Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SARA OWEN
out that there is no need to assume a standard thirty-year generational gap between the
father's supposed activities as oikist and the son's floruit as a poet.7 Archilochos' poetry
should be seen as fully contemporary with the colonisation of Thasos, the archaeological evidence showing Parian characteristics only from about 650 BC.8
In this article, I argue that the confusions surrounding this earliest period of Thasian
history are the result of the ways in which the literary material has been used to create
an account into which the archaeology must fit. This is not only a methodological point
concerning the best use of archaeological data, but a point about the way in which the
literary account itself has been created. I therefore follow the time-honoured structure
of addressing the literary evidence first, but not to create an historical frame for the
material evidence. Rather, my argument holds that the model of the colonisation of
Thasos which currently holds sway comes ultimately from ancient interpretations of
the poems of Archilochos as autobiographical. This is a general interpretative stance
which has long since been discredited among most critics of ancient poetry. However,
it is still accepted for some of Archilochos' poems due to the perception of literary
critics that there is some external evidence or justification for thinking that the 'Thasos
poems' are historical and autobiographical. Indeed, the use of Archilochos and his 'life'
as historical evidence by historians and archaeologists has not only had an impact on
how archaeological evidence has been interpreted, but has had a great effect upon
literary readings of the so-called 'historical' poems. In addition, I suggest that
assumptions about what Greek colonisation was like and indeed about what the
Thracians were like have not only coloured interpretations of the poems, but have also
affected a reconstruction of one poem in particular, which has then been used to back
up the initial assumptions. The result is a tangle of circular reasoning, due to divides
between and within disciplines, which has confused literary, historical and archaeological scholars for over half a century.
Dover (1964) suggests that lyric is linked with preliterate folk-song which, as generalisations drawn from the
anthropological comparisons indicate, is role-playing: the songs may refer to feelings and background situations
which are not necessarily that of the composer; a male may, for example, sing as a woman about to be married.
'' This reaction against the biographical 'I' has been followed by several critics to varying extents (e.g. West
(1974); Burnett (1983); Adkins (1985); cf. Slings (1990)). Barron and Easterling (1985)118 have pointed
out that 'even when "Archilochus" is the speaker there is no certainty that he was not assuming a role Archilochus the mercenary soldier, the boon companion, the sexual adventurer, etc.'.
|:
Slings (1990) fairly points out that the poems had little force if the characters within them were stock.
13
See e.g. Bowie (1986).
14
Graham (1978) 8 3 ^ ; Tarditi (1956) 128. Cf. the important work by Lefkowitz (1981) dismissing the
historicity of the biographies of ancient poets, which has been widely followed in literary circles.
15
'For if he had not published for himself such a reputation amongst the Greeks, we would not have learnt that he
was the son of Enipo, who was a slave woman; or that he left Paros through poverty and lack of means and went
to Thasos; or that when he arrived he was hostile to the people who were there, speaking ill impartially of both
friends and enemies. Nor would we have known in addition to these facts that he was an adulterer had we not
learned it from himself; nor that he was a sex maniac and a rapist; nor (what is even more disgraceful than this)
that he threw away his shield. So Archilochus did not prove to be a good witness in his own cause, leaving such
a fame and repute behind him', quoted in Aelian (Var. Hist 10.13). As Nagy (1979) 247 has noted, the use of
the name Enipo as his mother's name is significant: 'this very detail reflects on the function of Archilochean
poetry, in that Enipo is derived from a word used in Epos to designate blame'; cf. Treu (1959) 157. This passage
has been used to confirm that Archilochos went to Thasos, see e.g. Graham (1978) 75; cf. Jacoby (1941).
16
Lefkowitz (1981); cf. Fairweather (1974).
17
See p. 1 and n. 4 above. Despite an earlier faith in the authenticity of the foundation-oracle (Parke 1939).
who has been followed by Pouilloux (1954), in the second edition, Parke and Wormell (1956). placed it
in the years between the beginning of the Peloponnesian war and 373 BC for reasons of style. This bracket
fits nicely with Tarditi's (1956) apparently independent conclusion that all the oracles were concocted at
Delphi between c. 411 BC and the middle of the fourth century as part of a biography of the poet whose
greatness Delphi had 'foretold' and 'fostered'. For a fuller discussion of the foundation-oracle and other
oracles linked to Thasos see Graham (1978); cf. Owen (2000a) 135-8.
