ٷۦ۩ЂڷٷٷӨڷۦٷӨڷےҖӨӨЂۦғۦٷғٷۦ۩۞ҖҖۃ

ẳẰΝẬẸậẽẴắẲẰΝặẬẾẾẴẮẬặڷۦڷۦڷٷۆẺỀẽẹẬặ

ۦڷӨڷۃۦٷڷٷٮۦڷӨڷۃۦ۩ۑӨڷۃۦۦڷٷۦӨۦڷے ۦڷӨڷۃڷ۩ڷڷۦ

ٷڷۺٷۦٷڷۃۦۆڷۃڷٷڷڷۍٷےڷڷڷۦڷ

ۍڷٷۦٷۑ

ہڽڷҒڷڽڷڷۃڿڼڼھڷۺۦٷ۩ٷЂڷҖڷۂۀڷ۩۔ڷҖڷٷۦ۩ЂڷٷٷӨڷۦٷӨڷےөڼڽڷۃٲۍғۀڽڼڽҖڿۀڿہڿڼڼۑҢڿڽڼھڷۺۦٷ۩ۦٯڷہھڷۃڷ۩ێڷۃۀھۂڼڼڼڼڼ

ۀھۂڼڼڼڼڼҢڿۀڿہڿڼڼۑٵٷۦٷҖۦғۦٷғٷۦ۩۞ҖҖۃڷۃۦٷڷڷڷۋ

ۃۦٷڷڷڷڷٱۦڷڷٷڷۺٷۦٷڷۃۦۆڷۃڷٷڷڷۍڷғۀڿڼڼھڿڷۍڷٷۦٷۑҖۀڽڼڽғڼڽۃڷہڽҒڽڷڷۃۂۀڷۃٷۦ۩ЂڷٷٷӨڷۦٷӨڷےڷғٷےڷڷۀھۂڼڼڼڼڼҢڿۀڿہڿڼڼۑ

ۦڷӨڷۃڷۦێڷ۩ۥې

өۃڷۦڷٷҖҖ۞۩ٷۦғۦٷғۦҖӨӨЂڽڿڽڷۃۦٷڷێٲڷۃғڽڽڽғۀғۀڽڼھڷۑڷڼڽڷڷۂہ

OF DOGS AND MEN: ARCHILOCHOS , ARCHAEOLOG Y AND THEGREEK SETTLEMEN T OF THASOSi

This article involves a case-study of one of the most generally accepted literary accountsof a Greek settlement abroad - the Greek colonisation of Thasos. Here, according to thegenerally accepted account, we have an eye-witness, Archilochos, son of the oikist, whoactually settled on Thasos not during the first Greek settlement but during a subsequentwave of settlers. He didn't like it much - he calls it 'thrice-wretched' (228W), the settlerswere the dregs of Greece (102W),2 the island looked like the back of an ass (21W), itwasn't pretty like Sybaris in Italy (22W), and the Thracians were described as 'dogs'(93aW). Fighting between Greeks and Thracians is portrayed (5W).3

The archaeological evidence for the first period of Greek settlement on Thasos isscarce, but what there is has been marshalled in support of this literary model.Archaeology's main role has been to be used in chronological disputes. The orthodoxydates the Parian colonisation to 680 BC, arguing that the Delphic oracle concerning thefoundation of Thasos has Archilochos' father as oikist.4 The subject-matter of severalof the poems has allowed Archilochos' poetry to be dated to 650 BC,5 and therefore thecolonisation of Thasos to a generation before. Pouilloux (1964), indeed, has used thearchaeological evidence from a house in the lowest levels of Thasos town to argue forthis early date for the Parian settlement, seeing the 'Thracian' (and distinctly un-Cycladic) character of many of the finds as indicative of a certain amount of interactionbetween Parians and Thracians in the first generation of the colony. Thus, he sees theviolence mentioned in Archilochos' poems as referring not to the establishment of thecolony in 680, but to the 'imposition of imperialism' in 650 (Pouilloux (1964) 22).

More recently, and in a most thorough and learned discussion of the material,Graham has suggested that both the archaeological and literary evidence indicate thatthese earliest levels of Thasos town are not Greek, but Thracian.6 Graham rightly points

• During my work on this article, I have received valuable help and advice from Anthony Snodgrass. JohnGraham, Robin Osborne, Joyce Reynolds, Onno van Nijf , Pat Easterling, Richard Hunter, Diana Gergovaand James Warren, for which I am very grateful. I alone remain responsible for any shortcomings.

2 The translation of this poem is disputed. My preference would be for a translation which emphasises thedisparate nature of the colonists, and, in the use of the word 6'if vs denigrates the colonists in a way familiarfrom the fragments: 'The dregs of all the Greeks have come together in Thasos', but West would translateit 'All Greece's wretchedness is now drained down to Thasos.'

3 Other poems include 20W 'My tears are for Thasos' troubles, not Magnesia's' and possibly 91W 'Letthe stone of Tantalus not be poised above this island.'

4 Pouilloux (1954); Pouilloux (1982); Boardman (1999) 229; Bernard (1964). This oracle is quoted byStephanus Byzantinus (s.v. Gdaos) and Oenomaeus of Gadera (in Eusebius. Praep. Evang. 6. 256b).

5 Eclipse (122W). Magnesia's troubles (20W), Gyges (19W).6 Graham (1978). See also Graham (2001).

2 SARA OWEN

out that there is no need to assume a standard thirty-year generational gap between thefather's supposed activities as oikist and the son's floruit as a poet.7 Archilochos' poetryshould be seen as fully contemporary with the colonisation of Thasos, the archaeo-logical evidence showing Parian characteristics only from about 650 BC.8

In this article, I argue that the confusions surrounding this earliest period of Thasianhistory are the result of the ways in which the literary material has been used to createan account into which the archaeology must fit. This is not only a methodological pointconcerning the best use of archaeological data, but a point about the way in which theliterary account itself has been created. I therefore follow the time-honoured structureof addressing the literary evidence first, but not to create an historical frame for thematerial evidence. Rather, my argument holds that the model of the colonisation ofThasos which currently holds sway comes ultimately from ancient interpretations ofthe poems of Archilochos as autobiographical. This is a general interpretative stancewhich has long since been discredited among most critics of ancient poetry. However,it is still accepted for some of Archilochos' poems due to the perception of literarycritics that there is some external evidence or justification for thinking that the 'Thasospoems' are historical and autobiographical. Indeed, the use of Archilochos and his 'life'as historical evidence by historians and archaeologists has not only had an impact onhow archaeological evidence has been interpreted, but has had a great effect uponliterary readings of the so-called 'historical' poems. In addition, I suggest thatassumptions about what Greek colonisation was like and indeed about what theThracians were like have not only coloured interpretations of the poems, but have alsoaffected a reconstruction of one poem in particular, which has then been used to backup the initial assumptions. The result is a tangle of circular reasoning, due to dividesbetween and within disciplines, which has confused literary, historical and archaeo-logical scholars for over half a century.

