Errietta M.A. Bissa Governmental Intervention in Foreign Trade in Archaic and Classical Greece (Mnemosyne Supplements History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity) 20.pdf

8/21/2019 Errietta M.A. Bissa Governmental Intervention in Foreign Trade in Archaic and Classical Greece (Mnemosyne Suppl

1/285


2/285

Governmental Intervention in Foreign radein Archaic and Classical Greece


3/285

Mnemosyne

Supplements

History and Archaeology

of Classical Antiquity

Edited by

Susan E. Alcock,Brown UniversityTomas Harrison,Liverpool

Willem M. Jongman,Groningen

H.S. Versnel, Leiden

VOLUME 312


4/285

Governmental Intervention

in Foreign rade in Archaicand Classical Greece

By

Errietta M.A. Bissa

LEIDEN BOSON2009


5/285

Tis book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bissa, Errietta M. A.

Governmental intervention in foreign trade in archaic and classical Greece / by Errietta M.A.Bissa.p. cm. (History and archaeology of classical antiquity 312)

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-90-04-17504-4 (hardback : alk. paper)1. GreeceCommerceHistory. 2. GreeceEconomic policy. I. itle. II. Series.

HF375.B57 2009382'.30938dc22

2009015839

ISSN 0169-8958ISBN 978 90 04 17504 4

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to Te Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.


6/285

.()


7/285


8/285

CONENS

List o ables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbr evia t io n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PAR 1

GOLD AND SILVER

Gold and Silver: Prolegomena. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. Te Exporters o Gold and Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. Te Athenian Silver Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

. Te Importers o Gold and Silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Gold and Silver: Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

PAR 2

IMBER AND GRAIN

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105imber: Prolegomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107. Te Exporters o imber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

. imber or Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117. Fleets outside Athens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141imber: Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Grain: Prolegomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153. Te Exporters o Grain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155. Grain or Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169. Grain beyond Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Grain: Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237I n d e x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 3


9/285


10/285

LIS OF ABLES

. Minters in Asia Minor, sixth to ourth centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68. Hoards with Lydian coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71. Hoards containing Kyzikene coins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78. Hoards with gold and electrum coins in Sicily and Magna

Graecia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. Silver minters according to total units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. Silver minters hoard distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. Greek coins ound in hoards in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. Commonality onaupegoinames per LGPN volume . . . . . . . . . . . . 138. Barley consumption o Attika according to population and

diet variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176. Barley production o Attika according to land cultivation and

yield variables, seed subtracted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176. Combined variables or Attika using minima and maxima o

diet and land cultivation estimations ............................. 176. Barley consumption o Corinth according to population and

diet variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194. Barley production o Corinth according to land cultivation

and yield variables, seed subtracted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194. Combined variables or Corinth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194. Barley consumption o Megara according to population and

diet variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195. Barley production o Megara according to land cultivation andyield variables, seed subtracted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

. Combined variables or Megara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195. Barley consumption o Aigina according to population and

diet variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196. Barley production o Aigina according to land cultivation and

yield variables, seed subtracted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196. Combined variables or Aigina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

. Barley consumption o Samos according to population anddiet variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198


11/285

. Barley production o Samos according to land cultivation andyield variables, seed subtracted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

. Combined variables or Samos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198


12/285

ACKNOWLEDGEMENS

Tis work is the result o an exploration into the Greek economy dis-guised as a PhD thesis at University College London between and. It and I are in debt to the people and institutions that made thisexploration both possible and enjoyable. First and oremost, I owe an

immeasurable debt to my supervisor, Proessor Hans van Wees, or hiswillingness to listen, comment on and criticize ideas and argumentsand, most o all, or his unstinting support and gentle encouragementthroughout.

I owe a debt o gratitude to Proessor Simon Hornblower or his sup-port, criticisms and patience during the our years o my doctorate. Myproound thanks to Proessor Dominic Rathbone and Proessor EdwardHarris or their comments, criticisms and suggestions. I would also liketo thank Proessor Mike Edwards or his comments on a draf o the grainchapters and Proessor Michael Craword or his gentle criticisms on aninitial draf o the conclusion. Further, I would like to express my grati-tude to the publishers reviewer or their helpul comments and sugges-tions. My proound thanks to Proessor Fritz Gra or his guidance andteaching in my epigraphic orays.

I would like to offer my humble thanks to the librarians and supportpersonnel o the Institute o Classical Studies in London or providinga true home during my research. My thanks also to the personnel o

the library o the British School at Athens, the library o the echnikoEpimeleterio in Athens and the library o the Greek Institute o Geologyand Mineral Exploration. I would also like to thank Dr. Maria Oikono-makou o the nd Ephorate o Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities orher response to my inquiries regarding the Torikos bowl and Mr. NikosKoupetoris or his answers regarding traditional boat-building. I owe aspecial debt to a number o Greek armers who indulged me in remem-bering the conditions, crops and arming ways o modern Greece in theearly th century, oremost among them my grandmother, Mrs. Areti

Lalapanou.My proound thanks are owed to ellow-students and colleagues or

their willingness to listen and comment on a number o papers in con-


13/285

erences and seminars during my research. I owe a great debt to MissCharlotte Greenacre not only or her willingness to discuss any and all

subjects regarding Greek trade but also or her comments and sugges-tions in the copy-editing o this book.

Further, I would like to thank the History Department o UniversityCollege London or its support during my research. I owe a debt ogratitude to my colleagues o the Classics Department in the Universityo Wales Lampeter or their unstinting support during the revision andpublication o this work.

I owe a very special thanks to the Classics graduates o the class o/ in the University o Wales Lampeter, and particularly to Mr.

Finlay Jones, or illuminating me on the difficulties aced by students withlittle or no Greek and suggesting simple and viable solutions to makingthis book more accessible to all students.

Last, but most certainly not least, I owe the greatest debt to my amilyor their support, help and love throughout.

As always, and rightly, all mistakes and miscomprehensions are myown.

EBLampeter, January


14/285

ABBREVIAIONS

Agora Bradeen, D.W. ()Te Athenian Agora: Results o Exca-vations Conducted by the American School o Classical Stud-ies at Athens. Vol. , Inscriptions: the Funerary Monuments,Princeton

Agora Walbank, M.B., Lalonde, G.V. & Langdon, M.K. ()Te Athenian Agora: Results o Excavations Conducted bythe American School o Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. ,Inscriptions: Horoi, Poletai Records, Leases o Public Lands,Princeton

BMC Catalogue o the Greek Coins in the British Museum(), London

FGrH Jacoby, F. ()Die Fragment der griechischenHistoriker, Berlin

IACP Hansen, M.H. & Nielsen, .H. ()An Inventory o Archaicand Classical Poleis, Oxord

IEph Wankel, H., Merkelbach, R. et al. ()Die Inschrifenvon Ephesos, IVII, Bonn

IG I3 Lewis, D. et al. () (eds.)Inscriptiones Graecae:Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores, rd edition,Berlin

IG II2 Kirchner, J. () (ed.)Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscrip-tiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, nd edition, Berlin

IG V() Kolbe, G. () (ed.)Inscriptiones Graecae: InscriptionesLaconiae et Messeniae. Fasc. , Berlin

IG XII() Paton, G.R. () (ed.)Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscriptiones

insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum. Inscriptiones LesbiNesi enedi, BerlinIG XII() de Gaertringen, F.H. () (ed.)Inscriptiones

Graecae: Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum.Inscriptiones Cycladum, Berlin

IG XII() Delamarre, J. () (ed.)Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscriptionesinsularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum.Inscriptiones Amorgiet insularum vicinarum, Berlin

IG XII Suppl. de Gaertringen, F.H. () (ed.)Inscriptiones Graecae:Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum.Sup-plementum, Berlin

IGCH Tompson, M., Morkholm, O. & Kraay, C.M. ()AnInventory o Greek Coin Hoards, Oxord


15/285

IOSPE Latyshev, V. ()Inscriptiones antiquae oraeseptentrionalis Pontis Euxini Graecae et Latinae, Leningrad

LGPN Lexicon o Greek Personal NamesProjectLGPN Vol. Fraser, P.M. & Matthews, E. ()Lexicon o Greek PersonalNames I: Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Curenaica, Oxord

LGPN Vol. Osborne, M.J. & Byrne, S.G. () (eds.)Lexicon o GreekPersonal Names II: Attica, Oxord

LGPN Vol. a Fraser, P.M. & Matthews, E. () (eds.)Lexicon o GreekPersonal Names III.A: Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily andMagna Graecia, Oxord

LGPN Vol. b Fraser, P.M. & Matthews, E. () (eds.)Lexicon o GreekPersonal Names III.B: Central Greece: From the Megarid toTessaly, Oxord

LGPN Vol. Fraser, P.M. & Matthews, E. () (eds.)Lexicon o GreekPersonal Names IV: Macedonia, Trace, Northern Regions othe Black Sea, Oxord

LSJ Liddell, H.J. & Scott, R. ()A Greek-English Lexicon, thedition, Oxord.

