Topic 1: Mesopotamian Civilizations

Overview and Reading Assignment

        This course begins with the earliest Mesopotamian civilizations and ends with an examination of European civilization ca. 1550 A.D. The nature of an introductory survey limits our investigation of any particular culture to barely a few paragraphs; nonetheless, it is intended that one will gain appreciable insight into the lives of past peoples, their accomplishments, failures and life experiences.

        In order to meet the demands of this course, the professor has to select particular themes and omit others. This course is not a simple listing of kings and battles. We will examine the past, primarily by means of written artifacts, and we will consider the past from several perspectives. At times we will focus on political history, and other times we will study the past from the perspective of social history, i.e., we will consider how people lived, what was life like during certain eras. We will also examine gender relations, i.e., the roles that men and women actually performed in society, as well as ideas and beliefs about the nature of women and men.

        There are three main themes to consider as we delve into the first five topics of this course. One concerns general characteristics of Mesopotamian civilizations. The various peoples and cultures and empires that developed in the Middle East shared common characteristics; traits which emphasized the precariousness and tension present in those societies. In contrast, ancient Egyptian civilization is noted for its stability and relative calm. These are obviously generalities, but there is a great deal of truth to these observations. One should ponder the political, economic, social, religious, and geographic factors that substantiate these interpretations.

        A second key theme concerns gender relations, more specifically the treatment and status of women in ancient cultures. For example, it is interesting to note that Egyptian women enjoyed many more rights than the Athenian women living under a democratic government. The third theme considers how the Greeks and especially the Romans created powerful governments and empires and the problems associated with expansion.

        In conjunction with Topic 1, one should read in the textbook, Hunt, et al., The Making of the West, Vol. I: To 1740, pp. 8-18.

I. Mesopotamian Civilizations

        The word 'mesopotamia,' comes from a Greek word meaning between the rivers. The rivers refer to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in an area today designated the ancient Near East. Around the years 10,000 to 7000 B.C., nomadic peoples in that region adopted a settled lifestyle. No longer chasing food on the hoof or gathering berries and plants, these people became farmers and built permanent settlements. Anthropologists call this age the Neolithic period.

A. Neolithic Age and Transition. Beginning some time around 10,000 B.C. people gradually switched from hunters and gathers to farmers. Scholars are not certain why the transition occurred. In the area called the Fertile Crescent (see textbook map), the land looked considerably different than today. There was more vegetation, swamps, and marshlands with fish and waterfowl. It seems the abundance of food led to an increased birthrate. Eventually, the population outgrew the available food source; consequently, a consistent food supply had to be procured.

        These people sometime ca. 10,000 B.C. began the process which enabled civilizations to develop. In the Fertile Crescent, two wild plants grew, barley and wheat. Humans learned to plant the seeds of barley and wheat, the beginning of agriculture. Wild animals such as pigs, cows, goats and sheep were present as well. These animals were domesticated in order to have a ready food supply; in case hunting failed, the domesticated animals could be consumed. The transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer was momentous, and this dramatic change has rightly been designated an “agricultural revolution.” It enabled people to settle down rather than continue nomadic lives. Moreover, neolithic people formed closer and stricter social ties. To produce crops, families had to be organized to provide labor, while others performed the role of hunters and protectors, i.e., warriors. Likewise, campsites were transformed into villages and villages grew into towns.

B. Urban Civilization and Revolution. The construction of towns marked the next major development and separated the Neolithic era from the technologically more advanced stage of civilization proper. This occurred about the middle of the fourth millennium, 3500 B.C. Around that time, first in Mesopotamia and a little later in Egypt, the archaeological evidence changes dramatically. There is a considerable increase in the size of settlements and especially in the size of particular buildings, namely, temples. One finds monumental architecture in villages that had grown into towns.

        Other characteristics of urban civilization included further specialization of labor, expanded political organization, writing, codification of a legal system, and rudimentary metallurgy. A little before the urban revolution, roughly 4000 B.C., people learned to draw metals out of heated rocks and pour the liquid metal into molds. Later they created bronze, a more durable metal, by mixing tin and copper, hence the designation the “Bronze Age.”

        With the spread of villages and the formation of towns, communication internally and externally was essential for growth and for trade. Commerce was an important impetus for writing. Think of early writing as shopping lists. Records had to be kept to register deeds, deals, and do-dads (inventories). Pictograms evolved into conventionalized signs that represented ideas. Later signs were devised that corresponded to sounds of speech, the rudiments of an alphabet. The one-half of one percent of the population that was literate used a wedge-shaped stylus to impress inscriptions on clay tablets. The Mesopotamian writing system, first developed by the Sumerian people living in the southeast region, is called cuneiform.

        Also in the transition from village to urban life, hierarchical social structures were formed with warriors and priests on top; they functioned as rulers and administrators. Beneath them worked the commoners and slaves. The warriors not only served as leaders in the defense of the cities, but also as organizers of labor, necessary to build and maintain irrigation projects for crops. These projects were so large that forced labor was mandatory. Cities were directed by administrators, protected by warriors, and their positions of authority were legitimated by 'public relations' personnel—priests.

        Neolithic people were religious, but in Mesopotamian civilization a full-time priesthood formed. Perhaps the vast increase in social groups (city population 1,000 plus) caused such problems in social cohesiveness that full-time priests were necessary to maintain some kind of order. The priests acted as mediators between emerging civilization and nature, that is, a climate and geography unpredictable and hostile, believed to be controlled by the gods.

