We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Few peoples of the ancient world have given rise to so much controversy as the Pelasgians; and of few, after some centuries of discussion, is so little clearly established. Like the Phoenicians, the Celts, and of recent years the Teutons, they have been a peg upon which to hang all sorts of speculation; and whenever an inconvenient circumstance has deranged the symmetry of a theory, it has been safe to ‘call it Pelasgian and pass on.’
One main reason for this ill-repute, into which the Pelasgian name has fallen, has been the very uncritical fashion in which the ancient statements about the Pelasgians have commonly been mishandled.
1 Niebuhr, History of Rome (tr. Hare and Thirlwall 1837; i. p. 26.
1a Torr, C. Memphis and Mycenae, Cambridge, 1896 Google Scholar.
1b It might fairly be argued that account should he taken here of the possibility that the Odyssey for example may represent a later phase of Homeric belief or of Aegean history than the Iliad; or that a distinction should be observed between data supplied by the ‘earlier’ or the ‘later’ parts of the Iliad. But, quite apart from the uncertainty which surrounds the whole question of such dissection of the Homeric corpus, I have thought it better to act on the view that relatively—though of course not absolutely—these minor distinctions are unimportant; and that even if some parts of ‘Homer’ may possibly be approximately as late as some parts of ‘Hesiod,’ clearness will be gained, without sacrifice of truth, by treating the Homeric Epic as a single group of data, and Hesiod and the other fragments of Epic as a distinct, and on the whole well contrasted group.
2 In post-Homeric time we shall find copious evidence of this Thrako-Phrygian thrust southeastward across the Hellespontine area. I have broken here my rule of not using post-Homeric evidence as commentary on Homer; but only because the event under discussion is itself ex hypothesi post-Homeric.
2a Early Age of Greece (Cambridge 1901) i. p. 172.
3 On the evidence of Il. 10. 429; on which see below.
4 Il. 6. 34, 14. 445. This Larisa might then he identified with a little town of that name on the coast about five miles south of Alexandria Troas.
5 Il. 10. 429 (Leleges, without locality, in the camp-passage); Il. 20. 92–6 (Leleges and Trojans inhabit Lyrnessos and Pedasos, ); Il. 21. 86–7Google Scholar (Leleges live on the Satnioeis R., and Pedasos is their capital).
6 E.g. in the whole Trojan Catalogue only the Atizones and the Lycians come τηλόθεν in Il. 16. 233 Zeus of Dodona is τηλόθι ναίων i.e. remote from Olympus, or from Phthia. Strabo's phrase about the Troad Larisa, ἐν ὔψει τελέως is wholly justified when tested on the site.
7 E.g. Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. i.2 165 Google Scholar. ‘also unter historischen Stämmen Kleinasiens.’ To justify this, he omits the Paeonians from his list: compare p. 166 ‘kleinasiatische P.’ Compare also Holm, Gr. Gesch. i. p. 69. ‘Sie werden erwähnt als asiatische Hülfstruppen der Trojaner’; p. 70. ‘Nach diesen Stellen (the Homeric passages) zu urtheilen sind sie ein Stamm der in Epirus, Thessalien und Kleinasien sass.’
8 Relying, on Il. 2. 848–9Google Scholar, 16. 287–8, I make a present to the adversary of Hdt. 5. 23. 98, where the force majeure of Darius makes them ‘Asiatic’ for a season, as strategical needs do here!
9 For the pedigree of Idomeneus see the lines which immediately follow Od. 19. 178–81, and Il. 13. 449–453: it ‘goes up to a god,’ as Hecataeus would say, in the third generation: Idomeneus—Deucalion (the Argonaut)—Minos—Zeus.
9a If it were possible to demonstrate that any real ethnic or political convulsion occurred in the Aegean after the composition of Iliad ii but before the composition of Odyssey xix, this argument would of course be invalidated. This however is one of those prospective refinements in the treatment of these data which, as I have explained already, I have felt at liberty to neglect, in the interest of the main argument.
