I have an identical thread of this one on my new forum, but since it’s still starting up, I will post this thread here too.
It’s truly an epic - one of my favorite works of literature and I feel it worthy of being promoted.
i wsh i could parrraphrase as with regular computes, eric. how ever thas coming. but how about the iliD ERIC, THE ONE WHERE THE NON HEROIC SURFACED, connecting it to the antic heroic? most people miss the variable chain of narrative in between, that is why they see the anti hero, as a MODERN
PHENOMENON. The Odessy is every young man’s dream, a proof of valour and later of redemption. Of Knightood and chivalry. Can that state of mind, be suspended, and cay over as one qould, say, when adding up beyond nine? And carry over?
Can it? or? can it? that is the question, eric.
You must be thinking, well no maybe not, of all the unpublishable stuff, like meND D63, we ar brothrs, against ALL Odds, that is what brothwhood is for. like in the ancient Greek times, when Brotherhood meant something in the Western World, of whom we have become just a playboy? Sorayan? I will looo it up later. Meanwhile back in thw farm, where all Odessy’s really start, the young farmer son of the farmer decides to go into the city, as in the ‘Town and the City’. Welo all i’ve got t0 say, then, is, that Your guess is as good as mine. Southern or midwestern boy makes it good, go y;oung man, rute 66 west waiting for You, cowboy hat and silver belt buckle will gleam in some straw dust floored honky tonk, …but wait, tell me about it when you get there, because, by all measure, You are by far, younger …later
i wsh i could paraphrase as with regular computes, eric. how ever thas coming. but how about the iliad, ERIC, THE ONE WHERE THE NON HEROIC SURFACED, connecting it to the antic heroic? most people miss the variable chain of a narrative in
between, that is why they see the anti hero, as a MODERN
PHENOMENON. The Odessy is every young man’s
dream, a proof of valour and later of redemption. Of ,
and chivalry. Can that state of mind, be suspended, and carry over as one could, say, when adding up beyond nine? And carry over?
Can it? or? can it? that is the question, Eric
You must be thinking, well no maybe not, of all the
unpublishable stuff, like me and D63, we are brothers, against ALL Odds, that is what brotherhood is for. like in the ancient Greek times, when Brotherhood meant something in the Western World,
of whom we have become just a playboy? Sorayan?
I will looo it up later. Meanwhile back in the farm, where all Odessy’s really start, the young farmer son of the farmer decides to go into the city, as in the
‘Town and the City’. Well all i’ve got to say, then, is,
that Your guess is as good as mine. Southern or midwestern boy makes it good, go y;young man, route 66 west waiting for You, cowboy hat and silver
belt buckle will gleam in some straw dust floored
honky tonk, …but wait, tell me about it when you get there, because, by all measure, You are by far, younger …later…
Orb, the Illiad is great too — I plan on making a thread for that, eventually. And certainly the anti-hero motif is not strictly modern, far from it. Achilles is the embodiment of the anti-hero; arrogant, savage, " immoral ", etc. Even Odysseus could be seen as an anti-hero, too; he uses deception and cunning primarily to get his way, as opposed to brute force; sleeps around with goddesses, while his poor wife Penelope remains loyal and chaste for her lost lover; and so on.
Anyways, I have an affinity for classical literature. Planning on reading Sophocles’ Antigone next.
I second that motion, i too am vey keen on classical poetry and liteaure. As far as Homer is oncwrned, it is said that there is mucnuncetainty about him. Some claim that he was not only one person, maybe several, witing in the similar fenre, however one thingmis fairly certain, that then Odyssey and the Iliad, were not witten by the sme person.
Antigone was the epitome of the tragic figure, holding up ideals , acting against all odds, in the face of overwhelming opposition. A very powerful statement describing the situation as is stated nowadays, ‘sticking to your guns’. It is really moving to realize that people thousands of years ago had similar motifs
as we do now.
Yes, there isn’t much evidence for his existence, apart from the alleged authorship of the Illiad and Odyssey. I like to think that he existed and that the two works of literature are solely his.
Antigone seems like it will be another good read.
I don’t necessarily think that modern ideals are better than ancient ones. Most people think that the future is more progressive than the past, but I lean the other way, for the most part. I believe that the aesthetics and culture of classical antiquity are far more superior than those of modernity. In large, I’m rather anti-modernity.
2nd that motion, is the only comment I can make on that, but would like to expand on this, later. but one thing is certain, even if, there is a difference in focus as to which has more relevance and appeal, the two are inscrutably interconnected, to make such analysis a walk in the park.
"What is the character of the Greek Dark Age?”
The concept of a Dark Age is founded on that anathema of history: the lack of textual evidence. In this sence it is an phrase applied from an historical discourse rather than an archaeological one. Of Snodgrass’ “time honoured” rapprochement between Greek archaeology and Greek history (Snodgrass 1987) it may be said that archaeology has been subordinate. The application of the term: Dark Age is confirmation of this subordination. The Iliad & The Odyssey continue to dominate the field, after Finley(1964), within Classical studies regardless of the balance which Snodgrass’ rejection provides. No where else in archaeology do such fairy stories dominate the discourse . To fully understand the Dark Age we must attempt an unbiased view of the archaeological evidence. Such a venture is no so easy as the exploits of heroes and kings of Greek myth are heavily embedded in our own popular culture. More importantly much evidence has been gathered within aims suggested by the texts and thus reflects preconceptions guided by the idea of an “Homeric Society”. This may be apt to excavations of the eighth century if we are to accept the thesis of Morris (1986) which suggests that Homer reflects his own social milieu, providing that we understand Homer. To what degree, though, can an eighth century poet living in Asia Minor reflect upon the social status of those buried on the mainland? What would the Dark Age look like if Homer had not existed?
The Dark Age may be defined as that period of time from the end of Mycenaean civilisation, 1150 , to the re-emergence of writing at about 750. For such a long period and over such a wide area it would be utterly foolish to expect anything but the most wide generalisations to apply. If it’s a fair criticism that the “history” of the Dark Age has been led by Homer then another criticism is equally fair: that archaeology has been led by a chronological sequence dominated by the periodisation of Attic pottery styles from Submycenaean to Early Late Geometric. The “absolute” dates for key positions in this period have been provided by evidence from other contexts. The terminus ante quem for the DA has been set to c.1165 for the crucial Mycenaean IIIcIb stage. Due to the adoption of a style of pot decoration “manifestly Mycenaean”(Snodgrass 1971, 107) by Philistines following their repulse during the eighth year of the reign of Rameses III (c. 1191). . It may also be worth mentioning that, although the connection with the Middle Eastern pottery is accepted, the attribution of this pottery to the Philistines has been challenged, and hence the relative chronology of Mycenaean wares (Furumark 1841; 118). In any event there is still some difficulty with dating Rameses’ reign and the attribution of stylistic influence is highly subjective especially the direction of influence which provides for a delay. Submycenaean is placed a further 40 years beyond the terminus to c.1125, presumably by guesswork. Snodgrass concludes that 1165 BC is a reasonable date for mycenaean III c I b phase The terminus post quem for the DA is based on 5 sherds from, what is believed to have been a Middle Geometric (MG) krater from Attica, found in Hama in a destruction level associated with Sargon II of Assyria. Interestingly the date of the city’s destruction, c.720, is 55 years after the date Snodgrass (1971, 109) gives for MG pottery. The “circumstantial” reason for thinking the krater old at the time of deposition is the associated find in the same level of Cycladic Late Geometric sherds beleived to be contemporary with the destruction. If the destruction of Hama is correctly dated to c. 720 this would provide good evidence for the dating of Cycladic Late Geometric ware. But could it not be true that Attic MG is contemporary with it? Snodgrass’ argument for the MG krater being earlier is simply that the MG is stylisticly earlier, assuming there to have been a uniformity of stylistic development between Attica and the Cyclades. This is founded on an assumption that Attica led the stylistic development, it being unthinkable that the Cyclades might have initiated the Late Geometric style. It would be easy to further criticise the pottery chronology ( see part 6) but not so easy to match the effort and toil which has provided what we have. Neither is this the place for a full critique. Suffice it to say that all dates from 1125-720 must be considered provisional. We should have little faith in the proposed fine divisions commonly in use, which give priority to Athens and the Argolid as originators of the stylistic changes. How did these ideal forms transmit themselves if the sedentary populations were so low and isolated? Interestingly the PG style, during a period of least population, ranges from Athens at c.1050 through much of Greece except Arcadia and survives, apparently unchanged, until c.760 in Euboea, Elis, Phokis & Lokris, Achaea, Messenia and Laconia, all of whom skip the intervening EG and MG stages entirely (see table Snodgrass 1971; 134/5). How is this stylistic uniformity, lasting 300 years, to be explained?
