| |
THE CITY OF OLYNTHUS came into prominence with the formation of the Chalcidian League in the fifth century. A sometime tributary of Athens, Olynthus enjoyed a strained relationship with that city. Just before the beginning of the Peloponnesian War Olynthus revolted against Athenian hegemony, along with the cities of Potidaea and Bottiaea, at the instigation of the Macedonian king Perdiccas II. The next eighty years witnessed the birth of the Chalcidian League, its rise to power rivaling that of Athens and Macedonia, and its subsequent destruction at the hands of Philip II. But the story of the Olynthians does not end with the destruction of their city and dissolution of the Chalcidian League. Olynthians continue to pop up in the epigraphic record all around the Aegean for two centuries following the razing of Olynthus in 348. The endurance of Olynthian identity for so long after their state was destroyed and political unity lost is a unique phenomenon in Greek history and provides an excellent opportunity to study the short- and long-term experiences of refugees.[151]
Though mentioned in Herodotus, the Olynthians played no significant role in the Persian Wars until the very end and then it was not a role they would have wished.[152] After Xerxes had abandoned Greece leaving his general Mardonius to finish the war, Artabazus, who had escorted Xerxes back to Persia, took it upon himself to besiege the city of Potidaea. Potidaea had been one of the cities in the Chalcidice which supported Xerxes, but now, seeing the Persians in retreat, it had rebelled (Hdt. 8.126). At this time the city of Olynthus was held by the Bottiaeans (a people forced out of Macedonia sometime in the Archaic period) not the Chalcidians, and Artabazus feared that the Bottiaean inhabitants of Olynthus would follow Potidaea’s example of rebellion, so he laid siege to both cities. Having captured Olynthus, Artabazus proceeded to execute all the Bottiaeans in the city and hand it over to a Greek named Critoboulus from Torone to settle. This is how Olynthus became a Greek polis.
Olynthus was not the principle city of the Chalcidice in the mid-fifth century; at that time, much of the territory controlled by the city under the Chalcidian League was populated by small villages particularly along the coast. Following the defeat of the Persian army, the newly established Greek polis of Olynthus, along with several other Greek settlements in the Chalcidice, became a dues-paying member of the Delian League regularly recorded in the tribute lists at Athens. As Athens became more predatory in its demands toward league members, many of these towns became disgruntled and attempted to secede; among them Potidaea and Bottiaea.[153] With the support of Macedonia, these states and Olynthus declared their independence from Athens in 432. Perdiccas, the current king of Macedonia, persuaded the inhabitants of the coastal towns in the Chalcidice that it was necessary to abandon their homes in favor of a more defensible position at Olynthus (Thuc. 1.58). This action has variously been described as a synoecism by Gude and Zahrnt, or the foundation of the Chalcidian League by West and Larsen.[154] But neither of these theories fit the circumstances well.
Thucydides describes the abandonment of the coastal towns as an evacuation, stating that it was in response to the threat of war. Moreover, Thucydides claims that Perdiccas ceded a portion of his own territory around Lake Bolbe in Mygdonia for the Chalcidians to live on for the duration of the war, indicating that the move out of the villages was only temporary.[155] The evacuation and destruction of out-lying areas during war was a common tactic in Greece as illustrated by Pericles’ tactics in the Archidamian War and the works of the Greek military writer Aeneas Tacticus (8.1-5):
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα εἰς τὴν χωραν προσδεχόμενον πλείω καὶ μείζω δύναμιν πολεμίων πρῶτον μὲν τὴν χώραν δυσεπίβολον εἶναι τοῖς πολεμίοις καὶ δυσστρατοπέδευτον καὶ δυσπροσπόριστον κατασκευάζειν καὶ τοὺς ποταμοὺς δυσδιαβάτους καὶ πλείους.
Πρός τε τὰς ἀποβάσεις τῶν πολεμίων εἰς τὰ ψαμμώη καὶ στερεὰ ὅσα καὶ οἷα χρὴ κατασκεθάζεσθαι δολώματα τοῖς ἀποβαίνουσι, τοῖς τε ἐν τῇ χορᾳ καὶ τῇ πόλει λιμέσιν οἷα εἰς τούτους δεῖ φράγματα παρασκεθάζεσθαι πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἰσπλεῖν ἢ τὰ εἰσπλεύσαντα μὴ δ´ύνασθαι ἐκπλεῦσαι, τά τε καταλιμπανόμενα ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἑκουσίως, εἰς χρείαν δὲ φέροντα τοῖς ἐναντίοις, οἷον πρὸς τειχοποιίαν ἢ σκηνοποιίαν ἢ ἄλλην τινὰ πρᾶζιν ὡς δεῖ ἀρχεῖα ποιεῖν ἢ μὴ φθείροντα ἀφανιζειν τά τε βρωτὰ καὶ ποτὰ καῖ τὰ κατ᾽ἀργοὺς ἔγκαρπα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα κατὰ τῆν χώραν, καὶ τὰ στάσιμα ὕδατα ὡς ἄποτα δεῖ ποιεῖν, τὰ τε ἱππάσιμα τῆς χώρας ὡς δεῖ ἄνιππα ποιεῖν, περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων πάντων ὧδε μὲν νῦν παραλείπεται, ὡς δεῖ ἕκαστον τούτων γίγνεσθαι, ἵνα μὴ καὶ ταὺτῃ λίαν πολλά, δηλῶται γέγραπται δὲ τελέως περὶ αὺτων ἐν τῇ Παρασκευστικῇ βίβλῳ.
Next, if invasion by more numerous and larger force of the enemy is anticipated, first, the area must be made difficult for the enemy to attack, to make camp and to forage in and rivers must be made hard to cross and their banks flooded.
And to this the number and kind of traps to be used against enemies disembarking on sandy and rocky shores; what kind of barriers it is necessary to be ready against them at the harbor of the chora or the city so that ships cannot sail in, or if they do, cannot sail out; how to render useless the material left in the chora which might be useful to the enemy, as for making walls or tents, or for any other purpose, or if not destroyed how to put out of sight both food and drink and growing crops; how all standing water in the neighborhood must be made unfit to drink and ground suitable for cavalry maneuvers must be made unfit— All particulars of these arrangements is omitted here, to avoid, as we said, undue repetition: a full discussion of them will be found in Preparations for Defense.
A general evacuation of the countryside in preparation for war fits Thucydides’ account better than a synoecism. In a true synoecism the population evacuated from the coast would be expected to settle in Olynthus itself. However, the fact that many of the evacuees instead were settled in Mygdonia on Macedonian land follows an established pattern of moving vulnerable populations to sites of refuge within allied states. Because it was the only town of any size nearby, Olynthus became the central defensive position for those who remained in the Chalcidice. However, there is no evidence that towns were intended to be permanently abandoned.[156]
The League may not have been formed at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, but the war no doubt had a direct bearing on the eventual formation of the League. A decade of nearly continual fighting would have prevented any meaningful repopulation of the coastal Chalcidic towns and under the pressure of these circumstances, a new association arose among those who had sought shelter in Olynthus. After the peace of 421, some form of synoecism seems to have occurred— between Olynthus and Mecyberna specifically.[157] However, a federated Chalcidian League comprising multiple independent poleis, as opposed to small villages, cannot be dated earlier than 400, when the first coinage of the league begins to be issued.[158] Diodorus (14.92.3) first records the Chalcidians as a unified state in 395 when they joined a coalition against Sparta. Approximately two years later in 393/2 a fifty-year defensive treaty was forged between the Chalcidians and King Amyntas of Macedonia (SIG 135), providing conclusive proof of the League’s existence.[159] Only the first eight lines of the treaty remains, but it suggests that the two states were considered equals at this time.