10 This point of view was in vogue already in late antiquity. Andron for example (fr. 3, quoted by Strabo 475) would seem to derive all three alike from Thessaly: impelled, no doubt, by the later belief that there were Pelasgians as well as Achaeans and Dorians in Thessaly. τούς μὲν οὖν ᾿Ετεόκρητας καὶ τοὺς Κύδωνας αὐτό χθονας ύπάρξαι είκός, τοὐς δὲ λοιποὺς ἐπήλυδας οὔς ἐκ Θεσσαλίας φησὶν ἐλθεῖν ᾿´Ανδρων τῆς Δωρίδος μὲν πρότερον νῦν δὲ ῾Εστιαιωτίδος λεγο μένης But Andron's guess is neither Homer nor Homeric.
11 ProfessorRidgeway, has taken exactly the reverse view (Early Age of Greece, p. 86)Google Scholar. ‘As it is an island far removed from the rest of Greece, it was much less likely to have its population mixed by constant advances of other tribes, such as took place in the history of northern Greece and northern Italy.’ What I say in the text rests only on my own experience of Crete, on that of the people I have met there, and on the history of Aegean navigation since Homeric times.
12 Λαρισαῖον πεδίον at Hierapytna. Str. 440: Λάρισα = Gortyna. St. Byz. s.v. Γόρτυν
13 Here, as above, p. 173, I am using post-Homeric evidence solely to establish a post-Homeric event.
14 If further analogies be desired, they are supplied by the copious Hellenic tradition of the Thracian settlements in Euboea, in Attica, and in Naxos, which belong, apparently, to the same immediately post-Homeric period as those Thracian incursions into Hellespontine Asia, which resulted in the establishment of a Bithynia. But the extant evidence for all this is comparatively late.
15 E.g. Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. i.2 165 Google Scholar ‘Das Epitheton Pelasgikou setzt jedenfalls voraus, dass in Thessalien Pelasger wohnten oder gewohnt hatten:’ cf. 167 ‘so mussten wohl die Pelasger die vor-achäischen und vor-hellenischen autochthonen Bewohner des Landes gewesen sein.’ See also Bruck, S., Quae veteres de Pelasgis tradiderint (Breslau 1884), p. 5 Google Scholar.
16 Whether τὸ Πελασγικὸν ᾿´Αργος means the town (ranging with Halos, Alope, and the rest) or the district, is a matter of indifference to the argument. Analogy suggests that in the Catalogue, as it stands, a specific town is intended. In any case we must note that τὸ Πελασγικὸν ᾿´Αργος ᾿´Αργος in Homer means a quite different part of Thessaly from the Πελαυγιωτίς of Hellanicus and later writes; and that the area of this Πελαυγιωτίς is quite differently accounted for in the Homeric Catalogue; as also is the country round the Thessalian Larisa.
17 Busolt, i.2 165, conjectures that Zeus of Dodona, ‘auch der einheimische Gott der Pelasgischen Thessaliens war.’ This presupposes the existence of a Thessalian Dodona such as was invented by Unger (Philol. Suppl. Bd. ii. 1863, pp. 377 ff.)Google Scholar on the basis of a note of Suidas. Cf. Niese, , Hom. Schiffskatalog. p. 43 Google Scholar.
17a E.g. Busolt, i.2 165.
18 Except of course in so far as Pelasgian can be forced to mean the ‘Mediterranean Race’ of modern Italian ethnologists; and even here I have my doubts whether the populations of Pindus would be accepted by ethnologists as in any true sense ‘Mediterranean.’
18a Iliad 2. 530.
19 The case of Achilleion and Sigeion are typical. The Athenians, in the time of Periander, could claim οὐδὲν μᾶλλον Αἰολεῦσι μετεὸν τῆς ᾿Ιλιάδος χώρης ἤ οὐ καὶ σφίσι καὶ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι, ὄσοι ῾Ελλήνων συνεπρήξαντο Μενέλεῳ τὰς ῾Ελένης ἁρπαγάς Hdt. v. 94.
