cook, r.m. - ionia and greece in the 8th and 7th century bc

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

Accessed: 29/07/2014 06:50

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 extendaccess to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.226.121.130 on Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:50:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/626542?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


IONIA AND GREECE IN THE EIGHTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES B.C.

I. INTRODUCTION

A GENERATION or so back scholars were disposed to find in Asiatic Greece the origins of most of Hellenic culture and art: and though Panionismus is 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 developments) ; 328, 421, 423 (art) ; 435 (intellectual interests).

J. B. Bury, History of Greece 2 (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, I. (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 eloquence

than 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. I, 266, n. 5: 'Vgl. A 141 (die hier erwahnte yvv)i M1ovis iE Kd&E1C ist 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



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 disagreement 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 on 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 I. 2, 88).

13 7HS LV 132-3: Burn assumes that the traditional chronology (of Eratosthenes) is correct relatively.



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 considered 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 BE EoVSO 6vro T0 "TnavT-r T6TE 'EAAV1IKO0 yiVEOS, TroAAha 8 v d(v oeEviorarrov -r v E?viECv -rb 'lcoviKV Kal A 6you

aXio-ro-u o6n y&p

w? 'AOiMval ifv oC?iv & Ao vr6lacie A 6yipov (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 AA6Oi1 KCOjIpa-ra pf a?ii vai, Kal 'IcoaI

rrpoXopao&v-rcv nirri pEya T-rov rrpayparTcov KOpos ... 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 and 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 personal 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 Greek Epic 3, 322-6 (App. C); W. W. How and J. Wells, Commentary on Herodotus 2, 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).



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 tries to 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 y p ~o~ i -rrp&(5ros -rTv iPEY~l t8psyEV 'Eivcv bs •eahaciOKpT•rE1V VTrEVO

1e, rrdpE Miv T-rE roO Kvcocaaio Kia El 6~ -riTg &aos rp-rEpO T-roroU T PfE Tri O eC?&aadjs* Tris 8 &vOpSOTrffg EyOpLVflg yEVETT VIO;UKp6TIaS Trp&-ros, iii. 122). Myres concludes that the list was published 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




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-



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 which 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).



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, 22-3). 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, and the numbers quoted are from the Catalogue there: EC, MC, LC stand for his Early, Middle and Late Corinthian, which begin respectively about 625, 6o0, 575.)

Tomb 55. 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 ine 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.



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 prosperous Ionia'; 64 so less directly Bury, though in his chronology admitting 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 I (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 concerned 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-



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 allowance 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 Stil in Italien, 33).

73 This holds true whether the Bocchoris vase was made in Egypt or Phoenicia (see E. H. Dohan, loc. cit.), since Phoenicia was in close touch with Egypt.

74 See E. H. Dohan, loc. cit. 75 A. W. Byvanck calls attention to the good condition of

the vase, and will not have it buried later than 69o (Mnem. 1936, 188).

76 See below, p. 95. This is particularly unfortunate for the interpretation of Al Mina (see below, pp. 78-9),

but does not-so it seems-affect the Pontus. 7 See R. S. Young, Hesperia Suppl. II (1939); P.

Kahane, AJA XLIV 464-82; S. S. Weinberg, AJA XLV 30-44, and Corinth VII I (1943). Compare also E. H. Dohan, Italic Tomb Groups (1942).

78 For clarity the archaeological dates in this paper are printed in italics.

'9 Ancient History of the Near East 8, 525: on his evidence see A. R. Burn, JHS LV I37-9. Hall was I think pre- disposed to lower the western dates: ' the traditional dates for the first Ionian colonies in the Propontis and Euxine are perhaps not too early, but those of the Sicilian colonies must be and should be brought down somewhat.'

80 A. R. Burn, JHS LV 136, 138 and 146. As he regards thirty years as a fair average for a generation, he would reduce Thucydides' dates by one-seventh of their distance from 500 B.C.

81 Mnem. 1936, 198-206: all the same he allows Thucydides' dates for Syracuse and Gela (ibid., 189-90 and 223-5). K. F. Johansen also observed this point, but ignored it (Les Vases sicyoniens, 18; 181).



76 R. M. COOK

and Clazomenian.82 In the state of knowledge then that was credible, since through the misinterpretation of the sites of Naucratis and Tell Defenneh most East Greek pottery was dated much too early: 83 now it seems rather that the published stratification of Berezan was factitious. Similarly, before Johansen's work the distinction between Protocorinthian and ' Corinthian ' was vague, and earlier reports of the occurrence of at least Protocorinthian should not be accepted without the evidence of the pots themselves. Such archaeological errors have inevitably misled historians.84

The dates for Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, Gela and Selinus may then stand as 733, 728, 688 and 628: they are not confirmed by the archaeological evidence, but are assumed for it.85 Cumae is clearly earlier than any of them, and if the Greek colony is put at 750 that is not far wrong.86 The Eusebian date of 598 for Massilia is supported by the pottery found there so far as I know it.87 At Tarentum much has been found, but little published: 88 as I have not seen the material I must ignore it. The Greek finds at Naucratis begin about 615-61o, and no earlier Hellenic pottery has turned up elsewhere in Egypt.89 Istrus, Olbia (with Berezan) and Apollonia Pontica appear to be slightly later, say 6io-6oo: 90 these alone of the early Pontic sites have been extensively excavated, but sporadic finds elsewhere round the Pontus include only four or five published pieces that are earlier and they not much earlier.91 Recently the French were excavating in Thasos, and it is said that pottery was found of the late eighth century; 92 but it is prudent to suspend judgment until the evidence is made public.93 Of Chalcidice I know nothing useful; but W. A. Heurtley, who has made a special study

82 AA 1910 224: 'little-master' cups are mentioned as particularly common in the Attic pottery, yet these are contemporary with early Fikellura and Clazomenian.

83 Naucratis was dated by the majority of archaeologists to 650o and Tell Defenneh (' Daphnae') was thought to have been deserted, at least by Greek occupants, about 565: these dates were derived from the literary sources, wrongly (see A. Rumpf, JdI XLVIII 6o-i; also JHS LVII 227-37). Thus two dates which were thirty to forty years too early became the basis of the chronology of East Greek pottery: and so Fikellura and Clazomenian were pushed back into the seventh century, and 'Rhodian' correspondingly further (e.g., E. Pfuhl, MuZ I 140). These three wares, it should be remembered, are common at Pontic sites.

84 Thus it has been said that the Greek finds from the Pontus go back well into the seventh century: E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 338-9, 439, 458; M. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia, 63; A. R. Burn, JHS LV 134-5 (but the earliest East Greek pottery from Gela is in fact of the last third of the seventh century).

85 Syracuse: P. Orsi, NSc (18q3) 445-86; (1895) 109-92; (1925) 296-321; MonAnt XXV (1918), 353-762. P. E. Arias, BCH LX 144-51.

Megara Hyblaea: P. Orsi, MonAnt I (1892), 689-950; MonAnt XXVII (1921), 1og9-80.

Gela: P. Orsi, MonAnt XVII (1906); XIX (I908), 89- I40.

Selinus: E. Gabrici, MonAnt XXXII (1927); XXXIII (1929), 61-1 12. K. M. T. Atkinson, BSR XIV I 15-36 (see above p. 73, n. 55).

86 Cumae: E. Gibrici, MonAnt XXII (1913). 87 Massilia: G. Vasseur, l'Origine de Marseille (1914).

See also P. Jacobsthal and E. Neuffer, Prihistoire II (1933), 1-64.

88 Tarentum: according to H. G. G. Payne the earliest Corinthian pottery from the site is of the first half of the seventh century (Necrocorinthia, 188).

Excavation at Punta del Tonno near Tarentum has revealed a pre-Greek settlement: among the finds were two Corinthian pots (or close imitations of Corinthian) of the late eighth century (see G. Sdiflund, Dragma M. P. Nilsson, 458-90; especially pp. 460-3 and figs. I and 3, and pp. 488-90).

89 Naucratis: see JHS LVII 227-37. Cf. below, p. 83 n. 146.

90 Istrus: M. Lambrino, Les Vases Archaiques d'Histria (1938): the groups of pottery not published there are not

of earlier date. On Mme. Lambrino's chronology, which is, I believe, too high, see JHS LIX 148-9.

Olbia and Berezan: excavation began at Olbia in 1896 and at Berezan in 1904, and has continued with inter- ruptions; there had also been some looting before. No proper publication of either site has appeared: brief reports with a few photographs were given in AA 1897-1914 and elsewhere. There are also outside Russia some hundreds of sherds (unpublished) in Halle, Leipzig and Heidelberg, and a few photographs in private hands. The reports are not reliable in their classification of pottery: thus ' altrho- disch ' is used of Late ' Rhodian ' of the early sixth century (e.g. AA 1914, 228, fig. 43), and the alleged stratification at Berezan is unsure (see above, pp. 75-6). A late Geometric pot is said on the seller's word to have been found at'Berezan (AA 1910, 227 and fig. 27): I doubt it because no piece certainly coming from Berezan is so early in style, and very few are unbroken. For Corinthian pottery of 625-6oo from Olbia, see H. G. G. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 187.

Apollonia Pontica: numerous sherds in Sofia and Burgas, and some in the Louvre and Bonn. These come mostly from the island of St. Kiriak, which was presumably the site of earliest settlement.

91 South Russia-stray finds: ' Rhodian ' round-mouthed oinochoe from Temir Gora near Kertsch-Panticapaeum (Compte-Rendu (1870-1) pl. 4; K. F. Kinch, Vroulia, fig. 107; M. Ebert, Siidrussland in Altertum, fig. 73) ; fragments of two or three 'Rhodian' oinochoai from near Nemirov in Podolia (about 200 miles north-west of Olbia, see AA 191 I, 235, fig. 42, and 1912, 378, fig. 70; M. Ebert, op.cit., fig. 74). These pieces are early in the Middle ' Rhodian ' series and I should date them about 63o. It is perhaps significant that these earliest imports were found not on colonial sites, and they may therefore represent precolonial trade. There are mentions of other finds of early Greek pottery outside the colonies: e.g. E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 339; E. von Stern, Klio IX, '4' (' zahlreiche Grabfunde altmilesischer Topferwaren'; I have not been able to look up his references), and AA 1911 230, n. 3. Most of these references are to the province of Kiev. But without photographs I cannot accept them: for von Stern's use of ' altmilesisch,' see above n. 90. There is also from South Russia an- alabastron of 650-625, which is of Corinthian manufacture (see H. G. G. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 271, no. 3oa).

92 F. Jacoby, CQ XXXV, 102, n. 4. 93 Particularly if, as is likely, this pottery is Geometric

or Subgeometric (cf. below, p. 82, n. i33).




TABLE I

Dates of Foundation of Colonies

Euse- Thucy- Hero- ps. Burn's Burn's Archaeo- WEST EASy. bius." dides." dotus.r Slymnos.a Strabo.e Scale adjust- logical

(Eusebius) .f ment. Date.h

Cumae . . . . (1051) - before (913) c. 750 c. 800

Metapontum . (773) - 705 after 700oo Sinope I . . before 756 none c. 7oo - before 692 c. 70oo Cyrene I . 762 - none - - 697 none Aradus . . 759 - - - - 694 - Cyzicus I . . 756 - before 69o - - 692 675 (?) Trapezus (756) - - - - 692 -

Naucratis . . 749 c. 570 - after 650 687 c. 650 615/6o0 Rhegium . . . . . (748) - - c. 746 713 () -- Naxus . 741 734 - c.8oo c. 800 707 () c. 7oo00 - Syracuse . 736 733 - c. 800oo c. 8oo 702 () c. 700oo 733* Catana . . . 736 - - c. 8oo00 702 () c. 700 -

Megara Hyblaea . . (750) 728 - c. 8o00 c. 8oo0 714 () c. 70 728* Chersonesus . . - - - 686 ()

Astacus 711 - - 658 Parium 709 - - - 657 after 670 Abydus . . - - - - early 7th - c. 675/650 -

cent. Sybaris . . . . 709 721 c. 800 679 (D) - Croton . . . . - - - c. 8oo 679 () Corcyra . . . . 76 before664 - - c. 8oo 677 () 708(?) Tarentum . . . . . 706 c. 706 677 ( ) (700/650)

Phaselis 691 - - 643 - Gela .. 691 688 - - 664 () - 688*

Chalcedon . 685 - - - - 639 Cyzicus II .

