Himera

Hīmĕra, ae, = Ἱμέρα.

• M. and f., a river of Sicily, which divides into two branches, of which the northern one is now called Fiume Grande, and the southern Fiume Salso, Mel. 2, 7, 17; Plin. 3, 8, 14, § 90; Liv. 24, 6; Sil. 14, 233.—
• II F., the city of Himera, situated on the northern branch of the river of the same name, between Lilybaeum and Pelorus, Mel. 2, 7, 16; Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 35, § 86; 2, 4, 33, § 73.—Also Hīmĕra, ōrum, n., Ov. F. 4, 475.—
• • B Deriv.: Hīmĕraeus, a, um, adj., of or belonging to the city Himera, Himeran: Demophilus, of Himera,-Plin. 35, 9, 36, § 61.

Himera — Himera (Sicily), Pleiades 462244

Hīmera, ae (Ἱμέρα), I) m., Name zweier Flüsse auf Sizilien, die aus verschiedenen Quellen auf dem Berge Nebrodes entspringen u. von denen der eine nach Norden (j. Fiume di S. Leonardo), der andere nach Süden (j. Fiume Salso) fließt, Liv. 24, 6, 7: gen. fem., Sil. 14, 223. – Nbf. Himerās, ae, m. (Ἱμέρας), Vitr. 8, 3, 7. – II) f., Stadt an der Westseite des Himeraflusses (s. no. I), die einzige griech. Republik an der Nordküste Siziliens, eine Kolonie von Zankle, von Hannibal verwüstet, Cic. Verr. 2, 35, 86: heteroklit. Hīmera, ōrum, n., Ov. fast. 4, 475. – Dav. Hīmeraeus, a, um (Ἱμεραῖος), himeräisch, aus Himera, Plin. 35, 61.

1 Hīmĕra, æ, m. (Ἱμέρα), lʼHimère, rivière de Sicile : Sil. 14, 233.

2 Hīmĕra, (13) æ, f. , et -ra, rōrum, n. , ville de Sicile : Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 86 ; Ov. F. 4, 475 || -æus, a, um, dʼHimère : Plin. 35, 61.

HIMERA

HI´MERA (Ἱμέρα: Eth. Ἱμεραῖος, Himerensis, but the adj. Himeraeus: near Termini), an important Greek city of Sicily, situated on the N. coast of the island, at the mouth of the river of the same name, between Panormus and Cephaloedium. Thucydides says it was the only Greek city on this coast of Sicily (6.62, 7.58), which must however be understood with reference only to independent cities; Mylae, which was also on the N. coast, and certainly of Greek origin, being a dependency of Zancle or Messana. All authorities agree that Himera was a colony of Zancle, but Thucydides tells us that, with the emigrants from Zancle, who were of Chalcidic origin, were mingled a number of Syracusan exiles, the consequence of which was, that, though the institutions (νόμιμα) of the new city were Chalcidic, its dialect had a mixture of Doric. The foundation of Himera is placed subsequent to that of Mylae (as, from their relative position, might naturally have been expected) both by Strabo and Scymnus Chius: its date is not mentioned by Thucydides, but Diodorus tells us that it had existed 240 years at the time of its destruction by the Carthaginians, which would fix its first settlement in B.C. 648. (Thuc. 6.5; Strab. 6. p. 272; Scymn. Ch. 289; Diod. 13.62; Hecat. fr. 49; Scyl. p. 4.13.) We have very little information as to its early history: an obscure notice in Aristotle (Rhet. 2.20), from which it appears to have at one time fallen under the dominion of the tyrant Phalaris, being the only mention we find of it, until about B.C. 490, when it afforded a temporary refuge to Scythes, tyrant of Zancle, after his expulsion from the latter city (Hdt. 6.24). Not long after this event, Himera fell itself under the yoke of a despot named Terillus, who sought to fortify his power by contracting a close alliance with Anaxilas, at that time ruler both of Rhegium and Zancle. But Terillus was unable to resist the power of Theron, despot of Agrigentum, and, being expelled by him from Himera, had recourse to the assistance of the Carthaginians, a circumstance which became the immediate occasion of the first great expedition of that people to Sicily, B.C. 480. (Id. 7.165.) The magnitude of the armament sent under Hamilcar, who is said to have landed in Sicily with an army of 300,000 men, in itself sufficiently proves that the conquest of Himera was rather the pretext, than the object, of the war: but it is likely that the growing power of that city, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Carthaginian settlements of Panormus and Solus, had already given umbrage to the latter people. Hence it was against Himera that the first efforts of Hamilcar were directed: but Theron, who had thrown himself into the city with all the forces at his command, was able to maintain its defence till the arrival of Gelon of Syracuse, who, notwithstanding the numerical inferiority of his forces, defeated the vast army of the Carthaginians with such slaughter that the battle of Himera was regarded by the Greeks of Sicily as worthy of comparison with the contemporary victory of Salamis. (Hdt. 7.166, 167; Diod. 11.20--23; Pind. P. 1.152.) The same feeling probably gave rise to the tradition or belief, that both triumphs were achieved on the very same day. (Herod. l. c.)

