Petrakis, Vassilis P. History Versus the Homeric Iliad, A View From the Ionian Islands

The Johns Hopkins University Press and Classical Association of the Atlantic States are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical World.

http://www.jstor.org

History versus the Homeric "Iliad": A View from the Ionian Islands Author(s): Vassilis P. Petrakis Source: The Classical World, Vol. 99, No. 4 (Summer, 2006), pp. 371-396Published by: on behalf of the The Johns Hopkins University Press Classical Association of the

Atlantic StatesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4353062Accessed: 24-09-2015 21:26 UTC

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].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:26:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaas

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4353062

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



HISTORY VERSUS THE HOMERIC ILIAD:

A VIEW FROM THE IONIAN ISLANDS*

I. Introducing the Problem: Homer, Odysseus, and the Catalogue of Ships

[Homer] is every Mycenaean scholar's passion . . . but if one thing is more certain than another in dealing with Greece, it is that every generation, let alone century or millennium, saw changes more profound than the simple classicist likes to acknowledge. It seems more honest, even refreshing, not to invoke Homer as decoration or instruction.'

Four decades since Emily Vermeule made this cautious remark in the preface to her Greece in the Bronze Age (1964), we may acknowledge the fact that Homer is still an object of passion for most endeavors into the Mycenaean world. The debate over the historicity of Homer (whether the poems attributed to him reflect certain historical conditions and when these can be dated) has not ceased to absorb scholarly thought. It is a fact that an attempt to interpret and confirm Homer as a historical work was a major driving force in Aegean prehistoric research during the pre-World War II years.

In tracing patterns of connection between the world of the poems and that documented by archaeological data, some scholars have attempted to examine differences and similarities between habita- tion patterns revealed by archaeological surveys or regional studies and relevant information stated or implied in various sections of the epic, most notably the so-called "Catalogue of Ships" (NqCov KU,TAo'yos, I. 2.483-760).2 Following this line of thought, the present

A short version of this paper was included in a lecture on the problems of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age period in the Ionian Islands at the seminar entitled "Potters and Pottery Workshops in the Aegean: Late 13th century to 800 B.C.," di- rected by N. Kourou and N. Sgouritsa (Department of Archaeology and Art History, University of Athens) in January 2003. 1 thank them both for discussion and encour- agement, as well as G. S. Korres (Department of Archaeology and Art History, University of Athens) for his continuous interest. Thanks are also extended to Theodora Konstantinidi for checking my English. 1 am also grateful to Christina Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (University College, Dublin) for a discussion on the ideas presented in this text. The author is also grateful to the editor and the two anonymous referees of CW for their remarks on an earlier draft of this text. Naturally, I remain solely responsible for any error or misconception, which may be included here. The title of this article is de- rived from Sir Denys Page's History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959).

E. T. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago 1964) x. 2 See, for instance, T. W. Allen, The Homeric Catalogue of Ships (Oxford 1921);

D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, Sather Classical Lectures 31 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959); A. Giovannini, Ltude Historique sur les Origines du Cata- logue des Vaisseaux, Travaux publies sous les auspices de la Societe Suisse des Sciences Humaines (Beme 1969); and especially R. Hope Simpson and J. F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer's Iliad (Oxford 1970). The most recent critical work on the

371



372 VASSILIS P. PETRAKIS

study examines the nature of the connection between the Ionian Islands, homeland and kingdom of Odysseus, as pictured in Homer, and the Ionian Islands during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, as revealed in the archaeological record.

A main point I will focus on is the contradictory information included in the Catalogue and in the rest of the epic. That the Catalogue differs significantly from the rest of the Iliad (and the Odyssey) and that the information it includes is often incompatible with it are recognized facts.3 The point is how to interpret this situation. It is overly simplistic to consider this as a "right or wrong" query, as Walter Leaf did.4 It is true that one can find throughout Homer a number of minor inconsistencies that have been interpreted as evidence for the "multiple authorship" of the poems,5 emphasized by the Analytical School of Homeric studies. Yet, the Catalogue is by far the largest and densest concentration of such inconsistencies on major issues, such as the status of leaders and the extent of their kingdoms. Certain morphological features of the Catalogue, most notably the fact that it is introduced by a rrpoo4.tiov of its own (II. 2.484-493), have been long observed and add to the general impression that this passage must have originally been an independent work, added to the Iliad only after the latter had been basically formulated.

Every attempt to examine the "historicity" of these poems must, at least, take into consideration this major inconsistency. Throughout this article, I will base arguments only on significant contradictions, such as omitting the status (or even the existence) of kings and kingdoms, and I will refrain from focusing on trivial details, which has been a source of just criticism of certain Analytic arguments.6 The most significant effect of this Catalogue/l/iad

"archaeological" problems related (or, at least, thought as related) to the Catalogue must include the forthcoming paper by 0. T. P. K. Dickinson, "Aspects of Homeric geography," in the Proceedings of the Eleventh International Aegean Conference, Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology (Los Angeles 2006), to be published in the Aegaeum series; the abstract is available at www.ulg.ac.be/ archgrec/eposabstracts.html.

I See briefly Page (above, n.2) ch. 4 and bibliography. It is really pointless to list every Homeric scholar who has noticed this.

4 Homer and History (London 1915). In this work Leaf argues that the Iliad represents some kind of "norm" and that the Catalogue consists of nonsensical information. See Page (above, n.2) for the rejection of this argument on methodological grounds.

5 As argued, among others, by Page (above, n.2). The term "multiple authorship" is the title of appendix I in his book. Other well-known Analytics were G. Hermann, G. Grote, A. Kirchoff, U. v. Wilamowitz, E. Meyer, W. Leaf, and G. Murray. In this article this school of Homeric interpretation has been generally followed, not least because its acceptance is a reversible procedure: one can unify things that have been examined separately, but if these things are initially analysed as parts of the same unit, it is no longer possible to take them separately.

6 See, for instance, Wilamowitz's arguments in Homerische Untersuchungen (Berlin 1884) 6-27, rightly criticized by D. Page, The Homeric Odyssey, Bryn Mawr Mary Flexner Lectures 1954 (Oxford 1955) app. 1.1.



HISTORY VERSUS THE HOMERIC ILIAD 373

incompatibility on the methodology of "Homeric archaeology" should be, in my opinion, to warn us against making chronological state- ments which assume Homer is a single work; the case of the Catalogue, in other words, must make us very suspicious of the conceptual (and, therefore, chronological) unity of the Homeric text. It seems a safer method to consider certain passages and issues separately so that chronologies refer only to specific passages, not to the epic altogether. For instance, the famous passage of Myrione's "boar- tusk helmet" in the Iliad (10.260-271), which is undoubtedly a Bronze Age artifact, is no guarantee that Homer as a whole, or even the Iliad, has a Bronze Age background; it can only provide clues for the specific passage in which the object is described. I thus argue that one of the weaknesses of some past approaches to the subject has been the projection of the information gained from such specific passages onto the entire Homeric "world."

What this approach suggests is that presumed generalizations should be avoided. If a passage from the Catalogue seems attrib- utable to, let us say, the eighth century B.C., this does not necessarily mean that the entire document is of the same date. It may be, but we need to study it thoroughly in its entirety, before this projection can be made.

Although an old problem, the quest for Homer's historical context shows no signs of abating among current scholars.7 Among others, Oliver Dickinson has systematically and strongly questioned the ties between the Homeric and the Late Bronze Age Aegean world.8 In his view, what is represented in the epic is a world of "fantasy, but a fantasy in which, because neither composer nor audience can imagine or sympathize with a wholly alien world, reality keeps breaking through."9 What often deceives us as being a true relic of a glorious Mycenaean past may indeed be nothing more than an elaborate fantasy built on a modest Early Iron Age reality.'0

Much past scholarship favoring the Mycenaean setting of the epic was mostly based on this general feeling of luxury that ac- companies the descriptions of structures, such as the palaces of Nestor, Menelaos, or Alkinoos in the Odyssey. Recent advances in our knowledge of the Early Iron Age, most notably the discovery and publication of tenth-century B.C. elaborate apsidal building at

I See E. S. Sherratt's "Reading the Texts: Archaeology and the Homeric Ques- tion," Antiquity 64 (1990) 808, for a brief overview of most past approaches, which cover most current trends. Special reference to some of the works cited by Sherratt is made here only if appropriate to the subject of the paper.

8 0. T. P. K. Dickinson, "Homer, the poet of the Dark Age," G&R 33.1 (1986) 20-37. The identification of Homer's world as essentially "Dark Age" (tenth to ninth centuries B.C.) had been proposed by Sir Moses Finley, The World of Odysseus, rev. ed. (London 1956). For the most recent historiography of the problem, see the forthcoming paper by S. P. Morris, "The Iron Curtain: Homer, Finley and the Bronze Age," in the Proceedings of the Eleventh International Aegean Conference (above, n.2).

