¹ Ghali-Kahil, L., Études Thasiennes VII, La Céramique Grecque (Paris, 1960) 11.Google Scholar By contrast we have considerable knowledge of later cemeteries; see BCH lxxviii (1954) 225–51.

² For the sanctuaries and dates see Bernard, P., BCH lxxxviii (1964) 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Pouilloux, J., Études Thasiennes III, Recherches sur l'Histoire et les cultes de Thasos (Paris, 1954) 14f.Google Scholar; Id. ‘Archiloque et Thasos: histoire et poésie’, Fond. Hardt x (1963) 14; Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas ² (London, 1973) 225.Google Scholar

³ See, for example, Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III, 22ff.Google Scholar; Fond. Hardt x. 22; Bernard, op. cit. 142; Boardman, ibid.; and my remark in JHS xci (1971) 36. L. H. Jeffery puts Thasos c. 700 in Archaic Greece (London, 1976)

⁴ Boardman, ibid.

⁵ Bernard, P., ‘Céramiques de la première moitié du VII^e siècle à Thasos’, BCH lxxxviii (1964) 77–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar; hereinafter I refer to this paper by the author's name alone.

⁶ Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III, 22 ff., includes abundant references to the earlier literature (cf. also his later treatment, Fond. Hardt x. 3 ff.). The ancient evidence was usefully collected by Jacobs, E., Thasiaca (Berlin, 1893) 6–12Google Scholar, and by Fredrich, C., IG xii. 8 pp. 74 ff.Google ScholarJacoby, F., ‘The date of Archilochus’, CQ xxxv (1941) 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is the most important treatment of the chronology.

⁷ See Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, H., Arch. Eph. 1970 (Chron.) 16–22Google Scholar, and AAA iii (1970) 215–22. For the positions of the sites see Lazaridis, D., Thasos and its Peraia (Athens, 1971) figs. 20, 23, 26, etc.Google Scholar

⁸ Arch. Delt. (Chron.) xx (1965) 447–51; cf. xxiv (1969) 349–51; AAA vi (1973) 230–40.

⁹ See the list of sceptics assembled by Salviat, F. and Servais, J., BCH lxxxviii (1964) 282 f.Google Scholar; cf. also Boardman, op. cit. 224.

¹⁰ ‘Stèle indicatrice Thasienne trouvée au sanctuaire d'Aliki’, BCH lxxxviii (1964) 267–87, especially 278–84.

¹¹ ‘Sanctuaires d'Hercule-Melqart’, Syria xliv (1967) 73–109. 307–36.

¹² See n. 5 above; I use Bernard's terminology.

¹³ In addition to the general plan of Thasos and the excavations, reproduced from Guide de Thasos (Paris, 1968) fig. 4, see the plan in BCH lxxxv (1961) fig. 1, opp. p. 918.

¹⁴ Bernard, 78; Daux, , BCH lxxxv (1961) 931–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bernard, 83. Compare his fig. 3 with BCH lxxviii (1954) fig. 8, opp. p. 192. For the general position of the Champ Dimitriadis section, see the general plan FIG. I (n. 13 above) and BCH lxxxvi (1962) fig. 1 p. 935.

¹⁶ As Bernard, 85.

¹⁷ Bernard, 83–6; BCH lxxxvi (1962) 938.

¹⁸ Bernard, 86, and figs. 3 and 4 (walls e andf).

¹⁹ BCH lxxxv (1961) 935.

²⁰ Bernard, 87 and fig. 2.

²¹ Bernard, 87.

²² Bernard, 85: ‘deux couches très minces d'une terre noirâtre mêlée de charbons, séparées par une couche de terre sablonneuse.’

²³ Bernard, 87.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Bernard, fig. 2 and 81 f.

²⁶ Bernard, fig. 2.

²⁷ P. 87.

²⁸ Bernard, 80 f. and fig. 1.

²⁹ Ibid, and fig. 2.

³⁰ Bernard, 82 and fig. 6.

³¹ Bernard, 82 f.

³² These important early houses at Old Smyrna have not yet been properly published. Brief descriptions, photographs, and reconstructions drawn by R. Nicholls, are to be found in Akurgal, E., Die Kunst Anatoliens (Berlin, 1961) 9 ff., 301.Google Scholar Cf. also the briefer accounts in AJA lxvi (1962) 369 ff., and Drerup, H., Griech. Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (Arch. Homerica II ch. O; Göttingen, 1969) 44–7.Google Scholar

³³ In his review of Drerup, (Gnomon xliv [1972] 698–704)Google Scholar Nicholls has pointed out that the figures on p. 301 of Akurgal, op. cit., are miscaptioned. Fig. 3 is a rectangular house (not apsidal); fig. 4 is the same protogeometric oval house illustrated in fig. 1 (and p. 9 with Abb. 1 = AJA lxvi [1962] pl. 96 fig. 3).

³⁴ Nicholls, p. 700.

³⁵ Compare Salviat's, description, ‘ces huttes assez primitives’; Actes du VIII^e Congrès Internat. d'Archéologie Classique, Paris, 1963 (1965) 302.Google Scholar

³⁶ Pp. 131–6.

³⁷ Pp. 126–31.

³⁸ See p. 134.

³⁹ JHS xxxii (1962) 130.

⁴⁰ Ibid.

⁴¹ E.g. nos. 163, 165 (p. 128).

⁴² Bernard, 126. See, for example, the excellent discussion of the very numerous examples from the great cemetery at Vergina; Andronikos, M., Vergina I (Athens, 1969) 194 ff.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bernard, 126; Robinson, David M., Excavations at Olynthus V (Baltimore and London, 1933) 49.Google Scholar The obstacles in the way of establishing the typology and chronology of these jugs are well emphasized by Andronikos, ibid. The brave attempt by Hammond to organize the chronology of Early Macedonia, Iron Age (History of Macedonia I [Oxford, 1972] ch. xv)Google Scholar shows its great difficulties and complexity, and offers little for the pottery.

⁴⁴ Bernard, 130; Olynthus V pls. 23,24; for the chronology, pp. 15 fr., 47–63, and XIII 3 ff. Hammond assumes that Iron Age Olynthus begins c. 650; op. cit. 358 f. He uses the literary evidence about the expulsion of the Bottiaeans from Macedonia (Thuc. II. 99. 3, 100. 2; cf. Hdt. VIII 139). While that may give us a (very approximate) date for the arrival of the Bottiaeans in the area, it is clear that the excavators did not envisage that arrival as the beginning of Iron Age settlement at Olynthus, which they put long before; see Olynthus XIII, 2. On the evidence that they found, the Bottiaean arrival offers no archaeological date for material at Olynthus.

⁴⁵ As Bernard, 126.

⁴⁶ Cf. Salviat, Actes du VIII^e Congrès, etc. 302: ‘Il n'est pas exclu que certains de ces vases aient été effectivement importés de Macédoine.’

⁴⁷ Bernard, 124; Olynthus V pl. 22, pp. 23–4.

⁴⁸ Bernard, 124; Olynthus V p. 50.

⁴⁹ Bernard, 109–15.

⁵⁰ Bernard provides a good discussion and bibliography, ibid.

⁵¹ Blegen, C., Boulter, C. G., Caskey, J. L., Rawson, Marion, Troy IV (Princeton, 1958) 253.Google Scholar

⁵² Cf. Coldstream, J. N., Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968) 376Google Scholar; Cook, J. M., Troad (Oxford, 1973) 101Google Scholar, citing the Oxford thesis of N. P. Bayne, who thinks that ‘the grey ware and sparse geometric (at Troy) would go back a good deal earlier than 700 B.c.’.

⁵³ Et. Thas. VII. 45 f.

⁵⁴ Bernard, 116–23.

⁵⁵ Troy IV fig. 302, 2a-2d (p. 279); fig. 310, 21, 22–4 (p. 296).

⁵⁶ Cf. Troy IV 273, 294.

⁵⁷ As suggested already by Ghali-Kahil, L., Et. Thas. VII 33Google Scholar; also Bernard, 116.

⁵⁸ Bernard, 88–105. At least one fragment of this ware was found earlier on Thasos; see Et.Thas. VII plate xxiii, 50 (cf. Bernard, 98 f.).

⁵⁹ Troy IV 253–5.

⁶⁰ Bernard, 88–90.

