Download Why Seize the Acropolis?

Why Seize the Acropolis?
Author(s): Vincent J. Rosivach
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 57, H. 2 (2008), pp. 125-133
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25598425
Accessed: 10-04-2016 16:08 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25598425?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHY SEIZE THE ACROPOLIS?
When Kylon moved to make himself tyrant at Athens, our sources1 tell us that he seized
(or attempted to seize) control of the acropolis:
o\)to<; eni rupavvi8i EK6\ir\oe2 ... KaxaXaPeiv xfiv dKpo7coA,iv ?7ieipf|0r| (Hdt.
5.71.1).
6 Se ... KaxeAxxPe xfiv dicpoftoXiv ax; eni rupavviSi... (Thuc. 1.126.5).
Kutaov xfiv dKp07coA,iv KaxeA,aP?v eni xvpavviSi ... (schol. in Aristoph. Eq.
445).3
And Plut. Sol. 12.1 also mentions that when their plot was foiled the conspirators put
themselves under the protection of "the goddess" (sc. Athena), presumably in her temple
on the acropolis.4 Similarly, some seventy years later, when Peisistratos established his
tyranny for the first time he used his bodyguard of club-bearers to take possession of
the acropolis:
cruve7tavae>xdvxe<; 8e ootoi (sc. the club-bearers) a|na neicuaxpdxq) ea%ov xfiv
aKpoftokiv. evGa 8f) 6 Ileiaiaxpaxoq rjp%e 'AGrivaicov ... (Hdt. 1.59.6).
A,aP(bv be xoxx; Kopwr^opouq Kcdov^evoix;, ercavaaxdc; jiexd xoiixcav x? 8r\\uo,
Kaxeaye xfiv dicpoftoAav (AthPol. 14.1).
And when the same Peisistratos undertook to recover his tyranny a few years later he
disguised the woman Phye as Athena and gave out that the goddess herself was bring
ing him back to her acropolis:
xov (sc. Peisistratos) atixfi fj 'A0r)vair| xi|Lif|CTac?a dvGpomtDv p.d^iaxa Kaxdyei eq
xfiv eflruxfjc; dKpoTtoAav (Hdt. 1.60.5).
The acropolis is not specifically mentioned in the accounts of Peisistratos' second return
to power, unless perhaps the AthPol.'s kap&v xfiv nokiv (15.3) refers more narrowly
to the citadel.5 There is, however, one further coup de main that most certainly fits the
pattern. In 508 the Spartan king Kleomenes, having come to Athens with a small force
of men to support Kleisthenes' rival Isagoras, attempted to dissolve the boule and turn
1 There are several differences in the accounts of Kylon in our various sources, but fortunately they
are unimportant for our present purpose. For a discussion of the more significant differences see
conveniently P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981)
79-84; for speculation on the source of these differences see M. Lang, "Kylonian Conspiracy," CP
62 (1967) 243-249.
2 For the sense of the verb see LSJ s.v. The scholiast to Aristoph. Vesp. 1317 glosses it ueya <j)po
velq.
3 Cf. ibid.: GeAxov rupavveiv ... erceMkbv Tfj aKpoflotei.
4 Although he does not specifically say that the acropolis was the initial target of their coup.
5 Thucydides (2.15.6) tells us that the Athenians of his day still called the acropolis x\ n6X\$. Note
also that the ruse Peisistratos used to disarm the Athenians after this second return took place at the
entrance of the acropolis (AthPol. 15.4).