The reception of Archilochos

The main confusion concerning the character of the poems of Archilochos and theirusefulness as an historical source has been between the historians and the literaryscholars, and it is to this that I first turn.

There are two main issues central to the discussion of how Archilochos' versesshould be interpreted: the issue of the biographical T and the issue of the trust-worthiness of the 'lif e of Archilochos'.9

Graham (1978) 75. Indeed, the legend of Archilochos as appears on the Mnesiepes inscription indicatesthat later Parians placed the birth of Archilochos before the foundation of the Parian colony on Thasos,and that they thought that he spent his childhood on Paros (see Burnett (1983) 19).For objections to this formulation see Pouilloux (1982). Cf. Graham (2001).For further bibliography and an historical outline of the problem see Slings (1990). I here use Slings'formulation.

OF DOGS AND MEN 3

1) Following Dover's ground-breaking article which showed, using anthropologicalcomparisons, that the first person in lyric poetry need not represent the historical personof the poet himself,10 the weight of literary opinion would now accept that we shouldnot uncomplicatedly view lyric poetry as autobiographical.'' Some may question theforce of Archilochos' verses if the situations and people portrayed were not real.12

However, there is a considerable body of opinion which sees the context of the poetryas that of the symposium.13 The lampoons may be of real individuals - the chastity ofdaughters of one's enemies (or even of one's friends!) may be questioned, a certainGlaukos (for whom there is independent attestation) may be ridiculed - but thesituations described and the poet's involvement in them may not be 'real'.

2) Whilst a wealth of biographical data was collected about Archilochos by about thefifth century BC, there is little to suggest that any of it comes from a source other than thepoet's own poems.14 Indeed, an attack upon Archilochos by Critias is explicit in claimingthat no one would have known any of the scurrilous things about Archilochos' life, hadhe not broadcast them in his verses.15 Most scholars would follow Mary Lefkowitz'sstudy of Lives in suggesting that Lives in general seem to be fifth-century fabricationsusing the poet's own literary output as fodder.16 The much-vaunted foundation-oracle,upon which the orthodox dating of the foundation of Thasos ultimately relies, also showssigns of belonging to the biographical tradition of Archilochos.17

10 Dover (1964) suggests that lyric is linked with preliterate folk-song which, as generalisations drawn from theanthropological comparisons indicate, is role-playing: the songs may refer to feelings and background situationswhich are not necessarily that of the composer; a male may, for example, sing as a woman about to be married.

'' This reaction against the biographical 'I ' has been followed by several critics to varying extents (e.g. West(1974); Burnett (1983); Adkins (1985); cf. Slings (1990)). Barron and Easterling (1985)118 have pointedout that 'even when "Archilochus" is the speaker there is no certainty that he was not assuming a role -Archilochus the mercenary soldier, the boon companion, the sexual adventurer, etc.'.

|: Slings (1990) fairly points out that the poems had littl e force if the characters within them were stock.13 See e.g. Bowie (1986).14 Graham (1978) 8 3 ^; Tarditi (1956) 128. Cf. the important work by Lefkowitz (1981) dismissing the

historicity of the biographies of ancient poets, which has been widely followed in literary circles.15 'For if he had not published for himself such a reputation amongst the Greeks, we would not have learnt that he

was the son of Enipo, who was a slave woman; or that he left Paros through poverty and lack of means and wentto Thasos; or that when he arrived he was hostile to the people who were there, speaking ill impartially of bothfriends and enemies. Nor would we have known in addition to these facts that he was an adulterer had we notlearned it from himself; nor that he was a sex maniac and a rapist; nor (what is even more disgraceful than this)that he threw away his shield. So Archilochus did not prove to be a good witness in his own cause, leaving sucha fame and repute behind him', quoted in Aelian (Var. Hist 10.13). As Nagy (1979) 247 has noted, the use ofthe name Enipo as his mother's name is significant: 'this very detail reflects on the function of Archilocheanpoetry, in that Enipo is derived from a word used in Epos to designate blame'; cf. Treu (1959) 157. This passagehas been used to confirm that Archilochos went to Thasos, see e.g. Graham (1978) 75; cf. Jacoby (1941).

16 Lefkowitz (1981); cf. Fairweather (1974).17 See p. 1 and n. 4 above. Despite an earlier faith in the authenticity of the foundation-oracle (Parke 1939).

who has been followed by Pouilloux (1954), in the second edition, Parke and Wormell (1956). placed itin the years between the beginning of the Peloponnesian war and 373 BC for reasons of style. This bracketfits nicely with Tarditi's (1956) apparently independent conclusion that all the oracles were concocted atDelphi between c. 411 BC and the middle of the fourth century as part of a biography of the poet whosegreatness Delphi had 'foretold' and 'fostered'. For a fuller discussion of the foundation-oracle and otheroracles linked to Thasos see Graham (1978); cf. Owen (2000a) 135-8.

4 SARA OWEN

The Life has governed not only modern interpretations of the 'political' fragments,but to some extent has affected the 'accident' of survival of the fragments we have.These fragments have been filtered not through the concerns of the following centuries,but seem to have been filtered according to what was thought to have been importantor representative about Archilochos: his 'satire' and his perceived involvement in thecolonisation of Thasos.

This filtering of the poetry of Archilochos is nowhere more evident than on theinscriptions which preserve some of the so-called historical fragments - the Mnesiepesinscription and the Monumentum Archilochi (or Sostratos inscription). Theseinscriptions are reputed to have stood in the heroon of Archilochos, and have provided,for some, 'a few harder facts' (so Burnett (1983) 16).

Let us take the earlier of these inscriptions first. The Mnesiepes inscription is a third-century BC monument, fully published by Kontoleon in 195218 which tells both of anoracle which led Mnesiepes to set up a temenos and an altar to Archilochos and thengives a biographical account of the poet. This account mixes mythical material, suchas Archilochos' meeting with the Muses, which has been compared with that of Hesiod(Theog. 31), and oracles, to Telesikles, foretelling the fame of his son, and toArchilochos, telling him to settle on Thasos, and it includes extracts of Archilochos'poems. Only the first part of the inscription is intact.

The Sostratos inscription,19 or Monumentum Archilochi, belonging to the firstcentury BC, contains a military history, based upon a third-century account written bya man called Demeas - or so the text of the inscription claims. Whatever Demeas wrote,and the text of the stone seems to indicate that it was a year-by-year narrative,20 thetext we have is a strange cross between an annalistic history and a form of narrative,'incorporating quotations from poetry and prose aetiologies' best known from thebiographical genre (Lefkowitz (1981) 30). This chronological account or 'history' isexemplified, or proved,21 by quotation of lines of Archilochos.