Dickinson (above, n.8) 24. 10 Dickinson (above, n.8) 23-30.




Lefkandi on the island of Euboea," force us to revise the simple equation "luxurious= Mycenaean" and to consider the possibility that expressions of extravagance and monumentality also existed in the Early Iron Age.

The possibility that the information included in Homeric epic may derive from diverse sources has already been noted by, among others, J. N. Coldstream and James Whitley, but on interestingly different grounds. Coldstream writes of Homer as "an amalgam of anachronistic details" practically useless for the historian or archaeologist, while Whitley considers this amalgam to consist of different but contemporary regional societies.'2 J. P. Crielaard has offered a more complex interpretation by arguing for a Late Iron Age (seventh century B.C.) date for Homer altogether, with deliberate archaizations to explain the existence of Realia datable to earlier chronological periods.'3 The problem is that, once you em- bark upon the concept of deliberate archaizations, it is not easy to see where to stop suspecting such alterations, especially in those fields where less is known, such as the political structure of Early Iron Age (eleventh to eighth century B.C.) Greece. Our knowledge about the mental culture contemporary with the epic is incomplete; if you don't have a clear view of what a reliable picture would be like, you can't safely detect a bias or divergence from it. What we really know about those issues during the Early Iron Age is frustratingly difficult to pin down, since much is based on assumptions originating from the epic itself, thus constituting a perfectly cir- cular argument. 14 For instance, the absence of literacy in the epic (with the exception of the notoriously vague passage in II. 6.169) can be interpreted as a sign of deliberate archaization, only if it can be proven that Homer lived in a literate culture.

These approaches, however, usually consider Homer as a whole. As far as the differences between the Catalogue of Ships and the rest of the epic are concerned, the literature is more restricted, although not less variegated. All possible suggestions for the Catalogue's date have already been made: Mycenaean, Early Iron Age (or Dark Age, as some scholars prefer), and Late Iron Age (Geometric pe-

" See C. M. Antonaccio, "Lefkandi and Homer," in 0. Andersen and M. Dickie, eds., Homer's World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality, Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 3 (Bergen) 5-27, with past bibliography.

12 J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London 1977) 18; J. Whitley, "Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece," ABSA 86 (1991) 341-65. For an overview of these and similar thoughts see J. P. Crielaard, ed., Homeric Questions. Proceedings of a Colloquium Organised by the Netherlands Institute at Athens, 15 May 1993 (Amsterdam 1995) 206, n.14 (with references), as well as I. Morris, "Homer and the early Iron Age," in 1. Morris and B. Powell, eds., A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997) 534-59 (esp. 558-59). See also Dickinson (above, n.8) 31.

3 "Homer, History and Archaeology," in Crielaard (above, n.12) 201-88. 14 One example of this methodology would be E. Mireaux, La vie quotidienne

au temps d'Homere (Paris 1954). The very temps d'Homere concept is not given, but derives from the interpretation of the epic.




riod and seventh century B.C.).'5 To paraphrase Denys Page, there is no room even for an erroneous opinion to be original.'6 On the other hand, a systematic exploration of each opinion through a diachronic survey of the various different regions featured in the Catalogue has not yet been undertaken.

This article wishes above all to make the point that diversity may be a key concept in examining the connections between Homer and the archaeological record; there is no point in trying to iden- tify the single historical context of Homer because there may be-as there probably are-many diverse contexts. For this reason, it is argued that an apt solution to the problem can only be reached by thematically oriented studies, examining contradictions (if present) within Homer about specific matters, thus decreasing generalizations to a minimum. The topic chosen for this article is the depiction of the "political geography" of the Ionian Islands and the status of their ruler(s).

At this point it is appropriate to comment on what interest a classicist should have in such a seemingly restricted topic. Odysseus' kingdom is governed by a hero, whose status, fame, and glorious deeds are almost uniquely Homeric, in the sense that, had the Homeric epic not been preserved, he would have appeared to the modern scholar as little more than an insignificant local hero, whose activities are confined to the Trojan cycle. Choosing to focus on the Ionian Islands, however, may offer us significant insights into the way a region, whose role as the kingdom of a character of such significance in the Iliad and as a narrative locale in the Odyssey is seminal beyond any doubt, evolved into the epic tradition. In sum, the Ionian Islands are of interest because a hero inseparably connected with them is such a key figure in both epics.

This is essentially a question of the pattern that connects reality with fictitious texts, which is the prime concern of any Homeric archaeologist. I accept here that the archaeological record, however fragmentarily preserved, reflects reality in a much more reliable manner; its apparent biases are only our own. The question of possible ancient biases in Homer's epic is a vastly more complex issue, due to the subjective factor of our own empirical isolation from the world when the epic was formed.

Since reality is exclusively, though fragmentarily and incom- pletely, reflected in the archaeological record, I have consciously chosen archaeology as a point of departure. I have followed Sir

'5 See Hope Simpson and Lazenby (above, n.2) on a Mycenaean date (although not of a specific period); Dickinson (above, n.8) on an Early Iron or Dark Age date; J. K. Anderson, "The Geometric Catalogue of Ships," in J. B. Carter and S. P. Mor- ris, eds., The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (Austin 1995) on a Geometric date; and Giovannini (above, n.2) on a late Iron Age date (seventh century B.C.).

"6 This remark originally referred to the date of composition of the Odyssey. See Page (above, n.6) 192.




John Forsdyke's cautionary instruction that "archaeological discovery may throw light upon the legends, but the use of legendary state- ments for historical interpretation of material records is a reversal of proper procedure." John Chadwick has also stated that he does ",not believe that one can reconstruct history from myth; but when we know the history we can sometimes see how it is reflected in myth." ' 7

For this reason, I will first present a short account of the archaeological record of this region during the period concerned. A brief examination of the problems that arise when attempting to reconstruct the picture of the lonian Islands based on information from the Homeric Iliad will follow. Finally, an interpretation of these disagreements and contradictions will be attempted on the basis of observations and hypotheses concerning the above topics.

II. The lonian Islands during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (c. 1600-760 B.c.)

The Ionian Islands, situated off the western coast of the Greek mainland, can be divided into two groups in terms of physical distance. Kerkyra (Corfu) and Paxoi form a northern group distant from the rest of the islands (Kephallenia, Ithaca, Zakynthos, and Lefkas), which could be defined as a southern group. Throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Ages (c. 3000-1100 B.C.) the cultural distance between these two groups was greater than the physical; it seems that during the period in question neither Kerkyra nor Paxoi were ever part of any Aegean cultural koine'8 or formation. My discussion, therefore, deals exclusively with the islands of the southern group.

As Penelope Mountjoy has observed,'9 an examination of the site distribution in the area reveals the imbalance of the material record, a situation apparent in the study of pottery; thus, Mycenaean or Late Helladic (hereafter LH) I-IIA pottery20 (1680/1600-1520/ 1440 B.C.) is found at Kalogeros on Zakynthos,21 but nowhere else

'' J. Forsdyke, Greece before Homer: Ancient Chronology and Mythology (New York 1964) 166. J. Chadwick, "Who were the Dorians?" Parola del Passato 31 (1976) 116.

Ix Koine, a transliteration of the Greek word KOW72 (= common), may be defined as common cultural features shared among different regions and spread by means of small-scale migration, commercial contact, or cultural exchange. An example could be sought in the eastern Mediterranean during the Hellenistic period.

19 P. A. Mountjoy, Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery (Rahden, Westph., 1999) 1.443.

20 For absolute dates for these phases in the development of Mycenaean pottery see C. W. Shelmerdine, "Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Greek Mainland," in T. Cullen, ed., Aegean Prehistory: A Review, American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1 (Boston 2001) 332, table 1. In the case of Late Helladic 1-11 A, where significant differences exist, both high and low chronologies are given, since a detailed argument for or against each one is entirely outside the scope of our examination.

