Warfare and Society in Early Greece (Ph.D. dissertation)

VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

Warfare and Society in Early Greece FROM THE FALL OF THE MYKENAIAN PALACES TO THE END OF THE PERSIAN WARS

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. L.M. Bouter, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de faculteit der Letteren op dinsdag 16 maart 2010 om 13.45 uur in de aula van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105

door José Johannes Brouwers

The cover depicts a terracotta relief shield from the early fifth century B.C. found in Korinth. Vector drawing by the author after Newhall 1931, pl. II; previously published as Brouwers 2007a, 310 fig. 6.

VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

Warfare and Society in Early Greece FROM THE FALL OF THE MYKENAIAN PALACES TO THE END OF THE PERSIAN WARS

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. L.M. Bouter, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de faculteit der Letteren op dinsdag 16 maart 2010 om 13.45 uur in de aula van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105

door José Johannes Brouwers geboren te Eindhoven

promotor: prof.dr. D.G. Yntema copromotor: dr. J.P. Crielaard

2

Nederlandse samenvatting Dit proefschrift, waarvan de titel vertaald kan worden als Oorlog en Samenleving in het Vroege Griekenland: Van de Val van de Mykeense Paleizen tot het Einde van de Perzische Oorlogen, heeft als onderwerp oorlogvoering in het vroege Griekenland in de periode tussen c. 1200 en 500 v. Chr. Het begrip ‘oorlogvoering’ vat ik breed op: het behelst alle activiteiten die te maken hebben met vechten, van grote veldslagen tot rooftochten, van hinderlagen tot belegeringen. Het behelst in dit proefschrift echter ook het concept ‘martialiteit’, i.e. het geheel aan martiale waarden die voornamelijk door de elite werden aangehangen, maar die ook werden onderschreven door andere sociale groepen binnen Griekse gemeenschappen. Oorlogvoering is in zekere zin een extroverte activiteit, waarin men geweld gebruikt om bepaalde doelen te bereiken; martialiteit is introvert en speelt een rol in het vormen en definiëren van sociale structuren in vredestijd. Welke rol oorlogvoering c.q. martialiteit speelden in vroegGriekse samenlevingen is het onderwerp van dit proefschrift. Er is in de loop der tijd zeer veel geschreven over Griekse oorlogvoering. In de inleiding van dit proefschrift verwoord ik enkele kritieken die ik heb op de tot nu toe verschenen secundaire literatuur. Zo is er tot dusver vooral veel aandacht uitgegaan naar studie van de Griekse zwaarbewapende krijger, de zogenaamde hopliet, terwijl er weinig of geen studie is gemaakt van andere typen krijgers. Daarnaast is er de laatste jaren, onder invloed van John Keegan’s The Face of Battle (1976), een sterke nadruk gekomen op het onderzoeken van de ervaring van individuele krijgers op het slagveld; deze nadruk is onterecht, omdat het vechten zelf waarschijnlijk slechts een klein deel omvat van het krijgersbestaan. Onderzoek naar Griekse oorlogvoering is bovendien veelal verricht door historici, waardoor de archeologische en iconografische bronnen doorgaans onderbelicht zijn gebleven. Dit heeft er mede toe geleid dat er een vrij monolithisch beeld is ontstaan van het oude Griekenland, waarin chronologische ontwikkelingen en regionale diversiteit nauwelijks een plaats hebben gekregen. Tenslotte is er een ideologisch probleem, namelijk het—overigens onterechte—idee dat de Grieken onze directe en verlichte voorouders waren, die een hekel hadden aan oneerlijke wijzen van vechten (hinderlagen, verrassingsaanvallen, krijgslisten, enzovoort). Om deze problemen het hoofd te bieden heb ik een vijftal doelstellingen verwoord, namelijk: (1) studie van alle verschillende soorten krijgers die in de genoemde periode bestonden; (2) onderzoeken van regionale diversiteit met betrekking tot oorlogvoering c.q. martialiteit; (3) het traceren van diachrone ontwikkelingen; (4) gedetailleerdere studie wat betreft de martiale aspecten in vredestijd, en tenslotte; (5) waar mogelijk het herevalueren van de Griekse terminologie, waarbij het achterhalen van de oorspronkelijke betekenis voorop staat. Dit laatste aspect komt voort uit mijn wens om de werkelijkheid van het verleden zo dicht mogelijk te benaderen. Er wordt bijvoorbeeld veel gesproken over Griekse ‘soldaten’, maar een soldaat is iemand die voor soldij vecht, en dat is in het oude Griekenland niet van toepassing: ‘krijger’ benadert de werkelijkheid beter. Naast deze doelstelling hanteer ik in dit proefschrift een vrij strikte methodiek: elk van de verschillende bewijscategorieën wordt apart behandeld. Deze methodiek wordt

in verkorte vorm toegepast in het hoofstuk over de Mykeense periode, inclusief de zogenaamde Laat-Helladisch IIIC period (ongeveer de twaalfde eeuw), waarin de verschillende soorten bewijsmateriaal elk in een eigen paragraaf worden behandeld. In alle verdere hoofdstukken staat één bewijssoort centraal. Na het hoofdstuk ove r de Mykeense periode bespreek ik het archeologische materiaal in drie opeenvolgende hoofdstukken. In hoofdstuk 3 zijn dit krijgergraven, waarin vooral wordt gekeken naar de belangrijke vindplaatsen te Lefkandi, Eretria, Athene, en Argos. In hoofdstuk 4 wordt het materiaal uit Griekse heiligdommen bestudeerd. Dit zijn voornamelijk vondsten van wapens en wapenrustingen, maar ook delen van strijdwagens. Het belangrijkste heiligdom was dat te Olympia. In hoofdstuk 5 bied ik een overzicht van Griekse fortificaties, waarbij het opvallend is dat de vroegste uit de periode van na de val van de Mykeense paleizen te vinden zijn in het oosten, in de Griekse nederzettingen in Anatolië, en dat die op het vasteland doorgaans veel later zijn (vooral zesde eeuw v. Chr.). In hoofdstuk 6 behandel ik de iconografische bronnen, vooral de vaasschilderingen. In dit hoofdstuk beargumenteer ik dat in tegenstelling tot wat vaak wordt beweerd, het iconografische materiaal wel degelijk gebruikt kan worden als een betrouwbare bron om inzichten te krijgen in ontwikkelingen van wapens en wapenrustingen en het gebruik daarvan, alsmede het gebruik van schepen, strijdwagens, en paarden. Ik benadruk in dit hoofdstuk eveneens dat het idee dat Griekse krijgers ‘voetsoldaten’ waren dient te worden bijgesteld, daar sommige krijgers in de achtste eeuw veel gebruik maakten van strijdwagens en vanaf ongeveer 700 v. Chr. vaak te paard van en naar het strijdveld trokken. Ik betoog dan ook dat het zogenaamde Argivische schild— een groot rond en hol schild met een dubbele handgreep—speciaal was ontworpen voor mannen die veel tijd doorbrachten te paard. De tekstuele bronnen vormen het onderwerp voor de volgende drie hoofdstukken. In hoofdstuk 7 behandel ik de Homerische epen, met speciale aandacht voor de Ilias. Hierin komt ook explicieter het idee naar voren dat in het voor-Klassieke tijdperk alleen de aristocraten deel lijken te nemen aan de oorlog; het ‘gewone volk’ speelt hierin nauwelijks een rol. In hoofdstuk 8 staan tekstuele bronnen uit de Archaïsche periode (c. zevende en zesde eeuw v. Chr.) centraal, te weten de lyrische dichters (Tyrtaios, Archilochos, enzovoort), maar ook epigrafische bronnen, zoals de inscripties die in de vroege zesde eeuw v. Chr. zijn achtergelaten in Egypte door Griekse ‘huurlingen’. In veel opzichten lijkt het beeld dat uit het zevende en zesde eeuwse materiaal te reconstrueren valt sterk op wat in de Homerische epiek tegenkomen: vooraanstaande mannen vochten met speer en schild in doorgaans kleine, mobiele groepjes (zogenaamde warbands). Deze mobiele groepjes bestonden uit mannen die doorgaans ook in vredestijd met elkaar omgingen: zij namen ook deel aan gezamelijke feestmalen en drinkgelagen. Veranderingen zijn duidelijk te merken wanneer in hoofdstuk 9 de Historiai van Herodotos onder de loep worden genomen. Deze hebben als onderwerp de Perzische Oorlogen, de strijd die de Grieken leverden om het hoofd te bieden aan het Perzische Rijk in vooral de eerste kwart van de vijfde eeuw v. Chr. Herodotos concentreert zich vooral op het Attische leger, maar de beschrijvingen doen vermoeden dat andere Griekse gemeenschappen zich in die tijd op vergelijkbare wijze organiseerden. Verder is er vrij algemeen sprake van schaalvergroting en enige mate van professionalisering: de legers zijn groter en bestaan uit een maatschappelijk gezien diversere groep

krijgers, die niet langer worden aangevoerd door (pseudo-)Homerische krijgsheren, maar door een soort beambten (stratēgoi, taxiarchoi, enzovoort) die door een officieel orgaan zijn aangewezen. De kleine warbands van het eerdere tijdperk zijn verdwenen. Het tiende en laatste hoofdstuk is de conclusie van het proefschrift, waarin het voorgaande wordt samengevat, gecontrasteerd, en verder wordt geïnterpreteerd. Na een korte bespreking betreffende de sterke en zwakke punten van het bewijsmateriaal ga ik over tot een discussie betreffende de belangrijkste wapens en wapenrustingen. Dit leidt tot een belangrijk punt, namelijk dat het misleidend is om te spreken van verschillende ‘typen’ krijgers. Dit veronderstelt namelijk een zekere specialisatie die in de periode voorafgaand aan de Perzische Oorlogen niet van toepassing was. Krijgers in dit tijdvak waren zeer divers en flexibel. Regionale diversiteit speelt hierbij ook een rol; zo gebruikten tenminste sommige Griekse krijgers op het vasteland paarden als transportmiddel en stegen zij af als ze gingen vechten, terwijl we in Oost-Griekenland vaker te maken lijken te hebben met krijgers die ook vanaf hun paard vochten (zogenaamde ‘echte cavalerie’). Krijgers die op de korte afstand vochten hadden de beschikking over verschillende soorten wapens en wapenrustingen. Vooral in de twaalfde tot en met de achtste eeuw v. Chr. is er veel diversiteit. De uitrusting wordt meer uniform na 700 v. Chr. Veel krijgers vechten met speer en schild, en bronzen wapenrusting wordt meer gangbaar vanaf de late zevende eeuw v. Chr. Boogschutters waren zeldzaam en lijken doorgaans tot de aristocratie te hebben behoord: er is geen bewijs die de aanname van de meeste geleerden ondersteunt dat zij uit de lagere klassen kwamen. Naar mijn idee was in de voor-Klassieke periode oorlogvoering, en alles wat daarmee samenhing, het voorrecht van de aristocratie. De aristocraten hadden het recht om in vredestijd gewapend over straat te gaan en beslissingen te nemen uit naam van de hele gemeenschap. In ruil voor deze politieke macht hadden zij de plicht om in tijden van oorlog de gemeenschap te beschermen. De lagere klassen speelden nauwelijks, misschien geheel geen rol wat oorlogvoeren en politiek bedrijven betrof. Met andere woorden, oorlogvoeren was een belangrijk deel van de levenstijl van vroeg Griekse vooraanstaande mannen; het bepaalde in grote mate hun identiteit en daarmee hun plaats in de wereld. Deze ideologie was zo sterk en bleef dusdanig lang gehandhaafd dat verondersteld kan worden dat het niet alleen werd onderschreven door diegenen die er direct hun voordeel mee konden behalen (viz. de aristocraten), maar waarschijnlijk ook door de lagere klassen van de samenleving.

English summary The subject of this Ph.D. dissertation is warfare in ancient Greece in the period between roughly 1200 and 500 B.C. ‘Warfare’ is here taken to include all activities related to fighting, from pitched battles to raids, from ambushes to sieges. However, it also encompasses the concept of ‘martiality’, i.e. the totality of martial values adhered to by the elite in particular, but also supported by other social groups within Greek communities. Warfare is essentially an extrovert activity, in which violence is used to achieve specific goals; martiality is introvert and plays a part in the shaping and delineating of social structures in times of peace. What parts warfare c.q. martiality played in early Greek societies is explored in the course of this dissertation. Much has already been written about warfare in ancient Greece. In the first, introductory chapter, I outline some of the major problems, as I see them, in much of what has already been published. For example, great attention has been lavished on the study of the Greek heavily-armed warrior, the so-called hoplite, while other kinds of fighters have often been ignored. Furthermore, as a result of John Keegan’s influential book The Face of Battle (1976), there has been a tendency among scholars in the past twenty or so years to examine war from the perspective of the individual warrior on the battlefield. This emphasis on personal combat experience is unfortunate, especially because fighting itself was presumably just a small part of what made a man a warrior in the social and symbolic sense. In addition, research into Greek warfare has often been the province of historians, which means that much relevant archaeological and iconographic material have received comparatively little attention. As a result, present views on ancient Greece tend to be monolithic; there is very little room with respect to diachronic developments or regional variety. Finally, there is an ideological problem, namely the—coincidentally unjustified—idea that the ancient Greeks were our direct and enlightened forebears, who detested dishonourable ways of fighting (ambushes, surprise attacks, tricks, and so forth). In order to avoid committing the same errors, I therefore set myself five goals, namely: (1) analyse the different types of warriors that existed in the period under examination; (2) investigate regional diversity with respect to warfare and martiality; (3) trace developments through time; (4) make a detailed study of the role of martial values in times of peace, and finally; (5) where possible re-revaluate ancient Greek terminology, with the express purpose of retrieving original meanings of significant terms and phrases. This last aspect derives from my desire to make as accurate a reconstruction of the past as possible. For example, there is a tendency to speak of Greek ‘soldiers’, but a soldier is literally someone who fights for pay, which is strictly untrue in the Greek sense; the word ‘warrior’ is a better alternate. Aside from these specific goals I also employ a rather strict methodology: each of the different categories of evidence are discussed more or less in isolation. This method is demonstrated in abbreviated form in the second chapter, which deals with the Mykenaian period, including the so-called Late Helladic IIIC period (roughly the twelfth century B.C.). In this chapter, each of the different kinds of evidence is discussed in its own section. In all of the other main chapters, only one class of evidence is discussed. In three chapters, I discuss the available archaeological material.

Warrior graves are the subject of chapter 3, in which I focus my attention mainly on the finds at Lefkandi, Eretria, Athens, and Argos. In chapter 4 I study the martial evidence unearthed at major Greek sanctuaries. These include arms and armour, but also the remains of chariots. The most important sanctuary was that at Olympia. In chapter 5 I provide an overview of Greek fortifications. The earliest of these following the collapse of the Mykenaian palaces c. 1200 B.C. are found in Asia Minor; the fortifications on the Greek mainland tend to be much later (especially the sixth century B.C.). The iconographic evidence, mainly vase-paintings, is the subject of chapter 6. In this chapter, I argue that the iconographic material can be used as a more or less reliable source of information to gain insights into the development and use of weapons and armour, as well as the use of ships, chariots, and horses. I emphasise that the notion regarding Greek ‘foot-soldiers’ needs to be re-assessed, as at least some warriors in the eighth century B.C. made heavy use of chariots and, from about 700 onwards, also rode to the battlefield on horseback. I also argue that the so-called Argive shield—a round and hollow shield with a double-grip—was designed specifically to be easily carried by men on horseback. The next three chapters focus on an analysis of the textual evidence. In chapter 7 I turn my attention to the Homeric epic, with special emphasis on the Iliad. I also make explicit the idea that in the pre-Classical period only the aristocracy appears to have played a part in war; the lower orders of society are mostly absent. Texts from the Archaic period, especially the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., are the subject of chapter 8. These include the lyric poets (Tyrtaios, Archilochos, and so on), but also epigraphic sources, such as the inscriptions left behind by Greek ‘mercenaries’ in Egypt in the sixth century B.C. In many respects, the reconstructions based on the Archaic evidence are similar to what we may glean from the Homeric epics: affluent men fought with spears and shields in typically small and mobile groups (so-called ‘warbands’). These warriors would also associate with each other in times of peace, taking part in feasts and related social activities. Significant changes are noted when, in chapter 9, I turn to an examination of the Historiai written by Herodotos. The Historiai are about the Persian Wars, the collection of battles fought by the Greeks against the invading Persian Empire during the first quarter of the fifth century B.C. Herodotos mostly focuses on the Athenian army, but his descriptions imply that the armies of other Greek communities were organised along similar lines. Broadly speaking, it is clear that there has been a sizeable increase in scale: armies are larger and consist of a socially diverse group of people, who are no longer led into battle by (pseudo-)Homeric warlords, but rather by centrally-appointed officials (stratēgoi, taxiarchoi, and so on). The smallish warbands of the earlier era have disappeared. The tenth and final chapter is the conclusion to my Ph.D. dissertation, in which the material of the preceding chapters are summarised and contrasted, and the results interpreted. After a brief discussion concerning the strong and weak points of the evidence at large, I turn to a discussion concerning the most important ty pes of weapons and armour. This leads to an important point, namely that, for the period in question, it is misleading to speak of different ‘types’ of warriors. This assumes a certain level of specialisation that in the period preceding the Persian Wars apparently did not exist. Instead, warriors were very flexible. Regional diversity also plays a part;

for example, whereas some mainland Greeks used horses mostly as a mode of conveyance to get to and from the battlefield, there is some evidence that suggest the use of ‘true cavalry’ in Asia Minor, i.e. mounted men who also fought from horseback. Warriors who fought short-ranged engagements could pick a variety of weapons and armour, especially in the period between 1200 and 700 B.C. From the late eighth century onwards, there is a move toward somewhat more uniform equipment. Archers were relatively rare and appear to have usually belonged to the elite: there is no evidence to support the common assumption that they were culled from the lower orders. In my view, pre-Classical warfare was, in the broadest sense, the special privilege of the aristocracy. Only members of the aristocracy possessed the right to bear arms and to rule over the community as a whole. In exchange for political power they had the obligation to defend their people in times of war. The lower classes possessed little to no military and political power. In other words, warfare was part of the lifestyle of early Greek high-ranking men; it determined to a considerable extent their identity and therefore their place in the world. This ideology was so strong and remained intact for so long that it was presumably supported not just by those who benefited directly from it (viz. the aristocrats), but probably also by the lower orders of society.

Table of contents List of plates List of tables in the te xt Pre face

Chapter 1 Introduction The argume nt Proble ms and possibilitie s The structure of this book

Chapter 2 The Mykenaian prelude Introduction The Palatial period The Postpalatial pe riod Conclusions

Chapter 3 Burials with arms Introduction A surve y of the evide nce Ge neral discussion of the evide nce Conclusions

Chapter 4 Evidence from sanctuaries Introduction A surve y of the evide nce Ge neral discussion of the evide nce Conclusions

Chapter 5 Fortifications Introduction Proble ms of typology and chronology A re gional survey of the evide nce Ge neral discussion of the evide nce Conclusions

Chapter 6 The iconographic evidence Introduction Looking at Gree k art A re gional survey of the evide nce Should we speak of a ‘Gree k’ way of war? Conclusions

Chapter 7 The Homeric epics Introduction Epic socie ty Arms and armour The social life of weapons and armour Warfare in the e pic world Conclusions

5 9 11

13 13 14 19

21 21 21 28 34

37 37 37 49 55

57 57 57 63 67

69 69 69 70 84 89

91 91 92 94 132 135

139 139 140 143 155 156

3

Chapter 8 Archaic textual sources Introduction A surve y of the evide nce Conclusions

Chapter 9 Herodotos’ Persian Wars Introduction Arms and armour Warfare according to He rodotos Conclusions

Chapter 10 Conclusions Introduction Stre ngths and weaknesses of the e vide nce Weapons and armour Diffe re nt kinds of fighte rs Regional dive rsity Diachronic de ve lopments Ancie nt Gree k terminology Early Gree k warrior socie ty Closing remarks

Appendix Catalogue

4

179 179 179 201

203 203 204 205 217

221 221 221 222 227 229 231 234 236 241

243

Figurines Sculpture Wall-paintings Potte ry (e xcluding Attic black- and re d-figure ) Attic black-figure and bilingual potte ry Attic re d-figure potte ry Misce llaneous items

243 246 247 247 262 272 278

English summary Ne de rlandse same nvatting

285 289

Bibliography

293

VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

Warfare and Society in Early Greece FROM THE FALL OF THE MYKENAIAN PALACES TO THE END OF THE PERSIAN WARS

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. L.M. Bouter, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de faculteit der Letteren op dinsdag 16 maart 2010 om 13.45 uur in de aula van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105

door José Johannes Brouwers geboren te Eindhoven

promotor: prof.dr. D.G. Yntema copromotor: dr. J.P. Crielaard

List of plates Mykenaian Palatial and Postpalatial iconographic evidence 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2

Athe ns 2915. Fresco from Myke nai. Afte r: Guida 1973, pl. 19.2. Curre ntly in Athe ns. Terracotta figurine of ride r. Afte r: Guida 1973, pl. 37.2. Chora Muse um. So-calle d ‘Tarzan Fresco’ from Pylos. Afte r: Shear 2000, 68 fig. 103. Athe ns 1426. So-calle d ‘Warrior Vase ’. Afte r: Verme ule & Karageorghis 1982, pl. XI.42 Athe ns 3596 (lot 1772) and Nafplion 8357 (from Schliemann’s dump). Krater fragme nts de picting chariots and spearme n. After: Crouwe l 1981, pls. 53.a –b (V18); Guida 1973, 104 fig. 7.a–b.

Attic Geometric and Protoattic 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2

Athe ns 1141. Potte ry fragme nt de picting three warriors with each a diffe rent type of shie ld. Afte r: Guida 1973, pl. 33.4. London 1971.11–18.1. Te rracotta mode l of oblong Dipylon type shie ld. Afte r: Connolly 1998 [1981], 51. Ele usis 741. From a grave in Ele usis; battle -scenes on land and around a ship. Afte r: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 34–37 figs. 42–43 and 96 fig. 105. Be naki muse um 7675. Very Late Ge ome tric amphora de picting warriors equippe d with Argive shie lds. Afte r: Boardma n 1998, 44 fig. 68. Curre ntly in Athe ns. Protoattic pot fragments with warriors. Afte r: Van Wees 2000b, 146 fig. 15. Pe rgamon muse um 31.573.141. Protoattic sce ne de picting the start of a battle . Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 72 fig. 44. Agora P24032. Early e xample of warriors equippe d with line n corsle ts? Afte r: Jarva 1995, fig. 9. Be rlin 31573. Protoattic warriors. Afte r: Van Wees 2000b, 145 fig. 14. Athe ns 806. Warriors and chariots. Afte r: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 61–62 fig. 53. Agora P4885. Famous oinochoe showing a battle -sce ne that may include Aktorione -Molione . Afte r: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 13 fig. 2. Ne w York 10.210.8. Protoattic chariot and ride r. Afte r: Gree nhalgh 1973, 24 fig. 13. Athe ns 810. Late Ge ome tric rider. Afte r: Gree nhalgh 1973, 48 fig. 32. Athe ns 15.995. Another Late Geome tric ride r, possibly with cuirass. Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 49 fig. 34. Pe rgamon muse um 31006. An Early Protoattic e xample of a hippobatas? Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 50 fig. 35. Athe ns 14935. Plaque from Sounion showing warship with warriors. After: Boardman 1998, 100 fig. 192. Ontario 957X245. Two warriors e ngage d in single combat with swords. Afte r: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 49–51 fig. 47. Cope nhagen 1628. Fighting on and around a ship. Afte r: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 29–31 figs. 31–33. Louvre A519. A large and dynamic sce ne of battle . Afte r: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 16 figs. 5 and 6. Louvre A517. Prothesis; note chariot, arme d me n, and warship. Afte r: Ryste dt 2006b, 241 fig. 3. Be rlin A42. So-calle d ‘Me ne las Vase ’, featuring spear-carrying me n in ornate dress. Afte r: Snodgrass 1980, 102 fig. 40.

5

Attic black- and red-figure pottery and other examples of contemporary Attic art 11.1 11.2 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 17.1 17.2 18.1 18.2 19.1 19.2 20.1 20.2

London B590. Black-figure de piction of a trumpe te r. Afte r: Boardman 1991 [1974], 119 fig. 169. Pale rmo V650. Bilingual cup with warriors, ‘Skythian’ archers, and trumpe te r. Afte r: Boardman 1991 [1974], 115 figs. 160.1–2. Louvre G25. Squatting warrior. Afte r: Van Wees 2000b, 129 fig. 4.b. London E258. Note inside arrange ment of ropes of Argive shie ld. Afte r: Boardman 1975, 64 fig. 57.2. Louvre G18. Note cross -guard of Troilos’ sword. Afte r: Carpe nte r 1991, 33 fig. 34. Munich 2640. A warrior in contemporary equipme nt slaying a mythical creature. Afte r: Boardman 1975, 161 fig. 268. Naple s 81292. Black-figure hippobatas and hippostrophos. Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 119 fig. 61. Laon 37.1015. Cup de picting warriors, including hippobatai and hippostrophoi. Afte r: CVA France 20, pls. 892.1 and 892.3-4. London B191. Black-figure hippobatas dismounting. Vector drawing (first publishe d as Brouwe rs 2007a, 311 fig. 7), after: Gree nhalgh 1973, 120 fig. 62. Ashmolean 231. Band cup de picting a warrior boarding a chariot. Afte r: Boardman 1991 [1974], 86 fig. 114 Villa Giulia 27250. Re d-figure sce ne featuring Herakles, Athe na, chariot. Afte r: Boardman 1975, 77 fig. 94. Athe ns 2414. Black-figure sherd de picting epibatas aboard ship. Afte r: Fie lds 2007, 16 (fig.). London GR1843.11-3.29. Bire mes on a black-figure cup. Afte r: Fie lds 2007, 18 (fig.). Brusse ls R291. Dynamic sce ne of combat on black-figure cup. After: Boardman 1991 [1974], 126 fig. 187. Be rlin F1865. The walls of Troy, re nde re d in black-figure . Afte r: Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 38. Brusse ls R291. Warriors and ‘Skythian’ archer. Afte r: Boardman 1991 *1974+, 126 fig. 187. Be rlin F1865. Warriors and ‘Skythian’ archers working toge ther. After: Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 38. Base l BS459. Inspire d by the hoplitodromos? Afte r: Boardman 1975, 67 fig. 63. London B30. Siana cup de picting a warrior with jave lin, pe rhaps dancing. Afte r: Warry 1980, 13 (fig.). Louvre G136. Nake d warrior dancing to the tune of a flute . After: Se kunda 2000, 7 (fig.). Ke rame ikos muse um. Grave ste le of young man c.q. warrior. Afte r: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 230

Korinthian vase-painting 21.1 21.2 21.3 22.1 22.2 22.3 23.1 23.2

6

Korinth CP-2096. Battle -sce ne on an early aryballos from Lechaion. Afte r: Shanks 1999, 141 fig. 3.33.3. Pe rachora 1842. Arche r with greaves and he lme t in the midst of battle . After: Van Wees 2000b, 153 fig. 17.d. London 1969.12–15.1. So-calle d ‘Eve lyn’ aryballos de picting warrior (hippobatas) and hippostrophos. Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 58 fig. 37. Pe rachora 1556. Fragme nt de picting hippobatas and hippostrophos. Afte r: Gree nhalgh 1973, 87 fig. 47. Be rlin F1056. Two warriors fight while the ir hippostrophoi observe . Afte r: Amyx 1988, 97 pls. 44:3a–b. Athe ns 341. Early Ripe Korinthian pot with labe ls hippobatas and hippostrophos. Afte r: Alföldi 1967, 14 fig. 1. Votive shie ld of the early fifth ce ntury from Korinth’s kerameikos. Vector drawing (first publishe d in Brouwe rs 2007a, 310 fig. 6) after: Ne whall 1931, pl. II. Brunswick 235. Ba ttle -sce ne including horseme n and warriors on foot. Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 101 fig. 53.

24.1 24.2 25 26.1 26.2 26.3

Chariot-racing on a Korinthian pot. After: Johanse n 1923, pl. 34.1. Baltimore 48.2230. Achille us fighting Me mnon. After: Carpe nte r 1991, 227 fig. 326 Villa Giulia no. 22679. The famous Chigi olpe. After: Johanse n 1923, pls. 39–40. Be rlin 3773. Battle -scene on Middle Protokorinthian aryballos. Afte r: Van Wees 2000b, 141 fig. 10. London 1889.4–18.1. So-calle d ‘Macmillan’ aryballos. A 3D compute r-ge nerate d mode l by the author. Pe rachora 27. Battle -scene that includes warriors equippe d with Dipylon or Boiotian shie lds; note archer and flute -playe r. After: Shanks 1999, fig. 3.23.

Lakonian iconographic evidence 27.1 27.2 27.3 28.1 28.2 29.1 29.2 30.1 30.2

Curre ntly in Athe ns. Terracotta figurine head with conical he lme t from around 700. Afte r: Boardman 1991 [1978], 29 fig. 6. Ivory seal from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia de picting warrior. Afte r: Dawkins 1929, pl. 145.1. Be rlin 3404. Young me n carrying the bodies of olde r me n. After: Stibbe 1972, pl. 74. Plaque de picting a horseman. Afte r: Dawkins 1929, pl. 104.2. Ivory plaque de picting what looks like a hippobatas. Afte r: Gree nhalgh 1973, 95 fig. 49. Rhodes 15373. Battle -scene betwee n dismounte d hippobatai flanke d by the ir hippostrophoi. Afte r: Boardman 1998, 209 fig. 424 Re lie f vase de picting battle -sce ne and warrior with chariot. Afte r: Dawkins 1929, pl. 16. Curre ntly in Athe ns. Ivory plaque de picting warship; possibly the abduction of He le n? Afte r: Hampe & Simon 1980, 223 fig. 358. Louvre . Combat at sea be twee n rival ships. After: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.h.

Argive vase-painting 31.1 31.2 31.3 32.1

Argive Geome tric vase de picting a diminutive ride r. Afte r: Courbin 1966, pl. 8. Fragmentary votive shie ld de picting a warrior with single -grip shie ld. Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 69 fig. 42. Votive shie ld from Tiryns possibly de picting Achille us and Pe nthesilea. Afte r: Greenhalgh 1973, 68 fig. 41. London 1860.4-4.1. So-calle d ‘Euphorbos Plate ’. Afte r: Boardman 1998, 154 fig. 290.

Shield-band panel from Olympia 32.2

Olympia B1636x. Two hapless heroes discover dead Aias. Afte r: Carpe nte r 1991, 229 fig. 331.

Boiotian iconographic evidence 33.1 33.2 33.3 34.1 34.2 34.3

He ide lbe rg G60. Boiotian kantharos de picting a warrior with shie ld and bow. Afte r: CVA Ge rmany 27, pl. 1313.8. Warrior with spear raise d on a chariot; battle be tween warriors. Afte r: Gree nhalgh 1973, 13 fig. 4. Inscribe d fibula; includes a de piction of the Woode n Horse . Afte r: Hampe 1936, pls. 2–3. Be rlin Antiquarium 31013a. Chariots, warship, warrior on inscribe d fibula. Afte r: Hampe 1936, pl. 4. Athe ns 12341. Warriors locke d in single combat and a possible ride r. Afte r: Hampe 1936, pl. 15. Athe ns 4082. Early Classical te rracotta group of chariot, charioteer, and warrior. Afte r: Crouwe l 1992, pl. 5.2.

7

Material from Central Greece 35.1 35.2 35.3

Fragments of wall-painting from Kalapodi de picting warriors. Afte r: Whitley et al. 2007, 42 fig. 50. Athe ns Br. 12831. Warrior figurine from Karditsa, Thessaly. After: Thomas 1992, 52 fig. 35. Ioannina muse um. Bronze warrior figurine from around 500. Afte r: Se kunda 1998, 58 (figs.).

Material from Euboia and the Central Aegean islands 36.1 36.2 36.3 37.1 37.2 38.1 38.2 38.3 39.1 39.2 40.1 40.2

Ship from so-calle d ‘Dirmil’ krater. Afte r: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.a. Warship from an Early Subprotoge ome tric pyxis found at Le fkandi. Afte r: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.b. Warriors, horse , and warship from an inscribe d fibula from Skyros. Afte r: Sapouna-Sake llaraki 2002, 145 fig. 16. Large pot from Paros that features a battle -sce ne . After: Zaphiropoulou 2002, pl. 76A. Death of a warrior on a pot from Paros. After: Zaphiropoulou 2002, pl. 76B. Athe ns 911. Single combat betwee n warriors fighting over a prize . After: Boardman 1985 [1964], 47 fig. 42. Mykonos muse um. Re lie f pithos from Mykonos. Afte r: Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 33. Fragments of a plate from Thasos de picting a ride r. After: Boardman 1998, 131 fig. 255. Ste le from Le mnos de picting a warrior. Afte r: Boardman 1999 [1964], 85–86. London 1886.13–26.1. Klazome nian sarcophagus fragme nt de picting warriors, dog, and possibly a hippostrophos. Afte r: Boardman 1998, 174 fig. 353. Bronze breast-plate for a horse with sce ne of Herakles. Afte r: Walter 1990 106–107 figs. 120–121. Late -sixth century stone torso and head of warrior from Samos. Afte r: Thomas 1992, 63–64.

Lydian iconographic evidence 41.1 41.2

8

Battle -sce ne on a Lydian silve r alabastron from Ikizte pe . Afte r: Özge n-Öztürk 1996, 125 fig. 154. Lydian wall-painting from Tartarlı tumulus de picting warriors with sickle -swords. Afte r: Özge n-Öztürk 1996, 45 fig. 84.

List of tables in the text Table 1: Overview of weapons in the twenty-two burials with arms at Lefkandi. Numbers marked by ‘p’ are pyres, rather than graves proper. The capital letters refer to the cemetery (Skoubris, Palia Perivolia, Toumba). A small ‘x’ denotes an unknown number.

40

Table 2: swords and spears in the four graves unearthed at Eretria’s West Gate.

43

Table 3: Combinations of weapons in the nineteen burials with arms at the Athenian Kerameikos. A question mark under dagger indicates that the remains of a bladed weapon have been found, but it cannot be positively identified as either a knife, dagger, or sword.

44

Table 4: Combinations of weapons found in the graves at the Athenian Agora.

46

Table 5: Finds of weapons and armour unearthed in the fifteen burials with arms at Argos.

47

Table 6: Types of ancient Greek masonry (after Fields 2006, 12). In both basic types of masonry (coursed and uncoursed), the courses may be either the same height (isodomic) or they may vary in height (pseudo-isodomic).

70

9

Preface The present Ph.D. dissertation is about early Greek warfare in the period between the fall of the Mykenaian palaces, around 1200 B.C., and the end of the Persian Wars, i.e. the early fifth century BC. It incorporates a large amount of archaeological, iconographic, and textual evidence and hopefully presents a stimulating synthesis of the material as a whole, offering fresh insights into early Greek warfare and society. This book would not have been possible if it had not been for the encouragement and helpful advice—including prodigious amounts of notes, references, and written comments!—of my supervisor at the VU University in Amsterdam, Dr. Jan Paul Crielaard. His enthusiasm for, and knowledge of the subject were a constant source of inspiration. I thank him wholeheartedly for sticking with the project through the years—going back to when it was just still a master’s thesis—and lending his support even in times when the present author was on the verge of chucking it all in. Naturally, I alone am responsible for any errors that remain in the text. I should also like to thank my promotor at the VU University, Prof. Douwe Yntema. In addition, I thank the members of the committee for taking the time to read this Ph.D. dissertation. They include Prof. Nico Roymans and Dr. Mieke Prent (VU University Amsterdam), Dr. Henk Singor (Leiden University), Prof. Josine Blok (Utrecht University), and Prof. Hans van Wees (University College London). Prof. Van Wees has supplied ample criticism regarding some of my interpretations, as well as further comments and corrections, for which I am grateful. Again, any errors that remain and viewpoints expressed in the text are, of course, mine alone. Finally, I should point out that much of the present research was made possibly thanks to a Ph.D. grant awarded by the Faculty of Arts at the VU University in Amsterdam. This grant allowed me to work at the university for a little over two years, gaining invaluable experience both as a researcher and a teacher. Josho Brouwers

11

Chapter 1

Introduction 1. The argument This book is about warfare and martiality in ancient Greece in the period between roughly the fall of the Mykenaian palaces and the end of the Persian Wars, or down to around 500 (all dates are B.C. unless otherwise noted). I here take ‘warfare’ to encompass all activities in which fighting takes centre stage, from pitched battles to raids, from ambushes to sieges. ‘Martiality’ refers to the totality of martial values espoused primarily by the elite, but supported by the lower social groups within Greek communities.1 Whereas warfare consists of violent activities aimed at obtaining one or more specific goals (riches, slaves, glory, and so on), martiality plays an important role in shaping and defining social structures in times of peace. One might say that warfare is extrovert, creating an arena in which two communities come to blows over something (or, indeed, someone); martiality is introvert, a totality of martial values used to structure and shape a specific community and its constituent social groups. Exactly what part or parts warfare and martiality played in shaping Early Greece is a question to be answered in the course of this book. The period under examination is very dynamic. At the end of the Bronze Age, in the decades around 1200, the earlier palace civilisation that flourished in Greece met with catastrophe. Many of the palaces, which formed the heart of this society, were destroyed by unknown assailants. The following period, referred to as Late Helladic IIIC (roughly the twelfth and part of the eleventh centuries), saw the slow decay of this culture until it vanished, although there is some continuity (especially as regards chariots and warships). The Early Iron Age, the period between 1000 and 700, was a time of renewal, a formative period. A new kind of complex society slowly rose from the ashes of the earlier palace civilisation. The earliest historical period, i.e. a time when writing was in relatively common usage, is referred to as the Archaic period (roughly the seventh and sixth centuries). Traditionally, it ends with the so-called Persian Wars, a number of battles fought between 490 and 479 during which many of the cities of Greece joined in alliance to fend off an invasion from the mighty Persian Empire. To sum up, the period under examination sees the fall and subsequent rise of complex societies and their associated sociopolitical structures in the

1

Cf. Roymans 1996, 13-14 (on Gallic martiality).

13

Aegean. Will developments in warfare and martiality prove equally dynamic? Much of Greece consists of mountains; there is comparatively little flat arable land except in Boiotia, Thessaly, and other regions further north. In Asia Minor, Greek cities were founded along the coast in river plains, close to areas under the control of larger Eastern empires. So throughout the entire Greek Aegean world, much of the available land is fragmented; add to this the many small islands that dot the Ionian and Aegean Seas. These geographical factors no doubt fostered the development of relatively small, autonomous communities following the collapse of the Bronze-Age palaces. These small communities, often consisting of a central, more or less urban settlement and its surrounding countryside, are often referred to as poleis, ‘city-states’. As the landscape is so fragmented, it seems probable that communities differed from each other to a greater or lesser degree. What parts did warfare and martial values play in shaping these societies? The regional variety and the dynamic history in the period under examination means that one expects the ancient Greek communities to be equally diverse. However, most modern authors present ancient Greece, including the developments in military matters, as a homogeneous entity, with innovations in one place being regarded as more or less representative for developments within the Aegean basin as a whole. Two cities in particular are often discussed by modern authors, namely Athens and Sparta. Much of the modern debate is distinctly Athenocentric, with evidence for Sparta used as a kind of counterpoint. Sparta was a bit of an oddity in the Classical period (say the fifth and fourth centuries), as its entire society was geared for war. However, during the period under examination neither Athens nor Sparta rose to prominence until relatively late. Other settlements were perhaps more powerful, such as Korinth and Argos. In this book, I look not just as Athens and Sparta, but try to trace regional developments throughout the Aegean area; the purpose is not to write yet another Athenocentric pastiche of ancient Greek warfare. In order to capture the diversity in space and time, a different approach is adopted in this book compared to what has become the norm. I have grouped the evidence into three classes, namely the literary sources (Homer, Archaic sources, and Herodotos), the iconographic evidence (vase-paintings, and so on), and the material remains (such as weapon graves). Special emphasis is placed on regional diversity, and in many instances the evidence is discussed according to region, such as the Argolid or Euboia. Furthermore, the data is generally presented in chronological order. This approach allows the comparison of different types of evidence and evidence from different times and places. The overall purpose of my research was to produce a dynamic study on warfare and martiality, and the way these aspects helped to shape social structures and, ultimately, decide the course of ancient Greek history. 2. Problems and possibilities Much has been published on ancient Greek warfare already. The reader

14

may wonder why anyone would want to write yet another book on so well-trodden a subject? I will try to answer that question in the following two subsections. Firstly, I will discuss some of the flaws or problems that I believe have hindered our understanding of Greek warfare and martiality. I will not provide a summary of the main points in scholarly debates; for that, I refer the reader to the detailed bibliographical essay in J.E. Lendon’s recent book Soldiers and Ghosts. 2 Rather, I wish to point out major flaws in methodology. Secondly, I present the possibilities that are still available in our particular field, but which for the most part have remained untapped. a. Problems There is a wealth of secondary literature on ancient Greek warfare; however, much of it tends to focus on very narrow problems. In particular, much ink has been spent discussing the problems of the so-called ‘hoplite phalanx’. The term ‘hoplite’ was applied to a specific type of heavy-armed warrior, characterised by a large round shield with a double-grip, who used a thrusting spear as his main weapon. The ‘phalanx’ was the rectangular battle-formation used by hoplites. The earliest ‘hoplites’ are thought to have appeared around 700. Questions on when, where, and how they came about, when they adopted the phalanx formation, and whether or not these developments had any political repercussions, have been at the centre of the scholarly debate up to the present moment.3 The numerous monographs and articles that have appeared on the hoplite phalanx demonstrate some of the flaws that characterise much of the available secondary literature. Emphasis is usually placed quite squarely on the literary evidence. Authors from different periods and places are often mixed together. For example, data gleaned from Xenophon’s writings (fourth century) are used next to information taken from Herodotos (floruit around 450) to arrive at a more or less static, or ‘monolithic’ picture of warfare in ancient Greece. As a result, changes in time and regional developments are largely ignored. Furthermore, there is a tendency to take information from relatively late authors to fill in any gaps for earlier periods; this often unwittingly fosters the adoption of a teleological perspective. The end result is a picture of warfare in ancient Greece that is static, monolithic, and anachronistic; a pastiche, rather than an accurate reflection of complex and dynamic historical processes. A relatively recent development is the shift in emphasis away from describing military technologies, battles and wars. Instead, a new area of investigation has emerged. Some scholars attempt to understand the experience of the individual Greek fighter in combat. These studies draw their inspiration from John Keegan’s influential book, The Face of Battle (1976). Among modern students of ancient Greece, Keegan’s most devoted follower is Victor Davis Hanson.4 This development is regrettable, as it only serves to further narrow the scope of Greek warfare. It misleads the reader 2 3 4

Le ndon 2005, 393-409. E.g., Cawkwe ll 1989; Holladay 1982; Kre ntz 2002; Salmon 1977; Snodgrass 1965. See especially Hanson 2000 [1989].

15

in making it seem as if war only consisted of battle. Indeed, one of Hanson’s edited volumes has the telling subtitle, The Classical Greek Battle Experience.5 In his review of Keegan’s book in the New York Times (March 23, 1986), Edward N. Luttwak succinctly criticised this battle-centred approach: Once we recognize that battle is no more characte ristic of war than copulation is of marriage , we begin to unde rstand why the upkee p of military forces in peace time and pe rseve rance in arme d conflict can still survive the human e xperie nce of combat, instead of be ing swe pt away by the outrage of those who have bee n in its he ll and have come back to te ll the tale . Pe rsonal e xpe rie nce of battle can easily pe rsuade those who participate in it that no purpose of state , not e ve n se lf-de fense and certainly not conquest, can justify its deadly brutalities. But those who can be so pe rsuade d are so fe w—and the e xpe rie nce is so brie f—that the impact is not las ting. Eve n those war vete rans who have actually witne sse d combat te nd to recall the comrade ship and the inte nsity of life more vividly than the horror and de gradation; and they rare ly become pacifists.

Most authors in the field of Greek warfare are historians, which explains why the literary evidence so frequently assumes centre stage in much of the secondary literature on the subject. However, archaeologists too have often adopted a limited point of view when discussing ancient Greek military matters. Most of their comparatively limited output consists of either typochronological studies of weapons and armour, or iconographic studies. Examples of the former include Anthony Snodgrass’s Early Greek Armour and Weapons and Eero Jarva’s Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour.6 As regards the latter, Gudrun Ahlberg’s study Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art is a good example.7 These studies, while valuable, generally do not stray too far from the evidence itself; questions on sociopolitical developments and martiality tend to be ignored. Finally, there is a tendency among some classical scholars to idealise ancient Greece. After all, ancient Greece is often seen as more or less the direct precursor of the supposedly typical ‘Western’ way of life. The Athenian democracy of the Classical period, for example, is usually—and quite falsely—regarded as the ancestor to modern democracy. A particularly gratuitous example of how preconceptions may influence one’s interpretation of ancient evidence can be found in Victor Davis Hanson’s most famous book, with the telling title The Western Way of War. In this book, Hanson contrasts the supposedly honest and open style of fighting used by Western armies with the tactics employed by their (our?) enemies: We have put ourse lves out of busine ss, so to speak; for any pote ntial adversary has now discove re d the futility of an ope n, de libe rate struggle on a Weste rn-style battle fie ld against the fire powe r and discipline of Weste rn infantry. Ye t, ominously, the legacy of the Gree ks’ battle style linge rs on, a narcotic that we cannot put away. [...] The re is in all of us a re pugnance , is the re not, for hit-and-run tactics, for skirmishing and ambush?8

5 6 7 8

16

Hanson 1991. Snodgrass 1964b; Jarva 1995. Ahlbe rg 1971a. Hanson 2000 [1989], 13.

Hanson’s ancient Greeks dislike hit-and-run tactics because, clearly, all us ‘Westerners’ find such matters repugnant. As we shall see in later chapters of this book, the Greeks found nothing particularly distasteful about skirmishing or ambush. What the modern student thinks of such matters ought not to make any difference! This example demonstrates some of the dangers inherent in equating ancient Greece with our modern world and values. But whatever our personal opinions and beliefs, these must not cloud our understanding of another culture, removed from us both in time and space, and therefore to at least some degree alien to us. b. Possibilities Resurrecting age-old discussions, such as those concerning the perceived rise of the hoplite phalanx, can serve no purpose other than to continue running around in ever decreasing circles. Instead, the debates must be sidestepped altogether. Issues of warfare and martiality in ancient Greece have to be examined on their own terms by returning to the primary evidence and re-evaluating it systematically. This approach will hopefully prevent us from getting sucked back into any pre-existing discussions and allow us to attempt a more accurate reconstruction of war and related matters in Early Greece. Foregoing these narrow discussions, there is a world of possibilities left to explore. Firstly, I shall discuss all of the different kinds of fighters that existed during the chosen time period. Too much effort has been spent on studying the hoplite, the heavy-armed fighter, at the expense of other types of troops. There is no reason to assume a priori that only heavy-armed spearmen were the dominant or even only force on the battlefield throughout Greece and during the whole of the period under examination. A few monographs have appeared in which other kinds of fighters were the object of study.9 The only type of warrior about which a fair amount of studies have appeared are horsemen;10 these monographs, unfortunately, rely mostly on Classical texts and therefore deal only sparsely, if at all, with horsemen during our period. The only exception is Peter Greenhalgh’s Early Greek Warfare. Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages, published back in 1973.11 Secondly, I shall examine regional diversity as regards matters of war, martiality, and related aspects. No study has as yet appeared in which a serious attempt is made at analysing regional diversity in matters of war and martiality. What, for example, do we know of warfare on the islands? In this book, the evidence is collected from a number of regions. These include Southern Greece (say, the Peloponnese), Central Greece (Attika, Boiotia, and so on), the Aegean islands, and the Greek inhabited areas along the west-coast of Asia Minor (i.e., ‘East Greece’). These regions are often considered the heart or ‘core’ of Greek culture, but is the area as a whole indeed culturally homogenous? Because of constraints in time and space, a 9 10 11

E.g., Be st 1969; Vos 1963. Ande rson 1961; Bugh 1988; Gae be l 2002; Spe nce 1993; Worley 1994. Greenhalgh 1973.

17

number of areas cannot be surveyed in much detail and will only be mentioned in passing. These include Krete, Makedonia, and the Greek colonies outside the Aegean basin, such as in Southern Italy and along the shores of the Black Sea. Only one area outside the Greek ‘core’ is discussed to serve as a test case to contrast and compare the evidence with, namely Thessaly. Thirdly, I shall trace diachronic developments. Many modern authors largely ignore changes in time.12 Hanson, in his edited volume on ‘Classical’ warfare, is one of the few writers who actually says so explicitly. He states that ‘it is essential to remember that conflict between the classical Greek city-states for over two centuries (ca. 650–431) usually focused—at least on land—on one encounter, a day’s collision between phalanxes of heavily armed infantry.’13 Aside from his peculiar usage of the term ‘Classical’ (from the seventh century onwards?), his assertion that fighting during a period of more than two hundred years remains largely the same is dubious; it arises only because of his uncritical use of the literary evidence, in which he freely mixes older and younger literary sources. This approach is not adopted in this book. After all, does the evidence provided by, say, a seventh-century poet from Paros apply to the situation in the Argolid at the end of the sixth century? The frequently adopted approach assumes that Greece as a whole changed little in the course of time. Is this assumption warranted? Fourthly, I shall try to look beyond aspects of fighting itself and examine the use of military kit and related martial aspects—i.e., martiality—in times of (relative) peace. The emphasis in much of the secondary literature is put too heavily on warfare itself; i.e., the equipment, the tactics used, the goals and causes of wars. Little has been written on martiality and the role of violence in shaping Greek social structures and maintaining distinctions between different social groups. A few exceptions may be noted briefly. Hans van Wees has written an important monograph on the importance of violence in Homeric society. 14 Along similar lines, W.R. Connor has demonstrated how war may not have been as endemic as is commonly thought, but rather had powerful symbolic connotations that provided Greek communities with a sense of self.15 Along similar lines, Moshe Berent considered Greek societies ‘stateless’ and fragmented, held together especially by martial ideals. 16 Writing more generally on the evidence gleaned from European weapon graves, Paul Treherne has noted how armour was used to provide the warrior-elite with their own clear identity.17 Finally, aside from re-evaluating the evidence itself, I will also critically re-examine ancient Greek terminology itself as it pops up along the way. Too many authors uncritically apply terms and phrases from one period to another. The hoplite phalanx again provides the clearest example. The term 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

Cf. Snodgrass 1964b, 189. Hanson 1991, 3. Van Wees 1992. Connor 1988. Be re nt 2000. Tre herne 1995.

‘hoplite’ itself does not appear, for example, in Homer, nor in any of the early Greek poets. The term hoplitês probably first appeared in Pindaros and Aischylos. 18 Earlier writers used other words to denote what modern authors refer to as ‘hoplites’, such as called aichmētēs (‘spearman’) and panoplos (‘armoured man’). Similarly, the word phalanx as a technical term, ‘was first generally applied to the Macedonian phalanx’;19 i.e. only from about the fourth century onwards! If we are to understand Early Greece we ought to discuss it using concepts that were familiar to people who lived back then. What those concepts were, will emerge in the course of our examination of the evidence. 3. The structure of this book The next chapter looks at warfare in the period immediately following the collapse of the Mykenaian palaces in order to gain an understanding of continuity and change into the Iron Age. The core of this book , divided into seven chapters, then follows. Burials with arms are discussed in chapter 3, followed by a discussion on the dedication of weapons and armour at (Panhellenic) sanctuaries. Fortifications are briefly surveyed in chapter 5. In chapter 6, I discuss the available iconographic evidence, with a heavy emphasis on figurative scenes found on painted pottery; the chapter is based on the material listed in the appendix. I then turn to an examination of the textual evidence, namely the Homeric epics in chapter 7, the Archaic evidence—including some inscriptions—in chapter 8, and finally the evidence gleaned from Herodotos in chapter 9. Of course, a rigorous treatment of the evidence is useless if the source material itself is somehow tainted. Indeed, how much stock should we put in our evidence? Can the Homeric epics, for example, be used as historical documents for one or more specific periods? Do vase-paintings provide us with accurate ‘pictures of the past’? Is the contents of a weapon grave representative for the kit of the average warrior in this-or-that period? I avoid these questions for the time being, adopting the same, somewhat agnostic standpoint as Hans van Wees does in his book Status Warriors. This means that I assume, for the moment, that the different pieces of evidence in themselves are consistent. Some evidence, at least, no doubt contains a measure of either hyperbole or fantasy. Many scholars, for example, consider the nudity in some vase-paintings to not be an accurate reflection of contemporary practices, but rather a device used by a painter to identify the subject as ‘heroic’.20 But as Van Wees points out regarding research into the Homeric epics: The re is a risk he re of succumbing to the te mptation of calling fiction e ve rything that does not suit one ’s favoure d vie w of the history containe d in the poe ms. To counter this danger, we must [...] e xplain the role of fantastic e leme nts whe ne ver the ir 18

19 20

Pindaros Isthmian 1.21–23 (c. 470) and Aischylos Seven Against Thebes 465–467 and 717 ; see Laze nby & White head 1996, 46. My thanks to Prof. Hans van Wees for pointing this out to me . Adcock 1957, 3 n. 5. E.g., Bonfante 1989 provides an inte resting study.

19

e xiste nce is posite d.21

In chapter 10, the conclusion to this book, I try to answer the questions posed in the present chapter in an attempt to present a more varied, more dynamic, and hopefully more accurate overview of warfare and martiality in ancient Greece than has hitherto appeared.

21

20

Van Wees 1992, 22 (original e mphasis).

Chapter 2

The Mykenaian prelude 1. Introduction Most books on the ancient Aegean focus either on the Bronze Age or on the Iron Age and later periods. In order to provide a context for the developments after circa 1000—particularly as regards (dis)continuity!—it is necessary to give a brief overview of the major characteristics and developments in martial matters (as defined and specified in this book’s introduction) during Mykenaian era, specifically the so-called ‘Palatial’ and ‘Postpalatial’ periods. Warfare emerges as an important theme in the art, architecture, and burial customs of the Mykenaians from the earliest stages of the Late Bronze Age. 2. The Palatial period The Palatial age corresponds to the Late Helladic IIIA2 and IIIB periods; the emphasis is put on the last period in this chapter, roughly the thirteenth century and especially its second half, i.e. the run-up to the destruction of the palaces that marks the dividing line between the Palatial and Postpalatial periods. Burials with weapons and armour are a feature of Late Helladic I through Late Helladic IIIA1, and again of Late Helladic IIIC (especially during its Middle and Late phases).22 During the Palatial period, the heyday of the Mykenaian civilisation, burials with arms appear to have been rare. 23 However, this lack of evidence may be attributed to the activities of grave-robbers. For example, between Late Helladic IIA and early Late Helladic IIIB, some members of the elite were buried in so-called tholos tombs. 24 Because the tholos monuments are rather conspicuous features in the landscape, virtually all of them have been rifled by tomb raiders. a. Fortifications Iakovidis points out that fortifications underwent little change down to about 1400. By that time, some settlements continued to use earlier fortifications, although others, such as Kea, updated theirs with the addition of towers. The walls consisted of stone sockles, made of large stones or 22 23 24

De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 175 (Late He lladic IIIC graves). De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 152. On tholos tombs, see Dickinson 1994, 222–227; Pre ziosi & Hitchcock 1999, 175–177.

21

Chapter 2

The Mykenaian prelude 1. Introduction Most books on the ancient Aegean focus either on the Bronze Age or on the Iron Age and later periods. In order to provide a context for the developments after circa 1000—particularly as regards (dis)continuity!—it is necessary to give a brief overview of the major characteristics and developments in martial matters (as defined and specified in this book’s introduction) during Mykenaian era, specifically the so-called ‘Palatial’ and ‘Postpalatial’ periods. Warfare emerges as an important theme in the art, architecture, and burial customs of the Mykenaians from the earliest stages of the Late Bronze Age. 2. The Palatial period The Palatial age corresponds to the Late Helladic IIIA2 and IIIB periods; the emphasis is put on the last period in this chapter, roughly the thirteenth century and especially its second half, i.e. the run-up to the destruction of the palaces that marks the dividing line between the Palatial and Postpalatial periods. Burials with weapons and armour are a feature of Late Helladic I through Late Helladic IIIA1, and again of Late Helladic IIIC (especially during its Middle and Late phases).22 During the Palatial period, the heyday of the Mykenaian civilisation, burials with arms appear to have been rare. 23 However, this lack of evidence may be attributed to the activities of grave-robbers. For example, between Late Helladic IIA and early Late Helladic IIIB, some members of the elite were buried in so-called tholos tombs. 24 Because the tholos monuments are rather conspicuous features in the landscape, virtually all of them have been rifled by tomb raiders. a. Fortifications Iakovidis points out that fortifications underwent little change down to about 1400. By that time, some settlements continued to use earlier fortifications, although others, such as Kea, updated theirs with the addition of towers. The walls consisted of stone sockles, made of large stones or 22 23 24

De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 175 (Late He lladic IIIC graves). De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 152. On tholos tombs, see Dickinson 1994, 222–227; Pre ziosi & Hitchcock 1999, 175–177.

21

boulders, topped by mudbrick superstructures. At around 1400, some sites, such as Philakopi and Lerna, were protected by a double wall built on parallel lines, which were connected by cross walls creating a series of empty spaces between façades. 25 Many of the Mykenaian palaces after c. 1400 were actually fortified citadels, though Thebes and Orchomenos (Boiotia), Iolkos (now Dhimini in Thessaly), and—if it is a palace—the Menelaion (Lakonia), appear to lack fortifications. In the 1990s, geophysical surveys have revealed what appear to be fortification walls at Pylos in Messenia, some distance from the palace itself. 26 Many of the other fortified citadels are found closely together, namely at Tiryns, Midea, and Mykenai (the Argolid), and Argos (the Aspis hill). The Boiotian fortress at Gla is massive, but no traces of a palace have been found there; it is thought that the rulers at Orchomenos had it built.27 The fortifications at the Mykenaian citadels are built mostly in the then-new, so-called ‘Cyclopean’ style. Cyclopean masonry can be ‘defined as stonework of large irregular-shaped blocks, commonly of local limestone, unworked or roughly dressed and assembled without mortar, but with small stones inserted into the gaps between them.’28 Cyclopean masonry was not limited to fortifications; it was also used in the construction of other monumental Mykenaian structures, including certain other buildings, dams, and bridges. 29 The middle of the thirteenth century saw much activity with regard to the construction of fortifications. At Tiryns, the lower town was originally protected by a stone-and-mudbrick wall built around 1280; a generation later, this wall was replaced by a more massive Cyclopean construction.30 Small gates were now also replaced by more monumental constructions; the famous Lion Gate at Mykenai was probably built around 1250.31 Shortly before the end of the thirteenth century, Mykenai, Tiryns, and Athens undertook efforts to secure a water-supply within the walls.32 Such practical considerations suggest that the Mykenaians were on some kind of a war-footing. Fear of attacks from Central Greece or further north must have been the reason that a huge wall was built across the Isthmus,33 sometime during the Late Helladic IIIB period, at about the same time as the final phases at Mykenai and Tiryns.34 Even after the fall of the Mykenaian palaces, many Bronze-Age fortification walls remained visible; some were even extended, repaired, or reinforced, though no new walls of ‘Cyclopean’ type were ever built again. These sites include Salamis, Naxos (Grotta), Siphnos (Aghios Andreas), Kea 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

22

Iakovidis 1999, 199. Davis & Alcock 1998, 58. Dickinson 2006, 25 (with re fere nces). Loade r 1998, 3. For an up-to-date survey, see Hope -Simpson & Hage l 2006. Iakovidis 1983, 6–13. For a survey of the available lite rature , see Hope -Simpson & Hage l 2006, 34–35. Scoufopoulos 1971, 41–42 (Myke nai), 52–53 (Tiryns), 73–74 (Athe ns); Iakovidis 1983, 12 (Tiryns), 67–68 (Myke nai), 88–90 (Athe ns). For a rece nt overvie w of this wall, see Hope -Simpson & Hage l 2006, 123–140. She lme rdine 1997, 582–584 (with re fe rences).

(Ayia Irini), Melos (Phylakopi and Ayios Spyridon), Paros (Koukounaries), Tenos (Xombourgo); some, as Jan Paul Crielaard has pointed out, continued in use until Protogeometric and even Geometric times. 35 Some of these fortifications were still very impressive without being ‘Cyclopean’: two fortified akropoleis on Salamis, for example, were built wholly of stone.36 b. The Palatial iconographic evidence The iconographic evidence for the Mykenaian Palatial period consists for the most part of the frescoes with which the palace walls were once decorated. Mykenaian art was influenced stylistically by Minoan art from Krete. i. Warriors on foot and their equipment Wall-paintings are known from fragments that generally date to just before the palace’s destruction. Scenes with martial subjects have been unearthed at the Peloponnesian palaces of Mykenai, Tiryns, and Pylos, as well as in Boiotian Orchomenos. These fragments provide clues concerning the equipment used by warriors. For example, we know that most warrior wore greaves. Fragments from the palace at Orchomenos depict walls with figures standing on top of them, whose lower legs are protected by white gaiters. 37 One figure’s legs are furthermore equipped with two oval greaves, perhaps made of bronze: such small greaves are typical for the Late Bronze Age.38 Unlike the greaves in use from about 700 onwards, these Bronze-Age specimens were clearly strapped (tied) on, rather than clipped on. A Kretan motif that was readily adopted on the mainland was that of the so-called ‘figure-of-eight’ shield. This shield probably consisted of a wooden frame, covered by cowhide. It was the height of a man, elliptical in overall shape, with a very slender waist, making it resemble the Arabic numeral ‘8’. As this type of shield covers the entire body, it is classified as a ‘body’-shield. Another type of body-shield was the ‘tower’-shield, so named because it was more or less rectangular. Curiously, shields disappear from art and are not mentioned in Linear B tablets; instead, the figure-of-eight shield is known only as a decorative element. Shields are never shown in the Palatial iconographic material, with one or two possible exceptions. One example is known from Pylos. Fragments of a wall-painting depict a figure with a short spear in overhand position; the scene also depicts what could be a shield. Piet de Jong restored the shield as if it were round and fitted with a double grip.39 More recently, however, Peter Connolly has interpreted the visible elements of the shield as the upper lobe of a figure-of-eight shield.40 The latter seems more likely, but 35 36 37 38 39 40

The fore going, see Crie laard 2006. Lolos 2001, 125–127. Guida 1973, 72 fig. 6.1. Forte nbe rry 1990, 83–100. E.g., Grguric 2005, 17 (fig.). Connolly 1986, 32 fig. 8.

23

Cheryl Fortenberry has emphasised the fragmentary nature of the fresco and that the preserved dark band might not be a shield at all. In addition, Fortenberry suggests that the figure is perhaps not even a warrior.41 Unlike typical soldiers (see below), the figure is not bare-chested, but clad in a tunic. Furthermore, he has no helmet and his spear seems very short. These characteristics strongly suggests that the figure is actually a hunter rather than a warrior. Some of the men in the frescoes are equipped with boar’s-tusk helmets. Examples of tusk plates have been unearthed at a number of sites, from Middle Helladic II and III down to Late Helladic IIIB, so we know that they may have been relatively common.42 It has been estimated that some thirty or forty boars would have to be killed to provide the necessary amount of tusks to cut plates from and cover the entire surface of the helmet,43 from which it has been argued that only the aristocracy could have afforded them. Yet, in Mykenaian art, the boar’s-tusk helmet is by far the most popular piece of headgear depicted. It is also represented in Linear B tablets. Perhaps this helmet is closely associated with the palace, which may have handed these out to their soldiers. If true, this means that boar’s-tusk helmets are not indicators of social status or wealth, but rather that the person in question—a palace guard, fighting men of the court—works for the palace and is supplied by it. ii. Chariots and horses Horses and chariots are depicted in some wall-paintings, and it is clear that chariots were used by some spearmen to move quickly to the battlefield, where they probably dismounted to fight on foot. Specialisation with regards to horses is demonstrated by fragments from Mykenai that show men in tunics grooming horses, while a warrior with boar’s-tusk helmet and spear looks on (plate 1.1);44 he is no doubt inspecting the work done by servants. Warriors with linen-wrapped legs are closely associated with chariots.45 In some cases, the men may be setting out to hunt rather than fight. Remains of a wall-painting from Tiryns show a (chariot) horse following a tunic-clad figure with linen gaiters holding a dog on a leash.46 (Of course, it is possible that the dog is supposed to be a war-dog; see also chapter 6.) Mykenaians were familiar with riding on horseback, but depictions are rare. A Mykenaian Late Helladic IIIB sherd from a tomb near ancient Ugarit depicts a horsemen equipped with a sword.47 A terracotta figurine of a rider, dated to Late Helladic IIIB1, has been unearthed in the Prehistoric

41 42 43 44 45 46 47

24

Forte nbe rry 1990, 25–26. Forte nbe rry 1990, catalogue pp. 332–352 (about one hundre d findspots in all). Snodgrass 1999 [1967], 19. Athe ns 2915: Guida 1973, pl. 19.2. Examples include : (1) Athe ns 2782–2789: Crouwe l 1981, pl. 85 (W8); Crouwe l 1999, pl. 85.b. (2) Chora Muse um: Grguric 2005, 41 (fig.); Shear 2000, 43 fig. 64. Ve rme ule 1964, pl. 29.a. Crouwe l 1981, pls. 80.a –d (V157); Gree nhalgh 1973, 44 fig. 28.

Cemetery at Mykenai, Central Areas III–IV (plate 1.2).48 However, these examples do not a priori support the notion that the Mykenaian Greeks also fought from horseback, 49 although it obviously cannot be excluded. However, similar pictures are known from Egypt, where horsemen clearly serve as dispatch riders and scouts. 50 In a Mykenaian army, horsemen perhaps also served in similar capacities. Recreational riding can also not be excluded. Unusual are depictions of female figures, sometimes considered divinities, riding side-saddle. 51 iii. Scenes of combat Tantalising glimpses of what a siege may have been like in Mykenaian times are afforded by fragments of the so-called ‘Siege Fresco’ from Mykenai.52 It shows parts of a town with the characteristic checker-pattern to denote walls, with at least one woman looking out of a window while other figures are shown standing in front of the walls. Other small fragments supposedly reveal the presence of other warriors out in the field, possibly archers, and a chariot, but the enemy has not been preserved. A large warrior, clad in tunic and linen gaiters, appears to fall from a roof. The curving line above him is commonly interpreted as part of a horse, and the figure has thus been regarded as forming part of a motif well-known from Near-Eastern art and some of the Shaft-Grave stelai, namely that of a warrior being run down by a chariot. According to this view, the warrior does not fall from the roof, but is actually part of a scene perhaps wholly unconnected with the rest of the wall-painting. Joost Crouwel has cast serious doubts on this interpretation and regards the line and the accompanying change of colour to denote simply a hill or other change in the landscape,53 with which I agree. Actual combat between rival armed forces is depicted in a large number of fragments of wall-paintings that once decorated Hall 64 in the palace at Pylos. This room was probably the first traversed by visitors to the palace,54 and no doubt served to instill dread in them. The fragments show various scenes of presumably Pylian soldiers fighting so-called ‘savages’. The well-known ‘Tarzan Fresco’ shows Pylian soldiers, clad in short kilts and equipped with linen gaiters and boar’s-tusk helmets, attacking men with unkempt hair and clothed in animal skins (plate 1.3).55 Two of the Pylian warriors and one of the savages are equipped with short swords; one Pylian soldier attacks using a long spear. The Pylian soldiers also have an oval drawn on their right shins. These undoubtedly represent (bronze) greaves tied to their legs and covering part of their linen gaiters.56 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Athe ns: Crouwe l 1981, pls. 42.a –d (T18); Gree nhalgh 1973, 45 fig. 29; Guida 1973, pl. 37.2. See also Greenhalgh 1973, 98–111. Cf. Schulman 1957 (Egyptian ride rs). E.g., Crouwe l 1981, pl. 46 (T48). Athe ns 2782–2789: Guida 1973, 72 fig. 6.2; Ve rme ule 1964, 103 and pl. 31.a. Me ntione d during a discussion in Thomas 1999, 311. Davis & Be nne t 1999, 110. Chora Muse um: Grguric 2005, 28 (fig.); Shear 2000, 68 fig. 103. Guida 1973, 73–75.

25

Another set of fragments from the palace at Pylos shows a scene of combat similar to the one just discussed.57 This time, however, there are no savages. Instead, all men appear to wear some sort of shorts or loincloths; none of them have any leg wrappings. One group is bareheaded while the other wears helmets of unknown type, perhaps of felt or leather. The helmeted soldiers are probably to be interpreted as Pylian troops, although of a different type than the ones just discussed, presumably not elite troops or guards as they lack gaiters, greaves, and have apparently simpler and cheaper helmets. Two warriors fight each other with swords while one of the bareheaded ones is equipped, if properly restored, with a club. Both scenes appear to take place at a river, perhaps representing the boundary of Pylian territory, with brave Pylian soldiers fending off attacks from hostile barbarians and possibly unfriendly neighbours. iv. Indications of rank The wall-paintings reveal that while many men wear some kind of (linen) gaiters to protect their lower legs, some are also equipped with a single greave. Single greaves are also known from tombs. Cheryl Fortenberry has suggested that these single greaves, tied to one leg, may indicate status or rank. 58 I would suggest more specifically that single greaves, like boar’s-tusk helmets, further indicate a connection with the palace, perhaps in combination with the linen gaiters, although there really is no evidence other than that found at the palaces to corroborate this hypothesis. Hunting scenes are more common than those showing actual combat and these no doubt feature high-ranking men. Fragments of a wall-painting from Pylos show a tunic-clad figure aiming a short spear at an antlered deer. 59 The man is equipped with linen gaiters, like a warrior. Similar-looking figures are also shown on fragments from Tiryns.60 These, too, wear tunics and are equipped with linen gaiters. They carry a set of two short spears each and must be interpreted as hunters rather than warriors. It seems to me that the short spear is particularly a weapon associated with the hunt. Other fragments, also from Tiryns, again show a very similar figure equipped with two short spears.61 None of these figures is equipped with a helmet and all of them wear a tunic and linen gaiters. Furthermore, clothing also indicates relatively high status. Only men associated with chariots and horses, as in the ‘Groom Fresco’, for example, wear tunics. Hunters and men in procession also tend to be fully clothed and equipped with gaiters and greaves. I would suggest that all of the fully-clothed men include both high-ranking individuals, as well as their personal attendants, including grooms, charioteers, and huntsmen. The men in waisted tunics and associated with chariots may belong to the heqetai or ‘Followers’ known from Linear B tablets (see below). By contrast,

57 58 59 60 61

26

Chadwick 1976, 63 pl. 34. Forte nbe rry 1991, 626–627. Chora Muse um: Guida 1973, pl. 20.1; Shear 2000, 49 fig. 72. Athe ns 5878: Guida 1973, pl. 21.1; Shear 2000, 54 fig. 81. Athe ns 5885: Guida 1973, pl. 20.3; Shear 2000, 35 fig. 54.

rank-and-file ‘soldiers’ are always bare-chested and may have been culled from the lower classes. c. The Linear B tablets The palaces maintained archives where tablets written in so-called Linear B were kept. These tablets provide some clues as regards Mykenaian sociopolitical structure, military equipment, and military organisation. The Mykenaians never intentionally fired their clay tablets: all of the preserved tablets were accidentally baked in the fires that ravaged or destroyed the palaces in which they had been kept. Many of the tablets thus reflect a situation just prior to the destruction of the Mykenaian centres.62 The fact that archives have been unearthed in a number of centres (Knossos, Pylos, Chania, Mykenai, Tiryns, and Thebes) suggest that the individual Mykenaian centres were as independent as they were belligerent.63 The tablets suggest that the palaces produced and maintained at least some of the equipment used in war, 64 including arrowheads, swords (pa-ka-na, probably the same word as the Homeric phasgana), 65 spears, arrows and javelins, 66 helmets, chariots, as well as, at Knossos, corslets (though we have no idea of what material they were made).67 However, the palaces did not apparently provide all of the necessary equipment, as there are many tablets in which incomplete chariots are provided. Some of these list only a single wheel or a single horse.68 Furthermore, some people may have been awarded land by the palace in exchange for military service, for which they were provided at least part of the equipment as well. 69 It thus seems that Mykenaian armies were organised using a mix of private and public (palatial) means, with warriors perhaps only needing to provide part of the equipment at their own expense. 70 This fits in well with recent insights regarding the relatively limited extent to which the palaces regulated or controlled economic processes within the territories that they occupied.71 The most informative tablets with regard to the sociopolitical organisation in Mykenaian centres come from Pylos and Knossos, which in turn reveals how the military may have been organised. The tablets reveal that the ruler at both Pylos and Knossos was known as the wanax (wa-na-ka), i.e. ruler or ‘king’, who possessed vast tracts of land and employed his own craftsmen, who are called wanakteros (‘royal’) in the tablets.72 At Pylos, the wanax may have had the warlike name Ekhelawon, i.e. ‘he who is victorious 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

For further de tails, re fer to She lme rdine 1998, 294. Contra notions re garding a unifie d ‘Myke naian Empire ’, as de fe nde d e nthusiastically by Wood 1996 [1985]; Ke lde r 2009. Palaima 1999, 367–368. Chadwick 1976, 171; see also, on vocabulary, Palaima 1999, 369. Analysis in Fortenberry 1990, 230–231. For further de tails, see Forte nbe rry 1990, 66–69. Discussion in Uchite l 1988. De ger-Jalkotzy 1999, 124–125; She lmerdine 2006, 78 (with re fere nces). De ger-Jalkotzy 1999, 125–126. For an ove rvie w, re fe r to She lme rdine 2006, 73–74; Tartaron 2008, 93–95 and 100–110. She lme rdine 2006, 75.

27

in/over the host’.73 Second in command was the lawagetas (ra-wa-ke-ta), whose name contains the words laos and agein; the term thus means literally ‘leader of the people’. It has been suggested that this was an army-leader, as laos in Homer and later sources is often rendered ‘host’ or ‘army’ (the entire body of armed men), a reasonable interpretation.74 Both wanax and lawagetas were involved in the organisation of feasts;75 perhaps these places were also the meeting ground of a warrior elite. That such an elite existed is attested by a group of men known as the heqetai (singular heqetas, from e-qe-ta). The later Greek word hepetas simply means ‘follower’. John Chadwick already observed that the heqetai were probably elite troops, as well as commanders of the Mykenaian infantry. On the tablets, they are associated with three things, namely ‘slaves, cloths, and wheels. [...] The mention of textiles at Knossos (Ld tablets) indicates that the Followers wore a distinctive form of dress [...]. The wheels are meant for chariots [...]. All of this is consistent with their high status’.76 There are other apparently high-ranking individuals and social groups in Mykenaian society,77 but none appear to have as strong a military connection as the heqetai. As Cynthia Shelmerdine notes, ‘it is amazing how little attention is paid in extant documents to military organisation.’78 However, there is a unique set of eight tablets from Pylos that describes the preparations made for an impending attack by apparently seaborne raiders. Two of these tablets give lists of ‘rowers’, along with their places of origin (PY An 1 and 610); six other tablets list the groups (o-ka) of people sent out to watch the coast (PY An 519, 653, 656, 657, 661). These tablets must be military in nature.79 These groups consist of men from a particular place and led by an individual with a patronymic, i.e. a heqetas. The rowers and the men led by the heqetai appear to be individuals who had to perform military service for one reason or another, which supports the notion that the palaces were responsible for mobilising the army as a whole, though the everyday tasks of command were probably left in the hands of the heqetai.80 3. The Postpalatial period Many of the Mykenaian palaces were destroyed in the early decades of the twelfth century, heralding the start of the Postpalatial period. This period, also known as Late Helladic IIIC, covers the twelfth century and part of the eleventh. Late Helladic IIIC is usually divided into three consecutive stages, dubbed Early, Middle, and Late. Much of the evidence presented in the following subsections dates to Late Helladic IIIC Middle, set sometime after 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

28

De ger-Jalkotzy 1999, 127–128 (with re fe re nces). Compare the lawagetas to the Hittite crown-prince (tukhanti), e.g. Bryce 2002, 21. On Myke naian feasts, see especially Palaima 2004. Chadwick 1976, 73. See Jan Paul Crie laard’s ‘The ‘‘wanax to basileus mode l’’ reconside re d: authority and ide ology afte r the collapse of the Myce naean palaces’ (forthcoming). She lme rdine 2006, 79. Contra Uchite l 1984; cf. Sacconi 1999. For further discussion, see Fortenberry 1990, 296–302.

the destructions that marked the end of the Palatial period and the beginning of Late Helladic IIIC Early. The later stages of the Palatial period saw an increase in martial activities, such as the construction of larger fortifications. At least some of these activities were related to an increase in actual warfare. The clearest example is provided by the continued improvement of swords throughout the Late Bronze Age.81 The earliest Mykenaian types tend to be long and slender ‘rapiers’, which must have bent easily, and feature very short tangs that must have made then handles fragile. Many examples of the earliest types (so-called A and B) were repaired multiple times.82 In the following centuries, Mykenaian swordsmiths strove to make their weapons shorter and stronger. An example is the type E sword, introduced in Late Helladic IIIA2, which is flat, broad, and relatively short, with small rivet holes and a long tang.83 Toward the very end of the thirteenth century, the so-called Naue type II sword was introduced, probably from Central Europe via Italy.84 This long sword features a solid tang with pommel extension; the rivet-holes are very small. Aegean swordsmiths added the unique ‘ears’ at either side of the pommel spur.85 While most swords until now were intended mostly for stabbing, the Naue-II sword is the first true cut-and-thrust sword. Once adopted, this superior blade spread quickly throughout the Aegean and is the main type of sword in Late Helladic IIIC, which is also when the earliest iron examples appear. 86 This long-lived sword type survives in the Aegean until the end of the sixth century, by which time it was replaced by a shorter Greek sword with cross-guard.87 a. Burials with arms Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy has published a brief survey of the major Late Helladic IIIC warrior graves, providing summaries for warrior burials from Perati, graves from five sites in Achaia, one site in Arkadia (Palaiokastro), one in Thessaly (Trikkala), one on Naxos (Grotta), one on Kos (Langada), and a number of site in eastern Krete, as well as a number of sites without a clearly ascertainable context, including Kephallonia. 88 One of the graves at Grotta contained a man buried with a Naue-II-type sword and accompanied by what the excavators believe to be remains of a bronze curry-comb for horses, and Deger-Jalkotzy adds that other evidence at Naxos makes clear that horses were important as ‘part of the ideology and self-awareness of the

81

82 83 84 85 86 87 88

‘That is, with a flange along each side of the hilt to hold in place the inlays or plates, normally of wood or bone ’ (Snodgrass 1964b, 241 n. 1); re fe rre d to more ofte n as Griffzungenschwerter, see Killian-Dirlme ie r 1993, 17–126. Forte nbe rry 1990, 148–149 (with re fe rences). Sandars 1963, 132–133. De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 163 n. 13 (with re fe re nces). Snodgrass 1964b, 106–110. Snodgrass 1964b, 103. Killian-Dirlme ie r 1993, 118–130. De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 154–167.

29

Naxian elite(s)’.89 Following the collapse of the Mykenaian palaces, there is an apparent increase in the number of burials containing weapons, 90 especially in regions away from the former core Mykenaian centres, 91 such as in Achaia.92 There is some continuity in funerary practices from the preceding period in that most of these burials are inhumations, with many burials re-using older Mykenaian chamber tombs. As in the preceding periods, the graves contain multiple bodies. 93 The total number of warrior graves in a cemetery is typically very small: Deger-Jalkotzy points out that of the 219 tombs found at Perati, only two were what could ‘be defined as warrior tombs’.94 This limited distribution of warrior graves is similar to that of the Early Iron Age, as we shall see in the next chapter. The lack of ‘warrior tombs’ in Late Helladic IIIC Messenia, Boiotia, and the Volos area in Thessaly may be attributed to depopulation following the destruction of the palaces there; the lack of such burials in the Argolid has no satisfactory explanation to date.95 However, it should be stressed that most Late Helladic IIIC cemeteries are generally poorer than in the preceding period, so it should come as no surprise that expensive items such as weapons are perhaps not interred as often as before.96 Furthermore, the total number of Late Helladic IIIC burials with arms in the Aegean area is relatively small. 97 Finally, burials with arms never returned in some of these regions, such as the Volos area, in which case the lack of such graves may simply represent a change in funerary customs. Recently, construction activities revealed the burial of a warrior near the town of Amphilochia, situated by the Ambrakian Gulf. The grave has been dated to the twelfth century; a fuller report on the burial with a more accurate date is no doubt forthcoming. The finds included a golden kylix (wine cup), a dagger combining bronze and iron, a pair of greaves, an arrowhead, and a spearhead. The grave furthermore contained a pair of bronze swords, one with a bone handle, the other had gold wire wrapped around the hilt. Analysis of the bronze also showed that this second sword was of Italic make. 98 This find emphasises several characteristically aristocratic aspects, namely warfare (the different weapons, including an arrowhead), consumption of wine (the kylix), and overseas activities (the Italic sword). b. The iconographic evidence With the destruction and abandonment of many of the Mykenaian palaces, 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

30

De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 162 n. 12. Cavanagh & Mee 1998, 98. For a convenie nt overvie w, see Dickinson 2006, 73–75 (with re fere nces). On Achaian warrior-graves, see Papadopoulos 1999. Dickinson 2006, 178–183. De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 155. De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 167–168. De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 151–152. De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 155. Ae geanet message http://howrah.org/sci_tech_htm/32359.html (8 Octobe r 2008).

painting is transferred to large vases, especially kraters (Late Helladic IIIC).99 Figurative vase-painting flourishes in the twelfth century before petering out toward the end and then disappearing altogether in the eleventh, replaced by a style of vase-painting characterised by abstract, geometric motifs (Submykenaian and earliest Protogeometric). i. Warriors on foot and their equipment Especially on kraters of the Late Helladic IIIC-middle style, warlike scenes proved very popular. While there is much variety, warriors on foot are often depicted on these pots equipped with one or two spears, helmet, dark gaiters, and normally also a shield. The boar’s-tusk helmet, so popular in the centuries preceding the fall, has all but disappeared. In its stead we encounter a number of different types of helmets that were perhaps cheaper or easier to manufacture, as these have left virtually no archaeological traces and are known solely from the iconographic evidence. Perhaps the best-known Late Helladic IIIC artefact is the so-called ‘Warrior Vase’ from Mykenai (plate 2.1), 100 which was restored from fragments. Both sides of the krater show files of warriors. Side A shows a line of six warriors, who are seen off by a woman on the far left; the gesture she makes is either one of farewell or mourning. The warriors are uniformly equipped. Each carries a crescent-shaped shield, wears some kind of fringed tunic or perhaps a leather jerkin, dark gaiters, and is equipped with a single thrusting spear and a helmet equipped with horns and a plume. If the chariot-borne spearmen are considered leaders, then perhaps these men represent the rank-and-file of a Late Helladic IIIC army. That these are commoners, perhaps even some sort of conscripts, is furthermore suggested by the knapsacks tied to their spears: a high-ranking individual would surely have used servants or slaves to carry his provisions. Side B shows a group of similarly equipped warriors, except that they hold their spears overhead, as if ready to attack; their shields are also larger and their helmets are of the so-called ‘hedgehog’ type. The hedgehog-helmet might have consisted of an actual hedgehog-skin stretched over a cap or something, or it perhaps represents a feathered helmet, raw hide, fur, et cetera. Depictions of men apparently in some kind of battle-stance are also encountered on a Late Helladic IIIC limestone stele, also from Mykenai and generally believed to have been made by the same artist at the ‘Warrior Vase’.101 The object has been damaged and some of the decoration is gone, but one scene shows a line of five warriors, posed and equipped in a manner very similar to the men shown on side B of the ‘Warrior Vase’, clad in fringed tunics and equipped with dark gaiters, large shields, and holding their spears overhead as if ready to strike an (unseen) enemy.

99 100

101

For a brie f overvie w, see Crouwe l 2006a. Athe ns 1426: Be nson 1970, plate 36.2; Guida 1973, pls. 31.1 (side A) and 32.2 (side B); Higgins 1981 [1967], 121 figs. 141 and 143; Shear 2000, 86 fig. 125; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pls. 10–11; Ve rme ule & Karage orghis 1982, plate XI.42. Athe ns 3256: Guida 1973, plate 32.1; Shear 2000, 87 fig. 126; Verme ule & Karageorghis 1982, plate XI.43.

31

It is unclear what material was used to make armour. A krater fragment from Euboia shows the body of a warrior, who is equipped with a sword and wears the dark gaiters or leggings so characteristic of Postpalatial vase-painting. 102 The way that the upper body has been rendered is sometimes taken to indicate that the figure is wearing a bell-shaped cuirass, or perhaps some other bronze plate cuirass fitted with shoulder pieces similar to the chronologically earlier ones found with the ‘lobster’ armour found at Dendra and dated to around 1400. A second krater fragment, also from Euboia and decorated by a more proficient artist, shows the fringed tunic of a warrior, who is equipped with dark gaiters and a sword.103 It seems unlikely that bronze armour was meant by the artists. More likely, all armour consisted of a kind of leather padding similar to that depicted on other Postpalatial pots; the evidence for the use of metal body-armour other than greaves from Late Helladic IIIA2 onwards is in any case slight to nonexistent. ii. Chariots and horses Chariots remain a favourite subject across the Late Helladic IIIB–IIIC divide. 104 It is clear that some spearmen continued to use chariots to transport themselves to the battlefield, as they had apparently done in the Palatial period and possibly continued to do throughout the Early Iron Ages, if similar scenes on Geometric pottery are indicative of continuity. Fragments unearthed in Mykenai show at least two chariots, each with a driver and a spearman (plate 2.2). 105 Both driver and spearman are equipped with round shields that cover most of the body; they may be wearing helmets with spiky crests or feathers. A fragment from Tiryns shows something similar, except that this spearman is equipped with two spears.106 This suggests that the origin of the Greek practice of carrying two spears into battle, familiar from Geometric and Archaic pottery, as well as the Homeric epics, may have its origin in the Late Helladic IIIC period. Further continuity is demonstrated by processions and races. Early fragments of a krater found at Tiryns show a chariot race, probably part of the funeral games.107 Fragments of another krater from Tiryns show a chariot with driver and spearman, the latter equipped with a round shield. 108 This 102 103 104 105

106 107 108

32

Crie laard 2006, 283 fig. 14.4e ; Eve ly 2006, pl. 32.5; Ve rme ule & Karageorghis 1982, pl. XI.39. Crie laard 2006, 283 fig. 14.4d; Eve ly 2006, plate 58.a; Guida 1973, pl. 33.1; Ve rme ule & Karageorghis 1982, pl. XI.59. E.g., Nafplion 13.214: Verme ule & Karageorghis 1982, plate XI.14; as we ll as Athens 1511: Guida 1973, plate 35.2; Ryste dt 2006a, 129 fig. 5; Shear 2000, 41 fig. 63. Athe ns 3596 (lot 1772) and Nafplion 8357 (from Schlie mann’s dump): Crouwe l 1981, pls. 53.a–b (V18); Greenhalgh 1973, 31 fig. 24; Guida 1973, 104 fig. 7.a –b; Höckmann 1980, 284 fig. 69.a (right fragme nt). Guntne r 2006a, 59 fig. 27. Curre ntly in Nafplion: Crouwe l 1981, plate 66 (V51); Crouwe l 2006a, 16 fig. 1; Crouwe l 2006b, 166 fig. 2; Lase r 1987, 23 fig. 2;Ryste dt 2006b, 242 fig. 4.b. Nafplion 14.336: Crouwe l 1981, pl. 60 (V43); Guida 1973, pl. 36.1; Höckmann 1980, 284 fig. 69.b; Ve rme ule & Karage orghis 1982, pl. XI.16.

chariot was part of a procession, or perhaps a group of chariots setting off to war. Similar scenes would re-appear on Late Geometric vases. iii. Scenes of combat Battle-scenes are rare in Late Helladic IIIC. A number of Late Helladic IIIC (middle) fragments belonging to a krater have been unearthed at Kalapodi (Phthiotis),109 which may depict some kind of siege or an assault on a settlement. The extant fragments show parts of warriors, all equipped with swords; some ‘hedgehog’-like helmets are also visible. One warrior carries a large curved stick across his shoulders, from which are suspended two sacks or possibly baskets (a water-carrier?). There is also a large, apparently rectangular area filled with a checkerboard pattern, possibly a section of wall or part of a building.110 iv. Warships and naval combat Prominent features in Postpalatial vase-painting are ships and scenes of fighting on sea or possibly beaches; the vessels themselves develop logically from earlier Palatial examples. The pots come from a very distinct geographic area. They are found in Euboia, Kalapodi, Pyrgos Lagynaton, some of the islands, and even the west coast of Asia Minor (e.g., Bademgediği Tepesi). Clearly, the fall of the Mykenaian palaces did not bring about a total collapse of the socio-economic system, as these regions at least still built and crewed warships.111 A detailed discussion and typology of Aegean ships of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages has been created by Michael Wedde,112 parts of which I shall here summarise. The Mykenaians were the first to use the oared galley, at the start of the Late Helladic IIIB period or a little earlier, though not all galleys are by definition warships. The first Mykenaian oared galley, type V, developed out of earlier crescent-shaped type IV vessels, which were Minoan. This ship possessed a ‘flat keelline, a vertical stempost terminated by a birdhead device, and a curving (or vertical) sternpost, with several cases *<+ clearly decked.’113 The type VI galley is similar, but the keel is extended beyond the stempost; this structure would much later, in the Archaic period, morph into a ram. The oared galley was long and sleek, with warriors manning the oars. The larger the number of men at the oars, the faster the vessel would move. It is clear, especially in the Late Helladic IIIC period, that these galleys were made ‘for speedy seaborne attacks on coastal settlements and for naval engagements at sea.’114 The straight keel allowed the ship ‘to beach at speed [which] would have offered a tactical advantage, in that the warriors could spring directly on dry land, and not wade ashore, a moment when the 109 110 111 112 113 114

Crie laard 2006, 283 fig. 14.4i; Crouwe l 2006a, 17 fig. 7; Fe lsch 1996, pl. 36 (no. 231). Cf. the ‘Sie ge Fresco’ from Myke nai, discusse d above . For further de tails, re fer to Crie laard 2007. We dde 1999 passim. We dde 1999, 466. Crie laard 2006, 280 (with furthe r refe re nces).

33

defenders would have had a critical advantage.’115 During boarding actions at sea, the Mykenaians would then fight with javelins, spears, and swords, in a manner virtually identical to fighting on land.116 The success of the Mykenaian types is clear when the Iron-Age evidence is considered: the galleys depicted on Geometric pottery are clearly developments of the type VI Mykenaian ship.117 4. Conclusions The Palatial period sees the flowering of Mykenaian civilisation. Mykenaian culture had a distinct martial edge, though this should perhaps not be taken to mean that these people were constantly at war. Wall-paintings with martial scenes often adorned specific places within the palace complexes. The frescoes that decorated Hall 64 at Pylos were probably the first things seen by those who visited—or paid homage?—to the Pylian wanax; the southwest building may even have been the residence of the lawagetas. Similarly, the Siege Fresco at Mykenai once decorated the walls of the megaron, the central chamber of the palace, where the ruler perhaps entertained his guests. Seen in this light, the wall-paintings conveyed a powerful message: do not meddle with the Mykenaian rulers, lest you suffer forceful retaliation. Similarly, the monumental fortifications that protected most palaces no doubt also served as both a testament to Mykenaian power and a warning to would-be aggressors. Some of the warriors in Palatial imagery are probably members of the aristocracy, while others may have been culled from a lower stratum of society, perhaps even soldiers in the sense of men who fought for some kind of pay. The aristocratic warriors, especially the heqetai, used chariots, probably as a means to get to and from the battlefield. Lower-status soldiers appear to have fought bare-chested and often used relatively short swords; battles look rather like wrestling competitions. The tablets suggest that the palaces used perhaps a kind of conscripts, commanded by heqetai, to form the bulk of their army. The palaces provided some of the equipment necessary, though the fighting men themselves appear to have supplied part of it themselves. Although war in the Palatial period was perhaps not endemic, a military threat does seem to emerge in the latter half of the thirteenth century, when some palaces turned toward reinforcing or extending their existing fortifications, and some, like Mykenai, sought to safeguard their water-supply. In the years following 1200, many of the palaces were destroyed, and with them disappeared wall-painting, writing, and its relatively complex social organisation. The subsequent Postpalatial period, is characterised by both continuity and change. Rail chariots, for example, continued to be used, and warriors still wore some kind of gaiters to protect their legs. People in Postpalatial times sometimes continued to dwell near

115 116 117

34

We dde 1999, 469. We dde 1999, 469–470; Crouwe l 1999, 456–458. We dde 1999, 471–472.

the palaces, repairing the older fortification walls when necessary. New equipment appears on the scene. In the iconographic evidence, we now have spearmen equipped with thrusting spears and shields, who also wear some kind of padded tunic or perhaps armour. In iconographic sources, the old boar’s-tusk helmets disappear, replaced by a variety of different kind of helmets, horned or of ‘hedgehog’-type, and so on. Prior to the collapse of the palaces, a new type of sword (Naue II) was introduced, which was stronger and better than earlier Mykenaian swords. In the Postpalatial period, this becomes the dominant type of weapon, and remains in use down to the sixth century. It is frequently found in warrior graves. The fact that groups of men are often uniformly equipped, as on the ‘Warrior Vase’, suggests that some kind of central authority survived; indeed, the little knapsacks attached to the spears of these men strongly indicates that they were equipped and provided for by a central body or commanding individual. Only such leaders may perhaps have been awarded the honour of being buried with weapons (see also the next chapter). Warrior graves are very rare in the archaeological record of Late Helladic IIIC, and they are always comparatively rich. However, this is very similar to the situation before the destruction of the palaces, as well as in the Early Iron Age: only a specific group of people was ever buried with arms in Greece.

35

Chapter 3

Burials with arms 1. Introduction Burials with arms—also called ‘weapon graves’ or ‘warrior graves’—are the subject of the present chapter. They are a valuable source of information for answering the questions posed in this book’s introduction. Firstly, in order to examine different types of fighters, I shall look at assemblages of arms and armour rather than attempt to build a new—and unnecessary—typology of individual (types of) weapons and armour. I shall mention types of weapons only in passing; further details can be obtained by reading, for example, Anthony Snodgrass’s Early Greek Armour and Weapons (1964). Secondly, the evidence allows us to examine regional diversity easily. Thirdly, some of the burial plots or cemeteries discussed in this chapter were used for a fairly long time, which makes it possible to examine diachronic developments. By comparing the data from different areas, it should also be possible to understand changes in funerary practices with regard to arms in different parts of the Aegean. In addition to these three focal points, the evidence can be used to examine the sociopolitical nature of warriors in Early Iron Age communities in the Aegean. What was the position of warriors in these communities? How many of the men buried in these cemeteries or plots were identified as warriors, and why? To answer these questions, it is necessary to examine quantitative aspects (number of graves with weapons versus graves without any arms), qualitative aspects (are other high-status objects found in the graves with weapons?), and spatial aspects (are graves with weapons limited to specific plots or cemeteries?). Whenever a cemetery or plot remained in use for a longer period in time, it might also be possible to say something about diachronic developments (is there an increase in the relative number of weapons graves or are their any changes with respect to the types of weapons deposited in graves?). 2. A survey of the evidence In the following subsections, I shall examine a number of burial grounds that should allow us to answer the questions posed in the previous section, which means that small plots, finds of solitary graves, and cemeteries that do not contain any weapon graves have been excluded. The following five sites will be discussed: Lefkandi and Eretria (both on Euboia), the Kerameikos en Agora cemeteries in Athens, and a cemetery or burial plot in 37

Argos. Due to constraints of time, I have done little in the way of data collection and primary analysis. Instead, I rely on already published syntheses, in particular the works of Andrea Bräuning, Jan Paul Crielaard, Ian Morris, and Pierre Courbin.118 However, by examining these larger and well-published graveyards, I hope to gain a better understanding with regard to why and when some men in certain Greek communities were buried with arms, although a full understanding may not be possible until we put the different strands of evidence together in this book ’s conclusion. One question that should be addressed, is whether or not the burial grounds in question are cemeteries, used by a large segment of the community, or rather family plots? Lemos has put forward some criteria for distinguishing the one from the other. According to her, ‘Burial grounds with more than thirty burials can be taken as cemeteries. Another criterion for considering them to be cemeteries might be their continuous use for more than three or four generations. Cemeteries with long periods of use were located in Athens, Lefkandi, Asine, Atalanti, and Kos. Smaller burial grounds also existed. These are often considered as family burial grounds.’119 a. Lefkandi Lefkandi is situated between the ancient towns of Chalkis and Eretria on the island of Euboia. The Iron-Age settlement was located on and around Xeropolis hill on the coast and is especially known for its cemeteries, which were in use from the eleventh century to about the end of the ninth.120 There were at least six burial plots, all located around or on a hillock near the modern village of Xeropolis. These plots are, from West to East: Toumba, Palia Perivolia, the East Cemetery, Skoubris,Khaliotis, and the South Cemetery.121 Of these, the Toumba cemetery has been the most thoroughly investigated. Chronologically, these plots range from Submykenaian down to Subprotogeometric III (i.e., around 825). Skoubris was the only cemetery in use during Submykenaian and Early Protogeometric times. It consists mostly of so-called cist graves and contained relatively many children. During the Middle Protogeometric period, the cremated remains of a high-ranking man were interred in a large and well-known apsidal building at Toumba that was then covered by a burial mound; this cemetery was afterwards used exclusively by members of the elite. From Late Protogeometric down to Subprotogeometric III at least four burial plots were used concurrently, namely Toumba, Palia Perivolia, the East Cemetery, and Skoubris. Altogether 178 tombs and 94 pyres have been excavated or located; of

118 119 120

121

38

I.e., Bräuning 1995; Crie laard 1996; Morris 1987; Courbin 1974 I.S. Le mos 2002, 187. Main e xcavation re ports: Popham et al. 1979-80 (settleme nt and ceme terie s); Popham et al. 1990 and 1993 (Toumba building); Popham & Le mos 1996 (summary of more re ce nt e xcavations). I.S. Le mos 2002, 161; location, see Popham & Lemos 1996, pls. 1–2.

these, 153 tombs and 73 pyres were fully excavated and published.122 Of these, only 22 graves contained weapons, including the remarkable burial within the building at Toumba. This means that only every few years or so a man was buried with weapons.123 These burials with arms have been found only at Skoubris (two), Palia Perivolia (six), and especially Toumba (fourteen in all). The heart of the Toumba cemetery is the large tumulus, which contained the remains of the large building made from perishable materials. At one point, perhaps immediately after the burial, this peerless building, 124 referred to by some as a heroön,125 was covered to make a large burial mound. The central room contained two burial shafts with a monumental krater placed on top of them. One shaft contained the ashes of a man, which had been placed in an antique bronze amphora of Cypriot make; a bronze bowl served as a lid: it is the earliest of the urn cremations at Lefkandi. The grave goods identified the man as a high-ranking individual, possibly the chief of the community. The finds consisted of an iron sword, a spearhead, a razor, and a whetstone. This shaft also contained the skeleton of a richly adorned woman, who may have been killed when the man’s remains were placed in the tomb.126 The other shaft contained the unburnt remains of no less than four horses. Oliver Dickinson suggests that these horses ‘make best sense as chariot teams’.127 The aristocratic Toumba cemetery, where most of the weapon burials at Lefkandi have been found, is located in front of the east entrance to the apsidal building. The cemetery was installed shortly after the burial mound had been raised; 128 the graves follow the contour of the mound. The excavators suggest that there were kinship ties between the people buried here and the man interred within the large building;129 Lemos points out that in any event, they were probably all members of the ruling elite. 130 The ‘epic’ characteristics of the tomb have often been noted; burials such as here at Toumba no doubt inspired descriptions of funeral rites in the Homeric epics.131 The interments at the Toumba building seemed to have led to a sudden and temporary increase in the amount of weapon burials in the period immediately following the construction of the burial mound. More than twenty graves have been unearthed at this cemetery that belong to this period that last perhaps a generation; half a dozen of these graves (over one 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Cf. also Crie laard 1996, 323 (tables 1 and 2), for some further details. The graves at Le fkandi re prese nt only a small portion of the population, re fer to Crie laard 1996, 38. Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, 48–49. But note Antonaccio 1995, 243. Popham et al. 1993, 21. Dickinson 2006, 247. See , e.g., I.S. Le mos 2002, 161. Popham et al. 1988, 123. I.S. Le mos 2002, 165. E.g., Morris 2000, 228–238; cf. the cremation burials at Ele utherna, which correspond quite close ly to descriptions in Home r’s Iliad as regards the buria l customs and the killing of prisoners (Stampolidis 1995).

39

quarter of the total number), possibly more (depending on exact date), contained weapons. Excluding graves that straddle the Late Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric I chronological divide, the total number of graves at Toumba from the Subprotogeometric I period onwards is less than forty.132 In other words, the example set by the burials in the Toumba building appears to have inspired the less grand burials of other dignitaries at Lefkandi. Most of the burials with weapons here are dated to the Late Protogeometric period. Grave no. Date S-46 EPG Building MPG P-16 MPG P-31 LPG T 14.1 LPG T-26 LPG T-39 LPG T-54 LPG T-3 LPG T-p1 LPG? T-41 LPG–SPG I T-50 LPG–SPG I P-13 SPG I P-47 SPG I–II T-p8 SPG I–II T-p13 SPG II T-79 SPG II T-p14 SPG III T-p1 ? P-p16 ? P-p17 ? S-p13 ? Total instances

Knife

Dagger 1

S word

S pear

1

1

1 1

1

Arrow

Axe

1 1

1 1 1

10 1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1

1

1 1 1

3 x

1 1

1 1 1 9

3

10

11

2

5

Table 1: Overview of weapons in the twenty-two burials with arms at Lefkandi. Numbers marked by ‘p’ are pyres, ra ther than graves proper. The capital letters refer to the cemetery (Skoubris, Palia Perivolia, Toumba). A small ‘x’ denotes a n unknown number.

Table 1 presents an overview of the types of weapons found in the Lefkandi graves. The bottom row lists the number of graves (not the total number of weapons). The weapons at Skoubris were all short blades, namely a dagger and two knives. Of the six weapon graves at Palia Perivolia, two only contained a knife, one an axe (P-13), one contained both a spear and a sword (P-47), and one pyre contained the remains of a sword (P-p17), whereas another contained a knife and a spear (P-p16). By contrast, of the fourteen graves at Toumba, five—including one pyre—contained both a spear and a sword (viz. Toumba building, T 14.1, T-50, T-p8, T-79), and seven others—including four pyres—contained either a spear or a sword (viz. T-26, T-39, T-54, T-p1, T-p13, T-p14, T-p1); the remaining two graves contained only knives as possible weapons (T-3 and T-41). Pyre 13 at Toumba contained a bronze spike, possibly (part of) a shield boss. All in all, it is clear that these different plots were used by different groups of people, 133 with the Toumba cemetery in particular associated with 132 133

40

Data base d on Crie laard 1996, 325 (table 4). Crie laard 1996, 59–61; cf. Brauning 1995, 43.

‘warriors’. Notable are the finds of arrowheads in two of the graves at Toumba. Most scholars regard the bow as a cheap weapon (a point to which I shall return in later chapters), but the presence of arrowheads in rich graves certainly contests that idea. Grave T-26 not only contained arrowheads, but also an iron sword, an iron pin, and a large array of pottery. The more recently discovered grave T-79 contained arrowheads as well as a sword and spearhead, two knives, and a large number of pots (both local and Attic), two Phoenician and three Cypriot flasks, a bronze grater, 134 two bronze earrings, and a set of twelve stone weights and a seal. This man’s cremated remains had also been placed inside a bronze cauldron. In addition, a piece of horn in Toumba pyre 1 may have been part of a composite bow.135 Clearly, these were affluent and, in the case of T-79, perhaps well-travelled men,136 who fought both at close range (sword and spear) and and at a distance (arrows). The finds suggest that both the sword and the spear were a common feature among at least some of the high-ranking men at Lefkandi, throughout the three- or four-generation span covered by the Middle Protogeometric to Subprotogeometric III periods (c. 950–825). Among the rich, adult burials most are without weapons. It is likely that not all of these belonged to women; in other words, some males were buried with weapons, others without. I would suggest that this discrepancy can be best explained if we assume that only community leaders and other heads of high-ranking households, as protectors of the community at large, were identified as warriors during burial by placing one or more weapons in the man’s grave. The different cemetries at Lefkandi may have been used by different social groups or lineages. Jan Paul Crielaard has emphasised that there may be ‘a connection between permanent exclusive burial grounds, corporate group control over restricted resources and the use of cemeteries to legitimize this monopolisation through lineal descent.’137 In sum, a number of cemeteries were in use in Lefkandi down to around 825, of which the Toumba cemetery was clearly aristicratic. By far the most burials with arms were located here, centred on the tumulus containing the famous building and cremated remains of a warrior. The spear and sword are the most common weapons in the burials with arms, though some axes are also relatively common. Other grave goods include pottery intended for alcohol consumption as well as exotic objects imported from the Near East. But not all high-ranking men were buried with arms, so we may assume that they were in some way special, perhaps local leaders. b. Eretria The earliest finds at Eretria date to the Subprotogeometric period, 138

134 135 136 137 138

On graters as he roic appare l, note West 1998. Popham, Sacke tt, and The me lis 1980, 256. See Crie laard 1996, 64–65. Crie laard 1996, 60; see now also Crie laard 2006, 285–291. Crie laard 1996, 74; I.S. Lemos 2002.

