Constructing and deconstructing Carian identity: Xanthus of Lydia, Felix Jacoby and Herodotus.
The text of the Xanthus fragment was reconstructed by Felix Jacoby in order to fill what he perceived as a lacuna, which extended Car's genealogy downwards through Manes and Atys. (8) Jacoby, however, constructed a theoretical genealogical line of identity which might not have been expressed in this way by Xanthus, and hence needs to be deconstructed. Lionel Pearson, in fact, rightly rejected Jacoby's additions, but in suggesting that his addition of parentheses could improve the text he may himself have subverted its original sense. (9) The following Greek text represents Jacoby's text, including his suggested additions. Also included is Pearson's addition of parentheses:
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (12) Torrhebus, a polis of Lydia, from Torrhebus son of Atys. The ethnic is Torrhebioi and the feminine form is Torrhebis. (In Torrhebian territory there is a mountain named Carius and the shrine of the hero Carius is there. Carius is the child of Zeus and Torrhebia, according to Nicolaus Book Four), <then Manes, then Atys, then Torrhebus,> who, wandering around a lake which was called Torrhebia by him, hearing the sound of Nymphs which the Lydians also call Muses, was both instructed in mousike and taught it to the Lydians, and the songs, on account of this, were called Torrhebian.
Others had previously intimated a solution supported by numismatic evidence, without addressing the perceived problem of the lacuna, but neither Jacoby nor Pearson properly dealt with this evidence. (13) Louis Robert addressed both the numismatic evidence and the question of the lacuna, (14) but his suggestions create several further problems. However, Jacoby's constructed genealogy has been generally accepted post-Pearson, which suggests that, collectively, these views should be retested. (15) It will be argued that Jacoby's additional text is unnecessary but that Pearson's suggested alterations are equally unconvincing. The numismatic evidence, on the other hand, offers a clue to the missing information and properly contextualises the surviving text. Thus, the passage can be read in a way which elucidates a question of Carian identity in a Lydian context earlier than that of the Labraundean genealogy reported to Herodotus.
Xanthus' floruit is dated to the mid fifth century. (16) Born at about the turn of the sixth and fifth centuries, his father Candaules was probably Lydian, although his mother may have been Greek. (17) Xanthus' Lydian history (Lydiaca) was probably written in Ionian Greek and influenced by Greek intellectualism, particularly Ionian rationalism. In general terms it would have served to explain Lydian history, customs and traditions not only to a potential Greek audience but also to a Lydian or other Hellenised non-Greek audience. (18) The Lydiaca was produced contemporaneously with Herodotus' Histories, although a fragment of Ephorus suggests that Xanthus may have favoured older material. (19)
Why might the Carian eponymous figure have been included in a genealogy by a Lydian author writing on Lydian history? According to Wacholder, Nicolaus included the information in Book Four of his Histories, (20) making Torrhebus a hero from the legendary period in which native figures such as Mopsus and Tylus were located, (21) and within Greek mythology Heracles. (22) Elements within these strains of mythology have been traced to Sumerian and Hittite traditions but became interwoven in the complex tapestry of Lydian mythology. (23) Whether or not the tradition of Torrhebus was alive orally or in written form prior to the Mermnad period is uncertain. Balcer, however, has suggested that following the Mermnad usurpation of power the Greek structure of Lydian stories was influenced by Lydian nobility. (24) Thus, with regard to Carius, a historical context for the Xanthian tradition can be defined. This is based on the prominence of Carians in Sardian politics and is further supported by Sardian archaeological, Carian inscriptional and Greek literary evidence.
Following the downfall of the last Tylonid king, Candaules (?-c. 680), a new dynasty (the Mermnadae) assumed power in Sardis, the first of its kings being Gyges (c. 680-644). (25) According to Plutarch, Carian supporters of Gyges, particularly Mylasans, intervened on his behalf when he usurped power from Candaules. At this time, Arselis, the leader of the Mylasan faction of Carian support, is said to have transferred the religious paraphernalia (the labrys) of the Lydian kings to the sanctuary of Zeus Labraundeus in Caria. (26) Whilst Gyges was in power he campaigned against Miletus and Smyrna and took Colophon. Gyges' son, Ardys (c. 645-c. 625), subsequently continued the campaign against Miletus and also took Priene. (27) There is an absence of textual evidence for Carian involvement in Lydian politics during the reign of Sadyattes (c. 625-600), son of Ardys, (28) although the anti-Milesian policy was continued by his son, Alyattes (c. 600-c. 561), as were the campaigns against Ionian poleis. (29)
During the reigns of Alyattes and his son, Croesus (c. 560-547), Carian and Lydian history is clearly intertwined, and it seems certain that the Mermnadae sought Carian support. Alyattes married a Carian wife who was to become the mother of Croesus and undertook a military campaign in Caria. (30) He also supported the ascendency of his half-Carian son, Croesus, at the expense of the child of his Greek wife, Croesus' half-Ionian brother, Pantaleon. (31) The political ramifications of this move strongly suggest that Alyattes' attention was focused upon relationships with Carians, possibly at the expense of Ionian interests. (32) The military activities of the Mermnadae need not, however, be considered to have been anti-Ionian in terms of ethnic identity, and it is almost certain that trade or other economic considerations played a part. (33) These activities were also not necessarily anti-Carian, although many Carians in the Ionian poleis may have sided with their local communities in order to protect local interests.