McCabeSamos McCabe, D.F., Brownson, J.V. & Ehrman, B.D. ()SamosInscriptions: exts and List, Princeton

McCabeeos McCabe, D.F. & Plunkett, M.A. ()eos Inscriptions: extsand List, Princeton

ML Meiggs, R. & Lewis, D. (, revised edition)A Selection

o Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End o the FifhCentury , Oxord

Nomima I Van Effenterre, H. ()Nomima: recueil dinscriptionspolitiques et juridiques de larchasme grec. , Rome

Pauly-Wissowa Pauly, A. et al. () (eds.)Paulys Realencyclopdieder classischen Altertumswissenschaf: neue Bearbeitung,Stuttgart

RO Rhodes, P.J. & Osborne, R. ()Greek Historical Inscrip-tions , Oxord

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum() Amsterdam

od II od, M.N. ()A Selection o Greek Historical InscriptionsVol. : From , Oxord


16/285

AUHORS NOE

An effort was made to distinguish between restored and unrestored textin the translation o inscriptions, thus restored text is ound in squarebrackets ([]). Since the differences between English and Greek meanthat such efforts are merely estimations, I have intended this distinction

between original and restored text to be a guide aimed to assist studentswith little or no Greek.

Regarding the names o people and places in the Greek world, I havepreerred to transliterate as per the Greek rather than provide latinised

versions, except or those names and places where the latinised versionhas become so ingrained that providing a direct transliteration wouldseem odd to the reader. Te choice may seem arbitrary at times andor that I apologise to those who may find it disconcerting. Regardingthe titles o ancient sources, I have ollowed the titles used by the LoebClassical Library with the aim o making the works easier to find orstudents.


17/285


18/285

INRODUCION

.

For there is not a single polis that need not import or export

[Xenophon]Constitution o the Athenians(= Old Oligarch) ..

Tese words o an Athenian pamphleteer are one o the most illuminat-ing statements on the economic position o the polis. Import and exportwere part o lie in the world o archaic and classical Greece, where polit-ical ragmentation created a unique distribution o available resources.In a world where one could barely travel a day without crossing a bor-der, exchange o commodities was an unavoidable necessity and sel-sufficiency an utopian ideal. In the modern world, exchange equals trade

to a large extent but that was not necessarily the case in archaic and clas-sical Greece. Te two main questions posed in this work are, firstly, howimportant a part o exchange was trade in the archaic and classical peri-ods and, secondly, what was the role o the state, i any, in oreign trade.

Te Ancient Economy

In order to understand the ancient economy, we need to know the part played

in it by trade and traders; in order to understand the role o trade and traders,we need to hold some view o the ancient economy. K. Hopkins1

Keith Hopkins articulated perectly the ideological problem o studyingGreek trade, since one has to subscribe to one o the two positions o thedebate on the ancient economy, which is the unequal continuation o theamousoikosdebate that marked nineteenth century scholarship. Untilthe late nineteenth century, ancient history had remained aloo rom thegrowing interest in economic motives in studying and explaining past

and contemporary societies. Te ancient world was given a place in the

1 Hopkins (: ix).


19/285

economic evolution o societies by Marx and his ollowers but ancienthistorians and philologists did not become embroiled in the wider eco-

nomic debate until Karl Bchers effort to identiy the Greek economywith a closed household economy.2 Bchers attempt met with imme-diate resistance by the leading scholars o the time, most importantlyEduard Meyer. As Austin rightly noted, the reactions to Bchers propo-sitions led to a greater evil.3 Te polarization between Meyer and Bcherand their ollowers on the unction o theoikosin society and economygave birth to extreme positions, such as Meyers inamous comparisonbetween th century Europe and fifh-century Athens.4 In the firsthal o the th century , in the light o political and social upheavals

in Europe, the modernist approach seemed to have won the day andwas expressed masterully in Rostovtzeffs vision o the ancient world asamenable to the application o modern economic theories.5 Both sides othe debate limited their vision to the question o modernism or prim-itivism without allowing the Greek world a measure o independencerom other eras and societies. Te situation changed, i with consider-able delay, with Hasebroeks seminalrade and Politics, which ollowedthe teachings o Weber, based on the ormalist/substantivist division ineconomic anthropology, in avour o a more substantivist approach to theevolution o the economies.6 Weber moved the limelight rom economicproceedings to the role o the economy in society and particularly onto the social perspectives that dictated economic relations in the ancientworld. Hasebroek in his work reacted to the negativism and theorisingo the modernists o his time, who tended to ignore the specific evidenceo the sources in avour o their own theories. Hasebroek ocused on therole o non-citizens in trade and manuacture in the polis and concludedthat the polis neither had nor pursued any economic policy and that this

ailure was due to the lack o nationalised trade or manuacture.7

Tework o Weber and Hasebroek provided the study o the Greek economywith one o its most undamental bases: that the economy was a part othe polis and any study o the economy without a study o the polis was

2 Bcher ().3 Austin & Vidal-Naquet (: ).4 Meyer (: ).5 Rostovtzeff (); Rostovtzeff in spite o writing afer Hasebroek is probably the

best example o the modernist approach.6 Hasebroek (). I use here Polanyis theoretical distinction to mark the break withthe strict primitivism and modernism o the previous era.

7 Hasebroek ().


20/285

doomed rom the start. Irrespective o whether one agrees with the con-clusions reached by either Weber or Hasebroek on specific issues o the

economy o the polis, their undamental change o perspective rom areestanding economy to an economy inextricably tied to the polis as anidea and an institution holds true under any scrutiny.

Te theories advanced by Weber and Hasebroek were urther system-atised by Karl Polanyi. Polanyi created a system distinguishing mod-ern and primitive economies according to their relation to their soci-eties. Tus, the modern economy was deemed a disembedded economy,while primitive economies were embedded in society; in other words,the economy was judged according to the closeness o its relation with

society and social norms.8 For Polanyi the Greek economy was clearlyembedded, thus consigned to being primitive and, consequently, had nounderstanding o economics. Austin, closely ollowing Polanyis model,tried to explain the act that the Greeks both knew and understood eco-nomic motives by proposing that they did not realise them as economicin their own right but merely as an extension o politics.9

Polanyis disembedded/embedded division is theoretically correct butits application to the practice o economics is more difficult. Our knowl-edge o the ancient, or indeed any pre-modern, economy is dependenton practice, not theory, yet our understanding o the modern economyas disembedded is more dependent on economics as a science rather thanon economic practice. Baecks view, as a modern economist rather thanan ancient historian, that the oikonomia was not an independent analyti-cal sphere o thought sums up perectly the shif in modern thought thatenables such distinctions today.10 How ar economic actors were realisedindependently o politics by the Greeks can be debated endlessly sincethe polis was by definition a political entity.11 Te undamental division

that exists today between state and people would be incomprehensibleto the Greeks because o the very nature o the polis; economic actorsaffected all in the polis and as such were an immediate political con-cern. Te same mode o thought is readily recognisable in modern poli-

8 Humphreys (); Polanyi ().9 Austin & Vidal-Naquet [(, original French edition) (: )]. Note that

Austin was writing beore Finleys Ancient Economy. Both were clearly influenced byPolanyi and his ideas o the embedded economy, although Austin kept a more cautious

attitude than Finley.10 Baeck (: ).11 On the opposite interpretation o the close relation between politics and the econ-

omy in the polis, see Finley (: ).


