CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

IG 112 1 and the 
Athenian Kleruchy on Samos 

Jack Cargill 

I N THE FIFTH CENTURY the Athenians generally supported factions 
on Samos labeled 'democratic' against factions described as 'oli­
garchic' (or in terms with similar meanings). Even with Athenian 

support the Samian 'democrats' were hard put to overcome their 
'oligarchic' rivals, whether because the label generally assigned the 
pro-Athenian faction is deceptive (as some scholars believe), or be­
cause 'oligarchs' had other advantages-prestige, wealth, hired mer­
cenaries, support from Persian satraps or other external powers­
which could offset genuine numerical inferiority. Xenophon tells us 
that every ally except the Samians abandoned Athens after the de­
struction of most of the Athenian fleet at Aigospotamoi by Lysander 
in 405. The Samians, he says, made a slaughtef of the aristocrats 
(nov 'YvwpiJ..LWv) and took control (Hell. 2.2.6). Whether this decisive 
act against the oligarchic friends of Sparta came before or after the 
battle itself, it committed the Samian demos to the Athenian side for 
better or worse. It also apparently occasioned the granting of Athe­
nian citizenship to these Samians en masse. 

Lysander blockaded the Samians until they finally agreed to terms: 
free men departed with one cloak each, while Lysander gave every­
thing to "the former citizens" (TOt~ apxaiol8 1TOA.ira/'~), i. e. the 
oligarchs, and appointed a ten-man ruling council (SEKa apxovTa~).l 
Isolated passages in both Xenophon and Diodoros indicate that the 
Samian government was still friendly toward Sparta not long after 
Konon's defeat of the Spartan fleet at Knidos in 394.2 Since Samos 
was not mentioned as an exception to the terms of the King's Peace 
of 386, it presumably was classified at this time among the Greek 
states guaranteed 'autonomy' by the King.3 Samos virtually diappears 
from the sources until it is besieged and captured by the Athenian 

1 Xen. Hell. 2.3.6f. The more general discussion of Diod. 14.1 0.1 and 13.1 may in­
clude actions on Samos, though the island is not specifically named. 

2 Xen. Hell. 4.8 passim, esp. 4.8.23; Diod. 14.79.4-7, 84.3f, 93.2-4, 97.1-4, 99.4[' 
esp. 97.3f. 

3 Xen. Hell. 5.1.31, Diod. 14.110.3. 

321 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

322 IG 112 1 AND THE ATHENIAN KLERUCHY ON SAMOS 

general Timotheos in 366 B. C.4 An Athenian kleruchy was sent out to 
the island in the following year (according to the dating accepted by 
most scholars). 

The decree awarding Athenian citizenship to the loyal Samians in 
405 B.C. was presumably inscribed at the time of its passage; a pro­
vision of the decree itself (38-40) provided for erecting inscribed 
copies in both Athens and Samos. If so, the original was probably 
destroyed by the Thirty when they took control in 404. When the 
Athenian democracy was restored in 403, the original decree was 
reinscribed, along with two additional decrees of the latter year, on 
an ornate stele topped with a relief showing Athena and Hera, the tu­
telary goddesses of Athens and Samos, clasping hands.5 Although 
some scholars believe that the original decree applied to all Samians, 
and that they had to take up residence in Attica to activate a citizen­
ship that was only 'potential', the phrasing of the decree seems rather 
to indicate that loyal Samian democrats at the time of the crisis of 
405 B.C. (and, implicitly, no other Samians) were made henceforth 
Athenian citizens, wherever they happened to live after that time.6 A 
resolution that "Samians are to be Athenians, governing themselves 

4 Oem. 15.9, Isoc. 15.111, Nep. Timoth. 1.2, /G 112 108. 
5 /G 112 L photograph in O. Kern, /nscriptiones Graecae (Bonn 1913) 19. For com­

mentary see W. Gawantka, /sopolitie. (Munich 1975) 178-97 (earlier bibliography at 
179f n.32); c.f Philippe Gauthier, "Epigraphie et institutions grecques," AEHE 110 
0977-78) 373-77. 

