The Functions of the Delphic Amphictyony before 346 BCE1

Hugh Bowden

Despite a long tradition of scholarship, the development and early history o f the Delphic
Amphictyony has remained fhistratingly obscure.2 In this paper I want to suggest a new
way o f approaching the Amphictyony, and to suggest new interpretations of its function
and composition in the period before 346 BCE. Traditionally the Amphictyony has been
treated as a political body, albeit with important religious functions.3 Scholars have
placed emphasis on the formal meetings of the members and on questions o f who
belonged to the body and who was excluded. This is hardly surprising, as it reflects the
way that the council is presented in the epigraphic record,4 in the speeches o f Aeschines
and in the accounts o f the origins of the Amphictyony found in Strabo and Pausanias.5
The Amphictyony is considered to be like other groupings o f Greek states that met at a
common sanctuary ‘to deliberate concerning common affairs’ as Strabo puts it.6 There is
no doubt that this was what its members came to believe the Amphictyony had always
been, but it has long been recognised that there are difficulties with this idea. The most
obvious is the near invisibility of the Amphictyony in accounts o f the history of Greece
between the end of the Persian Wars in 479 BCE and the outbreak of the ‘Third Sacred
War’ in 356 BCE.7 In this paper, instead o f comparing the Amphictyony with other
leagues or alliances, I want to compare its functions with those o f other bodies with
responsibility for sanctuaries and festivals. This will reveal the extent to which the

1 Α version of this paper was given at the thirtieth conference of the Israel Society for the
Promotion of Classical Studies at Bar-Ilan University on 5 June 2001. I would like to take
this opportunity to express my thanks to the conference organizers for inviting me to speak,
and to friends and colleagues at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and in particular to
Professor Dwora Gilula, for their hospitality during my time in Israel.
2 Study of the Delphic Amphictyony has been transformed by two recent excellent and
exhaustive studies, Lefèvre 1998 and Sanchez 2001, and by the publication in 2002 of the
fourth volume of the Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes: documents amphictioniques
(henceforward CID 4). Although some of my conclusions differ from those of Sanchez and
Lefèvre, I remain indebted to their monumental scholarship.
3 E.g. Roux 1979; Forrest 1982, 312-8; Hornblower 1992; Tausend 1992; Hall 2002, 134-54.
4 Documents collected in CID 4.
5 Strab. 420; Paus. 10.8.1.
6 Strab. 420: περὶ ... τῶν κοινῶν βουλευσὸμενον. It is necessary here to draw a distinction
between groups that simply met at a sanctuary on a regular basis, and those that had
responsibility for the sanctuary. The former would include the ‘Delian League’ (Th. 1.96.2)
and the group of states that met at the Panionion to plan resistance first to Lydia and then to
the Persians (Hdt. 1.141.4, 170Ἰ). This group was not identical to the twelve Ionian poleis
which were said to have set up the Panionion, as it initially did not include the Milesians
(Hdt. 1.141.4), and later at least did include non-Ionians such as the Lesbians (Hdt. 6.8.2).
7 Cf. Hornblower 1992 for the fifth century.

Scripta Classica Israelica vol. XXII 2003 pp. 67-83

68 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

Amphictyony was genuinely a religious body, whose political activities, such as they
were, developed out o f its obligations towards the sanctuaries with which it was
concerned.

The Pylaea
Central to a new understanding of the Amphictyony is a reconsideration o f the twice-
yearly Pylaea. Rather than thinking of the Pylaea as primarily the occasion of the meet­
ings of the Amphictyonie Council, we should think of it as a festival attended by a
group of neighbours (ἀμφικτὑονες).8 We are told little in any sources about what hap­
pened at this festival but certain words get their meaning from it: πυλαιασταἰ is a word
for buffoons, according to Photius and the Suda, so named because such figures were
regularly found at the Pylaea; Plutarch uses the expression όχλαγωγἰας πυλαικη to
mean ‘nonsense intended for the crowd’, and πυλαἰα itself to mean a farrago.9 The
image these words bring to mind is of a lively festival that provided entertainment for
those who attended.10 In its earlier days it presumably differed somewhat from festivals
such as the Olympic and Pythian games, where the local elites had a more prominent
role.11 It took place at Anthela, around the temple of Demeter (called Demeter Amphic­
tyonis by Herodotus) where there was an area of open ground and seats for the amphic-
tyons, that is presumably the organizers of the festival, referred to elsewhere in
Herodotus as the pylagorae ,12 Exactly what the organizers were responsible for is not
attested, but it is possible to draw parallels with other festivals. At Olympia we know of
the hellanodikai who were responsible for the running o f the games.13 After the Eleusin-
ian Mysteries each year, the Athenian boule met at the Eleusinion to confirm that
everything had gone well, and in particular held the gene of the Eumolpidae and the
Kerykes responsible for the correct running of that festival.14 Such a meeting, with the
primary purpose of making sure that the festival had been correctly run, but with the
possibility of considering other issues of relevance, would be the likely origin o f the
kind of meetings of the amphictyons depicted by Aeschines.
The pattern at Eleusis also gives a possible explanation for the way the officials
functioned at the Pylaea.15 The sources refer to two kinds of officials sent by the mem­
bers of the Amphictyony, pylagorae and hieromnemones. By the middle of the fourth
century each member appears normally to have sent two pylagorae and one hieromne-
mon, and at meetings it was only the hieromnemones who voted, indicating that they

8 Though see Hall 2002, 148-51.

9 Plut. Pyrrh. 29, Art. 1, Mor. 2.924d.
10 Sanchez 2001, 475 refers to ‘des marchés qui avaient lieu pendant les panégyries’, or to
‘foires’. Cf. de Ligt & de Neeve (1988).
11 Morgan 1990.
12 Hdt. 7.200.2 (Anthela); 7.213.2 {pylagorae). This is translating the term as ‘those who meet
together at the Pylaea’ (Sanchez 2001,497: ‘ceux qui ... se réunissent... à la pylée’) -— and
if the pylagorae did not organize the festival it is not clear who did.
13 Hdt. 5.22.1 ; Paus. 5.9.5.
14 Andoc. 1.110-16; Clinton 1980, 280. Cf. Parker 1996, 293-7; Aeschin. 3.18. with Parker
1996, 124-5.
15 Full discussion of the evidence in Sanchez2001,496-509.
 HUGH BOWDEN 69