21 C. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, The Ionian Islands in the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, 3000-800 B.C. (Liverpool 1999) 121. See also W. D. Taylour, Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge 1958) 21, 187.




in the region; LH IIB-IIIAl (1520/1480-1390/1370 B.C.) is also well represented on Zakynthos,22 but at only one Kephallenian site (Oikopeda)23 and it is scarce on Ithaca.24 LH IIIA2-B (1390/1370- 1190/1180 B.c.), the phases contemporary with what is described as the peak of the Mycenaean cultural development and its expan- sion in the Aegean, are rather well represented on all three islands. During LH IIIC (1190/1180-1065/1060 B.C.), the phase defined as "Postpalatial" on the Greek mainland, most material comes from funerary contexts in Kephallenia. There is also LH IIIC material from two sites on Ithaca (Aetos and the Polis cave), but it is un- impressive in quantity and highly fragmentary; and only two vases from a tomb at Zakynthos could be assigned to this phase, according to Mountjoy.25 Lefkas, the northernmost of the southern group of islands, has so far yielded few datable Mycenaean finds that generally fall within the LH IIlA-B period. LH IIIC finds are not reported, and there are only a few Protogeometric (hereafter PG, 1050/1040-c. 760 B.C.) sherds belonging to one or two vessels from the Evgiros cave.26

The situation outlined above reveals the difficulty in compar- ing material from different islands, which is further exemplified by the different nature of the various contexts. For example, all LH IIIC material from Kephallenia comes from tombs, whereas all contemporary material from Ithaca has been found in one site, a cave in the Polis bay, whose function during this period is difficult to define, although it was probably already a cult place. Some general observations, however, can certainly be made. The fact that the earliest appearance of Mycenaean cultural characteristics in this region takes place on Zakynthos, which is the closest island to the western Peloponnesian coast, as well as the appearance of a LH IIB tholos tomb (a type that first appeared and developed in Messenia) at Planos, indicates a special connection between the Ionian Islands and this region of the mainland. The appearance of such cultural novelties as the built tomb types or the Mycenaean decorated pottery in the Ionian Islands need not be interpreted as the result of the arrival of a new ethnic element; it is more likely the result of a gradual "Mycenaeanization" of an already existing population. This is strongly indicated by the absence of any cultural feature that could be attributed to a "non-Mycenaean" part of the population. The coexistence of the handmade coarse-ware

22 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.2 1) 124. 23 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 61. 24 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.2 1) 103. 25 Mountjoy (above, n.19) 481-83, fig. 176, nos. 13 and 14. This attribution is

not made by Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 124-26, who seems to consider evidence for twelfth-century B.c. settlement on Zakynthos as nonexistent.

26 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 34-35. The finds from Lefkas are extremely sparse and belong to the early phases of the PG period. A complete pottery sequence for the Early Iron Age in the Ionian Islands is only represented in material from Ithaca.




and the Mycenaean ware in Kephallenia and Ithaca in all recorded contexts eliminates the possibility that the former may constitute such a feature.

We may even attempt to trace the waves of this Mycenaeanization. Zakynthos, as physically the closest island to the western Peloponnese, adopted these new trends first. Consequently, these cultural elements spread to the north (Kephallenia, Ithaca) in a more or less "stepping-stone manner." The good representation of the Palatial (at least as far as central and southern Greece is concerned) phases (LH IIIA2-B) can hardly be disconnected from the emergence of Palatial centers in Boeotia (Thebes), Argolid (Mycenae, Tiryns), and Messenia (Pylos). It seems that the collapse of these centers along with the administrative system that they served at the end of the LH IIIB phase, which nowhere else had a more dramatic demographic impact than in Messenia, did have serious repercus- sions on the Ionian Islands, thus creating a highly asymmetrical picture.

Kephallenia continued its apparent demographic prosperity into the LH IIIC phase. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood27 argues for population stability rather than increase in the early twelfth century B.C.,

when Ithaca suffers a severe decrease in Mycenaean finds. There, LH IIIC pottery is present in the Polis cave, and thus our picture for the settlement of the island in this period is extremely incomplete. In the case of Zakynthos, LH IIIC finds are negligible, if not absent. It must be emphasized that we largely ignore the actual demographic picture of any phase within the Late Bronze Age; since dating of the material is almost entirely (and rather inevita- bly) based on the study of Mycenaean decorated pottery, all that it indicates is fluctuations in the extent of the presence of Mycenaean cultural features.

I cannot agree with Malkin's point on Ithaca's "individuality" or "autochthonous notion of identity" during the Early Iron Age,28 since this is not explicitly featured in the archaeological record. Malkin's statement that "the two relatively well-excavated sanctu- ary sites of Aetos and Polis indicate continuity of use, which could also indicate that the settlement of the island was not seriously disturbed since the Mycenaean period,"29 does not take into account the fact that the crucial LH IIIC period is so far predominantly represented in the Polis cave.30

27 See above, n.21, 138. 28 1. Malkin, "Geometric Ithaca, Odysseus and Hellenism," in Homerica. Pro-

ceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Odyssey (1-5 September 1996) (Ithaca 1998) 335-48.

29 Malkin (above, n.28) 339 (my italics). 30 We must also add, for the sake of consistency, that S. Symeonoglou has noted

in the site of Aetos fragments of LH IIIC pottery. They are, however, quite few and unstratified, and, in view of their future publication, no further comments can be added. See D. Basakos and K. Paschalidis, "The Archaeological Geography of Prehistoric Ithaca: New Sites from Recent Research," in Eranos: Proceedings of the Ninth Inter-




The preservation, however, of the Mycenaean element in Kephal- lenia during LH IIIC, in contrast to the observed situation in Ithaca and Zakynthos, is particularly intriguing. Kephallenia's exception- ality is not its particularly fertile soil nor its geographical position. With the fragmentary-by definition-nature of any archaeological record in mind, we may suggest that the reason why Kephallenia alone, among all other Ionian Islands, continues on a significant scale to feature a strong Mycenaean element into the Postpalatial Bronze Age might have been the special role that this island must have had during the previous period.

The LH 111B2-C transition in the Ionian Islands, as well as in the rest of the Mycenaean world, is essentially a transition from a world of wide-ranging cultural (and consequently political and/ or economical) koinae to a world where regionalism as a reflection of independent evolvement is the rule. Now that the palaces/ administrative centers were gone, social and economic structures, as well as relations within and outside the Aegean, had to be re- vised. Judging from the study of the decorated pottery, Kephallenian LH IIIC represents an intensification of the already idiosyncratic features of the local LH IIIB pottery.3' Despite this, however, Mountjoy32 considers Kephallenian LH IIIC to be a part of what she has termed "artistic koine" of western Greece. It has to be noted that the geographic extent of this koine is generally similar to those of the koine of western Greece during the middle of the tenth century B.C., as has been suggested by Coulson.33 If this preservation of some idiosyncratic cultural features in western Greece suggests some sense of superficial continuity in this region, a look at the distribution pattern of sites may serve to dispel this, at least as far as the Ionian Islands are concerned.

This change in the settlement pattern of the region after the end of the Bronze Age is fundamental, but has not been extensively commented on. Kephallenia, whose cemeteries thrived during the twelfth century B.C., seems to be almost abandoned, apart from a few PG sherds from the Mycenaean cemetery at Metaxata and a pithos burial inside the LH IIIA-B monumental built tholos tomb (a type generally considered as "elite") at Tzannata; the date of this burial, however, is suggested only by two bronze pins that accompanied the deceased, which could well date to the close of the Late Bronze Age ("Submycenaean" period).34 The rest of the

national Symposium on the Odyssey (2-7 September 2000) (Ithaca 2001) 305-16, esp. 310, n.27 (in Greek with English summary). The authors provide a brief but compre- hensive overview of past research on the prehistory of the island with bibliography. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood's volume, however, is not included in the references.

3' Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 72-75. 32 Mountjoy (above, n.19) 56. 3 W. D. E. Coulson, The Dark Age Pottery of Messenia, Studies in Mediterra-

nean Archaeology, Pocket Book 43 (Goteborg 1986) 55. 4 L. Kolonas, Tavvi-ra H6pou (KE$a X?v;a), ApXaboAo7IK6 AeKEio 47 B1 (1992)

155, fig. 12.




material comes from Ithaca, while there is no known PG material from Zakynthos.

The reasons for these crucial changes are not clear. It is, however, notable that the abandonment of the Kephallenian cemeteries and the concentration of interest on Ithaca indicate, apart from a demographic shift, a radical change in the economy and the main occupations of the residents in the region. Ithaca could not feed an essentially agricultural and sizable population, but her position and her natural harbors made her a desirable naval station.

The PG period lasts much longer in Ithaca than in other, more "mainstream" regions of eastern Greece, like Athens and Corinth, where it ends at c. 900 B.C. Of course this is just an issue of pottery style conservatism, and we should not base any argument for the provincialism and isolation of the Ionian Islands from other regions on this aspect of the archaeological record alone.

Among Early Iron Age sites on Ithaca, special mention should be made of the Polis cave, an important cult site, which has yielded evidence for the ancient hero-cult of Odysseus.35 Apart from some Early Bronze Age potsherds, there is some quantity of LH IIIB pottery and a small number of LH IIIC sherds. The most significant assemblages, both quantitatively and qualitatively, belong to the Early Iron Age. The most significant find from this site, already noted above in passing, are the twelve bronze tripods dating from the ninth to the seventh century B.C., within the Early Iron Age as defined in Souyoudzoglou-Haywood's chronological scheme. The most plausible interpretation for these artifacts is that they were of dedicatory character, a practice paralleled only in the major sanctuaries of early Greece, like Olympia and Delphi. Use of the cave continues until Roman times. Unfortunately, the firm connection with Odysseus is not made explicit until the third century B.C., when the name of the hero is inscribed on a mask of Artemis. In that sense, the earlier hero-cult of Odysseus is only acceptable through a projection of the Hellenistic cult back into the Early Iron Age.

