Foundation of Serene: What could the Greek do well, and not so well? It is widely understood through both archaeological evidence and Herodotus' writings that the Foundation of Serene was established in 630 BC by a settlement of Greeks who originated from the island of There (modern day Sanatoria) and were lead by a Teheran named Bathos.However, it is Herodotus who gives all ancient historians invaluable insights into the colonization practices of the ancient Greeks in the archaic period, and despite having his well known limitations, we must overall regard his work 'The Histories' as an equal to archaeological evidence and Discusses' work hen it comes to studying colonization in this period. With the help of Herodotus' writings, it is clear to see that the Ancient Greeks were apt colonists, skilled in setting up trading, and overcoming hurdles that would naturally arise when colonizing a new land such as resources and manpower.
Their reciprocal relationship with their gods and their representatives: the Oracles, played a major role in this and it was also largely due to this arrangement that allowed the Greeks to colonies and spread throughout the Mediterranean. However, it seems the Greeks would later struggle tit a unified identity as Herodotus points out multiple versions of the story, that of the Terrains, and the Cesareans.It is also worth pointing out -although not necessarily addressing- the recent debate amongst modern scholars on the complex issue of historical reliability of the literary evidence on colonization, as questions are asked that no scholar or learned man or woman should avoid considering. The Delphic Oracle and the Ancient Greeks wider religion played a major role in explaining why many Ancient Greek colonies were founded. Mauricio Ganglion (2001, p 117) supports this argument by telling us "The decisive role played by the Delphic oracle is very strongly emphasized, through various narrative devices" in this case Herodotus (4.
50): "the oracle declared that he would found a community in Libya". It is in this way that Herodotus is able to properly shed light on a crucial part of explaining the colonizing process, making it evident that it was foolhardy to go on an expedition without the expressed will of the gods "the importance attached to the God's will is an integral part of a representational strategy [of a colony]" states Ganglion (2001, p 1 18), extending this with "Serene represent themselves -it would me- as a polis which stood high in Apollo favor" (Ganglion 2001, p 118).Herodotus' writings also provide us with direct evidence of how pivotal the relationship between religion and colonizing was for the Greeks, whilst simultaneously providing an example on the reciprocity between the Greek religion, and the Greeks themselves. In 4. 155 Herodotus begins with Bathos going to see the Oracle about his voice, and is instead tasked with settling a new land of Libya: "For a voice thou gamest, O Bathos, but thee Lord Phoebes Apollo senders as settler forth to the Libyan land sheep-abounding"To this Bathos replies "but with what power, or with what force of men should I go? " referring to the lack of resources and manpower available to him. It is then implied that Bathos leaves the Oracle disappointed "while she was yet speaking" back to There.
Although, in 4. 156, Herodotus goes on to explain that evil fortune began to befall both Bathos and the people of There, leading them to send another envoy back to Delphi to enquire on. The oracle then responded "that if they Join with Bathos in founding Serene in Libya, they would fare the better" (Herodotus, 4. 56) a clear example of this reciprocal relationship the Greeks shared tit their Gods.
With this, Bathos and the other men left for There, however once they returned, so strong was the Terrain peoples belief in their religion that they pelted Bathos with missiles and "did not allow them to put to shore" (Herodotus, 4. 156). This demonstrates the major role that their reciprocal religion played on the colonization of Serene, and how deeply they believed in it, for if it wasn't for the people's strong beliefs -or the evil misfortunes that befell them- they would never have colonized Serene.This reciprocity is also evident on the side of Delphi, who had much to gain from the foundation of Serene. Arid Milkman, quotes George Forest's article on 'colonization and the rise of Delphi': "Colonization had done more for the rise of Delphi than the other way around" (Milkman, 2003, p 153).
In overcoming some of the difficulties relating to resources facing a colonizing party, such as manpower, Herodotus (4. 53) gives us invaluable insight into how the Greeks may have gone about selecting people for such ventures, therefore overcoming the problem of manpower. He writes: "the men of There resolved to send one of every two brothers selected by lot and men besides taken from all the regions of the island, which are seven in number" It is Lear that from the above statement, the Greeks could overcome otherwise problematic hurdles quite simply and effectively, again, mainly due to the instructions of the Delphic Oracle.It is also worth -albeit very briefly- pointing out the complex issue in regards to the reliability of the literary evidence such as Herodotus' work, which on one side some state the literary evidence should not be considered and accepted as historical evidence as having been written by people of the epoch, as well as being influenced by oral tradition and political and social climates, as opposed to being pure historical search, therefore these writings should not be taken literally.Milkman points out that Robin Osborne is an example of this way of thinking as he quotes Osborne in writing "chapters on Greek colonization should be eradicated from textbooks" (Milkman, 2003, p 1 53) and would also say are automatically disqualified as historical evidence.
However Milkman (2003, p 157) although mentions no modern historian is happy with the literary evidence (2003, p 153) -by this implies himself also- still points out that Herodotus would have probably done more than speak to Battista at Delphi, adding that he would have actually visited Serene. He rightly asserts that "the Libyan detail is so wide ranging and specific that nothing less than a visit to Serene can account for this".He continues in pointing out that "there must have been plenty of overlapping and repetition, which he excised out of his final narrative. " Roseland Thomas (1997, p xix) in her introduction to The Histories of Herodotus rightly asserts that Herodotus is indeed the father of Histories, although his methods do fall short of those expected from modern historians, his search for a reliable version of the past was sifted from many sources, including eye-witness accounts, and were centered on humans, rather Han on Gods.In addressing the topic of identity, Herodotus provides two versions of the foundation story, the Teheran story mainly emphasizing on the difficulties they went through and the amount of careful planning put into the founding endeavor, whereas the Carnelian version tells almost exclusively of their founder and first king, Bathos. The Teheran had an interest to keep their historical links with prosperous Serene alive and well, while it was important for the Carnelian monarchy, the Battista, to emphasize Bathos' role to legitimate themselves, as well as affirm Crane's independence.
It is clear now that these stories were based on each side's interests and needs, and are selective and exaggerated. This is supported by Milkman (2003, p 1 59) as he asserts: "l agree, and have said so myself elsewhere, that the emphasis on the founder rather than on the mother-city may be explained by the need of the colony to underline its autonomous being, its independent identity' Milkman then insists that all colonies found themselves in that similar tension, that to a degree, their identity depended on their foundation (Milkman 2003, p 159).To conclude, Herodotus has clear limitations when compared to modern scholarly arks, however what must be clearer after reading this essay is that Herodotus can be used with great effectiveness to inform us on the explanations of Greek colonization. Simple guidelines can be fitted to reading his work that allow one to see past what modern minds would usually consider fantasy, but which can really help reveal the truth in many of the cases he does use.
His clear emphases on trading and on the Delphic Oracle are invaluable in understanding the colonization process the Greeks utilized. It is clear however -whether unity amongst the Greeks was present r not- that they were good colonists which was major due to their reciprocal relationship with their Gods. However the topics of unity and identity we're also clearly topics that in which the Greeks could not accomplish as well as the colonies themselves.
