Herodotus On The Introduction of The Pho PDF

KLIO I 89 I 2007 | 2 | 291-319 |
Theodoros Mavrojannis (Nikosia)
Herodotus on the Introduction

of the Phoenician Alphabet to the Greeks, the Gephyraeans
and the Proto-Geometric Building at Toumba in Lefkandi
Eus. HE X 4,43
[. . .] ών ούδέ τό θείον λόγιον τήν μνήμην άπεσιώπησεν εύφρανθήσεται φάσκον
τά ξύλα χοΰ κυρίου, και αί κέδροι τοΰ Λιβάνου ας έφύτευσεν (Ps. 104,16)
All the recent reconstructions concerning the introduction of the alphabet to the Greeks
assign a secondary place to the tale of Herodotus.1 Even if they deal with it in some
regard, they do not accept the details of the literary tradition as presented by Herodotus.
It is significant that whenever the discussion focuses on the place where the transmis-
sion occurred, the only region not appearing among the possible candidates is Boeotia. 2
This is astonishing since Herodotus indicates that place as the point of the transfer of
the alphabet from the Phoenicians to the Greeks. For once, we would like to examine
1
L. H. Jeffery, Greek Alphabetic Writing, in: CAH 2 III.l, 1990, 819-820; B.S.J. Isserlin, The transfer of
the Alphabet to the Greeks. The state of documentation, in: Phoinikeia Grammata. Lire et ecrire en
Mediterranee (Actes du Colloque du Liege 1989), Namur 1991, 283—291; B.B.Powell, Homer and the
Origin of the Greek Alphabet, Princeton 1999, 5 - 1 0 ; R. Osborne, Greece in the Making (1200-600
BC), London 2000, 107-113; J.Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, London 2001, 128-133;
G. Maddoli, Testo scritto e non scritto, in: Lo spazio letterario dell'antica Grecia, Roma 2000; P. Carlier,
Όμηρος, Athens 2003 (fr.: Homere, Paris 1999), 57—60; E. Voutiras, Η εισαγωγή του αλφαβήτου, in: Α.-
F. Christidis (ed.), Ιστορία της Ελληνικής γλώσσας. Από τις αρχές μέχρι την ύστερη αρχαιότητα, Thessaloniki
2001, 210—217; A.Johnston, The Alphabet, in: V. Karageorghis/N. Ch. Stampolidis (eds.), Ploes... Sea rou-
tes. . . Interconnections in the Mediterranean. 16th—6th c. BC (Proceedings of the International Symposium
at Rethymnon, Crete 2002), Athens 2003, 263—276; cf. Th. Mavrogiannis, Herodotus and the Phoenicians,
in: V. Karageorghis/I. Taifacos (eds.), The World of Herodotus, Nicosia 2003, 62—65; as far as the earliest
studies concern, W Larfeld, Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik I: Einleitungs- und Hilfsdisziplinen. Die
nicht attischen Inschriften, Leipzig 1906, 329—342; A. Sigalas, Ιστορία της έλληνικής γραφής, Thessaloniki
1934, 3 2 - 7 1 .
2
Α. Mazarakis Ainian, Όμηρος και Αρχαιολογία, Athens 2000, 128—129, seems to be the exception, when he
points out, 129, that the alphabet could have been transferred from Boeotia to Euboia and from there
towards the West; and this would be reinforced by the recent findings at Oropos. However, the reason of
this statement does not rely on the text of Herodotus, which is quoted as complementary in n. 381, but on
the archaeological evidence from Oropos. Now, Herodotus indirectly indicates an iter going from Euboia to
Boeotia and not vice versa. On the other hand, the author, ibid., accepts that the strongest candidature is that
of Euboia as the earliest inscriptions derive from regions where there were Euboians, and in addition the
Euboians had the closest relations with the Phoenicians. But he considers the two regions as independent
candidates. Here, I am going to support the details of the assertion made by Herodotus: The Phoenicians
themselves (in fact, the Gephyraeans from Eretria and not the Euboians or the Boeotians) introduced the
alphabetical writing in Boeotia from the Strait of Euripus in Euboia and, after that, they taught it to the
Ionians; cf. Chr. Marek, Euboia und die Entstehung der Alphabetschrift bei den Griechen, Klio 75, 1993,
27-44.
Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Authenticated | 194.42.36.187
Download Date | 6/13/14 3:23 PM
292 ΤΗ. MAVROJANNIS, H e r o d o t u s
first of all whether Herodotus is right or not, before going on with the rest of the op-
tions at hand. 3
I think that the written tradition should be treated as prior to both the epigraphical
documents and the archaeological evidence, up to the point that it is proved to be a lie
or an alteration. In other words, Herodotus does not say anything about Syria, Cyprus,
Crete, Thera, Rhodes, Athens or Italy 4 , but intends to explain that the Phoenicians intro-
duced the technique of writing in Boeotia. Furthermore he tells us something about
Euboia and especially about Eretria; in this case we have to take some details into ac-
count.
The following question will probably arise: How and why is it possible to combine the
written tradition, actually an indirect source, with the archaeological remains of the 10 th
century BC, in Lefkandi? It is usually said to be better to keep these two different
classes of documentation separate, without attempting to cross-check them. Everything,
however, depends on the results of research. It seems to me that this is the path to take,
even if the results will not be immediately accepted. I have to say in advance that, if
Β. B. Powell had not suggested, that the man who introduced writing in Greece had a
name, that was Palamedes, I would probably have never undertaken the path that leads
to the comparison between Herodotus and Lefkandi. 5
I will try to prove that the so-called ,Heroon' of Lefkandi was the tomb of the leader
of the Gephyraeans of Herodotus, whose tombs were situated next to the Great Tomb
and that the man buried in the Great Tomb must be a hellenised Phoenician king, proba-
bly Palamedes himself.
3
Cf. L. H. Jeffery, Αρχαία γράμματα. Some ancient Greek Views, in: W C. Brice (ed.), Europa. Studien zur
Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Aegaeis, FS Grumach, Berlin 1967, 152—166; cf. Mazarakis Ainian
(n. 2) 128—129; Carlier (η. 1) 59; more recently for Cyprus, P. Aupert, Le depot archai'que du rempart nord
d'Amathonte. 2: Les premieres inscriptions grecques alphabetiques d'Amathonte, BCH 127.1, 2003,
107-121.
4
A. Kirchhoff, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets (Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin), Berlin 1863 (repr. Amsterdam 1970); J.N.Coldstream, Geometrie Greece,
London 1977, 300-301; Powell (η. 1) 1 2 - 1 8 ; Whitley (η. 1) 129-130; cf. A. W Johnston, The Extent and
Use of literacy. The Archaeological Evidence, in: R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth
Century BC. Tradition and Innovation (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish
Insitute in Athens, June 1981), Stockholm 1983, 64; especially for the case of Al Mina, M. Robertson, The
Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia IV. The Early Greek Vases, JHS 60, 1940, 2—21; J. Boardman, An inscribed
Sherd from Al Mina, OJA 1, 1982, 365—367; for Cyprus: N. Kourou, Εύβοια και Ανατολική Μεσόγειος στις
αρχές της πρώτης χιλιετίας, Άρχεΐον Ευβοϊκών Μελετών 29, 1990/91, 237—279; for Rhodes: Ο. Masson, A
propos de la plus ancienne inscription rhodienne (Inscr. Lindos, 710), AC 25/26, 1973/74, 428—431; the
evidence from Crete: M. Sznycer, L'inscription phenicienne de Tekke, pres de Cnossos, Kadmos 18, 1979,
8 9 - 9 3 ; J. W Shaw, Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1981, Hesperia 51, 1982, 164-195; for Athens:
M. Guarducci, L'epigrafia greca dalle origini al tardo impero, Roma 1987, 17—19; a general view of the
former documentation in M. Burzachecchi, L'adozione dell'alfabeto nel mondo greco, PdP 31, 1976,
82—102. On the new epigraphical discovery from Gabii-Latiunu, D. Ridgway, Greek letters at Osteria dell'Osa,
ORom 20, 1996, 8 7 - 9 7 {ante 775, grave no. 482). For the region of North-Syria: Marek (n. 2) 3 8 - 4 2 , who
prefers to locate the exchange of the alphabet in Al Mina: „Griechen aus Euboia lernten sie [die Alphabet-
schrift] während langjähriger Kontakte in der nördlichen Levante nach einer aramäischen Vorlage."
5
Powell (n. 1) 221—237; id., The Origins of Alphabetic Literacy among the Greeks, in: Phoinikeia Grammata
(n. 1) 357—370; contra: Osborne (n. 1) 109—112, who regards the theory of Powell as an „attractively
romantic claim". Powell's theory had already been worded by G. P. Goold, Homer and the Alphabet,
TAPhA 91, 1960, 272-289.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 293
A) H e r o d o t u s V 51—67: D e s c r i p t i o n
W h e n H e r o d o t u s r e f e r s t o t h e fall o f t y r a n n y i n A t h e n s i n 5 1 4 / 3 B C , a n d t h e c o n s p i r a c y
a g a i n s t t h e P e i s i s t r a t i d s ( c h a p t e r s 5 5 — 6 1 ) , h e c o n s i d e r s it n e c e s s a r y t o p r e s e n t t h e o r i -
g i n s o f t h e A t h e n i a n genos o f t h e Gephyraioi, s i n c e t h e killers o f H i p p a r c h o s descended
f r o m t h i s genos ( V 5 7 , 1 ) . 6 A c c o r d i n g t o o r a l t r a d i t i o n t h e genos o f t h e Gephyraioi h a d c o m e
to Athens f r o m Eretria (ώς μ έ ν αυτοί λ έ γ ο υ σ ι , έ γ ε γ ό ν ε σ α ν έξ Έ ρ ε τ ρ ί η ς τ ή ν ά ρ χ ή ν ) . 7
H e r o d o t u s g o e s f u r t h e r dealing w i t h this tradition a n d finds that the Gephyraeans were
a c t u a l l y P h o e n i c i a n s b y o r i g i n (ώς δέ έγώ ά ν α π υ ν θ α ν ό μ ε ν ο ς εύρίσκω, ή σ α ν Φ ο ί ν ι κ ε ς των
σ ύ ν Κ ά δ μ φ ά π ι κ ο μ έ ν ω ν Φ ο ι ν ί κ ω ν ες γ ή ν τ ή ν ν ΰ ν Β ο ι ω τ ί η ν κ α λ ε ο μ έ ν η ν ) , d e s c e n d a n t s of
t h o s e P h o e n i c i a n s w h o following C a d m u s arrived in the territory, w h i c h in t h e time o f
H e r o d o t u s w a s c a l l e d B o e o t i a . M o r e specifically, t h e G e p h y r a e a n s s e t d e d i n t h e r e g i o n o f
T a n a g r a ( ο ϊ κ ε ο ν δέ της χ ώ ρ η ς ταύτης ά π ο λ α χ ό ν τ ε ς τ ή ν Τ α ν α γ ρ ι κ ή ν μ ο ΐ ρ α ν ) . 8
T h e r e m a i n i n g p a r t o f c h a p t e r 5 7 ( V 57,2) d e s c r i b e s t h e e x p u l s i o n o f t h e C a d m e i a n s
f r o m B o e o t i a ( έ ν θ ε ΰ τ ε ν ) b y t h e A r g i v e s , as w e l l as t h e s u b s e q u e n t e x p e l l i n g o f t h e G e -
p h y r a e a n s t h e m s e l v e s b y t h e B o e o t i a n s (oi Γ ε φ υ ρ α ΐ ο ι ούτοι δ ε ύ τ ε ρ α ύπό Βοιωτών έξα-
ναστάντες). A s a result, t h e G e p h y r a e a n s w e r e f o r c e d t o migrate t o A t h e n s , w h e r e they
b e c a m e c i t i z e n s a n d w e r e e m p l o y e d b y t h e A t h e n i a n s in t h e i r r e l i g i o u s a f f a i r s ( Α θ η ν α ί ο ι
δέ σ φ ε α ς έπί ρητοΐσι έδέξαντο σ φ έ ω ν αύτών είναι πολιήτας, πολλών τ ε ώ ν καί ούκ
άξιαπηγήτων έπιτάξαντες εργεσθαι). A t this p o i n t , I have to e m p h a s i z e that w h a t follows
springs u p f r o m the p r o b l e m of the G e p h y r a e a n s ' origin and n o t f r o m the .Phoenicians
o f C a d m u s ' , w h o r e p r e s e n t a n earlier s t a g e o f P h o e n i c i a n s i n B o e o t i a ( 1 4 t h — 1 2 t h c e n t u -
ries B C ) . 9 H e r o d o t u s g o e s o n e s t e p f u r t h e r b y p r e s e n t i n g n o w h i s t h e o r y a b o u t the
6
Suda, s. v. Γεφυρίς· ξένη καί έπείσακτος. οί γάρ Γεφυραΐοι ξένοι και έπήλυτοι δντες Άθήνησιν φκησαν. οϋτως
Ηρόδοτος; Jessen, s.v. Gephyraioi, in: RE VIII. 1, 1910, 1228; F.Jacoby, Atthis. The Local Chronicles of
Ancient Athens, Oxford 1949, 159-162, 231, n. 32, 334, n. 23, 337, n. 40, 339, n. 53, 344, n. 89, 397, n. 45;
cf. A. Mommsen, Heortologie. Antiquarische Untersuchungen über die städtischen Feste der Athener, Leip-
zig 1864, 29—33, especially the note in 29—31; W W. How/J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (with
Introduction and Appendixes) II, Oxford 1928 (repr. with corrections), 25—26; cf. J. Toepffer, Attische
Genealogie, Berlin 1889, 297. For the Gephyraioi and Hipparchos, B. M. Lavelle, The Nature of Hipparchus'
Insult to Harmodios, AJPh 107, 1986, 318-320. The genos existed still in 37/6 BC, D.J. Geagan, Greek
Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 52.2, 1983, 160.
7
E.J. Bickerman, Origines Gentium, CPh 47, 1952, 69; Jacoby (n. 6) 397, n. 47.
8
Cf. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Oropos und die Graer, Hermes 21, 1886, 97—110, who supports the
view that there was an ancient connection between Eretria and Oropos, mainly based on Steph. Byz. s. v.
Γραία, Τανάγρα and Hdt. V 57, suggesting that the Graian territory of Tanagra, including Oropus, was once
Eretrian; C. Bonner, A New Historical Fragment, TAPhA 72, 1941, 2 6 - 3 5 ; D. W Roller, The Location of
Xenophon's Γραός στήθος, AJA 82.1, 1978, 107-109; id., A New Map of Tanagra, AJA 78.2, 1974,
152—156; in general D. W Roller, Tanagran Studies. I: Sources and Documents on Tanagra in Boeotia,
Amsterdam 1989; E. Fiehn, s. v. Tanagra, in: RE IV A2, 1932, 2154-2162.
9
Concerning the placement of Cadmos in the Mycenaean Age, see R. B. Edwards, Kadmos the Phoenician. A
Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age, Amsterdam 1979; cf. A. Schachter, Kadmos and the
Implications of the Tradition for Boiotian History, in: P. Roesch (ed.), La Beotie antique, Paris 1985,
145—153. Regarding the birth of a new-minted ,Phoenician culture' around 1200 BC, see W F. Albright,
The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization. Studies in the History of Culture, Menasha (Wise.)
1942 (= Essays in Honor of W F. Albright, New York 1961); in favour of the transformation of the preexi-
sting Canaanean culture, S. Moscati, La questione fenicia, in: Scritti fenici minori, Roma 1988, 19—42; on
the continuity between Canaanites and Phoenicians and the initial setting of this culture in the 19th c. BC.
cf. G. Garbini, Sull'origine dei Fenici, PdP 48, 1993, 321—331. The Phoenicians always called themselves
„Canaanites" (cf. Hecataeus on the biblical place name Xvö, FGrH 1 F 21; F 272) and the Greeks

contribution of the Phoenicians to Greek culture (V 58,1—3). But which Phoenicians

