The Euboian League and its coinage / by W.P. Wallace

8/20/2019 The Euboian League and its coinage / by W.P. Wallace

1/212

AC

NNU M SMAT CSO C E T

C r e a

t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n - N o n C o m m e r c i a l - S h a r e A l i k e

/ h t t p : / / w w w . h a t h i t r u s t . o r g / a c c e s s_

u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


2/212

E S R V E D B Y

NNU M SMAT CSO C E T

G R MAN

N G U C S TA D T

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


3/212

T S AN D M O NO G R A H S

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


4/212

T S AN D M O NO G R A H S

eatiseson sub ectsrelating

y medalsanddecorations.

N CO M M T T E

S O N C ha ir ma n

E L L I NG R

N B R E TT

O TT

.MO MMS N

S S R d it or

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


5/212

. . . - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- v ii

Y O F T H E E A G U E . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .

T ON O F TH E E AGU E .... .... .... .... ... .

C NTU R Y .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..

NTU R Y .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 27

E TWE E N H I L I P AND R OM .... .... .... ..36

AM A G N O F 3 4 9 / . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . 42

D S A ND T H E C H R O N O L O G . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . 46

V E R S SU E S . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . 6

AR K S O N W E I G H TS AN D D I E S . .. .. .. .. .. .. I 4

G R I E S . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . I 6

T H E S L V E R S SU E S . . .. .. .. - -- -- -- -- -- I 8

F R E Q U E N C T AB L E S . .. . .. . .. . .. . .a ft er I 8

N Z E S SU E S . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . - - -- - -- - - -- - -- I 9

G U E . . . . .. . . . .. . . - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - 3 6

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


6/212


7/212

urignoranc eofGreek asopposedtoA the-

e u b oi a n e a gu e w h ic h wa s i n e i s te n ce f o r

f romthef if thc enturyB . C . tothetimeof

ter isreferredtodefinitelyonlyin one

ndinafew inscriptions.U nderthecircum-

beenpaidto it noonehasattemptedto

aveplayedin thehistoryof uboia.The

r issuec oins whichenableustodateitsfoun-

adamoreorlessc ontinuouse istenc e so

observed butnoonehas studiedthecoins

istallof theissuesandtodeterminetheir

pe thatthisbookinwhichthe essentialfacts

nedmaycallattentiontoacomparatively

gfederation andtoaseries ofcoinswhich

yandthrowsomelight onthehistoryof

forinstanc e thattheMac edonians during

cy interferedlessseriouslythanhasoften

tonomousissuesofGreece.

ofphotographs c asts andspec imensof the

oiaalmosttwentyyearsago butonly inthe

eaguedoesthenumberofspec imensabout

o getinformationseemlargeenough in

es usedtoproducethem tosuggestthat

h someappro imationtocompleteness.

east of the eagueithasc learlybeenpossible

anddiecombinationsoftheoriginalissues.

the236drachmsofsectionB ofhoard4became

yprovidedonlyonenewdieand fournewdie

antharosissue forinstanc e the299spec imens

savailableareallstruckfromfive obverse

ely11 , 20 16 7 , and67c oinsareknown

f ro m wh i ch 6 5 4 7 6 6 3 6 5 3 3 a n d 20 c oi n s

arlyrather improbablethatthediscoveryof

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


8/212

ewdies. nsomeissuesourknowledgeof

or twospecimensonly butingeneralit

futurediscoverieswilladd littletoour

think fewseriesofGreekcoinsof whichthis

suesare sowellknownmakesitpos-

usions. orinstanc e dieswereusedvery

andanydisc ussionabouttheir average

velittlevalue—in thecaseofthekantharos

thenumberofknownspec imensf romasingle

to16 f romareversef rom65to6. Thismay

sbrokesoonerthanothers but asw illbe

nisprobablymorecomplicatedthanthat.Again

allnumbersofinterconnectingdiesmust

roducedinashortperiodof perhaps afew

andlonggapsoffifteenor twentyyearsbe-

dicatedbythecomparativewearinhoards.

orecommonthanhasbeen reali edinall

ekmints.

tcan onlybeproducedthroughtheco-

Totheofficersofthe AmericanNumis-

reatandvarious. tseditor Mr. Mosser

hotographsformeten yearsago andthe

intofhis muchmorerecentefforts.To

rkindlyassistanceandpertinentdiscourage-

MargaretThompsonhasreadthe manu-

uggestions.Mr.D eV ereB akerproduced

omwhichtheplateswere made. was

portunity atthebeginningofmystudies

emswiththelate . T. Newell andhisk ind-

nuedbyMrs.Newell whohasallowedme

raphthe uboianc oinsinherc ollection. n

eSociety sphotographicfileandincomparable

. havehadtoimposeupontheoftenover-

directorsofmany uropeanmuseums and

ptionbeenwillingtosendmecastsor photo-

usuallyprovedtobe interestedandhelpful

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


9/212

otablytoMr. dwardGans Mr. R oy leB ald-

s c h a n d D r . A lb e rt C a hn a m d ee p ly i n de b te d

ewithinformationandwillinglysearched

andunusual specimens.

e ohnSimonGuggenheim oundation

bletriptoGreece andleaveofabsencefrom

meayearfreefrom lecturesandotheren-

heAmerican hilosophicalSocietyde-

raphice penses.

getheassistanceofmanyscholarsandcol-

otographs andinformation amindebtedto

namesunfortunatelygivesnoindicationof

dkindnessesinvolved:

haof theNationalNumismatic Museumin

deitpossibleformetoe amineandphotograph

ortanthoardof uboian eagueissuesyet

riahoardof1937 seep. 47 ; inthismatter

eDirec torofA rc haeologyatthetime k indly

elpidesofA thens yrios oresMeletopoulos

ns yriosDemetriosSisilianosofA thens

heriadesofA thens rofessor ohnCaskey

SchoolofClassicalStudiesinAthens Miss

ora x c avationsStaf fof theAmerican

einA thens Miss vaB rannof theA meri-

udiesinA thens Mr. . S. G. Robinson and

o f t he B r i t i sh M u se u m t h e la t e D r . . G . Mi l ne

f theA shmoleanMuseuminO x ford Mr. Carl

Shrubbs of the it w illiamMuseuminCam-

e a l y o f Tr i ni t y Co l le g e C a mb r id g e M r . . W .

ibrary Museum andArtGalleryinB lack-

boutc oinsintheH artCollec tion MissA nne

erianMuseuminGlasgow M. eanB abelon

aillesof theB iblioth q ueNationalein aris

aillesofChaource A ube , rance Signorina

rofessorA . Maiuriof theMuseoNa ionaledi

ly D r. W. Sc hwabac herof theStatensHis-

gl.Myntkabinettet andCol.George

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


10/212

lm D r. NielsB reitensteinof theNationalMu-

whoalsokindlyprocuredmecastsof coinsin

D r . A . N . Z a d ok s - i t ta o f t he o n in k li k

tc . intheHague H olland whoalsok indly

ut uboiancoinsattheAcademyof

D r. . Wielandtof theB ad. andesmuseum

y D r . e t er B e r g h au s o f th e M us e um f r H a m -

n H a m b ur g G e rm an y D r . . r a ft o f t he

l un g i n Mu n ic h G e rm a ny D r . H . u s ch e y of

stitutderUniversit tinT bingen Germany

istorisc hesMuseum rankfurtamMain

ardH ol mairof theB undessammlungvonMe-

nd G e ld e i ch e n i n V i e n na A u s t ri a D r . H a n s o r g

lothek Winterthur Sw it erland where

valuablec ollec tionofc astsispreserved , D r.

t o ri s ch e s Mu s eu m B a s e l S w it e r la n d M r . Ar t hu r

rofessorSterlingDowofH arvardU niversity

minethec oinsinthe oggMuseum Mr.

niversity Mrs. R . M. A lford andMrs.

useumofA rt R hode slandSc hoolofD esign

r o fe s so r A . R . B e l l i ng e r of a l e U n i ve r si t y M r .

a t Ne c k o n g s l an d N . . U . S .A . r o fe s so r

o r k Mr . . S . n o bl o ch o f N ew o r k r o fe s so r

son nstituteforA dvancedStudy rinc eton

of theMuseumofH istoric alA rt rinc eton D r.

