Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Euboica

 | 
Bruno D'Agostino
, 
Michel Bats

Euboians and Corinthians in the Area of the Corinthian Gulf?1

Catherine Morgan

Texte intégral

  • 1 I am grateful to Bruno d'Agostino and Michel Bats for their invitation to present this paper at th (...)

1This focus of this paper is the relationship between Euboians and Corinthians in the Ionian and Adriatic area, and specifically, the tradition placing Euboians on Kerkyra before Corinthians. At first sight this may seem to be a minor and specific problem, yet the spectre of Euboians here raises a number of issues of historiography and the interpretation of the material record.

  • 2 FGrHist 424 F9.
  • 3 Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 22-3.

2The only extant source to name Eretria as the first coloniser of Kerkyra is Plutarch, who in Quaest. Graec. 11, in reply to a query about the identity of the aposphendonetai, notes that «Κέρκυραν τὴν νῆσον Έρετριεῖς ϰατῴϰουν Χαριϰράτους δὲ πλεύσαντος ἐϰ Κορίνθου μετὰ δυνάμεως ϰαὶ τῷ πολέμω ϰρατοῦντος ὲμβάντες εἰς τὰς ναῦς οἱ Έρετριεῖς άπέπλευσαν οἲϰαδε.. »; he then goes on to describe how the citizens of their homeland, instead of receiving them back, stoned them, and so they left for Thrace and settled Methone. Plutarch’s mention of Kerkyra thus occurs in the apparently unrelated context of the aposphendonetoi aition which is itself primarily a Methone-related, not a Kerkyra-related tale. Comparable aitia include that linking the Euboian kouretes with the naming of the “unshorn” Akarnanians, reported by Strabo (10. 3. 6) and apparently derived from Arche-machos “the Euboian”2. There is no prima facie evidence that the aposphendonetoi tale per se should be regarded as any more historical than the majority of other such aitia, and it has generally tended to be dismissed3.

  • 4 P. Kalligas, ‘Κέρκυρα, ἀποικισμός ϰαι ἔπος’, in AS Atene 60, 1982, pp. 57-68; I. Malkin, ‘Inside a (...)
  • 5 See e.g. K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte I, Berlin-Leipzig 1924’[1893], pp. 247-8; K. Giesen, (...)
  • 6 Bakhuizen 1976, p. 33.
  • 7 Ps. -Demosthenes (VII. 32) refers to Pandosia, Bucheta and Elatea as colonies of Elis in the conte (...)
  • 8 Halliday 1928, p. 15.
  • 9 Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge 1994, pp. 76-7.
  • 10 Giesen, supra note 4.
  • 11 Rose, Frr. 512-13 (Corcyra), 551-2 (Methone).
  • 12 Rose, Frr. 504-509.
  • 13 Halliday 1928, pp. 79-83; Dakaris 1964, pp. 14-16 places the development of the “Neoptolemos” stra (...)
  • 14 Morgan, Isthmia, ch. III. 3; Menadier 1995, ch. 5 for archaeological and historical discussion wit (...)

3For some scholars, rejection of the overall story has encompassed rejection of individual elements, including Eretrian settlement on Kerkyra, whilst for others, elements such as this may be accepted as they stand, independent of any assessment of the whole4. As will become clear in the course of this paper, for a variety of historiographical and archaeological reasons, I find myself in agreement with the long series of scholars from Beloch to Bakhuizen who have rejected the idea of Eretrian settlement on Kerkyra5. Nonetheless, not least because the apparent oddity of the choice of Kerkyra here might imply that Plutarch is reporting more or less accurately a specific lost tradition, the problem would seem to merit more detailed discussion than it has so far received. It is worth stressing from the outset that this could simply be a mistake or invention on Plutarch’s part. 110, 221.Although the toponym Eretria occurs elsewhere6 and Plutarch does not actually state in Quaest. Graec. 11 that these are Euboian Eretrians, at the risk of circular argument (since this is a key passage for the colonial origins of Methone), their subsequent destination makes this most likely. There are certainly instances in the colonial corpus where cities have been accidentally or deliberately misidentified; perhaps the most conspicuous (and probably deliberate) case is the supposed Elean colonisation in Cassopaian territory7. The nature of the Quaestiones Graecae may seem to obviate the need for any such calculated manipulation on Plutarch’s part, but it is quite possible that the manoeuvre had already been made in his sources. In view of the role of the miscellany as a literary genre intended for educated light reading, Halliday may have been wrong to characterise the Quaest. Graec. (and the Quaest. Rom. and Quaest. Barb.) not as finished texts for formal publication but as elaborate personal notes derived from apparently eclectic reading probably over a long period of time8. But whether or not they were written with formal publication in mind, Halliday’s view of the scholarly process involved is probably accurate. The relationship between question and answer is, however, harder to establish. On occasion, the “questions” seem to be less the puzzles which had inspired the gathering of information than headings extracted from information already gathered. It is therefore difficult to argue with any degree of consistency that the questions were raised by particular and probably authentic points of (usually constitutional or religious) detail, but the answers are much more varied in nature and reliability. On a more general level, however, where tales such as Quaest. Graec. 11 hinge on an aition, the explanadum is inherently likely to fall into a different category of reliability than the explanans, however the combination of the two is presented in particular cases. In the case of the Quaest. Graec., Plutarch’s sources, while obviously varied, are often hard to trace, and the extent to which he exercised any personal evaluation of them appears inconsistent and debatable. In Quaest. Graec. 21, for example, he clearly confuses the Lemnian involvement in episodes surrounding the Spartan colonisation of Melos9. As has long been recognised, however, the most prominent and pervasive influences on the work as a whole seem to be Aristotle’s constitutions10. In the case of Quaest. Graec. 11, since constitutions of Corcyra and Methone are attested11, either or both could be sources (although the nature of the question might imply that the latter played a more prominent role). This could in theory allow us to push back the Kerkyra tradition into the fourth century, although thereafter the trail grows cold, as Aristotle’s texts are insufficiently preserved to permit speculation about his sources. In Quaest. Graec. 14, Plutarch’s answer to a matter of Ithakan history draws on a myth tradition at variance both with the Homeric tradition and what is known of the Telegonia of Eugammon. If his main source here was the Aristotelean Constitution of the Ithakesians12 (which is likely as he mentions him by name), it would seem that Aristotle in turn had access to somè very local traditions (probably reflecting an Epirote outlook if Plutarch’s representation of the role of Neoptolemos is a reliable guide), although here too, we can only guess at their antiquity13. However, as is clear from the discussion of the Megarian constitution in Quaest. Graec. 17 (probably largely if not wholly derived from Aristotle), fourth century sources purporting to describe “ancestral” traditions can be profoundly misleading14.

  • 15 In view of the frequency with which Strabo cites Ephoros, see FrGHist 70.
  • 16 FGrHist, Miiller i, 203, fr. Schol. Ap. Rhod. IV 1212, 1216.
  • 17 It is tempting to read Alkman Fr. 164 «ϰαὶ Κέρϰυρος άγήται» as evidence for the existence of a nat (...)
  • 18 F. Lasserre, ‘L’historiographie grecque à l’époque archaïque’, in Quaderni di Storia 4, 1976, pp. (...)
  • 19 Dakaris 1964. G. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, London 1969, pp. 22-4, 60-79; R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod (...)

4Taken simply as a colonial foundation legend, Quaest. Graec 11 contains a number of topoi, includining the problem of a right of return and failed settlement as an aition for further colonisation. In the case of Kerkyra, perhaps the most striking topos is the forcible displacement of earlier settlers by Corinthian colonists, and here Plutarch’s account must be considered alongside two variant versions. Strabo (6. 2. 4), probably drawing on Ephoros15, has Cher-sikrates (as he is more usually known) drive out the Liburnians (taken as representing the native populations of the Illyrian coast and neighbouring islands), and Timaeus (frag. 53)16 deriving his information almost certainly from the Argonaut saga, names the first inhabitants as Kolchians. The latter version is historically most unlikely, but the former wholly plausible; and it is also interesting to note that while Strabo’s reference to Kerkyra as «πρότερον δὲ Σχερίαν» indicates an awareness of the Homeric tradition (see below), he makes no mention of Euboians but rather emphasises natives17. Indeed, the fact that there is no other traceable hint of the Eretrian story is surely significant given the extent of archaic historical writing and its influence on fifth century sources18. Experience elsewhere (the fifth century and later Epirote royal genealogies, for example, and rather earlier, the creation of the Eumelan genealogies for Corinth, with their problematic Black Sea connections)19, makes it clear how many such stories must have been in circulation at various times, and also that their reworking and formalisation into official or semi-official public traditions was a constant process.

  • 20 Bakhuizen 1976, 23 note 97. Steph. Byz. s. v.‘Εὔβοια’.
  • 21 LIMC VI, i, s. v. ‘Melikertes’; Pausanias 1. 44. 7-8; Ovid., Fasti 6. 475-562, Met. 4. 416-562; J. (...)
  • 22 G. Kinkel, Epicorum graecorum fragmenta, Leipzig 1877, pp. 198-203.
  • 23 Halliday 1928, pp. 63-5. Thus, for example, I cannot accept Kalligas’ suggestion (1982, p. 63) tha (...)

5Other literary references which have been taken to indicate Euboian presence on Kerkyra are even less persuasive. Strabo (10. 1. 15) notes that «ϰαὶ ὲν Κερκύρᾳ δὲ ϰαὶ ἐν Λήμνῳ τόπος ἠν Ε ὒβοια ϰαὶ ἐν τῇ Αργείᾳ λόφος τις». Here the bracketing of place names surely implies that if this passage is to indicate Euboian settlement on Kerkyra it must by extension do so on Lemnos and in the Argolid too, even though there is no archaeological or myth-historical evidence for it whatsoever20. The most likely explanation is independent use in different parts of Greece. Mythological links are equally tenuous: Apollonius Rhodios (Argonautika 4, 1131-7), recounting Jason and Medea’s flight from Colchis and arrival in Phaeacian Scheria, mentions the replacement of the cave cult of the nymph Makri, daughter of Aristaios and a refugee from Euboia, with that of Medea. “Refuge” imagery is not uncommon in cults of this kind, and considered as an aition for Medea’s cult, it is hardly surprising to find such topoi as the cult in question’s replacement of (or sometimes combination with) that of a lesser, often local, figure, and direct parallels in the status of the figures-here two female outcasts, nymph and princess, both, most significantly in the context of this passage, skilled in the arts of charms and potions. In this respect, the Euboian element in the story need be no more significant than, for example, the Theban origin of the Corinthian hero Meli-kertes-Palaimon, which certainly does not imply any particular regional links21. Above all, the Jason and Medea story cannot be treated as a historical document with which to reconstruct settlement phases. The origins and antiquity of the Scheria episode are unclear, although one immediate source may be the Naupaktika mentioned by Pausanias (2. 3. 9; 10. 38. 11), probably a Naupaktian or Milesian composition performed at a Naupaktian festival; the fragments which survive (chiefly via scholia to Apollonius Rhodios) relate Jason’s settlement in Kerkyra after Pelias’death, but are insufficient to give any pedigree to the Makris legend22. Most importantly, since, as was emphasised by Halliday as early as 1928, all traditions about the early history of Kerkyra have suffered manipulation, considerable critical care is required in handling late sources which report traditions which are in most cases hard to trace back before the fifth century at the earliest23.

  • 24 Kalligas 1982, pp. 60-1; d’Agostino 1994, pp. 22-4.
  • 25 BCH 89, 1965, p. 757, fig. 1; Kallipolitis 1972, pp. 53-7; Kallipolitis 1982, pp. 74-5, figs. 8-9.
  • 26 1) Pyxis: BCH 89, 1965, p. 757, fig. 1. Cf. Robertson-Heurtley 1948, no. 385 (= Benton no. 818), a (...)
  • 27 Accepting these sherds as Euboian, Kallipolitis 1982 dated them to the 7th century; on this basis, (...)

6I claim no originality for any of these well-established observations; nonetheless, they bear repetition since Quaest. Graec. 11 continues to be cited in support of models of settlement history which go far beyond anything currently attested in the archaeological record, and on occasion sit ill with the evidence we have. Thus, for example, Kalligas brackets together the foundations of Kerykra and Pithekous- sai a full generation before the arrival of Corinthians as part of some Euboian grand strategy24. Yet although the literary sources identifying Pithekoussai as a Euboian settlement are also late (Strabo 5. 4. 9; Livy 8. 22. 5-6), there is ample eighth century archaeological evidence for (albeit not exclusive) Euboian settlement of a kind which is completely absent on Kerkyra. The absence, or at least great scarcity, of Euboian artefacts on Kerkyra has long been noted. Vassilis Kallipolitis was the first scholar to consider in detail the problem of the earliest colonial pottery in his publication of a small deposit from Palaiopolis, in the area of the ancient Agora, which probably consisted of grave offerings disturbed by later Classical building. In a preliminary notice published in 1965, and his own 1972 first publication, Kallipolitis accepted this material as Corinthian and local with one exception (a pyxis which he identified as Argive), but in 1982, he tentatively suggested that three sherds illustrated in earlier discussions (the pyxis noted plus a “pyxis” and a lekanis) along with a fourth (a krater) «could not be ruled out as Eretrian», even though, as he acknowledged, they show traits of decoration which also occur in other regional schools25. On the basis of my own examination of this material, and taking into consideration the growing weight of evidence for local pottery production, I prefer to see the fourth, krater, sherd as local, the “Argive” pyxis as Ithakan, the other “pyxis” (or more probably, kantharos) as probably local but with parallels from Ithaka and Elis, and the lekanis as a very much later Corinthian import or local Corinthianising product. There seems to be no compelling evidence to tie these pieces to Euboia26. Furthermore, they are very few and even though their dating is difficult, none must predate the start of the Corinthian sequence of imports on Kerkyra27. But perhaps most importantly, as the case of Torone shows (see below), any material case for contact must rest on consideration of the nature and context of imported finds, and not merely on their quantity.

