Download pdf - Where did the Alkmaionidai Live?

Where did the Alkmaionidai Live?Author(s): C. W. Th. EliotSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 16, H. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 279-286Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434989 .

Accessed: 21/09/2013 16:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:03:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434989?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


WHERE DID THE ALKMAIONIDAI LIVE?

In my book Coastal Demes of Attika I referred briefly to a "theory, admittedly speculative, that one of the aristocratic families that lived at Aigilia was the Alkmaionidai."' Two reviewers have reacted adversely to this suggestion," and to them, as well as to others who may share their doubts, I owe an explanation of my proposal, one that I still hold but would rephrase thus: "a theory, admittedly speculative, that the Alkmaionidai in the sixth century lived in the district of Anavyssos, probably at Aigilia."

The amended theory is very simply the product of three assumptions: i) the inscribed block from the base of an archaic grave-monument in

memory of Kroisos came from Aigilia or nearby; ii) this Kroisos was a member of the Alkmaionid family; iii) a study of the politics of the mid-sixth century confirms the appropriate-

ness of an Alkmaionid residence in the Paralia. i

The exact finding place of the Kroisos base will never be known with cer- tainty, as is so often the case with marbles exploited by dealers in antiquities. The general location, however, can be easily defined, notwithstanding a welter of unreliable evidence. The New York kouros, the Munich kouros, the New York-Berlin stele, the Anavyssos kouros, the Kroisos base, and the kouros named Aristodikos, as well as other archaic material, were all found in the district of Anavyssos.3 More detailed proveniences have been published for some of these pieces: the Munich kouros is said to have been found "in der Deme Anaphlystos, an dem heute Vlachika-Mandria genannten Ort ;"4 according to one source the Berlin fragments of the New York-Berlin stele were discovered "in der Gegend des Olympos in Suidattika;"5 and the statue of Aristodikos is definitely known to have come from Olympos.6 Of the remaining three, the

1 C. W. Th. Eliot, Coastal Demes of Attika (Toronto 1962) 74 n. 21.

3 D. M. Lewis, Gnomon 35 (I963) 724, and L. F. Janssen, Mnemosyne SER. IV, i8 (1965) 446. Despite their gentlemanly warnings, I persist, in part encouraged by Miss L. H. Jeffery's independent "guess" that Kroisos was an Alkmaionid ("The Inscribed Gravestones of Archaic Attica," BSA 57 [1962] 144).

* Jeffery, ibid. 143-146, under the rubric "Anavyssos, Phoiniki, Olympos," the same area that I refer to by the less detailed title of "the district of Anavyssos."

4 Ibid. 145, from a note supplied by Dr. Diepolder. ' C. Blumel, Slaatliche Museen zu Berlin, Katalog der Sammlung antiher Skulpturen II, x

(Berlin-Leipzig 1940) 8. I Ch. I. Karouzos, 'ApLtc68txoq (Athens I961) 5.



280 C. W. TH. ELIOT

finding place of the Anavyssos kouros only can be determined with any degree of confidence. "Today, there is a remarkably consistent tradition held by those who live near Olympos and Anavyssos that the Anavyssos kouros was unearthed near Olympos ... probably a little east and south of the village."7

The Anavyssos kouros is now handsomely mounted on the Kroisos base, an association denied by the original owners of the stone. They claimed the base for the New York kouros, near which, they declared, it had been found, although earlier they had merely said that it belonged to one of the two kouroi discovered about the same time, that is, to either the Anavyssos or the New York kouros. But their various statements were conditioned more by a desire to sell the base than by a respect for archaeological fact. That the Kroisos base ever supported the New York kouros was deemed most unlikely as soon as the inscription was seen.8 On the other hand, a consideration of "the marble, the proportions, and the date,"9 and of the circumstances of finding make the display of the Anavyssos kouros upon the Kroisos base "most likely.""0 There is therefore a correspondingly equal likelihood that the Kroisos base came from near Olympos within the deme of Aigilia.

To summarize the argument so far: the Kroisos base came from the district of Anavyssos, probably, though not certainly, from near Olympos.

ii

The Kroisos base carries the following inscription:

xxr-& xoc? &xrtpov Kpo(aou 7racp& "- Ia &v6v'oq, h6v 7to'-'&vl 7cpoCaXoL xeae &oiUpoq "Apij.