It is remarkable that Ithaca, although somehow isolated from eastern Greek pottery traditions before the middle of the eighth century B.C., still preserves evidence that "connections with all the western regions of Greece were lively and enduring" throughout PG times.36

That we should not underestimate Ithaca's place in the Greek world, at least during the latter phases of the PG period, is further indicated by the fact that the earliest bronze tripods in the Polis cave date to the ninth century B.C., still within the Ithacan PG period, but reflecting an early interest at this cult place. Given

3 H. Waterhouse, "From Ithaca to the Odyssey," ABSA 99 (1996) 301-17, esp. 303-4, fig. 1, for a brief survey of the history of the cave.

36 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 143.




the recorded connection of the Polis cave with the hero-cult of Odysseus in Hellenistic times, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the same hero was already an object of cult before c. 800 B.C.37 We have no strong evidence for serious discontinuity in the use of the site from the beginning of the Early Iron Age onwards. Odysseus may well have been worshipped there from the ninth century B.C. onwards.

Ill. The Ionian Islands in the Iliad The passage in the Homeric Iliad referring to the "political

geography" of a specific region within the Homeric world is the Catalogue of Ships in Iliad 2. The kingdom of Odysseus is briefly described in lines 631-637:

AU'TGp ' O3voe4qv e ye KefaXAAva; peyaO'Tl,ot;, oY ' '1Pa6K71V 'EIOV Kai N'prTOP eiVoifbUAAov Kai KpOKULXEl' EVE4IUOVTO K A A'iyiXtTra TpXeiav, O Te ZaLKUVOOV EXOV 973' o; 2laL04ov 4IEvlE/O,VTO.

01 T 7)lEIPOV 1 EXOV '' CAVTMEpala VEILOVTO0

T(*)V ikgV WIATTEVS 'PXE Ali lkfTIV a'-r6,aVTO5-

T) Oa' a,la V'6E ETrOVTO alU(aEKO, lATOTfXapfOl.

Odysseus leads the Kephallenians, great in spirit (I. 2.631), who hold Ithaca, Neriton with shaking leaves (Il. 2.632), Krokyleia and rough Aegilips (Il. 2.633), and Zakynthos and Samos (or Same) (II. 2.634). The Kephallenians possess a part of the mainland coast across the sea (II. 2.635). Finally, Odysseus' contingent is followed by twelve ships (II. 2.637). Ithaca and Zakynthos are the modern islands of that name, while Same is generally identified with part or the whole of Kephallenia.38 Neriton, Krokyleia, and Aegilips are considered to be locations within Ithaca itself.39 Odysseus is not the only ruler, however, of the Ionian Sea. Immediately before the passage quoted above we read (lines 625-630):

O 'a' 1E' ?K AOUJAXiOO 'EXnvawv 6' iepawv

V,00-v, an' vaiouo-i -repTv a&oA;, "Htaios avTa,

T&V av' ieovevE Me-y 4ra,aVro; `Appi, (D u~eP;, 'OV TIKTE al,(I4Jl?o rTM6Ta FDAe6;, 0 7ROTE AOUfiXfOVa' ILa 7EVa0ol7aTO 7raTpi XoW0f;i`.

T 3' a alp Te70cLapaKOVra cLyEa%val VTL65; E,7OVTO.

1' Malkin (above, n.28) 344-45 considers the Polis tripods as evidence for one of the earliest Panhellenic cults, with Odysseus as the recipient of offerings probably already in the Geometric period. This view contrasts with that of C. Antonaccio (An Archaeology of Ancestors [Lanham, Md., 1995] 152-55), who considers the association of the Homeric hero with the Polis cave as established in the Hellenistic period, but Malkin's points seem valid.

3 See Strabo 10.453; also Hope Simpson and Lazenby (above, n.2) 104, for short comments.

39 Hope Simpson and Lazenby (above, n.2) 103-4, contra Strabo 10.452.




Meges, son of Phyleus (II. 2.627-628), leads warriors from Doulichion and the sacred islands of Echinae that lie across the sea off the coast of Elis (I. 2.625-626). More significantly, he leads no fewer than forty ships (II. 2.630), more than three times Odysseus' contribution.

This situation is not in agreement with what one would assume by reading the rest of the poem. In the rest of the Iliad their relative status is reversed; Meges, although occasionally mentioned, is an absolutely insignificant person in the plot of the Trojan myth, while Odysseus' role is evidently seminal.40 Moreover, Meges is no king of the Ionian Islands; he leads the Epeians, who have come from the region of Elis, in the western Peloponnese. Thus, as far as the relative importance of these two rulers is concerned, the Catalogue and the rest of the Iliad provide us with two strongly contrasting, and therefore incompatible, pictures. It has been pointed out that the extent of the region appointed by the Catalogue to Odysseus "is hardly poverty,"4' which may or may not be correct. Victor Burr42 has suggested that line 635, in which Odysseus' realm stretches to the mainland coast opposite Ithaca, is a later addition in order to enhance this hero's status. Page also considers line 629, where it is stated that Meges moved to Doulichion because of a quarrel he had with his father, to be an attempt to reconcile the Epeian Meges of the rest of the Iliad with the Catalogue's islander.43 These observations are perhaps meaningful, but I cannot totally agree with Page's view that the Catalogue originally had no room for Odysseus. The reason for this is simple: if Odysseus' inclusion in the Catalogue is due to the fact that his status in the Trojan myth was so high that he had to be in the Catalogue, then the small number of ships attributed to him is absurd. There is one major point, however, on which I agree with Page's remarks: that the geography of Odysseus' kingdom in the Catalogue reveals Meges' superiority in the tradition reflected in the text. In any case, we can still define this hero's insignificance in the Cata- logue in terms of relative ship numbers.

The notion that one should not read much into these num- bers44 is difficult to accept since (a) the composer could have fitted another greater ship number to the epic meter if he wished to, and (b), if the relative numbers of the ships led by Agamemnon (100), Nestor (80), and Menelaos (60) seem compatible with what we are willing to accept concerning the epic significance of Mycenae,

40 See, for instance, Page (above, n.2) 163. A pre-World War II bibliography on the Catalogue of Ships and short comments on previous theories are also given in the text and endnotes of ch. 4 in Page's book.

4' Hope Simpson and Lazenby (above, n.2) 105. 42 V. Burr, Unteruschungen zum homerischen Schiffskatalog, Klio Beiheft 49 (Leipzig

1944) 75. 43 Page (above, n.2) 185, n.32. 44 Hope Simpson and Lazenby (above, n.2) 106, n.29.




Pylos, and Lakedaemon, respectively, why should we ignore this inconsistency in Odysseus' case? The actual numbers may indeed not be reliable, but the relative numbers probably are.

I insist that the poet who composed a text like the Catalogue did not make up numbers at random. Numbers do mean something. I agree, however, that we need not take the numbers literally or seriously consider that the poet had in mind an Odysseus leading exactly twelve ships (no more, no less!), a Meges with exactly forty, and so on. In the case of Odysseus and Meges the overall effect of the ship numbers on the listener is that Meges has many more ships than poor Odysseus, "more than three times" or something like that. In this sense, when the poet says that Agamemnon leads one hundred ships, the effect is "he has got the greatest number of ships among the Achaeans." Nestor, Diomedes, and Menelaos follow (ninety, eighty, and sixty ships, respectively), and they are also prominent figures in the Homeric epic. And then, here comes poor Odysseus, the "sacker of cities," with a mere dozen. His second- rate neighbor, whose absence from the Iliad would admittedly not have changed anything in the plot, leads no fewer than forty.

Some other discrepancies may shed some light upon the matter: Aias of Salamis also leads twelve ships, Achilles is the Iliad's protagonist and yet he is only ten ships ahead of Meges, the Boeotians also lead fifty ships but play no key role in the plot, Menestheus of Athens is also an insignificant person, who nevertheless has come with fifty ships. The latter two may be suspected as bias (the Catalogue, after all, opens with Boeotia, and it has been argued that there is a Boeotian bias in it45) or propaganda (see p. 385 below on II. 2.558). Aias' contribution is as poor as Odysseus', but Achilles is a bit better, still being regarded as a significant contributor.