Historia, Band 57/2 (2008)
? Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
126 Vincent J. Rosivach
the government over to Isagoras' supporters (Hdt. 5.72.1). When the boule resisted,
Kleomenes, Isagoras and his supporters seized the acropolis:
6 xe KA?0|i6vr|<; Kai 6 Taayopaq Kai oi axaaiwxai awou KaxaX-ajipdvoDai xfiv
aKp67toA,iv (Hdt. 5.72.2).6
So, at least three coups d'etat, all involving occupation of the acropolis. The question
thus arises, Why seize the acropolis? What advantage would successful occupation of
the acropolis confer upon someone seeking to replace the legitimate government with
his own regime?7 The closest our sources come to giving an answer to this question is
in the scholion to Aristophanes' Knights 445, where it is said that Kylon was caught
plundering the temple of Athena (eX,f|<J)r| ovX&v to iepov xfj<; 'A0r|vd<;). Now tyrants
could always use more money to pay their mercenaries and, more generally, to support
a lavish lifestyle, but even if this story were true for Kylon it would not explain why
Peisistratos, who claimed Athena's support, also seized the acropolis. But the story is
unlikely to be true even of Kylon. The impiety of looting the patron goddess' temple
would have been simply too enormous to be passed over in silence by all our earlier
sources, especially when accusations of impiety played so large a part in the rest of the
story, viz. the execution of Kylon's men after they had sought refuge at the statue and/or
altar of Athena (Hdt. 5.71, Thuc. 1.126). Indeed, Andrewes is probably right to see in
the scholion's story a reflection of later Alkmaionid propaganda mounting a charge of
gross impiety against Kylon and his men to counter the alleged curse upon the clan for
the leading role the Alkmaionid Megakles played in the execution of Kylon's men.8
The story of Phye/Athena escorting Peisistratos to her acropolis (Hdt. 1.60.5) sug
gests that the successful occupation of the acropolis could be interpreted as a sign of
divine favor for - or at least acquiescence in - the coup,9 but the symbolism of divine
favor could be a tricky thing, as Kleomenes discovered when Athena's priestess unex
pectedly confronted him at the temple door telling him that he had no business there, a
<()f||iTi / kat|5(qv that clearly presaged the Spartan king's ouster from the acropolis a few
days later (Hdt. 5.72.2-4). More generally, any forcible occupation of the acropolis was
more likely to be viewed as an act of impiety than as evidence of divine favor.10 Note
6 AthPol. 20.3 says less accurately that when Kleomenes, Isagoras et al. met with resistance they
"fled" (Kaxe<j>vYov) to the acropolis.
7 While I am generally sympathetic with the approach that sees the archaic tyrant as an eminently
successful player in the game of intra-elite politics, able to marshal social capital to obtain the com
plete acquiescence of his rivals to his leadership, the fact remains that, at least in Athens, Kylon and
Peisistratos also did something their rivals could or would not do when they occupied the acropolis,
something the doing of which specifically marked them as tyrants. For examples of this approach
see G. Anderson, "Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History,"
CA 24 (2005) 173-222; H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of
the Evidence (Amsterdam 2000) 1-15.
8 A. Andrewes, CAM1 3.3.370. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Peisistratos (as in n. 7) 9, is similarly correct
in rejecting the notion that a would-be tyrant could use his control over the goddess' sacred objects
to force the Athenians to do as he wished.
9 So e.g. B. M. Lavelle, Fame, Money, and Power: The Rise of Peisistratos and "Democratic " Tyranny
at Athens (Ann Arbor 2005) 94.
10 Forcible occupation: Peisistratos used his club-bearers to seize the acropolis when he first took
power (Hdt. 1.59.6; AthPol. 14.1); that Kylon and his supporters, and later Kleomenes and his men,
were besieged on the acropolis (Thuc. 1.126.7; Hdt. 5.72.2) also implies that their occupation was
by force.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Why Seize the Acropolis? 127
also that, if Connor is correct, the Phye episode itself was not a ploy to demonstrate
divine support of Peisistratos' return but rather the playing out on a symbolic level of
popular complicity in the tyrant's return.11 On the whole, then, it seems unlikely that
Kylon, Peisistratos and Kleomenes occupied the acropolis to gain control over its reli
gious sites. The reason why they did so should lie elsewhere.
On a practical level, the summit of the acropolis was easily defended from direct
assault, to be sure, but it was also vulnerable to siege. The Kylonian conspirators were
forced to surrender when they were cut off from food and water (Thuc. 1.126.9-10),
and Kleomenes probably agreed to abandon the acropolis (and Isagoras) to avoid the
same fate for himself (Hdt. 5.72.2). But even if the acropolis could provide a safe refuge
for insurgents this would still not explain how seizing it contributed to establishing a
tyranny in the first place. It is sometimes assumed that controlling the acropolis would
also give one control of the city below,12 but, militarily, acropoleis were places of refuge,
not centers of command and control, and simply holding the high ground was not that
much of an advantage in the days before artillery and other long-range weapons. Nor
would there have been much to be gained from occupying the acropolis as symbolic
high ground, when the occupiers could hardly be seen from the town below.
But if Kylon, Peisistratos and Kleomenes did not occupy the acropolis to gain sym
bolic control over its religious sites or practical control over their financial resources,
and if they were not seeking to dominate the city militarily by controlling the high
ground, then there must have been something else on the acropolis that attracted them,
something they all thought very much worth controlling - something, in fact, that made
the acropolis their first objective when they launched their coups.
