¹ E.g., Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte ², I. i (1912), 141Google Scholar; 216, 359 (political evolution); 266 (industry); 278 (trade); 280–1 (size of Miletus); 406–7 (social developments); 328, 421, 423 (art); 435 (intellectual interests).

Bury, J. B., History of Greece² (1913), p. ixGoogle Scholar.

Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation (1920), 1–5Google Scholar.

Murray, G., The Rise of the Greek Epic³ (1924), 262Google Scholar.

Glotz, G., Histoire grecque, I. (1925), 260–1, 296–7Google Scholar; 260 (urban growth); 158 (colonisation).

Cambridge Ancient History, III. (1925), 510 (D. G. Hogarth)Google Scholar; 533–4, 539, 549 (H. T. Wade-Gery); 596 (E. A. Gardner); 690–1, 693 (F. E. Adcock).

Hall, H. R., The Ancient Hhtory of the Near East⁸ (1932), 79, 521–2Google Scholar; 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 simllar general conclusion (AJA XLIX 580–1).

³ E.g., as showing the development of Ionian industry, Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I. 1, 266 n. 5Google Scholar: ‘Vgl. Δ 141 (die hier erwähnte ist natürlich 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.

⁵ Herodotus's note on the contemporaneity of Gyges and Archilochus (i. 12) hints at the rarity of such historical references in the poets.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 Archilochus as revealed by their poems (xiv. 647–8).

⁶ See below, pp. 89–90.

⁷ So Atkinson, K. M. T., BSR XIV 134–6Google Scholar. We may in these days over-estimate the need in earlier times of keeping official records.

⁸ 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. 20–1, one may note that Thucydides derived his information that—contrary to the popular belief—Hippias succeeded Pisistratus ἀκοῇ, i.e., from oral tradition (vi. 55, 1). Or if, as Gomme, A. W. asserts in his Historical Commentary on Thucydides (i. 136)Google Scholar, ἀκοή 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 Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I. 1, 17–47Google Scholar; I. 2, 30–3. Compare for more recent opinions Byvanck, A. W., Mnem. 1936, 189–97Google Scholar; and Pearson, L., Early Ionian Historians (1939), 224Google Scholar.

How a tradition might arise is shown by Strabo (xvii. 801, 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 Bilabel, F., Dieionische Kolonisation, 34–40Google Scholar.

On such exercises it is difficult to better Beloch: ‘Wem es Vergnügen 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 Kartenhäuser’ (Gr. Gesch.² I. 2, 88Google Scholar).

¹³ JHS LV 132–3Google Scholar: Burn assumes that the traditional chronology (of Eratosthenes) is correct relatively.

¹⁴ i. 94. What precisely κάπηλος 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. 90, n. 185.

¹⁵ i. 13–14 (Gyges); 19 and 25 (Alyattes); 46–52 (Croesus).

¹⁶ iii. 60.

¹⁷ (i. 143).

It is interesting that Thucydides regarded this point as he Ionian zenith (i. 16).

¹⁸ 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

²⁰ Herodotus disagrees here (v. 87).

²¹ This view is echoed even by Cicero, , de Div. i. 1. 3Google Scholar.

²² In the Chronographia and the Chronici Canones (under the appropriate dates). The list, as restored by J. L. Myres, reads: Carians 1184, Lydians 1056, Pelasgians 964, Thracians 879, Rhodians 800, 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’ (Myres, J. L., JHS XXVI 89Google Scholar).

²⁴ Myres, J. L., JHS XXVI 84–130Google Scholar; XXVII 123–30. His theory is generally accepted by:

Murray, G., The Rise of the Greek Epic³, 322–6 (App. C)Google Scholar; How, W. W. and Wells, J., Commentary on Herodotus², i. 295Google Scholar;

Burn, A. R., JHS XLVII 165–77Google Scholar;

and Perhaps by

Ure, P. N., The Origin of Tyranny, 95–6Google Scholar;

Hogarth, D. G., CAH III 517Google Scholar.

Attacks have been made by:

Fotheringham, J. K., JHS XXVII 75–89Google Scholar;

Aly, W., RhMus, LXVI 585–600Google Scholar;

Helm, R., Hermes, LXI 241–62Google Scholar;

Kubitschek, W., PW, XX Halbband 2354–5Google Scholar (s.v. ‘Kastor’);

Meyer, E., Geschtchte des Altertums² II. 2 (1931), 62, n. 1Google Scholar.

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, 125Google Scholar).

²⁶ Myres asserts that ‘the allusive character of Thucydides' 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 firs Greek to aim at control of the.sea and dismisses as unfounded suggestions of earlier thalassocracies , , 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)Google Scholar.

