list for the battle: IG I3 1149 with a new fragment (Papazarkadas and Sourlas 2012).
52. Th. 1.108.2; Fossey 1988: 58–60 for the location of Oinophyta.
53. Compare the expedition to Thessaly in 454/3: Th. 1.111.1. So Hornblower 2002: 43; Hornblower 1991–2008: I.172.
54. This claim, combined with the hints of stasis within Boiotia between 479 and 457, may point to ongoing strife as the internal context in which the Athenian occupation should be situated; see Gehrke 1985: 165–67.
55. This section comes after Diodoros’s principal narrative of the battle of Tanagra (for which see below), but he records, problematically, two battles at Tanagra, and the mention of the Theban-Spartan bargain is placed before the second one (11.81.4–82.5). But as Busolt 1897: 319 n. 2 made clear, the “second” battle of Tanagra in Diodoros matches Thucydides’ narrative of Oinophyta (for which see below) so closely that we have to conclude Diodoros has made a mistake. Justin 3.6.10–11 likewise records the bargain, and it is accepted by Badian 1993: 213 n. 50. Whether the bargain was struck before or after the battle of Tanagra is unclear.
56. Th. 1.103.4, 105.3–106.2. See Green 2006: 159 n. 329 for a different (and to my mind unpersuasive) chronology.
57. Diod. Sic. 11.81.3–4. R. J. Buck 2008: 26 supposes that the Athenians intervened in Boiotia in 457 because they saw a “League in stasis” as an invitation for conquest. But there is no good evidence for a formal “League” (by which Buck means a formal federal state), nor does this supposition take cognizance of the literary sources recording the context in which the Athenians invaded.
58. Busolt 1897: 312–13; Beloch 1912–27: II.1.169; Hammond 1986: 294; Moretti 1962: 126; Larsen 1968: 32.
59. Walls of Tanagra: Th. 1.108.2; Diod. Sic. 11.82.5. The cutting and destroying refer certainly to economic warfare (cutting down trees and vines, destroying crops), not to the carving up of Boiotia itself as a metaphor for the dismantling of a Boiotian league, which, as we have seen, was barely institutionalized in this period if it functioned at all, existing only in particular configurations of behavior.
60. Th. 1.108.3; cf. Diod. Sic. 11.83.3 (part of his second narrative of Oinophyta; the source of the repetition has been debated: R. J. Buck 1970: 220, following Busolt 1897: 319 n. 2; Barber 1935: 93–94; and Jacoby, FGrHist IIC 33 and comm. on 70 F 231).
61. T1a records the original dedication; T1b records a replacement, with a different word order, and this was the version seen by Hdt. (5.77) and Paus. (1.28.2).
62. Arist. Pol. 1302b29–32 with Ps.-Xen. Ath.Pol. 3.10–11 for Athenian support for Boiotian oligarchs. Diod. Sic. 11.83.1, claims that the Athenians gained control of all Boiotia except Thebes after Oinophyta; this may reflect the failure of democracy to take root in the city, as reported by Aristotle. See Larsen 1960b: 9–10.
63. Th. 1.103.3; Diod. Sic. 11.84.7; Badian 1990: 367–68.
64. Pharsalos: Th. 1.111.1 with ATL III.178; cf. Hornblower 2002: 81–82; R. J. Buck 1970: 223; T. R. Martin 1985: 74–75. Tribute: Lewis in CAH V2: 116 n. 72 suggests reading in the Athenian tribute list for 454/3 (IG I3 259.III.20) not Ἀκρ[οτερíοι] : ΗΗΗ but Ἀκρ[αιφνíο]ι: ΗΗH which would make Akraiphia a tributary ally. Lewis 1981: 77 n. 43 suggests restoring the tribute list for 453/2, ATL 2 col. IX line 9 (IG I3 260.IX.9) as [hερχομ]ένιοι, which would make Orchomenos tributary. The editors of ATL I.2.IX.9 read [Κλαζομ]ένιοι, but Camp 1974: 314–18 published a new fragment of the same list, containing parts of cols. VII and VIII. In col. VIII.6 of this new fragment, Κλαζομέν[ιοι] is clearly read; an alternative must be found for col. IX.9; the stoichedon arrangement of text allows room for six letters. Camp 1974: 317 follows McGregor’s suggestion that this could be restored [Κυζζικ]ενοí, questioning whether the first iota was really such or rather a stray mason’s mark. This restoration was retained by McGregor 1976. Lewis’s suggestion is the first proposed alternative; he points to IG I3 73.23 as a parallel for the spelling of the name, but here too it is restored (again stoichedon). The Orchomenians themselves in this period began their name with ΕΡ, unaspirated (as shown by the coins and the earlier inscription from Olympia, SEG 11.1208).
65. Th. 1.113.1.
66. Hellanikos FGrHist 4 F 81; Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 407; Aristophanes FGrHist 379 F 3. Larsen 1960b plays down the role of exiles from other communities, arguing that Orchomenos as a polis took the lead in the liberation. This relies on an inference that the text of Thucydides (1.113) does not support.
Yet Dull 1977, arguing against Larsen’s theory, falls into a different trap. His argument that the verb orchomenizein means not “to support the exiles who converged on Orchomenos” but rather the opposite, “to resist annexation, to be independent, to revolt,” relies on three irrelevant facts: first, that Orchomenos is listed separately from the Boiotians in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships; second, that Orchomenos did not participate in the Boiotian cooperative coinage until the fourth century; and third, that Orchomenos preserved a mythological tradition about its population’s origins distinct from that of the Boiotoi. What is clear is that Orchomenos was used as a base for the Boiotians who had been exiled by occupying Athenian forces in the rising that affected the expulsion of the Athenians from the region. Farinetti 2008: 286 explains the use of Orchomenos as a base for the anti-Athenian rising as a function of the city’s strong oligarchic ideology.
67. Th. 1.113.1–2. It is odd that Tolmides would not have headed straight for Orchomenos after enslaving and garrisoning Chaironeia; R. J. Buck 1970: 225 may be correct in supposing that the Athenians were in the process of mustering a larger force when Tolmides’ army was attacked (Diod. Sic. 12.6.2 uses the language of ambush), which would explain the move toward the southeast.
68. Th. 1.113.3–4. Cf. Diod. Sic. 12.6.1–2.
69. Th. 1.114.3; Diod. Sic. 12.7; Plut. Per. 22.1–2 for Pericles’ quick and successful campaign against Euboia; ML 51–52. This was certainly provoked in part by the cleruchy set up on Euboia (Diod. Sic. 11.88.3, Paus. 1.27.5), but the date at which that occurred is quite unclear (Diod. Sic. puts it in 453, and Green 2006: 169–70 n. 364 defends his author’s claim; Meiggs 1972: 122 puts it in 450, and Erxleben 1975: 85–86 leans back closer to Diodoros’s date; but Meritt et al. in ATL III.294 and Brunt 1967: 81 argue for 447 or 446), and it is any case hard to see the orchestration of the Megarian and Euboian revolts except as a response to the Athenian defeat in Boiotia, the territory that lay between them. The sense of defeat is effectively conveyed by an epigram for Athenian war dead, which has been associated with Koroneia: IG I3 1163d–f; casualty list: IG I3 1163a–c, with Peek 1933 and 1955, Bowra 1938, Bradeen 1964 and 1969, Meiggs 1966, Clairmont 1983. But it may belong to Delion (Mattingly 1963, 1966a) or—and I think this is unlikely—to the Sicilian Expedition (Papagiannopoulos-Palaios 1965–66, Mastrokostas 1955a, Koumanoudes 1964, Tsirigoti-Drakotou 2000). See Papazarkadas 2009a: 76.
70. Th. 1.87.6, 115; 2.21; 4.21.3.
71. IG I3 23.
72. Diod. Sic. 12.11.3. For the various stages of the foundation process at Thourioi see Fischer-Hansen, Nielsen, and Ampolo in Hansen and Nielsen 2004: 304–6.
73. Larsen 1968: 31–33 (recognizing, however, the innovations of the post-447 government); Bruce 1968: 190; Hornblower 1991–2008: I.239 (who is more cautious); Hansen 1995a: 13, 35.
74. See in particular Amit 1971, followed by R. J. Buck 1979: 154.
75. Larsen 1960b: 11; cf. Larsen 1968: 32–33 contra Dull 1977.