By the beginning of the fourth century, Olynthus had been nominally at peace with Athens for about twenty years. Under the Peace of Nicias in 421, Sparta forswore her allies in the Chalcidice and halted armed conflict with Athens and its allies; Olynthus, on the contrary, refused the terms of the treaty and continued hostilities with Athens until sometime around 417/16, when they made a separate truce to end the fighting (Thuc. 6.7). This truce appears to have lasted through the end of the Peloponnesian War, since Athens did not join Sparta and Macedon in their punitive expedition against Olynthus in 381-379.[160] After Sparta defeated the Chalcidians and disbanded the league, Olynthus remained part of the Spartan confederacy until 378, when they may appear on the charter for the second Athenian confederation (IG II2 43).[161] This new-found amity between Olynthus and Athens, if real, was not to last. Upon the death of Amyntas in 370/69, Athens and the League backed different claimants to the Macedonian throne and Athens attempted to regain the city of Amphipolis which it had lost in the Peloponnesian War (Aesch. 2.27-29; Plut. Pel. 27; Diod. 15.60, 71). Rather than see Athens regain a foothold in the Chalcidice, Olynthus allied itself with Amphipolis. A series of Athenian generals prosecuted the war alongside Perdiccas III until his betrayal, followed closely by his death in 360 (Diod. 16.2.4) —a separate, but no doubt fortuitous event from the Athenian point of view.[162] Athens, which had been mostly fighting the war by proxy, relying heavily on Perdiccas’ troops and support, allowed the war to trail off with no definite conclusion.
In the chaos following Perdiccas’ death, the Chalcidians once again began expanding their territory. Fearing, perhaps, that whoever ascended the Macedonian throne would resume his war, the Chalcidians cast about for a new ally. They settled upon Grabon of Illyria and a treaty (TAPA 69 [1938] 45, no. 2) was evidently concluded sometime in 357/6. Unfortunately for the League, no sooner had the treaty been ratified and the inscriptions begun, than Philip II seized the throne, trounced Grabon, and made the alliance worthless. A new treaty (TAPA 65 [1934] 103, no. 1) was hastily concluded between Philip and the League with rather unequal terms. In a gesture of friendship, Philip seized Athenian-held Potidaea and “returned” it to the league, lulling the Chalcidians into a sense of complacency. With his borders secured by alliance, Philip was able to consolidate his position in the north unimpaired and plot his next move.
Once Philip had stabilized his base in Macedonia, he turned again toward the Chalcidian League. Rather than marching directly on the League capital at Olynthus, Philip employed a strategy of weakening the League by picking off its smaller, less defensible cities first (Diod. 16.52-53; Dem. 1.4.).[163] Philip accused the League of sheltering his fugitive step-brother Arrhidaeos and demanded he be given over (Schol. Dem. I.5; Justinus 8.3.10). Refusing Philip’s dictate and facing a war they were not entirely prepared for, the League approached Athens for an alliance. The Athenians’ bitter experience with Macedonian politics must have been a deciding factor in their agreement to ally themselves with the League, given their past hostilities.
Reinforcements were sent to Olynthus under the leadership of Chares, consisting of two thousand peltasts and thirty triremes (Philochorus, frg. 132; Diod. 16.52.9). Neither these, nor two later Athenian expeditionary forces were able to drive Philip out of League territory, with the consequence that Olynthus itself was captured and destroyed in 348.[164]
Following Philip’s destruction of Olynthus and dissolution of the Chalcidian League, the residents of the capital were dispersed throughout the Aegean and into Asia Minor; much of the population, we are told, was sold into slavery but some sought refuge in other poleis (Dem. 19.306; Diod.16.53.3). The image presented in the historical record of Olynthians as refugees is contradictory. Most of the evidence for survivors of the destruction comes from inscriptions scattered around the Mediterranean.
Tombstones, proxeny and honorific decrees have been found in Athens, the Aegean islands and even as far afield as Ephesus and Miletus. These inscriptions exhibit a culture of perseverance among the refugees and their descendants as they find new homes and build new lives for themselves. In the literary record, though, Olynthian refugees are portrayed as pitiful remnants of a once powerful city. Cast to the winds by Philip II, the Olynthians become synonymous with defeat in the works of Athenian orators. A common thread unites both categories of evidence, however; like the Plataeans when their city was destroyed, the refugees and their descendants continued to consider themselves Olynthians and to be identified with their lost polis, even into the first century B.C.
The largest concentration of Olynthian refugees appears to have settled in Athens. This is, perhaps, not unexpected, given the alliance between the two states at the time of Olynthus’ destruction, but it must have been a somewhat uncomfortable reality for both parties since it was the lack of timely and meaningful Athenian support that resulted in the loss of Olynthus.[165] A series of grave markers dating from the mid-fourth century through the beginning of the third, bear silent witness to the community in exile, among them IG II2 10020:
Γοργίας Διοκλέους Ὀλύνθιος |
Gorgias son of Diocles an Olythian |
A Diocles son of Charon appears as witness (TAPA 69 (1938) 47, no. 3, ln. 14-18) to the sale of a home in Olynthus around 375/350:
μάρτυ- ρες Διοκλῆς Χάρω- νος, Εὐξίθεος Ξαν- θίππου, Φίλων Θεο- |
Witnesses Diocles on of Charon Euxithes son of Xanthippus, Philon son of Theodotus. |
It is possible that this Diocles was Gorgias’ father. The influx of refugees proved a boon for the Athenian orators. In the immediate aftermath of Olynthus’ destruction Demosthenes used the horrors that befell those captured in his attempts to persuade the Athenians of the need to fight Philip. For instance, in his speech On the False Embassy, Demosthenes tells the story of a young woman who had been captured and brought to a symposium:
ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἧκον εἰς τὸ πίνειν, εἰσάγει τιν᾽ Ὀλυνθίαν γυναῖκα, εὐπρεπῆ μέν, ἐλευθέραν δὲ καὶ σώφρονα, ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐδήλωσεν. ταύτην τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οὑτωσὶ πίνειν ἡσυχῇ καὶ τρώγειν ἠνάγκαζον οὗτοί μοι δοκεῖ, ὡς διηγεῖτ᾽ Ἰατροκλῆς ἐμοὶ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ: ὡς δὲ προῄει τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ διεθερμαίνοντο, κατακλίνεσθαι καί τι καὶ ᾁδειν ἐκέλευον. ἀδημονούσης δὲ τῆς ἀνθρώπου καὶ οὔτ᾽ ἐθελούσης οὔτ᾽ ἐπισταμένης, ὕβριν τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἔφασαν οὑτοσὶ καὶ ὁ Φρύνων καὶ οὐκ ἀνεκτὸν εἶναι, τῶν θεοῖς ἐχθρῶν, τῶν ἀλειτηρίων Ὀλυνθίων αἰχμάλωτον οὖσαν τρυφᾶν: καὶ ‘κάλει παῖδα,’ καὶ ‘ἱμᾶντά τις φερέτω.’ ἧκεν οἰκέτης ἔχων ῥυτῆρα, καὶ πεπωκότων, οἶμαι, καὶ μικρῶν ὄντων τῶν παροξυνόντων, εἰπούσης τι καὶ δακρυσάσης ἐκείνης περιρρήξας τὸν χιτωνίσκον ὁ οἰκέτης ξαίνει κατὰ τοῦ νώτου πολλάς.