  • 28 A. Nanaj,’Butroti Protourban’, in Iliria 15, 1985, pp. 303-12; idem,’Kupa të Periudhave Arkaike dh (...)
  • 29 In a preliminary article (C. Morgan-K. Arafat, ’In the footsteps of Aeneas: Excavations at Butrint (...)
  • 30 A. Nanaj, ‘Fortifications of the Chaonia’, unpublished lecture, Plovdiv, October 1990; idem, Vendh (...)

7Kerkyra must, of course, be considered together with its peiraia. At Butrint, excavation has revealed Archaic settlement around the acropolis, with imported pottery in early levels apparently contemporary with the earliest finds on Kerkyra28. Early imports are overwhelmingly Corinthian or Corfiote, with a subsequent admix of Ionian and Attic, but Euboian remains every bit as elusive here as on Kerkyra itself, nor is there any real evidence of Euboian influence on local or Corfiote wares29. In the wider area of the lake of Butrint, what may be a series of headland sites around the lake remains to be investigated (only Kalyvo has been excavated to any extent, chiefly to date the Archaic fortification which Nanaj puts as contemporary with that of Butrint)30. Clearly, future research on these sites could alter our picture of early activity, but here too, such evidence as we have at present seems remarkably consistent.

  • 31 Significant traces from the eighth and early seventh century colony have been excavated mostly in (...)

8On present evidence, therefore, more material evidence of Euboian origin has been found at Corinth than on Kerkyra. It is important to emphasize the dangers of drawing negative inferences from the rapidly changing archaeological record. Nonetheless, it is fair to note that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attribute a lack of evidence to limitations of excavation, in view of the recent and very extensive systematic and rescue work in the city area, notably, but not exclusively, in Palaiopolis31. Indeed, the pattern of a handful of material from the earliest years of the colony followed by a big growth in the quantity of finds over the next century (from ca. 700) and then monumental building and some evidence of planning during the sixth century or slightly earlier is wholly consistent with that found in Sicily and southern Italy. Kerkyra may not be as well understood as a few western colonies (Syracuse, for example, or even Metapontum, where richness of information is matched by intensity of debate), but is no worse, in terms of the extent and nature of finds, than the majority (including e. g. Euboian Naxos).

  • 32 ArchDelt 38 B, 1983, pp. 251-2; K. Preka-Alexandri, ‘Ανθρωπολογική προσέγγιση ταφιϰών ευρήματων Κέ (...)
  • 33 ArchDelt 24 Β, 1969, pp. 264-6 (Prakt 1939, 85-92); Arch- DelDelt 22 Β, 1967, pp. 367-9. Bulle 193 (...)
  • 34 The duration of such wares is problematic since there are few securely related imports to serve as (...)

9Were the Euboian and Corinthian settlements to have been on wholly separate sites, current evidence suggests that they would have to have been at some considerable remove, which may seem unlikely in view of the location of the best harbours, for example. For similar reasons, it seems unlikely that there was much if any earlier colonial settlement elsewhere on the island. Remains dating from the late Archaic period onwards have been discovered at a number of locations, including a Late Archaic/Classical cemetery at Almyri Peritheias (between Roda and Kassope)32, and sanctuaries at Roda and Aphionas (on the north-east coast)33. Yet there is no evidence for a second polis on the island until the foundation of Kassope in the third century. It is unfortunately true that we know little of Early Iron Age Kerkyra as a whole, although were intensive surface survey of the entire island to be undertaken, it would be necessary to overcome problems of dating local pottery34. But if we are to make any use of archaeological evidence as an independent source of information, it is surely time to take stock and to try to make sense of the Corfiote record, paradoxical as it may appear, considering the broadest possible range of comparative evidence.

  • 35 Kalligas 1982, p. 61.
  • 36 Pithekoussai: J. N. Coldstream, ‘Euboean Geometric Imports from the Acropolis of Pithekoussai’, in(...)
  • 37 A. di Vita, ‘Town Planning in Greek Sicily’, in Descoeudres 1990, 345-6. I thank Gillian Shepherd (...)

10A number of lines of argument have been advanced which attempt to reconcile the archaeological and historical records. Petros Kalligas, for example, noting the chronological discrepancy between Strabo’s association (6. 2. 4) of the Corinthian colonisation of Kerkyra with that of Syracuse (i. e. 734) and the later dates advanced by Timaeus (Fr. 53) and Eusebius (who place it contemporary with the foundation of Taranto and shortly after that of Kroton in 708/7), suggests that this reflects two events, an earlier Eretrian colonisation and a later Corinthian, merged as a result of Corinthian attempts to erase the memory of Euboian presence35. This is perfectly plausible, but does not avoid the difficulty of the contrast between the absence of Euboian evidence (let alone of the crucial period of the mid eighth century) and the growing quantity of Corinthian material of precisely this period. On present evidence, any Eretrian settlement on Kerkyra at this time would have substituted Corinthian pottery for Euboian, and while it may not always be the case that colonies in their early years favour the pottery styles of their mother cities (represented either in imports or local copies), known Euboian settlements of the period (Pithekoussai for example) certainly do.36 More pertinently, colonial dates cannot be treated with such precision, partly because of the late date of the sources which report them, and partly because varying perceptions of exactly what constitutes foundation may produce very different results. Here the case of Melbourne, founded a mere 150 or so years ago, offers a salutory comparison. The official foundation date, from which the 150th anniversary was calculated, was settled after much discussion as 1835, yet in May 1836 the settlement had a mere 13 inhabitants and it did not acquire its present name until 1838; it was declared a city only in 1847. This is not to suggest that there was any “official” double foundation, merely varying perceptions of what constituted the key moment. Furthermore, debate over these issues in 1985 in turn gave rise to disagreement among leading families over which of their ancestors should be credited as “oikist”37. If such debates could arise among a literate population after a mere 150 years or so, how much more likely are they to have affected the more remote literary traditions surrounding Greek colonisation in the west? In the case of Kerkyra, there is also the archaeological problem of understanding the formation processes behind the early record; did a few Late Geometric settlers bring a few vessels with them, or did Early Protocorin-thian settlers carry their entire pantry, old-fashioned or not?

  • 38 J. B. Rutter, ‘Some Thoughts on the Analysis of Ceramic Data Generated by Site Surveys’, in D. R. (...)
  • 39 J. Allen, ‘The Archaeology of Nineteenth Century British Imperialism: an Australian Case Study’, i (...)
  • 40 Among the extensive literature on ship depictions, see e. g. D. Gray,’Seewesen’, in ArchHom IIG, G (...)
  • 41 P. Pomey, ‘Navigation and Ships in the Age of Greek Colonization’, in Pugliese Carratelli 1996, pp (...)
  • 42 E. g. D’Andria 1985, pp. 353-4.
  • 43 See e. g. papers in S. Dyson (ed.), Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism, Oxford (...)
  • 44 E. g. A. M. Swinton, Religion and Ancient Society: the Development of Public Cult in Cyprus from L (...)
  • 45 A. M. Snodgrass,’The Euboians in Macedonia: a new Precedent for Westwards Expansion’, in d’Agostin (...)

11Perhaps the least satisfactory conclusion arising from attempts to reconcile the literary and archaeological records is that any Euboian colonisation would have had to have been so short as to leave no material mark. The argument that the date of Corinthian colonisation must leave little time for Euboian settlement (a questionable assumption in view of the likely early eighth century date of Pithekoussai), but a short colonisation needs little evidence, seems dangerously circular. This aside, however, it does not take much to leave some physical trace even of one period occupation retrievable either via excavation (as the recent burgeoning of Protogeometric evidence throughout the Greek world shows) or, for the majority of periods (the eighth century included), surface survey38. This raises the major, and largely intractable, problem of the likely form and scale of an early failed colony. There is ample physical evidence for very shortlived colonies in the modern record; the ten-year long British military colony at Port Essington, Victoria in northern Australia is a case in point39. But in the Greek world, we can only guess on the basis of the likely scale of groups and what we may infer that colonisation actually meant in terms of the impact of an immigrant group. To take the former point first, we lack direct information about the size of ships used during this period40. Herodotos (4. 148) mentions three triconters in the context of the colonization of Thera and (4. 153) two penteconters in the Theraean settlement of the island Platea off the Libyan coast. Presumably these were powered by fit adult male rowers (in the latter case, Herodotos specifies male colonists), each capable of setting up home in a colony and taking a wife. The extent to which colonists would have brought family members with them, at least at first, probably varied greatly. More detailed literary descriptions tend to refer to cases of population transfer rather than regular colonisation; thus, for example, Herodotos (1. 164) reports that the Phocaeans who fled the Persians to colonise Alalia on Corsica sailed in pentekonters and took with them their women, children, furniture and statues of their gods. It is very difficult to draw any reliable inferences from the limited evidence available, but certainly, a settlement of ninety to 100 households would not be small by the standards of eighth century Greece, and so one should dismiss the idea that parties of one or two boat loads were necessarily “small”. Merchant ships might have had a smaller tonnage but would offer greater flexibility41. Yet if this does not seem to fit the Corfiote evidence, it is worth noting the implications of implicitly or explicitly downgrading the nature of contact without careful justification, for example, by arguing that even if colonisation cannot be demonstrated, ships perhaps stopped en route42. The use of Kerkyra as an informal staging post is possible, if wholly hypothetical, yet the verb used by Plutarch to describe Eretrian settlement is ϰατοιϰέω, which carries clear connotations of permanent settlement (elsewhere, e. g. Pompey 47, Plutarch uses it of Roman military colonies, and this usage is clear much earlier, e. g. in Herodotos 7. 164). The meaning is thus closer to the ideas embodied in ἀπονχέω than to any implication of a transitory presence. It is therefore worth considering the material implications of such settlement. Theoretical discussions of colonisation usually focus on imperial situations, where relations of domination and subordination are clear43. Situations where the colonists and colonised are closer in culture and political development have generally received less explicit consideration. There are, however, useful exceptions; in her discussion of the Cypriote Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition, Andrea Swinton uses a working definition of a colony as a settlement in a new locality which forms a community subject to, or connected with, the parent state. She therefore emphasizes two key aspects of the behaviour of the colonizing group, both of which carry material implications, namely the sustained and visible expression of cultural identity and the automatic right to exercise political authority over the new community. It is the latter in particular which distinguishes a formal colony from an immigrant group44. Clearly, the material correlates of a temporary settlement are likely to be distinct from those of one intended to be permanent, and to slip from one circumstance to the other without explicit argument does not aid understanding of the varied and complex pattern of interaction in this area during the eighth century. Here the case of Macedonia offers an interesting comparison, since traditions of Euboian colonisation (at Mende and Torone, for example), however debatable in detail, seem at first sight to conflict with a record of ceramic imports going back much earlier. Indeed, pottery evidence has been used to argue for earlier Euboian settlement in the north than in the west. Yet although Euboian presence is possible, its exact nature is open to very different interpretation. At Torone, Papadopoulos argues that consideration of the entire ceramic assemblage (provenanced via a mixture of stylistic and clay analysis) rather indicates balanced interaction between local communities and Lefkandi. As he stresses, a dozen or so Euboian imports do not seem excessive in a cemetery with over 500 pots and other small finds, and compare in quantity with probably earlier Chalkidic or Toronean imports to Lefkandi. And although his arguments focus on Torone, there is, as he notes, no reason to regard the site as unique in the Chalkidike45. It is certainly not my intention here to subscribe to any systematic attempt to dismiss Euboian trading activity as a recent archaeological fiction. I merely stress its variety and complexity, and note the resulting degree of precision and care required in reading the archaeological record.

12In short, the lack of direct evidence for Euboian presence on Kerkyra and its peiraia may seem problematic. But, as will be shown, the broader context of the island suggests that it may be explained in terms of the way in which a confluence of interests operated in the Ionian sea, at least until the first colonial presence was established on Kerkyra by Corinth at some point from 734 onwards, thus altering the balance of relations in the area.

  • 46 Popham 1981, p. 237; Ridgway 1992, p. 14.
  • 47 R. Kearsley, The Pendent Semi-Circle Skyphos, London 1989, pp. 27-8; BCH 117, 1993, pp. 619-31; Le (...)
  • 48 Morgan 1990, p. 167, note 45.
  • 49 See note 46 above. Morgan 1990, ch. 4; A. Jacquemin, ‘Repercussions de l’éntrée de Delphes dans l’ (...)
  • 50 A. Onasoglou, ‘Oι γεωμετρικοί τάφοι της Τραγάνας στην ανατολική Λοκρίδα’, in ArchDelt 36 A, 1981, (...)
  • 51 Siegel 1978, ch. 8, LG oinochoe cat. 222 (C-70-528), LGII skyphos 223 (C-70-455); both probably or (...)
  • 52 Morgan, Isthmia, cat. 210.
  • 53 ArchDelt 17 B, 1961/62, p. 53, pl. 56:a; Rombos 1988, cat. 86, cf. cat. 85 (Kerameikos 4271), comp (...)
  • 54 Especially noting the Argive and Attic derivation of other Corinthian horse depictions; Morgan, Is (...)

13Turning first to the Greek mainland, Mervyn Popham once commented on the paradox of Euboian interest in the west, and ventured tentatively to suggest that Euboians must have had some route down the Corinthian Gulf, since they were followed so soon by Corinthians46. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. The only significant concentration of Euboian material along the Gulfs of Corinth and Patras occurs at Delphi, where pendant semi-circle skyphoi (23 listed by Kearsley not including finds from the most recent excavations) complement a local production heavily influenced by Euboia from the late eleventh century onwards47, there may also be evidence of (probably Chalkidian) imports during the eighth century48. But here it is important to consider the land routes through Phokis linking what must have been first and foremost a very sizeable settlement with Lokris and the coast further north49. From the ninth century, for example, grave goods in the cemetery at Tragana, just south of coastal plain of east Lokris50, included a variety of Euboian pottery and metalwork, plus orientalia (including a bowl with a neo-Hittite inscription) almost certainly derived from Lefkandi over the water. These may in turn have moved into local exchange systems. Corinthian connections with the Phokian coast were only really strong from ca. 800, and it may well be that Delphi was the source of the few Euboian sherds known from Corinth. To date, only two Euboian Geometric sherds, both of the second half of the eighth century, have been traced at Corinth51. It may be significant that they are equalled in number by Euboian imports of the second half of the sixth century, a period when, by comparison with the eighth century, Euboian ceramic exports are rare. At Isthmia, where imported fabrics are generally better represented than at Corinth itself, just one Late Protogeometric sherd (probably from a neck-handled amphora) could be Attic or Euboian52. Elsewhere in the Corinthia, there is nothing at Perachora, and only the tenuous connection of a grazing horse motif on an LGI oinochoe from Ag. Theodoroi (ancient Krommyon). Theodora Rombos followed Benson and Coldstream in describing this piece as an Attic import, largely on the grounds of LGII iconographical parallels, but it is more likely to be a local piece, and in an LGI context it stands alone as an example of a motif that is more common in contemporary Euboian art53. But this is a tenuous link indeed54, and as is clear from Nota Kourou’s discussion in this volume, considerable care is required in characterising rural regional styles.

