Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98

8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98

1/33

Ionia and Greece in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B. C.Author(s): R. M. CookSource: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 66 (1946), pp. 67-98Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/626542 .

Accessed: 22/02/2015 22:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sun, 22 Feb 2015 22:44:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/626542?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/626542?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic


2/33

IONIA AND

GREECE

IN THE EIGHTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES

B.C.

I. INTRODUCTION

A

GENERATION

r

so back

scholars

were

disposed

to find

in Asiatic Greece

the

origins

of

most of

Hellenic culture and

art:

and

though

Panionismus

s no

longer

as

openly professed,

belief

in

it

is at

least

implicit

in

many

more recent

works.1

The

purpose

of this

paper

is

to

examine,

so far as the

evidence

permits,

the

justice

of the claim

that

Ionia

was

in the

eighth

and

seventh centuries

B.C.

the infants'

school of

Hellas.2

It is

prudent

to

begin

with

a

definition. The term

'Ionian'

has been

used

in

various

senses,

and

this has made

for confusion.

First

of

all it is limited to

the

geographical

area

of

Ionia;

then

it

is

extended to

include

many

of the

Cyclades

and

even

Euboea;

thirdly, though

not

often

nowadays,

it

may

embrace Athens

also;

yet again

it sometimes

covers

all

the

Greeks

of the

East

Aegean-Aeolian,

Ionian

and Dorian.

In

this

paper

'

Ionian'

will

be limited

to

the geographical Ionia: and the Aeolians, Ionians and Dorians of the East Aegean will be

grouped together

as 'East

Greek,'

according

to

current

archaeological

usage.

The

evidence

comes almost

wholly

from

Greek sources

in

literature

and

archaeology.

It

is neither

direct nor

abundant,

and can often be

interpreted

in

opposite

ways.

Not till

the

sixth

century

does Greek

history

become

fairly

clear,

and

even

in

the

sixth

century

there

is

much that

is

disputed.

2.

THE LITERARY

EVIDENCE

As it

happens,

the

remains of

ancient literature

contain

no

direct estimate of the

early

importance

of

Ionia.

Modern historians

have therefore

been

obliged

to collect

casual

references from

authors of

all

periods.

I

shall

comment

on

some

general

points

I

have

noticed,

leaving till later sections such topics as colonisation and trade.

Homer is

sometimes

cited as a

witness of

Ionian

progress

at the

time when the Iliad and

the

Odyssey

were

composed.3

But

when

one has

separated

visions

of

the

past

from

reflections

of the

present,

the

next task is to

distinguish

what is

peculiarly

Ionian:

and this is made

yet

more

difficult

by

the

setting

of

the

poems

in

an

age

before

the

colonisation

of

Ionia.

Opinion

has

probably

been

influenced

by

the

contrast

between Homer and

Hesiod: Homer dwells on

a

glorious

and

heroic

past,

Hesiod

in

a

grim

and

agricultural

present.

But the contrast

may

be due to

personality,

not

place.4

If

Homer

had lived

in

Boeotia,

there were

'

gift-devouring

kings

'

at

whose

courts he

might

have

composed

epics:

and if

Hesiod

had

farmed

in

Aeolian

Cyme,

the

Works

and

Days

would

surely

have

been

as

appropriate

there. The

Lyric

poets

have

left

little but their

names.

1

E.g.,

K.

J.

Beloch,

Griechische

Geschichte

2,

I.

I

(1912),

141

;

216,

359

(political

evolution);

266

(industry); 278

(trade);

280-I

(size

of

Miletus); 406-7

(social

develop-

ments)

;

328, 421,

423

(art)

;

435

(intellectual

interests).

J.

B.

Bury,

History of

Greece

(1913),

p.

ix.

F.

Bilabel,

Die

ionische

Kolonisation

(I92o),

i-5

.

G.

Murray,

The

Rise

of

the

Greek

Epic

3

(1924),

262.

G.

Glotz,

Histoire

grecque,

.

(1925),

260-I,

296-7;

260

(urban

growth);

158

(colonisation).

Cambridge

Ancient

History,

III.

(1925),

510

(D.

G.

Hogarth);

533-4,

539,

549

(H.

T.

Wade-Gery);

596

(E.

A.

Gardner);

690-I,

693

(F.

E.

Adcock).

H. R.

Hall,

The

Ancient

History

of

the

Near

East

8

(1932),

79,

521-2;

cf.

on

colonisation and

political

development,

524-6.

Some of these

statements

are

supported

more

by eloquencethan evidence.

2

I

offer

my

thanks

to

those who

have

helped

me in

this

inquiry.

In

particular

I am

grateful

to

Professor

A.

Rumpf,

to

whose works

my

debt

is

plain;

and

to

Professor

T. B. L.

Webster,

Mr. A.

Purves,

Professor

P.

N.

Ure,

Mrs. K. M.

T.

Atkinson,

Mr.

J.

M.

Cook,

Mr.

J.

A.

Davison,

Professor

F. E.

Adcock,

and

Mr.

R.

D.

Barnett,

who have

read

and

criticised drafts of this

paper.

This

paper

was

completed

in

1945.

I

have

added

references

in

footnotes to

such relevant works as I

have

read

since then.

G. M.

A.

Hanfmann,

I

am

comforted

to

observe,

has

suggested

a similar

general

conclusion

(AJA

XLIX

58o-i).

3

E.g.,

as

showing

the

development

of

Ionian

industry,

K.

J.

Beloch,

Gr.

Gesch.2

.

I,

266,

n.

5:

'Vgl.

A

141

(die

hier

erwahnte

yvv)i

M1ovis

iE

Kd&E1C

st nattirlich

eine

Sklavin

im

Dienst

eines

ionischen

Fabrikanten).'

4

Thus it is

not

logical

to

conclude from

Hesiod's

distaste

for

the sea

that in his

time

the

leading

Greek

seamen

were

Ionians. Representations of ships are commoner in the

eighth

century

on

Attic

than other

Greek

pots:

that

does

not

prove

either

that

Athens

then

had

a

maritime:

supremacy.

67


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/33

68

R.

M.

COOK

In

the

fifth

century

the art of

history

developed.

No

comprehensive

study

of

the

early

Hellenic centuries has

survived,

but there

are a number

of

casual

references and short

accounts

by

various writers.

It is

difficult

to

know

what of

their statements

to

believe,

since

they

lived

long

after the events

they

recorded,

were

some

of them

uncritical,

and

rarely

reveal the

ultimate sources of their information. In general these sources were the corpus of epic and

lyric

poetry,

such

contemporary

archives

and

written

records

as

may

have

survived to their

times,

and tradition and

genealogies.

The

Epic

and

Lyric poets

cannot

have

helped

much,

or

they

would

have been

quoted

more.5

When official records were

first

kept

it is hard

to

say,

particularly

as

we do

not

know

when

the

alphabet

appeared

among

the

Greeks.6

Certainly

no

contemporary

records earlier

than

the sixth

century

survive;

but that

may

be

because

they

were

written on

wood

or

some

other

as

impermanent

material.'

Even

so,

the

recording

of historical

events

does not seem

to have

been

an

early

idea: and the

current

systems

of

chronology,

based

generally

on

eponymous

annual

magistrates,s

made

absolute

dating

difficult.

