Ancient West & East: Volume 1, No. 1 9004128131, 9789004128132

Citation preview

ANCIENT WEST & EAST VOLUME I, NO. I

Academic Periodical

ANCIENT WEST & EAST Monograph Supplement: COLLOQUIA PONTICA EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

COCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (UK) EDITORS

O.

R.

ALSTON (UK) -

A.

A VRAM (Romania) - SIR] OHN BOARDMAN (UK)

J.

BOPEARACHCHI (France) BOUZEK (Czech Rep.) B. D'AGOSTINO (Italy) - F. DE ANGELIS (Canada) -

O.

J.

M. FISCHER (Israel) - HARGRAVE (UK) KAZANSKI (France) - D. RIDGWAY (UK) THEODOSSIEV (Bulgaria) - C.R. TSETSKHLADZE (UK)

DOONAN (USA) -

J. HIND (UK) N.

A. QILINGIROGLU (Turkey) A. DOMiNGUEZ (Spain)

M.

ADVISORY BOARD

P Alexandrescu (Romania) . S. Atasoy (Turkey) - L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain) A.D.H. Bivar (UK) - S. Burstein (USA) - J. Carter (USA)- B. Cunliffe (UK) J. de Boer (The Netherlands) - P Dupont (France) - A. Fol (Bulgaria)J. Fossey (Canada) I. Cagoshidze (Georgia) - E. Haerinck (Belgium) - V Karageorghis (Cyprus) M. Kerschner (Germany! Austria) - A. Kuhrt (UK) - I. Malkin (Israel) F. Millar (UK) J.- P Morel (France) - R. Olmos (Spain) - A. Rathje (Denmark) ... A. Sagona (Australia) A. Snodgrass (UK) - S. Solovyov (Russia) - D. Stronach (USA) - M.A. Tiverios (Greece) M. Vassileva (Bulgaria) - A. Wasowicz (Poland) All correspondence should be addressed to:

Aquisitions Editor/Classical Studies Brill Academic Publishers Plantijnstraat 2 Po. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden The Netherlands Fax: +31 (0)71 5317532 E-Mail: [email protected] or Cocha R. Tsetskhladze Department of Classics Royal Holloway and Bedford New College University of London Egham, Surrey TW20 OEX, UK Fax: +44 (0)1784 439855 E-Mail: [email protected]

ANCIENT WEST & EAST

VOLUME 1, NO.1

BRILL

LEIDEN· BOSTON' KOLN 2002

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN 1570--1921 ISBN 900412813 I © Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill.Nv, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part if this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in a'!Y form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission .from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fies are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Editorial ..................................................................................... . G.R. Tsetskhladze Publisher's Note ........................................................................ M. Klein Swormink

3

Introduction to the First Issue G.R. Tsetskhladze

5

Essays J. Boardman, Archaeology Beyond the Classical World F. Millar, Classical West and Ancient East: Problems of Method and Approach ........................................................ D. Ridgway, Ancient Greeks (and Others) West and East .... A.M. Snodgrass, The History of a False Analogy ................ T J. Figueira, Typology in Archaic Greek Maritime Trading States ...................................................................... R. Olmos, From the Iberian Far West .................................. V. Karageorghis, Some Thoughts on the Past, Present and Future of Cypriot Studies .......... ............. ......... ............... ..... J. Hind, The Pontic Region: The Northern Segment of the Ancient East ............ ............. ........... ............. ............. ............ A. Sagona, Archaeology at the Headwaters of the Aras ...... C. Burney, Urartu and its Forerunners: Eastern Anatolia and Trans-Caucasia in the Second and Early First Millennia BC ........................................................................ S.M. Burstein, Aithiopia: the Southern Periphery of the Graeco-Roman World .......................................................... A.D.H. Bivar, Beyond the Tigris ............................................

7 9 13 19 24 28 34 39 46 51 55 59

Articles F.C. Woudhuizen, The Luwian Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of the Emirgazi Stone Altars .................................................... 67 AJ. Graham, Thasos and the Bosporan Kingdom ................ 87 Y. Ustinova, Lycanthropy in Sarmatian Warrior Societies: The Kobyakovo Torque ...................................................... 102 D.T. Potts, Some Problems in the Historical Geography of Nakhchivan ...................................................................... 124 R. Alston, Reading Augustan Alexandria ...... ....... .... ......... .... 141

VI

CONTENTS

Notes P. Alexandrescu, L'art des Getes et des Triballes ................ 163 S.M. Burstein, The Date of Amage, Queen of the Sarmatians: A Note on Polyaenus, Strategemata 8. 56 ........ 173 C. Brandon and G.R. Tsetskhladze, Notes on the Survey of the Submerged Remains of Phanagoria in the Taman Peninsula, 1998 .................................................................... 178 Reviews G.R. Tsetskhladze, West and East: A Review Article (1) .... J. Boardman: M. Rousseva, 77zracian Cult Architecture in Bulgaria .................................................................................... J. Boardman: M. Alexandrescu Vianu, us statues et les reliifs en pierre .................................................................................... J. Boardman: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Russia, Vols. 1-5 R. Alston: G.K. Young, Rome's Eastern Trade .......................... S.L. Solovyov: Arkheologicheskii Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha J. Boardman: J. Wiesehofer, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD .............................................................................. J. Davis-Kimball: G. Hermann, Monuments if Merv ................ H.-C. Meyer: Oro. Il mistero dei Sarmati e degli Sciti ....... ......... J. Davis-Kimball: W. Swietoslawski, Arms and Armour if the Nomads .............................................................................. M.Y. Treister: V. Mordvinceva, Sarmatische Phaleren ............ A. Moreno: G.M. Niko1aenko, Khora Khersonesa Tavricheskogo ............................................................................ P. Dolukhanov: O. Bi1gi, Metallurgists if the Central Black Sea Region ...................................................................................... G.R. Tsetskhladze: A. ~ilingiroglu and M. Salvini (eds.), Ayanis I ..................................................................................

213

New Publications G.R. Tsetskhladze

217

189 194 195 195 196 199 200 201 203 205

207

209 212

Books Received ... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. 225 Notes to Contributors ...................................................................... 231 Statement if Aims

237

In the Next Issue

241

EDITORIAL It gives me great pleasure to present this new periodical, and to write the Editorial. I do not think that there is any need to demonstrate the importance of the peripheral area of the classical world or the role of local populations in the creation of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine civilisation; so much work has been done in this direction, and so much material published in recent decades. I need only to reflect on the background, mainly personal, to the establishment of this publication. We have lacked hitherto any academic periodical concentrating on the peripheral areas of the ancient world. In December 1998, during the annual joint meeting of the APAI AlA in Washington, Job Lisman, then Acquisitions Editor for Classical Studies at Brill, mentioned in passing that perhaps the time had come to establish a periodical dedicated to the colonial world. His idea was to include modern colonial activities alongside ancient. For this reason the idea was not very attractive. The idea did not come to him by chance, and it was mentioned to me deliberately. This was when I was finishing the editing of the large volume Ancient Greeks West and East (Brill 1999), and Brill had started to talk to me about taking over the project to produce a handbook on the history of Greek colonisation. David Ridgway, in his review of Ancient Greeks West and East (Times Higher Education Supplement of April 21, 2000, pp. 22-23; see also pp. 13-18 below), wrote: This book is a distinguished addition to the long list of supplementary volumes attached to the Dutch periodical Mnemosyne; but it could very well serve as the pilot issue of a new and independent journal that would be of great and continuing interest to an unusually wide range of readers.

In public, I have never before thanked David for sowing the seed of this wonderful idea, which germinated a long-standing wish of my own. Its realisation initially looked quite unrealistic: there are so many periodicals nowadays. Having been a pupil of Sir John Boardman, author of the masterly The Greeks Overseas, and talking about Greek colonisation with him and many other friends and colleagues, kept the idea firmly in my mind. It was pushed to the forefront by my taking on Brill's handbook on the history of Greek

2

C.R. TSETSKHLADZE

colonisation (now to be published in two volumes, and dedicated, as it had been from the first, to AJ. Graham, a close personal friend and one of my mentors in the study of Greek colonisation), and I have since then been looking for a chance to bring it to fruition. The opportunity came in October 200 I, when Michiel Klein Swormink, the present Editor for Classical Studies at Brill, suggested that we should found a periodical covering the peripheral areas of the ancient world. My publication series on the ancient history and archaeology of the Black Sea area, Colloquia Pontica, was very wellestablished with Brill. So, we decided to build the new project upon it, making Colloquia Pontica the monograph supplement to the new periodical. From many years of research, and my extensive travels around the Black Sea, Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey, I came to understand that the peripheral area of the ancient world is not just an arena for Greek colonisation. To understand that phenomenon, it is necessary to combine detailed study of a large area: the Mediterranean, ancient Europe, Anatolia and the whole Near East. This cannot be limited just to the Archaic period. Therefore, we decided to start from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and finish in late antiquity-thus giving as comprehensive and broad a picture as possible of the peripheral area. A preliminary outline of the project has been widely circulated amongst colleagues with different specialised interests across the globe. All of them welcomed it, emphasising how important it is and the gap that it will fill. On behalf of Brill and for myself, I am extremely grateful to all who have provided support, encouragement and opinion. As a result, we decided to go ahead. We cover a huge physical area and a vast span of ti~e. In consequence, we decided not to have an Editorial Board but a panel of individual Editors, each covering a subject or area. They will have freedom to collect and commission articles within their areas of expertise, and, from time to time, to organise thematic issues. We have recruited leading international specialists to this panel and to the Advisory Board. They have provided invaluable advice and support. I cannot express the depth of my gratitude to all of them for their involvement, as well as for their encouragement.

EDITORIAL

3

We hope that this periodical will be a success, and that it will be welcomed widely by the academic community. We look forward to a close and continuing collaboration. Editor-in-Chief University of London [email protected] 25 January 2002, London

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

Since the late 1990s Brill Academic Publishers has been active in publishing studies in the field of Greek colonisation, concentrating mainly on the Black Sea area. These studies can be seen as the starting point of the present Ancient West & East. Gocha Tsetskhladze and I developed the idea to broaden the formula in scope and to provide a forum for the study of local societies and their interaction with the Graeco-Roman, Near Eastern and early Byzantine worlds, in the form of a periodically published volume of articles, notes and reviews. Many leading scholars around the world working in different disciplines welcomed this idea with much enthusiasm. I would like to thank all of those involved for their advice, contributions and editorial work. I hope this first volume will not be the proverbial finis coronal opus but may stimulate many to contribute and read and that it will be the first of a long series of volumes. Michiel Klein Swormink Acquisitions Editor Classical Studies Brill Academic Publishers

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST ISSUE With this volume, we launch Ancient West & East. It has not been easy to prepare because of the extremely tight schedule of publication. There has been very little time from the inception of the project to the appearance of this first issue. Many people have worked very hard to meet a demanding deadline, and the publishers and I are grateful to all of them. This issue opens with a number of what might be termed 'methodological essays', summarising the past and present, and forecasting the future. We would like the new periodical to be a very important academic periodical, a centre for scholarly discussion. For the first issue, several leading scholars have been invited to contribute short pieces examining the state of affairs in their own field. We asked that the main thrust should be to describe what has been done, what is being done, what should be done in the future and how this periodical can help to advance scholarship. At the same time, we sought opinions on the importance of the so-called peripheral areas of the ancient world. We asked several scholars also to comment on our general statement of aims (see pp. 237-39 below). Most of the material in this issue, including the Book Reviews and New Publications, concentrates on the Black Sea and surrounding regions. This reflects, in part, the speed with which we have gone forward. There was limited time to collect and referee material, and I made use of my personal contacts, which are largely amongst scholars who share my interest in the Black Sea and adjacent areas. It is also a clear demonstration of the observation by Sir John Boardman, in his piece below (p. 8), that this periodical grew out of Black Sea studies, which itself is quite new for Western scholarship. We trust that we can count upon the support and practical help of a wide circle of colleagues to achieve our goals. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Brill, and to Michiel Klein Swormink (Classics Editor) and Ms Gera van Bedaf (our Desk Editor), for their encouragement and help at every stage of this project. As ever, Prof. Sir John Boardman, Dr John Hind and Dr James Hargrave have provided invaluable help in commenting upon