It is this second inscription which is the more extraordinary. The text has been badlymutilated, and much has been lost. However what is striking about it is not the extentto which we fail to understand the clear situations being discussed - this is naturalconsidering the fragmentary state of much of it - but the extent to which the explanatorytext around the fragments, the history which is proved by the fragments, is so looselyconnected to the poems themselves. This implies one of two things: that, as Lefkowitzsuggests, the history was concocted entirely from the poems of Archilochos and that

18 Kontoleon (1952) 32-95, plates 1-4; also PAE (1950) 258ff.; BCH 74 (1950) 310; BCH 75 (1951) 122;JHS1\ (1951) 249; Tarditi (1956).

19 The Monumentum Archilochi is published in full in IG XII(5).445. See Gerber (1999) for a more recenttext and English translation. See fig. 1 for a drawing.

20 I follow Treu's (1959) text; '... and Demeas recorded each of the deeds and the writings of Archilochosby [archon], beginning with the first archon Eur[...' (A 1.6-8: my translation).

: i There are several points at which the inscription claims "the poet clearly states' (e.g. A 1.42). The phrases:'... that he speaks the truth ...'(A 1.26) and 'the poet makes a record of him when he writes ...' (A 1.18)are also used.

OF DOGS AND MEN 5

the text relied upon a great familiarity with the poems, or that a tradition existed outsidethe poems which interacted with the poetry and affected the interpretation of the poemsin the Hellenistic period.22 Whilst these inscriptions should be placed squarely in thetradition of the biography of Archilochos, therefore, the complexities of their reception,complicating the reception of the poems on them, cannot be known. We can perhapsonly go as far as Fairweather (1974) in pointing out again that it was from the poet'sown writing that inferences about his life were most often made - and the inscriptionsdo seem to represent the tradition of using the poet's own verse as fodder - but rejectingthe reduction of the traditions to the poems alone. Such a supposition however doesnot increase our justification in using the extant poetry as historical evidence. In fact itfurther complicates the reception of Archilochos and adds yet another layer to thefiltering of the poetry - the historical 'memory', and presentation, of its own past byHellenistic Paros.

Whatever else may be disputed, therefore, we may view the inscriptions as part ofa monumentalising of a past up to four centuries distant. Not only do I think that wecan see this as an ideological use of the past, but perhaps as part of an assertion of Parianidentity, of which Archilochos may have been an important part. The crucial issue isthat the material on the stones, and the fragments of Archilochos, must be analysed intheir context: as part of a Hellenistic monument. There is littl e to be gained in spec-ulating on what elements of the story thereon might be 'true' or at least based in oldertraditions: we are unjustified in claiming that it 'offers a nice blend of fantasy and fact'(so Green (1998) 58).

The drawing of historical conclusions from the Monumentum Archilochi is commonand fraught with danger. We may note, for example, Pouilloux's claim, following Hillervon Gaetringen's (1934) restoration, that the inscription refers to a thousand malecolonists. Graham has noted the parallel with fragment 101W 'For seven of the enemywe overtook and slew I a thousand of us claim the kill ' (trans. West).23 This exampleincidentally gives a good instance of the way in which the satirical character of manyof the so-called historical fragments, as well as the issue of the biographical T , hasbeen ignored in the rush to mine them for data. It is to this that I turn next.

Lefkowitz (1981) 30: cf. Fairweather (1974); Nagy has argued for the existence of a general tradition ofArchilochos outside the biographical tradition, using the existence of the Archilocheion (or heroon ofArchilochos) in the sixth century BC. The construction of a heroon to Archilochos, named the'Archilocheion' is referred to in the inscription of Mnesiepes. However, whilst there is littl e doubt thatthe inscription of Mnesiepes and the Monumentum Archilochi originally stood in this heroon. it is clearthat knowledge of the heroon comes only from the inscriptions themselves. Despite the best efforts ofKontoleon (1965) and Ohnesorg (1982) to reconstruct sixth- and fourth-century 'Archilocheions'respectively, there remains no convincing archaeological evidence of either dates for the heroon building.For further discussion see Owen (2000a) 133-5.Pouilloux (1954) 26-7 uses this restoration to suggest that there must have been intermarriage withThracian women. Cf. Graham (1978) 85 n. 234. In both cases 'a thousand' sounds more like a genericusage meaning 'a large number' rather than a specific number.

6 SARA OWEN

The historical poems

I have suggested above that the concept that the lyric poet often adopted a persona -that the first person need not mean the historical individual Archilochos is speakingfrom the heart - is one which is well accepted in literary circles. What has not beforebeen pointed out is the extent to which this concept is ignored or bypassed when thesame literary scholars analyse the so-called historical poems. Indeed, few critics havedoubted that Archilochus himself fought at Thasos.24 I would claim that it is perhapsdue to the unhelpful divides within classical scholarship that just as archaeologists andhistorians have ignored the character of the literature they have quoted, literary criticshave drawn upon the historical accounts of the foundation of Thasos in their studies,without realising that much of this derives from often shaky interpretations of the poemsthemselves.25

I do not intend here to propose new readings of the historical poems. My point isthat the literary readings have already been proposed - the so-called historical poemsare not different in tone or context from the rest of the extant Archilochean corpus.Thus as Braund has pointed out, many of the so-called historical poems are themselvesplayful and satirical, containing a complex combination of ideas about the world, apolitical engagement with these ideas and a playfulness with them; perhaps even asubversion of key values.26

