READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER XXI

EARLY ATHENS

I

INTRODUCTION

THE brilliant part played by Athens in the days of its zenith A caused a reflected glory to be shed upon its earlier history, and the records of its past were accordingly explored by Greek scholars with special diligence. The foundations of a school of Athenian studies were laid in the fifth century b.c. by Hecataeus, Herodotus and Thucydides, who introduced digressions on primitive Attica into their general histories, and by Hellanicus, who endeavoured to fix Attic chronology as a line of reference for the general chronology of Greece. The work of these pioneers was carried on in the fourth and third centuries by a succession of ‘Atthidographers’ or writers of special monographs on Attica, by whose combined labours a considerable amount of historical material was accumulated. The work of this school has partly been transmitted to us by Plutarch and other antiquarians; and a valuable resume of its earlier productions was presented to modern scholars in 1891 by the discovery of Aristotle’s Con­stitution of Athens. Of this important work, which is now our principal authority for the constitutional history of Athens, it will here suffice to say that it was probably one of the latest treatises from the master’s own pen, and that it embodied the results of the researches achieved by Aristotle’s predecessors down to the second half of the fourth century.

With these materials at hand modern historians can reconstruct early Attic history in its general outlines. But such reconstructions can be no more than skeletons: not until the sixth century BC does Attic history begin to take on flesh and blood. The zeal of the ancient Atthidographers did not make up for the lack of authentic records at their disposal, nor for their deficiency in historical method. The Athenians of early historical times were too much engrossed in the affairs of their own day to cultivate a detailed memory of the past, and the stock of genuine early traditions upon which the Atthidographers could draw was com­paratively slender. In particular the Homeric poems, which constituted the main archive for primitive Greek history, ignored Attica almost completely. Thus the ancient writers were mostly thrown back upon indirect methods of research, such as the argument from survivals. This line of reasoning was capable of producing good results, for in matters of form at least the Athenians were a conservative people, and some of the most valuable data in Aristotle’s treatise have been secured by this method. But the Atthidographers did not apply the method consistently: they recorded but a fraction of what the institutions of their own day could have revealed. Worse still, none of them cultivated that gift of historic imagination of which Thucydides’ sketch of early Greece had set them a shining example. Owing to this defect they accepted too readily the accretions which poets and rhetoricians had engrafted upon the stock of genuine early tradition. The field in which modern historians of Attica work contains but a thin growth of wheat which has to be extricated from dense tufts of weeds.

The archaeological evidence as to the history of Attica before 600 BC consists partly of architectural remains, of walls, houses, and tombs; partly of pottery which has been found in considerable quantities on the Acropolis of Athens, in the Ceramicus, and upon other sites. It is by no means easy to interpret this evidence, or to reconcile it with literary tradition; but certain main facts may be briefly stated.

In the lowest strata on the Acropolis, fragments of pottery have been found similar in shape and fabric to what occurs else­where in the Aegean region during the Neolithic age. These do not, however, give us much information as to the race or character of the people who made them. But the pottery of the Mycenaean age, in the forms, fabric and patterns characteristic of continental Greece is well represented on the Acropolis at Athens as well as on many sites of burials; and to the same age belongs the bee-hive tomb, of solid stone masonry, which has been found at Menidi (Acharnae); at Spata, Thoricus, and Eleusis are similar tombs excavated in the rock. The early fortification wall of the Acropolis, known as the Pelasgic or Pelargic wall, appears to be contemporary with the similar walls at Tiryns and at Mycenae; in all probability the tradition connecting it with the Pelasgians is of no greater historic value than that which assigns the walls of Tiryns to the Cyclopes or Stonehenge to the Druids. But it seems clear that the art and civilization, which attained its most brilliant growth at Mycenae, spread also in the latter part of the second millennium BC to Attica.

After the close of the Mycenaean age a new type of pottery, of geometric style, is found throughout Attica, as well as elsewhere in Greece. This pottery and its developments last into historic times, and afford almost the only archaeological evidence as to the time between the decline of the Mycenaean civilization and the sixth century BC. The problems to which it gives rise are difficult and complicated; these however must be reserved for later discussion. In addition to the great wall round the top of the Acropolis, there was also a kind of outwork at the west end, and extending a certain distance on the north and south sides; at the west it was arranged in a succession of terraces of approach, called the Enneapylon (nine gates). It is not certain at what time this outwork was added; the space within it was known, like the wall itself, as the Pelargikon or Pelasgikon, and appears to have been kept free of buildings. It therefore did not provide accommodation for citizens, but merely added to the defensibility of the citadel. Some fragments of it remain, but not enough to show its exact position or design.

In the present chapter we must limit ourselves to a general summary of early Attic history, and many of our conclusions must of necessity be merely tentative. The land of Attica was described by ancient writers as an akte, that is, a peninsula. This description is essentially accurate, for Attica did not cohere firmly with the adjacent continent. Communications with Boeotia were kept up by means of several minor tracks passing through the gaps of Mt Cithaeron and Parnes, and by means of an easy road which skirted the eastern end of the latter range. Connection with the Peloponnese was maintained by the ‘Scironian road,’ which skirted the coast of the Saronic Gulf and degenerated into a mere track where the cross-ranges of Cerata and Geraneia jut out into the sea. The land frontiers of Attica, though not impregnable to a military force, precluded close intercourse with the neighbouring countries. On the other hand, the coastline offered good facilities for commerce. The eastern seaboard, indeed, provided no safe shelter from the sudden storms of the Euboean channel, except in the bay of Marathon, and never became a highway for continental traffic. But the sheltered western shore contained the best landing-places in the Saronic Gulf. The broad bay of Phalerum offered a strip of firm sand for beaching, and the three land-locked basins which were scooped out of the adjacent Piraeus headland constituted a safe and de­fensible harbour, yet not too deeply recessed for sailing vessels. The Piraeus was the true gateway of Attica, and the communica­tions of that country were essentially maritime.

The interior of Attica is ribbed with a loosely-jointed system of mountains, which break up the land into several distinct com­partments, but do not completely sever intercourse between these. From the largest of these pockets, the central plain of Athens, two easy passes lead westward across the Aegaleos range to the coastal plain of Eleusis. On the eastern side a gap between the heights of Hymettus and Pentelicus affords access to the inland basin of the Mesogeia and the seaboard valley of Marathon. Thus Attica does not form an obvious geographical unit, but its constituent portions can all be connected up through the Athenian corridor which provides a natural centre of communications for the whole country.

The natural resources of Attica were far richer than those of most Greek districts, but they did not all lie on the surface. Of all the coast lands of Greece, Attica is most exposed to the dry north-east winds which dominate the Aegean basin in summer, and its rainfall is both deficient and ill distributed. The rare rain showers do not permeate the hard limestone crust of the uplands, but gather into torrents which are of little use for irrigation. On all the higher ground the bare rock crops out through the scanty soil, and this stony ground with its stunted scrub vegetation only affords subsistence to a few flocks of goats. The lowlands are coated with a good alluvial clay. The well-watered ‘Thriasian’ plain near Eleusis was famous for its wheat-land, and the other plains were well-adapted to the cultivation of the vine and the olive. But these fertile patches were not extensive enough to redeem the general barrenness of the land.