This great victory left Theron in the undisputed possession of the sovereignty of Himera, as well as of that of Agrigentum; but he appears to have bestowed his principal attention upon the latter city, and consigned the government of Himera to his son Thrasydaeus. But the young man, by his violent and oppressive rule, soon alienated the minds of the citizens, who in consequence applied for relief to Hieron of Syracuse, at that time on terms of hostility with Theron. The Syracusan despot, however, instead of lending assistance to the discontented party at Himera, betrayed their overtures to Theron, who took signal vengeance on the unfortunate Himeraeans, putting to death a large number of the disaffected citizens, and driving others into exile. (Diod. 11.48.) Shortly after, seeing that the city had suffered greatly from these severities, and that its population was much diminished, he sought to restore its prosperity by establishing there a new body of citizens, whom he collected from various quarters. The greater part of these new colonists were of Dorian extraction; and though the two bodies of citizens were blended into one, and continued to live harmoniously together, we find that from this period Himera became a Doric city, and both adopted the institutions, and followed the policy, of the other Doric states of Sicily. (Id. 11.49.) This settlement seems to have taken place in B.C. 476

There is a confusion about this date; for, though Diodorus relates the circumstances in the year of Phaedon, Ol. 76.1, which would place it in B.C. 476, he adds that the new colony subsisted 58 years, till its destruction by the Carthaginians, which would refer it to the year 466 B.C. This last date (which has been inadvertently adopted by Mr. Clinton, F. H. vol. 1. p. 198) is clearly incompatible with the fact that Theron died in B.C. 472.

, and Himera continued tinned subject to Theron till his death, in 472: but Thrasydaeus retained possession of the sovereignty for a very short time after the decease of his father, and his defeat by Hieron of Syracuse was speedily followed by his expulsion both from Agrigentum and Himera. (Id. 11.53.) In B.C. 466 we find the Himeraeans, in their turn, sending a force to assist the Syracusans in throwing off the yoke of Thrasybulus; and, in the general settlement of affairs which followed soon after, the exiles were allowed to return to Himera, where they appear to have settled quietly together with the new citizens. (Id. 11.68, 76.). From this period Diodorus expressly tells us that Himera was fortunate enough to escape from civil dissensions (11.49), and this good government must have secured to it no small share of the prosperity which was enjoyed by the Sicilian cities in general during the succeeding half-century.

But though we are told in general terms that the period which elapsed from this re-settlement of Himera till its destruction by the Carthaginians (B.C. 461--408), was one of peace and prosperity, the only notices we find of the city during this interval refer to the part it took at the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, B.C. 415. On that occasion, the Himeraeans were among the first to promise their support to Syracuse: hence, when Nicias presented himself before their port with the Athenian fleet, they altogether refused to receive him; and, shortly after, it was at Himera that Gylippus landed, and from whence he marched across the island to Syracuse, at the head of a force composed in great part of Himeraean citizens. (Thuc. 6.62, 7.1, 58; Diod. 13.4, 12.) A few years after this the prosperity of the city was brought to a sudden and abrupt termination by the great Carthaginian expedition to Sicily, B.C. 408. Though the ostensible object of that armament, as it had been of the Athenian, was the support of the Segestans against their neighbours, the Selinuntines, yet there can be no doubt that the Carthaginians, from the first, entertained more extensive designs; and, immediately after the destruction of Selinus, Hannibal, who commanded the expedition, hastened. to turn his arms against Himera. That city was ill-prepared for defence; its fortifications were of little strength, but the citizens made a desperate resistance, and by a vigorous sally inflicted severe loss on the Carthaginians. They were at first supported by a force of about 4000 auxiliaries from Syracuse, under the command of Diocles; but that general became seized with a panic fear for the safety of Syracuse itself, and precipitately abandoned Himera, leaving the unfortunate citizens to contend singlehanded against the Carthaginian power. The result could not be doubtful, and the city was soon taken by storm: a large part of the citizens were put to the sword, and not less than 3000 of them, who had been taken prisoners, were put to death in cold blood by Hannibal, as a sacrifice to the memory of his grandfather Hamilcar. (Diod. 13.59--62; Xen. Hell. 1.1. 37) The city itself was utterly destroyed, its buildings razed to the ground, and even the temples themselves were not spared; the Carthaginian general being evidently desirous to obliterate all trace of a city whose name was associated with the great defeat of his countrymen.

