθαι ἑκατέρως, τώς τε Μεσσανίω|[ς καὶ τὼς Φι]αλέας, καθὼς καὶ νῦν καρπιζόμεθα (« The land shall be cultivated by each, [the citizens] of Messene and [those] of Phigaleia, just as we cultivated it now »; transl. S. Saba).
SEG 58, 370, ll. 65-67; cf. Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 533-534 n. 78; Youni, 2012, p. 321, 325-326; Thür, 2012, p. 300 n. 11.
Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 20-22: Περὶ δὲ τῶν καρπείων καὶ τῶν | ἐπινομῶν τῶν πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως μὴ εἶναι μηδετέροις ἔγκλη|μα μηθέν (« No claim is to be made concerning cropping or pasturage [which occurred] before this decision »; transl. M. H. Jameson, C. N. Runnels, T. H. van Andel).
SEG 55, 418, l. 2 + SEG 55, 425, l. 38. See Carusi, 2005, p. 114, who also proposes to restore κ̣[αρπίζεσθαι] in l. 33 (p. 97, 112). According to Bravo, 1980, p. 866-867, the term ἐπικαρπία might rather be related to revenues coming from the taxation of grazing rights. However, nothing in this text hints at that explicitly.
SEG 55, 425, l. 9: [--- τᾶς] λιθίνας καὶ τᾶς ξυλίνας; see Ager, 1996, p. 384; Carusi, 2005, p. 104.
See Mackil, 2013, p. 276. As Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121 has pointed out, the right to exploit wooded areas was conceded to foreigners also in the form of ἐπιξυλία, an accessory honour that could be awarded in proxeny decrees and that is attested in Arcadia for Orchomenos and Thisoa (IPArk 36 j, r).
IPArk 14, ll. 27, 29. The economic interest of these common areas is proven by a couple of passages from the Historia Plantarum by Theophrastus, according to whom the πηδός was used to produce axles of chariots and drawbars of ploughs (Hist. Plant. V 7, 6), while the ἀρία – a Doric gloss for holm-oak – was employed for the fabrication of chariot elements (Hist. Plant. III 16, 3). On the federal intervention of the short-lived Arcadian koinon in this matter, see Mackil, 2013, p. 314. The case of IPArk 14 forces to reconsider some statements made by Daverio Rocchi some years ago: « “[w]oodland activities” pointed to a system of skilled works that we can relate to a true woodland-economy having | its privileged space in the borderland. It was the open space where the regime of subsistence based on pasturing, hunting, gathering of spontaneous fruits, fishery from marshes and rivers, required undivided land and free passage, unlike the core plain where enclosures and farming prevailed » (Daverio Rocchi, 2016, p. 70-71, with my italics). As a matter of fact, the regulation from Arcadian Orchomenos depicts a different scenario, as also do the clauses of the agreement between the Lycians and the Termessians-near-Oenoanda concerning the ways of exploitation of Mt. Masa with the Tloeans (SEG 60, 1569, ll. 27-33; 160-150 BCE; see Rousset, 2010, p. 43-50). Relying on the phrasing employed in ll. 27-30 (Τὸ δὲ Μασα̣ ὄρος ἔστω Τλωέων, τὴν δὲ ἐπι|νέμησιν καὶ ξυλισμὸν αὐτοῦ ἐχέτωσαν Τερ|μησσεῖς οἱ πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρό|νον), Rousset maintains that the ownership of Mt. Masa and the right to erect buildings and populate it was assigned to the Tloeans, while the rights of pasturage and wood exploitation were granted to the Termessians exclusively (Rousset, 2010, p. 46).
Cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 214-215.
Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 20-24.
On Bipeiatis in SEG 58, 370, see Thür, 2012, p. 299.
SEG 55, 418, ll. 6-7; SEG 55, 425, ll. 39 (restored), 43-44.
SEG 55, 418, ll. 5-8; SEG 55, 425, ll. 42-44.
Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 120. See, in the same vein, Dixon, 2000, p. 193. Peter Funke has drawn my attention to a passage from a treaty between Acarnanians, Amphilochians and Ambraciotai (I.Mus.Thyrio 2, A, II = SEG 63, 391 [II]; late 4th century BCE) where the parties are likely to agree on the joint exploitation of a sea loch of the Gulf of Ambracia (ll. 8-9: [--- τᾶι δὲ θαλά]σσαι κοινᾶι χρήσθω ἕκασ̣|[τος]; see Funke, Hallof, 2013, p. 58-60). From a legal point of view, however, it is worth highlighting that the applicability of the modern notion of ‘territorial waters’ to the ancient world is a matter of contention among legal historians and, at the end of the day, it appears to be rather problematic (against the elaboration of the notion of territorial waters by ancient jurists, see Purpura, 2008 who convincingly rejects the earlier influential position of Dumont, 1977).
Carusi, 2005, p. 118; Mackil, 2013, p. 317. Although Foxhall, Gill, Forbes, 1997, p. 272 and Dixon, 2000, p. 232 cited Robert, 1960b, p. 159-160 n. 2 for the alleged remains of tuna traps on the Western coast of the isthmus of Methana, I read no clear reference to this in the passage at issue (« … je considère la baie appelée Θυννί à l’Ouest de l’isthme de Méthana comme la persistance des θυννεῖα antiques, de même que le nom du | golfe de droite Steno, conserve un toponyme ancien de l’arbitrage; cela, bien que Θυννί puisse se trouver ailleurs, venant des madragues ou des guettes du thon, et qu’il y ait un cap Thynni à l’Ouest du territoire d’Hermione. »). According to Dixon, 2000, p. 232, however, remains of tuna traps « are still visible to the west of the isthmos itself and I have been told that this is the old method of fishing around Methana ».
Magnetto, 1997, p. 413; cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 215-216.
Rousset, 1994, p. 98-100.
Mackil, 2013, p. 246.
Paus. IV 24, 1 (likely connected to Rhian. BNJ 265 F 40).
Paus. II 30, 6.
Paus. II 35, 2.
Paus. VIII 13, 1.
Arnaoutoglu, 2009-2010, p. 184 n. 10; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526-527.
See for example IG V 1, 864-865 for Βωρθεία (2nd cent. BCE), but also IG V 1, 1277, l. 4 (2nd/1st cent.?) with Buck, 1955, p. 47 (for the compound Λαβίπα).
Polyb. XXIII, 18, 3; XXIV, 1, 6; 2, 4. See Bechtel, 1917, p. 93 for Βίππος < Βί-ιππος (based on βία, « violence »); cf. LGPN III.a s.v. Βίιππος (2nd cent. BCE).
A case in point is again Λαβίπα for Λαβίππα in IG V 1, 1277, l. 4; see Hermann, 1923, p. 187-188; Vessella, 2018, p. 108 and 111.
Hodkinson, 1990, p. 153-154.
IG V 1, 213, ll. 18-22; for a date to ca. 400-390 BCE, see Nafissi, 2013, p. 114-117. For Spartan hippotrophy, see Chandezon, 2014, p. 37-39.
SEG 47, 393; 1st cent. BCE.
Haut de page