Does Herodotus offer adequate explanations for Greek colonisation during the archaic period Essay Example

Does Herodotus offer adequate explanations for Greek colonisation during the archaic period Essay Example Does Herodotus offer adequate explanations for Greek colonisation during the archaic period Essay Does Herodotus offer adequate explanations for Greek colonisation during the archaic period Essay Essay Topic: History In order to assess how adequate Herodotus explanations for Greek colonisation in the archaic period are it is necessary to first look at Herodotus’ reasons behind the establishment of Hellenic settlements, the attitudes of modern historians. Herodotus relies heavily on religion as a main factor behind Greek colonisation, most notably the Delphic Oracle at the Temple of Apollo. Herodotus and modern historians also mention political motivation for the foundation of new colonies however the latter prefer to focus more on ‘land hunger’ and trade developments as being the main reasons behind the institution of apoikia. Lastly it is important to examine the reliability of Herodotus himself; assessing whether The Histories is dependable on its own as source or whether other information is required along side it to paint an adequate picture for the true purpose behind Greek colonisation during the archaic period. The most important reason Herodotus uses to explain Greek colonisation would be down to instructions relayed by the Delphic oracle. Herodotus writes how the â€Å"Phocaean’s made Cyrnus their destination, because twenty years earlier, on the advice of an oracle, they had founded a community there called Alalia†[1] and also how the colonisation of Cyrene involves the apparent founder Battus consulting the Pythia[2]. These examples therefore show that Greeks placed great stock in the predictions made by the oracle which they believed were messages being relayed by the Gods. Dillon and Garland agree with this assessment by stating that â€Å"men of former times†¦ would not found cities, or surround themselves with walls, or kill anyone, or get married before they had learnt all they could from the seers†[3]. Descoeudres agrees that â€Å"consultation of the Delphic oracle was a normal, even mandatory prelude to a colonizing venture†[4] but later goes on to argue â€Å"but was sought from the Gods was a sanction for action already decided upon†[5]. This idea that Greek cities wanted approval for expeditions that they had already planned is concretized by Dillon and Garland who state that â€Å"most mother-cities would have known their destination in advance†. Therefore it could be argued that Greeks did not require the Delphic oracle as a director of the expedition, but for divine authorisation, one which could not be contested by rival claimants to the newly establishment settlement. This is particularly evident in the case of Cyrene where both the Therans and the Lacedaemonian accounts of the settlements origin differ widely except from the involvement of character known as Battus and his consultation of the Delphic oracle in their attempt lay claim to that territory. Dillon and Garland state that â€Å"while it was important by the fifth century to ensure a colony had the backing of Apollo at Delphi there are no recorded foundation oracles for several colonies of the 8th and early 7th centuries†[6] which could be used to support Demand’s assertions that â€Å"the participants (of the colonisation movement) would have wanted to have a clear title to their land, and this could only be provided by the Gods†¦ some oracular responses may even have been invented at a later time by poleis tidying up their local histories†[7]. Therefore, there is ample evidence to suggest that Herodotus’ testimony that the Delphic oracle was a motivation behind Hellenic expansion is not an adequate explanation for Greek colonisation during the archaic period but instead can be used to examine the attitudes of those reporting to the father of history. On the other hand, both modern and ancient sources agree that political differences had its part to play regarding Greek colonisation during the archaic period. Herodotus explains how the entire Tean populace â€Å"took to their ships and sailed away to Thrace where they founded the city of Abdera†[8] due to pressure from the Persian forces under the command of Harpagus. The impeding nature of a larger, more powerful army aiming to conqueror a city would arguably be a good reason for that group of people to move to a safer area in order to survive. Along with external political enemies being the reason for colonisation amongst the Hellenic peoples, internal political strife was also evident; one example being Dorieus failed attempt to colonise in Libya and later Sicily due to his brother Cleomenes I being crowned King of Sparta[9]. Dillon and Garland assert that along with other factors â€Å"political problems at home were the primary social and economic factors that impelled cities to send out settlements elsewhere†[10] which corresponds with Speake who argues â€Å"the foundation of Tarentum and Cyrene both refer to political strife, while Phocaea was a response to Persian expansion†[11]. Therefore political conflicts did also contribute to the Greek colonisation movement however it could be argued only on a smaller, more specific scale. The threat of a Persian invasion laying waste to cities and placing its inhabitants in captivity would seem like a reasonable excuse to relocate however this does not explain motivations behind colonisation before and after the conquests of Darius and later Xerxes I. The fact that Herodotus says â€Å"the Phocaeans and the Teans were the only Ionians who emigrated from the native lands rather than endure slavery† implies that external political pressure was limited as a reason for Greek colonisation. Colonisation stories similar to that of Dorieus would mainly have been restricting to only a few mother-cities like Sparta who abided by the Male Primogeniture rule of inheritance (the entire estate of the father going to the eldest son) rather than partible inheritance (equal division of father’s estate amongst children) whereby which led Dorieus to seek foreign land. In summation, political motivations were minor reasons for Greek colonisation during the archaic period. A more extensive argument for Greek colonisation during the archaic period, maintained by modern historians, would be economic factors, chiefly land hunger and trade benefits. A combination of partible inheritance and population rise meant that less land was being divided between more people and that ultimately â€Å"there was not enough arable land in the existing Greek world to support the growing population by agriculture and pasturage alone†[12]. This assessment is accepted by Crawford who concurs that â€Å"shortage of land as a result of the growth of population in the eight century mainly lies behind the need to found settlements overseas†[13] and Dillon and Garland who agree that â€Å"it is important to realize how significant population size could be in Greek cities throughout this period†[14] and later go on to mention Thera’s colonisation of Cyrene due to drought and population increase, a settlement Herodotus problematically explains as being a result of an oracular prophecy. This view seems more concrete given archaeological finds such as increased amounts of graves being dated to around that period and urbanisation of large cities during that time. In conclusion, the reasons Herodotus gives for Greek colonisation during the archaic period are useful as a starting point but not adequate as an entire description of the movements made by the Hellenics. Tales of divine instruction to establish new settlements and heroic singular efforts against the odds given to us by Herodotus hold less weight compared to the economic practicality of creating new communities to relieve the increase of population, a view upheld by most modern historians. Although factors such as religious zeal and political strife were possibly involved in the decision to set up new colonies they are not as significant as the economic advantages concerned. However this view of Herodotus as an inadequate source is by no means a criticism of his ability as a historian, rather a limitation on the reliability of the information he was given. It is clear that Herodotus’ resources were flawed and he himself implies that there are restrictions on their usefulness[15]. Luraghi agrees with this assessment of the passage and the Histories as whole by stating â€Å"Herodotus explicitly says a couple of times that his task is to report what is said, regardless of whether he believes it or not†[16]. Therefore Alone, Herodotus offers adequate explanations of the views of locals regarding the founding of settlements and their attitudes towards religion and heroes but must be used alongside archaeology and the views of modern historians in order to paint and adequate picture of Greek colonisation during the archaic period.