Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:42:00.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minos and Daidalos in Sicily*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

T. J. Dunbabin
Get access

Extract

My subject in this paper is the familiar one of the impact of civilised on uncivilised in the widest extension of Minoan and Mycenaean civilisation. In dealing with the earliest relations between the Aegean and Italy, I do not propose to discuss the parallels which have been drawn between the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery of the two sides of the Adriatic. The unquestioned likenesses may be due to sharing a common heritage, and do not prove direct contact between the two areas.

Probably as early as the Middle Minoan I period, at the end of the third millennium, Minoan navigators occasionally reached Sicily. The earliest Cretan objects in the West are sporadic, and may have passed from hand to hand. But from the close of the Early Minoan period liparite is found regularly in Crete, and it is natural to suppose that the Cretans, went to the Lipari Islands to get it. It is suggested also that tin, which from the same period was increasingly used in alloying copper, was brought from the Western Mediterranean. On the other side, there are many Sicilian II swords and daggers which imitate L.M.I. types. Most of these cannot be so old as their prototypes. Though there are no weapons in Sicily which are certainly Minoan, it is clear that Minoan swords must have been imported, and served as models for a Siculan type which had a long currency.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 16 , November 1948 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Orsi, P., Ausonia i, 5 ff.Google Scholar; Atti del Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche v, 1904, 97 ff.Google Scholar; T. E. Peet, Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy, 466 ff.; A. W. Byvanck, de Magnae Graeciae historia antiquossima 7 ff.; Evans, A., P.M. i, 20 ff.Google Scholar; ii, 169 ff.; iv, 959 ff.; J. P. Harland, A.J.A. 1929, 106–7; B. Pace, Arte e Civiltà della Sicilia Antica i 146 ff.; D. Levi in Paolo Orsi, 93 ff.; P. E. Arias, Bull. Pal. It. 1936–7, 57 ff.; J. Bérard, La Colonisation grecque de l'Italie méridionale et de la Sicle, 508 ff.

2 Cf. M. N. Valmin, The Swedish Messenia Expedition, 238 ff.

3 Peet, op. cit. 85 ff., 217 ff., suggests import from Greece to Italy to account for the affinities of the painted pottery of Molfetta and Matera with Thessalian neolithic; M. Mayer, Molfetta und Matera 120–1, 146 ff., 201 ff., 208 ff., suggests E.M.III parallels. For Sicily cf. Orsi, Bull. Pal. It. 1892, 24, 82; 1930–1, 209–10; C. Schuchhardt, Sitzungsberichte Berlin 1913, 745. For contacts between the Aegean and Sicily in die Early Bronze Age see C. F. C. Hawkes, The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 151 ff.

4 And Malta, : P.M. ii, 190Google Scholar; Evans dates the earliest Cretan influence c. 2100 B.C Hawkes, loc. cit., relates this Aegean expansion to the Early Minoan period (c. 2500), and finds no trace of western traffic from Crete in the M.M. period.

5 Triangular dagger at Perugia, regarded as an E.M.III import, F. Messerschmidt, Arch. Anz. 1938, 642; others at Remedello and Rinaldone quoted ibid.; copper dagger of E.M.III form at Monte Bradoni near Volterra, Bull. Pal. It. 1899, 301–2, pl. IV, 3; P.M. ii, 169. Bone handles, M.M.I, in Siculan I cemeteries, Castelluccio, Bull. Pal. It. 1892, 7–8; P. M. i, 21, fig. 3; Grotta Lazzaro, Ausonia i, 6, fig. 1; S. Croce, Camiso, Bull. Pal. It. 1926, 13, fig. 4; Pace, op. cit. 146, fig. 71.

6 P.M. i, 23; ii, 169.

7 P.M. i, 23; ii, 176.

For Minoan contacts with Spain cf. P.M. i, 22; 492 ff.; Paris, P., Essai sur l'art et l'industrie de l'Espagne primitive i, 156 ff., pl. viGoogle Scholar; ii, 282–3; A. Schulten, Tartessos, 10; D. Fimmen, Die Kretisch-Mykenische Kultur, 121; Schuchhardt, op. cit. 744, 748 (who is doubtful). Mycenaean vase found in Spain, formerly at Saragossa, Perrot-Chipiez vi, 940.

