Part 1

LECTURES ON ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.

LECTURES ON ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY,

COMPRISING GREECE AND HER COLONIES, EPIRUS, MACEDONIA, ILLYRICUM, ITALY, GAUL, SPAIN, BRITAIN, THE NORTH OF AFRICA, ETC.

BY B. G. NIEBUHR.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN EDITION OF DR. ISLER, BY DR. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, F.R.S.E. RECTOR OF THE HIGH SCHOOL OF EDINBURGH; WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS FROM HIS OWN MS. NOTES.

IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I.

LONDON: WALTON AND MABERLY, UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW. M.DCCC.LIII.

LONDON: PRINTED BY J. WERTHEIMER AND CO., CIRCUS PLACE, FINSBURY CIRCUS.

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND

CONNOP THIRLWALL, D.D.,

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS,

ETC., ETC.

MY DEAR LORD,

Independently of your merits as a profound historian and an inquirer into the institutions and languages of the Ancient World, whereby you have given a fresh impulse and a new life to the scholarship of this country, I cannot, as a pupil of the illustrious Niebuhr, call to mind what you have done to make British scholars familiar with his labours without a sense of deep gratitude. This feeling is heightened by the unvarying friendship with which you have honoured me during the last sixteen years, and which I have always found ready and willing to assist, in whatever circumstances it was appealed to. The very idea of publishing any of the Lectures of Niebuhr would, perhaps, never have occurred to me, had it not been suggested by your Lordship. Some fifteen years ago, when you inspected my MS. notes of the Lectures on Ancient, and especially on Greek, History, you at once perceived their value, and urged on me the desirableness of their publication. With a natural timidity I at first shrank from so arduous and responsible an undertaking; and it was not till I found that no one else would venture upon it, that I resolved to do my best to carry out your suggestion and to rescue those precious remains from oblivion. It is now pretty generally admitted that these Lectures are doing some service to the study of classical antiquity, and it affords me the greatest satisfaction to have this opportunity of publicly acknowledging that, in the first instance, the public is indebted to your Lordship for whatever benefit their publication has conferred upon the students of ancient history. My own humble but conscientious labour, in bringing them before the British public, will be amply rewarded, if the manner in which I have executed my task should meet with your approbation. With this hope I beg your Lordship’s acceptance of the present volumes as a small tribute to your genius and learning, and as a token of the veneration and gratitude with which

I shall ever remain, My dear Lord, Your’s faithfully and sincerely,

L. SCHMITZ.

PREFACE.

The Lectures here offered to the English public were delivered by Niebuhr in the university of Bonn during the winter of 1827-28, and were published by Dr. Isler at Berlin in 1851. The German editor, in a short preface, remarks, that for a time he hesitated as to the propriety of publishing the present course of Lectures unabridged, because from its very nature the historian had been obliged here to treat of many topics which are discussed in the Lectures already published. But a regard for those readers who may not be possessed of the volumes containing the other courses of Lectures, and at the same time a desire to keep each course complete in itself, induced him to give the lectures uncurtailed and as complete as he found them in the MS. notes. It must also be borne in mind that Niebuhr, delivering his discourses extempore, cannot be said exactly to have repeated what he had said on previous occasions; but that, generally, the statements made in one course of Lectures rather supplement and complete those put forth at another time.

The relation in which the present English version stands to the German original is precisely the same as that described in my Preface to the “Lectures on Ancient History”; but the present volumes differ from the previous ones in so far as they do not appear in the _form_ of Lectures. This is owing to the fact that the division into Lectures is not marked either in the German edition or in any of the sets of notes which I had opportunities of collating. The want of such a division, in this instance, is perhaps scarcely to be regretted, because the subject itself renders division and subdivision absolutely necessary; and if the merely accidental division into Lectures had been added, it would frequently disturb rather than assist the reader.

Many of the localities and countries here described have been more fully explored since the delivery of these Lectures, and much information might accordingly have been added in notes; but I have thought it right to adhere to the principle which I have followed in the publication of the Lectures on Ancient and on Roman History, as it is not my object to furnish complete treatises on these subjects, but to preserve and bring before the public the views and opinions of a man who still stands unrivalled as an historical inquirer.