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 Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I 1, 229–64Google Scholar; 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— 1051—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 Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I 2, 221–4Google Scholar; Burn, A. R., JHS LV 136–7Google Scholar; Byvanck, A. W., Mnem. 1936, 193–7Google Scholar.

³¹ E.g., CAH III 535 (H. T. Wade-Gery); 618 (M. Cary); 651, 672 (J. L. Myres): Glotz, G., Hist. gr. I 178Google Scholar.

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 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 165Google Scholar). This device has nothing to recommend it but ingenuity.

³³ ‘Dès lors l'élan est donné,’ Glotz, G., Hist. gr. I 162Google Scholar. 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 619).

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 619). J. L. Myres, it appears, dates the earliest colonisation, or perhaps the reinforcement, of Chalcidice in the ninth or eighth century (CAH III 650).

³⁵ Mor. 293a: see above, n. 32.

³⁶ On the date of Archilochus the latest papers I know are those of Jacoby, F., CQ XXXV 97–109Google Scholar, with most of which I agree; and Lasserre, F., Mus. Helv. 1947, 1–7Google Scholar, 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 Burn, A. R., JHS LV 132, n. 6Google Scholar, where references are given. But see Jacoby, F., CQ XXXV 102–3Google Scholar.

³⁷ Fr. 18 (Diehl).

³⁸ But see Harrison, E., CQ VI 93–103, and 165–78Google Scholar. 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 ἐπιτρέΨαντος Γύγου (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 33⅓ 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 33⅓.

⁴³ It is not clear whether these were different names for the same city or whether there were originally two cities, see Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation, 23–6Google Scholar. 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 Burn, A. R. shows (JHS LV 133–4)Google Scholar. 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 ionischc Kolonisation, 14–15).

⁴⁵ iv. 12: note that the word used of the Cimmerians is κτίσαντες.

⁴⁶ 941–952. Strabo (xii. 546) mentions the Argonaut occupation and a later Milesian colony. For a discussion of the passage of pseudo-Skymnos, see Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation, 30–40Google Scholar: he also gives other ancient references.

⁴⁷ 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 1, 257Google Scholar).

⁴⁸ iv. 12, 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 Minns, E. H., CAH III 187–8Google Scholar. M. Rostovtzeff puts it in the seventh century (Iranians and Greeks in South Russia, 41), or the eighth century (History of the Ancient World, I 399Google Scholar).

⁵⁰ Fr. 79 (Diehl). For over-reliance on this passage see even Burn, A. R., JHS LV 135Google Scholar— ‘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 anthropomorphic 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.

⁵¹ So Burn, A. R., JHS LV 140Google Scholar. Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I 2, 236–8Google Scholar.

⁵² ii. 178: this is the simple interpretation of what Herodotus says.

⁵³ xvii. 801.

⁵⁴ xv. 675–676: it is not a testimony to be taken seriously (see Burn, A. R., JHS LV 139, n. 19Google Scholar).

⁵⁵ Compare K. M. T. Atkinson, referring particularly to Selinus (BSR XIV 115–36, especially 130–6); the earlier date is that of the arrival of the first prospectors, the later of the regular foundation of a πόλις. 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, 600, 575.)

Tomb 55. No. 5: EC–MC. For the knob and shape of the lid cf. even Payne 1506 (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 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 Ialysus 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. 1: 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 600.

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 Myres, J. L., CAH IIIGoogle Scholar ch. xxv passim). Anyhow, for my present purpose I can ignore them.

⁵⁷ E.g., Hogarth, D. G., CAH III 509–10Google Scholar (ninth and eighth centuries); Wade-Gery, H. T., CAH III 534Google Scholar (first half of eighth century); Glotz, G., Hist. gr. I 164–5 and 277 (eighth century)Google Scholar.

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 Glotz, G.. Hist. gr. I 325–6Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, H. T., CAH III. 534Google Scholar; Burn, A. R., JHS LV 135Google Scholar). The objections are these: (1) the date of Eumelus is not certain (see Bethe, E., PW XI Halbband 1080–1Google Scholar, 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.

⁵⁹ Hist. gr. I 165Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ JHS LV 130–46Google Scholar: 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.

⁶² 270–3; cf. Strabo vi. 267. See also above p. 70, n. 30.

⁶³ JHS LV 146Google Scholar. In Table I on p. 77 below I show the effect of Burn's scale.

⁶⁴ Ancient History of the Near East ⁸, 525: cf. Glotz, G., Hist. gr. I 158Google Scholar.

