33,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
An introductory guide to the Archaic period in ancient Greece—the people, their society, and their culture. Excerpts from literary and other texts give voice to the interests, concerns, and emotions of the Archaic Greeks themselves.
This book provides a brief but comprehensive introduction to the society and culture of the Archaic period in the Greek world from c. 750 to c. 480 BCE. It focuses on the persistent and often-conflicting themes, topics, and controversies of the Archaic Age (e.g., elite and non-elite, religion and science, tradition and humanism). It seeks to lead the reader to a broader and deeper understanding of the period by placing themes and topics in a mutually supportive contextual network that will underscore their significance.
Archaic Greece: The Age of New Reckonings begins with a chapter on how sources for the period are evaluated and deployed, and goes on to offer a concise yet thorough historical overview of the Archaic period. Subsequent chapters cover polis and politics; war and violence; religion; science; philosophy; art; literature; festivals and games; social forces, values, and behaviors; and gender and sex.
The book:
- Offers a novel approach to a very significant period that foregrounds literary evidence and the words voiced by Archaic Greeks, combining scholarship with readability;
- Conceptualizes Archaic Greek culture and society by focusing substantially on topics that supplement the history of the period;
- Combines diverse elements of society and culture, including religion, art, literature, games and festivals, gender, sexuality, and politics in order to develop a unique picture of Greece during the Archaic period;
- Includes a summarizing essay that draws chapters together, emphasizing the implications of their topics and themes.
Archaic Greece: The Age of New Reckonings should appeal to college-level instructors as a book to assign to students enrolled in courses involving Archaic Greece and to others interested in this intriguing and pivotal period in ancient Greece.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 681
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Figures and Source‐Acknowledgments
Preface
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations and Citations
Maps
1 Sources for the Archaic Period
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Archaeology and the Material Remains
1.3 Literary Sources
1.4 Managing the Muses
Further Reading
2 A Brief Overview of the Archaic Period
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Environment and Greek Life
2.3 The Early Archaic Period
2.4 The Seventh Century BCE: Expansion and Change
2.5 The Sixth Century BCE: Conflict and Creation
2.6 The Early Fifth Century BCE: The Defeat of Persia
2.7 Sparta and Lakonia
2.8 Athens and Attika
Further Reading
Brief Timeline for the Archaic Period
3
Polis
and Politics in Archaic Greece
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Origins and Nature of the Early
Polis
3.3 Transformations of Leadership and Governance in the Archaic
Polis
3.4 Demokratia
3.5 The Evolution of Politics and Government in Archaic Greece: A Summary
3.6 Politics and the Archaic Greek Farmer
Further Reading
4 War and Violence in Archaic Greece
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Land Warfare in the Early Archaic Period
4.3 Land Warfare in the Later Archaic Period
4.4 Epilogue: The Causes of War
4.5 Summary
4.6 Conflict at Sea
Further Reading
5 Archaic Greek Myth and Religion
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Gods of Hesiod and Homer
5.3 Sanctuaries and Seers
5.4 Gods and
Poleis
5.5 The Archaic Greeks and Their Gods: A Summary
5.6 The Olympians
Further Reading
6 Early Greek Science
6.1 Darkness and Lumination
6.2 A Farmer’s Handbook: Hesiod’s
Works and Days
6.3 The Near East, Miletos, and Science
6.4 “Wonders”
6.5 Medicine
6.6 “Civilians,” Science, and Technology
Further Reading
7 Archaic Greek Philosophy
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Hesiod and Zeus
7.3 Ionian Philosophy
7.4 Skeptics, Critics, and Epistemology
7.5 Mathematics and the Mystical
7.6 Summary
Further Reading
8 The Art of the Archaic Greeks
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Archaic Pottery‐Painting
8.3 Archaic Greek Sculpture
8.4 Summary
Further Reading
9 Archaic Greek Literature
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Homer
9.3 Hesiod
9.4 Early Greek Lyric and Elegaic Poets
9.5 Later Lyric and Elegaic Poets
9.6 Summary
Further Reading
10 Festivals and Games of the Archaic Greeks
10.1 Introduction
10.2 The Olympic Festival and Games
10.3 Other Games and Festivals
10.4 Local and Regional Festivals
10.5 Festivals and Culture
10.6 Summary
Further Reading
11 Cultural Identity, Social Forces, Values, and Behaviors
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Honor, Fame, and Good Repute
11.3 Excess and Moderation
11.4 Competition
11.5 Old Allegiances and New Realities
11.6 Summary
Further Reading
12 Gender and Sexuality in Archaic Greece
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Archaic Greek Females
12.3 Archaic Greek Males
12.4 Sex, Gender, and Archaic Greek Society
12.5 Summary
Further Reading
13 Epilogue
Glossary of Greek Terms
Index: Literary Citations
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 The “Cup of Nestor.” Late Geometric
kotyle
,
c
. 750–740 BCE.
Figure 1.2 The Law of Dreros. Rendering of schist inscription,
c.
650–600 BCE
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Central Greece landscape.
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Melee fighting. Drawing from a Late Geometric amphora, Paros,
c.
730...
Figure 4.2 Fighting over Patroklos’ body. Attic Black‐Figure
kalyx krater
,
c.
5...
Figure 4.3 Archaic Greek hoplites about to engage. The Chigi Vase: proto‐Corint...
Figure 4.4 Modern Greek fishing boat, Agios Nikolaos, Crete, summer 2017.
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Olympian gods. Partially restored fragments of Attic Black‐Figure ne...
Figure 5.2 Zeus or Poseidon of Artemision. Bronze statue,
c.
470–460 BCE.
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Tetractys.
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Dipylon Amphora. Dipylon Master
, c.
750 BCE.
Figure 8.1a Dipylon Amphora: detail:
Prothesis
.
Figure 8.2 Corinthian
olpe,
Sphinx Painter, 630–610 BCE.
Figure 8.3 Nessos Amphora. Proto‐Attic Black‐Figure amphora. Nessos Painter,
c
....
Figure 8.3a Nessos Amphora: detail: Herakles and Nessos.
Figure 8.4 François Vase, Attic B‐F volute krater. Kleitias,
c.
570 BCE.
Figure 8.4a François Vase: detail: Aias and Achilles.
Figure 8.5 Suicide of Aias, Attic B‐F amphora, Exekias,
c.
530 BCE.
Figure 8.6 Achilles and Penthesilea, Attic B‐F amphora, Exekias,
c
. 530 BCE.
Figure 8.7 Three Old Revelers, Attic R‐F amphora. Euthymides,
c
. 510–500 BCE.
