^{page 95 note 1} I am very grateful to Professor Andrewes and Dr. L. H. Jeffery for helpful criticism, also to members of the Oxford Classical Association and the Hibernian Hellenists who listened to versions of this paper in 1966.

^{page 95 note 2} Myres, J. L., J.H.S. xxvi (1906), 84–130;Google ScholarFotheringham, J. K., J.H.S. xxvii (1907), 75–89;Google Scholar Myres, ibid. 123–30; Aly, W., Rh. Mus. lxvi (1911), 585–606;Google ScholarHelm, R., Hermes lxi (1926), 241–62;Google ScholarBurn, A. R., J.H.S. xlvii (1927), 165–77;Google ScholarBork, F., Klio xxviii (1935), 15–20;Google ScholarSakellariou, M. B., La Migration grecque, pp. 473–5.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 3} Burn, A. R., The Lyric Age p. 58; cf. below, p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 4} See Myres, , J.H.S. xxvi (1906). His argument (p. 87) that Herodotos did not know such a list is not decisive.Google Scholar When Hdt. names Polykrates as the first thalassocrat (3. 22) we may surely put the emphasis on as at 1. 5. 3 we can assume that he is contrasting his certain knowledge of Kroisos' attacks on the Greeks with a less certain knowledge that Gyges had done the same (1. 15. 4).

^{page 96 note 1} Hdt. 7. 204 with Paus. 3. 2–4; Hdt. 8. 131 with Paus. 3. 7.

^{page 96 note 2} See Jacoby, Komm. on F. Gr. Hist. 241 F 1. I do not mean that the fifth century was incapable of producing an exact date (cf. Thuc. on the Sicillan colonies), only that it did not produce a system based on exact dates.

^{page 96 note 3} Dunbabin, T. J., The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours, pp. 31 f. and 49Google Scholar and The Western Greeks, pp. 34–5;Google ScholarStrabo, , p. 654.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 4} For Midas and the Greeks see, for example, Burn, , op. cit. (p. 95, n. 3), pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 5} For the danger of this argument, see below p. 102.

^{page 96 note 6} Given the Greek contact with Phrygia and Assyria (Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas, pp. 64–70Google Scholar), the fighting between Assyria and Phrygia in the last third of the century might provide an otherwise missing backbone for the Lelantine War. Very crudely, the argument would run: Midas dedicated at Delphi (Hdt. 1. 14. 2–3) and would therefore be a friend of Chalkis (Historia vi [1957], 160–75Google Scholar); but Miletos, Chalkis' enemy, won in the east; Phrygia, then, with her Greek dependencies and friends must have lost. For this earlier dating of the war see below, p. 106.

^{page 96 note 7} The Kypriot period at Al Mina was dated by Woolley, (A Forgotten Kingdom, pp. 179–83Google Scholar) to c. 700–675, but J. Boardman has disproved the Kypriot monopoly while allowing strong influence rather earlier than 700 (op. cit., p. 68;Google Scholar cf. Boardman, , J.H.S. Ixxxv [1965], 5 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 1} Luckenbill, , Ancient Records, no. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} Ibid., nos. 30, 62, 194.

^{page 97 note 3} Abydenos, , F. Cr. Hist. 685 F 5.Google Scholar Associated with Sennacherib's Tarsus campaign. On one view the foundation of Carthage would fall in this period (Carpenter, Rhys, A.J.A. lxii [1958], 35–53).Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 4} With Rhodes (no. IV) at p. 654, with Saraos (XIII) at p. 637. The name Naukratis is itself suggestive.

^{page 97 note 5} Boardman, , The Greeks Overseas, p. 138, gives 640 to 620 as the probable limits.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 6} See, for example, Myres, , op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 7} References in Helm, , Die Chronik d. Hieronymos ², p. 345 (f) and 346 (f).Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 8} See Cobbe, H. M. T., Hermathena (1967), 21–33;Google ScholarHuxley, G. L., Gk. Rom. Byz. Stud. vi (1965), 201–6.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} For Lydia and Lesbos, Page, D. L., Sappho and Alkaios, pp. 226 ff.Google Scholar On POxy. 2506 Page notes the possibility of in line 21. I do not know whether would be equally consistent with the traces (nothing can be seen on the photograph).

