![]()
1
THE EREKHTHEID DYNASTY
KEKROPS TO KRANAOS
The first part of a Greek city-state’s local chronicle was concerned with origins and foundations: origins of civilization, in general, and Hellenic, in particular; of the specific people themselves, where they came from, how they reached their present territory (usually involving a ‘mythos’ justifying their ownership); of their culture; origins of leading families and of names of places and topographical phenomena; foundations of cults and religious practices and festivals, of sacred sites, of legal, administrative and political institutions. In fact, it served to establish the national identity of a polis. The Athenian chronicle was in no respect different (Harding 2007: 180–88).
Such a product would, as indicated in the Introduction, preserve many old stories and tales of uncertain and distant origin, but viewed through the prism of attitudes current at the time of writing. In this respect the Athenian local chronicle was very similar to what a version, written today, of an aboriginal people’s account of its origins, looking back past the time of European colonization, would be (e.g. Carlson 2001). It would be easy to see it as a tendentious and self-serving document (as does Loraux 1986 and 2000), but the situation is more complicated than that, since the narrative is infused with memories of vital importance to the community’s own ‘social knowledge of the past’ (Gehrke 2001:286).
The next four chapters will present the fragments of the Atthidographers that relate to the period of the kings. The first will cover the origins of civilization and cover the kings from Kekrops to Kranaos; the second will treat the kings down to Aigeus; the third will be devoted exclusively to Theseus; whilst the fourth will cover the remaining rulers of the post-Trojan War period to the introduction of the annual archonship in 683/2. Most of these monarchs were assigned to two dynasties, the Erekhtheid and the Melanthid. The first and most significant was the former. That dynasty, according to the chronographers, covered the years 1556 (Kastor), or 1581 (MP), to the death of Thymoites in 1127 (Kastor), or 1152 (MP). The 25-year difference between the two chronographic schemes results from the fact that Kastor was using Eratosthenes’ lower date for the Trojan War, a date which obviously cannot have been known to any Atthidographer before Philokhoros (and probably not even to him). The reigns of the monarchs will be ordered in accordance with the scheme of Kastor of Rhodes (FGrHist: 250 F4, with Jacoby’s commentary), since he provides the most complete list, but discrepancies with other chronologies (e.g. MP) will be noted as appropriate. It goes without saying that these monarchs are not ‘historical’ personalities in our sense of the word, and consequently that the events associated with their names are not accurate. The kings are ‘mythical’ characters, not all of whom belong to the strictly Athenian tradition. But they do seem to be associated with one location of Attika or another and their relevance to a time before synoikismos (political unification) attests to their antiquity. It was probably Hellanikos who organized them into a succession of rulers, arranged by generation (Jacoby, Text: 43–51; Atthis: 125–8), though it is clear that some attempt at this had been made before him (Hdt.: 8.44.2) and it is almost certain that later Atthidographers made additions and alterations to his scheme.
I think it might be useful to provide a list of the kings of this dynasty with Kastor’s dates presented in modern terms, before moving on to individual topics and personalities revealed by the fragments of the Atthidographers.
| 1556–1506 | Kekrops Diphyes |
| 1506–1497 | Kranaos |
| 1497–1487 | Amphiktyon, son of Deukalion |
| 1487–1437 | Erikhthonios, son of Athena and Hephaistos |
| 1437–1397 | Pandion, son of Erikhthonios |
| 1397–1347 | Erekhtheus, son of Pandion |
| 1347–1307 | Kekrops II |
| 1307–1282 | Pandion II |
| 1282–1234 | Aigeus, son of Pandion II |
| 1234–1205 | Theseus, son of Aigeus |
| 1205–1183 | Menestheus, great-grandson of Erekhtheus |
| 1183–1150 | Demophon, son of Theseus |
| 1150–1136 | Oxynthes, son of Demophon |
| 1136–1135 | Apheidas, son of Oxynthes |
| 1135–1127 | Thymoites, brother of Apheidas |
Autochthony and ancestry
1. Hellanikos F27 = Harpokration, s.v. autokhthones: The Athenians. Demosthenes in the (speech) about the false embassy (19.261) ‘for you alone of all men are autokhthons’. Apollodoros in the (books) About the Gods (FGrHist: 244 F106) says that they were called autokhthons because they were the first to till the land, that is the soil. But others (say) it is because of the fact that they were not immigrants. Both Pindar and he who wrote the Danais say that Erikhthonios, the son of Hephaistos, appeared from the ground. But the Arkadians, too, as Hellanikos says, and the Aiginetans and the Thebans were autokhthons.
2a. Androtion F60a = Scholion to Euripides, Phoinissai 670 (‘Thence earth sent up a fully armed sight…’): Stesikhoros in Europeia says that Athena has sowed the teeth. Androtion, on the other hand, says (they were called) Spartoi because of the fact that, after following Kadmos from Phoinikia, they lived scattered abroad (sparsim).
