¹ Leipzig (Hinrichs), vol. 7, part 2, 1905.

² Pp. 168–9 in Mai's edition; p. 226 in Schoene's.

³ Iam inde ex Diodori scriptis, breviter, de temporibus Thalassocratorum qui mare tenebant. Post bellum Troianum mare obtinuerunt etc. etc…usque ad Alexandri (sc. Xerxis) trans missionem.

⁴ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐπράχθη πρὸ τῶν Τρωικῶν μετὰ δὲ τὴν Τροίας ἄλωσιν Κᾶρες αὐξηθέντες ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐθαλαττοκράτησαν, καὶ τῶν Κυκλάδων νήσων κρατήσαντες, τίνας μὲν ἰδίᾳ κατέσχον καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐταῖς κατοικοῦντας Κρῆτας ὲξέβαλον τίνας δὲ κοιῆνῇ μετὰ τῶν προενοικοῦντων Κρητῶν κατῴκησαν. ὕστερον δέ, τῶν ῾Ελλήνων αὐξη θέντων, συνέβη τὰς πλείους τῶν Κυκλάδων νήσων οἰκισθῆναι καὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους Κᾶρας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐκπεσεῖν περὶ ὦν τὰ κατὰ μέρος ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις χρὁνοις ἀναγρἁψομεν

⁵ De Gastoris chronicie Diodori Siculi fonte ac norma, Lübeck, , 1878Google Scholar.

⁶ Einleitung, p. 102, n. 3.

⁷ i. 7. 6, ii. 16. 17.

⁸ ii. 5. 9.

⁹ ἐκέκτηντο δὲ καὶ ναυτικόν ποτε Χῖοι, καὶ ἀνθήπτοντο τῆς κατὰ θάλασσαν ἐλευθερίας 955 c.

¹⁰ 947 B.

¹¹ Strabo, 821 A.

¹² See p. 123.

¹³ 980 A, B.

¹⁴ See p. 90, below.

¹⁵ i. 13 δυνατώτατα γὰρ ταῦτα τῶν ναυτικῶν ἦν

¹⁶ iii. 122.

¹⁷ I use throughout Schoene's edition of Eusebius, 1875–86.

¹⁸ P. 97.

¹⁹ P. 99.

²⁰ P. 107.

²¹ This incident is of interest also, in view of Schoene's view that Syncellus used the Canon rather than the Chronicon. Here at all events he has used the Chronicon.

²² The only possibility in this direction is that the Milesian ordinal IX may havo been misread ΙΩ′ (=18). For a similar confusion between Greek and Latin words and symbols see p. 105, below, and Jerome's own corruption of ἆΘλα μ′ into Athlamos or Athlas mons (Canon, p. 181, h); see Schoene, , Gött. Gel. Anz. 1875, pp. 1496–7Google Scholar.

²³ I have purposely confined myself in the text to purely Herodotean evidence; but, for completeness only, have added later evidence in the footnotes. It does not however contribute much. The whole question was admirably handled long ago by Prof.Goodwin, W. W., De potentine veterum gentium maritimarum epochis apud Euasebium, Göttingen, 1855Google Scholar. I owe much, in what follows, to this brilliant essay, though I only became acquainted with it when revising the present paper for the printer. It is only where it relies upon non-Hellenic history that it is antiquated by subsequent discoveries.

²⁴ Henceforward, for brevity and convenience, I omit the ‘years of Abraham’ and give all dates in years B.C.

²⁵ Hdt. viii. 93.

²⁶ Hdt, vi. 85–87.

²⁷ Hdt. vi. 94.

²⁸ Hdt. vii. 145.

²⁹ Hdt. vii. 46. Compare Strabo, 375. αὔτη δ᾿ ἐστὶν [ἡ Αἰγίνη] ἡ καὶ θαλαττοκρατήσασά ποτε καὶ περὶ πρωτείων ἀμφισβητήσασα πεὸς ᾿Αθη ναίονς ἐν τῇ περὶ Σαλαμῖνα ναυμαχίᾳ κατὰ τὰ Περσικά

³⁰ Hdt. v. 99.