6

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST ISSUE

and editing papers. I should like to offer my sincere thanks to all authors and referees for their contribution. 17 February 2002, London

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

ARCHAEOLOGY BEYOND THE CLASSICAL WORLD JOHN BOARDMAN There has been little intrinsically wrong with allowing a dominant position in western studies for a Euro- or Meditarraneo-centric view of the history of man in the historic period. This bias can be justified largely because the culture that was hallmarked in the Graeco:Judaic eastern Mediterranean and disseminated through the brilliance of Roman imperialism, is the one which has most obviously shaped civilisation in the Old World since antiquity, coming by now even to colour the life of other Old World and all New World cultures. Societies from pre-Classical Spain to the Orient have not been neglected by scholars and certainly not undervalued by archaeologists and historians. Even the attempts to claim dubious chronological priority for some culturally important aspects of Chinese civilisation, at one extreme, and to judge that the Atlantic coastline had much of lasting importance to offer which had not in one way or another seeped through from the Mediterranean, have value in stimulating debate, however motivated. Blame attached to past scholarship often reveals no more than modern prejudice. Nevertheless, it is timely to have a periodical devoted to the nonClassical Eurasian landmass, not so much because a forum for the various relevant areas was required, but that there should be a source in which scholars might learn of matters which are neither purely local in significance nor remorselessly interpreted in terms of their relationship to the Classical. Researching the diffusion of Classical art in antiquity, from Spain to China, taught me inevitably much more than I might otherwise have discovered about that world's permeability by Classical imagery, and its skills in copying, borrowing and re-interpretation; just as the Mediterranean world had reacted long before to the arts and ideas of the Near East and Egypt. There were many common factors in that response, both to the Classical and to neighbours. Closely focused studies, which Ancient West & East may attract, will also, we may hope, not be presented without some consideration of their relevance and validity in terms

8

JOHN BOARDMAN

of comparable studies elsewhere. \\Te need not strive for multidisciplinary approaches per se, nor accumulate unrevealing parallels, nor devise new global theories; simply think laterally, and try to avoid the abysses of over-specialisation and superficial analogy which beset our discipline-one which is essentially an historical one. The subject areas for the new periodical are not the periphery to anything, but a chain of focuses, never totally discrete, and sometimes interdependent, upon which both the distant and the adjacent might work-through trade, and the movement of peoples and ideas. In such a medium it should be possible to detect even broader similiarities in styles of life and art between cultures which might be distant from each other, in space and even time, in ways which were determined as much by their environment as by any direct contacts through people and trade. World History is not a new subject, but it is reviving in new ways, and we have a forum now in which some telling themes can be rehearsed to contribute to the whole. For example, the interfaces between broadly different styles of life are a very rich source for understanding the essential qualities, be they of art, politics or religion, of neighbours. This is why the Black Sea has proved such a fruitful area for such studies in the past and why this periodical has emerged from Black Sea studies. There are no less revealing interfaces elsewhere. That between Europe and the Classical can be studied in very different environments-----the coastlands of France and Spain, the Mediterranean littoral, Alpine approaches to Italy, the nexus of plains and rivers that lead from Central Europe into the Balkans and beyond. Around the Black Sea, apart from the obvious interaction of Scythians and their successors with Greek settlers and traders and then with Roman puppet rulers, there is the great confrontation with the Persian Empire, then the Parthian, Byzantine, Sasanian. And Central Asia remains a vital focus and source for understanding the development of many aspects of life and art farther to the west, even into Europe, along routes travelled by caravans and nomad marauders. The auspices are good for a new impetus to both Classical and non-Classical studies. Ashmolean Museum Oxford OXI 2PH

UK

john. [email protected]

CLASSICAL WEST AND ANCIENT EAST: PROBLEMS OF METHOD AND APPROACH FERGUS MILLAR As we have learnt from J. Diamond's classic essay on human evolution, Guns, Germs and Steel, lateral contact, westwards and eastwards, across the Eurasian land-mass has been one of the most important single factors in history. The same was of course true, and up to a point has always been known to be true, of the Classical period. Why else was the earliest major work of Greek historiography, Herodotus' History, devoted to Greek relations with Lydia and then Persia, with portraits of different non-Greek societies from Scythia to Babylonia to Egypt, with reference also to India and Arabia, and with a perfecdy explicit acknowledgment that the Greek alphabet had been borrowed from the Phoenician one? In that sense there is nothing revolutionary about M. Bernal's much-discussed Black Athena, except an insistence on categorising the Egyptian people and their culture as 'African', and a determination to push the Phoenician influence in Greece (already reflected in the 04Jssry) back into the 2nd millennium-when there is no reason to think that there was any collective self-awareness either on the part of those whose descendants would later call themselves 'Hellenes' or on the part of those whom they later designated as 'Phoinikes' (what if anything 'the Phoenicians' ever called themselves collectively is quite obscure). In other words, as regards Archaic and Classical Greece, the issue of relations between West and East was an explicit one at the time, and has remained so in modern scholarship. What modern scholarship has contributed is above all the capacity to read texts in cuneiform, and the realisation that so much early Greek literature had roots in Babylonia. But even here the precise mechanism of transmission-which Greek-speakers ever learned to read Akkadian, or Phoenician or Egyptian in their own scripts? Or did people from these cultures learn to read Greek?-is entirely uncertain. It is essential to insist that without some such specific vehicles of cross-linguistic or cross-cultural transmission, the relevant transmissions could not have taken place.

10

FERGUS MILLAR

All these questions become infinitely more complex, firstly, as a

result of the Greek colonisation of the Black Sea coasts in the Archaic period, creating the long history of interaction between 'Scythians and Greeks' or 'Iranians and Greeks' forever associated in modern scholarship with the names of E. Minns and M. Rostovtzeff. But, secondly, and inevitably far more complex and important, there is the settlement of Greeks over large parts of Asia---Babylonia, Iran, Bactria, Syria, Egypt-as a result of Alexander's conquests, followed two-three centuries later by the absorption into the Roman Empire of all of the Greek 'colonial' area up to the Euphrates (and later, for a time, up to the Tigris). That meant that for Romansand in a way which confuses modern scholarship still-there were, so to speak, three different 'Easts': the Greek world as a whole, which might be seen as more advanced, or as a source of corrupting and softening influences; the (partially) Greek Near East, within the Empire, which might still be the home of 'oriental' cults like that of Elagabal at Emesa, or of course of the most distinctive and troubling of all, Judaism. Then there was Egypt, occupied by Greeks since the later 4th century BC, and taken into the Roman Empire in 30 BC . Yet the Egyptian language in its different forms persisted through the entire period of 'western' occupation up to the 7th century AD, and, as Coptic, persists still. Characteristic Egyptian artistic and architectural forms, with monumental writing, persisted into the Roman Empire. Yet to this day there has hardly been any break in the traditional pattern whereby experts in postPharaonic Egypt are either Classicists or Egyptologists. To my knowledge, there is still no overall study of culture and society in Egypt in the millennium between Alexander and Mahomet which is written by someone who knows both Greek and Egyptian. If 'Ancient ,,yest and East' is our concern, we should surely start here, where there is a mass of evidence (literature, documents, archaeological finds, standing monuments) waiting to be considered as a whole. If we look beyond the borders of the Roman Empire, there is a comparable, if much less dense and varied, mass of evidence from Babylonia, where Greek and Akkadian co-existed in some sense at least until towards the end of the 1st century AD, where Aramaic was also spoken, and where an Aramaic-speaking Jewish community existed, eventually to produce the Babylonian Talmud. The

CLASSICAL WEST AND ANCIENT EAST

11

Aramaic-speaking environment of southern Babylonia was also the context of the original preaching of Mani in the 3rd century, soon to spread to the Roman Empire and as far west as Africa, and eventually to China in the East. What was the vehicle, or the main route, of contacts with China? Was there in fact in the Ancient World any trade-route through Central Asia so well established as to be worth calling a 'Silk Road' (a purely modern expression)? Certainly, all the specific Palmyrene evidence indicates that their eastern trade-route was not through Central Asia, but down to the Gulf, and then on to North Western India/Pakistan ('Scythia' in Palmyrene Greek) by sea. The extent and nature of western contacts with Iran remains a major problem. Given the complete absence, until after the Islamic conquests, of any surviving literary evidence in any Iranian language, the whole question both of Iranian culture and of western contacts with it, or knowledge of it, remains entirely open. A clear and vivid picture of trading contacts between the Roman Empire and the East is reached only with the wonderful account of the sea-trade in the Indian Ocean provided by the Periplus Maris Erythraei of the 1st century AD. There is no need to stress again the Greek presence in Bactria and Northern India, which was to produce both the Greek versions of edicts of Ashoka and later a Kushan coin on which the Buddha is represented, and named in Greek letters, BODDO; and was to leave an extraordinary legacy in the form of the use of the Greek alphabet for the Iranian language which we call 'Bactrian', continuing until the Islamic conquests. Rather, there is a need to stress the need for detailed work, firstly on the complex cultures of each of these varied regions; then on the available 'western' views of them (often vague, idealised and lacking contact with reality); and then perhaps, one day, if we ever acquire the relevant evidence, some beginnings of the view from 'the East' (or rather from many different, and quite distinct 'Easts') of the impact of Greek colonisation and the distant presence of the Roman Empire. But the first task is to rid ourselves of the pernicious legacy of a sort of Ancient 'Orientalism', which indulged in fantasies about Zoroaster, or Babylonian astrology, or Indian holy men, and ask ourselves in empirical terms what we really know, or can find out (and hence what

12

FERGUS MILIAR

we currently do not know), about language, culture and society in each of the very diverse regions which were, directly or indirectly, in contact with the Graeco-Roman \Vest. Brasenose College Oxford OXl 4AJ

UK

[email protected]

ANCIENT GREEKS (AND OTHERS) WEST AND EAST DAVID RIDGWAY I am honoured by the Editor-in-Chief's invitation to examine the state of affairs in my field for the first issue of Ancient West & East. I feel that I can respond most appropriately to this considerable challenge by reproducing a book-review that I recently wrote for a wider audience, not least because I concluded that the book concerned had raised enough issues to warrant ongoing treatment in a new journal. Ancient Greeks West and East, ed. G.R. Tsetskhladze (A1nemosyne: Supplementum 196); pp. xxii + 623; ills. Leiden/Boston/Ki:iln: Brill, 1999. ISSN 0169--8958; ISBN 90 04 11190 5. 1

Most of the 23 papers in this impressive collection arise out of what is usually called "Greek colonisation". This complex phenomenon bears no more than a superficial resemblance to colonisation in the modern European sense; and it can be defined as "Greek" only to the extent that the British Empire would still have been perceived by others as "British" if its colonies had been founded independently by the city fathers of Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and so on. Not surprisingly, the metropoleis at home in Greece had different priorities at different times, ranging from shortage of mineral resources to land hunger, and often including the strategic planting of far-flung outposts in complex commercial and other competitive circumstances. Investigation of the surviving material record has been spread unevenly over the vast area that received Greek interest of one kind or another between the 8th century BC and the Hellenistic period. Until recently, the relatively accessible Euboeans, Corinthians and Achaeans in South Italy and Sicily have received rather more attention than the Milesians, Phocaeans and Megarians on the Black Sea. The dramatic political changes of our own time enable Ancient Greeks West I This review first appeared in TIe Times Hzgher Education Supplement (London) for April 21, 2000. I am grateful to Andrew Robinson for commissioning it, and to Anna Thomson for her good offices in the matter of permission to reprint it here. The version that follows is slightly adjusted, and I have added a few bibliographical references of the kind that would have been out of place in a newspaper.