Figure 8.8 Youthful Revelers, Attic R‐F
skyphos
. Brygos Painter,
c
. 490–480 BCE...
Figure 8.9 Figure of a woman, ivory carving, Athens,
c
. 730 BCE.
Figure 8.10 Mantiklos, bronze figure, Thebes,
c.
700 BCE.
Figure 8.11 Cattle Raid of the
Dioskouroi
, metope, Sikyonian Treasury, Delphi,
Figure 8.12 Gigantomachy, relief sculpture, Siphnian Treasury, Delphi, North Io...
Figure 8.13 Herakles leaping on the Keryneian Hind, metope, Treasury of the Ath...
Figure 8.14 New York
kouros,
marble statue, Attica,
c
. 610–580 BCE.
Figure 8.15 Kleobis and Biton,
kouroi
, marble statues. Delphi,
c.
580–570 BCE.
Figure 8.16 Kroisos,
kouros,
marble statue. Anavysos, Attica,
c.
530 BCE.
Figure 8.17 Aristodikos,
kouros
, marble statue, Athens,
c.
500 BCE.
Figure 8.18 Kritios Boy, marble statue, Athens,
c.
490–475 BCE.
Figure 8.19 Nikandre,
kore
, marble statue, Delos
, c.
640 BCE.
Figure 8.20 Berlin
Kore
, marble statue, Attika,
c
. 570–560 BCE.
Figure 8.21 Phrasikleia,
kore
, marble statue, Merenda, Attika
c.
540 BCE.
Figure 8.22
Kore
674, marble statue, Akropolis, Athens,
c.
510–500 BCE.
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Woman playing a lyre. Attic R‐F squat
lekythos
.
c.
470 BCE.
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 The
Altis
at Olympia: the Philippeion and Temple of Hera.
Figure 10.2 The
stadion
at Olympia.
Figure 10.3 Runners in a foot race. Attic B‐F Panathenaic amphora, attributed t...
Figure 10.4
Pankration
, Attic B‐F
skyphos
, attributed to the Theseus Painter,
Figure 10.5 Chariot‐racing, Attic B‐F Panathenaic amphora, attributed to Group ...
Figure 10.6 Delphi: Theatre and Temple of Apollo.
Figure 10.7 Panathenaic amphora, Attic B‐F vase attributed to the Princeton Pai...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
v
xiii
xiv
xv
xvii
xix
xxi
xxiii
xxiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Archaic Greece
The Age of New Reckonings
Brian M. Lavelle
This edition first published 2020© 2020 Brian M. Lavelle
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Brian M. Lavelle to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office101 Station Landing, Medford, MA 02155, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication DataNames: Lavelle, Brian M., author.Title: Archaic Greece : the age of new reckonings / Brian M. Lavelle.Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. |Identifiers: LCCN 2018022258 (print) | LCCN 2018032104 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119370451 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119369943 (ePub) | ISBN 9781405198592 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781405198608 (pbk.)Subjects: LCSH: Greece–History–To 146 B.C. | Greece–Civilization.Classification: LCC DF214 (ebook) | LCC DF214 .L34 2018 (print) | DDC 938/.02–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018022258
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Paul Fearn/Alamy Stock Photo
For my Nancy, without whose saving smilesand gentle touchthis book could not have been written.
Sempre e per sempre ti amo.
Figures and Source‐Acknowledgments
Map 1
The Eastern Mediterranean.
Map 2
Greece and the Aegean.
1.1
The “Cup of Nestor.” Late Geometric
kotyle
,
c
. 750–740 BCE. Image of cup and inscription by kind permission of Museo Civico Archeologico di Pithecusae.
Source:
Museum online site.
1.2
The Law of Dreros. Rendering of schist inscription,
c.
650–600 BCE, Dreros, Crete, Museum of Agios Nikolaos, Crete.
Source:
Author.
2.1
Central Greece landscape. View from Osios Loukas, near Distomo, south‐east toward Mount Helikon, summer 2015.
Source:
Author.
4.1
Melee fighting. Drawing from a Late Geometric amphora, Paros,
c.
730–700 BCE. Archaeological Museum of Paros, 3524.
Source:
Drawing by Leah Lavelle, Urban Wild Studio.
4.2
Fighting over Patroklos’ body. Attic Black‐Figure
kalyx krater
,
c.
530 BCE. National Museum, Athens, 26746.
Source:
Art Resource: alb1469481.
4.3
Archaic Greek hoplites about to engage. The Chigi Vase: proto‐Corinthian
olpe
,
c.
650–640 BCE, detail. Villa Giulia Museum, 22679.
Source:
Art Resource: ART79507.
4.4
Modern Greek fishing boat, Agios Nikolaos, Crete, summer 2017.
5.1
Olympian gods. Partially restored fragments of Attic Black‐Figure neck amphora, Princeton Painter (?),
c
. 540 BCE,
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1991.11.2.
5.2
Zeus or Poseidon of Artemision. Bronze statue,
c.
470–460 BCE.
Source:
Art Resource: 61981.
6.1
Achilles bandages Patroklos’ upper arm. Rendering of Attic R‐F
kylix tondo
, Sosias,
c.
500 BCE. Berlin Antikensammlung F 2278.
Source:
Art Resource: AR922049.
7.1
Tetractys.
8.1
Dipylon Amphora. Dipylon Master,
c.
750 BCE.
Source:
Art Resource: ART383136.
8.1a
Dipylon Amphora: detail:
Prothesis
.
Source:
Art Resource: ART531993.
8.2
Corinthian
olpe
, Sphinx Painter, 630–610 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 96.18.38.
8.3
Nessos Amphora. Proto‐Attic B‐F amphora. Nessos Painter,
c
. 620 BCE National Museum, Athens 1002.
Source:
Art Resource: ART 98979.
8.3a
Nessos Amphora: detail: Herakles and Nessos. Nessos Painter, 620 BCE National Museum, Athens 1002.
Source:
Art Resource: ART28240.
8.4
François Vase, Attic B‐F volute krater. Kleitias,
c.
570 BCE.
Source:
Florence Museum 4209. By permission of Florence Museum.
8.4a
François Vase: detail: Aias and Achilles.
Source:
Florence Museum 4209. By permission of Florence Museum.
8.5
Suicide of Aias, Attic B‐F amphora, Exekias,
c.
530 BCE.
Source:
Boulogne Museum AN 558. By kind permission of the Boulogne Museum.
8.6
Achilles and Penthesilea, Attic B‐F amphora, Exekias,
c
. 530 BCE.
Source:
British Museum B 210. By permission of the British Museum.
8.7
Three Old Revelers, Attic R‐F amphora. Euthymides,
c
. 510–500 BCE.
Source:
Munich Antikensammlungen 2307. By permission of the Munich Antikensammlungen.
8.8
Youthful Revelers, Attic R‐F
skyphos
. Brygos Painter,
c
. 490–480 BCE.
Source:
Louvre G 156. By permission of the Louvre Museum.
8.9
Figure of a woman, ivory carving, Athens,
c
. 730 BCE, National Museum, Athens 776.
Source:
Art Resource: ART383141.
8.10
Mantiklos, bronze figure, Thebes,
c.
700 BCE.
Source:
Boston Museum of Fine Arts 03.997. By permission of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
8.11
Cattle Raid of the
Dioskouroi
, metope, Sikyonian Treasury, Delphi,
c.
560 BCE, Delphi Museum 1322.
Source:
Art Resource: ART424935.
8.12
Gigantomachy, relief sculpture, Siphnian Treasury, Delphi, North Ionic frieze,
c
. 530 BCE, Delphi Museum.
Source:
Art Resource: ART6437.
8.13
Herakles leaping on the Keryneian Hind, metope, Treasury of the Athenians, Delphi,
c.
490 BCE, Delphi Museum.
Source:
Art Resource: ART392383.
8.14
New York
kouros
, marble statue, Attica,
c
. 590–580 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Arts, NYC, 32.11.1.
8.15
Kleobis and Biton,
kouroi
, marble statues. Delphi,
c.
580–570 BCE, Delphi Museum 467, 1524.
Source:
Art Resource: orz107774.
8.16
Kroisos,
kouros
, marble statue. Anavysos, Attica,
c.
530 BCE, National Museum, Athens 3851.
Source:
Art Resource: ART123355.
8.17
Aristodikos,
kouros
, marble statue, Athens,
c.
500 BCE, National Museum, Athens 3938.
Source:
Art Resource: ART383176.
8.18
Kritios Boy, marble statue, Athens,
c.
490–475 BCE.
Source:
Akropolis Museum, Athens 698. By permission of Akropolis Museum.
8.19
Nikandre,
kore
, marble statue, Delos,
c.
640 BCE, National Museum, Athens 1,
Source:
Art Resource: ART383140.
8.20
Berlin
Kore
, marble statue, Attika,
c
. 570–560 BCE, Berlin Museum 1800.
Source:
Art Resource: ART71821.
8.21
Phrasikleia,
kore
, marble statue, Merenda, Attika
c.
540 BCE, National Museum, Athens 4889.
Source:
Art Resource: ART535186.
8.22
Kore
674, marble statue, Akropolis, Athens,
c.
510–500 BCE.
Source:
Akropolis Museum 674. By permission of the Akropolis Museum.
9.1
Woman playing a lyre. Attic R‐F squat
lekythos
.
c.
470 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 41.162.169.
10.1
The
Altis
at Olympia: the Philippeion and Temple of Hera.
Source:
Author.
10.2
The
stadion
at Olympia.
Source:
Author.
10.3
Runners in a foot race. Attic B‐F Panathenaic amphora, attributed to the Euphiletos Painter,
c.
530 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 14.130.12.
10.4
Pankration
, Attic B‐F
skyphos
, attributed to the Theseus Painter,
c.
500 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 06.1021.49.
10.5
Chariot‐racing, Attic B‐F Panathenaic amphora, attributed to Group of Copenhagen 99,
c.
530 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 56.171.5.
10.6
Delphi: Theatre and Temple of Apollo.
Source:
Author.
10.7
Panathenaic amphora, Attic B‐F vase, attributed to the Princeton Painter,
c
. 550–540 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 53.11.1.
12.1
Wedding procession, Attic B‐F
lekythos
, attributed to the Amasis Painter,
c.
550–530 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 56.11.
12.2
Women at fountain house, Attic B‐F
Hydria
, attributed to the class of Hamburg 1917.477,
c
. 510–500 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 06.1021.77.
12.3
Youth playing a lyre, Attic Red‐Figure
chous
, attributed to the Berlin Painter,
c
. 510–500 BCE.
Source:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, 22.139.32.
Preface
This aim of this book is to introduce students and interested others to the Archaic period of Greek history and civilization. It is an era when, after the relative dimness of the post‐Mykenaian Dark Ages, c. 1150–750 BCE, the lights come blazing on again almost all at once. Archaic Greeks seem to be in action everywhere in the Mediterranean as well as at home: colonizing, trading, learning and adapting new and better things from older civilizations to the east; overhauling institutions or developing new ones, challenging old beliefs and allegiances while accepting new ones; and moving rather boldly toward broader and deeper understanding of themselves and their world.
As a kind of primer, the book aims to stimulate and so to encourage students and others to probe the Archaic period more deeply and to come to grips with more of its primary evidence. A title like “Archaic Greece” might suggest the “whole story,” but an “introduction” by definition can neither be all‐encompassing nor exhaustively detailed. Economy imposes limitations on subject‐matter and treatment. The goal in sight has always been a concentrated, yet agreeable compendium of essential evidence and careful interpretation that will engage students new to the period and stimulate a desire to go on to learn more about this fascinating, extremely significant period in ancient and world history.
Acknowledgments
For her kindness, acumen, and extraordinary patience throughout the lengthy process of producing this book, I thank above all Haze Humbert, Acquisitions Editor for John Wiley & Sons. I am very grateful to Deirdre Ilkson, who as early Contact Editor assisted greatly in the book’s development by contributing many helpful comments. Thanks, too, to Allison Kostka, Jen Bray, and Denisha Sahadevan for their efforts and comments. Lastly, very deep and sincere thanks to Janani Govindankutty and Rajalakshmi Nadarajan who have helped so very much to see this book into print.
I am especially indebted to the anonymous readers of the draft manuscript, all but one of whom offered very valuable and constructive comments. That helpful advice was indispensable in crafting the revision of the initial manuscript. I also thank my colleague, Dr. Laura Gawlinski, Chair of the Department of Classical Studies, Loyola University Chicago, for advice and assistance at a critical juncture of production.
Finally, it would have been impossible to write this book without the love and support of, in particular, my beloved wife Nancy. There are no words sufficient to express my gratitude to or to approach description of the depths of my feelings for my closest friend, my dearest companion, and the love of my life.
Abbreviations and Citations
Unless otherwise specified, all fragments of Greek poetry derive from M.L. West, ed. Iambi et Elegi Graeci, I and II (Oxford, 1971). Other Greek texts derive from Oxford Greek editions. All translations are the author’s.