20 All who like Busolt G.G. i.2 157 conjecture that the antithesis arose in Thessaly, and was transferred during the Aeolic migration to Aeolis may reasonably be asked first to catch their Thessalian Pelasgians, and then to point to the circumstances (if any) other than the existence of our trans-Hellespontine Pelasgians, which made the transference itself appropriate
21 Hdt. i. 171. Thuc. i. 4.
21a Strabo 611. Cf. Paton, and Myres, , J.H.S. xvi, 267–70Google Scholar.
22 Lemnos, Il. 14. 230, 281; Imbros, 14. 281.
23 Il. 14. 230.
24 Il. 7. 467: 21. 40–42.
25 Il. 8. 230
26 Il. 7. 467.
27 Il. 23. 745–7.
28 Il. 21. 42–4.
29 Il. 1. 554, Od. 8. 294.
30 In the Iliad they merely piek him up when he was thrown out of Heaven: in the Odyssey too (in the mouth of his flighty lady) they are ‘those horrid people’ whom he will find when he goes to Lemnos.
31 Od. 8. 294.
32 Il. 2. 845.
33 Il. 3. 181–189
34 Fot a very remarkable echo in a late writer of this Homeric conception of a ‘Thrako-Phrygian thrust’ see the passage of Apollonius of Rhodes in the Appendix p. 222 below.
34a Here he is more than followed by Holm, , Gr. Gesch. i. 69 Google Scholar. ‘Hesiod hat dann ausdrücklich gesagt, dass Dodona der Sitz der Pelasger war.’ Surely the most that may be argued is that Dodona was a settlement of Pelasgians.
35 In later times it certainly was not always interpreted so. Ephorus for example, who as we shall see was mainly responsible for the rehabilitation of Hesiodie views about the Pelasgians, certainly regarded Dodona as one of the settlements of his Pelasgian emigrants from Arcadia. (Ephoros ap. Strabo 337 ἔστι δ᾿, ὤς φησιν ῾´Εφορος, Πελασγῶν ϊδρυμα (ἡ Δωδώνη) οἱ δὲ Πελασγοὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα δυνα στευόντων ἀρχαιότατοι λέγονται
36 Apoll, ii. 1. 1, 7 = Hesiod fr. 68 Kinkel.
37 Str. 221 = fr. Kinkel.
38 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4. 266.
39 This genealogy comes to us as the work of Acusilaus in Apollodorus ii. 1. 1, cf. iii. 8. i., confirmed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus i. 17. 3 and Tzetzes, , Lyc. 481 Google Scholar.
40 iii. 8. 1.
41 Fragt. 85 = Dionys. Hal. i. 13. It is a misfortune that it is not possible to disentangle with certainty the contributions of the three writers named Pherecydes. Everything that is attributed to them on this topie is so saturated with the ideas of Ephorus (see §§ 14–16 below) that my own inclination is to assign all to the latest ot them. But Ephorus certainly used a great mass of genealogical material of earlier than fourth century date: genealogical study of this elaborate kind is characteristic of the later sixth and early fifth century; and in the particular case of Lycaon we have evidence that a metrical genealogy existed which was attributed to Hesiod. So, rather than press my own view of the matter to an extreme, I have chosen to discuss the statements of Pherecydes as if they belonged to the λογογράφος of that name. See also p. 220 below.
42 Schol. Il. 3.75 = fr. 37. In spite of his later date, I class Hellanieus with the other genealogists, and separate him from Herodotus and Thucydides, on the ground that all that we know of his work marks him as a belated continuator of the logographic school of history-writing.
43 ii. 1. 2. 2.