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 Johansen, K. F., Sikyoniske Vaser (Danish: 1918)Google Scholar; Les Vases sicyoniens (a revised and enlarged edition of the former work: 1923):

Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia (1931)Google Scholar; Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei (1933); Perachora I (1940), 53–67Google Scholar:

Weinberg, S. S., AJA XLV 30–44Google Scholar; Corinth VII 1 (1943)Google Scholar.

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 Weinberg, S. S., AJA XLV 30–44 and below p. 93, n. 205Google Scholar.

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 fifte to twenty years.

⁷¹ See Dohan, E. H., Italic Tomb Groups (1942), 106–8Google Scholar, where sufficient references are given.

⁷² Authorities disagree on the precise date of Bocchoris, but not now by more than two or three years, see E. H. Dohan, loc. cit. Åkerström, Å. is sceptical of the value of this tomb-group (Der Geometrische Stil in Italien, 33)Google Scholar.

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 6go (Mnem. 1936, 188Google Scholar).

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.

⁷⁷ See Young, R. S., Hesperia Suppl. II (1939)Google Scholar; Kahane, P., AJA XLIV 464–82Google Scholar; Weinberg, S. S., AJA XLV 30–44Google Scholar, and Corinth VII 1 (1943)Google Scholar. Compare also Dohan, E. H., Italic Tomb Groups (1942)Google Scholar.

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

⁷⁹ Ancient History of the Near East ⁸, 525: on his evidence see Burn, A. R., JHS LV 137–9Google Scholar. Hall was I think predisposed 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 Burn, A. R., JHS LV 136, 138 and 146Google Scholar. As he regards thirty years as a fair average for a generation, he would reduce Thucydides' dates by one-seventh of their distanc e from 500 B.C.

⁸¹ Mnem. 1936, 198–206Google Scholar: 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).

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 650 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 Rumpf, A., JdI XLVIII 60–1Google Scholar; also JHS LVII 227–37Google Scholar). 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., Pfuhl, E., MuZ I 140Google Scholar). 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: Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks, 338–9, 439, 458Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, M., Iranians and Greeks in South Russia, 63Google Scholar; Burn, A. R., JHS LV 134–5Google Scholar (but the earliest East Greek pottery from Gela is in fact of the last third of the seventh century).

⁸⁵ Syracuse: Orsi, P., NSc (1893) 445–86Google Scholar; (1895) 109–92; (1925) 296–321;. MonAnt XXV (1918), 353–762Google Scholar. Arias, P. E., BCH LX 144–51Google Scholar.

Megara Hyblaea: Orsi, P., MonAnt I (1892), 689–950Google Scholar; MonAnt XXVII (1921), 109–80Google Scholar.

Gela: Orsi, P., MonAnt XVII (1906): XIX (1908), 89–140Google Scholar.

Selinus: Gábrici, E., MonAnt XXXII (1927)Google Scholar; XXXIII (1929), 61–112. Atkinson, K. M. T., BSR XIV 115–36 (see above p. 73, n. 55)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Cumae: Gábrici, E., MonAnt XXII (1913)Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Massilia: Vasseur, G., l'Origine de Marseille (1914)Google Scholar. See also Jacobsthal, P. and Neuffer, E., Préhistoire II (1933). 1–64Google Scholar.

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 Säflund, G., Dragma M. P. Nilsson, 458–90Google Scholar; especially pp. 460–3 and figs. 1 and 3, and pp. 488–90).

⁸⁹ Naucratis; see JHS LVII 227–37Google Scholar. Cf. below, p. 83 n. 146.

⁹⁰ Istrus: Lambrino, M., Les Vases Archaiques d'Histria (1938)Google Scholar: 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 148–9Google Scholar.

Olbia and Berezan: excavation began at Olbia in 1896 and at Berezan in 1904, and has continued with interruptions; 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 ‘altrhodisch’ 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 625–600 from Olbia, see Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia, 187Google Scholar.

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, Südrussland 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 1911, 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 630. 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. Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks, 339Google Scholar; von Stern, E., Klio IX, 141Google Scholar (‘zahlreiche Grabfunde altmilesischer Töpferwaren’; 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 Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia, 271, no. 30aGoogle Scholar).

⁹² Jacoby, F., CQ XXXV, 102, n. 4Google Scholar.

⁹³ Particularly if, as is likely, this pottery is Geometric or Subgeometric (cf. below, p. 82, n. 133).

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

^bThucydides 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.

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

^dSinope: ‘he (the oecist) seems to have been destroyed by the Cimmerians,’ and after the Cimmerians the site was reoccupied (ll. 941–52). Naxos, etc.: ‘10th generation after the Trojan War’ (ll. 270–74); see n. e. Sybaris: it existed 210 years (l. 360). Istrus: ‘about the time of the Scythian invasion of Asia’ (ll. 767–72), i.e. (accepting Herodotus's date) about 615. Olbia: ‘about the time of the Median empire’ (ll. 806–9); I take Eusebius's date. Apollonia Pontica: ‘50 years before Cyrus’ (ll. 730–3), whom Eusebius dates 560. Massilia: ‘120 years before Salamis’ (ll. 209–14). Pseudo-Skymnos also mentions that Camarina lasted 46 years (l. 295).

