Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

͞The Diolkos and the Emporium:

How a Land Bridge Framed the Commercial Economy of Roman Corinth͟

For S. J. Friesen, S. James, and D.N. Showalter (eds.)

Corinth in Contrast: Studies in Inequality
p
G 2011 David K. Pettegrew

I. Introduction
Än a gathering devoted to the theme of Corinthian wealth and inequality, it is fitting to
turn our attention to the territory that ancient writers regularly adopted in explaining the
wealth and power of the Greek and Roman city.1 Thucydides was the first to pin Corinthian
wealth on the city͛s situation on the Ästhmus and its commercial facility (1.13.5). When the
Greeks developed navies, he noted, the Corinthians built a fleet, suppressed piracy, and
provided a trade mart making their city wealthy and powerful. Thucydides͛ particular
interpretation that explained Corinthian wealth in terms of its bridge and focal points for
commerce, was accepted, expanded, and repeated by writers of the Greek and Roman eras.2
Corinth ended antiquity as a maritime city associated with an isthmus that fostered commerce,
prosperity, and power.3
Än the 18th and 19th century, when Corinth became the subject of historical study,
territory was again drawn up to make sense of the city. Scholars drawing on ancient texts
remarked on two factors in particular that influenced the city͛s historical fortunes.4 They noted
first and foremost that the commercial facilities of the isthmus and harbors created markets
that generated revenues in the form of duties on imports and exports, and profits through
trade. And second, they pointed to the commercial flow of ships and cargoes over a trans-
isthmus portage road called the diolkos that created revenues for the city through traffic and

á

 
            á            
                       

   
  *
! "  #$ %&' (!   ()
(
  *
 + %& 
 
  , á- .   
/0)
0
% 
 á!!) 0 $

áá1 á1á .2     á(á 0 %   á/ /á /(1 /0/-/0) /1)
%   á) !-!0 3& á)/ ()-(!

1
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

services, transit duties, and transport fees.5 Än the one view, a commercial emporium made the
Ästhmus a market for merchants arriving from east and west; in the other, a portage road called
the diolkos functioned as a shipping lane and made the Ästhmus a thoroughfare for maritime
traffic between Ätaly and Asia. Both of these arguments were already present in one form or
another when the first archaeologists began work in the Corinthia at the turn of the last
century, and both were quickly absorbed into scholarship related to Paul and the Corinthian
epistles.6 Each has reappeared in more recent scholarly discussions of the social and economic
background to the ancient city including St. Paul͛s problematic community.7 These arguments
for the diolkos and the emporium have, in short, existed independently of the archaeological
evidence and constantly structured interpretations of the city.
My goal in this paper is to reconsider each of the explanations about the commercial
facility of the Ästhmus in light of the extant textual evidence. As Ä shall argue, the second of
these scenarios (the thoroughfare thesis) has no basis in ancient texts while the first (the
commercial emporium) is well evident in an array of textual evidence. The ancients had little
conception of the Ästhmus as an actively used commercial thoroughfare but they did view it
consistently as a commercial destination and market place for the exchange and redistribution
of goods. Än the conclusion of this paper, Ä will offer some thoughts on the implications of an
emporium and marketplace for addressing the economy of Roman Corinth, the social
opportunities, and forms of inequality. The present study aims to show how revisiting the
evidence of classical literature can contribute to new historical pictures of Roman Corinth. 8

/


   
     * 
      %  &  
  
    

&    
    
   *
    &4 
 "  
&
      5
 á1 -á(
)
 $ á!! á)/-á)) " á!1 ///-//) .  áá (-0
!
  *
 3 á1!1 0(-00!  
 á11 /1 6  -/ 7 &-84%   )á-
) 6

   0 á-



         *   *   
&     *  


  7&
9     

    
      

  : 
9  ;       
 
 9    %  
  
&        

       

    * 

    

&   

           *
   

  
 

&           

&     

  

2
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

II. The Diolkos of Corinth and the Trans-Shipment Thesis

At the center of the shipping lane thesis lies the diolkos of Corinth. Scholars today use the term
to refer to the paved limestone portage road that runs 8 kilometers across the narrowest part
of the isthmus.9 This road, which was partially excavated by Nikolaos Verdelis in the late 1950s,
was made of poros slabs 3.5-6.0 m wide and had deep parallel grooves spaced 1.5 meters apart
suggesting rails for moving heavy loads.10 Verdelis argued that the road was constructed by the
tyrant Periander in the late 7th century BC, subsequently refurbished after the late 5th century
B.C.E., and used repeatedly throughout antiquity.11
Since the investigation of the portage road in the 20th century, archaeologists,
historians, and New Testament scholars have highlighted the place of the diolkos in
explanations of the city͛s economy. The view commonly held today is that the isthmus
functioned as a thoroughfare for long-distance commercial traffic that profited the city through
transport fees and transit tolls. Ships arriving in the small harbor of Schoinos at Kalamaki Bay,
or at Poseidonia in the Corinthian Gulf were set on carts and ferried over the bridge where they
continued their journeys to destinations further afield. Än another version of the portage thesis,
cargoes were unloaded from ships on one end of the diolkos and carted overland and restacked
on sailing vessels in the opposite gulf. Än both variants, the diolkos formed a bridge in long-
distance shipping lanes connecting Ätaly and Asia that created revenues and wealth for the city.
Än some renditions of the argument, merchants could cross the isthmus with ships or cargo
within the span of only a few hours and continue on their way.12
The weakness of this interpretation of the diolkos as a portage road regularly used for
commercial purposes is the paucity of ancient literary passages: eight historical accounts of
military galleys crossing the isthmus, three vague passages that seem to suggest ship carting
occurred generally, and the ancient reputation of the isthmus for facilitating commerce. A
closer examination of these texts, in fact, argues against a major operation of portaging ships or
divisible cargoes, and suggests that trans-isthmus shipping occurred probably for specific

1
"    
&     <
 á1/)-á1) á1))   á1)) = á11(  
, !            
  

  , áá
á
. á
áá
<
4 
&  
  &            
  á1/!   



  
á
  *
 $ á!! á)/-á))

3
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

purposes and on a limited scale that had little consequence for generating Corinthian wealth
and inequality.
Despite the importance of the diolkos for modern scholarship, ancient writers recorded
no historical memory of a physical road across the Ästhmus used for portaging ships or cargoes.
The one ancient writer, Pseudo-Skylax, who does refer to a road across the isthmus, does not
connect it to portaging episodes or name it as the ͞diolkos.͟13 The several writers who
reference ship dragging across the land bridge (see below) remember the action, not the road
itself. The only ancient writer to apply the term ͞diolkos͟ to the Corinthia (Strabo) applies it to
a land stripͶ͞the narrowest part of the Corinthian Ästhmus͟Ͷand not a physical road. 14
Strangely, then, no ancient author describes a physical road called diolkos. By contrast, two
other trans-isthmus monumentsͶthe Hexamilion wall and Nero͛s aborted canalͶwere
mentioned multiple times in discussions of Corinthian territory. Äf a fortification wall and canal
had literary fame through the end of antiquity, why was there no comparable memory of the
͞largest trackway in ancient times,͟ as one scholar titled the road?15
Scholars have long recognized the lack of evidence for a portage road or major
operation,16 but typically dismissed the problem as reflecting the character of surviving sources
biased against a mundane economic matter like commercial portaging. There were, after all,
eight recorded episodes of ship dragging between the 5th century BC and the 9th century AD,
which seemed to provide clear evidence for multiple independent uses of the road. 17 These
episodes, scholars had argued, represented the most visible instances of a regular undercurrent
of ship portaging that included commercial as well as military vessels. But when read more
carefully, all of the texts detailing specific instances of carting ships across the Corinthian
Ästhmus acknowledge or assume that it was an extraordinary tactical maneuver. Transferring

