Content uploaded by Ulrich Schädler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrich Schädler on Jul 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pente grammai — the ancient Greek
board game Five Lines
Ulrich Sch¨adler
Swiss Museum of Games
The board games of ancient Greece have attracted relatively little at-
tention both from archaeologists, classical philologists, and board game his-
torians. This lack of interest may partly be explained by the scarce and
contradictory evidence hitherto come down to us. The few written sources
can hardly be combined with even fewer archaeological finds. In his Ono-
masticon (IX 97) the 2nd century lexicographer Pollux, based on Suetonius’
lost book about the games of the Greeks, lists three board games. The first
one is Polis (city) or poleis (cities), which according to the method of capture
mentioned by Pollux — trapping one piece from two sides — seems to be the
forerunner of or identical to the game the Romans called Ludus Latruncu-
lorum (Sch¨adler 1994; Sch¨adler 2001). The second game, Diagrammismos,
is completely unknown, but could have been a game of the Backgammon
family. The name could perhaps best be translated as “through (or along or
over) the signs”. The third game mentioned Pollux leaves without a name,
but scholars conventionally use to call it Five Lines. The existing literary
and archaeological evidence enables us to create a fairly good picture of that
game.
Pollux includes Five Lines in a list of games of chance (VII 206) and
states (IX 97) that “each of the players had five pieces upon five lines” adding
that “on the five lines from either side there was a middle one called the
sacred line. And moving a piece already arrived there gave rise to the proverb
‘he moves the piece from the sacred line’”. It is this proverb that several
ancient authors refer to, without giving any further details concerning the
game. More information comes from Eustathios, a monk from Thessalonica
who wrote commentaries to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Although he lived
about a thousand years after Pollux, his testimony is not at all obsolete, since
he himself informs us that he got his information from Suetonius’ book about
Greek games. Eustathios, too, mentions Five Lines in connection with dice
players (Il. 633, 58). He understood from Suetonius that both players had
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1001
their own five lines and that the line between these was the sacred line. Its
significance he explains by adding that “the beaten player goes to it last”
(Od. 1397, 28; Il. 633, 59). This seems to imply that the player who first
manages to place his pieces on the sacred line wins the game.
Our earliest reference to the game is a verse by Alkaios (c. 600 BC),
implying that moving a piece from the sacred line can lead to final victory
— in a sense similar to “playing the trump card” nowadays (Bergk 1884: 177
no.82; Voigt 1971: 320 no. 351). But generally it was regarded a bad idea
to move a piece once it had arrived there. This is why the 3rd century poet
Theokritos writes (Idylls, VI 18): “and from the line she moves the piece,
because to love’s desire often appears beautiful what is not beautiful”.
Of course, without any further information these passages are difficult
to understand. The reason is that the authors cited above presented their
information in a very condensed and abbreviated style sufficient to explain
or to allude to the proverb, whereas it was not their intention to give precise
rules of an ancient Greek board game. Moreover it is very likely that at least
some of them did not even know the game, which is certainly true at least for
Eustathios who reports what he had read in the ancient literature. Austin’s
conclusion, however, that “the obscurity of all this evidence is impenetrable”
(Austin 1940: 267-271) was due to the fact that he completely ignored
archaeological finds that can convincingly be connected with these references
and add much to their understanding. Some of the early finds had already
been taken into consideration by Lamer in his important article “lusoria
tabula” from 1927, who also checked the literary evidence completely (Lamer
1927: cols. 1970–1973, 1992–1998). But even such an eminent board game
historian as Murray went over the game rather superficially, wrongly stating
that we knew “nothing more than that it was played on a board of five lines”
and that Pollux described the five-lined board as a board of 5 by 5 cells,
which is not the case at all (Murray 1952: 28). Pollux tells us not only that
the game board consisted of five lines (and only five lines) but also that
the game was for two players who had five counters to play with. Moreover
we learn that one of the lines on the board was particularly significant in
the play of the game. Finally, both Pollux and Eustathios include Five
Lines among the Greek board games played with dice. All this is a lot
more of information than what Murray wanted to consider. Murray, who
nearly exclusively relied on Austin, did not pay any attention to such finds
as the tables from Epidauros interpreted as gaming boards by Blinkenberg
half a century before. He suggested instead that the five-lined board might
have had the form of a pentagram. Apart from the simple fact that such
a form cannot explain how there should be one line of special importance,
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1002 Pente grammai...
as a support to his surprising proposal Murray referred to the designs on
the roofing slabs of the Sethi temple at Gourna in Egypt, taking it for
granted that the five rayed stars on the roof are gaming boards and earlier
in date than the Greek game. However, most of the designs there can be
identified as mason’s marks and magic symbols (Parker 1909: 643–44 fig.
273). This holds particularly true for the five rayed star — a Coptic magic
symbol until today (Viaud 1978: 47) — and various Coptic crosses. The
existence of designs dating to the Christian era makes any attempt to date
the drawings on the roof more precisely impossible.