⁶¹ Bernard, 90.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ See Bernard, 106. On the dating of the G 2–3 Ware from Troy, see below p. 68.

⁶⁴ Bernard, 105–9. A small number of sherds of this Lemnian pottery were found before the excavations of 1960 and 1961; see Et. Thas. VII, 41 f., 1–3 (pl. xiv 1–3); cf. Bernard, 107–9; and some more were found in excavations in the Champ Dimitriadis in 1962; see BCH lxxxvii (1963) 846.

⁶⁵ Mustilli, D., ‘La necropoli tirrenica di Efestia’, ASA xv–xvi (1932–3) 243, 222–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Op. cit. 243.

⁶⁷ Pp. 88–105.

⁶⁸ BSA xxxii (1931–2) 41–67; see her plate 23 and the comments on p. 254 of Troy IV.

⁶⁹ Op. cit. 56.

⁷⁰ Op. cit. 45.

⁷¹ Op. cit. 47.

⁷² Cf. the ‘percolation’ of sherds mentioned on p. 45.

⁷³ Troy IV 254; Bernard, 93.

⁷⁴ See Bernard, 88.

⁷⁵ Ibid. For brief general accounts of these excavations, see ASA x–xii (1927–9) 712 f.; xii–xiv (1930–1) 499 f.; n.s. i–ii (1939–40) 223 f.; cf. Arch. Eph. 1937, 629–54.

⁷⁶ On the stratigraphy see Troy III 158; IV 280. The arguments on the date of the ware are well set out at IV 254 (cf. 249 f.), though the authors' ignorance of the Lemnian material is remarkable (cf. Bernard, 89, who, perhaps charitably, assumed that they were consciously excluding it from discussion).

⁷⁷ Professor R. M. Cook, who kindly discussed this. pottery with me, thought it should be of the seventh century by style.

⁷⁸ On the date of the beginning of Troy VIII, see above p. 67.

⁷⁹ Hesp. xxi (1952) 20, 33–7, especially 34 f.; plates 3–10.

⁸⁰ See Lehmann, K., Samothrace, A giade⁴ etc. (New York, 1975) 61 f.Google Scholar; cf. the plan of the site at end. In Hesp. xxi the area was called ‘the precinct on the Central Terrace’.

⁸¹ Hesp. xxi (1952) 35.

⁸² Ibid. From Guide⁴, 15 and Lehmann, P. W., Skopas in Samothrace (Northampton, Mass., 1973) 2 f.Google Scholar, it appears that this is still accepted doctrine.

⁸³ The area has been dug officially twice, and has been much damaged by natural erosion, illicit digging, and agricultural operations. All this in addition to repeated rearrangement in antiquity. See Lehmann, , Hesp. xxi 19–21Google Scholar and plates 3–8.

⁸⁴ Op. cit. 37.

⁸⁵ Bernard, 140, fig. 52 (no. 220); see also 142.

⁸⁶ These famous cups are discussed by, among others, Desborough, V., Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford, 1952) 180–94Google Scholar; Hanfmann, G. M. A., The Aegean and the Near East: Studies presented to Hetty Goldman (New York, 1956) 173–5Google Scholar; and Coldstream, J. N., Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968) 156 f., 310 f.Google ScholarBuchholz, H. G., Berl. Jahr.f. Vor- und Frühgesch. v (1965) 224–31Google Scholar, provided a comprehensive list (with bibliography) of finds to that date, and Riis', P. J. useful discussion in Sukas I (Copenhagen, 1970)Google Scholar is particularly valuable for their distribution in the East. For the chronological conclusions drawn from their supposed absence from the West, see especially Boardman, J., JHS lxxxv (1965) 12 n. 27Google Scholar; cf. Greek Emporio (BSA Suppl. 6; London, 1967) 117, and Desborough, V., AA 1963, 206Google Scholar. In Dial. di Arch. iii (1969) 118 f. Boardman's statement about chronology is more in tune with the evidence as a whole. For examples found in the west, see BSA lxviii (1973) 191 f., where there is a useful general discussion of the shape by O. T. P. K. Dickinson; NSc. xxvi (1972) 256 fig. 36 (p. 246).

⁸⁷ I am indebted to Professor J. N. Coldstream for information on this point. On the new Eretria, see the brief, clear, account by Auberson, Paul, ‘Chalcis, Lefkandi, Erétrie au VIII^e siècle’, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bernard II (Naples, 1975) 9–14.Google Scholar For skyphoi with pendent concentric semicircles at Eretria, see AAA iii (1970) 314 ff.

⁸⁸ Actes du VIII^e Congrès etc. (Paris, 1965) 299–303; see especially 302 f.

⁸⁹ BCH lxxxvi (1962) 936: ‘vestiges d'un habitat qui semble avoir précédé l'occupation parienne …’; cf. lxxxv (1961) 936: ‘poterie indigène contemporaine de la colonisation parienne ou même antérieure à celle-ci.’

⁹⁰ See especially Salviat, ibid., though the facts are more fully presented in Bernard, passim. On the Cycladic influences after c. 650, see also Boardman, Greek Overseas², 225.

⁹¹ See Bernard, 143 f., where these arguments are briefly listed together with useful bibliographical notes.

⁹² For this and what follows, see his ‘Conclusion’, 142–6.

⁹³ His italics, p. 144.

⁹⁴ Bernard, 145.

⁹⁵ Bernard, 146.

⁹⁶ Fond. Hardt X, Archiloque (Geneva, 1964) 1–27.

⁹⁷ Op. cit. 15.

⁹⁸ See his description of the Thracian inhabitants, 14 f., and especially the remark (15) that these habitations were perhaps discovered by Telesicles when he came to found the new city.

⁹⁹ Op. cit. 15 f.

¹⁰⁰ Op. cit. 22 f., 16f.; see also Et. Thas. Ill 25f., 330.

¹⁰¹ Kondoleon, , in the Discussion, Fond. Hardt x. 36.Google Scholar

¹⁰² For the position of the sites, see Lazaridis, D., Thasos and its Peraia (Athens, 1971) figs. 20, 23, 26Google Scholar, etc. The investigations at the two sites are published by Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, H., in Arch. Eph. (Chr.) 1970, 16–22Google Scholar, and AAA iii (1970) 215–22.

¹⁰³ Arch. Eph. (Chr.) 1970, 18 f.

¹⁰⁴ See Hammond, , History of Macedonia I, 328 ff., 340 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Arch.Eph. (Chr.) 18, 1970, 21f.

¹⁰⁶ AAA iii (1970) 220.

¹⁰⁷ Op. cit. 215 f.

¹⁰⁸ AAA vi (1973) 240.

¹⁰⁹ Actes du VIII^e Congrès d'Arch. Class. 302. In the Guide de Thasos (preface by G. Daux, Paris, 1967) 2, a compromise is attempted: ‘vestiges d'habitations qui pourraient correspondre à une phase légèrement antérieure à l'installation des colons’.

¹¹⁰ Cf. Jacoby, , ‘The date of Archilochus’, CQ xxxv (1941) 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereinafter simply Jacoby), especially 102 f. For the literary evidence, see Jacobs, E., Thasiaca (Berlin, 1893) 6–12Google Scholar; IG XII. 8 pp. 74 ff. (C. Fredrich, 1909); RE s.v. Thasos 1310–27 (F. Hiller von Gärtringen, 1934); Pouilloux, J., Et. Thas. III 22 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Thuc. IV 104.4; Strabo, X, 487.

¹¹² Hdt. II 44. 3–4; VI 47. 1; Ps-Scymnus 659–64; Apoll. Bibl. II 5. 9. 3–5 and 13; IG XIV 1293A, 83–4.

¹¹³ Ed. Schoene, II 34; Hieronymus, Chron. ed. Helm, P. (Die Griech. Christi. Schrifts. d. erst. Jahrh., Eusebius VII; Berlin, 1956) 48b.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Cf. Jacobs, op. cit. 12; note the express connection of Thasus and Cadmus in Ps-Scymnus, loc. cit.

¹¹⁵ Stromata I 131.7 (Die Griech. Christl. Schrifts. etc., Clem. Alex. II, Berlin, 1960, p. 81).

¹¹⁶ It is universally taken to come from Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Χρόνοι; see Jacoby, 99 n. 1 and FGH 251 fr. 3, with commentary ad loc.