        Unlike in Egypt, not all of the geographic and climatic conditions in the Fertile Crescent favored the development of civilization. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers did not consistently flood like the Nile. Unexpected snow in the north or heavy rain in the south affected the rivers' banks and courses. The Persian Gulf in the spring might rise several feet. Towns, unlike Neolithic villages, depended on a regular flow of water for irrigation. The unpredictability of the natural circumstances seems to have had a direct influence on the religion and mentality of Mesopotamian people. Civilization was in a precarious position; it could be toppled easily by the forces of nature, thought to be controlled by gods. Humans believed they existed because of the whim of the gods. This attitude was reflected in creation myths. In the Epic of Creation, Marduk, the dominant male god, after bringing forth man into existence, declares "Let him [man] be burdened with the toil of the gods that they may freely breathe." As exhibited in nature, the gods were capricious and domineering. Massive temples were built in the cities in which sacrifices, rituals, and festivals were conducted to express devotion to the gods in hopes of currying their favor.

C. Sumerian Civilization. The oldest Mesopotamian civilization was formed by the Sumerians. The indigenous inhabitants had already developed agriculture, weaving, pottery, and metallurgy when the Sumerians, speaking a different language, migrated into the valleys of the lower Tigris and Euphrates from some point near the Caspian Sea. Once the Sumerians arrived in the second half of the fourth millennium B.C., a fruitful fusion with the native peoples brought about the essential creative spark which ignited one of the world's two earliest civilizations. Scholars credit the Sumerians for inventing the wheel, which was probably developed into a tool by 3000 B.C. In contrast, the wheel was not used by the Egyptians until 1700 B.C. and never in the Americas until the Europeans brought it over.

        Sumerian civilization was based on numerous independent city-states. The cities determined the experiences of these Mesopotamian people. It set them apart from other inhabitants in the land. It induced a self-consciousness among its inhabitants, and their collective achievements were a source of pride. Each city conceived itself as being ruled by one particular god. Theocracy was not peculiar to Mesopotamian society. Egyptian civilization, too, was ruled by a god, that is, by a god incarnate in the king, later titled 'pharaoh.' In Mesopotamia, the head of state was not at first identified with the gods; later, rulers were deified.

        Each city had a main temple built on an artificial mound, a ziggurat. A city might have several temples, and not all temples were built on ziggurats. Some historians think these ziggurats symbolized mountains. The mountains symbolized the power of natural forces; the gods came forth from the mountains. Other historians contend the ziggurats represented the symbolic quest to reach beyond the material world. Here on these artificial mountains, the Sumerians and other Mesopotamian people built their great temples. The temples were a testimony of the inhabitants' piety but also of their civic accomplishment. They were built to ensure divine protection, as they fostered social cohesion.

        About 2100, the Sumerians were attacked by the Babylonians (also called the Amorites), named after their capital, Babylonia. Their most famous king, Hammurabi (1792-1750), succeeded in unifying most of Mesopotamia during his rule. Hammurabi is best known for his law code [see SWT readings]. Earlier law codes have been found, but Hammurabi's is exceptionally thorough and sophisticated with some two hundred and eighty sections. These laws reflect the need to protect and rationalize expanded commerce and the growth of private property; moreover, they expressed monarchs’ social responsibilities. The laws concern mainly free men and women, but significant rights are guaranteed to slaves. Penalties for crimes are severe. A son who struck his father would have his hand cut off. Divorce is permissible; a wife could divorce her husband for adultery if she had remained faithful; if not, she was drowned. Theft was punishable by death.

        Mesopotamian kings continually had to fight against external attacks from marauders and invaders, as well as contend with internal dissension. The region lacks natural boundaries and was easily accessible to raiders in search of spoils. Rulers were compelled to wage constant warfare on their borders, thus draining their kingdoms' strength. Protection of trade routes exceeded the capabilities of governments. Imperialism seemed the only guarantee of peace. To garrison so many posts eventually exceeded the resources of the Mesopotamian empires; the longevity of these empires is truly astonishing.

        The peoples attacking the urbanized inhabitants were routinely called barbarians. The barbarians served at least two essential functions. They were scavengers and transmitters. The barbarians tested the mettle of urban civilizations. Those civilizations, no longer infused with the resolve to grow and continue, fell to the barbarians. Like vultures, the barbarians swooped down on a particular civilization, but they only destroyed that which was dead and decaying. If they found aspects of a city culture to be more advanced than their own, they assimilated the better technologies, laws, and ideas into their own culture. They, in turn, became the settled civilization. In this respect, the barbarians were the transmitters of culture. Not always, however, did the marauders benefit future generations as transmitters. At times civilizations were destroyed, e.g., the Minoan civilization. It may have been obliterated by the mysterious "Sea Peoples" as they are called in Egyptian documents. The origin of these Sea Peoples is unclear. They may have been loose federations of mercenaries that had been employed by the Hittites and other empires. As mercenaries they protected civilizations; as marauders/barbarians they devastated civilizations.

D. The Indo-Europeans, the Hittites. The next major invasion of barbarians was composed of the Indo-European people whose languages formed the basis for Western languages spoken today. They originated from Southern Russia and moved into Europe, the Middle East, and India in two great waves ca. 3000 and 1600 B.C. Among these groups came the Hittites, who overthrew the Babylonian empire ca. 1600. They reached their zenith in power between 1500-1200 B.C.

        The Hittites first settled in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey). Their invasion appears more peaceful than militaristic. They established Hattusas as their capital which attained a population of ca. 30,000. Their greatest king, Suppiluliumas, reigned ca. 1380-1340 B.C. The Hittites gained control over Mesopotamia which brought them into conflict with the aggressive foreign policy of the Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs. In 1300, these two super powers fought to a standstill in Syria.