41

including an in situ cremation of a warrior (Subprotogeometric II).139 During the eighth century, Eretria consisted of several dispersed habitation nuclei, to which one may link a number of corresponding burial plots. These burials are located at the later West Gate, in the area east of the later agora, and in the coastal zone (Odos Eratonymon and area of the later Hygeionomeion). More sites will be probably be added as research at Eretria continues. The graves discovered so far include both inhumations as well as in situ and secondary cremations.140 Excavation of the so-called Hygeionomeion or West Cemetery took place in the late nineteenth century and have never been fully published. Furthermore, much had already been looted by grave robbers by the time that the excavations got underway. A few in situ cremations with weapons were unearthed here; an unspecified number of these included spears but not swords. In addition, the graves included a horse burial. Both weapons and horses are, as often noted, typically associated with the aristocracy. In addition, one of the rich Middle-Geometric-II tombs in the agora area contained a single iron sword.141 A small burial plot dated between 720 and 680 has been unearthed at the West Gate;142 the nearby gate itself and wall are later, perhaps even sixth century.143 Six or seven urn cremations were unearthed here, as well as nine or ten child inhumations; they may have belonged to the same family group.144 A stone triangular feature was constructed on top of the burials, with a curvilinear wall or peribolos at the south. There is further evidence that the area came to be used for feasting and offering. ‘From the Archaic to the Late Classical period a complex of buildings developed around and over the cemetery’, which ‘seem to have had a cult function and may be considered a heroön.’145 The urn cremations at this cemetery show many similarities with the burial beneath the Toumba building and grave T-79 at Lefkandi. The burnt remains were placed inside a bronze cauldron. The graves appear to be centred on what Bérard has suggested is the earliest grave, number 6. Interestingly, this leader ‘appears to have possessed a skeptron, a bronze spear of the Mycenaean period’, 146 although it may also be an Italic import.147 This individual possessed a staggering amount of weapons (four swords and six spears); it has been suggested that he was some kind of war hero.148 Two of the urn cremations at the West Gate do not contain any weapons; it has been hypothesised that these contain female remains, which

139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

42

Blandin 2000 passim. Excavation re port, Bé rard 1970; see also Brauning 1995, 43–45; Blandin 2007; Crie laard 2007. Blandin 2007, 17–19. Crie laard 1996, 78. On the West ce mete ry, see , especially, Crie laard 2007. Antonaccio 1995, 228. Crie laard 1996, 79. Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, 61. Cf. Langdon 2001; note also Whitle y 2002. Crie laard 1996, 82 n. 58.

has now been corroborated by osteological analyses. 149 At Eretria, contrary to Lefkandi, secondary cremation and the use of metal urns were thus not restricted solely to high-ranking men.150 Grave no. 5 6 8 9 Total instances

S word 4 2 2

S pear 1 6 1 4 4

Table 2: swords and spears in the four graves unearthed at Eretria’s West Gate.

Table 2 illustrates the numbers of spears and swords found in the graves near the West Gate. All graves contained spears; in addition, three of the five graves also contained swords. Interestingly, the swords found within a single grave are roughly the same length; Béatrice Blandin suggests that ‘ils n’étaient pas produits selon des normes standards, mais forgés sur commande’, i.e. they were tailor-made.151 Other types of weapons were not found in the tombs at the West Gate. At Lefkandi, most graves contained only a single spear, in half of the total number of graves discussed in the previous section, and in nearly as many cases a single sword. However, at Eretria two tombs (graves 6 and 9) contained not only more than one spear (six in grave 6 and four in grave 9), but also multiple swords (four and two, respectively). The large amount of weapons may be indicative of the high status these men enjoyed; perhaps they were intended to represent their following, to illustrate that they were leaders of men, or they might have been spoils of war. That a hero-cult was established later over their tombs is further evidence that they were held in high regard.152 The presence of what may be a horse tooth in grave 9 suggests that the deceased was a member of the elite hippeis or hippobotai,153 a horse-owning gentry known from later Greek texts. It is probably no coincidence that two bronze horse blinkers, originally made in the Near East, were found at the Apollo Daphnephoros sanctuary at Eretria.154 To summarise, the burial plots in Eretria may have been used by different groups of people, as at Lefkandi, with particularly high-ranking individuals buried near the West Gate in the eighth century, where there is also evidence for cult activity from the seventh century onwards. The spear and sword are common, here as at Lefkandi, and some of the burials at the West Gate feature large numbers of both spears and swords, perhaps to indicate that these are not merely high-ranking warriors, not only local leaders, but more specifically warlike leaders of men with their own followers.

149 150 151 152 153 154

Blandin 2007, 128–129. Crie laard 1996, 78. Blandin 2007, 112. Crie laard 1996, 87–92. Crie laard 1996, 82; cf. Snodgrass 1980, 108. Lipinski 2004, 156 (with re fe re nces); Crie laard 2002, 253–254.

43

c. Athens Because Attika has always generated a lot of interest, we have a relative abundance of archaeological data on the region, as well as its main city, Athens. Not all sites have received equal amounts of care, and the best published and most carefully researched cemetery is that of the Athenian Kerameikos. Outside of the Kerameikos, another important cemetery that contained burials with arms was located in the area of the later Agora. i. The Athenian Kerameikos The Kerameikos cemetery is divided into a northern and southern area by the Eridanos river. The northern area is sometimes referred to as the Pompeion burial area, after the Roman building that once stood there. Some 119 graves have been unearthed here, the earliest of which date back to the Late-Helladic-IIIC period. However, graves from the Late-Helladic-IIIC and Submykenaian periods did not contain any weapons. 155 Cremation was the rule, with the remains placed inside a terracotta amphora. The ashes of females were initially placed in belly-handled amphorae (associated with water), and later in shoulder-handled ones. The remains of men were generally associated with neck-handled amphorae. Large pots were used as grave-markers, some of which featured martial scenes (discussed in chapter 6). Grave no.

Date

AI PG III A2 PG III B PG III 2N PG III 24 PG III E PG II–IV 34 PG IV 17 PG IV 6 PG IV 28 PG V 32 PG V 40 PG V 48 PG V 2 EG II 74 EG II 38 EG II–MG I 13 MG I hs 109 MG I 23 MG II Total instances

Knife

Dagger

Sword

1

Spear

Arrow

Boss

1 1 1

? ? 1

1 1 1 1

? 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

3

?

8

1 1 1 1 1 12

1

3

Table 3: Combinations of weapons in the nineteen burials with arms at the Athenian Kerameikos. A question mark under dagger indicates that the remains of a bladed weapon have been found, but it cannot be positively identified as either a knife, dagger, or sword.

Table 3 provides an overview of the different types of weapons found in the nineteen relevant Kerameikos graves. Most weapon graves date to the 155

44

Main e xcavation re ports, Kraiker & Kuble r 1939; Kuble r 1954; see also Brauning 1995, 16–23.

Protogeometric III, IV, and V periods, or mostly the tenth century, with a small gap of perhaps a generation between Protogeometric V and Early Geometric II. As at Lefkandi, the sword and spear are the most common items, occurring in about half of the graves; four graves contained both a spear and a sword, and an additional three contained a spear and a bladed weapon of unknown type, possibly a sword. Spear and sword are thus the most common combination of weapons. As at Lefkandi, arrowheads are rare, with a single find in one grave. But as at Lefkandi, the grave in question contained other, close-range weapons as well as other grave goods—pottery used in the consumption of alcohol—that clearly mark it as the tomb of a rich man. In a few burials (e.g., Protogeometric grave 24) objects have been found that were once thought to be cymbals, but Anthony Snodgrass has demonstrated that many of these are actually shield bosses. 156 However, Andrea Bräuning follows the excavators in cataloguing these objects as phalerae, i.e. horse-trappings (part of a horse’s harness mount).157 They seem to correspond best with depictions of shield bosses, however, so I hold Snodgrass’s identification as the correct one. Such bosses were used on single-grip shields. Their presence in some graves tells us that at least a few of the dead were cremated together with their shields; note also the bronze spike mentioned in the subsection on Lefkandi. The fact that only the metal bosses survived means that the shield was made largely of perishable material, probably wood covered by leather. Interestingly, the Athenian examples are not found in association with any weapons, although an iron object in Protogeometric grave 40 can be interpreted as either a chisel (tool) or an axe (a multifunctional item that could also serve as a weapon). The variety of weapons remains surprisingly consistent from the Protogeometric period onwards. Burial with arms disappears at the Kerameikos cemetery at the end of the Middle Geometric II period. A new kind of funerary ritual may have developed. Especially during the seventh and sixth centuries, it seems that most grave offerings were deposited on the ground above or near the grave.158 There may thus shift in emphasis from a ritual centred squarely on the deceased to repeated cult practices by the living, with the grave as ritual focal point. The importance of grave goods actually being visible suggests some kind of competitive display, a point to which I shall return in this book’s conclusion. ii. The Athenian Agora The Agora of Athens is renowned as the civic centre of ancient Athens, a function it did not fully acquire until the sixth century.159 Earlier, part of the site was used as a cemetery. Forty-seven tombs have been found that date back to the Mycenaean era (including Late Helladic IIIC). Some eighty graves from the period between 1100 and 700 have been unearthed. 156 157 158 159

Snodgrass 1964b, 37–48. Cf. Connolly 1998 [1981], 236 (illustration). Morris 1987, 125–128. Camp 1992 [1986], 34.

45

Forty-nine graves belonged to the Geometric period. Of these, seventeen belonged to men, twelve to women, another dozen to children, and a further eight remain unidentified.160 In the agora, both primary and secondary cremation was practiced, and a sizeable number of bodies were interred.161 The earliest burials with arms date to the Late Protogeometric to Early Geometric I period, which is later than the earliest burials with arms from the Kerameikos. Only five graves contained any weapons, which is nearly a third of the total number of male burials at the Agora,162 but the graves are spread across a period of more than one century. Weapons disappear from the funerary record at the Agora after the Middle Geometric I period, around 800, slightly earlier than at the Kerameikos (Middle Geometric II). Grave no. Date N 16:4 LPG–EG I XXVII LPG–EG I AR II EG I R 20:1 EG II–MG I AR V MG I Total instances

Knife 1 2 1 3

Sword 1 1 1 1 1 5

Spear

Axe

2 1

1

2

1

Table 4: Combinations of weapons found in the graves at the Athenian Agora.

Table 4 summarises the weapons found in the relevant graves at the Agora. Each of these five graves contained a sword, while only two also contained a spear (or a set of two spears, in the case of grave XXVII). Knives were unearthed in a total of three graves. However, the total number of graves used here is small and the evidence covers a period of some two centuries, which works out to an average of one burial with arms every forty years! So what is the significance of burial with arms? One possibility is that these men somehow represent the cream of the Athenian elite, the heads of important households. However, they might equally well be war-heroes, or men who died in battle. The Agora cemetery, or at least the part on the slope of the Areiopagos, may have been the burial ground for the Athenian ruling elite, possibly even a ‘royal’ family.163 The richness of these graves certainly suggests that they belonged to the highest echelons of the local community. Camp compares the burial of ‘the rich lady of the agora’ (c. 850) with that of the warrior buried in grave XXVII (c. 900). Both were cremated and the remains placed in a large amphora (a belly-handled amphora in the case of the woman and a neck-handled amphora in the case of the man). The pottery interred with the woman included a ceramic box or miniature chest decorated with five granaries, which ‘hints at her high status and the source of her family’s

160

161 162 163

46

Excavation re ports: Ble gen 1952, Brann 1960, Brann 1962, Smithson 1968, Thompson 1948, Thompson 1950, Thompson 1956, Young 1939, Young 1949, Young 1951; see also Brauning 1995, 24–31. Brauning 1995, 25. Cf. Morris 1987, 148. Smithson 1968; Coldstream 1995.

wealth’,164 namely the ownership of land. The man was also given some pottery and a number of metal items: his sword was ‘killed’ by being bent around the shoulder of the amphora, two spearheads were placed in the grave, as well as the bridle-bits of his horses, and an axe-head.165 The association of horses, weapons, and axes, in addition to pottery used for the consumption of alcohol, are all hallmarks of the aristocracy, as will be discussed in this book’s conclusion. d. Argos Over two hundred graves, most of which date to the eighth century, have been unearthed in and around the city of Argos; of these, 182 were found in distinct clusters or family plots. 166 Andrea Bräuning has catalogued the relevant burials unearthed up to the early nineties.167 The graves contained skeletons; cremation appears not to have been practiced anywhere in the Argolid. 168 Of the total number of 182 graves, 19 could be attributed to women, 27 to men, and 25 to children. The sex and age of the remaining 111 graves cannot be positively established, neither by analysis of the remains, nor by examining the grave goods. Of the 27 burials that are male, no less than fifteen contained weapons and also, in three cases, a helmet. There main types of graves at Argos are cist and pithos tombs. All of the tombs discussed in the present subsection are cist graves. A cist grave consists of a rectangular shaft, lined and covered by stone slabs. The earliest warrior graves date to the Middle Geometric I period (graves T14.2 and GG15). Grave no.

Date

GG69 MG I T14.2 MG I GG15 MG II GG81 MG–LG GG18 LG GG25 LG GG 25 LG GG91a LG I GG91b LG I GG107 LG I T179 LG I T176.2 LG II GG110 LG II T45 LG II T6.2 LG II GG70 LG II Total instances

Dagger

S word

S pear

Axe

Helmet

Cuirass

1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 2 2

1 1

1

1

3

1

1 1 2

10

9

Table 5: Finds of weapons and armour unearthed in the fifteen burials with arms at Argos.

Table 5 illustrates the weapons found in the graves at Argos. As at Lefkandi and Athens, swords and spears are the commonest weapons. Six of the 164 165 166 167 168

Coldstream 1995, 397. Camp 1992 [1986], 30–31; on the axe , see Snodgrass 1964b, 166. Main synthesis, see Courbin 1974. Brauning 1995, 33–37. Brauning 1995, 34; Hagg 1974, 100ff; I.S. Le mos 2002, 157–60.

47

fifteen graves with weapons contained both a sword and a spear. Some graves even included multiple swords or spears. A similar phenomenon has been observed for Eretria, and here too the larger number of weapons may indicate that these men are high-ranking and warlike individuals, who were probably leaders of men. Unique at this early date, are the inclusion in three graves of pieces of armour: they each contain a single helmet, and one grave even includes a complete bell-shaped cuirass (discussed below). Of all the Argive graves, T45 is especially noteworthy. In this grave were found, among other things, a helmet and a complete bell-shaped cuirass, as well as a pair of double-axes, and two strips that may have belonged to greaves. 169 The warrior’s bell-shaped cuirass ‘is so named from its distinctive shape, with an inward curve near the waist, from which the lower rim curves strongly out, or even juts diagonally, if one can trust the representations.’170 It consists of two plates, front and back, which are connected to each other by hinges on one side and leather straps on the other. The cuirass’s ‘lower edge reached a little below the waist level. In the Argos cuirass, for example, the narrowest part seems to correspond roughly to the level of the navel, and the level of the lower rim has obviously been adjusted in order to provide free mobility for the thighs when running and even when adopting a crouching position.’171 Anderson notes that it would have served a horseman well, since it allows one to sit without chafing the upper legs.172 The warrior may have ridden to the battlefield on horseback, or perhaps even fought from horseback.173 According to the original excavator, Pierre Courbin, the firedogs suggest that the man buried in grave T45 had been a captain,174 a hypothesis drawn into question by Snodgrass, who regards him instead as a horseman based on the bell-shaped cuirass and two double-axes.175 I do not believe these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and that the ship-shaped firedogs and the possible connections to horse-ownership ought to be regarded as emphasising simply that this individual was a powerful and wealthy member of the ruling elite, perhaps even the leader of the local Argive community. In sum, the Argive material is somewhat different from both Lefkandi and Athens and more similar to the finds from Eretria’s West Gate (more on this below). Swords and spears are found in most of the burials with arms, sometimes even multiple specimens within a single grave. In addition, a few burials contained pieces of armour, including one tomb with a complete bronze cuirass. Other high-ranking burials, here as elsewhere, do not

169 170 171 172

173 174 175

48

The burial is describe d in some de tail in Courbin 1957. Snodgrass 1964b, 73. Jarva 1995, 25. Ande rson 1961, 143. Indee d, plate armour—along with the slashing sword and the spear—is associate d with fighting from horse back in ce ntral Europe ; re fe r to Tre herne 1995, 110. See also Brouwers 2007a. Snodgrass 1971b, 46; Coldstream 1977, 148–149; see also discussion in Jarva 1995, 128–130. Courbin 1957, 383–385. Snodgrass 1971b, 45–46.

contain any weapons, so once again the men who were buried with arms must have been special for one reason or another, and the weapons suggest not merely warlike prowess, but political might: the inclusion of multiple numbers of the same type of weapon in one grave may, as at Eretria’s West Gate, suggest that these individuals were also leaders of men, able to mobilise their own private armies or warbands. 3. General discussion of the evidence It should be stressed that burials with arms are a comparatively rare feature in the ancient Aegean. 176 Geographically, they were limited to certain regions within the Aegean, especially Euboia, Attika, the Argolid, Krete, and Northern Greece (Thessaly and Makedonia). In other regions, none or only a few of such graves have been found. Some examples include a grave at Nichoria in Messenia, dated to around 725 and containing an iron sword and spearhead,177 a grave at Lokrian Atalanti that contained an iron sword and a bronze shield boss,178 and the mid-eleventh-century grave XXVIII at Tiryns, which contained iron daggers, a bronze spear, helmet, and a shield boss.179 Aside from cemeteries, smaller plots, and isolated burials, the ancient Greeks sometimes used mass graves. When a mass grave contained the remains of dead warriors, it was called a polyandreion. Polyandreia are mostly a feature of the Classical period. Pritchett discusses eleven burial mounds that contained the remains of men slain in battle in the fourth volume of his Greek State at War. 180 Of these, the only Archaic example is that from Akragas (Agrigento in Sicily). It was made in the late seventh century and consisted of a pit, containing the remains of ‘dozens of bodies and over 150 Greek vases’.181 Unlike most Classical specimens, this pit was not dug at the battlefield itself, but in a hill at the local cemetery. The contents and location are similar to an earlier, eighth-century polyandreion unearthed relatively recently in Paroika, the capital of Paros. The cemetery here featured two large cist graves that together contained around 160 vases filled with the cremated remains of men who were presumably killed in battle.182 Two of these pots featured warlike scenes, which will be discussed in the chapter on the iconographic evidence. This mass burial shows that fighting in this period sometimes led to relatively large numbers of deaths; these may have been incurred when the inhabitants fought off a piratical raid, but they might equally well have died in a war against their neighbours. Spatially, warrior graves are only rarely encountered in clusters, and even when we do find more than a few in a single cemetery, they are nearly always outnumbered by other burials in the same graveyard that do not 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

See also De ger-Jalkotzy 2006, 154–157. Coldstream 1977, 162–164. Dakoronia 2006, 498. Snodgrass 1971, 221–223. See especially Pritchett 1985, 125–139. Pritche tt 1985, 126. Zaphiropoulou 2006, 276.

49

contain any weapons or armour. This begs the question whether or not a collection of graves somehow reflects the social makeup of the community that it belonged to. The total number of graves that have been unearthed so far does not tally with the supposed number of people that must have died in the course of time. Ian Morris, in his book Burial and Ancient Society (1987), claims that Greek communities were made up of essentially two parts: the elite (agathoi) on the one hand, and the common people (kakoi) on the other. It is important to note that his agathoi included both a governing and a non-governing elite. For Early Iron Age Athens, Morris argues persuasively that while the agathoi were always buried in an archaeologically visible way, the kakoi were not, or at least not in certain periods.183 A related, practical problem is that not all graves may have been unearthed by archaeologists. Burials belonging to individuals with a high status are more visible in the archaeological record than those of low-ranking individuals. 184 In short, high-ranking individuals are over-represented and some of them were buried with arms. This in itself is interesting: apparently, men of lower status were buried in inconspicuous ways and were apparently—to judge by the lack of martial grave goods—not associated with fighting. This is a point to which I shall return in this book’s conclusion. Finally, the practice of burial with arms is relatively long-lived in some regions, covering a timespan of perhaps as much as two centuries, and short-lived in others, lasting no more than a single generation. As we have seen, there were a number of cemeteries in Lefkandi that were in use for at least a hundred years or some three or four generations, at Argos the timespan is limited to perhaps two generations; the ‘warrior graves’ at the plot near Eretria’s West Gate were installed in the span of a century, after which cult practices were established at the site to honour the people there interred. Some of the question posed at the beginning of this chapter can now be answered, while others will be explored in greater detail in the remainder of this section. It is clear that only some regions possess cemeteries and burial plots where at least some of the men were buried with arms; these are all clearly high-ranking individuals and it has been suggested that the inclusion of weapons (and rarely armour) marks them as warriors, and perhaps more specifically as leaders of men, especially when they are given more than one specimen of a particular weapon (Eretria’s West Gate and Argos). The burials with arms are generally found in specific plots, especially those that undoubtedly belonged to the local aristocracy, perhaps even a single kinship group (e.g., Athenian Agora). Burials with arms are a feature of the period between 1000 and 700, with no clear diachronic developments to be observed, except the inclusion of armour in the later eighth century at Argos. Considering the variety of the evidence, not in the least its relative scarcity or patchiness, a number of further questions naturally suggest themselves. What are the main characteristics of Greek burials with arms 183 184

50

Morris 1987, 104–109. Crie laard 1996, 37.

and what regional differences can we observe? Why were some people buried with arms while others were not? What was the reason for nearly wholly abandoning the practice of burial with arms around the end of the eighth century in places such as Athens and Argos? And why did the practice linger in more supposedly ‘backward’ areas, such as Lokris, Achaia, and Krete?185 Some authors have attempted to answer the more searching of these questions by examining perceived changes in either Greek social organisation or mentality (ideology). a. What are the main characteristics of Greek burials with arms? It is clear that in all regions, local communities adhered to local burial traditions, which included inhumation (Argos) as well as primary and secondary cremation and inhumation (e.g., Lefkandi, Eretria). Offensive weapons are by far the most common martial items deposited in ‘warrior graves’, especially knives and/or daggers, swords, and spears. In a few graves, including a ones mentioned in passing (such as Tiryns tomb XXVIII), shield bosses have been unearthed. Evidence for armour is slim: the most outstanding examples are from eighth-century Argos, and it seems that with the possible exception of a bronze helmet, most men fought either without armour or with armour made of perishable materials. Gifts of weapons are normally accompanied by pottery intended for alcohol consumption, as well as other objects associated with the aristocracy, such as horse trappings. The (double-)axes found in a number of graves at Lefkandi, Athens, and Argos are typical items of high-ranking men; interestingly, bronze axes were already items deposited in graves during the Late Helladic IIIC period, such as the ‘Tripod Tomb’ in Mykenai.186 Anthony Snodgrass assumes that the double-axes in tomb T45 at Argos are weapons, pointing out that they are the only possible weapons that the dead man was buried with.187 However, Coldstream assumes the axes to have been obsolete as weapons and were used instead to chop wood.188 However, Jan Paul Crielaard has pointed out that: Lite rary and archae ological e vide nce shows that axes we re multi-functional instrume nts, use d as weapons, but also as instrume nts at symposia, sacrifical ce remonies, e tc.; the y we re ke pt as storage a nd give n away as prizes. They were status symbols of the (Euboean) aristocracy *<+.189

Axes are thus items associated with two main activities of the elite: fighting and feasting. This association is made very clear in the case of T45, where the grave goods contained both double-axes and iron spits (for roasting). In addition, this grave included firedogs in the shape of warships: a third element typical of the aristocracy. Double-axes are also a motif on painted

185 186 187 188 189

Snodgrass 1977, 277–281; Snodgrass 1980, 100–101. Papadimitriou 2006, 543. Snodgrass 1964b, 166–167. Coldstream 1977, 146. Crie laard 1996, 54 n. 116 (with furthe r refe re nces).

51

pottery, often in combination with horses, as also noted by Crielaard; some of these scenes will be discussed in the later chapter on the iconographic evidence. Interestingly, the swords found at Argos tend to be shorter (never longer than 45 cm) compared to the ones unearthed in Euboia. For example, most swords at Eretria were over 70 centimetres in length, those at Lefkandi range are all between 56 and 74 centimetres in length.190 In addition, the swords at Eretria are different from one burial to the next, and may be closely associated with the deceased. 191 The swords from Athens are perhaps more varied than those from Lefkandi, with lengths ranging from over 40 centimetres up to 90 centimetres. As the Eretrian graves are more or less contemporary with the Late Geometric Argive graves, the discrepancy is even more glaring. Spearheads from both sites are relatively massive, but those from Argos are perhaps slightly larger. They must have been used solely for thrusting. The combinations of weapons and (the general lack of) armour offer some tantalising insights into how these warriors may have fought, provided that the grave goods are an accurate representation of a warrior’s ‘typical’ equipment. At Lefkandi and Athens, the men fought with spears and swords, and sometimes used shields (of which only the bosses remain). The equipment appears to have been fairly light, allowing for skirmishes and quick raids. The weapons from Eretria are more massive and the swords are very long; these men may have had a proclivity for close-ranged combat. Eretrians are closely associated with horse-riding and a long sword would have offered a mounted warrior the ability to hack away at his enemy below. The Argives clearly fought on foot: the massive spearheads and especially the very short swords are testament to this, although some may nevertheless have ridden to the battlefield (as has been suggested for the warrior in tomb T45). The bronze armour at Argos furthermore supports the notion that the Argives fought at close range. The finds at Argos and Eretria date to the later eighth century, which can thus be considered a period of change toward a heavier style of fighting. In addition, not all men need have fought with spears and swords, but some were equipped with double-axes (Lefkandi, Athens, Argos), while others may have used the bow as well (Lefkandi and Athens), perhaps even as a secondary weapon. b. Why were some men buried with weapons while others were not? David Tandy considers burials with arms (and possibly associated hero cults) one of the so-called ‘tools of exclusion’ through which ‘in the eighth century the emerging aristocracy sought to establish and maintain a separate position for themselves to the exclusion of others.’192 However, if Tandy’s hypothesis is correct, one would assume that all seemingly high-ranking men were buried with arms. This is not the case. Instead, weapons and armour are deposited only in the graves of some high-ranking 190 191 192

52

Brauning 1995, 43. For further de tails, see Blandin 2007, 110–122. Tandy 1997, 141 (the othe r ‘tools’ are gift giving and councils and feasts).

men, and only then in certain places in the Aegean area. Why are some men marked as ‘warriors’ whereas others are not? In the case of the man buried in the building at Toumba, the weapons may have served to underscore his position as a leader. At other sites, too, weapons and armour could have been used to mark someone not merely as ‘aristocratic’, but as a leader of some sort. This may explain why some of the men in the élite cemetery of Toumba were buried with arms while others were not: these particular individuals may have been leaders of households, or other members of the highest echelons. Similarly, the warriors buried at Eretria’s West Gate were no doubt leaders of some accord; three of them were buried with multiple spears and swords, perhaps these were signs of their power, e.g. their ability to command groups of men in battle. The burials with arms at the Hygeionomeion at Eretria may have contained warriors of lesser standing, perhaps the followers of the men buried at the West Gate? An examination of the Homeric epics, in which burial with arms is also very rare, suggests a few other possibilities. The material will be discussed more fully in later chapters, but I will briefly discuss the two relevant examples here. The first is Andromache’s father Eëtion, who was defeated and then cremated in his armour by Achilleus, as a sign of the utmost respect (Il. 6.416–420). The second concerns Odysseus’ unfortunate shipmate Elpenor, who died in an accident; his ghost later asks Odysseus to burn his body in full armour (Od. 11.66–78). In both cases, a large mound is raised over the graves. The textual evidence, slim as it is, points in the same direction as the archaeological material: burials with arms are exceptional and serve to mark the deceased specifically as a warrior: Eëtion as an honourable opponent (despite, perhaps, his advanced age: he has a grown-up daughter, after all), Elpenor probably to show that, despite the unfortunate circumstances of his death, he was nevertheless a warrior who took part in—and survived—the Trojan War. It is certainly no coincidence that two of the greatest warriors in the epic, who both died in actual combat, namely Patroklos and Hektor, are poignantly not buried with arms: their martial prowess may have been considered beyond question. c. Why did the practice of burial with arms end? Hans van Wees has put forth an interesting hypothesis regarding the relatively sudden disappearance of burials with arms. He suggests that this change can best be related to changes with regard to how elites conceived of themselves. As communities grew larger and more anonymous, it became necessary for the elite to emphasise their wealth rather than their martial prowess—symbolised by the bearing of arms—in order to distinguish themselves from the more common (‘poorer’) element of Greek society. In other words, in the Archaic period, ‘those who can afford to do so begin to represent themselves more as men of leisure and less as men of strength.’193 The idea that wealthy Greek men began to emphasise their status as ‘men of leisure’ after 700 seems to me problematic as an explanation for the entire 193

Van Wees 1998, 352.

53

phenomenon. The hypothesis takes certain grave goods as typical, and then tries to explain on the disappearance of these particular types of goods. But lavish grave goods in general, and weapons and armour in particular, are relatively rare throughout the Early Iron Age, often found only in specific places and at specific times. In other words, they are wholly dependent on particular, local or regional circumstances. Furthermore, it appears that burials with arms are closely associated with specific individuals and groups within a community (the Toumba cemetery, the burial plots at Argos, and so forth), and might therefore also not conform to a particular, supposedly supraregional or ‘cultural’ tradition associated with weapon burials. On closer examination, there seem to be very clear reasons why burials with arms disappeared in most of the sites examined so far. In the case of Lefkandi, burials with arms disappear after 825 while the settlement continued to exist down to 700, but the cemeteries for the later period are unknown. At Eretria’s West Gate, it is clear that the men buried there with their weapons were in some way exceptional, as demonstrated by the hero cult that was established there shortly after they had been entombed. In addition, excavations at Eretria have not unearthed any graves dated to the seventh century, with the exception of child burials. At Argos, most of the burials with arms date to the latter half of the eighth century, which was perhaps a particularly warlike period (or more so than usual), possibly ending with the destruction of Asine by the Argives around 700.194 In the case of the Athenian Kerameikos and the Agora, there does appear to be a shift in emphasis toward luxury goods. However, this is again a phenomenon with local peculiarities. Weapons disappeared from the Athenian funerary record in the course of the eighth century. At the same time, there is an apparent increase in prosperity in Athens after c. 770, when at least three new cemeteries were founded by leading (rival?) aristocratic families (at Odos Peiraios, Kynosarges, and Odos Kriezi). The graves in these cemeteries contain no weapons, but they are exceptionally rich and include gold jewellery; at Odos Peiraios monumental painted pots were used as grave markers, which coincidentally did feature martial scenes.195 Anthony Snodgrass already observed that the disappearance of metal grave goods in general during the eighth century goes hand in hand with an apparent increase in the number of metal votive objects at sanctuaries, especially Olympia. 196 As a ‘grand’ theory, ‘The change of competitive venue from funeral display to sanctuary, where cauldrons and weapons are dedicated, shifts the scene, but not the terms, of competition.’197 The key words here are ‘display’ and ‘competition’.198 As communities grew larger and came into more frequent contact, it would no doubt have led to an 194 195 196 197 198

54

See , for e xample , Hall 1995, 582–583. Coldstream 2003 [1977], 87–88. Snodgrass 1980, 104–109. Antonaccio 1995, 242–243. Morgan connects the shift to a change from the private to the public sphe re (1990, 19), but the re is nothing particularly private about aristocratic fune rals, with the ir processions, public mournings, and possibly also fune ral games.

increase in rivalry among the elites of neighbouring territories. Public funerals would in such cases have probably been too small and too fleeting, requiring instead a more permanent display, such as the dedication of arms and armour at (regional) sanctuaries. But that is the subject of the next chapter. d. Why did the practice linger in supposedly more backward regions? Andrea Bräuning, in her important 1995-study on Greek burials with arms, makes a fundamental distinction between a central ‘core’ region of Greek civilisation (Athens, Argos, Lefkandi, and Eretria) and its ‘periphery’ (Thessaly, Makedonia). Her analysis shows that in the Greek settlements some of the male burials contained weapons, whereas in the periphery all of the men were buried with arms. Bräuning concludes that the centrally placed Greek communities may have been more socially stratified than their peripheral counterparts.199 However, Bräuning’s application of a core-periphery model on Early Iron Age Greece strikes me as teleological: since Athens and the other ‘core’ regions were important in Classical times, they must have been more socially stratified (more ‘advanced’) in the Early Iron Age than the more backward ‘periphery’, places like Thessaly and Makedonia (already much scorned by some Classical authors, such as Demosthenes, after all). Furthermore, there is still much left to do with regards to Thesssaly, 200 and, to a lesser extent, Makedonia. The current evidence is patchy: for example, the total number of burials with weapons from Thessaly is still very small.201 Also, burial customs might have been very different, with not everyone buried in an archaeologically visible way, which further makes simple comparison useless. Finally, the argument that Thessaly and Makedonia were less socially stratified also seems too simplistic. For example, at Makedonian Pella, no less than twenty warrior-graves have recently been discovered that reportedly date to the period between 580 and 460.202 Does Late Archaic or Early Classical Makedonia (still) qualify as ‘peripheral’ or ‘less advanced’? Or is it merely different? 4. Conclusions If the equipment deposited in the graves correspond more or less with how a warrior took the field, then the evidence discussed in this chapter demonstrates that most warriors were equipped with spear and sword, and also a dagger in many cases; a few may have used double-axes in combat. Some of these warriors used shields, which were of a single-grip variety and equipped with bronze shield bosses (shields without bosses would normally leave no trace in the archaeological record). In addition, some of 199 200 201 202

Bräuning 1995, 101; cf. Whitle y 2001, 187–188. Note , for e xample , the re markable cremation burials at Halos, describe d in Coldstream 1977, 87. On Thessaly, see Ge organas 2005. Re uters ne ws re port of 11 Se pte mbe r 2008; the project was heade d by Pavlos Chrysostomou.

55

these men in the tenth, ninth, and part of the eighth centuries were apparently also proficient with the bow and arrow. Exceptional are the Argive graves of the late eighth century that also contain elements of bronze armour. The men at Argos also fought using stout swords and heavy spears, which when taken together suggest a much closer-ranged form of fighting at Argos than can be demonstrated for other places. This preference for heavily-armoured troops in the Argolid in general can perhaps be dated to the eleventh century if the helmet in Tiryns tomb XXVIII is any indication, and might even be extended further back in time if we include the Mykenaian bronze panoply unearthed at Dendra (see chapter 2). Only some men in some Greek cemeteries were buried with arms, and it seems very likely that the inclusion of weapons and armour marked them as exceptional. Burials with arms may be limited to high-ranking heads of particular households or other leaders, as well as men who demonstrated exceptional martial prowess or who were represented in the funerary record as warriors for some other reason (the Iliadic examples, discussed above). Weapons and armour are usually associated with pottery intended for the consumption of alcohol. They are sometimes also associated with other aristocratic objects, notably obeloi (iron spits for roasting meat) and horse trappings. The consumption of meat and drink (feasting) and wargear (fighting) thus emerge as part of an aristocratic lifestyle.203 Burials with arms disappeared in many regions at the end of the eighth century, usually for very specific reasons, such as the emergence of new aristocracies with their own forms of representation (Athens). The change also goes hand-in-hand with a perceived increase in the amount of metal votive offerings at some sanctuaries, notably Olympia. However, the custom persists in some areas often regarded as ‘peripheral’ when contrasted to the civilised Greek ‘core’, notably regions such as Thessaly and Makedonia. It has been argued that the regions in question are somehow less socially complex than supposedly more developed regions like Athens or Argos. However, the evidence as a whole is extremely patchy and it strikes me as odd to label Late-Archaic Makedonia as ‘primitive’, when it might simply have been ‘different’.

203

56

For more on this subje ct, see Tre herne 1995 and the conclusion of this book.

Chapter 4

Evidence from sanctuaries 1. Introduction In the tenth and ninth centuries, cultic activities probably took place in the open air, especially at remarkable natural sites, including springs and caves. The true focal point of cultic activity in ancient Greece was, after all, the altar. But from the eighth century onwards, temples were erected with the specific purpose of housing statues representing the gods, as well as votive offerings deposited by their worshippers. Among the most valuable offerings deposited at these temples were weapons and armour, although it should be noted that these are still relatively rare and are only found in bulk at Olympia and one or two other sanctuaries (especially Kalapodi). The purpose of this chapter is to examine the nature of these martial votive offerings. In addition to the central points of focus, such as what the dedications might tell us about different types of warriors and what regional differences can be noted, a number of additional questions readily present themselves. What types of armour and weapons were dedicated to the gods? At which cult sites were weapons and armour offered to the gods? Who or what group of people donated these objects? And, perhaps most importantly, why did some Greeks offer arms and armour to the gods? From the eighth century the number of dedications increased exponentially and continued after weapon graves disappeared from the archaeological record throughout much of southern and central Greece around 700.204 2. A survey of the evidence In this section, a number of important sites are discussed where offerings of weapons and armour have been found. In the course of the Archaic period, a number of cult sites gained more than regional importance and were transformed into Panhellenic sanctuaries. The earliest of these were Olympia and Delphoi, the latter especially famous for its oracle. By the early sixth century, two additional sanctuaries achieved a Panhellenic status, namely Isthmia (originally a local Korinthian sanctuary) and Nemea (an

204

See also previous chapte r; Snodgrass 1980, 52–55.

57

Argive sanctuary). Around the same time, the Panhellenic games appear to have become more formalised. 205 By the end of that same century, these four sanctuaries and their accompanying games were the most important in the whole of the Greek world.206 a. The santuary at Olympia According to Catherine Morgan, Olympia was a neutral meeting place for local rulers of Messenia and Arkadia during the tenth and ninth centuries. At around the start of the eighth century, this rural shrine attracted the attention of other Peloponnesian communities, with possibly athletic competitions being instituted at about this time. The town of Elis was resettled in the last quarter of the eighth century and probably controlled the sanctuary. The dedication of tripods at the site indicates that aristocrats from various regions were competing with each other in the games,207 including martial sports such as chariot races.208 The numerous finds of weapons and armour from Olympia have been the subject of a number of syntheses.209 Most of the weapons and armour found at Greek sanctuaries are hard to date because of a lack of a clear context, making the creation of an accurate typology difficult. 210 As dedications quickly filled up the temples, priests periodically cleaned them out and deposited the gifts in trenches (hence, some communities in the sixth-century started building thesauroi, ‘treasuries’, to keep their votive offerings safe).211 i. Weapons Of the weapons unearthed at Olympia, dedications of arrowheads are rare prior to the seventh century. Nearly all Protogeometric and Geometric finds of arrowheads in the Aegean world are from graves rather than sanctuaries.212 Nevertheless, almost five hundred arrowheads, nearly all of which were made of bronze, have been unearthed at Olympia, of which about a tenth can perhaps be dated to the seventh century; most of the arrowheads date to the fifth century, especially after the Persian Wars.213 As regards spearheads, the smallest and lightest are often classified as javelin-points. However, the discovery at Nemea of a cache of javelins suggests that at least some of these javelin-points were used not in combat, but in athletic competition. 214 Nevertheless, most of the spearheads, of which no less than 840 are made of iron, were definitely weapons of war: some of the later examples feature inscriptions that clearly identify them as 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214

58

Morgan 1993, 26–27. Morgan 1990, 39 and 213–215. Morgan 1990, 192. For further de tails, see Golde n 1998, 23–28. Among others, Baitinge r 2001; Bol 1989; Kunze 1991. See , for e xample , Baitinge r 2001, 33–34; Jarva 1995, 11–12. Snodgrass 1999 [1967], 48–49. Baitinger 2001, 28. Baitinger 2001, 29–30. Baitinger 2001, 35.

booty.215 It seems likely that most of the earlier spears were also taken from vanquished opponents to be dedicated to the gods. Toward the end of the sixth century, butt-spikes were also offered as tropaia at Olympia; no earlier examples are known.216 A butt-spike (saurotēr, literally ‘lizard-killer’) was fixed to the bottom end of a spear; it gave some balance to the spear, allowed it to be stuck into the ground, and was also used to dispatch fallen enemies.217 Only a handful of daggers have been unearthed. The total number of swords—or remains of scabbards and the like—at Olympia is also rather limited: some 40 items, including pieces of sword and scabbard decorations, have been catalogued by Baitinger. The earliest Iron-Age sword dates to the seventh century; most are of the Naue-II variety that remains common until the middle of the sixth century. These early swords are two-edged and fairly straight; the earliest dedicated slashing sword, sometimes slightly curved and always with a single sharp edge, dates to around the middle of the sixth century.218 A new type of sword, shorter when compared to Naue-II blades and characterised by a cross-guard, appears around the middle of the sixth century or slightly later.219 ii. Armour As regards body-armour, the most conspicuous type is the bell-shaped cuirass. Some twenty-nine examples have been unearthed, some of which have been neatly preserved while of others only scraps remain.220 These date to the seventh and sixth centuries and can be dated according to their style, using Archaic sculpture as a reference and the panoply discovered in Argos tomb T45, discussed above, as an anchor point. A few of the Olympia cuirasses are decorated with intricate, engraved decorations around the shoulder blades, and have been dated to the mid-seventh century. This type of body-armour remained in use until well into Classical times. 221 In addition to the bell-shaped cuirasses, the ancient Greeks were familiar with a number of other pieces of body-armour. The term mitrē has been taken from Homer, rightly or wrongly, to refer to a piece of armour that was worn to protect the lower body. It has a straight edge where it would be attached to a belt (or perhaps a cuirass); the bottom end is rounded and follows the shape of the lower body. This abdominal plate is probably of Cretan origin; 222 some ten specimens are known from Olympia. 223 Scale-armour had been in use from the end of the Bronze Age onwards in the Near East. One piece ‘of bronze scale-armour of unknown date was

215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223

See also Jackson 1991, 230–232. Baitinger 2001, 54–55. Snodgrass 1999 [1967], 80. Baitinger 2001, 75–79. Killian-Dirlme ie r 1993, 118–130. Jarva 1995, 20–23. Jarva 1995, 17–29; Snodgrass 1964b, 73–76. For more on Kre tan armour, re fer to Hoffmann 1972. Jarva 1995, 51–52.

59

found at Olympia, and had apparently been silver-plated.’224 Other finds of armour include over a dozen upper arm guards, mostly those of the right arm (which would not have been protected by a shield); they may all date to the sixth century.225 Lower arm guards are sometimes confused with greaves. 226 Nevertheless, five of these arm guards have been identified at Olympia. A beautiful example of a lower arm guard (Olympia M130) covers the arm from the tip of the elbow to the wrist. The maker of this piece of equipment took care in modelling the anatomical features of the lower arm on it. It probably dates to the last quarter of the seventh century.227 Greaves (which protected the shins), a single thigh guard, and a number of lower and upper arm guards have also been unearthed. Greaves were obviously a popular piece of equipment, as the number of finds at Olympia readily attests.228 Ignoring those from the Bronze Age (see chapter 2, above), the earliest greaves have been dated to the seventh century. In addition, a few foot-guards and over fifty (!) ankle-guards have been discovered at Olympia. The ankle-guards date back to at least the middle of the seventh century; some of the foot-guards may date to the last quarter of the seventh century.229 Protection for the feet appears to be a feature mostly of the seventh century and perhaps a little earlier; Homer perhaps also mentions ankle-guards.230 Helmets have been the object of a number of studies.231 Thanks to the distinctive shape of many helmets a good typology has been developed in the course of time. At Olympia, a number of different types have been found: the so-called ‘Chalkidian’ and ‘Illyrian’ helmets, the Kegelhelm, and the Korinthian type helmet.232 The oldest of these helmets is the Kegelhelm (the same type as the helmet found in Argos grave T45), which consists of five pieces and has a stilted crest. This type eventually, early in the seventh century, developed into the two-piece Illyrian-type helmet which, despite its name, might actually be a Peloponnesian invention. The Korinthian-type helmet is encountered most often at Olympia; it is ‘the foremost type of Greek helmet.’233 The Korinthian helmet, named after the place where it was presumably developed, was made out of a single piece of bronze and—unlike the Kegelhelm- and Illyrian-type helmets—protected the face. In the sixth century, an open-faced variant was created based on the Korinthian, that has been dubbed ‘Ionian’. Later, in the fifth century, another variant on the Korinthian type was developed, the Chalkidian

224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233

60

Snodgrass 1964b, 85. Jarva 1995, 73–75. Snodgrass 1964b, 240. Jarva 1995, 76–79. Jarva 1995, 84–85. Jarva 1995, 100–109; Snodgrass 1964b, 240. Discussion on these possible Home ric ankle -guards in Jarva 1995, 104–105 (with re fe re nces). E.g., Borchardt 1972, Edrich 1969, He ncke n 1971, and of course Kukahn 1936. Snodgrass 1964b, 13–15, 18, 20–26, and 34. Snodgrass 1964b, 20 (with re fe rences).

helmet, which left the ears free and added moveable cheek-pieces;234 the ‘Attic’ subtype lacked a nose-guard. Finally, we have the remains of shields, as well as objects that have been conclusively demonstrated by Snodgrass, in most cases, to be shield bosses (rather than cymbals). The bosses were used on shields with a single central grip. The shape of the shields is unknown, but they were presumably round or oval, as evidenced from figurines and metal shield coverings of Geometric and Early Orientalising date. 235 More than seven hundred fragments of Argive-type shields have been discovered at Olympia, including bronze elements from the outside of the shield, rim fragments, handles, and shield band panels.236 These shields were made of wood; the rim was generally reinforced with bronze. Furthermore, a number of bronze blazons have been found that were fitted to the wooden shield. Complete bronze facings covering all of the wood on the front are comparatively rare among the finds at Olympia. The shape of the shield and the inner fixtures for the arm did not change after the basic design was introduced, presumably around the end of the eighth century.237 b. The other Panhellenic sanctuaries Next to Olympia, the Panhellenic sanctuary at Delphoi—sacred to Apollo and famed for its oracle—is the most important cult site in the Aegean. Only small quantities of weapons and armour have been recovered at Delphoi. By far the most interesting finds there are a few early bronze shield facings. These are of the so-called Herzsprung or ‘Lambda’ type and are perfectly circular, with raised concentrentic circles with a spare triangular area (hence the alternate name based on the Greek letter lambda). Herzsprung shields have been unearthed in various regions, including Italy, the Aegean, and Cyprus. The shields at Delphoi date to the very end of the eighth century, at the time when single-grip shields were probably phased out in favour of the double-grip Argive shield.238 The temple of Poseidon at Isthmia lies about 16 kilometres outside of Korinth and was that city’s most conspicuous extraurban sanctuary, so any who dedicated their arms and armour at the site would be sure that they were seen by people who crossed the isthmus.239 The weapons and armour here, which were mostly donated in the seventh and sixth centuries, have been examined by Alastar Jackson. In 1991, he noted that the excavations yielded ‘traces of 200 helmets and innumerable shields most from the hundred years down to the Persian invasion’. 240 Later investigations have increased the total number of helmet fragments to four hundred, most dating to before the mid-fifth century.241 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241

Snodgrass 1964b, 33–35; Connolly 1998 [1981], 60–63. Snodgrass 1964b, 37–51. Re fer to Bol 1989. Snodgrass 1964b, 63–65; see also Bol 1989, 1–5. Snodgrass 1964b, 55–56. Pe dley 2005, 48. Jackson 1991, 245. See http://humanities.uchicago.e du/orgs/isthmia/publications/2004re port.html (brief

61

Chariot races were part of the games at Isthmia. It is therefore no surprise that the metal items here include objects associated with horses and chariots. These typically aristocratic items include bronze horse bits of Bronze-Age type that continued to be used in Geometric times, as well as later, sixth-century iron bits. Some iron fixtures probably belonged to chariots or wagons; these include iron wheel tires, bands, clamps and plates, and nave bands. Whole chariots or even parts of chariots, especially wheels, were dedicated to the gods.242 c. The sanctuary at Kalapodi Near the modern village of Kalapodi in Phokis, an ancient sanctuary—possibly sacred to Apollo—has been unearthed, with evidence for cult activity at the site stretching back to shortly before 1200. The metal finds at this sanctuary include copious amounts of weapons and armour. Among the bronze finds these are various types of helmets (five early so-called Kegelhelmen, twenty-nine Illyrian helmets, sixty-two Korinthian helmets, and one late so-called Chalkidian helmet), three greaves, two shields of ‘Herzsprung’ type and forty-one Argive shields. It should be mentioned that fragments of a seventh-century wall-painting have been discovered that show armoured warriors; the scene is discussed in the chapter on the iconographic evidence. Most of the Kegelhelmen at Kalapodi were found in contexts dated to the sixth century or earlier; at least one, no. 1960, has been unearthed in a Late Geometric II context. The early types of Illyrian helmets, made of two pieces, cover a similar range, including the fifth century. Illyrian helmets made in one piece tend to be later, dated to decades around 500. Korinthian helmets are dated from the Early Protokorinthian period down to the Classical period. The fifth-century examples include helmets with parts cut out from the sides (a feature I shall return to in our discussion of the iconographic evidence). The shields and other pieces of armour have been unearthed in Classical or later contexts, although the greaves have stylistically been dated to the end of the seventh and early sixth centuries; some of the shields are probably also earlier, including some sixth-century Argive examples.243 The weapons include more than three hundred spearheads, more than thirty sauroters, over seventy arrowheads, more than sixty swords (of which twenty-two indeterminable fragments), and nine knives (of which only one dates to the sixth century, the others are Classical). Interestingly, some spearheads and swords were ritually ‘killed’, i.e. bent in order to make them useless. The bulk of the spearheads are Classical; less than a tenth can be dated to the sixth century. Of the sauroters, about half a dozen belong to the sixth century, the rest are later. Most of the arrowheads date to the fifth century, less than a handful belong to the sixth century or earlier, and a few are of Mykenaian date. The same holds true for the swords: less than a

242 243

62

re port of the 2004 campaign). Raubitsche k 1998, 97–108. Re fer to the catalogue in Fe lsch 2007, 357–374.

handful can be dated to the seventh and sixth centuries, the remainder are all Classical. 244 d. The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta During the excavations of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, literally tens of thousands of very simple lead figurines have been unearthed. These figurines are flat, with a smooth back and a simply executed front; figurines from the period 635 to 500 were more solid and heavy. Many of these simple figurines represent warriors, both spearmen and archers, as well as riders. On the basis of the available excavation data, I have not been able to ascertain the proportions of these different types of troops. However, the earliest of the figurines date from the very end of the eighth century down to the fourth, although their popularity sharply decreased after 500,245 which suggests a change in dedication practices or the way warriors were perceived, changes that are not mutually exclusive per se (a point to which I shall return later). 3. General discussion of the evidence In this section, I attempt to provide answers to the main questions raised in this chapter’s introduction. The question concerning the types of armour and weapons donated at temples is the easiest to answer. The full range of martial equipment was donated to the gods, from spears and swords to helmets, greaves, shields, and cuirasses. Only items in bronze or iron have survived; it is possible that pieces of armour made of perishable materials, such as linen corslets, were also deposited at sanctuaries, but no trace of them has survived. Naturally, the finds beg the question whether they are in some respect representative of the ‘typical’ war-gear worn by the majority of fighters in ancient Greece. Based on the totality of the finds at Olympia, Hans van Wees argue that ‘in the archaic period about one in three soldiers wore greaves and one in ten a metal cuirass.’246 The numbers are derived from Eero Jarva’s book on Archaic Greek body-armour: he counts about 350 helmets, 280 shields, 225 greaves, and only 33 cuirasses. 247 Van Wees argues that the number of greaves must be divided by two since they were worn in pairs. The question, however, is whether this material can be used for—even simple—statistical analyses. Furthermore, the catalogues in Emil Kunze’s Beinschienen reveal that virtually none of the greaves match up with each other, 248 which should not really be surprising considering the chronological range (the greaves cover a period of some three centuries). Furthermore, we cannot assume that whole panoplies were dedicated to the gods. The fact that almost no pairs of greaves have been found at sanctuaries—most pairs are single finds, sometimes in graves or at other 244 245 246 247 248

Re fer to the catalogue in Schmit 2007, 526–551. Wace 1929, 251–252. Van Wees 2004, 50. Jarva 1995, 111 fig. 6.1; Van Wees 2004, 266 n. 10 (with re fere nces). See Kunze 1991.

63

singular findspots—should serve as a warning against assuming that the dedications represent the full range of weapons and armour available to Archaic Greek warriors. Weapons, for example, outnumber pieces of armour. Instead, it seems more likely that items were dedicated that had a particular significance: bronze is a high-status metal, after all. Furthermore, shields and helmets could be easily tossed aside in case of a rout and then obtained by the victors, or else were items that were easily removed from the body of a slain foe. In short, the evidence from sanctuaries cannot be used to reconstruct what a ‘typical’ Archaic Greek warrior’s panoply looked like: only a comparison with other types of evidence can suggest an answer. a. At which sanctuaries were these items deposited? Both archaeological and literary evidence suggest that weapons and armour were dedicated at sanctuaries both great and small from the eighth century onwards (see also chapter 8). Archaeological evidence from most other sanctuaries tends to be slim; François de Polignac lists a number of other santuaries where some weapons and armour of Archaic date have been unearthed, namely the sanctuaries of Apollo at Kosmas (ancient Selinous) and Tyros (in Kynouria), at the sanctuary of Hera Limenia at Perachora, at the Heraion on Samos, at the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, at the oracular sanctuary of Dodona (Zeus), at the temples of Apollo on Delos and at Amyklai, and at the temple of obscure goddess Aphaia on the island of Aigina. 249 Only sanctuaries sacred to warlike or particularly powerful gods appear to have ever received weapons: Zeus, his wife Hera, Apollo (and his twin-sister Artemis, both archer-gods), and Athena. But these were arguably the more popular gods of the Greek pantheon anyway, so that the presence of weapons at their sanctuaries is perhaps not so informative. Furthermore, in most cases the total number of weapons and armour is relatively small, especially as regards the Archaic period. What is more interesting, is the fact that weapons and armour were apparently dedicated only at some sanctuaries, so that dedicatory practices were apparently as dependent on specific localities as they were on certain deities (there are, for example, large differences between the dedicatios at Olympia and Dodona, both sacred to Zeus). b. Temples to Hera and the goddess’ connection to ships and horses While the temples to Hera have yielded only small amounts of weapons and armour,250 it is curious that the goddess is often closely associated with ships, at Tiryns, Perachora, and the famous Heraion on Samos. The latter is located near the sea and at a distance of some 6 kilometres from the ancient town; more than forty wooden ship models have been discovered here thanks to the favourable conditions for the preservation of perishable materials (most of the models have been found in wells).251 Near the Samian 249 250 251

64

De Polignac 1995, 45–55. Note Pausanias 2. 17. 1–7 (shie ld of Me ne laos at the He raion). Descriptions of more than half of them in Johnston 1985, 54–63.

Heraion a so-called Schiffsfundament has been discovered. This unique feature formed the stone base or foundation for a complete ship, presumably a pentekontoros; it was made around 600 and measures 23.33 m in length and 3.22 m in width.252 In addition, Samian Hera at least is closely associated with horses and riders, as demonstrated by the small wooden stools of which the side panels are shaped like horses. In addition, the bronze finds included horse-trappings, such as bits and a ninth-century trapezoidal relief of Near-Eastern origin that was used to protect the forehead of a horse (there are many exotic items at Samos, no doubt left there by both Greek and non-Greek travellers and traders), as well as a horse breastplate (discussed in chapter 6). Helmut Kyrieleis points out that ‘In no other Greek sanctuary have so many horse trappings been found as in the Heraion at Samos.’253 Hera, a goddess of power, is thus strongly linked with a number of aristocratic or élite activities, most notably seafaring and horses, but sometimes also more ostensibly violent activities (weapons and armour). c. Who donated arms and armour to the gods and why? It is clear that at least some of the weapons and armour unearthed at the sanctuaries had been dedicated by individuals rather than communities. The shift from burial with arms to the display of weapons and armour at (some) sanctuaries is probably to be connected with an increase in inter-polity aristocratic competition.254 W. Kendrick Pritchett summarises a few of the finds, which I paraphrase here, such as a helmet dated to around 600 and possibly from Olympia that features the name of one Krataimenes. Similar inscriptions on pieces of armour or weapons are known from other sites. Even more interesting is a sixth-century bronze plaque from Sparta, which once hung next to some armour, that reads how one Eurystratidas, a Lakedaimon, dedicated said equipment to the gods.255 In addition to actual weapons and armour, votive miniatures were alos dedicated to the gods. Dedications of votive shields were known in the Mykenaian period (see chapter 2) and re-appear from the eighth century onwards. From the sanctuary to Artemis Orthia in Sparta we have a small terracotta Argive shield. 256 Miniature shields have also been found in a number of other places, including Olympia; one small bronze shield with a gorgoneion, dated to around 500, has been unearthed on the Athenian Akropolis.257 The latter is a good warning against assuming that martial objects were by necessity donated by warlike men: the inscription on the rim identifies the donor as Phrygia the Breadseller. In this particular instance, the shield is intended to be Athena’s and is dedicated by a woman—the name Phrygia suggests she is a metic or possibly a (freed?) 252 253 254 255 256 257

Snodgrass 1983, 17; Wallinga 1993, 49–52 with ill. 7b; Crie laard 1996, 311 and 311 n. 19 with furthe r refe re nces. Kyrie le is 1993, 145. Morgan 1993, 20; cf. also Snodgrass 1977, 277–281. Pritche tt 1979, 253–254 (with re fe rences). E.g., Se kunda 1998, 53 (fig.). Athe ns 6837: Hurwit 1999, 61 fig. 45.

65

slave—to placate or thank her patron deity. Similarly, the large numbers of simple lead warrior figurines at Sparta—and other figurines and miniature martial items at Olympia and elsewhere—may have been intended to honour that santuary’s particular deity, rather than represent any warlike tendencies or characteristics on the part of the donors. It is generally assumed that dedicated arms and armour were part of the spoils of war, stripped from the bodies of the enemy dead or else left behind on the battlefield when the enemy fled. However, warrior figurines, votive shields, ship models, and the presence of ‘foreign’ items of weapons and armour,258 suggest strongly a link with the donor rather than one of his victims: in other words, these objects underline a relationship between the donor and the god in question. It is therefore clear that weapons, armour, and related high-status objects could be spoils of war in some cases, but also more personal objects given to the gods. In the Archaic period, most of these items were deposited at the larger sanctuaries, especially Olympia, but a shift can be noted in the fifth century, when dedications of weapons and armour decrease at Olympia and instead increase at local sanctuaries. This is clearly demonstrated by a perusal of the inventories of weapons and armour at these more local or smaller regional sanctuaries, where the bulk of the weapons and armour date to the Classical period (e.g., at Kalapodi and Perachora). Alastar Jackson suggests that in the Classical period it was no longer considered proper to publically humiliate an enemy at the larger sanctuaries. 259 However, this seems uncharacteristically considerate; another explanation might more profitably connect this change to a difference in social makeup of Classical armies (higher proportion of non-aristocrats, for example) and a decrease in the amount of bronze used for armour. Thanks to the work of François de Polignac, sanctuaries are nowadays commonly associated with the rise of the polis, the Greek city-state, in which extra-urban sanctuaries in particular played an important role. However, Archaic sanctuaries are more frequently associated not with specific towns, but with specific groups of people that may extend beyond a single civic community.260 Temples served as places where members of neighbouring or rivalling communities would congregate. In the Archaic period, temples and their associated sacred areas (temenoi) were used for more than worship alone: they may have served as the focal point for trade, too.261 Sanctuaries were prime arenas where rival aristocrats would compete for status. What better way to demonstrate one’s own superiority and martial prowess than by displaying either the shield of a defeated enemy or an well-crafted piece of bronze armour or iron sword—signs of wealth as well as indicators of warrior prowess—in a very public space?

258 259 260 261

66

Re fer to He rman 1983 and Morgan 1987. The fore going, Jackson 1991, 228. Note Hall 1995 (the case of the Argive He raion); Hall 2007, 84–87. Hall 2007, 83.

4. Conclusions Of the sanctuaries, Olympia has yielded by far the most items of weapons and armour. Other important sanctuaries include Delphoi, Isthmia, and Kalapodi. Weapons are the most commonly donated martial item; pieces of armour are relatively rare. Discrepancies with regards to the proportion of greaves, cuirasses, helmets, and shields have been used to demonstrate that not all warriors wore a complete panoply. This seems logical, but the evidence does not conclusively support this notion: there may have been other reasons to donate more shields than, say, greaves. As such, it is difficult to say anything about what an Archaic Greek warrior would have looked like on the basis of these finds. The evidence suggests that spears and swords were the most common weapons, while bows and arrows were rare; of the armour, shields, helmets, and greaves are common, while cuirasses are comparatively rare. Weapons and armour were mostly dedicated at extra-urban or regional sanctuaries, of which the Panhellenic ones are the most obvious examples. Close to or even within settlements, votive miniature shields or even small figurines may have been a more appropriate gift offering, as at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta and on the Athenian Akropolis, although warrior figurines were also deposited at Olympia (see chapter 6). The gods and goddesses that received these martial gifts include Zeus (god of power), Apollo and his twin sister Artemis (archer-gods), and Athena (goddess of wisdom and warcraft). Poseidon, like his brother Zeus, also received gifts of armour, as well as horse trappings and pieces of chariots, at Isthmia; it is interesting to note that ships—both as models and in the shape of an actual pentekontoros (i.e., the Schiffsfundament)—were among the offerings to Hera at Samos. Those who dedicated martial objects—arms, armour, votive shields, and so forth—need not have been men. Similarly, gifts of arms and armour were not limited exclusively to spoils of war. Instead, items might be selected that were deemed particularly appropriate for either the donor (a bronze shield as a sign of wealth) or the receiver (a bronze shield with a gorgoneion motif as a gift appropriate to Athena). In most cases, it seems that only individuals dedicated arms and armour to the gods. In some cases, at least, the display of weapons and armour no doubt served as a very public statement concerning the donor’s wealth, status, and military prowess.

67

Chapter 5

Fortifications 1. Introduction Walls built in the Aegean between circa 1000 and 500, i.e. roughly between the generally accepted starting date of the Greek Iron Age and the outbreak of the Persian Wars, are the subject of the present chapter. I start with a discussion on the problems concerning the typology and chronology of Greek fortifications. I then present a brief regional survey of fortifications down to the time of the Greco-Persian Wars. This chapter owes much to the work of Franziska Lang and Astrid Wokalek in particular, two authors who have done much with regard to assembling data on Archaic Greek fortifications. In addition, I made use of the convenient index on city walls in Hansen and Nielsen’s inventory of Greek poleis,262 which is at least partly based on an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation on Greek fortifications by Rune Frederiksen.263 Fortifications offer insights into some of the issues discussed in this book’s introduction, especially with regards to fighting style and martiality (walls are powerful symbols, after all). In addition, we may note diachronic developments and regional variety. But a survey of Greek walls also conjurs up a number of more specific questions. What are the main characteristics of early Greek fortifications? What reasons did the Greeks have for building walls in the first place? For example, in many cases, it is clear that these defensive structures were not built solely out of military concerns, but also served as powerful symbols in their own right, unifying or dividing communities, separating town from country, the living from the dead, and so forth. And finally, what do fortifications tell us about the kind of warfare that Greeks in this period practiced? I shall attempt to provide some provisional answers in this chapter. An in-depth analysis is outside the scope of my present inquiry,264 not in the least because many of the sites reviewed here have not been extensively investigated.265 2. Problems of typology and chronology Walls are often the only visible remains of an ancient city. Greek

262 263 264 265

Lang 1996; Wokale k 1973; Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 136 n. 7. Fortifications shall form the focal point of my upcoming postdoctoral studies. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 135.

69

fortifications have therefore received considerable attention, although interest in walls, towers, and gates appears to have waned in the last few decades and most of the standard books on the subject focus on either the Bronze Age or the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Walls of the Early Iron Age and Archaic period are therefore somewhat neglected,266 which should probably be attributed in part to the fact that all-stone walls are rare between the fall of the Mykenaian palaces and the seventh century. Research into Greek fortifications has traditionally concentrated on understanding the chronology and morphology of ancient walls. The traditional object of study were Greek masonry styles, which are summarised in Table 6. Masonry styles may give a rough indication of the age of a particular (section of) wall. 267 Walls built using curvilinear blocks—i.e. so-called ‘Lesbian masonry’—tend to date to the period before c. 490,268 while trapezoidal masonry is characteristic of the fifth century and later.269 Furthermore, while ashlar masonry was used in Archaic temples, its use in fortifications is generally assumed to be a practice of the fourth century and later,270 although the style was already employed in the circuit walls of Old Smyrna.271 Uncoursed masonry Irregular trape zoidal blocks Irregular ashlar blocks Polygonal blocks Curviline ar blocks (i.e. ‘Le sbian masonry’)

Course d masonry Trape zoidal blocks Ashlar blocks

Table 6: Types of ancient Greek masonry (after Fields 2006, 12). In both basic types of masonry (coursed and uncoursed), the courses may be either the same height (isodomic) or they may vary in height (pseudo-isodomic).

By far the most common type of wall used by the ancient Greeks consisted of a stone sockle with a mudbrick superstructure; this type of wall is not peculiar to the Early Iron Age and Archaic period, but was also used before and since; it is by far the most common type of wall.272 We also know from written sources that wooden palisades were used, 273 but of these virtually no traces survive at all. The use of perishable materials in the construction of fortifications may go a long way to explain the apparent discrepancy in the evidence with regard to the Homeric notion that virtually every independent Archaic town was protected by walls of some sort. 3. A regional survey of the evidence In her important book, Archaische Siedlungen: Struktur und Entwicklung 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273

70

But note Lang 1996, 21–54. Ho we ve r, note Whitley 2001, 314–315; Camp 2000, 42. On the continue d use of Myke naian walls, see for e xample Mazarakis -Ainian 1997, 159–161, 245–246. Scranton 1941, 43–44; Winte r 1971, 88–90. Scranton 1941, 98. Scranton 1941, 135–136; Winte r 1971, 81. For a summary, see Winter 1971, 79 n. 27; cf. also ibid., 90 n. 56. Lang 1996, 28; Winte r 1971, 71. Note also Winte r 1971, 73 n. 12 (mudbrick walls are not by de finition olde r than those made of solid stone). E.g., Hdt. 8.51.

(1996), Franziska Lang has shown that, of the 134 settlements discussed in her book, no less than 58 (a little over 43%) built an archaeologically visible fortification wall at some time between the eighth and sixth centuries.274 a. Western Asia Minor and off-shore islands Settlements in Western Asia Minor and the islands just off its coast are among the earliest Greek sites to be fortified; some of these were sited on peninsulas. The common belief that fear of hostile natives ‘was clearly a prome motive’ for Greek settlers to build walls may be too simplistic (see below for further discussion).275 i. The eighth century or earlier The earliest fortified sites in Western Asia Minor include Old Smyrna, Iasos in Karia, Kaletepe in Ionia, and Emporion (Emborio) on the island of Chios. Of these, only Smyrna initially possessed a circuit wall that protected a very large part of the settlement, while the earliest fortifications at the other sites are all found protecting their akropoleis. 1. Old Smyrna. The settlement itself consisted of dispersed habitation nuclei, around which was flung a large wall, perhaps as early as the late ninth century.276 Some believe this earliest wall, at least, was actually a retaining wall. 277 If it is a circuit wall, it is the earliest in the Greek world.278 Later building phases have been dated to the middle of the eighth and the late seventh centuries. In each phase, the wall possessed a single tower. The temple to Athena, built in the seventh century, was located on a large platform that was part of the circuit wall and placed close to the north-east gate and associated tower. The walls themselves consisted of tall stone sockles topped by mudbrick. Despite its impressive fortifications, Smyrna was captured by the Lydians around 600.279 2. Iasos in Karia. The akropolis here, the highest point of the peninsula, may have been walled as early as the ninth or eighth century. Only some 80 metres of the Geometric wall have been preserved, and the fortifications underwent drastic changes in Roman times. In the North-West, a 3000 metre long wall, fitted with a wide gate and a number of towers, cut the peninsula off from the mainland. Some believe this wall was constructed in the sixth century, but it is probably much later, perhaps even fourth century.280 3. Kaletepe in Ionia. Kaletepe has been identified as the Karian town of Melie, but Hans Lohmann now considers it a Fluchtburg, to be identified with Karion Phrounion mentioned in later inscriptions from Priene.281 The 274 275

276 277 278 279 280 281

Lang 1996, 21. The brie f quotation is from Snodgrass 1980, 32. Some of the se ttleme nts in Asia Minor occupie d sites that had already been walle d se ttleme nts during the Bronze Age, although not all these walls continue d in use ; see Lawre nce 1979, 30. See , for e xample , Lang 1996, 28. Lang 1996, 28–29. Crie laard 2009 (Cities), 365. Coldstream 2003 [1977], 244; Lawre nce 1979, 31–32; Wokale k 1973, 48–51. Wokale k 1973, 32–34. Lohmann et al. 2007, 80 and 102–103.

71

akropolis, a hill nowadays called Kaletepe, had a wall that was approximately 530 metres in length and built in the late eighth or early seventh century; as at Emporion, it may have served as a place of refuge and, also as at Emporion, there was only one building within this fortified part. This wall possessed no less than three gates, with a tower about 8 metres south of the east gate. This tower is 3.85 metres wide and between 5.85 and 6.0 metres in length. The lower town was protected by a 1460 metre long wall that was constructed in the late seventh or early sixth century. Some bronze arrowheads have been unearthed here that the excavator believes may be Kimmerian.282 4. Emporion on Chios. Only the top of the akropolis was protected by a wall some 800 metres in overall length, which was built in the period between the late eighth and late seventh centuries and probably served as a place of refuge. The gate was located on the Western side; to the North of the gate and connected to the wall a building has been unearthed dubbed the ‘Megaron Hall’. The inhabited area on the slope of the akropolis was undefended and abandoned at the end of the seventh century, when the inhabitants may have moved to the settlement close to the harbour.283 ii. The seventh century Relatively few sites possess remains of fortifications that can be securely dated to the seventh century. However, this issue is not peculiar to Western Asia Minor. Some later sites had fortifications that possibly had earlier predecessors. At Pergamon, for example, parts of the town’s Classical and—especially—Hellenistic walls may date back to the seventh century.284 5. Çatallar Tepe on the north side of Mykale in Ionia. At an altitude of 780 metres, the remains of a settlement have been discovered here that possessed walls built in a non-Greek fashion. Intensive surface surveys have yielded only pottery of seventh-century date. A small cult building and associated bench of the seventh century and early sixth century were replaced by a hekatompedon around 560, possibly to be identified with the Panionion. Hans Lohmann believes the earlier settlement to have been the Karian town of Melie, which was destroyed at the end of the seventh century according to literary sources.285 6. Miletos in Ionia. The akropolis was fortified in the seventh century, while part of the town was also walled in the sixth to fifth century.286 The nearby hill of Kalabaktepe, to the southwest of Miletos, some 400 m from the Late-Classical and Hellenistic city wall, was fortified and served as the most important centre of one of the habitation nuclei that made up Archaic Miletos. The walls were constructed in two phases, dated to the last third of the seventh and the middle of the sixth centuries. A ramp leads up to the

282 283 284 285 286

72

Lang 1996, 24 (re fuge site ) and 29, 32; Wokale k 1973, 39–41. Boardman 1967 (e xcavation re port); Coldstream 2003 [1977], 285 and 288 (skala and chora); Lang 1996, 24 (re fuge site ) and 36 (gate); Wokale k 1973, 31–32. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1374. Re fer to Lohmann et al. 2007. Wokale k 1973, 41–42.

gate on the southern side of the hill; the north features remains of a terrace wall that are possibly Geometric in date.287 7. Vroulia on the southern tip of the island of Rhodos. This small settlement of some few hundred souls was founded in the early to mid-seventh century, possibly by people from Lindos.288 A narrow stretch of wall some 300 metres in length and only about 1.3 metres wide was built on only one side, across the promontory.289 The wall had a demonstrable superstructure of mudbrick. The settlement was clearly planned and featured two rows of rectangular houses built behind the wall. One tower-like building has been unearthed overlooking the site’s sanctuary; the cemetery was placed outside the wall. As at Samos, a ditch was dug in front of the wall, possibly to make assailing it more difficult. The settlement was abandoned at early in the sixth century.290 iii. The sixth century Many sites were fortified in the course of the sixth century, perhaps partly because of the threat posed by the Persian Empire. However, it will become clear that there is an increase in the construction of archaeologically visible fortifications in the sixth century throughout the Aegean. 8. Neandria in the Troad. Most of the walls were built in the fifth century as an extension to earlier sixth century walls. Perhaps the walls were extended when the town grew in size? The older, Archaic section of wall features a gate flanked by a rectangular tower. Remains of a possibly even earlier wall have been found beneath the Archaic wall that possibly date to the seventh century and may be Lydian in origin.291 9. Hansen & Nielsen’s inventory add a number of additional towns that may have been fortified in the sixth century. These include Assos (akropolis wall as well as parts of the town walls), Gargara (akropolis wall), Lamponeia (town walls), and Palaiperkote (town walls). We know from textual evidence that the town of Sigeion was also fortified in the sixth century.292 The high and steep akropoleis of Gargara and Assos are virtual citadels.293 10. Antissa on Lesbos. The akropolis walls may be Archaic; parts are executed in polygonal masonry and may therefore date to the sixth century, while other sections are clearly later, possibly even fourth or third century. A medieval fortress on a hill to the north partially obscures the ancient remains, and the visible parts of an apparently ancient wall have disappeared in the time since they were first reported.294 11. Arisba on Lesbos. The remains of a hollow wall lead away from an 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294

Lang 1996, 24, 27, and 29; Senff 2000 passim; Wokale k 1973, 34–36. Wokale k 1973, 53. Franziska Lang points out that this is a ve ry cost-e ffective way of protecting one’s se ttle ment (Lang 1996, 25). Lang 1996, 26, 31, 41 (ditch), and 60–62; Whitle y 2001, 171. Lang 1996, 33 and 37 (gate ); Wokale k 1973, 42–43. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1373. Winte r 1971, 18. Wokale k 1973, 38–39.

73

otherwise unfortified akropolis; some supports can be seen and parts of the wall are still filled with rocks and earth; the gate is badly preserved. A rectangular tower built in polygonal masonry and possessing a single room is located in the northeast. The wall may have been built in the eighth century;295 Hansen & Nielsen list a possible date in the sixth century, which would certainly better fit the tower.296 12. Other towns on Lesbos were also possibly fortified in the sixth century. These are listed by Hansen & Nielsen: Eresos (town walls), Methymna (town walls), and of course Mytilene, the home of the poets Alkaios and Sappho, the town walls of which were constructed in the period between the sixth and fourth centuries.297 13. Larissa in Aiolis, near the river Hermos. The akropolis was originally a ‘native’ town, possessing a wall and towers. The town was conquered in the eighth century, after which the Greeks continued to use the earlier fortifications for about a hundred years. New fortifications were then built in the middle of the sixth century, of which tower VIII is the earliest. The Greeks constructed their fortifications partially on top of the earlier structures; within tower VIII the excavators unearthed the remains of a predecessor built by the ‘natives’. The fortifications are unique for the Archaic period because of the large number of towers. In addition, the interiors of these towers—dated to the late sixth and early fifth centuries—are often divided into rooms, a feature that generally does not appear elsewhere until somewhat later. All of the towers were rectangular in plan; a 3.4 metre wide gate was set between towers VI and VII. The currently visible remains of the wall date to the end of the sixth and beginning of the fifth centuries. The akropolis featured both cult buildings and houses.298 14. Kyme in Aiolis. The town walls were built in the sixth century.299 15. A number of sites in Ionia were also fortified in the sixth century. These include Ephesos (town walls dated to around 500, though traces of Hittite fortifications have been unearthed on the nearby hill of Ayasuluk at Selçuk), Klazomenai (akropolis walls date to the sixth century; town walls are fourth-century), Phokaia (town walls built in the first half of the sixth century), and Ionian Thebes (town walls also date to the sixth century).300 16. Pythagorion on Samos. The entire town was protected by a circuit wall constructed during the reign of the tyrant Polykrates (i.e., 538–522). Most of the visible remains are much later, with sections dated to the fifth as well as the third or second centuries, but built at least partially on top of the sixth-century wall. The earliest sections of this wall were executed in polygonal masonry and roughly hewn stones. Polykrates had a ditch dug in front of the walls, traces of which have been found in between towers 30 295 296 297 298 299 300

74

Wokale k 1973, 38 with re fe rences. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1373. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1373 Lang 1996, 24–25 (nature of akropolis), 34–35 (towe rs and unique ness of the site ), 36 (gate); Wokale k 1973, 36–37. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1374. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1374; Büyükkolanci 2000 (Ayasuluk Hill).

and 31.301 17. Teos. The wall discovered here described an oval protecting the akropolis and measured about 150 metres in length. The gate was located in the north east was flanked by a large bastion that measured 19.4 metres in length and 14.62 metres in width. The wall is similar in construction to that of Samos and probably dates to the sixth century. A later 100 metre long section of wall further west leads away from the hilltop and connects the akropolis fortifications with a wall lower down that was built in the third century.302 b. Euboia and the Central Aegean islands The earliest fortifications in the Aegean are not only found in Western Asia Minor, but also on the islands. Traditionally, the threat of piracy is thought to have stimulated the construction of walls, but this does not explain the heterogeneous nature of the fortifications. Why were some settlements, like Aghios Andreas on Siphnos, wholly enclosed by a circuit wall, whereas at Minoa on Amorgos only part of the settlement was protected? i. The eighth century or earlier The earliest walls on the islands, all dated to Geometric times, are found at Donousa (a small island between Naxos and Amorgos), Minoa on Amargos, Aghios Andreas on Siphnos, Zagora on Andros, and Xobourgo on Tenos;303 the latter may be even earlier, possibly Protogeometric. 304 The earliest fortifications are often quite crude, made of locally available ‘lumps or slivers of stone’.305 Furthermore, it appears as if by the time of the Persian Wars, most Cycladic islands were fortified, although much is still left to excavate and research.306 18. Lefkandi in Euboia. Recent digs at Xeropolis (Lefkandi) have unearthed the remains of a previously unknown stretch of wall that, according to the excavators, does not belong to a building, but is probably part of either a retaining or town wall. 307 As Lefkandi was abandoned by the end of the eighth century, the wall must be earlier. 19. Viglatouri-Kyme in Euboia. A stretch of wall has been unearthed here that dates back to the Late Geometric period.308 20. Vathy Limerai on Donousa, a small islet near Naxos. An apsidal house and some interesting pyre cremations have been discovered here, as well as a fortification wall that was rebuilt twice during the Geometric period. The earliest remains of the wall are perhaps ninth-century in date.309 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

Lang 1996, 32 (bastion), 36 (gate ), and 41 (ditch); Wokale k 1973, 45–46. Wokale k 1973, 51. Lawre nce 1979, 32–34; Camp 2000, 48. Re fer to Kourou 2001. Lawre nce 1979, 32; see also Kourou 2001, 185 (with re fe re nces). Mazarakis Ainian & Le ve nti 2009, 213. Whitley et al. 2007, 38–40. Re fer to Sapouna-Sake llaraki 1998. Coldstream 2003 [1977], 70 (brie f summary) and 415 (re fe re nces); Kourou 2001, 185 (‘probably a little earlier’ than the e ighth ce ntury; with re fere nces).

75

21. Minoa on Amorgos. Only part of the settlement was protected by a very narrow wall, with a tower close to the gate. The wall dates to the eighth century.310 Interesting is the occurrence of eighth-century graves within the fortified area, near one of the gates. The burial area is itself enclosed by walls and located close to the peribolos of a cult site. One of the tombs contained a terracotta urn with the burnt remains of a warrior, his cremation pyre, the cremation grave of a woman, and an enchytrismos belonging to an infant.311 22. Aghios Andreas on Siphnos. Aghios Andreas, located at some distance from the sea, was already fortified in Late Cycladic III and these fortifications were re-used and extended in Geometric times. The Geometric houses were connected to a new stretch of wall built in the eighth century, which may actually be a retaining wall, although it has been constructed partially on top of a Bronze-Age wall. In Late Geometric times, a massive tower was added to the fortifications. In the middle of the sixth century, the akropolis was fortified using locally quarried marble ashlar blocks (isodomic). The akropolis wall encompasses an area roughly rectangular in shape and measuing some 100 by 50 metres.312 23. Zagora on Andros. Zagora was settled before 800 and abandoned by 700, though the sanctuary near the summit of the town continued in use. The settlement was built on a promontory with a massive 140 metre long wall built across the neck to protect it from the landward side that dates to the eighth century. The wall had only one gate reinforced with a bastion. Some of the houses were connected to the wall. The akropolis, located some 150 metres from the settlement, was unfortified. Traces of three gates have been found. The sections of wall flanking the south gate jut out, giving it the impression of a bastion.313 24. Ypsili Aprovatos on Andros. Remains of a large, Late-Geometric wall have been found here, with a large building attached to the outside of the wall (probably a tower).314 25. Xobourgo on Tenos. The site, located in the southern part of the island at some distance from the coast, may have served as a place of refuge in the Early Iron Age. A large ‘Cyclopean’ wall (Wall A), built using large and undressed granite boulders, was discovered here that was built either in the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, with Protogeometric and Geometric cremation graves and pyres in front of it. The finds in the burial area include a ‘killed’ sword and there is evidence of post-funerary sacrifices and cult.315 An extensive settlement existed here in the Archaic and Classical periods, which reused (parts of) the Cyclopean wall. Other parts of the circuit wall were added (or rebuilt) in later periods, including a stretch (Walls AA) of coursed and dressed rectangular limestone blocks that 310 311 312 313 314 315

76

Lang 1996, 23, 26, 32; Kourou 2001, 185. Marangou 2002, 207–224. Coldstream 2003 [1977], 191; Lang 1996, 27 and 33; Te le vantou 2001 passim; Wokale k 1973, 47–48. Coldstream 2003 [1977], 287–288; Lang 1996, 27; Wokale k 1973, 55. Lang 1996, 32. Kourou 2002, 258–262.

dates to the early sixth century.316 26. Naxos. Parts of the early settlements (Neolithic and Bronze Age) are currently submerged. Modern buildings obscure much of the earlier remains, though it is clear that after the fall of the Mykenaian palaces the inhabitants moved further inland, ‘possibly for reasons of defence, but they did not go very far.’ 317 As the remains of the IIIC-wall are currently underwater, it is possible that geological changes necessitated this shift further inland. In the Early Protogeometric period, the area near the Mykenaian wall was used as a cemetery; a tumulus was added in the Geometric period and the area may have served as a heroōn. Both the Mykenaian ruins and the burial mound remained visible until Roman times.318 According to textual evidence, the town of Naxos was fortified in the late sixth century.319 ii. The seventh century Relatively few fortifications on Euboia and the islands of the Central Aegean have been positively identified as belonging to the seventh century. 27. Oikonomos on Paros. The entire town was protected by a circuit wall built in the early seventh century. This wall is notable for being very narrow (1.4 metres), similar to the walls at Vroulia and Minoa. The nearby hill of Koukounaries was already fortified in the Bronze Age, housed a Mykenaian mansion in the twelfth, and featured a settlement in the tenth century, before being abandoned at the end of the eighth century.320 The inhabitants probably moved from Koukounaries to Oikonomos at around 700, perhaps facilitate access to the sea. 28. Aigale (Amorgos). The town wall may date to the sixth century, although the date is not secure and it may actually have been constructed as late as the fourth century. iii. The sixth century A number of towns on the islands were fortified in the sixth century, of which Eretria on Euboia is perhaps the most famous. 29. Paroika (Parikia) on Paros. The settlement was at least partially walled, with a rectangular tower in the north; both date to the second half of the sixth century. The akropolis is currently still inhabited and no ancient traces of fortifications have been discovered there.321 30. Other fortified sites include Chalke on Amorgos (sixth-century town walls), Poiessa on Keos (town walls built in the late sixth century), Myrina on Lemnos (akropolis and town walls built between the sixth and third centuries), and Melos (the town walls date to the late sixth to early fifth

316 317 318 319 320 321

For further de tails, re fer to Kourou 2001. Lambrinoudakis & Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou 2001, 157. Lambrinoudakis & Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou 2001, 166–167. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1372. Hall 2007, 77–78; Morris 2000, 198; Lang 1996, 26. Wokale k 1973, 43–44.

77

centuries).322 31. Eretria in Euboia. Eretria possessed an akropolis and a harbour some 1200 metres distant. This town’s circuit wall, including the famous West Gate, were long believed to have been built in the seventh century, but a sixth century now seems more likely. The wall protected only part of the settlement and was still in use by the time of the Persian invasions. 323 Remains of a large wall or walls of early seventh-century date near the West Gate and traced in a number of other areas are now related to canalisation of the nearby river, although a double function as fortification and canalisation walls cannot be excluded.324 32. Vrachos in Euboia, Excavations here have revealed a Late Archaic fort on the Vrachos hill, a little east of the modern village of Phylla, and only some 3.5 km removed from Lefkandi. The site has been called a fort and there are no clear signs of a settlement. There is also a fort from Byzantine and Ottoman times nearby, which demonstrates that the site is clearly of some strategic importance. The ancient fortifications occupy mostly the flat top of the hill; the earliest belong to the late sixth and early fifth centuries. Large and unworked limestone blocks are preserved of the walls that enclosed an area of about 230 by 80 metres and had a superstructure of mudbrick. Later, a wall was added within this area, shortening the length to around 180 metres.325 c. Central Greece Walls on the Greek mainland (re)appear toward the very end of the eighth century, with some sites re-using older, Bronze-Age fortifications. The total number fortifications is remarkably high, especially considering the relative dearth of similarly well-attested sites in Southern Greece, although only a small number of sites have been securely dated. Sites north of Olympos are mentioned only in passing, as northern Greece is otherwise beyond the scope of the present inquiry. i. The eighth century or earlier Some of the earliest fortifications in Central Greece that have been more or less securely dated are found in Epeiros, Boiotia, and Attika. Recent finds such as those at Lefkandi demonstrate that more early walls may await discovery. 33. Ephyra in Epeiros. This site already possessed a fortified akropolis during the Late Helladic III period that apparently remained in use from that time onwards. 326 34. Aghios Athanassios, Galaxidi peninsula (Delphoi area). The strategically important akropolis, with a large rampart, was fortified in the

322 323 324 325 326

78

Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1372. Coldstream 2003 [1977], 178; Krause 1972 (date of the fortifications); Lang 1996, 29, 32–33, and 35; Winter 1971, 298; Wokale k 1973, 30–31. Ve rdan 2001, 84. Full re port, see Sapouna Sake llaraki, Coulton, and Me tzger 2002. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1369.

Late Geometric period.327 35. Thebes in Boiotia. The akropolis was already fortified in the Bronze Age and used throughout the Early Iron and Archaic ages. The town may have had a circuit wall as early as 700.328 ii. The seventh century For the seventh century, we may note the construction of new fortifications in recently settled areas, such as Mende in Chalkidike,329 as well as the town of Abdera in Thrakia, which was colonised in two waves, first by people from Klazomenai, and then by those from Teos, two Ionian cities in Asia Minor. Remains of an Archaic circuit wall have been unearthed here, with signs of destruction dated to the late seventh or early sixth century. This is when a large number of colonists from Teos are thought to have arrived; they rebuilt the existing wall in the late sixth century.330 36. Samothrakia. Only part of the town was protected by a wall, which may have been built as early as the seventh century, possibly close to 700. This wall had two rectangular towers. Tower A had a foundation of trachyte rocks topped by limestone blocks. Tower B had a similar foundation, but was constructed using small polygonal blocks, but was probably built at the same time as the wall itself. This last tower was close a gate some 4.5 metres wide.331 iii. The sixth century We have relatively many sites in Central Greece with fortifications that can be dated to the sixth century. Internecine warfare may have stimulated some of the building activity. We know from Herodotos that the Phokians and Thessalians were at each others’ throats, at least in the sixth century. For example, he mentions how the Phokians built a stretch of wall at Thermopylai to keep the neighbouring Thessalians at bay; this wall was later re-used in Leonidas’ famous final stand (Hdt. 7.176).332 We also know of a few fortified sixth-century sites in Makedonia, such as Oisyme and Pistyros.333 37. Thessaly has not been thoroughly investigated, which is a shame considering the relatively large number of fortified sites. The earliest fortifications all date to the late sixth or early fifth centuries. Astrid Wokalek’s list includes Agoriane Doloros (akropolis wall), Dranitsa Doloros (circuit wall made of large polygonal blocks with a few towers and a bastion), and Mopsion (walled akropolis), Gonnokondylon (a walled akropolis), Gonnos (a possibly Archaic akropolis wall with one 45 metres long stretch still standing some 6 metres tall), and Gyrtone (akropolis wall and

327 328 329 330 331 332 333

Baziotopoulou & Valavanis 1993, esp. pp. 198–207. Symeonoglou 1985, 89. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1372. Lang 1996, 37 (gate); Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2004, 240–242. Wokale k 1973, 46–47. On the e nmity be tween The ssalians and Phokians, cf. Hall 2007, 282. As re gards the forme r, see Lang 1996, 25 and 33–34.

79

town wall). 334 Hansen & Nielsen add Amphanes (town wall), Pagasai (akropolis wall), and Gonnos in Perrhaibia (akropolis wall).335 38. Similarly, much still needs to be done in Epeiros. Hansen & Nielsen, presumably using Rune Frederiksen’s unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, list two sites that were fortified in the late sixth or early fifth century. These are Boucheta (town wall) and Bouthroton (akropolis wall).336 39. Abai in Phokis. The akropolis walls feature curvilinear masonry, which suggests an Archaic date for the construction of its walls; Lawrence compares the style with that found at Old Smyrna, leading McInerney to suggest a date for its construction possibly as early as 600.337 40. Parapotamioi in Phokis. The walls here are badly preserved. The masonry style is curvilinear and similar to walls found at Delphoi that have been dated to the Late Geometric period. However, the walls at Parapotamioi perhaps belong to the sixth century.338 41. Elateia in Phokis. This site had a walled akropolis that presumably dates to the sixth century. 42. Haliartos in Boiotia. The akropolis walls date from five different periods, covering a range from the Mykenaian era down to Roman times. The area protected by the walls is square, with each side approximately 200 to 300 metres in length; the area appears to have been reserved for cult practices rather than habitation. The western stretch of wall is probably Archaic, made of ashlar blocks with a section in the southeastern corner consisting of polygonal blocks; it probably dates to the late sixth or early fifth century.339 43. Samikon in Triphylia. The settlement walls, built using limestone polygonal blocks, date to the sixth century, probably the time of Peisistratos. Wall section 1a possibly encompasses a small area of its own, whereas wall section 1b and wall 2 protect a larger area. The towers that have been discovered here may be later additions to the Archaic wall. 340 44. Halai (Agios Ioannis Theologos) in Eastern Lokris. This harbour town was sited on a mountain spur. The polygonal wall was constructed around 600. The North Gate lacked a tower but the flanking eastern wall was slightly wider, making it somewhat of a bastion. The Northeast Gate was the main entrance to the settlement. This gate was flanked by a bastion and supported by a tower-like extension on the corner of the wall a little further along; a flanking wall north of this gate is later. A later phase in wall construction dates to the fourth or third century.341 45. Larymna in Eastern Lokris. The Archaic town was founded on a peninsula. Four stretches of wall that once protected the akropolis have been investigated. Of these, wall sections D, F, and H featured towers. Section H 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341

80

Wokale k 1973, 69–72. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1371–1372. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1369. Lawre nce 1979, 35; McInerne y 1999, 341. McInerne y 1999, 341. Lang 1996, 24 (cultic use of akropolis); Wokale k 1973, 65–66. Wokale k 1973, 68–69. Bouyia 2000, 68–69; Lang 1996, 32 and 35; Wokale k 1973, 64–65.

is probably the earliest stretch of wall and dates to the sixth century at least, and was possibly even constructed in the seventh century. Sections F and D contain relatively old portions of wall executed in polygonal masonry.342 46. Other fortified sites in Eastern Lokris that have Archaic remains of fortifications include the important town of Alope (modern Agia Aikaterini; akropolis wall), Opos (modern Atalanti), Pyrgos Kolakas (parts of the town wall feature sockles constructed of polygonal stone), and Kokkinovrachos (Archaic akropolis wall with sockle constructed of polygonal stones and a gate flanked by a tower).343 47. Thasos, off the Thrakian coast. The island was colonised in the first half of the seventh century by Parians. The currently visible remains of the town wall and its many gates and rectangular towers date from the fifth century and only scant traces can be detected of its Archaic predecessor. This first circuit wall was built in the middle of the sixth century using polygonal blocks.344 48. Other sites in Central Greece that were fortified in the sixth century include Lamia in Malis (akropolis walls dated to the sixth to fourth centuries; the town itself was fortified around 400), Kalydon in Aitolia (the akropolis walls are date to the late sixth and early fifth centuries), Chaironeia in Boiotia (akropolis walls date to the sixth century, the town walls to the sixth to fifth centuries), Hyettos in Boiotia (the akropolis walls may be as early as the sixth century), and possibly Naupaktos in Western Lokris (town walls date to either the Archaic or Classical period). 345 d. Southern mainland Greece (Attika, the Isthmus, and the Peloponnese) On the whole, most settlements in Southern Greece were unfortified until the seventh century. Notable exceptions are those sites that possessed earlier Mykenaian fortifications (Athens, Argos, Tiryns, and Mykenai), which continued in use. If we can believe Herodotos, the first impulse of Peloponnesian communities when faced with invasion was to build a wall across the isthmus (e.g., Hdt. 7.139). i. The eighth century or earlier Remains of ancient fortifications that date to the eighth century or earlier are attested for some sites in Attika and the Argolid, as well as on the island of Salamis. Available Mykenaian fortifications continued in use wherever possible, as at Athens (the akropolis dates to the thirteenth century),346 Tiryns (the citadel),347 and Mykenai (the citadel).348 49. Eleusis in Attika. The town is located on a limestone hill that may 342 343 344 345 346

347 348

Bouyia 2000, 69–70; Wokale k 1973, 68–69. Rece nt ove rvie w of these sites in Bouyia 2000, 70–73. Wokale k 1973, 51–53. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1370–1373. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1371; Hur wit 1999, 85–98 (nature of the akropolis); Laute r-Bufe & Lauter 1975, 2 (earliest circuit wall pe rhaps around 700); Scranton 1941, 159; Wokale k 1973, 57–60. Hall 1995, 587. Hall 1995, 589 (with re fere nces).

81

already have been fortified in Mykenaian times. Only part of the town was fortified. The Geometric wall, with a sockle of crude polygonal stones, was replaced by a more monumental fortification in the sixth century (the time of Peisistratos). This wall had a foundation of flat limestone slabs on top of which a sockle of trapezoidal blocks was laid with a height of up to 1.40 metres. The superstructure consisted of mudbrick, portions of which have been exceedingly well preserved. This wall featured a number of gates, including specimens that provided flanking fire against assailants, and eight rectangular towers.349 50. Asine, sited on a promonotory in the Argolid. Argos conquered and razed nearby Asine around 700, probably in a campaign to consolidate control over the coastal areas of the Argive plain. The currently visible remains date to the third century. However, the so-called ‘Townprince’s Tower’, building B, is thought to date from Geometric times. It was built using large rocks that appear ‘Cyclopean’, but are certainly not Mykenaian.350 51. Salamis. The Mykenaian fortifications have been mentioned in chapter 2 of this book. During the Protogeometric period, additional fortifications were constructed.351 ii. The seventh century The seventh century, like the eighth, sees little in the way of new fortifications in southern mainland Greece. However, remains of seventh-century walls have been found in Korinth and at Halieis in the Argolid. Halieis is particularly interesting as it offers an example of a wall that consisted entirely of mudbrick. 52. Skala Oropou (Oropos). Remains have been found of what might be a seventh-century military camp, possibly used for Eretrian horsemen, although further research is still required. Finds within a large structure, possibly a tower of some kind, include a round, bronze shield of seventh-century date, around 60 centimetres in diameter. Alexander Mazarakis Ainian suggests that the camp may have been built in connection to the Lelantine War.352 53. Korinth. Medieval fortifications have mostly obliterated the Classical walls, which probably in turn destroyed much of the Archaic walls. Remains of an early wall have been found at the so-called Potters’ Quarter on the western edge of the settlement that date to the third quarter of the seventh century; the settled area close to the temple of Apollo was not walled. Other parts of the settlement were unprotected. Scant traces of the earliest fortifications on the Akrokorinth, especially sections with a kind of ‘Cyclopean’ character, may date to the sixth century.353

349 350 351 352 353

82

Whitley 2001, 314–315; Lang 1996, 31 and 34; Lawre nce 1979, 35–36; Wokale k 1973, 62–64. Hall 1995, 582–583 (summary); Lang 1996, 43; Wokale k 1973, 57. Re fer to Lolos 2001. Mazarakis Ainian 2002, 174–178. Lang 1996, 25 (nature of the two se ttle d areas) and 29; Wokale k 1973, 67–68.

54. Halieis (Portoheli) in the Argolid. The settlement lies on a small hill close to the coast. The akropolis was fortified in the seventh century by a mudbrick wall. This mudbrick wall was not built on top of a stone sockle, but founded immediately on the bedrock. A hollow tower once buttressed against this wall and apparently destroyed before 600. The remains of stone walls, as well as round towers revealed through underwater research, date to the late fifth and early fourth centuries. 354 iii. The sixth century Aside from those sites already discussed (e.g., Korinth), sixth-century walls are attested at Argos, in Attika, and at three possible sites in Messenia. The existence of walled towns in Archaic Messenia is interesting considering that Sparta—itself famous for not having a wall throughout the Archaic and Classical periods—had by then subjugated the region. 55. Argos. There are two akropoleis here. The earliest is Aspis (‘Shield’), which was first fortified in the Bronze Age and repaired or rebuilt in the sixth century. The remains of ancient walls on Larissa have been largely obliterated by the Venetian fortress that was built on top of them, but both Mykenaian and Archaic wall remains have been found here. The town of Argos itself was fortified in the second half of the sixth century and these defences are probably younger than the fortifications on Aspis.355 56. Rhamnous in Attika. This coastal site may have been an Athenian fortress rather than a regular settlement; the earliest parts of the walls here date to the sixth century.356 However, most of the fortress dates to the fourth century.357 57. Eira (Kakaletri) in Messenia. The akropolis was protected by a 960 metres long wall. Two gates have been found here, one in the northwest and the other in the southwest. A single tower was located in the southeast; it is 6.25 metres wide and juts out 4.15 metres from the wall. The wall is built of roughly hewn stone and may be as early as 600.358 58. Andania in Messenia. The remains of this ancient town have been identified near the modern village of Polichne. However, the remains are scant, with only a short section of wall located to the north of the modern village that consists of a wide sockle of polygonal blocks,359 and therefore possibly Archaic in date. 59. Desylla in Messenia. This site itself may have been an outpost rather than a town. The walls connected two mountain tops and may date to the late sixth century, although Astrid Wokalek writes that a fifth-century date cannot be excluded.360

354 355 356 357 358 359 360

Lang 1996, 29; Lawre nce 1979, 34; Wokale k 1973, 66–67. Winte r 1971, 108 n. 18; Wokale k 1973, 56–57. Pouilloux 1959. Obe r 1985, 139 (fourth-ce ntury walls) and 183 (road). Wokale k 1973, 62. Wokale k 1973, 60. Wokale k 1973, 61.

83

4. General discussion of the evidence It must be stressed that only some of the sites discussed in the previous section have been extensively investigated and that much still remains to be done. If one browses the index of fortified poleis in Hansen and Nielsen’s useful book, it is clear that the walls of many towns are still undated and that some of these may be Archaic; further walls perhaps also remain to be discovered by archaeologists. Nevertheless, the list presented in this chapter is up-to-date and reasonably complete. Research into Greek fortifications has until now mostly adopted a functional point of view. Certainly, the walls surrounding a number of Greek towns provided a last line of defence against aggressors, who could be both ‘natives’ as well as Greeks from rival towns. Impressive fortifications could also deter potential aggressors. However, the walled city is also a powerful symbol. Fortifications may have been a joint undertaking, underscoring the inhabitants’ sense of community, or they may have symbolised the ability of the town’s rulers to harness available manpower and resources to undertake such a monumental building project. In the present section, I attempt to answer the questions raised at the beginning of this chapter. a. What are the main characteristics of early Greek fortifications? Franziska Lang identifies four main types of fortification walls, namely: (1) walls that protected only the highest part of a settlement (the akropolis), as at Emporion on Chios; (2) walls that protected only one side of a settlement while the other was protected by a precipice, as at Vroulia on Rhodes; (3) walls that enclosed only part of a settlement, as on the island of Thasos, and; (4) walls that completely enclosed a settlement, as in Old Smyrna. This last type of fortification became increasingly more common from the seventh century onwards. 361 To this typology, we may add so-called ‘outposts’, small fortified sites at some distance from a settlement, such as at Vrachos. Unfortunately, as Lang points out, the remains of the earliest walls in many places are often too fragmented to say anything conclusive about them. 362 In some instances, the remains may even have wholly disappeared.363 However, some general characteristics can be gleaned from the evidence. It is clear that in some rare cases the walls were accompanied by trenches, such as at Vroulia (Rhodes) and Samos.364 Furthermore, towers tend to be relatively rare in the Archaic period; in many cases, a wall only had a single tower. 365 In half of the sites examined by Lang, there is a tower close to a gate, and in a few instances both tower and gate may have been

361 362 363 364 365

84

Crie laard 2009, 364. Lang 1996, 23–24. Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 135. Lang 1996, 41; Winte r 1971, 269–272; cf. Hdt. 3.39. Winte r 1971, 291–292, obse rves that true towers did not appear until the fifth ce ntury and that these we re probably inspire d by fortifications in the ancie nt Near East. Greek walls with multiple towe rs, as we ll as freestanding stone watchtowers, invariably date to the Classical and He lle nistic periods.

fortified to create a gatehouse or bastion.366 Konstantin Nossov observes that in myth, such as the Trojan War and the story of the Seven against Thebes, the armies focussed their assaults on the gates (rather than the walls). 367 Sometimes, a smaller doorway or postern also allowed access to the settlement,368 or between the akropolis and the lower town.369 In some cases, only part of the settlement has been fortified. Franziska Lang points out the difficulty in interpreting the nature of early Greek settlements whenever only parts of them were fortified. As examples she cites Miletos (with nearby Kalabaktepe), Korinth (with its fortified ‘Potters’ Quarter’), and also Eretria, and Argos. In all these sites, only parts of the settled areas were fortified, while others were left unprotected. Lang argues that these areas were probably all autonomous, not in the least because these areas are often seperated by cemeteries and smaller burial plots. Only later, especially from the late sixth century onwards, do these habitation nuclei congeal into a single community; this process was called sunoikismos by the Greeks (hence, synoecism).370 The earliest fortifications are found in Western Asia Minor and on the islands; Krete—not discussed—also featured fortifications from an early time onwards. These new constructions usually date to the ninth or eighth century. In some cases, such as at Mykenai and Tiryns, but also some of the islands, earlier Bronze-Age fortifications continued in use and were often repaired and extended in the course of the Geometric and Archaic periods. Fortifications are rare for Southern Greece, while quite common in Central and Northern Greece, even if many of these are built only in the sixth century. Early circuit walls are rare; the case of Smyrna is, as stated before, exceptional. There is some variety as regards construction. Most walls consist of stone sockles, sometimes founded on the underlying bedrock, and have a superstructure made of mudbricks. The seventh-century walls of Halieis in Boiotia are exceptional in that they were built entirely out of mudbrick. Geometric and Archaic fortifications possessed at least one gate, often a relatively wide one, sometimes reinforced by a bastion. Early walls usually possess no more than one tower, often flanking a gate; walls with multiple towers are a feature of the later sixth century and beyond. b. Why were (some) early Greek settlements fortified? It is often assumed that fear was the main force behind the decision to construct walls. The early circuit wall around Old Smyrna (no. 1, above) may have been erected because the inhabitants feared attacks from the ‘natives’ whose country they had just invaded. 371 However, Smyrna is exceptional. Most towns in Asia Minor did not construct walls until some

366 367 368 369 370 371

Lang 1996, 31–32. Nossov 2005, 29. Lang 1996, 40–41. Winte r 1971, 234. Lang 1996, 25–26. Winte r 1971, 20.

