² See the recent treatment by Forrest, W.G., ‘The tenth thalassocracy in Eusebios’, CQ N.S. 19 (1969), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Karst, J., Eusebius, die Chronik aus dem Armenischen (Gr. Chr. Schr. 20), pp. 106–7, 182Google Scholar; Helm, R., Die Chronik des Hieronymus (Gr. Chr. Schr. 47), p. 90bGoogle Scholar; Myres, J.L., JHS 26 (1906), 107, 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fotheringham, J.K., JHS 27 (1907), 82–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helm, R., Hermes, 61 (1926), 252, 258Google Scholar. Two divergent opinions are to be found in Bork, F., Klio, 28 (1935), 16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who tried to reduce the Karians' sea-rule to only two years c. 587–585, and Miller, M., The Thalassocracies (New York, 1971), pp. 63 ff.,Google Scholar where the ‘thalassocracy-list of EusebiusJerome’ includes a Karian thalassocracy of fifty-one years, although that ascribed by her to Diodoros and Kastor has sixty-one years. In the table in Forrest, loc. cit. 105, for ‘71’ read ‘61’ years.

⁴ The period of rule is put at 737—676 by Helm in his article and 730—669 by Fotheringham. The dates I give are those of Fotheringham raised by five years which is a necessary procedure to have the list end with Xerxes' invasion correctly in 480 B.C. on his presuppositions. In any case the differences between the two reconstructions of Helm and Fotheringham are slight enough. Evenif one reduces these dates on the supposition that some lengthening has occurred and a genuine tradition may be involved, we still have to keep this period of sixty-one years in the seventh century.

⁵ There are some brief judicious remarks by Jeffery, L.H. in Appendix 3 to her Archaic Greece (London, 1976), pp. 252–4.Google Scholar

⁶ Myres, , JHS 26 (1906), 84–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Forrest, loc. cit.Google Scholar

⁷ Burn, A.R., JHS 47 (1927), 165–77, esp. 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forrest, , op. cit. 98–9.Google Scholar

⁸ Hdt. 2.152 etc.; Diod. 1.66.12.

⁹ Polyainos, 7.3; John Boardman, The Greeks Overseas‘ (1973), p. 112Google Scholar; Austin, M.E., ‘Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age‘, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. Suppl. 2 (1970), 15–16, with notes for the Karians' other mercenary activities during this period.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Schulten, A., ‘Die Griechen in Spanien’, RhM 85 (1936), 289–346, esp. 293Google Scholar; Snodgrass, A.M., JHS 84 (1964), 11718.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hanno, , Per. 5 (Muller, Geogr. Graec. Min. i.3–4)Google Scholar; Steph. Byz. s.v. , see Harden, D.B., Antiquity 20 (1948), 142–3Google Scholar, and his The Phoenicians (1971), p. 304Google Scholar etc. However, Jodin, A., Mogador, comptoir phinicien du Maroc atlantique (Tanger, 1966), p. 191, is more cautious.Google Scholar

¹² Villard, F., ‘Cèramique grecque du Maroc’, Bull. d'archèol. morocaine 4 (1960), 1–26 esp. 14–20Google Scholar; Jodin, , op. cit., pp. 53–64.Google Scholar

¹³ Villard, , loc. cit. 19Google Scholar, preferred Phoenician intermediaries; Jodin, , op. cit., pp. 192–3, is open-minded; but a more recent summary of the evidence includes a preference for the possibility of Greeks reaching Morocco: Mehdi Bekkari in L'espansione fenicia nel Mediterraneo (Pubblicazioni del Centro di studio per la civilta fenicia e punica 8) (Rome, 1971), pp. 32–4.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Harden, , op. cit., pp. 244–5 n. 240Google Scholar; Carcopino, J., La Maroque antique (1943), pp. 73 ff., 91 n. 3, 103–4Google Scholar. I find that Rousseau, M., ‘Hannon au Maroc’, Revue africaine 93 (1949), 161 232, esp. 167 and 211, suggested that Hanno could well have used Karian mercenaries.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Ormerod, H.A., Piracy in the Ancient World (1924), pp. 70 and 96–7, and Thuc. 1.13.5 after 1.7–8.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Hdt. 7.93 etc.

¹⁷ Hdt. 4.44.1.

¹⁸ Herzfeld, E., Arch. Mitt. aus Iran, iii.2 (1931), 39, 59–60.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Diels-Kranz, 81 B 2, West B 2, 9–11 and in Sïfisti, testimonianze e frammenti iv (1962), ed. A. BattegazzoreGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Morrison, J.S. and Williams, R.T., Greek Oared Ships (1968), pp. 245–6;Google ScholarCasson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (1971), pp. 159–60Google Scholar. The is first mentioned in Theogn. 458 and Pindar, Pyth. 11.40, Nem. 5.2 (on which see Peron, J., Lès Images maritimes de Pindare, Ètudes et commentaires, lxxxvii (Paris, 1974), pp. 33–4);Google Scholar for the , see Thuc. 1.29.3 and 4.67.3.

