Dialect at Himera: An Evaluation of Material and Literary Evidence
1§1 Thucydides’ account (6.3-5) of the history of the Hellenic settlements in Sicily is one that is more concerned with the foundations of these cities than their future roles in the Peloponnesian War. As such, he provides invaluable details regarding their foundations, specifically, the (relative) date of foundation, the origin of the settlers, and often the circumstances under which these cities were established. He is neither consistent nor exhaustive in the details he provides for each city, but nevertheless supplies important information for understanding how these cities began. Regarding the circumstances of foundation, in three cases Thucydides makes a point to clarify the institutions (νόμιμα) that were implemented in the city, labeling them by such ethnic designations as Dorian or Chalcidian. These three cases are that of Gela (6.4.3), its colony of Acragas (6.4.4), and Himera (6.5.1). It is no doubt significant that each of these cases involves multiple groups of settlers from different and varied regions of the Hellenic world. We must presume that it is as a result of the multi-ethnic nature of the settlements that the ethnic institutions present in the cities are clarified.
1§2 Such clarification suggests that differences in ethnicity among Hellenic peoples were tangible and salient elements of their identities, and that it was important for a city as a whole to project one of those identities. The case of Himera, settled by Dorian Syracusans and Ionian Chalcidians, therefore presents a problem. While Thucydides assures us that the institutions of the city were Chalcidian, he concedes that the language spoken in the city was actually a mix of Chalcidian and Dorian. He provides no details regarding the size of the population each ethnic group contributed, nor the process through which institutions were implemented. Indeed, Thucydides does not even define for us what he means when he discusses the institutions of a city, and it is unclear whether he considers the local language to be an institution.
1§3 Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to consider the role that language played in the institutions of Himera. We should expect that if nomima are the means through which a city projects an ethnic affiliation, as Thucydides implies, dialect should be paramount among them. Yet, since Thucydides tells us that the nomima of Himera were Chalcidian, the fact that the dialect was mixed requires a closer examination of the relationship between the language and institutions at Himera.
Foundation Story and Nomima
2§1 Before exploring material or literary evidence, a close examination of Thucydides’ account is necessary. Regarding Himera, he writes:
καὶ Ἱμέρα ἀπὸ Ζάγκλης ᾠκίσθη ὑπὸ Εὐκλείδου καὶ Σίμου καὶ Σάκωνος, καὶ Χαλκιδῆς μὲν οἱ πλεῖστοι ἦλθον ἐς τὴν ἀποικίαν, ξυνῴκισαν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐκ Συρακουσῶν φυγάδες στάσει νικηθέντες, οἱ Μυλητίδαι καλούμενοι: καὶ φωνὴ μὲν μεταξὺ τῆς τε Χαλκιδέων καὶ Δωρίδος ἐκράθη, νόμιμα δὲ τὰ Χαλκιδικὰ ἐκράτησεν.
Himera was founded from Zancle by Euclides, Simus, and Sacon. The greater portion were Chalcidians who went to the colony, but they were accompanied by those exiles from Syracuse who had been defeated in civil war, called the Myletidae. The language became a mix of Chalcidian and Doric, but the institutions that prevailed were the Chalcidian.
Thucydides 6.5.1; author’s translation
The first point of information he provides is that Himera was founded by Zancle, a point on which other sources generally agree. Thucydides then provides us with the names of the three oikists, or founders, who were responsible for leading the expedition to settle the city. It is generally believed that each oikist represented a group of settlers of a specific origin or circumstance. Thus Antiphemus of Rhodes led the Rhodian contingent and Entimus of Crete led the Cretan contingent that collectively settled Gela (Thucydides 6.4.3). There is a clear one-to-one relationship between oikist and ethnic group. While Thucydides does not tell us the origins of the three oikists of Himera, we can presume that one represents the Chalcidians from Zancle and one represents the exiled Syracusans. Clearly, this leaves the last oikist with an unaccounted-for contingent. It has been suggested that the name Sacon, the third oikist listed by Thucydides, is indigenous in origin and therefore indicates a group of native Sicels who joined the foundation of Himera. Though Thucydides provides no information regarding the population size of each group, we at least know that the population of Dorian Syracusans was sizeable enough to influence the dialect spoken at the city.
