ο εσχατιων ανηρ: The paths to Peisistratos’s tyranny

Movement has always been part of daily life and, as such, it has taken on different forms. ‘People on the move across the Greek World’ provides a selection of approaches, themes and contexts that reflect the importance of being on the move in Ancient Greece. It does not aim to provide an exhaustive treatment of ‘movement around the Ancient Greek world’; rather, its goal is to be representative, offering readers the opportunity to delve into the variety of activities that motivated Ancient Greeks to move from one place to another. It also offers a set of considerations regarding the purposes, causes and consequences of these movements. The book is composed of 22 chapters divided into four thematic sections: (1) Society, economy and knowledge; (2) Travellers and borders; (3) ‘Colonisation’ and politics; and (4) Religion and mythology. Each contribution examines a case study united by a common factor: ‘people on the move’. Its chronology spans the whole of Greek Antiquity, from the Late Bronze Age to the period of the Roman conquest. As for its geographical scope, this book is not limited to the Greek peninsula, but also includes those territories beyond the mainland that attracted the Greeks, resulting in their presence in those regions. COLECCIÓN ESTUDIOS HELÉNICOS Prácticas rituales y discursos femeninos en Atenas. Los espacios sacros de la gyne Miriam Valdés Guía Filipo II de Macedonia Borja Antela-Bernárdez y Marc Mendoza (coords.) Al amparo de Ártemis. Virginidades humanas y divinas en la Grecia Antigua Irune Valderrábano González People on the Move across the Greek World Chiara Maria Mauro; Diego Chapinal-Heras y Miriam Valdés Guía, (coords.) Chiara Maria Mauro Diego Chapinal-Heras Miriam Valdés Guía (coords.) PEOPLE ON THE MOVE ACROSS THE GREEK WORLD ESTUDIOS HELÉNICOS ~ 4 PEOPLE ON THE MOVE ACROSS THE GREEK WORLD CHIARA MARIA MAURO, DIEGO CHAPINAL-HERAS, MIRIAM VALDÉS GUÍA (COORDS.) UAM Ediciones LISTADO AUTORES Mª Cruz Cardete del Olmo Diego Chapinal-Heras Sotiria Dimopoulou Elena Duce Pastor Aida Fernández Prieto César Fornis Filippo Giudice Innocenza Giudice Unai Iriarte Javier Jara Aitor Luz Villafranca Chiara Maria Mauro Carlo de Mitri Alfredo Novello Gabriella Ottone András Patay-Horváth Natia Phiphia Domingo Plácido Suárez Angiolo Querci Elena Santagati Annalisa Savino Marco Serino Kerasia Stratiki Nerea Terceiro Sanmartín Miriam Valdés Guía ISBN 978-84-472-2366-4 People on the Move across the Greek World COLECCIÓN ESTUDIOS HELÉNICOS Directores Científicos Dr. César Fornis Vaquero, Catedrático de Historia Antigua (US, Sevilla) Dr. José Pascual González, Catedrático de Historia Antigua (UAM, Madrid) Consejo de Redacción Dr. César Fornis Vaquero, Catedrático de Historia Antigua (US, Sevilla) Dr. José Pascual González, Catedrático de Historia Antigua (UAM, Madrid) Dr. Adolfo J. Domínguez Monedero, Catedrático de Historia Antigua (UAM, Madrid) Dra. Mª Soledad Milán Quiñones de León, Contratada Doctora (UAM, Madrid) Dr. Antonio Hermosa Andújar, Catedrático de Filosofía (US, Sevilla) Dr. Eduardo Ferrer Albelda, Catedrático de Arqueología (US, Sevilla) Comité Científico Dra. Dirce Marzoli, Directora del Instituto Arqueológico Alemán de Madrid Dra. Laura Sancho Rocher, Catedrática de Historia Antigua (Unizar, Zaragoza) Dra. Miriam Valdés Guía, Catedrática de Historia Antigua (UCM, Madrid) Dra. Mª Cruz Cardete del Olmo, Profesora Titular de Historia Antigua (UCM, Madrid) Dr. Julián Gallego, Universidad de Buenos Aires y Director del PEFSCEA (Programa de Estudios sobre las Formas de Sociedad y las Configuraciones Estatales de la Antigüedad) Dra. Claudia Antonetti (Università Ca’Foscari, Italia) Dr. Massimo Nafissi (Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italia) Dr. Hans Beck (Westfälische Wilhelms Universität Münster, Alemania) Dra. Violaine Sebillote Cuchet (Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, Francia) Dr. Marc Domingo Gygax (University of Princeton, Estados Unidos) Dr. Nino Luraghi (Oxford University, Reino Unido) Dr. Stephen Hodkinson (University of Nottingham, Reino Unido) ESTUDIOS HELÉNICOS Chiara Maria Mauro Diego Chapinal-Heras Miriam Valdés Guía (coords.) PEOPLE ON THE MOVE ACROSS THE GREEK WORLD Introducción de Chiara Maria Mauro, Diego Chapinal-Heras, Miriam Valdés Guía Ediciones COLECCIÓN ESTUDIOS HELÉNICOS Núm.: 4 Esta obra ha contado con la financiación de Motivo de cubierta: Attic black-figure cup depicting Greek sailing ships signed by Nicosthenes, c. 520 BC. Paris, Louvre Museum, inv. n. F123. Photo credits: photo © RMN-Grand Palais (Musée du Louvre) / Hervé Lewandowski © Chiara Maria Mauro, Diego Chapinal-Heras, Miriam Valdés Guía (coords.), 2022 © de los textos, sus autores, 2022 © de la edición: UAM Ediciones, 2022 Campus de Cantoblanco, C/ Einstein, 1 28049 Madrid http://www.uam.es/publicaciones [email protected] © de la edición: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla, 2022 c/ Porvenir, 27 41013 Sevilla https://editorial.us.es [email protected] Imprime: Imprenta Sand Maquetación y cubierta: Referencias Cruzadas ([email protected]) Diseño: milhojas SCA Todos los derechos reservados. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en la legislación vigente, podrán ser castigados con penas de multa y privación de libertad quienes reproduzcan o plagien, en todo o en parte, una obra literaria, artística o científica fijada en cualquier tipo de soporte, sin la preceptiva autorización de la Editorial de la Universidad de Sevilla y Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Ediciones. depósito legal: se-1946-2022 isbn universidad de sevilla: 978-84-472-2366-4 isbn universidad autónoma de madrid: 978-84-8344-859-5 ESCHATIA: Grupo de Investigación sobre la Grecia Antigua 7 ÍNDICE ABBREVIATIONS AND (MAIN) LATIN EXPRESSIONS USED IN THIS WORK . 11 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 SECTION 1 SOCIETY, ECONOMY AND KNOWLEDGE ‘[...] AND TELL NO MAN OF THEM ALL NOR ANY WOMAN THAT THOU HAST COME BACK FROM THY WANDERINGS’ (HOM. OD. 13.309-310). BEGGARY AND VAGABONDAGE IN THE ANCIENT GREEK WORLD . . . . . 21 Aida Fernández Prieto PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL, BETWEEN ARCHAISM AND CLASSICISM . . . . . . 39 Domingo Plácido INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION OF KNOWLEDGE: THE ‘ITINERANT’ HISTORIAN IN THE 4TH CENTURY BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Gabriella Ottone LYSIAS: FROM A WANDERING METIC TO AN UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE FOR CITIZENSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Nerea Terceiro Sanmartín NAUKLEROI, EMPOROI, POTTERY WORKSHOPS AND THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE CASE OF THE EL SEC WRECK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Filippo Giudice / Innocenza Giudice SOME NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE STUDY OF CRAFTSPEOPLE MOBILITY IN THE RED-FIGURE POTTERY PRODUCTION OF MAGNA GRAECIA AND SICILY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Marco Serino SECTION 2 TRAVELLERS AND BORDERS THE MINOANS ABROAD: A DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A DIRECT SEA ROUTE LINKING CRETE TO EGYPT DURING THE LATE BRONZE AGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Angiolo Querci SAILING THE WINE-DARK SEA: MARITIME TRAVEL DURING THE GEOMETRIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Chiara Maria Mauro Ο ΕΣΧΑΤΙΩΝ ΑΝΗΡ: THE PATHS TO PEISISTRATOS’S TYRANNY . . . . . . . . . 141 Unai Iriarte TRAVELLING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITION: PAUSANIAS AND ARCADIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Mª Cruz Cardete del Olmo PAUSANIAS: TRAVELLER, PILGRIM, JOURNALIST OR RESEARCHER OF ANTIQUITY? THE CASE OF LYCOSURA AND THE VISIT TO THE TEMPLE OF DESPOINA IN ARCADIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Sotiria Dimopoulou SECTION 3 ‘COLONISATION’ AND POLITICS MIXED IDENTITIES IN THE FIRST GENERATIONS OF ARCHAIC GREEK COLONIES: THE FEMALE CONTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Elena Duce Pastor JOURNEYS AND FOUNDATIONS IN ARISTOTLE’S POLITEIAI OF ASIA MINOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Alfredo Novello / Annalisa Savino ZANCLE/MESSENE: A TALE OF LESTAI, APOIKOI, FUGITIVES AND UNDESIRABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Elena Santagati 9 GREEKS ON THE EAST COAST OF THE BLACK SEA LITTORAL: SETTLEMENT AND MIGRATION PATTERNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Natia Phiphia MESSAPIANS BEYOND MESSAPIA: MOBILITY AND TRADE NETWORKS IN THE LATE HELLENISTIC AGE (LATE 3RD-1ST CENTURIES BC) . . . . . . . . 247 Carlo De Mitri SECTION 4 RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY VISITORS TO EARLY OLYMPIA: GREEDY FARMERS, PIOUS PILGRIMS OR ARISTOCRATIC HUNTERS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 András Patay-Horváth DELPHI IN THE COLONIAL VENTURES OF THE SPARTANS IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD, II. THE ORACLE’S INFLUENCE ON THE VOYAGES OF DORIEUS . . 267 Javier Jara / César Fornis TRAVELLING TO DELPHI: THE THEORIA OF ATHENIAN WOMEN TO THE ORACLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Miriam Valdés Guía TRAVELLING FOR HEALING. DION IN MACEDON, A PLACE FOR RECOVERY 307 Diego Chapinal-Heras THE LEGEND OF PERDICCAS: PATTERNS OF MOBILITY IN MACEDONIA BEFORE PHILIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Aitor Luz Villafranca HUMAN MOBILITY AND HEROIC CULTS IN PAUSANIAS PERIEGESIS . . . . . 341 Kerasia A. Stratiki introduction 17 As a whole, People on the Move across the Greek World offers a selection of papers where movement plays a significant role and, in turn, produced a plethora of situations whose analysis requires the combination of different sources and approaches. This collaboration, which brought together scholars from a variety of institutions in different countries, was made possible by Project PR108/20-29, funded by the UCM-Santander 2020 grant programme. References Boardman, J. 2000: ‘Aspects of “Colonization”’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322, 33-42. Cardete, M. C. 2006: ‘El postcolonialismo y los procesos coloniales: controversias y posibilidades de análisis’, in J. Cortadella, O. Oresti, C. Sierra (eds.), Lo viejo y lo nuevo en las sociedades antiguas: homenaje a Alberto Prieto . Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche–Comté, 659-673. Casevitz, M. 1985: Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien . Etude lexicologique: les familles de ktizo et de oikeo-oikizo . Paris: Klincksieck. Costanzi, M. 2010: ‘Les colonies de deuxième degré de l’Italie du Sud et de Sicile: une analyse lexicologique’, Ancient West & East 9, 87-107. Costanzi, M. 2020: ‘Mobility in the Ancient Greek World: Diversity of Causes, Variety of Vocabularies’, in F. De Angelis (ed.), A Companion to Greeks Across the Ancient World . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell Publishers, 13-36. De Angelis, F. 2009: ‘Colonies and colonization’, in G. Boys-Stones, B. Graziosi, P. Vasunia (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 48-64. De Angelis, F. (ed.) 2020: A Companion to Greeks Across the Ancient World . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell Publishers. De Wever, J. & Van Compernolle, R. 1967: ‘La valeur des termes de colonisation chez Thucydide’, Ant . Class . 36, 461-523. Dillon, M. 1997: Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece. London–New York: Routledge. Dueck, D. (forthcoming): A Cultural History of Exploration in Antiquity . London: Bloomsbury Academic. Finley, M. & Lepore, E. 2000: Le colonie degli antichi e dei moderni. Rome: Donzelli Editore. Horden, P. & Purcell, N. 2000: The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell. Hunter, R. & Rutherford, I. (eds.) 2009: Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture . Travel, Locality and Pan-Hellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jockey, P. 2009: ‘D’une cité à l’autre. Brèves réflexions sur la mobilité des artisans de la pierre dans l’Antiquité Classique’, in C. Moatti, W. Kaiser, C. Pébarthe (eds.), Le monde de l’itinérance en Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne . Procédures de contrôle et d’identification. Bordeaux: Ausonius, 139-159. 18 Chiara Maria Mauro / Diego Chapinal-Heras / Miriam Valdés Guía Kristensen, T. M. & Friese, W. (eds.) 2017: Excavating Pilgrimage: Archaeological Approaches to Sacred Travel and Movement in the Ancient World. London: Routledge. Malkin, I. 2011: A Small Greek World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mauro, C. M. 2020: ‘A proposito delle convenzioni lessicali: “precolonizzazione” e “colonizzazione” fenicia alla luce dei recenti modelli interpretativi”, in J. L. López Castro (ed.), Entre Utica y Gadir . Navegación y colonización fenicia en el Mediterráneo occidental a comienzos del I milenio a .C . Granada: Comares, 2-11. Montiglio, S. 2005: Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Natali, C. 1996: ‘Lieux et écoles de savoir’, in J. Brunschwig, G. Lloyd (eds.), Le savoir grec. Paris: Flammarion, 29-249. Pébarthe, C. 2007: ‘Commerce et commerçants à Athènes à l’époque de Démosthène’, Pallas 74, 161-178. Perlman, P. 2000: City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Phillips, E. D. 1981: Aspects of Greek Medicine. London: Thames & Hudson. Ruschenbusch, E. 1985: ‘Die Zahl der griechischen Staaten und Arealgrösse und Bürgerzahl der “Normalpolis”’, ZPE 59, 253-263. Tagliamonte, G. 1994: I figli di Marte: mobilità, mercenari e mercenariato italici in Magna Grecia e Sicilia. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2006: ‘Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation”, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation . An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol . I. Leiden: Brill, 23-83. Tsetskhladze, G. R. & Hargrave, J. 2011: ‘Colonisation from Antiquity to Modern Times: comparisons and contrasts’, Ancient West & East 10, 161-182. Virgilio, B. 1971-1972: ‘I termini della colonizzazione in Erodoto e nella tradizione preerodotea’, Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 106, 345-406.  