were the formal representatives of the members. At Athens at least the hieromrtemon
was chosen by lot, while the pylagorae were elected, and this was a common pattern for
religious deputations, where officials chosen by lot were accompanied or advised by
recognised experts.16 Aeschines, who was pylagoras in 340/39 BCE, clearly presents
himself as an expert on amphictyonie matters. The hieromnemones are hardly men­
tioned in literary sources, while the pylagorae are frequently referred to, while the pat­
tern is reversed in the epigraphic record. It would have been the pylagorae, as experts,
who were responsible for the actual administration of the festival, just as at Eleusis it
was the Eumolpidae and the Kerykes who were responsible for the Mysteries. The role
o f the hieromnemones, on behalf of the members, was to confirm that the festival had
been administered correctly, just as the bouleutai at Athens, appointed by lot, confirmed
that the Mysteries had been correctly performed. Sanchez’s suggestion that the hierom­
nemones acted as impartial judges of a sort, while the pylagorae (translating the title as
‘ceux qui parlent à Pylaia/à la pylée’) were equivalent to advocates, responsible for
denouncing infractions, but also for defending their own people, is rather different, but
it makes the same distinction between the two types o f official.17
Festivals provided ideal opportunities for representatives of different Greek commu­
nities to meet together, for major announcements to be made, and for treaties to be reaf­
firmed.18 The members of the Peloponnesian league met after the Olympic games, and it
was there that they were addressed by Mytilenean ambassadors in 428 BCE; the alliance
made between Athens and Sparta in 421 BCE was to be renewed at the Dionysia in Ath­
ens and the Hyacinthia in Sparta.19 A number of events associated with the Pylaea can
be understood according to this pattern. Herodotus mentions that the pylagorae of the
Greeks meeting at the Pylaea put a price on the head of Ephialtes for his betrayal of the
Greeks at Thermopylae.20 Ephialtes’ offence cannot be directly linked to the sanctuary
at Anthela and indeed it is not clear that he had committed any religious offence at all;
however the Pylaea provided an ideal opportunity for the communities in the area
around Anthela and Thermopylae to be told about him. According to Plutarch, Themis­
tocles argued at a Pylaea against a Spartan proposal for the expulsion from the
Amphictyony of medizing states,21 and this episode may be related to a proposal men­
tioned by Herodotus that the central Greek states that medized should be thrown off
their land — perhaps to make it available to migrating Greeks from Asia Minor.22 The
states listed by Herodotus all appear on later lists of members of the Amphictyony, so it

16 E.g. [Arist.] Ath. 54.6 (hieropoioi chosen by lot assisted by manteis)\ IG I3 40.64-9 (three
men from the Boule assisted by Hierocles). Bowden 2003, 266.
17 Sanchez 2001, 506-7.
18 Whether treaties could actually be negotiated on these occasions is less clear. Although in
the modern world negotiations usually occur at conferences where the treaties are then
signed, and can therefore carry on until the last possible moment, ancient ambassadors
tended to have more limited powers than their modern equivalents, and treaties could be
repudiated by poleis that did not like their ambassadors’ actions (e.g. Hdt. 5.73).
19 Peloponnesians: Th. 3.8; treaty: Th. 5.23.4.
20 Hdt. 7.213.2.
21 Plut., Them. 20.3-4.
22 Hdt. 7.132.
70 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

is possible that the two stories refer to the same event — which in any case came to
nothing.23 Plutarch’s version would make the issue one of whether members of those
communities who had medized could attend the Pylaea, just as on occasion states might
be forbidden to attend the Olympic Games by the Eleans:24 it would thus be precisely
the kind of business a meeting held after the festival would need to discuss. Herodotus
does not mention the Amphictyony at this point. In 457 BCE Athens made an alliance
with a number of central Greek states and the details of the alliance are recorded on a
rather fragmentary inscription.25 This has in the past been interpreted as an alliance
between Athens and the Amphictyony — an odd view given that Athens is generally
thought to have been a member of the Amphictyony in this period. Sanchez, the most
recent commentator on the inscription, suggests that the document actually records ‘une
alliance conclue entre Athènes et certains peuples de Grèce centrale à l’occasion d ’une
panégyrie célébrée à Pylaia ou à Delphes, mais en marge des activités du Conseil’.26
Just as with the alliance of 421 BCE, the festival provided the opportunity for Athenian
delegates to meet those with whom they were exchanging oaths.
At some point, it is generally accepted, the amphictyons also took responsibility for
the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. This must have happened by 548 BCE since the
amphictyons took responsibility for organizing the rebuilding of the temple at Delphi,
which had burned down that year.27 The change is sometimes associated with the ‘first
sacred war’,28 which will be discussed below, but it cannot be firmly dated.29 The
responsibilities o f the amphictyons at Delphi will also be considered later, but it is clear
that they are concerned primarily with the fabric o f the sanctuary and the associated
land. The pattern o f the amphictyons’ activities in the fourth century, going first to
Anthela/Pylae for the festival, and then moving on to Delphi for a further meeting to
discuss matters to do with that sanctuary, fits dearly with the role I have suggested for
the Amphictyony.30

Membership of the Amphictyony

Who the ‘dwellers around’ who celebrated the festival of the Pylaea were in the archaic
period is not clear. We need not assume that they were exactly the same as the canonical
list that appears in the fourth century sources.31 It is usually assumed that the

23 Cf. Frost 1980, 179-80.

24 Th. 5.49-50.
25 IG I3 9.
26 Sanchez 2001, 111: he adds, in my view with unnecessary caution, ‘Je n’insisterai pas sur
cette hypothèse, car elle n’est pas plus démontrable que les autres’.
27 Hdt. 2.180.
28 Lefèvre 1998, 14 n. 26.
29 Sanchez 2001, 58-80 has the fullest discussion.
30 Aeschin. 3Ἰ26 gives the Athenian formula: τὸν ὶερομνῆμονα τῶν Ἀθηναἰων καὶ τοὺς
πυλαγὸρους τοὺς άεὶ πυλαγοροΰντας πορεύεσθαι εἰς Πύλας καὶ εἰς Δελφούς ἐν τοῖς
τεταγμἐνοις χρὸνοις ὑπὸ τῶν προγὸνων, ‘the hieromnemon and the pylagorae of the
Athenians who are in office at the time will proceed to Pylae and to Delphi at the times
established by our ancestors’. Cf. Lefèvre 1998, 193-6.
31 Londey 1994, 28.
 HUGH BOWDEN 71

organization of twenty-four or twelve members is an ancient one, but there is no actual