21/285

tics where the economy is a major cause o political and social concern,not unlike the Greek understanding o the economy as a political issue.

An ordinary taxpayer in the modern world would have great difficultyin recognising the modern economy as disembedded rom society, andeconomic policy is a major concern or voters worldwide. Disregardingthe particular concerns o ancient historians and particularly historianso the economy, the roots o the debate can be interpreted as an evolutionin post-Aristotelian analytical thought rather than as an evolution in thenature o the economy itsel.

In spite o the work o Hasebroek and the theoretical rameworkadvanced by Polanyi, the literature o the period was marked by a definite

modernist perspective, best illustrated in the works o French, Starr and,later, Hopper.12 Te reaction to extreme modernism continued and oundits most powerul adherent in Moses Finley. Finley proposed a purelysubstantivist model o the ancient economy advocating a change romwealth to status, social and/or political, as the prime mover o the econ-omy.13 Te origins o Finleys thesis lie equally in the theoretical posi-tion o Karl Polanyi outlined above and in Finleys own work on landedloans in classical Attika, where he attempted to show that such loans weremainly non-productive.14 Finleys vision o the Greek economy was mas-terully presented in his seminal work,Te Ancient Economy, where heattempted both to disprove the extreme modernist thesis o the Greekeconomy as a ormalist economy and put orward his own model o astatus-based non-capitalist economy.15 Finleys model depends on threemain axes, all three relating to specific lacks in the ancient economy andancient thought.16 Te first is the lack o a large unified economic spaceevidenced by a system o interdependent markets. Finley argued, using asa case study the grain trade in classical Greece, that changes, or perceived

12 French (); Starr (); Hopper (). O particular interest is Hoppers radeand Industry, which completely ignores any theoretical ramework or either trade orindustry in the Greek world, preerring a clearly descriptive, and summary, approach.

13 Finley ().14 Finley ().15 Finleys earlier works, such as theWorld o Odysseus(), also operate under the

same general principles but it is not until the Ancient Economy that the ull model ispresented.

16

Note that I will, as much as possible, confine mysel to Finleys examples andevidence on the Greek world, rather than the Roman world, since I think that one othe main weaknesses o Finleys model is the idea o an ancient economy per se. On thisissue see urther below page .


22/285

changes, in demand did not influence supply.17 Te second axis, to whichFinley devoted most o hisAncient Economy, was the lack o a productive

mentality on the part o the Greeks and the Romans. Finley centred hisargument on the attitudes o the elite and their unwillingness to overridemoral issues in avour o productivity, although, as he noted, acquisitive-ness was part o elite mentality in Greco-Roman antiquity.18 His mainpoints illustrating the lack o a productive mentality on the part o indi-

viduals were the lack o an organised large-scale industry, the unwilling-ness o the Greeks and the Romans to pursue technological advances asa means o increasing productivity and the lack o credit-based institu-tions.19 Te third axis, which is the most pertinent in the present work,

is the lack o state interest and intervention in the economy as evidencedby the lack o direct taxation and the lack o meaningul intervention intrade and manuacture.20

Finley rightly noted that the authority o the state in classical Greecewas total and there was no aspect o public or private lie where the gov-ernment did not have the potential or the authority to intervene.21 Telack o polis interest in the economy is seen through the lack o specifi-cally commercial clauses insymbolaagreements and the absence o or-mal treaties relating to commercial beneactions, such as the one betweenAthens and the Spartokids.22 Finley pays specific attention, ollowing toan extent Hasebroeks example, to the act that a large part o trade, par-ticularly Athenian trade, was in the hands o metics and oreigners.23 Aparticularly potent point made by Finley is the apparent inability o thepolis to create different tax regimes or oreigners and residents, importsand exports or necessary and luxury commodities, or to institute a directtaxation regime that would alleviate its financial problems in times o cri-sis and create permanent public savings.24 Te polis also did not realise

or utilise the possible effects o monopoly on production, recognisingmerely the fiscal benefits o monopoly, particularly o coinage.25 Finley

17 Finley (: ).18 Finley (: ).19 Finley (: , ).20 Finley (: ).21 Finley (: ).22 Finley (: ).23 Finley (: ), using as evidence XenophonsWays and Means and the lack

o any radical proposals in the pamphlet, such as the abolition o the metoikion.24 Finley (: , ). On this issue, there may be clues that there weredifferent tax-regimes outside Athens (see page ).

25 Finley (: ).


23/285

recognised the permanent intervention o the Athenians in their grainsupply but considered it a unique set o measures adopted by a unique

polis.26 Finley isolated important parts o state intervention in the mod-ern age and highlighted their absence rom Greek antiquity, thus argu-ing in avour o a deliberate disregard or economic considerations by thepolis, as well as a simultaneous inability o the government to assist theprogress o the economy towards the modern model.

Finleys model quickly achieved the status o orthodoxy and gavenew impetus to the debate on the Greek economy.27 Te extent o themodels canonical status is probably best seen in Goldsmiths survey opre-modern economies, where under a clearly ormalist presentation,

Finleys model is upheld as the only existing explanation o the Athe-nian economy.28 Yet the reaction to Finley and the status-based economyhas been equally strong, particularly in the last fifeen years, with a vari-ety o studies tackling particular aspects o the model. Te best exampleo the nature o the continuing debate is the almost simultaneous rivalexpositions on credit and lending in Athens by Millett and Cohen.29 Suchworks have become the norm in the post-Finley era with specific stud-ies concentrating on particular aspects o the Greek economy, mainlythe Athenian, aiming to explore issues, which were highlighted in Fin-leys work, either against the status-based orthodox model or in avouro it.

Te debate still rages under three distinct headings. On the one hand,ollowers o Finley have attempted both to explore specific issues and totest Weberian and Finleyan models on specific aspects and case studies inthe Greek economy, such as Milletts work on credit, Garnseys expositionon ood crises and Mollers work on the status o Naukratis.30 In a similar

vein and in response to initial criticisms o Finleys model as ignoring the

Hellenistic period, some scholars, side-stepping Finleys own argumentthat the Hellenistic kingdoms did not impact on his model since theybelonged to the oriental economies, have proposed various models inan effort to prove the importance o status over profit in the Hellenistic

26 Finley (: ).27 For Finleys thesis as orthodoxy see Hopkins (: xi); Patterson (: ). It

has been argued that Finleys work was the culmination, and indeed end, o the debate

[McClellan (: )].28 Goldsmith (: ).29 Millett (); Cohen ().30 Millett (); Garnsey (); Moller ().


24/285

kingdoms, mainly Ptolemaic Egypt, and reute Rostovtzeffs modernistapproach.31

At the other end o the spectrum, there has been an effort to reconcilethe great insight initially o Hasebroek and then Finley on the paramountimportance o status as an economic orce in the Greek world, and theevidence o economic processes and the power o the market, as exhib-ited in the literary sources and the archaeological record. In what can bestbe called a neo-modernist approach, a variety o works has concentratedon interpreting the existing evidence in an anti-Weberian protest againstideal-types and exploring new avenues in both quantitative and case-study research. Tus, Cohen explored the importance o banks and bank-

ing in ourth-century Athens, Osborne proved the interdependence omarkets through pottery evidence or the archaic period, Foxhall arguedin avour o widespread market related imports in the archaic periodand Shipton proved that elite investment in Athens was more orientedtowards manuacture than land.32 Within this approach also all workswhich have tried to distance themselves rom the debate on the nature othe economy, concentrating instead on specific source material, such asStroudseditio princepso the grain-tax law o /.33

O particular interest or this work are Bressons criticisms o Finleysthesis concerning the role o the state in the economy and particularly inprice-fixing and market creation.34 Bresson has tried to show that Finleysmodel is too strict and primitive-oriented or the testimony provided bythe sources and in some respects he has succeeded, particularly in rela-tion to markets and the use o revenues by the poleis.35 His most impor-

31 Finley (: ): Tere was thereore no Hellenistic economy; rom the outsetthere were two, an ancient sector and an Oriental sector. For the various models, see

Samuel (), where economic stability rather than economic growth is the main goalo Ptolemaic policy, Bingen () that stable revenue not economic growth was thegoal, urner () with an incredibly interventionist state with an almost nationalisedindustry sector and, finally, McClellan () where it is argued that the Ptolemieswere not totally successul in arresting production growth. Interestingly, while all theseproposals proess to ollow Finleys vision, they inexplicably manage both to arguein avour o rational and specific state intervention and to presume the existence ointerdependent markets. Finleys own argument remains the best deence o his thesisrelating to the Hellenistic period.