eUniversityof ennsylvaniaMuseum hila-

ary earlofSweetB riarCollege V irginia ro-

of theUniversityofNorthCarolina rofessor

iversityofMissouri rofessorD. M. R obin-

Mississippi Mr. ohnT. RobertsofDenver

a s s on o f V a l o is Q u e b ec D r . . S . W i l ki n so n

rMaryWhiteofTrinityCollege Toronto ro-

r y of U n i v e rs i ty C ol l eg e T o ro n to M r s. e t er

entofmine whokindlydrewthemapof

n eaguewereprobablystruckat retria

ownowingtothe fortunatediscoveryof

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


11/212

s. ortheautonomousc oinsof retria and

sland Chalk is H istiaia and arystos less

e. shallbegratefulifany readerofthis

ofanyofthese fourmintswillbegood

withme.

oronto

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


12/212 C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


13/212

I. THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE

The Foundation of the League

The Euboian League was founded at the time of the revolt fromAthens, in 4II B.C., of Eretria, Chalkis, and Karystos." It was at firstunder Peloponnesian influence, and was doubtless intended to secure

the protection of its cities against Athens; Eretria was the mint, andprobably in some sense the capital, of the new League. These facts

are mentioned by no ancient author, but may be deduced with practi

cal certainty from the coins, and have been agreed upon for many

years. In 1883 Imhoof-Blumer published the Paris Aiginetic didrachm, then unique, and in a single sentence set forth its date andits significance: “Le style de ce didrachm indique la fin du Ve siècle,

c'est-a-dire l’époque précise ou les Eubéens venaient de s'affranchir

du joug des Athéniens (4II), en se ralliant au parti des Peloponné

siens”—a significance underlined by the Aiginetic, as opposed to the

* Thuc. VIII 95, and Diodoros XVIII 47. See also IG XII, 9, 187A (= M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions I*, Oxford 1946, no. 82) for the assistancerendered Eretria by Hegelochos of Taras, who is undoubtedly the commanderof the Tarentine ships mentioned by Thucydides in VIII 91; this decree suggests that the Tarentines did not just happen to be in Agesandridas' fleet, buthad had direct discussions with Eretria, which again emphasizes the longpreparation

of the revolt,

and makes late in 411 rather than some time in 41othe probable date of the earliest League coins (see p. 3 below). Histiaia, in thenorth, was not involved in the revolt, for the city was still, as it had been fora generation, entirely occupied by Athenians; the original inhabitants andtheir descendants did not return, probably, until 404. The name of this statewas 'Hestiaia in the fifth century and seems to have been ‘Histiaia thereafter, although the old spelling occurs occasionally as late as the second century;

the chief city was originally also 'Hestiaia, but after the Athenians drove outthe inhabitants and sent a colony of their own to the district in 446, it appearsalways to have been Oreos. See Fr. Geyer, Topographie und Geschichte derInsel Euboia (Berlin 1903) pp. 82–3, and Louis Robert, Etudes de numismatiquegrécque (Paris 1951) p. 179, note 2. In modern works both state and city areusually referred to as ‘Histiaia, and that practice will be followed here.* Monnaies grecques (Leipzig 1883) p. 224. Imhoof had already mentioned the

coin in passing:

in 1881 he had attributed it to Eretria,

and said that it wasstruck in 411 under Peloponnesian influence, on the Aiginetic standard (“DieEubóische Silberwährung,” Monatsbericht der kön. Preuß. Akad. d. Wiss. zuBerlin, Berlin 1881, p. 657); this passage reappeared the next year in theI I

C r e a

t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n - N

o n C o m m e r c i a l - S h a r e A l i k e

/ h t t p : / / w w w . h

a t h i t r u s t . o r g / a c c e s s

_ u s e # c c - b

y - n

c - s

a - 4 . 0


14/212

eanditsCoinage

of thec oin. TheB ritishnumismatistswereat

pearanceoffurthercoinsconfirmed within

tnessofhisopinion. Thusforthelastsi ty

ementamongnumismatistsaboutthedate

foundationof the uboian eague. B utthe

estudied andthema orhistoriansofGreec e

pletely.

i th a d di t io n s o f t hi s a rt i cl e “ L e s y st m e m on t a ir e

ai re d e la S oc i t r an a is e de N um is ma ti u e a ri s 1 8 2 p . 3 .

dalsoto seeanti-Athenianfeelinginthefactthatthe

seof thisdidrachm asisthe caseinCorinthianand

esianissues ratherthanontheobverse aswastherule

ns— noearlier uboiancoinshaveaheadastype

H . A . Ca h n s a r ti c le Z u r f r h a tt i sc h en M n p r g u ng

1946 especiallypages160 1. B utthegreaterprac ti-

emsoonpersuadedthe uboianstoabandonthe

hateverreasonadopted—andthe secondandlarger

eadon theobverse.

tishMuseumCatalogueof thec oinsofCentralGreece L ondon

r st e d it i on o f H i s t or i a Nu m or u m L o n d o n 1 8 7 , a cc e pt e d

hattheuni uestatermightbeCretan. mhoof how-

eM n en Munich1 90 publishedagoodphotographof

edhisattribution: V ondemunterdem inf lusseder

tenV ersucheder ub er dieA igin isc heWä hrungauf

r en g i bt b i s e t t e i n i g d as e b en b e sp r oc h en e D i d r ac h mo n

35 . A tthesametimehepublished f romhisownc ollec tion

guetetradrac hm ofA ttic weight tobeidentif ied dating

fractionshadlongbeenknown.Theninthe Numismatic

ondAigineticdidrachmwaspublishedbyH ermann

edattentiontoasecondtetradrac hm inthe hotiades

al e M a y1 9 1 9 0 , a n d ac ce p te d m h oo f s a t tr i bu t io n

1 91 1 .

of theissuesarelistedintheB ritishMuseumCatalogueof

elon sTrait desmonnaiesgr c uesetromaines I . 3

r is 1 9 14 a n d 19 1 6 t h e la t te r b ei n g th e m os t c om p le t e pu b li -

geof the eague whileHN devoteslessthanone

actuallyomitstomentionthedrachmsof lighter

greatbulkof thecoinage.Thecuriousreaderwill

tothefoundationof the uboian eagueortoits

o c h B u s o l t H o l m w h o do e s h o we v er i n cl u de a b ar e

s longnoteonthecoinageofthe Athenianempire ,

istory Glot , D eSanc tis etc . venSwoboda whode-

c heStaatsaltert mer T bingen1913 totheGreek

yaparagraphforthe uboian which hesays bereits

n ahrhundertse istierte. Thereisabriefandin-

oinageof the eagueinM. O . B . Caspari s Surveyof

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


15/212

3

whichhavemostlybeenfoundin uboia

Y aswellastheprobablyc antingtype

rlycoinsofa uboian eague. Theirdateisc er-

ury afactestablishednotonlyby their

occurrencealongwithBoiotian coinsofthis

nthe uboio-Boiotianhoard of1951.

earliestissues— aweightnevermetwith

showsthattheleaguewhichissuedthemwas

f irst tothestatesof the eloponnesethanto

makeitnecessaryto supposethattheleague

/ o whentheSpartansenabledthreeof the

ebelf romA thens orverysoonthereaf ter.

ortunityforsuch acombination whileby

ssChalk isand arystos too wereagainon

s ” anditishardtoseewhya uboian

erhavecoinedontheAigineticstandard.B e-

400 395roommustbefoundfortwoissuesofdi-

mmediatelyconsecutivebutwereseparated

Thefirstissuemustaccordinglybelong

thsof411orat thelatesttosomedatein

olthadbeenplottedasearlyasthefallandw inter

I I ( 4 a n d 60 s e cr e t ar r an g em en t s ma y w el l h av e

J H S 3 7 1 9 17 p p . 1 6 – 1 3 . C as p ar i n at u ra l ly a c-

healsoassumedthatallfourc itiesbelongedtothe

truc k theirownc oinsc oncurrentlyw ithitsissues. H ehaddif fi-

eorthodo v iew fornonee isted.

ungc ow aheifer andnotabull isc learenoughon

sothedidrachmsandthedrachmspresumablyalso

drachmsithasbeencustomarytodescribethe type

Thesi thandf if thc enturyc oinsof retriahaveaheifer

ndtheanimalwasdoubtlessadoptedforthe coinsof

c antingtype partlybec auseshewasoriginally retrian.

elc asethatThasos breakingawayfromA thensinthis

estandardonwhichhercoinswerestruck fromthe

e a d H N 3 p . 2 6 4 a n d A. B . W e s t in F i f t h a nd

nsfromtheThracianCoast NumismaticNotesand

o r k 19 2 9 p p . 15 1 7 a nd 4 6 4 7 .