In 1968 Pritchett catalogued the material known until then from main-
land Greece, Delos and Cyprus (Pritchett 1968:189—198), but included in
his list a number of objects which more convincingly can be identified as
abaci. Despite of all this material at disposal, May (Jouer dans l’Antiquit´e
1991: 172–73) still based his account on Becq de Fouqui`eres’ mostly out-
dated speculations from 1869 (Becq de Fouqui`eres 1869: 397–405).
Let us now consider the most important finds of gaming tables that can
be connected with the game of Five Lines. The earliest example seems to be
a painted terracotta miniature gaming table (fig. 1) found together with a
cubic die at Anagyros (Vari) in Attica in a grave dating to the middle of the
7th century BC (Kallipolitis 1963: 123–124, 172, pl. 53–55 ?–?). The board
measures 18.3 by 24.8 cm and has on its surface five incised parallel lines
ending in a circular cavity on both sides, thus forming two rows of five holes
along the longer edges of the board. The faces of the die, which has small
holes as points, are painted with geometric ornaments, a horse, a woman
and perhaps the goddess Athena, comparable to a roughly contemporary
die from the Athenian acropolis (Karusu 1973; Sch¨adler 1999).
Probably the same game was depicted on another small gaming table,
found together with a die in the necropolis of the Kerameikos at Athens
and dating to the early 6th century, but unfortunately the surface of the
table is not preserved (K¨ubler 1970: 394–95, 512 cat. no 129, p. 102). Both
tables were adorned with terracotta statuettes of mourning women to show
that these tables have been properly made to be used as grave goods. An
explanation for this tradition is given a little later, in the first half of the 5th
century, by the Greek poet Pindar (frg. 129) who described the idea of a
happy existence in the netherworld, where “some enjoy horses and wrestling,
others board games, and yet others the music of the lyre”.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1003
Figure 1: Clay model of a gaming table from Anagyros, Athens, National
Museum
When Pindar wrote down these lines the Athenians had abandoned the
custom of offering terracotta gaming tables to their dead. Now they used
to offer black-figured vases decorated with a depiction of the two heroes
Ajax and Achilles playing a board game with dice. The most elaborate
and probably the earliest of these scenes was painted around 540 BC by
the Athenian vase painter Exekias on an amphora now preserved in the
Vatican Museums (Brommer 1974: no. 9; Woodford 1982: 173–74, 183 F1,
pl. IIIa; Buchholz 1987: 144–45 no. 21; Mommsen 1988: 445–454). Here
not only the names are written beside the heroes, but also the results of
their throws: Achilles on the left calls out that he has got a 4, while Ajax
on the right only has thrown a 3. Inscribed numbers appear also on some
other representations, among which in two cases a 2, implying that the vase
painters thought of a cubic die and not of an astragal with the numeration
1-3-4-6 (Woodford 1982: 185). The use of a die together with the gesture of
their hands and the presence of gaming pieces, sometimes differentiated in
black and white, on top of the block between the two that can be observed
on most of the extant examples clearly shows that they are playing a board
game with dice.
Unfortunately in this case as well as in practically all the other paintings
of the kind — Buchholz has listed 168 representations — the game board is
seen from the side, so that only the counters can be observed in some cases.
But there is one vase painting on a kyathos in the Mus´ees Royaux d’Art et
d’Histoire in Brussels dating to the beginning of the 5th century (Brommer
1974: no. 48; Buchholz 1987: 168 no. 139; Vanhove 1992: 186 no. 44)
which astonishingly offers a view of the board seen from above (fig. 2): the
game board consists of five parallel lines, and both ends of these lines are
occupied by one counter. There can be hardly any doubt: this is the Greek
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1004 Pente grammai...
game of Five Lines. The hypothesis that the heroes were thought to play
exactly this game has already been forwarded by several authors (such as
Becq de Fouqui`eres 1869, Beazley 1963: 2–3, May 1991: 173, and others;
see also Sch¨adler 1999: 41), but only the vase painting in Brussels proves it.
Figure 2: Ajax and Achilles playing Five Lines. Black-figure vase painting
on a kyathos, early 5th century BC (Mus´ees Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire,
Brussels, inv.no. R2512)
As a preliminary essence of what both the written and the archaeological
sources reveal we can therefore conclude that already around 600 BC in
ancient Greece there existed a game played on a board showing five parallel
lines. The game was for two players, who had as many counters as lines at
their disposal, i.e. five each, which were placed on or at each end of these
lines. The game was played with the help of a die. Only from the written
sources we learn that the central line was called the “sacred line” which
must have had a particular importance in the game, since the players tried
to avoid moving a piece from that line which had already arrived there.
Possible enlarged variants
Achilles and a companion (probably Ajax) playing a board game are also
depicted on an Etruscan mirror (K¨orte 1897: 144–146 pl. 109; Mansuelli
1945: 58), where the board they are keeping on their knees shows seven
parallel lines (fig. 3a and 3b).
