doi: 10.2143/AWE.14.0.3108191 AWE 14 (2015) 145-168 THE KTISIS OF MASSALIA REVISITED: WHAT TO DO WITH CONTRADICTORY ANCIENT SOURCES?* MARTIN MAUERSBERG Abstract The ktisis of Massalia is a model case of an event that is transmitted to us via contradictory ancient sources. This article studies how Classicists struggle to extract the historical course of events and which methodological difficulties they encounter in their task. Additionally, the ancient statements on the early history of Massalia are revisited to reconstruct the way in which ancient knowledge of this issue developed. This examination should lead to a better understanding of the circumstances under which knowledge of the subject evolved and allow inferences concerning its possible connections to historical reality. The reconstruction of the emergence of apoikiai is a core aspect of the examination of ‘Greek colonisation’ in Classical studies. Our knowledge is based primarily on the preserved ancient written sources; but this raises elementary, not the least meth- odological difficulties.1 These ancient, yet retrospective statements which portray the ktiseis of the Archaic period convey in many cases a heterogeneous, if not a contradictory chain of events. This fundamental flaw of these sources raises the basic question of their relation to historical reality. Jonathan Hall identifies three options to deal with this problem: first, scholars who concede in principal the credibility of written sources – ‘historical-positivists’ as Hall puts it – attempt to derive facts using Quellenkritik.2 Their solution to solving contradictions is either to minimise them or to seek arguments that advance a particular variation. The problem is that, in many cases, there is no definitive way to prove such assumptions because of a lack of further evidence.3 A second approach treats written sources as narrative construc- tions of reality. According to ‘poeticists’ the written sources reveal more about the socio-cultural environment in which they were written than about the described * I am deeply indebted to Nacim Ghanbari and Christoph Ulf for their comments, to Jill Lewis for helping me to find the proper words, and to the anonymous referees for their observations and suggestions. The responsibility for errors and judgments remains mine. 1 See Yntema 2000, 2–5; 2011; Nippel 2003, 16; Owen 2005, 6–8; Hall 2008; De Angelis 2009, 54–58. 2 Hall 2008, 383–85. 3 See also Hall 2008, 394. 997901.indb7901.indb 114545 114/09/154/09/15 009:449:44 146 M. MAUERSBERG past events.4 Considering the aporetic dilemma of the first approach, this seems to be a more reliable way to gain historical knowledge, but for a better understanding of the emergence of apoikiai it is hardly satisfying. This is why Hall puts forward a third, ‘historical-constructivist’ option. The principal scepticism towards written sources describing the early history of apoikiai should lead to a reversal of the usual approach of using archaeological remains to bolster written sources: archaeological findings, unbiased by an interpretation in accordance with the written sources, would be a better starting point than the writ- ten sources themselves.5 Yet this option also has its Achilles heel: while the first approach uses written sources for the interpretation of the archaeological remains, the third approach needs something else to make the relics ‘talk’ about the socio- cultural conditions at a certain site when an apoikia was emerging. To this end anthropological or ethnological models can be applied,6 but it has to be proved that they match the particular situation. Additionally, there is the risk of a structuralistic over-determination. The crucial point is that each approach defined by Hall gives a priori and glob- ally an answer to the question whether the sources are to be trusted or not. But is such a premature determination of a truth value necessary? Let us start with the basic question: what are those ancient sources. The assumption that narratives about the past tend to be adapted to contemporary axioms is not new. Accordingly, state- ments on ktiseis could be defined as remains of discourses that allowed in a particu- lar spatiotemporal situation to comment in a ‘valid’ manner on past events, i.e. obeying current ways of meaningfully ordering the reality. Nevertheless, this defini- tion should not lead per se to a denunciation of ancient narratives on ktiseis as untrue. Instead I envisage a postponement of the clarification of the probability of a faithful display of past events after an analysis of the evolution of ancient knowl- edge on the ktisis of Massalia. In concordance with this, I refrain from the holistic assumption that ancient traditions are more or less static blocs that were passed on unchanged in Antiquity. Instead I focus on smaller elements of knowledge that when combined become narratives on a certain topical field and which ultimately coagu- late into a tradition. Certainly, the scarce amount of remaining sources makes it difficult to recon- struct the discursive and narrative context that allowed the shaping of alignments of such elements of knowledge. But on the other hand, such a ‘text-archaeological’7 4 Hall 2008, 385–86. Hall names Carol Dougherty and Claude Calame as examples. 5 Hall 2008, 386–87. See also Yntema 2000, 1, 27; 2011, 252–64. 6 See, for instance, Morris 2003; Malkin 2004; Descœudres 2008. 7 This is a reference to Michel Foucault’s ‘The Archaeology of Knowledge’. For an appreciation of Foucault’s use of the term ‘archaeology’, see also Dietler 2010, 14–15. 997901.indb7901.indb 114646 114/09/154/09/15 009:449:44 THE KTISIS OF MASSALIA REVISITED 147 approach – using ancient statements as artefacts – converts the feature of scattered and contradictory sources from a defect that Classical scholars have to repair to the starting point of a profitable analysis of the functioning of ancient representations of the emergence of apoikiai. If this is the only result of such an approach, it could be assigned to the second option Hall identifies. Yet additionally, new arguments for the evaluation of the link between elements of knowledge and historical reality could be gained. Massalia: From Problem to Test Case8 Massalia indeed deserves the label of a problem case as the ancient sources narrating its early history convey a heterogeneous, even contradictory picture. Moreover, more detailed information concerning the foundation itself does not occur before the 4th century BC. This increases the Classicists dilemma with retrospective ancient sources concerning events in Archaic times. Two basic models serve as interpretative frameworks for modern reconstructions of Massalia’s history: colonisation and an emporion paradigm, focusing on the role of maritime trade in the emergence of Greek settlements overseas. Both can be linked with two of the approaches identified by Hall: if Massalia is seen as colony, the historical-positivist approach predominates.9 According to this colonial ration- ale, the Phocaeans founded Massalia in a planned campaign, whose resonance can be found in the ancient sources, describing – contradictory but still – Massalia’s ktisis as a singular event. If, on the other hand, Massalia’s emergence is seen in the context of the maritime trade-based, socio-economic development of the Tyrrhe- nian Sea and the adjacent hinterland, the sources are interpreted in an historical- constructivist way. In this particular case this manifests itself less in a sceptical attitude towards written sources, but in a preference for archaeological results. The research focus rests on inter-cultural (trade) contacts and their effects on the differ- ent groups interacting in this region.10 Another historical-constructivist interpreta- tion of Massalia’s ktisis is proposed by Henri Tréziny: he describes the earliest set- tlement phase of Megara Hyblaia as ‘phase de campement’ to emphasise the improvised character that apoikiai may have had in their earliest times.11 This may 8 The focus will rest on those sources that deal with the events of Massalia’s early history. For the most important sources, cf. also Domínguez 2012, 62–65. For a more comprehensive register of the sources concerning Massalia, see Guyot-Rougemont and Rougemont 1992; Raviola 2000. 9 For example, Morel 2006a, 364–66; Malkin 2011, 147–48, 155–56; Domínguez 2012. 10 For example, Arafat and Morgan 1994, 127; Bats 1998; 2012; Gras 1995a, 137–38; Tréziny 2002, 57; 2005, 61; Dietler 2010, especially 104–22. 11 Tréziny 2005, 54–61; 2006, 226. Cf., on a more general level, Osborne 1998; Yntema 2000, 44. 997901.indb7901.indb 114747 114/09/154/09/15 009:449:44 148 M. MAUERSBERG be valid also for Massalia, whose Phocaean character was strengthened by degrees, especially as a result of the arrival of refugees after the Persian capture of Phocaea in the middle of the 6th century BC.12 Ancient Knowledge on the Ktisis of Massalia The Earliest Statements The grammarian Stephanus Byzantinus preserved a fragment of Hecataeus that touches on the geographical location of Massalia, as well as its status as Phocaean apoikia: Μασσαλία· πόλις τῆς Λιγυστικῆς κατὰ τὴν Κελτικήν, ἄποικος Φωκαέων (FGH 1 Hecataeus of Milet F 55).13 The notion of apoikia has a retrospective nuance as it contains the prefix apo-, indicating a departing, in this case from an oikos or ‘home’.14 Thus, it was a term for a settlement which automatically evokes a metropolis, a place of origin. The second oldest remaining statement concerning Massalia is embedded in Strabo’s Geography: According to Antiochus, after the capture of Phocaea by Harpagus, the general of Cyrus, all the Phocaeans who could do so embarked with their entire families on their light boats and, under the leadership of Creontiades, sailed first to Cyrnus and Massalia [πλεῦσαι πρῶτον εἰς Κύρνον καὶ Μασσαλίαν], but when they were beaten off from those places [this explicatory remark stems from the translator, whereas in the Geography the wording is ἀποκρουσθέντας δὲ τὴν Ἐλέαν κτίσαι] founded Elea (FGH 555 Antiochus of Syracuse F 8 = Strabo 6.