• 1 Arrian, Anabasis 4.11.6: […] μεμνῆσθαι γὰρ οὐ Καμβύσῃ οὐδὲ Ξέρξῃ ξυνόντα ἢ ξυμβουλεύοντα, ἀλλὰ Φιλί (...)
• 2 Hammond (1972), Hatzopoulos (1996), Hatzopoulos (2003, 133–4). See also Borza (1990, 233), for crit (...)
• 3 Contrary to Appian (Syriaca 63: […] Ἄργος τὸ ἐν Ὀρεστείᾳ ὅθεν οἱ Ἀργεάδαι Μακεδόνες […]), Herodotus (...)

1In a much cited passage Arrian, writing in the 2nd century CE, contends that the Temenids, who came from Argos, ruled the Macedonians “not by force, but by law”.1 Some modern historians have thence inferred a “constitutional” Macedonian monarchy, a notion which has been rightly criticised for the amount of evidence required to be projected from the late Classical and Hellenistic period back in time.2 However, it is fairly obvious from the text that distinction is made not between the Persians and the Macedonians but between the Persians and the Greeks. Would the Temenids rule by law, had they not come to Macedonia from Argos?3

• 4 So Ma (2018, n. 2).
• 5 Nomina I, 25: “Le monde grec archaïque qui nous a livré des documents écrits est exclusivement celu (...)
• 6 Hedrick (1999, 395–6 and 398–9).

2The debate over “the ‘constitutionalist’ vs ‘autocratic’ nature of the Macedonian state”4 is intertwined with that over the—by modern national standards—ethnic identity of the Macedonians, whose political organisation defies established notions of Greekness, exemplified by the polis, i.e. the city‑state. Already in antiquity, Greek populations that were organised in ethnic kingdoms or federations were set apart from the rest of the Greeks, the term “Greek” holding a political rather than ethnic sense. Thus, modern historiography struggles to reconcile Macedonian with regular Greekness. Epigraphic bias has played a significant role in this. As noted by its editors, Nomima concerns exclusively the polis, since “the other people who lived […] in tribes or semi-barbarous kingdoms, did not make use of writing”.5 Admittedly, not all Greek city-states participated in the practice of inscribing state documents;6 however, even if without an epigraphic habit, these were literate societies, which had developed and used local scripts.

• 7 Johnston (2012).
• 8 See LSAG² throughout.
• 9 Malkin (1996). On Nomima as determinants of colonial identity, see Nafissi (1999), Malkin (2011, 55 (...)
• 10 Luraghi (2010), Johnston (2012, 323–4).
• 11 The Karian cities also devised local scripts (Adiego, 2013a–b) and possibly also the Philistine cit (...)

3The local (or epichoric) scripts are unique and distinctive local varieties of the Greek alphabet specific to each one of the archaic Greek city-states. They indicated a community’s independence, and all city‑states developed their own version in the Archaic period.7 As deduced by the consistency with which the script of a metropolis is transplanted to its colonies,8 the local script (including the numerical system) was part of the nomima, in addition to civic name, political institutions, laws, cults, calendar, measures and weight standard, and possibly dialect.9 Indeed, local scripts appear to be inextricable from civic identity,10 as further indicated by the fact that this was not a specifically Greek phenomenon, but rather one characteristic of the polis, since their development is also attested in other, non‑Greek regions, where the polis was the dominant form of political organisation.11

• 12 Granberg (2008).
• 13 Nomina I, 26.
• 14 Postulated by McLuhan (1964).
• 15 On the association between state formation and script in other historical contexts, see Knauf (1989 (...)