And when the drinking began, Xenophron led in an Olynthian woman, both good-looking, freeborn and modest, as the business would prove. At first, they were making her eat and drink quietly, I think, thus Iatrocles described it to me the next day, but as the thing went on, and they were warming up, they ordered her to sit and sing. But the troubled woman not willing or able to do so for the men, this one [Aeschines] and Phryno said that such insolence was unbearable hubris for a captive, one of those hateful to the gods, one of the guilty Olynthians: and [they said] “Call a slave” and “bring a whip.” A slave came in holding a strap, and, I imagine, being drunk and little things being provoking, when she said something and began to cry, the slave tore off her dress and lashed her many times on the back. (Dem. 19.196-97)
That a freeborn woman of a city recently allied with Athens should be subjected to such indecencies would have been disturbing to the average Athenian. One can only imagine the increased effect of Demosthenes’ remonstrations against Philip upon the Athenian people when they could see the friends and relations of people like this anonymous woman around almost any corner. It is interesting to note, though, how little the actual everyday plight of the refugees figures in Demosthenes’, or the other orators’, rhetoric. There is no discussion in the contemporary literary sources of provisions made for the Olynthians, no glimpses of where they lived or what jobs they performed as we saw for the Plataeans in Lysias.[167] No Olynthians appear as the primary figure in any court cases. Instead, Olynthus and the Olynthian refugees become stock figures for oratory, a poignant example of the betrayed city and conquered people.[168] For Demosthenes, the Olynthian refugees take on a kind of heroic, epic sheen. He transforms the survivors into paragons of civic duty, calling them the “best men” and deriding the Philippic collaborators such as Lasthenes and Euthycrates for their venality and servility.[169] Demosthenes lionizes Apollonides for his efforts against Philip; part of the anti-Macedonian party in Olynthus, Apollonides was ultimately exiled from his home for speaking against the Macedonian alliance (Dem. 9.56-66). He subsequently fled to Athens and was granted citizenship there, providing Demosthenes with a neatly packaged trope.[170] Other writers used the fall of the city in their discourse in the form of admonition or censure of political actions. Dinarchus (1.26) references the destruction in his speech against Demosthenes, reminding the jury of the treachery involved in Olynthus’ capture and adjuring them to prevent such an occurrence at Athens. Hypereides (fr. 76) found political use for the event when he satirized a proposal for Euthycrates’ appointment as proxenos, listing among his qualifications the betrayal of the Olynthian cavalry and his role of assessor for selling his countrymen and women into slavery. It is not until the conquest of all of Greece by Philip and Alexander that individual survivors of Olynthus begin to reappear in the literary record as something other than objects of melodrama.
The depiction of Olynthians as miserable, defeated, slaves, while accurate in some respects, is not the whole story. In contrast to these depictions of Olynthians, inscriptions from Athens present a picture of Olynthians refugees slowly rebuilding their lives. While we have little or no mention of the types of jobs Olynthians worked in Athens, there are indications that some of the refugees lived quite comfortably. A certain Nicias apparently arrived in Athens with a portion of his wealth intact, since he figures on an inscription (IG II2 1553, ln. 25-30) dating to c. 330 B.C. as the owner of an escaped slave:
Μάνης Φαληρε οἰκῶν, γεωργός, [ἀπ]οφυγὼν Νικίαν Ὀλύνθιον, φιάλη, [σταθ]μὸνη |
Manes living in Phalere, a farmer, having fled Nikias the Olynthian, a phiale, value, 100 [dr.] |
It is not unthinkable that Nicias’ finances had survived the destruction of Olynthus relatively unscathed. Surprise attacks on poleis were relatively uncommon in ancient Greece. Given the short campaigning season, rough terrain and need to maintain supply lines, opposing armies often moved slowly and along a limited number of easily monitored routes. They were frequently discovered with sufficient time to either gather rural populations inside the city wall, or should the approaching force be overwhelming, evacuate part or all of the city. If the latter course was chosen, it was common practice to evacuate not only the people, but also their goods. This would include livestock as well as portable material possessions.[171] For example, during the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (2.14.1) tells us that the ktemata, or goods, of Athenians who fled to the city from the chora were sent to Euboea for safe-keeping.
οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι ἀκούσαντες ἀνεπείθοντό τε καὶ ἐσεκομίζοντο ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας τὴν ἄλλην κατασκευὴν ἧ κατ᾽οἶκον ἐχπῶντο, καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν οἰκιῶν καθαιροῦντες τὴν ξύλωσιν: πρόβατα δὲ ὑποζύγια ὲ; τὴν Εὔβοιαν διεπέμψαντο καὶ νήσους τὰς ἐπικειμένας.
After the Athenians had heard his [Pericles’] words they were won to his view, and they began to bring in from the fields their children and wives, and also their household furniture, pulling down even the woodwork of the houses themselves; but sheep and draught-animals they sent over to Euboea and the adjacent islands.
The fourth-century author Aeneas Tacticus also discusses the evacuation of goods during time of siege. In the Poliorketika, he states that city officials should give orders that any livestock or slaves unable to be evacuated to the city be sent to friends in neighboring cities for safe-keeping (10.1). If anyone did not have foreign contacts, the city must be responsible for the evacuation of that person’s goods (10.2). Bearing this in mind, a refugee could potentially escape with most of his portable possessions, given sufficient warning. It is doubtful had Nicias arrived empty-handed that he would have been able to repair his fortunes in so short a time as to afford a slave by the 330s; it is much more likely that he evacuated Olynthus with most of his possessions some time before the final siege.
Another Olynthian, Demetrius the son of Sosander, is praised for his service as secretary by a group of thiasotai to which he belonged on an inscription (IG II2 1263) from Piraeus dating to 301/300 B.C.
Given the fifty odd years between the destruction of Olynthus and the date of his honorary decree, Demetrius would either have been a child when his family moved to Athens or part of the first generation born after the city’s destruction, who continued to identify themselves with that community. The location of the decree in the Piraeus provides information regarding Demetrius’ probable residence and line of work.
Piraeus was, for Athens, a place where citizens and foreigners mingled. As the port of Athens, Piraeus was home to many metics who were involved in the shipping, import and export business. Demetrius’ appearance on an inscription from the Piraeus is a good indication that he lived or worked in the port. In the inscription, Demetrius is being honored for his service as secretary to a thiasos. In the course of this work, he not only performed his duties admirably, but he also donated his salary back to the general funds of the thiasos. This act was no doubt an extraordinary gesture of piety on the part of Demetrius, but it also hints at a comfortable, if not substantial, line of income from some other source, probably related to the import/export or shipping industries. Even the fact that Demetrius had the leisure to act as secretary to the thiasos is evidence for a significant amount of free time and income. Demetrius’ generosity netted him a monument upon which the thiasotae honored him with a symbolic crowning and held him up as an example to other members of the society.