³¹ See Goodwin, l.c. 67, esp. Hdt. vi. 43. ἐπορεύοντο δὲ ἐπί τε ᾿Ερέτριαν καὶ ᾿Αθήνας cf. vi. 94, 98, 100, 101. He notes also that when the Athenians retired from Ionia in Hdt. v. 103, there is no mention that the Eretrians retired too; and infers, not improbably, that they stayed. They did not, however, fight at Lade.

³² Hdt. v. 74. 77.

³³ Goodwin, l.c. 68 refers to this same success the great Eretrian πομπή described (without date) in Strabo 448. The passage certainly includes a reference (ἐπῆρχον) to the establishment of a regular hegemony over islands: and, in particular, over Andros, which had been under Naxos recently in 501; see Hdt. v. 31 and n. 42 below.

³⁴ Hdt. i. 20 v. 92, and p. 111, below.

³⁵ Hdt. v. 30.

³⁶ Hdt. i. 61.

³⁷ Hdt. i. 64.

³⁸ Note in passing that τυραννίς within the limits of the Persian Empire meant something totally different politically from τυραννίς in a free Greek πόλις It was in fact essentially anti-democratic, a forcible oligarchy-of-one. Hence the Ionic Revolt begins with a whole sale τυράννων κατάπαυσις and the establishment of ἰσονομίη in Miletus, Hdt. v. 37, 38, and is appeased by a wholesale recognition of δημοκρατίαι Hdt. vi. 43.

³⁹ Hdt. v. 30.

⁴⁰ Incidentally we see here the significance of Miltiades' attempt to annex Paros, as soon as Athens is beginning to see her way through her entanglements with Aegina. She is picking up the pieces, as elsewhere, of the Eretrian. ἀρχή

⁴¹ Yet in Strabo, 448 (p. 97, n. 33, above), Andros is reckoned as a tributary of Eretria. It would obviously be one of the cornerstones. of an Eretrian sea-power; and a considerable λήμη in the hands of Naxos.

⁴² The fact of a Naxian sea-power is admitted. also in Diod. v. 52: see also Suidas, s.v. Ναξιουργὴς κάνθαρος

⁴³ Hdt. v. 42.

⁴⁴ Hdt. v. 63 πέμπουσι δὲ τούτους κατὰ θάλασσαν πλοίοισι and in sufficient force for their retreat to be in no danger, once they had re-embarked.

⁴⁵ Lepsius, , Berl. Monatsber. May, 1854, p. 217Google Scholar. Goodwin, , De potentiae veterum gentium maritimarum epochis apud Eusebium, p. 63Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Diodorus i. 68 assigns the expedition to 01. 63. 3 (= 521 B.C.)

⁴⁷ I had not the opportunity of seeing Mr. Wells' paper on the Reign of Cleomenes, in the last volume of this Journal, until this paper was already nearly completed; and I am not entirely convinced as yet by his arguments, preferring still to place the accession of Cleomenes, on other grounds than that stated above, in or about 517. But if the earlier date, 520, should be maintained, it would have the advantage of permitting us to include the expedition to Samos within the period of activity of that great man: though in that case it is strange that Herodotus should not have mentioned Cleomenes' name in connexion with it.

⁴⁸ In the case of the Eretrians the numerals are 15 and 26, but he has wrongly included in the latter the 10 years of the Naxians, as explained on p. 92, above.

⁴⁹ Goodwin, l.c. p. 59 brings out well the force of the imperfect tense in this passage.

⁵⁰ i. 163. The later writers fill out the story somewhat. Justin's account is graphic and probably true: namque Phocaeenses, cxiguitate et, macie terre coacti, studiosius mare quam terras exercuere piscando, mercando, plerumque etiam latrocinio maris (quod illis temporibus gloriae habebatur) vitam tolerabant. 43. 3. Their loose attachment to the mainland comes out again in Herodotus' story, first, of their voluntary exile after the revolt of Pactyas (i. 164), second, of the fate of Dionysius the Martinet (vi. 17). Compare also Pausanias 10. 8. 6, and Strabo 179.