^eStrabo, following Ephorus, dates to the 10th 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 1st 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. Byvanck, A. W., Mnem. 1936, 194–6Google Scholar): for the 1st Messenian War I have used Eusebius's dates. Abydus was founded ‘by permission of Gyges’ (xiii. 590).

^fI See Burn, A. R., JHS LV 130–46Google Scholar 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 (1/7), being the fraction by which the original date is reduced.

Selinus: Thucydides' date reduced by 1/7 is 610.

^gIn this column are collected the dates Burn gives, as he gives them: it will be seen he has adjusted his scale.

^hThe dates assumed from Thucydides are marked *.

⁹⁴ Prehistoric Macedonia (1939), 39; 106; 125Google Scholar; see below, p. 82, n. 131. 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 Woolley, C. L., JHS LVIII 1–30 and 133–70Google Scholar (general description of site, etc.); Robertson, C. M., JHS LX 2–21 (early Greek pottery)Google Scholar; Smith, S., Antiquaries' Journal, XXII 87–112Google Scholar (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., 973aGoogle Scholar).

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).

¹⁰¹ JHS LX 21Google Scholar.

¹⁰² JHS LX 2, n. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ See below, pp. 93–5. I do not know if Robertson would go so far as this.

¹⁰⁴ Antiquaries' Journal XXII 91–4Google Scholar. Smith's other historical suggestion for Al Mina, that its interruption from about 600 to 520 was the result of Phoenician domination of the Syrian coast (ibid., 105–11), looks rather shaky since the publication of the finds from Tell Sukas (Forrer, E., Bericht über d. VI internat. Kongress f. Archäologie, 1939, 360–5Google Scholar). Tell Sukas, a harbour site 17 miles S.S.E. of Latakia, shows evidence of Greek occupation from about 600 to 550, and may in fact be complementary to Al Mina.

¹⁰⁵ Pseudo-Skymnos, 734–7. Strabo xiv. 635.

¹⁰⁶ E.g., Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation, 9–10Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Xenophon, , Anab. v. 6, 15–21Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Gela, dated by Thucydides about 690, was a joint venture of Cretans and Rhodians. From about 600, 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 Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I 2, 238–45Google Scholar; against him Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation, 206–8Google Scholar): 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 176–7Google Scholar): the colonial movement began about 750, when Ionia was absorbed in overland trade; this was ruined by Gyges about 700, and therefore Ionia began to found colonies for the sake of overseas markets.

¹¹¹ 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 III 664–6).

¹¹² See below, p. 86.

¹¹³ i. 142: for Aeolis, see i. 149.

¹¹⁴ De Aere 12.

¹¹⁵ So Myres, J. L., CAH III 656Google Scholar.

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 tb judge by Hdt. iii. 59, from which indeed Strabo may have inferred an Aeginetan colony).

¹¹⁸ BSA XXXIII 170–208. The argument on Etruria is carried further in JRS XXV 129–49Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ See Dohan, E. H., Italic Tomb Groups (1942)Google Scholar, 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 14; p. 45, Comp. 3: note also pp. 105–9 where she gives reasons for dating the Warrior's Tomb at Tarquinii about 680—Blakeway had put it before 755 (BSA XXXIII 197). Of general relevance to the dating of late Geometric and Subgeometric styles, though treating particularly of Attic, is Young, R. S., Hesperia Suppl. II (1939)Google Scholar: he categorically denies Blake-way's early dating (ibid., 3, n. 2). J. D. Beazley, reviewing Dohan, writes: ‘Mrs. Dorian's dates tend to be somewhat later than Payne's, and a good deal later than Blakeway's: this accords with the experience, which must be respected, of American excavators in the Agora’ (ClRev 1944, 31Google Scholar). Apart from the dating, Blakeway's attributions to local styles of pottery were often too positive and must be doubted.

I have now read Åkerström, Å., Der Geometrische Stil in Italien (1943)Google Scholar. He argues (1) 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 119–20Google Scholar).

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 Carpenter, R., AJA XLIX 452–64Google Scholar.

¹²⁰ E.g., MonAnt XXII pl. 18, 7 and 9.

¹²¹ E.g., Villa Giulia 4815, Corinthian Geometric skyphos; from Falerii; Blakeway, A. A., BSA XXXIII 196, no. 73 and pl. 31Google Scholar, and Weinberg, S. S., AJA XLV 32Google Scholar.