        Although expansionist and militaristic, the Hittites used diplomacy as well as war to extend their boundaries. In some cases, the Hittites sought alliances rather than tribute. They attempted to make allies of their rivals. In this way, the Hittites served as transmitters of culture, particularly to the early Greeks.

        We are not sure exactly how and by whom the Hittite empire was overthrown. Some scholars point to an overthrow by the "Sea Peoples." These mysterious bands of marauders wrecked havoc on the New Kingdom pharaohs and Hittites. The Sea Peoples disrupted trade routes which weakened the Hittite regime, and they devastated the capital, Hattusas.

Conclusion: The continual political reversals in Mesopotamia are reflected in the intellectual/religious attitude of the peoples. They accomplished great feats, but tension and anxiety were ever present in their religious outlook. Nonetheless, they achieved remarkable technological advances: 1) from simple huts to grand monumental architecture; 2) from stone tools to those fashioned from bronze; 3) from food gatherer to environmental manipulator (irrigation and wide-scale farming); 4) from oral to written language; and 5) from elementary accounting and design to sophisticated measurement techniques in terms of time, distance, and geometry. On the negative side, one observes the: 1) rigid stratification of society; 2) loss of status for women; and, 3) environmental damage — the overuse of soil and irrigation, without replacing essential nutrients, exhausted farming lands by raising salinity to dangerous levels.

Topic 2: Ancient Egypt

Overview and Reading Assignment

        In prehistoric times, Egypt was inhabited by several groups of people, divided geographically between Upper Egypt, the southern part of the country, and Lower Egypt, the delta region where the Nile separates into several outlets flowing into the Mediterranean Sea. Around 3100 B.C., Upper and Lower Egypt were united under one king, later called pharaoh. The unification of the two lands was not understood by the ancient Egyptians as mere conquest; it meant much more. They idealized the unification and designated it as the beginning of their history. Moreover, the victory manifested a preordained destiny. The unification was seen as the fulfillment of the wish of Maat. Maat was believed to be a goddess and an abstract, divine entity. Maat personified the harmony inherent in the universe according to the Egyptians. Thus the unification of Egypt reflected the orderliness and reasonableness of the will of the gods.

        The rule of Maat was personified in the rule of Egyptian kings, later called pharaohs. Pharaohs were believed to be gods, and surely this belief system, along with the routine flooding of the Nile, and usual security from invasion, enabled the ancient Egyptians to build a great and, for the most part, stable civilization, especially to be noted for its unusual, equitable treatment of women.

        In conjunction with Topic 2, one should read in the textbook, Hunt, et al., The Making of the West, vol. I: To 1740, pp. 18-27.

II. Ancient Egypt

A. Eras in Egyptian History. Ancient Egyptian history is divided into six eras: 1) Archaic period, ca. 3100-2700 B.C.; 2) the Old Kingdom, ca. 2700-2200 B.C.; 3) the First Intermediate period, ca. 2200-2050 B.C.; 4) the Middle Kingdom, ca. 2050-1652 B.C.; 5) the Second Intermediate period, ca. 1652-1567 B.C.; and 6) the New Kingdom, ca. 1567-1085 B.C.

        During the Old Kingdom the first pyramids were built. By the time of the later pharaohs, not to mention the Greeks or Romans, these pyramids were already 1,000 years old! The forerunner to the pyramid was the royal tomb called a mastaba. It symbolized the primeval mound from which the god Atum (or Khepri) created the world. The mastaba evolved into the pyramid, which represented on a grand scale the connection between heaven and earth. The pyramids formed the connection between the earthly realm and the heavenly realm. In the substructure of the pyramid, the body of the king was lain with offerings nearby to sustain his ka, the life force which would bring his body back to life in the next dimension of existence. The king/pharaoh would find his place in the heavens above. Eventually, kings' tombs were surrounded by smaller tombs of officials and wives. These structures formed ‘necropolises,’ cities of the (noble) dead.

        In the Old Kingdom, the Egyptian government had no standing army. In this era, Egyptian foreign policy might be described as isolationist, although trading with other areas did occur. Egyptian leaders were not involved in conquest and expansion. They felt secure as Egypt was protected by deserts on two sides.

        In the First Intermediate period extensive building seems to have drained pharaohs' resources. Changes in weather patterns adversely affected crop production. Calamities discredited the god-king and his supposed powers to control the Nile and ensure prosperity. The nobles and the provincial governors (nomarchs) took advantage of the kings' weaknesses and usurped his local authority. The centralized pharaonical government broke down; the kingdom splintered into several states ruled independently by nobles from 2200 to 2050 B.C. Government was decentralized. Nobles began building their own tombs and monuments.

        The pharaoh's power was not restored until ca. 2050 B.C. ushering in the fourth period, the Middle Kingdom, which lasted to 1652 B.C. In this period, the organization of the provinces was revamped. The middle classes and common farmers benefitted. The pharaohs were portrayed as the 'shepherd of the people.' Public works replaced the expensive pyramid projects. A democratization in religion promised salvation to the common people as well. Mummification was available for anyone would could afford it. Unprecedented prosperity ensued until internal problems and a major invasion brought on the Second Intermediate period (1652-1567 B.C.).

        Sources for this period are scanty. Apparently, the nobles counter-revolted. The central government was weakened and then toppled ca. 1650 B.C. by the invading Hyksos people, coming from Asia. Rule under the Hyksos eventually united the Egyptians against their common foe. Pharaoh Amhose I expelled the Hyksos, reunited Egypt, and established the New Kingdom era, ca. 1567. This phase of Egyptian history lasted till 1085 B.C. With their newly acquired military prowess, pharaohs in this period launched a policy of imperialism. Egypt conquered Palestine and claimed sovereignty over Syria. The Egyptian leaders seem to have been motivated by a serious anti-Semitic attitude (Hyksos were Semitic) which influenced Egyptian foreign policy. The militaristic pharaohs maintained vast standing armies, while nobles were reduced to courtiers or administrators in the royal bureaucracy.