Thus. Burnett claims that '[Archilochos] moved between the island of Paros and its remote colony onThasos, living as a soldier and composing short songs' (Burnett (1983) 16), whilst Podlecki states that a'somewhat more promising line of approach is Archilochos' known involvement with the colonizingefforts of his native island Paros' ((1983) 32). Even more striking is Adkins' certainty concerning thetruth of this part of the biography. The line: '[t]hat Archilochos was born on Paros in the Cyclades andsubsequently migrated to Thasos in the North Aegean seems certain' (Adkins (1985) 33, my emphasis),is followed by a passage in which Adkins agrees with Dover (1964) that Archilochos' poems are not auto-biographical. The most surprising victim is West, who has shown himself to be the most sceptical of thebiographical T for the other poems. He states: 'A number of fragments refer to Thasos. the North Aegeanisland that was colonized by the Parians: Archilochos spent part of his life there, and was involved infighting with Thracian tribes on the nearby mainland.' (West (1993) xi, my emphasis).For such historical interpretations see e.g. Malkin (1998) 181 ('Archilochos, that true-to-life hardy mid-seventh-century poet-soldier and colonist, roamed the Mediterranean from Siris to Thrace and settled inThasos'); Malkin (2002) 215: Osborne (1996) 198; Graham (1978): Pouilloux (1964).See Braund (1998) 289. Examples are 133W which subverts poems honouring fallen warriors and 5W inwhich T boasts that he has thrown away his shield in combat with a Saian (one of the Thracian tribes).Rather than point to the anti-heroic tone of this latter poem, many scholars have attempted to argue thatthis poem indicates that Archilochos, and therefore the Parians, were engaged in fighting on the Thracianmainland. Archilochos is generic in his references to the Thracians, as are many other archaic poets, andone may suspect as Adkins and Campbell have suggested, that this particular tribal name, which later(again according to literary evidence) appears on the coast opposite Samothrace, was used in order tomake the pun between 2aicov and efjeadwaa: Adkins (1985); Campbell (1983) 208. This reading alsosolves the problem of the abundance of names of Thracian tribes used in connection with Thasos'foundation, which Graham has taken to indicate a number of contacts on the mainland (1978) 85: here,Saioi; Monumentum Archilochi A 1.51: Sapai; Call. Aetia fr. 104 (commentary): Bisaltai. See Graham(1978)85.

OF DOGS AND MEN 7

For many, the connection of Archilochos with Thasos has been confirmed by themention of Glaukos son of Leptines in several of his poems:27 the man whose memorial,dating to the end of the seventh century, seems now to have been uncovered onThasos.28 However, whilst the memorial may indicate (what few would deny) thatArchilochos wrote about common concerns and often lampooned those prominent inParian society, there is no need to see these poems as indicative of anything more.

The Thasos poems in general, as Graham has pointed out, represent meagre pickingsfor the historian.29 Indeed, in general the contribution of the poems themselves has notbeen in terms of solid historical data, but in terms of gleaning general attitudes of theParians towards the Thracians and to Thasos. However, if one views the general deni-grating attitude in the context of the satirical nature of the extant verse, and the sneeringattitude towards Paros and Parians that could similarly be gleaned from some of thepoems,30 the dangers inherent in such interpretations should be apparent.

One poem, quoted on the MonumentumArchilochi, has been used above all the otherThasos poems to justify the impression of a relationship of violence and disdainbetween Thracians and Parians - fragment 93aW.

Of dogs and men

The current (historical) analyses of the Archilochean fragments confirms, for manyscholars, the validity of the generic and monolithic opposition of Greeks andThracians.31 But it is on the so-called 'Thracian dogs' poem that most weight is put(93aW):

... the son of Pisistratusbrought back these connoisseurs of lyre and pipeto Thasos, with a cargo of pure goldfor bribing Thracian dogs. But then for sakeof private gain they did a public harm.

(tr. West (1993) 7)27 With full patronymic in fr. 131W; elsewhere: 15W, 96W, 105W, 117W. E.g. note the mock-heroic

tone of fragment 117W, which may be interpreted as a parody of the opening of an epic poem: TOVKepoTr\daiT|i' deLSe YXavKov, 'Sing, [Muse], of Glaukos of the sculptured curl' (Rankin), or 'SingGlaukos of the sculptured curl' (Tarditi).

28 The lettering reads: 'I am the memorial of Glaukos son of Leptines. I It was the sons of Brentes who setme up.' SEG XIV.565; BCH 79 (1955) 75-86.

29 Graham (1978) 85. Graham suggests that the poems imply that the colonisation of Thasos was a recentevent (e.g. 22W), that it could be deduced from the poems (at least in antiquity) that Archilochos wentto Thasos; that the colonists were drawn very widely (or that mercenaries were employed) (102W); andthat there was fighting (and perhaps other forms of contact) between the colonists and Thracians both onThasos (93aW) and on the mainland (5W). See also Pouilloux (1954) 30-3; Pouilloux (1964).

30 E.g. 'Let Paros go - those figs, that life at sea', 116W; 101W; 93aW; cf. 109W.11 E.g. Danov (1969); Danov (1989); Graham (1978); Boardman (1999) 229-30; Isaac (1986); Pouilloux

(1964).

8 SARA OWEN

It is the archaeological context of this poem in particular, on the so-called MonumentumArchilochi, discussed above, to which I call attention.

It is not only the fragmentary state of the inscription which accounts for the incom-pleteness of the poem. I emphasise again that the poem is quoted on this first-centuryBC inscription in order to illustrate a version of Parian history which involves thecolonisation of Thasos, war with Naxians, and a possible reference to the Lelantinewar.32

This poem is referring to a complex 'event' of which we have no external knowledge.Whilst the sneering tone of much of the other poetry is clearly present, much of this isaimed against some Parians(?) who have done a public harm of some kind. Howeverit is usually taken to show the disdain felt by Archilochos towards 'Thracian dogs'.Less often is it pointed out that the fragment seems to refer to some kind of diplomacybetween the Greeks and Thracians.33

However, it is not only what can be reconstructed of the tone of the poem whichshould give scholars pause before using it as an uncomplicated historical source, butthe fact that so much of it has been restored. In particular, although texts of Archilochosrarely acknowledge the fact, in the line Kval Gpei LV Soip' exwv dKfipcrrov I xpuaov,which West translates 'with a cargo of pure gold for bribing Thracian dogs', neitherwas Kval the original reading, nor does the available evidence support the retention ofthis restoration.

Whatever the story being told by the commentary (West 93a.4O- and 49-52) - thetext is so badly damaged that littl e can be gained from speculation34 - what interestsme here is the general acceptance into the text of the Archilochean fragment of the wordKuat. This word invests the poem with a tone of which much has been made. It is oftenquoted as evidence for bad relations between Greeks and Thracians. Indeed Luriacomes to the conclusion that Archilochos has a feeling of superiority over the barbarians- they are not men, but Thracian dogs.35 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki uses the poem in asimilar way in her archaeological reports.36 Burnett uses the poem to talk of gifts, and'bribes' to the 'barbarian enemy'.37 Even Graham, who is cautious to the point ofnihilism in his 1978 article, sees the use of this word as indicative of the tenor of

For the most accessible recent full texts of IG xii(5). 445 (Monumentum Archilochi A 1.40-52) see 93aWest (1998) 36-7 and Gerber (1999) 28-9 & 136-7 (Loeb).For the latter reading see Markov (1978); Treu (1959) 137 suggests that the poem constitutes an attackon Peisistratos and that the Thracians come out of it rather well.The most sensible discussion may be found in Graham (1978) 85. where he lists the events which can beread without the wild speculation which may be found in other commentaries: 'Some Thracians aredefinitely killed (49ff.); pure gold is brought for Thracian dogs' (Graham (1978) 85 n. 235). Graham usesTarditi's text which gives a false impression of the security of the reading Kuai, as I demonstrate here.See Burnett (1983) 36-7 for discussion of some of these hypotheses (especially n. 14). As she notes, thelink which has often been drawn between this fragment and Callimachus, Aetia fr. 104 (the murder of theThracian Oisydres by Parians which resulted in a seige of Thasos) is flawed.Luria (1961) 185.E.g. AAA 3 (1970) 215.Burnett (1983) 36-7.

