A Lost Local Memory: Thermopylai, the battle of Delion and the Thespian polyandrion

Roy van Wijk

This paper aims to re-evaluate a specific monument pertaining to the Battle of Delion that

took place in 424 B.C.E., namely the Thespian Polyandrion for the fallen soldiers of

Thespiai. It emphasises the local perspective that is stored in this memorial, but hitherto has

been largely ignored or dismissed.1 Instead, analyses of the polyandrion have relied on

viewing the monument as an exceptional example of a familiar phenomenon, rather than

treating the Thespian polyandrion as an idiosyncratic monument that is embedded in the local

narrative. At the same time, this local perspective is married with the Boiotian koinon’s

discourse during the Peloponnesian War, to show that the epichoric and regional, pan-

hellenic ideologies were not mutually exclusive.

The Battle of Delion in 424 took place on the borders of Attica and Boiotia. This military

encounter left a long-lasting legacy among its participants. The battle resulted in a

devastating Athenian loss, and a grandiose Boiotian victory. In Athens, it was perceived as

the act of an immortal being that had intervened on behalf of the Boiotians, rendering the

outcome of the struggle less surprising.2 It was perceived as a turning point in the

neighbourly relations, with the koinon becoming increasingly assertive vis-à-vis its Athenian

neighbours, rather than the other way around, as Xenophon remembers in his Memorabilia.3

Similarly, it constituted the first major defeat for the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War,

arresting their string of successes.

For the victorious Boiotian koinon Delion formed a pivotal event. It marked the

transition from an atomised, incohesive region that was regularly bullied around by its Attic

neighbour, into a unified front that would hold its own against the dominant superpower of

the day – the Athenians – without any help from the Peloponnesians. The luscious

celebrations inaugurated under Theban auspices, according to Diodorus, demonstrate this

new-found confidence.4 In the shadow of these celebrations stood a different, more reflective

memorial: the Thespian polyandrion. It is this memorial that I will be treating.

1 For the local perspective, see Beck (2020); Tufano (2019) and Thomas (2019).2 IG I3 1163d-f. Previously, this epigram had been ascribed to the Battle of Koroneia (446) but recent investigations of the stone have proven otherwise: Arrington 2012. 3 Xen. Mem. 3.5.4.4 Diod. 12.70. I will return to these later.

The first traces of the monument were found by Stamatakis in the 19 th century and

further excavation by Keramopoullos in the early 20th century revealed the extent of the

polyandrion, as well as the offerings made to the victims.5 A full overview of the findings

was not published until 1977, when Schilardi tackled the muddled archaeological reports in

his dissertation. It revealed the impressive size of the gravesite, as well as the gifts that

accompanied the fallen Thespians. From reconstruction it has become clear that there were 30

casualty lists, which also mentioned the names of two pan-hellenic victors. The men had been

cremated before being buried. Considering the wealth of archaeological findings from the

polyandrion, including all kinds of graves offerings normally associated with the dead, it

seems the Thespians venerated their fallen as heroes of the polis, in accordance with the

customs observed elsewhere.6 Topping the burial mound was the statue of a seated lion, about

3 metres high, which was rather rudimentary in style but still granted a sense of grandeur to

the memorial. The memorial likely did not exist in isolation, and was presumably flanked by

other memorials. Other casualty lists have been found, one even pre-dating the Delion

memorial, but the size of these lists provides a stark contrast to the momentous dimension of

the Delion polyandrion.7

Until now, the monument has been perceived as testimony to the heroic efforts of the

Thespians, whose exploits continued to be remembered in later times, as can be perceived

from the grave offerings (Schilardi 1977), or on the other hand, as an example against the

notion that the polyandreia and the casualty list were a peculiarly Athenian, democratic

phenomenon (Low 2003). Indeed, the emerging picture from new exciting epigraphical finds

from Thebes shows public funeral games may have been held there as well, contrary to

Demosthenes’ claims about its Athenian idiosyncrasy (Papazarkadas 2014). Nevertheless,

these interpretations do not appreciate the epichoric outlook of the monument, or adequately

take Thespian history into consideration. Schilardi briefly remarks on the possibility of a link

between the Thespian Delion memorial and the funeral lion grave for the fallen

Peloponnesians at Thermopylai, but goes on to dismiss this connection, preferring to view the

Delion memorial as a last grasp of Thespian independence before the Theban intervention a

year later. This sentiment is shared by Ma, who views the Thespian polyandrion as reflecting

internecine friction in Boiotia, rather than acting as a possible reference to Thermopylai and

5 Stamatakis (1883a); (1883b); Keramopoullos (1911); (1920).6 Stupperich (1977); Loraux (1981). 7 IThesp 484 (1st half of the 5th century); 486 (Corinthian War 395-386); 487 (3rd century); see also the overview in Kalliontzis (2014). For the location of the polyandrion, see Bintliff et al (2017).

through that, the lion monument for Chaironeia.8 Yet at the same time, Ma has illustrated

how that latter example was steeped in the local history and historiography, and enviously

gazed at Thermopylai in an attempt to create a visual link between the past and present and

the battles at the Hot Gates and Chaironeia. I believe a similar invocation may have been at

play in Thespiai. By placing the monument in its rightful context – Thespian history and the

ideological warfare during the Peloponnesian War, I hope to employ a different lens on this

enigmatic memorial.