L. S.

_Edinburgh, October, 1853._

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

PAGE

Preliminary observations 1

History of ancient Ethnography and Geography 4

Ancient authorities and introductory remarks 11

GREECE.

Greece in general 24

Peloponnesus 26

The Homeric Catalogue 31

Divisions of Peloponnesus 33

Argolis, Argos 37

Aegina 54

Laconia 56

Cythera 63

Messene 64

Arcadia 70

Elis 77

Achaia 79

GREECE BEYOND PELOPONNESUS.

Attica and Megaris 84

Megaris 87

Attica 90

Athens 93

Acropolis, Κιμώνειον τεῖχος, Πελασγικόν, Propylaea 97

The Theatre, Agora, Buleuterium, Prytaneum 98

The Pnyx, Museum, the New Town, Olympieum 99

Academia, Lyceum, Cynosarges 99

Piraeeus, Munychia 100

The Long Walls 102

Population of Athens 107

Salamis 111

Boeotia 113

The Locrian Tribes 123

Phocis 126

Doris 134

Aetolia 136

Acarnania 147

The Cephallenian Islands 153

Thessaly 155

Peraebia (Magnesia) 168

Achaia (Phthiotis) 170

Melians and Malians 171

The Dolopians 172

Euboea 175

Northern islands, Sciathos, Scopelos, Scyros 180

Peparethos, Halonnesos, Lemnos and Imbros 181

Samothrace, Thasos 182

The Cyclades 183

Delos 184

Paros, Siphnos, Seriphos 186

Ceos, Andros, Tenos, Syros, Rhenea, Myconos, Naxos 187

Melos, Thera 189

Ios, Amorgos, Crete 190

Carpathos, Astypalaea, Nisyros 195

Rhodes 196

Dorian Tripolis in Asia Minor 203

Ionia 204

Samos 209

Chios 213

Panionium 215

Aeolis 215

Lesbos 218

Magnesia on the Maeander 220

The Kingdom of Pergamus 221

Greek Settlements in Macedonia and Thrace 224

Chersonesus Thracica 234

Chersonesus Taurica 244

The north coast of Asia Minor 248

Epirus 251

Thesprotia 256

The Suliots 258

The Chaonians 260

The Molottians 261

The Atintanians 269

The Pelagonians 269

The Orestians 269

The Parauaeans 269

The Amphilochians 269

The Agraeans 270

Corcyra 272

Macedonia 275

Athamania 280, _n._

Macedonia prima 281

Emathia 286

Pieria 288

The Bottiaeans 288

The Paeonians 288, 296

Mygdonia 288

The Edonians 288

The Agrianians 296

Illyricum 297

The Amantians 306

The Bulliones 306

The Dessaretans 309

The Autariatae 309

Migrations of Nations 310

Ardyaeans and Parthinians 311

Dalmatia 312

Pharos 314

Corcyra Melaena 314

Melite 314

LECTURES

ON

ANCIENT ETHNOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY.

All history resolves itself into a knowledge of the circumstances in the midst of which events occur, and of the events themselves; in an abstract point of view, the two are conveniently kept apart, although concretely they can never appear separated. A history which does not enter into the development of circumstances at all, and altogether pre-supposes them to be known, is scarcely conceivable, unless indeed it were written for contemporaries alone. Nevertheless, however, the one side or the other predominates, according to the predilection of the individual historian. Livy gives scarcely anything but the narration of events; earlier historians were fond of occupying themselves with the description of circumstances, and the more ancient the historian the more striking is this peculiarity. Thucydides, the greatest of all historians, whenever he has an opportunity, as in his description of nations, dwells upon the representation of circumstances. In the earliest times, therefore, ethnography and chorography were always the principal objects of attention, while subsequently this tendency decreased more and more, and the narration of events alone was attended to. The two, however, ought not to be separated, for without a knowledge of the circumstances in the midst of which events take place, the study of history is altogether useless. The mere knowledge of a country, however, is not sufficient; the peculiarities of its inhabitants, its products and the like, must be well known to the student; and without this history has no life. On the other hand, we are often unable to picture to ourselves even modern European nations from a mere narrative of events, unless we have at the same time some insight into their manners and customs. But the history of ancient nations more particularly cannot be understood without a knowledge of the circumstances arising from the peculiarities of their countries. Philological knowledge is the _conditio sine qua non_; but were a man ever so great a philologer, unless he be at the same time acquainted with the ancient constitutions, the political divisions, and the soil and climate of the countries, his ability to interpret the ancient authors would be nothing but “a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal”; he would be in the same condition in which we find the wretched grammarians of old.

