The Rise of an Archaic Greek network : Creating of identity in Mother- and daughter city (800-500 B.C.)
In the Archaic Period (800-500), the evidence from both literary and archaeological sources are important. It is also a very shady period, because the literary sources adressing the archaic period are from later times and the intentions of writers concerning polis identity are not always kosher. According to Alexander J. Graham (1983) - a renown writer concerning the colonization dynamics in the archaic period - there is still a lot to discover, don't underestimate "the evidence by the spade". In short the literary sources and "evidence by the spade" can enhance each other.
The intention of this page is to illustrate the nature of the Greek networks and the development of identity in the colonies in the archaic period. An auteur who has written a lot about both networks and Greek colonization is - a former student of A.J. Graham - the Israeli Irad Malkin. According to Malkin the best way to describe this colonization movement is in terms of a "small world". The characteristic of a small network is that the addition of a few random links drastically reduces the degrees of separation among all the nodes, thereby increasing the connectivity of the entire system (see below Three basic network types: in the ordered network each node is connected with links to four other nodes, in a small world the addition of a few random links increases the connectivity overall). In the biology, for example, the brains are also considered as a small network. Also primary literary sources assigned characteristics to the Greek world, Plato writes that the Greek "network" is described as "frogs around a pond". It is fascinating to observe that the scattered Greeks across the Mediterranean maintained some sort of unity in their calendars and festivals, festivals like the well known Olympic festivals.
The intention of this page is to illustrate the nature of the Greek networks and the development of identity in the colonies in the archaic period. An auteur who has written a lot about both networks and Greek colonization is - a former student of A.J. Graham - the Israeli Irad Malkin. According to Malkin the best way to describe this colonization movement is in terms of a "small world". The characteristic of a small network is that the addition of a few random links drastically reduces the degrees of separation among all the nodes, thereby increasing the connectivity of the entire system (see below Three basic network types: in the ordered network each node is connected with links to four other nodes, in a small world the addition of a few random links increases the connectivity overall). In the biology, for example, the brains are also considered as a small network. Also primary literary sources assigned characteristics to the Greek world, Plato writes that the Greek "network" is described as "frogs around a pond". It is fascinating to observe that the scattered Greeks across the Mediterranean maintained some sort of unity in their calendars and festivals, festivals like the well known Olympic festivals.
This page is structured in the following order:
The Archaic historical context
In the archaic period there is a increase in archeological evidence in the form of burial evidence, this led historians to conclude that there must have been also a increase in population. This increase in population resulted in the colonization movement. But is this true? Was it hunger or greed which drove the Greeks out of Greece proper? Was this colonization instigated because of the greed of "businessmen" or was this a search for agricultural grounds? In this period there were a lot of developments which all interacted with each other, developments on the cultural, demographic, social, economical and military level. One of the biggest changes has occured on the economical en social level. Because of the increase in trade there originated a new class, the "nouveax riches" , the rich new people who wanted also political power. This developments also lead to the creation of the "polis", in short translated as city-state. The polis contained two basic elements, an urban core and agricultural perifery. On the military level the aristocratic "old money" lost their monopoly on warfare, this lead to the so called "hoplite phalanx". Futhermore in this period there was the introduction of the alphabet based on the Phoenician script and the development of monetary systems occured at the end of this period. According to Fernand Braudel these latter two elements were "accelators of change".
Networks and changing society
According to David W. Tandy there are in the early archaic period three forms of society, the egalitarian, the rank and the stratified society. The first two are more primitive than the last one. The stratified society layed the fundaments of the polis. In this stratified society there are - because of population growth - also people who are excluded, in an egalitarian and ranked society this is not the case, at least not on a great scale. The three economic organizations are, according to Tandy: reciprocity, redistribution and exchange. In short the exchange is in the form of market trade. This was the big transformation in the archaic period on economic level. The effect of exchange in market trade caused much less social involvement in its system. In reciprocal and redistribution systems there is a very strong social cohesive element present, but not at the market trade. This transformation caused a transformation from "wealth follows status" into "status follows wealth" this is a better situation for the "nouveax riches".
Identity: nomima, "natives" and religion/cults
One of the most important issues in the poleis and thus colonies are its religion or cults. These religions or cults were very versatile and dynamic. On the religious level there occured much syncretism (in short a melting pot of a lot of different dieties). Colonies - it is not the right word to describe this, because the mother city had no "imperialistic" motives, but according to Moses Finley it is too late to change this term - shared for a great part the same nomoi/nomima. Nomoi are the customs of a polis, for example festivals like the Dionysia (hedonistic booze festivals). But through a proces wich Malkin describes as "middle grounds" the nomoi in colonies are not exact copies of its mothercity, there are also influences of "natives" and other poleis or colonies.