2b. Androtion F60b = Scholion to Pindar, Isthmian 7.13 (‘Or of the Spartoi unwearied at the spear…’): For Pherekydes (FGrHist: 3 F22) says there were two races of Spartoi. For Ares and Athena gave half of the teeth to Kadmos, and (the other) half to Aietes. But Androtion says that Kadmos, in flight from Phoinikia, came down into Thebes with (a) considerable (number of) dispersed peoples, and that it was from this that they were named Spartoi, because they were mixed people of scattered origin. But the Thebans create false and miraculous tales about them.
2c. Androtion F60c = Scholion [Tzetzes] to Lykophron, Alexandra 494–5, p. 179 b 24 [Scheer] (‘And third is the son of the man who took from the hollow rock the weapon of a giant…’): For Aigeus (was) an Athenian, born from the earth (i.e. autokhthon) and a descendant of Erekhtheus. But some say that he was also one of those who had sprung up from the teeth of the dragon in Thebes, and so does Androtion.
3. Phanodemos F13 = Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities 1.61.4: …Dardanos, on the other hand, founded a city named after himself in the territory that is now called the Troad, on some land that was given to him by the king, Teukros, after whom the land got its ancient name, Teukris. Many writers, but particularly Phanodemos who wrote the Attic archaeology, say that this man (i.e. Teukros) migrated from Attika to Asia, previously being the chief magistrate (archon) of the deme Exupetaieus (Xypete). He provides much evidence in support of his argument. After Teukros had gained control of the extensive territory, which was of good quality and sparsely inhabited, he was glad to see Dardanos and the people of the Greek race who came with him, both because he needed their alliance in his wars against the barbarians and because he did not want the land to become unpopulated.
4a. Philokhoros F2a = Stephanos of Byzantion, s.v. asty: The polis in general. But there is a difference, in that the one (asty) indicates the physical structure, while polis denotes the citizens also. It was called asty, as Philokhoros (says) in the first (eleventh MS) (book) of the Atthis, on account of the fact that, previously living as scattered nomads, at that time they stood still (stenai) from their wandering and came together into common habitations, from which they have not moved. The Athenians preceded others in building towns (asty) and cities (poleis).
4b. Philokhoros F2b = Etymologicum (Genuinum) Magnum, p. 160, 5: Asty. The polis. Philokhoros in the first (book) of the Atthis says they gave the name asty to the polis on account of the fact that, previously living as scattered nomads, at that time they stood still from their wandering and came together into common habitations, from which they did not move. So (says) Oros in (the) On Peoples.
Commentary
While the passage from Philokhoros (#4a) is certainly from the first book (the figure in Stephanos must be corrected) and probably belongs to his Introduction (Jacoby, Text: 264–5), that cannot be asserted so surely for the passages from Hellanikos and Androtion. Nevertheless, it remains the most likely place for them to have treated the topic of the origin of the Athenian, if not also the Hellenic and even the whole human, race (Jacoby, Text: 55; Androtion: 188).
Despite the archaeological evidence for their arrival from elsewhere, most aboriginal peoples maintain to this day a belief in the autochthony of their ancestors, or at least ‘express their original connection with the land through such phrases as “We have always been here” or “We have been here since time immemorial” ’ (Carlson 2001:20). This was not generally the case with ancient Greek communities, most of whom preserved traditional tales that described their arrival from outside (e.g. the Spartan story of the return of the Herakleidai) and justified their possession of the land by some tale of divine sponsorship or victory in a contest (just as the Hebrews claimed to have divine justification for depriving the Canaanites of their land). Some, like the Thebans, had conflicting myths of autochthony (the story of the Spartoi, the ‘sown-men’) and immigration (Kadmos). A few claimed to be ‘sons of the soil’ (i.e. the Aiginetans and Arkadians mentioned by Hellanikos), but it was the Athenians who made autochthony and the ancestor-theme into a fundamental feature of their national image and propaganda. This was particularly manifest in the genre of the Funeral Oration (epitaphios) from Perikles (in Thucydides 2.36.1) through the orators. It was so hackneyed a theme that Plato saw fit to parody it in his Menexenos (237e–238b). The significance of the claim to Athenian civic ideology has been well demonstrated by Loraux (1986: passim; 2000: passim). In its less pretentious form (that ‘the same people have always inhabited Attika’) it was accepted by the historian Thucydides (1.2.5) and expanded to include the whole Ionian race by Herodotos (1.56.2).
Unfortunately, we do not have an explicit statement from any of the Atthidographers on the topic of the autochthony of the ancestors (progonoi) of the Athenian demos, though they clearly attributed autochthony to some key individuals, like Kekrops, Erekhtheus and Erikhthonios (on these, and the significance of their association with Ge through their depiction as snakes, see Kearns 1989:110–12). Nevertheless, we can...
