the simple notation T (Text) and the number. (E.g., T23 indicates Text 23 in the dossier.)
The dossier does not make any pretensions to comprehensiveness. The selection is certainly idiosyncratic, reflecting those practices and institutions that seem to me most important for a full and nuanced understanding of both the nature of the Greek koinon and its developmental trajectory over the course of the archaic, classical, and Hellenistic periods. It is also selective in its geographical focus: excluding interesting and comparable texts from Lokris, Thessaly, and the Chalkidike, among other regions, in favor of a fairly representative collection of relevant documents from the three koina that form the focus of this study and that also happen to provide us with the richest epigraphic evidence. Nor have I attempted to place in the dossier every epigraphic source I discuss in the body of the book, but I have rather limited inclusion to those texts that are particularly important and revealing; or pose challenges of interpretation that require detailed discussion of issues that may be ancillary to the main argument and are therefore relegated to the commentary on the text in the dossier; or else are of such significance on a variety of issues that they are discussed at some length in several different places in the main body of the book. It is hoped that readers with a particular interest in the epigraphic evidence that is so central to this study will find in the dossier the technical and bibliographic details they seek, while more general readers and those interested in the larger argument will profit from a text relatively unencumbered by such technical details.
1. Riker 1987: 6–7.
2. G. Smith 1995; Stepan 1999; Kymlicka 2007. On the limitations of this approach see de Schutter 2011.
3. If we may use Hansen and Nielsen 2004 as a comprehensive list of poleis in existence by this period, 183 of the 456 poleis of mainland Greece and the Peloponnese (40%) certainly belonged to one koinon or another. This does not include poleis that were situated within regions where koina developed but whose participation is not clearly attested; in most cases their membership is likely, and if these cases were included, the total percentage would be in the range of 46–50 percent. Cf. Mackil 2012: 305–6. All dates are BCE unless otherwise noted.
4. McInerney 1999: 156, 173–78 (Phokis, in response to Thessalian hostility); Lehmann 1983b (Boiotia, also in response to Thessalian hostility); Scholten 2000: 2 (Aitolia, in response to outside attacks from several quarters); F. W. Walbank 1976–77: 51; Roy 2003 (Hellenistic Achaia).
5. Larsen 1968, itself the first systematic approach to the subject since Freeman 1893. Beck 1997 provides a systematic analysis but does so largely case-by-case and limits his chronological scope to the fourth century. Note that a multiauthored volume attempting to update Larsen with fresh considerations of every federal state in Greek history is now in progress: Beck and Funke 2013.
6. E.g., Nottmeyer 1995a, b, Morgan and Hall 1996, Rizakis 2008b (Achaia); Funke 1985, Scholten 2000 (Aitolia); Schoch 1996, Dany 1999 (Akarnania); Nielsen 1996c (Arkadia); P. Salmon 1978, Buckler 1980b, R. J. Buck 1994 (Boiotia); Zahrnt 1971, Psoma 2001 (Chalkideis); Nielsen 2000 (Lokris); Behrwald 2000, Domingo Gygax 2001 (Lykia); McInerney 1999 (Phokis). The proceedings of several conferences on the topic, spurred by the emergence of the European Union, have also been published: Buraselis 1994; Aigner Foresti et al. 1994; Buraselis and Zoumboulakis 2003.
7. Sidelong glances will nevertheless be taken on occasion at other cases where the evidence is particularly rich or clear and seems for that reason to shed light on murkier hints in the evidence for our central case studies.
8. Bintliff 1999; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007; Morgan and Hall 1996; Petropoulos and Rizakis 1994; Funke 1987, 1991.
9. See Freitag 2000: 309–406 on the interactions and mobility facilitated by the Gulf of Corinth.
10. Graninger 2011 appeared too late for proper consultation.
11. Larsen 1968: xi–xii and F. W. Walbank 1970a note the almost complete absence of federal theory. Lehmann 2000: 34–61 detects hints of a response to lost passages of Aristotle in lost passages of Polybios. Despite some expressions of enthusiasm about this “discovery” (Beck 2003: 188, “a quantum leap in the understanding of ancient perceptions of federalism”), it tells us nothing more than that the topic was on the agenda. It does not help us to understand what the Greeks thought a koinon really was. Cf. Funke 1998. The demonstration that particular ancient authors detected what we can see as fundamental political principles of the koinon, like the division of authority between polis and koinon, and the extension of the political power of a koinon by means of the integration of new member poleis (Beck 2001), is more productive.