The

main

sources

of later

inquirers

were most

likely

tradition

and

genealogies:

indeed

a

framework of

generations

is

sometimes

discerned behind

ancient reconstructions

of

early

Greek

history.9

But tradition is

uncertain;

and

a

genealogical

table,

if

genuine,

is

only

a

rough

measure of

time,

while the

ancestors it

remembers

may

have

no

ready

connexion

with historical

events.

On all this the

best evidence is the

disagreement

of

the ancients

and

Thucydides' explicit

statement

of

his

own

doubts and difficulties.10

These

facts,

though

obvious,

are sometimes

ignored.

Between

the two

extremes of

accepting

no

statement

on

early

Greek

history by

a later writer unless there is evidence

to

support

it

11

and of

rejecting

no

such statement unless

it can

definitely

be

disproved

there is

no

safe

middle

way;

though

the nice selection of convenient items can bolster almost

any

theory

of

Greek

history.12

On

the whole the

sceptical

extreme is

preferable,

certainly

as

regards

the

traditional

dating:

that this

dating

is

untrustworthy

is shown

by

the

frequent

disagree-

ment of our

authorities, by

the

true floruit

of

Gyges

as recovered

from

Assyrian records,

and

by

the

archaeological

evidence

most of which was

not available to the ancients.

The

tables

of

eighth

and seventh

century

dates that decorate

many

modern textbooks

are

deceptively

positive.

A. R. Burn

has

rightly objected

that

it is uncritical to lower the date of

Gyges

in

order

to conform

to the

Assyrian

records,

but at the same time to leave untouched

other

traditional

dates

that were

probably

dependent

on

Gyges.13

This is sound. But there

is

yet

no

general

method

of

recognising groups

of

dates which are coherent and can therefore

be

adjusted

en bloc.

Herodotus,

our

fullest

authority,

was

an

uneven

critic

and

biased

perhaps

by

a

neigh-

bourly

contempt

for

Ionians;

on the

other

hand,

he

was

widely

travelled,

curious and

usually

free from

national

prejudice.

The wealth

of seventh

century Lydia

impressed

him,

and

to

5 Herodotus's note on the contemporaneity of Gyges and

Archilochus

(i.

12)

hints

at

the

rarity

of

such

historical

references

in

the

poets.

After

all,

their first

concern

was

poetry,

not

history. Compare,

too,

the

emphasis

laid

by

Strabo

on the

correct

relative dates

of Callinus

and Archi-

lochus

as

revealed

by

their

poems

(xiv. 647-8).

6

See

below,

pp.

89-90o.

7

So K. M.

T.

Atkinson,

BSR XIV

134-6.

We

may

in

these

days

over-estimate

the

need in

earlier times

of

keeping

official

records.

s

In

any

case

the

classical

lists of

such

magistrates

(which

were not

necessarily

authentic)

seem not to have

gone

back

beyond

the

seventh

century.

9

E.g.,

even

Thucydides'

dates

for

the

foundations

of

the

earlier colonies in

Sicily

(vi. 3-5).

10

Besides

the

famous

passage

i.

20-I,

one

may

note

that

Thucydides

derived

his

information

that-contrary

to

the

popular belief-Hippias succeeded Pisistratus &dot, i.e.,

from oral

tradition

(vi.

55,

i).

Or

if,

as

A.

W. Gomme

asserts in his

Historical

Commentary

n

Thucydides i. 136),

6xoi

includes written

as

well

as oral

records,

the choice

of

the

word

is

significant

and

this instance has

a

general

rather than a more particular relevance.

For a

detailed

discussion

of

sources see

K.

J.

Beloch,

Gr.

Gesch.2

I.

i, i7-47;

I.

2,

30-3. Compare

for

more recent

opinions

A.

W.

Byvanck,

Alnem.

1936,

189-97;

and

L.

Pearson,

Early

Ionian Historians

(1939),

224-

How

a

tradition

might

arise

is

shown

by

Strabo

(xvii.

8oi,

on the Menelaite

nome).

11

To find

the

same statement

in two

writers does not

necessarily

improve

its worth: one

may

have borrowed

from the

other,

or

both

from a

common source.

12

E.g.,

the remarkable theories

developed

from the

mention

by

pseudo-Skymnos (943)

that

Syrians

once

occupied

Sinope:

for a

critical account

see F.

Bilabel,

Die

ionische

Kolonisation,

34-40.

On such exercises

it

is

difficult to better

Beloch:

'

Wem

es

Vergnuigen

macht,

auf

solchem

Grunde

zu

bauen,

der

mag

es

ja

tun;

er kann dabei

sehr

viel Scharfsinn

und

Gelehrsamkeit zeigen, aber was er baut sind Karten-

hiiuser

'

(Gr.

Gesch.2

. 2,

88).

13

7HS

LV

132-3:

Burn

assumes that the traditional

chronology

(of Eratosthenes)

is

correct

relatively.




4/33

IONIA AND

GREECE,

800-6oo

B.C.

69

Lydia

he

attributed the

invention

of

coinage

and of the

trade of

Krrr

AoS

:

14

he does not

assert

that

these

inventions benefited the

Ionians

more than other

Greeks,

or

that

they

alone

had

to

do

with

Lydia.

Indeed,

of

Greek shrines

it

was

Delphi

that the

Lydian

kings

most

consulted and

honoured.15

As for the

great

temple

at

Ephesus

and the wonders

of

Samos,16

these

were not

earlier than

the middle of the

sixth

century.

This

is

the verdict of

Herodotus

on

the

Ionians

at the

time

of

the Persian

conquest:

'

The

whole

Greek race

was

at

that

time

weak,

but

the

Ionian

branch was

by

a

long

way

the weakest and

least

considerable;

for

apart

from

Athens

no

Ionian

city

was

worth

notice.'

17

Generally,

in

the

pages

of

his

history

the

seventh

century

Ionians

are dimmer

figures

than

their

contemporaries

in old

Greece.18

Thucydides

well

knew

the

difficulty

of

historical

research,

and his conclusions are

con-

sidered

with

respect.

Clearly

he

is

no Panionist.

In his

survey

of

the evolution of the

Greek

powers

Corinth

is

the

city early

distinguished

for wealth

and

trade

(i.

13, 5),

and

modern

developments

in

shipbuilding

were first

made in Corinth

(i.

13, 2).

The

Ionians

did

not

possess

a

fleet

till the time of

Cyrus (i.

13,

6).

As

for

their

prosperity,

' various

obstacles

prevented

the

growth

of the

Greek

states;

the

Ionians

indeed

had advanced

far,

but

Cyrus

then

attacked them'

(i. 16):

19

the

implication

is that the

Ionians

had

not

long

attained

importance

when

Cyrus

came. It must

also be

observed that

Thucydides

derives

Ionian

luxury

from

Athens,20

and

thought

the Athenians the

first

Greeks

to

become civilised

enough

not

to need

normally

to

carry

arms

(i.

6,

3).

Further,

he

regards

the colonisation

of

South

Italy

and

Sicily

as the

counterpart

to the

original

Ionian

migration,

not

to the

settlements

later

made

from

Ionia (i.