B. Egyptian Monarchy/Theocracy. The basic political structure of ancient Egyptian society differed radically with Mesopotamian civilization. Firstly, in early Mesopotamia the city represented the chief political entity. Towns existed in Egypt, but except for the capital, they were basically market centers for the countryside. The capital in the archaic period was not a fixed place. In principle it served for only a single reign. The king made a capital of the site where he chose to build his tomb. Not until the Middle Kingdom period did the city Thebes truly become a metropolitan center and serve as a permanent capital in Egypt.

        Secondly, in Egypt, pharaoh was the chief political authority. He was viewed as a god. His rule constituted, or one could say, contributed to the order of the universe. He was the source of law and justice. In earliest times, sons and close relatives occupied the most important offices under the pharaoh. Later a bureaucracy developed; the administration was divided into several offices, employing many nobles. Kings were theoretically in charge of everything; in reality, they were responsible for military and religious affairs. Under a king, the chief executive official was the vizier, who handled day-to-day administration.

        The relationship of pharaoh to his people deserves further discussion [see SWT readings]. On one hand, because pharaoh was deemed a living god, he was responsible for the welfare of his subjects, living and dead. All were subservient to the pharaoh, who safeguarded the existence of society. He was the contact between the world of the living and of the after-life. No other Egyptian was really free in our sense of the word. No one could refute the word of the god, pharaoh, theoretically. On the other hand, Egyptian society was not as caste-bound as Mesopotamian culture. Those of humble birth could rise to high office. Talented and industrious men and women were not stifled by non-royal birth certificates. The ‘literate’ man in contrast to the ‘warrior’ man was prized in ancient Egypt.

C. Egyptian Society. The common people were peasants, but not subservient serfs. Nonetheless, much of what they produced was lost to taxes, and they were required from time to time to perform forced labor. The land on the larger and more profitable estates may have been worked by serfs. A portion of all the young men from the villages and estates were drafted into the army, the local militia. They served as labor corps. At times they were sent on mining expeditions or worked building temples or digging canals. At other times the whole populace might be drafted, for instance, to build a pyramid which employed approximately 70,000 laborers according to conservative estimates.

        Egyptian Royal Women. Ancient Egyptian society is truly remarkable for its treatment of women in all social classes, but especially among royal women. The right to succeed to the throne passed through the women of the royal family (matriliny). Thus the king had to marry a princess of the royal blood known as the “Daughter of the God.” This practice meant brothers married sisters, although royal lines were sometimes passed through second or third wives. DNA evidence confirms the small gene pools of the Egyptian royalty.

        Archaeological evidence, namely royal tombs, reveals the high respect kings' mothers enjoyed. Royal women were not secluded in harems but took an active role in court life. Some served as regents if their husbands died before the heir became of age. Five women ruled as pharaohs in the New Kingdom period. Hatshepsut, an exceptional ruler, declared herself pharaoh in 1473 and seized power from her weaker male co-ruler. Royal women took an active role in Egyptian religious life. Noble-born ladies called “possessors of reverence” held positions as priestesses.

        Common Women. The Egyptian woman's legal status equaled that of the men of her own social class. Commoners were not secluded in their homes. Tomb murals of the Old Kingdom portray unveiled women selling products and food in the marketplace. Women helped raise flax, spin it into thread, and weave it into linen cloth used for everything from ships' sails to bed linens and clothing. Household accounts of an Egyptian farm in 2000 B.C. indicate that all members of one family received wages for the work they performed, adult men and women receiving equal amounts, youths less. A legal text from the Third Dynasty in the Old Kingdom reveals that a mother who possessed considerable property willed it to both her sons and daughters and needed no male co-signee to validate the will.

        Women were not treated as possessions of men. They could own and pass on property in their own name. They could appear as witnesses in court and could initiate legal action against someone attempting to take their land. A few women were employed as scribes, even treasurers, indicating formal education had been received.

        Love poetry from later periods indicates that Egyptian youths were not segregated according to gender. Older boys and girls could spend time with one another. The Greek writer, Herodotus, often referred to as the “Father of history,” traveled to Egypt in the mid-fifth century B.C. He was so struck by the oddity of seeing women in public that he scoffed: "The Egyptians themselves, in their manners and customs, seem to have reversed the ordinary practices of mankind. For instance, women attend market and are employed in trade, while men stay at home and do the weaving."

Conclusion. The Egyptians were marvelous engineers. They devised a solar calendar, the forerunner of our own. They were expert surveyors and practical mathematicians. The Egyptian upper classes valued education, a means to advance in government. Opportunity for advancement promoted the considerable amount of wisdom literature produced. The low-born could read and learn the rules of conduct essential for decorum in noble circles.

        In whatever aspect of Egyptian society we have considered, the presence of the pharaoh is always felt. Although no one was free from this 'god,' it is interesting to note that in 3,000 years, there was no major rebellion among the majority of the Egyptian people against the pharaoh. Nor was this polity maintained by force, by secret police, or by harsh, cruel measures. Pharaoh's rule was not tyranny nor service to him slavery. It was based on mutual consent that if a god— pharaoh —consented to rule the people, society would be protected from the capricious forces of nature. Prosperity and peace would ensue. The tension and anxiety in Mesopotamian culture seems absent from ancient Egyptian records. This may be accounted for in the routine, predictable flooding of the Nile in contrast to the unpredictable and violent weather of the Middle East. The role of the pharaoh had a major influence as well in the stability of Egyptian society.