85

time after they had been founded, and a few sites have been continuously inhabited from the Late Bronze Age onwards (such as Ephesos and Miletos).372 i. Practical reasons: defence and internal order Greeks may have built fortifications for reasons other than hostile natives. If we stay within the realm of purely functional explanations, it should be pointed out that Greek towns were perfectly capable of warring with each other,373 so that the growing power of, and threat posed by, neighbouring Greek cities may have been an important reason for communities to build walls. It is interesting that wall at Zagora on Andros (no. 23) protects the town from the landside; the seaside is protected by steep cliffs.374 Furthermore, there may have been purely practical reasons for constructing fortifications, especially walls in newly established settlements. The founders may simply have desired to set the boundaries of the settlement, perhaps to make allotting of the available farmland just outside of the town easier. 375 In this way, walls were used to demarcate the inhabited area and to make it easier to structure the new settlement. A possible example is Vroulia in Rhodes (no. 7), which may have been settled by people from Lindos. ii. Walls as dividers: the natural and social orders However, a wall is also a potent symbol that can be used to mark or divide space. Based on an examination of Homer’s Iliad, Stephen Scully has argued persuasively that the walled city was synonymous with the permanent, divine order. The city-wall separates the wild and chaotic countryside from the ordered, human community that is the city itself. Scully writes that ‘Homer strongly sets Achilles’ inhumanity against the polis order, the city wall deservedly ‘‘divine’’ for its protective, if tragic, embrace of civilisation.’376 Walls feature in the extant literature as one of the defining characteristics of (politically independent) towns, and despite recent attempts to disentangle the notion of walls being integral to the conception of Greek cities, McK. Camp argues ‘that a substantial circuit wall was the sine qua non of the Greek polis.’377 The sacred nature of walls is made even clearer in those cases where religious or otherwise cultic buildings are closely connected to a town’s defences. At Emporio on Chios, a structure called the ‘Megaron’ was built up against the eighth-century fortification wall, opposite the main gate;378 something similar is also encountered at Kaletepe. At Old Smyrna, a seventh-century temple to Athena was built atop a large platform that

372 373 374 375 376 377 378

86

Lawre nce 1979, 32 (Me lia and Mile tos); Winte r 1971, 106–107 n. 14 (Mile tos). As pointe d out by Coldstream 2003 [1977], 250. Snodgrass 1980, 33. See , for e xample , De Ange lis 1994, 107 n. 15. Scully 1990, 53. Camp 2000, 47; see also Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 135–137. Lang 1996, fig. 66.

formed part of the circuit wall and was located close to the north-east gate and tower. Jan Paul Crielaard suggests that ‘this was how Smyrna’s inhabitants honored Athena as their patron goddess protecting their city and walls.’ 379 A wall could also physically separate one part of the population from another. In many cases (such as at Korinth, Minoa, Miletos, and others), fortifications were constructed around only part of the settlement, either the akropolis or part of the inhabited area. The question naturally arises who were protected and who were left unprotected. These questions are important, but they cannot be answered without further, detailed study, which I shall undertake in the near future. iii. Walls as indicators of status, wealth and power Furthermore, walls could also serve as indicators of status, especially wealth and power, built to compete with rival settlements. Greek communities in Asia Minor may have built their fortifications in order to compete with the fortified Lydian towns further inland. 380 Excavations at Sardis have revealed a seventh- or sixth-century section of wall that is very similar to the fortifications at Smyrna, consisting as it does of a large stone sockle executed in polygonal blocks on the west side and ashlar blocks on the east, some 30 metres in length and a staggering 18.5 metres in width, topped by a mudbrick superstructure.381 Walls can also be interpreted as the physical manifestation of the ability of a specific ruler or, more broadly, a ruling elite to mobilise available manpower and resources. As such, a magnificent wall is a statement regarding the might and wealth of a town’s rulers. Strong leaders were necessary to undertake such building projects. According to Herodotos, ancient Samos was surrounded by walls during the reign of Polykrates (who died c. 522).382 Water was provided to the city of Samos (modern Pythagoreion) by a tunnel dug under the supervision of Eupalinos of Megara during the reign of Polykrates (Hdt. 3.60). The tunnel or aqueduct measured over a kilometre in length. In some cases, walls may have been used by ancient aristocracies to reinforce their social positions and their claims to power. At Eretria, two burial plots from the end of the eighth century and attributable to families belonging to the local warrior-aristocracy, were located near the two roads leading out of town. Later, hero cults were installed here and, near one of them, the later West Gate was built in the seventh or sixth century. The wall served to separate the world of the living from the world of the dead, but the ancestors may have been thought to protect the city from harm. The gate itself allowed easy access between the two realms, and we should

379 380 381 382

Crie laard 2009, Cities, 365. See Greene walt & Rautbaum 2000. Lang 1996, 28–29 (summary of excavation and additional comments). Ho we ve r, of the original Polykratean circuit virtually nothing re mains; the visible stretches of wall the re are He lle nistic in date ; see Winte r 1971, 108–110 n. 19 and 295–296.

87

presumably imagine the ancient elites here to periodically pay homage to their ancestors by passing through gate, thereby also reinforcing their own image as protectors of the city.383 c. What do fortifications tell us about the nature of early Greek warfare? Finally, what does the construction of fortifications say about the style of warfare that early Greeks engaged in? The general assumption is that many sites in the period down to the late sixth century remained unfortified and intricate siege techniques were hardly known simply because there was no pressing need for defence: military disputes were settled on open ground using hoplite phalanxes.384 However, there are a number of objections to this interpretation. It is true that siege warfare remained rudimentary until the fifth century, when scaling ladders and battering-rams made their first appearance in the Greek world,385 even though these items were long known in the ancient Near East (as we shall see in the chapter on the iconographic evidence). In fact, only one battering ram from the Greek world is known, a fifth-century bronze sheath from the front part of the wooden ram itself, decorated on the sides by a ram’s head.386 Peter Connolly states, perhaps too strongly, that ‘Without the stimulus of mature siege warfare the system of fortifications showed no developments in the 600 years that followed the fall of Mycenae.’387 However, this does not mean, a priori, that all military disputes were honourably settled using hoplite phalanxes. Firstly, Greek walls may only need to have deterred relative small armies or groups of raiders; large armies were perhaps only a feature of the later sixth century or Classical period. Secondly, it is possible that more practical concerns, such as fear of starvation on the part of the defenders, or the need to return home quickly on the part of the attackers (to defend their own homes, look after their property, and so on), negated the need for protacted sieges, with most defenders taking the fight to the enemy once they saw their crops getting slashed and their farms burnt.388 Furthermore, the fact that archaeologically visible remains of fortifications have been found in only a relatively small portion of the total number of settlements does not necessarily mean that most sites were indeed left unprotected: in some cases, the remains may have wholly disappeared, or the original fortifications consisted of wooden pallisades that have rotted or mudbrick that has long since washed away. However, by the Classical period, we know of a few sites that were thought to have never had any defences, such as Elis and, most famously, Sparta.

383 384 385 386 387 388

88

Cf. also Ebbinghaus 2005. Re fer to this book’s introduction for further discussion a nd re fere nces. Winte r 1971, 85–86 n. 44; Van Wees 2004, 139. Curre ntly on display in the muse um at Olympia. Connolly 1998 [1981], 274. Plato Laws 778d; Alkaios fr. 426 West. On agricultural de vastation, see in particular Hanson 1998 [1983].

5. Conclusions Fortifications are an important feature of the Geometric and Archaic periods; in some cases, earlier Bronze-Age fortifications were reused. Walls protected either the akropolis or part or whole of the town. The earliest are found in Asia Minor and the islands, but a considerable amount of towns in Central and Northern Greece were also fortified, especially during the sixth century. By contrast, the number of fortified sites in S outhern Greece is comparatively small, although this number increases in the course of the sixth and fifth centuries. Military concerns may have been among the reasons to construct fortifications. However, walls may have served only as a deterrent and to slow attackers down: towers are rare and in myths most sieges consists of assaults against gates during which the attackers also attempt to climb the walls (see also, especially, chapter seven). Non-military explanations appear equally valid. When founding a new settlement, a wall was one way to demarcate the area to be occupied by the actual town. But walls also had a symbolic function, as dividers. They separated the civilised town from the wild and unruly chaos beyond (farmland excepted!). Walls could also be used for political or social purposes, for example to divide the population of a town (which begs the question why some people were left unprotected). Finally, walls indicated the status, the wealth and power, of the local elites who presumably ordered their construction. The notion that an honourable mode of fighting, especially the hoplite phalanx, did not require the use of fortifications cannot in my opinion be sustained. After all, the earliest fortifications predate the supposed introduction of the hoplite phalanx and then remain more or less unchanged for several centuries. Furthermore, changes are to be noted only from the later sixth century, when walls become more monumental (stone) and protected by multiple towers: this period also offers the strongest evidence as regards the possible existence of hoplite phalanxes, as we shall see in later chapters.

89

Chapter 6

The iconographic evidence 1. Introduction The iconographic evidence—particularly vase-painting—forms the subject of the present chapter. For the period from about the tenth to the early fifth century, I have collected more than five hundred items. More than two-thirds consist of vase-paintings, namely over 150 Protogeometric, Geometric, Protoattic, Korinthian, and other vases, more than 130 Attic black-figure, and nearly 80 Attic red-figure pots. All of these items are listed with descriptions in the appendix (starting at page 243, below); numbers in parentheses in the present chapter refer to the inventory numbers in this catalogue. The total number of pots available for the period 1000 to 500 numbers in the tens of thousands, although scenes with human figures are relatively uncommon before around 600; the bulk of the sixth-century material consists of Attic pottery. Suitable evidence includes depictions of weapons and armour, warriors, and battle, as well as warships, warhorses, and related martial subjects, such as hunting scenes. The emphasis is also placed on scenes that are not obviously wholly mythological, but appear to be inspired by everyday reality. This does include depictions of epic heroes in contemporary attire, but excludes, for example, scenes of a club-wielding Herakles fighting the monster Ketos, or depictions of Kentaurs firing bows. As a rough estimation, I believe my sample represents perhaps as much as around ten percent of the total available material. I have tried to make a representative selection of the Attic evidence (which is substantial), and have attempted to be as inclusive as possible with regards to the far less copious material from most other regions. The examples that I discuss serve only to demonstrate what I believe are common and often recurring trends. The evidence discussed in this chapter has been culled from a large number of syntheses. Apart from inventories that are part of excavation reports, these include Gudrun Ahlberg’s Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (1971) and Peter Greenhalgh’s Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages (1973). Also helpful in collecting depictions of warlike subjects were studies that focus on pottery produced in particular places, such as Darrell Amyx’s Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period (1991) and Conrad Stibbe’s Lakonische Vasenmalerei des sechsten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (1972); invaluable were also the monographs by the late John Beazley and John Boardman. More generally useful were the various

91

volumes of the huge Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. In this book’s introductory chapter, I pointed out that current notions regarding ancient Greek warfare are clearly Athenocentric and often idealised, which in turn leads to Hellenocentric viewpoints. The purpose of this book is to re-evaluate these notions and, where possible, provide an alternative interpretation that is hopefully more accurate than has hitherto been the case. The main aims set out in the introduction to this book serve as a guide for examining the iconographic material. In other words, the objectives for this chapter are to: (1) examine different kinds of fighters; (2) point out regional diversity; (3) examine diachronic developments; (4) look into aspects regarding ‘martiality’, viz. the role of weapons and armour outside of the context of war and battle, and finally; (5) discuss original Greek terminology, whenever possible. 2. Looking at Greek art The focus of this chapter is on vase-paintings, which forms by far the largest body of iconographic evidence. It should be pointed out that not all regions in the Aegean produced figurative art, let alone martial art. In particular, there is a strong Attic bias in the material, with particularly copious amounts of painted pottery produced there from the latter half of the sixth century onwards. Other regions that produced (useful) figurative art include Euboia, the Argolid, Lakonia, Korinthia, some Aegean islands, and parts of Asia Minor. Greek figurative pottery was probably used by a relatively wealthy segment of society. Some of it was made for a specific purpose, such as funerary vases that served as grave markers in some high-ranking burial plots in Geometric Athens, or miniature vessels that were deposited at temples. Figured decorations are usually found on hard-baked, wheel-made vessels used for serving food and drink, rather than merely storing it (but note the later discussions on relief pithoi). The fact that these objects were used either for specific or everyday purposes no doubt inspired the subject matter of the figured scenes, such as scenes of processions to burial grounds on the Geometric Attic funerary vases already referred to.389 How should we interpret the iconographic material? Much has been written on how to look at Greek vases, but on the whole it is safe to say that there is a general reluctance to take the pictures themselves more or less at face value. In a recent book, Hans van Wees briefly discusses Archaic Greek representations of warriors and concludes that the painters were ‘highly selective’. 390 He is not alone, as many authors have claimed that the figurative evidence is in some way unreliable, as we shall see. Some dismiss certain elements as ‘archaising’ features, if not solely the product of an artist’s fancy. Such arguments frequently read like the iconographic equivalent of hunting for interpolations in Homer. The so-called Dipylon-shield, a round or elliptical shield with scallops cut from

389 390

92

For some further discussion, re fer to Boardman 2001, 244–268. Van Wees 2004, 50.

the sides, is often dismissed as an archaising or heroising element,391 despite its persistent appearance in scenes that seem to be drawn after life, rather than myth. Similarly, chariots are often regarded as elements deliberately introduced to hark back to olden days; some regard them as distorted memories of Bronze-Age (Mykenaian) chariots. The basic assumption is that Archaic Greeks had no idea regarding the ‘proper’ use of chariots and were familiar only with racing vehicles.392 Peter Greenhalgh has even suggested that whenever chariots are depicted or described, the poet or painter actually intended these to be warriors on horseback—anachronistically termed ‘knights’—accompanied by mounted ‘squires’.393 Others insist that the vase-paintings are simply not what they appear to be, i.e. they cannot be taken literally. Andrew Clark nevertheless remains optimistic. He acknowledges that much of Greek society is absent from the vase-paintings, but nevertheless concludes that ‘what the vase-painters chose to portray shows us so much of their world in lively, intimately detailed, and often remarkably beautiful pictures: vase-paintings enable us to experience ancient Greece with our own eyes.’394 Mary Beard is much more sceptical. She has argued that the act of creating a scene ‘necessarily converts the reality of everyday life into something very different: an image, a representation, an intellectual construct. We cannot read a scene of the domestic world [...] as if it were a photographic replica of life in the Athenian home.’ In fact, painted scenes make ‘a heavily loaded, ideological point.’395 In other words, the iconology of vase-paintings is important: there is a deeper meaning beneath the schematised surface.396 Perhaps the persistent claims concerning the unreliability of the figurative evidence explains why Gudrun Ahlberg, in her important study on representations of fighting on Geometric pottery, is hesitant about writing anything definitive on the subject of tactics. The problem, as she sees it, is in ‘judging the relationship between iconographic rendering and reality’, emphasising that the Geometric scenes ‘do not serve, a priori, as the main source of information for our understanding of the real warfare from these times as is recently argued.’397 This begs the question, what exactly are the main sources of information? Or to put it more poignantly, why is the figurative evidence itself apparently not a main source of information? Ahlberg’s reticence is all the more remarkable in light of her statement that similarities between Homeric descriptions of battle and the vase-paintings ‘depend on the common milieus in which these two categories of art worked.’398 In other words, both the descriptions and the depictions were

391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398

E.g., We bster 1955, 41–42; Snodgrass 1964b, 58–61; cf. Boardman 2001, 192–194. Discussion and re futation in Singor 1995, 110; Ande rson 1975, 178–179; see also Brouwe rs 2007a, 307–309. Greenhalgh 1973, 1–2 and 7–12. Clark 2002, 20. Beard 1991, 20 (original e mphasis). On iconographic and iconological approaches to ancie nt Gree k vase -painting, see Sparkes 1996, 134–136. Ahlbe rg 1971a, 54 (citing Courbin 1968). Ahlbe rg 1971a, 53.

93

based on a common ideology and perhaps reflect contemporary practices. I shall briefly return to this discussion regarding the connection between ideology and reality in this book’s conclusion. It is true that the vase-paintings are stylised to some degree. But the question that should be asked, is whether or not the painted scenes are nevertheless representative of contemporary reality? I find it curious that despite persistent claims that vase-paintings offer detailed glimpses into the daily lives of the ancient Greeks, there are only few serious studies that actually take the figurative evidence itself as their starting point for studying ancient warfare or other aspects of everyday life.399 Most scholars remain neutral and follow John Beazley’s pioneering work by examining developments in style. 400 Others look at vase-paintings in an attempt to recognise scenes of myth, particularly those based on the Homeric poems, which is strictly speaking a text-based approach to the material. 401 For the purposes of this chapter, I regard the iconographic material as a primary source of information on warfare in the Archaic period, though obviously painted pots or sculptural reliefs do not offer ‘photographs’ of the past. For example, lowly servants or slaves that may have carried a warrior’s provisions are never shown. Nevertheless, my basic assumption for now is that there is no a priori reason to assume that the figurative evidence is any more or less reliable or stylised than either the archaeological or textual evidence. After all, we can observe changes through time with regards to weapons, tactics, and modes of combat, so it is not too far-fetched to suggest that these changes somehow reflect developments in ‘real life’. In this chapter, I therefore intend to let the iconographic evidence tell its own story and see whether a more or less coherent narrative emerges in which regional variation and diachronic developments have their place. The results can then more easily be compared with those gleaned from the other types of evidence in this book’s final chapter. 3. A regional survey of the evidence The evidence in the present section is grouped according to the original place or region of manufacture, rather than the findspot. The ultimate purpose of the following subsections is to determine regional diversity and chronological developments; a very small number of important artefacts provide valuable information regarding contemporary Greek terminology. The regions have been been selected on the basis of historical and cultural interconnections between the areas and sites they contain; hence, Euboia is considered as part of the same cultural zone as the islands in the Central 399

400

401

94

Aside from Ahlbe rg 1971a and Gree nhalgh 1973, see , e.g., Pe dley 1987; also discussion on particular aspects, such as chariots and ships, base d on vase -paintings (Crouwe l 1981, We dde 1999, and so on). This is not to say that the subject matter of the scenes is not take n into conside ration whe n e xaming style , but this is still a far cry from analysing, in some de tail, the actual conte nt of a sce ne , i.e. the items re presente d in the painting; cf. Sparkes 1996, 114–116. E.g., Sche fold & Hirme r 1964; Snodgrass 1998; cf. Whitle y 2001, 195–197.

Aegan. Of course, not all regions are equally well represented in the iconographic record. a. Southern mainland Greece Southern mainland Greece consists of Attika, the Isthmus, and the Peloponnese. We have considerable numbers of figurative pottery from eighth-century Athens and late eighth- and seventh-century Korinth; Athens dominates from the sixth century onwards. Seventh-century Korinthian pottery and sixth-century Attic pottery were widely exported, with considerable numbers unearthed in Italy, especially in Etruscan graves. The other material is very diverse, from pottery to figurines and even sculpture. i. Attika I: the eighth and early seventh centuries I have divided the Attic figurative evidence into two groups. The first group to be discussed here dates to the eighth and (early) seventh centuries, and consists mostly of Attic Geometric and Protoattic painted pottery. I have included some seventy specimens in my database, over fifty of which are Geometric vase-paintings. Many of these Geometric scenes are found on funerary vases, particularly the large examples from the Dipylon and Kerameikos cemeteries that also functioned as grave markers. The number of Protoattic vase-paintings is very small, and much belongs to the first half of the seventh century rather than the second. But what we do have in the way of Protoattic vase-paintings suggest interesting changes as well as some continuity when compared to the Geometric evidence, so that the material belonging to these two styles can be usefully discussed together. Warriors and the ir wargear

In Geometric scenes, figures are painted as silhouettes. This makes it difficult to say anything about their clothes or lack thereof. However, roughly contemporary figurines of warriors found at Olympia and discussed in more detail below suggests that men fought in the nude, possibly wearing nothing other than a belt around their waist. These warriors nevertheless often wear helmets, which can be easily recognised by their drooping plumes (124);402 these helmets were probably close-fitting caps made of leather rather than bronze. The plumes are similar to those found on Late Helladic IIIC sherds,403 possibly an example of continuity? In addition, some warriors are also equipped with shields. In Attic Geometric art, we can distinguish between three types of shields, all fitted with a central, single grip, namely a rectangular shield, a round shield, and the so-called Dipylon-shield (round with scallops cut from the side). A fragment of a Late Geometric pot from Athens shows three warriors (145), each equipped with helmet, a set of twin spears, and a different type of shield (plate 3.1).404 As briefly mentioned earlier, a number of scholars have 402 403 404

E.g., Athe ns 806: Ahlberg 1971a, 61–62 fig. 53. Athe ns 1141: Guida 1973, pl. 33.4; Ve rme ule & Karageorghis 1982, pl. XI.8. Greenhalgh 1973, 65 fig. 38.

95

claimed that the Dipylon-shield is a wholly fictitious item.405 However, this viewpoint is unwarranted, as several other authors have demonstrated.406 In Athens, a small terracotta model of an oblong Dipylon-type shield was discovered (447); it is contemporary with the figured scenes on Attic Geometric pots (plate 3.2).407 The amount of detail present on this model suggests that it was based on an actual shield. The model is convex, with a clearly denoted rim; the outer surface has been decorated with a cross-hatched pattern that suggests the real thing was made of wicker. Furthermore, the inside of the model features cross-staves; no handle is indicated, but perhaps the shield was gripped by the point where the cross-staves overlapped. Shield-types similar to the Dipylon are known from the Persian Empire; they were also used among some African tribes in the recent past.408 In fact, I would suggest that the Dipylon shield has two subtypes: one is circular and relatively flat, while the other—like the model, above—is oblong and convex. They represent two stages in the development of this shield type, of which the circular and flat one is probably the oldest. Both types are known from bronze figurines (to be discussed below). In addition, the flat and circular subtype disappears at the end of the eighth century, while the oblong and convex type continued in use and was eventually given a double-grip, borrowed from the round Argive-type shield. The oblong subtype with double-grip is generally called ‘Boiotian’, as it later served as the emblem of that region on coins. 409 These changes further argue in favour of the reality of Dipylon-type shields. There is some diversity with regard to the weapons used by warriors in Late Geometric scenes. Archers are relatively rare. When they appear, they are nearly always shown singly, often kneeling, operating like a modern-day sniper (164; plate 3.3).410 Other warriors fight with one or more relatively short spears or use swords; combinations of spear and sword also occur. Hans van Wees has argued that most spears in the Late Geometric scenes were intended for throwing. 411 However, there is no conclusive evidence for this: depictions of spears in flight are next to nonexistent and swords—a close-ranged weapon—are very common. It seems likely that the relatively short spears were suited for both thrusting and throwing, rather than especially one or the other. Toward the very end of the Late Geometric style, round shields were clearly meant to represent Argive shields; they sometimes feature abstract 405 406

407 408 409 410 411

96

See note 391, above . Van Wees 2004, 50–52. We nee d not conce rn ourse lves with the notion that the Dipylon shie ld is in any way a descendant of the Bronze -Age figure -of-e ight-type shie ld, as that idea was de bunke d long ago by Lorime r 1950, 160; see also Ahlbe rg 1971a, 59–60. London 1971.11–18.1: Basch 1987, 180 fig. 378; Connolly 1998 [1981], 51; Gree nhalgh 1973, 66 fig. 39; Guida 1973, 23 fig. 2.5–7. For a brie f discussion, see Se kunda 2008, 71. See , for e xample , Carradice & Price 1988, 38 and pl. 9.127. Ele usis 741: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 34–37 figs. 42–43 and 96 fig. 105; Boardman 1998, 33 figs. 41.1–2; Höckmann 1980, 303 fig. 78.b. Van Wees 1994, 145.

blazons (137; plate 4.1).412 The introduction of Argive shields did not go hand-in-hand with any other apparent changes, such as the adoption of new types of weapons. However, Protoattic warriors are nearly always equipped with Argive shields and also wear Korinthian helmets and bronze; shield blazons, when visible, still tend to be abstract (105; plate 4.2).413 Protoattic warriors sometimes carry heavier and longer spears. One pot depicts a group of warriors whose bodies are covered by their shields (162); they have their swords drawn and at the ready and are about to attack warriors who are naked and brandish their spears overhead; most of their opponents carry a pair of spears each (plate 5.1).414 Bell-shaped cuirasses are to the best of my knowledge not attested in seventh-century Athenian representations. Eero Jarva suggests that two figures on a Protoattic fragment from the Agora and dated to the early seventh century are wearing linen corslets (161; plate 5.2).415 Otherwise typical is the set of fragments depicting a group of warriors equipped with Argive shields, Korinthian helmets, and, in this case, single thrusting spears; one figure wears a tunic while the other is nude (100; plate 5.3).416 Chariots and horses

Geometric warriors with shields, particularly those of the Dipylon variety, are frequently associated with chariots, which they apparently used as a mode of conveyance (124; plate 6.1). 417 These chariots were at least sometimes used to transport a warrior to or even on the battlefield, as demonstrated by the famous image that depicts Aktorione-Molione in the heat of battle (141; plate 6.2). 418 Chariots are sometimes depicted in processions (135).419 Chariots are also depicted on Protoattic vases, although usually in processions and never within the context of an actual battle (157; plate 6.3).420 The evidence for horse-riding is slight. One example is a warrior with helmet on a rearing horse (138; plate 7.1);421 another is a rider with a pair of spears and possibly a helmet with drooping plume (147; plate 7.2).422 It cannot be said for certain whether they fought from horseback or usually dismounted prior to combat; evidence from other regions, to be discussed a little further on, suggests the latter. A very Early Protoattic pot from the

412 413 414 415 416 417 418

419 420 421 422

Be naki muse um 7675: Boardman 1998, 44 fig. 68; Davison 1961, fig. 50. E.g., as on a pot curre ntly in the Athe ns National Archaeological Muse um: Van Wees 2000b, 146 fig. 15; Waldste in 1905, pl. 67. Pe rgamon muse um 31.573.141 (Be rlin): Greenhalgh 1973, 72 fig. 44. Agora P24032: Jarva 1995, 34 fig. 9. Be rlin 31573: Van Wees 2000b, 145 fig. 14. Athe ns 806: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 61–62 fig. 53; Davison 196, fig. 18; Gree nhalgh 1973, 27 fig. 18. Agora P4885: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 13 fig. 2; Boardman 1998, 41 figs. 59.1–2; Crouwe l 2006b, 166 fig. 5; Davison 1961, fig. 97; Gree nhalgh 1973, 13 fig. 3; Snodgrass 1998, 30–31 fig. 11. Toronto no. 929.22.10: Gree nhalgh 1973, 22 fig. 9. Ne w York 10.210.8: Davison 196, figs. 69a –b; Greenhalgh 1973, 24 fig. 13. Athe ns 810: Greenhalgh 1973, 48 fig. 32. Athe ns 15.995: Greenhalgh 1973, 49 fig. 34.

97

beginning of the seventh century depicts a warrior on horseback, complete with round, presumably Argive shield, and possibly equipped with a Korinthian helmet (159; plate 7.3);423 warriors of this type may be referred to as hippobatai, based on Korinthian evidence (see below). Warships and naval combat

The earliest representations of ships in Attic art date to the Middle Geometric I period, i.e. the late ninth century (a bronze fibula from Kerameikos grave 41) and Middle Geometric II (e.g., an oinochoe found in Agioi Theodoroi in Kromyon, Korinthia).424 Ships are a common feature in Attic Geometric painted scenes and are often shown within the context of battle (see the next section on scenes of combat). We have already discussed Michael Wedde’s two main types of warships in our discussion of the Postpalatial evidence (page 33, above). These two types, one with a straight prow and the other with a forefoot, are also shown on Geometric Attic pottery. Wedde has convingly argued that the warships with a straight prow were used for battles at sea (and thus served as fighting platforms), while the vessels with a forefoot allowed them to be beached at speed and were thus made specifically for surprise attacks. We are fortunate to have a fair number of models of such ships, including a terracotta model from Amphiareion (Oropos area) of unknown date.425 These models are not to scale, but do provide a good idea of what some of these vessels looked like. Artists typically exaggerated particular elements of a specific type of ship, especially the forefoot, high forecastle, and curved stern. The forefoot of Wedde’s second type of warship ultimately developed into the rams familiar from later Classical historians. The introduction of the ram is often dated to around 700, but in an article published in 1982, F.H. Van Doorninck points to an earlier representation of a ram-bearing ship on a ‘Boeotian’ fibula from Kerameikos grave 41, which is dated to ca. 850 BC.426 An Early Protoattic votive plaque from Sounion (Attika), attributed to the ‘Analatos Painter’, shows the rear half of a warship; the front part is now lost (160; plate 8.1). 427 Five warriors are depicted sitting at the oars, although they are facing front. We should perhaps imagine them listening to a rousing speech by their commander or making preparations to jump ashore while the ship coasts toward the beach. Each of these warriors carries two spears and wears a presumably Korinthian helmet with stilted crest; their bodies are obscured by the large round, no doubt Argive shields. A single figure in the stern is manning the steering oars; he has neither armour nor shield and appears to wear some kind of tunic that may mark him a special, perhaps a specific figure from myth (Phrontis?).428 423 424 425 426 427 428

98

Pe rgamon muse um 31006 (Be rlin): Greenhalgh 1973, 50 fig. 35. For further de tails, re fer to Tzahou-Ale xandri 1987. Crie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2a. Van Doorninck 1982, 283–285 (with fig. 7); see also Basch 1987, 150–151, 201; Crie laard 2008, 124; Crie laard, in press (equipment); Johnston 1985, 32–33 BA 25. Athe ns 14935: Boardman 1998, 100 fig. 192; Boardman 1985 [1964], 43 fig. 38. Re fer to Burgess 2001, 37–38.

Scenes of combat

There are two main types of battle-scenes on Attic Geometric vases, namely: single combat and mass combat. Single combat usually involves men armed with swords (111; plate 8.2).429 These scenes suggest that warriors in the eighth century engaged in duels, perhaps on the field of battle, or maybe as a dangerous sort of game. However, it is also possible that these scenes of single combat are intended as a kind of ‘short-hand’, especially on small pots. In such instances, a scene of combat between two men might actually be a stylised or symbolic representation of battle between opposing armies.430 The second type of battle-scenes are those that depict mass combat, i.e. an armed conflict between groups of fighters. These fall into two categories, one type associated with fighting on and around ships (142; plate 9.1),431 probably on beaches, the other on land (121; plate 9.2),432 with no ships present. Of these, the battles associated with ships appear to be most common. Ahlberg rightly suggests that the battles depicted in the Geometric vase-paintings were fought between combatants organised into ‘mobile units, not yet in compact larger units.’433 Combatants use spears and swords, and some battles include archers; however, the commonly held notion that battle in Geometric art is mostly a long-range affair does not, in my opinion, bear close scrutiny.434 In Protoattic vase-painting, the figures are generally larger and drawn in more detail than on Geometric pots. The scenes themselves are often less dynamic than before: warriors sitting aboard a ship, a line of men with swords drawn, and so forth. These warriors now also clearly wear bronze pieces of armour (helmets and greaves) and are generally equipped with long thrusting spears. Their large Argive shields are always carried before them, never slung around the back. The lack of scenes depicting actual combat are rare, however, and the Protoattic material itself is rather limited, so that it is difficult to say anything specific about the style of warfare that these men may have engaged in. The afte rmath of battle

The so-called Lambros oinochoe provides a unique picture of how prisoners of war may have been treated (129).435 A number of Dipylon warriors are shown; they lack spears, but each does have a sword and a dagger at their waist. Their arms are not shown and Ahlberg suggests, rightly I believe, that their hands were probably bound. They are confronted by ‘nude’ figures, 429 430 431 432 433 434 435

Ontario 957X245: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 49–51 fig. 47. My thanks to Jan Paul Crie laard for pointing this out to me . Cope nhagen 1628: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 29–31 figs. 31–33; Boardman 1998, 41 fig. 60; Davison 196, fig. 133; Osborne 1998, fig. 17. Louvre A519: Ahlberg 1971a, 16 figs. 5 and 6, 88 fig. 87 (de tail); Boardman 1998, 38 fig. 50 (de tail); Ryste dt 2006b, 244 fig. 6.a; Snodgrass 1998, 17 fig. 5. Ahlbe rg 1971a, 108. Contra, for e xample , Ahlberg 1971a, 49–54. Louvre CA2509: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 21–24 figs. 19–24; Ryste dt 2006b, 244 fig. 6.b; Snodgrass 1998, 21 figs. 7–8.

99

most of whom are also equipped with a sword and a dagger. One of them touches the hilt of a dipylon-warrior’s sword; perhaps he is in the process of disarming his opponent. It likely depicts dipylon-warriors that are being taken prisoner by the other men. One figure appears wholly nude and holds his sword (and possibly the dagger, or else the scabbard of his sword) in one hand, while being confronted by another figure who brandishes a sword and may be threatening him. Two corpses are also depicted. All figures, including the corpses, wear helmets.436 Weapons and martial activities in times of peace

Weapons emerge as an important part of male identity in Attic Geometric vase-painting. Two main types of scenes in Geometric art, which are both funerary in character, are the prothesis (the lying-in-state of the deceased) and ekphora (the funerary procession to the cemetery). Usually, at least some of the men in these ostensibly peaceful gatherings are equipped with swords; in processions, the shielded warriors are equipped with helmets and weapons (130; plate 10.1).437 Protoattic vases of the seventh century sometimes feature processions—or possibly some kind of dances or ritual—that depict men in ornate dress holding spears (79; plate 10.2).438 From at least the late eighth century onwards, high-ranking Greeks engaged in sports. Some of these competitions had a distinctly martial connotation. Evidence for such ‘martial sports’ can be found in Attic Geometric pottery. A Late Geometric amphora depicts a procession of chariots, with warriors alternatively facing forwards and backwards (78). Anthony Snodgrass suggests that this represents a martial feat whereby the warrior would make a 360 degree turn.439 Similarly, some of the scenes of single combat, mentioned above, might represent a dangerous game of some sort (cf. Hom. Il. 23.798–825). In addition, wrestling and boxing were important activities; it is interesting that in some fighting scenes, a man can grab the plume of his opponent’s helmet like a boxer grabbing the forelocks of his rival (111). 440 Such martial sports no doubt served as both entertainment, as a way for men to prove their quality, and as training for battle. Summary of the Attic Ge ome tric and Protoattic mate rial

To sum up, it is clear that different kinds of warriors are represented in the Late Geometric Attic evidence. None appear to wear any body-armour, though helmets are common. Some men fight with spears, others with swords; combinations also occur. Some warriors are furthermore equipped with shields, either round or rectangular in shape, or of Dipylon type. These warriors are frequently associated with chariots. Archers are relatively rare. By contrast, the Protoattic evidence, limited though it is, is far more

436 437 438 439 440

100

Ahlbe rg 1971a, 21–25. Louvre A517: Ryste dt 2006b, 241 fig. 3. Be rlin A42: Snodgrass 1980, 102 fig. 40. Hamburg 1966.89: Snodgrass 1998, 64 fig. 25. E.g., Royal Ontario Muse um 957X245: Ahlberg 1971a, 49–51 fig. 47.

uniform, featuring warriors with bronze Korinthian helmets, bronze greaves, single thrusting spears and swords, and Argive shields. From the end of the eighth century, some warriors travel to the battlefield on horseback. Both the Late Geometric and Protoattic evidence suggests that warfare was conducted on a relatively small scale. For the eighth and seventh centuries, the existence of a large and well-organised Attic (Athenian) army is unlikely. Instead, it seems more probable that, as Gudrun Ahlberg has already noted (see above), fighting men operated in small and mobile units, i.e. warriors were grouped into warbands, presumably knit together through ties of blood and friendship. The importance of ships further suggests that these warbands engaged in seaborne raids against other communities, and that a typical warband therefore was perhaps no larger than the crew of a single vessel. ii. Attika II: the (later) sixth and early fifth centuries The second group of Attic figurative evidence consists once again mostly of vase-paintings, this time so-called Attic black-figure and red-figure. Attic black-figure first appears in the final decades of the seventh century and continued down to the middle of the fifth. 441 Red figure was invented probably around 530 and persisted until the fourth century. Huge numbers of black- and red-figure vases were made in Attika, with the bulk unearthed in areas elsewhere in the Aegean and beyond, especially in Etruscan cemeteries in Italy. By the end of the sixth century, Attika was virtually the only region left that still made figurative pottery.442 John Beazley studied some forty thousand red-figure vases (including fragments),443 while John Boardman has estimated the total number of known black-figure vases to number around twenty thousand.444 The bulk of these black-figure pots were made in the period of Attic red-figure.445 Of course, not all of these pots feature martial scenes. I have included some two hundred specimens in my database, of which around seventy-five are scenes from red-figure pots. Of the one-hundred-and-twenty black-figure pots, a little less than half date to the period before 530 (most gravitate around the middle of the century). I have striven to include representative examples of scenes with a martial connotation. The evidence as a whole is clearly biased toward the period between roughly 530 and 480 and differs remarkably in many respects from the Geometric and Protoattic material. Warriors and the ir wargear

Especially during the second half of the sixth century, male nudity in Attic vase-painting is now generally limited to specific contexts.446 Warriors now

441 442 443 444 445 446

Boardman 1991 [1974], 14–19. Boardman 1991 [1974], 146. Cook 1997 [1960], 262. Boardman 1991 [1974], 7. Hur wit 1985, 282; Boardman 1991 [1974], 146. I shall discuss this aspe ct more fully in a forthcoming article .

101

tend to be either wholly nude (especially heroes and other mythical figures), or fully clothed and armoured. As far as body-armour is concerned, the bronze bell-shaped cuirass remains common. However, in the course of the later sixth century, the linen corslet with shoulder pieces and pteruges (strips cut into the bottom, below the level of the waist), sometimes reinforced with scales, slowly begins to transplant the bell-shaped cuirass.447 It is interesting that at around the same time, there is also an increase in the amount of bronze armour worn by certain warriors equipped with bell-shaped cuirasses in the representations. Particularly prominent are thigh-guards, especially on black-figure vases. Thigh-guards make it impossible to ride on horseback.448 It is certainly no coincidence that some men—if the pictures are correct—apparently began to wear more armour at the same time that horses slowly disappear and some warriors turned to wearing lighter pieces of armour (the linen corslet). It suggests that men may now have been required to march to the battlefield, and it is possible that armies were enlarged to include a larger slice of society. Lacking horses, wealthty men may have sought to express their wealth instead by wearing more pieces of armour, to distinguish themselves from warriors that they perceived as being of lower standing, though obviously not poor. In other words, it seems as if in the later sixth century, most Athenian warriors were expected to march and fight on foot, instead of riding into battle. I take it that this development was related to four other new elements that appeared at roughly the same time. I assume that these new developments were not accidental, but are in fact structurally related to each other. The first of these new elements is the introduction of the trumpet. An Attic black-figure plate attributed to Psiax shows a male figure with helmet, cuirass, and greaves, blowing a trumpet (270; plate 11.1).449 Another trumpeter, this time clothed like a Skythian archer, is shown on a bilingual cup signed by the potter Andokides (320; plate 11.2).450 Trumpets are not necessary when fighting as part of a warband, as one’s leader is probably never far away. The use of trumpets suggests fighting in relatively large armies, commanded by a leader whose voice may not carry far enough for everyone to hear. The second element is the modification of existing types of helmets and the appearance of new ones. Trumpets are good for conveying orders above the din of battle, provided that one’s warriors are actually able to hear them. The typical helmet of the period between 700 and 550 is of Korinthian type, which covers most of the head, including the ears, and only leaves slits for the eyes and mouth. Such headgear is perfectly suitable in situations where the enemy are few and one’s compatriots and especially leader is never far away. But helmets of this type are difficult to use when fighting in close 447 448

449 450

102

For an ove rvie w, see Jarva 1995, 33–47. As Greenhalgh points out, ‘it is the thighs that provide a horseman’s main grip, and they we re the only part of the otherwise comple te ly maile d Parthian cataphract to be le ft unprotecte d’ (Gree nhalgh 1973, 101). London B590: Beazle y 1956, 294 no. 19; Boardman 1991 [1974], 119 fig. 169. Pale rmo V650: Beazle y 1956, 256 no. 21; Boardman 1991 [1974], 115 figs. 160.1–2.

order. In the second half of the sixth century, modifications were made to existing types of helmets, and new types were introduced, that left more of the eyes (face) and ears free. A red-figure cup of a warrior in a loincloth, dated to 520–510, wears a helmet that leaves much of the face exposed, probably of so-called Chalkidian or Attic type (403; plate 12.1).451 The third element is an unusual feature on the inside of Argive shields lends further support that phalanx-fighting was introduced in the latter half of the sixth century. A good example is provided by the full-length ‘portrait’ of Achilleus found on a red-figure belly-amphora dated to 525–500 (416; plate 12.2).452 Achilleus’ shield features two hand-grips, one on each side, connected to a rope that lines the inner shield. Allen Pittman has come up with an ingenious explanation for the presence of a second hand-grip (and the rope), namely that the ‘extra’ handle was gripped by the man immediately to one’s left in the rank of the phalanx. ‘The overall effect,’ he notes after some experimentation, ‘in shield/wall movement is astonishing. The entire shield wall becomes a unit and one can sense every shift of shield movement on either side. Moreover, the entire wall can be articulated—shields lifted or shifted horizontally—through this linkage.’453 The fourth and last element is a new type of sword. It appears that this may also have been invented for use in a more closely-packed environment. Vase-paintings before the last quarter of the sixth century nearly always feature just one type of sword, the so-called Naue II. However, toward the end of the sixth century, this type of sword seems to disappear almost overnight, replaced instead by a sword that has a leaf-shaped blade and straight cross-guard; it appears to be shorter than the Naue II sword. Shorter blades are more useful in tight formations than long ones. Examples of this new Greek sword abound in Attic red-figure, for example Troilos’ sword on one Attic pot (373; plate 13.1),454 the swords depicted on a red-figure cup that includes Herakles (364),455 and the sword of the warrior slaying a Kentaur on a red-figure cup from Vulci (429; plate 13.2). 456 Attic black-figure appears to be somewhat more conservative, though examples of these new types of swords are found on a number of vases, some as early as circa 540 (352).457 To sum up, I believe that the changes noted here can be related to the introduction of phalanx warfare, specifically the emergence of centrally-organised armies of men who fought solely on foot and who replaced the earlier aristocratic warbands. The evidence that supports this notion are the introduction of trumpets, the use of helmets that left more of the ears and sometimes also eyes exposed, the introduction of secondary handles on the insides of Argive shields, and the use of a shorter type of sword. 451 452 453 454 455 456 457

Louvre G25: Ducre y 1985, 120 pl. 84; Van Wees 2000b, 129 fig. 4.b. London E258: Beazle y 1963, 54 no. 4; Boardman 1975, 64 fig. 57.2. Pittman 2007, 70. Louvre G18: Beazle y 1963, 61 no. 68; Carpe nte r 1991, 33 fig. 34. London E8: Beazle y 1963, 63 no. 88; Boardman 1975, 67 fig. 65. Munich 2640: Beazley 1963, 402 no. 22; Boardman 1975, 161 fig. 268. E.g., London B197: Carpe nter 1991, 58 fig. 65.

103

Chariots and horses

As we shall see a little further on, warriors accompanied by mounted youths are a familiar theme–popularly if incorrectly known as ‘knights and squires’–from especially the seventh century onwards. The motif appears in Attic vase-painting especially during the sixth century. Dated to 560 is an amphora depicting a mounted warrior and youth riding side by side (239; plate 14.1); 458 slightly later is the battle-scene involving warriors and mounted youths on a Siana cup (313; plate 14.2).459 Finally, we have a depiction of a warrior dismounting while a mounted youth holds his horse, dated to between 550 and 525 (256; plate 15.1).460 Chariots within a clearly martial context make a reappearance on Attic pottery of the sixth century. Dated to between 560 and 530 is a band cup signed by Hermogenes that depicts a warrior stepping onto a waiting chariot (347; plate 15.2).461 On the basis of my sample, it seems that chariots and horsemen remain features in Attic black-figure scenes, at least until the last quarter of the sixth century. By contrast, they become comparatively rare in Attic red-figure (437; plate 15.3).462 Often, chariots are associated with scenes of myth, although in some cases, such as on a cup from Vulci (328; discussed a little further below, on p. 105), the artist’s inspiration seems to have come more from observing a real-life battle. Warships and naval combat

Ships are somewhat more rare in Attic black- and red-figure scenes. One of the earliest is a galley shown on the famous François krater, dated to around 570–560 (319).463 From at least the second half of the sixth century onwards, we encounter combinations of armed warriors and unarmed rowers forming crews aboard warships. A platter from the Akropolis, dated to around 530, depicts a galley with a single tier of rowers: we see the oars, but not the men themselves (264; plate 16.1). 464 Also present are two tall warriors, who may be plausibly identified as epibatai or ‘marines’.465 An encounter at sea is the subject of a black-figure scene dated to between 525 and 500. A round-bottomed merchantman with no oars is apparently attacked by a straight-keeled warship (271).466 The sixth century in particular also witnesseses the development of new types of ships. Additional tiers of oarsmen are added to warships, which makes them shorter (more manoeuvrable) and faster; these ships were used as weapons in themselves, equipped with rams. The earliest innovation is

458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466

104

Naple s 81292: Gree nhalgh 1973, 119 fig. 61. Laon 37.1015: Beazle y 1956, 681 no. 50 bis; CVA France 20, pls. 892.1 and 892.3-4. London B191: Brouwe rs 2007a, 311 fig. 7; Greenhalgh 1973, 120 fig. 62. Ashmolean 231: Boardman 1991 [1974], 86 fig. 114. Villa Giulia 27250: Beazle y 1963, 124 no. 8; Boardman 1975, 77 fig. 94. Flore nce 4209: Beazley 1956, 76 no. 1; Boardman 1991 [1974], 42–44 figs. 46.1–7; Carpe nte r 1991, figs. 1–2 and 75; Shear 2000, 102 fig. 141. Athe ns 2414: Fie lds 2007, 16 (fig.). E.g., Hdt. 7.96. London B436: Boardman 1991 [1974], 123 fig. 180.

the so-called bireme, a two-tiered warship (343; plate 16.2). 467 The three-tiered ship, trireme, is a later innovation, made famous in the Persian Wars and not attested in Greek art until the later sixth century; Phoenician depictions suggest that multi-tiered ships were invented in the Levant back in the seventh century.468 Scenes of combat

A vivid scene of mass combat appears on a black-figure cup from Vulci and dated to around 550 (328; plate 17.1).469 It features chariots, spearmen, charioteers with Boiotian shields strapped to their backs, fallen warriors, Skythian archers (more on those momentarily), and even hippostrophoi. The warriors themselves often wear bell-shaped cuirasses, some with tunics others without; at least one warrior is naked. Many of the men wear Korinthian helmets, while others sport open-faced helmets, with regular or raised crests. Some men bunch together while others fight singly or flee; one of the chariot horses has fallen. The scene is chaotic; its high level of detail strongly suggests a familiarity on the artist’s part with this kind of warfare in the middle of the sixth century. Heavily-armed warriors with shields and spears fought out in the open field and also served as epibatai on warships. However, they were also used in assaulting fortified towns. An Attic red-figure cup, dated to around 500, depicts a section of crenulated wall or tower (379). 470 Two spearmen, equipped with Korinthian helmets, composite corslets (linen corslets that are partially covered by scales), spears, and shields defend the wall and strike at two spearmen directly beneath them, who are similarly equipped except that one wears a flowing garment instead of armour and the other is equipped with a linen corslet. Spearmen or ‘hoplites’ not only fought out in the open or on ships, but they also served as watchmen on walls: a black-figure hydria of about 520–500 shows Achilleus killing Troilos beneath the crenellated walls of Troy (341; plate 17.2).471 The use of allie d or me rce nary troops

So-called ‘Skythian’ archers appear on Attic pottery in the sixth century. They typically wear tunics with long sleeves and trousers, often enlivened by decorative patterns. The definitive study on Skythian archers is Maria Vos’s book, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting (1963). She notes that Skythians first appear, although infrequently, on Attic vases of the first half of the sixth century, and become more common in the period 540–490; inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the depiction of Skythian archers after 490 suggest, according to Vos, that the archers themselves were no longer available for the vase-painters to imitate.472 467 468 469 470 471 472

London GR1843.11-3.29: Fie lds 2007, 18 (fig.). For further discussion, re fe r to: Basch 1987, 332–335 (trireme ); Casson 1995, 94–96; Tille y 2004, 114–115; Wallinga 1993, 127–129 (a critique of Basch). London B400 (= 1857.8-5.1): Van Wees 2004, pl. 20. Van Wees 2008, 112 (fig.). Munich 1700: Beazley 1956, 362; Boardman 1991 [1974], 132 fig. 201. Vos 1963, 81 and 85–88.

105

Skythian archers appear frequently in departure scenes, as for example on a black-figure amphora dated to between 530–510 (267; plate 18.1).473 A black-figure scene of the late sixth century, in which Skythian archers fire from behind the shields of hoplites, suggests how they were used on the battlefield (307; plate 18.2).474 It is possible that Athenians hired Skythians as a kind of mercenary troops in combat, as the tyrant Peisistratos supposedly had,475 or that they were simply part of the following of an aristocratic patron. However, Askold Ivantchick has recently argued that the Skythian archers depicted on vases dated 530–490 are not really Skythians at all. Instead, he suggests that the clothes worn by the archers were a convention that identified them as secondary characters that accompanied a hero, who was always depicted as a hoplite. As such, Skythian dress was indicative of the character’s iconographic function, rather than his ethnical origin.476 I do not believe that Skythian dress was used to denote ‘secondary characters’. However, Ivantchick does make a good point in pointing out that the Skythian costume may simply represent ‘foreigners’ of undisclosed origin; furthermore, he makes a valid point by warning us not to overestimate the number of ‘barbarian’ troops in Athens.477 In addition to ‘Skythian’ archers, the Athenians also used peltasts. Peltasts were supposedly the typical Thrakian warrior and named after the pelte, a crescent-shaped (wicker) shield. They have been studied extensively by J.P.G. Best. The earliest examples are found on Attic black-figure vases of slightly later than the middle of the sixth century, while the earliest occurrence of Thrakian peltasts in literature is found in Thoukydides.478 Most modern authors consider peltasts to be javelineers, a notion founded mostly on Xenophon’s use of the word (e.g., Xen. Anab. 1.10.7). However, especially during the Archaic period, peltasts could be equipped with virtually any kind of weapon (246),479 and from at least the early fifth century onwards, some peltasts might simply have been Greeks dressed up in ‘Thrakian’ garb, who served as light troops or mercenaries.480 Weapons and martia l activities in times of peace

A footrace-in-arms, the hoplitodromos, was introduced in Olympia probably around 520.481 Shortly thereafter, naked runners equipped with shields and helmets are depicted on Attic wares, especially in red-figure style (365; plate 19.1).482 In addition, some Athenian warriors engaged in war dances, the so-called ‘Pyrrhic’ or ‘Pyrrhic dance’. Perhaps the earliest example is a

473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482

106

Brusse ls R291: Beazle y 1956, 270 no. 52; Boardman 1991 [1974], 126 fig. 187. Be rlin F1865: Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 38; Vos 1963, pl. 6.b. See Vos 1963, 68. Ivantchik 2006, 198–243 passim. Ivantchik 2006, 244. Best 1969, 3–4 (Thoukydide s) and 5 (picture on an early cup). E.g., Cope nhage n 13966: Best 1969, pls. 1.a –c; Boardman 1991 [1974], 89 figs. 121.1–2. Contra Best 1969, esp. pp. 12 and accompanying n. 68. Golde n 1998, 26–27. Base l BS459: Boardman 1975, 67 fig. 63.

picture of a warrior on an Attic black-figure Siana cup from about 570 (354; plate 19.2).483 The figure wears a tunic and animal skin, and is furthermore equipped with a Boiotian shield, spear (with thong), greaves, and helm et with stilted crest. The position of his legs and his stooped appearance suggest that he is dancing. Of course, there can be no doubt that the Pyrrhic is intended in scenes which include not only the armed dancer, but also a flute-player. Examples include an Attic red-figure cup attributed to the Poseidon Painter and dated to the end of the sixth century (376),484 as well as a kylix by the Eucharides Painter and dated to around 490 (384; plate 20.1).485 Finally, some aristocratic men were actively associated with war in the monuments that marked their graves. As noted before, many of the Geometric vases were originally intended for funerary use, with some of the larger examples used as grave markers in high-ranking burial plots in Athens. From the sixth century onwards, graves also began to be marked by stelai.486 One of the earliest of these has been unearthed in the Kerameikos cemetery in Athens (448; plate 20.2).487 It has been dated to around 560 and depicts a standing naked young man equipped with a sword and holding a spear in front of him. Similar in pose is the well-known stele of Aristion, dated to around 510 (451).488 Unlike the earlier figure, Aristion is fully clothed, wearing a tunic with linen corslet, as well as greaves; his head presumably once sported a helmet, pushed up. He lacks a sword, but like the earlier figure holds a spear in front of him. These stelai served to immortalise the dead men they commemorated as warriors, as men who fought and possibly died on the field of battle; they were both the leaders and the protectors of their communities. Summary of the sixth-ce ntury Attic mate rial

The Attic iconographic evidence of the sixth century differs from the earlier material in many respects and demonstrates a move toward larger-scale warfare. Whereas nudity was apparently common in the eighth and seventh centuries, there is a much more systematic approach to clothing in sixth-century Attic art. Warriors now tend to be both fully clothed and armoured, and there is even an increase in the amount of armour worn by some warriors. In addition, the linen corslet slowly replaces the bell-shaped cuirass in the final decades of the sixth century. Some warriors are mounted, while others use chariots to travel to and on the battlefield. Among other things, the introduction of trumpets and of more open helmet types suggests that by the final decades of the sixth century, warbands had been transformed into a larger army. Personal ties 483 484 485 486

487 488

London B30: Van Wees 2000b, 135 fig. 8.a; Warry 1980, 13 (fig.). Once Luze rn marke t: Beazley 1963, 136 no. 10; Boardman 1975, 87 fig. 127 Louvre G136: Se kunda 2000, 7 (fig.). Ho we ve r, the earliest of such stelai, not counting Myke naian e xamples, date from the late se ve nth ce ntury and have bee n found at Prinias, Krete (He raklion 399 and 402, see Boardman 1991 [1978], figs. 252.3 and 252.5, respective ly). Ke rame ikos muse um: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 230. Athe ns 29: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 235; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 39.

107

may still have remained important to some degree, as depictions of Skythian archers in particular suggest a close tie between an Attic warrior and his ‘foreign’ following that is not governed by a central authority. iii. Korinthia Relative large numbers of figurative painted pottery were made in Korinth from the late eighth century down to around the middle of the sixth, with production peetering out altogether in the second half of the sixth century. Michael Shanks estimates that the total number of extant Protokorinthian pots with figured decoration, even allowing for fragments, numbers around five hundred in all. 489 Of these five hundred pots, dated to between 720 and 625, most were decorated with animals rather than humans. Fortunately for our purposes, whenever humans do appear in Korinthian scenes they tend to be warriors. I have included a little over fifty specimens in my database, including a number of representative examples of later Ripe Korinthian pots (c. 625 to 550 and a little beyond). The catalogue thus contains a sizeable amount of the total available material. Warriors and the ir wargear

The north-east Peloponnese, including Korinth, may have been at the forefront of military developments in the late eighth century. We have virtually no Geometric-style scenes from Korinth. Instead, Protokorinthian-style vase-painting, an early form of black-figure, is introduced at the end of the eighth century. One of the earliest examples of Protokorinthian pottery is a small aryballos from the cemetery at Lechaion (208; plate 21.1).490 The pot features a battle between warriors equipped in a manner familiar from Attic Geometric scenes: they are naked and equipped with oblong Dipylon shields and two spears or a sword; the scene also features a naked, kneeling archer who is stabbed from behind. Unlike Attic Geometric scenes, the warriors are all equipped with Korinthian helmets. In addition, one warrior differs substantially from the others: he is placed in the centre of the action and is not only equipped with a Korinthian helmet, but he is also clothed and equipped with the new Argive shield: his arm has even been unnaturally extended so that we can clearly see the latest innovation on the inside of the shield, the double grip. As in other art of the eighth, seventh, and sixth centuries, archers are relatively rare in Korinthian vase-painting. Whenever they do appear, they are consistently portrayed as kneeling and acting like modern-day snipers, apparently picking specific targets rather than bunching up with their peers and firing volleys of arrows high into the sky. Some archers could be at least partially armoured. A Middle Ripe Korinthian fragment of a pyxis, found at Perachora, shows an archer with helmet, tunic, and greaves, kneeling behind a compatriot and taking aim at an unseen enemy (212; plate 21.2).491 489 490 491

108

Shanks 1999, 48. Korinth CP-2096: Amyx 1988, 25 pls. 6:1a –e ; Boardman 1998, 92 figs. 171.1–2; Shanks 1999, 141 fig. 3.33.3. Pe rachora 1842: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 78; Van Wees 2000b, 153 fig. 17.d.

Such depictions suggest, in my opinion, that archers may have had a higher social status than is commonly thought, a point to which I shall return in this book’s conclusion. Chariots and horses

The earliest Protokorinthian pottery not only introduces the new Korinthian helmet and Argive shield. The Korinthian evidence also features in considerable numbers warriors on horseback. The earliest example is an Early Protokorinthian aryballos attributed to the so-called ‘Evelyn Painter’ (196; plate 21.3).492 It depicts a warrior with shield, sword, spear, and helmet walking behind a youth on horseback. Later scenes usually show the outline of a second horse next to that of the youth’s that must belong to his dismounted master (213; plate 22.1).493 Common in the seventh century are scenes in which two warriors engage in what appears to be single combat while the mounted youths observe from the sidelines (185; plate 22.2).494 The warrior and the youth are usually and anachronistically dubbed ‘knight’ and ‘squire’. However, an Early Ripe Korinthian aryballos provides us with the contemporary Greek—or at least Korinthian—names: the warrior is called a hippobatas (‘he who rides a horse’, literally ‘horse-walker’); the youth, a hippostrophos (201; plate 22.3). 495 As Peter Greenhalgh points out, the name of the youth clearly denotes what his function was, viz. to take his master’s horse when he had dismounted to fight on foot and ‘turn’ the animal away from battle to keep it safe.496 Hippobatai and hippostrophoi are a fixture in Korinthian art throughout the seventh and sixth centuries. In addition, a terracotta votive shield found in the Korinthian Potter’s Quarter suggests that at least some warriors still rode to battle in the early fifth century (499; plate 23.1).497 Furthermore, hippobatai and hippostrophoi are found in the iconographic material of other regions, including Athens (already discussed above), Lakonia, the islands of the Aegean, and East Greece. The appearance of hippobatai, specifically the association of warriors with horses, bronze armour, and the new Argive shield is suggestive. Other authors have noted that the bell-shaped cuirass is ideally suited for horsemen.498 Building on this notion, I have suggested in an article that the Argive shield, too, was made specifically for use by men who spent a good deal of time on horseback. Depictions of men dismounting always show them facing away from the horse, in the direction of the battle itself, as if they simply ride into battle and then launch themselves at the enemy. It would be very difficult to ride around with a single-grip shield strapped to 492

493 494 495 496 497 498

London 1969.12–15.1: Amyx 1988, 17; Boardman 1998, 91 figs. 166.1–2; Coldstream 1977, 172 figs. 56.b–c; Gree nhalgh 1973, 58 fig. 37; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.3; Nee ft 1987, 67 fig. 15.a. Pe rachora 1556: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 61; Gree nhalgh 1973, 87 fig. 47. Be rlin F1056: Amyx 1988, 97 pls. 44:3a –b. Athe ns 341: Alföldi 1967, 14 fig. 1; Gree nhalgh 1973, 58 fig. 36; Payne 1931, 287 no. 482. Greenhalgh 1973, 59–61 (with furthe r re fere nces). Ne whall 1931, pl. II; Brouwe rs 2007a, 310 fig. 6. Snodgrass 1971, 45–46; Jarva 1995, 25; Ande rson 1961, 143.

109

the back or suspended from the neck by a telamōn, as it would bounce off and chafe the hind end of one’s horse. With the Argive shield, the double-grip and convex shape ensures that it can be comfortably carried (with the rim resting on one’s shoulder), without injuring the horse.499 Hippobatai rode to the battlefield and then dismounted to fight on foot. Peter Greenhalgh has suggested that an armoured, but shieldless horseman on a Middle Ripe Korinthian vase of the early sixth century is an example of ‘true’ cavalry, i.e. a man who fought from horseback (84; plate 23.2).500 This may well be the case. In addition to this horseman, the scene also includes hippobatai and warriors on foot. He may indeed have been a cavalryman. The lack of a shield, and indeed his particular mode of fighting from horseback, may have marked him as a particular—to us unknown—hero or individual. At any rate, fighting from horseback was clearly not unknown. Nevertheless, Robert Gaebel suggests that cavalry may have remained a relatively unimportant force in Attika and the Peloponnese in the Archaic period.501 Obviously, there is nothing that precludes a man from fighting from horseback if he is so inclined, and the evidence certainly suggests that we should not be too strict in our interpretation of the material. In Korinthian art, horses appear to have been as indispensible to warriors as their spears and helmets; however, chariots are rare. When they do appear, they are usually involved in racing, as on a Middle Protokorinthian II to Late Protokorinthian aryballos found at Syrakousai (228; plate 24.1).502 They appear more often on Late Korinthian pottery, perhaps in emulation of similar scenes on Attic pots. A red-ground, Atticising krater shows the hero Amphiaraos departing for battle (94).503 Another scene shows Herakles attacking a monster while his aid attends to his chariot (185).504 Dated to around 530 is a fragmented hydria showing Achilleus fighting Memnon while their charioteers flank the scene (96; plate 24.2).505 In these instances, the presence on Korinthian pots of chariots within the context of (mythical) battlefields do come across as deliberately archaising or mythicising, possibly Atticising. Scenes of combat

As far as depictions of mass combat in the seventh century is concerned, perhaps the most famous vase is the Middle to Late Protokorinthian jug known as the Chigi olpe (187; plate 25). 506 It prominently features a battle-scene on the upper portion of the belly, showing two groups of warriors (warbands?) right before the moment of impact. Each army

499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506

110

For further information and re fere nces, refe r to Brouwe rs 2007a. Brunswick 235: Gree nhalgh 1973, 101 fig. 53. Gae be l 2002, 59. See also remarks in Snodgrass 1999 [1967], 45–46. Amyx 1988, 44; Johanse n 1923, pl. 34.1; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.34. Be rlin F1655: Boardman 1998, 200 fig. 401. Boston 63.420: Boardman 1998, 201 fig. 402; Carpe nte r 1991, 227 fig. 326. Baltimore 48.2230: Carpe nte r 1991, 227 fig. 326. Villa Giulia no. 22679: Amyx 1988, 32; Be nson 1989, pl. 20.2 (de tail); Boardman 1998, figs. 178.1–3; Connolly 1998 [1981], 38–39 (restore d de tail); Hurwit 2002 (many pictures); Johanse n 1923, pls. 39–40.

consists of spearmen in bronze armour; some men are naked apart from their cuirass, greaves, and helmet, while others also wear a red tunic. Perhaps for the first time in Korinthian art, all of the men in the battle-scene wear armour, including bronze greaves and bell-shaped cuirasses. In fact, bell-shaped cuirasses are first depicted, as far as I am aware, only in Middle Protokorinthian vase-painting; the same perhaps holds true for greaves, at least as far as the Korinthian material is concerned.507 Furthermore, all of the men carry a set of two spears, one of which is shorter and has a throwing-loop; there is no doubt that this shorter spear is intended to be a javelin. It seems likely that the javelin was thrown during the advance, in the manner of the later Roman pilum. This scene has often been interpreted as a more or less accurate rendering of the Greek phalanx in action. 508 However, if the Chigi olpe shows a phalanx, it is a rather disorganised one, split into distinct groups or lines of men, rather than forming a single block of fighters. Some of the men are still arming themselves at the far left, others hurry to catch up with their comrades. Indeed, ‘one may wonder whether the lines of men in the picture are meant to be strictly single lines at all, rather than schematic depictions of dense clusters of warriors.’509 However, I would suggest that the most natural interpretation of the battle-scene is that we are looking at two forces marching towards each other in ‘waves’, with each ‘wave’ consisting of a number of men formed up more or less line abreast. This is a way of advancing across the battlefield known from at least two passages in the Iliad (see page 166, below). Movement in waves has also been remarked upon by Henk Singor.510 A similar battle-scene as that on the Chigi vase is depicted on a Middle Protokorinthian aryballos (80; plate 26.1).511 Here, groups of men advance and fight, while a few of the warriors have fallen to their knees and are about to get slaughtered by their opposite numbers. This scene incorporates the groups of men familiar from the Chigi olpe and then repeats the motif, creating a somewhat disorganised and perhaps realtistic feel to the proceedings. The motif of the fallen warriors being killed by their foes is also shown on the famous ‘Macmillan’ aryballos, Middle II to Late Protokorinthian, which also includes men engaged in single combat amidst the general mêlée (180; plate 26.2).512 It is similar to the Chigi olpe, showing us what may have happened after the two forces met in battle. None of these vases represent phalanx warfare. Nevertheless, the presence of a flute-player in the battle-scene on the Chigi olpe has been considered as strong evidence for phalanx warfare. In particular, it has

507 508 509 510 511 512

Cf. Jarva 1995, 20–32 (cuirasses) and 84–100 (greaves); Snodgrass 1964b, 84 (with re fe re nces). E.g., Lorime r 1947, 81. Van Wees 1994, 143. Singor 1988, 16–19. Be rlin 3773: Pfuhl 1923, no. 58; Van Wees 2000b, 141 fig. 10. London 1889.4–18.1: Amyx 1988, 31 pls. 11:1a –b; Boardman 1998, 93 figs. 176.1–2; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.24.

111

elicited comparisons with a passage in Thoukydides, description of the Battle of Mantineia (418):

513

namely his

Afte r this the two armies me t, the Argives and the ir allies advancing with great viole nce and fury, while the Spartans came on slowly and to the music of many flute -players in the ir ranks. This custom of the irs has nothing to do with re ligion; it is designe d to make them kee p in ste p and move forward steadily without breaking ranks, as large armies ofte n do whe n they are just about to join battle . (Thouk. 5.70)

However, the flute-player’s function in the battle-scene on the Chigi olpe need not correspond with those of the Spartan pipers in Classical times. The warriors may have advanced into battle singing war-songs, or perhaps they raised a paian (Thoukydides, after all, emphasises that the Spartans used the flute-players for something other than religious purposes). Furthermore, the description in Thoukydides makes clear that this specific use of the flute was something peculiar to the Spartans of his day; the historian’s audience apparently would assume that the flute had some kind of religious or ritual significance. A battle depicted on a fragmentary Middle Protokorinthian I–II aryballos from Perachora features a flute-player at the far-left, out of harm’s way and piping to his heart’s content, while the battle is already in full swing (210; plate 26.3). 514 This battle-scene includes warriors equipped with both Argive and Boiotian shields, and features a solitary archer, crouching in front of the flute-player. One of the enemy warriors is shown at the point of being hit in the shin by an arrow. It seems likely that the vase-painter depicted two distinct phases, namely the advance and the battle itself, at the same time, a common enough feature in Greek vase-painting. Weapons and martial activities in times of peace

The Chigi olpe not only features a battle-scene: it also includes other activities with a martial—and specifically violent—connotation, especially the hunt. The bottom frieze depicts boys hunting hare while a scene on the belly shows young men attacking a lion. An aryballos from Taras (Southern Italy) and dated to Middle Protokorinthian II to Late shows riders accompanied by a dog: presumably a chase (223).515 Hunting on horseback would have provided invaluable riding experience and training. Such activities would also have created and fostered group cohesion. Jeffery Hurwit has argued persuasively that the decoration on the Chigi olpe forms a consistent whole, and that the figured scenes on the pot can be regarded as a kind of manual for young aristocrats. The broad theme of the pot is the agōn, defined by Hurwit as ‘competition, struggle, contest’. The friezes demonstrate the various ‘levels’ a young aristocrat passes through on his way to maturity: the bottom frieze has young boys with short hair hunting hares, while the one on the belly shows mounted youths with long

513 514 515

112

E.g., Anderson 1991, 19. Pe rachora 27: Amyx 1988, 25; Dunbabin 1962, 15–17 pls. 2 and 57; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.23. Taranto 4173: Amyx 1988, 38; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.19.4.

hair, perhaps serving as hippostrophoi (to their fathers?),516 as well as youths hunting lion, while the scene on the shoulder depicts adult men in combat. The hunt serves as practice for actual combat: the boys hunt the harmless hare while the youths take on the fearless lion; the adult men hunt the most dangerous prey of all: other men.517 In short, themes of masculinity and violence dominate in the painted scenes on this vase. Summary of the Korinthian e vide nce

The Argive shield may have been a Korinthian invention, or else it was developed somewhere nearby (perhaps, indeed, in Argos). It appears in the late eighth century and is immediately associated with warriors who generally travel to the battlefield on horseback, accompanied by mounted youths who serve as their attendants. The theme of the hippobatas and hippostrophos is very common in Korinthian art and also encountered in the iconographic evidence from other regions. By the time of the Chigi olpe (c. 640–625), the equipment had become more or less standardised, with warriors fighting in bronze armour (helmet, cuirass, greaves), equipped with Argive shields and one or more spears (sometimes including a javelin). These men must have operated in small groups—warbands—that under certain circumstances perhaps advanced toward the enemy in waves, sometimes to the rhythm of pipe-players. On occasion, such troops were supported by archers, who could also be armoured. iv. Lakonia The most important town of ancient Lakonia was Sparta, whose inhabitants were known in Classical times for their austere and militaristic way of life. However, the iconographic material is similar to that of other regions, with no indications for the existence of the later Spartan military machine. The material includes lead and bronze figurines from sanctuaries and plauqes, as well as pottery. Maria Pipili, in her examination of Lakonian vases, demonstrated that pots made by the five most prolific Lakonian vase-painters have been unearthed at sanctuaries, especially at the Samian Heraion.518 Warriors and the ir wargear

An early conical helmet adorns the clay head of a warrior from the Amyklaion sanctuary; it dates to around 700 (28; plate 27.1).519 The type of helmet is known from other Geometric vase-paintings, such as a fragment of a Late Geometric pot from Hypsele (102),520 as well as material from Eretria.521 More traditional is the depiction of a warrior with Korinthian 516 517 518 519 520 521

Prof. Van Wees suggests that the older me n may have bee n the lovers rather than the fathers of the younge r me n; see e.g. The ognis l. 551 (Kyrnos bridling the horses). Hur wit 2002, 16–19. Pipili 1995, e sp. pp. 85–87 and figs. 8.2 and 8.4. Athe ns: Boardman 1991 [1978], 29 fig. 6. Te le vantou 1993, 197 fig. 6. Gisle r 1995, 72 (he lmet shape ).

113

helmet, Argive shield, and single spear on an early seventh-century ivory seal from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (506; plate 27.2).522 Some of the more detailed lead figurines unearthed at this sanctuary, referred to in chapter 4, depict warriors with greaves, Argive shield, single spear, and Korinthian helmet, such as one fine example of the seventh century (29).523 We have already seen combinations of adult warriors and their younger batmen in Attic and Korinthian art; the hippobatai and hippostrophoi form perhaps the best example of this pairing between older warriors and younger attendants. Young men, perhaps the neoi familiar from Archaic fragments of poetry (see chapter 8), may always have acted as servants or assistants to older men. On a cup dated to between 550 and 540, we see beardless young men, equipped with spears and naked apart from their greaves, carrying the dead bodies of older men (218; plate 27.3),524 perhaps sons carrying their dead father or older brothers,525 although there are other possibilities. Horses and chariots

A number of plaques from Sparta depict horsemen. Not all of these are warriors, such as a plaque unearthed at the sanctuary at Artemis Orthia and dated to the first half of the seventh century (512; plate 28.1).526 However, another plaque from the same sanctuary and dated to the late seventh century shows an hippobatas, equipped with Argive shield and a single, thrusting spear (plate 28.2). 527 Furthermore, at least one hippostrophos observes a battle in a scene on a hydria from perhaps the middle of the sixth century (89; plate 29.1).528 One side of a roughly contemporary amphora features a battle-scene that includes two naked warriors fighting over the body of a fallen comrade; the duel is flanked by mounted youths armed with spears, holding the reigns of their masters’ horses. 529 The so-called Naukratis Painter of the mid-sixth century produced cups with naked youths riding horseback, often accompanied by a winged figure. Maria Pipili connects these to celebrations in honour of Hera, adding that the Naukratis Painter made his wares for a specific market and cult, i.e. Samian Hera.530 Pipili then suggests that other painters, such as the Rider Painter, copied the themes from the Naukratis Painter without properly understanding their original meaning or intend. However, this interpretation seems doubtful. Anton Powell points out that the winged figures indicate that the human characters are somehow heroic; both horses and, in a broader sense, (celebrations of) athleticism are typical of Lakonian

522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530

114

Dawkins 1929, pl. 145.1. Wace 1929, 263 fig. 122.a. Be rlin 3404: Boardman 1998, 210 fig. 428; Se kunda 1998, 19 (fig.); Stibbe 1972, pl. 74. Cf. Van Wees 2007, 110. Dawkins 1929, pl. 104.2. Dawkins 1929, pl. 92.3; Gre e nhalgh 1973, 95 fig. 49. Rhodes 15373: Boardman 1998, 209 fig. 424. Stibbe 1972, pl. 75. Pipili 1995, 93; see also figs. 8.14–8.15 on the same page .

art, and need not have been made for a specific, non-Spartan market at all.531 Furthermore, horsemen were already depicted in Lakonian art in the seventh century, with prodigious amounts of lead horsemen and other warriors unearthed at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (see chapter 4); in addition, the Dioskouroi were worshipped at Sparta and are themselves often shown as riders. Instead, it seems to me that Lakonian painters painted aristocratic themes that also appealed to people in other communities that shared a common ideology; the dedication of Lakonian pottery at Samos comes as no surprise considering the close relationship between Sparta and Samos in the sixth century (see chapter 9). As in Korinth and Athens, scenes of warriors on chariots appear in the later sixth century. Fragments of a large relief vase have been unearthed at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta, in the so-called heroōn (518; plate 29.2).532 Eva Simantoni-Bournia has pointed out how these relief vases often feature detailed narrative and mythological scenes.533 The shoulder of this particular vase depicts a warrior stepping onto a chariot while the driver keeps the horses steady. The driver is equipped with a Korinthian helmet and wears a lion-skin. The warrior carries an Argive shield and wears a Korinthian helmet with raised crest. Greaves are not indicates. He carries what looks like two spears; the pommel of his sword peeps out from behind the rim of his shield. Beneath him, a dog is shown sniffing the ground. The presence of the dog in this case presumably means that the warrior is leaving is house, although it is equally possible that this is a Lakonian example of a war-dog. A battle-scene is depicted on the neck of the vase. Two men are fighting over the body of a fallen warrior. The fallen warrior is naked apart from his bell-shaped cuirass and Korinthian helmet with raised crest; he furthermore has a Boiotian shield, apparently covering his back and perhaps suspended from a telamōn. The position of the shield suggests he is a charioteer. Both of the combatants are naked apart from their bell-shaped cuirasses and Korinthian helmets; they fight using a single thrusting spear each. The figure on the left carries an Argive shield while the figure on the right is also equipped with Boiotian shield, greaves, and thigh-guards. The scene is flanked by two other figures: to the left, an archer; to the right, a figure wearing an animal-skin (lion, leopard?) and equipped with a Korinthian helmet. This latter warrior also holds a stone in his raised right hand and carries a sword. Apart from the figure with the thigh-guards, none of the warriors are equipped with greaves. We have earlier discussed scenes with chariots on sixth-century Korinthian vases that were perhaps influenced by Attic pots and therefore deliberately archaising or Atticising (or both). Certain details in this Lakonian scene suggest that chariots were perhaps still used in combat in the later sixth century. If the fallen figure is intended to be a charioteer, it makes sense that the shield was strapped to his back (and the scallops cut 531 532 533

See Powe ll 1998 passim. Dawkins 1929, pls. 15 (photo) and 16 (drawing). Re fer to Simantoni-Bournia 2004.

115

from the sides would have afforded him so elbow room). The thigh guards on one of the figures in the scene suggests that he was the chariot’s passenger; after all, one cannot ride a horse when equipped with thigh guards. The scene can thus be interpreted as a realistic battle over the right figure’s fallen charioteer. Warships and naval combat

A large number of ivory and bone plaques have been unearthed at Sparta, especially at the sanctuary to Artemis Orthia. Among the most impressive is a votive plaque of the late seventh century showing a scene with a warship (513; plate 30.1).534 Round, Argive shields are suspended from the side of the ship; three figures, one with a helmet with raised crest, are at the oars. Three other figures are busy with the sail. One man, located in the forecastle, has just hooked a fish, while another squats on the forefoot to defecate. At the stern, a man bids a woman farewell; she clasps his wrist and shoulder. The woman is clothed, while all of the men whose bodies are visible are naked. This is clearly a departure scene (possibly the abduction of Helen by Paris?), and the use of a warship loaded with warriors—who also served as rowers, apparently—suggests that these men are about to go on an expedition for plunder. Somewhat earlier is an engraved fibula from Sparta that depicts the start of a battle at sea (505; plate 30.2).535 The left-hand vessel has a straight keel and forefoot. The right-hand vessel has a rounded bottom. Both contain a set of three warriors wearing plumed helmets, and equipped with Dipylon-shields and long pikes (the naumacha xusta familiar from Homer and used since at least Late Helladic IIIC). Small heads indicate the presence of oarsmen on both vessels. This is a rare type of scene and demonstrates that raiders on warships did not limit their attacks to coastal towns, but also attacked other vessels. While attacks on merchant vessels are perhaps to be expected, the large number of oarsmen and the presence of warriors suggests that these are, in fact, two rival warships engaged in a battle on open sea. Summary of the Lakonian e vide nce

The Lakonian evidence is more similar to the Korinthian material than the Attic, suggesting Peloponnesian regional characteristics. The panoply familiar from the Korinthian artefacts is quickly adopted in Lakonia, consisting of bronze Korinthian helmet, bronze bell-shaped cuirass, bronze greaves, Argive shield, and one or more spears (single spears are by far the most common, however). We also encounter seventh-century Lakonian examples of the hippobatas and hippostrophos. In addition, some evidence attests to the continued importance of naval activities, including possible seaborne raids and warfare at sea. Along with the use of well-arrayed, mounted troops this suggests that in Lakonia, too, armies consisted of small warbands. 534 535

116

No w in Athe ns: Dawkins 1929, pl. 109; Hampe & Simon 1980, 223 fig. 358. Louvre : Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.h; Hagy 1986, 227–229.

v. The Argolid Two important aristocratic themes are attested in the Argive Geometric material, namely horses and ships. A Late Geometric II fragment of locally-made pottery found at Argos combines the two elements by showing a ship with two rowers and a horse that appears to stand at the bow.536 A restored Late Geometric amphora from the Heraion near Argos shows a diminutive rider on horseback (103; plate 31.1).537 Particularly common in the Argolid are pots decorated with the motif of the ‘horse-leader’, a male figure leading two horses (a chariot team?) by the reins (107).538 The horse-leader also appears on a globular oinochoe from Argos, dated to Middle Geometric II to start of Late Geometric I, where he is positioned between the tail-ends of two confronting galleys (106).539 In tomb T45, a well-known Late Geometric grave from Argos, excavators unearthed two iron firedogs in the shape of galleys, complete with ‘horn’, ‘scorpion’s tail’, and forefoot.540 In our discussion on this grave in the earlier chapter on burials with arms, we have noted that the deceased was both a warrior and a ship-owner, and that the firedogs themselves link him to feasting. Perhaps the warrior buried in T45 organised feasts whenever he wanted to mount a new naval expedition, in a manner familiar from the Odyssey (refer to the chapter on the Homeric epics). Distinctly Argive are two fragmentary votive shields from Tiryns that are dated to the Late Geometric period, but are vaguely Orientalising in style. One set depicts a figure equipped with some sort of body protection, perhaps leather padding (445; plate 31.2).541 His scabbard is visible, with the sword drawn and brandished in the left hand; similar scabbards are known from elsewhere, for example a fragment from a relief vase from Naxos of the second quarter of the seventh century. 542 His right hand grips a small single-grip shield and two spears. The second set of fragments depicts a battle between four figures, the central two possibly representing Achilleus and the Amazon queen Penthesilea (446; plate 31.3).543 These central figures do not use shields, whereas the figures on the flanks wield smallish hollow shields. The figure on the left and Penthesilea are using spears whereas Achilleus brandishes a sword (his scabbard, suspended from a band around the neck and shoulder, is clearly indicated). Interestingly, the helmets shown on these votive shields are perhaps Kegelhelmen, the same type that was also unearthed in the roughly contemporary tomb T45 at Argos. Other figurative art in the Argolid reveals developments very similar to those in Korinth and other regions in the Peloponnese. From Kameiros on 536 537 538

539 540 541 542 543

Tzahou-Ale xandri 1987, 339–340 and 343 with 360–161 figs. 23–24. Courbin 1966, pl. 8; Waldste in 1905, 117 fig. 42. E.g., Argos C.201: Boardman 1985 [1964], 28 fig. 17; Boardman 1998, 72 figs. 127.1-–2; Courbin 1966, pls. 43–45 and 113. On the motif of the horse -leade r, see also Langdon 1989. Pappi 2006, 233 figs. 2–5. Coldstream 1977, 146–147 fig. 47c; Connolly 1998 [1981], 263 (fig.). Greenhalgh 1973, 69 fig. 42. Simantoni-Bournia 2004, pl. 56 no. 138. Greenhalgh 1973, 68 fig. 41; Von Bothme r 1957, pls. 1a–b.

117

Rhodes we have to so-called ‘Euphorbos Plate’, probably Argive to judge by its inscription,544 and dated to the end of the seventh century (222; plate 32.1).545 The figures are all labelled: Hektor and Menelaos fight over the corpse of Euphorbos. Hektor is equipped with a Korinthian helmet, greaves, and bell-shaped cuirass; his Argive shield features a blazon in the shape of a bird. Menelaos and Euphorbos have similar equipment, except that their helmets are darker and feature stilted crests. Such scenes suggest the power of single combat as a symbol, perhaps as the truest test of a man’s warrior prowess. vi. Elis A large number of bronze figurines have been unearthed at the Panhellenic sanctuary of Olympia, 546 as well as Delphoi; 547 far fewer have been discovered at other sites.548 Most of these figurines were probably made elsewhere, but the Olympian examples will be discussed here, as the original place of manufacture is often difficult to trace. The warrior-figurines of the tenth to eighth centuries have been studied extensively by Michael Byrne. Byrne observes that male figurines are more common than female.549 Most of the warrior figurines discussed by him are in a so-called ‘smiting’ position, right arm raised and poised to strike with a spear; they are naked and frequently equipped with a single-grip shield. Byrne interprets the warrior-figurines as gods, adding that the god in question at Olympia was Zeus, while different gods are supposedly represented by the figurines in Delphoi. The fact that these ‘gods’ are often equipped with helmets and shield, and also use spears rather than their more usual attributes, such as the lightning bolt (Zeus) or trident (Poseidon), are explained away by Byrne, who cites Pindaros to support the idea of Zeus being represented by what looks to me like a mortal spearman.550 The idea that these warrior figurines all represent gods seems to me unconvincing. They nevertheless do seem to offer a glimpse into what a contemporary warrior may have looked like: naked apart from a belt, and usually equipped with helmet, shield, and spear. A large number of bronze relief panels have been unearthed in Olympia that once decorated the inside of Argive shields. Most of these date to the second half of the sixth and first half of the fifth centuries.551 One of the earliest examples, dated to the end of the seventh century, is a damaged

544 545 546 547 548

549 550 551

118

Boardman 1998, 143. London 1860.4-4.1: Boardman 1998, 154 fig. 290; Carpe nter 1991, 221 fig. 311; Snodgrass 1998, 105 fig. 42. Furtwangler 1967; He ilme ye r 1942. Pe rdrize t 1908; Rolle y 1969. Ge neral studies and catalogues include the following: Charbonneaux 1958; Comstock & Verme ule 1971; De Ridde r 1896; Lamb 1969; Laumonier 1956; Mulle r 1929; Nicholls 1970; Sarian 1969. Byrne 1991, 48–49. He does not distinguish betwee n the diffe re nt characters of the votive offerings in De lphoi and Olympia, cf. Morgan 1990, 139–141. Byrne 1991, 55–56 and summary on p. 205. Kunze 1950, 231 and 242–243.

panel featuring a departure scene (469).552 A warrior, perhaps Hektor, says goodbye to a woman with a child on her shoulders, probably Andromache and Astyanax. The warriors wears a tunic and is furthermore equipped with a bell-shaped cuirass, Korinthian helmet, and greaves; he also brandishes a sword. His driver is also equipped with a bell-shaped cuirass. Depictions of chariots otherwise appear to be rare on the shield-band panels. Most instead focus on a particular action, often with a violent connotation, between two or more participants. One panel from about 580 shows Aias grabbing Kassandra by the arm while she tries to seek refuge at the feet of a statue representing the goddess Athena (472).553 Aias is naked apart from his cuirass and helmet; he is equipped with a sword. A battle scene is found on another panel that depicts Achilleus fighting Penthesileia, dated to around 550 (477).554 While Penthesileia is clothed, Achilleus is nude apart from his cuirass, greaves, and helmet. These male figures all recall the semi-nude fighters from the Korinthian Chigi olpe. Of particular interest is a panel depicting two Achaian warriors finding the body of Aias after he has committed suicide (474; plate 32.2).555 Aias is face-down on the ground, his body run through by his own sword. Like Aias, the two warriors are naked: the only piece of equipment that they carry around is their sword. This suggests that while clothing was perhaps optional in Archaic Greece, one’s sword was not! In fact, of all the weapons depicted in the shield-band panels, swords appear to be the most common. Even in situations where a warrior attacks with another weapon, the sword is often clearly present at his side. A good example is a panel depicting Orestes attacking Aigisthos, dated around 575 (471).556 Aigisthos, an older, clothed man, is shown sitting on the throne of Mykenai and in the process of drawing his own sword, while Orestes, young and naked, rushes toward with a spear, his sword still in its scabbard at his side. vii. Discussion of the Southern mainland Greek material The evidence shows that there was a considerable amount of diversity with regards to warriors in Late Geometric art: we have men with and without shields, fighting with spears or swords, or indeed bow and arrow, rarely riding horseback and more commonly associated with chariots, fighting on land or indeed on or around ships. The battles appear to be mostly close-ranged affairs fought between small and mobile groups of men; archers are rare and usually act in a supporting role, like modern-day snipers. With the introduction of the double-grip Argive shield, possibly first in Korinth, warriors slowly become more uniform. The first half of the seventh century is clearly a period of transition, demonstrated by Korinthian figured

552 553 554 555 556

Olympia Olympia Olympia Olympia Olympia

B103: Carpente r 1991, 181 fig. 268. B1802e : Carpe nte r 1991, 232 fig. 337 B1555b: Carpe nte r 1991, 225 fig. 320. B1636x: Carpe nter 1991, 229 fig. 331. B1802: Carpente r 1991, 246 fig. 353.

119

scenes and Boiotian fibulae that combine bronze armour and Argive shields with Dipylon shields and nudity. The oblong and convex version of the Dipylon shield is preserved as a double-grip variant, the Boiotian shield, which continued in use down to perhaps the fifth century. Both clothing and cuirass appear to be optional for much of the seventh century; the Chigi olpe is the first in which all of the warriors wear a cuirass, but even so, only some of the men also wear tunics. Nevertheless, warriors on foot almost invariably use Argive shields and spears (sometimes a set of two, which occassionally consists clearly of a long lance and a shorter javelin). Depictions of naked men make it clear that swords, even though seldom shown in all-out battle-scenes, are the most personal weapon that an eighthand seventh-century man has. In Geometric art, chariots are used as vehicles to transport warriors, especially of the Dipylon variety, to and on the battlefield. Chariots virtually disappear altogether from battle-contexts in the seventh century, having been replaced by the hippobatas and hippostrophos pair so common in Korinthian art from the late eighth century and soon encountered elsewhere. In fact, hippobatai are common in the art of Korinth, the islands, and some other regions that we can safely say that the horse is much a part of certain seventh-century warriors’ panoplies as are their shields, greaves, and helmets! Warriors appear to have operated in small bands throughout the seventh century; horses would have made surprise attacks, ambushes, and overland raids relatively easy. In some cases, as on the Chigi olpe, the men may have banded together and marched more or less in a single line, advancing toward the enemy in waves. One could regard this as a natural first step toward something like the Classical phalanx, for which the Attic evidence provides some circumstantial support from the late sixth century onwards. By then, Athens at least appears to have had a larger, more centrally-organised army, in which trumpet signals were used to convey a commander’s orders (voice alone was apparently no longer sufficient). Unfortunately, there is no iconographic evidence for the rest of the southern mainland in the late sixth century to give an idea about how widespread this development may have been. b. Central Greece Figurative art from Central Greece that provides insights into aspects of warfare has been found in Boiotia, Phokis, Thessaly, and Epeiros. The evidence is diverse, including pottery, engravings on fibulae (brooches), bronze figurines, and even the remains of a wall-painting from the sanctuary at Kalapodi. i. Boiotia Boiotian Geometric vases tend to be very similar to Attic ones. An important Boiotian artefact is a Late Geometric kantharos that depicts a helmeted

120

Dipylon warrior equipped with a bow (166; plate 33.1).557 The object was found at Vougliameni in Attika. The fact that this warrior is equipped with a Dipylon shield, which is commonly associated with chariots, suggests that he is of relatively high status. If this interpretation is correct, this would lend further support to the earlier suggestion that at least some of the archers in the period preceding the Persian Wars were culled from the upper echelons of society. A battle-scene is depicted on a Boiotian Subgeometric vase of the early seventh century (170; plate 33.2).558 A warrior with round shield engages in single combat with a warrior carrying an oblong Dipylon shield with pronounced rim, while a third warrior with a square shield and a spear held overhand is carried off on a chariot. Scenes like these, in which chariots are shown within the context of a battle, are rare, but they clearly demonstrate that these vehicles were used as a means of transportation for warriors with shields. It also demonstrates that chariot-borne warriors could be equipped with any type of shield. An important source of information are engraved fibulae of the seventh century that have been unearthed in Boiotia. A few of these fibulae clearly depict mythical scenes. One shows a Wooden Horse (horse on wheels) on one side, and a number of warriors and a chariot on the other (461; plate 33.3).559 Another, of Boiotian make but found in Krete, shows Siamese twins, presumably Aktorione-Molione engaged in single combat (459).560 The reverse shows a warship with an archer at either end, perhaps engaged in a kind of ‘archery duel’, although it may simply—as suggested earlier—be a stylised rendering of a long-ranged engagement. Other scenes are not clearly based on myth and may reflect contemporary events. One such fibula depicts chariots on one side and a warship with warriors; an unarmed lookout is depicted in the crow’s nest (462; plate 34.1).561 Interestingly, it also features a ship transporting a horse; the horse may have been taken along by a warrior for use in combat (as hippobatas?), or it may have been part of the spoils of war obtained during a seaborne raid. A similar scene with a horse aboard a ship is also known from Argive pottery. Another specimen depicts an (unarmed?) horseman riding down a foe while the reverse shows two warriors engaged in single combat: one of these figures wields both sword and spear (460; plate 34.2).562 Some of these Boiotian scenes feature warriors with relatively ‘modern’ Argive shields, although their helmets are of the plumed variety familiar from Geometric painted scenes. The last example discussed above shows men whose bodies are covered by a scale pattern (no doubt an abstraction rather than a representation of full-body scale or mail corslets), apart from their lower legs (greaves?); they also wear Korinthian helmets, yet the figure 557 558 559 560 561 562

He ide lbe rg G60: CVA Ge rmany 27, pl. 1313.8. Greenhalgh 1973, 13 fig. 4. Hampe 1936, pls. 2–3. Boardman 1985 [1964], 29 fig. 19; Hampe 1936, pl. 14; Snodgrass 1998, 32 fig. 12 (de tail of twin). Be rlin Antiquarium 31013a: Hampe 1936, pl. 4. Athe ns 12341: Hampe 1936, pl. 15.

121

fighting with both sword and spear recalls similar individuals from Attic Geometric vase-painting. The ships, too, with their warriors and even, in one instance, a horse are suggestive of seaborne raids. There are also a few detailed Boiotian figurines and figure groups. One example is a terracotta group of a four-horse chariot from Boiotia, dated to the fifth century (4; plate 34.3).563 The warrior wears a crested helmet, possibly of Korinthian type, and carries an Argive shield on his left arm. His driver carries a Boiotian, or possibly Dipylon-shield, slung around the back. The cut-out scallops in the sides of the shield leave plenty of ‘elbow-room’ (literally) for the charioteer to manoeuvre the reins. This group neatly corresponds with similar depictions on vases that show charioteers with their shields strapped behind their backs. ii. Phokis Recently discovered wall-fragments from a temple at Kalapodi in Phokis depict a number of warriors, apparently equipped and arrayed in a manner very similar to that found in the Chigi olpe’s battle-scene (74; plate 35.1).564 The scene is roughly contemporary and demonstrates that both the equipment used and the style of fighting were clearly not peculiar to Korinth in the second half of the seventh century, but also practiced elsewhere in the Aegean (see also my remarks on a Lydian silver alabastron, further below). iii. Thessaly Famous is the warrior figurine from Karditsa (Thessaly), 565 dated to around 700 (45; plate 35.2). It gives a vivid idea of what contemporary warriors may have looked like, and it helps us interpret Geometric vase-paintings. The male figure is nude apart from a thick belt at his waist. He wears a cap with a raised part (plume?) at its centre. A dipylon-type shield, more or less round with the characteristic scallops cut from the side, is slung around his back and suspended from a thin telamōn. He once held a spear overhead in his right hand, but the weapon has since been lost. This figurine provides clear evidence of what warriors looked like in the flesh at the very end of the eighth century. iv. Epeiros At the important sanctuary at Dodona (Epeiros) a number of well-made sixth-century figurines have been found. One of them is a warrior in a walking pose; his (raised) crest, shield, and spear have been lost, but his tunic, helmet, and bell-shaped cuirass are well preserved (19; plate 35.3).566 Especially detailed is the figurine of a warrior in fighting pose, dated to

563 564 565 566

122

Athe ns 4082: Crouwe l 1992, pl. 5.2; Gree nhalgh 1973, 29 fig. 20; Van Wees 2004, pl. 22. Whitley et al. 2007, 42 fig. 50. Athe ns Br. 12831: Boardman 1991 [1978], 29 fig. 7; Buchholz & Wiesne r 1977, pls. 13.a–b; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 16; Thomas 1992, 52 fig. 35. Ioannina muse um: Se kunda 1998, 58 (figs.).

around 500 (21).567 The stance of the warrior ought to be familiar from the vase-paintings discussed in the previous chapter. Hans van Wees has convincingly argued that this was the typical pose adopted during combat, a sideways-on stance, ‘like fencers’, in which a man’s entire body was essentially protected by his shield.568 The warrior is clothed and equipped with Boiotian shield, crested Korinthian helmet, greaves, and once held a spear (now missing) in his raised right hand. v. Discussion of the Central Greek material The material from Central Greece for the most part contributes to what we have already gleaned. The figurine from Karditsa gives a good idea of what the silhouettes in Geometric art, including the early seventh-century Boiotian fibula-engravings, are supposed to look like. The wall-painting from Kalapodi shows that the mode of fighting and equipment depicted on the Chigi olpe was not limited to Korinth, but also in use further north and at around the same time. As pointed out by Hans van Wees, the figurine from Dodona, combined with the two-dimensional evidence that we have surveyed, gives a good idea of the stance in which warriors with Argive shields stood when fighting. I would add that this particular stance allows for quick movements and, in my opinion, precludes the use of static formations. This battle stance, which seems to me to require considerable space, suggests that these men fought in small and mobile groups of men (warbands). c. Euboia and the islands of the Central Aegean There was a considerable degree of mobility between the islands of the Central Aegean, including both the Cyclades and the large island of Euboia, so that they may be usefully considered part of the same relatively closely-knit cultural region. i. Euboia The Late Geometric iconographic evidence from Euboia consists mostly of vase-painting, in which three themes are particularly important, namely horses, fighting, and ships. All three themes, as in the material from other regions, underscore the martial prowess and status of those who used and procured these objects. The material can also be fruitfully compared with the Late Helladic IIIC evidence discussed in chapter 2, which features similar themes, especially regarding ships and fighting. One of the earliest depictions of warriors after the twelfth century is a scene on the shoulder of a Middle Protogeometric hydria (190).569 The scene is faint, but they appear to be engaged in some sort of duel, perhaps again a stylised representation of some sort of long-ranged battle. The head of at least one figure is surrounded by dots, perhaps indicating a helmet. We

567 568 569

Be rlin: Thomas 1992, 72 fig. 57; Van Wees 2000b, 130 fig. 6 and 135 fig. 8.c. Van Wees 2004, 168–169. Boardman 1998, 20 fig. 15 (de tail of shoulder).

123

know that Eretrian warriors are sometimes depicted with conical helmets,570 which are also known from other regions, including Lakonia and other islands. As regards close-ranged fighters, a unique set of Late Geometric fragments from Lefkandi depicts what look like an armoured hippobatas and hippostrophos.571 This is a very rare and early representation of a hippobatas if correctly interpreted. The Late Protogeometric ‘Dirmil’ krater features a ship with a vaguely rounded keel (75; plate 36.1),572 probably Wedde’s straight-keeled variety of warship.573 Somewhat later is the Subprotogeometric piece of krater wall from Lefkandi that shows the front section of a warship (192).574 It has the acutely vertical prow and relatively short forefoot characteristic of Bronze-Age galleys, but the ‘horn’ above the short forecastle is somewhat swept back and more typical of later Iron-Age galleys. A similar rendition of such a galley is found on a pyxis unearthed in the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi, dated to Early Subprotogeometric III (191; plate 36.2).575 This ship contains a number of tall spears, propped up against the stern’s ‘tail’ and presumably to be equated with the naumacha xusta known from Homer (Il. 15.387 and 677). Depictions of horses include many scenes in which these animals are depicted in peaceful surroundings (e.g. at the manger, grazing, and so forth).576 These representations porbably show the good care that was taken by their aristocratic owners, known from later written sources as the hippeis (‘riders’) and hippobotai (‘horse-rearers’). These men may have engaged in raids on horseback, but the scenes with ships also suggest seaborne raids, possibly (amphibious) surprise attacks and battles at sea. Furthermore, these men honed their skills by taking part in martial sports. A Geometric amphora from Eretria depicts men jumping on or off chariots, a dangerous form of entertainment later known as apobatai (188).577 ii. Skyros From Skyros, we have a fibulae discovered in a Late Geometric grave at Themis (526; plate 36.3).578 One side shows a horse, as well as a human figure equipped with Dipylon-shield and spear. The position of the figure and the indication of reins leave little doubt that the warrior is actually riding the horse, making this the only depiction—as far as I am aware—of a warrior with a Dipylon-shield on horseback. Further elements suggests that he is near the battle, as indicated by the spear set upright in front of the horse and a small arrow inscribed beneath the animal. The reverse shows 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578

124

Re fer to Gisler 1995; see p. 60 fig. 11 for an e xample . Popham, Sacke tt, & The me lis 1980, pl. 54 no. 259. Doorninck 1982, 278–279 figs. 2–3; Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.a. See also Crie laard 1996, 318–319. Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.c; Crie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2f; Popham-et-al 1979-80, pl. 284.11. Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.b; Crie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2g; Popham 1987, 357 fig. 4. E.g., the Late Geome tric ovoid krate r de picte d in Coldstream 1991, 41 fig. 14. Crouwe l 2006b, 167 fig. 6. Sapouna-Sake llaraki 2002, 145 fig. 16.

part of a warship with a Dipylon-warrior, who is apparently about to get struck in the back of the head by not one, but two arrows. Warriors are also depicted on Late Geometric gold sheet. A gold band from Skyros that is Eretrian in type depicts warriors with Dipylon shields, helmets, and spears. The same matrix was also used for hammering out other items in gold (such as sheet decoration for chests), as well as another band made of electrum.579 The use of warriors as a decorative element in expensive ornaments and jewellery—a fibula, gold sheet used for bands, chests, and so forth—testify to the importance of warfare as a symbol, as an important aspect in the creation of identities of certain high-ranking groups of people in Late Geometric Skyros. iii. Paros In Paroikia, the capital of the island of Paros, a cemetery has been excavated that has yielded some remarkable material. The cemetery is located near the harbour of the ancient city. Two big cist graves were unearthed that contained about 160 vases filled with the burnt remains of men; these men were probably killed in battle. Among them were found two neck amphorae decorated with figured scenes in a Late Geometric style. Both of these amphorae depict scenes of battle involving different kinds of warriors. One vase is dated stylistically to the end of the eighth century; the other may well be older by a generation or more.580 On the older pot,581 we have a very dynamic representation of a battle in full swing (218; plate 37.1). Placed centrally is a warrior standing in a chariot. Approaching from the right is a warrior with round shield. He seems to grab one of the chariot’s horses by the reins; his other arm is raised, aiming either a spear or slingshot at the warrior in the chariot. Behind the chariot are two corpses, as well as a grazing stag, which perhaps indicates the setting of the scene or suggests that the battle takes place somewhere inland (i.e. not on a beach, or perhaps not even on the island). Further to the left is a warrior with Dipylon shield, who is ready to cut down with his giant sword an unarmed foe to his right. Still more to the left is a second chariot, --to judge from the position of the helmetless charioteer-- driving in full speed in the same direction as the first chariot. Two horse riders seem to follow in pursuit; one is beating the hind end of his horse with a baton, the other --round shield on the body-- raises his spear. Turned to the other side and facing the first chariot is a group of three helmeted horsemen; all three horses are rearing. Most warriors wear helmets with raised crests. The three warriors that are equipped with a shield, carry it on their bodies, leaving their hands free. All in all, this amphora depicts a very vivid and perhaps specific scene of combat. It shows a combination of warriors on foot, chariots, slingers, and horsemen. On the younger pot (219),582 we see a violent engagement in which again 579 580 581 582

Tre iste r and Hargrave 2001, 12 (with re fere nces) and 403 fig. 3. Zaphiropoulou 2006, 276. Zaphiropoulou 2002, pl. 76A; Zaphiropoulou 2006, 272 figs. 1–4 and 275 fig. 11. Zaphiropoulou 2002, pls. 76B–D; Zaphiropoulou 2006, 273 figs. 5–8 and 274 fig. 9

125

a variety of different types of fighters is involved. The central position in this scene is taken by a fallen, naked warrior. To the left appear two archers, six horsemen and three warriors on foot carrying round shields; one of the horsemen is protected by a round shield suspended from a telamōn (plate 37.2). The archers fire arrows over the corpse of the fallen warrior toward a group of three men equipped with slings; behind them are two warriors with round shields (a cross-hatched pattern suggests they are made of wicker). Zaphiropoulou plausibly suggests that the battle-scene depicts the violent and noble death of the warrior; however, the shoulder does not show the fight over his corpse (this is already shown on the belly), but rather warriors carrying him off the battlefield. The neck does depict his prothesis or lying in state, ‘before the final act of cremation.’583 The burnt remains of the warrior were placed in this pot, which commemorated his moment of glory, and then buried. Complex scenes of this type are very rare on Geometric pottery. The manufacture of the two amphorae is separated in time by perhaps one generation, but both seem to depict specific (historical?) events, and maybe even specific people. The younger pot clearly renders a single event in three successive scenes. Other indications that we are not dealing with scenes of a generic character are the variety of atypical warriors on both amphorae, as well as unique elements, such as the mourning figure touching the head of the fallen warrior with an arrow in the prothesis scene on the younger pot. If this conclusion is warranted, these pots present important testimony of fighting in this part of the world during the eighth century. Quite unusual is the appearance of chariots within a battle context, although they are not engaged in actual combat, but seemingly fleeing from the action. The horsemen actually fight on horse back, some with spears and at least one with a sword. Although apparently not yet of Argive type, their shields show that the round form offered the proper protection for warriors fighting on horseback. The scene on the belly of the younger amphora also gives us an impression of how warbands operating on the islands looked like: a mixed lot that might include bowmen or slingers, as well as warrior on foot and on horseback. iv. Andros From Zagora, we have some Late Geometric pottery depicting warriors of familiar type. A krater with three friezes depicts a procession, consisting of chariots with drivers, warriors with round shields on foot and equipped with two spears each; the lower register depicts riders with round shields and whips.584 The shields may have been made of wicker, although the striped pattern may also indicate wood or some other material. These riders with shields are probably not hippobatai, but men who may have fought from horseback, after the Eastern fashion. A fragment depicts a warrior with round shield, set of twin spears, and equipped with a conical helmet with

583 584

126

(de tail of prothesis sce ne ). Zaphiropoulou 2006, 275. Cambitoglou 1988, pl. 199.

plume. 585 Material from Hypsele, 586 as well as Eretria, is similar, with warriors equipped with conical helmets. v. Melos One side of the neck of a wide-mouthed vessel from the island of Melos depicts single combat between two warriors (221; plate 38.1).587 The vase has been dated to the last quarter of the seventh century. The warriors are equipped with greaves and Argive shields. One wears an open-faced helmet with stilted crest and bellshaped cuirass, sword at waist. The other is equipped with a Korinthian—or possibly Ionian?—helmet. Both men fight using single spears, held overhead. The duel is flanked by women. On the ground in between the combatants is the prize that they are apparently fighting for: a bell-shaped cuirass flanked by greaves and topped by a Korinthian helmet. The scene clearly depicts some sort of formal or ritualised martial conflict, not a duel between rival warriors on the field of battle.588 vi. Mykonos A large, fragmentary pithos has been discovered at Mykonos, dated to the late seventh century (520; plate 38.2); 589 it is part of the so-called Tenian-Boiotian group of relief pithoi. The scene on the neck gives a vivid impression of the Wooden Horse, filled with armed Achaians, some of whom have left the safety of their ‘hollow ambush’. They are equipped with helmets and Argive shields. The body of the pithos has various panels showing the death and destruction wrought on the Trojan inhabitants once the Achaians have flooded through the Trojan gates. In her study of this vase, Susanne Ebbinghaus makes a strong case for interpreting it as a statement regarding the military obligations of the rich. Important within the context of the vase’s scenes is a fallen warrior, whom she plausibly regards as the Trojan hero Hektor. Ebbinghaus concludes, ‘The interconnection of a man’s prowess in battle, his standing in the community and his wealth, which we find expressed in early Greek poetry, explains why a pithos was felt to be the appropriate place to advertise the importance of leadership by illustrating the suffering of a city that had lost its protector.’590 vii. Thasos The island of Thasos was conquered by settlers from Paros, so that it may be considered connected to the Cyclades in a cultural sense. Fragments of a

585 586 587 588 589 590

Cambitoglou 1988, pl. 151.d. Te le vantou 1993, 197 fig. 6. Athe ns 911: Boardman 1985 [1964], 47 fig. 42; Boardman 1998, 128–129 figs. 250.1–2; Osborne 1998, 62 fig. 27. The latte r contra Osborne 1998, 62–63. Mykonos muse um: Boardman 1985 [1964], 50 fig. 46 (de tail); Osborne 1998, 54 fig. 25; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 33. Ebbinghaus 2005, 68–69.

