Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:46:37.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Greek Ships of Two Levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

R. T. Williams
R. T. Williams
Affiliation:
The Durham Colleges in the University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the point of departure I take that controversial passage in Thucydides i. 13.2—

Now the controversy turns on the type of ship that Ameinocles built. Thucydides uses the general word ναῦς, which in Herodotus certainly and, according to Liddell and Scott, in Greek literature generally does seem to be a synonym for τριέρεις, and after Thucydides' use of the word τριήρεις in the previous sentence it would be natural to take ναῦς in the same sense. The Corinthians built the first triremes in Greece and Ameinocles built four of them for the Samians at the end of the eighth century, and there would be at least a reliable terminus ante quem for the introduction of the trireme into Greece. Here the matter would have rested, had not this date conflicted not only with the other literary records, including Thucydides himself, but also with the archaeological evidence, such as it is, which both seem to preclude such an early date.

The marshalling of the literary evidence against the supposition that triremes were built in Greece at the end of the eighth century has been admirably done by Professor Davison in the Classical Quarterly of 1947. He rightly comes to the conclusion that triremes could not have been introduced into Greece before the third quarter of the sixth century, and that in the disputed passage Thucydides was using ναῦς of ships generally and refraining from specifying the class; but in this case how flat the second part of the sentence sounds—the Corinthians were the first in Greece to use triremes, and Ameinocles the Corinthian built four ships of some sort or other for the Samians—nor does it seem to warrant the luxury of a precise date; and why four ships?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 78 , November 1958 , pp. 121 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The substance of this article was given as a lecture at the Annual General Meeting of the Classical Association, April, 1957. I am much indebted to J. S. Morrison. He introduced me to Greek ships, has helped me always to distinguish the sharp from the blunt, and in particular, after I had come to my conclusions from the archaeological evidence on the samaina, brought to my notice the confirmation of the passages in Photius and Suidas. I subscribe to his views on the trireme.

2 AJA lii (1948), 1. His theories on the penetration of the Bosporus have been refuted by Labaree, , AJA lxi (1957), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 BSA xliv (1949), 93.

4 AJA xliv (1940), 464.

5 CVA, pl. 1 (whence Pl. XIII (a)); Kirk No. 18.

6 Hornell, , Mariner's Mirror, 1948, 238, whence pl. 1, fig. b.Google Scholar

7 Homer and the Monuments, 320.

8 No. 46.41. Handbook (1948), fig. 49.

9 CVA, pl. 2.1–4 and 6, and pl. 3. The fragments, A.534–5, illustrated in pl. 1, fig. c, derive from Giraudon 33862 through Williams, , Greece and Rome, xviii, pl. 86.2b (right frag.)Google Scholar; Kirk Nos. 7b–8.

10 CVA, Louvre, xi, p. 7, fig. 3; Matz, , Geschichte der Griechischen Kunst, pl. 13bGoogle Scholar (whence Pl. XIII (d)); Kirk No. 21.

11 CVA, pl. 7.2; Kirk No. 29; Williams, pl. 86.2a (whence Pl. XIII (e)).

12 CVA, pl. 4; Kirk No. 5; Williams, pl. 86.2c (whence Pl. XIII (f)).

13 The only other definite example in this work-shop of the omission of the upper horizontals (Königsberg A.18) can be explained by the intrusion of the mast-lowering drill. Pernice, , AM xvii (1892), 285 ff.Google Scholar, has already suggested that the artist was showing the far side of the ship.

14 Kirk No. 40; Matz, pl. 14 (whence Pl. XIII (g)).

15 Kirk No. 38; Matz, pl. 18 (whence Pl. XIV (a)).

16 Kirk No. 37.

17 AJA, 1941, 30, and Corinth, vii. 89.

18 Kirk No. 31, pl. 40.3 (whence Pl. XIV (b)), and No. 32, pl. 40.4 (whence Pl. XIV (c)).

19 Cook, J. M., BSA xxxv (1934–1935), 171 n. 3.Google Scholar

20 JHS lxvi(1946), 14, p. 5.47 (whence Pl. XIV (d)); SNG ii. 1081. I am grateful to the B.M. for sending me a cast of this coin.

21 Morrison, J. S., Mariner's Mirror, 27Google Scholar, No. 1, pl. 6a (whence Pl. XIV (e)); Williams, pl. 88.4c.

22 1929.359. I am grateful to the Ashmolean Museum for the photograph reproduced in Pl. XV (a).

23 ABV, 426/10; Köster, , Das Antike Seewesen, p. 46.Google Scholar I am grateful to the B.M. for the photograph reproduced in Pl. XIV (f).

24 ABL, pl. 17.

25 Inv. no. 678, CVA, pl. 5.1–3; Anderson 41014, whence Williams, pl. 88.4b, and here Pl. XV (b).

26 No. 50599. ABV, 146/20. The fragments are not available for photographing at the moment.

27 No. 281. Payne, , Nec. 1272Google Scholar; Williams, pl. 88.4a; CVA, pl. 2.5 (whence Pl. XV(d)).

28 Köster, pl. 38; Coste-Messelière, De la, Au Musée de Delphes, pl. xi.Google Scholar

29 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori. Köster, pl. 35; Pfuhl, , MuZ 65Google Scholar; Matz, pl. 162.

30 CVA, pl. 4–7; ABV, 275/133; Williams, pl. 87.3c.

31 F.123. CVA, pl. 95.7–10.12, and pl. 96; ABV, 231/8; Köster, pl. 45.

32 Kourouniotis, Tragana Tholos Tomb., Eph. Arch., 1914, 108Google Scholar, figs. 13–15; Williams, pl. 85.1c.

33 Ventris and Chadwick, Documents in Mycennean Greek, An. 1 and An. 610.

34 Od. viii. 35.