Phokaia, Massalia and Emporion
Phokaia is according to Strabo in its Geografika the mother city of Massalia and Massalia and Phokaia are together - though contested by some historians - the mother cities of Emporion. Malkin describes that if a daughter city, in this case Massalia, wanted to found a colony that is was common to ask a co-founder of their mothercity, in this case Phokaia. The natives dwelling around the city of Massalia were called the "Indiketans". Strabo in its work Geografika writes:DavidDaaaaahdajljdakl;jfadOn
- The archaic historical context
- Networks and changing society
- Identity: nomima, "natives" and religion/cults
- Phokaia, Massalia and Emporion
The Archaic historical context
In the archaic period there is a increase in archeological evidence in the form of burial evidence, this led historians to conclude that there must have been also a increase in population. This increase in population resulted in the colonization movement. But is this true? Was it hunger or greed which drove the Greeks out of Greece proper? Was this colonization instigated because of the greed of "businessmen" or was this a search for agricultural grounds? In this period there were a lot of developments which all interacted with each other, developments on the cultural, demographic, social, economical and military level. One of the biggest changes has occured on the economical en social level. Because of the increase in trade there originated a new class, the "nouveax riches" , the rich new people who wanted also political power. This developments also lead to the creation of the "polis", in short translated as city-state. The polis contained two basic elements, an urban core and agricultural perifery. On the military level the aristocratic "old money" lost their monopoly on warfare, this lead to the so called "hoplite phalanx". Futhermore in this period there was the introduction of the alphabet based on the Phoenician script and the development of monetary systems occured at the end of this period. According to Fernand Braudel these latter two elements were "accelators of change".
Networks and changing society
According to David W. Tandy there are in the early archaic period three forms of society, the egalitarian, the rank and the stratified society. The first two are more primitive than the last one. The stratified society layed the fundaments of the polis. In this stratified society there are - because of population growth - also people who are excluded, in an egalitarian and ranked society this is not the case, at least not on a great scale. The three economic organizations are, according to Tandy: reciprocity, redistribution and exchange. In short the exchange is in the form of market trade. This was the big transformation in the archaic period on economic level. The effect of exchange in market trade caused much less social involvement in its system. In reciprocal and redistribution systems there is a very strong social cohesive element present, but not at the market trade. This transformation caused a transformation from "wealth follows status" into "status follows wealth" this is a better situation for the "nouveax riches".
Identity: nomima, "natives" and religion/cults
One of the most important issues in the poleis and thus colonies are its religion or cults. These religions or cults were very versatile and dynamic. On the religious level there occured much syncretism (in short a melting pot of a lot of different dieties). Colonies - it is not the right word to describe this, because the mother city had no "imperialistic" motives, but according to Moses Finley it is too late to change this term - shared for a great part the same nomoi/nomima. Nomoi are the customs of a polis, for example festivals like the Dionysia (hedonistic booze festivals). But through a proces wich Malkin describes as "middle grounds" the nomoi in colonies are not exact copies of its mothercity, there are also influences of "natives" and other poleis or colonies.
Phokaia, Massalia and Emporion
Phokaia is according to Strabo in its Geografika the mother city of Massalia and Massalia and Phokaia are together - though contested by some historians - the mother cities of Emporion. Malkin describes that if a daughter city, in this case Massalia, wanted to found a colony that is was common to ask a co-founder of their mothercity, in this case Phokaia. The natives dwelling around the city of Massalia were called the "Indiketans". Strabo in its work Geografika writes:DavidDaaaaahdajljdakl;jfadOn
A strong connection between Phokaia, Massalia and Emporion is the fact that they shared certain cults, for example the cults of Artemis of Ephesos and Apollo Delphinios. Later on the cult of the Artemis of Ephesos became an bigger "Greek" or "Ionian" deity. This latter cult originated because of the threat of the invading Persian army. Ephesos was situated at the West coast of present-day Turkey, as was Phokaia. The residents of Ephesos tied themselves with a rope on the temple of Artemis and in this way the Persians didn't dare to attack them, because then it would be blasphemy and they would get cursed. This event inspired other Ionian cities like Phokaia to honour the Artemis of Ephesos. This cult represented in the colonies a different cause, but some sort in the same way. The Artemis cult in Massalia represented also the contacts with the natives, like the Indiceti.
Conclusions
The conclusions are in the first place that the identity of colonies and of Massalia with Phokaia represented firstly strong sentimental and cultural ties, but that the colonies were not an exact copy of the mothercity. The resulting identity of colonies were shaped with contacts of their neighbours, "the middle grounds" as Malkin calls it.
The characteristics of the Greek networks in the archaic period are that these networks are described as a "small world" and as a emergent network. This means that these networks were not created intentionally.
The conclusions are in the first place that the identity of colonies and of Massalia with Phokaia represented firstly strong sentimental and cultural ties, but that the colonies were not an exact copy of the mothercity. The resulting identity of colonies were shaped with contacts of their neighbours, "the middle grounds" as Malkin calls it.
The characteristics of the Greek networks in the archaic period are that these networks are described as a "small world" and as a emergent network. This means that these networks were not created intentionally.
References: