There is also a contemporary literary source who gives us an insight into the social and economic difficulties of that time: Hesiod of Boeotia writing around 700 BC. However, it must be noted that he is only describing the internal conditions of Ascra, his own village in Boeotia. Even so, when his evidence is combined with that of Solon of Athens, writing around 600 BC (see Chapter 5), and when an allowance is made for regional variations, it is conspicuous that both writers constantly emphasize that the lack of sufficient arable land was the main source of their society’s problems, and it is reasonable to assume that the same troubles were being experienced throughout most of central and southern mainland Greece. Hesiod’s Works and Days begins with the partition of the land that took place between himself and his brother Perses after their father’s death. It is from this literary work that we learn of the tough, difficult demands that were faced by small to medium-small landowners. One of the most important pieces of advice that Hesiod gives is:
Let there be only one son to support his father’s house; for thus there will be an increase of wealth in the home.
(Hesiod, Works and Days 376–77)
This confirms the pressure that was being felt by the growth of population which was fast outgrowing the capacity of the land in the polis to support its increased numbers.
Hesiod is also a valuable source for a secondary cause of colonization: the tendency of the ruling aristocrats to govern in their own selfish interests and to increase their large estates at the expense of the vulnerable small landowners. He complains about the behaviour of his brother, who has gained the larger share of the inheritance, and reveals the injustice that was being endured at the hands of the aristocrats who sat in judgement:
But let us resolve our dispute here with the true judgement which comes from Zeus and is the best. For we have already divided up our plot of land, but you seized and carried off the bigger part by greatly flattering the bribe-devouring kings [i.e. aristocrats] who want to judge such cases.
(Hesiod, Works and Days 35–39)
These ‘bribe-devouring kings’ would also play their part in encouraging colonization, since it removed those who were struggling to make a living and whose discontent might be forged into a political weapon against their rule, as was often to happen under the tyrants (see Chapter 3). As each colony also had a founder (‘oikistes’) from the mother-state, usually an aristocrat, this also helped to remove a potential leader of the discontented.
Archaeology also reveals that there was a large increase in the Greek population in the second half of the eighth century, contemporaneous with the colonizing movement. In Attica, the number of datable graves per generation shows a dramatic increase when the Dark Ages and the ninth century (899–800) are compared to the eighth century (799–700). From 1000 to 800 there is little variation in the number of graves per generation, but from 800 to 700 there is an increase by a factor of six. This would suggest that the population of Attica may have increased four-fold in the first half of the eighth century, and doubled again in the second half of the century. This evidence is not conclusive in itself, as it might reflect an increase in the death-rate through natural disasters, for example, water shortage or famine; or it might reflect a change in burial customs. However, when it is combined with the other evidence of this period, the most convincing interpretation seems to be a sudden growth in the population of Attica, as was happening in the rest of Greece.
The best written evidence for the cause of colonization and for the process by which a colony was founded comes from the history of Cyrene on the north African coast, which was colonized by settlers from the island of Thera (modern-day Santorini). Herodotus (4.150–59) records two oral accounts of Cyrene’s foundation, one from the Therans and the other from the Cyreneans; and there is also a fourth-century inscription from Cyrene (ML 5), which grants equal citizenship to resident Therans in Cyrene in accordance with the original agreement made between the two cities at the time of the foundation of Cyrene (c.630), and which purportedly includes the original seventh-century decree of the Theran Assembly and the oath of the settlers. The original seventh-century decree does appear, in essence, to be authentic, although there have probably been some adaptations to the original in the intervening centuries. Thus there are three detailed accounts of Cyrene’s foundation and, although there are differences and variations, as would be expected from alternative oral accounts of the same event, the outline of the story is consistent.
Thera was a small volcanic island with some fertile land, ideal for vines but limited in extent. The problems of over-population came later to Thera than to mainland Greece, in the second half of the seventh century. The Theran version of the story begins with the priestess of Apollo at Delphi ordering the Therans to send a colony to Libya. Knowing of no such a place, they ignored the oracle to their cost (4.151) as a seven-year total drought immediately followed. When the Delphic priestess repeated her order, the Therans then set themselves the task of discovering the location of Libya and, having achieved this, they decided to send out a colony:
The Therans decided to send out men, with brother being chosen by lot from brother and with men chosen from all seven villages, and to appoint Battos as their leader and king. Thus they sent two fifty-oared ships to Platea [an island off the Libyan coast].