2§2 The conclusion of Thucydides’ account of Himera brings up several key words that must be discussed. First, and most importantly, the precise meaning of νόμιμα is unclear. Thucydides mentions “institutions” (νόμιμα) in two other cases (6.4.3–4), when discussing the multi-ethnic city of Gela and its colony Acragas. He describes Gela as being established by a joint venture from Rhodes and Crete, both nominally Dorian regions, and ends his description with a similarly enigmatic statement that the institutions given to it were Dorian. Thucydides’ description then moves on to the city of Acragas, founded later by Gela, which he says was given the institutions of the Geloans, that is, Dorian institutions.
2§3 Simon Hornblower presents several observations concerning the meaning of nomima, which Liddell and Scott translate as “usages or customs,” but is often summed up as “institutions.” Hornblower states that these institutions could be religious calendars and festivals, the language of official use, coin and/or weight standards, or laws. However, in the case of Himera and Gela, at the time of their foundations coinage had not yet been instituted, and there was no such concept as Dorian or Ionian standards of coin and weight, nor any of Dorian or Ionian law. The institution of language is a tempting option, especially as both Rhodes and Crete were regions where the Dorian dialect would have been in use, yet Thucydides’ description of Himera seems to treat language (φωνή) as being distinct from institutions (νόμιμα). The answer is not clear from the text alone, and Hornblower ends his commentary on these passages with a recommendation that they deserve more attention than they have had.
2§4 John Boardman lists the institutions of a colony as the cults, calendar, dialect, script, state offices, and citizen divisions, which are reproduced from those of the mother city. However, A. J. Graham argues that when Thucydides says that most of the settlers were Chalcidians, rather than saying they were Zanclaean, it is because he is preparing himself for his comment about the nomima of Himera. In this way, the institutions of the mother-city are not as important as the more general institutions and ethnicity of the Chalcidians, which Himera would adopt and project. This interpretation is difficult to reconcile with Strabo’s account (6.2.6) of Himera in which he says “the Zanclaeans in Mylai founded Himera,” thus using the Zanclaean ethnic name rather than the Chalcidian. On the other hand, Strabo makes no mention of a mixed population or dialect, nor is he concerned with the institutions of the city.
2§5 Irad Malkin presents a more detailed interpretation for the meaning of nomima. Malkin describes the nomima of a city as the rituals and institutions set out when a city is first founded, and argues that the “foundation” of a city is the period between the arrival of the founder and his death. In the case of Himera, where there are three oikists, this period of time would not have been definitive. Malkin further argues that the means through which settlers integrated and took on their new identities were the nomima, which involved social divisions, sacred calendars, and various legal institutions that together defined the social and religious nature of the community. Malkin states that “nomima served to assimilate all individual migrants into the new social order so that after one generation all would become ‘Chalkidians’ or ‘Phokaians.’” In a brief aside in which he specifically discusses Himera, Malkin argues that the language in the city became mixed because it was “neutral, not an object of symbolic and formal decision.” Yet, because the city required common nomima from the beginning and could not wait for an “evolutionist mixture to emerge,” as happened with the language, the Chalcidian nomima were deliberately chosen. Therefore, Malkin views language as a “neutral” element of a city’s character, and does not include it among the possible nomima of a city. Hornblower, Boardman, and Graham do include language as an element of a city’s nomima, though Hornblower admits that in the case of Himera Thucydides seems to make a distinction.