  • 55 Siegel 1978; this account is now almost 20 years old, but since excavation at Corinth since ca. 19 (...)
  • 56 For an attempt at such analysis of the Isthmian assemblage, see Morgan, Isthmia, chs. III. 2 and I (...)
  • 57 A new synthesis of distribution of Lakonian Early Iron Age pottery, to complement the work of Pela (...)
  • 58 Morgan-Hall 1996, pp. 169-81 for a summary of evidence with bibliography; C. Morgan,’Ethnicity and (...)
  • 59 L. Papakosta, ‘Παρτηρήσεις σχετικά με την τοπογραφία του αρχαίου Αιγίου’, in A. D. Rizakis (ed.), (...)
  • 60 Prakt 1982, pp. 187-8; M. Petropoulos, ‘Τρίτη ανασκαφική περίοδος στο Ανω Μαζάραϰι (Ραϰίτα) Αχαΐας (...)
  • 61 I am grateful to Anastasia Gadolou for this information.

14One might, however, argue that approaching this question via ceramics is unlikely to be informative, since, in sharp contrast to her exports, Corinth’s imports offer a poor guide to her external connections55. Indeed, a preliminary impression of the range and contexts of eighth century ceramic imports at Corinth suggests that a considerable degree of selection may have been involved, although full statistical analysis will be required to document this in detail56. Nonetheless, it is surely significant that identifiable Euboian imports consist solely of pottery, and are at least five times fewer than those from the Argolid and Lakonia, two regions which, while geographically closer to Corinth, exported their own pottery less frequently at this time57. If levels of ceramic import deriving from what may be a meeting of two relatively closed (or at least highly selective) systems are still higher than those indicated for Euboia, this surely suggests an absolute shortage of Euboian material. This also appears to be borne out by a comparable absence further west along the Achaian coast, where imports played a more extensive and positive role during the late eighth century, as sanctuary dedications and possibly also to define status in elite graves58. Aigion is perhaps the best documented case, and one of particular importance in the context of the present discussion since it has one of the finest natural harbours anywhere along the Gulf. Here evidence derives both from rescue excavation within the modern city59 and from systematic investigation of the city’s inland shrine at Ano Mazaraki (Rakita), established ca. 75060. Other aspects of the shrine deposit will be considered in due course; here I merely note that, in addition to local (i. e. eastern) Achaian wares, the ceramic record of both sites includes many Corinthian (notably Thapsos) imports and Argive too (especially at Ano Mazaraki), but that there is no evidence of Euboian contacts, direct or indirect61.

  • 62 For discussion and a summary of the now extensive bibliography, see Morgan 1995.

15That Corinth pursued genuine trading interests across to Ithaka and up into Epirus at least from the second half of the eighth century is well documented62. Rather earlier, from ca. 800, contacts with Apulia and Syracuse (see below) may have included oil or wine export. In this context, as has often been pointed out, Corinth’s colonisation of Kerkyra can be understood as a logical consolidation of her interests, and it also fits Strabo’s description of the colonists of Kerkyra as a break-away group from those sent to Syracuse. Settlement here makes sense for Corinthians, whose natural routes of contact with the west ran along the Gulf and then branched either north round the Aetolian coast towards Kerkyra and across the Adriatic to Apulia, or south towards Sicily. But if, as argued here, Eu-boians did not travel west along the Gulf but rather round the south coast of the Peloponnese (see below), continuing north towards Ithaka and beyond would seem to imply some particular interest. In other words, especially when one takes into account Ithakan activity, the Ionian Sea may have seen a confluence of interests from different directions, and this raises the question of the differing roles of Kerkyra for the parties concerned. Before considering evidence from this area, however, it is worth briefly returning to the problem of who conducted trade along the Gulf. Since there is no real likelihood that Euboians were involved, this may seem only tangentially relevant to the present discussion, but two points are worthy of note. First, there is no reason to suppose that Corinth had a monopoly of movement here; the case for Ithaka will be considered presently, and eighth century evidence from Aigion in particular may point to Achaian activity also. It is therefore worth considering whether the spread of imports which may have been acquired from western sources, combined with the absence of Euboian pottery west of Ithaka (where it is comparatively rare too, see below), constitute an argument against any strong Euboian presence in the Ionian area. Secondly, consideration of the extent and intensity of Corinthian trade is highly relevant to arguments about rivalry with Euboia, or to any comparison which might imply a balanced, strategic and even competitive outlook. Indeed, likely differences in the structure of Corinthian and Euboian contacts and the interests represented make direct analogies potentially misleading.

  • 63 Payne 1940, 23-5.
  • 64 I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, ‘Αφιερώματα μη Κορινθιακής προλευσέως στα Ηραῖα της Περαχώρας (τέλος 8ου-ἀρχη (...)
  • 65 Payne 1940, pl. 12. 4 (MGII juglet), pl. 13. 18 (one-handled cup, a type found in datable contexts (...)
  • 66 Coldstream 1968, p. 353 note 3; notes Payne 1940, pl. 15:3 as the only securely pre-LG Argive sher (...)
  • 67 Payne 1940, pp. 53-77; for the closing date, see Coldstream 1968, p. 323.
  • 68 Payne himself recognised certain instances of this (e. g. Payne 1940, p. 63), but explained them a (...)
  • 69 Menadier 1995, pp. 93-100, noting similar objections to Payne’s “Fibulae Deposit” [Payne 1940, 73] (...)
  • 70 Menadier 1995, pp. 99, 164-5. Italian bone and amber fibulae found at Perachora (T. J. Dunbabin (e (...)
  • 71 G. Buchner-D. Ridgway, Pithekoussai I, Roma 1993, pp. 767-811.
  • 72 K. Dickey, Corinthian Burial Customs, ca. 1100-500BC (Ph. D. diss. Bryn Mawr College 1992), ch. 3, (...)
  • 73 I. Raubitschek, in Morgan, Isthmia, ch. I. 3. No com-paranda for the Perachora orientalia securely (...)

16To illustrate the first point, we may consider the spread of orientalia along the Gulf. The sanctuary of Hera at Perachora may seem to be the obvious starting point, since from Humfry Payne’s initial publication onwards, the importance of the site and the richness and diversity of votives at a city shrine have been explained largely in terms of Corinth’s western connections63. Indeed, by virtue of its position, one might argue that if Gulf trade truly was a unified system during the eighth century, Perachora would have been an “end” site, either in the sense of representing a Corinthian market for which traders (of whatever ethnic identity) saved specific items, or of being a final resting place for whatever was left at the end of the line. In fact, I suggest that any such systematisation is a phenomenon of the seventh century at the earliest. During the eighth century (to the end of Early Protocorinthian), the percentage of non-Corinthian items of any kind at Perachora is small and (Peloponnesian aside) mainly eastern and northern in origin64. In the case of the eastern material at least, a western source of immediate supply seems likely given the balance of Corinthian interests and the presence of Italian fibulae and at least two pots bearing Ithakan potters’marks65. It is, however, important to note the difficulties surrounding the dating of much of this material. The only certain pre-Late Geometric ceramic imports are Ithakan plus one Argive sherd66. The eighth century date assigned to most other categories of artefact rests primarily on their discovery within Payne’s socalled’Geometric Deposit’, the closure of which has been dated by Coldstream to ca. 720BC on the basis of the pottery which Payne attributed to it67. Yet it has long been clear that later pottery is also present68, and as Menadier has recently highlighted, the “deposit” is not a discrete stratigraphical unit and certainly not a closed entity which can be used to date objects within it69. Very few of the non-ceramic items found here can be dated on independent stylistic grounds. An eighth century date seems likely for a small amount of gold and bronze jewellery (mainly north-east Peloponnesian) and Italian bone and amber fibulae must be eighth or seventh century, but this leaves the problem of’eastern’objects such as fibulae and Egyptianising scarabs and scar-aboids, which have a long life and must be dated by context70. Such scarabs occur in secure eighth century contexts elsewhere (graves at Corinth itself and Pithekoussai for example)71, but a similarly early date at Perachora, whilst possible, is unprovable. In short, the establishment of the Perachora shrine may indeed coincide with Corinth’s western expansion during Middle Geometric II, and the presence of a very few Ithakan and Italian imports is surely significant in this respect, but we have to wait until the seventh century, immediately following western colonisation, for the greatest quantity and diversity of imports, especially of eastern manufacture. It is also worth stressing that within the Corinthia, such finds are heavily concentrated at Perachora. Corinthian grave goods include some items made from imported materials (ivory, amber etc.), but the only securely identifiable finished imports are four “Egyptianising” scarabs, of which only one comes from an eighth century (MGII) burial72. This may in part reflect a gradual decline in grave goods from ca. 750 onwards, but it is echoed at Isthmia too, where eighth century material of all kinds is local, Attic or Peloponnesian73.

  • 74 Od Plastira 7: 14 LG pithoi, mostly robbed, including one with 4 large Boiotian fibulae and 2 Egyp (...)
  • 75 See note 58 above.
  • 76 See note 59 above. The shrine’s location near the border with Arkadian Azania may also have result (...)
  • 77 A. Gadolou, ‘Χάλκινα ϰαι σιδερένια όπλα από το ιερό στο Ανω Μαζαράκι (Ραϰίτα) Αχαίας. Μια πρώτη πα (...)
  • 78 Prakt 1993, pp. 73-110; AR 42, 1995-6, pp. 15-16.
  • 79 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, pp. 230-35; K. Kilian, ‘Zwei Ital-ische Kammhelme aus Griechenland’, in Etu (...)

17Whatever the reason for the concentration of eastern and western imports at Perachora, the point which should be emphasised here is that although eighth century finds indicate connections with Ithaka at least (if not with Italy), they are few and contrast markedly in number and variety with the rich mixture of the immediate post-colonisation period. Either underlying eighth century Corinthian activity was limited (and perhaps strictly directed) or, by contrast with the seventh century, the end of the Gulf was an end point in a negative sense. Here it is interesting to compare what seems to be a rather different picture emerging along the Achaian coast, highlighting the complexity of contacts in the Gulf area. Aigion, as the finest natural port in the area, is exactly where one might expect to find imports, and indeed, published references note four large bronze Boiotian fibulae and two “Egyptian” scarabs74. Altthoughougthough finds are few as yet, it should be noted that extensive later (especially Medieval) disturbance has proved highly destructive, and that within the modern town investigation has been conducted via rescue excavation75. More striking are finds from the systematic (and continuing) excavation of Aigion’s inland shrine at Ano Mazaraki, noted earlier76. Here, votives include bone and stone seals and an Egyptian scarab of ca. 725, and although the majority of metal finds are Peloponnesian types, weapons include spearheads with close parallels at Vitsa, and a striking 83 examples of Snodgrass’type 4 arrowhead, a Cypriote type also known at this date on Crete (perhaps, as Gadolou suggests, the immediate source of the Ano Mazaraki examples). Furthermore, the stratigraphical context of a significant number of these arrowheads apparently predates the construction of the temple in the third quarter of the eighth century77. At present, however, we lack eighth century Achaian artefacts from any area further west. Further along the Gulf, votive material from renewed excavation at Thermon should enhance our understanding of movement in the Gulf of Patras78, and at Olympia, the presence of Italian metalwork (especially Etruscan armour) in some quantity from the late ninth to the first half of the seventh century has long been noted. In the latter case, however, it is important to emphasize that the greatest quantity of material dates to the colonial period, from the second half of the eighth century onwards, and as Gillian Shepherd has recently argued, the most likely dedicators are western Greek colonists79.

  • 80 E.g. Popham 1981, pp. 237-9; Ridgway 1992, pp. 25-30, 121-138; D. Ridgway-F. Serra Ridgway, ‘Sardi (...)
  • 81 Hints of early eastern contacts are slowly emerging in the south and central Peloponnese (e. g. th (...)
  • 82 Naxos: Lentini, in this volume; P. Pelagatti, ‘I più antichi materiali di importazione a Siracusa, (...)

18In summary, it is clear that the diversity and variable dates of both eastern and western material at sites around the Gulf are contributing to an increasingly complex picture of activity. More pertinent to the present discussion, however, is the fact that such finds at sites west of Ithaka are not accompanied by Euboian material. The extent to which Euboïka were accessible at trading points is therefore questionable. Following the widely-proposed idea that Euboian interest in the west was kindled via contact with Cypriotes and/or Phoenicians in the east80, and noting also the absence of evidence from the Gulf coast, it seems most likely that Euboians (possibly on joint ventures) followed established routes south around the Peloponnese, bypassing the Gulf81. By contrast with Corinth therefore, there is no obvious necessity for Euboians to be on the eastern side of Italy this early. And as will be shown, even if Euboian finds from Otranto and Ithaka are taken to imply Euboian presence (a highly questionable assumption), they are Late Geometric at the earliest and need not predate the colonisation of Naxos by much if anything82. Euboian contacts of any kind in this area are late in relation to Corinthian, implausibly so for any pre-Corinthian colonial presence on Kerkyra if Strabo’s chronology is accepted.