. 679 - - - - 634 Locri . . . . . . 679 - - - soon afteri 653 i)

c. 8oo Byzantium . . 659 - - - - 619 c. 612 Istrus . . . 657 - - c.615 - 618 c. 6,o 610/600 Acanthus . . 655 - - 616 c. 61o Stagira . . 655 - - - - 66 c. 6o Lampsacus . . 654 - - - - 615 c. 6o - Abdera . . 654 - - - 615 c. 6o -

Selinus 650 628 - - - 613 629 628* Olbia (Borysthenis) 647 - - 708/56 - 61o0 c. 600 610/600 Cyrene II . . 632 - c.63o - ? c.630 Sinope II . . 63I - after 678 after 664 -

Lipara . . . . 630 - - - - () 588(?) Prusias (Cius) . 627 - - - - 595

Epidamnus . 627 - - 609 () Apollonia Pontica . - - - 6o - - - 6o/600

Camarina . . . . 6o0 598 587 () - - Massilia . . . . . 598 60o0 - 584 () 6oo (?)

a The dates ascribed to Eusebius are culled mostly from Hieronymus (ed. J. K. Fotheringham) : others are bracketed.

b Thucydides gives relative dates for the Sicilian colonies (vi. 3-5): their conversion into absolute dates followed here is that of Pareti. For Corcyra see i. 13; for safety I have taken 404 as the basic date.

c Cyzicus: iv. 14-15. Naucratis: ii. 178. Cyrene: iv. 159 (3rd king reigning c. 570). Sinope: iv. 12 (after Cim- merians, and so after death of Gyges which Herodotus dates in 678).

d Sinope: ' he (the oecist) seems to have been destroyed by the Cimmerians,' and after the Cimmerians the site was reoccupied (11. 941-52). Naxos, etc.: ' oth generation after the Trojan War' (11. 270-74); see n. e. Sybaris: it existed 210o years (1. 360). Istrus: ' about the time of the Scythian invasion of Asia' (11. 767-72), i.e. (accepting Herodotus's date) about 615. Olbia: ' about the time of the Median empire ' (11. 806-9); I take Eusebius's date. Apollonia Pontica: ' 50 years before Cyrus ' (11. 730-3), whom Eusebius dates 56o. Massilia: ' 120o years before Salamis' (11. 209-14). Pseudo- Skymnos also mentions that Camarina lasted 46 years (1. 295)- e Strabo, following Ephorus, dates to the I oth generation after the Trojan War the first foundations in Sicily, viz. Naxos, Megara Hyblaea, Syracuse, and perhaps others (vi. 267): Megara was just before Syracuse (vi. 269, 270); Corcyra (vi. 269) and Croton (vi. 262, 269) were founded while the Syracuse expedition was on its way. Cumae was the earliest

colony in Italy or Sicily (v. 243). Sybaris was founded before Croton (vi. 262). Rhegium was founded just before the Ist Messenian War (vi. 257); Tarentum a few years after it (vi. 278-9). I have assumed that Ephorus dated the fall of Troy twenty-four generations before 334 B.c. and reckoned three generations to a century (see e.g. A. W. Byvanck, Mnem. 1936, 194-6): for the Ist Messenian War I have used Euse- bius's dates. Abydus was founded ' by permission of Gyges ' (xiii. 590). I See A. R. Burn, JHIS LV 130-46 and especially the table on p. 146. His theory is that most Greek dates before 500 were calculated by later writers by means of generations; that they variously equated a generation with forty, thirty-five, and perhaps thirty-three years; that in fact the average generation is of thirty years. In this column I have tried to apply Burn's scale fairly strictly to Eusebius, assuming forty- year generations for the eastern colonies and thirty-five generally for the western (as Burn, I think, would approve: for the South Italian colonies I am doubtful whether Burn would not see here a thirty-year generation). Where I have assumed a thirty-five-year generation I have put after the date (1), being the fraction by which the original date is reduced.

Selinus: Thucydides' date reduced by . is 6Io. 9 In this column are collected the. dates Burn gives, as he gives them: it will be seen he has adjusted his scale.

" The dates assumed from Thucydides are marked *.



78 R. M. COOK

of the adjoining region of Macedonia, observes that the earliest Hellenic pottery recovered there is Corinthian of about 6oo.94 The evidence is sufficient only for a provisional judgment on Sicily and the Pontus. From it one must conclude that the colonisation of the Pontus began a century or more after that of Sicily; or, to express it more accurately, that the first Pontic colonies fall between the foundation of Selinus and of Massilia, a period which is shorter than Eusebius makes it.

In Table I on page 77 are set out the colonial dates proffered by Eusebius, who is our fullest authority.95 In parallel columns are the versions of Thucydides, Herodotus, pseudo- Skymnos and Strabo; one or two other notices have already been mentioned. Next come Eusebius's dates reduced in strict accordance with Burn's scale, and also in certain instances as Burn himself has adjusted them. Last I have given according to my lights the dates of foundation as they appear from the archaeological finds. The comparison of the results does not enhance the credibility of the accepted tradition as a whole. Originally no doubt it was built on a basis of synchronisms and generations; but if so these were variously converted into calendar years, and the composite list of dates is unreliable. Burn's scale, when rigorously applied, gives some probable and some improbable results, and is in fact too simple: but if it is adjusted-a resort to which its author feels himself compelled-it becomes as arbitrary as any other interpreting of tradition. The only reliable test is further excavation of colonial sites, providing always that the results are properly observed and published.

It follows, if the argument is correct, that the first colonies founded by Ionians were later, and considerably later, than those of Chalcis, Corinth and the Achaeans, and therefore that Ionia did not inaugurate the colonial movement. There are, however, the curious discoveries that C. L. Woolley recently made in North Syria at Al Mina."6 This site, which is thought to be the Posideion of Herodotus,97 lies at the mouth of the river Orontes on a main route to Mesopotamia; and it contained a small settlement of Greeks, at least to judge by the Greek pottery found there.98 This begins with Geometric of Cycladic and East Greek 99 styles, and thereafter till about 6oo or a little later (when the settlement seems to have been interrupted) it is East Greek that predominates: one may reasonably infer that the Greek residents came mainly from the Asiatic side of the Aegean. Unfortunately, the date of the earliest pottery cannot generally be determined.100 C. M. Robertson saw nothing that need go far back into the first half of the eighth century (by archaeological reckoning); 101 and though he did not see the material from the lowest level, he was informed that it did not differ much from that of levels 9 and 8.102 I agree with Robertson: it seems to me probable that the Geometric styles of some at least of the Cyclades and of the East Greek area, which are little known, may not have been superseded generally by Orientalising styles till about 65o-that is, fifty years or more later than the transition in Athens and in Corinth.103 In any case the presence of Geometric at Al Mina does not prove that the site goes back to the early eighth century. S. Smith argues that the foundation of Al Mina would historically fit well with the Urartian control of the northern valley of the Orontes, and this began early in the eighth century: ' but I do not think that Smith's argument precludes a later date for Greek

94 Prehistoric Alacedonia (1939), 39; io6; 125; see below, p. 82, n. I31. For some earlier pieces, see below, p. 82, n. 132.

95 There are, of course, traditional dates for other colonies not mentioned by Eusebius; but since they do not affect my argument I have generally ignored them.

96 C. L. Woolley, JHS LVIII I-30 and 133-70 (general description of site, etc.); C. M. Robertson, JHS LX 2-21 (early Greek pottery); S. Smith, Antiquaries' Journal, XXII 87-112 (a full review and criticism from a Near Eastern standpoint).

97 Woolley (op. cit., 28-30) gives reasons for identifying Al Mina with the Posideion of Herodotus (iii. 91) and Smith (op. cit., 97-8) for distinguishing it from the Posidion of Strabo (xvi. 751 and 753). The ' Posidon ' names in this district are confusing : there are also Posidonia (see Woolley, op. cit., 29) and Posidonion (Ar., De Vent. Sit., 973a).

98 See below, pp. 82-3- 99

' East Greek,' it must be remembered, includes Rhodian. 100 The earliest datable pieces are Corinthian of the second half of the eighth century (JHS LX pl. 4a, e,f, g).

o101 JHS LX 21. 102 JHS LX 2, n. I. 103 See below, pp. 93-5. I do not know if Robertson

would go so far as this. 10o4 Antiquaries' Journal XXII 91-4. Smith's other

historical suggestion for Al Mina, that its interruption from about 6oo to 52o was the result of Phoenician domination of the Syrian coast (ibid., 105-1 I), looks rather shaky since the publication of the finds from Tell Sukas (E. Forrer, Bericht iiber d. VI internat. Kongressf. Archdologie, 1939, 360-5). Tell Sukas, a harbour site 17 miles S.S.E. of Latakia, shows evidence of Greek occupation from about 60oo to 55o, and may in fact be complementary to Al Mina.




settlement, since it is clear that the Assyrians, when they wrested the district from Urartu, tolerated Greeks at Al Mina.

The number of Ionian colonies, particularly of those founded by Miletus in the Pontus, impressed both pseudo-Skymnos and Strabo; 105 and their remarks have been quoted with

approval by modern historians.106 But mere number is a poor criterion, unless the size of the colonies is also taken into account. In the main colonial field of Miletus, the Pontus, most of the colonies were far from large. So Strabo implies, describing some of them by such terms as TroAixviov; 107 and the plans of Istrus, Apollonia and Odessus show that these ancient towns were very small. Judged only by their historical importance the eastern colonies of Ionia were insignificant in comparison with the colonies in the West, in which the eastern Greeks hardly shared.108 All things considered, it seems pretty clear that the colonial activity of the Ionians was on a smaller scale than that of the Greeks of the homeland.'09

The primary cause of Greek colonisation is usually and sensibly held to have been over-

population. For this condition there were three practical solutions-to expand into neighbouring territory, to reduce the population by emigration, and to import food and other necessaries which would have to be paid for by industrial exports or by services. This third solution requires, of course, a higher level of organisation than does emigration, but it does not necessarily follow that emigration would not have been preferred by a highly organised state. For that reason the colonial inactivity of the Ionians in the eighth century is not evidence that

they were then more highly organised than colonising states as Corinth and Chalcis: 110

indeed, it is hard to see where any large imports of food could at that time have come from. When one considers the Greek colonies of the eighth and seventh centuries, it is plain that those in the West were intended as economically independent states, as self-sufficient as any Greek city was likely to be: in other words, the purpose of this colonisation was simply to rid the motherland of surplus inhabitants. The same is probably true of the colonies of the North Aegean. But as one proceeds through the Propontis into the Pontus the general character of the colonies changes: it looks as if Istrus, for instance, was meant economically to be complementary to its parent city and not independent of it.lll As for Al Mina and Naucratis, these were wholly trading settlements; and Al Mina certainly cannot have served for the export of necessaries to the Greek homeland.112

If what has been so far put forward is true, it follows that Ionia did not feel the pinch of overpopulation so early as some parts of old Greece, at least not to the extent of having to reduce population or develop overseas importation of foodstuffs. The reason presumably is that there was still waste land to cultivate or perhaps natives to be expropriated: and it must be remembered that Ionia was naturally better endowed than much of Greece proper, as is

emphasised by Herodotus 113 and the Hippocratic author of the de Aere.114 Possibly it was not till the Lydian kingdom was consolidated and began to expand that the Ionians found population pressing on subsistence. Some historians have seen in the Cimmerian raids the impetus to vigorous Ionian colonisation in the Pontus:115 but it would be remarkable if at that critical time the Ionians had tried to plant colonies in the hornets' nest.

105 Pseudo-Skymnos, 734-7. Strabo xiv. 635. 10oo E.g., F. Bilabel, Die ionische Kolonisation, 9-Io. 107 Cf. Xenophon, Anab. v. 6, 15-21. 108 Gela, dated by Thucydides about 690, was a joint

venture of Cretans and Rhodians. From about 6oo, according to both tradition and the archaeologists, the Phocaeans founded Massilia and other colonies in the Far West. Siris, perhaps a little later than Gela, is ascribed by general tradition to Colophon (but see K. J. Beloch, Gr. Gesch.2 I 2, 238-45; against him F. Bilabel, Die ionische Kolonisation, 206-8): if Siris was indeed a Colophonian and not an Achaean foundation, it is noteworthy that these Ionians preferred to go to the West away from their kinsmen instead of settling in the North Aegean or the Propontis where there were then plenty of vacant sites; possibly that field was not then ripe for colonisation.

109 Thucydides, touching on colonial expansion, saw fit

to mention only the migration to Ionia and the settlement of Sicily and South Italy (i. 12, 4): he ignores the colonisation from Ionia.

110 T. Lenschau takes the opposite view (Klio, XIII 176-7): the colonial movement began about 750, when Ionia was absorbed in overland trade; this was ruined by Gyges about 7oo, and therefore Ionia began to found colonies for the sake of overseas markets.

xxx Thus J. L. Myres emphasises that the climatic regime of much of the Pontus was unsuited to the Greek way of life, and that many Pontic colonies existed by and for the export trade in corn and other commodities (CAH II111664-6). 112 See below, p. 86.

113 i. 142: for Aeolis, see i. 149. 114 De Aere 12. 115 Soj. L. Myres, CAH III 656.



80 R. M. COOK

It is anyhow rash to conclude that the founding of colonies is an index of the prosperity and importance of the mother-city.116 Rather it indicates the relation of population to local means of subsistence. For example, Corinth, Megara and Miletus founded many colonies; Sicyon, Aegina and Ephesus founded none:117 yet these three pairs of cities were to all appearances comparable in their internal development. How far the latter three cities disposed of surplus population in colonial ventures sponsored by others we do not know; but it is as likely that they found other remedies. Ephesus may have gained more elbow-room by the elimination of Smyrna early in the sixth century. Aegina, an early maritime power, may soon have been able to obtain imports by her carrying trade. For Sicyon I offer no suggestion.

To sum up, the Ionians were late to found colonies; but the only sure inference from that is that they did not have a problem of overpopulation so early as some others of the Greeks.

4. TRADE

None of our ancient authorities was so interested in economics as to leave a description of early Greek trade, and casual allusions are few. For solid evidence there are only the archaeological finds, consisting mainly of pottery. There are grave limitations to evidence of this kind. First, there is no reason to suppose that pottery is a constant index of general trade, of which it must anyhow have been a small item. Secondly, some important cities had no flourishing ceramic industry of their own: their trade has therefore left few or no traces, unless perhaps they carried pottery made in neighbouring states, and to this there would generally be no clue. Exported pottery, in fact, while showing the existence of trade, is only a rough guide to its volume and even to its origin: but it is the best guide we have. In the following pages I summarise the evidence of pottery as far as I can. Unfortunately not only have some areas been less explored than others, but much of the material that has come to light is not published: many of the finds I mention I know only at second or even third hand.