The polyandrion for Delion was not a singular monument in the sense that there

existed other polyandreia in Thespiai, of which only the casualty lists have survived. Thanks

to the publication of the Inscriptions de Thespies, we now know there was an earlier

polyandrion, allowing us to compare the different monuments in the Thespian funerary

landscape. This early polyandrion was significantly smaller in size; similarly, later

polyandreia appear to have been of a lesser scale. Additionally, there is no guarantee that all

these memorials were topped by a funerary lion statue, although Schilardi suggested that

possibility. He adduced the recorded find of another lion statue, circa 1.3 metres high and

dated to the late 5th-early 4th century. Schilardi viewed this as an indication of another mass

grave, but the original excavators were less certain and assigned it a different status, perhaps

as a marker for an individual grave.9 Admittedly, lions grazed the funeral landscape as

markers of graves since the 7th century, when the motif as a lion showing the valour of the

deceased started to appear; but the animal’s role as a warden for mass graves in less well

attested.10

Vermeule writes that “He (the lion) is the only beast, outside of Attica at least, who

had a demonstrable connection with Greek history, rather than being mere private sepulchral

commemoration. At Amphipolis in Macedonia and Chaeroneia in Boeotia colossal marble

lions on massive architectural bases watched over those who fell in famous battles of the

fourth century.”11 This again confirms that the later monuments were not stereotypical

common grave markers. But both cases were later examples, post-dating Delion.

Thermopylai therefore still stands as the first grave that marked the fallen of a battle en

masse, and perhaps formed the blueprint for the Thespians as well.12 That is not to say the 8 Schilardi (1977); Ma (2008).9 Schilardi (1977) versus de Ridder (1922) 253-5.10 Willemsen (1959).11 Vermeule (1972) 59.12 Vermeule articles refers to a headless lion statue outside of Thebes that could possibly mark a mass grave, but he offers no conclusive evidence or other factors that could demonstrate this role. The lion was inscribed

Delion monument inspired the later memorials, but it makes it more plausible that the

Thespians looked to Thermopylai, rather than simply following tradition.

Defeating the New Persians: the propaganda of the Peloponnesian WarTo fully appreciate the impact of the monument the background to the Battle of Delion and

the propagandistic components of the Peloponnesian War in which it took place should be

revisited. In 424 the Athenians conceived of a plan to establish permanent footholds in

Boiotia from which to erode the cohesion of the koinon. The two-pronged attack consisted of

two simultaneous attacks, one by Demosthenes in the western edge of the region, around

Siphai and Chaironeia, while a second army under Hippocrates would invade Boiotia via the

Oropia and fortify and the Apollo sanctuary at Delion. The idea was to prevent a centralised

response from the Boiotians and thus allow the establishment of Athenian enclaves in this

strategically important region. Demosthenes’ part of the plain failed, however, leaving

Hippocrates to salvage the operation. Confronted with the entire Boiotian army, the Athenian

general decided to fortify the sanctuary and withdraw most of his troops. Most of the

Boiotian leaders accepted this withdrawal, until one of their peers, Pagondas, gave a rousing

speech to convince them otherwise. The most intriguing part of the speech, permeated as it is

with references to abrasive Athenian behaviour and Boiotian history in an on-going dyadic

rivalry, is the following phrase uttered by the general:

“It is your national habit, in your country or out of it, to oppose the same resistance to a

foreign invader; and when that invader is Athenian, and lives upon your frontier besides, it is

doubly imperative to do so.”

Οὐ γὰρ τὸ προμηθές, οἶς ἂν ἂνλλος ἐπιῃ, περὶ τῆς σφετέρας ὁμοίως ἐνδέχεται λογισμὸν καὶ ὃστις τὰ μὲν ἑαυτοῦ ἒχει, τοῦ πλέονος δὲ ὀρεγόμενος ἐκών τινι ἐπέρχεται. Πάτριόν τε ὑμῖν στρατὸν ἀλλόφυλον ἐπελθόντα καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν πέλας ὁμοίως ἀμύνεσθαι.