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1005
On both sides each line ends in a circle representing a counter or a
depression to keep one. Two rectangular objects are depicted between the
lines that can be taken as dice.
Figure 3a: Achilles and Ajax (?) playing a board game, Etruscan mirror
(after K¨orte 1897, pl. 109)
Figure 3b: Achilles and Ajax (?) playing a board game, detail. Etruscan
mirror (after K¨orte 1897, pl. 109)
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1006 Pente grammai...
A Praenestine mirror in the British Museum (K¨orte 1897: 191–193 pl.
146; Walters 1899: 377 no. 3213) dating to the 3rd century BC (compare
the mirrors Mansuelli 1943: 517–518 pl. 40 no. 13 [2nd half of the 3rd
cent. BC], Liepmann 1988: 43–45 no. 17 [early 3rd cent. BC], and de
Puma 1987: 38–39 no. 21 [early 3rd cent. BC]), should also be added to
the representations of the game (fig. 4).
Figure 4: Couple playing a board game. Praenestine mirror, 3rd century
BC. British Museum, London (after K¨orte 1897, pl. 146)
The gaming table used by the couple shows twelve or perhaps thirteen
parallel lines ending in small circles, which corresponds to the game boards
discussed above, but differs completely from boards for xi i Scripta to which
the mirror has wrongly been attributed (Walters 1899: 377; Bell 1979: 30
fig. 25; May 1991: 179 fig. 174, who wrongly dates it to Roman times).
Roman xii Scripta boards consist of three rows of twelve points (variously
fashioned like squares, circles, points, lines, letters or other symbols) divided
— like with Backgammon boards — by a bar in the middle (Sch¨adler 1995).
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1007
Another important find is a miniature terracotta gaming table from
Athens in Copenhagen (fig. 5), dating to the early 6th century BC, the life-
time of Alkaios, which probably also served as a grave good (Ussing 1884:
149–151, 172; Breitenstein 1941: 19 no. 171 pl. 19; Pritchett 1968: 197
pl. 7,1; Lund/Rasmussen 1995: 67). On its surface measuring 37 by 12 cm
are drawn nine parallel lines occupied by oval knobs at each end, obviously
representing gaming stones.
Figure 5: Miniature terracotta gaming table, early 6th century BC.
National Museum Copenhagen (after Ussing 1884, pl. 1. The Royal Danish
Academy of Sciences and Letters)
At both ends of the board a cubic die with the upper face showing 6 is
preserved. As with the mirrors mentioned above there are more than five
lines on the board, so that these representations have been taken as free
copies of the game intending that the artisans did not pay much attention
to the exact number of lines.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1008 Pente grammai...
This may be the case with the Praenestine mirror, where perhaps a
board with 11 lines was intended (see below), but nine lines as on the table
in Copenhagen differs too much from five and requires completely different
proportions of the whole object as to assume a simple error. Therefore we
have to reckon with the existence of enlarged versions of Five Lines. This
assumption may be corroborated by the existence of a series of boards with
11 lines. One of the stone gaming tables dedicated possibly during the 4th
century BC in the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros shows six shallow
lines added clearly at a later date to the existing two groups of five lines
in order to create a gaming area with eleven lines next to one with five
(Blinkenberg 1898: 3–4 no. 2 fig.3–4; Pritchett 1968: 190–191 no. 2 pl. 1,2–
3). Boards with eleven lines have been found at several sites, sometimes with
the third, sixth and ninth lines cross-cut, pointing to a special significance
of these lines.
Thus the boards with eleven lines appear to be boards where two groups
of five lines with their sacred lines in the middle have been joined by adding
a central “sacred” line between the two groups. In this way Claude Saumaise
understood Eustathios’ text already in the 17th century (Salmasius 1671:
748–49). In fact, this 5+1+5-layout corresponds to Pollux’ (IX 98) and
Eustathios’ (Il. 633, 58) peculiar expression Lamer (Lamer 1927: col. 1971)
came across, that “a line in the middle was called the sacred line” instead of
“the line in the middle...”. From the extant gaming boards this expression
seems to refer to both possibilities, i.e. that there was precisely one sacred
line only in the standard version with five lines, whereas there were more
than one on the 11-lined board. It should also be mentioned that at Roman
sites in Asia Minor such as Ephesus, Smyrna, and Aphrodisias (Sch¨adler
1998; Rouch´e 2007) a great number of game boards showing two rows of five
or two rows of eleven squares can be seen while other numbers of squares are
extremely rare. It seems therefore that in Roman times Five Lines and its
larger variant were played on squares instead of lines (Sch¨adler 1998: 18–19;
Sch¨adler forthcoming).
So it seems that there existed several larger versions of Five Lines as
well as a double version of the game with eleven lines. This doubling of
an existing game reminds us of the Egyptian game of ‘twice 20’, a double
version of the famous game of 20 squares, created simply by joining two
boards (Pusch 1977). Recently Irving Finkel suggested that perhaps even
the Indian game of Pachisi “might owe its ultimate origin to the doubling
of a simpler game” (Finkel 2006: 61).