In general the evidence is flimsy and not without its critics. Francis & Vickers (in Sallares 1991, 64) suggest that MG pottery was in use c.720 which poses a problem for Sallares as the proposed population increase up to the fourth century peak would require a greater average annual increase. This would not be a problem if the DA were more populous however,( implied by Morris (1987) but rejected by Sallares). The chronology is further criticised by P.J. James (in Sallares 1991, 64) who conciders the whole concept of a DA a mirage, suggesting that the BA/IA transition should be drasticly downdated across the Aegean and Middle East (see parts 5&6).
If the period were shorter it would help explain the lack of Dark Age evidence. The chief reason assumed for this problem is a massive drop in population. Desborough’s (1972; 18) estimate is one tenth its former size. Sallares(1991) supports Desborough’s and Snodgrass’ proposal of a drop in population and provides a detailed attack on Morris (1987) who suggests social reasons for the changes in burial evidence for Athens to explain the sharp increase in population and thus implying the DA was more populous. Sallares’ criticisms may not be thought valid as they display a general tendency to anecdotal scientism which has been so widely criticised in the archaeology theoretical debates of recent years. In particular his use of predator/prey cycles and the population eruption of lemmings may not be very good analogues for human populations. As for humans he mentions the well know relationship, discussed by Carneiro, between small populations and the absence of social complexity. It is suggested that populations of low density are unable to provide sufficient social complexity, indexed by craft specialisation. Although correct this does not mean that there is any necessary connection between them. The lack of craft specialisation cannot provide evidence as to the density of population. Is it not possible that high density populations may display low specialisation? China possibly the most dense and largest population on earth may provide an example. This problem is ironic since he is willing to accept the possibility of an archaeologically invisible population. The lack of evidence for the Dorians is to be explained by social factors. The Spartan edict against burial goods (ibid.: 129) recorded in the historical period is offered as an explanation, along with their mobile/ pastoralist economic activity, to account for lack of evidence. This would be acceptable if the restriction on burials was common to the DA as it may well have been. This may not be so problematic as his further criticism of Morris when he suggests that the change from the largely homogeneous PG burial practices to the heterogeneity of LG (used by Morris to show social struggle), in fact implies a disappearance on human fertility restrictions thus supporting his notion of a population rise. This is highly problematic in that the fertility restrictions are based on the “age class structure” assumed to have existed in the DA but are actually inferred from the known historical record relating to the age of marriage for Athenian males (in the period of greatest population !). ( Much of his criticism of Morris is useful where it relates to the agathoi and kakoi,)
It would be unwise to simply infer a small population from a small amount of evidence. It could be suggested that even Snodgrass(1987),(considering the thoughts on MRT by Binford,) may be distancing himself from such an extreme position. Population, he says, is illustrative of change not an explanation of change (Snodgrass 1987; 186), also that past research has focused on the negative aspects of the changes. “... Athens and Argos...would be prime sources of information about the EIA were it not for the disturbance and contamination of their earlier levels brought about by their later flourescence”(Snodgrass 1987; 172). Indeed if the DA population were really one tenth of its possible size it is of great surprise that there is any surviving evidence of the DA not completely obscured. Becoming attuned to the works of Binford and Clarke, Snodrass considers the possibility that the abandonments of representational art, monumental architecture and writing may be due to changes in depositional behaviour. Art and writing may have continued to have been executed but only in perishable materials. Monumental architecture may have been used, but in entirely new contexts. Unlikely for writing and architecture but possible for art . The fact of the lack of sites remains, however. Snodgrass admits that as of 1987 no new sites may be added to his survey of 1971. The surface surveys, extensive and intensive replicate the lack of evidence (he doesn’t say what these surveys are). Extensive surface surveys involves walking ploughed fields to search for any remains of human activity. This often relies on the evidence of pot sherds. It is of course possibly that DA inhabitants, possibly mobile communities, had less use for pottery than the previous and subsequent inhabitants