(Herodotus 4.153)
The Cyrenean version concentrates on the life of Battos, but still includes the Delphic oracle as the initiator of the command to settle Libya (4.154–55). Both accounts agree on the sequel:
After this the Therans sent Battos away with two fifty-oared ships. These men, having sailed to Libya, did not know what else to do, and thus sailed back to Thera. But the Therans attacked them as they came to land and did not allow them to come ashore, but ordered them to sail back again. Under such compulsion, they sailed back again and settled the island that lay just off Libya, whose name, as has been said before, was Platea.
(Herodotus 4.156)
After living there for two years with little success, they moved to mainland Libya upon the instructions of Delphi; in the seventh year, they finally moved to the site of Cyrene which was situated on steep cliffs, with a difficult access to the sea, but with very fertile plains behind the city: clearly agriculture and not trade was the primary motive for choosing this site. In time the colony grew more prosperous than its mother-state, especially when health-giving silphium was discovered, grown and exported throughout the Mediterranean from the sixth century onwards.
The main stimulus for the Therans to found Cyrene, according to the above tradition, was the seven-year drought, which must have produced famine on the island. However, it can also be deduced that Thera was facing a potentially more dangerous problem: the difficulty of feeding its growing population in the future. It was this long-term threat to the city’s survival that led to the need for drastic action to protect the community. The citizens passed a decree compelling each family with two (or more) sons, from all the seven villages, to send one of them chosen by lot to the new colony. The inscription in Cyrene, recording this seventh-century decree of Thera, is exceptionally tough in ensuring that its conditions were met:
Whoever refuses to sail, having been sent out by the polis, will be liable to the death penalty and his property will be given to the people. If anyone harbours or conceals him, whether it be a father protecting a son or a brother protecting a brother, he will suffer the same penalty as the one who refused to sail.
(ML 5)
The removal of one son from every family with two (or more) male heirs clearly shows that the Theran family plots of land were now so small that any further sub-division would have led to starvation for the next generation of farmers. Having already made the fateful original decision, the Therans were in no mood to compromise and receive back the disillusioned colonizers: they drove them away by force. This hostile action was mirrored in the treatment of Eretrian colonists who, having been expelled from their colony at Corcy
ra by the Corinthians, were prevented by force from returning to their original home by the Eretrians themselves. They were forced to found a new colony at Methone in Chalcidice, acquiring in the process the nickname of ‘the slung out’ (Plutarch, Moralia 293b). That such a close-knit, agricultural community as Thera had to resort to initial compulsory enlistment and subsequent violence is a clear testament to the massive problems of land-shortage and over-population that were afflicting many cities in the eighth and seventh centuries, and confirms that the main motive for the colonizers was the acquisition of agricultural land overseas.
The importance of trade
Nevertheless trade did play a significant role in the foundation of colonies. It was the search for vital commodities (such as metals) and luxury goods, both greatly desired by the ruling aristocracies, that opened up the Mediterranean after the Dark Ages. This led to traders establishing trading posts in the east and the west, especially on the frontiers of a great power, thereby giving them access to foreign markets. The most important trading post (emporion) in the east was at Al Mina at the mouth of the river Orontes in northern Syria. It was founded just before 800 by Phoenicians, Cypriots and, as has been established from pottery on the site, Euboeans. Iron from south-east Asia Minor and luxury goods from Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and Egypt flowed into Al Mina, where they were crafted into attractive ornaments, and were transported for trade with Greece and the west. In a very similar fashion, Chalcis and Eretria together founded a trading post (although it may have been intended as a colony) around 775 at Pithecusae on the bay of Naples (modern-day Ischia). This was at the southern edge of the area dominated by the Etruscans who were, in their own right, rich in metal, but also controlled the trade in tin and amber that came from Britain and the north. Thus there was a trade route stretching from the near east to the Etruscans in the west via Al Mina and Pithecusae: many Egyptian scarabs and seals from north Syria have been unearthed at Pithecusae.