evidence for membership before 346 BCE. It used to be thought that since members are
described as ethne rather than poleis, the institution must date back to a period before
the emergence of the polis, but this will not work: in most o f the member ethne the eth­
nos rather than the polis remained the principal political unit throughout the classical
period.32 The various lists of the original members of the Amphictyony found in the
literary sources are not consistent; attempts can be made to reconcile the differences, but
they are of questionable value.33 The possibility should not be ruled out that the idea of
twelve ethne providing 24 delegates only became fully realized in 346 BCE when the
Amphictyony was reorganized and Philip of Macedon was incorporated into it,34 and
that the different writers, all of whom were writing after that event, finding more than
twelve names mentioned in the various accounts they read, each produced their own
canonical list.35 We may note that there were other groups of twelve Greek states
associated with a common sanctuary, and that in some of those cases the arithmetic was
problematic. Herodotus mentions that the Ionians o f Asia Minor, who met at the Pan-
ionion, maintained their own membership at twelve cities, and also claims that they
came there from Achaea, which was also made up of twelve cities.36 There were, he also
claims, originally twelve Aeolian cities, when they too were settled on the mainland.37
The case of Smyrna however complicates the issue. According to Herodotus Smyrna
had been one of the original twelve Aeolian cities, and had been captured by the
Ionians, and presumably repopulated with Ionians,38 but nonetheless the Smymaeans
were not permitted to join the Ionian koine, despite their wish to.39 Little if any of this
account can be trusted for its historicity, but it does suggest that in the fifth century the
Greek cities were trying to produce groupings of twelve with pseudo-historical claims to
antiquity, even when the number twelve did not correspond to the situation on the

32 Daux 1957. Morgan 1990, 185, notes an ongoing contrast between the sanctuary at Delphi,
which she sees as a focus for ethne (notably Thessaly), and the oracle, which was the focus
of polis activity. The picture of the Amphictyony for which I am arguing, composed mainly
of local ethne and concerned with aspects of the sanctuary, but not, as far as we can tell,
with the oracle, would fit into such a pattern.
33 The lists are Aeschin. 2.116, Paus. 10.8.2, Theopompus FGH 115 F63. Although
Theopompus and Aeschines both refer to twelve members, each lists only eleven, and
Pausanias lists ten; the combined lists produce a total of fourteen names: Thessalians,
Phocians, Delphians, Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebians, Dolopes, Boeotians, Locrians,
Phthiotians, Magnetes, Aenianians, Oetaeans, Malians. Cf. Sanchez 2001, 37-41, 518 (this
table does not quite correspond to the texts).
34 D.S. 16.60. Cf. Lefèvre 1998, 47 n. 187.
35 The different attempts to produce twelve members resemble the inconsistencies in lists for
example of names of the disciples of Jesus in the gospels (Sanders 1993, 291 lists fourteen
names), the names of the twelve tribes of Israel in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 49.3-28 and
Num. 1.5-15 also produce a total of fourteen names), or of course the names of the twelve
Olympian gods (Burkert 1985, 125).
36 Hdt. 1.142-5.
37 Hdt. 1.149.1
38 Hdt. U49.2-150.
39 Hdt. 1Ἰ43.3.
72 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

ground. Α group o f neighbouring states meeting twice a year to organize a festival did
not need to have a fixed number, and quite possibly did not have one. Over time how­
ever the participants might have felt that it was appropriate to have a membership of
twelve, without it necessarily being clear who the twelve members were. On this
hypothesis the membership might vary throughout the period, only finally to be fixed in
346 BCE.40

Responsibilities of the Amphictyons at Delphi

The major issue that has led scholars to argue that the Amphictyony had a larger politi­
cal role than this account has so far allowed is the sequence o f so-called ‘sacred wars’
that took place between the early sixth century and 338 BCE. In order to make sense of
these we must look at what we know of the amphictyons’ responsibilities at the sanctu­
ary o f Apollo at Delphi.
A fragmentary Athenian inscription o f 380 BCE contains the oath sworn by the
hieromnemones when they took up their office.41 The end is missing, but the surviving
portion has six headings. The first two deal with the ‘sacred land’ and will be consid­
ered below. The third is apparently concerned with the adornment of a statue, and an
associated sacrifice;42 the fourth concerns repairs to the fabric of the sanctuary, and the
fifth the upkeep of the roads and bridges leading to the sanctuary;43 the last surviving
heading is concerned with the sacred truce for the Pythian games. These have all to do
with the maintenance of the sanctuary itself, and safe access to it, but not with the for­
mal administration of the sanctuary or with the oracle.44
The most interesting clauses for our purposes are the first two, which concern the
‘sacred land’: the first forbids cultivation o f the land, and lays down punishments for
offenders, and also for those hieromnemones who fail to enforce the ban; the second
forbids anyone from staying in the sacred land for more than thirty days, and also for­
bids the use of equipment for grinding grain (to make bread).45 The terms o f the first
clause are followed closely by Aeschines in his account of the events leading to the out­
break o f the ‘fourth sacred war’ in 340 BCE.46 Aeschines associates the sacred land
with the story of the ‘first sacred war’ early in the sixth century, but there is reason to
question this link.

40 Sanchez 2001, 467-8 argues for the number twelve being fixed by the early sixth century,
with very little change in membership between then and 346 BCE. Hall 2002, 151-3, using
different arguments, would see the process as complete by the middle of the seventh
century. The evidence remains difficult to interpret.
41 CID 1Ἰ0 = CID 4Ἰ. Both commentaries are valuable. Cf. Sanchez 2001, 153-63.
42 CID 1.10 (4.1 ) 26-34. Cf. Hdt. 2.180.
43 CID 1.10(4.1) 34-43.
44 On the role of the Amphictyons in the Pythian games: Heliod. Aeth. 4Ἰ; Ρ. Pyth. 4.66 with
scholion; Paus. 10.7.4; Fontenrose 1987, 137.
45 CID 1Ἰ0 (4.1) 15-26.
46 Aeschin. 3Ἰ09-110.
 HUGH BOWDEN 73

The Sacred Land47

The possession o f sacred land that was to remain always uncultivated was not unique to
Delphi. The most obvious other example is the sacred Orgas on the border between
Attica and Megara, sacred to Demeter and Kore. The land was known as γῇ ἀορἰστος
(‘land without marker stones’), and traditionally did not have its boundaries marked, and
its sanctity was reinforced in the fourth century by an oracle from Delphi affirming that
it was not to be cultivated.48 Thucydides may be referring to a third such piece of land
when he describes a war between the Argives and the Epidaurians ὑπἐρ βοταμίων.49
The meaning of the word βοταμἰα is uncertain, and Thucydides’ account is very brief,
but one interpretation is that this is a reference to pasture land belonging to the temple of
Apollo Pythaeus at Asine, which was looked after by a group o f states (an Amphictyony
as at Delphi) led by Argos: the Epidaurians were permitted to graze their animals there,
in return for a regular offering of some kind, which for some reason was not made on
this occasion.50 The land was presumably located on the uplands between Epidaurus and
Asine, and it is quite likely that, like the land at Delphi and Eleusis, it had no marked
boundary. Other examples include the sanctuary o f Protesilaus at Elaeus and an
uninhabited island sacred to Apollo at Pordoselene.51
Various aetiological stories have been associated with these areas of uncultivated
land,52 but I want to argue for a general explanation for what I suspect to have been a
relatively common phenomenon. In his discussion of extra-urban sanctuaries Irad
Malkin has provided a persuasive explanation for why so often areas o f land owned by
the gods are to be found on the edge of the territory of poleis. He focuses on colonies,
where the process can be most clearly visualised, but it seems to me that it has applica­
tion in old Greece as well. Malkin states:
In founding colonies, both men and gods were settlers on the land. The ‘same land’ was
divided up among the gods and men by similar criteria. Both received plots of land,
decided upon by the human founder, the oikistês. Human beings were allotted agricultural
plots, klêror, the gods received sacred precincts, temenê. In my view, the question of the
‘division of the same’ may be seen as parallel to the relationship between humans and
gods existing in Greek sacrifice, where gods and men shared the ‘same’ animal. When