á(
, -9&
*  
     & 5%  :2  00;     &   
                 .
á0
%  á )0   )
á/
3 3  >? .  ?9&     ?@  $
9  
   %  A  

&   5 
  % 
B  
 
  
 ) :á11!; 1-áá1
á)
 "
 á1( 01-/á
á!
?     0á 5%  5% á! 5% á! 5% ( 5% ! $    9    
6

   " 

   
 9  *  @CC  C-
9C-*C

4
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

ships was never an ordinary operation but represented a brilliant stratagem that required some
explanation from the narrator.18
Än most cases, the writers explain why portaging occurred. Thucydides, for example,
describes transferring ships as a stealth naval offense that the Peloponnesians launched against
Athens when weakened by war. Än the first instance, in 428 BC, the Peloponnesians prepared
the roadway in response to a Mytilinean plea to attack Athens while weak and recovering from
the plague and Spartan raids; the portage apparently never occurred.19 Än 412, the
Peloponnesians portaged ships to take advantage of the Athenians severely weakened from the
disastrous Sicilian expedition. 20 Polybius͛ description of Demetrius of Pharos in 220 likewise
characterizes the transfer of ships for the purpose of aiding the Macedonians and catching the
Aetolians by surprise in the Corinthian Gulf. 21 Polybius links Philip V͛s transfer of ships in 217
with his reputation for ambitious undertakings and aspirations for world domination. 22 Livy
describes the transfer of King Eumenes͛ ships in haste after a failed assassination attempt at
Delphi in 172 BC.23 And Cassius Dio has Octavian transfer his ships across the Ästhmus because
it was winter and the sea was too choppy to sail around Malea; the sneak move and rapid sail
catch Mark Antony and Cleopatra completely off guard.24 Än all of these cases, the historians
represent portaging events as covert, hasty, decisive, and brilliant stratagems carried out in the
context of exceptional military circumstance or emergencies. Än none of these accounts does
the general transfer ships simply to get to the other side; rather, commanders who drag their
fleets are effecting strategic maneuvers.
Än a similar vein, the textual sources frequently explain how portaging occurred by
noting the complexity, expense, or dangers of the crossing. The Peloponnesians, Thucydides
says (3.15-16), ͞set to work zealously͟ on the preparations of the road in 428. Demetrius
transferred over his fleet in 220 only after the Macedonians agreed to front the expense of the

á
"  

    
&        , áá   áá
á1
?  (á/-á)

?  !-á
á
,
& 0á1!-1

% ,
& /áá0   /áá
(
.& 0á)
0
%  $ /á/

5
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

operation.25 When Philip V came to the isthmus three years later, Polybius notes that Philip
was not able to move his entire fleet across but only the small undecked ships; the rest had to
sail around Cape Malea.26 The extraordinary nature of ship portaging is most explicit, though,
in the famous inscription of Marcus Antonius, the paternal grandfather of the triumvir who
fought Octavian at Actium.27 As proconsul, Marcus Antonius had ships transferred across the
isthmus in 102/101 BC and then had the deed commemorated as epic achievement. As
Gebhard and Dickie have argued (2003), the verses even adopt the language of athletic
accomplishment.
Än sum, all of these passages highlight the extraordinary nature of ship transfers.
Änstances of ship portaging occur almost entirely in ancient historical narratives because the
transfer of military fleets represented heroic, dramatic, and sensational achievement
highlighting strategic action of famous kings, generals, and emperors. Än their function as
stratagems, they brought attention to the person or group accomplishing the event.
What, though, of the three authors (Aristophanes, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder) who
make comments that seem to suggest ship carting occurred regularly and more generally in
antiquity? While these authors have often been read as indicating quotidian ship hauling, it is
easier in fact to read them as evidence for the same remarkable military episodes described
above. Aristophanes, for example, makes one of his characters say, ͞You͛ve got an Ästhmus
Tramway running there, mate; you͛re shuttling your prick this way and that more incessantly
than the Corinthians!͟28 Since the 10th century after Christ, the strange line was read in light of
the historical episodes noted aboveͶas a reference to the dragging of ships over the Corinthian
Ästhmus.29 But this does not mean, as modern scholars have often argued or assumed, that
Aristophanes had in mind the constant operation of drawing commercial cargo ships over the
Corinthian Ästhmus. He is rather alluding to the transfer of military vessels in the context of the
Peloponnesian War, and probably making reference to the portage event that occurred the
year before the production of the play (411 BC) when the Peloponnesians drew a fleet of 21
/
,
& 0á1!-1
)
,
& /áá
!
 
  á  
  ?&
   3 á1   3 á1(á á-0      
&   
á  ))   $ á1/á "         A   $9 ( !-!!

   
)0!-)0  
 &  á110 á
1
  
 

6
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

ships over the isthmus. As that event nearly caught the Athenians off guard and resulted in a
significant and memorable skirmish in the Saronic Gulf, it would have been on the minds of the
Athenians the year of the play͛s production. 30
The passages from Strabo and Pliny can also be read convincingly as summative
allusions to the famous military stratagems of ancient history. When Strabo describes the
diolkos as the place ͞where ships are transferred overland,͟31 he is not commenting on a
portage operation of the late 1st century BC started immediately after the colony͛s
refoundation but is noting for his readers the strip of land where the famous portages had
occurred in ancient history. And when Pliny the Elder suggests in the later 1st century AD that
smaller ships were drawn over the isthmus on trolleys instead of sailing around Cape Malea, he
is not making a contemporary observation but is summing up an historical tradition of famous
ship crossing episodes that included Philip V͛s transfer of small ships in 217 BC.32 Strabo and
Pliny mention portaging because of its importance within the historical narratives that were
famous in their own day, especially Thucydides and Polybius. They are secondary and
derivative sources for ancient feats of dragging fleets, not primary and contemporary accounts
of a regular portage operation in the Roman period.
There is, in fact, no clear positive textual evidence that commercial ships or military
galleys were regularly pulled over the Ästhmus to get to the other side because the ancients saw
the conveyance of ships overland as extraordinary action.33 Än none of our ancient accounts,
though, does anyone transfer ships simply to get to the other side. Ship dragging was rather
extraordinary action. Ät was extraordinary in the most basic sense because military and
merchants ships were ordinarily designed for sailing in water, not for moving long distances
over dry ground via wheeled carts. Ät was extraordinary in a specifically regional sense in that it
did not represent the normal way that ships made their way across Greece in antiquity, which
was always to sail around the Peloponnese.34 And it was extraordinary as a logistical feat that

