Cimon The Elder, Peisistratus and The Tethrippon Olympic Victory of 532 BCE

DOI 10.
1515/jah-2013-0007
JAH 2013; 1(2): 99118
Zinon Papakonstantinou
Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the tethrippon Olympic Victory of 532 BCE*
Abstract: Herodotus narrative of the life of Cimon the Elder (6.103.14) pays particular attention to Cimons Olympic tethrippon victories and especially his arrangement with Peisistratus over the 532 BCE victory. It is the purpose of this paper to examine Cimons athletic career as well as his deal with Peisistratus in the context of sport practices, ideologies and intra-elite conflict during the sixth century BCE. An analysis of known instances of civic affiliation changes of Olympic athletes throws light on the logistics of the arrangement between Cimon and Peisistratus. Moreover, the commoditization of an Olympic victory implicit in the Cimon-Peisistratus arrangement is symptomatic of a perception of sport victories as individual achievements and privileged possessions of elite athletes. After a review of the relevant evidence, I argue that this perception was shared by other socially prominent sixth-century Athenian athletes as well, especially members of the Alcmeonid and the Philaid clans, who often exploited sport victories and their commemorations for elite power struggles. This perception became increasingly at odds with a shift, detectible more clearly starting in the last quarter of the sixth century BCE, towards modes of elite victory commemoration that highlighted divinely endowed talent, personal accomplishments and familial traditions but also emphasized strongly the rewards that accrued to the city by the generosity and the athletic skills of the aristocratic victor. Keywords: Olympic games, Chariot-racing, Athens, Cimon, Peisistratus
Zinon Papakonstantinou: University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Classics and Mediterranean Studies, 1808 University Hall (MC 129), 601 South Morgan Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7118, E-Mail: zpapak@uic.edu
Cimon was a member of the Athenian Philaid clan who became distinguished for winning three Olympic crowns in the four-horse chariot race (tethrippon) in 536,
* All references to Cimon are to Cimon I, or Cimon the Elder. All ancient dates are BCE. My thanks are due to the JAH anonymous reviewer for the insightful suggestions. All remaining errors are my own.
Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated | 216.171.37.87 Download Date | 11/13/13 4:47 AM
100
532 and 528 BCE.1 According to Herodotus, our main source for Cimon, he allowed Peisistratus to be proclaimed victor of the 532 race in exchange for the tyrants permission to return to his estate in Athens. This unusual transaction is wellknown but has not been adequately scrutinized. It is the purpose of this paper to examine Cimons athletic career as well as his deal with Peisistratus over the 532 tethrippon victory in the context of sport practices, ideologies and intra-elite conflict during the sixth century. An analysis of known instances of civic affiliation changes of Olympic athletes throws light on the logistics of the arrangement between Cimon and Peisistratus. I argue that the two men came to an agreement before the 532 Olympics and that Peisistratus was declared tethrippon victor in Olympia. The commoditization of an Olympic victory implicit in the Cimon-Peisistratus arrangement is symptomatic of a perception of sport victories as individual achievements and privileged possessions of elite athletes. After a review of the relevant evidence, in the second part of the paper I argue that this perception was shared by other socially prominent sixth-century Athenian athletes as well, especially members of the Alcmeonid and the Philaid clans, who often exploited sport victories and their commemorations for elite power struggles. This was at odds with an emergent trend, detectible more clearly starting in the last quarter of the sixth century, whereby many elite athletes shifted towards modes of victory commemoration that highlighted divinely endowed talent, personal accomplishments and familial traditions but also emphasized strongly the rewards that accrued to the city by the generosity and the athletic skills of the aristocratic victor.
Cimons Life and Olympic Victories