  • 83 3 Mycenaean sherds from Ermone: K. Preka-Alexandri, Κέρκυρα, Athens 1994, p. 19.
  • 84 L. Bejko, ‘Some problems of the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Southern Albania’, in BIALond 31, 19 (...)
  • 85 The only hint may eventually be provided by the lekanis with diagonal “string-like” decoration (se (...)
  • 86 Thus, for example, Kalligas (1982, p. 67), suggests that the supposed Euboian colonisation used by (...)
  • 87 Among the growing body of studies of ancient navigation routes, see: F. Prontera, ‘Maritime Commun (...)
  • 88 See notes 25, 85 above.

19In terms of links with the old Greek world, Kerkyra was “discovered” late. Until the third quarter of the eighth century at the earliest, it seems, from a Greek perspective, to have been an island out of the stream. In this respect, it is interesting to observe the marked discrepancy in the extent and intensity of both Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Greek contacts with the southern Ionian Islands (Ithaka, Kefallinea and Zakynthos) as opposed to the northern (Leukas, Kerkyra and Paxos). During the Late Bronze Age, Kerkyra was largely83 bypassed by whatever contacts produced the distribution of LHI-LHIIIC Mycenaean pottery and metalwork which extended inland from the southern Albanian coast, and which may in turn relate to the even greater body of imports and local copies found in Apulia84. Indeed, among the stylistic parallels for pottery and metalwork reported most recently by Bejko are links between sites such as Bajkaj or Barç and Ithaka, Kefallinea, Pylos and northern Achaia. It is impossible to determine who initiated and maintained these contacts, although there is no a priori reason to assume that the groups inhabiting what is now southern Albania were merely passive recipients. The key point, however, is that the northern Ionian islands, Kerkyra included, seem to stand outside this pattern of connections; and when mainland links reappear from ca. 800 (in the case of Otranto) the pattern is repeated at least until Corinthian colonisation. The issue of the nature and extent of maintenance of local networks across this area from LHIIIC onwards is controversial and not of direct relevance here (indeed, there is scant evidence with which to assess Kerkyra’s connections during the Early Iron Age)85. Nonetheless, while the Ithakan parallels suggested for two of the three non-Corinthian or Corinthianising early sherds discussed above probably reflect some form of connection (however slight) from the mid-eighth century onwards, there is no evidence to indicate any earlier formal relationship nor any geographical reason to suppose that this would be natural or inevitable. In this context, the burden of interpretation placed upon Homer’s description of Scheria, its relations with Odysseus’kingdom on Ithaka, and especially the foundation history related in Odyssey 6, seems profoundly problematic86. Indeed, if Homer seems to play an unduly small role in this present discussion, it is merely because the degree of debate, not only surrounding the chronology of particular episodes but also the overall composition of the poems as they stand (eighth or seventh century) and the extent to which they reveal diachronic development, makes circular argument almost inevitable. I personally prefer to see the Iliad and the Odyssey as accretional developments which reached more or less “final” form early in the seventh century, a date which would fit post-colonial relations between Ithaka and Corinthian Kerkyra very well, but I accept that this is, and will remain, a matter of scholarly debate. More pertinent to the present discussion, however, is a methodological concern that the potential of the archaeological record to serve as an independent source of comparative information may be neutralised by the imposition of an insecurely founded Homeric “model”. By virtue of its position alone, Ithaka may well have been a stopping point on routes from the Gulf towards Sicily or Apulia, but added to that, it was evidently home to a dynamic community which forged its own links to east and west. By contrast, there is nothing inevitable (or necessarily attractive) about the inclusion of Kerkyra in navigation routes either down to Sicily or up from the western Mediterranean. As has been suggested, nothing precludes the use of the direct high seas route across from the southern Peloponnese to eastern Sicily, avoiding circuitous diversions around the Epirote and Apulian coasts. Indeed, as several commentators have remarked, the need to sight land may have been overrated and long crossings are well attested87. By contrast with the growing evidence for a precolonial presence of Euboian pottery at native sites on Sicily88, evidence from Ithaka and Apulia is late and limited. Any Euboians venturing north from Sicily towards the Straits of Otranto would, on present evidence, have done so when Corinthian connections were already well established, and would have encountered, in the Itha-kans and Messapians of Otranto, dynamic trading communities with extensive connections of their own.

Fig. 1. Carta dei centri messapici (disegno G. Carluccio).

Fig. 2. Apulia, IX-VIII century. The distribution of imported Corinthian and Euboean/Cycladic pottery by site (absolute numbrs). Reproduced by courtesy of Prof. F. D’Andria.

  • 89 F. D’Andria, Archeologia dei Messapi.’Catalogo della Mostra, Lecce Museo Provinciale’, Bari 1990, (...)
  • 90 Reported by P. Pelagatti, ‘Le anfore commerciali’, in Corinto e l'Occidente, pp. 403-416.
  • 91 F. D'Andria, ’Problèmes du commerce archaïque entre la mer ionienne et l'adriatique', in P. Cabann (...)
  • 92 A plurality of contacts and local circuits of exchange has been hypothesized for the Archaic perio (...)

20We should therefore consider in detail these two areas to see how they fit into the broader picture. At Otranto, the sequence of Corinthian fineware imports appears to begin at the end of the ninth century, with quantities increasing markedly during the first half of the eighth century (when Corinthian transport amphorae also appear). During the second half of the eighth century, these are accompanied by a very small admix of Euboian (or Euboio-Cycladic) sherds. There is, however, a major discrepancy between the two regional styles both in quality and date. Numerically, Euboian sherds are far outnumbered by Corinthian (figs. 1-3), and the earliest Euboian imports are Late Geometric in style. The Euboian Late Geometric phase spans rhe second half of the eight century without subdivision, and it is impossible to place these sherds precisely withim it; nonetheless, even if they date close to 750, this would still leave at least a 50 years delay compared to Corinthian89. Furthermore, as Francesco D’Andria has noted, controlled access may be implied by what seems to be a spatial concentration of imports at Otranto (although the excavated area is still small), but it is quite clear that careful selection lay behind the choice of a limited range of imported shapes to complement the local repertoire (essentially drinking sets comprising oinochoai and cups, which may have been used to consume the contents of the amphorae). The amphora sequence also begins with transport jars which may be early precursors of Corinthian A (paralleled at Syracuse90, but as yet poorly represented in the Corinthia), followed by MGII At-tic-Cycladic types, and then the SOS and Corinthian A forms which were to be the mainstay of the late eighth and seventh century assemblage. In short, analysis of the Otranto ceramic assemblage as a whole suggests careful selection of imports to suit perceived local needs, a form of market knowledge which, by the Late Geometric period, had come to have a wider regional relevance, to judge from the distribution of the same group of wares in the surrounding area (perhaps redistributed from Otranto)91. In terms of the connections involved, the mixture of imports is suggestive; as D’Andria points out, it is not found further down the Albanian coast or on Kerkyra, and I cannot trace it in its entirety in Epirus, on Ithaka, or along the Gulf. The mixture of finewares could have been obtained from as close by as Ithaka, but the rare early Corinthian amphorae would seem to imply a direct connection (especially given the uniquely early date of the fine-ware imports). The various Greek ceramic imports would seem to imply contacts in at least two directions, therefore, and to these we may add links further north by which Devollian wares were obtained. With such a combination of a sophisticated local market and multiple trade routes, we can only guess at the ethnic origin(s) of the traders involved (and the nature of the commodities which may have accompanied the pottery). The physical presence of Euboians, while perfectly possible, is not required to explain the evidence, and it is highly likely that the local Messapian population played an active role in conducting its own trade rather than merely selecting from whatever passing ships may have brought along92.

  • 93 AR 1991-2, 86. Epigraphical evidence for a mid-fifth century date is provided by the tablet M526 f (...)
  • 94 Bakhuizen 1976, 25, suggests that the scholarly constructs surrounding this name change may have g (...)

21Otherwise, only literary evidence places Euboians anywhere near this area, in fact at Orikos on the southern Illyrian coast. The anonymous early first century BC author of a periegesis dedicated to King Nicomedes of Bithynia (Ps. Skymnos) notes (441-443), ‘Eλληνὶς Ὠριϰός τε παράλιος πόλις·/ἐξ ’Ιλίου γὰρ έπανάγοντες Εὐβοεῖς/ϰτίζουσι, ϰατενεχθέντες ὑπò τῶν πνευμάτων. He thus places Euboians in the apparently awkward setting of a Trojan nostos (an episode to which Strabo [10. 1. 15] also alludes). This may well be a farrago, or conceivably (if less plausibly) the author may not be using the term “Euboian” in the specific sense to which we are now accustomed. But even if he is accurately reporting a foundation tradition, the fact remains that in the absence of any archaeological evidence to date that foundation, assuming it to be early (eighth or seventh century), let alone connecting it with Euboian activity at Otranto or anywhere else, is pure speculation. Evidence of Hellenistic settlement has been found at Orikos93, but how much further the city may go back must await further investigation. It may be that a city on the northern fringe of the Corinthian and Corfiote coastal colonial zone would deliberately foster a civic image as distinct as possible from that of its neighbours, especially if it was a later foundation. However, Ps. Skymnos’and Strabo’s accounts seem to be two developments of the same myth-historical stem. A possible third is represented by Pausanias (5. 22. 3-4), who states that a region near Apollonia sometimes called Abantia or Abantes was settled by the Abantes of Euboia. In the absence of any other evidence for Euboian presence, this element of the story most probably derives, directly or indirectly, from an attempt to explain the local inhabitants’change of name from Amantes to Abantes (but see also below p. #), the reason for which is unclear (unless it was a political move to reinforce their perceived Greekness)94. From a purely literary point of view, it is quite conceivable that the simple act of Hellenising a name could create Euboian connotations, which were then assumed and incorporated into nostoi traditions. But proper evaluation of this case must await further research at Orikos.

  • 95 Malkin, in this volume; Morgan 1995; C. Morgan, ‘Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and Western Greece d (...)
  • 96 Here I disagree fundamentally with the Aegean-centred viewpoint expressed most recently by Lady He (...)
  • 97 Robertson-Heurtley 1948, p. 122; J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece, London 1977, pp. 187, 242; Wa (...)
  • 98 Morgan, Isthmia, ch. II. 3, Morgan 1995 for Ithakan influences on Corinthian vessels from Isthmia. (...)
  • 99 Coldstream 1968, pp. 227-8; the recent excavations do not alter this picture (N. Symeonoglou pers. (...)
  • 100 Robertson-Heurtley 1948, supra note 25.

22Moving to Ithaka, although detailed reappraisal of evidence from Aetos and its implications for our understanding of the nature of the local community and its external connections must await the final study and publication of recent excavation data, certain observations may nonetheless be made. Recent archaeological (and Homeric) scholarship has rightly emphasised the scale of settlement and the dynamism of the island population, exploiting Ithaka’s position on trade routes with the Greek mainland (especially Epirus and the western Peloponnese), Etruria, Magna Graecia and Sicily95. Clearly, a centrally-positioned and settled island like Ithaka could have been perceived as a more advantageous stopover (or end in its own right) than the more remote (and possibly un- or under-populated) Kerkyra. But Ithaka should not been seen as a passive recipient-rather it was an active, independent force in its own right96. The presence of Corinthian settlement (or even a colony) has sometimes been asserted, apparently on the basis of the quantity of “imported” pottery (not all of which may be Corinthian, see below) and the scale of settlement.97 Yet there is no strong evidence for this, and such criteria are inadequate to establish the existence or ethnic identity of settlers, let alone anything as formal as a colony (certainly, any analogy between Corinthian Ithaka and Euboian Pithekoussai is insupportable on present evidence). As a source of pottery imports and influences Corinth appears dominant throughout the eighth century, although it is worth emphasizing that, especially during the Late Geometric period, the link operated in both directions98. But the extent to which Corinthian connections are a matter of influence rather than direct import will need to be reconsidered in the light of the collection of 38 potters marks from Aetos currently being studied by Nancy Symeonoglou. This is amongst the largest known from any Early Iron Age site, and not only confirms the existence of local workshops which exported their wares (certain of which are so similar to Corinthian as to raise questions about the accuracy of our understanding of eighth century Corinthian distributions), but also highlights a marking practice different from that evident at Corinth and perhaps a distinctive system of numeration too. Yet Corinth is not the only source of imports and influences: Euboian has also been identified (in quantities, similar to or smaller than those at Otranto)99, but it is not conspicuous in comparison with other eighth century wares (e. g. Argive and Attic)100.

  • 101 C. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors, Lanham 1995, pp. 152-5.
  • 102 Magou-Philippakis-Rolley 1986, pp. 121-36.
  • 103 M. Maass, OlForsch X, Berlin 1978, cites all of the Polis tripods as parallels for Olympia pieces. (...)
  • 104 A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh 1971, figs. 42-4; Snodgrass’date of «probably l (...)
  • 105 S. Benton, ‘Excavations in Ithaca, III. The Cave at Polis, II’, in BSA 39, 1938-9, pp. 1-51.
  • 106 9th century mould from Xeropolis: M. Popham-H. Sac-kett-P. Themelis, Lefkandi I, London 1979-80, p (...)
  • 107 E. g. the Knossian style finial, M. Robertson, ‘Gold Ornament from Crete and Ithaca’, in BSA 50, 1 (...)
  • 108 That panhellenism is a mode of behaviour not readily identifiable via the origins of votives alone (...)
  • 109 Pace Waterhouse 1996, p. 310. Local shrines in other parts of Greece have produced strikingly rich (...)