44 Schol., Il. 3. 75 Google Scholar.
45 Harpocr. s.v. τετραρχίαι
46 Apollodorus ii. 1. 1.
47 Steph. Byz. s.v. ᾿Αρκάς
48 Il. 2. 843.
49 Phoronis fr. 1.
50 Compare the alliance arranged by Phereoydes between Pelasgus and Kyllene νηἱὁα νύμφην (above p. 187); with the result that Pelasgus is localized in Arcadia,
51 Il. 2. 843; Phoronis fr. 26=Schol. Ap. Rh. 4. 1090. It is a further question whether in the Homeric phrase υἷε δύω Λήθοιο Πελασγοῦ Τευταμίδαο the word Πελασγοῦ means ‘son of Pelasgus’ or simply ‘the Pelasgian;’ and again whether Τευταμίδαο means ‘son of Teutamidas,’ as Hellanicus thought, or rather ‘son of Teutamus.’
52 Fr. 29.
53 Fr. 26., cf. Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 40, Tzetz., Lye. 838 Google Scholar, Steph. Byz. s.v. Λάρισα.
54 Schol. Ap. Rh. 1. 580.
55 Apoll. ii. 4, 4.
56 Hdt. vi. 137.
57 Fr. 112–3.
58 Philochorus (fr. 6 = Schol., Il. 1. 594)Google Scholar after his manner has pounced upon this bit of philology and adopted it, but explains it quite differently.
59 Remember here (1) that Homer's Paeonia runs as far west as the river Axius; (2) that though in the sixth century Paeonia had extended a good way east of the Strymon, yet all this eastern region had been made ἀνἁστατος in the time of Darius. Hdt. 5. 15. Nor does it seem ever to have recovered its Paeonian character; in the fifth and fourth centuries it is definitely included in ‘Thrace,’ from which ‘Paeonia’ proper is distinct both in Homer, in Herodotus, and even later.
60 Hdt. 2. 171; 7. 94, see §10 below.
60a Hdt. 7. 94: 2. 171.
60b Dion H. 1. 25. For the Tyrseni see §17 below.
60c Πελασγία Or. 960, I.A. 1498; Πελασγικὸν ᾿´Αργος Or. 1601; Πελασγὸν A. Or. 692, 1296; Πελασγὸν ἕδος ᾿Αργείων Or. 1247.
60d Πελασγία Suppl 368; Ἂργος, Πελασγικὸν Phoen. 256 Google Scholar; στρίτευμα, Πελασγικὸν Phoen. 105–6Google Scholar.
61 Fr. 227. See p. 221 below.
62 i. 146, ii. 171.
63 viii. 73 οἰκέει δὲ τὴν Πελοπόννησον ίθνεα ἑπτά τούτων τὰ μὲν δύο, αὐτόχθονα ἐόντα, κατὰ χώρην ἵδρυται νῦν τε καὶ τὸ πάλαι [οἴμεον] ᾿Αρκάδες τε καὶ Κυνούριοι
64 i. 57.
65 See below, §12.
66 iv. 145.
67 Il. 7. 468, 23. 747, the latter a late passage.
68 iv. 147.
69 v. 26.
70 vi. 136.
71 Note that a ‘Lemnian’ who was in the Persian service in 480 B.C. (Hdt. viii. 11) counts as one τῶν σὺν βασιλεῖ ῾Ελλήνων ὲόντων. He also bears a Greek name, Antidorus. If the Lemnian Pelasgians had not ‘changed their name’ he would presumably have been described as a ‘Pelasgian’.
72 v. 27.
73 vi. 137. The words are part of the citation, or summary, of Hecataeus, already mentioned at the end of §7.
74 A closely analogous case is that of the Dolopes in Seyros. Originally a mainland and inland people, as indeed the rest of them were still in the time of the Persian Wars (Hdt. iv. 132, 185), they entered Seyros in post-Homeric time, and retained their hold on the island until they were suppressed by Cimon, as the Lemnians had been by Miltiades. That the Dolopian occupation of Seyros was post Homeric seems to follow from Il. 9. 668, where the island is raided and captured by Achilles, and from Il. 19. 326–32, Od. 11. 509, where it still forms part of his dominions. The case is here too exactly analogous with that of Lenmos, Il. 14. 230 and Imbros Il. 14. 281. For the further fate of these Scyrian Dolopes at the hands of the historians, see p. 221 below.
