Hagnon the Athenian, founder of Amphipolis

The founding of Amphipolis by Hagnon in 437/6 BC gave Athens a stable base in southwest Thrace and
vindicated its struggles over many years. According to Thucydides (IV, 102, 3) an essential precondition for
the settlement of Athenians here was the expulsion of the Edonian Thracians.
In the choice of Hagnon as the oikistes of this region so difficult of access, his strategic abilities were naturally
a basic criterion. He had already distinguished himself in the quelling of the Samos revolt in August
440 BC, and we may assume that he vigorously defended Athenian interests in the Strymon valley and
founded the colony by bringing a large number of settlers there. Indeed, the founding process most probably
included the naming of the city by him (Thucydides IV, 102, 4). In the name Amphipolis' Hagnon
stressed once again the colony's highly advantageous location. Last, a democratic body politic was established,
as was to be expected in a colony over which the metropolis wished to ensure control by all means
(Thucydides IV, 104, 4 and IV, 105, 1).
The worship of Rhesos, which Hagnon instituted in the region, should also be confronted in this perspective.
It was a shrewd adaptation of the traditional responsibility of the founder (to found the official cult oi
the colony and to see to the founding of a sanctuary) to the needs of the day; to justify and consequendy ю
support the Athenians' presence in the Strymon estuary. For this purpose there was manipulation of the'foundation myth', which foresaw the transfer of the hero's bones from Troy to his birthplace, as well as the
founding of a city around his funerary monument. Hagnon does not, however, seem to have linked his entire
life and activity with the colony, as was customary for founders in the Archaic period. His role must
have been limited to the initial stages of its founding and consolidation, and did not entail his 'life-long' residence
there and his continuing defence of it.
3. The tearing down of the 'Hagnonian buildings' and the cult of
Brasidas as founder-hero of Amphipolis
The replacement of Hagnon as oildstes of Amphipolis by the Spartan general Brasidas is an event associated
with the general outcome of the Peloponnesian War in the remote Athenian possessions in the north Aegean.
The apostasy of Poteidaia in 432/1 BC was the first expression of discontent in the Thracian cities,
which wanted to secede from Athens and invited the Spartans to back them. Brasidas appeared as a veritable
saviour of Amphipolis, on the one hand liberating it from odious Athenian tutelage in 424 BC, and on
the other saving it from certain destruction at the hands of the Athenians should they succeed in regaining
it. Indeed he lost his life in this cause.
Thucydides (V, 11, 1) describes in detail the posthumous cult honours accorded to the heroized Brasidas.
He mentions the fencing of his tomb by the Amphipolitans, an action regarded as equal to transforming the
tomb into a 'heroon', as well as the instituting of games and the offering of yearly sacrifices in his honour.
Special mention is made of the instituting of the well-known 'çñùéêþí åíôüìùí', that is the offerings made
to the heroized dead. Moreover, the public burial, which had taken place immediately after the battle and
with the accompaniment of all the allies, in the centre of the agora, constituted the most explicit example of
acceptance of the exceptional deceased and indication of the citizens' fervent wish to maintain constant contact
with him. Anxiety over the miasma was supplanted by the conviction that the man who had strengthened
and protected the colony during his lifetime would continue his protective activity even after death.
So, on the basis of the above, the worship of Brasidas constituted a typical hero cult.
The reasons that led to the ousting of the actual founder of the city by a new 'founder-hero' are explained
lucidly by Thucydides. First of all the Amphipolitans' confessed hostility towards Athens is stressed, which
made the according of honours to the Athenian founder Hagnon not only useless but also undesirable: '...
whereas Hagnon, in consequence of their hostile attitude towards Athens, would not in like manner as before
receive their honours either with benefit to themselves or with pleasure to himself'. The prospect of his
post-mortem heroization would be an emphatic reminder of the city's traditional ties with its true metropolis.
This was possible during the fifth and fourth centuries, since the traditional linking of colonymetropolis
continued, in most cases, to be especially strong, even in the confusion caused to inter-city relations
by the Peloponnesian War. The figure of the founder would stress this link at a religious-spiritual
level, even if the city's political orientation were diametrically opposite.
This was not, of course, only contrary to the citizens' desires for disengagement from Athens, but also
undermined Amphipolis's relations with its new allies. For this reason the immediate dismantling of the 'Hagnonian buildings' was considered expedient, in tandem with the destruction of anything whatsoever in
the city that was a reminder of Hagnon's colonization. This was equivalent to a da.mna.uo memoriae, which
was followed by the heroization of Brasidas.
The criteria used by Thucydides to explain the rendering of honours of a founder-hero to the Spartan
general are analogous to those he used to explain the obliteration of Hagnon: on the one hand political expediency,
on the other public sentiment. So, while the cult of Hagnon was neither 'of benefit' nor 'a
pleasure', the heroization of Brasidas served Amphipolis's new political relations, while simultaneously expressing its inhabitants' common feeling of gratitude. As far as the justification of the event is concerned,
we should not overlook a further decisive factor, namely that it was natural for the belief in the superhuman
protective power that the founder-hero could transmit from his grave to be more fully expressed in
the person of Brasidas. Death had already struck him, and indeed fighting heroically to save the city, while
Hagnon was at this time still alive, which fact made his consecration impossible.
However, in addition to what has already been said concerning the factors that contributed to the wholesale
replacement of Hagnon as founder of Amphipolis by the general Brasidas, we may further suggest that
the rendering of honours of a 'founder-hero' to the man who saved the city expressed the more general inclination,
encountered with increasing frequency from Hellenistic times onwards, to see the salvation of a
city from some danger as essentially equivalent to its refounding.

WORSHIP OF HISTORICAL FOUNDERS

The great colonizing activity of the Greek world in the territory of Thrace began in the seventh century
BC. However, we can assume, on the basis of the sources, that the Greeks' interest in the region dates back
much earlier. Time and again historians have stressed the seminal importance — economic, geopolitical,
strategic - of Thracian territory for the Greek city-states in the period of the great colonization. On the one
hand precisely this importance of the land, and on the other the difficulties the colonists faced in the course
of their venture, gave the event of the colonization a pronounced epic character, which was mainly expressed
in the myth and cult of founder-heroes of the Greek colonies of Thrace.
Such a cult of historical persons who lived and acted - and indeed were distinguished for this action - in
the real, earthly world, set the seal, according to myth, in every outstanding case, on the end of the founding
process of the city. The aristocratic provenance of these figures, at least in the period of the great Greek
colonization (eighth-sixth century BC), determined, to a considerable degree, their selection by the metropolis.
The absolute responsibility the founder bore for the success of the venture, presupposed his selection
from among the pre-eminent personalities of the time, who will have had the necessary tradition of and familiarity
with leadership. Their struggle in the inhospitable environment of the new territory to ensure permanent
settlement, danger-free living conditions and, eventually, profitable exploitation of its resources,
proved difficult and in many cases extremely protracted. So the Greeks' traditional tactic of worshipping as
'founder-hero' the founder of a new city was natural. It is attested in the sources as particularly strong in the
territory of Thrace, as F. Deneken ascertains in Roscher's mythological dictionary. The host of difficulties
and the significance of potential success elevated their endeavour to something more than a hazardous enterprise;
to a heroic act.