does he actually mean, the Phoenicians of Cadmus, the Phoenicians of Cadmus along
with the Gephyraeans or just the Gephyraeans?
At first (V 58,1), realizing that the passage from the Phoenicians of Cadmus to Cad-
meians (Καδμείοι) and Gephyraeans (Γεφυραΐοι) could possibly confuse his readers, He-
rodotus implies that among the Phoenicians of Cadmus were the Gephyraeans as well (oi
δέ Φοίνικες ούτοι οι σύν Κάδμω άπικόμενοι, των ήσαν οί Γεφυραΐοι, αλλα τε πολλά [.. .]
έσήγαγον διδασκαλία). This explanation seems to be important because Herodotus wis-
hes to clarify the details of the ,teaching' brought to the Greeks by the Phoenicians
(άλλα τε πολλά [.. .] έσήγαγον διδασκάλια). Much more important is the fact that he
emphasizes — at least indirectly — the involvement of the Gephyraeans in the Phoenician
didaskalia. Indeed, the genitive partitive των ήσαν οί Γεφυραΐοι does not mean strictly „of
whom the Gephyraeans were a part", but that the Gephyraeans descended from them (έκ
των ήσαν). 10 In this sense, a new light is shed on the problem. H e r o d o t u s s e e m s t o
h a v e a c l e a r i d e a a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e P h o e n i c i a n s o f C a d m u s and t h e
G e p h y r a e a n s b e l o n g t o t w o d i f f e r e n t c h r o n o l o g i c a l l e v e l s , but this does
not prevent him from giving the absolute priority to the Phoenicians of Cadmus.11
It is not possible to explain this apparent contradiction between the oral tradition
indicating Eretria in Euboia as the place of the Gephyraeans' origin and the results of
Herodotus' research, who links the Gephyraeans to the Phoenicians in Boeotia, in any
„Phoenicians" (see P. Chantraine, A propos du nom des Pheniciens et des noms de la pourpre, StudClas,
9—12). When Thucydides I 8 states και ούχ ήσσον λησταΐ ήσαν οί νησιώται, Καρές τε δντες και Φοίνικες
and attributes their elimination to king Minos (οι γάρ έκ των νήσων κακούργοι άνέστησαν ύπ αύτοϋ, δτεπερ
και τάς πολλάς αυτών κατφκιζε) he uses the term „Phoenicians" in the Bronze Age; in general for the
Canaanites, F. Hommel, Ethnologie und Geographie des Alten Orients (HdbA III. 1.1), München 1926,
157—177; on their religion see J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan. The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance
to the Old Testament, Leiden 1957.
10
See the use of the expression των ήσαν in V 57,1; V 58,1 and V 62,1. It has been translated as if the
Gephyraeans were quite contemporary to the Phoenicians of Cadmos. Of course there is only one literal
translation, but what after all is the meaning of the words „belonged", „etaient", „appartenevano"? D o they
not all imply a historical belonging and therefore descent? See A. D. Godley (transl.), Herodotus III, Cam-
bridge (Mass.)/London 1922, V 58,1: „These Phoenicians who came with Cadmos (of whom the Gephy-
raeans were a part) at their setdement in this country [...]", cf. V 57,1: „Now the Gephyraeans clan, o f
w h i c h w e r e t h e s l a y e r s o f H i p p a r c h u s [...]". Cf. S. G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, III,
London 1862, V 57,1: „The family of the Gephyraeans, t o w h i c h t h e m u r d e r e r s o f H i p p a r c h u s
b e l o n g e d , [...]"; V 58,1: „Now the Gephyraeans who came with Cadmus, a n d t o w h o m t h e G e -
p h y r a e i b e l o n g e d , [···]"; Ph.-E. Legrand (texte etabli et traduit), Herodote, Livre V, Paris 1989, V
57,1: „Les Gephyreens, d o n t e t a i e n t l e s m e u r t r i e r s d ' H i p p a r q u e " ; V 58,1: „Ces Pheniciens
venus avec Cadmus, d o n t e t a i e n t l e s G e p h y r e e n s , [···]". See also the translation of G. Nenci (a
cura), Erodoto, Le Storie. Libro V (La rivolta della Ionia), Milano 2 2000, 65, V 57,1: „I Gefirei, d e i q u a l i
f a c e v a n o p a r t e g l i u c c i s o r i d i I p p a r c o , come essi stessi raccontano, d i s c e n d e v a n o i n o r i -
g i n e da Eretria, ma, come io trovo facendo ricerche, erano Fenici, di quei Fenici che erano venuti con
Cadmo nella terra che ora e chiamata Beozia[...]"; V 58,1: „Percio questi Fenici che erano giunti con
Cadmo, ai q u a l i a p p a r t e n a v a n o i G e f i r e i , avendo abitatof...]"; V 62,1: „Dunque la visione in
sogno di Ipparco e d i d o v e v e n i s s e r o i G e f i r e i , ai q u a l i a p p a r t e n e v a n o g l i u c c i s o r i d i
I p p a r c o , tutto questo l'ho raccontato."
11
Nenci (n. 10) in his commentary, 240 (ch. 58) seems to believe that Herodotus is really referring to the
introduction of the alphabet by the Phoenicians of Cadmus and, consequently, that Herodotus could have
had information about the Linear Β writing of the Mycenaeans; more pertinent was H. Stein (ed.), Hero-
dotus III, Zürich/Hildesheim 5 1999, 56: „Irrig ist sie nur, insofern sie die Einführung an den fabelhaften
Kadmos knüpft und zunächst auf Böotien beschränkt."

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 295
other way. It is not necessary, however, to deem it as a contradiction, since it can be

treated instead as a line of two independent threads of the same tradition which are not
in conflict with each other. Eretria has nothing to do with the Bronze Age Boeotia and
not even with Euboia of the same period. O n the contrary, Lefkandi in the region of the
future Eretria has a lot to say about the ,Dark Ages' and the Phoenician trade in Euboia.
Still, the question remains how and when the Gephyraeans from Eretria came to incor-
porate themselves with the Phoenicians of Cadmus in Boeotia. This will be the central
argument in the second chapter of my paper.
Herodotus mentions the didaskalia brought into Greece by the Phoenicians settled in
Boeotia, without unfortunately referring to each one by name. H e does not specify the
nature of these teachings' (which is more preferable than ,learnings' 12 ) apart from the
fact that among those didaskalia were .letters'. H e continues saying that this was an ab-
solute innovation, since letters were unknown to the Greeks before this time, while all
the Phoenicians were accustomed to their use (ουκ έόντα πριν Έ λ λ η σ ι ώς έμοϊ δοκέειν,
πρώτα μέν τοΐσι καί απαντες χρέωνται Φοίνικες). T h e n he explains the historical develop-
ment of these letters, since after πρώτα he says that „as time went o n " (μετά δέ χρόνου
προβαίνοντος) the „sound" (φωνή) and the „ f o r m " (ρυθμός) of the letters were chan-
ged. 1 3 By maintaining the sequence of the tense (τοΰτον τόν χρόνον), he pinpoints that
Greeks and especially Ionians dwelled around the Phoenicians. These Ionians were
taught the letters by the Phoenicians and used them after having made certain changes
in the f o r m (οΐ παραλαβόντες διδαχή παρά τών Φοινίκων τά γράμματα, μεταρρυθμίσαντές
σφεων όλίγα έχρέωντο). Therefore, the letters were called Pboinikeia.14
Without any particular reason, Herodotus goes on to tell us (V 58,3) that „ f r o m the
ancient times o n " (άπό του παλαιού) the Ionians who received the letters from the Phoe-
nicians called the „papyrus-sheets" (βύβλους) — probably because the Phoenicians wrote
on papyrus — „skins" (διφθέρας), since they themselves used skins of goats instead of
papyrus. 1 5 He finishes his remarks (V 59,1) when he ascertains that he has seen „Cad-
12
Godley (n. 10): „among many other kinds of learning"; Rawlinson (n, 10): „introduced into Greece upon
their arrival a great variety of arts, among the rest that of writing"; Legrand (n. 10): „introduisirent chez les
Grecs, en s'etablissant dans ce pays, beaucoup des connaissances; entre autres celle des lettres"; Nenci:
„avendo abitato questa regione introdussero fra i Greci mold e svariati insegnamenti, e fra questi le lettere
dell'alfabeto." Cf. LSJ, s. v. διδασκαλεΐον, II, 3: „thing taught, science or art"; Hdt. V 58: „lessons"; Xen.
equ. 11,5: ημείς γε μέντοι τό κράτιστον τών διδασκαλιών νομίζομεν („lesson of riding"); cf. Stein (n. 11) 57:
„διδασκαλία hier = μαθήματα, sonst JLehrgeld'"; cf. Η. B. Rosen, Herodoti Historiae, vol. II (Libros V—IX
continens, indicibus criticis adiectis), Stuttgart 1997, 34, corregit on MSS cett. in έσήγαγον διδασκαλεία:
διδασκαλεΐον velut nomen quasi proprium vel terminus technicus sicut in aliorum sermone „locum docendi vel studiis
favendi" significat (ad quam rem cf. VI 27,2): διδασκαλία {quod vocabulum „lectionem" potius quam „säentiam" vel
„artem" denotat, qua re inductus Suid. διδασκάλιον etiam ,,αύτό τό μά&ημα" signtficare indicare videtur).
13
Nenci (n. 10) 241, is mistrustful of Herodotus' reconstruction: „Erodoto si abbandona qui a una suggestiva
ipotesi sulla evoluzione e trasformazione dell'alfabeto, che colloca nel corso di un certo lasso di tempo"; cf.
How/Wells (n. 6) 26: „H. seems unaware of the three most important modifications."
14
Nenci (n. 10) 242, comparing it with the inscription from Teos (c. 470 BC) where φοινικήια is mentioned;
cf. R. Meiggs/D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC,
Oxford 1988 (revised), no. 30, 11. 37—38, 65, and with the inscription from Crete, where a person in charge
of ποινικάζειν τε καί μναμονεύειν is mentioned; cf. L. H. Jeffery/A. Morpurgo Davies, ΠΟΙΝΙΚΑΣΤΑΣ and
ΠΟΙΝΙΚΑΖΕΙΝ. A new archaic inscription from Crete, Kadmos 9, 1970, 118-154.
15
Nenci (n. 10) 242—243; G. Maddoli, Testo scritto, op. cit., 20, on the di-pte-ra-po-ro / διφθεραφόρος =
„portatore di membrane di pelle per scrivere, e quindi scriba" (PY Fn 50) and the term di-pte-ra = διφθέρα
(PY Ub 1318; Sb 1315), which he compares with the .skins' of Herodotus. On the pinax ptyktos in II. VI

296 Τ Η . MAVROJANNIS, Herodotus
meian letters" (Καδμήια γράμματα) in the temple of Apollo Ismenios at Thebes in Boeo-
tia.16 These letters were engraved on tripods and they resembled the Ionian letters. To
prove this, he cites the text of three inscriptions (V 5 9 - 6 1 , 1 ) . " According to Herodo-
tus, the first one might originate from the time of mythical Laios, son of Labdakos, son
of Polydoros, son of Cadmos. Probably this is a mistake, since the text seems to be
written in Greek of the Archaic period. The second inscription is in dactylic hexameter
and he cannot discern the chronology, whether it has to be dated to the time of Oedi-
pus, the son of Laios, or not. The third inscription enables him to end the extract with
the chronology of the Gephyraeans. He identifies Laodamas with the son of Eteocles.
Then he states that at the time of Laodamas the Cadmeians were expelled by the Argi-
ves, and soon after that (ύστερον) the Gephyraeans by the Boeotians. The Gephyraeans
departed for Athens, where they founded sanctuaries separated from all the rest, like the
sanctuary of Demetra Achaia}%
It is obvious that in all the three inscriptions Herodotus operates anachronistically, by
projecting texts of the Archaic times (7th century BC?) into an earlier mythical era (12th
century BC?). However, the fact that he makes mistakes in the historical interpretation
of the inscriptions does not entail us to believe that he is also wrong when he touches
upon oral traditions like those of the clan of the Gephyraeans.
B) Structure and Comments on Herodotus' Passage
The didaskalia and the introduction of the alphabet

The problem of the introduction of the alphabet by the Phoenicians to the Greeks can
be divided into four fundamental questions:
1) How did the Greek alphabet come up and (consequently) what were the 22 sym-
bols of the Phoenician one?
2) Under which circumstances did the introduction occur and what purposes did it
serve?
3) Where did the introduction of alphabetical writing take place (in Greece or in the
Middle East)?
4) Where and when did the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks come
about?
168—169: [. ..] πότεν S o γε σήματα λυγρά, / γράψας έν πίνακι πτυκτφ Ουμοφθόρα πολλά, ibid., 22. Wooden
pinahes with waxed surface were already in use in the 14th c. BC (shipwreck of Ulu-Burun) and again in the
Archaic Times; cf. G. Papasawas, A Writing Tablet from Crete, MDAI(A) 118, 2003, 6 7 - 8 9 . Herodotus
connects the original writing of the Phoenicians only with papyrus and the use by the Greeks with the
smoothed skins of goats.
16 Nenci (n. 10) 243—244; cf. N. Papachatzis, Παυσανίου Ελλάδος Περιήγησις, 5. Βοιωτικά και Φωκικά,
Athens 1981, 78—82, esp. 80—81, n. 1; on the cult of Apollo Ismenios, A. Breiich, Paides e parthenoi
(Incunabula Graeca XXXVI), Roma 1969, 4 1 9 - 4 2 1 .
17 Nenci (n. 10) 243 (ch. 59). On the iscriptions mentioned by Herodotus, see S. West, Herodotus' epigraphi-
cal interests, CQ 89, 1985, 278—305. The fact that Herodotus recognizes the early Greek inscriptions as
derived from the Phoenician alphabet excludes categorically that he is referring in some way to the Linear
B. Herodotus refers to a bilingual inscription (Greek-cuneiform) in Bosphorus, IV 87,1. He was aware of
other writings, but probably he did not see Mycenaean tablets. If he considers the inscriptions from the
sanctuary of Apollo Ismenios to be written in ,Cadmeian letters', this is due to his idea that the early Greek
alphabetic writing was not far from the original Phoenician, because of his alphabetical nature.
18 Plut. mor. 378e: ώς διά τήν της Κόρης έν άχει [ . . . ] ούσης; Stein (n. 11) 59; Nenci (n. 10) 245.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 297
A satisfactory answer has not been given to any of the above questions. 19 It all becomes
more complicated when we confer our knowledge with Herodotus' text, which compri-
ses the most coherent written account in Greek. 2 0 Only here the proposal is put forward
that the Phoenicians undoubtedly introduced letters to the Greeks. During the prelimi-
nary description we saw that Herodotus does not say the Phoenicians gave the alphabet
to the Greeks in the form they had it in his time. 21 What he says is that the Phoenicians
brought in didaskalia, i. e. „teaching". O n e a s p e c t o f t e a c h i n g w e r e l e t t e r s . Were
those letters the 22 ones that the Phoenicians in fact used since the 11 t h century BC or
the Greek new series of letters testified from the first half of the 8 t h century BC on? 2 2
What were the elements of the didaskalia apart from letters?
The problem is serious, since with Herodotus a stratification of the tradition devel-
oped, of what the Greeks believed to be true. The written tradition consists of several
chronological levels — just like an excavation — which are particularly indiscernible. This
makes it difficult for anyone to distinguish what lies beneath the surface of Herodotus'
theory. A specialist of ancient historiography is aware of the fact that there is a turning
point, which is called written recording of an oral tradition. This record includes the
element of condensation of the past time and the subconscious transfer of the altera-
tions brought about to the historical events. Was Herodotus conscious of the historical
reality of the Phoenicians in Greece or did he just come up with a seemingly logical tale?
Does Herodotus convey reality and facts or simply his own idea of what happened?
What we can assure is that he had undertaken research.
19 Cf. A. Willi, Κάδμος άνέθηκε. Zur Vermittlung der Alphabetschrift nach Griechenland, MH 62.3, 2005,
162—171; cf. R. Wächter, Die Übernahme des Alphabets durch die Griechen: wie, wann, wo, durch wen und
wozu? Eine aktuelle Abwägung der Standpunkte, Argumente und methodischen Ansätze, in: N. Dimoudis/
A. Kyriatsoulis (eds.), Die Geschichte der hellenischen Sprache und Schrift, Altenburg 1998,345—358.
20 Nenci (n. 10) 241: The theory of Herodotus about the Phoenicians was accepted by Critias, fr. 1,9 Diehl3,
Aristot. fr. 501 Rose6, Diod. Ill 67,1; V 58,3, Lucan. Ill 220-224, Nonn. Dion. IV 259; H. Grassl, Hero-
dot und die griechische Schrift, Hermes 100, 1972, 169—175. On the ancient theories which mention
Cadmos and Danaos see Schol. Dion. Thr. (Gr. Gr. III), p. 183, 1 Hilgard (Rosen Τ 620, p. 34): Hecataeus
FGrH 1 F 20, Dionysius of Miletus FGrH 687 F l , Anaximander FGrH 9 F 3, Andron FGrH 10 F 9,
Apollodorus FGrHist 244 F 165. The theory that attributed the invention to Palamedes in Stesichorus
fr. 213 PMG, Euripides fr. 578 TGF, Gorg. Pal. 30; to Prometheus, Aischyl. Prom. 460-461; to Musaeus,
FGrH 1 F 24. The theory that the Greek alphabet had an Egyptian origin is found in Plat. Phil. 18c, Plat.
Phaidr. 274c—275a; Plin. nat. VII 192-193; Tac. ann. XI 14; cf. Jeffery (n. 3) 152-164.
21 I mean that they gave grammata and these grammata could have another role in the context of the Greek-
Phoenician emporia, the one of putting down signs as numbers in order to register economical transactions.
The dropped letters of the early Greek alphabet may constitute an indication to this direction, as Rawlinson
(n. 10) 215, n. 1, observed: „These are found, very distincdy, in the numerals, where they have the place
which belongs to them in Phoenician and Hebrew", in other words the: vau-bau (6), samech-sigma (60), qoph-
koppa (90). I tried to explain this view in an unpublished readings held at the University of Cyprus in 2000;
some remarks had already been made by B. Einarson, Notes on the development of the Greek Alphabet,
CPh 62, 1967, 1—24, who sees as a first use of writing the keeping of accounts; contra: M. Lombardo,
Marchands, transactions economiques, ecriture, in: M. Detienne (ed.), Les savoirs de Γ ecriture en Grece
ancienne, Lille 1988, 159—187; cf. J.N.Coldstream, Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean, in:
H. G. Niemeyer (ed.), Phönizier im Westen, Mainz 1982, 261—275, who believes in the determinant contri-
bution of the artisans.
22 On the development, historical and palaeographic, of the writing systems from the Proto-Sinaitic to alpha-
betical cuneiform Ugaritic and finally to the Phoenician alphabet, see G. Garbini, The Question of the
Alphabet, in: S. Moscati (ed.), The Phoenicians (Exposition at the Palazzo Grassi, Venice 1988), New York
1999, 101 — 119; on the early Greek alphabets see L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece
(revised with Supplement by A.Johnston), Oxford 1990.

