Athenian Ostracism — Timeline & Key Events
Once a year, Athenians could summon a power few cities ever dared: a public vote to send a citizen away for ten years—no accusation, no trial, no loss of property.
Central Question
Could Athens use an annual mass vote to sideline rising stars—without trials or bloodshed—and keep a turbulent democracy from sliding back into tyranny?
The Story
The City Builds a Trapdoor
Once a year, Athenians asked a brutal question: Who is too dangerous to stay? The answer lived on terracotta. Cleisthenes, the reformer who rebuilt the polis after Hippias’s tyranny, added a law around 508/7 BCE that let citizens expel a man for ten years—no charges, no courts, property intact [1][2].
It was exile without disgrace, designed to prevent one name from towering over the city again. In a world where factions settled scores with knives and coups, Athens tried something colder and cleaner: a ritual that could swallow a giant in silence [2][9].
How a Name Became an Exile
Because they now had this legal trapdoor, Athenians first pulled it after the shock of Marathon. Two years later—in 488/7 BCE—the Agora filled with the scrape of charcoal on pottery as citizens inscribed a name on a shard (ostrakon) and filed through a fenced enclosure [1][2][15].
If fewer than 6,000 ballots arrived, nothing happened. If the quorum held, the top vote‑getter had ten days to leave Attica for ten years, keeping his estate and citizenship [2]. The first to go was Hipparchus son of Charmus; then came Megacles (487/6), Callias (486/5), and Xanthippos (485/4). The rule felt simple. The consequences did not [1][15][16].
Aristides and the Sound of a Shard
After those early expulsions, the instrument found its most famous test: Aristides, the statesman called “the Just.” In 482 BCE, an illiterate voter handed him a shard and asked him to write “Aristides.” Why? He was tired of the man’s epithet [2]. Reputation could cut deeper than policy.
That same decade survives in clay: over 150 ostraka from the Agora name Xanthippos, anchoring a mid‑480s vote we can still touch with our fingers—red‑brown sherds scored with neat, angular letters [8]. War soon forced clemency: when Persia invaded (480/79), the city recalled Aristides and Xanthippos. The ritual had worked as intended—time‑limited, reversible, and non‑punitive [2][15].
A Hoard Speaks: 9,000 Voices
Because ostracism had settled into practice, its scale—and its manipulations—became visible. Around 471 BCE, a single deposit in the Kerameikos yielded roughly 9,000 sherds. Names repeat in the same hand, insults run along the edges, and reasons are carved like quick whispers: organized writing by political clubs inside a mass vote [11][12].
This trove aligns with the traditional date for Themistocles’s fall (471), the naval strategist whose brilliance now seemed too sharp for comfort [1][11][17]. Those baskets of pottery clinked, the letters cut white against red clay, and the city trimmed a hero’s wings without touching his purse [2].
From Safeguard to Sidearm
But the same instrument that disciplined wartime giants soon shaped factional war in peacetime. In 461 BCE, anger at pro‑Spartan sympathies turned on Cimon, a leading general. Plutarch says the Athenians moved against the “Laconizers” and sent Cimon away for ten years [4].
The rhythm hardened into routine: a midwinter Assembly first voted whether to hold an ostracism; only then did the shards come out [2][15]. In 443/2 BCE, Pericles’s conservative rival Thucydides son of Melesias fell to the fence and the shards, consolidating Pericles’s dominance; ostraka even show attempts against Pericles himself [18][17]. The trapdoor had become a sidearm for partisan duels.
The Hyperbolus Affair
Because ostracism could now be aimed, rivals tried aiming it at each other—and flinched. In 417 BCE, the cautious Nicias and the flamboyant Alcibiades, normally at daggers drawn, briefly joined hands and pointed the vote at a softer target: Hyperbolus, a populist agitator [2][5].
Thucydides, a hard judge of character, called Hyperbolus “a rascal,” ostracized not from fear of rank but because he disgraced the city [3]. The crowd’s murmur curdled into jeers. The shards did their work one last time. And disgust followed: Athenians felt the weapon had been degraded into a trick [2].
Shards to Statutes
After that farce, the city closed the trapdoor. Ostracism fell into disuse; instead, Athenians turned to legal checks like the graphe paranomon to kill proposals and punish demagogues with arguments, fines, and trials [2][15][17]. The venue moved from an open fence in the Agora to the lawcourts’ wooden benches.