To make up for its infertility, the soil of Attica contained large mineral resources. The clay beds of the Cephisus brook near Athens were unsurpassed for the smoothness of their texture and the brilliance of their colouring matter. The pure white marble of Pentelicus, though inferior to the best Parian stone in translucence, excelled it in fineness of grain. The entire coastal range which runs out in the Sunium headland was a storehouse of metals; iron, zinc, lead and silver were found here, and the silver and lead mines of the Laurium district were the richest in Greece.

The climate of Attica was more extreme than is usual in Greece. Its torrid summers and dust-laden winds made it trying to weak constitutions. But the extreme lucidity of its atmosphere gave the Attic landscape a variety of outline and a delicacy of colour which made it a natural school of art; and its intensely stimulating air was recognized in antiquity as the source of Attic wit.

II

THE PEOPLE OF ATTICA

The people of Attica maintained traditions about their own origin which modern scholars have accepted as substantially correct. The inhabitants, so common opinion declared, were as a whole indigenous, but they had been intermixed with foreign elements whom the natives received in a hospitable spirit. Among these new-comers, it is true, Attic tradition reckoned several peoples who probably never set foot in Attica. The Pelasgi, who were reputed to have built the prehistoric .fortifications at the entrance of the Athenian Acropolis, may have no real connection with Attica, except such as is provided by a dubious etymology. Their supposed presence may be no more than a deduction from Pelasgikon, a by-form of Pelargikon, the name officially assigned to those fortifications in the fifth century. At all events any Pelasgian admixture is without importance for Attic history and has a very small place even in Attic legend. Similarly a Thracian settlement at Eleusis may have been invented to explain the con­nection between the Eleusinian mysteries and the cult of the Thracian god Dionysus. The presence of a Carian element in Attica seems to have been inferred from the fact that a particular Athenian family worshipped Zeus Karios; but such a transference of cults of course does not prove a transmigration of peoples.

A somewhat stronger claim has been made by modern scholars on behalf of a Phoenician settlement in Attica. This theory, which originally rested on some unconvincing derivations of Attic place-names from Phoenician words, has been strengthened by the discovery at Eleusis of late Minoan tombs which contained Egyptian faience ware and Phoenician imitations of Egyptian scarabs. These articles can hardly have been brought to Attica in other than Phoenician vessels, so we need not doubt that Phoenician merchants visited its shores. But did they make any permanent settlements? As a rule the Phoenicians contented themselves with occasional trading visits to Greek lands, and there is no reason for supposing that their sojourns in Attica were more prolonged.

On the other hand, the infusion of an important Ionian strain into the population of Attica is proved to demonstration. Though the Athenians disowned the name ‘Ionian,’ they claimed that their land was ‘Ionia’s eldest’ and the ‘metropolis’ of the Ionian settlements in Asia Minor. An Ionian immigration into Attica is implied in the legends of Ion, whom the Athenians regarded as a national hero. True enough, Athenian tradition did not include Ion in the list of the Attic kings, but dubbed him a ‘general’ (Stratarches). Hence it has been supposed that the Ion myths did not originate in Attica but among the Ionians of Asia. But, even if we allow that the poet Euripides merely committed a patriotic perversion of legend when he provided his hero Ion with an Attic mother, we have to recognize a genuine old tradition in a tale which was current at Thoricus in eastern Attica, that Ion was a son of the local hero Gargettus, and in the cult which the Attic clan of the Ionidae offered to Ion as its eponymous ancestor. The Ion myth, we may conclude, was indigenous in Attica. But even if it were not, its mere appropriation by the Athenians proves that they recognized their kinship with the Ionians.

Again, the Attic dialect, though distinct from that of the insular and Asiatic Ionians, had many points in common with it and clearly formed a branch of the same ‘East Greek’ group. The evidence from Attic cults is equally decisive. Though Ion himself was not deified, his brother Xuthus received worship in the Marathon district. Poseidon Heliconios, who had a temple at Athens, was a specifically Ionian god. The Dionysiac festivals of the Thargelia and Anthesteria were common to the Ionians and the Athenians, and the latter also celebrated the distinctively Ionian festival of the Apaturia. The pan-Ionian festival of Apollo at Delos was not only attended but ostentatiously befriended by the Athenians.

Lastly, the names of the four Phylae or ‘tribes’ into which Attica was divided recurred singly or in combination in various other Ionian communities. The kinship between the Ionians and Athenians is thus established by a fourfold line of proof.

Although, as we have seen, Ion sometimes passed for a native of Attica, he usually figured in legend as a newcomer. The Athenians therefore looked upon the Ionians in Attica as an immigrant people. This tradition is confirmed by all our other evidence. The Attic dialect, though predominantly Ionic, is a composite tongue, like that of the Boeotians and Thessalians, and contains a pre-Ionic element which is conspicuous in Attic place-names. The specifically Ionic cults were mostly localized in the eastern and north-eastern corners of Attica, and those Ionic deities which won their way to Athens failed to capture the Acropolis and had to be content with sanctuaries in the Lower Town. In the fifth century, it is true, Poseidon stole into the Erechtheum disguised as ‘Poseidon Erechtheus.’ But this identification of Poseidon with the primitive Attic god of agriculture was of late date, and it rested on a confusion, for Erechtheus was an earth-breaker, not an earth-shaker, like Poseidon.

The original relation between Poseidon and the Acropolis deities was more correctly recorded on the western Parthenon pediment, where Poseidon was represented as an unsuccessful rival of Athena for the possession of the Acropolis.

The Ionian element in the Attic population was therefore clearly derived from an immigrant stock. The region from which this stock entered Attica need not be discussed here, but the localization of the Ionic cults in north-eastern Attica, the derivation of two Attic clans, the Gephyraei and the Eunostidae, from Tanagra, and the worship of Poseidon under the surname ‘Heliconios,’ all point to an invasion from Boeotia. The date of this invasion cannot be fixed. But it was certainly previous to the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor, else Athens would not have ranked as the metropolis of these settlements. The method of invasion must have been in the main a peaceful one. Attic tradition usually represented the Ionian leaders Ion and Theseus as helpful rather than hostile visitors. Archaeology bears out this belief, for the monuments of Attica reveal no such clean break between prehistoric and historic conditions as in Thessaly, Argolis or Laconia. The political institutions of Attica lead to the same conclusion, for they offer no trace of a conquering population exploiting a conquered race, as in the Dorian states of the Peloponnese; Ionian and autochthonous elements are fused on equal terms, and whatever political inequalities exist are not based on racial contrasts.