32 Cohen (); Osborne (b); Foxhall (); Shipton (, especially pp. ).

33

Stroud ().34 Market creation (Naukratis): Bresson (: ); Price-fixing: Bresson (:).

35 Bresson (: ).


25/285

tant contribution to the debate is Bressons discussion o the Aristotelianview o the relative importance o exports and imports in the polis. Bres-

son effectively demolishes the primitivist thesis that the polis was unin-terested in exports and shows conclusively that Aristotle, as well as othersources, clearly show that the polis had a vested interest in exports, aswell as imports.36

However, Bressons view o the economy is in many ways restrictive,since he does not adequately differentiate between the different types opolity in the Greek world and the types o intervention available to andused by them. Bressons work is valuable to the study o the various typeso economic proceedings in the Greek world and in the matter o co-

operation between polities, especially in his work on Naukratis. However,his exploration o the theme is in many ways ragmented and his outlookis heavily influenced by the legacy o Hasebroek and Finley in lookingclosely at the personnel o trade and their position in society, rather thanon policies and their changes.37

Another key matter in the post-Finley era has been a discussion o thevalidity and applicability o economic and anthropological models on theancient economy. In an effort to move beyond the narrow confines o thedebate and bring the study o the economy back into the mainstreamo ancient history, works such as those by Whittaker and Davies havecalled or the re-evaluation o existing and proposed models and haveexplored the uniqueness o the Greek, and Roman, economy as a the-oretical field.38 Tis theoretical and methodological discussion revealsthe inherent duality in the post-Finley era on both sides o the debatebetween the theoretical basis o study and the practical antecedents. Inother words, while both sides o the debate are theoretically dependentupon the status-based economy model, either to support or to disprove,

the practical aspect is readily traced back to the earlier work o MosesFinley on thehoroi, which highlights the need or urther study on allaspects o the Greek economy.39 Finley never realised his grand plan oa series o detailed studies on aspects o the economy beore producingan overarching model but in the thirty-five years since theAncient Econ-omy, work has concentrated on achieving that ambition. Te study othe Greek economy today, in spite o its debts to the works beore ,

36

Bresson (: ).37 Bresson (: , ).38 Whittaker () ocusing on the Roman world and Davies ().39 Finley (: vii): this book is intended as the first o several volumes.


26/285

is shaped by and around Finley, a situation best articulated by GeoffreyLloyd in a recent exposition: theAncient Economycontributed hugely

in opening up debate, Finley himsel never imagined that it closed it.40

Teory and Methodology

Exploring any aspect o the Greek economy today necessarily reersback to Finley and his views on the subject. In the simplest o terms,to paraphrase Hopkins, in order to understand the ancient economy,we need to know the part played in it by trade and traders; in order

to understand the role o trade and traders, we need to hold someview on theAncient Economy. Finleys model has several problems, boththeoretical and methodological; both categories are equally important inacquiring a view on the validity o the model.

Te first o Finleys main arguments was the lack o a system o inter-dependent markets in the Greek world, which automatically relegatesthe Greek economy into the category o primitive. Even i we ignore theact that interdependence o markets has been shown through potteryevidence or the archaic period, and thus logically continued to exist inthe classical, Finleys own examples do not stand up to scrutiny.41 Finleyrightly noted that statistical evidence that would enable a specific answerto the question is unlikely to be discovered and that the only viable alter-native mode o inquiry is to analyse the actors o trade. Te prime citedexample o the supposed lack o influence o the consumer on the pro-ducer is the grain supply o Athens, based on the situations described inLysias and Demosthenes .

Demosthenes , which provides the bulk o Finleys argument, is a

pseudo-Demosthenicparagraphe speech rom the s , where Athe-nian investors are trying to recover their loan rom a trading venture inEgyptian grain. An initial problem with Finleys argument is that thespeech does not reer to regular market conditions but conditions owidespread amine throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Tis is not acase o demand ailing to influence supply but rather supply influenc-ing demand, since not only local production in Greece and the Aegeanwas affected by the drought but also that in the main exporting regions,Egypt and the Black Sea. Certainly, the situation as portrayed in Demos-

40 Lloyd (: xviii).41 On archaic interdependence o markets, see Osborne (b).


27/285

thenes is not one o an independent scheme or effort to deraud theconsumer by the supplier but a scheme rising rom a specific set o crisis

circumstances. As is argued later, the main reason that Kleomenes man-ages to succeed in his scheme or more than one sailing season is thewidespread drought which made supply so small that whatever the priceasked by the producer, the price paid by the consumer would be higher,thus enabling traders to pay higher prices or the product and still makea profit.42 Secondly, the first part o Kleomenes scheme directly involvedthe correlation o prices between exporter and importer, since the schemerecognised the increased demand and subsequent increase in prices paidby the importers, and correspondingly increased the price o grain or

export in Egypt.urning to Lysias , this genuine speech o Lysias is o the accuser

in the trial o a number o Atheniansitopolai (grain-dealers) accusedo creating a cartel and illegally buying grain in bulk, thus creatingcrisis-circumstances in a normal period.43 Finley argued that the devicesemployed by thesitopolaito keep prices high in Athens, including cre-ating a cartel, had no influence that can be proven on production in theBlack Sea and Egypt. First, the sitopolai in Athens are not producers andshippers as Finley says, on the contrary it is the shippers that supportthe action against thesitopolai; thesitopolaiare part o the apparatus othe consumer not the producer.44 Secondly, the inuriated response o theemporoiimplies an expectation o correlation o prices between the pro-ducer and the consumer, since we are lef to iner that the scheme o thesitopolaikept prices in theemporionlower than they should have beenunder ree market conditions. Furthermore, there is no reason to assumethat schemes like that o the sitopolai in Athens, with their very shortduration, should in any way influence the production o Egypt or the

Black Sea. Finley cites as a comparison a similar scheme in early mod-ern Amsterdam, which would influence production in Poland, but thesituations are not comparable.45 Amsterdam was the clearinghouse orthe rest o Europe; i the scheme o thesitopolaihad taken place in itsancient equivalent, Rhodos or Byzantion, then Finleys argument wouldwork, but it took place in Athens, which was not a clearinghouse or

42 See urther page .43

Note that throughout, I take Lysias to be an actual speech delivered in court, nota rhetorical exercise.44 Finley (: ).45 Finley (: ).


28/285

grain but a major consumer. Accordingly, demand as perceived by theproducer did not change. For production to increase or decrease, there

must be a perceived change in demand. As long as there are multiplemarkets, which was the case in the Greek world, then small changes indemand would change production only in the long-term. o provide ahypothetical example, production in the Bosporan Kingdom would beaffected i Athens was totally removed rom the network, thus remov-ing its demand. I the scheme o the sitopolaiwas allowed to continueunchecked, not because it would affect actual demand but as it wouldmake theemporoiavoid Athens, this would affect the perceived demandon the network.