rystosdidnotformallybec omealliesofA thensuntil

.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


16/212

eanditsCoinage

stablishmentofthe eagueandforthe

elyuponthe declarationbyChalkisand

encefromAthens.This afterapostpone-

oc c urredaftertheB attleof retria about

themint andsoperhapsthemeetingplac e of

riaislessf irmlyestablished butisc learlysug-

s a d op t io n o f r e tr i a s h e if e r s e e no t e 6 a s i ts

he uasi-identityof thetypesof the eague

mousbron eof retriawhenthatc ityagain

irdandearlysec ondc enturyB . C . tisalso

hilethe otherthreecitiesofthe island

thesecondhalfofthe fourthcenturyand

slyw iththeissuesof the eague thereisno

econdcentury— E retriaseemstohavemain-

ionaftertheothercitieshadmore orless

retria slac kofc oinsinthelatefourthand

rtainlynotdue topovertyorweakness for

nti uitiesfoundonthesite showthat

periodandwas indeed themostimportant

1

atthe uboiansdidaf tertheirrevoltf rom

uriposuntiltherewasroomfor onlyone

dtobuildabridgeacrossconnectingChalkis

aysDiodoros theywereafraidthattheA thenians

e seatoblockadetheisland. Themotive

the bridgewasdoubtlessalsothereason

uboian eague andthec onstruc tionof the

rtaken asDiodorosemphasi es byallof the

asprobablythefirstactof thenewfederation.

simmediatebutineffective—Theramenes

hips andsow ithsome6000men butfound

andretired.TherewasanotherAthenian

asthef irsttoc all retriathemintof the uboian eague:

ed É r t r ie u i l f au t a tt r ib u er l e s mo n na i es f r ap p e s a u no m

o nn ai es g re c u es L e i p i g 1 8 3 p . 22 3. o r th e pr os pe ri ty o f

itwasgenerallyamoreimportantplacethan Chalkis

r et ri a ” H e s pe ri a 16 1 94 7 p . 11 5 n ot e .

4 7.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


17/212

5

at retriaduringthew inter410/09 andalthough

inethee ac tc irc umstances itisc learthat

estrictedmilitaryoperationhere. The

half—thefortificationofthe uriposand

weredoubtlesstheoccasionofthe firstissue

ue—thedidrachmswithaly ingc owand Y B

nymph sheadonthereverse. tisprobablethat

istenc eonly retriaandChalk isbelonged

eenthemtheycontrolledmostof uboia and

ttheotherc itieswould ointhem butHis-

t and asweshallsee arystosprobably

oyedtheAthenianfleetatAigospotamoiin

retwo uboians andonlytwo amonghis

istoklesof arystos andAutonomosof

0 4 A = D i t t en b er g er S y ll o ge n s cr i pt i on u mG r ae ca r um L e i p i g

d G r e ek H i s t o ri c al n s cr i pt i on s * O x f o rd 1 9 46 n o . 3 .

accountsoftheTreasurersof Athenafor41o/og

oM ynuc payment i. e. asumbothc ollec tedandspent

. Meritt H. T. W ade-GeryandM. . Mc Gregor The

I I , C a mb r id g e M a ss . 1 95 0 p . 3 65 o f 3 74 o d rs .

t h p ry t an y t h a t i s e a r ly i n 4 09 t o t he o r po r re y l # X s

\ s S el . G ey er i n R E S up p. V p . 43 9 i s su re ly m is ta ke n in

ncethatthe cityof retriawasagainunderAtheni-

titmaywell bethatanAthenianforceheldout there

ydides accountshowsthattheAtheniansretaineda

it r e be l le d V I I I 9 5 : T o T ei i o u t # v Ti E p e rp i ”

itadelor perhapsafortifiedbuildingatthe harbor

pparentlykeptasmalls uadronofships V I I I 95. 3 —

I V 1 1 3 ; i n A T I I p . 2 9 5 n o t e to o t h e r ei i a ua

ockadeintheplain partlybec auseof thetheorythat

beensentto retriain446 itistruethath E p rpia

rianinsc riptionsforthewhole retrianterritory

perpigseemsmorelikely tomean inthec ityof retria.

enthecommanderofanAtheniangarrisonat retria

thiswoulde plainthepreposition#X s —translated

p . 3 65 — a n d al s o p e rh a ps t h e fa ct t h at u k le i de s h ad c ol -

finsteadof receivingapaymentdirectfromthe

hemayhavebeenthegeneralsentouttoresc uethegarrison

enbergerandTodsuggest havebeenageneralsentto

tiesof uboia butinthiscasehemusthavereceived

the&vouoN ynuorec ordedhere andthec oinsprove

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


18/212

eanditsCoinage

weresetup alongwiththetwenty-eightothers

dedic ationatDelphoi. tisinterestingand

hereisnoChalk idian orH istiaian among

blee planationisthatthe retrianA uto-

holes uadronof the uboian eague and

ghitsentshipsto ysander didnotbelongto

o isnotsurprising therewasnoroadoverthe

arystosw iththeotherc ities andbysea

retriaandChalk is itmusthaveseemed

stianstotakeanystepsof theirownvolition

gainsttheminthe future.Theycould

ysanderhadleftthemnochoiceaboutde-

eandaboutfightingatAigospotamoi but

n uboian eaguewouldbelesseasilye -

ragainbe inapositionto resentit. ver

arystoshadbeenforc edby itse posed

ouspolicy.Therewasalso noH istiaian

enerals buttheHistiaianshadonlyrec entlyre-

andthecitywasprobablystill weakanddis-

c tthattherewasnoHistiaiangeneralin y-

meansthattherewerenoHistiaianships not

othe uboian eagueandso likeChalk is

tsown. Thisc ity like arystos hadno

hc entral uboia thereisstillnoneto-day :

thestatesof theMaliacand agasaian

ens whowereoriginally llopiansor er-

ns not onians hadforagenerationbeen

ncetheyhadcomebeforethetimeofH omer

uboianpatriotism.Asidefromthesegeneral

sonepieceofdefiniteevidence:soonafter

ianc ew ith retria ” whichwouldsurely

, a n d a u s. X 9 . o w h er e t he f u ll l i st i s g i ve n . T h e ba s e

asbeenfound insc ribedA rr vouos/X auiou/ E perplays

dthereferenc esc ollectedadloc. . H eperhapsowedhisname

uboianrevoltof446 if sohewasnowforty-two

1 8 : t h e te r ms o f t he a l li a nc e a re l o st a n d wh a t is l e ft o f t he t e t

ication itsrenewaleachO lympiad forpenalties

itspublicationbothatH istiaiaandat retria. The

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


19/212

7

thecityhad ustbecomeamemberofthe

mayac c ordinglyconc ludethattheonlymem-

ef irstdec adeof itse istenc ewere retriaand

btedlyhopedthatHistiaiaand arystoswould

dedto ointhem.

asprobably then inc ommandofthe

eaguetoassist ysander andthee istenc eof

inthelac kofac ommanderf romChalkis.

lypayhismeninthe eague sc urrenc y.

soccasionforthesecondissueof didrachms

thistimewiththehead ontheobverse—

tly fitsthenumismatic re uirements itisa

c casionof thef irstissuein4 I / o andthis

ndedbythe slightlybetterconditionofthe

inthe uboio-B oiotianhoardof1951 " it

rtantoccasion probablyinvolvingthe

longer period andthisfitswellwith the

sdiesandconsiderablylargernumberofpres-

condissue.Thereneedbelittle hesitationin

idrac hmsin4 I / O and405/4respectively .

aywellhavebeenaninv itationf rom retriato oin

H istiaiaperhapsrepliedthatshedidnotw ishto oin

uitew illingtomakeaseparatetreatyw ith retria. The

adloc. itwasWilamowit suggestion isbetween41o

aiawasprobablystillinA thenianhandsuntil404 the

anthat andthereisnogoodreasonforf i ingon

terminusante uem. fwehadreasontosupposethat

of the uboian eagueinthelastyearsof thef if th

ossibletodatetheinsc riptionafter395 whenthe eague

deadletter seebelow . B utitismorelikely bothon

dbecauseofthisinscription thatH istiaiawasnot

attheallianc eshouldbedatedsoonaf ter404. tmaybe

f irstwordof thete t—[ -Troiliigaiswronglyreadby

c or r ec t ed i n G X I I , S u p p. x a m in a ti o n of t h e s u e e e

nstituteforAdvancedStudyin rincetonconvinced

ginalreadingof ismorelikely thanX -X isalsoa

ediagonalstrokewhichis allthatisleft oftheletter

o bethelowerhastaofsigma.And apartfromthis

scriptionshowsconsistentrhotacism sothatsigma

wouldbesurprising.