Of the pre-Ionic elements of population, which no doubt were the more numerous, nothing certain is known. A great many Attic place-names have an un-Greek appearance and point to a pre-Hellenic stratum of inhabitants. On the other hand, Athena, the principal pre-Ionic deity, certainly belonged to the Hellenic pantheon. Probably the pre-Ionic Athenians were no less a composite stock than their Ionicized descendants. But unless archaeology throws fresh light on this subject, it is unlikely that the pre-Ionic compound will be successfully analyzed.

III

THE UNION OF ATTICA

Attica, with its 1000 square miles, was a large block of territory as measured by the ancient Greek standard. Its internal structure, as we have seen, permitted but did not favour intercourse between its constituent parts. Nevertheless the problem of uniting those parts into a single political community was achieved both speedily and with durable success: indeed no other Greek territory of equal size, except Laconia, formed an earlier or a more permanent political union.

At the dawn of history Attica, like all the larger Greek terri­tories, was an aggregate of petty independent states. The number and extent of these states can no longer be determined, for Attic tradition preserved but a dim remembrance of the period pre­ceding the union of the land: but their existence in primitive times is not open to reasonable doubt. The story that Attica was formerly grouped into twelve separate states by Cecrops, the first Athenian king, cannot indeed be accepted as it stands, for Cecrops was undoubtedly a mythical figure, and the Attic Dodecapolis has all the appearance of being a fictitious pendant to the historic Dodecapolis of the Asiatic Ionians who were reckoned as colonists from Attica. On the other hand, the legends of wars waged by the Athenian rulers against Pallas of Pallene (in central Attica) and Cephalus of Thoricus (in the south-east) and the persistent tradition of conflicts between Athens and Eleusis, at least prove that the Athenians recognized the former existence of independent communities in every part of Attica. Besides, the somewhat scanty evidence of the legends is confirmed by the survival of cults and usages which presuppose an original division of Attica into Lilliputian states. No conclusions indeed can be drawn from the survival of a four-village group of Piraeus, Phalerum and two other townships, or of a three-village group of Cropidae, Peleces and Eupyridae as religious associations, for the objects of these groups may never have been anything but sacral. Again, the special privileges which were accorded to the village of Decelea by the Spartans throws no light on the conditions of primitive Attica, for this grant cannot be of earlier date than the last years of the sixth century, when the Spartans first came into touch with Decelea. But the Tetrapolis of Marathon, Oenoe, Tricorythus and Probalinthus in north-eastern Attica, though reduced in later centuries to a merely formal existence, probably originated in an independent political confederation, for the term polis would hardly be applied to a merely social or religious corporation. A condition of disunion and even of mutual hostility among the primitive Attic states is also suggested by the legal fiction which forbad intermarriage between the folks of Hagnus and Pallene in historic days. But the most decisive proof of the original condition of Attica is provided by the festival of the Synoikia, a state function which the Athenians still celebrated in the fifth century to commemorate the amalgamation of all Attica into one state. This festival is sufficient in itself to prove a previous condition of disunion.

The extant archaeological evidence as to the early division of Attica is very slight and inconclusive. Some early citadels may be traced, for example one on the east side of Hymettus which may be the ancient Pallene, the home of the Pallantidae who attacked Theseus. The most considerable fortification is the wall of dry stones, some three miles long, which is built across the valley between Aegaleos and Parnes. This wall seems to mark the boundary between the territory of Athens and that of Eleusis; but its date is uncertain; it evidently was not regarded as defensible at the time of the Peloponnesian War. The groups of graves in various places also seem to imply several important centres of civilization.

The nature of the Synoikismos or union of all Attica has been well described by Thucydides. The essence of it, as he points out, lay not in any movement of population, but in a transference of political sovereignty, in a substitution of a general Athenian franchise for a multitude of particular Attic franchises. In a political sense Athenian and Attic were henceforth identical terms. It is important to notice, however, that a Synoikismos in the literal sense of ‘concentration’ into Athens was effected by the ruling and other noble families of the outlying communities, for these formed in early historical times an urban aristocracy (astoi) in contrast with the common folk of the countryside (demos).

Thucydides regarded this union of Attica as a bloodless conquest: superior insight rather than force was the weapon by which Athens established its sovereignty. This view of the case is in accord with general Attic tradition, which did not represent the early conflicts between Athens and her neighbours as wars of conquest, but recorded that the most important of these struggles, the feud between Athens and Eleusis, was terminated by a truce. Thucydides’ account is also confirmed by the terms of the union, which gave equal political franchise to all inhabitants of Attica, and did not reduce the people of the outlying districts to the status of Perioeci or dependents. Though isolated passages of arms may have preceded the union of Attica, we must conclude that this process, like the previous Ionian immigration, was essentially peaceful.

In one respect, however, we must differ from Thucydides and Attic tradition. These telescoped the Synoikismos into a single act and referred it to one individual, an Athenian king, Theseus. On grounds of general probability we cannot believe that so extensive an amalgamation as that of all Attica could have been accomplished by one heroic coup, it appears far more likely that it was the result of many successive treaties and compromises. The festival of the Synoikia, we may infer, was instituted to celebrate the final consummation of a long-continued process.

The completion of the Synoikismos may be assigned to the end of the eighth century BC: its commencement cannot be dated with any certainty. The absence of references to the minor townships of Attica in Homer, which has been taken to prove that these had already been swallowed up by Athens in pre­historic times, merely proves that Homer chose to ignore them. But the fact that Athens alone of Attic communities is mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships is tolerably certain proof that the process of union was more or less complete at the time when this poem was composed, for the Catalogue purported to be ex­haustive, and its knowledge of central Greece was singularly full. Conversely the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, which was probably composed about 700, represents Eleusis as an independent community with a king of its own. The beginning of the Synoikismos may therefore be dated back to 1000 BC, or even beyond this point; but the final union of Attica cannot have taken place long before 700 BC

IV

THE CITY OF ATHENS

The topography of early Athens, both before and after the Synoikismos, is to a great extent a matter of conjecture. The locus classicus on this question is the well-known passage of Thucydides, who states that Theseus, at the time of the Synoikismos, substituted the common Prytaneum and Bouleuterion (or Senate House) at Athens for the separate local ones hitherto in use. The situation of these two buildings was evidently supposed by Thucydides to be the same as in later times; and this is approximately known, the Prytaneum being below the north slope of the Acropolis, near the precinct of Agraulos, and the Bouleuterion being at the upper end of the Agora, near the north foot of the Areopagus. It appears therefore probable that the Agora, which during this period must have superseded the Acropolis as the centre of civic life, was from the first situated where it lay throughout the historical age, to the north of the Areopagus. This is obviously the most suitable position for it, since it lies in the region most easily accessible both from the harbour and from the mainland. Adjoining it, both within and without the city gate, was the Ceramicus, or Potters’ Field, the centre of the most flourishing manufacture of Athens.