¹²² Italic Tomb Groups, 108.

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 Dohan, E. H., Italic Tomb Groups, 108Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ To be published by C. M. Robertson in BSA.

¹²⁶ See Beaumont, R. L., JHS LVI 159–204Google Scholar: this valuable 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 174–5). This I do not believe: however, I know them only from the illustrations in MonAnt XIX (Mosso) pl. 4.

¹²⁷ Préhistoire II 1–64Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ L'Origine de Marseille.

¹²⁹ Préhistoire, II 36–42Google Scholar. I think no. 1 (fig. 37) is much earlier than 600; no. 2 (fig. 38) is difficult to place from the illustration, but is certainly before 600; no. 4 (fig. 40b) 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. 1 and 2 are from Marseilles itself.

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

¹³¹ Heurtley, W. A., Prehistoric Macedonia (1939), 39; 106; 125Google Scholar. 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 650; from Salonika (‘old grave, 1911’). Sofia 5282, Late Protocorinthian aryballos (soon after 650); from Salonika (‘1913’). These are the only Greek objects from Macedonia earlier than 600 that I noticed in Sofia Museum. I do not know how much these provenances can be trusted.

¹³³ Kavalla: see Bakalakis, G., Πρακτικά 1937, 59–77Google Scholar; 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 600.

Kalamitsa (7 kilometres west of Kavalla): see Bakalakis, G., Πρακτικά 1935, 29–42Google Scholar; 1936, 74–81. Attic and Corinthian are mentioned, apparently not so eariy 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 (Πρακτικά 1938, 104–11Google Scholar). It does not look like truly Greek Geometric and is probably of local manufacture.

¹³⁴ Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia, 274, no. 67aGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ See above, p. 76.

¹³⁶ I judge by the contents of local muśeums that I have visited in Bulgaria and Rumania: compare Pârvan, V., Acad. Roumaine, Bull. Sect. Hist. X (1923), 23–48Google Scholar. 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 (Safnsun): some desultory digging was done in 1906 at Ak Alan (18 kilometres west-south-west of Samsun), by Makridi, T. (see Mitt. Vorderas. Gesellschaft XII (1907), 167–75Google Scholar). Pottery: Makridi publishes one ‘Rhodian’ sherd of the last quarter of the seventh century (op. cit., pl. 10—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. 11–17; Koch, H., RM XXX 16–23Google Scholar, 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 Körte, G. and Körte, A., Gordion (1904)Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ So Burn, A. R., JHS LV 135Google Scholar: 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 Gel a scarcely antecedes 630, and from Selinus 600 or so.

¹⁴¹ This view is held by Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation 60–3Google Scholar: 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 Εὔξεινος for the Pontus comes by way of Ἄξεινος from Iranian (see Glotz, G., Hist. gr., I 164, n. 45Google Scholar): if so, that might give an upper limit for Greek activity in those waters. But for a denial of this derivation, see Moorhouse, A. C., CQ XXXIV 123–8Google Scholar.

¹⁴² See above, pp. 78–9.

¹⁴³ Cilicia.

At Mersin, west of Tarsus, excavation was begun just before the late war. The finds included some Greek pottery, published by Barnett, R. D. (LAAA XXVI 98–130Google Scholar). The number of pots represented are as follows: Mycenaean—7; Submycenaean—1, and Protogeometric (doubtful)—1 (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., 100): 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 (AJA XLII 44, figs. 33–4).

There are also references to casual Greek sherds from Misis, Kazanli near Mersin, Tanuk Kale (?Tömük Kale) near Soli, Sirkeli near Adana (Barnett, ibid., 100).

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 (Ingholt, H., Rapport Préliminaire sur … Hama, 98Google Scholar: dated by F. Johansen c. 950–800, 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 94Google Scholar).

Palestine.

A few Greek sherds of the late seventh century were found at Askalon, and one at Tell Jemmeh (7 miles south of Gaza); all are ‘Rhodian’ (QDAP I pl. 5a, 1 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 1923, pl. 2, 4) falls well inside the sixth century: see Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia, 187Google Scholar.

Mesopotamia.

One Submycenaean, one Protogeometric, and one ‘Rhodian’ sherd are reported from Quyunjik-Nineveh (JHS LII 130Google Scholar). Mr. R. D. Barnett tells me that the lower date for these finds is probably 628.

¹⁴⁴ Antiquaries' Journal XXII 96Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ This is discussed in JHS LVII 227–37Google Scholar: 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’ (Lanes.), not ‘Boston’).

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

¹⁴⁷ See Payne, H. G. G., Necrocorinthia, 187–8Google Scholar. 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).