The West

From time to time there have been attempts to elucidate the course of early Greek trade by this method. One of the most recent and notable was made by A. A. Blakeway in two papers published in 1935.118 In them Blakeway collected samples of the earliest Greek pottery found in Sicily, South Italy, Etruria and Provence, gave them dates, and assigned them to their places of origin or inspiration. From this he concluded that there was already in the ninth century, before colonisation began, a flourishing Greek trade with the West; that it was at first shared by several Greek states-Crete, Corinth, Argos, Cycladic and East Greek cities, and perhaps Boeotia; and that in the years 735-690 (that is the period from the foundation of Syracuse to the foundation of Gela) Corinth captured this trade and monopolised it for more than a century. This argument is based on the chronology of the various Geometric styles of Greek pottery in relation to Protocorinthian, the chronology of which is fixed (rightly or wrongly) by the traditional dates of the Sicilian foundations: later research shows that the chronology of Geometric which Blakeway follows was in part considerably too early,119" and

116 To this summary statement there are two exceptions. First, since the colonists did not always come from one state, some superior importance may sometimes be allowed to the city organising the expedition. Secondly, and more definitely, the foundation of politically dependent colonies shows that the mother-city had attained some notion of imperialism: but colonies of this type were not founded before the latter part of the seventh century and appear to have been a Corinthian development.

117 Anyhow F. Bilabel in his careful conspectus Die ionische Kolonisation gives no colonies to Ephesus. Aegina is by Strabo (viii. 376) credited with two--one curiously in Umbria, the other Cydonia in Crete (of the late sixth century to judge by Hdt. iii. 59, from which indeed Strabo may have inferred an Aeginetan colony).

118 BSA XXXIII I70-208. The argument on Etruria is carried further in JRS XXV 129-49.

119 See E. H. Dohan, Italic Tomb Groups (1942), an important study of the chronology of Etruria in this period. Mrs. Dohan specifically corrects Blakeway on p. 29, Comp. 17-18; p. 40, Comp. 4 and I4; P. 45, Comp. 3: note also pp. 105-9 where she gives reasons for dating the Warrior's Tomb at Tarquinii about 68o-Blakeway had put it before 735 (BSA XXXIII I97). Of general relevance to the dating of late Geometric and Subgeometric styles, though treating particularly of Attic, is R. S. Young, Hesperia Suppl. II (1939): he categorically denies Blake- way's early dating (ibid., 3, n. 2). J. D. Beazley, reviewing Dohan, writes: ' Mrs. Dohan's dates tend to be somewhat later than Payne's, and a good deal later than Blakeway's:



IONIA AND GREECE, 800-6oo00 B.C. 81 there is a reasonable suspicion that most of his other early dates must also be revised. It is the common fate of interpretations of archaeological material that is little known.

The earliest known Greek colony in the West was Cumae, founded about 750. But before the Greek city there was, it seems, a native settlement in whose cemetery have been found a few Greek pots which may be of the first half of the eighth century.120 In the rest of South Italy I know of little if any pottery of Hellenic manufacture or inspiration that is earlier than the foundation of Cumae and the beginning in earnest of Greek colonisation. The same can be said of Sicily. There may be in Etruria an odd piece or two which can definitely be dated to the first half of the eighth century; 121 but the mass of the early Greek pottery is later than the foundation of Cumae, and according to E. H. Dohan (whose views I accept) the period when foreign-that is, Greek and Oriental-influences become overwhelming in Etruria is 68o-65o.122 In short there is in Sicily, South Italy and Etruria very little demonstrable trace of Greek trade before colonisation.123 Further, till the sixth century the dominant fabric of Greek pottery found in this region is Corinthian. Among the Geometric and Subgeometric finds there are pots of Cretan and other styles, but these are not all as early as Blakeway thought and some of them may go down well into the seventh century, in the second quarter of which there may also be some Attic influence in Etruria,124 while towards its end occasional East Greek pots appear, for instance, at Gela, which was traditionally a joint foundation of Cretans and Rhodians. There was, it seems, throughout the period a small import of pottery other than Corinthian; and Blakeway's assertion that till about 735-690 the imported pottery was Panhellenic and then suddenly became Corinthian does not hold water.

The recent excavations in Ithaca provide the only useful materials for the Ionian islands. The early Hellenic pottery has not yet been published in full: it is remarkable for a provincial ware imitating Protocorinthian of the end of the eighth century, and there is also much true Corinthian from at least the eighth century on as well as a little East Greek of the second half of the seventh.125 From the Adriatic there is very little Greek before 600.126

For Provence the material is conveniently assembled by P. Jacobsthal and E. Neuffer,127 for Massilia by G. Vasseur.128 There are a few published pots definitely earlier than 600o, the

approximate date of the colonisation, and one is very much earlier.'29 In the early sixth

century there seems to be a greater proportion of East Greek pottery than is usual on a western site, though I cannot accept the claim ofJacobsthal and Neuffer that some of this is specifically Phocaean. Along the Spanish coast Greek objects of the sixth century are reported, and a bronze helmet attributed to the third quarter of the seventh.130

this accords with the experience, which must be respected, of American excavators in the Agora' (ClRev 1944, 31). Apart from the dating, Blakeway's attributions to local styles of pottery were often too positive and must be doubted.

I have now read A. Akerstrom, Der Geometrische Stil in Italien (I943). He argues (I) that the Geometric pottery of Italy and Sicily is mostly local and late; (2) that it arose under the influence of several Greek cities; (3) that Greek commerce with Etruria was flourishing before the foundation of Cumae which he puts after 700. I agree with the first point, but not with the second and third (for a fuller discussion see JHS LXV I 19-20).

For Blakeway's view on the date of the entry of the alphabet into Italy, which he uses as a further argument of the,.earliness of Greek influence in Italy, compare below, pp. 89-90, where the date of the Greek alphabet is discussed. See also R. Carpenter, AJA XLIX 452-64.

120 E.g., MonAnt XXII pl. 18, 7 and 9. 121 E.g., Villa Giulia 4815, Corinthian Geometric

skyphos; from Falerii; A. A. Blakeway, BSA XXXIII 196, no. 73 and pl. 31, and S. S. Weinberg, AJA XLV 32.

122 Italic Tomb Groups, io8. 123 Livy (viii. 22) mentions a Greek settlement earlier

than Cumae on the near-by islands of Pithecusae: if this

weak tradition is true, that settlement may have supplied the pre-colonial pottery to the native site at Cumae.

124 E. H. Dohan, Italic Tomb Groups, Io8. 125 To be published by C. M. Robertson in BSA. 126 See R. L. Beaumont, JHS LVI 159-204: this valu-

able study is weak on the archaeological side and the observations on East Greek objects are not reliable.

A. A. Blakeway held that certain sherds from Coppa Nevigata near Manfredonia were Greek Protogeometric, that is tenth century (BSA XXXIII I74-5). This I do not believe: however, I know them only from the illustrations in MonAnt XIX (Mosso) pl. 4.

127 Prihistoire II 1-64. 128 L'Origine de Marseille. 129 Prdhistoire, II 36-42. I think no. I (fig. 37) is much

earlier than 6oo; no. 2 (fig. 38) is difficult to place from the illustration, but is certainly before 6oo; no. 4 (fig. 4ob) is somewhere about the middle of the seventh century; no. 3 (fig. 39) and the cup (fig. 41) could be sixth century. On the fibulae (fig. 42) I cannot attempt an opinion. Only nos. I and 2 are from Marseilles itself.

130 P. Bosch-Gimpera, CQ XXXVIII 53-9 is my source. Perhaps from near Cadiz there comes also a Protoattic jug of about 675 (Copenhagen 8673; see J. M. Cook, BSA XXXV 204)-

G JHS.-VOL. LXVI.



82 R. M. COOK

The East Of the North Aegean and the Propontis there is little to say, since such excavations as

might be helpful have not been published. So far as I know, nothing Greek that is earlier than 6oo has been reported from Chalcidice: in Macedonia there is mention of Corinthian pottery from the beginning of the sixth century,131 and of the middle of the seventh century are two Protocorinthian aryballoi from Salonika.132 Along the Thracian coast of the Aegean archaic pottery is reported from Kavalla (Neapolis) and Kalamitsa nearby, but the descriptions are too vague to be useful.133 From Koile in the Dardanelles there is a Corinthian pot of about 640o.134

Within the Pontus the Greek finds at Apollonia, Istrus and Olbia (with Berezan) begin about 6io-6oo: 135 at the first two sites the earliest pottery is largely East Greek, and I imagine that the same is true of Olbia and Berezan. In the interior of Bulgaria there is a little sixth century material, of Rumania less.136 Much has been written on Greek influence in South Russia: but the published seventh century finds from outside the colonies amount to parts of three or four East Greek pots which are hardly to be dated before 63o and one Corinthian pot that may be a little earlier.13" The southern shore of the Pontus has enjoyed a little consular and other attention: from Amisos come sixth century evidences of East Greek art.13s Inner Anatolia has not been much explored: from Gordion, the old capital of the Phrygian kingdom, the Greek finds begin at the end of the seventh century.139 From this it is plain that there is yet no justification of the claim that we must allow two or three generations of trade before colonies were established round the Pontus.140 Equally unfounded is the fancy that Carians preceded the Greeks in Pontic waters and that Greek colonies were planted on older Carian settlements.141

In Syria the finds from Al Mina begin about the middle of the eighth century, perhaps a little earlier: at first there is much that is probably Cycladic, but till the interruption of the settlement about 6oo it is East Greek pottery that predominates.142 Elsewhere in the Levant, from Cilicia to Palestine, there is from the end of the eighth century a trickle of Greek imports

131 W. A. Heurtley, Prehistoric Macedonia (i939), 39; io6; 125. The principal site is Vardaroftsa, which lies twenty miles or so inland in the Axius valley.

132 Sofia 4983, Middle to Late Protocorinthian aryballos of about 650o; from Salonika (' old grave, 1911 '). Sofia 5282, Late Protocorinthian aryballos (soon after 650o); from Salonika (' 1913'). These are the only Greek objects from Macedonia earlier than 6oo that I noticed in Sofia Museum. I do not know how much these provenances can be trusted.

133 Kavalla: see G. Bakalakis, paKTP-rtKO 1937, 59-77; 1938, 75-102. He mentions 'Ionic, Attic, Corinthian, Island (Rhodian-Melian), Naucratite, Laconian,' and 'North Ionic (Aeolian) ': the illustrations are not clear, but there does not seem to be anything probably earlier than about 6oo.

Kalamitsa (7 kilometres west of Kavalla) : see G. Baka- lakis, UpaKo-rtK& 1935, 29-42; 1936, 74-81. Attic and Corinthian are mentioned, apparently not so early as the earliest from Kavalla.

From both sites Bakalakis also records Geometric, which he compares to that found at Thasos, Olynthus (Excavations at Olynthus V pl. 22), and Akropotamos near Kavalla (rTpaKTIK& 1938, 104-I I). It does not look like truly Greek Geometric and is probably of local manufacture.

134 H. G. G. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 274, no. 67a. 135 See above, p. 76. 136 I judge by the contents of local museums that I have

visited in Bulgaria and Rumania: compare V. Parvan, Acad. Roumaine, Bull. Sect. Hist. X (1923), 23-48. In the museum at Plovdiv is a fragment of an East Greek bird-bowl of the seventh century. It is exhibited with sherds of a Corinthian black polychrome pointed aryballos of about 625, of a Late ' Rhodian 'dish (first quarter of sixth century), of an East Greek lip-cup and of two Clazomenian pots (roughly mid-sixth century). None of these pieces is

inventoried, and their provenance is not recorded: I do not suppose it was local.

137 See above, p. 76, n. 91. 138 Amisos (Samsun): some desultory digging was done

in I9o6 at Ak Alan (18 kilometres west-south-west of Samsun), by T. Makridi (see Mitt. Vorderas. Gesellschaft XII (1907),. I67-75). Pottery; Makridi publishes one ' Rhodian' sherd of the last quarter of the seventh century (op. cit., pl. Io--middle bottom); in Stamboul are ' Rhodian ' sherds, some of which (my notes are defective) may possibly be as early as the last quarter of the seventh century; in the Louvre a sherd, CA2244(?), in a provincial (perhaps Aeolian) style of the sixth century. Terracotta revetments: specimens in Stamboul (op. cit., pls. i1-17; H. Koch, RM XXX 16-23, figs. 3-6; R. Demangel, la Frise ionique, fig. 23), Dresden (V3063), Munich (AA 1938, 434, figs. 17-18, no. 14); their style is sixth century East Greek, perhaps of the Northern or Aeolian variety.

139 See G. and A. K6rte, Gordion (1904)- 140 So A. R. Burn, JHS LV 135: Burn was misled by

the dubious statement that 'the earliest plentiful eastern Greek pottery from near Olbia is stylistically at least as early as the earliest from Gela, and much more primitive than the earliest from Selinus '; in my opinion the earliest East Greek from Gela scarcely antecedes 630, and from Selinus 6oo or so.

141 This view is held by F. Bilabel, Die ionische Kolonisation 60-3: he makes play with the non-Greek names of several Pontic colonies, a method which could be applied with about as useful results to North America.

It is said that the name ECI?EIVOS for the Pontus comes by way of "AEIvwos from Iranian (see G. Glotz, Hist. gr., I 164, n. 45): if so, that might give an upper limit for Greek activity in those waters. But for a denial of this derivation, see A. C. Moorhouse, CQ XXXIV 123-8.