^{page 98 note 2} See Winckler, , Altor. Forsch. I (1897), pp. 511 ff.Google Scholar but also, e.g., Mazzarino, , Fra Oriente, pp. 150 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 3} Barron, J. P., C.Q. xiv (1964), 210–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 98 note 4} Frontinus, 3. 9. 7.

^{page 98 note 5} Hdt. (5. 28) specifies two generations of trouble but must have thought of something like another generation to allow for recovery before 500.

^{page 98 note 6} Snodgrass, A., J.H.S. lxxxiv (1964), 107 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 7} Burn, , J.H.S. xlvii (1927), 168; cf. p. 102, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 8} Loc. cit.

^{page 99 note 1} F. Gr. Hist. 90 F 58. 3.

^{page 99 note 2} In what follows a date is in inverted commas if it is the result of a translation into an annual system of an ancient date which was or may have been arrived at by a non-annual method.

^{page 99 note 3} C.Q. xlii (1949), 77 and 80.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} J.H.S. lv (1935) 130; ‘the majority of dates should be scaled down by a certain proportion of their distance from 500 B.C.’.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 5} Burn's law has been confirmed by excavation, Dacia ii (1958), 69–92;Google Scholar on Hysiai, , The Phoenix xvii (1963), 166–7.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 6} See Jacoby on F. Gr. Hist. 595 F 1–3 and cf. The Phoenix, art. cit. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 7} Thuc. 1. 13. 2–5.

^{page 100 note 1} The western colonial dates may have been recorded by notches on a piece of wood or whatever (Dunbabin, , The Western Greeks, pp. 450–2;Google Scholar but see also Dover, K. J., Thucydides Bk. vi, comm. on chs. 2–5Google Scholar) but no one notches the Dorian Invasion, Spartan eunomia, a sea-battle, or the first trireme; cf. Gomme, , HCT ad 1. 12. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} Thucydides mentions the first three and hints at Aigina (1. 14. 3); Hdt. could add Miletos and Naxos, 1. 17. 3 and 5. 30. 5.

^{page 101 note 2} Thuc. 1. 13. 2 and, for Thuc.'s standards, 1. 49. 2.

^{page 101 note 3} Althaimenes, Konon, F. Gr. Hist. 26 F 1; Lemnos, Hdt. 4. 145. 2.

^{page 101 note 4} Hdt. 1.7: Agron is fourth from Herakles. There cannot have been 22 generations between Agron and Kandaules and I am sure that Hdt. wrote 12; cf. Kaletsch, H., Historia vii (1958), 1–47.Google Scholar

Pre-Aiolic Smyrna had a reputation as a naval base (cf. Steph. Byz. s.v.) and its capture by the Aiolians would make a good end for Lydian power but there is no trace of a sufficiently early date in the tradition except for the no doubt accidental ‘1056’ and ‘1046’ in Jerome for the end of Lydia and capture of Smyrna respectively. Synkellos calls the Lydians

^{page 101 note 5} Gross but not misleading oversimplification.

^{page 101 note 6} Fotheringham, , art. cit. (p. 95, n. 2), p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 7} So, more or less, Goodwin, W. W., De potentiae veterum gentium maritimarum epochis apud Eusebium (1855), p. 51, who plausibly suggested Karians; cf. D.S. 5. 53 and 84 (pace Myres, does not necessarily mean immediately after).Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 1} Art. cit.

^{page 102 note 2} Especially that of Myres, , J.H.S. xxvi (1906). But see too p. 96, above.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 3} Hdt. 5. 30. 4 and 31. 2.