⁵¹ See pp. 112–3, below.

⁵² Hdt. i. 164. They recall the tactics of Alyattes against Miletus, two generations before, i. 27.

⁵³ Hdt. i. 165. δειμαίνοντες μή αἰ μὲν ἐμ πόριον γένωνται ἠ δὲ αὐτῶν νῆσος ἀποκληισθῇ τούτου εἴνεκα

⁵⁴ P. 105, below.

⁵⁵ Inferred from Jerome's evidence, as explained on p. 93.

⁵⁶ Piankhi I. reigned 748–725 or later. Petrie, , Hist. Eg. iii. 268Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ 755–730. Petrie, , Hist. Eg. iii. 262Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ 749–721. Petrie, , Hist. Eg. iii. 314Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ N.H. v. 31. 39.

⁶⁰ Hdt. v. 26, vi. 26–28. Note that in the fifth century also Mytilene ranked with Samos and Naxos as a contributor of actual squadrons to the Delian League.

⁶¹ Hdt. i. 29, vi. 37, 125.

⁶² Hdt. i. 23.

⁶³ Hdt. i. 29.

⁶⁴ The later writers incline to put the tyrannis of Pittacus between 590 and 580, and these dates suit very well the terminal date 578 ‘at latest,’ which is indicated by the Phocaean evidence.

⁶⁵ Hdt. i. 171.

⁶⁶ Thuc. i. 4.

⁶⁷ For Carian autochthony compare also Diod. v. 60, Paus. 7. 2–4 passim, and Conon, Narr. 47Google Scholar. Strabo 661 is explicit as to the discrepancy of current theories, and attempts to harmonize them.

⁶⁸ Especially Diod. v. 84. μετὰ δὲ τὴν Τροίας ἄλωσιν Κᾶρες αὐξηθέντες ἐοὶ πλεῖον ἐθα λαττοκράτουν καὶ τῶν Κυκλάδων νήσων κρατή σαντες τινὰς μὲν ἰδίᾳ κατέσχον κ.τ.λ. and the passage about Syme (v. 53). μετὰ δὲ τοὺς Τρωικοὺς χρόνους κατέσχον τὴν νῆσον Κᾶρες καθ δν χρόνον ἐθαλαττοκράτουν In both cases the events are earlier than the Hellenic colonization. Compare also v. 51, 54, 60.

⁶⁹ Hdt. i. 171. μετὰ δέ τούς Κᾶρας χρόνῳ ὔστερον πολλῷ Δωριέες τε καὶ ᾿´Ιωνες ἐξ ανέστησαν ἐκ τῶν vήσων καὶ οὔτω ἐς τὴν ἤπεριρον ἀπίκοντο Compare Strabo 661.

⁷⁰ See also Goodwin, l.c. pp. 53–4, and Diodorus, i. 66.

⁷¹ The fifth-century evidence for this is the genealogy of Hecataeus of Miletus, as given by Herodotus ii. 143. This genealogy ‘went up to a god’ (i.e. human ancestry failed) in the sixteenth generation: and Hecataeus was a grown man in 500 B.C. Supposing Hecataeus to have been born in 530 at latest, and allowing three generations to a century, we arrive at 530 + 533=1063 as the initial year of the sixteenth generation; and this is actually the initial year of the generation of the ‘pilgrimfathers’ who colonized Miletus.

⁷² Goodwin's own solution was (l.c. p. 51) to insert the Carians between the Thracians and the Rhodians, accepting the hint of Syncellus that the latter were κατὰ δὲ τινὰς πέμπτοι But see below p. 125, as to the significance of this variant.

⁷³ I.e. 57 years before the accession of Croesus (Hdt. i. 25), and 72 before the fall of Sardis.

⁷⁴ The divergence of the dates probably stands in direct relation to the statement of Herodotus (i. 15, 18) as to participation of Sadyattes and Alyattes in this war. Probably the war broke out in 617 or 616; Sadyattes took the field, as King of Lydia; but left Alyattes behind in Sardis, as ἐπίτροπος and co-regent. Alyattes reckoned the years of his. reign (as given by Hdt. i. 25) from this co-regeney; but did not become commander-in-chief, παραδεξάμενος παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν πόλε μον till the death of Sadyattes in 610.

