The Tyranny of Kleinias at Kroton

Wa ora kao 4 Ÿ THE TYRANNY OF KIEINIAS AT KROTON Al Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Ant. Rom. 20,7 (from the excerpts de virtutibus et vitiis in the Codex Peirescianus = Turonensis 980). Bu Whelvias & Keotwviatys Topavvos Gy dpeikero tiv Bhzuideplav tois moAltas’ pu nat BobAous EAU Ep HIS" © ëntpavegtdtous iNpotmviat@y obs pèv Anéntervev, og GE èGé- Badev Ex Tijs modems, “Avadidag dì Prylvwv tiv axgénoary natehapets zal mavta tov tod és ypévoy nataggov Act. qpovi TH madì tiv deydjv naréderte.” xa AAA“ tentwvw duvagtelas Ev talg TÓÀegt HATATHEUAGAVTES TÂVIA Th TOAYILATE Brépderpav. 7 Se tedevtala te xal nacdv peyioti; xizwots ándoaars vais TEAsaiv | Atovusiéy Tupavvis ÉYÉVETO Tod xoaTijoavtos Tixedias. VAN KLE ARMAS (Dionysios goes on to describe how the Lord of Syracuse attacked the Rhegines at the behest of Epizephyrian Lokroi, defeated a combined army of Ttaliote Greeks and took two of their poleis by storm. Continning his operations in Southeru Italy, he proceeded to the transplantation of the population of Hipponion and to the conquest of Rhegion und Kroton, both of which held for twelve! years), 1 On this figure see note 40 below.

a. The ms has taig nókeot. Reiske read 7%; nées: unbe unwarranted to assume that it must fali in the year in this view, although not siguificantly. Again after a synopsis of the contents of the Dionysios extract he went on to argue «da unmittelbar danach die Eroberung von Rhegion durch Anaxilas von Messene erwähnt wird, die im |. 494 stattfand, so liegt die Folgerung nahe, dass die Herrschaft des Kleinias in Zeit unmittelbar vorher... fallen müsse »! In 1942 E. L. Minar observed that Kleinias’ tyranny is dated approximately by the reference to Anaxilas in Dionywhich Anaxilas seized power, #94 B, GC, 5, In a chronological «it would has the added atsentence. It seems evident that von Fritz also accepted this conjecture. sios’ next sentence. « However», he continued, nough to the context, but necessarily, for &patesiv with accusative and dative is quite acceptable. What is out of place is a reference at this point to cities in the plural. A careful scrutiny of the passage reveals that within the framework of a general thesis to the effect that tyrannis was the raination of Magna Craecia, Dionysios of Halikarnassos was contrasting the depredations of local Italiote tyrants to individual poleis with the (comparatively) universal (andoarg taig médeotv) havoc wrought by the Siceliote Dyonisios, zi ace would be appropriate epuyasas and obus. Tais nées will have been the contritoîg moAttarg traction of yelding a good contrast with the combination of table at the end of Minars hook® the entry « Clinias tyrant in Croton? » appears against the year 494, The translation of the Dionysios excerpt cited by Minar is based on a text that incorporated Valesius dad in the third below. bution of a copyist whose eye was caught by double appearance of the two words a few lines b. Reiske substituted zatiktne for the zazéderre of the ms. It is just possible, however, that there is a conative force to the imperfect. e. Valesius inserted 47à before zoómwvy, This is quite unnecessary if tostmy == Tarbvrwv?, A result of the addition dog. As far as | am aware, a date between &. 500 and c. 494 for the inception of Kleinias’ tyranny has not been challenged since its espousal by Minar and von Fritz, and there is every reason for supposing that it has become a datum, even a B 1 is the imparting of a definite chronological twist, lacking on A 2 the ms reading, to the first three sentences of the extract. In 1940, after summarising Dionysios’ account of Kleinias’ revolution at Kroton, K. von Fritz concluded that « since the historian immediately afterwards speaks of Anaxilas 7 EPP, p. 72. “EPP, p. 139. * KR. von Fritz, s.v. Pythagoreer, Paulys Real-Eucyclopiidie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band XXIV, col. 214, 3 E.L. Minar, Early Pythagorean Politics in Practice and Theory (henecforward referred to as FPP), Baltimore 1942, p. 72. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum I; Appendicis Centuria II. 46. xúprvas Yavarıs" Katvias Ev Keétwy: tugay y GUEVAGAMEVO: Mesh Ts doyî,:; dvrjpwra thy Wave 4 Bs dvei- Some two decades later von Fritz had come to modify (496-476), it would seem that he considered Kleinias as his contemporary ni. ? See Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek English Lexicon, s.v. oútoe, C. HI. UK. von Fritz, Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy (henceforward reterred to as PPSD, New York, 1940, p. 68. See also p. 90.