74a ii. 51.
75 From the fact that in Roman times the Samothracian ritual still used παλαιἀν ἰδίαν διἁλεκτον (Diod. 5. 48. 2; cf. Lobeck, , Agl. 1109, 1348)Google Scholar, and that the cult itself was not then confined to Samothrace, but was observed elsewhere, not merely in Lemnos and Imbros, but in the Troad and on the Hellespont (Strabo 472–3), we may reasonably infer that here also, quite apart from theories, Herodotus is dealing with current verifiable observations of North Aegean cults, of the same kind as those which he quotes specifically for the cult of Heracles in Thasos. Demetrius of Scepsis, later on, had a theory of his own about Samothrace, which is quite independent of Herodotus, and at first sight quite different, but which on closer inspection seems to show that he had been led by similar data to a conclusion very similar to that reached by Herodotus about these North Aegean Pelasgians. Samothr ace, he says (quoted by Strabo 472), was at first called Μελίτη the name Σαμοθρᾴκη is its second name, and dates from the coming of the Cabiri, whom he seems to identify with the diretes. Their cult he regards as Phrygian.
The name Σαμοθρᾴκη in any case looks as if it recorded an intrusion from the neighbouring European mainland, and it is instructive to find it suggested that it was a Phrygian cult which was intruded, and that its subject was a group of personages, who (like the Hellespontine Pelasgians of Homer) have so exact a counterpart in Crete.
76 vii. 42. The phrase clearly denotes something peculiar to Antandrus, and not common to the Greeks of Aeolis. These latter are τὸ πάλαι καλαεόμενοι Πελασγοί, ὡς ῾Ελλήνων λόγος (vii. 95), but this is Greek theory, not Herodotean observation, and is discussed in its proper place in §11.
77 Aristotle ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.
78 Strabo, 606.
79 The positive statements of Konon, Narr. 41 Google Scholar and Mela i. 18 that there were Pelasgians at Antandrus are only worth noting here as evidence of a later revival of the authority of Herodotus. Mela's version contains an ana chronism and two pieces of thoroughly Graeco Roman philology.
80 Fr. 115b = Zenob. v. 61.
81 Pliny, N.H. 5. 30. 32Google Scholar and Steph. Byz. s.v. add Cimmeris to the already long list of ethno logical epithets of Antandrus.
Thucydides on the other hand seems tacitly put all this on one side as not-proven, when he specifies Antandrus merely as an Aeolian colony in viii. 108.
82 i. 57.
83 i. 29.
84 Meyer, E., Forschungen z. alt. Gesch. (Halle 1891) i. pp. 1–124 Google Scholar.
85 i. 94, iv. 49.
85 v. 15–17.
87 iv. 109.
88 That he really knew the country, and that there was such a district—for even this has been denied latterly—is clear from his reference to Γρηστωνία in ii. 99.
89 Il. i. 594, Od. 8, 294.
90 Fr. 112.
81 ii. 98.
92 The Γρηστωνία of Thuc. ii. 99. In Roman times there were traces of Σιντοί on both hanks of the Strymon: Strabo 331.
93 vii. 73.
94 vii. 185.
95 vii. 112–3.
96 vi. 45.
97 vii. 112.
98 vii. 131. Cf. 177.
99 iv. 109.
100 vii. 123–4, 127.
101 ii. 99–100.
102 Strabo, fr. 11.
103 Strado, 566, 575, 733, 747.
104 Hdt. i. 57. Thuc. iv. 109.
105 For indications of such a movement even within the Homeric age see p. 184 above.
105a i. 56–7, ii. 52–56.
105b i. 57.
105c ii. 50–52.
105d vii. 95.
105e See p. 179 and 188.
106 vii. 94.
107 viii. 44.
108 i. 146.
109 vii. 94.
109a As in the case of Asiatic Aeolis (2) above.