Cimon was born around 585 to an illustrious political and hippotrophic family.2 Several members of the extended family rose to political prominence before and after Cimon.3 On the basis of the extant record of Olympic victors Cimon was the
1 Hdt. 6.103.23. For the dates of his victories see Moretti (1957), 72 no.120; Wade-Gery (1958), 1568. 2 See Hdt. 6.35.1 where, in reference to his half-brother Miltiades, the family is characterized as , i.e. keepers of horse teams for tethrippon contests. 3 Including Cypselos, Cimons mothers first husband. For Cypselos see Davies (1971), 2989. For the Philaids-Cimonids in general, see Davies (1971), 293312 (no.8429). For Cimon see Davies (1971), no.8429 VII; Kyle ( 1987), 204 (no. A34).
Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon
101
first Athenian to win three Olympic crowns. The familys equestrian victory record at panhellenic games was rivaled in Athens only by the Alcmeonids.4 Herodotus account of Cimons life and Olympic victories is inserted in the narrative of the battle of Marathon where Cimons son Miltiades served as a strategos for the Athenian army (6.103.14). Herodotus points out that Cimon was exiled by Peisistratus and that while in exile he won two Olympic crowns in the tethrippon. The first victory matched the achievement of his uterine half-brother Miltiades, who had also won the Olympic tethrippon sometime in the mid-sixth century, perhaps as early as 560.5 Cimon relinquished the second victory to Peisistratus and allowed him to be proclaimed victor ( , 6.103.2). A truce () between the two men (and, one assumes, between their political factions) was agreed and Cimon returned to Athens. After his return to Athens Cimon won a third tethrippon Olympic victory. But, sometime after his last victory and the death of Peisistratus, agents of the Athenian tyrants Hippias and Hipparchus ambushed and assassinated Cimon near the citys prytaneion.6 Herodotus ends his excursus on Cimon by pointing out that he was buried on a prominent spot, in the so-called Coele Way. His horses, which allegedly won all three tethrippon victories, were buried in the same location (Hdt. 6.103.3). Herodotus also points out that up to his time only the Spartan Euagoras had equaled Cimons achievement of winning three successive Olympic victories with the same team of horses.7 It is often difficult to disentangle fact from fiction in Herodotus narratives of Archaic Athens. This is especially so because the historian incorporated in his account various stories that originated in conflicting family traditions of the major Athenian clans as well as other sources, including popular and civic narratives.8 In the case of the Peisistratid rule, prominent families such as the Alcmeonids and the Philaids would have attempted during the fifth century to dissociate themselves from the tyranny of Peisistratus and his sons. In turn, this could have led to a re-elaboration of family histories in an attempt to emphasize stories of resis4 Pi. P. 7, 1012. 5 Hdt. 6.35.1; Paus. 6.10.8 and 6.19.6 for Miltiades dedication in Olympia, unrelated to his Olympic victory. Moretti (1957), no.106 and Kyle (1987), 208 (no. A 46) prefer 560 as the date of Miltiades tethrippon victory. Wade-Gery (1958), 166 and Davies (1971), 299 opt for 548. 6 Hdt. 6.103.3. 7 See Moretti (1957), nos. 110, 113 and 117. Moretti dates Euagoras victories to 548, 544 and 540. 8 For Athenian elite family traditions in Herodotus and other Classical authors, see Thomas (1989); Forsdyke (2001). There is an extensive and ongoing debate on Herodotus sources and their evidentiary value. See the various studies in Bakker, de Jong and van Wees (2002); Dewald and Marincola (2006).
102
tance to the tyrants at the expense of evidence of co-existence and even collaboration. This process should not lead one to reject outright Herodotus narrative on Archaic Athens in its entirety. For instance, the fact that prominent members of the Alcmeonids and the Philaids held the eponymous archonship in the 520s, as proven by an archon list, is not necessarily at odds with Herodotus claim that members of the prominent political clans were exiled from Athens following the battle of Pallene in 546 and the re-instatement of Peisistratus as tyrant.9 The archon list refutes Herodotus assertion that some remained in exile during the entire rule of the Peisistratids, i.e. until 510.10 But there is nothing to prevent us from reconstructing a period, following 546, of rupture and exile for the defeated families and then a gradual rapprochement, perhaps in the case of the Philaids through the process of political horse-trading described in connection with Peisistratus and Cimon. Such process of renegotiation likely resulted in some members of the previously exiled families making their way back to Athens.11 Furthermore, one should not be surprised by the vicissitudes of the relations between the Peisistratids and other prominent families, especially the Philaids, following the return of Cimon to Athens. Cimon might or might not have been assassinated by agents of Hippias and Hipparchus, as Herodotus suggests. But Cimons son, Miltiades the Younger, was later in collusion with the tyrants despite the fact that they were allegedly responsible for the death of his father.12 Miltiades conduct might offend modern sensibilities but there was a great deal of political power at stake and people have been known to act opportunistically for much less. A point that has not entered the debate is that Peisistratus, Cimon and, at a later stage, the fifth-century Philaids, could not have falsified with ease the core of the story regarding Cimons second Olympic victory. Even before the compilation of the inventory of Olympic victors by Hippias of Elis in the late fifth century there were lists of victors of athletic events publicly displayed at the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia.13 Moreover, wealthy victors in equestrian events were usually
9 Archon list: Meiggs and Lewis (1988), no.6. Prominent families in exile during Peisistratid rule: Hdt. 1.64.13; Arist. Ath. 19; Plu. Sol. 30.6. 10 With reference to the Alcmeonids, see Hdt. 6.123.1 and 5.62.2. 11 Forsdyke 2005, 1213 casts doubts on the view that the Alcmeonids and Philaids might have spent extensive periods in exile during the Peisistratid rule. She also questions other details of Herodotus narrative on the Philaids, including the claim that Cimon was assassinated by the sons of Peisistratus. But see Anderson (2000) and (2005), 186187. 12 Hdt. 6.39.1 and his eponymous archonship in 524/3, see Meiggs and Lewis (1988), no.6. 13 Christesen (2007), 12246.
103
very keen to commemorate their victories, often in an extravagant fashion, and hence reap the prestige, public visibility and other advantages that ensued from a victory in a panhellenic contest. Even though no monument related to the tethrippon victory of 532 survives, there should be little doubt that the victory was commemorated, probably both in Olympia and in Athens. In short, taking into account the Athenian political landscape of the second half of the sixth century as well as the practices of victory recording and commemoration during the same period, there is no compelling reason to doubt the fundamentals of Herodotus narrative on Cimons second Olympic victory in the tethrippon. The arrangement between Cimon and Peisistratus emerges therefore as an extraordinary, though not entirely unique, case of manipulation of an Olympic victory to achieve political ends.14 Before attempting to interpret the sequence of events described by Herodotus in the context of sport practices and ideologies of the sixth century, it is worth looking into the logistics of transferring credit for an athletic victory, especially in equestrian events.
Declarations of Victory and Civic Allegiance in the Ancient Olympics

