Why Seize the Acropolis?

Why Seize the Acropolis?Author(s): Vincent J. RosivachSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 57, H. 2 (2008), pp. 125-133Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25598425 .

Accessed: 29/08/2013 17:55

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 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:55:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25598425?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


WHY SEIZE THE ACROPOLIS?

When Kylon moved to make himself tyrant at Athens, our sources1 tell us that he seized

(or attempted to seize) control of the acropolis:

o\)to<; eni rupavvi8i EK6\ir\oe2 ... KaxaXaPeiv xfiv dKpo7coA,iv ?7ieipf|0r| (Hdt. 5.71.1).

6 Se ... KaxeAxxPe xfiv dicpoftoXiv ax; eni rupavviSi... (Thuc. 1.126.5).

Kutaov xfiv dKp07coA,iv KaxeA,aP?v eni xvpavviSi ... (schol. in Aristoph. Eq. 445).3

And Plut. Sol. 12.1 also mentions that when their plot was foiled the conspirators put themselves under the protection of "the goddess" (sc. Athena), presumably in her temple on the acropolis.4 Similarly, some seventy years later, when Peisistratos established his

tyranny for the first time he used his bodyguard of club-bearers to take possession of the acropolis:

cruve7tavae>xdvxe<; 8e ootoi (sc. the club-bearers) a|na neicuaxpdxq) ea%ov xfiv aKpoftokiv. evGa 8f) 6 Ileiaiaxpaxoq rjp%e 'AGrivaicov ... (Hdt. 1.59.6).

A,aP(bv be xoxx; Kopwrôpouq Kcdovêvoix;, ercavaaxdc; jiexd xoiixcav x? 8r\\uo, Kaxeaye xfiv dicpoftoAav (AthPol. 14.1).

And when the same Peisistratos undertook to recover his tyranny a few years later he

disguised the woman Phye as Athena and gave out that the goddess herself was bring ing him back to her acropolis:

xov (sc. Peisistratos) atixfi fj 'A0r)vair| xi|Lif|CTac?a dvGpomtDv p.dîaxa Kaxdyei eq xfiv eflruxfjc; dKpoTtoAav (Hdt. 1.60.5).

The acropolis is not specifically mentioned in the accounts of Peisistratos' second return to power, unless perhaps the AthPol.'s kap&v xfiv nokiv (15.3) refers more narrowly to the citadel.5 There is, however, one further coup de main that most certainly fits the

pattern. In 508 the Spartan king Kleomenes, having come to Athens with a small force of men to support Kleisthenes' rival Isagoras, attempted to dissolve the boule and turn

1 There are several differences in the accounts of Kylon in our various sources, but fortunately they are unimportant for our present purpose. For a discussion of the more significant differences see

conveniently P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) 79-84; for speculation on the source of these differences see M. Lang, "Kylonian Conspiracy," CP

62 (1967) 243-249. 2 For the sense of the verb see LSJ s.v. The scholiast to Aristoph. Vesp. 1317 glosses it ueya <j)po

velq. 3 Cf. ibid.: GeAxov rupavveiv ... erceMkbv Tfj aKpoflotei. 4 Although he does not specifically say that the acropolis was the initial target of their coup. 5 Thucydides (2.15.6) tells us that the Athenians of his day still called the acropolis x\ n6X\$. Note

also that the ruse Peisistratos used to disarm the Athenians after this second return took place at the

entrance of the acropolis (AthPol. 15.4).

Historia, Band 57/2 (2008) ? Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart



126 Vincent J. Rosivach

the government over to Isagoras' supporters (Hdt. 5.72.1). When the boule resisted, Kleomenes, Isagoras and his supporters seized the acropolis:

6 xe KA?0|i6vr|<; Kai 6 Taayopaq Kai oi axaaiwxai awou KaxaX-ajipdvoDai xfiv aKp67toA,iv (Hdt. 5.72.2).6

