2. Work in Progress

Border Conflicts and Tools for Stabilization. From Ancient Greece to Contemporary Europe

FeBo Project Report 2024, 1

Elena FRANCHI (Universita di Trento)

The first semester of the second year of the project (2023-2024) was dedicated both to the study of external, i.e. inter-federal border areas (WP1, Franchi, Biagetti, Scharff) and to the internal, i.e. intrafederal borders (WP2, Franchi, Massinelli, Van Wijk). With regard to the first point, the objective was the collection and analysis of evidence on economic, ethnic, cultural, and religious interactions on the borders of a koinon in its various phases (WP 1). The research actions undertaken were aimed at investigating phenomena of cross-border cooperation and the forms in which such cross-border cooperation made possible and even necessary a special legal definition of the areas in which this cooperation took place. The survey was also conducted comparatively with EU European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). To this end, an ongoing exchange took place with two legal experts on cross-border cooperation CBC, Francesco Palermo (University of Verona) and Jens Woelk (University of Trento), respectively director of the Institute for Comparative Federalism with which FeBo has a collaboration and Euregio Professor. With regard to the second point, the aim was to catalogue all the border conflicts in the Peloponnese (Massinelli) and in Central and Northern Greece (Van Wijk) by extrapolating them from a set of already existing corpora and integrating them in the light of recent epigraphic discoveries, with the purpose of setting a research agenda aimed at identifying recurrent dynamics in the management of these conflicts depending on whether they took place in a federal, formerly federal, or quasi-federal context, or in the context of other types of supra-state organisation of a political and/or military nature (WP 2).

Listed below are the research and dissemination actions carried out to achieve the objectives set out above and related to work packages 1 and 2.

1.  Research activities

In the first half of 2024 the FeBo team investigated especially intra-federal conflict (WP 2) and cross-border activities (WP 1). Further arguments developed are realism in international relation theories, border vocabulary in ancient Greek and territorial convergence in a comparative perspective. Several case studies were examined, covering different geographical areas and supra-state organisations.

With regard to intrafederal conflicts (WP 2) some special attention was given to the polis territory of Ambrakia, a contested space as well as a federal border area. Since its beginnings, Ambrakia has been the target of multiple territorial claims due to its location on the border of several prominent neighbours. The account of Apollon, Artemis, and Herakles vying for control of the city (Ant. Lib. Met. 4) clearly represents diverse interests in the city before the Roman occupation. However, it is precisely in the 160s BC, at the end of the Greek communities’ dominance in the region, that the Ambrakiots initiated a unique border-management initiative that included at least three boundary laws. Sebastian Scharff is working on the rationale for this endeavor and highlights the political leeway the Ambrakiots experienced during the Third Macedonian War. His working idea is that the boundary laws of the 160s can be interpreted as a manifestation of the recently acquired political freedom of action. The resulting article has been submitted to a gold open access journal with CCBY.

Following in the footsteps of Scharff’s monograph on oaths (Eid und Außenpolitik. Studien zur religiösen Fundierung der Akzeptanz zwischenstaatlicher Vereinbarungen im vorrömischen Griechenland. Stuttgart 2016), the team also started analysing the role of oaths sworn in the context of interstate arbitrations, the different groups of people who had to swear an oath, their ‘promissory’ or ‘assertoric’ nature, and the ways by which oaths were adapted to the specific needs of interstate arbitration in a federal context. Special attention has been given to the impact oaths used in the context of federal arbitration had on the creation of interstate stability. The resulting article will be submitted to a gold open access journal with CCBY.

A certain amount of attention was also paid to the symbolic and, so to speak, ‘religious’ side of intra-federal relations, an aspect to which Claudio Biagetti devoted particular analysis. The role of statuary in particular seems significant, as it gave materiality to a genealogical reconfiguration that aimed to transpose to the mythical-religious level the political structures that had come into being in the present. It is thus that the figure of Triphylos, and the expression of a local identity, that of the Triphylioi, merged within the newly-founded Arkadian koinon, and found space among the children of the eponymous Arkas. The team also discussed the circumstances in which the evocative power of a cult and its ethnic-federal colourings may be at the origin of the obliteration of a figurative subject and, indeed, the actual transfiguration of a statue. Such seems to have been the fate of the statue of Poseidon, stolen from the federal sanctuary of Samikon and then relocated as an image of Satrap/Korybant to the agora of Elis, a polis that always had rather difficult relations with the communities of Triphylia.

Debates and discussions in the research group on the role of borders in intra-federal and inter-federal relations have not waned. Biagetti in particular proposed an analysis of federal organisations in Asia Minor and their representation by Strabo. Both the wording used by Strabo as well as the criteria dominating his account of borders (periplographic order, orographic divisions, the configuration of borders and territorial arrangements as ratified in the Apamea agreements of 188 BC) are at the core of the FeBo team’s interest (WP 1 and WP 2).

With regards to WP1, a pertinent case study has been the Boiotian League in the wake of Thebes’ destruction in 335. Van Wijk is looking at the two known examples of the Boiotian koinon arbitrating borders between members in the late fourth, early third century. Most scholars have pointed to the development of intra-federal judicial channels or a shared sense of ethnicity for the relative lack of intra-Boiotian arbitration cases in the Classical and Hellenistic period. The invocation of the koinon in these two decrees, however, should be interpreted within the local context, similar to what Scharff had already adumbrated in his 2023 article (“Mediating, Arbitrating, Crossing Borders Constantly: Athletes as Envoys”) when he mentions it served as a reminder of the effectiveness of the koinon after Thebes’ destruction. Moreover, van Wijk will argue that the places where these arbitrations took place – between Lebadeia and Koroneia, and Kopai and Akraiphnia – were in fact related to ‘external’ borders, those between the ‘Minyan’ sphere of Orchomenos and the ‘Boiotians’ proper. The stressing of the koinon’s role should therefore be read as an example of their assertiveness in the face of separatism, a spectre that had haunted them throughout these periods and especially vis-à-vis Orchomenos. From that perspective, it makes sense that these border stones and arbitrations were placed at those locations, since the Boiotians had no issues with third-party arbitration prior, like in the case of Plataia, Eleutherai and Oropos. The resulting article will be submitted to a gold open access journal with CCBY.       

