Carpenter, Rhys - The Greek Penetration of the Black Sea

8/12/2019 Carpenter, Rhys - The Greek Penetration of the Black Sea

1/12

The Greek Penetration of the Black SeaAuthor(s): Rhys CarpenterSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1948), pp. 1-10Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/500547.

Accessed: 29/07/2014 06:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Archaeological Institute of Americais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/500547?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/500547?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia


2/12

THE

GREEK PENETRATION

OF THE

BLACK

SEA

RHYS

CARPENTER

PLATE I

the

Black

Sea

littoral,

two

important

facts

seem

likely

to

emerge:

there was no

pre-

classical

("Mycenaean")

penetration

of

the

Pontus;

and

the classical

Greek

colonies

in

that

region

were

founded

later than those

in

the

West.

At first

glance,

there

is

no

inter-

connection between

these

two

propositions; yet

it is

possible

to

discover

a common

deterrent

cause

which closed

the

Black

Sea

to both

the Helladic and

the

Early

Classical

ships.

That

common

cause

was the

strength

of

the

great

Bosporus

current,

which carries

off the

excess

surface

water of

the Black

Sea,

discharged

into it

in

enormous volume

by

the Danube and

the

great

Russian rivers.'

Not

until

ships

were

built,

and

put

into efficient

service,

which

were

capable

of an

oar-driven

speed

of

more than

four

knots,

could

any

Aegean

vessel

pass

beyond the Golden Horn.

From

the

outset

of

this discussion it should

be understood

that it

was

never

possible

to

sail

through

the straits

from

the

Propontis

to

the Euxine.

The classical

rig

of

a

single

sail

hung

square

on a horizontal

yard

did

not

permit

sailing

close-hauled to the

wind

or of beat-

ing

up against

it.

It is

of

course

possible

for a

square-rigged

vessel

to make

direct

gains

to

windward

by

tacking

(though

accomplishing markedly

less

than

a

fore-and-aft

rigged

ves-

sel);

but even

the

best-equipped

modern

sailboat,

if

carrying

a

square-rig,

would

experience

the

utmost

difficulty

in

trying

to

work

up

through

the

Bosporus against

the

wind,

so

that

there

is

not

the

slightest

probability

that the

ancient

ships,

which "came about" with diffi-

culty

and

could not be

close-hauled

without

spilling

the

wind,

could ever have

negotiated

the

swift-running

stream

if

the

wind,

as

well,

was adverse.

Indeed,

we

have

in

Demosthenes2

direct

testimony

that,

as

late

as

his

day,

the

sailing-vessels

did not

try

to beat

against

the

wind

even

in

open

water

and with

a

steady

breeze. But

all

summer

long,

the

prevailing

air

current

draws

from

the

Black Sea into the

Sea

of

Marmora,

blowing straight

down the

drowned

river-valley

of

the

Bosporus;3

and

though

this summer

wind

may

be

light

toward

sunset and

die

away

at

night,

and

though

there

may

even

be entire

days

of calm at

this

(as

at

any)

season

of the

year,

neither of

these

factors would be of

the

slightest

aid

against

the

steady

current

pouring

out

of

the

Black Sea

and

running

at its

strongest

during

the

sailing

months of

late

spring

and

summer.4

A

powerful

southwest wind

of

almost

gale

force,

1

"The

volume

of

water

discharged

by

the

Danube

alone

is

228

thousand

million

tons

in

an

average

year,

rising to 350 of these units in a very rainy year." - The

Black

Sea

Pilot

(London,

published by

the

Hydro-

graphic

Department

of

the

British

Admiralty),

9th

ed.,

1942,

p.

20,

lines

29

ff.

(Hereinafter,

references to

this

standard and

authoritative

handbook

will

be

to

this

edition and

will

be

indicated

by

the

initials

BSP.)

If

we are

to

credit the

climatologists,

the

early

cen-

turies

of

the first

millennium

B.C. were

characterized

by abnormally

wet

weather in

Central

Europe,

so

that

the

volume of

water

reaching

the

Black Sea

(and

con-

sequently

the

speed

of

the

Bosporus

current)

must

have

been

even

greater

in

early

classical

antiquity

than

they

are

today.

2

Phil.

i,

32.

3

"It is stated that winds never blow across Kara-

deniz

bogazi (i.e.

the

Bosporus)

in

summer."

BSP,

p.

6,,

1.

38.

4

"The

rate

of

the surface

current

flowing

out of

the

Black Sea is

naturally

greatest

during

the

season

when

the rivers

discharge

the

greatest

volume

of

water,

due

to the

thawing

of

the

snow,

and

also

when winds

from

a

northerly quarter

are

strongest.

Both

of

these

effects coincide in

the

late

spring

and

early

summer."

(BSP,

p.

22,

11.

9-13.)

The

Black Sea

itself

reaches

its

highest

level from June

to

July

and

its

lowest

level in

October or

November

(BSP,

p. 36).

1

This content downloaded from 193.226.121.130 on Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:42:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

2

RHYS

CARPENTER

blowing straight

up

the

Bosporus

channel,

would

be needed

to

pile

up

the water

in

the

northeast corner

of

the

Propontis

sufficiently

to check

the current

and

at the same

time

drive a

square-rigged

vessel before

it;

and

such

gales

do

not blow between

early

April

and

late

September,

when ancient

seafarers were

abroad.5

Since conditions made it impossible to sail out of the Propontis into the Euxine, the

passage

of

the

Bosporus

depended

solely

and

simply

on the

rowing

speed

of

an

ancient

vessel.

