Popular power in ancient Near Eastern and archaic Greek polities

602 Pages·2013·1.93 MB·English

by  Helge Grønhaug

Popular power in ancient Near
Eastern and archaic Greek polities
A reappraisal of Western and Eastern political cultures
Kristoffer Momrak, cand. philol.

Dissertation for the degree philosophiae doctor (PhD)
at the University of Bergen

2013
Dissertation date: 19.04.2013
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Jørgen Christian Meyer at the University of
Bergen for his help and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation. I would also
like to thank fellow historians Assoc. Prof. Ingvar Mæhle and Dr. Eivind Seland at
the University of Bergen for their help. Thanks are due to Prof. Ingvild Gilhus, Prof.
Einar Thomassen, Prof. Emer. Erik Østbye, PhD candidates Christian Bull and Pål
Steiner, and the other participants at the Antiquity Research Seminar at the
Department for Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion at the University
of Bergen, for stimulating discussions. I would also like to thank Prof. Jens Braarvig
and former Assoc. Prof. Jon W. Iddeng at the University of Oslo for fruitful
discussions and encouragement during the writing of this dissertation.

I have benefited greatly from correspondence with scholars who kindly took of their
time to read and comment on chapters. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Robin Osborne of
Cambridge University, Prof. Hartmut Kühne of Freie Universität Berlin, Assoc. Prof.
Ingvar Mæhle of the University of Bergen, independent researcher Dr. Erik van
Dongen, Dr. Gojko Barjamovic of the University of Copenhagen, Dr. Eivind Seland
of the University of Bergen, and PhD candidate Ole Christian Aslaksen of the
University of Gothenburg, who all graciously offered their cogent remarks on a range
of chapters as well as pointing me to literature I should consult. I would also like to
thank the committee that turned down an earlier version of this dissertation, viz. Prof.
Emer. Mogens Trolle Larsen of the University of Copenhagen, Prof. Robin Osborne,
and Assoc. Prof. Ingvar Mæhle, for their comments and criticisms that have been a
great help in revising my former thesis and writing the present dissertation.

In the course of writing this dissertation, I have profited greatly from attending a
number of conferences to present ideas and meet with scholars. I would like to thank
3
the organisers and participants of the Norwegian-Danish mini-seminar organised by
the Phrontisterium at the Copenhagen University Amager February 2006, in particular
Prof. Emer. Mogens Herman Hansen, for discussion and criticism of some central
claims made in a paper presenting the ambitions for this dissertation. Thanks are also
due to the organisers and participants at the Norwegian conference Fra palass til polis
– den greske verden mellom bronsealdersivilisasjoner og bystatskultur [From palace
to polis – the Greek world between Bronze Age civilization and city state culture] held
in November 2006 at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, in particular former Assoc.
Prof. Jon Iddeng of the University of Oslo for discussions on defining the polis. I also
had the pleasure of attending the Melammu Symposia at the New Bulgarian
University in Sofia, Bulgaria in 2008, and would like to thank the organisers and
participants for making it a wonderful experience, in particular the organisers Prof.
Mark Geller of the University College London and Assoc. Prof. Teodor Lekov of the
New Bulgaria University, and Prof. Baruch Levine, Prof. Maria Grazia Masetti-
Rouault, Dr. Erik van Dongen, and Dr. Jorrit Kelder for discussions and
correspondence.

During the writing of this dissertation, I spent a month doing research at the
Norwegian Institute at Rome (2006), with a grant from the Norwegian Institute at
Rome’s Fund, as well as a month at the Norwegian Institute at Athens (2009), with a
grant from the Norwegian Institute at Athens. I would like to thank staff and fellow
researchers in Rome and Athens for making these stays nice and interesting, in
particular Prof. Panos Dimas, Director at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, for
stimulating discussions on the Greek polis. I also spent five months of 2007 and 2008
at the Freie Universität Berlin doing research in the library of the Altorientalisches
Seminar. I would like to thank Prof. Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum and Dr. Ariel M. Bagg
for welcoming me and giving me access to library resources. My stay was kindly
financed by the Meltzer Fund, Bergen.
4
Thanks are due to all colleagues, correspondents, organisers, and fellow conference
participants for their criticisms, advice, and warnings. Errors or misjudgements in the
present dissertation remain my own.

I would like to thank friends and family, in particular my mother-in-law Inger Eielsen
for her unwavering belief in the project and her generous support. I would like to
thank my fantastic wife Ingvild Eielsen Risnes and adorable daughter Agathe
Evrydike for their support and encouragement.

