Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:41:36.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The chronology of the Eponymous Archons of Boeotia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Christina Barratt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE office of Federal Archon was apparently created in the League which was revived and reconstituted by Thebes after her liberation from Sparta in 379. Like the archons of the individual cities, the federal archons seem to have had little power; as Swoboda points out, the fact that their seat was not in Thebes but in Onchestus 4 shows that their functions were chiefly ceremonial. This explains why the Boeotarchs but not the archons of Boeotia are frequently mentioned in literature. The archons are, however, important as being the eponymous magistrates of the Boeotian League. From the revival of the League soon after 379 on into Roman times federal documents are generally, and documents of individual cities often, headed with the names of archons of the League.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 1932 , pp. 72 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There is no inscriptional evidence for the existence of the office earlier than this, and the silence of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, together with its use of as synonymous with forbids the assumption that archons existed at the period with which the treatise is concerned. Cf. Walker, E. M., The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, p. 135Google Scholar.

2 Swoboda, H. in Hermann's, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, I. 3, p. 253Google Scholar.

3 Swoboda, l. c. p. 279.

4 I.G. VII. 27, 28, 209–212, 214–218, 220–222, 1747–8, etc.

5 In this paper the Boeotian forms of the names of archons have usually been adopted. But in dealing with inscriptions from the Amphiaraum at Oropus I have used the forms current in that place. Both forms are given in the index; and except in the case of called in the they are so nearly alike as to be recognisable without difficulty.

6 I.G. VII. 251–258, 273–278, 289–296.

7 Used by Acraephia, Hyettus, Copae and Chorsiae.

8 Used by Thespiae.

9 Polybius XXIX, 24. vi.

10 Swoboda, op. cit. p. 364.

11 I.G. XII. 7, 515.

12 I.G. IX. 2, 1109.

13 I.G. IX. 1, 694.

14 BCH. XXIII. 193, i. and 200, viii.

15 I.G. VII. 2815, 2825.

16 BCH. XXIII. 204.

17 IG. VII. 2813.

18 IG. VII. 293 and Ἐφημ. 1892, 38, no. 65.

19 XX. 6, 8.

20 Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. IV. ii. 434Google Scholar.

21 Beloch, op. cit. 433.

22 REG. XIII. 187 ff.

23 The order may be

24 I.G. VII. 247; the name of is restored in IG. VII. 300, where is again mentioned as priest.

25 IG. VII. 255, 273, 278.

26 IG. VII. 271–278. These are the inscriptions on the monument of All the inscriptions on this monument must obviously be later than the archonship of in which had been priest of Amphiaraus.

27 Διόδωρος was priest of Amphiaraus when χαρίδαμος was archon of the Boeotian League (v. IG. VII. 239). But the inscriptions on the base of the monument of Cn. Calpurnius Piso show that the priesthood of Διόδωρος was later than the archonship of Νικίας The following table will show the arrangement of these inscriptions; the Roman numerals represent the order of engraving according to Holleaux, (REG. VIII. 193 ff.)Google Scholar: Left column.

I. Νικίας, (Ἐφημ. 1892, pp. 33, 62)Google Scholar.

II.? (Ἐφημ. 1892, pp. 33, 63).

III. Δαμόριλος, (Ἐφημ. 1892, pp. 33, 69)Google Scholar.

IV. Δαμόφιλος, (Ἐφημ. 1892, pp. 33, 65)Google Scholar. Priest of A. Ἐπικράτης. Centre of stone.

V. (Priest of Amphiaraus, Ἀσώπων). IG. VII. 269Google Scholar.

Right column.

VI. Ἀφημ. 1892, pp. 33, 66. Centre of stone (under V).

VII. (Priest, of Amphiaraus, , Διόδωρος.) IG. VII. 270Google Scholar.

28 IG. VII. 2813, 2821.

29 IG. VII. 295, 296.

30 IG. VII. 293, 294.

31 IG. VII. 289–292.

32 REG. VIII. 183 ff.

33 Ἀφημ. 1892, 38, no. 65 and IG. VII. 293.

34 v. Dittenberger's note ad IG. VII. 3180.

35 v. p. 76 (A).

36 v. p. 76, note 27.

