¹ Cook, R. M., JHS xcix (1979) 152–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Others who have recently emphasized the commercial aspects of the diolkos include Wiseman, J., The Land of the ancient Corinthians (Göteborg 1978) 45–6Google Scholar; and Salmon, J. B., Wealthy Corinth: A history of the city to 338 BC (Oxford 1984) 136–9Google Scholar. This was also the view of the excavator of the diolkos who suggested that commercial ships went over the diolkos empty while cargo was transported by wagon between Lechaion and Kenchreai; see Verdelis, N., ILN ccxxxi (19 Oct. 1957) 650 Google Scholar.

² Cook (n. 1) 152–3 n. 16, citing Thuc. viii 7–8 and Polyb. v 101.4. However, other explanations are also possible. Although the hulls of the penteres and the trireme were similar, the penteres was also supplied with an oar-box that, in addition to adding weight, may have made the warship more top heavy and consequently more awkward to move and handle on land; cf. Morrison, J. and Williams, R., Greek oared ships (Cambridge 1968) 286 Google Scholar, and Casson, L., Ships and seamanship in the ancient world (Princeton 1971) 102–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also the penteres may have carried more marines with their own gear or may have supported more rigging or armaments, practices that became common by the Hellenistic period. Of course, it is possible that Philip sent some of his ships around the Peloponnese simply for tactical reasons—to challenge Skerdilaidas, whose ships were committing acts of piracy off the cape of Malea (Polyb. v 95. 1, 101.1).

³ Cook (n. 1) 153 n. 29, referring to Thuc. iii 15.1.

⁴ Cook has now reached a similar conclusion and sees in the reference in Thucydides cited above an indication that before 428 only cargo was transported across the diolkos; see Cook, R. M., ‘A further note on the Diolkos’, in Studies in honour of T. B. L. Webster, i (Bristol 1986)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor Cook for sending me a copy of his paper prior to publication.

⁵ Hdt. vii 24; Thuc. iii 81.1 and iv 8.2; Polyaenus v 2.6; Arr. Anab. vii 19.3. For further commentary, see Casson (n. 2) 89, 136. In light of the possible need to have the pentereis in Philip's fleet avoid transport across the Isthmus of Corinth, it is interesting to note that pentereis were among the ships that Alexander had cut in sections and transported over land to Babylon.

⁶ Interestingly, none of our historical sources that refer to the transport of warships across the isthmus refer specifically to the diolkos, as Cook (n. 1) 152 n. 7, points out; rather, its use is assumed.

⁷ Hdt. i 163.2, and Pl. Per. xxvi 3–4. Curiously, A. M. Snodgrass interprets the two events, presented as exceptions, as representing the norm in his argument against the use of the purpose-built, sail-driven merchantman during this period (‘Heavy freight in archaic Greece’, in Garnsey, P. D., Hopkins, K., and Whittaker, C. R., eds., Trade in the ancient economy [Berkeley 1983] 16–7)Google Scholar. For a critique, see Reed, C., Ancient World x (1984) 39–41 Google Scholar.

⁸ For example, in the third century BC we know that lemboi in the fleets of Demetrios of Pharos and Philip were transported across the Isthmus of Corinth, when we also have reference to a lembos sailing from Samos and Miletus to Alexandria carrying 258 18–chous jars and 102 half-jars of oil. However, we should note that there are various types of lemboi, some having 50 rowers, others as few as 16; see Casson (n. 2) 125–6, 162, for references and discussion.

⁹ For references, see Casson (n. 2) 32, 34, 35–6, 65–8 and Reed (n. 7) 41 n. 81. To the limited number of round-hulled sailing ships represented, we can now add one depicted on a Near Eastern seal of the eighth or seventh century (perhaps an example of a Phoenician gaulos); see Avigad, N., BASOR ccxlvi (1982) 59–62 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Humphreys, S., Anthropology and the Greeks (London 1978) 166–8Google Scholar, has also argued against the use of round ships as trading vessels during the archaic period, because she sees the aristocratic owners of long ships as the source of the archaic Greek trader. However, by her emphasis on Greek trade and Greek ships Humphreys has tended to isolate events in the Aegean from their wider Mediterranean context and neglect the typically international character of most overseas trade. In concentrating on homogeneous bands of Greek hetairoi, she has not considered the impact on trade and transport in the Aegean of those Greeks who chose to live for a time in the Near East and work with or for eastern merchants. Naukleroi could have emerged from such a milieu at any time during the archaic period (or earlier).

¹¹ In estimating its capabilities, it is important to keep the size of the diolkos in mind; as Wiseman (n. 1) 45 notes, ‘the channels are 1·5 m distant from each other, clear testimony, if it were needed, that only smaller craft (boats, not ships) were transported on the diolkos.’

¹² Casson (n. 2) 90–1.

¹³ Katzev, M. L., National Geographic cxxxvii (1970) 856 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Thuc. i 13.5. Salmon (n. 1) 138 has drawn attention to the fact that the earliest signs of settlement at the western end of the diolkos date to the late eighth century, although he exaggerates the difficulties of transporting cargo across the isthmus.

¹⁵ The major road linking Kenchreai and Corinth would have supported this traffic; see Wiseman (n. 1) 64. That goods were also portaged on other roads crossing the isthmus is suggested by Strabo's reference (ix 1.10) to Tripodiskos as the agora of Megara; the village was situated on the roadway linking Megara and Pegai. For evidence of similar commercial traffic across the toe and heel of Italy in the archaic period, see Graham, A. J., Ancient World x (1984) 9–10 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ashmole, B., Architect and sculptor in classical Greece (New York 1972) 15–22 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Richter, G. M. A., Kouroi (London 1970) nos. 12, 40, 41, 46, 73, 74, 103–105, 134, 149, 163a, 182–187, 189, 189b Google Scholar; and Korai (London 1968) nos. 89, 171, 172 Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For recent discussions concerning the involvement of the artist in the transport of marble, see Ashmole (n. 16) 15–22 and Snodgrass (n. 7) 19–20.

¹⁹ In discussing how the sculptor transported marble from Paros to Olympia, Ashmole (n. 16) 20–22, suggests a trip around the Peloponnese as the probable route, although he emphasizes the risks of having such deadweight on a ship in high sea as well as the evil reputation of Cape Malea, ‘where the waves and the winds of two seas meet.’ He mentions an alternative route, going across the isthmus and then along the ‘much more sheltered course’ of the Gulf of Corinth; but he is not enthusiastic about it, and understandably so. Ashmole believes that the sculptor would have relied on a single ship for the entire trip: the ship would have been transported across the diolkos while the marble was unloaded at Kenchreai, taken across by another route (a difficult task since it would require ‘special vehicles and many teams of oxen to haul them along the normal roads across the isthmus’), and reloaded at Lechaion. Of course, the task would be much easier, and the route across the isthmus preferred, if the sculptor simply had the marble transported across the diolkos and then rented space aboard another ship on the Gulf of Corinth to continue his journey.

²⁰ Dörpfeld, W., AthMitt ix (1884) 324–37Google Scholar; Kourouniotis, K., ArchDelt xi (1927) 9–15 Google Scholar; Ph. D. Stavropoullos, ArchEph (1938) 1–31; Grüben, G., ArchDelt xix (1964) 37–41 Google Scholar; Welter, G., Troizen und Kaulaureia (Berlin 1941) 19–21, 43–5Google Scholar; McAllister, M. H., Hesperia xxxviii (1969) 169–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G. Welter, ArchAnz (1954) 64–70; and Daux, G., BCH lxxxiv (1960) 814 Google Scholar. For Siphnos, see Hdt. iii 57–8. More so than the sites around the Saronic Gulf, these and other Cycladic islands would have had easier access to other timber sources but it is still likely that they looked westward for some of their timber supplies.

²¹ Meiggs, R., Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world (Oxford 1982) 122–5Google Scholar, suggests that the primary source of timber for Athens' major shipbuilding program in the late 480s was Italy, but the Athenians must also have drawn upon the abundant timber sources in western Greece, both north and south of the Corinthian Gulf. The most convenient route for this western timber, whether from Greece or from Italy, would have involved the diolkos.

²² IG iv² 102, 118, 110, 109. Cf. also Burford, A., The Greek temple builders at Epidaurus (Liverpool 1969) 176–9Google Scholar (with her corresponding numbers I, II A, XVII, XXI) and Meiggs (n. 21) 423–30. The reference to Kenchreai, restored in IG iv² 118, may have been used in a general way to describe the route of this timber shipment if the timber actually came through Schoinos, the eastern terminal of the diolkos, located further to the north on the Bay of Kenchreai. Upon reaching Schoinos the timber would have been loaded on board ship and taken directly to Epidauros. Naturally, not all timber shipments across the isthmus would have gone over the diolkos. Smaller shipments in particular may have been carried over land by wagon and in this case Kenchreai would be the point of embarkation.

²³ IG ii² 1672. The route of the shipment is recorded as going from Corinth to Kenchreai to Eleusis, and Meiggs (n. 21) 434, 438, suggests that it may have been transported over the diolkos (although he sees the track's purpose as ‘primarily to enable the Corinthians to pull warships across the isthmus’). References to Corinth are also found in fragmentary building records from Troizen and Hermione (IG iv 823 and 742), indicating the possibility of a similar Corinthian role here as has been recorded at Epidauros and Eleusis.