In the southern coastal area of Thrace the most important of the cults of this kind were: the worship of
Miltiades the elder in the Thracian Chersonese, the worship of Timesios the Klazomenian. founder-hero of
Abdera, the honours accorded Hagnon the Athenian, founder of Amphipolis, the replacement of the last by
the Spartan general Brasidas and the establishing of a cult in his honour. \*Te shall refer to these in more detail
below. Nevertheless, at this point we should not forget to mention odier figures associated with the
founding of Greek colonies in the territory of Thrace. Specifically particularly rich and complicated are the
traditions concerning the founding of Thasos by mythical and historical members of the family of the poet
Archilochos: by Telles, possibly a mythical genarch of the family, by Telesikles. father of Archilochos. who is
supposed to have led the Parian colonists to the island in 680 BC. and by the poet himself, whose arrival on
the island took place a generation later, in 650 BC. Likewise, during Classical rimes, the outstanding role
played by Damokleides in the founding of Brea in Bisaltia is attested. However, in the famous Erechtheion
decree IG I 45 (see Meiggs-Lewis, 128-133- no. -±9'. that mentions the event, the diverse responsibilities
which were, as a rule, concentrated in the hands of the founder, are presented as shared out between several
persons or groups (apoikistai and genonomoi). Among the founders of Greek cities in Thrace, the Spartan
general Pausanias of Kleombroros should also be cited. According to C.F. Lehmann-Haupts proposed interpretation
of a much-debated passage of Justinus, Pausanias was possibly regarded after 404 BC as the liberator
and re-founder of Byzantion. His hypothetical establisment as founder-hero expressed, in the author's
view, the new political alignments obtaining in the region after the fall of Athenian power; from this viewpoint
his cult appears to be the same as that of Brasidas at Amphipolis, which will be discussed below. Specifically,
after the Athenians' crushing defeat at Aigospotamoi, the capture of Byzantion by Lysander and the
installation of a Lacedaemonian harmost in the city, the inhabitants of Byzantion must have greeted with
enthusiasm their release from the hegemony of Athens. In these historical circumstances, the distant memory
of Byzantion's liberation from the Persian yoke, under the leadership of a heroic Spartan general, was resuscitated
and led to his acknowledgement as 'founder-hero' of the city, so that Sparta was promoted as its
historical metropolis.
Miltiades 'he who founded Cherronesos'
The earliest testimony of the worship of founder-heroes in the territory of Thrace is in Herodotus (IV, 34-
39) and refers to the presence and activity of Miltiades the elder in the region of the Chersonese. It is attested
that Miltiades was invited by the Thracian Dolongi tribe, which was facing intense pressure from the
neighbouring Apsinthes tribe to the north. The Dolongi sent their kings to consult the oracle at Delphi on
the conduct of the war, and they, in response to the Pythia's prophecy, invited Miltiades to the Chersonese.
The Delphic oracle foretold that the Dolongi would invite to their land rhe first man to offer them hospitality
after their departure from Delphi.
The meeting of the tribal representatives with Miltiades the Athenian, who offered them hospitality, fulfilled
the oracle and gave the Dolongi a way out to the request for assistance. Whether the choice of Miltiades
was really a fortuitous incident (as presented in the oracle), or whether it had been decided upon beforehand,
on account of the friendly relations the Philaides had already established with the Dolongi tribe,
is, W. Leschhorn maintains, impossible to answer on the basis of the evidence in the sources. Nevertheless,
he recognizes in the Delphic oracle a symbolic attribution of criteria, on the basis of which 'oikistes were selected
in the Archaic period. Specifically, he argues that the Offering of hospitality', mentioned in the oracle
as a specific precondition for the choice of the founder by the Dolongi delegation, according to the perceptions
of the Hellenic world also encompassed concepts of protection and assistance in time of need. But effective
help can only be provided by a man of considerable influence and power, a person belonging to the
leading aristocratic clans of the city, well-known for their political or military activity, or sanctified by the
laurel crown of the Olympic victor. This was, of course, far removed from a symptomatic choice of
founder. So Miltiades took a band of Athenian volunteers and sailed to the land of the Dolongi, enhancing
himself as master of the region. Indeed those who invited him made him tyrant.
Another important element in Herodotus's narration is that Miltiades did not take at face value what the
Dolongi told him, but sought confirmation that the Delphic oracle was true and had been pronounced
under divine inspiration. This was, in effect, tantamount to a formal sanctioning of his leadership in the
venture to colonize the Chersonese. More specifically, one can say that this tradition, which is frequently
encountered in the foundation myths of the colonies, of a presumed ratification of the person of the
founder by the Delphic oracle, projected him as the god's representative and functionary in the new land.
He was under divine protection and brought the holy commandments and religious traditions of the metropolis
to the colony. Thus he ensured, at a religious and cultural level, the binding of the colony to the
metropolis.
From what has been said above, it is clear that in the Archaic period the important role the founder was
called upon to play began before his departure from the metropolis. Miltiades' aristocratic origin, which is
interwoven with his military and political abilities, and the divine sanctioning of his deeds, which is
crowned by the Delphic oracle, affirm his exceptionally strong position and increased status. All the aforesaid
are presented in the foundation myth as criteria of selection and as guarantees of the success of the venture,
long before its commencement.
The significance of Militiades' colonizing activity in the region of the Chersonese can be understood if it
is assessed in relation to the far more preferable declaration of Athenian interest in a more permanent installation
and control of both sides of the straits of the Hellespont. This becomes clear from two contemporary
events: specifically, the founding of Elaious (second half of seventh century BC) at the southern tip of the
Chersonese, and the Athenians' laying claim, under the leadership of Phrynon, to the Aeolian colony of Sigeion
on the coast of the Troad, and to the Asia Minor entrance to the Hellespont. However, of importance
for our subject is the way this interest in the area was expressed in myth and worship. We are informed unequivocally
by the sources that there stood on both the Thracian and the Asia Minor coast of the entrance
to the Hellespont the sanctuary of an epic hero. According to tradition, after Achilles' companions in arms,
had celebrated the customary sacrifices and games beside his funerary pyre, they marched as far as the Asia
Minor entrance to the Straits, buried the cinerary urn at Sigeion and raised a cairn to commemorate the
event. Furthermore, in the vicinity of Sigeion they built the Achilleion, a sanctuary dedicated to the worship
of the hero.
At his point it is pertinent to mention that the worship of Achilles is frequently encountered in the wider
coastal zone of the northeast Aegean. On the existence of a sanctuary at Sigeion we have clear information
from Strabo (6, 590) and Servius (Virgil, Aenead I, 30). However, the earliest and best known centre of the
cult of the hero was Leuke, an island in the northwest of the Black Sea, in the Danube estuary, for which
there is copious testimony (Alkaios Fr. 48b, Pindar Nem. 4.76, Euripides Andr. 1238 et al.). In addition,
the epigraphic material from the neighbouring region (C.Ï.G. 2076, 2077 and 2077c), specifically from the
islet in the mouth of the Borysthenes, as well as from Pantikapaion (Strabo 6, 494), mentions the worship
of the hero. This cult obviously developed in these regions on the basis of the heroic personality of Achilles,
as known from the Iliad.
On the opposite side of the Hellespont, however, at the edge of the Thracian Chersonese, was the tumulus
and sanctuary of the hero Protesilaos (Herodotus VII 33, Thucydides VIII 102, Pausanias I 34, 3, Lucian
De Deor. Cone. 12, Philostratos Heroic. 289, Pliny N.H. 16.88). The two facing tumuli of the epic heroes
and the mythological tradition accompanying them, must have been very important because they certified
the long-existing presence of the Greeks in this region that links the north Aegean with the Propontis. \\ å
cannot determine exactly the period in which the above myth and cult were developed, and so cannot elucidate
whether the Athenian colonizers of the region played a role in the process of their formation. However,
we can suggest that this process is clearly post-Homeric and seems to be associated with more general Greek
endeavours to explore the terra incognita of the northeast shores of the Aegean, the new seas of the Propontis
and the Euxine Pontus, and subsequently to colonize these. And even if it was not the Athenians under
Phrynon who established the cult of the Homeric heroes in this region, it is certain that they consolidated it
and kept it alive for many centuries.