Typically in modern coups d'etat seizure of the seat of government (presidential
palace, national assembly, etc.) symbolically marks the success of the coup. Similarly
in classical Athens in 411 BC the Four Hundred, carrying arms and escorted by the
young thugs they regularly used to do their dirty work, invaded the bouleuterion, the
functional and symbolic center of democratic government, dismissed the boule's sit
ting members, and took possession of the chamber themselves (Thuc. 8.69.4-70.1) - a
largely symbolic action which nonetheless marked the end of the previous democratic
regime and the beginning of the new oligarchic one, as the Athenaion Politeia well
recognized (AthPol. 32.1-2). What would the equivalent have been in, say, the archaic
Athens of Kylon?
In describing the early constitution of Athens (f) xd^iq xfjq dp%aia<; noXixeiaq) the
Athenaion Politeia (3.1-4) lists the following magistracies (apxai): basileus, polem
arkhos, arkhon, and the six thesmothetaiP It is generally assumed that at least the first
three had some executive functions though the Athenaion Politeia does not say this.14
It does say, however, that the first three all had religious functions (AthPol. 3.3), and
11 W. R. Connor, "Tribes, Festivals and Processions; Civic Ceremonial and Political Manipulation in
Archaic Greece," JHS 107 (1987) 42-47.
12 So e.g. J. Kiegeland, "Wie wohnten die Tyrannen?" in W. Hoepfner and G. Zimmer (eds.) Die
griechische Polis: Architektur undPolitik (Tubingen 1993) 54; J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis:
History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present (Cambridge 1999) 98.
13 The AthPol. was also aware of other archaic officials {kolakretai, 7.3; naukraroi and phulobasileis,
8.4) but it does not include them in this arkhaia politeia, presumably because they were much less
important than the nine officials whom it does mention.
14 Although it does imply a military role for the polemarkhos when it says the office was created be
cause "some of the kings were soft in respect to the things of war" {AthPol. 3.2).
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
128 Vincent J. Rosivach
that all nine acted as judges (AthPol. 3.5).15 It also says of the thesmothetai that they
were responsible for writing up and preserving legal materials for future reference.16
In addition to these arkhai, and distinct from them, the Athenaion Politeia also men
tions the Council of Areopagites (fi ... x?v 'Apeo7cayixa)v po\)A,f|), to which it assigns
responsibility for overseeing the laws and the conduct of "the most and greatest things in
the city," which it carries out by "punishing and fining the disorderly" (AthPol. 3.6, cf.
8.4), a rather nebulous description suggesting that this Council had few, if any, clearly
defined responsibilities, and that the author of the Athenaion Politeia had no clear idea
of what it actually did in practice. Indeed, it may well be that this idealized vision of
the primitive Areopagos is in fact a product of fourth-century conservative nostalgia,
as Rhodes suggests, and that in contrast to the classical boule with its numerous execu
tive functions this earlier Council was primarily consultative,17 with a narrow judicial
role limited to certain trials for murder.18 In any event, the impression we get from the
Athenaion Politeia is that archaic Athens' government was embodied primarily in the
nine arkhontes, particularly in the basileus, the polemarkhos and the arkhon, and in
what the AthPol. calls the Council of the Areopagites.
Now the Athenaion Politeia (3.5) also lists a series of places originally associated
with the different magistrates, the boukoleion with the basileus, the pry taneion with the
arkhon, the epilykeion with the polemarkhos, and the thesmotheteion with the thesmo
thetai.19 These places were in some sense under the authority of the several magistrates,20
and they were presumably where they carried out their official duties. The pry taneion
should have been an actual building, but the boukoleion and epilykeion may have been
15 This prominence of the magistrates' judicial role is fully consistent with the view of archaic Athenian
government as primarily a mechanism for peacefully resolving conflicts within the elite.
16 orcax; dvaypdxi/avxec, td Beauta (JnAdrcooai npbq rx\v tqv d^ipniouvKDv Kpioiv, AthPol. 3.4. The
exact meaning of the passage is unclear. Some (e.g. J. E. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens
[London 1893] 8) would see these as judgments having the force of law - in effect, legal precedents
- but it is doubtful that Oea^ia can have this meaning; perhaps more importantly, Athenian trial law
did not work by precedent. On the other hand, if Geauxa refers to legislation it is unclear what the
thesmothetai would have recorded before Drakon, who was said to have given Athens her first code
of laws. On the problem see Rhodes, Commentary (as in n. 1) 102-103, who suggests the notion that
the thesmothetai recorded Geauia is simply a later extrapolation from their name meant to explain
an office whose original function was unknown.