12,

4).21

Thucydides may

be

wrong

on

all

these

points;

but unless

evidence

is

produced,

his

opinion

is as

good

as

that

of

any

later

writer,

who was

even

further

distant from

the

eighth

and

seventh

centuries.

Of

later

writers

the most

quoted

are

pseudo-Skymnos,

Strabo

and Eusebius.

Their

notices,

for what

they

are

worth,

deal

mainly

with the foundation

of colonies

and

will be

mentioned later.

Here, too,

there

is

little

appreciation

of the

early glory

of

Ionia,

unless

we

except

a

single

document

handed down

in

two forms

by

Eusebius

and

by

him ascribed

to

Diodorus.22 This is the list of' thalassocracies,' which

professes

to set out with

precise

dates

the

powers

that

ruled the sea between the

Trojan

and the Persian

war.

It is

indeed a

document

of

unique importance,

if it

is

genuine.23

J.

L.

Myres

has

put

the case for the

genuineness

of the

'

thalassocracies,'

and

his

vigorous

advocacy

has

won adherents.24

Briefly

the

argument

is that

the

list,

judiciously

emended,

does not

conflict

with what we otherwise know or

guess

of the

history

of

the

period

it

covers.25

14

i.

94.

What

precisely

Kx&rr9hos

means

here

is

not

certain.

Its

range

is

from

retailer

to

innkeeper.

D. G.

Hogarth

suggested

that

it

might

be

a

combination

of

the

two

(CAH

III

520).

On

coinage

see

below,

p.

90o,

n.

185.

15

i.

13-14

(Gyges);

19

and

25

(Alyattes);

46-52

(Croesus).

16 iii.

6Go.

17

&o0EV•os

BEEoVSOvro

T0

TnavT-r

T6TE

'EAAV1IKO0

iVEOS,

TroAAha

8

v

d(v oeEviorarrov

-r

v

E?viECv rb 'lcoviKV

Kal

A

6you

aXio-ro-u

o6n

y&p

w?

'AOiMval

fv

oC?iv

&

Ao

vr6lacie

A

yipov

(i.

143).

It is

interesting

that

Thucydides

regarded

this

point

as

the

Ionian

zenith

(i. 16).

is

This

could

of

course be

interpreted

in

the

opposite

sense

that

the

Ionians

were then

enjoying

the

unsensational

prosperity

that

comes

of

settled

government.

19

ETrEyEVETO

•i 6aoi

62

AA6Oi1KCOjIpa-ra

pf

a?ii

vai,

Kal

'IcoaI

rrpoXopao&v-rcv

nirri

Eya

T-rov

rrpayparTcovKOpos

..

nrrcrp&-

TEUOE.

20

Herodotus

disagrees

here

(v.

87).

21

This

view

is

echoed

even

by

Cicero,

de

Div.

i.

I.

3.

22

In

the

Chronographia

nd the

Chronici

Canones

(under

the

appropriate

dates).

The

list,

as

restored

by J.

L.

Myres,

reads:

Carians

I

184,

Lydians

1056, Pelasgians 964,

Thracians 879, Rhodians 8oo, Phrygians 767, Cypriots

742,

Phoenicians

709,

Egyptians

664,

Milesians

604,

Lesbians

582,

Phocaeans

578,

Samians

534,

Lacedaemonians

517,

Naxians

515,

Eretrians

505,

Aeginetans

490(-480).

23

'

The

only

chronological

document,

other

than

per-

sonal

genealogies,

which

attempts

a

perspective

of

the

dark

age

of

Greece

'(J.

L.

Myres,

JHS

XXVI

89).

24

J.

L.

Myres, JHS

XXVI

84-130;

XXVII

123-30.

His

theory

is

generally accepted

by:

G. Murray, The Rise of the GreekEpic 3, 322-6 (App. C);

W. W. How and

J.

Wells,

Commentary

n

Herodotus,

i.

295;

A.

R.

Burn,

JHS

XLVII

165-77;

and

perhaps by

P. N.

Ure,

The

Origin

of

Tyranny,

95-6;

D.

G.

Hogarth,

CAH

III

517-

Attacks have

been made

by:

J..

K.

Fotheringham,

7HS

XXVII

75-89;

W.

Aly,

RhMus,

LXVI

585-6oo;

R.

Helm,

Hermes,

LXI

241-62;

W.

Kubitschek,

PW,

XX Halbband

2354-5 (s.v.

'

Kastor

')

;

E.

Meyer,

Geschichte

des

Altertums

2,

II.

2

(1931),

62,

n.

I.

But,

generally,

the

major

histories

ignore

the

theory

altogether.

25

To account for the exclusion of Corinth Myres is

obliged

to

restrict the

list

to

powers

controlling

the

east

Mediterranean

only,

and

to

suggest

that it

was

compiled

with an

anti-Corinthian

bias

(JHS

XXVII,

125).




5/33

70

R. M.

COOK

This

only

shows

that

it is

possible

for the

list to be

genuine;

it still could be an

intelligent

forgery.

Myres

therefore

triesto

prove

a

respectable

antiquity

for

it;

he infers that

Thucydides

knew and

accepted

it,

and concludes that

it is a fifth

century

document

drawing

on older

and

reliable

sources.2

This

reading

between

the lines

of

Thucydides

is

perverse:

it is hard

to

believe that Thucydides would deliberately have omitted such important evidence on the

development

of

Greek

sea

power

and so have distorted

his sketch. Such theories

can

neither

be

proved

nor

disproved,

but must be considered

on

general

grounds

of

probability:

the

theory

of the

'

thalassocracies' is

very

improbable.

The more

direct

literary

evidence amounts

to this.

According

to

Thucydides

Ionia

was well advanced

about the middle

of the sixth

century,

but in the

preceding

centuries

he

suggests

that cities

of old Greece were to the

fore.

3.

COLONISATION

There are in

the

literary

sources

many

colonies

for

whose

foundation

we are offered

a

date, indeed,

sometimes two

or

three

dates:

but for the

majority

of

foundations

we

have

only

a

vague

tradition

or none

at all.

Historians who wish

to

explain

the

general

course

of

Greek

colonisation have therefore

had

to fill

the

gaps

as

best

they

could;

and the

principle

most

commonly

avowed has

been

geographical

probability--that

is,

the

nearer

the

site

the

earlier

it

was

settled.27

Thus it

is often

pointed

out

that

Corcyra

must

have been

occupied

before

the

colonial ventures

across

the

Ionian

Sea;

and

similarly

it has

been

presumed

that

the colonisation of the

North

Aegean

must

have

preceded

that

of

the

Propontis,

or

at

all

events

of

the Pontus. This is

inherently

sensible

as

a

theoretical

approach,28

but it

leaves

two

difficulties.

First,

the

western

and

eastern areas

of

colonisation

are

geographically

distinct;

there

is

no

a

priori

ground

for

deciding

which

area

was

colonised

first.

Secondly,

some

of

the

traditional

dates do not

conform to the

geographical

rule.

In

solving

these

difficulties

historians seem

sometimes

to have

been

guided by

their

preconceptions

of

which Greek

states

ought

first

to have

attained

colonial

activity.

The

West.