CA
P. Rhodes, trans. [Aristotle].
The Athenian Constitution
(London, 1984).
Campbell
D. Campbell,
Greek Lyric Poetry
(London, 1967).
CEG
P. Hansen,
Carmina Epigraphica Graeca
(Berlin, 1983, 1989).
D‐K
W. Kranz, ed. H. Diehls,
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker
6
(Berlin, 1951).
Dillon & Garland
M. Dillon and L. Garland,
Ancient Greece: Social and Historial Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Alexander
3
(London, 2010).
FrGrHist
F. Jacoby, ed.
Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, I–IV
(Leiden, 1950–59).
Graham
D. Graham, ed.
The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy
(Cambridge, 2010).
IG
Inscriptiones Graecae
(Berlin, 1924–).
M&L
R. Meiggs and D. Lewis,
A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C
. (Oxford, 1975).
Marm. Par.
F. Jacoby, ed.
Chronicum Parium
(Berlin, 1904).
Neer
R. Neer,
Greek Art and Archaeology: A New History, c. 2500–c. 150 BCE
(New York, 2012).
PMG
D. Page, ed.
Poetae Melici Graecae
(Oxford, 1962).
S&A
D. Page,
Sappho and Alcaeus
(Oxford, 1959).
SEG
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
(Leiden, 1923–).
Maps
1Sources for the Archaic Period
1.1 Introduction
The Archaic period (c. 750–480 BCE) is such an important one in the study of ancient Greece, it is unfortunate that there are no contemporary accounts available to tell us accurately and in detail what we would like to know about it. “History,” “archaeology,” and “anthropology,” as we know them today, were quite beyond the conceptual grasp of Archaic Greeks. These were certainly interested in the past, who their ancestors were and what they did; they were engaged in their present and were quite conscious of the future. But they did not comprehend the need for carefully observing, evaluating, and then recording past events, details of their present conditions, or distinctive features of their culture for posterity as historians, social scientists, and others do today. As a consequence, we have relatively little solid information about the Archaic period.
The nature of the evidence available, which derives primarily from material remains and ancient literary sources, only adds to the difficulty of knowing about it. While such remains sometimes offer invaluable information, depending upon their condition, they can also be almost valueless. Literary sources that pertain to Archaic Greece are diverse in nature and content, often very problematic in themselves, and frequently date much later than the period. These sources range from the layered epics of Homer and the nuanced or allusive verses of Archaic lyric poets to the fifth‐century BCE complexities of Herodotos’ Histories and the sometimes baffling bricolage of Plutarch. Archaic historians must make sense of these sources, arranging disparate, difficult information into a coherency. What follows is a brief survey of the types of sources available for the Archaic period, what they provide, some of the problems attending them, and how they may be interpreted.
1.2 Archaeology and the Material Remains
Material remains provide the most credible evidence for a study of the Archaic period. These are usually discovered above ground, unearthed by excavation, or drawn up from the sea. If such remains are recoverable, in reasonable condition and in datable contexts, they can provide very useful, first‐hand information. They might tell us, for example, where and how Archaic Greeks actually lived, including sometimes precisely what they ate and drank; possibly whom or what and how they worshipped; and perhaps even intimate details of their personal lives among other things. Archaeology, the study which incorporates the recovery, description, cataloguing, and explication of material remains, has yielded indispensable information about Archaic Greece.
1.2.1 Pottery
The most abundant material remains for the Archaic period are pieces of pottery, ranging from whole objects to broken bits called shards. These may be found in many different contexts, for example, strewn over habitation sites, in concentrated dumps of broken pots, or mostly or even completely intact in such places as burials. Pottery can provide evidence about levels of technology and proficiency in craftsmanship as well as of artistic expression attained by potters and pottery‐painters in their time. Vase paintings also tell us about what painters and their patrons were interested in, how they thought about those interests, and how they portrayed their conceptions. Archaic Greek painters frequently depict humans in vase paintings – sometimes in mythical scenes, sometimes in mundane ones. The distribution of Archaic Greek pottery from Spain to Syria and from southern Russia to North Africa attests to its attractiveness and desirability as a trade commodity. Black‐Figure and Red‐Figure pottery, produced primarily in Athens in the sixth century BCE, was so prized by the Etruscans, the ancient people who dwelt in modern‐day Tuscany north of Rome, that they placed Attic painted pottery in tombs with their dead, presumably for the deceased to enjoy in the afterlife.
Perhaps the best example of Greek pottery as material evidence for the early Archaic period is the “Cup of Nestor” (Figure 1.1). It tells us about Greek colonials in their settlement in Italy around the mid‐eighth century BCE (Box 1.1).
Figure 1.1 The “Cup of Nestor.” Late Geometric kotyle, c. 750–740 BCE.
Box 1.1 The “Cup of Nestor”
Nestor’s I am, the easy‐to‐drink‐from wine‐cup:
whoever drinks from this cup will straightway
be taken over by a longing for beautifully crowned Aphrodite.1
The kotyle (“small, two‐handled cup”) was discovered at Pithekoussai on Ischia, an island lying just off the north coast of the Bay of Naples. Dated c. 750–740 BCE, the cup was found in the grave of a young boy, possibly the child of Greek parents dwelling there. The crudely made cup is by no means outstanding among other Greek pottery of its period, but its context and inscription, which suggest that it had special meaning to the child or his kin, are of considerable significance.
The inscription scratched into its surface in Greek letters announces that it is to be linked to a primary character in Homer’s Iliad, the old warrior‐mentor Nestor who counsels the younger Achaian kings at Troy. Nestor himself possessed a far more impressive drinking vessel (Iliad 11.632–637) than this crude little earthen cup. The inscription playfully departs from the epic lines it seems to reference by declaring that whoever drinks from it will become sexually aroused immediately.
How do historians and archaeologists go about interpreting such a modest but intriguing piece of pottery? First, before moving and inspecting it more closely, they consider its context, both general and specific. Where in the burial is the object in relation to the boy’s body? What could that spatial relationship mean? What else was in the grave? How is it to be dated? What might all of the things in the grave taken together and then separately tell us about the boy, his kin, and the burial? In such cases, archaeologists carefully measure and photograph the grave and its contents.
Then they thoroughly examine the individual piece. What is the cup’s size, shape, material, color, decoration? How did it function exactly? Was it produced locally or imported? Are there any comparable pieces from elsewhere? The “Cup of Nestor” resembles pottery made on the island of Rhodes for the same period and, if produced on Rhodes, was obviously shipped to Ischia.