47 The extent of the sacred land at Delphi is not entirely certain. Kahrstedt (1953 with map p.
754) and Rousset (1991), following hints in the epigraphic record and the results of
archaeological investigation, suggest that it was a large area south of the territory of Delphi,
including the whole of the Desphina peninsula. Ancient authors refer to the Cirrhaean (or
Crisaean) plain (πεδἰον), which would seem to imply a much smaller area, the fertile land
on the coast west of the Desphina peninsula. In all probability the distinction was not all that
significant. It was only the plain itself that was suitable for planting crops, so the exact
location of the eastern boundary of the sacred land was never likely to be cultivated. It was
the western boundary that was the cause of trouble in 340 BCE, because the people of
Amphissa appear to have had a claim on part at least of the plain.
48 IG II2 204; Th. 1.139.2.
49 Th. 5.53.1
50 Gomme, Andrewes & Dover 1970, 72. Cf. Billot 1998, 41.
51 Hdt. 9.H6; Strab. 13.2.5. Cf. Horden and Purcell 2000, 428.
52 On the Orgas: L’Homme-Wéry 1996.
74 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

good lands were initially distributed, both to settlers and to the gods, the gods received the
fat, but not the meat. They got relatively small temenê in the ‘centres’ of cities and broad,
excellent lands in the most dangerous and inconvenient places.53
We know too little about the distribution and redistribution of polis land in the earlier
archaic period, but it seems likely that the same kind of understanding led to the same
kind o f division of land in old Greece, and that this explains why it is so common to find
land owned by the gods on the borders o f the territory of poleis. There were basically
three things that could be done with these tracts of land. They could be built on, and it is
the cases where this happens which have been of concern to scholars like Malkin and
above all François de Polignac:54 the Heraion at Argos is one of the most obvious cases
of a major sanctuary located at the edge of the territory o f a polis. Alternatively the land
could be leased out, and the income so generated used to support the cult of the god in
the polis. Or the land could be left deliberately untilled.55 Given the close relationship in
Greek thought between agriculture and civilisation, the decision to leave land deliber­
ately uncultivated would have had a profound impact.56 In the case of the sacred Orgas
the decision can be clearly explained. Demeter was the goddess who had revealed the
secrets of agriculture to mortals:57 leaving an area o f her land uncultivated made it a
representation and reminder of what the world was like before agriculture. The land left
uncultivated might well be fertile, and thus potentially very productive, as is the case
with several of the examples mentioned earlier, including the Crisaean plain, and this
reinforces the symbolic effect of leaving such land uncultivated: ‘Religious behaviour
and explanation can delineate the degree of marginality in the productive environment
... it is worth noting how not cultivating has sometimes been an expression o f the sanc­
tity of production’.58
Given the association between Apollo, and in particular Apollo Pythios, and the gifts
of civilisation in general, a similar message can be read into the uncultivated condition
of the Crisaean plain. Theognis of Megara, writing around 600 BCE, describes his
political opponents in terms that deliberately contrast them with the ‘proper’ city-
dwellers:
Cyrnus, this city is still a city, but the people are changed;
men who before now knew neither justice nor laws,
but wore the skins of goats about their bodies,
and lived like deer outside the city.
Now these men are the nobles, Polypaïdes.59
Eating grass, not bread, wearing skin, not woven cloth, and living in the open rather
than in a house within the city, are symbols of a life without agriculture,60 and are linked

53 Malkin 1996, 78-9

54 De Polignac 1995.
55 Rousset 1991, xvi indicates that territory belonging lo Apollo was handled in all three ways
at Delphi.
56 Vidal-Naquet 1981.
57 Cf. Richardson 1974,195-6.
58 Horden and Purcell 2000, 428.
59 Theog. 53-7. Cf. Η. Od. 9.106-15.
 HUGH BOWDEN 75

here to an absence of dikai and nomoi. In the same way an area o f uncultivated land
represents the extreme opposite of a city. This is made all the clearer by the regulations
in the second clause of the Athenian inscription discussed earlier. Men, perhaps shep­
herds, were permitted to camp on the land temporarily, but not to build permanent
houses, and they were forbidden to grind flour, so they could not make bread.6061 When
Isocrates has the Thebans in 404 threaten ‘to enslave the city (of Athens) and to leave its
territory as pasture like the Crisaean plain’,62 the force o f the threat comes from this
opposition between city and wilderness, and does not need to be explained with refer­
ence to any shared knowledge of an earlier war.63
If this interpretation of the origins o f the sacred land is correct, it follows that
Aeschines’ story, linking the sacred land to the ‘first sacred war’, must be dismissed.
Furthermore, as Noel Robertson was correct to argue, we have no mention o f the ‘first
sacred war’ in any literary sources from before 346 BCE.64 Even if Isocrates’ Thebans
were thinking about the war as an explanation for the state o f the Crisaean plain, it
would not follow that the war had actually taken place: the story o f the war could have
developed later to explain the condition of the land.65 Although it is impossible to prove
that the ‘first sacred war’ did not take place, there seems very little reason to maintain
the reliability of a tradition found in late and conflicting sources against the deafening
silence of Herodotus and Thucydides.66

The ‘Second Sacred War’

The first war over Delphi that we know to have been referred to as a ‘sacred war’ was
the pair of campaigns waged by Sparta and Athens in 450-449 BCE over the autonomy
of Delphi.67 These campaigns appear to repeat an earlier pair of campaigns in 457 BCE,
although there are doubts about their historicity.68 The position o f Delphi was still an