Unless

this

potential

exceeded

four

knots,

there

was no

prospect

of

making

headway against

a

current

which exceeded this

speed

in

numerous

places

where

sheltering

headlands had

to

be

rounded into the full

force

of

the stream.

Despite

the convenient

eddies

and

counter-

currents

which set

along

certain

stretches

of either

shore,

there

is no

way

of

avoiding

the

main

stream into which

these

back-drifts

of water

invariably

lead.

This

is so

because,

as

the

Black Sea

Pilot

explains

it,

"the

surface current . . . is

similar in

character to

that

which

would

be

produced by

a

great

jet

of

water,

under

high pressure,

directed

down

the

narrow

and

irregular

channels.

. .

.

The main

current

. ..

generally speaking

. ..

takes the

shortest

route

from

point

to

point,

so

that,

at

a

bend,

it

sets

strongly

towards the

convex

side, and

avoids

the

opposite

concave

side

altogether.

Thus

in

every

bay,

whatever its

extent,

there

is

an

eddy,

with

a

countercurrent

flowing

northward

along

the

shore .

..

rejoining

the

main

current

in

the

vicinity

of

the northern

entrance

point

of

the

bay."'

And

thus,

invariably,

a

ship

working

northward

in

the

lee of

a

projecting

head

will

be

caught

by

the

full force

of

the

current

as it

rounds

the

point.

Discouragingly

for

the

mariner

approaching

from the

Sea

of

Marmora,

the entrance

to the

Bosporus

brings

him

into

immediate

conflict with

the

strongest

part

of

the

current. As it

leaves

the

Black

Sea,

the

surface

water is

moving

at

less than

a

knot;

but

at the

narrows

which are

marked

by

the

late-medieval

castles of

Anadolu

and Rumeli

Hissar,

the

speed

has risen

above

two

knots,

thereafter

mounting

to

three,

four,

and

even

five knots

just

before

reaching

the

site

of

ancient

Byzantium.

Thence

to the widening into the Sea of Marmora, the main current is still running some three to

four

knots;

but the

rapid

separation

of

the two

shores offers

opportunities

to avoid

its full

strength.

Thus,

in

summary,

it would

be

true

that an

oar-driven

vessel

capable

of a

speed

of

two

to

three

knots could

always

work

up

under

shelter

from

the

prevailing

wind

and

current

as

far

as

the

Golden

Horn,

but

could

not

pass

thence

up

the

narrower channel

to

the

modern

Therapia.

Once

beyond

the

two

castles,

it

would be

able to

struggle

the rest of

the

way

into the

Black

Sea;

but

it

would

never

have

reached

this

wider

and more

tranquil

stretch

since the

stronger

current further down

off

Chengel

Kioi

would have

stopped

it

short.

Obviously,

the

crux

of

the

whole

problem

of

the

ancient

penetration

of

the Euxine is

the

speed

of

the

ancient

ships

when

rowed.

Could

they

be

propelled at four knots? and if so,

at

what

period

in

Aegean

shipbuilding

was this

crucial

speed

attained?

On

this

question

there

is

almost no

direct

testimony

from

classical

antiquity. August

Kister

in

his

excellent

monograph

Das

antike

Seewesen

is

able to

quote

abundant

evidence

to

show

that a

sailing

speed

of

four to

five

knots

was

frequently attained,

and

even main-

tained for

days

at a

time;

but

he

cites

only

two

passages

to

illustrate the

probable

speed

of

oar-driven

vessels,

concluding

that

triremes

(which

were

specifically

built to

be

rowed)

oc-

5

See

the

table

of

wind

velocities and

directions

for

Istanbul,

BSP,

p.

72,

and

cf.

p.

61,

11. 9

ff.,

"In

winter,

from

October

to

March, ...

the

north-easterly

winds

are

often

interrupted

by

winds

from

directions

be-

tween south-east or south and west..

..

These

southerly

winds

.. are

usually

strong

and

squally,

and

may

sometimes

reach

gale

force." On

the

other

hand,

(p.

62, 11.

44

f.)

"April

and

May

are

transition

months,

with

prevailing

north-easterly

winds."

6

BSP, p. 21, 11.5 ff.



4/12

THE GREEK

PENETRATION OF THE

BLACK SEA 3

casionally

attained

a five-knot

speed

or

higher.7

As

it

cannot

be doubted that Greek

tri-

remes

penetrated

the

Pontus,

this is

precisely

the verdict

we

require;

but it throws no

light

on

conditions

before

such

high-powered

craft

were in use. Our

problem

must be solved

by

way

of

a

more

general

understanding

of

the

types

of

ships

which the

Aegean

people

con-

structed and utilized in antiquity.

Since

palaeolithic

man seems not to have

built

ships

or ventured out on

the sea,

the

Aegean

islands

remained

uninhabited

for hundreds of centuries

until,

perhaps

some

six

thousand

years

ago,

the

westward

spread

of

the neolithic culture

at last

brought

them

their

first

human

settlers.

Presumably,

these

early immigrants

moved

themselves and

their

ani-

mals and other

possessions

out

to the

islands

on

rafts or

floats,

which

they paddled

down

the

southwesterly

drift

of the

prevailing

summer

wind. In

time,

from this

experimentary

navi-

gation

a

distinctive

type

of

Aegean ship

was

evolved,

markedly

unlike the river craft

in

use on

the

Nile,

though

somewhat

reminiscent

of a

type appearing

on

Early

Mesopotamian

(Sumerian)

seal-stones,

and

hence

possibly

inspired

by

this distant source.