SARA OWEN
The Life has governed not only modern interpretations of the 'political' fragments,
but to some extent has affected the 'accident' of survival of the fragments we have.
These fragments have been filtered not through the concerns of the following centuries,
but seem to have been filtered according to what was thought to have been important
or representative about Archilochos: his 'satire' and his perceived involvement in the
colonisation of Thasos.
This filtering of the poetry of Archilochos is nowhere more evident than on the
inscriptions which preserve some of the so-called historical fragments - the Mnesiepes
inscription and the Monumentum Archilochi (or Sostratos inscription). These
inscriptions are reputed to have stood in the heroon of Archilochos, and have provided,
for some, 'a few harder facts' (so Burnett (1983) 16).
Let us take the earlier of these inscriptions first. The Mnesiepes inscription is a thirdcentury BC monument, fully published by Kontoleon in 195218 which tells both of an
oracle which led Mnesiepes to set up a temenos and an altar to Archilochos and then
gives a biographical account of the poet. This account mixes mythical material, such
as Archilochos' meeting with the Muses, which has been compared with that of Hesiod
(Theog. 31), and oracles, to Telesikles, foretelling the fame of his son, and to
Archilochos, telling him to settle on Thasos, and it includes extracts of Archilochos'
poems. Only the first part of the inscription is intact.
The Sostratos inscription,19 or Monumentum Archilochi, belonging to the first
century BC, contains a military history, based upon a third-century account written by
a man called Demeas - or so the text of the inscription claims. Whatever Demeas wrote,
and the text of the stone seems to indicate that it was a year-by-year narrative,20 the
text we have is a strange cross between an annalistic history and a form of narrative,
'incorporating quotations from poetry and prose aetiologies' best known from the
biographical genre (Lefkowitz (1981) 30). This chronological account or 'history' is
exemplified, or proved,21 by quotation of lines of Archilochos.
It is this second inscription which is the more extraordinary. The text has been badly
mutilated, and much has been lost. However what is striking about it is not the extent
to which we fail to understand the clear situations being discussed - this is natural
considering the fragmentary state of much of it - but the extent to which the explanatory
text around the fragments, the history which is proved by the fragments, is so loosely
connected to the poems themselves. This implies one of two things: that, as Lefkowitz
suggests, the history was concocted entirely from the poems of Archilochos and that
18
19
20
:i
Kontoleon (1952) 32-95, plates 1-4; also PAE (1950) 258ff.; BCH 74 (1950) 310; BCH 75 (1951) 122;
JHS1\ (1951) 249; Tarditi (1956).
The Monumentum Archilochi is published in full in IG XII(5).445. See Gerber (1999) for a more recent
text and English translation. See fig. 1 for a drawing.
I follow Treu's (1959) text; '... and Demeas recorded each of the deeds and the writings of Archilochos
by [archon], beginning with the first archon Eur[...' (A 1.6-8: my translation).
There are several points at which the inscription claims "the poet clearly states' (e.g. A 1.42). The phrases:
'... that he speaks the truth ...'(A 1.26) and 'the poet makes a record of him when he writes ...' (A 1.18)
are also used.
the text relied upon a great familiarity with the poems, or that a tradition existed outside
the poems which interacted with the poetry and affected the interpretation of the poems
in the Hellenistic period.22 Whilst these inscriptions should be placed squarely in the
tradition of the biography of Archilochos, therefore, the complexities of their reception,
complicating the reception of the poems on them, cannot be known. We can perhaps
only go as far as Fairweather (1974) in pointing out again that it was from the poet's
own writing that inferences about his life were most often made - and the inscriptions
do seem to represent the tradition of using the poet's own verse as fodder - but rejecting
the reduction of the traditions to the poems alone. Such a supposition however does
not increase our justification in using the extant poetry as historical evidence. In fact it
further complicates the reception of Archilochos and adds yet another layer to the
filtering of the poetry - the historical 'memory', and presentation, of its own past by
Hellenistic Paros.
Whatever else may be disputed, therefore, we may view the inscriptions as part of
a monumentalising of a past up to four centuries distant. Not only do I think that we
can see this as an ideological use of the past, but perhaps as part of an assertion of Parian
identity, of which Archilochos may have been an important part. The crucial issue is
that the material on the stones, and the fragments of Archilochos, must be analysed in
their context: as part of a Hellenistic monument. There is little to be gained in speculating on what elements of the story thereon might be 'true' or at least based in older
traditions: we are unjustified in claiming that it 'offers a nice blend of fantasy and fact'
(so Green (1998) 58).