OF DOGS AND MEN 9

relations between the Parians and the Thracians. He dismisses all arguments forpeaceful relations between Greeks and Thracians largely on the basis of this fragmentand claiming that 'it is wrong to try to explain away the clear implication of the phrase"Thracian dogs"' ,38

All the texts I have consulted give different views of the security of the readingKUCTU39 The dots under the letters40 migrate to a worrying extent from text to text.Tarditi, in fact places a dot under the sigma which, as the publications of the inscriptionhave shown, is the only letter which is secure and upon which all other scholars agree.

In order to understand why readings vary to such an extent, it is necessary to take abrief look at the history of the restoration of this inscription, and pinpoint the origin ofthe reading Kixn .

The text of this inscription was first published by Hiller von Gaertringen in 1900.There he prints phi -gap- sigma iota (4>.ai). He gives a series of possible readings cf>r|ai,4>aai, cf)epei, none of which he likes. In 1909 the inscription was published in IG XII(5).445, with an accompanying drawing (fig. 1). In this publication Hiller von Gaertringenaccepts von Arnim's suggestion of cfxurji and it is clearly stated that phi and sigma arecertain. The text, which Diehl (1917) also accepted, then reads: cf)[io]cri ©pf|L£tv Swp'exwy dxripaTov xpucov, '... having gifts of pure gold for Thracian men ...' (mytranslation).41

In 1934, however, Hiller von Gaertringen produced a publication in which <J>ouai wasreplaced by KUQL. NO rationale was given for this change, and whilst it seems that itwas made after a new reading of the stone,42 a supplement by Maas (who was involvedin this rereading) to Hiller von Gaertringen's article brackets the kappa of KUQI (Maas(1934): seen. 39 above).

It is thus far from clear how this new reading became so widely accepted. Thereappears, from the available evidence, to be no justification for it on the stone. A goodsqueeze of this section of the stone also gives no justification for the reading of a kappa(fig. 2).43 In fact phi rather than kappa seems to be visible,44 and the adoption of KVO'I

Graham (1978) 94; cf. Pouilloux (1982) 12.icwi Hiller von Gaertringen (1934) 47; [iclyai Maas (1934) 56 (supplement to Hiller von Gaertringen1934); KVtri Jacoby FGrH502 F 1; Kual Treu (1959) 56; KWA Tarditi (1968) fr. 120; Kvql Chaniotis (1988)col. la, line 47; Kvoi West (1998) fr. 93a; icual Gerber (1999) fr. 93a.These conventionally indicate that whilst the letter itself cannot be read, the letter is nevertheless the onlypossible one in context or that, whilst the letter is incomplete, 'such traces as remain of it agree with [theeditor's] restoration', Woodhead (1967) 9.4>. at Hiller von Gaertringen (1900) 16; (fjvydfc Leo (1900); (ffoilal Hiller von Gaertringen, in IG xii(5).445 (1909) (after von Arnim); $uM, Diehl (1917) 8.On this see also Jacoby FGrH 502 F 1 (p. 479).This squeeze was made by W. Peek. It was lent to me by Archiv der Inscriptiones graecae of the Berlin-Brandenburg Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin. I thank here Joyce Reynolds, Onno van Nijf andJohn Graham for their help in reading the squeeze. All three agree that kappa cannot be read and is muchmore unlikely than phi. It is certainly not acceptable to give kappa as a certain reading, as do many of thetexts. The only clear letter on the squeeze is the sigma, as West indicates in his text.There is more of a justification for reading phi, although this reading is not fully satisfactory.

10 SARA OWEN

involves the imposition of a very strong reading. The confusion in the main editionsalso seems to indicate that the reading is not as secure as Hiller von Gaertingen presentsit.45

It is clear that the reading Kuoi is one which catches the imagination. However,whilst this emendation has turned a damaged fragment into a vivid and lively poem,its historical value is negligible. I suggest rather that the reading has more to do withmodern ideas concerning how Greeks should have felt about the Thracians than withgood epigraphic method. As Edith Hall has convincingly demonstrated for a poem ofAnacreon (a century or so later than the accepted date of Archilochos) the idea of 'thebarbarian other' cannot uncomplicatedly be projected back onto the archaic period.46

Indeed, as Jonathan Hall states, 'the crystallisation of a diametric opposition betweenGreek and barbarian in the fifth century marks a distinct break from the Archaic period'(Hall (1997) 45-6). Not only does the archaic period show littl e evidence of derogatorystereotyping, but there is plentiful evidence for interaction in the archaic period betweenGreeks and 'those who would later be categorised as barbarians'.47

Conclusion

To sum up, I do not wish to imply that we can deduce nothing from the verse ofArchilochos. In fact, I concur with the opinion that the context of Archilochos' versewas symposiastic, and that in such a context reference was made to common concerns.I also do not wish to imply that we cannot glean something of some aspects ofinteraction with Thracians from the poems. There is clearly some reference to conflictwith Thracians. However, I would like to suggest that there are clear problems with theway in which the poems have been used. First, the biographical context in which someof the fragments have been transmitted (itself stemming from a misunderstanding ofthe poet's T) has led many historians and archaeologists to misinterpret the poetry as'eyewitness accounts'. Second, and paradoxically, the contexts of much of the poetryhave been ignored. Much of the poetry we have has been quoted out of context, eitherin later texts for the biographical 'facts' which they might provide, or on the inscriptionsto illustrate a particular version of Parian history. Thus the fragmentary nature of muchof the poetry is not accidental. In particular, choices were made in antiquity concerningwhich lines would most add weight to particular versions of Parian history.

My only suggestion is that the existence of two Homeric parallels for this usage of KUCJI , (Tpwfjcn KUCTUV),//. 17.255 and 18.179 which however must refer to the animals!), and the absence of a suitable parallelfor <t>coai (<J)ojg also being a heroic word for 'man' in Homer) led to this emendation. It may also be thatearly twentieth-century attitudes towards 'the colonised' made it hard for 1930s scholars to accept thatArchilochos would use a heroic word for 'men' when referring to 'barbarian' Thracians.Hall (1988), (1989); cf. Cartledge (1993).Hall (1997) 46, where examples of such interaction are given. See also Burkert (1990) 5: Hall (1989)21-5; Cartledge (1993) 38.