17 Rhodes, Commentary (as in n. 1) 107-108, who sees similarities with the Senate of Republican
Rome. Note also that the AthPol. does not define the membership of this early Council.
18 Note, however, that while most recent discussion has centered on the Areopagos' judicial compe
tence, its role as a consultative body, not its judicial competence, is the primary focus of this paper.
As for that judicial competence, it is likely that, beyond homicide, the archaic Areopagos also had
jurisdiction em rupctvviSi, though probably not in Kylon's day; cf. E. Ruschenbusch, "OONOl:
Zum Recht Drakons und seiner Bedeutung fiir das Werden des athenischen Staates," Historia 9
(1960) 132-134, commenting on Solon's amnesty law cited at Plut. Sol. 19.3. For the Areopagos'
early competence in murder trials see R. Wallace, The Areopagos Council, to 307 B.C. (Baltimore
1989) 7-11, who provides an effective response to Ruschenbusch and others who would deny such
competence to the early Areopagos.
19 The text adds that the magistrates all "came together" (cruvfjAflov) in the thesmotheteion "in the time
of Solon" (em ... Zotaovoq), but it is hard to see any connection between this move and any of Solon's
reforms, and the mention of the lawgiver may well mean only (as is often the case with references
to Solon) that the move occurred at some unspecified point in the distant past. The statement is also
a bit problematic since we know that in Classical Athens the basileus carried out at least some of
his functions in the fifth-century stoa basileios (cf. Plat. Euthphr. 2a).
20 The Greek says that the magistrates "had" (elxe/elxov) these places.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Why Seize the Acropolis? 129
simple precincts;21 given the presumed role of the thesmothetai as recorders it is likely
that their thesmotheteion was also a building with facilities for storing records rather
than a simple precinct.22 Precincts, it should be noted, are less likely to be archaeo
logically visible than actual buildings. The prytaneion had several functions, most of
which had nothing to do with the arkhon, most notably housing the community's sacred
hearth. Because of these multiple functions it seems more likely that when the office of
arkhon was created the new magistrate moved into a pre-existing building rather than
that the prytaneion was built for him.23 The name boukoleion had nothing to do with
the basileus, again suggesting that he moved into a pre-existing structure, and the same
is probably true of the polemarkhos and the curiously named epilykeion.24 The name
of the thesmotheteion, on the other hand, seems to indicate that this was a structure
purposely built for the thesmothetai.
The exact locations of the boukoleion, epilykeion and thesmotheteion are unknown.
The Athenaion Politeia (3.5) says that the boukoleion was near the prytaneion, and it is
a reasoned guess - but only a guess - that the epilykeion and thesmotheteion were also
located nearby.25 The location of the prytaneion itself has been the subject of lengthy
speculation, but it now appears that the classical building described by Pausanias (1.18.3)
was located near the foot of the acropolis' east slope.26 According to current orthodoxy
the prytaneion and its associated buildings were established at their classical site early
in the archaic period as a new civic center reflecting the transfer of political power from
the traditional king residing on the acropolis to an oligarchic government of locally pow
erful men drawn from throughout Attica and sitting in council in the new prytaneion.21
It should be noted, however, that there is no archaeological support for this view - the
earliest materials on the apparent site of the classical prytaneion are some sixth-century
21 AthPol. 3.5 says that a certain Epilykos dv?Ko86uT|a? the epikykeion, but the verb, despite its ety
mology, can also describe the construction of e.g. city walls (Xen. HG 4.14.9) and need not refer to
an actual building.
22 See, however, above, n. 15.
23 On prytaneia in general see S. G. Miller, The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form
(Berkeley-Los Angeles 1978); on the Athenian prytaneion see ibid. 38-57; literary sources for the
Athenian prytaneion collected ibid. 136-183. Miller prefers a location for the prytaneion on the
north slope of the acropolis.
24 According to AthPol. 3.5 the epilykeion was originally called the polemarkheion, and received its
current name when it was rebuilt by a certain Epilykos. Most scholars believe, however, that epi
lykeion was the structure's original name, and that the story of Epilykos is a poor attempt to explain
the odd name.
