Studies in Ancient Greek Topography

269 Pages·1965·37.221 MB·English

by  William Kendrick Pritchett

STUDIES IN ANCIENT
GREEK TOPOGRAPHY

Studies in Ancient
Greek Topography
Part I
By
W. KENDRICK PRITCHETT
WITH AN APPENDIX BY
EUGENE VANDERPOOL
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERK.ELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1965
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBUCATIONS: CLASSICAL SnJDIES
ADVISORY EDITORS: T. S. BROWN, P.A. CLEMENT, J.E. FoNTENltOSE,
A. E. GoRDON, PHIUP LEVINE
Volume 1
Approved for publication May 1, 1964
Issued July 15, 1965
Price, $6.50
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERKELEY AND Los ANGEUS, CALIFORNIA
CAMBRIDGE UNIVER51TY PltESSL, oNDON, ENGLAND
@ 1965 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVEJlSITY OF CALIFORNIA
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
To
EUGENE VANDERPOOL
"\Vho has done more than any other scholar of my
generation to encourage topographical studies.

CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . 1
I. Pylos and Sphakteria . 6
The sandbar site . . . . . . . 6
The lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Sea level . . . . . . . . . . 12
The island of Sphakteria . 25
II. Amphipolis . . . . • . . . . 30
The site of Amphipolis town . . . . 31
The walls of Amphipolis . . • . 32
The stavroma • . • • . • . . . 34
The gates of Amphipolis . . . . 35
The bridge . . . . . . . . • 36
Brasidas' position on Mount Kerdylion . 38
Eion . . . . . . . 40
The lopkos . . . . . . 41
The "straight road" . . . . 43
The battle. . . . . . . 43
Appendix: Amphipolis, Hill 133 by Eugene Vanderpool. . . . 46
III. The Battle of Leuktra. . . . . 49
Leuktra . . . . . 49
The ancient road . . . . . 52
Movement.a before battle . . . . .. . . . . ... 56
The battle . . . . . . . . . . . . • 57
IV. The Battle of Sellasia in 222 B.C. 59
V. The Battle of Thermopylai in 191 B.C .. . . . . 71
The three forts . . . . . . . . 71
The battle . . . . . . 79
The siege of Herakleia . . . . 81
VI. Marathon Revisited . . . 83
The Deme of Marathon . . . 83
Herakleion . . . . 88
. . . . . . . . .
TII. Salamis Revisited . . .. . 94
Cv ii 1
viii/ Contents
VIII. Plataia Revisited . . . . . . . 103
The towns . . . . . . . 103
The Persian first position . . . . 109
The temple of Demeter and the Spartan third position 109
Temenos of Androkrates . . 111
Gargaphia . . . . . . . 113
The Greek second position . 115
The island . . . . . . . 115
Passes and roads . . . . 119
IX. The Course of the Alpheios River 122
X. Dine 131
XI. The Deme of Anaphlystos .. 135
XII. The Deme of Lamptrai . 138
Plates . . . . . . . . . 143
INTRODUCTION
THEP RESENT VOLUME continues a series of studies which I have undertaken
in Greece on ancient topography, especially that of battlefields. The twelve
separatec hapters are bound together by common attention to a topographical
examination of certain places in Greece. The selection may seem fortuitous;
severalo f these inquiries came about because I was able to obtain the col
laboration of expert geologists in Greece who knew the particular sites in
volvedA. connecting link is thus furnished by the availability of some special
insighti nto certain topographical problems. Just as one could not be expected
to writea history of Greece ba.sed on inscriptional sources without first estab
lishinga ccurate texts, so it has been necessary to lay emphasis in this volume
onm y actual explorations in the field; for on these explorations and the result
ingo bservations, future conclusions will have to be based.
The individual essays will, I hope, provide the framework for studies of
two subjects which are of great interest for all who concern themselves with
Greek history: namely, the historicity of the ancient historians, and the
mattero f ancient battle tactics.
Topography offers probably our best means of checking the accuracy of
ancienta uthors. Fortunately for our purpose, records of battles played a major
part in ancient histories. Checkpoints are numerous, and by diligent explora
tion it may be possible to determine whether or not they existed in antiquity.
In tum, with further study we should be able to throw light on the historical
accuracyo f an ancient writer. Bias and lack of objectivity are two charges
whicha re now commonly brought against the ancient historians, particularly
Thucydides. There is a reason for this. Every successive generation judges
