Ethnos and Koinon 275descendants of the Homeric Achaeans who had migrated to the northern Peloponnese
from Argos and Sparta under the leadership of Teisamenus, the son of Orestes, having
been displaced by the arrival of the Heracleidae and displacing, in their turn, the Ioni-
ans who went to Asia Minor (Herodotus 1.145; Thucydides 3.92.5). A report about
the bones of Teisamenus being taken from the Achaean city of Helike by the Spartans
may justify the claim that the Achaeans were making assertions about their consanguin-
ity and occupation of their territory as early as the sixth century (Pausanias 7.1.8; cf.
Herodotus 1.67.2–68.6 for a similar episode, dated c. 560). All of these reports, made
by non-Achaean authors, are confirmed by a dedication made at Olympia in the early
fifth century. A group of statues depicting the Homeric Achaean heroes drawing lots
for the duel with Hector was accompanied by an inscribed epigram on one of the statue
bases: “The Achaeans dedicated these statues to Zeus, descendants of Pelops, son of Tan-
talus, rival to the gods” (Pausanias 5.25.6–8). Surviving bases in front of the temple of
Zeus at Olympia confirm Pausanias’ report (Eckstein 1969: 27–32). We do not know
exactly who made this dedication; Pausanias asserts that it was dedicated “by theethnosof
the Achaeans in common,” but this is certainly an inference from the epigram. Clearly,
the Achaeans in the early Classical period were asserting the claim that they were the
descendants of the Homeric Achaeans.
What role did this Achaean identity play in the formation of the Achaeankoinon?
Our answer to that crucial question is based entirely on inference. Olympia did not
continue to be an important sanctuary for the Achaeans in the Classical period, and
there has been much debate about the two that did. The sanctuary of Poseidon at
Helice appears to have been of central importance to the Ionians who were driven
out by the Achaeans, and there is some evidence that, in the early fourth century,
thekoinonmade a claim to control of the sanctuary that was disputed by thepolisof
Helice (Strabo 8.7.2; Diodorus Siculus 15.49.2). However, the city, along with its
venerable sanctuary, was destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami in 373. Although it
has sometimes been inferred from a statement of Pausanias (7.7.2) that the Achaeans
held their political meetings at this sanctuary before Helice was destroyed, there is
no evidence to support the claim (Rizakis 2013). We know only that they met at the
sanctuary of Zeus Homarios at nearby Aegium during the Hellenistic period. Epigraphic
evidence (SEG14.375=Rizakis 2008: no. 120) strongly suggests that this sanctuary
was of political importance to the Achaeankoinonby the late fourth century. There is
a problem with this god’s epiklesis (Aymard 1935), which affects our ability to assess
his connection with Achaean identity myths. The Zeus of Aegium was also known
as Homagyrios, “the gatherer,” explained by Pausanias (7.24.2) to commemorate
Agamemnon’s use of the sanctuary as a gathering place for the Achaeans to deliberate
about the attack on Troy. We have no way of knowing whether this cult etiology was
current among the Achaeans in the fourth century, when thekoinonis first attested,
or indeed before. If it was, it would be a clear indication of an attempt to embed the
political unification of the region in a myth of ethnic unity that associated the historic
with the Homeric Achaeans, and thereby with Pelops, grandfather of Agamemnon.
Two variants of the epiklesis, Homarios (Polybius 5.93.10) and Amarios (Strabo 8.7.3,
emended), nevertheless make the Zeus of Aegium a gathering god, quite appropriate as
a patron of political assemblies for a regional state. The political significance of the cult
of Zeus Homarios is retrojected by Polybius (2.39.5–6) to the late fifth century, but