Demetrius’ participation in this group raises interesting questions regarding the possible conferral of citizenship rights upon the Olynthians by Athens. Thiasoi were generally organized groups of citizens, cultic in nature that provided revelers for various festivals; they could also provide loans and cover burial expenses for members[172] Thiasoi have been recorded, in Athens, association with phratries.[173] The exact nature of the relationship between phratries and thiasoi is still murky; where they are mentioned together, it appears that the thiasoi were subdivisions of the phratries similar to gene or oregeones. They were “created either by the phratry as a whole for its own purposes or by groups of citizens associated in their capacity as phratres.”[174] Unfortunately, the only other member mentioned in the inscription by name is another foreigner Cleon from Salamis, so it is uncertain whether this thiasos included Athenian citizens who were members of phratries.[175] Should the thiasos to which Demetrius belonged have been a sub-group of a phratry, it would indicate that he held Athenian citizenship, since only Athenian citizens were members of a phratry and foreigners claiming phratric membership were liable to prosecution (FGrH 342 F 4). Jones denies this possibility, and instead argues that thiasoi developed as subgroups of the phratry explicitly to include people not normally allowed access to the phratry, such as women and foreigners.[176] In his argument, Jones particularly references the decree for Demetrius, along with two others passed by thiasoi in which the honoree or proposer, or both, are of foreign descent.[177] Even under the conditions proposed by Jones, Demetrius’ inclusion in the thiasos is noteworthy. As Jones says, “the phratry, if only through its putative subgroups, served to promote integration...within its own local community and, just possibly in the case of non-Athenians, with persons situated outside that community.” Demetrius’ acceptance and participation in the thiasoi could be viewed as a deliberate attempt by his community at integrating the Olynthian into Athenian society. It may even represent a preliminary step toward a grant of isoteleis or, possibly, citizenship. In turn, Demetrius’ participation and generosity toward the group is evidence on his part of a desire to become part of the broader community in Piraeus and Athens. His example demonstrates some of the positive effects refugees could have on their new communities.
Another Olynthian, by the name of Theomnastus, appears in a list of mercenaries in Athens dating to the late fourth or the early third-century.[178] The destruction of the city must have left many Olynthian men bereft of any means to support themselves and their families. Under the circumstances, it is perfectly natural that many sought service as mercenaries. The tumult caused by Philip’s conquest of Greece, Alexander’s march into Asia Minor and finally the wars of succession following Alexander’s death created significant demand for such armies. The first reference to an Olynthian in a mercenary context comes from Polyaenus (5.44). He mentions that the general Memnon of Rhodes had in his service in 335 one Aristonicus, an Olynthian, who was a famous kitharode.
Memnon sent Aristonicus on a fact-finding mission with one of his emissaries to determine the potential strength the enemy Memnon might be facing. In 322, Epicydes the Olynthian was stationed at Teuchira (FGrHist 156 F 9, 17); whether he was a Macedonian sympathizer from the beginning, or simply making the best of a bad situation we can never know. Likewise, the Olynthian Ophellas acted as governor of Cyrene for Ptolemy I.[179] Ophellas provides yet another tantalizing hint that some Olynthians were enfranchised in Athens; he is recorded as marrying an Athenian woman named Euthydice, who was purportedly the descendant of Miltiades, the victorious general of Marathon (Diod. 20.40.5). Should the marriage laws be the same in the 320s as they were just 20 years earlier when Apollodorus gave his speech Against Neaera ([Dem] 59), such a marriage could only have occurred following Ophellas’ naturalization. Finally, in the mid-third century, a descendant of the Olynthian survivors, Aristocles, is recorded as a mercenary cavalryman under Ptolemy III.[180] Employment as mercenaries may partially be responsible for the gradual diaspora of Olynthians across the eastern Aegean during the third- and second- centuries.
One other Olynthian refugee in Athens bears mentioning, the sculptor Sthennis. Sthennis was quite famous for his art; Pausanias mentions two statues of Olympic victors sculpted by Sthennis the Olynthian.[181] Sthennis also receives notice in Pliny’s Historia Naturae as an artist who worked in bronze; four of his works (a statue of Dion the philosopher and a trio of Jupiter, Ceres and Minerva displayed in the Temple of Concord) even found their way to Rome.[182] Sthennis’ signature appears twice in Athens, once on a statue base shared with the Athenian sculptor Leochares from the mid-fourth century and once on a dedication in the theatre of Dionysus.[183] However, the ethnic employed on these signatures is not Ὀλύνθιος as would be expected. The statue base shared with Leochares is signed Σθέννις ἐπόησεν and the inscription from the theatre is signed with an Athenian demotic, Σθέννις Διομειεός. Nevertheless, this Sthennis is generally agreed by scholars to be the same as Sthennis the Olynthian mentioned in Pausanias and the others. What appears to have happened is that sometime around the destruction of Olynthus, Sthennis moved to Athens with his family and became a naturalized citizen.[184] The sculptures that Pausanias viewed would have been carved sometime prior to 348, since their signatures declare Sthennis an Olynthian.