The

dates

of

Thucydides

and Eusebius

for the

colonisation of the

West

are

not

often

seriously

questioned:

29

the

authority

of

Thucydides

has

impressed

modern

writers,

as

it

did the

ancients

to

judge

by

the

uniformity

of

the

western

in

contrast

to the

eastern

tradition.30

There is some

debate over

Corcyra:

Eusebius

puts

the

foundation

at

7o6,

but

Strabo

has

it

colonised

by

Corinth

in

the same

year

as

Syracuse-that

is,

according

to

the

Eusebian

tradition,

in

736.

Many

historians do

not

think

this

early

enough

and

affirm

that

there was a

prior

colony

of Eretrians:

31

the

authority

for

this is

Plutarch,32

but as

no

other

26

Myres

asserts

that

'the

allusive character

of

Thucy-

dides'

survey

'

and his

emphasis

on sea

power

presume

that

his public knew a list of ' thalassocracies ': this is not far

from

saying

that

because

Thucydides

does not

use the list

he

must

have

known

it.

Herodotus,

as

Myres

observes,

did

not

accept

any

such

list

since he

makes

Polycrates

the first

Greek

to aim

at

control of the

sea

and dismisses

as

unfounded

suggestions

of

earlier

thalassocracies

(Io?UKpwT-rTS

p

~o~

-rrp&(5ros

rTv

PEY~l 8psyEV

Eivcv

bs

eahaciOKpT•rE1V

VTrEVO

1e,

rrdpE

Miv

T-rEoO

Kvcocaaio

Kia

El

6~

-riTgaos

rp-rEpO

T-roroU

T

PfE

Tri

O

C?&aadjs*

ris

&vOpSOTrffg

EyOpLVflgEVETT

IO;UKp6TIaS

Trp&-ros,

ii.

122). Myres

concludes

that the

list

was

pub-

lished in

Athens

between

the

times

when Herodotus

wrote

his third

and

Thucydides

his first

book

(JHS

XXVI

87-9).

G.

Murray

goes

further:

he

thinks

the

list

may

be

a

current

(?)

record,

kept

'

in

some

Aegean

temple

'

(Rise of

the Greek

Epic

3,

322-3).

27

The

most

thorough

exponent

of

this

theory

is K.

J.

Beloch,

Gr.

Gesch.2

I

I,

229-64;

i.

2,

218-38.

On the

other side J. L. Myres holds that the first colonies might

have

been

planted

far

afield

as

outposts;

and that

at the

beginning

the

colonising

Greek states

agreed

'spheres

of

influence,'

perhaps

under

Delphic

guidance

(CAH

III

672-3).

28

It

ignores

the

comparative

attractiveness of

sites,

the

attitude

and

strength

of

the

native

inhabitants,

and

chance:

but these are factors of which we know little.

29

Apart

from

Cumae,

for which

Eusebius's

date-

Io51-is

usually

rejected.

Some historians consider

Thucydides'

dates

as

slightly

inflated,

see

below

p.

75.

30

For

traces

of

an

alternative

higher

chronology

for

the

western

colonies,

see

pseudo-Skymnos

270-3;

Strabo,

vi.

267

(following Ephorus):

and further

K.

J.

Beloch,

Gr.

Gesch.2

I

2, 221-4;

A.

R.

Burn,

JHS

LV

136-7;

A.

W.

Byvanck,

Mnem.

1936,

193-7.

31

E.g.,

CAHIII

535

(H.

T.

Wade-Gery)

;

618

(M.

Cary);

651,

672

(J.

L.

Myres)

: G.

Glotz,

Hist.

gr.

I

I78.

32

Plutarch

has

a curious

anecdote that

Eretrians

were

expelled

from

Corcyra

by

Corinthians

and

moved to

Methone

(Mor.

293a).

Strabo,

it is

pretty

evident,

knew

nothing

of an

Eretrian settlement:

though

he

mentions

that

there

was a

place

named

'

Euboea

'

in

Corcyra

(x.

449),

he also states that when the Corinthians en route for

Syracuse

left a

colony

in

Corcyra

they

found

Liburnians

occupying

the

island

(vi. 269).

Another

evidence

of

these

Eretrians

is

claimed

in

coin

types

of

Corcyra

which

resemble

those of

Carystus

in

Euboea:

but

these

must

be

dated




6/33

IONIA AND

GREECE,

800-6oo

B.C.

71

ancient

writer

supports

him it

would be

rash to trust too

much on this statement.

From

tradition,

however,

it

appears

that

there

was

vigorous

colonisation

in

the West before

the

end

of

the

eighth

century.

The

North

Aegean.

In the North

Aegean

the

region

of Chalcidice

should,

for

geographical

reasons, be the first choice for colonies, and such seems to be the current opinion.33 Eusebius

mentions

two

only

of these

settlements,

Acanthus

and

Stagira,

both

of

which

he

dates

to

655-

But

we

do not

know

whether these were founded

early

or late

in

the

colonisation

of this

region,

nor

the rate at

which

colonisation took

place.34

Plutarch,

indeed,

in

a

passage

just

mentioned

would

put

the foundation of Methone about

730,

but it is not a

testimony

on which I

should

rely.35 Along

the

Thracian coast

the island of

Thasos looks

an obvious

early

site,

and

Thasos

is

connected with

Archilochus,

who

in

turn is

connected with

Gyges.

The death of

Gyges

is

the one sure

date

in

seventh

century

Greek

history,

and

it

is

therefore

unfortunate

that

the

connexions are not

more

precise.

Yet

if one considers the evidence

detachedly,

without

allowing

other beliefs

to

obtrude,

the natural

conclusion would

be

that

Archilochus

took

part

in

the

original

expedition

to colonise

Thasos,

and that his

activity

coincided

more

or

less

with

the

reign

of

Gyges;

in

other

words,

Thasos was

founded

in

the

second

quarter

of the

seventh

century.36

That

is

an

absolute

date: but

Archilochus

also

compares

Thasos with

Siris,37

and

since

according

to tradition

Siris

was not

among

the

earliest Western

colonies

it

should

follow

(if

one

accepts

tradition)

that

the

colonisation of the West

began

earlier than

the

colonisation of

the North

Aegean,

at

least

apart

from Chalcidice. As for

Chalcidice,

the

most

colonies

were founded

by

Chalcis,38

which

was

busy

colonising

in

the

West

from the

mid-eighth

century

to the

early

years

of

the

seventh: it is

possible

that

the two streams of

Chalcidian

emigration

were

not

contemporary,

and

that

settlement

in Chalcidice did

not

begin

till settlement

in

the

West

had

stopped.39

The

Propontis.

The

Propontis

and its

approaches

attracted

many

Greek colonies.

Abydus

in

the

Hellespont,

says

Strabo,

was

founded

by

Miletus

with

the

permission

of

Gyges,40

on what evidence

we do

not

know:

41

but if

Strabo

is

right,

then

by

absolute

reckoning

the foundation of Abydus falls in the second

quarter

of the seventh

century,

and even

by

tradition not

before

the

very

end

of

the

eighth. Cyzicus

is

dated

by

Eusebius

in

756

and

679,

as

well

as in

1271.

