No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The federal constitution of Keos
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 October 2013
Extract
No fewer than three of the inscriptions in the second volume of Dr. Tod's Greek Historical Inscriptions are directly concerned with Keos, and this encourages me to hope that he may find interest in this investigation. It arises from an inscription from Ioulis, published by Dunant and Thomopoulos, which is a close parallel to IG xii. 5. 594 (GHI 141), the sympolity-treaty between Keos and Hestiaia. It is nearly certainly a treaty with Eretria. It raises several interesting problems, but I should principally like to draw attention to the remarkable federal constitution of Keos which the two inscriptions taken together reveal.
I repeat the new text for convenience with some slight alterations. It is stoichedon, uses ο for ου, but the letter-forms can hardly fix it closer than 390–340.
This confirms Hiller's view that thesmophylakes and not nomophylakes were mentioned in ll. 4–5 of the old inscription and makes it necessary to restore there [καὶ Χῶρον] in l. 6. Dunant and Thomopoulos give a revised text of ll. 3–11, but the unevenness of their line-length and the three later places in the old text where omission of words has been assumed make me wonder whether the whole inscription should not be restored with a rather longer line. There are, however, some lines which are hard to expand, and I offer no solution.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1962
References
1 BCH lxxviii (1954) 316–22 (SEG xiv. 530).
2 The last thorough discussion seems to be that by Swoboda, , SB Wien 199, 2 (1924) 42–50Google Scholar. I do not note all points of disagreement.
3 Op. cit. 319 (SEG xiv. 531).
4 So also Szanto, , Die griechischen Phylen 49Google Scholar, but omitting Koresia, not Poiessa.
5 For this question, nothing necessarily turns on the date of the accession of the three cities. But I have to record provisional disagreement with Woodhead, (AJA lxi (1957) 371–3)Google Scholar and Sealey, (Phoenix xi (1957) 104–6)Google Scholar, who place this group of names as having been brought in by Timotheus in 373. As they have both pointed out, the argument that this group of names preceded the Zakynthian entry is invalid and indeed probably wrong. Nevertheless, there seems to be a strongish argument against 373. No one will doubt that the Kean entry was made at the same time as that of Andros (l. 112). In Skirophorion 374 the Delian amphictyony was reorganized and enlarged to readmit Andrian amphictyones beside the Athenians, (GHI 125. 57 ff.)Google Scholar. I find it very hard to believe that Andrian entry to the Confederacy followed this reorganization by a full year.
6 See GHI ii, p. 183.
7 Cf. Musée Belge xxv (1921) 111. Swoboda thinks them compatible with a sympolity. But with a unified federal state?
8 Hdt. viii. 1.2, 46.2; GHI 19; Paus. v. 19.
9 SIG 3 1057 is naturally relevant here, but it is not a contemporary document. Koerte, (Hermes liii (1918) 118)Google Scholar puts it c. 400, which suits my argument well.
10 Robinson, E. S. G., Hesperia Suppl. viii. 329.Google Scholar
11 iii. 198.
12 Swoboda (p. 43) denies the conclusion from GHI 125 and thinks the the entries might have been combined when the accounts were put on stone, a procedure which seems neither useful nor likely.
13 ἀπάρχεσθαι might be more reconcilable with χόρους;. Cf. Robert, , Études épigraphiques et philologiques 38–45.Google Scholar
14 Strabo 448.
15 IG xii. 5. 540 and 1061. See Pridik, , De Cei insulae rebus 59 ff.Google Scholar
16 Busolt–Swoboda, , Griechische Staatskunde 363–4.Google Scholar
17 IG xii. 9. 207. 59.
18 IG xii. 9. 2. 2.
19 IG xii. 9. 11 passim.
20 IG xii. 9. 191.
21 Hesperia xvi (1947) 114–46.
22 AM lix (1934) 73; Hesperia v (1936) 273 ff.; IG xii, Suppl. 549.
23 δῆμον is, of course, equally possible epigraphically.
24 Thuc. viii. 95.
25 Wallace, , The Euboean League and its Coinage 1 ff., 72 ff.Google Scholar
26 Paus. x. 9. 10; GHI 94 g.
27 The date of this alliance is still unfixed. All that Thuc. viii. 95 shows is that Athens did not lose Hestiaia-Oreos in 411. Lysander would certainly have restored the Hestiaians in 404, though there is no direct evidence in Xenophon or Plutarch. But they may have managed to return earlier. IG xii. 9. 187A and 188 present an interesting epigraphic phenomenon. They are by the same stonecutter (see IG xii. 9, Tab. I), but by the time he comes to cut 188, he has lost or broken the tubular drill he used to cut the circular letters of 187A. The date of 187A is certainly 411; I would not put 188 many years later.
28 If Dobree's conjecture in Dem. xviii. 96 is right, as seems almost certain, Demosthenes asserts the presence of a Spartan harmost in Keos in 395. This raises no difficulties.
29 Cf. Κεφαλλήνων Πρῶννοι (ll. 107–8) and Ζακυνθίων ὸ δῆμος ὁ ἐν τῶι Νήλλωι (ll. 131–4). But perhaps there is an implied contrast with Poiessa.
30 Hesperia viii. 14 n. 1, ix. 322. Swoboda ends by giving the federal state a brief career in the 340's, largely by searching for occasions when Hestiaia, the partner in the old sympolity-treaty, was hostile to Athens.
31 The numerous Κεῐοι in Delphic accounts present no obstacle, for the way an individual describes himself abroad is not evidence. I do not think that any of them can be proved to be later than 357, but it would not matter if they were. Swoboda agrees that they are irrelevant.
32 This paper owes a great debt to T. B. Owen for general discussion and the removal of much doubtful matter.