Diodorus, who relates the total destruction of Himera, tells us expressly that it was never rebuilt, and that the site remained uninhabited down to his own times (11.49). It seems at first in contradiction with this statement, that he elsewhere includes the Himeraeans, as well as the Selinuntines and Agrigentines, among the exiled citizens that were allowed by the treaty, concluded with Carthage, in B.C. 405, to return to their homes, and inhabit their. own cities, on condition of paying tribute to Carthage and not restoring their fortifications. (Id. 13.114.) And it seems clear that many of them at least availed themselves of this permission, as we find the Himeraeans subsequently mentioned among the states that declared in favour of Dionysius, at the commencement of his great war with Carthage in B.C. 397; though they quickly returned to the Carthaginian alliance in the following year. (Id. 14.47, 56.) The explanation of this difficulty is furnished by Cicero, who tells us that, after the destruction of Himera, those citizens who had survived the calamity of the war established themselves at Thermae, within the confines of the same territory, and not far from their old town.( Cic. Ver. 2.3. 5) Diodorus indeed gives us a somewhat different account of the foundation of Thermae, which he represents as established by the Carthaginians themselves before the close of the war, in B.C. 407. (Diod. 13.79). But it is probable that both statements are substantially correct, and that the Carthaginians founded the new town in the immediate neighbourhood of Himera, in order to prevent the old site being again occupied; while the Himeraean exiles, when they returned thither, though they settled in the new town, naturally regarded themselves as still the same people, and would continue to bear the name of Himeraeans. How completely, even at a much later period, the one city was regarded as the representative of the other, appears from the statement of Cicero, that when Scipio Africanus, after the capture of Carthage, restored to the Agrigentines and Gelenses the statues that had been carried off from their respective cities, he at the same time restored to the citizens of Therma those that had been taken from Himera. (Cic. Ver. 2.3. 5, 4.33.) Hence we cannot be surprised to find that, not only are the Himeraeans still spoken of as an existing people, but even that the name of Himera itself is sometimes inadvertently used as that of their city. Thus, in B.C. 314, Diodorus tells us that, by the treaty between Agathocles and the Carthaginians, it was stipulated that Heracleia, Selinus, and Himera should continue subject to Carthage as they had been before. (Diod. 19.71.) It is much more strange that we find the name of Himera reappear both in Mela and Pliny, though we know from the distinct statements of Cicero and Strabo, as well as Diodorus, that it had ceased to exist centuries before. (Strab. 6. p. 272; Mel. 2.7.16; Plin. Nat. 3.8. s. 14.)