As we have seen, the greatest ship numbers are not necessarily contributed by well-known heroes, but they do come from renowned sites. This is why we must speak of the significance of Pylos, Mycenae, and Lakedaemon (and not necessarily Nestor, Agamemnon, and Menelaos). For some reason, as yet undetermined but clear from these observations, the Catalogue pays much more attention to kings who were linked with sites which were renowned, even without their own heroic performances in the Trojan plain. This is

45 Page (above, n.2) 175, n.93 considers as a given fact that the Catalogue was an essentially Boeotian creation, that took shape in a region well known for other works of the same kind, such as the "Catalogue of Women," attributed to Hesiod. Page also suggests that long after its formation as a text, the Catalogue remained in Boeotia, and that its divergence from the rest of the "lonian" epic is due to its pre- sumably long period of isolation from the rest of the poem. Although a case for a Boeotian bias sounds convincing, Page's speculation on this topic is just that, especially when one observes that the Catalogue's Boeotian contribution, although significant (fifty ships), is not even among the greatest fleets among the Achaeans. The Argolid still appears more prominent, with Agamemnon and Diomedes contributing almost a fifth of the Achaean army. In that sense an Argolid bias seems more plausible. A presumed deliberate modesty of the Boeotian poets would be very questionable.




clear from the frequency of references to Mycenae, Argos, Pylos, and Lakedaemon and the complimentary epithets accompanying them.46 This contrasts significantly with the sparse references to places like the sites included in the Catalogue's kingdom of Achilles, where one would expect equally-if not greater-attention from a poet whose declared theme is the wrath of this hero (II. 1.1). I think that this observed pattern is meaningful, although commenting on its implications is outside the scope of this article.47

In any case, one conclusion is difficult to avoid: it is unlikely that these discrepancies were coincidental, and they most probably reflected the viewpoint of the composer(s) and their audience.

Moreover, the Catalogue does not specify where the capital of Odysseus' kingdom was. The many references to Ithaca in the rest of the poem surely indicate that, within the context of Odysseus' kingdom, this island was especially important (in the Odyssey the ruler's palace is situated there). The Catalogue only reports that he was the leader of those who held Ithaca, Neriton, Krokyleia, Aegilips, Zakynthos, and Same. From the evidence of the Cata- logue alone, we would rather call him "the leader of the Kephallenians," as contrasted with the "king of Ithaca" image.

This discrepancy becomes even sharper if the testimony of the Odyssey is introduced into the discussion. The Odyssey presents a picture where only Odysseus rules the Ionian Sea. During his absence, there are curiously no references to external threats (as there seldom are in Achaean kingdoms during the Trojan War), but only from intrastate competitors for the throne, the suitors. Assuming that, like suitors from Ithaca, Same, and Zakynthos, suitors from Doulichion were also intrastate competitors (Od. 16.247-253), it seems that the Odyssey indirectly, yet clearly, recognizes Doulichion as a part of Odysseus' kingdom, ignoring the more significant Meges of the Iliad's Catalogue, who fails to be mentioned throughout the poem.

If Meges was known to the composer(s) of the Odyssey, then the absence of references to him is unexplained: more than half the suitors come from Doulichion,48 so that a reference to the king of Doulichion might be expected. On the contrary, Odysseus is al-

46 Mycenae (MUK 'V)) is passim called E6KTI'LEvoi, 7rToAI?e6pov (well-built "city"/citadel), eupuaevia (having broad streets, i.e., large citadel), and iroA6Xpuaov (rich in gold). Diomedes' Argos is characterized as "loved by Hera" (along with Mycenae and a few other sites), as well as ;MTr6jOTOl (horse-breeding) and KAVTO? (renowned). Pylos is called z)'acei (holy), lepj (sacred), or 'tta0a66eit (sandy). Lakedaemon is called aia (divine, excel- lent), eparelv'; (desired, pleasing), or EcPp6XwPo (spacious).

4' The author hopes to present this argument in full in another article (in prepa- ration).

48 Among the 108 suitors mentioned in the Odyssey, 56 come from Doulichion. One Doulichian suitor, Amphinomos, son of Aretos, was so pleasant and kind that even Penelope liked him (Od. 16.397). Apollodorus' "Epitome" (7.38) preserves the tradition that Amphinomos had a love affair with the queen during Odysseus' absence.




most explicitly stated as having Doulichion under his rule: when Eupeithes, father of the suitor-in-chief Antinoos (murdered by Odysseus), seeks to raise an Ithacan revolt against the hero, he refers to all the killed suitors (no doubt including the Doulichians) as "Kephallenians" (Od. 14.429). Thus, men from Doulichion are included under the term used by the Catalogue to define the men of Odysseus. It is therefore clear that not only Meges, but also the existence of his kingdom, is neglected (and not just not referred to) by the composer(s) of the Odyssey.

According to the Catalogue, as well as the rest of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the people led by Odysseus (when not generally designated, i.e., as Achaeans) are called Kephallenians, which is probably a tribal name.49 Moreover, the information included in the Catalogue results in the simple equation of Kephal- lenians = inhabitants of Odysseus' kingdom. Although the place name Kephallenia does not appear in the Homeric text, its obvious ety- mology ("the land of the Kephallenians") indicates that, according to the Catalogue, this hypothetical Homeric Kephallenia (the absence of an explicit reference to which does not necessarily indicate its nonexistence) should refer to the entire region that Odysseus ruled. If the validity of this reasoning is accepted, we may suggest that giving the name Kephallenia to one particular island, an attribution already seen in Herodotus (9.28), instead of to an entire region, seems to mark a significant change in the conceptualization of this region, which, unfortunately, cannot be more conclusively dated than "post-Homeric."

This duality of leadership in the Ionian Islands that is clear in the Catalogue is not emphasized in the rest of the Iliad and is ignored in the Odyssey, where one would expect more lengthy references, since a significant portion of the poem's plot takes place in Ithaca. It is suggested that the preserved archaeological record may help us explain the difference between these contradictory images of the "political geography" of the Ionian Islands.

We know that certain lines in the Catalogue, such as the one stating that the twelve ships of Aias of Salamis were set beside those of the Athenians (II. 2.558), may have been introduced to support Athenian claims over Aias' island. Plutarch, in his account of Solon's biography (Vit. Sol. 9.3.1), records that the famous Athenian legislator may have been responsible for the interpolation of the line in question. On the same issue one can also see comments by Aristotle (Rh. 1.15). Walter Leaf in his edition of the Iliad has commented: "[N]o line in the Iliad can be more confidently dated than this [i.e., II. 2.558] to the sixth century B.C."50 Similar late interpolations have also been detected by other scholars concern-

4 G. S. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 1: Books 1-4 (Cambridge 1985) 221. 5 W. Leaf, The Iliad Edited with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and

Appendices (London 1900-1902) 1.92 (ad 558).




ing the Athenian contingent in the Catalogue or the picture of the Athenians in the epic.5'

Yet, this should not imply that the politics of the lonian Is- lands were similarly manipulated. Instead it is a justification for our hesitation for generalization expressed in the introduction. The remarkably little textual evidence we have for this region in the early first millennium B.C. does not indicate that it had any exten- sive power or serious political influence in Greece, such as Athens or Corinth had. Nor was Ithaca an object of desire for the great powers of the time, which might lead to manipulating of the epic tradition, as Athens probably did for Salamis in II. 2.558. Since there is no particular reason to suspect the interpolation of invented elements in the Catalogue's description of the Ionian Islands, as we do for Athens, it is not necessary to consider further this possibility. It is perhaps significant to mention that, although ancient authors were also very suspicious of such issues (as Aristotle and Plutarch were of line 558), no classical author (including austere Homerists, such as Zenodotus) ever doubted the authenticity of the lines describing the Ionian Islands.52

IV. Suggesting a Pattern of Interpretation"3 There has been an attempt to interpret these inconsistencies

and contradictions by assuming that Odysseus was a traditional folk hero of western Greece "who was drawn into the Ionian heroic tradition somewhat erratically."54 This idea is also accepted by Helen Waterhouse,5 who emphasizes Odysseus' or Ithaca's isolation

5' Page (above, n.2) 166-69, nn.73-79. 52 For such suspicious lines in Homer see G. M. Boiling, The External Evidence

for Interpolation in Homer (Oxford 1925) 72-76 on interpolations in the "Catalogue." Boiling does not share the suspicions of Burr and Page quoted above, p. 382.