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1009
Game boards or abaci?
It must be mentioned that not all the boards with parallel lines should be
recognized as gaming boards. This interpretation holds certainly true for
boards associated with dice and/or counters. But there are other boards,
mainly stone boards, which more likely are to be explained as abaci, i.e. cal-
culation boards. While Pritchett took all the lined boards as gaming boards
(Pritchett 1968: 200–201), recently Sch¨arlig considered all these boards to
be abaci (Sch¨arlig 2002: 80, 179–80). On the other hand those boards with
the ends of the lines hollowed out to form a circle, like for example a board
from Eretria (Sch¨arlig 2001: fig. 5) and the boards cut into the pediment of
the Letoon on the island of Delos (Gallet de Santerre 1959: 38 with n. 2, pl.
IV; Pritchett 1968: 195–96 no. 13 pl. 5, 2–4), are best explained as game
boards. Among the patterns incised into the pediment running around the
little temple the excavators have identified several Five Lines boards (De-
onna 1938: 337; Gallet de Santerre 1959: 38 with n. 2, pl. IV; Pritchett
1968: 195-96 no. 13 pl. 5, 2-4).
Figure 6: Game boards on the northern pediment of the temple of Leto,
Delos (after Gallet de Santerre 1959, pl. IV)
On the northern pediment (fig. 6) there are one board consisting of five
parallel lines ending in circular holes crossed by a perpendicular line, one
similar board but without the perpendicular line, and one board consisting
of two parallel rows of five holes. A forth pattern shows three parallel lines
ending in small holes and two extra holes without a line, and is probably
simply an unfinished board.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1010 Pente grammai...
Figure 7: Game boards on the eastern pediment of the temple of Leto,
Delos (after Gallet de Santerre 1959, pl. IV)
The eastern pediment at the rear of the temple (fig. 7) has a probably
unfinished gaming board in the shape of a grid of 3 by 6 squares measuring
about 27 by 27 cm (Deonna 1938: 337), a complete Five Lines board with
perpendicular line (fig.8) as well as a pattern of five parallel lines of different
length.
Figure 8: Five Lines board on the eastern pediment of the temple of Leto,
Delos (photography by the author)
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1011
While one cannot determine whether the rows of five holes are unfinished
boards or just a different type of Five Lines board (compare the boards of
2 by 5 squares of Roman times so frequent at Ephesos and Aphrodisias:
Sch¨adler 1998), it is difficult to interpret these patterns as abaci. Two main
arguments may support this assumption: First of all, as Sch¨arlig convinc-
ingly argued (Sch¨arlig 2001: 82, 180), the counters on the abaci were placed
not on the lines but in the columns between the lines, so that depressions
at the ends of the lines would not make sense. Secondly, even if the coun-
ters would have been moved along the lines, one depression at both ends of
the lines would not make sense either, since in calculation procedures five
counters are needed on each line.
On the other hand the boards showing numerals besides the lines like
a board from Salamis (Pritchett 1968: 193–95 no.11 pl. 4,1; Sch¨arlig 2001:
66–67, fig. 1), one from the Amphiareion at Oropos (Pritchett 1968: 191
no.4 pl. 2,1; Sch¨arlig 2001: 77–78), two further stones from Oropos (Sch¨arlig
2001: 67–69) as well as one from the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros
(Blinkenberg 1898: 2–3 no. 1; Pritchett 1968: 189–90 no. 1, pl. 1,1) are
very likely to have been used for calculation purposes. This does not exclude
that they were also used to play a game from time to time. Especially the
fact that some of these boards have the third, central and ninth lines marked
by crosses cannot be explained by them being used for calculations (Sch¨arlig
2001: 190), but by their use as game boards with the sacred lines marked
by a cross as has been explained above.
How to play
As far as the modes of playing Five Lines are concerned, we may draw the
following conclusions. The standard game of Five Lines was played on a
board with five parallel lines. Larger versions could have more lines, but
always an odd number, simply because there had to be a central line. From
the written sources we learn that this central line had a special significance.
It seems that the aim of the game was to move all one’s counters onto this
“sacred” line. The term “sacred” reminds one of the ancient Greek concept
of asylum and hiketeia, i.e. the inviolable right of persons in search of aid
to take refuge in a sanctuary (Sinn 1993) where nobody had the right to
remove a suppliant by force, and describes pretty well the function of this
line. Apparently the number of counters used corresponded to the number of
lines, each player having as many counters as lines on the board. The points,
holes or circles at both ends of the lines on some of the boards demonstrate
that normally one counter only was placed at the ends of the lines.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1012 Pente grammai...
This arrangement is represented on the vase in Brussels, but also on the
terracotta model of a gaming table in Copenhagen (9 lines) as well as on
the Etruscan and the Praenestine mirrors (11 and 13? lines respectively).