Pedley suggested that Mermnad political and military strategies may have been fuelled by a 'Carian alliance or pro-Carian thinking' within Sardis. (34) The actions of Alyattes imply this, and archaeological evidence from Sardis and the nearby territory of Torrhebia supports the suggestion further. A Carian presence in Sardis is indicated by numerous Carian graffiti and an undated inscription identified as a form of the Carian language. (35) Discovered in an 'industrial-commercial' area, near assemblages of pots containing the skeletons of puppies (usually accompanied by an iron knife), the graffiti are dated to c. 575-25 and have a suggested chronological range of seventy-five to one hundred years. (36) The assemblages were deposited as ritual meals offered to a deity, possibly Enyalius, Hecate or the Maeonian Candaules, (37) each of whom had a function connected with war. (38) Dogs are considered to have been 'the sacrificial animal par excellence ... among the Carians'. (39) These may also have been Carian sacrifices offered in a culturally syncretic (post-Hittite > Anatolian > Greek) Lydian environment. On the basis of comparative evidence, it can be inferred that these ritual deposits could have been connected directly in some way with strength in war, or indirectly with other military matters. (40) This is appropriate for Carians, who were held in high regard as heavy infantry soldiers in the seventh and sixth centuries, (41) and who are known to have been both used and sold as mercenaries by Gyges. (42)
In combination, the literary testimonies and the inscriptions, with the evidence of the repeated ritual, offer confirmation of the regular presence of Carians--possibly connected with military campaigns--who freely used the Sardian 'industrial-commercial' area for ritual purposes. (43) Two periods of Carian prominence in Sardian affairs are delineated by the literary evidence: that of the rule of Gyges, who certainly had Carian supporters, and of Alyattes when Carian support was fostered, after which he was succeeded by his Sardian but half-Carian son, Croesus, who also probably had Carian support. (44) The archaeological evidence for a Carian presence in Sardis is dated to one of the only two periods during which Carians are prominently recorded in Greek sources describing Mermnad affairs: that is, to the periods when Alyattes and Croesus ruled. Based on the evidence, Carians appear to have been less prominent during the rule of Sadyattes. This suggests that there was a diminished Carian presence after the rule of Gyges, followed by a resurgence of Carian activity in Sardis during the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus. (45)
Further evidence of Carian influence near Sardis is found in Xanthus' description of a sanctuary of Carius situated in Torrhebian territory on Mount Carius (Kel Dag), close to Mount Tmolus (Boz Dag) on which Lake Torrhebia (Golcuk) was located. (46) The Torrhebians were not Lydians, based upon the mythogenealogical distinction provided by Xanthus the eponymous Torrhebian hero was Torrhebus, as Lydus was for Lydians. Also, Xanthus distinguishes the Torrhebians and Lydians linguistically in a similar way that the lonians and Dorians could be differentiated. (47) Since before the fifth century, the sanctuary of Carius was probably an open-air sanctuary and 'a focal point for the regional cults of Mount Tmolus'. (48) The local water sources may have had importance for local cults, and the site of the sanctuary of Carius was most likely dignified by Zeus' presence in his function as a rain-bringing god. The sanctuary was on the route of the procession from the Ephesian Artemisium to that at Sardis, a ritual in which Carians are likely to have participated. (49) There is archaic evidence of settlement in the general vicinity, and the significance of the area is further suggested by roads that would have been in use during the sixth and fifth centuries. Specifically, the sanctuary was located near the roads lying east and west of the Pactolus River and running north from Hypaepa to Sardis over Mount Tmolus. Possession of the sanctuary of Carius was strategically important, as it commanded a view of the southern valleys of Mount Tmolus, and the sanctuary's locale may have been part of a chain of communication points running from Hypaepa to Sardis. (50)
The archaeological evidence indicates a significant Carian presence in the area of the sanctuary, and the lines of communication with Sardis suggest a degree of Sardian influence over the region of Torrhebia in the sixth century. When Xanthus' Lydiaca was written the sanctuary of Carius had already been established, which must be considered in relation to the Carian presence in Sardis from the seventh to sixth centuries and onwards. Such conditions virtually guarantee a Carian involvement at the sanctuary of Carius. The fact that a Carian presence is difficult to identify archaeologically may be due to the influences of Lydian and Torrhebian material culture.
Xanthus provided an upward genealogy for Carius, making him a son of Zeus and Torrhebia, and there are possible reasons that could explain this. Jacoby, however, in filling a lacuna, added genealogical information which he imagined was appropriate, but his solution presumes too much. (51) Adding Manes and Atys as descendants of Carius creates a situation where, if eponymous figures are considered, Maeonians could be seen as descendants of Carians. An alternative reading might suggest a period of Carian control of Lydia before Maeonian. Neither suggestion, however, is supportable by Jacoby's reconstruction. There are partial grounds for Jacoby's suggestion if one takes Herodotus' reports of what the Lydians themselves said, which was that Atys was a son of Manes. (52) Also, Xanthus described Torrhebus as the son of Atys, (53) but a common Lydian tradition reported by Herodotus makes no reference to Torrhebus, and the son of Atys in this tradition is Tyrrhenus. (54) In referring to Manes, Herodotus also provided a Lydian genealogy that made Cotys his son. (55) Jacoby's information about Manes and Atys might yet be acceptable, but Dionysius of Halicarnassus reported another tradition that made Manes a son of Zeus and Ge, putting Manes on the same horizontal stemmatic level as Carius.56 None of these traditions suggest that Carius should be considered as the father of Manes. Therefore, as the father/son relationship of Carius and Manes lacks attestation, except in Jacoby's restoration, the genealogical step from Carius to Manes is difficult to accept. Consequently, without Manes or Atys in the genealogy, the importance of the remaining information concerning Carius must be interpreted through his matrilineal descent line. Thus, without dependence upon any questionable textual additions, and by acknowledging only the genuine ancient information, Carius and the Carians, along with Torrhebia and the Torrhebians, are not forced into a non-existent genealogical relationship with Manes and Atys as descendants. The remaining upward genealogy of Carius indicates a mythogenealogical relationship linking Carians with Torrhebians.