(
 á110 á1)
(á
 á
(
% ,
& /áá   ,
 &  01-á
((
"  

     * &      

  , áá
(0

     
          % 
   
&  *
     
  A9   .    &  &
  
  
& 

&
            A   
2
  (-0(1 6 !á)

7
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

required a tremendous investment of material resources and traction power.35 A Greek trireme
was some 35 meters long, 5 meters wide, and nearly 4 m high, weighing, when dry and without
its movable equipment or crews, about 25 tons, or 50,000 pounds;36 for some modern
perspective, this is about the same height and weight of a tractor-trailer truck, but double the
length and width. The typical coastal trading vessels of the Hellenistic and Roman era were
often smaller than the trireme but carried loads weighing 20-70 tonnes, while long-distance
freighters were significantly wider and commonly transported cargoes of 100 tonnes or more.37
Transferring one of these vessels by wheeled cart over a ridge 85 meters above sea level,
through an average grade of 2%, would have required hundreds of men and created
considerable risk of damage to the ship and harm to the crew. While it was theoretically
possible to transfer small military galleys and merchant vessels over the Corinthian isthmus,
ancient writers believed for good reason that its occurrence was extraordinary.
Än short, it was always theoretically possible to transfer small military galleys and
merchant vessels over the Corinthian isthmus, but ancient writers accept for good reason that
its occurrence was in some sense extraordinary. The infrastructure necessary for the operation,
the difficulty involved, the potential risk of damage to the vessels in the crossing, and the cost
of the portage must have worked against the development of the large-scale commercial
operation commonly envisioned by Corinthian scholars. The kind of merchant ship that could
be transferred over the isthmus most easilyͶthe small coastal vesselͶwas not engaged in the
sort of long distance interregional trade that a portage road would have facilitated. And the
sort of ship that had most to benefit from being transported overlandͶthe larger, long-distant
freightersͶwere too heavy to cart across.
The overland movement of ships in antiquity was, rather, the domain of giant
personalities, conceptually linked to (semi)-mythical individuals or capable generals and
admirals like Jason and the Argonauts, Semiramis, King Xerxes, the tyrant Dionysius Ä, Alexander
the Great, Hannibal, Demetrius of Pharos, Philip V, Octavian, Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and


 

     á  
á $  ááá/á áá0 á)) $  6

 á!-(
6
  

0á)!á
(/
 = á11(  . á , áá
()
?       7   % á11  ) 7  %   = 9  !!
(!
"           % á1!á á)-á)( á! () á)1-á!( á1-á1 6 
á1

8
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Trajan.38 The clear conception in ancient literature is that only extraordinary historical and
mythical personalities (or states) possessed the wherewithal to make large sea-born vessels
cross over dry land. Dragging ships represented remarkable and fame-producing stratagem,
and the Ästhmus of Corinth represented the most dramatic stage for accomplishing this brilliant
naval ploy.
Scholars recognizing the logistical difficulties of ship portaging have long put forward an
alternative interpretation of the diolkos road.39 Äf it was difficult to transport commercial
vessels, it would have been possible to unload and transship their cargoes apart from the ships.
Since this alternate thesis is not based on ancient textual sources, and our aim is to discuss the
arguments made on the basis of texts, we will not discuss it at length here. But we can briefly
summarize the major problems against the view which have been explored more fully
elsewhere.40 The archaeological evidence of ceramic distributions does not support the notion
of consistent overland transshipment of cargoes; the eastern and western sides of the isthmus
often show, respectively, eastern and western orientations in trade.41 Logistically, the diolkos
lacks the necessary harbor facilities on the Corinthian and Saronic Gulfs to accommodate a
major overland shipping business.42 Not only are there no harbor installations, moles, or broad
quays, but there are no warehouses, hostels, restaurants, and settlementsͶin short, none of
the facilities found at serious Greek and Roman harbors.43 Transshipment would have required
considerable time: several days of unloading, moving, and reloading, not the few hours
sometimes envisioned.44 The operation would also have depended on an enormous supply of
bovines as hundreds of ox-drawn carts were needed for each ship. Finally, the costs to the
merchant would have been enormous: harbor taxes, cargo duties, expenses of porters, drivers,

(
"         % á1!á á() 7$ 
 á1) á1 = á11( 01-/ ,
! á/!-á! , áá
(1
7$ 
 á1)
0
, áá
0á
"  

     =   , áá   

0
  á11)
0(
" 
   
   % á1!á ()á-(!  á1! 5
9 á1 
   
 

-
 
   
&   

- 
 
 
 D 
  
  & 
   E    :6  á1 6

   < ;D      

  E      
          
00
,&   ?  á1! =9 á1/ áá áá0 /!

9
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

and oxen or mules. Could a merchant have counted on profiting from his cargo at inflated
costs?
There is no question, of course, that goods could be and were carted across the isthmus
in antiquity either fully or in part. 45 Such transfers, however, do not add up to the kind of major
portage operation envisioned by modern scholars. While the archaeological evidence is beyond
the scope of this paper, the imported Roman pottery distributed across the isthmus does
suggest that the region functioned more as a terminus to eastward and westward commercial
flows than a conduit. 46 As for the purpose of the diolkos road itself, it was apparently built and
used originally for the interests of the Corinthian state, including the seasonal movement of
heavy building materials like timber and cut stone quarried from the remote parts of Corinthian
territory or the Aegean, and for the defense of the state, facilitating communications and
occasionally moving military galleys from one gulf to another.47

III. The Emporium in Ancient Conception

Äf the diolkos road did not contribute greatly to Corinth͛s commercial facility, how then
did the isthmus make Corinth wealthy? Here, ancient writers were unanimous: Corinth had a
major emporium, a trading center on the isthmus that concentrated maritime and terrestrial
traffic via land and sea. Thucydides was largely responsible for this interpretation of the city in
arguing (1.13.5) that the control of an emporium since ancient days had brought revenues and
power. Others followed. Corinth was called wealthy, Strabo explained (8.6.20), not ͞because
of its commerce͟ as one translator put it, but because of its emporium, which facilitated the
exchange of goods between Ätaly and Asia.48 Aelius Aristides characterizes the Corinthia as a
kind of agora and meeting space common to all Greeks.49 Libanius, the greatest Greek orator

0/
  &  +  

0)
, áá
0!
7$ 
 á1) , áá
48
? .   4 Ñ   
   F GF HIJKLMNO FPLQKFO RFL STUQVWK GKF
VF FRXIJKNL  >%   

 Y
&4     B    
   

   
 9  = %  : 
 á11   7 &-84%  ; 
   

&
 4   @ %   
&        
01

  
 * 
 (  $ . á11( áá-á

10
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

of the 4th century AD, describes Corinth as the common emporium of Greece.50 And his famous
student John Chrysostom, in the preface to his commentary on St. Paul͛s first epistle to the
Corinthians, explains the Corinthian community͛s strife in terms of the wealth and pride
resulting from the city͛s commercial foundation on the Ästhmus.51
What did the ancient concept of emporium entail? First and foremost, the Greek word
ʅʋʊʌɿʉʆ denoted a place of commerce situated in a convenient location for travelers and
traders. The term was used consistently from classical times to denote a ͞mart͟ or ͞trading-
center,͟ a settlement or part of a settlement where maritime traffic and commercial flows
concentrated.52 These nodes of heightened connectivity were sometimes maritime cities but
more frequently substantial harbors situated on the sea or the mouths of rivers with easy
access to trading flows.53 Emporia are so common to discussions of world geography and
periplous (͞voyages around͟) in the Early Roman era precisely because so many are associated
with ports.54 Strabo, for example, who names some 48 different emporia in his geography, uses
the term for populous and highly-trafficked trading centers and ports that facilitated the
exchange of products for peoples or regions separated from one another by long distances.55
Secondly, the concept emporium denoted the nature of trade and the kinds of goods
distributed. Emporia were centers of wholesale trade of imported and exported merchandise
in and between regions. Än some cases, emporia functioned as regional ports for the exchange

/
.   
/0)
/á
 

 
 
/
.