are alsostylisticallymoreadvancedthanthoseofthe

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


20/212

8 The Euboian League and i t sCoinage

The Fourth Century

We know little o f

the history o f

most minor Greek states except

where their relations with Athens bring them momentarily t otheattention o

fAthenian writers; what the Athenians either chose to

ignore o r

considered unimportant i srecoverable only by inference o r

through the bright pin points o flight provided by inscriptions and,

sometimes, by coins. Such i sthe fate o f

the Euboian League i nthe

fourth century; i t i sreferred t ospecifically only once—when Kallias

o f

Chalkis resurrected o r re-invigorated i t i n34I/o—and we are

otherwise dependent for proof that i texisted on the fortunately unambiguous evidence o

fthe coins. The knowledge, however, that i t

did exist makes anumber o f

events more intelligible, and makes i t

possible t osee

acertain

unity i nthe otherwise disconnected

scraps

o f

information which we possess about Euboian affairs.Agesilaos collected a

tGeraistos the fleet which he took t oAsia i n

396. What repercussions this may have had i nan already disaffected

Euboia we do not know, but the fact that late i n395/4 f l EöBoia

&Trooo” fought beside the Boiotians, Athenians, Corinthians, andArgives a

tthe Battle o

fCorinth shows that the island was no longer

under Spartan control, and t othe same summer, early i n394/3, belongs the formal alliance between Eretria and Athens which has survived t othe present day a

s I GII*, 1 6(= Dittenberger, Syll.” 123,

and Tod, Gr. Hist. Insc. II, 103). Curiously enough i twas not until just after the formation o fthe Second Athenian League some sixteenyears later i n378/7 that Chalkis made asimilar alliance with Athens

(IG II*, 4 4 =Syll.” I48). Karystos joined the Athenian League along

with Eretria and Chalkis i n378/7." Histiaia made an alliance with

1 7Diodoros XIV 82. The same phrase recurs i nXenophon Hell. IV 2 . 17,

where i t i srecorded that i nthe army opposed t othe Spartans a t

the Battle o f

Corinth there were no fewer than three thousand troops # 8

EUPoías &Trãons.

* Tipótal 8 : Kod Trpo6uuórcrra ouveu&xnoav a i korré Thw Eöpolav oikotjoomXopis ‘Earloios (Diod. XV 30). For the exact date see Silvio Accame, La legaateniese del secolo IV A.C. (Roma 1941) pp. 70–74. The decree o fAristotle onwhich the names o

fthe Euboian cities all appear i sIG II*, 4 3 =Syll.” 147 and

Tod, GHI II, 123. The Chalkidians, the Eretrians, the Arethousioi, the Karystians and the Ikioi were all inscribed by the same hand, a sAccame says, andhe suggests that the reason i sthat they happened all t obe admitted a

tthe

same meeting o f

the Assembly. I fso, this identity o f

date i spossibly an indication that the three Euboian cities were pursuing acommon policy a

s a

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


21/212

9

af ter404 ashasbeenmentioned butseems

dfromasuccessionoftyrantsand Spartan

ointheA thenian eagueuntil376/5. Dionand

placesinthenorth oftheislandnowtempo-

tiaia had oinedayearearlier.

veyearsofthecenturywehaveevidence

war andin37 /7 forthepursuitofa

ythec itiesof uboia. venduringthe

oreferenc etothe eagueinthetreatybe-

es anditseemsthatChalk isdidnotmake

metime.We canonlyconcludeeitherthat

thatit didnotcoordinatetheforeignpolicies

mbers whichseemsunlikely orelsethatitc easedto

eofthe alliancebetween retriaand

probablee planation forA thensun-

orealeaguewhichhadbeen formedto

donlycomplicateinanundesirable

uboia. Moreover af ter3 7a uboian

emedinc ompatible tosomee tent w iththe

ofA ntalc idas. B ut asthec oinsandc ertain

ate the eaguewasnotformallydissolved

ngerneededeachother ssupportagainst

arystoshadfailedtobeattrac tedbythe

gthemselves andthismighthavebeensecured

ttheev idenceisslim anditisunlikely seebelow

tothe uboian eague.

pressed thereisalsonoreferencetothe eaguein

ween retriaandA thensof341/o theyearinwhic h

dthe uboian eague—butitispossiblethatthe

wmonthsthereconstitutionofthe eague.Seep.17.

gparallelbetweenA thens unw illingnesstorecogni e

ntheearly fourthcenturyandSparta sunw illingnessto

eagueintheearly f if th—if amrightthatanA rka-

a t th a t ti m e. S e e K l e om e ne s M a ra t ho n t h e H e l ot s a n d

1 9 54 p p . 32 3 5 . n b o th c a se s t he m e mb e r st a te s d id

period strikec oinsintheirownnames l. c . p. 34

aguec ertainlywas: thedecreeofA ristotlein37 /7 for

theThebans nottheB oiotians tothenewAthenian

c ellentanalysisofThebes positionatthisperiodin

p. 1 7 2 6 .

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


22/212

IO The Euboian League and i t sCoinage

federal idea, and Athens was opposed t oit; there was accordinglyprobably no more talk o

fthe Euboian League after 395, but i texisted

‘on paper'; i t

lay dormant until its members should find some advantage i nreviving i t .

There are two small issues of tetradrachms of the full Euboio

Attic weight, with accompanying fractions, which both style and the

evidence o f

hoards place about the beginning o f

the century,” and

which may accordingly be dated about 400 and 395 respectively. The

change from the Aiginetic t othe Euboio-Attic standard must obviously come between the League's cooperation with Lysander i n404

and its participation i nthe Corinthian War against Sparta ( achange

o fpolicy sealed by the alliance between Eretria and Athens) i n394.

For the next half century there i slittle sign o f

common action by the

cities o fEuboia, and there appears t o b e acorresponding gap i nthe

coinage o f

the League. No further staters were issued, and when the

drachms reappear they are much later i nstyle and lighter i nweight,

although the types are unchanged: the coinage shows awide gap i n

an obviously continuing series.

Karystos seems t ohave been steadily faithful t othe Athenian

alliance until after the Battle o f

Chaironeia (and indeed until after

the Lamian War), but the participation o fEretria, Chalkis and His

tiaia i nthe Second Athenian Confederacy was destined t obe spas

modic. Thebes was close and rapidly growing i nstrength; i t i snot

surprising that soon after Leuktra i n

371 Eretria and Chalkis desertedAthens for this new ally. Thebes may have had some difficulty i n

securing consistent support i nthese cities—at least there apparently

were tyrants i nboth o f

them i nthe sixties, Mnesarchos a t

Chalkis”

* The wear o fthe seven specimens o fthese tetradrachms which occurred i nHoard I i ssimilar t othat o

fthe three stylistically earlier didrachms; hoard

groups 7and 1 1point i nthe same direction. The tetradrachms should ac

cordingly be dated later, but not much later, than the didrachms, which werestruck i n411 and 405. We have just seen that there are historical considerations which suggest that they should come before 394; on purely stylisticgrounds both Head and Babelon attributed them t othe early fourth century.

*Aischines 3.85 refers t othe Athenians a s TroNA& kod usy&N’ fibuzouliévol (TrôMvnaðpxou tou XaXK15&os, the father o

fKallias and Taurosthenes whom De

mosthenes later proposed for Athenian citizenship. As Aischines goes on i nthesame sentence t omention Themison (see note 24), the date o

fMnesarchos' in

justices i sprobably before 366, and i tseems likely that the terminus post quem

i s371, both because Athenian influence was obviously strong i nthe seventies

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


23/212

I

a whowereperhapsinstalledandmain-

utac cordingtoX enophon ö posis&Tr

GovfoughtontheB oiotiansideatMantineia where

dbytheAtheniansonthe wingopposed

neiaThebaninfluencein uboianaturally

dbec ameatemptationtoA thens. X -r ois

ncitiesbetweenthepro-Thebanandpro-

inginanumberof indec isivesk irmishes and

iteattempttorecoverherposition the

utamilitaryandnaval e peditionwhich

nabouta month.Thisbriefwarisplaced

andprobablybelongsintheearlysummerof

bly theoc c asionofasmallissueofcoinsbythe

ee pp . 5 8 7 .

tyranny ? shouldnotbetoomuc hearlierthan

allias. Thesearereasonablec onsiderations butthetruth

knoweitherthedateofMnesarchos activitiesor

alkis.

undertheyear366/5 saysthatThemison tyrantof

oposf romtheAthenians andthatwhentheyattemptedto

banscametohisassistance acceptedthetown v

t.Thisleavesoneinsomedoubt aboutThemison s

ischines 2. 164and3. 5 andDemosthenes 1 . 99

butthrownofurtherlightupon it.

