#which is why I just made my own post instead of responding directly to the post that prompted this | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

babyrdie · 2 months

Text

@greekmythologylover234 Sorry for the big delay, I was trying to find different academic sources andI kind of reread an entire book just to make sure my memory was right. I wanted to present various theories, those who agree with the theory, those who disagree with the theory and those who give the benefit of the doubt. I tried to present it in chronological order, this way it would be easier to analyze the development of the debate (in addition, in many cases a later academic is responding directly to a previous academic and such a response would only make sense knowing the proposal of the previous academic). I'm replying as a post because otherwise I would have to tag you in multiple comments, which would be inconvenient! I made a separate post instead of reblogging the post we were talking about just to keep it more organized. Also, what I write here is what I have read, but I'm not an academic myself, which is important to remember (I'm not a historian, nor a clacissist, nor anything. That's precisely why I'm basically just repeating other people's theories instead of giving my own explanations)! Everything here is just me repeating what an academic said lol

Short answer:

It's uncertain, although it most likely does have some connection with Thetis since Achilles Pontarches is a protector linked to the sea and signs have been found that Thetis was worshiped in Olbia (where there was a strong cult of Achilles Pontarches) as well. But it's still not possible to say with certainty why Achilles was deified, especially in a specific region (Black Sea/Euxine Pontus), since all of his other cults were heroicfrom what we know (which, despite being a cult, doesn’t make the object of worship a deity). Some even argue that perhaps Achilles Pontarches was another cult hero. There are also arguments as to whether, if it’s a case of deification, this was an entirely Greek creation or whether it was influenced by non-Greek peoples from abroad in the Black Sea region (what I see being argued the most are the Scynthians). To really talk about this subject, it would be necessary to consider several theories and analyze the academics who agree with and criticize them, as it isn’t such a simple subject to talk about. Much of what is discussed is mere possibility. There is also the detail that much of the content on the subject isn’t so accessible because they’re texts that aren’t found in English, probably because the cities related to this subject currently belong to Ukraine (I say this because a considerable amount of the texts are from Russians and I really think this has to do with the archaeological site belonging to Ukraine).

Long answer:

Firstly, I recommend looking at a map where Pontic Olbia, Borysthenes (Berezan island), Neapolis and Leuke/Island of Achilles (Snake Island) were located. Just giving a hint because it might be confusing to read this without having an idea of the location, but these places really weren't too far from each other. Furthermore, at the end of the post are the ancient sources mentioned in the academic texts, if you’re curious to know which texts they’re talking about.

IMPORTANT DATES

This section is basically a summary of what is theorized to have happened historically in the region. Keep in mind that when it comes to history, we are working with possibilities and something like 100% accurate information isn’t really possible. For example, the settlement of Olbia has been theorized to date back to both the 7th century BC and the 6th century BC. Furthermore, the cult of Achilles in the region could only be confirmed more reliably with archaeological discoveries and many of the important texts on this subject are outdated in some aspects, such as the inscriptions about Pontarches. Older books give different dates (they tend to put it in earlier centuries) for the Getae invasion, but I used the one I saw most often used in more recent texts. What I mean is that don't take everything as exact. Also, I know it seems a bit ?! that I’m making a somewhat political timeline, but in the case of this cult, it’s important to have at least a brief idea of what went on behind the scenes. For example, the main cult was moved from Olbia to Berezan/Borysthenes. Why? Well, the political context of the time explains it. Things like that. Also, the theories I intend to present about the cult sometimes mention things like that, so I think it's good to clarify so that no one gets extremely confused.

LINEAR B (possibly 13/14th century BC)

And yet the name of Achilles is "attractively identified," as Palmer puts it, in the Linear B tablets: In the text of Pylos tablet Fn 70. 2, a list of names in the dative includes a-ki-re-we, to be read as Akhil(l)ēwei. As I commented on this attestation, "we must be ready to assume that the mythopoeic name of ̓Αχιλλεύς inspired the naming of historical figures called Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς. Palmer comments on my comment: "In fact, it is at the very least unlikely that any parent would have bestowed such a name on his son unless its inauspicious overtones had been masked by its occurrence as a heroic name in a famous story." If Palmer's "chain of reasoning," as he calls it, is correct, "then the Pylian record may be construed as implying that a version of the 'Wrath of Akhilleus' was current at the time of the destruction of Pylos." (The Name of Achilles: Questions of Etymology and "Folk-Etymology', by Gregory Nagy, pg 8)

That is, a name found in Linear B seems to attest to the existence of the name Achilles among the Mycenaeans. Gregory Nagy suggested that the name predates the myth and that a later mythological hero (Achilles son of Thetis) had this name attributed to him. However, Leonard Robert Palmer finds this unlikely, since Palmer (like Nagy, in fact) interprets the etymology of the name as being associated with mourning and, given the importance that the meanings of the names seemed to have, it would be strange for the name Achilles to be a name used. Why would parents choose to give their children names associated with bad omen when most give them names associated with virtues and beauty? Nagy then comments that if Palmer is right, then perhaps there was a version of the famous "Wrath of Akhilleus" even in the Mycenaean period. For context, Linear B is a script theorized to date back to the 13th/14th century BC and is a record of the Mycenaean language, predating the Greek alphabet.

SCYTHIANS IN THE BLACK SEA (predates Greek settlement, but uncertain date)

The real Scythians were a broad group of peoples, probably Iranian in origin, who originally lived as nomadic herders. They were among the earliest in a long line of peoples who migrated from central Asia to the west, driving before them vast herds of horses, sheep, and cows. By the 700s BC, they seem to have displaced the earlier Cimmerians, who themselves probably also migrated from the east.

The arrival of the Scythians in the Black Sea zone alarmed the kingdoms of the Near East. Records of conflicts with the Scythian host appear in several ancient texts, under names that prefigure later labels. They are perhaps the Ashkenaz of Hebrew sources (Genesis 10:3), and in the sixth century BC the Persians vanquished an eastern people they called the Saka. The famous rock relief at Behistun in western Iran depicts Darius and his subjugated enemies, with the shackled Skunkha, ruler of the Saka, shown with the long beard and pointed hat that were the standard visual representations of northern barbarians. (After conquering the Scythians of the east, Darius led another, unsuccessful campaign against their western cousins around 513 BC.) (The Black Sea, by Charles King, pg 35-36)

That is, Scythians appear to be a people who originated in Asia (possibly of Iranian origin), but eventually spread until they eventually reached the Pontic region. Later, the Greeks settled in the region. Therefore, the Scythian presence is possibly earlier than the Greek presence in the region. Still, it’s uncertain when this happened, although it was at least before the Greek settlement, which occurred around the 7th century BC. Furthermore, they were nomadic, had shepherding as a strong cultural trait, were equestrians and appear to have been good archers.

HOMERIC TRADITIONS (possibly 8th century BC)

I'm putting it here, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's later than the Scythian occupation of the Black Sea/Euxine Pontus. From what I've seen, it's not possible to be certain about this. Anyway, just keep these things in mind: Homer wrote, possibly in not too distant periods, the poems The Iliad and The Odyssey, which were based on oral traditions of the Greek people. So the myths themselves are older, but the way we know them from Homer is probably from the 8th century BC. In The Iliad, there are two characters I want you to remember. One is the main hero Achilles (Ἀχιλλεύς,) and the other is the river god Achelous (Ἀχελώϊος). Also, in The Odyssey the dead are depicted as being in Asphodel, which includes characters like Achilles, Big Ajax, Patroclus, Antilochus, Agamemnon, Tiresias, the suitors, etc. So Achilles here isn’t in Leuke. In fact, the heroes in general aren’t even in Elysium. The only hero explicitly associated with this place is Menelaus, as it’s said that as Zeus' son-in-law he will live in the Elysian fields.

THE MYTH OF LEUKE (possibly 8th century BC)

Supposedly, the lost epic Aethiopis was written in the 8th century BC by Arctinus of Miletus and postdates Homer's poems. As far as is known, it’s the earliest written source for the myth relating Achilles to Leuke, an island in the Euxine Pontus/Black Sea region. It’s possible to know this because of a summary made by Proclus (5th century) in the work Chrestomathy. That is, the myth of Achilles and Leuke appears to predate the Greek settlement of the region. (Encyclopædia Britannica, Arctinus)

SETTLEMENT OF BEREZAN (possibly 7th century BC)

“[...] the harbour of the Berezan settlement, established by Milesian colonists in the 7th century BC prior to the foundation of Olbia Pontica in the same area [...]” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 25).

That is, the settlement (and creation of the port) by the Milesians (people of Miletus) in Berezan (ancient Borysthenes) probably took place during the 7th century BC and predated the founding of Olbia in the same region.

SETTLEMENT OF OLBIA (possibly 6th century BC)

“Olbia, one of the richest sites in the North Pontic region, is situated along the estuary of the river Bug. The city was founded by Milesian colonists in the first half of the sixth century B.C. and prospered through the fourth century B.C.[...]” (Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, by Michail J. Treister and Yuri G. Vinogradov, pg 534).

That is, Olbia was probably settled, also by the Milesians, in the 6th century BC. One of the reasons for the interest in Olbia is because it was strategically located for a commercial port. And in fact, Olbia had a very important port for trade and navigation in the Black Sea that was of great importance for the growth of the city's influence, which made it gain autonomy later. However, it was also located in a region full of foreign peoples (including the Scynthians who, as mentioned, were already in the region when the Greeks arrived), which influenced social, political and economic aspects.

SCYTHIAN DYNASTY (possibly around 600 BC)

“In about 600 bc, a Scythian royal dynasty emerged and ruled for almost a century. Scythian chieftains are usually called ‘kings’ as classical Greek writers designated them with the word basileus: this should not be assumed to mean that their state organization was at the same level as in Iran, whose rulers were also called basileus, but it is clear that hereditary power existed in Scythia during the fifth and fourth centuries bc. In the mid-fifth century. [...]” (Scythians: Warriors of ancient Siberia, by A. Yu. Alexeyev, pg 25).

That is, it’s possible to know that, at least around 600 BC (7th century BC), the Scythians had a hereditary political model, constituting a royal dynasty.

LORD OF SCYTHIA (possibly around the begin of greek settlement)

“Around 600 BC, broadly synchronous with the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia, we have the poetry of Alcaeus, which includes the line ‘Achilles, lord of Scythia’. Since the fragment has. Since the fragment has survived without its original context, much remains uncertain about Alcaeus’ words. [...]” (Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, by David Braund, pg 52-53).

That is, in a period synchronized with the beginning of the Greek settlement in the region of Greater Olbia (which covers more than just the city of Olbia, to be clear. It’s about Olbia and the other cities influenced by it), the Greek poet Alcaeus wrote a poem that unfortunately only survives in fragments with very few contextualizations. One of the fragments found described Achilles as “Lord of Scythia”. According to Braund, at that time there was already a slave trade from Scythia that went from the Black Sea to other Greek poleis, and for this reason the Scynthians were already a relatively well-known people even by Greeks who weren’t from the region,as is the case of Alcaeus of Mytilene/Lesbos (pg 54).

CULT OF ACHILLES IN BLACK SEA (possibly 6th century BC)

“For many years the earliest evidence for the cult at Olbia dated to the Classical period. Recently published graffiti, however, from the city and the surrounding area indicate that the cult began at least as early as the second half of the 6th century BC. [...]” (The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, by Guy Hedreen, 315)

That is, the cult of maybe deified Achilles in the Black Sea appears to date back to at least the 6th century BC. Most scholars seem to agree that it’s a creation of Greek origin, although some suggest that it originated from the non-Greek populations already existing in that region, especially the Scythians (but the Thracians are also suggested).

KING SCYLES (possibly 5th century BC)

Among the Scythian kings, one that will be relevant in this post is Scyles because of an account by the Greek historian Herodotus. According to Herodotus, he had a Greek mother (the father was Scythian) and this made him appreciate Greek culture and seek to connect with it. Scyles participated in the Bacchic cults of Olbia, which caused the citizens of Olbia to mock the Scythian because, although they mocked the faith of the Greeks, their king was there worshiping Dionysus. This caused Scyles to have problems with his people, which eventually led to his betrayal and death.

OLBIA HAD AUTONOMY (possbily 4th century BC)

“The city rapidly became self-governing, reaching full prosperity in the 4th c. B.C [...]” (The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Site)

That is, it’s theorized that the heyday of Olbia was during the 4th century BC, a period in which the city was already autonomous. Therefore, any influence that Olbia exerted over other Pontic cities (which was quite a bit of influence, by the way) had no relation to Miletus. Braund calls the region of Olbia + Pontic Olbia-influenced cities (+Leuke) Greater Olbia.

OLBIA HAD INTEREST IN LEUKE (document is possibly from 3rd century BC)

”Certainly, later inscriptions show Olbian protection of the island. Particularly evocative is an honorary inscription dated no later than the early third century BC [...]” (Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, by David Braund, pg 54).

“The inscription IOSPE I² 325 from Leuke, dated to the 330s-320s BC on paleographical grounds, is a decree issued by the Olbiopolitai in honor of an unknown individual (most likely an Olbian citizen) on account of his numerous services to the city, including the act of freeing “the sacred island” (supposedly, Leuke) from pirates. It has been pointed out that the text of the inscription can either mean that pirates were plundering the sanctuary located on the island itself or that they were using the island as their base for attacking Greek ships in the Black Sea. Another possible explanation would be that the pirates intended to capture wealthy pilgrims who came to visit the Panhellenic sanctuary of Achilles on Leuke and hold them for ransom. In either case the city of Olbia, which held the protectorate over the island, must have considered itself responsible for taking care of this problem and for guaranteeing the safety of the visitors. This is apparent from the text of the decree, which, after praising the recipient of the honors, emphasizes Olbia’s care for the island.” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 46).

That is, in the 3rd century BC Olbia had established a possible kind of protectorate over Leuke. This inscription is called IOSPE i² 325 and mentions that a statue was erected in Leuke by the Olbiopolitans in honor of a citizen who was of importance at that event.

POSIDEOS’ INSCRIPTION TO ACHILLES (possibly 2nd century BC)

“The other pertinent document – IOSPE I² 672 – is a dedication to Achilles, “the lord of the island”, by Posideos, son of Posideos, who defeated the pirating Satarchai. The inscription was found in Neapolis, but Posideos was identified as an Olbian citizen, also known from other epigraphical sources, all dated roughly to the 2nd century BC. [...]” (The Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 47).

Thus, in Neapolis was found a dedication to Achilles as a thank you for helping to defeat the pirates and calling him “lord of the island”. The owner of the inscription was identified as a citizen of Olbia (Olbia wasn’t so far from Neapolis) named Posideos. Supposedly, the inscription belongs to around the 2nd century BC.

MITHRIDATES RULES BLACK SEA (possibly at the end of 2nd century BC)

“[...] Mithridates did extend his sway in this area at least as far as the city of Olbia. The most important evidence for his relations with Olbia is an inscription of its people honouring a ship captain from Amisus (IOSPE 1² 35). The inscription is fragmentary and its interpretation much disputed, but the most satisfactory version is that of Wilhelm: the captain was entrusted with a shipment of royal supplies for the Armenians settled in Olbia by Mithridates; he set out from Amisus and stopped in at Sinope to pick up an embassy of Olbians and perhaps the help (boetheian? 1.10) they had been sent to seek. He brought his shipment through safely in very difficult conditions. It is known that Mithridates did resettle some of his subjects from Pontus in the Bosporan kingdom, so it is not unlikely that there should be Armenians in Olbia, but Wilhelm does not attempt to explain why they were there. One natural assumption is that the Armenians were not just randomly resettled, but constituted a Pontic garrison. That Olbia would have needed a garrison for protection is demonstrated vividly by the inscription honouring Niceratus, who died in defence of the city against the constant threat of the enemy (IOSPE 1² 34; SIG3 730). The exact date is not clear, but the end of the second century or beginn- ing of the first is usually assumed. It therefore probably refers to the situation in Olbia just before the city came under the protection of Mithridates, although it may date from the period between the dissolu- tion of Mithridates' protectorate and the sack of the city by the Getae towards the middle of the first century (Dio Chrys. 36.4-5). Either way, the Olbians will no doubt have been looking for just the sort of protection that other cities of the Euxine were seeking. It is also difficult to attach with confidence a date to the inscription honouring the Amisene sea captain. If the Armenians are from Armenia Maior then presumably it will date from the time after the marriage of Mithridates' daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes, as it seems only from then that Pontus and Armenia were allies. The term "Armenians", however, could just as easily apply to inhabitants of Armenia Minor, over which Mithridates gained control probably before his alliance with Tigranes. As for a lower date, the end of Mithridates' reign is the only limit. For although in 72/1 M. Terentius Varro Lucullus launched a successful campaign against the cities of the western Euxine supporting Mithridates, the cities further north were not affected: Tyras remained in Eupator's sphere during the last decade of his life, and, therefore, it is to be assumed that Olbia did also.

Coins of Olbia show possible Mithridatic influence. The king's own features are thought to be represented on the obverse of two Olbian issues. Another issue depicts on the reverse a dolphin between caps of the Dioscuri with eight-rayed star in field. As already noted (above p. 54), a cornucopia between caps of the Dioscuri is a common type for the municipal coins of Pontus issued under Mithridates Eupator's rule, and the dolphin of the Olbian issue has in fact a very similar shape to the cornucopia. It is, however, the circulation "in enormous quantities at Olbia" of Pontic municipal issues which points most clearly to the city's inclusion in Mithridates' realm.” (The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, by Brian McGing, pg 55-56)

That is, Olbia came under the rule of Mithridates Eupator apparently around the end of the 2nd century BC, and it wasn’t the only one as the other Pontic cities did too. Apparently, this wasn’t seen entirely negatively by the people of Olbia, as in fact they were having problems with many external attacks and Eupator's intervention saved the city from destruction. They even thanked Eupator, as can be seen in one of the inscriptions found. But of course, this didn’tt happen out of Eupator's pure good heart. In fact, Mithridates Eupator sought to dominate Asia Minor and the Black Sea region, which included Olbia, because he wanted to gain power to defeat the influence of the Roman Republic over the Greek and Asian regions. He was considered the King of Pontus, and his battles with Rome were called the Mithridatic Wars and took place during the 1st century BC. Despite the great power gained by Eupator, Rome emerged victorious (Eupator having died possibly in 63 BC). This book is from 1986, but David Braund follows a similar historical line in 2016, so it doesn't seem to me that this part is outdated.