²¹ There are only brief remarks in A. Kleingünther, Phil. Suppl. 26 (1933), 145, and hardly any discussion elsewhere. For the Karians under the Athenian Empire, see A TL i.446, 498 and Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (1972), pp. 118 and 306–7.Google Scholar

²² Hdt. 1.171; Thuc. 1.4, 8.1; lsoc. Panath. 43; Konon, (FGrHist 26) F 1 (XLVII) 4–5; Strabo 14.2.27 (661); Paus. 7.2.3 etc. Both Herodotos and Konon imply that a Karian thalassocracy lasted after the Trojan War.Google Scholar

²³ Diod. 5.84. This final section in Book Five sums up the ways in which the Karians took over the rule of the sea from the Cretans. See also Diod. 5.51, 53, 54, 60.

²⁴ Hdt. 1.171.5. In Konon's account the Dorians under Althaimenes drove the Karians from Rhodes at the time of the Ionian Migration.

²⁵ Diod. 5.55–9 comes from Zenon of Rhodes, (FGrHist 523 F 1) and 5.64–80 from various Cretan authors (FGrHist 468 F 1), but all the references to Karian thalassocracy fall outside these sections. They may be drawn from some unnamed Cretan source, since there is a close relation to Minos' thalassocracy, or from some other background narrative source, perhaps even Ephoros, since he did include some account of the migrations (FGrHist 70 F 125–7).Google Scholar

²⁶ For the Alexandrian date (although other variants existed), see FGrHist 241 F 1, 244 F 61–3Google Scholar, and Jacoby, F., Apollodors Chronik, pp. 76 ff.Google Scholar

²⁷ The only known author of a thalassocracy list is Kastor of Rhodes, (FGrHist 252 T 1) and it is not impossible that he was Diodoros' source; but equally well he could have had some unknown predecessors.Google Scholar

²⁸ Karst, , op. cit., pp. 106–7. There is no indication that the manuscripts show anything different and I have not checked them on this point.Google Scholar

²⁹ It has been pointed out to me that prose manuscripts including those of historical authors were in any case often written in fairly narrow columns (c. 15–25 letters wide): Turner, E.G., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1971), p. 8 with no. 55 (c. 50 B.C.) and e.g. Sosylos, Hannibal iv preserved on a papyrus of c. 100 B.C. and given as no. 10 in Bilabel, Die kleineren His torikerfragmente auf Papyrus (= FGrHist 176 F 1). I am not sure if this strengthens the likelihood of a list such as we are dealing with here being spread over two columns rather than being run on down a single column. It certainly might have been done to mark a differentiation in the subject-matter. There is an interesting case of variation in form dictated by content in a rather different literary genre in P. Oxy. 3010 (narrative about lolaus) where twenty lines of a speech in verse are preceded and followed by two narrow prose columns of narrative. I also think that chronographic writing (or historical writing with a strong chronographic content) was expressed in a variable style including the us, of parallel lists and this would perhaps encourage a layout of the Thalassocracy List in Diodoros such as I have suggested.Google Scholar

³⁰ Karst, , op. cit., p. 191Google Scholar and p. XLVI where the corruption is explained as arising through the Syriac transcription. On my supposition the error would have occurred at some stage while the two-column arrangement of the list was still preserved in the Chronographia, whether in the Greek or Syrian antecedents of our Armenian manuscripts.

³¹ I It would be comforting to find further traces of this conjectured form of the list in the omissions and errors in the entries in the Armenian and Latin Canons, but it is difficult to find anything very suggestive of something more than a general carelessness or corruption. We do find that the sixth and the fifteenth entries, which are on the same level in the two-column version of the list given above, that is the Cypriots and Naxians, are missing in the Armenian Canons, but the Naxians are also missing from Jerome's Canons while the Cypriots are not.

³² Hdt. 1.7; 7.74; Apollodoros (FGrHist 244) F 170–1; Diod. 4.31; Strabo 13.1.8, 3.2, 4.5; 14.5.23, 24, 27; scholiasts on Iliad 3.401, 10.431, 17.291; and RE XIV.1, 582–3.Google Scholar

³³ Synkellos, p. 324 1.16 (Dindorf). For the epexegetic Kai construction, imitating Latin qui et in late Greek, see Jannaris, A.N., Historical Greek Grammar (1897), pp. 404–5Google Scholar, and Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik ² i.638 n.7.Google Scholar

³⁴ Hdt. 1.14.4 ff. and see Pedley, J.G., JHS 94 (1974), 97, for the suggestion that some co-operation with Karians was also involved.Google Scholar

³⁵ JHS 26 (1906), 88, 129–30.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Burn, , loc. cit. 167Google Scholar; Forrest, , loc. cit. 98.Google Scholar

³⁷ Il 4.141 ff. for the staining of ivory by women of Karia and Maionia.

³⁸ Burn, , loc. cit. 167 and Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks (1930), pp. 60–1.Google Scholar