¹¹⁷ Jacoby, 102 n. 4; Blakeway, A., ‘The date of Archilochus’, in Greek Poetry and Life. Essays presented to Gilbert Murray (Oxford, 1936) 51.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Jacoby, 100 with nn. 1 and 2; 99 n. 2; 103 n. 2; Blakeway, op. cit. 50.

¹¹⁹ This rather simple statement is enough for our present purposes. For the many complicated questions about the character and aims of the Stromata, see Méhat, André, Étude sur les ‘Stromates’ de Clement d'Alexandrie (Patristica Sorbonensia 7, Paris, 1966).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ ναὶ μὴν καὶ Τέρπανδρον ἀρχαἱӡουσί τινες (I. 131. 6.).

¹²¹ That this is the correct translation of γεγονέναι, and not ‘was born’, was shown in general by Rhode, , Rh. Mus. xxxiii (1878) 162 f.Google Scholar

¹²² i.e. Phainias of Eresos; see Jacoby, 100 n. 1.

¹²³ Ἑλλάνικος γοῦν τοῦτον ἱστορεῖ κατὰ Μίδαν γεγονέναι, Φανίας δὲ πρὸ Τερπάνδρου τιθεὶς Λέσχην τὸν Λέσβιον ᾿Αρχιλόχου νεώτερον φέρει τὸν Τέρπανδρον, διημιλλῆσθαι δὲ τὸν Λέσχην ᾿Αρκτίνῳ καὶ νενικηκέναι Ξάνθος δὲ ὁ Λυδὸς περὶ τὴν ὀκτωκαιδεκάτην ὀλυμπιάδα (ὡς δὲ Διονύσιος, περὶ τὴν πεντεκαιδεκάτην) Θάσον ἐκτίσθαι, ὡς εἴναι συμφανὲς τὸν ᾿Αρχίλοχον μετὰ τὴν εἰκοστὴν ἤδη γνωριӡεσθαι ὀλυμπιάδα μέμνηται γοῦν καὶ τῆς Μαγνήτων ἀπωλείας προσφάτως γεγενημένης κτλ.

¹²⁴ Potter, John; see Clementis Alexandri Opera (Oxford, 1715) p. 398 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ 99 n. 2.

¹²⁶ Op. cit. 50 f.

¹²⁷ Ibid.

¹²⁸ 100 n. 3.

¹²⁹ See Christ, W., Abh. Bayr. Akad. xxi, 3 (1901) 509.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Jacoby, 100 n. 3.

¹³¹ Jacoby, 103 n. 2.

¹³² Blakeway, op. cit. 51.

¹³³ Jacoby, ibid.

¹³⁴ Here Jacoby followed the false lead of Blakeway, even though he disagreed in detail.

¹³⁵ von Gutschmid, A., Kleine Schriften (Leipsig, 1892) III 474Google Scholar, but first published in 1885. See, however, Rhode's acknowledgement (next note).

¹³⁶ Rh. Mus. xxxiii (1878) 194 f.

¹³⁷ Most clearly Pliny, N.H. XXXV, 23.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Apollodors Chronik (Phil. Unters. xvi, Berlin, 1902) 143 f.

¹³⁹ Cf. Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 23 n. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Jacoby, 102 n. 4.

¹⁴¹ Jacoby, 101.

¹⁴² Kaletsch, H., ‘Zur Lydischen Chronologie’, Historia VII (1958) 1–47Google Scholar. The date of Gyges’ death is almost certain (Kaletsch, 29 f.; cf. Jacoby, 99) but the beginning of his reign is only to be achieved by calculation. Jacoby was prepared to use the duration of his reign given in Greek sources and the date of his death to give the dates about 687–652 (ibid.). Kaletsch rejects this procedure as unhistorical, and more cautiously chooses c. 680, after a full discussion of the various indications (30—4).

¹⁴³ Jacoby, 109; cf. 101 n. 7 and 107.

¹⁴⁴ Frg. 44 = Aelian V.H. x. 13, printed in Treu, M., Archilochus (Munich, 1959) 120Google Scholar, and Archilochus, ed. I. Tarditi (Rome, 1968) T.46. The sense of the words … οὐκ ἄν ἐπυθόμεθα…οὔθ᾿ ὅτι καταλιπὼν Πάρον διὰ πενίαν καὶ ἀπορίαν ἧλθεν εἰς Θάσον οὔθ᾿ ὅτι ἐλθὼν τοῖς ἐνταῦθα ἐχθρὸς ἐγένετο. … seems clear. There are many other texts which bear on this question; see below pp. 84 ff.

¹⁴⁵ CAH III 654 (1929).

¹⁴⁶ As, for example, Pouilloux; see above p. 71; Salviat, F. and Weill, N., BCH lxxxiv (1960) 383.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ E.g. Ghali-Kahil, L., Et. Thas. VII 139Google Scholar; J. Boardman, Greeks Overseas ², 225; Bérard, J., L'Expansion et la Colonisation Grecques (Paris, 1960) 92Google Scholar; Guide de Thasos 2.

¹⁴⁸ Burn, A. R., JHS lv (1935) 122.Google Scholar Jacoby, in a rather confused note, 102 n. 4, prefers two generations, but earlier accepts that the founder is Telesicles, according to the oracle.

¹⁴⁹ Cf. Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 24Google Scholar: ‘L'importance de ce texte a été dès longtemps reconnue.’

¹⁵⁰ See Die Griech. Christl. Schrifts. etc., Eusebius VIII.I (Berlin, 1954) p. 314; Eusebius, , Praep. Evang. ed. Gifford, F. H. (Oxford, 1903) i. p. 328 f.Google Scholar; for translation, III. 1 p. 276; for notes, IV p. 207 f.; Frag. Phil. Graec. ed. Mullach, F. G. A. (Paris, 1867) II frg. 14 (pp. 380 f.).Google Scholar For the oracle, cf. also Parke, H. W. and Wormell, D. E. W., The Delphic Oracle (Oxford, 1956) II no. 230.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Et. Thas. III 24.

¹⁵² See Liddell and Scott, s.v., I. 3; e.g. Eur. IT 704.

¹⁵³ Liddell and Scott, s.v., I. 1; e.g. Od. XVI. 350.

¹⁵⁴ Stephani Byzantini Gentilicia (Leyden, 1694) s.v. Thasos.

¹⁵⁵ See n. 124 above.

¹⁵⁶ E.g. the edition of L. Holsten and others, Leipsig, 1825, and Steph. Byz., Ἐθνικῶν quae supersunt, ed. Westermann, A. (Leipsig, 1839)Google Scholar, s.v. Θάσσος.

¹⁵⁷ Jacoby, 103.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Parke and Wormell, op. cit. II p. xi.

¹⁵⁹ For this translation, see below pp. 80 f.

¹⁶⁰ See G. L. Prendergast, Concordance … Iliad, and Henry Dunbar, Concordance … Odyssey, s.v. κελεύεις.

¹⁶¹ As far as the concordances allow, I have checked all occurrences of ὡς with κελεύω. It always means as.

¹⁶² Cf. Parke and Wormell, op. cit. II, Prolegomena, especially xvi–xxi.

¹⁶³ Cf. Pease, A. S., ‘The Delphic Oracle and Colonisation’, CP xii (1917) 1–20Google Scholar, especially 6: ‘The enquirers are sometimes groups—cities, bands of exiles, families—and often individuals, usually the οἰκιστής.

¹⁶⁴ Op. cit. II no. 230 and I 66.

¹⁶⁵ A History of the Delphic Oracle (Oxford, 1939) 68.

¹⁶⁶ Et. Thas. III 24 f. However, he wrote more cautiously in Fond. Hardt x. 9: ‘Oracles—vrais ou apocryphes.’

¹⁶⁷ There is a similar contradiction between the discussion about Archilochus and Delphi, I. 396 f., and two of the oracles in question, II. nos. 231, 232. These and similar contradictions not surprisingly drew the criticism of Berve, H., Gnomon xxx (1958) 422 f.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ CQ. n.s. viii (1958) 93.

¹⁶⁹ Kondoleon, N. M., Arch. Eph. 1952, 32–95Google Scholar; ‘Archilochos und Paros’, Fond. Hardt x. 39–54. There is a very good short account of the inscriptions in Bull. Epig. 1955, 178. See also SEG XV 517, where the texts are readily accessible. Also M. Treu, Archilochos, 152–4; Archilochus, ed. I. Tarditi, T4.