6 So phrases such as "for the Samians, as many as were with the demos of the Athe­
nians" (I.a,.uot<; oO'ot /-UTa TO &T,f.A.O TO 'ABrwawJIJ iYEVOVTO, 3f), "for those now in­
habiting Samos" (rOt<; vtiv ou<omv I.af.A.Ov, 22), and "for the demos of the Samians" 
(TWt 8~lJ.Wt TWt I.alJ,Llwvl, 44). Gawantka (supra n.5) 196 is forced to explain away the 
apparent possession of Athenian citizenship by Eumachos (who is invited to deipnon, 
not xenia, 37)-a person who appears to be in Athens only briefly, as an ambassador, 
before returning to Samos (34f). The phrasing of 33f seems to indicate that the Sa­
mians who are to be immediately apportioned among the Attic tribes are recent arrivals 
("Samians who have come," lI.aJ,Llwv TOt<; Tj1KOO'tV) -whether or not they consist only 
of, or overlap with, the "other Samians, all those who came with Eumachos" ([&UOL<; 
I.a,.uoL<; 1Tam ToI.<; /-UTa Ev~xo TjKOO']L, 36). Admittedly, a problem could arise from 
the fact that, in the third decree, Poses the Samian, his sons, and "those of the Sa­
mians who are visiting" (I.aJ,Llwv TO<; E1T[L&ru.wv-rak 75) are invited to xenia rather 
than deipnon (63, 74). Yet careless phrasing seems more likely here than in the deipnon 
of 37, 51, and 54, where an important point about the status of the honorees is being 
made. This conclusion seems even more believable in light of the fact that the third 
decree includes a clause reaffirming everything earlier granted to the Samians (66), 
analogous to similar clauses in the second (43f, 52-54). Moreover, the very fact that 
all three decrees were inscribed on one stele would suggest that their content shows 
consistency or development, not a reversal of Athenian policy. C.f S. G. Miller, The 
Prytaneion (Berkeley 1978) 4-11; M. J. Osborne, "Entertainment in the Prytaneion at 
Athens," ZPE 41 (I98I) 153-55, and Naturalization in Athens II (Brussels 1982) 25f. 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

JACK CARGILL 323 

h th ' h" {~ , ''AfJ ' ~ ,.,,, owever ey WIS L..aJ.tw~ TJllaw~ EllaL, 7TOALTEVOJ.tEllO~ 07T'W~ all 
aliTOt {30AWVTaL, 12f) is quite meaningless if a condition of accept­
ing the profferred Athenian citizenship is the abandonment of their 
homeland, i.e., ceasing to govern themselves and instead being ab­
sorbed into the population of Attica. Of course, since Athenian citi­
zenship required registration in Attic demes, actual enrollment may 
not have been instantaneous. Apparently the Samians physically pres­
ent with the ambassador Eumachos (33f) asked for immediate enroll­
ment and got it. Other Samians could presumably come to Attica and 
do likewise, perhaps staying only long enough to go through the 
process. I see no reason, however, why the Samian magistrates might 
not simply send lists of names to the Athenian officials, for appor­
tioning among the Attic tribes and demes. 

In any case, it would seem reasonable to expect that substantial 
numbers of the Samian democrats-dispossessed, expelled from Sa­
mos, and recent recipients of Athenian citizenship- would go to Ath­
ens to take up residence. Nowhere else would appear more likely. 
Impoverished they might still be, wherever they settled. But every­
where else they would be resident aliens, lacking the political rights 
of citizens, and subject to more restrictions and taxes. In Athens, on 
the other hand, they would be full and equal citizens, in a better 
position for rebuilding their shattered fortunes. And in the defeated 
metropolis, its population diminished by three decades of war, their 
manpower might be welcome (cf Andoc. 1.149). Certain enfran­
chised Samians, resident in fourth-century Attica, have long been 
known. A family grave monument in Attica, assigned to the period 
390-365 B. C., bears the names of several members of the family of 
one 'Hpa'Yopa~ 'Hpo&hov LaJ.tLO~~ his two sons and a grandson all 
have the demotic Kephisieus.7 Mo(]'xo~ 'Y{3ATJ(]'W KTJ<PL(],LEV~ was an 
Athenian citizen buried in Attica in the fourth century B.C. (IG II2 
6431). In 1906 P. lacobsthal described this Moschos as the son of a 
Sam ian enfranchised in 405/4, citing a fifth-century Samian epitaph of 
one 'H'YTJan'YoPTJ~ ·Y{3ATJ(]'W. He went on to suggest that the ship­
owner or captain (naukleros) Hyblesios, mentioned repeatedly in Ps.­
Demosthenes 35 (the only Hyblesios in PA other than the father of 

7 IG 1)2 6417. We should presumably infer that Heragoras' wife (name lost) was not 
a native of Attica but had come with him from Samos, for Lloyd B. Urdahl, Foreigners 
in Athens: A Study of the Grave Monuments (Diss.Chicago 1959) 118, observes: "No 
sepulchral inscription of the fourth century B.C. and only one of the third century B.C. 
reveals a marriage which was beyond doubt contracted between an Athenian citizen 
and a non-citizen." 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