142 See above, pp. 78-9.




which grows slowly.143 The rarity of these imports in a region so busily explored is evidence, as S. Smith has observed, not only that the Syrians and their neighbours had no taste for Greek art but also that the users of the plentiful Greek pottery at Al Mina were Greeks.144 Egypt, it appears, came into contact with the Greeks later: at Naucratis Greek pottery begins about 6i5-6io, at the Greek settlement of Tell Defenneh not earlier, and elsewhere in Egypt the few Greek finds reach back only to the last years of the seventh century.145 In Egypt as in the Levant the dominant wares of imported Greek pottery before the sixth century are East Greek, though there is throughout a respectable percentage of Corinthian. Archaic Cyrene awaits investigation.146 Further West in Carthage there is much Corinthian from at least as

early as the middle of the seventh century, but this may have been re-exported from Etruria.147 These results are set out more concisely in Table II on p. 84. It can be seen that

they are incomplete, and in fact they are incompleter than they seem. Three conclusions emerge. First, there was little trade, at least in pottery, in any area before

colonies were planted (for Etruria must in this connexion be considered as an annexe to the western field of colonisation). Secondly, Corinthian pottery dominates the West and perhaps Chalcidice, and East Greek pottery dominates the East or rather, since Chalcidice seems to be excluded and we are ignorant of the rest of the North Aegean and of the Propontis, that

part of the eastern field which was colonised by East Greeks: it should, however, be remembered that in the East Greek field Corinthian 148 is throughout found in respectable quantity, and that from the last quarter of the seventh century East Greek pottery appears in the West, particularly in the Phocaean zone of Provence. Thirdly, East Greek pottery was,

143 Cilicia.

At Mersin, west of Tarsus, excavation was begun just before the late war. The finds included some Greek pottery, published by R. D. Barnett (LAAA XXVI 98-130). The number of pots represented are as follows: Mycenaean--7; Submycenaean-i, and Protogeometric (doubtful)-I (these two Barnett thinks may be local); Geometric--14, of Cycladic or East Greek styles; Protocorinthian and ' Early Corinthian '-6; ' Rhodian ' Wild Goat style-- perhaps as many as fifteen are of the Middle style, that is of the last quarter of the seventh century. There are also some dozens of sherds with simpler decoration, probably East Greek and either seventh or sixth century, and some more elaborately decorated sixth century sherds. The ensemble resembles that from Al Mina; but the earliest Corinthian and 'Rhodian' are later, the Corinthian beginning about 650 or so and the ' Rhodian ' in the last quarter of the seventh century (Barnett's dating of 'Rhodian' is too high). For the Geometric I do not venture a date; but it might all be seventh century (see above, p. 78, and below, pp. 93-5). Of imported Greek pottery most is East Greek. The stratification of these sherds has little value, as is evident if one tabulates Barnett's notices. Barnett suggests that there may be a continuous sequence of Greek pottery from the thirteenth century to the late fifth or early fourth (ibid., 98): this is not borne out by the finds so far made. There is not the evidence to decide whether at Mersin there was a small settlement of new Aegean Greeks, or whether the pottery was traded to the established inhabitants.

Of Tarsus Barnett says that Greek pottery has been found in comparable quantity to that found at Mersin (ibid., ioo) : the only published pieces I know are a Protocorinthian aryballos of the end of the eighth century and an East Greek bird-bowl that is probably not late in the seventh (,4JA XLII 44, figs. 33-4).

There are also references to casual Greek sherds from Mlisis, Kazanli near Mersin, Tanuk Kale (?T6miik Kale) near Soli, Sirkeli near Adana (Barnett, ibid., Ioo).

Syria. From Sakje-Geuzi on the Cilician border one Middle

'Rhodian' sherd is published, of the last quarter of the seventh century (LAAA XXIV pl. 35, 3)- Some Greek

pottery was also found at Hamath (H. Ingholt, Rapport Priliminaire sur ... Hama, 98: dated by F. Johansen c. 95o-80o, but I take leave to doubt this dating: still it is presumably earlier than about 720, when Sargon destroyed the city). S. Smith mentions occasional pieces of early Greek pottery from other sites (Antiquaries' Journal XXII 94).

Palestine. A few Greek sherds of the late seventh century were found

at Askalon, and one at TellJemmeh (7 miles south of Gaza); all are 'Rhodian' (QDAP I pl. 5a, I and 5; and also PEF 1923, pl. 4, 14-Askalon; QDAP I pl. 5a, 3-Tell Jemmeh).

The fragmentary Corinthian kotyle from Askalon (QDAP I 17, no. 4 and pl. 6c = PEF I923, pl. 2, 4) falls well inside the sixth century: see H. G. G. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 187.

Mesopotamia. One Submycenaean, one Protogeometric, and one

'Rhodian' sherd are reported from Quyunjik-Nineveh (JHS LII 130). Mr. R. D. Barnett tells me that the lower date for these finds is probably 628.

144 Antiquaries' Journal XXII 96. 145 This is discussed in JHS LVII 227-37: a tentative

list of pre-Persian imports outside Naucratis and Tell Defenneh is given there on pp. 236-7: add a 'Rhodian' sherd in New York (CVA Fogg and Gallatin, pl. 381, 3), which might be a little before 615. Tell Defenneh was only partially excavated, and there may well be more Greek pottery there earlier than 570-560 if anyone looks for it. (Incidentally the reference in that paper on p. 229, n. 17 to a late ' Rhodian ' sherd should be ' Bolton ' (Lancs.), not ' Boston ').

146 A Geometric skyphos, seemingly eighth century, is said to have come from Cyrene (AM LII 53, fig. 31).

147 See H. G. G. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 187-8. The argument for re-export is that there is also at Carthage much Etruscan pottery (Italo-Corinthian); that this ware is not found on Greek sites in South Italy and Sicily; that the Italo-Corinthian probably came to Carthage together with the Corinthian; and that therefore Greeks are not likely to have been the carriers of either.

148 Some of this may perhaps prove to be Aeginetan (see p. 93, n. 205).



84 R. M. COOK

TABLE II

Date and Origin of earliest Greek pottery found outside Greece

From Colonial sites. Outside Colonial sites.

West: South Italy . . . 750 Corinthian 800/750 Corinthian Etruria

.. - 8oo/750 Corinthian

Sicily 730 Corinthian 730? Corinthian Ionian Islands * .. Eighth cent. Corinthian - -

Adriatic .. Provence . . . . 6oo mixed Seventh cent. ? Spain . . . . . Sixth cent. mixed (6 o) (Corinthian)

East: Chalcidice . . . ? ? 650 Corinthian North Aegean . ? ? ? Propontis . ? ? ? ? West Pontus .6o/oo East Greek Sixth cent. ? North Pontus . . . . 6o/oo East Greek (630) East Greek South Pontus . . 6oo? East Greek ? ? Syria (and Cilicia) . . . 750/25 East Greek ? Egypt .. 6i5/o East Greek 6to? East Greek Cyrene . . ? ?

(A dash means that there is no evidence for our period nor the likelihood of any; a question-mark that there is none yet of which I know enough. Where a date is in brackets, the earlier pieces are isolated and do not begin a steady flow of imports.)

* This entry refers to Ithaca, which Greeks had probably occupied continuously from the Bronze Age. It is not therefore strictly a colonial site.

except at Al Mina, and probably at Mersin, much later than Corinthian in being exported overseas: this repeats the observation already made that in colonisation the East Greeks seem generally to have been later than some of the cities of old Greece.

To argue, however, as Blakeway does, that the preponderance of Corinthian pottery in the West during the latter part of the eighth and throughout the seventh century reflects a

specifically Corinthian monopoly of trade is to ignore an important fact. During the same

period Corinthian was the dominant pottery on the Greek mainland: excavation shows that on sites there, too, Corinthian is the most frequent of imported wares. Whatever the reason, it looks as if the colonies generally followed the fashions of their mother-cities. In fact there is not much more evidence that Corinth monopolised the western trade than that she

monopolised trade on the Greek mainland. Pottery is not an exact guide to general trade. To theories that see in the distribution of pottery the signs of trade rivalries and alliances there is the further objection that some states (as, for instance, Chalcis) had no characteristic

style of pottery 149 and to others (such as Miletus) no specific ware has yet been convincingly assigned.

It is often said that knowledge of attractive colonial sites must in the main have come from traders, and this is likely: early Greek explorers can hardly have been so single-minded as to stick to piracy alone. But to judge by its material traces the volume of this early trade was small, nor were the first colonies generally dependent on trade. Of the many eighth century foundations in the West, the earliest, Cumae, was, as the nearest Greek port, happily placed for commerce by sea with Etruria, and Corcyra was important by its position, but the remainder cannot have supported themselves solely as ports of call and some indeed were off the main trade route: on the other hand, all had land enough to maintain their inhabitants and to justify settlement. The only known eastern colony as early was Al Mina; this was a small community and clearly dependent on trade. During the greater part of the seventh century also the new colonies that were founded continued to be economically self-supporting,

149 Or anyhow none worth exporting. I follow on the so-called ' Chalcidian ' ware H. R. W. Smith, The Origin of

Chalcidian Ware (1932).



IONIA AND GREECE, 800oo-600 B.C. 85

and for that reason the commercial motive cannot have been paramount. Tradition places the foundation of Chalcedon and Byzantium about the second quarter of the seventh century and is insistent that Chalcedon was founded first: this can be used as evidence not only that trade with the Pontus was unimportant when Chalcedon was colonised, but also that the presence of an excellent local fishery (as there was at Byzantium) 150 was not at that time an inducement to settlers, who one must therefore conclude were interested above all in agricultural land. In the period 6io-6oo Olbia and Berezan and Istrus seem to have been founded: these settlements are beyond the range of the Mediterranean climate, and to maintain a Greek way of life must have required a considerable import trade and, to balance it, as great an export trade.151 Naucratis, where Greek occupation begins about 615-61o, was wholly a commercial settlement. Finally, in the Far West, Massilia and her colonies were probably in part dependent on trade, and one indeed was called Emporion: but this belongs to the sixth

century.152 In the eighth and for most of the seventh century, however, apart from the immediate neighbourhood of agricultural colonies the only foreign markets with which there is strong evidence of Greek relations are Syria (or its neighbourhood) and Etruria.153 The connexions of Greek art point to the same conclusion.s'"

This may be due to the accidents of survival or discovery. But if one believes that early colonisation was principally agricultural, another explanation is possible. The requirements of Greek life were simple. The chief were, I suppose, corn, milk and cheese, olives and olive oil, wine and fish; wool and leather; timber; iron, copper and tin. All these (to leave aside for the moment the metals) can be obtained in Greece and Greek Asia in limited

quantities, sufficient for a limited population. It is generally recognised that at the beginning of the Iron Age the population was within the capacity of local production, and that in the fifth century it was not: at some time between deficiencies must have appeared, first of all in corn. But before colonisation began what overseas market was there in which Greek traders could have bought much corn? The early colonies, it is clear, were generally sited with an

eye to corn-land, whether solely for their own needs or for export also. But the scale of the colonisation and so of the emigration that took place in the eighth and seventh centuries

suggests that the balance between local production and the needs of the remaining population was fairly well maintained in the homelands: the foundation of politically dependent colonies to safeguard trade routes did not occur till the sixth century or at most the closing years of the seventh. Sicily and South Italy may during the seventh century have begun to export corn, but it would have been to old Greece; Ionia, it seems, managed on its local resources.

I have not found any authoritative account of the mineral resources of Greece and western Anatolia, what they were or how far they were utilised in early times. But it seems certain that local mining was not sufficient. Bronze, an alloy of copper with tin, continued in use in archaic Greece. Copper was to be found in many parts of the Mediterranean basin including Greece, and Cyprus may have been the main source of imports. Tin is rarer: it occurs in Spain and perhaps in eastern Anatolia, as well as in more northerly parts of Europe, but the quantity required by the Greeks of the eighth and seventh centuries must have been small and the trade may have been indirect.155 The consumption of iron was much greater, and perhaps its importation: the most celebrated areas of supply were at the south-east corner of the Pontus in the land of the Chalybes and also the Etruscan island of Elba. Yet even if the Greeks imported all their iron, their annual needs cannot have been large: for although this period was within the Iron Age, its economy was manual and not mechanical.

150 Strabo vii. 320. 151 G. A. Short argues that the sites of the West Pontic

colonies were not chosen for harbourage nor were the colonies intended simply as export depots (LAAA XXIV 141-55): he is probably right. 152 Emporion has been excavated: the Greek pottery begins early in the sixth century and is of mixed origin (see A. Frickenhaus, Anuari II (i9o8), 195-240: further AJA XLVII 481).

153 The best discussion of the reasons for colonisation is

that of A. Gwynn, JHS XXXVIII 88-123. 154 From the second half of the eighth century Oriental

influence affects Greek art, and from the early seventh Greek inspires Etruscan.

A. Akerstr6m (Der Geometrische Stil in Italien) argues convincingly that the Italian Geometric style derives from Greek of the later eighth century (as I date it, though his dates are later than mine: cf. p. 8o, n. 119).

155 So Herodotus (iii. I15).



86 R. M. COOK

If these arguments are sound, the Greeks in the eighth and seventh centuries needed few

imports and therefore little trade, and the only essential deficiency of any bulk is likely to have been in iron. That might explain why in the West their trade outside the colonies was chiefly with Etruria: presumably the basis of the trade was the exchange for iron of Greek manufactured articles, works of art and perhaps wine. In the East there was the Syrian trade

through Al Mina: here it was the Greeks who bought luxury goods (since Syria had nothing else to offer) 156 and in exchange sold foodstuffs perhaps, slaves and other raw materials. It is not surprising that the archaeological evidence argues that the early trade with Syria was less than that with Etruria. In other commodities there was no doubt some casual trade, but it was trivial: the natural economies of the Mediterranean lands are fundamentally similar, not complementary.

It would be foolish to pretend that these conclusions are based on any but flimsy data.