A

reasonable

guess

would be

that

the flat raft

was fitted with

a

central

mast on which a

square

sail

could

??,~'?~

CI~;?

?'~ ??

Z ?.??~

,?li

r ''

t0: .

,.O C' ,s;~;

..

,,...

rr .? ~z

C' ??.,E':

II

?(

r:

'"I~~ tf~

~.-(??

;n~v Ir~t'C

'I

I (( ?) * .(

?r

FIG. 1. MYCENAEAN SHIP ON A VASE FROM PYLOS.

(Kdster, ig.

18)

be

hung,

and a

raised

platform

on

upright posts

was erected astern

to

keep

the

skipper

and

his

possessions

dry,-in

short,

precisely

the sort

of

craft which

Odysseus

built8

to

escape

from

Kalypso's

isle

(for

which,

it

should

be noted in

passing,

there is

nothing

but

modern

commentators'

wilfulness

to

make

us

imagine

that the

raised

platform

extended

over

the

entire

raft).

Experience

should

also

have

suggested

the

utility

of a

wave-guard

at

the

front,

leading

to

the

construction,

not

of a

cutwater,

much less

a

bowsprit,

but

rather

a

raised

splashboard

at

the

prow.

Some

sort of

bulwark

or

rail

along

the sides

would

be

an

equally

obvious

expedient.

But the crucial

step,

which would convert

such

a

drifting

float

into

a

true

ship, would be the substitution of a curved hull (curved crosswise to the ship,

I

mean,

since

lengthwise

to

the

ship

the keel would

be a

single straight

timber),

in

place

of

the

uniformly

flat

platform

flooring

of

the

primitive

raft. The

result would

be

the

peculiar

craft,

lying

low

and

broad

on

the water

amidships,

with

a

raking

bow-

and

stern-piece

at

either

end,

cocked at

an

abrupt angle

to

the

hull,

which

we

see

crudely portrayed

on

prehistoric

Cycladic

ware

and

more

intelligibly depicted

on

a

Late Helladic

III

vase from

Pylos,

re-

produced

by

Koister

and here

shown as

Figure

1.

Such a

craft

would have

had

a

single

long

timber

for

its

keel;

and

this,

for

safety's

sake as a

sort

of

buffer

amid reefs

and

shoals,

7

"Ueber die

Leistungen

der Trieren

sind uns Uber-

haupt

nur

wenige

und

unbestimmte Nachrichten aus

dem

Altertum

Uberkommen. So

weit wir

danach ur-

teilen k6nnen, wurde in einzelnen Fallen eine Fahrt

von

5

Knoten und

dariber

erreicht,

doch

wird

man

in

der

Regel

darunter

geblieben

ein."

Op.

cit.,

(1st.

ed.,

1923)

.

125.

s

Od. v, 243-260.



5/12

4

RHYS

CARPENTER

could

be

allowed

to

project

out

beyond

the

bow

splashboard,

making

a

protecting

nose

at

the

water-line,

destined

to become

in time

the ram

of the classical

war-ship.

With such

a

protruding

snout

(carved

in the

fully

developed

norm

to

resemble an

animal's

head, most

frequently

a

boar),

the

ancient

ship

could

not well be run

up

on

a

beach

or

shingle,

but

would have to be moored with its stern to shore, the high

raking

overhang

of the stern

offering

a

highly

convenient

method

of

descent

dryshod

by

means

of

a

landing-ladder,

such

as is

so often shown

lashed near

the

steering-oar

in

classical

vase-pictures.9

Since

the

vessel

was

primarily

intended for

sailing,

and

had to

proceed pretty

directly

downwind or at

any

.~

~~Z~c~

cr"i

~

lf~T

i

----.~.???

C,3~8

"

~

\~:~ea

~

~?.

~-

?

'I

t?

I

'` ' ;'

r.;.c~ti

~-~,~%h~l~~\~*?~'~'~7

:~n~a \

r\.n

~--,

~31 Ci--a r.

~C~L3~~

--

FIG.

2.

IVORY

RELIEF

FROM

THE

SANCTUARY

OF

ARTEMIS

ORTHIA.

rate with

the wind on

the

stern

quarter,

protection

against

the

waves

was

needed

mainly

at

bow

and

stern,

while

amidships

the

waist

could

be

kept

low,

with

only

a

light

gunwale

and

rail; and it was here, between gunwale and rail, that oars could be attached, supplanting

the

detached

paddles

of

more

primitive

times.

But

with

or

without

oars,

such

a

ship,

we

must

insist,

was

always

intended

primarily

for

sailing

and

would

make

its

best

speed

only

under sail-

~

Xu~yvsoVpos

E.WL7FElO'U)

7L0'EZ.

Rowing

was

always

very

much

a

8ErTEpos

'rXois,

often

unavoidable for

manoeuvring

in

harbor

and,

under

grim

inecessity,

for

working

against

an

adverse

wind

into

some

lee

shelter.

It

is

perhaps

presumptuous

to

condemn

this

as

a

poor

type

of

vessel.

Devised

for

Aegean

traffic,

it

no

doubt met

Aegean

needs;

but it

must

have

been

nigh

worthless when

the

course

deviated

more

than

sixty

degrees

from a

tail-wind;

and

though

it

may

have

steered

easily,

it

must

have drifted

badly.

Such

as it

was,

however,

this

Aegean

sailing-vessel

was

perpetu-ated with unbroken

continuity

and

very

little

organic

change

from

late

neolithic into

his-

torical

times.

