Ships and Sea-Power Before the Great Persian War: The Ancestry of the Ancient Trireme 9004096507, 9789004096509

Citation preview

SHIPS AND SEA-POWER BEFORE THE GREAT PERSIAN WAR

MNEMOSYNE BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BATAVA COLLEGERUNT A.D. LEEMAN· H.W. PLEKET · C.J. RUIJGH BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT C.J. RUIJGH, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT

129, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTUM CENTESIMUM VICESIMUM PRIMUM H.T. WALLINGA

SHIPS AND SEA-POWER BEFORE THE GREAT PERSIAN WAR

SHIPS AND SEA-POWER BEFORE THE GREAT PERSIAN WAR THE ANCESTRY OF THE ANCIENT TRIREME

BY

H.T. WALLINGA

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KOLN 1993

The paper in this book meets the guidelines forpermanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Wallinga, H. T. Ships and sea-power before the great Persian War: the ancestry of the ancient trireme / by H.T. Wallinga. p. cm.-(Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum, ISSN 0 169-8958; 121) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9004096507 (alk. paper) ISBN 9004097090 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Sea-power-Greece-History. 2. Sea-power-Iran-History. 3. Triremes-History. 4. Greece-History, Naval. 5. Iran-History, Naval. I. Title. II. Series. V A523.W36 1992 359' .03 '0938-dc20

ISSN ISBN

92-16496 CIP

0 169-8958 90 04 09650 7

© Copyright1993 by E.]. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved.No part efthis publication may be reproduced,translated,stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmittedin anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying,recordingor otherwise,withoutprior written permissionefthepublisher. Authorization to photocopyitemsfor internalorpersonal use is granted by E.]. Brill providedthat the appropriatefees arepaid direct{yto Copyright ClearanceCenter,2 7 CongressStreet, SALEM MA 01970, USA. Feesare subjectto change. PRINTED

IN THE NETHERLANDS

To my sons T., CJ and M. W and their mother

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface........................................................................................................ List of illustrations.....................................................................................

x111

I. Introduction......................................................................................

1

II. Thukydides

and early naval developments..............................

III. Shipping in the eighth century B.c. ............................................ IV. The new Greek sea-powers of the sixth century

B.C.................

1x

13 33 66

V. The invention of the trireme and the creation of the Persian navy....................................................................................

103

VI. The trireme in Hellas: Themistokles' navy bill and the Persians......................................................................................

130

VII. Epilogue.............................................................................................

165

Appendix:

169

the crews of Greek and Persian triremes........................

Bibliography..............................................................................................

187

Index of ancient authors cited................................................................ General index............................................................................................

195 202

Illustrations

PREFACE These studies of East-Mediterranean shipping in the archaic period (c.735-481 BC) had their origin in a seminar on the great Persian War of 480 which I gave in the academic year 1962-63 at the University of Amsterdam. I was struck then (as I still am) by the easiness with which very many scholars assume that the naval potential of the Greeks, once they decided to co-operate, would be a match for that of the Persian empire; and indeed concluded that awareness of this enabled statesmen like Themistokles to frame and pursue a coherent antiPersian policy, chiefly based on naval capabilities, which in the end resulted in the elimination of the Persian danger. My own impression was that this view, expressed most strongly by Eduard Meyer and repeated by many others with more or less nuance, fatally neglected contrary indications in the historical tradition and in the iconographical evidence concerning the archaic sea-powers. To judge by these indications naval armaments were by no means ubiquitous in the late archaic period and in as far as they existed were not at all as large-scale as they ought to have been to warrant the modern assessment of their political effects. The few students who attempted to find alternatives for Meyer's view and for the concomitant estimate of the countervailing policies of the Persians steered clear of the naval problems and for this reason found no effective arguments. Hence the dialogue des sourds that recently culminated in CAH IV2 • This situation has been my chief motive to tackle the neglected problem of the development of the archaic sea-powers. It is in this context that the chief crux of the debate is to be found, but also footholds for new efforts to understand. The fact is that research in the maritime field has been extremely one-sided in the past and has concentrated on the ships as material objects and on sea-power as an abstraction, while the context-economic, political and military-where those ships and powers functioned was taken for granted. The invention of the trireme in particular was studied as no more than a matter of technical improvement: the question whether there existed naval establishments needing, and capable of exploiting the qualities of, this mighty ship was scarcely touched. Vital evidence was disregarded and analysis of Thukydides' crucial testimony regarding the growth of Greek nautika as a statement on organization and strategical scope left undone. I have tried to remedy these omissions by presenting a coherent hypothesis concerning all the developments involved and working up