OLBIA WAS SACKED (possibly at the middle of 1st century BC)

In the mid-1st century BC Olbia was probably invaded by Getae, as mentioned in Dio Chrysostom’s oration Borystheniticus (Or. 36.4-6). As a result, the city was ruined and its fortification walls were destroyed. [...] (Harbour of Olbia, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 54)

That is, Olbia was sacked and destroyed by the Getae, a people who inhabited the region below the Danube River and who are sometimes related to the Dacians and/or Thracians in theories by modern academics.

OLBIA WAS REBUILT (possibly 1st century)

“Then the question arises as to when Olbia was rebuilt after the Getic rout. Unfortunately neither the circumstances nor the date of that rebuilding are known. In the academic literature it is virtually taken for granted that the city remained empty for several decades and was only restored at the end of the 1st century BC. This hypothesis is based mainly on archaeological data. To this day archaeological levels or remains of buildings, which would relate to the second half of the 1st century BC or to the first half of the 1st century AD, are virtually unknown. It is only within the territory of the suburbs that paving, rubbish pits and pottery kilns dating from the beginning of the 1st century AD have been recorded. Recently also in Trench R-25 – near the place where the inscription published here was discovered – cellars were cleared which contained materials dating from the first half of the 1st century AD. Objects dating from the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD are however encountered in Olbia in levels of a later period almost everywhere. Nevertheless it has not been possible to assign them sufficiently precise dates, which would have made it possible to single out from among them objects of the third or fourth quarter of the 1st century BC and so archaeological data cannot provide an answer to the question as to when exactly Olbia was re-built. [...]” (A New Dedication from Olbia and the Problems of City Organization and of Greco-Barbarian Relations in the 1st Century AD, by Askold I. Ivantchik, pg 199)

That is, Olbia was rebuilt in some period of which no one knows for sure, but academically the 1st century is usually considered (note: uncertainty in historical studies is common, but in the case of Olbia this is a constant element because the region has not been studied as much as others. At least, that is what I have read at least 3 academics mention). However, it has considerably lost its size. If in previous centuries Olbia had a great influence on other Pontic cities, now its golden age was gone. According to Kozlovskaya: “territory of the city proper was approximately three times smaller than it was during the Hellenistic period.” (The Harbour of Olbia, pg 54)

OLBIA LOST AUTHORITY OVER LEUKE (possibly 1st century AD)

“In addition, Olbia was no longer able to maintain its patronage over the sanctuary of Achilles on the island of Leuke: by the end of the first century CE, it seems to have passed to some other West Pontic city, probably Tomi. [...]” (The Nothern Black Sea in Antiquity, by Valeriya Kozlovskaya, pg 43).

That is, despite Olbia's interests in Leuke and the apparent protection that Olbia offered Leuke because of the importance of the site, they were unable to maintain this due to the problems they faced. By the 1st century, another West Pontic city had taken over this role.

BEREZAN BECAME THE CENTER OF THE CULT OS ACHILLES (possibly 1st century)

“This stage lasted into the Hellenistic Age, but as time went by, the prosperity and importance of Olbia declined, and it was often threatened by native populations. In the Roman period, we find that the focus of Olbian worship of Achilles is not Leuke but rather nearby Berezan, which probably led to the confusion with Leuke in our later sources. When Olbia could no longer dominate Leuke, the range of its cult practice retreated, and Berezan apparently became a substitute. The cult seems to become more formal and institutional as Olbia becomes less powerful, with priests and rather monumental inscriptions. The epithet Pontarches underscores the expansion of status for Achilles from hero to divinity; at the same time the hyperbolic geographical claim for the sphere of Achilles' influence is a wishful inversion of the city's receding power.” (The Death and Afterlife of Achilles, by Jonathan S Burgess, pg 128)

That is, with Olbia having lost authority over Leuke due to the city’s declining influence, Olbia moved the center of the cult of Achilles to Berezan. For this reason, in the Roman period Berezan was the island that hosted the most important temple of Achilles in the region. This has led some academics to debate whether it is safe to assume that every “island of Achilles” mentioned in texts from the Roman period refers to Leuke, since Berezan in that period was an island also associated with Achilles. And I say “also” because even texts from that period associate Leuke with Achilles, so this association wasn't lost simply because Olbia moved the cult center to Berezan. Ancient texts, however, give the impression that Leuke wasn’t inhabited and, in fact, it was even forbidden to spend the night there. Anyway, remember that this doesn’t mean that the cult of Achilles in Berezan began at this time. It already existed! Since the 6th century BC, in fact! What changed was that it became the center of worship.

THE TERM PONTARCHES (possibly 1st century AD)

“A series of inscribed dedicatory stelae to Achilles Pontarches dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. [...]” (The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, by Guy Hedreen, 314)

That is, although the cult itself already existed, what we have of the term “Pontarches” itself dates back to at least the 2nd century AD, when the cult had already been changed to Berezan. The earlier periods of the cult of Achilles on the Black Sea are present in texts that deal with Pontarches because, as already said, the cult of Berezan is an extension of the earlier cult. Olbia only changed the main location. However, there is a detail. This text is from 1986 and, in 1988, there were new discoveries: “F.V. Shelov-Kovedyayev published an inscription found in 1988, a versified Greek dedication to Achilles Pontarches dating to the first century A.C.” (Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea, by Michail J. Treister and Yuri G. Vinogradov, pg 539).

RISE OF THE CULT OF PONTARCHES (possibly 2nd/3rd century BC)

[...] It reached its height in the Roman period, during which (in the second and third centuries AD) Achilles in Olbia was worshiped under the cult title of Achilles Pontarches, the patron of the college of archons. [...] (Immortal Achilles, by Dianna Burton, pg 22)

That is, despite the previous fame that the cult already had (as we can see from how much Leuke is mentioned in earlier sources), it reached its peak in the Roman period with Achilles Pontarches.

THEORIES

I have tried to gather an interesting set of theories, including some that disagree with each other! However, there are certainly more theories than that. On a fair number of occasions, I have come across names that were mentioned frequently, but that I had no way of reading because the texts were in Russian or German. On one occasion, I came across a book by a Greek author, but it had never been translated into any other language, so I couldn't read it either. Occasionally I have come across theories in French. So yes, there is certainly much more than I have shown here. Still, I hope this is enough to make the point that there is much that is uncertain, much that is variable, and much that is interesting. There is, in my opinion, MUCH more appeal to the idea of Achilles at Leuke than to the idea of Achilles in Elysium.

Theory 1: there is no divine cult or ancestral cult, they’re all hero cults, and probably emerged after Homer!

When you search for articles dealing with the idea of a cult of Achilles, you may see the name Farnell mentioned. This is Lewis Richard Farnell, who in 1920 published an Oxford book called "Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality" with the objective of exploring hero cults in Ancient Greece. He concluded that, although Achilles had cults in different places, none of them were a divine or ancestral cult (that is, a local cult directed to the ancestor of the region), but rather all were heroic. Therefore, Farnell doesn't interpret he was deified in the Black Sea.

I have presented all the facts that appear to me relevant ; and the working hypothesis that they suggest for dealing with Achilles-legend and cult is merely thi: Achilles was no local Achaean god, nor in his primary significance an Achaean tribal ancestor like Aiakos, but a definite heroic personage associated with a definite Achaean saga of semihistorical value; and always regarded, whether rightly or wrongly, as a real man; his cult was always hero-cult, and may have begun before Homer, but in post-Homeric times, independently of tribal affinities, was diffused and quickened by the powerful influence of the epic.

Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, pg 289.

However, it's important to mention that when saying "Achean God" he was referring to a theory related to the etymology of the name Achilles that said it possibly had roots in a deity associated with rivers. In other words, it isn't a theory formed based on archaeological finds or ancient texts as in the case of Euxine theory, it's a theory formed because of etymology. This theory doesn't really seem to be popular today, I don't remember seeing it being fervently defended in modern articles, but perhaps it was being considered at the time this book was published. From what I've noticed, most theories that attempt to explain that a mortal mythological character was initially a deity don't seem to have much support in the academic consensus, especially since the pre-Homeric details are too nebulous for such a strong claim. Yes, Achilles has elements associated with water and that's noticeable, but assuming he was a river deity who was converted into a mortal hero is a bolder and a very uncertain idea. Furthermore, Farnell theorizes the possibility of the cult of Achilles is post-Homeric, being a direct consequence of the hero's fame in poetry.

But his name and his parentage, his birth from the sea-goddess, have persuaded many that he was originally a river-god, his name arising from the same root as the river-name Ἀχελῷος. On this theory we may explain the facts thus : a Thessalian river-god becomes the ancestor of a powerful Thessalian tribe, a most natural evolution ; the ancestor leaves the river and becomes a mere ancestor-hero, who accompanies the tribe in its wanderings and conquests, and shares in the glory of its achievements. This hypothesis might satisfy if more of the facts were relevant to it. But none of them really are, except the name Ἀχιλλεύς?, which certainly seems to claim affinity with Ἀχελῷος?, though other etymologies have been suggested. But if we have reason to suspect a primitive custom once prevailing in Greece of baptizing children in rivers, if we find in the Aeolic Troad a rite that may be old Thessalian, of maidens dedicating their virginity to the river-god before marriage, so that the spirit of the river-god might enter into the child she might conceive ^, what would be more natural than to name the new-born child after the name of the river-god ? Nowhere does the cult and legend of Achilles betray any reminiscence of an aboriginal river-god or of any other nature-divinity. No river is ever named after him, possibly one fountain (while many are associated with Herakles) and two or three

Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, pg 285-286.

Theory 2: hero cults, not only of Achilles but in general, are post-Homeric!

In 1925, Erwin Rohde published the book "Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks". The main objective of the book was to analyze the opinions of the Greeks regarding what happened to the human soul after death. In this book Rohde, although he recognized that there are elements in Homeric poetry that appear to make references to cult practice (for example, the funeral of Patroclus), argues there was no cult of the dead in the pre-Homeric age. That is, there was no cult of dead heroes, which includes Achilles. This is his opinion because of the way the soul of the dead appears to be portrayed by Homer in The Iliad and The Odyssey. Although they didn't use the same argument, both Rohde and Farnell theorized the non-existence of Achilles worship before Homer. This idea, however, will be challenged in the following years.

Such are the relics of ancient soul-worship to be found within the limits of the Homeric world. Further attention to the spirits of the dead beyond the time of the funeral was prevented by the deeply ingrained conviction that after the burning of the body the psyche was received into the inaccessible world of the Unseen, from which no traveller returns. But, in order to secure this complete departure of the soul, it is necessary for the body to be burnt. Though we do occasionally read in the Iliad or the Odyssey that immediately after death and before the burning of the body “the psyche departed to Hades”, the words must not be taken too literally; the soul certainly flies off at once towards Hades, but it hovers now between the realms of the living and the dead until it is received into the final safekeeping of the latter after the burning of the body. The psyche of Patroklos appearing by night to Achilles declares this; it prays for immediate burial in order that it may pass through the door of Hades. Until then the other shadow-creatures prevent its entrance and bar its passage across the river, so that it has to wander restlessly round the house of Aïs of the wide gate (Il. xxiii, 71 ff.). This hastening off towards the house of Hades is again all that is meant when it is said elsewhere of Patroklos himself (Il. xvi, 856) that the psyche departed out of his limbs to the house of Hades. In exactly the same way it is said of Elpenor, the companion of Odysseus, that “his soul descended to Hades” (Od. x, 560). This soul meets his friend, nevertheless, later on, at the entrance of the Shadow-world, not yet deprived of its senses like the rest of the dwellers in that House of Darkness; not until the destruction of its physical counterpart is complete can it enter into the rest of Hades. Only through fire are the souls of the dead “appeased” (Il. vii, 410). So long, then, as the psyche retains any vestige of “earthliness” it possesses some feeling still, some awareness of what is going on among the living. But once the body is destroyed by fire, then is the psyche relegated to Hades; no return to this earth is permitted to it, and not a breath of this world can penetrate to it there. It cannot even return in thought. Indeed, it no longer thinks at all, and knows nothing more of the world beyond. The living also forget one so completely cut off from themselves (Il. xxii, 389). What, then, should tempt them, during the rest of their lives here, to try to hold communication with the dead by means of a cult?

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, pg 18-19.

Furthermore, in the explained notes Rohde offers a group of information regarding the mythology of Achilles with Leuke and the known cults.

Leuke, to which already in the Aithiopis Achilles had been translated, was originally a purely mythical place (see above, p. 65), the island of the pallid shades (like the Λευκὰς πέτρη of Od. ω 11, at the entrance of Hades; cf. κ 515. It is the same rock of Hades from which unhappy lovers cast themselves down to death, ἀρθεὶς δηὖτ’ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος πέτρης κτλ. Anacr. 17, etc. [cf. Dieterich, Nek. 27 f.]. λεύκη, the white poplar, as the tree of Hades, was used to make the garlands of the Mystai at Eleusis; cf. λευκὴ κυπάρισσος at the entrance of Hades, Epigr. Gr. 1037, 2).—It was probably Milesian sailors who localized this island of Achilles in the Black Sea (there was a cult of Ach. in Olbia and in Miletos itself). Alc. already knows of the champion as ruling over the country of the Scythians: fr. 48b, ἐν Εὐξείνῳ πελάγει φαεννὰν Ἀχιλεὺς νᾶσον (ἔχει), Pi. N. iv, 49. Then Eur., Andr. 1259 ff.; IT. 436 ff.; finally Q.S. iii, 770 ff. Leuke was particularly identified with an uninhabited islet rising with its white limestone cliffs out of the sea at the mouth of the Danube: 566 Κέλτου πρὸς ἐκβολαῖσι, Lyc. 189 (probably the Istros is meant but the latest editor simply substitutes Ἴστρου πρὸς ἐκ.—a far too facile conjecture).—It stood, more exactly, before the ψιλὸν στόμα, i.e. the most northerly mouth of the river (the Kilia mouth): Arrian, Peripl. 20, 3 H.: [Scylax] Peripl. 68 prob. means the same island; cf. Leuke, εὐθὺ Ἴστρου, Max. Tyr. 15, 7. It has been proposed to identify it with the “snake island” which lies more or less in the same neighbourhood: see H. Koehler, Mém. sur les îles et la course cons. à Achille, etc., Mém. acad. S. Petersb. 1826, iv, p. 599 ff. It was only by a confusion that the long sandy beach at the mouth of the Borysthenes, called Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος, was identified with Leuke (e.g. by Mela, ii, 98; Plin., NH. iv, 93; D.P. 541 ff.); legends of Achilles’ epiphanies may have been current there too (as in other islands of the same name: Dionys. of Olbia ap. Sch. A.R. ii, 658); the Olbiopolitai offer a cult to Ἀχιλλεὺς Ποντάρχης there: CIG. 2076–7, 2080, 2096b–f (IPE. i, 77–83). But as a settled abode of Achilles only Leuke was generally recognized (there was a δρόμος Ἀχιλλέως there as well: Eur., IT. 437; Hesych. Ἀχιλλ. πλάκα; Arr. 21—hence the confusion mentioned above). Strabo’s remarks on the subject are peculiar (vii, 306 f.). He distinguishes the Ἀχ. δρόμος (which had already been mentioned by Hdt. iv, 55) from Leuke altogether; and he places that island not at the mouth of the Istros but 500 stades away at the mouth of the Tyras (Dniester). But the place where sacrifice and worship was made to Achilles, as the abode of his spirit, was definitely fixed; and this was, in fact, the island at the mouth of the Danube (κατὰ τοῦ Ἴστρου τὰς ἐκβολάς, Paus. 3, 19, 11), of which Arr. 23, 3, gives an account based partially on the evidence of eye-witnesses (p. 399, 12 Müll.).

It was an uninhabited, thickly wooded island only occupied by numerous birds; there was a temple and a statue of Ach. on it, and also an oracle (Arr. 22, 3), which must have been an oracle taken by casting or drawing lots (for there were no human intermediaries) which those who landed on the island could make use of for themselves. The birds—which were perhaps regarded as incarnations of the Heroes, or as handmaidens of the “divinity of light” which Achilles was, acc. to R. Holland, Heroenvögel in d. gr. Myth. 7 ff., 1896—the birds purify the temple every morning with their wings, which they have dipped in the water: Arr., p. 398, 18 ff. Philostr., Her. 746, p. 212, 24 Kays. (Cf. the comrades of Diomedes changed into birds on his magic island: Iuba ap. Plin., NH. x, 127—another bird miracle: ib., x, 78). No human beings dared to live on the island, though sailors often landed there; they had to leave before nightfall (when spirits are abroad): Amm. Marc. 22, 8, 35; Philostr., Her. 747, p. 212, 30–213, 6.

The temple possessed many votive offerings and Greek and Latin inss. (IPE. i, 171–2). Those who landed there sacrificed the goats which had been placed on the island and ran wild. Sometimes Ach. appeared to visitors; at other times they heard him singing the Paian. In dreams too he sometimes appeared (i.e. if a person happened to sleep—there was no Dream-oracle there). To sailors he gave directions and sometimes appeared like the Dioskouroi (as a flame?) on the top of the ship’s mast (see Arr., Peripl. 21–3; Scymn. 790–6; from both these is derived Anon., P. Pont. Eux. 64–6; Max. Tyr. 15, 7, p. 281 f. R.; Paus. 3, 19, 11; Amm. Marc. 22, 8, 35). (The account in Philostr., Her. 745, p. 211, 17–219, 6 Kays., is fantastic but uses good material and is throughout quite in keeping with the true legendary spirit—esp. in the story also of the girl torn to pieces by ghosts: 215, 6–30. Nor is it likely that 567 Phil. himself invented the marvellous tale laid precisely in the year 163–4 B.C.). Achilles is not regarded as living quite alone here: Patroklos is with him (Arr. 32, 34; Max. Tyr. 15, 7), and Helen or Iphigeneia is given him as his wife (see above, n. 99). Leonymos of Kroton, sixth century B.C., meets the two Aiantes and Antilochos there: Paus. 3, 19, 13; Conon 18; D.P. (time of Hadrian) says (545): κεῖθι δ’ Ἀχιλλῆος καὶ ἡρώων φάτις ἄλλων ψυχὰς εἱλίσσεσθαι ἐρημαίας ἀνὰ βήσσας (which Avien., Des. Orb., misunderstands and improves on: 722 ff.). Thus the island, though in a limited sense, became a true μακάρων νῆσος—insula Achillea eadem Leuce et Macaron appelata, Plin., NH. iv, 93.

Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, pg 565-566.

Theory 3: Pontarches was a god related do sailors and sea, he’s also of Greek origin!

Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, also known as Pauly-Wissowa or RE, is a encyclopedia on antiquity, its first volume published in 1839. In the 1953 volume, Bernhard Kruse and Erich Wilhelm Diehl wrote about Pontarches in the encyclopedia, a name attributed to Achilles in the Euxine Pontus. You can find them here, but in German.

In Kruse's part, we have:

He says Pontarches is Achilles and explains the hero after his death was transported to Leuke, which he describes as a mythical land that was later discovered to be a real geographical location on the Black Sea, close to the Danube.

Kruse says although there are texts mentioning the existence of a temple on the island of Borysthenes (today Berezan), the existence of this temple is archaeologically uncertain. However, he was certainly worshiped in Olbia, which was a neighbor of Borysthenes. There, he was called Pontarches/Ποντάρχης (something that refers to commanding/ruling the sea, as Lord of Sea or Ruler of Sea), documented in inscriptions found in the area that contained dedications to Achilles Pontarches and his mother, the Nereid Thetis. He says it's believed the inscriptions are all from Olbia, none of them originating from the Isle of Achilles. Kruse describes him as "divine patron of Greek sailors on the Black Sea", which explains why the title Pontarches. Kruse says the Olbia inscriptions had only been found dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.

For him, it's uncertain whether there were sanctuaries or other places of worship in the regions where the cult inscriptions were found, as few of the stones used in them were found. Regarding inscriptions found outside Olbia, Kruse theorizes they may be where sailors had reason to disembark for the night, shelter from storms, or renew drinking water (once again linking the role of Achilles Pontarches with the protection of sailors). He says, however, this isn't proof that there was a temple in Olbia even though there was one in Leuke, as a temple wouldn't be necessary for that.

Finally, Kruse ends by saying the inscriptions aren't isolated cases, as there are similar inscriptions in several places on the Black Sea dating back to the 4th century BC.

In Diehl's part, we have:

He says the chronology of the writings about Achilles Pontarches is uncertain because names rarely provide enough clues to determine years more precisely.

He mentions there are mentions of agon winners, apparently written following competition celebrations, but there is a lack of further documentary evidence on the subject.

Diehl mentions the presence of the term χαριστήριον, which is an expression of thanks. He speculates that it may be a thank you to the goodwill of Achilles Pontarches to act on a very specific occasion, whether in support during agony or in rescuing a danger, such as a danger at sea that was feared. In this case, expressing gratitude immediately after receiving help would make sense.

Diehl says the cultic reason for placing stones related to Achilles Pontarches is unknown, in particular the reason for having some of these outside Olbia (that is, assuming they were found where they actually were, and not moved outside of Olbia).

Records were found about living conditions in Olbia and about the priests.

He says the word evлooía appears to be present only in priestly inscriptions and appears to be important. According to him: "The word undoubtedly means the concept of good drinking water. Even more than protecting against water shortages in the city itself, we have to think about providing good quality drinking water to seafarers. On the long journey along the coast, the crew and passengers are dependent on the wells and springs. Who should save sailors from dying of thirst if not their divine patron? Therefore, it is obvious that a priest of Achilles Pontarches, and not an archon or strategist, acts as a mediator between the people and the functions of Achilles Pontarches."

He mentions the presence of Thetis, who was certainly worshiped as a goddess.

There is a part trying to analyze the chronology of Achilles' cults (he isn't analyzing the nature of the cult itself, however). He says that from at least the 5th century BC, Achilles was worshiped in Leuke. He says it's not possible to date the link between White Island and Olbia with certainty, but Diehl thinks it's certainly ancient. He said that in Dromos Achilleios (aka Racecourse of Achilles) writings were found that partially reveal the name Achilles, especially associated with sailors. He says that in Neapolis there are tributes paid to the Lord of Leuke. Diehl comments on the possibility of the cult of Aquiles Pontarches specifically having started in Olbia.

Diehl comments on the various attempted analyzes of the possible divine nature of Achilles, arguing why they don't make sense. For example, he talks about a theory that he was a solar deity, to which he counters that Achilles, like his mother, clearly belongs to the element sea and not the sun.

He comments on previous attempts to link the origin of Achilles Pontarches to a non-Greek origin, such as the Thracians, the Scythians and even Asia Minor. Diehl disagrees with these suggestions, being of the opinion: "Everything ancient sources tell us about Achilles and Achilles Pontarches shows us he's a purely Greek figure."

It's interesting to mention that scholars who try to explore the cults of Achilles tend to list at least Diehl as a reference, so this text influenced later ones.

Theory 4: hero cults are pre-Homeric and the divine side of Achilles is intrinsically related to Thetis, including the sea element!

In 1979, Gregory Nagy published a book intitled "The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry". Nagy argued that both The Iliad and The Odyssey already presented elements of cult, including in scenes related to Achilles, and therefore the practice of hero cult is pre-Homeric. The reason it wasn't further explored was the fact that Homer wrote pan-Hellenic poetry, featuring Greek characters from different regions, while cults tended to be regional. How do you delve deeper into something that has the characteristic of being regional in a pan-Hellenic history? Therefore, the argument that there were no cults of Achilles before Homer and other poets because there are no signs of it in the writing wouldn't be a strong enough argument.

This was a direct response to Rohde. In fact, Nagy says Rohde himself noticed signs of hero worship in Homeric poetry, but deliberately didn't consider them because they were arguments that would contradict his thesis. Although Nagy focuses on Rohde, Farnell is mentioned in the notes to the passage in which he says that certainly the religion surrounding Greek heroes isn’t post-Homeric. Therefore, it was also a disagreement in relation to Farnell's theory. He cites other critics of Farnell's interpretation as well.

[Akho/Ákhos = grief, sorrow; public expression of grief, sorrow, by way of lamentation or keening. Pénthos = grief, lamentation. Laós = people assembled, the people of a country, soldiers. Kléos = glory]

[…] ákhos/pénthos requires the rituals of cult, as we have already seen from the evidence on the cult of Demeter Akhaiá. By performing ritual lamentations, the community involves itself with the ákhos of Demeter over the káthodos of Kore. $26. The death of Achilles would be an ákhos not only to the laós, in epic, but also to the community at large, in cult. There are clear traces that we can cite from the hero cults of Achilles in the classical and even postclassical periods. For just one example, let us consider a custom in Elis that Pausanias mentions in connection with various local athletic traditions-among them the restricted use of a site with the epichoric name of hieròs drómos 'sacred run' (6.23.2). On an appointed day at the beginning of the Olympic Games, as the sun is sinking in the west, the women of Elis perform various rituals to worship Achilles (τοῦ ̓Αχιλλέως δρῶσιν ἐς τιμήν), and the ritual that is singled out specifically is that of mourning (KóπTTEσ0αι: Pausanias 6.23.3). Whereas Achilles gets kléos from epic, he gets ákhos/pénthos from cult. $27. This is not the place, of course, to attempt a detailed exposition of how the cult of heroes in Greek religion is decidedly not some relatively late phenomenon, motivated somehow by the stories of heroes in Greek epic. The monumental work of Erwin Rohde remains one of the most eloquent sources for our under- standing the héros 'hero' as a very old and distinct concept of traditional Greek religion, requiring cult practices that were also distinct from those of the gods. The cult of heroes was a highly evolved transformation of the worship of ancestors, within the social context of the city-state or pólis. As a parallel, I would propose that the κλέα ἀνδρῶν / ηρώων kléos [plural] of men who were heroes of Iliad IX 524-525 represents the evolution of Greek epic from earlier "stories about the ancestors," as still represented by the names Kleo- pátré/Patro-klées, and, vestigially, by the function of the traditional figures assigned to these names.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 114-115.

$29 The hero of cult must be local because it is a fundamental principle in Greek religion that his power is local! On the other hand, the Iliad and the Odyssey are Panhellenic. What results is that the central heroes of this epic tradition cannot have an overtly religious dimension in the narrative. Such a restriction on the self-expression of epic led Rhode to misunderstand the Homeric evidence on heroes. In general, his thesis was that the overall Homeric silence on the subject of hero cults implies an absence of even the ideological background? In specifics, however, Rohde himself noticed sporadic instances in the Iliad and the Odyssey where some sort of reference is indeed being made to hero cults, but he did not integrate this evidence, which went against his thesis. Each of these instances would require a detailed exposition, but I restrict the discussion here to just one instance that reflects on the status of Patroklos/Achilles in the Iliad. $30 As Rohde himself had noticed, the Funeral of Patroklos at Iliad XXIII has several features that connote the rituals of hero cults. For example, the wine libation (XXIII 218-221) and the offering of honey with oil (XXIII 170; cf. xxiv 67-68) "can hardly be regarded as anything but sacrificial." Such marginal details of cult, as also the integral element of singing lamentations at XXIII 12 and 17, give ritual form to the akhos of Achilles for Patroklos at XXIII 47.3 Even the central epic action of Book XXIII, the Funeral Games of Patroklos, has ritual form.‘ In Homeric narrative, the funeral of a hero is the only occasion for athletic contests (XXIII 630-631: Amarynkeus; xxiv 85-86: Achilles himself). In classical times, local athletic contests were still motivated as funeral games for the epichoric hero (cf., e.g., Pausanias 8.4.5). As a general principle, the agon was connected with the cult of heroes, and even the Great Panhellenic Games were originally conceived as funeral games for heroes.* The custom of mourning for Achilles at the beginning of the Olympics (Pausanias 6.23.3) is a striking instance of this heritage. As a parallel, epic offers a corresponding single event in the mourning for Patroklos that inaugurates the Funeral Games in Book XXIII. Even though there are hints within the Iliad that the Funeral of Patroklos is presented as a grand beginning of cult (XXIV 592-595), the overt singularity of the event forced Rohde to rule it out as a parallel to the cult of heroes, which is recurrent? And yet, the Iliad itself is a singularity. What is recurrent in ritual is timeless in the epic tradition, just like the kléos aphthiton of Achilles.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 116-117.

[Note: Regarding "hieròs drómos 'sacred run'" mentioned, in English the name is "Racecourse of Achilles". Probably related to the Achilles element as "swift-footed". In a Roman source, it’s said that this is the name because the "Thessalian leader", in this case Achilles, exercised there (presumably ran). In a Byzantine source, this was said to be the route Achilles took in search of his lover Iphigenia, a version of the myth told by Lycophron in the poem Alexandra (Hellenistic Greece) which the Byzantine source was analyzing. When looking for Iphigenia, he presumably ran. Regardless of the real origin, there is a connection with the agile aspect of Achilles.]

Nagy also discusses the divine side of Achilles, especially connecting him with his mother's domain: the sea. He also explores the idea of the birth of Thetis's son as a cosmic threat (In this case, a cosmic threat averted. And the avoidance of that threat gave birth to Achilles).

[Póntos = sea. Mêtis = wisdom, craft. Mênis = wrath, anger. Bíē = force, violence]

$24. The Hellespont, then, is a focal point for the heroic essence of Achilles Homeric poetry presents his tomb as overlooking its dangerous waters, the setting for violent storms expressed by the same imagery that expresses the hero's cosmic affinity with fire and wind. Moreover, epic diction presents this fire and wind as primarily endangering the ships of the Achaeans, which are conventionally described as being beached on the Hellespont (XV 233, XVII 432, XVIII 150, XXIII 2). In other words, the Hellespont is also a focal point for the heroic essence of all the Achaeans who came to fight at Troy. Moreover, Troy itself and the Hellespont are presented in epic diction as parallel markers of the place where the Trojan War took place (XII 30, XXIV 346). It is by sailing down the Ἑλλήσποντον … ἰχθυόεντα 'fish-swarming Hellespont' that Achilles could have left Troy and come back home safely to Phthia (IX 359-363). In fact, from the standpoint of a Homeric audience in the eighth or seventh centuries B.C., the site of the Trojan War is significant not so much because of Troy itself but because of the Hellespont, passage to the Black Sea. And the prime affinity of Achilles with the Hellespont and the realms to which it leads will survive for centuries, well beyond the classical period. From inscriptions found in the Black Sea area, we know that Achilles still presides over the póntos even as late as the second/third centuries A.D.: he is in fact still worshiped as the Pontárkhés 'Ruler of the Póntos". $25. The cosmic affinity of Achilles with the póntos in general and with the Helléspontes in particular is of course inherited from his mother Thétis. We are reminded of the initial Iliadic scene where the solitary figure of a weeping Achilles is pictured gazing out toward the póntos (1 350), actually praying to the divine Thetis (1 351-356). The goddess then makes an epiphany that is characteristic of a true Nereid, emerging from the sea like a cloud of mist (I 357-359). Of course, Thetis was actually born in the póntos (Hesiod Th. 241/244), the granddaughter of Póntos incarnate (Th. 233). In Pindar's Isthmian 8, a poem that tells how she would have given birth to a son greater than his father if Zeus or Poseidon had mated with her (lines 31-35), she is actually called ποντíαν θeóv 'goddess of the póntos' (line 34). To avoid the danger that the essence of Thetis poses to the cosmic order, the gods get her married off to the mortal Peleus (lines 35-40). And the son that issues from this marriage of Peleus and Thetis grows up to fulfill a function that is latent in the very word póntos: γεφύρωσέ τ' Ατρείδαι- σι νόστον … and he Achilles bridged a safe homecoming for the sons of Atreus. Pindar 1.8.51 In other words: by dint of his exploits at Troy (1.8.51-55), Achilles made it possible for the leaders of the Achaeans to traverse the sea and go back home. The semantics of "bridge" here correspond to the semantics of Latin pōns, cognate of Greek póntos.

$26. The cosmic powers of Thetis over the póntos are evident from local traditions connected with her actual cult. Perhaps the most striking example is in Herodotus 7.188-192, the account of a shipwreck suffered by the Persian fleet off the coast of Magnesia. The precise location of the shipwreck was an akté 'headland' called Sepiás (after sepía 'sepia, cuttlefish')-given that name, says Herodotus, because local tradition had it that Thetis was abducted by Peleus at this spot (192). Moreover, the storm that wrecked the ships of the Persians took the form of a violent wind that the local Hellenic population called the Hellespontíes (188). We are reminded that the tomb of Achilles was on an akté 'headland' at the Helléspontos (xxiv 82)!n After the storm has raged for three days, the Magi of the Persians sing incantations to the wind and sacrifice to Thetis, having been informed by the natives of the lore connecting the name Sepiás with her and the other Nereids (Herodotus 7.191). $27. The place Sēpiás is connected with Thetis not only because Peleus abducted her from there. In a story that was probably incorporated in the epic Cypria, the polymorphous Thetis actually assumes the shape of a sēpíā 'sepia, cuttlefish' at the very moment when Peleus mates with her (scholia ad Lycophron 2.175, 178).1 This identification is most significant in view of the sepia's function as animal of mêtis in Greek lore (e.g., onmin doλóunts in Oppian Halieutica 2.120). As Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant have argued most convincingly, Thetis herself is a figure of mêtis. To go into this topic now would be to stray far beyond my line of inquiry, which has been confined mainly to the bíē of Achilles and its cosmic affinities. Suffice it to say that the mêtis of Thetis also relates to the póntos. It is a key to the fundamentals of navigation, as embodied in the orienting principles of Póros 'charted path [over the sea]' and Tékmōr 'goal', which are opposed to the disorienting principle of Skótos 'darkness'. These personifications of opposing themes stem from the local cosmogonic traditions of Laconia as preserved in the poetry of Alcman, fr. 2P. From this same fragment, we also know that the opposing figures of Póros/Tékmōr vs. Skótos are presented as fundamental cosmic principles that are transcended by one all-encompassing figure, who is none other than the goddess Thetis! I will simply refer to Detienne and Vernant for a discussion of the rich mythology surrounding these related themes of navigation, orientation, and cosmogony, confining myself here to one point: in local traditions such as the Laconian, Thetis figures as a primordial goddess with the most fundamental cosmic powers, and her primacy is reflected by the utmost reverence that is her due in cult (consider the Laconian practices mentioned by Pausanias 3.14.4).

$28. My point is that Thetis must by nature also transcend the concept of Achilles, a son who is after all a mere "demigod," hemítheos. Her power over the póntos entails the principle of mêtis, whereas his power has affinities only with the bíē of wind and fire." And yet, the heroic irony is that Achilles as son of Thetis could actually be more powerful than Zeus himself, if only he had been fathered by the god instead of a mortal (Pindar 1.8.31-35). We have indeed seen that the mênis of Achilles creates effects that are parallel to those created by the bíē of Zeus in a thunderstorm, and that these effects are actually validated by the Will of Zeus. In this sense, Zeus himself is validating the divine potential of the mortal Achilles Moreover, the theme of the hero's divine potential is actually conjured up by the manner in which the Will of Zeus goes into effect in the Iliad. The wind- and firelike devastation from the mênis of Achilles is willed by Zeus because Thetis asks for it (I 407-412, 503-510). Moreover, the validation of the hero's essence in the Iliad is in return for what Thetis had done for Zeus, when she rescued him from imprisonment by his fellow Olympians (I 396-406). Here we see a vital link with the theme of the hero's divine potential. Thetis rescued Zeus by summoning Briáreōs the Hundred-Hander, who then frightened the Olympian rebels away from ever endangering Zeus again (I 401-406). In this context, the Hundred-Hander is specifically described as βίην οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων better in bíē than his father' (I 404). The theme is strikingly parallel to what would have been if Zeus or Poseidon had mated with Thetis. $29. The figure of Briáreos, also called Aigaiōn (I 404), is a sort of nightmarish variant of Achilles himself. In the Hesiodic tradition, Briáreos/Obriáreōs is likewise one of the Hundred-Handers (Hesiod Th. 147-153). These figures are equal to the Titans themselves in bíē (Th. 677-678), and they use their bíē to defeat the Titans (Th. 649-650), thus ensuring the krátos of Zeus (Th. 662). Their action in defeating the Titans (Th. 674-686, 713-719) is in fact a correlate of the victorious action taken by Zeus himself with the bíē of a cosmic thunderstorm (Th. 687-712). In other traditions, Aigaiōn is likewise a figure who fights against the Titans (Titanomachy fr. 2 p. 110 Allen); moreover, he lives in the sea and was actually fathered by Póntos (ibid.). On the other hand, still another tradition has Briáreōs fathered by Poseidon himself (scholia ad Iliad I 404). These variant figures Briáreōs and Aigaíon, synthesized as one figure in Iliad I 403-404, conjure up the Iliadic theme of Achilles] He too is an exponent of bíē; he too has strong affinities with the pontos. Here is a hero who would have been better than Poseidon-better than Zeus himself — if either had fathered him. Just as the divine essence of Zeus was validated by the bíē of Briáreos/Aigaíon, so also the god will now validate in return the heroic essence of Achilles in the Iliad. The bie of the Hundred-Hander is an antecedent for the bie that will mark Achilles] The hero cannot be the best of the gods, but he will be the best of heroes. And in the poetry that all Hellenes must recognize, he will be the best of the Achaeans.