A second avenue of research concerns the Acheloos-river valley (see below in the talks section). Rather than see this river as a natural border, van Wijk will investigate how it formed a possible close-knit conduit for identity and constituted an Akarnanian border first, in which both sides of the river were inter-connected without significant Aitolian intermingling. It is from that perspective as well that the later arbitration between Oiniadai and Matropolis should be viewed; as essentially a localized dispute, and which was perhaps presided over by the Aitolians, but must have had longer roots to be invoked at the time (a diateichisma is mentioned in the arbitration too, linking to Scharff’s work in Ambrakia).

The third case-study revolved around Melitaia in Achaia Phthiotis. By looking at the numerous case studies involving this town, with arbitrations enacted by several external powers, ranging from the Thessalian koinon to the Macedonian kings, the Aitolians and finally, the Romans. Taking into consideration the entire dossier of arbitrations that this town participated in, van Wijk will argue that the inhabitants of the town were adapt at utilizing their new-found integration in these larger polities to press for wider claims and accumulate more territories in the process. The resulting article will be submitted to a gold open access journal with CCBY.

With regard to the second aspect, cross-border activities (WP 1), particular attention has been devoted to the Western Lokrians, esp. to the cities of Oiantheia and Naupaktos. Elena Franchi’s research on Oiantheia has shown the crucial role that cross-border activities played in the stabilisation dynamics implemented by the Aitolians during their southward expansion. For its part, the interconnectivity potential of Naupaktos, whether in a pan-Lokrian key or in a more Peloponnesian (e.g. with regard to Argives, or Messenians) and/or Athenian key, accounts for its cross-borderisation and thus the optimisation of its ideally borderline position. On the other side of the Gulf of Korinth, the Achaians living on the west coast are no less active in terms of cross-border interconnectivity on both sides of the Gulf of Corinth. These connections are the focus of Claudio Biagetti’s research, which delves into the Eleian and Aitolian side and also focuses on the cities of northern shore of Achaia.

Some team members also addressed the topic of the crisis and federalism as a response to crisis. They were invited to do so at a conference on crisis and alliances organized at Regensburg (12.-13 October 2024, see below) by Angela Ganter, Felix Maier and Elena Franchi (Proceedings are forthcoming). Scharff explored how the Greeks dealt with military defeat on the level of the federal state by asking in particular how the Aitolians came to terms with their defeat in the Lamian War. Military defeat and Aitolian resilience seem to have been crucial conditions for the league’s ‘federal imperialism’ (Rzepka 2019) as if the Aetolians had been able to turn the crisis into an opportunity.

Crisis and federalism were analysed by Biagetti instead with reference to three different federal experiences promoted or renewed by the Antigonids: the League of the Islanders, already operational around 307; the koinon of Athena Ilias, possibly dating back to an initiative of Alexander; and the Ionian League, an ancient organisation possibly re-organised in the last fifteen years of the fourth century BC. It seems that the promotion of federal organisations was an attempt to pursue a broader strategy of political resilience, which aimed to rationalise relations between the different levels of power and to control territories, sometimes very distant from the real political and decision-making centre. Federalism as an institutional form and as an ‘art of government’ ultimately experienced a substantial renewal under the early Antigonids. It endured because of its effectiveness under the Epigones, and persisted, albeit with varying degrees of political operativeness, until the Roman conquest.

Crises of intra-federal relations as an opportunity to reshape the balance of power was instead the focus of Elena Franchi. In her perspective, the opportunity triggered by a crisis within an alliance is not interpreted as the possibility of reaching a final resolution of the conflict, but by the possibility of reshaping the balance of power between the different members. This also calls into question the realist approach in international relations, which is dealt with by Elena Franchi in a contribution with reference to the relationship between the Achaians and the Argives (submitted to an open access CCBY Collection). It will also be discussed together with experts in contemporary history in an internal workshop scheduled on July 4. The topic will be addressed again in another internal workshop in September, this time from a political sciences point of view.

Numerous side issues were then discussed in the context of internal workshops: ‘federal’ cults in the eastern Peloponnese; the role of Megara in inter-state arbitrations; the materiality and function of the diateichismata; the manipulations of the genealogies of the eponymous heroes of ethne; archaeological documentation of the sanctuary of Poseidon at Helike, compared with the recent archaeological discoveries at the site of Nikoleiika in Achaia and studied from the perspective of cross-border activities; the Achaians with regard to the figure of Tisamenos, who seems to be attested later than generally assumed; the remarkable variety and flexibility of the measures implemented by the Achaians in managing border disputes; research on cases of societal federalism; the so-called federal borderlands world; the concept of boundary opening.

With a purpose to put the discussions of the above-mentioned topics on a sound footing, FeBo also introduced bibliographical seminars (see below) devoted to books and articles on the topics of ancient federalism, borders in antiquity, and comparative federalism. In some cases, the bibliographical seminars have become an opportunity to discuss very old and/or little-known books, sometimes unjustly neglected. Often insights and stimuli for new ideas of promising research topics emerged regarding the project. Franchi took charge of border studies, Biagetti of literature on federalism in the Peloponnese, Asia Minor and the Aegean, Scharff on federalism in central and northern Greece, Massinelli on border disputes in the Peloponnese, and Van Wijk on research on federalism and conflict resolution strategies in the contemporary world.

Further, in early 2024, the FeBo team also planned a systematic research on the border vocabulary, which will be the subject of a workshop in 2025 and a book in 2026. With the support of the TLG, systematic author-by-author research will be conducted and each occurrence will be analysed in the light of the context in which it is used, with the aim of then reconstructing the meaning and evolution of each occurrence for the words used by the ancient Greeks to designate the border and border areas.

Finally, the FeBo team also decided to study in more detail the impact that research on inter-federal cross-border activities could have on the border management of supra-state bodies with federal traits, with a focus on the EU’s strategies for enhancing informal cross-border activities in the design and implementation of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). In this regard, the team will collaborate closely with the doctoral student who will soon be selected for a doctoral fellowship on the topic “Confini inclusivi. Federalismo, attività transfrontaliere e minoranze, tra antico e modern” (funded by the Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, https://www.unitn.it/alfresco/download/workspace/SpacesStore/d6a74967-059a-4c9d-b93f-f2480206d383/Bando%20borse_PNRR_DDMM_629_630_Dott%2040ciclo.pdf).

In addition to the period in Trento, this position will also include six months at the Inst. for Comparative Federalism in Bozen/Bolzano, 3 months at the Seminar für Alte Geschichte in Münster, and another 3 months at the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Ancient Law (CISAL) in Hamburg.