The new town of THERMAE or THERMA called for the sake of distinction THERMAE HIMERENSES (Θερμαὶ αἱ Ἱμερᾶαι, Pol.; Θερμαὶ Ἱμέραι, Ptol.: Θερμὰ, Θερμὰ Ἱμεραῖα, Diod.: Eth. Θερμίτης, Thermitanus), which thus took the place of Himera, obviously derived its name from the hot springs for which it was celebrated, and the first discovery of which was connected by legends with the wanderings of Hercules. (Diod. 4.23, 5.3; Pind. O. 12.28.) It appears to have early become a considerable town, though it continued, with few and brief exceptions, to be subject to the Carthaginian rule. In the First Punic War its name is repeatedly mentioned. Thus, in B.C. 260, a body of Roman troops were encamped in the neighbourhood, when they were attacked by Hamilcar, and defeated with heavy loss. (Plb. 1.24; Diod. 23.9. Exc. H. p. 503.) Before the close of the war, Thermae itself was besieged and taken by the Romans. (Plb. 1.39; Diod. 23.20. Exc. H. p. 506.) We have, however, no clue to the circumstances which led to the peculiar favour which this city seems to have received at the hands of its Roman conquerors. Cicero tells us that the Roman government restored to the Thermitani their city and territory, with the free use of their own laws, as a reward for their steady fidelity. ( quod semper in amicitia fideque mansissent,C ic. Verr. ii: 37). As we see that they were on hostile terms with Rome during the First Punic War, it can only be to the subsequent period that these expressions apply; but the occasion to which they refer is unknown. In the time of Cicero, Thermae appears to have been a flourishing place, carrying on a considerable amount of trade, though the orator speaks, of it as oppidum non maximum.( Id. 2.46, 75, 3.42.) It seems to have received a colony in the time of Augustus, whence we find mention in inscriptions of the Ordo et Populus splendidissimae Coloniae Augustae Himeraeorum Thermitanorum( Castell. Inscr. Sicil. p. 47; Gruter. Inscr. p. 433, no. 6.): and there can be very little doubt that the Thermae coloniao f Pliny in reality refers to this town, though he evidently understood it to be Thermae Selinuntiae, as he places it on the S. coast between. Agrigentum and Selinus. (Plin. Nat. 3.8. s. 14.) We. have little subsequent account of Thermae; but, as its name is found in Ptolemy and the Itineraries, it appears to have continued in existence throughout the period of the Roman Empire, and probably never ceased to be inhabited, as the modern town of Termini retains the ancient site as well as name. (Ptol. 3.4.4; Itin. Ant. p. 92; Tab. Peat. ) Considerable remains of the ancient city are still visible, but all of the Roman period; among these, the most interesting are those of the ancient Thermae, which. are still applied to their original purpose, and are now known as the Bagni di S. Calogero: their form and construction is peculiar, being probably determined by the circumstances of the locality in. which they were built. Besides these, the ruins of a theatre were still extant in the days of Fazello, but have been since destroyed; some portions of an aqueduct still remain, and the ruins of a large. building of Roman date, but of uncertain destination: numerous inscriptions and fragments of ancient sculpture are also preserved in the modern city, (Fazell. de Reb. Sic. 9.1; Biscari, Viaggio in Sicilia, pp. 235--239.)

No doubt can therefore exist with regard to the site of Thermae, which would be, indeed, sufficiently marked by the hot springs themselves; but the exact position of the more ancient city of Himera is still a subject of controversy. The opinion of Cluverius, which has been followed by almost all subsequent writers, would place it on the left bank of the river which flows by Termini on the west, and is thence commonly known as the Fiume di Termini, though called in the upper part of its course Fiume S. Lionardo. On this supposition the inhabitants merely removed from one bank of the river to the other; and this would readily explain the passages in which Himera and Thermae appear to be regarded as identical, and where the river Himera (which unquestionably gave name to the older city) is represented at the same time as flowing by Thermae. (Sil. Ital.; Plin. Nat. 3.8. s. 14; Vib. Sequest. p. 11.) On the other hand, there is great difficulty in supposing that the Fiume S. Lionardo can be the river Himera (see the following article); and all our data with regard to the latter would seem to support which the view of Fazello, who identifies it with the Fiume Grande, the mouth of which is distant just 8 miles from Termini. This distance can hardly be said to be too great to be reconciled with Cicero's expression, that the new settlement was established non longe ab oppido antique( Cic. Ver. 2.3. 5); while the addition that it was in the same territory ( in ejusdem agri finibus,l. c.) would rather seem to imply that it was not very near the old site. It may be added, that, in this case, the new site would have had the recommendation in the eyes of the Carthaginians of being nearer to their own settlements of Solus and Panormus, and, consequently, more within their command. But Fazello's view derives a strong confirmation from the circumstance, stated by him, that the site which he indicates, marked by the Torre di Bonfornello on the sea-coast (on the left bank of the Fiume Grande, close to its mouth), though presenting no ruins, abounded in ancient relics, such as vases, bronzes, &c.; and numerous sepulchres had also been brought to light. (Fazell. 9.2.) On the other hand, neither Cluverius nor any other writer has noticed the existence of any ancient remains on the west bank of the Himera; nor does it appear that the site so fixed one adapted for a city of importance. The localities do not appear to have been carefully investigated by any recent traveller, though such an examination would probably set the whole question at rest. In the mean time the probabilities seem strongly in favour of the views of Fazello.