The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, pg 343-347.

In fact, Nagy is an important name in the Homeric scholia, so don't be surprised to see that in the following texts he's present. From what I've noticed, he’s frequently referenced in works.

Theory 5: Achilles was a deity of the Underworld, of Greek origin!

In 1980, Hildebrecht Hommel published a book entitled "Der Gott Achilleus", which means "God Achilles", in which he intended to argue in favor of the idea that the cult of Achilles in the Euxine Pontus was a deity cult and not a heroic cult. Perhaps boldly, he tried to argue the divine Achilles had an association with the Underworld (linking Achilles with the Underworld isn’t bold...he’s truly a character surrounded by death, be it his own death or the death of others. The idea of him being an Underworld deity is bold). Unfortunately, I didn't find Hommel's text accessible online in English, only in German. But it's important to mention him because Hommel is often mentioned as a reference in later researchers, whether to agree or disagree.

The Classical Review publishes informative reviews, subject profiles and notices from leading scholars on new work covering the languages, literature, history, archaeology, philosophy and reception of ancient Greece and Rome and Asia Minor (definition given by the Cambridge website). One of the issues was published in 1982 (that is, two years after the publication of Hommel's book) was written by Emily Kearns and was a review of Hommel's theory. According to her:

This is a study much indebted to earlier scholarship, and yet, as its author suggests in conclusion, it has the air of a preliminary foray into a larger area. Its subject is not the whole complex of divine cults of Achilles in the Greek world, but the most remarkable and well-documented of these, the cult of Achilles Pontarches in the Black Sea area: Olbia, Leuke and Berezan. This puzzling figure, apparently so unlike the Achilles of the Iliad (with whom he is linked, however, by the tradition, found in the Aithiopis, of his translation to the island of Leuke) poses two obvious questions. Is he a purely Greek god, or does he contain native Scythian elements? And what is the precise nature of his sphere of influence? H. rejects the now more usual view of a syncretistic, largely Scythian/Thracian Achilles in favour of a Greek one. He is clearly right to point to the improbability of a simple identification of some such foreign god with the epic, heroic Achilles. It seems impossible to deny that it is a genuinely Greek tradition, though one suppressed in Homer, to attribute divine features to Achilles; but this Greek god could then the more easily be merged with a foreign deity. The main aim of the book, however, is to demonstrate that the Pontic Achilles was in origin an underworld god - not of course a new idea, as H. acknowledges. Indeed it is clear that Achilles was often pictured as occupying a specially privileged position among the dead on the Isles of the Blest. Further investigation of the diffusion of this concept might have been useful, for this, together with the identification of the νήσος μακάρων with Leuke, really provides the only hard-and-fast evidence for the Pontic Achilles as lord of the dead. H.'s black-figure amphora from the British Museum is too uncertain of interpretation to be useful, and Od. 11. 467 ff. can, and surely should, be explained exclusively in terms appropriate to epic concepts of death. Further evidence adduced is of a more indirect nature - investigations into the chthonic or underworld associations of the various figures who appear as consorts of the translated Achilles, and speculations on an etymological connexion of 'Achilles' with Acheloös, Acheron, and ἀχερωίς (the white poplar). Some of these points are suggestive, but none is wholly persuasive. They do not seem sufficient to determine the character of the cult on Leuke and the associated areas. Here the evidence is maddeningly inconclusive; graffiti on pottery from Leuke, Berezan and the mainland, some now dated as early as the sixth century, reveal very little. Yet it seems remarkable that one who was simply the lord of the dead could inspire so much positive attention, and still more remarkable that by the second century after Christ he should be a figure of major importance, capable of bestowing every sort of benefit, both to the individual and more particularly to the city. H. demonstrates the connexion of Achilles with death, both for the Pontus region and elsewhere; but to imagine that his significance in cult is confined to this, to reduce his function to a formula, is surely misconceived.

The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1982), pg 285-286.

Kearns alludes there was debate about the divine Achilles before the 1980s since she says "this is a study much indebted to earlier scholarship", which makes sense since Farnell in 1920 was refuting a theory linked to the idea of the pre-Homeric divine Achilles. However, if we take into account what Kearns says, then apparently the debates surrounding the cult of Achilles at the time seemed to consider it of Scythian/Thracian origin (which reminds me of how in Diehl's text he also mentioned this), which Hommel disputes by arguing that it’s entirely Greek, something Kearns agrees with (also similar to Diehl’s text). However, she disagrees with the idea that he was a deity related to the Underworld (which she mentions isn't new. So apparently it's been suggested or at least implied before?), as, although she agrees Achilles is associated with death in certain ways in mythology, she thinks the evidence is too inconclusive to assert with certainty the character of the cult. Yes, the cult existed, but was it really about an Underworld deity?

Theory 6: Achilles' mortality is an essential element, and his cults are entirely heroic!

In 1988, J. T. Hooker opposed the Hommel idea, arguing that although a cult of Achilles did indeed exist in the Black Sea, the divine or heroic nature of the cult is uncertain. He says etymological speculations are just speculations and Achilles' status as a very mortal man is very well established (because his story is very related to his mortality. This is why death in the character of Achilles is such a strong element compared to other characters in the Trojan War, which includes the various sources regarding his afterlife). He also mentions Farnell as an example of an academic who, unlike Hommel, interpreted Achilles only had hero cults.

Theory 7: Pontarches was a god related to sea and sailors!

In 1991, Guy Hedreen explained why it's possible that the cult resembled a deity cult more than a heroic cult, which could have been a possibility since mythological characters actually receiving heroic worship weren't non-existent:

A series of inscribed dedicatory stelae to Achilles Pontarches dates from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. These are public dedications made by the archons, generals, and priests of Olbia, thank-offerings to Achilles for the well-being of the city and of the dedicants themselves. Achilles' status was never higher than in the Roman period at Olbia. We learn from the inscriptions that he was the patron of the college of archons, and as such he presumably was endowed with powers approaching those of a god; there are few significant differences between the inscribed dedications to Achilles Pontarches and those to Apollo Prostates and Hermes Agoraeus, the patrons of the Olbian generals and the agoranomoi. This accords well with what Dio Chrysostomos reports after his visit to Olbia around the end of the 1st century after Christ. He writes that the Olbians honor Achilles as their god and that they had established two temples in the hero's honor, one in Olbia itself and another on "Achilles' island. "

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 314-315.

As you can notice, he's mainly talking about the Romans and not the Greeks. However, he later clarifies that there was already evidence of such a cult in Classical Greece and that more recently there was evidence in Archaic Greece. In other words, it isn't a Roman invention, but it's a Greek invention adopted by the Romans.

For many years the earliest evidence for the cult at Olbia dated to the Classical period. Recently published graffiti, however, from the city and the surrounding area indicate that the cult began at least as early as the second half of the 6th century B.C. The most interesting class of Achilles-related graffiti consists of short inscriptions and crude drawings on clay disks made from pottery fragments. The disks are more or less carefully worked into the shape of a circle, ranging in diameter from three to six centimeters. The largest number of inscribed disks comes from the late 6th-century site of Beikush located at the confluence of the Berezan and Beikush inlets, approximately forty kilometers west of Olbia. Thirtynine disks from the site bear graffiti, most including the name of Achilles or an abbreviation of the name: A, AXI, AXIɅɅ, AXIɅɅE, or AXIɅɅEI. In addition to the letters, many of the disks have depictions of objects, including snakes, human figures, and perhaps boats, swords, and daggers. The excavator of the Beikush disks also published eight similar disk from Olbia. These disks, formed out of black-glazed pottery fragments, are characterized by more careful workmanship than the Beikush examples. Six of them are incised with figures or letters, but only one, bearing a solitary letter A, is exactly comparable to the Beikush series. Three other inscribed pottery disks from Olbia were published by Yailenko. One bears the letters AXIɅE plus an obscure drawing. The other two have drawings and the letter A. Since Beikush is the most fully excavated of some three dozen laten Archaic Greek settlements in the vicinity of Berezan, there is hope that other, as yet unexplored settlements will yield further Achilles-related disks.

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 315-316.

One of the reasons this cult is of such interest is that the current evidence far outweighs the evidence for the cult of Achilles in other regions, including the cult dedicated to him in the Troad at the site of what was believed to be his tomb (hence, the tomb of Antilochus and Patroclus also since they were all in the same urn according to mythological tradition). According to Strabo, not only Achilles was honored, but Patroclus, Antilochus and Big Ajax as well, all heroes who died in Troy.

The length of this coast, I mean on a straight voyage from Rhoeteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is sixty stadia; and the whole of it lies below Ilium, not only the present Ilium, from which, at the Harbor of the Achaeans, it is about twelve stadia distant, but also the earlier Ilium, which lies thirty stadia farther inland in the direction of Mt. Ida. Now there are a sanctuary and a monument of Achilles near Sigeium, as also monuments of Patroclus and Antilochus; and the Ilians offer sacrifices to all four heroes, both to these and to Aias.

Geography, 13.1.32. Translation by Horace Leonard Jones.

The cult of Achilles (by extension, the associated heroes already mentioned) in the Troad had considerable political importance. Jonathan S. Burgess describes some examples of how the tomb has been used over the years for political reasons.

The potential political significance of a Troad tumulus of Achilles of mytho-poetic fame and cultic importance was soon recognized. In Herodotus’ account of rivalry between Athens and Mytilene in the Troad, which apparently occurred in the sixth century, Mytilene established a town in the area called “Achilleion” after the Athenians took over Sigeion. This town apparently derived its name from a nearby tumulus identified as that of Achilles, as Strabo and Pliny later confirm. So by the sixth century BCE, at least, there existed a place in the Troad formally recognized as the burial place of Achilles, of such significance that it could give its name to a town established nearby. One surmises that in the struggle between Athens and Mytilene, both outsiders to the Troad, control of the tomb of Achilles, and by extension the glory of the Greek mythological past, was deemed of great political value. A series of political leaders in antiquity went out of their way to visit Troy, and often the tomb of Achilles. The topography of the Troad and its surviving monuments served as a stage for enactment of ideological conceptions of East and West. What could be viewed and visited in the Troad could suggest the mythological past of the Trojan war, which had long functioned as an endlessly malleable allegory. Trojan war myth had obvious use as a metaphor for West and East, Greek and barbarian, but it also offered opportunities for much different interpretations. Sympathy for vanquished Trojans and foundation stories featuring Trojan dispersal into the Western world resulted in various and highly complex use of the Trojan war story. Even when a certain perspective identified with one side or the other of the Trojan war, respect could be displayed towards both sides; or rather, one might seek to appease one side even as one actively identified with the other. As for visitation to the Troad, much depended on who was visiting and where they were proceeding after that. Xerxes stopped by Troy before invading Greece, sacrificing to Athena and making libations to “heroes,” though we do not hear of his visiting tombs. In 334 BC Alexander the Great, styling himself a second Achilles conquering eastern barbarians, visited the tomb of Achilles. He ran naked to the tomb of Achilles and laid a wreath there, while his close friend Hephaistion performed similar rituals at a nearby mound identified as the tomb of Patroklos. Later still Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople, reportedly visited the tombs of Ajax and Achilles. He was said to have fancied himself an avenger of Troy, but he may have seen a need to appease ancient Greek heroes in this mission, much as Alexander in his previous visit to Troy sought to placate the shade of Priam.

The Romans traced their lineage back to the Trojans, and so visiting Romans tended to focus on Trojan heroes. However, when Caracalla visited the Troad in 214 CE he dedicated a bronze statue to Achilles and honored him with sacrifices; what is more, he had his freedman Festus cremated there, with a great tumulus constructed over his bones, in imitation of the burial of Patroklos. The tomb of Achilles was also visited by Julian in the fourth century. The Troad had become a tourist site by the imperial period, and doubtless there were other undocumented visitations of Troad monuments by prominent figures. On a more imaginary level, prominent tourists included Charon and even Homer himself. Lucian has Hermes, as tour guide, pointing out the tomb to Charon; it is said to be by the sea, in view of Sigeion and Ajax’s tomb at Rhoetion (the tombs are “not big,” sniffs Charon, unimpressed). A biographical anecdote reported that Homer was blinded when Achilles appeared to him in full armor at his tomb. Political considerations are prominent in Philostratus’ account of the Thessalian cult worship of Achilles in the Troad. When the Thessalians sided with the Persians during the invasion of Xerxes, it is reported by Philostratus, they abandoned the cult of Achilles. Later under Macedonian rule they returned to the practice because of Alexander’s fascination with Achilles. In other words, Thessalian attention to a Troad cult of Achilles reflected how their political rulers identified with the myth of the Trojan war.

Tumuli of Achilles, Political Visitations.

As noted, the cult at Troad had its importance. And yet, there is a difference between this cult and the cult at Euxine. Firstly, as already said, the cult in Euxine currently has more evidence than the cult in Troad, being better documented. Secondly, the cult in the Troad is considered a heroic cult and this is a consensus, unlike the debate surrounding the cult in Euxine. I'm taking a quick look at the Troad cult, although I haven't done the same with other Achilles cults, just to give an example of a hero cult and how it used to be local, have some relationship with death no matter how small and had importance even if it wasn't a cult of a deity. As I just want to give an example, I won't extend it to other cults.

Off all the differences between hero-worship and divine worship in ancient Greece, possibly the most fundamental is the difference in the geographical limits of the two types of cult. A hero-cult was most often restricted to a particular locale, whereas the worship of an Olympian god or goddess was usually widespread. The site of a hero-cult requires some connection with the hero, the physical remains of the body being the most direct. With respect to this general distinction between heroic and divine worship the cult of Achilles is problematic. On the one hand, there was a cult near Troy at the site identified as the burial mound of Achilles. We hear in the Odyssey that a great tumulus was heaped up by the Achaeans on a promontory at the mouth of the Hellespont, "so that it may be conspicuous to men travelling by sea, those living now as well as those to come" (Homer, Odyssey 24.80-84). The little we know about the cult at the tumulus of Achilles is from literary sources. It is as early as the 5th century B.C., if not earlier, and it was regularly patronized by the Thessalians. Occasionally other notables worshipped the hero there, including the Persian expeditionary force, Alexander the Great, and the emperor Caracalla. On the other hand, Achilles was also worshipped at a number of other places in the ancient world, including Kroton in South Italy, Lakonia and Elis in the Peloponnese, Astypalaia in the Cyclades, and Erythrai in Asia Minor. We know very little about these cults, which are mentioned in passing in the ancient sources, but their existence shows that the worship of Achilles was not confined to one place or to the immediate vicinity of his tomb. What is most puzzling is the popularity of the cult of Achilles among the Greeks who settled along the northern coast of the Euxine and among the sailors who traveled in this area. The evidence for the cult in this region is considerable and far outweighs the evidence for the worship of Achilles in other parts of Greece, including the Troad.' The cult appears to have originated in the 6th century B.C. and was still in existence in the 3rd century after Christ. Achilles was worshipped at the Milesian colony of Olbia as well as on an island in the middle of the Euxine from the Archaic period on. A third location of cult activity in honor of the hero was a long strandlike land formation southeast of Olbia. The evidence for the cult of Achilles in the Euxine is not very well known, partly because some of it has been published only in Russian. A very useful summary of the material was written by Diehl in 1953, but since then interesting new material has appeared. The more recent study of Hommel touches on some of the new archaeological material but is primarily concerned with theological questions.' I will review the evidence for the worship of Achilles in the Euxine and then consider one of the pressing questions surrounding the cult.

The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, pg 313-314.

Theory 8: the etymology of the name Achilles is related to immortality and inherited Indo-European traditions (although, in this case, the argument isn’t that he was a deity)!

I searched to see if there was any text before Farnell that dealt with the etymological theory of “Achean God”, but I couldn't find it. I mean, it certainly existed, since Farnell rejected to this theory, but in my research I particularly only found authors contesting or quickly mentioning it and not actually presenting it. But here a text by Alexander Nikoalev from the "Etymologies" section of the book "Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective", published by the Cambridge Philological Society in 2007. As my goal here is to try to expand the theories as much as possible, then here is an etymological theory in favor of the name etymologically connecting Achilles with immortality after many texts arguing against it.

Nikolaev says, although there have been many attempts to trace the etymological origin of the name of the "foremost hero of the Iliad”, the etymological theories have all been restricted to Homer and have rarely considered other linguistic material. Currently, the academic consensus (academic consensus is what the majority believes, it isn’t necessarily an indisputable truth) is that the name Achilles is etymologically related to axoς 'grief', which Nikolaev comments was first introduced in the scholia and later prepared by academics such as Paul Kretschmer, Leonard Palmer and Gregory Nagy.