25 Given the military role of the polemarkhos, however, and the similarity of names, some would place
the epilykeion outside the city in or near the Lykeion (Lyceum).
26 G. C. R. Schmalz, "The Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?", Hesperia 75 (2006) 33-81. Note that
the argument of this paper does not depend on identifying the location of the classical prytaneion.
27 This view goes back through W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen (Munchen 1905) 63 (second edition
[Munchen 1931] 59) to E. Curtius, Attische Studien (Gottingen 1862-1865) II54-68, and cf. Id., Die
Stadtgeschichte von Athen (Berlin 1891) 93; both Curtius and Judeich assume that the new prytaneion
replaced an earlier one which stood on the acropolis under the kings. For more recent statements of
this view see e.g. R. J. Hopper, The Acropolis (London 1971) 77-78; R. Parker, Athenian Religion:
A History (Oxford 1996) 26-27. Miller, Prytaneion (as in n. 23) 52-53, believes that the prytaneion
was a product of synoikismos (and hence without a predecessor on the acropolis), but nonetheless
sees a contrast between this new, communal prytaneion and the earlier, "royal" hearths of the local
nobles whom synoikismos brought to Athens.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
130 Vincent J. Rosivach
pottery shards lying beneath the lowest level of construction at that point28 - and the
only textual support adduced for it is a rather strained reading of Thucydides' description
of Theseus' synoikism and its centralization of political institutions (ev Po-UA^emfipiov
anobei^aq Kai xcpwaveiov, 2.15.2) as a reference to the historical synoikism of Attica
in the archaic period and an indication that "there was a new building and probably a
new location at that time."29 There is, of course, nothing in the verb anoSei^aq ("having
designated") implying that Theseus build a new prytaneion. More importantly, there
is no reason to believe that Thucydides meant this description of Theseus' actions to
be understood as a mythological version of the later, historical synoikism, which this
view assumes happened when the last king lost his power. More generally, this view
that the prytaneion''s supposed new site was consciously meant to mark a new political
beginning assumes that there was a sharp break between regal and oligarchic regimes,
but the evolution from one regime to the other was more likely to have been gradual
and complex, as the narrative in AthPol. 3.2-3 suggests.
In a 1939 article L. B. Holland argued that the original prytaneion was in fact the
megaron of Athens' Mycenaean kings and their successors on the acropolis, and that the
sixth-century structure built on the so-called Dorpfeld foundations was a replacement
for this Mycenaean megaron, whose layout it generally followed.30 Holland interprets
Thucydides' ev povtevifipiov drcoSei^ac; Kai rcp-uxaveiov (2.15.2), perhaps more natu
rally, to say that Theseus brought the local notables to his own megaron = prytaneion,
which Holland imagines was much like the hall of Alkinoos described in book 7 of the
Odyssey, a place where the community's leading men enjoyed the king's hospitality while
they discussed public policy.31 Now this sounds very much like the role the Athenaion
Politeia says the Council of Areopagites played in archaic Athens, "managing] the most
and greatest things in the city" (AthPol. 3.6), and with or without a king it is probably
how early Athens was in fact governed, to the extent that it was governed, before more
formal structures were put in place. And if it is reasonable to assume that the king's
council evolved over time into what was later known as the Council of the Areopagites
28 Schmalz, "Prytaneion" (as in n. 26) 57. Note, however, that most of the site still lies under mod
ern structures, and only a small part has actually been excavated. Schmalz infers from the pottery
shards, which are of black-figure drinking cups, that "[t]his deposit is likely to represent the debris
of repeated, large-scale dining activity dating to the Peisistratid period" but cf. the pottery fragments,
including parts of cups, found in the construction fill beneath the "old bouleuterion" where there is
no reason to associate the site particularly with dining. The shards from the apparent prytaneion site
are described in detail in the original excavation report in ArchDelt 17.B.1 (1961-1962 [1963] 37);
the fragments from the "old bouleuterion" fill are listed by T. L. Shear, Jr., "The Persian Destruction
of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits," Hesperia 62 (1993) A12-A11.
29 Miller, Prytaneion (as in n. 23) 40; for Miller's application of the Thucydides quote to the historical
synoikism, which he dates to the eighth century, see ibid. 53, note 47, and cf. 40, note 4. Plut. Thes.