Workshops

October 24, 2023: 5^th Workshop

November 30, 2023: 6^th Workshop

January 24, 2024: 7^th Workshop (1^st Bibliographical Workshop)

February 7, 2024: 8^th Workshop (with K. Harter-Uibopuu)

March 5, 2024: 9^th Workshop (2^nd Bibliographical Workshop)

April 8, 2024: 10^th Workshop

April 10, 2024: 11^th Workshop (with Claudia Antonetti?)

April 17, 2024: 12^th Workshop (3^rd Bibliographical Workshop)

June 4, 2024: 13^th Workshop

June 25, 2024: 14^th Workshop (4^th Bibliographical Workshop)

2.  Contested Borders (ConBo). A Database

While the first year of the project has been dedicated to the compilation of the relevant source material on border disputes in Greek Antiquity (Staatsverträge II-IV; Piccirilli 1973; Ager 1996; Magnetto 1997; Harter-Uibopuu 1998; SEG), the second year of the project witnessed considerable steps towards the establishment of an open access online database collecting and commenting evidence about these border disputes. We have decided on the database’s design and generated the initial entries in close cooperation with IT specialist and classicist Daniele Fusi (Venice). The whole FeBo team is significantly active in the process, but two colleagues who just joined the team - Roy van Wijk and Rebecca Massinelli - do the majority of the work on the database.

The design of the database, which will be accompanied by maps, also benefited from the stimuli and suggestions shared in the meetings with the members of the Zona Franca research project and with the GEO-SMART Project’s PI, Nicola Gabellieri (see below).

Database Meetings

February 2, 2024: 3^rd Internal Meeting (10am-12pm; with D. Fusi)

April 18, 2024: 4^th Internal Meeting (10am-12pm; with D. Fusi)

June 21, 2024: 5^th Internal Meeting (10am-12pm; with D. Fusi)

3.  FeBinars. A Think-tank

FeBo’s host institution is the Department of Humanities of the University of Trento and research is conducted here by the FeBo-Team at the Laboratory of Ancient History (LabSA). However, FeBo has also created a kind of virtual laboratory, a think tank: the FeBinars, a lecture series in the framework of which we periodically invite external experts to our lab in order to exchange ideas and to have them present case studies based on their expertise (here the recordings).

Since intra-federal and external borders must necessarily be approached from various research perspectives and with different questions, FeBo organises two distinct series of lectures, each with another focus, one on internal (The Management of Internal Borders by Federal States), the other on external borders (Crossing Federal Borders: Ancient and Modern). Both series have been initiated by the inaugural lecture delivered by Hans Beck (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster)  on March 7, 2023 which focused on a case study involving both intra-federal and extra-federal borders, the Mazi Plain between Boiotia and Attica: “Interpolis Cooperation and Competition: the Case of Southern Boiotia”. Beck addressed the entanglement between local and regional vectors and the impact their dynamic change had on Boiotia’s southern borderlands. While the Asopos Valley exercised a mythopoetic pull over the ethnos of the Boiotians but that also fueled concupiscence, the borderlands with Attica, lying only a few kilometers from there, wielded their own impact upon the perfusing force of interpolis cooperation and competition. Beck concluded his talk with some questions addressed to FeBo for research on Federalism in Greek Antiquity 3.0. Centripetal and centrifugal thrusts, hegemonic tendencies, dynamic border areas, and the capacity for centralisation are just some of the issues on the agenda between now and 2026.

The first lecture of the series “Crossing Federal Borders: Ancient and Modern” was delivered by Francesco Palermo, professor of comparative constitutional law at the University of Verona and director of the Institute for Comparative Federalism (Eurac) in Bozen. He delved into “The Law and the Functions of Cross-border Cooperation” (May 9, 2023): by presenting a new branch of law, the one of cross-border cooperation between subnational and local authorities, Palermo provided the FeBo team with a stimulating legal but also conceptual framework and its potential with regard to ancient cross-border cooperation. The presentation dealt with the genesis, evolution and establishment of the law of cross-border cooperation (CBC: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/european-neighbourhood-policy/cross-border-cooperation_en) in Europe, as well as its legal nature and the main functions it serves including the prevention and the resolution of conflicts.

On June 29, 2023 Alex McAuley (University of Auckland) held the second lecture of this series, “Under and/or through the Border: Proxeny across Federal Borders in the Hellenistic Peloponnese”. In this case, inter-federal border relations were examined in a broader sense, but without neglecting the local scale and its territoriality in which proxenia often operates. Since in the local or regional environment the privileges associated with the status of proxenos such as asylia, ateleia or isoteleia, and enktesis have been highly beneficial and constituted practical perks rather than mere honorifics, this smaller-scale use of proxenia comes with intriguing implications for our understanding of federal borders in the Hellenistic Peloponnese: many communities are attested as having granted proxenia to individuals who hailed from communities belonging to other koina. Cross-federal proxenia may have had a potential for circumventing federal borders.

“From Chalieis to Kallieis: Land, Boundaries and Threats in West Lokris and Eastern Aitolia” (November 23, 2023) is the title of the paper delivered by Nikos Petrochilos (Ephoreia of Antiquities of the City of Athens). Focusing on the mountainous hinterland in the North of Western Lokris, Petrocheilos’ lecture explored the conditions under which groups such as the Aitolian one later identified as Kallieis were created, their connection with the environment, and the political developments as factors in the emergence of means for the peaceful resolution of disputes and the protection of borders. The insights offered by Petrochilos allowed FeBo to further investigate the forms of cultural exchange between Aitolians and Lokrians in this area and the dynamics of cross-border cooperation developed there. These will be also the subject of a further FeBinar held by members of the Aitolia Project in 2025.

The religious side of these inter-federal border relations was instead explored in the context of a FeBinar held by Corinne Bonnet and Sylvain Lebreton (Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès, PLH-ERASME) (December 7, 2023). The title  “Gods to Federate, Gods to Separate: Territorial Dynamics and Greek Divine Onomastics” is significant: the talk focused on divine onomastic sequences as a way in which gods were supposed to guarantee social cohesion within a given area and to avert potential threats. Attention has been paid to the role some gods and their epithets played in inter-federal relations as well as to gods specialised in the protection of borders or treaties, in time of peace and war. In this FeBinar, as in others, there was room for a comparative perspective: the polytheistic and monotheistic management of borders, territories and federal dynamics has been compared with dynamics underlying the onomastics of Yahweh (who became) the unique and shared god of the ancient tribal federation of Israel.