So, at least three coups d'etat, all involving occupation of the acropolis. The question thus arises, Why seize the acropolis? What advantage would successful occupation of the acropolis confer upon someone seeking to replace the legitimate government with his own regime?7 The closest our sources come to giving an answer to this question is in the scholion to Aristophanes' Knights 445, where it is said that Kylon was caught plundering the temple of Athena (eX,f|<J)r| ovX&v to iepov xfj<; 'A0r|vd<;). Now tyrants could always use more money to pay their mercenaries and, more generally, to support a lavish lifestyle, but even if this story were true for Kylon it would not explain why Peisistratos, who claimed Athena's support, also seized the acropolis. But the story is

unlikely to be true even of Kylon. The impiety of looting the patron goddess' temple would have been simply too enormous to be passed over in silence by all our earlier

sources, especially when accusations of impiety played so large a part in the rest of the

story, viz. the execution of Kylon's men after they had sought refuge at the statue and/or altar of Athena (Hdt. 5.71, Thuc. 1.126). Indeed, Andrewes is probably right to see in the scholion's story a reflection of later Alkmaionid propaganda mounting a charge of

gross impiety against Kylon and his men to counter the alleged curse upon the clan for the leading role the Alkmaionid Megakles played in the execution of Kylon's men.8

The story of Phye/Athena escorting Peisistratos to her acropolis (Hdt. 1.60.5) sug

gests that the successful occupation of the acropolis could be interpreted as a sign of divine favor for - or at least acquiescence in - the coup,9 but the symbolism of divine favor could be a tricky thing, as Kleomenes discovered when Athena's priestess unex

pectedly confronted him at the temple door telling him that he had no business there, a

<()f||iTi / kat|5(qv that clearly presaged the Spartan king's ouster from the acropolis a few

days later (Hdt. 5.72.2-4). More generally, any forcible occupation of the acropolis was more likely to be viewed as an act of impiety than as evidence of divine favor.10 Note

6 AthPol. 20.3 says less accurately that when Kleomenes, Isagoras et al. met with resistance they "fled" (Kaxe<j>vYov) to the acropolis.

7 While I am generally sympathetic with the approach that sees the archaic tyrant as an eminently successful player in the game of intra-elite politics, able to marshal social capital to obtain the com

plete acquiescence of his rivals to his leadership, the fact remains that, at least in Athens, Kylon and

Peisistratos also did something their rivals could or would not do when they occupied the acropolis,

something the doing of which specifically marked them as tyrants. For examples of this approach see G. Anderson, "Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History," CA 24 (2005) 173-222; H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence (Amsterdam 2000) 1-15.

8 A. Andrewes, CAM1 3.3.370. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Peisistratos (as in n. 7) 9, is similarly correct

in rejecting the notion that a would-be tyrant could use his control over the goddess' sacred objects to force the Athenians to do as he wished.

9 So e.g. B. M. Lavelle, Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and "Democratic " Tyranny

at Athens (Ann Arbor 2005) 94. 10 Forcible occupation: Peisistratos used his club-bearers to seize the acropolis when he first took

power (Hdt. 1.59.6; AthPol. 14.1); that Kylon and his supporters, and later Kleomenes and his men,

were besieged on the acropolis (Thuc. 1.126.7; Hdt. 5.72.2) also implies that their occupation was

by force.



Why Seize the Acropolis? 127

also that, if Connor is correct, the Phye episode itself was not a ploy to demonstrate divine support of Peisistratos' return but rather the playing out on a symbolic level of

popular complicity in the tyrant's return.11 On the whole, then, it seems unlikely that

Kylon, Peisistratos and Kleomenes occupied the acropolis to gain control over its reli

gious sites. The reason why they did so should lie elsewhere. On a practical level, the summit of the acropolis was easily defended from direct

assault, to be sure, but it was also vulnerable to siege. The Kylonian conspirators were forced to surrender when they were cut off from food and water (Thuc. 1.126.9-10), and Kleomenes probably agreed to abandon the acropolis (and Isagoras) to avoid the same fate for himself (Hdt. 5.72.2). But even if the acropolis could provide a safe refuge for insurgents this would still not explain how seizing it contributed to establishing a

tyranny in the first place. It is sometimes assumed that controlling the acropolis would also give one control of the city below,12 but, militarily, acropoleis were places of refuge, not centers of command and control, and simply holding the high ground was not that much of an advantage in the days before artillery and other long-range weapons. Nor would there have been much to be gained from occupying the acropolis as symbolic high ground, when the occupiers could hardly be seen from the town below.

But if Kylon, Peisistratos and Kleomenes did not occupy the acropolis to gain sym bolic control over its religious sites or practical control over their financial resources, and if they were not seeking to dominate the city militarily by controlling the high ground, then there must have been something else on the acropolis that attracted them,

something they all thought very much worth controlling -

something, in fact, that made the acropolis their first objective when they launched their coups.