According again

to

Eusebius,

Chalcedon was

founded

in

685

and

Byzantium

in

659:

Herodotus,

who

is

chary

of

committing

himself to Greek

dates,

only

remarks

that

the interval

between

the

two

foundations was seventeen

years.42

On

the

whole,

the

tradition

seems to

set the

serious

colonisation

of

the

Propontis

in

the

early

seventh

century.

The Pontus. In

the Pontus

Istrus,

Olbia

and

Sinope

were reckoned the

oldest

colonies

much

more

than

a

century

after

the

supposed

expulsion

of

Eretrians from

Corcyra.

R.

L.

Beaumont

thus reconciles

Strabo

with

Plutarch:

the Eretrians did not disturb the

natives,

the Corinthians

expelled

them

with

the Eretrians

(JHS

LVI

165).

This

device has

nothing

to

recommend

it

but

ingenuity.

33

,

Dbs

lors

l'Hlan

est

donne,'

G.

Glotz,

Hist.

gr.

I

162.

Compare

the

order

of the

sections on

colonisation in

CAH

III

Ch.

xxv.

(J.

L.

Myres).

M.

Cary,

I

think,

implies

a

similar

view

(CAH

III

619g).

34

M.

Cary

considers

that these

two

foundations

should

because

of

their

remoteness

mark

the

end of

the

process

of

settlement,

which

he seems

to

have

begun

in

the

early

eighth

century

(CAH

III

61i).

J.

L.

Myres,

it

appears,

dates the

earliest

colonisation,

or

perhaps

the

reinforcement,

of

Chalcidice in the

ninth

or

eighth

century

(CAH

II1650).

35

Mor.

293a:

see

above,

n.

32.

36

On

the date

of

Archilochus

the

latest

papers

I

know

are

those

of

F.

Jacoby, CQ

XXXV

97-10o9,

with

most

of

which

I

agree;

and F.

Lasserre,

Mus.

Helv.

1947,

1-7,

who

makes an excellent point but one that is not conclusive.

The ancient

tradition was

that

Archilochus

was

one of

the

original

colonists

of

Thasos,

see

A.

R.

Burn,

JHS

LV

132,

n.

6,

where references are

given.

But

see F.

Jacoby,

CQ

XXXV

102-3.

37

Fr.

18

(Diehl).

38

But see E.

Harrison,

CQ

VI

93-103,

and

165-78.He

may

be

right

in

denying

the

connexion

of

Chalcis with

Chalcidice.

39

Chalcis seems to have

been

the first

Greek

state

to

found

colonies in the

West;

and

since the West was much

more

promising

than

Chalcidice,

one would

expect

her

to

have

concentrated there as

long

as

she

could.

40

-mrr'pcavros

r-Fyov

(xiii.

590).

41

There

was

within

a few

miles,

as

Strabo

tells us

in the

same

passage,

a

Cape

Gygas:

this

may

be

the

origin

of

the

story

about

Gyges.

42

iv.

144.

This

looks

like a

rendering

of a

traditional

half

generation,

since

elsewhere

Herodotus

expressly

reckons

33- years

to

a

generation

(ii.

142).

But

one

trouble

with this sort of inference is that there

was

and

is

no

fixed

length

for a

generation,

and

any

number

from ten

to

twenty

can

be

regarded

as a

third

or a

half

of some

generation.

Herodotus, in his story of Aristeas, has Cyzicus and

Proconnesus in

existence

more

than

240 years

before

his

own time

(iv. 14-15):

if

the

240

years

depend

on

generations,

it does not look as

if

these were

also

of

331-




7/33

72

R. M. COOK

of

the

west,

north and south

coasts

respectively.

Eusebius

dates Istrus

in

657,

Olbia

(or

Borysthenis)

43

in

647:

and

pseudo-Skymnos

puts

Apollonia

Pontica

about

6io.44

Sinope

is

distinguished by

the number

of

the notices.

Herodotus,

our

earliest

authority,

says

that

the

Cimmerians

during

their incursion

into Asia

Minor

'settled the

peninsula

on which

the

Greek

city

of

Sinope

now stands':

45

this,

on

the

face

of

it,

means

that

the Greek

colony

was founded some

time after

650 (by

absolute

dating),

and

that

there had not been an

earlier

Greek

colony. Pseudo-Skymnos

knows of an

original

settlement

of

Syrians,

followed

by

an

occupation

by

Thessalians

campaigning against

the

Amazons;

later there was a

Milesian

colony

which the Cimmerians

destroyed,

and then

a

double recolonisation

by

Milesians:

with all that it is not

surprising

to learn that the

city

received its name

from one of

the

Amazons.46

Eusebius dates

the foundation of

Sinope

at

631,

but also

implies

an

earlier

foundation;

for he

puts Trapezus

in

756,

and

Trapezus

by

common consent was founded

from

Sinope.

In

each of these

various

settlements of

Sinope

there have

been

believers,

though

I

cannot

say

whether

any

one

scholar

has believed them all.

But

the

plain

fact is that

there

was

no certain tradition

about

Sinope,

and it is

probably

accident that a similar

confusion

has not survived

in

more

instances. If

we

accept

Herodotus's

statement

as it

stands and the

Eusebian

dates for the

west

and

north

coasts,

tradition

begins

the colonisation

of

the

Pontus

about

the middle of the

seventh

century.

This

is

consistent,

since

(as

is often

remarked)

the

foundation

of

Byzantium

would

naturally

come first

and tradition

dates that event

just

before

650.47

Further,

Herodotus is at

pains

to

prove

that the Cimmerians

preceded

the

Scythians

in

the

Ukraine

48-and

the

coming

of

the

Scythians

is

generally put

at

about

700;

49

there

cannot then have

been a

strong

tradition

about

the Pontus

in

Cimmerian

days.

Archilochus's

mention

of

Salmydessus

as

a

suitable

coast

for

the

wrecking

of an

enemy

does not

necessarily

imply

that there were then

Greek

colonies

beyond,

or even

that the western

Pontus

was

well

known.

50

The South

Mediterranean.

For

Cyrene

Eusebius

gives

two

dates,

762

and

632:

it

has

been

supposed,

and with

reason,

that

they

were calculated

from the number

of

kings

and

vary

according

to the

estimate

of

years

to

be

allowed for

a

reign.51

Naucratis

is

mentioned

by

Herodotus,

who seems to

have

thought

that

it

was founded

by

Amasis.52

Strabo

says

that its

foundation

was later

than

that of

Mthxrlacov

TETXos

hich took

place

in

the

time

of Psammetichus

(presumably

the first

Psammetichus

who

reigned

from

663

to

609).53

Athenaeus refers

to

a

Greek

from

Naucratis

in

688/684.54

Eusebius

dates

the foundation

in

749.

Here

again

43

It is not

clear

whether

these

were

different

names

for

the

same

city

or

whether

there

were

originally

two

cities,

see F.

Bilabel,

Die

ionische

Kolonisation,

23-6.

In

any

case

there

were other

cities

called

Olbia,

and

so

it

was

natural

that

the more

distinctive

name

Borysthenis

should

become

current

among

other

Greeks;

compare

Hdt.

iv.

18.

44

'

Fifty

years

before the

reign

of

Cyrus'

(730-33):

but

he may not have thought Apollonia more than ten or

fifteen

years

later

than

Istrus,

as

A.

R.

Burn

shows

(JHS

LV

133-4).