nev my zijpivoc abrov Avandvet ddvatos. È È jo veaviauer ÈTÉOTROAV vpappatiéiov dvaër wy tolto aveyivwgmev Or’ abimv dvypéda. a. Thus the manuscripts. Schiller# « corrected » the name to Käsıvlaz. b. There is no good reason for emending to douglas, and no reason at all for suspeeling some more drastic cor, ruption. Thucydides appears to use M45 puoi and Oaupia interchangeably * According to Stephanos of Byzantion in his entry on Modest, Méverar zar Hopla vat Mongrov!". B2 Von Fritz and Minar give no hint of acquaintance with the gloss on zigiveg davato:. Yet as long ago us 1898 Schiller had drawn attention to it and come to the inevitable conclusion that Kainias and the Kleinias of the Dionysios of Talikarnassos extract were one and the same person! Two main questions arise, Was the Krotoniate tyrant’s name Kainomenclature and chronology, vias or Kleinias and when did he rule? In the following sections C and D 1 deal respectively with these problems of C the fatter opted for Kleinias despite the fact that both Schiller of the mss containing the gloss on xfgivos davates give the name as Kainias, Almost certainly his instinct was right. 8 Schiller, De rebus Thuriorum, Gottingen 1838, p. 22. 9 Compare 6.61.6 (Thourivi) and 61042 (Thouria). In 12.10.6. ussage it sust surely be the city not the territory to wich Gylippos inakes approaches. At 735.1 the territory of Thourioi/Thouria is N Qoupiag yh. . 2 See note 8 above. 0 For this variant sec, for example, Diedoros Siculus I See note 8 above. While there is no obvious reason for a transition from Karvias to KAesviaz, the latter might well have been corrupted to a name appropriate for the creator of a new political order, Closely analogous, but more drastic. is the nomenclature of the tyrant of Hyele responsible for the arrest and death of the presocratic philosopher Zeno. At Plutarch, adv. Kolot. 32 (11264)! Zeno’s tormentor is Demylos and I have argued elsewhere| that didrachms of Hyele of suitable date bearing the legend Al on the reverse in addition to the ethnie of the obverse, put this version of the tyrant’s name beyond reasonable doubt. Elsewhere ! we find the variant Néxpyos. D more important, Timaios© From what we can glean at second or third hand of the acconnts of Aristoxenos 6 and, 12 ii (1968), pp. 113-116 13 The correct name, as well as Nearchos, is also recorded at Clement, Strom. 4.57. I See New Zealand Numismatic fourna lexicon, and Apeiron 2 (1968), pp. 18-20. > See Diodoros 10.182: Valerius Maximus 3 ext. 3: Plulostratos, vit. Apollon, Tyan. 7.2: Diogenes Laertios 9.26: and the Suda s.v. Zenon Telentagorou. Diogenes and the Suda lexicographer, who derive from the same source, give a third variant, Diomedon, ot the tyrant's beeomes Dionysios. name. At Tertullian, Apologetic. 50 and Nemesianus 30 the persecutor 16 On the extensive FI8 Wehrli (=Tamblichus, Vita Pythagorica 248-251) and another Aristoxenean traces see especially von Fritz, PPSI, chapters I and If. 7 The key pas ages are Polybios 2.39 and the long excerpt from Apollonios of Tyana’s dite of Pythagoras at Lamblichos, VP 254-264, Von Fritz (PPSI, p. 55) is not convinced that Timaios was Apellonios’ sole source. Following A. Delatte (Rev. de Viustr. publ. en Belge 52 11909], pp. 904 and W. Bertermann (De Tamblichi Vitae Pythagoricae Fontibus, Diss Königsberg 1913, pp. 37 {hd Minar (EPP. pp. 3-1 19 is less hesitant but considers that Tamblichos may have been careless in his

of the vicissitudes of the early Pythugorcans n Magna Graccia, there emerges a tolerably detailed and reasonably coherent picture of political developments at Kroton from the last decade of the sixth century until a few years before the middle of the fifth, Shortly after the destruction of Sybaris in 511/10", the city’s dominant Pythagorean hetaireia was seriously and effectively challenged by rival groups headed by Kylon ® and Ninon. Pythagorean himself withdrew before dissension came to a head. Then, in rapid succession, there foliowed a period of anti-Pythagoren agitation and populist harangues; attempted mob violence against the hetairoi; alnogation by the demos of allegedly repressive Pythagorean legislation; the death in battle with his fellow eitiziens of the Pythagorean Damakedes who was accused of aiming at tvranuy; and fi nally, bringing one series of upheavals to an end, arbitration by Taras, Metapontion and Kaulonia, which led to the banishment from Kroton of intransigeants of all affiliations ® and other moderate Pythago- Among those who were permitted, or who chose, to remain in the city were Deinarchos F.18) According to lamuse of Apollonios transcription. More recently, at pp. 147-149 of his article « Pythagoras ul Samos (CQ. ns. 7=0.s. SO [1956], pp. 135-156) J.S. Morrison has cautiously upheld an exclusive derivation of Apollonios’ account from Timaios and rightly branded as illusory a gap in the nartative and some confusions for which Minar is inclined to blaine lamblichos. Ik Diodoros 11.90.3. W An erstwhile Pythagorean ejeeted from the brotherhood on the initiative of Pythagoras himself (Aristoxenos, blichos, VP. 74 Kylon was EEapyog LuBapitov at the time of this humiliation. I suggest that wealthy and aristocratic (Aristoxenos, loc. cit.) he had been given official responsibility for the welfare of the 500 Sybarite exiles whose reception at Kroton on Pythagoras’ advice precipitated the war that culminated in Sybaris’ ruin (see Diodoros 12.9.2-41. >» For all these developments ser Tanblichos, VP. 255-262. On Deinarchus, whose