The Hellenistic Western Mediterranean: a neglected topic in academia

[Roma_Victrix]

Well, it's a neglected topic at least according to the various authors of book chapters in Johnathan Prag and Josephine Quinn's The Hellenistic West: Rethinking the Ancient Mediterranean (2013, Cambridge University Press). They do have a point, though. From what I can tell, it is almost always Greece (+ Thrace, i.e. modern Bulgaria and European portion of Turkey), Egypt, West Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean that are exclusively invoked or discussed in regards to the Hellenistic period. The Western Mediterranean, in contrast, is almost always discussed in regards to Rome's gradual projection of power and influence, especially over territories formerly under Carthaginian influence, suzerainty or direct control. That includes modern academic discourse about ancient Sicily, Italy, Sardinia, Corsica, northwest Africa (i.e. west of Cyrenaica), the Balearic Islands, southern Gaul (i.e. French Mediterranean coastal regions), and eastern Iberia (i.e. Spanish Mediterranean coastal regions).

It seems as though the Hellenistic period in the Western Mediterranean is considered under very specialized circumstances, such as discussion about Pyrrhus' invasion of Sicily and southern Italy, or the exploratory missions of Pytheas as far as the British Isles, from his city-state of Massalia (modern Marseille, France). Looking around Google Books, Prag and Quinn's publication seems to be the only one there with an exclusive focus on the Western Mediterranean and its inclusion in the greater Hellenistic world following the death of Alexander in 323 BC. What do you guys think? Have you seen the same trends in academia, public education and discourse alleged by the authors of Prag and Quinn's book? What could be the potential reasons for this? The fact that the greatest cultural and intellectual centers of the Hellenistic world were located in mainland Greece, the Aegean, the Levant and Egypt? The political irrelevance of much of the Western Mediterranean for mainstream Greek historiography focused on Athens, Sparta, the Achaean League, and the monarchic Hellenistic kingdoms? At any rate, as the authors reveal, the Western Mediterranean was by no means divorced from the eastern half during the Hellenistic period, as attested by shared artistic trends, monetary policy, material culture, leisure activities and athletic games, technology, military equipment, philosophical and literary pursuits, etc.

EDIT: Just for fun, here's a map of Phoenician (red) and Greek (blue) colonies around the year 550 BC, from Wikimedia.

[Copperknickers II]

To be honest I didn't even know there were Greek colonies in the Western Mediterranean other than Magna Graecia and Massalia, until just now. I suppose the primary reason that the Hellenistic Western Med is neglected is because you're looking for the wrong books. There were Greek colonies and no doubt they had a lot of influence on their surrounding areas, but Magna Graecia aside they really don't seem to have accomplished anything very interesting, they were just hangovers from an earlier period and they were pretty much wiped out by the Romans as part of the Punic Wars. Books on the Etruscans, Romans and Carthaginians in this period are not difficult to find. One must question what one would actually write about in a book about the Hellenistic Western Med - Greek influence on the Romans is pretty done to death, and on the Carthaginians and Etruscans is not unstudied (bearing in mind our dearth of sources especially for the latter). And as for Greek influence on the Iberians and Gauls, we have no real sources on these beyond archaeology as far as I am aware.

[conon394]

the Western Mediterranean was by no means divorced from the eastern half during the Hellenistic period, as attested by shared artistic trends, monetary policy, material culture, leisure activities and athletic games, technology, military equipment, philosophical and literary pursuits, etc

But that was the case in the pre-Hellenistic era as well - culture I mean. I don't really see a particular trend in saying otherwise. The political/geographic divisions in the West were deep and fairly static. At the end of the day Alexander up ended those in the East, but noboy but Rome did in West (at least in a similar intentional and wide ranging way). So the dichotomy does seem logical.

Also you are as always with history the victem of sources. The might be many dramatic and interesting narratives that might tell all kinds of engaging stories about Marsallia - about political parties, and battles of quite trading state or attempts to confront Carthage, recover Corsica etc. Its innovate moves on money policy or political decisions to accommodate the locals. All leading to far more interest, and archeology and research etc. But there is mostly simply not much to work with.

[Roma_Victrix]

To be honest I didn't even know there were Greek colonies in the Western Mediterranean other than Magna Graecia and Massalia, until just now.

Then you should certainly look up sites like Emporion (Empúries) in what is now Catalonia, Spain, which was one of the larger Greek cities in the region, up there with Massalia.

Massalia is well known to us largely because of its relevance to Republican Roman foreign policy in Gaul, the Punic Wars, and later the wars of Julius Caesar.

I suppose the primary reason that the Hellenistic Western Med is neglected is because you're looking for the wrong books. There were Greek colonies and no doubt they had a lot of influence on their surrounding areas, but Magna Graecia aside they really don't seem to have accomplished anything very interesting, they were just hangovers from an earlier period and they were pretty much wiped out by the Romans as part of the Punic Wars.

Not so much "wiped out" as in gradually assimilated into the Latin West. Many of these settlements (i.e. the former Greek colonies) became allied city-states of the Roman Republic and more or less stayed that way until the organization of senatorial and imperial provinces under Augustus. Obviously much of Sicily was an exception, since it was lorded over by the Romans (governed by a praetor as far back as 227 BC, and soon after that included Syracuse following the sack of the city in 212 BC).

Books on the Etruscans, Romans and Carthaginians in this period are not difficult to find. One must question what one would actually write about in a book about the Hellenistic Western Med -

Well, one could start with the book chapters presented in Prag and Quinn's book that I linked to above. Topics include trade and commerce, cross-cultural aristocratic communication, Numidian royal architecture, religious cults of the Carthaginian Empire, the Hellenization of Iberian tribes, the spread of epigraphy, the symbolism of Heracles/Hercules in numismatics of the Western Med, etc.

Greek influence on the Romans is pretty done to death, and on the Carthaginians and Etruscans is not unstudied (bearing in mind our dearth of sources especially for the latter). And as for Greek influence on the Iberians and Gauls, we have no real sources on these beyond archaeology as far as I am aware.

It's a fairly rich amount of archaeological finds, though, and includes a lot of interdisciplinary studies, such as art history and archaeology, for instance. Look at the Hellenizing/Punic influence on Iberian art for that matter, with finds such as the Lady of Baza sculpted by the ancient Bastetani in the 4th century BC:



...and the goddess Tanit of Ibiza, Spain, dated to the 5th-3rd centuries BC:

But that was the case in the pre-Hellenistic era as well - culture I mean. I don't really see a particular trend in saying otherwise.

Well yes, you could say the same for previous periods as well, with the artistic trends of Classical Greece being accepted in western areas of the Mediterranean and before that Archaic Greece and the Orientalizing period. You could even push this as far back as the Mycenaean Age in certain cases. My general point was that the western half of the Mediterranean participated in the same consumption and production of Hellenistic art as the eastern half.

The political/geographic divisions in the West were deep and fairly static. At the end of the day Alexander up ended those in the East, but noboy but Rome did in West (at least in a similar intentional and wide ranging way). So the dichotomy does seem logical.

Also you are as always with history the victem of sources. The might be many dramatic and interesting narratives that might tell all kinds of engaging stories about Marsallia - about political parties, and battles of quite trading state or attempts to confront Carthage, recover Corsica etc. Its innovate moves on money policy or political decisions to accommodate the locals. All leading to far more interest, and archeology and research etc. But there is mostly simply not much to work with.

There's not much to work with precisely because mainland Greek historiographers either deliberately or unconsciously ignored most of what was going on in the western half of the Mediterranean. The grand exception, of course, was Polybius, yet he wrote his history as a consequence of the rise of Rome and Roman conquest of Greece (first the Kingdom of Epirus/Epirote League, then the Macedonian Kingdom, and then the Achaean League). Massalia produced some important figures like Pytheas, but unfortunately no great historians that I'm aware of, whereas Syracuse in Sicily was a powerhouse and arguably behind only Athens and Alexandria as being the greatest city of the Hellenistic world. That is, until it was sacked and diminished by the Romans.

[conon394]

There's not much to work with precisely because mainland Greek historiographers either deliberately or unconsciously ignored most of what was going on in the western half of the Mediterranean.

Well it makes sense seeing as the Political Gulf if not a cultural one in the 'Greek World' certainly existed. A historian of the Aegian in say the 4th century would realistically not have much reason to consider the West.

The grand exception, of course, was Polybius

Unfair to Herodotus

whereas Syracuse in Sicily was a powerhouse and arguably behind only Athens and Alexandria as being the greatest city of the Hellenistic world.

Duris of Samos wrote On Agathocles. Sicily produced Philistus and Andander (although their histories look a little like PR for Agathocles and elder Dionysius because of their relationships - to the subject), Timaeus (although he is educational product of Athens his focus on the West is certainly the result of his origin, and Callias.

Ephorus covered Sicily at least well, in his History.

Over Sicily (Syracuse mostly) is well represented by its own hand and by the ancient writers of 'East' as the one part of the west that orbited into and out of its politics.

But in any case I think simple loss of sources is more important than any being ignored at the time.

[Cyclops]

My own view is that Rome became Hellenised in several waves (and Carthage as well to a lesser degree) and some of those waves were in the Hellenistic period (notably around the Pyrrhic war and the first and second Punic Wars) so its arguable the history of the Roman Republic is the history of the Hellenistic Western Med.

[Copperknickers II]

My own view is that Rome became Hellenised in several waves (and Carthage as well to a lesser degree) and some of those waves were in the Hellenistic period (notably around the Pyrrhic war and the first and second Punic Wars) so its arguable the history of the Roman Republic is the history of the Hellenistic Western Med.

Indeed. In the period from 300 BC to 100 BC you have on the one hand, an almighty clash of civilisations which has defined the modern age* with battles between some of history's most famous generals, and on the other hand, you have some minor city states trading with barely literate barbarians whilst being slowly wiped out, or if you prefer, assimilated. Sorry Roma Victrix I am trolling you somewhat () and I do find the topic very interesting but at the same time you must see why it has been neglected. I think there's a wider trend in historiography for not ascribing a huge amount of research towards nations which lost out in history's Darwinian struggle, we are mainly interested in those which contributed something to the modern world and can be seen as our own ancestors. So all of Europe remembers the Greeks and Romans for obvious reasons, and there's also a much less widespread but still somewhat healthy appreciation for 'barbarians' in ancient history, most especially the Norse and to a lesser extent the Celts. But it should be noted that there's comparitively little enthusiasm in Latin Europe for Celtic history, that mainly comes from the British isles where Celts still actually identify as Celts and speak Celtic languges, to the extent that 'Celtic' is now a synonym for Irish/Scottish culture in the minds of many laypeople despite the fact that the British isles were a backward area on the edge of the map for continental celts, and none moreso than the Irish, until the Romans came and changed all that.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*Just imagine if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, there might never have been a Roman empire. We might be speaking a language that resembles this:

Takhil if Carthage had yafuzzed the Punic War. There might never have been a Rumiyyah Mamlaka. We might be speaking a lugha that tashbahs this.

The above is English replacing Latin words with words of Semitic derivation, using Arabic as a guide since Phoenician is a little difficult to translate to using only the internet.

[Cyclops]

Takhil if Carthage had yafuzzed the Punic War. There might never have been a Rumiyyah Mamlaka. We might be speaking a lugha that tashbahs this.

"What's it going to be then, eh?" That was me, that is Adherbal, and my three sadiqs, that is Philosir, Germelqart and Danel, Danel being really dim, and we sat in the Baqara Milkbar making up our eaqls what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry.

[Roma_Victrix]

Well it makes sense seeing as the Political Gulf if not a cultural one in the 'Greek World' certainly existed. A historian of the Aegian in say the 4th century would realistically not have much reason to consider the West.

I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no Greek geographers who were terribly interested in describing the various peoples in detail of the Western Mediterranean until Strabo, a Greek who lived in the 1st century BC during the late Roman Republic and early Empire.

Unfair to Herodotus

How so? Your terse and cryptic assertion here is unsupported by the evidence, IIRC. I don't remember every single passage in the Histories of Herodotus, but I'm fairly certain he does not devote any significant portion of any chapter of his book to events or peoples of the Western Mediterranean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd have to wait for the Sicilian Greek historians after Herodotus if not Polybius for a history of what was going on in the Western Mediterranean beyond superficial stuff like mythological tales about the Pillars of Hercules (i.e. Strait of Gibraltar).