Something may be learnt from careful and thorough excavation, from ecological research in the Aegean lands, from the spectrographical analysis of metal objects found in Greece which

might determine the origin of the ore. But the darkness of the early Iron Age in Greece will never be fully dispelled, and historical reconstruction must be cautious: Greek trade was due to need, much more than to any yearning for romantic adventure. Large-scale trade could not arise until Greek states began to maintain populations which could not be fed and supplied locally, until, in effect, urbanisation had advanced; 157 but the prerequisite was a regular surplus of production in the colonies. Trade was a result, not the cause of colonisation.

There is little that is relevant in ancient literature, and that little does not conflict with the conclusions already put forward. Strabo-and he has had his disciples-was at pains to

prove Homer a great geographer; for if he mentioned a place he knew it, and if he did not mention it that could be set down to poetic licence.158 In fact Homer's knowledge beyond the Aegean world was vague'and uncertain: 159 in the Odyssey, for instance, the east end of the Mediterranean is said to be further from Greece than a bird could fly in a year (iii. 321-2) and Ithaca is on the edge of the known world. Opinions differ on the dates of the Iliad and the Odyssey; but there is a case for believing that they were substantially complete before the

Ionians at least had ventured far outside their home waters. Hesiod would be more helpful if there were more certainty on his chronology. In the Works and Days a section is given to seafaring (618-694), the only object of which is trade. The poet has a poor opinion of the sea; how far that was due to personal or parochial prejudice one can only guess, but the voyages he has in mind are short 160 and undertaken as a side-line to farming. The passage could as well refer to local trips in Greek waters, which must always have been common, as to voyages farther afield: it therefore throws no light on overseas trade, even if its date were sure. That the Works and Days does not comment on colonial emigration as a possible choice for the struggling peasant is of interest, though the omission might be due to local backwardness. The Bffi3tvo oTvoS of line 589 is odd indeed, if it really means wine from Byblus in Phoenicia. There is a wider geographical scope in the Theogony: the list oftwenty-five rivers (337-45) includes the Nile, Eridanus (whether or not this is here the Po), Ister, and Phasis; Etna is restored (860); later on appear the sons of Circe, Agrius and Latinus, rulers of the Etruscans in their holy islands (IoI 1-6). Other Hesiodic fragments mention the Scythians (fr. 55), the Phasis (fr. 63), Niveveh (falsa, fr. I), Arabus and king Belus (fr. 23), Busiris (falsa, fr. I1I), the Pygmies (fr. 60 and 62), the Ethiopians (fr. 55), the Eridanus (fr. 199), Etna, Ortygia and the Etruscans (fr. 65), the Ligurians (fr. 55 and 199), and Cape Pelorus at the north-east corner of Sicily (fr. 183): 161 but since these passages cannot be dated, it is useless

15s Dr. T. Fish kindly pointed this out to me. 157 See below, p. 88. 15s i. 2-7, and passim. 1s9 See G. Glotz, Hist. gr. I I46: cf. H. L. Lorimer, JHS

XLIX 154.

160 It may of course be poetic habit that he describes his father's journey across the Aegean with the phrase rohoIv 8t& lr6v-rov &voaaas (635).

161 The numbering of the fragments is that of A. Rzach, ed. 3 (1913).




drawing conclusions from them.'62 Reference has already been made to some other ancient notices: as before I discount the Alexandrines, and regard as a lucky guess Strabo's statement that there was no Greek trade with Sicily before its colonisation.163

It is convenient to consider here the Biblical name 'Javan,' which in various forms was current in the Near East to describe a Greek. That 'Javan' and ' Ionian' are the same seems certain. But its earliest occurrence is at the end of the eighth century 164-that is, after the Greeks settled in Al Mina; and the origins of the names ' Hellene ' and ' Greek' are warnings against setting much importance by 'Javan' as an index of the position of Ionians in Oriental markets.

Such evidence as there is, and part of it is only negative, suggests that there was very little trade between the Greeks and other peoples before colonisation began; that till the closing years of the seventh century trade was mainly with the colonies, and also with Etruria and

Syria; and that, as in colonisation, Greeks of old Greece were earlier generally in trade than the Greeks of the East Aegean. But the evidence is not yet conclusive.

5. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

At the beginning of the Greek Iron Age hereditary kings were the rule. Before long their

powers passed in many of the important states to aristocracies, or viewed from another side

oligarchies of birth. This revolution was early enough to leave little firm trace in tradition and we do not know where it started: assertions that it was in Ionia 165 are based simply on the presumption that Ionia was politically as in other ways the most progressive part of the Greek world. If one regards Homer and Heriod as reflecting fairly the circumstances of their own times, one might conclude that Homer lived at the end of a monarchical period and the Hesiod of the Works and Days when aristocracies were established: but our ignorance of the interval in time between Homer and Hesiod prevents any useful comparison of the political evolution of Ionia and Boeotia. If one believes tradition, Athens had abolished monarchy even before the Ionian migration. It is safer to admit that we do not know which side of the Aegean had the honour of first deposing its kings.

The aristocracies in their turn were opposed by the growth of a new wealthy class or even of democracy-that is, by a demand for a wider sharing of power and privilege. The struggle if not caused was aggravated by overpopulation, especially where there was urban development; and among its results were often the publishing of a code of laws and the establishment of a tyranny, which at this period meant an autocracy largely dependent on popular support. Tradition relates that Locri in South Italy was about 66o the first Greek state to publish its

legal code,"66 and that at Athens publication took place about 620: we do not know when this democratic success was won in the Ionian cities, but evidently the ancients did not give them

priority. The word ' tyranny' is probably Lydian, and its first recorded mention in Greek is

by Archilochus in a passage referring to Gyges,167 who was founder of the aggressive Mermnad

162 Falsa fr. I refers to the siege of Nineveh, presumably about 612: it is rejected for that reason, but may well have come from a Hesiodic poem.

It is more credible that we may some time be able to date 'Hesiod' by these references to Greek expansion than Greek expansion by these Hesiodic fragments. Thus the author of Theog. Ior 1-16 knew little of Etruria, and it may therefore be guessed that he composed the lines before 700 when the Tyrrhenian Sea was probably well enough known.

163 vi. 267. Herodotus mentiones Ionians in the West, but not till the latter part of the seventh century: Colaeus of Samos by accident reached Tartessus shortly before the foundation of Cyrene which was about 630 (iv. 152); and the Phocaeans are credited with the exploration of the Adriatic and the Far West, presumably about 6oo when Massilia was colonised.

On economic development the ancients do not enlighten

us. Herodotus indeed says that Xstpor•xvat were most respected at Corinth (ii. 167), but that was in the fifth century. It is also interesting that he records that when in the sixth century the Parians arbitrated at Miletus, they decided in favour of those whose farms were the best cultivated (v. 28-9): the arbitrators were, of course, ot aptcrrot, but it shows the strength of the landed class.

164 In an inscription of Sargon II of Assyria: a certain 'Yamani' rebelled at Ashdod about 712 and was dealt with (see S. Smith, Antiquaries' Journal XXII 99-ioo). Dr. T. Fish tells me that there is no earlier record of the name 'Javan ' or its cognates.

165 So K. J. Beloch, Gr. Gesch.2 I I, 216; H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East,8 525-6.

16s Strabo, vi. 259; ps. Skymnos 314-15: Eusebius gives the date 663.

167 Fr. 22 (Diehl).



88 R. M. COOK

dynasty of Lydia and reigned about 675-650. Ionia lay next to Lydia, and there can be no doubt that the name of tyranny was familiar in Ionia earlier than in Greece: it does not follow that the institution was also. The institution was the consequence of political and economic causes rather than of neighbourly imitation.168 Why a Lydian and not a Greek name was used is not clear; 169 but the word ' tyrant ' was well advertised in old Greece by Gyges himself through his rich offerings at Delphi.170 According to their interpretations of tradition historians date the beginning of tyranny at Sicyon and Corinth from the middle to the end of the seventh century: the earlier date, which is the more orthodox, does not leave the Ionians much time for precedence if Gyges was the first tyrant. But tradition is silent on the date of the first Ionian tyrants, and we can only guess to fit our prejudices.171

The back influence of the colonies on the politics of their mother-cities has sometimes been adduced as a reason for the alleged political advancement of Ionia. This influence has, I think, been exaggerated; for the colonies tended rather to repeat the system of the mother- city than consciously to repudiate it. But if there was any influence of this sort, it should have been stronger in old Greece, since Ionia was late in the colonial field.

6. URBAN DEVELOPMENT

The Tr6AlgS or city-state was the characteristic Greek institution of the classical period. Of the details of its evolution we know little, since it was too gradual and unsensational to be remarked in tradition. It has been asserted that the city-state grew most quickly in Asiatic Greece, since the new settlers needed protection against the natives: 172 but in old Greece also protection against neighbours or pirates was necessary. This is a question that can only be decided by excavation, which so far has rarely reached the early levels of cities of later importance. Corinth, the American excavators say, was reoccupied not long before 0ooo,173 but how extensively is not known. At Athens the site of the classical Agora was in the early eighth century open ground with a private cemetery on it.174 Nothing at all is known of the size of the contemporary cities of Ionia. Beloch rightly emphasises that the sixth century cities were small: he estimates that in the middle of that century Corinth and Athens had not more than 25,000 inhabitants each, and Miletus perhaps 30,000. But his figure for Miletus is based on the simple assumption that it must have been rather bigger than Athens or Corinth.175 In fact a comparison of the size of Greek cities at that time and earlier is on the evidence impossible.

7. POSITION OF WOMEN

Between the age represented by Homer and the classical period the social status of women of the upper classes deteriorated in the more prosperous cities. This was due to the adoption of a more oriental attitude to sex, and it is natural to assume that the fashion was introduced by way of Ionia from Lydia, the only Oriental country with which any Greeks, at least of the home-lands, were in close and continuous contact.176 But if Ionians took the lead here,

168 The economic basis of tyranny is shown by P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny (1922): I do not go with him all his way.

169 That tyrants usurped their position is true, but so did many legendary Greek kings: the most spectacular similarity between Greek and Lydian tyrants (of which we know) was in their expenditure.

170 Hdt. i. 14. 171 In Samos at least the landed aristocracy are supposed

long to have retained political power (see, for instance, P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny, 69). H. T. Wade-Gery makes Melas, the tyrant of Ephesus, son-in-law to Gyges instead of Alyattes (CAH III, 549; 559, n. 2), but this is wanton.

172 F. E. Adcock, CAH III690-I : compare K.J. Beloch, Gr. Gesch.2 I I, 202-3.

1a3 S. S. Weinberg, Corinth VII I, 3 and 84. 174 For the cemetery, see R. S. Young, Hesperia. Suppl. II. 175 Gr. Gesch.2 I I, 279-81 : ' etwas bevolkerter mag

Milet gewesen sein, die erste Stadt in Ionien und also wahrscheinlich tiberhaupt in der griechischen Welt.'

Miletus was destroyed by the Persians in 494 and after- wards rebuilt. Excavation of the later city has revealed traces of an earlier settlement, which seems to have been occupied continuously from the Bronze Age to Persian times. This earlier settlement was small, and A. von Gerkan holds that it was only the port of archaic Miletus (Bericht iiber d. VI internat. Kongress f. Archdologie, 1939, 323-5; cf. ibid., 325-32). It is partly a matter of prejudice.

176 Herodotus saw Carian influence in certain customs of Ionian women (i. 146).



IONIA AND GREECE, 800-6oo00 B.C. 89

it does not mean that they were more advanced: the change, though requiring a certain level of wealth, was the result of geographical accident rather than a natural stage in evolution.

8. MERCENARIES

Early Greek states relied on a citizen militia; for mercenary service the volunteer usually had to go outside the Greek lands. So from the accession of Psammetichus I in 66o or shortly after until the Persian conquest in 525 there is evidence for Greek mercenaries in Egypt.177 In Syria the 'Yamani' who rebelled at Ashdod about 712 178 may have been a Greek mer-

cenary; Alcaeus's brother Antimenidas served with the Babylonians about the first half of the sixth century; 179 and there may be other references. There is of course also Archilochus, but his fighting seems to have been round the Aegean. It is notable that where the origin of these mercenaries is recorded they come from the East Aegean: Herodotus speaks of Ionians and Carians; the Abu Simbel inscription mentions Teos, Ialysus and Colophon; Anti- menidas was from Lesbos. If this has any social significance, it suggests that in seventh century Ionia agriculture and industry and commerce could not absorb the whole of the active population: and the Carians with whom Ionians are often associated as mercenaries were certainly backward.

9. THE ALPHABET

In the Minoan and Mycenaean civilisations a script existed, but this passed out of knowledge. Later the Phoenician alphabet was adapted for Greek use. The date of this event is vigorously disputed,180 but as R. Carpenter has argued it was probably not long before 700; that is, soon after Greek settlement at Al Mina in Syria and the first strong influence of the Orient on Greek art.lsl The evidence is that no extant specimens of Greek alphabetic writing are certainly older than 700, and that a surprising proportion of the earliest inscriptions come from alphabets or stress the accomplishment of writing.1ls It is hard to believe that the alphabet was known earlier to the Greeks, but by some strange chance no examples have survived, or that it was used only on perishable materials; and similarity between the alphabet of a colony and its mother-city's can be explained by continued inter- course without having to assume that the original colonists took that alphabet with them.183 No more valid are assertions that Hesiod and even Homer must have set down their poems in writing; this is a matter of opinion, even if we knew when those poems reached their final state.