The drawing of historical conclusions from the Monumentum Archilochi is common
and fraught with danger. We may note, for example, Pouilloux's claim, following Hiller
von Gaetringen's (1934) restoration, that the inscription refers to a thousand male
colonists. Graham has noted the parallel with fragment 101W 'For seven of the enemy
we overtook and slew I a thousand of us claim the kill' (trans. West).23 This example
incidentally gives a good instance of the way in which the satirical character of many
of the so-called historical fragments, as well as the issue of the biographical T , has
been ignored in the rush to mine them for data. It is to this that I turn next.
Lefkowitz (1981) 30: cf. Fairweather (1974); Nagy has argued for the existence of a general tradition of
Archilochos outside the biographical tradition, using the existence of the Archilocheion (or heroon of
Archilochos) in the sixth century BC. The construction of a heroon to Archilochos, named the
'Archilocheion' is referred to in the inscription of Mnesiepes. However, whilst there is little doubt that
the inscription of Mnesiepes and the Monumentum Archilochi originally stood in this heroon. it is clear
that knowledge of the heroon comes only from the inscriptions themselves. Despite the best efforts of
Kontoleon (1965) and Ohnesorg (1982) to reconstruct sixth- and fourth-century 'Archilocheions'
respectively, there remains no convincing archaeological evidence of either dates for the heroon building.
For further discussion see Owen (2000a) 133-5.
Pouilloux (1954) 26-7 uses this restoration to suggest that there must have been intermarriage with
Thracian women. Cf. Graham (1978) 85 n. 234. In both cases 'a thousand' sounds more like a generic
usage meaning 'a large number' rather than a specific number.
SARA OWEN
Thus. Burnett claims that '[Archilochos] moved between the island of Paros and its remote colony on
Thasos, living as a soldier and composing short songs' (Burnett (1983) 16), whilst Podlecki states that a
'somewhat more promising line of approach is Archilochos' known involvement with the colonizing
efforts of his native island Paros' ((1983) 32). Even more striking is Adkins' certainty concerning the
truth of this part of the biography. The line: '[t]hat Archilochos was born on Paros in the Cyclades and
subsequently migrated to Thasos in the North Aegean seems certain' (Adkins (1985) 33, my emphasis),
is followed by a passage in which Adkins agrees with Dover (1964) that Archilochos' poems are not autobiographical. The most surprising victim is West, who has shown himself to be the most sceptical of the
biographical T for the other poems. He states: 'A number of fragments refer to Thasos. the North Aegean
island that was colonized by the Parians: Archilochos spent part of his life there, and was involved in
fighting with Thracian tribes on the nearby mainland.' (West (1993) xi, my emphasis).
For such historical interpretations see e.g. Malkin (1998) 181 ('Archilochos, that true-to-life hardy midseventh-century poet-soldier and colonist, roamed the Mediterranean from Siris to Thrace and settled in
Thasos'); Malkin (2002) 215: Osborne (1996) 198; Graham (1978): Pouilloux (1964).
See Braund (1998) 289. Examples are 133W which subverts poems honouring fallen warriors and 5W in
which T boasts that he has thrown away his shield in combat with a Saian (one of the Thracian tribes).
Rather than point to the anti-heroic tone of this latter poem, many scholars have attempted to argue that
this poem indicates that Archilochos, and therefore the Parians, were engaged in fighting on the Thracian
mainland. Archilochos is generic in his references to the Thracians, as are many other archaic poets, and
one may suspect as Adkins and Campbell have suggested, that this particular tribal name, which later
(again according to literary evidence) appears on the coast opposite Samothrace, was used in order to
make the pun between 2aicov and efjeadwaa: Adkins (1985); Campbell (1983) 208. This reading also
solves the problem of the abundance of names of Thracian tribes used in connection with Thasos'
foundation, which Graham has taken to indicate a number of contacts on the mainland (1978) 85: here,
Saioi; Monumentum Archilochi A 1.51: Sapai; Call. Aetia fr. 104 (commentary): Bisaltai. See Graham
(1978)85.