23Two other forms of evidence for external connections often cited are cult and Ithaka’s nomima (namely her calendar and alphabet). Cult arguments centre on the shrine in the Polis Cave, which is usually regarded primarily from an outsider viewpoint as having attracted foreign visitors at least from the ninth century onwards. The two main reasons for this view, the identity and nature of the cult and the rich offerings made (especially tripods), are to some extent interlinked. It is not possible here to offer any detailed critique of these views, and so I merely raise certain issues and suggest alternative viewpoints. Evidence for and against an Early Iron Age date for the cult of Odysseus has recently been reviewed by Carla Antonaccio101, and as she stresses, the fact that the earliest explicit identification of the hero dates to the Hellenistic period leaves open the possibility of a late introduction to an established cult site. Nonetheless, claims for an Early Iron Age date usually cite the nature of the dedications, and specifically the tripods, which are not only seen to allude to Odysseus’treasure, but also to indicate the kind of panhellenic interest which might be expected to follow an epic hero rather than some poliad cult. At least thirteen tripods have been found, the earliest of which (nos. l and 2) have been dated by Rolley to the ninth century, with no. 6 dating towards the end of the century, 9 slightly before 750 and 10 in the second half of the eighth century102. Leaving aside the apparent correspondence in number with Odysseus’thirteen tripods (which may be more illusory than real at such a disturbed site), attention has focused on the rarity of such dedications outside a panhellenic shrine (and although they are not, as sometimes claimed, unique, they are certainly unusual). Yet rarity is hardly a compelling argument given the very varied nature of votives and practices at Greek sanctuaries, and it may be that not enough weight has been given to the possibility that the tripods reflect Ithakan participation in a distinctively western pattern of votive behaviour. It is difficult to attribute the majority of the Polis tripods to specific workships, but all have good parallels at Olympia, which at this time was primarily a west Peloponne-sian sanctuary103. And while it is true that most ceramic evidence for Ithakan connections with the west Peloponnese and the Gulf area dates to the eighth century, there are Protogeometric (probably ninth century) precedents104. It is therefore possible that tripod dedication represents subscription to a wider western trend in votive practice-which in turn would help to explain its integration into cult activity at a shrine which may already have been established for some while105. Argive and Corinthian horse attachments, if not brought directly, could surely have been obtained indirectly given their presence (and probably also that of Argive and Corinthian craftsmen) at Olympia, but it is worth emphasizing that even though Euboian tripod manufacture is attested during the ninth century, there is no evidence for Euboian tripods at Polis106. In terms of pottery, although there is widespread evidence for local provision of sanctuary wares throughout the Greek world, it is nonetheless rare not to find some trace of other regional styles reflecting local contacts. In short, whilst it is wholly possible that passing Euboians dedicated “treasure” collected from other sources107, the shortage of direct evidence of Euboian presence at Polis is similar to the situation further east along the Gulf, and such evidence as we have is focused on Aetos. I stress that I do not wish to argue against the idea that passing ships brought goods that were either dedicated directly or introduced into the Ithakan system and subsequently dedicated by locals. This is not an argument against trade (though I would stress the likely Ithakan role), merely a comment that trade and the rationale for dedication are not automatically related, and that alternative modes of behaviour could explain the dedications here. Wealthy offerings of diverse origin are not in themselves evidence for panhellenic behaviour108. Equally, to suggest that Ithaka was too poor and sparsely inhabited to merit such a shine is to take a profoundly Aegean-centred view and one which sits ill with the evidence109. In passing, it is also important to note the dangers inherent in reading Ithakan history solely or even primarily through the filter of the Odyssey. Admittedly, the poem provided a pervasive and widely recognised set of images which gave the Ithakans ample scope through the centuries to create and recreate their own international image. But however instructive it may be to consider a society through the image which it chose to present, an extra critical dimension is lost by not looking beyond this.

  • 110 Jeffery 19902, 230-1, 2 34, 451.
  • 111 Jeffery 19902, 221-4, 248-51; R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia IV. I (...)
  • 112 Symeonoglou, in preparation (supra note 64).
  • 113 As Papadopoulos 1996 points out, the case made by Jeffery 19902 for the transmission of the Corint (...)
  • 114 See e. g. Papadopoulos 1996, pp. 167-9, for critique of the notion of Euboian origins for Thracian (...)

24The earliest examples of the Ithakan script, early seventh century vase inscriptions found in the British excavations at Aetos, indicate that it was in essence Achaian but with certain variations which do not later recur (a local exaggerated iota, for example, plus the Euboian form of lambda and the “red” chi)110. Achaian influence may seem logical in terms of Ithaka’s mainland connections, but it is worth noting that most evidence for the Achaian alphabet comes from her western colonies rather than the Achaian homeland. Indeed, the little evidence that we have suggests that the scripts used in the two regions, and even in the different Achaian colonies, were not identical. It is therefore possible that Ithaka could have acquired her alphabet from west or east, depending on the as yet unknown pace of its development in the colonies111. Yet these inscriptions are not the earliest evidence of Ithakan writing, since four probable alphabetic characters have been identified among the Aetos potter’s marks. But although these push the record back to the end of Middle Geometric II, they offer no new evidence for the derivation of the local script. Nancy Symeonoglou has, however, suggested that the Aetos marks may represent a system of numeration which, while obscure in origin, seems to lie somewhere between the Mycenaean and X based and Etruscan systems. It is thus possible that Euboian traits in Ithakan script and numeration may reflect western (and in the latter case, perhaps Etruscan) contacts, but Symeonoglou is properly cautious in stressing the variety of possible sources112. So although both script and numeration may well prove to be further evidence of the variety of Ithakan contacts in the west, there is nothing concrete to indicate direct relations with Euboia113. The same may be true of the Ithakan calendar. While this shows Euboian connections, their significance is not straightforward to establish. The adoption of calendars has most usually been considered in the context of colonial relations, but although the calendars of colony and mother city are generally similar, this is not a universal rule and divergences are not uncommon114. More pertinently, the extension of any argument derived from colonial situations to Ithaka is questionable, since Ithaka was not colonised. An independent island could make its own choices, and in this area, the two most likely options would have been Corinthian or Euboian. The precise reasons for Ithakan choices will probably never be known, but it is plausible that they would have wished to be different from Kerkyra and the Corinthian colonies.

25The discussion has moved far from Euboians and Kerkyra, and it is time to sum up. I conclude that until Corinthian colonisation, Kerkyra was an island outside the main Ionian and Adriatic stream. If one accepts that material evidence from Ithaka and Otranto implies Euboian presence-and there is no necessity to do so since the nature and context of imports point to local choice, and we have no means of assessing the ethnic identity of the shippers involved-then at some point during the second half of the eighth century, Euboians may have visited. But this is not only late in relation to Corinthian connections (a reversal of the situation on the Tyrrhenian coast), but a very different order of activity from that implied by Plutarch in Quaest. Graec. 11. To infer a colonial presence so short as to leave no trace, and one which could be displaced by Corinthians, makes little sense in view of the chronology of finds in the area and the relative strength and nature of Corinthian and Eretrian external activity during the middle quarters of the eighth century. Furthermore, it is hard to see what Euboians would gain by settlement here; Ithaka in particular could have provided excellent trading links (and Euboian shippers may well have been welcomed), but what Euboians might have sought that was unavailable in Campania, Sicily or closer to home remains unclear. Above all, the eighth and early seventh centuries saw rapid developments in contacts and settlement across both coasts of the Ionian sea, and to conflate evidence of periods even 25 years apart is to blur the picture.

  • 115 Morgan-Hall 1996, p. 213, for analogous reflections on Achaian and Lakonian colonial traditions.
  • 116 In the absence of a local source for the large quantities of oolitic limestone used at Delphi, for (...)

26As I suggested at the start of this discussion, if the idea of Eretrian colonisation of Kerkyra was not a creation or over-interpretation by Plutarch, there is a real possibility that it belongs with the kind of expansionist and propagandist Eretrian fantasy promoted by Archemachos in the case of the Chalkidian kouretes. But when and why might it have arisen? It is, as noted, possible only to speculate about Plutarch’s sources, at least before Aristotle. A parallel story in same locality may, however, provide a hint. In the same passage in which he mentioned the Abantes, Pausanias (5. 22. 3-4, 8) noted that Thronion, conquered by Apollonia in the early fifth century, claimed to have been settled by Lokrians and Euboian nostoi. The date of this tradition is unclear, but whenever it arose, it may well have been intended as a propagandist claim against parvenu Apol-lonians, since a combined Greek-Trojan pedigree would have been distinct from that of Dorian Corinth and her colonies115. In view of the often turbulent history of Kerkyra, especially in relation to Corinth, it is possible to envisage a number of circumstances where a rival tradition which downplayed the Corinthian dimension might have achieved currency. The sixth century saw the beginning of a great expansion in the complex plural traditions of western mythology, and considered in Corfiote terms, it is hard to see a distinct founder tradition arising much before then. Thucydides’report (1. 13) of a naval battle in 669 indicates a comparatively rapid breach in relations with Corinth after colonisation, and this was followed by the imposition of direct control under Periander (620-580), a regime characterised, according to Herodotos (3. 48, 50-53), by brutal treatment of the Kerkyraeans. In Corinth itself, this period may have seen an expansion of commodity trade with, for example, bulk quarrying and transport of building material, and perhaps also bulk pottery shipments for the first time116. The political and economic interests of both Kerkyra and Corinth were probably therefore undergoing some form of qualitative transformation.

  • 117 See note 25 above; Morgan, hthmia.
  • 118 B. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago 19932, pp. 221, 276-81, 338 with bibliog (...)
  • 119 I Andreiou, ‘Μνημειακοί τάφιϰοι περίβολοι της ΒΔ Ελλάδος’, in ΦΗΓΟΣ. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγ (...)
  • 120 C. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London 1976, p. 128.

27A potential artistic analogy for historical innovation may be found in Kerkyra at this time, with the start of a flowering of public and private art (monumental sculpture and vase painting) characterised by great stylistic eclecticism. Thus, for example, the end of the Transitional period into Early Corinthian was a period of bulk production of Corinthianizing pottery, some of which is so close to Corinthian in shape and decoration that it is tempting to speculate that it may have been intended to deceive western purchasers117. Equally, from the late seventh century onwards, monumental art was extensive and lavish, both in communal contexts (i. e. temples, where some six pediments were sculpted between ca. 580-500) and personal (notably funerary monuments, such as that of Menekrates). The eclectic range of stylistic influences shown on these monuments has long been recognised; Sicilian traits on the Gorgon pediment, for example, as well as on architectural revetments and temple layout, and a range of Latial, Corinthian and East Greek traits on both relief and free standing sculpture and architecture (the Etruscan or Latial form of the Menecrates monument, for example)118. The development of peribolos tombs may also have links with the local tradition in Epirus (compare, for example, the contemporary or slightly later cenotaph in the west cemetery at Ambrakia)119. Far from simply echoing Corinthian styles, Archaic Corfiote architecture and sculpture shows a very individual mixture of influences which may reflect an aristocracy casting widely for ideas to express its own status and identity, individually and collectively. Much has been made of supposed Euboian influences on Corfiote coinage, notably the “cow and calf” type; the image is, however, derived from Karystos not Eretria, and the Corfiote weight standard is poised between those of Euboia and Corinth (equivalent to four Corinthian drachmae or two thirds of a Euboian stater), and was perhaps intended, as Kraay suggested, to be readily convertible for the colonial market120. Market expediency may therefore have guided the choice of weight standard, but the choice of the cow and calf image surely belongs in the broader context of artistic experiment.

  • 121 Dakaris 1964; Morgan-Hall 1996, pp. 211-15; J. Hall Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge (...)

28One can only speculate about whether the self-conscious eclecticism evident in Corfiote material culture was paralleled in local history writing. It would seem quite plausible for the idea of an alternative early colonisation to be developed as part of an identity search (to some extent anti-Corinthian) either at this stage or later-perhaps, for example, towards the end of the fifth century, since Kerkyra opposed Corinth in the war which followed the dispute over Epidamnos in 433 (Thucydides 1. 24-55), and subsequently sided against the Syracusans and Corinthians in 413 (Thucydides 7. 58). We are hardly short of places to put it. Unlike many regions of the central and southern Greek mainland, where the ethnic origins of ancestral groups were central to local pedigrees or where the heroic exploits of “ancestors” most commonly refer to Herakles, in the north and west, ruling dynasties sought to forge links with the heroes of nostoi (as is clear from the genealogical mythology developed in Epirus from the fifth century onwards, for example)121. And as noted earlier, by the time of Apollonios Rhodios, episodes in the mythology surrounding Jason tie Kerkyra into the Argonaut saga. It is important to emphasize that the writing and re-writing of the myth-history of ethnic identity was a continuing process. Eretrians may have been selected simply because Euboian activity further west provided a real and clearly non-Corinthian model (especially as, according to tradition, Corinth had sided with Chalkis in the Lelantine war). Alternatively, and especially if the tradition developed late, the connection between Eretrians and Trojan nostoi may be relevant. But whatever the case, it seems unlikely that Euboians of any kind had anything much to do with the local concerns of Kerkyra.

Annexes

Additional abbreviations

Bakhuizen 1976 = S. C. Bakhuizen, Chalcis-in-Euboea. Iron and Chalcidians Abroad, Leiden 1976.

Bulle 1934 = H. Bulle, ‘Ausgrabungen bei Aphiona auf Korfu’, in AM 59, 1934.

Coldstream 1968 = J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, London 1968.

Courbin 1966 = P. Courbin, La céramique géométrique de l’Argolide, Paris 1966.

Crielaard 1995 = J. P. Crielaard,’Homer, history and archaeology’, in idem (ed.), Homeric Questions, Amsterdam 1995.

d’Agostino 1994 = B. d’Agostino,’Pitecusa. Una apoikia di tipo particolare’, in d’Agostino-Ridgway 1994.

d’Agostino-Ridgway 1994 = Β. d’Agostino-D. Ridgway (eds.), APOIKIA. Scritti in onore di Giorgio Buchner, AION ArchStAnt 1 (N. S.), 1994.

Dakaris 1964 = S. Dakaris, Οί Γενεαλóγιϰοι Μύθοι των Μολοσσῶν, Athens 1964.

D’Andria 1985 = F. D’Andria, ‘Documenti del commercio arcaico tra Ionio ed Adriatico’, in Magna Grecia, Epiroe Macedonia.’Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 5-10 ott. 1984’, Taranto 1985.

Descoeudres 1990 = J. -P. Descoeudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Oxford 1990.

des Courtils-Moretti 1993 = J. des Courtils-J. -C. Moretti (eds.), Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde egéen du VIe siècle av. J. C., Paris 1993.