Te main axis o Finleys argument concentrates on elite mentality,which he argues was acquisitive but not productive. Te main problemwith this argument is that it concentrates on the elite and the moral-ising views o the philosophers, rather than on the society as a wholeand the actual practice o both elites and non-elites in the Greek world.Te lack o organised large-scale industry and the perceived unwilling-ness o the elite to invest rationally, even in land, or moral reasons, areboth issues that have to be qualified. As Finley himsel admits, moral rea-sons notwithstanding, land remained a very lucrative investment in theancient world, thus that a portion o the elite preerred to invest in landmakes perect economic sense.46 Te lack o rationality in investment isshown only through Roman paradigms, which all outside the scope othis work. Shipton in her study o public land leases has shown conclu-sively that such investment appealed widely in Athens and not merely tothe liturgical class.47

Further, rom ourth-century Athens we have evidence o citizenspreerring to invest in ventures other than land without that affecting

their elite status. An obvious example is Pasion, who afer attainingcitizenship did not change his investment regime rom manuactureand banking to land, although according to Finleys model that is whatany sel-respecting member o the elite would have done. Yet given thespecial status o Pasions lie, Demosthenes ather is a better example,since he was a member o the liturgical class and a respected membero the community, yet his investments were exclusively in the fieldso manuacture and finance. Finleys argument that Demosthenes doesnot reer to depreciation ignores the genre in which the inormation is

46 Finley (: ).47 Shipton (: ).


29/285

ound.48 A steady unchanging return was necessary or Demosthenescase, since depreciation or loss o profits in any orm would vindicate

the case o the deendants.Finley bases a considerable part o his argument on the moral value o

agriculture against trade or manuacture.49 Te validity o assuming thata philosophical moral position either influences investment or representsthe actual practice o persons is questionable. Te sources are reerring toan innate contempt on the part o the traditional aristocracy or peoplewho have acquired wealth rom trade, manuacture and finance; thedifference with the modern attitude towards the nouveau riche is difficultto distinguish. Social attitudes, then as now, are not as easy to categorise.

Kephalos may have been a manuacturer but he was clearly acceptedin upper-class salons, interestingly so was Socrates, a truebanausos. Itcannot be ully ascertained whether Pasion and Phormion ound thesame decree o acceptance in the Athenian upper classes, yet their initialstatus as slaves and non-Greeks may have been much more potent in theirrelations with the Athenian upper classes than their proession.

One rightly wonders how the upper-class students o Socrates, whohad never worked a day in their lives, managed to so completely condemnbanausiaand never eel any concern or remorse that they automaticallycondemned their philosophical inspiration. Agriculture was certainlythe most natural and valid orm o wealth acquisition and surely itcreated the right liestyle o leisure; yet, one would eel slightly morecomortable i the sentiment was voiced by a subsistence armer, not anabsentee landlord. Finley quotes Plato, Aristotle, Cato and Cicero, notthe unknown litigant o Demosthenes, who can boast that he has lef thehigh seas or the last seven years to take up a lie o money-lending on thehappy shores o the Piraeus. He, too, may have thought that agriculture

is the most natural o occupations, yet that did not affect his investmentregime as ar as we can tell.Finley is right in pointing out that the Greek world did not exhibit, to

the best o our knowledge, an organised large-scale industry in the mod-ern sense or a guild structure o the medieval type. Te main argument isthe lack o any polis known specifically or its manuacture rather than orits agricultural produce, thus making the city a centre o consumption in

48 Finley (: ). Note that amortisation is not mentioned in Demosthenes, sincethere were no loans to repay.

49 A good example is Finley (: ) quoting AristotleOeconomicaab.


30/285

the Weberian model rather than one o production.50 While Finley is cor-rect that Athens never became Flanders, guild halls have not been ound

in excavations, nor is any polis particularly noted or its manuacture, allthese statements need qualification, most importantly, the meaning omanuacture and what constitutes a manuactured product. Finleys ownwords, clearly based on the [Aristotelian] Oeconomica, make his positionclear:

Essentially the ability o ancient cities to pay or their ood, metals, slavesand other necessities rested on our variables: the amount o local agricul-tural production, that is, o the produce o the citys own rural area; thepresence or absence o special resources, silver, above all, but also other

metals or particularly desirable wines or olive-bearing plants; the invisibleexports o trade and tourism; and ourth, the income rom land owner-ship and empire, rents, taxes, tribute, gifs rom clients and subjects. Tecontribution o manuacture was negligible; it is only a alse model thatdrives historians in search o them where they are unattested, and didnot exist.51

Te first and second o Finleys categories are o particular interest in thiscase, since they highlight the primary issue when researching manuac-ture, not its existence but its definition. oday ascertaining manuactured

products as against natural products is easy; a car is a manuactured prod-uct,soisacomputer,abookorapen.Telexicalmeaningomanuactureis the making o articles, especially in a actory etc.52 Tere is an obviousproblem when attempting to categorise articles in such a way; tobacco isa natural product, yet cigarettes are not, similarly or oil and wine. Nei-ther oil nor wine is a natural product, yet apparently they are not manu-actured either, at least according to Finley. Processing o oodstuffs, likethat o tobacco, is considered part o a countrys industries in moderneconomics. So, when an Athenian bought a jar o wine, he was not buy-

ing a product o the earth but a manuactured article, and similarly witha jar o oil or perume, a bar o soap, a chair, or indeed garum or saltedfish rom the Propontis. A resh fish in the market at Athens is a naturalproduct, preserved tunny rom Kyzikos is not. Similarly, grain rom theBosporan Kingdom is a natural product butsemidalis(fine flour) romPhoenicia is not.

Finley, quoting XenophonWays and Means., urther postulatesthat demand or manuactured products was essentially inelastic, thus,

50 Finley (: ).51 Finley (: ).52 Concise Oxord Dictionary, th edition, s.v. manuacture I.


31/285

the demand was predominantly local, and consequently, the ancientcity was a consumer city and manuacture was negligible.53 Te passage

rom Xenophon, however, is not as clear-cut as that, except o coursei one quotes selectively. Xenophon does not reer to coppersmiths orironsmiths only, since he goes on to state that the same is true o grain andwine, and when production becomes too great, many leave agriculture toengage in trade, retail and finance:

And when there are many coppersmiths, the value o copperwork alls,and the coppersmiths close down, the same with the ironsmiths; and whenthere is much grain and wine, the value o theproduce alls, and agriculturebrings little profit, then many leave agriculture and turn towards trade,

retail and lending; but as much as more silver ore is ound, so much moresilver is made, so many more people get involved in mining.54

Xenophon is addressing an Athenian audience and it is interesting that hedoes not mention oil or honey, the other products, apart rom silver, orwhich Athens was known. Te ancient city consumed but there is littleevidence to suggest that it did not produce also, and while some citiescertainly did not produce manuactured products, as some countriestoday do not, others did.

Concerning the lack o major technological advances, which Finleyargues are a good indicator o the essential non-productive thought andpractice o the Greeks, it is worth pointing out that while the Greeks didnot pay as much attention to technology as the modern western worlddoes, there were certainly technological advances during the period. Temodern western world has witnessed more technological advances in thelast years than in the whole o human history, whether that is a signo an advanced economy or merely the culmination o the advancemento analytical and scientific thought is an issue that needs be urther

investigated.Te other major argument that is thought to prove the unproductive

economic practice o the Greeks is the lack o credit-based institutions.

53 Finley (: ).54 XenophonWays and Means.:

, , , ,

, , , .


32/285

Cohen very convincingly showed that the Athenians in the ourth cen-tury had credit-based institutions in the orm o banks, which supported

trade and manuacture.55 On the other hand, both Finleys work on thehoroiand Milletts work on lending patterns in Athens have made it clearthat a large part o loans were or personal reasons.56 Finleys insistenceon excluding maritime loans rom his discussion effectively restricts theavailable evidence to only one part o the credit spectrum in the Greekworld. It would be impossible to study modern credit institutions i thespectrum o data was restricted to personal loans and credit-card trans-actions. Te balance o the studies on credit and lending in Athens hasshown that the Athenians borrowed both or personal non-productive

reasons and or business purposes. Te situation seems not much di-erent rom modern credit transactions, where people borrow both orpersonal reasons and or investment purposes.

Te third axis o Finleys model concerns specifically the interventiono the state in the economy. Tis part o the Greek economy has beensadly neglected, since detailed studies on aspects o the behaviour androle o the state in the economy are rare. Tis work attempts to exploreone particular aspect o the role o the state: its behaviour in relation tothe oreign trade o necessary commodities.