37 IG. VII. 27 and 28.

38 IG. VII. 310, 312.

39 IG. VII. 2821, 2822.

40 GDI. 2565.

41 Gr. Gesch. IV. ii. p. 400. Pomtow, in his last arrangement of Delphian archons, fixed Nicodamus', date as B.C. 254 (Klio, XVIII, p. 308Google Scholar).

42 IG. VII. 2817.

43 IG. VII. 2821.

44 IG. VII. 2810.

45 IG. VII. 2816, 2812. ‘Ἀρτιούλας’ is the Boeotian form for the ‘Ἀρτύλαος’ found in the inscriptions from Oropus.

46 IG. VII. 2816, 2813.

47 IG. VII. 2816, 2809, 2813.

48 It is no obstacle to the proposed arrangement that 2815 and 2816 show for the letters e, ϵ and σ the forms derived from the cursive (ϵ, с,ω), while 2813 and 2814 have Ε,Ξ,Ω; for at Hyettus these forms are found in the same inscription (IG. VII. 2822, the second half having the cursive forms, the first the more ordinary ones).

49 IG. VII. 2810, 2829. It is safe to accept Perdrizet's identification of the archon of this Hyettian inscription with the archon of his sixth list of Acraephian ephebes (BCH. XXIII. 198), who held office between B.C. 221 and 214 (v. p. 75); Pappadaki in 1923, 217 vouches for the name and names occurring in the inscription show that it must be assigned to just about this period. For instance, is archon here and under (IG. VII. 2816) and secretary in the first year of office of and are polemarchs here and in the second year of (IG. VII. 2815); is probably the brother of who was an ephebe in the year of (IG. VII. 2814).

50 IG. VII. 2819.

51 IG. VII. 308.

52 v. pp. 86–87.

53 IG. VII. 254.

54 IG. VII. 276.

55 Die städtischen und Bundesbeamten des griechischen Festlandes vom 4. Jahrhundert vor Chr. Geb. bis in die römische Kaiserzeit, p. 26.

56 IG. VII. 2821.

57 IG. VII. 2826; v. pp. 75,87.

58 B.C. 196–189 (c.); v. pp. 88–93.

59 IG. VII. 2819, 2824.

60 IG. VII. 2810,2817.

61 IG. VII. 2816, 2826.

62 IG. VII. 2814, 295, ΔἘλτ. 1923, 205.

63 REG. XIII. 187 ff.

64 BCH. XXIII. 199, vii and viii.

65 P. 76.

66 IG. VII. 2813–2816.

67 v. infra.

68 Ἐφημ. 1892, p. 46, nos. 76–78, IG. VII. 245–247.

69 IG. VII. 272, 255.

70 v. Dittenberger, ad IG. VII. 3178Google Scholar.

71 IG. VII. 2809, 2813, 2816.

72 IG. VII. 3178, 3173.

73 IG. VII. 2830, 2810.

74 IG. VII. 2830, 2820; v. pp. 86, 87.

75 IG. VII. 2830, 2816, 2812, 2824.

76 IG. VII. 3173.

77 IG. VII. 2819, 2815.

78 IG. VII. 2819, 2814.

79 IG. VII. 2819, 2817.

80 IG. VII. 2813.

81 IG. VII. 2823.

82 IG. VII. 2815.

83 v. p. 74.

84 The archon of IG. VII. 222; his name is lost.

85 GDI. 2565.

86 op. cit. IV. ii. p. 399 ff.

87 IG. VII. 2718, BCH. XXIII. 198, no. vi.

88 BCH. XXIII. 193, i v. p. 93.

89 l.c. 202.

90 IG. VII. 2820, BCH. XXIII. 198, no. vi.

91 IG. VII. 2812, 2811.

92 IG. II. 966, 968.

93 BCH. XXI. p. 106, no. ii.

94 IG. II. 966 b, IG. IV. 1408.

95 SIG. 1076, AM. XX, p. 414, n. 1.

96 Antigonos Gonatas, p. 55.

97 op. cit. IV. ii. pp. 409 and 412–413.

98 Ἐρηυ. 1919, p. 82.

99 IG. VII. 2811, 2822, 2823; v. p. 94.

100 IG. VII. 2811, 2824.

101 IG. VII. 2812, 2822.

102 Pol. V. 97–100. Livy, XXVIII. 7, x.

103 Pol. IX. 18.

104 Pol. IX. 41.

105 Livy, XXXI. 46.

106 Pol. XVIII. 3, 38.

107 Pol. V. 99, iii.

108 op. cit. IV. ii. 412–413.