Who was this Kroisos who fought and died in the front line of battle, and was buried in the district of Anavyssos, probably at Olympos? His sudden death (or, more accurately, the inscribing of the base"1) occurred in the second half of the sixth century, probably within the third quarter,12 when Kroisos, to judge

7 Eliot, ibid. (n. i) 71. 8 This summary of the problem is based on two fundamental articles: A. S. Arvanito-

poulos, "'Ar'Lxcdt 17rLypocoal 14," flo)UIOV 2 (1934-I938) 8i-88, and G. P. Stevens, E. Vanderpool, and D. M. Robinson, "An Inscribed Kouros Base," Hesperia Supplement 8

(I949) 361-364; see also Jeffery, ibid. (n. 2) I44. 9 Jeffery, ibid. (n. 2) 144. 10 Karouzos, ibid. (n. 6) 68: "Tnvcv&rcxro." 'I The appearance of the word 7ro'ri in the epigram should warn us that there may have

been a lapse of time between the circumstances of the death of Kroisos and the erection of the grave-monument, at least in the mind of the author of the epigram. For a discussion of the use of 7to't* in some inscriptions of later date, see H. T. Wade-Gery, "Classical Epigrams and Epitaphs," JHS 53 (I933) 7I-82, particularly 76-77. But see also G. M. A. Richter (Kouroi2 [London I960] iI6), who feels that in the case of Kroisos an assumption of "an interval between death and monument" based on Wade-Gery's interpretation of nrOT is "incapable of proof."

1a Jeffery, ibid. (n. 2) 144 and iIi. She has assigned the Kroisos base and several other bases and stelai to a Mason C, none of whose works she dates later than "c. 525 ?".



Where did the Alkmaionidai live ? 281

from his military post, was neither a child nor an aged man. His birth is thus placed as early as the first quarter of the sixth century, as late as the middle. That he was from a wealthy family the base makes clear, for, even if it did not support the Anavyssos kouros, it must have carried another monument of like scale.

The name Kroisos naturally makes one think of Asia Minor, and various speculations have been offered regarding the origin of a man of this name buried in Attika: someone born in Ionia where the name may have been common; someone from Ionia named after the king of Lydia; one of the soldiers supplied to Peisistratos by Lygdamis of Naxos and therefore an easterner.)- None of these explanations is satisfactory, for they leave unanswered why Kroisos' remains should have been taken up from some battlefield1' and brought to the district of Anavyssos for a costly burial in a local cemetery. This fact above all dictates that Kroisos must have had a close and natural association with this particular district, in other words, that he belonged there. Kroisos, despite his name, must have been an Athenian, a member of a wealthy family that had deep personal ties with the district of Anavyssos.15 That these ties centred about a residence for the living as well as a cemetery for the dead is the most reason- able conclusion.

So much can be learned from the base alone without invoking its "most likely" association with the Anavyssos kouros. If that connection be admitted, the following additional conclusions can be reached. Within the district of Anavyssos the interests of Kroisos and his family were localized probably near Olympos. The form, scale, and expense of the monument do not have to be surmised; they are for all to see. The representation of a vigorous youth in the prime of life, probably between twenty and thirty years of age, suggests that the deceased had reached a similar stage in his development. Finally, the monument can be more closely dated to the years immediately around 530 B.c.,1

1 Richter, ibid. (n. II) I15-1i6. 4 It has been assumed by all commentators that Kroisos was killed somewhere other

than in the district of Anavyssos, there being no reference to a battle in that neighbourhood. I too make this assumption.

13 S. Karouzou (The Amasis Painter [Oxford 1956] 42) has come to the same conclusion. Of Kroisos she writes: "A member of a wealthy family in the Mesogaia of Attica was named after the Lydian king." Kroisos, for her, is an Athenian. P. Friedlander and H. B. Hoffleit (Epigrammata, Greek Inscriptions in Verse from the Beginnings to the Persian Wars [Ber- keley and Los Angeles 1948] 86) would probably agree with this last statement, although their words are ambiguous: "It is suprising to find the name Croesus so early among the Attic farmers."

16 The date is that given by Miss E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora II: Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (Princeton I965) 12, where the Anavyssos kouros is placed late in the decade 540-530 B.C. Miss Harrison would also accept a date early in the twenties, as long as it is recognized that the kouros stylistically comes before the Siphnian Treasury. This last observation makes Lullies' dating ca. 520 B.C. seem to low (R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, Greek Sculptures [New York I960] 65).



282 C. W. TH. ELIOT

a fact that confirms, but does not further define, the period already proposed within which Kroisos was born. The information that can be derived from the Kroisos base with or without the Anavyssos kouros is thus fundamentally similar, the difference being one of precision alone.