role must to some extent be inferred, se fanblichos, VP. 257 ail 263. As Morrison (op. cit, p. 149) observes the 10 | | ij reans who had apparently dissociated themselves from the ich colleagues as Demokedes. Under their diexcesses of rection the Pythagorean association went a long way towards or even achieved the recovery of its hegemony at Kroton and, through local branches of the order established in other poleis of the arca, gradually succeeded in extending its influence throughout Magna Graecia, This renewed ascendancy of the Pythogoreans, which the partisan Aristoxenos 2 saw as a kind of golden age, was abruptly shattered in 454 or 453%. At Kroton and elsewhere their meeting houses were burned down and the leading hetairoi, Deinarchos among then?) lost their lives. The aftermath was niurder, stasis and every kind of disturbance among the Italiote Greek commanities ®, As far as we are able to discern, there was not a hint in Aristoxenos and Timaios, nor in other writers, such as Dikaiarchos and Neanthes ® who dealt with the same Aeydyov of the inferior C, I cannot understand Minar's note 35 on p. 61 «other peril » of the latter passage is obviusly the 454/3 uprising against the Pythagoreans. Since F, the hest ms, has Aervapxou at 257 and not the figure as members of the Krotoniate council at 257. There are three ot EPP. Puzzling is the listing of Deinarchos as a Parios in the general atalogue of Pythagoreans at lamblichos, VP. 267. Together with him appear Alkimachos and Meton, who like Deinarchos and Damokedes generated by the fact that all three were members of a Krotoniate deme possible explanation : 1. the text of the catalogue is profoundly disturbed; 2. like Pythagoras all three were immigrants to Kroton; 3. confusion was 22 See Aristoxenos, F.18. (or some other unit of the citizen body) named Paros. 24 See note 19 above. 23 See the entry for Ol. 81.3 in the Armenian version of Kusebius together with the comments of Minar at EPP, pp. 77 Il 2 For Timaios’ account of the upheavals see especially Polybios 2 For features of the accounts of these two writers see respectively Porphyrios, Vita Pythagorica 56-5 = Dikaiarchos, 7 FF 34 and 35a Wehrli, and 55. In view of Diogea Lacetios 8402 Dikaiarchos, 35h Wehrli it is difficult to follow Morrison (op. cit. p. LAT note 3, in making anthes

events, of a Krotoniate tyranny between the fall of Sybaris in 511/10 and the great uprising against the Pythagoreans of 454/3. And vet such activities as the liberation of slaves, the indiscriminate granting of politeia to other cities’ exiles and refugees and, especially, the execution aud banishment of the énigavéotarct could not but have brougth Kieinias into direct conflict with the Pythagoreans around whose fortunes our other sources’ accounts revolve. Saddled with their deduction from Dionysios that Kleinias was active in or close to 454, von Fritz” and Minar # were compelled to regard his rule as a very transitory episode. A similar expedient would be the inevitable consequence of attempting to intrade him anywhere else in the half century plus between the stated termini. But then a paradox, for if Kleinias regime very truly such a Heeting and ephemeral affair, what possessed Dionysios to cite it alongside the durable and influential Anaxila dynasty at Rhegion as a star example of the catastrophic effects of tyrannis on polis of Magna Graecia? Were Dionysios our sole informant concerning Kleinias. then, in the ligth of the above considerations, one might justifiably feel constrained to explore the possibility of setting his tyramıyzearlier than 511/10. This expedieut, however, runs into direct conflict with Timaios’ assertion# that until the departure of Pythagoras. shortly after the fall of Sybaris, Kroton had continued to enjoy the form of government established when the city was founded. All difheulties are far rather than Dikaiarchos responsible for all the material from Qepexdbnv at Porphyrios, VP 56 to Svapelvavra at 57. Despite Minar’s (EPP, pp. 6568) insistence to the contrary there seems to be no avoiding the coucluston that like Neanthes (see EPP, p. 68) Dikaiurchos ended up confusing the anti-Pythayorean disturbances that followed the fall of Sybaris with those that erupted towards the middle of the fifth century, = PPSI, p. 90. = EPP, pp. Th and 73. # See Tamblichos, VP. 255. more tidily and satisfactorily resolved as soon as we accept the evidence of the glossator that the death at least of Kleinius was subsequent to the inception of Thouria in 44/3 ™, and recognise that once an 2x4 that Valesius intruded into the Dionysios excerpt is discarded, there is no longer any objective reason for insiting that its first three sentences have chronological import. It now becomes possible to set Kleinias rule entirely within the more than usually ill-doeumented period of Krotoniate history between the anti-Pythagorean holocaust of 454 3 and the first invasion of Southern Italy by Dionysios of Syracuse in 390 98%, If there is any significance in the order, Kroton then Rhegion, of the two Italiote exemplars of Dionysios” thesis concerning the effects can we of tyrannis in Magna Graccia, it is that in his opinion Kleinias' regime was even more pernicious and injurious than its Anaxila counterpart. These relatively imprecise conclusions granted, go on to encompass Kleinias’ tyranny within somewhat narrower dates? A first, and major step, is constituted by recognition of ® On the final neo-Sybaris on the original site and the early yeu of its successor Thouria ser e pecially Vo Ehrenberg, AQP 59 (1948), pp. 149-170 and C.M. Kraay, Numismatic Chronicle 1958, pp. 24-29. In my view the lite ary and numismatic indications together are hest satisfied by the following time-table of events: 446/5 - foundation of the last neo-Sybaris on the site of the original foundation; 444/53 - panhellenic reinforcement and (minimal on the present state of the archaelogical evidence) resiting of the settlement whose name is changed to Thouria,’ Thonrioi/Thonrion (see at BI above); e. 440 - after communal feuding the remaining Sybarites withdraw from Thouria to a site on the Traeis river. The primary ancient account is that in Diadoros (see 12,9 ff). As not infrequently, his chronology is deficient and the precise sequence of events becomes confused due to the authors oseillation between à strictly annalistie arrangement and ad hoc xata YÉVOS summation. 3 See Al above. 32 Diodoros 14.103.1,

the improbability of a radical tyranny at Kroton anywhere in the years from c. +40 to 390/89, the lower theoretical terminus. A few years at the most after Thouria’s emergence, what the city and founded the so-called Sybaris-on-Traeis #, Agam survived of its Sybarite element after communal feuding lett shortly after its crystallisation Thouria concluded a treaty of friendship with Kroton ®, There can be little doubt that both the transplantation or migration and the accommodation were results of the diplomatic activity in Magna Graecia of an Achaian embassy from old Hellas. This was summoned to the region, so Timaios informs us®, in the wake of the peried of turmoil ushered in there by the anti Pythagorean outbreaks of 454/3, for the purpose of resolving the Italiote poleis’ troubles. A further consequence, manifesied after its departure, of the mission's good offices # was the formation by Kroton, Kaulonia and Sybaris-on-Traeis7 of an Achaian league analogous to that of the Peleponnesian motherland and their adoption of appropriate individual constitutions. It was only the despotism of Dionysios of Syracuse, the Sikeliote historian adds, and the waxing power of the native peoples of Magna Graecia that enforced the reluctant abandonment of these institution, Although eventually reduced to a membership of two after the fifth century Bruttian conquest of Sybaris-on-Traeis #, the’ league, then, together with the concomitant Achaian style individual polities continued in existence until Dionysios’ transplantation of the Kauloniates in 389/8* and his occupation of Kroton not long after ©. 38 The exact date of the destruction is not known. The wording of Diodoros 12.22.) suggests that the foundation survived for only a few years The mmismatie evidence (lor which see Kraay, Numrismatie Chronicle 1958, pp. 20-32) points the same way. same author (LELLI) dates the fall of Rhegion, after a siege of over ten months, to the first months of 387/6. Disconcertingly, Diodoros fails to include the capture of Kroton among the events of either 388/7 or 39 Diodoros 14.105.3. % The implication of the latter part of Dionvsi of Halikarnassos, 20.7 is that Kroton fell to Dionysios of Syracuse after the tyrant's transplantation of the Hipponiates and before his capture of Rhegion. Diodorus (14.107.2) sets the breaking up of Hipponion early in 388/7, not long after the similar fate of Kanlonia towards the end of 380/8. The 4 ® Diodoros 12,11.3 bearing in mind the final sentence of note 28. 35 See Polybios 2.39. 3% Its only signal failure seems to have been in achieving accord 3 See note 28 above. between Thouria and Taras. According to Diodoros (12.23.2) war between date of their commencement, hostilities between the two poleis 12.36.4 together with Strabo 6.1.14 [264). The to provoke direct Spartan intervention; see Thucydides 6.82.1) Athens’ role in Thouria’s creation and the pro-Athenian bias (which in martan apoikia’s original intransigence will have been determined by in 43372 (Diodoros did not finally tail off until their joint foundation of Herakleia, probably the precise the two poleis broke out in 444/3, but this may be too early. Whatever 387/6. The lapse could well be due, however, to his manifest preoccupation with the epie contest between Dionysios and Phyton. During the investment of Rhegion the former might well have essayed a shock coup de main against a state which, though formally neutral after the Ttaliote disaster at the Eleporos river in late 389/8 (Diodoros 14.104), would have been profoundly sympathetic to the beleaguered. Livy (24.3.8) recalls that Dionysios’ attack was a treacherous one and that the issue w decided by a surprise assault in which a body of troops scaled the clilfs below Kroton’s supposedly impregnable akropolis. Süßer at D.11.20.7 917 w corrupted to IB, is not necessarily wrong, for Dionysios may have temporarily lost control of them in 383/2 (see Diodoros 15.152) and the years immediately following. If his sway was uninterrupted then we must suppose, for example, that at some stage in the transmission of DIES text 19 was as the number of years of Dionysios’ occupation of Kroton and Rhegion (see Diodoros 12.113 where the other nine tribes, as Athenais, Eubois, Nesiotis, Boiotia, Amphiktyonis, Doris, Arkas, Achais and Eleia, are also of the Achaian league. 3% Hardly, as von Fritz (PPST, pp. 72 ff.) would have it on the basis of Diodoros 12.11.3 (where there is no mention of Kanlonia), Thouria. Only about one-tenth of the Thourioi, the membres of the phyle Achais listed) were of Achaian origin.