8 Plemmyrion: Bull. Pal. It. 1891, pl. xi, 4, 8, 10, 16. Thapsos, : Mon. Ant. vi, 121, fig. 131Google Scholar (from the same grave as the oinochoe, ibid., pl. 5, 4). Pantano, Cozzo: Mon. Ant. ii, pl. ii, 5 and 13Google Scholar. Caltagirone: Not. Scav. 1904, 70, fig. 3. Mazzarino: Not. Scav. 1904, 70, n. 2 (lost). Caldare: Bull. Pal. It. 1897, pl. ii, 1 and 2.

9 Evans, Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 108; Naue, Die vorrömischen Schwerter, 8–9.

10 To the references in note I add A. Delia Seta, Italia Antica, 49, fig. 38; Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery (see Index of Sites, 644 ff.) and The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery, 60, 64.

10a For further references to this material see below p. 10, n. 77.

10b A. Taramelli, A.J.A. 1897, 305, fig. 17, publishes a sherd found near Trieste, with signs like Minoan writing; but the resemblance may be fortuitous. Another possible witness of Minoan penetration of the Adriatic is a copper bar found on or near the Dalmatian island of Pago; R. von Scala, Hist. Zeitschr. 1911, 17; cf. F. Messerschmidt in von Duhn, , Italische Gräberkunde ii, 167Google Scholar.

11 Wace and Blegen, Klio 1939, 136, who tentatively suggest that it was made in the Ionian Islands.

12 As Evans suggested, Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 109.

13 Heurtley, W. A., B.S.A. xxvii, 21, 59Google Scholar; Prehistoric Macedonia, 124.

14 Benton, S., B.S.A. xxxii, 218–9Google Scholar; S. Marinatos, ἘΦ. Ἀρχ., 1932, 8 ff.

15 D. Levi, op. cit.; supported independently by G. Buchner, Bull. Pal. It. 1936–7, 78 ff.

16 Furumark, Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery, 60, 64, places all the finds from Thapsos in his period Myc. III A2, which covers the fourteenth century.

17 Gold rings: Pantalica, , Ausonia i, 12, fig. 5Google Scholar; Mon. Ant. ix, pl. 8, 15; Cassibile, , Mon. Ant. ix, 128Google Scholar; Dessueri, , Mon. Ant. xxi, pl. 17, 1Google Scholar0; Caltagirone, Not. Scav. 1904, 86, fig. 42; 77, fig. 22; S. Angelo Muxaro, Atti d. R. Acc. di Palermo 1932, figs. 3, 8; Pace, , Arte e Civiltà della Sicilia Antica i, 156–7, figs. 78–9Google Scholar.

There is no evidence that silver also was distributed westwards from the Aegean, as Evans suggests (P.M. i, 21).

18 Thapsos, , Mon. Ant. vi, 116, 133Google Scholar.

19 Caldare, Bull. Pal. It. 1897, 12–15; Cannatello, ibid. 117 ff.

20 But Orsi supposes (Bull. Pal. It. 1900, 273–4; cf. id. 1898,198 ff.; Mon. Ant. ix, 96 ff.) that the bronze used in Sicily in the Bronze Age was imported from Cyprus.

21 P.M. iv, 960.

22 Paus. vii, 4, 6. ἀνὰ πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Σἱκελίαν, ἐπὶπλεῖστον δὲ καὶ Ἰταλίαϛ ἀφίκετο τοῦ Δαιδάλου τὸ ὄνομα.

23 Paus. viii, 46, 2; Lind. Chron. xxvii. The statues dedicated in Lind. Chron. xxxi had better be left out, as it is uncertain who dedicated them, to what city he belonged, and whether the ascription to Daidalos is not a misinterpretation of the epithet δαιδάλεα.

24 See A. Rumpf, Daidalos (Bonner Jahrbücher 1930, 74 ff.); Kunze, E., Ath. Mitt. lv, 141 ff.Google Scholar; Schweitzer, B., Xenokrates von Athen (Königsierger Gel. Ges. ix, 1)Google Scholar; R. J. H. Jenkins, Dedalica.

A word on the Kokalos-bowl: this, being metal-work, does not belong to the group of sculptures called Daidalic by the ancients (cf. Diod. iv, 76; Paus. ix, 40, 3), but Cretan bronzes of the seventh century are very well known. One of its subjects, Kronos receiving his children from Rhea and devouring them, is a Cretan myth.

25 Sergi, , ‘Crani preistorici della Sicilia,’ in Atti della Soc. Romana di Antropologia, viGoogle Scholar (known to me from a quotation in Orsi, Mon. Ant. ix, 114).