¹⁴⁹ Or anyhow none worth exporting. I follow on the so-called ‘Chalcidian’ ware Smith, H. R. W., The Origin of Chalcidian Ware (1932)Google Scholar.

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 Frickenhaus, A., Anuari II (1908), 195–240Google Scholar: further AJA XLVII 481).

¹⁵³ The best discussion of the reasons for colonisation is that of Gwynn, A., JHS XXXVIII 88–123Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ From the second half of the eighth century Oriental influence affects Greek art, and from the early seventh Greek inspires Etruscan.

Å. Åkerström (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. 80, n. 119).

¹⁵⁵ So Herodotus (iii. 115).

¹⁵⁶ Dr. T. Fish kindly pointed this out tome.

¹⁵⁷ See below, p. 88.

¹⁵⁸ i. 2–7, and passim.

¹⁵⁹ See Glotz, G., Hist. gr. I 146Google Scholar: cf. Lorimer, H. L., JHS XLIX 154Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁰ It may of course be poetic habit that he describes his father's journey across the Aegean with the phrase (635).

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

¹⁶² Falsa fr. 1 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. 1011–16 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 600 when Massilia was colonised.

On economic development the ancients do not enlighten us. Herodotus indeed says that χειροτέχναι 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, οἱ ἄριστοι, 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 Smith, S., Antiquaries' Journal XXII 99–100Google Scholar). Dr. T. Fish tells me that there is no earlier record of the name ‘Javan’ or its cognates.

¹⁶⁵ So Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I 1, 216Google Scholar; Hall, H. R., Ancient History of the Hear East,⁸ 525–6Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁶ Strabo, vi. 259; ps. Skymnos 314–15: Eusebius gives the date 663.

¹⁶⁷ Fr. 22 (Diehl).

¹⁶⁸ The economic basis of tyranny is shown by Ure, P. N., The Origin of Tyranny (1922)Google Scholar: 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, Ure, P. N., The Origin of Tyranny, 69Google Scholar). 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 Adcock, F. E., CAH III 690–1Google Scholar: compare Beloch, K.J., Gr. Gesch.² I 1, 202–3Google Scholar.

¹⁷³ Weinberg, S. S., Corinth VII 1, 3 and 84Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ For the cemetery, see Young, R. S., Hesperia. Suppl. IIGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷⁵ Gr. Gesch.² I 1, 279–81Google Scholar: ‘etwas bevölkerter mag Milet gewesen sein, die erste Stadt in Ionien und also wahrscheinlich überhaupt in der griechischen Welt.’

Miletus was destroyed by the Persians in 494 and afterwards rebuilt. Excavation of the later city has revealed traces of an earlier settlement, which seems to have been occupied continuously from th e 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 über d. VI internat. Kongress f. Archäologie, 1939, 323–5Google Scholar; cf. ibid., 325–32). It is partly a matter of prejudice.

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

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. 69Google Scholar), and these may well be the Ionians 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 565–530 (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 Carpenter, R., AJA XXXVII 8–29Google Scholar: he argued for the late eighth century. This was attacked as being much too late by Blegen, C. W. (AJA XXXVIII 10–28Google Scholar: on the evidence of inscribed Attic Geometric pottery from Hymettus); by Harland, J. P.. (AJA XXXVIII 83–92Google Scholar: on general probabilities); by Ullman, B. L. (AJA XXXVIII 359–81Google Scholar: 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 Johansen, K. F., Les Vases sicyoniens, 52Google Scholar; H. G. G. Payne, Protokorinthische Vaser.-malerei, pl. 6) and in Early Protoattic (Cook, J. M., BSA XXXV 181–2 and fig. 7Google Scholar). 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 Young, R. S., AJA XLIV 1–9Google Scholar: note particularly his no. 10—αυτος εγρ‹αφσε› 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. 54Google Scholar); I think he may be referring particularly to the obscene message on the sherd AJA XXXVIII 10–12, no. 1, but obscenity is no proof of advanced literacy.

¹⁸³ As is assumed by Beloch, K. J., Gr. Gesch.² I 1, 228Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, H. T., CAH III 529Google Scholar.

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

¹⁸⁵ i. 94. So also Xenophanes according to Pollux (Onom. ix. 83Google Scholar). To be precise Herodotus says of the Lydians , which might conceivably refer to the invention only of bimetallism.

¹⁸⁶ Ionian invention is preferred by Babelon, E., Traité des Monnaies Grecques et Romaines, II 1 (1907), 6Google Scholar; Gardner, P., History of Ancient Coinage (1918), 69Google Scholar; Milne, J. G., Greek Coinage (1931), 2–7Google Scholar. Seltman, C. T., Greek Coins (1933), 15–19Google Scholar, 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 Ure, P. N., The Origin of Tyranny, 130–1Google Scholar.