Himera was celebrated in antiquity as the birth place of the poet Stesichorus, who appears, from an anecdote preserved by Aristotle, to have taken considerable part in the political affairs of his native city. His statue was still preserved at Thermae in the days of Cicero, and regarded with the utmost veneration. (Arist. Rhet. 2.20; Cic. Ver. 2.3. 5; Sil. Ital.; Paus. 3.19.13.; Suid. s. v. Στησίχορος.) Ergoteles, whose victory at the Olympic games is celebrated by Pindar, was a citizen, but not a native, of Himera. (Pind. Ol. xii.; Paus. 6.4.11.) On the other hand, Thermae had the honour of being the birthplace of the tyrant Agathocles. (Diod. 19.2.) The magnificence of the ancient city, and the taste of its citizens for the encouragement of art, are attested by Cicero, who calls it in primis Siciliae clarum et ornatum;a nd some evidence of it remained, even in the days of that orator, in the statues preserved by the Thermitani, to whom they had been restored by Scipio, after the conquest of Carthage; and which were valuable, not only as relics of the past, but from their high merit as works of art. (Cic. Ver. 2.3. 5) COIN OF HIMERA.

[E.H.B]

HIMERA

HI´MERA (Ἱμέρας), the name of two rivers in Sicily, the one flowing to the N. into the Tyrrhenina Sea, the other to the S. coast of the island, but which, by a strange confusion, were regarded by many ancient writers as one and the same river, which is in consequence described as rising in the centre of the island, and flowing in two different directions, so as completely to divide Sicily into two parts. It is singular that, if we may believe Vibius Sequester, this absurd notion is as old as the time of Stesichorus, who was himself a native of Himera. Mela is, however, the only one of the ancient geographers who adopts it. (Mel. 2.7.17; Solin. 5.17; Vib. Sequest. p. 12; Sil. Ital.; Antig. Caryst. 133; Vitr. 8.3.7.)

1.

The southern and most important river of the name, is certainly the one now called the Fiume Salso, one of the most considerable streams in Sicily, which rises in the Monti di Madoniu, the Nebrodes Mons of the ancients, and flowing nearly due S. enters the sea at Alicata (Phintias). In the upper part of its course it is composed of two branches, running nearly parallel with one another; the one now called the Fiume Grande rising near Gangi, the other, called the Fiume di Petralia, from the town of the same name: it is only after the junction of the two that it obtains the name of Fiume Salso. It is impossible to say which of the two branches was regarded by the ancients as the true Himera; but in either case that river has a course of above 50 miles from N. to S., and its sources are not above 15 miles from the N. coast of the island. Hence the expression of Polybius and Livy, that the Himera nearly divides the whole of Sicily into two parts, is by no means inaccurate. (Plb. 7.4; Liv. 24.6.) But it is evidently this circumstance, coupled with the fact that there was another river of the same name flowing into the Tyrrhenian Sea, which gave rise to the fable above noticed. Strabo, who does not notice the southern Himera, applies (evidently by mistake) very nearly the same words as Polybius to the northern river of the name. (Strab. 6. p. 266.) Diodorus notices the brackish quality of the waters of the Himera, which gives rise to its modern name of Fiume Salso: this is caused by the junction of a small stream near Caltanisetta, that flows from the salt mines in that vicinity. (Diod. 19.109; Smyth's Sicily, p. 198.) Solinus erroneously ascribes this quality to the northern Himera (Solin. 5.17); while Vitruvius rightly attributes it to the southern river only (8.3.7).