^{page 102 note 4} Helm, , art. cit. (p. 95, n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 5} For the details see Fotheringham, , art. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 1} e.g. the battle in Thyrea in 720 (above, p. 99, n. 5) and probably the entry in Jerome under 1094 for Eurysthenes and Prokles.

^{page 103 note 2} F. Gr. Hist. 595 F 2.

^{page 103 note 3} Jacoby, Komm. on F 1–3; the surprising appearance of Sparta might even be a pointer to Sosibian authorship.

^{page 103 note 4} For what follows compare Jacoby on F 1–3.

^{page 103 note 5} Paus. 6. 22. 3.

^{page 103 note 6} On the confused tradition about the dates see Jacoby, , on F. Gr. Hist. 416 T 5–7 with introduction.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 7} 1. 5. 1.

^{page 103 note 8} Paus. 4. 15. 1, 17. 2, 20. 1, and 23. 4.

^{page 103 note 9} Above, p. 99, n. 3; Paus. 3. 14. 3 and 4. 23. 2 and 5; Eusebios s.a. 664, 660, 656; Strabo, pp. 354–5.

^{page 103 note 10} Paus. 10. 7. 2–5.

^{page 104 note 1} Unfortunately one important change of power falls inside a period of doubt on the date of an anolympiad. I have assumed that Pheidon's anolympiad was the 28th and have therefore added the full bonus of 12 years to ‘669’ (Ol. 27.3 on the standard reckoning). See above, p. 99, n. 3 but also Huxley, G. L., B.C.H. lxxxii (1958), 588 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} See, e.g., C.A.H. iii, pp. 565–6.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 3} Myres, , art. cit., pp. 97–8, infers a democratic coup in Naxos in 505 from Hdt. 5. 30 putting an end to the ‘commercial oli garchy's’ thalassocracy. Unhappily this is quite unjustified, and it is better to admit that the list is wrong. Sparta on the other hand did suffer a set-back about 515—the failure of Dorieus' first western adventure.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 4} Diog. Laert. 1. 75.

^{page 104 note 5} Jerome, s.a. 756.

^{page 104 note 6} The chronological implication of the story that Homer wrote Midas' epitaph (Vit. Herodotea 131; Certamen 260) is explicitly accepted only, so far as I know, by Strabo p. 149, and there obscurely. But Strabo's fondness for Ephoros, the importance of Kyme in the story, and Ephoros' low date for Homer (below, n. 8), are slight hints that Ephoros may have given it his blessing. The story itself was old enough to be denied by Simonides (frg. 48d).

^{page 104 note 7} F 2.

^{page 104 note 8} For Ephoros' date, perhaps 876, see F. Gr. Hist. 70 F 149, F 102, and F 223 with Komm. For Sosibios and Ephoros,Ibid.., Komm. on 595 F 1–3.

^{page 106 note 1} Kastor of Rhodes has been favoured as Diodoros' and thence Eusebios' source. He certainly composed a list (F. Gr. Hist. 250 T 1) but his date for Troy was at the lowest 1184 (so Schwartz, , Die KönigslistenGoogle Scholar followed by Jacoby, who do not seem to me to have countered the case for something about a decade higher; cf. Gelzer, , Julius Africanus i. pp. 209 ff. and ii. 63 ff.Google Scholar). He cannot there fore be directly responsible—though he may have played some part.

^{page 106 note 2} Hdt. 3. 122. 2; Thuc. 1. 4.

^{page 106 note 3} The history of Kerkyra would then be: Bakchiad until 657 and on good terms with Korinth; reinforced by exiled Bakchiads in 657 and hostile to Korinth; subdued by Periander, say about 625; in revolt about 590 but subdued again by 585. The foundation of Epidamnos will belong to the period of Periander's domination (Thuc. 1. 24. 2; Jerome, s.a. 626).