Kleinias’ tyranny cannot be accomodated within the duration of a coufederation whose institutions were quite in- It follows that Kleinias coup d'etat was staged prior to compatible with repressive dictatorship, nor 1s an autocratic ruler likely to have tolerated, let alone sought, outside intervention in his polis’ affairs such as that of the Achaians in Southern Italy c. 440. The period ce. 440-390/89 thus excluded, only the years immediately after Thonria’s inauguration provide a context for the tyrant’s death. Thouria’s creation, for a maximum of about four years is far too short a period for his rule given the implications of the reference to it by Dionysios of Halikarnassos. If, as seems inevitable, we allow close to a decade at least, Kleinias’ accession to power must fall in the 450%. Within this decade 454/3 is a solid terminus ante quem since the anti-Pythagorean outbreak at Kroton in that year is nowhere linked with a tyrant and according to Timaios was inspired by one Litates or Litages *. Ideal years for the establishment of tyrannis would be late 453/2 or 452/1. In the summer of 453 or the spring of 452 Sybaris was refounded ? The timing was hardly fortuitous. The displaced Sybarites took advantage of their inveterate enemy’s preoccupation with the stasis which had commenced with an attak on Demarchos and his internal dissension Kroton was ripe for authoritarian rule. hetairoi. Powerless to respond to external crises due to her Ouce in the saddle Kleinias, perhaps a strategos or its local equivalent before his assumption of supreme power, proceeded to strengthen his following by way of wholesale N Iamblichos, VP. 263. According to the Suda Lexicon (s.v. Phormion) a Phormion of Kroton 2 Diodoros 11.903. 4 At Hesychios, s.v. Phormion, a bearer of that name is described as graarnyós of the Krotoniates. This, however, is scarcely probative. full discussion of the date see Phoenix 20 [1966], pp. 294-301). was wounded at the battle of the Sagra river (fought in 580 or 576; for 16 an attack. conducted by Kleandridus#, on Terina. grants of citizenship to manumitted slaves and to fugitives and exiles from other poleis. Influential opponents were killed or banished. By 448", after this initial contribution w the troubles of Magna Grecia, Kleinias was sulliciently strong to attack and destroy the new Sybaris, Within two years another had taken its place *. Perhaps deterred by fear of Atheus from precipitous action against this penultimate incarnation of the perennial foe, the tryant was preventively struck down by assussins despatched from its successor. In extenuation of the murder an oracle was concocted implying divine sanction. The immediate consequence of Kleinias death, close to 440, was an attempt by Thouria to exploit militarily her neighbours resulting internal turmoil. The first move may have been Kroton’s sub-colony on the Tyrrhenian side of the isthmus of Catanzaro, Hard-pressed the Krotoniates endeavoured to close political ranks, Through mainland Achaian intermediaries, surviving Pythagoreans were recalled from exile to participate, and in some cases perish, in the conflict +, Shortly after their return, the Achaians were requested, no doubt on the initiative of Kroton which had so recently benefited from their services, to become general arbiters of the turbulent affairs of Magna Gracciu. + See Diudoros 12.101 no reason for expelling from the text mévte Etra Sotepev ved Zsstépou Jovorxtap sd and En’ apyevtes E Aivnar Kakdudyou auvpais® r. I do not share Kraay’s view that Kroton tolerated the existence of a neo-Sybaris in the period c. 500-470: see appendix 1. 5 See note 28 above. “© For which see Polyainos 2.10.1. 7” Thouria’s commander (see Strabo 6.1.14 [264] =Antiochos, FCH # [amblichos, VP. 263. 264. 555 F 11) in her early war with Taras (see note 34 above) Kleandrid as, a disgraced Spartiate, was au original settler of Thouria (see Plutarch, Perikles 22.4 and Nikias 24.4=Timaios, FGH 566 F100).