⁷⁵ Hdt. i. 20–22.

⁷⁶ For an early instance see Odyssey iii. 170–175. It was only after ‘the god showed them a sign’ that they ventured across from Lesbos to Euboea καθύπερθε Χίοιο instead of going ‘inside.’

⁷⁷ This, it should he noted, was at the moment when Aristagoras was planning under the protectorate of Persia to wrest from the Naxians the hegemony over the Cyolades, which since the revolution of 505 B.C. (p. 98) and the fall of Chalcis, they were no longer in a. position to defend.

⁷⁸ Hdt. i. 74.

^78a Hdt. i. 74.

⁷⁹ Petrie, , Hist. Eg. iii. 344Google Scholar.

^79a This inscription, of which Dr. Winckler only gives a brief mention, is published in full by Dr.Pinches, in T.S.B.A. vii. (1882), pp. 210 ff.Google Scholar, and again by Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor (1889), p. 194Google Scholar, No. 329. The original is in the British Museum, and I owe these references to the courtesy of Mr. L. W. King, of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities.

⁸⁰ Quoted by Dr. Winckler, l.c. p. 31, from A.O.v. 4, p. 22.

⁸¹ P. 103, above.

⁸² As a matter of logical argument, this Egyptian section should have preceded §§12–14; but it seems more convenient to preserve the chronological order and discuss the sea-powers consecutively, while trusting to cross-references to indicate the sequence of the reasoning.

⁸³ Hdt. ii. 152–154.

⁸⁴ Hdt. ii. 154. ἐξ ὦν δὲ ἐξανέστησαν χώρων (in Amasis' reign), ἐν τούτοισι δὲ οἴ τε ὁλκοὶ τῶν νεῶν καὶ τὰ ἐρείπια τῶν οἰκημάτων τὸ μέχρι ἐμεῦ ἦσαν

⁸⁵ Hdt. iv, 42. The actual navigators are here Phoenicians in the Egyptian service.

⁸⁶ Hdt. ii. 158.

⁸⁷ Hdt. ii. 159. τῶν ἔτι οἱ ὁλκοὶ ἐπίδηλοι

⁸⁸ Hdt. ii. 161.

⁸⁹ Hdt. ii. 182.

⁹⁰ Hdt. i. 14.

⁹¹ The date which he actually gives is again an approximation 635–625. This is due to the vagueness of his dating for the submission of Tyre, and partly also to his respect for Jerome's variant numeral 23 for Cyprus.

⁹² Hdt. v. 104, 108–115.

⁹³ Winekler, l.c. p. 24.

⁹⁴ It should be noted however that the deputation to Sargon included the king of Kition, and Kition was usually a stronghold of the Phoenician party in Cyprus.

⁹⁵ If for any reason Jerome's alternative numeral 23 should become more probable, it would be necessary to assign the beginning of the sea-power of Cyprus to 732; and in this ease also Assyrian history provides a striking analogy. For the year 732 is actually the year of the final fall of Damascus, the ringleader of all that Assyrian group with which Tiglathpileser began his struggle ten years earlier; and this fall of Damascus is not only the event which was regarded at the time as the crowning achievement of the Assyrians west of the Euphrates, but also that which set Tiglathpileser free to deal directly both with the coast towns of Phoenicia, and also with Cilicia, Kummukh, and the frontier members of the Anatolian group of states. It consequently marks even more clearly than 742 a definite opportunity for Cyprus to separate itself from this Anatolian (or, as the Greeks called it, ‘Phrygian’) connexion, always supposing that it had not already done so in the former year, as indicated in the text. The year 732 is in fact the only possible alternative date to 742, and it is remarkable that Jerome's variant numeral should point so definitely towards it. In column J of the table on p. 88 I have accordingly reckoned all the dates above this point from both starting-points collaterally.