324 IG 112 1 AND THE ATHENIAN KLERUCHY ON SAMOS 

Moschos), was also a Samian: It is now generally agreed that Hyble­
sios was a specifically Samian name, and one very well attested in 
Samian sources.s 

A few additions may be tentatively suggested. Demosthenes' Sa­
mian connections, according to Demetrios of Magnesia, included his 
wife (Plut. Dem. 15.3). This assertion is generally rejected, or ex­
plained away by describing the woman as the daughter of an Athe­
nian kleruch on Samos. But the distinction need not be material, if 
her family could have held Athenian citizenship in either case. It is 
similarly unnecessary to deny the legitimacy (i.e., proper citizen par­
entage) of the two sons given to Demosthenes by another source 
(Ps.-Plut. Mor. 847c)-if one in fact accepts their existence. Whether 
she bore him sons or not, Demosthenes' wife must have been of 
citizen stock: both Aischines and Deinarchos, who insult Demosthe­
nes by saying (Aesch. 2.l49) or implying (Din. 1.71) that his wife 
bore children putatively his but actually sired by another man, would 
surely be expected to add her lack of citizen status to the insult, if 
there were truth or even plausibility in it.9 

'Taureas' is a personal name derivable from the name of a Samian 
month, and several Samians called Taureas are known, whereas the 
name appears only twice in PA. An Attic inscription mentions an 
ephebe of 324/3, TavpEa~ AiniJ..Wv r.KaJ.J-f30J)iB'T1~.lO Someone named 
Aisimos appears in sources relating to Athenian politics and diplo­
macy at the very end of the fifth century. No Athenian is known to 
have borne this name earlier, and nothing is known about Aisimos' 
background or family~ yet Lysias depicts him in a leadership role in 
the return of the Athenian democrats from Peiraieus at the time of 
the expulsion of the Thirty in 403 -acting with particular zeal to put 
one upstart in his place who was accused of (among other vices) 

8 Jacobsthal, "Hybla," AthMitt 31 (906) 419f. Commonness in Samos: Chr. Habicht, 
"Samische Volksbeschliisse der hellenistischen Zeit," AthMitt 72 (I957) 188 and n.46; 
J. and L. Robert, Bull.epigr. 1960, 318; G. Dunst, "Archaische Inschriften und Doku­
mente der Pentakontaetie aus Samos," AthMitt 87 (972) 156-58, suggesting an addi­
tion to the sixteen examples already known to him. Osborne, Naturalization II (supra 
n.6) 25 n.61, cites IG 112 6431 with a question mark, referring to Habicht and the 
Roberts. 

9 See J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971) 138f for discussion, 
sources, and literature; and note Urdahl's statement (supra n. 7). 

10 Habicht (supra n.8) 215; it is not suggested that the name was uniquely Samian; 
other Ionian cities had a month Taureon, e.g. Miletos (Staatsvertr. III 537.19), but the 
Attic calendar had no such month. Samian attestations: J. P. Barron, The Silver Coins of 
Samos (London 1966) 104, 110 and n.6; J. Pouilloux, Choix 34.858; SEG XXII 483.2 
(?: Sam ian provenance restored). Ephebe: O. W. Reinmuth, The Ephebic Inscriptions of 
the Fourth Century B.C. (Mnemosyne Supp!. 14 [1971]) no. 15.ii.12. 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

JACK CARGILL 325 

falsely passing himself off as an Athenian citizen (Lys. 13.80-82). By 
the late 390's Aisimos' peculiarity of gait and/or propensity for drink 
were familiar enough for Aristophanes to refer to the state "reeling 
like Aisimos" (Eccl. 208). Perhaps he was only showing his sea-legs, 
since he later sailed out on two missions which were important in the 
organizational phase of the Second Athenian League. When a defen­
sive alliance was made with Chios in 384, Aisimos was one of five 
Athenian ambassadors (his demotic has unfortunately been lost from 
the stone) whose names were inscribed below the text of the treaty 
(IG 112 34.36, Staatsvertr. II 248.40). A few years later, when Me­
thymna on Lesbos joined the League, Aisimos and "the synedroi on 
the ships" were charged with administering the oaths of the new 
ally's magistrates (IG 112 42.19f, Staatsvertr. 258). His association with 
these members of the League council apparently causes some schol­
ars to differentiate between two men named Aisimos, an Athenian 
(perhaps even a general, some believe) of the other sources and a 
representative of some unspecified allied state in the Methymna trea­
ty. I see no reason, however, to doubt that all these sources refer to 
the same person, an Athenian citizen, for whom no office other than 
ambassador is indicated. Taureas Skambonides, ephebe in 324/3, 
might perhaps have been his grandson (which would necessitate a 
son Aisimos between them). The connection would make sense, 
because Aisimos, like Taureas, is a name not only rare in Attica but 
also attested on Samos.ll Everything we know about Aisimos is in 
fact consistent with his being an enfranchised Samian: the rarity of 
the name, his appearance on the scene in a politically important role 
at this particular time, his zeal for the Athenian democracy, and his 
diplomatic connections with Chios and Lesbos-islands traditionally 
linked with Sam os in Athenian policy. 