¹⁷⁰ Col. II. 22–55 (for the visit to Delphi and the oracle, 43–52).

¹⁷¹ CQ. n.s. viii (1958) 93.

¹⁷² Op. cit. 94. Cf. Parke and Wormell, op. cit., II, nos. 4, 5 (responses to Calondas the Crow of Naxos, killer of Archilochus); 230 (foundation oracle of Thasos); 231 (response to Telesicles foretelling his son's greatness); and 232 (order to Archilochus to settle in Thasos).

¹⁷³ Tarditi, G., ‘La nuova epigrafe Archilochea e la tradizione biografica del poeta’, PP xi (1956) 122–39.Google Scholar It is clear that Parke's paper, which appeared later, was written without knowledge of Tarditi's work.

¹⁷⁴ Op. cit. 130.

¹⁷⁵ Plut. Numa iv. 6; cf. Tarditi, 131.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷⁷ Tarditi, 133 f. On the dating, see 137 f. It must be after Pindar's second Pythian (52 ff.), which can be taken to show that Archilochus was still not in favour at Delphi, and before the first attestation of the story of his killer's reception at Delphi (Heracl. Pont. 8, of Aristotelian derivation).

¹⁷⁸ Tarditi, 133 f.

¹⁷⁹ Ibid.

¹⁸⁰ Breitenstein, T., Hésiode ei Archiloque (Odense, 1971)Google Scholar, especially 9 ff.

¹⁸¹ CP xii (1917) 13.

¹⁸² Op. cit. 50 (his italics).

¹⁸³ Jacoby, 103; F. Lasserre and A. Bonnard (Budé edition, Paris, 1958) frg. 263; Archilochus, ed. Tarditi, 246.

¹⁸⁴ Cf. SEG XV 517. A II 43–5. Even if we do not go as far as Tarditi (PP xi 131), who regards Telesicles as created for the purpose of his role in the Delphian biography of Archilochus. He may be right, since neither the epitaph of Archilochus, ᾿Αρχίλοχος Πάριος Τελεσικλέος ἐνθάδε κεῖται Το͂ Δόκιμος μνημήιον ὁ Νεοκρέωντος τόδ᾿ ἔθηκεν (Ergon 1961, 184 f.; BCH lxxxv (1961) 846 f.; Bull. Epig. 1962, 261; Kondoleon, N. M., Fond. Hardt x. 44–6.Google Scholar It was inscribed in the fourth century.), nor the occurrence of the name Telesicles at Thasos (Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III. Catalogue I Col. 4.47 (opp. p. 262); IG XII. 8. 278. 17), nor even Critias' knowledge of the name of Archilochus' mother (frg. 44 = Aelian V.H. X 13) necessarily refute him. But perhaps the last does suggest that die name of Archilochus' father was preserved.

¹⁸⁵ Eusebius, , Praep. Evang., ed. Gaisford, T. (Oxford, 1843) II p. 44.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Eusebius, , Praep. Evang. ed. Gifford, F. H., III. I p. 276.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ IV p. 208.

¹⁸⁸ Frg. 40 D (= 38 in Tarditi's edition); cf. 2 D (= 2 in Tarditi's edition).

¹⁸⁹ Op. cit. 50.

¹⁹⁰ 102 n. 4: ‘Blakeway's compromise … seems to me neither helpful nor probable.’

¹⁹¹ E.g. Charon (Contemplantes) I (Loeb II p. 396); Pisc. (Reviviscentes) 12 (Loeb III p. 18); Scytha (Hospes) 4 (Loeb VI p. 246).

¹⁹² Lines 17–21 of P. Oxy. 2310, which is attributed to Archilochus (54 in Tarditi's edition), have been interpreted as referring to Thasos and to Archilochus' own prospects of becoming ruler diere; see Lasserre, F., Mus. Helv. xiii (1956) 233Google Scholar; cf. Rankin, H. D.Ant. Class. xliv (1975) 608Google Scholar f. Since we do not know who spoke those fragmentary lines, nor to whom they refer, nor to what city, no historical conclusions can be based on them. For the variety of possible interpretations, see Tarditi's apparatus, and, e.g. Peek, W., Phil., xcix (1955) 193 ff.Google Scholar; Steffen, W., Proc. IX Int. Cong. Pap., Oslo 1958 (1961) 18 ff.Google Scholar; Page, D., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. vii (1961) 68 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹³ X. 25–31, especially 28. 3. For a full discussion of the paintings, see Robertson, Martin, History of Greek Art (London, 1975) I. 266 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ See RE s.v. Tellis, 1; Frazer, J. G., Pausanias' Description of Greece (London, 1898)Google Scholar critical note ad loc. (I p. 611).

¹⁹⁵ For the older discussions, see RE loc. cit. and Frazer, op. cit. commentary ad loc. (V p. 373 f.); more recently, Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 25 f.Google Scholar, 330; Fond. Hardt x, 22 f., 36.

¹⁹⁶ RE s.v. Thasos, 1311.

¹⁹⁷ Kondoleon, in Fond. Hardt x. 36.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Cf. n. 184 above.

¹⁹⁹ Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III no. 31, col. I. 6 (p. 269); Catalogue I, Col. 4. 47 (opp. p. 262).

²⁰⁰ See RE s.v. Tellis, 1, 406. The idea that Tellis should be the great-grandfather was revived by Wistrand, , Fond. Hardt x. 35 f.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ E.g. Jacoby, 102 n. 4; M. Treu, Archilochos, 250, who thinks that we may draw that conclusion from the description of Kleoboia.

²⁰² As Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 25Google Scholar; cf. 24 n. 4, for a further odevelopment of the idea, i.e. that Tellis was priest of Demeter.

²⁰³ See above pp. 75 ff.

²⁰⁴ Et. Thas. III 25 f., 330; Fond. Hardt x. 22 f., 36. Also Blakeway, it seems; op. cit. 49 n. 2. E. Jacobs had already noted that, if the genealogy of Tellis is genuine (and Tellis was connected with Thasos, A. J. G.) then the relations between Paros and Thasos began before the colony was sent out (Thasiaca 10).

²⁰⁵ Apoll. Bibl. II. 5. 13; IG XIV 1293A, 83–4. Cf. M. Launey, Et. Thas. I 215 f., followed by Bernard, 143.

²⁰⁶ For these ideas, see RE s.v. Tellis, 1, 406; Frazer, loc. cit.

²⁰⁷ In proposing this radical change, which seems to me unavoidable on the arguments presented above, I am encouraged by the fact that not all scholars in the past have been happy with the idea of Telesicles as oikistes of Thasos. Thus E. Jacobs' omission of any statement to this effect, op. cit., must surely be taken as silent rejection, since H. Hasselbach had written long before ‘Telesicle, Archilochi patre, duce, ut videtur, Pariorum colonia eo (sc. Thasum) pervenit’; see De insula Thaso (Marburg, 1838) 14. E. Meyer thought the oracle absurd; see Gesch. des Altertums II (Stuttgart, 1893) 467, repeated unchanged in the second edition (Stuttgart, 1937) III. 434 n. 2. Cf. also Reverdin, O., Fond. Hardt x. 29Google Scholar: ‘pour autant que Thasos ait bien considéré Télésiclès comme son véritable κτίστης.’

²⁰⁸ E.g. Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 34Google Scholar: ‘Télésiklès à la tête d'une poignée de Pariens se saisit de l'acropole Thasienne etc.’ Devambez, , Journal des Savants, 1955, 74Google Scholar: ‘La maigre troupe des compagnons de Télésiklès etc.’; Chamoux, , REG lxxii (1959) 362Google Scholar: ‘les problèmes que se posaient aux compagnons de Télésiclès etc.’

²⁰⁹ See Martin, R., BCH lxxiv (1950) 337–41Google Scholar; lxxi–ii (1947–8) 422; Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 344 f.Google Scholar; Fond. Hardt x. 29; but note the acute criticism of O. Reverdin, which was not rebutted.