Following their victory Olympic victors were expected to declare their name and the city they were representing. The content of these declarations is crucial for understanding the Cimon-Peisistratus arrangement over the 532 BCE tethrippon Olympic victory. Victorious athletes in gymnastic events could declare for the city of their choice. In the case of equestrian victories, owners of victorious horses could allow another individual or even an entire city to take credit for their victory. Perhaps the most notable case of civic affiliation switch of an ancient athlete concerns Astylus, a late Archaic athlete originally from Croton. Astylus was undoubtedly the best runner of the 480s. He won the stadion and diaulos in the Olympics of 488 and 484. He then went on to achieve an even more impressive triple crown with his victories in the stadion, diaulos and the hoplite race in 480. Astylus achieved his 488, and perhaps his 484 victories as well, for his native Croton.15 However, at some point before 480 he was recruited, possibly by Hieron of Syracuse, and declared his triple 480 victory for his adopted city. Astylus reaped the rewards of his new citizenship but his erstwhile fellow-citizens of
14 For the political expediency behind the arrangement see Mann (2001), 825. 15 Paus. 6.13.1; Young (1984), 1414.
104
Croton were far from pleased. They turned his house into a prison and took down his statue that was set up near the temple of Hera. In the following decades, other athletes followed Astylus example and switched citizenship. For instance, Dikon of Kaulonia was victor for his native city in the boys stadion in 392, and then went on to win the mens stadion and another footrace for Syracuse in 384. Pausanias claims that he received compensation for his victories as a Syracusan.16 In another case Sotades, a long-distance runner from Crete, won the dolichos in 384 and then again on the authority of Pausanias received money and declared his dolichos victory of the 380 Olympics for Ephesus. As a result, he was banished by his Cretan fellow-citizens.17 While according to ancient sources profit seems to have been a motive in the cases of Astylus, Dikons and Sotades citizenship switch, we are told that another athlete, Ergoteles of Cnossus, left his native city in Crete because of civil strife and settled in Himera on Sicily. Although our sources do not clarify this point, it is likely that Ergoteles was driven to exile in circumstances somewhat comparable to Cimons exile from Athens after the battle of Pallene. Eventually Ergoteles became fully integrated in his adopted city. He was given citizenship and honors and competed for his new city in the panhellenic contests. He won twice the Olympic title in the dolichos, possibly in 472 and 464, as well as victories in other panhellenic contests, earning the title of periodonikes at least once.18 Pindars Olympian 12, an ode commemorating Ergoteles first Olympic victory, refers to the civic troubles that forced Ergoteles to switch his civic allegiance and underlines the point that if he had stayed in Crete he would have been a big fish in a small pond. But as a Himeran his athletic feats became known far and wide. A bronze plaque with an epinician epigram for Ergoteles was dedicated in Olympia after his second Olympic title. It highlights Ergoteles affiliation with Himera, and although the inscription is fragmentary it can be convincingly argued that it did not contain any references to his native Cnossus.19 Another case of shifting civic allegiance in connection with an Olympic victory concerns the Spartan Lichas. Lichas came from a prominent Spartan hippotrophic family his father Arcesilaus was Olympic victor in the tethrippon of 448 and 444. In the Olympics of 420 Lichas entered a team of horses for the same event. His team won but, because Sparta was banned from competition due to a dispute with Elis over the Olympic truce, the team was presented as an entry
16 Paus. 6.3.11; D.S.15.14.1; Anthologia Graeca 13.15. Moretti (1957), nos. 379, 388, 389. 17 Paus. 6.18.6. 18 Golden 2004, 61; but see Gallavotti (1979), 79. 19 Pi. O. 12; Paus. 6.4.11. For Ergoteles epinician epigram dedicated in Olympia see Ebert (1972), no.20. See Gallavotti (1979) 79 = SEG 29: 414 for an alternative restoration.
105
of the Boeotians or the Thebans (sources disagree on this point) during the victory proclamation ceremony. Nevertheless, in the excitement of victory Lichas rushed to crown the charioteer thus making clear his ownership of the horses. His improper participation in the contests was therefore revealed and he was scourged by Olympic officials.20 The case of Lichas is crucial for illuminating how Herodotus understood the logistics of the victory handover from Cimon to Peisistratus. Besides the incident involving Cimon and Peisistratus, the Lichas episode is the only other known instance of a handover of an equestrian Olympic victory. Thucydides, a contemporary to Lichas victory, points out that Lichas was the owner of the winning horses but the Boeotians were declared () victorious. Xenophon, an author conversant with Spartan matters and near-contemporary to the same event, maintains that Lichas handed over the chariot to the Thebans who were proclaimed victors ( , ). Herodotus (6.103.2) describes in similar language the arrangement between Cimon and Peisistratus: in the Olympic games of 532 Cimon won with the same horses (i.e. as in the Olympics of 536) and gave over to Peisistratus the right to be proclaimed victor ( ). When ancient authors refer to formal declarations of athletic victory they clearly have in mind the victory proclamation by the herald at the site immediately following the completion of the event.21 Taking this into consideration in conjunction with other evidence, especially concerning the case of Lichas, it should be concluded that Herodotus narrative implies that Cimon and Peisistratus had come to an arrangement before the Olympics of 532.22 In all probability the Athenian tyrant was declared Olympic champion in Olympia following the race.23 In this way, Peisistratus victory was formalized and the Athenian tyrant could freely advertise and commemorate his Olympic title without being reproached with falsifying the Olympic records.24 The alternative, that Cimon was declared victor at the Olympics of 532 and that subsequently he came to an agreement with Peisistratus and ceded his victory, is not impossible on the basis
20 Th. 5.50.4 (victory declared for the Boeotians); X. HG 3.2.21 (victory proclaimed for Thebes). For Lichas and the tethrippon Olympic victory of 420, see Roy (1998) and Hornblower (2000). 21 For athletic victory declarations by heralds see Crowther (1994). 22 See Scott (2005), 359 who suggests however that the victorious tethrippon team in the Olympics of 532 was registered under the name of Cimon. 23 On this point see also Mann (2001), 83. 24 That Peisistratus was keen to cultivate an image of successful engagement with horse-racing is also suggested by the hippos-compound names, a common occurrence among Athenian hippotrophic families, of his two sons and successors, Hippias and Hipparchus.
106
of Herodotus text, but it is less likely. That is because it would have made Peisistratus claim to victory appear to be completely at odds with events in Olympia and would have therefore reduced or even reversed the cultural capital and any other advantages that the Athenian tyrant hoped he could accrue out of this affair.
Athletic Commemoration and Politics in Sixth-Century Athens

Besides the specific motives of the protagonists in all these stories of civic allegiance switches and victory handovers, such incidents are also symptomatic of wider perceptions of the value and function of athletic, especially Olympic, victories. In the case of Cimon and Peisistratus, a key question is how was their transaction over the Olympic tethrippon of 532 BCE justified and perceived in the context of late sixth-century sport? In order to attempt to answer this question, an examination of key features of elite sport competition, commemoration and their wider implications in sixth-century Greece, with particular emphasis to Athens, is necessary. Cimons three consecutive Olympic victories appear to have been his only noteworthy public achievement. There is no evidence that he was directly involved in the tumultuous factional strife that plagued Athens during the midsixth century. Moreover, the sources are also silent regarding any act of opposition undertaken or led by Cimon against the Athenian tyrants before or after the reconciliation in 532. It is therefore fair to conclude that contrary to other members of his aristocratic clan, Cimon eschewed direct involvement in political conflicts, at least during the reign of the Peisistratids.25 This attitude perhaps partly accounts for his nickname koalemos (simpleton) which, according to Plutarch (Cim. 4.3), was attributed to him because of his good-natured character. However, and despite his disengagement from political militancy, Cimons exile and death suggest that in the eyes of his opponents he was a political threat. On both occasions, i.e. at the time of his exile and of his assassination, Cimon was probably perceived as a senior and potentially leading member of the Philaid clan. His exile is paralleled by the exile of the leading Alcmeonids sometime after
25 This is a strong ex silentio argument since later familial traditions would have made something of Cimons active opposition to Peisistratid rule if it had occurred. See also Davies (1971), 300. For Philaid notoriety in Athenian politics during the sixth and first half of the fifth century, see Davies (1971), 298308.
107
the battle of Pallene of c. 546 when Peisistratus solidified his third stint at tyranny.26 But Cimons assassination does not appear to be consonant with Hippias and Hipparchus policy of reconciliation in the mid-520s with members of prominent Athenian families, including Cimons own son Miltiades who served as archon in 524.27 If that is the case, then why was Cimon so violently removed from the scene shortly before the time when Hippias and Hipparchus were attempting to reach a political compromise with other prominent Athenians? One possibility is that Cimons assassination occurred very soon after Peisistratus death, when his two sons felt they had only an insecure hold on power. Then, after they felt more solidly established, they sought a modus vivendi with other members of powerful families. Another possibility (not necessarily incompatible with the first) is that Cimon was seen as a special threat to tyrannical rule, perhaps inadvertently even as the symbolic figurehead of the opposition. If the latter is the case, then one wonders to what extent Cimons stellar Olympic record was a factor that contributed to his demise.28 In the context of Greek athletics, successful athletes from powerful families frequently sought to convert the popular appeal of their victories to a personal asset in the political arena. Athenians were especially mindful of the case of Cylon who, following his Olympic victory in the diaulos in c. 640, attempted to seize power with disastrous consequences for himself, his followers and, to a large extent, the city of Athens.29 Despite Cylons cautionary tale, by and large Greek elites consistently invested in athletics. The evidence for the Archaic and early Classical periods suggests that in many cases wealthy and socially prominent families expended significant resources on the training and athletic careers of their young scions in the hope of victories in the prestigious panhellenic games and the prospect of consolidating a tradition of familial athletic excellence.30 These victories were commemorated in statuary, inscriptions and poetry, and fed into the ongoing
26 For the exile of Alcmeonids during Peisistratus third period of tyranny, see Hdt. 1.64.3; 6.123.1. See Scott (2005), 41012 for more ancient testimonia on the exile of Alcmeonids during Peisistratus third rule. Cf. also Anderson (2000). 27 See note9 for Miltiades archonship. In the same list the Alcmeonid Cleisthenes is listed as archon in 525. See also the case of Callias I, Olympic and Pythian victor in the 560s, who purchased Peisistratus confiscated property in c. 559 or shortly thereafter. He might have been the Callias who dedicated a statue of Athena in the Acropolis in the 520s, cf. Paus. 1.26.4. See Davies (1971), no.7826 II and Scott (2005), 408 for a discussion. 28 On this point see Kyle (1987), 158; Raschke (1988), 40; Kurke (1991), 17980. 29 For Cylons Olympic victory and his attempt to seize power in Athens, see Hdt. 5.71; Th. 1.126; Plu. Sol. 12.1; Paus. 1.28.1. 30 Papakonstantinou (2012).
108
process of articulating and maintaining elite status for the individual and his family. In Athens the Alcmeonids, a family embroiled both in the suppression of Cylons attempts to become a tyrant in the seventh century and in the struggle against Peisistratus during the sixth, systematically erected public monuments celebrating the athletic and equestrian victories of their members. The two extant, securely identified, Alcmeonid epinician inscriptions were discovered in the Athenian Acropolis and at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Boeotia. The former is usually dated to the mid sixth century, slightly before the Alcmeonids went into exile in 546. It records the victory of Alcmeonides I and another individual, possibly a brother named Cratios, in the hippios dromos and the pentathlon respectively, possibly at the Panathenaia.31 The second inscription was carved on the capital of a doric column dedicated at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios. It bears an epigram recording the victory of Alcmeonides I in an equestrian event at the Panathenaia, possibly of 546.32 Moreover, a sixth-century funerary statue-base from Athens that refers to an Olympic victor might also be related to the Alcmeonids. The deceased was named - - -]cles, which has led some scholars to suggest that the funerary monument in question belonged to Megacles II, brother of Alcmeonides I and successful suitor of the bridal contests for Agariste, daughter of the tyrant of Sicyon Cleisthenes.33 If that is the case, then Megacles II had won some otherwise unattested Olympic victory.34 But the inscription is quite fragmentary and defies secure interpretation, so the question must remain open.35 Even though the sample is small and beset with some uncertainties, some indications of practices of athletic competition and commemoration by the Alcmeonids do emerge. A combination of the epigraphic and literary record suggests that some members of the family competed successfully over several generations in a variety of equestrian and track events.36 This fact betokens long-term planning and investment on high-level sport as a family strategy for achieving social

31 Moretti (1953), no.4. See also Kyle (1987), 196, no. A 6. 32 Moretti (1953), no.5 and Ebert (1972), no.3. It should be noted that it is likely that an Alcmeonid commissioned and dedicated a kouros at the Ptoion at around the same time as the column recording the equestrian victory of Alcmeonides I. See Richter (1970), 12223, no.145 and Anderson (2000), 400, n.53. 33 Hdt. 6.12630. Kyle (1987), 2234, no. P 101; Willemsen (1963), 11017; IG 13 1213. 34 Alternatively, the epigram might refer to an Olympic victory won by some other member of the Alcmeonid family. 35 Cf. the misgivings by Davies (1971), 372. 36 In addition to Alcmeonides I, during the fifth century Megacles V was Olympic victor in the tethrippon in 436. In a vase of c. 440, i.e. Beazley (1963), 1054 no.58, an athlete is identified as Magacles. If this is Megacles V then the evidence would seem to suggest an early engagement in athletics, followed by a transition to equestrian sports in a more mature age.
109
distinction. Furthermore, although it is safe to assume that dedications commemorating Alcmeonid athletic victories were probably set up at the sites of panhellenic sanctuaries as well, the extant evidence reveals a focus on key locations in Athens or in the extra-urban sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Boeotia, the latter most likely at the time when the family was exiled during the first years of the third period of tyranny by Peisistratus. The geographical pattern of commemoration was perhaps intimately associated with the way prominent Alcmeonids perceived the role of sport and conspicuous display in connection with the familys power struggles vis--vis other elite Athenian families during the sixth-century. Lastly, sixth-century Alcmeonid epinician inscriptions emphasize individual and familial achievements and wealth at the expense of civic, i.e. Athenian, acclaim. Such memorials are essentially self-legitimizing as they unequivocally inscribe athletic victories within the victors familial master-narrative of notable exploits.37 Horse-breeding and racing had pride of place in elite victory commemoration. For sixth-century Greek elites the breeding of horses (hippotrofia) was a conspicuous signifier of wealth and inherited social status. If ones hippotrofia resulted in equestrian victories in one of the major contests, then the practice also contributed to the owners achieved status. Selecting foals, their trainers and ultimately putting together a successful horse team required skills that few people could claim. The dedication of Alcmeonides I for his equestrian victory at the Panathenaia games emphasizes the high-quality swift horses and the role of the charioteer, probably a Boeotian aristocrat and friend of Alcmeonides.38 Cimons horses were also a source of pride for him and his family. In the ancient world sport victors were keen to propagandize any exceptional and unique achievements that surpassed the performance of all other athletes. An early instance of that practice can be found in Herodotus reference (6.103.4) to the rarity of Cimons triple victory with the same horses, equaled only by Euagoras of Sparta.39 This ideologically charged athletic datum probably derived from the Philaid discourse of commemoration of Cimon and his victories. Furthermore, Herodotus points out that Cimons horses were buried opposite their master and Aelian claims that a bronze statue of them was set up in
37 A number of other late Archaic epinician monuments and funerary stelai for track athletes also focus on the individual victor and his family while overlooking the city. See for instance epinician monuments Moretti (1953), nos. 2, 10 and possibly 9, mid sixth to early fifth century. Funerary stele: IG IV, 801, Troezen, late sixth century; see McGowan (1995), 6212. 38 Nicholson (2005), 547. 39 For Euagoras, see also Paus. 6.10.8; Ael., NA 12.40. Sources on Euagoras emphasize the conspicuous commemoration of his team of horses in a memorial in Olympia (Pausanias) and a magnificent burial (Aelian).
110
Athens.40 The symbolism emanating from the sacrifice and burial of Cimons horses could not have been missed by contemporary Athenians. Horse sacrifices were after all practiced in the Greek world since the Bronze Age and were typically associated with memorials and burials of socially prominent individuals.41 Equestrian sport was an exclusive pursuit throughout Greek antiquity, open only to the very wealthy. In addition to the Alcmeonids and the Philaids, other late sixth-century equestrian victors emphasize in their epinician inscriptions and other narratives of commemoration the magnitude of the achievement, the quality of the winning horses, and the fame bestowed to the victors family. For instance, Pausanias records an eloquent epigram that adorned a victory memorial in Olympia. The epigram focuses on Lycus, a racehorse that won once in Isthmia and twice in Olympia, the latter possibly in 508 and perhaps 504.42 Lycus is described as crowning () with his victories the houses of Pheidolas, i.e. the horses owners. As was the case with most memorials of equestrian victories, there is no reference to the jockey or jockeys of Lycus.43 n addition, the epigram is silent about the owners city and it even omits their names, although their fathers name is prominently placed at the beginning of the second line. The emphasis on the distinguished racehorse, the conspicuous reference to the father and the evocative metaphor of crowning the owners houses are symptomatic of a deliberate attempt to insert Lycus and his achievements in a family narrative of successful hippotrofia. The reference to the father alludes to an earlier stage of the family tradition: a few years before the victories of Lycus, probably in the Olympics of 512, a different horse owned by Pheidolas dropped the jockey at the beginning of the race but nevertheless finished first and was awarded the crown.44 In a similar manner the lavish burial and memorial of Cimons team of horses, carried out with diligence by Cimons relatives, are suggestive of the ideological power attached to equestrian victories and the centrality of family histories of athletic and equestrian success in the process of negotiating social prominence and
40 Hdt. 6.103.3; Plu. Cat. Ma. 5.4; Ael. VH 9.32. 41 For horse sacrifices and burials in ancient Greece, see Kosmetatou (1993); Reese (1995). In Athens, horse burials were practiced in the Archaic period since at least the mid seventh century: see Morris (1987), 12930. 42 Paus. 6.13.910; Ebert (1972), no.7 with commentary. Pausanias (6.13.10) expresses doubts as to the second Olympic victory of Lycus, arguing that it contradicts Eleian records on Olympic victors. For a discussion see Maddoli, Nafissi and Saladino (1999), 271. 43 See in general Nicholson (2005), especially 95116 for Pheidolas and Lycus. 44 Ebert (1972), no.6 = Anthologia Graeca 6.135. Cf. also Ebert (1972), no.18, a fragmentary epigram for a victor that contains a reference to generations (genaiai), most likely an attempt to link a particular victory with a family tradition of athletic success.
111
power through sport. For the Philaids, the publicly conspicuous burial and public statuary monument of Cimons horses was a reminder to the Athenian public of who should really take credit for the splendid victories of the horses in question. In this way the arrangement between Cimon and Peisistratus in 532 was relegated to the realm of an expedient transaction, dictated by special circumstances. Hence through public memorials the Philaids ideologically re-appropriated the horses and all their victories and attempted to solidify and expand a family history of equestrian achievement that originated with the Olympic victory of Cimons halfbrother Miltiades in the tethrippon sometime in the mid sixth-century. Given the power of athletic and equestrian victories to allocate social value, it comes as no surprise that athletic and equestrian victors employed diverse strategies of advertisement and exploitation of their achievements. Contrary to the practice of some elite sportsmen (e.g. Pheidolas), epinician inscriptions and poetry suggest that the majority of late Archaic and early Classical victors at major athletic and equestrian contests consciously and explicitly integrated their community in the various modes of victory commemoration. This practice became commonplace in the Classical period. The association between city and athlete could take the simple form of a reference to the victors city, following perhaps the model of the victory proclamation at the site of victory. Furthermore, starting in the early fifth century references to the victors community in victory memorials could manifest themselves in more elaborate forms of acknowledgement, including references in agonistic inscriptions to the athlete crowning the city or intricate tributes to the victors city in epinician poetry.45 Hence Pindars Pythian 7, a short epinician ode celebrating the Pythian tethrippon victory of the Alcmeonid MegaclesIV in 486, begins with a reference to the mighty city of Athens as the backdrop for the praise of the Alcmeonid clan and their equestrian victories.46 By the late fifth century equestrian and other athletic victories in panhellenic games could be explicitly propagated in public oratory as endowing honor and enhancing the standing of the victor, his family and his city.47 In all these cases, the integration of the polis and its constituent members in late Archaic and early
45 Victorious athlete crowning his city, Ebert (1972), no.12 (early fifth century); bestowing kleos on his city, Ebert (1972), no.15 (after 472); crowning his city (restored), Ebert (1972), no.19 (470s or 460s). For epinician poetry see Kurke (1991), 16394. 46 Cf. a near contemporary vase that might have been commissioned in commemoration for the 486 Pythian victory of Megacles IV. It depicts Alcmeon riding a chariot, possibly a reference to the latters Olympic tethrippon victory of 592. See Webster (1972), 57 and Nicholson (2005), 289. 47 For horse-racing, a locus classicus is the tethrippon victory of Alcibiades in 416 and its subsequent exploitation. See Th. 6.16.13 with a discussion by Mann (2001), 10213; Papakonstantinou (2003).
112
Classical epinician discourses instantiated sport victory and its modes of commemoration as a series of public, civic and political performances that, through the sporting skills and the magnanimity of the victor, benefited the community at large.
Olympic Victory as Commodity