From

this

latter

period

we

have

almost

innumerable

representations

to

confirm

the

pre-

9

Though

the

need

for

such an

operation

has

long

since

vanished,

modern

Greek

fishing-boats

still

dock

stern-first,

even

as

they

still

brail

their

canvas

to the

yard

instead of

lowering

it to

the

deck.

When

ques-

tioned,

the

modern

navigators

will

justify

their

pro-

cedure

with

various

explanations,

such

as

that it is

easier

to

unload

cargo

over

the

stern

or

that,

with

the

sails

ready

furled

at the

hoisted

yard,

they

can

sooner

catch the fitful offshore

morning

breeze

and

run

out of

harbor

down

the

wind;

but

I

imagine

that the

real

explanation

is

merely

the

tenacity

of

immemorial

custom.

In the familiar

ivory

relief

from

the

Artemis

Orthia

sanctuary

at

Sparta

(fig.

2)

the woman

is

ap-

parently

standing

on

land,

against

which

the

vessel's

stern

is

moored.

The moment

is

probably

departure

rather

than

arrival,

so that

the sail

is

being

lowered

rather than furled.



6/12

THE

GREEK PENETRATION OF THE

BLACK

SEA

5

ceding

description,

beginning

with Attic

black-figure

and

red-figure

vases

and

continuing

down

to

imperial

Roman

mosaics

and

marble

reliefs, coins,

and

gems.

More

than

a

thousand

years

after the

type

was

established,

the Roman

merchantman

will

often still show the

same

single

mast

set

deep

amidship,

the

square

rig

without

a boom

to

spread

the

sail,

the

straight

hull, the raking bow and stern with elevated quarter-decks,and the low waist. But to confine

ourselves

to

the

early

classical

period,

the

sixth-century

Attic

black-figure vase-drawing

(pl.

I,

A)

illustrates the

projecting

nose of the

keel,

the

splashboard

at the

bow,

probably

masking

a

lookout's

quarter-deck,

the

single

mast set

amidship,

and the

single

sail

square-

rigged

to

a

long yard,

each

arm

of

which is

stayed

with four lines. There

is

no

boom

and

in

consequence

the

sail bellies

badly.

In

the

exquisite

composition

in

pl

I,

B,

the same

details

may

be

observed, but,

in

addition,

a

rather better

integration

of

the

upward sweep

of

the

stern

with the

straight

underline of

the hull.

There are semicircular

notches in the

gunwale,

just

beneath the

rail.

These are

for

oars

and,

if

their

indication

is

to be taken

literally,

there

is room

for seven

on a

side.

As this

chances also to be the number of

blades

hanging

at

the

tholes

in

the

diverting

black-figure

drawing

in

pl.

I,

c

(the

ship

is

in

full

career with

sail

set, and the crew are conversing, not

rowing),

this

may

be some indication of the oar

power

of

the normal

sailing

vessel. It is not a

very

hazardous

prediction

that

ships

such as

these

could

develop only

a

very

indifferent

speed

when

propelled by

their oars alone

and

hence

would not

have

been

able

to

cope

with

the

Bosporus

current. As

long

as

this

was the

best

available

craft,

seeing

that it

was

impossible

either

by

sailing

or

by

rowing

to

drive it

through

the

winding

barrier of

adversely

moving

water,

the

Pontus remained

mare

clausum

to

Aegean

mariners.

Not

so the Sea

of

Marmora.

In

spite

of

the

obstacle

presented

by

the

"swift-flowing

Hellespont,"

it was an

easier task to

run

the Dardanelles than

the

Bosporus.

To

be

sure,

the

same volume of

water must

pass through

both

straits,

since

the loss

by

evaporation

in

the Propontis is replaced by rainfall and the occasional short rivers emptying into that

closely

landlocked sea. But

the

Dardanelles

passage

is

at least

twice as wide as the

Bos-

porus,10

so that

the

force

of

the

current is

correspondingly

less.

According

to the

estimate

of

the

Black

Sea

Pilot

(p.

22),

"the

average

maximum

rate

of

the current

in

Canakkale

bogazi

(sc.

Dardanelles),

under normal

conditions,

is from

21

to

3

knots

in

and

southward

of

the

Narrows;

this

rate

increases

to

5

knots

under abnormal

conditions.

The

corresponding

rate

in

the

narrower Karadeniz

bogazi

(sc.

Bosporus)

is from 4

to

5

knots

from

the

palace

of

Beyler

Beyi

towards

Vani

Kioi,

rising,

in

abnormal

conditions,

to

7 knots between

Rumeli

burnu and

Anadolu

Hisari,

where

the

current

is

known as

the

Devil's current."

In

addition,

the

conformation of

the

land

makes

it

possible

for a

ship,

once out of

the

Aegean

and

past

the

point

of

Kumkale,

behind

which

the

Skamander

empties,

to work

up

along

the

Asiatic

shore without encountering the full force of the current

except

in

rounding

the

points

and

with

even

some occasional

help

from

eddies

and

countercurrents. But

just

below

the

Nar-

rows

the full

force of

the

current will

be

felt and

there is

no

alternative but to work

out into

midstream and

struggle

for

the easier

water

in

the

broader

reaches above.

It

would

seem,

therefore,

that a

ship

which could

move

under oars at

more than

9

knots

might

always,

if

not

pressed

for

time and if

prepared

to

wait for

favorable

conditions

of

wind

and

weather,

reach

the

Sea of

Marmora from

the

Aegean.

But

this same

ship

could

10

The

Hellespont

has

an

average

width of

3-4

miles

with a

minimum

of

approximately

1

mile

at the

Narrows

near

the

ancient

Sestos

and

Abydos,

where

Xerxes' bridgewas built. The corresponding figuresfor

the

Bosporus

give

a

maximum

width of

Q-

miles,

a

minimum

of

?

mile.