The so-called the ‘Aitolian Basin’, the central plain between Aitolia and Akarnania, stood at the center of Claudia Antonetti’s (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia) FeBinar (“The Aetolian-Acarnanian Plain between Inner and External Frontier“, April 18, 2024): an area that was undoubtedly a geographical unit, but which was politically divided and, above all, the subject of repeated claims at local, federal and regional levels. Through its analysis Antonetti addressed many unresolved problems of the debate on ancient federalism: the notions of ‘district’, of areal economic integration, of ‘federal annexation’, of autonomy. Antonetti also highlighted a number of dynamics of central interest to FeBo that relate to the interconnecting potential of borders. By bringing to the fore the dual nature of the external and internal ‘border’ that this territory embodies she was able to unveil its fundamental function as a corridor of communication.

The dynamism of internal and external borders was the focus of James Roy’s (University of Nottingham) FeBinar (“Changing Frontiers in and around Arkadia: the Work of the Arkadian Federation in the 360s”; May 2, 2024). With regard to internal borders, Roy addressed the foundation of Megalopolis, while external borders were analysed through the lens of membership. Clearly based on Arkadian ethnic identity, membership was extended to include Triphylia but not other regions that came under Arkadian control during the war with Elis. The Arkadians were able to elaborate and adopt different forms of alliances, not always federal, depending on the circumstances that brought them into contact with different communities contested in Elis. The external borders of the Arkadians were obviously affected and expanded or contracted in direct proportion to the degree of federalism inherent in the relationship with the political community drawn into the Arkadian orbit.

The problem of the districts (tele) of the Aitolian koinon which was also dealt with by Peter Funke and Claudia Antonetti and which clearly related to the problem of external borders was addressed by Chiara Lasagni (Università di Torino) on 22 May 2024 (“The Making of Aitolia beyond the Ethnos Borders: Some Reflections Revolving around the tele of Stratos and Lokris”). There is some consensus about the institutional structuring of the Aitolian federal state and its sympoliteia as an adaptive response to Aitolian expansion across ethnos boundaries towards Western Lokris, Akarnania, Phokis, and beyond from the late fourth century onwards. However, it is still debated whether the tele of Lokris and Stratos were part of a comprehensive district system covering the whole of ‘Greater Aitolia’, or whether they were locally created structures for the administration and integration of border territories. Focusing on the ‘local level’, Lasagni provided insights into the interrelationships of various annexed communities of Ozolian Lokris, Akarnania, Opuntian Lokris, Phokis, Doris, Boiotia, and Thessalian Periochis with the Aitolians.

Adolfo J. Domínguez Monedero (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) guided us instead to Epirus, addressing issues such as ethnicity, federalisation processes, the constitution of districts and the entanglement of these processes with the definition and management of borders (“Internal and External Borders in Epirus”, June 6, 2024). Domínguez Monedero focused on the progressive move towards the consolidation of koinon-like political structures that coexisted with diverse internal organisations, perhaps polis-like in some areas (Thesprotia) but certainly “district-like” in others (Molossia). He presented the data at our disposal in order to try to see what factors came together in these political processes that ended up shaping a state out of diverse ethne which, previously, had not been considered to share the same common identity. In particular, he delved into political figures such as Philip II capable of modifying the external boundaries of Epirus and introducing changes in the internal boundaries between the different territories.

Peter Funke (Universität Münster) kicked off the FeBinar series dedicated to internal borders with a lecture on the Aitolians and their organisation in districts (“Own and Common. Reflections on the Internal Borders of Greek Federal States”, May 23, 2023). He addressed a lot of still unresolved key question: what happened when a koinon acquired more power and expanded, and thus external borders were shifted and internal borders became external borders? How did a koinon organise newly acquired territories? What happened when a koinon incorporated other koina and what effects did this have on the organisation of the original territories? How were borders defined and how were they perceived? What was the connection between the organisation of the original and new territories with previous tribal structures? And with regard to ‘Stammstaaten’: what happened when they collapsed? Did the breakdown of the institutional framework lead to a full-scale fragmentation or did tribal solidarity survive? What, if any, were the implications for the organisation of the territory? Funke showed how the internal structure of the federal states was not only characterised by bipolar relations between federal power and member states. Instead, he the relevance of intermediate levels with their own areas of responsibility. Several member states could be grouped together in districts (tele / mere), which were either newly created or also created by recourse to older structures and became “bordered” intermediate levels displaying different forms and functions.

The question of drawing borders is always a question of belonging as well. Hans-Joachim Gehrke (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg) not only reminded us of this, but also demonstrated it with a very significant example based on recently published epigraphical evidence (“Internal or External Borders? The Case of Elis and Ledrinoi”; September 27, 2023). He did so through investigating the political association of Elis, which had a special importance due to its responsibility for hosting the Olympic Games, and a new text from the first half of the fifth century BCE, which contains regulations for the polis Ledrinoi (K. Hallof, Chiron 51, 2021, 99-122). Through the comparative analysis of the inscription, Gehrke showed that there were different variants of belonging and that it is not so easy to distinguish between internal and external boundaries as the concept of the modern state we are used to suggests.

The more strictly legal aspects of intra-federal relations were the focus of Kaja Harter-Uibopuu’s (Universität Hamburg) presentation on “Dispute over Land or Dispute over Borders? Legal Aspects of Interstate Conflicts in the Achaean Koinon”, (February 7, 2024). The lecture was introduced by Elena Franchi (Department of Humanities, P.I. FeBo) and Jens Woelk (Faculty of Law-School of International Studies) in the framework of collaboration on topics of common interest in a comparative perspective between ancient and modern times. Kaja Harter-Uibpuu addressed a subject close to FeBo’s heart, namely the ways in which the koina managed internal conflict. The question of how much of an influence the federal government was able to exert on the parties to the dispute has not yet been conclusively settled and has taken on new significance following the discovery of a long inscription from Messene which stood at the center of the lecture.

Clèmence Weber-Pallez (Université de Toulouse - Jean Jaurès) (“What Happened to the Argive Borderlands during the Hellenistic and Roman Period?”, February 22, 2024) delved into the topic of borderlands, their expansion and contraction as well as the perception of these processes. She examined the case of Argos, whose partly conflicting accession to the Achaian League makes it an interesting example from a federal perspective. She questioned some historical theories on the becoming of frontiers during the major changes that are the guardianship of Greek cities by the Macedonian kings, then by the Roman state and showed that, while during the Classical and early Hellenistic periods the Argives integrated extra-urban and border areas into their political and cultic system and into the representations they made of their city, there was a change of territorial paradigm under the domination of Hellenistic tyrants. These rulers privileged the centralization of the political, diplomatic and cultic functions within the walls of Argos to the detriment of the extra-urban spaces. This approach needs to be taken into account when considering the expansion of external Achaian frontiers in the southeastern Peloponnese.