14

DAVID RIDGWAY and East to illustrate an exhilarating combination of new opportunities in the East and changing attitudes in the West. Inevitably, this is an international book, edited in English for a Dutch publisher by a scholar, currently based in Britain, who (like Euripides' Medea) hails originally from Georgia; and many more nationalities are represented by the authors and their affiliations. "Ancient Greeks" naturally figure largely throughout, but they are not alone: we learn at least as much about the peoples that the Greeks encountered. The word "interaction" occurs often, indicating that non-Greeks were anything but passive recipients of Greek culture. This refreshing attitude has already emerged in recent years along the Tyrrhenian seaboard of Italy. There, it is now clear that the first post-Mycenaean Greek arrivals, active (with Levantine partners) in mineral exploitation 2 because they could not afford not to be, soon provided the indigenous Etruscans with ideas and technical achievements (including the Euboean version of the Greek alphabet) that they were able to adapt to their own purposes in artistic and other expression. "The Etruscans not only pick and choose those elements of Greek art that please them, but they also make those elements very much their own. "1 The relatively familiar story of the early Greeks in the East and in the \Vest is well represented here, with good new papers from Sydney (R.A. Kearsley) and Oxford (J. Boardman) on the Euboeans in North Syria, a useful up-date by B. d'Agostino (Naples) on their activities in Campania, and a pair of skilful deployments by R. Frederiksen (Copenhagen) and G. Shepherd (Birmingham) of Italian and Sicilian cemetery archaeology as a guide to early colonial society; the latter's blunt title, "Fibulae and females", reminds us both of the limitations of cemetery evidence and of an obvious category of interaction. Further West, AJ. Dominguez (Madrid) rightly refuses to accept that Iberia was ever Hellenised: he, and others, might have noted that there

2 C. Giardino, Il Jtlediterraneo Occidentalefra XIVed VIII secolo a.G. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche / 77ze West iVlediterranean between the 14th and 8th centuries BG. Jtlining and Metallurgical Spheres (BAR-IS, 612; Oxford 1995). I J.P. Small, 'The Etruscan View of Greek Art'. Boreas 14-15 (1991-92), 51. On the arrival of the Euboean alphabet in the West and its acquisition by the Etruscans, see respectively: A. Bartonek and G. Buchner, 'Die altesten griechischen Inschriften von Pithekoussai (2. Halfte des VIII. bis I. Halftc des VI. Jh.)'. Die Sprache, 37.2 (1995), 129--231; and G. Bagnasco Gianni, 'L'aequisizionc della scrittura in Etruria: materiali a confronto per la ricostruzione del quadro storieo e culturale'. In G. Bagnasco Gianni and F. Cordano (eds.), Scritture medlterranee tra il IX e il VII secolo a. G. (Milan 1999), 85-106.

ANCIENT GREEKS

15

is in fact no ancient Greek word for this wholly modern concept. S. Aguilar (Cambridge) picks her way through the layers of academic and other prejudice that smother the majestic limestone bust known as the Lady of Elche, discovered in 1897, liberated from the Louvre in 1941 and revered for a century as the personification of the Spanish soul (and of its eternal femininity); in an appendix, R. Olmos and T. T ortosa (Madrid) mount a rigorous defence of the Lady not only against a recent American allegation that she is a 19th-century forgery, but also against the seeming indifference with which this has been received in the outside world ("a part of the blame is ours: we Iberists have neglected the diffusion of our research outside Spain"). Aguilar's concluding remarks~"it is the nature of the native populations that dictates the way Greek stimuli were used"~are equally applicable to a number of other papers. Perhaps the most obvious example is concerned with the early 4th-century BC Nereid Monument from Xanthus. T. Robinson (Oxford) bravely returns this familiar feature of the British Museum and of countless books on Greek archaeology and sculpture to its native Lycian context in Asia Minor. True, the local dynast who had it built sought Greek (or Greek-trained?) assistance in its construction and adornment, ,,\lith the uniquely eclectic results that have exercised the minds of Hellenists for so long. Robinson shows us why we can safely discard explanations based on provincial misunderstandings of the contemporary Greek idiom and the like: the non-Greek aspects of the monument's appearance are the result of meeting non-Greek requirements (and the "Nereids" are probably local Lycian deities). And so to a veritable cornucopia of Eastern promise, in which the editor acquits himself admirably amid the daunting ethnic and cultural complexities of the Pontic-Caucasian region, while papers from Moscow treat the Scythian "Rule over Asia" (A. Ivantchik), early Greek houses on the Black Sea (Y.D. Kuznetzov), and Classical subjects on the Late Hellenistic harness-plaques encountered from Siberia to the Pontic steppes (M. Treister). Individual categories of art-objects still have much to tell us in this area: S. Ebbinghaus (Oxford) shows how the handsome drinking horns known to the Greeks as rhyta were appropriated as status symbols from the Achaemenid Empire by the Thracian elite, who turned to Greek expertise for the adaptation of this essentially Persian model. vVith the adaptation came the Greek script and language: and so, eventually, the information in the Greek written sources fruitfully compared by Z.H. Archibald (Liverpool) with the archaeological evidence for Thracian cults. There is much more besides, but I hope that the foregoing conveys at least some idea of the range and depth of these stimulating specialist studies. Most of their subjects are new, all are approached

16

DAVID RIDGWAY

in newly-informed ways, and the result is much more valuable, and interesting, than anything I have read in its field-in English-for a long time. vVe must look elsewhere 4 for Greek colonisation as such: Tsetskhladze and his authors take colonies and trade for granted as the main basis for cultural exchange. \Vhat is new is their systematic acceptance that exchange is by definition a two-way process, and that accordingly Greeks outside Greece not only "gave" but also "took"in the latter case, not only raw materials and manufactured goods but also what was once memorably called "alien wisdom".' vVe can now appreciate that the Etruscans were by no means the only nonGreek-speakers who used Greek techniques, and often commissioned Greek craftsmen, to service their own thoroughly un-Greek cultural traditions. What did Greeks think of non-Greeks? The literary evidence for the character and limits of Greek ethnic prejudice is reviewed at an early stage here by C. Tuplin (Liverpool), and I learnt a lot from his thoughtful and perceptive chapter. By the end of the book, however, I confess that I was more interested than I have been hitherto in the issue of Hellenic superiority assumed, or wished for, by others. Much has been made in recent years of the twin concepts of superior Greeks and inferior barbarians developed in the 5th century BC as part of the Athenian reaction to the Persian menace,t' and even more of the attraction that this comparison held for 19th-century British and German scholarship.7 The subsequent unthinking extension of the same two notions as earlier stages of Greek history became available for

study is less notorious: but it has been extraordinarily misleading (and

even explicitly diffusionist B) in the long term. The great achievement of Tsetskhladze's collection resides in the simultaneous death-blows it delivers on many widely-separated fronts

" E.M. De J uliis, Magna Grecia: l'Italia meridionale dalle origini leggendarie alla conquista romana (Bari 1996); J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London 1999) (the latest edition of an established classic, first published in 1964). 5 A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: the Limits if Hellenization (Cambridge 1975). Ii E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Selfdefinition through Tragedy (Oxford 1989). 7 M. Bernal, Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots if Classical Civilization, I: The Fabrication if Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (London 1987). R J.D. Beazley, 'Foreword'. In T J. Dunbabin (J. Boardman, ed.), The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours (London 1957), 5: 'In the West the peoples with whom the Greeks came into contact were at a more primitive stage of development than they themselves; in the East, for a long time and in many respects, the position was the reverse.'

ANCIENT GREEKS

17

to the well-worn but ill-fitting model of the "Hellenisation of the barbarians"-and to the reluctance to bother with non-Greek matters in the presence of even a handful of Greek sherds. And far from being diminished, the glory that was Greece shines if anything more brightly in the light of these objective assessments of what cultural exchange with Greeks actually meant: for they provide a resounding demonstration of the sheer unique quality of Hellenic culture. An excellent definition of what I mean was given by G.W. Bowersock in his 1989 Jerome Lectures on Hellenism in Late Antiquity: "a language and culture in which peoples of the most diverse kind could participate. . . a medium not necessarily antithetical to local or indigenous traditions. . . a new and more eloquent way of giving voice to them".9 What next? In the first place, we should reflect that this book clearly would not have appeared without effective international collaboration, as distinct from its ponderous (and expensive) official counterpart. The momentum thus gained must not be lost: and if the medium must be occasionally eccentric English, so be it-within limits, which are not exceeded here. Italian is another possibility: later this year [2000], the 40th annual conference on Magna Graecia at Taranto will compare current work on colonial territories around the Black Sea with that in the West. lO Secondly, Tsetskhladze has certainly not exhausted the possibilities of either the West or the East (I say nothing of the South and the North!). This book is a worthy addition to the long list of important volumes attached to the Dutch periodical Mnemosyne; but it could very well serve as the pilot issue of a new and independent journal that would be of great and continuing interest to an unusually wide range of readers. And now we have the first issue of precisely the kind of periodical that I envisaged. I do not imagine for a moment that it owes its existence solely to the suggestion that I made at the end of the above review: but I am indeed happy and proud that my assessment, based on long experience of the West, clearly coincides not only with that of a distinguished practitioner of the younger generation in the East,

G.W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor 1990), 7. See now Problemi della chora coloniale dall'Occidente al Mar Nero (Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 29 settembre-3 ottobre 2000) (Taranto 200 I). 9

10

18

DAVID RIDGWAY

but also with that of a distinguished European publishing house. Time will tell: but I do not think that their, and my, optimism is misplaced. Department of Classics University of Edinburgh David Hume Tower George Square Edinburgh EH8 9JX

UK

[email protected]

THE HISTORY OF A FALSE ANALOGY A.M. SNODGRASS It is today a commonplace to say that the analogy with modern imperialism was a major influence on the discussion of ancient Greek overseas settlement in the 20th century. It has become equally common to deplore the effects of this influence, whether consciously or subconsciously exerted. The fact that Anglophone scholarship was so prominent in this scholarly discourse meant, inevitably, that the analogy looked primarily to British imperialism-if indeed the effect was not the other way round, with 19th century colonial activity actually inspiring 20th century scholarship. One not-so-minor consequence of the influence was the use of a terminology for ancient settlements in many European languages-'colony', 'colonisation' and their cognates-which was, to say the least, strongly reinforced by modern analogy: here, too, recent study has belatedly called for a retreat.! Two questions naturally arise: first, is it true that 20th century scholarship made such heavy use of the modern analogy? And secondly, was it a bad thing, in the sense of distorting views of the past? I shall look briefly at the first question, with even briefer reference to the second. Britain's most expansive era of colonial growth-the first period when the phrase 'the British Empire' actually came into use-was between 1875 and 1914. This was a very late, even terminal phase of a much longer process: apart from the appropriation of the former territories of the Central Powers and their Turkish allies after 1918, there was no further expansion to come. This growth had very specific causes, not present earlier, and took very specific forms: broadly speaking, British policy used a national advantage, the huge British share of the world's merchant shipping tonnage, to counteract a growing disadvantage, the loss of Britain's early lead in industrialisation. By this means, the cheap raw materials and labour of what we would now call the Third World could be mobilisedI Notably in the opening words of Nicholas Purcell's review of G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology qf Greek Colonisation (Antiquiry 71 [1997], 500): The archaeology of what?'.

