Messenia, Ethnic Identity, and Contingency 291it is applied to the military forces raised by the former rebels in support of Athens dur-
ing the Peloponnesian War: the “Messenians of Naupactus” are listed as Athenian allies
at the outbreak of the war in 431 (Thuc. 2.9.4, Diod. 12.42.5); they serve under the
general Demosthenes in northwest Greece in 426 (Diod. 12.60.1–2); they form the
core of the Athenian garrison at Pylos set up in 425 (Thuc. 4.41.1, Diod. 12.63.5); they
appear as Athenian allies at the siege of Syracuse in 413 (Thuc. 7.31.2, 7.57.8); and they
are chosen by Conon to form an Athenian garrison on Corcyra in 410 (Diod. 13.48.6).
Neither Thucydides nor Diodorus were convinced that all the Ithome rebels were “true”
descendants of the Messenians of old (Thuc. 1.101.2; Diod. 15.66.4), and Thucydides,
in his narrative of the revolt, refers to the rebels as “those on Ithome” (1.101.3, 1.102.1,
1.103.2). However, no source comments on the ethnic heterogeneity of those who set-
tled in Naupactus. Here, it would seem, they were all equally Messenian (Luraghi 2002c:
592; cf. Figueira 1999: 215–6).
Thucydides uses the term “Messenians in Naupactus,” but for the most part he omits
the locative qualifier, and in his narrative of the early years of the Archidamian War, he
consistently refers to them simply as “Messenians” (2.25.4; 2.90.3–6; 2.102.1, 3.75.1;
3.81.2; 3.94.3; 3.95.2; 3.98.1, 3.107.1, 3.107.4; 3.108.1). In addition, the “Messe-
nians” who assist the Athenians in the capture of Pylos and Sphacteria should also be
identified with the Messenians of Naupactus; they are a well-armed military force who
arrive by sea in a light warship and another vessel, arguably by prior arrangement (Thuc.
4.9.1, 4.32.2, 4.36, cf. Lewis 1992b: 414). Thucydides’ narrative thus reveals a gradual
shift in terminology as “those on Ithome” become “Messenians in Naupactus” or simply
“Messenians,” and this reflects his acceptance of the increasing strength of Messenian
ethnic claims in Naupactus. Evidence of their ethnic self-assertiveness is provided by the
tall pillar set up by the “Messenians” at Delphi to commemorate a victory in the Aeto-
lian hinterland of Naupactus in the 420s. A second pillar was set up at Olympia by the
“Messenians” and “Naupactians” as a monumental base for the famous Nike of Paion-
ios (see Figueira 1999: 214–5; Luraghi 2008: 191, cf. 340–3). The Messenians linked
this dedication with their decisive role in the defeat and surrender of the Spartans on
Sphacteria during the Athenian capture of Pylos in 425 (Paus. 5.26.1, cf. 4.26.1; thus,
it formed a pair with a bronze statue of Nike set up by the Athenians on the acropolis
of Pylos: Paus. 4.36.6). The dedications of the Messenians at Delphi and Olympia docu-
ment intense ethnic self-assertion in the generation following their arrival at Naupactus
(Figueira 1999: 215; cf. Luraghi 2009: 113). It was by virtue of their battlefield success
that they earned the right to proclaim their ethnic identity in the two premier sanctu-
aries of the Greek world. Victory in war thus legitimated Messenian ethnic claims. In
this regard, it is worth noting that it may have been the Ithome rebels who dedicated
two spear butts inscribed with the name “Methanioi” at Olympia and at the sanctuary
of Apollo Korythos at Longà in Messenia (see Bauslaugh 1990; cf. Figueira 1999: 214;
Alcock 2002: 144–5; Luraghi 2008: 186–7; with skepticism: Hall 2003: 152–5).
The ethnic self-assertiveness of the Messenians of Naupactus lets us infer that the Messe-
nian identity claimed by the rebels on Ithome was self-ascribed (Luraghi 2002a: 60, 2008:
199). On Ithome, the rebels laid claim to an ethnic identity in order to legitimate a servile
uprising. In exile, they maintained a strong ethnic consciousness and avoided assimilation
with the citizens of Naupactus. A mid-fifth-century inscription documents the separate
political existence of the two communities (SEG51.642, with Luraghi 2008: 193). The