From its first use in 488/7 to its last in 417, ostracism spanned 71 years of active practice—long enough to steer a volatile democracy away from coups, short enough to reveal its limits [1][2]. Modern scholars see its genius and its theater: a ritual exile that tamed elite feuding with minimal harm [9][10]. The shards remain—9,000 in one hoard, 150+ in another—still whispering the city’s hardest votes [8][11].
Story Character
A democracy’s calibrated weapon against ambition
Key Story Elements
What defined this period?
Once a year, Athenians could summon a power few cities ever dared: a public vote to send a citizen away for ten years—no accusation, no trial, no loss of property. Introduced with Cleisthenes’s reforms around 508/7 BCE as a guardrail against another tyrant, ostracism became the city’s ten‑year timeout for dangerous prominence [1][2]. After Marathon, the demos put the law to work, scratching names onto clay in the Agora behind a wooden fence until at least 6,000 votes spoke as one [1][2][15]. It disciplined heroes like Aristides (482) and Themistocles (trad. 471), reshaped factions through Cimon’s fall (461) and Periclean consolidation (443/2), and then, in 417, collapsed in the farce of Hyperbolus—the wrong man for a once‑serious weapon [2][3][4][18]. Archaeology—9,000 shards from the Kerameikos, 150+ from the Agora—lets us hear those votes again. The lesson endures: a democracy can restrain ambition, but its tools must evolve [8][11][17].
Story Character
A democracy’s calibrated weapon against ambition
Thematic Threads
Preventive Exile as Safety Valve
Ostracism converted violent elite expulsion into a civic ritual with a ten-year limit, a ten-day departure, and property intact. A midwinter vote decided whether to hold it; a second vote required 6,000 ballots to act [2][15]. It mattered because it removed destabilizing figures without martyring them, preserving both order and citizenship.
Reputation Over Policy, Mass Judgment
Anonymous shards amplified reputation. Aristides’ 482 ostracism—triggered by irritation at “the Just”—shows sentiment steering outcomes [2]. The ballots let thousands pass a swift, personal verdict unmediated by courts. This mattered because leaders governed under constant public appraisal, which could dethrone them even when they broke no law.
Clubs, Bloc Writing, and Ploys
Ostraka hoards reveal repeated hands, slogans, and insults—signatures of hetaireiai coordinating ballots inside a mass vote [11][12]. Later, Nicias and Alcibiades fused factions to dump Hyperbolus (417) [2][5]. The mechanism shows how elites could steer, though not fully control, the crowd. It mattered because manipulation eroded legitimacy.
From Ritual to Litigation
After Hyperbolus, Athens abandoned ostracism and adopted legal tools like the graphe paranomon to police proposals and politicians [2][15][17]. The control mechanism shifted from a one-shot, symbolic expulsion to continuous, argument-driven oversight. That change mattered because it professionalized accountability while reducing the risk of spectacular misfires.
Archaeology as Political Archive
Two datasets—about 9,000 Kerameikos sherds and 150+ Agora ostraka—preserve names, dates, insults, and coordinated hands [8][11]. They reveal literacy levels, campaign messaging, and factional engineering within the process. Material evidence matters because it grounds literary accounts and recovers voters otherwise lost to history.
Quick Facts
6,000-vote threshold
An ostracism was void unless at least 6,000 ballots were cast—an unusually high quorum designed to ensure broad legitimacy [2].
Ten-day deadline
The named citizen had ten days to leave Attica after the vote, beginning a ten-year exile with no loss of property or citizenship [2].
Property income preserved
Exiles retained the right to enjoy income from their property, a feature that eased later recall and reduced social harm [2][15].
First use post-Marathon
Although attributed to Cleisthenes (508/7), the law was first used in 488/7 BCE, two years after Marathon, against Hipparchus son of Charmus [1][15].
Aristides’ shard moment
At his own ostracism (482), Aristides wrote his name for an illiterate voter who said he was tired of hearing him called ‘the Just’ [2].
9,000-ostraka hoard
A Kerameikos deposit of roughly 9,000 sherds records a single ostracism round around 471 BCE, including repeated hands and insults [11].
150+ Agora ballots
A 2017 study published more than 150 ostraka from the Agora, many naming Xanthippos and anchoring a mid‑480s round [8].
Last target: Hyperbolus
Hyperbolus was the final Athenian ostracized (commonly 417). Thucydides called him a ‘rascal,’ not a threat feared for power or rank [2][3][16].
From shards to suits
After 417, Athens shifted to the graphe paranomon—essentially judicial review of ‘illegal’ proposals—to check politicians and policies [2][15][17].
What is an ostrakon?
An ‘ostrakon’ was a potsherd used as a ballot; citizens scratched a single name and dropped it in a controlled area of the Agora [2][11].
Timeline Overview
Detailed Timeline
Showing 20 of 20 events
Filter Events
Toggle categories to show or hide
Cleisthenes Introduces Law of Ostracism
Around 508/7 BCE, Cleisthenes, fresh from unseating Hippias’s tyranny, added a new safeguard to Athens’s reinvented democracy: ostracism. The law allowed citizens to vote a man into ten years’ exile without trial, while his property and civic status remained intact. It was a cold instrument—designed to remove towering reputations before they turned into threats [1][2][15].
Read MoreBattle of Marathon as Prelude to Ostracism's First Use
In 490 BCE, Athens beat Persia at Marathon; two years later, Athenians finally used Cleisthenes’s still-idle law of ostracism. Victory brought swagger—and anxiety over powerful men—so the city reached for a ritual designed to restrain prominence before it curdled into domination [1][15].
Read MoreFirst Ostracism: Hipparchus son of Charmus
In 488/7 BCE, Athenians held their first ostracism and voted Hipparchus son of Charmus into ten years’ exile. The ballots had to reach 6,000; they did, and the proclamation carried over the Agora’s din as red-brown shards clinked in baskets [1][2][15].
Read MoreOstracism of Megacles
In 487/6 BCE, Megacles fell to the second ostracism—an elite name scratched onto clay as Athens pressed its new device into regular use. The vote, cast in a fenced precinct of the Agora, turned reputation into sentence in a city nervous about faction and medizing whispers [2][15][16].
Read MoreOstracism of Callias
In 486/5 BCE, Callias joined the early roster of men expelled by ostracism, as Athenians continued to use the shard to prune elite influence. The vote, void unless 6,000 ballots fell, took place in a fenced space of the Agora under the gaze of the Acropolis [2][15][16].
Read MoreOstracism of Xanthippos
In 485/4 BCE, Xanthippos was ostracized—an episode now vivid thanks to a cache of mid‑480s ostraka from the Agora. Those red-brown shards, many bearing his name, let us hear the scrape of a vote that later reversed when war demanded his recall [2][8][15].
Read MoreAgora Mid‑480s Ostraka Deposit Documents Xanthippos Campaign
Between 485 and 483 BCE, more than 150 ostraka were deposited in the Athenian Agora—many inscribed “Xanthippos.” The red-brown sherds, published in 2017, fix a mid‑480s ostracism round and reveal how Athenians wrote, organized, and chose [8].
Read MoreOstracism of Aristides 'the Just'
In 482 BCE, Aristides—celebrated as “the Just”—was ostracized. Plutarch preserves the sting: an illiterate voter handed Aristides a shard and asked him to write “Aristides,” tired of hearing the epithet. Reputation, not indictment, carried the day in the Agora’s fenced precinct [2].
Read MoreWar‑time Amnesty Recalls Aristides and Xanthippos
In 480/79 BCE, as Persia invaded, Athens recalled ostracized leaders, including Aristides and Xanthippos. War overruled distance: property intact and rights preserved, they stepped back into command amid the bronze clatter of ships in Piraeus and the smoke-smudged Acropolis [2][15].
Read MoreKerameikos Hoard Records an Ostracism Round
Around 471 BCE, roughly 9,000 ostraka were dumped in the Kerameikos—ballots from a single ostracism round. Names, insults, and repeated hands reveal mass participation and organized blocs as Athens disciplined a towering figure in the wake of the Persian Wars [11][12].
Read MoreTraditional Date for Ostracism of Themistocles
Tradition places Themistocles’s ostracism in 471 BCE, a date that fits the Kerameikos hoard’s timeframe. The architect of Salamis met the shard—ten days to leave, ten years away, property intact—his name echoing through the Agora’s fenced precinct and along the Kerameikos road [1][2][11][17].