Thucydides adds that in early days Athens consisted of the Acropolis (still called Polis in later days for that reason) and the region below it towards the south. This seems inconsistent with the position of the Prytaneum and Bouleuterion; but he justifies it by the statement that ‘the temples outside the Acropolis were situated in this direction, that of Zeus Olympios, the Pythium, that of Earth, and that of Dionysus in the Marshes, in whose honour the older Dionysia are celebrated.’ The position of the Olympieum and the Pythium, near the Ilissus and south-east of the Acropolis, is known; and although there is no other evidence of the existence of the Pythium before the time of Peisistratus, foundations have been found beneath the remains of Peisistratus’ colossal temple of Olympian Zeus, which must belong to a primitive shrine on the same site, probably that attributed by tradition to Deucalion; and the cleft where the waters of the deluge disappeared lay in this region. The site of the early Dionysium is not known unless it be identified with the precinct discovered by Dorpfeld in the hollow between the Acropolis and the Pnyx. Leake placed it south of the later theatre. The position of the spring Callirrhoe (later Enneacrounos) is also adduced by Thucydides, and this spring is known to have been in later times in the bed of the Ilissus near the Olympieum.

The whole topography of primitive Athens has been the subject of acute controversy. Dorpfeld refuses to recognize in Thucydides’ words a reference to these precincts in the south-east, but suggests another Pythium and Olympieum close under the Acropolis, and identifies Callirrhoe with some borings for water in the Pnyx hill in a region to which an aqueduct was certainly built by Peisistratus in the sixth century. But such duplication seems improbable, and has not been generally accepted, at least in the case of the Pythium and Olympieum. It must be admitted that the evidence is insufficient to decide the questions at issue; but there is much to be said for the view that the position of the Agora remained in the same place from the Synoikismos to historic times, since no change is recorded. Excavations have given no decisive evidence, since no remains have been found of an earlier date than the sixth century. The foundations of houses cut in the rock, on the Pnyx hill and in its neighbourhood, are also of uncertain date, probably not very early. All that can be said with certainty is that when Athens became the capital of Attica, the town was extended on all sides around the Acropolis and its outwork, the Pelasgikon, and was probably then surrounded by a wall which gave it the wheel-shaped form recorded in the well-known Delphic oracle. This wall must however have had a smaller circuit than that of Themistocles; for we are expressly told that, by the wall built by him after the Persian sack of Athens, the circuit of the town was extended on all sides.

V

SOCIAL CONDITIONS

The Synoikismos of Attica carried with it a reorganization of government and a regrouping of the population, among whom the enfranchized portion alone probably exceeded 10,000 at the outset. For various purposes the Athenian people were henceforth classified into phratriai (‘brotherhoods’), phylai or tribes, gene, i.e. family groups or clans, and other subdivisions. The precise nature of these groups is hard to ascertain, for most of them soon became obsolescent or were adapted to new uses. But the more important of them require some discussion.

In historical times the citizen population of Attica was apportioned among twelve phratries or ‘brotherhoods,’ after a fashion common among Greek states. In origin the phratries appear to have been voluntary associations, being composed in the first instance of comrades-in-war, like the phiditia and hetaireiai which survived for centuries in Sparta and Crete. They then perpetuated themselves in the more settled period after the great migrations as ‘frith gilds’ whose members co-operated in defence of life and property. These functions were eventually forfeited by the phratries to the city-states into which they were absorbed, but the phratries usually survived as constituent groups of the city population, and performed minor offices in the state administration. Under the Athenian government the entire citizen body was apportioned among the Attic phratries, whose number was henceforth fixed at twelve.

The method of apportionment is uncertain. At all events nothing can be inferred from the fact that the names of such few phratries as are known to us mostly have the patronymic ending -idai, the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon suffix -ing. Though these names suggest that the phratries were held together by a bond of kinship, yet this bond may have been of an entirely fictitious character, according to the prevalent custom among all Greek associations of inventing common ancestors pro forma. And the size of the phratries, which even in the eighth or seventh century must have contained on an average some 1000 persons, proves that all the members cannot have been related by blood. It is more likely that the phratries were local groups, each occupying a distinct portion of Attic territory, for their oikoi or meeting-houses were not concentrated in Athens, but dissemin­ated over the whole country. But whatever the exact constitution of these brotherhoods, it is certain that they came to comprise the entire citizen body, for down to the end of the sixth century membership of a phratry was the qualification for the Athenian franchise. The functions of the phratries in historic times were largely confined to sacral purposes such as the worship of Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, and the celebration of the Apaturia, at which festival the united phratries did honour to Dionysus. Of their original guardianship of life and property the phratries preserved a few attenuated fragments, such as the right to prosecute the murderer of one of their number, and to pronounce on the legitimacy of children born to their members. The role of the phratry in historical times was of small and decreasing importance, but down to the end of the sixth century membership was still a coveted right, and attempts to restrict it to the select class who were enrolled in the ‘family groups’ were checked by special legislation.

The phratries in Greek communities were frequently linked up in larger units known as phylai or ‘tribes.’ These bodies, which originally formed so many independent war bands, were eventually subordinated to the state authorities in the same way as the phratries, and commonly served as the main divisions of the united state-army. In Attica the tribes were four in number, each being made up of three phratries. The names of these tribes— Geleontes, Hopletes, Argadeis and Aigikoreis—must not be taken to indicate that they were castes pursuing particular callings, for an exhaustive division of the community into groups of that character was foreign to Greek practice, and the Athenian nobility was distributed among all the four tribes: the names were probably derived from the distinctive tribal cults. The Attic tribes, like most others, were primarily military divisions, and although their numbers were several times altered in later cen­turies, they always retained their military functions. We have already noticed that the names of the Attic tribes recur in various Ionian towns; this is clear evidence that the tribal organization was subsequent to the Ionian immigration, and indeed we may assume on grounds of general probability that the whole citizen population of Attica was not distributed among them until after the Synoikismos. The principle of this division is not clear. It is generally assumed that each tribe formed one single block of territory like an English county. But there is no direct evidence to this effect, and it is quite conceivable that the early Attic tribes, like those instituted afterwards by Cleisthenes, were aggregates of disconnected sections. The phylobasiles, or ‘tribe kings,’ who stood at the head of each -phyle, were no doubt the commanders of the tribal levy, but they also exercised judicial functions, being assessors of the king in trials for murder at the court of the Prytaneum. It may be supposed that the phylobasiles here acted as representatives of the constituent phratries of his tribe, for the phratries, as we have seen, had the right of prosecuting murderers. The phylobasiles were chosen from the ranks of the nobility, but by what precise method is not known.