7 .2 .

24 = S yl l. 1 90 a nd T od G H I I , 1 5 3 i s a d oc um en t de fi ni te ly

firstpart ofwhichclearlycontainedanalliancebe-

stosresultingf romthiswar theinscriptionalso

ofprobablysimilarallianceswith retria Chalkis

al thatthisdiplomaticactivityshouldoccupythe

nwhic hthewarwasfought andsofallinthene t

F orschungen urGeschic htedesausgehendenf nf ten

underts B erlin1910 p. 69 assumedthattheinsc ription

e 35 /7 tobeayeartooearly. D ittenbergerinhisnotes

odoroswasmistaken butbasedhisviewonthe fact

hegeneralswhosweartothealliancein357/6 alsoas

ichclosedtheactualfightingagainstThebes D e-

iokles otherwiseknownonlybecausehewasatrierarchon

otlikely hethinks tohavebeenageneralfortwoyears

ethewarmustfallin theyearofthealliancewith

tenbergerhasusuallybeenfollowedinthis mostrecently

uttheargumentisveryweak indeed. Manygeneralswerere-

mayhavebeenoneof them thefactthatwedonot

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


24/212

agueanditsCoinage

c itiesagain oinedtheA thenian eague.

Chalkis andH istiaiawithAthenshadobvi-

ec adeofThebansupremac y and for

nsnowalsorenewedheralliancewith arystos.

en t s ha s s ur v iv e d a l th o ug h G I * 1 2 4 i s

ewhichoncecarriedthealliancewith a-

* , 1 2 5 T od G H I I , n o . 15 4 i s a s tr on g gu ar an te e

c ific ally forherbutgenerali edtoapplytoany

e againstattackbyA thensorbyanyofher

perhapsthepricedemandedby retriafor

nian eague. A notherdocument how-

w ise thathewasre-elec tedisapoorreason by itself

ndeed asweknowthatthecampaignlastedfora

otiationsalwaystaketime itwouldberathersur-

gnandtheresultingtreatiesallbelongedto the

.D iodoros dateshouldbeaccepted.

a d op t ed b y D i t t en b er g er S y ll . 1 9 0 n o te 4 , t h at t h es e

lloperativeissurelywrong -atMantineia forin-

sandtheA theniansnotonly foughtonoppositesides but

Thebesandmanyofher allieshadlefttheAthenian

egap. 17 ) , althoughnoneof thenameswaserasedon

edthedecreeof Aristotle.

s on t h is i n sc r ip t io n i n G H I I , p . 15 – 1 6 1 r e u i re t wo

ef irstplac eheassumesthattheta iarc hs generals

es6 and7areAthenians theymusthoweverbe

wnbythenaturalrunof thewords bytheomissionof

theendoftheinscriptionof theAthenianswhoswore

a lo g y of G I * , 2 3 ob w h ic h T od m e nt i on s w h er e t he

hetreatyof 341/owithAthenswerethegenerals a

ouldhardlyhavehadcavalry , theta iarc hs andthe

te tof thisinscriptioninH esperia16 1947 p. 145

misprintforMiv6 . A ndTodfollows ahrstedtand

iodoroswrongaboutthedate seenote26 .

ntended C learlynotagainstThebes notnowan

stMacedon whichwasneitheranallynorasyet

andnotagainstthepresentgovernmentsofChalkisor

stneighbours forsimilarallianc eswerebeingmadewith

ystiansseeminthelastfew mutilatedlinestobepraised

ndtheocc asionof thishelpmustbethek indofoc casion

beingmade.The attackenvisagedisanattackby

s and retriamusthaveconsideredthedanger

eas thiswouldnothavebeendemanded. erhaps

) ofChalk isinthesi ties hadattac ked retriaandbeen

m arystos kar Mv oop ovwouldf itthelacunain

125 andalthoughhewasnolongertyrantatChalk is—the

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


25/212

3

e da t e as t h es e — I G I * 1 4 9— i s b o th m o re

purposeandmore difficulttointerpret. t

k in g t wo m en — n p i to s a nd H p o k \ s i ö c o-

ergetaiofA thens apparently fortheirser-

teanalliancew ith the uboians. The

ebrokenendofasentence:houtluo iaT t

6n v oi d ov k o d Tl o ts ö ß o l st o i v a nd l a te r t he r e is a

o p si s T o lu s k T v o u pl u x o o v. T h is i s t he

eringanycommonactionbythe uboians

dunfortunatelyneitherthedatenor theinter-

iscertain.

hleA thenswasengagedinthe Soc ialWar '

dhispowerinMacedoniaandinvadedThes-

of Greecetooksidesinthefirst campaignsof

osesightof uboianaf fairs itmaybethatal-

hting theislanden oyedafewyearsof

351 hilipsentletterstothe uboianc ities

r safetyupontheirallianceswithAthens

:hisagentsandhisgoldfollowedc loseuponhis

hweknownodetails itisc learthatpro-Mac e-

inallthec itiese c ept perhaps arystos.

stoodalittleapartfrom theothercities

pentoThebaninfluence andmoreopento

arystosandChalkisaregreatlyinneed

eirissueshavenotbeen datedwithanyac-

however that arystos fourthc entury

oseofChalkis which likethe uboian

beendatedtooearly andwereprobablybeing

the century.At retrianocoinswere

retriansstillc lungtothetheorythatthe eague

c onstitutionsbac k tothe uboianc itiesÖ p6 s od

5 — t h e d an g er s t il l e i s te d f o r hi s s on a l li a s la t er

sposition. fsothe retriansmayhavew ishedfor

tacksinthefuture.

in H S 2 1 90 ) p p . 30 3- 30 7 a n d To d G H I I ,

uboianwhosenameendsin-npitosisanAu . fpiros

ai a t h e na m e H p ak s i ö c o po s i s kn o wn i n u b oi a

utA ristotlereferstoaprominentH istiaianofuncertain

Sc opos.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


26/212

agueanditsCoinage

eof itsprerogativeswasc oinage. Histiaiahad

storyduringtheseyearsisobscure butat

coinswerenotstruckuntilabout340.

eground andc ouldstiruptroublein uboia

veniencetodoso themomentcamein

rseofeventsduringthisyearshould think

s. hilipwasattackingO lynthosandwas

nsfrommoving.H eaccordinglyemployed

eitarc hos subse uently tyrantof thec ity to

nst loutarchos thetyrantofthemoment

ayinga lonehand dependingforhis

loutarchosfoundhimselffacedwithapro-

homeandanaggressiveandseemingly

allias atChalk is as hilipintended

elp. nspiteofD emosthenesinsistence

rveherresourc esforthema orc onflic t a

vlryand#TriN krolwassentoutunder

outarc hos. He hadapparentlyalreadybeen

utmet hok ionatTamynaiwherethetwoof

derableforces# & Tr onsTris U poios. . .

rhapsevenprobable thattheconsiderablesums amounting

which arystosborrowedinthesi ties forsomeun-

numberof indiv idualThebansandHistiaians I GX I I ,

bythec ity forotherw isethemoneywouldc learlyhave

scellaneouscoin ifthisis correctwehaveherea

rhapsthef irst of arystos fourthc entury issueswhic h

ast 65 000drachms—theonlydenominationstruck

hc entury . orthef irstissueofHistiaia see . T. Ne-

f H i s t ia e a N N M 2 N e w o r k 19 2 1 . C ha l ki s f o ur t h

datedaccuratelybya carefulstudyofthepertinent

etbeen undertaken.Meanwhileitmaybepointedout

emstohavebeenstruckata higherweightthan

whilethefirstfourof thelighterweightissuesofthe

osew ithnosymbol andthosew iththegrapes kantharos

thanthis onlythesatyr sheadanddolphingroups

andtheseprobablydate asw illbeseen early inthe

ertainty however thattherewasanyrelationbe-

ssuesatChalkisandat retria indeedweknow

st of theChalk isdrac hmsmusthavebeenstruc kabout

iddleof thec entury seep. 21 .

a mp a ig n o f 34 9 / , p . 4 2.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


27/212

5

o u u n de r a l li a s an d l e it a rc h os . l o ut a rc h os d e -

hok ionwashardpressed hesummonedrein-

ndmeanwhilewonarespitebyasuccessful

himprisonerstobargainwith.W henthe

entered retria droveoutboth leit-

restoredthedemoc rac y andestablisheda

rowestpointof theislandinthe southern

tory . Hethenreturned leavingMolossosin

nat retria ) . loutarc hosapparentlyrallied

k to retria c apturedMolossos andc ameto

aos whoseemstohavebeensentoutonthe

dventure.Although loutarchosnowtreacher-

thenianprisonerstohis mercenarieswho

Athensswallowedherprideandpaidthe price

oheavilyinvolvedinthenorth tosend

uboia. The uboians an ioustoc onsolidate

ssadorstoAthensandmanagedto arrangea

tus uo.

theeventsisc orrec t itisc learthatthe

hosre uirese planation. Hef irstasksfor

alliasand leitarc hos andthendeserts

niansthrowhimoutof retriabuthereturns

mmanderandtreacherouslyallowsAthe-

m. nshorthebeginsas anti-Macedonianbut

allias andto leitarc hos —ordid allias

inst hilip sagent ) andisthenstrongly

sthenesandAischineseveryoneiseitherpro-

ian butifwehad uboiansourceswe

sdifferently.Theprobabilityisthat both

asweref irstofall uboians andthat allias—

1 i n T ro u w as e me n de d t o ta \ a i ko u b y Sc h ul i n a h rb .