Typically in modern coups d'etat seizure of the seat of government (presidential palace, national assembly, etc.) symbolically marks the success of the coup. Similarly in classical Athens in 411 BC the Four Hundred, carrying arms and escorted by the

young thugs they regularly used to do their dirty work, invaded the bouleuterion, the functional and symbolic center of democratic government, dismissed the boule's sit

ting members, and took possession of the chamber themselves (Thuc. 8.69.4-70.1) - a

largely symbolic action which nonetheless marked the end of the previous democratic

regime and the beginning of the new oligarchic one, as the Athenaion Politeia well

recognized (AthPol. 32.1-2). What would the equivalent have been in, say, the archaic Athens of Kylon?

In describing the early constitution of Athens (f) xdîq xfjq dp%aia<; noXixeiaq) the Athenaion Politeia (3.1-4) lists the following magistracies (apxai): basileus, polem arkhos, arkhon, and the six thesmothetaiP It is generally assumed that at least the first three had some executive functions though the Athenaion Politeia does not say this.14 It does say, however, that the first three all had religious functions (AthPol. 3.3), and

11 W. R. Connor, "Tribes, Festivals and Processions; Civic Ceremonial and Political Manipulation in

Archaic Greece," JHS 107 (1987) 42-47.

12 So e.g. J. Kiegeland, "Wie wohnten die Tyrannen?" in W. Hoepfner and G. Zimmer (eds.) Die

griechische Polis: Architektur undPolitik (Tubingen 1993) 54; J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis:

History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present (Cambridge 1999) 98.

13 The AthPol. was also aware of other archaic officials {kolakretai, 7.3; naukraroi and phulobasileis, 8.4) but it does not include them in this arkhaia politeia, presumably because they were much less

important than the nine officials whom it does mention.

14 Although it does imply a military role for the polemarkhos when it says the office was created be

cause "some of the kings were soft in respect to the things of war" {AthPol. 3.2).




that all nine acted as judges (AthPol. 3.5).15 It also says of the thesmothetai that they were responsible for writing up and preserving legal materials for future reference.16 In addition to these arkhai, and distinct from them, the Athenaion Politeia also men tions the Council of Areopagites (fi ... x?v 'Apeo7cayixa)v po\)A,f|), to which it assigns responsibility for overseeing the laws and the conduct of "the most and greatest things in the city," which it carries out by "punishing and fining the disorderly" (AthPol. 3.6, cf.

8.4), a rather nebulous description suggesting that this Council had few, if any, clearly defined responsibilities, and that the author of the Athenaion Politeia had no clear idea of what it actually did in practice. Indeed, it may well be that this idealized vision of the primitive Areopagos is in fact a product of fourth-century conservative nostalgia, as Rhodes suggests, and that in contrast to the classical boule with its numerous execu tive functions this earlier Council was primarily consultative,17 with a narrow judicial role limited to certain trials for murder.18 In any event, the impression we get from the Athenaion Politeia is that archaic Athens' government was embodied primarily in the nine arkhontes, particularly in the basileus, the polemarkhos and the arkhon, and in what the AthPol. calls the Council of the Areopagites.

Now the Athenaion Politeia (3.5) also lists a series of places originally associated with the different magistrates, the boukoleion with the basileus, the pry taneion with the

arkhon, the epilykeion with the polemarkhos, and the thesmotheteion with the thesmo thetai.19 These places were in some sense under the authority of the several magistrates,20 and they were presumably where they carried out their official duties. The pry taneion should have been an actual building, but the boukoleion and epilykeion may have been

15 This prominence of the magistrates' judicial role is fully consistent with the view of archaic Athenian

government as primarily a mechanism for peacefully resolving conflicts within the elite.

16 orcax; dvaypdxi/avxec, td Beauta (JnAdrcooai npbq rx\v tqv dîpniouvKDv Kpioiv, AthPol. 3.4. The

exact meaning of the passage is unclear. Some (e.g. J. E. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens

[London 1893] 8) would see these as judgments having the force of law - in effect, legal precedents - but it is doubtful that Oeaîa can have this meaning; perhaps more importantly, Athenian trial law

did not work by precedent. On the other hand, if Geauxa refers to legislation it is unclear what the

thesmothetai would have recorded before Drakon, who was said to have given Athens her first code

of laws. On the problem see Rhodes, Commentary (as in n. 1) 102-103, who suggests the notion that

the thesmothetai recorded Geauia is simply a later extrapolation from their name meant to explain an office whose original function was unknown.

17 Rhodes, Commentary (as in n. 1) 107-108, who sees similarities with the Senate of Republican Rome. Note also that the AthPol. does not define the membership of this early Council.

18 Note, however, that while most recent discussion has centered on the Areopagos' judicial compe

tence, its role as a consultative body, not its judicial competence, is the primary focus of this paper. As for that judicial competence, it is likely that, beyond homicide, the archaic Areopagos also had

jurisdiction em rupctvviSi, though probably not in Kylon's day; cf. E. Ruschenbusch, "OONOl:

Zum Recht Drakons und seiner Bedeutung fiir das Werden des athenischen Staates," Historia 9

(1960) 132-134, commenting on Solon's amnesty law cited at Plut. Sol. 19.3. For the Areopagos'

early competence in murder trials see R. Wallace, The Areopagos Council, to 307 B.C. (Baltimore

1989) 7-11, who provides an effective response to Ruschenbusch and others who would deny such

competence to the early Areopagos. 19 The text adds that the magistrates all "came together" (cruvfjAflov) in the thesmotheteion "in the time

of Solon" (em ... Zotaovoq), but it is hard to see any connection between this move and any of Solon's

reforms, and the mention of the lawgiver may well mean only (as is often the case with references

to Solon) that the move occurred at some unspecified point in the distant past. The statement is also a bit problematic since we know that in Classical Athens the basileus carried out at least some of

his functions in the fifth-century stoa basileios (cf. Plat. Euthphr. 2a). 20 The Greek says that the magistrates "had" (elxe/elxov) these places.




simple precincts;21 given the presumed role of the thesmothetai as recorders it is likely that their thesmotheteion was also a building with facilities for storing records rather than a simple precinct.22 Precincts, it should be noted, are less likely to be archaeo

logically visible than actual buildings. The prytaneion had several functions, most of which had nothing to do with the arkhon, most notably housing the community's sacred hearth. Because of these multiple functions it seems more likely that when the office of arkhon was created the new magistrate moved into a pre-existing building rather than that the prytaneion was built for him.23 The name boukoleion had nothing to do with the basileus, again suggesting that he moved into a pre-existing structure, and the same is probably true of the polemarkhos and the curiously named epilykeion.24 The name of the thesmotheteion, on the other hand, seems to indicate that this was a structure

purposely built for the thesmothetai. The exact locations of the boukoleion, epilykeion and thesmotheteion are unknown.

The Athenaion Politeia (3.5) says that the boukoleion was near the prytaneion, and it is a reasoned guess

- but only a guess - that the epilykeion and thesmotheteion were also

located nearby.25 The location of the prytaneion itself has been the subject of lengthy speculation, but it now appears that the classical building described by Pausanias (1.18.3) was located near the foot of the acropolis' east slope.26 According to current orthodoxy the prytaneion and its associated buildings were established at their classical site early in the archaic period as a new civic center reflecting the transfer of political power from the traditional king residing on the acropolis to an oligarchic government of locally pow erful men drawn from throughout Attica and sitting in council in the new prytaneion.21 It should be noted, however, that there is no archaeological support for this view - the earliest materials on the apparent site of the classical prytaneion are some sixth-century

21 AthPol. 3.5 says that a certain Epilykos dv?Ko86uT|a? the epikykeion, but the verb, despite its ety

mology, can also describe the construction of e.g. city walls (Xen. HG 4.14.9) and need not refer to an actual building.

22 See, however, above, n. 15. 23 On prytaneia in general see S. G. Miller, The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form

(Berkeley-Los Angeles 1978); on the Athenian prytaneion see ibid. 38-57; literary sources for the Athenian prytaneion collected ibid. 136-183. Miller prefers a location for the prytaneion on the north slope of the acropolis.

24 According to AthPol. 3.5 the epilykeion was originally called the polemarkheion, and received its current name when it was rebuilt by a certain Epilykos. Most scholars believe, however, that epi lykeion was the structure's original name, and that the story of Epilykos is a poor attempt to explain the odd name.