In any case, the distance between facts and the representation of facts constitutes a
serious problem, because nowadays we presume that we are better informed than the
Greeks of Archaic times regarding the period of the so-called ,Dark Ages' (ca.
1 2 0 0 - 8 0 0 BC).23 This, in turn, means that the introduction of the alphabet c a n n o t be
u n q u e s t i o n a b l y based on Herodotus' text. On the other hand, it is naive to talk
over this matter without taking Herodotus into consideration. What, after all, remains
indisputable for Herodotus?
1) The Phoenicians of Cadmus, but more probably the Gephyraeans, introduced didas-
kalia and, in particular, grammata to the Greeks.
2) The introduction occurred in the land where the Phoenicians settled down, proba-
bly after having left Eretria, and that is Boeotia.
The term didaskalia is found only in Herodotus and in Xenophon. This rarity may denote
the uniqueness of the term. By all means, the αλλα τε πολλά [. . .] διδασκάλια ές τούς
'Έλληνας και δή και γράμματα (V 58,1: „other kinds of learning", „a great variety of arts",
„kinds of teaching") were numerous, and they were not only letters. Before probing the
nature of the didaskalia we have to ask what those „letters" were. Originally the term
grammata does not mean anything more than „signs", „written characters"24, which, first
of all, presupposes the existence of writable material or objects on which they were
written or carved. Only when Herodotus completes his report, he will refer to the let-
ters, which the Greeks decided to call Phoinikeia (V 58,2: οι παραλαβόντες διδαχή παρά
των Φοινίκων τά γράμματα, μεταρρυθμίσαντές σφεων όλίγα έχρέωντο, χρεώμενοι δέ έφάτι-
σαν, ώσπερ και τό δίκαιον εφερε έσαγαγόντων Φοινίκων ές την Ελλάδα, Φοινικήια κεκλ-
ήσθαι). In this sense „the letters", followed by the determinative article and having a
specific slightly modified sequence, comprise a Greek new written code.25 Nevertheless,
23 A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh 1971; cf. id., An Archaeology of Greece. The pre-
sent state and future scope of a discipline, Berkeley 1987, 170—210 (the chapter „The early Iron Age of
Greece"); I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society. The rise of the Greek city-state, Cambridge 1987; id.,
Archaeology as Cultural History. Words and Things in Iron Age Greece, Oxford 2000; D. Musti (ed), La
transizione dal Miceneo all'alto arcaismo. Dal palazzo alia cittä, Roma 1991; J. Whitley, Style and society in
Dark Age Greece. The changing face of a pre-literate society 1100—700, Cambridge 1991; id., Social diver-
sity in Dark Age Greece, ABSA 86, 1991, 341-365; id. (n. 1) 77-101; D. Boehringer, Heroenkulte in
Griechenland von der geometrischen bis zur klassischen Zeit, Berlin 2001; Osborne (n. 1) 19—40.
24 LSJ, s. ν. γράμμα: I. that which is drawn, pi. lines of a drawing, picture; II. written character, letter, pi. letters,
characters, the letters, the alphabet; 3. mathematical diagram; III. 2. papers, documents; cf. s. v. γράφω: I. scratch,
raze, represent by lines, draw, paint, draw maps; 3. math, describe a figure; II. express by written characters,
inscribe; cf. Frisk, s. v. γράφω: einritzen, schreiben; 2. γραφή: Ritzung, Gemälde, Schrift; 5. γραμμή: Linie, Start-
und Ziellinie, mit γραμμικός: linear, geometrisch; 6. γράμμα, gew. PI. —ατα: Linie, gew. Schreibzeichen, Schrei-
ben, Brief; cf. Chantraine, s. ν. γράφω: erafler, tracer, dessiner, ecrire, d'oü rediger un decret; γραφή: dessin,
peinture, ecrit, catalogue; γραμμή: est usuel au sens de ligne dans l'ecriture, le dessin, la geometrie.
25 Godley (n. 10): „who, having been taught the letters by the P h o e n i c i a n s , u s e d t h e m w i t h s o m e
f e w c h a n g e s of f o r m , and in so doing gave to these characters (as indeed was but just, seeing that
the Phoenicians had brought them into Hellas) the name of Phoenician"; Rawlinson (n. 10): „The Phoeni-
cian letters were accordingly adopted by them, b u t w i t h s o m e v a r i a t i o n in t h e s h a p e of a f e w ,
and so they arrived at the present use, still calling the letters Phoenician, as justice required, after the name
of those who were the first to introduce them into Greece"; Legrand (n. 10): ,,ils emprunterent les lettres
aux Pheniciens qui les leur avaint enseignees, et l e s e m p l o y e r e n t l e g e r m e n t m o d i f i e e s ; Et, en
les employant, ils les firent connaitre, comme c'etait justice, — puisque c'etaient les Pheniciens qui les
avaient introduites en Grece, — sous le nom de p h o i n i k e i a . " ; Nenci (n. 10): „I quali, avendo imparato,
grazie all'insegnamento dei Fenici, le lettere, d o p o a v e r n e m o d i f i c a t o l e g g e r m e n t e la Se-
q u e n z a, se ne servivano e usandole le chiamarono, com'era giusto, dal momento che in Grecia le avevano
introdotte i Fenici, ,lettere fenicie'."

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 299
before reaching that final point, the questions in Herodotus' text increase as the historian
escalates his remarks. He will handle the issue of the changes made to „the letters".
Who made the changes to „the letters"?

Having dealt with the topic of the introduction of didaskalia, Herodotus clearly states
that these letters had not been in use by the Greeks until the Phoenicians introduced
them (V 58,1: ούκ έόντα πριν Έλλησι ώς έμοΐ δοκέειν, πρώτα μέν τοΐσι και απαντες
χρέωνται Φοίνικες). The observation that all the Phoenicians (απαντες), the Phoenicians
of Cadmus as well as the Phoenicians of Phoenicia, still use these letters complements
the view that the Phoenicians initially introduced their alphabet. At this stage of the text
and after the word Phoinikes, the editors of Herodotus' text put a semicolon. 26 Even if
they used a comma to suggest a pause, we should regard the whole thinking as complete
only in the subsequent full stop (μετέβαλλον και τόν ρυθμόν των γραμμάτων). Therefore,
the following phrase is of momentous importance. This is the only point where there is
a clear reference to a metaboltPwhich took place „after some time" (μετά δέ χρόνου
προβαίνοντος) and it had to do with the phone and the rhythmos of the letters (αμα τή
φωνή μετέβαλλον και τόν ρυθμόν των γραμμάτων). The crucial question lies in the subject
of the phrase. Since Herodotus uses the verb meteballon, the subject may be the Greeks,
but the Phoenicians as well.
It is easy to assume that the Greeks made the change to the Phoenician letters, be-
cause he tells us that, as time went by, phone and rhythmos changed as well. However, the
syntax limits our choices, since the subject of the phrase are the Phoenicians, even if
Herodotus omitted it. 28 The Phoenicians introduced letters and the Phoenicians themsel-
ves changed the sound and the form of the Phoenician letters. At any rate, Herodotus
does not attribute either the introduction or the modification to the Greeks.
The Gephyraeans as descendants of the .Phoenicians of Cadmus'
It is, however, not clear whether the name Phoinikes indicates the Phoinikes of Cadmus or
their descendants. This is the decisive point of this paper, clarifying the chronology and
the exact place of the introduction of the letters to the Greeks. If those people were a
,new wave' of Phoinikes, the introduction must have taken place hundreds of years after
the mythical era of Cadmus. We have to dispel the idea that Herodotus speaks of the
introduction of the alphabet by the Phoenicians of Cadmus. This is merely the general
idea, but not what lies beneath it. Let's look closely at the syntax. In fact, at the begin-
ning of chapter 58 Herodotus indicates once again by using the particle δέ, the periphra-
26
See the Teubner edition by Η. B. Rosen, who reads the text as follows: πρώτα μέν, τοΐσι και απαντες χρέωνται
Φοίνικες, μετά δέ χρόνου προβαίνοντος αμα τή φωνή μετέβαλλον και τόν ρυθμόν των γραμμάτων; Legrand: και
απαντες χρέωνται Φοίνικες' μετά χρόνου προβαίνοντος; cf. C. Hude, Herodoti Historiae (recognovit brevique
adnotatione critica instruxit), Oxford 31927; Legrand (n. 10); Nenci (n. 10) who maintains the semicolon.
27
LSJ, s. v. μεταβάλλω: throw into a different position; II. turn about, change, alter τό οϋνομα, Hdt. VII 73:
[οί Βρύγες] τό οΰνομα μετέβαλον ές Φρύγας; Hdt. V 68: φυλάς δέ τάς Δωριέων [. . .] μετέβαλε [ό Κλεισθέν-
νης] ές άλλα ούνόματα; b. translate; III. undergo a change, Hdt. I 65: μ. ές εύνομίην.
28
A more general remark could reinforce this conclusion: Chapter 58 starts with the Φοίνικες as its subject
(οΐ δέ Φοίνικες ούτοι). After a long elucidation on „Introduction to the Greeks" by using the verb έσήγα-
γον, the first verb to encounter is μετέβαλλον. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that there is no
diversification between έσήγαγον and μετέβαλλον, as far as tense and mood are concerned, and there is no
other verb between them. Both verbs have the initial word Φοίνικες as subject.

sis οί δέ Φοίνικες ούτοι οί σϋν Κάδμω άπικομένοι [. . .] άλλα τε πολλά οίκήσαντες, which
he previously used in chapter 57 (oi δέ Γεφυραΐοι [. . .] ήσαν Φοίνικες των σύν Κάδμω
άπικομένων Φοινίκων). This happens because at the beginning of the whole extract he
has explained that the subject of the phrase οί Γεφυραΐοι were Φοίνικες των σύν Κάδμω
άπικομένων Φοινίκων ές γήν τήν νΰν Βοιωτίην καλεομένην. So, when in chapter 58 he
makes use of Φοίνικες as the subject of the phrase and he repeats οί σύν Κάδμφ άπικό-
μενοι, των ήσαν οί Γεφυραΐοι, he emphasizes by using the genitive partitive that the
Gephyraeans belonged to them. Therefore, he indirectly repeats the first subject of chap-
ter 57, οί Γεφυραΐοι. T h i s m e a n s t h a t w h a t h e h a s s a i d a b o u t t h e i n t r o d u c -
tion and the changes refers to the G e p h y r a e a n s and not to the P h o e n i -
c /- j 29
cians or C a d m u s .
Just how would the Gephyraeans be included in the .Phoenicians of Cadmus', since
their descendants claimed that they had come to Boeotia from Eretria? T h e only thing
we could add quite securely is that having settled in Boeotia in a second phase, probably
coming from Eretria or from the region of the latter Eretria, t h e G e p h y r a e a n s w e r e
c o n s i d e r e d t o b e d e s c e n d a n t s o f t h e P h o e n i c i a n s o f C a d m u s , by connect-
ing themselves to the former wave of Phoenicians in the region of Thebes. Whether
they did descend from them does not really matter. This explains the description of the
separate sending of the Phoenicians-Cadmeians and the Gephyraeans away from Boeotia,
as Herodotus composes two expulsions which took place in two different chronological
phases: T h e Phoinikes were expelled by the Argives, the Epigonoi of the ,Seven Against
Thebes', the Gephyraeans during a second phase (δεύτερα) by the Boeotians, w h o forced
them to find shelter in Athens. If we try to define this second phase, we have a chrono-
logical indication by Thucydides, when he talks about the emigration of the Boeotians as
follows:
I 12,3: Βοιωτοί τε γάρ οί νΰν έξηκοστφ ετει μετά Ιλίου αλωσιν έξ
'Άρνης άναστάντες ύπό Θεσσαλών τήν νΰν Καδμηίδα γήν καλεομένην
ωκησαν [. . .] Δωριής τε όγδοηκοστω ετει ξύν Ήρακλείδαις Πελο-
πόννησον εσχον.
Sixty years after the Troika and twenty years before the ,Dorian occupation' of the Pelo-
ponnese gives a date around the end of the 12 th century BC, when the first establish-
ment of the Boeotians in Boeotia should have occurred. 3 0 This excludes, in any way, that
Herodotus confuses the Phoenicians of Cadmus with the Phoenicians-Gephyraeans, who
should be put in the 11 th century BC. H e is perfectly aware of the relative chronology of
the Gephyraeans. H e r o d o t u s s p e a k s a b o u t l e t t e r s i n B o e o t i a i n t h e 1 1 t h ,
p e r h a p s in t h e 1 0 t h c e n t u r y B C , b u t c e r t a i n l y n o t in t h e a g e of C a d -
m u s . T h e .Phoenicians of Cadmus' are, in fact, the new Phoenicians in Boeotia, who
might be considered as the descendants of the .Phoenicians of Cadmus' age.
29
This also depends on the meaning of the phrase ήσαν Φοίνικες in ch. 57: ,Were' they together with the
„Phoenicians of Cadmus" from the very beginning? Or .were' they descendants of them?
30
A. W Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I, Oxford 1972, 117-118; cf. Strab. DC 2,3;
R. J. Buck, The Aeolic Dialect in Boeotia, CPh 63.4, 1968, 268-280, esp. 279; id., A History of Boeotia,
Edmondon (Alberta) 1979, 75—84, where the conclusion is established that the conquest of Boiotia and
the coming of the Boiotians began c. 1150—1100 BC and was completed by 950 BC.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 301
How could the Gephyraeans change the letters?
From the above we may deduce that it was the Gephyraeans who descended from the
Phoenicians of Cadmus and lived in Tanagra in Boeotia, and not at all the Phoenicians of
Cadmus or the Greeks, who introduced γράμματα and changed αμα xfj φωνή και τόν ρυθμόν
των γραμμάτων. This, in turn, presupposes that the Gephyraeans could understand the
Greek language, so they must have been bilingual, i.e. able to interpret from the one langua-
ge into the other. 31 This assumption is confirmed by following the sequence of Herodotus'
thinking, as, after having determined the change, he mentions the way the Greeks received
the letters (V 58,2: περιοίκεον δέ σφεας τά πολλά των χώρων τοΰτον τόν χρόνον Ελλήνων
"Ιωνες, ο'ΐ παραλαβόντες διδαχή παρά των Φοινίκων τά γράμματα, μεταρρυθμίσαντές σφεων
ολίγα εχρέωντο). Οί Φοίνικες being substituted by the accusative σφεας gives evidence of
the alteration of the missing subject into an object: περιοίκεον (the Ionian Greeks who
dwelt around) τούς Φοίνικες (that is the Gephyraeans-Phoenicians), „who after having re-
ceived the letters by the Phoenicians, used them with some few changes of form". I f t h e
G e p h y r a e a n s made changes and taught the Ionians how to use the let-
ters, they were already hellenised.
The phrase, which focuses on the change, denotes an inner development of the let-
ters, a modification carried out by the Phoenicians of Boeotia themselves. Since there is
the element of time (μετά δέ χρόνου προβαίνοντος), it is apparent that Herodotus esta-
blishes levels of a relative chronology. We can flake those levels off as follows:
1) Use of letters by all the Phoenicians
2) Introduction of Phoenician letters by the Gephyraeans-Phoenicians in Boeotia
3) Modification of the Phoenicians letters by the Gephyraeans-Phoenicians themselves
4) Teaching of the Phoenician letters by the Gephyraeans to the Ionian Greeks
Changes to phone and rhythmos of grammata
Let us now concentrate on the last particular problem, which has to do with the change
itself. The Phoenicians of Boeotia „changed the sound and the form of the letters".
Phone means the sound of the letters, i.e. the pronunciation of the words. 33 This signifies
31
Cf. Whitley (n. 1) 130-131; J. N. Coldstream, Mixed Marriages at the frontiers of the Early Greek World,
OJA 12, 1993, 89-105.
32
Godley (n. 10) who does not translate the πρώτα μέν τοϊσι και απαντες χρέωνται Φοίνικες: „and presently
as time went on t h e s o u n d a n d t h e f o r m o f t h e l e t t e r s were changed"; Rawlinson (n. 10): „And
originally they shaped their letters exactly like all the other Phoenicians, but afterwards, in course of time,
t h e y c h a n g e d b y d e g r e e s t h e i r l a n g u a g e , a n d t o g e t h e r w i t h it t h e f o r m l i k e w i s e o f
t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s " ; Legrand (n. 10): „puis, ä mesure que le temps passait, en meme temps q u ' i l s
c h a n g e a i e n t d e l a n g u e , l e s C a d m e e n s c h a n g e r e n t a u s s i la f o r m e d e c a r a c t e r e s " ;
Nenci (n. 10): „poi col passar del tempo, i n s i e m e al s u o n o , c a m b i a r o n o a n c h e la s e q u e n z a
delle lettere".
33
LSJ, s. v. φωνέω (φωνή): produce a sound or tone; I. speak loud or clearly, or simply, speak, give utterance;
I. speech, voice, utterance; 3. any articulate sound; also esp. of vowels sound (Plat. Tht. 203b; Aristot.
histan. 535a32); II. faculty of speech, discourse; 2. language (Hdt. IV 114; 117); 5. τά φωνήεντα vowels:
Plat. Crat. 393e: τοις άλλοις φωνήεσί τε και άφώνοις; b. consisting of vowels only, of a spell; cf. Stein
(n. 11) 55—56: „Da die hellenische Sprache ein von dem phönikischen sehr verschiedenes Lautsystem
hatte, so musste das ihr anzupassende Alphabet mehrfache Änderungen erfahren, die aber nur die phoneti-
sche B e d e u t u n g der Lautzeichen betrafen (z.B. Die Vokalzeichen α ε η ι ο waren im Phönikischen
Konsonantenzeichen), während die Formänderung (besonders die rechtsläufige Richtung statt der linksläufi-
gen) von dem Sprachwechsel unabhängig war."