More conjectural possibilities may be mentioned also. 'POtKO~ <l>t­
Aivo appears on an early-fourth-century Athenian liturgical list (IG 112 
1928.15)-the only Rhoikos in PA, and a name attested among 
Samians.12 PA lists three Athenians called Saurias, another name 
attested early on Samos. One of the Attic examples (PA 12611) is 
almost certainly illusory,13 Textual difficulties also beset the restora-

11 SEG I 355.3. Perhaps it should be mentioned that Pape-Benseler s. v. posited five 
Athenians named Taureas, from the same sources from which PA infers only two; the 
rarity or commonness of the name Taureas in Athenian literary sources may, then, be 
somewhat doubtful, though no one disputes the rarity of Aisimos. 

12 A Rhoikos is supposed to have built the earliest Heraion: Jacobsthal (supra n.8) 
420 n.1. 

13 Autopsy, my own squeeze, and consultation with C. Karapa of the Epigraphical 
Museum (21 July 1983) convince me that the text of IG 112 1491.22 is correct in read-



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

326 IG IJ2 1 AND THE ATHENIAN KLERUCHY ON SAMOS 

tion of Saurias as the name of an epimeletes among the Athenian 
kleruchs on Lemnos in IG XII.8 5.6, not listed among PA's exam­
ples. The remaining two examples are both mentioned in fourth­
century sources. If these names were new in Attica, perhaps they 
came in with the new Samian-Athenian citizens. 

The circumstances of Timotheos' siege and capture of Samos in 366 
B.C. are obscure. Demosthenes tells us that Samos was at that time 
garrisoned by Kyprothemis, who had been stationed there by Tigra­
nes, viceroy (mrapxo~) of the Persian King~ he says Timotheos freed 
(r,A.Ev8epwO'E) the island (15.9). If a Samian element was present with­
in the population of Attica in the first half of the fourth century, noth­
ing would seem to preclude the possibility of a Samian element among 
the Athenian kleruchs sent to Samos co 365. Would not many of the 
enfranchised Samian exiles (or, more likely, their sons or grandsons) 
be among the 'Athenians' most eager to participate in the kleruchy? 
Most other Athenians might, conversely, be quite reluctant. Samos 
was just off the Asian coast, and the King was not friendly~ it could be 
a dangerous place in which to settle. Furthermore, the new Samian 
citizens (and their offspring) might still mostly be numbered among 
the least wealthy classes of Athenians, since many of them would have 
begun their stay in Attica with literally nothing but the clothes on their 
backs. Such classes were perhaps the most likely citizens to participate 
in kleruchies. This economic premise requires further investigation, 
but if it should be valid, and if the kleruchs constituted in any sense a 
random sample of lower-class Athenians, the enfranchised Samians 
might well be disproportionately represented. 

Epigraphic evidence relating to the Samian kleruchy is not al­
together lacking. The names of about sixty apparent kleruchs are 
known, approximately two-thirds of the total from a very valuable 
document of 346/5 B.C. discovered in the excavations at the temple 
of Hera, which includes lists of treasurers of Hera and of proedroi, 
with demotics.14 <l>op~ MEA.'(TE~) (11) was a member of an Athe­
nian navy board (symmory) sometime between 356 and 340 B.C. (IG 

ing ['I1<Txvpia .. rather than 'Lavpia .. , i.e. that the traces require X' not a. In IG 1)2 
1492.114 the emendation necessary to read Saurias would leave an empty letter-space 
(autopsy also). Samian attestation: see G. Lippold, RE 2A (J920 261 S.v. "Saurias." 