   Ñ !"  #  $         @ = Z á1)) á %
á1!á ()/-(! 5   = 

 á11(  
  % á11( á [  á11( (-(0 = 

 á11( 0)
  % 

 á11( "& á11( á á/-á) 6  á11! ) ,

 / = 
   7  /
á)-á! 1-(á
/(
% á11( = 

 á11( % 

 á11( "    

&      

   
 .&   
&             *

%&    & 8   . :)á; %      & ?  5 :()á/; 6 
    
&        
&     \   /á)   ,
 $
%#
á!(
E *      
     :;      7 
     
 &  *   &     @ $  6
 !     
   
     .&  :(áá-á/; A  %   
        *
 
  >          

&     

  &B :.  
 ;
/0
5  á   & 5%       & $  !]      A9   

   

  "     ?.A    ßRXIJKNL  á01  (   
     ?.A     
& =       A     ,
&  
 2  %  " 
  ? A9     .            
& 1
         

*    ,6
.
   % % 

 á11(
//
% [  á11( = 

 á11(

11
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

of inland products with goods imported by sea, or as trading centers for neighboring tribes.56
Strabo, for example, notes the tribe of the Ligures in the mountainous Alps who export timber,
hides, flocks, and honey to an emporium at Genna in exchange for oil and Ätalian wine (since
their own wine was so bitter!).57 Other emporia functioned as entrepôts for the trade of
materials imported from regions separated from one another by long distances: classical
Athens in the Aegean, Delos and Corinth for trade between Ätaly and Asia, and Apamea in Syria
for goods from Ätaly and Greece.58 The sorts of goods that geographers like Strabo note were
exchanged at these emporia included food stuffs (grain, olive oil, wine, honey), construction
material (timber, wax, pitch), animals and products (cattle, hides), slaves, plants (silphium),
clothing, and other merchandise.59 Pliny the Elder describes the emporium of Adulis on the Red
Sea where slaves, apes, tortoise shells, and ivory and hides from hippopotami and rhinoceros
were brought in large quantity and traded. 60 Än fact, these ancient lists of merchandise traded
at emporia are not meant to be comprehensive but represent the most important, unique, or
exotic forms of commodities;61 local agricultural products, especially grain, wine, and olive oil
would have been the standard imports and exports for much of the Mediterranean.
Emporia were conceptually linked with traders and travelers, whose great number and
concentration were thought to generate wealth and abundance.62 Strabo notes that Corinth,
Comana, Ephesus, Delos, and Alexandria were all made wealthy by the traders that passed
through the harbors.63 From where did the wealth come? The ancients highlighted revenues
from the duties on goods imported and exported through the ports,64 a fact that encouraged
both state and local civic bodies were to invest in harbor facilities that would attract

/)
  (0) :^ %; /á : 
; áá( ááá) ááá! :?  $    , 
 5
9 ; ááá) :$ ;
/!
 0)
/
 @
 2 
0 % @  ) @  áá/ $
@  á/0 á0/ , 
((   : )á);     : á0á0; 
 
    
 
&  
        %      
&  
   &   
  
@
 )á)   )-(
/1
    " 
    á!(
)
,
 &  )á!(
)á
= 

 á11(
)
  á11( (-(0 = 

 á11(
)(
 
&  ) á(() á0á0 á0/   á!áá( "  
*
   
     
 % ,
& áá1 $  áá( .& (1/1 $ %& *
(()á
)0
, 

/    *
 ,
& ((áá-á   
        *-  
$
          = %  "
á(0)

12
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

merchants.65 The emporium also created wealth through employment of a wide variety of
traders and service workers; Dio Chrysostom, for example, explains the wealth of the town of
Celaena in Phrygia as a result of the periodic markets when the provincial governor visited.66
Greek and Roman writers also describe the wealth of trading centers in terms of the abundance
of goods that the port brings about. Äsocrates describes the Piraeus as an emporium in the
center of Greece that brought rare merchandise to Athens from all over the world, addressing
the problem of regional deficits and surpluses.67
Finally, emporia had since the days of Plato also been regarded in negative terms. The
consistent philosophical critique was that despite all their advantages for cities, harbors
fostered lust for wealth, encouraged deceit through exchange, corrupted the civic fortitude and
loyalties of the inhabitants, and led citizens away from good occupations like agriculture. 68
Aristotle, for example, recognizes the value of ports in meeting deficiencies in goods and foods,
but recommends keeping the emporia at safe distance from the town center.69 Athenaeus,
citing Theopompus, describes the detrimental and corrupting consequences of the Byzantinians
and Chalcedonians spending too much time in the emporium on the waterfront in the midst of
their luxuries.70 One could also note here Juvenal͛s satirical quip at the ͞scented sons of
Corinth͟ and the ͞unwarlike Rhodians,͟ two cities made effeminate by excessive luxury
resulting from their trading centers.71 As centers of exchange, these centers were also
problematic in introducing foreigners into the region and mixing the citizen populations with
foreigners.72 Emporia were for this reason restricted ideally to the harbors, or districts within
the harbors where the foreign populations could be closely supervised by officials in their
trading business away from the polis center.73 Piraeus in Athens with its metic and foreign

)/
7
& ! //-)
))
$ %& (/á0-á)     9  9  
       
>"        
    
&     &     
         
 
 B
)!