Refugees from Olynthus did not all make for Athens when their city was destroyed; some made their way to the Aegean islands. Immediately following the destruction of Olynthus, a group of refugees settled in the polis of Myrina on the island of Lemnos; referring to themselves as οἰ Χαλκιδεές, they give thanks in an inscription for being granted land in the town (IG XII.8 4):
[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ἐ]πειδὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ- [μος ὁ] Ἀ.θ.[ην]αίων ὁ ἐ[ν Μυρ]ίνει οἰκῶν ἔ[δ]ωκεν χωρίον τοῖς Χ.α.λκiδεῦσιν, στ- ῆσαι τὴν στήλην τὴν περὶ τοῦ ἐπιμε- λητοῦ καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν κήρυκα Διο- νυσίων τῶι ἀγῶνι τραγωιδοῖς ὅτι Χ- αλκιδέες οἱ ἐν Μυρίνει οἰκοῦντες στεφανοῦσι τῶιδε τῶι στεφάνωι τὸ- ν ἐπιμελητὴν Θεόφιλον Μελίτωνο[ς] Ἀλωπεκῆθεν ἀνδραγαθίας ἕνεκα κ[α]- ὶ δικαιοσύνης τῆς εἰς τοὺς Χαλκι[δ]- έας τοὺς ἐν Μυρίνει οἰκοῦντας. |
of Athens living in Myrina gave land to the Chalcidians, they shall set up the stele concerning the governor and the herald shall proclaim during the Dionysia that the Chalcidians who are living in Myrina crown with this crown the governor Theophilus son of Meliton from Alopece for his virtue and justice towards the Chalcidians living in Myrina. |
FIG. 2 Distribution of Olynthian Refugees c. 348 B.C. (Antiquity- à-la-Carte: AWMC,
http:// bioapps.its.unc.edu/projects/awmc/alacarte/)
A date for the inscription right after Olynthus’ destruction can be inferred by the fact that the people who paid for the stele are still referring to themselves as Chalcidians, that is they are still identifying themselves as citizens of the Chalcidian League. Since the League ceased to exist soon after Olynthus‘ destruction with Philip’s conquest of the entire Chalcidice, it is unlikely that the inscription dates to much later than 348. The demos of Athens mentioned in the inscription were cleruchs, colonists who would establish settlements that remained politically bound to the metropolis and in which the colonists retained their original citizenship.[186] Cleruchs might be referred to by either the Athenian ethnic or the ethnic of their cleruchy.[187] The settlement, or cleruchy, also constituted a de facto garrison for the metropolis in that the colonists were all required to render military service in exchange for owning land in the colony. Since the granting of land in the new colony was the basis of a cleruch’s citizenship, the granting of any land to foreigners is exceptional. There are two possible explanations for the Chalcidians being granted land in Myrina. The first is that they had been recipients of enktesis, a specialized grant which allowed foreign nationals to own real property (i.e. houses and land) in another polis. Granting enktesis to the refugees would have been an expedient measure on the part of the Athenians in Myrina; Athens and the Chalcidian League had been allied against Philip at the time of Olynthus’ destruction and the granting of enktesis would be an appropriate measure to provide the allied refugees access to housing and land to cultivate until they could get back on their feet. Alternatively, we might consider that the Athenians had extended the refugee Chalcidians some form of citizenship, and it is as citizen cleruchs that they received an allotment of land.[188]
FIG. 3 Distribution of Olynthian Refugees Late Fourth to Early Third Centuries B.C. (Antiquity- à-la- Carte: AWMC, http://bioapps.its.unc.edu/projects/awmc/alacarte/)
Other pockets of Olynthian refugees appear in the Aegean islands on Delos, Imbros, Cos and Thasos in the late fourth and early third centuries. The inscriptions on Imbros and Cos are funerary, simply listing the name and ethnic of the deceased, and both date to the early 3rd century. On Imbros, we have what appears to be a communal grave marker (IG XII.8 116), listing three generations of the same family:
I.1 Ἐπιχάρης Εὐκτήμονος. |
II.1 Κτησὼ Ἐπιχάρου. |
III.1 Εὐκτήμων Εὐδίκου Ὀλύνθιος. |
Epichares son of Euctemonus |
Cteso daughter of Epichares |
Euctemon son of Eudicus an Olynthian |
The deed dates to the third quarter of the fourth century, just prior to the destruction of Olympus; one of the witnesses named in the deed is Νίκανδρος Ἐπιχά[ρ]εος. Cteso and Nicander were almost certainly related and probably siblings.[189] The gravestone is a sad reminder of Olynthus’ destruction. Because it is a familial grave marker, one would expect to find Nicander’s name inscribed on it, should he have escaped the destruction with his family, leading one to the conclusion that Nicander died in the war or shortly after, before the family moved to Imbros.
Mousaeus son of Eumolpus, a man identified as an Olynthian on a third-century grave stele from Cos (Maiuri, NSER 520), unfortunately cannot be directly linked with anyone recorded in Olynthus before the destruction; nor can the Olynthian Hamoradius whose grave stele has also been excavated on Cos (Maiuri, NSER 563). Maiuri did not assign a date for this inscription, but perhaps it is not unreasonable to assign it to the same period as that of Mousaeus lacking any other attestations of Olynthians on Cos.
Around the same time Aristomenes son of Tuchasius, a possible Olynthian refugee, is recorded on an inscription from Anaphe (IG XII.3 250) dating to the late fourth or early third century.[190] The inscription is not complete; the portion bearing Aristomenes’ ethnic has been damaged so badly that his identification as an Olynthian is not entirely secure; it reads Ἀριστομένης Τυχασίου Ὀλ[. ]ς; the ethnic has been variably restored as Ὀλύνθιος
and Ὀλόντιος, the ethnic for Olous, Crete. Aristomenes is listed among several men from different cities granted the title of proxenos in Anaphe. Like Mousaeus and Hamoradius, there is no record of Aristomenes or his father at Olynthus.
On Delos three Olynthian brothers— Antidorus, Onomacles, and Antigonus, the sons of Nicodemus— were voted the position of proxenoi around 300 B.C. (IG XI.4 531), a grant which is paralleled on Thasos during the same period. A dedicatory inscription (SEG 19:595) found on the island identifies Heracleodorus the son of Aristonicus as a proxenos:
Ἡρακλεόδωρος Ἀριστονίκου Ὀλύνθιος
o πρόξενος τὸν πύργον καὶ τὴν ἐξέδραν κα[ὶ] τὸν ἀνδριάντα θεοῖς πᾶσιν ἐκ τῆς παραθήκη[ς] ἧς κατέλιπε παρὰ Ἀρχεδήμωι τῶι Ἱστιαίο[υ].
Heracleodorus, son of Aristonicus, an Olynthian, the proxenos [gave] the tower and the exedra and the statue for all the gods from the deposit which he had left with Archidemus son of Histiaeus.
The residency of Heracleodorus at Thasos may have been the result of previous ties between that city and Olynthus. Two tombstones of Olynthians have been recorded on Thasos, the first dating to approximately 400 B.C.[191]; the second remains undated.[192] The location of Thasos along the coast of Thrace would have made it an attractive alternative for Olynthians fleeing the Chalcidice; the addition of previous relations dating from the fifth century, whether political or private could only have made the location more inviting. In any case, Heracleodorus must have been a well-respected and prosperous member of the community on the island to be granted the office of proxenos, a conclusion substantiated by the generosity of his gifts. One is tempted to speculate that the source of Heracleodorus’ wealth might have been an inheritance from his father. Should the Aristonicus mentioned as being a famous kitharode by Polyaenus be the same Aristonicus who fathered Heracleodorus, one could imagine Aristonicus parlayed his fame into a fortune which he then left to his son.[193] Heracleodorus provides further evidence of the resilience of the Olynthian refugees; as with Demetrius and Nicias in Athens, he has experienced success in his new community, attaining a high status position and sufficient wealth to be a valuable material asset to the polis.
The number of Olynthians like Nicias, Demetrius and Heracleodorus who not only survived but thrived in their new homes is unexpected compared to modern examples of refugees. Admittedly, the epigraphic record is biased toward recording the activities of the rich and famous, but when looking at the number of successful Olynthians mentioned in inscriptions in comparison to the number of Olynthians recorded overall, the percentage of the well-off is noteworthy. Is it possible that so many wealthy Olynthians appear in the Athenian epigraphic record because their wealth gave them a greater advantage in escaping Olynthus’ destruction?
FIG. 4 Distribution of Olynthian Refugees Third Century B.C. (Antiquity- à-la-Carte: AWMC, http:// bioapps.its.unc.edu/projects/awmc/alacarte/)
Other decrees featuring Olynthian refugees continue to appear around the Aegean and the coast of Asia Minor into the mid- and late-third century B.C. An unknown Olynthian appears in a fragmentary decree from Delphi dating to the third or second century,[194] while two signatures (IG XII, 3 41-2) of an Olythian sculptor named Simus, the son of Harpalus, have been noted on the island of Telos. In Miletus, two Olynthians were granted citizenship during the late third-century:
FIG. 5 Distribution of Olynthian Refugees Second to First Centuries B.C. (Antiquity- à-la-Carte: AWMC, http://bioapps.its.unc.edu/projects/awmc/alacarte/)
Miletus 145
ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Εὐανδρίδου ἐδόθη πολιτεία κατ’ εὐεργεσίαν Χειρικράτηι Γοργίου Ὀλυνθίωι αὐτῶι καὶ ἐκγόνοις. |
In the term of Euandridus citizenship was given in accordance with benefits to Cheiricretes son of Gorgias the Olynthian for himself and his descendants. |
––––––––
MILETUS 139, I.1-2; III.5
[ἐπὶσ]τεφ[αν]ηφόρου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ τετάρτου μετὰ Ἀθηναγόραν οἵδε ἐγένοντο πολῖται κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦ δήμου...
Λύσανδρος Στίχου Ὀλύνθιος ἄνηβος.
In the fourth magistracy of Athenagoras
these became citizens according to the decree of the demos... Lysander, son of Stichus, the Olynthian not yet come to man’s estate.
Cheiricretes’ citizenship decree is so short as to almost be Laconic (should the Spartans have done such a thing, which they did not). There is none of the standard formula seen in Athens and elsewhere stating the reasons for the honorand’s enfranchisement.
Though the decree does state the archonship in which the decree was made, it does not state who made the motion for Cheiricretes to be enfranchised. Perhaps this is simply Miletus‘ own peculiar way of handling decree inscriptions, since Lysander’s decree is very similar. Lysander’s decree of citizenship differs from Cheiricretes in two major respects—first, he was a minor at the time citizenship was granted and second, he was enfranchised alongside women and other children, in addition to men.[195] Given these factors and the further fact that the decree is a mass enfranchisement with no provision for inheritance, like Cheiricretes, the citizenship granted may have been intended to be honorary.
To which generation of post-destruction Olynthians the men in these inscriptions belonged is not clear. Several of the inscriptions lack any means of precise dating, such as the name of an archon or other official whose tenure of office is known. Instead, most of the inscriptions are dated according to stylistic evidence or the wording of the decree. While this imprecision in dating can be frustrating, it does not fundamentally alter the fact the Olynthian identity persisted for a significant period after the city’s destruction.
Ephesus and Rhodes both received men who identified themselves as Olynthians, who must have been descendants of the refugees. In Ephesus Leucippus son of Hergomenus and Hegias son of Parmeniscus were both granted citizenship.[196] Neither inscription has a firm date; Leucippus’ may date to the third century- placing him in the group of possible refugees, but most likely descendant. Hegias’ grant on the other hand, seems to be late Hellenistic in date, perhaps even first century B.C., a date which must make him a descendant. Though it may seem odd that there was still an individual designating himself an Olynthian two centuries after the destruction of the city, Hegias was not alone. The signature of a sculptor named Simus the Olynthian appears on Rhodes in the first century B.C.[197] It is possible that this Simus is related to or the same person as the sculptor whose signature is recorded on Telos, depending on exactly when in the second century the Telos inscriptions were cut. Regardless, all these inscriptions must belong to at least the fifth or sixth generation after Olynthus’ destruction.
Some might argue given the remote date of these inscriptions that the men recorded bore no association to the pre-destruction population of Olynthus and were instead people who had resettled the area of Olynthus and co-opted the ethnic. This may be possible, but the evidence at hand argues against such an interpretation. The site of classical Olynthus was never rebuilt even in the Roman period when there is firm evidence for settlement in the Olynthia.[198] Olynthia is, in fact, how the area came to be known in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods, indicating that the chora which previously belonged to Olynthus was being cultivated, but the polis upon which it was dependent was not Olynthus. An inscription found in the vicinity of Cassandrea (formerly the site of Potidaea) references land grants made by Lysimachus of Macedonia ἐν τῆι Ὀλυνθίαι in 285/4. Hatzopoulos argues that because the decree was erected in Cassandreia this is an indication that it, not Olynthus, was the political center of the region and that the area surrounding the old site of Olynthus was part of Cassandreia’s kome.[199] This being the case, residents would not have identified themselves as Olynthians. In fact, a proxeny decree from Oropos dating to the late third or early second century displays the use of the ethnic Κασσανδρέα.[200] This would have been the proper form of address for residents in the Olynthia as part of Cassandrea’s kome. Cassandreia continued to be the political center of this portion of the Chalcidice into the Roman period when a colony was founded at the site by Q. Hortensius Hortatus in 43 B.C. negating the possibility that the Rhodian and Ephesian inscriptions are alluding to anyone other than descendants of the original Olynthian refugees.
The largest concentration of Olynthians outside of Athens is to be found in the polis of Oropos. Originally a colony of Eretria, Oropos had a long history of association with Athens. Herodotus (6.101.1) mentions that Oropos was considered part of Attica from the end of the 6th century until 490. But Oropos as a polis was never incorporated into the deme structure of Athens. In fact, it appears to have been a semi-autonomous state which, much like Plataea, was continuously fought over by the larger powers in the region, specifically Thebes and Athens. On the one hand, Oropos’ strategic location on the coast across from Euboea made it an appealing port for the Athenian navy, especially once Athens gained possession of poleis in Thrace. On the other hand, Oropos’ location in Boeotia and situation on three separate routes into Attica piqued the interest of Thebes. No doubt both poleis shared an interest in the commercial assets of the city; a thriving import and export business, plentiful timber and pitch in the form of pine forests in the surrounding chora, pasturage on the mountains and rich farmland on the plains, with the addition, from the fourth century on, of proceeds from the Amphiaraeon.[201]
At the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, Oropos was still an Athenian possession; Thucydides (2.23) notes that the Peloponnesian army retreating from Attic in 431 sacked and burned the district of Graea which was being held by Oropos for Athens. A generation later, Oropos was conquered by Thebes with the help of sympathetic citizens, but was not annexed.[202] Athens, too weakened by losses in Sicily, was unable to reclaim the territory and Oropos enjoyed about a decade of independence before internal conflict resulted in an appeal to Thebes and a second capture of the city.[203] At first, Thebes limited its intervention to moving the city seven states inland; eventually the polis was annexed by the Boeotian federation, its governing bodies were dissolved and its citizens forcibly enrolled as Thebans.[204] The ratification of the King’s Peace and its provision of autonomia saw Oropos free once more, but under threat of the new Boeotian confederacy, the citizens chose to renew their alliance with Athens.[205] At the same time, administration of the Amphiaraeon fell under Athenian control.[206]
The Athenians did not hold Oropos for long. Eretria reclaimed its colony by 366, but was ultimately forced to relinquish it to Thebes.[207] Athens regained Oropos following the defeat of Thebes by Philip II at Chaeronea.[208] It was during this period of possession, in 329/8, that Athens instituted the Great Amphiaraea as a quadrennial festival similar to the Panathenaic festival.[209] It was also during this period of possession, most likely, that the first Olynthians arrived in Oropos.