Probably this was the starting position. Some of the boards at the Letoon of
Delos do not even have lines but just two rows of five holes showing that these
points were important (fig. 6). Since, as Pollux points out, each player had
five counters on Five Lines, it seems obvious to conclude that one player
placed his counters at one end of the lines and the second player on the
opposite ends. It seems that the transversal line running perpendicularly
through the middle of the board that can be found on some Five Lines
boards was introduced to distinguish the two sides. In my view it is this
arrangement Pollux’ and Eustathios’ referred to with their expression “from
both sides” (´ηκατ ´ερωθεν).
Recently Kurke (Kurke 1999: 263–64) hypothesized that there was a spe-
cial “king piece” in the game of Five Lines. The idea is based on an unusual
reading of a passage in the scholia to Theokritos (Schol.ad Theokr.6.18.19a),
where we are told that the piece moved from the sacred line was called “the
king” (basileus). The passage has never been taken seriously, because the
scholiast himself says that the game he refers to is Chess (ζατ ρ´ικιoν). More-
over, would Pollux or Eustathios who try to explain a famous proverb about
a piece moved from the sacred line not have mentioned the fact that this
piece was a special one? Even more important as an argument against
Kurke’s suggestion is the fact that not one of the representations described
above shows such a special piece. With the intention to corroborate his
understanding of the scholion, he advances another unusual interpretation.
One of Herakleitos’ most enigmatic sentences (Diels 1922: 88 no. B 52)
which has nourished debate ever since reads ‘time is a child at play (πα´ιζων),
playing on a game board (πεσσε´υων). Royal power is in the hands of a
child’. The fact that a board game (Petteia) and royal power (basileia) are
alluded to here in the same context Kurke concludes that a “piece called the
king” was involved and moreover that the board game intended by Herak-
leitos was played with dice and thus must have been Five Lines (Kurke 1999:
263–64 with reference to Kahn 1979: 227–28). Because of the far-reaching
conclusions concerning the symbolic meaning of Five Lines and its role in
ancient Greek society drawn from this daring construction, it is necessary to
have a closer look, without digging deeper than necessary into philosophical
questions raised by Herakleitos.
First of all it should be noted that according to the written sources Five
Lines was obviously not considered a form of Petteia (games with counters)
which Herakleitos alludes to, but of Kubeia (games of chance). But there is
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1013
also — as far as I know — not a single reliable and convincing trace of a
special piece in any ancient Greek board game.
As far as the understanding of Herakleitos’ statement is concerned I
would briefly like to introduce a few ideas from the perspective of the history
of games. Herakleitos speaks of a child playing (πα´ιζων) and then explains
more precisely that he is playing on a game board (πεσσε´υων). Astonishing
as this rendering is the picture of a child playing a board game. Normally
Greek children played with all kinds of toys and with knucklebones (see
Jouer dans l’Antiquit´e 1991: 50–81, 100–105, 166–173), but board games,
especially strategic games such as “polis” were an adults’ domain (see Jouer
dans l’Antiquit´e 1991: 166–173). Greek children appear not to have played
board games at all, an important aspect in my opinion, which has hardly
ever been explored in this context. The question arises therefore why it was
important for Herakleitos to stress that the child is amusing himself by mov-
ing pieces on the board of a game for adults? If his point would have been to
compare the arbitrary nature of events in time with the randomness of out-
comes in children’s plays, the image of the child at play without any further
explanation would have sufficed the purpose perfectly, since people would
practically automatically have thought of a child playing with knucklebones,
the favourite pastime of Greek children at the time. In another anecdote
about Herakleitos’ life for example Diogenes Laertius (IX 3; Robinson: 166;
Musaviev 2003: 27 M 22a; 159) reports that once Herakleitos himself was
playing at knucklebones with children in the sanctuary of Artemis. As some
Ephesians criticized him for passing his time in that way, he replied: “is it
not better to do this than to ‘politeuesthai’ with you?”. This is certainly to
be taken as one of his famous wordplays, in that the verb would normally
mean “to make politics”, but posed here in contrast to ‘astragalizein’ (“to
play with knucklebones”) one cannot help thinking of a secondary meaning
in the sense of “to play polis”, i.e. the game “city” (Kurke 1999: 268). It
seems that he wanted to criticise his fellow citizens for not taking politics
as seriously as children do with regard to their knucklebones — not the
only instance the philosopher polemicized against Ephesian politicians. In
this anecdote Herakleitos contrasts a children’s game (knucklebones) with
an adults’ strategic board game (“polis”). Therefore it must be significant
that in the statement discussed here he states more precisely that the child
is not just playing a children’s game such as knucklebones but that he moves
pieces on a game board. Obviously his point is neither about randomness
nor about a child’s game.