12. Thus for many years the biggest debate about the Achaian federal state has been the composition of its assemblies: Aymard 1938; Larsen 1955: 165–88 and 1972; Giovannini 1969; F. W. Walbank 1957–79: III.406–14 and 1970b; O’Neil 1980; Lehmann 1983a: 251–61, 2000: 70–81. Similar efforts were expended on the Aitolian assemblies: Mitsos 1947; Larsen 1952. A recent preoccupation with the composition of the college of boiotarchs, the highest magistrates of the Boiotian federal state in the fourth century, shows that this focus persists: Knoepfler 1978: 379 and 2000; Buckler 1979 (reprinted in Buckler and Beck 2008: 87–98); Bakhuizen 1994; Beck 1997: 103.
13. Oates 1972, 1991, and 1999; Weingast 1995; Rodden 2007. Reger 1994: 165–66, 170, is exceptional in seeing the economic effects of an institution (the Koinon of the Islanders or Nesiotic League) that was created as a mechanism for political control.
14. F. W. Walbank 1976–77: 29–32; Tréheux 1987; Sordi 1994: 4; C. P. Jones 1996; Lehmann 2000: 19–20; Bearzot 2001; Rzepka 2002; Vimercati 2003; Debord 2003. One of the more baffling uses of ethnos in an apparently political sense is Arist. Pol. 1261a27, a passage that has elicited a tremendous amount of inconclusive discussion (most recently Hansen 2000b; F. W. Walbank 2000: 21; Lehmann 2000: 35–36; Consolo Langher 2004: 316, with references to earlier work).
15. Ethnos and koinōnia: Polyb. 2.37.7–11, followed by the famous claim that the whole Peloponnese was united, as if in a single polis, by the shared institutions of the Achaians. Sympoliteia: Larsen 1968: 7–8 deemed this the only Greek word that properly describes a federal state but realized that it was a late development, appearing first in a Lykian inscription of the early second century (SEG 18.570) and in Polybios; recent work shows that it was not applied exclusively to federal contexts (Reger 2004). Giovannini 1971: 22–24; F. W. Walbank 1976–77: 32–35. Koinē politeia: Polyb. 2.50.8 (cf. Lehmann 2000: 35).
16. Systēma: Polyb. 2.41.15, 9.28.2; cf. Str. 8.3.2, 14.2.25. Biological use: Arist. Gen.An. 740a20. Ethnikē systasis: Polyb. 30.13.6.
17. Polyb. 23.12.8. The phrase here seems to allude to the many communities of which the Achaian (or any other) koinon is composed. Cf. F. W. Walbank 1957–79: III.242.
18. R. Parker 2009: 187 on synoikism and sympolity.
19. Morgan 1991, 2003; J. M. Hall 1997, 2002; McInerney 1999; Malkin 2001; Derks and Roymans 2009.
20. Roussel 1976 is an early move in this direction, focused on the genē, phratries, and phylai of Attica but incorporating material from other poleis. Achaia: Morgan and Hall 1996; Morgan 2002. Aitolia: Antonetti 1987a, 1990; Antonetti and Cavalli 2004. Boiotia: Larson 2007; Kühr 2006a, b.
21. Larsen 1968: 3–7, 28, 40–42, etc.; Koerner 1974: 476; Grainger 1999: 29.
22. The tribal concept was discredited by anthropologists in the 1960s and 1970s as inherently linked with a deeply flawed teleological view of the development of political organization and as neither logically nor theoretically necessary to bridge the gap between local settlement and larger-scale power structures like nation-states and confederations: Fried 1968, 1975; Southall 1969, 1996. Persistence of tribal state (or Stammstaat) in this adjusted
