photo pl. 47; SEG 24.300; Étienne and Knoepfler 1976: 215–16; Lazzarini 1976: 316 no. 957); cf. Kunze 1991: 128 no. 8.
21. SEG 11.1202 (Jeffery 1990: 95 no. 12; Lazzarini 1976: 316 no. 958); SEG 15.245 (Lazzarini 1976: 317 no. 968 with Étienne and Knoepfler 1976: 215–18).
22. Étienne and Knoepfler 1976: 217–18. The conclusion drawn from these dedications by Ducat 1973: 66, that there existed a formal Boiotian koinon at this time, which nevertheless permitted its members to wage separate wars, defies the evidence and reads too much into the coinage.
23. Whitley 2004/5: 46; Aravantinos 2006: 371; Angelos Matthaiou per epist. Aravantinos 2010: 166–67 publishes photographs of two of the plaques, now in the Thebes Museum. One is described as containing “an account of the receipt or payment of public money” and the other as “a list of properties that were confiscated or sold by the city for unknown reasons,” suggesting that these two at least reflect internal Theban conditions rather than interpolis relations in Boiotia. Their full publication is eagerly awaited.
24. For full discussion see below, pp. 248–49.
25. E.g., Head 1881: 10; Larsen 1968: 29, 32; Ducat 1973: 71–72; R. J. Buck 1979: 111 and 2008: 26.
26. On sovereignty and coinage see T. R. Martin 1985. The argument that such coinages should be seen as economic instruments and indications of economic cooperation is developed in detail by Mackil and van Alfen 2006.
27. So Schachter 1989: 85: “It is not certain when the Boiotoi formed themselves into a federation: the date of the introduction of coinage can no longer be considered relevant to this question.” Cf. Hansen 1995a: 31; Larson 2007: 68–72.
28. Crawford 1970; Howgego 1990; Kim 2001, 2002.
29. Hdt. 6.108.2, Th. 3.68.5 with Wells 1905: 197–200; Gomme in Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover 1945–81: II.358; Prandi 1988: 27–41; Badian 1989: 103 n. 16; Hornblower 1991–2008: I.464–65 (with references to earlier scholars who emend the text of Thucydides and date the attack to 509 or 506).
30. How and Wells 1912: II.110; Scott 2005: 375–77. Waanders 1983: 111 compares the phrase to Hdt. 2.51.2, where it means “be counted amongst,” and attributes the same meaning to this passage. But I suspect it is actually more complicated and refers in part to financial contributions; see below p. 295.
31. Contra Consolo Langher 2004: 320, who assumes the existence of a formal koinon under Theban hegemony by this period and supposes that it was already in place when the Homeric Catalogue of Ships was composed.
32. It was long argued that the alliance of Boiotia and Chalkis produced a coinage, known from only two specimens bearing the cutout shield on the obverse (one example of which has an epichoric chi) and a wheel on the reverse: Imhoof-Blumer 1883: 221; cf. W. P. Wallace 1962: 38 n. 2. But the association is actually quite uncertain: the variety of coin types produced by individual mints in the late sixth century, and by Chalkis in particular, means that we should be cautious about associating a specific type with a specific mint unless there is a much larger volume than two specimens, and these coins, minted in the last quarter of the sixth century, are so early that not even the Boiotians could have claimed the cutout shield as their distinctive device, which is a basic requirement for the old argument to hold any water. Along these lines see Kraay 1976: 109; MacDonald 1987–88. On the coalition against Athens see Tausend 1992: 118–23.
33. Hdt. 5.77.1–2. The Athenian dead from this battle may be commemorated in Simonides Elegies frr. 10–17 (West 1972).
34. Hdt. 5.79.2.
35. Hdt. 5.80.1 explains the genealogy: Asopos (the river delimiting the territories of Thebes and Plataia after the Corinthian arbitration of 519) had two daughters, Thebe and Aigina.
36. Boiotian Medism: Hdt. 7.132.1; cf. Diod. Sic. 11.3.2. Thebans on Greek side at Thermopylai: Hdt. 7.205, 222; Diod. Sic. 11.4.7.