previous civilization through its own eyes. The Hist,ory of the Peloponnenan
Warw ould seem to condemn a regime which affords many parallels to modern
democracies,o r, at least, to the direction in which these seem to be moving.
Withint he past few years, both H. D. Westlake and A. G. Woodhead have
chargedT hucydides with a biased presentation of the fall of Amphipolis. West
lake has questioned "how far his [Thucydides'] own account of the episode
(t he fall of Amphipolis) is objective," and concludes, "it is not so objective
asi t appears to be. "1 Woodhead has written: "It [ Thucydidean time-reckon
ing1 c annot be founded, at any rate, on an appeal to Thucydidean 'objectivity',
for whatever that may imply it is to be doubted whether Thucydides can be
creditedw ith it (see Mnemosyne 13 [1960] 289-317)." 1 When we tum to the
Mnemoaynea rticle, we find that Woodhead's case against Thucydidean objec
tivity rests in no small part on his interpretation of what he calls "Kleon's
grasp of grand strategy" at Amphipolis. Woodhead in effect impugns Thu
cydidean objectivity by impugning the topography. Which is correct-Thu
cydides' or Woodhead's account of the battle? Can we apply a tangible test?
I1 H° en"Ae°l "90" (" 19'6 2), 276.
35 ( 1963), 82.
[ 1]
2/ Studies in Ancient Greek Topograpky
The least we can do is to determine whether the points of reference mentioned
in Thucydides actually exist, and whether armies could have moved between
them as he describes. A study of terrain thus comes to be a basic way of testing
historical objectivity.
The method used to discredit the ancient historians is invariably the same
and may also be exemplified in this study by Woodhead. He asks the question
(page 308) "What was Thucydides' source of information here?" His answer
takes the form of two rhetorical questions. "A few prisoners, eager to blame
their misfortunes on their dead general? Disgruntled hoplites, casting back in
their memories nineteen or more years later?" Since in the classical period
most sources were oral, and Herodotos himself, for example, tells us that he
relied on f,,/,1.-sy, vwµ.71a, nd urTopLa.-reaearch which rested not on written but
on oral tradition-it is easy to imagine how an informant might mislead an
historian, even assuming that the latter began his researches with a desire for
objectivity. But if we open the door to such doubts, we can challenge any
statement, invalidate any single sentence in an ancient historian or, indeed,
reject all ancient history en ma88e.
My approach has been an attempt to find out whether the record of the
historian, so far as we can judge from a study of topography, is accurate. The
principle I have adopted is that the account in the ancient historian should be
adjudged correct unless there is proof of error. A 'J)riori, it seems likely that a
man of the capacity of Thucydides, for example, may have interrogated many
carefully chosen persons representing different sides, and may have arrived at
the truth. On the other hand, if he is writing history in a nonobjective way,
as Woodhead charges, then this nonobjectivity should appear in the account
of the battles as much as in other parts.
C. Hignett's position, as summarized on the jacket of his recent (1963) book,
Xerxea' Irwa8i.ono f Greece,i s somewhat different: "The author of this book
argues that topography can be used only to supplement, not to contradict,
Herodotus." Much as I admire Hignett's publication, I believe that this state
ment belittles the opportunity presented by topographical autopsy. Providing
we can recover ancient terrain, we should be able to say, here the historian
erred, here he was correct, and then pass on to the major problem of his general
reliability or historicity. Indeed, Hignett gives Herodotos much rougher treat
ment than the statement of principle implies, or the topography justifies. And
his excuse is in effect the same as that of those he criticizes. For example, on
page 37, he states: ". . . if blame attached to him [ Herodotos] it can only be
on the ground that he was not sufficiently on his guard against possible preju
dice in his informants."
My initial interest was in the demes of Attika, but I soon saw that there was
greater need for restudy of the ancient battles. This sort of inquiry cannot
&
be carried out single-handed. J. Kromayer, in the Antike Schlachtfel.der,h ad
the aid of & number of colleagues; I too have sought companions experienced