177 Hdt. ii. 152-4, etc. There is also the contemporary evidence of an inscription of Ashurbanipal that Gyges sent soldiers to Psammetichus I at the beginning of the latter's reign (Records of the Past, first series, i. 69), and these may well be the lonians and Carians mentioned by Herodotus; of the Abu Simbel inscription of the reign of Psammetichus II (593-588) (M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, no. 4); and of the finds from Tell Defenneh which show Greek military occupation about 565-53o (and there may well be earlier materials to be found on that site) : see above, p. 83, n. 146.

178 See above, p. 87, n. 164. 179 Alcaeus fr. 50 (Diehl). 180 The recent controversy was opened by R. Carpenter,

AJA XXXVII 8-29: he argued for the late eighth century. This was attacked as being much too late by C. W. Blegen (AJA XXXVIII 10-28: on the evidence of inscribed Attic Geometric pottery from Hymettus); by J. P. Harland. (AJA XXXVIII 83-92: on general probabilities); by B. L. Ullman (AJA XXXVIII 359-81: on comparison with the forms of Phoenician letters). Carpenter replied, to my mind adequately, in AJA XLII 58-69: and R. S. Young has, in confirmation, shown the probable seventh century date of the inscribed pottery from Hymettus (AJA XLIV 1-9: cf. AJA XLVI 124-5).

181 Perhaps the domestic fowl accompanied the alphabet and the Orientalising style in their passage to Greek lands. It first appears in Greek art about the end of the eighth century, in Early Protocorinthian (see K. F. Johansen, Les Vases sicyoniens, 52; H. G. G. Payne, Protokorinthische Vaser,- malerei, pl. 6) and in Early Protoattic (J. M. Cook, BSA XXXV 181-2 and fig. 7). Geometric fauna is limited to a very few species: but if the cock had then had a strong funerary significance, it might reasonably be expected in the funeral scenes which were frequent on Attic Geometric pottery throughout the eighth century. (I have since noticed in the Ceramicus Museum, Athens, two terracotta cocks from an unpublished grave of about 750 or slightly earlier.)

182 This is clearest in the Hymettus inscriptions published by R. S. Young, AJA XLIV I-9: note particularly his no. Io-avrroS Eyp(<aqaE) which-since there is here no question of painting-must mean 'he himself wrote it.' A. A. Blakeway argues that by the time of the Hymettus sherds writing must have been well established because it was already used for a ' frivolous ' purpose (JRS XXV 143, n. 54); I think he may be referring particularly to the obscene message on the sherd AJA XXXVIII 10-I2, no. I, but obscenity is no proof of advanced literacy.

183 As is assumed by K. J. Beloch, Gr. Gesch.2 I I, 228; H. T. Wade-Gery, CAH III 529.



90 R. M. COOK

The archaic Greek alphabets fall into several groups.184 To judge by the differences between them (unless those differences were invented deliberately by some earlier St. Cyril) it looks as if they were separately adapted from a prototype or prototypes that were not Greek: it is not necessary to assume a common Greek ancestor, now lost, and therefore a considerable

period for differentiation into the earliest recorded alphabets. Comparison between the forms of the various early alphabets does not lead far for want of sufficient material: there must be very few specimens from Ionia as early as the earliest from old Greece, but this may be due to the little excavation there has been of early strata at Ionian sites.

10. COINAGE

Herodotus says that the Lydians invented coinage.l85 If so, the first Greeks to adopt the invention were probably Ionians, since they were nearest to Lydia: it does not follow that

they were also the only Greeks economically so advanced as to have a use for coined money. Archaeology supports Herodotus in so far as the coins of the most primitive type have been found in western Anatolia and seem to be of local metal; and most scholars therefore accept his statement of Lydian invention, or transfer the credit to the favoured Ionians.186 The fact is that these primitive coins bear no recognisable impress of their origin: they have been found at Ephesus and casually in the Lydian and Ionian territory,18s7 but there are too few of them and there has been too little exploration of early Ionian and Lydian sites to allow on grounds of distribution a decision between the rival claims of Lydia and Ionia. But in any case the invention of coinage must have been in part due to chance, since the Lydians and Ionians at that time were not at a higher stage of economic development than had ever been reached by any earlier society.

The earliest Lydian (or Ionian) coins are commonly dated some time about 700.188 The argument seems, on the one hand, to be that we should accept the tradition that Pheidon minted in Aegina in the first half of the seventh century, and that his Aeginetan coins are clearly later than the earliest Asiatic coins; 189 and, on the other hand, to rely on a dating that is much too early of certain East Greek finds.190 A precise date cannot be inferred from the coins by themselves: 191 the only reliable evidence would be their occurrence in closely datable deposits, and that unfortunately has not yet happened. A similar obscurity attends the early development of coinage; some use could indeed be made of stylistic comparisons, but current guesses are more often based on supposed correspondences with historical

184 The Ionian alphabet seems to be confined to the East Greek area.

185 i. 94. So also Xenophanes according to Pollux (Onom. ix. 83). To be precise Herodotus says of the Lydians TrpTrot . . . v6utaia XpvaoO KcI &pyOpov KO Ix&pEVO1 ?Xp iavaro, which might conceivably refer to the invention only of bimetallism.

186 Ionian invention is preferred by E. Babelon, Traiti des Monnaies Grecques et Romaines, II I (9o07), 6; P. Gardner, History of Ancient Coinage (I918), 69; J. G. Milne, Greek Coinage (1931), 2-7. C. T. Seltman, Greek Coins (I933), I5-i9, gives a share at least in the invention to Ionian merchants.

187 Most often the place of finding has not been disclosed. Some provenances are quoted doubtfully by P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny, 130-1.

188 Some prefer a much earlier date; thus J. G. Milne suggests that the invention of coinage was in the ninth century and its adoption in Aegina about 750 (op. cit., 6-7 and I6).

D. G. Hogarth, however, appears to date the invention, or at least its spread to the Ionians as well as to other Greeks. within the sixth century (CAH III 519) : he had previously given cautious assent to the conventional chronology (Excavations at Ephesus (1908), 240).

189 H. T. Wade-Gery completes the circle by using the Aeginetan coins to date Pheidon (CAH III 761).

19g In particular of the finds from within and about the

'Basis' at the Artemision of Ephesus: the date of this deposit is rather about 6oo than 700. See E. L6wy, Zur Chronologie der friihgriechischen Kunst (1932), especially pp. 21-8 (review in JHS LII 130; Liwy's reply JHS LIII 112): E. Gjerstad, LAAA XXIV 15-34. Compare A. Rumpf, Griechische und Rimische Kunst (1932), 18 (A. Gercke and E. Norden, Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft 4 II I, 3), Lowy and Rumpf consider the latest objects from the' Basis ' to be within the sixth century, rightly; Gjerstad prefers the third quarter of the seventh, to fit (unnecessarily) his architectural sequence.

The following pieces illustrated by D. G. Hogarth in Excavations at Ephesus can, I think, be dated approximately. (I) Ivory lion (pls. 21, 3; 25, I2) :'this, the earliest datable piece, resembles Protocorinthian and may be as early as 650. (2) Ivory lion (pls. 21, I; 23, 3): very close to Corinthian of the last quarter of the seventh century or a little later. (3) Ivory woman (pls. 21, 6; 22): connected with an East Greek series of terracotta figurines of the sixth century. (4) Ivory woman (pl. 24, 3): ditto. (5) Ivory goat (pls. 21, 5; 23, 2) : connected with Late rather than Middle ' Rhodian,' that is after rather than before 6oo. (6) Bronze woman (pl. 14): probably Subdaedalic, i.e., late seventh of early sixth century.

x91 This is plainly put for the Asiatic coins by D. G. Hogarth (Excavations at Ephesus, 240-1; compare B. V. Head, ibid., 88 and 92).




events.'92 Thus C. T. Seltman has made the political history of Athens a peg for dating his series of sixth century Athenian coins; 93 and the first issues of Corinth have been attributed to the tyranny, either of Cypselus or of Periander.194 P. N. Ure goes further and maintains that the invention of coinage was a necessary antecedent of tyranny: 195 but it is doubtful if in fact coinage was introduced earlier than tyranny. The whole chronology of early coins needs revising. The earliest issue to which on historical grounds even a probable date can be

assigned is that supposed to bear the name of Alyattes who reigned in the early part of the sixth century; and there is no need to. assume that there was before it a long era of numismatic

development. It seems to me likely that the invention of coinage will prove to have been made in the latter part of the seventh century and to have spread rapidly.196 Deductions from

metrology are beyond me.

I . THE ROUTES TO THE EAST

The geographical position of Ionia which, as the crow flies, is nearer to the Orient than is

European Greece, has sometimes led students to expect that Oriental influences were transmitted that way: and this is reasonable, if one assumes that the contact was by the land route across Asia Minor. If, on the other hand, there was contact by sea, the natural route from the Greek mainland would cross the Aegean to Rhodes and proceed from there to the

Syrian littoral. Traces for our period of Greek passage across Anatolia have not been found; but this is

not surprising, when one considers the meagre exploration of the interior. Whether political conditions were favourable to such traffic is not clear, though the Assyrians were in touch with the Phrygian kingdom in the eighth century and with Lydia in the time of Gyges. Yet in the fifth century, when the Persians maintained a through road, Herodotus was poorly acquainted with central Asia Minor.197 Also land transport by animals is more troublesome and expensive than transport by sea. The Phrygians and Lydians had certainly some contact with their eastern neighbours, but how much commerce permeated to Ionia we do not know.

The sea route exis.ted from early times. In Rhodes a considerable number of 'Phoenician' and Cypriot objects have been found, as well as of Cretan: and Cyprus dealt with Phoenicia. It is difficult not to conclude that there was a sea route from the Levant to Rhodes and Crete. In Rhodes Protocorinthian is common from the middle of the seventh

century, so that one may presume a route then across the Aegean: and Protocorinthian from the second half of the eighth century downwards turned up at Al Mina in Syria, along with East Greek and Cycladic. The Phoenician traders, so prominent in Greek reconstructions of their early history and so difficult to trace, would also have travelled by sea. There is, it follows, considerable evidence for the sea route, which alone sattisfactorily explains the

independence and apparently earlier date of the Orientalising movement in the art of mainland Greece, and also the connexion during the seventh century of Rhodes with the Peloponnese and Crete in the Daedalic style.

12. RACIAL AND CULTURAL INHERITANCE

It has been put forward as an explanation of the alleged eminence of the Ionians in early times that the mingling of the Greek settlers with the native stocks produced a happy racial

192 C. T. Seltman in the explanation to the plates of his admirably explicit Greek Coins offers fairly orthodox dates: it is worth while considering how many of the coins in plates I-III should be dated as early as they are dated there. For instance, his pl. I, 23 (panther's head); pl. III, I (dolphin); pl. III, 8 (amphora) have analogies about the middle of the sixth century rather than about 6oo.

193 Athens, its History and Coinage (1924): his arguments are more circumstantial than cogent.

194 Cypselus: H. T. Wade-Gery, CAH III 552; J. G. Milne, Greek Coinage, 26-7; C. T. Seltman, Greek Coins, 37.

Periander: G. F. Hill (re-editing B. V. Head,) A Guide to the Principal Coins qf the Greeks (1932), 9, no. 38.

195 The Origin of Tyranny (1922), 2. 196 If so, arguments about Athenian backwardness will

have to be modified. Mr. E. S. G. Robinson has since told me that he has

recently been working on the origin of Greek coinage and that my conclusion is similar to his. Our agreement is not surprising, since we both began from the Artemision.

19' i. 72 and ii. 34.



92 R. M. COOK

amalgam. As we know neither the racial composition of the original Ionians, nor anything at all about racial inheritance (or, if we think we do, we hesitate these days to say so), argument is futile. If for race we substitute culture, we still do not know what the native culture was which confronted the Greek settlers in Ionia, nor indeed how much culture they brought with them.

13. LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY

Greek literature, as we know it, first flowered in or near Ionia. The epic dialect of Homer, which is strongly Ionian, was adopted not only by epic poets elsewhere, but also by Hesiod and the authors of the Homeric hymns. Lyric poetry owed a big debt to the Ionians. Later, in the fifth century, literary prose was developed by the same branch of the Greeks. In philosophy, too, it would be foolhardy to deny the importance of the Ionian pioneers, though the beginnings of this study were hardly before the sixth century and the colonial Greeks of the West were quick to take it up. These gifts Ionia certainly gave to Greece, but to argue thence that Ionia led in other fields also is not convincing. If, as is sometimes said, culture requires a leisured class and such a class wealth, leisure and wealth can be found among large landowners as well as in a mercantile community. After all, Corinth was commercially a fairly advanced city, yet her contributions to literature and philosophy were small: eminence in these fields is no infallible proof of general eminence.

14. ART

At the beginning of this century it was fashionable to see in Ionia the masters of early Greek art. This was the result partly of the too early dating of East Greek finds,'19 partly of the general theory of Ionian pre-eminence; and the two arguments reinforced each other. Further, much was thought Ionian that it has since proved was not. Archaeologists now have discarded Panionism in art,'99 but perhaps this has not been sufficiently advertised. The notes that follow are confined to the three best-known forms of the art of the early Greeks: I have digressed on vase-painting to clarify references made in preceding sections.

(a) Vase-painting During the last twenty-five or thirty years the study of early Greek vase-painting has

advanced far, and there is no general handbook to which to refer with confidence: 200 even the general nomenclature is in part uncertain. The recognised sequence of styles is Proto- geometric, Geometric, Orientalising, and what for want of a better term may be called Archaic.201 Present knowledge is fuller on the later than on the earlier periods, and on Attic and Corinthian than on Cycladic and East Greek styles.