The

depths

in

the two

water-

courses

are

approximately

the same.



7/12

6

RHYS

CARPENTER

not

penetrate

beyond

into the Black

Sea unless

it could

step up

its

speed

to

nearly

twice

the

crucial

figure.

When

laden with

cargo,

the

ships

would

lie lower

in the water

and

hence

be firmer

in

the

grip

of

the

current,

beside

being

harder

to

propel.

It

might,

therefore,

easily

happen

that,

even

in

prehistoric

times,

light

craft

might

have

passed

into the

Propontis,

while

commerce

in

heavier

ships

would

still have remained

impractical.

The

history

of

Troy,

in

so far as

archaeological

exploration

has established

it,

would

suggest

that the

"merchantmen"

of the second

and

early

third millennia

found

the

current

running

through

the

Hellespont

too

formidable

for them.

For it

is

difficult

to believe

that

any

fortified

stronghold

such as stood on

Hissarlik,

an hour's

journey

inland

from

the

Aegean

entrance to the

straits,

could have

grown

rich on

passing

commerce,

had that

com-

merce

really

been

able

to

pass. Troy's

existence

would

hardly

have been

tolerated,

had

it

merely preyed

on

shipping

by exacting

toll without

rendering

further

service;

and

though

it

may

be

objected

that

Homer's

siege

of

Troy proves precisely

that

Greece

did

not

tolerate

its

continued

existence,

but

combined

to

destroy

it,

the

archaeological

record

shows

that

Troy

endured

and

prospered

over

a

great many

centuries.

No

matter

how

well

fortified,

such a piratical enterprise could have been rendered impotent by destroying the Trojan

ships,

since without

ships

it

could not have

intercepted

sea-borne trade"-

unless

the

Hel-

lespont

itself was

impassable.

In

the latter

event,

Troy

would have

occupied

a

position

exactly

comparable

to that of

Corinth,

in control

of

the

portaging

between

two

bodies

of

water.

Land-borne

traffic,

moving

north

and

south

between the

two

continents,

would

scarcely

have

passed Troy

since

it

would have

avoided the

long

detour

along

the

Gallipoli

peninsula

(the

Thracian

Chersonese)

by crossing

the narrow

western mouth

of the

Pro-

pontis,

many

miles

to

the east.

Nor

was

Troy

a

useful roadhead for

Aegean

trade

with the

Anatolian

hinterland. We must

conclude that her

prosperity

depended

on

the

impractica-

bility

of

the

Hellespont

and

that this

persisted

through

Late

Helladic

times.

By

the same

token,

the

absence

of

any important

classical

settlement

on

or

near the

site,

until

the

rather

artificial

founding

of

Hellenistic Alexandria

Troas and

Roman

Ilium,

should be

eloquent

testimony

that

the

necessity

for

trans-shipping by

overland

portage

had

passed.

The Greek

merchantmen

were

outspeeding

the

current and

carrying

their

cargoes

in and out

of

the

Sea of

Marmora in

their

own

bottoms.

It

is a

problem

of

extreme

nicety

to

determine

the date at

which

this

fundamental

change

occurred

in

the

economy

of

the

Propontis;

but it

would

be safe to

say

that it should

syn-

chronise

pretty

closely

with

the

Ionian

founding

of

Cyzicus.

Earlier

than

that,

even

if

high-

walled

Troy

was

standing

abandoned

and

slowly

disintegrating,

this

would

not in itself be

proof

that

the

Aegean

ships

were

already

running

the

Dardanelles,

since there

may

not

have

been

any

trade

moving

in

that

region

at the

time.

Thucydides'

brilliantly

apt

charac-

terization of a preceding period when the Greeks were "without commerce, without freedom

of

communications

either

by

land or

by

sea,

cultivating

no

more

of

their

territory

than the

exigencies

of

life

required"

and

"neither built

large

towns

nor

attained

to

any

other

form

of

greatness,"

must

be understood

to

apply

to the

Geometric

Age,

especially

as he

specifi-

cally

links it with

a

period

of

migrations.

Indeed,

it

was the

re-awakening

of

commerce

attendant

on

the

"Oriental"

contact,

and

the

dissipation

of

stagnant

European

"neolithic"

type

of

culture of

the

Early

Iron

Age,

which

brought

the Greeks

once more out on the

Mediterranean and

stimulated them

to build

new and

better

ships.

Thucydides

is

again

our

best

source of

information on

this

advance. A

little

later

in

the same

introductory chapter

to

his

history

he

relates how

11

And it is at least worth remarking in passing that the Iliad nowhere pretends that the Trojans had any

ships.



8/12

THE

GREEK

PENETRATION

OF

THE

BLACK

SEA

7

as the

power

of Hellas

grew

and the

acquisition

of wealth became

more

an

objective,

yrannies

were

rather

generally

established

rom these

increased evenues

.. and Hellas

began

to fit out

fleets

and

apply

herself

more

closely

to the

seas.

It is said that

the

Corinthians

were the

first to

approximate

he

modern

tyle

of

shipbuilding,

nd

that Corinthwas

the first

place

n Greece

where

triremes

were

con-

structed.

It seems that

Ameinokles,

a

Corinthian

hipwright,

built

four

ships

for

the

Samians

(and

it is just about threehundredyears to the end of the presentwarfromthe time whenAmeinokles

went

to

Samos).