20

A.M. SNODGRASS

provided that control could be maintained or extended over a sufficient part of that world. These factors had little application to the period before 1850, and still less to the ancient world. If scholars confined their gaze to the earlier activities of the 17th and 18th centuries, the same strictures would not apply and the 'modern' analogy would be that much more legitimate. But did they? Since the use of this analogy was often implicit or subconscious, it is obviously difficult to detect precisely how it was drawn, and with which era. There are signs to suggest that, in the course of the 20th century, scholars awoke to the risks of the most blatant anachronism, and therefore looked back beyond the final stages of British expansion. Whereas E.A. Freeman in the 1890s had still written openly about the possibility of Sikels being converted into 'artificial Greeks'2-surely a vision borrowed from his own times if ever there was one-A. Blakeway's now notorious phrase, 'the flag followed trade? while by no means escaping the charge of anachronism, does have the ring of early British enterprise, at least as much as of the epoch of late Empire. TJ. Dunbabin turned to the early growth of his native Australian cities, Sydney (from 1788) and Melbourne (from 1837) for enlightenment on ancient chronology and demography.4 J. Boardman's comparison of early Greek exchange with 'the bright beads with which merchants are usually supposed to dazzle the natives'S is again the language of an earlier stage than late 19th century imperialism. But these are all explicit and deliberately-chosen analogies. For the subconscious trend of scholarly thought, intermarriage is an issue which is diagnostic, both for ancient overseas settlement and within the history of modern British imperialism. G. Shepherd in a recent paper6 has used this issue to good effect: but first I wish to estab-

EA Freeman, A History if SicilY I (Oxford 1891), 308. A. Blakeway, 'Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Commerce with the \Vest, 800~600 BC'. ABSA 33 (1932~33), 202. " T J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (Oxford 1948), 450, 453. , J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their EarlY Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London 1999), 200. fi G. Shepherd, 'Fibulae and Females: Intermarriage in the \Vestern Greek Colonies and the Evidence from Cemeteries'. In G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East (Leiden/Bonn/Cologne 1999), 267~300. 2 '3

THE HISTORY OF A FALSE ANALOGY

21

lish the point of modern history which makes this such a telling issue, using the example of British India. Before the mid-19th century, marriage between British emigres, including those of high status, and Indian or other Asiatic women was not uncommon; unoffical liaisons were ubiquitous. P. Woodruff's magisterial history of 1954, The Founders, mentions in passing a whole list of cases, beginning with the pioneering venture of W. Hawkins to Surat in 1609, continuing with the parentage of 'Begum' Johnson, the salon queen of Calcutta in the l780s, the marriage of the Resident of Hyderabad in 1800, the 'six or seven legitimate wives' of a Commissioner in Delhi on the l830s, and the Indian wife or mistress of the future Governor-General C. Metcalfe a few years later. 7 The telling thing is that all this seems to stop abruptly by l850-as is brought out by the contrast with Burma, annexed much later: here, in a society where both caste and purdah were unknown, intimacy and marriage of British officials with Burmese women was so prevalent that officials of the Government of India later sought to deny promotion to those who practised it. 8 We have arrived at a dividing-line in the history of British imperialism: the growth of a new preoccupation with race, and more specifically with colour, with its obvious impact on attitudes to intermarriage. As a feature which contrasts earlier and later imperial attitudes, it can also serve as a litmus test for those of modern scholarship. Shepherd's view 9 suggests that, for all their efforts, Dunbabin and others (in Anglophone if not Italian scholarship)lO found it hard to distance themselves from the inherited attitudes of late imperialism, and were closer to the post-1850 view of intermarriage than to its predecessor. This is not surprising: scholars are no different from anyone else in their tendency, when drawing lessons from real life, to turn first to their own era and that of their parents.

7 P. Woodruff, The Men VVho Ruled India I: The Founders (London 1954), 27-28, 160, 213, 237, 269-70 respectively. H P. Woodruff, The Men VVho Ruled India 2: The Guardians (London 1954), 128-30, 187. 'l Shepherd, Op. cit. III Note the interesting confrontation in Dunbabin, Op cit., 46, 185 with Italian scholars who adhered to a different view.

22

A.M. SNODGRASS

Other instances could be given. A trivial but revealing one comes from Sir Leonard Woolley who, having associated the 'warehouses' at Al Mina with 'merchants' who 'must have been Greeks', later referred to them as 'go-downs'.11 This word, a corruption of the Malay godong, had entered the English vocabulary much earlier; but Woolley's use of it, as late as 1953, most likely conjured up the atmosphere of a S. Maugham short story, or of recent events in World War II. For Dunbabin's work,12 Shepherd has already drawn attention to the fact that he drew his modern colonial parallels from countries which remained in the British Commonwealth, rather than those like New England (or Ireland) which had since won their independence~presumably aware that this would better reinforce his thesis, today no longer tenable, of the 'almost complete cultural dependence' of colonies, ancient and modern; and to his odd lapse (if such it was) of once referring to the Corinthian 'possession' of Syracuse. 13 But a few other sentences also stand out, where the language seems to have dropped off a page written by C. Rhodes: 'In the colonies, however, the natives had no place'; 'for the native people had little to contribute to Greek civilisation'; 'the Greek regarded [the Sikel] as an inferior being and was proud of his own descent'.14 The only good ground for being censorious about such expressions is if they lead to historical distortion. This, I would argue, was true of the phrases just quoted from Dunbabin. It would be hard to point to evidence that, at least in the Archaic period, any such sentiments as these prevailed in the Greek settlements; or, come to that, that a mother city ever regarded its apoikiai as possessions. These sentiments must in turn be set in their context: they were part of an attitude that prevailed widely in Classical Studies down to about the 1970s, one which sought to assimilate the Greeks (and Romans) to ourselves; only in the last decades of the century did a movement towards stressing the 'otherness' of the Classical civilisations start to prevail. Dunbabin's book in its original form 11 L. Woolley, 'Excavations at Al Mina, Souedia: I The Archaeological Report'. ]HS 58 (1938), 14-15; Id., A Forgotten Kingdom (London 1953), 177. 12 Dunbabin, Gp. cit. 13 Dunbabin, Gp. cit., 17; Shepherd, Gp. cit., 272. 14 Dunbabin, Gp cit., 47, 186, 193 respectively.

THE HISTORY OF A FALSE ANALOGY

23

had, it is fair to add, been completed by 1937, the evening, but not yet the twilight of the British Empire, a time when people could look back without recrimination on the ideology of the late imperial expansion, including its overriding preoccupation with the subjection of backward peoples, and even its distorting emphasis on race. When, in the Epilogue to his 1999 edition of 77ze Greeks Overseas, Boardman criticised the practice of 'thrusting the desired modern standards on to antiquity', 15 I think that his complaint was probably justified. All that I hope to have shown is that exactly the same process, if in a very different form from that of recent usage and to just the opposite effect, has been going on for much longer. Faculty of Classics University of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3 9DA UK [email protected]

IS

Boardman, Dp. cit., 268.

TYPOLOGY IN ARCHAIC GREEK MARITIME TRADING STATES THOMAS

J.

FIGUEIRA

The concentration of analysis on 5th- and 4th- century Athens can obscure the classification of early Greek commercial patterns. During the period of the struggle for homeland hegemony, Attica was characterised by a mixed economy whose sectors differed in their degree of structural sophistication. 1 A large agricultural sector had experienced specialisation (e.g., for oil production) and prospered through access to a relatively large pool of urban consumers. The silver mining industry was the economy's largest sector (and probably stimulated metal crafts). The mines of Laurion were likely a major source of capital for all economic activity. Emerging from a stable Dark Age and early Archaic context, craft industries, of which painted pottery can now best be envisaged, had grown up. Insofar as that craft production reflected input from any consumers save the local Attic market, however, determinative feedback from customers abroad was mediated through non-Athenians. The Attic maritime sector was proportionately small, though it undoubtedly involved coastal trade, fishing, and regional transport. Political sources of income rose to prominence during the arkhe, including allied tribute, booty from military operations, and income from colonies, and directly subsidised Athenians through wages (for office holding and military service) and sustained military industries (especially shipbuilding). Athens and the Piraeus were the focal points (promoted by demographic density and productive intensity) of an integrating Aegean economy. The commercial sector of the Attic economy, whose players were preponderantly metics, was a relatively late graft from abroad, with metic immigrants probably carrying with themselves patterns of greater expertise in money-changing and banking. Accordingly, we cannot treat the Attic economy and other classical orders analogous to it as a paradigm for understanding the earlier development of economies that were more dependent on commerce.

I

For discussion, see T. Figueira, TIe Power

of Monry (Philadelphia 1998), 220--36.

TYPOLOGY IN ARCHAIC GREEK MARITIME TRADING STATES

25

I have offered Aegina as an example of one type of advanced commercial organisation, justifying my choice with two considerations. 2 One rationale involved the proportion of non-agricultural and non-extractive economic output. Aegina, with its limited arable land and other resources, can hardly have supported its large population, equipped its great navy, and built its impressive monuments without significant contribution from trade and related activities. The vast output of the Aeginetan mint surely bespeaks appreciable public sector revenues and expenditures that imply a large underlying private sector. My second consideration is demographic: Aristotle notes that the demos of Aegina could be characterised as maritime and emporikos (Pol. 1291 b24). Let us consider some of the social dynamics shaping such disproportionately commercial economies. One means of considering our problem is to note geography. All trading states are easily accessible to seaborne commerce, but there was a range of accessibility. Corinth and the Euboean cities of Chalcis and Eretria were clearly at the natural crossroads created, respectively, by the Isthmus and the Euripos. Conversely, Aegina, Phocaea, Corcyra, and, less emphatically, Samos seem more truly to have flanked lines of approach to such crossroads, a situation that sharpened their status as way-stations, and not necessarily final destinations. Miletus, however, might be placed at a hinge between our two classes, partaking of qualities of both. Still other intersections of routes, those like Kalaureia and Taenarum, which were outliers of mainland territories, did not become sites for indigenous traders, becoming instead neutral, even sacralised, sites, where heterogeneous participants in exchange interacted. Concomitantly, Corinth and Aegina mark the poles of a continuum in craft organisation and in the mechanisms for product distribution. Corinth held craftsmen in comparably high esteem (Hrd. 2. 167. 2). The quality and wide distribution of its pottery is manifest early. The revenues of its market and ports were worth monopolising by the Bakkhiad aristocracy in the early Archaic period (Strabo 8. 6. 20). Aegina, on the other hand, is first associated with an itinerant 'peddling' trade, in minor and mixed craft goods called 2 See T. Figueira, Aegina (New York 1981), 1-165; Id., 'Poleis of the Saronic Gulf'. In Acts if the Copenhagen Polis Centre 6 (forthcoming).