The beginnings of the Geometric style at Athens and Corinth, the two regions where Geometric is even roughly known are set at about goo: 202 it is assumed that it began at about the same time elsewhere. Whatever the causes that created the Geometric style, it was in Athens that it flourished most vigorously: in the East Greek area it was weaker and less disciplined. Soon after the middle of the eighth century new decorative motives were arriving from the art of the Near East-in particular it seems likely from Syria, and, if so, the time suggests by way of Al Mina.203 Under this Oriental influence the rigid formalism of Geo- metric broke up into the freer and more adventurous Orientalising style. This was not an imitation of any particular style current in the Orient, though certain Oriental motives were

198 See above, p. 76, n. 83 and p. 90, n. 90o. 199 See, for instance, A. Rumpf, JdI XLVIII 55-83. 200 E. Buschor, Griechische Vasen (1940), is a generally

reliable account though without a bibliography, but it is difficult to obtain.

201 This narrow use of 'archaic' is, I emphasise, not authoritative. The term 'black-figure,' to describe the technical device of painting figures in full silhouette and rendering inner details by incision, is used also to describe

a style. But this usage is established only in Attic, and even there its upper limit is arbitrary (compare J. D. Beazley, Hesperia XIII 38).

202 W. A. Heurtley, QDAP IV 181: accepted by P. Kahane, AJA XLIV 481; and by S. S. Weinberg, Corinth VII. I, 9. The date is not sure (see R. W. Hamilton, QDAP IV 68).

203 S. Smith, Antiquaries' Journal XXII 1oo-4. See also pp. 78-9 above.



IONIA AND GREECE, 800-600 B.C. 93

adapted: the new pottery was essentially Greek, and developed its borrowings and inventions in an original way. The rise of the Greek Orientalising style was due not only to contact with Oriental art (there had probably been contact before), but also to the exhaustion of the Geometric tradition.

In Corinth the Orientalising style is apparent about 725: 204 it is possible that this new style, the Protocorinthian, was shared between Corinth and Aegina, but the distinction is not yet explored.205 At Athens Protoattic, the local Orientalising style, began rather later round about 700.206 For a time the old-fashioned Geometric continued along with the new Orientalising.207 Elsewhere the transition has not yet been dated surely. Of the Orientalising styles of Old Greece Protocorinthian was foremost: it quickly formed its tradition, based on the new black-figure technique. The use in it of incision, as also the shapes of many Proto- corinthian pots, argue that it was much influenced by metal-work. An Orientalising style with similarities to that of Corinth appeared about as early in Crete: but whether the Orientalising impulse came to Corinth by way of Crete or not,208 it certainly did not come through Ionia. Protoattic owed something to Corinth, but for the rest indulged its often wayward fancy.

In Corinth and Athens the course and relative chronology of the Orientalising styles are clear: it is not so in the field of East Greek art. There the characteristic Orientalising phase was the Wild Goat style, which needs to be divided into several local schools.209 The Wild Goat style inherited little of East Greek Geometric, from which if differs in technique, shapes and content. Unfortunately, little is known of the period of change, which may indeed have been sudden and radical. In Rhodes, in spite of the mass of the finds, there is no sign of a transitional phase. There are a few transitional pieces from Samos, but these are not closely stratified.210 On the other hand, we have a few sherds which show Geometric and Wild Goat style side by side but independent; 211 and the Wild Goat style of these pieces is close to that of the end of the seventh century.

The Wild Goat painters of the full Orientalising-that is, the A-style were not concerned with fineness of line or carefully incised detail; they sketched their figures with quick broad

204 This is the most recent opinion of the date, and is sound; see S. S. Weinberg, AJA XLV 35-7; Corinth VII. I, 33 and 9o.

205 For the Later (Linear) Geometric generally attributed to Corinth Weinberg has made a good case for a division between Corinth and Aegina (AJA XLV 30-44). G. Welter claims a similar division of Protocorinthian, but does not explain why and how (AA 1937, 25-6): if he is right, which I doubt, this would affect the argument in Section 4 in regard to the evidences of Corinthian trade.

206 SeeJ. M. Cook, BSA XXXV 165-2 19 (especially 202-5 for the date when the style began) : R. S. Young, Hesperia, Suppl. II, especially App. I; and AJA XLVI 23-57 (especially 55-7). Cook has Protoattic begin about 71o; Young reduces the date to 690, but the arguments he gives are not beyond doubt.

207 On this belated Geometric, which is generally called Subgeometric when it can be distinguished from Geometric proper, see R. S. Young, Hesperia Suppl. II; S. S. Wein- berg, AJA XLV37-40o. 208 H. G. G. Payne held that Corinth derived from Crete (Necrocorinthia, 5-6; Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei, i i : compare K. F. Johansen, Les Vases sicyoniens, 58-9). S. S. Weinberg does not commit himself beyond suggesting that Aegina was one of Corinth's sources (AJA XLV 43: compare his doubts of a Cretan origin of the aryballos, Corinth VII. I, 22-3 and 87). I suspect that the importance of Crete is exaggerated. Cretan Geometric and Orientalising are little known, the best study being that of H. G. G. Payne, BSA XXIX 224-98; some of his dates must now be lowered-for instance, the' Rhodian' oinochoe no. 176 (pp. 230 and 265, and pl. x, 7) is nearer the end than the middle of the seventh century; see also D. Levi, Annuario, X-XII and Hesperia, XIV 1-32; M. Hartley, BSA XXXI 56-I 14.

The Cretan bronze reliefs have influenced opinions on

the early advent of the Orientalising style in Crete; but they may have been dated much too early (see S. Benton, BSA XXXIX 52-64).

209 Many names have been given to this style-Wild Goat, Camiran, Rhodian, Milesian, Rhodo-Milesian, Rhodo-Ionian: it is best to use the placeless term 'Wild Goat' for the style generically, and to apply local names only to local schools within it. Much of the material now known is probably Rhodian; but I use 'Rhodian' in inverted commas because I am not certain that all I so classify was in fact made in Rhodes.

The later temporal division of the style is not much disputed, though various terms are used. About 6oo Wild Goat pottery (or at least its ' Rhodian ' school) adopts the partial use of the black-figure technique and modifies its draughtsmanship, ornaments and shapes (see BSA XXXIV 2, n. I): this is ' Rhodian ' B or Late ' Rhodian.' What goes before is ' Rhodian ' A: I have tried to split this into Early and Middle 'Rhodian,' the division coming about 64o-63o. A. Rumpf makes the classification of Camiros and Euphorbos styles; these approximate to the A and B styles.

The best account of' Rhodian ' so far is by C. M. Robert- son (JHS LX 8-16). K. Schefold, improving on Rumpf, has made an elaborate and unconvincing arrangement of local schools (JdI LVII 124-42).

210 Apparently transitional: R. Eilmann, AM LVIII, Beil. xxiv. I (= p. 76, fig. 26c); xxvi. 4; xxviii. 8-xxix. I (= pp. 98-9, figs. 40-I). Some primitive experiments in incision: Beil. xxxvii. I; Taf. iv. 2.

211 Both styles together: ibid., Taf. ii-iii. (= p. 86, fig. 32); C. M. Robertson, JHS LX pl. ii. d-e: K. F. Kinch, Vroulia, fig. Io7. Note also the contents of Subgeometric graves in Rhodes in Clara Rhodos III and IV (Checraci).



94 R. M. COOK

brush-strokes, and enlivened them by leaving areas reserved in the lighter ground of the slip and by careless splashes of colour. The effect is at best lively, but never inspired. At first sight the familiar wild goats and the other animals of the repertory give an impression of fresh observation of nature; but the style was limited in its subjects and its representation of them, and a row of Wild Goat oinochoai shows how conservative and barren it was. The Oriental elements in the Wild Goat style were on the whole similar to those received in the styles of old Greece, and may have come from the same source in the Near East; but they were developed differently. Protocorinthian in its technique recalls metal-work; the Wild Goat style is suggestive of textiles.

Of the local schools of Wild Goat pottery the best published is that found in Rhodes and probably made there: at least in Nisyros, an island some forty miles north-west of Rhodes on the route to Ionia and the main East Greek cities, a clumsy provincial relative occurred which has been found nowhere else and is therefore presumably local,212 and if Nisyros had a local pottery it is likely that Rhodes had one, too. What little is known of the pottery current at Ephesus 213 and Miletus 214 suggests that they did not have local styles much different from that of Rhodes; or if they differed much, they do not seem to have been exported to colonial sites. The excavations of the Germans at the Heraeum of Samos are published only in part: 215 that island may well have had a distinct local school. Chios developed a characteristic variety, of which little is known before the end of the seventh century.216

? In southern Aeolis there was

a provincial version of the Wild Goat style, wild in its decoration and monstrous in its shapes: 217

this Aeolian has been found in Old Smyrna and Larisa, in the former in about equal measure to ' Rhodian ' and in the latter to bucchero: to judge from casual finds at Myrina and Pitane Aeolian was presumably the common painted ware there.218 In northern Aeolis bucchero

212 Clara Rhodos, VI-VII 475-543 passim. 213 D. G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus, 218-31 (C.

Smith): J. Keil, OJh XXIII Beiblatt 253-6, figs. 44-7. Hogarth's finds of pottery are in the British Museum and Stamboul, Keil's in Vienna University.

214 The early pottery from T. Wiegand's excavations has never been published: it is, or was till recently, in the Museum at Berlin, but not on view. There were also a few sherds in Smyrna Museum (one by the same hand as the Middle 'Rhodian' sherd from Naucratis published in JHS XLIV pl. 8, 9): a fair number in Bonn (largely '

Corinthian'): a few in Marburg; two in Berlin Univer- sity (D. 88); one in the Louvre (CA 2249, very fine Wild Goat style-cf. Berlin University, D. 90o, from Sardis).

In 1938 there was a little further excavation, briefly reported by C. Weickert, Bericht iiber d. VI internat. Kongress f. Archdologie, 1939, 325-32: the best of the pottery found went to the museum at Smyrna.

215 W. Technau, AM LIV 6-64: R. Eilmann, AM LVIII 47-145.

216 Commonly called ' Naucratite,' but this was probably made in Chios: see W. Lamb, BSA XXXV 158-6 1 (cf. JHS LVII 228, n. 9). The course of development in this ware has not been studied: the two ' chalices ' Wiirzburg KI28 and K129 (E. Langlotz, Griechische Vasen, pls. 13 and 14) are evidence of a canonical Wild Goat school in the late seventh century, and the figure style I imagine belongs rather to the sixth.

217 A good sample of Aeolian is a kotyle about 40 cm. high, with three main zones of decoration: I have noticed lotus flowers as much as 18 cm. high. Typical published pieces are J. Boehlau, Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen, figs. 38-43 (Berlin Inv. 3136: this is the rim probably of a deep bowl) and fig. 44: and K. Schefold, AA 1933, 151-2, figs. 9-10 (these pieces are in Stamboul). Note, for example, the continuous strips of pendent triangles and roundels, where' Rhodian ' would employ isolated roundels; the similarly angular version of the 'Rhodian' double loop; the use of two shades of red. The shapes match the drawing: for instance, there are oinochoai with rotelles at the base as well as the upper attachment of the handle-in the metal prototype of the shape rotelles served to clip the

handle to the lip, but they had no function at the base of the handle.

The chief find of Aeolian pottery was made at Larisa in Aeolis, and has now been published by K..Schefold in Larisa am Hermos III (1942): see also the same author in JdI LVII 124-42. Since I disagree in much with Schefold and these publications are not easy to find in this country, I have left my account unaltered.

218 Old Smyrna: F. and H. Miltner, OJh XXVII Beiblatt 127-88: the finds are in Vienna University. The site deserves further excavation. The Aeolian element in the finds is not brought out by the published selection.

Larisa: The first campaign of excavation was by J. Boehlau and L. Kjellberg in 1902: the stone architectural members are in Stamboul, the pottery in G6ttingen, the terracotta slabs in Stockholm and Stamboul. Excavation was resumed in 1932-4: the finds are in Stamboul. See Larisa am Hermos I (I 940)-architecture, ii. (1940)-terracotta slabs, iii. (1942)-pottery: parts i. and iii., published in Germany during the war, are now rare. A few pots and sherds are published elsewhere: AA 1933, 141-58, figs. 9-10o and 1934, 363-4IO, figs. 29-30 (in reports on the later excavation); Boehlau, Nekr., fig. 37, figs. 38-43 (Berlin Inv. 3136), fig. 44; AA 1936, 372-6 no. 22, and figs. 25-6 (Bonn 1523).

Myrina: E. Pottier and S. Reinach excavated a Hellenistic cemetery in 1880-2, and also found a few early remains. These are in the Louvre, numbered under the serial B56I (fragments of amphorae and a stemmed dish). The best amphora is published in BCH VIII 509-14 (pl. vii, fairly coloured, and two figures). There are also sherds in the British Museum (84. 2-9. 6, 7 and 8).

Pitane: Stamboul 2294, dish (G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, Hist. d'Art IX, fig. 203) ; Stamboul (?), fragment of oinochoe (ibid., fig. 201); perhaps Stamboul 2270, dish: compare also the painted sarcophagus from Pitane in Stamboul.

A few Aeolian pots were exported. I have noticed possible specimens from Nisyros (Clara Rhodos VI-VII 506-8, figs. 33-5); Vroulia in Rhodes (K.J. Kinch, Vroulia, pl. 20, 2) ; Chios (BSA XXXV 162, pl. 37, 31); perhaps also Istria (M. Lambrino, Les Vases Archaiques d'Histria, ch. viii, nos. 30 and 33); perhaps Massilia (G. Vasseur, l'Origine de Marseilles, pl. vii. 1, 4, 6). G. Bakalakis reports Aeolian




was probably preferred: it was (apart from coarse wares) general at Antissa in Lesbos,219 and at Larisa was about as frequent as the painted pottery.