According to a classification preserved by Aristotle, each Attic phratry was split up into thirty gene, or ‘clans,’ so that the entire citizen population was apportioned among 360 such groups. This scheme is analogous to those which were actually carried into effect in several other Greek towns, but there is good reason for believing that the Attic clans were not an official grouping, and did not comprise the whole citizen body. It is perhaps no serious objection to Aristotle’s scheme that the names of only some 90 out of a reputed total of 360 family groups have come down to us. But a decisive argument against him is supplied by an extant fragment of an early Attic law which prescribed that the phratries must admit not only members of clans (gennetai), but other categories of citizens as members. This ordinance proves clearly that the members of the clans formed but one constituent portion of the citizen body as enrolled in the phratries. Thus whereas the phratries and the phylae comprised the whole citizen population, the clans included but a fraction of it.

Again, it is certain that the clans were not subdivisions of the phratries. As a general rule the members of each clan did not all belong to the same phratry, but were distributed quite at random among these groups, and the case of the Eteobutadae, a clan whose members were apparently included en bloc in one and the same phratry, must be regarded as exceptional. It follows that the clans stood in no definite relation to the phratries. Lastly, the unofficial character of the clans is quite certain, for we never hear of them performing any official political function after the manner of the tribes and the phratries.

The clans therefore were private and sectional associations. From what class, then, were they recruited? In answering this question we must not be led astray by the fact that a good many clans, like the tribes, had names denoting vocations; e.g. ‘heralds’ (kerukes), ‘well-diggers’ (phreorychoi), ‘ox-spanners’ (buzygai). It is unlikely that in the early days of Attic history an extensive system of ‘gilds’ should have been established, and that either such a comprehensive group as the ‘ox-spanners,’ or such a specialized group as the ‘well-diggers,’ should have constituted a separate ‘gild.’ In all probability these names were fancy­choices. Again, we must not be too quick to draw conclusions from the names of the other clans, most of which had a patronymic suffix, and therefore suggest that their members were related by kinship. No doubt the clans frequently contained whole families, but taken as a whole they constituted artificial aggregates of families rather than one interrelated group. The artificial character of the clans is expressly attested by ancient writers; it is also indicated by the obviously mythical character of the ancestors from whom they drew their name, and by the longevity of several clans which maintained an unbroken existence to the days of the Roman empire.

The real nature of the clans is not far to seek. Among early communities the first class of persons to segregate themselves from the commonalty and to pursue sectional interests usually consists of the large landowners: of these the primitive nobilities are formed. The Attic clans provide a good illustration of this rule. The fact that several Attic demoi or villages were named after a clan, e.g. Ionidae, Butadae, Philaidae, is as eloquent as English place-names like Stoke Mandeville or Melton Mowbray: evidently the clan which furnished the name of each village comprised the principal landowners of the district. These owners of large estates eventually coalesced into a nobility, and so the clans became an essentially aristocratic organization. It is not unlikely that in course of time the clans, like the Roman gentes, came to include plebeians. But the importance of the clans rested on the fact that they stood for high birth and wealth. For this reason, although unofficial bodies, they at first exercised a greater effective power than the tribes and phratries. Indeed the larger clans were able to organize formidable fighting forces, and as late as the sixth century waged private wars in the best style of the Middle Ages. It required the combined efforts of the Athenian tyrants and Cleisthenes to break the corporate power of the clans, and to deprive them of their position as states within the state.

The rise of the Attic nobility which is reflected in the growth of the clans is also illustrated in the changes which the central government of Attica underwent after the Synoikismos. The concentration of the leading Athenian families in Athens enabled them to exercise continuous pressure upon the central govern­ment and eventually to recast it in their own interests.

VI

THE EARLIEST CONSTITUTION

Before we proceed to describe this revolution we shall have to discuss the original constitution of the Athenian state. Of this constitution unfortunately we know nothing for certain, except that it contained the usual two organs of a primitive Greek com­munity, a king and a council. This confession of ignorance may appear strange in view of the fact that no less than six lists of the kings of Athens have come down to us, and that all these lists agree as to the names of the rulers. The authors of these lists, however, were all of a comparatively late period, for none dated back beyond the third century, and their prototype was certainly of later date than Herodotus, for Herodotus knew the names of only four kings, whereas the lists enumerate thirty. Another general argument against the lists is their very com­pleteness. Of all Greek genealogies those of the Spartan kings ranked as the most authentic; yet the pedigrees of these rulers could not be traced back with certainty beyond the ninth century. The regal lists of Athens reach back beyond 1500 and assign exact dates even to the earliest reigns. It is evident that the greater part at least of these lists was not based on a genuine tradition. The value of the lists is further impaired by the numerous discrepancies between them in regard to chronology, discrepancies which extend down to the very last dynasty. Lastly, a glance at the names of the individual kings will show that several of these were not historical persons. ‘Cecrops’ and ‘Erectheus’ are counterfeits of two archaic gods; and it is not unlikely that other names were borrowed from half-forgotten deities. At the lower end of the lists we meet with figures which were almost certainly reproduced from the genealogies of various noble houses. In ‘Codrus’ we readily recognize the eponymous ancestor of the Codridae, a clan which was not indeed domiciled in Attica, but in Ionia, yet was reputed to be sprung from the royal line of Athens. The names ‘Alcmaeon,’ ‘Megacles’ and ‘Ariphron’ taken singly might not excite suspicion, but since all of them recur in the pedigree of Pericles, the greatest though uncrowned king of Athens, it is fairly obvious that they were foisted in ad maiorem Pencils gloriam.

The lists of the kings are so full of flaws that the only safe course is to accept none of their data except where they are confirmed by independent evidence. In only two instances is such evidence forthcoming. The family of the Medontidae, from whom the last royal dynasty was supposed to have been drawn, were represented in historical times by a clan of the same name which owned a piece of land hard by the Athenian Acropolis. As the Acropolis was the natural place of residence for Attic kings, and some remains of what was probably the royal palace are still to be seen there, it does not seem too rash to infer that the property of the historic Medontidae was the surviving portion of the royal domain which their kingly ancestors had enjoyed. Thus the Medontid dynasty is made safe for history. Among the names of this dynasty, moreover, one at least belongs to a real person, viz. that of Acastus. We are informed by Aristotle that in his own time the archons before entering office still took an oath that ‘they would fulfil their sworn promises “as under Acastus”.’ This Acastus can hardly be any other than the king of that name, who must accordingly be accepted as a historical person. But he stands out as a solitary figure without any background. He was evidently one of the last kings of Athens, for in his day the archonship was already in being; but his date and place within the Medontid dynasty cannot be fixed.

For the history of the king’s council we have not even a bad tradition to guide us, but must rely entirely on inferences from survivals and from the general probabilities of the case.