Ischia is not a large island and was not settled by Greeks for its fertility. Rather, valuable mineral deposits on the adjacent mainland controlled by the indigenous Italians there seem to have attracted the settlers. Obviously some of the Greeks at Pithekoussai, perhaps including the boy’s family, were traders, established on Ischia exchanging goods for the metal ore of the mainland. A Rhodian cup implies that the Ischians traded with other Greeks as well as with the indigenous Italians around the Bay of Naples. Or perhaps the boy’s kin were smiths who worked the Italian ore. Mounds of metal waste on Ischia suggest the presence of metal workers there. There were many such Greek colonies throughout the Mediterranean in the eighth century BCE functioning as transit trade locales. Pithekoussai tells us more about the nature of these.
The “Cup’s” light‐hearted inscription, which may have been scratched in on the island, implies that the Greeks inhabiting the island could read and perhaps write. They seem to have appreciated humor. The “Cup’s” reference to Nestor bespeaks their familiarity with Homer’s Iliad or, at least, the myth which gave rise to the Homeric passage about Nestor’s drinking vessel. The “Cup” has in fact been used by some scholars to date the Iliad. While the inscription represents an attempt by an individual or group to establish a link to the old Trojan War hero, it seems to parody the Homeric passage irreverently drawing attention to drinking, sex, and music, the essential ingredients of the symposion (“male convivial drinking‐together”). This crude little cup boasts that it actually outdoes Nestor’s own golden one!
The “Cup of Nestor” also gives evidence of culture shared between the colonists and other Greeks of the time. Was it a cherished possession during the boy’s lifetime? Or did someone older who valued it part with it as a last loving token for the dead boy? This humble little piece of pottery offers a wealth of information about very early Archaic Greek trade, literacy, and burial custom – and even provides a glimpse into personal feelings. It gives us further ground to speculate a bit about the culture shared by the Greeks of the mid‐eighth century BCE.
Different pots or pottery pieces provide other types of evidence. A Proto‐attic loutrophoros by the Analatos painter (c. 675 BCE) offers relatively little about Archaic Greek life or history for its period.2 It does, however, help to chart a significant transition in pottery decoration from vases crammed with geometric decoration to ones adorned with depictions of human, floral, and animal motifs. Sphinxes, a piper and dancers, and charioteers driving chariots are distinctively presented on the vase in registers amid fillers of geometric design, painted in, around, and between the figures. The decoration on the vase looks backward to Geometric antecedents and forward to Black‐Figure ware and its interests in human figures in action.
Steady progress in artistic expression in Archaic Greek vase paintings may be observed from the less sophisticated pieces of the very early seventh century BCE to the sublime Attic Red‐Figure pottery produced through the late Archaic period. The latter is characterized by deft and expressive line‐drawing detailing human and other figures, reserved against a black background. Archaic Greek pottery from datable contexts shows that pottery painters sought to render figures, activities, and actions in increasingly realistic ways through the period. Other Archaic Greek pottery may thus be placed in an evolutionary chart which sometimes enables even a minute fragment of painted pottery to be dated stylistically. Pottery pieces may be further analyzed in relation to other pottery from the same or even different contexts having the same or similar material, shape, paint, painted figures, or other designs. Thus, even a very small piece may provide just a bit more information about the Archaic Greeks.
Even pottery fragments discovered by surface surveying, though lacking context, can be useful. Types of pottery can date a site’s habitation. Shards might inform us about the site’s relative wealth or poverty. Pottery fabric might reveal if a pot was made locally or imported and thus whether and with whom the habitants traded. Its decoration might tell us about the abilities of the Greek artists and craftsmen of the time, but also about preferences of buyers.
1.2.2 Burials
The “Cup of Nestor” shows how just a single item from a single burial can provide important information about Greeks living in a colony late in the Geometric period. Graves themselves may provide a good deal of material data and not just because they often contain artifacts that have remained undisturbed since the time of the burial. Data may range from grave‐types, including inhumation, entombment, or cremation, grave‐numbers and their distribution, to the number and disposition of the dead interred in them. Grave goods might include anything from simple iron straight pins or small figurines of ivory imported from the Near East to whole bronze suits of armor. Many Archaic graves were marked above ground by pottery, painted or incised wood or marble stelai (“upright slabs”), or sculpture in stone, sometimes of monumental size. Graves can tell us much about the wealth and social standing of individuals and, by extension, the economy, culture, and beliefs of their communities.
In Athens, burials occurred in what became the market‐assembly place of the polis (“settlement‐center”) until the eighth century BCE when they were moved outside it. Archaic Greeks did not live over or around burials, but rather interred their dead outside of their settlements. From this practice, scholars have concluded that Athens was a collection of villages until the eighth century, each village burying its dead outside its boundaries. When the villages coalesced into one polis and the settlement size increased, the burial grounds were moved beyond the enlarged polis area. That the number of graves in Athens multiplied in the eighth century BCE has led to an assumption about a rise in population then. That rise seems to be supported by an increase in the number of settlements in the countryside during the same period: presumably, the overflow population was moving into the Attic hinterland. But could the rise in the number of graves actually imply more deaths because of plague, famine, or some other type of crisis increasing mortality?
There are different ways of evaluating grave numbers. One hypothesis is that formal burial before the eighth century was the prerogative of elites by birth who had monopolized it to that time. Around 750 BCE, however, a substantial change occurred in the Greek world enabling others formerly not privileged to bury as the elites had. The appearance of more graves at the time has been linked to abruptly altered social and political circumstances or, more precisely, to the rise of the polis which is generally dated to right around this time. New political conditions disrupted the social order and empowered non‐elites to bury as the elites had. Around 700, however, the latter seized back their ancient prerogatives at Athens at least and began to demonstrate wealth and power in ever more elaborate ways. These demonstrations involved especially above‐ground funeral displays, which continued until they were curbed by Solon, c. 600.
The recent discovery of an extensive Archaic Age cemetery at Phaleron, Athens’ old port, has provided a rich new source for information about Archaic Athens and Attika.3
1.2.3 Inscriptions
The “Cup of Nestor” has already introduced us to epigraphy, the study of inscriptions. Archaic Greek inscriptions, far less abundant than pottery or burials, are invaluable because they speak to us directly from the period. Writing can be inscribed on various surfaces, as the scratched‐in letters on the “Cup of Nestor” show. Inscriptions carved in stone are more durable and usually more legible than scratched‐in or painted ones. The oldest Greek legal inscription, that of the Law of Dreros (Figure 1.2) in eastern Crete, dates to the early Archaic period (Box 1.2).