2§6 Further analysis of Thucydides’ account shows that, whatever role language played in the institutions of Himera, it may not have begun smoothly. Thucydides uses different verbs to describe the way the institutions were implemented at the various cities. For Gela and Acragas, the verbs are ἐτέθη (was established) and δόντες (having given) respectively, while for Himera the verb is ἐκράτησεν (they prevailed). The senses of the two cases are markedly different. Simon Hornblower’s commentary on these sections suggests that the implications of the verbs used for Gela and Himera indicate a “definite and single-moment imposition of institutions,” which is what one may perhaps suspect from a city founded by two groups of colonists who shared the same ethnic identity. But regarding the establishment of Himera, Hornblower suggests that the verb choice implies “something less than imposition” as compared to the foundations of Gela and Acragas. In other words, perhaps because of the mixed origin of Himera, the establishment of institutions there had a different nature than at Gela, where both founding parties were Dorian. The sense of “prevailed” almost implies some kind of conflict or struggle, of which we have no evidence, but it certainly indicates that the foundation of Himera was not as straightforward as at Gela, and we are left to suspect that ethnic differences may have been the cause.
2§7 Finally, it is important to note that Thucydides has a particular agenda and bias in composing his History of the Peloponnesian War. The conflict is largely portrayed as an ethnic confrontation between Dorians and Ionians. Though the foundation of the Sicilian settlements predates the conflict, his account must nevertheless be seen as influenced by his overall theme. It is therefore not surprising that later historical accounts make no mention of nomima or ethnic affiliations, even if they were as important as Thucydides makes them to be.
2§8 Yet his comment about the language of the city, even if inaccurate, must have some nucleus of truth. Indeed, the first-century BC Alexandrian grammarian Tryphon is known to have written a treatise on dialect called On the Dialect of Greeks and of Argos, Himera, Rhegium, the Dorians and Syracuse (Περὶ τῆς Ἑλλήνων διαλέκτου καὶ Ἀργείων καὶ Ἱμεραίων καὶ Ῥηγίνων καὶ Δωριέων καὶ Συρακουσίων), which unfortunately does not survive. Nevertheless, his inclusion of Himera in a study of Greek dialect suggests that its dialect was truly in some way noteworthy. In examining the archaeological and literary evidence from Himera, the role dialect played at Himera may be elucidated.
3§1 I first present, briefly, an overview of archaeological evidence for several institutions and cultural elements of the city that do not normally involve writing or language. The purpose of doing so is to compare those institutions that involve language to those that do not, to better evaluate the role language played in the nomima of the city. Beginning with ceramics, Euboean wares are certainly present in the earliest strata, though even there they are frequently mixed with proto-Corinthian and Corinthian-type amphorae, as well as many non-Greek wares. The proximity of Euboean ceramics with those of other societies indicates an immediate and robust connection with wider Mediterranean trade networks. Though the presence of Euboean ceramics is indicative of Chalcidian influences, the presence of other ceramics, both Greek and non-Greek, undermines the importance of this connection and indicates strong commercial activity at Himera.
3§2 Regarding religious institutions, Diodorus (5.3) writes that the city of Himera was sacred to Athena. Archaeological excavation has uncovered evidence of such a connection in the northeastern section of the upper city where there was a large temple complex, the so-called temenos of Athena. The discovery of a bronze statue of Athena and a dedicatory inscription is compelling evidence that temples A and B were in fact dedicated to Athena. The Temple of Victory, constructed after the Battle of Himera in 480 BC, may also have been dedicated to Athena, though this has not been confirmed. Diodorus (5.3) also writes that there was a cult of Heracles at Himera. Supporting this connection, the metopes of Temple B show the various labors of Heracles. Various clay figurines of Heracles have also been found in domestic contexts, and a relief of Heracles bathing at a fountain from Himera’s hinterland (a reference to the thermal waters of Himera) is attested. These lines of evidence are strong support for the presence of a cult of Heracles at Himera. Other archaeological remains hint at the presence of a cult to Demeter, though this interpretation is speculative.
3§3 Regarding burials, three necropoleis are known for the city of Himera: the east necropolis, west necropolis, and south necropolis. From the western necropolis, more than 9000 burials, dating throughout the 240 years of Himera’s existence, have been excavated. Enchytrismos child burials, those of children or infants buried within storage vessels, are highly attested, though often within Corinthian amphorae. Adult inhumations are extremely common (88% of total burials), varying in form as simple pit graves (40% of inhumations), a cappuccino (19% of inhumation), or enchytrismos (41% of inhumations). Crematory remains are also present at Himera, though they make up only about 12% of the total burials. These burial practice and percentages are consistent with what is found at other Sicilian Greek settlements, regardless of Dorian or Chalcidian ethnic affiliations.