that the letters were adapted from the Phoenician to the Greek language by changing the
sounds. Someone who was able to communicate fluendy in both languages could have
done that easily. The phone and the rhythmos changed simultaneously. The majority of the
commentators of Herodotus claim that rhythmos is the shape of the letters. 34 But accord-
ing to the Liddell-Scott it could also mean „arrangement" or „order". It is more
conceivable that he refers to a new series of letters, which were established to render the
Greek language. We should deduce that, through this, the Greek alphabet was created.
Thus, the creation of the Greek alphabet coincides with the change of phone and rhythmos
of the Phoenician alphabetical series. As I mentioned earlier the Phoenicians themselves
brought up these changes. R e f e r r i n g t o H e r o d o t u s o n e c a n s t a t e t h a t t h e
G r e e k a l p h a b e t h a s b e e n c r e a t e d by b i l i n g u a l P h o e n i c i a n s a n d n o t b y
G r e e k s , i.e. by Phoenicians who had already settled in Boeotia for an uncertain period
(μετά δέ χρόνου προβαίνοντος). Later this modified Phoenician system underwent another
modification by Ionian Greeks. Herodotus stresses a second change to the rhythmos
(Ελλήνων Ίωνες, οϊ παραλαβόντες διδαχή παρά των Φοινίκων τά γράμματα, μεταρρυθμίσαντές
σφεων όλίγα έχρέωντο). 36
First Conclusions
To sum up, the syntax and the logical structure of Herodotus' text consists of the follow-
37
ing:
1) Introduction of didaskalia (among them grammata) by the Phoenicians to the Greeks
2) Retrospection and explanation: a) First use of grammata by the Phoenicians; b) Mo-
dification of grammata by the Phoenicians of Boeotia
3) Analysis of the Introduction: a) The receiving of the grammata by the Greeks; b)
Reform and use of grammata by the Greeks; c) Naming of grammata as Phoinikeia
34
How/Wells (n. 6) 26, based on Aristot. metaph. I 4 (985b): ό μεν ρυθμός σχήμά έστιν — διαφέρει γάρ τό
μέν Α του Ν σχήματι; J. Scheighaeuser, s. ν. ρυθμός, in: Lexikon Herodoteum, 1840: modus, forma, figum;
mutaruntformam titteramm·, Stein (n. 11) 56—57: „Die Veränderung in der Z a h l der Lautzeichen und in der
R e i h e n f o l g e beachtet H. gar nicht"; contra: Nenci (n. 10) 67: „poi col passare del tempo, insieme al
suono, cambiavano anche la sequenza delle lettere"; cf. ibid. the commentary, 141: „Con φωνή si allude al
suono, mentre ρυθμός indica invece la ,sequenza' delle lettere." After all the changes in phone must have
touched upon utilisation of some phoenician consonants, aleph, he,yod, ayin, to represent the vowels a, e, i,
o, with the addition of u, e and ö, on the other hand, the changes in the sequence of the letters must have
led to the disappearance of certain sibillants and to the creation of a new sequence of alphabetical symbols.
35
LSJ, s. v. ρυθμός; ion. ρυσμός, III. generally, proportion, arrangement, order, s. v. ρυθμω τινι; cf. OA (Scho-
lia), Alkid. 1. Odyss. 672,26: νομίσματα δέ οΰ Φοίνικες έξεϋρον, λογιώτατοι και δεινότατοι όντες των βαρ-
βάρων; έξ όλοσφύρου γάρ ίσον μερισμόν διείλοντο, και πρώτοι χαρακτήρα εβαλον εις τόν σταθμόν, τό πλέον
και τό έλαττον. παρ' ών ούτος [i.e.: Παλαμήδης] έλών σοφίζεται τόν ρυθμόν.
36
LSJ, s. ν. μεταρρυθμέω, —ίζω: change the form or fashion of a thing, remodel, τά γράμματα (Hdt. V 58); 2.
esp. reform, amend (Xen. Oec. 11,2,2); II. make in a different form.
37
The best translation I could find is the one given in modern Greek by Voutiras (n. 1) 217. Giving my
translation in English, I still rely on the translation of Voutiras, despite making some changes to show how
I understand the passage of Herodotus: „These Phoenicians then who came along with Cadmos, from
whom the Gephyraeans descended, taught the Greeks many arts and among them the letters, which, in my
opinion the Greeks did not have before that. Initially, they were those (letters) which all the Phoenicians
use. But as time went by the [Phoenicians] altered slightly the pronunciation and the order of the letters.
The Greeks who dwelled at that time around most areas were Ionians. Having received the letters which
the Phoenicians taught them and changing again their order, they started using them. Since they used them,
they considered it right to call them Phoinikeia, because the Phoenicians had introduced them to Greece."

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 303
C) The Gephyraeans and the Bridge of Euripus between Euboia and Boeotia
If these Gephyraeans are placed chronologically in the 11th century BC, then their oral
tradition about Eretria cannot refer to Eretria of the 8 th century BC, but to another
unknown Eretria of the 11th century BC, since archaeology testifies the rising of an
organized setdement in the historical site of Eretria from ca. 750 BC onwards. 38 It is
therefore obvious that the oral tradition has conserved the memory of a former Eretria
or a distorted geographical site of Eretria. Which one is the Eretria of Herodotus in V
57,1? Let us face the first option. Is it the Eretria of the Gephyraeans to be identified
with the well-known Archaia or Palaia Eretria of Strabo? 39
At first glance, the existence and only the existence of a Palaia Eretria would reinforce
the reliability of the oral tradition. And on the other hand, the proposal to identify Palaia
Eretria with the Proto-Geometric site of Lefkandi 40 , 10 kilometres to the north of Ar-
chaic Eretria, in the area of the modern village of Vassiliko near the hill of Xeropolis,
would lead the research to this exact archaeological nucleus so as to regard it in some
way as the Eretria of the Gephyraeans.
Do we have any complementary evidence supporting the presence of Gephyraeans in
Lefkandi? It would be very easy to pursue this path, if the theory that recognizes the
Palaia Eretria of Strabo at Lefkandi did not prove totally groundless. In his description,
Strabo is unequivocal: Palaia Eretria is neither Lefkandi nor Amarynthos 41 (an ancient
site in Palaiochoria-Palaioekklisies, 12 kilometres south of Eretria of the 8 th century BC),
but the town of Archaic Eretria itself which was destroyed by the Persians in 490 BC
and reconstructed later at the same place. Read with sufficient care and attention, this
sheds light to the surprising fact, that there is no place in his geographical picture for
Lefkandi. 42 As H.-J. Gehrke has already observed, none of the places mentioned by Stra-
38
P. Auberson/C. Schefold, Führer durch Eretria, Bern 1972; A. Altherr-Charon/C. Berard, Eretrie: I'orgamsadon
de l'espace et la formation d'une cite grecque, in: A. Schnapp (ed.), L'archeologie aujourd'hui, Paris 1980,
229-230; C. Berard, Le premier temple de la cite grecque, AK 25, 1982, 9 1 - 1 0 0 ; L. Kahil, Eretrie ä I'epoque
geometrique, ASAA N.S. 43, 1981, 165-173; P. Ducrey, s. v. Eretria, in: EAA II, 1971-1994, 2. Supplement,
494-497.
39
K. Walker, Archaic Eretria. A Political and Social History from the earliest Times to 490 BC, London 2004,
73—89, regarding chapter 3 „Old Eretria (Lefkandi) during the Dark Ages and Early Iron Age (c. 1050 to
c. 750 BC)"; cf. Powell (η. 1) 15 and n. 35: according to an unpublished reading of E. Touloupa the ancient
name may have been Kyme; M. P. Popham/L. H. Sackett/P. G. Themelis (eds., with a contribution by
L. H. Jeffery), Lefkandi I. The Iron Age (ABSA Suppl. 11,1-2), London 1979-80, the name could be
Lelanton. Cf. D. Knoepfler, A la recherche de l'ancienne Eretrie, Paris 1972; C. Krause, Naissance et forma-
tion d'une ville, Histoire e Archeologie 94, 1985, 17—19, believes that Lefkandi was the ancient Chalkis
and Palaia Eretria is to be identified with the site of Amarynthos.
40
C. Schefold, in: Auberson/Schefold (n. 38) identifies Strabo's Old Eretria with Lefkandi, but in AK 8, 1965,
104, locates Old Eretria at the prehistoric site at Kotroni east of Eretria; cf. Walker (n. 39) 90—93, n. 3 and
13 with the first rejection of the hypothesis by P. Themelis; cf. M. Popham, s. v. Lefkandi, EAA III, 1995,
2. Supplement, 325-328.
41
Strab. X 1,10 (C 448): Έρέτριαν δ ' οί μεν άπό Μακίστου της Τριφυλίας άποικισθηναί φασιν ύ π ' Έρετριέως
[.. .]' Μελανηΐς δ' έκαλεϊτο πρότερον ή Ερέτρια και Άρότρια. ταύτης S εστί κώμη ή 'Αμάρυνθος άφ' έπτά
σταδίων τιΰ τείχους, τήν μέν οΰν άρχαίαν πόλιν κατέσκαψαν Πέρσαι σαγηνεύσαντες — ώς φησιν Ηρόδοτος
[Hdt. VI 31] — τούς ανθρώπους τφ πλήθει περιχυθέντων των βαρβάρων τφ τείχει (και δεικνύουσιν έτι τοϋς
θεμελίους, καλοΰσι δέ παλαιάν Έρέτριαν)' ή δέ νϋν έπέκτισται; see Α. Mazarakis Ainian, Geometric Eretria,
AK 30, 1987, 3 - 2 4 , in part. 2 1 - 2 2 .
42
Strab. X 1,8—12: Μετά δέ τόν Γεραιστόν Ερέτρια, [. ..] έπειθ'ή Χαλκίς, μητρόπολις της νήσου τρόπον τινά,
[...] (9) Ύπέρκειται δέ της των Χαλκιδέων πόλεως τό Λήλαντον καλοΰμενον πεδίον. [. ..] (10) [...] έν δέ τη
Έρετρική πόλις ην Ταμύναι ιερά τοϋ 'Απόλλωνος [.. .] Μελανηίς δ έκαλεϊτο πρότερον ή 'Ερέτρια και Αρότρια.

bo could correspond to the Proto-Geometric necropoleis of Lefkandi of the 11 th —10 th

centuries BC. One could say that it had never existed. And this is possible only if Lef-
kandi belongs to an earlier topographical stage that has been abandoned without leaving
traces of its name, probably because of a cultural caesura. Well, how could we explain the
Eretria of the Gephyraeans in Herodotus, if neither Palaia Eretria nor Eretria has any-
thing to do with Lefkandi?
In fact, it is only a question mal posee, a geographical imbroglio, which derives from our
necessity to give a name to the Proto-Geometric Lefkandi. 43 This is probably absurd,
since we cannot at any cost expect to have a precise name for a place or for a congrega-
tion of people in such an early period. 44 We may come to the conclusion in respect of
the name itself, as it is given in the plural: Gephjraioi,45 This simply means a group of
people who were not aggregated in a distinct settlement, but they lived scattered in
komai all around the region of the later Eretria before the rising of the organized poleis
of the 8 th century BC in Euboia and in Boeotia. Indeed, Strabo describes the sites of the
Eretrike chora6, and this might be the true sense of Eretria in the tale of Herodotus.
Consequently the Gephjraioi would come from the wider region of what in the time of
Herodotus was the Eretrike chora. So, the second option at hand, the one of the distorted
geographical site of Eretria has more chances to be the right one. T h e c o n f i r m a t i o n
is t o b e f o u n d , o n c e a g a i n , in t h e n a m e , w h i c h is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f s o m e -
t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a c i t y , or an ethnos, in o u r c a s e o f a b r i d g e .
Therefore, we have to proceed further towards the meaning of this apparent ethnic
name, always having in mind that Herodotus surprisingly underlines that as far as their
ethnic origin is concerned they were Phoenicians. Regarding a strictly ethnic denomina-
tion of the followers of Cadmus, we hear explicitly from Strabo again about Arabs who
followed Cadmus in the Eretrike chora, certainly in an earlier phase than the 8 th century
Ταύτης S έστί κώμη ή 'Αμάρυνθος άφ' επτά σταδίων τοΰ τείχους. Cf. H.-J. Gehrke, Zur Rekonstruktion anti-
ker Seerouten: Das Beispiel des Golfs von Euboia, Klio 74, 1992, 106—107; cf. D. Knoepfler, Argoura: Un
toponym Eubeen dans la Midienne de Demosthene, BCH 105, 1981, 289-329.
43
Could the name be Gephyra as Mommsen (n. 6) 29 (and the relative note), has suggested?: „Gephyräer
bedeutet die Einwohner eines Gephyra benannten Ortes. — Hiernach muss man noch einen zweiten Weg
gehen, in dem man voraussetzt, Gephyräer sei Appellativ." In fact, Herodotus claims that the Gephyraeans
occupied the area of Tanagra in Boeotia, which is located in the upper current of the river Asopus. Strabo
IX 2,10, ascertains: Καϊ ή Γραία δ έστί τόπος Ώρωποΰ πλησίον και τό ιερόν τοΰ Άμφιαράου [. ..] τινές δέ τη
Ταναγραίζι την αύτήν φασιν. ή Ποιμανδρίς 8 έστϊν ή αύτη τή Ταναγρική' καλούνται δέ και Γεφυραϊοι οΐ
Ταναγραϊοι The Tanagraioi had a second name: Gephjraioi. Stephanus Byzanaus, s. v. Γέφυρα, names Tanagra
Gephyra; cf. How/Wells (n. 6) 25—26. One settled in Tanagra, ,the men of the bridge' might have given to
Tanagra the name of their area of origin in Euboia. Therefore, it is possible that the first name of Lefkandi
was Gephyra. This is the only alternative solution, but it disagrees with the distance between Gephyra-
Lefkandi and the Bridge of Euripus.
Strabo did not mention Lefkandi because it had already been abandoned in the 8 th c. BC. Lefkandi belongs
to the earlier phase of the Eretnke chore, where the names of the settlements did not continue to exist.
After all, are we sure that Lefkandi had a name? Contra: Popham (n. 40) 326: „Ci e ignoto l'antico nome di
Xeropolis e cio puö stupire considerata l'importanza che il sito dovette assumere in certi momenti della sua
storia. Si e pensato sia a Calcide, sia a Eretria, sia (ed e forse l'ipotesi piü attendibile) a Lelanton."
45
Cf. Mommsen (n. 6) 2 9 - 3 3 , esp. the note in 2 9 - 3 1 .
46
Strab. X 1,10: έν δέ τή Έρετρική πόλις ήν Ταμύναι ιερά τοΰ Απόλλωνος· [.. .] εστι δέ και Οιχαλία κώμη της
Έρετρικης, λείψανον της αναιρεθείσης πόλεως υπό Ηρακλέους; unfortunately, he does not specify what the
Lelanton was, a plain or a city, and this prevents us from locating it in the Eretrike chora·. Strab. X 1,12: To μεν
ούν πλέον ώμολόγουν άλλήλαις αΐ πόλεις αύται, περί Ληλάντου διενεχθεΐσαι οΰδ^οΰτω τελέως έπαύσαντο [...].

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 305
47
BC B u t f o r n o w w e h a v e t o limit o u r s e l v e s severely t o t h e n a m e . S i n c e it d o e s n o t
s p e c i f y a city or an ethnos, it m i g h t signify s o m e t h i n g else. T h e n a m e Gephyraioi leads u s
firstly t o a s s u m e that t h e s e p e o p l e d w e l l e d near a gephyra, a bridge. N e v e r t h e l e s s , not
e v e n this m e a n i n g s e e m s t o b e certain. U n d o u b t e d l y , a bridge, a gephyra, e x i s t e d i n 4 1 1
B C in t h e area o f t h e Strait o f E u r i p u s , at the n a r r o w e s t p o i n t b e t w e e n E u b o i a and
B o e o t i a , in t h e r e g i o n o f classical Chalkis. 4 8 S h o u l d w e a s s u m e that a bridge like that
c o n n e c t e d t h e t w o r e g i o n s already i n t h e Early A r c h a i c p e r i o d ( 1 1 t h — 1 0 t h c e n t u r i e s B C )
and that t h e inhabitants o f this r e g i o n w e r e t h e r e f o r e called G e p h y r a e a n s ? 4 9 T h e p r o -
b l e m is s l i g h d y d e e p e r .
W e h a v e an e x c e l l e n t parallel o f Gephyraioi f r o m A r c h a i c R o m e . A s it is k n o w n f r o m t h e
antiquarian tradition t h e Latin n a m e pontifex derives f r o m pons and facere and refers n o t t o
t h e inhabitants a r o u n d t h e bridge o v e r T i b e r but t o t h e „ b r i d g e - m a k e r s " t h e m s e l v e s . 5 0 I n a
f a m o u s p a s s a g e o f t h e Life of Numa Pompilius Plutarch elucidates m a n y o f t h e religious and
t e c h n i c a l peculiarities o f t h e first bridge o v e r T i b e r in R o m e , t h e pons sublicius:51
Plut. N u m a I X : Ν ο μ α δέ καϊ τ ή ν των α ρ χ ι ε ρ έ ω ν , ους π ο ν τ ί φ ι κ α ς κα-