Ο ΕΣΧΑΤΙΩΝ ΑΝΗΡ: THE PATHS TO PEISISTRATOS’S TYRANNY Unai Iriarte* UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA Mobility in Archaic Greece, although less widespread than in later periods, was more extensive than previously believed. However, its extent depended on the group or type of character involved; the lower social classes engaged in less movement than the higher strata. Modern historiographical interest in mobility during the Archaic period has tended to focus primarily on settlers, traders or specific, well-studied figures such as Solon (who may have travelled to Egypt, Cyprus and Asia Minor; v. gr. Hdt. 1.30.1; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 11.1; Plut. Vit. Sol. 26-27). However, Peisistratos undertook many more journeys, which are, moreover, better documented than those of his predecessor. In this respect, modern historiography is guilty of repeating some of the vices found in its sources, by showing less scholarly interest in characters who did not receive as much attention from ancient authors. In addition, much more has been written about the tyranny of Peisistratos and his rise to power. B. Lavelle, for example, delved into some of the most important aspects that led to the advent of the Peisistratid tyranny, examining the importance of wealth in making possible not only the first and second, but also the third tyranny of Peisistratos1. In Lavelle’s view, wealth was an essential element in the process, as reflected in the title of his work: Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and ‘Democratic’ Tyranny at Athens. However, without dismissing Lavelle’s approach, the crucial role played by Peisistratos’s geographical mobility, movements and main motivations (beyond wealth) in seizing tyranny in Athens requires further investigation. Peisistratos was a polemarch who knew the territory (understood in a broad sense, including its topography) and who, moreover, used this knowledge for his own interests. The sources recount that the mobility of the Athenian tyrant was atypical for his * This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Project PID2020- 112558GB-I00, by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Project (Feder US-1380257) and by VIPP-US. 1. Lavelle 1992 and 2005.    historical period: he was known to be physically present in places far from the Athenian asty, like Brauron, Salamis, Marathon and Pallene, and far from his own polis. Outside Athens, he visited Eretria, Sigeion, Delos, Naxos and the Thracian Chalcidice and–although there is no record of a physical presence–he was probably also in Macedonia, Argos and Smyrna (Figure 1). Although Peisistratos travelled for many reasons, he was, above all, a military man. The goal of his journeys was to increase his influence and extend the borders (ἐσχατιαί) and geographical limits of both the Athenian chora and the polis. Peisistratos first turned his attention to the ἐσχατιά of Salamis. In modern historiography, there is a clear division between scholars who believe that Solon probably recaptured Salamis2, those who argue that Peisistratos was in command of the operation when the island was recaptured for Athens3 (some also consider that Solon played an important earlier role in the conflict)4, and those who think that Salamis was recaptured after the tyranny of Peisistratos5. Without going into a deeper analysis of each of the sources that look at this event6, it is most likely that this conquest was undertaken by Peisistratos in the years immediately prior to his first tyranny, around 565 BC. For military reasons, Salamis was the first ἐσχατιά with which Peisistratos engaged, but it was not the only one. 2. Aratowsky (1953: 794) argues that, as Peisistratos commissioned the copies of Homer’s works, this same tradition would have made him responsible for the conquest of Salamis; Frost 1984: 290, and 1999: 133; Hansen 1991: 206-207; indirectly, Valdés Guía 2002: 175. 3. French 1957: 241, n. 11; Hopper 1961: 216; Stahl 1987: 210; Nicolai 2007: 13. 4. Effenterre 1977: 105 and 108, n. 54; Legon 1981: 138; Domínguez Monedero 2001: 30-36; Lavelle 2005: 45-46. Podlecki (1987: 5) and Taylor (1997: 40) question whether to ascribe this success to Solon or Peisistratos. Piccirilli (1978: 5-6) sees it as a long, intermittent war, rather than differentiating two phases. 