He gives an extensive argument, which I couldn't dream of summarizing in a decent way and which I can't put entirely here because it's too long, but you can find it by searching the internet. But in an attempt to explain what he said (I still recommend reading what he said rather than my explanation for reasons already explained), his main argument against the most popular etymological idea is: "As is noted in the standard works on Greek etymology, there is a considerable difference between the meaning of axoς 'pain, anguish, distress' (and the related verbs ǎxvvμai, ǎxouai 'I grieve, mourn') and what are usually assumed to be its cognates: Go. agis 'fear, OIr. ad-ágor 'I am afraid." Given this discrepancy in meaning, it is worth considering another approach" (pg 163). That is, Nikolaev believes that the popular idea arose from an interpretation that confused similar, but not identical, terms. He also argues against the idea of Axi-λãoc relating to 'bringing ǎxoç to his host of men' (the λαός/láos part of Achilles is theorized to mean “people, soldiers, nation”, which makes the coupling of this with the idea of axoς/ákhos as “grief” results in “he whose people have distress” and similar). Instead, he suggests: “Axıλ(^)eúc is derived from a stem *akʰilo- that goes back to a compound *h₂nĝʰi-(h𝑥)ul(h𝑥)-o- 'slaying pain/death, with an i-stem as the first member and a development of initial *h₂ngʰ-> ȧx- in accordance with the treatment of laryngeals before nasals discussed” (pg 167)

And what's his suggestion then, you ask. Basically, Nikolaev is suggesting an Indo-European origin. More specifically, ἄχος (ákhos; the part that is usually theorized to mean “grief”) results from a contamination between two different terms, but which could have had quite similar stems in Proto-Greek. To reinforce his idea, Nikolaev gives an extensive list of examples of words that had the phonological development he’s arguing for, and thus says that, therefore, the assumption the contamination of the Indo-European word for “fear” (h₂eĝʰ-o/es) with the Indo-European word for “distress” (h₂enĝʰ-o/es) isn’t so absurd. He theorizes that contamination between the two Indo-European words resulted in the Proto-Greek akʰos. As mentioned, akʰilo- has a possible Indo-European origin in the compound (h₂nĝʰi-(h𝑥)υ̯l(h𝑥)-o-). It turns out that, with regard to contamination, this opens up the possibility of connecting the Greek ἄχος with the Indo-European h₂enĝʰes-, a term that was used in poetic traditions related to the formula of the hero who has a victory over death. In turn, as for the second part of the name Achilles (usually theorized to be laiós/λαός, but as I said, this is something he also disagrees with), Nikolaev assumes that it’s safe to assume that it may have a connection with the Indo-European (h⅔)υ̯elh⅓- and argues that the intransitive meaning doesn’t prevent the reconstruction of a factitive bahuvrihi compound “the one who provides death with defeat/death” and is reflected in the Greek. The result: he’s suggesting that the etymological meaning of Achilles is "the one who overcomes death”.

But this might make you wonder what argument Nikolaev is trying to make here. After all, the most popular theory makes sense with the myth of Achilles, because “grief” makes perfect sense for his character. Well, the argument is related to the mortality/immortality theme of Achilles, famously known because of the myth of Thetis trying to make her son immortal and failing. According to him:

[μñvic = depsent anger, Homer uses this term only to describe divine wrath and the exception to this is Achilles. Prooimion = prelude, preface, opening]

There is an obvious semantic justification of this etymology: the impending death of Achilles is a significant part of the plot of the Iliad. On the one hand, all of Achilles' heroic deeds are performed against the background of his future death, of which he is well aware (e.g. Il. 1.352, 19.328); on the other hand, the reader is constantly reminded that immortality was bestowed upon Achilles in his childhood, through references to his genealogy (tòv áðavátη tέke μýtnp Il. 10.404, 17.78), his accoutrements (außρota Tεúxea II. 17.194) and even his horses (ллоι | аμẞротоι Пl. 16.866-7). The death of Patroclus is naturally noteworthy in this connection, since it precedes and, to a certain extent, anticipates and forestalls the death of Achilles himself. A name 'the one who overcomes death' immediately reminds us of the well-known story of Thetis' attempts to endow her son with immortality by putting him into the hearth and anointing his body with ambrosia (Schol. D ad Il. 16.36; according to another version, Thetis immersed Achilles in the waters of the Styx). Thus the hero's name could have contained a reference to the whole plot of the epic, possibly even adding to its suspense.

The etymology suggested in this paper allows us to look at the problem from another angle. Achilles' immortality and his godlike status are topics too broad to be treated with thoroughness here, but it is worth mentioning the links between Achilles and the Olympian gods, such as the usage of the formulaic word μñvic, which is used in the epic only of the gods and Achilles (Watkins (1977) 189), or the striking fact that, in a recently published elegy on Plataea by Simonides, Achilles is the subject of the prooimion, otherwise reserved for addressing the gods (West (1993)). There are also some, admittedly circumstantial, pieces of evidence that Achilles was worshipped as a god. If we are prepared to take this evidence at face value and acknowledge the figure of a possibly pre-Iliadic deity Achilles, which may have had nothing to do with the epic story other than the name it lent to its hero, this casts quite a different light on the matter: a connection between the name of the ruler of the μakáρwv vñσoι and the archaic myth of victory over death is both expected and welcome. But this must necessarily remain speculative. The name Axt()ɛúc thus probably preserves a precious fragment of an archaic myth of a hero who defeats death. If this is correct, we are left with a further open question, namely whether the whole story of Achilles' uñvic, undoubtedly one of the central themes of the Iliad, is based on a misinterpretation of the archaic name and consequently on the reinterpretation of the character himself as 'the one who brings ǎxoc to his host of men.

Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, pg 170-171.

As noted, Nikoalev's aim isn’t to argue for the Pre-Iliadic divine Achilles, although he doesn’t reject the possibility as do the other authors I have listed, but rather to argue for the existence of a possible narrative of a (mortal) hero who conquered death. He argues that there is evidence that the Greeks inherited this Indo-European theme using as examples Orpheus' failed attempt to save Eurydice and the myth of Zagreus/Dionysus. Furthermore, when he says "There are also some, admittedly circumstantial, pieces of evidence that Achilles was worshipped as a god" he’s referring to the cult of Pontarches. The reason Nikolaev makes a point of emphasizing that he knows this is an uncertain idea is because it’s still a debated topic, as he indicates by referencing Farnell and Hedreen as examples of opposing arguments in the explanatory notes. However, I imagine that perhaps his explanation also serves to understand why there is an etymological debate surrounding the pre-Homeric figure of Achilles. He also separates part of the text to clarify why his theory isn’t antagonistic to the idea of the name Achilles in Mycenaean format in Linear B.

Again, I emphasize that Nikolaev's theory is NOT the theory that Farnell rejected. Both are etymological theories, but Nikolaev's seeks to interpret aspects of the name's possibly Indo-European roots as a possible reference to a later myth of Achilles as a hero who conquered death, a type of myth that did exist in Indo-European traditions. On the other hand, the theory that Farnell rejected concerns supposed similarities between the names Achilles, the mortal hero son of Thetis, and Achelous, a river god, indicating that Achilles himself may be an ancient river god who, over the years, had his mythos altered to that of a mortal whose divine connection to water is through his mother, Thetis, rather than through his own role as a river deity. I unfortunately didn't find anything that actually argued in favor of Achelous' theory, just quick mentions or articles disagreeing, but I still wanted to present an etymological theory related to the post in some way (in this case, Achilles + immortality), so here I am.

Theory 9: Maybe there is Scythian influence!

In 2007, a book entitled "Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD" and edited by David Braund and S.D Kryzhitskiy was published.

I'm putting this book here because I wanted something that would better explore why the Pontarches-as-non-Greek theory exists in the first place. In the previous texts, a fragment of a text by Alcaeus was mentioned describing Achilles as having some authority over the Scythians (the texts don't show the fragment, but it’s “Achilles, thou who dost command/O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land” in Walter Petersen's translation), but it seemed strange to me that this alone would be enough to assume that an entire cult isn’t of Greek origin. And considering the academics listed here kept mentioning this theory, although generally to disagree with it and say that the Pontic cult of Achilles is a Greek creation, I thought it would be at the very least important to give it some space. I tried to do this with the etymological theory (the very disputed theory that Achilles was originally not Achilles the mortal, but a river god), but I couldn't find a decent enough text exploring it, so I'll at least do that with this one since I found a book. I’lll start with the chapter “Greater Olbia: Ethnic, Religious, Economic, and Political Interactions in the Region of Olbia, c.600–100 BC”, written by David Braund.

First of all, with “Greater Olbia” Braund isn’t referring solely to the city of Olbia itself. According to him: “At times Olbia’s mini-empire in the north-west Black Sea region included not only the city itself and the many agrarian settlements along the estuary of the river Bug, but probably also a range of settlements along the lower Dnieper, north-west Crimea, the outer estuary of the Dnieper (Hylaea), Berezan, and, to the west, the island of Leuke, as well as possibly other settlements reaching towards the Dniester. For all our uncertainty about the details, this large region may reasonably be termed ‘Greater Olbia” (pg 37).

Well, in this chapter Braund tries to explore the possible relations of the Greeks with the non-Greeks (especially the Scythians) in the region of “Greater Olbia”. In terms of the possibility of different ethnicities interacting strongly and cultures having contact, he concludes:

Modern scholarship on Olbia is much concerned with ethnic distinctions, although it is now also well understood that the allocation of ethnicity is actually extraordinarily fraught, even when we have far more insight than we can hope to have about anything in antiquity, let alone Olbia. We have seen that the material culture of the rural territory, as also its religious expression, varies little from that of the city of Olbia itself. Presumably that renders its population (or much of it) in some sense Greek, but on the rare occasion that we have direct evidence we find a certain distance envisaged from the perspective of Olbia at least, most clearly in the Protogenes text, where the rural territory is populated by halfGreeks and what seems to be a dependent labour force, both hitherto ready to fight for Olbia. Earlier, there were also Herodotus’ GreekScythian Callippidae. What of the other peoples mentioned? Should we envisage even the Scythian Alazones also in rural settlements? If not them, then what of the panicked Thisamatae and the rest from Protogenes’ time?

[...] Of course, we are not well placed to answer these questions, by virtue of the complexities of the issue, the lack of much evidence, and perhaps above all the simple fact that these names have no real meaning for us. But we need not be overly despondent, for the main point seems clear enough through all the fog of our ignorance. That remains symbiosis. Olbiopolitans may well have had all kinds of negative views of these peoples, but some Greeks were similarly contemptuous of Olbiopolitans themselves, it must be noted, for the very reason that their Greekness was imagined as having been contaminated by their neighbours. A glance at the personal names of Olbiopolitans shows a rich mix of traditional names familiar in the Greek world and some remarkably ‘barbarian’ ones, co-existing in the same families. However distinct and Greek the Olbiopolitans may have liked to think themselves, the key observation which emerges is the extensive cultural osmosis between Greek (itself a large term) and non-Greek in and around the city. We have seen this osmosis, and the more extensive symbiosis which it no doubt facilitated, across religion (notably the cult of Achilles), pottery, names, and more besides. Once again Dio Chrysostom’s novelistic exposition is true to the spirit of the place, one suspects, when he finds a young Olbian cavalryman steeped in old-fashioned Greek traditions of conduct and taste, who rides about in ‘barbarian’ clothing with his head full of Achilles.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 76-77.

Thus, in Braund’s conclusion, the local population was recorded in ancient texts as having had considerable contact with foreigners, thus having an ethno-cultural sharing (such contact wasn’t necessarily friendly, mind you). This, for example, may explain the description by the Greek historian Herodotus: “Northward of the port of the Borysthenites, which lies midway in the coastline of all Scythia, the first inhabitants are the Callippidae, who are Scythian Greeks” (Histories, 4.17) and the account by the Greek Dio Chrysostom, who portrays the population of Borysthenes as excessively honoring Homer and Achilles while they themselves have mannerisms considered “barbarian”. For example:

Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart.

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.9. Translation by Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby.

[Note: according to Braund, the Callippidae described by Herodotus have been identified with a people who appear to have occupied an area on the coast to the south rather than the banks of the Bug/Hypanis river north of the city.]

Braund comments on how, apparently, the Greek colonies in this region were somewhat “abandoned” by the Greeks of the Mediterranean region. It seems that most of the time they had to resist attacks from foreigners without receiving help. This led to Greek communities in the Black Sea acquiring the habit of supporting each other against foreign peoples. At one point, in the period contemporary to the Roman Republic, they were in quite complicated situations, until the ruler of the Kingdom of Pontus Mithridates Eupator sent reinforcements that prevented Olbia from falling (Eupator had his own interests). This, however, as Braund makes a point of stating, doesn’t mean that all the problems were generated by the so-called “barbarian threat”. They had their own problems that weren’t necessarily related to foreign peoples, but apparently the theme of “relatively abandoned Greek population resisting the 'barbarians'” is popular in academia when the subject is Olbia and this can cause the region's adversities to be mistakenly summarized as solely originating from conflict between Greeks and non-Greeks, as Braund understands. Especially in the Hellenistic period, there was a strong habit of honoring benefactors (for example, to Niceratus of Olbia in the 1st century BC for having ended hostility between two cities) and parts of these archaeological artifacts have survived, which make it possible to gain some insight into the problems of the population.

Braund describes the existence of new non-Greek peoples in the region since Herodotus' account (e.g. the Gauls) and the different contacts (e.g. the relations with the Saii were not exactly friendly, but apparently more tolerable), but let us focus on the Scythians. Braund, using Herodotus' account of Scyles, a Scythian king whose mother was Greek and who appreciated Greek culture more than Scythian culture and this eventually led to a situation that caused his death (further context here: Histories, 4.78-80) comments:

When Herodotus was visiting the region he seems particularly to have based himself in and around Olbia; it is there that we should probably locate his exchange with Tymnes the epitropos of the Scythian king. Certainly, Olbia was a likely place to find a powerful Scythian, perhaps especially an epitropos, if the title indicates an economic role. After all, the logic of the story of Scyles is that a Scythian king might normally visit the city on a regular basis. Of course, Scyles came to a bad end, but there is no indication in the story as we have it that his visits to Olbia raised alarm among his Scythian subjects. Certainly, Scyles’ half-Greek background (from his Istrian mother) is used to explain his behaviour, but that too is a matter of some interest. We can only speculate how many women of Olbia might find themselves married to Scythians. For the whole position of Olbia, both the civic core and Greater Olbia, depended upon a symbiosis with neighbouring peoples and cities. At the same time, however, it would be naïve to imagine that relationships with all neighbours always ran smoothly, not least because Olbia could expect to be drawn into conflicts between different groupings in the region. In later periods, at least, there was also conflict with other Greeks of the region, particularly with Chersonesus in the south-west Crimea.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 60.

[In a note regarding the idea of Olbian women marrying Scynthians, he mentions Kalligone, a lost Greek novel: “The theme may have attracted a novelist, though that shows nothing about Olbian realities:on Kalligone, an Olbian woman’s adventures among Scythians and the like, largely located on the southern coast of the Black Sea and around Tanais, it seems, see Stephens & Winkler 1995, 267–76”.]

So the general idea for now is this: it was a complicated relationship. The contacts weren’t always friendly. Herodotus' story about Scyles may indicate the conflict in the idea of sharing culture peacefully (the Scythians are angered when they discover that Scyles, interested in the Greek culture taught to him by his mother, has sought initiation into the Bacchic mysteries. In turn, the Greeks of Olbia mock the Scythians by saying that the Scythians mock the Dionysian practices of the Greeks, yet their king is worshiping Dionysus). In fact, Scythians and the Greeks of the region have already entered into conflict, so there was no lasting peaceful relationship. Still, the peoples probably shared cultures unconsciously simply through contact (an example given was the possible relationship of the Olbiopolitans and the Scythians with regard to Heracles and his cult) and there was even intermarriage between the two peoples. The Greek populations of the region faced various problems, not exclusively linked to conflicts with non-Greeks, and Olbia was apparently in a strategic position for a commercial port. Furthermore, the Scythians had pastoral practices and seemed to be known to the Greeks of the eastern Aegean by the 600s BC since Alcaeus mentions Scynthian shoes and Sappho comments on Scynthian hair color, but possibly such knowledge came about because of the Scynthian slave trade to that region. And what do we have of the cult of Achilles in this scenario?

Well, the cult of Achilles in the region had a strong connection with the culture of Olbia and Braund treats him as divine and not heroic (as he refers to Achilles as "god"). He even suggests that it may have some ideological connection with the expansion of Greater Olbia, since the cult was present from the island of Leuke in the west through Berezan and on the northwestern coast above the Crimea, where the Hippodrome of Achilles was located on the narrow Tendra inlet, and possibly in Beykush (in the case of Beykush, because of recent archaeological discoveries). Him being a cultural figure related to Olbia, however, doesn’t mean that Achilles had no impact among the Scythians, on the contrary! Achilles was a figure present in Scythian culture, especially among the military elite. Braund theorizes that Achilles may have been a "constructive point of contact between Greek and Scythian culture". About this he says:

Near the northern Black Sea coast, four bow cases depicting the life of Achilles were found, and are said to have been left there in fourth-century burials at Chertomlyk, Melitopol, Ilintsy, and near Rostov on the Don estuary. Although these cases aren't related to the Olbia theme (since they were found elsewhere), they’re Scynthian cases, which shows the people's interest in the figure of Achilles. Although the cultural significance of these images is debatable (e.g., it’s unclear what connotation they had, whether they were cult images or not, etc), it’s at least interesting that they were used in burials of members of the Scynthian elite and were considered appropriate for such an occasion. The theme of the images depicted a warrior in life and concluded with his mother carrying his remains to another region, a link to the version of the myth in which Achilles, after death, is taken by Thetis to Leuke.

Fragments of a poem by Alcaeus mentioning an "Achilles, lord of Scythia" have been found, possibly composed around 600 BC (the time of the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia). The largely lost state of the text makes it impossible to identify the context, and can only be speculated upon. Braund notes that Alcaeus seems to have been aware of the Leuke myth and possibly for this reason describes Achilles as lord of Scythia, since the supposed resting place of Achilles according to this myth was in a region with Scythian connections. The cult of Pontarches, on the other hand, seems specific to the area and doesn’t appear to have cultural roots in Miletus (remember that the author of Aethiopis, the lost epic that relates the Leuke myth, was possibly Arctinus of Miletus. Also, remember that the one who settled this region was Miletus), which has led some academics to interpret the cult of Pontarches as a Greek interpretation of a local non-Greek cult. (Note: and of course, just as there were these interpretations, there were disagreements. Note how other texts in this post, such as Diehl's, rejected the theory).

Additionally, Braund comments on Olbia and Leuke's relationships. In addition to the religious importance of Leuke to Olbia (because it was the place where Achilles was supposedly taken by Thetis, which Braund explains is already an association from the archaic period), Leuke was also strategically located as a port of call for shipping between the lower Danube and other parts of the north-west Black Sea, including Olbia. Braund mentions the possibility of the nymph Broysthenis, present in a Eumelan mention, representing a kind of link between Olbia and Leuke, since she was possibly the daughter of the river Borysthenis (Scynthian river god) and can be understood as part of Thetis' entourage who took Achilles to Leuke. Among the archaeological finds, an inscription was found that made reference to the protection of Olbia from pirate attacks directed at Leuke. The Olbiopolitans raised a statue as a sign of protection. In short, Olbia was interested in Leuke and extended its protection to it.