λ ο ΰ σ ι , διάταξιν και κ α τ ά σ τ α σ ι ν ά π ο δ ι δ ό α σ ι , καί φ α σ ι ν α ύ τ ό ν έ ν α τούτων
τ ό ν π ρ ώ τ ο ν γ ε γ ο ν έ ν α ι . κ ε κ λ ή σ θ α ι δέ τούς π ο ν τ ί φ ι κ α ς οί μ έ ν [ . . . ] οί δέ
π λ ε ί σ τ ο ι και τό μ ά λ ι σ τ α γ ε λ ώ μ ε ν ο ν των ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν δ ο κ ι μ ά ζ ο υ σ ι ν , ως ου-
δ έ ν α λ λ ' ή γ ε φ υ ρ ο π ο ι ο ύ ς τούς άνδρας έ π ι κ λ η θ έ ν τ α ς άπό των π ο ι ο ύ μ ε ν ω ν
π ε ρ ί τ ή ν γ έ φ υ ρ α ν ιερών, αγιοτάτων και π α λ α ι ο τ ά τ ω ν ό ν τ ω ν π ό ν τ ε μ γ ά ρ
οί Λ α τ ί ν ο ι τ ή ν γ έ φ υ ρ α ν ό ν ο μ ά ζ ο υ σ ι ν . ε ί ν α ι μ έ ν τ ο ι καί τ ή ν τ ή ρ η σ ι ν αύτ-
ή ς καί τ ή ν έ π ι σ κ ε υ ή ν , ώ σ π ε ρ ά λ λ ο τι των ά κ ι ν ή τ ω ν καί πατρίων ί ε ρ ώ ν ,
47
Strab. Χ 1,8: άμφότεραι δέ πρό των Τρωικών ύιί'Αθηναίων έκτίσθαι λέγονται" καί μετά τά Τρωικά Αϊκλος
καί Κόθος έξ Αθηνών όρμηθέντες ό μέν τήν Έρέτριαν ωκισε, Κόθος δέ τήν Χαλκίδα' καί τών Αΐολέων δέ
τίνες άπό της Πενθίλου στρατιάς κατέμειναν εν τη νήσω, τό δέ παλαιόν καί Άραβες οί Κάδμφ συνδιαβάντες.
48
Strab. IX 2,2: [...] επί δέ τών πρός Εϋβοια μερών έφ' έκάτερα τοΰ Εύριπου σχιζομένης της παραλίας — τή
μέν επί τήν Αυλίδα καί τήν Ταναγρικήν, τη S επί τόν Σαλγανέα καί τήν Άνθηδόνα — τή μέν είναι συνεχή
τήν κατ Αϊγυπτον καί Κύπρον καί τάς νήσους θάλατταν, τή δέ τήν κατά Μακεδόνας καί τήν Προποντίδα καί
τόν Έλλήσποντον. προστίθησι δέ δτι καί τήν Εΰβοιαν τρόπον τινά μέρος αυτής πεποίηκεν ό Εύριπος οϋτω
στενώς ών καί γεφύρι? συνεζευγμένος πρός αύτήν διπλέθρφ; cf. Strab. IX 2,8: [...] καί ό Εύριπος S έστί
πλησίον ό Χαλκίδος, εις δν άπό Σουνίου στάδιοι εξακόσιοι έβδομήκοντα. έστι S έτί αΰτφ γέφυρα δίπλεθρος,
ώς εϊρηκα' πύργος S εκατέρωθεν έφέστηκεν, ό μέν έκ της Χαλκίδος, ό S έκ τής Βοιωτίας, δίφκοδόμηται S εις
αύτούς σϋριγξ. Cf. Diod. XIII 47,3; Plin. nat. II 219; IV 63; IV 71; Pomp. Mela II 108; Aristot. meteor.
366a, 22; Liv. XXVIII 6,10; Suda, s. ν. Εύριπος.
49
How would we expect that bridge to be? The LSJ realizes that gephyra has two technical meanings: I. dyke,
dam (II. V 88), causeway through the sea (Pind. Ν. VI 39: πόντου τε γέφυρ' άκάμαντος έν άμφικτιόνων; I IV
20: καί γέφυραν ποντιάδα πρό Κορίνθου τειχέων); II. bridge (Hdt. IV 97: γέφυραν ζευγνύναι; I 75: επί τόν
Άλυν ποταμόν [...] κατά τάς έούσας γεφύρας διεβίβασε τδν στρατόν; cf. Frisk, s. ν. γέφυρα; Chantraine, s. v.
γέφυρα (II. V 88: „levees de terre qui contiennent un cours d'eau"). In our case, it cannot be a dyke, a dam
or a causeway but only a real bridge.
50
Dion. Hal. ant. II 73,2; Liv. I 20,5; Plut. Numa IX 4 - 5 ; Varro ling. V 83; Serv. Aen. II 166; Lyd. mens. Ill
21; J. P. Halle«, Over Troubled Waters: The Meaning of the Tide Pontifex, TAPhA 101, 1970, 219-227;
cf. G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, München 2 1912, 501—522, in part. 503, n. 2: „Der Name
ist seiner Zusammensetzung nach ebenso klar (denn trotz aller alten und neuen Versuche erweist sich jede
andere Ableitung als die von pons und facere als unmöglich [...]. Seine Entstehung liegt wahrscheinlich
schon in vorrömischer Zeit."
51
Plin. nat. XXXVI 100: Cjîä et buleuterium vacant aedifmum amplum, sine ferreo clavo ita disposita conßgnatione, ut
eximantur traves sine fulturis ac reponantur. Quod item Romae in ponte sublicio religiosum est, posteaquam Coclite Horatio
defendente aegre revolsus est, cf. XXXIV 22; cf. Liv. I 33,6; Dion. Hal. ant. III 45,2; F. Coarelü, s. v. Pons Subiidus,
in: LTUR IV, 1999, 112-113, it would be built by the king Ancus Marcius.

306 ΤΗ. MAVROJANNIS, Herodotus
προσήκουσαν τοις ίερεΰσιν. ού γάρ θεμιτόν, άλλ' έπάρατον ήγεΐσθαι

'Ρωμαίους τήν κατάλυσιν της ξύλινης γεφύρας. λέγεται δέ και τό πάμπαν
άνευ σιδήρου κατά δή τι λόγιον συγγεγομφώσθαι δια των ξύλων, ή δέ
λίθινη πολλοίς ύστερον έξειργάσθη χρόνοις ύπ Αιμιλίου ταμιεύοντος.
For Plutarch the pontifices were related to the oldest wooden bridge on Tiber, whose
construction was exclusively based on timber without the minimum use of iron joints. 52
But Varro from his side adds that in Rome the wooden pons sublicius was initially built
and frequently repaired by the pontifices themselves, those that Plutarch calls the gephyro-
poioi?3 The use of the noun gephyra along with the verb poiein suggests, without a doubt,
a reference to ,the builders of the gephyra<54. Both, Plutarch and Varro, agree that the
pontifices performed elaborate sacrifices on the sides of the Tiber in connection with their
original task of bridge-maintenance. In other words, the roman pontifices, the gephyropoioi,
had the custody and the maintenance of the bridge.
Servius and Johannes Lydus explain the name of the pontifices in a slightly different
way 55 , due to the holy rites in honour of Athena Gephyritis performed on a bridge over
the river Spercheius by the Gephyraioi. They identify the gephyropoioi-pontifices with the Ge-
phyraioi tout court. These might of course be the Gephyraioi of Athens and consequently the
Gephyraioi of Herodotus, who in Plutarch, in Varro and in a Roman context become quite
literally gephyropoioi. This means that the two terms are equivalent. T h e , b r i d g e - m e n '
a r e in f a c t t h e . b r i d g e - m a k e r s ' , t h e c a r p e n t e r s o f t h e w o o d e n b r i d g e i n
R o m e a n d in t h e E u r i p u s w h o , a f t e r t h i s , c o n t i n u e d t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r the m a i n t e n a n c e of the b r i d g e .
The parallel between Rome and Greece seems not to be random at all. The pons sub-
licius led directly from the fluvial harbour of Tiber to the Ara Maxima Herculis in Foro
Boario.56 And the original foundation of this monumental altar for Hercules, as D. Van
Berchem and F. Coarelli were able to demonstrate 5 7 , is to be attributed to the Phoenician
seafarers before the legendary foundation of Romulus in 753 BC. The cult of Hercules
Invictus of the Ara Maxima, that constitutes the Roman interpretation of the Tyrian god
Melqart, was Phoenician, too. We can once more conclude that Gephyraioi means at first
„carpenters of bridges" and then the „maintainers of bridges". It is time to wonder who
had the technical skills to built wooden bridges of such huge dimensions, either the
Greeks of that time (ca. 1000 BC) or the Phoenicians?
52
Varro ling. V 83; Dion. Hal. ant. II 73,1; Serv. Aen. II 166 would be among the pleistor, cf. M. Manfrendini/
L. Piccirili (a cura), Le Vite di Licurgo e di Numa, Milano 1980, 307—308.
53
Varro ling. V 83: Sacerdotes universi a sacns dirti. Pontufices, ut Scaevola Quintus pontufex maximm dicebat, a
facere, ut po{te)nHfices. Ego a ponte arbitror: nam ab his Sublidus est foetus primum ut restitutus saepe, cum id
uls et äs Tiberim non mediocriritufiant.
54
LSJ, s. v. γεφυροποιέω (Pol. Ill 64,1: τοις μεν έπιτηδείοις γεφυροποιεΐν παρήγγειλε); s. ν. γεφυρουργία;
„bridgemaking".
55
Serv. Aen. II 166; Lyd. mens. IV 15: 'Ότι ποντίφικες oi αρχιερείς παρά °Ρωμαίοις έλέγοντο, καΜπερ έν 'Αθήναις
τό πάλαι γεφυραΐοι πάντες οΐ περί τα πάτρια ιερά έξηγηταί και αρχιερείς; cf. Mommsen (n. 6) 29—33, esp. the
note in 2 9 - 3 1 ; Halle« (n. 50) 221; cf. Jessen, s. v. Γεφυρϊτις, in: RE VII.1, 1910, 1229. He rightly observed,
„daß die Gephyraioi=Pontifices ihren Namen von dem Kult dieser Athena G. erhalten haben, ist eine späte
Kombination", but this cannot obscure the equivalence established with the precise name of Gephyraioi.
56
F. Coarelli, II Foro Boario dalle origini alia fine della Repubblica, Roma 1988, 6 0 - 1 0 5 , 108-127, id., I
santuari, il flume, gli empori, in: Storia di Roma. I: Roma in Italia, Turin 1988, 127—136.
57
D. Van Berchem, Sanctuaires d'Hercule — Melqart. Contributions ä l'etude de l'expansion phenicienne en
Mediterranee III, Rome, Syria 44, 1967, 307-338.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 307
A first clue that t h e architects o f b r i d g e s o v e r i m p o r t a n t sea c r o s s i n g s w e r e P h o e n i -

cians c o m e s f r o m R o m e . B u t the m o s t s u s p i c i o u s i n d i c a t i o n c o m e s f r o m t h e tale a b o u t
the Phoenician Gephyraioi in H e r o d o t u s that b r o u g h t „ m a n y o t h e r didaskalia" to the
G r e e k s . Is there any particular path t o f o l l o w in o r d e r t o c o n f i r m t h e e x p e r t i s e o f t h e
P h o e n i c i a n s in carpentry in t h e Early A r c h a i c t i m e s ? All w e k n o w especially a b o u t t h e
Tyrians o f k i n g H i r a m I ( 9 7 0 — 9 4 9 B C ) 5 8 , t h r o u g h t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , celebrates the
f a b u l o u s and u n i q u e capacity o f t h e Tyrians in felling, t r a n s p o r t i n g and h a n d l i n g w o o d
a n d t i m b e r p r e p a r e d f o r u s e in b u i l d i n g and carpentry. 5 9 T h e p e r f e c t e x a m p l e w a s t h e
. H o u s e o f t h e Lord' built u n d e r t h e reign o f K i n g S o l o m o n ( 9 6 0 — 9 3 0 B C ) b y carpenters
a n d skilled c r a f t s m e n s e n t t o J e r u s a l e m f r o m T y r e . 6 0 T h i s t r e m e n d o u s i n c i d e n t w h i c h
t e s t i f i e s t h e architectural skills o f t h e P h o e n i c i a n s o f Tyre regarding the u s e o f t i m b e r
has b e e n e m a r g i n a t e d in t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e M i d d l e E a s t , w i t h o u t taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a -
t i o n the c o n s e q u e n c e s it m i g h t h a v e h a d f o r t h e w h o l e M e d i t e r r a n e a n w o r l d . 6 1
T h e K i n g s III b o o k g i v e s t h e internal d i m e n s i o n s o f the antecella·. 4 0 X 2 0 x 2 5 H e b r a i c ,
t h e r e f o r e P h o e n i c i a n , cubits ( 1 8 . 2 9 x 9.14 x 11.43 m) o f the temple, w h i c h together
w i t h t h o s e o f t h e cella ( 2 0 χ 2 0 x 2 0 ) r e a c h e d the 2 7 . 4 0 x 9 . 1 4 x 1 3 . 7 2 m 6 2 , taking that
58
For the chronology of King Hiram I, which became king around 970 BC, see Ios. c. Αρ. I 117;
H. J. Katzenstein, Is there any synchronism between the reigns of Hiram and Solomon, JNES 24, 1.2,
1965, 116—117 (for the author there is no historical value to Josephus' synchronism between the eleventh
year of Hiram and the fourth year of Solomon); cf. H. J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre. From the
Beginning of the Second Millenium BCE until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BCE, Jerusa-
lem 1973, 7 7 - 8 2 ; cf. W. F. Albright, Archaeology of Palestine, London 1949, 122, who gives 9 6 9 - 9 3 6 BC.
Cf. E. Cavaignac, Le monde mediterraneen jusqu'au IV siecle avant J.-G, Paris 1929, 212—213.
59
R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford 1982, 4 9 - 8 7 ; 3 Kg V 1 6 - 2 5
(ed. A. Rahlfs): και άπέστειλεν Σαλωμων πρός Χιραμ λέγων [...] (20) καϊ νΰν έντειλαι και κοψάτωσάν μοι
ξύλα έκ τοϋ Λιβάνου, και ιδού οϊ δοϋλοί μου μετά των δούλων σου' και τόν μισθόν δουλείας σου δώσω σοι
κατά πάντα, δσα έάν εϊπης, οτι σύ οϊδας ότι ούκ εστίν ήμΐν εϊδώς ξύλα κόπτειν καθώς οϊ Σιδώνιοι Cf. 3 Kg
VI 10: και έκοιλοστάΟμησεν τόν οίκον κέδροις. και φκοδόμησεν τους ένδέσμους δί ολου τοϋ οίκου, πέντε έν
πήχει τό ΰψος αΰτοϋ, και συνέσχεν τόν ένδεσμον έν ξύλοις κεδρίνοις. Cf. 3 Kg VII 38—39: Και τόν οίκον
αύτοϋ φκοδόμησεν Σαλωμων τρισκαίδεκα έτεσιν. και φκοδόμησεν τόν οίκον δρυμφ τοϋ Λιβάνου. Cf. 3 Kg
IX 11: Χιραμ βασιλεύς Τύρου άντελάβετο τοϋ Σαλωμων έν ξύλοις κεδρίνοις καϊ έν ξύλοις πευκίνοις και έν
χρυσίω και έν παντί ϋελήματι αύτοϋ. Cf. 3 Kg Χ 11—12: και ή ναϋς Χιραμ ή αίρουσα τό χρυσίον έκ Σουφιρ
ήνεγκεν ξύλα άπελέκητα πολλά σφόδρα και λίθον τίμιον' καϊ έποίησεν ό βασιλεύς τά ξύλα τά απελέκητα
ύποστηρίγματα τοϋ οίκου κυρίου και τοϋ οίκου τοϋ βασιλέως και νάβλας και κινύρας τοις φδοϊς' οΰκ έληλύθει
τοιαϋτα ξύλα άπελέκητα έπί της γης ώφθησάν που έως της ήμέρας ταύτης; cf. Ο. Eissfeld, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament, Tübingen 2 1956, 344-348.
60
Μ. E. Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West. Politics, Colonies and Trades, Cambridge 2 2001, 43—46; to
Hiram is attributed the rebuilding of the roofs for the old temples in Tyre by extensively using timber;
Menander of Ephesos (c. 200 BC) cited by Ios. c. Αρ. I 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 (FGrH 783 F l ) : τελευτήσαντος δέ
Άβιβάλου, διεδέξετο την βασιλείαν αύτοϋ ό υιός Ειρωμος [. ..] έπί τε υλην ξύλων άπελθών έκοψεν άπό τοϋ
λεγομένου όρους Λιβάνου κέδρινα ξύλα εις τάς των ίερών στέγας, καθελών τε τά άρχαϊα ιερά καινούς ναούς
φκοδόμησεν τόν τε τοϋ 'Ηρακλέους και της Άσιάρτης. Cf. Dios cited by los. c. Αρ. 1 1 1 3 (FGrH 785 F 1):
άναβάς δέ εις τόν Λίβανον ύλοτόμησεν πρός τήν των ναών κατασκευήν. For the relative chronology of the
building of the Temple, Ios. c. Αρ. I 106-111 (FGrH 794 F lc).
61
Israel was not ,architecturally-minded' at this time, the architects and builders may well have been Phoeni-
cians; cf. L. Waterman, The Damaged .Blueprints' of the Temple of Solomon, JNES 2.4, 1943, 284-294.
62
3 Kg VI 2 - 4 ; cf. VI 1 3 - 2 2 ; 2 Chr III; K. Möhlenbrick, Der Tempel Salomos, Stuttgart 1932, 4 9 - 5 4 ;
Η. Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit (mit einem Beitrag von L. Mildenberg), Handuch der Ar-
chäologie. Vorderasien II, I, München 1988, 461-474, Abb. 4.27. Cf. R. A. Stewart Macalister, The Topo-
graphy of Jerusalem, in: CAH III (The Assyrian Empire), 1925, 346—350: 60 x 20 x 30 cubits the temple
and 100 x 50 cubits the „House of the Forest of Lebanon" (3 Kg VII 39) (45.72 x 22.86 x 13.72 m); cf.
M. Vellas, 'Εβραϊκή Αρχαιολογία, Athens 1980, 130; L. Waterman, A Rebuttal, JNES 7.1, 1948, 5 4 - 5 5 .