After a brief experiment ® with the double-relief techdoubt that this occurred later than 440. The crucial evidence is provided by two hoards, Noe 277 (133 coins) and Noe 506 (24 coins), found in Southern Italy in 1927. Both contain Thuriote didrachms which indicate a burial date well after 440, Of the 51 coins of Kroton in Noe 277 only two are not incuse and these belong to the early double relief group of nique ® €. 475-470, Kroton reverted to the issue of the dum- 475/470. All three Krotoniate staters in Noe 506 are incuse *, It would be satisfyng to be able to point to some feature of Kroton’s coinage of the decade c. 450-440 which could be brought into connection with Kleinias’ tyranny. This. however, is not possible. py? incuse staters with crane sub-symbol which had become her staple coinage by 480. The tripod/erane combination was persevered with until, and briefly survived, her lival abandonment of the incuse fabric #. There can be little 42 Iuspired, not doubt, by Poseidonia’s and Kaulonia’s (final) abandonment of the incuse fabric at this time: see Kraay NC 1959, pp. 59 fl. 40 The coins concerned are staters struck on extremely squat flans with a tripod unaccompanied by sub-symbols on both obverse and reverse: in addition to the ethnic alongside the tripod some of the observes have the letters ay or ya (not at or ta: the single barred letter ninst be gamma since three-barred ieta continued in munismatic use among the Achaian apoikiai of Magna Graecia well into the second half of the fifth century - sce LS. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. pp. 248-249), either progressive or retrograde in exergue. The surest indication of their position within (compare Kraay, NC 1959, p. 62 note 2) the dumpy (ee the following note) ineuse tripod/crane series is the treatment of the tripod. In some cases there are three circular handles, in others a single cirewar handle beetwen two straight projections, ‘The earlier dumpy incuse tripod/erane staters, like the analogous medium Gee again the following note) incuse pieces that preceded them have a three-handled tripod. Later on in the series the one-handled variety tukes over. j 3 For distinction and definition of three successive phases («spread» - with flan diameter above 25 mms «medium» - with flan diameter of 24-22 mums « dumpy » - whit flan diameter of 21 mm. or less) of the incuse coinages of Magna Gracia, and for a rough chronology ot their The coexistence of political upheaval and numismatic conservatism is not, of course, remarkable. After rapid stabilisation # the format of Athens’ « owls » with the head of Athena unwreathed remained unchanged through the final years of the Peisistratid tyranny, the 511/10-509/8 oligarchy, the « dominatio » of Isagoras, and almost three decades of Kleisthenie democracy 5. tripod within a relief border, obviously modelled on its ineuse analogue, af roughly concentric dashes: within the exerque appears the letter a. “ A similar picture emerges from Metapontion (which unlike Kroton did not indulge in early experiments with the double-relief technique. Of 11 Metapoutine staters in Noe 277, LO are incuse and singule double relief specimen is N. 310 which shares au obverse die with the incusi. Of the pair of Metapontine staters in Noe 506 one is incuse and the other N. 210, At Within Seltmars group 11. 5 On the ehrouology of the carly owls ser especially Kraay NC 1956, pp. 43-68 and NC 1962, pp. 417-423 and my own observations at Ant. Class. 38 (1969), pp. 175-180. succession see Kraay, NC 1959, pp. 59 ft. 52 The earliest batch of Kroton’s second issue of double-relief staters is represented by SNG Oxford-Ashmolean Museum, No. 1499. Tripod and crane appear on the observe. The reverse has an unaccompanied

APPENDIX 1 At Diodoros 11.90.3-4 we are informed that in the archon vear of Lysikrates (453/2, fifty-eight years after the destruction of Sybaris by the men of Kroton, a man named Thessalos gathered together the surviving Sybarites and 88 days they rapidly prospered, atusyévres di Tv nédtv Etn Ohiya nos tiv Mipagty. Since the settlers possesser a fertile land nähiv êlénezov x 1%: NuBapews. Diodoros then promises to incompatible with the view of C. M. Kraay! that ce. 500, agive more detail about the catastrophe in the following book. The promise is honoured, in a fashion, at 12.16.1-2. As a prelude to an account of the inception and the institutions „of Thouria, Diodoros summarily recapitulates the chequered history of its predecessor. The refoundation of 453/2 is recalled and then he continues: zat per’ éAtyov ond Kpotwviatv aléneosv névre Etesiv Savesov TD Seutépov GUVOLALO|Lod Kak zede Gmexetpéveus xatoous. This statement, which goes back probably to Timaios, possibly to Ephoros, is obviously of a neo-Sybaris (« Sbyaris Ho») which minted. staters, triobout a decade after the total and literal obliterating? of the original polis, Kroton permitted the accretiou or foundation bols and obols and survived until g. 470. E am unable to accept the existence of such an entity and offer the following observations by way of justification and defence of this ne1. Having described the fall and sack of Miletos, the gative position, final act in the Ionian revolt against Persia instigated by A1 Numismatic Chronicle 1958, pp. 14-16. Up to a point his view is anticipated by, for example, Minar at EPP, pp. 36-37. 2 See Herodotos 5.44-45 and Diodorus 12.10.1. 