60 Cf. Vidal-Naquet 1981.

61 Sanchez 2001, 475 associates the ban on ‘des instruments de boulangerie’ with the
economic regulation of the fairs at the Pylaea. This assumes however that the Pylaea was
celebrated as a festival at Delphi as well as Anthela, for which there is no evidence. Such an
aim also seems out of place given the other concerns of the law.
62 Isoc. 14.31.
63 Pace Càssola 1980, Lehmann 1980.
64 Robertson 1978.
65 For an example of a specific historical event being used to explain the origin of a (far from
unique) religious phenomenon see Hdt. 3.48.
66 On the current state of the debate see Davies 1994, esp. 200-6; Lefèvre 1998, 14-6; Sanchez
2001, 67-73.
67 Th. 1.112.5; Plut. Per. 21.
68 Thucydides mentions a Spartan campaign to aid Doris against the Phocians in this year
(1.107.2). According to Plutarch (Cim. 17.3) the Spartans liberated Delphi from the
Phocians during this campaign, and according to Diodorus (11.91) they set up the Thebans
as the dominant polis in Boeotia. All these actions are compatible, since they serve to
weaken Phocian power. Later in the same year the Athenians gained control of Boeotia,
Phocis and Opuntian Locris after the battle of Oenophyta (Th. 1.108.3). Although accounts
of the Oenophyta campaign do not mention Delphi it is safe to assume that the Athenians
76 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

issue of dispute at the time of the Peloponnesian War, since Delphic autonomy was
guaranteed in the terms of the Peace o f Nicias in 421 BCE,69 and it remained a source of
tension at the time of the ‘third sacred war’ o f 356-346 BCE.
The point at issue here was whether Delphi should be independent (τὸ δ ’ ἱερὸν καἱ
τὸν νεῶν τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖς τοΰ Άπόλλωνος καὶ Δελφοὺς αὐτονόμους εἶναι καὶ
αὐτοτελεῖς καὶ αὐτοδἰκους καὶ αὐτῶν καὶ τῇ ς γῇ ς τῇ ς ἐαυτῶν κατά τά
πάτρια),70 or whether Delphi should be part of the Phocian koinon, and therefore sub­
ject to the common institutions of the Phocians.71 Various explanations have been given
for why the Amphictyony is never mentioned in connection with this issue in the fifth
century. It has been suggested that the Amphictyony had been temporarily dissolved, or
that it was effectively powerless since its more powerful members had conflicting inter­
ests, or that it was involved, and that Thucydides deliberately suppressed any mention of
its role.72 Another possibility needs to be taken seriously, and that is that the amphic-
tyons are not mentioned because the political position of Delphi and the administration
of the sanctuary were not part of their responsibilities. As we have seen, the ‘amphic­
tyonie oath’ of 380 BCE refers to the sacred land and to the fabric of the sanctuary. The
most detailed account of how the amphictyons became involved in a war, that is
Aeschines’ account of events in 340 BCE, puts repeated emphasis on the terms o f that
oath.73 We have already seen that other events mentioned in connection with the
Amphictyony, such as announcing the reward for the capture of Ephialtes and the alli­
ance o f 457 BCE, were not necessarily the formal business of the amphictyons. In this
case, where none of the sources refer to the Amphictyony, it seems unnecessary to claim
that it ought to have been involved. It is perhaps the Amphictyony’s apparent involve­
ment in the other ‘sacred wars’ that has made scholars reluctant to allow that it had no
part in the ‘second sacred war’. We have already considered the problems with the ‘first
sacred war’. As we will see, accounts of the ‘third sacred war’ also need reconsidering.

The ‘Third Sacred War’

The ‘third sacred war’ lasted ten years, and ended with the intervention of Philip II of
Macedon, who devastated the cities o f Phocis. At the end o f the war the Phocians were
expelled from the Amphictyony and their seats on the council were given to Philip.74 As
I have suggested earlier, this might have been the occasion for a more fundamental
reorganization of the organization. Although the war clearly had significant

would have returned it to Phocian control as part of the settlement. Cf. Zeilhofer 1959, 43-
50; Sanchez 2001, 106-9 esp. n. 141.
69 Th. 5.18.2.
70 Th. 5.18.2: ‘The sanctuary and the temple of Apollo at Delphi and the Delphians are to have
their own laws and taxes (or perhaps more generally, financial and administrative
arrangements) and courts both for themselves and their territory in accordance with
ancestral custom’. This clause would appear to contradict the view that the Amphictyony
‘administered’ the sanctuary, found in e.g. Morgan 1990, 18; Mclnerney 1999, 9.
71 On the Phocian koinon see Mclnerney 1999, esp. 154-185.
72 Dissolved: Sordi 1958. Powerless: Sanchez 2001, 114. Suppressed: Hornblower 1992.
73 Aeschin. 3Ἰ09-13, 119-22. See below.
74 D.S. 16.60.
 HUGH BOWDEN 77

consequences for the Amphictyony, the question of how far the amphic-tyons were
involved in the war itself is more problematic.
Diodorus Siculus and Pausanias claim that the Phocians were accused at a meeting
of the Amphictyony o f cultivating the sacred land, and that this accusation was the prin­
cipal cause of the war.75 This explanation has been accepted by modem scholars,76 but
there are a number o f problems with it. Neither Pausanias nor Diodorus makes any
mention of the ‘fourth sacred war’, when the Locrians of Amphissa were accused at a
meeting of the Amphictyony of cultivating the sacred land. Their versions o f what hap­
pened in 357 BCE can in part be explained as a conflation of these two separate wars.
Given that in the aftermath of the ‘third sacred war’ the Phocians were vilified for impi­
ety, it would hardly be surprising if the impious actions of the Locrians were attributed
to the Phocians instead. At the same time the silence of contemporary writers would be
inexplicable if Phocian cultivation of the sacred land had taken place. Aeschines, dis­
cussing the Amphissan cultivation in 340 BCE, makes no reference at all to a recent
cultivation by the Phocians, although it would strengthen his case enormously; he relies
instead on ancient history. Xenophon, who took religious issues seriously, and was
writing while the war was still in progress, saw the central issue as the autonomy of
Delphi in the wake of the Phocian capture of the sanctuary, and shows no awareness of
any Phocian impiety.77 Aristotle says that the war resulted from a dispute about an heir­
ess involving the father of the Phocian general Onomarchus.78
The notion that ‘the Phocians’ as a whole would have been guilty is also puzzling. In
340 BCE the accusations are made against a specific city, Amphissa, whose territory
bordered the sacred land. If a similar situation had arisen in 357 BCE we should expect
an accusation to be made against a specific Phocian city, such as Anticyra or Ambrys-
sos, which were considered in the Hellenistic period at least to border the sacred land.79
However there is considerable hill country between these poleis and the part of the sa­
cred land that might be suitable for cultivation, so any such act would have to be one of
deliberate provocation, rather than accident. Given the long-standing claim of the Pho­
cians that they should control the sanctuary, it seems implausible that any Phocian city
might deliberately engage in sacrilege.80 The view that Phocian cultivation of the sacred
land was the cause of the ‘third sacred war’ must therefore be rejected. The alternative
explanation would be that the Phocians took control of the city and sanctuary at Delphi
without clear external provocation. Aristotle’s near-contemporary explanation indicates