Pseudo-Skymnos

expresses

his

dates

generally

in

such

relative

terms:

but it

is

unlikely

that he

meant them to

differ

much from

the

Eratosthenic

vulgate,

on

which

it is

believed

Eusebius

ultimately

depends.

In

any

case some

roundabout form

of

expression

is

required

for the sake of

the

scansion

even

of

pseudo-Skymnos;

his

synchronisms

do

not

necessarily repeat

the

form

of

the

tradition

as

he

received

it.

Aelian's

statement

that

the

philosopher

Anaximander

led

the

colony

to

Apollonia

(VH

iii.

17)

shows

what

tradition

could achieve.

F.

Bilabel

makes a

gallant

attempt

to

reconcile the

discrepancy

(Die

ionische

Kolonisation,

i4-15).

45

iv.

12:

note

that

the

word used of

the

Cimmerians is

KTiav-rTE~.

46

94-952.

Strabo

(xii.

546)

mentions

the

Argonaut

occupation and a later Milesian colony. For a discussion

of

the

passage

of

pseudo-Skymnos,

see

F.

Bilabel,

Die

ionische

Kolonisation,

30-40:

he also

gives

other

ancient

references.

41

K.

J.

Beloch

adds

the

point

that

Chalcedon

would

never

have been founded

before

Byzantium

if

there had

then

been much traffic

through

the

Bosporus

(Gr.

Gesch.2

I

I,

257).

48

iv.

I2,

the

passage

to which reference

has been

made

on

Sinope.

The

adjoining

chapters

(11-13)

emphasise

Greek

ignorance

of

the Cimmerians.

49

By

inference

from

Assyrian

records,

see

E. H.

Minns,

CAH III 187-8. M. Rostovtzeff puts it in the seventh

century

(Irainians

and

Greeks

in South

Russia,

41),

or

the

eighth

century

(History

of

the Ancient

World,

I

399).

50

Fr.

79

(Diehl).

For

over-reliance

on this

passage

see

even A. R.

Burn,

JHS

LV

135-'

a

considerable

amount

of

trade

passing

that

way.'

One

might

as

well

argue

from

the line

'Were

I

laid

on

Greenland's coast'

that

in the

time

of

John Gay

the

Arctic

seas were

much

frequented.

Or

again

consider

Xenophanes,

fr.

13

(Dichl)

deriding

anthro-

pomorphic

deities:

men

make

gods

in

their own

image,

and

animals

would

similarly

create

animal

gods.

Yet

the

Egyptians

worshipped

half-animal

gods.

The

conclusion

that

Xenophanes

was

ignorant

of

Egypt

is,

however,

refuted

by

the

subsequent

fragment

from

apparently

the same

poem.

5t

So

A.

R.

Bulrn,

JHS

LV

140.

K.J.

Beloch,

Gr.

G(esch.2

I

2,

236-8.

52

ii. 178:

this

is

the

simple

interpretation

of

what

Herodotus says.

53

xvii.

8oi.

54

xv.

675-676:

it is not a

testimony

to Le taken

seriously

(see

A.

R.

Burn,

JHS

LV

I39,

n.

19).




8/33

IONIA

AND

GREECE,

800-600

B.C.

73

there is a

welter of

evidence,

and

for

a site

in

a

highly

civilised

country

where

accurate

records

might

have

been

expected.

Some

kindly

critics have

hit

on a

compromise by

which to

justify

the various

dates

tradition

affords for

the foundation

of the same

colony:

the

earlier date is that

of

the

establishment

of

a

trading

post,

the

later

of a

regular

colony;

55

or

there

may

have been more than

one

attempt

at

any single

site.56

And

this line of

argument

has

been used more

widely,

even

where there

is no

support

in

the tradition.

It is

particularly

to

the fields of

Ionian

activity,

the

Propontis

and still more

the

Pontus,

that

such theories

of a

double colonisation

have

been

directed: the first

settlement,

it is

asserted,

took

place

in

the

eighth

or

even

the ninth

century,

only

to

be

overwhelmed

by

Cimmerians

in

the

early

seventh,

and

after these

dim

but useful barbarians

had vanished the

old sites

were

reoccupied.57

It

is

hard

to

conjecture

how

precise

dates for this earlier colonial

phase

should have

survived;

and,

as

I

have

already

said,

Herodotus knew

nothing

of

it.5s8

Glotz,

a

vigorous

believer

in

the

double

colonisation,

makes this candid

admission,

'de

cette

premiere

colonisation

t

peine

s'il resta

quelques

traces':

59

this is

hardly surprising,

if it did not take

place.

A. R.

Burn,

in a

paper

already

quoted,

reconciles

some

of

the

variant dates

in

another

way.60

He

argues

that

the dates of the colonial

foundations

were calculated

by

a scale

of

generations,

and

that

varying

estimates from

thirty

to

forty years

for the

length

of a

generation

produced

'short'

and

'long'

chronologies.

Even in

the

West,

he

points

out,

where the

authority

of

Thucydides

kept

rivals

away,

there

are traces

of

an

alternative

'

longer' system:

61

15

Compare

K. M. T.

Atkinson,

referring particularly

to

Selinus

(BSR

XIV

I

15-36, especially

13o-6);

the earlier

date

is

that

of

the

arrival of

the first

prospectors,

the later

of the

regular

foundation

of a

rr6mt.

A

preliminary period

is,

she

reasons,

inherently

probable;

the date

of

the

foundation would

be

preserved

in

official

records,

and the

length

of the interval

vaguely

remembered

by

local

patriots.She therefore

expects (for

its relevance to

archaeological

chronology

I

continue

her

argument)

finds

as

early,

at

least,

as

the

time of the foundation

proper-from

graves

since

even

if

there

were

no deaths from

hostile

natives old

age

would be

taking

its

toll of

the

original

prospectors,

and

from

sanctuaries because

of

religious

devotion;

more

precisely,

the

earliest

pottery

should

be dated about

625

instead

of

some ten

or

fifteen

years

later as H.

G. G.

Payne

assumed

(Necrocorinthia,2-3).

In

addition

Mrs.

Atkinson

publishes

two

grave groups

from Selinus

(nos.

27

and

55),

which

she

regards

as

representing

the

earliest

material

from the site

and

dates

by

Payne's

reckoning

about

625.

I

disagree

with

her

dating

and

give my

reasons.

(References

to

Payne

are

to his

Necrocorinthia,

nd

the

numbers

quoted

are

from

the

Catalogue

there:

EC,

MC,

LC

stand

for

his

Early,

Middle

and

Late

Corinthian,

which

begin

respec-

tively

about

625,

6o0,

575.)

Tomb55. No. 5: EC-MC. For the knob and shape of

the lid

cf.

even

Payne

I506

(fig.

175:

LC): processing

warriors

continue

to LC

(Payne

1244-9),

and

there

is

no

reason

why

those

on

this

pot

must

be

EC:

the

parallels

for

the reversed Z

pattern

which

Mrs.

Atkinson

quotes

are

MC:

zigzag, cf.

LC

(Payne

1356, fig.

166):

the lower

rosettes are

worse

than is

usual in

EC,

dot

rosettes

though

commoner

in

EC

occur

in

MC

(Payne,

pl.

31.7).