As we never hear of an ecclesia or folk moot before the time of Solon, we may assume that such a body, though perhaps not unknown to the constitution, had no practical importance and, if summoned at all, was convened merely for formal purposes. A king’s council, however, was a common and indeed a necessary organ in an early Greek state, and there can be no doubt that such a body existed in Athens. But it is disputed whether this body should be identified with the Council of the Areopagus or with the boule of historical times. In favour of the latter view it has been urged that the boule’s meeting-place, the Prytaneum, or ‘town hall,’ was one of the oldest public buildings of Athens, and therefore must have been the seat of the original state council. Further evidence for this theory has been sought in a passage in Herodotus, who mentions certain officials known as ‘Prytaneis of the naucrari’ in connection with the conspiracy of Cylon. These, it is contended, held the Same office as the prytaneis of the fifth and later centuries; and as these later prytaneis were simply a committee of the boule, it is argued that Herodotus’ prytaneis of the naucrari were a committee to the selfsame boule, and that this boule dates back to the period before Cylon’s conspiracy, i.e. to the early days of Attic history. But this reasoning is based on serious errors of fact. Undoubtedly the Prytaneum was quite a venerable building, and it played an important part in public administration, for it was the seat of one of the early courts of justice, but it was not the meeting-place of either the boule or its prytaneis: the former assembled in the bouleuterion, the latter in the skias. Again, the prytaneis of the naucrari, as Herodotus shows quite plainly, were an executive, not.a deliberative body; and therefore no analogy can be drawn between them and the prytaneis of later centuries. Furthermore, Athenian tradition denied the boule’s claim to high antiquity, for it ascribed this body to Solon. And this tradition, though of no great value in itself, is confirmed by the procedure of the boule. Unlike the genuine survivals from an early age, that body observed no archaic rituals and ceremonies; and it was convened, not by the basileus or archon eponymos or some other early official, but by a committee of prytaneis of whom no trace existed before the sixth century. We may therefore take it as certain that the original state council at Athens was something distinct from the boule of later times.

This leaves the field free for the Council of the Areopagus. The claims of this body to a high antiquity were a matter of dispute among the Athenians themselves. Isocrates and Aristotle upheld these claims emphatically; but a current Athenian tradition affirmed that the Areopagus was a creation of Solon’s, and though this belief perhaps sprang from no better source than the common Athenian tendency to find in Solon the author of the entire Athenian constitution, yet it was accepted by some ancient scholars on the ground that no mention was made of the Areo­pagus in Draco’s laws. This argumentum ex silentio would be a cogent one, if it could be shown that its authors were well acquainted with Draco’s code. But there is good reason for believing that the only portions of the code which survived to the fifth and fourth centuries were those few scanty fragments of the statute concerning unpremeditated murder, which have been preserved to our own time; and unpremeditated murder was an offence of which the Areopagus never had cognizance. The only argument against the high antiquity of the Areopagus thus falls to the ground.

A strong presumptive argument on the other side is offered by the special feeling of respect and even of veneration which the Athenians always had for the Areopagus. The peculiar prestige of this assembly is not sufficiently explained by its functions as a court for homicide, and consequent association with the Aral or goddesses of revenge. The divinity which hedged the Areopagus appears rather to have been due to its long record of public service. But a more definite reason for assigning a high age to the Areopagus is supplied by an extant fragment of a decree of amnesty issued by Solon: ‘all men who were outlawed before the archonship of Solon are to recover their rights, save those who were exiled under sentence of the Areopagus, the Ephetae or the kings’ court in the Prytaneum.. . .’ In spite of attempts to prove the contrary, the words ‘the Areopagus’ can only be taken to refer to the council commonly known as that of the Areopagus. Although this name does not prove that that body met only on Ares’ hill, or even that this was its original place of meeting, it surely suffices to show that no other court or council met on that hill, else its title instead of being distinctive would have been utterly ambiguous and misleading. Moreover the only other tribunal which could conceivably have assembled on Ares’ hill, the court of the Ephetae, is expressly distinguished in the amnesty decree from the court of the Areopagus. We thus have found indisputable evidence that the Areopagus was pre-Solonian, and therefore the oldest state council in Athens. Lastly, in Aristotle’s time, the Areopagus still met in the King’s Porch under the presidency of the King Archon, who was the direct successor of the early Attic kings. This is proof conclusive that the Areopagus dated back to the early Attic monarchy.

The functions of the Areopagus in its original form were probably the same as those of any early Greek gerousia or council of state. That it was from the first a deliberative body is proved by the fact that its full official title was always the Council of the Areopagus. Its activities as a court of law were certainly of old standing. In addition to the evidence of Solon’s amnesty decree on this point, the very name of ‘Areopagus’ is a proof of these judicial functions, for this name would never have been conferred upon the council unless its sessions on Ares’ hill had been among its most distinctive features; and these sessions were purely judicial. And the same conclusion may be drawn from a persistent Athenian tradition that one of the fundamental prerogatives of the Areopagus was the guardianship of the laws. The early attributes of the Areopagus may therefore be compared with those of the Spartan gerousia, which similarly combined the functions of a council and a tribunal. Nevertheless we must not exaggerate the importance of the early Areopagus as a court of law. Its judicial functions were confined to criminal actions, and the disciplinary and censorial powers which some ancient authors attributed to it must be regarded as a fiction, for such powers were hardly compatible with the social conditions or conceptions of government which obtained in early Attica. We shall not go far wrong in assuming that the Areopagus was primarily an advisory body, and that its early judicial duties were derivative and incidental.

Though nothing is known for certain about the original membership of the Areopagus, it was no doubt composed, like other such bodies, of the principal nobles. Its leading members would probably be drawn from the families which had once held independent sway in the outlying parts of Attica.

VII

THE ARISTOCRACY

Our evidence concerning the earliest Athenian constitution, scanty as it is, suffices to show that it conformed to the general type of primitive Greek monarchy. By the seventh century, however, Athens has unmistakably been transformed into an aristocratic republic. The king has left the palace on the Acropolis for the ‘King’s Porch’ in the lower town; he has been degraded into an elected official, drawn from the general body of the nobility, and holding office for one year only; and apart from his sacral duties, which remain unimpaired, he has no functions except a remnant of his criminal jurisdiction. The king’s military functions have now devolved upon another elected official, the Polemarch, and his civil jurisdiction upon a third magistrate, the archon eponymos, who gives his name to the year like the Roman consuls.