Historically, the southern Himera is remarkable for the great battle fought on its banks between Agathocles and the Carthaginians, in which the latter obtained a complete victory, B.C. 311. (Diod. 19.107--110.) The scene of this action was a short distance from the mouth of the river, the Carthaginians occupying the hill of Ecnomus, while Agathocles was encamped on the left bank. [ECNOMUS] At a much earlier period, B.C. 446, it witnessed a defeat of the Agrigentines by the Syracusans (Diod. 12.8); and, again, in the Second Punic War, B.C. 212, became the scene of an action between Marcellus and the Carthaginian forces under Hanno and Epicydes of Syracuse, in which the latter were defeated and driven to take shelter within the walls of Agrigentum. (Liv. 25.40, 41.) By the treaty concluded with Carthage by Hieronymus of Syracuse, it was agreed to divide the whole of Sicily between the two powers, so that the river Himera should be the boundary of their respective dominions. (Polyb, 7.4; Liv. 24.6.) But this arrangement was never actually carried into effect. Ptolemy correctly places the mouth of the southern Himera to the E. of the emporium of Agrigentum (Ptol. 3.4.7): he is the only one of the geographers who mentions both rivers of the name. An inscription recorded by Torremuzza, containing a dedication ΑΣΚΑΗΠΙΩ KAI IMEPA ΠΟΤΑΜΩ, must, from its being found at Caltanisetta, refer to the southern Himera. (Castell. Inscr. Sicil. p. 4; Boeckh. C. I. no. 5747.)

2.

The northern Himera, a much less considerable stream than the preceding, is uniformly described as flowing by the city to which it gave its name (Plin. Nat. 3.8. s. 14; Steph. B. s. v. Ἀκράγας; Vib. Sequest. p. 11); and Pindar speaks of the great victory of Gelon (which we know to have been fought in the immediate vicinity of the city) as gained upon the banks of the fair waters of the Himera( Pyth. 1.153). Hence its identification is necessarily connected with the determination of the site of that city, a question still the subject of dispute. Cluverius, and those who have followed him in placing Himera itself in the immediate neighbourhood of Termini, and on the left bank of the river which flows by that town, have, in consequence, assumed the stream just mentioned (now called the Flume di Termini, or, in the upper part of its course, the Fiume S. Lionardo) to be the ancient Himera. Fazello, on the contrary, identifies the latter with the river now called the Fiume Grande, which rises in the Madonia mountains near Polizzi, and flows into the sea about 8 miles E. of Termini. The arguments in favour of the latter view are certainly very strong. 1. Strabo, in giving the distances along the N. coast of Sicily, reckons 18 miles from Cephaloedium (Cefalù) to the mouth of the Himera, and 35 from thence to Panormus. The first distance is overstated, the true distance to the mouth of the F. Grande being only 15 miles; the latter just about right if we follow the windings of the coast whereas, if we place the Himera beyond Termini, both distances are equally wrong. 2. Ptolemy distinctly places the mouth of the river Himera between Thermae (Termini) and Cephaloedium, and, therefore, to the east of the former city. (Ptol. 3.4.3.) This is assumed by Cluverius to be a mistake of Ptolemy, and it must be admitted that many such mistakes occur in that author's description of Sicily; but still there is no occasion to multiply them unnecessarily. Lastly, if the northern Himera be recognised in the Fiume Grande, --the sources of which neat Polizzi are in the very same group of mountains with, and a very short distance from, those of the Finme di Petralia, one branch of the southern Himera,--the notion of these being one and the same river becomes in some degree intelligible; while it is difficult to conceive how such a notion should have arisen, if the head waters of the two were separated by an interval of many miles. The other arguments connected with the site of the city, are considered in that article. Theocritus more than once alludes to the river Himera as a celebrated Sicilian stream; but in such general terms as to afford no indication which of the two rivers he means: the Scholiast, however, understands him to refer to the northern Himera. (Theocr. 5.124, 7.75; Schol. ad . loc.) [E.H.B]

Himĕra

(Ἱμέρα). (1) Now Fiume Salso; one of the principal rivers in the south of Sicily, at one time the boundary between the territories of the Carthaginians and Syracusans, receives near Enua the water of a salt spring, and hence has salt water as far as its mouth.

(2) A smaller river in the north of Sicily, flowing into the sea between the towns of Himera and Thermae.

(3) A celebrated Greek city on the north coast of Sicily, west of the mouth of the river Himera

(2), was founded by the Chalcidians of Zanclé, B.C. 648, and afterwards received Dorian settlers, so that the inhabitants spoke a mixed dialect, partly Ionic (Chalcidian), and partly Doric. In B.C. 409 it was taken by the Carthaginians, and was levelled to the ground. It was never rebuilt; but on the opposite bank of the river Himera the Carthaginians founded a new town, which, from a warm medicinal spring in its neighbourhood, was called Thermae (Termini). The poet Stesichorus was born at the ancient Himera, and the tyrant Agathocles at Thermae.