Beyond the specific theoretical problems o Finleys model, there areseveral points o disagreement on methodology. Firstly, there is Finleysinsistence on the idea o the ancient economy, which has been a sys-temic fiction in Greek and Roman history since the th century .Afer , historians have ollowed Finleys substantive model, whichdistinguished the Greco-Roman Economy chronologically, culturallyand geographically. Recent studies in the history o classical scholarshiphave highlighted that Finley was a product o his times and their politico-

ideological climate.57

Te turn o the century witnessed the advent o adifferent approach to ancient history in general, one o integration andthe demolition o artificial boundary constructions, geographical, cul-tural or chronological.58 Arguments or connectivity and the blurring oartificial distinctions have brought about the call or a redefinition o theancient economy as an integrating ramework or a better understanding

55

Cohen ().56 Finley (: ); Millett ().57 Nafissi ().58 Horden & Purcell () is the turning point.


33/285

o the ancient world including all its individual components, rom theNear East to Britain and rom the Bronze Age to the end o the Roman

Empire.59Te ancient economy as visualised by Finley ignores not only the

connections between the broader Mediterranean region and its imme-diate neighbours, but also the deep economic ties, and their necessity,between the various cultures. Simultaneously, it creates an artificial eco-nomic entity, which in spite o Finleys admission o its artificial quality,has dominated the study and exposition o economic unctions in theancient world.60 Te idea o the ancient economy not only ignores thelarger picture but also disregards the smaller component pictures. Te

classical Greek economy and economic processes were different rom theRoman ones in the same way that politics and political processes were di-erent.61 While similaritiesbetween the two systems were in existence andcan be mapped and identified, the overall ramework o economic devel-opment was different. Further, even within the Greek world in the clas-sical period there were considerable differences in the economic systemsand processes o the various poleis, as there were differences in the econ-omy o any one polis at different times within the period. Moreover, whileit is possible to identiy patterns o economic behaviour within a specificperiod and area, it does not mean that there were no exceptions withinthat economic system. A consequence o Finleys vision o a unifiedmodel or the Greco-Roman worlds is its static character. Finley believedthat an economic model should reflect the dominant behaviours in theeconomy.62 By advocating a model o one dominant mode o behaviour

59 Manning & Morris ().60 Finley (: ).61 o provide only one example o the usion that Finley consistently employed: Or,

should we place the stress on the universal Greek restriction o land ownership to citizens,or in the two second-century attempts to compel newly created Roman senators romthe provinces to acquire estates in Italy? (: ). Te two situations are inherentlydifferent. For the Greek world, even i the restriction were universal, which has notbeen proven to my knowledge, the background o the practice differs sharply rom thato the Romans. Tere are valid strategic reasons or the restriction o ownership tocitizens and equally valid political ones. In the modern world, where land ownershipis not restricted (although there are exceptions, such as the modern Greek restrictionon oreigners owning property in the border provinces), there have been incidents oimmigrants orced to abandon their holdings, such as when the US orced immigrants o

Japanese descent to abandon their holdings in WWII. Land-ownership is an issue greaterthan mere investment; a point that Finley ignores when criticizing Xenophons proposalon allowing metics to own houses (: ).

62 Finley (: ).


34/285

or the economy o the Mediterranean world throughout the Greco-Roman period, Finley disregarded the inherent fluctuations o any econ-

omy.Another problem with Finleys idea o the ancient economy is the

problem o exceptions. Finley consistently insisted on ignoring any prac-tice or evidence which did not ollow his model o a status-based econ-omy.63 Exceptions will exist in any system, since alternative patterns arethe saety valves or any system to avoid stagnation and adapt to changes.On the one hand, the study o these exceptions is as necessary as thato the rules, or thus we can better understand the system. On the otherhand, to be able to distinguish between rules and exceptions, there must

be data that throw both into relie. Demosthenes ather invested in man-uacture and finance and so did Pasion, Andokides became a trader dur-ing his exile and afer his return invested in tax-arming, Nikias investedconsiderably in the mining industry and his descendants in the ourthcentury continued the trend. Te balance o the evidence is not as unam-biguous as the philosophers, or the status-based model, would have usbelieve. Whether the attitude o these people was exceptional in classi-cal Athens is something that needs urther study; it is unwise to assumethe exceptionality o these cases because o moralising statements in thephilosophers.

A urther problem o Finleys model is the insistence on consideringcertain types o evidence and methods o inquiry better than others. Teexact use o sources and evidence as well as the types o method employedor analysis and interpretation o data are necessary methodologicaldecisions. Finley, as others beore and afer him, embraced some types oevidence, or example philosophical writings, while excluding others, orexample pottery.64 Finleys reaction to the abuse o pottery evidence was

justified, yet the exclusion o pottery robs the student o the economy o a

63 For example (: ): Xenophons argument about the limitless demand or sil-ver is a rare and rudimentary exception. Yet interestingly both surviving political pam-phlets are concerned with the polis choice o revenue, albeit rom different perspectives.Also, (: ): Just price was a medieval concept, not an ancient one, and this inter-erence by the state, altogether exceptional in its permanence, is a sufficient measure othe urgency o the ood problem. Interestingly, just price was not an ancient concept andis exceptional where ound, although the Athenians not only legislated on profit marginsand fixed public grain prices to what was considered just by the assembly, but the eans

also legislated against artificial increase o prices. I every piece o legislation which weknow is an exception, then the rule can only be inerred ex silentio.64 Finley (: ) or the main cautionary example. In the years since Finley it

has become accepted that pottery evidence cannot be uniormly excluded, see Morley


35/285

vast set o surviving data. Similarly, it has become almost an urban legendin Greek history that statistics are non-existent, unreliable and unusable

or the study o economic and social phenomena.65 Te main reason oravoiding the use o statistics is that the surviving data is incomplete, andthus no analysis will be ull. Tat is true, but since the possibility o a ullset o data appearing is remote, not using the available data is nonsensical.A partial picture is better than none, and the existing data and theirstatistical analysis will provide the partial picture, which otherwise wouldbe unknown to us.66

Governmental Intervention

Beyond the theoretical and methodological problems o Finleys model,a major issue is clearly economic: governmental intervention. Finleyargued that there was only limited and occasional governmental inter-

vention in trade.67 Previous scholars, who like Finley ollowed Polanyistheory, relegated governmental policy to a minor import policy concen-trating on grain.68 Te aim o this work is to explore the role o the statein oreign trade in the archaic and classical periods.

An issue that needs be clarified at this initial stage is the use o thewords state and government in this work. Te definition o the polisas a state has been an issue o debate among scholars with differingopinions based on the historical evolution o the European state andthe concept o state in the modern period.69 Recently, Berent argued inavour o viewing the polis as a stateless society based on the relative lacko institutionalisation in the polis and the lack o a undamental dividebetween state and citizens, which is a major concept o government and

politics in many modern states.70

Tis argument has been adequatelyreuted by Hansen in a number o studies, which highlight the similarities

(: ). However, there have been alternative suggestions as to how amphorae are nottrade indexes, in this case or Rome: Whittaker ().

65 Quantitative studies are a necessity in ancient economic history, as Finley recog-nised in an earlier study: Finley (: ).

66 Osborne (: ).67 Finley (: ).68

Austin & Vidal-Naquet (: ). For a re-iteration o that thesis, see Morley(: , ).69 For a review o the main recent arguments, see Faraguna ().70 Berent (: , ).


36/285

between the polis and the early modern and modern state in relation toboth government and its power over the people and the concept o state

as comprising territory, government and the body politic.71Tis work ollows Hansens view o the polis as a state, albeit with

important differences rom the early modern and modern states.72 Moreimportantly, as testified by the title, this work is concerned mainly withthe role o government in oreign trade, in other words with the roleplayed by institutions, laws and inter-polity relations and agreements inoreign trade. Since the ocus is not exclusively on the polis but also onother types o polity, both Greek and oriental, in the Greek world andits ringes, the term government is preerred to encompass the different

types o constitution and authority exhibited in the different polities romAthenian democracy to tyrannical and monarchical regimes. However,mainly or the polis but also to some extent or other polities, particu-larly the Greek ones rather the oriental, the state is understood to be thecombination o institutions and the body o citizens, since decision mak-ing, especially in democracies and relatively open oligarchies, is depen-dent upon the will o the people as a whole rather than upon that o asuperimposed and independent government.