127

plate found at Thasos and dated to the late seventh century depicts a bearded man, clad in a tunic and riding a horse; a second horse is also indicated and it seems, to judge from the raised left hand, that the rider is holding the reigns of this second horse (229; plate 38.3).591 The fragments do not reveal whether the figure is accompanied by a dismounted warrior, but the scene is similar enough to Korinthian examples to identify it as another instance of the hippobatas and hippostrophos theme, or indeed a variation thereof (since the hippostrophos—if we may call him that—is clearly not a naked a beardless youth). viii. Discussion of the material from the islands Oddly enough, considering space is limited on the islands (with the obvious exception of Euboia), chariots, horses, and horse-riding, are just as common in the iconographic material from the Central Aegean as they are in the Peloponnese. Horse-riding, feasting, fighting, and ships appear to have been just as important on the islands as elsewhere in the Aegean, at least as far as the material evidence goes for the eighth, seventh, and early sixth centuries. Equipment used is similar, too, although the dynamic Geometric scenes from Paros also add slingers to the different types of fighters and conical helmets were used in Zagora, Hypsele, and Eretria. d. East Greece (Western Asia Minor and off-shore islands) The present subsection discusses material from Western Asia Minor, as well as the islands lying off its coast (Chios, Samos), often referred to collectively as ‘East Greece’. This region segues into Asia and it is generally useless to set any hard and fast boundaries, especially as many of the ostensib ly Greek towns in Asia Minor usually had ethnically diverse populations. More will be said on the difficulty of distinguishing ‘Greek’ from ‘Asian’—and the futility of trying to do so—a little later on in this chapter. i. Lemnos The so-called Lemnos stele (493; plate 39.1), discovered in the nineteenth century embedded within the wall of a local church, once served as a grave marker in the sixth century. The inscription itself is written in Lemnian, using letters that are related to the Phrygian alphabet (similar to Greek); the language itself now thought to be closely related to Etruscan.592 It features the upper part of a warrior, equipped with shield and a single, thrusting spear. The basic equipment of shield and spear is thus clearly not limited to regions that were linguistically or culturally Greek, a point that I shall return to in our discussion of evidence from Lydia and other Asian regions, toward the end of this chapter. ii. Klazomenai In the period from 530 down to the 470s, the people of Klazomenai, a Greek 591 592

128

Boardman 1998, 131 fig. 255. Boardman 1999 [1964], 85–86.

city on the west coast of Asia Minor, buried their dead in painted sarcophagi. Some of these feature warriors and battle-scenes. One example shows two warriors walking from either end of a panel toward a winged female figure in the centre (492),593 possibly the goddess Athena. The two warriors wear tunics, linen corslets, and greaves; they are also equipped with Korinthian helmets and swords. Each warrior leads a horse by the reins and is accompanied by a dog. The iconography, incorporating high-status motifs such as horses, dogs, and well-equipped warriors, makes clear that the deceased was undoubtedly a member of the aristocracy. A fragment from another sarcophagus shows us part of an actual battle, where at least one warrior is accompanied by a hippostrophos as well as a dog (485; plate 39.2).594 The two warriors are equipped with Argive shields, single spears (although their left hands cannot be seen), and tunics (no body-armour); one warrior has greaves and a Korinthian helmet with regular crest, while the other lacks greaves and wears an Ionian helmet with stilted crest. There was thus ample room for variation in the kit that warriors used. A sarcophagus dated to the early fifth century shows a clash between Greek warriors and Persian horsemen; again, the horses are accompanied by dogs (491).595 The evidence of the sarcophagi suggest that in Asia Minor, dogs were used in actual combat, a point made by Cook.596 In other regions in the Aegean basin, dogs are frequently associated with warriors and horses, 597 but they never actually appear to take part in any of the fighting.598 War-dogs thus emerge as a feature peculiar to East Greece. iii. Smyrna Fragments from a krater depict a battle-scene that includes warriors and a possible chariot, dated to 640–630.599 Of the latter, only the two heads and reigns are visible, so they might also be a combination of hippostrophos and hippobatas, or a youth holding the reigns of his master’s horse. The warriors are equipped with Argive shields, greaves, and single thrusting spears (held overhand). Their helmets are difficult to interpret, they could be either some sort of caps or possibly early examples of Ionian helmets. These fragments have been discovered in the temple of Athena. At the same site, a number of fragments of votive Argive shields have also been unearthed that date to the end of the seventh century.600 These all appear to feature abstract blazons. A better preserved votive shield, also from the temple is dated to 575–550.601 It features a very large central handle on the inside and is decorated with two goats on the outside. Fragments of similar 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601

Be rlin 4824: Boardman 1998, 174 fig. 354. London 1886.13–26.1: Boardman 1998, 174 fig. 353. London: Gree nhalgh 1973, 144 fig. 77. E.g., London 96.6-15.1: Cook 1981, pls. 39–46 (G1); Gree nhalgh 1973, 144 fig. 77. E.g., Ne w York 41.85: Beazle y 1956, 283 no. 13; Boardman 1991 [1974], 130 fig. 196. See also Forster 1941. Akurgal 1983, pl. 109.a. Akurgal 1983, pls. 109.b–d. Akurgal 1983, pls. 111.a–b.

129

shields, including one decorated with a predator, have also been excavated.602 iv. Chios The island of Chios produced a wealth of pottery, much of which was distributed to places as far-flung as Naukratis. This material includes pottery fragments featuring warriors. Anna Lemos has catalogued the finds and I here refer to her catalogue numbers. Most of the pottery that depicts human figures, including warriors, belongs to the so-called ‘Grand’ style, a polychrome technique possibly related to free painting, 603 which dates mostly to the first half of the sixth century, and the ‘Chalice’ style, which covers the sixth century down to around 530.604 Common are depictions of horses (nos. 713, 739, 790, 807), as well as riders (nos. 706, 709, and 799). Warriors with round, Argive shields are depicted in a number of fragments (724, 732, 736, 740, 761, 933). The shield in fragment 724 features an abstract blazon and the warrior himself does not appear to be wearing a helmet. The lack of pieces of armour is perhaps not uncommon on Chios: fragment 732 shows the lower half of a warrior with Argive shield (again featuring an abstract blazon), whose legs are not protected by greaves. Fragments from pot no. 799 shows a naked warrior with shield and spear overhead; an apparently clothed rider is depicted on one of the other fragments, possibly also brandishing a spear. As elsewhere, archers are relatively rare (nos. 708 and 804). A subject drawn from myth is the ambush of Troilos by Achilleus (no. 800). Depictions of this particular episode from the Trojan Cycle are very common in Archaic art and suggest that there was nothing cowardly about ambushes. The Argive (‘hoplite’) shield, helmet, and spear were clearly all purpose equipment. Perhaps also based on myth is a particularly gruesome fragment depicting a decapitated male head lifted up by its hair by a female figure (no. 733). Excavations at Emporio have unearthed a broken ivory horseman, dated to the middle of the seventh century (5).605 As with virtually all Aegean riders, the figure rides bareback; the horse itself is of the familiar Aegean type, an elegant pony. Most of the rider is missing; he may be either a recreational rider or possibly a hippostrophos. It is very similar to a bronze rider from Samos. The horse itself is missing and the object dates to around 520 (24).606 Just like the rider from Chios, the figure is a beardless and naked youth. Such finds demonstrate the importance of horses and riding in East Greece. v. Samos The second Hekatompedon at Samos dates to the middle of the seventh 602 603 604 605 606

130

Akurgal 1983, pls. 110.a –c. A.A. Le mos 1991, 114. A.A. Le mos 1991, esp. p. 188 fig. 102; see also Cook 1998, 71–73. Boardman 1967, 242 pl. 96. Walte r 1990, 176 fig. 188.

century and was constructed at least partially of stone and had a roof covered with tiles. A stone block has been unearthed that was possibly once part of the frieze that adorned this temple. It features engraved heads of warriors and the upper parts of their spears. The excavators believe that the temple was also used for banquets, as raised areas along the inside of the walls were probably used for reclining couches. 607 This building was probably used by a group of high-ranking men who ate together and—based on the warrior frieze—presumably also fought together. In addition, the temple was sacred to Hera, who—as discussed in chapter 4—is frequently associated with aristocratic activities, including horse-riding and seafaring. The latter is demonstrated by finds of model ships (for the associated Schiffsfundament, see page 65, above). Exceptionally well preserved is a large wooden boat model, about 57 cm in length and dated to the middle of the seventh century, that has a slightly upward curved bow,608 perhaps to make it easier to slide or drag onto a beach.609 Dedications of horse-trappings attest to the significance of horses, at least as chariot-teams. The items in question date from the ninth to seventh centuries, but were dedicated at a later date. One of these horse-trappings is a bronze breastplate with relief decoration of around 600 (467; plate 40.1). It depicts Herakles stealing the cattle of Geryoneus. The monster himself is equipped with Ionian helmets, Argive shields and greaves.610 On Samos, the torso and head of a stone warrior have been unearthed that date to between 530 and 520 (56; plate 40.2).611 The warrior is equipped with a bell-shaped cuirass, decorated with finely chiselled anatomical features. He also wears an Ionian helmet with moveable cheek-pieces; the forehead is smoothe (early Ionian helmet usually have a raised spur at the forehead).612 Ionian helmets are as typical of Western Asia Minor and the islands off its coast as Korinthian helmets are for mainland Greece. The moveable cheekpieces suggest a concern with making the helmet as comfortable as possible to wear, which perhaps fits with developments noted in Attika at roughly the same period. The warrior’s long hair falls in tresses from behind his helmet down to the hollow of his back. The helmet’s crest, if there ever was one, may have been made of horsehair and stuck to the helmet using some kind of adhesive (resin, collagen from animal skin, possibly even some kind of glue ground from animal teeth and bones),613 although we know from vase-paintings that not all helmets were adorned with crests.

607 608 609 610 611 612 613

Kyrie le is 1981, 79–80. Johnston 1985, 56–57 (Arch. 10). As pointe d out to me by Jan Paul Crie laard. Carpe nte r 1991, 146 fig. 201; Walte r 1990 106–107 figs. 120–121. Staatliche Musee n, Be rlin: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 146 fig. 170; Walte r 1990, 169 and 170 figs. 181 and 182. E.g., the warrior’s head on a Samian ringvase of around 600, see Walter 1990, 94 fig. 106. http://findarticles.com/p/article s/mi_m1200/is_n18_v152/ai_19978574/ http://dsc.discove ry.com/ne ws/2007/12/14/romans -glue -he lmet.html

131

vi. Discussion of the East Greek material The material from East Greece is again mostly consistent with the material examined so far, although the Ionian helmet emerges as just as popular a type of headgear as the Korinthian. In addition, some evidence from Klazomenai attest to the more widespread use of war-dogs. Representations of ships are rare (but note the ship models from the Heraion), although we know that ships and seafaring were important in East Greece. Other than that, fighting and feasting, as well as horse-ownership, appear once again as central activities among the East Greek elite, perhaps best exemplified by the engraved stone block and associated finds from the Samian Heraion. 4. Should w e speak of a ‘Greek’ way of war? The ancient Greeks themselves had no qualms of admitting particular items in common use were actually ‘Asian’ inventions. Herodotos wrote that blazons, for example, were a Karian invention (Hdt. 1.171; see also chapter 8 for further details). Thus, it seems safer to say that the Aegean basin and Anatolia are characterised by a certain cultural koinē; we may also add Italy and other regions to the mix, although these are beyond the scope of the present inquiry. A few examples pertinent to the subject of this book will be discussed in the following paragraphs to make this point more clear. It is generally useless to try to distinguish ‘Greek’ from ‘Lydian’ warfare. From modern Ikiztepe in Turkey comes a small aryballos in the shape of a warrior’s head of so-called Rhodian type, complete with Ionian helmet (523).614 This may have been an import, but then it must still have had significance to the owner. From the same site also comes a Lydian silver alabastron that features a battle-scene of heavily-armoured men, equipped with Korinthian—rather than the perhaps more expected Ionian—helmets, cuirasses, tunics, greaves, single thrusting spears, and Argive shields (524; plate 41.1).615 Another interesting element is the fact that something appears to be suspended from the bottom part of some of the shields; perhaps hide with a paw or some kind of tissue with a suspension, perhaps intended for protection of the upper legs. Similar ‘curtains’ are known from red-figure vases of especially the fifth century (383).616 These warriors, both as far as their equipment is concerned and the way they are depicted, elicit comparison with the battle-scene on, for example, the Chigi olpe and Macmillan aryballos; note that not all warriors are engaged in a single confrontation: there is also a ‘duel’ between two fighters depicted. Clearly, this was a way of fighting that would have been familiar throughout much of the ancient Aegean. Furthermore, we must not assume that warriors with Argive shields and bronze body-armour always fought with spears or straight swords: there is some variety in the evidence. A Lydian wall-painting in the Tartarlı tumulus, near Dinar (province of Afyon), depicts a battle-scene between warriors with Argive shields, bronze 614 615 616

132

Özge n-Öztürk 1996, 135 (fig.). Özge n-Öztürk 1996, 125 fig. 154. E.g., Cambridge GR18.1937: Beazley 1963, 231; Boardman 1975, 116 fig. 167.

helmets, and greaves fighting each other with curved or ‘sickle’ swords (73; plate 41.2).617 From the Lydian capital of Sardis we have a number of fragments of a vase depicting riders that are indistinguishable from similar unarmed riders on Greek Geometric and Early Orientalising pottery.618 During the Archaic period, there were frequent contacts between Greeks and Phrygians. Evidence from Gordion suggests that the Phrygians were familiar with ‘true cavalry’ (men who fought from horseback, rather than hippobatai) by the ninth century. Within the remains of Megaron 3, possibly the central structure of the citadel, 619 excavators found the remains of various items, including some ivory inlays. 620 The area to which this building belonged was destroyed around 800.621 A square piece of ivory inlay depicts a rider with round shield (possibly made of wicker?), helmet with cheek-pieces and of a type that appears similar to the so-called ‘Phrygian cap’, and long spear (specifically made for a man who fought from horseback?). Similar horsemen are shown in a battle-scene on large pieces of a rectangular piece of ivory inlay: a horse is depicted at the far left (probably a horseman), while an archer at the far right takes aim; there are four horsemen with shields, helmets, and spears, one of which is holding the spear with both hands in an underarm position. The enemy is unfortunately lost.622 Interestingly, the richly furnished room in which these inlays were found seems to have been used for drinking and eating,623 so that among the Phrygian elite we find the same pattern as for the later Greek date, namely the association of horses, feasting, and fighting. Phrygia eventually became part of the Lydian Empire. A clay relief revetment of the sixth century from Pazarli, Phrygia, depicts warriors that are very similar in appearance to those found on Greek and Lydian artefacts (525): men in tunics with some sort of greaves, wearing helmets with stilted crests and equipped with round, possibly Argive shields and single thrusting spears, held in an overhand position.624 From nearby Lykia, we have Late Archaic wall-paintings in tombs at modern Elmalı-Kızılbel. These include a scene of warriors arming, and another two-horse chariot, as well as a scene depicting a procession of warriors and chariots. Another wal-painting depicts a warrior with Ionian crested helmet, tunic, corslet, greaves, and spear, mounting a chariot drawn by two horses; his charioteer is similarly equipped.625 Once again, it is clear that equipment and modes of fighting were part of an Aegean-Anatolian koinē, rather than being distinctly ‘Greek’ or ‘Lydian’, and so on. Furthermore, depictions of warriors with Argive shields, bronze helmets, and spears are not limited to the Aegean and Anatolia, but are also found on 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625

Özge n-Öztürk 1996, 45 fig. 84. Illustrations and discussion in Hanfmann 1945. Kealhofe r 2005, 15. De Vries 1980, 34. Kealhofe r 2005, 27 and 69–70; but note Summe rer 2008. De Vries 1980, 47 figs. 7 (horse man) and 8 (battle -sce ne ). De Vries 1980, 35–36. Boardman 1999 [1964], 92 fig. 103. Boardman 1999 [1964], 106 fig. 122.

133

artefacts unearthed further afield. One particularly good example is the so-called Amathus bowl (463).626 This is a silver bowl of Phoenician make found at Amathus on Cyprus and dated to the seventh century. It depicts a siege, with additional activities out in the field, such as the cutting down of trees (as punishment or to facilitate manoeuvres). It includes a mounted archer, archers on foot, mounted spearmen, a chariot and war-dog, as well as warriors with round shields, spears, and helmets; similar warriors and an archer are also defending the town from the towers, and small figures have propped ladders up against the walls. The supposedly ‘Greek-style’ warriors are perhaps mercenaries or other allies of the attackers, perhaps Greeks, Lydians, or Karians, or a combination thereof. If these warriors are supposed to make a difference, they must scale the walls. When seen with ‘Greek eyes’, the group might represent a phalanx or a group of men forming a kind of ‘shield wall’ (see chapter 7), but taking the scene in its entirity suggests that they are storming the city, probably one walking behind the other. Many scholars have commented on the the supposedly strange habit of the Greeks to fight in bronze armour beneath the scorching Mediterranean sun. However, bronze plate armour is not a Greek invention, but was also used by certain Near-Eastern people, who fought in similar—and sometimes even hotter!—climates. In fact, the idea for making bronze helmets may have been (re)introduced in Greece from Assyria (as noted earlier), and we know that the Assyrians also used other pieces of metal armour and shields.627 I have already mentioned in the discussion of the Chigi olpe and elsewhere that various attempts have been made to regard certain depictions as representing men fighting in phalanx-formation, i.e. in a rectangle with the men organised in ranks and files. The phalanx is usually regarded as a typically Greek invention, but this seems nonsensical in the light of much clearer artistic evidence from the Near East and Egypt. One scene on the Sumerian ‘Stela of the Vultures’, which predates the Chigi olpe by nearly two thousand years, depicts warriors with spears and axes in a tight formation; another scene depicts multiple ranks of warriors with spears and shields forming what can only be described as a phalanx.628 A well-known wooden model from an 11th-dynasty tomb in Egypt (c. 2000) depicts spearmen with shields marching in a rectangular formation, four men wide and ten men deep.629 Of course, phalanx-like tactics need not have been adopted by Greeks from Egyptians or other Near-Eastern peoples. Instead, it seems to me that a formation of some sort must by necessity be used by very large armies (such as those used by the ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, and so forth), and the phalanx formation seems like a natural way to organise a large body of men equipped with close- or at least short-range weapons. It may therefore be a

626 627 628 629

134

London: Myres 1933, 26 fig. 1 and pls. 1–3. E.g., Fe rrill 1985, 73–77. Tallis 2007, 46 (warriors) and 52 (phalanx). Shaw and Boatright 2007, 28; cf. also the picture in Fe rrill 1985, 49.

cultural analogue to the biological concept of parallel evolution: a dolphin (mammal) resembles a shark (fish) because they both evolved in similar environments, adapting to similar conditions. In sum, there does not seem to be anything especially Greek about the phalanx, and we have no proof that tactics alone were responsible for the popularity of Greek mercenaries in Near-Eastern empires from the seventh century onwards. 5. Conclusions The recurring theme in each of the chapters so far is that the evidence is patchy and characterised by certain regional biases. This certainly also holds true for the iconographic evidence. The Attic material far outweighs the rest in sheer bulk, and again we may note that certain regions produced no figurative art at all. In addition, we can not be certain that the evidence we do have features the full range as far as diversity in warrior types or styles of fighting are concerned. Nevertheless, the material does point toward certain trends and developments, especially when seen from a diachronic perspective. We can be reasonably confident that part of the real-life dynamics with regard to warfare, martiality, and related themes have been captured in the figurative art of the period between eighth and early fifth centuries. In the eighth century, Late Geometric scenes from the mainland and the islands feature a range of different types of warriors. Some men use spears, others use swords; a few fight as archers. Some of these men are equipped with shields, including rectangular, circular, and Dipylon-type shields, and they may use chariots to transport themselves to the battlefield. The use of conical helmets and a fondness for (riding) horses are characteristic in the eighth century for Euboia and Andros. They appear to have operated in small and mobile warbands and are frequently associated with battles on and around ships. We have galleys propelled by large numbers of rowers; these galleys are used in amphibious operations (beaching at speed) or in engagements at sea (mobile fighting platforms for a few warriors fighting from the central gangway or deck and forecastle). During engagements at sea, it is possible that ships also engaging in ramming tactics. Furthermore, warriors fighting from ship decks seem to employ weapons of choice (longer or shorter spears, bow, shields optional). The period between c. 725 and 650 emerges as a period of transition as far as equipment is concerned, although the small-scale nature of the fighting appear to have remained the same. After 700, the equipment tends to become more uniform. The double-grip Argive shield is introduced, which slowly leads to abandonment of single-grip shields; bronze armour, especially the Korinthian helmet and greaves, also become a fixture. At the same time, mounted warriors—hippobatai—become more common, to the point that the horse appears to have been a common part of a warrior’s accoutrement. Such mounted warriors appear in Southern and Central Greece, in East Greece, and even on the islands, where space would be assumed to be at a premium. These troops must have been small in number. However, there is no iconographic evidence for the existence of a mass of

135

poorly-equipped rabble, so that we have to assume—at least for now—that armies continued to consist of smallish warbands of high-ranking, well-equipped men. The century between roughly 650 and 550 is fairly consistent as regards equipment, use of horses (hippobatai in particular are widespread and common), and modes of warfare throughout the Aegean. Evidence for this period includes material from Korinth, Lakonia, the islands, and East Greece. The Dipylon shield has gone out of use and only survives as a derivative with double grip, the so-called Boiotian shield. Bronze armour also appears to be more common, with the bell-shaped cuirass—though still clearly optional—now worn by an apparently larger proportion of warriors. However, variety in equipment is limited, with most warriors fighting with Argive shields and spears, sometimes a set of two, which may include a javelin. Archers are even more rare than before, but continue to operate as snipers. It must be stressed that the so-called ‘hoplite’ panoply developed in the course of the seventh century was in fact an all-purpose military outfit that could be used on horseback, on ship, on foot in duels, mass fighting, ambushing, and scaling walls. Throughout the period between roughly 650 and 550, armies probably still consisted of small warbands in this period, who may have engaged in raids just as easily as in larger invasions, sieges, and so forth. However, ships are more rare, with artists now clearly demonstrate a preference for scenes depicting battles on land. Most warriors were presumably still culled from the aristocratic classes and used horses to transport themselves swiftly to where the action was. It seems quite natural to assume that these mounted warriors engaged in quick raids and border skirmishes against neighbouring communities; a mounted strike force would also be ideally suited to undertake quick retaliatory strikes or brief reconaissance forays into enemy territory. The later seventh-century Korinthian material provides some evidence for the use of early formations. The Chigi olpe features armed and armoured men advancing in ‘waves’. It seems likely that in the seventh century armies were somewhat larger than during the Geometric era, numbering perhaps a few hundred to a side (a point I shall discuss further, with references, in this book’s conclusion). If that was the case, it seems likely that commanders made use of the greater number of men by deploying them in some kind of (simple) formation, if only to make co-operation between the men easier. However, neither the equipment nor the use of formations can be considered uniquely Greek; Lydian and Phrygian warriors and horsemen clearly demonstrate the former and an early Sumarian phalanx and Egyptian soldiers demonstrate the latter. By the final decades of the sixth century, Athenian pottery at least shows some signs of having developed a fairly large and apparently well-organised army. There is now a far more consistent approach to clothing and armour. Whereas before, both clothing and cuirasses were optional, men in later sixth-century Attic scenes are either wholly clothed and armoured or nude. In addition, there is an increase in the amount of armour worn by some men (thigh guards being especially common), and 136

chariots also seem to be more popular than before, although hippobatai remain a feature. The widespread adoption of the linen corslet and the introduction of a shorter sword with straight crossguard hint at further developments. However, it would be wrong to consider these developments solely in the light of the later, Classical phalanx. This larger and apparently centrally-organised army could include specialists, such as the epibatai (marines) that appear in some sixth-century Attic scenes with warships. Out on the battlefield, the introduction of trumpeters and the creation of more open helmets suggests that communication became important. This suggests that armies were now larger and that a commander’s voice could no longer be heard by everyone; the adoption of a phalanx-formation, which seems a natural way to organise a large body of men, seems likely at around this time.

137

Chapter 7

The Homeric epics 1. Introduction The earliest poets whose works were recorded in writing are Homer and Hesiod.630 Both probably date to the first half of the seventh century. We know next to nothing of Homer himself, except that he apparently operated in Western Asia Minor, and he may have been associated with the island of Chios from an early date.631 In antiquity, it was believed that he composed both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Many poems and songs composed later were attributed to Homer; this was common practice with poets who were admired by later Greeks (e.g., the Homeric hymns to the gods). In this chapter, I shall discuss the evidence presented in the two Homeric epics, with special emphasis on the war-poem, the Iliad.632 Can the epics be used as a source of historical information? This depends firstly on whether or not one believes that the epic world described in the poems is internally consistent. Authors such as Anthony Snodgrass and Nicholas Coldstream believe that the Homeric world is a mishmash that incorporates elements from both the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Snodgrass argues that the different elements can no longer be untangled and that the epics are thus useless as reliable sources of information for any period in particular.633 However, other authors are not as pessimistic. Moses Finley argued that we should look at the structure of Homeric society rather than try and determine which (material) elements are Mykenaian or Archaic. 634 Ian Morris disagrees, suggesting instead that one ought to examine Homeric ‘culture’, in the sense of ‘taken-for-granted attitudes about how the world works’, rather than its social ‘institutions and forms of behaviour’.635 Both argue that the epics are not only internally consistent, but can also be used as a source of information for a particular period in time. The question then becomes, which period? Following the spectacular discoveries made by Heinrich Schliemann at Hissarlik (Troy) and Mykenai in the later nineteenth century, it was long

630 631 632 633 634 635

The translations use d in this chapte r are by Richmond Lattimore . See , e.g., brie f discussion in Burgess 2001, 122–124. I consider both poe ms the work of a single author. Snodgrass 1974, esp. pp. 124–125; see also Morris 1997, 536–539. Finle y 1978 [1954], 153. Morris 2001, 57; cf. Finley 1978 [1954], 48–50 (e mphasis on social structure ).

139

maintained that the world described by Homer corresponds to that of the Late Bronze Age (the Mykenaian period).636 Others, including Ian Morris, instead have argued that the Homeric world more closely resembles the Early Iron Age or, more specifically, Homer’s own age. Finley once suggested that the Homeric world ought to be dated to the ninth century,637 but archaeological evidence collected by Jan Paul Crielaard strongly favours a date in the early seventh century.638 I agree that the world described in the Homeric epics is consistent and that the poems are a valuable source of information. Furthermore, I also agree that the epic world is best dated to the early seventh century. Before turning to an examination of the epics themselves, let us consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. One weakness is that the poet often mixes fantasy with reality. Hans van Wees has demonstrated that most of the fantastic elements tend to be exaggerations of reality; for example, some shields in the epics, while based on contemporary items familiar to both the poet and his audience, are fabulously large, but that is because the heroes were supposed to possess superhuman strength. 639 Another problem is that descriptions are often too vague to allow for a detailed reconstruction of a particular item. For example, the shield of Achilleus is described in quite some detail in the Iliad, but aside from the fact that it was large, round, and decorated with scenes representing a city at peace and one at war, we cannot know exactly what it looked like. However, the epics do provide information on certain aspects of early Greek warfare that are difficult or even impossible to deduce from the archaeological or iconographic evidence. Homeric notions regarding valour or death on the battlefield, the nature and style of warfare, the social makeup of an army in the epics, and so on, may aid in determining the meaning of a specific archaeological assemblage or vase-painting. This is an important reason for first studying the various classes of evidence separately in the present book. Much of this chapter is indebted to Hans van Wees regarding Homeric society, violence, and warfare; I should like to single out his monograph Status Warriors (1992) as the one publication that I found most useful in examining the Iliad and Odyssey. The weapons, armour, and related paraphernalia, described in the Homeric poems, have been the subject of a number of studies.640 The section on Homeric arms and armour builds in particular on the chapter on the same topic by F.H. Stubbings in the Companion to Homer that he edited with A.J.B. Wace in 1962. 2. Epic society The world described by Homer can be reconstructed to a reasonably 636 637 638 639 640

140

A point of vie w still de fe nde d by Shear 2000. Finle y 1978 [1954], 48. Crie laard 1995b passim. Van Wees 1992, 17–21. Most importantly, Lorime r 1950, as we ll as the re le vant volumes in the Archaeologia Homerica series; see also Van Wees 1992, 1994, and 1998.

accurate degree, even if some authors disagree about particular details. The epic world is divided into larger and smaller territorial units, each of which contains a number of towns. One town in each territory is the home of a hereditary ruler. Homeric society is divided into four social groups, namely: (a) an ‘aristocracy’ of basileis;641 (b) a common element consisting mostly of farmers (smallholders) and a few skilled specialists (craftsmen); (c) a group of landless poor who work as hired labourers and are referred to as thētes, and finally; (d) slaves (douloi). Nearly all of the main characters in the Iliad and Odyssey belong to the social group called basileis (‘chiefs’, sometimes rendered ‘princes’), who own sizeable tracts of arable land and considerable numbers of livestock. Some of these basileis are rated more highly than others, and one of them is the ruler of the whole community. All of the main heroes are either rulers themselves or the sons of rulers. Odysseus, for example, rules (verb, anassō) the people of Ithaka. He is assisted in his duties by other basileis, specifically the elders (gerontes): affluent men who are the heads of their households.642 The basileis who have a say in political matters are sometimes referred to collectively as the hēgētores ēde medontes, ‘leaders and councillors’ (e.g., Od. 7.186). The basileis, particularly the leaders, consider themselves to be a superior kind of people; they are the aristoi, literally the ‘best’ that a community has to offer. The leaders distinguish themselves from others by being decisive in battle; they also determine politics and deal with all matters pertaining to law and order within the community (cf. Il. 1.490–492). Furthermore, they are among the richest of the people in their community, possessing large amounts of treasure (keimēlia). Naturally, they have illustrious forebears and can recount their ancestries when the need arise. They emphasise their wealth by keeping horses. Finally, they engage in a life of leisure and are thus, for example, able to organise and participate in games and feasts. Social relations in the epic world are horizontal rather than vertical, i.e. most interaction is between social peers. In other words, men associate with other men of equal or similar status (the obvious exception being dependents, especially slaves). The worlds of the basileis and of the common people appear to exist more or less side by side; only infrequently do the two social spheres interact directly. Firstly, many of the actions undertaken by the leaders (rulers and elders) are presented as being either in the public interest or otherwise sanctioned by the community as a whole. In the assemblies at home, it appears that a large cross-section of the community was present, even if only leaders were supposed to speak (e.g., Od. 2.6–259). Secondly, it appears that some sort of tax was levied on the common people that was redistributed in the form of gerousios oinos, ‘wine of the elders’ (e.g., Il. 4.257–263). Thirdly, a leader might be awarded a temenos, a piece of ‘public land’, for services rendered (e.g., Il. 12.310–314); no doubt the other leaders of a community would allocate the land, but it is nevertheless

641 642

Yamagata 1997 (anax and basileus). Van Wees 1992, 31–36.

141

presented as something approved of by the people as a whole.643 Nevertheless, the relationship between the leaders and the rest of the community was normally one of mutual respect, as demonstrated by the description of Nestor and a few thousand of his people sacrificing bulls to Poseidon (Od. 3.4–11). The common people simply appear to engage in pursuits different from those of the basileis. For example, they do not appear to be present in the Achaian camp and might not have any particular role to play in battle. In Homeric descriptions, the leaders of the basileis fight and speak, while the dēmos appear to stand idly by. Most modern commentators assume that the dēmos consists of commoners, but this need not at all be the case. Instead, the dēmos or ‘mass’ of the people might equally well consist of lower-ranking basileis, such as the sons, neighbours, and friends of the leaders; slaves and other dependents might also be included among them. The independent smallholders, presumably the largest segment of society, is perhaps not present at all. I shall return to this point later, but suffice to say that the assumption that members from all Homeric socioeconomic walks of life took part in war seems to me untenable. The notion that only the aristocracy and dependents fought perhaps sheds some further light on the following passage in the Iliad. When in the Achaian camp morale is at an all time low, and much of the army is preparing to scatter and sail off home, the following occurs (Il. 2.188–206): Whe neve r he [i.e., Odysse us] e ncountere d some basileus, or man of influe nce, he would stand beside him and with soft words try to restrain him: ‘Daimonie! It does not become you to be frighte ne d like any coward. Rather hold fast and check the rest of the people [laos]. [...]’ Whe n he saw some man of the pe ople [dēmos] who was shouting, he would strike at him with his staff [skēptron], and re prove him also: ‘Daimonie! Sit still and liste n to what othe rs te ll you, to those who are be tte r me n [pherteroi] than you, you skulke r and coward and thing of no account whateve r in battle [polemos] or council [boulē]. Sure ly not all of us Achaians can be as basileis he re . Lordship for many is no good thing. Le t there be one ruler [koiranos], one basileus, to whom the son of de vious -de vising Kronos [i.e., Ze us]’ gives the sce ptre and right of judgeme nt, to watch ove r his pe ople .’

The use of damonie is interesting, since it is used to denote both basileis and ‘men of the dēmos’. This vocative is used as a form of address with an essentially neutral meaning; it is often translated as ‘dear sir/madam’.644 The distinction made here by Odysseus is often interpreted as the distinction between ‘princes’ and ‘commoners’, but this need not be the case if we assume that the basileis and other men of substance are somehow senior to the ones who meet with Odysseus’ sceptre. Furthermore, this situation does take place within a clearly military context, namely the

643

644

142

Also Be lle rophon by the Lykians (Il. 6.194–195). A later passage demonstrates that only the e lde rs, gerontes, award temenoi, but the y do so on be half of the e ntire community (Il. 9.573–580). Temenos late r re fers to a temple ’s precinct; it was also used on Myke naian Linear B table ts to de note the ruler’s land. For further de tails, consult Brunius -Nillson 1955.

Achaian camp, during the tenth year of a long campaign, and morale among the Achaians is low. Most people were probably never beaten in peacetime.645 Odysseus’ comment in the cited passage that the men of the dēmos are ‘cowards’ and count for nought in battle, and (therefore?) have no say in political matters, should not be taken literally. However, as Hans van Wees has pointed out, some specialists re ly on the straightforward premise that a battle is decide d collective ly by all who join combat. They further assume that all those who join combat will fee l that the ir share in dangerous labours gives the m the right to share in the rule of the community. But the Iliad presents a world in which a battle of many may be decide d by fe w, and in which it is only a fe w who base a claim to powe r on participating in battles fought by many. The e xplanation, it seems to me , is that decisive ness in battle is claime d for those who are in powe r, rathe r than powe r claime d for those who are de cisive in battle .646

This is indeed true. However, in this case, the dēmos among the Achaians in the Iliad need not consist of regular commoners, but might include lower-ranking basileis and possibly—though the evidence is slim at best—dependents (i.e., slaves and even thētes, ‘hired labourers’). Slaves and thētes are at the lower rungs of the Homeric social ladder. Contrary perhaps to our own notions, slaves appear to be better off than the ostensibly free thētes. When Odysseus meets the shade of Achilleus, the latter emphasises the wretchedness of the afterlife. He says that he would rather work as a thēs, a hired labourer (a person without any kind of security), than be lord of the dead (Od. 11.489–491). To him, the fate of a thēs was the most dreadful kind of existence in life. A slave, after all, is essentially chattel that, like livestock, must be fed and kept at another man’s expense for him to remain useful, whereas a thēs might be chased off one’s field before getting paid.647 3. Arms and armour In the epics, the emphasis is squarely placed on the basileis, especially the leaders (heroes). In battle, these men use shields, helmets, body-armour (especially cuirasses and greaves), a wide array of weapons (swords, spears, slings, bows and arrows), horses and chariots. All these items are described in a consistent manner throughout Homer’s war-epic, and are furthermore consistent with descriptions of arms and armour in the Odyssey, although the latter does not deal immediately with warfare. The material of choice for the manufacture of weapons and armour is bronze, which in the case of the swords was probably picked more for its lustrous appearance than its superiority over iron.648 What kinds of weapons and armour were used by the fighting men in the epic world? The answer depends on two factors, namely: (1) the relative 645 646 647 648

Cf. Xe n. Mem. 1.2.58–61. Van Wees 1988, 23. Although e ve n a slave might be chase d off we re he to offe nd his maste r (Od. 21.370–371). Van Wees 1994, 134; cf. Gray 1954, 14–15

143

wealth of the man in question, and; (2) to some degree, personal preference. It appears that most men fight as spearmen, equipped with at least a spear and shield. However, pieces of armour and weapons, while functionally the same, normally differ in design, materials used, and decoration. All of the fighting men at Troy had to equip themselves; as such, personal preference and ability would have ensured no two men were probably kitted out using identical pieces of equipment (e.g., Il. 3.15–20). For example, one need only compare the shields used by the various heroes in the Iliad. As the poet focused on describing the exploits of the basileis, in particular the heroes of the story, we are best informed about their apparel. The following lines from the Iliad are a description of what we might regard as the typical equipment used by the leaders: Le t a man put a good e dge on his spear, and his shie ld in orde r, le t each put fodder be fore his swift-foote d horses, and each man look we ll ove r his chariot, ca reful of his fighting, that all day long we may be in the division of hate ful Ares. (Il. 2.382–385)

The Trojan leaders are typically equipped in much the same manner as the Achaian, with shield, spear, and chariot. The arming scenes give a good idea of what the panoply of a Homeric spearman could look like (e.g., Il. 11.15–43). First, the warrior puts on greaves to protect the shins, then a corselet or cuirass to protect the upper body (torso). The warrior next slings a sword across the shoulder, picks up his shield, puts on his helmet, and finally grabs a pair of spears. A leader then rode to the battlefield on his chariot, while most other warriors had to walk. a. The shield Homer uses two words for shield: sakos and aspis.649 The latter would become the standard term for shield used by later Greek writers. Stubbings pointed out that both words had a set of epithets that could be used in standard formula. Thus, the aspis is frequently described as bossed (omphaloessa ) and round (pantos’ eisē; Il. 7.250, 11.434, 13.405), while the sakos is instead said to be made of ox-hides (Il. 5.452, 12.105) and to resemble a tower (purgos; Il. 11.32–33). But there are many exceptions in the text: Achilleus’ shield, for example, is called a sakos but is definitely round in shape. Stubbings suggested that the two terms had therefore become ‘assimilated’,650 but perhaps it is safer to say that while both words were originally used for different types of shield, the terminology was not always rigidly applied. Some shields, at least, are quite large, such as Paris’ mega sakos (Il. 3.335) or the sakos that belonged to Diomedes’ father, Tydeus (Il. 5.126). Hektor’s bossed aspis is described as reaching from the neck to the ankles (Il. 6.117–118; cf. 15.645–646). The shield strap or telamōn appears to be a standard feature of Homeric shields; its presence is either stated outright (Il. 2.388–389, 5.798, 14.404–405), or implied (Il. 4.478). The strap enables the 649 650

144

Gray 1947, 113. Stubbings 1962, 510.

shield to be slung across the back; sometimes the strap is used to keep a shield in front of one’s chest, as with Sarpedon’s aspis (Il. 12.400–402; cf. 12.425–426). Nestor’s aspis is equipped with kanōnes or ‘cross-rods’ (Il. 8.193), possibly serving as handles as well as supports for the shield itself. Formulaic statements like ‘shield-bearing people’ and descriptions of close-range fighting suggest that shields are used by just about all fighters operating at close- to short-range (Il. 4.201–202; cf. also 14.370–377), i.e. within a spear’s throw. Shields may be held aslant against one’s shoulder (e.g., Il. 15.474, 22.4). Van Wees suggests that these must therefore be Argive shields.651 However, it is quite possible to hold a single-grip shield at an angle so that one has the arm in a relaxed position while the upper rim rests against the shoulder; in fact, one would expect shields equipped with neckor shoulder-straps to encourage such a position when not slung on one’s back. Many shields are equipped with bosses, which again suggest that we are dealing with shields equipped with single, central handgrips rather than Argive-type double-grips,652 although the evidence does not preclude the use of Argive shields in some passages per se. Aias’ sakos is said to be made ‘of bronze and sevenfold ox-hide’ (Il. 7.219–220). Odysseus’ sakos has bright patterns painted on it (Il. 10.148–149). Following the death of Patroklos, Achilleus is given a new sakos made by Hephaistos himself. It is described in detail in the eighteenth book of the Iliad. The surface is decorated by two scenes drawn from daily life, one representing a city in times of peace, the other in times of war. The strap was covered with silver (Il. 18.478–607). Agamemnon’s round aspis has a bronze facing with ten concentric circles on it, decorated with twenty tin bosses and a central boss made of cobalt; the face of the Gorgon is inscribed in the centre, flanked by Deimos and Phobos, ‘Fear’ and ‘Terror’. As with the shield of Achilleus, the strap was decorated with silver (Il. 11.32–40). b. The helmet Four different words are used in the epic to denote a helmet, but they appear to be interchangeable. The most common word is korus, followed by kuneē, truphaleia, and pēlēx;653 the more familiar word kranos is apparently not used until Herodotos (e.g., 1.171). Most of the helmets described in the Iliad are said to be made of metal (e.g., Il. 4.495; 7.12), or implied to be; consider, for example, the number of helmets that are described as ‘shining’, such as Hektor’s helmet (Il. 3.83 and 5.680). Bronze is the metal of choice where most items of weapons and armour are concerned (but not tools), and helmets are apparently no exception.654 Some helmets are described as having ‘hollow eyes’ (e.g., Il. 5.182, 13.529–530); no doubt this indicates that the helmet covers most of the face as well as the cranium, leaving only holes for the eyes to see through. Again, it seems likely that these were made of metal. The mention of cheek pieces 651 652 653 654

Van Wees 2004, 249–252. Cf. Snodgrass 1964b, 170. Stubbings 1962, 513. Gray 1954, 5 (table C).

145

also indicates that some helmets, like the one worn by the greater Aias, cover much of the face (Il. 16.106). The helmet of Epikles, an unfortunate companion of Sarpedon’s, is described as being ‘four-sheeted’ (tetraphalon), i.e. made of four sheets of (presumably) bronze rather than hammered out of a single sheet (Il. 12.384). When Odysseus and Diomedes embark on their scouting mission in the tenth book of the Iliad, they are given non-metallic helmets (no doubt because metal helmets would have gleamed in the light of the moon and could therefore be more easily spotted by the Trojan lookouts). Odysseus is given a non-metallic helmet as well, namely a boar’s tusk helmet (Il. 10.261–265). Such helmets are known from both Minoan and Mykenaian iconography; several actual examples have also been unearthed. Some have suggested that the presence of this helmet in the epics is proof that the stories date back to the Bronze Age, but other explanations are also possible. For example, such helmets could still have been made in Homer’s own age, or perhaps the poet was familiar with one that had been passed from one generation to other as an heirloom.655 Diomedes receives a leather skull cap (kataitux), which is said to protect ‘the heads of strong men in battle’ (Il. 10.259). The choice of words—including the use of a word to specifically denote this cap—implies strongly that this is in fact a far more common type of headgear than at first appears. Bronze helmets in the Iliad may be worn by leaders, for example, while their followers perhaps wear such leather caps. The cap worn by Diomedes is specifically said to lack both ‘horn and crest’; the bronze helmets donned by the Achaian and Trojan leaders are invariably equipped with horsehair crests (e.g., Il. 3.371–372). Horses, of course, are status symbols of the elite. This again suggests that metal helmets equipped with horsehair crests were typical of the leaders, and that other men had to make do with simple caps (although I must admit there is no solid evidence for this assertion). c. Body-armour The poet often refers to the chalkochitōnas Achaious or ‘bronze-shirted Achaians’ (e.g., Il. 1.371; 2.163; 10.287). This suggests that most of the Achaians don bronze body-armour. Certainly, all of the main characters in the Iliad do so before setting out to fight. The cuirass, thōrēx, is a common piece of wargear worn by many of the men on the Achaian side. However, Trojans also wear bronze cuirasses; in fact, they are at least once referred to as ‘bronze-shirted Trojans’, just like the Achaians (Il. 5.180). 656 These cuirasses may have been made of two halves or ‘hollows’, gualoi (Il. 22.321–325), which suggests that they consisted of a front and back plate.657 Non-metallic corselets, by contrast, are rarely mentioned; the lesser Aias is specifically said to wear one made of linen (Il. 2.529), as do at least two Trojan fighters (Il. 2.830). 655 656 657

146

Lorime r 1950, 132–133; Crie laard 2000, 51–63. See also Stubbings 1962, 507. King 1970, 295.

In addition to a breastplate of some kind, certain Achaian heroes are also equipped with a zostēr and/or a mitrē. When Menelaos is wounded by Pandaros, the arrow is said to pass first through his zostēr, then his cuirass, and then through his mitrē, ‘which he wore to protect his skin and keep the spears off’, before piercing his skin (Il. 4.134–140). The zostēr thus appears to have been some sort of belt, tied around the waist; in this case, the zostēr appears to be tied around the cuirass, which in turn at least partially covers the mitrē underneath. A little further on, Menelaos tells Agamemnon that the wound was not too grievous, as the arrow was turned aside by his zostēr and the zōma (‘flap’) beneath it, to which—or in front of which—his bronze mitrē was fixed (Il. 4.185–187). When Machaon, the healer, arrives, Menelaos slips the zostēr off, then removes the flap and the mitrē (Il. 4.215–216). In a later battle, Diomedes attacks the war-god Ares and, with the aid of Athene, succeeds in driving his spear through the god’s mitrē and into his belly (Il. 5.855–857). Nestor also possessed a zostēr (Il. 10.77–78); Oineus once gave Bellerophon a zostēr dyed red (Il. 6.219–220); Aias gave Hektor a purple zostēr (Il. 7.305). Unlike Menelaos, Agamemnon wore his silver zostēr underneath his cuirass (Il. 11.234–237). The zostēr in all these cases appears to be a belt made of fabric (it can be dyed, after all), perhaps equipped with a (broad) metal clasp or buckle, and sometimes covered with silver plates (as appears to be the case with Agamemnon’s zostēr),658 worn around the waist, possibly extending a little further down to cover more of the lower belly (e.g., Il. 5.539 and 616–616). The mitrē appears to be something quite distinct from a zostēr; many scholars use it to refer to semi-circular bronze belly-guards, which is probably correct considering the scanty descriptions in the Iliad.659 The Lykians are specifically said to lack the mitrē (Il. 16.419), so a bronze belly-guard appears to be a common piece of equipment in the epic world. d. Greaves The Achaians are typically called euknēmides, ‘strong-greaved’ (e.g., Il. 4.80, 6.529); once they are called ‘bronze-greaved’ Achaians, chalkoknēmides (Il. 7.41). Greaves (knēmides, singular knēmis), protection for the shins, are perhaps the most common piece of armour worn by the fighters in the Iliad. The poet hardly ever describes the greaves in any detail, so it is often unclear of what material they were made; the common assumption that all greaves were made of bronze might well be wrong.660 Some men have ankle clasps made of silver, argureoisin episphuriois, with which they fasten their greaves to their legs, such as Agamemnon (Il. 11.18). The greaves of Achilleus, fashioned by none other than Hephaistos, are either decorated

658

659 660

I see no evide nce to support Hans van Wees’s claim that the zostēr was wholly compose d of me tal rather than (dye d) fabric, le t alone that it was ‘a substantial piece of armour in its own right’ (Van Wees 1994, 135), unless ‘sword be lts of silve r’ (Il. 18.598) are also ‘substantial’ pie ces of armour. Jarva 1995, 51 (with re fe re nces). Stubbings 1962, 505–506.

147

with or made of tin (Il. 18.612), and also fastened using silver ankle clasps (Il. 19.370). e. The spear Spears feature prominently in the Iliad and is the main offensive weapon used by both Achaians and Trojans. The words for ‘spear’ are aichmē, enchos, akōn or akontos, doru or douros (douratos). The most common word to denote any fighter who is not an archer, in both the Iliad and Odyssey, is aichmētēs; i.e. ‘spearfighter’ or ‘spearman’ (e.g., Il. 3.179). Certain groups of people as well as individuals are singled out by the poet and described as being particularly deft at wielding the spear (e.g., Il. 2.131). It is commonly made of ash and fixed on either end are a spearhead and a butt-spike; the butt-spike or saurōtēr (literally, ‘lizard-killer’) enabled a man to stick the spear upright into the ground when not in use. When Nestor and the other leaders visit the shelter of Diomedes during the night, they find him and his hetairoi outside, sleeping with their heads of their shields and their spears driven into the ground beside them (Il. 10.153). Most spears are used for both thrusting and throwing. The spear is clearly an expendable weapon, as it can be thrown and lost, as well as broken in close-range combat; one line indicates that most warriors would probably make some attempt at retrieving a cast spear (Il. 11.357). Hence, the heroes are typically equipped with a set of at least two spears, including Nestor (Il. 10.76), Hektor (Il. 11.212 and 12.464–465), and Idomeneus (Il. 13.241); the ambidexterous hero Asteriopaios even threw both his spears at once and also clearly did not use a shield (Il. 21.144–163). Some spears were undoubtedly used only for thrusting, such as the massive, eleven-cubit (nearly five metres) lance used by Hektor at one point (Il. 6.319). Likewise, the spear of Achilleus is said to be so large that only he could wield it (Il. 16.142–144), like his father before him (Il. 19.387–391).661 However, for the most part, it seems that all spears were essentially dual-purpose weapons, useful as both lances and javelins. The importance of skill in throwing is demonstrated by the javelin contest that is part of the funeral games for Patroklos (Il. 23.622). Extra-long ‘pikes’ appear to have been weapons specifically made for shipboard use; the poet calls them naumacha xusta , ‘ship spears’. Aias at one point is equipped with a sea-pike, said to be a whopping twenty-two cubits (circa ten metres) in length!662 Armed with this weapon, the hero ‘strides up and down the decks of the vessels’ in the Achaian camp (Il. 15.674–678), ready to fend off the attacking Trojans. He manages to keep the Trojans at bay and prevent them from setting fire to the ships (Il. 15.472–476). Its great size apparently prevents even the heroes of epic from throwing it, using it instead solely in hand-to-hand combat.663 The spear is the only weapon that the heroes always take with them. 661 662 663

148

This is analogous to Te le machos be ing able to string his fathe r’s bow, which all of the suitors fail to accomplish (Od. 21.124–130). On the possible symbolic importance of the sea -pike , see Fraze r 1983. See also Ahlbe rg 1971a, 45–46.

When Agamemnon gets out of bed in the tenth book of the Iliad, he flings on some clothes and ‘took up a spear’ (Il. 10.24) before rousing any of the other men. Likewise, when Menelaos gets up, he puts on some clothes, dons a helmet, and ‘took up a spear in his big hand’ (Il. 10.31). The same goes for Nestor (Il. 10.135), and Diomedes (Il. 10.178). Of course, this all takes place in a military camp, in close proximity of the enemy, so it is perhaps no more than normal for men to go about armed. Yet, even in times of peace, men apparently never leave their homes without their spears. When Telemachos sets off to the assembly at Ithaka, the fact that he took his spear along is taken for granted (Od. 2.10). Similarly, guests always arrive with spears, which either they themselves or their host may put in a spear-rack (Od. 1.120–129). f. The sword Unlike most spears, a sword (xiphos, phasganon, or less commonly, aor or aoros) was not a throwaway weapon. Swords are important status objects in the Iliad, and many of them are quite ornate. Typically, the swords of heroes are said to be studded with silver nails, such as those of Agamemnon (Il. 2.45) and Paris (Il. 3.334); the hilt on Achilleus’ sword is made of silver, too (Il. 1.219). The blades are invariably said to be of bronze. However, a real bronze sword cannot be given a fine edge like a blade of steel; it would be nigh impossible to chop off heads and limbs. Bronze swords are normally used for thrusting only. Bronze is a relatively malleable metal and bends easily when hacking or parrying blows, and we never hear of any heroes bending their swords back into shape. A hit from a bronze sword may not break the skin, but when done with sufficient force it could break bones and cause internal bleeding.664 The sword is the standard piece of equipment that the heroes always carry around with them. When Achilleus contemplates killing Agamemnon, it is his sword that he intends to use (Il. 1.190–191), rather than his spear. A spear was no doubt unwieldy in situations such as the night expedition described in book ten of the Iliad. Diomedes and Odysseus in this case only take their swords (Il. 10.254–261). On the battlefield, a sword is used only after a warrior has run out of spears (e.g., Il. 3.355–369). That sword and spear were considered part and parcel of the warrior’s equipment is demonstrated by the fact that Odysseus gave Iphitos both in return for the famous bow that he had received from him (Od. 21.33; a fine example of gift-exchange). Like the spear, the sword is apparently routinely carried by a man of high standing. When Telemachos sets off for the Ithakan assembly, he takes both his spear and his sword along (Od. 2.3). Telemachos apparently even carries his sword while at home (Od. 20.125, 21.119); if this had been an abnormal show of strength or manhood, the suitors would certainly have commented on it. Importantly, when Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, asks if he could string the bow, Penelope promises the following if he were to succeed: 664

Dickinson 2006, 146.

149

I will give him fine clothing to wear, a mantle and tunic, and give him a sharp jave lin [akonta], to kee p me n and dogs off, and give him sandals for his feet, a sword with two e dges, and se nd him whe re ver his heart and spirit de sire to be se nt. (Od. 21.339–342)

Only exceptional guests are offered clothes and weapons. Telemachos offers the same to Odysseus when the latter is a guest of Eumaios’ (Od. 16.78–81; also Od. 19.241–243); slaves like Eumaios did not normally possess weapons, so it falls on the slave’s owner to provide such gifts. When the suitors are attacked by Odysseus and his compatriots, they are apparently all armed with swords, as Eurymachos tells them to hold the tables up as shields against the arrows and rush at Odysseus with their blades (Od. 22.74–75 and 79–80). Unlike the spear, which was placed in a spear-rack, the sword always remained at the side of its owner, no doubt because it was even more closely connected to him and served as a reminder of his warrior prowess and status as a basileus even when among friends.665 g. The bow and arrow Most modern commentators regard the bow (bios) as a cheap and primitive weapon, used mostly in the hands of people who were too poor to be able to pay for ‘proper’ equipment.666 Certainly, modern writers only build on the foundation provided by most Classical Greek authors themselves, who often levelled disparaging remarks at the skill and bravery of those who fought using belea, ‘missiles’ (e.g., Thouk. 6.69). In the Iliad, enemy archers are held in disdain because they fight from a distance. Achamas, a Trojan hero, insults the Achaians by calling them iomōroi, ‘arrow-fighters’ (Il. 14.479); from ios, ‘arrow’. Likewise, when Diomedes is wounded in the foot by one of Paris’ arrows, he shrugs it off and insults his assailant by calling him a toxotēs, ‘archer’ (Il. 11.385). Of course, archers were appreciated by their friends (e.g., Agamemnon’s praise of Teukros at Il. 8.277–291), regardless of the enemy’s opinion of them! As far as archers in the Homeric epics are concerned, there are no grounds to believe that they were either unskilled or poor. The bows featured in the epics are invariably of composite type, rather than the cheap, ‘simple’ or ‘self’ bows that poorer fighters might conceivably have used. The latter were made of suitable branches with string attached; construction was simple. The composite bow is a more complex weapon, both more expensive to build and more difficult to use. The fourth book of the Iliad features a detailed description of the composite bow (Il. 4.105–126), stressing its (re)curved appearance (cf. Il. 3.18, 6.322, 8.266). There is no sign of the simple bow in the epic world; the more powerful and ornate composite bow is the ranged weapon of choice. References to arrows and the wounds they cause occur frequently in the Iliad,667 but this tells us little about the actual number of archers that either 665 666 667

150

‘During the day, a man and his sword are e vide ntly inse parable ’ (Van Wees 1998, 335). E.g., the diusmissive re marks in Laze nby 1991, 91. Il. 4.124–140 (Me ne laos wounde d), 5.95–100 (Diome des wounde d by Pandaros),

side used, as one archer may fire many arrows before having to rest and restock on ammunition. The Lokrian contingent is unusual in that it consists solely of archers,668 who are also equipped with slings (Il. 13.712–722). They are specifically said not to be equipped with neither helmets or shields, and that they are next to useless at close-range fighting (Il. 13.712–718). Their commander, the lesser Aias, however, is equipped in the same manner as most of the other heroes and fights at close-range. The Lokrian contingent is exceptional as they apparently mass together and fire large volleys at the enemy, which ‘confuses’ the Trojans (Il. 13.715–722), perhaps because they were otherwise unfamiliar with this tactic? It is clear from the descriptions that most archers operate singly and resemble modern snipers, picking specific targets, as we shall see below. Some of the other heroes in the Iliad are also said to be great archers,669 such as Odysseus and Philoktetes. Odysseus once travelled to Ephyre in Thesprotia in search of poison to dip his arrows in (Od. 1.260–263). However, Odysseus’ archery skills are not displayed until the Odyssey, and Philoktetes was abandoned on the island of Lemnos after he had been bitten by a snake (Il. 2.716–725). Helenos attempts to kill Menelaos, but the arrows are deflected by the Spartan king’s shield and armour. Menelaos then wounds Helenos, who flees (Il. 13.581–600). All of the archers named in the poems belong to the elite. Archery thus appears to have been a part of the upbringing of many of the basileis featured in the Homeric epics. For example, an archery contest is part of the funeral games for Patroklos (Il. 23.850), and all of the suitors at Ithaka know how to shoot. In the Odyssey, Odysseus’ skill as an archer fulfils a crucial role in the denouement of the story (Od. 21.403–430). There are three main archer-heroes in the Iliad. On the Achaian side, there is Teukros, a bastard son of Telamon and therefore a half-brother of the greater Aias. Since archers apparently cannot carry shields, they instead seek cover behind the shields of their companions, as Teukros does behind Aias’ shield (Il. 8.266–272). Idomeneus calls Teukros the greatest of the Achaian archers, but is careful to stress his skill at hand-to-hand combat as well (Il. 13.313–314). At one point, Teukros attempts to kill Hektor, but he hits another man instead (Il. 8.300–303). He tries a second time, but misses

668

669

8.80–86 (one of Nestor’s horses shot by Paris), 11.373–383 (Diome des wounde d by Paris), 11.504–507 (Machaon wounde d by Paris), 11.579–584 (Eurypylos hit by Paris), 16.25–27 (Patroklos lists the wounde d), 16.510–512 (Glaukos hit in the arm by Te ukros), 19.59–60 (Achille us wishe s Brise is had been kille d by an arrow), 21.110–113 (Achille us te lls He ktor how he may one day be kille d by e ithe r spear or arrow). One imme diate ly thinks of othe r re gions that, in Classical times, de ve loped re putations for yie lding e xce lle nt troops of particular types; for e xample , Kre tan arche rs and Rhodian slinge rs (e.g., Thouk. 6.43; Xe n. Anab. 1.2.9 and 3.4.16). Some of the gods are also known for the ir skills in arche ry. Apollo and Arte mis are both de scribe d as skilful arche rs. At the start of the Iliad, Apollo’s arrows are thought re sponsible for the deaths during the plague (Il. 1.42–52). Home r later re fe rs to the myth of Niobe , whose childre n we re slaughter by the twin gods after she had been bragging about the m, committing the sin of hubris (Il. 24.602–617). Whe n Odysseus visits the unde rworld, he also e ncounte rs the ghost of He rakles, prowling about with his bow and arrow at the ready (Od. 11.601–608).

151

again and now hits Hektor’s squire (Il. 8.309–313). Angered by the attempts on his life, Hektor picks up a ragged stone and smashes it into Teukros’ chest. It is supposed to be a near-fatal wound, but the archer is back on the battlefield the following day (Il. 8.319–328). Perhaps this means that Teukros, like Pandaros, wore body-armour. In any event, Teukros is foiled by Zeus when he tries, for the third time, to kill Hektor and his bowstring snaps. He then heads for his tent to fetch shield, helmet, and spear so that he may fight at close range (Il. 15.458–483). The poet makes no mention of Teukros putting on his body-armour, only his shield, helmet, and spear, which strengthens the supposition that aristocratic archers, at least, may all have worn body-armour. Among the Trojans, Pandaros is singled out by Aineias as a great archer (Il. 5.171–173). He explains that while his father owned many chariots and fine horses, he did not bring any of them for fear of not being able to feed them at Troy. Had he brought his father’s chariots and horses, his father, Lykaon, told him he would have been able ‘to lead the Trojans’. But he did not, choosing instead to walk to Troy, armed with his bow and arrows (Il. 5.192–205). Pandaros is the one who breaks the truce at the beginning of the Iliad when he shoots Menelaos (Il. 4.92–103). He manages to hit Diomedes in the shoulder (Il. 5.95–100). Aineias and Pandaros decide to work together in trying to kill Diomedes. Aineias takes the reins of his chariot while Pandaros readies himself with a spear. However, Diomedes turns the tables on them and manages to kill Pandaros instead, who falls to the ground. It is then that we learn that Pandaros, while apparently not equipped with shield or helmet, did wear armour, since it rattles when he hits the dust (Il. 5.294–296). The third main archer hero, Paris, makes an initially bold appearance at the start of the third book of the Iliad. He leaps from the ranks of the Trojans, wearing a leopard skin, equipped with both sword and bow, and brandishing two spears. He challenges the best of the Achaians to fight him in single combat. Menelaos steps up to the plate, which disheartens the Trojan basileus. Nevertheless, Paris proposes that the two of them should decide the outcome of the war. If he defeats Menelaos, the Achaians must return home empty-handed; if Menelaos wins instead, Helen will be given back to him, along with all of her possessions (Il. 3.15–75). Paris then proceeds to equip himself properly, donning his armour and putting on greaves as well as ankle-guards, and so forth (Il. 3.326–339). The two men engage in combat, but when Paris comes close to being defeated by his opposite number, he is rescued by Aphrodite (Il. 3.380–383). From this point onward he appears almost exclusively as an archer, wounding a number of the Achaian heroes, including Diomedes (Il. 11.373–383). Later traditions would feature Paris as the killer of Achilleus (by shooting an arrow into the latter’s proverbial heel). In short, there is little support in the epics for the notion that archers were either poor or unskilled. Why would—for argument’s sake—a thēs ever use a bow, if he did not receive the required equipment, provender, and the necessary training from an outside source? The common people of Homeric society were probably excluded from taking part in the athletic 152

competitions of the rich, and they were unlikely to have organised funeral games for their own relatives. They might have used the bow for hunting, but there are strong reasons to suppose that hunting, too, was a prerogative of the agathoi; there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that Homeric commoners hunted for food using the bow. Skamandrios, a hero killed by Menelaos, is said to have been a great huntsman and (therefore?) a skilled archer as well (Il. 5.50–53). 670 Bows, especially the composite variety described in the Iliad and Odyssey, were weapons of the rich: only the wealthy had the necessary means and time to master their use. This explains why, with the exception of the anomalous Lokrian and possibly, on the Trojan side, Paionian contingents (Il. 2.848), 671 the bow is a fairly uncommon weapon on the epic battlefield.672 h. Makeshift weapons The Greek word belea means ‘missiles’, and covers both arrows and any other kind of weapon that was cast or hurled, including javelins, slingshot, and rocks picked up from the ground. We have already seen that arrows were probably fairly uncommon and that there was no apparent distinction between spears and javelins as such. Slings were also rare and apparently confined to the Lokrian contingent. So we are left with rocks and other makeshift weapons that could be easily picked up and thrown by anyone with a decent sense of direction. A typical scene is described when Hektor tries to parlay with the Achaians. The Trojan hero makes his way into the no-man’s land between the Trojan and Achaian armies. As he approaches the Achaian lines, however, ‘the flowing-haired Achaians kept pointing at him with their arrows and with flung stones striving ever to strike him ’ (Il. 3.79–80). Hektor later walks through the lines (stiches), fighting with spear and sword and throwing large rocks himself (Il. 11.540). Of Telamonian Aias, Idomeneus says that he cannot be defeated by any man ‘who could be broken by the bronze and great stones flung at him’ (Il. 13.323). When the Trojans try to storm the walls of the Achaian camp, some of the defenders

670

671

672

Base d on the iconographic evide nce , some of which is discusse d in section ??, above , it seems that Gree ks pre ferre d the spear to the bow whe n hunting from at least the se venth century B.C. onwards; see also Hull 1964, 7–8. The men of Philokte tes are also said to be ‘we ll skille d in the stre ngth of the bow in battle ’ (Il. 2.720), but the impression I get from this is that the se me n, unlike the Lokrians, do not fight primarily as archers, but as spearme n who are able to wie ld the bow whe n necessary. Rawlings 2007, 38, claims that Homer ‘regularly mentions swarms of arrows in flight’, but the cite d passages do not support this. At Il. 15.313, arrows are shot, but the numbe r of arrows are not state d; if a de nse cloud of arrows had bee n imagine d the poet would ce rtainly have said so. At Il. 16.773 (not line 774), arrows are me ntione d, but the numbe r is again not give n. Lattimore re nde rs ioi te pteroentes as ‘many feathere d arrows’ (e mphasis mine ), but the word ‘many’ does not appear in the original Gree k; howe ve r, polla is use d specifically concerning the numbe r of spears at Il. 16.772 and the large stones at Il. 16.774. This suggests to me that the numbe r of arrows, espe cially whe n compare d to thrown rocks and the like , might actually have bee n re lative ly small (also contra Van Wees 2004, 170).

153

tear stones out of the towers (purgoi) and fling them at the attackers, ‘and the helms and shields massive in the middle crashed hollow underneath the impact of rocks like millstones’ (Il. 12.160–161). Both the Trojans and Achaians throw large numbers of stones at each other around the wall of the camp (Il. 12.287–289). i. Chariots and horses While obviously neither arms nor armour, chariots and horses are so much part of the apparel of the more affluent warrior in the epic world that they can be conveniently discussed here. Chariots and horses, high-status symbols par excellence, feature prominently in the Iliad (Il. 20.326), and many people and regions are closely associated with them.673 Some confusion arises due to Homeric terminology: the poet refers to both horsemen and charioteers as hippeis. At least some of the horses may have been ridden rather than yoked to a vehicle (e.g., Il. 11.150–152 and 15.269–270). Horsemen as well as charioteers may have been a regular feature of the epic battlefield (perhaps in Il. 23.131–134?). Horses are a particularly common in Anatolia, where the land itself is obviously better suited to the rearing of these animals than Greece is. For example, Priamos tells Helen of how he once visited Phrygia, where he ‘looked on the Phrygian men with their swarming horses, so many of them’ (Il. 3.185–186). Later, the Phrygians are called hippodamoi, ‘horse-tamers’ (Il. 10.431). It is probably no coincidence that the mythical Amazons, who were presumably envisioned by Homer as horse-riding warrior-women, were thought to come from the east, whence they raided the Phrygians and Lykians (Il. 3.189; they were also defeated by Bellerophon, Il. 6.186). The epic heroes, as the wealthiest combatants in the field, use chariots as their mode of conveyance of choice. 674 Interestingly, Odysseus does not seem to possess a chariot; perhaps chariots and horses are rare on islands. In any event, most chariots in the Iliad are drawn by teams of either two or four horses (Il. 8.184–185, 16.466–476). Each chariot carries two people: a warrior—usually one of the Achaian or Trojan heroes—and a charioteer (e.g., Il. 8.116–129). Chariots are used to transport the heroes to, from, and on the battlefield. Once the hero spots an enemy, he normally dismounts to engage the foe on foot (Il. 3.29, 4.231, 5.13), his charioteer manoeuvring to a place of safety where he waits for his master to call on him. Rarely do the heroes fight directly from their chariots (e.g., Il. 7.13–16). Chariot races are mentioned a number of times in the Iliad (Il. 9.123–124, 9.265–266, 11.697 and further), and a race was part of the funeral games in honour of Patroklos (Il. 673

674

154

For e xample , Il. 2.230 (Trojans as ‘breake rs of horses’), 2.237 (Kastor a ‘breake r of horses’), 3.75 (Argos said to provide good pasture for horses), 4.202 (Trikka also good horse country), 8.194 (Diome des a ‘breaker of horses’), 15.262–270 (He ktor compared to a horse breaking from its stable ), 16.584 (Patroklos re ferre d to as a ‘lord of horses’). The Trojans, of course, are espe cially associate d with the horse , and it has been suggeste d that Trojan re ligion was dominate d by horses and the god Pose idon; this is thought to e xplain why the Trojans we re so eager to bring the woode n horse into the city (Macurdy 1923; cf. Maitland 1999). Cf. Van Wees 1994,9–14.

23.262 and further). The overall picture concerning the use of chariots seems ‘perfectly plausible’.675 However, some modern commentators believe that chariots were introduced by the poet in a deliberate attempt to archaise the story. These writers argue that while the poet describes chariots, he ‘actually’ had mounted horsemen in mind when describing these scenes. 676 This is unlikely for two main reasons.677 Firstly, the war-chariot remained largely unchanged, structurally speaking, from the Bronze Age down to Classical times. It is true that chariots might have been used solely in races and processions. However, and secondly, there is nothing inherently implausible about the Homeric use of chariots as battlefield-taxis.678 4. The social life of w eapons and armour in the epic world Arms and armour are to the heroes important not just on the battlefield, but in everyday life; ‘martiality’ in its broadest sense. We have already seen how no self-respecting Homeric basileus went around town unarmed; even in times of peace, a man carried a sword. Similarly, weapons and armour could be exchanged between friends, especially xenoi (‘guest-friends): the sword and spear that Odysseus gave Iphitos in return for the latter’s bow has already been mentioned, above (Od. 21.33). Weapons and armour could also be passed from father to son, and not necessarily following the death of the former (e.g., Il. 17.194–197). Achilleus, for example, uses his father’s spear in battle (Il. 16.143–144). It is a characteristic feature of Homeric society that sons are thought to resemble their fathers in wit and strength. Of all the men present in Odysseus’ palace, only Telemachos, his son, comes close to stringing his father’s bow (Od. 21.128–130). Most weapons and armour, including of course the Pelian spear and the bow of Iphitos, have a biography of their own that adds to their lustre and thus also to the fame of their owners. It is customary in epic warfare, as we shall see later on, to strip the enemy dead of their armour and weapons. Such equipment was normally re-used by the victors, or dedicated to the gods. When Hektor challenges the Achaians to a fight, he swears to hang the armour of his victim in the temple of Apollo if the god were to keep him safe (Il. 7.81–86). After all, victory (nikē) is granted to mortals by the gods. This means that the gods must always be thanked, which includes the offering of proper (animal) sacrifices. Thus, after a successful raid, the Pylians sacrifice to the gods ‘all through the city’ (Il. 11.705). When their city is later besieged by the Epeians, they sacrifice some more to ask the gods for help (Il. 11.726–728). However, not all enemies were stripped off their armour. Andromache tells how Achilleus, after killing her father Eëtion, ‘did not strip his armour, for his heart respected the dead man, but burned the body in all its elaborate war-gear and piled a grave mound over it’ (Il. 6.416–420; cf. 7.89–90). 675 676 677 678

Singor 1995, 190; see also Ande rson Anderson 1965,Anderson 1975. Greenhalgh 1973, 1–2 and 7–12. See also Rawlings 2007, 39. Ande rson 1975, 178–179.

155

Cremation in arms appears to be a relatively rare phenomenon in the epic world, and the practice is not limited to brave fighters. One of Odysseus’ ship-mates, Elpenor, is specifically described as ‘not terribly powerful in fighting nor sound in his thoughts’ (Od. 10.552–553). He goes to sleep on the roof of Kirke’s island and later, in a drunken haze, forgets the ladder and falls to the ground, breaking his neck. Odysseus later meets Elpenor’s shade, who asks him to burn his body in full armour and to raise a mound over his tomb, planting an oar on the top so all could recognise it from afar (Od. 11.66–78). Funeral games sometimes accompany the cremation and burial of esteemed warriors. Many of the activities have a decidedly martial character. During the funeral games in honour of Patroklos, the heroes engage in various violent games, including boxing, wrestling, spear-throwing, and running (Il. 23.621–623). Achilleus is renowned for his fleetness of foot, which is important in combat and put to the test in running contests (Il. 23.792); Ares, the war-god, is specifically said to be the fastest of all the Olympian gods (Od. 8.331). A duel between Diomedes and Aias is also part of Patroklos’ funeral games: the object of that particular ‘game’ was to wound one’s opponent (Il. 23.798–825). Some of the prizes that could be won in these contests included gifts of armour and weapons; Odysseus and the greater Aias once competed for the sake of Achilleus’ armour (Od. 11.543–555). However, games are not limited to funerals. They can also be organised for their own sake. Neleus, Nestor’s father, once sent a chariot to compete in races organised in Elis (Il. 11.698–701), an action perhaps prefiguring later aristocratic traditions involving Panhellenic games at Olympia (which lies in Elis) and other major sanctuaries. But men also engage in sports as a way of killing time. When Achilleus withdraws from battle, his Myrmidons amuse themselves on the beach by throwing the discus or spear, and practising the bow (Il. 2.773–775). Aside from the recreational value of such activities, these also provided the men with practice in spear-casting and shooting. All of these athletic activities, along with the practice of bearing arms and the exchanging of martial gifts, further strengthening the ideological links between the basileis and violence. 5. Warfare in the epic world Having examined the weapons and armour used by the fighting men in the Homeric world, it is time to see how and why they put their bloodthirsty equipment to use. In the present section, various aspects of warfare in the epic world are examined, including possible causes of war, to raising an army, the organisation of the epic army, types of battles, the death of warriors in combat, and raids. a. Causes of war An examination of war and violence begs the question of why men in the epic world fight. Interestingly enough, the most obvious reason to wage war, namely the acquisition of territory, does not feature in the epics. When

156

Troy was captured, for example, the city was razed to the ground and its population either enslaved or killed (e.g., Il. 2.226–227, 4.338–339, 8.165, 9.270, 16.830–832); its territory was not added to Agamemnon’s domain, nor was this ever contemplated by any of the Achaians or Trojans. Instead, insults are apparently the main cause of conflict between communities. When offended, there are two courses of action. One may retaliate swiftly and dreadfully, or one may seek a diplomatic solution. Both were available to men in the Homeric epics. Two instances spring to mind. The first is a story told by Nestor in the Iliad. His father, Neleus, ruler of Pylos, once sent a chariot to compete in games held in Elis. The Epeians stole the chariot, thus angering the Pylians. Nestor then led a party of young men on a raid and stole a considerable amount of livestock; they also made a number of prisoners (Il. 11.669–704). The second story involves Odysseus in a similar situation, but with a different course of action adopted by Odysseus’ father, Laërtes, who was then ruler of Ithaka. Once, the men of Messene had sailed to Ithaka and taken three hundred sheep; they also enslaved the herdsmen. Unlike Neleus who authorised the retaliatory raid led by Nestor, Laërtes and the other elders (gerontes) sent the young Odysseus on a diplomatic mission to Messene to ask for suitable compensation (Od. 21.15–21). We never learn whether he was successful or not (knowing Odysseus, he probably was), but it is noteworthy that violence was clearly not the only option available to solve problems. The immediate cause of the Trojan War was Menelaos’ wounded honour (timē).679 This was the direct result of Paris insulting Menelaos by abducting the latter’s wife, Helen, as well as making off with valuables looted from Menelaos’ home in Sparta (Il. 7.362–364).680 As such, Paris also violated the rules of xeinia (hospitality).681 The situation between Menelaos and Paris quickly devolved into a full-scale war in order to avenge Paris’ wrongdoings and to restore Menelaos’ honour. Menelaos’ brother, Agamemnon, was the ruler of Mykenai and had the allegiance of all the Achaian rulers and their armies (according to non-Homeric legend, the oath of Tyndareos sworn by all the rulers of Greece ensured that Paris caused the largest force ever seen to set sail for Trojan shores when he abducted Helen). Van Wees regards the conflict between Menelaos and Paris as essentially 679

680

681

Anthropologists have observe d that ‘Primitive peoples may say they have to avenge injurie s for the sake of honor, but the se lective ness and manipulative ness [sic] of the ir me morie s for these injuries has ofte n bee n note d: the y can ‘‘forget’’ stains on the ir honor a long time until they find it conve nie nt to ‘‘re member’’ the m’ (Dawson 1996, 27–28). Ene my raids of cattle and wome n, as we ll as the wilful de struction of prope rty, are among the main causes of warfare (battle ) in the Home ric world (e.g., Il. 11.669–704); the prospect of acquiring pe rsonal we alth and glory motivates individual he roes and the ir bands of followe rs to take part in the actual fighting. Ene my raids of cattle and wome n, as we ll as the wilful de struction of prope rty, are among the main causes of warfare (battle ) in the Home ric world (e.g., Il. 11.669–704); the prospe ct of acquiring pe rsonal wealth and glory motivates individual he roes and the ir bands of followe rs to take part in the actual fighting. He rman 1987, 125–126.

157

a private quarrel, whereby Menelaos drew on his personal influence (via Agamemnon), to assemble an army, which then escalates into a full-blown war between two communities.682 Menelaos and Paris are both seen as representatives of their communities; both the Achaians and the Trojans have a well-developed sense of community (e.g., Il. 12.243, 15.496–498). Something similar can be found in the Odyssey, where Eupeithes, father of Antinoös, once incurred the wrath of the people on Ithaka when these learnt that he had raided the nearby Thesprotians, and thus feared that these might retaliate (Od. 16.425–427).683 When Telemachos visits Nestor, he tells the old man that he and his shipmates are from Ithaka, before immediately adding that their business is a private matter, prēxis d’ hēd idiē, not public, ou dēmios, literally ‘of the people’ (Od. 3.81–82). Men are normally thought to represent their community when abroad, unless they specifically say otherwise, as Telemachos does here. Despite the Trojan War being presented as a full-scale war between two communities and their allies (Sparta c.q. Mykenai and their allies versus the Trojans and their allies), it is clear that if Menelaos were to die on the battlefield, the war would be essentially over (Il. 4.178–181). However, some heroes vow to continue fighting whatever happens (Il. 9.40–49). After all, fighting at Troy offers more than just the risk of death, and the other leaders and their men have ulterior motives for fighting at Troy. Through fighting and achieving victory (nikē), men gain kudos, the divine glory of success granted by Zeus. Kudos in turn, as Bart Natoli has suggested, allows a man to gain both timē and kleos.684 Timē, ‘honour’, is particularly expressed in material terms: at least some of the booty are regarded as geras, ‘prizes of honour’ (e.g., Briseis). The Achaian heroes often ponder the great wealth that is in store for them once Troy is finally captured (e.g., Il. 2.373–374). This success (nikē) would increase the Achaians’ kudos and allow them rightful access to Troy’s wealth and thereby measurably increase their timē; the capture of the city itself would add to their kleos or prestige. Kleos is a man’s fame or reputation, and is all that survives after death, so the heroes strive to make a name for themselves and become the object of stories generations later. By contrast, a man’s timē or honour is lost when he dies: the treasures that symbolise his honour pass on to his heirs (e.g., Od. 9.263–265). Nowhere is the heroic thirst for glory stated more emphatically than by Achilleus when he addresses Agamemnon’s envoys: For my mothe r The tis the goddess of the silver fee t te lls me I carry two sorts of destiny toward the day of my death. Eithe r, if I stay he re and fight beside the city of the Trojans, my re turn home is gone , but my glory [kleos] shall be e verlasting; but if I re turn home to the be love d land of my fathers, the e xce lle nce [esthlos] of my glory [kleos] is gone , but there will be a long life le ft for me , and my e nd in death will not come to me quickly. (Il. 9.410–416)

682 683 684

158

Van Wees 1992, 172–175. See also Rawlings 2007, 31; cf. Van Wees 1992, 191–199. For more on the re lationship be twee n kudos, kleos, and timē, re fe r to the use ful discussion in Natoli 2006.

Van Wees has argued that war in the Iliad is status warfare, i.e. a kind of warfare in which men fight to enhance not just their personal, but more specifically their collective status. 685 the fighting in the Iliad appears only to reinforce the status of the heroes. The actual status of a hero remains essentially the same and is measured by the number of ‘gifts of honour’ (geras) or booty that he receives. 686 Thus Agamemnon, as the commander-in-chief of the Achaian forces and the greatest of the rulers, receives far more of the spoils than men who are arguably better fighters, as Achilleus bitterly points out (Il. 1.225–244). b. Raising an army In war, each of the heroes commands his own group of followers, referred to as hetairoi or ‘companions’, essentially ‘friends’ (philoi). The companions are ubiquitous (e.g., Il. 1.179; 2.778; 3.1; 4.379; 7.115; 11.461; 13.164–165; 16.816–817). Patroklos, for example, is one of Achilleus’ companions (Il. 9.205); the death of this close friend is the reason that Achilleus eventually returns to battle. 687 In battle, the heroes are hardly ever alone, which explains why the poet specifically mentions when they are caught on their own, without any companions nearby (e.g., Il. 11.401–410).688 At least some companions are called therapōntes (‘retainers’, ‘henchmen’; I would also offer ‘householdmen’). Van Wees suggests that all the followers of a leader are both his therapōntes and his hetairoi, and that a very small number of these men ‘perhaps the only retainers to live in their masters’ houses are refugees without a livelihood or a place to stay, while other retainers are local men with their own households’.689 It appears that most families were supposed to supply one warrior each; one of the Myrmidons, Argeïphontes (i.e. Hermes), tells Priamos that he and his six brothers cast lots, and he was thus chosen by fate to accompany Achilleus to Troy (Il. 24.399–400). That statement begs the question: were men sometimes forced to go to war? There is no proof in the epics that some men were pressed into joining a military campaign. Perhaps only the father of Argeïphontes, as the head of his household (oikos), was asked to accompany Achilleus. He may have decided to send someone else in his stead to fulfil the favour; Achilleus, after all, went in his father’s place, on account of Peleus’ advanced age. This would explain why Argeïphontes and his brothers cast lots (Achilleus was an only son). Near the beginning of the Iliad, Achilleus tells Agamemnon: I for my part did not come he re for the sake of the Trojan spearme n to fight against them, since to me the y have done nothing. Ne ve r yet have they drive n away my cattle or my horses, ne ver in Phthia whe re the soil is rich and men grow great did the y 685 686 687

688 689

Van Wees 1992, 206–207. Cf. Ready 2007 (acquisition of spoils). The re is no proof in the Iliad that Achille us and Patroklos we re love rs: such is wishful thinking on the part of comme ntators, ancie nt and modern. Achille us and Patroklos we re war-buddies and foste r-brothers. For furthe r insight and discussion, re fer to Shay 1994, 40–44. Stresse d by Van Wees 1988, esp. pp. 5–7 and 21–22. Van Wees 1992, 32; cf. Od. 13.265–266.

159

spoil my harvest, since indee d there is much that lies be twee n us, the shadowy mountains and the echoing sea; but for your sake , o great shame lessness, we followe d, to do you favour [chairēs], you with the dog’s eyes, to win your honour [timē] and Me ne laos’ from the Trojans. You forge t all this or e lse you care nothing. (Il. 1.152–160)

Achilleus makes clear that he and the other leaders followed Agamemnon as a favour (charis). Joining the expedition appears to have been wholly voluntary, although there is evidence that some leaders, at least, felt obliged to join because of public opinion (e.g., Od. 14.235–239). A few high-ranking leaders were able to politely refuse an invitation to war by sending the commander-in-chief some valuable gift. Echepolos, son of Anchises, gave Agamemnon a beautiful mare, ‘so as not to have to go with him to windy Ilion but stay where he was and enjoy himself’ (Il. 23.295–296). An outright refusal to Agamemnon’s request would probably have been frowned upon, so Echepolos tries to soften the blow by giving the Mykenaian ruler a valuable gift. Friends from further afield might even send a gift of their own accord. When Kinyras, the king of Cyprus, heard that Agamemnon was preparing for war, he sent his friend a beautiful cuirass as a token of his friendship and support (Il. 11.19–23). When the suitors in Ithaka hear that Telemachos has set off to visit the mainland, Antinoös asks which of the young men (kouroi) went with him: the exairetoi (‘chosen men’) of Ithaka, or perhaps thētes in his employ, or even slaves (Od. 4.642–644). The exairetoi, ‘chosen men’, were no doubt culled from the upper echelons of society, i.e. the basileis. It thus appears that only the aristocracy and their dependents (slaves and thētes) were eligible for service of this kind, and only kouroi at that (probably because Telemachos himself is a young man who has yet to prove himself). The common people are again curiously absent: we shall see a little further on that this does not appear to be a case of wilful neglect on the part of the poet, but a feature of archaic society. Odysseus’ house features a store-room filled with all sorts of treasures (keimēlia) and weapons (Od. 2.337–347); no doubt other basileis also possessed such rooms. Weapons, armour, and other (metal) objects are also displayed in a basileus’ hall. When Odysseus is shooting the suitors with Iphitos’ bow, Telemachos runs off to fetch equipment from an inner room (Od. 22.101–115); earlier, he had removed all of the weapons and armour from Odysseus’ hall, where the suitors spent most of their time (Od. 19.1–34, 22.23–25). While most men no doubt had to supply their own weapons and armour, at least some in the retinue of a wealthy man could be supplied from the latter’s surplus equipment. At one point in the Iliad, the Achaians are told to exchange shields and spears, so that the braver fighters might replace their battered equipment with the more pristine pieces of armour and weapons used by those who tend to avoid the brunt of fighting (Il. 14.370–387). Such passages suggest that ownership of equipment was perhaps not as strictly personal as is sometimes thought. c. The journey to the battlefield In order to reach Troy, the heroes have to traverse the Aegean sea. Ships 160

were probably owned by only a few of the wealthiest residents in a Homeric community, viz. the heroes of the poems. It seems likely that influential men might have been able to borrow a ship as a favour or in exchange for a portion of the envisioned booty. When Telemachos wishes to visit the mainland, he first asks the men at assembly to give a ship and some crew (Od. 2.209–217); a little later Athene (disguised as Mentor) tells Telemachos that she will find both ship and crew for him (Od. 2.285–295). Ships in the Iliad and Odyssey are long and slender open boats (‘longships’), which are dragged unto a beach and fixed with ‘long props’ (ermata makra ) to prevent them from falling to one side. It can be deduced that in the so-called ‘Catalogue of Ships’, most vessels possessed either fifty or twenty oars. The Boiotians are said to have brought fifty ships, each of which carried a hundred and twenty men (Il. 2.509–510), but these may not have all been oarsmen. Ships with twenty and especially fifty oarsmen were regarded as fairly standard types (e.g., Il. 16.168–170).690 In the Odyssey, a ship with twenty oars is referred to as an eikosoros (Od. 9.322–323). A fifty-oared vessel is referred to as pentekontoros by Herodotos (e.g., Hdt. 6.137), but not Homer. This supports the notion that the fifty-oared vessel was the typical warship familiar to Homer, requiring little further description.691 They were used to transport troops and also, as we shall see a little further on, to carry out raids on neighbouring towns. d. Fortifications in the epic world When the Achaians arrive at Troy, they conquer the beach and build their camp. When not fighting or raiding, the Achaians linger here. Within the camp, the Achaians are grouped according to regional contingent, their ships drawn up on the beach with their huts and shelters built alongside them, forming streets and an agora or place of assembly (e.g., Il. 1.185, 475–476, 2.19, 2.399, 10.74, 11.805–807). In the seventh book of the Iliad, Nestor advises the Achaians to fortify their camp (Il. 7.327–343). The Achaians collect their dead and burn their bodies. They pile earth onto the pyre to form a mount, on which ‘towering ramparts’ are built so as to better defend the camp. They build walls, fitted with ‘strong gates’, and dig a deep trench just outside of the newly-made walls to strengthen their position even further. Remarkably, part of the structure is made of stone (Il. 12.154–155). The Achaians also fix sharp stakes within the ditch (Il. 7.433–441, 9.348–350), and also in front of both ditch and wall (Il. 8.343–344, 15.1–2), some with the express purpose of keeping out chariots and horses (Il. 12.50–79). This fortification circuit apparently rivals the walls of Troy itself, made by Poseidon and Apollo (Il. 7.454–463). The Achaian camp actually resembles a town more than a typical military camp. Troy is not the only fortified city in the Iliad. In fact, walls are a fixture in many descriptions of towns in the Homeric world. Some Achaian towns are described as strongholds (Il. 2.646, 2.691, and so on). When Boiotian Thebes 690 691

See also Wallinga 1993, 40 (with re fe rences). In He rodotos’ time , there were no less than three differe nt kinds of warships (pe nte konters, bire mes, trire mes); see chapte r 3, be low, for furthe r de tails.

161

was founded, it was immediately walled, ‘since without bulwarks they could not have lived, for all their strength, in Thebes of the wide spaces’ (Od. 11.264–265). The major difference between most fortified places and Troy is a matter of quality and scale. The Trojan fortifications, which consists of walls, towers, and ramparts, along with a variety of strong gates, are apparently made of much tougher materials than appears usual; perhaps the Trojan walls are made entirely out of stone rather than mud brick on a stone foundation? Or perhaps the walls of Troy were more remarkable for their great height? In any event, stone was apparently used extensively in the city’s construction (Il. 6.242–250). Troy’s streets are called euktimenos and euruaguia, ‘well-laid’ and ‘wide’ (Il. 6.391; 9.28), so presumably these have a stone or cobbled surface, further reinforcing the notion that, at least within the context of the epic world, Troy is a city made mostly out of stone. All walls in the epic world are taken by storm (Il. 4.239, 7.164). The war-god himself, Ares, is frequently referred to as a teichesiplēta, ‘stormer of walls’ (Il. 5.31, 5.455, and so on), as well as a ptoliporthon, ‘sacker of cities’ (e.g., Il. 20.152). In order to capture a fortified settlement (ptoliethron; Lattimore translates this as ‘citadel’), one’s troops needed to scale the walls and either surprise the enemy or overwhelm them with superior numbers (e.g., Il. 13.81–87, 16.698–709). This suggests that most walls in the epic world were not that high. One portion of the walls of Troy are specifically singled out as being easier to climb (Il. 6.433–434), perhaps because it was made largely of mud brick or rough stones, featured a more gentle slope, or maybe because it was not as tall as the other sections. It is interesting that apparently no siege engines of any sort were used, not even (improvised) ladders or simple battering rams.692 Some heroes use boulders to smash gates and walls (Il. 12.445–466); stakes are employed as levers to topple enemy battlements (Il. 12.257–261). Despite the lack of any apparent siege apparatus, siege warfare or, more specifically, the storming and sacking of cities, appear to have been among the most common military activities in the Homeric world (e.g., Il. 1.19, 2.728, 9.327–328). It is certainly no coincidence that war is represented on the new shield of Achilleus b y a city under siege (Il. 18.509–512). Once again, this suggests that fortifications were rather simple, with most towns having straightforward defences that could be easily climbed because of either the materials used in their construction (stone foundations with mud-brick superstructures) or because they were not all that high. There are three ways in which an attack on a city might end. The most violent is for the attackers to somehow capture the city. The consequences of conquest would be harsh in the case of Troy; the city would be sacked and then razed to the ground, the men and some of their children would be killed, the women and remaining children enslaved (Il. 6.447–465). But many Trojans hope that it will never come to this. They believe that if they can hold on long enough, the Achaians—demoralised, tired, and possibly 692

162

Some have suggeste d that the Trojan horse was actually a siege e ngine , some thing similar to an Assyrian batte ring ram; see , e.g., Fie lds 2004, 51–52 (with re fe re nces).

hungry—will just pack up and leave, ending the war. Finally, there is a third option: a city under siege may offer a bribe to the attackers. Sensing his impending doom, Hektor laments that he did try to find a peaceful solution. Why, he wonders, did he not go and meet with Achilleus, ‘and promise to give back Helen, and with her all her possessions, all those things that once in the hollow ships Alexandros brought back to Troy [...]; to give these to the Atreus’ sons to take away, and for the Achaians also to divide up all that is hidden within the city, and take an oath thereafter for the Trojans in conclave not to hide anything away, but distribute all of it’ (Il. 22.111–122; see also 509–512). Aside from their obvious defensive value, a wall also has an important symbolic value, separating the human city-dwellers from the hostile countryside (agros), the home of wild animals and monsters.693 The town, sometimes delineated by its walls, is the basic constituent element of Homeric territories. Hence, when Agamemnon wishes to make peace with Achilleus, he offers him treasures and slaves, the hand of one of his daughters, and no less than seven towns (Il. 9.149–156). To demonstrate his affection for Odysseus, Menelaos tells Telemachos that he wanted to ‘empty’ (exalapazō) one of his own cities for Odysseus and his people to dwell in,694 somewhere close to Menelaos’ Sparta (Od. 4.174–179). This gifting of towns suggest that military might is centred around the figure of the ruler, and probably concentrated in his hometown, effectively the ‘capital’ within his territory. This seems particularly true in the case of Menelaos: the original inhabitants of the town that he wants to give to Odysseus would no doubt object to being ousted from their homes. However, they are apparently unable to do anything about it. Earlier in this chapter, we have already seen how Telemachos picked kouroi from among the ‘chosen men’ (no doubt basileis), and the dependent social groups (slaves and thētes). This clear distinction between aristocrats, for whom warfare and violence were a way of life, and the mass of the common people, for whom warfare was something beyond their sphere of experience, is also found in Hesiod’s poetry. His world has been examined in great detail by Anthony Edwards. Edwards suggests that the contacts between Hesiod’s farming community in Askra, a kōmē (village), and the basileis (leaders) of Thespiai were limited to judicial cases, concluding that Hesiod’s ‘Works and Days provides no basis whatsoever for the claim that the kings of the agorē wield economic, political, or military authority in Ascra.’695 Likewise, Askra has no apparent economic, political, or military obligations, except that inhabitants may seek the judgement of Thespian basileis in otherwise irresolvable conflicts, which suggests some kind of link between the two settlements. Hesiod never mentions war and is only concerned with 693 694

695

In gene ral, see Scully 1990; specifically for the Odyssey, see Edwards 1993; cf. Aristotle Pol. 1253a7 (zoōn politiōn). The verb exalapazō is use d here in the sense of ‘to vacate ’ or ‘to empty’, but its more common meaning is ‘to raze ’ (a se ttle ment). Me ne laos has e nough powe r, appare ntly, to re move the e ntire population of a town, no doubt forcibly if necessary. Edwards 2004, 66.

163

farming and, to a very modest degree, trade.696 This negative evidence itself is suggestive, as it seems to compare favourably with the Homeric world, where villages appear vague and indistinct, with the basileis concentrated in relatively few towns, and where military might is concentrated in the larger towns and around the figures of the basileis in particular (cf. Hesiod’s parable of the hawk and the nightingale). In sum, then, it seems to me that only the aristocracy engaged in combat, perhaps supported by slaves and other dependents, while the mass of the common people stayed at home; the latter relied exclusively on the military prowess of the elite for their protection and were otherwise essentially defenceless. This explains why powerful rulers like Agamemnon and Menelaos are able to ‘empty’ settlements in their territories if they so desire, as they are the wielders of supreme military, and thus political power in their respective domains. e. Army organisation While the poet does not describe all of the particulars of the Achaian army, it is clear that he had a consistent vision of what it was supposed to be like. Homer obviously drew on the experiences of warfare in his own time when discussing the organisation of the Achaian army. ‘Surely,’ as Van Wees rightly asserted, ‘were this army organisation the brain-child of the poet or a succession of poets creating the Iliad, he or they would have added a few lines of clarification for the benefit of the audience.’697 In any event, the organisation of the Achaian army appears to be relatively straightforward. The poet uses a number of terms that have often been defined rather narrowly by modern commentators. However, ancient Greek authors are not known for their consistency as far as terminology is concerned, and Homer was no different.698 The army itself is often referred to as a ‘host’, stratos. The word phalanx, usually in the plural (phalanges) is sometimes used to denote battle-lines, especially lines or ranks of men, fighting or standing side by side; the word implies throngs of men rather than a neat array (e.g., Il. 11.90, 19.158). The word stix, always in the plural (stiches), is used to denote both ranks and files of men, as well as simply large bodies of men (e.g., Il. 4.221–231, 16.173; of horses, Il. 20.326). Similarly, the word purgos (‘tower’) is sometimes used to denote a dense group of fighters (Il. 4.334 and 4.347). None of these terms appear to refer to a specific kind of military unit or formation.699 However, a more meaningful distinction is made between fighters engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy, the promachoi or protoi, and those that keep their distance, the plethus (‘multitude’). The heroes, being well-armoured and equipped with spears and swords, usually fight at close-range, as promachoi (Il. 2.474–483).700 696 697 698 699 700

164

On warfare in Hesiod, see Edwards 2004, 76. Van Wees 1986, 296. For further discussion, re fer to Trumpy 1950. Contra Latacz 1977, 49 and Pritchett 1985-GSaW4, 21–25; cf. Van Wees 1994,3–9. Singor 1988, 77–92 (as we ll as pp. 93–111), suggests that the ple thus we re lighter arme d or eve n lightly-arme d me n, but I am not so sure . The te rm see ms to me only to indicate the position of a warrior on the battle fie ld, i.e. in front of the army or

The commander-in-chief of the Achaian army is Agamemnon, ruler of Mykenai and frequently referred to as the anax andron, the ‘lord of men’ (e.g., Il. 1.172). He frequently relies on the advice of sagely fighters, especially Nestor (e.g., Il. 2.360–368), and also calls assemblies to discuss important matters with the other basileis, witnessed by the remainder of the army, the plethus or laos (e.g., Il. 2.50–53) On the Trojan side, Priamos is nominally in charge, but due to his advanced age, the actual commander in the field is Hektor, assisted by other prominent men such as Aineias and the leaders of various contingents, such as Sarpedon and Glaukos, who lead the Lykians. The Achaian troops assembled before Troy are grouped together according to regional contingent. The contingents for both the Achaians and the Trojans are listed in the second book of the Iliad, in a section known as the ‘Catalogue of Ships’. 701 The Achaian forces number at least sixty thousand men, which is no doubt an example of epic exaggeration.702 In any event, each regional contingent has its own leader. For example, the Myrmidons of Phthia are under the command of Achilleus. A leader may decide to carve up his contingent into different sections (stiches); 703 Achilleus, for example, at one point divides the Myrmidons into five different groups, each with its own leader (Il. 16.168–199). This dividing up of the troops is then not mentioned again by the poet, so perhaps Achilleus only defined the sections in order to send similarly-sized groups of men out to different parts of the battleline. That a battleline exists is demonstrated by instances where men are specifically sent out to reinforce either the left, centre, or right of the entire army, pantos stratos (e.g., during the battle at the ships at Il. 13.308–314, where the camp provides some structure to the battlefield that the open plain probably lacks). The Trojan contingents, unlike the Achaian, are frequently referred to as epikouroi,704 perhaps partly because the Trojans and their allies are not as culturally homogenous as the Achaians, speaking many different languages (Il. 2.803–804), and can thus not be collectively referred to by one name.705 But the word epikouros carries a further connotation. Early on, Priamos tells Helen that he, as an epikouros, was once summoned to the aid of Otreus and Mygdon to fight against the Amazons (Il. 3.185–189). Sarpedon at one point tells Hektor that he came to Troy as an epikouros (Il. 5.477–478 and 491; also Il. 12.101), even though he himself was never threatened by the Achaians (Il. 5.482–484). Poulydamas later rebukes Hektor, telling him, ‘now you have utterly forgotten your armed companions (epikouroi) who for your sake, far from their friends and the land of their fathers, are wearing their lives away’ (Il. 16.538–540). Only once are Achaians referred to as epikouroi. Agamemnon reminds Diomedes of his father, Tydeus, who once came to Mykenai with Polyneikes to ask for epikouroi to aid in the war against

701 702 703 704 705

‘submerge d’ among the throng (plethus) of me n behind. On Home ric catalogues and the ir similarities to battle narrative s, see Be ye 1964. Cf. Finley 1978 [1954], 51. See also Van Wees 1986; Latacz 1977, 60. Il. 2.130, 2.803–815, 3.451–456, 5.473, 6.111, 6.227, 7.348, 7.368, 7.477, 8.497, 9.233, 10.420, 11.220, 11.563, 12.61, 12.108, 13.755, 17.14, 17.212, 17.220, 17.335, 17.362, 18.229. Cf. Thouk. 1.3.

165

Boiotian Thebes (Il. 4.376–379). In other words, an epikouros is someone who comes to the aid of a friend, especially—if not exclusively—in defence of said friend. It is stated specifically in the Iliad that the Trojan epikouroi render aid in exchange for rich gifts (Il. 17.220–226); after all, unlike the Achaians, the Trojans have no Achaian cities nearby to loot. In the case of the assault on Thebes, these allies are perhaps called epikouroi because they will have no chance to actually plunder the city: Polyneikes wants to oust his brother and seize control of the city and its territory, not raze it to the ground. Aside from the examples already cited above, the meaning of epikouros as someone who comes to one’s defence is clear from the following, spoken by the goddess Athene: No w may all who bring the ir aid to the Trojans be in such case as these, whe n they do battle with the armoure d Argives, as daring and as unfortunate , as now Aphrodite came companion in arms [epikouros] to Ares, and face d my fury. (Il. 1.428–431)

The defenders of Troy are thus compared to Aphrodite who came to the defence of Ares against Athene; the mortal epikouroi do so in exchange for rich gifts, while Aphrodite does it to protect her lover (again, there is no other reward in sight other than what the defender might give to his epikouros). The meaning of epikouros shall be discussed further in our analysis of Archilochos in the next chapter. Many commentators claim that Homeric warfare consisted essentially of disorganised skirmishing, with individual champions as the poet’s focal points. However, such a scheme is applicable only to brawls; it is clear that the fighting described in the Iliad is not a free-for-all. Instead, the Homeric stratos or army—like any other army at any other point in history, as far as I know—is composed of distinct bodies of men, military units, who work together to achieve a common goal (viz. defeating the enemy). The importance of working together is stressed every so often in the Iliad (e.g., Il. 5.565–572 and 13.234–237). Homer even suggests that the Achaians are better at co-operating than the Trojans and their allies (Il. 17.360–365); perhaps co-operation among the latter is made more difficult by the many different languages that they speak (Il. 2.804).706 This might be regarded as an early example of the dichotomy between ‘Greeks’ and ‘Asiatics’ that would arise particularly after the Persian Wars (cf. Hdt. 9.62).707 In the Iliad, military units consist of a leader (often a named hero, e.g. Achilleus or Hektor) and his followers (collectively referred to as hetairoi). The leaders use chariots as battlefield-taxis, while their followers included spearmen (aichmētes), as well as some archers (toxotes), and possibly other horsemen (hippeis). The men do not manoeuvre in formation; any formations that are adopted arise spontaneously and are always used defensively, i.e. statically, rather than offensively (see below). However, in a few instances the men do march toward the enemy in ‘waves’, i.e. more or 706 707

166

For more on the diffe re nces betwee n Achaians and Trojans, see Mackie 1996. Konstan 2007, 178–179.

less in ranks (e.g., Il. 13.795–801). One passage in particular offers a good description: As whe n along the thunde ring beach the surf of the sea strikes beat upon beat as the west wind dr ives it onward; far out cresting first on the ope n water, it drives thereafte r to smash roaring along the dry land, and against the rock jut be nding breaks itse lf into crests spe wing back salt wash; so thronge d beat upon beat the Danaans ’ close battalions [phalagges] steadily into battle , with e ach of the lords commanding his own me n; and the se we nt sile ntly, you would not think all these pe ople with voices ke pt in the ir chests were marching; sile ntly, in fear of the ir commande rs; and upon all glitte re d as the y marche d the shining armour the y carrie d. (Il. 4.422–432)

I shall use the term ‘warband’ as a convenient shorthand for the Homeric unformed unit just described, i.e. a group composed of a leader and his followers.708 Homer himself sometimes uses the word lochos to refer to a body of men, a ‘unit’ (e.g., Od. 20.49). This word is also used to denote a small group of men hiding in ambush (e.g., Il. 6.187–190; the wooden horse is a ‘hollow lochos’ or ‘ambush’, Od. 4.277). How large are these warbands? It seems likely that each warship, crewed by about fifty men, would form a single warband on land, with their captain as leader. A good example are the descriptions of Odysseus’ wanderings, where his men look up to him and worry about their leader’s safety (e.g., Od. 10.261–269 and 419–421). When on Kirke’s island, Odysseus divides the men in two equal parts, appointing Eurylochos as commander of one section and himself of the other (Od. 10.203–205). Ship crews, especially groups of fifty men, may have been the basis for division of the troops. For example, when Achaian sentries are posted to keep watch on the Trojans, each of them is given command of one hundred troops (Il. 9.85–88), and Achilles divides his Myrmidons into five sections, each consisting of the crews of ten ships or five hundred men (Il. 16.168–199). f. Agents and attendants in the Achaian army Any army requires agents of some kind with specialised skills. The epic army has several, namely seers (manteis), healers (iatroi), heralds (kērukes), and scouts (episkopoi, kataskopoi; also just skopoi),709 whose duties are also akin to those of spies. Kalchas is the chief mantis on the Achaian side, although Agamemnon claims that he is notoriously dour in his outlook (Il. 1.106–108). Heralds perform a number of important functions: they apparently determine when men ought to stop fighting (e.g., Il. 7.273–282), they call the men to assembly following an order of the basileis (e.g., Il. 9.9–12), they carry messages, even in the thick of battle (e.g., Il. 12.342–363), and serve as town-criers (Il. 11.684–685); they also serve as attendants (e.g., Il. 24.148–151; see also below). Like the heads of wealthy households,

708 709

Van Wees 1986, 289 (etc.), uses simply ‘band’. On the lack of diffe re ntiation in te rms for ‘spy’, ‘scout’ in Home r, see Russe ll 1999, 11 n. 3 and 103 n. 1.