A knowledge of the ancients may exist in an endless variety of degrees; a perfect knowledge is altogether unattainable. The time which separates us from them cannot be removed; but the difference of space presents no such insurmountable difficulty. The soil and the atmosphere of the classic countries have something so peculiar, and so utterly foreign to us, that to obtain a perfect familiarity with the ancient classics, it is necessary to know those countries and live in them, for unless we have seen them with our own eyes, we easily form erroneous notions; and this is required more particularly of him who wishes to understand the Latin poets. But still, even if a person cannot actually visit the countries, he may supply the defect, in a great measure, by a loving and diligent study. To initiate you into this, and at the same time to indicate to you those facts which are absolutely certain as points to start from, is the object of these Lectures. I shall give positive results which you may receive with confidence, and which I have arrived at by diligent and laborious research: they chiefly refer to changes of nations and countries, but at the same time topography shall not be excluded.

It is easy to perceive that this department of knowledge may be treated in various ways, for there are histories in which every thing that happened at the same period, is related synchronistically, while we may also look at events from the point of view of one particular nation. The same difference exists in ethnography and chorography. In the present Lectures it is my intention to give information about the classical nations of antiquity, and about the whole range of nations which are connected with them either by literature or by history, but I do not mean to treat of all the nations of antiquity in the widest sense of the term. I shall speak of the East and of Africa only so far as they come within the reach of the Greeks and Romans; I shall not touch upon the non-classical nations, though they are now better known from native accounts. I shall notice the migrations in Africa and those of the Scythians, as well as the Bactrian empire and other eastern countries. Of India I shall not speak according to Indian authorities, which were unknown to the ancients, but I shall follow the accounts furnished by the Greeks. Scandinavia will, for the most part, be dealt with in the same manner; the Finnian nations will be passed over altogether, as well as those parts of Africa which do not come in contact with the classical nations.

The time, which for us forms the boundary between antiquity and the middle ages, cannot be determined with absolute precision; ancient and middle-age history cannot, in their whole extent, be separated by a straight line; the line undulates without any definite law. With some nations it falls at an earlier, and with others at a later time, according as their countries were taken possession of by barbarous tribes at an earlier or later period. For most European nations, the migration of nations forms the line of demarcation, and the immigration of the Franks, Suevi, Vandals, Burgundians and others forms the close of antiquity, while in the eastern empire it lasted till the Arab conquest. It is but seldom that in this respect we shall be apparently inconsistent, when, for example, we describe the condition of Rome and Ravenna during the period of the exarchate; for in point of fact, these two cities down to the restoration of the western empire, belong to ancient, and not to mediaeval history. Such lines of demarcation cannot be slavishly adhered to without pedantry.

We may further raise the question, as to whether the geographical knowledge of the ancients, that is, an examination of their notions about the earth, its parts and its inhabitants should come within our sphere. In so far as their notions were erroneous, such discussions would be tedious and disagreeable; and they form no part of our objective consideration of ethnography and chorography. This science, however, the creation of Voss, is a very essential part of the propaedeutics to a right understanding of the ancient authors: it belongs, in a subjective point of view, to the history of geography, and the gradual extension of geographical knowledge. We shall take into our consideration only those parts of that science which have a direct bearing upon our object, by shewing us the condition of the countries at the time, and the connections and relations among peoples distant from one another. Whoever treats of geography as a science, that is, whoever intends to give a history of geography, must dwell upon these points; but then he cannot confine himself to the Greeks and Romans, he must at the same time discuss the geographical knowledge of the Arabs, Scandinavians, and other nations.