Tere is a undamental distinction which has ailed to come up in dis-cussions o trade and the economy in the Greek world, that betweenintervention and involvement. Intervention is when the governmentseeks to influence the economic behaviour o citizens, while involvementis when it engages itsel in economic activity and transactions. Tus,legislating on the import o grain is an act o intervention, similar toproviding ateleia (exemption rom taxes/dues) to an exporter. On theother hand, the ownership o mines by the polis makes the governmentinvolved in the mining industry, and when the Spartans buy gold rom

Kroisos, the involvement o the government in the transaction is ull andclear.73 Te issue o government intervention in the economy, particu-larly in trade, has been debated, or governmental non-intervention isconsidered a major sign o a primitive or unevolved economy accord-ing to Polanyis theory.74 Yet discussions seem to ignore governmentalinvolvement. Governmental involvement and governmental interven-tion can be simultaneous operations and are not mutually exclusive.

71

Hansen (: ), Hansen ().72 Hansen (: ).73 See urther page .74 Finley (: ); Austin & Vidal-Naquet (: ).


37/285

Nevertheless, the equilibrium between involvement and intervention isthe key to the states role in the economy.

Methodologically there are some initial bases to be established. Firstly,and possibly most importantly, an initial assumption in this work is thatthe practice o the economy reflects economic thinking. Tus, the prac-tices o governments are studied in detail rather than the moralisingand utopian concepts o the philosophers. Tis initial assumption firmlyplaces this work within the neo-modernist approach and opens it toattack on the matter o the existence o a theoretical superstructure or theactions o governments. Finley distinguished between economic policyand political actions with unintended economic consequences, thereby

relegating many measures and decisions with an economic dimension toirrelevance.75 Tis work seeks to answer whether in practice there wasintervention and involvement by the Greek governments and in whatways this was done. Motivations, policies and theoretical superstructuresor such intervention and involvement are inerred rom the actual mea-sures.

Secondly, the chronological ocus o the investigation is intention-ally narrow, covering only the archaic and classical periods. Economieschange and adapt to different circumstances, social and political. Teadvent o Alexander, and more importantly the Successors, changedthe ace o the Greek world, thus creating different economic networks.While there are instances o intervention in the Hellenistic world, such asthesitoniaor the Delos timber and charcoal regulations, which would beo use in this work, the economic networks and political circumstancesin which they belong are radically different rom those o the archaic andclassical periods.

Even, however, within the archaic and classical periods, changes oc-

curred and when possible they are pointed out and discussed; thus, orexample, the economy o Athens changed drastically at the end o the fifhcentury with the loss o empire. It must be pointed out that at no pointare the conclusions reached in the work considered to apply by deault toother periods. Geographically, as much o the Greek world as possibleis covered within the constraints o the evidence, including non-polispolities. Te Greeks were not uniormly organised in polis structures,and thus the study o non-polis polities both within and at the borderso the Greek world provides necessary points o comparison. It must be

75 Finley (: ).


38/285

noted that comparisons with later periods or other geographical regionsare avoided, since the political, social and economic circumstances o the

Greek world in the archaic and classical periods are not ound, to myknowledge, in any other historical period or geographical region.

Tirdly, in the use o the evidence and examples, I have departed sig-nificantly rom the use advocated by Finley, since, as mentioned above,the exceptionality o any given example should be judged not individu-ally but within the body o data. Additionally, even exceptional or uniquecasescanbeusedtothrowlightontherulesothegeneraleconomicenvi-ronment. Concerning the silence o the sources, the initial assumptionis that the evidence is lost not lacking: I have tried to avoid arguments

rom silence, preerring to concentrate on the existing evidence. Tus,I have deduced measures or policies where possible; where there is noevidence, no conclusions are drawn. Tus, or example, it is argued thatCorinth was chronically deficient in local grain, but given the absenceo evidence on any policy or measures concerning grain supply, no con-clusions are drawn on the possible measures that the Corinthians couldhave taken. Tis source-based approach is open to the accusation thatthe study concentrates on exceptional polities or circumstances. Tis isa undamental methodological issue on the validity o arguments romsilence, where I wish to make my position clear: arguments rom silenceare not valid.

Te aim o the work is achieved by the discussion o our commodities:gold, silver, timber and grain. Te our commodities were not chosenrandomly but or their potential as essential commodities to the polis.Gold and silver (or their mutual alloy electrum) were the metals ocoinage, a state initiative by definition. Specific types o timber were usedin the construction o warships, and naval warare was a major element o

military reality in our period. Grain, finally, was one o the main stapleso the ancient diet and its supply was a political concern. In the trade osuch necessary and important commodities, the polis or polity was mostlikely to play a role, either as importer or as exporter.

Te role o the government in trade is clearly divided between twomajor spheres o commerce: imports and exports. Te state could beinvolved or intervene in both. For the state as exporter, there are variousissues to explore. Firstly, the producers with capability o export or eachcommodity must be identified, both geographically and politically. In

other words, not only must the regions o export be identified but also thepolitical status o the communities involved. As was mentioned above,the Greek world was an amalgam geographically and politically. Te


39/285

poleis interacted not only with each other but also with non-Greek tribeso interior and coastal areas, non-Greek poleis, Greek and non-Greek

kingdoms. Both the geographical positioning o the resources and thepolitical status o the communities dominating them played a role in thetrade o these commodities and in their availability as exports.

Secondly, the orm o export must be identified. For each commodity,the orm o export is different. For example, gold and silver could havebeen exported as bullion, arteacts or coins. Te orm o the exportablecommodity answers major questions as to the role o the state in theexport o the commodity. aking as an example silver, the export obullion meant considerably more intervention and knowledge o export

by the state than the export o coins, which was largely outside the powero the polis, since they were available on the open market.

Tirdly, the extent o public control on exportable surpluses o thesecommodities must be discovered, and how the poleis or polities exer-cised such control. A major issue is whether the state controlled surplusesthrough ownership o resources and whether such ownership was trans-lated into direct exploitation. Further, the influence o the state on theproduction o the resources must be explored. Te government couldexert considerable influence on production through legislation or incen-tives, and, more importantly, could even encourage the production oparticular commodities. Lastly, the role o the government in the disposi-tion o the surpluses must be considered. Te type o disposition adoptedby a polis or polity can provide important inormation on the amount odirect intervention employed by the government.

On the other side o the ence, poleis and polities were also importers.Te first step in exploring the role o the government in imports is toidentiy which states had regular or permanent shortages o a commod-

ity. Te identification o importers and the exploration o the relative vol-ume o imports depend on the commodity discussed. In the case o grain,or example, regular shortages were dictated by the ratio between popu-lation size and cultivated territory. For silver, on the other hand, popu-lation and territory have no consequence on imports. In that case, therelative volume o minted coins provides the best method or identiyingimporters and the volume o their imports.

More importantly, the extent o the intervention o the government,i any, on the import o any given commodity must be discovered. Te

government had at its disposal a variety o means to encourage or ensureimport o a commodity. Te polis or polity could intervene orceully inimport by coercing or obliging exporters through seizure o marketed


40/285

surpluses, conquest o the resource territories or simply by treaty withthe exporter. Another orm o intervention, though not as orceul, was

to offer honours or incentives to attract exporters. Te government couldalso intervene internally to ensure successul import o commodities byencouraging private local traders to import specific commodities or byencouraging production o exportable commodities, which would nat-urally attract traders. Lastly, the government could take the import o acommodity into its own hands by directly importing specific commodi-ties.