24.3, elaborating on Thucydides, says that Theseus made the one bouleuterion and pry taneion "there
where the city is now located" (otccu vuv i5pi)iai to daru), suggesting that Plutarch believed that
the prytaneion of his own day was the same as Theseus', but as Miller comments on this passage,
"even if the beliefs of Plutarch were established, the validity of his opinions could not be proved"
(Miller, Prytaneion [as in n. 23] 43; Plutarch himself acknowledges the unreliability of traditions
about Romulus and Theseus, Thes. 1.1-3). Ael. Arist. 103.16 mentions the "unmovable hearth of the
prytaneion" (eatiav aKivnrov rcpwaveioD), but he is talking aboutprytaneia in general; the scholiast
ad loc. applies the words to Athens, but only in the sense that the Athenians were autokhthones and
not migrants, not that their prytaneion had been in the same place forever.
30 L. B. Holland, "The Hall of the Athenian Kings," AJA 43 (1939) 289-298.
31 Holland, "Hall" (as in n. 30) 292-293.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Why Seize the Acropolis? 131
- in effect the same council but now without the king - then it is also reasonable to as
sume that it continued to meet in the same place, the megaron = prytaneion,32 until most
of its power and authority were transferred to the new Kleisthenic Council of 500 and
its meetings were restricted to the Areopagos hill, where it would seem it had always,
for religious reasons, held its trials for murder.33
To return to Holland, his use of the Thucydides passage is suggestive, but it is im
portant to recognize that Thucydides is simply not a credible witness for the details of
Dark Age (or earlier) Athenian history. Holland also cites in support of his argument a
theory, first proposed by Jane Harrison, that the boukoleion was associated with the rite
of the Bouphonia, which took place at the altar of Zeus Polieus on the acropolis, but
he admits himself that Harrison's theory is "possible, though unsubstantiated."34 In the
end then, Holland's argument for placing the prytaneion on the acropolis is essentially
one from continuity and probability. Holland is almost certainly mistaken in identifying
the building on the Dorpfeld foundation as the sixth-century successor to the megaron
= prytaneion.35 Nonetheless his broader point, that the archaic prytaneion was indeed
the successor to the royal megaron and so located somewhere on the acropolis, is not
demonstrably wrong,36 and in fact it has a better chance of being right than the con
32 This advisory body sitting in the prytaneion is to be distinguished from the court of the prytaneion,
which had a different membership (the four phulobasileis under the presidency of the arkhon basi
leus as successor to the king) but met at or near the same place to judge cases of homicide when the
killer was unknown, an animal or an inanimate object (AthPol. 57.4, cf. Dem. 23.76).
33 Wallace, Areopagus Council (as in n. 18) 33-39 would distinguish the king's council and its suc
cessor meeting in the prytaneion from the Areopagites, whom he sees as a separate body with a
strictly judicial role until it was given further powers by Solon. The Areopagos, however, is the only
early council named in our sources, and rather than multiplying entities it seems easier to assume
that what was later known at the Areopagos Council and the prytaneion council were the one and
the same. There is in fact a certain logic in the community's notables (i.e. the prytaneion council)
sitting in judgment (as Areopagites) on crimes like (politically motivated) murder, which troubled
political stability within the elite. Loss of powers by the council, as suggested above, is also more
likely to account for the nostalgia for a once preeminent Areopagos that we find in our fourth-century
sources.
34 Holland, "Hall" (as in n. 30) 294, who properly notes that Harrison herself placed the boukoleion on
the north slope of the acropolis, where she believed the prytaneion was located. Harrison proposed
her theory in M. de G. Verrall and J. E. Harrison, Mythology and Monuments of Classical Athens
(New York 1894) 428-429. For the strange rites of the Bouphonia see W. Burkert, Griechische
Religion der archaischen und classischen Periode (Stuttgart 1977) 350-351.
35 It is generally agreed that the building on the Dorpfeld foundation was the arkhaios
nebs, the old temple of Athena Polias. The megaron -prytaneion should be located some place where
nothing else was built down to the end of the fifth century, but unfortunately we cannot even locate
accurately all the other sixth-century places we know were on the acropolis (notably the so-called
"Bluebeard temple" and the hekatompedon, whatever this was), much less identify the unbuilt areas
(on the possibilities see J. Hurwit, Acropolis [as in n. 12] 111-112). The question must remain open
until more archaeological evidence is available.