4The development of a common script within a state has been shown to be instrumental towards the formation of a common identity,12 which was crucial for a city‑state, a political entity comprised by a body of citizens aware of forming a community.13 Therefore, the visibility of a society in the epigraphic record should perhaps be reframed and examined through the prism of “the medium is the message” theory.14 In this respect, script itself, not the content of the inscriptions, plays a role in state formation.15

• 16 Service (1962), Fried (1967), and Spencer (2010, 7119), with further bibliography.
• 17 Despite a general consensus that concedes the attribute “state”, critics argue that the ancient Gre (...)
• 18 Morgan (2003, 7–10). On the ethnê of Northwestern Greece in particular, see Hammond (2000).
• 19 See especially Earle (1991). On objections to the concept, see Pauketat (2007).

5Modern anthropology and political science has produced evolutionary models for the socio-political development of communities, such as those formulated by Elman Service: band → tribe → chiefdom → state, and Morton Fried: egalitarian society → ranked society (chiefdom) → stratified society → state.16 If such a linear evolutionary model is applied to ancient Greece, the city‑state helms the sequence, although the level that was reached in antiquity is debatable.17 Some Greeks as well as others (e.g. Thracians) were divided in ethnê, a political form generally thought of as less developed than the city‑state in both modern and ancient political thought.18 An ethnos could be tribal, could have formed a confederacy (koinon) of more or less nucleated communities, or could be ruled by a king. In the latter case it would be described as a chiefdom,19 which could also dominate over neighbouring ethnê and/or towns.

• 20 The Thessalians shared a lot with the Macedonians culturally, as Hatzopoulos (1996, I, 478) remarks (...)
• 21 Iriarte (2021).
• 22 Cf. Scheidel (2013, 5–9 and 30–2). Runciman (1982) classifies city-states as “protostates”.

6Autonomy and sovereignty certainly form the basis of statehood; however, at least in modern political theory, statehood is achieved by meeting additional criteria. The Greeks from the south, who regarded Macedonians, as well as other Northwestern Greek ethnê (Aitolians, Akarnanians, Molossians) as barbarians,20 probably had additional criteria as well. Judging from the preservation—even if nominally—and utilisation of civic institutions by tyrants,21 the Greeks apparently distinguished between tyranny and monarchy, as well as between alliance and federation, on account of civic institutions and enfranchisement, however restricted. Thus, for the present discussion the term (city‑)state will be retained, on account of a definition of state as an independent community that occupies a demarcated territory, acknowledges a (monolithic and/or unique) common identity, and is administered by stable central institutions, whose rules are binding within the given territory.22

• 23 Chatzinikolaou (2009).
• 24 Xydopoulos (2012).
• 25 Thucydides 2.99.2: τῶν γὰρ Μακεδόνων εἰσὶ καὶ Λυγκησταὶ καὶ Ἐλιμιῶται καὶ ἄλλα ἔθνη ἐπάνωθεν, ἃ ξύμ (...)

8The main form of political organisation in the lands north of Mt Olympus was the ethnos. Most prominent were the Macedonians, who inhabited the land northeast of Pieria Mts and Mt Bermion and were ruled by a royal house. In the Archaic period their kings expanded their rule up to Axios River and eventually beyond it as far as the Strymon Valley (Figure 1). The Chalkidike peninsula was not part of the kingdom. To the west, the so‑called Upper Macedonia, including the regions of Elimeia, Orestis, Eordia, and Lynkos,23 was occupied by autonomous ethnê ruled by their own royal families, most of which were at odds with that of the Macedonians, even advertising their dissociation from them by their own distinct genealogical myths.24 They are reported by Thucydides as “allied and subjected” (σύμμαχα καὶ ὑπήκοα) to the Macedonian king, a phrasing that indicates that their independence was compromised but they remained autonomous nevertheless.25 This area was politically consolidated only by the mid‑4th century, in the reign of Philip II.

• 26 For a full treatment, see Делев (2014).
• 27 Babelon (1907), nos 1455–60: Getas, Edonian king; nos 1479–81: Doki(mos?); nos 1482–8: Mosses.