²¹⁰ Archilochus, ed. Tarditi, pp. 18^* f. and T5; IG XII Suppl. pp. 212–14 = Diehl, , Anth. Lyr. Graeca ³ (1952) fr. 51Google Scholar; Treu, Archilochos, pp. 52–62 (cf. RE Suppl. XI, s.v. Archilochos, 139 f.). That Sostheus of B, col. IV 14, is an alternative form of the name Sosthenes, employed metri gratia, is clear from the family connections of Sostheus/Sosthenes; see IG XII. 5 p. 316.

²¹¹ See n. 169 above.

²¹² E.g. Treu, Archilochos, 40 ff. The terminology of SEG XV 517, (lapis) A (col.) III etc., is better.

²¹³ It is possible to argue about the precise nature of the Archilocheion, but its character in general is clearly established by Mnesiepes' inscription and several analogous foundations; see Kondoleon, , Fond. Hardt x. 51–4Google Scholar; Robert, J. and Robert, L., Bull. Epig. 1955, 178.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ Kondoleon, op. cit. 46, 52–4; Charisterion … Orlandos (Athens, 1965) I 348 ff.; cf. RE Suppl. XI, s.v. Archilochos, 141.

²¹⁵ Gossage, A. J., Rh. Mus. xciv (1951) 213–21.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ See n. 169 above.

²¹⁷ Tarditi, , PP xi (1956) 128Google Scholar, sees differences in content and expression. As regards the former, we have to remember that we lack much of both inscriptions.

²¹⁸ Mnesiepes' inscription, SEG XV 517, A II 1–22.

²¹⁹ Sosthenes' inscription, A I. 6ff.; cf. 1 ff.

²²⁰ FGH no. 502.

²²¹ Op. cit. 128 f. His main point is that the verb used to describe Demeas' activity in the passage referred to in n. 219 above, ἀν]αγέγραφεν, should mean ‘inscribed’ rather than ‘composed’.

²²² Cf. Kondoleon's opposition, Fond. Hardt x. 50 f.

²²³ Mnesiepes' inscription, SEG XV 517, A II. 22 ff.

²²⁴ This is the standard form in both inscriptions. For the way it is done, see Sosthenes' inscription, A I 40 ff., cf. A IV 1; Mnesiepes' inscription, B I 12 ff.

²²⁵ For the way in which the biography was based on material in Archilochus' poems, cf. Tarditi, op. cit. 132 ff.

²²⁶ See Mnesiepes' inscription, B I 1 ff., and the suggested restorations in Sosthenes' inscription, A I 2–5. Tarditi asked the pertinent question, what were the honours which Mnesiepes paid the poet, with Apollo's approval (A II 14 f., 18 f.). His acute reply was that the laudatory and apologetic biography which follows itself constituted the honours mentioned; see Tarditi, op. cit. 124.

²²⁷ For some of these ideas, see Pouillaoux, , Et. Thas. III 26 f.Google Scholar, 30–2; Fond. Hardt x. 11–14, 17 f.; Treu, RE, Suppl. XI, s.v. Archilochos, 150 f.; Kondoleon, , Phil. c (1956) 38Google Scholar (Arch. Eph. 1952, 88) offered something entirely different again.

²²⁸ SEG XIV 565; Pouilloux, , BCH lxxix (1955) 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²²⁹ Fr. 18 D. (= 17, 18 in Tarditi's edition):

The reference to Thasos is assured by the authors who quote the fragments.

²³⁰ Or re-settled; see Strabo VI 264; Athen. XII 523c. The complex tradition is discussed by Jacoby, FGH III. B Kommentar, p. 495. On the history of the foundation, see Bérard, J.La colonisation grecque de l'Italie méridionale et de la Sicile dans l'antiquité (Paris, 1957) 187–98Google Scholar, and Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks (Oxford, 1948) 34 f.Google Scholar, both of whom conclude that the Lydian attacks must belong to Gyges' reign. The archaeological evidence for Greek settlement from the later eighdi century on the neighbouring site of the later Heraclea has led some to conclude that the date of the colonization of Siris should be put earlier; see Lo Porto, F. G., ‘Civiltà indigena e penetrazione greca nella Lucania orientale’, MA xlviii (1973) nn. 6 and 731.Google Scholar It is perhaps safer to conclude that there was Greek settlement in the region before the arrival of the Colophonians in flight from the Lydians, and that this explains the literary tradition that these Colophonians settled an existing city. On the archaeological zone of Siris and Heraclea, and the relation ship of sites etc., see Neutsch, B., Herakleiastudien, Arch. Forsch. in Lukanien II (Röm. Mitt., Ergänzungsheft 11, Heidelberg, 1967) 104 ff.Google Scholar

²³¹ See n. 144 above. Presumably the oracle in Oenomaeus, Euseb. Praep. Evang. V 33. 1. was concocted on the basis of this knowledge; see above pp. 78 ff.

²³² Fr. 54 D. (= 88 in Tarditi's edition): Πανελλήνων ὀϊӡὺς ἐς Θάσον συνέδραμεν.

²³³ Cf. above p. 80 and n. 188.

²³⁴ Fr. 19 D. (= Tarditi 19): κλαίω τὰ Θασίων, οὐ τὰ Μαγνήτων κακά; fr. 129 Bergk (= Tarditi 157): Θάσον δὲ τὴν τρισοϊӡυρὴν πόλιν. Cf. the remarks of Pouilloux, , Fond. Hardt x. 13 f.Google Scholar, 25, 31 and of Page, Reverdin and others, 80 f.

²³⁵ First of all in the notorious shield poem, 6 D. (= Tarditi 8): ἀσπίδι μὲν Σαἴων τις ἀγάλλεται κτλ. Sosthenes' inscription, A I. 40–52, has the longest passage about dealings with the Thracians, but is unfortunately not only fragmentary, but also corrupt (clearly 51 f. ). Some Thracians are definitely killed (49 f.); pure gold is brought for Thracian dogs (…εὀς Θάσον, κυσ̣ὶ Θρέϊξιν δῶρ᾿ ἔχων ἀκήρατον χρυσόν 48 f.). It is tempting to connect these lines with Callimachus, Aetia fr. 104 (the murder by Parians of Oisydres the Thracian, which was followed by troubles for Thasos: fr. Οἰσύδρεω Θρήϊκος ἐφ᾿ αἵματι πολλὰ Θάσοιο; commentary, φησὶν Παρίους Οἰσύδρην τὸν Θρᾷκα φονε[ύ]σαντας διαπολιορκηθῆναι Θασί[οις δ᾿ ] ὡς τὸ ἀρέσκον Βισάλταις [ἐ]πιτίμιο[ν τ]ίνειν ἔχρησιν ὁ θεός. The supplements are by Pfeiffer, R., Callimachus [Oxford, 1949]Google Scholar. Unfortunately the rest of the commentary is too mutilated to restore). Cf. Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III 30f.; Fond. Hardt x. 17; and Bernard, 143 n. 5, who rightly emphasizes the uncertainties in the detailed interpretation of this incomplete passage. Also perhaps with fr. 61 D. (=Tarditi 97): ἑπτὰ γὰρ νεκρῶν πεσόντων, οὕς ἐμάρψαμεν ποσίν, χείλιοι φονῆές εἰμεν, where the thousand immediately reminds us of χ〈ε〉ιλίους γὰρ ἄν[δρας in Sosthenes' inscription, A IV 22; cf. Diehl³, note ad loc. Finally, fr. 79a D. (= Tarditi 193), the Thracians at Salmydessus, merely shows the poet's awareness of their dangerous characteristics.

²³⁶ Fighting most unmistakably in fr. 6 D. (= Tarditi 8), but presumably also in Sosthenes' inscription, and, if the connection is right, in 61 D. (= Tarditi 97); see previous note. That fragment attests shameful behaviour, and Callimachus, Aetia fr. 104, reveals that the god ordered the Thasians (or Parians, with different supplements; see Pfeiffer's ap. crit.) to make amends to the Bisaltai for the killing of Oisydres. Also the gift of pure gold to the Thracian dogs (see previous note) brought general evils, if private gain (οἰκείω〈ι〉 δὲ κέρδει ξύν᾿ ἐποίησαν κακά, Sosthenes' inscription, A I 49).