What role did non-material, conceptual boundaries play, boundaries that determine who is a member of the political community and who is not, or who is no longer a member? What is the connection between the loss of citizenship rights and exile across borders? Boundaries have a material dimension and of course an ideological one. For a political community, the material borders marked on the ground are just as relevant as the ideological ones, i.e. those that define and establish who belongs and who is excluded, who is considered a citizen and who is not, and who no longer remains a citizen because he has lost his citizenship rights as a result of atimia. These issues closely connected to FeBo’s key topic of borders were addressed by Federica Pezzoli (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) in her FeBinar (“Exclusion from Community Borders: Case Studies from Ancient Greek Political Thought”, March 7, 2024, precisely one year after Beck’s opening lecture).

The thirteenth FeBinar was devoted again to Boiotia which represents one of the best documented cases of federalism thanks to the famous passage in the Hellenika of Oxyrhynchus, and yet, is at the same time such a problematic case strongly characterized by centrifugal and centripetal tensions, between federalism and hegemony, a case in which processes of federalization go hand in hand with the establishment of hegemonies. From an archaeological perspective, Lieve Donnellan (The University of Melbourne) addressed the complex and multi-layered levels of interaction and negotiation that demarcated communal memories and identities at Haliartos and its involvement in the surrounding political landscape dominated by Thebes (“Urbanism and Religious Architecture in Boeotia: Archaeological Reflections on Networks, Communities and Interactions”, May 29, 2024).

After the summer break, FeBinars will resume in September. Guests will include Sylvain Fachard, Cinzia Bearzot, Jeremy McInerney, Peter Doorn, Bastiaan Bommeljé, Richard Bouchon, Bruno Helly and Maria Pretzler, among others.

4.  Friends of FeBo

The FeBo team collaborates with numerous universities and research groups where research interests intersect and, in some cases, overlap with those of FeBo. For the most part, these are departments, institutes and research groups in which classicist scholars are active, but it is important to emphasise the collaboration with the Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac, where a joint workshop was also organised, as well as with the Institute du fédéralisme in Fribourg. Here is the complete list:

EURAC Research – Institute for Comparative Federalism, Bozen/Bolzano (Italy); Université de Fribourg – Institute für Föderalismus (Swiss); Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Germany); Universität Hamburg (Germany); Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain); Universität Münster (Germany); University of Nottingham (United Kingdom); Center for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies – University of Nottingham (United Kingdom); University of Pennsylvania (United States); Universität Regensburg (Germany); Research Group TeMAES – Université de Bourgogne; Université Haute-Alsace; Université de Toulouse – Jean Jaurès (France); Università “Ca’ Foscari”, Venezia (Italy)

5.  Networking at the Department of Humanities of the University of Trento

FeBo is also engaged in the expansion and consolidation of networks at the host institution, where collaborations with research groups and colleagues with research interests potentially functional to the project goals have been established and implemented.

The FeBo team collaborates and is part of the Shifting Borders project (“Confini instabili: connessioni transfrontaliere fra patrimonio culturale, materialità e Grenzgänger”) coordinated by Denis Viva and Serena Luzzi and financed by the Department’s Excellence Project in Trento since 2022 (it will last as long as the ERC project, until 2026), in which historians, geographers and art historians participate. The project starts from the recognition that besides being a form of identity and geopolitical consolidation, cultural heritage and material culture can also operate a suspension or weakening of determining factors such as the recognition of linear borders, national sovereignty, the geo-cultural belonging of a place or people. Often, this task is performed with the aim of offering a counter-narrative – equally identitarian – that challenges the dominant narrative (of a colonial oppressor, a hegemonic group, etc.). In other cases – equally interesting, but less well studied – it is the very legitimacy and meaning of a border-based identity distinction that is rendered unstable and porous. If art offers numerous cases from the federal sanctuaries of ancient Greece to the monument to Dante in Trento, objects and people also play a crucial role: according to Bruno Latour, objects and people weave a bond in which the former are invested with agency and the latter receive a fundamental capacity for material and technical connection in return. In this sense, similar dynamics of instability and suspension are found in the so-called ‘Grenzgänger’, that is border commuters, individuals who crossed borders in both directions in various ways giving rise to phenomena of contamination and interconnection, which are at the core of the project. If border management was aimed at controlling supplies and viability or settling disputes through recourse to local knowledge, figures such as shepherds, athletes, vagabonds or merchants implemented trans-liminal practices productive of socio-ecological and cultural systems that transcended political borders. The members of the FeBo group are also members of this project whose research activities serve as a stimulus from an inter- and multidisciplinary perspective. The project is funded within the framework of one of the five sections into which the Project of Excellence is structured: the section on ‘Boundaries and Connections’ (Confini e Connessioni) coordinated by the FeBo project PI Elena Franchi. This section intends to investigate the dynamics of European cultures implementing the line of the previous Excellence Project and focusing on forms, models and practices of exchange, dialogue and negotiation, interaction and interconnection between areas/zones of the European space from ancient to contemporary times by taking historical, art-historical and literary perspectives. Among the privileged topics are themes which are also at the center of the FeBo project: the federative model between neighbouring state entities; forms of construction, control and management of border spaces; inter-ethnic relations, social networks, forms of international cooperation; cross-border mobility and migratory phenomena; itineraries of information, models and cultural networks; the circulation of figurative ideas, artists and works.

FeBo also holds regular meetings for discussion and exchange with other research groups active at the Department of Humanities and Philosophy of the University of Trento (ZoF - Zona Franca: K. von Winckler, G. Albertoni; LAPCI Project: M. Fauliri; I. Santos Salazar; GEO-SMART: N. Gabellieri). The focus of the two meetings held during the second year of the project (October 17, 2023; January 23, 2024) continued to be technical issues in setting up online databases. Suggestions and observations from the exchanges with colleagues were taken up and put to use in setting up the FeBo database, the realisation of which is now well under way. Two meetings between the members of the FeBo research group have been organised on a regular basis and served as an internal check on the progress of data loading and the correct procedure for entering content into the database (February 2, 2024; April 18, 2024).