5. Christensen (1993: 190-191), in her PhD thesis, argues that the last incorporation of Salamis would not have been achieved until the end of the 6th century BC (without ruling out the Peisistratid period), according to the presence of Cleomenes I in the arbitration over the island (Plut. Vit. Sol. 10.1). Lambert (1997: 98, n. 30) chooses not to take part in the debate, but observes that the attribution of the reconquest to Solon would have been a decision of late historians. Olivieri (2012: 48-53, partly following Legon 1981: 139) notes some contradictions regarding the arbitration issue in the Plutarchic version, since it should be dated to around 560 BC. Thus, Cleomenes I would not have been an arbitrator in the conflict and it would have been another Cleomenes. Olivieri (2012: 49) goes further and, also drawing on Legon (1981: 138- 140) and Andrewes (1982: 372), argues that the Spartan arbitration would have consisted of an exchange between the port of Nisaia, which would revert to the Megarians, and Salamis, which would be recovered by the Athenians. However, there is no empirical basis for this hypothesis. 6. This analysis is done in Iriarte 2022. Ο ΕΣΧΑΤΙΩΝ ΑΝΗΡ:    '   Peisistratos can be defined as a ἐσχατιᾶς ἀνήρ (‘border character’) from his earliest days. He was born in Brauron, a chora settlement in the highland area of Diacria (Plut. Vit. Sol. 10.3). Indeed, when Peisistratos made his first foray into power in 561 BC, his supporters were primarily from Diacria, those ‘beyond the mountains’ (Hdt. 1.59.3; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 13.4), beyond Mount Hymettus. At that time, Peisistratos entered the Athenian agora claiming to be wounded by his political enemies (Hdt. 1.59.4; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 14.1). The sources do not specify where he was coming from, but the mention of his place of origin and supporters make it most likely that it was from his usual region of residence, Diacria. Because of the border status of Brauron and the Neleid predecessors of the Peisistratids, Peisistratos could have been regarded as a foreigner, even in Antiquity. In contrast to Peisistratos’s first attempt at tyranny, which is recounted in numerous ancient sources, only two accounts of his second accession to tyranny have survived, those of Herodotus and Aristotle (which mostly follows the former). According to Herodotus (1.60.1-2, supported by Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 14.3), after Peisistratos was expelled, the fierce confrontation between the factions of Megacles and Lycurgus continued. Both authors (Hdt. ibid.; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 14.4) write that Megacles’s faction turned on him, Figure 1. The places Peisistratos would have visited    prompting him to seek out Peisistratos and arrange for his return7. Unfortunately, the sources do not specify where Peisistratos spent his first exile. He may have returned to Brauron, although given that the sources speak of exile (‘ἐξελάσαντες’ in Hdt. 1.60.1; ‘ἐπὶ τῇ κατόδῳ’, to refer to his return, in Hdt. 1.60.3; ‘ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν’ in Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 14.3), and they considered that the inhabitants of Brauron–like the Philaids– formed an Athenian oikos (Hdt. 6.35.1; Plut. Vit. Sol. 10.2 refers to Brauron as a ‘δῆμο’), he probably fled to another polis. But to which one? After his second tyranny, Peisistratos went to Eretria (Hdt. 1.61.2), where he seems to have had good relations with the elite. Indeed, the fact that he was from Brauron, a settlement with a land border, Mount Hymettus, with Athens, and a maritime border with Eretria, suggests that his relations go a long way back. Moreover, the names of his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, whose etymology is linked to the horses and hippeis of Eretria, also suggest a prior relationship. To this day, the identity and provenance of Peisistratos’s first wife is not known, and she may have been Eretrian. During his second exile, Peisistratos accompanied some Eretrians to the area of Pangaion and founded Rhaecelus in the Gulf of Thermae (Hdt. 1.64.1; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 15.2)8. Peisistratos’s presence in the northern part of Hellas was also due to his military status. He was active in Thracian Chalcidice for about ten years, the duration of his second exile; the understanding between the Peisistratids and some inhabitants of Eretria suggests that Peisistratos’s first exile may also have taken place in this same polis. In the mid-6th century BC, Chalcidice belonged to the Thracian barbarians and was not yet part of Hellas. This was a new ἐσχατιά, a border area that offered Peisistratos the opportunity to increase his wealth. Since the 19th century, there has been general agreement about a link between Peisistratos and the mines of Thrace9. Herodotus recounts that when Peisistratos returns to Athens after this venture, he was accompanied by many ἐπικούροισι (Hdt. 1.64.1). Lavelle believes for a variety of reasons that both the traditional interpretation of passage 1.64 and the interpretation of 15.2 of the Constitution 7. Aristotle ([Ath. Pol.] 14.4), unlike Herodotus, does date this second return: ἔτει δὲ δωδεκάτῳ μετὰ ταῦτα. His deduction does not seem the most accurate, as Peisistratos’s first two attempts at tyranny were short, making the date of 552-551 BC incorrect (cf. Rhodes 1981: 191-199 and 204). 8. Rhaecelus has been identified in the modern area of Peraea (cf. mainly Tiverios 2008: 26, and Nigdelis 2011: 113). 9. Lavelle (1992: 5, n. 1) provides a historiographical review of this attribution, especially highlighting the works of Turner 1848, Wiesner 1963, Berve 1967 and Kraay 1976, among others; he omits the work by Seltman (1924), one of the strongest supporters of this idea, which is reproduced in turn by Robinson and Kraay. Recently contra Lavelle, v. gr. Schaps 2004: 125 and Kallet 2013: 52. Ο ΕΣΧΑΤΙΩΝ ΑΝΗΡ:    '   of the Athenians are not entirely correct. He argues that ἐπικούροισι alludes not only to mercenaries, but could also refer to ‘allies’10. Indeed, he adds that Herodotus repeatedly speaks of Peisistratos’s victory, and his return to Athens, as being as result of his having money (Hdt. 61.3-4 and 62.2) and men (Hdt. 61.4 and 62.1), who could well be understood as unpaid supporters. Lavelle argues that this is contrary to tradition, considering that Herodotus never speaks of Thracian or Scythian mercenaries, and that, moreover, in a later context (1.64.1), he even specifies that Peisistratos solidified his tyranny with ἐπικούροισί τε πολλοῖσι (which could be translated as ‘many allies’)11 καὶ χρημάτων συνόδοισι. Additionally, the second part of the Histories, and the reference to χρήματα, or wealth, does not necessarily refer to specifically minted coins (νομίσματα in Greek). Nor does Lavelle believe that Peisistratos would have continued to use his mines in Thrace12. For this argument, the scholar relies on the scant numismatic evidence linking the tyrant to Wappenmünzen (‘badge coins’). He considers this type of coin to be for local use alone, a point of agreement with other researchers13. In short, Lavelle thinks that the fact that no one has yet been able to explain Peisistratos’s business in Thrace does not necessarily mean that his wealth came from mining, since he could have obtained his money from other sources, such as agriculture or trade14. Although Peisistratos may, as Lavelle says, have acquired his wealth in the vicinity of the Strymon River from non-mining activities, it seems somewhat strange that the future tyrant did not decide to emigrate to regions where he could have acquired greater profits in enterprises related to agriculture or trade. Moreover, the region of Thrace must have already been known for its mineral wealth in Antiquity (Hdt. 6.47). C. Kraay15 10. Lavelle 1992: 8-11. 11. The Loeb translation by Godley, speaks of a ‘strong guard’, without specifying whether or not they are paid. For an analysis of the problematic term ἐπίκουρος, see Taylor 2017: 171-181. His statement (id.: 180) that ‘it is probably unnecessary to create a sharp definition between “ally” and “mercenary” when investigating the Archaic epikouroi in the service of tyrants. In fact, the evidence actively discourages it’ is most certainly correct. 12. Lavelle 1992: 6 and 11-12. Lavelle (2005) has dedicated much of his work to finding this settlement around the Strymon River. 13. One such case is Kraay (1976: 60), for whom the Wappenmünze was from the beginning only used for local trade. Opposing this position is Von Reden (2003: 180), who believes that the fact that no Wappenmünzen have been found elsewhere does not mean that there was no international trade. This historian and Lavelle are incorrect in this respect, as the coins have been documented outside mainland Greece, although their number is quite small. 14. Lavelle 1992: 8 and 18-19. Hammond (1979: 68) also considers that he might have been engaged in trade. 15. Kraay 1964: 82-83.    