167

heralds wield sceptres to indicate their right to arbitration, both in battle and at the assembly. Neither seers nor heralds appear to take part in any of the fighting around Troy. By contrast, there are no ‘full-time’ healers or spies in either the Trojan or the Achaian armies.710 Among the latter, the sons of Asklepios, Podaleirios and Machaon, are the best healers in the army, but they also take part in the general fighting. At some point, Machaon is even wounded by Paris (Il. 11.506–507). Idomeneus then tells Nestor to ride out and save Machaon, as ‘A healer (iatros) is a man worth many men in his knowledge of cutting out arrows and putting kindly medicines on wounds’ (Il. 11.514–515). Healers, then, are mostly men skilled in performing what we call battlefield triage, the treatment of wounds. 711 Other warriors are also skilled at healing wounds, such as Achilleus, who was trained by the Kentaur Cheiron (Il. 11.827–831). Spies are simply volunteers from among the fighters themselves. The tenth book of the Iliad is again illustrative. The Achaians want to know what the Trojans are up to, but to spy on them would require special courage. Nestor asks the question to the assembled basileis: ‘O my friends, is there no man who, trusting in the daring of his own heart, would go among the high-hearted Trojans?’ (Il. 10.204–205). The object of the expedition is to either capture a lone enemy warrior or to overhear the plans that the Trojans are forging (Il. 10.206–210). If the spy were successful, Nestor continues, then ‘huge and heaven-high would rise up his glory (kleos) among all people, and an excellent gift (dosis) would befall him’ (Il. 10.212–213). Diomedes volunteers and picks Odysseus to accompany him on the expedition, during which they capture and interrogate the Trojan spy Dolon. The Trojans furthermore keep lookouts on the plain (Il. 8.553–865, 9.1), and one Polites took up position on the burial mound of Aisyetes to keep an eye on the Achaians (Il. 2.791–794). Full-time male servants or attendants are absent in the Achaian army. Instead, heralds and female slaves perform duties that in Classical times would typically be handled by personal attendants. In addition to heralds and female slaves, a leader could also order hetairoi to perform certain tasks. Before setting off on their mission to try to appease Achilleus, Phoinix and the other representatives sent by Agamemnon wash their hands in water poured by heralds, while kouroi, ‘young men’ (perhaps young hetairoi?), fill a mixing-bowl with wine that they then pass from one man to the next (Il. 9.173). Heralds lead lambs to the slaughter in a sacrifice to mark an oath; they, like the kouroi, sometimes also wash the hands of their superiors and mix wine (Il. 3.268–270). Following the failed embassy to appease Achilleus, Patroklos orders his hetairoi, ‘companions’, and dmōēsi, ‘slave-girls’, to make a bed ready for 710

711

168

That the re we re professional heale rs available outside of the conte xt of the army is borne out by a stateme nt made by Eumaios: ‘For who goes visiting e lse whe re so as to call in anothe r stranger, unless he is one who works for the pe ople (dēmiourgos), e ither a prophe t, or a heale r of sickness, or a skille d workman, or inspire d singe r’ (Od. 17.382–385). Home ric me dicine is not as primitive as ofte n assume d; see Tzave lla -Evjen 1983.

Phoinix (Il. 9.658–659). Later, Achilleus orders two therapōntes to take care of Priam’s mules, horses, and herald (Il. 24.572–581), while female slaves are ordered to wash Hektor’s body (Il. 24.581–586). Achilleus’ hetairoi and female slaves also make a bed for Priam (Il. 24.643–644). The situation in the Achaian camp is similar to that in Troy (e.g., Il. 3.421–423), at Ithaka (Od. 1.106–112), and other towns, where men rely on heralds, friends (especially therapōntes), and female slaves; male slaves are apparently found only in the countryside (e.g., Eumaios and other swineherds, Od. 14.1–28). 712 Male prisoners in the Achaian camp are never used as slaves or attendants: they are either sold off or kept for ransom (e.g., Il. 11.104–106). g. Open-field or pitched battles As suggested in the previous subsection, the Trojan War is not a siege in the proper sense of the words. The Achaians seldom try to storm the walls or take the gates; when they do, the gods usually prevent them from actually capturing the city (Il. 21.514–517). Neither do they try to cut off the Trojan lines of supply or communication; for example, the Achaians never try to starve the Trojans out.713 Instead, they construct a massive camp on the beach that is essentially a city in itself. When the Achaians and Trojans fight, they do so out in the plain between the camp and Troy itself; the character of the war is rather more like that between two neighbouring towns. The most likely explanation is that the poet was unfamiliar with protected warfare between enemy communities. Why else would the Achaians not have tried to come up with simple siege devices like ladders or battering rams? Most of the actual fighting in the Iliad takes place on a great plain, through which runs the Skamandros river (Il. 2.465). When the armies (stratoi) assemble, their size is emphasised: for example, the Myrmidons under the command of Patroklos at one point come streaming out of the Achaian camp like wasps from a roadside nest (Il. 16.259–261). Bodies usually litter the ground after only a few moments of fighting. The ground quickly runs red with the blood of slain and wounded warriors (Il. 8.65). The fighting typically lasts all day, at the end of which each side collects their dead, try to identify the remains, and then cremate the bodies (Il. 7.421–432). The burnt remains are then buried somewhere close to the battlefield. At one point, Nestor advices to build a funeral pyre close to the ships and have the bones collected to bring back to Greece upon the conclusion of the Trojan War (Il. 7.326–335).714 Most battles in the Iliad that are described in some detail are fairly massive engagements between large groups of people. These battles consist of a multitude of hand-to-hand engagements, where individuals are grouped in small bands, with some men providing cover with missiles (arrows, stones, and thrown spears). Bands and even individual fighters may break off from the fighting to rest, pick up replacement weapons, have their wounds seen to, and so on. While Homer clearly focuses on the 712 713 714

See also Van Wees 1992, 49. Cf. the criticism of Agamemnon expresse d in Thouk. 1.9–11. See also Pritchett 1985-GSaW4, 100–102.

169

exploits of the heroes, the idea that the success of either the Achaian or Trojan army on the field of battle depended solely on the actions of these individual champions, and not on the masses in general, cannot be maintained.715 Latacz, in his study of Homeric warfare, claimed that there were three stages to Homeric battles, namely missile (belea) combat, single combat between promachoi (champions), and finally mêlée combat. 716 However, I agree with Van Wees that Homeric battles are not fought in stages; these three different kinds of battle instead occur simultaneously, not sequentially. 717 Furthermore, I would add that relatively short-range combat between spear-wielding warriors is probably the most common kind of fighting in the poem, since archers appear to be an uncommon sight on the battlefield. Small war-bands, consisting of either major or minor leaders and their followers, are the basic tactical units on the battlefield. These bands are highly mobile, allowing them to, for example, return to camp and pick up a fresh supply of weapons while on the plain the battle rages on (for example, Il. 13.247–248 and 13.254–265). There is no fixed structure within the warband; ‘any massing of troops could only be temporary.’718 Only in some cases, as pointed out earlier, do the men march toward the enemy in ‘waves’. The members of a warband rely on their leader, which makes them somewhat vulnerable; many hetairoi scatter when their commander is killed. Sometimes, warbands may adopt a defensive formation of sorts. A remarkable example is the tactic is used to protect Patroklos’ fallen body from the Trojans. A number of Greek fighters gather round the corpse and form a kind of wall (the poet calls it a ‘fence’) with their shields, their spears held out in front of them to deter any would-be assailant (Il. 17.354–355). Such tactics make the ‘closed ranks’ of the later ‘hoplite phalanx’ seem like a very natural formation. Such battles around the corpses of fallen comrades occur frequently in the poem. As Singor puts it: In the Iliad, a large part of the fighting among the promachoi is around the corpses of falle n warriors. These fights be long to the ‘typical battle sce nes’ of the e pic. Both sides’ heroes and the ir hetairoi are freque ntly drawn into a fight in order e ithe r to partake in the despoiling of a slain foe or to he lp protect a falle n frie nd.719

The fighting is gritty, with men seeking victory through whatever means necessary. For example, when Agamemnon kills Hippolochos, he cuts off his arms and sends the body rolling into the mass of fighters, ‘like a log’ (Il. 11.145–147). Another Achaian warrior, Peneleos, kills a Trojan by spearing him in the face. He then cuts off the head and lifts it into the air on the spear, causing the Trojans to shake with fear (Il. 14.496–507). Following the death of Patroklos, Iris tells Achilleus that Hektor wishes to cut off the his friend’s head and fix it to one of the stakes on the walls of Troy (Il. 18.175–177). 715 716 717 718 719

170

As already pointe d out long ago by Calhoun 1934a, 307–308. Latacz 1977, 116–223 passim. Van Wees 1988, 2. Van Wees 1994, 4. Singor 1995, 194–195.

Achilleus, consumed with rage, at one point desires to cut Hektor’s body to pieces and devour his flesh raw (Il. 22.346–348). Finally, when Hektor is dead, Achilleus drags the body back to camp. There, the Achaians quickly flock around the dead Trojan hero. They stab the corpse and make mocking comments: ‘See now, Hektor is much softer to handle than he was when he set the ships ablaze with the burning firebrand’ (Il. 22.373–374). h. Ambuscades and single combat While all-out battle between the Achaians and Trojans typically involves thousands of combatants, surprise attacks are undertaken by smaller groups of men. Specifically, ambuscades (viz., attacks from a hidden position) are a common feature in the epic world (e.g., Il. 18.520–529; Od. 4.842–847). As Pritchett notes, ‘the ambush was common, and was regarded as demanding special courage.’720 Surprise attacks were not despised as cowardly, no doubt much to the chagrin of a few modern commentators.721 ‘Clearly,’ as Pritchett puts it, ‘there was in Homer no moral taboo against slaying from ambush.’722 Indeed, the city of Troy was eventually captured through the ruse of the wooden horse (Od. 4.271–289, 8.492–520). The rarest kind of engagement in the epic world is single combat between champions, i.e. formal engagements that follow after a challenge has been issued. One of these battles is fought by Aias and Hektor in the Iliad. After a brief verbal exchange, they come to blows. They first throw their spears at each other, which get stuck in their shields. They yank the spears out and use them in close-range combat, stabbing at each other. Hektor attempts to pierce Aias’ shield, but the bronze spearhead is bent back. Aias manages to draw blood with his spear. Hektor then picks up a large rock and slams it into Aias’ shield. The Achaian hero in turn picks up a boulder and throws it at his Trojan rival, who buckles beneath its weight. Hektor gets back up, and the two heroes draw their swords. Two heralds—one Achaian, the other Trojan—suddenly appear. They tell the warriors to cease fighting, as day darkens into night. Aias tells the heralds that Hektor must decide whether or not to continue fighting, since he was the one who originally challenged the Achaians to do battle with him. Hektor chooses to honour the tradition and stop the battle. Before leaving, the heroes exchange gifts: Hektor gives Aias a sword and scabbard, receiving a war-belt (zōstēr) in return (Il. 7.244–312). Such an exchange of gifts on the battlefield is not without precedent. When Glaukos and Diomedes meet each other, ‘in the space between the two armies’ (Il. 6.120), the latter demands to know who the enemy is. Glaukos finds this a curious question (Il. 6.145), and indeed, such an exchange between enemies is anomalous (most men are killed within moments of being introduced by the poet). Nevertheless, Glaukos proceeds to tell Diomedes of his lineage, which allows the poet to recount the story of 720 721 722

Pritche tt 1974-GSaW2, 178 (citing Il. 1.225–228, 4.391–398, 13.275–294, and 24.778–781). See Kre ntz 2000 for an e xce lle nt discussion. Pritche tt 1974, 178.

171

Bellerophon. When he is done, Diomedes rejoices. He plants his spear in the ground and tells Glaukos that their grandfathers were friends. The two then decide to honour these ancient ties and avoid each other on the battlefield from now on. To cement their agreement, they exchange armour; the poet quickly adds that Glaukos temporarily lost his mind as he exchanged his golden armour for Diomedes’ bronze (Il. 6.234–236). True single combat between champions, who fight while the other fighters sit back and watch, are very rare. The best example of such an engagement occurs near the beginning of the Iliad. The armies of the Greeks and Trojans are gathered on the battlefield when ‘Alexandros the godlike leapt from the ranks of the Trojans’ to challenge ‘the best of the Argives to fight man to man against him in bitter combat’ (Il. 3.16–20). Menelaos rises to the occasion and the two fight, with the duel determining the outcome of the overall war. After a brief arming scene, both first throw their spears before closing to fight hand-to-hand, slashing at each other with their swords. However, the battle ends inconclusively when Aphrodite whisks Paris to safety (Il. 3.356–381). i. Stripping of the dead Much of the fighting in the Iliad takes place around the corpses of the fallen. During these Leichekämpfe, friends try to drag the body of their fallen comrade back behind their own lines, while the enemy attempts to strip the corpse of its armour and despoil the body.723 At one point, Hektor and Aineias chase off a number of young Achaian warriors. The poet adds that ‘Many fine pieces of armour littered the ground on both sides of the ditch, as the Danaans fled’ (Il. 17.760–761). Enemy horses and chariots were also appropriated where possible (for example, Il. 5.165). Arms and armour are of course valuable pieces of equipment, but they are also imbued with the aura of the person who previously used them (e.g., Il. 23.798–800 and 826–835). After killing Patroklos, Hektor strips the body of its armour. The equipment had previously belonged to Achilleus, the greatest of the Achaian warriors. Hektor later dons this armour in the subsequent fighting as the material manifestation of his timē and to remind the other men of the kleos he gained by killing Patroklos and stealing Achilleus’ armour (Il. 17.122). But there is another aspect to this re-use of armour. Homer mentions that when Hektor puts on the armour, ‘Ares the dangerous war god entered him, so that the inward body was packed full of force and fighting strength’ (Il. 17.210–212). He then calls out to his companions and returned to the fray, ‘flaming in the battle gear of great-hearted Peleion’ (Il. 17.214). By donning the armour of a great warrior, one can be imbued with some of his strength. j. Raids for plunder When Telemachos visits Pylos in search of news about his father, aged Nestor begins his account of the Trojan War as follows: 723

172

Examples include : Il. 4.466, 506, 532; 5.164, 435; 6.28, 71; 7.77–80; 11.110; 13 and 15 passim; 16.246–247; 22.258–259.

Dear frie nd, since you remind me of sorrows which in that country we e ndure d, we sons of the Achaians valiant foreve r, or all we e ndure d in our ships on the misty face of the wate r cruising after plunde r [lēidos] whe re ver Achille us le d us, or all we e ndure d about the great city of the lord Priam fighting; and all who we re our best we re kille d in that place . (Od. 3.103–108)

The Achaians never established a line of supply back to Greece. Instead, they had to raid the towns and islands close to Troy in order to obtain their ‘plunder’, lēis. When Achilleus boasts of his military prowess, he recounts how he destroyed (alapazō)—that is, captured and sacked—no less than twenty-three towns in the vicinity of Troy, twelve by sea and eleven by land, as part of these raids (Il. 9.328–329). With the obvious exception of Troy, walled towns appear relatively easy to take by storm, especially by the presumably large numbers of Achaians led by Achilleus. A passing reference in the Iliad indicates that most towns were destroyed by burning (Il. 21.522–523). Elsewhere, a besieged island-town is described. Smoke rises as the town itself is ablaze. During the night, the townsfolk light signal-fires in the hope that men from neighbouring islands would come to their aid (Il. 18.207–213). The booty obtained in these raids included food, slaves, cattle, and other valuable goods, which were not distributed by Achilleus, who apparently led these expeditions, but by Agamemnon, who was the commander-in-chief of the Achaian forces and thus nominally in command. Excess goods were exchanged with traders from nearby islands, such as Euneos, son of Iason and a basileus of Lemnos (Il. 7.467–475). In many cases, raiding and trading probably went hand in hand. However, while basileis engage in some trading, they never consider themselves professional traders. All Greek traders in the epic world appear to be basileis, who ply the seas as merchants only occasionally. Only Phoenicians are presented as professional traders (e.g., Il. 23.744; Od. 13.272–286, 14.288–298, 15.415–482). Laodamas, a Phaiakan, insults Odysseus by calling him a trader (Od. 8.159–164).724 Raids are also organised outside the context of open war, typically for the express purpose of acquiring goods or treasure. Such raids allowed a man to increase his honour by capturing gera (‘prizes of honour’), as well as increase his kleos by demonstrating his military prowess or excellence (arētē) in combat. Raiders are common enough in the epic world to be denoted by a specific word, namely lēisteres, literally ‘booty-takers’. Frequently during his wanderings, Odysseus is asked by his host whether he is on some specific business or ‘roving as pirates do’ (e.g., Od. 9.252–255; Telemachos at Od. 3.71–74). Crafty Odysseus often responds with a lie. In one of these lying stories, Odysseus claims he is Kastor, son of Hylakos of Krete, who frequently went raiding. Kastor mounted nine successful raids, gained much wealth in this manner, and made sure to reward his friends for their aid on these expeditions. This, Odysseus adds, 724

Furthe r de tails can be found in Van Wees 1992, 238–248; on aristocratic activities ove rseas in ge neral, see Crie laard 1996.

173

made him ‘feared and respected’ (deinos t’ aidoios) among the Kretans (Od. 14.234; cf. 8.22). After the Trojan War, Kastor intended to raid Egypt. He arranged nine ships and then organised a six-day feast, apparently to round up some willing crewmen to accompany him on his expedition. When they finally get to Egypt, Kastor told his men to wait by the ships as he explored the country; however, they ignored his orders and started raiding anyway, slaying men and carrying off women and children. Soon, defenders came pouring out of the city. Many of the raiders were killed or enslaved, and Kastor himself surrendered to the Egyptian pharaoh (Od. 14.248–291). On Ithaka, Odysseus largely repeats this story of a failed raid on Egypt raid to Antinoös, with a few minor alterations (Od. 17.419–444). Among the Phaiakans, Odysseus tells the truth of how he came to wandering the sea. Shortly after the conclusion of the Trojan War, he and his followers sailed to Ismaros and sacked the city of the Kikonians, killing their people and seizing the women and possessions. Odysseus then urged his men to take their booty and escape, but they chose to linger instead. The surviving Kikonians rallied, summoned their neighbours (who were ‘skilled in fighting men with horses’), and then attacked in the early morning. Typical of fighting in the Homeric world, the battle lasted all day; it was also fought close to Odysseus’ ships. For each ship, six of Odysseus’ men were killed, but at last they managed to escape (Od. 9.39–61). k. Distribution of booty It is a characteristic feature of warfare in the epic world that all collected booty is brought to the leader of a raid or war and then distributed by him among his companions and subordinate leaders. 725 For example, after Nestor had led a group of young men in a retaliatory raid against the Epeians, the booty was handed over to Neleus, who took his share and then redistributed the remainder among his people (Il. 11.684–688). Similarly, when Achilleus leads the Achaians on raids against Lyrnessos, Asian Thebes, and other places, the booty is brought to Agamemnon, who takes what he likes and then distributes the remainder among the other Achaian leaders. The initial quarrel in the Iliad between Agamemnon and Achilleus demonstrates that the rewards are not always distributed to everyone’s liking. Achilleus complains that Agamemnon takes more than his fair share, since he is obviously not as skilled in combat as Achilleus. This centralised distribution of booty also explains why some men strip the armour of fallen enemy warriors without having actually killed those men themselves: it is the leaders who will eventually decide which man receives which portion of the booty. The only exception to this rule is the weapons and armour that leaders strip from enemy corpses and keep for themselves: Idomeneus does this (Il. 13.260–265), as does Hektor after stripping the armour of Achilleus from Patroklos’ lifeless body (Il. 17.188–197).

725

174

Ready 2007, 4–13 (with re fere nces).

l. Prisoners of war Among the booty collected by the victors are prisoners. Some of these, particularly women like Briseis and Chryseis, are enslaved. Others are sold off to passing traders in exchange for other goods. A few of the wealthy captives are held for ransom. Ransoming captives appears to be an important means of acquiring wealth in the epic world, although the Achaians are often ruthless and take no prisoners. When the Trojan warrior Adrestos is at Menelaos’ mercy, he begs the Spartan ruler to help him ‘and take appropriate ransom’, adding that his father is rich and has a considerable amount of treasure in his home (Il. 6.46–47). Menelaos prepares to have Adrestos taken back to the Achaian camp, when Agamemnon passes by and rebukes his brother for not killing the Trojan outright (Il. 6.55–60). When on a night expedition, Diomedes and Odysseus run into a Trojan spy called Dolon, who also asks to be taken captive and held for ransom. However, Diomedes ruthlessly beheads him (Il. 10.378–457). Nevertheless, there are other references to men being held for ransom; prisoners of war in general are considered ‘prizes of honour’ (Il. 2.237). Some Trojan prisoners were sacrificed by Achilleus at Patroklos’ pyre (Il. 23.20–23). Even the dead may sometimes be held for ransom; Priam, after all, has to buy back Hektor’s lifeless body from Achilleus (Il. 24.501–502, 555–556, 594). Some men who surrender are apparently not held at ransom; they might not even end up as prisoners in the usual sense of the word. In the false story told by Odysseus of a failed raid in Egypt, he says that when the battle went awry he dropped his armour and weapons to the ground, went to the Egyptian ruler in his chariot, clasped and kissed his knees. The pharaoh then took pity on him and protected Odysseus, who then spent seven years in Egypt, collecting much wealth in the meantime, until a Phoenician came along and enticed Odysseus to travel with him to Libya, intent on selling the Achaian there as a slave (Od. 14.276–297). Clearly, surrendering was a gamble in the epic world: one might be taken prisoner and held for ransom, killed outright, be enslaved, or indeed be treated like a guest and apparently subject to normal laws of hospitality, which included the collecting of gifts. m. Death of the warrior At the end of a day of battle, each side collects their dead, try to identify the remains, and then cremate the bodies (Il. 7.421–432). The burnt remains of the Achaian dead are buried somewhere close to the battlefield. At one point, Nestor gives the advice to build a funeral pyre close to the ships and have the bones collected to bring back to Greece upon the conclusion of the Trojan War (Il. 7.326–335).726 Funeral games are organised to honour the most esteemed of the fallen warriors, such as Patroklos and Hektor; these funeral games also provide an arena in which those who honour the dead may compete to attain kleos of their own. Death is an unavoidable as well as lamentable part of life, and presented 726

See also Pritchett 1985, 100–102.

175

as such in the Homeric epics. It seems likely that many of the fighters on the battlefield were relatively young men; older men were sometimes exempt from fighting, like Nestor and Priamos. Important in this regard is Priamos’ lament about his advanced age. In this brief passage, he idolises youth and the brave death of a young warrior, while deploring the death of an older man: [...] For a young man all is de corous whe n he is cut down in battle and torn with the sharp bronze , and lies the re dead, and though dead still all tha t shows about him is beautiful; but whe n an old man is dead and down, and the dogs mutilate the gre y head and the grey beard and the parts that are secre t, this, for all sad mortality, is the sight most pitiful. (Il. 22.71–76)

When Hektor is killed by Achilleus towards the end of the Iliad, Achilleus ties the body behind his chariot and drags it back to the Achaian camp. There, the Greeks gather round to stab and poke the body in order to despoil it, mocking the fallen hero (Il. 22.373–374). Achilleus in his anger even drags the body around Troy behind his chariot (Il. 22.395 and further). The gods, however, intervene and preserve Hektor’s youthful beauty, so that his appearance remains unspoiled. The theme of young men slain in valiant combat is one that will resurface in our examination of the lyric poets in the next chapter. The legacy passed on to the living was considered more important than the prospect of a joyful afterlife. In other words, Achilleus’ fame or kleos among the people left behind was considered more important than how he would continue his existence in Hades’ realm. This notion served as a stimulus to excel in life, so that one would be remembered in rumours, legends, songs, and burial mounds (e.g., Il. 7.89–90; Od. 8.72–82). In the words of Jean-Pierre Vernant: Whe n the hero gives up a long life in favour of an early death, whate ver he loses in honours paid to his living pe rson he more than re gains a hundre dfold with the glory that will suffuse his memory for all time to come .727

However, dying of old age was apparently the norm. In one passage (Il. 6.145–149), Homer compares the death of men to the shedding of leaves in autumn, with the tree thriving anew in spring. As C. Sourvinou-Inwood put it, the poet here ‘offers a vivid articulation of the model of the familiar death’. The simile demonstrates ‘a striking acceptance of the discontinuity of the individual set against the continuity of the species which gives it a meaning, and of individual deaths as episodes in the self-renewing life-cycle of nature, the community and the family.’ In short, ‘Acceptance of, and respect for, the cosmic order is deeply rooted in Greek mentality of all periods.’728

727 728

176

Ve rnant 2001, 320. Sourvinou-Inwood 1983, 34.

6. Conclusions The Homeric poems provide a consistent and detailed picture of the epic world, in which the basileis take centre stage. The basileis, or more specifically, the leaders among the elite, claim to be decisive in battle. Other fighters supposedly count for nothing in either battle or speech. As symbols of their military (and hence political) might, the basileis are armed with spears and swords even in times of peace. While a spear is normally placed in a spear-rack when visiting a friend, the sword never leaves a man’s side. Most of the fighting men in the epic world wear bronze body-armour, bronze helmet, greaves, and a shield; they are armed with two spears and a sword. The sword is invariably well-made and expensive; one imagines that only the well-to-do were equipped with such a weapon. Spears, on the other hand, are literally throwaway weapons. The typical fighter in the Iliad is therefore called aichmētēs, ‘spearman’; the wealthiest of these (i.e., the heroes of the story) use a chariot as a mode of conveyance on, to, and from the battlefield. Archers appear to be fairly rare: they are all experts and rank among the basileis, such as Pandaros and Paris. Exceptional is the Lokrian contingent, essentially a unit of archers who also double as slingers. Archers operate on the battlefield as modern-day snipers, picking specific targets; again, only the Lokrian contingent is anomalous for its use of volley-fire. An army is raised through ties of blood, friendship, and dependency. It is unclear whether all men had to supply their own equipment. Certainly, the heroes were no doubt wealthy enough to provide arms and armour to their followers if need be. Odysseus’ hall, for example, is lined with weapons, helmets, and shields that could be used in case of an attack. Ships were probably owned by the wealthiest of men, but whether these owned maybe one or two, or a fleet, is unclear. Political and military power appears to be concentrated in the major towns, with small villages being virtually defenceless. The Achaian and Trojan forces assembled on the plains of Troy each have a commander-in-chief. The armies (stratoi) themselves are divided into regional contingents. The allies of the Trojans are called epikouroi, which I suggested was a term applied mostly to people who come to aid in one’s defence and have to be repaid for their services by granting them gifts (for unlike the enemy, they have no cities to plunder when the war is won). The contingents themselves are broken up into smaller war-bands, each consisting of a leader and his hetairoi, ‘companions’. These war-bands are bodies of men who do not normally fight in any kind of formation; horsemen, archers, and spearmen typically mingle freely, with spearmen apparently predominant among them. Groups of men are called phalanges, stiches, or lochoi. The war against Troy appears anomalous when compared to more typical battles (ptolemoi, machai) in the Iliad and Odyssey. The Trojan War is not a siege in the strictest sense of the word. The Achaians build a monumental camp, essentially another town, in close proximity to Troy, and the two sides regularly engage each other on the plain between each other’s base of operations. Only seldom do the Achaians try to storm the

177

wall or capture the gates. Siege techniques are also primitive. Men either try to climb enemy walls, topple them using stakes, or smash the gates using boulders. Siege ladders are never used, although they were no doubt widely employed. Battering rams are also unknown. The most typical kind of warfare familiar to Homer are overseas raids, in which attacks are usually over quickly. Raids are hit-and-run attacks against settlements where the raiders try to avoid being drawn in a pitched battle against any defenders who might come to the victims’ aids. Only when the raiders outnumber their victims, as during the raids led by Achilleus during the Trojan War, do the attackers regularly not only raid but sack (i.e., capture, loot, and destroy) enemy cities. These purpose of all raids is to acquire booty, which is brought before the highest authority available, usually the leader of the raid, except during the Trojan War, as the commander-in-chief of the Achaian forces is Agamemnon rather than Achilleus. The Trojan War’s main cause was breach of xeinia, hospitality. However, some raids were also retaliatory in character. A few of these involved neighbouring communities, which explains why some eventually devolved into all-out pitched battles.

178

Chapter 8

Archaic textual sources 1. Introduction The textual evidence from the Archaic period, down to around 500, is the subject of this chapter. The evidence consists of fragments attributed to lyric poets, and a number of inscriptions, selected for the information that they contain on Greek warfare and martiality. The material is discussed as much as possible in geographical order, moving roughly from west to east and from north to south, apart from some shorter texts that make better sense when discussed within a proper context, such as the epigram from Korkyra and remarks concerning the activity of Greek warriors in the Near East and Egypt. Perhaps at this point it is good to remember the main objectives listed in the introduction. What I am going to examine here in particular are: (1) different types of warriors; (2) regional diversity with regards to warfare, as well as; (3) developments through time, both continuity and discontinuity, in as far as this is possible; (4) aspects of ‘martiality’, i.e. the (symbolic) role violence and war played off the battlefield, and finally; (5) ancient Greek terminology. Due to the diverse nature of the evidence discussed in this chapter, I shall present brief summaries after each of the longer subsections. In addition, I shall compare the evidence with that gleaned from Homer, as the material follows chronologically and much Archaic poetry, especially elegiac verses, use epic language. 2. A survey of the evidence Like the Homeric epics, the poems discussed in this chapter were meant to be sung, often to the accompaniment of music. 729 The lyric poets were members of the elite; their songs were performed for an immediate audience of friends, 730 but at least some compositions circulated more widely across the Aegean. Lyric poetry is usually categorised according to genre, based on the meters used. 731 Elegiac poetry was similar to epic; suitable for the celebration of war and bloodshed. Many of the fragments discussed below come from exhortation poetry, i.e. songs in which men are

729 730 731

For further de tails, re fer to Mulroy 1992, 9–11. See , for e xample , Stanford 1981 (performance); Bartol 1992 (specifically iambic poetry). For a more in-de pth discussion, re fer to Harvey 1955, West 1973.

179

encouraged to stand and fight (Tyrtaios, Kallinos, Mimnermos).732 Iambic poetry tended to be more varied as far as the subject matter was concerned, ranging from sex to warfare, from (insider) jokes to serious politics (Archilochos, Alkaios).733 Much of this poetry was probably intended to be recited during the sumposion (i.e., drinking songs) or, in the case of choral songs and iambic poetry, at festivals. 734 Archaic poetry is seldom used as a source of historical information. Discussion of the material is often limited to philological or literary arguments. Whenever this material is used in a history of Archaic Greece, a few lines are normally cited only when they illustrate a particular point made by the author (e.g., the style of fighting described in Tyrtaios, or the reference to Gyges by Archilochos). However, these writings provide an invaluable source of information as regards the history of ideas (in this case, warfare and martiality) for the period in question,735 as demonstrated by Snodgrass in one chapter of his monograph Archaic Greece (1980). To ignore such a valuable source of information would be a waste. It should be noted that in the course of time many of these poets came to personify particular genres, the poets themselves transformed into literary personae. Archilochos, for example, became the embodiment of scabrous poetry, some of which mocked dominant values. a. Sparta Tyrtaios composed elegiac poems, mostly songs of exhortation, in an Ionic dialect, for Spartans. Classical authors claimed that Tyrtaios had originally been a lame Athenian schoolteacher.736 Tyrtaios’ floruit is generally dated to the latter half of the seventh century. This date was contested at the end of the nineteenth century, when A.W. Verrall suggested instead that he was active around the time of the Messenian revolt in 464. 737 Christopher Faraone has recently argued that while Tyrtaios is a poet of the Archaic age, portions of the extant fragments, particularly the longer ones (frr. 10–12 West), contain fifth- or even fourth-century interpolations and alterations.738 Nevertheless, a date for the bulk of the material somewhere in the later seventh century seems reasonable. i. Arms and armour Tyrtaios tells us that some men are equipped with shields that is kalupsamenos, ‘covering himself’, covering the body from the shoulders 732 733 734 735 736 737 738

180

An inte resting slant on e xhortation poe try can be found in Irwin 2005, e sp. pp. 15–62. More broadly on poe tic inspiration, from Homer to Pindar, see MurrayP 1981. For discussion, re fe r to Bowie 1986; brie fly, Murray 1983; in greater de tail, Murray 1990. On Gree k music, see also West 1994. Crie laard 2003, 300–303; note also discussion on re liability of ancient sources in Hall 2007, 19-22. E.g., Plato Leges 1.629a–b. Ve rrall 1896,Macan 1897 (criticism); Verrall 1897 (re sponse to Macan). Faraone 2006, who also brie fly discusses questions conerning the authe nticity of the Tyrtaian corpus as a whole (cf. re fere nces to Verrall and Macan, above ). My thanks to Prof. André Lardinois for pointing out Faraone ’s pape r.

down to the shins (fr. 11.24 West).739 The poet refers to a shield in one instance as being ‘bossed’, omphaleossēs (fr. 12.24 West), which can be taken to mean that this is a central-grip shield. In such types of shields, a boss normally covers the area of the shield where the handle is located. However, I would tentatively suggest that the word might also be used to refer to the bronze plating of an Argive shield. At least some of Tyrtaios’ warriors are equipped with helmets that feature plumes or crests (fr. 11.32 West). The main weapons are the spear and the sword (fr. 11.25–30 West). Tyrtaios refers to ‘spearmen’, aichmētes, in another fragment (fr. 19.13 West), a term familiar also to Homer. In one fragment, Tyrtaios distinguishes between two different kinds of warriors on the basis of their armour, making a distinction that is apparently absent in Homer. The relevant passage runs as follows: You light-arme d me n [gumnētes], where ver you can aim from the shie ld-cove r, pe lt them with great rocks and hurl at them your smooth-shave d jave lins, he lping the armoure d troops [panoploi] with close support. (fr. 11.35–38 West)

This explicit distinction between light-armed men (gumnētes; literally ‘naked men’) and armoured troops (panoploi) is not only new,740 but it also unique among the poets discussed in this chapter. This distinction does not reappear until Herodotos and later writers, when the term panoploi, ‘all-equipped’, has been replaced by a word with similar meaning, hoplites (singular, hoplitēs), ‘equipped’; gumnētēs remains in general usage. ii. Warfare In songs of exhortation, a picture comes to the fore of close-ranged fighting in which panoploi and gumnētes fight in close co-operation. The poet tells the men not to be afraid, but to engage the enemy at close range, using their shields for protection. Shields press against shields (fr. 11.31–34 West), and the men engaging the enemy in hand-to-hand combat are referred to as promachoi (fr. 11.12 West); these men fight in the front lines (fr. 11.11–14 West). These promachoi are no doubt all panoploi, as the gumnētes are told to seek cover behind their shields, while hurling rocks and javelins at the enemy. Archers are noticeably absent in most passages, although they are mentioned in one fragment (fr. 19.1 West). A few fragments refer to the conquest of Messenia by the Spartans and the effects that this had on the region’s inhabitants. Modern commentators often refer to a first and second Messenian war; this, however, is a modern convention. Ancient sources only ever speak of ‘the’ Messenian war,741 regarding the conquest of Messenia as a single, if perhaps protracted event that happened in the distant past. Tyrtaios mentions that Messenia was 739 740 741

The original Gree k implie s through its use of kalupsamenos that the shie ld ‘e nshrouds’ the entire body, i.e. it is ve ry large . See also Van Wees 1994, 147. Brie f discussion in Luraghi 2006, 46 n. 3 (with re fere nces).

181

conquered in the time of his fathers’ fathers (fr. 5.5–8 West); when taken literally, the war apparently took place two generations ago, although the phrase seems more likely to be metaphorical, i.e. the war happened ‘long ago’. The war supposedly lasted twenty years—twice as long as the Trojan War. This smacks of heroic rhetoric, intended to glorify the Spartan conquest, rather than an accurate assessment of how long it took to pacify the region. There is little doubt over what inspired the Lakedaimonians to expand their territory. The Spartans seized the lands of the Messenians for agricultural gain, as the country was ‘good to plough and good to plant fruit’ (fr. 5.4 West). The Messenians were not ousted from their lands, but instead reduced to servile status and required to pay a heavy tax; later sources, starting with Herodotos, refers to these slaves as Helots (the etymology is obscure). Tyrtaios mentions how the enslaved Messenians suffered, ‘like donkeys under heavy loads’ (fr. 6 West). They were thus not sold off or used to work the lands of their masters’ back in Lakonia, but instead were tied to the land.742 Later Classical sources speak of similarly subjugated populations in the Argolid, Thessaly, and Krete;743 no doubt these too were the result of past territorial expansions. iii. Martial values A person who refuses to fight for his community will be shamed and exiled (fr. 10.1–14 West). Tyrtaios extols the virtues of fighting and dying for one’s patridos, ‘fatherland’. He emphasises that men should not fight for personal glory alone (frr. 10.15–16 and 10.23–24 West), but for the benefit of ‘the whole community (dēmos) and state (polis)’ (fr. 12.15 West). Nevertheless, should a young warrior die in battle in the prime of his life, he will enjoy everlasting glory (fr. 12.21–34 West).744 Tyrtaios places the most emphasis on fighting at close range, as promachos. The parallels here with the descriptions found in the Iliad are easy to spot: the importance attached to deeds of martial excellence (aretē), the search for glory, the value of defending one’s home and kin, and so forth.745 As in the Iliad, the death of the young and handsome warrior is glorified, whereas the sight of older men dying on the battlefield is considered ‘disgraceful’. Tyrtaios specifically addresses the ‘young men’ (neoi) of the Spartan army to stand and fight against the enemy (fr. 10.15–32 West); I shall discuss this term in more detail on page 2.8.1, below. Tyrtaios encourages the men to engage the enemy at close range instead of hanging back.746 This tells us that battles did not consist of a simple, straightforward clash between rival armies; rather, Tyrtaian battles are characterised by the

742 743 744

745 746

182

MacDowe ll 1986, 31–37 (almost all sources of Classical and later dates). Westermann 1945 conve ntie ntly summarises the evide nce . These lines may be later fifth-ce ntury interpolations, as pe r Faraone 2006, 43–46 (who compares the m to lines in Pindar’s odes and the ‘high-flown rhe toric of late fifth-ce ntury e pitaphs’). Cf., for e xample , Hom. Il. 15.496–498; Hom. Od. 14.244-245. Similar harangues are also found in the Iliad, for e xample 7.99–100.

same ebb and flood familiar from Homer.747 This explains why Tyrtaios points out that virtues or good looks are worthless if a man is unwilling to participate in battle (fr. 12.10–20 West). He reminds the young men that if they take recourse to flight, they will shame their country and force the older men to take the brunt of the enemy’s assault. This distinction between younger and older men, especially among the aristocracy, is one that Homer also makes. Death on the battlefield is the surest path to glory. According to Tyrtaios, the community would remember and honour the fallen warrior for many generations, with people being able to point out his grave many years after his death (fr. 12.29–30 West; cf. Archilochos fr. 133 West, discussed above). This suggests that the number of ‘honourable dead’ was comparatively small, at least in the battles that Tyrtaios presumably used as inspiration for his songs. No doubt only members of the aristocracy, who presumably fought as panoploi rather than gumnētes, would have been awarded a burial with full honours and a monument to mark their graves. The survivors would point to the grave and talk about its occupant, thus keeping the warrior’s memory alive and granting him immortality. This is a very Homeric conception of death and glory; compare the description of Achilleus’ funeral and burial mound: Around them [i.e., the cre mation urns] the n, we , the chosen host of the Argive spearme n, pile d up a grave mound that was both great and pe rfect, on a jutting promontory the re by the wide He llespont, so that it can be seen afar from out on the water by me n now alive and those to be born in the future . (Hom. Od. 24.80–84)748

Dying on the battlefield was, however, not the sole means of acquiring honour and glory. Tyrtaios tells us that if a man were to distinguish himself in battle and survive, all the people of the community, ‘young and old alike’, would honour him. He would become something of a local celebrity, respected by high and low, and ‘all the men at the public seats’ would ‘make room for him’. In other words, brave warriors can look forward to enjoying certain privileges. This, Tyrtaios emphasises, is the just reward of those who defend their country (fr. 12.35–44 West). No doubt this type of honour, too, as in the Homeric epics, would be limited to members of the aristocracy. In contrast, the coward may die from receiving a spear in the back between the shoulder blades, a death that is considered especially shameful (fr. 11.3–20 West). iv. Summary Tyrtaios tells us that, in his time and at Sparta, there were two kinds of fighters, namely panoploi (‘armoured troops’) and gumnētes (‘naked troops’), though apparently both used shields. They also appear to have mixed freely on the battlefield, with the main purpose of the gumnētes to provide support for the panoploi by throwing javelins and rocks at the enemy. But what did 747 748

For further deails, see also Singor 1988, 93–111; Latacz 1977, 232–237. See also Il. 7.89–90; Od. 1.239–240 and 14.369–370.

183

these men fight about? The Spartans at one point managed to conquer the Messenians, so the acquisition of land emerges as a clear motive for war, as does the defence of this land against rebels. Most of Tyrtaios’ songs exhort the men to fight, telling them that death in battle is glorious and flight leads only to dishonour and banishment. b. Athens and Salamis The poet and politician Solon, who was active in the first half of the sixth century,749 was once appointed as arbiter in Athens to prevent stasis and tyranny (e.g., frr. 4, 34–35 West). Solon relies heavily on martial metaphors in a number of the extant fragments. In one passage, he says how he ‘took my stand with strong shield covering both sides, allowing neither unjust dominance’ (fr. 5.5–6 West). In another, Solon describes how he took a stand in the middle of the two opposing sides, in the metaichmios, the ‘land between the spears’, quite literally the no-man’s land between two armies (fr. 37 West). This figure-of-speech suggests that there is normally some distance between rival armies, as on the Homeric and possibly Tyrtaian battlefield. One reason that he was trusted by both sides of this conflict might have been his earlier military career, when he inspired the Athenians to continue their long-lasting conflict with Megara over control of the island of Salamis (frr. 1–3 West).750 Plutarch claims that the Athenians made a law that no-one was to mention capturing Salamis, and that when Solon saw so many ‘young men’ (neoi) restless, he composed his poem Salamis and thus managed to rouse the Athenians, who went on to wrest control of the island from Megara (Sol. 8.1–3). As Hans van Wees points out, two issues were at stake in this conflict, namely the honour of the Athenians as well as the conquest of land.751 The earliest known Athenian decree, dating to between 510 and 480 (and broken into seven fragments), happens to inform us a little about the situation at Salamis and what the rights and obligations of the (Athenian) inhabitants were. The text makes clear that the Athenians sent klērouchoi to Salamis. This is the earliest known reference to klērouchoi,752 Athenians who were giving allotments abroad that they could settle without losing their Athenian citizenship. 753 Among other things, the decree states that the klērouchos must pay taxes and provide military service to Athens, with each colonist providing his own arms at a value of 30 drachmae; the Athenian governor (archon) must either approve the men’s equipment or is responsible for mobilising the colonists in an emergency (the text is fragmentary preserved and unclear at that point). The text was approved by 749

750 751 752 753

184

Note that I conside r the Athe nian archon list a late r fabrication that is ne xt to useless whe n it comes to dating archons earlie r than the late r sixth century; see also Plommer 1969. On Salamis, see, for e xample , Shapiro 1981, 174. Van Wees 2004, 23. Evans 1963, 168. Othe r colonists we re calle d apoikoi. These we re wholly inde pe nde nt from the ir home town; e.g., apoikoi at Hdt. 7.95 (Ionians and Dorians).

the boulē, the Athenian council.754 This is the earliest reference to men each having to supply their own equipment. These men could then be inspected, and were presumably mobilised, by a representative of the central authority, in this case the archon or ‘governor’. This seems incompatible with earlier forms of army organisation, with warbands consisting of leaders and their (personal) followers. The cost of the panoply is interesting as well. Coinage was at some scale introduced in Greece only from 550 onwards. It is often difficult to estimate exactly how much an ancient drachma was worth, but 30 drachmae around 500 must have been the equivalent of somewhat more than thirty days’ worth of wages for a simple labourer at the very least.755 The situation on Salamis was presumably similar to that in Athens at around the same time, with each relatively affluent Athenian subject to some kind of authority figure appointed by the council and having to provide his own military equipment at a (minimum) fixed value. c. Euboia A fragment by the Parian poet Archilochos (see below) might refer to the so-called Lelantine War (the name is modern).756 Much has been written about this war, and it is often difficult to untangle truth from fiction.757 The fragment in question runs as follows, using a slightly modified version of West’s translation: The re won’t be many bows drawn, nor much slingshot, whe n on the plain the War-god brings the fight toge ther; it will be an ergon758 of swords—that is the warfare [machēs] that the spearfame d [douriklutoi] lords [despotai] of Euboea are e xpe rt at. (fr. 3 West)

Archilochos here describes how the lords of the Euboians excel in the work (ergon) of swords, before adding that they are also douriklutoi, ‘spear-famed’. This emphasis on fighting with spear and sword indicates short-ranged warfare; just as we have seen in the Iliad, and as we may be led to believe from our examination of the Archaic material so far, archery and other kinds of long-ranged warfare are rare. This fragment might refer to the Lelantine War, i.e. a war nominally fought between Chalkis and Eretria over control of the Lelanton plain. Thoukydides mentions how this was the first war in which people from a great variety of Greek places joined in the fighting, either on the side of Chalkis or Eretria (1.15). We should probably not envision some kind of state-organised system of alliances at work here, similar to those used in the Persian Wars, but probably something a bit more small-scale. Jan Paul 754 755

756 757 758

Me iggs & Le wis 1989 [1969], 25–27 (no. 14). A laboure r working on the Erechte ion in Athe ns in the later fifth ce ntury B.C. earned one drachma a day, so if one takes inflation into account, the thirty days’ estimate is rather on the conse rvative side ; see Carradice & Price 1988, 103. For an in-de pth analysis of the war, its sources and its proble ms, re fe r to Parker 1997. De monstrate d by the de taile d revie w in Hall 2007, 1–8. Translate d by West as ‘agony’, but the word means ‘work’, i.e. ‘the work of swords’.

185

Crielaard suggests that the Lelantine War was ‘an aristocratic affair’, in which the fighting men of Chalkis and Eretria might have recruited xenoi, aristocratic ‘guest-friends’, to aid in the fighting.759

d. Paros and Thasos Archilochos was born on the island of Paros and later took part in the Parian conquest of Thasos. His floruit is conventionally dated to around the middle of the seventh century. This date is largely based on a fragment that refers to Gyges, then ruler (‘tyrant’) of Lydia (fr. 19 West), as well as a fragment that mentions a solar eclipse (fr. 122). 760 As with most other lyric poets, Archilochos’ songs were originally intended for only a small group of listeners, and performed at a sumposion or, in some cases, at festivals. In one fragment, Archilochos addresses Charilaos as the dearest of his hetairoi or ‘companions’ (fr. 168 West). The extant fragments demonstrate that Archilochos was a member of the elite, and therefore concerned himself mainly with ‘words and deeds’ (cf. Hom. Od. 2.273), that is: politics and war. i. Arms and armour It is clear that for Archilochos, the main weapon is once again the spear (e.g., frr. 96.4 and 98.1 West). The typical warrior to Archilochos, as with Homer, is the aichmētēs or ‘spearman’ (e.g., fr. 24.13 West). Shields are not described in much detail, but they were obviously considered bothersome in flight and had to be thrown away if speed was of the essence, as the following, well-known fragment demonstrates in which the poet mocks the heroic code of honour: Some Saian sports my sple ndid shie ld [aspis]: I had to leave it in a wood, but save d my skin. We ll, I don’t care — I’ll ge t anothe r just as good. (fr. 5 West)

The telamōn-equipped shields of the Iliad were swung around the back when a warrior had to flee. It seems likely that the shield referred to by Archilochos, in contrast, was of Argive type (cf. also fr. 98.12 West), as it was thrown aside instead (such shields are carried on the left arm and can be relatively easily slipped off).761 ii. Warfare The word stratēgos is attested for the first time in Archilochos (fr. 114.1 West). The word is cognate with stratos, ‘army’ or ‘host’. It thus literally means ‘army-leader’, often translated as ‘general’. This word might simply be an alternative to the Homeric phrase anax andron, or the more common hēgemōn or hēgetōr; it seems unlikely to refer to a magistrate of some kind, 759 760 761

186

Crie laard 2002, 259–260. Cogan & Tadmor 1977; cf. Morris 2000,184–185. For an ove rvie w of the proble ms involve d in analysing this passage, see Schwe rtfeger 1982.

like the Athenian stratēgoi of the later sixth century onwards. Elsewhere, Archilochos refers to a leader as archos (fr. 113.1 West). Unfortunately, none of the descriptions of battle in the extant fragments attributed to Archilochos are detailed enough to attempt a reconstruction of the style of fighting that he was familiar with. The extant fragments attributed to Archilochos furthermore contain songs of exhortation and general references to battle. An interesting description of a battle is recorded on the poorly preserved papyrus fragment mentioned earlier (fr. 98 West). The battle described here is a siege, with walls apparently built of stone and equipped with towers; ‘men of Lesbos’ are mentioned (fr. 98.11), but it is unclear whether they are the besiegers or the defenders. It features two new items not mentioned by Homer (or any other Archaic poets, for that matter), namely possible siege ladders (singular, klimax; fr. 98.16) and some sort of ironclad thing (sidēron; fr. 98.17), which makes a loud noise; a siege engine? This fragment is very problematic, as West’s restorations of sections of the papyrus are contentious.762 As Archilochos was an islander, it should come as no surprise that there are references in the extant fragments to ships and seafaring. A throwaway comment alludes to Archilochos’ life on Paros as a ‘life on the sea’ (fr. 116 West). In another fragment, Archilochos mentions how Poseidon Hippios chose to allow a man called Koiranos (literally, ‘military leader’) to survive a shipwreck (fr. 192 West); he adds specifically that he was the only one of fifty men to live. We have already seen how a crew of fifty was probably common on warships in the Homeric epics and later pentekonters, so the ship that was wrecked was probably a warship as well. Finally, Archilochos took part in the Parian conquest of Thasos, during which he fought against Thrakians, particularly the Saian tribe (mentioned above). The fact that Parian warriors were sent to aid the Thasian settlers demonstrates how close the relationship was between Paros and her colony.763 Parian interest in the island focussed on the gold mines; both the island itself and the nearby mainland were known to possess a number of these,764 making it a fiercely contested area. Fighting was apparently not always necessary, as in one fragment Archilochos speaks of how ‘Thrakian dogs’ were bribed (fr. 93), presumably in exchange for land or some sort of cease-fire, though it is also possible that the Thrakians had laid siege to a Parian settlement or camp on Thasos and the Parians paid them off (cf. Il. 22.111–122). iii. Martial values Archilochos presents a mirror image of the heroic ideology espoused by Homer. In one passage, the poet exhorts fighting men to stand their ground. He warns them not to be ‘over-proud in victory, nor in defeat oppressed’ (fr. 128.4 West). He reminds his audience that, ultimately, the outcome of a 762 763 764

Hans van Wees, pe rsonal communication, 2005. For further de tails, see Graham 1983 [1964], 71–97. He ale y 1978, 45–47, summarises the e vide nce .

187

battle is ‘under the gods’ control’ (fr. 111 West). In a number of fragments, Archilochos mocks the heroic ideals outright. In one fragment, he describes the kind of military commander (stratēgos) that he would trust with his life. Archilochos claims to prefer ‘a shortish sort of chap, who’s bandy-looking round the shins’ (fr. 114.3 West). That is quite a different kind of leader than tall and handsome Achilleus, but I should point out that even in Homer not all heroes conform to stereotype: Tydeus, the father of Diomedes, is specifically said to have been fairly short (Hom. Il. 5.801); Agamemnon, too, the ‘lord of men’, was not tall according to Priam (Hom. Il. 3.166–170), and Odysseus was shorter still (Hom. Il. 3.191–198). Archilochos’ point is no doubt that a smart commander worries about the survival of his men, rather than fret about his appearance. A more direct parody is perhaps apparent in Archilochos’ notions regarding bravery in battle. Ideally, Homeric heroes, like the men inspired by Tyrtaios, fight for their honour and their fatherland; death in battle will confer immortal kleos, ‘fame’, on the deceased. However, Archilochos sees little point in dying in a blaze of glory if flight meant that you could live to fight another day (fr. Adesp. 38 West). Apparently, one of the reasons for fleeing is that ‘no one here enjoys respect (aidos) or reputation (periphēmos) once he’s dead’ (fr. 133 West), as the people familiar to the poet only tended to the living. This is quite different from what we have seen in Homer and Tyrtaios. Archilochos mocks established ideology, which in turn suggests how current these martial values were. In another fragment, Archilochos states: I crave a fight [machēs] with you, it’s like a thirst.765 (fr. 125 West)

In short, then, Archilochos was an aristocrat for whom violence was an accepted part of life; the use of the word ‘thirst’ links violence to drinking at the sumposion (i.e., fighting and feasting; both associated with the aristocracy). Some sort of war-weariness is perhaps demonstrated in another fragment, arguably not addressed to any particular man but rather to Erxias as an archetype.766 In this fragment, the poet wonders out loud how or to what end the hapless army (anolbos stratos) is being assembled (hathroizetai) this time (fr. 88 West). This suggests that the Parians frequently instigated wars. iv. Archilochos the mercenary Archilochos may have served as a mercenary for some time. The following fragment is often cited to support this hypothesis: On my spear’s my daily bread, on my spear my wine 765

766

188

In the rece nt Loeb e dition of Archilochos (no. 259), Ge rber suggests that this might actually be a re fere nce to se x (cf. the pairing, from the Odyssey onwards, of Ares and Aphrodite , the gods of war and lust). Whe ther or not the line is me taphorical is unimportant; the martial vocabulary c.q. connotations are important here . I.e., to praktikos, ‘the man of action’, as e xplaine d in Ge rbe r’s note to this passage in the Loeb Classical Library e dition (no. 259) to Gree k iambic poe try, p. 129.

from Ismaros; and drinking it, it’s on my spear I recline . (fr. 2 West)

The word that West here translates as ‘recline’, keklimenos, is commonly used in the sense of reclining on a dining couch, such as used during the sumposion.767 We may therefore interpret this passage in one of two ways. Firstly, this fragment may suggest that fighting is simply a way of life for Archilochos. This impression is reinforced when, in another fragment, he refers to himself as a therapōn of Enyalios, the war-god (fr. 1 West).768 The word suggests a close relationship between the therapōn and his host. In the Iliad, some of these men follow their leaders to war because they apparently have to for some reason: there is perhaps a sense here that Archilochos is a fighter simply because it is something that comes naturally to him, whether he wants to or not. It suggests that violence is an integral part of Archilochos’ life, and maybe a characteristic feature of the social circles in which he moves. After all, the fragment subtly brings to mind both fighting and feasting: essential parts of the aristocratic way of life, united here in hyperbole; Archilochos is both a warrior and a poet. Secondly, we may take the passage literally: Archilochos may have earned a living (bread and wine) through fighting. In another fragment, Archilochos states that he will ‘be called an epikouros, like a Carian’ (fr. 216 West). 769 What exactly is an epikouros? It is commonly translated as ‘mercenary’, but this does not cover the meaning completely, as some of the Trojan allies in the Iliad are called epikouroi; they were almost certainly allies or friends rather than pure hirelings.770 The literal translation of the word is something like ‘young man alongside’; since use of the word is exclusively limited to martial contexts, ‘fighter alongside’ covers the literal meaning succinctly. Such men may have been ‘soldiers of fortune’, the misthophoroi (‘wage-earners’) familiar from Classical source, 771 as well as aristocratic adventurers who sought both profit and glory, as well as a means to expand their influence by gaining new and powerful foreign friends (xenoi).772 Hence Archilochos’ pessimistic statement that ‘an epikouros is a buddy (philos) for just so long as he’s prepared to fight’ (fr. 15 West); i.e. an epikouros would fight as long as it either served their own purposes or was profitable.773

767 768 769 770 771

772 773

Shanks 1999, 127. Regarding Enyalios, see Gantz 1993, 81. Cf. Podlecki 1969, 75. Lave lle 1989, 36 n. 1 conve nie ntly lists the e vide nce. See Van Wees 2004, 71–73. Howe ve r, e ve n Xe nophon’s Anabasis, se t betwee n 401 and 399, suggests that many of the late r so-calle d me rce naries (ofte n terme d xenoi, ‘guest-frie nds’ and ‘strangers’), or more especially the ir commande rs, came to the call of Kyros the Younger as a personal favour. Epikouroi are always me n from outside one ’s own community and there fore, in the Gree k sense, xenoi or ‘strangers’, ‘fore igne rs’ (he nce, to Archilochos, Karians are known mostly as epikouroi, fore ign allies or frie nds who fight alongside you in times of war); cf. the discussion in the previous chapte r. For more on the situation in Xe nophon, see Ande rson 1970, 54–55. See also Herman 1987, 101–105. For a rece nt overvie w on epikouroi and me rce naries, re fer to Trundle 2004.

189

v. Summary In many of the extant fragments, Archilochos mocks the ideology espoused by Tyrtaios and the other poets discussed in this chapter—and ideology that is virtually identical to that presented in the Homeric epics. Archilochos has no qualms about abandoning his—presumably Argive–shield, nor does he desire a commander who is more preoccupied with his appearance than the battle at hand. However, such satire serves to demonstrate how common the main ideology was, and that there must be truth in it. The acquisition of land again emerges as a motive for war: Archilochos took part in the Parian colonisation of the island of Thasos and specifically mentions a battle against the Saians and how they bribed ‘Thrakian dogs’. He also describes a siege, mentioning siege ladders and some kind of contraption. In another fragment, he mentions a ship with fifty men, no doubt a galley of the type encountered in both Homer and the iconographic evidence. All this demonstrates the great variety of warlike activities that Archilochos was partial or privy to, namely land-battles, sieges, and naval activity. No wonder that Archilochos presents himself as a henchman of Ares, a man to whom war and battle came naturally, and who may have himself served as a mercenary, ‘like a Karian’. e. Mytilene (Lesbos) Alkaios, a native of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos, lived around 600; he was a contemporary of Sappho. Alkaios specialised in composing drinking songs, which were performed during symposia. The topics touched upon in these songs are varied. Some of the most interesting are his so-called political fragments. Mytilene suffered from political instability characterised by stasis (‘factional strife’). Some of the members of the wealthiest segments of their communities, leaders of parties or factions pursuing dominance, managed to install themselves as turannoi (‘tyrants’ in the sense of sole rulers). No less than three tyrants rose to prominence in Mytilene: Melanchros, Myrsilos, and Pittakos. Alkaios, as a member of the (ruling) elite, opposed these men, who desired to reign more of less as absolute monarchs.774 However, tyranny was not limited to the island of Lesbos.775 From this point in time onwards (i.e., about the end of the seventh century), this kind of power struggle between prominent members of the ruling elite, stasis or ‘factional strife’, emerges in a number of communities across the Aegean.776 774

775

776

190

Ho we ve r, we should not take Alkaios’ opinion of the m as gospe l; in Classical times, Plato ranke d Pittakos—who was by the n known especially for his aphorisms—alongside Solon as one of the Se ve n Sages of Archaic Greece (Protagoras 343a). But as Hall 2007, 142, points out, ‘it is important to recognize that it was not a unive rsal phe nome non: according to one estimate , only twe nty-se ven out of hundre ds of states are known to have been subject to a tyranny ove r a pe riod of 150 years.’ The total numbe r of Gree k se ttle me nts ‘suffe ring’ stasis and tyranny should probably not be ove re xaggerate d (contra Thouk. 1.13). Hanse n & Nie lse n 2004, 1361–1362, provide a list of known poleis afflicte d by stasis: while there are many sixth-century

In the work of some later Archaic poets, notably Theognis of Megara and Solon of Athens, stasis and the associated threat of tyranny loom large, although no mention is ever made of actual outright violence having broken out in the streets (cf. the actions of the Athenian Kylon described in Hdt. 5.71). i. Equipment and the warband In one fragment, Alkaios describes a cache of weapons and armour: The high hall is agleam with bronze ; the roof is all arraye d with shining he lms, and white horse -plume s to orname nt me n’s heads nod from the ir crests. Bright greaves of bronze to kee p strong arrows off cover the unsee n pegs, and corse le ts of (ne w) line n [thorrakes te neō linō], and a pile of conve x shie lds. Chalcidian swords are there , and be lts [zōmata] in ple nty, tunics too. We can’t forge t this store now that we ’ve take n on this task. (fr. 140.3–16 Voigt; translation West)

It seems likely that Alkaios and his compatriots, no doubt including his brothers, were supposed to use this store of arms and armour in their struggle against a turannos at Mytilene.777 The fight to defend the position of the ruling elite is presumably the ‘task’ referred to in this fragment (fr. 140.16 Voigt).778 The description of the ‘store’ resembles similar descriptions found in the Homeric epics.779 Particularly interesting is Alkaios’ remark that greaves are especially used as protection against arrows. The swords are said to be of Chalkidian make, which confirms what we know of the Euboians’ reputation in this field from Archilochos. Linen corslets are mentioned rather than bronze cuirasses. The corslets are also new (neō), so we may assume that they have never been used before. Ian Morris suggests that the description of the store is meant not only to be reminiscent of Homer or deliberately heroising; the store itself and the terminology used also ‘evokes the east’. For example, linen corslets are considered part and parcel of Lydian equipment. In another fragment, Alkaios refers to a ‘Karian helmet-plume’ (fr. 388 West), another eastern (Anatolian) element. Morris furthermore suggests that Alkaios—like Homer—ignores the presence of non-aristocrats in combat, pushing ‘the unpleasant real-world need for masses of infantry into the background.’780 However, Alkaios’ hall apparently contains enough armour to equip at least a small number of men, perhaps including those who did not or could not procure any weapons or armour of their own. Morris’s ‘masses of

777 778 779 780

e xamples, there are eve n more be longing to the fifth and fourth centurie s B.C. See also Alk. fr. 383 West. See also Podle cki 1969, 76–79. Van Wees 1992, 41 (with re fe rences). Morris 2000, 177.

191

infantry’ suppose that armies during this time were large, possibly as large as they could be in Classical times. Nowhere is this notion supported in the extant Archaic evidence. Rather, it seems likely that Alkaios was a high-ranking member of a group of drinking buddies who pooled their resources—in this case, weapons and armour—so that they could form a war-band whenever necessary. Military organisation was more probably of a type familiar from the Homeric epics, with leaders and their followers, rather than the centrally-organised armies known to Herodotos and Thoukydides. The hall mentioned in the fragment is one used for drinking; the men there may, perhaps, form a kind of ‘fighting club’. The new corslets suggest that they were acquired specifically to equip more than one man. In any case, it is clear that Alkaios represents a segment of the elite at Mytilene that is both able and willing to defend their position of power. The presence of such war-bands suggests that the ‘State’, in its presumably embryonic form, did not possess a monopoly on violence; or to put it simply, armed aristocrats were the State. As such, stasis occurred when these aristocrats (‘civilians’) used their equipment against each other, rather than against an outside foe. ii. Factional strife at Mytilene Despite his apparent resources and determination, Alkaios and his friends failed in stopping some men from seizing power as tyrants in Mytilene. His political opponents eventually banished the poet from the city and he moved to another part of the island. Banishment is a characteristic way of disposing of cowards, as well as troublesome or criminal elements in early Greece (cf. Hom. Od. 1.403–404), though Alkaios later returned to Mytilene. Of the tyrants who once reigned at Mytilene, the most famous was Pittakos. In one fragment, Alkaios writes of him: But le t him [i.e., Pittakos], marrie d into the family of the Atridae , de vour the city as he did in company with Myrsilus, until Ares is please d to turn us to arms; and may we forge t this anger; and le t us re lax from the heart-eating strife and civil warring, which one of the Olympians has arouse d among us, leading the people [damos] to ruin, but giving de lightful glory [kudos] to Pittakos. (fr. 70.6–13 Voigt; translation Campbe ll)

As Campbell explains in the notes to this passage, Pittakos married into the Penthilidai (hence, Atreidai), who were supposedly descendants of Atreus by way of Orestes, and once the ruling family of Mytilene. 781 Alkaios accuses the people of doing nothing while the tyrant ‘devours’ the city and its people (polis). Achilleus once accused Agamemnon of being a devourer of his own people to emphasis the latter’s greed (Hom. Il. 1.231). So here too Alkaios is painting Pittakos as a greedy man; in both the Iliad and this passage, the people are accused of doing nothing. Alkaios stresses that Ares must rouse the people in order to oust the tyrant; the reference to the 781

192

The fact that Alkaios re fe rs to Pittakos as ‘base born’, kakopatridos (fr. 348 Voigt), does not mean that he really was of common desce nt, me re ly that Alkaios hates his guts; see also Snodgrass 1980, 95.

war-god indicates that Alkaios feels Pittakos must be thrown out through the use or display (threat) of force. A number of fragments attributed to Alkaios refer to a war between Mytilene and Athens. Alkaios took part in this war, which was apparently fought over control of the city of Sigeion, which lay in the Hellespont near Troy (Hdt. 5.94–96). In one battle, Alkaios had to abandon, or perhaps even surrender, both his shield and armour, which the enemy then took and hung in the temple of their principal goddess, Athena (fr. 401B Voigt). One fragment can be taken as a dig aimed at the Athenians, when Alkaios writes how ‘she’ (probably Athene) tried to inspire a scattered host of men to fight (fr. 382 Voigt). According to other later sources, Pittakos defeated an Athenian general, Phrynon, in single combat (Plut. de Herod. malign. 858ab; cf. Strabo 13.1.38). Phrynon is mentioned in a badly preserved bit of papyrus attributed to Theognis (fr. 167 Voigt). iii. Martial values Aside from the existence of war-bands in Mytilene, there are a number of other similarities between the writings of Alkaios and those of Homer, Archilochos, and other Archaic poets. Alkaios in one fragment proclaims that ‘death in battle is a splendid thing’ (fr. 400 Voigt). In another fragment, Alkaios tells his listeners that ‘war-like men’ are the purgos (‘tower’) of the polis (fr. 112 Voigt), a very succinct way of reminding his audience—presumably fellow aristocrats—that they are the ones who protect their communities (and therefore have a stake in political power). iv. Summary When we turn to Alkaios, a new element is added: political intrigue. We are still in the realm of what looks like war-bands; the description of the hall in fr. 140 suggests that men could still pool their resources and then take arms alongside their drinking-buddies to complete a certain ‘task’, whether it be fighting enemies from without or within. In the latter case, conflicts between rival (aristocratic) factions would lead to stasis. But the former was also known to Alkaios, who specifically mentions a war between the people of Mytilene and Athens. Ideologically speaking, ‘Homeric’ values continue to loom large, with Alkaios speficially referring to warriors as the ‘towers’ of a community. f. Smyrna Mimnermos was probably a slightly younger contemporary of Kallinos (latter half of the seventh century). Mimnermos mentions how his ancestors originally sailed from Pylos to settle at Kolophon, and from there captured Smyrna, his own native city (fr. 9 West). He also wrote exhortation poetry, composing songs specifically to encourage his countrymen to defend their city against Lydian attacks, either in the time of Gyges (fr. 13a), or otherwise his successor. In order to encourage his fellow countrymen, the poet describes how a (probably well-known) courageous warrior, apparently on foot, managed to fend off a number of Lydian horsemen:

193

His stre ngth and brave ry we re not like yours, as I have heard from older me n who saw him on the plain of He rmos with his spear routing the Lydian cavalry’s [hippomachōn] thick ranks [pukinas phalaggas]. Pallas Athe na ne ’e r had cause to fault his acid fury, whe n in the front line [ana promachous] he hurtle d through the battle ’s bloody moil against the stinging missiles [belea] of the foe. No warrior of the e nemy remaine d his be tter in the stre nuous work of war, so long as he move d in the swift sun’s light. (fr. 14 West)

We should probably imagine this solitary figure (or perhaps a leader and his followers, after Homer?), to take a stand in the field and try to fend off or, more likely, scare the oncoming horses with his spear. It suggests a rather freeform mode of fighting, with the warrior no doubt quickly moving ‘in the swift sun’s light’, stabbing at an opponent where possible, hiding and retreating behind obstacles when necessary. The horsemen themselves, if they fought as tightly packed together as the poem suggests, may have been unable to manoeuvre quickly enough to squash the annoying gatfly that ran up every now and again to strike at one of their number. The word used, hippomachoi, literally means ‘horse-fighters’; perhaps these men fought from horseback, as mounted archers or javelineers (i.e., the belea in l. 8); depictions of mounted javlineers are known from later Attic vase-paintings, for example. 782 However, the word is cognate with hippobatas, so they might just as well have dismounted to fight on foot. The latter is perhaps most likely in the light of the iconographic evidence already examined in chapter 6. The fact that Mimnermos does not go into any further details suggests that his audience knew exactly how these men fought. The poet Theognis, from Megara, mentions in one passage that a lit beacon fire calls the men to war, and he then tells his friend Kyrnos to put bits on their horses: riding to battle is obviously common enough for it to be presented as part of the preparations for war.783 In any event, this fragment has been frequently compared to exhortations in the Iliad, where the aristeia (‘bravery’) demonstrated by some warriors is used to encourage others; Mimnermos may have consciously modelled these lines after similar ones in the Homeric epic.784 In another fragment, Mimnermos describes how a group of men made ‘a fence with their hollow shields’ (fr. 13a), which again recalls similar phrases in Homer (e.g., Il. 13.130–131). Nevertheless, non-Homeric aspects, such as the hippomachoi, ring true to life. Mimnermos, like his fellow poets, regards the death of an older man as repulsive, from both a moral and aesthetic point of view. More generally, he remarks that old men are always ‘loathsome and vile, [...] abhorred by boys, by women scorned’ (fr. 1 West). It is clear that this contrast between young

782 783 784

194

E.g., Athe ns 15.116 (formerly Akropolis 606): Ande rson 1961, pl. 30.a; Gree nhalgh 1973, 115 fig. 58. The ognis fr. 549–554. Use ful is the discussion in Gre thle in 2007.

(beautiful) and old (repulsive) was simply part and parcel of aristocratic ideology (cf. Priam’s description of a beautiful death in the previous chapter). That it is an ideal is reflected by Mimnermos’ statement that he does not wish to die until threescore years have gone by, i.e. at the age of sixty (fr. 6 West). This fragment was later cited by Solon, who stated that he did not want to die until fourscore years had passed (fr. 20 West)! g. Samos A statue unearthed on Samos represents Aiakes, either the father or grandfather of the tyrant Polykrates (Hdt. 6.13, 6.22). It dates to around 540. Parts of this seated figure are lost, but the inscription is intact and reads, in Boardman’s translation: ‘Aiakes, son of Brychon, dedicated [me]. He secured the booty for Hera during his stewardship.’785 The phrase, ‘during his stewartship’, is a translation of the Greek epi tēn epistasin, literally ‘during the (his) leadership’. The booty obtained during his tenure may have been the result of a raid or battle under his command. We know from Herodotos that the Samians were well known as pirates and that it was customary for them to offer part of their treasure to Hera (Hdt. 4.152), the goddess of power. h. Ephesos Sometime around the middle of the seventh century, Kallinos of Ephesos composed poems to encourage his countrymen to fight bravely in defence of their community. His poetry also resembles parts of the Homeric epics as far as phrasing and terminology are concerned.786 One sizeable fragment survives of his war songs; it is similar to the exhortation songs by Tyrtaios. A few bits and pieces of other poems are preserved in later authors; Strabo, for example, tells us that Kallinos once sang how Sardis, the capital city of the Lydians, had been captured by invading Kimmerians (Geography 14.1.40; Kallinos fr. 5 West). i. The term neos in Greek lyric poetry Like Tyrtaios, Kallinos addresses the ‘young men’ (neoi) in particular. The word neoi refers to ‘youths’ or ‘the youth’ in general. Kallinos asks how long the neoi intend ‘to lie down’, katakeisthe (fr. 1.1 West). This is an interesting element that Tyrtaios does not mention; the phrase suggests that this song was aimed at participants at a sumposion, who would recline on dining couches. The neoi here, and perhaps also in the case of Tyrtaios, are perhaps not literally ‘young men’, but rather friends that Kallinos addresses during a drinking party. In effect, the Greek used here suggests something along the lines of English expressions like ‘Come on, guys!’, or ‘Listen up, lads!’787 Henk Singor has argued, no doubt correctly, that the neoi are simply Greek

785 786 787

Boardman 1991 [1978], 97. Cf. Shanks 1999, 112; Singor 1988, 93–96. Cf. The ognis fr. 1319–1322, whe re pais (‘boy’) is use d, pe rhaps instead of neos. See especially Slings 2000; cf. Christe nson 2000, 631 and especially n. 3.

195

men of fighting age.788 ii. The glory of battle Kallinos’ meaning may well be intentionally subtle or ambiguous, in that lying down and joining battle once again link the two main aristocratic pursuits of feasting and fighting. These associations of men are thus similar to those encountered in our discussion of Alkaios, and related to the Homeric bands of men who feast and fight together. These men all share a similar heroic ideology. When Kallinos tells the neoi to prepare for war, he tells them to ‘throw your last spear even as you die’ (fr. 1.5 West). After all, Kallinos claims, it is no small honour to die while defending one’s own community: For proud it is and precious for a man to fight de fe nding country [gēs peri], childre n, we dde d wife against the foe . Death comes no soone r than the Fates have spun the thread; so charge , turn not aside , with le ve lle d spear and brave heart be hind the shie ld from the first moment that the armies meet. (fr. 1.6–11 West)

The reference to family reinforces the idea that Kallinos is not addressing young men (who were probably unmarried),789 but the older men who were his friends. Continuing, the poet stresses how the brave man ‘ranks with demigods’ while alive, 790 regarded as a ‘tower’ (purgos) by the people (laos), who does more single-handedly than many do together; his loss in battle is mourned by people of both high and low standing (fr. 1.17–20). This is virtually identical to the harangues of Tyrtaios. All this suggests that the men addressed by Kallinos also belonged to the aristocracy. Kallinos is appealing to them to defend their city, perhaps against attacks of roving Kimmerians (fr. 5a, 4 West), or an invasion by the Magnesians.791 i. Karia Karians appear frequently in the Archaic sources. 792 They sometimes collaborated with ‘Ionians’, a term that in texts from the ancient Near East frequently relates to ‘Greeks’ and other peoples from Anatolia.793 Herodotos claims that not the Greeks, but the Karians invented three characteristic features of the Greek panoply (Hdt. 1.171). Firstly, the Karians devised a method of fastening crests to helmets (cf. Alk. fr. 388 West). Secondly, they 788 789

790 791

792 793

196

E.g., Singor 1988, 125. According to Solon, a man’s life is divide d into stages of se ve n years each. He suggests that the fifth hebdomad is the time for a man to marry and produce offspring, i.e. be twee n the ages of 28 and 35 (Solon fr. 27.9–10 West). Note Van Wees 2006; see also Il. 22.394. Kallinos me ntions the Magnesians in one fragment (fr. 3 West), spe cifically that they are successful in a war against Kallinos’ city, Ephesos. Archilochos te lls us that the Magnesians we re destroye d (fr. 20 West), which suggests that Kallinos pre dates Archilochos (Strabo 14.1.40). See also the brie f overvie w in Pe dle y 1974, 96–97 (with re fere nces). Re fer to Kuhrt 2002, who stresses that ‘Greece ’ was a marginal and little known area to the Easte rn empires.

came up with the idea of putting blazons on shields. Finally, they were the first to attach handles to their shields whereas before they were carried from leather straps and suspended from the wearer’s neck and shoulder (cf. the Homeric telamōn). Some commentators have dismissed the idea that Karian armourers were responsible for the design of what they believe to be typically Archaic Greek war-gear.794 There is no a priori reason to doubt Herodotos, although he did come from Halikarnassos, a Greek city in Karia, and was conceivably for exactly this reason less than objective when it came to Karian achievements. However, Karians are also mentioned in other sources and often appear alongside Ionians and other East Greeks (sometimes as epikouroi, as Archilochos makes clear); it seems very unlikely that this idea is wholly a fabrication. j. Greeks in the ancient Near East Greeks had been visiting the ancient Near East from at least Mykenaian times onwards. After the fall of the Mykenaian palaces, Greek artefacts continued to be exported to the ancient Near East from at least the tenth century onwards.795 Greek overseas activities intensified in the course of the eighth century; traders and adventurers from especially Euboia led the way, followed after 700 by a number of East Greeks.796 The presence of Greek pottery is not always indicative of the presence of Greeks themselves,797 but at least some apparently did settle on foreign soil; the Greek trading post at Naukratis is perhaps the best known example.798 Assyrian sources tell us of hostile engagements between ‘Ionians’ and Assyrians during the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser III (ruled 745–727) and Sargon II (ruled 722–705). The documents make it clear that the some of these Greeks roamed along the coasts of Phoenicia as either traders or raiders. A number of Greeks slaves, perhaps captured during one of the Assyrian expeditions to rid the sea of Aegean raiders, were kept at Niniveh.799 Some Greek adventurers found employment as mercenaries in the armies of the large Near-Eastern empires. East Greek warriors from Ionia and Rhodes, and perhaps also a number of Karians, were stationed at Mesad Haschavjahu, a coastal fortress that lay between Jaffa and Ashdod; it was constructed around 630/620. 800 Two examples of such warriors are discussed in the following two subsections. The first concerns the use of Greek warriors in the armies of Egypt, based on inscriptional evidence and the testimony recorded by Herodotos. The second subsection discusses the activities of Alkaios’ brother, Antimenidas, in the Babylonian army. 794 795 796 797 798 799 800

Re fer to Snodgrass 1964a. Haide r 1996, 59–63. Boardman 1999 [1964], 35–45; on Euboians, re fer to Crie laard 1996; on Al-Mina, see Luraghi 2006, 27–29. As Haide r 1996, esp. p. 100, seems to suppose ; cf. Waldbaum 1997. For further de tails on Naukratis, re fer to Molle r 2000. Haide r 1996, 79–82; Luraghi 2006, 30–33; for a brie f ove rvie w of Assyrian sources, note Kuhrt 2002, 18–20. Haide r 1996, 75 (date d on the basis of potte ry finds).

197

i. Egypt Outside the temple of Abu Simbel, a large and roughly cut inscription can be found on the leg of the giant statue of Ramesses; it has been dated to 591. The inscription, mostly Ionic in lettering but Doric in dialect,801 reads as follows, as rendered by Matthew Dillon: Whe n king [basileos] Psamme tichos came to Ele phantine , this was writte n by those who, with [sun] Psammetichos son of The okle s, saile d and came above Kirkis, as far as the rive r pe rmitte d; Potasimto commande d the non-native speake rs, and Amasis the Egyptians: Archon son of Amoibichos wrote us and Pe le kos son of Oudamos.802

While many have tried to read Pelekos (Peleqos) as the name of another human being, Dillon points out that the author was actually using a Homeric pun: Archon wrote the inscription using a weapon, Pelekos (Axe or Blade), who quite literally was the son of Oudamos (Nobody).803 Most of the other names are fairly straightforward. The ‘non-native speakers’, led as a whole by Potasimto, a known general, 804 were clearly not Egyptians; they probably included the Greek contingent that was led by the son of Theokles. That they came down river suggests that they might have travelled by ship. Archon identifies himself as one of the Greeks who followed Psammetichos. Psammetichos himself was a Greek, the son of Theokles (a purely Greek name), who was named after the Egyptian pharaoh of the same name, to wit Psammetichos II, who ruled between 595 and 589. It was common for Greek fathers to name their sons after xenoi (‘guest-friends’); we know from other documents that some Karian fathers in Egypt also named their sons after the pharaoh.805 This suggests that the son of Theokles was not simply a mercenary, or even an adventurer; instead, it suggests, as Herman has argued, that he may well have come along on this expedition up the Nile as a favour for his father’s Egyptian friend.806 Some of these men may have been ‘soldiers of fortune’ or adventurers, while others were some kind of (hereditary) epikouroi: men who aided their guest-friends (or those of their fathers).807 ii. Babylon Alkaios tells us that his brother, Antimenidas, once fought for the Babylonians, possibly in the army of Nebuchadnezzar II; he might even

801 802 803 804 805 806 807

198

Je ffery 1961, 355. Me iggs & Le wis 1989 [1969], 12–13 (no. 7); see also Jeffe ry 1961, 355 and pl. 48a; Haide r 1996, 107–108. Dillon 1997, 129–130. Vittmann 2003, 201. Haide r 1996, 110–111. He rman 1987, 101–102. Cf. Herodotos’ story, which is a common logos (e.g., Od. 14.248–291 and 17.419–444), conce rning the Ionian and Karian ‘men of bronze ’ who we re hire d by Psammetichos I after the y had washe d ashore and turne d to raiding the Egyptian countryside (Hdt. 2.152–163); see also Luraghi 2006, 34–35.

have taken part in the storming of Askalon in 604. 808 In one fragment, Alkaios refers to Babylon and Askalon, the latter of which was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 604 (fr. 48 Voigt; P. Oxy. 1233 fr. 11.6–20). In a fragment, Alkaios states that Antimenidas went to Babylon, ‘serving as an ally’ (summachō). He adds that Antimenidas was handsomely rewarded for his efforts, as he returned ‘with the hilt of [his] sword ivory bound with gold’ (fr. 350.2 Voigt; translation Campbell).809 The use of the verb summachō is interesting: it literally means ‘to fight jointly’. It implies a somewhat more formal relationship than that denoted by the noun epikouros. There is also a difference in scope: whereas only individuals (and their followers) can be epikouroi, it is possible for both individuals and groups—particularly other polities—to be summachoi, ‘allies’ (e.g., Hdt. 1.102; see also Hdt. 6.9). An alliance between two polities, as discussed below on the basis of an inscription found at Olympia, was called a summachia (e.g., Hdt. 1.82, 4.120).810 The fact that Alkaios states that his brother ‘served as an ally’ might suggest—and barring compositional considerations such as meter!—that he went not as an epikouros, as either an adventurer or xenos of Nebuchadnezzar (or own of his lieutenants), or out of friendship (philia),811 but rather as member of a group that owed some sort of formal allegiance to the Babylonians or to allies of the Babylonians. k. Miscellaneous inscriptions Aside from those inscriptions already mentioned, we also possess a number of epitaphs and, from the latter half of the sixth century onwards, texts of treaties. i. Epitaphs from Korkyra and Athens We are fortunate that some Archaic epigrams have survived, which sometimes provide further details concerning the death of the entombed warrior. The grave of Arniadas on the island of Korkyra (Corfu), dated to around 600, featured a three-line hexameter, in which we are told that the warrior died while he was fighting next to a number of ships, presumably on a beach. The epigram as a whole reads, in M.L. Lang’s translation: This is the tomb [sēma] of Arniadas whom flashing-e ye d Ares destroye d as he fought beside the ships in the streams of Arathos. He was the bravest by far in the wre tche dness of war.812

Catherine Derderian compares this epitaph with another from Athens, perhaps datable to 540–530, where we are asked to mourn for ‘Kroisos, whom raging Ares once destroyed in the front lines [eni promachois].’813 This

808 809 810 811 812 813

Quinn 1961, 19–20. Haide r 1996, 93, calls it a ‘Prunkschwert’. For more on summachia, see Tause nd 1992. On the diffe re nce be tween philia and summachia, see Van Wees 2004, 10–15 (with re fe re nces; esp. p. 255 n. 20). Lang 1991, 75; Hanse n 1983, 80 (no. 145). De rde rian 2001, 100; Hanse n 1983, 19–20 (no. 27).

199

epitaph was engraved in the base of a famous kouros—a statue of a naked young man—found here in the Anavysos cemetery. 814 Both epitaphs present the warrior as having fallen victim to the wargod’s wrath and tell us where they were killed, all using the epic language familiar from Homer. As far as Arniadas is concerned, he may have been engaged in a seaborne raid or perhaps even fought against such raiders. Kroisos may have fought in a larger type of engagement, perhaps something along the lines of the battles in Homer or some of the elegiac poets discussed in this chapter. Derdarian suggests that the ‘warrior’s epigram transforms the crisis of death into a transition from heroic action and death to a future of memory; it depicts the warrior’s past action in death in heroic diction and emphasizes the agency of the reader, who reacts to the epigram ’s message with recognition, mourning, and aspiration to follow its ethical paradigm.’815 The importance of fighting bravely and then transcending death to continue living in memory is a motif that we have already encountered a number of times. ii. Alliance treaties Summachia—formal alliances between polities—appear on mainland Greece in the course of the sixth century. Later historians, such as Herodotos and Thoukydides, refer to summachia that supposedly existed between, for example, the Lydians and the Milesians in the seventh century (Hdt. 1.22), but these Classical authors may have used this word because it was familiar to them. One of the earliest attested uses of the word summachia in the sense of an alliance is found inscribed on a bronze plaque found at Olympia and dated to the later sixth century. It is ‘the earliest treaty of alliance of which we know the terms’.816 The text reads as follows: This is the cove nant be tween the Eleans and the He raeans. The re shall be an alliance [sunmachia] for a hundre d years, and this (year) shall be the first; and if anything is nee de d, e ithe r word or dee d, they shall stand by each othe r in all matters and especially in war [ta t’ ala kai par polemo]; and if the y stand not by each other, those who do the wrong shall pay a tale nt of silve r to Olympian Ze us to be use d in his se rvice . And if anyone injures this writing, whe the r private man or magistrate or community [aite fetas aite telesta aite damos], he shall be liable to the sacre d fine he re in writte n.817

The text is something like a contract, in which both parties (the people of Elis and Heraia) agree to come to each other’s aid whenever necessary, especially in times of war; if one side fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, it must pay the appropriate fine. The plaque was set up at the Panhellenic sanctuary at Olympia; the fine had to be paid to Zeus, the protector of oaths (e.g., Hom. Il. 10.329–330).

814 815 816 817

200

Athe ns 3851: see , e.g., Hurwit 1985, 253–254. De rde rian 2001, 101. Van Wees 2004, 13. Me iggs & Le wis 1989 [1969], 31–33 (no. 17).

3. Conclusions The emphasis in the Archaic poets is put squarely on close-ranged fighters. Belea or missiles are mentioned by a number of poets, but ranged warfare appears to have been limited, or its importance is perhaps deliberately downplayed. However, I do not believe that the latter is the case. Just as Mimnermos stresses the valour of a man who fights oncoming horsemen on his own, so too could the poets have told us of the slaughter wrought on contingents of archers or javelineers, had these been present. Indeed, Tyrtaios specifically and uniquely makes a clear distinction between panoploi (‘armoured troops’) and gumnētes (‘naked troops’), without stressing the importance of either one or the other. How did the men in the poems fight? The evidence is ambiguous. However, it seems unlikely that they fought in any kind of strict formation resembling the Classical phalanx; Herodotos never, for example, mentions the depths of the taxeis, a common feature of later authors such as Thoukydides and Xenophon. Obviously, this does not mean that they used no formation at all, as some poets stress the importance of promachoi the armies do possess at least a rudimentary structure similar to that encountered in Homer. Indeed, the mixing of panoploi and gumnētes in Tyrtaios also resembles the relatively fluid style of fighting described in the Iliad. Furthermore, there is a flexibility with regards to the battle-arenas that is often overlooked: men fight on what appears to be open land, but they could also take part in sieges, and travelled aboard fifty-oared warships. Furthermore, there was enough room for individuals to show off their skills in single combat (cf. Antimenidas). Wars could erupt between communities. We have the people of Mytilene fighting the Athenians, the Athenians squaring off against the Megarans, the Spartans against the Messenians, the Parians against the Thrakians, and so on, all for the possession of land. These battles are no mere border-skirmishes, as modern concensus would have us believe, but hard-fought encounters over relatively sizeable tracts of desirable land. These battles need not have been as massive as in the Classical period. In fact, it seems likely that until the late sixth century, military organisation still took the shape of war-bands or ‘fight-clubs’, in which case the armies were (predominantly) culled from the upper classes and may have numbered a few hundred men at the most. Enlargement in scale was only possible when armies were organised by more or less anonymous central bodies, as demonstrated by the inscription from Salamis. Aside from war between communities, there was also stasis: factional strife within a polis. Such internal conflicts were a feature of a number of towns in Archaic Greece, though it is difficult to get a handle on exactly how common it may have been. Certainly, Archaic Greeks were no doubt as competitive as Homer’s heroes, or their Classical descendants. Alkaios’ fragments suggests that factions consisted of aristocratic men who formed drinking-cum-fight clubs, who, when necessary, would band together, armed and ready, to protect or (re)gain power through force if necessary. Epikouroi, ‘mercenaries’, are also a feature of the Archaic period. The

201

Greeks themselves apparently hired mercenaries to aid them in combat, as pointed out by Archilochos with regards to Karians. But Greeks could also offer their services either to guest-friends or hitherto unknown persons or bodies. Greek and Karian mercenaries operated in Babylonia and Egypt; in the latter case, at least, they functioned as part of a foreign contingent. These mercenaries could be true ‘soldiers of fortune’, perhaps impoverished men, as well as aristocratic adventurers, perhaps like Alkaios’ brother Antimenidas. Both the desire to aid guest-friends, as well as the need to forge new friendships and acquire both profit and glory, were no doubt powerful motives for Greek warriors to travel abroad.

202

Chapter 9

Herodotos’ Persian Wars 1. Introduction Our survey of the literary evidence began with the Iliad, so it is perhaps fitting to end it with an analysis of another large text that centres on warfare, namely the so-called Historiai (literally, ‘inquiries’) written by Herodotos.818 The text, which later Classical or Hellenistic scholars divided into nine books,819 was probably written no later than about 425. Herodotos was a native of Halikarnassos, born around 484; he died around 425. 820 The purpose of the Historiai is to provide both an overview of, and a context to, the Greco-Persian Wars. As Herodotos says in his introduction, the book serves to celebrate the deeds of both Greeks and non-Greeks (‘barbarians’); it is an ‘epic’ story about Greek and Eastern civilisations and how they clashed. Some believe the purpose of the text is political and intended to be read; Herodotos’ story emphasises hubris and may have been written specifically as a warning for (imperialistic) Athenians to not overstep their mark.821 Herodotos offers information on the history of parts of Greece. While he tells us a great deal about the ‘ancient’ past, he is probably most reliable when it comes to the period between about 525 and 479 (i.e., within living memory, from about the time of the ascension of Dareios in 522 to the battle at Mykale in 479). However, his account is far from complete, let alone objective;822 this subjectivity was no doubt exacerbated by the fact that he relied mostly on oral traditions for his information.823 As Robin Osborne points out, ‘we should not underestimate the extent to which the shape and tenor of Herodotus’ account was affected by whose stories he did and whose stories he did not hear.’824 Herodotos’ stories commonly have a moral, in which the stereotypical rise and (hubristic) fall of various historical figures take centre stage. 825 In this chapter, I focus on the 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825

Translations in this chapte r are by He nry Cary. On the prese ntation of Herodotos’ te xt, see Flory 1980; on composition, re fer to Lattimore 1958. Rawlings 2007, 78 n. 3; more in-de pth, see Evans 1987. See , for e xample , Moles 2002, 49 (with re fe re nces). Regarding He rodotos’ accuracy, see , e.g., Harrison 2002, 571–578. Slings 2002; Osborne 2002, 510–513 (He rodotos’ appare nt ‘neglect of writte n sources’); Forsdyke 2002, 521 (note discussion on pp. 522–523 on technique ). Osborne 2002, 509 and also 517. Gray 2002, 296–298; see also Van Wees 2002, 328–335. As Gregory Crane observes,

203

information Herodotos provides concerning Greek warfare in the late sixth and early fifth centuries, i.e. the era of the Persian Wars. 2. Arms and armour The Historiai do not abound with detailed descriptions of arms and armour. We have already noted in the previous chapter that Herodotos claimed that parts of the panoply (shield blazons, shield-handles, and the method used to fix crests to helmet) had been invented by Karians (Hdt. 1.171). As far as the actual pieces of weapons and armour are concerned, there is great continuity when compared to the evidence gleaned from earlier written sources, such as the Archaic poets and Homer. One notable feature is that Herodotos, like Tyrtaios, makes a fundamental distinction between lightly- and heavily-armoured troops. Whereas Tyrtaios speaks of panoploi, Herodotos uses the word hoplitēs, from which our familiar form ‘hoplite’ is derived. Hoplites in the Historiai are equipped with body-armour (e.g., Hdt. 8.27) and large, blazoned shields (Hdt. 9.74; also 8.27);826 one type of helmet is specifically called Korinthian (Hdt. 4.180). As far as their weapons are concerned, the set of two spears seems to have gone out of use by the time of the Persian Wars, being replaced instead by a single thrusting spear: there are virtually no references to men carrying a set of multiple spears or to spears being cast. The sword was used as a secondary weapon, particularly at close quarters when the spear had broken (e.g., Hdt. 7.224). If a warrior had broken both spear and sword, he would continue the fight with daggers, or whatever rocks or other makeshift weapons might be at hand, or else using his fists and teeth (e.g., Hdt. 7.225). Like Tyrtaios, Herodotos denotes lightly-armed men as gumnētes or, more commonly, as psiloi. These lightly-armed troops include javelineers (Hdt. 8.90), as well as archers. The bow and arrow now exclusively appear in the hands of specialist archers, particularly epikouroi (e.g. Hdt. 3.39). When Pausanias sends a messenger to the Athenians to ask for help, he hopes that they will at least send him some archers (Hdt. 9.60), which suggests that during this period, archers were relatively plentiful and perhaps possessed a lower status than hoplites. However, masses of archers are considered a mainstay of the Persian army, rather than the Greek. For example, at the battle of Thermopylai, when a man from Trachis reported that the Persians could fire enough arrows to block out the sun, the Spartan Dienekes is famously said to have regarded this as excellent news, for that meant the battle would be fought in the shade (Hdt. 7.226). Troops on foot (pezoi) were kept separate from those on horseback (hippeis), as a throwaway comment makes clear (Hdt. 9.32). The Athenians at Marathon were noteworthy for possessing neither archers nor horsemen (Hdt. 6.112). Sizeable numbers of Greek horsemen—normally referred to as

826

204

‘Catastrophic falls from good fortune captivate d the Archaic and Classical Gree ks in a way that may seem oddly familiar to the obse rvers of mode rn journalism’ (Crane 1996, 57). Cf. the remarkable anecdote regarding the Athe nian Sophanes at Plataia, Hdt. 9.74.

‘cavalry’ by modern authors—are associated in the Historiai with specific regions within the Aegean area. Attika is specifically said to be ill suited for horses (Hdt. 9.13), with the exception of the area around Marathon (Hdt. 6.102). In contrast, the Boiotians possessed bodies of horsemen, commanded by an hipparchos (Hdt. 9.68–69). The Thessalians were also renowned for their horsemen (Hdt. 7.173, 7.196, 8.28); when the sons of Peisistratos enlisted the aid of the Thessalians, they levelled the ground near Phaleron to make it better suited for horses (Hdt. 5.63). Greeks from other parts of the Mediterranean also used horsemen, such as the Syrakousans (Hdt. 7.154 and 158). Riders were employed to despatch messages by both the Greeks (Hdt. 6.58, 9.54, 9.60), and the Persians (Hdt. 5.14, 9.17); they were also used as scouts (Hdt. 4.121, 7.208); furthermore, horsemen could seek out and destroy specific enemies (Hdt. 8.138). Certain elite bodies of fighting men had names that imply they once rode to the battlefield, such as the Spartan hippeis (Hdt. 1.67, 8.124).827 However, the Persians employed greater numbers of horse troops, often to the detriment of Greek armies (Hdt. 4.87, 5.98, 6.29, 7.21, 7.40–41, 7.55, 7.84 and 87–88, 7.177, 8.113, 9.14, 9.20–25, 9.39–40, 9.49, 9.50–52 and 56–57, 9.60, 9.71, 9.85). The Lydians were also famous for their horsemen; Lydian troopers used long spears in combat (Hdt. 1.79–80). Persian horsemen apparently fought from horseback using javelins (Hdt. 9.17); it is unclear what weapons Greek horsemen used, and they may perhaps still have dismounted in the fashion of earlier hippobatai. Some of the subject peoples recruited into the Persian army fielded large numbers of horse troops, such as the Skythians and the Lydians. Chariots were a relatively common feature on the Homeric battlefield, but their use was apparently discontinued shortly before the outbreak of the Persian Wars, although the Greeks still used them in races (Hdt. 5.77, 6.35–36, 6.70, 6.103, 6.122–126), as well as in processions, (Hdt. 1.60, 4.180), and also awarded them as prizes of honour (Hdt. 8.124). A chariot was still used by the Persians to transport their king (Hdt. 7.40–41, 7.55, 7.100, 8.115). Finally, chariots were used in war, sometimes alongside horsemen, by a number of foreign peoples, especially Lybians (Hdt. 1.179, 4.170, 4.183, 4.193, 5.9, 7.86–87, 7.184), as well as the Cypriots (Hdt. 5.113). 3. Warfare according to Herodotos War in Herodotos differs from what we have observed in the Homeric and Archaic texts. On the whole, the scale of the fighting is much larger, involving higher numbers of combatants (although the exact figures are no doubt inflated), and the armies appear to be mobilised by a more or less central authority, with generals often being official magistrates or other appointed individuals rather than charismatic war-lords. There appears to be a shift from the individual to the collective body, a change that is perhaps best demonstrated by the structure of the army in the field and by the treatment of the war-dead, as I shall discuss in the following subsections. 827

Greenhalgh 1973, 94–95.

205

a. Causes of war As far as the Greeks are concerned, the historical importance of the Persian Wars cannot be underestimated. In his prologue, Herodotos claims that the Greco-Persian conflict was essentially a struggle between different ideologies. He explains that the Trojan War came about due to differences in culture between the Greeks and the peoples of Asia as regards the abduction of women. It all started, according to Herodotos, when Greeks and Asians engaged in a tit-for-tat raiding of each other’s women, including Zeus’ abduction of Europa (Hdt. 1.1–5). Examples abound in the Historiai of battles and wars instigated by a desire for revenge (e.g., Hdt. 4.1–4).828 In an important paper, J.E. Lendon has pointed out how fundamental the concept of vengeance was to the ancient Greeks, connected as it was to ideas of friendship and gift-exchange. ‘Both xenia and philia are grounded in the powerful Greek ethic of reciprocity,’ he notes. ‘But reciprocity has its dark side too; for just as it was obligatory for a Greek to give when given to, so too was it long obligatory to strike back when struck.’829 b. Raising an army There is some evidence in Herodotos that he was familiar with the concept of private warbands existing in earlier times, which centred on an aristocratic leader (warlord). Kylon, an Athenian who had made a name for himself at the Olympic games, wanted to make himself a turannos in the later seventh century. He managed to secure the help of a number of men of his own age and tried to capture the Akropolis. Kylon and his companions failed, and were subsequently executed by members of the Alkmeonid genos (clan), an act for which they in turn were cursed (Hdt. 5.71). However, from the latter half of the sixth century, such warbands seem to have all but disappeared. Larger armies appeared in their stead. The exact mechanism by which armies were mobilised around the time of the Persian Wars is never described by Herodotos, but personal ties of friendship and blood no longer appear to be a dominant factor. When in the later sixth century, the people of Aigina were fighting the Athenians, they asked the Argives for help. The Argive dēmos (in this case, the ‘State’) refused to answer their call. However, a thousand Argive volunteers, led by Eurybates, decided to join the battle regardless of what their political leaders had decided (Hdt. 6.92). In Athens, a centralised mechanism for mobilising the army may not have been available until the reforms of Kleisthenes at the end of the sixth century (Hdt. 5.66; cf. 5.78), a point recently emphasised by Henk Singor.830 Sparta’s rise to military prominence from the latter half of the sixth century onwards is probably also due to reforms that enabled the centralised mobilisation of armed forces on a grander scale than had hitherto been possible. While the smaller war-bands known from Homer and at least some of

828 829 830

206

See also Harrison 2002, 551–559 (accumulation of causes in He rodotos). Le ndon 2000, 3. Singor 2000; see also Van Effe nte rre 1976, Frost 1984.

the Archaic poets are no longer a feature during the Persian Wars, the centrally-organised and larger armies of this period were not inflexible. A leader could detach a small group of warriors from the main force and lead them on specific missions. For example, Herodotos tells the story of the Athenian Aristeides, son of Lysimachos. During the battle of Salamis, he assembled a number of hoplites, fellow Athenians, from those who were ranged along the shores of Salamis. With this task force, he sailed to Psyttaleia, a small island between Salamis and the mainland, where they killed all of the Persians who were stationed there (Hdt. 8.95; concerning Psyttaleia, see 8.76). While some believe that this episode was concocted to put down the Themistoklean achievements during the sea-battle,831 this cannot be proved.832 Alliances were more formal from probably the later sixth century onwards than they had been before. We have already seen how Alkaios described his brother as a summachos in the Babylonian army. Summachoi feature in Herodotos where they can best be translated as ‘allies’, that is communities that have agreed to fight together against a common enemy. Such alliances can be large or small (e.g., Hdt. 1.22, 1.77, 1.102, 2.181, 4.120). The most famous summachia, ‘alliance’, is that of a large number of Greek states, led by Sparta, against the Persian invaders in 480–479. However, it is characteristic of the Greeks that this alliance crumbled almost as soon as the invader had been repulsed. As Thomas Harrison points out, ‘though the Greeks engineer a seemingly resolute unity in the face of battle (8.86), this unity is, in the broader canvas of the war and the Histories, at best tenuous.’833 c. Spartan militarism As is well known, Sparta differed to some extent as far as social and military organisation are concerned from most other Greek cities. For one thing, Sparta was ruled by not one, but two kings,834 who had the right to declare war against anyone they wished (Hdt. 6.56). Furthermore, at some unknown point in the past, the Spartans had subjugated the other people of Lakonia (the so-called perioikoi, ‘dwellers about’) and enslaved the Messenians (called ‘helots’). Spartan citizens (‘Spartiates’), perioikoi, and helots together were referred to as Lakedaimonians and operated as a single armed force, if not on an equal footing (Hdt. 7.235). By the fifth century, the Spartans were renowned for their austere militarism, which was a result of their peculiar sociopolitical system. The legendary lawgiver Lykourgos was said to have created ‘good laws’ (eunomia) and established three important institutions that, as Herodotos puts it, all concerned warfare, namely the enōmotias kai triekadas kai sussitia . Nothing is known for certain as regards the

831 832 833 834

E.g., Fornara 1966. Harrison 2002, 572. Harrison 2002, 567. This diarchy may have been institute d as recently as the sixth ce ntury; see Mille r 1998, 1–2 (with re fere nces).