109 SIG. 539 = B.C. 216 (Pomtow).

110 SIG. 564 = B.C. 201, H. v. Gaertringen, 205 (Pomtow).

111 Klio, XIV. p. 202 = B.C. 202 (Pomtow).

112 Philol. LXXVII. 199–206.

113 Pol. XVIII. 3. xii; Livy, XXXII. 33, xvi.

114 Livy, XXXII. 4.

115 Livy, XXXVI. 14. xii–xiv.

116 Livy, XXXII. 13. xiv.

117 Livy, XXXIX. 26. ii.

118 SIG. 523, 538, 553.

119 SIG. 564; GDI. 2529.

120 SIG. 539, 603 E; GDI. 2529.

121 SIG. 523. 538.

122 Hermann, , ZNum. XXXII. 33–47Google Scholar.

123 GDI. 2138.

124 Thaumaci, as captured by the Romans in 191, would be forfeited by the Aetolians under the terms of the treaty of 189 (Livy, XXXVI. 14, XXXVIII. 11); Xyniae was captured and retained by Philip.

125 Pol. XVIII. 3. xii, 38. iii; Livy, XXXII. 33.

126 Pol. XVIII. 38. iv–v.

127 Pol. XVIII. 47. viii; Livy, XXXIII. 34. vii.

128 Pol. XVIII. 47. ix; Livy, XXXIII. 34. vii.

129 Pol. XVIII. 47. x–xi.

130 Livy, XXXIX. 25. viii–ix.

131 Livy, XXXIII. 5. i.

132 IG. VII. 2812, 2816, 2830.

133 IG. VII. 2813, 2823.

134 BCH. XXIII, p. 197 ff., nos. v, viii, i; v. Pappadaki, , Δϵλτ. 1923, 217Google Scholar.

135 v. p. 105.

136 IG. VII. 2818, 2823.

137 IG. VII. 2816.

138 IG. VII. 2819.

139 IG. VII. 2814, 2827.

140 IG. VII. 2820.

141 IG. VII. 2823.

142 IG. VII. 2822, 2827.

143 IG. VII. 2822, 2823, 2811, 2812, 2817.

144 IG. VII. 2818.

145 IG. VII. 2815.

146 IG. VII. 2824, 2822.

147 IG. VII. 2824, 2821, 2811.

148 IG. VII. 2824, 2814, 2820.

149 IG. VII. 2819, 2824.

150 v. p. 105.

151 BCH. XXIII, p. 198, vi.

152 Mnemosyne, XXVII.

153 IG. VII. 2720.

154 IG. VII. 4135–4142; BCH. XIV. p. 28 ff.

155 IG. VII. 263; 319–321.

156 Published by Wilhelm, , AM. XXII. p. 179Google Scholar.

157 De architectura Graeca, p. 15.

158 Head, , Coinage of Boeotia, pp. 88–92Google Scholar; Catalogue xliv ff.; Historia Numorum, p. 353.

159 Livy, XLII. 46.

160 IG. VII. 4130.

161 IG. VII. 2822.

162 IG. VII. 2810.

163 IG. VII. 2814.

164 IG. VII. 2823.

165 IG. VII. 2824, 2814.

166 The name is restored for-ΤΕΑ

167 Hermes, XXIV. p. 636.

168 Plutarch, , Pelopidas, XXXVGoogle Scholar.

169 op. cit. p. 219.

170 SIG. 3 509.

171 Eretria was at the same time a member of the League; Holleaux, , REG. X. 157Google Scholar.

172 Diod. XX. 100, v, and vi.

173 From the period when Chalcis belonged to the Boeotian League comes IG. XII. ix. 912, probably a military list of Chalcis; it is headed

174 SIG. 3 366.

175 Rev. Phil. XXXVII. 262.

176 Klio, XV, p. 5, xxxiv.

177 Jahrb. Phil. 1897, pp. 748, 786.

178 Atti R. Accad. di Torino, 1914, p. 685.

179 Justin, XXIV. 1. i–v.

180 Beloch, op. cit. IV. 1, p. 250, n. 1.

181 Ἐφημ. 1919, p. 54, nos. 98–103.