Read MoreOstracism of Cimon Amid Anti‑Spartan Backlash
In 461 BCE, Athenians turned ostracism on Cimon, their pro‑Spartan statesman. Plutarch says they moved against the “Laconizers,” voting a ten-year exile while leaving his property and citizenship intact—a political thunderclap that echoed from the Pnyx to the Kerameikos gate [2][4][7].
Read MorePericlean Ascendancy: Ostracism of Thucydides son of Melesias
In 443/2 BCE, Thucydides son of Melesias—the conservative rival to Pericles—was ostracized. The vote consolidated Periclean dominance, as ostraka piled up in the Agora and the crier’s voice carried the ten‑day departure across the square [17][18].
Read MoreIntermittent Annual Vote to Hold an Ostracism
From 488 to 417 BCE, Athenians periodically asked in midwinter whether to hold an ostracism that year. Only if the first vote passed did they convene in the Agora’s fenced precinct months later, turning a constitutional option into a public performance on red-brown clay [2][15].
Read MorePreventive, Non‑Punitive Character of Ostracism in Practice
From 508/7 to 417 BCE, ostracism functioned as a preventive measure. Plutarch stresses its mildness: a ten-year exile, ten days to depart, property and citizenship intact; modern scholars see a ritual that domesticated elite expulsion into a civic performance [2][9][15].
Read MoreElite Coordination in Ostracism Campaigns Evident
Around 471 BCE, the Kerameikos hoard’s 9,000 ostraka revealed repeated hands, slogans, and insults—signs of coordinated writing by political clubs inside a mass vote. The shards show how elites could steer ostracism without owning it [11][12].
Read MoreRival Factions Block Each Other, Target Hyperbolus Instead
In 417 BCE, Nicias and Alcibiades, usually at odds, united to steer ostracism toward Hyperbolus. Plutarch recounts the maneuver—and even an alternative tradition—in a moment that turned a safeguard into a partisan trick, souring Athenians on the practice [2][3][5].
Read MoreLast Ostracism: Hyperbolus
In 417 BCE, Hyperbolus became the final Athenian ostracized. Thucydides called him “a rascal,” not a threat; Plutarch said the episode discredited ostracism. The crier’s announcement in the Agora sounded like a closing bell for the shard [2][3][16].
Read MoreAbandonment of Ostracism in Favor of Legal Checks
After 417 BCE, Athenians effectively dropped ostracism and turned to legal tools like the graphe paranomon. Trials, not shards, policed politics, moving accountability from the Agora’s fence to the courts’ benches [2][15][17].
Read MoreDeparture Deadline and Quorum Enforced in Early Ostracisms
From the first ostracism in 488/7 BCE, officials enforced two hard rules: a 6,000-ballot quorum for validity and a ten-day deadline to depart Attica once named. Exile lasted ten years, with property and citizenship intact [2].
Read MoreKey Highlights
These pivotal moments showcase the most dramatic turns in Athenian Ostracism, revealing the forces that pushed the era forward.
A constitutional trapdoor is built
Cleisthenes introduced the law of ostracism, enabling a ten-year exile by mass vote without trial, property loss, or civic degradation [1][2].
The shard becomes a sentence
Athens held the first ostracism and expelled Hipparchus son of Charmus. At least 6,000 ballots were required for validity; exile lasted ten years [1][2].
Reputation dethrones ‘the Just’
Aristides was ostracized. Plutarch’s anecdote of a voter asking him to write his own name captures how public sentiment, not legal guilt, could decide [2].
9,000 sherds, one decision
A Kerameikos hoard of roughly 9,000 ostraka documents a single ostracism round, preserving names, insults, and repeated hands [11].
Anti‑Spartan pivot ousts Cimon
Cimon was ostracized for ten years as Athenians moved against perceived ‘Laconizers’. Plutarch ties the decision to hostile public sentiment toward Sparta [4].
Pericles consolidates via ostracism
Thucydides son of Melesias was ostracized in 443/2, eliminating Pericles’ chief conservative rival [17][18].
The Hyperbolus denouement
Nicias and Alcibiades combined to target Hyperbolus. Thucydides judged him unworthy of fear; Plutarch says the affair discredited ostracism [2][3][5].
From shards to lawsuits
After 417, Athenians relied on legal mechanisms like the graphe paranomon to challenge proposals and penalize politicians [2][15][17].