26 E.g. Thapsos, , Mon. Ant. vi, 137 ff.Google Scholar; Pantano, Cozzo, Mon. Ant. ii, 9 ffGoogle Scholar.

27 This is denied by Levi, op. cit. 95; but there is certainly a new type of tomb introduced just when the import of vases begins.

28 Not. Scav. 1904, 95; figs. 16, 29, etc.

29 Atti della R. Accademia di Palermo, vol. xvii, fasc. iii, 1932Google Scholar.

30 Bull. Pal. It. 1892, pl. vi; Pace, , Arte e Civiltà della Sicilia Antica i, fig. 67Google Scholar; G. Libertini, Guidda del R. Museo di Siracusa, 117, fig. 34. This also is denied by Levi.

31 K. F. Blinkenberg, Fibules grecques et orientales, 38 ff.; cf. Orsi, , Mon. Ant. ix, 100 ff.Google Scholar; Bull. Pal. It. 1905, 11; Colini, Bull Pal. It. 1910, 132 ff. Säflund, G., Studi Etruschi xii, 45–6Google Scholar points out that the fibula reaches Sicily (and Scoglio del Tonno) after the Mycenaean period, and regards it and other Aegean or Levantine elements in the culture of the mountain-stations of Siculan II as establishing immigration in the Intermediate period (ninth century ?). For possible intercourse between Sicily and the Aegean at this period cf. also F. Schachermeyr, Etruskische Frühgescfiichte, 190.

32 Blinkenberg, op. cit. 43 f., 57.

33 Lind. Chron. xxvii.

34 Diod. iv, 79.

35 vii, 170.

36 vii, 171, 1

37 Frags. 323–7, ed. Pearson.

38 Frags. 345–55, O.C.T.

39 Diod. xii, 71: ἀρξάμενοϛ ἀπὸ Κωκάλου το ῦΣικανῶν βασιλέωϛ.

40 Frag. 1, Müller.

41 iv, 78–9.

42 vii, 4, 6: ἀρξάμενοϛ ἀπὸ Κωκάλου το ῦΣικανῶν βασιλέωϛἼνυκον Σικελῶν πόλιν ἀφικνεῑται παρὰΚώκαλον.

43 Ap. Steph. Byz. Κάμικοϛ, πόλιϛ Σικελίαϛ, ἐν ῇ Κώκαλοϛ ῇρχεν ὁ Δαιδάλου.. (lacuna).. Χἀραξ δὲ Ἴνυκονταύτην φησίν.

44 History of Sicily, i, 495.

45 Pind., Schol.Pyth. vi, 5Google Scholar, quoting Hippostratos; Kallimachos, , Ox. Pap. xvii, 2080Google Scholar, and Schol., Il. ii, 145Google Scholar, quoting Philostephanos and Kallimachos; Apollodoros Epit. i, 13 (ed. Frazer); Zenobius iv, 92; Hyginus 44; Conon 25.

46 x, 17, 4.

47 Frag. 5 (F.H.G. i, 359).

48 Frag. 29 (F.H.G. ii, p. 220).

49 Cf. iv, 99.

50 Evans suggests Epimenides as the sources of the rather plentiful reminiscences of Minoan Crete in Diodorus (P.M. iv, 959).

51 Byvanck, de Magnae Graeciae historia antiquissima, 15.

52 Op. cit. i, 113. This critical view is as old as 1855, when Del Natale advanced it (see Pace, , Arte e Civiltà della Sicilia Antica, i, 52Google Scholar).

53 Studi Siciliani ed Italioti, 262 ff.

54 Daidalos as well as Minos is associated by Pareti with Megara, but such arguments as this need not be seriously examined: ‘Non va dimenticato infatti che Dedalo è un eroe essenzialmente ateniese, e che Megara Nisea era assai vicina ad Atene’ (p. 266). In fact, he does not question the Akragantine origin of Daidalos.

55 There is not the slightest particle of evidence in support of Pareti's contention that it was from the Selinuntines that Phalaris took it. Nothing suggests bad relations between Akragas and Selinus so early. It was traditionally a Sikan stronghold, and presumably was still so in the sixth century.

56 Herod, v, 46.

57 Herod, vii, 170; Diod. xxiii, 9; iv, 78.

58 Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde, 1865, 133 ff.; cf. Freeman, , op. cit. i, 496 ffGoogle Scholar.