Each o the our commodities provides inormation about particularstages o the journey o the commodity rom production to consumer

and more importantly relates to specific types o governmental involve-ment in trade. Silver and gold are counterpoints, since survival has dic-tated that one is known rom exporters point o view, the other rom theimporters. Silver inorms us o the system o production within thosesystems, while providing vital clues as to the importance o exportabilityo commodities to the polis within a ramework o maximum involve-ment but minimum intervention. Gold inorms us o imports rom apractical viewpoint since it exemplifies the varied means o acquisitionand highlights the effects o random opportunity. imber and grain arecomplementary because both are known principally rom the importerspoint o view but some evidence on the exporters and their actions hassurvived. imber inorms us o the practicalities o commercial transac-tion completion and ocuses on maximum intervention through monop-olies. Grain on the other hand, inorms us o commodities as part o polit-ical and social causation and on the relative intervention-involvementequilibrium o the state in its role as regulator.

For anyone amiliar with Finleys work, the choice o commodities may

seem counter-productive and the scope o this work expressly limited inits ambition. Necessary commodities or the well-being o the polis wereadmitted by Finley to have been o interest to the polis and having beentargets o greater degrees o intervention.

Te choice o commodities was deliberate and had specific aims. It isnot the intention o this work to single-handedly vanquish Finleys modelbased on state intervention. Tat would be a mistake o epic proportions.Finleys work provides the necessary axis or working on the Greek econ-omy, and even in disagreement it is a basis or urther study. Tis work

is attempting to fill a hole in modern scholarship regarding specificallythose commodities that both sides o the debate agree were important tothe polis. At the same time, this is an attempt to display a methodology


41/285

o researching the economy through commodities, whose main tenet isin-depth research into the specific commodity rather than a discussion o

unconnected pieces o inormation concerning intervention in the tradeo the commodity.

Te study o the Greek economy and particularly trade has been lim-ited, hampered, in my opinion, by the insistence o scholars on answeringparticular questions without delving into the greater picture. A simpleexample is the trade in silver and the role o the government within it.Tere is no surviving literary or epigraphical evidence o overt govern-mental intervention; no legislation, no import or export regulations etc.Tus, scholarship was led to believe in minimal, i any, involvement by

the polis and a haphazard means o acquisition or the minting o coins.By casting a wider net through researching the individual exporters andimporters and the means, quantities and mechanisms o trade, then a di-erent picture emerges. Te quantification o hoard data to reflect uponquantity o minting is not something that could obviously be related togovernmental intervention or indeed the mechanisms o the trade insilver rather than other commodities, which is why such an avenue oresearch had not been attempted beore. Yet through a type o researchseemingly unrelated to the object at hand, it becomes clear that in spiteo the lack o literary or epigraphical evidence, the polis was heavilyinvolved in the trade in silver and it is impossible to substantiate the argu-ment in avour o a haphazard means o acquisition.

Te consequence o this example, and a similar case could be made ortimber and grain, is that methodologically we need to look at the trade oa commodity rom producer to consumer as a whole in order to answerthe specific questions we have. Teoretically, in regard to the debate, thisis a major issue, since scholarship has been obsessed with legislation and

specific intervention techniques based on texts. Te example o silvershows that the polis was involved and intervened, and yet no text orinscription o such intervention survives. Tus with this presentation oalternative evidence, gold and silver enter the debate, where beore theyhad been on the ringes or completely ignored. Yet they should not havebeen, since they, and particularly silver, are clearly a governmental matterbecause coinage is a state initiative.

Tere is, o course, a negative consequence o this method. Te amounto data one has to present is a lot larger than it would have been with any

o the traditional methodologies. Additionally, much o it appears unre-markable or not quite relevant. As always, however, there is a silver lining.On the one hand, it helps with the overall picture regarding intervention


42/285

in relation to the lack o data and the tinier pieces o evidence that areotherwise ignored. On the other hand, it provides inormation on places

and circumstances that have not been presented beore, precisely becausethe methodology o other works has been more concentrated on specificpieces o evidence. Governmental intervention was part o the economyand economic networks as a whole and thus must be studied within thisgreater spectrum rather than as a separate and isolated part.

By concentrating on our commodities that both sides o the debateagree were important, have been researched beore and yet or whichit is still possible to present new inormation, new techniques and newinterpretations, and to create a model or intervention that is larger,

more detailed and more inclusive o different orms o intervention anddifferent types o state, is very important to the debate. It shows thatthere is ample scope or research into intervention and into trade as awhole and, more importantly in my view, that we need to expand ourscope urther and become more methodologically inclusive o types oevidence and types o research into the evidence in order to acquire abetter understanding o the Greek economy.

In the simplest o terms, i we have been missing out on commoditiesthat we all, wherever we all in the primitivist-modernist spectrum, agreeare important and which have been in the oreront o the discussion,then how much have we missed regarding other, less important and lessresearched, commodities? As was mentioned above, it is not the intentiono this work to make Finley obsolete, even i such a thing were possible,nor is that its ambition. Finley, the scholar even i not the model, hasbeen the major influence on this work. Finleys never achieved plano specific in-depth studies as necessary building blocks or the creationo an overall model remains equally relevant and necessary today, as it

was then. Tis discussion o the our commodities is not an anti-Finleydemonstration or a platorm or proposing a modernist model o theancient economy. It is simply a presentation o a methodological modelo research and the filling o a gap in modern scholarship regardinggovernmental intervention.


43/285


44/285

PAR 1

GOLD AND SILVER


45/285


46/285

GOLD AND SILVER: PROLEGOMENA

Exchange is a common eature o human societies. In some societies,exchange transorms rom direct to indirect, requiring the use o money.Money is the means o unlimited exchange based on the calculation andrecognition o value without direct correlation o need. In the archaic

period, in the Greek world and some non-Greek states in Asia Minor,a specific type o money spread, coinage. Te distinguishing eature ocoinage as against other types o money was its exclusive issue by thestate.1 Te degree o monetization ound in the Greek world has beendebated by scholars, but or the purposes o this work the pervasivenesso monetization is immaterial, since the investigation ocuses on the roleo the state.2 However, it must be stated that it is assumed throughoutthat there existed at least a minimal degree o monetization in the archaicperiod and a basic degree in the classical.

Coinage in the Greek world was a state issue and as such the procure-ment o precious metals or it was a state concern, either by their ownmeans or the ew states that controlled relevant resources, or rom exter-nal sources.3 Te ollowing chapters explore the role o the state in thetrade o precious metals, gold and silver, especially in relation to preciousmetal coinage.

Silver was the coinage metal par excellence in the Greek world, par-ticularly afer the middle o the sixth century. Gold, on the other hand,

was particularly important in the archaic period as the main constituentmetal o electrum and continued to be used in some parts o the Greek

1 Schaps (: ).2 Te most important work on the issue is Kraay (), especially pages ,

where is it argued that the low level o ractions minted by Greek poleis shows a very lowlevel o monetization. However, recent research has shown that the level o ractions wasconsiderably higher than those Kraay knew rom the archaic period onwards, showingthat the level o monetization was higher throughout the archaic and classical periods:Kim ().

3

Tere are a ew disputed cases rom the time o early coinage, e.g. Te Phanes coin,which has been thought to be that o a private individual, possibly a merchant. However,it is equally possible that one o the poleis ollowed the Lydian system o inscribing thename o the minting official: Kraay (: ).


47/285

:

world in the classical period. Te study o both commodities, as thato most commodities, suffers rom a lack o adequate evidence and to

some extent a lack o interest within modern scholarship. Te literaryevidence consists o various brie reerences in the sources and o parto XenophonsWays and Means, relating to the marketability and uses osilver. Te epigraphic evidence relates mainly to the Athenian exploita-tion o the Laurion mines in the ourth century. Tere is, however, a largebody o material evidence in the orm o coins and mining installations.In both areas, more archaeological research is necessary, specifically onthe provenance o coinage metals and on mining installations beyondLaurion and the Huelva. Since precious metal deposits are not widely

ound in the Mediterranean and its periphery, this study begins with theidentification and discussion o states that had access to resources o pre-cious metals, with specific attention paid to

Documents

Errietta M.A. Bissa Governmental Intervention in Foreign Trade in Archaic and Classical Greece (Mnemosyne Supplements History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity) 20.pdf