Graninger D. Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy) (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

 chapter two

WhileItonosisatbestmarginaltothemythologiestreatedbyancient

literature, there is every reason to suspect that he was a major gure

in the local traditions of central Greece, just as his father, Amphictyon,

had been. is Amphictyon, the eponymous hero of the Delphic Amph-

ictiony (not the homonymous king of early Athens), was worshipped

alongside Demeter Amphictyonis at Anthela already in the h century,

and as the epithet of that goddess suggests, he may have been perceived as

central to the establishment of the cult in the sacred time of myth.

J. Hall

has recently demonstrated how the mythical descendants of Amphictyon

may track the spread ofmembership in the Delphic Amphictiony. Amph-

ictyon’s three sons Malos, Itonos, and Physkos, can be linked closely with

ethne in the area of the Spercheios valley and neighboring Anthela: Malos

was eponym of the Malians, Physkos a central hero of the Lokrians, and

Itonos a major gure in Phthiotic Achaia.

e next stage in the Amphic-

tionic genealogy witnessed the birth of Ion and Lokros (by Physkos) and

Boiotos (by Itonos), and by extension, the subsequent incorporation of

Ionians and Boiotians (and Lokrians) into the Amphictiony. us Itonos’

lineage immediately thrusts us into a much broader ambit, taking in the

Spercheios valley to the south, the grand sanctuaries at Anthela and Del-

phi, and indeed, through his subsequent siring of Boiotos, to the northern

borders of Attica.

A pair of daughters are also associated with Itonos: Athena (almost

certainly a ‘foster’ child from Olympos) and Iodama. e genealogist

Simonides records a curious tale about them: ‘… Itonos had two daugh-

ters, Athena and Iodama, who in contention during a battle in arms,

advanced against one another in strife, and that Iodama was killed by

Athena’.

e tale contains elements also present in the of a better-known

tradition of Athena and Pallas, which may have had a near panhellenic

currency.

Athena is here revealed as a martial goddess, albeit one whose

strengths are not governed subtly by m¯etis but are brutish and destructive

of the family.

e familial nexus of Itonos, Iodama, and Boiotos allows the goddess’

militant character to be gleaned in broader perspective. Already in the

Hdt. ...

Hall , pp. –.

Et. Mag. s.v. TΙτων: φησ δ 2 γενεαλ#γος Σιμωνδης QΙτ:νου "υγατ.ρας δ,ο,

QΑ"ην1ν κα QΙοδμαν, Vς !ζηλωκυας τν 2πλομαχικν ες τν 3ριν τν ες %λλλας

χωρ=σαι

, %ναιρε"=να τε τν QΙοδμαν (π4 τ=ς QΑ"ην1ς.

E.g., [Apollodorus] ...

the federal sanctuaries 

h century ucydides knew of a tradition suggesting that the Boiotoi

had migrated from western essaly to Boiotia following the Trojan

War: ‘e present-day Boiotians, in the sixtieth year aer the sack of

Troy, aer being forced out from Arne by the essalians, occupied what

is now called Boiotia, but was previously called the Kadmeian land’.

Strabo could write that the Boiotians brought the cult of Athena Itonia

with them from essaly to Boiotia and established a sanctuary of the

goddess outside of Koroneia upon their arrival. In the historical era, this

sanctuary would become a principal sanctuary of the Boiotian koinon

and site of the annual festival of the Pamboiotika: ‘And so Koroneia is

near Helikon founded upon a height, and the Boiotians aer the Trojan

War returning from essalian Arne took it, when indeed they also

took Orchomenos. Aer conquering Koroneia, in the plain before it

they established a sanctuary of Athena Itonia homonymous with the

essalian, and they called the river owing alongside it the Kouarios,

which sounds similar to the one in essaly. But Alcaeus calls it the

Kouralios …’.