X

PREFACE

all the data that could possibly have relevance. My message is simple: the capabilities of the Greek (and also the Phoenician) states have been grossly exaggerated and radical naval developments ascribed to them, which we must indeed assume but belong in the very different context of the near-eastern kingdoms, incidental first steps excepted. Conversely, the contribution of these kingdoms to the technical and especially the infrastructural innovations in the naval sphere has been as grossly underrated . The immense scaling up of the Greek naval establishments that was provoked by Xerxes' mobilization, and the crucial share therein of the Athenian building programme (and its unforeseeable financial basis), has in consequence not been recognized for what it was. As will be clear, this book has been very long in the making. Adverse personal circumstances have caused very long delays in research and writing and this may have resulted in some unevenness of composition and style, for which I offer my apologies. Because of its controversial thesis it is not deficient in polemic: I hope that those coming under fire will join in the fight. Like the hypotheses I attack, mine needs contradiction where it is weak, and in any case refinement even where it may be right in principle. It can only benefit by the choc des opinions: there has been far too little of it. Friends and colleagues have supported my work in many ways, in the first place the happy band collaborating in the Achaemenid Workshops organized by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amelie Kuhrt: it has been the sympathetic auditorium of my first attempts at organizing my argument, especially the near-eastern side of it. I owe much to discussions, written or oral, with professors Lionel Casson, J.K.Davies, S.L. Radt, W J. Verdenius and M.A. Wes . Chapters of this book were read and commented upon by Dr. H .W. Singor and by professors Frederick Van Doominck Jr. and Pierre Briant; the whole by professor A.M. Snodgrass, whose encouraging comments were very precious to me; and by professor W.M. Murray, whose very valuable comments I received when the manuscript had already been given to the printers, and so could not exploit to the full. To all of them I express my warmest thanks. I am particularly obliged to Dr. Hermann Kienast of the German Archaeological Institute in Athens for most generous permission to write about the unpublished Schiffsbasis in the Samian Heraion, and for ample information concerning this most valuable piece of evidence. I

PREFACE

XI

am further grateful to Professor J.S. Morrison and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for allowing me to use a drawing from GOS,and to musea and institutes for permission to use their photographs to illustrate my argument, and in particular to the staff of the Musee du Louvre for permission to examine their matchless collection of geometric and archaic ship pictures. Finally I owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Frans Erens for some superb drawings; to mr. J. van Leersum for putting my cross-sections into shape; and to mr. GJ. Wallinga for correcting my foreigner's English.

Utrecht March 1992

H.T. Wallinga

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FRONTISPIECE:

This drawing of a hypothetical pentekontor combines features of the oarage of three contemporaneous geometric ship representations (Ills. 12, 14, 9 = COS Geom. 2, 9 and 10; c.760-c.735 BC). 1t illustrates the technical potential of the period and confirms Thukydides' dating of the naval organization that was based on this potential to the last quarter of the eighth century.

1.

Sailing ship c.515 BC (= COS Arch.85) . Photo The British Museum (B 4159). Merchant galley/ eikosoros c.700-650 BC ( = COS Arch.5). Drawing from A.Koster 1923: Tafel 35. Hypothetical cross-section 1 of Homeric monokrotos galley. Id. of eikosoros with hatches, raised gunwale and rowing-benches. Plan of ship dedication stereobate in the Heraion of Samos (Courtesy Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Athen). Hypothetical cross-section of trireme (= COS Pl.25). Hypothetical cross-section of monokrotos galley with fighting deck. Hypothetical cross-section of dikrotos galley with parexeiresia (size of ledger exaggerated). Isometric projection of pentekontor based on the contours of the stereo bate of Ill.4. Hypothetical cross-section of merchant galley (eikosoros) with deck, hatches and parexeiresia. Dikrotos galley without visible tholes; both thranite and zugian oarsmen shown; c.760-735 BC (= COS Geom.10). Photo Musee du Louvre (AGR A 530/ S450). Midships segment of dikrotos galley; wicker (?)

2. 3a. 3b. 4.

5. 6. 7a. 7b.

8. 9.