The tombstone of Arniadas (Tod, , G.H.I., no. 2Google Scholar) shows that Kerkyrans were fighting someone around 600 (Jeffery, L. H., Local Scripts, p. 233).Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 4} As he was not in Historia vi (1957), 161. Without him there is nothing in the evidence to prolong the war after about 715. Orsippos of Megara fought Korinth after his Olympic victory in 720, not necessarily long after.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} See Jacoby, F., Apollodors Chronik (Phil. Untersuch. xvi), 80 ff. who gives full references and acknowledgements to earlier discussions.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} De Div. 2. 90.

^{page 107 note 3} So, basically, Jacoby.

^{page 107 note 4} F. Gr. Hist. 244 F 62 Komm. Jacoby ignored the correspondence of the Eurypontid list (with Eurypon added) and the slender hint given by the Makedonian list. But he added Nepos' date for Homer (see F. Gr. Hist. 244 F 63 Komm.) which raises problems too complicated to be discussed here.

^{page 108 note 1} F. Gr. Hist. 70 F 223. The point was made by Unger, , Philologus xl (1881), 95 ff.,Google Scholar who therefore argued that Ephoros was Diodoros' source. His case was refuted by Busolt (Gr. Gesch. i². 584) and dismissed by Jacoby, but the objections only hold against a direct use by Diodoros of Ephoros throughout, not against an intermediary who based himself on Ephoros.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} This is necessary if Nikandros' predecessor, Charillos, is to be taken back to the fixed Apollodoran point of 885 (see Jacoby on 244 F 62).

^{page 109 note 1} Most recognized him (Plut. Lyc. 1; cf. Paus. 3. 7. 1, Phlegon, F. Gr. Hist. 257 F 1) but Hdt. did not (8. 131). Ephoros' view is doubtful; in F 149 (18) Lykourgos is sixth from Prokles (i.e. Soos is included), in F 118 Eurypon, not Soos, is Prokles' son. From the manner of Strabo's citations I should prefer to think that F 118 was reliable, but one cannot be certain.

^{page 109 note 2} F. Gr. Hist. 244 F 331–2 Komm. There did exist an alternative tradition with a shorter list because Didymos provides an alternative solution (ap. Schol. Pind. Ol. 13. 17), that the first Korinthian king came to the throne thirty years after the Return.

In Pausanias (2. 4. 4) Telestes is the last king, Automenes, therefore, the first annual prytanis. His one year of rule must then be part of the story, not the result of textual corruption.

^{page 109 note 3} 12. 35. 4 with 47. 1 and 52. 1.

^{page 109 note 4} Different reign lengths from those of Diodoros/Eusebios are implied by Pausanias, 3. 2. 4, for Doryssos and Agesilaos, both of whom so other traditions were possible.

^{page 110 note 1} Apollodors Chronik, 128 ff. The argument is circumstantial but impressive.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} F. Gr. Hist. 244 F 64 Komm. It would imply an astonishingly long guardianship, on the length of which see Apollodors Chronik, 111.

^{page 110 note 3} Cf. The Phoenix xvii (1963), 158.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 4} In view of Paus. 3. 11. 10; cf. F. Gr. Hist. 596 F 15 Komm.

^{page 110 note 5} For Soos, above, p. log, n. 1 ; on Polydektes, F. Gr. Hist. 70 F 173–5 Komm. (though I do not quite understand Jacoby's case for saying that Polydektes did not come to the throne).

^{page 110 note 6} Ephoros put Lykourgos' travels after the accession of Charillos and, since his story closely matched that of Sosibios (Apollodors Chronik, 115 f.Google Scholar), he may, like Sosibios, have dated Lykourgos' meeting with Homer to the eighth year of Charillos. But for our hypothetical chronographer Charillos' eighth year was 876 (776+9 (Theopompos)+38 (Nikander)+60 (Charillos)=883 for the accession), precisely the year in which Ephoros brought Homer and Lykourgos together (F. Gr. Hist. 70 F 102 with Komm. and above, p. 104, n. 8).Google Scholar