⁹⁶ How far the Herodotean designation of the predecessors of Gyges as ‘Heraoleids’ may be taken to indicate a reputed kinship with the Heracleids of European Greece, who are of the same ultimately Northern extraction as the Thraco-Phrygian intruders, is a further question: for as early as the time of Herodotus the Heracles who is ancestor of Agron is also ancestor of Belus and Ninus, and has obviously become, identified with the Oriental Heracles. It is worth noting, however, that Agron's date, as given by Herodotus (505 years before Gyges), when reckoned from 686, the probable date for Gyges' establishment in Sardis, brings the Heracleid conquest of Lydia into the third year of the Trojan War (1191); just a generation after the great campaign of the Phrygians on the Sangarius which Priam recalls in Iliad iii. 184 ff.

⁹⁷ Strabo, 654. ίστοροῦσι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα περὶ τῶν ῾Ροδίων ὄτι οὐ μόνον ἀφ᾿ οὖ χρόνου συνῷκισαν τὴν νῦν πόλιν εὐτὐ χουν κατἀ θἀλατταν ἀλλἀ καἰ πρὀ τῆς ᾿Ολυμπικῆς θέσεως συχνοῖς ἔτεσιν ἔπλεον πὀρρω τῆς οἰκείας ἐπί σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων With, this revised chronology, Goodwin's reference (l.c. p. 24) of the ῾Ολ θέσις to the year 884 becomes unnecessary.

⁹⁸ Strabo, l.c.

⁹⁹ Steph. Byz. s.vv.

¹⁰⁰ Diodorus, v. 53. 54.

¹⁰¹ Diodorus, v. 50.

¹⁰² Strabo, 321.

¹⁰³ Strabo, 401. Note that this is partly a ‘Pelasgian’ inroad.

¹⁰⁴ Thueydides, ii. 29.

¹⁰⁵ Strabo, 410, 423.

¹⁰⁶ i. 18.

¹⁰⁷ Iliad vii. 467 ff.

¹⁰⁸ Hdt. v. 26, vi. 136 ff.

¹⁰⁹ Compare the tradition which comes to us through Diodorus, 19. 53. 7, of a Pelasgian raid on Boeotia while the Boeotian army was away in the Troad with Agamemnon.

¹¹⁰ Odyssey xix. 177.

¹¹¹ I hope before long to find occasion to discuss at greater length the results of an enquiry into the historical development of the Greek conception of ‘Pelasgians’ as presented to us in the texts of successive periods.

¹¹² Herodotus, i. 94.

¹¹³ Philistua and Hellanicus: see Dionys. Hal. 1. 28.

¹¹⁴ vi. 2.

¹¹⁵ s.v. Ασκάλων

¹¹⁶ 8. 37, p. 346 D.

¹¹⁷ See Stark, , Gaza (Jena, 1852), pp. 41 ff.Google Scholar, and Nicolas of Damascus, fr. 24–26 (Müller, , F.H.G. iii. pp. 371–2)Google Scholar. In E.M., s.v. Κάϋστρος Derketo marries the river-god Kayster. The two stories together look almost like a Levantine counterpart of an Arethusa-legend; and in view of the current probability of a very early Cretan (or at any rate South Aegean) settlement on this coast, one should perhaps compare also the Cretan legends of Britomartis.

¹¹⁸ See references in Stark, , Gaza, p. 43Google Scholar, n.².

¹¹⁹ Bochart, commenting on this passage (Phaleg (ed. 1651), p. 98) notes that the Lydians acquired maris imperium Cretensibus ereptum, but gives no authority for the statement beyond a reference to the Eusebian Chronicon. In his version of the Eusebian Canon, however, under the year of Abraham 1341, he read Post Caras mare obtinuerunt Lydi, which, if it was a genuine variant for Lesbii would look like a reminiscence of the top of our List in the un-decapitated form which I propose to restore. But here too Bochart gives no authority; and the contemporary confusion of the Scriptural Lubim and Ludim, makes it only too likely to have been a recent emendation or a blunder. Compare for example Bochart's own index, s.v.

¹²⁰ ii. 145.