OF DOGS AND MEN 11

These problems of evidence have been exacerbated by the fact that the interpre-tations (even emendation) of these poems (what is emphasised, and what not, forexample) has, since antiquity, been influenced by contemporary concerns. The mostrecent of these concerns has been the emphasis upon 'colonisation' as conquest - firstas a positive 'civilising' force, and more recently as something negative. The resultingtendency to polarise has discouraged exploration of forms of interaction other thanviolence. Indeed, the fragments of Archilochos could just as well be used to discussParian sympotic knowledge of Thracians (names of tribes and local drinks for example),as well as a reference to at least one episode of diplomacy (93aW). However, whateveraspect of the literary picture one chooses to emphasise, it is not possible to go beyondthese vague shadows using only literary evidence. The archaeological records of Thraceand Thasos, however, do indicate a more complex picture of varying interaction thanthe monolithic oppositions that have been assumed, and indeed created, from thecurrent literary picture. I therefore conclude this article with a short summary of archae-ological findings and a suggestion for more productive approaches.

Whilst the later classical period has been the main focus of archaeological research,some interesting patterns appear when Thracian material also is studied. My study ofthe Thracian Early Iron Age has brought out trends in the material culture of this areathat may lead to a greater understanding of the processes that led Parians to makecontact with this area at all. I have suggested elsewhere that the ninth and eighthcenturies saw the emergence of an elite, based upon the appropriation of iron, for whomforeign materials and objects became an important status indicator.48 This prestige useof imports can also be distinguished in the final phase of the cemetery at the Thraciansettlement at Kastri on Thasos.49 These general trends in Thracian material cultureindicate that social changes within Thrace were responsible for an increasing outward-looking tendency and the initiation of contacts with other peoples.

The evidence on Thasos town shows an evolution of these same trends. The earliestlevels so far excavated in Thasos town have revealed evidence of an apsidal house withmixed Thracian and Aeolian Greek ceramic.50 The earliest levels of the Artemisionreveal the same type of deposits.51 The existence of Greek material has been used bysome to suggest that this house and the first levels of the Artemision are Greek - indeedParian Greek.52 This suggestion is based upon the literary dating of the Pariansettlement and I concur with Graham that there is no evidence of Parian settlement untilthe mid seventh century BC (Graham (1978)). The mixed material is howeverinteresting. I would not suggest that the presence of Aeolian material necessarily

48 The first wave of imports in the eighth century include Scythian, Baltic and Levantine as well as Greekobjects: Owen (2000a).

49 Owen (2000a) ch. 8.50 The most accessible discussion of this sondage and the apsidal house is Graham (1978).51 See Weill (1985).52 Greek: Bernard (1964), Weill (1985); Thracian: Graham (1978), Graham (2001), Grandjean (1988);

Unsure: Koukouli-Chrysanthaki in AAA 3 (1970) 215 (Greek), but in AAA 6 (1973) 240 (Thracian);Mixed?: Pouilloux (1964), cf. Pouilloux (1982).

12 SARA OWEN

implies the presence of Aeolians. However, the use of this imported material - aseveryday tableware - is in striking contrast to the prestige use of some of the same typeof imported ceramic in Kastri a few years earlier.53 This suggests that a high level ofcultural interaction with some Greeks was attained before the Parian settlement, andthat some 'Greek' material culture was no longer viewed as exotic imports, but asnormal everyday crockery.

However, of particular interest to me has been the extent to which the first evidenceof Greek settlers integrates into the existing landscape of Thasos. This is clearest in theritual sphere in which evidence of the reuse and/or continuing use of Thracian ritualplaces is growing. In particular the Artemision54 and the Herakleion55 show evidenceof pre-Greek-settlement Thracian ritual activity - the former in terms of Thracianofferings, the latter in terms of physical remains. The study of landscape offers archae-ologists a way into how people structured their lives in physical terms, how they viewedtheir world. The study of the ways in which Greek settlers integrated into existinglandscapes, or created new ones must therefore offer a fertile area for future studies ofGreek settlements 'abroad'.

Much still needs to be done, and the archaeological record of early Thasos town isscanty. However, I hope that such approaches may begin to indicate (what we mustalways have suspected) that cultural interactions between Greeks and Thracians in theseventh century were rather more complex than the emphasis upon Archilochosallowed us to believe. The archaeological evidence indicates first that the Greekcontacts with Thrace were part of a more general opening up of that society to foreigncontacts. Second, the interactions between Thracian Thasians and some Greeks wereintensive prior to Parian settlement. Lastly, the evidence from ritual sites seems toindicate that there was at least some integration into existing ritual landscapes. Thecomplexity of the archaeological record of early Thasos therefore stands in stark

53 Bernard (1964). I refer here to G2-3 ware. Grey bucchero is also present as imports and locally producedcopies. See Owen (2000a) 157-9.

54 For the Artemision see Weill (1985). She concurs with Bernard (1964) that the sanctuary was a Parianfoundation, despite the lack of Parian ceramic (see esp. p. 210). Grandjean (1988) 436-41 suggests thata Thracian cult on this site was taken over by the Parians. My identification of eighth- and early seventh-century Thracian fibulae amongst the finds from the earliest levels of the Artemision must strengthen hiscase. For illustration and argument see Owen (2000a) 160 & fig. 10.3. I am very grateful to Dr. Ch.Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ephor at Kavala, for giving me access to these materials in the Museum ofThasas. I also thank Prof. Diana Gergova, of the Institute of Archaeology, Sofia, for discussing thesefibulae with me.

55 Pre-Greek cult has long been suspected in the Herakleion, in the form of a Phoenician sanctuary. Noarchaeological evidence backs this up (see Graham (1978) 88-92 for the full argument and references).However, the rock altar bears a striking resemblance to sacrificial stones - an element of the Early IronAge 'megalithic culture' of southern Thrace (see Owen (2000a) 162; ch. 5). In addition Graham hassuggested that the so-called bothroi (or post-holes) around the altar are of Thracian origin. They havebeen persuasively interpreted as basins - another component of the Thracian megalithic culture - byNajdenova (1990) 88. See Graham (2001) 379-84 for a detailed discussion. I have dated these aspects ofThracian material culture to the eighth and seventh centuries BC (see Owen (2000a) ch. 5). See also Owen(2000b) on the fourth-century reuse of a Thracian rock-cut tomb on the Thasian acropolis as the 'cave ofPan'.

OF DOGS AND MEN 13

contrast to the simple monolithic oppositions between Greeks and Thracians of theliterary model.

Thus I make a plea for the ending of the circularity which has led to the Thasosfragments being treated in a different way from the rest of the poems. There is noliterary, historical or archaeological reason why those poems that discuss warfareshould be seen as immune from the debate concerning the biographical T . There are,however, good archaeological and literary reasons for questioning the context in whichwe have received these poems. We also need to be aware of the many filters throughwhich the fragments - upon which the history of the foundation of Thasos is built -have passed.