It is unclear what historical reality, if any, lay behind this

tradition. What is signicant, however, in this ‘Boiotian’ passage is its

evidence for a discourse that links Athena Itonia, Boiotia, and essaly,

and its redeployment and elaboration of elements from Athena Itonia’s

essalian setting. Here Athena Itonia is a gure of conquest whose

cult marks the entry of the migrating Boiotians into their historical

homeland. According to Pausanias, there was even a tradition that a

Iodama served as priestess of Athena Itonia at the Koroneia sanctuary

until she (again) met an unfortunate end: ‘e following is also said:

Iodama, when she was priestess to the goddess, went into the sanctuary

at night and Athena appeared to her, and the head of Medusa the Gorgon

was on her chiton. Iodama became a stone when she saw it. For this

reason, every day a woman, aer putting re on the altar of Iodama,

says three times, in the Boiotian dialect, that Iodama is alive and asking

uc. ..: Βοιωτο τε γρ ο6 νν IξηκοστX 3τει μετ QΙλου Yλωσιν !ξ TΑρνης

%ναστντες (π4 Θεσσαλ ν τν νν μν Βοιωταν

, πρ#τερον δ Καδμηδα γ=ν καλου-

μ.νην XZκισαν

Str. ..: \ μν οOν Κορ:νεια !γγς το 8Ελικ ν#ς !στιν !φ’ ψους 6δρυμ.νη,

κατελβοντο δ’ α0τν !πανι#ντες !κ τ=ς Θετταλικ=ς TΑρνης ο6 Βοιωτο μετ τ

Τρωικ

, τε περ κα τ4ν QΟρχομεν4ν 3σχον_ κρατσαντες δ τ=ς Κορωνεας !ν τX πρ4

α0τ=ς πεδXω τ4 τ=ς QΙτωνας QΑ"ην1ς 6ερ4ν 6δρ,σαντο 2μ:νυμον τX ΘετταλικX

, κα

τ4ν παραρρ.οντα ποταμ4ν Κουριον προσηγ#ρευσαν 2μοφ:νως τX !κε5

. QΑ λκα 5ο ς

δ καλε5 Κωρλιον

….

 chapter two

for re’.

A. Schachter has made the attractive suggestion that ‘Iodama’s

re’ was the equivalent of the hearth re for the Boiotian League.

If it is in a Boiotian context that Athena Itonia appears most fully devel-

oped in our literary sources, it is equally clear that, at the level of dis-

course, all roads lead to essaly—her murder of Iodama, her genealogi-

cal associations with the hero Itonos, and her corresponding geographic

connections with the homonymous city. Her direct linkage with the con-

quest of Boiotia by the Boiotoi likely had northern parallels, for as we

have seen, the essalians too were imagined as invaders. Perhaps in

essaly she in some sense legitimized the essalian superiority over

the perioikoi and penestai, those populations which continued to bear

the marks of this physical (and discursive) conquest well into historical

times.

e essalian Sanctuaries of Athena Itonia

e preceding discussion has claried the importance of Athena Itonia

to the essalians. In the long dominant, primitivist model of Archaic

ethne, there ought to have been a sanctuary of such a goddess which

served as the capital for the essalian ethnos, and it is not surprising

that historians and archaeologists have long occupied themselves with

the search for just such a sanctuary. e surviving literary, epigraphic,

andarchaeological evidence, however, poorly suits such a model ofethnos

religion, several Procrustean attempts notwithstanding. ere was no

single sanctuary of Athena Itonia in essaly, but a plurality of such

sanctuaries: certainly near Itonos in Achaia Phthiotis; certainly near the

Paus. .. λ.γεται δ κα τοι#νδε, QΙοδμαν 6ερωμ.νην τG= "εX ν,κτωρ !ς τ4

τ.μενος !σελ"ε5ν κα α0τG= τν QΑ"ην1ν φαν=ναι

, τX χιτ νι δ τ=ς "εο τν Μεδο,σης

!πε5ναι τ=ς Γοργ#νος κεφαλν_ QΙοδμαν δ.

, Hς ε?δε, γεν.σ"αι λ"ον. κα δι τοτο

!πιτι"ε5σα γυν πρ %ν π1σαν \μ.ραν !π τ=ς QΙοδμας τ4ν βωμ4ν !ς τρς !πιλ.γει

τG= Βοιωτ ν φωνG= QΙοδμαν ζ=ν κα ατε5ν πρ

Schachter –, vol. , p. .