The words I have highlighted here – Πάτριόν and ἀλλόφυλον - represent key

facets of Pagondas’ speech. Πάτριόν is used here to assert a national characteristic of the

with a single name, according to earlier reports “Wastias”, which supposedly marks the lion as the marker for a private monument, rather than a polyandrion. Plus, he dates it to the period 400-390, which would be after Delion. Vermeule offers possible earlier lion statues, but these all come from the islands or Asia Minor. Moreover, these seem to have graced private monuments, rather than public, common graves. For Wastias: SEG 22.419; 24. 375; Symeonologlou (1985) 259, site 59. The lion was inscribed with a single name, according to earlier reports “Wastias”, which typifies the lion as the marker for a private monument, rather than a polyandrion. For the possible identification of Wastias: Schachter (2017)

Boiotians, that is, to defend against foreign invaders. More saliently is the use of

ἀλλόφυλον, as Jonathan Price rightly identified. This word sets the Athenians apart from

the Boiotians as a foreign race, perhaps the distinction between Aeolian and Ionian.13 I would

venture further, however. In the next part of the speech, Pagondas compares the Athenians to

the Persians by touting the ideological line of the anti-Athenian coalition during the

Peloponnesians, namely, that the Athenians are the new Persians, intent on subduing all of

Hellas and taking away the eleutheria of other poleis.14

“Between neighbours freedom generally means a simple determination to hold

one’s own (lands), but with neighbours like these (the Athenians), who are

trying to enslave near and far alike, there is no other option but to fight it out

to the last. Just take an example from the condition of the Euboeans and of

most of the rest of Hellas” (own translation).15

By utilising these rhetorical tools, Pagondas almost frames the conflict as a new Persian

Wars. Similar to that war, the Boiotians were invaded by foreigners – in this case the un-

Greek Athenians – placing the subsequent engagement at Delion in a similar line of battles

for Greek freedom, such as Thermopylai, where the Boiotians arguably made a stand against

the invading Persians in the name of the Greeks.

The invocation of “persianity”, of course, did not stand on its own, nor was it a

Boiotian peculiarity. Following Thucydides’ own words, it is clear that the Spartans and their

allies portrayed the Athenians as the new Persians, intent on enslaving the Greeks. What

made it worse was their own Greek origins, a sentiment echoed by the Thebans in the

Plataian Debate when they accuse the Plataians of attikismos. More importantly, the Spartans

rallied their allies and other Athenian opponents around the notion of eleutheria in an attempt

to recapture it from the abrasive Athenians, who had used exactly that slogan to devise the

Delian League and carry on the war against the Persians.16 The Peloponnesian War therefore

13 Price (2001) 294-5.14 For this ideological component to the war, see Raaflaub (2004).15 Thuc. 4.92.4: πρός τε γὰρ τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας πᾶσι τὸ ἀντίπαλον καὶ ἐλεύθερον καθίσταται, καὶ πρὸς τούτους γε δή, οἳ καὶ μὴ τοὺς ἐγγύς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἂπωθεν πειρῶνται δουλοῦσθαι , πῶς οὐ χρὴ καὶ ἐπι τὸ ἒσχατον ἀγῶνος ἐλθεῖν (παράδειγμα δὲ ἒχομεν τούς τε ἀντιπὲρας Εὐβοέας καὶ τῆς ἂλλης Ἑλλάδος τὸ πολὺ ὡς αὐ τοῖς διάκειται.16 Thuc. 1.139.3; Raaflaub (2004) 195. This juxtaposition of the Persian and Peloponnesian War also returns in the Plataian trial of 427: Thuc. 3.64; Hornblower 1991 ad loc. See also the ironic remarks by Xenophon on how participants of the Peloponnesian War thought the tearing down of the Athenian Long Walls at the end of the war signalled the beginning of freedom for Greece (Xen. Hell. 2.2.23; Plut. Lys. 15).

struck a chord and was especially aimed at striking at the heart of the Athenians’ ideological

message, something reflected in the dedications made after the war in Delphi – like the

Aegispotami monument that directly competed with the Athenian Marathon monument and

eclipsed its counterpart in all facets. Similarly, the dissolution of the Delian League in 404/3,

was exemplified by the Spartan decree liberating Delos, which embodied this rallying cry for

freedom against what the Athenians stood for.17 For Pagondas to frame the Athenians as the

new Persians thus found its resonance in the Peloponnesian War in general, perhaps more

fittingly at the site of Delion, with its cultic connections to Delos.18 Because of these

connotations, and the fact that the brunt of the battle was fought out between the two

neighbours, the victory at Delion can be viewed as a Boiotian victory for freedom against the

repressive Athenians – a reversal of the roles normally ascribed to them in Athenian

discourse – especially as it came at a time when medism re-entered the Athenians’ psyche

and commemorative practices.19

Judging from the way the victory was celebrated in Thebes and Delion, according to

Diodorus, the victors perceived the battle as a seminal moment in their history, perhaps

intimately connected to the notion of eleutheria, but this time for Boiotia in particular. A

grand stoa was erected in the Agora, embellished by the bronze statues made from the