For many, the connection of Archilochos with Thasos has been confirmed by the
mention of Glaukos son of Leptines in several of his poems:27 the man whose memorial,
dating to the end of the seventh century, seems now to have been uncovered on
Thasos.28 However, whilst the memorial may indicate (what few would deny) that
Archilochos wrote about common concerns and often lampooned those prominent in
Parian society, there is no need to see these poems as indicative of anything more.
The Thasos poems in general, as Graham has pointed out, represent meagre pickings
for the historian.29 Indeed, in general the contribution of the poems themselves has not
been in terms of solid historical data, but in terms of gleaning general attitudes of the
Parians towards the Thracians and to Thasos. However, if one views the general denigrating attitude in the context of the satirical nature of the extant verse, and the sneering
attitude towards Paros and Parians that could similarly be gleaned from some of the
poems,30 the dangers inherent in such interpretations should be apparent.
One poem, quoted on the MonumentumArchilochi, has been used above all the other
Thasos poems to justify the impression of a relationship of violence and disdain
between Thracians and Parians - fragment 93aW.
28
29
30
11
With full patronymic in fr. 131W; elsewhere: 15W, 96W, 105W, 117W. E.g. note the mock-heroic
tone of fragment 117W, which may be interpreted as a parody of the opening of an epic poem: TOV
KepoTr\daiT|i' deLSe YXavKov, 'Sing, [Muse], of Glaukos of the sculptured curl' (Rankin), or 'Sing
Glaukos of the sculptured curl' (Tarditi).
The lettering reads: 'I am the memorial of Glaukos son of Leptines. I It was the sons of Brentes who set
me up.' SEG XIV.565; BCH 79 (1955) 75-86.
Graham (1978) 85. Graham suggests that the poems imply that the colonisation of Thasos was a recent
event (e.g. 22W), that it could be deduced from the poems (at least in antiquity) that Archilochos went
to Thasos; that the colonists were drawn very widely (or that mercenaries were employed) (102W); and
that there was fighting (and perhaps other forms of contact) between the colonists and Thracians both on
Thasos (93aW) and on the mainland (5W). See also Pouilloux (1954) 30-3; Pouilloux (1964).
E.g. 'Let Paros go - those figs, that life at sea', 116W; 101W; 93aW; cf. 109W.
E.g. Danov (1969); Danov (1989); Graham (1978); Boardman (1999) 229-30; Isaac (1986); Pouilloux
(1964).
SARA OWEN
relations between the Parians and the Thracians. He dismisses all arguments for
peaceful relations between Greeks and Thracians largely on the basis of this fragment
and claiming that 'it is wrong to try to explain away the clear implication of the phrase
"Thracian dogs"' ,38
All the texts I have consulted give different views of the security of the reading
40
KUCTU39 The dots under the letters migrate to a worrying extent from text to text.
Tarditi, in fact places a dot under the sigma which, as the publications of the inscription
have shown, is the only letter which is secure and upon which all other scholars agree.
In order to understand why readings vary to such an extent, it is necessary to take a
brief look at the history of the restoration of this inscription, and pinpoint the origin of
the reading Kixn .
The text of this inscription was first published by Hiller von Gaertringen in 1900.
There he prints phi -gap- sigma iota (4>.ai). He gives a series of possible readings cf>r|ai,
4>aai, cf)epei, none of which he likes. In 1909 the inscription was published in IG XII(5).
445, with an accompanying drawing (fig. 1). In this publication Hiller von Gaertringen
accepts von Arnim's suggestion of cfxurji and it is clearly stated that phi and sigma are
certain. The text, which Diehl (1917) also accepted, then reads: cf)[io]cri pf|Ltv Swp'
ex wy dxripaTov xpucov, '... having gifts of pure gold for Thracian men ...' (my
translation).41
In 1934, however, Hiller von Gaertringen produced a publication in which <J>ouai was
replaced by KUQL. NO rationale was given for this change, and whilst it seems that it
was made after a new reading of the stone,42 a supplement by Maas (who was involved
in this rereading) to Hiller von Gaertringen's article brackets the kappa of KUQI (Maas
(1934): seen. 39 above).