Key Figures
Learn about the influential people who played pivotal roles in Athenian Ostracism.
Hyperbolus
Hyperbolus rose from modest origins to become a sharp-tongued demagogue in the rough politics of the late 420s BCE. A scourge in comedy and a nuisance to grandees, he tried to wield ostracism against bigger rivals—likely Nicias or Alcibiades. The plan backfired. In 417 BCE, their factions combined, and the vote pushed out Hyperbolus instead. The episode, remembered as a farce, stripped ostracism of its dignity; Athenians soon abandoned it in favor of more precise legal checks. Hyperbolus’s fall marks the end of the city’s ten‑year timeout—a cautionary endnote to a once-serious democratic weapon.
Cimon
Cimon, son of Marathon’s hero Miltiades, led Athens’s empire in its expansive 470s, winning at Eion and Eurymedon and styling himself a generous, old-school aristocrat. He courted goodwill at home—planting trees in the Agora, opening his estates to citizens—and abroad, where his pro‑Spartan policy aimed to keep a united Greek front. When Sparta rebuffed Athenian aid after the Helot revolt, public anger turned. In 461 BCE Cimon was ostracized, a classic use of the institution to reset policy by sidelining a dominant figure. His fall opened space for Periclean leadership and a more aggressive, democratic imperialism.
Interpretation & Significance
Understanding the broader historical context and lasting impact of Athenian Ostracism
Thematic weight
A MILD EXILE, REAL POWER
How non-punitive expulsion disciplined prominence
Ostracism’s paradox is its gentleness. Plutarch emphasizes that the ostracized kept property and citizenship, departed within ten days, and returned after ten years—no stigma of criminality attached [2]. That design mattered because it converted lethal expulsion into a civic ritual capable of cooling political temperature without creating martyrs. The preliminary Assembly vote and the 6,000 quorum further ensured that only high-salience threats triggered the device [2][15].
Modern interpretations clarify the mechanism’s deeper logic. Forsdyke sees ostracism as a symbolic domestication of violence, staging democratic supremacy over elite feuding [9]. Public-choice analysis suggests why it was rare: voters and elites could anticipate outcomes at the preliminary stage, often preferring not to risk a mass verdict they couldn’t fully control [14]. Yet when used—from Hipparchus to Cimon—the measure altered factional trajectories while preserving the social fabric for future recalls [1][4][15].
THE SHARD AND THE CLUB
Mass ballots, elite coordination, and legitimacy
Archaeology reveals how elites worked inside a mass vote. The Kerameikos hoard shows multiple ostraka written by the same hands, with insults and reasons that read like campaign messaging [11]. Such bloc-writing points to hetaireiai preparing ballots, attempting to pre-shape a nominally anonymous verdict. This is influence, not capture: the 6,000 quorum and sheer turnout diluted any single club’s control [2][11][12].
By the late fifth century, overt steering grew conspicuous. Plutarch’s account of Nicias and Alcibiades combining to dump Hyperbolus displays how rival elites could collude to avoid mutual destruction [2][5]. Thucydides’ sneer at Hyperbolus as a ‘rascal’ reveals elite contempt for a low-status target and frames the episode as degradation of the institution [3]. The more the public perceived manipulation, the less legitimate ostracism felt—setting the stage for its abandonment in favor of courtroom checks [2][15].
BETWEEN PERSIA AND PERICLES
Security shocks, factional pivots, and the ostracism curve
War tested ostracism’s flexibility. The recall of Aristides and Xanthippos during the Persian invasion shows how non-punitive exile facilitated rapid re-integration of expertise when existential threats loomed [2][15]. The Kerameikos material around 471 dovetails with the traditional dating of Themistocles’ fall, highlighting how the democracy trimmed a hero’s wings without touching his purse [11][1].
As the imperial city stabilized, ostracism redirected domestic politics. Cimon’s 461 exile reflected an anti-Spartan pivot; by 443/2, the ostracism of Thucydides son of Melesias consolidated Periclean ascendancy [4][18][17]. These episodes show the tool migrating from anti-tyrannical prophylaxis to a selector of policy-lines and leaders. Its very success, however, made manipulation tempting—foreshadowing the Hyperbolus denouement and the subsequent turn to legal instruments [2][5][15].