3§4 Overall the archaeological record for the city shows intensive trade contacts with other Greek parts of the Mediterranean, as well as substantial trade with Phoenician, Etruscan, and indigenous centers. Himera’s unique position as one of two Greek settlements on the north coast of Sicily, the other being Mylai, ensured that it would grow prosperous in trade. However, there is no evidence of specifically Chalcidian influences in the religious institutions of the city or the burials. The material remains are also diverse and varied enough so as to imply wide spread contacts rather than specific Zanclaean or Chalcidian ones.
4§1 The coinage of Himera is notable if for no other reason than that the amount that was produced by the city greatly exceeded that of other minting cities in Sicily. The preserved volume exceeds even that of Zancle, the mother-colony of Himera, and Naxos, the oldest Ionian city in Sicily. At Zancle 61 drachmae obverse dies are known, while at Naxos there are nineteen drachmae obverse dies. From Himera, by contrast, 149 drachmae obverse dies are known, indicating not only a significantly greater production output but also greater diversity. As Himera likely drew Spanish silver from its trade connections, the city’s unique position in northern Sicily was a contributing factor to why it began minting currency so early. 
4§2 The collection is divided into two major phases, based on the presence or absence of a hen on the reverse. The hen and the rooster, which is on the obverse, are believed to have symbolized Himera, as the rooster would announce the new day and the Greek word (ἡμέρα) was close to the city name. These phases are further divided into eight groups based on die sequences (the pairing of obverse to reverse dies). Kraay infers from the complex die sequences in many of the groups that there were short periods of intense production rather than a consistent rate of production. The chronology for the archaic coinage of Himera begins around 550 BC with Group I and ends with the political takeover of Theron in 484 BC with Group VIII.
4§3 A notable occurrence is the presence of an open heta in the full ethnic (HIMERAION) of some coins in Group I, which if truly dated to the mid-sixth century would be one of the earliest attestations of this form, especially in the West. Later ethnics in Group III and IV are abbreviated (e.g. Ηι) before the hen is added on the reverse to balance the rooster on the obverse. The script throughout these groups is entirely Chalcidian, and there is no trace of Doric features in the script or language.
4§4 Aside from the script, the weight of the coins falls within the range of weights for coins from Zancle and Naxos, suggesting that the Chalcidian cities had similar standards for minting. It is therefore all the more striking when, after Himera was conquered by Theron of Acragas and much of the population were massacred and replaced with Dorians in 476 BC, the ethnics on the coins immediately changed (e.g. HIMERA) to reflect Doric forms and a different weight standard. Such a systematic and profound change to Dorian standards serves to emphasize how non-Doric the coinage of Himera was prior to 476 BC. We can thus conclude that the coinage of Archaic Himera indicates a strong Chalcidian influence, both in language and in weight standard.
5§1 Some of the most extensive surviving inscriptions from Himera are in bronze. This is fortunate as many of these are official inscriptions that provide hints as to the institutions of the city. Thus, we examine a rectangular bronze tablet found at Himera (SEG 53.1002/SEG 45.1364), which bears a boustrophedon inscription written in the Chalcidian alphabet and dated to the mid-sixth century. Antonietta Brugnone has compared this inscription to that of a Chalcidian homicide law found at Monte San Mauro (SEG 4.64, SEG 36.824), positing a possible connection between the two Chalcidian sites regarding their legal structure.