 2  0á-0
)
 % á    7
& ! !1-1     
&
)1
 2 á(!
!
   á/)-   ? 
!á
+  
&

áá-á)
!
 $  (/ 8  >*B    
           
  á11( (-(0 % á 5
9  )/(-)/0
!(
 2 á(!  % á 7_

 ! () (!(-(!0

13
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

trading population provides a good example of this ͞world apart:͟74 wares imported by sea
were displayed right on the water in a district known as the Deigma, the ͞sample market͟ or
͞bazaar͟, for immediate purchase.75
Corinth is typical of the pattern outlined above. Än regard to its situation, ancient
writers regarded the city͛s two major harbors as centers of wholesale trade in the region.
Thucydides says (1.13.5) that in his own day, Corinth furnished an emporium for maritime trade
in both directionsͶan observation highlighting the harbor settlements of Kenchreai and
Lechaion (see below). Strabo, at least, interpreted Thucydides in this way, associating the
emporium specifically with the two harbors (8.6.20). Livy refers to Kenchreai as an emporium
(32.17.3), and other Roman descriptions of Kenchreai highlight the constant flow of commercial
traffic in and out of that port.76 Lechaion too must have been a trading depot although there
are fewer explicit ancient testimonies about the harbor and settlement there. The pan-Hellenic
sanctuary site of Ästhmia, situated on the principal artery in and out of the Peloponnese, was
also recognized as a major center of trade and meeting point between east and west,77 but
Thucydides͛ apparent reference to it as an emporium seems to be exceptional.78 From the
Classical to Roman era, Ästhmia was mainly the site of a biennial fair, described variously as
panegyris and mercatus, which was, in this sense, quite different.79
While we do not have space here to deal with the archaeological evidence at length, we
can briefly note that a range of archaeological work at Lechaion and Kenchreai over the last 50

!0
 = á11/
!/
A
  á1! (-1/ \  6

 /áá $ (/1 /0 ? 9     

 9  

          ? ( ,
& /
!)
% 
 %
 á(/ "  (!
!!
.& ((( 
   
 *
(
!
? &  
        :áá(/;      %   
 
    E
           ,
     
        
 ,
  ?  
              &  
7   %  ? &   
  :   &;   %    
 
&  &        >B@ `WF FRXIJKNL XWJTaNLVQO FRPIVQJW GbLWVFL
FcaNL aJdReVfL XJNcIGF VFL XISKL 
   
        
 >
    B
  
&         
    &
 &        
>B              %      A
   ? &  
     :&
 ;       :& ; ?  &&    
? & :);   

 %  
&       
&        
    
       % á11( á!-á      
 á10
á((-á()       ? &    
!1
"        
  '
& 
  
 * 
 ( .& (((   ,
&
á00( á0)á 8  
 
  $ . á11( áá-á

14
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

years has demonstrated that Lechaion and Kenchreai were substantial ports throughout the
Roman era well equipped for large-scale trade. Lechaion was located only 3 km from the city,
built as an artificial installation in the sandy beach at the point where the cardo maximus from
the Roman colony intersected the shore. The harbor works at Lechaion that are visible in the
coastline today represent the most dramatic physical vestiges of a harbor built in the mid to
late 1st century AD,80 which was clearly an impressive undertaking and major development of
the landscape. The coastal lagoon was drained away and an extensive inner harbor of 10 ha
was excavated to create several interconnected basins connected to the gulf by a long and
narrow channel (150 m x 12 m wide) lined with cut blocks. Three mounds rising as high as 15
masl at the entrance to the inner harbor indicate the volume of gravel and sand moved during
the construction and subsequent dredging; two stone structures of Roman date on one of these
mounds probably represent ancient lighthouses. The Roman builders at Lechaion also
constructed two rectangular outer quays with protective moles that projected into the seas and
created an additional 5 ha of shelter from waves and currents. The inner and outer harbors
together provided up to 15 ha of sheltered area, making it a very substantial constructed
harbor indeed, in the same league as, say, Sebastos (Caesarea Maritima) with its 20 ha basin.81
A settlement surrounded Lechaion but we know very little about its extent or size.
Kenchreai was the city͛s eastern port that lay 10 km east of the city in one of the natural
coves of the Saronic Gulf. 82 The Roman harbor is located in a natural indentation of the coast
where a small bay is defined by a pair of promontories that project the coast seaward at the
north and south; artificial breakwaters and moles now submerged extend the promontories to
create a sheltered cove of 3 ha with a depth up to 25 m.83 The investigations of Kenchreai in
the 1960s revealed in great detail the physical remains and plan of the harbor itself, which was
developed in the course of the 1st and 2nd century AD and had phases of refurbishment as late
as the 7th century. Limited excavations on the inner quay of the harbor uncovered warehouses,
commercial buildings, and shops that were constructed sometime between the late 1st c. BC


"    =  á11/
á
=  
 1

  
   £  '"
 2
 
 6

 á1/ "     &  
  = g   = á
(
     
 á1! á0-á!

15
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

and 1st c AD.84 Excavations on the north side of the harbor brought to light stores (tabernae),
an open square and stoa (1st century AD), a mole constructed of earth and rubble (1st century
AD), and a Roman villa used throughout the Roman period.85 The south pier produced a similar
array of commercial buildings and warehouses (early 1st century AD) and even piscinae (fish
tanks) that originated in the later 1st century AD, as well as was a later Roman nymphaeum
(post-2nd century) that produced over 120 glass panels of opus sectile still packed in their
wooden shipping crates and located in the building of the 4th century AD.86 A very large town
surrounded the harbor proper in the Roman era.
This brief overview of Kenchreai and Lechaion highlights both harbors as fully equipped
centers for wholesale trading. What is important to note is that ancient writers did not regard
the urban center at Corinth itself as the emporium or market center for wholesale trade, but
Corinth rather controlled the trade marts located in its harbors. Corinth had substantial market
spaces, of course, as Williams has shown in his survey of the different forum and macella
excavated in the urban center,87 which would have retailed products of the countryside (e.g.,
meat) for purchase by city dwellers. Än other Roman cities, such macella and fora were
permanent building spaces for retailing specialty food products like grain, vegetables, meat,
and fishͶthe sort of expensive goods available to people with resources.88 Corinth town also
had a variety of stalls and taverns for retailing crafts and specialty products like pottery,
textiles, and furniture, as well as high-frequency periodic markets for the sale of basic
provisions, the sorts of market spaces found throughout the Roman Mediterranean.89 But it is
important to note that these macella, nundinae, and urban shops and stalls were primarily
retail spaces that constituted different sorts of market places than we find in Corinth͛s ports,

0
$
'()-(
/
     
 á1! á!- =   ))-)1
)
     
 á1! (-(/ 0(
!
3

 á11(

$ = & á1( "& á11( !-1 á1- /)-!( áá-áá) á/1
1
8 -  & 
9
9        
   = 7    "&
á11( $ . á11( 

& á)-á/0 7
& ! !1-á 
    
&       
 
   9 : ; % 4 g  @ 
 

 2  
 ()

16
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

and there is no reason to think that surpluses produced in the countryside would have
necessarily filtered through urban markets.90
When writers describe Corinth as having an emporium, they are also explaining the
nature of trade in the region. Strabo, who notes that the emporium facilitated trade between
Ätaly and Asia,91 is not referring to cargoes being shipped in bulk across the Ästhmus in westward
and eastward shipping flows to be sold elsewhere. He is rather representing the harbors of the
isthmus as the sites of marketing and economic connection where traders concentrate. Än
Strabo͛s conception, merchants from the east did not need to travel all the way to Ätaly to
exchange their wares but could simply unload at Kenchreai; merchants from the west did not
sail around the Peloponnese but could put in at Lechaion. The Ästhmus and the harbors formed
centralized trading depots and meeting points between east and west, places for exchange and
the redistribution of goods.92 Our texts actually reveal nothing about where the goods end up
after being exchanged on the isthmus, let alone by what mechanism they move from the point
of distribution. Some goods apparently did trickle across the isthmus, as we noted earlier,
perhaps through the agency of individual traders making contracted runs in luxury items from
Asia to Ätaly, but there is no evidence that ancient writers imagined a large-scale portage
operation over the land bridge. The predominant and consistent view in the ancient sources is
that the isthmus was a meeting place and entrepôt;93 the means of distribution of goods is left
unexplained.
Finally, the recognition of Corinth͛s emporium explains its association in ancient
literature with great concentrations of people.94 Some travelers are described as passing
through the region in route between Rome and Athens, or cities in Asia Minor; disembarking at
Lechaion or Kenchreai, they walked across the Ästhmus to the opposite harbor and caught a

1
 , á11 7
& ! /-/!           
 