To the credit of Herodotus, though, he did describe Cyrene and its rulers, as well as the peoples and events of the Black Sea region.

Duris of Samos wrote On Agathocles. Sicily produced Philistus and Andander (although their histories look a little like PR for Agathocles and elder Dionysius because of their relationships - to the subject), Timaeus (although he is educational product of Athens his focus on the West is certainly the result of his origin, and Callias.

Ephorus covered Sicily at least well, in his History.

Over Sicily (Syracuse mostly) is well represented by its own hand and by the ancient writers of 'East' as the one part of the west that orbited into and out of its politics.

But in any case I think simple loss of sources is more important than any being ignored at the time.

That could be the case.

My own view is that Rome became Hellenised in several waves (and Carthage as well to a lesser degree) and some of those waves were in the Hellenistic period (notably around the Pyrrhic war and the first and second Punic Wars) so its arguable the history of the Roman Republic is the history of the Hellenistic Western Med.

I'd call the history of the Roman Republic a partial history of the Western Mediterranean, because Rome didn't become a dominant or key player throughout the region until the First Punic War, which didn't begin until 264 BC. That's well into the Hellenistic period and long after Hellenistic artistic trends and modes of thought from the Eastern Mediterranean had penetrated the Western Mediterranean. Your hypothesis also unfairly removes focus away from important western Greek cities like Massalia and Emporion. I'm glad you included Carthage, though, because they are part of the same story and were indeed influenced by Hellenistic Greece and for that matter the Hellenistic diadochi successor kingdoms of Ptolemaic Egypt/Libya and Seleucid Asia.

Take for instance the introduction of minted coinage for Carthage and its initial use in Sicily aimed at Greek consumption during the 4th century BC. The Romans were also late to this game, producing Greek-style silver coinage in about 281 BC during the invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus, while Roman-produced coinage from Neapolis appeared no earlier than 300 BC. The spread of this form of standard currency was one of many aspects of Hellenization in the Western Med during the Hellenistic period.

Indeed. In the period from 300 BC to 100 BC you have on the one hand, an almighty clash of civilisations which has defined the modern age* with battles between some of history's most famous generals, and on the other hand, you have some minor city states trading with barely literate barbarians whilst being slowly wiped out, or if you prefer, assimilated. Sorry Roma Victrix I am trolling you somewhat () and I do find the topic very interesting but at the same time you must see why it has been neglected. I think there's a wider trend in historiography for not ascribing a huge amount of research towards nations which lost out in history's Darwinian struggle, we are mainly interested in those which contributed something to the modern world and can be seen as our own ancestors.

That's a profoundly cynical if not dangerous way to approach history and discovery of the past. If we applied this rule to every region of the world then the Mayan pyramids and temples would remain dormant in the jungles of Central America, because who needs archaeologists to excavate them? They were built by the Mayans. You know: an inconsequential people for the modern world.

So all of Europe remembers the Greeks and Romans for obvious reasons, and there's also a much less widespread but still somewhat healthy appreciation for 'barbarians' in ancient history, most especially the Norse and to a lesser extent the Celts. But it should be noted that there's comparitively little enthusiasm in Latin Europe for Celtic history, that mainly comes from the British isles where Celts still actually identify as Celts and speak Celtic languges, to the extent that 'Celtic' is now a synonym for Irish/Scottish culture in the minds of many laypeople despite the fact that the British isles were a backward area on the edge of the map for continental celts, and none moreso than the Irish, until the Romans came and changed all that.

Okay, but that actually does little to explain why the Greeks and those they influenced in the Western Mediterranean are neglected now. I can understand why it was neglected by mainland Greek historians of the 5th-2nd centuries BC since it was far removed from their immediate concerns like the pernicious military threat of the Macedonian kings or even the marauding Galatian Celts. It does little to explain why modern historians have taken a similar approach. Especially since we are still talking about Greeks here, less so the little-known tribes of Iberia or southern Gaul, or the rugged, mountain-dwelling native peoples of Sardinia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*Just imagine if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, there might never have been a Roman empire. We might be speaking a language that resembles this:

Takhil if Carthage had yafuzzed the Punic War. There might never have been a Rumiyyah Mamlaka. We might be speaking a lugha that tashbahs this.

