Athens, Demetrios Poliorketes, and the (Un)importance of the Memory of the Greco-Persian Wars

Bibliographic Data

ID19233261
AuthorsKyohei SAKESHIMA (Chiba University, corresponding author)
Year2026
Volume61
Issue0
Pages27-52
Publication date2026-03-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueOrient (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0473-3851 • E-ISSN: 1884-1392
PublisherThe Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.5356/orient.61.27
OpenAlexW7164194982
LanguageEN
References cited62

This paper reassesses how Athens and Demetrios Poliorketes engaged with the memory of the Greco-Persian Wars in the early Hellenistic period. It argues that in the peri-od between the Lamian War and the Gallic invasion, the memory of the Greco-Persian Wars was neither being actively nor centrally employed in political negotiations or forms of self-representation; rather, it appeared only fragmentarily and indirectly, as one element among the pervasive memories embedded within the landscape of the city of Athens, functioning not as an intentional reference but rather as a structural backdrop. The second section con-siders the Successors’ early uses of the memory of the Greco-Persian Wars. Although “free-dom of the Greeks” could evoke the Greco-Persian Wars, extant evidence shows Successors preferred to legitimise themselves through Philip and Alexander (and Argead continuity), not by explicit Persian analogies. The third section discusses the allusions to the Greco-Persian Wars in the context of the political communication between Demetrios and Athens. It discusses four cases which might have a link with the memory of the Greco-Persian Wars: (1) Demetrios’ marriage to the Athenian Euthydike; (2) the gift of 1,200 panoplies after the Battle of Salamis; (3) the “oracular” consultation with Demetrios concerning shields at Delphi; and (4) the assignment of the Parthenon opisthodomos. In each, references to the Greco-Persian Wars are ambiguous, incidental, or multivalent. Demetrios’ image was also shaped by democratic symbolism and quasi-cultic integration, indicating that Athenian values and ritual frameworks organised honours and expectations. The final section con-siders the meaning of these allusions and argues that engaging Athens inevitably touched the memory of the Greco-Persian Wars, but it was not always foregrounded. Memory is selective; faint traces are not inherently meaningful. I urge caution and argue for nuanced, context-dependent readings

Archaeological Research and Protection · Byzantine Studies and History · Classical Antiquity Studies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access