...Olbiopolitans...Since he killed those who had occupied the island for piracy against the Greeks and expelled from the island their associates and while in the city he served the People of the Olbiopolitans in many great matters, and for these things the People bestowed honours upon him in his lifetime and awarded him a public burial. Therefore the People of the Olbiopolitans resolved to erect a statue of him, so that his deeds might be remembered and so that the city might make it clear to the Greeks, that it has great care for the island in accordance with ancestral practices and that when men strive for the island the city gives them honour in life and due rewards upon their death. (IOSPE I² 325, dated no later than the early 3rd century BC)

Interestingly, Braund points out, there was a religious difference between the city of Olbia and Greater Olbia. Although they all shared the common cult of Achilles, a figure in particular related to maritime functions (probably because his mother, Thetis, was a Nereid) and whose popularity was great in the region (possibly because, considering the geographical layout and the activities practiced, a maritime deity having greater prominence makes perfect sense. In addition, there is the thing of Achilles' association with Leuke, an island present there), the cults to other gods didn’t have much similarity. In Olbia, Apollo seemed to have great importance (especially related to the civilizing role), but there is no sign of him being particularly important in other settlements. Not only him, but other deities of the Greek pantheon as well. Although the presence of the god Dionysus is attested in the culture of the city of Olbia (although not in a similar way to Apollo, since Apollo was present in association with cities and civilization and Dionysus was associated with unbridled nature), he doesn’t seem to have had much popularity in the Olbia-influence region. Braund comments on the possibility that Scyles' story didn’t encourage Scythian populations to worship him. Also, Braund clarifies that much of what is said is possibility/theory, as more substantial evidence is kind of lacking. Furthermore, Braund points out that such characteristics don’t make Olbia more Greek than other cities. They were all Greek, it's just cultural differences.

Theory 10: There is no Scynthian influence!

In another chapter of the previous book, titled “Religious Interactions between Olbia and Scythia” and written by A. S. Rusyayeva, there is an exploration of the religious relationships shared between Olbia and Scythia and her opinion is different from Braund's. She emphasizes that, in comparison to the studies related to Bosporus, the studies related to Olbia are quite uncertain. Furthermore, regarding what we should understand as “Schythia”, Rusyayeva says: “‘Scythia’ was reckoned by the Olbiopolitans (as by other Greeks, notably Herodotus) not as a single state but as a vast geographical area, within which lived not only a range of non-Greek peoples, but also the Greeks themselves” (pg 94). Therefore, theidea of “Scythia” in this context is very broad, making it even more complicated to make specific statements in a truly convincing way.

Now, as I introduced Braund's idea first, I’ll establish some comparisons between the interpretations/theories of both academics.

Both explored the contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks, with a special focus on Scythians. However, they took different interpretations. Braund gives credit to the possibility of the Scythians having influenced Greek cults, especially in relation to the argument of the myth of the snake woman and Heracles and the characteristic of the cult of Achilles (his association with Scythia), although he acknowledges that both peoples could demonstrate a certain rejection of each other's customs (especially according to Herodotus' account). Rusyayeva, on the other hand, doesn’t believe that the cultures influenced each other to such a crucial level. For her, both the Greeks and the Scythians had a level of rejection of each other's culture and a desire to maintain their traditional beliefs strong enough that the contact between the two did not significantly influence the myths of each people, which includes the creation of their own cults. Braund emphasized the popularity of Achilles specifically among the Scynthian military elite and the greater openness of the cult of Heracles, while Rusyayeva argued that Greek myths were popular among the Scynthian elite and generally didn’t have much popularity among the common people (which runs counter to Braund's interpretation of the cult of Heracles in Olbia). As for Olbia, she believes that there is a lack of concrete evidence that Scynthian practices influenced them in any significant way, with the exception of the way in which women's burials were performed, since they originated in the north.

While Braund commented that the description of Achilles as "Lord of Scynthia" in Alcaeus' poem could be connected to the myth of Leuke (as far as we know, the oldest written source being the lost epic Aeithiopis) and the fact that the supposed region to which the hero was taken by Thetis had connections with the Scythians and made only a brief mention of the cult of Achilles possibly having an ideological aspect, Rusyayeva elaborated on the idea of the belonging of the territory to the ideological aspect of the myth. Not only that of Achilles, but that of Heracles as well. While Braund interpreted the myth of the snake woman as possibly influenced by the Scynthian culture, Rusyaeva interpreted it as possibly representing the peaceful coexistence between different peoples through the sacred marriage of Heracles (who represents the Greeks) with the snake woman (who supposedly represents the non-Greeks). Thus, rather than the myth of Heracles with the snake having influence from Scythian culture in the element of the snake woman, it’s a Greek myth about the relationship with foreign peoples, including Scythians. Regarding Achilles, she says:

[...] From time to time some scholars argue that idiosyncrasies of the cult of Achilles at Olbia emerge from the amalgamation of his Greek identity with a local divinity, variously regarded as Cimmerian, Thracian, or Scythian. However, such arguments neglect the fact that his earliest cult sites in the north-west Black Sea (including Olbia), both in the colonial and the pre-colonial periods, were in a region where there were no resident local peoples. Sometimes it is also suggested that Achilles was somehow identified with a snake worshipped by Scythians: this snake (it is claimed) and not Heracles was associated with the mythical snakewoman of Hylaea and, consequently, was the father of the three eponyms, or was her brother.

Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, pg 98.

For context, this snake woman myth that both authors mention is told by Herodotus in Histories, 4.9-10. The goddess theorized by Braund as having a relationship with the myth is the Anguipede Goddess, the ancestor goddess in Scythian religion. Another ancestor deity theorized as possibly having a relationship with Achilles was Targī̆tavah, who may perhaps have been identified with either Heracles (for his role in fathering children with the snake woman who, in this theory, would be the Anguipede Goddess) or with Pontic Achilles (because of the goddess Api, a Scythian deity associated with water and earth who was also called Borysthenis and who was mother of Targī̆tavah). Apparently J. Hupe wrote about Achilles cult association with foreign people, but I won't be able to show that opinion because I didn't find it accessible in English (in fact, I simply didn't find it. In any language). Additionally, the Pontic cult of Achilles was associated with snakes.

Theory 11: there is really no theory as it isn’t focus!

In 2008, the academic journal “Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia” published e’s text entitled “The Harbour of Olbia”. The focus of this text is more on the political and economic scenarios around Olbia and neighboring cities, not on the cult of Achilles Pontarches. However, it’s interesting how Kozlovskaya occasionally mentions the importance of the cult of Achilles in terms of politics. For example, how Olbia's interest in Berezan (Borysthenes) might be suggested by the construction of a sanctuary dedicated to Achilles in Berezan, which in turn may have been built because Olbia lost authority over Leuke, where the main temple was located.

After ships started to use the shorter and more direct route across the sea on a regular basis, there was much less need for the “transit” harbour of Berezan. This development probably took place already at the end of the 5th to the fi rst half of the 4th centuries BC169 and has been linked to the foundation of the Greek city of Chersonesos on the northern coast of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century BC. Th is route either went straight across the Black Sea from its southern coast to its northern coast or, alternatively, combined the cabotage sailing along the western coast of the Black Sea with crossing open water from some point straight to the southern shore of the Crimean peninsula. Presumably, in the 4th century BC fewer ships sailing to the North Pontic region were still using the full-length cabotage route along the Northwestern Black Sea coast. This probably caused an inevitable decrease of maritime traffi c in the area and may have been one of the factors contributing to the overall decline of the settlement on Berezan. The Berezan harbour may still have continued to function, but on a smaller scale than before, serving primarily local needs and only occasionally as a stop-over for foreign ships. A similar development has been observed for other areas of the ancient world, where the introduction of open-water navigation led to changes in trade patterns that consequently aff ected coastal cities and their harbours. However, notwithstanding this change in sailing patterns, the island of Berezan and its harbour must not have lost their importance to Olbia, for the reasons mentioned above

Olbia’s continuous interest in the island is also confirmed by the fact that during the early centuries AD Berezan housed an important cult center of Achilles Pontarches. Rostovtsev suggested that Olbia probably established this new sanctuary on Berezan after she had lost her protectorate over the island of Leuke, the main cult center of Achilles in the region. Currently this hypothesis is accepted by many scholars, who agree that during the Roman period the patronage over Leuke passed to one of the West Pontic cities, most likely Tomis. The harbour of Berezan must have continued to function during this period, even if only to serve the visitors of the sanctuary, who were coming by sea.

The Harbour of Olbia, pg 53.

In addition to possible pirate attacks specifically targeting the objects present in the temple of Achilles and a dedication after Olbia had possibly managed to defend the attacks. This part refers to IOSPE I² 325, the same text explored by Braund regarding the protection that Olbia granted to Leuke. Here Kozlovskaya gives some more details about this situation, since Braund didn’t go into this in depth as it wasn’t his focus.

The city must have needed some military vessels for protection against piracy or for use in military actions (and the two cannot always be easily separated). Piracy in the Hellenistic period is a well-known phenomenon, also in the Black Sea region. At least two documents show that Olbia had to face this problem. The inscription IOSPE I² 325 from Leuke, dated to the 330s-320s BC on paleographical grounds, is a decree issued by the Olbiopolitai in honor of an unknown individual (most likely an Olbian citizen) on account of his numerous services to the city, including the act of freeing “the sacred island” (supposedly, Leuke) from pirates. It has been pointed out that the text of the inscription can either mean that pirates were plundering the sanctuary located on the island itself or that they were using the island as their base for attacking Greek ships in the Black Sea. Another possible explanation would be that the pirates intended to capture wealthy pilgrims who came to visit the Panhellenic sanctuary of Achilles on Leuke and hold them for ransom. In either case the city of Olbia, which held the protectorate over the island, must have considered itself responsible for taking care of this problem and for guaranteeing the safety of the visitors. This is apparent from the text of the decree, which, after praising the recipient of the honors, emphasizes Olbia’s care for the island. In general, the practice of pirating near important Panhellenic sanctuaries is well attested for other regions of the ancient world. For example, we know that in the 1st century BC pirates established themselves on the small and barren island of Pharmakoussa, which supposedly was under Milesian control. Th e convenient location on the way to the sanctuary at Didyma probably allowed them to take advantage of nearby sea-traffi c and of the fact that many rich pilgrims must have passed by Pharmakoussa in order to reach the Oracle. The other pertinent document – IOSPE I² 672 – is a dedication to Achilles, “the lord of the island”, by Posideos, son of Posideos, who defeated the pirating Satarchai. The inscription was found in Neapolis, but Posideos was identified as an Olbian citizen, also known from other epigraphical sources, all dated roughly to the 2nd century BC.123 Both in this case and in the events described in IOSPE I² 325 warships must have been employed in order to settle the conflict and take control of the situation.

The Harbour of Olbia, pg 46-47.

Theory 12: even in the cult, Achilles belongs to death!

In 2016, Diana Burton published “Immortal Achilles”. First of all, I want to clarify that Burton’s interest here isn’t in analyzing the type of Achilles cult in the Black Sea. She explicitly states that she doesn’t want to dwell on this and leaves an explanatory note with the following details regarding the debate:

For the argument that Achilles’ cult is divine rather than hero-cult, see Hommel (n. 16), on whom see the comments in S. B. Bujskich, ‘Kap Bejkuš – Kap des Achilleus: eine Kultstätte des göttlichen Heros im Mündungsgebiet des Bug’, in Hupe (n. 34), 129. Against Hommel, see J. T. Hooker, ‘The Cults of Achilles’, RhM 131 (1988), 1–7; Burgess (n. 5), 111–16, 128, who sees the cults of Achilles as initially hero-cults, which in some cases later increased in status to divine cult (e.g. in Olbia with the Roman period epithet Pontarches: J. Hupe, ‘Die olbische Achilleus- Verehrung in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, in Hupe [n. 34], 165–234). In this article I am less concerned with the cult’s origins than with its form and the early perception of Achilles’ status in it.

Immortal Achilles, pg 20.

Now, let's summarize what Burton says about this specific cult (I say “specific” because she also mentions other cults of Achilles, in this case those that are considered heroic in the academic consensus).

This was the most prominent cult of Achilles. It emerged in the archaic period, more specifically in the 6th century BC, and reached its peak in the Roman period. There are indications that Achilles actually came to be honored as a god.

The city Achilleion (archaeologically uncertain, but mentioned in literature) and the Racecourse of Achilles were places named after the hero.

The earliest sites of the Olbian cult seem to have been Berezan Island and the adjacent Cape Beikuš. At Cape Beikuš, there was probably the presence of a temple and a grove in addition to signs of cult rituals. At Cape Beikuš and Berezan the following were found: “inscriptions on clay discs made from pottery fragments (both local and imported), which have the name of Achilles inscribed (either in full or abbreviated) and also include grafﬁti of snakes, branches, stick ﬁgures, swords, daggers, arrows, boats, and water; one shows a hoplite with a votive form of Achilles’ name, and a fragmentary grafﬁto which may be the name of the dedicator. This iconography is a mixture of that which is appropriate to Achilles’ warrior status (weapons, hoplites) and that which beﬁts his cult (snakes – common for heroes – and boats, to which we shall return)” (pg 22-23). She mentions Hedreen's theory regarding the disks. Basically, he commented that such disks were commonly found in the Greek world as gifts to heroes and were also found in tombs. Regarding the disk's role with Achilles, Hedreen theorized that they could symbolize playing pieces, which Burton commented is appropriate since Achilles has an iconography of being depicted playing with Big Ajax.

The cult at Leuke was established at a similar date to the other two (i.e. 6th century BC), as the oldest finds date from this period. Leuke was mentioned by several authors, who also mentioned its location (one example Burton gives is Pausanias). It was populated by birds and snakes, which Burton theorizes may have influenced the mysticism. For example, there is a possible association in Greek literature of birds with the souls of the dead, which makes sense with the cult of Achilles since he was supposedly transferred to Leuke after his death. It was, however, apparently uninhabited (with respect to any permanent human presence). An inscription was found that emphasized the connection of this island with the Leuke of myth, as it reads “Glaucus son of Posideius dedicated me to Achilles lord of Leuke”. Remains of the temple of Achilles were also found, but they were obliterated by the construction of a lighthouse and, analyzing tiles found, it seems that the temple had been there for a long time (they dated from 6th century BC to 1st century AD).

Among the functions of Achilles are: protector of sailors and sea voyages, he indicates safe anchorages for those traveling near the island, and he appears on the masts and yards. An inscription reads "'Glaucus, be careful sailing in!'", which, considering the mention of Achilles as lord of Leuke in the inscription mentioning Glaucus, associates Achilles with the care of those traveling at sea. Burton comments that this role makes sense to be associated with Achilles, as he’s the son of Thetis whose element is the sea, and may also explain the presence of boats on the aforementioned disks.

Leuke and Olbia were intimately linked ideologically. Although the settlement of Olbia was due to Miletus, there is no evidence that the cult originated from Miletus. Burton also doesn’t believe that the Scythian culture of the region had anything to do with it, but rather that it was of Greek origin. Although it was a cult specific to the Black Sea, it clearly achieved a pan-Hellenic fame and was even mentioned in later sources. Burton believes that the fact that Leuke was an isolated island contributed to the mysticism surrounding the island remaining strong for so many years.

Achilles seems more active than heroes are usually depicted as being after death (I am not talking about deified heroes like Heracles, but mortal heroes like Odysseus). He, for example, can be heard singing or riding, he even flirts with Helen, he demands a girl and kills her (the reason given by the text, written by Philostratus, is that she was a Trojan woman described as a descendant of Priam), he runs, and none of these actions seem to have any cult characteristics. In fact, he seems to be more associated with the epic image than the cult image of him (there is usually a difference between the cult image and the epic image of a hero). The epic figure of Achilles is indeed depicted in relation to music, he has been romantically associated with Helen before, he has agility as an important factor, and although he isn’t shown tearing a girl to pieces in any poem or play, he has certainly been shown as an antagonistic figure to the Trojans.

There is a difference between the role of Achilles and the Dioscuri as protectors of sea travelers: although the three are important heroes who are active in helping sailors, the Dioscuri operate in generalized areas while Achilles, from what Arrian says, has his role restricted to at specific region.

Finally, Burton concludes on Achilles' association with death and the presence of this element even in his cult:

[...] In Achilles, conversely, we are looking at different aspects of death. The hero of hero-cult exists between the living and the dead: for Achilles, the scales are weighted towards death. The tradition of Achilles’ choice and consequent death, found in its most absolute form in the Iliad, is deeply rooted in all his myths, and underlies even the version in which he is snatched away to a better place after death. Paradoxically, it is the certainty of his death that allows him such a rich variety of afterlives. Unlike Heracles and the Dioscuri, Achilles’ myth and cult do not arise from a contradiction: they match each other perfectly. The hero of hero-cult draws his power, and the degree of immortality which he possess with it, from the underworld: he is a hero and an object of cult because he is dead. Both as epic hero and as cult hero Achilles is ineluctably committed to death. The totality of his identity in myth and cult fulﬁls his extraordinary potential; his life after death explores every kind of variation, with the one proviso that he is, always, dead.

Immortal Achilles, pg 27-28.

Theory 13: Achilles was deified and there are elements related to this, including his marriage to Helen/Iphigenia!

In 2021, a book with a lot of authors entitled "The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea". What I’ll be using here is the chapter "From the tower of Kronos to the island of Achilles: placing Leuce in the Greek conception of heroic apotheosis", by Marios Kamenou from the University of Cyprus. According to Kamenou regarding this chapter “The particular focus is upon whether in those cases the immortality of heroes grants them divine status and how this peculiarity affects the cultic expression of the heroic apotheosis.”.

Like the other authors, he gives interesting details about Leuke and, since it’s only one chapter, it’s a fluid read. However, since the focus of the post is more on the idea of deification, I’ll focus on why Kamenou believes that Pontarches is the object of worship of a divine cult (and not a hero cult) and what he says about deification.