The process by which this change was accomplished therefore ran on three lines: the kingship was made elective; it became an annual office; and it was put into commission. The successive steps in this triple process have been indicated by Aristotle. The kingship, so he makes out, became elective in the days of Acastus or of his predecessor Medon, but the royal power continued to be conferred on the Medontidae for a further period which he does not specify. The king’s term of office was reduced in 753 to ten years, and in 683 to one year. The first stage in the division of the king’s powers was the appointment, at an unknown date, of the Polemarch (‘war-chief’): the next step was the creation of the archon eponymos, who appears in later history as the Archon par excellence. Aristotle’s scheme, however, is confessedly based on conjecture. His only documentary authority consisted of the ‘fasti’ of the Attic archons, which gave a continuous list of names from 683, and it is merely a probable, not a certain inference, that this was the year in which the archonship became an annual office. Moreover, the above reconstruction of events is open to two serious objections. In the first place, a ten-year tenure of the kingly office is quite unparalleled in Greek history, and there is reason to believe that the earlier histories of Attica, such as that of Hellanicus, did not recognize the existence of this half-way house in the downward career of the king. Secondly, it seems strange that the Attic nobility, having gained the right of election to the royal office, should indefinitely have waived that right in favour of the ruling dynasty. We therefore seem justified in recasting Aristotle’s scheme, and this can best be done by simplifying it. We may eliminate the ten-year kingship, thus reducing the process of transition from lifelong to annual tenure to a single stage. We may further assume that the kingship did not become elective until it became annual: the Medontid dynasty, so long as it ruled at all, ruled by hereditary right. Thus we reach the conclusion that two of the essential steps in the abroga­tion of kingship at Athens, the shortening of the term of office and its conversion from a hereditary to an elective function, were accomplished in one single act.

But this act was rather the consummation than the crisis of the revolution. The decisive factor in the decline of the monarchy was rather the institution of the Polemarch and the archon eponymos, which transferred the reality of power from the king to his new colleagues. These, we may assume, were elected from the first out of the ranks of the nobles, and their tenure of office was probably never other than annual. In any case, these two offices were the executive organs by which the nobility exercised their power. In particular, the institution of the Polemarch represents a vital change in the balance of power. True enough, the archon eponymos eventually came to rank as the highest Athenian magistrate. But his office was almost certainly younger than that of the Polemarch. As Aristotle aptly remarks, he did not officiate at any of the older religious cults. Moreover, his positive functions mark him out as a late-comer. The special province of the archon eponymos was the adjudication of disputes about property: the proclamation which he made on entering office, ‘that each man should have and hold to the end of his archonship what he had before his archonship began,’ proves clearly that the safeguarding of property was his primary function. But this branch of jurisdiction does not attain importance until the comparatively late moment in a country’s history when property begins to accumulate. In early Attica the duties which the Polemarch took over were certainly of prior origin to those of the archon eponymos. Against this view it has been urged that the office of Polemarch must be secondary to that of the Archon, because the name Polemarch is derived from that of Archon. But several Greek states instituted the office of Polemarch without Archons to precede or to follow them. The appointment of the Polemarch must therefore be regarded as the first and most serious step in the degradation of the kingship.

Of the method by which the nobles attenuated the king’s power, nothing is known. The oath of the archons, ‘that they would fulfil their sworn promises as in the days of Acastus’ has been compared with the yearly compact to which the kings and ephors swore at Sparta, and the settlement which this oath consecrated has therefore been regarded as the outcome of a serious if not actually violent conflict. But this inference would only be admissible if the other archons had exchanged oaths with the Basileus who represented the sovereign king of earlier days; in point of fact the college of archons took the oath en bloc and tendered no oath in return. The revolution, as Aristotle implies, was probably carried out entirely by amicable means, for Attic tradition knew nothing of a sharp conflict between kings and nobles, and the gradual nature of the change in the government indicates its peacefulness.

The chronology of the revolution cannot be fixed precisely. It was certainly completed by 683, the year from which the list of archons eponymoi runs unbroken, and as the list may not be complete at its upper end, the institution of the annual magistrates perhaps goes back somewhat further. On the other hand, the whole process was subsequent to the Synoikismos. The annexation of Eleusis, which was probably the concluding act of the Synoikismos, was the work of the kings, for in later times the administration of the Eleusinian sanctuary was in the hands of the Basileus, the king’s lineal successor. Moreover the revolution presupposes the union of Attica, which had the double effect of increasing the scope of the king’s work to a point where a division of labour became essential, and of concentrating the ‘king’s peers’ in the capital, where they could shape the necessary changes in the constitution to their own advantage. The second half of the eighth century, broadly speaking, was the date of the revolution.

When the king was reduced to an annual elective official, the change from monarchy to aristocracy was complete. But some minor changes in the constitution which mostly took place in the seventh century still require notice. The board of archons, which at first comprised only the archon eponymos, the Basileus and the Polemarch, was subsequently increased to nine members by the addition of six thesmothetae, or ‘law-setters.’ According to Aristotle these officials were appointed to commit to writing and publish the statutes of Athens. This definition of their duties, however, will not pass muster. It is incredible that such simple clerical work should have required the permanent establishment of six supplementary officials of high rank. Besides, Aristotle himself acknowledged the common and credible tradition that the first written record of Athenian laws was made, not by the Thesmothetae, but by Draco. The real purpose of the Thesmothetae may be inferred from their name, ‘setters’ or ‘fixers’ of the law, and from their later functions as presidents of the Heliaea or popular court of law. Evidently they, like the King Archon and archon eponymos, were judges, though their original sphere of competence cannot be defined.

To the pre-Solonian period we may likewise ascribe the institution of the Ephetae or ‘admitters’ (to trial), a tribunal of fifty-one noblemen who served as the principal court for the trial of murder. This court met under the presidency of ‘the kings,’ a term which probably stands for the Basileus and the phylobasiles or tribal kings sitting as a panel of chairmen. The ephetae are mentioned in Draco’s murder law and in Solon’s amnesty decree. Some such body was almost certainly anterior to Draco’s code, for Draco regulated existing institutions rather than created new ones. The ephetae were identified by some ancient authors with the Areopagus; but Solon’s amnesty decree proves that they were distinct. In this decree the Areopagus and the Prytaneum figure as concurrent courts of murder alongside the ephetae, and a strict division of labour between the several tribunals does not appear to have been made before Solon’s time. But the ephetae were the first court to be expressly instituted for the trial of murder, and they took cognizance of most of such cases. This specialized character of their functions stands in contrast with the more comprehensive powers of the Areopagus and suggests a comparatively late date for their establishment. We may therefore assume that they were instituted in the seventh century rather than in the eighth. In pursuance of their duties the ephetae went on circuit to the various ‘asylums’ or ‘places of refuge’ in and around Athens to which homicides could repair for sanctuary. The essence of their jurisdiction lay in finding whether the violence inflicted was wilful, and therefore to be requited with death, or unpremeditated, and expiable with a lesser penalty. The method by which the court was originally constituted is uncertain, and conjecture on this point is useless.

To the seventh century we may refer a military reorganization which led to the creation of the property classes and the naucraries. The property classes provided a new grouping of the citizens in reference to their wealth. The original division, that before the time of Solon, was probably into three classes: the Hippes, those who could serve as horsemen; Zeugitae, those who could equip themselves for the ranks of the hoplite phalanx; and Thetes or labourers. This last class comprised the ‘cottars’ and possibly also the landless men. Though the property classes were based on wealth, their original purpose was certainly not fiscal, but rather military, as was the purpose of the Roman centuriae. The creation of the property classes was commonly ascribed to Solon, but it is preferable to follow Aristotle in calling them pre-Solonian. On the other hand, the military weakness of Athens in Solon’s time suggests that the reorganization of the army was of recent date. The property classes may therefore be regarded as a product of the seventh century.