Halliday 1928 = W. R. Halliday, The Greek Questions of Plutarch, Oxford 1928.

Jeffery 19902 = L. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford 19902 (rev. A. W. Johnston).

Kalligas 1982 = P. Kalligas, ‘Κέρκυρα, αποικισμός και έπος’, in ASAtene 60, 1982.

Kallipolitis 1972 = V. G. Kallipolitis, ‘Κεραμεική τῆς Αρχαιϰῆς Πρωτοϰορινθιαϰῆς περίοδου από την Κέρκυρα’, in Kernos. Studi in Onore di G. Balakakis, Thessaloniki 1972.

Kallipolitis 1982 = V. G. Kallipolitis, ‘Κεράμεικα Εύρήματα ἀπό την Κέρκυρα’, in ASAtene 60, 1982.

Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985 = I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, ‘Fremde Weihungen in griechischen Heiligtiimern vom 8. bis zum Beginn des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’, in JRGZM 32, 1985.

La céramique grecque = La céramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe siècle en Italie centrale et méridionale, Naples 1982.

Corintoe l’Occidente = Corintoe l’Occidente. ‘Atti del XXXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia’, Taranto 1994.

Magou-Philippakis Rolley 1986 = E. Magou-S. Philippakis-C. Rolley, ‘Trépieds géométriques de bronze. Analyses complementaires’, in BCH 110, 1986.

Menadier 1995 = Β. Menadier, The Sixth Century BC Temple and the Sanctuary and Cult of Hera Akraia, Perachora (diss. University of Cincinnati), 1995.

Morgan, Isthmia = C. Morgan, ‘lsthmia VIII. The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary’, Princeton forthcoming.

Morgan 1990 = C. Morgan, Athletes and Oracles, Cambridge 1990.

Morgan 1995 = C. Morgan, ‘Problems and Prospects in the Study of Corinthian Pottery Production’, in Corinto e l’Occidente.

Morgan 1997 = C. Morgan, ‘The Archaeology of Sanctuaries in Early Iron Age and Archaic Ethne: a Preliminary View’, in L. Mitchell-P. J. Rhodes (eds.), The Development of Poleis in Archaic Greece, London 1997.

Morgan-Hall 1996 = C. Morgan-J. Hall, ‘Achaian Poleis and Achaian Colonisation’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), ‘Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3’, Copenhagen 1996.

Papadopoulos 1996 = J. Papadopoulos, ‘Euboians in Macedonia? A Closer Look’, in OJA 15, 1996.

Payne 1940 = H. Payne, Perachora I, Oxford 1940

Piérart 1993 = M. Piérart (ed.), Aristote et Athènes, Paris 1993.

Popham 1981 = M. Popham, ‘Why Euboea?’, in ASAtene 59, 1981.

Pugliese Carratelli 1996 = G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), The Western Greeks, London 1996.

Ridgway 1992 = D. Ridgway, The First Western Greeks, Cambridge 1992.

Robertson-Heurtley 1948 = M. Robertson-W. Heurtley, ‘Excavations in Ithaka V’, in BSA 43, 1948.

Rombos 1988 = T. Rombos, The Iconography of Attic LGII Pottery, Jonsered 1988.

Siegel 1978 = L. J. Siegel, Corinthian Trade in the 9th through 6th Centuries BC (diss. Yale University), 1978.

Waterhouse 1996 = H. Waterhouse, ‘From Ithaca to the Odyssey’, in BSA 91, 1996.

Notes

1 I am grateful to Bruno d'Agostino and Michel Bats for their invitation to present this paper at the Centre Jean Bérard, and to Nicolas Coldstream, Francesco D'Andria, Jonathan Hall, Michael Trapp, Gillian Shepherd and Nancy Symeonoglou for their comments on earlier versions of the text.

2 FGrHist 424 F9.

3 Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 22-3.

4 P. Kalligas, ‘Κέρκυρα, ἀποικισμός ϰαι ἔπος’, in AS Atene 60, 1982, pp. 57-68; I. Malkin, ‘Inside and Outside: Colonization and the Formation of the Mother City’, in d'Agostino – Ridgway 1994, p. 3; A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Oμηρος ϰαι αρχαιολογία· η σύμβολη των Ευβοεών στη διαμορφώση του επούς’, in Με τον Ομηρο ϰαι την Οδυσσεία στο Ιόνιο, Kerkyra 1996, p. 44; A.J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Chicago 19832, pp. 110, 221.

5 See e.g. K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte I, Berlin-Leipzig 1924’[1893], pp. 247-8; K. Giesen, ‘Plutarch’s Quaestiones graecae und Aristoteles’ Politien’, in Philologus 60, 1901, pp. 468-9; Halliday 1928, pp. 63-5; Bakhuizen 1976. M. B. Sakellariou, ‘Quelques questions relatives à la colonisation Eubéenne en occident’, in Gli Eubei in Occidente,’Atti del 18° Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1979’, pp. 31-2, is one of the few scholars to refute Bakhuizen’s arguments in print. A key aspect of his acceptance of Plutarch is that the story illustrates attitudes to rights of return, and here he compares Herodotos’ account (4. 156-7) of Theraean settlement in Libya. Yet he does not address the problem of the different dates of the sources and the likely traditions behind them (Herodotos is not only closer to the events he describes, but explicitly compares Theraean and Libyan local traditions), nor does he comment on the very different structure of events described. Above all, the fact that Plutarch’s story may accurately represent a principle of conduct does not imply that every detail of peoples and places must be correct.

6 Bakhuizen 1976, p. 33.

7 Ps. -Demosthenes (VII. 32) refers to Pandosia, Bucheta and Elatea as colonies of Elis in the context of discussion of their reduction by Philip II in 342 BC; Batiai is mentioned by Theo-pompos (Harpocration s. v. ‘Elateia’, FGrHist IIB 115 F206). No other source calls these towns colonies and there is no evidence even for an approximate foundation date. Nonetheless, despite a similar absence of (post-Bronze Age) settlement evidence (before the 6th century in the case of Pandosia, the earliest of these sites, although its identification is disputed), attempts to argue for an early colonial presence by reference to the activities of other states bear comparison with arguments surrounding Kerkyra. Thus, Dakaris and Hammond argue that the most likely date for Bouchetion and Pandosia (given their advantageous locations) is LG/EA, around the time of Achaian colonisation in Italy. Dakaris and Lepore argue that Elean colonisation must predate Corinthian, since Ambracia and Anactorion would have given Corinth control of the region. S. Dakaris, Cassopaia and the Elean Colonies, Athens 1971, p. 134; N. G. L. Hammond,’The Colonies of Elis in Cassopaea’, in Αφιέρωμα εις την Ηπειρον εις μνημήν Χριστοῦ Σουλή (1892-1951), Athens 1956, p. 32; idem, Epirus, Oxford 1967, p. 427; E. Lepore, Ricerche sull ’Antico Epiro, Bari 1962, pp. 137-40. A more plausible explanation for Ps. -Demosthenes’ account has been advanced by D. Asheri, ‘I coloni elei ad Agrigento’, in Kokalos 16, 1970, pp. 79-88; see also S. Bakhuizen,’The Continent and the Sea: Notes on Greek Activities in Ionic and Adriatic Waters’, in P. Cabannes (ed.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’antiquité I, Clermont Ferrand 1987, p. 192, app. 1. Noting that a subtribe of the Kasso-paeans, the Elaeans, lived in the area, which was called Elaiatis (Thucydides I. 46. 4) and had a harbour called Elaia (Ps. -Skylax 30), Asheri suggests that the three towns were Elaean, and Ps. -Demosthenes deliberately misidentified them to imply that Philip II had transgressed the rights of the Peloponnesian Eleans (cf. Demosthenes 9. 34 on his attack on the Corinthian cities of Ambrakia and Leukas).

8 Halliday 1928, p. 15.

9 Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge 1994, pp. 76-7.

10 Giesen, supra note 4.

11 Rose, Frr. 512-13 (Corcyra), 551-2 (Methone).

12 Rose, Frr. 504-509.

13 Halliday 1928, pp. 79-83; Dakaris 1964, pp. 14-16 places the development of the “Neoptolemos” strands in Molossian royal mythology in the fifth century.

14 Morgan, Isthmia, ch. III. 3; Menadier 1995, ch. 5 for archaeological and historical discussion with bibliography. The vexed question of the contribution of Archaic and earlier Classical sources to fourth-century civic histories is well illustrated by the debate surrounding the use made by the author of the Athenaion Politela of Atthidographic sources, especially Androtion; see M. Chambers, ’Aristotle and his use of Sources’, in Piérart 1993, pp. 39-52; P. J. Rhodes, ‘“Alles eitel Gold?” The Sixth and Fifth Century in Fourth-Century Athens’, in Piérart 1993, pp. 53-64; P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela, Oxford 1981, pp. 5-30.

15 In view of the frequency with which Strabo cites Ephoros, see FrGHist 70.

16 FGrHist, Miiller i, 203, fr. Schol. Ap. Rhod. IV 1212, 1216.

17 It is tempting to read Alkman Fr. 164 «ϰαὶ Κέρϰυρος άγήται» as evidence for the existence of a native toponym Κέρϰυρ (on the analogy of ῎Iλλυρ/Iλλύριος), thus tracing the Greek tradition of indigenous non-Greek presence back to the seventh century. However, as Calarne stresses (Alcman, Rome 1983, 588), other interpretations are possible and caution is advisable.

18 F. Lasserre, ‘L’historiographie grecque à l’époque archaïque’, in Quaderni di Storia 4, 1976, pp. 113-42.

19 Dakaris 1964. G. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry, London 1969, pp. 22-4, 60-79; R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, Cambridge 1982, pp. 231-3, for discussion of chronology.

20 Bakhuizen 1976, 23 note 97. Steph. Byz. s. v.‘Εὔβοια’.

21 LIMC VI, i, s. v. ‘Melikertes’; Pausanias 1. 44. 7-8; Ovid., Fasti 6. 475-562, Met. 4. 416-562; J. G. Hawthorne, ‘The Myth of Palaemon’, in TAPA 89, 1958, pp. 92-8. The constructions placed upon the appearance of the name Makris have been exceptionally far-reaching. Thus, for example, Schol. Ap. Rhod. IV 1175 (τὴν δέ ἀντιϰρὺ τῆς Κερκύρας χώραν εἴρηε Μακρίδιην, ἴσως διὰ τό φϰηϰέναι ἐϰεῖ τοὺς Εὐβοεῖς) has been taken by R. Beaumont (’Greek influence in the Adriatic before the fourth century BC’, in JHS 56, 1936, p. 165) as evidence for pre-Corinthian settlement by Euboians on either side of the Corfu channel, despite the lack of any archaeological support.

22 G. Kinkel, Epicorum graecorum fragmenta, Leipzig 1877, pp. 198-203.

23 Halliday 1928, pp. 63-5. Thus, for example, I cannot accept Kalligas’ suggestion (1982, p. 63) that the supposed source of the epic spring Hyperia in Thessalian Pherai implies Thessalian involvement in the settlement of Kerykra.

24 Kalligas 1982, pp. 60-1; d’Agostino 1994, pp. 22-4.

25 BCH 89, 1965, p. 757, fig. 1; Kallipolitis 1972, pp. 53-7; Kallipolitis 1982, pp. 74-5, figs. 8-9.

26 1) Pyxis: BCH 89, 1965, p. 757, fig. 1. Cf. Robertson-Heurtley 1948, no. 385 (= Benton no. 818), although without flanking bands. A Late Geometric date seems most likely; Benton (’Further Excavations at Aetos’, in BSA 48, 1953, n. 818) places it in local EG, a phase re-assigned to LG by Coldstream 1968, p. 227 note 8, which better fits the shape’s derivation from the Corinthian MGII globular pyxis observed by Robertson. 2) “Pyxis”/kantharos: J. E. Coleman, Excavations at Pylos in Elis, (Hesperia supp. 21), 1986, C126, pl. 32 has flanking bands and a rather straighter profile; Robertson-Heurtley 1948, n. 319 is closer in profile but has a triple wavy line. 3) Lekanis: Kallipolitis’ proposed parallel (J. Boardman, ‘Early Euboian Pottery and History’, in BSA 52, 1957, pl. 1.31) is very loose indeed. The fabric and decoration rather suggest a much later (LC?) Corinthian import or local imitation. The shape and rim decoration are akin to ArchDelt 44, 1989 B, pl. 167γ, a lekanis from pithos burial 25 in Od. Kyprou 13, Garitsa. I can find no exact parallels for the arrangement of motifs, but the decoration is generically similar to, and as careless as, that of the many small lekanai found in large deposits in the Corinthia (e.g. the Great Circular Pit at Isthmia, K. Arafat pers. comm.). 4) The krater decoration has no exact parallels. The closest from a region within the Euboian ambit (although a local product) is the impressed ware krater, A. Cambitoglou - A. Birchall - J. Coulton - R. Green, Zagora 2, Athens 1988, pl. 193. Noting both the fabric and the decorative similarity to Corfiote prehistoric cordimpressed wares from Aphionas (e.g. Bulle 1934, fig. 7, pl. XII), I prefer Kallipolitis' initial assessment of it as a local piece in an as yet undocumented indigenous tradition.
Later Archaic Corfiote kilns have been published by K. Preka-Alexandri, Ά Ceramic Workshop in Figareto, Corfu', in F. Blondé - J.Y. Perreault (eds.), Les ateliers de potters dans le monde grec aux époques géometrique, archaïque et classique (BCH supp. 23), Paris 1992, pp. 41-52; the presence of earlier installations is implied by distinctive local wares (including Corinthianising) from the first quarter of the seventh century in the lowest levels at Palaiopolis. I am grateful to the staff of Corfu Ephoreia for discussing their continuing work in this area.

27 Accepting these sherds as Euboian, Kallipolitis 1982 dated them to the 7th century; on this basis, Plutarch remains the only source for pre-Corinthian Eretrian colonisation, and the sherds can at best indicate continuing communication thereafter.