The preceding overview of elite economy of sport in sixth-century BCE Athens clearly suggests that major Athenian clans (Alcmeonids, Philaids) engaged in a multifaceted but systematic manner, and with various short and long-term objectives in mind, in top-level athletic activities. But although, as far as we can ascertain from the extant evidence, social elites dominated the victor lists in major contests, they did not have a monopoly in the practice of sport. During the sixth century sport gained in popularity and more Greeks had the opportunity to practice athletics either as part of an educational curriculum or as contestants in local and panhellenic contests.48 Moreover, during the same period the number of local contests proliferated and civic authorities became more actively involved in administering athletic games and facilities. In practical terms, although engagement with sport remained effectively out of reach for most Greeks with modest financial means, nevertheless in some areas, most notably Athens and Sparta, starting in the sixth century, ordinary citizens had more opportunities to play and watch sports than before. Perhaps inevitably, these developments led to debates over the expediency of sport in Greek communities. Not everybody was happy with the way late Archaic sporting culture developed and thrived. A vocal minority of intellectuals denigrated the popularity of sport and challenged its importance in configuring social hierarchies.49 But the trend was irreversible and the network of Greek athletic contests continued to grow and flourish. At this point we need to reconnect with the final point of the previous section, i.e. the emerging late sixth-century trend of presenting athletic victory as a constituent and a reflection of the communitys power and glory. The two trends widening the social basis of sport participation and acknowledging the victors
48 Christesen (2012), 13563. There is a debate, focusing primarily on Athens in the early Archaic and early Classical periods, over the extent to which individuals beyond the social elite were practically able to play sports. Pritchard (2003, 2010, 2012) has argued that sport was largely the preserve of a small, very wealthy elite straight through the fifth century. Fisher (1998, 2011) and Christesen (2012), 16483 have argued that starting in the sixth century males from prosperous but not extremely affluent households began participating in sport in large numbers. 49 Papakonstantinou (2013).
113
city in memorials for high profile athletic victories were contemporary and related to each other as well as to other developments in the Greek world, e.g. the adoption of more participatory models of political praxis and administration of justice. But the perception that individual athletic victory was somehow positively reflecting on the victors city was inherently problematic since it was neither obvious nor axiomatic. Throughout antiquity, Greek sport revolved around individual competition. The Homeric epics highlight the athletic contests of social elites who used sport as a means to legitimize, enhance and perpetuate their position of power.50 Fragmentary stories about Olympic victors and other upper-class athletes in Archaic Greece often point to the same pattern. We have already discussed the case of Cylon who in c. 632 attempted to overthrow the constitutional order and become tyrant in Athens, ostensibly largely on the basis of the prestige and popularity endowed on him as a result of his Olympic victory of c. 640. Some decades later the Alcmeonid Megacles II competed in c. 570, along with several other well-heeled Greek youths, in athletic and character betrothal trials for Agariste, daughter of the tyrant Cleisthenes of Sicyon. The Agariste betrothal contests lasted an entire year, were organized and judged by an individual (Cleisthenes), and effectively admitted as participants only youths of a social status perceived as equal to the organizer. In these respects, the athletic trials at Sicyon were a far cry from the periodic, institutionalized contests of the periodos. On the contrary, the Agariste betrothal games employed a Homeric model of elite sport at a time when it was coming under challenge by social and political developments and changes in sporting practices.51 Finally, private funeral games, presumably for socially preeminent individuals, were organized throughout the Archaic period.52 Similar to betrothal trials, private funeral contests fell outside the network of periodic and civic-sponsored athletic contests. In all these instances (Homeric sport, Cylon, Agariste betrothal trials, private funeral games) there is nothing to suggest that elite athletes and organizers of sport contests acted out of any consideration for the well-being of their cities. A perception of athletic victory as an individual achievement and an exclusive possession underpins these instances of capitalizing on the implications of athletics on the basis of strictly personal or familial expediency. In this view, as the victor claims exclusive credit for his victories, all kudos emanating from his athletic achievements flows back to him and then is employed in the victors behest in a manner that has implications for his community (e.g. Cylon). At the
50 Il. 23.257897; Od. 8.97255. For a sport in Homer, see Decker (2012), 2231; Kyle (2007), 5471. 51 Papakonstantinou (2010). 52 Roller (1981), 16.
114
same time, by taking part in athletic contests with restricted participation, some athletes of privileged backgrounds (e.g. the suitors of Agariste) challenged the paradigm of liberalizing access to sport that was related to the establishment of numerous contests and athletic facilities in late Archaic and Classical Greece. The Cimon-Peisistratus arrangement over the formers 532 Olympic tethrippon victory should be interpreted in the context of such elite perceptions of the value of an athletic victory. More specifically, I argue that the incident must be understood as an instance of commoditization of an equestrian victory. Equating an Olympic victory to a commodity should not conjure up thoughts of an impersonal economic transaction but rather a process whereby Cimons equestrian victory was subjected to a conceptual re-classification as it was removed from the sphere of individual and familial sporting achievements, was exchanged as part of a political bargain, and then was de-commoditized and reintegrated into the realm of sport as a victory credited to Peisistratus.53 This process was cognate to the well-known Archaic practice of gift-exchange during which Archaic Greek elites constructed taxonomies of value in connection with objects that circulated among the members of a panhellenic aristocracy in the context of ritualized friendship (xenia). Indeed, cross-culturally commodity exchanges and gift exchanges share a