It is my belief that we have relied for too long upon literary evidence for ourframeworks. Whilst lack of communication with other disciplines, such as literarycriticism, has led to misunderstandings and vicious circles, communication must leadus to question the efficacy of relying on these texts at all. It is therefore my belief thata study of the Greek colonisation of Thrace must now attempt to break out of suchapproaches and address the archaeology on its own terms. This is not a completedismissal of the use of literary sources for the study of the archaic period. I neverthelessbelieve that the archaeological and the literary sources may at times illuminate quitedifferent elements of the ancient world. What is more, both stand in a complex rela-tionship with the world we expect them to illuminate. Neither provides a simple mirrorof the society in question, both must be interpreted as a comment upon the society, and,in the case of literature, upon historical events. Neither am I suggesting that archae-ologists should ignore the literary evidence and simply get on with the business ofarchaeology. Whilst I argue for the separation of literary and archaeological sources inthe study of Greek colonisation, another, perhaps paradoxical, conclusion has emerged.To be better classical archaeologists, we must be better literary critics.

MAGDALENE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE SARA OWEN

14 SARA OWEN

A-ofKvM/>—fpHisi*. * H P ^ n ^ tJ E l i i

E * ^ N A K HPATO rJ p v r ON oHEn-oiy^Ar'IcA-sAOTi-rO ^' *z Z A VT O / OIM EI" Ar r n r1 Ynarr<»Pi

Fig. / A drawing of the inscription published in IG X// ("5) 445 in 1909 by Hiller von Gaertringen.

I s - *> '"•*>•* > --

aoa>zasm

. 2 /4 photograph of part of the squeeze held by Archiv der lnscriptiones graecae of the Berlin-Brandenburg Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin.

16 SARA OWEN

REFERENCES

Adkins, A. W. H. (1985) Poetic craft in the early Greek elegists, Chicago.Barron, J. P. & Easterling, P. (1985) 'Elegy and iambus: Archilochus', in P. E Easterling & B. M. W. Knox

(eds.) The Cambridge history of classical literature, Cambridge, 117-28.Bergquist. B. (1973) Herakles on Thasos: the archaeological, literary and epigraphic evidence for his

sanctuary reconsidered, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilisations 5,Uppsala.

Bernard, P. (1964) 'Ceramiques de la premiere moitie du Vil e siecle a Thasos', BCH 88, 77-146.Besci, L. (1985) 'Materiali subgeometrici e arcaici nel Nord-Egeo: esportatione da Lemno', Quaderni del

CNR 112,51-64.Best. J. (1976) Thrakische Bauten im agai'schen Raum', Pulpudeva 2, 215-22.Blakeway, A. (1936) 'The date of Archilochus', in C. Bailey. C. M. Bowra, E. A. Barber, J. D. Denniston

& D. L. Page (eds.) Greek poetry and life: essays presented to Gilbert Murray, Oxford, 34-55.Blinkenberg, C. (1926) Fibules grecques et orientates, Lindiaka V, Copenhagen.Boardman, J. (1999) The Greeks overseas: their early colonies and trade (4th enlarged edn.) London.Bowie. E. L. (1986) 'Early Greek elegy, symposium and public festivals', JHS 106, 13-35.

(1990) 'Miles ludensl The problem of martial exhortation in early Greek elegy', in O. Murray (ed.)Sympotica, Oxford, 221-9.

Braund. D. (1998) 'Writing and re-inventing colonial origins: problems from Colchis and the Bosphoros'.in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.) The Greek colonisation of the Black Sea area, Historia Einzelschriften 121.Stuttgart, 288-96.

Burkert, W. (1990) 'Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen', in W. Burkert et al. (eds.), Herodote et lespeuples non grecs. EAC 35, Geneva. 1-32.

Burnett, A. P. (1983) Three archaic poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, London.Campbell, D. (1982) Greek lyric poetry, London.

(1983) The golden lyre, London.Cartledge, P. (1993) The Greeks, Oxford.Chaniotis. A. (1988) Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften: epigraphische Beitrage zur

griechischen Historiographie, Stuttgart.Dalby, A. (1998) 'Homer's enemies: lyric and epic in the seventh century', inN. Fisher &H . van Wees (eds.)

Archaic Greece: new approaches and new evidence, London, 195-211.Danov, C. (1960) 'Thracian penetration into the Greek cities on the west coast of the Black Sea', Klio 38,

75-80.(1969) ilpeBHa TpaKiia, Sofia.(1989) 'Zu den Anfangen der griechischen Kolonisation an der agaischen Kuste Thrakiens und den

Lageverschiebungen der Thrakerstamme gegen Endedes2. und Anfangdes 1. Jahrtausends v.u.Z.'. inJ. Best and N. de Vries (eds.) Thracians and Mycenaeans , Leiden, 218-30.

(1990) 'Characteristics of the Greek colonization in Thrace', in G. Descoeudres (ed.), 151-5.Daux, G. (1961) 'Chronique des fouilles I960', BC7/85, 935-6.Davenport, G. (1964) Carmina Archilochi, London.Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) (1990) Greek colonists and native populations, Oxford.Devambez, P. (1955) 'Questions thasiennes'. Journal des Savants, 73-91.Diehl, E. (1917) Supplementum lyricum: neue Bruchstiicke von Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, Corinna,

Pindar, Bacchylides (3rd edn.) Bonn.Dover, K. (1964) 'The poetry of Archilochus', Entretiens Hardt 10, 184-222.Fairweather, J. (1974) 'Fiction in the biographies of ancient writers', Ancient Society 5. 231-75.Fowler. R. (1987) The nature ofearlx Greek Ixric: three preliminary studies. Toronto.Frankel. H. (1951) Dichtung und Philosophie desfruhen Griechentums. New York.Gerber, D. E. (1999) Greek iambic poetry, Cambridge. Mass.

OF DOGS AND MEN 17

Gergova, D. (1987) Friih- und Altereisenzeitlichen Fibeln in Bulgarien. PBF 14.7, Munich.Goldhill, S. & Osborne, R. (1994) Art and text in ancient Greek culture, Cambridge.Graham. A. J. (1978) The foundation of Thasos', BSA 73, 61-98.

(2001) Thasian controversies', in A. J. Graham Collected papers on Greek colonization, Leiden, 365-402.Grandjean. Y. (1988) Recherches sur I 'habitat thasien a I 'epoque grecque. Etudes Thasiennes 12, Paris.Green. P. (1998) 'The Muses' birdcage, then and now: Cameron on Apollonios Rhodios', Arion 6.2, 3rd

series. Fall 1998.57-70.Hall, E. (1988) "When did the Trojans turn into Phrygians? Alcaeus 42.15'. ZPE 73. 15-18.