In Rhodes alone is there any considerable evidence for the dating of the Wild Goat style, but the grave-groups take it back only to about 625. Yet only a small number of pieces have been found that are stylistically earlier, and this in an island as busily ransacked as Rhodes is significant.220 Exploration of East Greek sites generally has been unlucky, but there is no sign yet of a long evolution from Geometric to the Wild Goat style.221 It does not therefore seem likely that the rise of the Wild Goat style and the end of Geometric proper happened much before the middle of the seventh century: this late dating has the support of the survival of Geometric till about 6oo in the East Greek bird-bowls.222 If this is right, it follows that East Greek Geometric was for close on a century in touch through Al Mina with Oriental art and yet was not much affected by it. If, on the other hand, the Orientalising phase of East Greek art began earlier, its development was more sluggish than I have supposed. In any case there is no evidence or likelihood that a Mycenaean tradition survived in Ionia to be reinvigorated by the new impulses from the Orient.

About 6oo the Wild Goat style was strongly infected by Corinthian: this is clearest in 'Rhodian,' where the new phase is called ' Rhodian ' B or Late' Rhodian.' The old reserving technique survives, usually in a debased form, but alongside develops a heavy and clumsy black-figure. This last phase seems to have lasted about a quarter of a century, and then the ' Rhodian' Wild Goat pottery petered out. The tradition was not, however, wholly lost: it re-appeared much altered in Fikellura, and then outlasted the sixth century on the painted terracotta sarcophagi found at Clazomenae and in Rhodes.

The contrast between the Corinthian (or more precisely the Protocorinthian) and the Wild Goat styles has been well described by H. G. G. Payne.223 The style of Corinth was progressive and capable of experiment. The Wild Goat style was content with an unambitious mediocrity: the typical oinochoe pleases by its decorative effect, but that is all. It is not surprising that it exerted no influence beyond the Aegean. East Greek pottery is rare at sites in European Greece; Corinthian and in the sixth century Attic are common at East Greek sites. A very few local imitations of East Greek bird-bowls have been found at Sparta 224 and Corinth,225 and there are occasional borrowings in the sixth century. In East Greek art pointed aryballoi after the Corinthian were found at Vroulia in Rhodes in graves of the latter part of the seventh century; 226 a close imitation of a Corinthian olpe of the third quarter of that century comes from Camiros; 227 and about 6oo Corinthian invades and ultimately destroys 'Rhodian.' In the sixth century both Fikellura and Clazomenian are indebted to Attic black-figure. The art of the Cyclades is little known; it is, however, obvious that the so-called Melian style received some East Greek as well as Corinthian influence.228 But all in all East Greek vase-painting was not distinguished.

from Kavalla (ITpaKc-rnK 1938, 80; I have not seen these finds nor photos of them).

The sherd Louvre CA 2244(?) from Amisos, if not Aeolian, has a similar relation to ' Rhodian' (see above, p. 82, n. 138). Compare also the sherd from Sardis (AJA XXVI 395, fig. 4); perhaps the dish Stamboul 5597, also from Sardis, and Berlin Inv. 4673 from Gordion (G. and A. Korte, Gordion, pl. 10, 37).

There is an Aeolian quality in some pieces from northern Ionia: e.g., Bonn 2332 (A. Greifenhagen, AA 1936, 378, no. 26 and fig. 28, from Clazomenae: note the many- petalled flower). Compare some fragments from Ephesus in Vienna University (one published in JIh XXIII (1926), Beiblatt 253 fig. 45 bottom); and in the British Museum (D. G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus, pl. 49, 2, 3, 5)- 219 See W. Lamb, BSA XXXII 51. So also in Troy VIII (C. G. Boulter, AJA XLII I2I).

220 There is, it is true, a shortage of recorded grave-groups for the second quarter of the sixth century: but a long gap to account for an extended transitional and early Oriental- ising period is harder to credit.

221 See above, p. 93.

222 Compare the subgeometric kotylai from Vroulia in Rhodes (K. J. Kinch, Vroulia, pls. xxxvi. 2, 35 and 39; xliii. 27, I) in contexts generally of the last third of the seventh century. (The finds from Vroulia are, I believe, in Stamboul, but were mostly found in too poor a state to be exhibited.) C. M. Robertson in his study of Al Mina makes some good comments on 'Rhodian' (JHS LX 8-16): though he does not commit himself to a date for its beginning, I take it he, too, inclines to make it late.

223 Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei, 17-19- 224 E. A. Lane, BSA XXXIV I 5 (and fig. 9). In all there

are sherds of perhaps a dozen bowls which may be derived from East Greek.

225 S. S. Weinberg, Corinth VII I, no. 308 (pl. 37): this piece is indebted to the rosette bowls, which derived from the bird-bowls.

226 Cf. K. F. Kinch, Vroulia, 75- 227 Rhodes 14709 (Clara Rhodos VI-VII 355, fig. 102). 228 Melos seems geographically remote for East Greek

influence: one would expect this class of pottery to have been made somewhere round Naxos.



96 R. M. COOK

(b) Sculpture Before the seventh century it is not likely that there was any monumental sculpture among

the Greeks; indeed, it would have been alien to the spirit of Geometric art.229 The first style of Greek sculpture which we know was the Daedalic,230 which flourished in Crete, Sparta, Corinth and Rhodes,231 the finest school being (I fancy) the Corinthian. It seems that Daedalic did not affect Attica, which developed a strongly individual tradition.232 The

contemporary sculpture of the Cyclades and of Ionia cannot be judged for lack of certain

specimens; it may be that the range of Daedalic was wider than is commonly thought. For instance, one of the earliest surviving Daedalic statues, that of Nikandre, was found in Delos; 233

fragments of a similar statue were found by the Germans in their fruitful excavation at the Heraeum in Samos, but though much archaic sculpture was unearthed this was the only piece as early as the seventh century.234 Again the finds from the earliest deposit at the Ephesian Artemision, which probably belong mostly to the end of the seventh century,235 include a bronze statuette reminiscent of Daedalic.236 In any case there is no evidence of an advanced and individual school of Ionian sculpture in the seventh century: such ivory figurines as that of the 'Priest' from Ephesus,237 which is not much earlier than 6oo, cannot be used to illustrate a monumental style of sculpture, since as can readily be seen its miniature style will not bear

enlargement. This and other of the Ephesus figurines have attracted notice because of their connexions with Oriental art, and it has sometimes been claimed that they form the link between the sculpture of the Orient and of Greece: this may be true for Ionia, but the Daedalic style has a discipline utterly distinct. At present it seems likely that Corinth had the finest school of seventh century sculpture.

About 62o the Daedalic style dissolved and was succeeded by the Archaic styles. The material is rich, and the distinction between local schools becomes clearer. Ionia favoured fleshiness and an elaboration of surface detail in strong contrast to the severer styles of old Greece. In the middle of the sixth century, it is true, the Ionian type of the standing female affected sculptors of Attica, but as H. G. G. Payne remarked the adaptations are often superior to the models.238 Admittedly Ionian or at least Cycladic sculptors were employed in old Greece during the sixth century; but so too were sculptors from old Greece in Ionia.239 The exaggerated opinions once held on Ionian sculpture were based partly on over-early dating, partly on a definition of Ionian which included much work of other schools.240 Though there is much to be learnt of the art of early Ionia, the development of sculpture in old Greece is generally intelligible in itself without the influence of the Greeks of Asia.

(c) Architecture

To judge by the textbooks (from which comes my small acquaintance) 241 the public buildings of the early Hellenes were simple and unpretentious: methods of construction were similar on both sides of the Aegean, and so, too, were the plans which might be rectangular or apsidal. Later, perhaps in the seventh century, increased resources led to a more extensive

229 See R. J. H. Jenkins, Dedalica, pp. xiv-xv, and the references there mentioned: add V. Miiller, Metr. Mus. Studies V 157-69. What may be an earlier stone figure has been found at Levidhi in Arcadia (D. Burr (Thompson), AJA, XXXI 169-76 (figs. 1-4); V. Muiller, op. cit., 165, fig. I I) : its very stylelessness argues against its belonging to an earlier tradition of sculpture. The base at Samos to which Jenkins refers may have supported a cult figure; but that is not the same as saying that there was then a sculptural style.

230 R. J. H. Jenkins has discussed this style with admirable lucidity in his Dedalica (I936); he is perhaps too positive in some of his statements.

231 That Rhodes should have accepted the Daedalic style is noteworthy, since although' Dorian' its vase-painting was East Greek.

232 See R. J. H. Jenkins, op. cit., xii, 18, and 22-4. 233 R. J. H. Jenkins, op. cit., 68-7o.

234 R. J. H. Jenkins, op. cit., 70-1: E. Buschor, Alt- samische Standbilder II. 23-4 and figs. 72, 73, 75.

235 See above, p. 90, n. 190. 236 D. G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus, pl. 14- 237 D. G. Hogarth, op. cit., pls. 21, 2; 24, 7 and Ii. 238 Archaic Marble Sculpture, 62: the photographs of G. M.

Young drive the point home. 239 See A. Rumpf, Critica d'Arte 1938, 46. 240 See most recently H. G. G. Payne, Archaic Marble

Sculpture, 55-63; and A. Rumpf, Critica d'Arte 1938, 41-8. Rumpf argues that the north and east friezes of the Siphnian Treasury are in fact Attic work, and also certain sculptured fragments from columns of the Artemision at Ephesus: on the Siphnian Treasury I agree, but I do not feel sure about the Ephesus fragments, nor that the sculptor was Endoios.

241 Particularly D. S. Robertson, Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture 2 (1943)




use of stone and the elaboration of architectural styles: in Asiatic Greece the Ionic order evolved, in European the Doric. Though the general plan was similar there was a strong decorative distinction between the two styles of architecture, and it is therefore likely that

they developed in some isolation from each other as did the corresponding styles of vase- painting. Of early Doric we know something, but exploration has been less lucky in East Greek lands: it is not yet possible to compare the two architectural styles in their early stages. The Aeolic column capitals which have been found in Larisa, Neandria and Lesbos have been claimed as prototypes of the orthodox Ionic capital,242 but they cannot yet be dated. The architectural inquiry does not throw light on our problem.

It appears then that the early lonians were on the whole almost as backward in art as they were forward in literature. If, therefore, literature and art are good criteria of general progress, there is on these scores little to choose between Ionia and old Greece. One may, if one wishes, note that in the eighth and seventh centuries there were more artists than poets, and that therefore art was the more popular expression of culture: but I should not care to press so

sophistical a point. It is a common pastime to find in Greek vase-painting connexions with historical events

or traditions. Thus the rise of the Bacchiads and the accession of Cypselus have, according to some, left their marks in the pottery of Corinth. Such speculations are premature: 243

the influence of Solon and of Pisistratus cannot even probably be traced in the sixth century vase-painting of Athens (for the development and popularity of Attic black-figure seems to

begin earlier), and more notably Spartan art has not yet been unambiguously related to the introduction of the Lycurgan constitution as that event is often dated. There is also the extreme school, which has the faith to see in art the reflection of contemporary society and economy: an able scholar has lately recognised the Geometric style as the expression of a feudal system. More must be learnt of early Greek art, and of early Greek history, before such inquiries can become useful.

15. THE NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

Lastly one may inquire whether the development of old Greece in the eight and seventh centuries can be reasonably explained without any considerable influence from Ionia. Generally it both can be and is so explained. Little is known of Greece and less of Ionia in that period: it seems, however, that Ionian civilisation had a more Oriental colour. But such borrowings as the European Greeks made from the Orient need not have come by way of

Ionia; and they seem to have been unaffected by the Asiatic elements in Ionian religion. The ancient writers made no great claims for the lonians as the civilisers of their mother- country; and the moderns in fact pay them little more than formal tribute. In most historical textbooks the growth in old Greece of Hellenism is treated as if it was spontaneous, or at least local.244

16. CONCLUSION

Such is the evidence, so far as I know it; I do not pretend to have probed far. In literature without doubt the early Ionians led. But in art they were behind the most advanced of the Greeks of Europe; they were later to found colonies; of their commercial

242 See D. S. Robertson, op. cit., 57-61; IK. Schefold, OJh XXXI (1938), 42-52. It seems that there are two opinions of the Aeolic capital, (a) that it represents the primitive Ionic capital, (b) that the origins of the two (so far as it concerned the Greeks) were independent. This latter theory seems to me unlikely in view of the character of Aeolian vase-painting (see above, pp. 94-5): it is more credible that the Aeolic capital is a provincial version of

an early Ionic. The Doric elements in the temple at Assos in the Troad

may also be explained by the provincial weakness of Aeolian art.

243 But see now H. R. W. Smith, The Hearst Hydria (1944), 254-66: Smith gives ingenious support from archaeological evidence to Beloch's lower dating of the Cypselids. 244 Compare J. B. Bury, History of Greece 2, p. ix.

H JHS.-VOL. LXVI.



98 IONIA AND GREECE, 8oo-6oo B.C.

priority there is no trace. Ionians were the first Greeks to use coins, perhaps simply because

they were the nearest to Lydia. In other fields there are not the facts on wbich to form an

opinion. My tentative conclusion is that we do not know enough to say definitely whether in the eighth and seventh centuries the Ionians were generally the pioneers of Greek progress,, but that on the present evidence it is at least as probable that they were not. For the future it is careful excavation, and particularly iri Ionia, that has the best hope of bringing light into these dark centuries of Greek history.

R. M. COOK. Museum of Classical Archaeology,

Cambridge.



cook, r.m. - ionia and greece in the 8th and 7th century bc

Documents

colonisation of ionia

geographical ionia

jstor terms

jstor archive

paper ionian

journal of hellenic

hellenic culture

east greek