After removing Jacoby's questionable addition, a residual problem is that this leaves the text lacking grammatical sense. This is based upon a translation of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] as 'from him', which produces an odd result that Carius, from (or after) himself, had named a lake Torrhebia. Justifiably, Pearson questioned this, but his addition of parentheses is an awkward and complicated solution. Other possible alternatives avoid these difficulties. For example, without the parentheses [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] could be taken in the same way as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], making Carius the agent by whom--not the person from (after) whom--the lake was named. (57) Examples from the Suda could be used to defend such a reading, supported by similar usages from Herodotus and Thucydides. (58) A variable reading of the two uses of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] would still not resolve Jacoby's identification of twenty seven or twenty eight missing letters. To avoid the complications, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in the first line can be understood as from (after) Torrhebus, and it is then preferable to accept consistent usage in the succeeding text.
There is wide agreement that the information following the lacuna indicates that Torrhebus' name is missing from the text. Suggesting further confirmation of why Carius is not the figure described wandering by the lake is that the Suda entry is about the polis of Torrhebus, its founding and other Torrhebian matters. It is not actually about Carius. Further, it is strange that Carius would have taught music known as Torrhebian to the Lydians. It is also difficult to ascertain a reason why the Lydians would consider their own music to be Torrhebian, but taught to them by Carius, particularly given the indications of ancient arguments attempting to linguistically distinguish Lydian and Torrhebian identities. (59) On the other hand, Torrhebus' name is well connected with music, particularly in the addition of a fifth string to the lyre. (60) There is no ambiguity in the numismatic evidence, confirming that it is Torrhebus with whom a musical association should be made. Carius, however, is difficult to connect with music.
Still, Carius' place in the story requires an explanation. As it is clear that the nymph Torrhebia taught music to the namer of the lake and that this was Torrhebus, Carius could simply be a genealogical addition connected to the nymph's name for some other purpose. For example, it might explain the existence of the shrine and the name of the mountain. Therefore, the passage makes more sense if Torrhebus was wandering, and after meeting the nymph who taught him Torrhebian music he then passed it on to the Lydians. He was also the eponym of the Torrhebians and their polis, and thus from his name that of their music was also derived. This logically implies (with near certainty) that the lacuna contained Torrhebus' name, but a restoration could not be based upon this alone. As it is prudent to accept a consistent use of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], Jacoby's and Pearson's suggested repairs are unnecessary, the text is grammatically sound as it stands, and Carius' upward genealogy remains clear. Importantly, removing the uncertain textual content minimises the danger of a misinterpretation with regard to questions of mytho-genealogical identity. The text can thus be utilised with Jacoby's perceived lacuna acknowledged:
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (19-20) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (61) Torrhebus, a polis of Lydia, from Torrhebus son of Atys. The ethnic is Torrhebioi and the feminine form is Torrhebis. In Torrhebian territory there is a mountain named Carius and the shrine of the hero Carius is there. Carius is the child of Zeus and Torrhebia, according to Nicolaus Book Four, < ... (19-20)? ... Torrhebus> who, wandering around a lake which was called Torrhebia by him, hearing the sound of Nymphs which the Lydians also call Muses, was both instructed in mousike and taught it to the Lydians, and the songs, on account of this, were called Torrhebian.
Two points are significant where the Carians are concerned. First, it is noteworthy that Carius is a figure whose name was used to explain the reasons for the description of a mountain, as Torrhebia's did for the lake, in what may be considered Torrhebian or Lydian territory. Carius appears as a stranger in a strange land, but the report of a mountain named Carius and a shrine dedicated to a hero of the same name is consonant with the suggestion that Carians held a place in Torrhebian territory, or that Torrhebians should be connected with Carians in some other way. It seems, therefore, that Xanthus has rationalised the Carians into a Torrhebian landscape or reported a local epichoric tradition. In all likelihood an element of both suggestions is contained in the text. Second, the genealogical descent of Carius from Torrhebia suggests that the Carians' place in Torrhebian territory was also being explained through this mythological relationship, which is also consonant with the existence of a mountain named Carius and a shrine for a similarly named hero. Suitably, this is consistent with what would be expected of the presentation of information by a logographer influenced by Ionian rationalism, such as Xanthus.
Torrhebus is shown as a civiliser of the Lydians by the act of teaching them music, casting him in an Apolline role. This aspect of the story might be better considered as a Lydian or Torrhebian tradition recorded by Xanthus. (62) If this is correct, then the myth may have been generated during a period of Carian prominence in Sardis and Torrhebia, which created a need to explain the presence of the Mount Carius sanctuary. An appropriate period for the development of the tradition is well placed in post-Tylonid Lydia, during the Mermnad period of Carian prominence between the rules of Gyges and Croesus; that is, at the time when the Torrhebian sanctuary of Carius was being architecturally developed. Ephorus suggested that Xanthus used more ancient ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) source material than Herodotus. Perhaps this was the type of approach he referred to, suggesting an indication of the way that Xanthus prepared his material.
The Xanthian genealogy for Carius, after removing the textual difficulties, is truncated. Also, for other reasons it lacks mytho-genealogical value in terms of Carian identity. This can be understood by comparison with the following statement of Carian identity reported to Herodotus at Labraunda:
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (63) they point to an ancient shrine of Carian Zeus at Mylasa, to which Mysians and Lydians, as brethren of the Carians (for Lydus and Mysus, they say, were brothers of Car), are admitted, but not those who spoke the same language as the Carians but were of another people.