9The Thracian ethnê inhabiting the Strymon Valley and adjacent regions we know only from coins and some passing references in Herodotus and Thucydides.26 Some of these were ruled by kings, as we may infer from the legends on their coins,27 which, however, feature mostly ethnic (or civic?) names.

• 28 Chalkidians: Papadopoulos (1996), Papadopoulos (2021, 430–1). Bottaiaians: Flensted-Jensen (1995).
• 29 On this “geographic patterning”, see Kotsonas (2020).

10Chalkidike was also occupied by ethnê, local (Chalkideis) or migrant (Bottiaioi),28 but the dominant form of political organisation was the polis, represented chiefly by colonial city‑states on the coast. The colonies were not restricted to Chalkidike but extended from Pieria all the way to Eastern Thrace, Eretrian to the west, around the Thermaic Gulf, Andrian on the western coasts of the Strymonic Gulf, Parian from Strymon to Nestos, and East Greek east of Nestos River.29 Most colonies had been established by c. 600, when the Korinthians founded Poteidaia in Chalkidike, and in 437 the Athenians established Amphipolis on the Strymon.

• 30 In Hansen & Nielsen (2004), six are recorded east of Axios, forty-six between Axios and Strymon, an (...)
• 31 Χαλάστρη πόλις Θρηίκων and Θέρμη πόλις Ἑλλήνων Θρηίκων (Hekataios, FGrHist 1, fr. 146); Σινδοναίοι, (...)
• 32 Sakellariou (1989, 155–9), Hansen (2004, 39–43), Hansen (2006, 56–7).
• 33 Hatzopoulos (1996, Ι, 169–79).
• 34 Hansen & Nielsen (2004), nos 529 (Aigai), 530 (Alebaia), and 543 (Pella), all three in the urban se (...)

11Alongside the colonies, the wider area of the Thermaic Gulf hosted non‑colonial settlements often mentioned as poleis in ancient sources,30 some reported to have had Thracian or mixed Greco-Thracian population.31 However, although large nucleated settlements presuppose some kind of self-governance, there is no evidence that these settlements ever became fully fledged city-states. A settlement may be a polis in the political (civic) sense, in the urban sense (ἄστυ), or simply a citadel.32 Be that as it may, these settlements, in the form of toumba (tell, mound), trapeza (table, hillfort), or combined, do not characterise the entire area of Northern Greece. They are a rather localised phenomenon in the Lower Axios Valley and northwestern Chalkidike (Figure 2; cf. n. 31), an area conquered by the Macedonians in the course of the 6th century and infirmly held till the mid‑4th century.33 In Macedonia proper this settlement form is absent, save for a few sites in Pieria (Aloros, Kastro Neokaisareias, possibly West Hill of Methone), perhaps dating before the Macedonian expansion in the area (Thuc. 2.99). Few Macedonian settlements are called poleis before the 4th century and a dispersed settlement pattern seems to have been the rule in the Macedonian kingdom.34 In Upper Macedonia, as far as the archaeological exploration of this vast inland area has advanced and to the best of my knowledge, the only considerable nucleated settlement is Aiane, the capital of Elimeia, which is also the only non‑coastal settlement that has produced a considerable assemblage of archaic inscribed material (see below).

• 35 The script as well as dialect may have differed because of conservation of early features at the co (...)

13The colonies had fixed local scripts, patterned on that of their metropoleis, although full conformity is not to be expected,35 and occasionally other local scripts also appear. As far as can be determined on the available evidence, all colonies show adherence to this model, in spite in some cases of the participation in the foundation expedition, or the influx in later times, of settlers from cities other than the metropolis, thus indicating a top-down imposition of the script to the population of a colony, according to the nominated metropolis.

• 36 Bessios, Tzifopoulos & Kotsonas (2012), Morris et al. (2020, 712–3).
• 37 SEG 46.769A.
• 38 Poulaki (2012, no. ΑΑ 115).
• 39 Tiverios, Manakidou & Tsiafaki (2002, 211).