110 If there were any early evidence for the legends of Thracians in Naxos and other Cycladic islands, it would be tempting to regard this ascription of ‘Pelasgian’ origin as a hint of raids of Hellespontine Pelasgians like those which we have detected already as far afield as Crete and Attica. But in default of such early evidence, this tempting guess remains unveriflable.
111 p. 181, above.
112 i. 46.
113 ii. 171.
111 viii. 73.
115 viii. 73.
116 viii. 44.
117 ii. 51.
118 vi. 137.
119 v. 26. (Otancs): vi. 136–140 (Miltiades).
120 vi. 138.
121 Il. 14. 230 and § 2 above.
122 iv. 145.
123 iv. 147.
124 viii, 44.
125 Thuc. 2. 98.
126 See my paper ‘On the Maps used by Herodotus’ in the Geographical Journal, viii. 1896, pp. 605 ff.
127 In Attica alao, alone, do we find the ‘theoretical’ and the ‘actual’ or rather the ‘historical’ Pelasgian side by side in the same context, contrasted as Hellenizable Attic aborigines against savage Hellespontine intruders.
128 In an earlier essay (J.H.S. xxvii. 84 ff.) I have collected some evidence for the view that a similar demand of the Periclean Age to know δι ᾿ ἤν αἰτίην there was a Delian League, was producing very similar effects in a reasoned retrospect of Mediterranean sea-power.
129 iv. 109, see p. 196 above.
130 ii. 98, cf. p. 184 above.
131 i. 3.
132 τὸ οὔνομα μετέβαλε . . . τὴν γλῶσσαν μετ έμαθε i. 57: τὀ ῾Ελλ. ἀποσχισθὲν μέντοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ i. 58: ἀπεκρίθη ἐκ παλαιτέρου τοῦ βαρβάρου ἔθνεος τὸ ῾Ελλ. i. 60.
133 Though even Herodotus associates in some cases the crisis of Hellenization with a ‘child of Hellen’ such as Xuthus.
134 i. 6.
134a A very similar fallacy confounds advance in culture with progress in time. Ephorus is a conspicuous instance (Fr. 6 = Diod. Sic. 1. 9) περὶ πρώτων δὲ τῶν βαρβάρων διέξιμεν, οὐκ ἀρχαιοτέρους αὐτοὺς ἡγούμενοι τῶν ῾Ελλή νων καθάπερ ᾿´Εφορος εἴρηκεν, ἀλλὰ προδιελθεῖν βουλόμενοι τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν περὶ αἰτοὺς. To this frame of mind belongs also the Ephoran theory of the longevity of ‘primitive’ men (Fr. 24 = Plin., N.H. 7. 48 Google Scholar) ‘Ephorus (ait) Arcadum reges CCC annos vixisse.’
135 iv. 109.
136 vii. 57.
137 iii. 94, 96, cf. 112 (Amphilochia).
138 The Ophicmes and Eurytanes were ἀγνω στὁτατοι γλῶσσαν, καὶ ὠμοφάγοι είσίν, ὡς λέγε ται Thuc. iii. 94. The Messenians he describes as Δωρίδα τε γλῶσσαν ίέντας καὶ τοῖς προφύλαξι πίστιν παρεχομένους iii. 112.
139 iii. 112. Of these same Amphilochians ‘Hellenization’ is predicated (for the first time I think in Greek literature) in the definitely linguistic sense: καὶ ἐλληνίσθῃσαν τὴν νῦν γλῶσσαν τότε πρῶτον ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αμπρακιωτῶν ξυνοικησάντων, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι ᾿Αμφίλοχοι βάρβαροί εἰσιν
140 Hdt. ii. 98, 171, 182, vii. 94.
141 Hdt. vii. 8, 11.
142 Hdt. ii. 44–49, iv. 147, v. 57–8.
143 Hdt. i. 56, 60. Thuc. i. 3.
144 Thuc. i. 3.
145 Hdt i. 57. Soph. Fr. 256. Thuc. iv. 109.
145a The first traces of this lie very far back. As early as Pherecydes (if it be the fifth century author of that name) Peucetius and Oenotrus already count as children of Arcadian Lycaon.
