Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece
Like most ancient Greek writers Pausanias generally shows little interest
in spatial relationships between the places he is describing. When he
encounters large topographical features such as mountains or coastlines
he does not take the opportunity to explain the wider geographical context:
we are not told what lies behind a mountain range or further along a
coastline, unless the text is actually headed in that direction. He makes
an occasional exception when he encounters a river and lists places along
its course. 42 This approach to the landscape is reminiscent of the Peutinger
Table which shows a similar tendency to neglect an accurate depiction of
two-dimensional geography in favour of a representation of roads and
sequences of settlements along routes. It has been suggested that
Pausanias may have used a similar map to organise his text, but the
Peutinger Table includes only the most important routes in Greece, and
there is no evidence for the existence of ancient maps that could match the
detailed coverage of the Greek landscape presented in the Periegesis. The
Peutinger Table represents an ancient alternative to a conventional map,
and it suggests that, rather than being eccentric, Pausanias’ way of
organising the landscape by routes may have been familiar to his readers. 43
Since Pausanias was describing inland regions he needed to find a way
of achieving a comprehensive coverage of the territory. A periplous could
pursue one long linear itinerary along the coasts, but in the interior roads
formed a complex network which had to be represented in the Periegesis.
In every region Pausanias follows a main itinerary, but when he reaches
a city he describes the major roads in all directions as far as the border
before he continues to the next major settlement. These secondary routes
may not be described in full, but they give the impression of a dense set of
connections between the major cities, including routes that cross boundaries
between regions. Pausanias may be doggedly linear in his approach
when he follows a road, but on a regional level he combines his routes into
a network which constitutes a much more sophisticated representation of
a two-dimensional landscape than the traditional periplous. At the same
time, he is surprisingly selective when it comes to turning aside from his
main route to establish these spatial connections. He is capable of passing
close by a site which he has described in another context without pointing
out the connection between his present route and one he has discussed
earlier. For example, much of the Argolid is described in a long tour which
almost comes full circle at Tiryns and Asine, both in the vicinity of
Nauplia. When Pausanias finally reaches Nauplia on another route he
does not mention that he has already been in the same area twice before
(Fig. 9). 44 Close proximity or the fact that one place might be easily visible
from another site are less important to Pausanias than the connections he
creates by including a site in a particular itinerary.
For Pausanias, connections between places are not a mere matter of
topographical coverage: they also indicate the relative importance of different
sites, particularly in historical and mythical terms. For example,
70