Upload
the-gathering
View
227
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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-
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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-
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Cook, R. M._ionia and Greece in the Eight and Seventh Centuries B. C._jhs, 66_1946!67!98
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