The above is English replacing Latin words with words of Semitic derivation, using Arabic as a guide since Phoenician is a little difficult to translate to using only the internet.

Damn, that was actually pretty good. Nicely done. What a Semitic-Germanic mish-mash!

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*Just imagine if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, there might never have been a Roman empire. We might be speaking a language that resembles this:

Takhil if Carthage had yafuzzed the Punic War. There might never have been a Rumiyyah Mamlaka. We might be speaking a lugha that tashbahs this.

The above is English replacing Latin words with words of Semitic derivation, using Arabic as a guide since Phoenician is a little difficult to translate to using only the internet.

"What's it going to be then, eh?" That was me, that is Adherbal, and my three sadiqs, that is Philosir, Germelqart and Danel, Danel being really dim, and we sat in the Baqara Milkbar making up our eaqls what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry.

I'm sorry to be that guy but... You should've used Hebrew instead of Arabic, it's closer to Punic.

[Copperknickers II]

That's a profoundly cynical if not dangerous way to approach history and discovery of the past. If we applied this rule to every region of the world then the Mayan pyramids and temples would remain dormant in the jungles of Central America, because who needs archaeologists to excavate them? They were built by the Mayans. You know: an inconsequential people for the modern world

I'm not defending it Roma I'm just making an observation. I wouldn't have written my dissertation on Machiavelli's Art of War if I thought that we should only study things that are relevant to the modern era, since Art of War was being denounced as obsolete and irrelevant to gunpowder era warfare almost before the ink was dry from its first publication, let alone in the modern world where it pales into insignificance compared to The Prince. I also wouldn't have worked on a research project investigating an extremely poorly known Greek settlement, situated in modern Russia.

Okay, but that actually does little to explain why the Greeks and those they influenced in the Western Mediterranean are neglected now. I can understand why it was neglected by mainland Greek historians of the 5th-2nd centuries BC since it was far removed from their immediate concerns like the pernicious military threat of the Macedonian kings or even the marauding Galatian Celts. It does little to explain why modern historians have taken a similar approach.

You assume that modern historians are immune from the allure of pursuing popular topics on more well known subjects that they feel more connected to personally. My experience of classical academia has taught me that although there is a great enthusiasm for trying to find obscure and uncovered gaps in the knowledge that 2000 years of study has not already filled, this does not often extend to periods where there are not good written historical records in plain Latin/Greek. Classicists like historical records and they aren't hugely thrilled about having to work in barbarian or even Roman/Greek areas without a literary companion in the form of a primary text. That's not to say it doesn't happen but it's less common. The interaction of obscure Greek states with barbarians is a bit of a grey area between actual classicists and ancient historians with more of an interest in the non-Greco-Roman peoples. I only have experience of British universities but you'd be surprised just how huge the gulf is between Celtic/Germanic/Iberian history/archaeology and contemporary Roman and Greek history/archaeology. Two people working at the same university on identical periods focussing on areas only a couple of hundred miles apart might literally never have met each other, if one is in the Celtic Studies department and the other is a Latinist.

As I mention above I worked on a project researching a lesser known Greek settlement outside of the traditional Greek speaking world myself, and I actually asked at one point what the interactions were between the Greeks and the neighbouring barbarian tribes. 'Don't know. That's not what this project is about, let's just focus on the Greeks,' was pretty much as far as that conversation went. I was staggered, since some of the inscriptions we were working on were literally written in a 'barbarian' language right next to a Greek sentence, and some of them weren't even translated since nobody had decided it necessary to get in contact with other academics working on exactly the same place at exactly the same time in history from the other side of the wall of the Greek settlement. And by the way, the last time anybody did any real research to speak of on this particular area was about 120 years ago, I'm talking about just the Greek part of it. Why? Nobody was interested, I guess. I was interested as I say but that's the way it is.