26

THOMAS

J. FIGUEIRA

Aiginaia, such as the 'pack-trading' that penetrated the 7th- century Peloponnese (Paus. 8. 5. 8-10). High value-added manufactures, like faience or bronze work, only developed later in order to serve an overseas market, from which dictates shaping production were channelled by an already flourishing trade over considerable distances. Corinth (and its breakaway Megara), the Euboean cities, and Miletus were pioneers in colonisation and provided a disproportionate share of all Greek colonies. Aegina, Samos, and Phocaea were less active and later colonisers, whose foundations seem more predicated on political upheavals at home. These states are all noteworthy for leisteia, including both interception of others' ships and littoral raiding, as typified by the notorious Polycrates of Samos (Hrd. 3. 39. 3-4, 122. 2) or the depredations of the Aeginetans against their Saronic Gulf neighbours. In contrast, the Corinthians tried to clear the seas of leistai (Thuc. 1. 13. 5). While all seafaring states were involved in the slave trade-slavery being the chief means to add to the local stock of labour--the rich traditions associating the Aeginetans with the marketing of slaves characterises the states of my second category. It would not be improper to call our two groups the entrepotl colonial economies and long-range commercial states. The former deserve their denomination because of their tendency toward receptive trade, interchange with non-Greeks reduced to close range and intermediated, and their de-emphasis of armed commerce. The range of goods traded more nearly approximates the variety in the local economy (when allowances are made for storage and transport costs). Their trading ethos is consistent with (indeed grounded in) Dark Age and early Archaic aristocratic mores. The latter class reveals a predilection for direct, non-intermediated economic contacts with distant, often non-Greek, markets. A carrying trade beyond two non-Greek markets (not otherwise in contact) may develop secondarily. This activity may have a more marked belligerent component-think of the western Mediterranean voyages of the Phocaean pentekonters (Hrd. 1. 163. 1-2). This trade seems more selective and focused on high value items: certain Greek craft goods outbound and metals and slaves inbound. While the nature of the trade of the entrep6t may be homogeneous, with allowance for the effects of distance, two discontinuous commercial networks may converge at the long-

TYPOLOGY IN ARCHAIC GREEK MARITIME TRADING STATES

27

range trading site: one local, retail, compendious, and ramified, and the other, selective, concentrated, and operating along axes. In each economic type, usage of money for trade will reflect the nature of such networks. The information processing about conditions of supply and demand or consumer preferences appears more intensive for our second class. Our two groups emerge sequentially, with Miletus, with its characteristic emporia, as the conspicuous intermediate specimen in an evolution of long-range trade ca. 650-600 Be. Department of Classics Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 131 George Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1414 USA [email protected]

FROM THE IBERIAN FAR WEST RICARDO OLMOS The Editor-in-Chief of Ancient West & East suggested to me that I write a piece from the perspective of my field of research, a small area of western Iberia on which I have been working for some 30 years. In the main, my diagnosis agrees with the general statement set out by G.R. Tsetskhladze in the Statement of Aims (see pp. 237-39). I shall attempt to clarify my own point of view. In their travels through the Mediterranean, the Phoenicians and Greeks defined the terms 'Iberia' and 'Tartessos' and applied them, in a general manner, to the eastern and southern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula. In this way they created two strong stereotypes, which survive almost to the present day. Each name synthesises a much more complicated reality for this north-western region of the Mediterranean, the province to which the Romans applied the poetic label: Hesperia ultima. As a liminal entity, Tartessos was surrounded by a certain legendary aura from which it has not been fully liberated in times either ancient or modern. The famous monarch, Arganthonius, whom the Greeks are said to have met, outdid in richness and age all normal limits. As a man of prestige, he personified a land of welcome, a frontier and port of trade for merchants and seafarers: a utopia. The second name, Iberia, served to fix a more geometrical feature of the oikoumene. Western Iberia was a counterpoise to another land, Caucasian Iberia; both wealthy places, rich in the precious metals that symbolise the fertile limits of the inhabited world. Their experience in the Mediterranean allowed the Phoenicians and Greeks to build an imaginary west, woven with a great variety of ethnographical and mythical threads. Immersed in this complex heritage, Tartessos organised its own territory, developing political institutions and its own style of life. Without applying systematically a broad perspective in space and time (which should examine Atlantic and Mediterranean relationships, Semitic and Greek stimuli, the protohistoric background of the 2nd millennium BC as well as the synthesis achieved in the

FROM THE IBERIAN FAR WEST

29

1st), we will not be able to understand the complexity of the Tartessian and later the Iberian cultures. But an historical view of Tartessos and Iberia cannot be built by excluding the multiple stimuli. On the contrary, we must analyse how the Tartessians and Iberians achieved their own political and productive space within their original framework, in which we have to include their symbolic representations of territory and power, life and death, nature and cosmos, etc. Throughout the 20th century a tacit consensus has guided historians and archaeologists in their topical use of inherited formulae, applied repetitiously to the protohistoric cultures of the Iberian Peninsula. It is difficult to avoid stereotypes in research. From the early formulation by Herodotus (1. 163), who declared the Phocaeans to be the first Greeks to discover Iberia and Tartessos, the name and geography of Iberia have fluctuated in one sense or another, be it as a generalisation for the whole Iberian Peninsula or a mere portion or particular part of it. In the 2nd century Be Polybius, the Greek historian of the Roman cause, applied the term to the whole peninsula, a reflection of the pragmatic and military interest of Rome. A similar generalisation was used by the geographer Strabo in the time of Augustus. During the 19th century the Romantic Movement, with W. von Humboldt at its head, sought to find the national identity of a protohistoric, united Iberia in the vestiges of language. In all of these examples, the whole is substituted for the part in a process of generalising a diversity of cultures and populations, most of whose names are known to us only through the ancient authors. A convention of current research labels as 'Iberians' all those populations spread across the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula and a great part of the southern Meseta and Andalucia. But it is difficult to define the actual geographical frontiers of the Iberians through linguistic or other cultural criteria. Weare using a term to generalise a much more complex and heterogeneous reality. Thus, the limits of the different cultures of pre-Roman Spain have yet to be firmly established. Notwithstanding this, research has progressed over recent decades to bring us a more informed picture of the territory and of the historical processes which define the

30

RICARDO OLMOS

symbolic and social landscapes of antiquity, its material culture and its institutions. We find ourselves at a crucial time in our studies of archaeology and history. New formulations allow us a better understanding of the first protohistoric societies of the Iberian Peninsula. Iberians and Celts do not constitute ethnic and cultural exclusivities; on the contrary, there are a great many indications of every sort of continuous and mutual exchange between these cultures, which seem both porous and highly creative at the same time. Ancient West & East has the serious task of stimulating all of us towards new modes and interpretations, to a more fertile exchange of ideas. Our first concern should be the diffusion of our present knowledge and research and, on this foundation, move forward to dialogue with experts in other fields. As a general statement, I would assert that the proto history of the Iberian Peninsula has not yet been diffused fully into the international academic milieu. Although it has been generous in its spectacular discoveries, interpretations and fertile methodological approaches, the archaeology of ancient Spain must acquire a stronger presence in international debate. In the collective subconscious, Iberia seems still to be acting, at least to some extent, as the Far West of the ancient Mediterranean, a land of frontiers in which all expectations may be realised, susceptible to all the stereotypes applied to far-away countries. We are used to academic disciplines existing in isolation. We identify ourselves with particular milieus: Phoenician and Punic Studies, Greek colonisation, linguistic or numismatic approaches, iconography, analysis of historical sources, religion. These are some of the compartments into which scholars have locked themselves in recent years. The need to bring our fragmented knowledge together in order to understand developments in a global context is one of the most urgent tasks facing us. We need to synthesise our knowledge and interpretations on a much broader front, to include new methodological approaches and fresh perspectives. One of the most insurmountable barriers faced by Iberian archaeology is a unidirectional relationship with Graeco-Roman culture. The field has been restricted for many decades by the stereotypical approach of a peripheral, barbarian world prone exclusively to alien influence. The Iberian Peninsula has been considered as periph-

FROM THE IBERIAN FAR WEST

31

eral to that centre accepted as the birthplace of western 'civilisation', 'barbarian' insofar as its art was unable to reflect Greek and Roman standards with complete accuracy. From the beginnings of the 20th century, most interpretations of the Iberian Peninsula were made within that framework: provincial and roughly-executed art, archaic styling, generally lagging behind the times. Without denying the marginal location of Iberia in the ancient Mediterranean, we must not restrict ourselves to viewing it exclusively within a pattern of influence and dependency. Furthermore, the traditional antagonism which confronts Phoenicians and Greeks is historically inaccurate. The Mediterranean has two shores, northern and southern, and to look exclusively to the Near East and Greece imprisons us within a too narrow, schematic perspective. leading to frequent neglect of other regions-for example, North Africa. It is well known by those who have studied toponyms that countless people have crossed the Straits of Gibraltar in both directions from antiquity to the present day. The Mediterranean was a space shared by a diversity of populations. Its complexity allowed both isolation and contact, and mediated relations and constructive dialogue between Northern Europe, the Near East and North Africa. Ideas, stimuli, techniques of the most diverse kind have circulated beyond the limits of ethnic groups and political frontiers. But there is not just the physical Mediterranean; a symbolic geography exists too. How the Phoenicians and Punic peoples, Greeks and Romans perceived, reflected and used this imaginary landscape, constitutes the realm of symbolic geography during antiquity: the geography of legends and myths. The changing perception of the others and ourselves requires a broad perspective, from the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity, whose chronological limits are nowadays subjected to debate. Without a comprehensive, universal conception of antiquity as a whole, an accurate understanding of local and regional processes becomes impossible. Knowledge calls urgently for a more global approach. There is an increasing tendency in our research to ignore other areas of knowledge; even worse, other perspectives and methods. The Editor-in-Chief of Ancient West & East warns us against the growing divorce between archaeology and history, a bifurcation deriving from the positivist approach of recent decades, two paths

32

RICARDO OLMOS

increasingly devoid of communication. The current epoch of 'Wissenschafder' has definitely supplanted the older one of 'Gelehrten', as Germans used to say. The French word 'savant' is today outdated. The realm of the scholar might in these circumstances remain exclusively that of the technicians of knowledge, a danger against which we must be continually on guard. Whilst paying attention to the divorce between archaeologists and historians, we risk being indifferent to that other member of the family: anthropology. The Mediterranean and European vision of Ancient West & East should also have in mind its effective presence. For example, anthropology may be deployed to develop analysis of the relevance and methodological limits of so-called 'survivals', a recurrent commonplace that has been used frequently to explain certain modern cultural and religious practices, supposedly inherited from antiquity. A recent book by P. Horden and N. Purcell, The Corrupting Sea. A Study if Mediterranean History (Oxford 2000), shows us the possibility of a fruitful and global approach to the historical geography of the Mediterranean, understood in its complexity and longue duree. The authors have combined both a broad view and a long view. The originality of this complex and stimulating work consists 'in traversing several usually distinct disciplines'. I would propose a discussion of this and of other seminal books in the pages of Ancient West & East. These perspectives and analyses might illuminate our own positions and research and the aims of our new periodical. An open mind will allow us progressively to cross the narrow bounds of our specialisations, and give us the freedom to discuss matters with each other unencumbered by the limits imposed by our specialisms and the thought processes and languages to which they give rise. From the mythical land of West Iberia, the argentifera Iberia, we will be happy to exchange presents of academic hospitality with the other Iberians, the Caucasian Iberia, although not seeking to emulate the unequal xenia between Glaukos and Diomedes in the famous

FROM THE IBERIAN FAR WEST

33

passage from the Iliad. The Mediterranean of multiple shores will always be open to future exchanges. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas Instituto Historia Duque de Medinaceli 6 28014 Madrid Spain ceho [email protected]

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF CYPRIOT STUDIES VASSOS KARAGEORGHIS With the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 the study of the island's past received a new impetus. Whereas before the island's independence archaeological excavations were limited both in number and scope, the new liberal policies of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities since that time have attracted archaeologists from many lands who, together with their Cypriot colleagues, have carried out systematic excavations all over the island, revealing new archaeological sites and monuments and expanding already existing ones. Salamis, Enkomi, Kition, Amathus, Paphos, Khirokitia, and Kalavassos are but a few such sites. The policy of the Department of Antiquities has been to cover all archaeological periods, from the dawn of the island's past to the end of antiquity, in order to fill in gaps in our knowledge and throw light on obscure periods of Cypriot archaeology. This was not an easy task, as the early periods (Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age) have always been in the limelight and this phenomenon continues to the present day. Extensive excavations, coupled with the ability of the Department of Antiquities to persuade excavators, sometimes forcibly, to produce final reports on the results of their excavations, have resulted in a dramatic increase in the available literature on Cypriot archaeology and new aspects of the island's past have been brought to the fore. During the last 40 years or so renewed emphasis has been placed on the excavation of Late Bronze Age sites in Cyprus, the Aegean and on the Levantine coast, and archaeologists have become aware of the complexity of the problems of interconnections, especially during the crucial years around 1200 BC and the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. A major 'discovery' was that the so-called 'Dark Ages' were not dark at all, suggesting that scholars should look at them with fresh eyes. International conferences have been organised in Cyprus and elsewhere to examine aspects of the 12th and 11 th centuries in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean

THOUGHTS ON CYPRIOT STUDIES

35

and the proceedings of these symposia have been promptly published. Although there is still no consensus, and lively discussions still continue, much of the 'darkness' has been dispelled and prejudices of the past have been put aside. The role of Cyprus as a stepping stone between the Aegean and the Near East has been underlined and the island's contribution, not only in the export of copper but also in cultural exchanges, has been recognised. The geographical area for the study of Late Bronze Age interconnections has been enlarged and now includes the central Mediterranean. Archaeologists have often been tempted to play the role of the historian. When dealing with periods for which there are no written documents, or at best very few, the ground is slippery and this has been the case in dealing with problems like the extent and nature of the 'Achaean colonisation' of Cyprus, the role of the 'Sea Peoples' in the eastern Mediterranean, particularly in the Levant, etc. Problems of ethnicity have complicated the issue and discussions are still going on, but a general consensus in the near future is not impossible if we concentrate on the actual archaeological evidence. W"hereas the 2nd millennium provides a vast arena for research and healthy discussion, based on new evidence from archaeological excavations throughout the central and eastern Mediterranean, the situation is different when consideration turns to Cyprus in the I st millennium, especially the first half of it. We do not witness the same degree of flexibility and broadmindedness among scholars of the 1st millennium as that which we saw among Late Bronze Age scholars, who realised at an early stage that no strict geographical divisions are possible when dealing with the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. Prejudices of the past are still very much alive when dealing with the 1st millennium and this may be the result of our rather limited knowledge of the archaeology of the region which we deal with. Furthermore, this region has now become wider, to include the Black Sea and the western Mediterranean. Scholars dealing with the Levant and the Near East in general seldom bother to consider the Aegean and vice versa. vVhen I attended an international conference in Helsinki in July 200 I (Rencontre Assyriologique) on 'Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East' I confronted a completely new world which I and fellow 'westerners' had never before

36

VASSOS KARAGEORGHIS

considered m their research; but at the same time I realised that the 'west', including Cyprus, was a terra incognita among orientalists. The reason may be that the traditional division between classical scholars dealing with Greece and Rome and scholars of the Orient dealing with Assyria and Mesopotamia is still deeply rooted; the two 'camps' are stubbornly entrenched and refuse to meet. There are many more written documents about the I st millennium than about the Late Bronze Age and this often becomes an additional barrier, because very few scholars are in a position to make full use of both the western and the eastern languages. The often-discussed problems in Cypriot archaeology and history of the Iron Age relate to the origin and development of the ten kingdoms of Cyprus, the relations of the island with the Aegean and the Near East and particularly the role of the Phoenicians. The material evidence from archaeological excavations has not increased during recent years in the same way as it has with regard to the Late Bronze Age. Most evidence comes from tombs (e.g. Palaepaphos, Salamis and Amathus). Only Kition offers ample new evidence for the first half of the 1st millennium; the evidence from settlements like Amathus and the other city states is rather limited. The same may be said about sites in the Levant, especially in the homeland of the Phoenicians. The result is that we often use evidence from the Punic World in order to interpret situations in the Eastern Mediterranean, e.g. the burial customs of the Phoenicians, and this results in misunderstandings and polemics. Theoretical archaeology often complicates the issues with conjectural models which have to be reconsidered when new evidence comes to light. There is, however, an optimistic note, especially noticeable during recent years: the eagerness of the 'westerners' to learn about the Near East and particularly Phoenicia, and the readiness of the 'easterners' to discover the 'west'. (This is true mainly among scholars of the younger generation.) The world of Homer has again become a fashionable topic for research and a new element has been added to our research, the Etruscans. Two major exhibitions about the world of Etruria in recent years have contributed considerably in arousing international scholarly interest in this formerly elusive civilisation, in the same way as a major exhibition on the

THOUGHTS ON CYPRIOT STUDIES

37

Phoenicians in Venice in 1988 gave respectability and recognition to the Phoenicians. In Cyprus we are beginning to cross the barrier, trying to define the role of the Phoenicians and the true character of Cypriot culture in the Iron Age and its indebtedness to the Late Bronze Age substratum. Although in this scholarly research one may notice the persistence of some prejudices of the past, there is reasonable hope that these will be overcome if those who specialise in Cypriot studies try to bring into the circle of their research the whole of the Mediterranean, from the Atlantic coast of Spain to the Levantine littoral, and not confine themselves to narrow circles. This is, admittedly, not an easy task. What are the perspectives in Cypriot studies and the role of Cyprus in 21 st century research on the theme 'East and West'? Certainly the new periodical which is inaugurated with the present issue will offer a suitable arena for discussions of specific topics of the history and archaeology of Cyprus on cultural interconnections during the Late Bronze Age and the 1st millennium. But we also need more excavations of settlement sites. Sufficient tomb groups are now known from both periods, what is needed is evidence from settlements. It is sad that the important site of Salamis is not at present accessible for scholarly excavations. But other major sites call for further fieldwork. Cyprus is in the midst of the discussion of the thorny problem of who was responsible for the contacts between the Aegean and the Levant during the early part of the 1st millennium: the Euboeans or the Phoenicians? A one-sided view is not helpful; the problem is more complex. 'western' scholars have been dealing with this problem for some time now. Their 'opponents' are also classical scholars. We need orientalists to be involved in the discussion, scholars who have a thorough knowledge of the Near East. Although several symposia have been organised on topics relating to East-\'Vest relations during the Late Bronze Age, very few have dealt with the Iron Age. Another difficult barrier which should be surpassed is the lack of communication among archaeologists, historians and philologists. A good start has been made with a relatively new branch of scholarship, namely Homeric archaeology.

38

VASSOS KARAGEORGHIS

The new periodical, Ancient West & East, should play a leading role in organising discussions (either through symposia or by means of special issues) on specific topics, e.g. 'Cyprus and the Levant during the "Dark Ages'" or 'Cyprus, Crete and the Phoenicians during the 9th-7th centuries BC'. The excavations at Eleutherna and the North Cemetery at Knossos on Crete have brought to light a wealth of new evidence. Sufficient discussions have already taken place on relations among the Etruscans, the Greeks and the Phoenicians. There is room for much more understanding. As with our political problems, greater knowledge and better understanding, without prejudice, could be achieved by the establishment of a continuous dialogue. Entrenchment in fortified camps is completely obsolete. It is gratifying to see young scholars travelling, participating in international conferences and using modern technology for the diffusion of information. Let them adopt Ancient West & East as an indispensable tool, their meeting place. Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis 40, Gladstonos Str. PO Box 22543 1095 Nicosia Cyprus [email protected]

THE PONTIC REGION: THE NORTHERN SEGMENT OF THE ANCIENT EAST JOHN HIND Among the wide horizons to be scanned, described and discussed in the pages of this periodical is that to the north-east of the central Classical area-the Euxine Pontus, or, more specifically, the coastlands around it and their hinterland. This huge sector invites both regional studies (Thrace, Scythia, Taurica, Bosporus, the Sarmatians and Goths, Colchis and the northern coast of Anatolia) and ones which link shores across the sea, or trace trading patterns into the sea basin and within it. Analyses of primary colonisation and secondary settlement, relations with local peoples, formation of communities (tribes and kingdoms), studies of imported and local pottery, glassware and decorative metalwork, coinage and its circulation, town layout, building types, techniques and architectural features, defensive structures, armour, weapons of war and tools of peace, inscriptions, jewellery, burial types and religious cults, faunal and plant remains, and underwater archaeology, all might, it is hoped, appear in these and future pages from time to time. Chiefly to be excluded must be preliminary and final excavation reports, because of their too great length and detail. As to chronological limits the Assyrian/Hittite presence on the north coast of Anatolia is a reasonable starting-point; the increasingly precarious hold of the Late Roman-Early Byzantine Empires on the region will serve as its close. The resultant rough bi-millennium was one in which the literate people to the South were increasingly to influence the area, and crucially to throw light on it from their own point of view and biased perspective-therein lies a particular challenge of interpretation to modern scholarship. Study of classical and other ancient remains around the Black Sea has generally proceeded (though not always progressed) in the following four stages; we are now, it seems to me, in the explosive, early, phase of a fifth stage. The preceding four are: the mid/late 18th century-mid 19th; mid-19th century-19l4/l7; 1920s1940s; 1945-1990. The first stage was characterised by the drawing up of site-plans of fortifications and once-walled towns (often

40

JOHN HIND

by military engineers), by the attempted identification of, largely coastal, sites with reference to classical writers, and by the acquisition of inscriptions, gemstones, precious metal objects and coins for royal cabinets, and for the private collections of the nobility. The second stage saw the assemblage of corpora of ancient references to the area, of inscriptions from South Russian and Eastern European sites, and the organised publication of major coin collections. There was also the excavation of royal and other major burials in the South Russian/Ukrainian steppe, especially of the Scythian, Bosporan, and eventually Pontic kings. Considerable accessions of finds, sculpture, metalwork, jewellery, terracottas, and painted pottery took place into Russian museums but also into those of Western Europe and of the Ottoman Empire (Louvre, British Museum, Istanbul). These came often from unregulated activities, but also from some early excavations. Planned archaeological work started in the early period on Berezan, at Olbia, Chersonesus, Panticapaeum and lesser city-sites. The publication of political and constitutional histories (Olbia and Bosporus) was also a great step forward in the period. In general, senior Russian and other Eastern European ancient historians and archaeologists were in continual and fruitful touch with scholars in Western Europe and with those residing in the Mediterranean region as well. A number of excellent studies of sculpture, wall-painting, painted pottery, moulded vases, and terracottas from sites around the Black Sea, were the result. In the inter-war period (ca. 1920-1940) the third stage reflected the economic and social concerns of the time, especially in the Soviet Union, but also in western states by way of reaction to the events of 1914-18. Settlements surrounding cities, those of natives or of colonists and mixed groups, the burial grounds of their populations, trade amphorae (especially stamped ones), coin distribution, locally made pottery, grain production and its export, fishing and fish-salting industry, graffiti on pottery, and popular and local religions, all joined the established, somewhat 'elitist' studies of the luxury products of the past. Excavation was usually small scale, but directed to some effect in the towns, rural settlements and necropoleis, and toward the accession and treatment of finds; publication was often long delayed, on poor quality paper, and with almost unusable photographs.