What Herakleitos’ child is doing is not to play a board game — as Kahn
(1979: 227) supposed — but to play as if he was playing a board game,
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1014 Pente grammai...
since he does not know the rules or the aim of the game. This is why I
preferred to translate πεσσε´υων as “playing on a game board” instead of
“playing a board game” as most translators have it (Diels’ “Die Zeit ist ein
Knabe, der spielt, hin und her die Brettsteine setzt” is also very close to my
understanding). He moves pieces on a game board, which is not just a piece
of wood, but has a geometrical structure consisting of lines and perhaps
squares with certain measures and in determined numbers, thus implying
an order which predetermines such movements, even to a human being who
does not know the rules of the game. Evidently Herakleitos introduced the
game board as an element of measure and order. But the movements of
the pieces on it are not in keeping with the rules of the game, which are
unknown to the child, who consequently neither has an aim nor an overview
or a reasonable plan.
The analogy between the child moving pieces on a game board and time
proposed by Herakleitos seems to me to point to the fact that time is un-
derstood as the ordered change of the world (Plutarch, Qu. Plat. viii. 4, p.
1007, discussing Herakleitos: “time is ... motion in an order”) operating in
a measured framework which is the cosmos (compare Herakleitos, frg. 30:
the cosmos changing in due measure). But time, as the child, is not aiming
at something, thus has neither a specific intention nor a strategy; although
governing change it has no plan, an idea different to Aristotle’s teleological
doctrine.
The fact that Herakleitos did not choose for his figure a game of chance
such as dicing with knucklebones, which would have been far more appropri-
ate for a child, but a board game with its geometrically structured surface,
does in my opinion rule out the idea that he intended to refer to a board
game with some element of chance (a random generator such as a die), an
idea forwarded by Marcovich (2001: 493–95 no. 93) and Kahn (1979: 227)
and supported by Kurke (1999: 264). It seems on the contrary that he
wanted to exclude the idea of a game of chance: why should he otherwise
add “πεσσε´υων”? Not even is the unsystematic disposal of the pieces on
the board due to the child’s lack of acquaintance with the rules of the game
identical to the purposely creation of chance by inventing and introducing a
random generator. It is evident from all this that Herakleitos did not have
five lines in mind, when he made his famous statement.
To return now to the elements of Five Lines, the use of dice is attested
by both the literary and archaeological sources. Judging from the find from
Anagyros, one die was used when playing on five lines, whereas two dice
belonged to the larger boards. Not only can two dice be identified on the
Etruscan mirror mentioned above, but two dice are also placed on the nine-
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1015
lined board from Athens in Copenhagen. On the gaming table in Copen-
hagen a square trace can be seen in the centre of the board, which has been
taken as the trace of a third die now lost. There are, however, several argu-
ments speaking against this hypothesis. First of all the object once placed
here was turned 45 with regard to the two dice. Secondly, three dice are
neither mentioned in the written sources nor do they appear in the archae-
ological record discussed here. Moreover must the hypothetical situation
that a winning move is represented with all eighteen points occupied by one
player’s counters after one lucky throw of three sixes (Blinkenberg 1898: 9)
be discarded. Apart from the fact that the important role of the “sacred
line” is not taken into consideration, the corresponding numbers of eighteen
points on nine lines and on three cubic dice are merely coincidental, while
the normal number of lines is five with ten points respectively. Finally the
underlying hypothetical rule that the players had to place a number of pieces
on the points according to the result of the throw of dice simply does not
correspond to the fact that the pieces were moved from one line to the other
as is clearly indicated by the proverb “moving the piece from the sacred
line” to which the literary sources refer. Therefore it is more plausible to
think that here in the centre of the board a statuette of a mourning woman
similar to those on the board from Anagyros was once placed.
As depicted on the vase painting in Brussels the two players sat at the
short sides of the board, so that the lines came to lie horizontally before
them. As the depictions including all the Athenian vase paintings depicting
the scene show, they used their right hands to move the pieces, so it is
likely that the players’ counters were those placed on the players’ right hand
sides. The pieces were moved from line to line according to the spots on
the dice. Presumably a counter having reached the last line on one side of
the board was shifted along the line to its other end, where it moved in the
opposite direction along the other side back to the first line, where the same
manoeuvre was repeated and so forth. It is likely that movement was in
a counter clockwise direction implying that on their own side of the board
the players moved their pieces forward. This presumed circular movement
around a board with two rows of points reminds one of Mancala games and
backgammon games. If the interpretation of the sources is correct, that
the aim of the game was to place all or as many pieces as possible on the
“sacred line(s)”, then probably the pieces had to move around the board
several times, for just one turn was surely not sufficient.
In the light of the written sources and the archaeological record Five
Lines must have been very popular from at least the late 7th until the 3rd
century BC. As the vase paintings demonstrate, the Athenians during the
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1016 Pente grammai...
decades around 500 BC imagined Ajax and Achilles, the two greatest heroes
in the Troian war, playing the game. Later in the 5th century “five lined
boards and the throws of dice” are mentioned by Sophokles in a verse which
was part of his tragedy “Nauplios” (Pollux IX 97; Pearson 1917: 85 frg. 429).