14 Michel 832; slightly revised text by Dieter Ohly, "Die Gottin und ihre Basis," 
AthMitt 68 (] 953) 25-50. The traditional association of certain other inscriptions with 
the Sam ian kleruchy is highly doubtful: G. L. Cawkwell, "The Date of I.G. 112 1609 
Again," HislOria 22 (I973) 759-61, establishes that the inscription is most reasonably 
dated to 370/369 B.C., i.e., well before the sending of any kleruchs to Samos. IG 1(2 
1952 mentions several kleruchs, but no basis exists for asserting that they were kler­
uchs sent to Somos. 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

JACK CARGILL 327 

112 1616.75), a fact which led Davies (APF 557) to conclude that he 
must have gone to Sam os with a late group of kleruchs. If he was 
already a person of some affluence (as the performance of this liturgy 
would indicate) before participating in the kleruchy, presumably he 
was not driven to join it by economic hardship. Was his motivation a 
desire to go 'home'? 'HBvAOI; awy[ - - -] 'AAaEvl; appears on the 
gravestone of an apparent Athenian kleruch buried on Samos. Ernst 
Fabricius long ago suggested that he was the grandfather of the poet 
Hedylos, described by Athenaios (297 A) as "Hedylos the Samian or 
Athenian" -a description which makes sense, Fabricius continued, if 
the poet came from an Athenian kleruchic family and was born on 
Samos. The interpretation makes even better sense if ancestral Sa­
mians were among those present on the island during the kleruchy. 
Hedylos the poet was a member of the historian Douris' literary 
circle on Samos after the withdrawal of the kleruchs.I5 Neokles was 
archon on Samos in 334/3, when "the demos of the Athenians in 
Samos" dedicated a golden crown to Apollo at Delphi. I6 It seems 
clear that he is to be identified with Neokles Gargettios (PA 10640), 
father of the philosopher Epikouros~ the family's connection with the 
kleruchy is attested by numerous sources. A recent biographer of 
Douris of Samos suggests that Epikouros was a fellow student of 
Douris and his brother Lynkeus, in Athens, after the expulsion of 
the kleruchy. Although PA lists several persons with the name of 
both father (IO) and son (6), Epikouros is also a name well attested 
on Samos, while Neokles' name itself is not unknown there.l7 Per­
haps the Athenian kleruch Neokles named his son for a Samian 
relative. Many other names of the known Athenian kleruchs are 
names also attested in Samian sources, although the commonness of 
most of these names makes Sam ian origin in each particular case 
unprovable. I8 

15 Fabricius, "AlterthUmer auf der Insel Samos," AthMilt 9 (884) 260f no. 4a; R. B. 
Kebric, In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos (Historia Einzelschr. 29 [1977]) 20. 
Fritz Heichelheim, Die auswartige Bevo/kerung im Pto/emaerreich (Klio Beih. 18 [1925]), 
lists Hedylos in his Ptolemaic prosopography under both Athenians (84) and Samians 
(07). 

16 Syll.3 276A.5 (SEC XVIIl 200). 
17 Epikouros: Kebric (supra n.15) 27; Michel 366.2; M. Schede, "Mitteilungen aus 

Samos," AthMitf 37 (I912) 216 no. 17.3; Habicht (supra n.8) 177 no. 11.1 f; Pouilloux, 
Choix 34B.8[; A. Maiuri, Nuova Silloge Epigra/ica di Rodi e Cos (Florence 1925) 1.3; V. 
Theophanidis, "Epigraphai Samou," De/tion 9 (I 924-25) no. IV.4; two unpublished in­
scriptions cited in files at the Institute for Advanced Study. Neokles: Theophanidis no. 
1.2. 

18 Samian attestations exist (they are too numerous to cite on a tangential point, but 
I have verified them in each case) for the following names in Michel 832 (line num-



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

328 IG lIZ 1 AND THE ATHENIAN KLERUCHY ON SAMOS 

For most modern commentators, when the Athenian kleruchs came 
in, all the Samians were expelled~ when the kleruchs were finally 
expelled in 322 or 321 B.C., all the Samians came back. A consider­
ably more subtle position is taken by G. T. Griffith: 

In the long siege which won Samos the Athenians were over­
coming virtually a Persian or pro-Persian garrison and a govern­
ment of oligarchs (a tyrant and his circle)~ they were not fighting 
the Samian demos . .. There is no need to doubt that the Sam ian 
demos may perhaps have welcomed an Athenian 'presence' now 
which got their own upper class off their backs. The lands for the 
cleruchs will have been found from the estates of these newly­
exiled and unpopular Samians. All good democrats, Samians, Athe­
nians, and Athenian cleruchs at Sam os, shared a common interest 
in continuing always to make absolutely sure that not one of those 
exiles ever came back.19 

