Archaeology; Civilization, Ancient; Despotism; Greece -- History -- To 146 B.C.; Wealth
On the whole the narrative seems to fall best into the first half of the
seventh century. That is the time that best suits the naval situation
during the war, and the effect that it is said to have had upon costume,
ornament, and pottery. As the archaeological evidence for all these
points is based largely on the evidence of the pottery, it will be best
to take the pottery first.
[Sidenote: (i) pottery,]
In the temple of Damia and Auxesia on Aegina it became the practice
(νόμος) after the war “to introduce into the temple neither anything
else Attic nor pottery, but to drink there henceforth only out of native
jars[857].” Herodotus mentions this embargo on Attic pottery only as
applied to the one temple on Aegina[858]. But he states that it was
observed by Argives as well as by Aeginetans, which points to the
possibility that the practice prevailed in Argos as well as Aegina.
Macan goes as far as to suggest that it is an “understatement and
pseudo-explanation of a measure or custom for the protection of native
ware from Attic competition[859].” The other measures recorded in this
connexion, the changes in Attic dress and in Peloponnesian brooches,
support Macan’s suggestion. But in the matter of dating he follows
earlier writers who, using very inadequate material, came to conclusions
which can now be shown to be improbable. They date this embargo in the
middle of the sixth century. But in Aegina at any rate Attic pottery
continued to be imported throughout the second half of the sixth
century, while in Argos, where the evidence is less decisive and
abundant, there is no sign of a cessation of Attic imports about 550
B.C. On the other hand both in Argos and Aegina there does appear to be
an abrupt cessation of Attic imports early in the seventh century. As,
further, the general history of Greek pottery shows that an
Argive-Aeginetan embargo on Attic pottery would have had a strong
commercial motive early in the seventh century and none in the middle of
the sixth, there is a strong presumption that the date of the embargo
was not the middle of the sixth century but somewhere about the
beginning of the seventh. To examine the archaeological evidence here in
detail would take us too far from our main enquiry. It will be found
presented in full in an appendix[860].
[Sidenote: (ii) sea-power and ships,]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account