The most prominent of the Olynthian refugees to find a new home at Oropos was the sculptor Sthennis. Sometime at the end of the fourth century or beginning of the third, Sthennis and his family apparently moved from Athens to Oropos. A statue dedicated by King Lysimachus of Thrace appears in the Amphiaraeon bearing the signature of the sculptor— Sthennis son of Herodorus, an Athenian[210]— in addition to a statue base bearing the signature of Herodorus son of Sthennis.[211] In the late third century and early second, the family of Sthennis is joined by two more Olynthians, Demetrius son of Zoïlus and Hieron son of Aenesidemus.[212] Both of these men are recipients of proxeny decrees around 240 B.C. Hieron and his father Aenesidemos have no parallels in Olynthus; however a Zoïlus son of Philocrates does appear in a house deed excavated at the site.[213] This particular deed is dated to the second quarter of the fourth century, just before the destruction of Olynthus making it barely possible, but rather unlikely that Demetrius is a son of this Zoïlus.[214] He might, however, be a grandson. The curious part about this re-settlement of Olynthians and their descendants at Oropos is the inconsistent use of ethnics. Sthennis and his son Herodorus both use the ethnic Ἀθηναῖος whereas Demetrius and Hieron both retain the Olynthian ethnic. What might account for this disparity?
The actions of Olynthian refugees are somewhat difficult to ascertain due to the scattered and fragmentary nature of the evidence, but the response by various communities to the Olynthians was broadly similar. In the late fourth century and very early third, immediately after the destruction of Olynthus, the most common response to arrival of refugees from Olynthus was a grant of proxeny; as noted previously, these grants occur in the communities of Anaphe, Delos and Thasos. The granting of proxeny to Olynthian refugees provides a window onto how the host community perceived the refugees. The role of proxenos in the Greek world was to act as a host and political liaison between a polis and visiting foreign nationals, much like a modern consulate.
Proxenoi were very pointedly not members of their host community, instead they retained their original citizenship. Grants of proxeny to individual Olynthians might be made for various reasons. As outlined in the introduction, proxeny grants often came with certain perquisites such as the remission of taxes upon foreigners. The benefits of such an arrangement for refugee Olynthians are obvious, but the grant of proxeny to refugees also benefitted the host community because it provided a familiar structure within which host-refugee relations might be negotiated. Also, if a large number of Olynthians should take up residence in a particular city the appointment of a proxenos gave the host polis a representative to act as intermediary with the refugee community.
That grants of proxeny were given to Olynthians after the destruction of their city suggests that the Olynthians were still regarded, in some way, as a separate and potentially viable political body. This assumption is apparent in Plutarch’s discussion about Callisthenes in his Alexander:
τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους σοφιστὰς καὶ κόλακας ὁ Καλλισθένης ἐλύπεισπουδαζόμενος μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν νέων διὰ τὸν λόγον, οὐχ ἧττον δὲ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἀρέσκων διὰ τὸν βίον, εὔτακτον ὄντα καὶ σεμνὸν καὶ αὐτάρκη, καὶ Βεβαιοῦντα τὴν λεγομένην τῆς ἀποδημίας πρόφασιν, ὅτι τοῦς πολίτας καταγαγεῖν καὶ κατοικίσαι πάλιν τὴν πατροίδα φιλοτιμούνος ἀνέβη πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον.[215]
But the other sophists and flatterers were annoyed that Callisthenes was being courted by the young men on account of his words, and no less pleasing to the older men on account of his way of life, being well- ordered, dignified, and independent, and established the motive spoken for his sojourn abroad, that is, that he had gone to Alexander ambitious to return his fellow-citizens to their homes and establish again his native city. (Plut. Alex. 53)
Plutarch’s story hinges upon the belief that sufficient numbers of Olynthians still existed and could be persuaded to re-populate the city and function as a cohesive political body. This assumption that does not indicate that they were organized on the same level as the Plataean refugees in Athens during the 5th century. There is no record of an official evacuation of Olynthus before the siege or a consensual decision upon where to seek refuge after the city’s destruction. Nor is there any record of an attempt by the Olynthians to preserve their polity through political action such as the meetings held by the Plataeans during their first flight to Athens. Rather it is as if the host poleis were acknowledging the potential for Olynthus to be re-founded and the exiles to return home, as occurred with the Plataeans. In the interim, they provided proxenoi within their communities to act as interlocutors with any of the refugees who happened to arrive on their doorsteps. As time progressed, however, and first Philip, then Alexander consolidated their control of Hellas, that potential was lost and grants of proxeny decreased, replaced by more general grants of citizenship to the descendants of the refugees in the third and second centuries at Ephesus and Miletus to the descendants of refugees who retained the Ολύνθιος ethnic despite never having lived there.
There is at least one exception to this pattern: a grant of citizenship to a refugee is recorded at Ephesus in the late fourth or early third century. Also, the decree granting land to Chalcidians at Myrina requires some explanation if it does indeed represent an enfranchisement. At the other end of the spectrum are the two proxeny decrees (I. Oropos 56 and 208) made to Olynthians in Oropos during the late third or early second century, long past the point when other cities had moved onto grants of citizenship.
While the Ephesus decree is a true discrepancy, we believe both the Myrina inscription and the proxeny decrees can be explained.
As we saw with respect to the Plataeans, it was not considered desirable to accommodate a large population of refugees in one’s community for an extended period of time. Repatriation was, of course, the ultimate goal for any refugee group and their host poleis; failing that, the Athenians pursued a model of integration or relocation.
The Plataean grant of citizenship allowed for the gradual integration of the refugees into Athenian society and the aborted occupation of Scione provided an alternative residence for those Plataeans who did not or could not integrate. No explicit account can be found in the literary record of an Olynthian resettlement paralleling that of the Plataeans at Scione. Despite this, there is strong evidence that resettlement did occur.
The enfranchisement of the Plataeans at Athens was enacted in 427/6 following on the heels of Plataea’s capture and destruction; the resettlement at Scione did not occur until 421, approximately a decade after the first refugees arrived in Athens and six years following the capture and destruction of their city. Olynthus was destroyed in 348 by Philip II, however, should Plutarch be believed, there was still the possibility that Callisthenes would secure permission to return and rebuild the site in the late 330s. His abrupt fall from favor and execution sometime around 328/327 must have put an end to such hopes; all options now exhausted, the Olynthian refugees and the Athenians would most likely have resorted to the same measures which had been taken for the Plataeans years ago. The question of whether some form of citizenship was granted to the Olynthians is an open one. The Suda (Κάρανος), a very late source from the 10th century A.D., states that all Olynthians who escaped their city’s destruction were removed to Athens and given citizenship. It is unclear what the sources are for this note, though, and scholars have been inclined to discount it as spurious.[216] The inscription from Myrina recording a land grant made to a group of Chalcidians soon after Olynthus’ destruction could be read as a sign that the Athenians living there had accepted the Chalcidians as new citizens. This inscription dates to about 348 which would make it the earliest citizenship grant to fleeing Olynthians and pre-dates Callisthenes’ death. The dating is not precise, however, and it is possible it originated slightly later. The Myrinians, located just off the coast of Thrace, were in a position to see first-hand Philip’s actions and may have been more skeptical of the possibility of return for the refugees and thus more willing to grant citizenship immediately.
Alternatively, the inscription may represent a type of enhanced status called isoteleias which was held by some metics, or foreign residents, in Athens, characterized by a remittance of the metic tax and the ability to own property. This interpretation is supported by a passage in Harpocration quoting the historian Theophrastus, who claimed that an isoteles was exempt from taxes, citing the Olynthians as an example.[217] It has been argued that the grant made to the Plataeans in the fifth century was also of this nature rather than one of true citizenship. A decree of isoteleis for the Chalcidians in Myrina would serve much the same purpose as one of proxeny; it would have outlined the exact limits of integration for the alien community in residence while also acknowledging the continued existence of the Chalcidian state.