Miltiades' activity in the region was beneficial from many aspects. The inhabitants of the Chersonese, being
exposed to a host of dangers from neighbouring tribes, must have welcomed with relief him and the colonists,
who came to bolster the country's population. The fortification of the pass between Paktye and Kardia
with a rampart, so as to stem the incursions of the Apsinthes, was Militades' first task on arrival in the
land. It is characteristic of the importance this wall acquired for the defence of the area, that it was rebuilt
at least three times in antiquity, by Pericles (Plutarch Per. 19) in 447 BC, by Derkylidas (Xenophon Hell. 3,
2, 8-11) in 394 BC and by Diopeithes in 343/2 BC. Furthermore, the repeated installation of colonists
from metropolitan Greece around this, the narrowest, part of the Chersonese, shows that it never lost its
primal defensive importance. Miltiades' exploitation of the natural geographical configuration of the region
was truly a stroke of genius. In the colonization of the Chersonese Miltiades proceeded to the settlement of
colonists and the founding of new cities at different points in the region. According to the testimony of
Pseudokymnos (698 ff, 711 ff.) he re-founded Kardia, while he founded Paktye, Krithote and the city of
Chersonesos — somewhere on the periphery of the fortification wall, between Paktye and Kardia (Stephanos
Byzantios, Chersonesos = Hekataios, FGrHistl, Fr. 163). From the above synopsis of the many-sided role
the founder of the colony played in the new territory, the according of established honours to Miltiades as
founder-hero can be understood.
Of importance for our subject, however, are certain distinctive peculiarities of the cult of the founder in
the region of the Thracian Chersonese. It is, first of all, worth mentioning that the inhabitants of Lampsakos
were strictly excluded from expressions of worship in the hero's honour, including the holding of games
with naked youths and horse races upon his tomb, because that city was considered responsible for
Miltiades' death (Herodotus VI, 38). At this point we cannot help but recall the case of the cult of Abderos.
from which horse races were excluded because that hero was pulled to pieces by the steeds of Diomedes.
And here, by way of parenthesis, we mention, relying on the above correlation, that the irrational element of
the pulling to pieces and the consequent exclusion of horse races from the cult of Abderos had a clear historical
substratum in the already existing tradition of the cult of actual founder-heroes. In this respect the hypothesis
that will be presented in the relevant section below, is confirmed; namely that the cult of eponymous
founder-heroes was developed later and on the basis of the worship of the actual founders of Greek
cities.
Also characteristic of the cult of Miltiades is the fact that it was not associated with just one city, as was
usually the case. On the contrary, the inhabitants of all the Greek cities founded or refounded by Miltiades
in the Chersonese participated in it. We do not, of course, know the precise political regime existing
between the Greek cities of the region. However, the presence in the sources (Herodotus VI, 38,1) of'men
of the Chersonese' as a single entity, has led scholars to various hypotheses concerning the nature of the relations
linking the cities of this region. Some scholars speak of a military alliance, while others refer to a kind
of amphictyony or simply to the existence of a common religious life based on some unifying cult. In each
case, of course, whatever the nature of the relationship linking these cities, the recognition of Militades as common founder-hero and the general participation in his cult, is a reminder of the historic besinnineï of
Greek cities in the Chersonese and emphasizes the consciousness of their historical unity.
Indeed we venture to suggest, on the basis of Miltiades' manifold beneficial activity in the Chersonese,
that the men directly favoured by his presence there, that is the members of the Thracian Dolongi tribe- will
have accepted his cult by the Greeks of the region and will have happily participated in the according of
honours to the hero. Such a suggestion cannot, of course, be verified, since it is not attested in the sources.
However, with the cult of Miltiades in the Chersonese the concepts of the Hellenic world concerning heroes
were made known in Thrace for rhe first time. The subsequent peaceful relations between Greeks and
Thracians must have been a favourable factor for the assimilation of religious traits by the natives. At the
same time, we should not underestimate the role played in this direction by the continual invigoration ot
the Greek element in the Chersonese through the successive waves of colonists from metropolitan Greece.
Specifically, in 437 BC Pericles installed Athenian colonists in the cities of the region in order to provide
backup for the expeditions carried out by the Greek navy in the Propontis and the Euxine Pontus during
that year. In 394 BC Derkylidas moved Spartan colonists to the region, who settled in the existing cities
and were given fertile land for cultivation, while in 343/2 BC the Athenians sent colonists to the Chersonese
under the leadership of Diopeithes.
However, in addition to Miltiades' beneficent activity in the Chersonese and the peaceful coexistence of
the Greek and Thracian populations there, a third important factor which we assume contributed to the acceptance
of this cult by the Thracians was the very nature of hero worship, which had far more psychological
mainstays than worship of the gods. It was based on the mutually conflicting feelings of love and fear
incited by the dead; on the one hand the sense of loss, the remembrance and the desire for communication,
and on the other the abhorrence and the anxiety over the miasma brought by contact with the dead. From
this viewpoint the heroes were much closer to man than the distant heavenly gods. They were a part of his
society.
So we must suppose that the rituals and the annual festivals in honour of the founder-hero were born of
the need of the society he founded to feel his protective energy even after his death. In particular, when we
have a hero of the stature and influence of Miltiades, we can suppose that the Thracians of the Chersonese
will have accepted such a cult, which appealed directly to human psychology and ensured social security.
The heroized founder, having been an ordinary man in the past, shared human hopes and fears, while at the
same time, elevated to the divine sphere, constituted an authority beyond the human, capable of returning
to the side of the living and of intervening for their redemption.

MYTH AND CULT OF FOUNDER-HEROES IN THE GREEK COLONIES OF THRACE

Study of the disparate evidence concerning the personalities of founder-heroes of the time of the great
Greek colonization (eighth-sixth century BC) and the Classical period, as well as of the mythical founders of
colonies, reveals that the founder of a colony was regarded as a person of decisive importance not only for
its 'founding' but also for maintaining its subsequent cohesion and existence. Narratives concerning the
provenance of his lineage, his social status in the metropolis, his outstanding deeds during the founding of
the colony and, last, the honours he received for this benefaction, display, as a whole, a markedly epic character.
These narratives are, of course, frequently much later than the event of the founding, and the personal
myth of the oikistes is constructed not only on the basis of his actual activity during the birth of the colony,
but also, on the colony's recurrent need for symbols of social solidarity and self awareness throughout its existence.
The public worship of the founder-hero, as a collective and periodically repeated cult of the Greek
city, ensured the common memory of the original event in its existence, the colonizing venture. This, of
course, operated in two directions: on the one hand it stressed the provenance from and the ties of affinity
with metropolitan Greece, and on the other it played a determinant role in the formation of a collective
consciousness of the city's singularity, individuality and autonomy. In hostile and inhospitable lands in particular,
as was Thrace, which were conquered after protracted and bloody struggles against the natives, this
need was naturally heightened. In such places the founder constituted an enduring symbol of cohesion between the metropolis and the
colony. It was he who had brought the gods and their worship, the customs, very often the social structure
and the institutions. Just how important his person was for the colony-metropolis relationship is clear from
Thucydides' testimony (I, 24, 2 and VI, 4, 2) that when one colony founded a new one, according to ancient
custom it did not choose a founder from the body of its own citizens but invited someone from its
metropolis. As is attested, at least for the Athenian colonies, the founder was responsible for transferring the
sacred fire that burnt in the prytaneion of the Greek cities, as well as for performing the inaugural sacrifice
that marked the commencement of life in the new place. This fact constituted explicitly for the colony a
symbol of continuity and participation in the collective life and the traditional values of the metropolis. It
officially defined worship in the new city and determined the positions of its sacred places and temples. In
this respect the founder represented not only the secular political and social institutions, from which his experience
derived, but also the religious and ritual ones.