Topic 3: The Early Greeks

Overview and Reading Assignment

        The Greeks laid down many of the foundational attitudes which are associated with western thought. Greek philosophers were the first to rely on the power of reason to understand nature, and clearly in the modern world, reason is elevated over myth. Likewise, abstract scientific analysis, the basis for modern science, as opposed to explanation by myth/religion, was first used by Greek intellectuals. The modern sense of the physical in contrast to the metaphysical dimension is derived in large part from Greek ideas. The conviction that democracy is the best form of government was shared by the men of the most renowned of all Greek cities, Athens. This study of ancient Greece begins by considering how backward the early Greeks were, and how they gradually developed a sophisticated culture.

        In conjunction with Topic 3, one should read in the textbook, Hunt, et al., The Making of the West, vol. I: To 1740, pp. 68-69, 83-92, 97-103, 115-19.

III. The Early Greeks

A. Dorian Greeks. The Dorian people moved down from the north on to the Greek peninsula about the same time the Mycenaean (My-sɘ-nee'-an) civilization crumbled, ca. 1100 B.C. You may read in your textbook to learn more about the Mycenaeans. Living in southern Greece, they had built a wealthy civilization. It was also a very militaristic state, which nonetheless fell ca. 1100 B.C.

        At that time civilization on the Greek peninsula seriously declined. This period is referred to as the “Dark Ages” in ancient Greek history. For example, the Dorian Greeks did not write. Not until after 800 B.C. do historians have a written record of this period, and that comes from a collection of oral traditions written down and attributed to the poet Homer, who may well have been several poets instead of one compiler of genius. It is obvious that much learning, technology, and experience had been lost; e.g., Homer's heroes ride to battle on chariots, park them, then fight singlehandedly. The Mycenaeans had fought from war chariots. Obviously, by Homer's time, the Greeks had lost the knowledge, technology, and resources to fight in such a relatively complex fashion. And yet from these shaky beginnings, a civilization developed that employed the most democratic institutions (for free-born males) that the earth had yet witnessed.

        Political institutions in the Dark Ages of Greek history were primitive. The countryside was dotted with small villages, some with no more than twenty inhabitants. The chief political figures were patriarchs ruling over clans. These tribal leaders neither devised laws nor enforced laws. They served as captains of war bands and as priests that offered sacrifices to numerous gods. They used iron weapons. It is from their ranks that the aristocracy came. 'Aristocracy' refers to the ruling group in Greek society that strove to achieve arete, "excellence." The early Greek aristocrats admired the virtues of proud warriors—bravery, resourcefulness, loyalty, love for one's companions, and hatred for the enemy [see SWT readings]. For generations, Homer’s works were the chief textbooks for boys. These virtues could be noble pursuits, if used to benefit the majority, but if one sought them merely to achieve personal renown, they become mere vanity.

        Agriculture was the basis of the economy, yet only one-fifth of the land was cultivable. The flourishing trade of Mycenae was gone. There was little specialization of labor. For the most part, each family produced its own tools, raised its own crops and livestock, and wove its own clothing.

B. Evolution of the City-State, the Polis (750-480 B.C.). The next major era in ancient Greece is referred to as ‘Classical’ Greece, a most remarkable era in Hellenic history, also titled the "Age of Revolution." A number of significant developments ensued: 1) reestablishment of commerce and trade; 2) extensive colonization; 3) the rise of tyrants, reformers and law-givers; and 4) the most notable achievement in this period, the establishment of the polis. Poleis (plural of polis) appeared in many places by 750 B.C. Originally these communities were ruled by aristocrats, and in most all poleis the aristocrats retained considerable power as the chief landowners. Gradually, the power of the aristocrats waned as 'new men' gained more political authority.

        These 'new men' gained power as the Hellenic economy changed from strictly agrarian-based with local trade to one of international trade. As trade increased, certain families grew rich who were not the traditional landowners. During the eighth century B.C. Greek colonies were established over much of the Mediterranean world—in Asia Minor, North Africa, Sicily, Italy [see textbook map]. Colonies were formed owing to overpopulation, not to a spirit of discovery. Colonization expanded Greek markets. The by-products of colonization included expanded trade and the spread of Greek culture and ideas. Moreover, men with money, which was translated into political power, forced their way into politics as they struggled with the traditional aristocratic leaders. The struggle resulted in the expansion of the representation in government, which in turn resulted in more democratic governments.

        Another factor that may have promoted democratic government in the poleis involved the Greek military, specifically the hoplite phalanx. Hoplite is the term for the heavily armored Greek soldier. These soldiers fought in a military formation known as a phalanx, a sort of a human tank. Aristocrats and independent farmers, the freemen of the polis, formed the phalanx. They were grouped in formations with eight men across and eight men deep. One’s shield in the left arm protected one’s companion on one’s left side. In one’s right arm was a pike, ca. nine feet long. Fighting in a tightly organized phalanx replaced aristocratic individualism. The phalanx formation may have induced a sense of camaraderie and cooperation; no soldier was more important than another. Mutual responsibility on the battlefield achieved greater results than one-man heroism. It seems that camaraderie on the battlefield was transposed to city councils. It has been argued that farmers' grievances had to be heeded in order to maintain harmony, thus more of them were granted political representation.

        More recent scholarship, however, has argued that the hoplites came from the upper ranks of society, and therefore, they already had political representation. Rights were extended to the lower classes by tyrants, not by incorporation into the militia.