It is clear that these traders were the essential precursors of the colonizing movement, since it was their information about the location of fertile agricultural sites, gained from their overseas trading, that gave the colonizers the confidence to seek a new life in a foreign land. However, there are certain colonies where the evidence points to trade rather than land as the main cause of their colonization. Some of the inhabitants of Pithecusae moved later to the mainland opposite and founded Cumae, which was reputed to be the oldest Greek colony in the west. The existence of sufficient cultivable land to support the population, which was not the case at Pithecusae, was clearly an important reason for Cumae’s foundation. Nevertheless, its close proximity to the Etruscans and the deliberate decision to ignore fertile land that was still abundantly available for colonization in Sicily and southern Italy strongly suggest that the on-going trade in metals with the Etruscans was a decisive factor in its siting. Zancle (later Messana and then Messina) was founded in c.730 by the Chalcidians from Euboea; but, because of the shortage of cultivable land, its foundation can only be explained by the need to control the straits of Messina and the trade route to Pithecusae. This lack of agricultural land led Zancle to send settlers a little later to found Mylae, 20 miles to the west. Having taken possession of one side of the straits of Messina, it made sense to tighten their control by founding, with the help of Messenians and Chalcidians from home, Rhegium on the other side on the Italian mainland. In the same way, the expulsion of the Eretrians from Corcyra in 734 by the Corinthians, who were on their way to found Syracuse, clearly shows that the Corinthians were very aware of the strategic importance of Corcyra on the trade route to the west.
By the mid-seventh century the importance of commerce was becoming even more obvious to the Greeks, and the later colonization of the north shore of the Black Sea by Miletus, such as the colony at Olbia, c.645, suggests that trading motives may have been behind their foundation. At this time the cities of the Greeks in Asia Minor were being threatened by the
Map 1 Greek colonization, eighth–sixth centuries BC
growth of the Lydian empire. Therefore access to the abundant corn supplies of the Black Sea would have done much to ease their dependence on homegrown corn, and the opportunity to import corn may have been the incentive for Miletus to send out its colonies to this area. Herodotus was very aware that these northern Black Sea colonies acted as trading centres and consequently referred to them several times as emporia (trading posts). The second wave of Corinthian colonies, founded by Cypselus and his successors (c.650–c.582: see Chapter 3) in north-west Greece at Leucas, Anactorium, Ambracia, Apollonia and Epidamnus (with Corcyra), reflect the increasing importance of commercial motives for colonization. These colonies were key staging posts on the trade route to Italy; they also provided access to the raw materials from the north-west, such as timber and flowers for Corinthian perfumes; and finally they supplied the base for Corinthian trade to increase its outlets in the interior, as can be seen from the early Greek bronzes found at Trebenishte. Finally, the Phocaeans, on the western coast of Asia Minor, provide the best example of colonization motivated by trade. They founded Massalia (modern-day Marseilles) c.600, which was poor in agricultural land but controlled the trade routes up the river Rhone, leading to commercial links with Paris, Switzerland, Germany and even Sweden. They also founded Emporion – a very revealing name – in northeast Spain at the same time as Massalia, and traded as far as Tartessus beyond the straits of Gibraltar, gaining access to tin and silver in northern Spain.
To summarize, it is probably right to see the desire for cultivable land as the primary cause of colonization, since the majority of Greeks depended for their livelihood on agriculture, and the serious social and economic problems of over-population and land-hunger did coincide with the colonizing movement in the second half of the eighth century. Trade was certainly the primary consideration in the foundation of a few colonies and an increasingly important factor in numerous others, but it is difficult to argue that it was the main cause, as this view requires unequivocal evidence that the economy of the colonies was based on trade from the beginning. Such evidence, by its very nature, is rarely available to the archaeologist.
Bibliography
Andrewes, A. Greek Society, ch. 6.