6.  FeBo on the Road

The FeBo members are engaged in delivering seminars and lectures outside Trento to discuss and share results of our project research. These papers frequently act as trial runs before they are eventually submitted as open-access articles. The following is a list of the talk titles:

1. E. Franchi, “Intentionale Geschichten im Dialog: die Phoker und die anderen Griechen” (Fragile Fakten. 54. Deutscher Historikertag, Universität Leipzig; September 21, 2023)

2. E. Franchi, “Guerre di ‘confine’ in Grecia antica. Considerazioni metodologiche e storiche” (Tekmeria, 1. Greci in età arcaica: istituzioni, interazioni, tradizioni, University of Salerno; October 11, 2023)

3. S. Scharff, “Resilient Allies? Dealing with Destruction and Defeat in Fourth-Century Greece” (International conference Verbündete in der Krise. Bündnisresilienz im antiken Griechenland / Alleati nella crisi. Coalizioni resilienti in Grecia antica, Regensburg; October 13–14, 2023)

4. C. Biagetti, “Diadochi and Epigoni Facing the Crisis: Federalism as an ‘Art of Government’ and Resilience Tool in Hellenistic Times” (International conference Verbündete in der Krise. Bündnisresilienz im antiken Griechenland / Alleati nella crisi. Coalizioni resilienti in Grecia antica, Regensburg; October 13–14, 2023)

5. E. Franchi, “Crisis as Opportunity. Intra-federal Disputes between Religion, Politics and Economy” (International conference Verbündete in der Krise. Bündnisresilienz im antiken Griechenland / Alleati nella crisi. Coalizioni resilienti in Grecia antica, Regensburg; October 13–14, 2023)

6. E. Franchi, “Sul confine. Il colore bianco nella cultura greca antica” (Con lo stucco e col colore. Incontro di studio sulla costruzione dello spazio come strumento percettivo, University of Bologna - Institute of Cultural Heritage, Ravenna; December 11, 2023)

7. E. Franchi, “Identity on the Border. Forms of Cultural Exchange on the Phokian Borders” (“Forging Identities” L’identità nel contesto: permanenze e trasformazioni nel mondo greco e romano, University of Bologna; December 13–14, 2023)

8. R. Van Wijk, “Just passing through? The Cave of Antiope: Belonging and Settlement in the Mazi Plain” (Belonging and Sacred Places in Antiquity, University of Münster; December 12–13, 2023)

9. S. Scharff, “Straight Lines in the Rocks. A Case Study in Second-Century Ambrakiot Border Management” (FeBo online Workshop, February 7, 2024)

10. C. Biagetti, “Κατὰ φῦλα διελεῖν: zone di frontiera e realtà federali nell’Asia Minore straboniana (Libri XIII-XIV)” (Divisioni geografiche e confini politici nell’Asia ellenistica: Strabone XI – XVI – XII seminario di Geographia Antiqua, Università di Perugia; March 14–15, 2024)

11. C. Biagetti, “Semantica e risemantizzazione degli oggetti consacrati nel Peloponneso antico. Un punto di vista ‘federale’” (OROMA. Objekthaftigkeit der Religionen, Religiosität der Objekte im antiken Mittelmeerraum / Oggettività delle Religioni, Religiosità degli Oggetti nel Mediterraneo Antico / Objectivité des Religions, Religiosité des Objets dans la Méditerranée Antique, Conferenze di ricerca trilaterali, Villa Vigoni, March 20–23, 2024)

12. S. Scharff, “Δῶρα οὐκ ἔδωκα οὐδὲ δώσω. Oaths in (Federal) Arbitration” (FeBo online Workshop, April 10, 2024)

13. C. Biagetti, “‘Bridging the Gulf’: l’identité achéenne et les activités transfrontalières dans le Golfe de Corinthe” (Territoires multiples: Discours politiques, discours identitaires, Mulhouse, June 17–18, 2024)

14. E. Franchi, “Bridging the Gulf. Naupaktos ‘cross-borderised’” (Territoires multiples: Discours politiques, discours identitaires, Mulhouse, June 17–18, 2024)

15. R. Van Wijk, “Dans l’ombre d’Achéloos: existe-t-il une identité fluviale?” (Territoires multiples: Discours politiques, discours identitaires, Mulhouse, June 17–18, 2024)

16. S. Scharff, “‘Von diesem Grenzstein in einer geraden Linie auf die Quellen der Apha hin.’ Horoi und das Wissen um konkrete Grenzverläufe im vorrömischen Griechenland“ (International conference Grenzen of the Ernst-Kirsten-Gesellschaft, Trier, July 27, 2024)

17. R. Van Wijk, “To find a Country not seen by the Sun: did the Acheloos play a Role in Local Identities?” (Celtic Conference in Classics, Cardiff, July 9–12, 2024)

18. E. Franchi, “Identity on the Borders. The Phokians and Their Neighbours” (Celtic Conference in Classics, Cardiff, July 9–12, 2024)

7.  FeBo graduates, FeBo 4 students, FeBo@school & FeBo kidstorians

“FeBo graduates” is the label we use to indicate our commitment to the involvement of doctoral students in research on federalism and borders. Among the actions implemented is the innovative teaching project “Conflict Management in Greek Federal States”. The didactic activities envisaged for PhD students include an intensive training program conducted by Claudio Biagetti, Sebastian Scharff and Roy van Wijk and belong to the calendar of training events of the doctoral program “Forme del testo e dello scambio culturale” (Forms of Cultural Exchange and Textuality).  In concrete terms, this means that Biagetti, van Wijk, and Scharff prepare PhD students from the Department of Humanities of Trento for the FeBinar lectures as part of this educational programme. The students study at least two articles that are discussed a week before the relevant lecture in order to prepare for each topic. They get together again after each FeBinar and discuss the contents of the FeBinar and, more specifically, the topics that the students might use as inspiration for their own research projects. It is an English-taught course.

It goes without saying that the postdoc meetings turn into research meetings.

Seminar dates included:

2023

    FeBinar H.-J. Gehrke: Preparation: September 19 (5–7pm); Discussion: October 3 (5–7pm)

    FeBinar N. Petrochilos: Preparation: November 14 (5–7pm); Discussion: November 28 (5–7pm)

    FeBinar C. Bonnet - S. Lebreton: Preparation: November 30 (5–7pm); Discussion: December 12 (5–7pm)

2024

    FeBinar K. Harter-Uibopuu: Preparation: January 30 (6–8pm); Discussion: February 13 (5–7pm)

    FeBinar C. Weber-Pallez: Preparation: February 15 (5–7pm); Discussion: February 27 (6–8pm)

    FeBinar F. Pezzoli: Preparation: February 29 (6–8pm); Discussion: March 12 (5–7pm)

    FeBinar C. Antonetti: Preparation: April 16 (5–7pm); Discussion: April 22 (5–7pm)

    FeBinar J. Roy: Preparation: April 24 (5–7pm); Discussion: May 7 (6–8pm)

    FeBinars C. Lasagni and L. Donnellan: Preparation: May 14 (6–8pm); Discussion: May 29 (6–8pm)

   FeBinar A. J. Domínguez Monedero: Preparation: June 4 (6-8pm); Discussion: June 11 (6–8pm)

The Teaching Project “Conflict Management in Ancient Federal Greece” is structured on two distinct levels (PhD students and MA students respectively). As far as the latter are concerned, they attend a preparatory meeting which is held by tutors, i.e. are master’s students and PhD students selected by a Committee directed by the PI of FeBo as delegate of the Director of the Department of humanities for tutoring. The tutors previously attended the preparatory meeting coordinated by the FeBo team. After the FeBinar, the same pattern is repeated to consolidate learning.