 


     
1á
 
1

  *
0)-!
1(
?           
          @  ,-.  4  
)()   & 
    ^4       
 %      

 
          E  &   % 7
 ?          
        
 
  


10
.& ((( ,  á!- $ %& *
10

17
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

ship to their destination. 95 But many came to the Corinthia for specific purposes, whether it be
to tour the sites of old Greece (like Pausanias) or attend the biennial games at Ästhmia (like
Aelius Aristides). Än these cases, the Ästhmus functioned not as a commercial thoroughfare
where merchants and goods were simply passing through but a destination in its own right for
cultural and economic activity. Än ancient conception, these concentrations of travelers and
visitors produced revenues for the city and also contributed to its immoral character.

IV. Corinthian Economy and the Question of Inequality

We can turn in this concluding discussion to the question of the economy of Roman
Corinth. Recognizing that ancient writers regarded the emporium as the primary commercial
basis for the city͛s wealth provides insight into how the Corinthian Ästhmus generated wealth
and created economic inequality. Scholars have often highlighted the urban center itself as the
center of trade in the region and urban markets as the mechanism for the redistribution of
goods to rural dwellers and visitors to the city center.96 While there were certainly different
kinds of markets in Corinth town, the emporium places the harbors at the center of Corinth͛s
commercial economy. Kenchreai and Lechaion, at least, were the places of large-scale trade in
the region.
Viewed in one light, harbors fostered an environment of economy activity and created
opportunities through a wide range of productive and commercial activities in both the
countryside and town: money lenders and merchants negotiating loans, merchants buying up
craft in the town for exporting abroad, land owners seeking markets for their surplus olive oil
and wine, and retailers and peddlers redistributing imported goods in the city͛s more
specialized markets, fora, and fairs. As such, Kenchreai and Lechaion created the economic
space for business for a wide range of individuals linked to trade:97 wholesaler dealers,
financiers, ship owners, traders, landowners, middle men, retailers, craft specialist, and sailors
and rowers, among many others.

1/
,  " (áá-0 "
  ,
  &// !á
1)
8     *
   
 á11
1!
, á11

18
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

For merchants, emporia created the right condition for dramatic profiting through trade
in goods produced both locally and abroadͶthe sort of ͞rags to riches͟ story described in
another paper in this volume. 98 Än the Early Roman era, anecdotes still circulated about
wealthy Corinthians of the former Greek city, like Moerichus the millionaire who owned an
entire fleet of merchant vessels,99 and Demaratus, who had grown wealthy by making cargo
runs between Lechaion and ports in southern Ätaly.100 Än the 4th century AD, Libanius tells of a
detestable dealer in fish pickle named Heliodorus who, in the course of his trade came to
Corinth, sat in on law proceedings, mastered oratory, and eventually earned a killing between
his legal activities and his trade in fish sauce. 101 Such anecdotes reflect the ancient conception
that long-distance trade provided the means of generating spectacular profits and upward
social mobility, and that harbors were the outlet for profit-making. The reality, of course, is
that most people who were tied to commercial activity in any way were low-status individuals
not typically made wealthy through the process.102 Ancient markets provided less a means for
generating spectacular wealth than a place to make enough profit to make a living.
Nonetheless, Corinth͛s harbors created numerous many opportunities to make a living.
The initial construction of the harbor facilities, along with occasional refurbishments, required
many hundreds of laborers who could operate cranes, complete masonry, excavate the basins,
and dredge the mouths.103 The construction of the monumental buildings at the harborsͶthe
warehouses, temples, and churchesͶfostered needs for architects, carpenters, porters, and a
myriad of unskilled workmen.104 The numerous private apartments, villas, houses in the
districts surrounding both Lechaion and Kenchreai required a supply of construction workers
over the long Roman era.
The commercial activities occurring during sailing season likewise employed an sizable
body of workers at the sea front.105 Thousands of people were needed to manage the arrival of

1
 7

  

11
.  
%

áá
á
$  6
 (0)(-/
áá
.   *
)0)
á
 = ( 

&        : ; 


   

      % 7
& ! 
á(
=9 á1/ 8
 á1
á0
 5  á1            *  =
á/
% = Z á1)) á)-)0 % á1!á ())-(! 8
 á1 á0!

19
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

ships and movement of goods at the quays and storehouses: stevedores and porters, custom
officials and clerks, inspectors, crane operators, lightermen, shipwrights, ballast handlers, and
divers and dredgers. Transferring goods from farm estates to harbors and from harbors to
towns demanded numerous muleteers and wagon drivers. And the services provided to
arriving merchants, sailors, and passengers put to work retailers, shopkeepers, tavern and bar
owners, innkeepers, craftsmen, and prostitutes. Än the varied economic activities that occurred
at harbors, there was a large demand for seasonal laborers both skilled and unskilled. 106
Viewed in another light, however, Kenchreai and Lechaion inscribed a series of striking
contrasts in the landscape as the principal economic activity (wholesale trade) reflected the
interests of the wealthy and powerful. The individuals who benefitted most from exporting
goods through the harbors were not peasant farmers, who found markets for their small
surpluses in the retail spaces of town and countryside,107 but land-owning elite, who undertook
trade directly or through dependents by selling their produce to itinerant merchants or
outfitting their own ships. 108 The elite individually or collectively (through the civic council)
financed the construction of the buildings at the ports, maintained harbor facilities, and
administered the commerce and duties on exported or imported goods.109 The Bacchiadae in
old Corinth, Strabo believed, grew wealthy from the duties on the emporion.110 With funds for
purchasing, the elite benefited also from merchandise imported for consumption. 111
The contrasts between landed elite and landless laborers was physically visible in the
architecture adorning the marine seafront at the harbors. Beyond the quays and warehouses
(funded by elite and the city council), the monumental public architecture of temples, churches,
and monuments bespoke the munificence of individuals. The waterfront properties of both

á)
" 8   , 
  9        &  
     
   

                


  
      
& &
@  6  á1
á!
$ . á11( á)-á/0 7
& ! /-/!
á
8 
       
     $4 á1 , á11 á/ 7
& ! /-/!
7
& ! /-)
á1
 6  á1  

  * =9 á1 )0-)/ ? 
      .
  á   & &   

&   &    


 
       
           , 

  :/ 0; >
        

*  
&   
          
        
7     B
áá
 ) , 

/ 1
ááá
7
& !