Figure 1.2 The Law of Dreros. Rendering of schist inscription, c. 650–600 BCE
.
Box 1.2 The Law of Dreros4
… The polis has resolved the following: when (a man) has been kosmos, the same man will not be kosmos again for ten years. If he does become kosmos, when he judges, he will owe double, and he will be useless [barred from office? without civic rights?], as long as he lives, and whatever he did as kosmos will be as nothing. The kosmos and the damioi and the twenty of the polis are swearers.
The inscription was carved into a block of schist set into the wall of the temple dedicated to Apollo some time in the last half of the seventh century BCE. Restrictions are imposed upon the kosmos (“arranger”), presumably the community’s most significant official, who apparently also functioned as a judge. To become kosmos again before the ten‐year limit had elapsed meant a heavy fine for the offender, a lifetime ban from office or loss of civic rights, it appears, and voiding of all his judgments. In addition to the (new?) kosmos, the damioi (“those of the people”) and the “twenty of the polis” play a prominent part in ensuring the penalties.
The provenience of the Dreros inscription is noteworthy. It was not only displayed prominently in the polis center, but as part of a sacred building. Apollo was associated by ancient Greeks with law, and the Drerian law gained authority by being written into the wall of the god’s “house.” The prominent location of the inscription as part of the temple near the agora (“market‐place/assembly‐place”) suggests that the limitations for Drerian officials were of great concern to the people of Dreros.
Mention of the polis in the Drerian inscription provides evidence that that most crucial of Archaic Greek political institutions was functioning even in this relatively out‐of‐the‐way place for some time before the law was inscribed. The word polis here applies to the collective identity of its inhabitants, the participant‐overseers of the law are its articulated representatives. Although the precise meaning of the word damioi is unclear, it is surely rooted in damos/demos – “the people.” The kosmos, the damioi, and “the twenty of the polis” appear to be the leading officials of the community: they have been identified respectively as one of the aristoi (“the best people, nobles”), representatives of the demos, and council members. That three governing entities will swear to the law implies a balance of power within the polis. If that is so, may we construe the Drerian law as an attempt to resolve political tensions between aristoi and demos by a sharing of power? Evidence from other literary sources – and the interpretation of burials at Athens offered above – support the assumption that such tensions were widespread in Archaic Greece around this time.
Publication of the law by inscription implies that the Drerian demos was able to read it. That implication is supported by the “Cup of Nestor,” dated nearly a century earlier. Reading and perhaps writing in early Archaic Greece were not confined to class or status, but fairly widespread even by the later eighth century BCE. The articulation, inscription, and publication of the Drerian law checking the ambitions of aristocratic office‐holders fit together with other evidence of laws being written down and published on behalf of the demos and limitations being imposed upon aristoi in other Greek poleis during the seventh century BCE.
1.2.4 Other Types of Material Evidence
Material evidence may range from small shards of unpainted, coarse‐ware pots, which, as parts of intact vessels in their time, were used every day for drinking, cooking, or storing, to bits of bronze votives scattered, for example, over the ancient site of Olympia. It might include wooden dowel‐ and mortise‐holes from sunken ships such as that discovered off Pabuç Burnu near ancient Halikarnassos (modern Bodrum), the pins and fibulae of Abai (near modern Kalapodi) in ancient Phokis, and the sparse remains of ever‐enlarging sacred buildings all over the Greek world created during the Archaic period.
Archaic Greek temples resulted from the desires of Greek communities to construct “houses” for their deities. These were foci of common belief, but also shared identity. They illustrate the abilities of Archaic Greeks to conceive of the buildings as functioning edifices and permanent community symbols, to underwrite them financially, to plan and build them systematically, and so to cooperate in common cause over time for the betterment of the community. Constructing a temple, a source of collective pride for the community, helped to cement local and group identity.
1.2.5 Problems of Interpretation
For all that material remains might offer, archaeologists and historians must interpret them very carefully with their limitations fully in view. Such evidence is usually incapable by itself of telling us what we want to know about the Archaic Greeks. It certainly can be misunderstood or misconstrued. The “Cup of Nestor” informs us about the Greeks on Ischia c. 750 BCE, but what exactly does it say? Its provenience was the grave of a Greek child. Its type and inscription date it to around the mid‐eighth century BCE and indicate that at least some Ischian Greeks could read and probably write. Whoever made the inscription knew the myth of Nestor and his apparently famous drinking vessel, they may have known the Iliad. However, the “Cup” cannot tell us anything more certain about the child, his parents, or the colony. It cannot explain precisely why it is of the type that it is or why it was buried with the boy. It cannot provide more precise information about what the Greeks actually did in that colony, where they came from, or what life was really like on Ischia for them.
Does the Law of Dreros actually typify conditions throughout Archaic Greece? What exactly was a kosmos in Archaic Crete? Was he really an aristos? Who precisely are the damioi and the “twenty of the polis”? What brought about this restriction on the kosmos and his political possibilities? Some scholars have taken the damioi to be financial supervisors, rather than “of the people,” whereas the “twenty of the polis” have been understood as a representative group of the popular assembly of the town, a group from a town council, or the council itself. What actually produced the significant division of authority in the little mountain‐top polis of Dreros?
Similarly, burials: interpreting patterns of burials can be highly speculative. Archaeological evidence has often been construed in light of theories or methodologies transferred from other newer archaeologies to ancient Greece. Are we justified in doing that or in attaching to the burials the significances that we do?
While we may carefully and reasonably extrapolate from an object or an inscription, set it in relation to other contemporary remains, and consider it from different angles, after all, the concrete conclusions that may be drawn from such evidence must ultimately be limited to the objects, their conditions, and their contexts. Incautious speculations, overly imaginative conjectures, or surmises that take us too far from the evidence are to be avoided. Though they may be datable to the Archaic period, scattered fragments of uninscribed or otherwise unpainted pots or portions of buildings, for example, frequently tell us no more than what they are when and as we see them. The effects of age and wear‐and‐tear on material objects from the ancient world can sometimes destroy them as evidence. Inscriptions carved into stone blocks have been lost because the stones have been repurposed and the writing worn beyond recognition. Caution and reason must always guide the interpretation of ancient material evidence. Similarly, the written evidence.