number of features, including a calculative dimension.54 For our purposes, a crucial point is that both gift-exchange and commoditized transactions could involve not merely material objects but also services and even Olympic victories. But while elite gift-exchange entailed a series of related transactions (gifts, counter-gifts, etc.) that created a series of obligations, often involving multiple individuals over several generations, commodity transactions were usually discrete and terminal. This interpretative framework fits best the evidence for the Cimon-Peisistratus arrangement over the 532 tethrippon Olympic victory. Cimon had a chequered history with the Peisistratids, beginning with his exile from Athens early in Peisistratus rule, his return to Athens after the 532 Olympics, and then his falling out of favor again with Peisistratus sons sometime before his assassination. Classical sources drawing from family traditions, in this case the Philaids, would tend to brush over aspects of friendship and collaboration between family ancestors and the Peisistratids. Hence it is impossible to know if Cimon and Peisistratus perceived and advertised their rapprochement of 532 in the guise of aristocratic xenia, or whether they viewed this incident as an expedient for both parties to
53 For a theoretical framework of commoditization, see Kopytoff (1986). 54 See Appadurai (2005) and other essays in Ertman and Williams (2005).
115
make a truce. However, the uneasy and uneven relationship between members of the two families before and after 532 strongly suggests that we should be looking at the Philaid-Peisistratid relationship as a series of intermittent conflicts and opportunistic accommodations. In this sense, the arrangement over the tethrippon Olympic victory of 532 appears as a calculated one-time arrangement between two social elites rather than a stage in a series of xenia-based gift-exchanges that created enduring obligations. In the case of Cimon and Peisistratus several parameters, including the value and prestige assigned to an Olympic victory by the general public, the position and relative power of the main actors, as well as their specific political agendas and their willingness to compromise, were all framed by the process of swapping an Olympic victory for reprieve from exile. In this instance the transaction was a politically mediated process that served the interests of both parties and reconfirmed their relative positions of power in late sixth-century Athenian society. Finally, the events surrounding Cimons second Olympic victory, the Agariste betrothal trials and other instances of elite athletic practices of the late Archaic period can in turn be viewed in connection with a wider conflict of elite and middling values and practices that can be documented in Archaic literature.55 We can trace this power struggle mostly along the lines of ideology and literary discourses on a number of themes, including the best way to govern a city, the proper way to expend ones wealth, the importance of commensality, the use and abuse of material culture and the relationship between Greece and the East. Even though literary discourses do not do justice to the full complexity of real life conditions in Archaic communities, it is nevertheless certain that these debates were real and that their implications were felt in the cultural choices that individuals made in various facets of politics and social life in late Archaic Greek communities. Sport, a practice that was used by the Greek wealthy since the early Archaic period as a means to articulate and negotiate elite status, could not have been exempt from broader, far-reaching ideological clashes afflicting the late Archaic Greek world.
Conclusions
Cimons grant of his 532 BCE Olympic victory to Peisistratus should be interpreted in the context of Athenian power conflicts and elite athletic performances and commemorations of victory in the sixth century. Late Archaic elites were well
55 Kurke (1999); Morris (2000).
116
aware of the contingent nature of social distinction.56 Contemporary sources suggest a great degree of resourcefulness and flexibility in exploiting possible means of articulating elite status. A wider network of resources and practices, including sport performances, victories and their commemoration, were utilized in the process. More specifically, the trend of systematically pursuing familial strategies of sporting success was at times central in the wider process of negotiating power relations through sport. An additional aspect of the same trajectory concerns material and visual discourses of athletic commemoration. Epinician public statuary in interstate sanctuaries and other sites (e.g. civic cemeteries) invited multiple readings by the public. Yet master narratives of individual and familial athletic achievements, disseminated by the victors, their families and their monuments, remained a crucial constituent of the wider politics of remembering athletic victories in Greek communities. During the second half of the sixth century, the expanding social basis of participation in sport had far-ranging implications for elite athletic practices and status competition. At a time when the Greek world was experiencing a proliferation and social liberalization of sport, the arrangement between Cimon and Peisistratus involving the tethrippon Olympic victory of 532 pointed to a transactional order of exclusive elite privilege and exchange. That Cimon and Peisistratus acted without much consideration to mainstream perceptions of athletic victory, wider developments in sport or the civic community of Athens is further suggested by the burial and commemoration of Cimons horses. In all these ways, the episode is illuminating of the political agendas of the protagonists but also of the ideological malleability and multi-vocality of sport in sixth-century Greece.
Bibliography
Anderson, G. Alkmeonid Homelands, Political Exile, and the Unification of Attica. Historia 49 (2000): 387412. Anderson, G. Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History ClAnt 24 (2005): 173222. Appadurai, A. Commodities and the Politics of Value. In Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture, edited by M.M.Ertman and J.C.Williams, 3443. New York: New York U.P., 2005. Bakker, E.J., de Jong, I.J.F. and van Wees, H., editors. Brills Companion to Herodotus. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Beazley, J.D. Attic Red-Figure Vase Painters2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Christesen, P. Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2007.
56 This point is elaborated by Duplouy (2006).
117