It is thus far from clear how this new reading became so widely accepted. There
appears, from the available evidence, to be no justification for it on the stone. A good
squeeze of this section of the stone also gives no justification for the reading of a kappa
(fig. 2).43 In fact phi rather than kappa seems to be visible,44 and the adoption of KVO'I
10
SARA OWEN
involves the imposition of a very strong reading. The confusion in the main editions
also seems to indicate that the reading is not as secure as Hiller von Gaertingen presents
it.45
It is clear that the reading Kuoi is one which catches the imagination. However,
whilst this emendation has turned a damaged fragment into a vivid and lively poem,
its historical value is negligible. I suggest rather that the reading has more to do with
modern ideas concerning how Greeks should have felt about the Thracians than with
good epigraphic method. As Edith Hall has convincingly demonstrated for a poem of
Anacreon (a century or so later than the accepted date of Archilochos) the idea of 'the
barbarian other' cannot uncomplicatedly be projected back onto the archaic period.46
Indeed, as Jonathan Hall states, 'the crystallisation of a diametric opposition between
Greek and barbarian in the fifth century marks a distinct break from the Archaic period'
(Hall (1997) 45-6). Not only does the archaic period show little evidence of derogatory
stereotyping, but there is plentiful evidence for interaction in the archaic period between
Greeks and 'those who would later be categorised as barbarians'.47
Conclusion
To sum up, I do not wish to imply that we can deduce nothing from the verse of
Archilochos. In fact, I concur with the opinion that the context of Archilochos' verse
was symposiastic, and that in such a context reference was made to common concerns.
I also do not wish to imply that we cannot glean something of some aspects of
interaction with Thracians from the poems. There is clearly some reference to conflict
with Thracians. However, I would like to suggest that there are clear problems with the
way in which the poems have been used. First, the biographical context in which some
of the fragments have been transmitted (itself stemming from a misunderstanding of
the poet's T ) has led many historians and archaeologists to misinterpret the poetry as
'eyewitness accounts'. Second, and paradoxically, the contexts of much of the poetry
have been ignored. Much of the poetry we have has been quoted out of context, either
in later texts for the biographical 'facts' which they might provide, or on the inscriptions
to illustrate a particular version of Parian history. Thus the fragmentary nature of much
of the poetry is not accidental. In particular, choices were made in antiquity concerning
which lines would most add weight to particular versions of Parian history.
My only suggestion is that the existence of two Homeric parallels for this usage of KUCJI , (Tpwfjcn KUCTUV),
//. 17.255 and 18.179 which however must refer to the animals!), and the absence of a suitable parallel
for <t>coai (<J)ojg also being a heroic word for 'man' in Homer) led to this emendation. It may also be that
early twentieth-century attitudes towards 'the colonised' made it hard for 1930s scholars to accept that
Archilochos would use a heroic word for 'men' when referring to 'barbarian' Thracians.
Hall (1988), (1989); cf. Cartledge (1993).
Hall (1997) 46, where examples of such interaction are given. See also Burkert (1990) 5: Hall (1989)
21-5; Cartledge (1993) 38.
11
These problems of evidence have been exacerbated by the fact that the interpretations (even emendation) of these poems (what is emphasised, and what not, for
example) has, since antiquity, been influenced by contemporary concerns. The most
recent of these concerns has been the emphasis upon 'colonisation' as conquest - first
as a positive 'civilising' force, and more recently as something negative. The resulting
tendency to polarise has discouraged exploration of forms of interaction other than
violence. Indeed, the fragments of Archilochos could just as well be used to discuss
Parian sympotic knowledge of Thracians (names of tribes and local drinks for example),
as well as a reference to at least one episode of diplomacy (93aW). However, whatever
aspect of the literary picture one chooses to emphasise, it is not possible to go beyond
these vague shadows using only literary evidence. The archaeological records of Thrace
and Thasos, however, do indicate a more complex picture of varying interaction than
the monolithic oppositions that have been assumed, and indeed created, from the
current literary picture. I therefore conclude this article with a short summary of archaeological findings and a suggestion for more productive approaches.
Whilst the later classical period has been the main focus of archaeological research,
some interesting patterns appear when Thracian material also is studied. My study of
the Thracian Early Iron Age has brought out trends in the material culture of this area
that may lead to a greater understanding of the processes that led Parians to make
contact with this area at all. I have suggested elsewhere that the ninth and eighth
centuries saw the emergence of an elite, based upon the appropriation of iron, for whom
foreign materials and objects became an important status indicator.48 This prestige use
of imports can also be distinguished in the final phase of the cemetery at the Thracian
settlement at Kastri on Thasos.49 These general trends in Thracian material culture
indicate that social changes within Thrace were responsible for an increasing outwardlooking tendency and the initiation of contacts with other peoples.