1.3 Literary Sources
Literary sources for the period pose several problems of interpretation. Archaic literature is mostly poetry, which, by its very nature, communicates more obliquely than directly. Poetry is governed by aesthetics, including meter and diction, more than fact; most Archaic Greek poetry was sung rather than spoken. Authors intended their poems to inform, educate, inspire, or entertain their audiences, but also to engage the aesthetic sensibilities, intellect, and emotion of their audiences sometimes in turn, sometimes, it appears, simultaneously. Every poem or fragment possesses its own individual complexities. Although, like archaeological evidence, Archaic Greek poetry is best placed and interpreted in context, preconceptions informed by modern literary and other theories and scholarly tendencies have influenced interpretation.
Archaic Greek poetry nevertheless contains information relating to society, politics, religion, and even the psychology of individuals and groups. Hesiod, who lived c. 700 BCE, tells of troubles with his brother Perses, about bad judges, and conditions affecting farmers in his poem Works and Days. Many of the extant poems and fragments of Solon, who lived about a century after Hesiod, center upon political turmoil at Athens, while the focus of interest for Archilochos, a Parian warrior of the early seventh century, is himself in his world. In the Homeric Hymns, many of which were composed during the Archaic period, we read invocations and appeals to the Olympian gods, as well as stories about them.
Not all Archaic literature is poetry. Some of the Ionian philosopher‐scientists and logographoi (“chroniclers”) of the Archaic period wrote prose, although Greek prose seems really to begin with the Greek historians of the fifth century BCE. Important oral traditions from the Archaic period kept by individuals or families emerge in Herodotos’ Histories. However, whether the priests of Apollo at Delphi, noble Athenian families like the Alkmeonids, or the Greek “man in the marketplace,” none of them was interested in historical objectivity more than in conveying their own thoughts, beliefs, and interests. The accounts of later Greek prose authors, some of whom, like Plutarch, provide considerable information about the Archaic period, are even more vexed because of the quality of sources used from the intervening years. That vexation is compounded by the ancient authors’ own apparent inability to make distinctions between better and worse information written down before their times. Notwithstanding such contaminations, even much later sources can preserve precious bits of plausible information pertaining to Archaic Greece.
1.3.1 Archaic Greek Poets
The ancient Greeks attributed the Iliad and the Odyssey to Homer, an aoidos (“singer”) of epic poems, believing his home to be either Smyrna (Izmir) in modern Turkey or just off its coast on the island of Chios. Scholars estimate that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed some time between 750 and 650 BCE and were owed to an oral epic tradition that was rooted in the Bronze Age. Details such as the boars’ tusk helmet, which were not used in Greece after the Mykenaians exist alongside descriptions of what seem to be fighting tactics contemporary with Homer’s own time. According to ancient sources, the text of the Iliad was not written down before c. 525 BCE; in fact, what we have today of both epic poems is owed, in the first instance, primarily to the great Alexandrian scholar‐editors of the third and second centuries BCE.
The Iliad concerns the anger of the great Greek hero, Achilles, and the destruction that it creates; the war at Troy is a backdrop to that story. The Odyssey is about the struggles of another hero, Odysseus, to return home from Troy at the war’s end. Though the poems’ contents span many centuries, both have an important bearing on the Archaic period, in no small part because of the values and social relations they depict. Competition, pride, and shame, the pursuit of arete (“excellence, virtue”) and kleos (“fame, glory”), and obtaining and keeping higher status in the community motivate the Homeric heroes in the Iliad to risk death in battle. Such behaviors were grounded in persistent Greek social standards. The Odyssey ennobles the struggle of Odysseus to survive amidst many perils, using cunning, wit, audacity, and duplicity – an aim which the Archaic Greeks could well appreciate, though the means to achieve it are utterly rejected by such as Achilles. The Greeks themselves considered that the Iliad captured the Greek ethos so well that it became the cornerstone for the education of their youth through antiquity. The Iliad and the Odyssey also portray relations between men and women, older and younger, within families and outside of them, and between gods and humans, all of which reflect to some degree beliefs and conditions in Archaic Greece.
Hesiod composed the Theogony, literally meaning “the coming‐into‐being of the gods,” and the Works and Days, both very different from the Homeric poems. In the latter, the poet attempts to instruct his brother Perses, but also a larger audience of contemporaries, about the virtues and benefits of hard work as well as the costs of idleness. He sings of justice and injustice and of such practical matters as farming. A large part of the Works and Days is about how to live and prosper in harmony with the seasons. Both poems, composed c.725–680 BCE, are pointedly instructive in nature, unlike the Iliad and Odyssey.
Lyric poetry, the hallmark literary genre of the Archaic period, is quite distinct from epic poetry in form and content. Archilochos (c. 665 BCE) is the first Greek author of whom we know to focus extensively on his own actions, thoughts, and emotions. A self‐described “servant of the War‐god” and one “who knows the Muses’ lovely gift” (F 1), Archilochos refuses to sentimentalize the life of an Archaic warrior – the life he seems to have lived. His verse is sharp‐edged and he sometimes castigates others, but he also speaks about his own errors. Archilochos is frank and very vivid when it comes to sex and eros (“sexual desire”). Laying bare his feelings about himself and others so candidly and humanly, he seems to be speaking to us almost as a modern poet would.
Archilochos was by no means the lone individual voice of Archaic Greece. Sappho of Lesbos (c. 600 BCE) was famous among the Greeks for her erotic poems. These often reflect a deep awareness of emotional and physical responses to eros produced by acute observation of herself and others. Archilochos and Sappho appear to have broken new ground in their emphases on personal emotion: both were self‐analytical and candid and may well have been encouraged by changes affecting Archaic Greeks more generally in the seventh century.
Other lyric poets are less personal. The verses of Tyrtaios of Sparta (c. 650 BCE) are about war and warfare; in them, he tells Spartan men what they should do to fight better and so stop losing battles. In the early sixth century, Solon speaks extensively of stasis (“civil strife”) at Athens and how people should behave to end it, whereas, in the later sixth century, Anakreon of Teos crafted charming apolitical diversions for his Greek tyrant patrons. A generation later, Pindar of Thebes lavished praise on tyrant‐victors in Panhellenic contests, while his contemporary, Simonides of Keos, renowned for his prodigious memory, offered verses in a number of genres on a wide array of subjects, from lyric to epigram and from war to philosophy.