59 Sicilia Antiqua, 220.

60 Apud Pace, , Arte e Civiltà della Sicilia Antica i, 338Google Scholar. So also Bérard, La Colonisation grecque, 443.

61 Ciaceri, Culti e Mitt nella storia dell' antica Sicilia, 106 ff.

62 P.M. iv, 959 ff. Evans suggests that the bath in which Minos was murdered was a Late Minoan larnax used as sarcophagus.

63 Evans, , P.M. i, 454Google Scholar, suggests the beginning of L.M. on the basis of the L.M.I swords postulated as the models of the Sicilian type; but these may have come in the ordinary way of trade, without settlement.

64 See above p. 3.

65 Not. Scav. 1904, 86. Cf. Minoan gems found in Crete in Geometric contexts, Kunze, Kretische Bronzereliefs, 42; Karo, , R.E. xi, 1795Google Scholar.

65a Bull. Pal. It. 1903, 141.

66 The only evidence of contact in Protogeometric or early Geometric times is a bell-krater from Montaperto near Agrigento (in the Minos area) which Blakeway regards as derived from a Protogeometric original (B.S.A. xxxiii, 189). There is sufficient material from sites of this period, especially in the neighbourhood of Syracuse, to give force to the argument from absence. Moreover, Bronze Age Aegean influences continue to be felt in Siculan pottery without reinforcement until a generation before the age of the Greek colonisation.

A suggestive paper by Bosch-Gimpera, P. in Studi Etruschi iii, 9 ff.Google Scholar, suggests wide relations between Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and the Aegean in the Intermediate Period. But the Aegean and Anatolian parallels which he finds in the pottery of Sicily, Sardinia, and Tuscany in the eleventh to ninth centuries are not strong enough to support this thesis. To examine the nuraghe culture of Sardinia and its possible relations with Etraria (see also Taramelli, A., Studi Etruschi iii, 43 ff.Google Scholar; von Bissing, Röm. Mitt. 1928, 18 ff.) would take us too far from our subject; too little is known about the relations and chronology of this Sardinian culture.

67 Pareti, op. cit. 271, n.

68 Itin. Ant. 95, p. 13 Cunze. Perhaps at Palma di Montechiaro, where the Greeks settled at least as early as the late seventh century. (Bull. Pal. It. 1928, 45 ff.; Mon. Ant. xxxvii, 585 ff.)

69 Herod, vi, 23–4.

69a ‘Nostos-foundation’ by Meriones, Diod. iv, 79.

70 Verr. II, iv, 44, 97; v, 72, 186.

71 Cf. R. L. Beaumont, J.R.S. 1939, 86, n. 66.

72 III.

73 Asserted by Antiochus (ap. Strabo 278) as well as Herod, vii, 170. Daidalos' fame spread to Iapygia too: Iapyx is said to be his son by Pliny (N.H. iii, 102) and Solinus (ii, 5). The Daunians in North Apulia are said to have been settled by a son of Minos (Solinus, ibid.). Late sources bring Idomeneus from Troy to Iapygia; Virg., Aen. iii, 400–1Google Scholar; Solinus ii, 1; Varro ap. Probus, ad Buc. vi, 31Google Scholar. See further Mayer, Apulien, 368 ff.

74 Louvre D1, Vases Antiques du Louvre, pl. 29.

75 This pottery is assigned by Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery, 575, and ap. Säflund, Δρᾶϒμα Nilsson, 472, to his period Myc. III CI ( = Close style) and dated c. 1230–1200. He states that it was manufactured ‘in some peripheral part of the Mycenaean world,’ and suggests, with reserves, that this was Achaia (Δρᾶϒμα, 488).

76 Mayer, Apulien, 1 ff.; Blakeway, , B.S.A. xxxiii, 175–6Google Scholar; Q. Quagliati, Bull Pal. It. 1911, 59 ff. Cf. Messerschmidt, in von Duhn, , Italische Gräberkunde ii, 323–4Google Scholar.