Distinct from Boiotia, there is a literary discourse which focuses on Athena Itonia

as weaver and craswoman in essaly: Apollonius of Rhodes probably attributed both

the production of Jason’s cloak and the construction of the Argo to the goddess. Argo:

.–; cloak: .–. e textual tradition wavers between forms of

Τριτωνς and

QΙτωνς in these passages. ere are many potential sources of this confusion, including

scribal error and characteristically Alexandrian play with epithets. e uncertainty may

also be related to a proekdosis of the Argonautica which the scholia mention at several

points in book .

the federal sanctuaries 

modern village of Philia in essaliotis; certainly at Krannon; probably

between Pherai and Larisa in Pelasgiotis; and possibly near Pharkadon

in Hestiaiotis.

It is perhaps not so surprising that several Itonia sanctuaries dot-

ted the essalian landscape, given both the possible signicance of

the goddess to the ethnos and the vastness of the territory which it

occupied. But such a realization may entail only a modest modica-

tion of the primitive ethnos hypothesis discussed above: one of these

sanctuaries must surely have been more signicant vis-à-vis the eth-

nos than the others, and this sanctuary will have served as the capi-

tal. As we shall argue, however, three of these sanctuaries at various

points in their history seem to have actually served or been constructed

by outsiders as powerful symbolic loci for the essalians, approach-

ing ‘capital’ status. By isolating the key variables of chronology and con-

stituency, however, it will be possible to impose order on these unruly

data.

e Pharkadon Temenos (?)

At .., Strabo writes:

3στι δ κα Φαρκαδaν !ν τG= 8Ιστιαι:τιδι, κα

bε5 δι

’ α0τ ν 2 Πηνει4ς κα 2 Κουρλιος · cν 2 Κουρλιος bυες παρ

τ4 τ=ς QΙτωνας QΑ"ην1ς 6ερ4ν ες τ4ν Πηνει4ν !ξησιν

.Radtplausibly

understands

α0τ ν to mean ‘the inhabitants of Pharkadon’.

Adiplo-

matic English translation might read: ‘Pharkadon is also in Hestiaio-

tis, and through them ow the Peneios and the Kouralios, of which the

Kouralios, aer owing past the sanctuary of Athena Itonia, empties

into the Peneios’. Strabo’s Kouralios is probably the modern Sofatidikos,

whichdoesindeedowintothePeneiosca.–kmeastofwhathasbeen

Callimachus at h.Dem. – describes the Ormenidai summoning Erisychthon

to the games of Athena Itonia. e physical location of the sanctuary which hosted these

games is not mentioned, nor is there an obvious candidate from the list mentioned above.

Hopkinson  ad loc. suggested that a Boiotian sanctuary of Athena Itonia was here

indicated, but this seems unlikely given the broadly essalian setting of the hymn; these

Ormenidai may be linked with Ormenos, founder of Ormenion according to Homer (Il.

.)—an unidentied site in eastern essaly.

Citing plentiful comparanda for this type of oblique transition from place name to

the inhabitants of said place at Radt , p. . Radt , p.  oers the following

translation: ‘Auch Pharkadon liegt in der Histiaiotis, und durch sein Gebiet iessen der

Peneios und der Kuralios. Der Kuralios iesst an dem Heiligtum der Itonischen Athena

vorüber und mündet in den Peneios’.

 chapter two

identied as the ancient settlement of Pharkadon.

If Strabo’s topogra-

phy and his Greek have been construed correctly, then it is possible that

he knew a sanctuary of Athena Itonia in the chora of Pharkadon. ere

are several complicating factors, however. First, the Sofatidikos can also

be plausibly described as owing by the Athena Itonia sanctuary near

Philia ca. km to the south. Strabo’s description is topographically pre-

cise not in absolute terms, but relative terms, and would seem to allow

for either reading. Second, there is some toponymic overlap with Strabo’s

descriptions of Athena Itonia sanctuaries in Achaia Phthiotis and in Boi-

otia, and it is possible that he is simply mistaken in this instance.

additional literary, archaeological, or epigraphic evidence supports (or

refutes) this testimony.