146 Strabo, 221.
147 Fr. 68, in which Pelasgus is the father of Lycaon: see p. 186 above.
148 Il. 2. 695.
148a Fr. 227: already noted above, p. 191.
149 i. 171.
150 Strabo, 327. The dependence of this on the Hesiodic Πελασγῶν ἑδρανον is obvious.
151 Il. 2. 843.
151a We may note in passing the marked antithesis between the ethnology of Ephorus and that of Herodotus. In the fifth century it is the Dorian Hellenes who are the migratory ἔποικοι of Greece, πολυπλάνητοι κἁρτα (i. 56).
152 Hdt. i. 60.
153 The earliest version of the story of Dionysus, which implies this is that in Apollod, iii. 5. 3.
154 See 1. 46 and Crusius' note.
155 I neglect the tragedians' use of Τυρσηνική as a stock epithet of σάλπιγξ or κὡδων Aesch., Eum. 567 Google Scholar, Soph., Aj. 17 Google Scholar.
156 i. 57.
157 iv. 109.
158 It is only by rewriting the passage of Herodotus, and therewith that of Thucydides, that Meyer, E. is enabled to conelude that Herodotus ‘kennt Tyrsener im Bereiche des aegäischen Meeres nicht.’ Forschtmgen i. p. 21 Google Scholar.
159 Fr. 256 = Dionys Hal. i. 25.
160 Fr. 1 = Dionys. Hal. i. 28.
161 The story added by Dionysius, that this happened in the days of Deucalion, cannot be traced to any early source. The nearest analogy is Herodotus' statement (i. 50) that in the days of Deucalion the Hellenes οἴκεον γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν and in the time of his grandson Doras migrated to the Histiaeotis below Ossa and Olympus; but this does not prove that in the intervening generation they occupied the intervening territory, though Dionysius very likely thought it did. Hesiod, (Cat. fr. 11 Google Scholar) and Pindar, (Ol. 9. 64)Google Scholar seem to have regarded Deucalion as king of Opuutian Loeris, or at least of Opus; but we do not know how early it was discovered that this king of Opus was the invader of Phthia.
162 That Spina should have maintained tributary relations with Delphi down to the time of its destruction, as is stated by Dionysius (i. 17, perhaps also on the authority of Hellanicus, but not explicitly so), does not seem to prove Tyrrhenian, or Pelasgian, or even Thessalian origin. That the latter view at all events was popularly believed later is confirmed by the analogy of Ravenna. But even a Thessalian origin does not prove that the colonists were either Tyrrhenians or Pelasgians, and Strabo (214), who is our authority for this, has chosen to describe Spina as πάλαι δὲ ῾Ελληνὶς πόλις ἔνδοξος which is bad for its Pelasgian origin.
163 There is some late evidence for a belief that there were Pelasgian settlers in Lesbos: see especially Strabo, 221, 621, Diod. 5. 81, Plin., N.H. 5. 31. 39Google Scholar.
164 Fr. 121 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Μετάων
165 Dionys. Hal. i. 22.
166 Dionys. Hal. l.c. = fr. 2.
167 i. 94.
168 Fr. 1 = Dionys. Hal. i. 28.
169 The name Τυρρηνός would be a natural ‘ethnic’ if there was ever a place called Tyrrha, and it was believed in quite late times that there was such a town in the South Lydian district of Tonhcbia (Et. Mag. s.v. Τύραννος) and that Gyges came from thence. But this proves nothing lor the fifth century or earlier.
170 i. 94 φασὶ δὲ αὐτοὶ Λυδοὶ καὶ τὰς παιγείας τὰς νῦν σφίσι τε καὸ ᾿ ´ Ελλησι κατεστεώσας ἐωντεῶν ἐξεύρημα γενέσωαι ἅμα δὲ ταύτας τε ἐξευρεθῆναι παρὰ σφίσι λέγουσι καὶ Τυρσηνίην ἀποικίσαι ῶδε περὶ αὺτῶν λέγαντες
171 Fr. 2, summavized by Nicholas of Damascus.
172 iv. 49.