Athenian armour. Other booty was hung around temples and stoas in the city’s heart,

transforming this civic centre into a visual testimony of the victory, and more importantly, the

grandeur of Thebes and the koinon, finally united against the common foe whose contriving

ambitions in Boiotia had been stifled by the united defence of Boiotia. Embodying this

grandeur was the pièce de résistance, the inauguration of the Delia festival in Delion. Since

there had been sacred buildings at the site prior, combined with Herodotus’ testimony of the

re-dedication of an Apollo statue at Delion in 470, there is uncertainty whether the Delia was

a new festival, or the adaptation of a pre-existing festival. Perhaps the Delia were transformed

from a local affair into a pan-Boiotian festival, as it was in the late 2nd century.20 Regardless

of its repercussions for the festival scene in Boiotia, it was most certainly a sneer at the

Athenians. Their empire was founded on the notion of Delos as the religious centre of a pan-

Ionian alliance. There, the Delia were celebrated in grand style under Athenian wardenship.

The jab must have resonated all the more considering the recent purification of the island of

17 RO 7 no. 3.18 Schachter (1981) ad loc.19 Yates (2019); Steinbock (2013).20 Brelaz et al (2007).

Delos, and the subsequent re-organisation of the festival by the Athenians in 426. By creating

a “mirror-Delia” in Boiotia, the koinon undermined the Athenians’ prestige, affirming the

importance of “symbolic capital” in interstate affairs. The “centralised” message of the

koinon thus aimed to tarnish the Athenians’ reputation, which tallies well with the overall

propagandistic battle raging during the Peloponnesian War. Considering this ideological

framework was at play in the recollections of the koinon in toto, what can it reveal about the

Thespian polyandrion?

Like their Boiotian brethren, the victory at Delion must have been a great cause for

celebration in Thespiai, despite their long-standing friendly relations with the Athenians.21

The battle had a more profound impact on the polis on a mundane level, in comparison to

their Boiotian neighbours. From the Boiotian contingent that fought at Delion, far and away

the Thespians suffered the greatest amount of casualties. They had performed heroic deeds in

the heat of battle, as Thucydides vividly describes:

The Thespians in that part of the field suffered most severely. The troops alongside them

having given way, they were surrounded in a narrow space and cut down fighting hand to

hand

ὑποχωρησάντων γὰρ αὐτοῖς τῶν παρατεταγμένων, καὶ κυκλωθέντων ἐν ὀλίγῳ, οἵπερ διεφθάρησανΘεσπιῶν, ἐν χερσὶν ἀμυνόμενοι κατεκόπησαν

The situation is almost similar to their struggle at Thermopylai, where the Thespians fought

until their deaths in a desperate position on the battlefield. Therefore, it is less remarkable

that the legacy of the battle left the most traces in Thespiai. Their polyandrion far outshone

competitors in the commemorative landscape, like the polyandrion in Tanagra for instance,

and demonstrates that the memorial was meant to impress, rather than another copy in a line

of standard monuments.22

21 See Schachter (1996). Schachter and Marchand (2012) provide an insight into how the intimate Atheno-Thespian ties may have persisted in the epigraphical tradition of the polis.22 There were 69 Tanagran (and 2 Eretrians) deaths; the memorial for the fallen was of a much more subdued character. The names were inscribed on a not particularly large local black stone: IG VII 585; Venencie (1960) 611-5.

Monopolising a Memory: Sparta and the Battle of ThermopylaiThere are discrepancies between the Thermopylai and Delion memorials. Unlike Leonidas

and his men, the Thespians were not buried on site, nor did the Thermopylai monument

contain casualty lists as far as we can tell. These were either Thespian peculiarities or

remnants of Athenian influence.23 Nevertheless, the similarities are striking. Both monuments

marked the communal graves for heroes that fell in the defence of ta patria. The similarity

becomes more salient when taking into consideration the Thespian contributions to the

defence of Thermopylai. All 700 of its men perished in the battle, an ultimate sacrifice that

left the population decimated.24 In fact, it constituted a much greater sacrifice than the more

famous Spartan 300, immortalised both in the past and today for their exploits. Moreover, it

was the Spartans that gained all the glory, as can be gathered from the inscription Herodotus

relates when talking of the memorial commemorating the battle at Thermopylai:

“Here four thousand from the Peloponnese once fought three million”

Even if we include the contingents from Thebes and Thespiai among these four

thousand – and that is not certain, as it could be all the Peloponnesians, helots included – it

deliberately omits the origins of the Thespians, and instead directs all the glory to the

Peloponnesians.