The evidence on Thasos town shows an evolution of these same trends. The earliest
levels so far excavated in Thasos town have revealed evidence of an apsidal house with
mixed Thracian and Aeolian Greek ceramic.50 The earliest levels of the Artemision
reveal the same type of deposits.51 The existence of Greek material has been used by
some to suggest that this house and the first levels of the Artemision are Greek - indeed
Parian Greek.52 This suggestion is based upon the literary dating of the Parian
settlement and I concur with Graham that there is no evidence of Parian settlement until
the mid seventh century BC (Graham (1978)). The mixed material is however
interesting. I would not suggest that the presence of Aeolian material necessarily
48
49
50
51
52
The first wave of imports in the eighth century include Scythian, Baltic and Levantine as well as Greek
objects: Owen (2000a).
Owen (2000a) ch. 8.
The most accessible discussion of this sondage and the apsidal house is Graham (1978).
See Weill (1985).
Greek: Bernard (1964), Weill (1985); Thracian: Graham (1978), Graham (2001), Grandjean (1988);
Unsure: Koukouli-Chrysanthaki in AAA 3 (1970) 215 (Greek), but in AAA 6 (1973) 240 (Thracian);
Mixed?: Pouilloux (1964), cf. Pouilloux (1982).
12
SARA OWEN
implies the presence of Aeolians. However, the use of this imported material - as
everyday tableware - is in striking contrast to the prestige use of some of the same type
of imported ceramic in Kastri a few years earlier.53 This suggests that a high level of
cultural interaction with some Greeks was attained before the Parian settlement, and
that some 'Greek' material culture was no longer viewed as exotic imports, but as
normal everyday crockery.
However, of particular interest to me has been the extent to which the first evidence
of Greek settlers integrates into the existing landscape of Thasos. This is clearest in the
ritual sphere in which evidence of the reuse and/or continuing use of Thracian ritual
places is growing. In particular the Artemision54 and the Herakleion55 show evidence
of pre-Greek-settlement Thracian ritual activity - the former in terms of Thracian
offerings, the latter in terms of physical remains. The study of landscape offers archaeologists a way into how people structured their lives in physical terms, how they viewed
their world. The study of the ways in which Greek settlers integrated into existing
landscapes, or created new ones must therefore offer a fertile area for future studies of
Greek settlements 'abroad'.
Much still needs to be done, and the archaeological record of early Thasos town is
scanty. However, I hope that such approaches may begin to indicate (what we must
always have suspected) that cultural interactions between Greeks and Thracians in the
seventh century were rather more complex than the emphasis upon Archilochos
allowed us to believe. The archaeological evidence indicates first that the Greek
contacts with Thrace were part of a more general opening up of that society to foreign
contacts. Second, the interactions between Thracian Thasians and some Greeks were
intensive prior to Parian settlement. Lastly, the evidence from ritual sites seems to
indicate that there was at least some integration into existing ritual landscapes. The
complexity of the archaeological record of early Thasos therefore stands in stark
53
54
55
Bernard (1964). I refer here to G2-3 ware. Grey bucchero is also present as imports and locally produced
copies. See Owen (2000a) 157-9.
For the Artemision see Weill (1985). She concurs with Bernard (1964) that the sanctuary was a Parian
foundation, despite the lack of Parian ceramic (see esp. p. 210). Grandjean (1988) 436-41 suggests that
a Thracian cult on this site was taken over by the Parians. My identification of eighth- and early seventhcentury Thracian fibulae amongst the finds from the earliest levels of the Artemision must strengthen his
case. For illustration and argument see Owen (2000a) 160 & fig. 10.3. I am very grateful to Dr. Ch.
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ephor at Kavala, for giving me access to these materials in the Museum of
Thasas. I also thank Prof. Diana Gergova, of the Institute of Archaeology, Sofia, for discussing these
fibulae with me.
Pre-Greek cult has long been suspected in the Herakleion, in the form of a Phoenician sanctuary. No
archaeological evidence backs this up (see Graham (1978) 88-92 for the full argument and references).
However, the rock altar bears a striking resemblance to sacrificial stones - an element of the Early Iron
Age 'megalithic culture' of southern Thrace (see Owen (2000a) 162; ch. 5). In addition Graham has
suggested that the so-called bothroi (or post-holes) around the altar are of Thracian origin. They have
been persuasively interpreted as basins - another component of the Thracian megalithic culture - by
Najdenova (1990) 88. See Graham (2001) 379-84 for a detailed discussion. I have dated these aspects of
Thracian material culture to the eighth and seventh centuries BC (see Owen (2000a) ch. 5). See also Owen
(2000b) on the fourth-century reuse of a Thracian rock-cut tomb on the Thasian acropolis as the 'cave of
Pan'.