207

triekas. 835 The enōmotia (‘sworn band’) was probably derived from a warband or other all-male warrior group,836 and was no doubt closely related to the sussitia, the ‘common meals’ or ‘messes’. Furthermore, Lykourgos is credited by Herodotos with having set up the ephors (Spartan magistrates) and the gerontes, the ‘council of elders’ (Hdt. 1.65), a more formal body than the Homeric gerontes, of which the two kings were also a member. The Spartans’ reputation as a military force to be reckoned with pops up regularly in Herodotos. Whenever a polity requires military aid, the Spartans are usually the ones they turn to first; it was even possible for individuals to call in aid. When tyranny had been overthrown in Athens, a number of rival aristocratic factions vied for control. The two most important ones were led by Kleisthenes (of the Alkmeonidai) and Isagoras. Isagoras had a powerful guest-friend, namely Kleomenes, one of the kings of Sparta. Kleomenes sent a herald to Athens, which intimidated Kleisthenes enough to cause him to leave the city. 837 A little later, Kleomenes arrived in Athens with a small army. He drove out another seven hundred families. When he tried to dissolve the Council, the latter resisted, forcing Kleomenes and Isagoras to withdraw to the Akropolis, where they were besieged for two days. Kleomenes and his army was allowed to leave on the third day. Isagoras’ supporters were executed; Kleisthenes and the other exiles were allowed to return.838 d. The use of mercenaries The story of how pharaoh Psammetichos once hired Ionian and Karian raiders to serve him as epikouroi has already been summarised in the previous chapter (Hdt. 2.152–154). Greeks continued to be used as troops by foreign empires (e.g., Hdt. 3.4–11), although not always as either volunteers or sellswords: when the Persians conquered a Greek city, it often had to provide levies for the army of the King of Kings. If we may believe Herodotos, Greek troops were considered to be among the cream of the military crop; the author frequently points out their superior weapons, armour, and skill, and contrasts them with Persian troops, who are lightly-armed, unskilled, and disorganised. Some tyrants used mercenaries to secure their power. Polykrates, tyrant of Samos between 538 and 522, possessed a sizeable fleet of one hundred pentekonters, an army of mercenaries, and a force of one thousand oikeioi (‘native’) archers, which he used to conquer a number of cities and islands (Hdt. 3.39 and 3.45). Likewise, the Athenian tyrant Peisistratos, after being ousted for a third time, collected gifts and money from communities that owed him a favour. He then enlisted the aid of Argive mercenaries;

835 836 837 838

208

Pe rhaps it has something to do with the three Doric tribes, the Hylle is, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai or Dymanes (Hdt. 5.68); cf. Tyrtaios fr. 19 West? In Thoukydide s’ time , the enōmotia was the smallest Spartan tactical unit, numbe ring thirty-two me n (Thouk. 5.68). For further de tails, see Bickne ll 1970. For further discussion, unimportant here , see Forsdyke 2002, 539–545.

furthermore, a man from Naxos, Lygdamis, provided him with both money and men (Hdt. 1.61). Peisistratos and his mercenaries then waged a full-scale battle against the—apparently rather small—army of the Athenians and managed to secure a victory (Hdt. 1.62–63), allowing him to rule for the third and final time (Hdt. 1.64). e. The journey to the battlefield Before and during the period of the Persian Wars, the Greeks continued to fight among themselves, between neighbouring territories (e.g., Hdt. 1.30); they used ships to travel from their hometown to an enemy settlement that could most easily be reached by sea. However, a feature that we have not encountered earlier is the long march over land to reach the battlefield, such as when the Spartans and their allies march to Thermopylai (Hdt. 7.177). In Homer and the lyric poets, long distances are generally covered using ships. A possible explanation for overland marches might be that armies were now far larger than could be easily transported using available ships. This ties in to the notion, suggested in earlier chapters, that the scale of fighting increased in the course of the Archaic period, moving from relatively small-scale raids to devastatingly large wars. f. Fortifications Most sizeable cities in the Historiai are walled and equipped with multiple towers (e.g., Hdt. 3.156, 9.118). Wherever stone or mudbrick fortifications were lacking, the Greeks were apt to construct temporary wooden palisades (for example, to guard the Isthmus at Korinth: Hdt. 7.139; see also 6.36). At the behest of a number of exiled Samians, the Spartans waged war against Polykrates, tyrant of Samos. When the Lakedaimonian army arrived at Samos, they attacked the Samian wall. The Samians quickly increased the height of their walls in vulnerable places. Eventually, the Spartans were chased from the walls and had to give up after a siege of forty days (Hdt. 3.54). g. Army organisation In the Iliad, as we have seen, different types of troops are not separated into distinct homogenous units; instead, the basic tactical unit is the heterogonous warband. This also appears to have been the basic unit that lyric poets had in mind. However, it is clear from Herodotos’ descriptions of important battles during the Persian Wars that the Greeks by that time, like the Medes and their Persian successors, had divided their troops into largely homogenous units according to type (e.g., tactical units of archers, spearmen, and horsemen). When this change occurred precisely among the Greeks is never stated explicitly in any of the literary sources, but it obviously must have happened, if we believe Herodotos, sometime in the sixth century, prior to the outbreak of the Persian Wars (cf. Hdt. 1.103). By the time of the Persian Wars, different types of troops no longer intermix on the battlefield, as they do in Homer and possibly the lyric poets (e.g., Tyrtaios’ panoploi and gumnētes), but are now each organised into

209

distinct units. The army as a whole is of course still called stratos, the typical Greek word for ‘army’ or ‘host’. Individual units are called lochoi, while larger divisions are dubbed tēlea. Lochos was already used by Homer to refer to a body of men; Herodotos uses it in much the same way (e.g., Hdt. 9.53). It is often translated as ‘company’, numbering up to a few hundred men and commanded by a lochagos, ‘captain’.839 The battle-array or order of battle itself may be referred to as taxis. 840 Taxis could also mean ‘division’, in which case it was divided into lochoi, as made clear in Aischylos’ play Persai (298). A taxis was commanded by a taxiarchos. The army as a whole was commanded by one or more stratēgoi, ‘generals’ (Hdt. 7.83). 841 The polemarchos (‘polemarch’), a commander-in-chief of the army, was an archon-position at Athens (Hdt. 6.109); it was also the title of a high-ranking military commander at Sparta (Hdt. 7.173), though one of the kings always served as commander of the army there. While we have already seen that Greek warriors tended to band together and fight in groups, sometimes in ‘waves’, the use of a more rigid formation appears to have been an invention of around the time of the Persian Wars. In Herodotos, the heavily-armed warriors, or hoplites, are arranged in roughly rectangular formations (wider than they are deep), with men arrayed in ranks and files (e.g., Hdt. 5.76, 9.18, 9.25). Unlike later Greek historians, Herodotos gives no absolute depths of formations used,842 so fighting in formation may still have been somewhat looser than would be the case, for example, during the later Peloponnesian Wars. At Marathon, Herodotos points out that the Athenian line was much thinner in the centre than at the wings (Hdt. 6.111), while at Plataia the Spartan formation was much deeper than those of the other Greeks (Hdt. 9.31).843 However, once battle began, there was still ample room for individuals to prove their worth and subsequently be singled out by Herodotos for special mention. The ebb and flood of war, familiar from Homer and perhaps some of the lyric poets, during which men might run back and forth between the battle itself and their camp, is absent from Herodotos’ descriptions. Instead, the men seem to have stayed put for as long as the battle lasted, and the use of formations ensured that each man had a proper place on the battlefield; the Spartans were reportedly somewhat peeved when Thermopylai-survivor Aristodemos abandoned his position in the ranks to fight the Persians (Hdt. 9.71). In short, I imagine that the bulk of the fighting would have been conducted by those in the front ranks, with the one directly behind his 839

840 841 842 843

210

The Athe nian commande r Olympidoros le d a group, lochos, of three hundre d picke d me n (Hdt. 9.21). Variations on the world lochos are also use d to de note me n hiding in ambush (e.g., Hdt. 6.37) as we ll as ships statione d some whe re (e.g., Hdt. 8.6). The y fight kata taxein, ‘in good orde r’ (Hdt. 8.86; cf. 5.75, 9.26); also use d of ships (e.g., Hdt. 6,37). In Athe ns and a number of othe r cities, stratēgoi were also magistrates (Hdt. 5.38, 6.109). Pritche tt 1971, 134–143. The re is no mention in the Historiai of the phalanx tōn hoplitōn, the ‘hoplite phalanx’: a phrase that we do e ncounter in the works of later Gree k historians (e.g., Xe n. Anab. 6.5.27; cf. 1.8.17 and 6.5.25). This may suggest that phalanx fighting was not yet fully forme d, or still re lative ly ne w. See also, brie fly, Pritche tt 1985, 22.

file-leader taking his place when he fell or otherwise had to step back from combat. This mode of fighting probably resembled something of a ‘meatgrinder’, though still relatively fluid when compared to the phalanxes of later years.844 In large engagements between groups of allies, the troops are arranged on the battlefield in a specific order of battle, stationed according to regional contingent, in a manner familiar from the Iliad. In Herodotos, however, there is a clear hierarchy as regards the exact placement of troops on the line. A battle-line could be divided into three parts: the centre, and the left and right wings (the Greek word for ‘wing’, keras, originally means ‘horn’). The far-right was considered the place of honour (Hdt. 6.111); this is an element that we have not encountered before. Commanders do not appear to have had a specific place assigned to them, although they did take an active part in the fighting, sometimes leading to their demise (e.g., Hdt. 6.114, 7.224); they probably took position in the front rank, to fight as promachos, though there is no proof that they took their place at the extreme right, as they did in later times.845 h. Agents and attendants in the Greek armies Like Homeric armies, Greek armies during the Persian Wars included a number of agents and attendants, as well as a large number of slaves, some of whom may have taken a part in the fighting, such as the Messenian helots (Hdt. 9.28).846 I shall return to the use of slaves in battle in the summary to this part of the book. Other agents include the now familiar seers, heralds (e.g., Hdt. 9.12), and scouts. Furthermore, it seems that commanders had servants and shield-bearers (Hdt. 5.111, 9.82), and attendants were an apparently common feature in Greek armies (Hdt. 7.229, 9.50). The manteis, seers, often feature more prominently in Herodotos’ descriptions than in Homer’s (they are absent from the lyric fragments), and few commanders undertake anything without consulting a seer (e.g., Hdt. 7.113). A new element is the pre-battle sacrifice, sphagia (a word that emphasises the flowing of blood), to determine whether or not one should attack.847 However, it must be noted that in Herodotos, this sacrifice is always conducted within the confines of the camp rather than on the battlefield; the latter would become the norm shortly after the Persian Wars.848 In some instances, a seer is able to give direct tactical advice (Hdt. 8.27). Spies are fairly rare in Herodotos’ account of the Persian Wars, although both the Greeks and the Persians rely on the intelligence provided by traitors and deserters (e.g., Hdt. 7.219; also Hdt. 6.101, cf. 6.21). Both sides typically picked their battlegrounds after some consideration: the Greeks specifically decided to make their stand at Thermopylai because the

844 845 846 847 848

See Cawkwe ll 1989, 388–389; Brouwe rs 2007b, 38–40. Hanson 2000 [1989], 113–115. On the role of slaves in warfare , see Hunt 1998. Pritche tt 1971, 114 (table 2), collects the evide nce . Jameson 1991, esp. pp. 200–213.

211

Persians’ superior numbers and horses would be of no avail to them there (Hdt. 7.177). Lookouts were sometimes posted to keep an eye on the enemy; they would send out runners to report back any news (Hdt. 7.192). When the Persian fleet was on the move, a squadron of ten fast ships formed an advance guard (Hdt. 7.179). Relatively small ships, such as pentekonters (see below), were normally used as naval spies (e.g., Hdt. 1.152). i. Bloodless campaigns It is usually assumed that once an army was mobilised and on its way to engage its target, a battle would be inevitable. Certainly, this is an impression fostered by both Homer and the lyric poets. However, Herodotos’ account contains a large number of expeditions in which opponents never came to blows. Some communities, rather than risking battle with the mighty Persian army, surrendered rather than try and put up any resistance. For example, when the Persians took Egypt, the neighbouring Lybians, Kyrenaians, and Barkaians immediately surrendered (Hdt. 3.13). In Greece, some people simply abandoned their cities to the encroaching Persian fleet. For example, the Byzantines and Chalkedonians left their cities and fled inland, where they founded a new city (Hdt. 6.33). When the Persians invaded Naxos, many of the people there had fled to the mountains. The few that remained were enslaved, after which the city and its sacred places (ta hiera) were burnt (Hdt. 6.96). Likewise, the Phokians tried to evade the Persians by fleeing to the slopes of Parnassos, to the city of Neon, and to Amphissa in the Krisaian plain (Hdt. 8.32); others fled to the islands, or escaped the Aegean altogether. Famously, most Athenians abandoned their city and fled to the island of Salamis in 480 (Hdt. 8.41), while a few holed up on the Akropolis. Sometimes, an attack—often a siege—was simply unsuccessful and had to be abandoned. At one point, the Athenians besieged Kallipolis, Leontinoi, Naxos, and Zankle, but failed to capture any of these cities (Hdt. 7.154). The Athenian commander Miltiades suffered from equally bad luck. In 489, he besieged the city of Paros, telling the islanders that he would not leave until they were dead or had paid him a hundred talents. A short while later, Miltiades hurt his leg while leaping over a fence. He abandoned the siege and ultimately died of the wound on his leg (Hdt. 6.133–135). j. Open-field or pitched battles As Thomas Harrison points out, ‘Herodotus’s accounts of battle are necessarily stylized.’ Furthermore, whenever the historian does describe a battle, he ‘ascribes a limited range of tactical choices to any commander: the decision to fight a battle in a confined space (a ‘‘tactic’’ employed with success by the Greeks at Artemisium, Thermopylae, and at Salamis [...]) or in a location suitable for cavalry.’849 Most battles in Herodotos are either pitched battles, sieges, or sea-battles (a type of battle that we have not yet

849

212

Harrison 2002, 564–565.

encountered in the texts examined thus far).850 Some of the older battles described by Herodotos are mostly anecdotal, but they may contain a kernel of truth. His brief description of the so-called ‘Battle of the Fetters’ (traditionally dated around 560), in which the Spartans were defeated by the Tegeans and clamped in their own irons, serves mostly to underscore Herodotos’ theme of hubris, even if he claims to have seen the original fetters in a temple at Tegea (Hdt. 1.66). In the ‘Battle of the Champions’, referenced later by Thoukydides (5.41), the Spartans had captured a piece of borderland called Thyreai from the Argives. The two sides agreed to settle the dispute in the way of a formal challenge: each side would only leave three hundred of their best warriors to fight, while the remainder of the armies went home to await the outcome. The ensuing battle lasted until nightfall. Only three men had survived: two Argives and a Spartan named Othryades. 851 The Argives believed they had won and rushed off to tell their people the news. Othryades, however, remained put on the battlefield and stripped the enemy corpses of their armour. Next day, both armies returned to the site and a quarrel naturally arose about who was the rightful victor. Finally, the two sides came to blows in an all-out battle that was ultimately won by Sparta (Hdt. 1.82). The generally accepted date for this battle is 546.852 The pitched battles fought during the Persian Wars have peculiar features of their own. I shall briefly discuss the major battles, namely those of Marathon, Thermopylai, and Plataia. These battles were fought not too long before Herodotos’ own time, and he may have been able to interview witnesses and participants. The descriptions of these battles may therefore be more accurate than those of earlier engagements, hopefully allowing for a better reconstruction of, for example, the mechanics of combat.853 One element that has received much criticism is Herodotos’ juggling with numbers: on the whole, most agree that he has greatly inflated the number of combatants at each of the battles, particularly on the Persian side.854 The land battles described by Herodotos are characterised by large-scale manoeuvres. No longer do the battles consist of fluid, back-and-forth movement of parts of the army. Rather, the core of the army consists of hoplites who move and fight in unison under their general’s command. At Marathon (490), the Athenians charged the Persians at a run (Hdt. 6.112), perhaps the first massed charge—rather than a mass charge—in Greek 850

851

852 853 854

We may safe ly ignore the characterisation of Gree k combat that He rodotos attribute d to the Pe rsian ge neral Mardonios (Hdt. 7.9), as little of that description—apart from the observation that the Gree ks we re stubborn and quarre lsome !—is borne out by the Historiai. Dille ry 1996, 217, points out that the due l and the motif of the sole survivor are a re curring pattern in He rodotos; here at Thyreai and late r at The rmopylai. These patte rns be long alongside ‘The recurre nce of the wise advisor, the e ndless parade of dynasts who destroy the mse lves through the ir se lf-de lusion and e xcess, the ine vitablity of ve ngeance .’ Ke lly 1970a, 975 n. 17. On the possibility of re constructing ancie nt battles, see Whatley 1964. In some cases, at least, ‘what may have been no more than a ‘‘modest superiority’’ in numbe rs has been monstrously inflate d’ (Harrison 2002, 576).

213

history.855 The Athenian line crashed into the Persians. In the course of the battle, the Persians managed to break through the thin Athenian centre. However, the wings of the Athenian army were strong and they managed to envelop the Persians: a manoeuvre known as ‘double envelopment’ or the ‘pincer movement’. When the Persians routed, the Athenians and their Plataian allies wheeled round and went after the Persians who had broken through the centre, slaughtering many as they fled. The Greeks followed the Persians back to their ships, called for fire, and then proceeded to attack the fleet (Hdt. 6.113), capturing a total of seven ships. According to Herodotos, about 6,400 Persians died, while on the Athenian side only 192 men were killed (Hdt. 6.117), among them Kallimachos, the polemarchos, and Stesilaos, one of the generals (Hdt. 6.114). Similar large-scale tactical manoeuvring on the battlefield is clear from other descriptions. At Thermopylai, the Spartans and their allies took up position in the narrow pass and lured the Persians into the funnel by rushing out towards them and then running back when their numerically superior enemy came near (Hdt. 7.202–210). The Greeks managed to kill large numbers of Persian attackers. Herodotos furthermore claims that the Persians were at a disadvantage as far as their equipment and skill was concerned (Hdt. 7.211). In the end, the Greeks were overrun when a traitor led some of the Persian troops along a hidden track so that they could attack them in the rear (Hdt. 7.215–223). The Greeks were also able to fall back in a more or less organised way, as demonstrated by their large-scale tactical retreat just prior to the Battle of Plataia (Hdt. 9.50–52). A few elements in Herodotos’ battle descriptions appear to have been inspired more by epic tradition than actual events. One example is found in Herodotos’ account of the Battle of Thermopylai. After several days of hard fighting, most of the spears of the Greeks had by now been brok en in combat, so much of the fighting was now done using swords. It was during this part of the battle that the Spartan king Leonidas was killed, alongside other brave Spartans (Hdt. 7.224). An epic battle ensued over the corpse of Leonidas, recalling the Leichekämpfe in the Iliad.856 At last, the remaining Greeks, except the Thebans (who surrendered; Hdt. 7.233), made their stand on a hillock, defending themselves now with daggers. They were, however, at long last overwhelmed by the arrows of the Persians and died (Hdt. 7.225). k. Ambuscades, single combat, and surprise attacks As far as ambuscades and single combat is concerned, Herodotos is consistent with the evidence examined so far. Ambushes and other surprise attacks were commonly employed by the Greeks both before and during the Persian Wars.857 Herodotos’ text features a number of anecdotes in which ruses play an important part (e.g., Hdt. 6.77–78 and 8.27). Furthermore, instances of single combat, called monomachia, are limited. We are told that 855 856 857

214

Rawlings 2007, 92. On Home ric echoes in He rodotos, see Boe de ke r 2002, esp. pp. 101–107. The e vide nce is colle cte d in Pritche tt 1974, 164 (table 4) and 180 (table 7).

Eurybates, an apparently over-eager commander of an Argive army of volunteers, was killed in single combat by the fourth man he challenged (Hdt. 6.92). Another example of monomachia took the form of a military contest in three distinct stages, where man squared off against man, horse against horse, and dog against dog (Hdt. 5.1); a further example is drawn from myth (Hdt. 9.26). Monomachia is also the term used by the Athenians to describe their battle against the Persians at Marathon (Hdt. 9.27); in this case, the term denotes a test of strength between two specific groups. l. Naval warfare The official Athenian naval force was no longer maintained by individuals on a voluntary basis, as was the case in the Homeric epics. Instead, we now find officials in charge of the maintenance of Athens’ ships. According to Herodotos, the Kylon conspiracy, mentioned earlier, was put down by the prutaneis (leaders) of the naukrariai (Hdt. 5.71). These ‘naucraries’ were an organisational unit presumably responsible for the upkeep of ships. The historian claims that, back then, these men effectively ruled Athens (Hdt. 5.71).858 The word naukrarias derives from the Greek word naus, ‘ship’, although Herodotos tells us next to nothing about this institution and later Greek authors regard them as the predecessors of the Kleisthenic demes (demoi),859 and therefore subdivisions of the four Ionian phulai (‘tribes’).860 By the time of the Persian Wars, the prutaneis of the naukrariai were probably the ones who were responsible for getting their ships and crews ready for war. Herodotos is the first to describe naval warfare, in the sense of battles fought out between rival fleets. Two sea-battles are described in some detail, namely those of Artemision (fought on the same day as Thermopylai, 11 August 480) and Salamis (September 480). Ships only rarely appear as the property of private individuals (e.g., Hdt. 8.17). Under pressure from the Persians, the Athenians under Themistokles initiated a large-scale ship-building programme (see below).861 Herodotos mentions two types of vessels, namely the pentekontoros, or fifty-oared galley, and the trireme. Herodotos’ pentekontoros may have been the same type of ship as the fifty-oared warships in Homer (the use of the word eikosoros at Odyssey 9.322–323, lends some support to this idea through analogy), though it is not impossible that Herodotos’ vessels were actually biremes (who also had about 25 men to a side, staggered across two tiers; this type of ship is otherwise notable by its absence in Herodotos’ account). The triērēs or ‘trireme’ was much larger; its single most distinguishing feature were its three banks of oars on either side of the ship. The trireme was probably introduced in the Aegean around the middle of the sixth century. Around that time, the poet Hipponax it the first to refer to a trireme in one of his extant fragments, in which he admonishes Mimnes for painting 858 859 860 861

But note the discussion in Lang 1967, 244–246. For a discussion on the naukrariai, Attic tribes, and so forth, see Hall 2007, 215–217. Hall 2007, 223. Rawlings 2007, 106–108.

215

‘on a trireme’s many-benched side a serpent that runs from the ram to the helmsman; for it is a dangerous omen for the helmsman’ (fr. 28.2–5 West; translation Gerber). Aside from steersmen and a captain (triērarchos, Hdt. 8.85), a trireme needed about 170 rowers (eretai), one man per oar, who were thētes or possibly slaves; each vessel also had a complement of hoplites that served as marines (epibatai) in boarding actions (Hdt. 7.100, 7.180–181, 8.83, 9.32). Triremes had bronze-reinforced rams at the front: these were the first true warships, i.e. vessels that were weapons in themselves (e.g., Hdt. 8.90). Like the land battles, the sea battles are characterised by large-scale co-ordinated movement, with fleets even deployed in simple formations. Most ancient sea-battles onwards appear to have been fought with vessels formed up line abreast, rather than line ahead (e.g., Hdt. 8.85).862 At the Sea-Battle of Artemision, the Greeks used the diekplous, a tactic in which ships sought an opening in order to ram an enemy vessel (cf. Hdt. 6.12), to break the line of Persian ships (Hdt. 8.9). At Salamis, the naval equivalent of Leonidas’ tactic at Thermopylai was used by luring the Persian ships into a narrow straight where they could be easily attacked by the numerically inferior Greek ships (Hdt. 8.56–64, 8.85–89). Herodotos claims that the Persians were relatively quickly disordered by the tactics used by the Greeks (Hdt. 8.86), which might suggest that the Greeks were better organised. m. Distribution of booty Epic tinges in Herodotos have been noted earlier; the battle around Leonidas’ corpse is a fine example of a Homeric-style Leichekampf (Hdt. 7.225). The stripping of the enemy dead of their weapons and, in the case of the Persians, jewellery following a battle is mentioned rarely by Herodotos (Hdt. 9.80), but these were undoubtedly a major part of the spoils of war and probably taken for granted. The stripping of the enemy fallen of their armour also plays a crucial role in his account of the older ‘Battle of the Champions’ (Hdt. 1.83), discussed earlier. Distribution of booty may have taken place shortly after victory, prior to the burial of the dead (e.g., Hdt. 9.85). A portion of the spoils, usually a tithe, was to be dedicated to the gods (e.g. Hdt. 9.81), and the generals were expected to be given their own portions (e.g., Hdt. 9.81),863 probably before the rest was distributed among the remaining warriors in the army. The spoils naturally consisted of arms and armour, and whatever else might be found on the bodies of the dead or in their camp. For example, after the battle of Plataia, the Greeks discovered considerable treasures in the Persian camp that were originally intended to bribe the Greeks into submission (Hdt. 9.41). Prisoners of war were enslaved (Hdt. 1.151, 6.45, 6.106), held for ransom, usually at a fixed price (Hdt. 5.77, 6.79, 9.99), or executed (Hdt. 1.167, 4.202, 8.127, 9.120); only rarely were prisoners ritually sacrificed (Hdt. 7.180). 862 863

216

Laze nby 1987, 170–172. On the difficultie s of inte rpre ting the precise portion in this passage , see Pritche tt 1971, 54–55.

n. Death of the warrior Whereas in Homer and the Archaic poets each death is lamented and honoured individually, in Herodotos the war-dead feature as a collective. Enemy Persians, at least, were left unburied, scattered across the battlefield. Hence, when the Spartans learnt of the Athenian victory at Marathon, they set off for the place and looked at the corpses littering the field, then commended the Athenians on a job well done (Hdt. 6.120). The natural impulse for some men was to mutilate enemy corpses: Lampon suggested to Pausanias that he defile the body of Mardonios in order to avenge the death of Leonidas, who was also mutilated by the Persians (Hdt. 9.78–79).864 Herodotos does not say what happened to the 192 Athenian dead at Marathon, but Thoukydides mentions, in the famous funeral oration attributed to Perikles, that they were buried where they fell (Thouk. 2.34). Excavations carried out from the end of the nineteenth century onwards have revealed several mass graves in the area, one of which is ascribed to the Athenians, another possibly to their Plataian allies and slaves (Greeks were cremated, slaves inhumed). 865 The men who died at Thermopylai were also buried on the battlefield, covered by a burial mound. Three inscriptions, one for all the dead collectively, one specifically for the Spartans, and one for the Spartan soothsayer Megistias (an act of friendship on the part of his xenos Simonides son of Leoprepes), were placed at the site (Hdt. 7.228). After the battle of Plataia, each of the Greek communities buried their dead in separate mass graves. Herodotos adds that other Greek communities erected burial mounds at Plataia in order to pretend to have fought there as well (Hdt. 9.85). Sometimes, Herodotos mentions specific warriors by name, as for example with the four young Spartans he lists among the fallen at Plataia. 866 4. Conclusions What (dis)continuity is there between Herodotos’ descriptions of war and martial activities and those of Homer and the Archaic poets? Like Homer, he may distinguish between troops on foot (pezoi) and troops on horseback (hippeis). Furthermore, like Tyrtaios but unlike all other Archaic sources, he makes a fundamental distinction between heavily-armoured warriors on foot (hoplitai, called panoploi by Tyrtaios) and lightly-armoured troops (in addition to the Tyrtaian gumnētes, Herodotos refers to these as psiloi). Most of his descriptions of battle focus mostly on the hoplitai: in some cases, such as at the battles of Marathon and Thermopylai, it seems as if these are the only Greek troops engaged in the fighting. In contrast, the Persians are called gumnētes (‘naked’), and said to employ large numbers of archers.867 864

865 866 867

Some Pe rsian actions describe d by Herodotos, such as the ritual mutilation of corpses be longing to troublesome e nemies, ‘re present in distorte d fashion near -easte rn rituals’ (Harrison 2002, 576). For a summary, refe r to Pritche tt 1985, 126–129; see also Whitle y 1994, 215–217. He rodotos points out that only among the Spartans, younge r and olde r me n are treate d diffe rently; a custom the y suppose dly share d with the Egyptians (Hdt. 2.80). It should be note d that this ste reotype is not paculiar to He rodotos. Throughout

217

Horsemen, in the sense of men who fought from horseback, were limited to specific regions in Greece, especially Thessaly and Boiotia, and some Eastern peoples, such as the Lydians, are singled out as horse-masters. By the time of the Persian Wars, small warbands no longer dominate the battlefield. Instead, large armies, mobilised through a central authority, were used by the major Greek communities. In Sparta, all men were now organised in mess groups—the sober and restrained counterparts to the drinking groups familiar from the Archaic poets—and so-called ‘sworn bands’. The kings had the power to declare war against any they desired, though their political power was curtailed by magistrates (the ephors) and the gerontes or elders. Similarly, at Athens the army was now centrally mobilised and commanded by what we might term ‘state-appointed officials’, elected as either one of ten stratēgoi (‘generals’) or polemarchos (‘war-chief’, ‘war archon’). It was still possible for some men to ignore the decisions of the ‘State’ (dēmos), as Eurybates and his thousand Argives did, but on the whole ties of friendship, blood, and dependency were replaced by centralised mechanisms of recruitment and mobilisation. The descriptions of battles in Herodotos are little more than rough sketches. Furthermore, some evidence is clearly anecdotal. Herodotos’ descriptions of the Archaic ‘Battle of the Fetters’ and the ‘Battle of the Champions’ obviously fall into that category, although one could argue that the latter was similar to the Lelantine War discussed in the previous chapter: in both, the opponents agreed to fight according to specific rules. This, however, should not be taken to mean that all Archaic battles were highly ritualised in nature, as the bulk of the evidence proves that this was clearly not the case (and anecdotal evidence generally arises from atypical situations). If anything, such battles are the exceptions, rather than indicative of the general rule. Herodotos’ descriptions of the battles fought in the course of the Persian Wars are more believable, not in the least since he was probably able to interview survivors. These battles are also different with regards to scale and organisation than those familiar from the Archaic poets. Hoplites, psiloi, and horsemen no longer mingled freely on the battlefield, but operated instead in separate units (telea or lochoi). The fluid back-and-forth, characteristic of Homeric battle and perhaps also of the lyric poets, has gone. Instead, hoplites now operated in roughly rectangular formations (normally referred to as ‘phalanxes’), that were generally wider than they were deep, although Herodotos never specifies the exact depth. It is remarkable that the Greek armies in each of the major battles performed large-scale military manoeuvres. At Marathon, the Athenians managed to envelop the Persian host. At Thermopylai, the army of Leonidas managed to lure the Persians deeper and deeper into the narrow defile by running out and falling back when the enemy came too close. At Plataia, Herodotos makes a special point of contrasting the Persian custom of attacking singly or in small groups with the Spartan tactic of sticking together. Aischylos’ play Persai, ‘the Pe rsian bow is contraste d with the Gree k spear’ (Ke lley 1979, 216).

218

Herodotos’ Historiai, then, present a world that is different from that of Homer and the lyric poets. Troops are now clearly designated as lightly- or heavily-armed, and as operating on foot or on horseback. Armies no longer consist of small groups of men centred on an aristocratic leader, but are instead mobilised by a central authority and commanded by state-appointed officials. On the battlefield, both on land and at sea, the forces as a whole work together to perform military manoeuvres. Unfortunately, the moment that this change occurred has not been recorded in any of the extant literary sources, but based on the Archaic sources discussed in the former chapter, especially the Salamis decree, the changes must have occurred sometime during the second half of the sixth century.

219

Chapter 10

Conclusions 1. Introduction In the preceding eight chapters, the main types of evidence have been discussed that shed light on early Greek warfare and related aspects, such as the use of martial equipment in everyday life. In this chapter, I shall first discuss the strengths and weakness of the various types of evidence, before turning my attention to a brief summary with regards to developments in weapons and armour. I then attempt to answer the main questions posited in this book’s introduction, namely: (1) analysis of warriors and their fighting styles c.q. modes of warfare; (2) examination of regional differences; (3) examination of diachronic developments; (4) discussion of applicable Greek terminology, and finally; (5) analysis of martial values and activities in times of peace, grouped under the term ‘warrior society’ to underscore the close link between warfare and society. 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the evidence The various types of evidence are not spread evenly through the Aegean basin, nor does the evidence of a single region cover the whole of the period under examination. More specifically, the Mykenaian evidence stems mostly from southern and central Greece, and some of the islands (e.g., Naxos). Burials with arms have been examined for only a few sites (Lefkandi, Eretria, Athens, Argos, and some minor localities) and are dated to the period between 1000 and 700. Evidence from sanctuaries centres on Olympia (Southern Greece), with additional material from other sites, such as Kalapodi, Sparta, and Samos; all dated to the eighth century or later. The iconographic evidence from the eighth century onwards is characterised by a few production centres (especially Athens, Korinth, Sparta, Euboia, some of the islands, and parts of East Greece); Athens is the main production centre from the middle of the sixth century onwards. Matters are complicated by the fact that each centre may have had clearly local preferences for what they depicted on their pottery. The textual evidence dates to the seventh century and beyond, and is dominated by the Homeric epics (originally from East Greece), with additional material from Asia Minor and the islands, as well as a few sites on the southern mainland. Furthermore, the evidence that has come down to us represents only a portion of what once existed. For example, we know virtually nothing about early Korinthian poets, such as Eumelos, whose poetry may have added to 221

our insights into warfare in the northeast Peloponnese. In addition, whole classes of material may simply have disappeared. We have no pottery from, for example, Achaia that depicts combat or weapons, but perhaps they instead produced such scenes in other media that have left no trace in the archaeological record (cf. Penelope’s elaborate burial shroud for Laërtes, or the chance find of fragments of a seventh-century wall-painting from the temple at Kalapodi). Nevertheless, by comparing different types of evidence we can gain some insight into possible lost pieces of evidence. Furthermore, by comparing evidence from different regions we can get some insight into how widespread certain phenomena may have been. For instance, the fact that hippobatas-type warriors are attested in Korinth, Lakonia, and Athens suggests strongly that they may also have been known in closely connected regions for which we otherwise have no (contemporary) evidence, such as Achaia. Finally, by examining the evidence in the proper chronological order, it is possible to recognise continuity as well as discontinuity. For example, it is clear that the galleys and rail chariots of the Late Bronze Age continued in use through the intervening ‘Dark Age’ until they reappear in the art of the eighth century. 3. Weapons and armour Warriors of the period between the Late Bronze Age down to shortly before outbreak of the Persian Wars cannot be conveniently analysed according to a specific type (e.g., spearman, swordsman, archer), as this suggests a degree of specialisation that appears to have been mostly absent (see discussion in the next section). Instead, it is more profitable to briefly review the various types of weapons and armour that warriors of the period in question used on and off the battlefield. 868 a. Shields It seems as if shields were not used during the Mykenaian Palatial period, although figure-of-eight shields were used as a decorative motif and are also known as votive miniatures. For the period between roughly 1200 and 700, there is much diversity as regards shields. This diversity is also a characteristic of the Geometric period, where we have roughly similar types of shields still in use. These shields can be round, rectangular, or of the so-called Dipylon variety. These are all so-called single-grip shields, fitted with a handgrip in the centre of the shield. These shields appear to have been often fixed with a telamōn, a strap that allowed them to be carried more comfortably around the neck and shoulders. The new, so-called Argive shield is introduced shortly before the end of the eighth century. This is a round shield, strongly convex, with a clear rim; at least sometimes it also had a bronze facing. Its most distinguishing

868

222

The basic work on Gre e k arms and armour re mains Snodgrass 1964b, now supple mente d by Jarva 1995 and more specialise d volume s such as Baitinger 2001, Kunze 1991, and so on.

feature is its double-grip. A variation of the Dipylon shield survives the transition to the seventh century and is fitted with a double-grip to become the so-called Boiotian shield. These double-grip shields are relatively large and heavy, but their weight is distributed across the arm and shoulder and are therefore relatively easy to carry. The double-grip thus seems an improvement over the older telamōn in that allows the wearer greater control over the shield itself. Furthermore, the single-grip shields are closely associated with chariots while the double-grip shields are often depicted in use by horsemen. The Dipylon shield in particular is often worn, slung around the back, by warriors on chariots in Geometric scenes. Its double-grip descendant, the Boiotian shield, is also a favourite of charioteers in art of the sixth century in particular. It is possible that the scallops cut from the sides provided enough elbow room for the charioteer to control the horses while still being protected from attacks in the rear. By contrast, the Argive shield, carried as it was on the left arm, would have been easy to carry by a man on horseback; a single-grip shield slung around the back might have bounced off or chafed the rear end of the horse.869 b. Helmets The most common type of helmet depicted in the Mykenaian Palatial iconography is the so-called boar’s-tusk helmet, which endured for some time after the fall of the Mykenaian palaces. In addition, the late thirteenth and especially twelfth centuries saw the introduction of new types of helmets; some of these were made of bronze (e.g., the eleventh-century bronze helmet from Tiryns), but the majority appear to have been made of perishable materials, such as the so-called ‘hedgehog’ helmet. By the Geometric period, there are two types of helmets. One appears to have been a sort of leather cap with a plume while the other was conical and has a more limited geographic range. Bronze helmets are not known for the tenth and ninth centuries and were only reintroduced shortly before the end of the eighth century. They are known from a relatively small number of graves, from finds at sanctuaries, from depictions in art, and from texts (‘shining helmets’ in the Homeric epics, for example). One of the earliest types was the so-called Kegelhelm, the earliest known example being the specimen from the tomb T45 at Argos. This was a very impractical type of helmet, with its top-heavy stilted crest, and appeared to have disappeared before 700. 870 It morphed into the simpler and stronger ‘Illyrian’ helmet. More common by far was the so-called Korinthian helmet, which was made of a single sheet of bronze and covered the whole head and face, leaving only slits for the eyes and mouth. This type of helmet first appears in Korinthian vase-painting before the end of the eighth century and then spreads throughout the Aegean. Around the middle of the seventh century at the latest, a new type of helmet appears in East Greece. This Ionian 869 870

For further de tails, see Brouwers 2007a. Whitley 2001, 181–182.

223

helmet left more of the face exposed and generally featured hinged cheekpieces (adopted from Assyrian models?), and sometimes had a reinforced section across and above the forehead. These helmets are similar to Lydian types, such as a bronze-decorated iron example with moveable cheekpieces from the mid-sixth century that has been unearthed at Sardis.871 In the later sixth century, a new type of helmet is introduced in Attic art. The so-called Chalkidian helmet was clearly based on the Korinthian. It left more of the face exposed and the ears were left clear. The cheekpieces were sometimes hinged. A variant on this type without the noseguard is commonly referred to as Attic, but it is essentially the same kind of helmet. At the same time, the older Korinthian type helmet was modified by adding cut-outs to expose the ears. These developments show a preoccupation, at least in Athens, with making it easier for warriors to hear and, in the case of the Chalkidian/Attic type, also see. c. Body-armour In the Mykenaian Palatial period, body-armour, like shields, was apparently not used, though finds such as the Dendra cuirass indicate that plate armour had been known before. Instead, low-ranking soldiers are generally shown bare-chested and wearing a kilt, while higher-ranking warriors (the heqetai?) wear tunics. Of the Postpalatial material, the warriors on the Warrior Vase appear to wear either greaves or some sort of wrappings around their lower legs, and may also be equipped with some sort of shirts or body-armour, in addition to their crescent-shaped shields and helmets. By the Geometric period, most warriors appear to have fought naked. Clothing apparently remained optional for much of the seventh and even sixth centuries, although the bronze bell-shaped cuirass was available from the late eighth century onwards. The earliest attested example is the frontand backplate from tomb T45 at Argos. The Chigi olpe is the earliest example, to my knowledge, in which all of the visible warriors appear to wear a bronze bell-shaped cuirass. This can be regarded as part of the process toward more standardised equipment that characterises the seventh and sixth centuries (see below). However, not all of the men in the battle-scene wear a tunic; some are still naked apart from their armour. By the late sixth century, a new type of body-armour is clearly attested in Attic art, the linen corslet, or more properly the ‘shoulder-piece’ corslet (according to Eero Jarva). However, the linen corslet was known much earlier, although this may have been of a different type. Jarva believes a Protoattic fragment already depicts a type of linen corslet in the seventh century (see page 97, above). There are references to linen corslets in the Iliad (e.g., Il. 2.529); they are also part of the cache described by Alkaios (fr. 140.11 Voigt). It seems certain, therefore, that linen corslets of some kind were used from the seventh century onwards.

871

224

Greene walt & He ywood 1992 passim.

d. Protection of the limbs Some warriors in Mykenaian Palatial wall-paintings are equipped with gaiters, presumably made of linen, to which one or two greaves could be fixed; Diane Fortenberry has suggested that a single greave denoted rank,872 but it may have indicated a connection to the palace. In Late Helladic IIIC, some warriors used bronze greaves; the grave from Amphilochia, for example, contained a pair of greaves. These greaves tend to be shorter than the ones that reappear in the Aegean from about 700 onwards, and also tend to lack the stylised musculature that characterises these items from the seventh century onwards. Aside from greaves, other types of armour used for the protection of the limbs include upper- and lower arm-guards, as well as thigh guards and ankle-guards. Of these, arm-guards appear to have been rare. The earliest is a lower arm guard of the late seventh century. Ankle-guards were more common, as were thigh guards (although only a single example of the latter has been unearthed at Olympia). Most of these pieces of armour date to the second half of the sixth century, a period during which more centrally-organised armies may have appeared that were probably also more socially complex. Perhaps some men wished to express their wealth by donning more expensive pieces of armour. e. Spears The spear is the most commonly attested weapon in graves, at sanctuaries, in art, and texts, followed closely by the sword. In Mykenaian Palatial wall-paintings, spears tend to be very long. Relatively long spears are also depicted on the Late Helladic IIIC ‘Warrior Vase’, but shorter spears are also shown on other contemporary vases. In Geometric figured scenes, warriors typically carry a set of two, sometimes even three spears, which are typically shorter than the warrior himself and may have been used for both thrusting and throwing. We know from both texts and iconographic evidence that the spear was also carried by men in times of peace.873 Combinations of long and short spears appear from the seventh century onwards, when warriors could be equipped with either a single spear or a set of two. Some very heavy spearheads could only have been used in thrusting, as were certain huge spears known from epic (e.g., the Pelian ash), and the naumacha xusta, the ‘sea-pikes’ known from Homer, as well as Late Helladic IIIC and later pictorial evidence. Whenever a set of two spearheads of unequal size are found in a grave, we may assume that they perhaps had different functions, with one serving as a javelin and the other as a lance. The exclusive use of the single thrusting spear by armoured warriors appears to be a feature of the fifth century. True throwing spears are difficult to recognise, both archaeologically and iconographically, and in many cases spears appeared to have been multifunctional (e.g., the spears in the Homeric epics are both thrown and

872 873

Re fer to Fortenberry 1991. Van Wees 1998 provides the necessary overvie w.

225

thrusted). Some javelinheads have been unearthed at sanctuaries, such as at Nemea, where they may have been used in athletic competitions. There are also a few examples in art of the seventh and sixth centuries that leave no doubt that some spears were clearly javelins. Aside from their generally shorter length, javelins may also be equipped with throwing loops (leather thongs). The warriors on the Chigi olpe are each equipped with a throwing and thrusting spear, and a heavily-armoured warrior on a sixth-century Attic plate also wields a short spear with throwing-loop. f. Swords The sword is almost as commonly attested in the evidence as the spear. Very short swords are shown in Mykenaian frescoes; longer swords of the new Naue II type are used by men on Late Helladic IIIC. This type of cut-and-thrust sword remains in use throughout the period down to the late sixth century, when it is replaced by a shorter sword with a straight cross-guard. Swords are commonly encountered in burials with arms and were also dedicated at sanctuaries; sometimes, they were ritually ‘killed’. The textual evidence makes clear that they were also used as sidearms by warriors who fought with spears. Of the various types of weapons, the sword was undoubtedly the most durable and perhaps also the most expensive, especially when fitted with silver rivets as the swords of some Homeric heroes were. The sword is the only weapon that never leaves the side of a (high-ranking) man, not even when in the comfort and safety of his own home, as Hans van Wees has clearly demonstrated.874 By carrying a sword around the town, the man demonstrated he was able-bodied, a warrior deserving respect, as well as a wealthy man. It was also by far the most personal weapon in a man’s possession, no doubt because of these qualities. g. Axes Double-axes were sometimes used as weapons. They are known from both graves and sanctuaries, as well as art. The famous T45 grave at Argos contained the remains of a warrior who was equipped with bronze bell-shaped cuirass, bronze helmet, and also possessed a pair of double-axes. The grave did not contain any visible remains of a shield. The two axes, if they indeed served as weapons of war, may also have been a token of his prowess on the battlefield, or his ability to lead others in battle. The double-axe is attested in mainland Greece, and in particular the Argolid and Euboia, although it is also encountered on some Attic, Boiotian, and Cycladic pots, often in combination with one or more horses. Axes have been unearthed in some graves (for example, at Lefkandi and Argos), some as early as Late Helladic IIIC. In some cases, axes are the only weapons included in the grave (as in tomb T45 at Argos). The axe is a peculiar implement, not merely useful as a weapon, but also used for other purposes, such as in the preparation of meat for roasting (cf. the firedogs in

874

226

Van Wees 1998, 335.

said tomb).875 h. Ranged weapons The bow was the principal ranged weapon. While arrowheads have been unearthed in graves and at cult sites; possible remains of a composite bow have been unearthed in Toumba pyre 1 at Lefkandi (a piece of horn). Based on an examination of the Geometric vase-paintings, Anthony Snodgrass expands on Hilda Lorimer’s earlier work by identifying three types of bow, namely the simple bow, the composite bow with reflexed tip, and a double-curved bow (possibly another type of simple bow, as Snodgrass suggests); the first two were apparently known from the Bronze Age onwards.876 A very detailed description of a composite bow can be found in the Iliad (Il. 4.105–126). However, the bow was not the only ranged weapon used by Greek warriors during the period under examination. Aside from the javelin (discussed above), the Greeks also used the sling, a leather thong that allowed the user to hurl a stone (slingshot) a great deal farther and more accurately than if it were thrown by hand. Slingers are rare in both texts and painted scenes, and slingshot notoriously difficult to recognise in the archaeological record. The Iliad includes slingers in the form of the Lokrian contingent (more on this below), but also has warriors who pick up rocks from the ground and throw these at their adversaries. 4. Different kinds of fighters and styles of warfare Before we turn to an examination to the different types of warriors and how they fought, it may be useful to briefly summarise how they may have been organised. In the Mykenaian Palatial period, it is clear that the palaces used a mix of public and private means to muster their armies: this is made clear by such evidence as the o-ka tablets. The palace administration delegated a lot of the responsibility for the army to nobles (the heqetai) and local authorities, supplying any equipment that might be lacking. Some kind of authority may have survived the collapse of the palace at Mykenai, to judge from the uniformly equipped warriors on the famous ‘Warrior Vase’. However, the Late Helladic IIIC material from elsewhere strongly suggests that centrally-organised armies were replaced by something smaller, that was presumably organised on a more personal level: the warband. This highly mobile and flexible unit, which consisted essentially of a leader and his followers (as familiar from Homer), did not require its members to be arrayed in any particular fashion, and a man may just as soon chose to fight armed with a spear as he may pick up a bow and arrow. This is the basic organisational unit, as far as I can tell, from the twelfth century down to the late sixth. These warbands, to judge by the evidence, consisted of members of the elite, possibly supplemented by some of their dependents (see especially 875 876

For de tails, re fer to Crie laard 1996, 54 n. 116 (with furthe r re fere nces). Snodgrass 1964b, 141–142.

227

discussion in chapter 7). I would suggest that the elite formed a sizeable class within early Greek societies, perhaps as much as a quarter of the population of the principal town in a territory. The fact that warriors could fight on an equal footing regardless of their armour (or clothing), as demonstrated by the iconographic evidence, is a strong indicator that they belong to the same class or social group. Furthermore, these warbands were mobilised through feasting, which is typically a ritual limited to members of the same social group. Evidence from Homer, especially Menelaos’ desire to ‘vacate’ a town and offer it to Odysseus and his family, also suggests strongly that military power is limited to—or monopolised by—a specific group of people, who may seize what they want because of their (perceived) warrior prowess. As noted earlier, it is misleading to speak of different types of fighters for the period preceeding the outbreak of the Persian Wars, as this suggests a degree of specialisation that was simply absent for the most part. Instead, warriors of the period under examination are remarkable for their diversity and flexibility. Warriors who fought at close range could use a variety of different weapons and armour. In the Mykenaian Palatial period, they generally lacked shields and wore limited amounts of armour; the Postpalatial and Geometric periods sees a wide array of unarmoured men with helmets, some equipped with one of a variety of types of shields (round, rectangular, Dipylon), fighting with one or more spears, a sword, or a combination thereof. Some of the men with shields use chariots to transport themselves to the battlefield. Around 700, the equipment tends to become more uniform, with most close-range fighters using the double-grip Argive or Boiotian shields, at least some pieces of armour (nearly always helmet and greaves), and usually one or two spears and a sword. Some of these men used horses to transport themselves to the battlefield (hippobatai). Nevertheless, the main mode of warfare appears to have remained flexible from the Late Helladic IIIC period down to the later sixth century, with men operating in relatively small groups (warbands) that were suited for any mode of warfare (siege, naval combat, pitched battle); in essence, they were geared toward fulfilling multiple tasks. In addition, there was ample room for some men to demonstrate their worth by engaging in single combat, as Alkaios’ brother Antimenidas showed. Tyrtaios is the first to make a distinction between panoploi (‘armoured troops’) and gumnētes (‘naked troops’). Further description makes clear that Tyrtaios’ gumnētes are javelineers, who have to rely on the shields of nearby panoploi for cover (fr. 11.35–38 West). This subdivision of troops based on armour only reappears in Herodotos. It is possible that the Tyrtaian use of panoploi and gumnētes is a regional or local characteristic, but it may also suggest that the Tyrtaian evidence, or at least this passage, should be dated to a later period (see also the discussion on the subject in chapter 8). Archers are rare on the battlefield and appear to have operated as modern-day snipers. In Greek art, they are typically shown kneeling and taking aim with the arrow parallel to the ground. We know from the Iliad that they took cover behind the shield of a comrade. In sixth-century 228

Athens, some men apparently commanded one or more so-called ‘Skythian’ archers. The fact that private individuals, including the tyrant Peisistratos, were able to hire such men demonstrates that violence was not a monopoly held by the State, but rather still the province of wealthy aristocrats. These exotic bowmen may have been particularly adept at wielding the bow and perhaps at times operated as a unit. The commonly-held notion that archers were generally culled from the lower classes, or otherwise held in low esteem (considered cowards, et cetera), is demonstrably false. Finds of arrowheads in graves are rare, but they always belong to high-ranking individuals. In art, archers are consistently portrayed supporting other fighters, and there is no reason to assume that they are of low status; rare depictions of archers in armour underscore this point. In Homer, too, archers are valued combatants, who apparently could also afford to fight as heavily-armoured promachoi if need be. Only enemy archers are ever described as cowards. The Lokrian contingent in the Iliad provides further support to the notion that particular regions cultivated specialised types of warriors (cf. the Rhodian slingers or Kretan archers from Classical texts); in this case archers who could also double as slingers (Il. 13.712–722). One of the important Geometric pots from Paros features slingers, who are shown clustered together as if working as a single unit. Combined with the testimony of Homer this suggests that slingers, for some reason, typically fought in a group rather than on their own, like most archers did. Paros indeed may have been an area where the sling was relatively common, if we assume that Archilochos’ conception of ranged troops consisting of both archers and slingers reflects contemporary Parian customs (fr. 3 West). As explained in this book’s introduction, there is a tendency to regard the heavily-armoured spearmen of the late eighth century and beyond as ‘hoplites’, i.e. analogues to the heavily-armoured troops familiar from Classical texts. The general assumption is that these warriors could only operate well in phalanx formation. But there is little evidence for the phalanx before the second half of the sixth century. Instead, both the iconographic and textual evidence demonstrate that these men could not only fight in small groups, possibly in some kind of formation (see, for example, the Chigi vase, the Amathus bowl, some descriptions in Homer), but that they could also row warships (e.g., the Sounion plaque and the inscription at Abu Simbel), serve as ‘marines’ aboard vessels (epibatai), assault and defend fortifications, stage ambushes, ride on horseback, and travel by chariot.

5. Regional diversity The geographical region examined in this book can be divided into four main areas, namely Southern Greece (Attica and the Peloponnese), Central Greece (everything north of the Attic border and south of Mount Olympos), the Aegean islands (including Euboia, the Cyclades, and Thasos), and East Greece (Western Asia Minor and the islands off-shore, including Chios, Lesbos, and Samos). While there are common themes that recur throughout

229

the evidence for each of these regions, especially as far as basic aristocratic elements are concerned (horse-riding, feasting, and so on), there are also an important number of differences. The developments are far less unilinear than has often been assumed. The evidence makes clear that horses were used throughout the Aegean and during the entire period under examination, possibly even in relatively great numbers (contra, for example, Hdt. 9.13). Mounted warriors are commonly depicted in Korinthian art of the seventh and early sixth centuries, and also in Attic figurative art of the latter half of the sixth century, when it supplanted Korinthian and other local styles of pottery. The mounted warriors or hippobatai depicted in the material from the mainland and the islands appear to have usually dismounted to fight on foot. In East Greece and Anatolia, it appears that men fought from horseback (what is anachronistically referred to as ‘true cavalry’, see below). In addition, the iconographic evidence makes clear that these warriors from Asia Minor also used other animals in battle, namely dogs. Klazomenian sarcophagi, as well as the Amathus bowl, feature wardogs, most often running beside mounted warriors, men who may have fought from horseback rather than dismounted to fight on foot. Some types of helmets were peculiar to specific regions. In East Greece and some of the islands, the so-called Ionian type helmet, characterised by the lack of a noseguard and often featuring hinged cheekpieces, is introduced possibly as early as the middle of the seventh century.877 It is commonly depicted in East Greek art, as well as on the famous frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphoi, a Cycladic piece of art from around 525.878 By far the most common type of helmet, which also spread to East Greece, is the Korinthian helmet. Linen corslets may have been introduced from Lydia and therefore perhaps first used in East Greece (see chapter 8); they are common in Attic art of the later sixth century onwards. There are also clear regional patterns with regards to fortifications. The earliest Iron-Age fortifications were constructed in Asia Minor and some of the islands in the Aegean. In these cases, it has been suggested that fear from hostile natives or pirates were prime motivators for building walls. However, the Greeks were also perfectly capable to war amongst themselves, and this appears to have been an important catalyst for constructing walls. In addition, Greek towns in Asia Minor may also have built walls in order to compete for prestige with rival Lydian towns further inland. In the course of time, towns on the Greek mainland also turned toward building fortifications, not just out of military concerns, but perhaps also as a monument to their military or political strength, or in emulation of other Greek towns. Finally, we have to ask ourselves whether we are justified to talk about ‘Greek’ warriors and ‘Greek’ warfare, or whether or not at least some of the general trends fit more broadly within an Aegean, Aegean-Anatolian, or—even more broadly—an East Mediterranean context. Lydian and 877 878

230

See Edrich 1969 for a full, if outdate d, discussion. Bie rs 1996 [1981], 175 figs. 7.22–23; Boardman 1991 [1978], 120 fig. 130.

Phrygian artefacts, as well as references to close co-operation between Greeks and Karians, and the activities of Greeks further East and in Egypt, demonstrates that early Greece was very much a part of a larger cultural matrix, forming in particular a cultural koinē with Asia Minor, where Karians, Lydians, and Phrygians used similar equipment and styles of fighting, and probably also shared a similar warrior ethos. 6. Diachronic developments As far as diachronic developments are concerned, we may note that there are two points in time when important changes are to be noted, namely: (1) in the years around 700, when equipment became more standardised and there appears to be an increase in rivalry and war between neighbouring territories, and; (2) the second half of the sixth century, which witnesses the emergence of centrally-organised armies (including the phalanx) familiar from Herodotos onwards, to judge by the predominantly Attic material. The general conclusions are similar to those posited by Henk Singor in his 1988-dissertation, with a number of important differences, including the very small-scale nature of war in the Geometric age and the use of horses in the seventh and sixth centuries. The period between the fall of the Mykenaian palaces and the end of the eighth century is characterised by continuity. The characteristics of the Postpalatial period can be best made clear through contrast with the Mykenaian Palatial period. In the latter, it is clear that the wanax was able to field a well-organised army, consisting of lower-class soldiers commanded by aristocratic leaders; none of them apparently used shields. Battle-scenes are rare, but they suggest fighting took place at extreme close range; scenes such as the ‘Tarzan Fresco’ at Pylos depict combat as a kind of wrestling match or knife-fight, with fighters grabbing each other limbs and trying to stab each other with short swords. Some of the organisational structure of the earlier palaces may, for a brief spell of time and only in some places, have survived the catastrophe that brought about the slow decay of Mykenaian culture after c. 1200. The Mykenaian ‘Warrior Vase’ depicts a group of warriors with knapsacks tied to their spears, which suggests some kind of central organisation. They are also equipped in a uniform manner, which is different from other contemporary representations of groups of warriors. Other elements of the equipment introduced shortly before or after the collapse of the Mykenaian palaces continued in use throughout the Early Iron Age. These include a specific type of chariot (rail chariot), the galley, and the Naue II type sword. Both the galley and the sword would continue in use down to the end of the sixth century. a. Changes around the end of the eighth century The iconographic material of the eighth century gives us a good idea of what battle may have been like then. Both battles on land and at sea are shown. Particularly interesting are battles that appear to take place on and around one or more ships that have been dragged onto the beach; seaborne

231

raids were probably common, but we also have depictions of engagements on open sea between groups of armed men, and it is possible that some vessels were equipped with devices to ram enemy vessels from perhaps as early as ca. 900. The warriors themselves are very diversely equipped, some armed with spears, others with swords or bows, some also carrying shields of various type. A few of the warriors with shields also transport themselves using chariots; some objects depict horses carried aboard ships, so that we may assume they sometimes transported their chariots across sea, or that these men captured horses during their raids. Based in particular on the Korinthian iconographic evidence, the time between roughly 720 and 650 emerges as an age of transition, with Korinthian figured scenes on pottery providing important evidence. The single-grip shields of the preceding age are slowly replaced by the new Argive shield, with a double-grip, and warriors appear to don more pieces of bronze armour, especially helmets and greaves. Bronze bell-shaped cuirasses appear optional, as are tunics; a more consistent approach toward nudity and dress only appears in the latter half of the sixth century. Spears can be carried singly or in pairs, and they are perhaps heavier on average than before. The equipment tends to become somewhat more uniform. By 700, burials with arms disappeared for the most part, to be replaced by dedications of weapons and armour at sanctuaries, especially the larger regional and supraregional ones, of which Olympia was the most important. This shift signifies an increased importance of competing with neighbouring aristocracies, rather than engaging in overseas raids to acquire honour and glory within the confines of one’s own community. The iconographic evidence in particular suggests an ever increasing emphasis on war over land rather than seaborne raids. Ships are less commonly depicted in the art of the seventh century. Chariots, which are useless when one has to traverse larger distances over land, are replaced by warriors on horseback. b. The century between c. 650 and 550 The century between c. 650 and 550 forms a reasonably consistent period, with an abundant amount of evidence—relatively speaking—from a fairly large number of different regions, including archaeological evidence (dedications at sanctuaries, fortifications), figurative art from Korinth, Lakonia, the Aegean islands, East Greece, and some other places, as well as ancient texts, especially fragments from poems attributed to Archilochos, Tyrtaios, Alkaios, and so on. The equipment of warriors appears to become somewhat more standardised, although small-scale army organisation (warbands) and flexible tactics appear to continue. Horses may have been a fixed component in the accoutrement of these warriors, to judge by the depictions in art, the dedication of horse-trappings (from chariots) at some sancturies, finds of horse-bits in graves, and references in texts. I have earlier suggested that the Argive shield, like the bronze bell-shaped cuirass, was specifically

232

developed to be easily carried by a man on horseback.879 By the sixth century, Theognis could write the following in an offhand, matter-of-fact kind of way: The voice less messe nger, shining from the far-gleaming lookout, is rising fearful war, Cyrnus. Come, place bits on the swift-hee le d horses, for I think they’ll meet the e nemy. The distance betwee n is not great; they’ll ge t there , unless the gods dece ive my judge ment. (The ognis ll. 549—554; translation Ge rber)

Theognis sees that a fire has been lit, signalling that they are under attack; he immediately tells Kyrnos—who probably served as his hippostrophos—to ready the horses. It seems like the standard response to an invasion or a raid. In other words, men in this period may have typically ridden to the battlefield rather than marched on foot.880 This suggests that ‘armies’ were small, numbering perhaps no more than a few hundred at the most, and likely even smaller, a point also stressed by Henk Singor.881 Skirmishes over borderland, as well as (tit-for-tat) raids between expanding, neighbouring territories may have been become increasingly common in the course of the seventh and sixth centuries. This period also includes some of the earliest Greek evidence for the possible use of formations on the battlefield. From Homer onward, Greek authors emphasised how warriors fight together to achieve victory, operating in small units (e.g., Homeric warbands). The Iliad, which may predate the period slightly, describes how warriors array themselves into temporary, defensive formations, especially the so-called ‘shield wall’ erected around the body of a fallen comrade. Furthermore, some descriptions make clear that warriors could advance in ‘waves’, as also argued by Singor.882 This mode of advancing toward the enemy may have inspired the artist who painted the battle-scene on the Chigi olpe, which likewise appears to show warriors moving in ‘waves’. This close co-operation between Aegean warriors, their use of what a modern military historian would call ‘small-unit tactics’, especially when combined with their high-quality armour, may have been what made Aegean warriors (e.g., Greek Ionians and Karians) so popular in the armies of ancient Bayblon and Egypt. Greek service in Near-Eastern armies may have been an important influence on the development of the phalanx, as the Greeks experienced first-hand how an army of thousands—rather than hundreds—would have operated on the battlefield. Military organisation in Egypt and Babylon may have inspired the creation of military units (the telea familiar from Herodotos onwards) in ancient Greece, such as the Attic taxeis and lochoi, commanded by officially appointed officers, such as the taxiarchos and lochagos.

879 880 881 882

For further de tails, see Brouwers 2007a. Aside from my own article , see especially De tie nne 1968, particularly pp. 134–138. Singor 1988, esp. pp. 300–328; also note discussion in Salmon 1977. Singor 1988, 16–19.

233

c. Changes during the second half of the sixth century By the end of the sixth century, it seems likely that phalanx tactics were employed on the battlefield. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests that Athens was able to field a relatively large, centrally-organised, and socially diverse army, rather than a collection of aristocratic warbands. The iconographic evidence points toward an increase in scale, especially with regard to the increased use of linen corslets, which may have been easier to procure than bronze cuirasses, as well as trumpets and the use of helmets that leave the ears and eyes free. Furthermore, an inscription from Salamis makes clear that some people, at least, were required by law to purchase a set of armour and report to a government official; in Herodotos, ‘officers’ and centrally-organised armies are the rule. The later sixth century also witnesses the construction of new fortifications. Earlier fortifications were usually defended by a single tower, often flanking the gate to form a kind of bastion (e.g., Old Smyrna, Minoa, Aghios Andreas, possibly Asine); they could, if the descriptions of Homer are correct, be relatively easily assaulted by a concerted effort on the part of the attackers. It seems likely, therefore, that most battles would have taken place outside the town, with the defenders meeting the enemy head-on, hoping to drive them away before any serious damage could be done. However, as armies grew larger and towns became better organised, it might have seem more profitable to build better fortifications, especially those that could be less easily scaled and better defended. From the later sixth century in particular, walls generally feature several towers (e.g., Iasos, Larissa, Pythagoreion), suggesting a stronger concern with defending the community as well as an increase in the amount of manpower available to construct additional towers. It is interesting that early fortifications in Anatolia and the ancient Near East usually possess multiple towers; it is possible that the Greeks learned both more elaborate fortification and siege techniques from their Near-Eastern neighbours. The earliest evidence for use of the battering ram in the Aegean is the bronze ram from Olympia, dated to the first half of the fifth century and currently on display in the museum at Olympia. We know from excavation that the Lydians, presumably under Alyattes II, took Old Smyrna by building an earthen siege ramp.883 The use of siege-ladders, well known in the East, is not attested in Greece until the fifth century at the earliest.884 Instead, the ancient Greeks fought on the field outside of a town (cf. the fighting in the Iliad), and took towns by storm when the opportunity presented itself, climbing the stone and mubrick walls; they would focus their attacks on weakly defended points or simply tried to overwhelm the enemy. 7. Ancient Greek terminology Modern treatises on ancient Greek warfare abound with anachronistic 883 884

234

Ke rn 1999, 90. Van Wees 2004, 139–140.

terminology. Greek warriors are often referred to as ‘soldiers’, a word derived from the Latin that actually refers to professionally trained men who fight for pay and are part of a standing army. Early Greek warriors, unlike Roman legionaries and modern-day soldiers, were not drilled by professional instructors, did not earn a salary, and were never part of a standing army. A word like ‘soldier’ should be used in a specific context. Careless use of modern terms can wholly alter our perception of the ancient world, as in the case of the Homeric army, where the basileis are sometimes considered ‘officers’ in command of lowly ‘soldiers’. 885 But what modern army features aristocratic leaders in command of their personal—and often apparently quite wealthy—followers? Similarly, terms such as ‘infantry’ and ‘cavalry’ suggest a binary conception of armed forces that strikes me as misleading when applied to early Greek warfare. The word ‘infantry’ is based on the same root as our word ‘infant’, and was applied by ‘knights’ (the French cavalerie is derived from the word chevalier), who literally and metaphorically occupied an elevated position on the battlefield, to refer to the lowly men who fought on foot. However, as we have seen in previous chapters, it was common for high-ranking men to use horses and chariots to reach the battlefield quickly, where they would have dismounted to fight on foot; such a mode of fighting obliterates any clear-cut distinctions between modern concepts such as ‘infantry’ and ‘cavalry’, unless one would want to go all-out on anachronisms and refer to them as ‘dragoons’ (mounted infantry of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). The same goes for warriors on ships; Herodotos refers to these as epibatai, but these were clearly not ‘marines’ in our modern sense of the word, as they were arrayed in equipment that also allowed them to fight on land, take part in ambush, assault a town, and so forth. So modern terminology should be used with care and even avoided in most cases. Furthermore, we are fortunate that, from Homer onwards, we know what terms the ancient Greeks used themselves to denote specific types of troops. In addition, a remarkable Korinthian aryballos provides us with the names for those troops that rode on horseback, but dismounted to fight on foot: they were called hippobatai, and their mounted attendants hippostrophoi. These words are wonderfully descriptive: hippobatas means (literally) ‘horse-walker’, hippostrophos translates as ‘horse-turner’. There is thus no need to use anachronistic terms such as ‘knight’ and ‘squire’ to refer to these men, as Peter Greenhalgh and other modern authors have done—including myself, I must admit! The literary evidence provides a wealth of terms denoting fighting men and related subjects, most of which are very descriptive, though some are frustratingly vague. The word hippeus is a good example of the latter: it can mean horseman, but also charioteer, and is also used by Homer to denote a warrior who travels by chariot, but is not the driver himself. The word thus denotes simply someone who uses one or more horses. The earlier named 885

As de monstrate d by the de liberate ly mode rnising approach use d by Jonathan Shay: ‘Officers, the only soldiers we meet in the Iliad<’ (Shay 1994, 13; emphasis mine ).

235

hippobatas was clearly a mounted warrior. We do not know what the Lydian hippomachoi mentioned by Mimnermos may have been, but they were presumably men who actually fought from horseback. From Homer onwards, the typical types of warriors are aichmētes (spearmen), toxotes (archers), and hippeis (horsemen). In the epics, these different kinds of warriors mixed freely together. This is unsurprising, considering that warriors were grouped according to warband rather than type. A particular leader would assemble his force, and while most men may have been equipped to fight at close range, with spear or sword (or axe, and so on), some may have accompanied him as archers (cf. scenes on Geometric vases, some Korinthian aryballoi with spearmen and archers, the dynamic sixth-century Attic cup from Vulci discussed on p. 105, above). It is clear from the Iliad that men were flexible with regards to their equipment. When his bowstring snapped, the skilled archer Teukros heads off to fetch his shield and spear (Il. 15.458–483 ). The situation is very different in Herodotos, where different types of warriors operate as distinct bodies of men, as true military units (telea or lochoi, the latter also a term familiar from Homer and used to simply denote a group of men). For example, the pezoi, foot troops, are generally kept separate from the hippeis, the horse-mounted troops (Hdt. 9.32); these basic groupings were further subdidived into units of spearmen, archers, and so forth. Herodotos is conscious of this development and attributes it—whether rightly or wrongly is not important here—to Kyaxares, king of Media from c. 625–585: He is said to have been more warlike than his ancestors. He first divide d the pe ople of Asia into cohorts, and first divide d the m into spearme n, archers, and cavalry; whe reas be fore they had bee n confuse dly mixe d togethe r. (Hdt. 1.103)

Both Herodotos and the earlier Spartan poet Tyrtaios also make a distinction that is absent from Homer and the other sources, namely between heavily-armoured and lightly-armoured troops. Tyrtaios refers to the former as panoploi and the latter as gumnētes (fr. 11.35–38 West). The latter term is also used by Herodotos, in addition to psiloi; the former are called hoplites by him, a term that is never used by earlier authors. 8. Early Greek warrior society For much of the period under examination, war was mostly the perogative of what we might term the aristocracy, i.e. the upper echelons of society that consisted of the affluent and the powerful. Warfare, in the broadest sense of the word including not simply fighting, but also ‘martiality’ (the totality of martial values, shown for example by bearing weapons in public even in times of peace), emerges as something peculiar to early Greek elites, a defining characteristic of the aristocracy, from which the lower classes of society may have been excluded for the most part. To my mind, the evidence is fairly clear on the matter, and only modern-day ‘common sense’ assumes that, for example, the armed forces described by Homer and the armies (partially) depicted on seventh-century

236

Korinthian pots included masses of ‘commoners’. Weapons are only found in the graves of some high-ranking individuals, and these must have been leaders within their community or particularly important warriors. These men took part in martial games and may have been the principal competitors at the Panhellenic Games, and presumably dedicated arms and armour to the gods. The iconographic evidence depicts men fighting using expensive kit, or engaging in small-scale raids. Descriptions in Homer suggest that only aristocratic families ever provided warriors. Importantly, war is beyond the purview of Hesiod. The lyric poets likewise leave an impression of war as the province of the elite. Only Herodotos, with descriptions of massive armies and the appointment of officers, who had no close personal ties to their men, is different in this regard, and suggests that aristocratic warbands only disappeared in the latter half of the sixth century, as argued above. In other words, martial activities in general were part of the aristocratic lifestyle of elites in early Greek communities from at least 1000 down to the middle of the sixth century. Paul Treherne in his important article, ‘The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze-Age Europe’ (1995), has pointed out that this lifestyle seems to focus on aspects of the body in particular. Treherne argues that the appearance of ‘warrior graves’ can be related to the de ve lopment of a specific form of life , a life style , among an eme rge nt warrior e lite , which marke d the growth of a ne w unde rstanding of personhood—spe cifically male se lfide ntity—roote d in both social practices and cultural re prese ntations.

Treherne adds that this life style , and the male body's place in it, is only to be unde rstood in conjunction with an equally important death style , a socio-culturally prescribe d way of e xpiring. Ce ntral to both life and death was a spe cific form of masculine beauty unique to the warrior.886

His observations are based on Bronze-Age Europa, but they can be usefully applied to the Greek situation. The collapse of the Mykenaian palaces may have disrupted the existing balance of power and led to the emergence of either a new elite or an older ruling social group that tried to reclaim some of their bygone glory. These elites emphasised a military—or at least violent—ethos by burying some of its men with weapons and, in a few rare instances, armour. This group of people shared a similar life style and attempted to reinforce their life style in death. Four main themes are at the core of this life/death style, to wit, in Treherne’s words: ‘warfare seen in weaponry, alcohol seen in drinking vessels [<], riding/driving seen in horse harness/wheeled vehicles [<], and to a lesser degree bodily ornamentation.’887 That this specific life- and death style is found across a large geographic area ought to be attributed to inter-regional ‘exchange and emulation between the upper echelons of local 886 887

Tre herne 1995, 106. Tre herne 1995, 108; see also Shanks 1999, 115–121.

237

hierarchies.’888 All of these four themes are accounted for in the Greek evidence analysed in the previous chapters, to which we may add a fifth aristocratic theme, namely seafaring and overseas activities. 889 Public displays of wealth, of power and prowess, tie all of these aspects together. In the remainder of this section, I shall apply Treherne’s four themes to the Greek situation. a. Symbols of power As regards the first theme, it is clear that Greek men were commonly equipped with weapons even in times of peace. 890 This is clear in Late Geometric scenes depicting processions and mourning scenes: men are commonly equipped with a sword. The close association of an aristocratic man and his weapons no doubt explains why some high-ranking men, presumably leaders of the community, were also buried with arms. Funerals would have allowed the conspicuous display of armed men, including sometimes the deceased himself, and could also be accompanied by funeral games in the case of a particularly noteworthy person. These funeral games would have featured a wide array of martial sports; descriptions in the Iliad include a duel, a chariot-race, and an archery contest. The public display of mourning and remembrance, including the organisation of funeral games, and the connections that this emphasised with the deceased, should not be underestimated: ‘Paying visits to the tombs of famous ancestors was not a pious duty, but a way of reminding contemporaries of the glory of one’s own family.’891 Greek aristocrats were fiercely competitive, striving to always be the best; the word agōn (‘strife’, ‘contest’) perhaps best summarises the lifestyle of the elite.892 Strife requires an arena for public display of merit and wealth, and the funerals and associated rites and customs of other high-ranking men offered opportunities for such displays. Burials with arms disappeared in the course of the eighth century, at around the same time that deposits at sanctuaries, including metal items such as weapons and armour, increased. Some have suggested that this indicates a shift from the private sphere to the public,893 but there was nothing particularly ‘private’ about aristocratic funerals. Instead, it seems more likely to me to denote a shift from a local to a regional or indeed, in the case of Panhellenic sanctuaries such as Olympia, supraregional level. Both funerals and sanctuaries offered public arenas for rival men to compete. The first was public but destructive (weapons were interred, the body cremated, and so on), while the second was public and permanent (weapons and armour on display). 888 889 890 891 892 893

238

Tre herne 1995, 114. In addition to observations in previous chapters, see especially Crie laard 1996 and 2006; cf. Tandy 1997, esp. pp. 112–138 (rather modernistic). Van Wees 1998 passim. Humphre ys 1980, 123. In gene ral, see Nagy 1999 [1979], esp. pp. 26–41 and 309–316. E.g., Morgan 1990, 19.

Fortifications may have been among the largest building projects to be undertaken especially in the eighth, seventh, and sixth centuries. Some of these walls may have been built in response to attacks; coastal and island towns had every reason to fear seaborne raiders. However, many fortifications were built only around part of a settlement or just the akropolis. The exact reasons for this cannot yet be answered, but it seems clear that military concerns alone did not always prompt the construction of walls. In many cases, walls may have been a powerful statement that served both to deter would-be attackers as well as to demonstrate the strength of the community’s leaders to harness available manpower. In some cases, it may even have been prestigious not to have walls; Sparta was still unwalled by the time of the Peloponnesian War (Thouk. 1.10), and Alkaios emphasised that men, not walls, were a community’s main defence (Alk. fr. 112 Voigt). b. Fighting and feasting As regards Treherne’s second theme, the evidence shows that there was a strong link between fighting and feasting. Some burials with arms also contain spits or other implements associated with roasting meat in particular; virtually all high-ranking burials also contained pottery specifically made for the consumption of alcohol. The literary evidence further attests to the importance of organising feasts in forging friendships, in male-bonding, and in recruiting troops (e.g., Od. 14.248–291); consuming food and drink at another man’s expense naturally created an obligation to return a favour. The groups of fighting men who presumably congregated in the second Hekatompedon at Samos, or the men who dined in Alkaios’ megas domos, no doubt formed warbands in the manner of the Homeric heroes, a mode of military organisation that probably emerged following the fall of the Mykenaian palaces and was eventually replaced, perhaps only as early (or as late, depending on one’s point of view!) in the final decades of the sixth century, by larger and centrally-organised armies commanded by men who did not possess a close personal tie with the men under their command. Furthermore, I would suggest that war was an affair of high-ranking men and their male next of kin. This further strengthens the notion that war was the concern of a limited group in early Greek society. Young men, presumably sons, younger brothers, and so forth, would serve as attendants to their older brothers and fathers. In the Homeric epics, we have references to kouroi (‘young men’), who perform services such as filling drinking bowls (Il. 9.173); a statement in the Odyssey suggests that young men also undertook small expeditions themselves (Od. 4.642–644). In iconography, mounted warriors are generally accompanied by mounted youths. Furthermore, it is possible that semi-naked warriors, such as those on the Chigi vase, are supposed to be younger men cutting their teeth on the field of battle; a Lakonian plate of the sixth century shows young men carrying the bodies of bearded warriors. In sum, war may have been a craft passed on from father to son, like Peleus handing his spear to Achilleus. 894 894

Age -groups are particularly we ll-known from Classical Sparta, see MacDowe ll 1986,

239

c. Ownership and use of horses Horses, Treherne’s third theme, were demonstrably halmarks of the aristocracy. Chariots are common in Palatial, Postpalatial (Late Helladic IIIC), and Late Geometric art, where they mostly served as vehicles to transport warriors to and from the battlefield. Horse-riding was known in Late Helladic IIIC, but rarely portrayed; it becomes common in Korinthian art from the end of the eighth century onwards. To judge by the iconographic evidence (and some of the literary material, as well), mounted warriors were so common that the horse appears to have been just as fixed an element in a warrior’s accoutrement as was his shield or spear. Furthermore, the most common type of crest on bronze helmets, at least, has the shape of a horse’s mane and is also made of horse-hair, lending the warrior a horse-like aspect even when he has dismounted. In some cases, the names used to denote certain groups or even an aristocracy as a whole referred to the ownership of horses; examples include the Spartan elite unit of hippeis, familiar from Herodotos and who may once have consisted of warriors who rode to the battlefield, 895 as well as the hippobotai, the horse-owning gentry of Chalkis. d. The (masculine) body The importance of the male body, Treherne’s fourth theme, is central to the way that (high-ranking) Greek men represented themselves. Whenever warriors were not nude, their armour instead served to emphasise their bodies. Bronze plate armour as used by Greeks and other peoples can be aesthetically pleasing. Once neatly polished, a man’s armour would gleam in the sun. ‘Shining’ is an adjective often used to denote something that is grand or awe-inspiring, including armour (Il. 3.83, 5.680, and 4.422–432; Alk. fr. 140.3 Voigt). The gods themselves are often described as ‘shining’, or otherwise radiant in some fashion (e.g., Phoibos Apollōn, ‘Shining Apollo’; Glaukōpis Athēnē, ‘Athene with the flashing eyes’ or ‘bright-eyed Athene’). Men who walked unto the battlefield in their gleaming armour may have possessed something of the divine.896 The bronze bell-shaped cuirass in particular, as well as greaves and arm-guards, with their molded musculature, served to emphasise, rather than hide the naked male body that these pieces of armour protected. In addition, naked warriors are fairly common in art. The men in Geometric scenes were presumably naked, as suggested in particular by contemporary nude warrior figurines. Furthermore, warriors throughout the seventh and first half of the sixth centuries are often depicted partially or wholly naked.897 This may have changed by the end of the sixth century, when nudity was something displayed only in specific contexts (e.g., athletic competitions) or was reserved in art for heroes or gods. Warriors were concerned with looking after their general appearance.

895 896 897

240

159–167 for a brie f, but use ful discussion. Greenhalgh 1973, 94–95. Cf. Van Wees 2006. On the ‘powe r’ of nudity, see Bonfante 1989.

Hair was used as a distinguishing feature. In the more detailed art of the seventh and sixth centuries, boys and young men are beardless and often have a close-cropped hair, whereas more mature men have beards and long hair. Homer frequently describes his warriors as possessing long hair; Archilochos specifically asks for a commander who is good at his job, rather than one who is more concerned with his wavy hair; a late sixth-century statue from Samos depicts a warrior with Ionian helmet, finely made bell-shaped cuirass, and long hair. In addition, the central importance of the body is clear when we look at descriptions of death. The ideal dead warrior is young, cut down in the prime of life; his body must be secured at all costs (cf. the battle ovr Patroklos’ body in the Iliad). The young warrior is beautiful, whereas the old man is hideous, grey and weak (e.g., Il. 22.71–76). A lifestyle that puts so much emphasis on the body naturally prefers cremation as a means to dispose of the bodies of dead warriors. By reducing the body to ashes, the flesh cannot be corrupted in the soil; the (memory of the) dead warrior is, in essence, preserved through burning (although it should be pointed out that some localities nevertheless preferred inhumation). Importantly, we know from the Iliad that particularly outstanding warriors were burnt in full armour, which offers new insights into interpreting burials with arms: these are not merely high-ranking men, but an elite within an elite, famed fighters or especially remarkable leaders of either the community at large or their followers. The male body and the ideology of male prowess formed a single unit. But aristocratic men did not exist in a vacuum: they were part of a community, a polis. Status groups as well as the community as a whole accepted and strove to maintain that unity, to prevent it from dissolution.898 Aristocratic men were the leaders of their communities, the preservers of the body politic. They were accepted as leaders and in exchange they had to act as the protectors of their communities, as rightly stressed by Ebbinghaus in her inspired discussion of the famous relief pithos from Mykonos. 9. Closing remarks Some of the conclusions and interpretation presented in the course of this book in general, or this final chapter in particular, are uncontroversial. Others are perhaps more difficult to swallow, such as the suggestion that armies in the Archaic period, down to somewhere in the sixth century, were small and consisted solely of the upper classes of early Greek society: did the mass of the army not consist of regular rankers, drawn from the lower classes, as ‘common sense’ would suggest? Some may accuse me of being too naive, of accepting the evidence too much at face value and not disentangling truth from fitcion, genuine practice from either fantasy or idealisations, mythology and ideology. It is true that some of the iconographic material, as well as parts of the literary evidence, especially of course the Homeric epics, deal with 898

Cf. Connor 1988 (warfare as ‘symbolic e xpression’); Bere nt 2000.

241

situations known from mythology. However, ancient authors and artists clearly based the equipment and mode of fighting on contemporary models. Much has already been said on this topic, especially in chapter 6, so I shall be brief here and discuss just one example, picked at random. It is a scene on a Korinthian cup that depicts the famous duel between Achilleus and Hektor.899 We know it is them, because the artist has conveniently inscribed their names (which suggests that ancient Greeks themselves might not have recognised them otherwise). Both are equipped not as Mykenaian heroes, but rather as contemporary Korinthian warriors, with Argive shields, bronze helmets and greaves, swords and spears. Achilleus wears a short tunic, whereas Hektor is naked: perhaps in this case the hero’s nudity is intended to highlight his vulnerability, his impending doom. The duel is flanked by youths on horseback, holding the reigns of their masters’ horses. In other words, Achilleus and Hektor are shown as dismounted hippobatai, accompanied by their hippostrophoi, exactly as in other, comparable scenes of the seventh century; the artists has made no attempt, as far as we can tell, to deliberately archaise or mythologise the scene. It is equally true that ideological concerns undoubtedly influenced all of the evidence discussed in this book. But is ideology always a purely artificial construct and therefore somehow misleading or inaccurate, rather than representative of everyday reality? Let us return to Paul Treherne for a moment, who has rightly stressed that ideology, and in particular the warrior ideology sketched in a preceding section, permeated ‘the entire social fabric, ideology is a component of all forms of human practice’; it was not the product of any small group within society, but was central to the identity of the community as a whole. In short, ‘ideology is a taken for granted part of any particular life style, even that of an elite, which adheres to a particular set of practices and beliefs with deep commitment and not merely as part of a cynical charade.’900 The importance of this last sentence should not be underestimated. I hope that I have succeeded in writing a fuller and more accurate account of warfare in early Greece and what role it may have played in shaping early Greek societies. Even if the reader disagrees with some of my interpretations, I still hope that this book and the evidence collected herein will serve to stimulate future research into the subject. For my own part, I intend to continue research in this particular field—which I believe to be far from exhausted—by turning my attention to a more detailed examination of Greek fortifications in the period between 1000 and 500.

899 900

242

Burgess 2001, 67 fig. L. Tre herne 1995, 116.

Appendix

Catalogue This catalogue incorporates the material used in the chapter on the iconographic evidence, i.e. pottery, figurines, and other objects dated to the period between c. 1000 and the early fifth century B.C. All items are organised according to type (figurines, sculpture, wall-paintings, pottery, Attic black-figure, Attic red-figure, and miscellaneous items); they are then listed first in alphabetical order by region (with, for example, Egypt and Etruria listed before Euboia; items with an unknown provenance are described first), then by settlement (when known), and finally placed in rough chronological order. If the museum inventory number (or simply the current whereabouts of the item) are known to me, it is listed at the end of the description. Items mentioned in chapter 6 are marked by a light grey bar on either side of the text. Figurines 1. Prove nance unknown to me . Figure of a he lme t-make r, working on what appears to be a Korinthian type he lme t; he ight 5.2 cm. Date d to the early se venth ce ntury. Ne w York 42.11.42 (Fle tche r Fund). Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], 31 fig. 11; Thomas 1992, 55 fig. 39. 2. Prove nance unknown to me . Bronze figurine of a warrior wrappe d in a cloak and we aring a Korinthian he lme t with transve rse cres t; he may once have he ld a spear in his le ft hand. Date d to the early fifth ce ntury. Wadsworth Muse um (USA). Re fere nces: Se kunda 1998, 10–11 (figs.). 3. Athe ns (Attika). Attic potte ry figurine of a horse (head missing), from the lid of a pyxis, decorate d with abstract, geome tric patterns; has e ithe r a stylise d double -axe or Dipylon shie ld at the waist; he ight 12.6 cm, le ngth 13.8 cm. Date d to start of e ighth ce ntury. He ide lbe rg G55. Re fere nces: CVA Germany 27, pls. 1297.8–9. 4. Tanagra (Boiotia). Clay mode l of a four-horse chariot. The charioteer has a Boiotian shie ld slung around the back, while the warrior has an Argive shie ld on his arm and is furthermore equippe d with a he lme t. Date d to fifth ce ntury. Athe ns 4082. Re fe rences: Crouwe l 1992, pl. 5.2; Greenhalgh 1973, 29; Van Wees 2004, pl. 22. 5. Chios (Chios). Ivory horseman figurine ; the re ins have been carve d with great care ; no saddlecloth (bareback); of the rider, only his le gs and lowe r arms have survive d. Date d to middle of the se ve nth ce ntury. Re fere nces: Boardman 1967, 242 pl. 96.

243

6. Olympia (Elis). Bronze figurine of a man with arms and le gs spread and wearing a roughly conical he lme t; remains of a shie ld handle . Date d to Geometric. Athe ns 6182. Re fere nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 11 (no. 31). 7. Olympia (Elis). Elongate d bronze figurine s of a warrior with a Korinthian he lme t (raise d crest). Unearthe d in front of the weste rn façade of the Ze us te mple . Date d to Late Geome tric pe riod. Athe ns 6177. Re fe rences: Byrne 1991, pl. 12 (no. 41). 8. Olympia (Elis). Bronze figure from the ring handle of a cauldron, arm raise d (spear missing); he ight 14.4 cm. Date d to around 750. Olympia B4600. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], 29 fig. 5. 9. Olympia (Elis). A he ro stabbing a Ke ntaur with his sword. Both are nude , e xce pt for the ir headgear; he ight 11 cm. Date d to betwee n 750 and 700. Ne w York 17.190.2072 (Morgan Gift). Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 31 fig. 13; Thomas 1992, 56 fig. 41. 10. Olympia (Elis). Bronze group of a fe male figure riding a horse, side -saddle , arms spread. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Olympia B1750. Refe re nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 10 (no. 67). 11. Olympia (Elis). Bronze figurine of warrior with he lme t (cres t), spear, and shie ld. Date d to Ge ometric. Athe ns 6096. Re fere nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 11 (no. 30). 12. Olympia (Elis). Bronze group, re mains of chariot, with he lme te d driver and lowe r part of passenge r; found at second southe rn wall of stadium. Date d to Geometric. Olympia B1671. Re fere nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 11 (no. 49); Crouwe l 1992, pl. 3.3. 13. Olympia (Elis). Bronze figurine of warrior with conical he lmet and be lt (othe rwise nude ), rive t-holes in feet; may once have he ld shie ld and spear. Date d to after the Ge ome tric pe riod. Olympia B2000. Re fere nces: Buchholz and Wiesner 1977, pls. 13.c–d; Byrne 1991, pl. 13 (no. 43). 14. Olympia (Elis). Bronze figurine of a warrior, with conical he lmet and nude apart from be lt. His e xte nde d le ft arm may once have he ld a shie ld, the raise d right hand probably a spear. Parts of le gs also missing, but clearly no greaves. Date d to after the Ge ome tric period. Olympia B1999. Re fe rences: Buchholz and Wiesne r 1977, pl. 12; Byrne 1991, pl. 13 (no. 46). 15. Olympia (Elis). A warrior with be lt and he lme t, othe rwise nude ; most of arms missing; he ight 17 cm. Date d to around 650. Olympia B1701. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 44 fig. 46. 16. Olympia (Elis). A nake d charioteer (without chariot), be lieve d to be Attic in origin; he ight 23 cm. Date d to around 650. Olympia B1700. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 45 fig. 47. 17. Olympia (Elis). Bronze warrior figurine e quippe d with Korinthian he lme t (stilte d crest), be ll-shape d cuirass, and greaves; otherwise nude ; right hand broke n off. Date d to sixth ce ntury. Refe re nces: Se kunda 1998, 63 (figs.). 18. Olympia (Elis). Bronze mode l of a chariot, comple te with a team of two horses. Date unknown. Re fe rences: Lase r 1987, 29 fig. 3.b. 19. Dodona (Epe iros). Bronze figurine of a warrior e quippe d with Korinthian he lme t (stilte d crest broke n off), be ll-shape d cuirass, tunic, and greaves; spear and shie ld now lost. Date d to sixth ce ntury. Ioannina Muse um. Re fe rences: Se kunda 1998, 58 (figs.). 20. Dodona (Epe iros). Bronze figurine of a warrior e quippe d with what looks like a leathe r-re inforce d tunic or kilt, be ll-shape d cuirass, Korinthian he lmet with stilte d crest; no greaves. Date d to sixth century. Ioannina Muse um. Re fere nces: Se kunda 1998, 20 (fig.). 21. Dodona (Epe iros). Bronze warrior with be ll-shape d cuirass, he lmet, greaves, and Boiotian shie ld; spear missing. Date d to around 500. Be rlin. Re fe re nces: Thomas 1992, 72 fig. 57; Van Wees 2000b, 130 fig. 6 and 135 fig. 8.c. 22. Samos (Ionia). A team of horses, yoke d (chariot missing); he ight 8 cm. Date d to around 750. Re fere nces: Walte r 1990, 69 fig. 69. 23. Samos (Ionia). Man and dog in the process of attacking a boar. Man is nude but has some sort of headgear and sword. Date d to around 730. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 31 fig. 12; Walte r 1990, 69 fig. 70.

244

24. Samos (Ionia). Young man (hippostrophos?) on horse back, but horse is missing; he ight of figure 19.5 cm. Date d to around 520. Re fe rences: Walte r 1990, 176 fig. 188. 25. Axos (Kre te ). From Axos, north slope of Ida, a male figure , nude , with broke n leg and missing arms; ring at neck, sword at waist. Date d to Ge ome tric. He raklion 627 (Giamalakis collection). Re fere nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 5 (no. 50). 26. Haghia Triada (Kre te ). Probably from Haghia Triada, a figurine of a nude male with creste d he lme t, both arms raise d. Date d to Ge ome tric. Heraklion. Re fe re nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 7 (no. 75). 27. Ayios Kosmas (Kynouria). A bronze figurine of a warrior; he may have he ld a shie ld in his le ft hand (now lost) and probably he ld e ithe r a spear or sword in his right (also lost). He is equippe d with a be ll-shape d cuirass, a Korinthian he lme t with stilte d crest, and greaves; othe rwise nude . Date d to sixth ce ntury. Athe ns. Re fere nces: Se kunda 1998, 5 (fig.). 28. Sparta (Lakonia). Clay head from the Amyklaion sanctuary with long hair and conical he lmet (plume?); he ight 11.5 cm. Date d to around 700. Athe ns National Muse um. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], 29 fig. 6. 29. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, a lead figurine of a warrior with shie ld he ld out, e quippe d with he lme t and cuirass, greaves and spear, running right to le ft. Date d to Lead I or II (700–600). Re fere nces: Wace 1929, 263 fig. 122.a. 30. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, a lead figurine of a warrior, moving to le ft, e quippe d with shie ld, single spear, he lme t, and greaves. Date d to Lead I or II (700–600). Re fere nces: Wace 1929, 263 fig. 122.e . 31. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, a lea d figurine , parts missing, of warrior with he lme t and spear, looking (running to?) right; pe rhaps wearing tunic with be lt. Date d to Lead I or II (700– 600). Re fe rences: Wace 1929, 263 fig. 122.b. 32. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, some e xamples of early lead figurines, mostly spearme n and a fe w arche rs. Date d to Lead I (700–635). Re fe rences: Dawkins 1929, pl. 183. 33. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, furthe r e xamples of lead figurines: note, for e xample , the flute -playe rs. Date d to Lead II (635–600). Re fe rences: Dawkins 1929, pl. 189. 34. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, sample of lead figurines of spearme n, arche rs, and a ride r. Date d to Lead II (635–600). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 191. 35. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, a small lead figurine of a ride r. Date d to Lead II (635–600) or III–IV (600–500). Re fe rences: Wace 1929, 272 fig. 125.e . 36. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, a lead figurine of a presumable female (Athe na) figure, e quippe d with shie ld and he lmet, holding a single spear in both hands. Date d to Lead II (635–600) or III–IV (600–500). Re fere nces: Wace 1929, 272 fig. 125.d. 37. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, lead figurine c.q. plaque , featuring two winge d, fe male figures and a male warrior with he lme t, greaves, and shie ld; no weapon visible . Da te d to Lead II (635–600) or III–IV (600–500). Refe re nces: Wace 1929, 272 fig. 125.a. 38. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, a lead figurine of a nake d arche r, moving to right, equippe d with bow and quive r. Date d to Lead II (635–600) or III–IV (600–500). Re fere nces: Wace 1929, 272 fig. 125.h. 39. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, a lead figurine of a nude warrior with shie ld and greaves; his head, which originally bore a he lmet, has gone . Date d to Lead II (635–600) or III–IV (600–500). Refe re nces: Wace 1929, 272 fig. 125.b. 40. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, sample of lead figurines of spearme n, archers, and ride rs. Date d to Lead III (600 to be fore the e nd of the sixth ce ntury). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 197. 41. Sparta (Lakonia). Lead figurine in the shape of an arche r. Date d to betwee n 620 and 580. Sparta muse um. Refe re nces: Van Wees 2000b, 153 fig. 17.e ; Wace 1929, pl. 191.18. 42. Amphipolis (Make donia). Bronze figurine of Herakles as a knee ling arche r, found close to Amphipolis. Date unknown. Re fe rences: Thomas 1992, 66 fig. 49.

245

43. Longa (Messe nia). Bronze figurine from the te mple of Apollo Korythos equippe d with Korinthian he lmet, be ll-shape d cuirass, thigh guards, and greaves; shie ld and sword (or, less obviously in this case , spear?) lost. Date d to sixth ce ntury. Athe ns 14789. Re fe rences: Se kunda 1998, 56 (figs.). 44. De lphoi (Phokis). Bronze figurine of a warrior, with small round shie ld in le ft hand and raise d right arm (spear missing); from the Sacre d Way at De lphoi. Date d to Ge ome tric. De lphoi 7731. Re fere nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 14 (no. 20). 45. Karditsa (The ssaly). Bronze warrior, with he lme t, be lt, and Dipylon-shie ld slung around the back; spear missing; he ight 28 cm. Date d to around 700. Athe ns Br. 12831. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 29 fig. 7; Buchholz and Wiesner 1977, pls. 13.a-b; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 16; Thomas 1992, 52 fig. 35.

Sculpture 46. Aigina (Aigina). Te mple de dicate d to Aphaia, a local fe rtility goddess. Note that the sculptures we re heavily restore d and sometimes re worke d by the sculptor Thorwaldse n. Date d to be tween 510 and 480. Ruins in situ; sculptures from east and we st pe dime nt at Munich Glyptothe k; some bits and pieces in the Athe ns National Muse um and the Aigina Muse um. Re fe re nces: Bie rs 1987 [1980], 159 fig. 7.4 (plan) and 177 fig. 7.25 (pe dime nts); Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 206. 47. Athe ns (Attika). Frontal chariot re lie f (four horses), restore d, discove re d on the Akropolis. Date d to second quarte r of the sixth ce ntury. Akropolis Muse um 575. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 256. 48. Athe ns (Attika). A limestone pe dime nt from the Akropolis: He rakles and the Hydra fight while Iolaos waits with the chariot. Ve ry shallow (3 cm) re lie f; he ight at ce ntre 79 cm. Date d to be tween 560 and 550 BC. Akropolis Muse um 1. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 196. 49. Athe ns (Attika). ‘Rampin Ride r’: perhaps one of a pair. The figure is nake d and wears a wre ath of wild ce lery on his head (the prize in the Ne mean and Isthmian Games). Date d to around 550 BC. Louvre 3104 and Akropolis Muse um 590. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 114; Snodgrass 1980, pl. 32. 50. Athe ns (Attika). Horseman found on the Akropolis; a miniature 20 cm in he ight. Date d to about 510. Akropolis Muse um 623. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], 140 fig. 166. 51. Athe ns (Attika). Horse man found on the Akropolis; nude . Total he ight of horse is about 1.12 m. Date d to about 510. Akropolis Muse um 700. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 140 fig. 165. 52. Athe ns (Attika). A frie ze from the Akropolis: charioteer mounting, pe rhaps part of an asse mbly of gods. Date d to the final decade of the sixth ce ntury. Akropolis Muse um 1342. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 200. 53. Athe ns (Attika). Possibly a base for a seate d figure , retrie ve d from The mistoklean wall, with sides de picting warriors and chariots. Date d to about 500. Athe ns 3477. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 241; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 36. 54. Lamptrai (Attika). Ste le capital de picting a rider on one side (front), possibly a squire leading his master’s horse . The ride r is arme d with a spear and may carry a shie ld. Date d to about 550. Athe ns 41. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 229. 55. Samos (Dodecanese). Statue of Aiakes from Samos town, the de dication reads (in Boardman’s translation): ‘Aiakes, son of Brychon, de dicate d [me ]. He secure d the booty for He ra during his ste wardship’; he ight 148 cm. Date d to around 540. Tigani Muse um 285. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], 97 fig. 96. 56. Samos (Dode canese). Parts of sculpture ; torso and head of warrior found at the He raion; equippe d with Ionian-type he lmet and be ll-shape d cuirass; long hair. Date d to about 530 to 520. Staatliche Musee n, Be rlin. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 146 fig. 170; Walte r 1990, 169 and 170 figs. 181 and 182. 57. Olympia (Elis). Pe dime nt of the Megarian treasury: gigantomachy. Date d to about 510 to 500. Olympia. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 215.

246

58. Myous (Ionia). Re lie f slab showing a two-horse chariot. Date d to about 540. Berlin. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 222. 59. Gortyn (Krete ). Clay ‘Athe na’: fe male figure with he lme t (made se parate ly); use d to be equippe d with shie ld and spear. The body is whee l-made , the head and face moulde d. He ight 36 cm. Date d to betwee n 660 and 650 BC. He raklion 18502. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], 39 fig. 34. 60. Prinias (Kre te ). Incise d limestone s te le of a warrior with greaves, Argive shie ld, single spear, and he lme t. Date d to latte r half of seve nth ce ntury. He raklion 402. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 252.5. 61. Prinias (Kre te ). Incise d limestone ste le of a warrior with greaves, Argive shie ld, single spear, and he lme t. Date d to latte r half of seve nth ce ntury. He raklion 399. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 252.3. 62. Paros (Kyklades). A death feast re lie f: the ‘he ro’ reclines on a couch; armour is suspe nde d from pe gs on the walls. Date d to about 500. Paros. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 255. 63. Sparta (Lakonia). Fragme nt of a stone statue : the he lmete d head of a warrior. Date d to sixth ce ntury. Sparta. Refe re nces: Se kunda 1998, 7 (fig.). 64. Sparta (Lakonia). Torso of warrior; he is nake d, but e quippe d with a he lme t. Once thought to be the memorial statue of Le onidas, but it is too early for that. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. Sparta Muse um. Re fere nces: Snodgrass 1980, pl. 42. 65. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, part of a limestone re lie f showing a warrior. Date unknown. Re fe re nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 64.14. 66. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, limestone re lie f of a ship. Date unknown. Re fe rences: Dawkins 1929, pl. 74.69. 67. Didyma (Mile sia). Statue ; seate d figure of Chares, son of Kle isis, ‘archos (rule r) of Te ichioussa’; he ight 149 cm. Date d to around 550. London B278. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], 96 fig. 95. 68. Kyzikos (Mysia). Re lie f slab de picting a two-horse chariot. Date d to about 520. Istanbul 525. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 221. 69. De lphoi (Phokis). Sikyonian treasury, de picting the Argo, a rider, spear -arme d he roes leading cattle . Date d to about 560. De lphoi. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 208. 70. De lphoi (Phokis). Pe dime nt and portions of sculpture d frie ze from the Siphnian treasury. Date d to around 525 BC. De lphoi. Re fe re nces: Bie rs 1996 [1980], 174 fig. 7.21 (pe dime nt) and 175 figs 7.22-23; Boardman, figs 130 and 212. 71. De lphoi (Phokis). Pe dime nts of the temple of Apollo at De lphoi, including chariots, on the West pe dime nt, an appare nt Gigantomachy (although ‘hazardously’ restore d, according to Boardman). Date d to about 520 to 510 BC. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 203. 72. De lphoi (Phokis). Metopes of the Athe nian treasury, including some with clear vie ws of Argive shie lds. Date d to about 490 to 480. De lphoi. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 213.

Wall-paintings 73. Tatarlı (Lydia). Lydian wall-painting from the Tartarlı tumulus, near Dinar (province of Afyon), showing sphinxe s a nd warriors fighting with curve d blades. Date d to the Archaic pe riod. Re fere nces: Özge n and Öztürk 1996, 45 fig. 84. 74. Kalapodi (Phokis). Fragme nts of a wall-painting, from the temple , showing warriors with Korinthian he lmets and raise d spears, in a similar pose as on the famous Chigi olpe. Date d to around 650. Re fe re nces: Whitle y et al. 2007, 42 fig. 50.