Anyway, Kamenou first introduces the mythological Leuke, then talks about the cult of Achilles and finally explains why he believes the cult of Achilles in the Black Sea was a deity cult and not a hero cult:

[Xoanon = archaic wooden cult image. Apotheosis = deification. Soter = a saviour, a deliverer. Enagismata = offerings to the dead. Thusia = sacrifice]

The evidence from ancient testimonies indicates that the transformation of Achilles on Leuce has also an identifiable ritual expression in the form of sanctuaries, cultic statues, hymns, rituals and offerings. Arrian states that in the island there is a temple and a xoanon of ancient workmanship, and many other offerings such as bowls, rings and jewellery, as well as Greek and Latin inscriptions praising Achilles and Patroclus (Arrian Periplus 32, 33). Pausanias (3. 9. 11) also reports a temple of Achilles with an image, and Maximus of Tyre (Orations 9. 7) speaks of temples and altars where sacrifices of animals were performed. Apparently an oracle functioned at the temple, revealing the polymorphism of the sanctuary (Philostratus Heroicus 19. 17; Ammianus Marcellinus 22. 35; Tertullian De Anima 45). The religious structures on Leuce illustrate the impact of these myths on the cult that had spread around the Pontus Euxinus. Building a temple on Leuce is a significant element that widens the meaning of the immortalisation of the hero as transformation to a status comparable to the divine (apotheosis), given that the Greeks perceived the temple as the house of the divine, and this same observation is made valid by the presence of altars. The majority of the hero cults known to us are strictly linked with the Underworld and the sacrifices towards the heroes' tombs were adapted to this concept. At the islands of Diomedes, for instance, a tomb stood along with the shrine (Pliny NH. 3. 151, 10. 126- 127; Solinus 2. 45). Altars on the other hand were connected to the gods, as the smoke of the libations and the sacrificing of animals were destined to be received by the gods in the heavens. This alteration was a major difference of ritual expression between hero and divinity cults.

Temples of Achilles are erected also in the nearby region, at the Cape of Tendra (the Dromos of Achilles), functioning from the late 4th century BC, and in Borysthenes, the latter mentioned by Dio Chrysostom. He reports further that the population perceived Achilles as a god (Orations 36. 14). In addition to this, Quintus Smyrnaeus states that in the Euxine Achilles was worshiped as a god, an implication that the concept of immortalisation was an actual process of deification. The large body of epigraphic material from Olbia and its surroundings correspondingly shapes a cult that existed around the 6th century BC, where Achilles is given epithets that usually define the qualities of a god, like Soter and Pontarches ("lord of Pontus"). Furthermore, the official nature of some inscriptions ending with the epiclesis 'for the stability and health of the city' displays a cult of a dedicated deity as protector of the city (IOSPE 12 130, 132, 133, 138, 140, 141, 142). The immortality of heroes thus seems to have created a state of ritual confusion requiring specific ritual adaptations. The case of Hercules presents here the most renowned example: Pausanias records that at Sicyon portions of sacrificed lambs are burnt for Hercules the hero as enagismata, while the rest of the meat is sacrificed for Hercules the god as thusia. In the case of the immortal Achilles, our sources keep full discretion regarding the specific rituals and sacrifices, but the presence of temples and altars suggest that the rituals were directed towards the divine nature of Achilles. In this perspective, temple, oracle, altars, cultic statues, dedications, sacrifices and offerings made the island of Achilles a polyvalent religious centre, distant from a traditional heroic cult, evidencing that the immortalisation of the hero had to be ritually expressed in a way and that the appropriate transformation of the religious landscape was vital.

The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea, pg 139.

Having established he’s treating Pontic Achilles' cult as a divine cult, Kamenou wants to delve deeper into deification, including exploring the idea Achilles' marriage to Helen or Iphigenia in Leuke version is a possible way of legitimizing the divine status of the members involved in the marriage. Therefore, this would explain why Achilles is reported as having been married in the afterlife to Iphigenia or Helen specifically in Leuke versions, something that doesn’t happen in versions that, for example, establish Achilles is in Elysium (his wife, in this case, is usually Medea). Being dead in Elysium, Achilles wouldn’t be a deity, as he would be removed from the possibility of immortality of a divine nature (since heroes in a certain way had a type of immortality, but it isn’t in the same sense as the gods). Since he isn’t a deity in this version, Helen or Iphigenia don’t appear as a wife.

[Parhedros = It's kind of complex, but the word means "sitting beside or near". So here it's used to describe the role of Iphigenia and Helen in relation to Achilles at Leuke]

Immortality was a fundamental element in the Greek polytheism that separates emphatically heroes from gods. Even so, in a way, all heroes are immortal, as otherwise they would be unable to exercise their benevolent or malevolent actions in the world of humans and therefore their worship would not be necessary. Nevertheless, the immortality of heroes is not equal to the immortality of gods. Heroes have lived a human life, have accomplished certain feats and eventually died, even if after death they have continued to affect the life of humans. Their heroic existence is demoted to their past and their extraordinary deeds. However, in these cases heroes such as Achilles, Rhadamanthys, Peleus, Cadmus and others, were destined to live blissfully and were exempt from death. This basic characteristic explains the absence of a tomb in Leuce and other places of Pontus where Achilles was worshipped. Instead, the hero lives in his temple and its surroundings, similarly to the gods. Furthermore, his cultic statue represented the living image of him, a symbol of his presence in life. Likewise, his altar that received sacrifices in his honour was a ritual instrument destined to serve him just like the other immortal beings present in Greek religion." The epigraphic material reflects that perception. A revealing example of this is a dedication from Scythian Neapolis dated to the 2nd(?) century BC (IOSPE 12 673 ), where Achilles is placed side by side to the gods of the local Pantheon as equal in power and nature. This cultic conception had to be legitimated or accompanied by a mythological tradition that probably went back to the prestigious Aethiopis of Arctinus from Miletus.

In certain mythological versions of this tradition the hero is associated with a female parhedros, the most frequent point to Iphigenia and Helen of Troy. Philostratus (Heroicus 54. 4) mentions that in the sanctuary of the hero there was a statue of Helen, which indicates a common worship. Antoninus Liberalis, on the other hand, recounts that Iphigenia was transformed by Artemis into an ageless immortal deity and became the spouse of the hero (Metamorphoses 27). Such marriage was necessary to consolidate the heroic apotheosis, as for instance in the case of Hercules marrying Hebe." It reinforced the hero's divine aspect by recreating the divine couple of Olympus, which represents the supreme, inspiring model of a ruler's image; this fits with the perception of Achilles as Pontarches, lord of his island and the whole Euxine.

The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea, pg 139-140.

Theory 14: Achilles in Black Sea was a deity (again)!

Also released in 2021, ““The Story of a New Name”: Cultic innovation in Greek cities of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean area” by Yulia Ustinova also interprets Achilles as a deity in this region of the Black Sea. In addition to emphasizing the archaeological findings that I have already mentioned, Ustinova makes an association between the title of Achilles with the title of the goddess Aphrodite and seems to lean towards the theory of Achilles’ association with the Scythians.

[...] Furthermore, the designation of Achilles as Leukēi medeōn, the Master of Leuke, is immediately reminiscent of the cultic title of Aphrodite Apatourou medeousa, the mistress of Apaturum, and is probably indicative of a similar perception of the deity as the sovereign of the area. [...] In the multicultural area of Olbia, the cult of Achilles may have also profited from the devotion of the Scythians. Since scenes from Achilles' biography decorate bow-cases discovered in four Scythian aristocratic tumuli, the Scythians probably associated one of their own deities with the Greek hero. However, the three centres of Achilles' cult near Olbia have not yielded any specifically non-Greek materials, and there is no evidence to support assumptions about its indigenous origin, therefore the worship of Achilles in Greater Olbia appears as a basically Greek phenomenon. The cult of Achilles is conspicuously absent from Olbia's metropolis. The emergence of a prominent cult, with its several centers, and its pan-Pontic fame, was entirely due to the intensity of the local devotion to the hero. This case exemplifies a very interesting phenomenon, namely, the transformation of a Greek cult in the colonial environment. The Greek hero was translated to Scythia, allotted land, new mythological episodes, a thriving cult, and new appellations. The cult belongs solely to the colonial milieu, but it appears to have evolved entirely within the Greek tradition.

“The Story of a New Name”: Cultic innovation in Greek cities of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean area, pg 6-7.

ANCIENT SOURCES

This section is basically me listing all the ancient sources I can think of that mention Leuke or the cult of Achilles (mostly heroic cults). This includes non-Greek sources, from different periods and from different textual genres. The credibility of these sources isn’t always considered certain in academia, and some are considered uncertain (for example, Philostratus' account of the cult of Achilles is a matter of debate in academia).

Leuke mentions in ancient texts:

[...] The Achaeans then bury Antilochus and lay out the body of Achilles, while Thetis, arriving with the Muses and her sisters, bewails her son, whom she afterwards catches away from the pyre and transports to the White Island. After this, the Achaeans pile him a cairn and hold games in his honour. Lastly a dispute arises between Odysseus and Aias over the arms of Achilles.

Arctinus of Miletus, The Aethiopis, frag 1. Translation by H.G. Evelyn-White. [If the author is indeed the attributed Arctinus, then it is 8th or 7th century BC]

[...] From there, walking dry-shod out of the deep [1260] you will see your beloved son and mine, Achilles, dwelling in his island home on the strand of Leuke in the Sea Inhospitable [...]

Euripides, Andromache. Translation by David Kovacs. [5th century BC]

[...] Exactly over against this mouth there lies an island, situated directly opposite to the course of those who sail with a North wind. Some call this the island of Achilles; others call it the chariot of Achilles; and others Leuce, from its colour. Thetis is said to have given up this island to her son Achilles, by whom it was inhabited. There are now existing a temple, and a wooden statue of Achilles, of ancient workmanship. It is destitute of inhabitants, and pastured only by a few goats, which those, who touch here, are said to offer to the memory of Achilles. Many offerings are suspended in this temple, as cups, rings, and the more valuable gems. All these are offerings to the memory of Achilles. Inscriptions are also suspended, written in the Greek and Latin language, in praise of Achilles, and composed in different kinds of metre. Some are in praise of Patroclus, whom those, who are disposed to honour Achilles, treat with equal respect. Many birds inhabit this island, as sea-gulls, divers, and coots innumerable. These birds frequent the temple of Achilles. Every day in the morning they take their flight, and having moistened their wings, fly back again to the temple, and sprinkle it with the moisture; which having performed, they brush and clean the pavement with their wings. This is the account given by some persons. Those, who come on purpose to the island, carry animals proper for sacrifice with them in their ships, some of which they immolate, and others they set at liberty in honour of Achilles. Even those, who are compelled by stress of weather to land upon the island, must consult the God himself, whether it would be right and proper for them to select for sacrifice any of the animals, which they should find feeding there; offering, at the fame time, such a recompense, as to them seems adequate to the value of the animal so selected. But if this should be rejected by the Oracle, for there is an Oracle in this temple, they must then add to their valuation; and if the increased valuation be still rejected, they must increase it again, till they find, from the assent of the Oracle, that the price they offer is deemed sufficient. When this is the case, the beast to be sacrificed stands still of its own accord, and makes no effort to escape. A considerable treasure is laid up in this temple as the price of these victims. It is said that Achilles has appeared in time of sleep both to those who have approached the coast of this island, and also to such as have been sailing a short distance from it, and instructed them where the island was most lately accessible, and where the ships might best lie at anchor. They even say further, that Achilles has appeared to them not in time of sleep, or a dream, but in a visible form on the mast, or at the extremity of the yards, in the same manner as the Dioscuri have appeared. This distinction however must be made between the appearance of Achilles, and that of the Dioscuri, that the latter appear evidently and clearly to persons, who navigate the sea at large, and when so seen foretell a prosperous voyage; whereas the figure of Achilles is seen only by such as approach this island. Some also say, that Patroclus has appeared to them during their sleep. I have thus put down what I have heard concerning this island of Achilles, either from persons who had touched there themselves, or from others that had made the same enquiries; and indeed these accounts seem to me to be not unworthy of belief. I am myself persuaded, that Achilles was a hero, if ever man was, being illustrious by his noble birth, by the beauty of his person, by the strength of his mind and understanding, by his untimely death in the flower of youth, by his being the subject of Homer's poetry, and, lastly, by the force of his love, and constancy of his friendship, insomuch that he would even die for his friends.

Arrian of Nicomedia, Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea. Translation by William Falconer. [2nd century AD]

A story too I will tell which I know the people of Crotona tell about Helen. The people of Himera too agree with this account. In the Euxine at the mouths of the Ister is an island sacred to Achilles. It is called White Island, and its circumference is twenty stades. It is wooded throughout and abounds in animals, wild and tame, while on it is a temple of Achilles with an image of him. The first to sail thither legend says was Leonymus of Crotona. For when war had arisen between the people of Crotona and the Locri in Italy, the Locri, in virtue of the relationship between them and the Opuntians, called upon Ajax son of Oileus to help them in battle. So Leonymus the general of the people of Crotona attacked his enemy at that point where he heard that Ajax was posted in the front line. Now he was wounded in the breast, and weak with his hurt came to Delphi. When he arrived the Pythian priestess sent Leonynius to White Island, telling him that there Ajax would appear to him and cure his wound. In time he was healed and returned from White Island, where, he used to declare, he saw Achilles, as well as Ajax the son of Oileus and Ajax the son of Telamon. With them, he said, were Patroclus and Antilochus; Helen was wedded to Achilles, and had bidden him sail to Stesichorus at Himera, and announce that the loss of his sight was caused by her wrath.

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.19.11-13. Translation by W.H.S Jones. [2nd century AD]

Then from the surge of heavy-plunging seas rose the Earth-shaker. No man saw his feet pace up the strand, but suddenly he stood beside the Nereid Goddesses, and spake to Thetis, yet for Achilles bowed with grief: "Refrain from endless mourning for thy son. Not with the dead shall he abide, but dwell with Gods, as doth the might of Herakles, and Dionysus ever fair. Not him dread doom shall prison in darkness evermore, nor Hades keep him. To the light of Zeus soon shall he rise; and I will give to him a holy island for my gift: it lies within the Euxine Sea: there evermore a God thy son shall be. The tribes that dwell around shall as mine own self honour him with incense and with steam of sacrifice. Hush thy laments, vex not thine heart with grief." Then like a wind-breath had he passed away over the sea, when that consoling word was spoken; and a little in her breast revived the spirit of Thetis: and the God brought this to pass thereafter. All the host moved moaning thence, and came unto the ships that brought them o'er from Hellas. Then returned to Helicon the Muses: 'neath the sea, wailing the dear dead, Nereus' Daughters sank.

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, Book 3. Translation by A.S.Way. [probably 4th century AD]

[...] After the passage of time, Artemis transferred Iphigenia to what is called the White Island [Leuke] to be with Achilles and changed her into an ageless immortal deity, calling her Orsilochia instead of Iphigenia. She became the companion of Achilles.

Antoninus Liberalis, The Metamorphoses, 27. Translation by Francis Celoria. [2nd century AD]

In this Tauric country is the island of Leuce, entirely uninhabited dedicated to Achilles. And if any happen to be carried to that island, after looking at the ancient remains, the temple, and the gifts consecrated to that hero, they return at evening to their ships; for it is said that no one can pass the night there except at the risk of his life. At that place there are also springs and white birds live there resembling halcyons, of whose origin and battles in the Hellespont I shall speak at the appropriate time. [...]

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, 22.35. Translation by J. C. Rolfe. [4th century AD]

At a distance of 120 miles from the Tyra is the river Borysthenes, with a lake and a people of similar name, as also a town in the interior, at a distance of fifteen miles from the sea, the ancient names of which were Olbiopolis and Miletopolis. Again, on the shore is the port of the Achæi, and the island of Achilles, famous for the tomb there of that hero, and, at a distance of 125 miles from it, a peninsula which stretches forth in the shape of a sword, in an oblique direction, and is called, from having been his place of exercise, Dromos Achilleos: the length of this, according to Agrippa, is eighty miles. The Taurian Scythians and the Siraci occupy all this tract of country. [...] [...] Before the Borysthenes is Achillea previously referred to, known also by the names of Leuce and Macaron. Researches which have been made at the present day place this island at a distance of 140 miles from the Borysthenes, of 120 from Tyra, and of fifty from the island of Peuce. It is about ten miles in circumference. The remaining islands in the Gulf of Carcinites are Cephalonnesos, Rhosphodusa, and Macra. [...]

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, 4.26-27. Translation by John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. [1st century AD]

There are a few islands in the Pontus also. Leuce is thrust up opposite the mouth of the Borysthenes. It is relatively small and, because Achilles is buried there, has the eponym of Achillea. [...]

Pomponius Mela, Description of the World, 2.98. Translation by Frank E. Romer. [1st century]

[...] and Achilles holds the shining island in the Euxine sea.

Pindar, Nemean Ode 4. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien. [5th century BC]

The 18th; when the Lokrians fought, since Ajax was a relative of theirs, they used to leave an empty space in the formation, in which Ajax supposedly stationed himself. When they were arrayed in battle against the Krotoniats, Autoleon of Kroton advised that they burst through the gap and surround the enemy. Tormented by a ghost he turned his thigh and was becoming gangrenous, until, in accordance with an oracle, he showed up at the island of Achilles in the Pontus (reached by sailing past the Ister river beyond the Tauric peninsula) and appeased the other heroes and particularly the soul of Ajax the Lokrian. He was healed, and returning from there he conveyed to Stesichoros Helen's command that he sing her a retraction if sight was dear to him. Stesichoros straightaway composed hymns to Helen and recovered his vision.