The history of ancient geography and ethnography after the revival of letters, is the same as that of all other studies connected with the investigation of antiquity. After the restoration of learning, all information about ancient geography was sought exclusively in the ancient authors; the whole of the middle ages had added nothing to it; whatever advances were made, proceeded from practical men, and not from the learned. The consequence of this state of things was the unfortunate separation of dead learning from practical life: the knowledge of the learned had its root in their books, and was thereby spoiled in its very beginning; it is true, all erudition is based on books, but it must be amalgamated with practical knowledge. To transfer that which was handed down in books to the actual, visible world was a very difficult task, and the acquisition of practical experience was no part of a scholar’s business. This state of things remained the prevailing evil until the 17th century; and during that period, the ἰδιῶται were much more learned than the λόγιοι. The first attempts of geographers consisted of lifeless compilations from ancient books; and only that which was not found in them was sparingly derived from the actual and living knowledge. The most striking example of this kind is Raphael Volaterranus, in that part of his Encyclopaedia, in which he treats of geography; for in describing the countries of Europe, which had become entirely changed, he copies Pliny and Mela, and it is not till they cease to furnish him with information, that he borrows a few things from the actual knowledge of his time. Although he lived at Rome, he describes it as it had been a thousand years before him. In the East, and especially at Constantinople, the maps of Ptolemy were used throughout the middle ages—whether the same was the case in Italy, I cannot decide; the earliest Italian maps are not older than the fifteenth century. The maps of Ptolemy were then brought over to the western countries; and from them the learned formed some sort of notion of the geographical and ethnographical knowledge of the ancients. But as early as the thirteenth century—the Arabs had done so even before—the Venetians, Genoese, and Catalanians had become acquainted with the Greek and Arabic maps, and it was these unlearned men that, in extending geographical knowledge, took these maps as their basis, and remodelled them into new and practical maps, especially sea-charts, which they had so much improved. But this was unknown to the scholars of the fifteenth century; and even in the sixteenth, their ignorance is almost inconceivable. It was not till the seventeenth century that the nations of western Europe arrived at the age of maturity; that century checked this irrational philological tendency, and for a time, philology itself; it gave a different direction to scholarship, and thus laid the foundation of our modern philology. The time had now come, when a living account of ancient geography based on autopsy could be undertaken.

The first work of eminence was the production of a German, Philip Cluver, on Italy, Sicily, and Germany; it ranks very high, though all its parts are not equal in value, the _Germania_ being very considerably inferior to the two others. The _Italia_ and _Sicilia_ must be regarded as one work; what he has done for these countries is excellent, and nearly all the passages of the ancients referring to them have been fully collected by him. When we are told, that he collected the materials for his work in the space of eighteen months, we must probably understand this to mean, that, after having previously read through all the ancient authors, he collected in his mature age his reminiscences within the short period alluded to. He was professor in the university of Leyden; and the states general of Holland, which were usually very active in their support of learned men, granted him permission for a journey to Italy, and at the same time allowed him the enjoyment of his salary.[1] He had great tact in discovering and remembering localities; he knew how to see things with his own eyes, and at the same time had a clear intellect in examining things impartially. His reputation is firmly established, his work is immortal among scholars, it will always be great and classical, and there is but very little that can be added to it. But he did not rightly understand the ethnography and history of the Italian nations, nor did he sufficiently attend to the stages through which ancient history passes, and by which the nations ascend as by the steps of a ladder. Ancient history becomes confused by the supposition that no event is historical, which is not recorded in the extant ancient authors. Such a view can be entertained only by timid minds. There are often manifest gaps in history, which are not noticed by the ancients, because they themselves did not perceive them, or because they did not find them pointed out in earlier writers. Even the great Perizonius combats such narrow views; and it is for this reason that Cluver’s accounts of nations are often full of mistakes. This is the defect in his excellent work, but its details are not the less valuable on that account. He did not live long enough to revise his work, for he did not attain an advanced age.