THE PONTIC REGION

41

From 1945 to 1990 the Soviet-inspired approach to archaeology in the Pontic area extended to all shores (except the Turkish), including the Romanian and Bulgarian. Extensive financial resources were put into the excavation of ancient cities, the small surrounding settlements, elite burials (tumuli) and ordinary necropoleis. To these were added new techniques then sprouting in archaeology as in the wider world: underwater surveys and excavation, aerial photography, surface surveys, studies of sea-level and currents, faunal and plant remains, in pursuit of the ancient 'ecological' background. This was done mainly through the tripartite activity of the Institutes of Archaeology (Academy of Sciences), the universities, and the research sections of the large state museums. Archaeology seemed to be an effective, because interesting, way of educating 'the people' to their 'collective past'. For a large part of this period, until towards its end, considerable resources were available for numerous preliminary communications, long series of 'prestige' final reports (Materialy i IssledovaniYa, Svod Arkheologicheskikh Istochnikov), and for articles in the main All-Union and Republic journals (Sovetskaya Arkheologiya; Vestnik Drevnei Istorii). With the appearance of the annual, Arkheologicheskie OtkrytiYa (1965), a speedy Soviet-wide summary of excavations was in circulation. This proved a valuable pointer to work, recently done in single, or several consecutive, seasons until its cessation (1988 for the year 1986). Supplementary collections of inscriptions were also published for Bosporus, Chersonesus and Olbia. From the early 1960s the pace of activity quickened in the republic to the east of the Black Sea too, Georgia, where proto-Phasians and Colchoi were studied from the 2nd millennium BC. Yet the Greek 'cities' on the coast, though mentioned in some ancient sources, were and are, still archaeologically absent. Even now, numismatic evidence, taken along with the ancient Greek and Roman testimonia, plays an unusually prominent role in assessing the nature of Greek settlement among the local peoples (Phasianoi/Colchoi). International symposia, held triennially at Tskhaltubo/Vani in Georgia (from 1977) and at Sozopol's Centre for Underwater Studies in Bulgaria (from 1979), drew large numbers of Soviet and Eastern European participants, but also some French, Spanish, a very few British, Germans, Italians and Israelis. These events came, over and above the regular, more frequent internal Soviet conferences at

42

JOHN HIND

Saratov, Rostov-on-Don and 'Olbia'. Some joint excavations were also mounted in this period, mainly at Myrmekion with Polish archaeologists, but with participatory work on topography (Polish), pottery and jewellery studies (Czech). French support extended to promoting articles by Russian and Georgian scholars, and to issuing a bibliography of archaeological studies, and a monograph on Olbia. German sponsorship too brought forth a series of monographs (Xenia), published at Konstanz, again by Soviet Russian and Georgian authors, but also by Bulgarian and Romanian scholars, also a survey of work done in Russia (Ertrdge der Forschung, Darmstadt). Bulgaria and Romania had been busy within their own ancient cities, settlements and cemeteries, especially at or near Apollonia and Mesembria, Histria and Callatis, with a unique local interest in the Thracian and Getic peoples, and in the Roman provinces of Thrace and Moesia (later Scythia Minor). Again large, luxury series of reports, state-sponsored journals and museum communications published excavations and studies of material on a scale that was in the event, not to be sustained. In Turkey, by contrast, scholarly interest resided in the Seljuks and Ottomans, though some rather small-scale excavation was carried out in Graeco-RomanByzantine cities by Turkish scholars (Sinope) and British and French (Trabzun); in the 1960s surface survey and numismatic studies were made by Germans and Austrians (Heracleia). Throughout this time of very considerable activity the long-standing language barriers cut off the region from close attention by western scholars. The political and ideological screen, though patchily porous, was generally effective in separating also the ancient West from the East. One welcome trend, however, became noticeable-to consider the Black Sea region as an economic, then political whole, first appearing in print ca. 196718 (scholars in Moscow and Leningrad). The Vani and Sozopol series of symposia also came, if somewhat unevenly, to promote a pan-Pontic agenda. British summaries of archaeological work in the Black Sea region (Archaeological Reports 1962 I 3; 1983 14; 1992 I 3) had the same breadth of coverage. The fifth period is scarcely in its twelfth year (1990), but it is clearly marked by an accelerating pace of study. After a few years of collapse into economic and even dangerous political, chaos in certain areas such as Moldova and Georgial Abkhazia, most areas

THE PONTIC REGION

43

saw archaeological activity begin to recover, though the majority of people in the former Soviet bloc may still feel more the blasts than the benefits of the new freedoms. Nevertheless, money and personnel contributions from Denmark, France, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, have allowed many former Soviet-bloc archaeologists to continue work on previously selected sites, and to pursue new and impressive publication projects. Those, for instance on Phanagoria/the Taman Peninsula, and on Panskoe in north-western Crimea, have already seen early stages in print. The Vani symposia resumed, and those at Sozopol continued, triennially in this period, with notably increasing numbers of westerners. Conferences at Saratov and Rostov appear biennially and at Krasnodar and Sebastopol regularly, largely with internal Russian participants. However, their remit, 'The Basin of the Black Sea down to Mediaeval Times', makes the summary conference proceedings a valuable source of information. Large, new, International Congresses on Black Sea Antiquities (Pontic Congresses), have now most recently been held in Bulgaria (Varna, 1997), Turkey (Ankara, 2001), with proceedings still pending (British Archaeological Reports); a third is planned (Prague, 2005). Smaller affairs were mounted for invited scholars in London, Keele, Exeter, Washington DC, Thessaloniki, and Taman, South Russia at various times between 1990 and 2000. Internationally authored volumes are under way covering the early colonial site on Berezan island (based at The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg and Royal Holloway University of London), and the ancient city of Phanagoria and the Taman Peninsula are to be given multi-volume treatment (Moscow, Institute of Archaeology and Royal Holloway University of London). In Turkey surveys and studies of trade amphora production at Sinope (France; USA), a survey of the city and region of Amisos (Samsun region/Turkish colleagues), and work on the mediaeval castle and other defences at Amastris (Great Britain) are in part published, and partly in progress. From 1994 Brill started and continued with the journal, Ancient Civilizations from Srythia to Siberia, which commenced life as an embryo collection of papers, but developed into the regular publication of translations of articles that had already appeared in Russian. Monographs on all sides of the Black Sea (Heracleia, Colchis, west

44

JOHN HIND

coast cities, collected works on the northern-shore cities) have been produced in a series from Holland (Hakkert, Amsterdam); these also represented translations of works by Eastern European scholars. Paris and Bucharest have also begun corpora of amphora stamps found at Histria in the last few years. From 1991 at Balliol College, Oxford, and from 1994 at Royal Holloway University of London, a one-man Black Sea study centre has continued to flourish. Several volumes of collected original papers, by mainly eastern scholars, have been seen through to completion. Monographs on Colchis and the eastern side of the Black Sea, and a spate of new articles on the area generally have emanated from there in a brief period. Special mention should be made of Colloquia Pontica, now numbering eight volumes (1996~200 1) with more to come imminently. This will be Brill's elder sister series of monographs alongside the new, infant periodical, Ancient West & East. Meantime two other comprehensive projects have come to fruition, or promise to do so shortly. TIe Barrington Atlas qf the Greek and Roman World (2000) contains map-sheets and accompanying directory that rest on unprecedentedly detailed cartography and archaeological recording. Soon the inventories of the Copenhagen Polis project (OUP 2003/4) will provide all-Pontic treatment of the cities in the Archaic and Classical periods-exhaustive, so far as civic structures and activities are concerned. Denmark is also poised to increase its contribution to Black Sea studies with a newly instituted Centre for the Black Sea, to be opened this year in Aarhus with an ambitious and varied programme of research for the next five years. Another international work under way is the Dictionary qf Black Sea Antiquities (Brill, 2003/4, with British and American editors), for which entries have already been allocated to numerous scholars, both western and eastern. \Ve may then hope to present Ancient West & East, not indeed as the culmination of this accelerated pace of research. Rather it is one more useful vehicle for original ideas, studies and findings in pre-, proto- (and full-light-of-) history. We might hope that our research aims will reflect that admonitory phrase, 'only connect' (across regions, cultures, themes). In presentation our hope should surely be to satisfy proper professional expectations of new mater-

THE PONTIC REGION

45

ial and ideas, while at the same time using accessible layman's language to convey them to readers. The first contributors to this first number of the first year send us off auspiciously on the way. School of History University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT

UK

ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE HEADWATERS OF THE ARAS ANTONIO SAGONA Archaeologically, the north-eastern highlands remain the least understood region of Anatolia, a circumstance that has much to do with the course archaeological research has taken over the last century, focusing on the western and central territories, and more recently on the rescue operations in the south-east. Yet the potential of this region for enriching our understanding of Anatolia's past is great. Its geography, for instance, incorporating the natural east-west highways along the Kara Su-Aras (Araxes) and Kelkit-Qoruh depressions, and the Black Sea littoral, encouraged a considerable amount of cultural interplay with neighbouring territories, especially in the Transcaucasus, where, by contrast, extensive archaeological fieldwork has been carried out. But perhaps the greatest attraction north-eastern Anatolia offers is the prospect of studying the development of human behaviour in high altitude regions often in excess of 1700 m above sea level. Living in the rugged mountains climatic extremes posed greater challenges than a mode of life in lowland environments. Not surprisingly centralised authority came relatively late in the highlands, in the Iron Age, when they formed the western part of the Urartian kingdom. Whatever period, these highland communities often tenaciously preserved the fundamental character of their material culture, perhaps pointing to enduring sets of beliefs, values and ideals.

Briif History

if Research

The history of research can be sketched quickly. Apart from early visits to specific sites, K. Kokten conducted the first archaeological reconnaissance in the region south of the Pontic Alps in the 1940s as part of his extensive survey of eastern Anatolia. Kokten's overview was complemented by the excavations at Karaz, near Erzurum, carried out in 1942 and 1944 by H. Ko§ay, based at the University of Ankara. This sequence and those at the nearby sites of Pulur and Giizelova, also investigated by Ko§ay nearly two decades later,

ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE HEADWATERS OF THE ARAS

47

provided until recently the bulk of evidence for the prehistoric (Bronze Age) settlement. This region was largely out of bounds for C. Burney, whose pioneering surveys of eastern Anatolia in the 1950s provided the first coherent picture of cultural development for the highlands generally. Nonetheless, he did survey the impressive mound of Altmtepe (Erzincan) and pointed to its importance in the Iron Age, confirmed by T. Ozgu -na-sa-ti a-na+r-su-ha-ti pARt Hlfii-ii-tu

the divine mountain throne, (and) the heroic god Patear down (his) royal smoke offerings!" "But the king who will make these altars strong," "and will not destroy them," "him may the sun-goddess (of) sun-city, the storm-god (of) heaven the god of victory monuments, the divine mountain throne, the heroic god Pastrengthen in abundance." "(He) whoever will make the divine mountain throne," "(and) will place victory monuments," "if [ ],"

"if [

],"

"for me, his majesty, great king, labarnas Tudhaliyas, labarnas, great king, may he give [a libation offering] (... ) on the spot!" "But (he) who will not give me a libation offering," "him [may] the god of victory monuments, the divine mountain throne, (and) the heroic god Pa- [ ]!" "But (he) who will give me a libation offering," "may the god of victory monuments, the divine mountain throne, (and) the heroic god Parun before him with abundance (and) forcefulness!"

THE LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS

73

Comments Phrase 2

"divine mountain throne" is an indication of the sanctuary in which the round altars and the rectangular stones are placed, not of the mountain on which this sanctuary is situated. 18 In personified form it recurs in the sequence of gods of appeal in our phrases 27, 30, 37 and 39. A: logographic writing of the verb a(ia)- "to make, do". This form of the verb is also present in our phrases 26, 28 and 31. In two instances (our phrases 26 and 28) it was recognised as such by Hawkins, but not here and in our phrase 31.19 As a result of this identification, from here the numbering of our phrases runs no longer parallel to that of Hawkins. From the context, it seems clear that the logographic form of the verb designates the 1st person sg. of the past tense.

MASANA+ WATJ+ ASATAR

Phrase 3

TAMI-KURUJvT-i: A(m/f) pI. in -i of indication of monument or cult object probably, as we have noted above, bearing reference to the rectangular stones with a text in annalistic style. TUWA: logographic writing of the verb tuwa- "to place". From the context it seems clear that this form of the verb designates the 1st person sg. of the past tense.