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 Aegin a about 750 (op. cit., 6–7 and 16).

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)Google Scholar.

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

¹⁹⁰ In particular of the finds from within and about the ‘Basis’ at the Artemision of Ephesus: the date of this deposit is rather about 600 than yoo. See Löwy, E., Zur Chronologic der frühgriechischen Kunst (1932), especially pp. 21–8Google Scholar (review in JHS LII 130Google Scholar; Löwy's, reply JHS LIII 112Google Scholar): Gjerstad, E., LAAA XXIV 15–34Google Scholar. Compare Rumpf, A., Griechische und Römische Kunst (1932), 18Google Scholar (Gercke, A. and Norden, E., Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft⁴ II 1, 3Google Scholar); Löwy 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. (1) Ivory lion (pls. 21, 3; 25, 12): this, the earliest datable piece, resembles Protocorinthian and may be as early as 650. (2) Ivory lion (pls. 21, 1; 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 600. (6) Bronze woman (pl. 14): probably Subdaedalic, i.e., late seventh of early sixth century.

¹⁹¹ This is plainly put for the Asiatic coins by Hogarth, D. G. (Excavations at Ephesus, 240–1Google Scholar; compare B. V. Head, ibid., 88 and 92).

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, 1 (dolphin); pl. III, 8 (amphora) have analogies about the middle of the sixth century rather than about 600.

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

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

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

¹⁹⁵ The Origin of Tyranny (1922), 2Google Scholar.

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.

¹⁹⁷ i. 72 and ii. 34.

¹⁹⁸ See above, p. 76, n. 83 and p. 90, n. 190.

¹⁹⁹ See, for instance, Rumpf, A., JdI XLVIII 55–83Google Scholar.

²⁰⁰ Buschor, E., Griechische Vasen (1940)Google Scholar, 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 Beazley, J. D., Hesperia XIII 38Google Scholar).

²⁰² Heurtley, W. A., QDAP IV 181Google Scholar: accepted by Kahane, P., AJA XLIV 481Google Scholar; and by Weinberg, S. S., Corinth VII. 1, 9Google Scholar. The date is not sure (see Hamilton, R. W., QDAP IV 68Google Scholar).

²⁰³ Smith, S., Antiquaries' Journal XXII 100–4Google Scholar. See also pp. 78–9 above.

²⁰⁴ This is the most recent opinion of the date, and is sound; see Weinberg, S. S., AJA XLV 35–7Google Scholar; Corinth VII. 1, 33 and 90Google Scholar.

²⁰⁵ For the Later (Linear) Geometric generally attributed to Corinth Weinberg has made a good case for a division between Corinth and Aegin a (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 See Cook, J. M., BSA XXXV 165–219Google Scholar (especially 202–5 for the date when the style began): Young, R. S., Hesperia, Suppl. IIGoogle Scholar, especially App. I; and AJA XLVI 23–57 (especially 55–7). Cook has Protoattic begin about 710; 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 Young, R. S., Hesperia Suppl. IIGoogle Scholar; Weinberg, S. S., AJA XLV 37–40Google Scholar.

²⁰⁸ H. G. G. Payne held that Corinth derived from Crete (Necrocorinthia, 5–6; Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei, 11: compare Johansen, K. F., Les Vases sicyoniens, 58–9Google Scholar). 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. 1, 22–3 and 87Google Scholar). I suspect that the importance of Crete is exaggerated. Cretan Geometric and Orientalising are little known, the best study being that of Payne, H. G. G., BSA XXIX 224–98Google Scholar; 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 Levi, D., Annuario, X–XIGoogle Scholar and Hesperia, XIV 1–32Google Scholar; Hartley, M., BSA XXXI 56–114Google Scholar.

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 Benton, S., BSA XXXIX 52–64Google Scholar).

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 600 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. 1): 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 640–630. 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 Roberson, C. M. (JHS LX 8–16)Google Scholar. K. Schefold, improving on Rumpf, has made an elaborate and unconvincing arrangement of local schools (JdI LVII 124–42).

²¹⁰ Apparently transitional: Eilmann, R., AM LVIII, Beil. xxiv. 1Google Scholar ( = p. 76, fig. 26c); xxvi. 4; xxviii. 8–xxix. 1 ( = pp. 98–9, figs. 40–1). Some primitive experiments in incision: Beil. xxxvii. 1; Taf. iv. 2.

²¹¹ Both styles together: ibid., Taf. ii–iii. ( = p. 86, fig. 32); Robertson, C. M., JHS LXGoogle Scholar pl. ii. d–e: K. F. Kinch, Vroulia, fig. 107.

