Ancient Athens is famous as the birthplace of democracy. According to tradition, the kings of Athens were replaced by elected archons in the 11th century BC, not long after the Bronze Age. However, modern scholarship suggests that Athens continued to have kings until as late as the eighth (or possibly even the seventh) century BC—but what evidence do historical records provide for this?
The traditional account of the kings of Athens
What does the most famous version of Athens’ history claim about its kings? According to tradition, Theseus was a king of Athens shortly before the Trojan War. His dynasty continued to rule until the third generation.
At that point, his great-grandson Thymoetes was ousted by Melanthus, who took over Athens as its king and was succeeded by his son Codrus. According to many ancient sources, Codrus was the last king of Athens, though others claim it was his son, Medon. Regardless of whether it was Codrus or Medon, it was at this time that the kings of Athens came to an end. This would have been about three generations after the Trojan War. Either Medon himself or his son Acastus was the first of a new type of ruler: the archon, which was actually an elected position.
In practice, the archon had powers similar to those of the king. In fact, they continued ruling until their deaths, just like kings. Eventually, in 753 BC, the archon’s term was reduced to ten years, and, finally, in 682 BC, it was shortened to only a single year. The first of these annual archons was named Creon.
The truth about the kings of Athens
Despite being widely accepted by modern sources, this traditional view has been questioned by recent scholarship. In fact, scholars have uncovered evidence of an alternative tradition indicating that the kings of Athens ruled much later than commonly thought. One of the most explicit pieces of evidence comes from Pausanias, a Greek historian and geographer of the second century AD. His writings include numerous contradictions, so caution is advised. Nevertheless, consider the following quotation:
“But if I cared about tracing the pedigree [of the kings of Athens], I should have included in the list, besides these, the kings from Melanthus to Cleidicus the son of Aesimides.”
This statement clearly indicates that Athens had kings until Cleidicus, son of Aesimides. According to the traditional view, this figure was the third of the seven ten-year archons. He was followed by Hippomenes. This is one of the pieces of evidence that has led scholars such as Hans van Wees and Peter John Rhodes to argue that the kingship continued until the time of Hippomenes.
Supporting evidence
Admittedly, Pausanias is a later source. However, supporting evidence for this alternative tradition appears in much earlier sources. One such example is the Parian Marble, a chronicle from around 299 BC.
Although this chronicle does not record every king of Athens, it mentions many of them. What is particularly interesting is that it continues to refer to them as kings until as late as Aeschylus. He was supposedly a lifelong archon in the eighth century BC, yet the Parian Marble explicitly identifies him as a king.
The next ruler of Athens who appears in this chronicle is Lysiades, whom it refers to as an archon. He was archon in 681 BC according to the traditional chronology. Two years prior to this, the Parian Marble clearly states that the annual archonship was established in Athens.
Hence, according to this chronicle from the early third century BC, Athens continued to have kings until some point between the eighth and seventh centuries BC. Interestingly, the chronicle makes no mention of the supposed ten-year archons.
Absolute dates
Based on these and other sources, evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Athens continued to have kings until approximately 700 BC, give or take a few decades. Does this mean, however, that the only difference between the traditional story of the kings of Athens and what probably actually happened is that they held on to the title of “king”?
In reality, the situation is more complicated than this, especially when other sources are taken into account. For instance, Pausanias tells us that the Second Messenian War started during the archonship of a certain Tlesias, who supposedly ruled after Lysiades, from 680 to 679 BC. Nonetheless, modern scholars have presented convincing evidence that this war occurred several decades later. For instance, the Christian scholar Jerome of the fourth and early fifth centuries AD dated the career of Tyrtaeus to 633 BC. Notably, Tyrtaeus fought in the Second Messenian War.
Therefore, this suggests that the dates of the early annual archons of Athens should be moved forward by several decades. In turn, this would mean that kings continued to rule Athens even later, certainly into the seventh century BC.
The chronology of the kings of Athens
Strong support for this conclusion comes from the tradition that Homer met Medon, who was supposedly the first of the lifelong archons of Athens—though, as we have seen, these figures were in fact kings. The evidence regarding Homer and the composition of the Iliad firmly places his lifetime in the seventh century BC.
This implies that Medon was still ruling as king of Athens as late as the seventh century BC. Further supporting this, the Parian Marble names three kings of Athens after the time of Hesiod, who lived in that same century. Although this dating is significantly later than the traditional view, it is strongly corroborated by archaeological evidence. Medon is said to have lived only a few generations after Theseus, who is credited with the synoecism (unification) of Attica. There is historical evidence that this occurred towards the end of the eighth century BC. Hence, it is only logical to place Medon in the following century.
How can this account for the numerous rulers of Athens between Medon and the Second Messenian War? This may partly lie in the list of archons being artificially extended—an exaggeration of antiquity also seen in the cases of Sparta and Macedon.
Yet given the sheer number of archons (or kings, as the early ones actually were), the primary explanation may lie in the fact that the early archonship was actually divided into three distinct positions. It seems very likely that these ancient lists of archons accidentally presented concurrent archons as ruling consecutively.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