Incidentally have you checked French and Spanish publications for research into Western Greeks? I'm assuming you would have come across them in footnotes and such if there were a whole treasure trove of them that had been ignored by the English speaking world (plus if I remember correctly you're multilingual yourself) but you'd be surprised how much classical scholarship is only available in French or German.

[Roma_Victrix]

I'm sorry to be that guy but... You should've used Hebrew instead of Arabic, it's closer to Punic.

Shh! Keep that up and you'll encourage the conspiracy fanatics to connect Jews to Carthaginians and hence Israel to Tunisia somehow.

I'm not defending it Roma I'm just making an observation. I wouldn't have written my dissertation on Machiavelli's Art of War if I thought that we should only study things that are relevant to the modern era, since Art of War was being denounced as obsolete and irrelevant to gunpowder era warfare almost before the ink was dry from its first publication, let alone in the modern world where it pales into insignificance compared to The Prince. I also wouldn't have worked on a research project investigating an extremely poorly known Greek settlement, situated in modern Russia.

Cool stuff, but I didn't actually accuse you of anything. I simply said that the idea you presented was a cynical and dangerous way to approach history.

You should start a thread about Machiavelli, but in the meantime feel free to share stuff about that ancient polis in Russia. At the very least I'm well aware of the ancient Greeks in Crimea both before and after the Roman Imperial suzerainty over that region of the Black Sea.

You assume that modern historians are immune from the allure of pursuing popular topics on more well known subjects that they feel more connected to personally. My experience of classical academia has taught me that although there is a great enthusiasm for trying to find obscure and uncovered gaps in the knowledge that 2000 years of study has not already filled, this does not often extend to periods where there are not good written historical records in plain Latin/Greek. Classicists like historical records and they aren't hugely thrilled about having to work in barbarian or even Roman/Greek areas without a literary companion in the form of a primary text. That's not to say it doesn't happen but it's less common. The interaction of obscure Greek states with barbarians is a bit of a grey area between actual classicists and ancient historians with more of an interest in the non-Greco-Roman peoples. I only have experience of British universities but you'd be surprised just how huge the gulf is between Celtic/Germanic/Iberian history/archaeology and contemporary Roman and Greek history/archaeology. Two people working at the same university on identical periods focussing on areas only a couple of hundred miles apart might literally never have met each other, if one is in the Celtic Studies department and the other is a Latinist.

That's actually a good point. There is too much compartmentalization and not enough interdisciplinary studies. This is perhaps the consequence of being a specialist in one's field and having to devote all of one's time and energy in one place, while missing some blind spots. It would help to explain why some Classicists (as mentioned by Flavius Aetius recently) didn't know much if anything about the Huns' invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire, yet they could talk all day about material culture and Latin literature.

As I mention above I worked on a project researching a lesser known Greek settlement outside of the traditional Greek speaking world myself, and I actually asked at one point what the interactions were between the Greeks and the neighbouring barbarian tribes. 'Don't know. That's not what this project is about, let's just focus on the Greeks,' was pretty much as far as that conversation went. I was staggered, since some of the inscriptions we were working on were literally written in a 'barbarian' language right next to a Greek sentence, and some of them weren't even translated since nobody had decided it necessary to get in contact with other academics working on exactly the same place at exactly the same time in history from the other side of the wall of the Greek settlement. And by the way, the last time anybody did any real research to speak of on this particular area was about 120 years ago, I'm talking about just the Greek part of it. Why? Nobody was interested, I guess. I was interested as I say but that's the way it is.

That's depressing and all too similar to a problem encountered by our forum member Sumskilz, as he revealed in his field work as an archaeologist in Israel. For instance, people discarding shards of porcelain thinking they belonged to a modern toilet, when upon further investigation of their neglected contents they turned out to be pieces of Chinese pottery from hundreds of years ago (Tang-Song-Yuan-Ming dynasties) that were imported luxury items to the Levant. This is what happens when people neglect and ignore things they don't understand and then follow up by doing nothing, instead of consulting other professionals.

I honestly hope the aforementioned material your colleagues worked on gets ciphered correctly.

Incidentally have you checked French and Spanish publications for research into Western Greeks? I'm assuming you would have come across them in footnotes and such if there were a whole treasure trove of them that had been ignored by the English speaking world (plus if I remember correctly you're multilingual yourself) but you'd be surprised how much classical scholarship is only available in French or German.