14As soon as the first colonies were established, writing appeared around the Thermaic Gulf either locally exercised or on already inscribed imported vessels. Besides Methone,36 graffiti on pottery of the late Geometric and early Archaic period have been found at the sanctuary of Poseidi in Chalkidike,37 at Herakleion in Pieria,38 and possibly at the settlement at Karaburnaki on the Thermaic Gulf.39 The colonies undoubtedly did business with and probably in collaboration with the local communities throughout the Archaic period. Thereby, a certain degree of literacy is expected at least in the coastal local settlements. Indeed, coastal sites have produced considerable assemblages of epigraphic material; however, no single local script is discernible. One notices a diversity of local scripts, from Korinthian to Attic to Ionic (see Table 1).

• 40 See Lang (1976, 3–4 and 24–5), and D’Angour (1999, 110), on Attica. Brugnone (1995), on Sicily.
• 41 Boufalis (2024, 172–5).
• 42 LSAG² 364.
• 43 Among the inscriptions that have been found in Macedonian territory and date prior to the late 4th  (...)
• 44 See Dimartino (2010).
• 45 Inscribed Βόρυς, possibly the Attic or Euboic personal name Φόρυς rendered with Macedonian phonetic (...)

18The inscriptions on stone of the latter half of the 5th century employ consistently the Ionic script, as is likely for some 5th‑century graffiti on pottery (nos 1/5, 8–10, 2/3–4, 6) and the coins of Alexander I. However, the employment of the Ionic script in private inscriptions outside Ionic regions is not rare in this period,40 while the significance of the latter is disputable. Alexander’s coinage (c. 465–460) is closely related with that of Mosses (c. 475–465) and the latest Bisaltian issues (c. 475–465), being identical in types, iconography, style, weight standard, and—as follows—the script employed for the legend.41 Therefore, Lilian Jeffery’s inference, judging from these coins, that the Ionic script became in the first half of the 5th century the official Macedonian script,42 cannot be sustained, especially as long as it remains uncorroborated by the lack of other public inscriptions.43 Moreover, as a rule, the script matches the dialect of the text, indicating that the inscriptions on tombstones and dedicatory bases in the Ionic script were probably inscribed by the stone-cutters, who may have been migrant Ionian craftsmen,44 and several of the early inscriptions (Tables 1–2) are also most likely inscribed by foreigners. Even though locals (Macedonians or Thracians) may have participated in the application and exchange of the written word, none of the graffiti can be positively identified as local. A single graffito on pottery may be plausibly attributed to a Macedonian (no. 1/8),45 and only possibly another, which renders a Doric name in a possibly Ionic script (no. 1/11). Evidently, if locals took part in this practice, they did so in a foreign script. In short, there is no good ground for postulating the existence (or even widespread employment) of a local script in Macedonia.

• 46 See FD III.4.3 417, lines 14–5: Δελφοὶ ἔδωκαν Φιλάρχωι Ἑλλανίωνος Μακεδόνι Ἐ[λ]ειμιώτ[ηι] | ἐκ Πυθε (...)
• 47 Hatzopoulos (BÉ 2001.266) suggests that the script on no. 4/3 is epichoric, on account of the simil (...)

19Elimeia, the southernmost Macedonian region, may have been an exception. Insofar as it can be discerned from the small number of epigraphic finds dating down to the mid‑5th century (see Table 4, excluding no. 2/1 as imported and no. 2/3, which pairs with no. 2/4), there is a fairly consistent employment of the Thessalian script, likely that of Pelasgiotis, with which Elimeia neighboured along its southern border, through Perrhaibia, an appendix of northern Thessaly, which, significantly, in the Hellenistic period was annexed to Elimeia.46 Although nothing indicates that it was officially adopted, a de facto adoption is indeed likely,47 even though the possibility of a considerable minority of Thessalians in Elimeia cannot be ruled out. In any case, the Thessalian script in Elimeia cannot be considered as stricto sensu local.

• 48 See Brixhe, Zournatzi & Pardalidou (2015). Note, however, that graffiti, especially those that are (...)

20In the late 6th and especially the early 5th century the Thracian ethnê of the Strymon Valley and Mt Pangaion minted coins in their name, rendered in the Greek alphabet, more specifically the Parian/Thasian and at least one other Ionic local script (Figure 4). After minting ceased, the use of script by the Thracians in this area also subsided and only re‑emerged in the late 5th century. As for the Thracian script that has been documented in Maroneia, Zône, and Samothrace, it appears to have been epichoric to the northeastern Aegean and remains unattested in western Thrace.48

• 49 Motivated presumably by a strong desire for independence. Elimeia is moreover the only one among th (...)

21So far, I have presented a review of the archaic epigraphic material from non-colonial Northern Greece and I have argued that (i) no single local script predominates across the area, (ii) no local script appears to have been developed among the Macedonian ethnê, and (iii) the inscriptions written probably by non‑Macedonians outnumber by far those possibly inscribed by Macedonians, indicating lack of a pronounced epigraphic habit among the latter. I have also argued that local scripts were part of the ancient Greek nomima and that they are a characteristic of the city‑state, which represents the highest form of political organisation in archaic Greece, while, despite a certain degree of urbanisation, the non‑colonial settlements and the ethnic kingdoms of archaic Northern Greece had not developed past chiefdom. A possible exception may have been the kingdom of Elimeia, which appears in the historical sources to have been politically stable, constantly antagonistic towards the Macedonian kingdom,49 and, judging from the nucleated settlement at Aiane, urbanised. Elimeia had possibly developed closer to becoming a (city‑)state and the assumption of a—though not truly local—standardised script may have been part of the process.

• 50 See also Ma (2018), on the evolution of the polis in Northern Greece; and Saripanidi (2019, 406), o (...)
• 51 On territorial expansion triggering state formation, see Spencer (2010), Spencer (2011, 261).
• 52 LSAG² 225–8.
• 53 LSAG² 228–9.
• 54 Johnston (2021).

22Macedonia’s transition from chiefdom to state only began in the mid‑4th century,50 shortly after or concurrently with the expansion over neighbouring territories and their unification into a single polity.51 As long as Northern Greece resisted the civic transition that other Greek regions experienced early in the Archaic period, it did not partake in the epigraphic habits that were developed among the Greeks. The situation in other Greek-speaking areas inhabited by ethnê was no different. The inscriptions in Aitolia and Akarnania exhibit predominately Achaian and Korinthian letterforms, respectively.52 Similarly, in Molossis the inscriptions are concentrated in the Korinthian colonies on the coast and are—unsurprisingly—written in the Korinthian script,53 save for the oracle at Dodona, the epigraphic record of which was recently reviewed by Alan Johnston, who pointed out the lack of a local script and the fluidity of the script(s) used in the sanctuary. He, moreover, remarked that lack of a standard script implies indifference on behalf of the central authority, or lack thereof.54

• 55 Luraghi (2021, 51).
• 56 Luraghi (2010).

23Nino Luraghi, reflecting on the formation and diffusion of local scripts, has argued that the standardisation of script could not have been state-imposed but rather achieved through mass local use within an ethnically homogeneous group of people and in contrariety to other groups.55 It was apparently the polis, in the political sense, i.e. the city‑state, that constituted the only favourable environment in which the local scripts formed, developed, and diffused not as the result of evolution, but rather purposefully developed as an act of “dissimilation”, in order to differentiate any one independent city‑state from the rest—thus serving as a marker of civic identity.56

• 57 Thucydides 4.124.1 (mention of ἐνοικούντες Ἕλληνες); Curbera & Jordan (2002/3, 126–7).
• 58 Brixhe (1997, 63).

24On the contrary, as a kingdom, and indeed a rapidly expanding one, Macedonia comprised a diverse population that, besides Macedonians (and other Northwesterners), included Ionians, Thracians, Thessalians and others.57 While the cohesion of the kingdom was achieved through obedience to the monarch, there was little need to develop a common identity among his subjects. Moreover, the exclusion of individuals from decision-making meant that state documents, if there were any, were not made public (that is, inscribed), while the insignificant, if any, involvement of Macedonians in trade minimized their share in the professional use of script.58

• 59 Neither Jeffery (LSAG²) nor Panayotou (1996) managed to find any evidence of a local script. Xydopo (...)
• 60 Panayotou (1996), who, however, identifies in far too many cases the East Ionic script.
• 61 See Oikonomaki (2017).

25As a consequence, no local writing tradition developed in Northern Greece.59 Instead, many different local scripts are attested in the Archaic period,60 in inscriptions that exhibit strong functional dependence on the carrier object, while the origin of the script and that of the object (or its artistry) most often coincide. Foreign local scripts were introduced in Northern Greece along with art (Korinthian metal ware and Ionic sculpture), but with no sign of adoption. The Thraco-Macedonian coinage of the first half of the 5th century also features scripts borrowed from neighbouring city‑states, but these may not be considered as adopted, since their use remains otherwise unattested. An epigraphic habit only began to develop along with adopting the habit of erecting tombstones in the latter half of the 5th century, although the inscriptions were perhaps applied by migrant or itinerant stone-cutters. Overall, script was used exclusively in occasional private epigraphic events,61 which constitute no local habit altogether and at least down to the mid‑5th century reflect external agencies rather than internal developments. It seems that script resulted from, rather than in epigraphic habits.

• 62 Hedrick (1999, 397), Moroo (2016).
• 63 Three inscribed statue bases (SEG 50.649–50), likely self-honorary. Cf. Plutarch, Moralia 14b–c: Eu (...)
• 64 Hatzopoulos (1996, II, no. 62). Priesthood was a political office in antiquity (Chaniotis, 2008).
• 65 ΒÉ 1998.262.
• 66 SEG 65.438, 29.608, and 50.589; Pingiatoglou (2015, 39 and n. 68); EKM II, no. 94.
• 67 SEG 57.584 (possibly) and 46.739.
• 68 Pace Mari (2018), royal letters before Philip V never pertain to, or entail, internal policy, admin (...)

26By the time Macedonia began transforming into a state in the mid‑4th century, the Milesian script had already become common and it is impossible to trace any correlation between state formation and local script(s). However, the process of state formation may be glimpsed from the emergence of public epigraphic habits, especially the erection of publicly displayed private dedications. In Athens, public dedications served to enhance elite visibility, before the habit was assumed along with the political authority and adapted by the demos.62 The earliest such examples in Macedonia are the inscriptions on statue bases supporting the image of queen (or queen mother, depending on the date) Eurydike, Amyntas III’s wife, variously dated between 375–325, which remarkably stood at the earliest (so far known) urban sanctuary in the Macedonian kingdom, that of Eukleia in Aigai,63 erected below the palace and the theatre. Next is a list of priests of Asklepios at Kalindoia (found reused as building material), dated to 325/4 or 323/2, disguised as a dedication to Apollo and making reference to an administrative reform by Alexander III,64 which, as Miltiadis Hatzopoulos rightly remarked, essentially meant the re-foundation of the settlement as a polis.65 The aforementioned inscriptions are followed in the early Hellenistic period by an increasing number of public inscriptions, namely lists of names,66 honorary decrees,67 and state documents, from royal dedications to royal gifts to royal letters, types of documents that were already used by Philip II and Alexander III but only as a means of dealing with nominally independent city‑states outside the Macedonian kingdom proper (Philippi, Priene, etc.).68 Thus, under the guise of dedication, persons with a political role or aspiration set up in the latter half of the 4th century the first public and perhaps truly local Macedonian inscriptions.