173 This is all quito independent of the lute and far too sweeping generalization of Dionysius (i. 25, on the passage of Sophocles), Τυρρηνίας μὶν γὰρ δὴ ὔνομα τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον ἀνἀ τὴν ῾ Ελλάδα ἧν.
174 He assigns the foundation of the western Naxos and Megara to the fifteenth generation after the Trojan war (1184 B.C.-[15 × 30 =] 450 = 734 B.C.).
175 Placed by Eusebius (Jerome) between 1056 and 961 B.C.; and by myself about a century later (J.H.S. xxvii, pp. 88, 126–7).
176 This agrees well with the fourth century date for the spread of the Hellenes over the Pelasgian ‘eparchies’ of the mainland: for Ion son of Xuthus is very nearly contemporary with Theseus, and Theseus is one generation below Minos and one generation above tin Trojan war. Hollen therefore was four generations before the Trojan war, and Xuthus and Dorus were contemporaries of Minos of Crete.
177 Fr. 2 = Dion. Hal. i. 17.
178 Strabo, 214.
179 Strabo, 247.
180 For instances see the literature in Bertrand and Reinach, , Les Celtes dans les vallées du Po et du Danube, 1894, pp. 74–6Google Scholar.
181 Fr. 19.
182 Strabo, 220.
183 That Caere, or rather the unreformed Agylla, had like Spina, regular relations with Delphi, and even a treasury there, proves nothing as to its origin.
183a It is set out in great detail by Ridgeway, , Early Age of Greece i. pp. 231 ffGoogle Scholar.
184 Dionys. Hal. i. 22.
185 I have already commented (p. 187, n. 41) on the doubt which must exist as to the date of any statement attributed to Pherecydes, and my impression that, though the earliest of the three writers of this name was a λογογράφος and probably compiled genealogies, the quotations themselves betray the influence of the Ephoran theory, and may be quite late. It is certainly remarkable that Ephorus did not acknowltdge his debt to Pherecydes as well as to Hesiod, if fragment 85 of Pherecydes was extant and known to him.
186 Diod. 10. 19.
187 Fr. 5. We have already had two experiences of Philochorus as a philologist and it is in the very next fragment, fr. 6, that he derives the name of the Homeric Σίντιες from σίνεσωαι with veference to this same raid. But in this fragment he calls the raiders Pelasgians. The Homeric Σίντιες however as we have seen, have no more to do with the Pelasgians than they have with the Tyrrhenians.
188 Argonautica iv. 1760.
189 Q. Gr. 21, Virt. Mul. 8.
190 vii. 49.
191 Fr. 1.
192 viii. 1. 2.
193 Miltiades 2.
194 i. 98.
195 Hdt. vii. 132, 185. Though he has occasion in vii. 183 to mention a Scyrian named Pammon, all he has to say of him is that he betrayed a Greek anchorage to the Persians.
196 Diodorus, xi. 60.
197 Scymnus, 615.
198 Steph. Byz. s. v. Σνῦρος
199 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 962, 1024.
200 Above p. 221, n. 188.
201 i. 9. 18. 1. Apollodorus wrote circa 140 B.C.
202 Steph. Byz. s.v. Κύζικος
203 Fr. 204 = Steph. Byz. s.v. Δολίονες
204 Str. 575.
205 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 1037.
206 Narr. 41.
207 Orph., Arg. 497 (530)Google Scholar.
208 p. 221 above.
209 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 921, 987.
210 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 1037.
211 Ap. Rh. i. 987.
212 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 1037.
213 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 987.
214 Schol. 989.
215 Scymnus, 584, see p. 221 above.
216 Mela i. 19, 2. Compare Strabo's discussion of the ethnography of all this region, summarized on p. 196 above.