Thus Griffith assumes (sensibly and correctly, I think) that at the 
time the kleruchy was established Sam ian 'democrats' remained on 
Samos alongside the newcomers from Attica. Certainly the Samian 
democrats had been exiled at least briefly, and certainly the island 
was for a time under the control of the oligarchs (Samians who, on 
my interpretation, had not been granted Athenian citizenship)~ these 
facts are evident from Xenophon's description of the activities of 

bers in parentheses): Dionysios (2), Lysandros (2), Theophilos (3), Theokles (3, 5, 
58), Aristomachos (4), Aristarchos (7, 59), Antiphon (7, 60), Kallimachos (8, 60), 
Diotimos (] 1), Theoxenos (lIf), Demetrios OO[?1, 62), Gorgias (44), Sokrates (44), 
Euboulides (61), Dionysodoros (6If). Kleruchs mentioned in sources other than Mi­
chel 832 whose names have Samian attestations: Timosltratos?l SEG XVIII 201.2 (I 
could see no trace of the sigma in examining the stone on 2 July 1983); and (all on 
unpublished Heraion 1nv. J 24) Theogenes, Androkles, Philippos, Ariston. Ariston 
Timos [traltou (Phalereus) Athenaios was a victor in comic poetry competition on 
Samos in the second century B.C. (Michel 901.10). His sons were named Timostratos 
and Poses (JG 112 1714.10). Poses' own son (JG 112 1756.22) was another Ariston (see 
stemma in PA 13824). Poses and Ariston continue to appear in pairs of names of Athe­
nian fathers and sons in Boiotian victor lists of the first century B.C.: IG VII 416.30; 
540.14 (SEG XIX 335). The name Poses, which appears only once in PA, was also 
borne by the Sam ian honored and crowned by the Athenian assembly in 403 B.C. (JG 
IF 1.58 etc.). Philion of Michel 832.2 has, in Davies' words (APF 555), a "far from 
common name-root." Although I have not found this name itself in Samian sources, 
the root appears to have been proportionally more common. [Nik]omachos Hieroklei­
ous Athenaios, the comedian, is attested on Samos later than the period of the kler­
uchy (Habicht [supra n.8] 224-26 no. 58.3), but he too was an Athenian with a name 
known in Sam ian sources. 

19 Griffith, "Athens in the Fourth Century," in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whitta­
ker, edd., Imperialism in the Ancient World (Cambridge 1978) 139f; cf Barron (supra 
n.lO) 118; Kebric (supra n.15) 3; S. M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos (Hypomnemata 51 
[1978]) 67. 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

JACK CARGILL 329 

Lysander. It makes sense to suppose that many of the democratic 
exiles would have returned home after the Spartans' dominance of 
the Aegean was broken in the late 390's. Whether they expelled the 
oligarchs associated with Lysander's dekarchy, or worked out some 
sort of modus vivendi with them, is unknown. It seems clear that an 
oligarchic faction friendly with Kyprothemis was in control at the time 
of Timotheos' expedition. Persian military support was apparently 
necessary for the maintenance of the 'tyranny'. It is natural to as­
sume (with Griffith) that Samians implicated in this regime (those 
who did not perish in the fighting itself) would have fled into exile in 
consequence of Timotheos' successful siege. These persons would 
therefore have been absent during the period of the kleruchy, and 
presumably Griffith is also correct in supposing that their lands would 
have been confiscated. Numerous Samians in exile during this period 
are well attested, especially in the series of exile (cpvy",,) decrees 
passed by the returnees in the years after 322, giving praise, honors, 
and often Samian citizenship to individuals who had befriended them 
during their absence.2o 

The kleruchs were the state on Samos during the period of their 
presence~ this is clear enough from the fact that they provided the 
treasurers of Hera (Michel 832). If some Samians remained, at least 
initially, alongside the kleruchs, the question of these Samians' status 
is inescapable (though even Griffith does not appear to deal with it 
directly, as one might expect). Were they enslaved? Did they become 
'resident aliens' in their own land? I believe that it is more likely, 
and that it would be more politically workable, for them to have been 
absorbed into the kleruchic state-on the basis of the Athenian 
citizenship granted to the Samian democrats in 405 and reaffirmed in 
403. Samos was Athenian territory now. Why should not all the 
Athenian citizens present share in governing it? The remaining oli­
garchs, as mentioned above, will have fled when Timotheos captured 
the island. Whether and to what extent these Samian democrats 
shared in the lands appropriated from the exiled oligarchs is undeter­
minable. 
n£Ava"W~, whose name derives from the name of a Samian month, 

is described in Michel 832.39 as "the iEPO~ of the goddess." Ulrich 
Koehler believed that Pelysios was a temple slave, taking the term as 
equivalent to iepoBovAO~ and analogous to BrJl.Lo(J"tO~ (public slave). 