Nauplios was the father of Palamedes, who was thought to have invented
the game during the siege of Troy. Therefore it is likely that Five Lines is
also meant in Euripides’ “phigenia in Aulis” (192–199), where we find both
Palamedes and Protesilaos “sitting and amusing themselves with intricate
figures at a board game”, while Diomedes and Achilles trained themselves
in athletic disciplines. About the same time even Plato referred to the game
to explain certain ideas to his pupils (Laws 739a). Five Lines, the game of
the heroes, was regarded a noble game for centuries.
u.schaedler@museedujeu.com
References
[1] R.G. Austin, “Greek Board-Games”, in: Antiquity 14, 1940, S.
267–271.
[2] J.D. Beazley, Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, part. III, Oxford 1963.
[3] L. Becq de Fouqui`eres, Les Jeux des Anciens, Paris 1869.
[4] R.C. Bell, Board and Table Games from many civilizations, rev.
ed. 1979.
[5] Th. Bergk, Poetae lyrici Graeci, vol. 3, 4th ed. Leipzig 1884.
[6] C. Blinkenberg, “Epidaurische Weihgeschenke I.”, Athener Mit-
teilungen 23, 1898, 1–14.
[7] N. Breitenstein, Catalogue of Terracottas, Copenhagen 1941.
[8] F. Brommer, Denkm¨alerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage II,
Marburg 1974, 84–85.
[9] H.-G. Buchholz, “Brettspielende Helden”, in: S. Laser, Sport
und Spiel, Archaeologia Homerica, G¨ottingen 1987.
[10] W. Deonna, Delos XVIII: Le mobilier d´elien, Paris 1938.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1017
[11] D. Ebener, Euripides Trag¨odien, vol. 6, 2nd ed. Berlin 1980.
[12] I.L. Finkel, “The four-arm race. The Indian game of Pachisi or
Chaupar”, in: A. Topsfield (ed.), The Art of Play. Board and
Card Games from India, Mumbai 2006, 61–73.
[13] H. Gallet de Santerre, Delos XXIV: La Terrasse des Lions, le
L´etoon et le Monument de Granit `a Delos, Paris 1959.
[14] J. Hurwit, The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100–480 B.C.,
Ithaca 1985.
[15] Jouer dans l’Antiquit´e, Exhibition Catalogue Marseille 1991/92
(1991), 172–73.
[16] V. Kallipolitis, “Anaskaphe taphon Anagyrountos”, Arche-
ologikon Deltion 18, 1, 1963.
[17] C.H. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of
the Fragments with Translation and Commentary, Cambridge
1979.
[18] S. Karusu, “Der Erfinder des W¨urfels”, Athener Mitteilungen 88,
1973, 55–65.
[19] W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Five Lines and IG I2 324”, California
Studies in Classical Antiquity 1, 1968, S. 189–198.
[20] G. K¨orte, Etruskische Spiegel, edited by E. Gerhard, vol. 5,
Berlin 1897
[21] K. K¨ubler, Kerameikos VI 2: Die Nekropole des sp¨aten 8. bis
fr¨uhen 6. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1970.
[22] L. Kurke, Coins, bodies, games, and gold. The politics of meaning
in archaic Greece, Princeton 1999 (the relevant passage discussed
here is practically identical to: L. Kurke, “Ancient Greek board
games and how to play them”, Classical Philology 94, 1999, 247–
67, esp. 256–58.)
[23] U. Liepmann, Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum, Bundesrepublik
Deutschland 2, M¨unchen 1988.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1018 Pente grammai...
[24] J. Lund/B. Rasmussen, Guides to the National Museum. The
Collection of Near Eastern and Classical Antiquitites. Greeks,
Etruscans, Romans, Copenhagen 1995
[25] G.A. Mansuelli, “Li Specchi figurati etruschi”, Studi Etruschi 19,
1945, 9–137.
[26] G.A. Mansuelli, “Materiali per un supplemento al ‘Corpus’ degli
specchi etruschi figurati”, Studi Etruschi 17, 1943, 487–521.
[27] M. Marcovich, Heraclitus, Greek text with a short commentary,
St. Augustin 2001 (reprint of the edition M´erida 1967).
[28] H. Mommsen, “Zur Deutung der Exekias-Amphora im Vatikan”,
in: J.Christiansen / T. Melander, Proceedings of the 3rd sympo-
sium on Ancient Greek and related pottery, Copenhagen 1988,
445–454.
[29] S.N. Mousaviev, H´eraclite d’Eph`ese. Les vestiges. 1: La vie, la
mort et le livre d’H´eraclite (Heraclitea III.1), Sankt Augustin
2003.
[30] H.J.R. Murray, A History of Board Games other than Chess,
Oxford 1952.
[31] A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 2nd ed. Leipzig
1889.
[32] H. Parker, Ancient Ceylon. An Account of the Aborigines and of
Part of the Early Civilisation, London 1909.
[33] A.C. Pearson, The Fragments of Sophokles, vol. 2, Cambridge
1917.