The Labraundean tradition is specific in the way that it is presented and can be attributed to a particular source, unlike the Xanthian example. Herodotus' information was probably obtained from Mylasa or Labraunda, both of which he could easily have visited. (64) Available evidence suggests, however, that it was not drawn from a written source, as there are no fifth-century indications that such records existed at Labraunda. Also, Herodotus should not have been allowed to enter the temple in order to access written records, if they did exist, because he was not Carian, Mysian or Lydian (he could only gain admittance if he claimed kinship with the non-Greeks, and speaking Carian would not necessarily have guaranteed access). (65) The tradition was presented as something 'they say' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), which might imply a written source, but it is more likely that Herodotus received this information orally. (66) 'They', in this case, can refer only to those permitted to worship at Labraunda, which means that the tradition was probably reported to Herodotus in Carian, Lydian, Mysian or Greek.
Carians permitted at Labraunda spoke Carian and left 'para-Carian' graffiti, (67) but they are likely to have had bilingual Greek speakers in their midst. Herodotus is considered to have known only Greek, but his family connections and his experience of the Carian population of Halicarnassus suggest a possible familiarity with the Carian language. (68) Overall, the evidence strongly indicates that this was an orally reported tradition delivered to Herodotus in Greek and possibly that a scant knowledge of Carian assisted his understanding.
Espousal of the mytho-genealogical tradition of the fraternity of Car, Lydus and Mysus defined participation in religious affairs at Labraunda. Further, as the tradition was expressed in a mytho-genealogical form, defining groups through their eponymous ancestry, it can be said that it also defines the ethnic identities of the religious participants at Labraunda in the mid-fifth century. Supporting this is the fact that the tradition is presented as something 'they' said, making this an example of Luraghi's model of an [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] discourse (what Herodotus heard). (69) Accounts of this kind provide 'the social and or ethnic dimension' of the knowledge Herodotus drew upon, particularly when made by a community which claimed knowledge of its own past. Thus, an [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] discourse was a collective statement originating in a 'group that believes it knows, in the sense of holding as true, a certain tale or piece of information' describing its collective past. (70) In this way ethnicity and identity amount to the same thing, as they are presented as a self-identifying discourse. (71) Unfortunately, the same conditions are inapplicable to the Xanthian fragment. By analogy with the Labraundean tradition, one may expect that Carians and Torrhebians frequented the sanctuary of Carius, but it does not offer a definition of the ethnic identity of those who were so allowed.
How, therefore, should we understand Xanthus' treatment of Carius in comparison with the Labraundean tradition presented by Herodotus? Perhaps this is best done by answering the question, can the figures of Carius ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) at Torrhebia and Car ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) at Labraunda be reconciled as being the same mythological hero? This question is complicated by the existence of Lydian and Torrhebian dialects, as well as possible differences in the Sardian/Lydian conventions which influenced Xanthus' Greek as compared with Herodotus' use of Greek. Religious symbiosis, the rationalising tendencies of Ionian logographers and later syncretic accruals of ideas attached to the name of Carius further complicate the question.
Robert linguistically equated the epithet of Apollo Careius ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) with the name of Carius. He argues that the former was a later variant form of Carius required for verse. This is, however, mid-second-century evidence, by which time a great deal had changed since Xanthus and Herodotus. (72) Carius may well have linguistic equivalence with the second century example of Careius, suggesting the latter to be a syncretic development of an earlier Carius, as Robert thought; this, however, does not necessitate that Xanthus' Carius should be seen as Apollo (Careius) well before this association began. Malay and Bengisu also describe Xanthus' Carius as Apollo, but this dependence upon Robert's linguistic argument presumes more than the evidence permits. (73)
The suggestion that Carius was Apollo has problematic consequences for which it is difficult to provide concise explanations. First, it is difficult to escape the genealogical circumstance that a Carian Apollo was seen as a son of Zeus and Torrhebia, for which there is no comparable evidence. Apollo is the son of Leto. (74) Moreover, the place of his twin Artemis in such a scheme is just as problematic. A solution along these lines also requires an explanation for the alteration of Leto, the daughter of a Titan, for Torrhebia, a nymph. A further difficulty is that Carius is the son of a god and a nymph, and can only be considered as a semi-divine figure, but Apollo Careius must be a divine son of Leto. In fact, there is no Xanthian evidence that Carius is Apollo, and any such suggestion requires detailed further explanation. (75) Since Robert wrote it has also been shown elsewhere that Apollo can be connected with the Bronze Age Anatolian figure, Appaliuna, (76) which now casts earlier findings in a different light. It seems also, that if Carius is a name, then it is a flaw to compare this with a geographic epithet applied to Apollo. Carius is normally treated as an adjective (77) but Xanthus seems not to offer an adjectival description or a geographic epithet for Apollo. When used to describe the mountain that was named after Carius, the word seems to be used as a name in either instance. Other evidence shows that Carius could be treated as a name in antiquity, and not just as a geographic epithet or an adjective. Aelius Herodianus, for example, repeated the description that Carius was a son of Torrhebia, apparently accepting that Carius was the name of a semi-divine figure. (78)
The following scheme offers a simple approach to a complex set of evidence. Prior to Arselis transferring the labrys to Labraunda, the Labraundean Zeus Carius had an earlier cult in Lydia. Xanthus' Carius was understood to be a son of Zeus and was mythologically coupled with Torrhebia (by Xanthus); but when Arselis transferred the labrys, the domicile of Carius' father (Zeus) was also transferred to Labraunda. This properly distinguishes Xanthus' Carius from Zeus, and explains how Carius could later have been rationalised into a Carian setting. Car, as described by Herodotus, is also distinguishable from Zeus Carius, which makes it possible that Carius and Car could be the same figure. If Car, Lydus and Mysus are mytho-genealogical brothers, then Zeus Carius must be on a stemma one or more steps higher than Atys, the father of Lydus according to Herodotus. Xanthus'Torrhebus, however, was a son of Atys, and Car appears on the same horizontal line as Torrhebus in the Labraundean version. Possibly then, Herodotus (or his source) altered the genealogical positions of the eponymous figures, Car and Torrhebus, for a Labraundean environment where promotion of Torrhebians was not required, but that of Lydians and Mysians was. Lydus or Mysus might have absorbed the role of Torrhebus. Later, Torrhebus was represented on mid-second-century coins of Hierapolis in connection with Apollo, who had by this time become more widely popular than the earlier Carian figure known in Torrhebia. By this scheme, it is better to assimilate the more closely contemporaneous Xanthian Carius to the Labraundean Car, the eponymous figure of the fifth-century Carians, rather than equating Carius with Zeus or Apollo, and therefore he need not be connected with Artemis or Leto. Carius and Car, however, can both be understood as an eponymous figure whose name could be written in different ways. In doing so, Carius appropriately remains a lesser figure, rather than being given the wider prominence of Apollo. Thus, these traditions identify two genealogical representations of the name of a Carian eponymous figure, conceptually 'equivalent' but differently presented. Varying audience expectations and authorial practices probably contributed to the differences.
Of course, a hero named Carius or Car may never have actually existed. In that sense, these different mythological conceptions of Car could have been understood as representations of the same hero. More important is the fact that ideations of Car were manufactured and expressed in stories at different times and for different reasons. The historical context of the discourse in Herodotus differs from the earlier Lydo-Torrhebian context. The Lydian empire had fallen following the rule of Croesus, and Achaemenid rule had been established; however, when Herodotus was gathering traditions, the imperial power of Athens was opposed to Achaemenid domination of Lydia, Caria and Ionia. The source differences, therefore, were probably influenced by the changing historical conditions and reflect shifting views concerning expressions and perceptions of the mythographic landscape of Carian ethnic identity between the seventh and fifth centuries.
The description of Carius in Xanthus can be tied to the Mermnad policies involving Carians during the seventh and sixth centuries. The evidence, archaeological and literary, suggests that the cult of Carius would have been an important focus of Carians who were connected in some way with Torrhebian territory. The Carian presence in Sardis can firstly be traced to the period of Gyges' rule, during which time they were involved in Lydian affairs. Later, there is the evidence for Carian support sought by Alyattes through a marriage alliance. Carians featured prominently in Sardian politics between the seventh to mid sixth centuries, at which time Carius became an important mythological figure. Xanthus, working in a post-Croesid environment, appears to have recorded a tradition which was a legacy of seventh-and sixth-century Lydian politics. This tradition developed during the reigns of successive Mermnad kings whose actions altered the balance of Sardian power in with Lydia, Caria and Ionia.
Each source of information discussed here has its own value and one should not be favoured over the other. The examples must be considered in terms of their individual historical contexts, rather than generic universals used to state facts about a particular identity at any given time. In this way, the comparison of the examples from Xanthus and Herodotus illustrate a definitional criterion for a perception of ethnicity held (of themselves) by members of the fifth-century Carian ethne. The mythological variants discussed here are evidence of an active restructuring of Carian mytho-genealogical identity, and highlight a 'fracture point' between two variant strands of mythology. The value of this 'fracture point' is as a form of cognitive artifact which both circumscribes and restructures an aspect of identity. The fracture point thus plays a role in the discursive construction of Carian ethnicity. (79) It may be said that the fifth-century Carians were stepping beyond the constraints of Xanthus' Lydo-Torrhebian representations in order to define their place in a cultural environment which was increasingly influenced by new political factors. Herodotus' Labraundean statement thus defines fifth-century Carian ethnic identity, and was expressed in a way that maintained connections with Lydia. This statement also operated to define Carians as distinct from Greek and other non-Greek ethne. This was done by describing the self-perception of their ancestry in terms of a genealogical stemma, which produced a mytho-genealogical statement of ethnic identity.
This paper has demonstrated that the Xanthus fragment can be used to explain the invention of Torrhebian music and rationalise the presence of identities located in the environs of Torrhebia. The fragment indicates that Carians are likely to have frequented the environs of Torrhebia and were seen by some Lydians as having an identity that was in some way related to the identity of the Torrhebians. This information has some historical value, but its drawback is that it can only be described as something that Xanthus reported. Whilst this is probably a Lydian or Torrhebian tradition, we do not know enough about Xanthus' method of enquiry to establish exactly where the information might have originated. (80) Interpretation beyond this point is speculative and there is also uncertainty as to whether individuals associable with the nominally described identities (Carian and Torrhebian) actually promulgated or accepted the information presented by Xanthus. Thus, it is a very different type of representation to that from Labraunda, which defines ethnic identities. Hence, rather than using the Xanthus fragment from Nicolaus to better understand Carian identity, it is best to take it as a mythological story used to explain the invention of Torrhebian music and to rationalise the presence of identities located in the environs of Torrhebia.
(1) I wish to acknowledge Prof. John Melville-Jones and Dr Neil O'Sullivan for suggestions made after the presentation of this paper in draft form at a seminar held at The University of Western Australia, 2009; remaining errors are those of the author. I also wish to thank the AMPHORA Conference organisers for the opportunity to participate. All translations in this paper are my own. All dates are BCE unless otherwise stated.
(2) Jonathan Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
(3) Nino Luraghi, 'Local Knowledge in Herodotus' Histories', in The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus, ed. Nino Luraghi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 138-60.
(4) Lionel Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939), 121-22; Ben Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 54, 57, 65, 67; H. Malay and Rose Lou Bengisu, 'Torrhebia Limne', Arkeoloji Dergisi (1994): 35.
(5) Peter Carrington, 'The Heroic Age of Phrygia in Ancient Literature and Art,' Anatolian Studies 27 (1977): 120 ff.
(6) Hdt. 1.171.6.
(7) This is likely to be Herodotus' own view rather than a report. See Hdt. 1.7.3, 4.45.5 and 7.74.1. On 4.45.5 cf. David Asheri, Alan Lloyd and Aldo Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 615 ('these things which are common knowledge').
(8) Suda, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]; FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 15.
(9) Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 121 n3.
(10) ibid., with added parentheses, omits Jacoby's, Die Fragmente, suggestion.
(11) Jacoby's restoration, Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker: Continued, ed. G. Schepens (Leiden: Brill, 1998).
(12) Suda, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]; FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 15.
(13) W.M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia: Being an Essay of the Local History of Phrygia from the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest Volume One, Part One (1895; repr., Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004), 88; Barclay V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), 675; Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phrygia (Bologna: A. Forni, 1964), 232, no. 32, pl. XXIX, 9; F. Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Munzen, Band 1 (Wien: Alfred Holder, 1901), 235-6 and pl. VII, 29; L. Weber, 'Apollon Pythoktonos im phrygischen Hierapolis', Philologus 69 (1910): 195-8; L. Weber, 'The Coins of Hierapolis in Phrygia', The Numismatic Chronicle 13 (1913): 140 and pi. III, 46; Louis Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure: Etudes de geographie ancienne, Paris: E. de Bocard, 1962, 2nd edition, 314-5; 'Documents d'Asie Mineure', Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 106 (1982): 346-7 and fig. 11; 'Les dieux des Motaleis en Phrygie', Journal des savants 1-3 (1983): 59 n43.
(14) J. Robert and L. Robert, 'Bulletin epigraphique', Revue des etudes grecques 80 (1967): 545 n582.
(15) For example, Rose Lou Bengisu, 'Lydian Mount Karios', in Cybele, Attis and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren, ed. Eugene Lane (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 3-4; J. Larson, Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 200. Larson, Greek Nymphs, 283, follows Bengisu, 'Lydian Mount Karios'. Bengisu's presentation of the evidence is contra Robert et al., 'Documents d'Asie Mineure', 347 n62, while nevertheless acknowledging the importance of the numismatic evidence. She accepts Jacoby's, Die Fragmente, restored genealogy, but without indication of the lacuna. Her translation wrongly has Carius fulfilling Torrhebus' role.
(16) Generally, see FGrH 765 (Xanthus) with commentary, 239-40; Jacoby, Die Fragmente, 28-40; Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 109-38; George Hanfmann, 'Lydiaka', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology63 (1958): 65-88; Robert Drews, The Greek Accounts of Eastern History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 100-3; Carrington, 117-126; Peter Kingsley, 'Meetings With Magi: Iranian Themes Among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato's Academy', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Third Series) 5 (1995): 173-209; David Toye, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the First Greek Historians', American Journal of Philology 116 (1995): 282 ff.; Der Neue Pauly, s.v. Xanthos ; OCD, s.v. Xanthus (2). Other works by Xanthus discussed magic and the philosopher Empedocles (FGrH 765fr. 31-3).
(17) FGrH 765 (Xanthus), T 2 = Strabo 13.4.9 and see John Pedley, Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 2.
(18) Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 122-23. Probably Nicolaus (FGrH 90) did not draw upon the original version of Xanthus, but rather an abridged Greek version: cf. OCD, s.v. Xanthus (2). Hanfmann, 'Lydiaca', 70, felt that Semitic words might have been used by Xanthus. FGrH 765 (Xanthus), fr. 15 = Strabo 12.8.3 shows that Xanthus had familiarity with the Lydian language (he explained that the origin of the name of the Mysians was drawn from a Lydian word; shown by translating a Greek word back into Lydian, and transliterated to Greek). Xanthus used other non-Ionic words such as the Sardian name, Xuaris ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), for Sardis: FGrH 765 (Xanthus), F 23 = Lydus De mens. 3.20. See also A. Sayce, 'The Decipherment of the Lydian Language', American Journal of Philology 46 (1925): 48.
(19) FGrH 765, fr. 4 = Athen. Deip. 12.515d-e and Robert Drews, 'Ephorus and History Written KATA GENOS', American Journal of Philology 84 (1963): 252 f. (n23 for Ephorus' knowledge of the Lydiaca).
(20) Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus, 65-7.
(21) See Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia] Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Munzen; Weber, 'The Coins of Hierapolis in Phrygia'; Robert, 'Documents d'Asie Mineure' n9 for Mopsus and Torrhebus shown together on coins of Hierapolis. These figures are part of the 'irreducible core of native traditions relating to events before the accession of Gyges': Hanfmann, 'Lydiaka', 68-76 esp. 69, 74; Noel Robertson, 'Hittite Ritual at Sardis', Classical Antiquity 1 (1982): 135 ff. Cf. Jack Martin Balcer, Sparda by the Bitter Sea: Imperial Interaction in Western Anatolia (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1984), 34 f.
(22) See, for example: Hdt. 1.7.4 which describes the Heraclidae--that is, the Tylonids--as descended from Heracles and an unnamed slave, possibly not Omphale; Soph. Trach. 69-70, 252-3 at which Heracles is Omphale's slave; Diod. 4.31.8 and cf. Ovid Epist. 9.54 at which Lamus is described as the son of Heracles and Omphale, queen of the Maeonians, and Cleodaeus as the son of Heracles and a slave, begat whilst Heracles was Omphale's slave; Strabo 5.2.2 at which Atys and his sons, Tyrrhenus and Lydus, are descendants of Heracles and Omphale; Apollod. 2.7.8 at which Agelaus, from whom the family of Croesus was descended, is the son of Heracles and Omphale; Paus. 2.21.3 at which Tyrsenus, discoverer of the trumpet, is the son of Heracles and a 'Lydian woman'.
(23) Hanfmann, 'Lydiaka', 69 ff. and Robertson, 'Hittite Ritual at Sardis', 136-7.
(24) Balcer, Sparda by the Bitter Sea, 42 f., 43 f.
(25) Hdt. 1.13.1. On Candaules (also known as Myrsilus), the last Tylonid king of Lydia, see Brill's New Pauly, s.v. Candaules. On Candaules, the divinity ('the dog throttler'), and the complexities by which this figure is associated with Hermes and Heracles, see Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 98 and C.H. Greenewalt (Jnr), Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 44-52.
(26) Plut. Mor. 301f-302a.
(27) Hdt. 1.15.1.
(28) Hdt. 1.16.1-2; on Sadyattes see also FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 63 and FGrH 767 (Xenophilus), fr. 1.
(29) Hdt. 1.16.1-18.3; FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 63 and FGrH 767 (Xenophilus), fr. 1.
(30) For Alyattes' marriage see Hdt. 1.92.3. FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 65. The information may have had a Xanthian origin (exactly where in Caria is not specified): Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 97.
(31) Plut. Mor. 401e (on the alleged involvement of Croesus' Ionian stepmother in promoting Pantaleon) and 858e (on Croesus' treatment of a sympathiser with Pantaleon).
(32) For other (Mermnad) examples of politically convenient marriages note Gyges' marriage to Candaules' widow, Toudo (a Mysian princess), and Alyattes offering his daughter to the Median crown prince, Astyages (see Balcer, Sparda by the Bitter Sea, 48-51, where he discusses 'harem factionalism').
(33) Cf. Balcer, Sparda by the Bitter Sea, 44-45; overall, 33-93.
(34) Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 97.
(35) See Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 96-9 for discussion of the inscriptions described in George Hanfmann, 'The Sixth Campaign at Sardis (1963)', Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 174 (1964): 50-51; G.M.A. Hanfmann and O. Masson, 'Carian Inscriptions from Sardis and Stratonikeia', Kadmos 6 (1967): 123 ff:, George Hanfmann, D.G Mitten and A. Ramage, 'The Tenth Campaign at Sardis (1967)', Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 191 (1968): 16. The inscriptions are identified as Carian, despite difficulties of reading: Ignacio Adiego, The Carian Language (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 27-9.
(36) Crawford H. Greenwalt (Jnr), Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 27-30, 42. According to Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 97, c 650-c. 625 and c 625-c. 550.
(37) Greenwalt (Jnr), Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis, 3, 40-55;
Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 98-9. Also relevant are Robertson. 'Hittite Ritual at Sardis', 122-40 and B.J. Collins, 'The Puppy in Hittite Ritual', Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42 (1990): 211-26.
(38) The question of the meals' recipient(s) is complex and was left unresolved by Greenewalt (Jnr). Therefore, only the following should be suggested here: for Enyalius, generally, see F. Graf, 'Women, War, and Warlike Divinities', Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 55 (1984): 247-54 and Brill's New Pauly, s.v. Enyalios, which offers that Enyalius was associated with the moment 'immediately preceding the start of battle' and that the deity was appealed to 'as the frontlines [sic] aligned their spears for the first charge'. Thus, Enyalius cannot be analogously connected with the ritual meals. In Sparta dog sacrifices to Enyalius were 'made with the purpose of purifying a wound inflicted by weapons'. Hecate was a multi-functional deity who Hesiod described as a provider of help to 'warriors in battle': Hes. Theog. 431-3 with D. Boedeker, 'Hecate: A Transfunctional Goddess in the Theogony?', Transactions of the American Philological Association 113 (1983): 82-5. For a suggestion that Candaules was known also as Heracles but 'related to an Indo-European war god' see Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 98. Overall, see Greenwalt (Jnr), Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis, 31-54. The whole issue is fraught with uncertainty, given the likely, but difficult to measure, degree of syncretic assimilation of one deity to another which could occur due to the legacy of Hittite influence in Sardian rituals, the cultural interaction between Lydia and Greeks (Ionia, for example) and the far more complex question of syncretic inter-Anatolian ideational developments applied to conceptions of local deities, many of which were also simultaneously being subjected to 'pressures' of Ionian rationalism (easily decribed as 'Hellenisation').
(39) Alfred Laumonier, Les Cultes Indigenes en Carie (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958), 420, 669.
(40) Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 98-99.
(41) See, for example, A.M. Snodgrass, 'Carian Armourers: The Growth of a Tradition', The Journal of Hellenic Studies 84 (1964): 107-18; B.M. Lavelle, Epikouros and epikouroi in Early Greek Literature and History', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 38 (1997): 229-62.
(42) Assurbanipal Prism A, II, 111 ff:, Diod. Sic. 1.66.1 ff.; cf. Hdt. 2.152.1-5. See also Lavelle (ibid.), 229-62 and B.M. Lavelle, 'The Apollodoran Date for Archilochus', Classical Philology 97 (2002): 344-51.
(43) Cf. Pedley, 'Carians in Sardis', 99.
(44) Crawford H. Greenewalt (Jnr) and Ann M. Heywood, 'A Helmet of the Sixth Century BC from Sardis', Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 285 (1992): 17.
(45) The withdrawal of Arselis to Mylasa suggests this (Plut. Mor. 301f-302a).