75 D.S. 16.23.2-3, 29.2; Paus. 10.15.1. Elsewhere, however, referring to what is apparently the
same fine, Pausanias (10.2.1) claims that he was not able to find out why a fine was imposed
and Justin (8.1.5) claims that it was a punishment for the Phocian ravaging of Boeotian
territory.
76 Buckler 1989, 15-21; Sanchez 2001, 173-81
77 Vect. 5.8-9. Pace Cartledge 1997, 228 n. 9, Vect. 4.40 (ἐν τῷ νυν πολἐμῳ) refers most
probably to the Social War of 357-5, but that does not prevent 5.8 (διά τῆν ἐν τῆ Ἐλλάδι
ταραχῆν) from referring to the Phocian War.
78 Politics 1304a 10Ὀ.
79 Kahrstedt 1953, 754.
80 Cf. D.S. 16.24.5.
78 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

that internal rivalries amongst leading Phocians may have triggered this move. It would
essentially repeat the Phocian action of 449 BCE and possibly also 457 BCE.
It is not clear that any of the Phocians’ actions during the war were sacrilegious
either. The occupation of a sanctuary by an army was considered acceptable if the occu­
piers behaved correctly:81 in a speech which Thucydides puts into the mouth o f an Athe­
nian after the Battle of Delium we are given a clear statement of what an occupying
army might do with a sanctuary in an emergency, and there is no reason to assume that
the Phocians behaved worse than this.82 Even the Phocians’ use of temple treasures to
fund their military activities could be justified in time of war as long as the debt was
paid off later.83 The lurid picture of Phocian behaviour found in Diodorus is clearly the
result of the vilification o f the Phocians after their defeat, and cannot be considered
reliable.84
All of this makes it less likely that the war was of concern to the Amphictyony.
Although Diodorus believed that the amphictyons were involved in the war from the
start it can be argued that his own narrative does not give strong support for this, and
that his sources may not have taken the same line. Diodorus has two descriptions of the
decision of the other states to go to war with the Phocians, which he places in consecu­
tive years. In the first version the other Greeks react in very different ways to the Pho­
cian action, and the Boeotians declare war on the Phocians on their own initiative.85 In
the second there is a vote of the Amphictyons for war against the Phocians.86 In the
account of the actual events of the war the two sides are consistently referred to as Pho­
cians and Boeotians, not as Phocians and amphictyons.87 Although the possibility that
there were two declarations of war cannot be ruled out, this looks like a doublet perhaps
resulting from Diodorus’ use of two sources, one o f which gave a more detailed account
of the war, and presented it as being essentially between the Phocians and the Boeotians,
not involving the Amphictyony, while the other mentioned the cultivation o f the sacred
land, the amphictyonie fine and the declaration of war by the Amphictyony, but gave no
detail of the events of the war.88 This second narrative looks suspiciously like a
summary o f the ‘fourth sacred war’, with Phocians taking the place of Locrians. While
the Boeotians were the main enemies of the Phocians, Diodorus mentions campaigns to
the north-west of Phocis too, most importantly in 353 BCE, when Onomarchus was
killed at the battle of the Crocus Field against Philip II.89 The Phocians’ enemies could

81 The Athenians in the Marathon campaign occupied two sanctuaries of Heracles, at Marathon
and at Cynosarges (Hdt. 6.108.1, 116).
82 Th. 4.98.
83 Th. 1.121.3; Hornblower 1991, 197-8. Cf. D.S. 16.27A
84 Cf. D.S. 16.61-3.
85 D.S. 16.23-7.
86 D.S. 16.28-30.
87 Amphictyons are mentioned at 16.28.4, 31.1, then at 16.60. Boeotians versus Phocians:
16.30.1, 31.3, 32.1, 34.2, 35.3, 37.5, 37.6, 38.4, 38.7, 39.8, 40.1,40.2, 56.1, 56.2, 58Ἰ, 58Α,
59.1.
88 Buckler 1989, 158-76 discusses this problem in detail, demonstrating convincingly that
there is a doublet but adding that ‘the accompanying details are so confused that no
principle of composition can account for them’ (175).
89 D.S. 16.35.4-6.
 HUGH BOWDEN 79

claim that they were fighting on behalf o f Apollo, and that they were avenging sacrilege,
as Philip appears to have done on this occasion90 — although, as we have seen, such
claims may not have had a strong basis at the start of the conflict — but that does not
necessarily mean that they were responding to any amphictyonie decisions.91 We have
already seen that the events of 450-449 BCE could be labelled a ‘sacred war’ without
any amphictyonie involvement.
During the course of the war the religious matters for which the amphictyons were
responsible still continued. The festivals of the Pylaea took place, although they must
have been essentially Phocian occasions.9293The rebuilding of the temple carried on,
under the supervision o f the amphictyonie college of naopoioi.n The Phocian action
that was of inevitable concern for the Amphictyony was their use of temple treasures.
Diodorus identifies two separate issues here. Phalaecus, the last Phocian commander,
and his associates were accused of stealing from Delphi, and a number o f men, most
notably Philon, though not Phalaecus himself, were tried and executed for this by other
Phocians.94 This was clearly a religious offence — assuming that the charges against
Phalaecus were correct — but it was handled by the Phocians themselves.95 The other
issue was the use o f Delphic money by Phalaecus’ predecessors, Onomarchus and
Phayllus, to pay for mercenary troops.96 As has been said, borrowing money from the
sanctuary was considered allowable at times o f emergency, but the scale of the Phocian
expenditure, which Diodorus claims was in excess of 10,000 talents, and their inability
to pay it back, made their behaviour a matter for the amphictyons to deal with.
According to Diodorus, at the beginning of 346 BCE the Boeotians asked Philip for
help against the Phocians; Phalaecus however made terms with Philip and withdrew his
army, while the Phocians surrendered to Philip. It was only after this, he says, that
Philip decided to turn matters over to a meeting of the amphictyons.97 It would appear
from Demosthenes however that the military campaign was being presented as an
amphictyonie one, and the Athenians avoided committing their own troops to it by call­
ing on the Phocians to surrender the temple at Delphi ‘to the amphictyons’.98 In either
case, the events of 346 BCE mark a change, perhaps caused by the dissension between
the Phocians that led to the trial of Philon. It is only at this point that we can clearly see
the Amphictyony involved in the conflict.
At the meeting of the Amphictyony in the summer o f 346 BCE a series o f decisions
are taken, some o f which can be seen as being of direct concern to the amphictyons,