25 Given the military role of the polemarkhos, however, and the similarity of names, some would place the epilykeion outside the city in or near the Lykeion (Lyceum).

26 G. C. R. Schmalz, "The Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?", Hesperia 75 (2006) 33-81. Note that the argument of this paper does not depend on identifying the location of the classical prytaneion.

27 This view goes back through W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen (Munchen 1905) 63 (second edition

[Munchen 1931] 59) to E. Curtius, Attische Studien (Gottingen 1862-1865) II54-68, and cf. Id., Die

Stadtgeschichte von Athen (Berlin 1891) 93; both Curtius and Judeich assume that the new prytaneion replaced an earlier one which stood on the acropolis under the kings. For more recent statements of this view see e.g. R. J. Hopper, The Acropolis (London 1971) 77-78; R. Parker, Athenian Religion:

A History (Oxford 1996) 26-27. Miller, Prytaneion (as in n. 23) 52-53, believes that the prytaneion was a product of synoikismos (and hence without a predecessor on the acropolis), but nonetheless sees a contrast between this new, communal prytaneion and the earlier, "royal" hearths of the local nobles whom synoikismos brought to Athens.




pottery shards lying beneath the lowest level of construction at that point28 - and the

only textual support adduced for it is a rather strained reading of Thucydides' description of Theseus' synoikism and its centralization of political institutions (ev Po-UAêmfipiov anobeiâq Kai xcpwaveiov, 2.15.2) as a reference to the historical synoikism of Attica in the archaic period and an indication that "there was a new building and probably a new location at that time."29 There is, of course, nothing in the verb anoSeiâq ("having designated") implying that Theseus build a new prytaneion. More importantly, there is no reason to believe that Thucydides meant this description of Theseus' actions to be understood as a mythological version of the later, historical synoikism, which this view assumes happened when the last king lost his power. More generally, this view that the prytaneion''s supposed new site was consciously meant to mark a new political beginning assumes that there was a sharp break between regal and oligarchic regimes, but the evolution from one regime to the other was more likely to have been gradual and complex, as the narrative in AthPol. 3.2-3 suggests.

In a 1939 article L. B. Holland argued that the original prytaneion was in fact the

megaron of Athens' Mycenaean kings and their successors on the acropolis, and that the

sixth-century structure built on the so-called Dorpfeld foundations was a replacement for this Mycenaean megaron, whose layout it generally followed.30 Holland interprets Thucydides' ev povtevifipiov drcoSeiâc; Kai rcp-uxaveiov (2.15.2), perhaps more natu

rally, to say that Theseus brought the local notables to his own megaron = prytaneion, which Holland imagines was much like the hall of Alkinoos described in book 7 of the

Odyssey, a place where the community's leading men enjoyed the king's hospitality while

they discussed public policy.31 Now this sounds very much like the role the Athenaion Politeia says the Council of Areopagites played in archaic Athens, "managing] the most and greatest things in the city" (AthPol. 3.6), and with or without a king it is probably how early Athens was in fact governed, to the extent that it was governed, before more formal structures were put in place. And if it is reasonable to assume that the king's council evolved over time into what was later known as the Council of the Areopagites

28 Schmalz, "Prytaneion" (as in n. 26) 57. Note, however, that most of the site still lies under mod ern structures, and only a small part has actually been excavated. Schmalz infers from the pottery shards, which are of black-figure drinking cups, that "[t]his deposit is likely to represent the debris

of repeated, large-scale dining activity dating to the Peisistratid period" but cf. the pottery fragments,

including parts of cups, found in the construction fill beneath the "old bouleuterion" where there is

no reason to associate the site particularly with dining. The shards from the apparent prytaneion site

are described in detail in the original excavation report in ArchDelt 17.B.1 (1961-1962 [1963] 37); the fragments from the "old bouleuterion" fill are listed by T. L. Shear, Jr., "The Persian Destruction

of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits," Hesperia 62 (1993) A12-A11.

29 Miller, Prytaneion (as in n. 23) 40; for Miller's application of the Thucydides quote to the historical

synoikism, which he dates to the eighth century, see ibid. 53, note 47, and cf. 40, note 4. Plut. Thes.