The sacred relationship with the divine element, which the founder had forged in the course of his life
and through the aforesaid activities, was presented in the context of the foundation myth of the colony as an
adequate exegesis for the instituting of his posthumous worship. The numerous foundation myths of
colonies preserved in the sources present the founding of the new city as a holy process, sanctioned beforehand
by the Delphic oracle. During this first phase of colonizing activities the founder is projected not as a
chance emissary of the metropolis, whose leadership role was additionally sanctioned by the oracle, but
more as the direct bearer of the divine command in the new lands, endowed with a special 'charisma', who
was specifically and exclusively destined to interpret the obscure Apollonian prophecy indicating the geographical
location of the new city.
Nevertheless, though in antiquity the narratives concerning the participation of the Delphic oracle in the
colonization bore the prestige of most ancient myths of sacred content, historians date them not earlier than
the fifth century BC, while their value as a historical source for the early years of Greek colonization is dubitable.
Removed in time from the actual event to which they refer, they are not distinguished for their reliable
historical content; far more, they develop an important historical event in time periods much later than
it (which, moreover, cannot be precisely defined) on the basis of the well-known free inspiration of Greek
mythological tradition.
The personal myth of the founder, in the framework of the foundation myth of the colony, consequently
comes after his actual act, as does the establishing of his cult; it constitutes in part an etiological myth, based
on pre-existing worship. The founder's activity in the new land, a primal and definitive event for the history
of the city, is within the sphere of the heroic; divine inspiration as an element of his personality is considered
a criterion for the success of his mission and offers, at a mythological level, an explanation for the
according of posthumous honours. Nevertheless, the institution of the cult of the founder-hero does not
find a satisfactory historical explanation in the foundation myth of the colony. Fundamental to a fuller
understanding of it is its inclusion in the framework of the long-standing religious traditions of the Greek
cities.
We known that the religion of the city was basically collective, a religion which preserved social solidarity.
In this context the public cult of the founder emphasized, as we have already remarked, the traditional links
of the colony with the metropolis. In parallel, however, since the person of the founder was inextricably
linked with the original event of the founding, and his cult, in contrast to the rest of the cults the colonists
brought with them from the metropolis, was appropriate to the colony, it constituted the first truly independent
cult in the colony. From this viewpoint it stressed the city's special identity and the internal ties of
its society.
In the light of the above function of the cult of the founder in the context of Greek urban religion, we are
able to understand to what degree the institution displayed conespondences with the cult of tke remote aneesxQt?,,
xW 'Wtoas pxog&fvYXo'K , o�’ xW iitfmVy, vW „ƒ„]„t\, xW xxvW. S^ed�’vcai\^, tke. Vasx, t\\to\x%\\ tke. tesi ot
fictive (contrived) ties of affinity they consolidated, constituted symbols of social unity and stable reference points which could be resorted to in order to recognize the identity and the cohesive bonds of a wider social
group. So, the institution of the cult of the founder and its function in the society of the colony can only
be understood if these are assessed in relation to the wider framework of Greek urban religion, which had, at
a much earlier date, acknowledged common 'ancestors', 'archegetes', 'progenitors', embraced them and promoted
them from the sphere of private to public worship.
In the case of Thrace too, this Greek institution preserved, as we shall see below, very ancient memories
and traditions of religious and political life of the Greek city. The historical activity of the founders in Aegean
Thrace, truly arduous in most cases, and as such made mythical and elevated to the sphere of the heroic,
constituted a nucleus and a starting point for the development of the personal history of the colony. The
city grew up around the tomb of the founder at the centre, it acknowledged him as its hero-protector and
the original event of the colonization as the supreme benefaction. Characteristic of the importance attached
to the founder's act in the common consciousness of the colonists is the outstanding instance of Timesios
the Klazomenian, who was worshipped as founder-hero of Abdera, not by the Klazomenian colonists whom
he had led, but by the Teian colonists who refounded Abdera in 545/4 BC. Herodotus (I, 168) clearly
stresses that the reason for this cult was none other than the respect for the sacrifices Timesios had made in
his first successful colonization, when he thwarted the resistance of the local Thracian tribes. Through the
worship of the Klazomenian founder, the Teian colonists acknowledged this story as the prehistory of their
own settlement, thus indirectly emphasizing their own anxieties and struggles during the 'founding' of the
colony.
So, in Thrace too the worship of the founder, local but with long roots in the traditions of metropolitan
Greece, emphasized in tandem with the Greek character of the new city, its separate history and autonomy
in relation to the motherland, but mainly in relation to the native inhabitants. In this respect it created a
collective consciousness of unity and contributed decisively to maintaining the strength and continuity of
the colony's life.

THE MACEDONIAN CONQUEST AND THE HELLENIZATION OF THRACE

The Macedonian conquest of Thrace was mainly achieved in two phases: in 356 BC with the incorporation
in Macedonia of the Thracian territory between the Strymon and the Nestos, and in 342 BC with the
vanquishing of the kingdom of the Odrysae, as far as the Haimos mountains.
In 356 BC Philip II of Macedon (357-338 BC) took advantage of the invitation of Krenides, a Thasian
colony on the north slope of auriferous Pangaion, to expand his kingdom eastwards. He despatched new
settlers to the city, which he renamed 'Philippi'. This is the first instance in Greek history of the naming of
a city after a mortal, a habit which was to prevail in the period of Alexander the Great and the Diadochi.
After the peace of Philokrates (April 346 BC) and the subjugation of Phokis (July 346 BC), Philip concentrated
on the securing of his borders: in the spring of 344 BC he campaigned in Illyria and in the summer
of that year imposed a new regime in Thessaly. Having signed a treaty with Persia around the middle
of 343 BC, guaranteeing his eastern frontier, he campaigned in Epirus in the spring of 342 BC. There he
placed Alexander I, brother of his wife Olympias, on the Molossian throne, but failed to capture Ambrakia
(Arta) because of decisive Athenian resistance. In July 342 BC, in order to secure his northeastern border, Priijr Turned r^» irricrjoni :: - пгьсс-, жтг-сг: -STÜ ~rn -O-os-c-v eer-ineen: on Macedonia. The intervention
of ~c 'Ck—.":" -L·.-;. Kerszc-Lecrr-i 5:^-5^1 3-C . in ~.t neLpLrounr.:;: Greek cities r_-:nishcd the pretext
::: bis nivss;: -. t m г race or me M^eec: n_zn тггяг. .rrr·;. >: η me ne:r :: Arr.ico·:·:'?. an old allv of Phil-
_r *:ded Ά-ίάι hi? old ~ν£ Ke::-:r'i-c-ces. Зс.: ~c ~«x . nriciin _eacer? were in no rwirion to confront
Philips rorces. Nevertheless. IT. е concruesT. :: mi» VL?: :e~:crv ^ii neimer c ui ек nor without considerable
loss of life. Philip only achieved his goal me ::„:~л—г vrir: ne еетгг-пе-с пк Odiysian .riders Kersobleptes
and Teres. organized Thrace from the Xesro-s го me Euime ?:ηη_ί ΐί λ Macedonian province, entrusted its
administration to a strateeos — after the mode, of the Reraan satrapies—, and forced his Thracian subiects to
par an annual tax and to provide military detachments for the Macedonian armv. The manpower and rbe
resources of Thrace, not least its mineral wealth, significantly increased Macedonia's power. In order to consolidate
his s;ains Philip founded a series of fortified cities in the conquered land. The Κίηε of the Getes.