20 See, e.g., Michel 366-69; Fabricius (supra n.15) 194; M. Schede, "Aus dem He­
raion von Samos," AthMitf 44 (I919) 4-15; Habicht (supra n.8) 258f and "Hellenisti­
sche Inschriften aus dem Heraion von Samos," AthMitt 87 (I972) 196ft' nos. 2 and 4. 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

330 fG IJ2 1 AND THE ATHENIAN KLERUCHY ON SAMOS 

Indeed, his very presence during the period of the kleruchy was one 
reason offered by Koehler for classifying him as a slave. Other schol­
ars have described Pelysios as a 'priest' (equating the term with 
iepelx;) , but it would seem rather suspicious to try to save his free 
status by a dubious translation. G. Dunst, however, even while 
denying this translation, cites a parallel which implies that hieros of 
itself cannot prove Pelysios to have been a slave. Perhaps he was, but 
he can as easily have been a Samian citizen; a magistrate with the 
same name is mentioned on Samian coins.21 If a Samian citizen, then 
he may also have been an Athenian citizen. His name bears no de­
motic in Michel 832, but its context is one in which a demotic would 
not be provided-just as one is not given for the names of the ar­
chons in Athens (lines 1, 5). The sources do not make it possible to 
differentiate, after 365, between 'Samian-Athenians' who came out as 
kleruchs and those already resident on Samos. Any of the names 
with demotics on Michel 832 could belong to either category, if both 
participated in the kleruchic state. This situation is of course not very 
satisfying. However, even an imprecise 'feel' about a Samian-Athe­
nian presence on Samos may be viewed as a step forward, compared 
with the traditional confident, but possibly quite erroneous, assump­
tion that there simply was no such presence. 

If enfranchised Samians and their offspring constituted a numerous 
element within the fourth-century Athenian citizen body, if some of 
them participated in the kleruchy established on Samos ca 365, and if 
the kleruchs lived in harmony with Samians already present and 
already their fellow citizens, then conventional interpretations of the 
implications of the establishment of the kleruchy may well be called 
into question. The kleruchy becomes less obviously an example of a 
new and rapacious Athenian imperialism, or a provocation leading to 
the Social War, as many have suggested. Rather, it may have repre­
sented only a new phase in Athens' traditional support of the Samian 
'democrats' against their 'oligarchic' enemies, opportunely embodied 
in a stroke against the power of the Persians, who had recently be­
come hostile to Athens, and whose occupation of Samos was itself in 
flagrant violation of the provisions of the King's Peace. The Athe­
nians' occupation of the island would indicate their realization that 
only a large influx of settlers from Attica could secure it against 

21 Name: Michel 368.2; W. Vischer, "Epigraphisches," RhM 22 (I867) 317f; Habicht 
(supra n.8) 215. Status: U. Koehler, "Inschrift der Kleruchen auf Samos," AthMitt 7 
(I882) 368-70; Barron (supra n.l0) 134 and n.l3; Kebric (supra n.lS) 3 n.16; Dunst 
(supra n.8) 34 and n.69. 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

JACK CARGILL 331 

Persian/oligarchic recapture. 22 The place of the Samian kleruchy with­
in Athenian foreign relations- both with the allies and with the 
Persian Empire and its satraps-requires further investigation. But 
over-generalizations must be avoided. Athenian-Samian relations in 
the fourth-century constituted a decidedly special case, whose unique 
nature should not be ignored. 

ApPENDIX 

The subsequent history of the Sam ian kleruchy is not within the scope of 
this discussion. Developments in changed circumstances may tell us little 
about the Athenians' motivations in the establishment of the kleruchy and 
during the early years of its operation. The picture of even the later years 
need not be as bleak as the interpretation, ultimately derived from G. Grote, 
History of Greece X (London 1869) 57 n.l, accepted by most commentators 
(including Griffith). The sources on which this interpretation is based may 
reasonably be described as suspect. That the Samian government which 
passed the phyge decrees (supra n.20) was democratic in form is obvious 
from the wording of the decrees themselves, but this need not be significant; 
a demos of all citizens eligible to vote may be limited to persons with 
a certain property qualification-in exactly the same way that the demos 
of Athens was sometimes restricted under Macedonian domination. Kebric 
(supra n.15) 6f is convinced that Samians of all classes had long been exiled; 
nonetheless, he recognizes that the returnees would have been mostly oli­
garchs. Schede (supra n.20) 14 comments that aristocratic names found on 
Sam ian coins tended also to appear in the returnees' phyge inscriptions; cf 
Hornblower (supra n.22) 199 and n.132. Sherwin-White (supra n.19) 67 
n.194 and 71 and Hornblower (199 and elsewhere) make much of the num­
ber of states whose citizens are mentioned in these decrees, but aristocratic 
exiles will always have individual friends in many places. It is noteworthy 
that the Sam ian phyge decrees honor specific persons, whereas IG If2 1.48f 
commends the Ephesians and Notians in general for receiving the pro­
Athenian Sam ian exiles. 