SHARDS TO STATUTES
Why Athens traded ritual exile for legal review
Hyperbolus’ ostracism is often treated as farce because it violated the unwritten norm that ostracism targeted dangerous prominence, not mere annoyance. Thucydides’ judgment—that Hyperbolus inspired no fear of power—captures the mismatch [3]. Plutarch reports public disgust and links the episode to the practice’s discredit [2]. The social contract behind ostracism—a mass, gentlemanly timeout—fractured when elite ploys became too naked [2][5].
The graphe paranomon offered a better fit for a mature democracy: continuous, adversarial scrutiny of specific proposals and politicians through courts, fines, and argument rather than one-shot exile [2][15][17]. Moving accountability indoors changed incentives: demagogues could be checked without the spectacle of exile, and elites had to defend policies on the merits. In effect, Athens replaced a dramatic ritual with a legal architecture, preserving democratic control while narrowing opportunities for manipulation [15][17].
ARCHAEOLOGY OF A VOTE
What 9,000 sherds say about democratic practice
The ostraka are not just names on clay; they are micro-documents of political culture. The Kerameikos hoard—around 9,000 sherds—captures a single round, with repeated hands indicating prepared ballots, and marginalia that record motives and insults [11]. The Agora deposit of 150+ ostraka, many for Xanthippos, anchors a mid‑480s event and reveals letter forms and voter behavior otherwise lost [8]. Together, they verify procedures described by Plutarch—fenced precinct, name inscription, mass deposit [2].
This material archive corrects literary biases. Where authors focus on celebrity victims, the sherds surface lesser-known targets and coordinated campaigns, demonstrating both breadth of participation and elite messaging [11][12]. The finds also illuminate literacy levels and the performative aspect of ostracism day, when the city turned everyday pottery into instruments of constitutional power. It is rare that a democracy leaves such granular fingerprints of its own votes [8][11].
Perspectives
How we know what we know—and what people at the time noticed
INTERPRETATIONS
Ritualized Exile, Not Punishment
Ancient authors and modern scholars converge on ostracism as preventive rather than punitive: a time-limited exile with property and citizenship preserved [2][15]. Forsdyke argues it ritualized a historically violent practice—elite expulsion—into a civic performance that affirmed democratic sovereignty while minimizing personal harm [9]. Kagan situates it in early democratic consolidation, containing factional threats in a non-lethal way [10].
DEBATES
Who aimed Hyperbolus?
Plutarch says Nicias and Alcibiades combined to ostracize Hyperbolus, but he also records a variant placing Phaeax as Alcibiades’ rival [2][5]. The uncertainty underscores how later narratives retrofitted factional alignments onto a process that, in practice, mixed elite maneuver with mass sentiment [3][12].
CONFLICT
Mass Voting vs. Elite Steering
Ostraka caches reveal multiple ballots in the same hand and coordinated slogans—evidence of political clubs steering outcomes within a mass, anonymous vote [11][12]. Yet the open quorum and simple name-inscription kept the process broadly accessible, allowing reputational surges (as with Aristides) to override elite scripts [2].
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Aristotle, Plutarch, Thucydides
Aristotle anchors origins and the first use post-Marathon; Plutarch supplies procedural detail and anecdote, stressing mildness and the ten-year term [1][2]. Thucydides’ laconic dismissal of Hyperbolus as a ‘rascal’ frames the end as moral decline rather than constitutional calculus, signaling elite disdain for demagogues [3].
WITH HINDSIGHT
From Shards to Statutes
The post-417 turn to the graphe paranomon looks, in retrospect, like an institutional upgrade: continuous, argument-driven oversight replacing a blunt, one-shot expulsion [2][15][17]. Material and literary evidence suggest ostracism’s legitimacy eroded as manipulation grew; moving disputes to courts reduced spectacle and increased precision [11][17].
SOURCES AND BIAS
Clay vs. Elite Voices
Literary sources foreground famous names and moral judgments, but thousands of ostraka preserve otherwise obscure targets, insults, and reasons, counterbalancing elite bias [11][8]. The Kerameikos and Agora finds corroborate procedures (quorum, fenced precinct) and reveal coordination invisible in narrative texts [2][11][12].
Sources & References
The following sources were consulted in researching Athenian Ostracism. Click any reference to visit the source.
Ask Questions
Have questions about Athenian Ostracism? Ask our AI-powered history tutor for insights based on the timeline content.