No.

6:

best

parallels

in

LC;

cf. Payne 1326

(fig.

164).

Nos.

12-14:

nothing

that

need be before

MC,

though

animals

as

on

no.

14

are not so

common after

EC.

No.

16:

the

grave

at

Ialysus

cited

for

comparison

is

anyhow improbable

as

a

genuine

ne

single

grave,

and is

no reason

for

making

this

piece

earlier

than

MC.

No.

18:

I

do

not

see

why

on

grounds

of

style

these dancers

should

necessarily

be

EC.

No.

22:

a

typical quatrefoil aryballos,

MC or

LC.

The short

neck

is

not

extraordinary.

The

lalysus

grave

is rather

of

MC

than EC period: the 'Rhodian' oinochoe from it is of

the B

style,

that is

contemporary

with

MC.

No.

24:

I

think this

must

be

sixth

century.

Tomb

27.

No.

I

: EC

or

MC:

this

is

a

fair-sized

piece.

The

subject

is a lion

walking

right.

Nos.

2-4:

the

bands

are

MC

or

LC

as

much

as

EC.

No.

5:

the

Vroulia

grave

might

well

be

early

sixth

century.

No.

7:

the

grave

at

Samos

is of

MC

period;

Ialysus

grave

xxxiii

is

EC or

perhaps

MC

in

date,

grave

xlv

MC,

grave

xlvi

MC,

and

Maiuri's

grave

36

unreliable.

It

therefore

seems to me that these two

graves

are of MC

rather than of EC

period,

and I should date them soon

after

6oo.

56

There are also

many

traditions of

colonial foundations

by

Argonauts

and

by

survivors of either

side from the

Trojan

War.

Few historians take

these

seriously

(but

see

J.

L.

Myres,

CAH III

ch. xxv

passim). Anyhow,

for

my present

purpose

I

can

ignore

them.

57

E.g.,

D. G.

Hogarth,

CAH

III

509-10

(ninth

and

eighth

centuries);

H. T.

Wade-Gery,

CAH

III

534 (first

half

of

eighth

century);

G.

Glotz,

Hist.

gr.

I

164-5

and

277

(eighth

century).

Eumelus of

Corinth,

whom

Eusebius

dates about

the

middle

of

the

eighth

century,

is said

by

Tzetzes to have

called three

Muses

by

the

names

of

Cephiso,

Achelois and

Borysthenis

(fr.

17

(Kinkel);

'Achelois

'

is an

emendation,

and

'Borysthenis'

too for

that

matter):

from this it is

concluded that

about

750

the

Greeks

were

familiar with

the river Borysthenes or Dnieper, and therefore were busy

trading

with

the

Ukraine

(so

G.

Glotz.

Hist.

gr.

I

325-6;

H.

T.

Wade-Gery,

CAH

III.

534;

A.

R.

Burn,

JHS

LV

135).

The

objections

are

these:

(i)

the

date

of

Eumelus

is

not certain

(see

E.

Bethe,

PW

XI

Halbband

Io8o-I,

s.v.

'Eumelus

');

(2)

we do not

know

if

the

fragment

is

genuinely

from

Eumelus;

(3)

the

combination of

rivers

Cephisus,

Achelous and

Borysthenes,

two from old

Greece

and

one

from the

Ukraine,

would

need

some

explanation.

Another

reputed

fragment

of Eumelus

(fr.

8,

Kinkel)

mentions

a

nymph

called

Sinope.

58

See

above,

p. 72.

-9

Hist.

gr.

I

165.

60

JHS

LV

130-46:

the theme

of

this

paper

is that

a

large part

of

the

traditional

early

chronology

is

based on

a

generation

of

forty

years;

that in

practice

a

generation

averages

thirty years;

and that

many

early

dates should

therefore be reduced by a quarter of their excess over 500

B.c.

(which

Burn

takes as

his

datum-line).

61

Ibid.

137,

where several

instances

are

mentioned.




9/33

74

R. M.

COOK

so

pseudo-Skymnos

sets

the

first

Sicilian

colonies

in

the tenth

generation

after

the

Trojan

War,62

and

Eusebius

quotes

650

as the date of

Selinus.

Burn's selected

list

of

dates,6

scaled

down

to

illustrate

his

argument,

has some

excellent

results;

and

there

may

well be truth

in

his

theory.

But

as

a

universal nostrum it

is

too

simple:

the

traditional dates do not

deserve

the credit he allows them.

From all

this it

appears

that

about

the colonies

in

Sicily

and

Italy

the tradition

was

fairly

uniform,

and

that it

set

the

beginning

of

this colonisation in the latter

part

of

the

eighth

century.

Elsewhere

tradition

shows

more

variation,

but

on the

whole

points

to

a

later

date

for

the

beginning

of

colonial

activity.

But

the

early

colonisation

of

the West

was

traditionally

-and

on this

I

accept

tradition-the

work

mainly

of

Chalcis,

Corinth

and Achaeans: even

in

the

North

Aegean

it

was

Euboeans

and

other islanders

who

took

the

first

part.

Ionians

become

prominent

in

the

Propontis,

though

Megara

had a

fair share and

occupied

the

straits

leading

beyond.

The

Pontus,

at

last,

was

almost

wholly

Ionian.

It

is

perhaps

the belief

that

Ionians

should

have led the

colonial movement which

has

fostered,

for

example,

the

theory

of an

early

colonial

phase

in

the

Pontus. So Hall

implied

that colonisation

probably

began

from

'rich

and

prosperousIonia';

64

so less

directly Bury, though

in

his

chronologyadmitting

the

priority

of

the

western

colonisation,

yet

in

the

arrangement

of

his

history

treats

of

the

eastern

colonisation

first.65

I

have

already

given

my

views

on the

general unreliability

of

Greek

eighth

and

seventh

century

dates.66 If

proper

records

had

been

kept

from the

foundation of

a

colony

and

had

been

preserved,

there should

have

been no

difficulty

in

calculating

accurately

the date

of

its

foundation:

but the

various

dates of the

tradition show

that

this was not

always

so.

Certainly

few would credit all of

Eusebius's

statements,

and

to

separate

the

gold

from

the dross

seems

to

me

almost as

hard.

It

is

noteworthy

that

Herodotus,

our earliest

historian,

on the

rare

occasions

when

he

gives

Greek

dates is

sometimes more

moderate

than

Eusebius

and

the

Alexandrines.67

On

two

points,

however,

tradition deserves

more

respect,

first,

on

the

earliest

settlement in

any

area

and,

secondly,

on

the

mother-city

of

a

colony,

at

least

if

the

colony

survived,

since

institutions would continue

to

show

the

link:

68

but

precise

dates

are

not to

be

expected.

So far

the

argument

about

colonial dates has been confined to tradition: a few

cases

can

be

tested

by

archaeological

evidence,

and of

course have been. But

the

dating

of some

of the

archaeological

evidence has been and is

still

being

revised,

and the

conclusions

historians

have

drawn from it

must

be revised in turn.

The

sites

in

Eusebius's

list

for

which sufficient

archaeological

evidence

exists

are

Cumae,

Syracuse,

Megara Hyblaea,

Gela,

Selinus,

Tarentum

perhaps,

Massilia,

Naucratis, Istrus,

Olbia.