That's a fantastic point. French, German, Spanish, and Italian publications could yield better fruit than research in Anglophone countries. This is particularly the case for archaeology of obscure civilizations. That being said, I think the Cambridge University Press (which published the book mentioned above) does more than a decent job reflecting the major trends and ideas of academia as a whole, not just in Anglophone countries.

[Copperknickers II]

Cool stuff, but I didn't actually accuse you of anything. I simply said that the idea you presented was a cynical and dangerous way to approach history.

I must have misread the tone of your post then, apologies.

I partly agree with you however on the other hand history is not just a pastime for scholars, it's also used a tool for understanding the modern world. Complaining at historians for focussing on more 'relevant' areas of study is a little like complaining at biologists for trying to cure diseases instead of investigating the dinosaurs more. There's only so much funding after all and research that involves a lot of archaeology and not a lot of economic or political currency is less easy to justify. Obviously not all research has to be done as part of large scale funded projects, much of it is just sitting around in libraries writing a book and occasionally flying to other countries, but still there is a certain amount of practicality inherent in academia even in humanities that could be putting people off in this instance. Just a suggestion of course it might not be relevant here and it's not that I don't agree with you, I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

You should start a thread about Machiavelli,

I don't think anything I have to say on the subject would interest anyone here, it was a textual study and not a very in depth one at that. I'm not an expert on Machiavellian philosophy by any means.

but in the meantime feel free to share stuff about that ancient polis in Russia. At the very least I'm well aware of the ancient Greeks in Crimea both before and after the Roman Imperial suzerainty over that region of the Black Sea.

I will do, once it passes into the public domain that is. And Crimea is the general area in question, although there are sites (not necessarily poleis but small trading posts) deeper into Russia - I hope I'm not offending any Ukrainians by referring to Crimea as Russian, I'm just trying to be mysterious and not give away too much personal information .

That's actually a good point. There is too much compartmentalization and not enough interdisciplinary studies. This is perhaps the consequence of being a specialist in one's field and having to devote all of one's time and energy in one place, while missing some blind spots. It would help to explain why some Classicists (as mentioned by Flavius Aetius recently) didn't know much if anything about the Huns' invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire, yet they could talk all day about material culture and Latin literature.

Indeed (and I'm guessing you mean me btw, not Flavius Aetius, unless he by chance had the exact same experience as myself ).

That's depressing and all too similar to a problem encountered by our forum member Sumskilz, as he revealed in his field work as an archaeologist in Israel. For instance, people discarding shards of porcelain thinking they belonged to a modern toilet, when upon further investigation of their neglected contents they turned out to be pieces of Chinese pottery from hundreds of years ago (Tang-Song-Yuan-Ming dynasties) that were imported luxury items to the Levant. This is what happens when people neglect and ignore things they don't understand and then follow up by doing nothing, instead of consulting other professionals.

Oh dear. Yes, I can imagine that happening.

[conon394]

How so?

Sorry. He narrates the Greek colonies in the west, and their rivalries with the Phoenicians/Carthage/Etruscans. He includes the politics of Sicily and Magna Graecia around the time the Persian wars. They are none of them really key to his main narrative, but its not like he just ignore the west or far west.

I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no Greek geographers who were terribly interested in describing the various peoples in detail of the Western Mediterranean until Strabo, a Greek who lived in the 1st century BC during the late Roman Republic and early Empire.

Who do you classify as clearly a Geographer vs a Historian (Before Starbo)? Even Strabo goes on about history.

Aristotle's Constitutions included Carthage, Massalia, Cyrene, and several cities in Sicily and Italy. That's no bit player. Also Aristotle was not adverse to a story encompassing local culture and traditions. Say the Story of Euxenos and Petta and their marriage (she being the daughter of a local Gaul king). In many cases outside of Athens and places like Corinth or Carthage vague stories were key to trying to ascertain the current constitutions.

[Cyclops]

... In many cases outside of Athens and places like Corinth or Carthage vague stories were key to trying to ascertain the current constitutions.