The

revolution

in

shipbuilding

thus

belongs

(according

to

Thucydides'

testimony)

to

the

early

seventh

century

during

the turn

of what

we call

the

Orientalising

to the

proto-archaic

period.

The

only

misunderstanding

seems

to be that

Thucydides

apparently

identifies

the

technical

advance

with

the invention

of

the

trireme,

which leads him

into a

quandary

through

having

to

admit

that in

the time of

Polykrates

of

Samos and

the Phokaian

foundation

of

Marseilles

"although

so

many generations

had

elapsed

since the

Trojan

war,

the

navies

seem to

have

been

principally

composed

of

the old

fifty-oared

and

long-boats

and to

have

counted

few

triremes

among

them."

Yet

if

Ameinokles

had

been

called to

Samos in

ca.

700

B.c.

in order to build triremes, is it not inevitable that, 150 years later, the Samian

naval

power

of

Polykrates

would

have

been

based

mainly

on

triremes,

as all

Greek

seapower

was

to

be within a

century

thereafter?

The

source

of

Thucydides'

misapprehension

is

easy

to

discover.

Though

he is

aware that

Homer was

"born

long

after

the

Trojan

war,"

he

cannot

altogether

escape

(any

more

than

so

many

modern

critics)

the

fallacy

of

identifying

the

poet

with

his

subject

matter.

Unaware

how

culturally

anachronistic the

Homeric

epics

are and how

little

they

can

be

relied

upon

as

evidence

for

the

Age

of

Mycenae,

he

naturally

believes

that

the

Achaeans

came to

Troy

in

fifty-oared

ships

capable

of

transporting

(oarsmen

included)

120

warriors

in

a

single

ship,

even

as

the

Catalog

in

Iliad

B

relates.

But

the

fifty-oared

long-boats

manned

by

Achilles'

Myrmidons

in

the

Iliad

and

by Odysseus'

companions

in

the

Odyssey

are not

Mycenaean

vessels, but the

ships

of Homer's own

day.

Accordingly,

it is

entirely

irrelevant

whether or

not

triremes

were

first

built in

Corinth:

in

Ameinokles'

day

they

had

not

yet

been

thought

of,

and

he

was

summoned to

Samos to

demonstrate

some

wholly

different

product

of

his

skill.

What

novelty

he

could

have

produced

for

the

Samians

close to

700

B.c.,

we

may

dis-

cover

by

consulting

the

contemporary

drawings

on

Attic

Dipylon

vases'2

and

similar

ma-

terial

from

the

close of

the

Geometric

period

(pl.

I, D,

E).

If

we

will

but

properly

steel

our-

selves

against

using

Homer as

evidence

for

Mycenaean

or

sub-Mycenaean

times,

it will

be

obvious

that

the

great

innovation

of

Ameinokles'

day

was

the

fifty-oared

long-boat.

With 25

rowers on

either

side

and

a

raised

quarter-deck

fore

and

aft,

the

new

ships

must

have

had an

overall

length

of

more

than 100

feet.

Despite

the

poetical

tradition of

the tall

oak of Dodona which became the Argo's keel, it is extremely unlikely that the keel of these

pentekonters

could

any

longer

be

hewn

from a

single

tree,

but

was

spliced

of

several

timbers

end-to-end,

with

possibly

all

the

complications

of

strakes

and

keelson

and

stepping-pieces

of

a

modern

sailing-ship.

There

must

have

been

properly

curved

ribs to

spread

the

hull

and

give

room for

the

rowers'

benches,

which

would

be

morticed

into

these

ribs

below

the rail

as

horizontal

braces,

crosswise

to

the

ship.

Some

sort of

deck-perhaps

little

more than a

gangplank

between

the

rowers

-

acted

as

lengthwise

reinforcement.

These

are

only

the

most

obvious

elements.

With

everything

else

involved,

the

construction

of a

pentekonter

de-

manded

the

mature

craftsmanship

of

experienced

shipwrights

and

represented

a

great

achievement in

the

history

of

ship-building.

It

gave

ample

scope

for an

Ameinokles.

The

underlying

motive for

the

creation

of

the

pentekonter

was

only

secondarily

increase

12

Kister,

op.

cit.,

pls.

21-28.



9/12

8

RHYS

CARPENTER

of

speed.

Primarily,

it

was

escape

from the

tyranny

of the

winds,

on whose

blowing

from

the

proper

quarter

the

sailing-ships

had

perforce

to wait.

Had

Menelaus

(in

the

fourth

book

of

the

Odyssey)

been

captain

of

a

pentekonter,

he

could

have rowed home from

Egypt

instead

of

biding

helpless

off

the

Delta on the Isle of Seals while for

twenty

days

"thereappearedno sea-breathingwinds,whichare the speedersof shipsacross he widebacks

of

the sea."

The

new

longboats

were,

accordingly,

not

specifically war-ships

in

intent.

When

Thucydides

records

(i, 13)

that

"the earliest

sea-fight

in

history

took

place

between the Corinthians

and

Corcyraeans

about

260

years

ago,"

(sc.

665

B.C.),

it

may

well be

that

this was the

first

deliberate

hostile encounter between

pentekonters;13

but this

would

not

in

the least

prove

that

pentekonters

were

invented as

fighting-ships.

The

Aristonophos

vase

(pl.

I,

F)

shows

us

that an

engagement

could

be

fought

on the water

with

any type

of

craft.