carried out a survey of the various coin deposits in the Aegean and found that, in many places, the presence of coins made of Thracian metal was relatively high. It is therefore quite likely that Peisistratos obtained part, if not most, of his wealth from the Thracian mines as early as the mid-6th century BC. However, his presence in this area, based on the rest of his travels, was probably due to his military capabilities. A former polemarch from Athens, with his knowledge of warfare, would undoubtedly have been of great help to the Eretrians, who would have seen him as capable of pacifying the region of the Strymon River on the one hand16, and the area around the Pangaion mines on the other. It is also likely that–although the sources do not directly support this–during this same period, Peisistratos travelled to Macedonia to extend his networks of influence. The Peisistratids did not, like Themistocles, have a lode of a silver with which to build a large fleet, but they did have strong contacts with regions and figures with close links to the timber trade. The Macedonian kings, in turn, had what was considered the best wood for shipbuilding in ancient times under their control (Theophr. Hist. pl. 1.9.2). The relations between the Peisistratids and the Macedonian monarchy were quite good. Even after the overthrow of Hippias, Amyntas I invited the tyrant of Athens to Anthemus to live with him (Hdt. 5.94.1), indicating a relationship of xenia17. These relations between the two families, the Peisistratids and the Argeads, probably began when Peisistratos was in the Chalcidice peninsula. In his military role, the Athenian tyrant may well have helped Amyntas, in one way or another, to seize the throne18. In this same respect, as Anthemus was probably not a Macedonian possession when Amyntas offered it to Hippias around 505 BC19, this documented example clearly demonstrates 16. As correctly noted by Lavelle 2005: 118. 17. Sprawski 2010: 141. Hammond (1989: 43) thinks that the place that Amyntas I offered Hippias in Anthemus would have been provided by the Persians, since the Macedonians would not have been strong enough to have taken it from the Edones by force. 18. The predecessors of Amyntas I are only a list of names in Herodotus and Thucydides, therefore this king was the first of the dynasty who can be considered a historical figure (cf. Sprawski 2010: 131-133, 143). Meiggs (1982: 126) also sees this relationship between the Peisistratids and the Argeads as feasible, but acknowledges that within the Macedonian monarchy, frequent palace intrigues could have threatened the continuous supply of timber for Athens. This wood was not only used for shipbuilding, and the same author (193) believes that the wood for buildings like the Olympieion may also have come from Macedonia. 19. Theory introduced by Busolt 1895: 323, n. 4; later followed by Edson 1947: 91 n. 28, Hatzopoulos 1996: 174, and Vasilev 2011: 98-99, among others. Contra Hammond 1979: 59; Xydopoulos (2012: 26 and 31) considers not only that Anthemus was Macedonian, but also that any individual initiative on the part of Amyntas I should be dismissed. Vasilev (2015: 125) does think that it corresponded to a ‘relatively independent policy’. Ο ΕΣΧΑΤΙΩΝ ΑΝΗΡ:    '   that the Macedonian king wanted to increase his power, once again using a former Athenian tyrant as a military leader. Parallel to his Thracian enterprise, and shortly before Peisistratos became tyrant for the third and last time, he established strong contacts with Argos. While the sources do not support that he travelled to this polis, they do support that he married Timonassa (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 17.4; Plut. Vit. Cat. Mai. 24.7). Tyrants of the time tended to emulate the mythical matrilocal marriage. In the Homeric world, for instance, it was common for the male to travel to the place of residence of his prospective wife for the marriage20. Peisistratos was a connoisseur of the mythical, as reflected in the sources when they tell anecdotes, such as the episode of the chariot with Athena, his Neleid antecedents or his probable identification with the mythological heroes Philaeus and Ajax. This all suggests that, during his second exile, the future Athenian tyrant spent some time in Argos, if not for the marriage itself, then at least because of previous contacts21. On his way back to Athens from Thracian Chalcidice, Peisistratos crossed from Eretria to Marathon (Hdt. 1.62.1). Because he was a native of Diacria, he was familiar with this area, known as the Tetrapolis, where his numerous contingents–not only Argives, as a result of his marriage to Timonassa, but also some Thebans and probably Naxians– may have joined him (it was in Marathon that an elderly Hippias would disembark with the Persian army more than fifty years later, emulating his father’s action). From Marathon, a ‘natural’ route, relatively easy for the troops, could be followed to Pallene, where the Peisistratid contingents would meet the Athenians (Figure 2). On his way to Athens, Peisistratos came to Pallene (Hdt. 1.62.2-3; Andoc. 