[34] R.D. de Puma, Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum, USA 1, Mid-
western Collections, Ames (Iowa) 1987.
[35] E.B. Pusch, “Eine unbeachtete Brettspielart”, Studien zur
alt¨agyptischen Kultur 5, 1977, 199–212.
[36] Ch. Rouech´e, “Late Roman and Byzantine game boards at
Aphrodisias”, in: I.F. Finkel (ed.), Ancient Board games in Per-
spective, London 2007, 100–105.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1019
[37] C. Salmasius, Historiae Augustae Scriptores VI, Tom II, Leiden
1671.
[38] U. Sch¨adler, “Mancala in Roman Asia Minor”, Board Games
Studies 1, 1998, 10–25.
[39] U. Sch¨adler, “Damnosa alea — W¨urfelspiel in Griechenland und
Rom”, in: G. Bauer (ed.), 5000 Jahre W¨urfelspiel, Homo Ludens
Sondernunner 9, Salzburg 1999, 39–58.
[40] U. Sch¨adler, “XII Scripta, Alea, Tabula - New Evidence for the
Roman History of ‘Backgammon’”, in: Alexander J. de Voogt
(ed.), New Approaches to Board Games Research, Leiden 1995,
73–98.
[41] U. Sch¨adler, “Latrunculi — ein verlorenes strategisches
Brettspiel der R¨omer”, in: Homo Ludens. Der spielende Mensch
IV, Salzburg 1994, 47–67.
[42] U. Sinn, “Greek sanctuaries as places of refuge”, in: N. Mari-
natos and R. H¨agg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches,
London 1993, 70–88.
[43] J.L. Ussing, Nye erhvervelser til antiksamlingen i Kj¨obenhavn,
Historisk Philosofisk Afdeling HP 5.5.3, Copenhagen 1884.
[44] D. Vanhove (ed.), Le Sport dans la Gr´ece antique. Du Jeu `a la
Comp´etition, Bruxelles 1992.
[45] P.G. Viaud, Magie et coutumes populaires chez les Coptes
d’Egypte, Sisteron 1978.
[46] E.-M. Voigt, Sappho and Alcaeus, Fragmenta, Amsterdam 1971.
[47] H.B. Walters, Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman, and
Etruscan in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
British Museum, London 1899.
[48] S. Woodford, “Ajax and Achilles playing a game on an Olpe”,
Oxford, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102, 1982, 173–182.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1020 Pente grammai...
Five Lines — written sources
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1021
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
1022 Pente grammai...
How to play Five Lines — a suggestion for rules
Principally it is impossible to reconstruct the rules of a lost board game
precisely. First of all because the few allusions in texts and the archaeological
finds do not clarify all the necessary details. Secondly for most popular
traditional games many variants of rules develop in time and space so that
THE rule has never existed and will never exist.
Nevertheless, a suggestion for a rule can give an idea of the basic prin-
ciples of the game and check the interpretation of the sources. Moreover,
teachers and museum people during didactic programs about ancient games
can propose to play the game instead of only talking about it. But it must
be kept in mind that the only thing we can say for sure is that the rule
suggested here was certainly not the one played by the ancient Greeks.
1. The game Five Lines is for two players.
2. The game board consists of 5 parallel lines. The line in the middle (the
3rd line) is called “sacred line”. It is possible to draw a transverse line
to cut the board into two halves.
3. The players sit at the short ends of the board with the five lines hori-
zontally before them.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023
Ulrich Sch
¨
adler 1023
4. Each player has five counters. At the beginning of the game they place
their counters on the ends of the lines (from now on called “points”)
at their right hand side of the board so that all the ten points are
occupied.
5. The aim of the game is to move all the five counters on the opposite
half of the sacred line, i.e. at the left hand side of the players (a
more simple possibility would be to try to place all one’s five counters
anywhere on the sacred line).
6. The players take turns in tossing the die and moving one of their pieces
according to the result of the throw.
7. The pieces are moved from line to line, i.e. from point to point, in an
anti-clockwise direction. A counter having reached the last point on
one side of the board is shifted along the line to the opposite point,
where it is moved down until it reaches the first line, when the same
manoeuvre is repeated and so forth.
8. Counters can move or to a vacant point or to the sacred line. This
means that only one counter can be placed on any point, except for
the sacred line where more counters (even from both players at the
same time) can be placed. If in the first move a 5 is thrown the only
possible move is from one side of the sacred line to the other, since all
the other points are occupied.
9. Zugzwang: if possible a move has to be executed, even if a counter
must be drawn from the sacred line. In case a move is not possible the
player looses his turn.
10. The player who first reaches the goal, i.e. has moved all his five coun-
ters onto the (left half of the) sacred line, wins the game.
Double version
1. When playing on a board with eleven lines, the third, sixth (central)
and ninth lines are sacred lines.
2. Two dice are used, the numbers of which are considered individually,
so that a player may move with two different counters or add the two
results and move one counter only.
Proceedings of Board Game Studies Colloquium XI, pp. 1000–1023