Seminar dates included:

FeBinar C. Weber-Pallez: Discusion: February 29 (4–6pm)

FeBinar F. Pezzoli: Preparation: March 4 (4–6pm); Discussion March 14 (4–6pm)

FeBinar C. Antonetti: Preparation: April 17 (2–4pm); Discussion: April (4–6pm)

FeBinar J. Roy: Preparation: April 29 (10–12am); Discussion: May 9 (4–6pm)

FeBinars C. Lasagni and L. Donnellan: Preparation: May 16 (4–6pm); Discussion: May 30 (4–6pm)

The project’s initiative FeBo@School seeks to share information and some of the results that emerged from FeBo’s research. It aims at educating young people about the significance of border studies and the work we are doing in the project. To fulfill these objectives, FeBo-team members visit high schools to hold seminars on project topics. In particular, Elena Franchi gave the following seminars:

January 27, 2023: La guerra, un destino ineluttabile? Uno sguardo antropologico ed etologico (with Carlo Brentari; High school “Marie Curie”, Pergine Valsugana, TN)

February 3, 2023: La guerra, un destino ineluttabile? Uno sguardo antropologico ed etologico (with Carlo Brentari; High school “Marie Curie”, Pergine Valsugana, TN)

February 10, 2023: La guerra, un destino ineluttabile? Uno sguardo antropologico ed etologico (with Carlo Brentari; High school “Antonio Rosmini”, Rovereto, TN)

December 5, 2023: La guerra, un destino ineluttabile? Uno sguardo antropologico ed etiologico (with C. Brentari; High school “A. Degasperi”, Borgo Valsugana, TN)

January 30, 2024: La guerra, un destino ineluttabile? Uno sguardo antropologico ed etiologico (with C. Brentari; High school “Vittoria”, Trento)

Sebastian Scharff on his part initiated collaborations with another local school in Germany in addition to the Heriburg Gymnasium Coesfeld (first year): the Schillergymnasium in Münster. The next classes are scheduled for autumn 2024. The classes start from the observation that “we live in a very bordered world” (Diener and Hagen 2012: 1). In order to make the students realize this idea, he has them reflect on the question of how many and which borders exactly they cross on their regular way to school including the border of their room, the front door, the property line etc. The learning objectives of the lesson include the idea that borders serve very different purposes and do not necessarily strictly separate people but can also have the potential of connecting them (as bridges, gateways, or meeting places). In other words: the function of (ancient and modern) borders depends on the respective border management.

In the second year of the project, FeBo also started the FeBokidstorians initiative aimed at primary school children. Elena Franchi and Claudio Biagetti held a lesson focusing on the god Hermes and borders for the children of a fifth class of a school in Pergine Valsugana. The children were led to reflect on the notion of borders and the concepts of exclusion and inclusion. A similar initiative is being prepared for other schools.

8.  Further Dissemination Activities

Alongside the research and dissemination activities, a number of complementary initiatives were promoted by the P.I. with the support of Claudio Biagetti, which, through the project website and other virtual channels, aim to guarantee visibility to the progress of the investigations and a more capillary dissemination of the results achieved.

Firstly, together with the other members of the FeBo group, materials were collected, selected and neatly organised to set up the project website which can now be consulted online at https://erc-febo.unitn.it/about-the-project.html. The site, which is constantly updated, represents the institutional information channel through which FeBo and the activities conducted within the project can be seen. In addition to the contacts and personal profiles of the individual members, the site offers an illustration of the research lines of the ERC FeBo project, indications and links for consulting the scientific outputs, updates on the activities organised in the academic and scholastic spheres, a selection of images relating to the dissemination of the results, a section devoted to short stories with a popular flavour, and a list of academic institutions linked to FeBo by an informal partnership.

Secondly, the two pages developed by Claudio Biagetti on two of the main global social media (Facebook; Twitter) continue to ensure the dissemination of the project’s activities with excellent results. The promotion and publicity of the FeBinar seminar series proved to be highly effective. In the case of the social networking site Facebook, more than a year after its opening, the FeBo page has reached the number of one hundred and ninety members, while in the case of the social networking site Twitter, the @ErcFebo profile has reached fifty followers. In order to guarantee even greater visibility to the project and reach an even wider audience of contacts, an account on Instagram was activated in September 2023, which has so far collected almost ninety contacts, for about fifty posted contents. The further expansion of contacts on the three social channels continues to be a primary strategic objective, useful for guaranteeing FeBo’s activities ever greater visibility and a prompt dissemination of the research outputs.

PhD Thesis: Boiotia Through the Eyes of a Boiotian: The Depiction of Boiotia in Plutarch's Corpus

Una MARKHAM (University of Reading)

I have recently gained my doctorate at the University of Reading, under the supervision of Professor Emma Aston, for my thesis:  Boiotia Through The Eyes of a Boiotian:  The Depiction of Boiotia in Plutarch’s Corpus.  I submitted in March 2023 and had a successful viva in July. The following is the abstract:

“This thesis examines Plutarch’s depiction of his home region, Boiotia, and explores his Boiotian identity by studying the image of Boiotia that emerges, through literary, historical and political analyses of his corpus. Although his Boiotian identity will be a significant factor throughout this investigation, we cannot assume Plutarch always identified as Boiotian. His projected (often overlapping) identities include being Chaironeian, Boiotian or Greek. This study demonstrates how Plutarch balanced his multiple identities within his broader panhellenic vision, enhancing our understanding of this author.

An analysis of references to Boiotians in Plutarch’s corpus reveals his principal focus was on the early fourth century, enabling him to construct an idealised vision of the Boiotia of the past and to live down the charge of its earlier medism. This was the time of Epameinondas, portrayed as having all the necessary Greek virtues of the ideal man, and as an exemplum for any Greek or Roman.