Phrase 4 i: A(n) sg. of the demonstrative pronoun i- "this".20 Here this form of the demonstrative corresponds to logographic WANAI, which in the present context clearly refers to the altar itself.2 1 Later on in the text, in our phrases 25 and 28, the scribe uses the A(n) pI. iii WitNAI "these altars" in order to specify that there were more than one, which evidently emphasises our identification of WANAI with the four round stone altars. 22

Cf Hawkins 1995, 93. Hawkins 1995, 98 (his phrase 25); 100 (his phrase 27); if. 93 (phrase 2 with reference to his phrase 30). 20 Meriggi 1966, 53; Meriggi 1980, 322 (new reading tza). 21 So also Hawkins 1995, 93, who nevertheless translates "stele", see his p. 89. 22 Meriggi 1966, 53; Meriggi 1980, 322 (new reading t zqya). 18 19

74

F.e. WOUDHUIZEN

As rightly observed by Hawkins, the use of the enclitic reflexive pronoun -mi "for myself" establishes that the verb of the phrase, TUH~4, written logographically again, is indeed 1st person sg. (probably of the past tense). He further justifiably notes that the syllabic writing pa+r-a of the adverb is remarkable in the light of its otherwise logographic pARA (our phrases 16 and 39).23 In sum, this phrase stipulates that the altar(s) were placed in front of the monuments or cult objects which we identified with the rectangular stones. Phrase 5

Our understanding of this phrase is seriously hampered by the damaged spot at its end. At any rate, it is clear that HWAasa renders the N(m/f) sg. in -sa of the relative pronoun hwa- "who, what".24 The sequence misaa infansmsa-infansmsa appears to be characterised by the G sg. ending in -sa. 25 In contrast to the opinion of Hawkins, I do not think that the lacuna in the text forces us to assume the omission of an entire phrase (in casu his phrase 5).26 As a result of this difference, our numbering of the phrases happens to correspond again up to phrase 15. Phrase 6

Inspection of the photograph and drawing presented by Hrozny clearly indicates that the root of the verb reads ignis- "to burn" (*477) instead of ASA (U]- "to settle" (*299) as Hawkins wants to have it. 27 This verb is characterised by the ending of the 3rd person sg. of the imperative medio-passive in -ru. 2R The subject is formed by

Hawkins 1995, 93. Meriggi 1966,57; :\1eriggi 1980, 325 (new reading treryasa). Note that in the Empire period the endings of the N(m/f) sg. in -sa and A(m/f) sg. in -na are only indicated in the realm of the pronoun. :'vly transliteration of the relative pronoun as hwa- is conservative: in Hawkins and Morpurgo-Davies 1993 it has been cogently argued that in the Empire period the initial consonant still renders the original [k] instead of secondary [kh] valid for the Early Iron Age. 15 As it is the case with the parallel in the text from Kbylutolu to which Hawkins 1995, 93 rightly draws our attention; if. Woudhuizen 1994·-95, 165-66. See also the previous note on the omission of the N(m/f) sg. ending in the realm of the noun. 21> Hawkins 1995, 88. " Hrozny 1937, pI. LXXIII; LXXVII; if. Hawkins 1995, 88, 90, 93. For the numbers of the signs marked by an asterix, see Laroche 1960. 2B Meriggi 1980, 356. 21

2+

THE LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS

75

pasaa, the N(mlf) sg. in -sa of the demonstrative pronoun (a)pa"(s)he, that", which refers back to the subject of the preceding phrase 5. 29 Next, itia ~V£VVAI simply renders the D-Abi. sg. "on this altar".3o Of the enclitics at the start of the phrase, -ti is the reflexive of the 3rd person sg. "for himself"3l and -taa the A(m/f) pI. of the enclitic pronoun of the 3rd person "them". 32 Note that the order of the enclitics conforms to the rules of Luwian grammar according to which reflexives precede direct forms of the enclitic pronoun. 33 Phrase 7 \Vithin the old reading, adhered to here, ilatuwa "in future" remains an isolated form, whereas the new reading t zilatuwa may well present a connection with cuneiform Luwian ziladuwa-. 34 In connection with the verb salakata- "to dishonour (vel simile)" I prefer to stick to the epigraphic order of the signs, instead of changing this order in the light of some doubtful late parallel as Hawkins does. 35 The ending -a is that of the 3rd person sg. of the present/ future. 36 The transliteration of the negative, first discovered by Hawkins in 1975, as nar finds support in the interchange of this sign with the common sign for na, as duly notified by Hawkins in his aforementioned contribution. 37 Note that this same transliteration is also applied by Poetto in his edition of Yalburt. 38 HWAasaha: N(mlf) sg. in -sa of the indefinite pronoun hwa- -ha "someone, something". 39

Meriggi 1966, 54; if. Hawkins 1995, 93. Meriggi 1966, 53; Meriggi 1980, 322 (new reading t zatba). l! Hawkins 1995, 93. '2 Meriggi 1966, 51; Meriggi 1980, 318 presents only sg., but this form also renders pI.; not Ortspartikel as Hawkins 1995, 93 wants to have it. 33 Laroche 1957-58, 162 (cuneiform Luwian a-wa-ti-it-ta); 166 (hieroglyphic Luwian wa -ti -tal; if. Woudhuizen 1992-93, 177, note 36. H Hawkins 1975, 129; Melchert 1993, S.D.; if. Hawkins 1995, 94. :;C, So also Masson 1979a, 30; contra Hawkins 1995, 94 with reference to Hawkins 2000, 336-37 (Boybeypinari 2, phrases 4 and 7: sakatalisa-). Hi Hawkins 1995, 94 (new reading tJia). 37 Hawkins 1975, 120 and citations 18. m Poetto 1993,32-33 (blocks 3 and 4); if. Woudhuizen 1994-95, 177-79, phrases 27 and 42. l'I Meriggi 1966, 58; Meriggi 1980, 327. 2' iO

76

Fe. WOUDHUIZEN

Phrase 8 HARMAHl+ scalprum: this logographically written verb, which probably renders the 3rd person sg. of the present/future, consists of a ligature of the signs for a functionary (* 10) and for inscribed objects (*268). Accordingly we arrive at the meaning "to inscribe officially (vel simile)". In combination with the adverb ARHA this meaning becomes the opposite, "to erase officially (vel simile)". Note that the same combination also occurs in our phrase 21. Phrase 9 The verb of this phrase is expressed by the form tarinuwati, a 3rd person sg. of the presentlfuture in -ti.40 Later on in the text, in our phrase 27, the same verb, now in the imperative in -tu,41 recurs in combination with the adverb KATA. On the basis of this recurrence, it seems likely that KATA must be emended in our present context. At any rate, it is clear that the verb in combination with the adverb renders a negative meaning, like "to tear down (vel simile)". The enclitic particle -ta, often explained away by Hawkins as Ortspartikel,42 likely constitutes the A(n) sg. of the enclitic pronoun of the 3rd person "it".43 Phrase 10 iii: A(n) pI. of the demonstrative pronoun i- "this."44 Here this form of the pronoun corresponds to the noun pata, which has been explained by Hawkins in line with the late form loquiparta "words (or the like)". 45 tupi: endingless form of the verb tupi- "to strike, hit, smite". In combination with the adverb ARHA, this verb expresses the meaning "to strike away". If our interpretation is correct, the expression by and large covers the one used in phrase 8. Phrase 11 NL4sANAnai: D pI. m -ai of the noun masana- "god".46

III

+1 +2 +l

H

+i IG

Meriggi 1966, 63; I'v1eriggi 1980, 334. Meriggi 1966, 63; Meriggi 1980, 350. Hawkins 1995, 94; if. note 32 above. Meriggi 1980, 318. See note 22 above. Hawkins 1975, 129; Hawkins 2000, 142-43 (Karkamis A31, phrase 14). Meriggi 1966, 26; Meriggi 1980, 275 (new reading t-a"za).

THE LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS

77

mvAsatisa: from the context it seems deducible that this form functions as an adjective and renders the meaning "fortunate (vel simile) ".47 iiita: 3rd person sg. of the past tense in -ta of the verb ai(a)- "to make, do".48 As we have noted above (see phrase 2), this verb also occurs in logographic variant A. In my opinion the syllable sa which according to Hawkins follows the form iiita is not there. 49 Phrase 12 iiiiiru: 3rd person sg. of the imperative medio-passive verb ai(a)- "to make, do".

In

-ru of the

Phrase 13 ma- "if". This conjunction recurs in full form ma-na In our phrase 21 below. APAa "re-, anew". This adverb, which is also present in our phrase 26 below, is easily mixed-up with the syllable na. 50 URA-HAVVAa "great sheep (offering)". Although Hawkins omits the first sign of this combination, its presence is assured by Masson both in her drawing and transcription-note, however, that she wrongly interprets it as an instance of L 413 hi.5l The same object, of which the nature is not entirely clear, occurs again in our phrases 20, 22 and 23 below, once (in our phrase 20) characterised by the A(m/f) pI. ending in _i.52 laiir: 3rd person sg. of the present/future medio-passive in -r(i) of the verb la- "to take".53 There is no sign missing behind this verbal form, as Hawkins seems to imply by adding three dots in his transliteration. 54 The root of this verb also appears in phrase 1.

+7 Note that the syllable hwa is distinguished from the syllable hwa by the fact that the initial consonant in the latter case, as we have observed in note 24 above, likely renders [k], whereas in the former case it certainly consists of [kh]. +8 Meriggi 1966, 65; Meriggi 1980, 345. '9 Hawkins 1995, 88; if. Masson 1979a, 28, Fig. 6. 50 As Hawkins 1995, 95; 98 (his phrase 25) does. " Masson 1979a, 28, Fig. 6; 31; if. Hawkins 1995, 88; 95. 52 Meriggi 1966, 26; Meriggi 1980, 283 (new reading t-"zi); see also note 17 above. " Meriggi 1980, 356. 5+ Hawkins 1995, 88; 95.

78

F.e. WOUDHUIZEN

Phrase 14 -naG: A(mlf) sg. of the enclitic pronoun of the 3rd person "him".5) urai: N(mlf) pI. in -i of the noun ura- "great one, authority".56 tatu: 3rd person pI. of the imperative in -tu of the verb ta- "to take, apprehend, confiscate". Phrase 15 Hawkins did not grasp the fact that the sequence tatu -tu, characterised by the D sg. of the enclitic pronoun of the 3rd person -tu "for him, from him", constitutes a separate phraseY The distinction with the previous phrase is an intricate one: the authorities should not only take the person himself into custody, but also take from him something that can only be conceived of as a fine. As a result of this interpretation, from here the numbering of our phrases runs no longer parallel to that of Hawkins. Phrase 16 The key word of this phrase is the form satisa, written with *430, the angular variant of *415 sa, in front. 58 It occurs here in combination with the adverb pARA "before, pre-" and the verb aG, an endingless variant of ai(a)- "to make, do".59 Even though we are dealing here with an hapax legomenon, I nonetheless suggest that interpretation is possible in line with Latin satis, which occurs in combination with the verb facio and derivatives as in satiifactio "satisfaction". The sense thus expressed by the phrase is that the evildoer will be forced to make for himself (-tiaG) a compensatory offering from his fine. Phrase 17 The reading of the object J1/L~:{NA+WATJ+ASArAR "divine mountain throne" is assured by Masson.fill

Meriggi 1966, 51; Meriggi 1980, 318. Meriggi 1966, 26; Meriggi 1980, 283 (new reading t-"zi). Si Meriggi 1966, 51; Meriggi 1980, 318; if. Hawkins 1995, 89; 96 . .,R Laroche 1960, s.v.; if. Woudhuizen 1992-93, 207-08; Woudhuizen 1994-95, 183; contra Hawkins' (1995, 25-26) theory that *430 renders the meaning punati55 06

"all" .

.,9 The reading aa is assured by Masson 1979a, 28, fig. 6; 31 (new reading tyaa). There is no reason to connect the sign a with the preceding adverb pAlL4, as Hawkins 1995, 88; 96 wants to have it. (ill Masson 1979a, 28, fig. 6; 31.

THE LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS

79

Phrase 18 reading established by Masson. 61 uRA+scalprum: combination which recurs in our phrase 22, bearing reference to a functionary translatable as "sculptor-in-chief". Like in the case of the compound URA-HAWA, what Hawkins considers to be *414 in fact consists of *363 URA. 62 Note that this combination, on the analogy of the titulary expression la+ pARNA reads from bottom to top. satusaa: A(n) pI. in -sa of the noun satu- which I am inclined to interpret as "belonging". 63

NL4SANA+WATI+A&4TAR:

Phrase 19 arawanaa: "in freedom", probably meaning exemption from taxes. Compare Hittite arawa- "free" and Lycian arawa- "freedom".64 Note that *131, which expresses the front syllable, is a variant of *133 ar(a). HILANA-mi: endingless form of the word for "porch", standing for the A sg. uTNAna(i: A(n) pI. in -(i of the noun utna- "land".65 This form is exactly paralleled for an unfortunately broken context of Y alburt. 66 A'