24.3, elaborating on Thucydides, says that Theseus made the one bouleuterion and pry taneion "there

where the city is now located" (otccu vuv i5pi)iai to daru), suggesting that Plutarch believed that

the prytaneion of his own day was the same as Theseus', but as Miller comments on this passage, "even if the beliefs of Plutarch were established, the validity of his opinions could not be proved"

(Miller, Prytaneion [as in n. 23] 43; Plutarch himself acknowledges the unreliability of traditions

about Romulus and Theseus, Thes. 1.1-3). Ael. Arist. 103.16 mentions the "unmovable hearth of the

prytaneion" (eatiav aKivnrov rcpwaveioD), but he is talking aboutprytaneia in general; the scholiast

ad loc. applies the words to Athens, but only in the sense that the Athenians were autokhthones and

not migrants, not that their prytaneion had been in the same place forever.

30 L. B. Holland, "The Hall of the Athenian Kings," AJA 43 (1939) 289-298.

31 Holland, "Hall" (as in n. 30) 292-293.




- in effect the same council but now without the king - then it is also reasonable to as

sume that it continued to meet in the same place, the megaron = prytaneion,32 until most

of its power and authority were transferred to the new Kleisthenic Council of 500 and its meetings were restricted to the Areopagos hill, where it would seem it had always, for religious reasons, held its trials for murder.33

To return to Holland, his use of the Thucydides passage is suggestive, but it is im

portant to recognize that Thucydides is simply not a credible witness for the details of Dark Age (or earlier) Athenian history. Holland also cites in support of his argument a

theory, first proposed by Jane Harrison, that the boukoleion was associated with the rite of the Bouphonia, which took place at the altar of Zeus Polieus on the acropolis, but he admits himself that Harrison's theory is "possible, though unsubstantiated."34 In the end then, Holland's argument for placing the prytaneion on the acropolis is essentially one from continuity and probability. Holland is almost certainly mistaken in identifying the building on the Dorpfeld foundation as the sixth-century successor to the megaron =

prytaneion.35 Nonetheless his broader point, that the archaic prytaneion was indeed the successor to the royal megaron and so located somewhere on the acropolis, is not

demonstrably wrong,36 and in fact it has a better chance of being right than the con

32 This advisory body sitting in the prytaneion is to be distinguished from the court of the prytaneion, which had a different membership (the four phulobasileis under the presidency of the arkhon basi

leus as successor to the king) but met at or near the same place to judge cases of homicide when the

killer was unknown, an animal or an inanimate object (AthPol. 57.4, cf. Dem. 23.76). 33 Wallace, Areopagus Council (as in n. 18) 33-39 would distinguish the king's council and its suc

cessor meeting in the prytaneion from the Areopagites, whom he sees as a separate body with a

strictly judicial role until it was given further powers by Solon. The Areopagos, however, is the only

early council named in our sources, and rather than multiplying entities it seems easier to assume

that what was later known at the Areopagos Council and the prytaneion council were the one and

the same. There is in fact a certain logic in the community's notables (i.e. the prytaneion council)

sitting in judgment (as Areopagites) on crimes like (politically motivated) murder, which troubled

political stability within the elite. Loss of powers by the council, as suggested above, is also more

likely to account for the nostalgia for a once preeminent Areopagos that we find in our fourth-century sources.

34 Holland, "Hall" (as in n. 30) 294, who properly notes that Harrison herself placed the boukoleion on

the north slope of the acropolis, where she believed the prytaneion was located. Harrison proposed her theory in M. de G. Verrall and J. E. Harrison, Mythology and Monuments of Classical Athens

(New York 1894) 428-429. For the strange rites of the Bouphonia see W. Burkert, Griechische

Religion der archaischen und classischen Periode (Stuttgart 1977) 350-351.

35 It is generally agreed that the building on the Dorpfeld foundation was the arkhaios

nebs, the old temple of Athena Polias. The megaron -prytaneion should be located some place where

nothing else was built down to the end of the fifth century, but unfortunately we cannot even locate

accurately all the other sixth-century places we know were on the acropolis (notably the so-called

"Bluebeard temple" and the hekatompedon, whatever this was), much less identify the unbuilt areas

(on the possibilities see J. Hurwit, Acropolis [as in n. 12] 111-112). The question must remain open until more archaeological evidence is available.