²⁴ Bourget, E., Fouilles de Delphes III: Épigraphie IV. Les comptes du IV^e siècles (Paris 1932) nos. 36 and 41 Google Scholar; and Bosquet, J., Études delphiques, BCH suppl. 4 (Paris 1977) 91–101 Google Scholar.

²⁵ Meiggs (n. 21) 430–3.

²⁶ IG iv² 102; Bourget (n. 24) nos. 19, 23, 26; IG ii² 1665; IG iv² 103; IG iv 823; and IG iv 742.

²⁷ Even those shipments that originated in Corinthian territory probably made their way to harbor by road since the largest Corinthian quarries used in antiquity were located near the main road connecting Corinth and Kenchreai; see Wiseman (n. 1) 66–7.

²⁸ Those working at the so-called Tile Factory, which was located just north of the city and in operation from the sixth to the fourth century, may have made use of the diolkos when making shipments across the Saronic Gulf; see Salmon (n. 1) 33, 121–2.

²⁹ For references and discussion see Thompson, H. A., Expedition xxii/3 (1980) 15–19 Google Scholar, and Burford (n. 22) 182. For the results of an experiment to reproduce roof tiles that were used during the archaic period, see Rostoker, W. and Gebhard, E., JFA viii (1981) 212–27Google Scholar; the modern replicas each weighed 30 kg and measured 0·65 m long, 0·69 m wide, and 0·04 to 0·05 m thick.

³⁰ See for example Burford (n. 22) 179–82, who discusses the purchase of metals recorded at Epidauros, Delphi, and Eleusis. Of course, metals sought for building projects would represent just a fraction of the overall trade in metals.

³¹ Snodgrass (n. 7) 18, 22–3.

³² IG iv² 103. In the records of Hermione (IG iv 742) and Eleusis (IG ii² 1672), there is also reference to διακάλισις.

³³ For the use of μαχάνωμα and σφενδόνα at Kirrha, see Bourget (n. 24) 87–8 and no. 19, and for the remains of wood and bronze and iron nails near the diolkos, see N. Verdelis, Praktika (1960) 141.

³⁴ Verdelis (n. 33) 136–41, and Wiseman (n. 1) 45.

³⁵ Orlandos, A. K., Τὰ ὑλικὰ δομῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἐλλὴνων ii (Athens 1958) 90–2Google Scholar; and IG ii² 1672, 1673; Rehm, A., Didyma ii (Berlin 1958) nos. 40, 41 Google Scholar; Pl. Per. xii 7; and IG i³ 462. Also see the comments of Burford, A., EcHistRev xiii (1960) 12 Google Scholar; curiously, Burford refers to the diolkos as an example of the road-building capabilities of the Greeks but she also considers (p. 11) that the diolkos was built primarily for the movement of ships across the isthmus, not the transport of cargo.

³⁶ In a new study of IG ii² 1673 concerning the transport of column drums to Eleusis, Raepsaet, G., AC 53 (1984) 101–36Google Scholar, has reconstructed the type of wagon that may have been used for heavy transport. Like Burford (n. 3 5), Raepsaet makes comparisons between the roadway whose preparation is referred to in this inscription (line 28) and the diolkos, and even suggests that part of the road may have been constructed with grooves or tracks, based on his translation of ὑπόνομοι in line 4; however, he too describes the diolkos (p. 126) as ‘route à travers l'isthme par laquelle on faisait passer les bateaux.’

³⁷ K. Clinton, ArchEph (1971) 103, and Burford (n. 35) 12.

³⁸ For estimates of the amount of friction on clay as compared with that on stone roadways, and the reduced power requirements of the latter method, see Cook (n. 4). Also see Raepsaet (n. 36) 130–3.

³⁹ Williams, C. K. II, Hesperia xlvii (1978) 15–20 Google Scholar, xlviii (1979) 10724, xlix (1980) 108–11.

⁴⁰ That Italy and Sicily enjoyed a reputation for abundant grain supplies is indicated by Hdt. vii 158; Thuc. iii 86, vi 20, vi 90; and Pliny NH xviii 65. Also see the comments of Gernet, L., L'approvisionnement d'Athènes en blé au V^e et au IV^e siècles (Paris 1909) 312 14Google Scholar.

⁴¹ That Corinth was also a transfer point for pottery being shipped between points east and west is suggested by the so-called Traders' Complex excavated in Corinth, which contained Attic, Chiote, East Greek, Corinthian, Lakonian, and Etruscan pottery dating to the first half of the sixth century; see Williams, C. K. II, MacIntosh, J., and Fisher, J. G., Hesperia xliii (1974) 14–24, 38–39 Google Scholar.

⁴² In the apparent reference to the diolkos in Ar. Thesm. 643–8, the thrust of the joke depends on the frequent, regular use of the diolkos.

⁴³ For the evidence of rebuilding and repair work along the diolkos that apparently dates to the fourth century, see Wiseman (n. 1) 43–6.