77 A selection of the material from Scoglio del Tonno has been published by Säflund, Δρᾶϒμα Martino P. Nilsson dedicatum, 458 ff. Some of the native pottery is published in C.V.A. Taranto, fasc. i (1940)Google Scholar and some of the My cenaean in fasc. ii (1942) III A, pll. 1–2. See also Rellini, U., Mon. Ant. xxxiv, 244 ffGoogle Scholar., figs. 39–40. There is still much work to be done on it. I have left in the text remarks based on my own observations in 1935, which unfortunately are unrevised and have only a provisional character. The chief difficulties are (i) stratification; it appears from Quagliati's account (Not. Scav. 1900, 419) that the Late Helladic vases were found in a confused stratum together with Protocorinthian, and above the ‘Apennine’ settlement, which, however, is commonly dated later than L.H.; (ii) relation of Scoglio del Tonno to the neighbouring site of Borgo Nuovo, Taranto. The latter point is not discussed by Säflund; the Borgo Nuovo site would appear to have a better claim to represent the Iapygians who were found on the site of Taras by the Spartan colonists (Antiochus ap. Strabo 279; so Mayer, Apulien, 1 ff.) than Scoglio del Tonno, which Säflund calls Iapygian (op. cit. 490); (iii) Säflund speaks as if the imported vases were only Mycenaean and Protocorinthian, but I have notes of Greek Protogeometric and Geometric which fill the gap. The upper stratum of Scoglio del Tonno I take to be the remains of a Greek predecessor of Taras, reaching back to the period of the fall of Mycenae, and coming to an end on the foundation of Taras.

78 Heurtley, W. A. and Lorimer, H. L., B.S.A. xxxiii, 22 ff.Google Scholar; cf. A. J. B. Wace and C. W. Blegen, Klio 1939,136.

79 Mosso, A., Mon. Ant. xix, 305 ff.Google Scholar; Blakeway, , B.S.A. xxxiii, 174–5Google Scholar; cf. G. Hanfmann, A.J.A. 1941, 313.

80 Strabo 284.

81 References in R. L. Beaumont, J.H.S. 1936, 172–3; cf. G. Giannelli, Culti e Miti della Magna Grecia, 47 ff.; M. Mayer, Apulien, 384.

82 Strabo, loc. cit., cf. Beaumont, op. cit., 196.

83 Hanfmann, loc. cit., indicates Cycladic parallels.

84 Myres, J. L., C.A.H. iii, 670Google Scholar, accepts the ‘Trojan War’ settlements in principle; cf. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Die Heimkehr der Odysseus, 180 ‘anderes wie alles Italische jünger ist und doch zum Teil keinesweges wertlose Spielerei.’

85 I omit such transparent fictions as give Oinotros and other eponymous heroes a place in Greek genealogies.

86 The cults of the Achaian heroes witnessed in ps.-Arist. de mir. ausc. 106 are derived from Sparta, as the prominence of the Atreidai and Agamemnonidai shows, and have no bearing on this point (cf. Giannelli, op. cit. 38 ff.). Satyria, mother of Taras and eponym of the pre-Greek settlement, is called daughter of Minos in a late source (Probus, ad Georg. ii, 197Google Scholar).

87 Strabo 264; cf. Vell. Pat. i, I; Solinus ii, 10.

88 x, 113 ff.

89 xx, 2, 1.

90 Lyk. 930; ps.-Arist. de mir. ausc. 108.

91 Strabo 263; Steph. Byz. s.v. Λαϒαρία.

92 Strabo 265.

93 Giannelli, op. cit. 99, 112, thinks that the story of a Phokian origin as well as the Phokian cults and heroes were transferred to Metapontion when Siris and Lagaria were conquered. But there is no other evidence for his view that Siris and Lagaria passed into the territory of Metapontion.

94 Strabo 264; Lyk. 978 ff.

95 Solinus ii, 10; cf. Anton. Lib. viii, 7.

96 Strabo 254; Lyk. 911 ff.; ps.-Arist. de mir. ausc. 107; cf. Giannelli op. cit. ch. viii; Fiehn, in R.E. xix, 2507Google Scholar.

97 Krimissa: de mir. ausc. loc. cit. Makalla: Lyk. 927–8.

98 xx, i, 16.

99 107.

100 Lyk. 856.

101 Skylax 13; Pliny, N.H. iii, 96Google Scholar.

102 Dion. Hal. i, 51, 3.

103 Schol. Lyk. loc. cit.; cf. Giannelli, op. cit. 165 ff.

104 Strabo 262; Schol. Lyk. 921.

105 Lyk. 1075 ff. places it by the Krathis.

106 Strabo 261; Pliny, N.H. iii, 95Google Scholar; Solinus ii, 10.

107 s.v. ΕΙλενία.

108 Beaumont J.H.S. 1936, 194 ff.; cf. 172–3.

109 Cf. Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry, 104 ff.

110 vi, 2.