13
contrast to the simple monolithic oppositions between Greeks and Thracians of the
literary model.
Thus I make a plea for the ending of the circularity which has led to the Thasos
fragments being treated in a different way from the rest of the poems. There is no
literary, historical or archaeological reason why those poems that discuss warfare
should be seen as immune from the debate concerning the biographical T . There are,
however, good archaeological and literary reasons for questioning the context in which
we have received these poems. We also need to be aware of the many filters through
which the fragments - upon which the history of the foundation of Thasos is built have passed.
It is my belief that we have relied for too long upon literary evidence for our
frameworks. Whilst lack of communication with other disciplines, such as literary
criticism, has led to misunderstandings and vicious circles, communication must lead
us to question the efficacy of relying on these texts at all. It is therefore my belief that
a study of the Greek colonisation of Thrace must now attempt to break out of such
approaches and address the archaeology on its own terms. This is not a complete
dismissal of the use of literary sources for the study of the archaic period. I nevertheless
believe that the archaeological and the literary sources may at times illuminate quite
different elements of the ancient world. What is more, both stand in a complex relationship with the world we expect them to illuminate. Neither provides a simple mirror
of the society in question, both must be interpreted as a comment upon the society, and,
in the case of literature, upon historical events. Neither am I suggesting that archaeologists should ignore the literary evidence and simply get on with the business of
archaeology. Whilst I argue for the separation of literary and archaeological sources in
the study of Greek colonisation, another, perhaps paradoxical, conclusion has emerged.
To be better classical archaeologists, we must be better literary critics.
MAGDALENE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
SARA OWEN
14
SARA OWEN
A-ofKvM/>fpHisi*.* H P ^ n ^ tJ E l i i
E * ^ N A K HPATO rJ^p v r ON o
HEn-oiy^Ar'IcA-sAOTi-rO^
' *z Z A VTO / OIM EI" A r r n r1 Ynarr<Pi
Fig. / A drawing of the inscription published in IG X// ("5) 445 in 1909 by Hiller von Gaertringen.
a
o
a
>
z
a
s
m
I s - *>
'"
*>
*
>
--
. 2 /4 photograph of part of the squeeze held by Archiv der lnscriptiones graecae of the Berlin-Brandenburg Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin.
16
SARA OWEN
REFERENCES
17
Gergova, D. (1987) Friih- und Altereisenzeitlichen Fibeln in Bulgarien. PBF 14.7, Munich.
Goldhill, S. & Osborne, R. (1994) Art and text in ancient Greek culture, Cambridge.
Graham. A. J. (1978) The foundation of Thasos', BSA 73, 61-98.
(2001) Thasian controversies', in A. J. Graham Collected papers on Greek colonization, Leiden, 365-402.
Grandjean. Y. (1988) Recherches sur I 'habitat thasien a I 'epoque grecque. Etudes Thasiennes 12, Paris.
Green. P. (1998) 'The Muses' birdcage, then and now: Cameron on Apollonios Rhodios', Arion 6.2, 3rd
series. Fall 1998.57-70.
Hall, E. (1988) "When did the Trojans turn into Phrygians? Alcaeus 42.15'. ZPE 73. 15-18.
(1989) Inventing the barbarian: Greek self-definition through tragedy, Oxford.
Hall, J. (1993) "Ethnic identity in the Argolid 900-600 BC', PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
(1997) Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge.
Hiller von Gaetringen. F. (1900) 'Inschrift von Paros', Berlinerphilologische Wochenschrift 20, 606ff.
(1934) 'Noch einmal das Archilochosdenkmal von Paros'. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1 (1934-6) 41-56.
Irwin, E. (2000) 'Epic situation and the politics of exhortation: political uses of poetic tradition in archaic
Greek poetry', PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.
Isaac, B. (1986) The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest, Leiden.
Jacoby. F. (1941) 'The date of Archilochus'. CQ 35. 97-109.
(1950) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden.
Jones, S. (1997) The archaeology of ethnicity, London.
Kontoleon, N. M. (1952) 'Neai emypacf>ai Trepi TOU ApxiXoxou K Udpov'.Arch. Eph., 32-95.