(46) Suda, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]; FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 15. Jacoby, Die Fragmente, FGrH 765: 240, located Lake Torrhebia, incorrectly suggesting that it was 'identische mit der Gygaean Lake'. For the correct identification see Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure, 314-5. For the location of Mount Carius and Lake Torrhebia see Richard Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), s.v. Karios M. TKY, 56 F5 and s.v. Torrebia L. TKY, 56 G5. For discussions of archaeological evidence see Clive Foss, 'Explorations in Mount Tmolus', California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 11 (1978): 21-60; Clive Foss, 'New Discoveries on Mount Tmolus', American Journal of Archaeology 97 (1993): 318; Malay and Bengisu, 'Torrhebia Limne', 33-43 and Plates 1-4; Bengisu, 'Lydian Mount Karios', 1-36; Hasan Malay and Marijana Rid, 'Some Funerary Inscriptions from Lydia', Epigraphica Anatolica 39 (2006): 68-70 (nos 39, 40).
(47) FGrH 765 (Xanthus), fr. 16 = Dion. Hal. A. R. 1.28.2; Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 121.
(48) Bengisu, 'Lydian Mount Karios', 12.
(49) ibid., 6-12.
(50) Foss, 'Explorations in Mount Tmolus', 27-30; Bengisu, 'Lydian Mount Karios', 13; Strabo 13.4.5.
(51) Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 121 n3. Possibly Jacoby, Die Fragmente, thought that there had been a copyist's error.
(52) Hdt. 1.94.3, 5 and 4.45.3. Asheri et al., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, vouches that '[i]t looks like a local Lydian tradition that Herodotus reports without commenting': Asheri et al., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, 146 and cf. 17 f.
(53) FGrH 765 (Xanthus), fr. 16 = Dion. Hal. A. R. 1.28.2.
(54) Hdt. 1.94.1-5.
(55) Hdt. 4.45.3.
(56) Dion. Hal. A. R. 1.27.1-2.
(57) See, for examples, Friedrich Wilhelm and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 118, sect. 210; LSJ, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (4).
(58) Suda, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], which makes little sense if translated as other than 'by Heracles'. Hdt. 1.15.1; Thuc. 1.17.
(59) The juxtaposition of Lydian and Torrhebian, in musical terms (Plut. De Mus. 1136c), perhaps echoes the same debate.
(60) Boethius, De Institutione Musica, 1.20.
(61) Suda, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]; FGrH 90 (Nicolaus Damascenus), fr. 15.
(62) Cf. Bengisu, 'Lydian Mount Karios', 12 ff.
(63) Hdt. 1.171.6.
(64) The approximate distance between Halicarnassus and Mylasa was forty kilometres, with Labraunda some ten kilometres further away (cf. Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, 61).
(65) Hdt. 1.171.6.
(66) Generally, on Herodotus' use of sources, see W.W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus: With Introduction and Appendixes, Vol. I, Books I-IV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 27-8 and Asheri et al., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, 15 ff.
(67) The available archaeological evidence does not clearly define conditions at Labraunda prior to the Hecatomnid period. For the earliest Greek inscription discovered at Labraunda (early fifth century pyxis with owner's name inscribed) and a description of the next earliest Greek pottery (late fifth century krater) see Pontus Hellstrom, Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches, Vol. II, Part 1: Pottery of Classical and Later Date, Terracotta Lamps and Glass (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965), 12, 48 (pyxis, no. 22, and inscription) and 11 (krater, no. 6). For the earliest political inscriptions in Greek (Hecatomnid, c. 357 BC) see Jonas Crampa, 'The Greek Inscriptions of Labraunda: A Preliminary Survey', Opuscula Atheniensia 3 (1965): 99-104; Alfred Westholm, Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches, Vol. I, Part 2: The Architecture of the Hieron, (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1963), 121-33 and Jonas Crampa, Labraunda: Swedish Excavations and Researches: Vol. III, Part 2: The Greek Inscriptions: Part II: 13-133 (Stockholm: 1972), 39-41 (nos 40, 41). For Carian inscriptions from Labraunda see Gosta Saflund, 'Karische Inschriften aus Labranda', Opuscula Atheniensia 1 (1953): 199-205; Michael Meier-Brugger, Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches, Vol. II, Part 4: Die karischen Inschriften (Stockholm: Paul Astrom, 1983); Lars Karlsson and Olivier Henry, 'A Carian Graffito from Labraunda', Kadmos 47 (2008): 171-6.
(68) Based upon [SIG.sup.3], 45 and 46, which indicate the Carian community at Halicarnassus. Cf. also Asheri et al., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, 2-3 and FGrH 741 (Philippus Theangeleus), fr. 1 = Strab.14.2.28. For Herodotus' knowledge of languages see How and Wells, 27 f.; Asheri et al., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, 17-8.
(69) Luraghi, 'Local Knowledge in Herodotus' Histories', 138-60.
(70) ibid., 147.
(71) Cf. Hall, 40 ff.
(72) Robert, 'Les dieux des Motaleis en Phrygie', 59-61 n43.
(73) Note that Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, marked the sanctuary as being that of Apollo Carius, although this also seems wrongly applied to sixth century conditions in Torrhebia (that is, a sanctuary of Carius but not of Apollo Carius or Careius): Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, s.v. Apollo Karios T. TKY, 56 F5.
(74) For example, Hes. Theog. 918-20; Op. 771; Horn. II. 1.9; Apollod. 1.4.1.
(75) Contra Malay and Bengisu, 'Torrhebia Limne', 35.
(76) Edwin Brown, 'In Search of Anatolian Apollo', Hesperia Supplements 33 (2004): 243-57.
(77) LSJ, s.v. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
(78) Aelius Herodianus, De prosodia catholica, 3.1, 290, 7.
(79) Hall, 41-2 and 87 ff.
(80) On this subject see the suggestions of Kingsley, 'Meetings with Magi', 173.
the university of western australia
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Melbourne Historical Journal|
|Date:||May 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Self-construction: 'auto-ethopoeia' in Romanos' kontakia.|
|Next Article:||Constructing the 'Australian Iliad': ancient heroes and Anzac diggers in the Dardanelles.|