The most direct evidence of enfranchisement is to be found in the family tree of the sculptor Sthennis. Sthennis is clearly identified in Pausanias as an Olynthian, but named in other sources without an ethnic.[218] His signatures in Athens also vary; he either signs his work Σθέννις ἐπόησεν or with the Athenian demotic, Διομειεός. The claim of Athenian citizenship continues when the family moves to Oropos; here we find signatures of Sthennis’ son, Herodorus (I. Oropos 371), and grandchildren Sthennis (I. Oropos 383) and Herodoros (I. Oropos 372.) all of whom employ the Athenian demotic in their signatures. Even Sthennis’ great-grandson Kalliades claims the Athenian ethnic (SEG 40.665; Lindos II 103). The signature of the elder Herodorus in the Amphiareion has been dated to about 300. This date coupled with the information we possess from the Plataean grant of citizenship suggests that Herodorus was probably the son of Sthennis and an Athenian woman; as such, Herodorus inherited his father’s citizenship status and passed it on to his own children.
This still does not explain why, if a grant of citizenship was made en masse to the Olynthians, that Sthennis and his family abandoned the Olynthian ethnic while as far as can be determined from the epigraphic record no other Olynthians did. The simplest explanation would be that there was no grant of citizenship made to the Olynthians as a whole; Sthennis’ citizenship was an exceptional measure made for a highly regarded artist and then passed down via heredity. On the other hand, Sthennis‘ and his sons‘ display of the Athenian ethnic might be an example of individual acculturation outpacing the group as outlined by Berry.[219] As an artist, Sthennis might have had a financial motive to present himself as an Athenian rather than an Olynthian. Many of the private citizens who could afford to commission works of art might prefer an “Athenian” artist rather than one from the hinterland of the Chalcidice; for that matter government contractors could also be so inclined. Under these circumstances, playing up his newly won Athenian citizenship could have been a way of competing with local talent. In this analysis we might still posit a group enfranchisement, but one in which the greater part of the group retained their original identity, as the Plataeans residing in Athens during the fifth century retained their ethnic, despite being enfranchised at Athens. If, then, Sthennis and his family had worked to integrate themselves into Athenian society, what might induce him to abruptly leave Athens, widely regarded as the cultural center of ancient Greece, to take up residence in a relatively unimportant city such as Oropos?
Oropos had been a part of the Athenian defensive measures during the Peloponnesian War until it was captured by Thebes in the winter of 412/11.[220] The vicissitudes of the early fourth century underlined the desirability of a coherent border defense in northern Attica, leading Athens to construct a series of forts and signal stations to guard the passes out of the Megarid and Boeotia into Attica.[221] According to Ober, the major period of construction on the border defenses occurred between approximately 385 and 340, with repairs made in the late third century.[222] These fortifications were indicative of a shift in Athenian policy from offensive military action to a defensive stance. The new defenses in northern Attica followed the mountain ranges with a fort positioned in every major pass into the Athenian plain below.[223] At least one fort, tentatively dated to the early fourth century, was located in the Oropia at modern Skala Oropos overlooking the bay.[224] The existence of this fort denotes an interest on the part of Athens in monitoring movement in the region both from land and sea. It seems reasonable that upon securing the town of Oropos again in 329/8, the Athenians wished to increase their presence in the region; it would hardly be surprising since there were three major roads running into Attica from Oropos. Beginning in the mid-third century, there is a dramatic increase in Athenian dedications at the Amphiaraeon, some no doubt in connection with the newly reorganized games. At the end of the century, two Athenians, Biottus son of Eudicus and Charinus son of Anticharmus also act as witnesses in a manumission decree set up at the Amphiaraeon (I. Oropos 329).[225] The appearance of Sthennis’ family in Oropos at the same time— and their continued residence— leads one to speculate that Athens resettled some allies or citizens on the site, if the city was not re-garrisoned altogether.
Bringing Oropos under Athenian control would complete the northeastern end of Athens fortification line. It was already included in the lines of sight from multiple signal stations and the placement of pro-Athenian elements in the city would extend the defensive frontier from coast to coast. Seen in this light, the relocation of Sthennis’ family to Oropos, followed by other Olynthians, begins to resemble the Plataean resettlement. Athens needed allies in Oropos to secure the city against a possible re- conquest by Thebes. At the same time, a number of Olynthian refugees were living in Athens and it is not improbable that the Athenians, remembering the successful garrisoning of Scione by the Plataeans, decided that Olynthian refugees might serve a similar purpose Oropos. A small number of Athenian citizens likely accompanied the refugees explaining why Biottus son of Eudicus and Charinus son of Anticharmus were acting as witnesses to a manumission at Oropos (I. Oropos 329). Sthennis as both an Olynthian and a naturalized Athenian would be an ideal candidate for resettlement and the nearby sanctuary would provide a steady stream of commissions for the sculptor and his family.
The fact that Demetrius son of Zoïlus and Hieron son of Ainesidemus were granted proxeny decrees in the third century can be easily explained as well. Oropos regained its independence in 322 and was never again a territory of Athens. Instead, the city joined the third Boeotian federation sometime between 312-304.[226] The Oropians as an independent polity may have been content to allow Olynthians who had been in residence for almost a generation to remain in the city without special provisions. But as a member of the league they were required to follow federal laws. As such, any Olynthians who moved to the city after this date, or who were already living there, would be reclassified as alien residents; they would now require a representative to the government. Demetrius and Hieron as proxnoi would become those representatives, thus explaining the very late date of the decrees.
The cases of Olynthian refugees in the fourth century and beyond provides numerous examples of individual and group perseverance. Olynthians appear as important members of communities throughout the eastern Aegean into the 2nd and 1st century receiving grants of proxeny, enktesis and citizenship from their host cities and also appear as mercenaries in the armies of Macedon and the successor kingdoms.
These were not men looking for a handout, but men working to ensure their own and their descendants’ futures. Though the Suda’s contention that Olynthians received citizenship in Athens in the fourth century has generally been dismissed, the cases of Demetrius, Sthennis, Ophellas and the Chalcidian refugees on Myrina provide sufficient evidence to reconsider the proposition. At the very least, small groups of Olynthians were enfranchised if not the entire population residing in Athens.
The disappearance of Olynthians from the Athenian epigraphic record at the end of the fourth century is noteworthy. It is possible that the mercenary trade which some Olynthians were actively pursuing might have led to a gradual redistribution of the refugees into the islands and out of Athens. These men, lacking a permanent home, retained their ethnic and passed it on to their children accounting for the Olynthians attested in the islands in the second and first century. Alternatively, should the mass of Olynthian refugees in Athens have received citizenship, like Sthennis, they may have gradually assimilated to the Athenian population and become indistinguishable from the rest of the populace. Finally, it is apparent that some Olynthians at least resettled in Oropos. This resettlement may have been voluntary, but given the pattern established with the Plataeans and Messenians, and the importance of securing the town against Thebes, it is likely that Athenian officials encouraged the population transfer.