HIMERA Sicily.

A colony founded in 648 B.C. on the N shore of the island (Ptol. 3.4.3) by the Myletidai (perhaps Syracusan refugees, guests of the people of Zankle) by the Chalkidians of Zankle and of Mylai, and by an ethnic group probably originating from Euboia (Thuc. 6.5.1; Diod. 13.62.4; Strab. 6.272). The leaders were Euclid, Simon, and Sakon. The Ionic-Chalkidian culture of Himera, mixed with Doric elements, was subverted in 476 B.C. by Theron of Akragas who, to avenge his son Thrasideos, exterminated the Ionic inhabitants of the city and replaced them with Doric colonists (Herod. 7.165ff; Thuc. 7.58.2-3; Pind. 0l. 12; Diod. 11.48.6-8and 49.3-4). In 480 B.C. Himera was the site of the famous battle between a league of Sicilian Greeks and the Carthaginians who, having been utterly defeated on that occasion (Herod. 7.165-67; Diod. 11.20ff and 13.62.1-4), returned to attack the Doric cities of Sicily in 409 B.C. Himera was razed to the ground and abandoned (Diod. 11.49.4; 13.62.4-5; 13.79.7-8 and 114.1), and Graeco-Carthaginian political interests to the West with the foundation of Thermai Himeraiai (Thermae Himerenses: Cic. Verr. 2.35.86).

In antiquity the city and its territory occupied a large portion of the coastal plain to the W of the river Grande (the N stretch of the ancient river Himera) and the two adjacent hills which dominate the plain to the S (cf. Thuc. 6.62.2and 8.58.2; Herod. 7.165ff; Pind. 0l. 12.26-27). In 1929-30 a large Doric temple was excavated— the so-called Temple of Victory, which had been erected near the river, perhaps in commemoration of the victorious battle fought in 480 B.C. It is hexastyle peripteral (55.9 x 22.4 m) with 14 columns on the sides, rising on a four-stepped crepidoma, and having pronaos, naos, and opisthodomos; small stairways cut into the anta walls between naos and pronaos gave access to the roof; the splendid sima with lion-head water spouts (of which 56 units have been recovered) deriving from two different sculptural conceptions, was carved by several masters.

Uphill, on the Himera Plain, campaigns from 1963 to 1972 led to the identification of a sacred area with three temples, an altar, and traces of the temenos wall, some blocks of the ancient habitation quarters, three sections of a necropolis, and some stretches of the archaic city walls. The three temples are of pre-Doric type, without peristasis. An archaic shrine (15.7 x 6 m), which has yielded a rich votive deposit, was built in the decades immediately after the foundation of the colony. A new and more elaborate sacred building (30.7 x 10.6 m) incorporated within its structures the remains of the archaic shrine, undoubtedly for religious reasons. The long life of the new temple, from the middle of the 6th c. until 409 B.C., is attested by a very large number of terracotta reliefs (metopes, pediments, akroteria) and by numerous and diverse elements of architectural terracotta decoration. The third temple (14.3 x 7.1 m) is toward the N border of the sacred area. The monumental altar (13.1 x 5.6 m) lies to the E on the axis of the main temple. The urban system and the typology of the houses show that the city was planned as a whole and at one time (early 5th c. B.C.) on the Himera Plain, with full adherence to a single and strictly orthogonal system, to replace an older and irregular archaic plan. The necropolis contains inhumations in terracotta sarcophagi with grave goods dating from the second half of the 5th c. B.C. The finds from the early excavations are housed in the National Museum of Palermo and in the Civic Museum of Termini Imerese; those of the recent campaigns will be exhibited at Himera, in an antiquarium soon to be erected.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L. Mauceri, “Cenni sulla topografia d'Imera e sugli avanzi del tempio di Buonfornello,” MonAnt 18,2 (1908) MPI; P. Marconi, Himera (1931); A. Adriani et al., Himera I, excavation campaigns 1963-65 (1 970) MPI; Quaderno Imerese, Studi e Materiali 1 (1972) MPI.

N. BONACASA

Himera Himera, a town in Sicily

• Hdt. 6.24
• its despot expelled: Hdt. 7.165
• Paus. 6.4.11
• story told about Helen by people of Himera: Paus. 3.19.11-13
• Himeraean poet (Stesichorus): Paus. 10.26.9