53 I must note in passing that I am absolutely not convinced by any theory in- volving the change of names among the lonian Islands. It seems that Odysseus cannot escape wanderings, even after he has reached his beloved homeland! Such theories, already appearing in the ninteenth century, became popular after their first systematic exploration by the German architect and archaeologist Wilhelm Dorpfeld, first in his "Das homerische Ithaka," in Melanges Georges Perrot (Paris 1902) 79-93, in his Lejkas. Zwei Aufsdtze uber das homerische Ithaka (Athens 1905), and then in detail in his work Alt-Ithaca. Ein Beitrag zur homerischen Fragen (Munich 1927) (with reviews of all previous similar theories), suggesting that Ithaca was the island later known as Lefkas, Doulichion was Kephallenia, and Same was modern Ithaca. Homeric Ithaca has also been identified with Kerkyra (Corfu) by J. F. Leutz-Spitta (Korfu-Ithaka [Berlin 1920]). Such theories are still widely popular; see, for instance, Kephallenia Archae- ology and History. The Ancient Greek Cities, ed. K. Randsborg (Acta Archaeologica 73.1-2 = Acta Archaeologica Supplementa 4.1-2 [Copenhagen 2002]), where it is suggested that Homeric Ithaca was originally modem Kephallenia. Such considerations need massive historical and archaeological argumentation (which is lacking), rather than the scruti- nizing of details in Homer's description of Ithaca (which may have been accidental, distorted, or of no interest to the epic poet). These and similar theories will not be considered here.

54 Kirk (above, n.49) 183. ss Waterhouse (above, n.35) 312. She considers Laertes' (Odysseus' father) par-

ticipation in the Argonauts' expedition (mentioned by Apollodorus, but not in Apollonius




from other Greek mythological concepts, such as the Seven against Thebes, the Argonauts, and the hunt of the Kalydonian Boar. Though highly likely, this general assumption does not examine the problem raised by these contradictions within a context reflecting reality, which is the archaeological context, even though fragmentary by nature.

The archaeological picture, as currently known, clearly indicates that among the Ionian Islands, Ithaca is the only one that has yielded significant PG material. Consequently, the concept of a ruler of the Ionian Islands, dominating the entire region from Lefkas to Zakynthos and having his capital on Ithaca, seems the most reasonable option from a PG point of view. The real question is how reasonable such an option would be from a philological aspect. For this reason, the nature and the relative date of the Catalogue need to be considered.

The survival of an oral tradition, which is most probably the origin of the Homeric epic material, depends on its popularity; in particular, it largely depends on the degree to which it suits the needs and desires of living communities through time. Concepts characterized as "popular" are those that one either has to or prefers to accept. The aims and functions of an oral tradition are designed to shape a preferred world,56 but its success at any level of persuasion is further guaranteed if a reflection of actual features is embodied in it, usually as a locale where the fictive events are to take place. We do not possess evidence suggesting that the picture of an Ithaca "dominating" (though not necessarily politi- cally) the Ionian Sea in the Early Iron Age was a particularly preferred picture in contrast to reality; in fact, the archaeological evidence summarized above suggests the contrary.

We may thus attempt to explain the differences in the representation of the political geography of the Ionian Islands between the Catalogue and the rest of the Iliad by suggesting that they represent different stages in the development of the presentation of this region in the epic.

The development of several orally transferred traditions and the way these were incorporated into what came down to us as the text of the Iliad evidently allowed the inclusion of passages that were essentially contradictory to each other, because they reflected different stages of this development. It can be argued that a text of the Catalogue's genre, mostly consisting of toponyms, ethnonyms, and personal names, is not subject to the various fac- tors of accidental distortion of the oral tradition. Although it is likely that a detailed picture of the mode of this development of

Rhodius' Argonautica) to be a later addition in order to increase the mythological status of the hero's genealogy.

56 D. P. Henige, The Chronology of Oral Tradition: Quest for a Chimaera (Ox- ford 1974) 11; J. K. Davies, "The Reliability of Oral Tradition," in L. Foxhall and J. K. Davies, eds., The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context (Papers of the First Greenbank Colloquium. Liverpool 1981) (Bristol 1984) 87-109.




the epic tradition will always be imperfectly known,"7 we may un- derstand that the rest of the Iliad in its earliest known complete manuscript version, the Venetus A code, had undergone significantly more additions and modifications than the "epic fossil," which a text of the nature of the Catalogue may be destined to be.

Unfortunately, the above is no guarantee that the Catalogue's presentation of the political geography of the Ionian Islands is earlier than the picture provided by the rest of the Iliad.58 All that the nature of the Catalogue allows us to suggest is that this document could have been preserved with fewer alterations than other narrative passages in Homer's Iliad. Far from being a proof that it was, it cannot provide any conclusive information about the relative chronological relationship between the Catalogue and the Iliad. A better case for the Catalogue predating the rest of the Iliad can be made through a consideration of the two contrasting pictures of the Ionian Islands provided by the two distinct sets of information.

Odysseus' role in the Iliad is not one of an aspiring hero; Odysseus is a key figure in the Trojan cycle. In the epic tradition which the Iliad relies upon heavily, Odysseus is present in all major episodes, and he even appears as the inventor of the Trojan Horse, the undoubted climax of the Trojan enterprise. It is true that, as Kirk and Waterhouse, among others, have noted, outside this cycle (in which the NoTro, are included), Odysseus means nearly nothing; within the context of the Homeric epic, however, Odysseus is of great significance. The only piece within Homer's work disso- nant with this picture is the short passage describing the Ionian Islands in the Catalogue.

Given this unquestionable eminence of Odysseus in the epic, it is extremely difficult to conceive of how a tradition that post- dated the formulation of the main corpus of the Homeric opera, could have downplayed Odysseus' eminence so severely, setting a quite different background for this hero from that of the rest of the epic. It seems unconvincing that such a text would have been composed by someone who was aware of the fact that Odysseus had already emerged as a figure of such importance.59

57 0. T. P. K. Dickinson, "The Catalogue of Ships and All That," MELETEMATA (Malcolm H. Wiener's Festschrift), Aegaeum 20 (Liege 1999) 1.207-10, esp. 210.

5 Page (above, n.2) has used linguistic evidence to argue for the Bronze Age background of the Catalogue, but does not consider the difficulty raised by the fact that it only shows that the Catalogue could be Mycenaean and does not exclude that parts of the Iliad could not have been as early, too.

5 If we do not accept an earlier date for the Catalogue's picture of the lonian Islands, then only one alternative possibility remains: that the late interpolation specifically aimed either at increasing the status of Meges or at downplaying Odysseus. Both cases lack apparent motivation (see discussion in previous section) and were so evidently unsuccessful, that we had better not stress them any further. Suffice it to say here that, if so, it was a desperate and isolated attack on Odysseus in his real "heartland": the Homeric text.




Thus, we are almost left with one possible explanation for the situation: that the Catalogue's picture of the lonian Islands must be earlier than the picture for this region supported by the rest of the Iliad.

In correlating this conclusion with the archaeological record summarized above, the suggestion put forward in this article is that the status of Ithaca within the epic tradition, from being part of a minor ruler's territory to being the capital of a dominating kingdom, increased along with the island becoming the focus of archaeologically detected activities (of probably commercial nature) in the Ionian Sea during the Early Iron Age.

V. Early Iron Age (PG) Ithaca and the Epic Our picture of PG Ithaca (c. 1050-760 B.c.) is that of a small

island that takes fairly active participation in a network of inter- connections among regions in western Greece, known as the "western Greek koine." Souyoudzoglou-Haywood's recent synthesis has supple- mented and refined some interesting pottery associations with nearly all regions of western Greek mainland during this period. Close affinities with Messenia are attested throughout the PG period.60 William Coulson, who has studied extensively the Messenian pottery of this period, has even suggested the settlement of newcomers from Ithaca to Messenia during the second half of the eleventh century and the beginning of the tenth century B.C.6I During the tenth and the early ninth centuries B.C. "ceramic connections link Ithaca with Messenia and Laconia, as well as with Aetolia and Achaea," and these connections persist throughout the ninth and the first half of the eighth centuries B.C.62

Such strong links with other regions of western Greece were not so overtly expressed in the material record during the Late Bronze Age (when Ithacan pottery closely follows the regional features of Kephallenian Mycenaean ware) and cannot be safely detected in the Late Iron Age or the Archaic and classical periods. During the Early Iron Age, however, Ithaca was an active participant in a network of cultural and commercial associations among western Greek regions.

It is noticeable that, coincidentally, all recorded myths for Odysseus' early years take place in various places, all but one in western Greece, strikingly agreeing with Ithaca's strong links with other regions in western Greece during this period, as observed in the archaeological record. The sole exception to this otherwise exclusive relation of Ithaca to the west is Laconia (southeastern Peloponnese), since Ithacan PG pottery shows affinities with Spartan contemporary material (tenth century B.C.). It cannot be coincidental that

60 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 143, with past bibliography. 61 Coulson (above, n.33) 29, 73. 62 Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (above, n.21) 143.




the easternmost point Odysseus reaches (before the Trojan War) is Sparta, where he seeks and marries Penelope, daughter of Icarius, brother of Tyndareo, king of Sparta and Menelaos' father-in-law (Apollod. 3.132, Hyg. 78).63

When the desperate Telemachos seeks for help and advice, it is to Messenia and Laconia that he goes. It is highly likely that his itinerary in books 3 and 4 of the Odyssey is largely drawn from a long-established network of connections among Messenia, Laconia, and Ithaca during the Early Iron Age, as supported by archaeological finds.