Similarly,

when

Herodotus

records

of

the

Asia

Minor Phokaians that

"they

were the first of the Greeks to

accomplish

long

sea-voyages, showing

the

way

to the

Adriatic

and Etruria and

Spain

and

Tartessos, not in round ships but in pentekonters,"14 he point is not that the merchants of

Phokaia

discovered that

they

could

carry

on

trade

by

employing

men-of-war

for

commercial

ends,

but

merely

that

they

were the first to

avail themselves of the

vastly

increased

cruising

range

of

the new

type

of

vessel and ventured

to

take them

out into

hitherto untravelled

waters.

Since the

period

of

this Phokaian

enterprise

must be set near

the

middle

of

the

seventh

century,

it

is

clear

that

this evidence

admirably supports

the thesis

that

pente-

konters were

not

being

built until

the

opening

of this

same

century. Incidentally,

it

po-

tently

suggests

that the Nostoi of

Odysseus

reflect this

same

penetration

of

the far

western

Mediterranean

by

means

of

these same

ships

and

that

at least

this element

of

the

Odyssey

should

belong

to

the

second

half of

the seventh

century

B.C.

The

discovery

of

the

seaway

westward from

Italy

across the Sardinian

Sea

to

the

Balearic

Islands and

the southeast

coast

of

Spain,

and

thence to the

Andalusian

metal-land

of

Tartessos

beyond

the Gibraltar

Strait,

was

hardly

more

sensational than the

opening

of

new

waters on

the

eastern horizon.

While

Phokaia

steered her

pentekonters

toward the

sunset,

Miletos was able to

send

her

ships

toward the sunrise

into

the

hitherto untravelled

sea.

For

the first

time

in

the

history

of

Aegean

seamanship,

ships

were

being

built

and

manned

to

go

where the

steersman rather than the

wind

decided and

to travel

faster

than

the

great

stream

which

poured

ceaselessly

into

the

Mediterranean

through

the

Bosporus,

Propontis,

and

Hellespont.

It

was

easy

now

to

pass

Troy

and

Abydos

and

cruise the

Marmora Sea.

Hitherto,

if a

ship

waited

hove-to

under the

shelter

of

Tenedos or

hauled

up

stern-first on

the mainland

beaches below the mouth of the straits, there might come a sudden favorable blow from the

southwest

or

the

south,

pushing

back

the

Aegean

to slow

the

current of the

Hellespont

and

carrying

a

ship safely

through

into the

slower water of

the

Propontis,

the

shores of

which,

long

populated

with

Thracian

villages,

could

scarcely

have

been

entirely

unfamiliar to the

Greeks,

however

rarely

visited

by

their

ships.

But

now,

with

fifty

oarsmen

"sitting

well in

order to

smite

the

grey

sea,"

the

2l-knot

current

in

the

mid-stream

of

the

Narrows was

13

Surely,

not

triremes

"Indeed,

it

was

only

shortly

before

the

Persian

war

that the

Sicilian

tyrants

and

the

Corcyraeans

acquired any

quantity

of

triremes;

until

Xerxes,

there

were

no

navies

of

account

in

Greece:

Aegina,

Athens,

and

others

may

have

pos-

sessed

a few

vessels,

but

they

were

principally

fifty-

oars..,

.and

even

these

vessels had

not

complete

decks,"

Thucyd.

i,

14.

14

Hdt.

i,

163.



10/12

THE

GREEK

PENETRATION

OF THE

BLACK

SEA

9

only

an

inconvenience,

no

longer

a barrier.

The

Propontis

was

open

for the Greeks

to

come

and

go

as

they

chose.

What

of the Euxine

beyond?

The Greek

colonies

along

the shores

of the

Sea of

Marmora,-Parion,

Lampsakos,

Perinthos,

Selymbria,

Kyzikos,

Chalkedon,

Byzantium,

- must

all have been founded

after

700 B.c. and most of them within a few years of each other, around the turn of the second

quarter

of

the

century.

There

is little

probability

that

Chalkedon,

the

"City

of

the

Blind"

at

modern

Kadikeui,

was established

for

any

other reason

than its

advantageous

position

as a

starting-point

for the

passage

through

the

Bosporus.

Could

we be sure of

its

foundation

date,

we

should have

a

reliable indication

of the exact

time when

the Greeks

first

learned

what

lay beyond

the

swift salt

river which

had hitherto balked

further

progress

at

the

farther

end

of the

Propontis.

Just

opposite,

on the Golden

Horn,

Byzantium

seems to

have

been

founded

as

a

rival station

in

657

B.c.

in

so

obviously superior

a

location

that it

is

safe

to

argue

that it

did

not succeed Kalchedon

by

more than

a

decade

or

two.

For an

approxi-

mately

accurate

date, therefore,

the

years

just

before

or

just

after

680

B.c.

must be

our

choice for

the sensational event which

was to become

so

mighty

in

legend,

-

the

first

passing

of a

Greek

ship

into the

Black

Sea.

There

are,

of

course,

no

Symplegades,

no

narrowing

passage

through

enclosing

cliffs,

in

or

near

the

Bosporus;

and the low

islands,

little

higher

than

washing

reefs,

which

antiquity

identified as

the

Cyanean

Rocks,

will

disillusion

any

seeker for

geologic

verity

behind

the

legendary

marvel

of the

Clashing

Rocks. Nor

is

it a

commendable

(however

euhemeristic)

explanation

to

point

out

that

in

almost

every

language

men

may

speak

of

a

tortuous

valley

as

opening

before

them

and

closing

behind.

The

truth

of the

matter

must

be

that

the

moving

portal

of

rock,

which

ceaselessly

opens

and

shuts,

and

clips

the

tail-feathers

from

the

bird

that

flies

through,

is

fairy-tale

much older

than

the

Greek

navigation

of

the

Bosporus.