14 bec auseof thetook lkousg vousmentionedafew lines

mendationwasapprovedbyB eloc h. A sweknow how-

oshadappealedtoAthensforhelpagainstMacedonian

ok ion12 andthat leitarc hosbec ametyrantof retriaa

om hilip itisnaturalthat hilipshouldhavesent

nthisc ampaign andthereisnoreasontoemend

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


28/212

agueanditsCoinage

nstitutedorreinvigoratedthe uboian

momentinc ommandof forc es#5&Tr onsTris

utarc hosoverbyurgingthat uboiansshould

sideinterferencewhetherfromthenorthor

schinesmentionstheambassadorswhocame

afterthiswar hec allsthemofTrp opsisof

dsaysthattheybroughta messagefrom hilip this

he retriansandtheChalkidians oneorboth

agefrom hilip ” butitismorelikely to

ssyconductedthenegotiations. This if the

iswhatweshoulde pec t.

noeffective eaguewhileChalkisand retria

dat loggerheadswitheachother.B utit

enian andMacedonianinterventioninthe

uralreaction:the uboianswishedtobe

orereadyto cooperatewitheachother

nyyears.

ved as ahrstedtsuggests in E uboiafor

hemayonlyhaveintendedtosec ureforhimself

eisland. nanyc asehispolicyhadsofar

m hilip andtof ightagainsttheA thenians.

retriasoonfell and leitarc hos aidedbyMac e-

tyrantof thec ity in hilip sinterest. Weknow

ces thedateof leitarc hos sei ureof

thslaterand inmuchthesameway hilis-

istiaia. alliasretainedhispositionat

n—itisnot uitec learwhich —buthis

anged A ischinesreferstohimasTr \ c ious

rp o p si s o f T v U p o c ov # T re t n T r ep i r ii s T rp s a r ro u s si p ri v ns

moov eitrov& rikodpiMTTrosarrows E NR osiev uiv& Trayyei al

. Thereferenc eissecurelydatedto34 ; thetermsof the

c eresulted Grotedoubtedit andChalk is atleast seems

he eague—seenote40 , areunknown.

e c ellentdiscussionof thec hronologyof theseeventsin

c hic htedesausgehendenf nf tenunddesv ierten ahrhunderts

sob ec tionsto ahrstedt sc hronologyhavebeenanswered

p p v o n Ma k ed o ni e n un d G ri e ch e nl a nd p . 1 12 n . 3 .

nough— c orr Tupavv ð aTrepitolovuevos etc .—but

ence.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


29/212

17

ToU ö pitrou , fortherapidlygrowingdanger

edhimtolookforAtheniansupport. a-

llalliedtoAthens.

w i th D e m o s th e ne s a s si s ta n ce p e rs u ad e d th e

peditiontohelphimin drivingouttheMace-

atHistiaiaandat retria thee pedition

ionwasagaincommanderoftheAthenian

anddemoc rac ywasrestoredinbothc ities. The

pec tedthatthe uboianc itieswouldnow

eague ofwhichtheywereperhapsstill

a lliashadotherideas. Hisimmediatepur-

wasnowan iousnottoput uboiatoof irmly

erev ivedthe uboian eague andper-

cceptthewithdrawalofthe uboiancities

hileretainingthemasallies.O fthetreaties

eaty betweenAthensandheralliesononeside

other—hassurv ivedinpart enoughislef t

ll dealingwiththecitiesof uboiaindi-

as resurrec tionof the eague.

shouldbedependentonasinglehighly

th whatenthusiasmthe retriansrecoveredtheir

tinuoussuccessionoftyrantsforthe last uarterof

enamesofThemisonc . 366 Menestratosc . 352 lou-

p pa rc ho s 34 5 4 ? ) A ut om ed on 3 45 4 ? ) a nd l ei -

be r e ad i n t he A r te m ir i a D e c re e — I G X I I , 9 1 9 —

festivalof the retrianstate andlaiddownregu-

si s r v e l X p v o v N eu 6 p o v v r ov E p e rp l o v ko d s u

porr pov.

3 o a + b f o r pa r t b se e n ot e 2 ) . S ee t h e fu l l an d c le a r ac co u nt o f

egapp. 212 221 L alegaellenic adiDemostene.

alliasproducedtheideaof theHellenic eague which

Chaironeia andthatA thensandheralliesandthe

stmembers.D emosthenesacceptedandadoptedthe

eand alliasv isitedthe eloponnesetogetherin341/o

gtheideaa reality.Accamedoesperhapsrather

alliasinhisac c ountof theseproceedings. A nd amnot

uboian eague asopposedtothe uboianc ities

nic eague. Thetheorythatthislatterwasa league

cc ameac c eptsf rom . Tr ves artic leinRev. des tudes

6f . goesratherbeyondtheev idenc e asC loch ' sac c ount

ng r ed A th n es P a r is 19 34 p p. 2 0 2 4 w he re th e H e l-

ogni edasaleagueatall makesrathertoolittleof it.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


30/212

e a gu e a nd i t s Co i na g e

esforourinformationaboutthereconstitu-

ague. H owever itisc learthatthecitiesof

fwithdrawalwasnecessary—from the

thatthe uboian eaguewasnowre-c onsti-

hef irsttime thatthedelegateswereto

dthatcontributionsweretobemadeto a

neednot however believeeitherthat retria

enpayingfivetalentsannuallyto theAthe-

attheseratherlarge sumswerenowtobepaid

y . ndeeditisrathersurprisingtof indthe

enedatChalkis diditscoinscontinuetobe

Theonlyreasonstobelievethattheywereever

sbeensaid thelackof retrianc oinsinthe

ieswhenthe otherthree uboiancities

ndthec loseappro imation inthelatethird

themostinformativesentencereadsasfollows:eis ap

A osu v& X oAkl susÜ ß psoskaiTr \ eovegias Anuoot E vns5 & v

S o po 60 ki as o re r s $ C p eo o uv r& # 1 5 ka i T s 8 E p e r pi cs

ovrov povo vrovB N Tr vrov No ovÚ u wU pe ó uevoi ai

ovouv SpousTrap u vu v& v ornoov Tr Niv 8 cisX oAki a al

poik vouv ö piovouvriyayov.Thefullestdiscussionofthepas-

o r sc hu n ge n p p. 7 2 7 . a h rs t ed t i s o f c ou r se m i st a ke n

oian eaguewasnowfoundedforthef irsttime. Q uite

f thec oins Tr Niv inthesentence ust uotedisclear

a N ov u ev o v ö B o i k v o u v ö p i ov p r ob a bl y i nd i ca t es t h at t h e s o -

aguehadc ontinuedtoe istinashadowymannerf romthe

lyinthecentury.Thisis farmorelikelythan for

ationinR . B . R ic hardson seditionof theoration—“ T

slurattheinsignif icanc eof the uboeanc ouncilc ompared

epointis surely theinac tiv ityofanoldleaguerather

newone.

ownonly f romA isc hines aresuspic iouslysimilarandsus-

smore itseemsvery improbablethatthe uboianc ities

enianConfederacyafterthefiascoof349/ and

cedoniantyrants.Theyseemmorelikelyto beassess-

hanamountsever actuallypaid buttheyaretaken

egap.137. arystosisnotmentionedbecauseshedid

eague butwhydoesAisc hinesnotmentionthelossto

mChalk is Thisc anhardlybeanoversight andmust

sedtocontributeconsiderablyearlierthanthe

dformallyw ithdrawnfromtheA thenian eaguein

aswas infac t atwarw ithA thens whilethememberships

hadmerelybeenallowedtolapse.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