28 A. Nanaj,’Butroti Protourban’, in Iliria 15, 1985, pp. 303-12; idem,’Kupa të Periudhave Arkaike dhe Klasike të Butrintit’, in Iliria 18, 1988, pp. 51-74. Pottery from the Helleno-Albanian excavations from 1991 onwards has been studied by the present author in collaboration with Karim Arafat and Astrit Nanaj.

29 In a preliminary article (C. Morgan-K. Arafat, ’In the footsteps of Aeneas: Excavations at Butrint, Albania, 1991-2', in Dialogos 2, 1995, p. 27), I suggested that the earliest non-Corinthian import at Butrint was probably a pendent semi-circle skyphos. In view of the fabric and otherwise eccentric pattern of framing bands, I now regard this as a local, perhaps Corfiote, product.

30 A. Nanaj, ‘Fortifications of the Chaonia’, unpublished lecture, Plovdiv, October 1990; idem, Vendhanimet Protoqytetare te Kaonisë (MA thesis, Tirana 1988). I thank Mr Nanaj for access to these works.

31 Significant traces from the eighth and early seventh century colony have been excavated mostly in the last few years and are largely unpublished and under study. Again, I thank the staff of Corfu Ephoreia and Prof. Martha Joukowsky for discussion of this evidence. Published references to early finds include: Kallipolitis 1972, pl. 20 nn. 3-4 (Palaiopolis); ArchDelt 18 B, 1963, p. 159 (Garitsa, Dalietou and Pouliasi properties); ArchDelt 21 B, 1966, pl. 331b (Mon Repos, votive); ArchDelt 25 B, 1970, pp. 322-35 (Odos Kyprou tomb 9 sect. B); ArchDelt 35 B, 1980, p. 355 (Stratta, Voutsela property); ArchDelt 43 B, 1988, pp. 338-40 (Figaretto, Mikalef property).

32 ArchDelt 38 B, 1983, pp. 251-2; K. Preka-Alexandri, ‘Ανθρωπολογική προσέγγιση ταφιϰών ευρήματων Κέρκυρας’, in Ανθρωπολογικά Ανάλεϰτα 49, 1988, 55-63. The community to which this cemetery relates has yet to be traced; finds are under study, but preliminary indications suggest similarities with Corinthian and local pottery from the opposite coast of Albania (cf. H. Hidri, ‘Prodhimi i qeramikës vendëse të Dyrrahut në shek. VI-II p. e. sonë’, in Iliria 16, 1986, pp. 187-95).

33 ArchDelt 24 Β, 1969, pp. 264-6 (Prakt 1939, 85-92); Arch- DelDelt 22 Β, 1967, pp. 367-9. Bulle 1934, pp. 147-240. Note also ArchDelt 26 B, 1971, pp. 350-1 (Ag. Andreias Lefkammi, Archaic pithos); ArchDelt 23 B, 1968, p. 315 (Kamara Kastellani, Archaic architectural members in Byzantine churches).

34 The duration of such wares is problematic since there are few securely related imports to serve as independent controls (especially in the post Mycenaean, pre-Archaic period). Thus in the case of Aphionas, published in Bulle 1934, at least some of the handmade impressed wares may merit re-examination and possibly down-dating. At Vitsa, such impressed decoration does not appear to continue beyond the 9th century (I. Vokotopoulou, Βίτσα, Athens 1986, pp. 225-6), while at Butrint, its presence alongside Late Geometric and Archaic Corinthian and Corfiote finewares in unpublished deposits may indicate continuity, although the deposits comprise mixed fill.

35 Kalligas 1982, p. 61.

36 Pithekoussai: J. N. Coldstream, ‘Euboean Geometric Imports from the Acropolis of Pithekoussai’, in BSA 90, 1995, pp. 251-67; although Euboian imports here form no more than 3% of the total assemblage (compared with, e. g. 16% Corinthian), Euboian influence on locally produced pottery is pervasive. By contrast, the Achaian colonies have been seen as cases where the mother-land had little influence (see Morgan-Hall 1996, pp. 202-14), although recent re-examination of a small number of finds from Sybaris and Poseidonia may indicate an Achaian stylistic connection. I thank Dr Silvana Luppino for this information and Prof. Coldstream for bringing it to my attention; see also J. N. Coldstream, ‘Achaian pottery around 700BC’, in ‘Πρακτικά του Β’ Διεθνους Επιστημονιϰοῦ Συνεδρίου διά την Αρχαίαν Ἕλικη. Αίγιον Δεϰεμ. 1996’, in press; the deepest levels of these cities have yet to be excavated.

37 A. di Vita, ‘Town Planning in Greek Sicily’, in Descoeudres 1990, 345-6. I thank Gillian Shepherd for information about the recent history of her home city.

38 J. B. Rutter, ‘Some Thoughts on the Analysis of Ceramic Data Generated by Site Surveys’, in D. R. Keller-D. W. Rupp (eds.), Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, Oxford 1983, pp. 137-42.

39 J. Allen, ‘The Archaeology of Nineteenth Century British Imperialism: an Australian Case Study’, in R. L. Schuyler (ed.), Historical Archaeology: a Guide to Substantive and Theoretic Contrihutions, New York 1878, pp. 139-48; B. Meehan, ‘Insights into the Colonial Process’, in Descoeudres 1990, pp. 200-201.

40 Among the extensive literature on ship depictions, see e. g. D. Gray,’Seewesen’, in ArchHom IIG, Göttingen 1974, and papers in H. Tzalas (ed.), 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity. Tropis II, Delphi 1987.

41 P. Pomey, ‘Navigation and Ships in the Age of Greek Colonization’, in Pugliese Carratelli 1996, pp. 133-40.

42 E. g. D’Andria 1985, pp. 353-4.

43 See e. g. papers in S. Dyson (ed.), Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism, Oxford 1985.

44 E. g. A. M. Swinton, Religion and Ancient Society: the Development of Public Cult in Cyprus from Late Cypriot I-Cypro-Archaic I (PhD thesis), Cambridge 1996, pp. 16-18; K. Kilian, ‘Mycenaean Colonization: Norm and Variety’, in Descoeudres 1990, pp. 445-67.

45 A. M. Snodgrass,’The Euboians in Macedonia: a new Precedent for Westwards Expansion’, in d’Agostino-Ridgway 1994, pp. 87-93; M. Popham, ‘Precolonization: Early Euboian Contact with the East’, in G. R. Tsetskhladze-F. de Angelis (eds.), Essays in Greek Colonization, Oxford 1994, pp. 30-33; Papadopoulos 1996, pp. 151-81. Papadopoulos’scepticism (166-7) about the reliability of Diodoros Siculos’and Strabo’s reports of Chalkidian colonisation is apposite in the context of this present discussion.

46 Popham 1981, p. 237; Ridgway 1992, p. 14.

47 R. Kearsley, The Pendent Semi-Circle Skyphos, London 1989, pp. 27-8; BCH 117, 1993, pp. 619-31; Lemos, in this volume.

48 Morgan 1990, p. 167, note 45.

49 See note 46 above. Morgan 1990, ch. 4; A. Jacquemin, ‘Repercussions de l’éntrée de Delphes dans l’amphictionie sur la construction à Delphes à l’époque archaïque’, in des Courtils-Moretti 1993, pp. 217-25.

50 A. Onasoglou, ‘Oι γεωμετρικοί τάφοι της Τραγάνας στην ανατολική Λοκρίδα’, in ArchDelt 36 A, 1981, pp. 1-57.

51 Siegel 1978, ch. 8, LG oinochoe cat. 222 (C-70-528), LGII skyphos 223 (C-70-455); both probably originated in domestic contexts. Siegel (pp. 229-30) also suggests that scaraboid seals found at Corinth (see note 71 below) were brought there by Euboian sailors; unfortunately it is impossible to establish the ethnic origins of their transporters. For 6th century sherds, see Siegel cats. 224-5.

52 Morgan, Isthmia, cat. 210.

53 ArchDelt 17 B, 1961/62, p. 53, pl. 56:a; Rombos 1988, cat. 86, cf. cat. 85 (Kerameikos 4271), compare pp. 214-221, tables 30-31; C. Morgan, ‘The Human Figure in Eighth Century Corinthian Vase Painting’, in P. Rouillard-F. Lissarrague (eds.), Céramique et peinture grecques, Paris forthcoming (note 4 on provenance; see also Morgan, Isthmia, ch. II. 3); J. N. Coldstream, ‘Some Problems of Eighth-Century Pottery in the West, Seen Through the Greek Angle’, in La céramique grecque, p. 32 note 71. Euboian: Rombos 1988, pp. 217-19. The theme was first introduced in Euboia by the Cesnola Painter, notably on his name krater (NY 74. 51. 965).

54 Especially noting the Argive and Attic derivation of other Corinthian horse depictions; Morgan, Isthmia, ch. II. 3.

55 Siegel 1978; this account is now almost 20 years old, but since excavation at Corinth since ca. 1980 has focused on much later periods, the figures cited still offer a reliable general guide.

56 For an attempt at such analysis of the Isthmian assemblage, see Morgan, Isthmia, chs. III. 2 and III. 3.

57 A new synthesis of distribution of Lakonian Early Iron Age pottery, to complement the work of Pelagatti and Stibbe on Archaic material, is much needed; I. Margreiter, Fruhe la-konische Keramik der geometrischen his archaischen Zeit (10. -6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.), Bayern 1988, pp. 17-18, 55, offers a brief summary. Coldstream 1968, pp. 215-19; Courbin 1966, pp. 553-5. A preliminary, but hardly exhaustive, review of more recent publications includes: M. E. Voyatzis, The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea, Göteborg 1990, chs. 3-5 (a votive pit containing Lakonian PG and early G was discovered in 1994: AR 42, 1995-6, p. 12); I thank Robin Hägg for information about LG Lakonian at Asine (for PG, see B. Wells, Asine II. 4, Stockholm 1983, pp. 64, 83, 98, 112, 122, 137-48); W. McDonald-W. Coulson,-J. Rosser, Excavations at Nichoria in South West Messenia III, Minneapolis 1983, pp. 61-259; W. Coulson, ‘Geometric Pottery from Volimedia’, in AJA 92, 1988, pp. 53-74; I. Dekoulakou, ‘Κεραμεική 8ου ϰαι 7ου αἰ. Π. Χ. από τάφους της Αχαΐας ϰαι της Αιτωλίας’, in ASAtene 60, 1982, fig. 29 (Manesi, Achaia).

58 Morgan-Hall 1996, pp. 169-81 for a summary of evidence with bibliography; C. Morgan,’Ethnicity and Early Greek States: Historical and Material Perspectives’, in PCPS 37, 1991, pp. 138-40.

59 L. Papakosta, ‘Παρτηρήσεις σχετικά με την τοπογραφία του αρχαίου Αιγίου’, in A. D. Rizakis (ed.), Αρχαια Αχαΐα ϰαι Ηλεία, Athens-Paris 1991, pp. 235-40; Morgan-Hall 1996, p. 176.

60 Prakt 1982, pp. 187-8; M. Petropoulos, ‘Τρίτη ανασκαφική περίοδος στο Ανω Μαζάραϰι (Ραϰίτα) Αχαΐας’, in ‘Πρακτικά Γ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν’, Athens 1987-8, pp. 85-6; idem, ‘Περίπτερος αψιδιωτòς γεωμετριϰòς ναὸς στο Ανω Μαζαράκι (Ρακίτα) Πατρῶν’, in ‘Πρακτικά Δ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδών’II, Athens 1992-3, pp. 141-58.

61 I am grateful to Anastasia Gadolou for this information.

62 For discussion and a summary of the now extensive bibliography, see Morgan 1995.

63 Payne 1940, 23-5.

64 I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, ‘Αφιερώματα μη Κορινθιακής προλευσέως στα Ηραῖα της Περαχώρας (τέλος 8ου-ἀρχη 7ου αὶ. Π. Χ.)’, in Πελοποννησιακά 19, 1985-6, pp. 369-75; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, pp. 225-30. I follow Kilian-Dirlmeier and Menadier in considering together all material of relevant date from the sanctuary without distinguishing between Payne’s “deposits”, since I believe the same, Corinthian, cult to have been operative throughout our period: C. Morgan, ‘The evolution of a sacral “landscape”: Isthmia, Perachora, and the Early Corinthian State’, in S. Alcock-R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods, Oxford 1994, pp. 129-31; Menadier 1995, ch. 4 for a full review and bibliography.

65 Payne 1940, pl. 12. 4 (MGII juglet), pl. 13. 18 (one-handled cup, a type found in datable contexts at Corinth from EG-MGII, and plentiful at Isthmia, where it may continue into LG); Prakt 1992, p. 294; Nancy Symeonoglou is currently preparing to publish the Aetos potters’ marks and I thank her for sight of her manuscript.

66 Coldstream 1968, p. 353 note 3; notes Payne 1940, pl. 15:3 as the only securely pre-LG Argive sherd. For Argive LG imports see Courbin 1966, pp. 550-1; J. Salmon, ‘The Heraeum at Perachora and the Early History of Corinth and Megara’, in BSA 67, 1972, pp. 191-2.

67 Payne 1940, pp. 53-77; for the closing date, see Coldstream 1968, p. 323.

68 Payne himself recognised certain instances of this (e. g. Payne 1940, p. 63), but explained them as intrusions.

69 Menadier 1995, pp. 93-100, noting similar objections to Payne’s “Fibulae Deposit” [Payne 1940, 73] which he regarded as a discrete entity within the “Geometric Deposit”.

70 Menadier 1995, pp. 99, 164-5. Italian bone and amber fibulae found at Perachora (T. J. Dunbabin (ed.), Perachora II, Oxford 1962, pp. 439-41) could date to the eighth century (since evidence from the Mazzola area at Pithekoussai confirms their manufacture at this time: Ridgway 1992, pp. 93-5) or the seventh (on the analogy of grave finds from Syracuse: H. Hencken, ‘Syracuse, Etruria and the North: Some Comparisons’, in A]A 62, 1958, pp. 270-2), but are unlikely to be later. Scarabs: T. H. James, in Perachora II, pp. 461-4 (noting his reassignment of 3 scarabs from the “Geometric Deposit”, cf. Payne 1940, pp. 76-7); A. F. Gorton, Egyptian and Egyptianising Scarabs, Oxford 1996, pp. 166-8 (Gorton’s confidence in the Perachora stratigraphy is, however, misplaced).