Given these complicating factors, the existence

of a temenos of Athena Itonia in the chora of Pharkadon is best regarded

as merely possible.

e Pelasgiotid Temenos

Pausanias describes what may be a second sanctuary of Athena Itonia in

essaly: ‘[Pyrrhus], aer overpowering the native troops of Antigonus

and his Gallic mercenaries, pursued them to the coast cities, and him-

self reduced upper Macedonia and the essalians. e extent of the

ghting and the decisive character of the victory of Pyrrhus are shown

best by the Celtic armour dedicated in the sanctuary of Itonian Athena

between Pherai and Larisa, with this inscription on them: “Pyrrhus the

Molossian hung these shields taken from bold Gauls as a gi to Ito-

nian Athena, when he had destroyed all the host of Antigonos. It is no

great marvel. e Aiakidai are warriors now, even as they were of old”’.

For these identications, cf. Radt , p. .

But, as Helly , pp. –, there is no reason why there should not have been

rivers in Achaia Phthiotis, Boiotia, and essaliotis, each with similar names and each

associated with a sanctuary of Athena Itonia.

Strabo’s reliability is a major concern and, like all ancient geographers, he is fallible

and occasionally prone to grievous error. For an important study of Strabo’s essaly, see

Helly . Dueck , pp. , , has suggested that Strabo’s mention of Pharsalian

informers at .. may suggest direct autopsy of the essalian landscape—a fact which,

if true, would enhance his credibility as a witness.

Paus. ..–, trans. Jones: κρατσας δ τν τε δαν παρασκευν QΑντιγ#νου

κα τ4 παρ

’ α0τX Γαλατ ν ξενικ4ν !δωξεν !ς τς !π "αλσσGη π#λεις, α0τ4ς δ

Μακεδονας τε τ=ς dνω κα Θεσσαλ ν !πεκρτησε

. δηλο5 δ μλιστα τ4 μ.γε"ος

τ=ς μχης κα τν Π,ρρου νκην

, Hς παρ πολ γ.νοιτο, τ %νατε".ντα πλα τ ν

Κελτ ν !ς

[τε] τ4 τ=ς QΑ"ην1ς 6ερ4ν τ=ς QΙτωνας Φερ ν μεταξ κα Λαρσης κα

the federal sanctuaries 

Pyrrhus of Epiros, recently returned to Epiros from his Italian campaigns

and in need of resources for his army, mounted a desperate invasion

of upper Macedonia in . He won a great victory over Antigonus

Gonatas and his Gallic mercenaries and proceeded to overrun essaly.

He commemorated the victory by dedicating battle spoils at a essalian

sanctuary of Athena Itonia. e dedication is also mentioned by Plutarch

and Diodorus Siculus, but only Pausanias describes the sanctuary with

any topographic precision: ‘between Pherai and Larisa’ in the essalian

tetrad of Pelasgiotis.

No further literary, archaeological, or epigraphic

evidence supports (or refutes) Pausanias’ testimony, and many scholars

have assumed that the periegete was simply in error and suggested that

he meant either the Philia temenos or the sanctuaryin Phthiotic Achaia.

Assuming error in Pausanias is not as easy as it once was, however.

In a recent treatment of Pausanias’ topographic accuracy, K. Pritchett

assembled the  most egregious errors allegedly committed by the

periegete and successfully defended him in all but four cases.

Moreover,

Pausanias claims to have visited Larisa, and he discusses essalika at

several other places in the text.

In short, there is no reason to doubt

Pausanias’ testimony on this matter.

While Pyrrhus’ control over essaly would be ephemeral, the politics

of this dedication oers insight into both the status of Athena Itonia

within essaly and the Pelasgiotid sanctuary of the goddess. Pyrrhus

clearly links his own descent with the essalians by wayof Neoptolemus,

son of Achilles, who was regarded as the founder of an Epirote royal line.