10. 1

In this and the following cross-sections I am primarily concerned with the oarage of the galleys in question and so with the situation on deck. My drawings are intended as simplified variants of COS Pl.25 (cf. my Fig.5), but in no way as representations of the underwater part of the ship.

XIV

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

ILLUSTRATIONS

screens protecting zugian oarsmen; c.735-710 BC (= COS Geom.44). Photo National Archaeological Museum Athens (277). Id.; screens in other material? of same date as Ill. 10 (= COS Geom.43). Photo National Archaeological Museum Athens (276). Dikrotos galley, similar to that of 111.9,with parexeiresia, thranite and zugian tholes shown, but no oars; figures standing on level of zuga and of thranite rowing-benches; of same date as 111.9(= COS Geom.2; cf. COS Geom.4). Photo Musee du Louvre (AGR A 527). Id.: similar to the galley of 111.9, but without the zugian tholes; a rectangular sail; of same date as 111.9 (= COS Geom. 8). Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Athen (NM 4300). Id.: similar to the galley of 111.9;14 thranite tholes, 4 oversize (heroic?) oarsmen, no zugian tholes; of same date as 111.9(= COS Geom. 9). Photo Musee du Louvre (AGR A 517). Id.: similar to the galley of 111.9, without visible tholes; zugian oarsmen shown only; of same date as 111.9 (= COS Geom. 11). Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Athen (NM 3470). Galley with parexeiresia; 19 thranite oarsmen shown and 21 zugian tholes; of same date as 111.10 (= COS Geom. 42). Photo Royal Ontario Museum (66GR.265). Id.: no zugian tholes shown; the thranite tholes (?) set between the shores of the parexeiresia, not identical with their upper ends; what has been drawn looks more like the oar-strap ('tp07tO>'tT\P) than the thole itself; of same date as 111.2(= COS Arch.2). Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Athen (NM 3588). Id.: 10 thranite tholes, oars nor oarsmen shown; lower part of parexeiresia construction covered by screen; c.550-530 BC (= COS Arch.52). Photo Staatliche Antikensammlungen Miinchen (KM 3179). dikrotos galley of the time of SennaPhoenician cherib; 704-681 BC (British Museum 124772 = COSPI. 22a). Photo The British Museum (E 2015).

ILLUSTRATIONS

20.

21a. 21b.

22.

23.

24.

25.

xv

Drawing of a wall-relief in gypsum from the palace of Sennacherib (= A.H.Layard, Monuments of Nineveh I, Pl. 71). The ships are Phoenician galleys engaged in evacuating Luli, king of Tyre and Sidon, from Tyre. Cross-section of galley of 111.19 after Salonen (1939: 40). Alternative cross-section of the same galley; the the dotted lines below the parexeiresia represent screens. Monokrotos galley: 10 ( or up to 12) thranite tholes without oars; in ledger of parexeiresia circular openings corresponding with thranite tholes; underneath lighter coloured screen; middle to late sixth century BC(= Hesperia XLII (1973), fig.14). Photo American School of Classical Studies Athens (72-62-23). Dikrotos galley: 7 or 8 thranite tholes; screen with semi-circular cut-outs near the invisible zugian tholes; c.530-480 BC(= GOSArch.57). Photo Musee du Louvre (AGR F 123). Galley with 39, perhaps meant as 40, oars; of same date as Ill.10 (= COS Geom.19). Photo The British Museum (C 1097). Hypothetical cross-section of Polykrates' samaina, combining deck and hatches of the eikosoros with the oarage of the pentekontor ( c.535-525 BC).

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION What we know of East-Mediterranean shipping in the eighth to sixth centuries B.C. is based on a fairly large number of ship-representations, a few from the Near-East, but most from Greece, and on Greek literary sources. It is only in recent years that both categories of data have been made adequately accessible: the relevant Greek ship-representations very fully and exemplarily by R.T. Williams in his and J.S. Morrison's Greek Oared Ships (1968); less fully in Lionel Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (1971) and in D. Gray's Seewesen (1974). Those of the Near East have been collected in M.-Chr. de Graeve's The Ships of the Ancient Near East (1981) and both categories now together in L. Basch's sumptuous Musie imaginaire ( 1987). The literary material has been made accessible above all through the excellent Index of Citations in SSA W Studies of the development of the ship during the period in question have been chiefly based on the pictorial data; those of the development of sea-power on the testimonies of the great fifth-century historians. I shall not here try to characterize the results and the differences between them. What interests me now is what they have in common. For there are some basic assumptions that are generally adhered to and determine the discussion. There seems to be agreement (1) that the sailing ship as an independent type is coeval with the galley and had developed entirely on its own (if this important category is seriously discussed at all). Further it is thought (2) that the ship which developed in the period our sources cover was solely the galley, more particularly the war galley, and that successive innovations were introduced in answer to the requirements of naval warfare and tactics, in particular ramming tactics. Finally it is firmly believed (3) that the ultimate stage of this development, the emergence of the war galley known as trireme (Greek 'tPtllprJ~, Latin triremis), took place well before the end of the sixth century and in the world of the Greek poleis ( or alternatively in that of the Phoenician city-states). This would imply that these small polities had need of and were able to finance the building and the use of a specialized warship that was much bigger and needed far more personnel than any vessel securely attested for the archaic period in our iconographical and literary documentation. However, these basic tenets of virtually all modern students of early Greek and Phoenician shipping are open to serious doubt:

2

CHAPTER

ONE

( 1) The idea seems to be widely held that sailing ships existed and were used from the beginning of post-Mycenean Greek history, not to say that in this respect the Mycenean situation simply continued (on a reduced scale) after the collapse of c.1200. Casson for instance introduces the sailing ship of the period 1000-500 BC with the words 'The round hull, favored earlier by Crete and the Levant ... , is now attested from Phoenicia to Italy' (SSAW66). Gray has based the taxonomy of the archaeological evidence for Homeric shipping on the distinction of 'Galeerentyp' and 'Kaikityp' (1974: passim) and Basch also takes one of the earliest geometric ship representations, the Fortet.sa model (1987: fig.321, p.159.2, cf. COS Pl.lf), as 'un navire de commerce, un tres petit caboteur sans doute' and by implication as a sailing ship. Casson has even stated that, though 'many more types of merchant galleys are known than sailing ships, ... there must have been more of the latter in service at any gi,ven time ' (SSA W 158). However, both the assumption of technological continuity and the interpretation of ship representations in this sense are not well-founded: the geometric and archaic data in aggregate plead against them, as I shall show in my third chapter, in particular the absence of unmistakable instances of sailing ships until the end of the sixth century in both the iconographic and the literary evidence. It seems to be forgotten that a number of conditions must be fulfilled before ships that exclusively depend on the sail can become a viable proposition. Not only have 'the pace and volume of overseas commerce' (SSAW65) to grow to a certain level and above all become regular at that level; sailing routes, i.e. routes where the winds favour sailing in both directions either by regular alternation or by being usable both ways with the wind abeam, must become known through scouting. In our period the first of these conditions is taken to have been satisfied not before the end of the seventh century (see e.g. Austin, Vidal-Naquet 1977: 69); the second in the same epoch on the routes to and from the western Mediterranean and perhaps even later on the routes to Egypt (see p.34 and p.92 respectively; for the routes to the Black Sea no direct evidence is available 1 ). Wind conditions of course become less constraining once sailors master the art of working to windward, but direct evidence of this technique is non-existent for the older period. Still, I presume that the existence of pure sailing ships 1 A route

where round voyages were possible with west wind abeam is the stretch between Phoenicia and its use led to (if it does not presuppose) the navigation ing of which the Phoenicians were famous (Str.XVI were more stretches where this was possible.

the same (summery) northEgypt. I have no doubt that by the stars for the pioneer2.24 C757). Perhaps there

INTRODUCTION

3

presupposes this skill and that it can therefore be dated to the last quarter of the sixth century at the latest (see p.33). This was also the time of another development. In the epic tradition ship-owners (the later naukliroi) were landed proprietors who also must have been the central figures in the Athenian naukrariai and similar organizations (see Velissaropoulos 1980: 14-21; below p.17). Now another type of naukliros is documented for the first time in the person of Sostratos of Aigina (Hdt.lV 152.3). This kind of naukleros, the professional master mariner, may already be adumbrated in Homer's description of the cipxoc; va.u'tcxcov ('captain of sailors') by the Phaiakian Euryalos ( Od.VIII 161-64), for Euryalos' assumption that such a man would not have time for the usual aristocratic pastimes suggests that something like full-time occupation is meant. Nevertheless I do not think that there is a compelling reason to make this hypothetical fellow a true merchant captain and there certainly is no reason whatever to associate him with the sailing ship: a many-tholed galley-v11uc; 1toA.uKAT\t