Thx, nice summary and cleared up my woolly thinking. Aristotle heralds the Hellenistic age by educating its progenitor, and he tours the Mediterranean world (east and west) with his works.

I take Copper's point that the politics of study direct its focus, and I guess in the West where Hellenic culture encountered pre-literate cultures rather than the dense web of established civilisations in the west that there's less written history so its more archaeology.

[Roma_Victrix]

I partly agree with you however on the other hand history is not just a pastime for scholars, it's also used a tool for understanding the modern world. Complaining at historians for focussing on more 'relevant' areas of study is a little like complaining at biologists for trying to cure diseases instead of investigating the dinosaurs more. There's only so much funding after all and research that involves a lot of archaeology and not a lot of economic or political currency is less easy to justify. Obviously not all research has to be done as part of large scale funded projects, much of it is just sitting around in libraries writing a book and occasionally flying to other countries, but still there is a certain amount of practicality inherent in academia even in humanities that could be putting people off in this instance. Just a suggestion of course it might not be relevant here and it's not that I don't agree with you, I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

I agree to an extent, but this is hardly akin to something so arcane as an anthropological investigation of pygmy peoples in Africa. We're still talking about the Greeks and their influence here in the Mediterranean world. That should nominally be a huge selling point for multiple departments at just about any major university. I just think it is odd that the bias/prejudice/ignorance/apathy of certain mainland Greeks for peoples and events further West beyond the cursory "yep, we founded colonies over there a while ago" is an attitude that is still reflected in modern scholarship, whether that is conscious or subconsciously done in today's halls of academia.

I don't think anything I have to say on the subject would interest anyone here, it was a textual study and not a very in depth one at that. I'm not an expert on Machiavellian philosophy by any means.

That's too bad! We could use more threads on subjects like literature, although the Renaissance period itself has been beaten to death here in the VV.

I will do, once it passes into the public domain that is. And Crimea is the general area in question, although there are sites (not necessarily poleis but small trading posts) deeper into Russia - I hope I'm not offending any Ukrainians by referring to Crimea as Russian, I'm just trying to be mysterious and not give away too much personal information .

Say no more!

Indeed (and I'm guessing you mean me btw, not Flavius Aetius, unless he by chance had the exact same experience as myself ).

Crap. Did I remember that incorrectly? Come to think of it, he was part of the thread conversation, but I guess it was your story to begin with.

Sorry. He narrates the Greek colonies in the west, and their rivalries with the Phoenicians/Carthage/Etruscans. He includes the politics of Sicily and Magna Graecia around the time the Persian wars. They are none of them really key to his main narrative, but its not like he just ignore the west or far west.

Okay, that's something at least. It's not an entire chapter's worth of material like he devotes to other topics, but at least he includes this stuff. I had forgotten about that entirely or simply ignored these passages. Then again I haven't read his entire Histories, so I should probably get on that.

Who do you classify as clearly a Geographer vs a Historian (Before Starbo)? Even Strabo goes on about history.

Aristotle's Constitutions included Carthage, Massalia, Cyrene, and several cities in Sicily and Italy. That's no bit player. Also Aristotle was not adverse to a story encompassing local culture and traditions. Say the Story of Euxenos and Petta and their marriage (she being the daughter of a local Gaul king). In many cases outside of Athens and places like Corinth or Carthage vague stories were key to trying to ascertain the current constitutions.

I was basically saying that no geographer before Strabo covered the Western Med as extensively as he before his time, although obviously historians like Polybius and such covered the major events before him.

[Ludicus]

... as the authors reveal, the Western Mediterranean was by no means divorced from the eastern half during the Hellenistic period

Another splendid book I bought last year is the "Great Sea, A Human History of the Mediterranean", David Abulafia. With an emphasis on the Part Two, the Second Mediterranean,1000 BC-AD 600.

[Roma_Victrix]

Another splendid book I bought last year is the "Great Sea, A Human History of the Mediterranean", David Abulafia. With an emphasis on the Part Two, the Second Mediterranean,1000 BC-AD 600.

Thanks for sharing!

[Kyriakos]

I think there should be an entire periplous on this subject

[Roma_Victrix]

I think there should be an entire periplous on this subject

It's time to make the Massaliote Periplus great again.