²³⁷ Pouilloux thinks that the struggles attested by Sosthenes' inscription and by Call. Aetia fr. 104 took place on Thasos rather than the mainland; see Fond. Hardt x. 18. But we know that the Thasians were already interested in the mainland in Archilochus' lifetime; see Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 33Google Scholar (the clearest evidence is Philochorus FGH 328 frg. 43 = Harpocration s.v. Στρύμη). Further, since we have the names of two, if not three, Thracian tribes in these events (Saioi, fr. 6 D., Bisaltai, Call. Aetia fr. 104 [Commentary], and Sapai [?], Sosthenes' inscription, A I 51), it might be thought difficult to locate all the contacts on Thasos itself. There is the additional point that the Thracians on Thasos were probably Edonians; see below n. 253.

²³⁸ See n. 235 above

²³⁹ See my Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester, 1971) 72 f.

²⁴⁰ This seems to be indicated by Critias, fr. 44 (see n. 144 above); by his death in a war presumably between Paros and Naxos (since his killer, Carondas the Crow, was a Naxian; see Aelian, fr. 80 [Teubner]; Plut. Mor. 560 D-E; Dio. Chrys. xxxiii. 12); and by his grave on Paros (see p. 83 and n. 184 above). It is true that a sceptic might doubt the worth of all these indications. On Archilochus' possible movements, see Jacoby 109.

²⁴¹ SEG IX 3. 33–7; see my Colony and Mother City, 53.

²⁴² As at Naupactus; see ML 20 and my comments, op. cit. 52 f.

²⁴³ As Pouilloux, Fond. Hardt x. 9 f.; cf. Et. Thas. III 26. On the oracles, see above pp. 78–80.

²⁴⁴ Jacoby, 97–109, especially 106 f.; though he presses the evidence unnecessarily.

²⁴⁵ See above pp. 70 ff. On the other reason for regarding the culture discovered in these sondages as Greek—Bernard's identification of the apsidal house as Greek in type—see above pp. 65 f. and 71.

²⁴⁶ See above p. 76 and n. 88.

²⁴⁷ See above p. 71.

²⁴⁸ J. Boardman, Greeks Overseas ², 225; Bernard, 77; Pouilloux, Fond. Hardt x. 14, 17.

²⁴⁹ Cf. the judicious discussion by Weill, N. and Salviat, F., BCH lxxxiv (1960) 382–6, lxxxv (1961) 120–2.Google Scholar The oriental ivory lions found in the so-called west fill of the Artemision have been used for chronology; see Pouilloux, , Fond. Hardt x. 16Google Scholar: ‘Ils datent, au plus tard, du deuxième quart du VII^e siècle etc.’ But the full publication by Salviat, , BCH lxxxvi (1962) 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar, shows that these ivories are, in fact, useless for chronological purposes. They were found in a fill laid down in the second quarter of the fifth century (BCH lxxxiii [1959] 775), consisting of archaic dedications going back to the seventh century (BCH lxxxvi [1962] 112). Salviat argued, 112–16, that the analogous ivories found in the east did not preclude the possibility that the Thasian ones were current in the second quarter of the seventh century (i.e. after the supposed foundation of Parian Thasos in 680); hence Pouilloux' statement. But, far from having a good independent date for the ivories, Salviat was using the presumed foundation date of Thasos to throw doubt on the high dates proposed by some for similar ivories found in die east. On such ivories in general, see Mallowan, M. E. L., Nimrud and its remains II (London, 1966) 471 ff.Google Scholar, and Winter, Irene J., ‘Phoenician and North Syrian ivory carving in historical context’, Iraq xxxviii (1976) 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dr. Winter (to whom I am most grateful for helpful discussions of this question) tells me that in her opinion the best parallels for the Thasian ivories are at Zincirli and at Samaria (in this agreeing with Salviat, 100 ff.). She would assign them to a postulated South Syrian group (this in addition to the North Syrian and Phoenician groups distinguished earlier; cf. Winter ibid.), and date them to the eighth century B.C. Dr. Winter intends to develop the hypothesis of the South Syrian ivories in a forthcoming publication.

Viewed purely as dating evidence, the remains of such a luxurious object (? an ivory throne), far removed from any chronological context in which it had existed in its original form, are manifestly valueless. Who can tell how this sumptuous object reached the Artemision? Or how old it was when it came there? But it seems to me likely (as against Salviat, 112) that it was a valued antique rather than a contemporary production when it was dedicated to Artemis.

²⁵⁰ Fond. Hardt x. 60.

²⁵¹ VIII^e Cong. Arch. Class. 300 f. Boardman, however, argues with some sarcasm against a change of title. In his view the attribution to Paros is no better founded than the title ‘Melian’; see Boardman, John and Hayes, John, Excavations at Tocra 1963–5, The Archaic Deposits I (BSA Suppl. 4, London, 1966) 15.Google Scholar In taking this line he differs not only from Kondoleon, Salviat, and others, but also from his fellow-author; see p. 73. For the uncertainty in attributing pottery from the Cyclades, see Tocra II (BSA Suppl. 10, London, 1973) 73 f.

²⁵² See especially Brock, J. K., BSA xliv (1949) 79.Google Scholar

²⁵³ Cf. Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III 15 f.Google Scholar For Archilochus' evidence of Thracians on Thasos, see above p. 85. The fact that an earlier name for Thasos was Ὀδωνίς (Hesych. s.v.) is generally connected widi the Edonians; see Seyrig, H., BCH li (1927) 216.Google Scholar In his ninth labour Heracles overcame the Thracian inhabitants and gave the island to the sons of Androgeos, whom he had brought from Paros; see Apoll. Bibl. II 5. 9. 13; cf. 3–5. Compare Ps-Scymnus, 659ff.: νῆσος Θάσος, ἣνβάρβαροι τὸ πρότερον ᾤκουν, ὡσλόγος, ἔπειτα Φοίνικες κτλ. On the other hand, it is perhaps incorrect to take the passage Strabo XII 550 as referring to Thasos (as, e.g., Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 16Google Scholar). Strabo says that the Thracians called Sinties, then Sintoi, then Saioi, but now Sapaioi, used to live about Abdera and the islands around Lemnos. But the comparison with the very similar passage X 457, where he is discussing the population of Samothrace, may suggest that the islands about Lemnos could be, for Strabo, no more than Lemnos, Imbros, and Samothrace. (That would imply that Strabo diought of Archilochus' fighting widi the Saioi as taking place on the mainland, for he quotes the shield poem in both passages, but, as we have seen, that is perfectly possible [above, n. 237]. Also, if the previous name Odonis is to be connected with die Edonians, as seems probable, the Thracian inhabitants of Thasos should rather be taken as part of that great Thracian tribe, who lived in the Pangaean district; see RE s.v. Edones; Seyrig, loc. cit.)

²⁵⁴ Above p. 71 f.

²⁵⁵ AAA vi (1973) 239 f.

²⁵⁶ See above pp. 62 f.

²⁵⁷ See above p. 65.

²⁵⁸ Pp. 66 ff.

²⁵⁹ Cf. Villard, F., La créamique grecque de Marseille (Paris, 1960) 119ff.Google Scholar, and Alexandrescu, P., RA 1975, 63–5Google Scholar, who discusses early examples of oenochoae and cups found in the valleys of the Dnieper and the Don. For early imports of amphorae in the Dnieper region, see Onaiko, N. A., Antichny Import v Pridnieprov'ie i Pobuzh'ie v VII–V vekakh do n.e. (Moscow, 1966) 58 f.Google Scholar

²⁶⁰ Mor. 604 c.

²⁶¹ Fr. 2 D. (= Tarditi 2). Cf. RE s.v. Maroneia, and s.v. Ismaros, 3. Possibly the fame of the wine of Ismaros in Homer is enough to account for Archilochus' words, but one recalls the interest of the Thasians in that part of the mainland in Archilochus' lifetime; see above n. 237.

²⁶² On the resources of Thasos in general, see de Coincy, H., ‘L'île de Thasos’, La Géographie, xxxviii (1922) 405–26Google Scholar, and more recently, Lazaridis, D., Thasos and its Peraia (Athens, 1971)Google Scholar. Cf. also Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III 13.

²⁶³ See the excellent bibliographical survey in Salviat, and Servais, , BCH lxxxviii (1964) 267–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 282 f. See nn. 9 and 10 above.

²⁶⁴ Op. cit.; see especially 276–82. For the inscription cf. also Bull. Epig. 1965, 316.

²⁶⁵ Salviat and Servais, op. cit. 282 f.