20
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Kenchreai and Lechaion included ornate seaside villas of Roman date. The apparent
permanency of these buildings and habitations can be contrasted with the essentially
ephemeral character of seasonal employment of the laborers at the harbors. The ͞motley
throng͟ of seasonal workers of every stripe,112 the peddlers and retailers, foreign merchants
and sailors, indeed, even beggars,113 were individuals without real social and economic security
(land), who always depended in their livelihood on the consistency and fairness of the
employer.114
Än conclusion, this reconsideration of the textual sources provides no automatic key to
answering all our questions about Corinth͛s economy, but it has cast doubt on notions of a
large-scale portage operation in light of what the ancients understood as the basis for
Corinthian wealth, its emporium. Än ancient conception, Corinthian prosperity was not a result
of a major overland shipping operation across its Ästhmus but of the wholesale market activity
and profit making at its harbors. The concentration of commercial flows at the twin harbors
created tremendous economic opportunity for past populations but also fostered the same
inequity that was so characteristic of ancient society generally. Today, one can still see at
Kenchreai and Lechaion the visible contrast between the wealthy few, who are responsible for
the remains of commercial facilities, public buildings, and private residences, and the invisible
workmen, porters, retailers, and sailors who were another dynamic force that brought to life
the harbors for six to eight months every year.

V. Bibliography
Blackman, D.J., ͞Sea Transport, Part 2: Harbors,͟ in John Peter Oleson (ed), The Oxford
Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford 2008, 638-670.
--- ͞Ancient harbours in the Mediterranean,͟ in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
and Underwater Exploration, 11.2 (1982): 79-104, 11.3: 185-211.
áá
% 
 á1!/ á
áá(
79  

&  
    
     

     

   
 
     & $     %   9  g       
  
&   & 
 "
(0á 
 

 2  
 () " %   9 h  
  
@ \   !á!
áá0
5  á11 1-1á

21
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Blegen, C., ͞Corinth in Prehistoric Times,͟ in AJA 24 (1920), 1-13.

Bresson, A., and P. Rouillard (eds.), L͛Emporion, Paris 1993.
Brunt, ͞Free Labour and public Works at Rome,͟ in JRS 70 (1980), 81-100.
Casevitz, M., ͞Emporion: Emplois Classiques et Histoire du mot,͟ in Bresson and Rouillard (eds.),
L͛Emporion, Paris 1993, pp. 9-22.
Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton 1971.
---͞Unemployment: the building trade and Suetonius Vesp. 18,͟ in BASP 15 (1978), 43-51.
Chandler, R. Travels in Greece, or an account of a tour made at the expense of the society of
Dilettanti, Oxford 1776.
Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians: A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Translated
by James W. Leitch, Philadelphia 1975: Fortress Press.
Counillon, P. ͞L͛Emporion des Géographes Greces,͟ in Bresson and Rouillard (eds.), L͛Emporion,
Paris 1993, pp. 47-57.
Cook, R.M., ͞A Further Note on the Diolkos,͟ in J.H. Betts, J.T. Hooker and J.R. Green (eds.),
Studies in Honour of T.B.L. Webster, Vol. 1, Bristol 1986, 65-68.
Cristofori, A., ͞The maritime city in the Graeco-Roman perception: Carthage and
Alexandria: two emblematic examples,͟ in L. Francois and A. K. Äsaacs (eds.), The
Sea in European History, Pisa 2001, 1-24.
Curtius, E., Peloponnesos; eine historisch-geographische Beschreibung der Halbinsel, Gotha
1851-52.
---The History of Greece, English Translation, London 1868.
Davies, G.S., St. Paul in Greece, London 1877.
D͛Arms, J.H., ͞ ,͟ in D͛Arms and Kopff (eds.), The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome:
Studies in Archaeology and History, American Academy in Rome 1980, pp. 77-89.
De Ligt, L., Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic
Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society, Amsterdam 1993.
De Ruyt, C., Macellum: marché alimentaire des Romains, Louvain-la-Neuvep1983.
Dodwell, E. A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece, During the Years 1801, 1805,
and 1806. Vol. 2, London 1819.

22
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Dow, S. ͞The Latin Elegiacs of ca. 101 B.C.,͟ in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 60 (1951),
81-96.
Engels, D., Roman Corinth. An Alternative Model for the Ancient City, Chicago 1990.
Étienne, R. ͞L͛Emporion chez Strabon: A. Les Emporia Strabioniens: Inventaire, Hiérarchies et
Mécanismes Commerciaux,͟ in Bresson and Rouillard (eds.), L͛Emporion, Paris 1993, pp. 23-
34.
Farrar, F.W., The Life and Work of St. Paul, New York 1879.
Fowler, H.N., ͞Ä. Corinth and the Corinthia,͟ in H.N. Fowler and R. Stillwell, Corinth, Vol. I:
Introduction: Topography & Architecture, Cambridge, MA 1932, 18-114.
Frayn, Joan M., Markets and Fairs in Roman Italy: Their Social and Economic Importance from
the Second Century BC to the Third Century AD, Oxford 1993.
Garland, R., The Piraeus: From the Fifth to the First Century B.C., Äthaca, NY, 1987.
Gebhard, E.R. and M.W. Dickie, ͞The View from the Ästhmus, ca. 200 to 44 B.C.,͟ in Corinth XX,
The Centenary: 1896-1996, Princeton 2003, 261-278.
Hafemann, S.J., 2 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary, from biblical text ʹ to
contemporary life, Grand Rapids, MÄ, 2000.
Hansen, M.H., ͞ ,͟ in G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies
and Other Settlements Overseas. Volume 1, Leiden 2006, pp.
--- ͞Emporion. A study of the use and meaning of the term in the archaic and classical periods,͟
in T.H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies on the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart 1997, pp. 83-
105.
Hohlfelder, R.L. and R.L. Vann, ͞Cabotage at Aperlae in Ancient Lycia,͟ in The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29 (2000), 126-135.
Hohlfelder, R.L., ͞The Building of the Roman Harbour at Kenchreai: Old Technology in a New
Era,͟ in A. Raban (ed.), Harbour Archaeology: Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caesarea Maritima, 24-26.6.83, BAR
Änternational Series 257, Oxford 1985, pp. 81-86.