Among scholars interested widely in both the archaeological and the philological fields, Waterhouse has written recently on this subject. She deals with evidence predominantly from the Odyssey, however, and prefers not to consider what she calls "the Catalogue's different political grouping of the four islands."64 Her study seeks to define the most likely date for Odysseus' incorporation into the Trojan War tradition. Waterhouse suggests that Odysseus could not have been incorporated in the Ionian epic earlier than the appearance of the earliest influx of imported eastern Greek (more specifically Corinthian) pottery in the mid- to late eighth century B.C.

As with many issues in Homeric archaeology debates, the case is that "apparently different conclusions represent the answers to different questions."65 The arguments presented here for a PG Odysseus predating the contacts with eastern Greece emphasized by Waterhouse only superficially argue against her. In fact, both the present article and Waterhouse's seek answers to different questions. The examination of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age archaeological record in the Ionian Islands reveals the existence of two chronological barriers, conventionally numbered here: barrier 1 is the shift-in-site distribution after the Late Bronze Age/PG transition and barrier 2 is the appearance of eastern Greek pottery imports in Ithaca that signals the end of the PG period/beginning of the Geometric period (second half of the eighth century B.C.).

My difference with Waterhouse lies in which of the two "barriers" to give more emphasis. I have chosen barrier 1, focusing on a change in settlement pattern. She has chosen barrier 2, focusing on the opening of Ithaca to the east. Both barriers are important, although on different grounds and with regard to different questions. Barrier I may indicate when Odysseus' Homeric concept suits best the archaeological context of Ithaca, and barrier 2 may indicate when the eastern Greeks probably incorporated his persona into their mythological concepts. It is thus understandable that each case approaches the data from a different angle: I use pottery as

63 See 1. K. Kakridis, "164KWq," in K. Christopoulos and K. Bastias, eds., ExAAqvKw

Mu0oAo,y#a III: Oi Hpwe; (Athens 1986) 317-19 (in modern Greek). Kakridis has col- lected all traditions, both Homeric and non-Homeric, about Odysseus' youth.

64 Waterhouse (above, n.35) 315. 65 Sherratt (above, n.7) 808.




an indication of settlement change through time, while Waterhouse uses pottery more as an indication of external relations.

The fact that I deal with a different aspect of Odysseus' image does not mean, however, that I fully agree with Waterhouse's points. Her implication that Odysseus' rise to eminence cannot have been earlier than the eighth century B.C. presents some problems. Given the date of the earliest tripods from the Polis cave to the ninth century B.C. (which is still within the Ithacan PG), it seems far easier to project Odysseus back to the ninth century B.C. at least than to suggest that he was connected with the Polis cave only after the eastern Greeks came.

If we accept Waterhouse's view, then a further question inevi- tably arises: did the eastern Greeks of c. 750 B.C. discover or did they invent Odysseus, 7rToi7Trop6o; ("sacker of cities"), king of Ithaca? This is a most important question, on which Waterhouse does not expand. If a discovery of Odysseus is accepted, then I have made my point for the tradition of Odysseus going back to the PG period, since one can only discover something that already exists. If one wishes to accept the invention of the Homeric story, stimulated by the dedicated tripods, as Waterhouse seems to imply,66 then how did the earliest tripods get there in the first place? An already established hero-cult of Odysseus still seems to be the most plausible motivation, and it seems the most likely answer to the above question (see section II for an archaeological argument).

Homer may have attempted to explain the tripod dedications in the Polis cave when he describes Odysseus hiding a gift from the Phaeacians in a cave upon his arrival on Ithaca (Od. 13.366- 371), although the possibility of a coincidence cannot be totally excluded, since, as I noted above, the dedication of tripods was also widely practiced in Olympia and Delphi during the same period. The presence of the Ithacan dedicated tripods (whose manufacturers and dedicators remain anonymous) is more an indicator of the prestige and high status of the Polis cave as a cult place rather than a direct Homeric causal connection.

In any case, it cannot be proven that Homer "invented" Odysseus' connection with these tripods, stimulated by his supposed knowledge of the finds in the Polis cave. Would it not be possible that the status of the Homeric text, a fact that encouraged ancient interpolations in the first place, would have influenced local cult practices? A date of the Odyssey in the tenth or ninth century B.C.,

absolutely plausible philologically, allows this possibility. In this sense, tripods are offered to the hero either in accordance with or in remembrance of the Phaeacian gift, which would make this Homeric passage earlier than the mid-ninth century B.C. Admittedly, this is a "chicken and egg" question, which, though irrelevant, reveals our inability to base any argument on these dedications.

66 Waterhouse (above, n.35) 315: "[T]he Polis tripods must have been part of the Ithacan story that inspired Homer to compose the Odyssey."




Acceptance of Waterhouse's theory presupposes acceptance of the view that the rise of the Greek epic tradition was an exclusively eastern Greek affair and that every western Greek contribution was only made possible if the eastern Greeks took the initiative. In that sense, the development of an epic tradition centered around Odysseus had to be "postponed" until an eastern Greek presence was archaeologically detectable.

This assumption, however, is far from safe. Odysseus and Nestor are western Greek heroes and yet they are very important in the epic. The actual question is whether western Greek poets (whose existence is acknowledged in the reference to the Ithacan aotaoJ6 Phemios, Od. 1.154; 12.231) had any active participation in shaping the tradition related to their own regional heroes. I think it inconceivable that they did not, even if linguistically the epic seems to be eastern Greek (interestingly, an amalgam of many dialect elements, which immediately undermines the regional linguistic background of the epic). We have insufficient knowledge of dialectic geography in the lonian Islands in the early first millennium B.C.,

and elements more traditionally connected with eastern Greece may well have been found in this region as well. In the absence of more specific linguistic data, I would need a very specific argument as to why western Greek poets did not have a say in the handling of Odysseus,67 rather than an argument proving that they did; their active participation in the incorporation of Odysseus into the epic tradition seems the most plausible case, though admittedly unprovable for the time being.68

One final notice should be added: although eastern Greece eventually won Homer and his work, we should not forget that among the seven places quarrelling as to his birthplace in the well-known epigram were Pylos (Messenia) and Ithaca. We cannot exclude that this generally overlooked and rejected western Greek claim on Homer

67 Interpreting the supposedly insufficient knowledge of western Greek geography as evidence for the epic being entirely eastern Greek would be an unwise thing to do. First, the only information provided by this is that a reliable picture of physical geography is beyond the scope of the epic (something one must have guessed). Second, there are many inconsistencies with regard to eastern Greece and Asia Minor as well. Such evidence has not been used, however, to prove that Homer was not Greek at all. Third, if the poet(s) has/have no relation at all with western Greece why did he/they choose Ithaca as the locale for most of the plot in the Odyssey? The most reasonable explanation is that the epic, most expectedly, is not interested in such details.

68 The arguments used by various scholars as to the place of composition of the Homeric epic are strikingly fluid. Eastern Greece, particularly Ionian Asia Mi- nor, is generally preferred. Page does not reject the possibility that the Odyssey could have been a mainland product, but he too prefers lonian Asia Minor (same as the Iliad, where he is equally-and surprisingly-vague); this he does in spite of the fact that he argues that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed independently of each other (Page [above, n.6] 204-5). Page does not argue for his preference, but the Asia Minor bias is apparent even in the work of a scholar as cautious as he.




reflected at least some significant contribution from this region to the shaping and rise of the Greek epic.

If this western Greek contribution is accepted, as I think one must assume, then a connection of Odysseus with Ithaca's opening to the east becomes unnecessary. Odysseus' persona could have been conceived and fully developed before eastern Greeks took notice of him, and he could well have been connected with the hero cult in the Polis cave already in the ninth century B.C. or even earlier. Thus, arguments for a post-eighth-century B.C. Odysseus are in- conclusive and can be rejected.

If there is one clearer hint at an eastern Greek and particularly Corinthian attempt to manipulate Odysseus, it must be sought in the tradition according to which the Ithacan hero is not a true son of Laertes; according to this version, Odysseus' mother Antikleia had slept with or had been raped by Corinthian hero Sisyphos a few days before she married Laertes. The immediate consequence of this is that Odysseus is uprooted from Ithaca and the other Ionian Islands and associated with Corinth, a rather insignificant place in Homer, but a great commercial and political power in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. If the creation and diffusion of this version represent, as it almost likely does, a Corinthian claim to Odysseus, then its relative chronology is of much value to our approach on the subject. Homer ignores it, and it must be surely of a later, post-Homeric date, mentioned by, among others, Sophocles (Phil. 427) and Ovid (Met. 13.32). It seems that the birth of this post- Homeric tradition and not the Homeric version can be more plausibly linked with the influx of eastern Greek pottery in Ithaca. In other words, it appears that Corinthian interest arrived too late to catch up with the establishment of the epic version: Laertes had won his son and Ithaca had already established its hero.