Kebric (61), though expressing doubt, admits that the passages in Dio­
doros on Sam os and Samians in this period could have been taken from 
Douris. If so, an oligarchich and anti-Athenian bias in them may be sus­
pected. Griffith (140 and 313 n.40) cites Krateros FGrHist 342F21 as applying 

22 S. Hornblower. Mal/solus (Oxford 1982) 135f, describes evidence for Mausolos' 
influence on Samos before the Persian occupation. speculating: "Was Sam os an early 
try-out for the kind of Mausolan practices later carried through with greater success at 
Rhodes? For once. Athens beat Mausolus to it: after Timotheos' siege. the cieruchy on 
Samos kept Mausolus and Persia at bay." Cf the casual acceptance of Kebric (supra 
n.15) 3: "While the terms of the [King's] Peace contained no specifics governing its 
disposal. proximity guaranteed the eventual absorption of Samos into the Persian Em­
pire ... ''1 



CARGILL, JACK, "IG" II² 1 and the Athenian Kleruchy on Samos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 24:4 (1983:Winter) p.321 

332 IG lIZ 1 AND THE ATHENIAN KLERUCHY ON SAMOS 

to the fourth-century Samian kleruchy, and makes much of its implications. 
The passage, from Zenobios' explanation of 'ATTtKO~ 7TapOtKO~, he renders: 
"Krateros says it comes from the Athenian epoikoi who were sent to Samos. 
For the Athenians who reinforced those already there in Samos settled and 
pushed out the native Samians." But Jacoby ad loc. and Hornblower (I 98 
n.127) argue against the connection, as all other known fragments of Krat­
eros relate to the fifth century. Another major source of the conventional 
reconstruction is a passage in Herakleides Lembos (second century B.C.), 
excerpting Aristotle's lost Constitution of the Samians (M. R. Dilts, Heraclidis 
Lembi Excerpfa Polifiarum [GRBM 5 (1971)] 24; Arist. fr.611.35 Rose): 
"Theogenes, a certain Samian, clever but profligate and knavish, being exiled 
from his country and living at Athens with Euripides, having made him an 
accomplice by corrupting his wife, persuaded the Athenians to dispatch 2000 
(men?) to Sam os; having arrived, they expelled everyone." Who is Theoge­
nes and when is he welcome at Athens but not on Samos? How did he 
(through his Athenian dupe-with a suspiciously famous name, though its 
most famous bearer cannot fit the period of the kleruchy chronologically) 
persuade the assembly to send to Samos 2000 (kleruchs? troops?). This 
undated story, if credible at all, might just as easily fit the events of 440 B.C., 
when private Samians sought Athenian help, oligarchs were sent away to 
Lemnos, and an Athenian garrison was dispatched (Thuc. 1.115-17, Plut. 
Per. 26-28); or of 411, when large numbers of Samians were expelled in an 
action having Athenian support (Thuc. 8.21, 73). Details have to be coerced 
to fit any of these occasions, including the period of the kleruchy. Is the 
statement "they expelled everyone" more credible than anything else in this 
manifestly unreliable tale? It is true that Strabo 14.1.18 echoes the figure 
2000, and calls them kleruchs, but his account is extremely condensed (men­
tioning the presence on Samos of Perikles, Sophokles, Neokles, and Epi­
kouros all in the same sentence) and obviously derivative; it provides no 
independent support for Herakleides' story.23 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 

October, 1983 

2:1 This work was facilitated by a 1982 Summer Fellowship from Rutgers University. 
Versions were read at the APAI AlA convention in Philadelphia in December 1982 and 
at a Rutgers Social History Group colloquium in February 1983. Some material unavail­
able to me in the United States I consulted during two months in Greece in summer 
1983 (while working on a different project, funded in part by a Rutgers Research 
Council grant). I am grateful for the use of the facilities and the help of the staffs at 
the American School, the British School, the Epigraphical Museum, the Agora Mu­
seum, the Delphi Museum, and the Heraion Excavation on Sam os. For comment on 
earlier drafts I wish to thank readers whose names I do not know and Professors Chris­
tian Habicht, Fordyce Mitchel, Raphael Sealey, Stanley Burstein, Kent Rigsby, John 
Buckler, and too many of my colleagues in the Rutgers History Department to mention 
by name. I have of course disagreed on points with all of them.