Christesen, P. Sport and Democracy in the Ancient and Modern Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2012. Crowther, N.B. The Role of Heralds and Trumpeters at Greek Athletic Festivals. Nikephoros 7 (1994): 13555. Davies, J.K. Athenian Propertied Families 600300 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Decker, W. Sport in der griechischen Antike. Vom minoischen Wettkampf bis zu den Olympischen Spielen. Hildesheim: Arete Verlag, 2012. Dewald, C. and Marincola, J., editors. The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2006. Duplouy, A. Le prestige des lites. Recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grce entre les Xe et Ve sicles avant J.-C. Paris: Belles Lettres, 2006. Ebert, J. Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972. Ertman, M.M. and Williams, J.C., editors. Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture. New York: New York U.P., 2005. Fisher, N. Gymnasia and the Democratic Values of Leisure. In Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens, edited by P.Cartledge, P.Millett and S. von Reden, 84104. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1998. Fisher, N. Competitive Delights: the Social Effects of the Expanded Programme of Contests in Post-Kleisthenic Athens. In Competition in the Ancient World, edited by N.Fisher and H. van Wees, 175219. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2011. Forsdyke, S. Athenian Democratic Ideology and Herodotus Histories. AJPh 122 (2001): 32958. Forsdyke, S. Exile, Ostracism and Democracy. The Politics of Expulsion in Ancient Greece. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 2005. Gallavotti, C. Iscrizioni di Olimpia nel sesto libro di Pausania. Bollettino del comitato per la preparazione della edizione nazionale dei classici greci e latini 27 (1979): 328. Golden, M. Sport in the Ancient World from A to Z. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. Hornblower, S. Thucydides, Xenophon and Lichas: Were the Spartans Excluded from the Olympic Games from 420 to 400 B.C.? Phoenix 54 (2000): 21225. Kopytoff, I. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by A.Appadurai, 6491. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1986. Kosmetatou, E. Horse Sacrifices in Greece and Cyprus. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 7 (1993): 3141. Kurke, L. The Traffic in Praise. Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1991. Kurke, L. Coins, Bodies, Games and Gold. The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1999. Kyle, D.G. Athletics in Ancient Athens. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Kyle, D.G. Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. Maddoli, G., Nafissi, M. and Saladino, V. Pausania Guida della Grecia. Libro VI.LElide e Olimpia. Rome: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1999. Mann, M. Athlet und Polis im archaischen und frhklassischen Griechenland. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. McGowan, E.P. Tomb Marker and Turning Post: Funerary Columns in the Archaic Period. AJA 99 (1995): 61532. Meiggs, R and Lewis, D., editors. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
118
Moretti, L. Iscrizioni Agonistiche Greche. Rome: Angelo Signorelli, 1953. Moretti, L. Olympionikai: I vincitori negli antichi agoni olympici. Rome: Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1957. Morris, I. Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1987. Morris, I. Archaeology as Cultural History. Words and Things in Iron Age Greece. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000. Nicholson, N.J. Aristocracy and Athletics in Archaic and Classical Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge, U.P., 2005. Papakonstantinou, Z. Alcibiades in Olympia: Olympic Ideology, Sport and Social Conflict in Classical Athens. Journal of Sport History 30.2 (2003): 173182. Papakonstantinou, Z. Agaristes Suitors: Sport, Feasting and Elite Politics in Sixth-Century BC Greece. Nikephoros 23 (2010): 7193. Papakonstantinou, Z. Youth Sport Participation and Victory in Archaic Greece. In Youth Sports Olympic Games, edited by W.Petermandl and C.Ulf, 121130. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 2012. Papakonstantinou, Z. Ancient Critics of Greek Sport and Spectacle. In A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, edited by Paul Christesen and Donald Kyle. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. (forthcoming) Pritchard, D. Athletics, Education, and Participation in Classical Athens. In Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, edited by D.Phillips and D.Pritchard, 293350. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2003. Pritchard, D. Sport, War, and Democracy in Classical Athens. In Sport in the Cultures of the Ancient World. New Perspectives, edited by Z.Papakonstantinou, 6497. London: Routledge, 2010. Pritchard, D. Sport, Democracy and War in Classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2012. Raschke, W. Images of Victory: Some New Considerations of Athletic Monuments. In The Archaeology of the Olympics. The Olympics and Other Festivals in Antiquity, edited by W.Raschke, 3854. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988. Reese, D. Equid Sacrifices/Burials in Greece and Cyprus: an Addendum. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 9 (1995): 3442. Richter, G.M.A. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths3. London and New York: Phaidon, 1970. Roller, L.E. Funeral Games for Historical Persons. Stadion 7 (1981): 118. Roy, J. Thucydides 5.49.150.4: the Quarrel Between Elis and Sparta in 420 B.C. and Elis Exploitation of Olympia. Klio 80 (1998): 36068. Scott, L. Historical Commentary on Herodotus Book 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Thomas, R. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1989. Wade-Gery, H.T. Essays in Greek History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1958. Webster, T.B.L. Potter and Patron in Classical Athens. London: Methuen, 1972. Willemsen, F. Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der Athener Stadtmauer. MDAI(A) 78 (1963): 10453. Young, D. The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1984.

Cimon The Elder, Peisistratus and The Tethrippon Olympic Victory of 532 BCE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cimon The Elder, Peisistratus and The Tethrippon Olympic Victory of 532 BCE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOI 10.

JAH 2013; 1(2): 99118

Cimons Life and Olympic Victories

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Declarations of Victory and Civic Allegiance in the Ancient Olympics

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Athletic Commemoration and Politics in Sixth-Century Athens

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Olympic Victory as Commodity

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

55 Kurke (1999); Morris (2000).

56 This point is elaborated by Duplouy (2006).

Cimon the Elder, Peisistratus and the Olympic tethrippon

You might also like