182 These two inscriptions are all but identical copies of the same decree.

183 BCH. XVI. pp. 466–470.

184 REG. X. p. 178.

185 SIG. 417–419; Klio, XIV. p. 282; Klaffenbach, , Klio, XX. p. 76Google Scholar; Beloch, op. cit. IV. ii. 431 ff.

186 BCH. XIX. p. 332, no. vi.

187 AJA. XIX, p. 445.

188 Plut., Sulla, XXVIGoogle Scholar; Strabo, IX. 405; Paus. XXIII. 7, XXIV. 5.

189 IG. VII. 4137.

190 SIG. 3 424.

191 IG. VII. 4261 and Ἐφημ. 54, no. 99.

192 BCH. XXVI. 250.

193 SIG. 3 482.

194 IG. IX. i. 270.

195 Dittenberger reads but Leonardos in 1919, 79 maintains that the first letter of the word is and a mere stonecutter's mistake for

196 It may, however, be noted that IG. VII. 3068 has the form and that hitherto it has been doubtful whether this form occurs before the middle of the third century. The inscription from Copae, which is apparently the earliest of the inscriptions in which it is used, cannot be dated exactly (IG. VII. 2781); v. Buttenwieser, op. cit.; Sadée, op. cit. 22.

197 IG. 4260, 280.

198 IG. VII. 281, 282, 273.

199 IG. VII. 1735.

200 BCH. XIX, 311.

201 BCH. XXIII, 197, no. iv.

202 IG. VII. 2720.

203 BCH. XXIII. 193, no. ii.

204 BCH., p. 195, no. iii and 193, no. i.

205 BCH. XXIII. 198, no. vi.

206 IG. VII. 2718.

207 BCH. XXIII. 193, no. ii.

208 IG. VII. 3206.

209 Mnemosyne, XXIX. 281.

210 To get over this difficulty, Van Gelder suggests that the three polemarchs who are mentioned in so many of the public documents of Boeotian towns are not the polemarchs of the individual cities, but of the League!

211 Pappadaki, , Δϵλτ. 1923, 200Google Scholar.

212 IG. VII. 3172; also 3173, 3181, 3178.

213 Lolling's readings show that Holleaux was mistaken in saying that the inscription contained no patronymic adjectives.

214 The first letters of the name are lost; Dittenberger restored in any case it appears improbable that the name can be as Holleaux thought.

215 IG. VII. 333 and 335, 342, 348 and 366.

216 Σπίιθαπος held office at least two years later than Ἀσώττων, i.e. than B.C. 209–207 (v. IG. VII. 263–265; Ἐφημ. 1892, 50, no. 79); since all the priests of Amphiaraus for the years between B.C. 207 and 202 are known, he must have been after B.C. 202. Ὀλύμπιχος was later than Σπίνθαρος, (IG. VII. 340, 341)Google Scholar. Μολοττός; was earlier than Σπίνθαρος; (IG. 335, 331), but no long interval can separate them, since decrees from both years occur in the series on the monument of Curio, (IG. VII. 337–343)Google Scholar; these inscriptions give the impression of having been engraved at the same period, and are further bound together by the repeated mention of Πύθων and Ἀρίστανδρος Καλλιγϵίτονος as proposers. Ἑπμοκράτης was about the same period as Ὀλύμπιχος, since Πλουταρχίδης Φιλΐστου moved decrees under both (IG. VII. 360, 361, 343), and Πύθων Καλλιγϵίτονος proposed the decree which is engraved immediately before those from the year of Ἑρμοκράτης, (IG. VII. 357)Google Scholar. Thus it seems likely that all these priests held office at the beginning of the second century.

217 IG. VII. 338, 357.

218 BCH. XXIII, p. 588.

219 IG. VII. 3166.

220 op. cit. I, p. 241.

221 IG. VII. 1672.

222 Buttenwieser, op. cit.

223 BCH. XXIII. 199, no. vii, 200, no. viii.

224 BCH. XXIII. 197, no. v, 200, no. viii.

225 IG. VII. 2810, 2826.

226 BCH. XXIII. 193, no. ii, 198, no. vi.

227 IG. VII. 2811, 2812, 2822, 2823.

228 IG. VII. 2819, 2815.

229 BCH. XXIII. 198, vi; IG. VII. 2718.

230 IG. VII. 2817, 2819.