36 Miller's main argument against Holland (Miller, Prytaneion [as in n. 23] 39-41) comes down to a
chain of unverified assumptions: that Thuc. 2.15.2 (quoted above) refers to the historical synoikism
of Attica in the archaic period; that the passage implies the construction of a new prytaneion; and
that Thucydides' statement later in the same paragraph (2.13.3) that "before this" (rcpo xov, sc. the
synoikism) the city consisted only of the acropolis and the area to its south implies that the new
prytaneion, being associated with the synoikism, most be located elsewhere. The substance of these
assumptions is addressed briefly above. The words nob xov may not even refer to the time before the
synoikism or before Theseus, and may simply mean "in earlier times" (A. W. Gomme, A Historical
Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 2 [Oxford 1956] 49 ad loc). On Plut. Thes. 24.3 see above, n. 29.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
132 Vincent J. Rosivach
ventional view which assumes a radical break between royal and "aristocratic" regimes
rather than a more gradual evolution. Holland's thesis also provides an explanation
of why Kylon, Peisistratos and Kleomenes began their coups d'etat by occupying the
acropolis: if the acropolis was the seat of government, as Holland's thesis in effect says
it was, occupation of the site would have disrupted the normal conduct of government
and dramatically shown who was de facto in control of the state.37 Indeed, the fact that
Holland's thesis provides a cogent reason for Kylon's, Peisistratos' and Kleomenes'
occupations of the acropolis,38 a reason thus far missing in the scholarly discussion of
these coups, is itself a powerful argument in support of his thesis.
Confirmation that the prytaneion was originally on the acropolis may perhaps
be found in the confused tradition that Solon's laws were originally displayed on the
acropolis.39 According to Pollux (8.128):
ctTceKeivTO 8e oi xe d^oveq Kai oi Kt>ppei<; ev aKporcoAea nakav a\)9i<; 8' iva
rc&oiv e?rj evxa)y%dveiv, eiq xo rcpuxaveiov Kai xf]v dyopdv |iexeKO|iia0r|oav.
Somewhat similarly Harpokration (s.v. 6 KdxcoGev vojioq) quotes Euphorion (third cen
tury BC) as citing Anaximenes of Lampsakos (fourth century BC) to the effect that:
xoix; atpvaq Kai xovq Kt>ppei<; dvciOev ?k xfjq aKpOKO^eax; eic; xo povAe:\)xf|piov
Kai xf)v dyopdv ^exeaxr^aev 'E<|)idA,xr)<; (= Anaximenes FGrHist 72 F 13).
Now we know from the AthPol. (7.1) that Solon's laws, inscribed on kurbeis, were
displayed in the stoa basileios.40 On the other hand, Plutarch (Sol. 25.1) tells us that
fragments (Xei\\fava jitKpd) of the axones were still preserved in the prytaneion in his
own day, i.e. in the "new" prytaneion at the eastern foot of the acropolis; and Pausanias
(1.18.3) mentions the same prytaneion ev <5 v6|noi ... oi ZoXoavog eioi yeypajxjievoi.
Putting aside the exact relation between axones and kurbeis, the easiest way to recon
cile our various sources is to assume that Solon's laws were originally displayed on the
acropolis and were later reinscribed for display in the stoa basileios in the agora, while
37 Whether the Peisistratids established their residence on the acropolis is a separate question that does
not concern us here.
38 Note that the seat of government, as understood here, remained on the acropolis until the changes
under the Kleisthenic regime. The "offices" of the arkhontes, which may have been consolidated in
the thesmotheteion in the time of Solon (AthPol 3.5, but see above, n. 19), were still on the acropolis;
construction on the basileus' new "office," the stoa basileios, dates only to the late sixth century
(Shear, "Destruction" [as in n. 28] 427-428). It seems unlikely that Solon created a Council of 400,
as asserted at AthPol. 8.4, but even if he did, it would not have replaced the proto-Areopagos Coun
cil assumed to be still meeting on the acropolis (for the case against a new Solonic council see C.
Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. [Oxford 1952]
92-96). In Herodotos' account of Kleomenes' coup (Hdt. 5.72.2), when the boule (presumably the
new Council of 500) resists Kleomenes' demands he seized the acropolis, at which "the rest of the
Athenians" ('AGnvaicov 8e oi X,oi7toi) laid siege to the acropolis, where "the rest of Athenians" (but
not the councilors) suggests that the councilors had been trapped while meeting (probably outdoors,
given their number) on the acropolis. For the starting date for the construction of the Kleisthenic
boule's new home (the so-called "old bouleuterion") c. 500 see most recently Shear, "Destruction
(as inn. 28)418^24.