5§2 Another bronze tablet (SEG 47.1427; cf. SEG 53.983), dating to the early-fifth century, concerns the redistribution of land and is also written in the Chalcidian alphabet. Antonietta Brugnone has also extensively studied this inscription. She cites φρατρίαι (4) as referring to the basis for civic divisions at Himera, and describes it as a traditionally Chalcidian institution. In regards to the alphabet and dialect, the text is almost entirely Chalcidian, especially with the presence of koppas. Notable forms here are ἐργάσδε̄ται (7), which is a hapax, and γέε̄ς ἀναδαιθμός (14), instead of γῆς ἀναδασμός. Another inscription on a stone base found in the temenos of Athena, dated to the fifth century reads: ΕΥΚΛΕΙ. As such, it is tentatively offered as evidence of a founder’s cult to Euclides still in practice by the fifth century. If Euclides was the leader of the Chalcidian contingent, the presence of a founder’s cult dedicated to him would be clear evidence of a Chalcidian institution.
5§3 Recorded as well is a series of smaller, private inscriptions. One such inscription (CEG 392) was found in the area of Temple D at Himera, on the foot of an Attic black-glazed vessel dated to the sixth century. The inscription reads:
Ζε̄νὸς ἐριγδούποιο κόρε̄ι γλαυκο̄́πῑ Ἀθε̄́νε̄ι
Θρίπυλος εὐξάμενος τε̄́νδ’ ἀνέθε̄κε θεᾶι.
The text is notable because the first hemistich matches that of Homeric Hymn 12 to Hera, which reads Ζηνὸς ἐριγδούποιο κασιγνήτην ἄλοχόν τε. Though it is unlikely that the Homeric Hymns were actually written by Homer, their classification as such speaks to the epic style of their meter and phrasing. In this inscription however, κόρε̄ι is a non-Homeric form, but is rather attested in Euboea. Furthermore, the Homeric/epic dative should be γλαυκώπιδι, but instead is here γλαυκο̄́πῑ. The poetic adjective ἐριγδούποιο also has only two epigraphic testimonies, both from Italy. This inscription thus indicates that epic and Homer were known at Himera, while also providing a clear connection to the city’s Chalcidian roots. Another inscription on the foot of an Attic kylix dated to the end of the sixth century reads: Κριμνο καλε Τεισικλε[λ]ι δοκει. The script is also Chalcidian.
5§4 Important observations can be made from these inscriptions. First, the inscriptions related to the legal institutions of the city, those inscribed on the bronze tablets, reveal institutions present in the city that have strong Chalcidian influences. Furthermore, the language these laws were written in is wholly Chalcidian, both in dialect and script. The private inscriptions also show little Doric influence, but instead contain elements that can be related specifically to Euboea.
Stesichorus: a proxy for mixed-dialect?
6§1 A useful line of evidence for studying Himera may be the works of Stesichorus, an early Archaic poet from Himera. He is considered one of the early creators of the choral lyric genre in Greek poetry, a genre that is generally associated with the Doric dialect. The benefit of studying the works of Stesichorus is that they may provide a unique insight into the “vernacular” dialect spoken at Himera, regardless of the relationship between the dialect and institutions. We are fortunate, then, to have a well-known poet from the Archaic period who is from Himera and (most fortunate of all) whose work survives. Interpreting vernacular dialect through poetic dialect is problematic, however, as literary dialects often do not reflect the dialect of the poet, but rather the genre. Transmission and preservation of works must also be taken into consideration, as emendation by later authors is not unheard of. The interpretation offered here is therefore tentative, and serves to provide an additional perspective on language at Himera.
6§2 The Suda explicitly describes Stesichorus’ poems as being Doric, as one would expect from a lyric poet, and indeed that seems to be the case. His work is characterized by many Doric elements also present in the work of Alcman, perhaps the first lyric poet and certainly the most conservative of the poets in his use of Doric. Similarities with Alcman are demonstrated by the Doric retention of -ᾱ-, such as in νᾶσον (Ion. νῆσον; S8.2), ματέρα (Ion. μητέρα; S17.6), and Ἀθάνας (Ion. Ἀθήνης; 209.9). While Stesichorus’ works contains many other classical elements of the Doric dialect, he is also well-known for his strong connection to the Epic genre, traditionally a mix of Ionic and Aeolic Greek, and is often called the “most Homeric of poets” due to the epic nature and style of his poems. An example of this is the contraction of -εε-, for which Stesichorus uses the Epic –ει- instead of the Doric -η-, such as in κείνα (Dor. τῆνος; 223.3). Infinitives are also unique in their forms, such as εἶμεν (Dor. ἦμεν; S102.5) and εἶν (S15.i.7), the latter only known in inscriptions from Euboea. This last form, εἶν, seems the strongest connection between the language of Stesichorus and what we can expect to be at Himera based on its Chalcidian roots.
6§3 To be clear, equating poetic dialect with vernacular dialect is essentially breaking one of the most important rules of studying dialects. The interpretation I offer here acknowledges that rule, but in light of the analysis undertaken here and the goals of this paper, it would be irresponsible to completely ignore Stesichorus as a potential line of evidence for a vernacular dialect at Himera. While the dialect used by Stesichorus is not the mixed-dialect we would expect, what Doric he does use in his poetry implies that there may in fact have been more Doric in the dialect of Himera than the inscriptions and coinage would suggest. At the very least, Stesichorus’ work shows that Himera was a place in which Dorian and Ionian literary influences could both be felt, and we have no reason to doubt that a mixed-dialect did in fact exist there.
7§1 A more general question that may have been asked regarding Himera is whether the institutions of the city can truly be described as Chalcidian. The mortuary record is highly varied and there is no burial practice that can definitively be shown to be indicative of Chalcidian influences. Furthermore, the ratio of inhumations to cremations is consistent with that at other Sicilian sites, and not even the grave goods provide any definitive links. Though funerary practices may not be considered institutions of a city, we can nevertheless say that the burials at Himera show no sign of an overarching Chalcidian influence. The same can be said of the ceramic record, which again is highly varied and reflects more the mercantile nature of Himera rather than a specific cultural link to Zancle or other Chalcidian sites. The religious institutions of Himera also bear no clear Chalcidian influences. Though there may have been a specific cult of Athena worshipped at Himera, we are not aware of one, and Athena alone does not connect Himera to Chalcidian institutions. While most scholars would agree that religious institutions are included in nomima, there does not appear to be compelling evidence of specifically Chalcidian religious institutions at Himera.
7§2 Coinage, on the other hand, is an institution at Himera that we can very comfortably describe as Chalcidian. Not only do the weight standards of the currency conform with coinage at other Chalcidian cities in Sicily, but the script and dialect on the coins themselves is clearly Chalcidian. The inscriptions presented here also bear evidence of pronounced Chalcidian influences in the legal and governing system of Himera, which again is paralleled by the clearly Chalcidian script and dialect in which they are written. The use of the Chalcidian language alongside such clear manifestations of Chalcidian institutions suggests that there was some kind of “official” language of the city. In this regard, language is in fact an integral part of the institutions of the city, if not an institution itself. Though the city may not have thought of it in these modern terms, the “official” language of Himera, based on the coins and inscriptions from legal codes, was no doubt Chalcidian.
7§3 There is no reason, however, to doubt the presence of a mixed-dialect at Himera, even if the official dialect was Chalcidian. In support, I offer Stesichorus here as tentative evidence of Doric influences in the “vernacular” dialect of Himera, though as always there is danger in drawing conclusions from poetic dialects and literary works. It is then significant, however, that the inscriptions and coinage are primarily institutional media and reflect the Chalcidian nomima as we would expect, while the works of Stesichorus, a more private and personal medium, reflect far more what can be interpreted as the presence of a mixed-dialect at Himera. The mortuary record as well reflects this ambiguity, such that personal manifestations of identity do not have to conform to the overarching identity projected by the nomima. In that regard, language in its official capacity is an integral part of the institutions of a city, but at the same time is separate and distinct from them among the population.
7§4 In reinterpreting Thucydides’ account, a more nuanced translation may be appropriate. If we translate φωνή with the sense of “vernacular” language, we can still allow for the “official” language to be grouped under nomima. By that interpretation, the translation would read: the language of the people became a mix of Chalcidian and Doric, but the institutions that prevailed (including the official language) were nevertheless Chalcidian. The extension from this is that language could operate on multiple levels to define and emphasize identities. Thus at Himera, the language served in its official capacity to affirm the historic roots of the city, while in its vernacular embraced the multi-ethnic nature of the city.
 The two other sources that deal with Himera’s foundation are Pseudo-Skymnos (285-290) and Strabo (6.2.6).
 Domínguez 2006:292
 Castellana 1980:71–78. On the other hand, Knoepfler (2000:95) argues that Sacon, whose name is attested at Selinous and Gela, was one of the Myletidae.
 νόμιμα δὲ Δωρικὰ ἐτέθη αὐτοῖς (Thucydides 6.4.3)
 νόμιμα δὲ τὰ Γελᾠων δόντες (Thucydides 6.4.4)
 Hornblower 2010:291; For coinage, see Kraay 1983.
 See Thucydides 7.57.2 for a similar dichotomy between language and institutions.
 Hornblower 2010:291, 297. Gomme (1970) is notably silent on the issue entirely, making only a small note referring the reader to a series of inscriptions in SGDI 3247–3251 that preserve the ā.
 Boardman and Hammond 1982:153–155.
 Graham 1983:104-105. See Malkin 2011:73–74 as well.
 ὧν τὴν μὲν Ἱμέραν οἱ ἐν Μυλαῖς ἔκτισαν Ζαγκλαῖοι
 Malkin 2011:23, 55. Malkin’s view is supported by Pindar Pyth. 1.64 where he equates Dorian laws with the retention of Dorian ethnic identity (Nisetich 1980:153–159). See also Brugnone 1997:77.
 Malkin 2011:192.
 Hornblower 2010:290.
 Hornblower 2010:297.
 This is best demonstrated by the speech Thucydides provides for Hermocrates (6.80) when addressing the neutral Camarinaeans during the Athenian invasion of Sicily, as well as when he later distinguishes combatants who fought for Athens or Sparta by ethnic group (7.57).
 Vassallo 1997:89–90.
 Vassallo 2005:67.
 Vassallo 2005:68; 2012:3.
 Fischer-Hansen 1996:341; Vassallo 2005:70.
 Vassallo and Valentino 2012.
 Kraay further postulates that the access to Spanish silver would have been necessary in order for Himera to produce the quantity of coin it did, and as one of the closest cities to Carthaginian territory, Himera likely would have had close relations with the Carthaginians to access the silver they controlled in Spain (Kraay 1983:11–14).
 Boardman and Hammond 1982:431; Holloway 1991:122.
 Holloway 1991:123.
 For example, in sequence IVb ten obverse dies are paired with seven reverse dies, of which five obverse dies are paired with only two of the seven reverse dies. Altogether there are 154 reverse dies and 151 obverse dies present in the archaic coinage of Himera (Kraay 1983:13).
 Kraay 1983:16; Jeffery 1990:245–246.
 Kraay 1983:19.
 Jeffery 1990:246.
 The practice of changing the direction of writing on alternate lines.
 Brugnone 1997:84
 Brugnone 2003; Vysokii 2013:43
 Vassallo 2005:20.
 See Thucydides 3.104.
 Dubois 1989:12; Arena 1994:56.
 Compare here as well Nestor’s Cup, found at Pithekoussai, another early colonial instance of Homeric allusion.
 Vassallo and Brugnone 1998:323–326.
 καί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ τὰ ποιήματα Δωρίδι διαλέκτῳ (Suda Σ 1095).
 Felsenthal 1980:55–56, 73.
 Longinus On the Sublime. 13.3. See Barbantani 2010:23–41 for a lengthy discussion of the parallels later authors made between Homer and Stesichorus, as well as possible Pythagorean connections.
 Felsenthal 1980:56–72.
 The cult of Athena Lindia was well established at Gela, a Dorian city, and was a clear reflection of Gela’s Lindian roots (Fischer-Hansen 1996:321–323).