        The poleis were small. The great majority of Greek city-states had less than five thousand citizens with Athens (35,000 -50,000 citizens) a notable exception. The society of the polis was male-dominated; only free adult males belonged to the political franchise. Qualifications for citizenry was always restricted; only males, heads of independent households, could vote and one's citizenship was exclusive to one native polis.

        There are four elements of the polis that represent its chief legacy to Western civilization: 1) recognition of the dignity of the male individual. Free adult males received the honor and privilege to participate in the political affairs of the polis. Closely related to this point is: 2) citizens involved in the governmental process, not just the warrior and priestly castes.

        3) Rule of law rather than rule by dictator. Greeks based their law on observation, experience, and reason. The polis formed a constitution and judicial system based on human reason rather than submission to a divine law-giver. The laws were designed to promote order in the polis which should reflect the order in the universe. 4) An emphasis on the power of reason not only in jurisprudence, but in science and philosophy. These four attributes were utilized in the Greek quest to control nature—nature outside and nature within humans.

        The polis may also be seen as precious and precarious. Precious: the Greeks were the first to create a political community based on free choice. To grant someone free choice is to acknowledge considerable intelligence and a willingness to trust. One trusts one’s neighbor to be a reasonable animal. Reason seen as the difference between animals and men. Aristotle, the incomparable philosopher in later Greek history, observed that "man is a polis (political) animal" —he is a reasonable animal. As such, all decisions should be reached through reflection and deliberation.

        Precarious: the poleis were restricted by a confined economic base and limited geographical living space. Greece was and is a rugged, mountainous land. To live on the peninsula involved a near constant fight for survival. The economy was not diversified enough to permit a wide-scale, comfortable living standard. Farm land was limited and deficient in minerals. The struggle to survive led to colonization and destructive conflict among the poleis.

C. Conflict in the Poleis: Rise of Tyrants (600-500 B.C.). Technically, the poleis were to be governed by office holders elected by citizens. Instead, aristocratic families tended to control governments. Their hold on policy-making was disputed by the new rich, who gained wealth through increased trade with the colonies abroad. The tension between these factions led to the rise of tyrants.

        Originally the word ‘tyrant’ was not a negative designation. Tyrants obtained political power through unconstitutional means. Usually a member of a disgruntled aristocratic family obtained support from merchants and the disenfranchised segments of the population. Tyrants probably benefitted the poorer farmers more than the so-called “hoplite revolution.”

        Tyrants canceled debts. Debts arose from population growth. As more sons survived, they forced fathers to divide families’ plots of land into smaller divisions. Smaller plots of land did not maintain families' statuses. Poorer farmers were unable to compete with large estates and had to mortgage their holdings and often lost them. Tyrants freed impoverished families. Plus, tyrants supervised public works programs that employed the poor. By the sixth century, tyrants became too power-hungry. Some were cruel, ruthless men, who violated poleis constitutions. The tyrants were usually expelled, for citizens had become accustomed to rule by law not by whim.

D. Sparta and Athens. The development of democratic government in the poleis was not easy, nor did the poleis form similar governments. Sparta and Athens represent two examples of widely divergent forms of state-building.

        1. Sparta was a polis on the southern end of the Peloponnesus [see textbook map]. Around 740 B.C. Sparta attacked its neighbor Messenia in order to obtain their land. The population of Messenia was forced into slavery; they were called helots. The helots rebelled in ca. 650-625. Sparta barely survived the revolt. Its leaders reexamined their social system and instituted drastic changes.

        To maintain control over helots working the land (outnumbered the Spartans 7 to 1), Spartans adopted several extremely austere policies that effected Spartans from birth to death: 1) Officials of the state determined physical constitution of newborns; those deemed unfit were abandoned. 2) Boys at the age of seven were taken from their mothers. Until the age of twenty, they underwent harsh military training; e.g., barely fed enough to survive. They were encouraged to steal, but if caught, severely punished. Such training was intended to instill cunning and resourcefulness. 3) At age twenty, the young men were drafted into the army. They lived in barracks till age thirty. Marriage was permitted in this age group, but hardly any time was allotted for family life. 4) At age thirty, the Spartan soldier became a full citizen, known as an "Equal." Men continued to eat meals at a public mess. Military service was required till age sixty. Youthful women also trained to encourage fitness and to ensure healthy, strong offspring.

        The Spartans succumbed to a ‘fortress’ mentality. They believed they had to maintain control over the helots no matter the costs. The Spartan secret police routinely used assassination. Spartan leaders feared the influence of foreign ideas; they strictly regulated trade. All energies were directed to serving the military state. The result was the most powerful polis on land but culturally, in the arts, stagnant. From another perspective, one might consider that the Spartan “Equals” enjoyed parity of education, training, opportunity, income, and esteem. The Spartans found fulfillment in this parity and in sacrifice to the state. They prided themselves on their discipline and orderliness. Plato, the great idealist philosopher, admired many components of Spartan society.

        2. Athens developed as a polis later than most, ca. 700 B.C. Early in its history, Athens endured much conflict. Aristocrats gained an inordinate amount of power. Poorer farmers fell into debilitating debt as they could not compete with larger land-holders. Athens was led out of the crisis by several notable figures.

        1) Solon. In 594 he revised the constitution to aid the impoverished citizens and non-citizens. He expanded the electorate; many more free males could vote. He instituted agricultural reforms. The staple crop had been wheat which exhausted the soil and led to bad harvests. Farmers with small plots of land became indebted to aristocrats and reduced to serfdom. Solon annulled the debts. He encouraged the cultivation of olive trees and exportation of olive oil, which brought in more revenue but made Athens dependent on imported wheat.