the Hebraic cubit is equal to 45.72 cm.63 Let us examine in comparison the width of the
Strait of Euripus. Strabo ascertains that the narrowest point was two plethtra, i. e. ca. 60 m. 64
Before 1894 the Euripus of Chalkis was divided into two parts, by an isle, on which stood a
medieval fortress. The breakwater facing Sterea Hellas was of 15 m width and 1 m depth.
The second one, facing Euboia, was of 18—20 m width and 5 m depth.65 When the fort-
ress broke down, the second breakwater was enlarged till reaching 40 m in width and 8.5 m
in depth. So, if in the antiquity a total width of 60 m is given, for the modern times this
measure does not exceed the 40 m. Actually, we do not know what the exact situation was
in antiquity before the building of the testified bridge in 411 BC, much less in the time of
the Gephyraeans.66 In any case, we can safely assume a strait being divided in two parts of a
total width of ca. 35 m (15 + 20 m). If the Phoenicians under Hiram I were able to bridge
the roof of the temple in Jerusalem with whole beams of 18.29 m each one (about 40
cubits)67, in order to support a roof carpentry of this size, they could certainly undertake
similar engineering projects anywhere else, even bridging crossings measuring about 40
cubits, like the one of Euripus, eventually with the use of arches.68 We have an argumentum
ex silentio for a bridge in Tyre itself in the time of Hiram I.
When Flavius Iosephus, by citing Dio, attests that Hiram I united the city with the
sanctuary of Zeus Olympios, which was on a separate isle, we may infer that previously
the sanctuary communicated with the city through a bridge: c. Ap. 1,113 (FGrH
785 F 1): (Ε'ίρωμος) ούτος [. . .] και τοΰ 'Ολυμπίου Διός τό ιερόν, καθ' εαυτό δν έν νήσω,
χώσας τόν μεταξύ τόπον συνήψε τή πόλει. It is untimely to face here apparently unsolved
problems of the topography of the Phoenician settlements.69 Nevertheless, a first look at
the situation of the Phoenician harbours established in lagunae like Nora, Bithia (Torre di
63 The tunnel of the pool of Shiloah (525 m x 1.80 m) cut underneath Jerusalem from the Gihon cistern to
the Kedron Valley had a length of 525 m and a height of 1.80 m. This tunnel was built at the time of King
Heziekeh (720—685 BC) to face the Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib by „stopping all the fountains". The
famous cursive hebrew inscription cut by Hezekiah was found carved on the rock a few steps behind the
entrance of the tunnel. It said that the excavators met man to man, axe to axe, and the water flowed for
1.200 cubits from the spring to the reservoir. Since in our measuring system the length of the tunnel is
525 m, thanks to this inscription we then have the indication that the Hebraic cubit was equal to 43.75 m;
J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology, Exeter 1973, 146; cf. J. D. Douglas (ed.), The New Bible
Dictionary, London 1962, 1186-1187; E. Hoade, Guide to the Holy Land jerusalem 1984, 243-246.
64 Strab. IX 2,1; IX 2,8; cf. Strab. X 1,10; cf. Gehrke (n. 42) 111.
65 I. S. Sarris, s.v. Εύριπος, in: Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, IÄ, Athens 1927, 770—771, with the
earliest bibliography; cf. S. N. Leontaris, Συμβολή στην ερευνά τοΰ παλιρροϊκού φαινομένου τοΰ Εύριπου
Χαλκίδας, Άρχεϊον Ευβοϊκών Μελετών 26, 1984/85, 193-211.
66 Unfortunately, we can still read statements as the one of D. W Roller, Revue, AJA 91, 1987, 621—622: „In
fact, the Euripus narrows were not bridged until late in the fifth century BC, and the ancient Chalkis was
located over a kilometer to the east, at the head of Agios Stephanos."
61 Cf. H. A. Tubbs, Wood beams in Stone Architecture, CR 4, 1.2, 1890, 69, who refers to an observation of
W Dörpfeld on the ascertainment of Chr. Tsountas that a balk of timber was used in between the courses of
squared stones for the walls at Mycenae. He stresses out that wood beams in alteration with stone would be an
introduction of the Phoenicians (los. bell. lud. I I 1 8 - 1 9 ; Ez XXVI12; 1 Kg 6,36; Ez XXVII 3).
68 Cf. the dispute on the three-storied vaults in the debir of the Temple between G. Ernest Wright, The
Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part III, Biblical Archaeologist VII, 4, 77—78, and
L. Waterman, The Damaged .Blueprints' of the Temple of Solomon, JNES 2.4, 1943, 284-294; cf. also
L. Waterman, The treasuries of Solomon's Private Chapel, JNES 6.3, 1947, 161-163; G. Ernest Wright, Dr.
Waterman's View concerning the Solomonic Temple, JNES 7.1, 1948, 53.
69 S. Moscati, The Phoenicians (Catalogue of the Exhibition „The Phoenicians" at the Palazzo Grassi, Venice
1998), New York 1999, 168-304 (Phoenicia, Cyprus, North Africa, Sicily, Malta, Sardinia, Spain). It is
noteworthy that there is no reference to Greece.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 309
Chia), Sulcis (S. Antioco), Neapolis (Capo della Frasca), Tharros (Capo S. Marco), Bosa
(Isola Rossa), in Sardinia and especially in the Stagnone di Marsala in western Sicily70,
where is the island of Mozia and the ancient causeway leading to the Phoenician necro-
polis of Birgi, clarifies not only the remark of Thucydides, but also makes the Phoeni-
cians' establishment of a road network of communications with the continental land
through bridges, dams, barriers, and causeways necessary. Therefore, they must have
known how to construct gephjrai and roads to be used as gephyrai for linking porthmoi,71
And this seems to be the real reason of the specific name Gephjraioi they had in Euboia,
Boeotia, and Attica, an ante litteram designation for the Phoenician traders as the engi-
neers par excellence in their time.
D) The Gephyraeans-Phoenicians and the Proto-Geometric building

at Toumba in Lefkandi
The ,House of the Lord' in Jerusalem was obviously built by Phoenician architects and
carpenters. All the measurements in the text of the Old Testament are in cubits. The
Phoenicians used the cubit, not the foot like the Greeks in Archaic ages. Coming up
with this very simple concept as a basis of thinking we have to enlarge the spectrum of
the research, because, if the Gephyraeans were Phoenicians and built up a wooden brid-
ge in the Strait of the Euripus, they must have used as unit of measurement the cubit,
not the foot. So, it would be sufficient to verify whether this is true or not, by applying
this metrical criterion to the buildings of the period around 1000 BC in the wider area,
in order to prove or to dismantle our hypothesis that the Gephyraeans-Phoenicians intro-
duced letters, and not only letters, in the area of the Gephyra of Euripus which from the
8 th century BC on will become the Eretrike cboraj2 Eretria and the monumental architec-
ture in Euboia at the time of the Gephyraeans make us reconsider the archaeological
evidence from Lefkandi and especially the dimensions of the Proto-Geometric building
at Toumba.
70
G. Schmiedt, Antichi porti d'Italia. Gli scali Fenicio-Punici. I Porti della Magna Grecia, Firen2e 1975, 2—38;
on Mozia cf. V. Tusa, The Phoenicians 231-239; for Sardinia cf. Aubet (n. 60) 235-243.
71
Thuc. VI 2,6: φκουν δέ και Φοίνικες περί πάσαν μέν την Σικελίαν άκρας τε επί τη θαλασσή άπολαβόντες
και τά επικείμενα νησίδια εμπορίας 'ένεκεν της πρός τούς Σικελούς; an analogous situation is to be foreseen
for the ancient harbor of Sidon in the homeland; cf. F. C. Eiselen, Sidon. A Study in Oriental History
(Columbia University Oriental Studies IV), Columbia 1907, 1—5, where the position of the small island of
Chateau de la Mer or Kalaat el Bahar is suggested to proof the existence of a causeway-Âjra in order to
form the north basin of the double harbor of which speaks Ach. Tat. I 1; cf. Pseudo-Skylax, Per. 42; see
R. Mouterde/A. Poidebard/J. Lauffray, Sidon: Amenagements antiques du Port de Saida, Beyrouth 1951; cf.
O. Hamdy/Th. Reinach, Une necropole royale ä Sidon, Beirut 1892, Planche I. We cannot say how the
Phoenicians used to cross the porthmos of Gadeira-Cadiz, mentioned by Strabo (III 5,3) as being of one
stadion wide: κείται δέ επί των έσπερίων της νήσου μερών ή πόλις, προσεχές S αύτη τελευταΐόν έστι τό
Κρόνιον πρός τη νησΐδι. τό S Ήράκλειον έπί θάτερα τέτραπται τά πρός έω, καθ' δ δη μάλιστα τή ήπείρω
τυγχάνει συνάπτουσα ή νήσος, δσον σταδιαΐον πορθμόν άπολείπουσα; cf. Aubet (n. 60) 262—273, locates it
between the present long island and the modern Cape of Punta Piedra in the Channel of Sancti Pietri.
72
In fact, Herodotus claims that the Gephyraeans occupied the area of Tanagra in Boeotia, which is located
in the upper current of river Asopus. Strabo ascertains that Tanagra had a second name: Gephyra. Once
settled in Tanagra, „the men of the bridge" should have given the settlement the name of their area of
origin in Euboia. Therefore, it is possible that the first name of Palaia Eretria-Lefkandi was Gephyra, too, or
that the name Gephyraioi included all the people dwelling around the Gephyra of Euripus, in the whole area
between Chalkis and Palaia Eretria.

Up to now only the cemeteries have been excavated, leaving the settlement on the hill
of Xeropolis still unexplored. 73 The cemeteries testify the wealth of the Proto-Geometric
settlement in eastern imports from the period 1025—825 BC, but foremost of the period
between 900 and 825 BC. For now it seems reasonable to assume that a very special
community settled there in the second half of the 11 th century BC. That settlement
which could well correspond to the cradle of the Gephjraioi, as we think we will be able
to prove, probably next to other unexplored Gephyraean nuclei, reaches its peak in the
10 th century BC, becomes solid during the 9 th century BC, dwindles at the end of the 9 th
century BC and gradually gets abandoned in the late 8 t h century BC, having missed the
opportunity to be transformed into a real polis. Among the tombs one is exceptional,
the so-called ,Heroon' at the top of Toumba. 74
It is unique because it is the earliest, longest and most monumental building of anci-
ent Greek architecture. The building was abandoned, probably between the years 1000
and 950 BC, the walls were partially dismanded and the remains covered by a mound. Its
plan is clear. It is a hairpin-shaped apsidal structure, ± 4 8 m long and ± 1 0 m wide 75 ,
which initially was surrounded by a portico at the north, south and west. Including the
portico, its width reaches 13.80 m. A sequence of rooms, beginning from the east, was
supported by a central row of timber-pillars. Next to the east room, which is quite
73
M. R. Popham/L. H. Sackett (eds.), Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea 1964-1966, London 1968;
M. R. Popham/E. Milburn, The Late Helladic IIIc Pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi): a Summary, ABSA 66,
1971, 333-352; M. R. Popham/L. H. Sackett/P. G. Themelis (eds.), Lefkandi I. The Iron Age Settlement
and Cemeteries I—II (Text and Plates), British School at Athens Supplementary Volume 11, London 1980;
M. R. Popham/E. Touloupa/L. H. Sackett, Further Excavations at Lefkandi. 1981, ABSA 77, 1982,
214—248; P. Themelis, Die Nekropolen von Lefkandi-Nord auf Euboea, in: S. Deger-Jalkotzy (ed.), Grie-
chenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der „Dark Ages", 145—160; cf. Whidey (η. 1) 86—88,
117—120; Osborne (η. 1) 40—47; I. Morris, Archaeology as a Cultural History. Words and Things in Iron
Age Greece, Oxford 2000, 219-239.
74
M. R. Popham/E. Touloupa/L· H. Sackett, The Hero of Lefkandi, Antiquity 56, 1982, 169-174;
P. G. Galligas, Ανασκαφές στό Λευκαντί Εύβοιας, 1981—1984, Αρχεΐον Ευβοϊκών Μελετών 26 (1984/85),
253-269; Μ. R. Popham/P. G. Calligas/L. Η. Sackett (eds.), Lefkandi II, 1 - 2 . The Protogeometric Building
at Toumba, London 1990—1993; Lefkandi II, 2. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba: The Excavation,
Architecture and Finds, London 1993; cf. P. G. Calligas, Hero-Cult in Early Iron Age, in: R. Hägg (ed.),
Early Greek Cult Practice (Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at
Athens, 2 6 - 2 9 June 1986), Stockholm 1988, 228-234; J. Whidey, Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece,
ABSA 86, 1991, 341—365; A. Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers' Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion
and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B Q , SIMA 121, 1997, 4 8 - 5 7 .
75
J. J. Coulton, The Toumba building: description and analysis of the architecture, in: Popham/Calligas/Sac-
kett, II.2 (n. 74) 33—70, in part. 35: „Its width, including the verandas, was c. 13.80 m, and its length, less
precisely known, was 50 m."; Popham/Touloupa/Sackett (n. 74) 171: „For, though the excavation is not yet
completed, we have enough of a structure to be certain that it is 10 m wide and at least 45 m long";
P. G. Calligas, Ανασκαφές, op. cit., 256: „To κτίσμα ήταν ένα μεγάλο παραλληλόγραμμο με καμπύλη τη μία
στενή πλευρά του, τη δυτική, και συνολικού μήκους περίπου 48 μ. Πλάτος είχε 10 μ. και ήταν χωρισμένο με
εγκάρσιους τοίχους σε διαμερίσματα-δωμάτια"; Popham (n. 40) 327: „Sebbene seriamente danneggiata dagli
sterri attuati con escavatori, questa struttura rivela ancora le sue dimension! monumental!: 10 x 47 m";
J. N. Coldstream, The First Exchanges between Euboeans and Phoenicians: Who Took the Initiative?, in:
S. Gitin/A. Mazar/E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries
BCE. Studies in Honor of Prof. Trude Dothan, Jerusalem 1998, 353—360, 355: „a complex building 45 m
long"; Whitley (n. 1) 86: „The Building is over 40 m long, and is constructed of dressed stone as well as
mud brick"; Osborne (n. 1) 41: „Some 45 m long and 10 m wide, with one apsidal end, this building anti-
cipates by two centuries any similar building known from elsewhere in the Greek mainland"; Morris (n. 73)
219: „The whole group was enclosed by a massive apsidal building, some fifty meters long, which was later
filled in to make a huge oval mound."

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 311
rectangular (8 X 9 m), a doorway leads to the central r o o m (22 X 9 m). There were
f o u n d buried a w o m a n and a man accompanied by t w o horses in two separate pits
(2,5 m deep). T h e man had been burned and his ashes were deposited in a huge bronze
amphoroid crater decorated in relief with scenes o f hunting, which has been identified as
Cypriot i m p o r t manufactured about one hundred years earlier. 7 6 T h e w o m a n was inhu-
med, accompanied by an equipment o f gold ornaments. 7 7 Adjacent to the central r o o m
is the w e s t corridor, which leads towards the western end o f the structure w h e r e the
ovoid apse r o o m is concluded.
It is u n k n o w n to w h o m such an amazing building belonged. M. Popham has o b s e r v e d
that the m e m o r y o f this man might be rooted in the G r e e k myth. But he reaches the
conclusion that „there is n o obvious candidate". 7 8 O n c e accepting that w e cannot reach
a satisfactory answer, even if the evidence implies such an answer, w e have to undertake
a quite d i f f e r e n t path. A . Snodgrass has estimated the total population o f Lefkandi
during the Early and Middle P r o t o - G e o m e t r i c period. He claims that there w e r e only
3 5 souls. 7 9 This is just the n u m b e r o f a clan. T h e members o f the clan should have been
buried in those tombs, accumulated in f r o n t o f the building during the following century
( 9 2 5 — 8 5 0 BC). Now, the tombs in question and the burials o f the apsidal building gave
strong evidence o f Phoenician imports. J. N. Coldstream has suggested that the magnifi-
cent orientalia came to Lefkandi perhaps through intermarriage with the leading family o f
Tyre, a daring and surely n o t conservative hypothesis. He thinks that the Cypriots w e r e
the traders o f g o o d s in both directions o f this route. 8 0 He believes, accordingly, that the
dead person o f the building was a G r e e k .
76 H. W. Catling, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, Oxford 1964, 156—161; H. Matthäus, Metall-
gefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Zypern (Prähi-
storische Bronzefunde II.8), München 1985, 228-232; Coldstream (η. 75) 355; Whitley (η. 1) 111: „may
have been antiques at the time of their deposition" (I could not find Catling 1993 in the bibliography of
the two scholars); cf. I. S. Lemos, Craftsmen, Traders and some Wives in Early Iron Age Greece, in: Kara-
georghis/Stampolidis (η. 1) 189; J.-C. Poursat, La Grece preclassique des otigines ä la fin du VF siecle,
Paris 1995, 89: „fait partie d'une serie des vases chypriotes trouves habituellment dans des contextes du XIC
siecle et appartenant ä une tradition de bronze ä decor figure des environs du XIIC"; cf. the mouth and
handles of a bronze amphora from Kourion-Kaloriziki (Karageorghis/Stampolidis [η. 1] Catalogue no. 673)
and the amphoroid crater of the 11th c. BC by a chamber tomb in Pantanassa Amariou in Crete (Karage-
orghis/Stampolidis [η. 1] Catalogue no. 674).
77 Gold jewellery: A massive gold brassiere and a granulated gold pendant from Babylonia, a thousand years
old at the time of the burial; Popham/Touloupa/Sackett (n. 74) PI. 23b; Morris (n. 73) 218-222.
78 Popham/Touloupa/Sackett (n. 74) 174; cf. Coldstream (n. 75) 355: „Whatever happened, this king must
have been a figure of considerable authority"; Osborne (η. 1) 43: „The identity of the man and woman
buried here is impossible to establish; what is important is the social power which this building manifests."
Against these generalisations which avoid to face the substance of the problem, I believe that the man who
was buried in this particular Tomb was the first ancestor of the Phoenician clan of the Gepkyraioi, the
basileus of a hellenised Phoenician clan, in fact a Phoenician, whose identity should have been transformed
and preserved in the Greek myth.
79 A. M. Snodgrass, Two Demographic Notes, in: R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Cen-
tury BC (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1981),
Stockholm 1983, 167-171.
80 Coldstream (n. 75) 355-357; cf. H. W. Catling, Cyprus in the 11th c. BC - an End or a Beginning?, in:
V. Karageorghis (ed.), Cyprus in the ll t h c. BC (Proceedings of the international Symposium), Nikosia 1994,
132—141; Ν. Kourou, Αιγαίο και Κύπρος κατά την πρώιμη εποχή του Σιδήρου: νεότερες, εξελίξεις, Cyprus
and the Aegean in Antiquity, from the Prehistoric Time to the 7 th c. AD (Proceedings of the International
Archaeological Conference, Nicosia 1995), Nicosia 1997, 219—230; cf. V. Karageorghis/L. Kahil, Temoignages
Eubeens ä Chypre et Chypriote en Eubee, AK 10, 1968, 133—135.