31/212

9

es of the retrianand eaguetypes these

lusive butif the eaguemintwasat retria

herw isetheyarediff ic ulttoe plain. erhaps

egantomeetatChalk is whilethemintc on-

41

aboutAthens lossofrevenueshowthat

e uboian eagueasrec onstitutedin340

een itisimprobablethatshehadbelongedto

s whichseemsnottohavesuf feredatallf rom

stilldidnot oin asisshownbythesilenc e

39 andasisalsoindic atedbythefac tthat

rystosappearsontheAtheniansidein the

otherc itiesof uboia alongwiththeB oioti-

ntheMac edonianside aslateas306 arystos

Athensinher briefwaragainst assandros.

hat arystosseemstohaveissueda considerable

terpartofthecenturycanhardly betaken

of anindependentpolicy ” forChalkiswas

nu o at v n s p & p s i & \ é o a l T rp o p si s s is E p r p io v o it i ve s

e r pl c ov T r v u à p 6 1 S en f iv al u n ke ri 6 16 v al t hv o vv ra i v

Na vr a & \ \ & a \ \ i , od Tr & Ni v r p ou ss is ū ) p e v Tr p s To us 0 0ps i-

oitivesSe oovralT varr v A6nvaiouspi ovkod x 6povwou L E lv.

p # 6 s e n f i va l m ea n T h is i s a h ig h ly t e nd e nt i ou s a nd

somereal retrianreluctancemustunderliethesewords.

ughtheenergyandinf luenc eof allias thec enterof

eague—theword c apitalwouldbeanachronistic —

etriatoChalkis inv itis retriensibus. A isc hines of

tanceasastickto beatD emostheneswith.

67 = Sy ll . 3 27 .

ngthoseissuesof the eagueandof the uboianc ities

middleof thefourthcentury heldthatthedifference

typesandthoseof theotherc itiesshowedthatattimes

didnotbelongtothe eague: A t uenummisillisChalc idis

litudoinparteanticaestcumfoederisnummis cum

t.Q uaecumitasint concludemusCarystumcertis

e ueceterasurbessemperfoedereconiunctasfuisse

. g e st i s co m pr o ba t ur . I G X I I , 9 p . 1 72 A pp e nd i

. Thee ac tdatesof thefourthc enturyc oinsofChalk is

furtherinvestigation butboththesec itiesandHistiaia

oinsinthe laterfourthcentury.R egling scon-

een probablyc orrec t buthisimplic ationthatChalkis

ph sheadastheirobversetype thisistheonlysimi-

ndthoseof the eague becausetheyweremembers

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


32/212

agueanditsCoinage

me.Andalthoughno arystiansappear

esf rom uboiabetween343and327 thisis

erenotconsideredtobe onians seebelow ,

werenotmembersof the uboian eague.

eia in33 , the uboiansundoubtedly

against theMacedonians althoughno

entionsthefact andtheye uallycertainly

ofCorinthinthefollowingyear.W edonot

hilip sv ic toryhadin uboia butasthe

uecoinsandis foundflourishingattheend

arthatitwasnotdisbanded thediplomatic

howtoridethestormandtoremind hilip

theMacedoniansideagainsttheAthe-

iblethat hilipdidnotevenestablishagarrison

uripos andthatthe uboian eaguenow

he amianWarandforthebetterpartof the

f asthemoreorlessw illinginstrumentof

etweentherev ivalof the eagueandthe

shouldattributetheearliestofthe large

er Mac edonian weight. Thec alc ulationbased

e retriahoardof1937indic atesthatthe

ndthosewiththegrapessymbolbelong

uestionisdiscussedinChapter2 here

e uboianissueshavecertainlybeendated

oubtful. The similitudo probablyseemedgreaterto

becausehedoubtlessacceptedtheusualmid-fourth

iaiandrachms thereversetypeofwhichis astanding

hopetoshowelsewhere istooearly .

n D e m o st h en e s un d s ei n e Z e i t L e i p i g 1 8 7 v o l. 3 p . 3 ,

uewasdisbandedsoonaf terChaironeiaandthat allias

weifelsein dafdamit i. e. whenthe uboiansc ameto

Chaironeia dereuboeisc heB undesrataufgel stund

dtender nselandiemakedonischgesinnten ber-

mustendieH eimatfliehenundfandenAufnahme

ootnotereferstothec iti enshipbestowedbytheA the-

on alliasofChalkisandhisbrother. B utthec oins

ontinued and alliaswasnotc learlyandsimplyan

ouldeasilyrepresenthispolicyas essentiallyanti-

pneednotmeanresidenceatAthens.

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


33/212

2

andthattheymustfalloneithersideof300

C . romthehistoric alpointofv iew itisfairly

thatissuesofcoinbythe uboian eague

at almostanytimebetween395and340

ostdemandedbythecourseofeventsbe-

needhavelittlehesitation then inplacing

hterweighte actlyattheperiodofthe

gueandtheB attleofChaironeia.

observethatChalkisappearstohavebeen

gthe firstdecadeofthereconstituted

ted atleast bytheappearanc eofaSpo um

e us i ni a n ac co u nt s o f 32 9 / I G I * , 16 7 2 l i ne 3 0 0 ,

vecomefromanissue struckearlierthan

dsfurtherinvestigation butifChalkiswas

hetime andif retria srighttostrikefor

ec ogni edf romthebeginningande erc ised

—seepage 7 , alliasmayhavebeenc ontent

tus uoandtoc onc iliate retrianopinion which

ostiletohim byallow ingthe eague smint

heGreatwasprobablyanotherpeaceful

uboia. Weknowonlythattwoofhismost

noredat retria. A ntipater ofc ourse

sthef irstsc holartorecogni ethis see pitymbion

p.672 whereshepublishesapreliminarydescription

etriahoardof1937 andshowsthatthe eaguec oins

ustbelongto thethirdcentury.Theolddateswere

3 6 9 t o 3 3 ; t h i s te r mi n us w a s u e ri e d by R e g l i ng l . c. i n n ot e 4 3 ,

as beenakindofarticle offaiththattheMacedo-

dentcoinageinthe stateswhichtheydominated.

hedatesof the uboianissues seeChapter2.

oflighterdrachmsinhigh reliefwhichisprobably

st however havebeenane tremelysmallissue—only

knownandtheyareall fromtwoobversedies—so that

importantmilitaryoccasiontoe plainit.See

8 7 .

t w o fo l lo w er s s ee G X I I , 9 1 9 7. o r t he p r ob a bl y p os t hu -

struc katChalk is see . T. Newell TheCoinagesof

L ondon1927 p. 139 note4 twootherspecimensc an

mentionedbyNewell. tisan interestingbutisolated

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


34/212

ueanditsCoinage

shmentofpro-Macedonianoligarchiesin

ptagarrisonatChalkis.

nantsoftheAmphiktyoniclistsdiscovered

phoi itispossibletothrowalittlefurtherlight

elaterfourthcentury andsometoo perhaps

ague. nourhistoriesofGreec etheAmphik-

brieflyandobsc urelyatthetimeofSolon dis-

ocenturies andisthensuddenlyre-

anceof hilipofMacedonandtheAthe-

wodisastrous Sac redWarswhic hputan

etwenty-fourhieromnemoneswhocom-

eaguehadapparentlymettwiceannually

alwithoute ercisinganygreatinfluence

butourinformationaboutthemisconfined

oinscriptionslistingthenames andsome-

of thosewhoattendedthespringorfall

d327.Therosterof hieromnemoneswhich

einscriptionsisunfortunatelyveryin-

whohadoneof thetwo onianseatswhile

her arelistedbelow inthef irstcolumn ”

uggested f rom33 on f romwhic hc ity those

formationprobablycame:

ki s 3 4 0/ 9

ometimebefore325/4B .C.Athenssomehowsecured

r et ri a— I G I * 1 62 9 l in es 9 5 6 .

uedtoe istandtoplayaroleinGreekaf fairs—see G * ,

ssedbyB . D . MerittinA P 75 1954 pp. 369-373.

co m pi l ed f r om t h e li s t on p p . 32 4 5 o f o u il l es d e D e l p he s I I "

f romtheinscriptionsonwhichthatlistisbased.