Kothelas. who reigned in the territory between the Hebros and the Danube, lost no time in making overtures
of friendship to Philip, cemented by him giving his daughter Medas as wife. The subjection of the
Thracians to the Macedonians was a heavy blow for the Athenians, whose power and ven" survival, as we
have stressed, depended on the control and possession of the Hellespont. Just as Lysander had overthrown
Athenian power at Aegospotamoi, so Philip attempted to deal the final blow to Athens in 340 BC, by capturing
Perinthos and Byzantion; he failed in this venture because his fleet proved inferior to that of the
Athenians, but in the battle of Chaironeia he finally neutralized the Athenian presence in the Chersonese.
Very important for the long-term effect of Philip's move was the colonization of conquered Thrace. In
this land, populated 'in unwalled villages' (komas), Philip founded cities (or installed new inhabitants in existing
cities) in key locations from a strategic and economic viewpoint. As Diodoros comments, Philip 'εν
τοις έπικαίροις τόποις κτίσος αξιόλογους πόλεις, έπαυσε του θράσους τους θράκας' (16,71,2). It was
:nen that he founded Philippopolis (341 BC), which has been the largest city in the Upper Hebros valley
ever since, and to this day has kept the name of its founder. He co-founded (synoecism) Kabyle and other
cities in which he himself installed, or allowed the installation of Greeks, mainly from Macedonia but from
central and southern Greece too. He also settled there inhabitants of the Greek cities of Chalkidike, which
he had destroyed (e.g. Poteidaia and Olynthos), whom he banished to the Macedonian frontier or the interior
of conquered regions. In at least one of these cities, Kabyle, the sources mention that he settled the
'worst and the most ill-bred' or 'those accused by cunning ... slanderers, perjurers and their cousel, and the
others knavish as two thousand'. The rural regions of the conquered territory were divided into lots, large
estates, which were granted to Macedonian nobles. The moving of entire populations, which was not without
precedent, seems to have taken place on the basis of a methodical and well thought out plan that aimed
at the permanent control of Thrace and laid the foundations for its Hellenization.
A characteristic example of the penetration of the Greek language and Hellenic civilization to the interior
of Thrace is the Thracian city of Seuthopolis. Situated beside the river Tonso (present-day Tundja), eight
kilometres west of the present town of Kazanlak, approximately 80 kilometres west of Kabyle and 100 kilometres
northeast of Philippopolis, Seuthopolis was discovered by the Bulgarians in the course of constructing
a dam on the river Tundja and excavated between 1948 and 1954. It was not known of from the ancient
sources. The excavations revealed its walls with bastions and gates, the streets of regular plan, the agora
with a sanctuary of Dionysos, the ruins of its buildings. Seuthopolis had all the typical features of a Hellenistic
city: the regular 'Hippodamian' town-plan with a system of wide, parallel streets intersecting at right
angles, with the agora in the city centre, the accomodation of all the houses in the grid and full drainage
svstem. Also found in the excavations were approximately one thousand coins: 800 or so are of the King of
the Odrysae Seuthes III (post-324 BC), the earliest are of Philip II and of Alexander the Great, and the
latest of Demetrios II of Macedon (239-229 BC).
In the reign of Philip II a burnt Thracian village of unknown name existed on the site of Seuthopolis; here
Seuthes III built a city, which he named or renamed Seuthopolis, as was the custom of kings-founders of
cities of the Hellenistic period, inaugurated by Philip, and made it his capital. The city was captured and destroyed (by flooding and, in the first half of the third century BC, by fire); later it was partially rebuilt,
and was finally abandoned in the late third century BC. From the fact that the numismatic finds are no
later than this period, it is deduced that its desertion took place in the reign of Demetrios II and was perhaps
due to the invasion of Thrace by barbarian tribes from the North (Dardanians) at the end of his reign
or the beginnning ofthat of Antigonos III Doson, circa. 229 BC. In any case Demetrios was slain in battle,
in 229 BC, fighting the Dardanians.
Also found at Seuthopolis was a very important Greek inscription of the late fourth century BC, one of
the earliest epigraphic texts, if not the oldest, from the Thracian interior. It contains the oath sworn by the
members of the Thracian and Macedonian dynasties, and which stipulates that the inscription be incised on
marble stelae to be set up at Kabyle, in the Phosphorion (that is the sanctuary of Artemis Phospohoros) and
near the altar of Apollo in the agora, and at Seuthopolis, in the sanctuary of the Great Gods and near the altar
of the sanctuary of Dionysos in the agora. This text indicates that the Hellenization of this region took
place earlier than was previously thought. The use of the Greek language for compiling public documentsinscriptions,
the worship of Artemis Phosphoros and Apollo at Kabyle, and of the Great Gods, the Kabeiroi,
and Dionysos at Seuthopolis, had already diffused to the upper echelons of Thracian society and from the
urban milieu passed to the rest of the country. If all this seems natural for Kabyle, where Philip had installed
a Macedonian military colony, for Seuthopolis, a city founded by Seuthes, it presupposes a profound
Greek cultural influence from the outset. It is certain that the royal lineage of the Odrysae - with many
family ties, at least from the fifth century BC, with the Greeks, ally (and for intervals enemy) of Athens -
which had subjugated a large number of Thracian tribes and local rulers and had united Thrace, not only
used the Greek language for the administration of its kingdom, but also as a unifying element for the Thracian
tribes and as a means of association with Hellenism, to which they were ambitious to belong as equal
members. Everything shows that the founder himself, the Odrysian King Seuthes, like his ancestor, had a
Greek education.
The induction of Thrace into the kingdom of Macedon was not, however, permanent and it soon acquired
its independence. Already after the victory at Abdela (331 BC), and while Alexander the Great was
advancing into the depths of Asia, the revolt of the strategos of Thrace, Memnon, temporarily threated
Macedonian sovereignty there. The vassal king of the Odrysae Seuthes III took part in the uprising (330
BC); he was subjugated by Antipater, but circa 324 BC, after the defeat of the Macedonian general Zopyrion,
gained his independence, only to lose it to Lysimachos. In 313 BC, as an ally of Antigonos, he defeated
Lysimachos, but it seems in the end he submitted.
Not long after the battle of Kouropedion and the death of Lysimachos (281 BC), the Gallo-Thracian state
of Tylis was formed in Thrace, as a consequence of the Gaul invasion of Greece (279 BC). It extended into
northwestern Asia Minor. Nevertheless, the Macedonians contributed decisively to the Hellenization of
Thrace, by founding Greek cities (such as Philippopolis) and by recruiting Thracians into the Macedonian
army.
The linguistic Hellenization of Thrace south of the Haimos is apparent from the fact that the overwhelming
majority of inscriptions in the region, most of them dating from the time of the Roman Empire, are
Greek; very few are Latin inscriptions, written by Romans. There are less than a dozen extant epigraphic
texts written in the Thracian language with the Greek alphabet, while the Greek inscriptions found in the
sector of Thrace that is now Bulgarian exceed 2300, published in the corpus by G. Michailov, Inscriptiones
Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. In Thrace - apart from Scythia Minor (Dobroudja) and Moesia Inferior,
which had been Romanized - of a total of 5427 inscriptions, about 83% are Greek and the remaining 17%
Latin. The relatively high percentage of Latin inscriptions is due to the existence of Roman coloniae. Thus
in the coastal region between the Strymon and the Nestos, about half the inscriptions found are Latin, because
they originate from Roman colonize.