(1989) Inventing the barbarian: Greek self-definition through tragedy, Oxford.Hall, J. (1993) "Ethnic identity in the Argolid 900-600 BC', PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

(1997) Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge.Hiller von Gaetringen. F. (1900) 'Inschrift von Paros', Berlinerphilologische Wochenschrift 20, 606ff.

(1934) 'Noch einmal das Archilochosdenkmal von Paros'. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft derWissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1 (1934-6) 41-56.

Irwin, E. (2000) 'Epic situation and the politics of exhortation: political uses of poetic tradition in archaicGreek poetry', PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.

Isaac, B. (1986) The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest, Leiden.Jacoby. F. (1941) 'The date of Archilochus'. CQ 35. 97-109.

(1950) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden.Jones, S. (1997) The archaeology of ethnicity, London.Kontoleon, N. M. (1952) 'Neai emypacf>ai Trepi TOU ApxiXoxou £K Udpov'.Arch. Eph., 32-95.

(1965) 'Apxa'tKT) £uKJ>6pog €K TTdpou' in Xapia-rqptov eig '' AvaardaiovK,'OpXdvSov, To[iog A, Athens,349-418.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. (1996) npoToioToptKrj Odaos: Athens.Launey. M. (1944) Le sanctuaire el le culte d'Herakles a Thasos, Etudes Thasiennes 1. Paris.Lazarides, K. (1971) Thasos and its peraia, Athens.Lefkowitz. M. (1981) The lives of the Greek poets, London.Leo. F. (1900) 'De Horatio [epod. 10] et Archilocho', Gb'ttinger Preisverteilung vom 30. Mai 1900, litLuria, S. (1961) 'Zu Archilochos', Philologus 105, 178-97.Maas. P. (1934) 'Die Fragmente des Archilochos auf dem parischen Denkmal', Nachrichten von der

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1 (1934-6) 56-8.Malkin, I. (1998) The returns of Odysseus: colonization and ethnicity, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London.

(2002) 'Exploring the validity of the concept of "foundation": a visit to Megara Hyblaia', in V. B. Gormanand E. W. Robinson (eds.) Oikistes: Studies in constitutions, colonies and military power in the ancientworld, offered in honour of A. J. Graham, Leiden.

Markov, K. (1978) 'La presence thrace a l'tle de Thasos du Vil e au Hie s.av.n.ere,' Pulpudeva 2, 185-91.Merkelbach. R. & West, M. L. (1974) 'Ein Archilochos-Papyrus'. ZPE 14. 97-113.Miller, A. M. (1996) Greek lyric, Indianapolis.Momigliano, A. (1971) The development of Greek biography, Cambridge. Mass.Mulroy (1992) Early Greek lyric poetry, Ann Arbor.Murray, O. (ed.) (1990) Sympotica, Oxford.Nagy, G. (1979) The bestoftheAchaeans, Baltimore & London.

(1996) Poetry as performance, Cambridge.Najdenova, V. (1990) 'Rock shrines in Thrace', in V. Velkov & P. Petrov (eds.) Studies in settlement life in

ancient Thrace. Sofia, 85-100.Ohnesorg. A. (1982) 'Der dorische Prostylos des Archilocheion auf Paros'. AA, 97. 271-90.Osborne, R. (1996) Greece in the making 1200-479 BC, London & New York.Owen, S. (2000a) 'A theory of Greek colonisation: EIA Thrace and initial Greek contacts', PhD thesis,

University of Cambridge.(2000b) 'New light on Thracian Thasos town: a reinterpretation of the cave of Pan', JHS 120, 139-43.

18 SARA OWEN

Parke, H. W. (1939) A history of the Delphic oracle, Oxford.Parke. H. W. & Wormel], D. E. W. (1956) The Delphic oracle, vol. 1, Oxford.Pelekidis, C. (1994) 'The Greeks in Thrace', in V. Papoulia et. al. (eds.) Thrace. Athens, 98-114.Podlecki, A. J. (1983) The early Greek poets and their times, Vancouver.Pouilloux, J. (1954) Recherches sur Vhistoire et les cubes de Thasos, Etudes Thasiennes 3, Paris.

(1964) 'Archiloque et Thasos', Entretiens Hardt 10, 3-27.(1982) "La fondation de Thasos': archeologie, literature et critique historique', in L. Hadermann-Misguich

& G. Raepsaet (in collaboration with G. Cambier) (eds.) Rayonnement grec: hommages a CharlesDelvoye, Brussels, 91-101.

Rankin, H. D. (1977) Archilochus ofParos, Park Ridge, N. J.Salviat, F. & Servais, J. (1964) 'Stele indicatrice thasienne trouvee au sanctuaire d'Aliki' , BCH 88. 267-87.Salviat, F. & Weill, N. (1960) 'The sanctuary of Artemis on Thasos', Archaeology 13, 100-5.Samsaris, D. (1980) O'El;eX\.T]i>iafidg ~ri)s Opcua]s Kara TT)I> eMr/micr) Kal pco/iaiicq dpxaio-rrjTa.

Thessaloniki.(1984) 'Les colons grecs de Thasos et les Thraces a l'epoque archai'que', Thracia Pontica 4. 69-77.

Slings, S. (1990) The poet's T in archaic Greek lyric, Amsterdam.Snell, B. (1941) 'Das Erwachen der Personlichkeit in der fruhgriechischen Lyrik', Die Antike 17, 5-34.

(1982) The discovery of the mind in Greek philosophy and literature. New York. (Originally published asDie Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europa'ischen Denkens bei den Griechen,Hamburg, 1946).

Stella, L. A. (1986) 'Note archilochee (in margine alle nuove scoperte archeologiche)',Bo//. Class 7,81-100.Tarditi, G. (1956) 'La nuova epigrafe Archilochea e la tradizione biografica del poeta', PP 11 122-39.

(1968) Archiloco: introduzione, testimonianze, sulla vita e sull'arte, testo critico, traduzione, Rome.Treu, M. (1959) Archilochus, Munich.Van Berchem, F. (1967) 'Sanctuaires d'Hercule Melqart', Syria 44, 73-109 & 307-36.Weill, N. (1985) La plastique archaique de Thasos, vol. I, Etudes Thasiennes 11, Paris.West, M. L. (1974) Studies in Greek elegy and iambus, Berlin & New York.

(1975) 'The dating of the Iliad', MH 52, 203-19.(1980) Delectus ex iambis et elegis graecis, Oxford.(1993) Greek lyric poetry, Oxford.(1998) Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, Oxford (originally printed 1971-2).

Woodhead, A. G. (1967) The study of Greek inscriptions, Cambridge.