²⁶⁶ See Salviat and Servais, op. cit. 284. On Kinyras, Kinyreia etc., see RE s.v. Kinyras. I am grateful to Dr. T. Muraoka of the Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Manchester, for expert advice on this matter.

²⁶⁷ The opinions on the subject down to that date were usefully set out by Seyrig, H., BCH li (1927) 186Google Scholar n. 1. For a brief indication of the views of scholars since that time, see van Berchem (next note), 88.

²⁶⁸ ‘Sanctuaires d'Hercule-Melqart, contribution à l'étude de l'expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée’, Syria xliv (1967) 73–109, 307–36. For Thasos, see especially 88–109. It was very unfortunate that Bergquist wrote her study of Herakles on Thasos without knowledge of van Berchem's work; see Bergquist, Birgitta, Herakles on Thasos (Uppsala studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations, 5, Uppsala, 1973), especially p. 18Google Scholar: ‘Apart from Pouilloux's work, there seems to have been no particularly extensive discussion of Herakles and the Herakleion on Thasos.…’ However, her independent arguments from the material remains point in general to similar conclusions to those reached by van Berchem, in particular that there were not two cults, one of the god, one of the hero, at the Thasian Heracleum.

²⁶⁹ Van Berchem, 74–7.

²⁷⁰ Van Berchem, 80–7.

²⁷¹ P. 88. Apart from Hdt. II 44. 3–4, see Paus. V 25. 12.

²⁷² Van Berchem, 87–102. In this part of his work he deals admirably with the complexities in the evidence for the cult of Heracles at Thasos. Cf. also Bergquist, op. cit., especially Part II, but van Berchem's interpretations seem to me in detail superior (e.g. on the meaning of ἐνατεύειν; Bergquist 71–80, van Berchem 100–2).

²⁷³ See pp. 92–4, 97 f.; cf. 84. Bergquist, however, thinks that the peripteral building erected in her ‘third period’ (i.e. mid fifth to late fourth or early third century B.C.) was a temple to house the god's image; see op. cit. 47.

²⁷⁴ Van Berchem, 102. Bergquist, op. cit. 37, also thinks that the Soteria was probably a festival of Heracles.

²⁷⁵ Pp. 106 f.

²⁷⁶ P. 108. Cf., for the long preservation of cult practices, even when populations change, the arguments and evidence on pp. 77–9. Bergquist, who accepts the notion of Phoenician colonization of Thasos before that of the Greeks (op. cit. 19, 35), wonders if the cult of Heracles on Thasos may have had Phoenician elements (37).

²⁷⁷ Devambez, P., ‘Questions thasiennes’, Journal des Savants, 1955, 28–40, 73–91; see especially 84.Google Scholar

²⁷⁸ P. 108.

²⁷⁹ See above p. 67.

²⁸⁰ The inscriptions cited by van Berchem (108 n. 4) show us merely that there was a temple of Heracles on the island from the fourth century B.C. (IG XII 8. 18–22, notably 19).

²⁸¹ Il. xxiii 745; cf. RE s.v. Thoas (2).

²⁸² for a brief, general, account, see Harden, Donald B., The Phoenicians, (London, 1971) 52–4, 109Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of the topic, and the evidence down to that time, Gjerstad, E., Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV. 2 (Stockholm, 1948) 436 ff.Google Scholar, 462. For a more recent statement, Karageorghis, V., Kition (London, 1976) 95 ff.Google Scholar Cf. also Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 347 n. 2, and Bull. Inst. Class. Stud. xvi (1969) 6 n. 14.

²⁸³ For the probable character of the image, see Frazer, Pausanias, commentary ad loc. (IV 127 f.).

²⁸⁴ Courband, E., ‘La navigation d'Hercule’, Mél. Arch. Hist. Ecol. Franç, Rome, xii (1892) 274–88Google Scholar, and Frazer, ibid. L. R. Farnell cast doubt on the interpretation without any strong arguments; Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford, 1921) 164.

²⁸⁵ See Frazer, ibid.; Farnell, 161.

²⁸⁶ Farnell, 160–5, whose own interpretation is vitiated by the lame suggestion that Thracian was merely an indication of servile status; cf. W. R., Halliday, Greek Questions of Plutarch (Oxford, 1928) 215.Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ Frazer, ibid.; cf. Farnell, 163.

²⁸⁸ See the criticisms of Farnell, 160; Halliday, 215.

²⁸⁹ Van Berchem, 108; cf. 86, 317 ff.

²⁹⁰ Farnell, 161.

²⁹¹ Apart from the specific evidence and arguments offered, such a conclusion would be concordant with the general historical picture of Phoenician trading activity from the ninth to the seventh centuries; cf. Muhly, , ‘Homer and the Phoenicians’, Berytus xix (1970) 19–64.Google Scholar

²⁹² Troy IV pl. 292, inventory number 36.722, 317 no. 27; see text p. 265. Cintas, Compare P., Céramique Punique (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar, pls. XV, LXXXI; Blazquez, J. M., Tartessos y los origenes de la colonizacion fenicia en occidente (Salamanca, 1968) 169 ff.Google Scholar, pls. LXIV, LXV. I owe this important observation to Mr. Brian Shefton.

²⁹³ Et. Thas. III 30 f., 34; Fond. Hardt x. 15 f.

²⁹⁴ Et. Thas. III ibid., and 16 f., 21, 311–13.

²⁹⁵ ‘Quatre cultes de Thasos’, BCH li (1927) 178–233, especially 217–19; cf. Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 311–13.Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ Et. Thas. III ch. viii, 326 ff.; cf. 21.

²⁹⁷ Et. Thas. III 15 f.

²⁹⁸ See n. 277 above.

²⁹⁹ Op. cit. 73 f.

³⁰⁰ ‘L'isle de Thasos et son histoire’, REG lxxii (1959) 348–69.

³⁰¹ See pp. 350 f.

³⁰² ibid.

³⁰³ See n. 295 above.

³⁰⁴ Op. cit. 218.

³⁰⁵ On Thucydides and his family, see Cavaignac, , REG iii (1929) 281–5Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, , JHS lii (1932) 210 f.Google Scholar; Gomme, Commentary ad IV 105. 1; O. Luschat, RE Suppl. XII, s.v. Thukydides, 1089 ff.; Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971) 233–7.Google Scholar It is possible to argue about details, but the general scheme proposed by Cavaignac seems convincing. In view of the clear evidence for relationship between Thucydides and the Philaids, to explain the patronymic other than as in memory of the Thracian king seems an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses.

³⁰⁶ The Life thought his mining possessions came through his marriage to a rich Thracian; 19. But it is notorious that much of what we have in the Life is invented on the basis of information in Thucydides' own work. See RE loc. cit. 1087. It is also suspicious that the biographer gives him actual property in Thrace, in contrast to the mining concession carefully specified by Thucydides himself, IV 105. 1, as it is also suspicious that his mine should have been located at Skapte Hyle (14, 25, 47; cf. Plut. Mor. 605 c), the only place-name known in the mining district (Hdt. vi 46). So this information in the Life has been rejected as invented (see RE loc. cit. 1096). The idea that Thucydides' concession came as a result of Athens' appropriation of the possessions of Thasos (as still Davies, op. cit. 236 f.) is surely wrong. Our evidence suggests that such concessions were the result of private arrangements with the Thracian owners (RE loc. cit. 1095 f.). It is commonly objected to the theory that Thucydides' concession was an inheritance from the Thracian king Oloros that we then have the problem of a Thracian king in the Chersonese owning property in the Pangaean area (ibid. 1089 f.). But nothing in our evidence requires us to see this as a problem, and it is not even certain that Oloros was at home in the Chersonese; see Cavaignac, op. cit. 284.

³⁰⁷ Cf. Thuc. I 100. 2; RE loc. cit. 1095.

³⁰⁸ Pouilloux, Et. Thas. III 311 f., as corrected by Chamoux, , REG lxxvii (1959) 350 f.Google Scholar

³⁰⁹ Nach. Gött. Gesells. (Altertums.) i (1934–6) 51. The theory was regarded as attractive by Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III 27.Google Scholar

³¹⁰ See n. 228 above.

³¹¹ Treu in RE Suppl. XI, s.v. Archilochos, 136 f. and Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece (London, 1976) 57Google Scholar; cf. Pouilloux, , BCH lxxix (1955) 85Google Scholar.