Another manifestation of the Greek presence in the Thracian interior - one which is concomitant with
the creation and development of cities as state organizations - was the introduction of the system of theGreek my-stiic- eve- m me г«ег:ое ос me CVir^iar. kir^com. - r.e evidence available tor the earlv period is
sml ms'umciem :-:r :_ί re r:rm λ eLtir :m::r_ "i-memt: me. m "'-mi: eiren: me introduction of the political
STrsrem oi the cirv-iiiie ire. me mfmmmmi :: -r;e;sir_T ermmi, is irrestec ,?v me inscnptionf in the whole
of the Trmiciin inrsncc i~c zee :'usc m me :_e _-:rri e-jcmei :r me mmmi. eone. The :г„--г_-о.15 ос the
Greii JIT"." £u.esj ос гглс cezi-e. r»:-u_c :r irenczj :-зегь:ес ^.^".-'"•"ηΐ'Γί,. 7Ъ± ге^п:'Г_= ГЧГГА"С£Г. me ciiies of
^ r_~2.;s iüc crue сгсггя- i_m:n7^r ТЪг2г:2п. Wicrein^n :r Rim^n "arere rrs-eisc-v ceirmincc. ü '.vert тле
relanons :: mr rmc-ï τ»~τ~ ·~ ιζί rrimr^v:г-; :: "; г^г^гпл~; «id.;:::rru ine me rvcrrmr: ^~r:ri. A ^лга-
c.in air; wnetöcc :: ^Ί^ί in c.c Orri·«: j:.:r/·" :: i d'n m m; г__п:сГ-^Г-С_ m n·: "n"2v cmrerec rrom ine eines
cc Greeee- Aiii Minor me me EÜI, Tbe s^me msnr-rfcT-i- me iemie irenoni zeeurrec r.-er.Tsiiere. In the
inscriptions ·:;: rraJanotipolis Ί-Γ or Acrlar.: _r:..; tor ехат^-с. eine? ;·: . r.nee rouncec z*v _:e:2e: me. Hidrian
respceiiveiv. on me >:rei of еяг.:ег cities, we encounter me bouJe, m^e cerr.e m^e: is me em-Lif.i :<: the
deme1- the archons. j us τ AS we «io in eines in Greece. The HeUenization of Thrace is particularly obxious in
the rime of the Roman Empire- not onlv ш political organization but also in religion aund worship. In this
sector too we see the same gods and the same cults, parallel with local peculiarities, as are in anv case observed
in all lands of the Hellenistic world, and later in the Roman Empire.
Of course the largely Hellenized Thracians retained many of their Thracian names, as well as their cults.
Thracians are found with Thracian nomen and Greek patronym, or vice-versa, until the fourth century AD.
This does not of course mean that the}' had Thracian ethnic/national consciousness, nor the contrary, because
the continuity of names in families according to geographical regions is a phenomenon unrelated to
national consciousness. However, we should not forget that it is very dangerous to transfer to antiquity, and
indeed to the Roman imperial period, both in pagan times and during the promulgation of Christianity,
today's concepts of the nation, national consciousness and ethnicity. But, the domination of the Greek language
in Thrace south of the Haimos, if it was not total was at least very advanced in the Roman imperial
period. Thus the Romans, who Romanized Thrace north of the Haimos, were obliged to accept in Thrace
south of the Haimos the Greek language and Greek institutions, that were deep-rooted.

ATHENIAN RELATIONS WITH THE KINGDOM OF THE ODRYSIAN THRACIANS

In order to secure control of the Chersonese and the Hellespont, the Athenians sought the support and alliance
of the Thracians, and developed amicable relations with their kings - primarily of the Odrysae, who
were the most powerful. The Odrysian kings responded favourably to Athenian overtures, because with the
Athenian League they consolidated their position in their realm and entered into favourable economic relations
with the Athenians and their allies. In order to give these ties of friendship and alliance an ideological
investment, the Athenians and the Thracian kings used the method usual at the time: they interpreted, according
to current political interest, an ancient myth, or devised a new one extolling the affinity and friendship
between cities or peoples. So, when the Athenians cemented an alliance with the King of the Odrysae
Sitalkes, in 432 BC, they resorted to the myth of Tereas, leader of the Thracians dwelling in Phokis, who
married Prokne, daughter of Pandion, King of Athens. Though Thucydides expresses his reservations, theAthenians accepted the myth of their kinship with the mythical kings of the Odrysae. Thus, according to
Xenophon, the King of the Odrysae Seuthes considered Odrysians and Athenians kinsmen and friends: 'êáé'
ãáñ on óõããåíåßò åúåí åúäÝíáé êáß ößëïõò åßíáé Ý'öç (ü Óåýèçò) íïìßæåéí'.
This mythical kinship was continuously renewed with marriages and sodality: Seuthes declared that he regarded
as brothers the Greek mercenaries who were to serve in his army and promised to make them commensals;
that he would give his daughter to Xenophon and would buy Xenophon's daughter to take to wife,
according to Thracian custom; and that he would cede Bisanthe (i.e. Rhaidestos) to him.
From the late sixth and the early fifth century BC common interests led the Greeks - particularly the
Athenians — and the Thracians to forge family ties: Miltiades married Hegesipyle, daughter of the Thracian
King Oloros. Her Greek name indicates that Thracians were already giving Greek names to their children
at that time. The historian Thucydides was the son of Oloros, grandson of his namesake the Thracian king,
and married a Thracian woman who had gold mines and estates at Skapte Hyle. It is possible that Themistokles
had a Thracian mother.
Since Athenian policy in Thrace remained stable throughout the fifth and fourth centuries BC, until the
battle of Chaironeia, relations on a personal and familial level continued, particularly with the Odrysian
royal house: Sitalkes (440-424 BC), son of Tereos, founder of the Odrysian dynasty, married the sister of
Nymphodoros from Abdera. His nephew and heir, Seuthes I (424-410 BC), married Stratonike, sister of
King Perdikkas II of Macedon (450/440-413 BC). This marriage is in fact one of the first manifestations of
the antagonism between Athens and Macedonia over Thrace and the Hellespont. Nevertheless, Athenian
influence continued at the court of the Odrysae. Circa 376 BC the Athenian general Iphikrates married the
daughter of King Kotyos (384-360 BC) and the son born of their union, Menestheus, became strategos of
Athens in 356/5 BC. Kotyos's son and heir, Kersobleptes (360-341 BC), married his sister to Chardemos,
the Euboean commander of the mercenaries, whom the Athenians had registered as an Athenian citizen for
his services to the city and had twice elected as strategos. In 356/5 BC Kersobleptes is known to have had
four sons, two of whom, lolaos and Poseidonios, had Greek names. The royal family's example was followed
by the nobles and other Thracians. In the framework of the generally good relations between the
Athenians and the Thracian kings, are the honours that the deme of the former accorded the latter: the political
rights of an Athenian citizen to Sitalkes (perhaps before or about 432 BC), to his son Sardokos in 411
BC, to Ebryzelemes in 386/5 BC, to Kotys (between circa 480 and 365 BC) and to Reboulas, son of one
Seuthes (perhaps Seuthes III) and brother of another Kotyos (pre-330 BC).

THE ATHENIANS IN AEGEAN THRACE THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ATHENIAN LEAGUE

Unlike Chalkis, Eretria and Miletos, Athens did not embark on colonization at an early date. Athenian
colonization commenced towards the end of the second colonization and its persistent objectives were the
control (or occupation) of the Hellespont and the gold-bearing region of Pangaion in the north Aegean.
The principal reason for this delay was the more general retardation of Athens in the sector of economic
development, in trade and manufacturing. Athens' turn towards colonization is in absolute predictable relation
to the simultaneous retreat of the rural economy, the flowering of trade and manufacturing and the
spread of coinage.
So the Athenians, much delayed, circa 600 BC, became active colonists and came, for the first time, to the
shores of the north Aegean (Thrace, the Hellespont, the Troad), to secure control of the Hellespont and
communication with the Euxine Pontus, and to exploit the gold mines of Thrace.
In 607 BC the Athenians embarked on their first colonization expedition. Led by the Olympic victor
Phrynon, they settled an advantageous site for shipping on the Asian side of the Hellespont, at Sigeion, on
the coast of the Troad, opposite Elaious and the southern cape of the Thracian Chersonese. Sigeion had already
been colonized in the eighth century BC by Aeolians from Lesbos, and there was a consequent clash
between the Athenians and the Mytilenians. Circa 600 BC a temporary solution was found for this war,
with the arbitration of Periander. The Athenians retained Sigeion and the Mytilenians Achilleion, a naturally
fortified site that excluded the Athenians from the entrance to the Hellespont. In any case, the Athenians
lost Sigeion not long afterwards.
Peisistratos took the initiative of giving the great colonizing impetus for Athens to gain control of the Hellespont.
He encouraged Miltiades the elder, son of Kypselos and uncle of the homonymous victor at Marathon,
to found the Athenian colony in the Thracian Chersonese, circa. 550 BC, following a prophecy of the
Delphic oracle. Miltiades captured Isthmos, surrounded it with walls, colonized Krithotes, Paktyes and Kardia,
and united the whole of the Chersonese into a city-state that, after his death, worshipped him as an
oikistes. Later, circa. 532/1 BC, Peisistratos himself established a new colony, at Sigeion, installing his son
Hegistratos as governor. Sigeion remained under the control of the Peisistratids until at least 510 BC, as indicated
by the fact that Hippias sought refuge here after his fall. These two expeditions, of Miltiades the
elder and Peisistratos, were evidently connected and aimed at the same objective. Included in this effort
to gain control of the straits of the Hellespont, as well as the supervision of Sigeion, was the founding of
cleruchies in Lemnos and Imbros by Militiades the younger, who succeeded his uncle, Miltiades the elder,
in the tyranny of the Chersonese.
Peisistratos, again on his own initiative, during his ten-year exile (that ended with the battle of Pallene in
546/5 BC?), colonized Raikelos, in the northwest Chalkidike, on the coast of the Thermaic gulf. Here he
gathered the inhabitants of the nearby villages into one settlement. Later he settled in Thrace, close to
Mount Pangaion, and grew rich from the exploitation of its gold mines. These were personal ventures of
Peisistratos, which were, nevertheless, beneficial to the Athenian economy. The Athenians abandoned the
Chersonese, Sigeion and Lemnos on account of the Persian campaigns in Thrace, but returned to these regions
after the Persian Wars.
The control and occupation of the gold-bearing region of Pangaion was a persistent goal of Athenian colonization
policy throughout the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Thus, after the Persian Wars the Athenians
made repeated efforts settle in this region. Kimon, Miltiades' son, captured Eiono on the Strymon eastuary
in 476/5 or 469/8 BC, and founded a colony there. But the following year the Athenians were destroyed by
the Thracians at Ennea Hodoi.
A new Athenian attempt to settle in the region, in 484 BC, after the naval battle of Eurymedon and the
apostasy of the Thasians, did not have a positive outcome. After the capture of Ennea Hodoi, 10,000 colonists (Athenians and allies) who settled at Drobesko (or Drabesko), in the interior of the same region, were
also decimated by the Thracians. In 447 BC the Athenians established cleruchies in the Chersonese, on
Lemnos and perhaps on Imbros. Circa 445 BC they founded the colony (or cleruch) of Breos, on an unknown
site, perhaps in the territory of the Bisaltian Thracians; in 437 BC Amphipolis on the site of Enne;
Hodoi, with Hagnon, father of Theroumenes, as its founder (ktistes); in 435/4 BC they perhaps insiruted a
cleruch at Astakos on the Asia Minor soil of Byzantion; at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, in -i2C|
BC, Poteidaia (after its capture); in 421 BC Skione. The Athenians also sent lot-holders to Thrace in the
fourth century BC: to Poteidaia in 362/1 BC, to Sestos in 352 BC, to the Thracian Chersonese in 353-2
and 346 BC (or 342 BC), to reinforce their stand against the Macedonian threat.
The influence of Athens on the north Aegean coast was not confined to its colonizing activity alone.
With the setting up of the First Athenian League, immediately after the Persian Wars, in 478 BC, Athens
essentially assumed responsibility for the protection of the Greeks living outside the narrow limits of mainland
Greece, in the North (northern shore of the Aegean) and the East (Asia Minor littoral). The League
had soon enrolled most of the cities of the coast and the Aegean islands. Haifa century later, circa 425 BC,
it included over 400 cities. From its fiscal lists the names of 248 member cities are known, which paid taxes
to the League's treasury between 454/3 BC (when the treasury was transferred from the temple of Apollo
and Artemis on Delos to the temple of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis) and 415/4 BC. These lists do
not preserve the names of all the cities that participated in the League (for they have not survived in toco)
and did not include the cities that did not pay tax but supplied warships and crews (Lesbos, Chios and Samos).
From these lists we learn not only many of the cities-members of the Athenian League and their annual
monetary contributions to its treasury, but also its extent and administrative division, which after 454 BC
was into five districts known as 'phoroi. For these reasons the lists constitute a unique source on the historical
geography of the ancient Greek world.
The Greek cities of the coasts of Thrace and the neighbouring islands were subject to two fiscal districts,
the Thracian phoros, which included 62 cities, and the Hellespont phoros, which included 45 cities. Of
these 45 cities, 14 were in European Thrace: the other 31 were in the Troad and the Asia Minor coastal
zone the Hellespont and the Propontis. Consequently the total of Greek cities of Thrace known from the
fiscal lists is 76 (14 in the Hellespont phoros - from Alopekonnesos to Byzantion - and 62 in the Thracian
— from Methone to Ainos) and represents over 30% of the total of cities attested in the fiscal lists. This
number does not include the Athenian colonies or cleruchs exempted from paying tax to the League. More
specifically, the Thracian phoros included five cities west and south of Chalkidike, 48 in Chalkidike and
nine east of the Strymon; on the European coast of the Hellespont phoros were six cities in the Hellespont
and eight in the Propontis. The list of members of the Second Athenian League, founded in 378 BC, preserves
the names of 57 cities. Diodoros estimated the total as 70 and Aischines as 75. It should be noted
rhar most of the cities in Chalkidike did not participate autonomously in the Second Athenian League, because
in the early years of the fourth century BC they had formed the Chalkidike Confederacy (Koinon of
Chalkidians), with Olynthos as capital. The Chalkidike Confederacy joined the Second Athenian League
under the name 'Chalkides from Thrace', which name underlines the fact that in the fourth century BC,
Chalkidike still belonged geographically to Thrace, and not Macedonia.

THE COLONIZATION OF THE THRACIAN LITTORAL

The colonization of the shores of Thrace was achieved during the second colonization in the north Aegean
(from the Thermaic gulf to the Hellespont), principally by the lonians. The two large Ionian cities of Euboea. Chalkis and Eretria, as well as the two major Ionian islands, Andros and Pares, founded colonies
west of the Nestos; the lonians and Aeolians of the Asia Minor cities founded colonies east of the Nestos.
The Milesians, who almost exclusively colonized the Euxine Pontus, founded most of their colonies on its
Thracian seaboard, from the Propontis to the Danube estuary.