Even a memorial dedicated to a non-Spartan brings the Spartan view back into

prominence:

“This is a monument to the renowned Megistias

Slain by the Medes who crossed the Spercheius-river

The Seer knew well his coming doom

But endured not to abandon the leaders of Sparta”25

The barrage of Spartan commemoration continued through the other memorials

present near the battlefield:

23 Schachter (1996); Schachter and Marchand (2012); Liddell (2009) shows a similar spread of epigraphic conventions in Megara; Papazarkadas (2017) for the Oropia.24 Hdt. 7.202; 225-6.25 Hdt. 7.228: μνῆμα τόδε κλεινοῖο Μεγιστία, ὅν ποτε Μῆδοι; Σπερχειὸν ποταμὸν κτεῖναν ἀμειψάμενοι,μάντιος, ὃς τότε κῆρας ἐπερχομένας σάφα εἰδώς οὐκ ἔτλη Σπάρτης ἡγεμόνα προλιπεῖν

“This hill is at the mouth of the pass, where the stone lion in honour

of Leonidas now stands.” 26

Arguably, the Thespians were buried in this memorial, together with the Spartans. As Jacoby

concluded, in the aftermath of the battle it would have been impossible to discern the identity

of the fallen that easily for them to be separated.27 Herodotus also refers to the bravery of the

Thespians; but he nevertheless ignores the Thespians by simply referring to the lion as

Leonidas’ memorial.

Perhaps this was also deliberate Spartan policy after the Persian Wars – to debilitate

the Thespians’ contributions, or the Boiotians altogether and solely focus on the Spartan

achievements by framing the entire Persian Wars as a Spartan victory.28 In other cases that

betray Spartan agency, the Thespians were forgotten as well. For instance, the difference in

the lists accompanying the victory dedications at Olympia and Delphi after the Persian Wars:

The Thespians were on the Serpent column but omitted from the Zeus statue.29 Inclusion on

the list mattered, as is confirmed by the additions of more poleis on the Serpent column, but

also by the references made by the Plataians during their trial in 427, when they refer to their

appearance on the Serpent Column.30 Such a snub must have weighed on the Thespians,

leaving an indelible mark concerning their participation in the Persian Wars and other

Greeks’ views on their efforts.31 The Delion polyandrion could have been a subtle attempt to

erase that memory, or rather, amnesia, over their contributions to the liberty of the Greeks,

thereby merging the pan-hellenic and local discourse.

Moreover, if the Delian polyandrion is seen as a physical link to Thermopylai, it sheds

a different light on the commemoration of the battle. Shortly after Delion, the Thebans

intervened in Thespiai on accounts of its attikismos. Habitually, scholars perceived this

intervention as a suppressive measure, but as Buck rightfully pointed out, the Thespians had

lost the “flower of their youth”, as Thucydides has it, many of which probably had pro-

26 Hdt. 7.225: ὁ δὲ κολωνὸς ἐστὶ ἐν τῇ ἐσόδῳ, ὅκου νῦν ὁ λίθινος λέων ἓστηκε ἐπὶ Λεωνίδῃ. The lion monument could of course also be a referral to the name Leonidas, strengthening its connection.27 Jacoby (1944) 43.28 See for instance Yates (2019); Schachter (2016); van Wees (2019).29 ML 27.30 Thuc. 3.57.2.31 An interesting document is the bronze tablet from Olympia detailing the reversal of a monetary punishment meted out to the Boiotians, but from which the Thespians were subsequently exempted: NIO 5. Perhaps they did not wish to be thrown in with other Boiotian medisers and therefore wished for their exemption?

koinon sympathies.32 This action therefore aimed to protect the – now minority – pro-koinon

faction in the polis. With the Thebans firmly in charge, the message of the polyandrion could

have resonated more, since the Battle of Delion was framed as a similar struggle of survival

as the Persians Wars. A stronger Theban hand in the erection of the monument is not

implausible. The monument probably took some time to construct and may have been

finished after the Theban intervention. The lettering of the casualty lists is precise and

carefully crafted, without the sloppy additions of names at the side or bottom of the stone, as

some Athenian lists display. Jeffery states that the lettering is “… a good example of the fine,

sophisticated work that could be produced for a public monument by a mason with an

individual style.” 33 That takes on added importance when considering the burial of several

men after the initial burial, presumably because they succumbed to their wounds later on. In

that case, the lack of hasty additions implies sufficient time was taken to finish the

monument. Perhaps the Thebans were the ones to stimulate this desire for a grandiose

memorial that outshine all others in the Thespian public cemetery, especially if it was the

only one adorned with a lion statue. This would further amplify the sacrifice of these men,

providing a physical memento for the current Thespian pro-Theban regime, as it signified

their righteous struggle. Conversely, it could have been a deliberate attempt by these leaders

to show their unwavering support for the koinon and commitment to the cause. In either case,

a deliberate reference to Thermopylai’s lion statue could work, as it would place the

sacrifices of these men against the new Persians on par with the exploits of their illustrious

predecessors, who fell fighting for the survival of Boiotia against a foreign invader.

Moreover, it fits well with new research into commemorative practice, albeit in Athens, that

stresses that these men were not just perceived as heroes of the polis because of their

sacrifice, but also embodied the struggle and beauty of dying for one’s polis, or in this case,

the greater good of the koinon.34

The Nachleben of the Thespian Polyandrion

That leaves open the question of the monument’s Nachleben. One part concerns the break in

cultic activity at the site, as argued by Schilardi on account of the datable pottery. Another

part has to deal with the apparent dearth of references to the monument in our written

32 Buck (1994) 18; Thuc. 4. 133. Keep in mind the context of the battle of Delion and the previous attempts by the Athenians to interfere in Boiotian affairs through local agents. 33 Jeffery (1990) 94. There is for instance no trace of the hasty additions found on the bottom or edges of Athenian lists: Bradeen (1969) 146-7.34 See Arrington (2015) for these insights relating to Athenian funerary practice and commemorative culture.

sources. If the polyandrion embodied such an important landmark in Thespian history, aimed

at recollecting their heroic exploits at Delion and simultaneously hint at their past efforts in

the Persian Wars, why is there a detectable break in the cult and silence in our written

sources?

First, the apparent discontinuity in cult activity at the polyandrion requires

elucidation. According to the datable pottery, there appears to have been a break in the

sequence of offerings given to the fallen heroes. Most grave gifts can be dated immediately

after the construction of the memorial and pick up again in the first quarter of the 4 th century,

after an interlude of about twenty years. Schilardi views this interruption as the result of the

Theban intervention in 423. In his interpretation, the Thebans would not allow rites to be

performed for the Thespian heroes as this would constitute a form of independent action

incommensurate with the Theban worldview of a united koinon.35

But one can wonder whether a radical political break instigated by the Thebans

caused the cultic discontinuity. I would contend there is no reason to believe a “top-down”

intervention from the koinon subdued the expression of a local Thespian memory. My new

interpretation of the monument would have it align with the Thebans’ perspective on the

Peloponnesian War and thus contradict Schilardi’s internecine interpretation. Moreover, their

intervention was aimed at protecting precisely that class which had suffered so badly at the

Battle of Delion, the hoplites. If the monument captured the destitution of that class, who

were presumably pro-koinon, why would the Thebans venture to obstruct cultic activity at the

polyandrion?

Another layer of criticism can be aimed at the need to search for a radical political

break. The archaeological finds are not as conclusive as Schilardi assumes since the

excavated material can be dated throughout the classical period. That could have further

repercussions because of the upheavals experienced by the Thespians and the subsequent

erosion of their community in the 370s.36 This could have caused the discontinuities in the

material. The unclarity of the material can therefore not offer conclusiveness for the cultic

disruption – the firm lines established by Schilardi can easily have morphed into blurred

divisions that suggest a less radical interpretation of the material.

Nevertheless, that does not explain the apparent revival of the cult for the fallen

Thespian heroes at the start of the 4th century. Why now? Perhaps the memory of the fallen at

Delion became pertinent again at the time. Spartan invasions of Boiotian soil – and their

35 SCHILARDI (1977) 26-8, 35-7; 71-2.36 See SNODGRASS (2017).

subsequent repelling – could have triggered recollections of the Peloponnesian War,

especially with the Spartans now forming the biggest threat to the freedom of the Greeks.37 In

the wake of this foreign aggression and the survival of the koinon at stake, the situation could

have been ripe for a reinvigorated enthusiasm for the veneration of these fallen Thespian

heroes.38

That leaves the apparent cessation of commemorations after the 4th century, which is

remarkable. Again, the dispersion of the settlement in the 370s and the dissemination of the

population could have caused this discontinuity.39 Other issues could have been at stake too.

Christophe Chandezon noted that the Thespians could have decided there was no need to

commemorate their pan-Boiotian valour vis-à-vis the Thebans in the new koinon inaugurated

after the destruction of Thebes in 335.40 Or maybe the reconfiguration of the polis and its

walls caused some disruption or unfamiliarity with this grandiose site. Perhaps one can push

it further and speculate whether the polyandrion and its destruction or covering up was a

result of Thespiai’s subjugation in the 370s, since it lay so far out of the urban context.