offering us the possibility of an “aceramic hypotheses”. What pots they made may have been been individualistic hand-made wares whose simplicity would make it less likely to survive and stylistic idiosyncrasy hard to date . Let us, for the moment accept the termini as suggested by Snodgrass, Morris (1987) and Whitley (1991). What is the reality of the DA? In fact the phenomenon of the DA is, by and large, the absence of pottery which exhibit the so called SM, EG, MG and LG styles. Could this be accounted for by something other than a 90% drop in population? The number of sites thought to exist in the eleventh century is only forty, this is due, in essence, to the archaeological “fact” that we have uncovered only forty sites where SM and E/M PG styles can be demonstrated to exist. The skepticism implied by these statements does not indicate a need to assign the DA the status of a mirage, merely to call to question the undue reliance on the faith displayed in the finite periodical divisions as employed by Morris and Whitley. Is it not possible that these styles were characteristic of Attica and her own spheres of exchange (such as Argos, Lefkandi, Western Asia Minor) while “older” and/or less distinctive styles continued throughout the period. The DA does seem to exhibit what are called “local wares” and pottery production is likely to have been small scale and of low survival quality due to low temperature firing. Is is possible that LH styles lasted for a longer period in other areas than now thought? Rather than compress populations to fit idealised pottery periods is it not just as feasible to avoid this stadial compression.
Any one researching the DA must have a least considered the possibility that there was no such thing, due to fruitless searching through periodicals and being faced with the serious reservations concerning the chronology. Wishing for a dendrochronology sequence that will be unlikely to have a significant impact in the absence of sufficient finds of wood, is hopeless. We can, however, consider questions which do not rely too heavily on the chronology. Whitley’s (1991) work related to a single context: the graves of Attica in this the chronology may be justified since the chronology was designed for Attica. His uneven divisions are not explained, however.
Period Abbr. duration
Submycenaean SM 75
Protogeometric PG 150
Early Geometric-Middle Geometric II EG-MGI 100
Middle Geometric II - Late Geometric I MGII-LGI 140
Late Geometric II LGII 60
last 2 categories represent the period of population explosion.`
For contexts which lie beyond Athens the styles can only be used as very rough dating guides. Rather than place an undue faith on the chronology for the interpretive process archaeologists should resign themselves to topics upon which they may reasonably speculate. This chronology, I would like to suggest, has served the interests of those that would demonise the dark age, a convenient mechanism for suggesting that no society without “high” culture has worth. The discourse, within the realms of classical thought, has employed the DA to offer a false dichotomy between an horrific primitive past and a glorious civilisation. This is especially apparent in the search for the emergence of the polis form and its assumed polis/ ethnos dichotomy which, it must be said are actually two distinct forms which both evolved out of the DA. The ethnos is not simply a primitive survival which had the monopoly on coercive government. I would like to suggest that the DA culture provided the classical period with its most cherished institutions in a struggle against the coercive forces inherent in the rise of the aristocracy. While the DA culture provided the individualism necessary for aristocracy and democracy. The substratum of Greek culture provided the democracy with the notion of consultation and popular assembly in distinction to the elitism of the oriental revolution and won a temporary victory against elitism. The DA was ruled, it has been suggested, by kings (wanax) who dominated a dependant peasantry (Forrest 1966). This shows a clear misunderstanding of the dynamics of small scale societies. How could a king provide himself with the necessary legitimation without the remoteness necessary for such an institution to fool the subjects. , are thought to have been hereditary nobles, a class of aristocrats who held an ill defined and uneasy position in the community (Murray 1980; 41). The hereditary nature of power is suspect
The DA has been understood within the context of the aristocratic seventh century and late eighth centuries. Rather than understand this as novel phenomenon, terminology is anachronistic, basileus not king aristocracts in early Greece were not aristocrats as understood by modern english. we should no more assign aristoi to aristocrats than we should assign θρονοι to thrones. How many king would we have if we all sat on thrones? The DA is in need of contextualisation. In Homer we find traces of DA social structure but written after the event in the milieu in which he found himself.