Life in contemporary Boiotia is portrayed by Plutarch as intellectually stimulating and fulfilling, populated with his family and many friends, both Greek and Roman. However, he did not shy away from the realities of Roman domination. His political treatises provided the necessary advice to maintain harmonia and thereby freedom from Roman interference. It will be shown that Plutarch, in his role as a Greek philosopher, was effectively a node in a network that included both Greeks and Romans.

By viewing Boiotia through the eyes of a Boiotian, this study provides a deeper appreciation of the importance of Boiotia in Plutarch’s corpus and sheds new light on his Boiotian (and other) identities. Boiotia as an entity was symbolically important to him and he defended it as a Boiotian, despite the negative stereotypes associated with it, portraying it as on a par with Athens or Sparta.”

Dying to save the City in Athens and Boeotia

Postdoctoral Research

Ioannis MITSIOS (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens)

Dying a glorious death in battle is one of the main prerequisites of heroization for men. Achilles, in his characteristic monologue in the Iliad (9.410-6), chooses a short but glorious life, instead of a long inglorious one, gaining kleos and hysterophemia by dying on the battlefield. But how can kleos and hysterophemia be gained by women, given that they are excluded from war? The self-sacrifice of a female, preferably virgin, for the salvation of the community, “unum pro multis dabitur caput” and the phenomenon of “dying for doing” is well attested in Athenian myth.[1] Notably, in Boeotia, and nowhere else, we come across the exact same motif of the voluntary self-sacrifice of the virgin for the salvation of the city. We will return to the Boeotian examples later, but first the Athenian examples will be offered.

These sacrificial heroines include: a) Aglauros, the daughter of king Kekrops, b) the daughters of king Erechtheus and queen Praxithea – also known as the Erechtheids and the Hyakinthids – and c) the daughters of king Leos – also known as the Leokorai.

Philochorus (FGrH 328 F 105) attests that during the war between the city of Athens and Eleusis, the oracle of Delphi declared that the city of Athens would be saved only if someone sacrificed herself. Then, the heroine Aglauros threw herself from the cliffs of the Acropolis, heroically sacrificing herself for the salvation of the city. Her brave act resulted in the foundation of a sanctuary, securely placed on the east slope of the Acropolis, thanks to an inscription – find in situ — by Dontas (FIG. 1).[2]

Lycurgus (Against Leocrates, 98-100) – citing Euripides’ fragmentary preserved tragedy “Erechtheus” – similarly attests that the Delphic oracle demanded that during the war between Athens and Thrace, the city of Athens would be saved only if queen Praxithea, wife of king Erechtheus, sacrificed her own daughters. Just like the case of Aglauros, the self-sacrifice of the daughters of Erechtheus resulted in the foundation of a sanctuary – known as the Hyakintheion (IG I2 1035.52) – although its location remains uncertain.[3] The Erechtheids/Hyakinthids have been identified with the dancing Hyades at the “Akanthus column”, in Delphi, although the identification is far from certain, as well as their relevance to Hyades (FIG. 2).[4]

Demosthenes (60.29) is the first who speaks about the Leokorai, attesting that the daughters of the Athenian king Leos sacrificed themselves for the communal good. Just like Aglauros and the daughters of Erechtheus, the daughters of Leos were receiving cult – as attested in Thucydides (1.20) – but the exact location of the Leokoreion is debatable, although it is mostly recognized with the crossroads shrine in the Agora of Athens (FIG. 3).[5]

As already stated, in Boeotia we come across this identical mythological motif, where virgins voluntary sacrificed themselves for the salvation of the city. The Boeotian examples include: a) Metioche and Menippe, daughters of king Orion – also known as the Koronides – b) Androkleia and Alkis, daughters of Antipoenus – also known as the Antipoenides – and may have included, c) Henioche and Pyrra, daughters of king Kreon and d) the daughters of king Skedasos.

Antoninus Liberalis (Metamorphoses 25) attests that when the city of Aionia was suffering from plague, the daughters of Orion, Metioche and Menippe consulted the oracle of Apollo Gortynius and received the response that the city will be saved only if they sacrificed themselves. Then, Metioche and Menippe committed suicide for the salvation of the city.

Pausanias (9.17.1) similarly attests that Androkleia and Alkis, daughters of king Antipoenus, willingly sacrificed themselves (in place of their father) in order to obtain victory in the war between the Thebans and the Orchomenians. Just like several heroines, their brave act resulted in the foundation of a sanctuary, located in the precinct of Artemis Eukleia.

The last two examples of Boeotian sacrificial heroines, may have included the daughters of king Skedasos at Leuktra and the daughters of king Kreon at Thebes.[6]

Phanodemus (FGrH 325 F4) – referring to the self-sacrifice of the daughters of Erechtheus – relates it with the war between Athens and Boeotia, instead of Thrace. This testimony – as well as the fact that the mythological pattern of suicidal virgins applies exclusively in Athens and Boeotia – suggests an interaction between the cities.

Given the striking similarities in the mythological tradition of sacrificial virgins between the cities of Athens and Boeotia and by employing a holistic approach – taking into consideration the literary, epigraphic, iconographic and topographic evidence – my upcoming research will examine the self-sacrifice of Athenian and Boeotian heroines during times of plague, famine and war.

[1] For the motif of virgin sacrifice for the salvation of the city see: Kearns 1989, 57-63; 1990, 330-31; Wilkins 1990, 186-87; Larson 1995, 101-04; Lefkowitz 1995, 35- 37; Kron 1999, 78-83; Mitsios 2022; 2024.

[2] Dontas 1983.

[3] On the location of the Hyakintheion, see Kearns 1989, 102; Frame 2009, 449; Connelly 2014, 232-33.

[4] Delphi 1584. Ferrari 2008, 146-47 identifies the daughters of Erechtheus with the dancing females on the “Akanthus column” in Delphi. On the complicated (and problematic) identification of the Erechtheus/Hyakinthids with the Hyades, see, Collard, Cropp and Lee 1993, 194; Gantz 1993, 128; Kearns, 1989, 61-62; Connelly 2014, 244; Sourvinou-Inwood 2011, 123-34; Mitsios 2024,16-18.

[5] On the location of the Leokoreion, see Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 121-23; Shear 1973a, 126-34; 1973b, 360-69; Thompson 1978, 96-102; 1981, 343-55; Camp 1986, 78-79; Mitsios 2022, 88-89.

[6] Schachter 1972, 19-20.