That brings us to the question of the literary sources. If it was such an important

landmark, why would Plutarch, the famous connoisseur of Boiotian affairs, or the traveller

Pausanias not mention it during his travels? A possible destruction of the monument could

account for both omissions, especially if the destruction was a result of internecine quarrels

within Boiotia in the 370s. Plutarch would then perhaps be less inclined to mention them. It

could also account for Pausanias’ omission of the monument. It could have fallen in disuse,

which, considering its rural location, was not unlikely. In addition, one can look at the

changes in the demography and habitation patterns of Thespiai in the Late Hellenistic and

Roman periods. As John Bintliff has argued, these times witnessed the decrease of

populations in Thespiai (and Boiotia in general) and could account for the polyandrion’s

descent into oblivion.41 It could therefore have been of no interest to the Perieget, or, perhaps

37 Interestingly, this is something the Theban ambassador to Athens in 395 appears to suggest as well: Xen. Hell. 3.5.10-16. Considering the aftermath of the Corinthian War – resulting in the King’s Peace – and its associations with autonomia, which was a term frequently associated with freedom (eleutheria), the ideological components of the Peloponnesian War and Corinthian War were perhaps not that far detached. For the use of autonomia and its connection to eleutheria, see BOSWORTH (1993); GIOVANNINI (2007) 102.38 IThesp 999 (IG VII 1904) reveals some of the impact the Spartan take-over in Boiotia had on a grassroots level, demonstrating the “liberation” through the King’s Peace was perhaps not well-received by every Thespian. See also the remarks by MA (2017) n.22.39 SNODGRASS (2017) for these events.40 CHANDEZON (2018) 86. 41 BINTLIFF (2019).

more likely, it was simply the choice of the traveller to not include a monument that

commemorated an intra-Greek struggle.42

ConclusionI have argued that the Thespian polyandrion was an expression of the local narrative merging

with a larger Panhellenic discourse that was promulgated by the koinon. By moving away

from the more common interpretations of the monument – either as a last grasp of Thespian

independence before Theban subjugation or as a testimony to internecine struggle in Boiotia

– the Delion polyandrion should be viewed as the ideal marriage of the Thespian local

narrative and the propagandistic context of the on-going Peloponnesian War. For the

Thespians, it was an attempt to recapture and rekindle their glorious past of the Persian Wars,

which also served as a testament to their persistent loyalty in defending Boiotia against

foreign aggressors, whether Athenian or Persian. Indeed it is that sentiment that Pagondas

appeals to when he exhorts his fellow Boiotians before the Battle of Delion:

‘…let us advance to meet them and show that if they would get what they

covet they must attack those who will not defend themselves, but that men

whose noble spirit impels them always to fight for the liberty of their own land

and not enslave that of others unjustly will never let them depart without a

battle.’

…καὶ δεῖξαι ὅτι ὦν μὲν ἐφίενται πρὸς τοὺς μὴ ἀμυνομένους ἐπιόντες κτάσθων, οἶς δὲ γενναῖον τήν τε αὑτῶν αἰεὶ ἐλευθεροῦν μάχῃ καὶ τὴν ἄλλων μὴ δουλοῦσθαι ἀδίκως, ἀναταγώνιστοι ἀπ’ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀπίασι.43

Bibliography

IG = Inscriptiones Graecae.

42 HUTTON (2005) 95, 241-74 for Pausanias’ reasons for including monuments. Even with the Thespians abandoning the monument at a later stage through its association with intra-Greek struggles, it does not necessarily follow that it had always been viewed in that light. It is just as likely that the monument initially aimed to connect Thespian collective memory to the Thermopylai memorial landscape. Pausanias appears to have written the book on Boiotia in an early stage of the work’s completion (KNOEPFLER 2004), perhaps explaining why the memory of the Thespian polyandrion could have faded from his recollections, if it ever formed part of it all. See KNOEPFLER (2019) for an analysis of Pausanias’ memory and what he observed in Boiotia.43 Thuc. 4.92.7.

IThesp = P. Roesch, Les Inscriptions de Thespies: online corpus available at www.hisoma.mom.fr/production-scientifique/lesinscriptions-de- thespies (2007[2009]).

ML = R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, rev. edn., Oxford (1988).

NIO = P. Siewert and H. Taeuber, Neue Inschriften von Olympia. Die ab 1896 veröffentlichten Texte, Vienna (2013).

RO = P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC, Oxford (revised edn. 2007)

Arrington, N. (2012). 'The Form(s) and Date(s) of a Classical War Monument: Re-

evaluating IG 13 1163 and the Case for Delion', ZPE, 181, 61-75. (2015) Ashes, Images, and Memories: The Presence of the War Dead in Fifth-Century Athens (New York: OUP).