τ4 !πγραμμα τ4 !π’ α0το5ς · τος "υρεος 2 Μολοσσ4ς QΙτωνδι δ ρον QΑ"νfα |

Π,ρρος %π4 "ρασ.ων !κρ.μασεν Γαλατ1ν,|πντα τ4ν QΑντιγ#νου κα"ελaν στρατ#ν.

ο0 μ.γα "αμα ·|αχματα κα νν κα προς Αακδαι. e epigram is attributed to

eodoridas in the Palatine Anthology (AP .).

Plut. Pyrr. ..; Diod. Sic. ...

In a creative reading of the passage supporting the latter possibility, Lévêque ,

pp. –, suggests that by Larisa Pausanias actually meant Larisa Kremaste, an

important city in Phthiotic Achaia near the shores of the Malian Gulf. us, ‘between

Pherai and Larisa [Kremaste]’ would mean Itonos in Phthiotic Achaia. But the two cities

are not a natural pair, and their coupling here would be forced.

Pritchett –, vol. , p. . Pritchett found that the majority of these errors

could be attributed either to textual corruption or to alluviation within the landscape.

Visit to Larisa: ..: gκουσα δ κα dλλον !ν Λαρσηι λ#γον; essalika: ..,

... But it is doubtful that Pausanias’ work is incomplete (cf. Habicht  [],

pp. –) or that a essalian logos was planned. Cf. Hutton , p. : ‘e fact that

Pausanias visited essaly … does not mean that he envisaged including [it] in his

Periegesis, and even if he did have that intention at some point, he may never have had

the opportunity to investigate [it] thoroughly enough.’

 chapter two

ey are all Aiakids, and Pyrrhus’ stunning victory recalled the earlier

glory of these proto-essalians of myth. Pyrrhus doubtless hoped to

inspire contemporary essalians to follow the example of their forbears

by revolting from Macedon. Who was Pyrrhus trying to reach with this

dedication? e Epirote did not go to one of the canonical centers of

essalian power like Larisa or Pherai, but to a rural sanctuary between

the two, and possibly used by both. Pyrrhus seems to have wanted

to reach a regional audience. While it is unlikely that this audience

overlapped completely with the essaloi qua ethnos, the inclusiveness

of Pyrrhus’ dedication does not rule out such a possibility. One might

suggest that Pyrrhus ideologically constructed this temenos as an ethnos

sanctuary of the essalians, rightly or wrongly. If he was mistaken,

that such a mistake could even have been made nevertheless suggests

somethingabout the status ofthe goddess ingeneral andthis sanctuary in

particular. In the nal analysis, however, it is not essalian perceptions

of this sanctuary which are exposed by Pausanias, but those of Pyrrhus

himself. As valuable as such testimony may be, it reects at best the

assumptions of an outsider in a particular historical circumstance who

made skillful political use of cult in an attempt to capitalize upon a recent

victory. Indeed, Pyrrhus had attempted to pry essaly away from the

Antigonids on two earlier occasions in the late s.

ose eorts failed,

as would this one.

e Krannon Temenos (?)

Itonia were celebrated locally at Krannon in the fourth century, as Po-

lyaenus describes: ‘During the festival of the so-called Itonia, which

all of the people of Krannon celebrate, [Deinias] merged his troops in

the city with the tax-collectors from the city, and by opposing sober to

inebriated men, he killed more than , citizens and became tyrant

of the Krannonians’.

Although Polyaenus does not specically mention

a sanctuary of Athena Itonia in Krannon, the festival here described,

Possibly in , during the succession crisis aer Cassander’s death (cf. Hammond

and Walbank , p. , n. , and Errington , p. ) and probably again in /

(Hammond and Walbank , pp. –).