The

adventure is

equally

adaptable

to

travel on

land

and

need

not

have been

invented

by

a

maritime people; through its perilous opening, on foot or on horse or in boat, the hero must

fare

in

quest

of

the

maiden-no

matter

what

hero,

no

matter

what

maiden.

There

is

no

guessing

how

old

such a

story may

be,

or

whether

its true

significance

is

not the

same

as

the

gate

of

the Dead

through

which

souls

pass

to

the

underworld.

As

a

localised

legend

of

the

Bosporus,

it

could not have

been

recounted

by

Greeks

until the

seventh

century

was

well

on

its

way.

In

the

twelfth

book

of the

Odyssey,

Circe

in

rehearsing

the

coming

hazards of

Odysseus'

homeward

voyage

speaks

of

Plagktai,

Splashing

Rocks,15

a

sheer

cliff

past

which

neither

bird

nor

ship

can

fare

because of

the

beating surge

and

the

fiery

gusts,

-

"save

only

Argo,

which

passed

from

Aietes

faring;

and

her

too

would it

have

cast

against

the

great

rocks,

had

not

Hera,

for

love of

Jason, given

her

escort."

Even as

the

beautiful witch foretold,

when

Odysseus'

ship

had

passed

the

Sirens'

isle,

"straightway

I

saw

spume

and a

huge

wave

and

heard a

crashing," says

Odysseus;

but

he

avoided the

hazard

by

bidding

his

steersman

"keep

the

ship

outside of

the

smoke of

the

surf and

try

for

the

crag"

beneath

which

Scylla

waited

in

the

passage.

By

the

time

that the

tale of the

Argonauts

had

taken

epic form,

the

roaring

lee-cliffs

and

the

alternate

path

through

the

perilous

strait

had

coalesced into

a

single

adventure.

And

an

expedition,

whose

objective

might

conceivably

have

once

been

the

Egyptian

gold

at the

end

of the

long

sea-journey

to

Okeanos-Nile,

was

now

re-identified

in

terms

of

the

only

achievement of

Mediterranean

seamanship

which

bore

it

the

slightest

resemblance

-

the

successful

opening

of

the

winding

fairway

of

the

Bosporus,

which

through

all

preceding

time

had

refused

to let

ships

through.

At

least,

such

an

identification

was

no

'1

So

correctly

nterpreted

by

a

scholiumon

Od.

xii,

61.



11/12

10

RHYS

CARPENTER

worse

(and

perhaps

considerably

better)

than

the late

classical

insistence

that

the

harmless

strait of

Messina,

which even

routed soldiers could

swim,

was the dreadful

passage,

a

bow-

shot

wide,

where

Scylla

fished and

Charybdis

"thrice

in

the

day"

belched

up

the dark

water

"so

that

all the sea

boils like a cauldron over a

great

fire and the

spray

is thrown

high

over

both the headlands" and

again,

thrice a

day,

sucked the salt water down till the sea-bottom,

"black

with

sand,"

was

laid bare.

It is

characteristic

of the veristic behaviour of Greek

epic

that the

fairy-tale

of

Argo's

passage

between the

Symplegades

was so

punctiliously

localised

in

after-days

that the

latest

writer

in

the

great

tradition,

Apollonios

the

Rhodian,

chronicled the entire

voyage

from

the

Gulf

of

Volo,

by

way

of

Lemnos,

the

Dardanelles,

the Sea

of

Marmora,

the

Bosporus,

and

the

Turkish

shore

of the Black

Sea,

all

the

long

way

to

the

Rion

river below the

southern

slopes

of the

Caucasus,

with

a

geographic

detail

almost as

precise

as that of

an

ancient

Periplous

or our own

Black Sea Pilot.

HIerein

s some measure

of

the

great

impression

made

upon popular

Greek

memory by

the

report,

first

current

among

the

Ionian

sea-towns about

the year 680 B.C., that an Ionian pentekonter had surmounted the impassable Bosporus

current and

climbed

to the

horizon of

the

great

sea

beyond.

BRYN

MAWR COLLEGE

RHYS

CARPENTER



12/12

::i:::'iii~iii~~iiil'

-:'

siiiiiiii

i~~iii~~iiii~~~iiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiililii-7:i

?iii~-i~

;iiiiiiiiiii-iiii-?-iiiii:

Iliiiiiiiiiiisiiiiziis

iiii

iii:iii;iiiii'iiii'iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.~.ii~ii

zji

:::-iiiiiii

:-i

iii?:.i: .l: ii

. i - : - - - : i i i i i i

iiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii~i

-.-.-

~~~~~~~~~

~~l~

::_--:---iiiiliii:iiiii:::::,i-i:

'i?'iiiii~iii-ii

~i:-iii iiii--- iaiii-i~inii?:-ii

ii:i'iiii-ii~

-

ii

iii

::;ii-;

.

........................

,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii iiiiii

iiiiiiiiil

i i i i i c

ilililiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iii~ii~i~iiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiii

i:

iiiiiii

C

.

F

.i~iic~~iii-i

SHIPN-:

ARLY::::::--:-

REEK::

VASES

A"

K6SER

PL.

I6 B

OVR,

;

"K6TRP.

D

":::

JHS,

::x,

L.?:

III;:j::::i:

E

:T

R

N

O;F

R ST

N

P O

V

S

.[

ar e tr

Carpenter, Rhys - The Greek Penetration of the Black Sea

Documents

Transcript of Carpenter, Rhys - The Greek Penetration of the Black Sea