20 and instructed his brother Polyzelos to cross with it into ristagoras, Herodotos? notes that the men of Sybaris who dwelt in Laos* and Skidros? after the loss of their city did not reciprocate the gesture of the Milesians in response to the extirpation of Sybaris. The Milesians, he hastens to explain, had shaved their heads and gone into deep mourning because of the friendship between the two poleis. The logical deduction is that c. 494 there were no Sybarites in the Sybaritis and thus no Sybaris IL 2. In the archon year of Phaidon (476/5) Sybarites besieged by the Krotoniates sought the aid of Hieron of Syracuse. The tyrant promptly gathered an expeditionary force Southern Italy, Suspecting that Hieron, resentiul of his popularity, was deviously endeavouring to encompass his exile or even death, Polyzelos refused to embark. Thus Diodoros 11.48.3-5. According to scholion b* to Pindar, Olympian 2.29 (15) which in all probability is based on the same source, Hieron is represented as attempting to despatch Polyzelos els dvotntapov Nupdagews. If Sybaris was in need of refoundation at the time of the appeal to Hieron, there can have been no Sybaris IL in existence in 476/5. The appellants were the Sybarites resident at Laos and Skidros. Kroton’s attacks were no doubt motivated by the threat, actual or potential, which the exiles. together with the Lainoi and Skidranoı, presented to her control of overland portages between the lonian and Tyrrhenian seas. From Hieron’s point of view the refoundation of Sybaris would have served to relieve too Hieron allegedly gave his brother the command with ulterior motive 3 Herodotos 6.21. + Situated on the western coast of Southern Italy close to the mouth of the river Lao; see Strabo 6.1.1.(253; and J. Bérard, La Colonisation Grecque, Paris 1957, p. 147. 5 Almost certainly situated close ta Laos, perhaps in the vicinity of Belvedere Marittima, see Bérard, op. cit. pp. 146-147. 6 1 do not share the view of, for example, I. Giaceri (Storia della Magna Grecia 2, Vol. ii, p. 231) and F. Jacoby (Commentary on Timaios, FCH 566 F 93) that there was a rival tradition to the effect that Polyzelos deferred to his brother and brought the war in Southern Italy to the required conclusion. The author of Scholion d has confused the declined campaign with Polyzelos’ successfully undertaken one (on which see scholion c) against Syracuse’s non-Greek perioikoi. On this occasion

Krotoniate pressure on Epizephyriau Lokroi, an Italiote satellite of the Deinomenidai*, and to ensure the goodwill of the strategically placed Laos and Skidros in his confrontation® with Carthage’s Etruscan allies. 5. The three destructions of Sybaris referred to in an oracle cited at Plutarch, de ser. num. vind, 12 (557 ©) are those of Sybaris proper in 511/10 and 449/58 and that of Sybaris-on-Tracis some years after c. 440°. 1, Coins that Kruuy ® regards as issues of Sybaris IT are to be reallocated as follows: u. Staters, all struck From a single obverse die, bearing the name and tripod of Kroton on the obverse, and the name and bull of Sybaris incuse on the reverse are a victory issue of Kroton ". b. Triobols and obols with bull (of somewhat maturer style than that of the bulk of the Sybarite staters and drachms and of the earlier obols with reverse MY observe and amphora and acorn reverse respectively represent mass issues of the tyrant Telys for military purposes in the period immeSee, for example, Pindar, Pythian 2.18-29 together with the scholia. ® Which culminated in the battle of Kymai in 474. * See note 38 to the main text. 18 See NC 1958, pp. 14-16 and 32-36. So too the staters with the name and tripod of Kroton on the obverse and on the reverse the bull of Sybaris facing either right or left within an inense frame and the legend MMavBo. At least five obverse dies are coupled with five or six reverses in various combinations. HayvSo(gia: has hitherto been taken for the community Pandosia on Akherou (sce Bérard, Colonisation, pp. 148-149) which coined in the second half of the fitth century. But is it inconceivable that the Krotoniates, influenced as they were at the time by Pythagoras’ puritanical prescriptions, labelled the ranquished Sybaris (not entirely unreasonably to judge by the tenor of the logoi Sybaritikoi as «harlot » (for this application of ravSogia see Anakreon, F 122 Edmonds and Com. Adesp. F 1352 Kock)? Recourse to the incuse frame reverse was no doubt dictated by technical difliculties (surmountable with a reverse type such as a fiving eagle) in coupling the tripod obverse with a straight ball incuse. The Kroton/Pandosia stater Vienna 5.597 shares a common obverse with the unique tripod/helmet (typifying spoils of the Sybaris war offered as prizes at a victory athletic contest?) incuse stater Berlin 370/1875. This is surely proof of minting ut Kraton. on the amphora triobols and acorn obols, the bull is rendered diately before and including 511/10. Hence the coarseness of design and crudity of technique often in evidence . Also to be reassigned to Sybaris 1 are three incuse staters, all struck from the same pair of dies, on which, as in an tmusually sophisticated manner. The width of the Hans (e. 30mm) of these pieces is quite inconsistent with a date later than 511/10. But that year Kroton was striking staters, for example the victory coins, on reduced (24-22 mm.) Hans © and there are extaut a few staters ®, for independent reasons clearly late in the series, of Sybaris I itself of similar dimenSIONS, d. Most troublesome are the tripod/buil. Sybaris/Laos staters discussed at considerable length by Kraay in 1958". Their authenticity was confirmed by the subsequent appearance of a Further specimen in a hoard 5, On the observe the tripod of Kroton is acompanied by an octopus sub-symbol and the ethnic MY retrograde. Ou the reverse within an incuse border of radiating lines appear the Sybarite bull in relief together with the ethnic AAF retrograde. The closest parallel is offered hy the Krotoniate vietory staters of 511/10, but the absence of direct reference to Kroton and heterodox and uncouth features of the types and fabric seem to guarantee an origin elsewhere. These pieces are best regarded. I suggest, as an omission of Laos shortly after the arrival there of displaced Sybarites. Lainoi and refugees from the metropolis (hence the appearance of the Sybarite ethuic ou the obverse rather than the reverse) sought to cusure the survival of the subcolony by timely, but purely tactical to hegemony. judge by the situation in 4176/5, acknowledgement of Krotoniute New Zealand Nam- 12 That is «medium» incuse; see note 51 to the main test. B For example, the medium ineuse Vienna 4,599 which TE discussed. and misguidediy attributed to Kraay's Sybaris IL, at ismatic Journal (12.iv (1969), pp. 148-151. Above the bull, again abnormally sophisticated, of the obverse is a deuticulate leaf. Is it meant for a leaf of the tic (fenugreek; one of the Trigonella Family) and thus a canting device of the tyrant Telys? ' Kraay: private communication. 11 NC. 1958, pp. 32-36, 16 In particular the hull in full relief and the strange tratmeat of the octopus.

HOJOIN WON IUD GES SODA) sottoBorg] JP potro pri App SIY Taye paumen Jo WOT punis oy VARY Jo IEA NOJOIN ZOU 1! OP LOS AP Arjon ony 10] meo. Kdl 104 TOUS TOAD SLOP) 00] ‘fumo A opgisuodsos Apqrgord Stay Sy SOTUIVOSSE stij pu ser wari Jo sossoaons pronyod ayy Aq poBemorte ‘ora sons pore ALL OG 9 MIU] EP SU Opr] „ tonttodezagy Je mo GI ony PaHOHOuNp SR PER)» st Aumui 2 u SOA à porn oO NICNAd dV CYS ‘d'A SOY I qtury hansen noe) Buorren) Gor nz Ink | “IE rohLo Shy toa no tex te SonailonzA Mongdh Stor ancovny 10% Eapro ado} dhKERST 301LIEASAi al SL ata ‘324 6242004] Gor Acherchnm porc DI) LAD mivingosta aliyoo i OILLOICY, 29 IAG È hog wiaccongd nn vi ‘vague î943 DEL 4 PEACEN A niger SOCEGAKMG TP amines Bl nrs ta da ‘inaghoncny a) ied LEIAMLOC NM AGL RN uelzano omalnporuonig Go word AGL ANSEL fog iicu Ii agdodiiao altr grani wig .amlavau Gor giu eine Sealy 4 RLAEAK NS SxERO 13429 na 5 ULM AN casna wy uy el SL Pomp Bury ay Je SOP stuoftif ah LAUDE} PRALU SSOMWEL vy O7 ANI] St“; 197 AEG JO SU Y'A MUF JO NONDDS Stg JO VosNOs ABU] dp “HOS UP w UL) 4 WOOLY ver o . # PIP au) x pur UUITENS Cr 1 SOQOIPE: WHY UTLLIOFSEN mi HOIRUISSESST SE “AP OUD PIMO[[O] IPH PLO ga aay ony SL SHOP sepa 2105) 10} ojqistodsar se payuasaidos gdoddas ayy ‘uojocy poo “PAL SPAIN UO] PUR SORT Yup 07 Us [ru API “HOUR, Jr Weg HOW Jp ‘apoqted Ay urnsmand [upinojoo prada smut Sousyou pre salgoruderg Bu sun HL stuurd yo pads quanbosqus Jup pur yrarqqno trosoftipgA gent e/ret oi ya Biuwpode „ sEpPAYesy PAULI OF PFLABoZ sutaos 1 ‘puoAoq MOAI LO SOEP MZ OPM Apisto sn Burg por stuoftnogg jo pry mew TIENNOIY “[ [Red pourubor at} 4° TE MEt EN INA TUT ayy OPS à SEL ROE SIUSI 406 « EP EE Saas OIL deubiagos ay AUTO] Ot op SUPERS ‘opdr: dop ore} AMADOR JO SMS QE UU PAUsisst puro, 9/66 03 Ary 40} DN 4 ie R u Xpunaedde Solarpj SenaBorcp LOE GAL COPY Ui SR] CURE POLL A Sn ‘Mot STOEI y MOSSADIUS JIAUP SLY SEM LOS SUIONBURIA SOLOK sauahaicy MATA OU ur pg oBrssed Sg Mo’ woop Afuessoaar you op I SEY jo douane op PEEN LR] ety vj sort porumehnosant où qui soqroipri doguodezafy jo OWMIOHGÄL I Ruome 195 "LA SOHOQUIEL aurel =de SIP] sougnorg sm A santo Sum SUE AT Sopemmmgory à moa no DÀ stoel 943 Jo uogeue[dxo N DEU OU 07 OG Mon UL paquosop JO SAIS folpar-o]Quop Jp OUT DR 9 OM pio veur Uno wo se APS vo Jo AAN SI] & UOJOAN MON] GHO LINE 209 CSHOPNJRIË sl (PG "UIT EIS OP STALIN SUPPORT) Je SET vt) uo) ANQYILdAT oy uongrpusue S 14200 IN WEU AYP OP LE MOH 008 “MOOI SE SUDELE]SO] JOUR RIND MEL CEE) U yo do SUN PAS 4 BEETS “doy ‘OSS Op SNA snie | IIG CAUSES GP pri) Vip leq EGJ IV es Soren, jo Asn soBoap/snunsnf Je voreistewop dog “FOT SIUSI