90 D.S. 16.35.6; Justin 8.2.3. Cf. Sanchez 2001, 196.

91 In Diodorus’ account the Boeotian decision to go to war in defence of the oracle (16.25.1,
27.5) precedes the amphictyonie declaration.
92 Implied by D. 19.318.
93 CID 2.31.33-70 of 353 BCE lists naopoioi (referred to as τοῖς ναοποιοῖς τοῖς ἐν τῶι
πολἐμωι, ‘wartime temple-builders’) in 353-1 BCE from Delphi, Athens, Locris, Megara,
Epidaurus, Sparta, Corinth, Phocis, Sicyon and Phlius: cf. Sanchez 2001, 193-4; Bousquet
1988, esp. 24-7 with CI D 2; Lefèvre 1998, 260-8; Sanchez 2001, 12-152.
94 D.S. 16.59.3-4, 7-8.
95 Cf. Th. 4 .118.3; Homblower 1996, 364-5.
96 D.S. 16.59.5-6.
97 D.S. 16.59.
98 D. 19.49.
80 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

while others might not b e ." It was a matter strictly for the amphictyons whether they
expelled the Phocians and admitted Philip in his place; similarly they could impose a
tribute on the Phocians to refund the sacred monies they had used up, and perhaps for­
bid them to bear arms or keep horses until the debt was repaid. Other decisions, such as
the destruction of the Phocian cities, would have been as much a concern for Philip as
for the amphictyons — and at this point Philip was presumably not yet a member of the
Amphictyony.99100 As we have seen, the Pylaea was an occasion when issues of concern
to those in the region, but which were not strictly amphictyonie business, could be
brought up. This is arguably what happened in 346 BCE. Diodorus does not distinguish
between the two kinds of business, and the circumstances were such that the amphic­
tyons themselves may not have done.

The ‘Fourth Sacred War’

The ‘fourth sacred war’ o f 340-338 BCE is in effect the exception that proves the rule. It
is the only war that we can be certain was launched by the Amphictyony and involves
the only clear example of amphictyonie military action. As it turned out, the campaign
itself was ineffective, and the events that preceded it were rather chaotic, which suggests
that the amphictyons were not really prepared for fighting a war.101
The causes o f the war need some discussion.102 As Aeschines describes it, it was
sparked by his claims that the people of Amphissa were cultivating the sacred land,
erecting permanent buildings and pottery works on it, and farming out the port-dues of
the harbour.103 The cultivation and building were certainly against the terms o f the ‘am­
phictyonie oath’, and industrial activity would presumably fall under the same heading.
The surviving part of the oath has nothing to say about the sacred harbour. What is not
certain is whether the Amphissans were actually guilty o f any sacrilege. According to
Demosthenes the Amphissans claimed to be cultivating their own land,104 and, as we
have seen, the sacred land bordered the territory of Amphissa.
Aeschines’ account, in which his outburst against the Amphissans is presented as
pre-empting an Amphissan accusation against Athens (behind which stood the
Thebans), might lead one to see the war as the result of inter-state rivalries and diplo­
matic manoeuvrings.105 However, there is another explanation. As the evidence from
archaeological survey has shown, the classical period was a time of expansion o f settle­
ment, and marginal land was coming increasingly under cultivation. Inevitably this
would put increasing pressure on the land at the borders of territory, especially if that

99 D.S. 16.60. Cf. Sanchez 2001,203-3.

100 The Athenians, who were not present at the meeting, were invited to vote Philip into the
Amphictyony afterwards (D. 19. Π 1).
101 Aeschin. 3 Ἰ 22-3 (chaotic proceedings at Delphi), 128-9 (ineffective campaign).
102 The most recent discussion is Sanchez 2001, 227-43.
103 Aeschin. 3.119.
104 D. 18.150
105 Aeschin. 3.H6. Cf. Sanchez 2001, 239-43.
 HUGH BOWDEN 81

land was particularly fertile.106 In the 430s BCE, and again in the 350s, the Hiera Orgas
on the border between Attica and Megara became a cause of conflict between Athens
and Megara, when the Athenians accused the Megarians of cultivating it.107 Under these
circumstances accidental cultivation of the sacred land at Delphi — or even the mis­
taken perception that it was happening — is only too possible. It is clear that this was
the explicit justification for the decision o f the amphictyons to go to war with Amphissa,
and that the terms that they imposed after the campaign were specifically related to the
sacrilege.108 It is also clear that, although he was by this time a member of the Amphic-
tyony, Philip had no role in these events.109 It was only after the failure o f the first cam­
paign that he became involved,110123and his subsequent movements, culminating in the
battle o f Chaeronea, were not claimed to be amphictyonie actions.
Therefore the ‘fourth sacred war’, brief and ineffective as it was, was carried out
strictly in accordance with the terms of the ‘amphictyonie oath’, and needs no ulterior
explanation. O f all the so-called sacred wars, it appears to be the only one explicable
solely in religious terms.

Conclusion
The year 346 BCE represented a turning point in the history of the Delphic Amphic­
ty o n y ."1 The change was made visible in the fact that it is only from this period
onwards that we have inscriptions recording the names of the hieromnemonesV2 Even
after 346 BCE however, as Sanchez demonstrates, the activities of the amphictyons stay
close to the responsibilities laid down in the ‘amphictyonie oath’. " 3 The presence of
Philip and his successors as members o f the Amphictyony gave it a formal significance
that it did not have before, and whether or not a city sent its delegates to the Pylaea
might have symbolic force in this period, but it was not really a tool o f Greek or Mace­
donian foreign policy.
Before 346 BCE its importance was even more limited. We have seen that there is
no reliable evidence for the involvement of the Amphictyony in any military activity
before that date. Its responsibilities were limited to a festival held twice a year, and to
the fabric — not the actual administration — o f two sanctuaries. The amphictyons,

106 Attica: Lohmann 1993, 204, 292-3; Argos: Jameson, Runnels & van Andel 1994, 392-4;
Methana: Mee & Forbes 1997, 66-7; Laconia: see AR 1985, 24 (I have not yet seen
Cavanagh et al. 2002).
107 Th. 1Ἰ39.2; Philochorus, FG H 328 F 155; Androtion, FGH324 F 30.
108 Aeschin. 3Ἰ24-9; D. 18.150.
109 Sânchez 2001, 227 n. 31, 235-9.; Lefèvre 1998, 170: ‘Philippe ... a sans doute mieux à faire
qu’étaler sa puissance face à Amphissa’.
110 Aeschin. 3Ἰ29. Even Demosthenes (18.151) makes it clear that Philip was not behind these
events.
111 Sanchez 2001, 219.
112 CID 2.36, 2.43-4 etc.
113 Sânchez 2001,220-68.
82 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY BEFORE 346 BCE

mostly drawn from politically insignificant communities near the sanctuaries,114 carried
out these straightforward responsibilities in the period down to 346 BCE largely unno­
ticed, because there was so little to notice. Attempts to claim a larger, political role for
the Amphictyony in this period fail to convince because the evidence cannot support
them.