36 Miller's main argument against Holland (Miller, Prytaneion [as in n. 23] 39-41) comes down to a

chain of unverified assumptions: that Thuc. 2.15.2 (quoted above) refers to the historical synoikism of Attica in the archaic period; that the passage implies the construction of a new prytaneion; and

that Thucydides' statement later in the same paragraph (2.13.3) that "before this" (rcpo xov, sc. the

synoikism) the city consisted only of the acropolis and the area to its south implies that the new

prytaneion, being associated with the synoikism, most be located elsewhere. The substance of these

assumptions is addressed briefly above. The words nob xov may not even refer to the time before the

synoikism or before Theseus, and may simply mean "in earlier times" (A. W. Gomme, A Historical

Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 2 [Oxford 1956] 49 ad loc). On Plut. Thes. 24.3 see above, n. 29.




ventional view which assumes a radical break between royal and "aristocratic" regimes rather than a more gradual evolution. Holland's thesis also provides an explanation of why Kylon, Peisistratos and Kleomenes began their coups d'etat by occupying the

acropolis: if the acropolis was the seat of government, as Holland's thesis in effect says it was, occupation of the site would have disrupted the normal conduct of government and dramatically shown who was de facto in control of the state.37 Indeed, the fact that Holland's thesis provides a cogent reason for Kylon's, Peisistratos' and Kleomenes'

occupations of the acropolis,38 a reason thus far missing in the scholarly discussion of these coups, is itself a powerful argument in support of his thesis.

Confirmation that the prytaneion was originally on the acropolis may perhaps be found in the confused tradition that Solon's laws were originally displayed on the

acropolis.39 According to Pollux (8.128):

ctTceKeivTO 8e oi xe dôveq Kai oi Kt>ppei<; ev aKporcoAea nakav a\)9i<; 8' iva rc&oiv e?rj evxa)y%dveiv, eiq xo rcpuxaveiov Kai xf]v dyopdv |iexeKO|iia0r|oav.

Somewhat similarly Harpokration (s.v. 6 KdxcoGev vojioq) quotes Euphorion (third cen

tury BC) as citing Anaximenes of Lampsakos (fourth century BC) to the effect that:

xoix; atpvaq Kai xovq Kt>ppei<; dvciOev ?k xfjq aKpOKOêax; eic; xo povAe:\)xf|piov Kai xf)v dyopdv êxeaxrâev 'E<|)idA,xr)<; (= Anaximenes FGrHist 72 F 13).

Now we know from the AthPol. (7.1) that Solon's laws, inscribed on kurbeis, were

displayed in the stoa basileios.40 On the other hand, Plutarch (Sol. 25.1) tells us that

fragments (Xei\\fava jitKpd) of the axones were still preserved in the prytaneion in his own day, i.e. in the "new" prytaneion at the eastern foot of the acropolis; and Pausanias

(1.18.3) mentions the same prytaneion ev <5 v6|noi ... oi ZoXoavog eioi yeypajxjievoi. Putting aside the exact relation between axones and kurbeis, the easiest way to recon cile our various sources is to assume that Solon's laws were originally displayed on the

acropolis and were later reinscribed for display in the stoa basileios in the agora, while

37 Whether the Peisistratids established their residence on the acropolis is a separate question that does not concern us here.

38 Note that the seat of government, as understood here, remained on the acropolis until the changes under the Kleisthenic regime. The "offices" of the arkhontes, which may have been consolidated in

the thesmotheteion in the time of Solon (AthPol 3.5, but see above, n. 19), were still on the acropolis; construction on the basileus' new "office," the stoa basileios, dates only to the late sixth century (Shear, "Destruction" [as in n. 28] 427-428). It seems unlikely that Solon created a Council of 400, as asserted at AthPol. 8.4, but even if he did, it would not have replaced the proto-Areopagos Coun

cil assumed to be still meeting on the acropolis (for the case against a new Solonic council see C.

Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. [Oxford 1952]

92-96). In Herodotos' account of Kleomenes' coup (Hdt. 5.72.2), when the boule (presumably the new Council of 500) resists Kleomenes' demands he seized the acropolis, at which "the rest of the

Athenians" ('AGnvaicov 8e oi X,oi7toi) laid siege to the acropolis, where "the rest of Athenians" (but not the councilors) suggests that the councilors had been trapped while meeting (probably outdoors,

given their number) on the acropolis. For the starting date for the construction of the Kleisthenic

boule's new home (the so-called "old bouleuterion") c. 500 see most recently Shear, "Destruction

(as inn. 28)418^24. 39 I thank Historians anonymous referee for calling this to my attention.