It is now time to ask the question that neither the base nor the statue, together or singly, directly answers: to what wealthy Athenian family did Kroisos belong? In this form the question cannot in truth be answered. It needs to be restated: what wealthy family in the first half, or near the middle, of the sixth century had reason to name a son by the non-Athenian name of Kroisos? Given the available historical evidence, the answer is the Alkmaionidai.7 Even though Herodotos' account of the relations between this family and the kings of Lydia is not free of problems, at least one fact emerges unambiguously: during the first half of the sixth century those relations were so amicable that the Alkmaionidai had their fortunes greatly augmented by the Lydian monarchs and acted as their agents at Delphi. To honour Kroisos, the Lydian, by naming one of the Alkmaionidai after him would have been a happy compliment, especi- ally apposite any time after he had assumed an active role in public affairs, perhaps as early as 575 B.C.1

The two most eminent Alkmaionidai during this period were Alkmaion and his son Megakles, the former the victor of the Sacred War and head of the family as long as he lived, the latter the winner of Agariste's hand and the family's champion in the political struggles with Peisistratos. While in theory either could have been father of a child in the second quarter of the sixth century, two considerations make Megakles appear the more likely parent."' Not

17 A case might be made for the Philaidai, since Kroisos secured the release of Miltiades when the latter had been taken prisoner by the people of Lampsakos (Herodotos 6. 37). Herodotos seems to place the intervention of Kroisos on Miltiades' behalf between the battle of Pallene and the fall of Sardis, that is, ca. 545 B.C. A Philaid child named Kroisos in honour of the protector of one of the family would have had to be born after that date. He would not, however, have been the son of Miltiades himself, who died childless shortly after this event, but presumably of Kimon, Miltiades' half-brother. Furthermore, unless born immediately after his uncle's escape, Kimon's son Kroisos would have been named after a defeated monarch. It may seem to some that under these circumstances it is unlikely that Kimon would have felt the need to compliment his half-brother's saviour. But if Kimon did feel so moved, it is much more unlikely that the Kroisos from the district of Anavyssos was that son because the date of his birth as deduced from the base (with or without the statue) should fall in the second quarter of the sixth century, not after 545 B.C.

18 There would be no need to wait for Kroisos to become king before paying him the compliment. He was Alyattes' eldest son, his father's choice as successor, and held positions of importance before his father's death. The relationship that existed between himself and the Alkmaionidai, which both found mutually advantageous, could thus have begun when Kroisos was a strong and trusted prince.

19 Miss Jeffery, ibid. (n. 2) I44, writes: "I should prefer to guess that this young man was an Alkmeonid, a son of Alkmeon, called Kroisos after the name of his father's great Lydian benefactor." Her "guess" is an attractive one, and I cannot deny that it may be



Where did the Alkmaionidai live? 283

only was he fathering children at this precise moment, while his mother may have been past child-bearing, but also this type of flattery came naturally to him, not that it was beyond the wit of his father to devise such a compliment. Megakles had named one, perhaps, two, of his sons after his wife's distinguished relatives Kleisthenes and Aristonymos.20 A third bore the name Hippokrates, the same name as the father of Peisistratos. Its use by Megakles a little before the middle of the sixth century2l would have been widely interpreted as a friendly gesture on his part towards an opponent, whether or not the name was commonly applied to an Alkmaionid.22 Moreover, there is an evident similarity in purpose with another of Megakles' gestures, the giving of his daughter to Peisistratos. The naming by Megakles of a son Kroisos fits the same pattern of political manoeuvring.

Does this identification of Kroisos as the son of Megakles, with his birth in the second quarter of the sixth century and his death in battle before 520 B.C.,

fit what is preserved in other sources about the Alkmaionidai at this time? A context for his death is easy to find. There is only one engagement known in which Alkmaionidai took part, namely, the battle of Pallene, which ended in death for some of those who opposed Peisistratos and flight for others." To assume that Kroisos died in this battle is to follow the accepted principle of economy of hypotheses im historical reconstruction. Nor is there any conflict between the range of dates proposed for the battle of Pallene" and the date of

correct. But if so, it would not in any way alter the fundamental conclusions of this essay, namely, that Kroisos was an Alkmaionid and that the family lived in the district of Anavyssos.

0 For Aristonymos in particular, see G. A. Stamires and E. Vanderpool, "Kallixenos the Alkmeonid," Hesperia I9 (1950) 378, and for the family in general, N. G. L. Hammond, "The Family of Orthagoras," CQ N. S., 6 (I956) 47.

31 Perhaps Hippokrates was born during Peisistratos' second tyranny, when he and Megakles were temporarily reconciled. It would be ironic if, at the same time as Megakles was complimenting his son-in-law, the latter was refusing to have children by Megakles' daughter.