Polyaen.., trans.Krentzand Wheeler: Iορτ=ς οhσης τ ν καλουμ.νων QΙτωνων,

!ν Gi πντες Κρανν:νιοι παζουσιν, %ναμξας το5ς !ν τG= π#λει φ,λαξι τος %π4

τ=ς π#λεως τελ:νας κα νφοντας !πιστσας ονωμ.νοις πλεους χιλων πολτας

%ποκτενας τ,ραννος Κραννωνων !γ.νετο

. For the career of Deinias, closely linked

with the ambitious elites of fourth-century Pherai, cf. Westlake , pp. , –.

the federal sanctuaries 

embracing the entire city, presupposes that the goddess was honored in a

temenos which housed her cult, whether within the polis,initschora,or

perhaps somewhat further aeld. Given the festival’s appeal to all of the

people of Krannon, it is dicult to imagine a lengthy procession to the

putative Itonia sanctuaries near Pharkadon, between Pherai and Larisa,

or at Philia. But, in truth, the festival could have taken any number of

forms. Polyaenus’ account is vague. What emerges most clearly, though,

is that the festival is framed in terms of the polis of Krannon and not the

essalian ethnos.

e Itonos (Phthiotic Achaia) Temenos

ere is literary evidence that a city known variously as Iton or Itonos

was located in Phthiotic Achaia and that a sanctuary of Athena Itonia was

located nearby.

In the Homeric catalogue of ships, an Iton is described

as ‘mother of ocks’ and contributes to the contingent of Protesilaus.

e remaining members of Protesilaus’ forces hail from Phylake, Pyrasos,

Antron, and Pteleon, and each of these four toponyms have been very

plausibly associated with known settlements of the historical period:

Pyrasos, Antron, and Pteleon were located in Achaia Phthiotis on the

Pagasitic coast; Phylake, though located several kilometers inland from

Pyrasos, was also in eastern Achaia Phthiotis. Given these facts, one

assumes that Homeric Iton was imagined to be located in eastern Achaia

Phthiotisaswell.

Such a topography well suits Strabo’s description of the area in the

essalian section of his geography: ‘the Krokian Plain is in the mesogaia

of [Phthiotic] ebes, bordering the foot of Othrys, through which the

Amphrysos ows. Itonos is above this …’

He elsewhere observes that

Itonos was  stades distant from Halos, another major city in Phthiotic

Achaia.

e Strabonic stade is generally estimated at  meters, which

would give a rough gure of , meters (.km, ca. . miles).

is again squarely situates Itonos in the region of Achaia Phthiotis. e

topographies of Strabo and Homer cohere. Beyond Homer and Strabo,

though, the settlementis mentioned only occasionally in literary sources:

Henceforth Itonos, unless explicitly described by a source as Iton.

Hom. Il. ..

Str. ...

Str. ...

Cf. Pothecary , p. .

 chapter two

e city was known as the third most ancient in Greece, aer Athens and

Argos;

Herakles is alleged to have battled Kyknos in the area of Itonos.

at is all.

As demonstrated in our consideration of the epithet Itonia, the city of

Itonos had strong mythic associations with both Itonos, son of Amph-

ictyon, and Athena Itonia, his peculiar daughter. And, indeed, there is

some slight trace of cult in honor of the latter associated with the set-

tlement. Again Strabo: ‘… Itonos, where there is the sanctuary of Itonia,

from which there is also the sanctuary of Itonia in Boiotia, and the Kouar-

ios river’.

Earlier generations of topographers and archaeologists have

attempted to locate both settlement and sanctuary, with no success. Yet

the literary testimony, however scattered, cannot be rejected or deemed

mistaken.

e character of the Itonia cult at Itonos is unclear, although Strabo’s

inference that the legitimately pan-Boiotian sanctuary of Athena Itonia

at Koroneia was somehow descended from this Itonos sanctuary has

spawned much informed speculation.

Traditions of Boiotian migration

from essaly were widespread in antiquity, and within the framework

of the primitivist ethnos, it was reasonable to assume that the function of

Koroneian Athena Itonia for the Boiotian ethnos was analogous to that

played by Athena Itonia from Itonos for the essalians. e greatest

single obstacle to such an interpretation, although rarely recognized as

such, is again topographic. For, while the specic location of Itonos is

unknown, the general neighborhood is clear: near the Krokian plain in

Achaia Phthiotis. From the Classical period at least, this territory was

formally inhabited by the perioikic Phthiotic Achaians, a group that was

socially and politically distinct from the essaloi of tetradic essaly.

at a major sanctuary of the essalians should be lodged in perioikic

territory comes at the very least as a surprise, and it is dicult to produce

Anon. de incredibilibus  [excerpta vaticana].

E.g., Diod. Sic. ..; Nicol. Damasc., FGrHist  F.

Str. ..: το,του δ’ (π.ρκειται 2 TΙτωνος, που τ4 τ=ς QΙτωνας 6ερ4ν, %φ’ οj κα

τ4 !ν τG= Βοιωτfα

, κα 2 Κουριος ποταμ#ς.

E.g., Kramolisch .

A fragmentary inscription discovered at Nea Anchialos, dated to the rst half of

the third century and probably originally published at Phthiotic ebes, mentions an

otherwise unattested festival of the Hoplophania (ed. pr. Giannopoulos , pp. –

, no.  (McDevitt , pp. –, no. )). Robert , pp. – surmised that

this festival was perhaps associated with Athena Itonia, given her prominent sanctuary

at Itonos (which Giannopoulos had claimed to identify, although the evidence was not

the federal sanctuaries 

aparallel.Perhapsthisissimplyanindexofthedegreeofsupremacy

enjoyed by tetradic essaly, Pharsalos especially, over Phthiotic Achaia.

Perhaps the boundary between these two regions, poorly understood as

it is, needs to be rethought, as does Itonos’ relationship to it.

Whatever remedy is sought, some striking epigraphic conrmation of

the centrality of Itonos vis-à-vis the essalians has come to light. Two

fragmentary inscriptions from third-century Kos refer to the city, as does

a third-century decree from Larisa. e earliest of the three, now dated

on historical grounds to ca. –, details the dispatch of Koan ambas-

sadors to Itonos where they are to announce the award of a crown to the

essalian ethnos in thanksgiving for an earlier gi of grain made by the

region to Kos in time of need.

A second fragmentary Koan inscription,

to be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four, dated to ca. –,

may be a general regulation concerning the dispatch and reception of the-

oroi.

One group of Koan theoroi are designated as ‘chosen/elected for

(i.e., to go to) Itonos’.

ere is reference in subsequent lines to essaly

(and Argos), and so it is again clear that Itonos is viewed by the Koans

at least as somehow signicant to essaly as a whole.

On the basis of

the limited evidence in our possession, one can surmise that the like-

liest venue for such announcements at Itonos would by the sanctuary

of Athena Itonia, and indeed Segré has supplemented this in the earlier

inscription. But such testimony, suggestive as it may be, does not yet pro-

vide evidence of the status of this sanctuary from a essalian perspec-

tive.

probative and his identication is not widely accepted today). e bellicose character of

Athena Itonia’s iconography and her youthful exercise with Iodama certainly suit such a

festival. It is an interesting and plausible suggestion which opensthe possibility that Itonia

was a gure of veneration for the Phthiotic ebans at least, and perhaps more broadly

in Achaia Phthiotis as well. Note, however, that these are not Itonia, but Hoplophania,

and if Robert’s suggestion is correct, then it is possible that these were distinct festivals

honoring the goddess.

IG .., . Cf. Segré ; for the date, see Habicht c.

IG .., . Cf. Boesch , p. ; Bosnakis and Hallof , pp. –, with

n. ; Rigsby  (BullÉp , no. ; SEG , ). e regulation was most likely

inspired by the successful attempt to upgrade the Koan Asklepeia. For upgraded festivals,

see Chapter Four.

l. :

α6ρε".ντες !ς TΙτωνον

For Argos, see Rigsby  who argues that this may actually be a reference to the

Pelasgian Argos of Homer, i.e., Achaia Phthiotis. He may be right. If so, then this would

be still further evidence of the somewhat hybrid status of the Itonos temenos of Athena

Itonia which would be perceived as sacred to the essalians yet be located in Phthiotic

Achaia.