Note also the contents of Subgeometric graves in Rhodes in Clara Rhodos III and IV (Checraci).

²¹² Clara Rhodos, VI–VII 475–543passimGoogle Scholar.

²¹³ Hogarth, D. G., Excavations at Ephesus, 218–31Google Scholar (C. Smith): Keil, J., ÖJh XXIII Beiblatt 253–6, figs. 44–7Google Scholar. 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 University (D. 88); one in the Louvre (CA 2249, very fine Wild Goat style—cf. Berlin University, D. 90, from Sardis).

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

²¹⁵ Technau, W., AM LIV 6–64Google Scholar: Eilmann, R., AM LVIII 47–145Google Scholar.

²¹⁶ Commonly called ‘Naucratite,’ but this was probably made in Chios: see Lamb, W., BSA XXXV 158–61Google Scholar (cf. JHS LVII 228Google Scholar, n. 9). The course of development in this ware has not been studied: the two ‘chalices’ Würzburg K128 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 Schefold, K., AA 1933, 151–2, figs. 9–10Google Scholar (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 Schefold, K. in Larisa am Hermos III (1942)Google Scholar: 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 Miltner, H., Öjh XXVII Beiblatt 127–88Google Scholar: 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 Göttingen, the terracotta slabs in Stockholm and Stamboul. Excavation was resumed in 1932–4: the finds are in Stamboul. See Larisa am Hermos I (1940)Google Scholar—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. 9–10 and 1934, 363–410, 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 B561 (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 (Perrot, G. and Chipiez, C., Hist. d'Art IX, fig. 203Google Scholar); 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. 33–5Google Scholar); 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 from Kavalla (Πρακτικά 1938, 80; I have not seen these finds nor photos of them).

The sherd Louvre CA 2244(7) 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. Körte, Gordion, pl. 10, 37).

There is an Aeolian quality in some pieces from northern Ionia: e.g., Bonn 2332 (Greifenhagen, A., AA 1936, 378, no. 26 and fig. 28Google Scholar, from Clazomenae: note the many-petalled flower). Compare some fragments from Ephesus in Vienna University (one published in Öjh 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 Lamb, W., BSA XXXII 51Google Scholar. So also in Troy VIII (Boulter, C. G., AJA XLII 121Google Scholar).

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 Orientalising 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, 1) 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 8–16Google Scholar): 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 Lane, E. A., BSA XXXIV 115 (and fig. 9)Google Scholar. In all there are sherds of perhaps a dozen bowls which may be derived from East Greek.

²²⁵ Weinberg, S. S., Corinth VII 1, no. 308Google Scholar (pl. 37): this piece is indebted to the rosette bowls, which derived from the bird-bowls.

²²⁶ Cf. Kinch, K. F., Vroulia, 75Google Scholar.

²²⁷ Rhode s 14709 (Clara Rhodos VI–VII 355, fig. 102Google Scholar).

²²⁸ Melos seems geographically remote for East Greek influence: one would expect this class of pottery to have been made somewhere round Naxos.

²²⁹ See Jenkins, R. J. H., Dedalica, pp. xiv–xvGoogle Scholar, and the references there mentioned: add Müller, V., Metr. Mus. Studies V 157–69Google Scholar. What may be an earlier stone figure has been found at Levidhi in Arcadia (Burr, D. (Thompson), AJA, XXXI 169–76 (figs. 1–4)Google Scholar; V. Müller, op. cit., 165, fig. 11): 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 (1936); 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., 68–70.

²³⁴ R. J. H. Jenkins, op. cit., 70–1: Buschor, E., Altsamische Standbilder II. 23–4 and figs. 72, 73, 75Google Scholar.

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 11.

²³⁸ Archaic Marble Sculpture, 62: the photographs of G. M. Young drive the point home.

²³⁹ See Rumpf, A., Critica d'Arte 1938, 46Google Scholar.

²⁴⁰ See most recently Payne, H. G. G., Archaic Marble Sculpture, 55–63Google Scholar; and Rumpf, A., Critica d'Arte 1938, 41–8Google Scholar. 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 Robertson, D. S., Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture² (1943)Google Scholar.

²⁴² See D. S. Robertson, op. cit., 57–61; Schefold, K., ÖJh XXXI (1938), 42–52Google Scholar. 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 Smith, H. R. W., The Hearst Hydria (1944), 254–66Google Scholar: Smith gives ingenious support from archaeological evidence to Beloch's lower dating of the Cypselids.

²⁴⁴ Compare Bury, J. B., History of Greece², p. ixGoogle Scholar.