King’s College, London

Bibliography
Billot, M.-F. (1998), ‘Sanctuaires et cultes d ’Athéna à Argos’, Op. Ath. 22/3, 7-52.
Bousquet, J. (1988), Études sur les Comptes de Delphes, Paris.
Bowden, H. (2003), ‘Oracles for sale?’, in P. Derow and R. Parker (eds.) Herodotus and
his world, Oxford, 256-74.
Buckler, J. ( 1989), Philip II and the sacred war: Mnemosyne supp. 109, Leiden.
Burkert, W. (1985), Greek religion, Oxford.
Cartledge, Ρ. (1997), Xenophon: Hiero the tyrant and other treatises, Harmondsworth.
Cassola, F. (1980), ‘Note sulla guerra Crisea’, Φΐλΐας χαριν: Miscellanea di studi
classici in onore di Eugenio Manni, Rome, vol. 2, 413-39.
Cavanagh, W„ Crouwel, J., Catling, R.W.\/., & Shipley, G. (2002), Continuity and
Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, I: Methodology and
Interpretation·. BSA supp. 26, London.
Clinton, Κ. (1980), Ἄ law in the city Eleusinion concerning the mysteries’, Hesperia
49, 258-88.
Daux, G. (1957), ‘Remarques sur la composition du Conseil amphictionique’, BCH 81,
95-120.
Davies, J.K. (1994), ‘The tradition about the First Sacred War’, in S. Homblower,
Greek historiography, Oxford, 193-212.
Fontenrose, J. (1987), ‘The cult of Apollo and the games of Delphi’, in W.J. Raschke
(ed.), The archaeology o f the Olympics: the Olympics and other festivals in
antiquity, Madison, 121 -40.
Forrest, W.G. (1982), ‘Delphi 750-500 BC’, CAH 3.32, 305-20.
Frost, F.J. (1980), Plutarch ’s Themistocles: a historical commentary, Princeton.
Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A. & Dover, K.J. (1970), A historical commentary on
Thucydides vol. 4: Books V.25-VII, Oxford.
Hall, J.M. (2002), Hellenicity: between ethnicity and culture, Chicago.
L’Homme-Wéry, L.M. (1996), La perspective éleusinienne dans la politique de Solon,
Liège.
Horden, Ρ. & Purcell, Ν. (2000), The corrupting sea: a study o f Mediterranean history,
Oxford.
Homblower, S. (1991), A historical commentary on Thucydides, vol. 1, Books /-///,
Oxford.

114
The earliest certain reference to Athenian membership dates to no earlier than 423 BCE: Ar.
Nub. 623-4. As we have seen, it is not certain when the Athenians first became involved in
the Amphictyony.
 HUGH BOWDEN 83

Homblower, S. (1992), ‘The religious dimension to the Peloponnesian war, or, what
Thucydides does not tell us’, HSCP 94 (1992) 169-97.
Homblower, S. (1996), A historical commentary on Thucydides, vol. 2, Books IV-V.24,
Oxford.
Jameson, M.H., Runnels, C.N. & van Andd, ΤἩ. (1994), A Greek countryside: the
southern Argolid from prehistory to the present day, Stanford.
Kahrstedt, U. (1953), ‘Delphoi und das heilige Land des Apollon’, in G.E. Mylonas &
D. Raymond (eds.), Studies presented to D.M. Robinson, St Louis, vol. 2, 749-57.
Lefèvre, F. (1998), L 'amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athens.
Lehmann, G. (1980), ‘Der “Erste Heilige Krieg” — Eine Fiktion?’, Historia 29, 242-6.
de Ligt, L. & de Neeve, P.W. (1988), ‘Ancient periodic markets: festivals and fairs’,
Athenaeum 66, 391-416.
Lohmann, Η. (1993), Atene, Köln.
Londey, Ρ. (1994), ‘Philip II and the Delphic Amphictyony’, Med. Arch. 7, 25-34.
Malkin, I. (1996), ‘Territorial domination and the Greek sanctuary’, in Ρ. Hellström &
B. Alroth (eds.) Religion and power in the Greek world: proceedings o f the Uppsala
symposium 1993, Uppsala, 75-82.
Mclnemey, J. (1999), The folds o f Parnassos: land and ethnicity in ancient Phokis,
Austin.
Mee, C.B. & Forbes, Η. (eds.) (1997), A rough and rocky place: the landscape and
settlement history o f the Methana peninsula, Greece, Liverpool.
Morgan, C. (1990), Athletes and oracles: the transformation o f Olympia and Delphi in
the eighth century BC, Cambridge.
Parker, R. (1996), Athenian religion: a history, Oxford.
de Polignac, F. (1995), Cults, territory and the origins o f the Greek city-state, Chicago.
Richardson, N.J. (1974), The Homeric hymn to Demeter, Oxford.
Robertson, Ν. (1978), ‘The myth of the first sacred war’, CQ 28, 38-73.
Rousset, D. (1991), ‘Autour de Delphes: territoire d’Apollon et territoire de la cité’,
REG 104, xv-xvii.
Roux, G. (1979), L'Amphictionie, Delphes et le temple d ’A pollon au IVe siècle, Lyon.
Sânchez, P. (2001), L ’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: recherches sur son rôle
historique, des origines au Ile siècle de notre ère, Historia Einzelschriften 148,
Stuttgart.
Sanders, ΕῬ. (1993), The historical figure o f Jesus, Harmondsworth.
Sordi, Μ. (1958), ‘La posizione di Delfi e dell’ Anfizionia nel decennio tra Tanagra e
Coronea’, RFIC 36, 48-65.
Tausend, Κ. (1992), Amphictyonie und Symmachie, Historia Einzelschriften 73,
Stuttgart.
Vidal-Naquet, Ρ. (1981), ‘Land and sacrifice in the Odyssey’, in R. Gordon (ed.), Myth,
religion and society: structuralist essays, Cambridge, 80-94.
Zeilhofer, G. (1959), Sparta, Delphoi und die Amphiktyonen im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,
Erlangen.