        2) Cleisthenes. About 508-501, he instituted the Council of 500 which prepared legislation debated and voted on by assembly of almost all adult Athenian males. There was open debate in the council, a remarkable practice. The Athenians also established an exile system called ostracism. Each year it was permitted to vote as to whether to exile for ten years anyone who seemed an adversary, a threat to internal order; the man receiving the highest number of votes was expelled from the city-state. He retained his life, property, and after ten years, he could rejoin the polis with full rights. Actually, ostracism was used sparingly.

E. Persian Wars. About the middle of the sixth century B.C., the Greek colonies on Asia Minor (modern Turkey) came under control of the powerful Persian emperor Cyrus (559-530) [see textbook map]. The colonists were forced to pay tribute and to provide men for the Persian army. In 499, the Greek colonies, with the support of Athens, revolted against Persia. In 498, the Greeks sacked Sardis, the capital of Lydia in Asia Minor.

        The Persian emperor, Darius (521-485), in 490 launched an invasion against Athens. Darius intended to punish the Greeks for their insurrection, and he was determined to gain control of the Aegean Sea. The hard fought battle at Marathon was a great Athenian victory but only a temporary setback for the Persians. In 481, the next emperor of Persia, Xerxes I (485-65), the son of Darius, organized an army of over 60,000 to as much as 150,000 men with a navy of 700 vessels. Thirty-one Greek city-states united and formed the Greek League to stop the Persians. Athens alone had prepared for the Persian advance. In the course of this war, the Persians committed several tactical blunders, while the Athenians made great sacrifices to maintain the war effort; for example, they evacuated Athens which the Persians burned. Nonetheless, against incredible odds, the Greeks again defeated the Persians and then began an offensive campaign against the Persians.

F. Formation of Delian League and the Peloponnesian War. Greek colonies in Asia Minor wanted to be totally free from Persian control. Several Greek mainland city-states, including Athens, demanded reparations from Persia. Delegates from these city-states and colonies met on the island of Delos in the winter of 478-477. They swore oaths of allegiance to one another. They formed an alliance referred to as the Delian League with Athens as the leader of the coalition. At first the league was very successful. But in 465 one of the member city-states, Thasos, withdrew from league. Athens subjugated this rebellious member after a two-year siege.

        Why did Athens act in such a high-handed fashion to a former ally? Athenian leaders claimed that since Athens bore the brunt of Persia's wrath, it deserved to reap more benefits. Thus, money donated by allies was transferred to the Athenian treasury. In fact, in 454, the treasury was moved from Delos to Athens. Athenian leaders felt the pressure of a population that had grown considerably in the fifth century For some time Athens was dependent on imported wheat. Pericles, the chief Athenian statesman, thought he had solved the food storage when an alliance was formed with Egypt in 460, Athens's new ‘bread basket.’ But in 454, the Persians destroyed the Athenian navy stationed near Egypt. Other resources had to be found, and Pericles and his supporters opted to turn allies' donations into tribute for the Athenian empire.

        The great land power, Sparta, along with her allies, was much alarmed at Athens' aggressive foreign policy. Greek city-states had to choose sides between two opposing leagues: the Delian League, which was really a front for the Athenian empire, and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta. In 460 war broke out between Sparta and Athens; in 445 a thirty-year truce was proclaimed, but tensions and conflicts had not been resolved.

G. Athenian Society and the Status of Women. Athens' domination over the Delian League corresponded with the rise to leadership of Pericles, who came to power in 461. He was never the dictator or tyrant over Athens. He maintained control over Athenian politics by means of his own ambition and talent, and with the support of new men, whose income was derived from commerce or the navy, rather than the traditional leaders, primarily land-owners. To maintain this support Pericles allowed many more men, without landed property, to become full citizens and voters. Many of these men were employed in the Athenian navy.

        While pursuing an aggressive foreign policy, Pericles led Athens into the most democratic system of male government yet devised. Among his reforms: property qualifications for office holding were abolished and a network of circuit judges established; these officials held courts in the countryside providing justice for the common people unable to travel to Athens. Moreover, Pericles used tribute money to renovate Athens. The incomparable religious complex of the Parthenon was built.

        The citizenry may have grown to 40-50,000. But this represented no more than one-fourth of the total population. About 10,000 resident aliens, merchants and craftsmen, were not allowed to vote. Slaves, numbering between 80,000-120,000 could not vote. Plus, 40-50,000 wives, born to two free Athenian parents ( the requirement for all male citizens), were denied the right to vote, to sit in the Assembly, or hold any governmental office. Athenian women, did not enjoy a free, open, equitable society.

        Athenian Women. The status and treatment of Athenian women seems directly related to the evolving economic, social, and political structures of ancient Athens. Indeed, the subjugation of Athenian women had much to do with the transition from aristocracy to democracy. Archaic Greek society was aristocratic. Society was dominated by a landholding nobility defined by birth; chiefs ruled over clans. The individual family was not important; the clan was the superior unit. The economy was agriculturally based. Archaic Greece was transformed by the advent of trade and colonization. With the growth of commerce, individual families acquired money and power. The economic revolution fueled the transition from aristocracy to democracy. Expansion of commerce enabled individual Athenian households to gain real political power, for male heads of households became citizens with the right to vote and hold office. Patriarchs no longer ruled; they were replaced with citizens.