111 Strabo, 253.

112 Paus. vi, 6, 7; Strabo, 255.

113 P.M. i, 697–9, fig. 520; S. Marinatos, Ἀρχ. Δελτ. x, 51 ff.; not accepted by Nilsson, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology, 32.

114 ix, 80–4.

115 xii, 127, 135; xx, 383, xxiv, 211; cf. Ἀρχ. ΔελτΣικανίη, xxiv, 307.

116 Theog. 1011 ff.; Schol Ap. Rhod. iii, 311. I see no reason for denying that Latinos is part of the eighth century Hesiod.

117 Theog. 139 ff.

118 A. A. Blakeway, J.R.S. 1935, 129 ff.

119 References in Byvanck, op. cit., 22.

120 E.g., the island near Terina on which the Siren Ligeia was buried (Lyk. 726) and Kalypso's island off the Lakinian promontory (ps.-Skylax 13; Pliny, N.H. iii, 96Google Scholar).

121 Lyk. 852 ff.

122 Ap. Rhod. iv, 647 ff.

123 Strabo 250.

124 E.g., the derivation of Prochyta from Aeneas' nurse (Pliny, N.H. iii, 82Google Scholar), who elsewhere indeed is called Caieta (Solinus ii, 9).

125 But see I. Thallon, A.J.A. 1924, 47 ff.

126 Pliny, N.H. iii, 108Google Scholar; cf. Solinus ii, 5.

127 Beaumont, op. cit. 195.

128 Schol. Lyk. 980.

129 Beaumont, op. cit. 196.

130 Lyk. 1126 ff.; Strabo 264.

131 Op. cit. 48 ff.

132 Varro apud ad., Prob.Buc. vi, 31Google Scholar, quoted by Giannelli, p. 51, n. 1, associates Lokrians with the Cretans led by Idomeneus who colonised Messapia, but this is far from Elpiai in North Apulia. Giannelli's hypothesis of a Phokian origin of Siris (106 ff.) has no other foundation than this localisation of Athena Ilias.

133 Lyk. 853; cf. Giannelli, 202 ff.

134 With these localisations depending on similarity of names compare the migration in the Renaissance of Pythagoras from Kroton to Cortona, where his tomb is shown to this day.

135 Strabo 252; Pliny, N.H. iii, 70Google Scholar.

136 Not. Scav. 1937, 206 ff.

The opinion expressed above is the conclusion of the excavators (id. 209), and my recollection is that the earliest Protocorinthian pottery I have seen from the site is to be dated in the first quarter of the seventh century. It has not been published, and the statement in the text must be taken as provisional, as the excavation was still continuing when the report was made.

Geometric pottery was found in graves in the neigh bourhood (J.H.S. 1938, 251).

Bérard, La Colonisation grecque, 231 ff., suggests that the original settlement by the Sybarites was at the mouth of the Sele, which remained the port after the town was moved to the site of Poseidonia (Strabo, 252). The date of the foundation by the Sybarites is not known; it can hardly have been earlier than 700, as Sybaris was founded only c. 720. But the Heraion may not begin so early as 700; if it can be brought down into the seventh century, Bérard's hypothesis may well be correct. I have not seen Bérard's paper in Mél. Arch. Hist. lvii (1940)Google Scholar.

137 The association with the Argonauts is perhaps due simply to a confusion of the epithet Ἀρϒεία and Ἀρϒώ. Though Strabo's manuscripts read Ἀρϒονιἁϛ, which is commonly corrected to Ἀρϒῴαϛ, the correct form Ἀρϒείαϛ is established by Pliny. Why the Argive Hera was worshipped here is not made clear by the tradition or the finds; there is no especial connexion with Argos. But as the cult of Hera spread from Argos to Samos, Sparta, Corinth (cf. Perachora i, 22) it may have been brought to Italy from a secondary, probably Peloponnesian, centre.

138 I might have discussed the Eusebian entry under the year 1051 B.C.: Mycene condita in Italia vel Cume. As there was certainly no Greek contact with Kyme until the eighth century (Blakeway, , B.S.A. xxxiii, 200 ff.Google Scholar) this might be held to be a clear case in which a Mycenaean origin is falsely ascribed to a Greek colony. But I think that the item in Eusebius has not been correctly transmitted and that it belongs instead to Aiolic Kyme (Pareti, Studi Siciliani, 322).