39 I thank Historians anonymous referee for calling this to my attention.
40 The author of the Athenaion Politeia seems to have believed that the laws were displayed in the stoa
basileios in Solon's day but this is impossible since the building is later in date (mid-sixth century or
early fifth). On the conflicting evidence for the building's date see briefly J. M. Camp, The Athenian
Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (London 1986) 53.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Why Seize the Acropolis? 133
the original texts were conserved in the "new" prytaneion at the eastern foot of the
acropolis.41 Our sources do not say where on the acropolis these laws were originally
displayed but continuity suggests that they were kept in the "old" prytaneion on the
acropolis before they were transferred to the "new" prytaneion at the foot of the hill
that replaced it.
When and why did the Athenians close down the prytaneion on the acropolis and
build a new one at the foot of the citadel, where Pausanias saw it? Holland believed
that the megaron = prytaneion, rebuilt under the Peisistratids, remained in use until it
was severely damaged during the Persian occupation of 480-479, after which it was
rebuilt in its new location where it was later seen by Pausanias.42 My own suggestion
would be that the move took place under the newly established Kleisthenic regime, in
the aftermath of Kleomenes' coup - a coup, it will be recalled, that attempted to reverse
Kleisthenes' constitutional changes (note the dissolution of the new boule) in favor of
Kleisthenes' rival Isagoras and the old politics of personalized competition and stasis
(Hdt. 5.72.2). Kleisthenes had, for the first time, created a popular government at Athens
with his constitution centered on the new Council of Five Hundred and, as Herodotos
recognized (5.78), Athens was transformed.43 Such a new situation could call for a new
prytaneion serving a more limited set of civic functions (hosting official guests, storing
the original copies of Solon's laws, etc.), in a location that was definitely not the civic
center,44 in contrast to the Kleisthenic boule of Five Hundred now established in the
new civic center emerging at this time in the historical agora.45
Fairfield University Vincent J. Rosivach
41 Cf. R. Stroud, The Axones and Kyrbeis ofDrakon and Solon (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1979) 12-13,
44. Could the substitution of bouleuterion in Harpokration/Euphorion/Anaximenes for Pollux'
prytaneion reflect an understanding that the original prytaneion (on the acropolis) was also Athens'
first council house?
42 Holland, "Hall" (as in n. 30) 294-295 for the Peisistratid reconstruction, 206 for its continued use
until after the Persian occupation. According to Holland the building on the Dorpfeld foundations
would be the Peisistratid reconstruction.
43 On this transformation see G. Anderson, The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political
Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 B.C. (Ann Arbor 2003).
44 It is often said that the classical prytaneion was located in the "old agora" (dpxaia dyopd). but there
is absolutely no evidence for this. Its placement there is simply an elaboration of the assumption
that the new "aristocratic" government wished to symbolize its new beginning by establishing the
city's hearth, its symbolic center, some place other than on the acropolis (cf. above at n. 27). One
might also doubt that there ever was an "old agora" at all, i.e. a specific place formally laid out and
dedicated to public assemblies. The only evidence for an "old agora" is found in Harpokrat. s.v.
ndv8rino<; 'A(j)po8iTr|, where we find that the historian Apollodorus (FGrHist 244 F 113) said that
Pandemos Aphrodite was so named because her shrine was located near the old agora (rcepi ttjv
dpxaiav dyopdv), where the whole demos used to gather in assemblies called agorai. This looks
very much like an attempt to explain the obscure epithet pandemos, but even if Apollodoros preserves
here the memory of a long-forgotten place of assembly the silence of other authors, even when we
would expect them to mention the "old agora" if they knew of it, strongly argues that most people
had forgotten the identity of the "old agora" by classical times, and that it was not an important
place at all. On the obscurity of the "old agora" see R. E. Wycherley, "Archaia Agora," Phoenix 20
(1966) 285-293. The shrine of Pandemos Aphrodite on the acropolis beneath the temple of Nike
was also nowhere near the apparent site of the classical prytaneion discussed above (on the site of
the Pandemos Aphrodite shrine see conveniently Hurwit, Acropolis [as in n. 12] 41).
45 For the date of the "old bouleuterion" see above, n. 37.
This content downloaded from 96.94.50.27 on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:08:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms