eTheses Repository - University of Birmingham

However, in spite of the fact that it proves difficult to use mythology and linguistic evidence
to recreate a history of continuous occupation through the ‘Dark Ages’, it is contended that
the archaeological record is currently problematic, not because the region was deserted and no
material culture remains, but because a number of other factors have influenced opinions of
the region and period and thus archaeological practice and successful recovery of evidence.
These factors are examined below.
2.3 The Problematic Archaeological Record of Arkadia
2.3.1 Arkadia in the ancient literature
The starting point is the treatment of Arkadia in the ancient literature. The region generally
does not hold a prominent place in the ancient literary record in historical or pseudo-historical
terms, at least not in comparison to regions such as Athens and Sparta. The majority of the
extant sources focus on these well-known city-states, (e.g. Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle),
which are well known precisely because they were often written about. Arkadia is first
mentioned in the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ of Homer’s Iliad, in the guise of a list of place names:
the men of Pheneos, Orchomenos, Rhipe, Stratie, Enispe, Tegea, Mantinea, Stymphalos and
Parrhasie are stated to have been led to Troy by King Agapenor in some sixty ships (Il. 2.
604-5). It is indeed enlightening to have the names of early towns, especially when these can
perhaps be associated with the period of interest here. In fact, many of these places have been
located. They are particularly focussed in the eastern part of the region, which has raised
interesting questions as to the extent of an Arkadian ‘territory’ at this time. However, little
else is learned other than that the area was considered landlocked (Morgan 1999b, pp.383-
384).
In later sources, such as Herodotus (fifth century BCE) and indeed Pausanias (second century
CE), the many struggles between Sparta and Arkadia, and Tegea in particular, are testified.
20