        The political elevation of the household (Greek oikos) in Athenian democracy had important ramifications for the position of women. The legal rights over the property of an oikos were vested in the male head and transferred to his legitimate male heir to ensure the continuity of the oikos. To secure legitimate offspring and to maintain the transference of property to male heirs, Athenian male leaders imposed restrictions on women's legal, property, and social rights. They devised laws which forced wives to be subservient to the needs of the oikos and ultimately to the Athenian state. "The patriarchal orientation of Greek society is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than by the legal system, which prohibited women from ever achieving the status of fully autonomous beings." (M. Arthur) Women were denied access to the political and economic operation of the oikos. When a woman married, her property in the form of her dowry, was added to the oikos of her husband, and the wife herself could not dispose of it. If they divorced, the husband was liable for its repayment to the oikos of the wife's father. Furthermore, Athenian women were not allowed to transfer landed property. "The word for marriage in ancient Greece betrays its function and character. It was called ekdosis, loan, and so marriage was a transaction whereby a woman's father lent her out to the [male] head of another oikos." (M. Arthur).

        A double standard clearly existed in classical Greece. Men's sexual lives were in comparison to their wives 'non-regulated.' Prostitutes and courtesans were available in addition to homosexual partners. One noted Greek politician [Demosthenes, 384?-322 B.C.] distinguishes three kinds of women: "We have hetairai [courtesans] for the sake of pleasure, prostitutes for the daily care of the body, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be the trusted guardians of our households." Courtesans were professional escorts, not simply prostitutes. Their job was to entertain at male drinking parties (symposia); this is the "pleasure" to which the civic leader refers. Prostitutes, by contrast, were invariably slave women.

        The subjugation of women began at childbirth. Girl babies were most often affected by the practice of exposure-abandonment. A girl baby could be placed in a crockery pot and abandoned by a roadside. Children in well-to-do families were raised by slaves. Girls did not remain in parents’ homes very long. At age fourteen to fifteen, they were married to men typically age thirty. Girls received no formal education. [see handout]

        A married woman was usually held in high regard in classical Greece; her job, aside from bearing children, was to supervise the household. Other jobs performed by lower-class free women and slaves included wool working (spinning and weaving), nursing, midwifery, retail selling of such wares as the garlands used in religious sacrifice, cobbling, and vase painting. Household slaves spun yarn and wove cloth and performed other domestic tasks.

        Although married women were praised, these sentiments do not invalidate the claim that the fundamental attitude of the Greeks toward women remained misogynist. Economic and social regulation of women is reflected in Greek philosophy. In general, 'woman' represented the antithesis to civilized life; it was assumed that female instincts and passions had to be restricted if civilization was to survive. 'Woman' was identified with nature and Greek philosophers conceived of nature as a force to be controlled, something hostile to man and civilization. Moreover, 'woman' was viewed as inferior. In the words of Aristotle, 'woman' is a “deformed man.” She imparts no “soul” to her offspring. 'Woman' was a creature more associated with nature than with civilization; therefore, she had to be constantly supervised.

H. The War and Its Aftermath. War between the two leagues led by Athens and Sparta erupted again in 431. The Athenians at first held off the Spartans, but in 430 a plague struck Athens which eventually killed one-third of the population. Pericles died in 429. No other Athenian statesman could win majority support. The war dragged on until 404 when Athens surrendered unconditionally to Sparta. Athens was placed under the rule of an oligarchic council, whose administration was so corrupt they were known as the "Thirty Tyrants."

        Rule by Sparta proved more harsh than rule by Athens. Thus, Athens' former allies rebelled against Sparta. Again there ensued a series of alliances and battles; the result: the city-state Thebes defeated the Spartans. Sparta never recovered. Athens returned to some prominence regaining much of her former empire, but she fell into the same mistakes as before, over-reaching her resources. By 355 she was forced to abandon most of her empire. At that time, Greece was as politically fractured as before the wars against Persia.

        The defeat of Athens at the hands of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War may be difficult to understand for ‘freedom-loving’ Americans. From 461-429, Athens was led by its greatest statesmen, Pericles. During that period, Athens was governed by the most free democracy (of men) yet devised—no standing army, no police force, no coercion of the male population. And yet this politically advanced city fell to what appears to be a less cultured state, Sparta. We have already discussed the shifts in Athenian foreign and domestic policy after the Persian Wars. Athenian leaders assessed Athens' situation in the Greek world and concluded that a pan-Greek alliance was not workable except in extreme crisis (e.g., the Persian invasion). The only viable alternative to Athenian leaders was imperialism—to strengthen Athens’ position vis-a-vis rivals, namely Sparta, and to secure food.

        The Athenians, as were other Greeks, were locked into the single polis mentality. The idea that polis rights might be extended to non-Athenians seems completely foreign to their mentality. They never moved beyond the idea that only native Athenians could become citizens. International law to them can be summed up as 'might makes right,' reflected in their dealings with other members in the Delian League and in their foreign policy. They dictated terms to so-called partners, and in the end, their allies turned against them.

        While Athens was losing to the Spartans, the Athenian model for a polis was imitated by other city-states. This development had several consequences. The change from an agricultural to a mixed economy made Athens and other city states more dependent on imported materials and food. Hence, they became more aggressive toward other states in order to secure these needed resources. The growth of trade widened the gap between rich and poor, engendering party strife. Both sides sought allies from counterpart groups in other poleis. The decades before the submission to the Macedonian rulers was filled with political strife.

        The cohesion in the polis had not been easily obtained. The transition from tribal to civic relationships was difficult; usually attained only after rule by tyrants. Civic unity after the Persian Wars was increasingly strained by a kind of class warfare between rich and poor. Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle advocated sweeping reforms to maintain the polis. Limit its size, place philosopher-kings in leadership, etc., but their ideas could only be achieved through a massive re-education process. The Greeks did not show the resolve to tackle these problems.

        The polis was an extraordinary institution. Especially in Athens, it permitted the most involvement of its male citizens than any previous political institution. Based on their success in defeating powers with greater resources and huge armies, the unification of the poleis in Greece might have formed an incomparable civilization. But it never happened.