Pottery (excluding Attic black- and red-figure) 75. Prove nance unknown to me . So-calle d ‘Dirmil’ krater; stylise d re presentation of ship. Forward section (to right) has small fore foot and horn, aft section is curve d upwards. The pot

247

is like ly of Euboian manufacture. Date d to Late Protoge ome tric pe riod. Re fe rences: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.a; Van Doorninck 1982, 278–279 figs. 2–3. 76. Prove nance unknown to me . Procession of chariots: a single ‘nude ’ figure appears to leap onto a chariot and grab one of the charioteers by his hair. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Athe ns 222 (Stathatou Collection). Re fere nces: Snodgrass 1998, 163 fig. 62. 77. Prove nance unknown to me . Ne ck fragme nts of an Attic amphora showing two arme d warriors, each e quippe d with a round shie ld with clear rim (possibly Argive shie ld), plume d he lmets, and twin spears. Exact provenance unknown (market find). Date d to Late Geome tric (third quarter of e ighth ce ntury). He ide lbe rg G140. Re fere nces: CVA Germany 27, pls. 1310.1–2. 78. Prove nance unknown to me . Amphora de picting a procession of chariots: each chariot has a drive r and a warrior with two spears (one in each hand). The re are four chariots on the pot, with the warrior alte rnative ly facing forward and backward. Snodgrass suggests that this re presents a martial feat whe reby the warrior would make a 360 degree turn. Date d to Late Geome tric pe riod. Hamburg 1966.89. Re fe rences: Snodgrass 1998, 64 fig. 25. 79. Prove nance unknown to me . Protoattic stand de picting a men in ornate clothes, carrying spears, walking le ft to right. One of the figures is labe lle d ‘Me ne las’, a name that should pe rhaps not—according to Snodgrass—be e quate d with Me ne laos. Procession of ride rs de picte d in the top frie ze above this procession of men. Date d to the se ve nth ce ntury. Be rlin A42. Re fere nces: Morris 1984, pl. 7; Snodgrass 1998, 102 fig. 40. 80. Prove nance unknown to me . An aryballos showig a battle be tween heavily-arme d spearme n, all with shie lds featuring animal blazons; each warrior is e quippe d with a be ll-shape d cuirass, spears, greaves. Note that most of the me n fight with crestless he lme ts. Date d to Middle Protokorinthian pe riod. Be rlin 3773. Re fe re nces: Pfuhl 1923, no. 58; Van Wees 2000b, 141 fig. 10. 81. Prove nance unknown to me . Krater showing, on one side , a battle be twee n (dismounte d?) warriors; the re verse shows three hippobatai, with the outlines of second horses indicating the presence of hippostrophoi. Date d to Middle Korinthian pe riod. California 8/361. Re fere nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 104 fig. 54. 82. Prove nance unknown to me . Cup featuring, in Snodgrass ’ words, ‘e xtreme ly odd sce nes’. These are dua ls betwee n spearme n flanke d by ‘supporte rs’, i.e. ride rs (but clearly not, if we take the ide ntifications se riously, the squires of the men fighting). Side A: Achille us, supporte d by Phoinix, fights He ktor, who in turn is supporte d by Sarpe don (long dead in the poe m by that time ). Side B: Aias supporte d by Aias (probably the Greater and Lesse r, respective ly) fighting Aine ias, supporte d by Hippokle s (ne ithe r this figure nor a due l be twee n any Aias and Aine ias are known from Homer). Be neath one ear, Dolon crouches. Date d to Middle Korinthian period, around 580. Brusse ls. Refe re nces: Snodgrass 1998, 122–123 fig. 47. 83. Prove nance unknown to me . Cup showing a battle sce ne be twee n warriors fighring with spears (single ), shie lds, he lmets, and greaves (no appare nt body -armour, some men nude ); the fight is flanke d by mounte d squires. Date d to Middle Korinthian period. Athens 330. Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 98 fig. 51. 84. Prove nance unknown to me . Battle be tween heavily-armoure d spearme n, some holding the ir shie lds in profile ; one warrior has falle n on his be hind be fore the ene my; all warriors e quippe d with shie lds and spears, swords at the ir sides. From le ft, a rider approaches wearing a he lme t and equippe d with a long spear (‘true cavalry’? armed squire?). Re ve rse shows hippobatai with two spears each. Date d to Middle Korinthian period. Brunswick 235. Re fe re nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 101 fig. 53. 85. Prove nance unknown to me . Fragme nts of krate r, showing warrior fighting over corpses, with warriors further remove d from the battle crouching be hind the ir shie lds. Some warriors are nude , others are equippe d with be ll-shape d cuirasses. Most are equippe d with greaves, all with Korinthian he lmets and spears; many have swords at the ir sides. The frieze be low de picts ride rs (squires?) e quippe d with single spears. Date d to Middle Korinthian pe riod. Ne w York 12.229.9 (gift John Marshall). Re fe re nces: Van Wees 2000b, 133 fig. 7. 86. Prove nance unknown to me . Korinthian kotyle showing two warriors in single combat, flanke d by harpies or sire ns. The warriors are equippe d with single s pears, shie lds, he lme ts,

248

and greaves; otherwise nude . Date d to Middle Korinthian pe riod. Boston 95.14. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 196 fig. 389. 87. Prove nance unknown to me . Korinthian cup showing, on the outside , procession of ride rs e quippe d with spears; ins ide , Gorgon’s head. Date d to Middle Korinthian pe riod. Moscow, Pushkin 1b7. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 197 figs 392.1–2. 88. Prove nance unknown to me . Lakonian cup attribute d to the Ride r Painte r: a warrior (Kadmos?) crouching and raising his spear to strike down a snake (Ares’ dragon?) that has coile d itse lf around the column of a small shrine or te mple . Date d to the sixth ce ntury. Louvre E669. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 211 fig. 431. 89. Prove nance unknown to me . Lakonian hydria attribute d to the Hunt Painter, showing mounte d squire with second horse obse rving two name d warriors in single combat. The warriors are nude apart from the ir he lme ts, greaves, and shie lds; they fight with single spears, a corpse lying on the ground be neath them. Date d to the sixth ce ntury . Rhodes 15373. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 209 fig. 424. 90. Prove nance unknown to me . Lakonian cup by the Ride r Painter, showing a nake d youth on horse back, followe d by a winge d figure and surrounde d by birds (including one pe rche d on the horse ’s neck!). Date d to the sixth ce ntury. London B1. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1998, 211 fig. 432. 91. Prove nance unknown to me. Lakonian cup, showing two figures arme d with spears attacking a boar; the beardless figure at le ft, also wearing an animal skin, is perhaps fe male . If so, she may be Atalante , and the sce ne is thus one of myth (Kalydonian hunt). Date d to around 560. Louvre E670. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 210 fig. 426; Carpe nte r 1991, 194 fig. 285; Stibbe 1972, pl. 78.1 (no. 220). 92. Prove nance unknown to me . Hippobatai with double spears; the ir hippostrophoi are drawn beside the m. The hippobatai and the hippostrophoi have differe ntly coloure d horses (e ithe r black or white ). Date d to Late Korinthian pe riod. Le ipzig T4849. Re fe rences: Greenhalgh 1973, 107 fig. 55. 93. Prove nance unknown to me . Bottle showing the ambush of Troilos by Achille us. Achille us is equippe d with he lme t (stilte d crest), Argive shie ld, greaves, and double spears; Troilos is nake d from the waist down, le ading two horses. Two wome n collect wate r. Priam obse rves the sce ne at far le ft. Date d to Late Korinthian pe riod. Athe ns 277. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 191 fig. 375. 94. Prove nance unknown to me. Korinthian re d-ground krater showing the de parture of Amphiaraos, e quippe d with be ll-shape d cuirass, greaves, he lme t, and brandishing a sword. His charioteer has an Argive shie ld slung around his back. Date d to Late Korinthian period. Be rlin F1655. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 200 fig. 401. 95. Prove nance unknown to me . Aryballos showing two line s of crude ly painte d warriors , the ir heads and feet bare ly emerging from behind the ir huge Argive shie lds. Date d to Late Korinthian pe riod. London market. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 190 fig. 366. 96. Prove nance unknown to me . Fragme nte d Korinthian hydria showing the battle be twee n Achille us (right) and Memnon (le ft). Achille us ’ chariot, manne d by Autome don, stands at le ft; Memnon’s chariot at right (charioteer’s name large ly lost). Me mnon’s charioteer has an Argive shie ld slung around his back. Date d to around 530. Baltimore 48.2230. Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 227 fig. 326. 97. Prove nance unknown to me . Boiotian kantharos showing three figures: figure at le ft equippe d with shie ld and spear (Athe na?); ce ntre figure with greaves, tunic, shie ld, spear, and he lme t; figure at right unarme d and nake d. Date unknown. Le ipzig T1863. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 226 fig. 443. 98. Prove nance unknown to me . Boiotian skyphos, showing The se us killing the Minotaur using his sword. At le ft, Ariadne , at right, seve n youths (uppe r tie r) and se ven maidens (lowe r tier, white skins). Re verse shows a rider e quippe d with he lmet and spear, galloping le ft to right and followe d by winge d figure . Date unknown. Louvre MNC675. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 228 fig. 446.1-2. 99. Prove nance unknown to me . Krater showing on one side He ktor setting off for battle in his chariot, with his pare nts and other supporting cha racters see ing him off; on the other

249

side , Glaukos also se ts off in a chariot. Date unknown. Louvre E63. Re fe rences: Snodgrass 1998, 135 fig. 51 (He ktor side only). 100. Aigina (Aigina). Fragme nt of a krater showing a numbe r of warriors e quippe d with single thrusting spears he ld in ove rarm position. Date d to Middle Protoattic pe riod, about 660 to 640. Be rlin 31573 (or Be rlin A33). Re fe re nces: Morris 1984, pl. 21 (right); Van Wees 2000b, 145 fig. 14. 101. Aigina (Aigina). From Aigina necropolis. Fragme ntary conical stand showing battle be twee n warriors, who are all nake d but e quippe d with he lmets, shie lds, greaves, and spears. Attribute d to near the Polyphemos Painte r. Date d to around 650. Be rlin A40. Re fere nces: Morris 1984, pl. 18. 102. Hypse le (Andros). Fragme nt. Parts of three warriors. Two at le ft equippe d with he lme ts with stilte d crests, multiple spears (ce ntre figure has three), Dipylon shie lds, sword and dagger at waist. Figure at right with he lme t, no shie ld. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period. Re fere nces: Te levantou 1993, 197 fig. 6. 103. Argive Heraion (Argolid). Amphora, restore d from fragments. Side A: diminutive and unarme d ride r on horseback, facing right. Horse flanke d by large fish. Side B: horse flanke d by fish. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period. Re fere nces: Courbin 1966, pl. 8; Waldste in 1905, 117 fig. 42. 104. Argive He raion (Argolid). Fragme nt. Lower parts of four figures, all facing le ft. From le ft to right: large figure with ‘double fee t’ (possibly a mythical character?), struck by arrow in shin; smalle r figure with bow and arrow, abdome n pie rce d by arrow; larger figure with ‘double fee t’; foot of smaller figure . Date d to Late Geometric pe riod. Athe ns National Muse um. Re fe rences: Ahlberg 1971a, 14 fig. 4. 105. Argive He raion (Argolid). ‘Argive He raion’ stand fragme nts showing groups of heavily-arme d spearme n fighting. Date d to Middle Protoattic pe riod, about 675 to 650. Athe ns. Re fere nces: Morris 1984, pl. 17; Van Wees 2000b, 146 fig. 15; Waldste in 1905, pl. 67. 106. Argos (Argolid). Globular oinochoe showing two warships, facing each other, with a male figure leading two horses in the space be tween the m on the othe r side of the pot (in be twee n the ir ste rns). Date d to e nd of Middle Ge ome tric II to start of Late Ge ome tric I. Argos 10320. Re fere nces: Pappi 2006, 233 figs 2–5. 107. Argos (Argolid). Krater. Two de pictions (mirroring each other) of unarme d male figure leading a horse by the re ins. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period. Argos no. C.201. Re fe rences: Boardman 1985 [1964], 28 fig. 17; Boardman 1998, 72 figs . 127.1–2; Courbin 1966, pls. 43–45 and 113. 108. Argos (Argolid). Fragme nts of krater. Figure with goad taming horse . Group of pe ople in the distance watching. Date d to Late Geometric pe riod. Argos no. C.240. Re fe rences: Courbin 1966, pl. 40. 109. Prove nance unknown to me (Attika). Mixing bowl. Chariot following a ride r. Both unarme d. ‘Robe d’ charioteer. Chariot de picte d with single whee l in side -vie w and drawn by one horse. Date d to Early Protoattic pe riod. Re fere nces: Anderson 1961, pl. 2.c; CVA Germany IX, pl. 415. 110. Athe ns (Attika). Be lly-handle d amphora from Ke rame ikos tomb PG 18; be lly is decorate d with a small, stylise d horse . Ove rall he ight: 47.2 cm. Date d to Protogeome tric pe riod. Re fere nces: Le mos 2002, 60 fig. 83.3. 111. Athe ns (Attika). Fragment of stand; single combat betwee n warriors arme d with swords. They grasp each other’s he lme t plumes. Analysis of the clay and style indicate this be longs with Athe ns no. 17384. Date d to Middle Ge ome tric II pe riod. Royal Ontario Muse um no. 957X245. Re fe re nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 49–51 fig. 47. 112. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt of stand; two warriors in single combat, both equippe d with swords and he lme ts with plume s. Analysis of the clay and style indicate this be longs with Ontario no. 957X245. Date d to Middle Ge ome tric II period. Athe ns National Muse um no. 17384. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 49–51 fig. 48. 113. Athe ns (Attika). Krater; both sides of the vase de pict battles around a central, beache d ship. Each ship has a pronounce d ram, horn, and a curve d ste rn. Side A: warriors with Dipylon shie lds, spears, swords, and plume d he lme ts surround the vesse l. Two s wordsmen

250

e ngage in single combat in the vesse l’s aft section. In the forward section, one warrior is holding a spear in overhand position (facing le ft), while anothe r is aiming his bow (fac ing right). Both are e quippe d with sidearms (swords). On the ram, facing the archer, is a figure holding a spear in overhand position. Side B: warriors with Dipy lon shie lds, spears, swords, and plume d he lme ts, surround this ship as we ll. Unde rneath the sail of the vesse l is a human figure , pe rhaps a captive . The aft section features single combat be tween swordsme n, a Dipylon warrior, and one appare ntly ‘nude ’ figure (pe rhaps the stee rsman). Date d to Middle Geome tric II pe riod (according to Coldstream 1968; Ahlbe rg 1971a, 39 be lieves it to be Late Geome tric). Me tropolitan Muse um of Art no. 34.11.2. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 27–29 figs. 28–30 and 49–51 fig. 50 (de tails); Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 1; Coldstream 1968, 26 and 28; Davison 1961, fig. 138. 114. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt of krater. Falling warrior with Dipylon shie ld, sword, and he lmet. Unde rneath him is another dying or dead warrior, with he lme t with drooping plume , grasping spear. To le ft is a figure with a rectangular shie ld. Thought to be by the same painte r of the Louvre A519-fragme nt. Date d to Late Geometric Ia pe riod. Athe ns National Muse um. Re fe rences: Ahlberg 1971a, fig. 9. 115. Athe ns (Attika). Fragments of krater. Battle aboard a ship. Five figures, two of which partly preserve d. Ce ntral two figure s are warriors: the one on the le ft is an archer, at waist e ithe r a sword or a dagge r. The figure on the right has a rectangular shie ld and two spears. Ahlbe rg interpre ts this sce ne as suggesting ‘a disarming and maltreatme nt of captive warriors after the sea fight’ (1971a, 38). Date d to Late Ge ome tric Ia pe riod. Louvre no. A534. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 37-38 fig. 45. 116. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nts of krater (perhaps connecte d with Louvre A528). Only part of a ship is preserve d, with two warriors: both ‘nude ’, equippe d with spears and swords. A third figure is visible at the far le ft (partly lost). A figure at the e xtreme right is e ithe r dead or dying (horizontal). Date d to Late Geome tric Ia pe riod. Louvre no. A537. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 31 fig. 35. 117. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nts of krater (pe rhaps part of same krater as Louvre A537). Preserve d is the prow of a longship; two figures are fe nding off an attacker (sword, he lme t) that has climbe d onto the vesse l. His ne ck is pierce d by an arrow. Arm of second assailant at e xtreme le ft, holding spear. De fe nde rs: fore most is brandishing a sword, scabbard at waist. Be hind him, an arche r, with sword at waist. Date d to Late Ge ome tric Ia pe riod. Louvre no. A528. Re fe rences: Ahlberg 1971a, 31 fig. 34. 118. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt of krater. Three figures, from le ft to right: ‘nude ’ figure with spears (partly prese rve d), ‘nude ’ figure pie rce d by spear in abdome n, and a warrior (partly preserve d) with dipylon-shie ld and sword at waist. Date d to Late Geome tric Ia period. Louvre no. A555. Re fe rences: Ahlberg 1971a, 19 fig. 13. 119. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nts of a pe destalle d krater; some fragme nts in Athe ns National Muse um. Prothesis sce ne . Processions of Dipylon-warriors on foot (he lme te d and two spears each); two-whee le d chariots, each with a drive r and a Dipylon-warrior. Said to be by painters associate d with the Dipylon Master. Date d to Late Geometric Ia pe riod. Louvre A522. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 5; Davison 1961, figs. 15a –b. 120. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme ntary pe destalle d krater from the Dipylon ce mete ry and attribute d to the Dipylon Master. Prothesis sce ne plus processions of chariots (two whee ls, two horses; a driver and a Dipylon warrior). The Dipylon warriors are equippe d with he lmets and two spears. The mourne rs (with raise d arms) are all unarme d. Other warriors lack shie lds; have both swords and dagge rs at the ir waists; some warriors (smalle r figures) only swords. Also de picte d is a ship with me n at the oars. Date d to Late Ge ome tric Ia period. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 4; Coldstream 1968, 30 pl. 7a; Davison 1961, fig. 3. 121. Athe ns (Attika). Krater fragme nts, including a pie ce curre ntly at Yale Unive rsity. Two frie zes. Top frie ze : battle -scene . From le ft to right: a pile of corpses (horizontal and appare ntly nake d), a figure with he lme t (drooping plume ) and sword, a figure with re ctangular shie ld, he lme t, and sword, grasping the plume of the ne xt figure ’s he lme t, also arme d with sword; the n, archer with side arm (sword) and he lme t, figure with re ctangular shie ld, he lme t, and spear in overhand position, ‘nude ’ figure (damage d), figure with re ctangular shie ld, grasping the he lmet plume of a falling (or dead) warrior with Dipylon

251

shie ld, sword, and spear. Bottom frie ze : at least three warriors with Dipylon shie lds, he lmets with drooping plumes, swords, and spears. On the far le ft, two figure s e ngage d in combat, including a Siamese twin (Aktorione -Molione?). Date d to Late Geometric Ia pe riod. Louvre no. A519. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 16 figs. 5 and 6; Boardman 1998, 38 fig. 50 (de tail); Ryste dt 2006b, 244 fig. 6.a; Snodgrass 1998, 17 fig. 5. 122. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nts of krater. Side vie w of longship. Dipylon-warrior on fore foot, holding two spears in one hand, sword at waist. Number of warriors aboard the ship, all e quippe d with swords. One of the se uses a rectangular shie ld. A numbe r of horizontal ‘nude ’ figures are de picte d in front of the ship’s bow (drowne d corpses?). Date d to Late Geome tric Ia pe riod. Louvre no. A527 plus Louvre no. A535. Re fe re nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 33–34 figs. 36–38; Davison 1961, figs. 13a –c. 123. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nts of painte d pot. Two figures. To le ft, ‘nude ’ figure with body pie rce d by arrow; knees seem to buckle . To right, a figure brandishing a sword (scabbard at waist). Possibly by the same painter of the Louvre A519-fragment. Date d to Late Ge ome tric Ia pe riod. Louvre no. A560. Re fe rences: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 18 figs. 10–11. 124. Athe ns (Attika). Krater. Chariots, each with single drive r, one whee l indicate d in side vie w, and single horse. Perhaps the earliest re prese ntation of a charioteer wearing the characte ristic long robe (as pe r Gree nhalgh 1973, 186). One Dipylon warrior on foot (de taile d), he lme t with drooping crest, and two spears. Also, prothesis sce ne: some mourners with one hand raise d, while the other rests on the ir scabbards. Other mourners unarme d, both arms raise d. Date d to Late Ge ome tric Ia to Ib pe riod. Athe ns National Muse um no. 806. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 61–62 fig. 53; Davison 1961, fig. 18; Greenhalgh 1973, 27 fig. 18. 125. Athe ns (Attika). Krater; de picts no less than five diffe re nt kinds of Dipylon shie lds. Top frie ze : prothesis sce ne. Bottom frie ze : procession of Dipylon warriors and chariots (two whe e ls in tande m, drive n by ‘nude ’ but he lmete d figures; teams of three horses). Dipylon-warriors are large , wear he lmets, and are e quippe d with two spears and a sword. Include d is a figure that may be a Siamese twin (Ahlbe rg 1971b, 240ff). Claime d to be by Hirschfe ld Painte r or his workshop. Date d to Late Ge ometric Ib pe riod. Me tropolitan Muse um of Art no. 14.130.14 (Ne w York). Re fere nces: Ahlberg 1971a, 61–63 fig. 56; Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 25; Boardman 1998, 36 fig. 47 (de tail); Davison 1961, fig. 26; Osborne 1998, 33 fig. 13. 126. Athe ns (Attika). Fragmentary pe de stalle d krater. Dipylon warrior: shie ld with ve ry narrow middle portion and e xagge rate d rim sections (top and bottom); he lme te d and equippe d with two spears. Chariots with two whe e ls side by side ; drive r and Dipylon warrior on at least one ; diffe re nt figures on others or only the drive r. Chariots drawn by teams of three horses. Date d to Late Geome tric Ib period. Nicholson Muse um no. 46.41 (Sydne y). Refe re nces: Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 14. 127. Athe ns (Attika). Large funerary krater. Upper frie ze : bie r and mourners. Lowe r frie ze : procession of chariots. Each chariot (two whee ls in side vie w) is drive n by a Dipylon warrior with he lme t (drooping plume ), but otherwise unarme d. Chariots ide ntical to cart use d to transport the dead man’s bie r. Date d to Late Geometric Ib pe riod. Athe ns National Muse um no. 990. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 54; Boardman 1985 [1964], 25 fig. 14 (de tail); Boardman 1998, 35 fig. 45; Coldstream 1968, pl. 8.b; Davison 1961, fig. 25; Gree nhalgh 1973, 21 fig. 7 and 33 fig. 26. 128. Athe ns (Attika). Oinochoe; frie ze on be lly de picts a number of warriors; some of these are arme d with bows and arrows. The y are otherwise unarme d and wear no armour. One warrior appears to carry two spears. Date d to e nd of Late Geometric I period. Athens National Muse um no. 194. Re fe rences: Ahlberg 1971a, 14 fig. 3. 129. Athe ns (Attika). So-calle d ‘Lambros oinochoe’. Frie ze around the be lly: numbe r of warriors as we ll as a fe w corpses. A total of at least fourtee n figures are re prese nte d: four Dipylon warriors, e ight he lme te d warriors without shie lds, two corpses. Corpses are ge ne rally unarme d, apart from the ir he lme ts. Two additional figures are difficult to inte rpre t: one is very small and apparently unarme d, the other is little more than a blob. The Dipylon warriors carry no spears, but attache d to the ir waists are both swords and dagge rs. The ir arms are not shown (tie d behind the ir backs?). The warriors without shie lds sometimes carry a sword at the ir waist; two brandish the ir swords. One or two touch the hilt of a Dipylon

252

warrior’s sword. The corpses imply a battle fie ld. Possibly the Dipylon warriors are be ing take n prisoner; an interpre tation suggeste d by Ahlberg. Date d to e nd of Late Geometric I pe riod. Louvre no. CA2509. Re fe re nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 21–24 figs. 19–24; Ryste dt 2006b, 244 fig. 6.b; Snodgrass 1998, 21 figs. 7 and 8. 130. Athe ns (Attika). Fragmentary pe destalle d krater showing prothesis, mourning me n with swords, chariot with Dipylon-warrior, ship shown be low ear. Date d to Late Ge ome tric I. Louvre A517. Re fere nces: Ryste dt 2006b, 241 fig. 3. 131. Athe ns (Attika). Spoute d krater, found at Thebes. Side A: numbe r of chariots (one whee l de picte d, drawn by single horse , robe d charioteers) and unarme d man on horse back, moving right. Side B: longship and rowe rs; a man (Paris? These us? re gular moral?) grabs a woman (He le n? Ariadne?) by the wrist and is apparently leading he r to the ship. Date d to Late Geome tric IIa period. London no. 1899.2-19.1. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 44 fig. 67; Greenhalgh 1973, 21 fig. 8 (de tail); Hampe 1936, pl. 22 (ship); Langdon 2006, 206 figs 1–2; Snodgrass 1998, 34 fig. 13. 132. Athe ns (Attika). Procession of chariots. The charioteers are ‘nude ’ and do not appear to we ar any he lme ts. Chariots de picte d with single whee l (side vie w). Each chariot is drawn by single horse . Date d to Late Geometric IIa pe riod. Le ide n no. I.1909/1.1. Re fe rence s: Coldstream 1968, pls. 11.a–b; Gree nhalgh 1973, 22 fig. 10. 133. Athe ns (Attika). Oinochoe. Three frie zes. Frie ze on neck: male figure equippe d with he lmet with drooping plume , sword, and dagge r, holding two horses by the ir re ins. Shoulder frie ze: dogs. Main frie ze : procession of Dipylon warriors, all he lme te d and equippe d with two spears. Date d to Late Ge ome tric IIa pe riod. Cambridge no. GR-1-1935. Re fere nces: Coldstream 1968, pls. 13.e –f. 134. Athe ns (Attika). Procession of chariots. Robe d chariotee rs with he lme ts, othe rwise unarme d. Chariots de picte d with a single whee l (sidevie w). Each chariot drawn by team of two horses. Date d to Late Geometric IIa period. Erlange n no. I.458. Refe re nces: Davison 1961, figs. 77a–c; Greenhalgh 1973, 25 fig. 15. 135. Athe ns (Attika). Ride r in the middle of a procession of chariots (single -whee l). Charioteers and rider all ‘nude ’ apart from he lmet with two drooping plumes. Each chariot is drawn by a single horse . Date d to Late Geome tric IIb period. Toronto no. 929.22.10. Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 22 fig. 9. 136. Athe ns (Attika). So-calle d ‘Borrowski amphora’. Prothesis and mourne rs on neck; body has two frie zes. Upper frie ze : procession of chariots: each chariot has two whee ls side by side , drawn by team of four horses; he lmete d drive r and warrior with a round shie ld, he lme t, and two spears. Lower frie ze : dogs (?). Date d to Late Ge ome tric IIb pe riod. Esse n K969. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 41; Gree nhalgh 1973, 35 fig. 27. 137. Athe ns (Attika). Amphora; prothesis sce ne on neck. Frie ze on be lly: procession of warriors with round (Argive?) shie lds decorate d with animal blazons. Each warrior has a he lmet and carries two spears. Date d to Late Geometric IIb period. Be naki Muse um no. 7675. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 44 fig. 68; Davison 1961, fig. 50. 138. Athe ns (Attika). Ride r we aring a he lme t with stilte d crest, (similar to the he lme t found in tomb T45 at Argos), on a rearing horse . Also de picte d are four-horse chariots, and warriors on foot with round shie lds, arme d with spears. Date d to Late Ge ome tric IIb period. Athens National Muse um no. 810. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 48 fig. 32. 139. Athe ns (Attika). Amphora. Procession of alte rnating chariots (single whee l, unarme d charioteer, team of two horses) and warriors on body of vase , with group of warriors leading them (or following the m, de pe nding on how one looks at this scene ). This latte r group consists of three figures arme d with swords, followe d by two warriors that each have a round shie ld with clearly de fine d rim (Argive shie lds?), two spears, and a he lme t. Date d to Late Ge ome tric IIb pe riod. Ashmolean Muse um no. 1916.55 (Oxford). Re fe rences: Ahlbe rg 1971b, fig. 33. 140. Athe ns (Attika). Procession of chariots (each with single whee l, drawn by single horse ; robe d charioteers). Date d to Late Ge ometric IIb pe riod. Be rlin no. 3203. Re fe re nces: Davison 1961, fig. 48a–b; Greenhalgh 1973, 23 fig. 11.

253

141. Athe ns (Attika). Oinochoe, found in grave unearthe d in the Athe nian agora. Two frie zes, neck and be lly. Uppe r frie ze : numbe r of Dipylon warriors, arme d with spears and swords, he lmet with drooping plume . Lowe r frie ze : Siamese twin (Aktorione -Molione ) mounting chariot and fending off attacke r. The twins have he lmets, sword; body is re ctangular (checke re d patte rn), may re prese nt a kind of body-armour or shie ld. The re are two more chariots: charioteer of one is unarme d but wears a he lme t; the other is drive n by a Dipylon warrior, e quippe d with two spears and sword, he lme t. This latte r chariot, the only one with two whee ls, and that of the twin is drawn by a pair of horses; the othe r, it seems, by a sing le horse . Aktorione -Molione are attacke d by two warriors: both arme d with a single spear (he ld ove rhead) and a sword, he lme t with drooping plume . Date d to Late Geome tric II period. Agora Muse um no. P4885. Re fe re nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 13 fig. 2; Boardman 1998, 41 figs. 59.1–2; Crouwe l 2006b, 166 fig. 5; Davison 1961, fig. 97; Greenhalgh 1973, 13 fig. 3; Snodgrass 1998, 30-31 fig. 11. 142. Athe ns (Attika). Oinochoe; two frie zes, on neck and be lly. Uppe r frie ze: warrior with he lmet and sword at waste holding two hors es by the re ins. Lowe r frie ze : sce ne of battle on and around a beach ship. Ship is facing le ft. In front of ship: falle n Dipylon warrior; figure with shie ld and sword. Aboard ship: sea pike s; sitting figure with spear or steering oar; Dipylon warrior with sword and spear (ove rhand position); Dipylon warrior with bo w, arrow, and sword; figure with spear (overhand). Othe r figures, continuing to right: ‘nude ’ figure with sword and possibly spear; falle n Dipylon warrior struck by many spears; arche r; anothe r corpse with many wounds; Dipy lon warrior with two spears and sword at waist. Date d to Late Geometric II pe riod. Cope nhagen no. 1628. Refe re nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 29–31 figs. 31–33; Boardman 1998, 41 fig. 60; Davison 1961, fig. 133; Osborne 1998, fig. 17. 143. Athe ns (Attika). Oinochoe; shipwreck sce ne on neck. Capsize d longship, with single figure (survivor) on top. Othe r figures, all ‘nude ’, surround the vesse l: the y are presumably drowning or already dead. Date d to Late Geome tric II pe riod, around 725-710. Munich no. 8696. Re fere nces: Davison 1961, fig. 84; Osborne 1998, 35 fig. 14; Snodgrass 1998, 35 fig. 14. 144. Athe ns (Attika). Amphora; procession of chariots on be lly, lion pulling down a doe on the neck. Date d to Late Geome tric period. London British Muse um 1936.10-17.1. Re fe rences: Boardman 1985 [1964], 27 fig. 16. 145. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt. A file of three differe nt figures; at far le ft, parts of a fourth figure . From le ft to right: figure with re ctangular shie ld, two spears, he lme t; figure with Dipylon shie ld (or some thing similar), two spears, he lmet; figure with round shie ld, two spears, he lme t with drooping plume . Date d to Late Geometric period. Re fe rences: Greenhalgh 1973, 65 fig. 38. 146. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt. Chariot with single whee l, drawn by single horse , drive n by Dipylon warrior. He lme t with drooping plume , but no weapons. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 20 fig. 6. 147. Athe ns (Attika). Fragment. Mounte d warrior, arme d with two spears (pe rhaps jave lins), he lme t with drooping plume . Date d to Late Ge ome tric period, around 700. Athe ns National Muse um no. 15.995. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 49 fig. 34. 148. Athe ns (Attika). Kantharos. Ce ntral figure in the main frie ze: warrior (sword at waist), torn by two fe rocious animals (lions?). At right: male figure with lyre confronting two female figures, carrying jugs on the ir heads. To le ft: a ‘nude ’ warrior with a sword at his waist leading away female figure ; two warriors e ngage d in single combat using swords. Possibly early work by Painte r A (from so-calle d ‘Rattle Group’). Date d to Late Geometric period. Cope nhagen no. 727. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 50 fig. 49 (de tail) and 61 fig. 54 (de tail); Boardman 1985 [1964], 26 fig. 15; Boardman 1998, 43 figs. 65.1–2; Davison 1961, fig. 128; Langdon 2006, 209 fig. 3 and 210 fig. 4. 149. Athe ns (Attika). Neck amphora; two main frie zes on body. Uppe r frie ze : procession of chariots (single whee l, three horses each, charioteer and passe nger apparently both unarme d). In the ir midst is a ride r brandishing a spear; a second horse is indicate d beside him. Lowe r frie ze : file of uniformly e quippe d warriors, with round shie lds, spears, and he lmets with drooping plumes. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period. Buffalo no. C12847. Re fere nces: Coldstream 1968, 59 no. 21a; Snodgrass 1971b, 45–46 pl. 5.

254

150. Athe ns (Attika). As Gree nhalgh puts it, ‘Pottery from the grave of an e ighth-ce ntury Athe nian who sure ly rode to war.’ Pottery includes two ite ms decorate d with horses, one featuring a mounte d warrior; conte nts include a large te rracotta horse . Date d to Late Geome tric pe riod. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 49 fig. 33. 151. Athe ns (Attika). At least two corpses to le ft; to right, a Dipylon type shie ld, e ithe r le ft on the battle fie ld or place d the re by someone (le gs of a living figure are visible ne xt to the shie ld). Date d to Late Geometric period. Gre ifswald Muse um no. 87. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 64 fig. 57. 152. Athe ns (Attika). Sce ne of two seate d figures with rattles, flanking a large table , above which two Dipylon type shie lds are suspe nde d, presumably from pe gs on the wall be hind. Date d to Late Geome tric pe riod. London 1916.1-8.2. Re fere nces: Buchholz 1987, 105 fig. 40.b. 153. Athe ns (Attika). Clay tripod showing a figure arme d with both spear and sword attacking a lion (He rakles and the Ne mean lion?). Date d to Late Geometric period. Ke rame ikos 407. Re fe rences: Carpe nter 1991, 138 fig. 174. 154. Athe ns (Attika). So-calle d ‘Kynosarges jug’. Sce ne of two seate d figures with rattles; a table betwee n them with a Dipylon shie ld positione d on it or, pe rhaps more like ly, suspe nde d from the wall be hind it. Date d to Late Geometric pe riod. Colle ction of the British School. Re fere nces: Buchholz 1987, 105 fig. 40.a. 155. Athe ns (Attika). Oinochoe-fragme nt. Dipylon-warrior with two spears, one in ove rhand position. Crest on he lme t. Object at his waist unide ntifiable : could be the sword worn by the warrior or he may have bee n struck by an arrow (Ahlbe rg 1971a, 20). Date d to Late Geome tric pe riod. Akropolis Muse um no. 290. Re fe rences: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 20 fig. 17. 156. Athe ns (Attika). Procession of chariots (single whee l, two horses each, unarme d charioteer). In the ir midst is a solitary ride r, pe rhaps he lme te d. Gree nhalgh points out that a second se t of re ins indicates that he was holding on to a second horse (1973, 22-23). Date d to Subgeometric pe riod. Villa Giulia no. 1212. Re fe re nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 23 fig. 12. 157. Athe ns (Attika). Procession of charioteers, similar to Ne w York no. 10.210.8. Date d to Early Protoattic pe riod. Ne w York no. 21.88.18. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 24 fig. 14. 158. Athe ns (Attika). Processions of chariots and at least one ride r on horse back. All are unarme d. Charioteers are ‘robe d’. Chariots de picte d with single whee l in side vie w, drawn by a pair of horses. Date d to Early Protoattic pe riod. Ne w York no. 10.210.8. Re fe rences: Davison 1961, figs. 69a –b; Gree nhalgh 1973, 24 fig. 13. 159. Athe ns (Attika). Ride r on horseback. Equippe d with round shie ld (Argive ?), he lmet with crest (Korinthian?), and two spears. Date d to Early Protoattic period. Pe rgamonmuse um no. 31006 (Berlin). Re fe rences: Greenhalgh 1973, 50 fig. 35. 160. Athe ns (Attika). Amphora, thought to be by the Analatos Painte r. Main frie ze on be lly shows procession of chariots (single whee l, robe d and unarme d charioteers, drawn by a team of two horses). Date d to Early Protoattic period. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1985 [1964], 49 fig. 45; Boardman 1998, 98 fig. 189. 161. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt found at the Agora . Bottom half of three figures (moving right), arme d with two spears each. Two figures at le ft may be wearing line n corse le ts. Third figure is e quippe d with round shie ld (Argive ?). Date d to Early Protoattic pe riod. Agora P24032. Re fe rences: Jarva 1995, 34 fig. 9. 162. Athe ns (Attika). Two file s of warriors, appare ntly e ngaging each othe r. Le ft -hand group is attacking; fore most warrior has spear in ove rhand position (othe r warriors not visible in photograph), greaves, Argive shie ld, Korinthian he lme t; otherwise nude. Right-hand group: all have greaves, Argive shie lds, Korinthian he lme ts. Foremost warrior has sword drawn; second has sword drawn and is e quippe d with two spears; re mainde r all equippe d with two spears. Date d to Early Protoattic period (670 to 640). Pe rgamonmuse um no. 31.573.141 (Berlin). Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 72 fig. 44; Morris 1984, pl. 8 (le ft). 163. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme ntary mug showing battle be twee n nake d warriors with shie lds, spears, and he lme ts; one warrior has falle n awkwardly. Date d to a round 660. Ke rame ikos Muse um 73. Refe re nces: Morris 1984, pl. 26 (le ft). 164. Ele usis (Attika). Skyphos from a grave at Ele usis. Side A: battle around a beache d ship. Ship has ram and horn, scorpion-tail ste rn. The vesse l is flanke d by two warriors, each

255

equippe d with Dipylon shie lds, three spears. Figure with bow on ship. Human figure at steering oar. Side B: to le ft, one human figure with sword carrying oblong object, ne xt: arche r. Centre , two horizontal figures (‘nude ’); no doubt corpses. To right, anothe r archer and a figure holding a spear in overhand position. He lme t types unknown. Date d to Middle Geome tric II pe riod (according to Coldstream 1968; Ahlbe rg 1971a, 39 be lieves it to be Late Geome tric). Ele usis no. 741. Re fe rences: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 34–37 figs. 42–43 and 96 fig. 105; Boardman 1998, 33 figs. 41.1–2; Höckmann 1980, 303 fig. 78.b. 165. Myrrhinous (Attika). Amphora. Five frie zes (two on neck, one on shoulde r, two on body). Ne ck: warriors with re ctangular shie lds; mourners be low. Shoulde r: grazing animals (hard to see on photos). Uppe r frie ze on body: procession of chariots (robe d charioteer, single whe e l; teams of two horses). Lowe r frie ze : procession of warriors: round shie lds (clear rim and pe rhaps e mblazone d?), creste d he lmets (Korinthian-type ?), two spears each. Attribute d to Philade lphia Painte r. Date d to Late Ge ome tric IIb pe riod. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971 b, fig. 35; Snodgrass 1964b, 5 and 6 nn. 15 and 17. 166. Vougliameni (Attika). Boiotian kantharos showing a warrior e quippe d with Dipylon-shie ld, plume d he lmet, and bow; he ight 6.1-6.4 cm. Date d to Late Geometric (second half e ighth century). He ide lbe rg G60. Re fere nces: CVA Germany 27, pl. 1313.8. 167. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Restore d Boiotian hydria. Chaotic. Presumably prothesis scene : unarme d figures with both hands he ld to head; arme d figures (with sword) holding one hand to the ir head. A number of horses are de picte d. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Louvre no. A575. Re fe rences: Ruckert 1976, pls. 15.3-5. 168. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Boiotian krater. Dipylon warriors, without we apons, on chariots drawn by one horse each. The chariots rese mble skate boards. Date d to Late Geome tric pe riod (c. 700 or slightly earlier, according to Rucke rt). Tuebinge n no. S./10 1239. Re fere nces: Rucke rt 1976, pl. 17.4. 169. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Restore d Boiotian pithos. A numbe r of frie zes. Rim shows the grazing animals. Frie ze dire ctly be low handles de picts galloping horses and at least one chariot with unarme d drive r (pe rhaps the painte r wishe d to indicate how many horses the re we re to a team by painting them one afte r the othe r). Ne xt frie ze : chariots (similar to the previous one ) clearly drawn by teams of two horses. Bottom frie ze: dee r and smalle r animals (snake , fish, perhaps others). Date d to Subgeome tric period. Musee Royaux d’Art e t d’Histoire no. A1036 (Brusse ls). Re fere nces: Rucke rt 1976, pls. 16.1–2 and 16.5. 170. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Boiotian amphora. From le ft to right: warrior with round shie ld, spear, and he lmet with drooping plume confronting a Dipylon warrior with spear and he lme t; chariot with two whe e ls in side -vie w, transporting warrior with re ctangular shie ld and spear in ove rhand position, unarme d charioteer, chariot drawn by team of two horses. Date d to Subgeome tric. Munich no. 2234. Re fere nces: Ahlbe rg 1971a, 43 fig. 46; Gree nhalgh 1973, 13 fig. 4. 171. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Boiotian Subge ome tric vase featuring a battle -sce ne be tween two warriors, one with round, the othe r with Dipylon shie ld; another warrior with re ctangular shie ld rides off on a chariot, holding a spear ove rhand. Date d to early seve nth ce ntury. Refe re nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 13 fig. 4. 172. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Boiotian kantharos. Chariot with unarme d drive r. Single whee l in side -vie w. Chariot is drawn by single horse. Anothe r horse is tie d be hind the chariot. Date d to Late Geometric pe riod (e nd of the e ighth ce ntury, according to Rucke rt). Göttinge n no. 533h. Re fere nces: Rucke rt 1976, pls. 26.1 and 26.3. 173. The bes (Boiotia). Boiotian oinochoe. Ne ck: two me n wrestling or boxing. Birds on shoulde r. Date d to Late Geometric pe riod (735-720, according to Rucke rt). Louvre no. A568. Re fere nces: Be nson 1970, pl. 37.5; Ruckert 1976, pl. 2.2-4. 174. The bes (Boiotia). Boiotian oinochoe. Neck: horse with pe nda nt double -axe . Shoulde r decorate d with bird motif. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Cope nhage n no. 5371. Re fere nces: Coldstream 1968, pl. 45.a; Rucke rt 1976, pl. 2.1. 175. The bes (Boiotia). Boiotian pyxis. Lid has decorative handle in shape of horse with small pot unde rneath; body de corate d with pictures of birds. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period. Be rlin no. 3143.6. Re fe rences: Ruckert 1976, pl. 21.3.

256

176. The bes (Boiotia). Boiotian oinochoe. Ne ck: warrior with sword at waist and two lines on e ithe r side of his body, holding two horses by the re ins. On the shoulde r, a horse lying down. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period (around 735, according to Ruckert). Athe ns National Muse um no. 236. Re fere nces: Rucke rt 1976, pl. 4.1. 177. The bes (Boiotia). Boiotian krater. Five figures, flanke d by horses. From le ft to right: small unarme d figure facing right; large figure with ball-shape d right hand (glove ?) confronting another large figure , with ball-shape d le ft hand; large figure facing right, lines at e ithe r side of body, holding a stick (? ); smalle r figure , facing right, with sword at waist and line s at e ither side of body, holding horse by re ins. Date d to Late Ge ometric pe riod (around 700, according to Ruckert). Athe ns National Muse um no. 12896. Re fere nces: Coldstream 1968, pls. 44.g and 44.j; Ruckert 1976, pl. 17.3; Kr 2. 178. The bes (Boiotia). Korinthian aryballos found at Thebes. From le ft to right: griffin; unarme d figure on horseback; small figure , stance possibly suggesting re ligious worship; ce ntral figure in long, checke re d dress, with round shie ld and spear ove rhead (the goddess Athe na?); anothe r figure , robe d; another unarme d figure on horse back. Possibly mythological. All figures are facing right. Date d to Early Protokorinthian period. Ashmolean muse um no. 504. Re fere nces: Johanse n 1923, pl. 20.1. 179. The bes (Boiotia). Aryballos found at Thebes, but of Korinthian make . Main frie ze : scene of battle . Many wear greaves; all of them are e quippe d with Argive shie lds decorate d with animal blazons. One side is e quippe d with normal Korinthian he lme ts, the other have stilte d crests. Appare ntly all are clothe d. They fight using spears; some are clutching an additional spear in the ir shie ld-hand. One warrior grasps the crest of a dead warrior lying on the ground. There are three pairs of warriors e ngaging in single combat. Date d to Middle II to Late Protokorinthian period. Louvre no. CA931. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 38; Boardman 1991 [1978], 42 fig. 41; Payne 1931, pls. 1:8-11. 180. The bes (Boiotia). So-calle d ‘Macmillan’ aryballos, found in Thebes, but of Korinthian make . Purporte dly by the same hand as the Chigi olpe . Three frie zes. Top: battle be tween uniformly equippe d warriors (only blazons are diffe re nt), with Argive shie lds, spears, and Korinthian he lme ts; some carry an additional spear in the ir shie ld-hand. Middle frie ze: youths on horseback at full gallop, moving le ft. Lowe r frie ze : hounds coursing hare . Top mode lle d in the shape of a lion’s head. Date d to Middle II to Late Protokorinthian period. British Muse um no. 1889.4-18.1. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 31 pls. 11:1a-b; Boardman 1998, 93 figs. 176.1-2; Morris 1984, pl. 24; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.24. 181. The bes-Pyri (Boiotia). Restore d Boiotian amphora. Be lly: warrior with sword and dagger, holding two large horses by the re ins. Date d to Late Geome tric period (around 690, according to Rucke rt). Thebes Muse um. Re fe rences: Ruckert 1976, pls. 13.2 and 14.4. 182. Capua (Campania). Ne ck amphora showing Achille us pursuing anothe r warrior (Troilos?) on horse back, who is turning around and readying an arrow. Anothe r archer be hind Achille us. Date d to Late Korinthian period, about 550. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 268; Carpe nte r 1991, 31 fig. 29. 183. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Korinthian krater, showing symposion sce ne in uppe r frie ze; horse race in lowe r frie ze . A dog is tie d be neath each couch in the symposion sce ne (thus, a krater featuring me n feasting, dogs, and horses: all aristocratic the mes). Date d to Early Korinthian pe riod. Louvre E635. Re fere nces : Boardman 1998, 198 figs 396.1–2. 184. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Large West-Gree k krater by Aristonothos: one side shows the blinding of Polyphe mos, the other a merchantman approache d by a warship. The me rchantman has a round bottom, while the warship has a sharp fore foot. Each vesse l has three warriors on the deck, e quippe d with shie lds, he lmets, and long spears. The warship furthermore features rowe rs, while the me rchantman is under sail. Date d to the Archaic pe riod. Rome , Conse rvatori. Re fere nces : Boardman 1998, 140 figs 282.1–2. 185. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Korinthian column krater showing He rakles firing arrows at a monste r, while He sione throws rocks at it. A chariot, turne d away from the battle , stands ready. Date d to Late Korinthian pe riod, around 550. Boston 63.420. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1998, 201 fig. 402; Carpe nte r 1991, 146 fig. 199. 186. Tarquinia (Etruria). Aryballos found in a tomb at Tarquinia , but of Korinthian make . Warriors in single combat, nude , but e quippe d with spears (ove rhand position), Korinthian

257

he lmets, and Argive shie lds. To le ft of due llists, unarme d youth on horseback; to right, horse. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Berlin no. F1056. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 97 pls. 44:3a–b. 187. Ve ii (Etruria). So-calle d ‘Chigi olpe’; found in an Etruscan tomb near Forme llo but of Korinthian make . Four frie zes. Uppe r frie ze : two groups of warriors about to fight, all equippe d with Argive shie lds, greaves, one or two spears, and Korinthian he lme ts. Some are nude , some wear tunics and/or be ll-shape d cuirasses. Far le ft: two warriors are still arming themse lves. A se t of spears side by side clearly shows that one is shorte r than the othe r. Moving to right: a group of warriors, appare ntly running to catch up with the foremost group. A pipe r is de picte d in be tween these two groups. The warriors in front are le ve lling the ir spears at the e nemy (overhand position). The e nemy troops are also divide d into two groups: of the one nearest to the ir oppone nts, the warriors are holding the ir spears in ove rhand position, the group behind, in unde rhand position, the spears protruding from be twee n the ir shie lds. Middle frie ze , from le ft to right: chariot with unarme d charioteer and youth leading the two horses; sphinx; group of me n killing a lion, one of whom is equippe d with a be ll-shape d cuirass; a nude figure is maule d by the lion. At far right, the Judge ment of Paris. Bottom frie ze : two youths and dogs, hunting rabbit or hare . Be low this frie ze: a dark band de corate d with a varie ty of running animals: dogs (and lions?), dee r, goats, and a hare. Date d to Middle II to Late Protokorinthian pe riod. Villa Giulia no. 22679. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 32; Be nson 1989, pl. 20.2 (de tail); Boardman 1998, figs. 178.1–3; Connolly 1988, 38–39 (re store d de tail); Hur wit 2002; Johanse n 1923, pls. 39–40. 188. Ere tria (Euboia). Fragme nts of amphora, showing me n jumping on or off chariots (apobatai); at least some of the drive rs are e quippe d with Dipylon shie lds. Some chariots are chase d (?) by dogs. Date d to Late Geometric. Re fere nces: Crouwe l 2006b, 167 fig. 6. 189. Ere tria (Euboia). Fragment of skyphos; graffito of ship (forward part missing), facing right, with sails de ploye d. Curve d scorpion-tail ste rn. Structure at top of mast may be a crow’s nest. Date d to Late Geometric pe riod. Re fere nces: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.e . 190. Le fkandi (Euboia). Hydria; on shoulde r: two human figures, with bow and arrow, facing each othe r. One figure ’s head is surrounde d by dots (he lme t?). Date d to Middle Protogeometric pe riod. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 20 fig. 15 (de tail). 191. Le fkandi (Euboia). Pyxis found at Toumba ceme tery; ship facing right, mast se t up, with some sort of rigging in be twee n mast and prow. A pair of large spears (i.e., ‘sea pikes’) are se t against the vesse l’s stern. Horizontal lines may re present de cking or railing. Date d to be twee n 850 and 825. Re fe rences: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.b; C rie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2g; Popham 1987, 357 fig. 4. 192. Le fkandi (Euboia). Fragment of krate r wall; ship with small forefoot and large horn. Only the forward section of the ship is prese rve d. Date d to Subprotogeome tric. Re fe rences: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.c; Crie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2f; Popham et al. 1979, pl. 284.11. 193. Samos (Ionia). Cup. Athe na with shie ld and spear, touche d by sphinx; Ke ntaur, caldroun decorate d with griffins, dee r (stag), leopard or lion attacking man. Date d to around 690 or 680. Re fe rences: Walter 1990, 108 fig. 122. 194. Samos (Ionia). Ring-vase de corate d with multiple heads of animals and humans, including the head of a warrior e quippe d with Ionian-type he lme t. Date d to around 600. Re fere nces: Walte r 1990, 94 fig. 106. 195. Prove nance unknown to me (Korinthia). Cup. One fully-arme d warrior in pursuit of anothe r. The re are two youths on horseback, one rushing off, away from the heavy -armed warriors and toward two nude figures at le ft, while the other follows the pursuing heavy-arme d warrior, presumably his maste r (hippobatas). Date d to Middle Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 97 fig. 50. 196. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos, attribute d to the Eve lyn Painter. Warrior with Argive shie ld, sword, spear, and he lmet with stilte d crest following an unarme d ride r. Animals and plants (possibly one re prese nting the Tree of Life ) decorate the remainder of this aryballos. Date d to Early Protokorinthian pe riod. London no. 1969.12-15.1. Re fe rences: Amyx 1988, 17; Boardman 1998, 91 figs. 166.1–2; Coldstream 1977, 172 figs. 56.b–c; Greenhalgh 1973, 58 fig. 37; Nee ft 1987, 67 fig. 15.a; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.3.

258

197. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos. Uppe r frie ze : chariot drawn by a team of two horses, followe d by a figure leading a horse , holding some thing overhead. Charioteer unarme d. Chariot confronte d by man arme d with spear he ld in overhand position, running figure be hind him. Another figure falls on his sword (pre sumably re presents the suicide of Aias). Lowe r frie ze : animals (goat, ram, lion, bull). Date d to Middle Protokorinthian I to II period. Be rlin no. 3319. Re fe rences: Amyx 1988, 23 pls. 5:1a–b. 198. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos. Inte rprete d as a sce ne of myh. Figures on horseback approaching from le ft may re prese nt the Dioskouroi. Woman possibly He le n, abducte d by These us (to right), who is arme d with a spear. At far right, figure brandishing a sword, pe rhaps re prese nting Pe irithoös. Date d to Middle Protokorinthian I to II pe riod. Louvre no. CA617. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 23; Johanse n 1923, pl. 22.1; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.2. 199. Korinth (Korinthia). Alabastron. A ‘still life ’ de picting weapons and armour: sword (in scabbard), greaves, two spears (one shorte r than the other and e quippe d with a throwing-loop), be ll-shape d cuirass, and Korinthian he lme t. Date d to Late Proto - to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Staatliche Musee n no. 3148 (Berlin). Re fe rences: Snodgrass 1964b, pl. 33. 200. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos. Two ride rs at full gallop; dresse d, but unarme d. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Kae pe lli no. 408 (Luce rne ). Re fe rences: Amyx 1988, 114 pl. 47:5. 201. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos. At le ft, dismounte d warrior with Argive shie ld, greaves, and single spear, labe lle d hippobatas. In front of this figure , an unarme d youth on horse back leading a second horse (the warrior’s) and labe lle d hippostrophos. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Athe ns National Muse um no. 341. Re fere nces: Alföldi 1967, 14 fig. 1; Greenhalgh 1973, 58 fig. 36; Payne 1931, 287 no. 482. 202. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos. Three riders, two confronting. The y are clothe d, but unarme d. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian period. London no. 1958.1-14.1. Re fe rences: Amyx 1988, 98 pl. 44:5. 203. Korinth (Korinthia). Fragme nts. Four figures: nude warrior on foot with Korinthian he lmet and Argive shie ld e ngage d in due l with anothe r warrior (only rim of shie ld preserve d); fully-arme d warrior on horseback (Korinthian he lmet, Argive shie ld, spear), and; unarme d youth on horse back. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Pe rachora no. 2434. Re fere nces: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 97; Gree nhalgh 1973, 86 fig. 46. 204. Korinth (Korinthia). Warriors with Korinthian he lme ts, Argive shie lds, and spears e ngaging in single combat. One warrior is nude , the other clothe d. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Kae pe lli no. 407 (Luce rne ). Refe re nces: Amyx 1988, 114 pl. 47:6. 205. Korinth (Korinthia). Aryballos. Single combat be twee n warriors, nude but e quippe d with Korinthian he lmets, Argive shie lds, and spears (overhand position). The combatants are flanke d on e ithe r side by horses. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. London no. 1922.10-17.1. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 97 pl. 44:4. 206. Korinth (Korinthia). Oinochoe. Battle be twee n heavy-arme d warriors (equippe d with Korinthian he lme ts, single spears, swords at the ir waists, greaves). In the ir midst is the knee ling figure of an arche r, prote cte d by the shie ld of one of the warriors. Also de picte d are a numbe r of horseme n, equippe d with he lme ts (with stilte d crests) and spears, but they have no body-armour of any kind (no greaves, no corse le ts, no cuirasses), or shie lds. One of the ride rs has two spears. Date d to Middle Ripe Korinthian pe riod. London no. 1814.7-4.491 (OC421). Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 99 fig. 52; Payne 1931, no. 1090. 207. Korinth (Korinthia). Fragments of column krater. Warrior on horseback, equippe d with round shie ld (note rim and whirligig de coration), two spears, and Korinthian he lme t. Outline of second horse, presumably use d by his squire . Date d to Middle Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Korinth no. CP-2634. Re fe re nces: Amyx and Lawre nce 1975, pl. 35.181. 208. Lechaion (Korinthia). Aryballos unearthe d in the ceme te ry at Lechaion. Sce ne of battle . From le ft to right: nude figure , facing right, stabbing a nude arche r in the back; figure with checke re d clothing, he lme t with stilte d crest, Argive shie ld, and spear in underhand position, facing right; nude (?) warrior facing le ft with Korinthian he lme t, holding Dipylon shie ld and spear in le ft hand, another spear in right hand (overhand position); nude warrior with he lmet with stilte d crest, Dipylon shie ld and spear in le ft hand, another spear in right hand

259

(ove rhand position), facing le ft; warrior, moving le ft but craning ne ck to look back, nude , Korinthian he lmet, drawing sword from scabbard; nude warrior with Korinthian he lme t, Dipylon shie ld in front of him, touching crest of last warrior with le ft hand, holding spear in right (ove rhand). Date d to Early Protokorinthian period. Korinth no. CP-2096. Re fe rences: Amyx 1988, 25 pls. 6:1a–e; Boardman 1998, 92 figs. 171.1–2; Shanks 1999, 141 fig. 3.33.3. 209. Pe rachora (Korinthia). Cup. From le ft to right: nude figure , moving right, facing le ft; sphinx, facing right; warrior with Korinthian he lmet, Argive shie ld, two spears, moving right; sphinx, facing le ft; two warriors with Argive shie lds (note blazons), Korinthian he lmets, and spears, in single combat. Date d to Middle Protokorinthian I to II period. Pe rachora no. 673. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 25; Dunbabin 1962, pl. 30; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.19.3. 210. Pe rachora (Korinthia). Fragme ntary aryballos. From le ft to right: pipe r playing double -flute ; knee ling archer; warrior with Dipylon shie ld, Korinthian he lme t, and spear in ove rhand position; warrior with Argive shie ld, Korinthian he lme t, and spear in overhand position. The se are all facing right. Other group (oppone nts), facing le ft, continuing from le ft to right: warrior with Dipy lon shie ld, Korinthian he lme t, struck by arrow in shin; warrior with Korinthian he lmet, something in hand (stone?). The n: facing right, warrior with Dipylon shie ld; facing le ft, warrior with shie ld (round?), Korinthian he lmet; another figure. Date d to Middle Protokorinthian I to II pe riod. Perachora no. 27. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 25; Dunbabin 1962, 15–17 pls. 2 and 57; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.23. 211. Pe rachora (Korinthia). Aryballos. Two warriors, one nude , the other (partly) dresse d (cuirass?), e quippe d with Korinthian he lme ts, spears (overhand), greaves, and Argive shie lds, in single combat. Flanke d on e ithe r side by an unarme d youth on horse back. Dated to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Pe rachora no. 1571. Re fe rences: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 61; Greenhalgh 1973, 85 fig. 45. 212. Pe rachora (Korinthia). Fragment of a pyxis, showing an archer knee ling be hind a heavily-arme d warrior. Date d to Middle Korinthian pe riod, about 600 to 575. Perachora 1842. Re fere nces: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 78; Van Wees 2000b, 153 fig. 17.d. 213. Pe rachora (Korinthia). Fragme nt. Fully-arme d warrior with Argive shie ld, Korinthian he lmet, two spears, and greaves on horseback. Note the outline of a second horse, presumably ridde n by his squire . Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian period. Perachora no. 1556. Re fere nces: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 61; Gree nhalgh 1973, 87 fig. 47. 214. Pe rachora (Korinthia). Aryballos. To le ft, fully-arme d warrior. To right, a fully-arme d warrior leaping from horseback, ready to confront his oppone nt. The warrior is equippe d with Korinthian he lme t, Argive shie ld, greaves, and spear (overhand). Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Pe rachora no. 1590. Re fere nces: Dunbabin 1962, pl. 61; Gree nhalgh 1973, 87 fig. 48. 215. Chania (Kre te ). Pot found at Chania (Kre te ), but made in Euboia; team of horses moving right, yoke d to a chariot. Chariot contains two human figures: one unarme d (drive r), the other equippe d with dipylon shie ld, and at least two spears, he lmet with drooping plume . Date d to Late Geometric pe riod. He raklion muse um. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 57 fig. 77. 216. Mouliana (Kre te ). Mounte d warrior, equippe d with spear, he lmet, and possib ly a shie ld (or quiver?); from a vase found in a cre mation burial. Date d to probably te nth ce ntury. He raklion 3742. Re fe re nces: Crouwe l 1981, pl. 70 (V57); Gree nhalgh 1973, 47. 217. Te ke (Kre te ). Krater showing a warrior dresse d in a fringe d tunic and e quippe d with a re ctangular shie ld (single -grip) and spear; also prese nt a hunte r, similarly e quippe d but lacking the shie ld (one spear has already struck a stag). Date d to Early Protogeome tric pe riod. He rakle ion, Te ke Tomb F. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 21 figs 22.1-2. 218. Paroikia (Kyklades). Amphora found in the main ceme tery at Paros. Fully-arme d horse men e quippe d with spears and swords, seem poise d to attack various types of warriors: a Dipylon warrior, ‘nude ’ figures, and so forth. Also note warrior on chariot, who seems to be active ly taking part in the battle , fighting from the chariot, and rushing to mee t a warrior with a round shie ld (Argive?). Corpses litte r the battle fie ld. Date d to Late Geome tric period (some what earlier than the ne xt pot). Re fe rences: Zaphiropoulou 2002, pl. 76A; Zaphiropoulou 2006, 272 figs. 1–4 and 275 fig. 11.

260

219. Paroikia (Kyklades). Amphora from the main ceme tery at Paros. Prothesis sce ne on ne ck. Shoulder: corpse flanke d by warriors. Be lly: various kinds of troops, those with shie lds (‘heavy’) and those without (‘light’). He avy troops e quippe d with he lme ts (stilte d crests) and round, presumably Argive shie lds. Corpse . One heavy-arme d warrior is e quippe d with a bow, confronting slinge rs. Be hind this last heavy-arme d warrior is another arche r (‘nude ’), and a number of horseme n. Date d to Late Geome tric period (late r than the pre vious pot). Re fere nces: Zaphiropoulou 2002, pl. 76B–D; Zaphiropoulou 2006, 273 figs. 5–8 and 274 fig. 9 (de tail of prothesis sce ne ). 220. Prove nance unknown to me (Lakonia). Lakonian cup attribute d to the Hunt Painte r, the inside of which shows youths e quippe d with spears and greaves carrying dead older me n. Only two of the youths and the ir burde n are shown in de tail, but othe r youths are shown on e ithe r side of these two, also carrying corpses. This probably re prese nts young me n (sons?) carrying the bodie s of falle n (older) warriors (fathers?) off the battle fie ld. Date d to around 550 to 540. Be rlin 3404. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1998, 210 fig. 428; Se kunda 1998, 19 (fig.); Stibbe 1972, pl. 74.1 (no. 218). 221. Me los (Me los). Wide -mouthe d vesse l. Main scene is one of mythology: a chariot with Apollo and two maide ns is drawn by a team of four winge d horses. The scene on the neck shows a due l be tween two warriors (Argive shie lds and greaves). One wears a Korinthian or Ionian he lmet; othe r an ope n-face d he lme t with stilte d crest and be ll-shape d cuirass, sword at waste . Both me n hold the ir spears ove rhead. In be twee n the me n is a be ll-shape d cuirass, flanke d by greaves and toppe d by a Korinthian he lme t (prize?). Flanke d by a woman on e ithe r side . Date d to the last quarte r of the se venth ce ntury. Athe ns National Muse um no. 911 (Boardman 1998 also lists no. 3961?). Re fere nces: Boardman 1985, 47 fig. 42; Boa rdman 1998, 128–129 figs. 250.1–2; Osborne 1998, 62 fig. 27. 222. Brindisi (Puglia). Korinthian aryballos found in Italy. From le ft to right: warriors with Korinthian he lme ts, two spears each, Argive shie lds, in single combat; bird; lion attacking goat; man attacking a woman with knife ; rabbit or hare ; two sphinxes with a chicke n (cock?) in the middle . Date d to Middle Protokorinthian period. Brindisi no. 1609. Re fere nces: Be nson 1989, 50; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.29. 223. Taras (Puglia). Aryballos found in Italy but of Korinthian make . Top frie ze : hunt (or race?) with unarme d me n on horseback, dog. Unarme d figures at le ft with tripod. Middle frie ze : wild animals. Lowe r frie ze : hounds coursing hare. Date d to Middle II to Late Protokorinthian period. Taranto no. 4173. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 38; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.19.4. 224. Kame iros (Rhodes). So-calle d ‘Euphorbos plate ’. Possibly inscribe d by an Argive judging by the inscription (Boardman 1998, 143). He ktor and Me ne laos fighting ove r the corpse of Euphorbos. He ktor has a Korinthian he lmet, greaves, and a be ll-shape d cuirass; bird-blazon on Argive shie ld. Both Me ne laos and Euphorbos similarly e quippe d, but he lmets with stilte d crests and of darke r colour than He ktor’s Korinthian he lmet. Date d to Middle Wild Goat Style pe riod (toward end of se ve nth century). London no. 1860.4-4.1. Re fe rences: Boardman 1998, 154 fig. 290; Carpe nter 1991, 221 fig. 311; Snodgrass 1998, 105 fig. 42. 225. Rhodes (Rhodes). Aryballos found in Rhodes, but of Korinthian make . Single combat be twee n warriors with Argive shie lds and Korinthian he lmets, fighting with spears in ove rhand position. One figure is nude , the othe r dresse d (the latter perhaps wears a cuirass?). Flanke d by panthers. Date d to Early Ripe Korinthian pe riod. Rhodes no. 13008. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 96 pls. 44:1a-b. 226. Samothrace (Samothrakia). Alabastron de picting He rakle s and two companions fighting Amazons le d by Androme da; He rakles and his followe rs are e quippe d as heavily -armoured spearme n, while one of the Amazones fights as an archer. Date d to Early Korinthian period. Lost. Re fere nces: Van Wees 2000b, 143 fig. 12. 227. Ge la (Sicily). Aryballos; found in Sicily but of Korinthian make . Main frie ze de picts battle . From le ft to right: warrior with greaves, Korinthian he lme t, spear (ove rhand), greaves, Argive shie ld--othe rwise nude --confronting a clothe d warrior, with greaves, Korinthian he lmet, Argive shie ld, and spear (unde rhand); two other similar warriors in single combat, one has an oblong, possibly single -grip shie ld with boss, fighting ove r a corpse; two othe r, similar warriors in single combat; another due l betwee n sim ilarly equippe d warriors over a

261

corpse . Frie ze be low: lion, de e r, griffin, bull. Date d to Middle II to Late Protokorinthian pe riod. Re fere nces: Amyx 1988, 38; Johansen 1923, pl. 34.2; Shanks 1999, fig. 2.3. 228. Syrakousai (Sicily). Aryballos from the Athe naion at Syrakousai, but of Korinthian make . A chariot race (moving right). Each chariot is drawn by a team of two horses. Charioteers unarme d. Figure at far right may re prese nt the re feree? Tripod like ly prize . Date d to Middle II to Late Protokorinthian pe riod. Refe re nces: Amyx 1988, 44; Johanse n 1923, pl. 34.1; Shanks 1999, fig. 3.34. 229. Thasos (Thasos). Fragme nts of a Kykladic (Thasian?) plate showing a ride r in a tunic holding the re igns of a second horse (its head is clearly visible be hind that of the ride r ’s own horse ). Date d to the sixth century. Thasos 2057. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 131 fig. 255.

Attic black-figure and bilingual pottery 230. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure lekanis lid attribute d to the C (‘Corinthianising’) Painter, showing two ride rs in front: the one visible is unarmoure d and holds a single spear overhead, ready to be thrown (Gree nhalgh suggests light cavalry, but they might just as we ll be scouts). Be hind the m follows the rest of the army: re gular warriors on foot as we ll as hippobatai that have dismounte d and are walking beside the ir horses. Greenhalgh be lie ves these dismounte d me n to be ‘officers’ to each of the ‘phalanxes’ of ‘hoplite s’ on foot, but other inte rpretations are possible . Date d to betwee n 575 and 550. Naple s. Refe re nces: Ande rson 1961, pl. 29; Gree nhalgh 1973, 112 fig. 56. 231. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure amphora, attribute d to the painte r of Akropolis 606, showing a hippobatas riding right to le ft; tripod blazon. Date d to be tween 575 and 525. Tubinge n S101298. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 81; CVA Germany 44, pls. 2132.1 and 2133.1-2. 232. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure tripod pyxis attribute d to the C (‘Corinthianising’) Painte r: one frie ze shows a battle be tween warriors (a mass of various small e ncounte rs betwee n two to three warriors each). Date d to around 570 to 560. Louvre CA616. Re fere nces: Van Wees 2004, 178 fig. 21.b. 233. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure dinos by the Painte r of Akropolis 606 (name vase ): four-horse chariot and warriors in full armour (he lme ts, greaves, shie lds, cuirasses); at least one figure carries two spears. Date d to be tween 570 and 560. Akropolis Muse um 606. Re fe rences: Beazley 1956, 81; Boardman 1991 [1974], 45 fig. 47. 234. Prove nance unknown to me . Fragment of an Attic black-figure kantharos signe d by Ne archos: Achille us with his horses (yoke d). Achille us wears greaves and a be ll-shape d cuirass (othe rwise nake d); his he lme t and se t of two spears are be hind him. Date d to be tween 570 and 555. Akropolis 611. Re fere nces: Anderson 1961, pl. 14; Beazley 1956, 82; Boardman 1991 [1974], 46 fig. 49. 235. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase . Riders with spears in ove rhand position fighting horse -archers: Gree nhalgh and Ande rson inte rpre t this sce ne as de picting Gree k mounte d jave lineers fighting barbarian horse -archers. Date d to around 565. Athens 15.116 (formerly Akropolis 606). Re fere nces: Anderson 1961, pl. 30.a; Greenhalgh 1973, 115 fig. 58. 236. Prove nance unknown to me . Tyrrhe nian amphora attribute d to the Timiades Painte r, showing Ne optole mos in full armour (no shie ld) sacrificing Polyxe na while othe r warriors (all name d and armoure d) hold her above the make shift altar. The sce ne is flanke d by Nestor and Phoinix, shown in e laborate dress holding spears ; Phoinix looks away from the sacrifice. Date d to betwee n 565 and 550. London 97.7-27.2. Re fe rences: Beazley 1956, 97; Boardman 1991 [1974], 50 fig. 57; Carpe nte r 1991, 29 fig. 23. 237. Prove nance unknown to me . Tyrrhe nian amphora attribute d to the Caste llani Painte r: Apollo and Arte mis, both with he lme ts and swords, use the ir bows to shoot down Tityos. Date d to be twee n 565 and 550. Louvre E864. Re fe re nces: Beazle y 1956, 97; Boardman 1991 [1974], 50 fig. 59. 238. Prove nance unknown to me . Tyrrhe nian amphora attribute d to the Caste llani Painte r: Apollo and Arte mis shoot the childre n of Niobe ; Arte mis wears a he lme t. Date d to be tween 565 and 550. Hamburg 1960.1. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 50 fig. 60.

262

239. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure amphora, showing hippobatas and hippostrophos riding side by side (latter also equippe d with a single spear). Date d to around 560. Nape ls 81292. Refe re nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 119 fig. 61. 240. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure amphora by the Painter of London B76: Achille us, in full armour (he lme t, Boiotian shie ld) ambushing Troilos (unarme d youth on horse back) and Polyxe na (knee ling in front of the fountain). Date d to around 560. London 97.7-21.2. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 86; Boardman 1991 [1974], 48 fig. 55. 241. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic black-figure neck amphora, attribute d to the Camtar Painte r: Achille us arming; Boiotian shie ld, greaves, be ll-shape d cuirass, Korinthian he lmet (stilte d crest). Achille us is dresse d in a short tunic. Date d to around 560. Boston 21.21. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 84; Boardman 1991 [1974], 48 fig. 53. 242. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Camtar Painte r: warriors e ngage d in combat, nake d or e quippe d with a cuirass; all we ar he lme ts, greaves, and carry shie lds, the y fight with spears. Date d to around 560. Base l (Bloch Collection). Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 47 fig. 52. 243. Prove nance unknown to me . Fragme nts of a black-figure dinos signe d by Lydos: Gigantomachy, including Artemis and he r bow, Aphrodite e quippe d with shie ld and spear fighting a giant (shie ld with wasp de vice , he lme t), anothe r god (Ares?) with a three -dime nsional shie ld blazon fighting a giant. Date d to betwee n 560 and 540. Akropolis 607. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 107; Boa rdman 1991 [1974], 66 figs 64.1–4. 244. Prove nance unknown to me . Black-figure oinochoe potte d by Kolchos and painte d by Lydos: Herakles, arme d with shie ld and spear (no greaves) fights Ares (full armour and shie ld) over the body of Kyknos; prese nce of some sort of arbite r (ce ntre ), chariots and the ir drive rs turne d away from battle at flank, with Athe na be twee n Herakles and his chariot. Date d to be twee n 560 and 540. Munich 8760. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 69 fig. 68. 245. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure hydria attribute d to the Painter of Vatican 309: He rakles draws his sword and comes to rescue De iane ira from Nessos. Date d to be twee n 560 and 540. Louvre E803. Re fe re nces: Beazley 1956, 120; Boardman 1991 [1974], 71 fig. 74. 246. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic lip cup attribute d to the Epitimos Painte r: the giant Enke lados raises his spear, confronting Athe na. To the lowe r le ft of the giant, a peltast. Dated to be tween 560 and 530. Cope nhagen 13966. Re fe rences: Best 1969, pls. 1.a–c; Boardman 1991 [1974], 89 figs 121.1–2. 247. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Amasis Painte r: Me ne laos in line n cuirass, greaves, he lme t, draws his sword; ne xt to him, He le n; both figures flanke d by me n carrying spears. Date d to be twee n 560 and 525. Private collection in Great-Britain. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 77 fig. 90. 248. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure be lly-amphora attribute d to the Amasis Painte r: ride rs e quippe d with spears (one each); coursing hound (a hunting sce ne?). Date d to be twee n 560 and 525. Munich 8763. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 77 fig. 91. 249. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure cup showing warriors (one nude , the othe r wearing a tunic), both with single spears, engage d in combat, while two light-armed ride rs with spears appear to charge into the sce ne; Greenhalgh suggests these men are light cavalry. Date d to around 550. Taranto. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 114 fig. 57. 250. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure neck amphora attribute d to Group E: He rakles fights the Nemean lion with a sword; me n and Ke ntaurs (some arme d with swords). Date d to be twee n 550 and 530. Ashmolean 1965.135. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 137; Boardman 1991 [1974], 78 fig. 94. 251. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase showing a warrior with Boiotian shie ld bidding fare we ll while the re verse shows his hippostrophos holding his horse; the hippostrophos carries a spear, as do the two me n flanking him. Date d to betwee n 550 and 525. Warsaw 142320. Re fere nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 120 fig. 63. 252. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure band cup showing a group of horseme n, all e quippe d with spears he ld in overhand position, charging a group of warriors on foot.

263

The warriors are all nude apart from the ir shie lds and he lme ts; the y have one spear each. Date d to be twee n 550 and 525. Be rlin 1797. Re fere nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 123 fig. 65. 253. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure pl. showing a ride r e quippe d with be ll-shape d cuirass, he lmet, and single spear (no shie ld). Date d to be twee n 550 and 525. Le ipzig T314. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 116. 254. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure cup showing a battle be tween warriors on horseback and on foot. Most of the horseme n use spears; one of them is armoure d and equippe d with shie ld, ready to charge an armoure d warrior on foot (an e xtreme ly rare de piction); another horse man is a mounte d arche r (not a ‘barbarian’). Note that this cup has bee n heavily restore d (portions dubious). Date d to be twee n 550 and 525. Louvre F72. Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 121 fig. 64. 255. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black figure plate , reconstructe d from fragme nts, showing a ride r equippe d with be ll-shape d cuirass, he lme t, and two spears. The figure is surrounde d by me n carrying spears. Be neath the main sce ne , hound coursing hare ; cattle along the plate ’s rim. Exact prove nance unknown (auction). Date d to third quarter of the sixth century. He ide lbe rg 68/2. Refe re nces: Boardman 1998, 234 fig. 464; CVA Germany 31, pls. 1503.1-4. 256. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase showing a hippobatas dismounting; hippostrophos de picte d ne xt to him. Date d to betwee n 550 and 525. London B191. Re fe rences: Brouwe rs 2007a, 311 fig. 7; Gree nhalgh 1973, 120 fig. 62. 257. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure eye cup, showing on one side the head of Athe na wearing crestless he lme t, on the othe r a warrior with he lme t equippe d with stilte d crest. Date d to be twee n 550 and 500. Tole do 67.135. Re fere nces: CVA USA 17, pls. 817.1-2 and 818.1. 258. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure neck amphora, showing a battle be twee n a small number of warriors, one of whom is e quippe d with a Boiotian shie ld; also prese nt is a chariot (charioteer has a Boiotian shie ld slung around his back), as we ll as a ride r (horse rampant). Date d to betwee n 550 and 500. Base l BS1921.329. Re fere nces: CVA Switzerland 4, pls. 182.1–4. 259. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure be lly amphora by Exe kias: Aias putting his sword hilt do wn in a small heap of sand as he pre pares to commit suicide by throwing himse lf on the blade . Date d to betwee n 545 and 530. Boulogne 558. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 145; Boardman 1991 [1974], 81 fig. 101 (de tail); Carpe nter 1991, 230 fig. 332. 260. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure neck amphora by Exe kias: Memnon, in full armour, and an African assistant, ‘Amasis’, e quippe d with pelte-shie ld and club; another African squire to le ft. Date d to be twee n 545 and 530. London B209. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 144; Boardman 1991 [1974], 81 fig. 99 (de tail); Carpe nter 1991, 227 fig. 324. 261. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure psykter signe d by Nikosthe nes, attribute d to Painte r N: battle of gods and giants. The giants are all uniformly equippe d, which is customary, and wear bronze cuirasses, he lmets, greaves, and are equippe d with e ithe r Argive or Boiotian shie lds, and spears; includes a chariot. Date d to be twee n 545 and 510. Houston (de Me nil Colle ction). Refe re nces : Boardman 1991 [1974], 100-101 figs 154.1–2. 262. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure ne ck amphora attribute d to the Affe cter: Ze us and Hermes, the latte r carrying his sce ptre , the othe r figures (gods?) carry spears. Dated to betwee n 540 and 520. Ashmolean 509. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 239; Boardman 1991 [1974], 101 fig. 155. 263. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure amphora (type C) attribute d to the Affecte r: men in e laborate dress carrying spears, apart from ce ntre figure in short tunic. Date d to be twee n 540 and 520. London B150. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 246; Boardman 1991 [1974], 101 fig. 156. 264. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure platte r fragment from the Akropolis, showing a warship with at le ast two warriors (epibatai or ‘marines’) standing on the deck. The y are nude e xce pt for the ir greaves, shie lds, and he lme ts; the y are equippe d with single spears. Date d to around 530. Athe ns 2414. Refe re nces: Fie lds 2007, 16 (fig.).

264

265. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure amphora attribute d to the Andokides Painte r: warrior in full armour, including thigh guards, equippe d with Boiotian shie ld and he lmet with two crests; single thrusting spear. Date d to betwee n 530 and 520. Louvre G1. Re fere nces: Van Wees 2000b, 135 fig. 8.b. 266. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Group of Toronto 305: warriors are pre paring to leave home . At le ft, a warrior with two spears, shie ld, greaves, and he lme t stands with his back turne d towards a woman; at ce ntre , dog be neath two horses, one mounte d by a squire carrying two spears; at right, heavily -arme d warrior with two spears standing ne xt to a Skythian arche r. Date d to be twee n 530 and 510. Ne w York 41.85. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 283; Boardman 1991 [1974], 130 fig. 196. 267. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Antime nes Painte r: warriors with shie lds, spears (one carrying a se t of two) and followe d by a Skythian arche r read the e ntrails of a sacrifice d animal he ld out by a boy. Date d to be tween 530 and 510. Brusse ls R291. Re fe rences: Beazley 1956, 270; Boardman 1991 [1974], 126 fig. 187. 268. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Antime nes Painte r: He rakle s fights the lion using his sword. Date d to betwee n 530 and 510. Capesthorne Hall (Bromle y-Dave nport Collection). Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 127 fig. 189. 269. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure ne ck amphora, showing two warriors playing a boardgame. They have place d the ir he lme ts with stilte d crests o n top of the ir (Boiotian) shie lds, positione d behind them. The y are e quippe d with greaves and possibly thigh guards; the figure on the le ft wears a be ll-shape d cuirass. Date d to last quarte r of the sixth ce ntury. Re fe rences: Buchholz 1987, 151 fig. 55.c. 270. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure plate by Psiax: a warrior with greaves and he lme t blowing a trumpe t. Date d to betwee n 525 and 500. London B590. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 294; Boardman 1991 [1974], 119 fig. 169. 271. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure cup of the so-calle d ‘Flowe r-Palme tte ’ (FP) Class: the paths of a round-bottome d ship (merchantman) and bireme (warship) cross. Date d to be twee n 525 and 500. London B436. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 123 fig. 180. 272. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure cup (type C) of the so-calle d Class of Topband Ste mlesses: warrior acrobat, equippe d with shie ld, he lme t, and greaves. Date d to be twee n 525 and 500. Würzburg 428. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 125 fig. 184. 273. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Three -line Group: Achille us fighting an e ne my (Memnon?), while another warrior has fallen to the ground. The men are e quippe d with full armour, Argive or Boiotian shie ld, and a single thrusting spear each; battle is flanke d by female onlooke rs. Date d to betwee n 520 and 510. Brusse ls A712. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 320; Boardman 1991 [1974], 138 fig. 217. 274. Prove nance unknown to me . An Attic black-figure hydria of the Leagros Group: Achille us, carrying a shie ld with a whee l of legs motif e mblazone d on it (common), pre pares to drag the nake d body of He ktor be hind his chariot. Date d to betwee n 520 and 500. Boston 63.473. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 133 fig. 203; Carpe nte r 1991, 223 fig. 316. 275. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase showing Skythian horse man (le ft) about to finish off a falle n heavily-arme d warrior (unde rfoot) with his spear; he carries a second spear and is equippe d with a sword. Another horseman (right) equippe d with two spears see ms poise d to attack the Skythian. The falle n warrior also has two spears. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. Munich. Re fere nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 149 fig. 78. 276. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure fragme nts showing a clash be twee n horse men arme d with spears and e quippe d with he lme ts and greaves. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. Louvre C10354. Refe re nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 128 fig. 69. 277. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase showing clash betwee n two horse men, one in a bronze cuirass (both with greaves, he lme ts, swords, and spears); a fallen warrior with cuirass, he lmet, shie ld, and single spear underfoot. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. Würzburg 206. Re fe rences: Gree nhalgh 1973, 129 fig. 70. 278. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure amphora showing a clash betwee n a hippobatas and a mounte d Amazon, both e quippe d with double spears, while a second

265

Amazon lies on the ground. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. Brusse ls R300. Re fe rences: Greenhalgh 1973, 132 fig. 71. 279. Prove nance unknown to me . Black figure sce ne: heavily-arme d warriors (‘hoplites’) accompanie d by Skythian arche rs. Late sixth ce ntury. Basle marke t. Re fere nces: Vos 1963, pl. 5.a. 280. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase . The be lly shows how a four-horse chariot is harnesse d; the chariotee r is shown we aring a long white robe . The shoulde r de picts a battle -sce ne: men are fighting while a four-horse chariot storms into the sce ne; the charioteer appare ntly has a Boiotian shie ld slung around his back. The horses gallop over a corpse . The warriors are e quippe d with Argive shie lds and Korinthian he lmets; at far right, a Skythian arche r. Frie ze near bottom shows ride rs and me n on foot hunting boar. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. London B304. Re fe re nces: Anderson 1961, pl. 16 (be lly); Gree nhalgh 1973, 26. 281. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure sce ne , showing warriors de parting for battle on a chariot (one charioteer equippe d with two spears). Also present are Skythian arche rs and othe r warriors. Late sixth ce ntury. London B426. Re fere nces: Vos 1963, pl. 3. 282. Prove nance unknown to me . Black-figure sce ne showing heavily-arme d warriors crouching amid bushes (ambush), with a Skythian arche r in front of them all, crouching and taking aim. All of the ‘hoplites’ are equippe d with Korinthian he lme ts (stilte d and normal crests; those with normal crests also have two feathe rs on e ithe r side of the crest), Argive shie lds, greaves, and be ll-shape d cuirasses. Late sixth century. Ne w York 26.60.76 (Fle tcher Fund). Re fe rences: Vos 1963, pl. 8. 283. Prove nance unknown to me . Black-figure sce ne showing a battle be twee n heavily-arme d warriors. one equippe d with a Boiotian shie ld; the battle is flanke d on e ither side by a crouching Skythian archer. Late sixth ce ntury. Le ide n Vst25. Re fe rences: Vos 1963, pl. 7. 284. Prove nance unknown to me . Black figure sce ne: heavily-arme d warriors accompanie d by Skythian arche rs. One of the warriors has a shie ld featuring a blazon in the shape of an anchor. Late sixth century. Le ide n PC51. Re fe rences: Vos 1963, pl. 5.b. 285. Prove nance unknown to me . An Attic black-figure amphorea, showing Diome de s and He ktor fighting ove r the body of ‘Skythe s’, who is de picte d as a Skythian arche r. The warriors are equippe d with Argive shie lds, Korinthian he lme ts, be ll-shape d cuirasses, greaves, and single thrusting spears. Date d to late sixth ce ntury. Musee Pince . Re fe rences: Van Wees 2000b, 128 fig. 2; Van Wees 2004, 176 fig. 19; Vos 1963, pl. 6.a. 286. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure cup, showing a griffin on one side , and a Skythian archer e quippe d with an axe on the othe r, running right to le ft. Late sixth ce ntury. Angers, Musee Pince . Refe re nces: Vos 1963, pls. 1.a-b. 287. Prove nance unknown to me . Black-figure scene showing Skythians on horseback, equippe d with double spears and accompanie d by hounds; hunting scene or warfare? Late sixth ce ntury. Louvre F248. Re fe rences: Vos 1963, pl. 12.a. 288. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure dish with, inte rior, a sce ne of two warriors (he roes) playing a board game . The warriors are e quippe d with be ll-shape d cuirasses, he lmets with stilte d crests, twin spears, and greaves. They have the ir Boiotian shie lds slung around the ir backs. Date d to possibly late sixth ce ntury. Be rlin-Charlottenburg F3267. Re fe re nces: Buchholz 1987, 151 fig. 55.a. 289. Prove nance unknown to me . Neck fragme nt of Attic black-figure amphora, attribute d to the Nikosthe nes Painte r, showing a warrior in a line n corsle t and greaves. Date d to later sixth ce ntury. Kansas 41.50. Refe re nces: Beazle y 1956, 222. 290. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure cup attribute d to the Painter of the Nicosia olpe: the birth of Athe na; most of the gods stand around with a spear in the ir hand. Date d to the last quarte r of the sixth ce ntury. Ne w York 06.1097 (Roge rs Fund). Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 121 fig. 175. 291. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure pelike attribute d to the Ache loos Painte r: me n equippe d with double spears pre pare to capture Sile nos as he stops to drink from a

266

fountain. Date d to e nd of the sixth century. Ne w York 49.11.1 (Roge rs Fund). Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 384; Boardman 1991 [1974], 136 fig. 210. 292. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure calyx krater attribute d to the Rycroft Painte r: Achille us and Aias in full armour playing a game . Date d to end of the sixth ce ntury. Tole do 63.26 (gift of Edward D. Libbey). Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 142 fig. 227. 293. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure kyathos de picting battle be twee n horse men and warriors of foot. An armoure d horseman charges a crouching warrior, who readies himse lf to thrust his spear into his assailant’s horse. Date d to about 500. Ne w York 41.162.116 (formerly Gallatin collection). Re fere nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 126 fig. 67. 294. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure pl. showing a ride r e quippe d with he lmet and spear riding down a warrior equippe d with cuirass, shie ld, and he lme t. Another light-arme d figure with a he lme t stabs the man on the ground with his spear, while a second warrior with shie ld fle es the sce ne . Date d to around 500. Akropolis 1957.DA498. Re fe rences: Greenhalgh 1973, 127 fig. 68. 295. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic white -ground black-figure lekythos attribute d to the Phanyllis Group de picting a warrior arming for battle . He wears a line n cuirass, is clipping on his greaves; an Argive shie ld is proppe d up against a man who holds two spears; other me n behind the arming figure hold a single spear each. Date d to around 500. Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR 6-1957. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 145 fig. 237; Haspe ls 1936, 202. 296. Prove nance unknown to me . White -ground black-figure lekythos, attribute d to the Be ldam Painter, de picting warriors e quippe d with swords and holding se vere d heads. Dated to be twee n 490 and 480. London B658. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 163 fig. 279; Haspe ls 1936, 269; Van Wees 2004, 137 fig. 7. 297. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic white -ground black-figure lekythos of Slee p and Death in full armour carrying Sarpe don (nake d) from the battle fie ld. Date d to early fifth ce ntury. Berlin 3252. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 155 fig. 251; Haspe ls 1936, 255. 298. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure epinetron attribute d to the Sappho Painte r: Amazons arming for battle , e quippe d with he lme ts, Argive shie lds, and a set of two spears each. Date d to early fifth ce ntury. Athe ns 2184. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 159 fig. 263; Haspe ls 1936, 228. 299. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic white -ground black-figure lekythos attribute d to the Sappho Painter (Little Lion Class): Achille us in full armour and Boiotian shie ld amushes Polyxe na. Date d to early fifth ce ntury. Athe ns 552. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 158 figs 262.1-2; Haspe ls 1936, 227. 300. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure oinochoe attribute d to the Keyside Class: Odysse us is tie d to his mast while the Sire ns sing; his ship is probably a bireme , equippe d with a ram in the shape of a boar’s head. Date d to betwee n 475 and 450. Stockholm (Throne -Holst Colle ction). Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 164 fig. 286. 301. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure vase , showing warriors fighting, a warrior standing behind a seate d figure , and a warrior ste pping onto a chariot, his Boiotian shie ld slung around his back. Date unknown. Madrid. Re fe rences: Warry 1980, 15 (fig.). 302. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic black-figure kylix, the outside of which shows heavily-arme d warriors in combat; one arche r, equippe d with a he lmet, knee ls and takes aim. Date unknown. Sold in Basle . Re fe rences: Van Wees 2004, 176 fig. 20; Vos 1963, pl. 2.a. 303. Pescia Romana (Italy). Attic black-figure Tyrrhe nian amphora showing Achille us standing ove r the body of Troilos. The body is slumpe d against an omphalos altar; the head of Troilos is in Achille us ’ hand. Othe r warriors approach from the right. Achille us is equippe d with a Boiotian shie ld. Date d to around 560. Flore nce 70993. Re fere nces: Carpe nter 1991, 32 fig. 33. 304. Athe ns (Attika). Attic black-figure neck amphora by the Nessos Painter (name vase ); the sce ne on the neck shows He rakles attacking the ke ntaur Ne ssos with a sword. Date d to be twee n 635 to 600. Athe ns 1002. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 21 fig. 5.1 (de tail of neck). 305. Athe ns (Attika). Black-figure Siana cup, possibly ‘Attic-Boiotian’: inte rior, a battle be twee n two warriors ove r a falle n fighte r, who is le aning on his e lbow; e xterior, an

267

armoure d ride r (badly preserve d), with face turne d towards us (he lme t with double crest), followe d by rearing (or jumping, galloping?) horse ; de tails are unclear. Date d to second quarter of the sixth ce ntury. He ide lbe rg 27/7. Re fere nces: CVA Germany 31, pls. 1492.5-6. 306. Athe ns (Attika). Attic black-figure mastos cup showing two horse men e quippe d with greaves and twin spears, shown from the front, flanke d by two othe r spearmen, carrying double spears; they have a cloak or some thing similar drape d across the ir le ft arms (not shie lds). Date d to be tween 550 and 525. London B375. Re fe re nces: Gree nhalgh 1973, 125 fig . 66; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 41. 307. Athe ns (Attika). Attic black-figure amphora showing two Gree k warriors knee ling while Skythian arche rs ne xt to (be hind?) the m fire at an unseen e nemy. The warriors are equippe d with greaves, Argive shie lds, and Korinthian he lme ts; each carries a se t of two spears. Dated to late sixth century. Be rlin F1865. Re fe rences: Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 38; Vos 1963, pl. 6.b. 308. Athe ns (Attika). Attic black-figure dinos found on the Akropolis (reconstructe d). Gigantomachy: the gods battle the giants, who are e quippe d with greaves, be ll-shape d cuirasses, Korinthian he lme ts, Argive shie lds, single spears, and swords. One giant is pie rced in the neck by a spear; this giant also equippe d with thigh guards. Date d to around 500. Athe ns Act.607. Refe re nces: Beazle y 1956, 107; Carpe nte r 1991, 92–93 fig. 112. 309. Liosia (Attika). Attic black-figure be lly amphora by the Painte r of Akropolis 606: a mounte d spearman, riding ne xt to a second horse (doubtlessly that of his squire ). Date d to be twee n 570 and 560. Be rlin 4823. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 81; Boardman 1991 [1974], 45 fig. 48. 310. Vari (Attika). Attic black-figure skyphos krater, including a de piction of He rakles, equippe d with bow and arrow, free ing Prome the us. Attribute d to Nessos Painter. Date d to be twee n 635 and 600. Athe ns 16384. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 22 fig. 6.2 (He rakles). 311. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Attic black-figure lekythos, ‘in the manne r of the Gorgon Painte r’ (Boardman): be lly shows two lions fla nking a Korinthian he lmet (side vie w). Date d to be tween 600 and 570. Louvre CA823. Re fe re nces: Beazley 1956, 12; Boardman 1991 [1974], 23 fig. 16.1. 312. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). A black-figure Siana cup attribute d to the He ide lbe rg Painter: warriors e ngage d in single combat, e quippe d with Argive shie lds (shown in profile ), Korinthian he lme ts, and single thrusting spears; only one warrior is equippe d with greaves. Date d to around 560. Athe ns 435. Re fere nces: Brijde r 1991, pl. 108.e ; Van Wees 2000b, 129 fig. 3.b. 313. Prove nance unknown to me (Boiotia). Restore d Attic black-figure Siana cup. Inside : warrior with Boiotian shie ld, crouching. Outside : warriors running, with ride rs (armed hippostrophoi?) in the ir midst. Side A: two hippostrophoi and three warriors on foot. Side B: three hippostrophoi and two warriors (this side heavily restore d: the fifth figure is almost e ntire ly mode rn). Thus, a total of six warriors on foot and six hippostrophoi, all running to le ft (same direction around the cup). Date d to be twee n 560 and 550. Laon 37.1015. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 681; CVA France 20, pls. 892.1 and 892.3-4. 314. Capua (Campania). Attic black-figure Droop cup attribute d to the Group of Rhodes 12264: Amazonomachy, featuring heavily-arme d warriors fighting Amazons; chariot. Dated to be tween 560 and 530. Ne w York 06.1021.161 (Roge rs Fund). Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 192; Boardman 1991 [1974], 90 fig. 126. 315. Naukratis (Egypt). Attic black-figure fragme nt showing a warrior ne xt to a horse . Date d to around 550. Boston 86.577. Re fere nces: CVA USA 14, pl. 680.2. 316. Caere (Etruria). Attic black-figure ne ck amphora attribute d to the Painter of Vatican 309 (name vase ): single combat be twee n nake d warriors equippe d with shie lds and he lme ts (one of the m appare ntly lost his spear and is drawing or has drawn his sword). The scene is flanke d on e ither side by a male and fe male figure . Date d to be tween 560 and 540. Vatican 309. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 121; Boardman 1991 [1974], 71 fig. 73. 317. Caere (Etruria). Attic black-figure dinos by Exe kias: the inside of the rim de picts a ship. Date d to be twee n 545 and 530. Villa Giulia 50599. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 146; Boardman 1991 [1974], 81 fig. 102 (de tail).

268

318. Caere (Etruria). Possibly from Cae re . Nikosthe nic amphora attribute d to Painte r N (Ove rlap Group): neck shows a warrior on a hybrid creature , a ‘cock-horse ’. Note that the signature ‘Nikosthe nes’ is the most common of all in Attic black-figure . Date d to betwee n 545 and 510. Louvre F100. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 216; Boardman 1991 [1974], 99 fig. 150. 319. Chiusi (Etruria). So-calle d ‘François Vase ’, an Attic black-figure volute krater, a ne w shape in clay and signe d twice (!) by both Kle itias (the painte r) and Ergotimos (the potte r). Various sce nes base d on myth (with almost all figure s labe lle d), including the Kale donian boar hunt, the re trie val of These us (his ship is shown), the fune ral games of Patroklos (chariots), the we dding of Achille us and The tis (men with sce ptres, chariots), Aias in full armour carrying the dead Achille us, Ares in armour and carrying a Boiotian shie ld. Date d to 570 or slightly late r. Flore nce 4209. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 76; Beazley 1956, 76; Boardman 1991 [1974], 42–44 figs 46.1-7; Carpe nte r 1991, figs 1–2 and 75; Shear 2000, 102 fig. 141. 320. Chiusi (Etruria). Bilingual e ye cup signe d by the potter Andokide s: fully armoure d warriors fighting over falle n warrior; two Skythian arche rs; one figure with short ha ir in Skythian dress and e quippe d with bow and quiver blowing a trumpe t. Date d to betwee n 530 and 500. Pale rmo V650. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 256; Boardman 1991 [1974], 115 figs 160.1-2. 321. Chiusi (Etruria). A late Attic black-figure kylix, the inside of which shows a warrior with a Boiotian shie ld walking le ft to right, a sheathe d sword at his side . Outside shows Dionysos accompanie d by Mainads. Date d to around 480. Boston 76.234. Re fe rences: CVA USA 19, pls. 938.1-4. 322. Vulci (Etruria). Tyrrhe nian amphora attribute d to the Timiades Painte r, showing He rakles fighting Amazones. The Amazones are dresse d in short tunics, are greave d, wear he lmets, and are equippe d with spears and swords; male warrior nake d with Boiotian shie ld. Date d to be twee n 565 and 550. Boston 98.916. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 98; Boardman 1991 [1974], 49 fig. 56; Carpe nte r 1991, 144 fig. 195. 323. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure amphora by Lydos: Me ne laos (wearing a tunic-cuirass hybrid, greaves, he lme t; e quippe d with sword) re -unite d with He le n; anothe r warrior (Ne optole mos?), e quippe d with be ll-shape d cuirass, greaves, he lme t, holding Astyanax by the ankle and moving toward Priam (who has sought re fuge on an altar). Date d to be tween 560 and 540. Be rlin 1685. Re fe re nces: Beazley 1956, 109; Boardman 1991 [1974], 68 fig. 67; Carpe nte r 1991, 34 fig. 36. 324. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Painter of Louvre F6: a warrior dancing (?) or showing off his shie ld to two flanking fe male figures. Date d to be twee n 560 and 540. Munich 1369. Re fe re nces: Beazle y 1956, 126; Boardman 1991 [1974], 71 fig. 76. 325. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure band cup attribute d to the Ce ntaur Painter: me n arme d with spe ars attacking the Kalydonian boar, reve rse shows These us fighting the Minotaur while unarme d me n and wome n look on. All figure s are name d. Date d to be tween 560 and 530. Munich 2243. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 163; Boardman 1991 [1974], 87 fig. 116. 326. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure cup attribute d to the Amasis Painte r: divine stables, including a de piction of a Skythian archer, drawing his bow. Date d to be twee n 560 and 525. Kings Point (Schimme l Collection). Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1974], 74 fig. 83. 327. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Amasis Painte r: Achille us arming. Othe r warriors and spear-carrying figures de picte d as we ll. Achille us re ce ives a Boiotian shie ld with an e laborate blazon (Gorgon head, horses and lions). Date d to be twee n 560 and 525. Berlin 3210. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 151; Boardman 1991 [1974], 76 fig. 87. 328. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure cup, the outside of which shows a battle -scene involving warriors on foot, chariots; hippostrophoi and Skythian archer on the flanks, watching the battle . One of the most vigorous de pictions of battle in Gree k vase -painting. Date d to around 550. London B400 (= 1857.8-5.1). Re fere nces: Van Wees 2004, pl. 20. 329. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to Group E: He rakles uses a sling to fight the Stymphalian birds. Date d to be twee n 550 and 530. London B163. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 134; Boardman 1991 [1974], 79 fig. 95.

269

330. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to Group E: the rape of Kassandra (greaves, be ll-shape d cuirasses, Argive shie lds, swords and spears). Date d to be twee n 550 and 530. Berlin 1698. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 136; Boardman 1991 [1974], 78 fig. 93. 331. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure cup signe d by Exe kias. Outside : warriors fighting ove r a body (Patroklos?); the warriors are all in full armour, using shie lds and spears. Inside: Dionysos on a ship surrounde d by dolphins (transforme d pirates, according to myth). Dated to be twee n 545 and 530. Munich 2044. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 146; Boardman 1991 [1974], 82 fig. 104.2 (ear). 332. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to Group E, potte d by Exe kias: He rakles, arme d with his sword, fights the monstrous Geryon, who is equippe d with be ll-shape d cuirass, Argive shie lds, greaves, he lme ts, and spears. Date d to be twee n 545 and 530. Louvre F53. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 136; Boardman 1991 [1974], 79 fig. 96. 333. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora (type A) signe d by Exe kias: Achille us and Aias, both in full armour (including thigh guards) and wearing cloaks, play a game with one hand while holding the ir set of two spears in the other. Date d to betwee n 545 and 530. Vatican 344. Re fe rences: Beazley 1956, 145; Boardman 1991 [1974], 81 fig. 100; Shear 2000, 102 fig. 142. 334. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure neck amphora signe d by Exe kias: Achille us kills Pe nthesile ia, the former in full armour, both with shie lds and he lme ts (as usual, Amazons with ope n-face d he lme ts), both equippe d with a thrusting spear and a sword. Date d to be twee n 545 and 530. London B210. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 144; Boardman 1991 [1974], 80 fig. 98. 335. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Painte r of the Vatican Mourner (name vase ): female figure (Eos?) mourning male figure (Me mnon?), whose armour include s greaves, shie ld, he lme t (proppe d up against the trees or suspe nde d from branches). Date d to around 530. Vatican 350. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 140; Boardman 1991 [1974], 93 fig. 134. 336. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Painte r of Munich 1410: quarre lling he roes parte d; they are equippe d with line n corsle ts, he lme ts (proppe d up on the ir fore heads), shie lds (one with scorpion de vice ), and greaves. Date d to aroun d 530. Munich 1411. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 311; Boardman 1991 [1974], 96 fig. 141. 337. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora (type A) by Psiax: He rakles ’ chariot, his drive r equippe d with sword and he lmet. Date d to be twee n 525 and 500. Munich 2302. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 294; Boardman 1991 [1974], 119 fig. 168. 338. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure hydria of the Leagros Group: He rakles about to kill the slee ping Alkyone us with his sword. Date d to be twee n 520 and 500. London B314. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 360; Boardman 1991 [1974], 134 fig. 205. 339. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure be lly amphora (type A) attribute d to the Leagros Group: These us carries off the Amazon Antiope in his chariot. Date d to betwee n 520 and 500. Munich 1414. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 367; Boardman 1991 [1974], 131 fig. 200. 340. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure hydria of the Leagros Group: Achille us carrying the body of a dead woman, possibly Pe nthesile ia; he holds two spears in his right hand, a Boiotian shie ld at his le ft le g; dead Amazon at le ft, as we ll as fighting warrior (spear unde rarm); Skythian archer at far right. Date d to be tween 520 and 500. London B323. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 362; Boardman 1991 [1974], 133 fig. 204. 341. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure hydria of the so-calle d Leagros Group: Achille us killing Troilos be fore the walls of Troy, ne xt to a monume nt surmounte d by a tripod. Shown are various warriors, a chariot, Argive and Boiotian shie lds; the Trojan wall features straight cre nulations behind which are two re gular warriors (one has a he lme t with double crest), wome n, and a Skythian arche r taking aim. Date d to be twee n 520 and 500. Munich 1700. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 362; Boardman 1991 [1974], 132 fig. 201. 342. Vulci (Etruria). An Attic black-figure hydria of the Leagros Group: Gigantomachy; chariot, He rakles with bow, Athe na, giants in full armour (one of which ove rrun by chariot).

270

Date d to betwee n 520 and 500. Vatican 422. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 363; Boardman 1991 [1974], 134 fig. 206. 343. Vulci (Etruria). Attic bilingual kylix: on the inside e dge , seve ral warships are de picte d; the dolphins may indicate that these vesse ls are at sea, some distance from the coast. Date d to around 510 to 500. London GR1843.11-3.29. Re fe rences: Fie lds 2007, 18 (fig.). 344. Vulci (Etruria). Attic black-figure ne ck amphora attribute d to the Class of Toronto 315: Skythian archer, Aine ias in full armour (be ll-shape d cuirass, Boiotian shie ld) carrying Anchises from Troy. Date d to betwee n 475 and 450. London B280. Re fe re nces: Beazley 1956, 589; Boardman 1991 [1974], 164 fig. 283. 345. Prove nance unknown to me (Italy). Attic black-figure amphora, showing wome n carrying wate r on the be lly; on the shoulde r, a warrior crouches and pre pares to spear the horse of an oncoming rider. The re are two such ride rs, both arme d with long spears and appare ntly ready to attack the crouching warrior. Bought in Rome . Date d to about 530. Boston 01.8125 (Pie rce Fund). Re fere nces: CVA USA 19, pls. 908.1–3. 346. Korinth (Korinthia). An Attic black-figure Merrythought cup by the C Painter: outside shows spearmen e ngage d in combat. They hold the ir spears ove rhand, are each equippe d with shie ld, he lme t, and greaves. Some wear tunics, othe rs are nake d; none appear to wear any cuirasses or corse le ts. Date d to be tween 575 and 555. Wurzburg 451. Re fe rences: Beazley 1956, 57; Boardman 1991 [1974], 39 fig. 37. 347. Bolse na (Latium). Attic black-figure band cup signe d by He rmoge nes: warrior mounting his two-horse chariot. Date d to betwee n 560 and 530. Ashmolean 231. Re fe rences: Boardman 1991 [1974], 86 fig. 114. 348. Taras (Puglia). Attic black-figure fragme nt showing a warrior, e quippe d with be ll-shape d cuirass, Korinthian he lme t, and Argive shie ld, brandishing a sword. Date d to c. 520. He ide lbe rg S117. Re fere nces: CVA Germany 31, pl. 1499.2. 349. Ialysos (Rhodes). Attic black-figure lekane by the KX Painte r: The tis gives he r son Achille us a ne w se t of armour, including two spears, a Boiotian shie ld (with le opard drawn unto it?), and a Korinthian he lme t. Date d to be twee n 585 and 575. Rhodes 5008. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 24; Boardman 1991 [1974], 25 fig. 20. 350. Kame iros (Rhodes). An Attic black-figure cup, attribute d to the He ide lberg Painte r: Be lle rophon, mounte d on Pe gasos, squares off against the Chimaira, while men equippe d with a single spear each look on. Date d to betwee n 575 to 555. Louvre A478. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 66; Boardman 1991 [1974], 39 fig. 39. 351. Kame iros (Rhodes). Attic black-figure hydria by the Painter of London B76 (name vase ): He ktor’s chariot (four-horse team), flanke d by me n with spears and warriors with he lme ts, shie lds, and spears. Date d to around 560. London B76. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 85; Boardman 1991 [1974], 48 fig. 54. 352. Kame iros (Rhodes). Attic black-figure amphora, showing He rakles fighting Kyknos; Ze us at ce ntre , Athe na at le ft, Ares at right. Kyknos is equippe d with an Argive shie ld, while Ares has a Boiotian shie ld. The crests of Athe na and Kyknos ’ he lme ts are stilte d; He rakles is shown drawing his sword. Date d to around 540. London B197. Re fe rences: Carpente r 1991, 58 fig. 65. 353. Siana (Rhodes). Attic black-figure cup attribute d to the C ("Corinthianising") Painte r: outside shows dismounte d warriors (Argive shie lds, Korinthian he lmets, greaves, two spears each) walking ne xt to at least two horses each. Date d to be tween 575 and 555. London B380. Re fere nces: Beazley 1956, 55; Boardman 1991 [1974], 38 fig. 35; Greenhalgh 1973, 117 fig. 60. 354. Siana (Rhodes). Attic black-figure Siana cup attribute d to the Cassandra Painte r: a warrior in a tunic and animal skin, e quippe d with Boiotian shie ld and spear (note thong), greaves, and he lme t with stilte d crest; he might be dancing. Date d to around 570. London B30. Re fe rences: Brijde r 1983, pl. 25.d; Van Wees 2000b, 135 fig. 8.a; Wa rry 1980, 13 (fig.). 355. Pharsalos (Thessaly). Fragme nt of an Attic black-figure dinos: a team of horses charge in from the le ft, a tie re d grandstand with seate d figures at right; a chariot-race . The name of the umpire , Achille us, has been adde d (the figure himse lf lost). Signe d by Sophilos, who—rather unusually for Gree k vase -painte rs—adde d a description of the e ntire piece : ‘The Games for Patroklos.’ It was found at Pharsalos in Thessaly, thought by later Gree ks to be Achille us ’

271

home land: Snodgrass suggests the dinos was take n there on purpose . Date d to around 590. Athe ns 15499. Re fere nces: Snodgrass 1998, 117 fig. 45. 356. Orvie to (Umbria). Tyrrhe nian amphora: battle -sce ne on shoulder (he lme ts, spears, swords, Boiotian shie lds), death of Eriphyle on be lly (chariot, Argive shie ld, be ll-shape d cuirass, sword). Date d to be tween 565 and 550. Be rlin 4841. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1956, 97; Boardman 1991 [1974], 51 figs 63.1-2. 357. Orvie to (Umbria). Attick black-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Amasis Painte r: Achille us arming. He wears a line n cuirass, carries one spear, has an e laborate Korinthian he lmet, and an Argive shie ld. Date d to be tween 560 and 525. Boston 01.8027. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1956, 152; Boardman 1991 [1974], 76 fig. 86 (de tail). 358. Orvie to (Umbria). Attic black-figure fragme nts showing two he lme te d heads; one he lmet is of Korinthian type , the othe r features a stilte d crest and has an ope n face (possibly Ares and Athe na?). Both he lme ts are decorate d with abstract patterns. Date d to be tween 540 and 530. He ide lberg S121. Re fe rences: CVA Germany 31, pl. 1498.5. 359. Orvie to (Umbria). Attic bilingual be lly amphora (type A) attribute d to the Andokides Painte r: on both sides, Aias and Achille us, both in full armour and with two spears each, playing a game . Each side features one Argive and one Boiotian shie ld; the heroes are equippe d with Korinthian he lme ts. On the black-figure side , the heroes wear thigh guards. Date d to betwee n 530 and 515. Boston 01.8037 (Pie rce Fund). Re fe rences: Beazley 1963, 4; Boardman 1975, 19 figs 2.1-2.