Conon, Narrations, 18. Translation by Brady Kiesling. [1st century BC]

VINEDR: It was there, my guest, and he tells the following sorts of stories about it. He says that it is one of the islands in the Pontus more toward its inhospitable side, which those sailing into the mouth of the Pontus put on their left. It is about thirty stades long, but not more than four stades wide; the trees growing on it are poplars and elms, some stand without order, but others already stand in good order around the sanctuary. The sanctuary is situated near the Sea of Maiotis (which, equal in size to the Pontus, flows into it), and the statues in it, fashioned by the Fates, are Achilles and Helen. Indeed, although the act of desire lies in the eyes and poets in song celebrate desire as originating from this, Achilles and Helen, because they had not even been seen by one another, since she was in Egypt and he in Ilion, were the first who started to desire one another by finding their ears to be the origin of their longing for the body. Because no land under the sun had been fated for them as an abode for the immortal part of their life — although the Ekhinades downstream from Oiniadai and Acarnania were immediately defiled at the very time when Alkmaion killed his mother, he settled at the estuary of the Akheloos on land formed more recently than his deed — Thetis beseeched Poseidon to send up from the sea an island where they could dwell. After Poseidon had pondered the length of the Pontus and that, because no island lay in it, it was sailed uninhabited, he made Leuke appear, of the size I have described, for Achilles and Helen to inhabit, but also for sailors to stay and set their anchor in the sea. As ruler over everything that is by nature wet, after he also conceived of the rivers Thermodon, Borysthenes, and Istros so that they were carried off into the Pontus by irresistible and continually flowing currents, Poseidon heaped together the sediment from the rivers, which they sweep into the sea starting at their sources in Scythia. He then neatly fashioned an island of just the size I mentioned and set its foundation on the bottom of the Pontus. There Achilles and Helen first saw and embraced one another, and Poseidon himself and Amphitrite hosted their wedding feast, along with all the Nereids and as many rivers and water-spirits as flow into the Sea of Maiotis and the Pontus. They say that white birds live on the island and that these marine birds smell of the sea. Achilles made them his servants, since they furnish the grove for him with the breeze and rain drops from their wings. They do this by fluttering on the ground and lifting themselves off a little bit above the earth. For mortals who sail the broad expanse of the sea, it is permitted by divine law to enter the island, for it is situated like a welcoming hearth for ships. But it is forbidden to all those who sail the sea and for the Hellenes and barbarians from around the Pontus to make it a place of habitation.

§ 747 Those who anchor near the island and sacrifice must go onboard when the sun sets, so that they do not sleep on its land. If the wind should follow them, they must sail, and if it does not, they must wait in the bay after mooring their ship. Then Achilles and Helen are said to drink together and to be engaged in singing. They celebrate in song their desire for one another, Homer's epics on the Trojan War, and Homer himself. Achilles still praises the gift of poetry which came to him from Calliope, and he pursues it more seriously, since he has ceased from military activities. At any rate, my guest, his song about Homer was composed with divine inspiration and the art of poetry. Indeed, Protesilaos knows and sings that song. [55] PHOEN: May I hear the song, vinedresser, or is it not proper to disclose it? VINEDR: Why, of course you may, my guest! Many of those who approach the island say that they hear Achilles singing other things as well, but only last year, I believe, did he compose this song, which is most graceful in thought and intentions. It goes like this:

Echo, dwelling round about the vast waters beyond great Pontus, my lyre serenades you by my hand. And you, sing to me divine Homer, glory of men, glory of our labors, through whom I did not die, through whom Patroklos is mine, through whom my Ajax is equal to the immortals, through whom Troy, celebrated by the skilled as won by the spear, gained glory and did not fall. PHOEN: Vinedresser, Achilles sings at any rate by divine inspiration and in a manner worthy of both himself and Homer. Besides, it is sensible not to lengthen these matters in lyric songs or to perform them in an extended fashion. From of old, poetry was thus both esteemed and cleverly devised.

Philostratus, Heroica, 745-747. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken. [2nd/3rd century AD]

Not all daimones perform all functions, however; now too, as in life, each is given a different job. It is here that we see the role of that susceptibility to the emotions that marks them off from God." They do not want to rid themselves entirely of the natures that were theirs when they lived on earth. Asclepius continues to heal the sick, Heracles to perform mighty deeds, Dionysus to lead the revels, Amphilochus to give oracles,” the Dioscuri to sail the seas, Minos to dispense justice, and Achilles to wield his weapons. Achilles dwells on an island in the Black Sea opposite the mouth of the Ister, where he has a temple and altars. No one would go there of his own free will, except to offer sacrifices; and it is only after offering sacrifices that he will set foot in the temple. Sailors passing the island have often seen a young man with tawny hair, clad in golden armour, exercising there. Others have not seen him, but have heard him singing. Yet others have both seen and heard him. One man even fell asleep inadvertently on the island. Achilles himself appeared to him, raised him to his feet, took him to his tent, and entertained him; Patroclus was there to serve the wine, Achilles played the lyre, and Thetis and a host of other daimones were present too. [...]

Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations, 9.7. Translation by M.B. Trapp. [2nd century AD]

[...] From there too the gulf of Melas flows towards the Hellespont, churning foam. As one goes far to the north, § 54 there extends on this side and that the swell of the Propontic sea. There is also, above the left-hand path of the Euxine, opposite the Borysthenes, a well-known island in the sea, the Island of Heroes. They call it by the name of Leuce, because the serpents there are white. There rumour has it the spirits of Achilles and other heroes roam this way and that through the deserted glens. This is the gift from Zeus which attends the most noble in reward for their virtue. For virtue is allotted a pure honour.

Dionysius Periegetes, Guide to the Inhabited World, 53-54. Translation by Yumna Khan. [2nd century AD]

"The one he slept with," they say that after Iphigeneia was snatched by Artemis, Achilles heard that she was in Scythia and set out to find her. Not finding her, he settled near the White Island, which is in the Black Sea. The White Island in the Pontus is so named because of the multitude of white birds that live there. Otherwise, this is the meaning: Achilles, her lover, seeking her, will live for a long time on the so-called White Island, also known as Spilos — this island is near the mouths of the rivers of the Celtic lake — longing for his bride, whom once a deer saved from the swords.

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem, 186. [12th century AD]

[...] But you would appear to have been sent to us by Achilles himself from his holy isle, and we are very glad to see you and very glad also to listen to whatever p445 you have to say. [...]

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.24. Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. [1st century AD]

Cults and places dedicated to Achilles mentions in ancient texts:

[3.20.8] On the road from Sparta to Arcadia there stands in the open an image of Athena surnamed Pareia, and after it is a sanctuary of Achilles. This it is not customary to open, but all the youths who are going to take part in the contest in Plane-tree Grove are wont to sacrifice to Achilles before the fight. The Spartans say that the sanctuary was made for them by Prax, a grandson of Pergamus the son of Neoptolemus. [6.23.1] One of the noteworthy things in Elis is an old gymnasium. In this gymnasium the athletes are wont to go through the training through which they must pass before going to Olympia. High plane-trees grow between the tracks inside a wall. The whole of this enclosure is called Xystus, because an exercise of Heracles, the son of Amphitryo, was to scrape up (anaxuein) each day all the thistles that grew there. [6.23.2] The track for the competing runners, called by the natives the Sacred Track, is separate from that on which the runners and pentathletes practise. In the gymnasium is the place called Plethrium. In it the umpires match the competitors according to age and skill; it is for wrestling that they match them. [6.23.3] There are also in the gymnasium altars of the gods, of Idaean Heracles, surnamed Comrade, of Love, of the deity called by Eleans and Athenians alike Love Returned, of Demeter and of her daughter. Achilles has no altar, only a cenotaph raised to him because of an oracle. On an appointed day at the beginning of the festival, when the course of the sun is sinking towards the west, the Elean women do honor to Achilles, especially by bewailing him

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.20.8 and 6.23.1-3. Translation by W.H.S Jones. [2nd century AD]

[...] And in the island of Astypalaea Achilles is most devoutly worshipped by the inhabitants on these grounds [...]

Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 17.43. Translation by H. Rackham. [1st century BC]

The extent of this sea-coast as we sail in a direct line from Rhœteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is 60 stadia. The whole of the coast lies below the present Ilium; the part near the port of the Achæans, distant from the present Ilium about 12 stadia, and thirty stadia more from the ancient Ilium, which is higher up in the part towards Ida. Near the Sigeium is a temple and monument of Achilles, and monuments also of Patroclus and Anthlochus. The Ilienses perform sacred ceremonies in honour of them all, and even of Ajax. [...]

Strabo, Geography, 13.1.32. Translation by Falconer, W. [1st century]

[...] I will give to him a holy island for my gift: it lies within the Euxine Sea: there evermore a God thy son shall be. The tribes that dwell around shall as mine own self honour him with incense and with steam of sacrifice. [...]

Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica, Book 3. Translation by A.S.Way. [probably 4th century AD]

In this Tauric country is the island of Leuce, entirely uninhabited dedicated to Achilles. And if any happen to be carried to that island, after looking at the ancient remains, the temple, and the gifts consecrated to that hero, they return at evening to their ships [...] [...] Next to these is a narrow strip of shore which the natives call Ἀχιλλέως δρόμος [Racecourse of Achilles], memorable in times past for the exercises of the Thessalian leader. [...]

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History, 22.35 and 38. Translation by J. C. Rolfe. [4th century AD]

5. Then come the vast forests that these lands bear, as well as the Panticapes [Ingulets] River, which separates the Nomads and the Georgians. At that time the land, which pulls back for a long stretch, is tied to the shore by a slender base; subsequently, where it is moderately wide, the land fashions itself gradually into a point. Just as if it were collecting its long sides into a sword point, the land affects the appearance of a drawn sword. Achilles entered the Pontic Sea with a hostile fleet, and it is remembered that he celebrated his victory there with competitive games and that there he routinely exercised himself and his men when there was a respite from the fighting. Therefore the land is called Dromos Achilleos [Grk., Achilles' Racecourse; Tendrovskaya Kosa].

6. Then the Borysthenes [Dnepr] River washes up on the territory of the nation that bears its name. The loveliest among Scythia's rivers, it flows down the most smoothly (the others are turbulent), and it is calmer than the others and absolutely delicious to drink. This river feeds the most prolific pastures and sustains big fish with the best flavor and no bones. The Borysthenes comes from a long way off and rises from unidentified springs. With its bed the river skims through a path of forty days' hiking, is navigable over the same route, and debouches between the Greek towns of Borysthenida and Olbia.[...]

98. There are a few islands in the Pontus also. Leuce is thrust up opposite the mouth of the Borysthenes. It is relatively small and, because Achilles is buried there, has the eponym of Achillea. [...]

Pomponius Mela, Description of the World, 2.5-6 and 98. Translation by Frank E. Romer. [1st century]

§ 741 For then, while invoking chthonian and ineffable gods, they keep pure, I think, the fire that is out on the sea. Whenever the sacred ship sails in and they distribute the fire both to its new abode and to the forges of the artisans, from that source is the beginning of new life. The Thessalian offerings which came regularly to Achilles from Thessaly were decreed for the Thessalians by the oracle at Dodona. For indeed the oracle commanded the Thessalians to sail to Troy each year to sacrifice to Achilles and to slaughter some sacrificial victims as to a god, but to slaughter others as for the dead. At first the following happened: a ship sailed from Thessaly to Troy with black sails raised, bringing twice seven sacred ambassadors, one white bull and one black bull, both tame, and wood from Mount Pelion, so that they would need nothing from the city. They also brought fire from Thessaly, after they had drawn both libations and water from the river Sperkheios. For this reason, the Thessalians first customarily used unfading crowns for mourning, in order that, even if the wind delayed the ship, they would not wear crowns that were wilted or past their season. It was indeed necessary to put into the harbor at night, and before touching land, to sing Thetis a hymn from the ship, a hymn composed as follows: Dark Thetis, Pelian Thetis: Troy gained a share of him to the extent that his mortal nature held sway, but to the extent that the child derives from your immortal lineage, the Pontus possesses him.

§ 742 Come to this lofty hill in quest of the burnt offerings with Achilles. Come without tears, come with Thessaly, Pelian Thetis. When they approached the tomb after this hymn, a shield was struck heavily as in battle, and together they cried aloud with rhythmic rapid delivery, calling repeatedly upon Achilles. When they had wreathed the summit of the hill and dug offering pits on it, they slaughtered the black bull as to one who is dead. They also summoned Patroklos to the feast, in the belief that they were doing this to please Achilles. After they slit the victim's throat and made this sacrifice, they immediately went down to the ship, and after sacrificing the other bull on the beach again to Achilles and having begun the offering by taking from the basket and by partaking of the entrails for that sacrifice (for they made this sacrifice as to a god), they sailed away toward dawn, taking the sacrificed animal so as not to feast in the enemy's country. My guest, these rites, so holy and ancient, they say were both abolished by the tyrants, who are said to have ruled the Thessalians after the Aiakidai, and were neglected by Thessaly. Some cities sent their offerings, others did not consider them worthwhile, others said they would send them next year, and still others rejected the matter. § 743 When the land was hard pressed by drought and the oracle gave the order to honor Achilles "as was meet and right," they removed from the rites what they customarily observed for a god, interpreting "as was meet and right" in this way. They used to sacrifice to him as to one who is dead, and they would cut up as a sacrifice the first animals they encountered. Thus it was until Xerxes' expedition into Greece occurred. During this expedition, the Thessalians, who sided with the Medes, once again abandoned the prescribed customs for Achilles, seeing that a ship sailed to Salamis from Aigina carrying the house of the Aiakidai to support the Hellenic alliance. When in later times Alexander, the son of Philip, subjugated the other part of Thessaly and dedicated Phthia to Achilles, he made Achilles his ally in Troy while marching against Darius. The Thessalians returned to Achilles and, in addition, they rode the cavalry, which Alexander brought from Thessaly, around his tomb and fell upon one another as though they were fighting on horseback. And after praying and sacrificing they departed; they invoked Achilles against Darius, and along with him Balios and Xanthos, as they shouted these prayers from their horses. But after Darius was captured and Alexander was in India, the Thessalians reduced the sacrifices and sent black lambs. Because the sacrifices did not even reach Troy, and if each arrived in broad daylight, they were not done in proper order, Achilles became angry. And if I should relate how much harm he hurled upon Thessaly, the tale would be tedious. Protesilaos said that he had come from the Pontus about four years before meeting me here. When he had procured a ship, he sailed like a guest-friend to Achilles, and this he did often. When I said that he was devoted and gracious in his friendship for Achilles, he said,

§ 744 "But now, because I have quarreled with him, I have come here. When I perceived that he was angry with the Thessalians over the offerings to the dead, I said, 'For my sake, Achilles, disregard this.' But he was not persuaded and said that he would give them some misfortune from the sea. I certainly feared that this dread and cruel hero would find something from Thetis to use against them." As for me, my guest, after I heard these things from Protesilaos, I believed that red blights and fogs had been hurled by Achilles upon the grainfields of Thessaly for destruction of their agricultural produce, since these misfortunes from the sea seemed somehow to settle upon their fruitful lands. I also thought that some of the cities in Thessaly would be flooded, in the way that Boura and Helike, as well as Atalante in Locris, had suffered; they say that the former two sank, and the latter one broke apart. Other actions seemed good instead to Achilles and Thetis, by whom the Thessalians were destroyed. Because the prices for the shellfish from which people skillfully extract the purple dye were quite great, the Thessalians were somewhat guilty of transgressing the law in order to obtain this dye. § 745 If these things are true, I do not know. Stones then hung over them, because of which some people gave up their fields and others their homes. Some of their slaves ran away from them, others were sold. And the common folk did not even offer sacrifice to their ancestors, for they even sold the tombs. And so this we believe, my guest, was the evil that Achilles had threatened to give to the Thessalians from the sea. [54] PHOEN: You speak of an anger that is "ruinous" and implacable, vinedresser. But tell me what marvel Protesilaos knows about the island in the Pontus, since it was there, I suppose, that he was with Achilles. VINEDR: It was there, my guest, and he tells the following sorts of stories about it. He says that it is one of the islands in the Pontus more toward its inhospitable side, which those

Philostratus, Heroica, 741-745. Translation by Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean and Ellen Bradshaw Aitken. [2nd/3rd century AD]

[...] Achilles dwells on an island in the Black Sea opposite the mouth of the Ister, where he has a temple and altars. No one would go there of his own free will, except to offer sacrifices; and it is only after offering sacrifices that he will set foot in the temple [...]

Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations, 9.7. Translation by M.B. Trapp. [2nd century AD]

[...] and the Tauri, who inhabit the lofty Track of Achilles, both narrow and long, as far as the mouth of the lake itself. [...]

Dionysius Periegetes, Guide to the Inhabited World, 30. Translation by Yumna Khan. [2nd century AD]

“Deep within the chasm”: In Scythia, there is a beach extending to a length of 500 stadia, which is called Achilles' racecourse because Achilles alone ran there and crossed it. It has been common for a long time. "Deep" will be called "deserted racecourse" of the "bridegroom", or of Achilles in that place, which he crossed running. "Deserted" is said because he ran in vain. The Achilles' racecourse was named for such a reason: When Iphigenia was about to be sacrificed in Aulis to Artemis, Artemis snatched her away and sent her to Scythia. Then Achilles fell in love with her and pursued her to a certain place. And from there it was called Achilles' racecourse.

Ioannis Tzetzes, Ad Lycophronem, 192. [12th century AD]

[9] Knowing, then, that Callistratus was fond of Homer, I immediately began to question him about the poet. And practically all the people of Borysthenes also have cultivated an interest in Homer, possibly because of their still being a warlike people, although it may also be due to their regard for Achilles, for they honour him exceedingly, and they have actually established two temples for his worship, one on the island that bears his name17 and one in their city; and so they do not wish even to hear about any other poet than Homer. And although in general they no longer speak Greek distinctly, because they live in the midst of barbarians, still almost all at least know the Iliad by heart. [11] [...] Why, in comparison with the entire Iliad and Odyssey are not these verses noble to those who pay heed as they listen? Or was it more to your advantage to hear of the impetuous leaping and charging of Achilles, and about his voice, how by his shouts alone he routed the Trojans?24 Are those things more useful for you to learn by heart than what you just have heard, that a small city on a rugged headland is better and more fortunate, if orderly, than a great city in a smooth and level plain, that is to say, if that city is conducted in disorderly and lawless fashion by men of folly?' And Callistratus, receiving my remarks with no great pleasure, replied, "My friend, we admire and respect you greatly; for otherwise no man in Borysthenes would have tolerated your saying such things of Homer and Achilles. For Achilles is our god, as you observe, and Homer ranks almost next to the gods in honour." [...]

Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 36.9 and 11. Translation by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby. [1st century AD]

Achilles, thou who dost command O'er those who dwell in the Scythian land.

Alcaeus, fragment. Translation by Walter Petersen. [6th century BC]

#Achilles #Thetis #birdie.txt #birdiethings

3 notes · View notes