(1965) 'Apxa'tKT) uKJ>6pog K TTdpou' in Xapia-rqptov eig '' AvaardaiovK,'OpXdvSov, To[iog A, Athens,
349-418.
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. (1996) npoToioToptKrj Odaos: Athens.
Launey. M. (1944) Le sanctuaire el le culte d'Herakles a Thasos, Etudes Thasiennes 1. Paris.
Lazarides, K. (1971) Thasos and its peraia, Athens.
Lefkowitz. M. (1981) The lives of the Greek poets, London.
Leo. F. (1900) 'De Horatio [epod. 10] et Archilocho', Gb'ttinger Preisverteilung vom 30. Mai 1900, lit
Luria, S. (1961) 'Zu Archilochos', Philologus 105, 178-97.
Maas. P. (1934) 'Die Fragmente des Archilochos auf dem parischen Denkmal', Nachrichten von der
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1 (1934-6) 56-8.
Malkin, I. (1998) The returns of Odysseus: colonization and ethnicity, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London.
(2002) 'Exploring the validity of the concept of "foundation": a visit to Megara Hyblaia', in V. B. Gorman
and E. W. Robinson (eds.) Oikistes: Studies in constitutions, colonies and military power in the ancient
world, offered in honour of A. J. Graham, Leiden.
Markov, K. (1978) 'La presence thrace a l'tle de Thasos du Vile au Hie s.av.n.ere,' Pulpudeva 2, 185-91.
Merkelbach. R. & West, M. L. (1974) 'Ein Archilochos-Papyrus'. ZPE 14. 97-113.
Miller, A. M. (1996) Greek lyric, Indianapolis.
Momigliano, A. (1971) The development of Greek biography, Cambridge. Mass.
Mulroy (1992) Early Greek lyric poetry, Ann Arbor.
Murray, O. (ed.) (1990) Sympotica, Oxford.
Nagy, G. (1979) The bestoftheAchaeans, Baltimore & London.
(1996) Poetry as performance, Cambridge.
Najdenova, V. (1990) 'Rock shrines in Thrace', in V. Velkov & P. Petrov (eds.) Studies in settlement life in
ancient Thrace. Sofia, 85-100.
Ohnesorg. A. (1982) 'Der dorische Prostylos des Archilocheion auf Paros'. AA, 97. 271-90.
Osborne, R. (1996) Greece in the making 1200-479 BC, London & New York.
Owen, S. (2000a) 'A theory of Greek colonisation: EIA Thrace and initial Greek contacts', PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge.
(2000b) 'New light on Thracian Thasos town: a reinterpretation of the cave of Pan', JHS 120, 139-43.
18
SARA OWEN
dpxaio-rrjTa.
Thessaloniki.
(1984) 'Les colons grecs de Thasos et les Thraces a l'epoque archai'que', Thracia Pontica 4. 69-77.
Slings, S. (1990) The poet's T in archaic Greek lyric, Amsterdam.
Snell, B. (1941) 'Das Erwachen der Personlichkeit in der fruhgriechischen Lyrik', Die Antike 17, 5-34.
(1982) The discovery of the mind in Greek philosophy and literature. New York. (Originally published as
Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europa'ischen Denkens bei den Griechen,
Hamburg, 1946).
Stella, L. A. (1986) 'Note archilochee (in margine alle nuove scoperte archeologiche)',Bo//. Class 7,81-100.
Tarditi, G. (1956) 'La nuova epigrafe Archilochea e la tradizione biografica del poeta', PP 11 122-39.
(1968) Archiloco: introduzione, testimonianze, sulla vita e sull'arte, testo critico, traduzione, Rome.
Treu, M. (1959) Archilochus, Munich.
Van Berchem, F. (1967) 'Sanctuaires d'Hercule Melqart', Syria 44, 73-109 & 307-36.
Weill, N. (1985) La plastique archaique de Thasos, vol. I, Etudes Thasiennes 11, Paris.
West, M. L. (1974) Studies in Greek elegy and iambus, Berlin & New York.
(1975) 'The dating of the Iliad', MH 52, 203-19.
(1980) Delectus ex iambis et elegis graecis, Oxford.
(1993) Greek lyric poetry, Oxford.
(1998) Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, Oxford (originally printed 1971-2).
Woodhead, A. G. (1967) The study of Greek inscriptions, Cambridge.