Austin, M. M. and Vidal-Naquet, P. Economic and Social History of Greece, pt 1, chs 1 and 3.
Boardman, J. The Greeks Overseas, chs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Graham, A. J. CAH vol. 3.3, 2nd edn, ch. 37.
——Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, chs 1–7.
Gwynn, A. ‘The character of Greek colonization’, JHS 38.
Murray, O. Early Greece, 2nd edn, chs 5–7.
Roebuck, C. CAH vol. 4, 2nd edn, ch. 7e.
3
THE AGE OF GREEK TYRANNY: C.650–510
The background and sources
Although tyranny existed throughout Greek history from the middle of the seventh century to the second century, ‘the age of tyrants’ is a term used by modern historians to refer to a period of time when many of the leading Greek cities were ruled by a tyrant, beginning with Cypselus of Corinth around 650 and ending with the fall of Peisistratus’ sons at Athens in 510. This ‘age of tyrants’ was a transitional stage in the political development of the ‘polis’, bringing to an end the old aristocratic order and laying down the foundations for the middle-class, hoplite-dominated constitutions that followed the collapse of tyranny. A Greek tyrant was not necessarily a brutal ruler, as the modern sense of the word would suggest, but an individual who had seized power, usually through a military coup, and ruled as an autocrat outside the institutions of the state. The first generation of tyrants for the most part was noted for the mildness of their rule, as they depended upon the goodwill of the people to maintain their position; it was usually the second generation (most tyrannies only lasted for two generations) that showed all the hallmarks of the traditional wicked tyrant, leading to their overthrow.
The ma
jor difficulty in assessing the causes of tyranny arises from the problems of the available primary sources. The most detailed evidence for the rule of individual tyrants comes from Herodotus, whose history was written probably in the third quarter of the fifth century (450–425) and reflects the oral tradition about the tyrants that was current in the fifth century. His account of the rule of the later tyrants, such as the Athenian Peisistratids who fell in 510, is for the most part reliable, as Herodotus’ birth (traditionally given as 484) was close to the events that he describes; but there are inevitably distortions, exaggeration and even a ‘fairy-tale’ style about the earlier tyrants, such as Cypselus who seized power around 650. Thucydides’ theme was the Peloponnesian War and consequently his account of early Greek history is brief and superficial. The main history of this period was written by Ephorus of Cyme around the middle of the fourth century; only fragments of his work survive, but later historians writing about early Greece used his work extensively. Ephorus’ history has worth but, like that of Herodotus, should be used with caution – there is a need to sift the facts from the legends.
The evidence of the fourth-century philosophers about tyranny provides some useful insights. Plato in the Republic is more concerned about their (lack of) worth as a form of government, contrasting the wicked tyrant with the good king, than their history. Aristotle in the Politics (1310b–1315b) is far more useful in his analysis of the nature of tyranny. However, Aristotle’s distinction between the tyrants of old and the tyrants of his era also causes problems – he includes Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse from 405 to 367, among the tyrants of old, although he was a near-contemporary of Aristotle, and consequently seems to be using Dionysius’ fourth-century career as a model for the seventh- and sixth-century tyrants. The contemporary evidence for the age of Greek tyranny comes from three poets: Tyrtaeus of Sparta, who explicitly reveals the importance of the middle-class ‘hoplites’ for the safety of the state and implicitly their growing class consciousness; Alcaeus of Mytilene, the opponent of the tyrants Pittacus and Myrsilus, whose values and prejudices help to explain the hostility that was felt towards aristocratic government; and Solon of Athens, whose poems highlight the internal problems that made tyranny inevitable, unless they were remedied. Their evidence is very useful in providing an insight into the tensions of their individual cities, but it lacks the analytical rigour of historiography and must be used with care when investigating other cities’ revolutions. It is the aim of this chapter, using the above primary sources, to discuss the tyrannies of Pheidon of Argos, Cypselus of Corinth and Cleisthenes of Sicyon, where three factors – military, economic and ethnic, respectively – were prevalent in their seizure of power; the tyranny of Peisistratus in Athens and the benefits that the tyrants brought to their cities will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC) Page 7