2s The only other Hippokrates in the Alkmaionid family known by J. Kirchner is Hippokrates, father of Hegesias, of the deme of Alopeke, from the latter half of the fourth century (Prosopographia Attica i [Berlin 1901] 4IO: No. 63I8). " Herodotos i. 64.

4 The range is from 546 B.C. to 533/32 B.C., with a majority favouring a date about 540 B.C., according to the table given by F. Schachermeyr, RE igA (I937) 171-172,

s.v. Peisistratos. Recent opinions show the same pattern: F. Jacoby, Aithis [Oxford i949]

194, prefers 546 B.C. (but see the able criticism of his reconstruction by F. Heidbiichel, "Die Chronologie der Peisistratiden in der Atthis", Philologus 1O0 [I957] 70-89); G. V. Sumner ("Notes on Chronological Problems in the Aristotelian 'AEHNAICIN HOAITEIA," CQ N. S., Ii [I961] 37-48, particularly 47-48) makes a case for 54i/40 B.C. or the following year; and M. Miller ("The Earlier Persian Dates in Herodotus," Klio 37 [i959] 44) suppOrts the year 533/32 B.C., though in another article ("The Herodotean Croesus," Klio 4I [1963]

77) she notes that "Herodotus ... believed that Peisistratos was in his third tyranny, after Pallene, in 549 B.C."

My own preference is for the year 546/45 B.C. I am convinced that for Herodotos the



284 C. W. TH. ELIOT

the birth of Kroisos, as long as the latter event occurred before about 560 B.C.

As for the lapse of time between Kroisos' death and the erection of a grave- monument to him, this too is easily explained. Straightway after the battle of Pallene the Alkmaionidai went into exile, and were thus unable to make arran- gements for a monument in Kroisos' memory. When they returned to Attika after the death of Peisistratos in 528/27 B.C.,25 however, their first thought was to complete the honours due their dead.26

iii

Athenian politics in the two decades before the middle of the sixth century was largely a matter of the struggle for power among the three parties of the Plain, Shore, and Hill, whose followers were led respectively by Lykourgos, son of Aristolaides, Megakles, son of Alkmaion, and Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates. The aspect of regionalism inherent in each of the three names is explained by Aristotle: clxov W'Gxcaot a roL ' sCvuLUac =7t6 'TcoV TM6rO &v okV 0 EmpyouvW

While the subject of elov is the more general o' 7rap&kLo&, o'L CeatxxoQ, and

oL 8tocxpLot, a recent critic interprets the sentence more narrowly: "the parties got their names from the regions in which the party leaders possessed and culti- vated their lands,"28 a natural, cogent, and acceptable extension of Aristotle's statement.

thirty-six years of rule enumerated in 5. 65. 3 were continuous, not a sum of three separate

periods of tyranny, however the Atthidographers and Aristotle may have interpreted the

Herodotean figure, and that consequently the battle of Pallene must be placed at the head

of this era of unbroken rule. As for the chronological relation between the battle of Pallene

and the fall of Sardis, even though there is a hardening of opinion that Kroisos' defeat

should be placed in the autumn of 547 B.C. (for example, H. Kaletsch, "Zur lydischen

Chronologie," Historia 7 [I958] 1-47, particularly 39-47, foUowed by H. Bengston, Griechi-

sche Geschichte2 [Munich i960] I33, and M. Miller, "The Herodotean Croesus," Klio [1963]

58-94, particularly the table on 75-76), like H. T. Wade-Gery (Essays in Greek History

[Oxford 1958] i66 n. 3, and his view reported by G. Huxley, The Early lonians [London

I966] 209) and Sumner (ibid. 42-43 n. 4) I am not convinced that the Nabunaid Chronicle

refers either to Lydia or to the fall of Kroisos. (Is it beyond doubt that the broken letter

on which all depends is a limmu ? When I asked T. J. Meek his opinion, he was far from

certain that this was the obvious restoration.) The Herodotean narrative, which places the

fall of Sardis after the battle of Pallene, has not yet been proved erroneous.

2f The evidence for the return of the Alkmaionidai after the death of Peisistratos is

contained in the well-known fragment of the list of archons from the Athenian Agora bearing

the name of Kleisthenes. Although this interpretation has been questioned, D. W. Bradeen

in his comprehensive study of all the fragments belonging to the same list allows no quarter

for such doubts: "The Fifth-Century Archon List," Hesperia 32 (I963) 187 n. 2.

26 A date for the statue immediately after the return would not be in conflict with Miss

Harrisons's chronology: see above n. i6. '7 Constitution of the Athenians I3. 5. 28 R. J. Hopper, "'Plain,' 'Shore,' and 'Hill' in Early Athens," BSA 56 (I961) I94: my

italics. In fairness to Hopper's admirable study (ibid. :189-2I9), from which I have learned

a great deal even though I do not agree with all his conclusions, it should be noted that

Hopper firmly rejects Aristotle's explanation.