If we look at the genos of the Gephyraioi, who claimed to be from Eretria, in fact from
the Phoenician substratum of the Eretria of 8 th century BC, the male buried could be a
Phoenician as well. I cannot understand why the orientalia and mainly the Cypriot bronze
crater might not denote the origin of the dead, but instead are simply signs of trade.81
We have Phoenicians in Euboia in the tale of Herodotus, the Gephyraeans, and we have
Phoenician presence in Lefkandi according to the archaeological evidence. It is taken for
granted that the dead person is a Greek. Up to this point, one cannot exclude that the
dead was a hellenised Phoenician, like the Gephyraeans, and this is one step forward,
even if not solidified. However, these arguments cannot be conclusive, on the contrary
they may appear as fanciful conjectures or wild speculations to any hypercritical or ,anti-
romantic' scholar. It is absolutely necessary to move on to the analysis of the structural
features of the building.
The earliest temples in the Greek monumental architecture are the temple of Apollo
Daphnephoros in Eretria of the late 9 th century BC and the Heraion I in Samos, datable
to the beginning of the 8 th century BC. Both temples are hekatompeda, they have a length
of 100 feet. 82 This peculiarity to fix a standard unit of measurement for the length
81
Cf. the case of the Lefkandi T. 79 (Toumba), of 875—850 BC, which gave the series of the 16 stone
weights. For the publishers the dead buried in a cypriot chaudron was an Euboian, see M. R. Popham/
I. S. Lemos, A Euboean Warrior Trader, OJA 14.2, 1995, 151-157; for J. K. Papadopoulos, Phantom Eu-
boians, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10.2, 1997, 191—219, it was a Phoenician; Lemos (n. 76)
189—192: „something like a Homeric xenos"; cf. V Karageorghis (n. 80) 193: „I think we are on very
slippery ground when we try to identify ethnicity based on tomb gifts [...] Something we should consider,
[.. .1 at least in the 11th and 10th c. BC is the mania for collecting, and collecting foreign objects and also
older objects of another age"; cf. the historical conclusions of Whitley (η. 1) 118—120: „Ninth century
Euboean commercial activity has then probably been exaggerated. This is not to say that it did not exist; it
is rather to emphasize that it was the Phoenicians who had the greater incentive to expand their trading
horizons, and that the Euboeans probably followed the Phoenician example rather than Phoenicians the
Euboean", following the reappraisal made by A. J. Graham, The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina, DHA
12, 1986, 51—65, and by J. Y. Perreault, Les emporia grec du Levant: mythe ou realite?, in: A. Bresson/
P. Rouillard (eds.), L'emporion, Paris 1993, 59—83. For a clear setting of the problem see the revue of
G. Boffa, L'insediamento euboico a Pitecusa, PdP 52, fasc. II, 1998, 145—160, in part, chapter 3 „Pitecusa
fra Oriente e Occidente", to the volume B. D'Agostino/D. Ridgway (a cura di), ΑΠΟΙΚΙΑ, I piü antichi
insediamenti greci in Occidente: funzioni e modi dell'organizzazione politica e sociale. Scritti in onore di
Giorgio Buchner, Napoli 1995.
82
For the earliest apsidal hekatompedon of Apollo Daphnephoros in Eretria, Auberson/Schefold (n. 38);
P. Auberson, Eretria. Fouilles et Recherches I, Temple d'Apollon Daphnephoros, Architecture, Bern 1968;
Auberson thinks that the seventh century hekatompedon would be almost exactly 100 Ionic feet in length, if
one measured from the outer edge of the foundations (34.80 m). G. Gruben, Die Tempel der Griechen,
Munich 52001, 318, suggests for Hera I hekatompedon temple a foot lenght of 0.3286 m; cf. E. Buschor,
Heraion von Samos. Frühe Bauten, MDAI(A) 55, 1930, 1—99, who stated that the geometric temple of
Hera was in fact a hekatompedon of 33 χ 6.75 m (1 : 5) or, more probably, of 35.40 χ 8.85 m (1 : 4), if one
includes the peristasis. The used foot would be either 0.33 m or 0.35 m. On the other hand, the stoa of the
sanctuary was 69.70 χ 9.90 m (5.90 + 4 m): „kein Zweifel, daß 200 Fuß beabsichtigt waren, das Fußmaß
(34,85 cm) kommt ganz nahe an 0,35 m heran und ist wichtig fur die Beurteilung des geometrischen Tem-
pels"; H. Walter, Das griechische Heiligtum. Heraion von Samos, Munich 1965; in gen. on the units of
measurement to have round numbers of ,Doric' or ,Ionic* feet cf. W B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of
Ancient Greece. An Account of its Historical Development, London 1950, 54—55; cf. the hekatompedon of
the temple of Athena at Alipheira; A. K. Orlandos, Ή αρκαδική Άλίφειρα και τά μνημεία της (Πελοπον-
νησιακοί 'Αρχαιολογικοί Έρευναι I), Athens 1967/68, who points out that the length of the Stylobat
(29.58 m) is almost equivalent to 100 .Solonian' or ,Graeco-Roman' feet of 0.294 m; H. Drerup, Griechi-
sche Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit, Archaeologia Homerica III Ο, Göttingen 1969; J. Ν. Coldstream,
Greek Temples: Why and Where?, in: P. E. Easterling/J. V. Muir (eds.), Greek Religion and Society, Cam-
bridge 1985, 67-97.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 313
depends on the necessity to construct a building according to mathematical proportions

in order to ensure certain static requirements. The building of Lefkandi does not fit a
measurement in feet, i.e. one cannot transform the 48 m in an exact number of feet. It
may belong to an earlier architectural phase, in which a different metrical criterion has
been applied. If the Phoenician cubit is 45.72 cm, like in Jerusalem, then we have here
astonishingly a hekaton pecheon building in Phoenician cubits. By transforming the given
measurements of the building (±48 X ±10 m) in cubits we have a net space excluding
the walls of 100 X 20 cubits (46 X 9 m), since the length of 48 m is not absolutely
assured. The problem lies in transforming the theoretical model of ancient cubits into
modern metres and not the contrary, which is how to adapt the inaccurate metres in
exact cubits. This would be methodologically wrong as we must think like the builders did
and not bring them to our way of metrical thinking. Now, the cubit is subdivided in
IV2 feet, 6 palms and 24 fingers. Turning the 100 X 20 cubits into palms we have 600 x
120 palms if the width of the building was 10 m. But this is not the case. 83 The internal
width just west of the east wall of the apse room is 8.70 m and at the east end of the
east room it is 8.77 m. If we exclude the width of the socle, which for most of the walls
was 0.60 m wide at the base, we reach a net internal width of 8 m. The 8 m give 100 palms
of width (7.71 m if the cubit is 46.24 cm). Therefore, we would have a building of 600 x
100 palms respecting perfectly the proportion 1 : 6. This ratio is apparently an architectu-
ral kanon in cubits and palms.
The use of cubits and palms is more conceivable for 950 BC, considering that at the
same time in Jerusalem the Phoenicians built a temple by using cubits. It is known that
the palm in Greek is called palaste and corresponds to palame,84 Finally, one could wonder
whether this is the tomb of the man who measured with the palame and the pechys of the
human hand, as suggested by his name: Palamedes,85 If we make a step forward, we see
that the building could be divided into 6 equal parts of 100 palms each. They form
6 equal squares of 100 X 100 palms each. This allows us to underline that the only solid
body represented expanded in the plan through a rectangular parallelogram having
6 equal squares is the cube. The length is six times the axis of the cube. Besides, any side
of each square of the building multiplied three times by the side itself will give us the
volume of the cube as a solid body. In other words: T h e c u b e of t h e n u m b e r 1 0 0
is d e p i c t e d in t h e p l a n of t h e b u i l d i n g . The volume then of the building
(V = a 3 ) is 1003 = 1.000.000 palms. The apsis must be a cubic curve giving an equation
of third order. After all, it seems that the building constitutes a mathematical attempt to
symbolize the ideal cube developed in the plan and the space, at least in a theoretical
way, as the metrical leanings for this cubic model can be precisely explained by the
application of .blueprints'. And these .blueprints' might be also γράμματα, in the sense of
„geometric designs".
83 Coulton (n. 75) 35 and 37.

84 F. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, Berlin 1882, 27—34; Η. Nissen, Griechische und Römi-
sche Metrologie (HdbA I), Berlin? 1942, 842; cf. Hdt. I 50, on the socle of mudbricks supporting the lion
of Cresus in Delphi; cf. also the commentary of D. Asheri (a cura), Erodoto, Le Storie. Libro I (La Lidia e
la Persia), Milano 1988, 292: mudbricks of 6 x 3 x 1 palms (45 x 22,50 x 7,50 cm). For palame as „palm
of the hand" see LSJ, s. v. παλαμάομαι.
85 Ε. Wüst, s. v. Palamedes, in: RE XXXVI.l, 1942, 2501; A. Kleingünther, Πρώτος εύρετής. Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung, Philologus Suppl. 26.1, 1933, 78—84; C. W Müller, Der Palamedes-My-
thos im Philoktetes des Euripides, RhM 133, 1990, 193-209.

It cannot be random that the measures are in in palms and in cubits. It is well known
that Palamedes is said to be the inventor of the six-axed cube and of the pessot, the
games of draughts. 86 It is well known too, that he taught how to count from 1 to 10 and
over the 1.000 by using the fingers and the palm. 87 The building seems to have been
constructed in honour of the inventor of the extraordinary qualities of the cube, Palame-
des, according to principles of Phoenician measurement.
The dead found in the building is a Phoenician king. Could it be that the hero who
the Greek tradition knows as Palamedes was a Phoenician king or at least a king of
Phoenician origin? After all, what elements do we have at our disposal to support a
Phoenician-Semitic identity of Palamedes? There is a late tradition, too late perhaps to
be taken seriously into consideration by scholastic scholarship, which is preserved in the
Latin literature. Virgil says in the Aeneid that Palamedes descended from Be/us88:
II 81—85: Fando aliquod si forte tuas pervenit ad auris / Belidae nomen Pala-
medis et incluta fama / gloria, quern falsa sub proditione Pelasgi / insontem
infando iudicio, quia bella vetabat, / demiscere neci, nunc cassum lumine lugent.
The Mythographi Vaticani (1,45) and Servius Aen. II 81 confirm the genealogy of Palame-
des from the Phoenician-Semitic god Baal: septimo gradu a Belo originem ducens.89
The possibility that the name Palamedes bears the theophoric name of Baal, charac-
teristic of the kings in Phoenicia, is prominent. 90 This would be an arbitrary interpreta-
tion, if we did not have a fragment by a lost play of Euripides, which explains how
Palamedes must have taught writing to the Greeks by establishing a very precise crite-
rion — adding vowels to the consonants in order to form syllables: τά της λήθης φάρμακ'
όρθώσας μόνος, / αφωνα φωνήεντα συλλαβάς τιθεΐς / εξηΰρον άνθρώποισι γράμματ εΐδέναι
(fr. 578 TGF). If we deconstruct the syllabic Greek name [Pa-la-me-des] into the former
Phoenician, before the ,vowel-intervention' of Palamedes himself, we would have at the
place of the first two syllables the morpheme B'l, Baal. This constitutes undoubtedly an
86
TGF, Sophocles fr. 438: ού λιμόν ούτος τ&νδ έπαυσε, σύν θεώ / ειπείν, χρόνου τε διατριβάς σοφωτάτας /
έφηϋρε φλοίσβου μετά κόπον καθημένοις, / πεσσούς κύβους τε τερπνόν αργίας άκος; cf. fr. 396: και πεσσά
πεντέγραμμα και κύβων βολαί; Paus. Χ 31,1: εί δε άπίδοις πάλιν ές το άνω της γραφής, εστίν εφεξής τφ Άκταίω-
νι Αϊας ό έκ Σαλαμίνος, και Παλαμήδης τε καν Θερσίτης κύβοις χρώμενοι παιδιφ, τοΰ Παλαμήδους τφ εύρήματι'
Αίας δέ ό έτερος ές αυτούς όρ$ παίζοντας; OA (Scholia), Alkid. Odyss. 672,27: μέτρα δε και σταθμά έξεϋρε,
καπήλοις και άγοραίοις άνθρώποις άπάτας και έπιορκίας, πεττούς γε μήν, τοις άργοϊς των άνδρών έριδας και
λοιδορίας. και κύβους αύ μέγιστον κακόν κατέδειξε, τοις μεν ήττηθεΐσι λύπας και ζημίας, τοις δέ νενικηκόσι
καταγέλωτα καϊ ονειδος.
87
TGF, Sophocles fr. 399: ούτος δ' εφηύρε τείχος Άργείων στρατώ, / σταθμών αριθμών και μέτρων εύρήματα /
τάξεις τε ταύτας ούράνια τε σήματα. / κάκεΐν? έτευξε πρώτος έξ ένος δέκα / κάκ τών δέιί αύθις ηύρε πεντη-
κοντάδας / δς χίλί ευθύς δς στρατού φρυκτωρίαν / έδειξε κάνέφυνεν ού δεδειγμένα.
88
Ε. Paratore/L. Canali, Virgilio, Eneide, volume I (Libri III), Milano 1978, 262-264; Powell (n. 1) 233-237;
cf. H. Lewy, s. v. Palamedes, in: Roscher III.l, 1897-1902, 1264-1274.
89
Serv. Aen. II 81 (Diehl): , Fando aliquod si forte tuas pervenit ad aures' dum dkitur. Et utitur bona arte mendaai, ut
praemittat vera et sic falsa subiungat. Nam quod de Palamede dicit verum est, quod de se subiungit falsum. Et säendum ex
hac historia partem did, partem supprimi, partem intellegentibus linqui, nam Palamedes, ut Apollonius [Arg. I,133ss] diät,
septimo gradu a Belo originem ducens, cum dilectum per Graeciam ageret, simulantem insaniam Ulixen duxit invitum·,
P. Kulcsär (ed.), Mythographi Vaticani I et II (Corpus Christianorum, s. L. XCI c), 45: Quod cum Neptunus
vidisset, fugato satiro ipse earn compressit, ex quo coitu natus est Nauplius (pater) Palamedis, unde Virgilius: Belide nomen
Palamedis.
90
For example Abibaal („My father is Baal"), Baalbazer („Servant of Baal"), Adonibaal („My lord is Baal"),
Abdastratus („Servant of Astarte"); G. E. Markoe, Phoenicians, London 2000, 87—88.