71 G. Buchner-D. Ridgway, Pithekoussai I, Roma 1993, pp. 767-811.

72 K. Dickey, Corinthian Burial Customs, ca. 1100-500BC (Ph. D. diss. Bryn Mawr College 1992), ch. 3, esp. pp. 78, 90-1; two of the four scarabs were found at Corinth in his graves LV-27 (MGII) and NC-109 (7th century), and the remaining two in an EC grave in the West Cemetery at Isthmia (IS-10).

73 I. Raubitschek, in Morgan, Isthmia, ch. I. 3. No com-paranda for the Perachora orientalia securely predate the Archaic Temple Treasury deposit, which does not date to the early years of the temple, need not have been formed long before the temple fire of ca. 470-450: E. Gebhard, ‘Small Dedications in the Archaic Temple at Isthmia’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence, Athens forthcoming.

74 Od Plastira 7: 14 LG pithoi, mostly robbed, including one with 4 large Boiotian fibulae and 2 Egyptian faience scarabs: ArchDelt 45 B, 1990, p. 135.

75 See note 58 above.

76 See note 59 above. The shrine’s location near the border with Arkadian Azania may also have resulted in direct or indirect imports via the central Peloponnese: Morgan 1997, pp. 189-91.

77 A. Gadolou, ‘Χάλκινα ϰαι σιδερένια όπλα από το ιερό στο Ανω Μαζαράκι (Ραϰίτα) Αχαίας. Μια πρώτη παρουσίαση’, in ‘Πρακτικά του Ε’ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιαϰῶν Σπουδῶν’, forthcoming. Here too, I am grateful to Ms Gadolou for information and permission to cite this paper in advance of publication.

78 Prakt 1993, pp. 73-110; AR 42, 1995-6, pp. 15-16.

79 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, pp. 230-35; K. Kilian, ‘Zwei Ital-ische Kammhelme aus Griechenland’, in Etudes Delphiques (BCH supp. 4, 1977), pp. 429-42; H. Philipp, OlForsch XIII, Berlin 1981, p. 263, cat. 988, pl. 59; H. -V. Hermann, ‘Altitalisches und Etruskisches in Olympia’, in ASAtene 61, 1983, pp. 271-94; M. Soldner, ‘Ein italischer Dreifussewagen in Olympia’, in A. Mallwitz et alii, OlBer IX, Berlin 1994, pp. 207-26. For discussion of relations between Olympia and the west: H. Philipp, Olympia, die Peloponnes und die Westgriechen’, in JdI 1994, pp. 77-92; A. Hönle, Olympia in der Politik der Griechischen Staatenwelt, Bebenhausen 1972, ch. 4. G. Β. Shepherd, Death and Religion in Archaic Greek Sicily: a Study in Colonial Relationships, unpublished PhD thesis, Cambridge 1993, pp. 101-96.

80 E.g. Popham 1981, pp. 237-9; Ridgway 1992, pp. 25-30, 121-138; D. Ridgway-F. Serra Ridgway, ‘Sardinia and History’, in R. H. Tykot-T. K. Andrews (eds.), Sardinia in the Mediterranean, Sheffield 1992, pp. 355-63.

81 Hints of early eastern contacts are slowly emerging in the south and central Peloponnese (e. g. three or four possible Cypriote sherds at the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea, a site with strong connections with Lakonia to the south; M. Voyatzis pers. comm.). Detailed conclusions must await further and extensive research.

82 Naxos: Lentini, in this volume; P. Pelagatti, ‘I più antichi materiali di importazione a Siracusa, a Naxos e in altri siti della Sicilia’, in La céramique grecque, pp. 113-80; idem, ‘Bilancio degli scavi di Naxos per l’VIII e il VII sec.’ in ASAtene 59, 1981, pp. 291-311; M. Lentini, ‘Le oinochoai “a collo tagliato”. Un contributo alla conoscenza della ceramica di Naxos di VIII e VI secolo a. C.’, in BdA 60, 1990, 67-82; eadem, ‘Un secondo contributo sulla ceramica di Naxos: idrie ed anfore’, in BdA 72, 1992, pp. 11-34. Pre-colonial Euboian imports: R. M. Albanese Procelli,’Contacts and exchanges in Protohistoric Sicily’, in T. Fischer-Hansen (ed.), Ancient Sicily, (Acta Hyperborea 6), 1995, pp. 31-50; AR 1976-77, p. 66 (Villasmundo).

83 3 Mycenaean sherds from Ermone: K. Preka-Alexandri, Κέρκυρα, Athens 1994, p. 19.

84 L. Bejko, ‘Some problems of the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Southern Albania’, in BIALond 31, 1994, pp. 105-26; compare Τ. J. Papadopoulos,’A Late Mycenaean Koine in Western Greece and the Adjacent Ionian Islands’, in C. Morris (ed.), Klados, London 1995, pp. 201-208. For a brief summary of Mycenaean finds in Italy with bibliography, see Ridgway 1992, pp. 3-8.

85 The only hint may eventually be provided by the lekanis with diagonal “string-like” decoration (see note 25 above), although, as noted, at present this lacks good parallels.

86 Thus, for example, Kalligas (1982, p. 67), suggests that the supposed Euboian colonisation used by Homer as a model can help to date the Odyssey. For a review of arguments and bibliography, see Crielaard 1995, pp. 236-8.

87 Among the growing body of studies of ancient navigation routes, see: F. Prontera, ‘Maritime Communications’, in Pugliese Carratelli 1996, p. 205; G. Vallet, ‘Les routes maritimes de la Grande Grèce’, in Vie di Magna Grecia. ‘Atti del II Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia’, Napoli 1963, pp. 117-35; F. Cor dano, La Geografia degli Antichi, Bari 1992 chs. I, II; The Mediterranean Pilot, III, London 1970 (9th ed.), ch. ΙΑ (see 20-21, fig. A for surface currents).

88 See notes 25, 85 above.

89 F. D’Andria, Archeologia dei Messapi.’Catalogo della Mostra, Lecce Museo Provinciale’, Bari 1990, pp. 28-48, noting also n. 114, Argive LGI krater; D’Andria 1985, noting also an Attic oinochoe (fig. 18) and an Attic or Cycladic amphora (fig. 17) from the same levels as Corinthian MGII imports. One or two Corinthian sherds from Otranto are conspicuously earlier (I place them in Early Geometric whereas Coldstream prefers Late Protogeometric-but such a distinction drawn on stylistic grounds alone is hardly significant). Their interpretation remains a matter of conjecture, since at present they seem separated from the main sequence of imports. A summary of evidence from the site is presented by D’Andria, in EAA II supp. 1971-1994, IV s. v. ‘Otranto’(the MGI Corinthian skyphos which marks the start of the main sequence of imports, but which was found in a lower layer than the MGII material noted above, is illustrated in fig. 207).

90 Reported by P. Pelagatti, ‘Le anfore commerciali’, in Corinto e l'Occidente, pp. 403-416.

91 F. D'Andria, ’Problèmes du commerce archaïque entre la mer ionienne et l'adriatique', in P. Cabannes (ed.), L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Épire dans l'antiquité I, Clermont-Ferrand 1987, pp. 35-8; idem, 'Il Salento nell'VII e VII sec. a.C. Nuovi dati archaeologici', in AS Atene 60, 1982, pp. 101-16 (D'Andria's observed [114-5] cases of similarity with Ithakan Corinthianising surely merit further investigation in the light of Symeonoglou's new evidence for Ithakan production and export); D'Andria 1985. pp. 321-76; idem, 'Corinto e l'Occidente: la Costa Adriatica', in Corinto e l'Occidente, pp. 457-508.

92 A plurality of contacts and local circuits of exchange has been hypothesized for the Archaic period, and this situation may well have pertained earlier: G. Semeraro, ‘Note sulla distribuzione delle ceramiche di importazione greca nel Salento in età arcaica. Aspetti metodologici’, in Archeologia e Calcolatori 1, 1990, pp. 111-63.

93 AR 1991-2, 86. Epigraphical evidence for a mid-fifth century date is provided by the tablet M526 from Dodona: S. Daka-ris, A. Ph. Christidis and J. Vokotopoulou, “Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone et les villes d’Épire du Nord”, in P. Cabanes ed., L’illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’antiquité II, Paris 1993, p. 60.

94 Bakhuizen 1976, 25, suggests that the scholarly constructs surrounding this name change may have given rise to the Euboian traditions cited.

95 Malkin, in this volume; Morgan 1995; C. Morgan, ‘Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and Western Greece during the Eighth Century BC’, in BSA 83, 1988, pp. 313-38; Symeonoglou in preparation (supra note 64); Crielaard 1995, p. 232.

96 Here I disagree fundamentally with the Aegean-centred viewpoint expressed most recently by Lady Helen Waterhouse (Waterhouse 1996, pp. 309-10).

97 Robertson-Heurtley 1948, p. 122; J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece, London 1977, pp. 187, 242; Waterhouse 1996, p. 313; d’Agostino 1994, pp. 22-4.

98 Morgan, Isthmia, ch. II. 3, Morgan 1995 for Ithakan influences on Corinthian vessels from Isthmia. Ithakan marks at Perachora, supra, note 64.

99 Coldstream 1968, pp. 227-8; the recent excavations do not alter this picture (N. Symeonoglou pers. comm.).

100 Robertson-Heurtley 1948, supra note 25.

101 C. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors, Lanham 1995, pp. 152-5.

102 Magou-Philippakis-Rolley 1986, pp. 121-36.

103 M. Maass, OlForsch X, Berlin 1978, cites all of the Polis tripods as parallels for Olympia pieces. The Argive and Corinthian style horse attachments identified by Rolley (supra note 101) also accord with the pattern of imports at contemporary Olympia. Further study of the local role of monumental bronze dedication across western Greece is clearly required. It may, for example, be significant that, by contrast with the change in tripod use evident in certain parts of the eastern mainland from the seventh century onwards (P. Amandry, ‘Trépieds de Delphes et du Péloponnèse’, in BCH 111, 1987, pp. 79-131), there is mounting evidence for the continued popularity of bronze vessels of many forms in the West. In the Ioannina Panepistimioupolis cemetery, for example, preliminary reports of Archaic finds displaced into the fill between graves indicate the presence of much sheet bronze including large bronze cauldrons: e. g. ArchDelt 35, 1980, pp. 301-3.

104 A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh 1971, figs. 42-4; Snodgrass’date of «probably later 9th century» may even be a little late.

105 S. Benton, ‘Excavations in Ithaca, III. The Cave at Polis, II’, in BSA 39, 1938-9, pp. 1-51.

106 9th century mould from Xeropolis: M. Popham-H. Sac-kett-P. Themelis, Lefkandi I, London 1979-80, pp. 93-5, pl. 12:B. This bears no real resemblance to any of the Polis pieces; the closest parallel is S. Benton,’The Evolution of the Tripod Lebes’, in BSA 35, 1934-5, n. 9, pl. 17e, which Rolley (Magou-Philippakis-Rolley 1986) dates to slightly before 750; he also identifies the horse attachment as Argive.

107 E. g. the Knossian style finial, M. Robertson, ‘Gold Ornament from Crete and Ithaca’, in BSA 50, 1955, p. 37, dated by comparison with finds from the Tekke tholos.

108 That panhellenism is a mode of behaviour not readily identifiable via the origins of votives alone is well illustrated by Kilian-Dirlmeier’s comparison (1985) of the votive assemblages of sanctuaries of very different function.

109 Pace Waterhouse 1996, p. 310. Local shrines in other parts of Greece have produced strikingly rich bronze dedications; e. g. the shrine of Enodia/Zeus Thalios at Pherai in Thes-saly (Morgan 1997 for discussion and bibliography).

110 Jeffery 19902, 230-1, 2 34, 451.

111 Jeffery 19902, 221-4, 248-51; R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia IV. Iscrizioni delle colonie achee, Milano 1996.

112 Symeonoglou, in preparation (supra note 64).

113 As Papadopoulos 1996 points out, the case made by Jeffery 19902 for the transmission of the Corinthian alphabet to Olynthos via Potidaea shows that even something as basic as an alphabet continued to be open to the political and economic vicissitudes of each era.

114 See e. g. Papadopoulos 1996, pp. 167-9, for critique of the notion of Euboian origins for Thracian calendars.

115 Morgan-Hall 1996, p. 213, for analogous reflections on Achaian and Lakonian colonial traditions.

116 In the absence of a local source for the large quantities of oolitic limestone used at Delphi, for example, it is reasonable to assume that it came from the closest known source, the Corinthia (C. Hayward pers. comm.); for the construction of at least 11 treasuries during the first half of the 6th century, see D. Laroche-M. -D. Nenna, ‘Etudes sur les trésors en Poros à Delphes’, in des Courtils-Moretti 1993, pp. 227-45. Pottery: Morgan, Isthmia.

117 See note 25 above; Morgan, hthmia.

118 B. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago 19932, pp. 221, 276-81, 338 with bibliography; her conjectural Euboian transmission of Sicilian influences lacks supporting evidence.

119 I Andreiou, ‘Μνημειακοί τάφιϰοι περίβολοι της ΒΔ Ελλάδος’, in ΦΗΓΟΣ. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Σωτήρη Δάκαρη, Ioan- Ioannina 1994, pp. 77-98.

120 C. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London 1976, p. 128.

121 Dakaris 1964; Morgan-Hall 1996, pp. 211-15; J. Hall Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997, pp. 40-2.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Carta dei centri messapici (disegno G. Carluccio).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/665/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 337k
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/665/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 108k
Légende Fig. 2. Apulia, IX-VIII century. The distribution of imported Corinthian and Euboean/Cycladic pottery by site (absolute numbrs). Reproduced by courtesy of Prof. F. D’Andria.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/665/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 132k

© Publications du Centre Jean Bérard, 1998

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540