23
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Horrell, D.G., and E. Adams, ͞Äntroduction: The Scholarly Quest for Paul͛s Church at Corinth: A
critical Survey,͟ in Adams and Horrell (eds.), Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the
Pauline Church, Louisville 2004, 1-47.
Houston, G.W., ͞Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships
and Ports,͟ in AJA 92.4 (1988), 553-564.
--- ͞The Administration of Ätalian Seaports during the First Three Centuries of the Roman
Empire,͟ in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Vol. 36, The Seaborne Commerce of
Ancient Rome, Rome 1980, 157-171.
Lemprière, J. and C. Anthon, A Classical Dictionary, Third Edition, New York 1831.
Lewis, M.J.T. (2001) ͞Railways in the Greek and Roman World.͟ Än A. Guy and J. Rees, eds., Early
Railways. A Selection of Papers from the First International Early Railways Conference: 8-19.
London.
Linton, H., The First (second) Epistle to the Corinthians, with notes and appendix, London 1881.
MacDonald, B.R. (1986) ͞The Diolkos.͟ JHS 106: 191-95.
Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia, Second Edition, Oxford 1973.
Möller, A., ͞Classical Greece: Distribution,͟ in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (eds.), The Cambridge
Economic History of the Greco-Roman world, Cambridge 2007, 362-384.
Morley, N., ͞The Early Roman Empire: Distribution,͟ in Scheidel, Morris, and Saller (eds.), The
Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman world, Cambridge 2007a, 570-591.
Morley, N., Trade in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge 2007b.
Morrison, J.S. and J.F. Coates, An Athenian Trireme Reconstructed: the British Sea Trials of
Olympias, 1987, B.A.R. Oxford 1989.
Morrison, J.S., J.F. Coates, and N.B. Rankov, The Athenian Trireme: the History and
Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship, Second Edition, Cambridge 2000.
Murphy-O͛Connor, J., St. Paul͛s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, 3rd edition, Collegeville, MN,
2002
Oleson, J. P., ͞The technology of Roman harbors,͟ Än International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17.2 (1988), 147-157.
Papafotiou, A.E. Ƀ ɷʀʉʄʃʉʎ ʍʏʉʆ ɿʍɽʅʊ ʏɻʎ Ⱦʉʌʀʆɽʉʐ, Corinth 2007.

24
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Paterson, J., ͞Trade and Traders in the Roman World: Scale, Structure and Organization,͟ in
Helen Parkins and Christoper Smith (eds.), Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, London
1998, 149-167.
Petropoulos, E.K., Hellenic Colonization in Euxeinos Pontos. Penetration, Early Establishment
and the Problem of the "Emporion" Revisited. BAR International Series 1394, Oxford 2005:
Archaeopress.
Pettegrew, D.K., ͞Niketas Ooryphas Drags his Fleet: Crossing the Corinthian Ästhmus in 872
AD,͟ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Änstitute of America, San
Antonio, 2011a.
--- ͞The Diolkos and the Commercial Facility of the Ästhmus of Corinth,͟ in AJA 115.4 (2011b),
forthcoming.
Pomey, P., and A. Tchernia, ͞Le tonnage maximum des navires de commerce romains,͟ in
Archaeonautica 2 (1978).
Purcell, N., ͞The Ancient Mediterranean: The View from the Customs House,͟ in W.V. Harris
(ed.), Rethinking the Mediterranean, Oxford 2005, 200-232.
Raban, A., M. Artzy, B. Goodman, and Z. Gal, The Harbour of Sebastos (Caesarea Maritima) in its
Roman Mediterranean Context, BAR Äntnl. S1930 2009.
Raepsaet, G., ͞Land Transport, Part 2: Riding, Harnesses, and Vehicles,͟ in J.P. Oleson (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford 2008, 580-
605.
--- (1993) ͞Le Diolkos de l͛Ästhme à Corinthe: son Tracé, son Fonctionnement.͟ BCH 117: 233-
256.
Reed, C.M., Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge 2003.
Rickman, G. E., ͞Towards a Study of Roman Ports,͟ in A. Raban (ed.), Harbour
Archaeology, BAR 257, London 1985, 105-114.
--- ͞The archaeology and history of Roman ports.͟ International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17 (1988): 257-67.

25
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

Rife, J. L., ͞Religion and Society at Roman Kenchreai,͟ in S. Friesen, D. Schowalter, and
J. Walters (eds.), Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society,
Leiden 2010.
Rosenfeld, Ben-Zion, and J. Menirav, Markets and Marketing in Roman Palestine,
Leiden 2005.
Rothaus, R. M., Corinth, the First City of Greece: an Urban History of Late Antique Cult
and Religion, Leiden 2000.
--- ͞Lechaion, Western Port of Corinth: A Preliminary Archaeology and History,͟ in OJA 14.3
(1995), 293-306.
Rouillard, P. ͞L͛Emporion chez Strabon: B. Les Emporia Strabioniens: Fonctions et Activités,͟ in
Bresson and Rouillard (eds.), L͛Emporion, Paris 1993, pp. 35-46.
Rougé, J., Recherches sur l͛organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l͛Empire
Romain, Paris 1966.
Salmon, J.B., Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 B.C. Oxford 1984.
Sanders, G.D.R., ͞Portage of Ships Across the Ästhmus,͟ in Tropis IV: 4th International Symposium
on Ship construction in Antiquity, Athens 1996, 423-428.
Scranton, R.L., J.W. Shaw, and L. Äbrahim, Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth. Vol. 1. Topography
and Architecture, Leiden 1978.
Shaw, J. W., ͞Greek and Roman harbourworks.͟ Än George F. Bass, ed., A History of Seafaring
based on Underwater Archaeology: 87-112. London 1972, 87-112.
Sommerstein, Alan H. (ed. and trans.), Thesmophoriazusae, Warminster, England 1994.
Taylor, L.R. and A.B. West, ͞Latin Elegiacs from Corinth,͟ in AJA 32.1 (1928), 9-22.
Tompkins, Daniel P., Review of Donald W. Engels, Roman Corinth, in BMCR 1990.
Verdelis, N.M., ͞ßʆɲʍʃɲʔɼ ʏʉß ȴɿʊʄʃʉʐ,͟ in Prakt 1962 (1966b), 48-50.
--- ͞ßʆɲʍʃɲʔɼ ʏʉß ȴɿʊʄʃʉʐ,͟ in Prakt 1960 (1966a), 136-143.
--- ͞ßʌʖɲɿʊʏɻʏɸʎ ßʌɶʉʄɿɷʉʃʉʌɿʆɽʀɲʎ͟ in ArchDelt 16 (1960 [1962]), 79-82.
--- ͞ɇʐʆɹʖɿʍɿʎ ʏßʎ ßʆɲʍʃɲʔßʎ ʏʉß ȴɿʊʄʃʉʐ,͟ in ArchEph (1956), Chronika, 1-3.
--- ͞Die Ausgrabung des Diolkos während der Jahre 1957-1959,͟ in AthMitt 73 (1958), 140-145.
--- ͞How the Ancient Greeks Transported Ships over the Ästhmus of Corinth; Uncovering the
2550-year-old Diolcos of Periander,͟ in Illustrated London News (October 19, 1957), 649-
651.
26
 Working Draft ʹ Do Not Circulate without Permission

---͞Der Diolkos am Ästhmos von Korinth,͟ in AthMitt 71 (1956), 51-59

von Reden, Sitta, ͞The Piraeus ʹ A World Apart,͟ in Greece and Rome, Second Series, 42.1
(1995), 24-37.
Werner, W., ͞The Largest Ship Trackway in Ancient Times: the Diolkos of the Ästhmus of Corinth,
Greece, and Early Attempts to Build a Canal,͟ in International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 26 (1997), 98-119.
West, A.B. (1931) Corinth VIII.ii: Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926. Princeton.
Wiseman, J., ͞Corinth and Rome Ä: 228 B.C.-A.D. 267,͟ in ANRW ÄÄ.7.1 (1979).
Wyse, Sir Thomas, An Excursion in the Peloponnesos in the Year 1858, London 1865.

27