40 The author of the Athenaion Politeia seems to have believed that the laws were displayed in the stoa

basileios in Solon's day but this is impossible since the building is later in date (mid-sixth century or

early fifth). On the conflicting evidence for the building's date see briefly J. M. Camp, The Athenian

Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (London 1986) 53.




the original texts were conserved in the "new" prytaneion at the eastern foot of the

acropolis.41 Our sources do not say where on the acropolis these laws were originally displayed but continuity suggests that they were kept in the "old" prytaneion on the

acropolis before they were transferred to the "new" prytaneion at the foot of the hill that replaced it.

When and why did the Athenians close down the prytaneion on the acropolis and build a new one at the foot of the citadel, where Pausanias saw it? Holland believed that the megaron =

prytaneion, rebuilt under the Peisistratids, remained in use until it was severely damaged during the Persian occupation of 480-479, after which it was rebuilt in its new location where it was later seen by Pausanias.42 My own suggestion would be that the move took place under the newly established Kleisthenic regime, in the aftermath of Kleomenes' coup

- a coup, it will be recalled, that attempted to reverse Kleisthenes' constitutional changes (note the dissolution of the new boule) in favor of Kleisthenes' rival Isagoras and the old politics of personalized competition and stasis

(Hdt. 5.72.2). Kleisthenes had, for the first time, created a popular government at Athens with his constitution centered on the new Council of Five Hundred and, as Herodotos

recognized (5.78), Athens was transformed.43 Such a new situation could call for a new

prytaneion serving a more limited set of civic functions (hosting official guests, storing the original copies of Solon's laws, etc.), in a location that was definitely not the civic

center,44 in contrast to the Kleisthenic boule of Five Hundred now established in the new civic center emerging at this time in the historical agora.45

Fairfield University Vincent J. Rosivach

41 Cf. R. Stroud, The Axones and Kyrbeis ofDrakon and Solon (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1979) 12-13, 44. Could the substitution of bouleuterion in Harpokration/Euphorion/Anaximenes for Pollux'

prytaneion reflect an understanding that the original prytaneion (on the acropolis) was also Athens'

first council house?

42 Holland, "Hall" (as in n. 30) 294-295 for the Peisistratid reconstruction, 206 for its continued use

until after the Persian occupation. According to Holland the building on the Dorpfeld foundations would be the Peisistratid reconstruction.

43 On this transformation see G. Anderson, The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political

Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 B.C. (Ann Arbor 2003). 44 It is often said that the classical prytaneion was located in the "old agora" (dpxaia dyopd). but there

is absolutely no evidence for this. Its placement there is simply an elaboration of the assumption that the new "aristocratic" government wished to symbolize its new beginning by establishing the

city's hearth, its symbolic center, some place other than on the acropolis (cf. above at n. 27). One

might also doubt that there ever was an "old agora" at all, i.e. a specific place formally laid out and

dedicated to public assemblies. The only evidence for an "old agora" is found in Harpokrat. s.v.

ndv8rino<; 'A(j)po8iTr|, where we find that the historian Apollodorus (FGrHist 244 F 113) said that

Pandemos Aphrodite was so named because her shrine was located near the old agora (rcepi ttjv

dpxaiav dyopdv), where the whole demos used to gather in assemblies called agorai. This looks

very much like an attempt to explain the obscure epithet pandemos, but even if Apollodoros preserves here the memory of a long-forgotten place of assembly the silence of other authors, even when we

would expect them to mention the "old agora" if they knew of it, strongly argues that most people had forgotten the identity of the "old agora" by classical times, and that it was not an important

place at all. On the obscurity of the "old agora" see R. E. Wycherley, "Archaia Agora," Phoenix 20

(1966) 285-293. The shrine of Pandemos Aphrodite on the acropolis beneath the temple of Nike was also nowhere near the apparent site of the classical prytaneion discussed above (on the site of the Pandemos Aphrodite shrine see conveniently Hurwit, Acropolis [as in n. 12] 41).

45 For the date of the "old bouleuterion" see above, n. 37.



Documents

Why Seize the Acropolis?