It has been a widespread belief among historians of antiquity that Athens’ importance on the political scene declined rapidly after 338, and especially after 322; Athens, so it is assumed, succumbed to the will of Alexander and, later on, of his Diadochoi. Of course, it cannot be denied that Athens found itself in a very precarious and sometimes impossible position. Yet the attitudes of Athens towards one king or the other, as well as its status, vary considerably until 261, the (...) end of the Chremonidean War against Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedon.Certain aspects of the Athenian relationship with the various monarchs are reflected in the decrees of the assembly, passed in honour of royal officials, as well as in the decrees conferring the highest honours (proedriaof the games,sitesisin thePrytaneion, and a statue) upon Athenian citizens who belonged to a king's court. My purpose is to examine precisely the image that Athens projects through the above-mentioned decrees with regard to its relations with the various rulers and their officials; and these in relation to its perception of its own position on the military and political scene on different historical occasions. (shrink)

The article discusses Pausanias’ obscure statement (1.26.3) that the early Hellenistic Athenian general Olympiodoros ‘recovered the Piraeus and Mounychia’. By understanding the feat as an episode within the wider context of the Athenian stasis of 295 between the ‘tyrant’ Lachares and Olympiodoros’ democratic resistance, the article shows that the narrative of the enterprise (most likely based on an honorific decree) aimed to i) establish a parallel between Olympiodoros and the illustrious democratic recovery by Thrasyboulos, ii) rehabilitate Olympiodoros as a democratic (...) hero after his involvement in the oligarchic years of the second regime of Demetrios Poliorketes in Athens, and iii) serve as a call to action to recover the Piraeus, which was under Macedonian control when the honours were bestowed. (shrink)

Earlier work has tended to view Delos as an entrepôt for the larger Hellenistic grain trade, but during the years of independence the island relied on the import of grain to satisfy local demand, and this was certainly the more important aspect of the trade in grain, at least from the Delians' point of view. This study explores several issues connected with the local supply of grain. From prices for grain reported in inscriptions and estimates of the local population, the (...) aggregate annual demand for grain is estimated, and the price structure of grain derived; the ratio of wheat and barley prices on Delos is found to differ considerably from that known from Athens and Roman Egypt. The shortage of 282 B.C., assumed by earlier scholars from prices recorded for that year, is shown instead to be a period of atypically low prices. The impact of the sailing season on shipments of grain is explored, and an annual rhythm in grain prices and availability linked to the closure of the sea and the agricultural year is revealed. The Delians tried to reduce the impact of these fluctuations by the public purchase of grain on an irregular basis in the late fourth and third century, as attested through public loans; by the last quarter of the third century they had established a regular sitōnia fund to buy grain for resale at reduced prices. Comparison of funds available, grain prices, and the estimated aggregate demand suggest that the Delian sitōnia was able to cover a significant fraction of local demand; this contrasts with evidence from other cities. Some of the implications of these results for our understanding of the Hellenistic economy are briefly explored. (shrink)