s di f fi c ul t a n d un e p l ai n ed i n t he t e t . F D I I *

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


35/212

23

3 36 /5 C ha lk is )

tria

tria

stiaia

aia

aan331/0 retria

s

tiaia

vedforcertaintytobe possibleaboutthe

abovetableshows however thatthein-

ableisconsistentwiththeannualrepre-

theB attleofChaironeiato327 ofallthree

uboia. arystoswasprobablyomittedbe-

consideredtobeD ryopians itisprobably

longtothe uboian eague. tseems

e t F D I I " p . 1 71 t h e u b oi a n re p re s en t at i ve o n t he

ear ThessalossonofD orippos wasan retrian it

erestorationof the ethnic simplyonthegroundthat

arec ommonat retriaseemsprec arious. f rightit

mphiktyonicpositionswereheldbyChalkidiansat

s in s o ut h er n u b oi a s ee H e r . V I I I 4 6 T h u c. V I I 5 7 a n d

retriandemesofStyraandZ are thepositionsofwhic h

seemtohavemarkedthenorthernlimitof theD ryopian

6 1 9 47 p p . 12 9 1 3 7 a n d 13 . t i s t ru e t ha t a si d e fr o m

ccurinthesouth oftheisland— thechiefsourcefor

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


36/212

ueanditsCoinage

ldhaveheld theirseatsinthe springand

ameyearinourc alendar insteadof inthefall

thesameyearinmost orallGreekcalendars

sessionsat whicheachcitywasrepresented

ars. ikethe uboians theB oiotianrepre-

iddleofthe year theAthenians however

elphic year. Manyof theotherhiero-

ongerthan annualperiods.

aironeiathethree uboianc itiestook turns

edabove inholdingthe uboianseat wef ind

obablyatleastsi Chalk idiansinarowfrom

isanomalybeginse ac tlyatthetimewhen

einstitutingthe uboian eague andc omes

B attleofChaironeia. erhaps alliassec ured

tashearrangedthatthe uboianc ounc il

the retriansseemsimilarly tohavekeptthe

en277and273—seebelow when hilip

uboiandisputeshemayhaveseenthat

heseatsharedevenly. O ritmaybethat al-

depressure turnedovertothecouncilof the

ghttoselec tthe uboianhieromnemones and

gthematteratitssec ondmeetingin339 )

ngof theseatandtobegin therotationin

eventhoughChalk idianshadheldit onsome

oneatall , forthelasttwoyears. Whatever

bl e ts G X I I , 9 5 6 — t he r e is l i tt l e si g n th a t an y d is -

etween oniansandDryopiansin uboiafromthe

e ersianwars buttheDryopianoriginof arystoswas

c f . a u s. V 3 4 1 1 . G e ye r i n E u b oi a G e sc hi c ht e ”

440 suggeststhatthelac kofhieromnemonesf rom arystos

otbelongtothe uboian eague.

wanyof thehieromnemoneswereselec ted e c eptthat

veswereobv iouslyappointedby hilip . tis however

tafterthere-establishmentofthe uboian eague

ieromnemoneswerec hosenbythe eague indeeditis

erarrangementwhilethe eaguewasactive.The

monesweremagistratesoftheThessalian eague not

theirindividualcities —theyswore alongwiththe

gue tothetreatyof361/obetweenThessalyand

, 1 16 = T o d G H I I , 1 47 ; i t is a cc or di ng ly p ro ba bl e th at t he y

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


37/212

25

notreallysurprisingtofindChalk idiansina

attheperiodof allias greatestpower and

tthe uboianc itiesbelongingtothe eague

rotatetheseatamongthemselves.

thatthe uboianc ities e c ept arystos

sideinthe amianWar theywereinthe

sh en e s at l a ta i a in 3 2 3 D i o d . X V I I I I ) ;

doniansinvadedA tticaf rom uboia P lu.

probably inretaliation theA theniansmadeade-

ra Strabo447 . Therewasthusagooddeal

uboian eaguewasundoubtedly involved

atthe kantharos drachmsbelongtothis

os generalsfoughteachotheratHistiaia

assandroshadtoreturntoMac edon another

olemaios appearstohavegainedc ontrolof

dituntil309 butthe uboiansprobably

onlywhentheywerecompelledtodoso.

etria atleast escapedfromitsMacedonian

waybythe eagueitself . ThisisThessaly not uboia

or uboiaitself muc hlater wehaveapossibly

einaninterestingthoughmuchmutilatedinscription

be f o un d i n D I I " , p p . 3 97 8 ; t h e be s t di s cu s si o n of

s D e l ph es a u I e e t au * s i c le P a r i s 19 36 p p. 3 41 3 .

disputebetween retriaand arystosontheone

herwhichwasarbitratedbythecityof H ypatain

osatD elphoi—thedateis thusbetween120and

u , l . c. p . 1 56 n o te 3 . T h e su b e c t of t h e di s pu t e is n o t sp e ci -

eservedpartof thete t but bec ausetheinsc ription

bothB ourguetandD au supposethepointatissuetobe

oic seat inthistheyfollow omptow lio15 191 )

. 197 thetheory isac c eptedw ithout uestionbyZ iebarth

p p. 1 9 39 p . 2 0 7 . D a u h o ld s t ha t r e tr i a an d a r ys t os m a in -

that l é lec tionduhieromnemonappartient l en-

ratherthantoChalk is anditisc learthat allthe

ehow involved forthephraseappearsinthete t. Myonly

tationisthat arystoswasoriginallyD ryopian

ever asfarasweknow sentahieromnemontoDelphoi

ybethereasonwhytheirc laimwasre ec ted butifso why

atedw iththem orourpresentpurposewec anput

n thedateistool ateandtheinterpretationtoo

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


38/212

ueanditsCoinage

lb e r ea d i n G X I I , 9 1 9 2. A s H o l l ea u h a s

r ” retriaandChalk isnow oinedthe

ouryears appointing polemarc hs toad-

adoptingotherB oiotianforms.Chalkiseven

rrison and retriac ontributedtothere-

oliorketesarrivedin uboiainthedoubleglory

andhisdefeatatR hodes and freed the

heB oiotians. Howthe uboiansfeltabout

notinformed. tseems however tohave

alof the uboian eagueunderDemetrios

hichprobablybeganatoncealthoughthein-

enceforit belongstotheearlyyearsof the

osimmediatelybegantoprepareforwarwith

02heorderedhisforc es bothmilitaryandnaval

therewere retriansamongthesailorsinhis

eaguehadobv iously tocooperateinDemetrios

houldassigntothisyearoneof itslargestissues

e symbol which f romtheirc omparative

seep. 64 mustc omebetweenthe kantharos

d drachms andshouldberatherc loserindate

E S u pp . V c o l. 4 4 1 r a is e d th e u e st i on

eaguesurv ivedthroughtheperiodof the

anddecidedthatitprobablydidnot. tistrue

vehadlittlesc opebetween forinstanc e 313

nuousseriesofc oins whichGeyer ofc ourse

dbefore33 isfairlygoodev idencethatit

earerightinputtingthe kantharos drachms

about302 the eague howeverinactive

d É r t ri e R E G 1 9 7 p p .1 57 1 9 r e p ub li sh ed i n

e et d h i st o ir e g re c u e s b y Ma u ri c eH o l l e au P a r is 1 9 3 )

4 19 = S y l l. 3 3 7 l i n e s 21 2 . H o l l ea u i s a ls o r es p on s ib l e fo r t he

pretationof thisinscription RE G 1 95 pp. 7-4 ,

.

G X I I , 9 2 10 = S y ll . 3 4 ; t hi s is o ne o fa g ro up o f

onianspassedat retriabetween302and2 B . c . —

I , 9 2 1 l et te ri ng v er y si mi l ar t o 21 0 , 1 99 1 9 , 2 0o a nd

w h ic h a re d a te d t oo l a te i n G a n d G X I I S u pp . 5 52 .

C r e a



u s e # c c - b y - n c - s a - 4 . 0


39/212

27

esensebetweenthosetwodates andif these

etobe ine actandtheissuesareshifted

tion oneofthemwillthenfall insidethe

c onc lusionthatthe eaguehadsomekind

oundationin340until theendofthe century.

dH istiaiabelongedtoit but arystosalmost

eassuddenlyashe hadarrived recalledby

tolose at psosin301. Thereseemstobe

mewhatsketchyevidencethat uboia along

eec e followedA thens leadindeserting

eallyknowwhathappenedinthe islandbe-

spossiblethattyrantsin assandros interest

retriawithdemocraticgovernmentinthe

nanyc ase f rom294untilhisf inaldeparture

ow ingofMacedon c ontrolledthegreaterpart

andof uboia andChalk iswasoneof the

alongwithhisnewcapitalof D emetrias

lefortofCorinth.

documentaryevidenceaboutthe uboian

mantimes belongstothelatterpartofDemetrios

ob a bl y t o th e ye a rs 2 9 1 2

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	digital-library-numis-dln
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

The Euboian League and its coinage / by W.P. Wallace

Documents