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 315
element of Phoenician kingship. 91 To transform it in the Greek syllabic system of Pala-

medes, as Euripides said, one needs to turn it into ba-la. Indeed, this is confirmed by
another tradition, mentioned by the bishop Irenaeus (180—200 AD), c. haeres. I, 15,4: 92
Palamedes is said to have invented the long vowels. The vowel [a] is pronounced as [a:].
The second part of the name Palamedes remains unexplained. But if we apply the
syllabic criterion to the whole word, we would expect something like ba-la-me-de. This
does not mean anything in the Greek language, but it is completely acceptable for the
Cypro-syllabic Greek: pa-la-me-te, where the bilabial [b] becomes [p] and the dental [d]
becomes [t].93 It seems to have a meaning, because if from the Cypro-syllabic Greek we
turn back to the Phoenician by excluding the vowels, as it would have been before the
Greek transcription, we have something like B' LM, pa-la-me. This name existed in the
transcribed version in Greek of the Arithmoi as Balaam?* But, it cannot offer a satisfacto-
ry response. Probably, we are on a wrong path. Since, if the first two syllables give Baal,
the next two might constitute a second compound name as well. Considering that the
theophoric name of Baal must be borne by a king, what on the other hand is confirmed
by the Cypriot amphora in Lefkandi, we would expect for pa-la-me-te a Phoenician name
of a king, like for example the B' LMLK, Baalmelek, an attested king of Kition and
Idalion about 450 BC. 95 However, this is not the case, because all the traces are directed
towards Tyre and the royal family of Tyre.
By reviewing the royal list of the Kings of Tyre given by Flavius Iosephus, we have
the following sequence up to the foundation of Carthago: 96 Αβίβαλος — Εΐρωμος —
Βααλβάζερος — ' Αβδάσταρτος — " Ασταρτος — ' Ασθάρυμος — Φέλλης — Είθώβαλος —
Βαλέζερος — Μέττης — Φυγμαλίων. There is a royal name of the second half of the 9 t h
century BC, Mettes/Mettenos, which corresponds literally to me-te of Palamedes. Unfor-
tunately, we do not know the Phoenician name of the hellenised Mettes. But, anyway, we
91
Gray (n. 9) 1 8 - 7 2 .
92
Sancti Irenaei Detectionis et Eversionis Falso Cognomitate Agnitionis seu Contra Haereses (PG 7, p. 624), I 15
τοϋτο τοις τοΰ αλφαβήτου γράμμασι κατεστιγμένην, νεωστί, προς τό απ" άρχής, τό δή λεγόμενον, χθες και
πρώην, 'Έλληνες όμολογοϋσιν από Κάδμου πρώτον εξ και δέκα παρειληφέναι, είτα μετέπειτα προβαινόντων
των χρόνων αΰτοί έξευρηκέναι ποτέ μέν τά δασέα, ποτέ δέ τά δίπλα' εσχατον δέ πάντων Παλαμήδην φασί τά
μακρά τούτοις προστεθεικέναι.
93
Cf. the epitaph in Greek syllabic writing from the Tomb 33A of Ο/ώηέώ-Salamis (first half of the 5 th c.
BC), which gives a Phoenician name in Cypriot transcription: A-pu-tu-pa-lo = Άβδουβάλος = Abd-Ba'al;
M. Yon, Societes cosmopolites ä Chypre du IXe au Ille siecle avant J.-C., in: S. Fourier/G. Grivaud (eds.),
Identites croisees en un milieu mediterraneen: Le cas de Chypre, Rouen 2006, 39 and n. 2; O. Masson, Les
inscriptions syllabique et alphabetiques de Cellarca, in: V. Karageorghis, Salamis IV Necropolis of Salamis 2,
Nicosia 1970, 269—273; on more general linguistic features of the Cypriot dialect in comparison to Greek
cf. M. Karali, Κυπριακό Συλλαβάριο, in: A.-F. Chrisüdis (ed.), Ιστορία της Ελληνικής γλώσσας από τις αρχές
έως την ύστερη αρχαιότητα, Thessaloniki 2001, 189—191; cf. Α. Panayotou, Αρκαδοκυπριακή, ibid.
308—314. More specifically on the correspondence between Greek [b] and [d] to Cypriot [p] and [t] see the
text of the tablet of Idalion, 11. 1 - 2 : Ε - TA - LI - Ο - N E = Έδάλιο; 1. 3: ΜΑ - T O - I = Μαδοι; 1.
6: ΡΑ - SI - LE - U - S E = βασιλεύς; 1. 8: Ε - ΤΑ - LI - Ε - WE - SE = Έδαλιή/τες. Cf. Powell
(n. 1) 8 9 - 1 0 1 , esp. 9 5 - 9 9 .
94
Arithmoi 24, 15 = M. Yon, Kition dans les textes. Kition-Bamboula V, Paris 2004, no. 31, 47—48.
95
M. Yon, Kition dans les textes. Kition-Bamboula V, Paris 2004, no. 45: 1. 1, B'LMLK; cf. no. 34a, LB'L
LBNN = „to Baal of Lebanon".
96
Ios. c. Αρ. I 121-125 (FGrH 783 F 1; 785 F 1); D. Harden, The Phoenicians, London 1962, 5 1 - 5 4 and
the scheme of the Royal Houses of Tyre, Israel and Juda in the 9 th c. BC, 53, PI. 47; cf. Aubet (n. 60)
26—29; G. Garbini, Gli Annali di Tiro e la storiografia fenicia, in: Oriental Studies presented to
B. S. Isserlin, Leiden 1980, 112-127.

have a Latin source which attests the combination Baal-Mettes?1 It is sufficient, I hope,
to conclude that the Phoenician name of Palamedes should be B'LMT, Baal-Mettes — Πα-
λαμήδης, where [e] is [ε:] and [a] is [a:] as well. 98
These complicated interchanges of languages and writing systems suggest the presence
in Lefkandi of a Phoenician member of the royal dynasty of Tyre in about 970 BC,
coming probably from Kition in Cyprus, who knew Greek and the Cypro-syllabic writing
system and applied this Cypriot manner of rendering Greek in the new Phoenician alpha-
bet not in Cyprus but in Euboia. It seems now very probable that this Phoenician-Cy-
priot ,prince' was the hero known by the Greeks as Palamedes, whose Phoenician name
must have been B' LMT. Palamedes must in fact be a historical personality, living around
1000—950 BC. A ,prince' who knew Greek, navigated with other Phoenician-Cypriots to
the Strait of Euripus, dwelled in the region of Gephyra and taught the Ionian Greeks the
letters by using his consonantic alphabet which he combined with the Cypro-syllabic
Greek vowel system. He was not confined to this, but he taught them many other didas-
kalia, one of which must be the mathematical basis for the construction of a wooden
bridge in Euripus with the other Gephyraioi. He was buried in Lefkandi, in his Cypriot
monumental bronze crater in a magnificent wooden building, whose dimensions (600 X
100 Phoenician palms) and form represented a perfect cube. The Greek tradition altered
his identity." He became a special Greek who did not appear in Homer but only in the
Kypria Epe}00
Conclusion
We hope to have faced at least barely la mise en scene desiree to reconstruct some points of
the history of the Phoenicians before 800 BC, quite non-existent, because of the lack of
archaeological and epigraphical evidence. 101 The absence of concrete material evidence in
Phoenicia itself does not entail evidence of absence. For instance, up to the moment
when specialists of ceramic demonstrate that the sudden appearance of the Proto-Geo-
97
Servius states, Aen. I 343: Pygmalion (...) ilk Sjcbaeum (...) clam ferro incautum superat (...) his commota fugam
Dido soaosque parabat (...) Sychaeus Sicarbas dictus est; Belus Didonis pater Mettes, Carthago a cartha, ut le
in historia Poenorum et in Livio.
98
So falls the objection of Osborne (n. 1) 109—112, against Powell (n. 1) that the early scripts failed to
symbolise vowel length. Palamedes himself transformed his name from Phoenician into Greek by render-
ing the lenght of [a] and [e]; Boffa (n. 81) 155.
99
Mavrogiannis (n. 1) 64—65. For Greece cf. C. Baurain/C. Bonnet, Les Pheniciens. Marins des trois conti-
nents, Paris 1992, 117-131.
100
Cf. Paus. X 31,2—3: Παλαμηδην δέ άποπνιγήναι προελθόντα έπί ιχθύων θήραν, Δνομήδην δέ τόν άποκτεί-
ναντα είναι και Όδυσσέα έπιλεξάμενος έν επεσιν οϊδα τοις Κυπρίοις. The details are of course fictitious,
characteristic of a mythical aition, that behind the murder of Palamedes by Diomedes and Odysseus re-
flects the cultural diversity of Palamedes as well as the hostility between the ,pure' Greeks and the Cy-
priot-Phoenician.
101
J. D. Muhly, Phoenicia and the Phoenicians: Biblical Archaeology Today, in: Proceedings of the Internatio-
nal Congress on Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem, April 1984), Jerusalem 1985, 177—191; see also the
remarks of G. Garbini, Sull'origine dei Fenici, PdP 48, 1993, 321—331, in part. 324—325; cf. Mavrogiannis
(n. 1) 53—55; thus I am not able to follow the Ârchaeological History' of the Mediterranean proposed by
N. Chr. Stampolidis, A Summary Glance at the Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age (11th—6th c. BC), in
Karageorghis/Stampolidis (n. 1) 41—79, who by extracting single ceramic exemplars does not consider the
archaeological contexts and overestimates the significance of the artefacts; cf. A. Momigliano (Greek trans-
lation of D. Ridgway), L'alba della Magna Grecia, Milano 1984, 79: „Καμία νεκρόπολη, οσοδήποτε πλούσια,
δέν da μπορέσει ποτέ νά άντικαταστήσει τή ζωντανή παράδοση ενός έθνους."

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 317
metric ceramic in about 1 0 5 0 / 2 5 B C is exclusively due to the G r e e k genius, without any

cultural external preparation, suggestion, or even loan, I p r e f e r to recognize in it the
determinant contribution o f the Phoenicians o f Euboia to measure and depict circles by
using the c o m p a s s e s . 1 0 2 T h e Euboean ceramic motif o f the semicircle-pendants cannot
be explained without the conquests in geometry in Euboia in the 1 1 t h - 1 0 t h centuries B C
made by the Phoenicians-Gephyraeans in the monumental architecture. 1 0 3
T h e G r e e k alphabet has n o t been created by the Euboians, but by bilingual Phoeni-
cians f r o m Tyre via Cyprus. N o t by accidental traders, but by a settled community o f
traders and engineers. Herodotus knew m o r e than w e d o . 1 0 4 T h e place of the adaptation
w e r e n o t the shores o f the Middle East, but the area o f the Strait o f Euripus. T h e date
o f the transmission was n o t the 9 t h o r the 8 t h century BC. T h e innovation took place
around 1 0 0 0 BC. A Phoenician prince bearing the name Baal-Mettes, contemporary o f
Hiram I o f Tyre and S o l o m o n o f Israel, could easily adapt his p r o p e r name into Palame-
des, giving us a tangible p r o o f o f his capacities as a translator o f one language into a
new writing code. If the G r e e k alphabet did not appear until the second half o f the 8 t h
century BC, this means only that it remained hidden in a circle o f v e r y f e w p e o p l e . 1 0 5
T h e spread and the circulation o f the alphabet in the second half o f the 8 t h century B C
constitutes only a p r o o f o f the beginning o f literacy, n o t ignorance o f alphabetical wri-
102 R. V. Desborough, The Greek Dark Ages, London 1972, 54—55, frequently underlines that the time of
the rising of the Proto-Geometric ceramic in Athens appears to be open to contacts with Cyprus. This has
been developed by B. D'Agostino, Dal Submiceneo alia cultura geometrica: problemi e centri di sviluppo,
in: R. Bianchi Bandinelli (ed.), Storia e civiltä dei Greci, Milano 1978, 166—167, when he notes that the
inspiration for the new ceramic forms in Athens comes from Cyprus. If the Gephyraeans left Euboia and
Boeotia at the end of the 11th c. BC for Athens and if, as we have stated, were of Phoenician-Cypriot
origin, then it must be them who brought the new didaskalia on geometry to Athens: those circles made
with the multiple paintbrush already known in the ,Cypro-Phoenician' ceramic. That might finally explain
the Cypriot connection to Proto-Geometric Athens through the determinant intervention of the genos of
the Gephyraioi.
103 R. Kearsley, The Pendent Semi-Circle Skyphos. A Study of its Development, a Chronology and an Exami-
nation of It as Evidence for Euboean Activity at Al Mina, BICS, Suppl. 44, London 1989. Historians
would like to know more about the origin and the chronological beginning of the so-called ,Black on Red
ware', like the one- or two-handled lekytbia decorated with black concentric circles and horizontal black
bands or the sphaerical neck-ridge jugs with concentric circles, because the first exemplars seem to belong
to 12th—10th c. BC. They are commonly referred to as Cypriot or Cypro-Phoenician and, as Leila Badre
pinpoints, Karageorghis/Stampolidis (η. 1) Catalogue 259, they are usually deemed as imported from Cy-
prus to the Phoenicians only because Iron Age-Phoenicia is still unexplored; S. V Chapman, A Catalogue
of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye and Qasmieh of South Lebanon,
Berytus 21, 1972, 55—194. We would like to be able to clarify whether they precede or not the Pendant
Semi-Circles motif of Euboia, since the shfphoi with pendant semicircle decoration appear not to be evol-
ved yet between the years 1000 and 950 BC, for example in the Building of Lefkandi, Popham/Touloupa/
Sackett (n. 74) 171, in order to name them another Phoenician didaskalion to the Greeks.
104 Nevertheless, nobody has told us who the inventor of the alphabet in the tale of Herodotus was. By other
ancient authors we learn that his name was Palamedes, without any reference to the Gephyraeans. Powell
(η. 1) accepts the historicity of Palamedes and he attributes to him the introduction of the alphabet, in
order to write down the Iliad. At first glance, nothing permits us to combine the two traditions, by
bringing Palamedes into the Gephyraeans' clan. We cannot explain the silence of Herodotus at this propo-
sal.
105 Β. B. Powell, The Origins of Alphabetic Literacy among the Greeks, in: Phoinikeia Grammata (η. 1)
357—370; W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, Cambridge (Mass.) 1989; R. Thomas, Literacy and Orality in An-
cient Greece, Cambridge 1992, 69—73.

318 ΤΗ. MAVROJANNIS, Herodotus
ting. 106 Archaeology has still a long way to go as an .exact science' to register the trou-
bled and disturbed layers of the literary tradition.
In these conclusions I agree with the Semitists who retain a high chronology for the
creation of the Greek alphabet. 107 As far as every low chronology is concerned, this
tends often to exclude the significance of the Phoenicians from the early Archaic history
of the Mediterranean world for prejudicial reasons that Martin Bernal brought to light in
his chapter „The Final Solution of the Phoenician Problem, 1885-1945".
Summary
The present study attempts to check the reliability of the version presented by Herodo-
tus about the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks. A renovated effort is
being made in order to flake off the layers concerning the oral tradition of the genos of
the Gephyraeans. The Gephyraeans are disconnected chronologically from the Phoeni-
cians of Cadmus, by being brought into the horizon of the ,Dark Ages' (11th—10th cen-
turies BC). The Eretria of the Gephyraeans of Herodotus is identified with the wider
area of Eretrike chora attested by Strabo. In the Proto-Geometric settlement of Lefkandi
the traces of the settling-down of the Gephyraeans in the area of Euripus are recognised.
The name Gephyraioi may have been attributed to them because of the building of a
wooden bridge in the Strait of Euripus. It must have taken place in the time of king
Hiram I of Tyre, according to the engineering skills the Tyrians demonstrated to possess
as in the case of Jerusalem. The so-called ,Heroon' at Lefkandi is identified with the
tomb of the mythical Palamedes, who in the Greek tradition bears the honour to be the
inventor of the alphabet and in the Latin tradition is qualified as a Phoenician descen-
dant of Belus. It is pointed out that the intermediary link to the knowledge of the Greek
language by the Phoenicians of Tyre may have been Cyprus. Nevertheless, the adoption
of the new alphabetical code may have occurred in the area between Euboia and Boetia,
since there the use of the syllabic Linear Β had meanwhile been lost. It is suggested that
the introduction of the alphabet might consequently be put in the 10th century BC, al-
though inscriptions of such an early time are not documented. Finally, the contribution of
the Phoenicians to the creation of the Proto-Geometric style is being put forward. This
106 The Alphabet did exist prior to the time of Homer. In this sense, the code was simply developed in order
to record Homer and not created to recording the epics, like Powell (η. 1) believes. On the other hand, if
the Greeks did borrow the alphabet in about 1000 BC, the Homeric poems may have been written down
earlier.
107 B. L. Ullman, How old is the Greek alphabet, AJA 38, 1934, 3 5 9 - 3 8 1 ; S. Segert, Altaramäische Schrift
und Anfänge des griechischen Alphabets, Klio 41, 1963, 38—57; H.Jensen, Sign, Symbol and Script: An
Account of Efforts to Write, New York 3 1969; J. Naveh, Some Semitic epigraphical considerations on the
antiquity of the Greek alphabet, AJA 77, 1973, 1 - 8 (around 1100 BC); id., Early History of the Alphabet,
Jerusalem/Leiden 1982, 175—186; id., Semitic epigraphy and the antiquity of the Greek alphabet, Kadmos
30, 1991, 143—152; G. Garbini, Genesi dell'alfabeto greco, in: G. Pugliese-Carratelli (ed.), I Greci in Occi-
dente (Catalogo Mostra 1996, Venezia), Milano 1996, 43—46. The history of the debate is collected in
G. Pfohl, Das Alphabet: Entstehung und Entwicklung der griechischen Schrift, Darmstadt 1968. A list
with dates is found in A. Heubeck, Schrift, in: F. Matz/H.-G. Bucholz (eds.), Archaeologia Homerica III,
Göttingen 1979. See now D. G. Miller, Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge, Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia 1994, 3 9 - 6 0 .
108 M. Bernal, Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, I. The Fabrication of Ancient
Greece 1785—1985, London 1987, 367—399; see for example 396: „Alphabetic transmission had to have
taken place outside Greece; otherwise it would have required substantial Phoenician settlement, and hence
,racial' mixing."

KLIO 89 (2007) 2 319
is combined with their capacity to make geometric measurements like those adopted in
the hekaton pecheon, the Heroon. These abstract geometric designs may well have corre-
sponded to the other didaskalia brought by the Phoenicians in Greece. In conclusion, it
is argued that the re-examination of the question when, how, and where the alphabet
rose must be based more on the discredited text of Herodotus and less on the absence
of inscriptions before the 8 th century BC.


Herodotus On The Introduction of The Pho PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herodotus On The Introduction of The Pho PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KLIO I 89 I 2007 | 2 | 291-319 |

Theodoros Mavrojannis (Nikosia)

Herodotus on the Introduction

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

contribution of the Phoenicians to Greek culture (V 58,1—3). But which Phoenicians

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

other way. It is not necessary, however, to deem it as a contradiction, since it can be

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

B) Structure and Comments on Herodotus' Passage

The didaskalia and the introduction of the alphabet

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Who made the changes to „the letters"?

The Gephyraeans as descendants of the .Phoenicians of Cadmus'

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

How could the Gephyraeans change the letters?

Changes to phone and rhythmos of grammata

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

bo could correspond to the Proto-Geometric necropoleis of Lefkandi of the 11 th —10 th

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Plut. N u m a I X : Ν ο μ α δέ καϊ τ ή ν των α ρ χ ι ε ρ έ ω ν , ους π ο ν τ ί φ ι κ α ς κα-

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

προσήκουσαν τοις ίερεΰσιν. ού γάρ θεμιτόν, άλλ' έπάρατον ήγεΐσθαι

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

A first clue that t h e architects o f b r i d g e s o v e r i m p o r t a n t sea c r o s s i n g s w e r e P h o e n i -

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

D) The Gephyraeans-Phoenicians and the Proto-Geometric building

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

depends on the necessity to construct a building according to mathematical proportions

83 Coulton (n. 75) 35 and 37.

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

element of Phoenician kingship. 91 To transform it in the Greek syllabic system of Pala-

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

metric ceramic in about 1 0 5 0 / 2 5 B C is exclusively due to the G r e e k genius, without any

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

Brought to you by | University of Cyprus

You might also like