VI. Some Thoughts on the Chronology of the Catalogue's Picture of the Ionian Islands

As we noted above, the island of Kephallenia was the only one that appears to have preserved on a significant scale the Mycenaean cultural features in LH IIIC, when contemporary finds from Ithaca are of restricted quantity and finds from Zakynthos or Lefkas are negligible. The archaeological record of the Ionian Islands at the beginning of the period which is traditionally considered "Post- palatial" (LH IIIC), as far as the Greek mainland is concerned, represents a picture of shrinkage of the Mycenaean element to Kephallenia. This is indeed remarkably suited to the restriction of reference of the name Kephallenia from the entire region ruled by Odysseus to one particular island, a fact, which may reflect Late Bronze Age developments, occurring in the LH IIIB-C period. This would date the information in the epic to a period earlier, however, than the end of the LH IIIB period; this option may be rejected for other reasons, both philological and archaeological.




Ever since Ken Wardle's thesis6" it has been widely argued that the quality and quantity of the finds, the wide distribution of numerous sites, the stylistically idiosyncratic local Mycenaean pottery, and the strongly evident LH IIIB-C continuity make Kephallenia the most likely candidate for the capital of a late Mycenaean local ruler in the Ionian Sea. Two crucial issues are still questionable, however: (a) the existence of a single ruler in the lonian Islands at any stage during the LH III period; and (b) the political unifi- cation of this region. It is unfortunate that we can offer nothing more than mere speculations on these topics.

Since Kephallenia, if Homeric Same,70 appears to be a part of the Catalogue's less significant Odysseus' kingdom and not Meges', this can be used as a strong indication that the Catalogue does not reflect a reality contemporary with the Mycenaean palaces (LH I1IB). We would have expected Kephallenia/Same to be far more prominent in any "Mycenaean" Catalogue, and, if this is not the case, the relevant information in the Catalogue may not be Mycenaean at all. This may possibly lead us to dispute the historical reliability of the Catalogue altogether7' or reconsider our expectations of what kind of "reliability" we seek. It is the coexistence of two rulers in the Ionian Islands, not emphasized anywhere else in Homeric opera, which may enable us not to reject totally the testimony of the Catalogue.

The fragmentarily preserved archaeological record does not enable us to argue safely ex silentio, and we must admit that the assumed prominence of Kephallenia is largely due to the absence of significant material from the other islands. The presence of more than one ruler in the region concerned certainly fits the skepticism of recent scholarship for a political unity in the Ionian Islands during any phase of the Mycenaean period.72

The unbalanced distribution of Mycenaean decorated pottery, which characterizes the LH IIIC period, when it is mostly con- centrated on Kephallenia, is in striking contrast with the LH IIIA2-B picture, when this ware was widely distributed and well represented

69 K. Wardle, "The Greek Bronze Age West of Pindus: A Study of the Period ca. 3000-1000 B.C. in Epirus, Aetoloakarnania, the lonian Islands, Adriatic and Balkan Regions," (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1972). The disadvantage of this excel- lent synthesis remaining unpublished is minimized by its wide use and citation by all subsequent scholarship. Copies are available for consultation in the libraries of Uni- versity College, London, and the British School at Athens.

70 The identification of (the whole or part of) Kephallenia with Homeric Same is mainly supported by the location of a classical (and modern) Same on this island. There is no evidence (not even a reflection in mythological records) that this or other toponyms in the lonian Islands were originally assigned to other locations within this region.

7' Unlike Page (above, n.2) ch. 4, where the Catalogue is generally considered a reliable reflection of the Mycenaean Aegean. See also Dickinson's (above, n.8) criticism of Hope Simpson and Lazenby's book (above, n.2).

72 C. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood (personal communication, Sept. 2004).




on all islands. This is certainly no guarantee for depopulation: ac- tually, it is only the artifacts (especially pottery) that we miss. Does this indicate cultural separation? And could it make a good case for a "political" fragmentation in this region? I firmly believe that the answers to both questions are affirmative, though admittedly not definite.

The cultural and probably political in a wider sense fragmentation of the Postpalatial Bronze Age Aegean world, which is evident in the intense cultural regionalism of this period, seems to be more in line with the existence of at least two rulers in the Ionian Islands, even if the reliability of further details in the Catalogue can be easily questioned. At the end of the Mycenaean Palatial period, the communities of Kephallenia could have decided to preserve Mycenaean material culture, while the other islands did not follow this trend and switched to artifacts not so easily datable, such as the conservative handmade pottery, ubiquitous in the region throughout the Late Bronze Age. If these material differences reflect different political decisions made at the end of the thirteenth century B.C.

(end of LH IIIB), a situation of political fragmentation is likely. For the time being, we must be satisfied with the suggestion

that the information in the Catalogue and the conservative and easily- fossilized nature of its text seem not to contradict the view that a Bronze Age recollection, though vague, may have been incorporated in its reflection of the Ionian Islands. Fragmentation and regionalism, however, though reflecting the Postpalatial Bronze Age Aegean, are certainly not exclusive to this period, and therefore, no definite conclusion can yet be reached on this matter.73 We must compromise with the observation that, among cultural phases of the Mycenaean period, LH IIIC (twelfth century B.C.) fits best the picture of the Ionian Islands given by the Catalogue.

VII. Concluding Remarks The picture of the Ionian Islands in the Homeric epic may be

an example of how elements reflecting different chronological periods were merged into the epic concept of the Iliad. The concept of an Ithacan ruler dwelling in an elaborate building ("palace") may or may not have been drawn on Late Bronze Age Aegean prototypes, but the answer to this question is not necessarily connected to whether a Mycenaean kingdom based on this island ever existed or not. The choice of place for the capital of the most significant ruler in the region (Ithaca), who is explicitly stated in

7 In his article entitled "The Bronze Age context of Homer," in J. Carter and S. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer (Austin 1995) 25-32, Sinclair Hood has argued for a LH IIIC background for Homer. Hood follows a different approach, however, from the one followed here; his arguments refer to the epic altogether (particularly the Iliad). This is an important point, because it reveals that Hood reads no chronological discrepancy in the different pictures drawn by the "Catalogue" and the rest of the Iliad, as I do.




both the Iliad and the Odyssey as having no rival in the Ionian Islands, is a strong indication that the above-mentioned concept dates to the Early Iron Age, even independently of the Catalogue/ Iliad incompatibility. The actual political conditions or the cultural context of PG Ithaca are, however, not necessarily reflected anywhere in the epic; the high status of Odysseus, as well as of any Achaean hero, may be an elaborated version of the lower status of any PG ruler in an attempt to adjust the present to a particular view of the past. It is likely that an Early Iron Age audience could have easily bridged any difference in scale without the need for us to invoke an enduring Bronze Age tradition. After all, the past Heroic yeyvo; ("genus, generation"), if Hesiod (Op. 156-201) presents an accepted popular view of his time, was more glorious, wealthy, and happy than the otTapoOv ("iron") one of the poet's present. Projecting a Hesiodean viewpoint onto Homer may not be entirely valid, but it gives us insight into what kind of "fantasy" we have to expect when dealing with the composition and percep- tion of the epos in its early Greek context. This concept of idealization of the past74 should be seriously considered in every attempt to attribute, often hastily, any mention of elaborate artifacts to the existence of a "Mycenaean" element in the Homeric epic world.

We cannot be confident that the conclusions we draw concerning the way in which the epic tradition reflects changes in the material record of the Ionian Islands are at all representative of what may have happened in other cases where contradictions are present. As emphasized in the introduction, generalizations must usually be avoided and only cautiously applied in Homer. It is hoped that similar regional approaches to other Catalogue entries, encompassing both archaeological and philological data, may prove fruitful. Eventually, if one thing deserves to be further mentioned, it is that the concept of an unchanged tradition explains things in an inadequate and dis- torting way. In an ever-changing world, as the Greek world always has been, the account of the past may serve "to validate . . . the social and political conditions of the present. If these changed, so too must the 'tradition.' "75

University of Athens VASSILIS P. PETRAKIS Classical World 99.4 (2006) [email protected]

'4 Along with the already mentioned aspect of Early Iron Age monumentality (e.g., the Lefkandi elaborate apsidal building).

" Dickinson (above, n.8) 21.



Documents

Petrakis, Vassilis P. History Versus the Homeric Iliad, A View From the Ionian Islands