Attic red-figure pottery 360. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Phe idippos: A warrior with he lme t, shie ld, and greaves crouches (or stoops) down, spear in hand and ke pt low to the ground. Date d to betwee n 525 and 515. Ne w York 41.162.8 (Roge rs Fund). Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 165; Boardman 1975, 73 fig. 79. 361. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure kylix, showing a Skythian arche r standing ne xt to a horse , checking an arrow for straightness. Date d to the betwee n 525 and 475. Be r lin F2296. Re fe re nces: Fie lds 2007, 17 (fig.). 362. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure psykter attribute d to Oltos: warriors in full bronze armour and with single thrusting spears and shie lds riding dolphins. Date d to be twee n 525 and 500. Kings Point (Schimme l Colle ction). Re fere nces: Boardman 1975, 65 fig. 58.1-2. 363. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup by Psiax: warriors, one fully dresse d, one nake d and turning his shie ld away from his body; all e quippe d with he lme ts, shie lds, a single thrusting spear each, and greaves. One figure has a shie ld with a bird (eagle ?) emblazone d on it. Date d to be tween 525 and 500. Switze rland (private colle ction). Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 7; Boardman 1975, 26 fig. 15. 364. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Oltos: He rakles, equippe d with Boiotian shie ld, fights Kyknos (nake d but with shie ld, greaves, and he lme t). Both fight using the ir swords; the battle is watche d by both Athe na and Ares, as we ll as two (mortal?) women. Note the crosse d strings or ropes in the ce ntre of He rakles ’ Boiotian shie ld: these recall the cross-staves de picte d on the te rracotta mode l of a Dipylon-shie ld found at the Ke rame ikos. Date d to be twee n 525 and 500. London E8. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 63; Boardman 1975, 67 fig. 65. 365. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Oltos: nake d warriors equippe d with spears, swords, shie lds, and he lme ts (no body-armour) running right to le ft. Note that the Korinthian he lme ts lack crests. Date d to betwee n 525 and 500. Base l BS459. Re fere nces: Boardman 1975, 67 fig. 63. 366. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic re d-figure alabastron, attribute d to Psiax, showing a nake d warrior with Korinthian he lmet, greaves, and Argive shie ld (no weapon) and a Skythian arche r checking an arrow for its straightness. Date d to be tween 525 and 500. Le ningrad (He rmitage ). Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 7; Boardman 1975, 25 fig. 12.

272

367. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup by Psiax: Skythian arche r holding a horse by the re ins. Date d to betwee n 525 and 500. Ne w York 14.146.1 (Roge rs Fund). Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 8; Boardman 1975, 26 fig. 13. 368. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup, inside of which shows a nude figure equippe d with a pelte shie ld, cap, and single spear in his right hand: possibly a ‘Gree k’ pe ltast. Date d to betwee n 525 and 475. Le ipsic T487. Re fere nces: Best 1969, pl. A; Van Wees 2004, pl. 5. 369. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure fragme nt showing a nake d youth stringing a bow; quive r at le ft, part of shie ld at right; axe be neath youth. Date d to be tween 525 and 475. Syracuse 22479. Re fe rences: Vos 1963, pl. 17.a. 370. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure volute krater attribute d to Euphronios: He rakles fighting Amazons. He rakles is all but nude , arme d with a club, bow, and a sword; two of the Amazons wear a line n corse le t (rare ), anothe r is equippe d like a Skythian arche r. Various shie ld blazons, including cup, lion, gorgon’s head. Date d to betwee n 520 and 505. Are zzo 1465. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 15; Boardman 1975, 40 fig. 29. 371. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure calyx krater signe d by Euphronios: Slee p and Death, both in full armour, carry away dead and nake d Sarpe don; two other fully-e quippe d warriors flank the sce ne. Date d to betwee n 520 a nd 505. Ne w York 1972.11.10 (Durkee , Mills, Love ). Re fere nces: Boardman 1975, 37 fig. 22. 372. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure kylix showing a battle be twee n warriors, nude apart from the ir he lme ts, shie lds, and greaves; one of the warrior is e quippe d with the machaira (‘falchion’). Se kunda suggests the falchion was adopte d by the Gree ks from the Pe rsians. Date d to around 515. Be rke ly 8.4. Re fe rences: CVA USA 5, pl. 213; Se kunda 2000, 16 (fig.). 373. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Oltos, showing Achille us and Aine ias fighting ove r Troilos. The heroes are e quippe d with single spears, shie lds, and he lmets. Troilos has pushe d his he lmet highe r atop his head; he is struck by Achille us in his shoulde r and is pulling his sword from its scabbard. Troilos, unlike the other two he roes, is otherwise nude . Date d to around 510. Louvre G18. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 61; Carpe nte r 1991, 33 fig. 34. 374. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic bilingual e ye cup signe d by Epikte tos. Outside : re d-figure Satyr e quippe d with pe lte and trumpe t running right to le ft. Inside : black-figure ride r equippe d with two long spears. Date d to around 510. London E3. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 70; Boardman 1975, 68 fig. 66.1–2. 375. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure neck amphora attribute d to Smikros: satyr equippe d with pe lte . Date d to be twee n 510 and 500. Be rlin 1966.19. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1975, 42 fig. 31. 376. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Pose idon Painte r: a pipe r plays while a young me n (with a pelte-shie ld) dances; possibly a re presentation of the Pyrrhic dance . Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Once Luze rn marke t. Refe re nces: Beazley 1963, 136; Boardman 1975, 87 fig. 127. 377. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Epidromos Painter: a warrior, nake d apart from the himation drape d around his shoulde rs and e quippe d with he lmet and greaves, stabs a giant, bearde d warrior with his sword, who is dresse d and equippe d with sword, Argive shie ld, and a he lme t with a double crest. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. London E43. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 118; Boardman 1975, 83 fig. 114. 378. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Kle ophrades Painte r: a satyr holding greaves in one hand (in a stand) and a Korinthian he lmet in the othe r. Date d to be tween 505 and 475. Harrow School 55. Re fe rences: Beazley 1963, 183; Boardman 1975, 102 fig. 140. 379. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup de picting section of cre nulate d wall or towe r; warriors with Korinthian he lmets, composite corse le ts, spears, and shie lds de fend the wall from attacke rs directly be neath the m. Around 500. Re fere nces: Van Wees 2008, 112 (fig.).

273

380. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Onesimos: a nake d man holds a he lme t; an Argive shie ld lie s behind him. Date d to around 500. Base l BS439. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 319; Boardman 1975, 146 fig. 230. 381. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Berlin Painte r: Me ne laos, showing the inside of his Argive shie ld, re -unite d with He le n. Date d to be twee n 500 and 480. Vie nna 741. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 203; Boardman 1975, 109 fig. 158. 382. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure neck amphora attribute d to the Berlin Painte r: Herakles in combat with Amazons. The Amazons are equippe d with line n corsle ts, swords, he lmets, and greaves; they carry shie lds and fight using spears. Date d to be tween 500 and 480. Base l BS453. Refe re nces: Beazle y 1963, 1643; Boardman 1975, 106 fig. 149. 383. Prove nance unknown to me. Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Eucharides Painte r: warriors in loincloths, e quippe d with curtaine d shie lds and he lmets pe rche d atop the ir heads, crouch amidst bushes, undoubte dly a de piction of an ambush. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Cambridge GR18.1937. Re fe rences: Beazley 1963, 231; Boardman 1975, 116 fig. 167. 384. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure kylix cup attribute d to the Eucharides Painte r. The inside shows a warrior, nude apart from his he lme t, equippe d with spear and shie ld, dancing to the tune of a pipe r de picte d ne xt to him (Pyrrhic dance ). Date d to around 490. Louvre G136. Re fe re nces: Se kunda 2000, 7 (fig.). 385. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure kylix, the inside of which shows a warrior sacrificing a ram: one of the earliest re prese ntations of the Gree k rite known as sphagia. Dated to around 490 to 480. Cleve land 1926.242 (Alle n Fund). Re fe rences: Se kunda 2000, 25 (fig.). 386. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure kylix attribute d to the Antiphon Painte r, the inside of which shows three me n, nude apart from the ir he lme ts (one crestless) and shie lds. The blazons on the shie lds show running warriors, so the sce ne might be a de piction of me n readying the mse lves for the hoplitodromos. Date d to be tween 490 and 480. Be rlin F2307. Re fe re nces: Se kunda 2000, 8 (fig.). 387. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Antiphon Painte r: youth hunting a boar e quippe d with double spears. Date d to betwee n 490 and 480. Baltimore 48.2115. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 336; Boardman 1975, 149 fig. 240. 388. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Foundry Painter: a warrior, nake d from the waste up, holding a spear and equippe d with he lme t and greaves, leans on an Argive shie ld e mblazone d with a scorpion. Date d to betwee n 490 and 470. Cambridge 1927.149. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 402; Boardman 1975, 161 fig. 266. 389. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Brygos Painte r: Aias dead, run through by his own sword, the scabbard de picte d as if s uspe nde d from the wall be hind. Date d to be twee n 490 and 470. Ne w York L.69.11.35 (Bare iss Collection). Re fe rences: Boardman 1975, 152 fig. 246. 390. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure stamnos attribute d to the Triptole mos Painte r. One side shows the mission to Achille us, the other Aias and He ktor (clear vie w of inside of an Argive shie ld of this pe riod). Date d to around 480. Switze rland (private collection). Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 361; Boardman 1975, 173 figs 304.1-2. 391. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure kylix, the outside of which shows warriors readying for battle ; one boy he lps a large r man to e ithe r cover or uncover his shie ld; another man equippe d with line n corse le t puts on his sword, while a third clips on greaves. Another figure is polishing the shaft of a fairly long spear. Date d to around 480. Vatican 16583. Re fere nces: Se kunda 2000, 18 (fig.). 392. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure cup, attribute d to the Antiphon Painte r, showing a young me n working on a bronze Korinthian he lme t. Da te d to around 480. Ashmolean 518. Re fere nces: Se kunda 2000, 52 (fig.). 393. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure calyx krater attribute d to Myson: rescue of Aithra on one side , warriors equippe d with greaves, he lme ts (upturne d chee k guards), spears (single ), and shie lds with individual de vices (Pegasos and ke ntaur). Date d to early fifth ce ntury. London E458. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 239; Boardman 1975, 118 fig. 172.2. 394. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure be lly amphora attribute d to the Tyszkie wicz Painte r: Athe na accompanie d by Odysse us (Korinthian he lme t) and Diomedes

274

(with upturne d chee k guards); Argive shie lds, single thrusting spear each. Date d to early fifth ce ntury. Stockholm 1963.1. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 1643; Boardman 1975, 122 fig. 185. 395. Prove nance unknown to me . Attic re d-figure pl. de picting donke y with wood-frame d pack saddle . Date d to early fifth ce ntury. Boston. Re fere nces: Anderson 1961, pl. 7. 396. Athe ns (Attika). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Eue rgides Painte r: potte r at le ft, me talworke r at right; Athe na (or a bronze statue of he r?) at centre , with clear frontal vie w of an Argive shie ld (no blazon). The goddess holds a he lme t with ope n face in he r right hand (ears cut out from the he lme t, as we ll). Date d to betwee n 515 and 500. Akropolis 166. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 92; Boardman 1975, 79 fig. 101. 397. Athe ns (Attika). Attic re d-figure pyxis lid attribute d to the Thaliarchos Painte r: a young man working on a Korinthian he lme t (crestless). Date d to end of the sixth ce ntury. Pe tit Palais 382. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 81; Boardman 1975, 73 fig. 81. 398. Athe ns (Attika). Attic re d-figure cup signe d by Gorgos: Achille us and Me mnon, both nude apart from the ir he lme ts and shie lds (no greaves) fight with spears (one each), while conce rne d wome n look on from the flanks. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Agora P24113. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 213; Boardman 1975, 52 fig. 48.1. 399. Tanagra (Boiotia). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Skythes: a man in a loincloth, carrying a shie ld and spear in one hand, his he lme t in the other, running le ft to right. Shie ld blazon is a cock. Possibly a nothe r picture inspire d by the hoplitodromos? Date d to betwee n 520 and 505. Louvre CA 1527. Re fe re nces: Beazle y 1963, 83; Boardman 1975, 76 fig. 91. 400. Tanagra (Boiotia). Attic re d-figure cup signe d by Phintias as the potte r: a warrior in a loincloth and equippe d with shie ld, spear, and greaves, is shown crouching down and pushing his he lmet on top of his head. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Athe ns 1628. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 25; Boardman 1975, 52 fig. 49. 401. Nola (Campania). Attic re d-figure kalpis attribute d to the Kle ophrades Painte r: Iliopersis. The Achaians ravage Troy, killing Priam, taking Kassandra and Andromache; Aine ias escapes with Anchises. Warriors in full armour (line n corsle ts, he lme ts, greaves, shie lds). Aggressive action with swords; spears are he ld by some , but not use d. Date d to be twee n 505 and 475. Naple s 2422. Re fe re nces: Beazle y 1963, 189; Boardman 1975, 100 fig. 135; Carpe nte r 1991, 231 fig. 335. 402. Nola (Campania). Attic re d-figure krater showing a warrior with a cre stless Korinthian he lmet pouring a libation; he wears a line n corse le t and is furthermore equippe d with greaves, shie ld, spear, and sword. Date d to around 480. London E269. Re fe re nces: F ie lds 2007, 15 (fig.). 403. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Bowdoin Eye Painte r (name vase ): nake d man with greaves, holding he lme t in right hand and carrying spear, running right to le ft. Possibly a re prese ntation of the hoplitodromos? Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Brunswick (Bo wdoin Colle ge ). Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 167; Boardman 1975, 73 fig. 82. 404. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Onesimos: He rakles fights the sons of Eurytos; a sheathe d sword is suspe nde d from the wall. Date d to around 500. Ne w York 12.231.2. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 319; Boardman 1975, 147 fig. 231. 405. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup signe d by Douris (Doris egrapsen). Inside : Odysse us rece ives the armour of Achille us, including a line n corsle t partially re inforce d with scales. Outside : voting for the armour of Achille us, preside d by the goddess Athe na. Dated to be twee n 500 and 460. Vie nna 3695 (Caste llani collection). Re fe re nces: Beazle y 1963, 429; Boardman 1975, 167 fig. 285.1-2; CVA Austria 1, pls. 11.1-2 and 12.1-2. 406. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup signe d by Douris (Doris agrepsen). Inside : warrior e quipping himse lf, assiste d by woman (wife ). Outside : warriors dressing the mse lves for battle . Date d to be twee n 500 and 460. Vie nna 3694 (Caste llani colle ction). Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 427; Boardman 1975, 166 fig. 281; CVA Austria 1, pls. 9.1-2 and 10.1-2. 407. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Attic re d-figure pelike perhaps attributable to the Be rlin Painte r: Oresthes, dresse d in a line n corse le t, has just stabbe d Aigisthos with a sword. Klytaimnestra arme d with a double axe . Date d to be tween 500 and 480. Vienna 3725. Re fe rences: Beazley 1963, 204; Boardman 1975, 103 fig. 143.

275

408. Ce rvete ri (Etruria). Attic re d-figure skyphos attribute d to the Brygos Painte r: the ransom of He ktor; behind Achille us, a he lmet, shie ld, and sword are suspe nde d from the wall. Date d to be twee n 490 and 470. Vie nna 3710 (Caste llani collection). Re fe re nces: Beazle y 1963, 380; Boardman 1975, 153 fig. 248; CVA Austria 1, pls. 35.1-3. 409. Chiusi (Etruria). A re d-figure cup, showing a warrior in a loincloth, crouching behind his shie ld; he is furthe rmore e quippe d with an ope n-face d he lmet and spear. Date d to be twee n 520 and 510. Louvre G25. Re fere nces: Ducre y 1985, 120 pl. 84; Van Wees 2000b, 129 fig. 4.b. 410. Chiusi (Etruria). Attic re d-figure pl. by Paseas: a Skythian archer mounte d on a horse . Some be lie ve the ride r is meant to re prese nt Miltiades. Date d to be twee n 520 and 510. Ashmolean 310. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 163; Boardman 1975, 27 fig. 17; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 40. 411. Chiusi (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Apollodoros: These us killing the Minotaur using his sword. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Ashmolean 303. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 120; Boardman 1975, 85 fig. 118. 412. Chiusi (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to Douris: Gree k heavily-arme d warrior running ne xt to Skythian arche r, right to le ft. Date d to be tween 500 and 460. Baltimore . Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 442; Boardman 1975, 166 fig. 283. 413. Vite rbo (Etruria). Attic re d-figure neck pelike attribute d to Euphronios: dresse d man with sun-hat and spear leading a horse . Date d to be tween 520 and 505. Villa Giulia. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 15; Boardman 1975, 41 fig. 30.1. 414. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d by the Nikosthe nes Painte r: warriors pre paring for battle , including some that are fully e quippe d while anothe r is clipping on a greave . A man in a tunic and equippe d with a spear blows a conch-she ll (by way of a military trumpe t?). Date d to be twee n 530 and 510. Castle Ashby. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 124; Boardman 1975, 77 fig. 93.1. 415. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure spoute d cup attribute d to the Nikosthe nes Painte r: warrior and Skythian archers. Date d to be twee n 530 and 510. Berlin 2324. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 126; Boardman 1975, 78 fig. 98. 416. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure be lly amphora (type C) attribute d to Oltos: Brise is on one side , Achille us on the othe r, with beard and equippe d with gre aves, scale -re inforce d linen corsle t, Argive shie ld (inside shown), Korinthian (?) he lmet, and single thrusting spear. Date d to be twee n 525 and 500. London E258. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 54; Boardman 1975, 64 fig. 57.2. 417. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup signe d by Euphronios: inside shows aclothe d man we aring a sun-hat and riding a horse ; outside shows Herakles fighting Ge ryon. Herakles is equippe d with his bow, Athe na stands be hind him, and Ge ryon is e quippe d with full armour (line n corsle ts), shie lds, greaves, and he lme ts. Date d to betwee n 520 and 505. Munich 2620. Re fere nces: Anderson 1961, pl. 18.b; Beazley 1963, 16; Boardman 1975, 39 fig. 26.1–2. 418. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure pl. signe d by Epikte tos (Epiktetos egrapsen): Skythian arche r. Date d to be twee n 520 and 490. London E135. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 78; Boardman 1975, 72 fig. 77; Vos 1963, pl. 9.a. 419. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure hydria signe d by Hypsis: Amazones arming for battle (shie lds, he lme ts, greaves; Amazones do not wear any armour to protect the upper body); one Amazon blows a trumpe t. Date d to around 510. Munic h 2423. Re fe re nces: Beazley 1963, 30; Boardman 1975, 50 fig. 43. 420. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Sosias Painte r: inside , Achille us atte nding to the wounds of Patroklos (cause d by an arrow). Both wear line n corsle ts at least partly cove re d with scales; Patroklos wears a cap while sitting on his shie ld; Achille us has his chee k guards flippe d up, he also wears sandals (most warriors, including Patroklos here , go bare foot in Gree k vase -painting; pe rhaps this is to e mphasise that Achille us was re nowne d as a fast runne r?). Date d to be twee n 510 and 500. Be rlin 2278. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 21; Boardman 1975, 53 fig. 50.1; Carpe nter 1991, 217 fig. 301.

276

421. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure stamnos attribute d to the Kleophrades Painte r: These us, arme d with a double -axe , and Prokroustes. Date d to betwee n 505 and 475. London E441. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 187; Boardman 1975, 101 fig. 137. 422. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure be lly amphora (type A) attribute d to the Dikaios Painte r: Skythian archer at le ft, man with staff at right; in be twee n, warrior with greaves, Argive shie ld (crab de vice ), Korinthian he lme t, and sword. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. London E255. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 31; Boardman 1975, 51 fig. 45. 423. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure be lly amphora (type A) attribute d to the Kleophrades Painte r: a warrior in greaves, he lmet, and line n cuirass, e quippe d with sword and spear, reads the entrails of a sacrificial animal he ld out by a boy; Skythian warrior with axe at le ft. Date d to end of the sixth century. Würzburg 507. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 181; Boardman 1975, 96 fig. 129.1. 424. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure be lly amphora (type A) attribute d to Euthymides: These us kidnaps He le n; bearde d male figure at le ft all but nude , carrying sheathe d sword and spear. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Munich 2309. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 27; Boardman 1975, 45 fig. 34.1. 425. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Hischylos Painter: me n pre paring for battle while a woman carrying a spear looks on. Inte restingly, one of the warriors wears a Korinthian he lme t that is crestle ss. Date d to e nd of the sixth century. Munich 2588. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 162; Boardman 1975, 75 fig. 86. 426. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure be lly amphora (type A) signe d by Euthymide s: He ktor dresses for combat, putting on a line n corse le t, Korinthian he lme t; Andromache hands him his he lme t and carrie s a spear; Argive shie ld be twee n he r and He ktor. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Munich 2307. Re fere nces : Beazle y 1963, 26; Boardman 1975, 44 fig. 33.1-2. 427. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Bonn Painte r: a deer hunt, with some me n on horseback and others on foot (dress clearly inspire d by Skythian arche rs), all equippe d with a single thrusting spear each. Date d to betwee n 500 and 480. Base l BS438. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 351; Boardman 1975, 148 fig. 237. 428. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Brygos Painte r. Inside : Phoinix and Brise is; a sheathe d sword and shie ld are hung from pe gs on the wall be hind. Outside : the death of Priam by fully-arme d Achaians. Date d to be twee n 490 and 470. Louvre G152. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 369; Boardman 1975, 151 figs 245.1-2. 429. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Foundry Painte r: a warrior in full armour (line n corse le t partly covere d by scales) slaughte ring a ke ntaur with his spear, he ld unde rarm. Date d to be twee n 490 and 470. Munich 2640. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 402; Boardman 1975, 161 fig. 268. 430. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Foundry Painte r (name vase ): inside shows He phaistos making ne w armour for Achille us while The tis stands by and holds spear and Argive shie ld with scallops cut from the side s (a take on the Boiotian shie ld). On the outside of this cup, foundry-worke rs are busy making bronze sculptures, including one of a nake d warrior equippe d with he lme t, spear, and shie ld. Date d to be twee n 490 and 470. Be rlin 2294. Re fe rences: Beazley 1963, 400; Boardman 1975, 159 fig. 262.1-3; Carpe nte r 1991, 68 fig. 88. 431. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Painte r of the Paris Gigantomachy: battle betwee n Gree ks and Persians. Date d to around 480. Roman marke t. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 417; Boardman 1975, 165 fig. 279. 432. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure stamnos attribute d to the Tyszkie wicz Painter: Dionysos fighting two giants, one of whom is on the ground and has drawn a machaira from its scabbard. Both giants e quippe d with line n corse lets, shie lds, and he lme ts (upturne d chee k guards); only one giant wears greaves. Date d to around 480. London E443. Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 93 fig. 113. 433. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure calyx krater attribute d to the Tyszkie wicz Painte r: Diome des and Aine ias, both in full armour (scale corse le ts) e ngage d in combat using spear and shie ld. Aine ias e quippe d with a machaira. Date d to early fifth century. Boston 97.368. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 290; Boardman 1975, 123 fig. 186.

277

434. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure kalpis attribute d to the Tyszwie kicz Painte r: Athe na and Ze us fight giants. One of the giants has a line n corse le t and a he lmet with an ornate, transverse crest; he also wears a line n corse le t. Date d to early fifth ce ntury. London E165. Re fere nces: Beazley 1963, 294; Boardman 1975, 123 fig. 187. 435. Vulci (Etruria). Attic re d-figure stamnos by the Sire n Painter (name vase ): Odysse us tie d to the mast of his ship, with only a single tie r of rowe rs; ship has a square d off fore foot. Dated to early fifth century. London E440. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 289; Boardman 1975, 122 fig. 184.1. 436. Unkno wn (Italy). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Triptole mos Painte r. Inside : Gree k warrior slaying Persian foe . Outside : Gree k warriors fighting Pe rsian mounte d arche rs. Date d to around 480. Edinburgh 1887.213. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 364; Boardman 1975, 172-173 figs 303.1-2. 437. Todi (Umbria). Attic re d-figure cup attribute d to the Nikosthe nes Painter: Athe na's chariot. He rakles, carrying a tripod, approaches from right. Athe na’s charioteer is equippe d with he lme t and greaves. Date d to be twee n 530 and 510. Villa Giulia 27250. Re fe rences: Beazle y 1963, 124; Boardman 1975, 77 fig. 94.

Miscellaneous items 438. Prove nance unknown to me . Stone seal showing an archer attacking a Ke ntaur, possibly He rakles attacking (killing) Nessos. Date d to Late Geometric pe riod. Bibliothe que Nationale M5837. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1985 [1964], 29 fig. 18. 439. Prove nance unknown to me . Badly damage d sarcophagus; headpiece features a de parture sce ne . Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Le ipzig T.3338. Re fe re nces: Cook 1981, pl. 51 (G10). 440. Prove nance unknown to me . Izmir marke t, badly damage d sarcophagus. Headpiece features a battle betwee n warriors (lowe r fie ld features a chariot race ); uppe r pane l shows warriors killing an arche r. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Dresde n 1643. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, pl. 58 (G15). 441. Prove nance unknown to me . Sarcophagus, headpiece feature d a battle over a falle n warrior, flanke d by chariots. Cook suggests features be low horses might be the jambs of a city gate or, as he note d in the accompanying footnote , towe rs, or eve n tripods with bowls. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Ne w York 21.169.1. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, 45 fig. 29 (de tails of headpiece ) and pl. 62 (G23). 442. Prove nance unknown to me . Izmir marke t. Sarcophagus; headpiece features warriors killing a Skythian archer, flanke d by ride r, dog, youth. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Munich 8774. Re fe rences: Cook 1981, pl. 61 (G27). 443. Prove nance unknown to me . East-Gree k amphora stamp of a warrior carrying a dead compatriot, no doubt Aias rescuing the corpse of Achille us. Date unknown. Ischia Muse um. Re fere nces: Snodgrass 1998, 37 fig. 15. 444. Argos (Argolid). Two iron fire dogs fashione d in the shape of Gree k longships, each with ram, horn, and scorpion-tail ste rn. From tomb T45 at Argos. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Re fere nces: Coldstream 1977, 146–147 fig. 47c; Connolly 1998 [1981], 263. 445. Tiryns (Argolid). Fragments of votive shie ld. One figure . Some sort of body -protection (leathe r padding?). Sca bbard, sword in le ft hand; single -grip shie ld and two spears in right hand; he lme t with stilte d crest; greaves. Date d to Late Ge ome tric pe riod. Re fe rences: Greenhalgh 1973, 69 fig. 42. 446. Tiryns (Argolid). Fragme nts of votive shie ld. Four figures. Ce ntral two are e ngage d in single combat. Possibly Achille us fighting Pe nthesilea. Achille us e quippe d with he lme t with tall crest, scabbard, short skirt; brandishes sword. Pe nthesilea wearing longer garme nts, he lmet with tall crest, spear in ove rhand position. Bird on spear. Figure at far le ft: short skirt, spear in overhand position, conve x shie ld. Figure at far right: he lmet with tall crest, convex shie ld, possibly a sword. Date d to Late Ge ome tric period. Re fere nces: Greenhalgh 1973, 68 fig. 41; Von Bothmer 1957, pls. 1a–b. 447. Athe ns (Attika). Small terracotta mode l of a Dipylon shie ld. Shie ld is conve x with clearly de lineate d rim. Front is lattice d (wicke r?); with cross -staves on the back. No handle is

278

indicate d. Date d to Late Ge ometric pe riod. London no. 1971.11-18.1. Refe re nces: Connolly 1998 [1981], 51; Greenhalgh 1973, 66 fig. 39; Guida 1973, 23 fig. 2.5–7. 448. Athe ns (Attika). From the Ke rame ikos, a limestone ste le showing a man arme d with sword and spear. Boardman notes, ‘All late r ste le warriors wear armour.’ Date d to about 560. Ke rame ikos Muse um. Refe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 230. 449. Athe ns (Attika). Ste le base de picting four ride rs. Date d to about 550 to 540. Ke rame ikos Muse um P1001. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 240. 450. Athe ns (Attika). Fragme nt of a ste le ; of the warrior, only his greave d legs and the bottom portion of his spear remain. Be low, in shallow re lie f, the warrior is shown mounting a two-horse chariot. Date d to about 530. Ne w York 36.11.13. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 234. 451. Athe ns (Attika). Ste le of Arisition (his name is engrave d on the base ); he is e quippe d with greaves, line n cuirass, spear: his he lme t, made of a diffe rent mate rial, is missing. Dated to about 510. Athe ns 29. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 235; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 39. 452. Athe ns (Attika). Ste le from Athe ns, showing a warrior, nake d apart from his he lme t, e ithe r dancing or running. Date d to about 510. Athe ns 1959. Re fe re nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 239. 453. Athe ns (Attika). Silve r coin from Athe ns: obve rse , head of Athe na (note peculiar he lmet with ve ry low crest); reve rse , owl. Date d to later sixth ce ntury. Re fe rences: Bie rs 1996 [1980], 192 fig. 7.51. 454. Athe ns (Attika). Plaque attribute d to Euthymides. A warrior wearing only a loincloth, running right to le ft, e quippe d with he lme t, Argive shie ld (with satyr blazon?), and a s ingle spear. Has a de dication, Megakles kalos (‘Me gakles is good/beautiful’), although the name was late r erase d and re place d by Glaukytes, no doubt following Me gakles ’ ostracism in 486 BC. Date d to e nd of the sixth ce ntury. Akropolis 1037. Re fere nces: Beazle y 1963, 1598; Boardman 1975, 54 fig. 53; Van Wees 2000b, 129 fig. 4.a. 455. Athe ns (Attika). Found near Athe ns, a ste le that might not be a gravestone , de picting a knee ling and a standing wa rrior. The knee ling warrior (head and shoulde rs missing), equippe d with sword and spear but otherwise nake d, takes cover be hind his shie ld. Date d to about 500. Cope nhage n, Ny Carlsberg I.N. 2787. Re fere nces: Boardman 1991 [1978], fig. 236. 456. Oropos (Attika). Terracotta mode l of a galle y, with a short fore foot; from the Amphiare ion of Oropos. Date d to e ithe r Ge ometric or Late Bronze Age . Re fe rences: Crie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2a. 457. Sounion (Attika). Votive plaque , attribute d to the Analatos Painte r. Rear half of ship with curve d ste rn. Warriors with round shie lds, he lme ts with stilte d crests, and two spears each at the oars. Unarme d steersman. Date d to Early Protoattic period. Athe ns National Muse um no. 14935. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 100 fig. 192; Boardman 1985 [1964], 43 fig. 38. 458. Unkno wn (Boiotia). Fibula. Side A: ship transporting a horse (le ft); warriors with spears and round shie lds (right). Side B: ship with warriors (round shie lds, he lme ts with drooping plumes, long spears). Date d to seve nth century. Berlin Antiquarium no. 31013b. Re fe rences: Hampe 1936, pl. 5. 459. Unkno wn (Boiotia). Fibula; Boiotian, but found in Kre te. Side A: ship with two archers fighting each othe r; they have been struck by arrows in the shins. Side B: Siamese twin (Aktorione -Molione ?), with spears, in single combat with anothe r warrior fighting with both sword and spear. Date d to around 700. Re fe rences: Boardman 1985, 29 fig. 19; Hampe 1936, pl. 14; Snodgrass 1998, 32 fig. 12 (de tail of twin). 460. The bes (Boiotia). Fibula. Side A: ride r on horse back trampling a figure unde rfoot. Side B: two warriors e ngage d in single combat. Warrior at le ft with he lme t (Korinthian?), sword in le ft hand (wrist he ld by right hand of othe r warrior) and spear (overhand) in right; warrior at right has spear in ove rhand position, point near oppone nt’ s throat. Date d to se ve nth ce ntury. Athe ns National Muse um no. 12341. Re fere nces: Hampe 1936, pl. 15. 461. The bes (Boiotia). Fibula (parts missing). Side A: Trojan Horse (a horse on whee ls) and human figures (unarme d?). Side B: soldie rs e quippe d with round shie lds, each with e ither a

279

broad rim or a large boss. The y are further e quippe d with one spear each, he lme t with drooping plume . Chariot drawn by a single horse . Archer behind this horse . Date d to se venth century. Re fere nces: Hampe 1936, pls. 2–3. 462. Thisbe (Boiotia). Fibula. Side A: two chariots, each with one whee l in side -vie w, warriors (two on le ft-hand chariot) with round shie lds, he lme ts with drooping plume , and spears. Side B: longship with figure s aboard, of which two are warriors with round shie ld, he lmets with drooping plumes, and spears. Unarme d figure at bottom of mast; another in the crow’s nest. Also de picte d: horse and foal. Date d to se ve nth ce ntury. Be rlin Antiquarium no. 31013a. Re fere nces: Hampe 1936, pl. 4. 463. Amathus (Cyprus). Silve r bowl of Phoe nician make , showing a city unde r sie ge . The warriors with the round shie lds are most like ly Gree ks, in particular Ionian merce naries in Le vantine employ. Note the use of scaling ladders and the presence of arche rs and, possibly, ‘true cavalry’. Unearthe d in a partially robbe d chambe r-tomb at Amathus, he nce refe rre d to as the ‘Amathus Bowl’. Date d to around the middle of the se venth ce ntury. London. Re fere nces: Myres 1933, 26 fig. 1 and pls. 1–3. 464. Samos (Dode canese). Fragme nt of ivory re lie f de picting Pe rse us, equippe d with conical he lmet and sword, kills the Me dousa Gorgon, supporte d by Athe na (to le ft); looks like Pe rse us is also we aring a be ll-shape d cuirass. Date d to around 610. Re fe re nces: Walter 1990, 109 fig. 123. 465. Samos (Dodecanese ). A woode n footstool; e nds decorate d with horse ’s head and tail, e ngrave d de coration of horse and goat. Horizontal surface of the footstool de corate d with Geome tric motifs; le ngth about 53 cm. Date d to around 700. Re fe re nces: Walte r 1990, 42 figs. 29 and 30. 466. Samos (Dodecanese ). Fragme nt of bronze re lie f de picting the blinding of Polyphe mos. Date d to be twee n 675 and 650. Re fere nces: Walte r 1990, 105 fig. 119. 467. Samos (Dodecanese ). Bronze re lie f, showing He rakles stealing the cattle of Ge ryone us. He rakles wearing the lion skin, quive r, and using a sword to despatch Geryone us. Ge ryone us’ heads equippe d with Ionian-type he lmets (with stilte d crests), Argive shie lds, and greaves, attacking with thrusting spear. Date d to around 600. Re fe re nces: Carpe nter 1991, 146 fig. 201; Walte r 1990, 106 and 107 figs . 120 and 121. 468. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f from a tripod, possibly showing the mission to Achille us. One figure , e quippe d with a kerykeion, leads two othe r me n who hold the ir spears slope d against the ir shoulders, spearheads down. The figure with the pilos-like hat might be Odysse us (suggestion of Carpe nter). Date d to around 620. Munich 8770. Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 217 fig. 303. 469. Olympia (Elis). Fragme nt of bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing Amphiaraos ste pping onto a chariot. He , like his charioteer, wears a be ll-shape d cuirass. He is furthermore equippe d with greaves and Korinthian he lme t; he brandishes a sword in his right hand. His face is turne d toward a woman at right (de parture sce ne). Date d to late se venth century. Olympia B103. Re fere nces: Carpe nte r 1991, 181 fig. 268. 470. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing Aias in a be ll-shape d cuirass and greaves, carrying the dead body of Achille us (he lme t and possibly scale corslet?) from the battle fie ld. The figures are not name d, but the motif is a popular one . Date d to around 600. Olympia 1911a. Re fere nces: Carpe nte r 1991, 228 fig. 329. 471. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing Orestes grabbing the hair of a seate d Aigisthos, who draws his sword from its scabbard; Orestes, also equippe d with a sword at his side but otherwise nake d, raises his spear to kill the usurpe r. Date d to around 580. Olympia B1802. Re fe rences: Carpe nter 1991, 246 fig. 353. 472. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing Aias grabbing Kassandra, who see ks re fuge at a statue of Athe na. Aias is nake d apart from his cuirass and he lmet; he brandishes a sword in his right hand. Athe na is equippe d with an Argive shie ld, spear, sword, and he lme t with stilte d crest. Date d to around 580. Olympia B1802e . Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 232 fig. 337. 473. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f shie ld band, de picting a warrior in be ll-shape d cuirass, equippe d with he lme t, greaves, and sword, ready to kill a youth who has sought refuge at an

280

altar (probably Achille us killing Troilos). Date d to around 580. Olympia B987. Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 32 fig. 31. 474. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, two nake d me n e quippe d with swords find the body of Aias, who has committe d suicide . He is nake d as we ll, lying on his be lly, his sword running through his abdome n and out his back; his face is cove re d by his hands (sign of shame , the cause of his suicide ). Date d to around 575. Olympia B1636x. Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 229 fig. 331. 475. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l: He rakles draws his sword and pre pares to rescue These us and Pe irithoös, who are stuck to the ir chairs; all of the figures are name d. Date d to around 560. Olympia B2198a. Refe re nces: Carpe nter 1991, 98 fig. 126. 476. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing Agame mnon be ing restraine d by Aigisthos (right) while Klytaimnestra drives a sword or dagger into his back. Date d to around 560. Olympia B1654d. Re fe rences: Carpe nter 1991, 242 fig. 350. 477. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing Achille us fighting Pe nthesile ia (first three le tte rs of her name inscribe d). She is e quippe d with he lme t, single spear, and Argive shie ld (inside shown); Achille us is nake d apart from his greaves, he lme t, and be ll-shape d cuirass. He is furthe rmore equippe d with sword, single spear, and a Boiotian shie ld. Date d to around 550. Olympia B1555b. Re fe rences: Carpe nter 1991, 225 fig. 320. 478. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing He rakles arme d with a sword fighting Ge ryon, whose de picte d as having three bodies, each equippe d with greaves, shie ld, and he lmet (one with stilte d crest). Date d to around 550. Olympia B1975. Re fe rences: Carpe nte r 1991, 147 fig. 202. 479. Olympia (Elis). Mode l of a chariot. Date d to archaic pe riod. Refe re nces: Crouwe l 1992, pl. 3.1; Gree nhalgh 1973, 32 fig. 25. 480. Olympia (Elis). Bronze re lie f, shie ld band pane l, showing two warriors e ngage d in a game . The warriors are knee ling. The y each wear a Korinthian he lme t, one with stilte d crest, and are furthe rmore equippe d with greaves, sword, and single thrusting spear. Date d to after 500. Re fe rences: Buchholz 1987, 139 fig. 52.c; Kunze 1950, 33-34 and 142 pl. 59. 481. Dramessi (Epe iros). Graffiti of a galle y with short fore foot unde r sail, and a numbe r of figures on de ck. Date d to possibly around 1200. Re fe re nces: Basch 1987, 145 fig. 302.b; Crie laard 2006, 279 fig. 14.2a. 482. Le fkandi (Euboia). Clay mode l of a boat found on Xeropolis, north of a rece ntly discovere d wall (e ither a terrace wall or a city wall; de finite ly not that of a building). Date d to Protogeometric pe riod. Re fere nces: Whitley e t al. 2006-2007, 40 fig. 47. 483. Klazome nai (Ionia). Sarcophagus, headpie ce shows dismounte d warriors with shie lds (curtains!), accompanie d by ride rs (probably squire s). Date d to betwee n 530 and 515. Istanbul 1427 + London 86.3-26.1. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, pls. 6-7 (B8). 484. Klazome nai (Ionia ). Izmir marke t, but said to be from Klazome nai. Sarcophagus, headpiece features two warriors with shie lds (equippe d with ‘curtains’) e ngaging in single combat, flanke d by chariots; the he lmets of the warriors are of Korinthian type with transverse crests. Dogs unde rneath chariot horses. Date d to betwee n 525 and 510. Hanover 1897.12. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, pls. 14-15 (C4). 485. Klazome nai (Ionia). Fragme nt of a sarcophagus showing two warriors moving le ft to right; the y are equippe d with shie lds and he lmets, single spears; a ride r stands at le ft, possibly a squire (dog unde rfoot). Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. London 1886.13-26.1. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 174 fig. 353. 486. Klazome nai (Ionia). Sarcophagus. Headpie ce features warrior killing arche r, flanke d by othe r warriors, chariot, dog. Upper pane l shows due l over falle n warrior. Date d to be tween 500 and 470. Be rlin 3145. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, pls. 64-65 (G28). 487. Klazome nai (Ionia). Sarcophagus said to be from Klazome nai; warriors with horses on pane ls, de parture scene on headpiece (chariot, warriors, dog). Date d to be tween 500 and 470. Boston 04.285. Re fe rences: Cook 1981, pl. 50 (G9).

281

488. Klazome nai (Ionia). Sarcophagus, headpie ce features chariots and warriors (shie lds equippe d with curtains); warriors in single comba t on le ft uppe r pane l. Date d to betwee n 500 and 470. Louvre CA460. Re fe re nces: Cook 1981, 49 fig. 35 (de tails) and pl. 63 (G31). 489. Klazome nai (Ionia). Sarcophagus said to be from Klazomenai. He adpie ce features a battle betwee n horse men and heavily-arme d warriors on foot; upper pane l shows two warriors slaying an archer. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Louvre CA1024. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, pl. 54 and pl. 59.3 (G13). 490. Klazome nai (Ionia). Izmir marke t, but said to be from Klazome nai. Sarcophagus featuring the sacrifice of Polyxe na; one warrior with bronze be ll cuirass, other with line n corsle t. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Le ide n I.1896/12.1. Refe re nces: Cook 1981, pl. 48.3 (G8). 491. Klazome nai (Ionia). Izmir marke t, but said to be from Klazome nai. Sarcophagus with badly damage d lid, decorate d with sce nes of battle (warriors, horses, chariots, and dogs); some shie lds with curtains. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. London 96.6-15.1. Re fe rences: Cook 1981, pls. 39-46 (G1); Gree nhalgh 1973, 144 fig. 77. 492. Klazome nai (Ionia). Sarcophagus showing two warriors equippe d with greaves, swords, line n corsle ts, and he lme ts, leading the ir horses by the re igns toward a central, winge d figure , who is e quippe d with a shie ld. Each warrior is accompanie d by a dog. Ke ntaurs at bottom le ft and right corne rs (feet of the sarcophagus). Date d to betwee n 500 and 470. Be rlin 4824. Re fere nces: Boardman 1998, 174 fig. 354; Cook 1981, pl. 82 (G35). 493. Le mnos (Ionia). Incise d ste le that once se rve d as a grave marke r. De picts top part of warrior equippe d with Ionian he lme t, Argive shie ld, and single thrusting spear; inscription writte n in Le mnion. Date d to the sixth ce ntury. Boardman 1999 [1964], 85–86. 494. Smyrna (Ionia). Sarcophagus from Old Smyrna, headpiece features due l be twee n warriors, flanke d by Kentaurs. Date d to be twee n 500 and 470. Izmir muse um (?). Re fe rences: Cook 1981, 46 fig. 31 (details of headpiece ). 495. Smyrna (Ionia). Sarcophagus from Old Smyrna, originally covere d by stone slabs, headpiece features a battle betwee n horseme n; all six ride rs are accompanie d by dogs. Dated to be twee n 500 and 470. Izmir 3493. Re fere nces: Cook 1981, 38 fig. 22 (de tails of headpiece) and pl. 52 (G11). 496. Te os (Ionia). Sarcophagus, headpiece decorate d black-figure with warrior in line n corsle t and shie ld holding a horse, accompanie d by a dog. Date d to be tween 500 and 470. Louvre CA1458A. Re fe re nces: Cook 1981, 41 fig. 25 (de tail of headpie ce). 497. Korinth (Korinthia). Silve r coin from Korinth: obverse , pe gasos; re verse , Athe na Chalinitis (note crestless Korinthian he lme t). Date d to later sixth century. Re fere nces: Biers 1996 [1980], 192 fig. 7.52. 498. Korinth (Korinthia). Silve r state r (coin) from Korinth showing Athe na with a crestless Korinthian he lme t on top of he r head. The design of the he lmet close ly corresponds with that of a magnifice nt e xample currently on display in Sophia, Bulgaria. Date d to around 510. Korinth. Re fe rences: Carpe nter 1991, 66 fig. 83. 499. Korinth (Korinthia). Votive shie ld. Unearthe d in the Korinthian kerame ikos. It has two holes in the rim for suspe nsion. Decorate d with a horse; a heavy -arme d footsoldie r is de picte d leaping from its back. The warrior is equippe d with an Argive shie ld and wears a he lmet with hinge d chee kpieces. Date d to early fifth century conte xtually, but archaic in style . Re fere nces: Brouwers 2007a, fig. 6; Ne whall 1931, pl. II. 500. Pe nteskouphia (Korinthia). Fragme nts of a Korinthian plaque : at le ft, Te ukros crouches be neath a shie ld he ld up by a compa triot and takes aim; at right, a chariot drive n by Athena and Diome des (name d) fighting a (now lost) Trojan foe ove r the body of Pandaros. The name of Diome des’ re gular charioteer, Sthene los, is partly preserve d. Date d to first half of sixth ce ntury?. Be rlin F764. Re fe rences: Snodgrass 1998, 124 figs . 48 and 48.a. 501. Ida cave (Krete ). Fragme ntary ope n-work from bronze stand, showing a ship with oarsme n; fe male figure and warrior with shie ld at the stern. Date d to Geome tric. Heraklion 1638. Re fere nces: Byrne 1991, pl. 21 (no. 27). 502. Mykonos (Kyklades). Re lie f pithos. Discovere d in fune rary conte xt and originally fille d with human bone . Neck: Trojan Horse , with warriors pee ring out from little windo ws in the

282

side as we ll as de picte d around it. They are all arme d with a se t of two spears, ope n-faced he lmets with stilte d crests, round shie lds (Argive ). One of the figures in the horse holds a shie ld, the othe r a sword (comple te with scabbard and strap). Similar warriors are found on the shoulder. The uppe r part of the body of the pithos is decorate d with figurative me topes, showing warriors without shie lds attacking women (some times with childre n). The vase portrays the sack of Troy by the Achaians. Date d to around 675 (Osborne ) or the late r se ve nth ce ntury (Boardman). Mykonos muse um. Refe re nces: Boardman 1985, 50 fig. 46 (de tail); Osborne 1998, 54 fig. 25; Snodgrass 1999 [1967], pl. 33. 503. Prove nance unknown to me (Lakonia). Lakonian aryballos in the shape of a warrior ’s head wearing a Korinthian he lme t. Date d to early sixth century. Sparta. Re fere nces: Se kunda 1998, 12 (figs.). 504. Me ne laion (Lakonia). Fragme nt of a be lt from the Me ne laion sanctuary showing warriors e quippe d with Dipylon (or Boiotian?) shie lds and creste d he lmets fighting. Date d to se venth century. Re fere nces: Se kunda 1998, 52 (fig.). 505. Sparta (Lakonia). Fibula. De picte d is an e ncounter at sea. To le ft, warship with three dipylon-warriors holding long spears (pikes?) overhead. To right, round-bottome d ship with similar warriors. Date d to Geome tric pe riod (presuma bly). Louvre . Re fere nces: Crie laard 1996, fig. 32.h; Hagy 1986, 227-229. 506. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, ivory seal (class 3) with warrior, running le ft to right: he lme t, shie ld, single spear. Date d to possibly early se ve nth ce ntury. Refe re nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 145.1. 507. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, ivory plaque of a warrior (ve ry de taile d), with he lme t, spear, bronze be ll-shape d cuirass, greaves, tunic. Date d to Fifth Style (late r se venth century). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 108. 508. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, re mains of ivory plaque showing two warriors, one with shie ld and spear, the other with he lme t; both with greaves. Date d to Fifth Style (late r se venth ce ntury). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 107.2. 509. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, ivory plaque of a man equippe d with spear (or staff), walking and accompanie d by his dog (note the Home ric paralle ls in de scriptions from the Odyssey). Date d to Fifth Style (late r se ve nth ce ntury). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 103.2. 510. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, ivory plaque of mounte d warrior, with anothe r warrior appare ntly pe rche d precariously on the horse ’s hind quarte rs. Date d to Fifth Style (first half of se ve nth ce ntury). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 104.1. 511. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, ivory plaque e ncruste d with lime showing a hero (He rakles) fighting a Hydra: note the sword use d by the he ro. Date d to Fifth Style (later se venth century). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 103.1. 512. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, ivory plaque with ride r. Date d to Fifth Style (first half of the seve nth ce ntury). Refe re nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 104.2. 513. Sparta (Lakonia). Unearthe d at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, de picting a scene involving a ship. At le ft (ste rn), a man and woman saying fare we ll (also inte rprete d as Paris abducting He le n). Aboard ship: unarme d steersman; warriors with Argive shie lds; se veral figures working the sail; man fishing; anothe r figure on the ram, de fecating. Date d to Fifth Style (end of the seve nth century). Athe ns National Muse um. Refe re nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 109; Hampe and Simon 1980, 223 fig. 358. 514. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, bone plaque with part of warrior, he lme t and Boiotian-type shie ld. Date d to Seve nth Style . Re fe rences: Dawkins 1929, pl. 114.1b. 515. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Arte mis Orthia, bone plaque with part of a warrior: shie ld, greave d le g, spear. Date d to Se ve nth Style . Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 114.1a. 516. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, bone plaque fragme nt with he lmete d head of warrior. Date d to Seve nth Style . Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 114.1c.

283

517. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, fragme ntary ivory plaque de picting a two-horse chariot. Date d to Eighth Style (sixth ce ntury). Re fere nces: Dawkins 1929, pl. 156.2. 518. Sparta (Lakonia). From the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, fragme nts of a re lie f pithos found in the so-calle d ‘he roon’, de corate d with a sce ne of battle on the neck and a chariot on the shoulder. Note the de taile d equipme nt, including Boiotian shie ld, swords, be ll-shape d cuirass, animal skin, and so forth. Date d to not later than the late sixth ce ntury. Re fe rences: Dawkins 1929, pls. 15 (photo) and 16 (drawing). 519. Sparta (Lakonia). Sizeable fragme nts of a miniature Argive shie ld. Probably date to the sixth ce ntury. Re fe rences: Se kunda 1998, 53 (fig.). 520. Unkno wn (Lydia). Lydian silver alabastron with inscribe d de coration featuring ride rs. Date d to the Archaic period. Re fere nces: Özge n and Öztürk 1996, 238-239 (figs.). 521. Akte pe (Lydia). Lydian frie ze of the Akte pe kline , part of which shows riders and chariot. Date d to the Archaic pe riod. Re fere nces: Özge n and Öztürk 1996, 43-44 figs. 75 and 78. 522. Ikizte pe (Lydia). Aryballos shape d like the head and neck of a horse ; Rhodian type B. He ight 7.65 cm. Probably made by the same workshop as the aryballos in the shape of a warrior’s head, also from Ikizte pe . Date d to early sixth ce ntury. Re fere nces: Özge n and Öztürk 1996, 134 (fig.). 523. Ikizte pe (Lydia). Aryballos shape d like the head of a Gree k-style warrior with Ionian he lmet; greyish clay, thin walls, we ll-fire d; Rhodian type . He ight 6.1 cm. Probably made by the same workshop as the aryballos in the shape of a horse ’s head, also from Ikizte pe . Dated to the sixth ce ntury. Re fe rences: Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 135 (fig.). 524. Ikizte pe (Lydia). Lydian silve r alabastron featuring four cocks in the top tie r; a scene of lions killing bulls in the tie r beneath; a battle -sce ne betwee n groups of heavily-armoured me n in Gree k attire (be ll-shape d cuirasses, tunics, greaves, spears, and Korinthian he lme ts); bottom tie r features dee r. Date d to the sixth ce ntury. Re fere nces: Özge n and Öztürk 1996, 125 fig. 154. 525. Pazarli (Lydia). Lydian architectural te rracotta fragments showing me n arme d with what look like Argive shie lds; legs feature wrappings of some sort; he lme ts with stilte d crests and chee k-guards; spears ove rhead. Date d to the Archaic pe riod. Re fere nces: Özge n and Öztürk 1996, 25 figs. 24 and 25. 526. The mis (Skyros). Fibula from a grave on the estate of the Ayios Georgios Monaste ry. Side A: figure with Dipylon shie ld and a spear on horseback (holding the re ins); spear upright in front of horse , arrow passing underneath horse. Side B: ship at sea with Dipylon-warrior with two spears, arrows flying after him. Two line s at le ft possibly the e nds of spears carrie d by another warrior. Date d to late r e ighth ce ntury. Re fe rences: Sapouna-Sake llaraki 2002, 145 fig. 16.

284

Bibliography The following is a complete overview of all the secondary literature cited in the text. The translators of ancient texts discussed in chapters 7 through 9 in particular are mentioned in the relevant footnotes. Adcock, F.E. 1957. The Greek and Macedonian Art of War. Berke le y, Los Ange les. Ahlbe rg, G. 1971a. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art . Stockholm. — 1971b. Prothesis and e kphora in Greek Geometric Art . Göteborg. Akurgal, E. 1983. Alt-Smyrna I. Wohnschichten und Athenatempel. Ankara. Alföldi, A. 1967. ‘Die He rrschaft de r Re itere i in Grieche nland und Rom nach dem Sturz der Könige ’, in Gestalt und Geschichte: Festschrift K. Schefold (Be rne ), 13–45. Amyx, D.A. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting (three volume s). Be rke le y, Los Ange les, and London. Ande rson, J.K. 1961. Ancient Greek Horsemanship. Berke le y, Los Ange les. — 1965. ‘Home ric, British and Cyre naic chariots ’, American Journal of Archaeology, 69, 349–352. — 1970. Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon. Berke le y, Los Ange les. — 1975. ‘Gree k chariot-borne and mounte d infantry’, American Journal of Archaeology 79, 175–187. — 1991. ‘Hoplite we apons and de fe nsive arms ’, in Hanson 1991a, 15–37. Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece. London. Baitinger, H. 2001. Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia (Olympische Forschungen 29). Be rlin, Ne w York. Bakke r, E.J., I.J.F. de Jong, and H. van Wees (e ds.) 2002. Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Le ide n, Boston, Cologne . Bartol, K. 1992. ‘Whe re was iambic poe try performe d? Some e vide nce from the fourth ce ntury B.C.’, Classical Quarterly 42, 65–71. Beard, M. 1991. ‘Adopting an approach II ’, in Rasmusse n & Spive y 1991, 12–37. Beazle y, J. 1956. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford. — 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford. Be nson, J.L. 1970. Horse , Bird & Man. The Origins of Gree k Vase Painting. Amhe rst. —1989. Earlier Corinthian Workshops: a Study of Corinthian Geometric and Protocorinthian Stylistic Groups. Amsterdam. Bé rard, C. 1970. L’hérôon à la porte d l’oueste (Eretria 3). Berne . Be re nt, M. 2000. ‘Anthropology and the Classics: war, viole nce , and the state less polis’, Classical Quarterly 50, 257–289. Best, J.G.P. 1969. Thracian Peltasts and Their Influe nce on Greek Warfare. Groninge n. Be ye , C.R. 1964. ‘Homeric battle narrative and catalogues ’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 68, 345–373.

293

Bickne ll, P.J. 1970. ‘The e xile of the Alkmeonidai during the Pe isitratid tyranny’, Historia 19, 129–131. Bie rs, W.R. 1996 [1981]. The Archaeology of Greece. An Introduction (second e dition). Ithaca and London. Blandin, B. 2000. ‘Une tombe du IXe siècle av. J.-C. à Éré trie ’, Antike Kunst 43, 134–146. — 2007. Les pratique funéraires d’époque géométrique à Erétrie. Espace des vivants, demeures des morts (Eretria 17). Gollion. Ble ge n, C.W. 1952. ‘Two Athe nian grave -groups about 900 B.C.’, Hesperia 21, 279–294. Boardman, J. 1967. Greek Emporio: Excavations in Chios 1952-1955. Oxford. — 1975. Athenian Red Figure Vases. The Archaic Period. London. — 1985 [1964]. Greek Art (3rd e dition). London. — 1991 [1974]. Athenian Black Figure Vases (correcte d e dition). London. — 1991 [1978]. Greek Sculpture. The Archaic Period (2nd e dition). London. —1998. Early Greek Vase Painting . London. — 1999 [1964]. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade (4th e dition). London — 2001. The History of Greek Vases. London. Boe de ke r, D. 2002. ‘Epic he ritage and mythical patterns in He rodotus ’, in Bakke r, De Jong & Van Wees 2002, 97–116. Bol, P.C. 1989. Argivische Schilde (Olympische Forschungen 9). Be rlin. Bonfante , L. 1989. ‘Nudity as a costume in Classical art’, American Journal of Archaeology 93, 543–570. Borchardt, J. 1972. Homerische helme. Helmformen der Äigäis in ihren Beziehungen zu orientalischen und europäischen Helmen in der Bronze- und frühe n Eisenzeit . Mainz am Rhe in. Bouyia, P. 2000. ‘Archaische Be festigungen in Polygonalmaue rwerk in de r Opuntischen Lokris’, in Kr izinge r 2000, 67–75 Bowie , E.L. 1986. ‘Early Gree k e legy, symposium and public festival’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 106, 13–35. Brann, E. 1960. ‘Late Ge ome tric grave-groups from the Athe nian Agora’ Hesperia 29, 402–416. — 1962. Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery, Mid-8th to Late 7th century B.C. (The Athenian Agora 8). Princeton. Bräuning, A. 1995. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung Ausstattung des Kriegers im Grabbrauch Griechenlands zwischen dem 10. und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Le idorf. Brouwe rs, J.J. 2007a. ‘From horseme n to hoplites: some notes on archaic Gree k warfare ’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 82, 305–319. Brouwe rs, J.J. 2007b. ‘Warriors in Early Greece , 1200 to 500 B.C.’, in R.H van ’t Veer I. Ve nde rbos E. Ge hring, and D.S. Habe rme hl (e ds.), Sojabundel 2006 (Amste rdam), 33–42. Brunius-Nillson, E. 1955. Damonie. An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature. Uppsala. Bryce , T.R. 2002. Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford. Buccholz, H.-G. 1987. ‘Bre ttspie le nde He lde n’, in Laser 1987, 126–184. Buchholz, H.G. and V. Karage orghis 1973. Prehistoric Greece and Cyprus. London. Buchholz, H.G. and J. Wiesne r (e ds.) 1977. Kriegswesen, Teil 1. Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten (Archaeologia Homerica). Göttinge n. Buchholz, H.G. and J. Wiesne r (e ds.) 1980. Kriegswesen, Teil 2. Angriffswaffen (Archaeologia Homerica). Göttinge n.

294

Bugh, G.R. 1988. The Horsemen of Athens. Prince ton. Burgess, J.S. 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore . Büyükkolanci, M. 2000. ‘Excavations at Ayasuluk Hill in Se lçuk/Turke y. A contribution to the early history of Ephesus’, in Krizinge r 2000, 39–43. Byrne , M. 1991. The Greek Geometric Warrior Figurine. Interpretation and Origin. Louvain-la-Ne uve and Provide nce . Cairns, D.L. (e d.) 2001. Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford, Ne w York. Calhoun, G.M. 1934. ‘Classes and masses in Home r’, Classical Philology 29, 192–208 and 301–316. Camp, J.McK. 1992 [1986]. The Athenain Agora. Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (2nd e dition). London. — 2000. ‘Walls and the polis’, in P. Fle nste d-Je nse n, T.H. Nie lse n, and L. Rubinste in (e ds.), Polis & Politics: Studies in Ancie nt Greek History (Cope nhagen), 41–57. Carpe nte r, T.H. 1991. Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. London. Carradice , I. and M. Price 1988. Coinage in the Greek World. London. Cavanagh, W. and C. Mee 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Jonse re d. Cawkwe ll, G.L. 1989. ‘Orthodoxy and hoplites’, Classical Quarterly 39, 375–389. Chadwick, J. 1976. The Mycenaean World. Cambridge . Charbonneaux, J. 1958. Les bronze grècs (L’oeil du connaisseur). Paris. Christenson, D. 2000. ‘Callinus and Militia Amoris in Achille s Tatius’ Leucippe and Cleitophon’, Classical Quarterly 60, 631–632. Clark, A.J. 2002. ‘Looking at Gree k ce ramics ’, in A.J. Clark, M. Elston, and M.L. Hart (e ds.), Understanding Greek Vases. A Guide to Terms, Styles, and Techniques (Los Ange les), 1–22. Cogan, M. and H. Tadmor 1977. ‘Gyges and Ashurbanipal: a study in lite rary transmission’, Orie ntalia 46, 65–85. Coldstream, J.N. 1977. Geometric Greece. London. — 1991. ‘The Ge ometric style : birth of the picture ’, in Rasmusse n & Spive y 1991, 36–56. — 1995. ‘The rich lady of the Are iopagos and he r conte mporaries: a tribute in me mory of Eve lyn Lord Smithson’, Hesperia 64, 391–403. Comstock, M.B. and E. Ve rme ule 1971. Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston. Connolly, P. 1986. The Ancient Greece of Odysseus. Oxford. — 1998 [1981]. Greece and Rome at War (2nd e dition). London. Connor, W.R. 1988. ‘Early Gree k land warfare as symbolic e xpression’, Past and Present 119, 3–29. Cook, R.M. 1981. Clazomenian sarcophagi. Mainz am Rhe in. Courbin, P. 1957. ‘Une tombe géométrique d’Argos’, Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 81, 322–386. — 1966. La céramique géométrique de l’Argolide. Paris. — 1968. ‘La gue rre e n Grèce à haute é poque d’après les document archéologiques’ in Ve rnant 1968, 69–91. — 1974. Tombes géométriques d’Argos. Paris. Crane , G. 1996. ‘The prospe rity of tyrants: Bacchylides, He rodotus, and the contest for le gitimacy’, Arethusa 29, 57–85.

295

Crie laard, J.P. (e d.) 1995a. Homeric Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History, and Archaeology, Including the Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens, 1993. Amste rdam. — 1995b. ‘Homer, history and archaeology: some remarks on the date of the Homeric world’, in Crie laard 1995a, 201–288. — 1996. The Euboeans Overseas: Long -Distance Contacts and Colonization as Status Activities in Early Iron Age Greece (unpublishe d Ph.D. thesis). Amste rdam. — 2000. ‘Homeric and Myce naean long-distance contacts: discre pancies in the e vide nce ’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 75, 51–63. — 2002. ‘Past or prese nt? Epic poe try, aristocratic se lf-re presentation and the conce pt of time in the e ighth and se ve nth ce nturies B.C.’, in F. Montanari (e d.), Omero tremila anni dopo (Rome ), 239–295. — 2003. ‘Lyrie k, mate rië le cultuur e n ide ntite it in archaïsch Oost-Grie ke nland’, Lampas 36, 300–324. — 2006. ‘Basile is at sea: e lites and e xte rnal contacts in the Euboean Gulf region from the e nd of the Bronze Age to the beginning of the Iron Age ’, in De ger-Jalkotzy & Le mos 2006, 271–297. — 2007. ‘Ere tria’s West Ceme tery re visite d: burial plots, social structure and settle me nt organization during the 8th and 7th ce nturie s B.C.’, in A. Mazarakis Ainian (e d.), Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age (Volos), 169–195. Crouwe l, J. 1981. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Amsterdam. — 1992. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Amste rdam. — 1999. ‘Fighting on land and sea in Late Mycenaean times ’, in Laffine ur 2006, 455–464. Crouwe l, J. 2006a. ‘Chariot de pictions: from Myce naean to Geometric Greece and Etruria’, in Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 165–170. Crouwe l, J. 2006b. ‘Late Myce naean pictorial pottery. A brie f revie w’, in Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 15–22. Dakoronia, F. 2006a. ‘Bronze Age pictorial tradition on Geome tric pottery’, in Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 171–175. Dakoronia, F. 2006b. ‘Myce naean pictorial style ay Kynos, east Lokris ’, in Ryste dt & We lls, 23–29. Davis, J.L. and S. Alcock 1998. Sandy Pylos: an Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino. Austin. Davis, J.L. and J. Be nne t 1999. ‘Making Myce naeans: warfare , territorial e xpansion, and re prese ntations of the other in the Pylian kingdom’, in Laffine ur 1999, 105–120. Davison, J.M. 1961. Attic Geometric Workshops (Yale Classical Studies 16). Ne w Have n. Dawkins, R.M. (e d.) 1929. The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. London. Dawson, D. 1996. ‘The origins of war: biological and anthropological the ories’, History and Theory 35, 1–28. de Polignac, F. 2005. ‘Forms and processes: some thoughts on the meaning of urbanisation in Early Archaic Greece ’, in R. Osborne and B. Cunliffe (e ds.), Mediterranean Urbanisation 800–600 B.C. (Oxford, Ne w York), 45–69. de Ridde r, A. 1896. Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l’Acropole d’Athènes. Paris. De ger-Jalkotzy, S. 1999. ‘Military prowess and social status in Myce naean Greece ’, in Laffine ur 1999, 121–132. De ger-Jalkotzy, S. 2006. ‘Late Mycenaean warrior tombs ’, in De ge r-Jalkotzy & Le mos 2006, 151–179.

296

De ger-Jalkotzy, S. and I.S. Lemos (e ds.) 2006. Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edinburgh. De rde rian, K. 2001. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Literacy. Le ide n, Boston, Cologne . De tie nne , M. 1968. ‘La phalange : problèmes e t controve rses’, in Ve rnant 1968, 119–142. Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge . — 2006. The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries B.C. London, Ne w York. Dille ry, J. 1996. ‘Reconfiguring the past: Thyrea, The rmopylae and narrative patterns in He rodotus’, American Journal of Philology 117, 217–254. Dillon, M.P.J. 1997. ‘A Home ric Pun from Abu-Simbe l, Egypt (Me iggs & Le wis 7a)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 118, 128–130. Ducre y, P. 1985. Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce ancienne. Paris. Dunbabin, Th.J. and H. Payne (e ds.) 1962. Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia II: Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia. Oxford. Ebbinghaus, S. 2005. ‘Prote ctor of the city, or the art of storage in early Greece ’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 125, 51–72. Edrich, K.H. 1969. De r ionische Helm. Göttinge n. Edwards, A.T. 1993. ‘Home r’s e thical geography: country and city in the Odyssey’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 123, 27–78. — 2004. Hesiod’s Ascra. Berke le y. Evans, J.A.S. 1963. ‘Note on Miltiades’ capture of Le mnos’, Classical Philology 58, 168–170. — 1987. ‘He rodotus 9.73.3 and the publication date of the Histories’, Classical Philology 82, 226–228. Eve ly, D. (e d.) 2006. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (Lefkandi 4). Athe ns. Faraone , C.A. 2006. ‘Stanzaic structure and responsion in the e le giac poe try of Tyrtae us’, Mnemosyne 59, 19–52. Fe lsch, R.C.S. (e d.) 1996. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phocis (Kalapodi 1). Mainz am Rhe in. Fe lsch, R.C.S. (with contributions by J. Rie dere r and H.-O. Schmit) 2007. Die Bronzefunde (Kalapodi 2). Mainz am Rhe in. Fie lds, N. 2004. Troy, c. 1700–1250 B.C. Oxford. — 2006. Ancient Greek Fortifications, 500–300 B.C. Oxford. — 2007. Ancient Greek Warship. Oxford. Finle y, M.I. 1978 [1954]. The World of Odysseus (2nd e dition). London. Flory, S. 1980. ‘Who read He rodotus’ Histories?’, American Journal of Philology 101, 12–28. Fornara, C.W. 1966. ‘The hoplite achie veme nt at Psyttale ia’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 86, 51–54. Forsdyke , S. 2002. ‘Gree k history, c. 525–480 B.C.’, in Bakke r, De Jong & Van Wees 2002, 521–550. Forster, E.S. 1941. ‘Dogs in ancie nt warfare ’, Greece & Rome 10, 114–117. Forte nbe rry, C.D. 1990. Elements of Mycenaean Warfare (unpublishe d Ph.D. thesis). Cincinnati. — 1991. ‘Single greaves in the Late He lladic Pe riod’, American Journal of Archaeology 95, 623–627.

297

Fraze r, R.M. 1983. ‘Ajax’s weapon in Iliad 15.674–16.123’, Classical Philology 78, 127–130. Frost, F.J. 1984. ‘The Athe nian military before Cle isthenes ’, Historia 33, 283–294. Furtwängler, A. 1967. Die Bronzen (Olympische Forschungen 4). Be rlin. Gae be l, R.E. 2002. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World. Oklahoma. Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth. Baltimore. Georganas, I. 2005. ‘Weapons and warfare in Early Iron Age Thessaly’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 63–74. Gisle r, J.-R. 1995. ‘Eré trie e t le Pe intre de Cesnola’, Archaiognosia 8, 11–95. Golde n, M. 1998. Sport and Society in Ancient Greece. Cambridge . Gotschall, J. 2008. The Rape of Troy. Evolution, Violence, and the World of Homer. Cambridge . Graham, A.J. 1983 [1964]. Colony and Mother-City in Ancient Greece (2nd e dition). Chicago. Gray, D.H.F. 1947. ‘Home ric e pithe ts for things’, Classical Quarterly 41, 109–121. — 1954. ‘Me tal-working in Home r’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 74, 1–15. Gray, V.J. 2002. ‘Short stories in He rodotus’ Histories’, in Bakke r, De Jong & Van Wees 2002, 291–317. Greene walt, C.H. and A.M. He ywood 1992. ‘A he lme t of the sixth ce ntury B.C. from Sardis’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 285, 1–31. Greene walt, C.H. and M.L. Rautman 2000. ‘The Sardis campaigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998’, American Journal of Archaeology 104, 643–681. Greenhalgh, P.A.L. 1973. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages. Cambridge . Gre thle in, J. 2007. ‘Diome des re divivus: a ne w reading of Mimne rmus fr. 14 W2’, Mnemosyne 60, 102–111. Grguric, N. 2005. The Mycenaeans, c. 1650–1100 B.C. Oxford. Griffith, R.D. 2002. ‘Te mple as ship in Odyssey 6.10’, American Journal of Philology 123, 541–547. Guida, P.C. 1973. Le armi difensive dei Mice nei nelle Figurazioni. Rome . Güntne r, W. 2006. ‘Myce naean pictorial vase -painte rs: a vie w from Tiryns’, Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 51–61. Hägg, R. 1974. Die Gräber der Argolis in submykenischer, protogeometrischer und geometrischer Zeit. Uppsala, Stockholm. Hägg, R. (e d.) 1983. The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the second international symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1–5 June, 1981. Athe ns. Hagy, J.W. 1986. ‘800 years of Etruscan ships’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 15, 221–250. Haide r, P.W. 1996. ‘Grieche n in Vordere n Orie nt und in Ägypte n bis ca. 590 v. Chr.’, in C. Ulf (e d.), Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität. Die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit (Be rlin), 59–115. Hall, J.M. 2007. A History of the Archaic Greek World, ca. 1200–479 B.C.E. Malde n (MA), Oxford, Victoria. Hampe , R. 1936. Frühe Griechische Sagenbilder in Boötien. Athe ns. Hampe , R. and E. Simon 1980. Tausend Jahre frühgriechische Kunst . Munich. Hanse n, M. and T.H. Nie lse n (e ds.) 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford.

298

Hanse n, P.A. 1983. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca. Saeculorum VIII–V a. Chr. N. (Texte und Kommentare 12). Be rlin, Ne w York. Hanson, V.D. (e d.) 1991a. Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience. London. — 1991b. ‘The ideology of hoplite battle , ancie nt and mode rn’, in Hanson 1991a, 3–11. — 1998 [1983]. Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (2nd e dition). Berke le y, Los Ange les, London. — 2000 [1989]. The Western Way ofWar. Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (2nd e dition). Be rke le y, Los Ange les, London. Harrison, T. 2002. ‘The Pe rsian invasions’, in Bakke r, De Jong & Van Wees , 551–578. Harve y, A.E. 1955. ‘The classification of Gree k lyric poe try’, Classical Quarterly 5, 157–175. He ale y, J.F. 1978. Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World. London. He ilme yer, W.D. 1942. Frühe Olympische Tonfiguren (Olympische Forschungen 7). Be rlin. He ncke n, H. 1971. The Earliest European Helmets: Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Cambridge (MA). He rman, G. 1987. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge . He rmann, H.-V. 1983. ‘Altitalisches und Etruskisches in Olympia’, Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 61, 271–194. Higgins, R. 1981 [1967]. Minoan and Mycenaean Art (2nd e dition). London. Höckmann, O. 1980. ‘Lanze und Speer’, in Buchholz & Wiesner 1980, 275–318. Hoffmann, H. 1972. Early Cretan Armorers. Mainz am Rhe in. Holladay, A.J. 1982. ‘Hoplite s and he resies ’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102, 94–103. Hope Simpson, R. and D.K. Hage l 2006. Mycenaean Fortifications, Highways, Dams and Canals. Säve dale n. Hull, D.B. 1964. Hounds and Hunting in A ncient Greece. Chicago. Hunt, P. 1998. Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians. Ne w York. Hur wit, J. 1985. The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100–480 B.C. Ithaca, London. — 2002. ‘Reading the Chigi vase ’, Hesperia 71, 1–22. Iakovides, S. 1983. Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece. Le ide n. — 1999. ‘Late He lladic fortifications ’, in Laffine ur 1999, 199–204. Irwin, E. 2005. Solon and Early Greek Poetry. The Politics of Exhortation. Cambridge . Ivantchick, A.I. 2006. ‘‚Skythian‛ arche rs on Archaic Attic vases: problems of inte rpretation’, Ancient Civilizations 12, 197–271. Jackson, A.H. 1991. ‘Hoplite s and the gods: the de dication of capture d arms and armour’, in Hanson 1991a, 228–249. Jameson, M.H. 1991. ‘Sacrifice be fore battle ’, in Hanson 1991a, 197–227. Jarva, E. 1995. Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour. Rovaniemi. Je ffery, L.H. 1961. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. Oxford. Johansen, K.F. 1923. Les vases sicyoniens. Études archéologique. Cope nhage n. Johnston, P.F. 1985. Ship and Boat Models in Ancient Greece. Annapolis, Maryland. Ke lde r, J.M. 2009. The Kingdom of Mycenae: a Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean (unpublishe d Ph.D. thesis). Amste rdam. Ke lle y, K.A. 1979. ‘Variable re pe tition: word patterns in the Persae’, Classical Journal 74,

299

213–219. Ke lly, Th. 1970. ‘The traditional e nmity be twee n Sparta and Argos: the birth and de ve lopme nt of a myth’, American Historical Review 75, 971–1003. Ke rn, P.B. 1999. Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington. Killian-Dirlme ie r, I. 1993. Die Schwerter von Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnesos), Bulgarien, und Albanie n. Stuttgart. King, C. 1970. ‘The Homeric corsle t’, American Journal of Archaeology 74, 294–296. Konstan, D. 2007. ‘Anger, hatre d, and ge nocide in ancie nt Greece ’, Common Knowledge 13, 170–187. Kraike r, W. and K. Küble r 1939. Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos 1). Be rlin. Krause , G. 1972. Das Westtor (Eretria 4). Be rne. Kre ntz, P. 2000. ‘Dece ption in Archaic and Classical Gree k warfare ’, in Van Wees 2000a, 167–200. — 2002. ‘Fighting by the rule s: the inve ntion of the hoplite agōn’, Hesperia 71, 23–39. Krizinge r, F. (e d.) 2000. Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr.: Akten des Symposions Wien 24. bis 27 März 1999. Vie nna. Küble r, K. 1954. Die Nekropole des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos 5). Be rlin. Kuhrt, A. 2002a. ‘Gree k contact with the Le vant and Mesopotamia in the first half of the first mille nnium B.C.: a vie w from the East, in G.R. Tsetskhladze and A.M. Snodgrass (e ds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (Oxford), 17–25. Kuhrt, A. 2002b. ‘Gree ks’ and ‘Gree ce ’ in Mesopotamian and Pe rsian Pe rspectives (J.L. Myres Me morial Lectures 21). Oxford. Kukahn, E. 1936. Der griechische Helm. Marburg-an-de r-Lahn. Kunze , E. 1950. Archaïsche Schildbänder. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgriechische Bildgeschichte und Sagenüberlieferung (Olympische Forschungen 2). Be rlin. Kunze , E. 1991. Beinschiene n (Olympische Forschungen 8). Be rlin. Kyrie le is, H. 1981. Führe r durch das Heraion von Samos. Athe ns. — 1993. ‘The He raion at Samos’, in N. Marinatos & R. Hägg (e ds.), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London and Ne w York), 125–153. Laffine ur, R. (e d.) 1999. Polemos: le contexte guerrier en Égée à l'âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14–17 avril 1998. Liè ge . Lamb, W. 1969. Ancient Greek and Roman Bronzes. Chicago. Lambrinoudakis, V. And O. Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou 2001. ‘The town of Naxos at the e nd of the Late Bronze Age : the Myce naean fortification wall’, in Karage orghis & Morris 2001, 157–169. Lang, F. 1996. Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung. Be rlin. Lang, M. 1967. ‘Kylonian conspiracy’, Classical Philology 62, 243–249. Lang, M.L. 1991. ‘The alphabe tic impact on Archaic Greece ’, in D. Buitron-Olive r (e d.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Washington, Hannover, London), 65–79. Langdon, S. 1987. ‘Gift e xchange in the Ge ome tric sanctuaries’ in T. Linde rs and G. Nordquist (e ds.), Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium, 1985 (Uppsala), 107–113. — 1989. ‘The re turn of the horse -leade r’, American Journal of Archaeolog y 93, 185–201. — 2001. ‘Be yond the grave : biographies from Early Greece ’, American Journal of Archaeology

300

105, 579–606. Lase r, S. 1987. Sport und Spiel (Archaeologia Homerica). Göttinge n. Latacz, J. 1977. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Munich. Lattimore, R. 1958. ‘Composition of the History of Herodotus’, Classical Philology 53, 9–21. Laumonie r, A. 1956. Les figurines de terre cuite (Délos 23). Paris. Laute r-Bufe , H. and H. Laute r 1975. ‘Die vorthemistokle ische Stadtmaue r Athe ns nach philologische n und archäologische n Que lle n’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1–9. Lave lle , B.M. 1989. ‘Epikouroi in Thucydide s’, American Journal of Philology 110, 36–39. Lawre nce , A.W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification. Oxford. Laze nby, J. 1991. ‘The killing zone ’, in Hanson 1991a, 87–109. Laze nby, J.F. 1987. ‘The diekplous’, Greece & Rome 34, 169–177. Le mos, A.A. 1991. Archaic Pottery of Chios. The Decorative Styles (two volumes). Oxford. Le mos, I.S. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries B.C. Oxford. Le ndon, J.E. 2000. ‘Home ric ve ngeance and the outbreak of Gree k wars ’, in Van Wees 2000a, 1–30. Le ndon, J.E. 2005. Soldiers and Ghosts. A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. Ne w Have n and London. Lipinski, E. 2004. Itineraria Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia 18). Le uve n. Loade r, N.C. 1998. Building in Cyclopean Masonry, with Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Jonsere d. Lolos, Y. 2001. ‘Salamis’, Archaeological Reports 47, 14–15. Lorime r, H.L. 1947. ‘The hoplite phalanx, with special re fere nce to the poems of Archilochus and Tyrtae us’, Annual of the British School at Athens 42, 76–138. — 1950. Homer and the Monuments. London. Luraghi, N. 2006. ‘Trade rs, pirates, warriors: the proto-history of Gree k me rce nary soldiers in the easte rn Me dite rranean’, Phoenix 60, 21–47. Macan, R.W. 1897. ‘A note on the date of Tyrtae us, and the Messenian War’, Classical Review 11, 10–12. MacDowe ll, D.M. 1986. Spartan Law. Edinburgh, London. Mackie , H. 1996. Talking Trojan. Speech and Community in the Iliad. Lanham, London. Macurdy, G.H. 1923. ‘The horse-taming Trojans’, Classical Quarterly 17, 50-52. Maitland, J. 1999. ‘Pose idon, walls, and narrative comple xity in the Home ric Iliad’, Classical Quarterly 49, 1–13. Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1997. F rom Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.). Jonsere d. — 2002. ‘Re cent e xcavations at Oropos (northe rn Attica)’, in Stamatopoulou & Ye roulanou 2002, 149–178. Mazarakis Ainian, A. and Le ve nti, I. 2009. ‘The Aegean’, in K.A. Raaflaub and H. van Wees, A Companion to Archaic Greece (Malde n, MA), 212–238. McInerne y, J. 1999. The Folds of Parnassos. Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis. Austin. Me iggs, R. and D. Le wis 1989 [1969]. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (2nd e dition). Oxford, Ne w York.

301

Mille r, D.A. 1998. ‘The Spartan kingship: some e xte nde d notes on comple x duality’, Arethusa 31, 1–17. Moles, J. 2002. ‘He rodotus and Athe ns’, in Bakke r et al. 2002, 33–52. Mölle r, A. 2000. Naukratis. Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford. Molloy, B. (e d.) 2007. The Cutting Edge. Studies in Ancient and Medieval Combat . Stroud. Morgan, C. 1990. Athletes and Oracles. The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C. Cambridge . — 1993. ‘The origins of pan-He lle nism’, in N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (e ds.), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London), 14–33. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancie nt Society. The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge . — 1997. ‘Home r and the Iron Age ’, in I. Morris and B.B. Powe ll (e ds.), A New Companion to Homer (Le ide n), 535–559. — 1999. ‘Archaeology and ge nde r ide ologies in Early Archaic Greece ’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 129, 305–317. — 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History. Words and Things in Iron-Age Greece. Malde n (MA). — 2001. ‘The use and abuse of Home r’, in Cairns 2001, 57–91. Mülle r, V. 1929. Frühgriechische Plastik: frühe Plastik in Griechenland und Vorderasien. Augsburg. Mulroy, D. 1992. Early Greek Lyric Poetry. Michigan. Murray, O. 1983. ‘The symposion as social organisation’, in Hägg 1983, 195–199. — (e d.) 1990. Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. Murray, P. 1981. ‘Poe tic inspiration in early Greece ’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 101, 87–100. Myres, J.L. 1933. ‘The Amathus bowl: a long-lost maste rpiece of Orie ntal engraving’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 53, 25–39. Nagy, G. 1999 [1979]. The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Baltimore and London. Natoli, B. 2006. A Heroic Trichotomy: kudos, kle os, and timê in Homeric Epic (unpublishe d Maste r’s thesis). Richmond. Nee ft, C.F. 1987. Protocorinthian Subgeometric Aryballoi. Amsterdam. Ne whall, A.E. 1931. ‘The Corinthian Ke rame ikos’, American Journal of Archaeology 35, 1–30. Nicholls, R.V. 1970. ‘Gree k Votive Sta tue ttes and Re ligious Continuity c. 1200– 700 B.C.’, in B.F. Harris (e d.), Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E.M. Blaiklock (Auckland, Oxford), 1–38. Nossov, K. 2005. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons. A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Staple hurst. Obe r, J. 1985. Fortress Attica: Defence of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 B.C. Le ide n. Osborne , R. 1998. Archaic and Classical Greek Art . Oxford, Ne w York. — 2002. ‘Archaic Gree k history’, in Bakke r, De Jong & Van Wees 2002, 497–520. Özge n, I. and J. Öztürk 1996. The Lydian Treasure: He ritage Recovered. Ankara. Palaima, Th.G. 1999. ‘Myce naean militarism from a te xtual perspe ctive . Onomastics in conte xt: lawos, damos, klewos’, in Laffine ur 1991, 367–379. Palaima, Th.G. 2004. ‘Sacrificial feasting in the Linear B docume nts’, Hesperia 73, 217–246. Papadopoulos, Th.J. 1999. ‘Warrior-graves in Achaean Mycenaean ce mete ries ’, in Laffine ur 1999, 256–274. Pappi, E. 2006. ‘Argive Ge ome tric figure d style . The rule and the e xce ption’, in Ryste dt &

302

We lls 2006, 229–237. Parke r, P. 1997. Untersuchungen zum Lelantischen Krieg und ve rwandten Problemen der frühgriechischen Geschichte. Stuttgart. Payne , H.G.H. 1931. Necrocorinthia. Oxford. Pe dley, J.G. 1974. ‘Carians in Sardis’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 94, 96–99. — 1987. ‘Re flections of architecture in sixth-century Attic vase -painting’, in A.P.A. Be lloli (e d.), Papers on the Amasis Painter and His World (Malibu), 63–80. — 2005. Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge . Pe rdrize t, P. 1908. Monuments figurés. Petits bronzes, terres-cuites, antiquités diverses (Fouilles de Delphes). Paris. Pfuhl, E. 1923. Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen. Munich. Pipili, M. 1998. ‘Archaic Laconian vase-painting’, in W.G. Cavanagh and S.E.C. Walke r (e ds.), Sparta in Laconia: Proceedings of the 19th British Museum Classical Colloquium (London), 82–96. Pittman, A. 2007. ‘‚With your shie ld or on it‛: combat applications of the Gree k hoplite shie ld and spear’, in Molloy 2007, 64–76. Plomme r, W.H. 1969. ‘The tyranny of the Archon list’, Classical Review 19, 126–129. Podle cki, A.J. 1969. ‘Three Gree k soldie r-poets: Archilochus, Alcae us, Solon’, Classical World 63, 73–81. Popham, M.R. 1987. ‘An early Euboean ship’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6, 353–359. Popham, M.R., P.G. Calligas, and L.H. Sacke tt 1988. ‘Furthe r e xcavation of the Toumba ce mete ry at Le fkandi, 1984 and 1986, a pre liminary re port’, Archaeological Reports 35, 117–129. — (e ds.) 1990a. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. The Pottery (Lefkandi 2, part 1). Athe ns. — (e ds.) 1990b. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (Lefkandi 2, part 2). Athe ns. Popham, M.R. and I. Lemos (e ds.) 1996. The Toumba Cemetery. The Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986, and 1992–4 (Lefkandi 3). Athe ns. Popham, M.R., L.H. Sacke tt, and P.G. The me lis (e ds.) 1980. The Iron Age (Lefkandi 1). Athe ns. Powe ll, A. 1998. ‘Sixth-ce ntury Lakonian vase -painting. Continuitie s and discontinuitie s with the ‚Lykourgan‛ ethos’, in: Fisher and van Wees 1998, 119–146. Pouilloux, J. 1954. La fortresse de Rhamnonte: étude de topographie et d’histoire. Paris. Pre ziosi, D. and L. Hitchcock 1999. Aegean Art And Architecture. Oxford. Pritche tt, W.K. 1971. Ancient Greek Military Practices. Be rke ley, Los Ange les, London. — 1974. The Greek State at War, Part II. Be rke le y, Los Ange les, London. — 1979. The Greek State atWar, Part III: Religion. Berke le y, Los Ange les, London. — 1985. The Greek State atWar, Part IV. Berke le y, Los Ange les, London. Quinn, J.D. 1961. ‘Alcae us 48 (B16) and the fall of Ascalon (604 B.C.)’, American School of Orie ntal Research 164, 19–20. Rasmusse n, T. and N. Spive y (e ds.) 1991. Looking at Greek Vases. Cambridge . Raubitsche k, I.K. 1998. The Metal Objects (Isthmia 7). Princeton (Ne w Je rse y). Rawlings, L. 2007. The Ancient Greeks at War. Manchester, Ne w York. Ready, J.L. 2007. ‘Toil and trouble : the acquisition of spoils in the Iliad’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 137, 3–43. Rhodes, R.F. 2003. ‘The earliest Gree k architecture in Corinth and the 7th-ce ntury temple on

303

temple hill’, in C.K. Williams & N. Bookidis (e ds.), Corinth, the centenary, 1896–1996 (Princeton, NJ), 85–94. Rolle y, C. 1969. Monuments figurés. Les statuettes de bronze (Fouilles de Delphes). Paris. Roymans, N.G.A.M. 1996. ‘The sword or the plough. Re gional dynamics in the romanisation of Be lgic Gaul and the Rhine land area ’, in N.G.A.M. Roymans (e d.), From the Sword to the Plough. Three Studies on the Earliest Romanisation of Northern Gaul (Amste rdam), 9–126. Russe ll, F.S. 1999. Information Gathering in Classical Greece. Ann Arbor. Ryste dt, E. 2006a. ‘Pictorial matte r, pictorial form. A vie w from Mycenae towards Athe ns’, in Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 239–245. — 2006b. ‘Tracing stylistic e volution in Myce naean pictorial vase painting’, in Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 123–129. Ryste dt, E. And B. We lls (e ds.) 2006. Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001. Athe ns. Sacconi, A. 1999. ‘Les table ttes de Pylos e t la gue rre ’, in Laffine ur 1999, 361–366. Salmon, J.B. 1977. ‘Political hoplites?’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 97, 87–122. Sandars, N.K. 1963. ‘Late r Aegean bronze swords’, American Journal of Archaeology 67, 117–153. Sapouna-Sake llaraki, E. 2002. ‘Skyros in the Early Iron Age : ne w e vide nce ’, in Stamatopoulou & Ye roulanou 2002, 117–148. Sapouna Sake llaraki, E., J.J. Coulton, and I.R. Metzge r (with contributions by A. Sarpaki and S. Wall-Crowthe r) 2002. The Fort at Phylla, Vrachos. Excavations at a Late Archaic Fort in Central Euboea (BSA suppleme nt 33), London. Sarian, H. 1969. ‘Te rres cuites gé omé trique d’Argos ’, Bulletin de correspondance Hellénique 98, 651–678. Schefold, K.F. and M. Hirme r 1964. Frühgriechische Sagenbilder. Munich. Schilardi, D.U. 1992. ‘The LH IIIC Pe riod at the Koukounaries Acropolis, Paros’, in J.-P. Olivie r (e d.), Myke naika. Actes du IXe Colloque inte rnational sur les te xtes mycénie ns et égée ns organisé par le Ce ntre de l’Antiquité Grecque e t Romaine de la Fondation He llé nique de s Reche rches Scie ntifiques e t l’École Française d’Athè nes; Athè nes, 2–6 octobre 1990 (Paris), 621–639. Schmitt, H.-O. 2007. ‘Die Angriffswaffe n’, in Fe lsch 2007, 423–551. Schulman, A.R. 1957. ‘Egyptian re presentations of horseme n and riding in the Ne w Kingdom’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16, 263–271. Schwe rtfege r, T. 1982. ‘Der Schild de s Archilochos’, Chiron 12, 253–280. Scoufopoulos, N.C. 1971. Mycenaean Citadels (Studies in Mediterra nean Archaeology 22). Göte borg. Scranton, R.L. 1941. Greek Walls. Cambridge (MA). Scully, S. 1990. Homer and the Sacred City. Ithaca. Se nff, R. 2000. ‘Die archaische Wohnbe bauung am Kalabakte pe in Mile t’, in Krizinge r 2000, 29–37. Se kunda, N. 1998. The Spartan Army. Oxford. — 2000. Greek Hoplite, 480–323 B.C. Oxford. — 2007. ‘The might of the Pe rsian Empire ’, in P. de Souza (e d.), The Ancient World at War (London), 67–85. Shanks, M. 1999. Art and the Greek City-State. An Interpretive Archaeology. Cambridge . Shapiro, H.A. 1981. ‘Exe kias, Ajax, and Salamis: a further note ’, American Journal of

304

Archaeology 85, 173–175. Shay, J. 1994. Achilles in Vietnam. Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. Ne w York, London, Toronto, Sydne y. Shear, I.M. 2000. Tales of Heroes. The Origins of the Homeric Texts. Ne w York and Athe ns. She lme rdine , C.W. 1997. ‘Re vie w of Ae gean pre history VI: The palatial Bronze Age of the ce ntral and southe rn Gree k mainland’, American Journal of Archaeology 101, 537–585. — 1998. ‘Whe re do we go from he re? And how can the Linear B table ts he lp us get the re?’, in E.H. Cline and D. Harris -Cline (e ds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Mille nnium: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Unive rsity of Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997 (Liè ge and Austin), 291–299. — 2006. ‘Myce naean palatial administration’, in De ger-Jalkotzy & Le mos 2006, 73–86. Simantoni-Bournia, E. 2004. La céramique grècque à reliefs: ateliers insulaires du VIIIe au Vie siècle avant J.-C. Ge ne va. Singor, H.W. 1988. Oorsprong en betekenis van de hoplietenfalanx in het Archaïsche Griekenland (unpublishe d Ph.D. thesis). Le ide n. — 1995. ‘Eni protoisi machesthai: some remarks on the Illiadic image of the battle fie ld’, in Crie laard 1995, 183–200. — 2000. ‘The military side of the Pe isistratean tyranny’, in H. Sancisi-Weerde nburg (e d.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence (Amsterdam), 107–129. Slings, S.R. 2000. Symposium: Speech and Ideology. Two Hermeneutical Issues in Early Greek Lyric, with Special Reference to Mimnermus (= Mededelingen van de Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 63.1). Amste rdam. — 2002. ‘Oral strategie s in the language of He rodotus’, in Bakke r, De Jong & Van Wees 2002, 53–78. Smithson, Eve lyn Lord 1968. ‘The tomb of a rich Athe nian lady, ca. 850 B.C.’, Hesperia 37, 77–116. Snodgrass, A.M. 1964a. ‘Carian armourers: the growth of a tradition’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 84, 107–118. — 1964b. Early Greek Armour and Weapons. Edinburgh. — 1965. ‘The hoplite reform and history’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 85, 110–122. — 1971. ‘The first European body-armour’, in Studies in Honour of C.F.C. Hawkes (London), 33–50. — 1974. ‘An historical Homeric socie ty?’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 94, 114–125. — 1977. The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh. — 1980. Archaic Greece. The Age of Experiment . Be rke le y, Los Ange les. — 1983. ‘He avy fre ight in Archaic Greece’, in P. Garnsey et al. (e ds.), Trade in the Ancient Economy (London), 16–26. — 1998. Homer and the Artists. Text and Picture in Early G reek Art . Cambridge . — 1999 [1967]. Arms and Armour of the Greeks (2nd e dition). Baltimore . Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1983. ‘A trauma in flux: death in the 8th ce ntury and afte r’, in Hägg 1983, 33–49. Sparkes, B.A. 1996. The Red and the Black: Approaches to Greek Painted Pottery. Routle dge, London. Spe nce, I.G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece. Oxford. Stamatopoulou, M. and M. Ye roulanou (e ds.) 2002. Excavating Classical Culture: Recent

305

Archaeological Discoveries in Greece. Oxford. Stampolides, N.C. 1995. ‘Home r and the cremation burials at Ele utherna ’, in Crie laard 1995, 289–308. Stanford, W.B. 1981. ‘Sound, se nse , and music in Gree k poe try’, Greece & Rome 28, 127–140. Stubbings, F.H. 1962. ‘Arms and armour’, in F.H. Stubbings and A.J. Wace (e ds.), A Companion to Homer (London), 504–522. Summere r, L. 2008. ‘Indige nous responses to encounte rs with the Gree ks in northe rn Anatolia: the rece ption of architectural terracottas in the Iron Age se ttle me nts of the Halys basin’, in P. Guldage r Bilde and J. Hjarl Pe tersen (e ds.), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence (Aarhus), 263–286. Symeonoglou, S. 1985. The Topography of Thebes. Prince ton. Tartaron, T.F. 2008. ‘Ae gean pre history as world archaeology: rece nt trends in the archaeology of Bronze Age Greece ’, Journal of Archaeological Research 16, 83–161. Tausend, K. 1992. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart. Te le vantou, C.A. 2001. ‘Ayios Andreas on Sifnos: a Late Cycladic III fortifie d acropolis’, in Karageorghis and Morris 2001, 191—214. Thomas, N.R. 1999. ‘The war animal: three days in the life of the Myce naean lion’, in Laffine ur 1999, 297–312. Thomas, R. 1992. Griechische Bronzestatuetten. Darmstadt. Thompson, H.A. 1948. ‘The e xcavation of the Athe nian agora. Twe lfth season 1947’ Hesperia 14, 149–196. — 1950. ‘Excavations in the Athe nian Agora: 1949’, Hesperia 19, 313–337. — 1956. ‘Activitie s in the Athe nian Agora: 1955’, Hesperia 25, 46–68. Tille y, A. 2004. Seafaring on the Ancient Mediterranean. New Thoughts on Triremes and Other Ancient Ships. Michigan. Tre herne , P. 1995. ‘The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and se lf-ide ntity in Bronze -Age Europe ’, Journal of European Archaeology 3, 105–144. Tre iste r, M.Y. and J. Hargrave 2001. Hammering Techniques in Greek and Roman Jewellery and Torteutics. Le ide n. Trümpy, H. 1950. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatz Homers. Fre iburg. Trundle , M. 2004. Greek Mercenaries from the Late Archaic Period to Alexander. London, Ne w York. Tzahou-Ale xandri, O. 1987. ‘Contribution to the knowle dge of 8th ce ntury B.C. ship re prese ntations’, in H. Tzalas (e d.), Tropis II. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Delphi, 1987 (Athe ns), 333–361. Tzave lla-Evje n, H. 1983. ‘Home ric me dicine ’, in Hägg 1983, 185–188. Uchite l, A. 1984. ‘On the ‚military‛ character of the O-KA table ts’, Kadmos 23, 136–163. — 1988. ‘Charioteers of Knossos’, Minos 23, 47–58. van Doorninck, F.H. 1982. ‘Protoge ometric longships and the introduction of the ram’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 11, 277–286. van Effe nterre , H. 1976. ‘Clisthè ne e t les mesures de mobilisation’, Revue des études grecques 89, 1–17. van Wees, H. 1986. ‘Le aders of me n? Military organisation in the Iliad’, Classical Quarterly 36, 285–303.

306

— 1988. ‘Kings in combat: battles and heroes in the Iliad’, Classical Quarterly, 38, 1–24. — 1992. Status Warriors. Violence and Society in Homer and History. Le ide n. — 1994. ‘The Home ric way of war: the Iliad and the hoplite phalanx’, Greece & Rome 41, 1–18 and 131–155. — 1998. ‘Gree ks bearing arms: the state , the le isure class, and the display of weapons in Archaic Greece ’, in N. Fishe r and H. van Wees (e ds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evide nce (London), 333–378. — (e d.) 2000a. War and Violence in Ancie nt Greece. London. — 2000b. ‘The de ve lopment of the hoplite phalanx: iconography and reality in the se ve nth ce ntury’, in Van Wees 2000a, 125–166. — 2002. ‘He rodotus and the past’, in Bakke r et al. 2002, 321–350. — 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. London. — 2006. ‘From kings to de migods: e pic he roes and social change c. 750–600 B.C.’, in De ger-Jalkotzy & Le mos 2006, 363–379. — 2008. ‘War in Archaic and Classical Greece ’, in De Souza 2008, 101–118. Ve rdan, S., A.K. Pfyffe r, C. Le de rre y 2008. Céramique géométrique d’Érétrie (Eretria 20). Gollion. Ve rme ule , E. 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago, London. Ve rme ule , E. and V. Karage orghis 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting . Cambridge (MA). Ve rnant, J.-P. 2001. ‘A ‚beautiful‛ de ath and the disfigure d corpse ’, in Cairns 2001, 311–341. Ve rrall, A.W. 1896. ‘Tyrtae us: a Graeco-Roman tradition’, Classical Review 10, 269–277. Ve rrall, A.W. 1897. ‘The date of Tyrtae us’, Classical Review 11, 185–190. Vittmann, G. 2003. Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 97). Mainz. Vos, M.F. 1963. Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting. Groninge n. Wace , A.J.B. 1929. ‘The lead figurines’, in Dawkins 1929, 249–284. Wachsmann, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant . London. Waldbaum, J.C. 1997. ‘Gree ks in the East or Gree ks and the East? Problems in the de finition and recognition of prese nce ’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 305, 1–17. Waldste in, C. 1905. The Argive Heraeum, part II. Boston. Wallinga, H.T. 1993. Ships and Sea-Power Before the Great Persian War. Le ide n. Walte r, H. 1990. Das Griechische Heiligtum dargestellt am Heraion von Samos. Stuttgart. Warry, J. 1980. Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome. Ne w York. Webste r, T.B.L. 1955. ‘Home r and Attic Geome tric vases ’, Annual of the British School at Athens 50, 38–50. We dde , M. 1999. ‘War at sea: the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age oare d galle y’, in Laffine ur 1999, 465–474. West, M.L. 1973. ‘Gree k poe try, 2000–700 B.C’, Classical Quarterly 23, 179–192. — 1994. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. — 1998. ‘Grate d cheese fit for heroes ’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 118, 190–191. Westermann, W.L. 1945. ‘Be twee n slave ry and free dom’, American Historical Review 50, 213–227. Whatle y, N. 1964. ‘On the possibility of reconstructing Marathon and othe r ancie nt battles’,

307

Journal of Hellenic Studies 84, 119–139. Whee ler, E.L. 1991. ‘The ge ne ral as hoplite ’, in Hanson 1991a, 121–170. Whitley, J. 1994. ‘The monume nts that stood be fore Marathon: tomb cult and he ro cult in Archaic Attica’, American Journal of Archaeology 98, 213–230. — 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge . — 2002. ‘Obje cts with attitude : biographical facts and fallacies in the study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age warrior graves ’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12, 217–32. Whitley, J., et al. 2007. ‘Archae ology in Greece , 2006–2007’, Archaeological Reports 53. Winte r, F.E. 1971. Greek Fortifications. Toronto. Wokale k, A. 1973. G riechische Stadtbefestigungen. Studien zur Geschichte der Frühgriechischen Befestigungsanlagen. Bonn. Wood, M. 1996 [1985]. In Search of the Trojan War (2nd e dition). Be rke le y, Los Ange les. Worley, L.J. 1994. Hippeis: the Cavalry of Ancient Greece. Oxford. Yamagata, N. 1997. ‘Anax and basile us in Homer’, Classical Quarterly 47, 1–14. Young, R.S. 1939. Late Geometric graves and a seventh century well in the Agora (Hesperia Supplements 2). Athe ns. — 1949. ‘Grave near the Athe nian Agora ’, Hesperia 18, 275–297. — 1951. ‘Se pulturae intra urbem’, Hesperia 20, 67–134. Zaphiropoulou, Ph.N. 2002. ‘Rece nt finds from Paros’, in Stamatopoulou & Ye roulanou 2002, 281–284. — 2006. ‘Ge ome tric battle sce nes on vases from Paros’, in Ryste dt & We lls 2006, 271–277.

308