By degrees, the burial grounds of the Early Iron Age had accumulated round the central settlement on all four points of the compass (FIG. 1). To the north lay the main cemetery of Knossos (AS-no. 62), where interments began well back in the eleventh century BC and were 1 The following abbreviations, other than those m general use. are employed: Anmisos = J. Schafer ed.i. Anmisos. nach den archdologischen. historischen und epigraphischen ^cugnissen des Altertums und der .\euz.eit {Berlin. 1992}.

No abstract

No abstract

At present there is no archaeological evidence proving that Greeks had settled permanently anywhere on the shores of the Black Sea in the eighth century B. C. However, a single discovery could transform our notions con cerning Greek penetration of the Euxine; and the recent finds of Mycenaean pottery at Maçat inland from Samsun1 provide a warning against total reliance upon arguments from absence. The purpose of the present paper is historiographical, not archaeological. We shall examine a statement in Eusebian chronography in order to determine what, if anything, is to be learned from it about early Greek settlement on the southeastern shore of the Pontos. The statement is the Eusebian notice concerning Trapezous. In the Armen ian version of the Kanon of Eusebios at 01.6.1 (Year of Abraham 1260) the foundation of Trapezous in Pontos is noted (p. 182 Karst)2. A corresponding notice is not present in St Jerome's version (p. 88 Helm), but Georgios Synkellos (p. 252, 7 Mosshammer) preserves Σποράδην the entry έν Πόντφ Τραπεζοΰς έκτίσθη, and in Michael the Syrian (Chron. 1.81 Chabot) the foundation is also mentioned. We need not doubt that Eusebios pieced the foundation of Trapezous circa 757 B.C. Xenophon (Anab. 4.8.22) calls Trapezous a Hellenic city in the land of the Kolchians and states that it was an άποικία of Sinope. If Trapezous was founded from Sinope, then, it has been suggested3, Sinope was founded earlier than 757. The argument is fragile, not least because the Eusebian date for the founding of Sinope is 01.37.2 (Jerome p. 96 1 Helm), 631 B.C., or 01.37.3

This is a large book about a vital subject. Much learning is manifest in the many topics discussed: the text extends from early Mesopotamia to the present -indeed the work is painfully contemporary, since the author, being a New Yorker, is not a little concerned with the events of 11 Sept. 2001 and with the motives and expectations of suicide bombers.Segal is not only a Professor of Religion but also a Professor of Jewish Studies. He writes therefore with authority about Hebraic matters, so that there are, for example, strong and illuminating treatments of developing notions of the afterlife in early Israel, in Second Temple Judaism, in St Paul's writings, and among the early Rabbis. The reviewer has long been interested in the ancient Near East, but he is primarily a scholar of Greek and the Greeks: to criticize the Jewish scholarship deployed in the book would be impertinent; it would also be imprudent, since he is an aged, and perhaps senile, Roman Catholic. It will be proper, therefore, to draw attention to some of the many merits of Life after Death before asking -tentativelysome questions and offering -hesitantly -some comments. The lasting sentiment after reading, and re-reading,