37. Hdt. 8.34, 50.2; cf. Diod. Sic. 11.14.5.
38. R. J. Buck 1979: 132 speculates that “a split had arisen in the League” after the abortive allied expedition to Tempe in 481 (Hdt. 7.173), in which Buck believes the Boiotians participated. His argument hinges on the dubious assumption that Plut. De mal. Her. 32 is based on Aristophanes the Boiotian (FGrHist 369), which even if true proves nothing about Boiotian participation in that expedition.
39. Boiotarchs in Herodotos as anachronism: Jacoby, FGrHist III Kommentar 162; Demand 1982: 18. But Herodotos’s claim may now be corroborated: an unpublished bronze plaque records a dedication by a boiotarch (Aravantinos 2010: 233). The provenance is not reported, but if it is a dedication to Herakles it is certainly from Thebes. The epigraphic boiotarch is, in other words, highly likely to have been a Theban. Aravantinos places the inscription in the early fifth century, but the grounds for this date are not clear; on epigraphic grounds alone the text could belong anywhere in the first half of the fifth century. Many have taken Herodotos’s boiotarchs as evidence for a full-fledged koinon: e.g., Waterfield 1998: 157; R. J. Buck 1979: 124 (cf. 89).
40. Attaginos’s banquet: Hdt. 9.115.4. Timagenides and Mardonios before Plataia: Hdt. 9.38.2.
41. Th. 3.62.3. Hornblower 1991–2008: I.457 translates the phrase as “small family clique.”
42. Hdt. 9.87.2.
43. Cf. Hdt. 7.144.1 (Athens).
44. How and Wells 1912: II.326; Masaracchia 1978: 197.
45. Cf. Hdt. 1. 67.5 (Sparta); 3.80.6 (debate on constitutions, here used for an isonomic government that debates issues); 5.85.1 (Athens), 109.3 (Ionians, which may have a very similar connotation to the use of the word in the Boiotian context; some manuscripts read κοινὰ here instead of κοινὸν); 6.14.3 (Samos); 8.135.2 (Boiotia again); 9.117 (Athens). Contra Moretti 1962: 118, “con la parola koinon può intendersi non l’insieme dei Tebani, ma la federazione beotica, il commune Boeotorum.”
46. Hdt. 9.88.
47. Siewert 1981.
48. Busolt 1897: 312–13; Beloch 1912–27: II.1.58; Glotz 1925–41: II.92; Moretti 1962: 124 (both citing Diod. Sic. 11.81.2–3; Justin 3.6.10); Larsen 1968: 32; Sordi 1968: 66; Bradeen 1964: 217–18; R. J. Buck 1979: 141. The argument against this kind of analysis is well presented by Amit 1971, 1973: 86–87.
49. Th. 2.71.2 for Plataian autonomy, with Hansen 1995a: 34–35, 1995b. There has been much inconclusive argument about whether Plataia now joined “the Boiotian League,” but if it is correct that there were only informal cooperative structures and a Theban urge for more, then this is a moot point. Amit 1973: 87 tries to have it both ways, arguing that before the Persian Wars “the Boeotian League was a loose confederation based upon religion and common interests; it had no tight political organisation and no common foreign policy,” and was not dissolved in 479, but also insisting that in the years after 479 Plataia had a formal “right of sending representatives to the federal council,” which was appropriated by the Thebans in 446. Amit is clearly thinking here of the institution of federal districts, which probably dates back to 446 but not before.
50. Th. 3.62.5, a rhetorical remark, to be sure (Hornblower 1991–2008: I.455–58), should not be taken at face value (as does Bradeen 1964: 218); Arist. Rhet. 1407a2–6 may reflect on this period.
51. Th. 1.107.2–108.2; Diod. Sic. 11.79.4–11.80.2, 6, with variant details. Hdt. 9.35.2 and Plut. Cim. 17.6 claim victory for the Spartans. The Spartans too claimed it as a victory and dedicated a golden shield for the pediment