The institution of a treasury and of a board of kolakretai (‘ham carvers’) to administer it probably belongs to the same period. The Kolakretai, as their archaic name suggests, were probably of older standing, but their original functions as distributors of largesse at public festivals were little more than ceremonial. In later centuries they certainly were financial officials. The appear­ance of a money economy towards the end of the seventh century, the accumulation of fines inflicted by the courts, and the ex­penditure on the remodelled army and navy, were probably the causes which led to the creation of the treasury and the conferment of administrative functions upon the Kolakretai.

The revenue of the state as far as it did not acrue from fines or rents appears to have been raised as occasion required by special levies. For the purpose of these levies the citizen body, or at any rate its taxpaying section, was divided into forty-eight naucraries of which twelve went to each tribe. The duty of collecting the contributions within each group devolved upon its headmen, the naucrari, whose local activities were coordinated by a smaller body of chiefs (prytaneis) in touch with the central government. The duties of the naucrari seem to have included the provision of ships and horses for the Athenian army and navy, but on this point our evidence is very obscure. The mention of the prytaneis of the naucrari as assisting to suppress Cylon’s conspiracy proves that the naucraries were established before Solon; but they cannot have been much older, for their existence implies a tolerably advanced system of administration.

Lastly, the creation of the various boards of officials which we have enumerated led to an important increase in the powers and duties of the Areopagus. According to Aristotle, the Areopagus was entrusted with the election of the archons. In view of the complete inactivity of the Ecclesia in pre-Solonian days, the main responsibility for the choice of magistrates must have devolved upon the Areopagus, though possibly the Ecclesia received a congé d'élire and formally ratified the Areopagus’ choice, or even chose a number of magistrates by whom the various offices were filled at the Areopagus’ discretion. In the absence of any other electoral body, we may also agree with Aristotle in supposing that after the fall of the monarchy the Areopagus was recruited automatically from the ex-archons.

VIII.

ATHENIAN PROGRESS IN CULTURE

This sketch of the early Athenian constitution shows that Athens was fairly well abreast of political progress in Greece during the seventh century; and in the union of Attica she had achieved a work which most of her neighbours accomplished late or never at all. Nevertheless the general condition of the country remained backward. Its military power was barely equal to that of its tiny neighbour Megara. In general culture Athens lagged behind her Ionian kinsmen in Asia and her neighbours in Boeotia, Euboea and Corinth. Athenian literature was still unborn, and Athenian art quite rudimentary.

A very difficult problem is offered by the geometric pottery which succeeds the Mycenaean in Attica, and which is found in such quantities in the burial ground of the Ceramicus that it is commonly known as Dipylon ware, from the name of the city gate leading to that quarter. Similar pottery is found on many sites in Greece, succeeding and supplanting the Mycenaean, which deteriorates and finally disappears about 1000 BC. The most flourishing age of the new style is about the ninth and eighth centuries BC. It does not appear to have developed from the Mycenaean, but to come in as a fully established style. An obvious inference from these facts, in conjunction with literary tradition, is that the geometric style was brought with them from the north by the Dorian invaders. The difficulty, in the case of Attica, is to reconcile such a theory with the Athenians’ claim to autochthony, and especially with their racial and religious antagonism to the Dorians. An analogy may indeed be sought in the Doric style of architecture, which reached its highest develop­ment in Athens. But some archaeologists hold it more probable that the geometric style is a revival of the early and almost universal geometric ornamentation, submerged for a time during the predominance of the Mycenaean civilization, and reasserting itself in a more systematic form after the decay of that civilization. Whatever its origin, the Dipylon style has a distinct character of its own; it is distinguished by the colossal size of its vases, some of them set up as monuments over tombs, and by the subjects which it represents, in primitive but intelligible drawing. The horse frequently occurs, both painted and modelled; and the great funeral processions, with warriors and women and chariots, the choric and war dances, the ships and sea-fights represented upon these vases clearly reflect the life of the Attic people at the time. There is no definite break at the end of the Dipylon period as at its beginning; but it passes imperceptibly into what is known as Phaleric ware, because many examples of it have been found in graves near Phalerum, the early harbour of Athens. Here we can see the gradual intrusion of Oriental motives, both in plant and in animal forms, which testifies to intercourse with Ionia, and so corresponds to the age when Athens claimed to be the mother-state of many of the great Ionic colonies of Asia Minor. This ware belongs mainly to the eighth and seventh centuries; towards the end of the period it is superseded by the black-figured vases which henceforth become the usual type in Athens as well as in Ionia, at Corinth, and elsewhere; and the unrivalled skill of the potters of the Ceramicus, helped by the beautiful red clay which produced the finest terra-cotta, came to establish the wide supremacy of Attic fabric both in local use and in export.

Little if any architectural remains survive from the period between the Mycenaean age and 600 BC. There must have been an early temple of Athena on the Acropolis, which seems, from a passage in Homer to have been identical with the old palace of Erechtheus. Some traces of this palace have been found; but it is uncertain to what period the walls of the old temple on the same site to the south of the Erechtheum belong. The colonnade around it was not added until the time of Peisistratus. Nor have any clear indications been found of an earlier temple on the site of the Erechtheum, in connection with the sacred olive tree of Athena, and the salt spring of Poseidon. There were other early shrines both on the Acropolis and outside it; but no remains of them exist which can be dated with certainty earlier than the sixth century BC.

The root cause of this backward condition lay in the slow economic development of Attica. The early industry of the country was merely sufficient to supply its own needs. The export of ceramic products, which eventually became one of Attica’s chief sources of wealth, does not appear to have commenced before the sixth century; the Laurium mines, if worked at all, were only exploited in their unproductive upper lodes; and the marble quarries of Pentelicus had not yet been opened. The demiurgi or craftsmen, who played a considerable part in sixth century politics, were unorganized and uninfluential. Athenian trade was equally undeveloped. Such coins as circulated in pre-Solonian days were of Aeginetan or other foreign standard; and unlike many of her daughter-cities Athens took no part in the colonial movement of the eighth and seventh centuries. The growing population of Attica therefore relied for its subsistence on agriculture; but as it soon reached the limits of cultivation on its scanty soil, it fell into a condition of poverty and distress. The political crisis which arose out of this distress, and the steps which were taken to relieve it, will form the subject of another chapter. Here it will suffice to say that, once the economic pressure was relieved, the Athenians soon learnt to make full use of their natural opportunities and gifts of mind, and Attica passed into the forefront of Greek states.

CHAPTER XXII

NORTHERN AND CENTRAL GREECE