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Bjørn Qviller of the University
of Oslo, whose curiosity and intellectual irreverence remains a great inspiration.
5
Notes on orthography
Regarding the Greek and Akkadian orthography of names of persons, places, and
institutions, I have found it difficult to maintain consistency. I do not follow all the
standards of English usage for Greek names. Therefore, e.g. Aristoteles will be found
as Aristotle, whereas Kleisthenes is written with K, not C. For Akkadian names, e.g.
Assur is given without sh, whereas some personal names not common in general
works on Mesopotamian history are transcribed with sh or š. Sumerian words are
transcribed in capital letters, Akkadian and Greek words are transcribed in italics.

Greek vowel quantity is only used in the transcriptions given in parentheses ( ),
whereas Akkadian vowel quantity is indicated throughout for the sake of
disambiguation. These choices have been made purely for the sake of readability, in
order to assure a certain level of accuracy without an unnecessary cumbersome
orthography.

The transcriptions of Near Eastern political terms follow as close as possible the
established usage in the editions consulted. These will be specified throughout the
relevant chapters and are summarised in Sources (chapter 8).

Regarding the capitalisation of titles of books and articles, I have capitalised the titles
of books in the main body of the text, but not in the notes or the bibliography. Articles
appear without capitalisation.
6
List of abbreviations
AA: American Anthropologist
AAASH: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
ABSA: The Annual of the British School at Athens
AJP: The American Journal of Philology
AJS: The American Journal of Sociology
AnBib: Analecta Biblica
ANET: James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1971 [1969])
Antiquity: Antiquity: an International Journal of Expert Archaeology
AoF: Altorientalische Forschungen
AR: Archaeological Reports
ARM: Archives royales de Mari
BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BCSMS: The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin
Belleten: Belleten – Revue publiée par la société d’histoire Turque
BMCR: Bryn Mawr Classical Review
BO: Bibliotheca Orientalis
CA: Current Anthropology
CAD: Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
7
CAH: Cambridge Ancient History 2nd edition (Oxford University Press 1982)
CANE: Jack M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons 1995)
Chi.-Kent. L. Rev.: Chicago-Kent Law Review
ClAnt: Classical Antiquity
ClQ: Classical Quarterly New Series
HSCP: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HUCA: Hebrew Union College Annual
IPSR: International Political Science Review
JAA: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
JANES: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society
JCS: Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JDAI: Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
JESHO: Journal of the economic and social history of the Orient
J. Econ. Hist.: The Journal of Economic History
JHS: The Journal of Hellenic Studies
JMA: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JRS: Journal of Roman Studies
8
LSJ: Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek-English Dictionary
M.A.R.I.: Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires
MEPC: Middle East Policy Council
MHE: Mediterranean Historical Review
NEA: Near Eastern Archaeology
OJA: Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OrNS: Orientalia, Nova Series
PEQ: Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PRU: Palais Royal d’Ugarit
RA: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
REG: Revue des études Grecques
SO: Symbolae Osloenses
Syria: Syria: Revue d'art orientale et d'archéologie
TPR: The town planning review
TUAT: Otto Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn 1982-97)
UF: Ugarit-Forschungen
WO: Die Welt des Orients
ZA: Zeitschrift der Assyriologie
9
Table of contents
Acknowledgments 2
Notes on orthography 5
List of abbreviations 6
Table of contents 9
1. Popular power in ancient Near Eastern and archaic
Greek polities – A reappraisal of Western and Eastern
political cultures
1.1 Introduction 17
1.2 Popular power and the problem of Athenian democracy 18
1.2.1 The Athenian example: rule by the poor 19
1.2.2 Ancient democracy: rule by the people 21
1.2.3 A sliding scale of popular participation 25
1.3 East and West – separate worlds 28
1.4 Constitutions and strategies for power 47
1.4.1 The mixed constitution: kingship and popular power 51
1.4.2 Polities as networks of strategies for power 55
1.5 Corporations and their members: the problem of equality 63
1.5.1 Equal and unequal citizens: the classical view 64
1.5.2 Equality and popular power: the modern debate 68
10
1.5.3 The hidden oligarchy 76
1.5.4 Defining the citizen community 81
1.6 Difficulties concerning sources to ancient politics 86
1.6.1 Further considerations of difficulties in sources to archaic Greek poleis 88
1.7 Prospects for a comparative analysis 93
1.8 Conclusions 95

2. Polities, citizens and social structures
2.1 Introduction 97
2.2 Climbing to state-hood: the neo-evolutionary ladder model 99
2.3 The two-sector model and the patrimonial household 107
2.4 The good society and the good citizen 113
2.5 Structure, agency and structuration 117
2.6 Habitus, schemes, and strategies 121
2.7 Agency and structure 124
2.7.1 Schemas and resources 124
2.7.2 Struggle and negotiation 126
2.7.3 Sources of power 127
2.8 New approaches to ancient societies 129