Where did the Alkmaionidai live? 285

The explanation thus understood implies that each leader had land in the geographic area from which he drew the basis of his support. The political bias of each party would then be the result, not of geographic or economic factors peculiar to each region,29 but of the highly influential presence of each leader within his own district.30 If Aristotle be correct, and indeed the picture of an archaic Attika composed of many "baronies," each with its strongly local sphere of influence, is a plausible one, it follows that Lykourgos lived in the Pedion, Megakles in the Paralia, and Peisistratos in the Diakria. Although the evidence for the locations of the residences of Lykourgos and Peisistratos is slight, what little there is confirms Aristotle's conclusions: tradition connects Peisistratos with Brauron on the edge of the Diakria,31 while Lykourgos, if he be from the same aristocratic family that belonged to the Eteoboutadai, had associations with the deme Boutadai within the Pedion.32 Clearly, there is therefore a strong case for assuming Megakles' place of residence to have been within the Paralia,= whether or not other evidence can be used to confirm this assumption.

The discovery of the Kroisos base in the district of Anavyssos, probably at modem Olympos, the identification of Kroisos as a member of the Alkmaioni-

29 Hopper (ibid. 20I-203) convincingly opposes any attempt to regard "the regions as possessing differences in economic characteristics from which political divisions might arise"

(203). 90 Here I part company with Hopper, who writes (ibid. 20I): "We must, it seems,

beware ... of attaching too much importance to the idea of a leader's personal local connexions." Not only does Hopper seem to minimize the evidence for "local connexions," but also he does not admit that it would be hard to understand some of the reforms of Peisistratos and Kleisthenes were they not both aiming at breaking down strong local influences (A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants [London 1956] II 2-1115; R. Sealey, "Regiona- lism in Archaic Athens," Historia 9 [i96o] 155-I80, particularly i63ff.; and D. M. Lewis, "Cleisthenes and Attica," Historia I2 [I963] 22-40).

81 The evidence is cited and discussed most recently by Hopper, ibid. (n. 28) 197-I99

and Lewis, ibid. (n. 30) 24.

32 Hopper, ibid. (n. 28) 197 and Lewis, ibid. (n. 30) 23. 3 Andrewes (ibid. [n. 30] I03), Sealey (ibid. [n. 30] I63), and Lewis (ibid. [n. 30] 23), all

agree that the Alkmaionidai held land in the Paralia. Because they are influenced by the locations of the demes in which the Alkmaionidai were later enrolled, they place these lands, and therefore part of the Paralia, immediately to the south and south-east of the city of Athens. Not only does it seem more likely that the Paralia began to the east of Hymettos (see Hopper's definitive examination of the meaning and extent of the terms Pedion, Paralia, and Diakria, ibid. [n. 27] I89-i94), but it is also a mistake to put too much reliance on later demotics. Many aristocrats may have owned several residences, a seat in the country, and a house in the city. Obviously such Athenians could not have been enrolled in two demes. They would have had to make a choice. Membership in a city deme and con- tinued influence in another region may have seemed politically advantageous at that moment.



286 C. W. TH. ELIOT, Where did the Alkmaionidai live?

dai, and the likelihood that Megakles lived in the Paralia, because of the strikingly convergent nature of these observations, make possible the theory that the Alkmaionidai in the sixth century lived in the district of Anavyssos, probably at ancient Aigilia, within the Paralia.M

University of British Columbia, C. W. TH. ELIOT

and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

A Tempting though it may seem to some, I resist the impulse to attempt an identification

of any of the other large-scale monuments found in the district of Anavyssos, particularly the New York-Berlin stele with its fragmentary inscription that has been at times restored

with the name of Megakles (G. M. A. Richter, The Archaic Gravestones of Attica [London I96I] "Epigraphical Appendix" by M. Guarducci, 159-i60). As long as the evidence for

the name remains so tenuous, and as long as there is no reason to limit the number of aristocratic families in this district to one, I maintain that there is no compelling justifi-

cation in claiming this monument for one of the Alkmaionidai. I take the same attitude to the interesting grave-monument recently discovered in the Kerameikos (F. Willemsen,

"Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der Athener Stadtmauer," AM 78 [I963] I10-117). An association with the Alkmaionidai is not warranted by the surviving letters of the inscription, despite the reference to an Olympic victor. Just as ,U?- could be the personal pronoun

or the beginning of one of many names, so -xXqq is a very common ending.