Beck, H. (2020). Localism and The Ancient Greek City-State. Chicago.Bintliff, J. et al. (2017). Boeotia Project, Volume II: The city of Thespiai Survey at a complex

urban site (Oxford: Oxbow).Bradeen, D.W. (1969) “The Athenian Casualty Lists”, CQ 19, 145-59.Brélaz, C., Andreiomenou, A.K., and Ducrey, P. (2007), 'Les premiers comptes du sanctuaire

d'Apollon à Délion et le concours pan-béotien des Delia', BCH, 131, 235-308.Buck, R. (1994) Boeotia and the Boeotian League 432-371 B.C. (Alberta: University of Alberta Press).Clairmont, C.W. (1983), Patrios Nomos. Public Burial in Athens during the Fifth and Fourth

Centuries B.C (Oxford: BAR International).De Ridder, A. (1922). ‘Fouilles de Thespies et l’Hiéron des Muses de l’Hélicon (P. Jamot :

1888-1889-1890, P. Jamot et A. de Ridder : 1891), BCH 46, 217-306.Jacoby, F. (1944) ‘Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery‘, JHS 64,

37-66Jeffery, L.H. (1990), The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (2nd edn.; Oxford: Clarendon Press).Kalliontzis, Y. (2014), 'Digging in Storerooms for Inscriptions: An Unpublished Casualty List from Plataia in the Museum of Thebes and the Memory of War in Boeotia', in N.

Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. New Finds. New Prospects (Leiden/ Boston), 332-72.Keramopoullos, A. D. (1911) ‘Anaskaphi Thespikou polyandriou tou 424 p’. Ch. Praktika,

153-63.(1920) ‘Eikones polemiston tes en Dilioi maches (424 p. Ch.).’ Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1-36.

Liddel, P. (2009), 'The Decree Cultures of the Ancient Megarid', CQ, 59 (2), 411-36.Loraux, N. (1981) L’invention d'Athènes. Histoire de l'oraison funèbre dans la “cité

classique”. Paris.Low, P. (2003) 'Remembering War in Fifth-Century Greece: Ideologies, Societies and

Commemoration beyond Democratic Athens', World Archaeology, 35 (1), 98-111.Ma, J. (2008) “Chaironeia 338: Topographies of Commemoration”, JHS, 128, 72-91.

(2017) 'The Autonomy of the Boiotian Poleis', in S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 32-58.

Raaflaub, K. (2004). The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Papazarkadas, N. ‘Two New Epigrams from Thebes.’ In N. Papazarkadas (ed.) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia. New Finds. New Prospects (Leiden/ Boston: Brill), 223-51.

(2017) ‘The Epigraphic Habit(s) in Fourth-Century Boiotia', in S.D. Gartland(ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 121-46.

Price, J. (2001), Thucydides and Internal War (Cambridge: CUP).Schachter, A. and F. Marchand (2012), 'Fresh light on the institutions and religious life of

Thespiai: six new inscriptions from the Thespiai Survey', in M. Paraskevi and N. Papazarkadas (eds.), Epigraphica lApproaches to the Post-classical Polis. Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD (Oxford: OUP), 277-300.

Schachter, A. (1981) Cults of Boeotia: Volume I. Acheloös to Hera. (London: ICS).(1996) “Reconstructing Thespiai.”, in A. Hurst and A. Schachter (eds.) Le Montagne des Muses (Geneva), 99-126.(2016) Boiotia in Antiquity: Selected Papers. (Cambridge: CUP).(2017). ‘Toward a revised chronology of the Theban magistrates' coins’, in S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C. Philadelphia: 42-58.

Schilardi, D. (1977), 'The Thespian Polyandrion (424 B.C.): the excavations and finds from a Thespian state burial.', (Princeton).

Stamatakis, P. (1883a) ‘Ekthesis peri t6n en Boiotiai ergon en etei 1882.’ Praktika, 63-74. (1883b) ‘Esphalmenes ekdoches epanorthosis.’ Archaiologike Ephemeris, 191.

Steinbock, B. (2013), Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).Stupperich, R. (1977) Staatsbegrabnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen. Doctoral

dissertation, Münster.Symeonoglou, S. (1985). The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times.

Princeton.Thomas, R. (2019). Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World. Cambridge.Tufano, S. (2019). Boiotia from Within. The Beginnings of Boiotian Historiography. Teiresias Supplements 2. Münster.Van Wees, H. (2019). ‘Thermopylai: Herodotus versus the Legend.’ in: L. W. van Gils, I. J. F. de Jong and C. H. M. Kroon (eds.), Textual Strategies in Ancient War Narrative

Leiden/Boston: 19–53.Venencie, J. (1960), 'Inscriptions de Tanagra en alphabet épichorique', BCH, 84, 589-616.Vermeule, C. (1972) ‘Greek Funerary Animals, 450-300 B.C.’ AJA 76, 49-59.Willemsen, F. (1959) Die Löwenkopf-wassenspeier vom Dach des Zeustempels (Olympische

Forschungen 4. (Berlin).Yates, D. (2019). States of Memory: The Polis, Panhellenism and the Persian War. Oxford.

Map with location of Thespiai, Delion and Thermopylai

Map of City of Thespiai and its cemeteries, taken from Bintliff et al 2017

Image of the reconstructed Polyandrion, from Low 2003