To

avoid

any

circular

argument

the

present

basis of

the

archaeological

chronology

must be

outlined.

The

archaeological

chronology

of the

eighth

and seventh centuries

depends

mainly

on

Protocorinthian

and

Corinthian

pottery,

the relative

dating

of

which was

convincingly

established

by Johansen

and

Payne.69

The

absolute

chronology

is

obtained

by way

of

the

62

270-3;

cf.

Strabo vi.

267.

See

also

above

p.

70,

n.

30.

63

JHS

LV

146.

In

Table

Ion

p.

77

below I

show

the

effect

of

Burn's

scale.

64

Ancient

History

of

the

Near

East

8,

525:

cf.

G.

Glotz,

Hist.

gr.

I

158.

65

History

of

Greece

2,

Ch.

2,

sections

2

and

3.

66

See

above,

p.

68.

67

Naucratis,

Sinope

and

the

Pontus

generally

(see

above,

p. 71-2).

On the other

hand,

he

gives

a

higher

date

for

the

Trojan

War

(ii. 145)

and

for

Gyges

(i.

14,

etc.).

68

See

F.

Bilabel,

Die

ionische

Kolonisation,

where

it is

shown

that

epigraphic remains generally support tradition

in this

respect.

69

K. F.

Johansen,

Sikyoniske

Vaser

(Danish:

I9

8);

Les

Vases

sicyoniens

(a

revised

and

enlarged

edition of

the

former

work:

1923):

H. G. G.

Payne,

Necrocorinthia

(I931);

Protokorinthische

Vasenmalerei

1933)

;

Perachora

(1940), 53-67

:

S. S.

Weinberg,

AJA

XLV

30-44;

Corinth

VII

I

(1943)-

Johansen

deals

with

Protocorinthian.

Payne

corrects

him

and covers

'Corinthian.'

Weinberg

is

mainly

con-

cerned with

Geometric and

in

turn

corrects

Payne

on

some

points.

The term '

Corinthian' is used above in the

limited

sense

of the

style

that

succeeds

Protocorinthian.

It

would,

I

suggest,

be better

qualified

as

'Ripe

Corinthian'

or

possibly

'

Corinthian

Archaic'.

Anyhow,

the

simple

term

' Corinthian ' is properly needed to describe the pottery of

Corinth

irrespective

of

period.

For the

possibility

that

some

of

the

pottery

ascribed

to

Corinth

was

in

fact

made in

Aegina,

see

S. S.

Weinberg,

AJA

XLV

30-44

and below

p. 93,

n.

205-




10/33

IONIA

AND

GREECE,

8oo-6oo

B.C.

75

finds

from

Syracuse,

Megara

Hyblaea,

Gela and

Selinus:

it

is

assumed that the

Thucydidean

dates

for the foundation

of

those

cities are correct-it is essential

to

remember

that

this is

an

assumption-and

that

the earliest finds

made there

belong

to

the

earliest

years

of

Greek

settlement.70

There

is

only

one

independent

check,

the

so-called

Bocchoris vase

from

the

Bocchoris

Tomb

at

Tarquinii:

71

this

vase

bears

among

its

decoration

the name

of

king

Bocchoris of

Egypt

who

reigned

from

718

to

712,72

and

it

is

not

likely

that so

undistinguished

a

king

should

have been

commemorated

on

a vase made

more

than a

few

years

after

his

death.73

The

other contents

of

the

Bocchoris

Tomb

have

not

been

fully

published;

but

it

is

said that

they

indicate

its

dating

on

the

Payne-Johansen

system

to

about

67o.4

This

would

leave an

interval of

some

forty-five

years

between

the

reign

of Bocchoris

and

the

entombing

of

the

Bocchoris

vase:

the interval is not

beyond

likelihood,

but

might

well be

much

less.75

Thus the

Bocchoris

vase

agrees

tolerably

with

the

general archaeological

chronology:

it

is,

however,

an

isolated

piece

of

evidence,

and it

would

be

foolhardy

to

rely

much on

it.

The absolute

chronology

of

other

fabrics of

eighth

and seventh

century

Greek

pottery

has

to

be

established

by

their

connexions

with Protocorinthian and

'Corinthian.'

For

the

Cycladic

and East

Greek

wares such

connexions

have

not

yet

generally

been traced

back

beyond

the

last third of the seventh

century,

nor have their relative

sequences

been

closely

determined

before that

period.'6

Further

Subgeometric

and

Geometric

are

only

now

yielding

to

analysis,

and it

is

becoming

clear

that

they

persisted

longer

than

had

been

supposed. 7

It

is with

the

relative

dates

of the

finds from

Greek

colonies

that

I

am here

concerned;

but

for

convenience

of

expression

I

accept

the

current

absolute

chronology

of

archaeologists,78

and

thereby

assume

that

the four

key

dates

which

Thucydides gives

are

correct.

This

is

not

by

any

means

universally

admitted.

Apart

from

general

doubts

of

the trustworthiness

of

the tradition

some

special

points

have

been

made.

For

example,

H. R.

Hall

decided

that

the

Sicilian

dates

were both

absolutely

and

relatively

too

high,

but on

quite

inconclusive

evidence.

A.

R.

Burn

suggests

that

they

should

be

slightly

reduced

absolutely

(but

not

relatively)

since

Thucydides'

calculations

are

based on

an

overlong

generation

of

thirty-five

years.80

A.

W.

Byvanck argues that the archaeological finds show that Thucydides has given wrongly the

intervals

between

the

foundations

of

Syracuse

and

Megara Hyblaea,

and

of

Megara

and

Gela;

Megara

is

in

fact

much

closer to

Gela than

to

Syracuse.81

This is a

serious

charge:

I

have

not

examined

the

material

itself

and

cannot

give

a

definite

opinion,

but

if

one

considers

only

the

published

finds

Byvanck

has made

out

a

case.

As

has

been

said,

the

relative

chronology

of

much Greek

pottery

of

the

eighth

and

seventh

centuries is

fairly

secure;

but this

security

has

been

attained

only

since

the

First

World

War,

and all

earlier

summaries of

finds

from

excavations

must be read with

great

suspicion.

For

instance,

the

reports

of

work at

Berezan

at

the mouth

of the

Dnieper

speak

of

an

upper

stratum

containing

Attic

black-figure

pottery

and a

lower

containing

'

Rhodian,'

Naucratite,

Fikellura

70

Where

the

earliest finds

are from

graves,

some

allow-

ance is conventionally made (or said to be

made)

for the

probability

that

at

foundation

the

colony

would

contain

few

elderly

persons

and that

the

incidence of

death

from

disease or

natural

causes

should for

the

first

years

be

very

low.

This

allowance

varies:

perhaps

it

averages

fifteen

to

twenty

years.

71

See E. H.

Dohan,

Italic

Tomb

Groups

(1942),

Io6-8,

where

sufficient

references

are

given.

7

Authorities

disagree

on

the

precise

date of

Bocchoris,

but

not now

by

more

than

two or

three

years,

see

E.

H.

Dohan,

loc.

cit.

A. Akerstrbm is

sceptical

of the

value of

this

tomb-group

(Der

Geometrische

til

in

Italien,

33).

73

Documents

Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98