Arena, R. 1994. Iscrizioni Greche Arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia: Iscrizioni delle Colonie Euboiche. Pisa.
Barbantani, S. 2010. Three Burials (Ibycus, Stesichorus, Simonides): Facts and fiction about lyric poets in Magna Graecia in the epigrams of the Greek Anthology. Alessandria.
Brugnone, A. 1997. “Legge di Himera sulla ridistribuzione della terra.” La parola del passato 52:262–305.
Brugnone, A. 2003. “Nomima chalkidika. Una laminetta iscritta da Himera.” Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’area elima 4:77–89.
Boardman, J., and Hammond, N. G. L. 1982. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3, Part 3, The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries BC. Cambridge.
Castellana, G. 1980. “Indigeni ad Himera.” Sicilia Archeologica 13:71–76.
Domínguez, A. J. 2006. “Greeks in Sicily.” Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas Vol. 1 (ed. G. R. Tsetskhladdze). Mnemosyne, biblioteca classica Batava: supplementum. 253–357. Leiden.
Dubois, L. 1989. Inscriptions Grecques Dialectales de Sicile: Contribution a l’etude du vocabulaire grec colonial. Rome.
Felsenthal, R. A. 1980. The Language of Greek choral lyric: Alcman, Stesichorus, Ibycus and Simonides. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Fischer-Hansen, T. 1996. “The Earliest Town-Planning of the Western Greek Colonies, with special regard to Sicily.” Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis (ed. M. H. Hansen) 317–373. Copenhagen.
Gomme, A. W, Andrewes, A., and Dover, K. J., eds. 1970. An Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. 4. Books V(25)–VII. Oxford.
Graham, A. J. 1983. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. Chicago.
Hansen, M. H., and Nielsen, T. H., eds. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. New York.
Holloway, R. R. 1991. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily. New York.
Hornblower, S. 2010. A Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. 3. Books 5.25–8.109. Oxford.
Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. (rev. by A. W. Johnston). Oxford.
Knoepfler, D. 2000. “Oropodoros: Anthroponomy, Geography, History.” Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence (eds. S. Hornblower and E. Matthews) 81–98. New York.
Kraay, C. M. 1983. The Archaic Coinage of Himera. Naples.
Malkin, I. 2011. A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. New York.
Nisetich, F. 1980. Pindar’s Victory Songs. Baltimore.
Vassallo, S. 1997. “Indagini in un quartiere della città bassa di Himera.” Wohnbauforschung in Zentral-und Westsizilien (eds. H.P. Isler et al). Sicilia Occidentale e Centro-Meridionale: Ricerche archeologiche nell’abitato. 81–90. Zurich.
Vassallo, S. 2005. Himera città Greca: Guida alla storia e ai monumenti. Palermo.
Vassallo, S. 2009. “Himera: Ricerche sull’urbanistica arcaica della citta bassa.” La Sicilia in età arcaica: dalle apoikiai al 480 a.C. (eds. R. Panvini and L. Sole) 196–200. Palermo.
Vassallo, S. 2012. “La colonia dorico-calcidese di Himera. Dai dati storici di Tucididee di Diodoro Siculo all’archeologia.” Convegno di Studi – Sicilia Antica 7:1–10.
Vassallo, S. and Brugnone, A. 1998. “Il ricordo della ‘bella’ krimno in un’iscrizione di Himera.” Annali della Scuolo Normale Superiore di Pisa:323–326.
Vassallo, S. and Valentino, M. 2012. “Scavi nella necropoli occidentale di Himera, il paesaggio e le tipologie funerare.” Sicilia occidentale. Studi, rassegne, ricerche (ed. C. Ampolo) 49–71. Pisa.
Vysokii, M. F. 2013. “Ancient Greek Legislation on Sicily: The Laws of Charondas.” Ruthenia Classica Aetatis Novae: A Collection of Works by Russian Scholars in Ancient Greek and Roman History (eds. A. Mehl, A. Makhlayuk, and O. Gabelko) 31–43. Stuttgart.