1.106; Androtion FGrH 324 F35; Polyaenus, Strat. 1.21.1), a place that also represented a new ἐσχατιά, although this time in the Athenian chora. Shortly before or after the battle of Pallene, Peisistratos decided to crown himself with an olive branch and ride to Athens in a chariot, accompanied by a young girl disguised as Athena (Polyaenus, Strat. 1.21.1). This girl, called Phya in the sources, was from the deme of Paeania (Hdt. 1.60.4; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 14.4; Val. Max. Paris, I 2, ext. 2; Polyaenus, Strat. 1.21.1)22. In his Returns, 20. On the debate between matrilocality and patrilocality, as well as the marriage strategies of the Peisistratids and their archaizing motifs, see Duce Pastor 2019: 73-76 and 641-642. 21. Peisistratos’s principal enemy, Megacles the Alcmeonid, went to Sicyon to marry (Hdt. 6.127.4), and so Peisistratos travelled upon his first return to Athens to marry Megacles’s daughter (Hdt. 1.60.2-3). 22. Aristotle ([Ath. Pol.] 14.4), more than two hundred years later, also mentions the possibility that she was a Thracian, but that she lived in the deme of Collytus. However, taking into account the route that Peisistratos would have taken upon his return, it is more likely that the young woman was from the deme of Paeania. Nor does Jacoby (1954: 72) believe that she was from Collytus.    Cleidemus (FGrH 323 F15 = Ath. 13.89c-d) relates that Peisistratos is said to have married his son, Hipparchus, to Phya, who was herself the daughter of Socrates, probably someone influential in the region of Mesogeia, the area bordering on the Pedion23. In the region of the Pedion where Pallene is located, there must have been a large number of citizens who were hoplites24. It is quite likely that part of this group decided to join Peisistratos, not only because he had brought a false Athena with him to the gates of the sanctuary or because of the influence that Socrates, Phya’s father, might have had in the area, but also because of the context of the Great Panathenaia, the festival during which the second return of Peisistratos is thought to have taken place25. Again, here too, war appears to be the motive for Peisistratos’s presence in Pallene. Once he became a tyrant for the third and last time, Peisistratos, who was already about 60 years old, moved around other parts of Hellas for primarily military reasons, turning his attention to both the northeastern Aegean and the Cyclades. As Peisistratos had captured of the port of Nisaia (Hdt. 1.59.4) and, subsequently, Salamis some twenty years before the establishment of his third tyranny, Athens had access to grain from Sigeion26. According to A. French27, this situation may have favoured relations between the Athenians and the Corinthians, resulting in some collaboration in the region. In fact, Peisistratos’s interest in the northeastern border of Hellas, the Hellespont, is evident from the beginning of the third tyranny, when he dispatched Miltiades the Elder to the part of the Thracian Chersonesus opposite the strait (Hdt. 6.35-37). Also in this region, at Sigeion, the Athenians engaged with the Mytilenians. Here, Peisistratos himself fought at the head of the Athenians, and, in a display of his formidable military skills, he managed to wrest control of the place from the Lesbians ‘at the spear’s point’ (αἰχμῇ, in Hdt. 5.94.1). This area would prove to be crucial for Athens in terms of grain (and perhaps also timber), so much so that Peisistratos set up his son by his Argive wife, Hegesistratos, as tyrant in this area (ibid.)28. 23. Davies (1971: 455) does not rule out the possibility that Peisistratos might later, during his tyranny, have exerted some influence on the cult of Athena Pallenis through this Socrates. Paeania lies on the main land route connecting Brauron with the city of Athens (cf. Lewis 1963: 25). 24. Robertson 1992: 73; Valdés Guía 2002: 141-142, and 2019: 401-403. 25. He is not the only tyrant to take advantage of the fact that a festival was being held in his polis to take control. Polycrates in Samos (Polyaenus, Strat. 1.23.2) and, in his time, Cylon in Athens did the same (Thuc. 1.126.3-6). 26. Highbarger 1927: 136. 27. French 1957: 239. 28. The possible cooperation between the Corinthians and Athenians in the region of the Hellespont is reflected in Herodotus (5.94.2), who says that Periander intervened in favour of Athens in the dispute be-