The reasons for the colonization of the northern shores of the Aegean were the same as those for colonization
in general; in addition, the Greeks were particularly attracted there by the coastal plains rich in cereals.
From these coastal colonies the Greeks were able to trade with the Thracian hinterland, where there was
considerable agricultural production, to exploit the silver and gold mines in Mount Pangaion and to fell the
forests that yielded timber suitable for shipbuilding. It was from these colonies on the Thracian shores of
the Aegean and the Black Sea that Hellenism's linguistic, cultural and economic penetration of Thrace was
achieved, a slow process which lasted several centuries and which resulted not only in the Macedonian conquest
of Thrace but also, primarily, in its gradual induction into the ambit of the Greek world and Hellenic
civilization.
The Greeks of southern Greece evidently took advantage of the lull in resistance of the Thracian tribes, instigated
by the advance of the Hellenic tribes towards Lower Macedonia, and founded a series of colonies on
the Thracian shores of the Aegean. Circa 750 BC, some fifty years before the founding of the kingdom of
Macedon by the Temenids (early seventh century BC), the Eretrians founded the earliest Greek colony in
the north Aegean, Methone, on the west coast of the Thermaic gulf, near Eleftherochori, about 45 kilometres
from Aigai (Vergina), the first capital of the Madeonian kings. They were followed by the Chalkidians,
who founded Pydna on the coast of Pieria, in the western part of the Thermaic gulf and south of the
Haliakmon. East of the Axios, in the creek of the Thermaic gulf, lonians, most probably from Euboea.
founded Therme, more or less on the site of Thessaloniki.
Chalkis and Eretria founded colonies even further east, in the Chalkidike peninsula that lies between the
estuaries of the Axios and the Strymon, possibly from as early as the eighth century BC. The Chalkidians
colonized Sithonia (Torone). Strabo mentions that in the land of the Thracian tribe of Sithonians alone,
the Chalkidians founded around thirty cities. For this reason the peninsula was named Chalkidike, as early
as the fifth century BC. Among these Chalkidian cities were Sermyle on the gulf of Torone and Torone on
the gulf of Sithonia. The Chalkidian colonies mainly remained small farming settlements. Olynthos (near
present-day Myriophyto) was an exception. A small town before the Persian Wars, in 432 BC it received
the inhabitants of approximately thirty cities (synoecism) and became the largest city of Chalkidike. From
the fourth century BC it was capital of the Chalkidike Confederacy.
Poteidaia, the sole Corinthian colony in Chalkidike, founded circa 600 BC by Periandros, also developed
into a large city, retaining close ties with its metropolis. Poteidaia dominated the entire western part of
Chalkidike, thanks to its extremely favourable location on the isthmus of Pallene (of the western peninsula
of Chalkidike), for which reason it played a significant role in the history of Hellenism in the region.
Next to Chalkis, Eretria founded more colonies in Chalkidike than any other city: in the Pallene peninsula
Mende, Skione and Aphyte, and in the Akte peninsula (Athos peninsula) six cities in which the Greeks
lived peacefully together with the earlier inhabitants, Pelasgians and Thracians, who also spoke Greek, as
Thucydides, who calls them 'bilingual barbarians', attests. Circa 650 BC the Andrians established colonies
in eastern Chalkidike, Akanthos and Stageiros, and even further east, beside the Strymon, Argilos in the
land of the Bisaltian Thracians.
Further east, the rich region of the Strymon estuary and Mount Pangaion was full of Greek colonies. In
general the Thracian population accepted peaceful coexistence with the colonists, as Herodotus attests (V.
23). This does not, of course, mean that there were no cases of resistance. Circa 680 BC the Parians, led by
Telesikles, father of the poet Archilochos, colonized Thasos, where they at first encountered intense hostility
from the Thracian tribe of Saians. The colonists put down the resistance and also settled on the opposite,
mainland coast of Thrace (peraia), seeking as always gold and silver. So they founded Galepsos, Oisyme
and Strymne, the last in the foothills of Ismaro. In the same region Chians founded Maroneia.
Abdera, on the Nestos estuary, was colonized for the first time in 654 BC by Klazomenians, who were
soon expelled by the Thracians, and a second time, in 545 BC, by Teians from Asia Minor. The colonies
east of Abdera were almost exclusively founded by lonians and Aeolians from Asia Minor. From Greece
only the Megarians took part in the colonization of this region. On the estuary of the Hebros Aeolians
from Mytilene and Kyme in Asia Minor founded Ainos.
In the Thracian Chersonese (Chersonese of Kallipolis) Greeks founded several colonies in the early fourth
century BC; Xenophon speaks of'eleven or twelve'. The main ones were: Kardia, a colony of Miletos and
Klazomenai (sixth century BC); Elaious, a colony of Teos, at the tip of the Chersonese; Sestos, a colony of
Miletos; Krithotes and Alopekonnesos, colonies of Lesbos (675-650 BC). In 560 BC the Athenians, led by
Miltiades the elder (circa. 590-pre 547 BC), conquered the whole of the Thracian Chersonese and settled it
with Athenian colonists (Herodotus VI, 34-38). A persistent aspiration of the Athenians from the time of
Peristratos to the battle of Chaironeia (479-339 BC) was the control of the Chersonese and the Hellespont.
In order to ensure the food supply for their city and to tax the merchant ships, they continually despatched
garrisons and trieremes to this vital region, and on two occasions installed military colonies, cleruchies (of
lot-holders), in 447 BC(?) in the Chersonese and in 352 BC at Sestos. On the European shore of the Propontis
the Samians founded Perinthos, circa 600 BC, Bisanthe (Rhaidestos) and Heraion Teichos, and the
Megarians Selymbria (670 BC) and Byzantion (663 BC).
Both the arachaeological finds and the myths indicate that the Greeks had sailed to the Euxine Pontus, the
Hospitable Sea as it was euphemistically called, as early as the second millennium BC. However, only in the
period of the second colonization, the seventh century BC, did they return to the region to settle permanently
and to found a series of cities along the length of its shores.
On the west and northwest coast of the Euxine Pontus, south of the Istros (= Danube), the Greeks founded,
from south to north: Apollonia (610 BC), Anchialos (after Apollonia), Mesembria (510 BC), Odessos
(present-day Varna, 575 BC) and Istros (625 BC), in the northernmost sector of Thrace, a short distance
from the marshy delta of the Danube, the terminus of the major riverine route linking the Euxine Pontus
with Central Europe. Most of the colonies were founded by Milesians. Byzantians and Chalkedonians established
Mesembria, and Megarians of Herakleia Pontos Kalates.
The end of the second colonization, circa 500 BC, coincides with the major crisis suffered by Hellenism
as a result of the rise of the Persian Empire in the East, and with the efforts of the Carthaginians and the
Etruscans to stem the expansion of Hellenism in Magna Graecia. The Greeks' victories in East and West
saved Hellenism from subjugation and constituted the starting point of Hellenization, not only of the Thracians
of the coast and of northwest Asia Minor (Bithynians and Mysians), but also of the hinterland.
After the Persian Wars, other equally decisive factors were added to the cultural influence of the colonists:
— the continual Athenian political and military presence on the shores of the north Aegean during the
fifth and fourth centuries BC (first and second Athenian League), mainly manifest in Athens' effort to keep
the Hellespont and the Bosporos, vital for its interests in the region, under its control,
- and, primarily, the conquest of Thrace by the Macedonian kings, the setting up of the Thracian strategia
(342 BC), which extended as far as the Haimos mountains, the settling of the heartland of Thrace and
the creation of urban centres in the Hellenistic period.