1.3.2 Prose Writers
Herodotos composed his Histories c. 450–420 BCE. His avowed purpose was to record and so commemorate past events and human achievements, including those of non‐Greeks. In particular, he wanted to account for and memorialize the great Persian War, the cataclysmic event that marked the end of the Archaic period in Greece. Although Herodotos was only incidentally interested in the Archaic period, the Histories contain a good measure of information on the sixth century BCE especially. Yet, while some of what he writes is surely factual, it is largely based on various oral traditions kept by non‐objective sources. As a result, although Herodotos was aware of the difference between myth and history to some degree, his best reporting on the past before his own time could be no better than what he was told by his “civilian” sources. Herodotos is really more of a storyteller – or rather a relayer of stories – especially when he recounts the events of times much before his own. His account of the Persian War, something that occurred in the not‐too‐distant past, is more solid by contrast.
The Athenaion Politeia (“Constitution of the Athenians”) (CA) was attributed to the fourth‐century BCE Greek philosopher Aristotle, but was likely composed by another, perhaps a student of his. Beginning in Athens’ mythical prehistory, the work traces the polis’ political development to the author’s own time, c. 320 BCE. Much of what appears in the CA is based upon Atthides (“local chronicles of Athens”), compiled from the end of the fifth century. For information about Archaic Athens, like Herodotos, the Atthides depended largely upon Athenian oral traditions. While there is a good deal of myth and story in the Atthides, there is also plausibly factual content in them as well.
Finally, later Greek prose authors are much removed in time from Archaic Greece but nevertheless supply some useful information about it. Plutarch, who lived in the later first century CE, furnishes us with a biography of Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, in his Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans. But while the biography is valuable in places and seems to preserve some facts about Solon in his time, it is literally awash with spurious content. The contamination includes embellishments, inferences, half‐truths, and outright falsehoods, many of which derive from ancient authors of varying credibility who wrote about Solon between the lawgiver’s lifetime and Plutarch’s. As a result, Plutarch’s Life of Solon is a complicated narrative of fact and fiction laced together without any real critical discretion. The Life of Solon also includes fragments of Solon’s poetry, which most scholars have taken to be authentic and not unduly tampered with.5 Other late sources, such as Diodoros of Sicily, Athenaios of Naukratis in Egypt, and the Byzantine lexicon, the Suida, among others, also provide information about the Archaic period based upon a variety of earlier prose and poetry sources. How shall we go about using these literary sources?
1.4 Managing the Muses
1.4.1 Evaluating and Deploying the Evidence
In the Theogony (1–35), Hesiod describes an encounter with the Muses on Mount Helikon near Askra as he was tending sheep. The Muses are the divine, very beautiful, maiden daughters of Zeus and Memory. After scoffing at the sordidness of humanity, the Muses tell Hesiod that it is in their power to tell many lies that seem like the truth, but also the truth itself, if they so choose. They present Hesiod with a staff of laurel and breathe a voice into him, enabling him to instruct others by telling them of things they could not possibly know otherwise. Hesiod then proceeds to recount the story of creation, how things came into being, including the gods, and how and why the Olympians came to rule the world.
The Muses’ “gifts” and their capacity to tell truth or lies about the past provide a useful metaphor summing up the nature of evidence for Archaic Greece. There is both “truth” and “lies” in the evidence, some of it more obvious, some less so. How do we make distinctions and what criteria do we employ to sort things out? By what methodology do we accept or reject what has come down to us about the Archaic period so as to understand it better?
The sources we possess limit us and, at best, we may only hope to draw nearer to the truth of things. Though we may aspire to isolate what appears to be the real or factual, set it apart from obvious falsity, embellishment, or ambiguity, there are of course no guarantees that such isolation will result in veritable truth. As we have seen, interpreting archaeological data from the period has its pitfalls; Archaic literature is often more difficult to construe. Yet, Archaic Greeks did not seek purposefully to obscure their thoughts and meanings when they communicated them, but rather to convey the truth of things as they understood them to be true. A new “common sense” based on observation and experience, signs of which may be found in the quasi‐science of Hesiod and Archilochos, stimulated Archaic Greeks to begin to distinguish more distinctly between truth and fiction. Early Greek science had strong practical ends, fundamentally united with which was the belief that knowing the truth of things could actually be profitable. While there were still no standards of objectivity among the Archaic Greeks to approach modern ones and selective inclusion, omission, and embellishment were embedded in their culture, affecting how they communicated and so much of the evidence we have, there is no good reason to think that what Archaic Greeks communicated was generally intended to be false or misleading.
So how do we begin to “manage the Muses,” evaluate and deploy the evidence? First, the material record, especially what is datable, contextualized, and informative. Epigraphic documents stand high up on the list of material sources. As we have seen, the “Cup of Nestor” and the Law of Dreros are single examples that offer useful information about early Archaic Greeks in smaller communities in the Greek world. Other examples include the Nikandre inscription from Delos (c. 640 BCE), the law of Chios (600–575 BCE), the inscription from the gravestone of Phanodikos from Sigeion (c. 550 BCE), and the Athenian archon‐list (527–521 BCE).6
Other archaeological material offers information of varying value. The fairly extensive Archaic remains at Delphi and the Samian Heraion are informative, but even a single set of limestone blocks datable to the Archaic period may provide something of importance. Because early Greek stone temples are mostly rectangular, even meager remains permit fairly precise reconstructions, sometimes as far as the entablature. Temples dedicated to Apollo Delphinios at Dreros and Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria provide valuable evidence about early Archaic Greeks’ sacred buildings. These, in turn, become “texts” that can shed more light on contemporary technology, religion, and aesthetics – and upon other, even less well‐preserved edifices. The prototypes for the first large‐scale stone statues of Archaic Greece, depicting human males and females, were Egyptian. The technology for making these will have come first to Ionia, the staging area for Archaic Greeks traveling to Egypt beginning in the mid‐seventh century BCE. It is of course possible that the first Greek kouroi (“nude male youth statues”) were actually worked from stone by Egyptians, not Greeks, and that other skills and technologies were imported into the Greek world by migrating non‐Greeks.
How do we evaluate the literary evidence? Some is non‐controversial and generally accepted as factual without question. For example, we read that Sparta underwent profound social and political change in the mid‐seventh century BCE; that Greek lawgivers wrote down the laws for the first time in various Greek poleis around the same time; and that Lydia and Ionia were subjugated by the Persians in the mid‐sixth century. That Sparta underwent such change appears to be reflected in the material record, which seems to diminish as Sparta became more militaristic, as well as in the contemporary poems of Tyrtaios. That law codes were written down in the seventh century is corroborated by the Law of Dreros and supported by various examples attested in literature as, for example, the law codes of Lykourgos of Sparta and Drakon of Athens. Finally, a Babylonian chronicle independently attests the Persian conquest of Lydia c. 547 BCE, thus complementing Greek ones about that event. These are given first place for credibility in the list of literary evidence.