³¹² Pouilloux, op. cit. 84 f.; for Thracian names and words, see also Georgiev, V., La Langue Thrace (Sofia, 1957) 60.Google Scholar

³¹³ Apart from those adduced by Pouilloux, 83 f., see the inscription from Selinus, published in Kokalos xvi (1970) 269: hο Μιλίχιος τᾶς πατριᾶς τᾶν h(ε)ρμίο̅ παίδο̅ν καὶ τᾶν Εὐκλέα παίδο̅ν.

³¹⁴ Pp. 84 f. and nn. 234–7.

³¹⁵ As Treu, op. cit. 137, who says that the poem is really an attack on Peisistratos, and the Thracians come better out of it than he does.

³¹⁶ See above p. 82 and n. 253. The myth is well analysed by Jacobs, Thasiaca 8–10. He thinks that an original story about Alcaeus and Sthenelus, grandsons of Minos (and from Paros) was later inserted in the tale of Heracles’ ninth labour, because of the importance of Heracles at Thasos.

³¹⁷ For example, the various justifications used by the Athenians for their colonization of Sigeum (Aesch. Eum. 397 ff., Hdt. v 94. 2), of Lemnos (Hdt. vi 137–40), of Scyros (Plut. Cim, viii 5f.), and of Amphipolis (Aeschines II. 31); but see also my Colony and Mother City, 204 f. It was not only the Athenians. Consider, for example, Gela and Acragas; Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks, 112, 318.Google Scholar Cf. in general the remarks of Sjöqvist, E., Sicily and the Greeks (Ann Arbor, 1973) 2 f.Google Scholar, 9, and, regarding Thasos, Bergitta Bergquist, Herakles on Thasos, 36.

³¹⁸ P. 70.

³¹⁹ Salviat, VIII^e Cong. Arch. Class. 299.

³²⁰ Ibid, and BCH lxxxvi (1962) 949–59, especially 957. Guide de Thasos 84–8.

³²¹ Wasowicz, A., Olbia pontique et son territoire (Paris, 1975) 31–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913) 451–3.Google Scholar

³²² See Vallet, G., Atti sett, convegno. … Magna Grecia (Naples, 1968) 98–100Google Scholar, and E. Sjöqvist, op. cit. 39 ff.

³²³ See my Colony and Mother City, 175 ff.

³²⁴ On Stryme, see above n. 237. The archaeological evidence for the early colonization of the Peraea is given by Leventopoulou-Giouri, E., Arch. Delt. (Chr.) xx (1965) 447 fr.Google Scholar, especially 451; cf. also Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, H., Arch. Delt. (Chr.) xxiv (1969) 349–51Google Scholar; AAA v (1972) 474–85; vi (1973) 230–40; Lazaridis, D., Thasos and its Peraia (Athens, 1971).Google Scholar

³²⁵ Even if we accept, as we probably should, Bakalakis' identification of Stryme with a small peninsula some 7 km. west of Maronea (i.e. not east, as apparently implied by Hdt. vii 108 f.); see Bakaiakis, G., Proanaskaphikes Erevnes sti Thraki (Salonica, 1958) 91–7Google Scholar. Bakalakis' topography was accepted by Salviat, VIII^e Cong. Arch. Class. 299. It certainly makes it easier to understand how the Thasians could make Stryme part of their peraea. Thasian expansion even further east has been assumed on the basis of the story, preserved solely by Dion. Byz. (ed. R. Güngerich, Berlin, 1927) 19 f. (48; cf. GGM II p. 37, frg. 30), that Archias of Thasos tried to settle the area called Archium (?) in the Bosporus, was repelled by the Chalcedonians, and then retired to Aenus. This story has been taken seriously, e.g. by Fredrich, C., IG XII. 8 p. 76Google Scholar, and J. Bèrard, L' expansion et la colonisation grecques, 93 f., but in default of better evidence and any indication of chronology little can be made of it by the historian.

³²⁶ The foundation dates were usefully tabulated by Cook, R. M., JHS lxvi (1946) 77.Google Scholar

³²⁷ Plut. Q.G. xi; see my discussion, JHS xci (1971) 46 f.

³²⁸ For Maronea, see Philochoros, FGH 328, fr. 43 = Harpocration, s.v. Στρύμη. The τορωναί[ω]ν are mentioned in a fragmentary part of Mnesiepes' inscription (see above p. 83 ff ), B I 34. Although the interpretation of these lines is disputable, they clearly belonged to a long citation from Archilochus' works. For suggestions as to the interpretation, see Kondoleon, , Arch. Eph. 1952, 88Google Scholar; Pouilloux, , Fond. Hardt x. 18Google Scholar; Treu, RE Suppl. XI, s.v. Archilochos, 150 f.

³²⁹ See my remarks in JHS xci, ibid.

³³⁰ All from Eusebius; see n. 326 above.

³³¹ Q.G. xxx.

³³² For this Andrian colonization, see J. Bèrard, L'expansion et la colonisation grecques, 94, where the literary sources are cited.

³³³ Hdt. i 168.

³³⁴ As Bérard, loc. cit.

³³⁵ See above n. 331.

³³⁶ See Bèrard, loc. cit., who follows Lasserre, F., Les èpodes d'Archiloque (Paris, 1950) 227 f.Google Scholar; cf. Pouilloux, , Et. Thas. III. 31.Google Scholar

³³⁷ See above n. 328.

³³⁸ Apoll. Bibl. II 5. 9. 14.

³³⁹ Chalcidian participation is attested at Sane and Acanthus by Plutarch, Q.G. xxx; and at Stagirus by Dion. Hal. Ad Ammaeum, 5.

³⁴⁰ Cf. my remarks in JHS xci (1971) 39, 46 f.

³⁴¹ Hdt. i 168.

³⁴² Thuc. IV 102. 2–3.

³⁴³ See Moscati, S., World of the Phoenicians (London, 1968) 20–2Google Scholar; Donald Harden, The Phoenicians, 49 f.

³⁴⁴ Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV 2, 462.

³⁴⁵ Forrer, E., ‘Karthago wurde erst 673–663 v. Chr. gegründet’, Festschrift Franz Dornseiff (Leipsig, 1953) 85–93.Google Scholar

³⁴⁶ Frézouls, E., ‘La fondation de Carthage’, BCH lxxix (1955) 53–176Google Scholar; E. Sjöqvist, Sicily and the Greeks, 15 f.; Barreca, F. and others, ‘L'espansione fenicia nel Mediterraneo’, Studi Semitici xxxviii (1971) 124 ff.Google Scholar; Whittaker, C. R., ‘The Western Phoenicians as colonisers’, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. XX (1974) 78Google Scholar. Although the first settlement at Carthage cannot be put as late as the seventh century on archaeological arguments, there was a great access of population and increased evidence for foreign contacts in the middle of that century; see Fré;zouls, 166–8; Whittaker, 66. But for Forrer's thesis a refoundation, or transformation by reinforcement, of Carthage in the second quarter of the seventh century is just as suitable.

³⁴⁷ A different explanation of a general sort for the Andrian colonization was proposed by Hammond, , History of Macedonia I 440Google Scholar, who thought that the turmoil in the Chalcidic region created by refugees from Macedonia produced the opportunity for colonization. But, apart from the uncertain dating (see above n. 44) it is not immediately clear that an influx of peoples into the area would have opened it up for Greek colonization.

³⁴⁸ In their homeland the military strength of the Phoenicians at this period was considerable; cf. Moscati, op. cit. 19.

³⁴⁹ Plut. Q.G. xxx.

³⁵⁰ See above p. 94.

³⁵¹ See above p. 72.

³⁵² This is one reason why it is often said that relations between Thasians and Thracians were fundamentally good and peaceful; cf. Salviat, VIII^e Cong. Arch. Class. 303; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, , AAA vi (1973) 239.Google Scholar

³⁵³ The contrast is well brought out by Berchem, van, Syria xliv (1967) 74 f.Google Scholar

³⁵⁴ Cf. my discussion, JHS xci (1971) 46 f. Hammond, , History of Macedonia I, 432 n. 2 and 440Google Scholar, still thinks of the Chalcidian colonization of Chalcidice as c. 650.

³⁵⁵ Cf. my Colony and Mother City, chs. III and IX.