Themes on the DA
Contextually big-men, cheiftainship, interpersonal authority.
A rejection of Mycenaean authority
survival of the popular assembly
basileus as orator, Hesiod
leadership by utility,
Homer reflects an emergent aristocracy
Themes on the discourse
Anachronistic language basileus≠ king, aristo≠noble, kakoi, agathoi ≠ institutional or exclusive but moral.
challenge low population = archaeologically invisible.
assumption: high culture good, low culture bad. ignoring human cost of “progress”, monumental thinking and elitism.
N. B. The abandonment of EIA sites is contemporary with other changes (writting, organised warfare, rep art, historic record, cessation of burial with arms ) where occuption does continue, the eighth century! (Snodgrass 1987, 173).
Periodisation of Attic Pottery Styles (after Morris 1987)
Style Abbr. Absolute dates length of period
Submycenaean SM 1125-1050 75
Early/Middle Protogeometric EPG/MPG 1050-975 75
Late Protogeometric LPG 975-900 75
Early Geometric I EG I 900-875 25
Early Geometric II EG II 875-850 25
Middle Geometric I MG I 850- 800 50
Middle Geometric II* MG II 800- 760 40
Late Geometric Ia LG Ia 760-750 10
Late Geometric Ib LG Ib 750-735 15
Late Geometric IIa LG IIa 735-720 15
Late Geometric IIb** LG IIb 720-700 20
Early Protoattic EPA 700-675 25
Middle Protoattic MPA 675-650 25
Late Protoattic LPA 650-625 25
Transitional Tr 625-575 25
Black Figure BF 575-525 25
Early Red Figure ERF 525-500 25
Bibliography
Desborough, V. R. d’A, 1972, The Greek Dark Ages, Ernest Benn. London…
Finley M I, 1964, The World of Odysseus, Chatto and Windus
Forrest WG, 1966, The Emergence of Greek Democracy, Wiedenfeld & Nicholson.(1978)
Morris, Ian, 1986, The Use and Abuse of Homer, Classical Antiquity, Vol 5: 1, 81-138.
Morris Ian, 1987, Burial and Ancient Society, Cambridge.
Murray, 1980, Early Greece, Penguin.
Sallares, R. 1991, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, Cornell, N.Y.
Snodgrass, 1971, The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh.
Snodgrass, 1987, An Archaeology of Greece: the present state and future scope of a discipline, University of California Press.
Whitley, James, 1991, Style and society in Dark Age Greece: the changing face of a pre-literate society 1100-700 BC, Cambridge University Press.
"What is the character and historical value of Eighth century BC literature ?”
Provenance
The earliest examples of Greek literature most often assigned to the eighth century are attributed to the authorship of two persons: Homer and Hesiod. The core of these works is represented by The Iliad and The Odyssey, associated with Homer; Theogony and Works and Days which are chief among the works thought to be penned by Hesiod. The authorship of Hesiod’s works is considered to be reliable. However, the epics of Homer are probably among the most poorly provenanced documents (partly due to their antiquity), as they are of clearly dubious authorship and origin. The epics are thought to have been transformed by interpolation, and the manuscripts have necessarily undergone re-transcription and possible modification The dialectal form of the poetry is also considered to be eclectic and generally unsatisfactory as to posit a single author or even place of origin. Despite these problems the Homeric works have laid the foundation for the study of Classics and to reconstruct the ideological basis of beliefs of the ancient world and to more clearly understand the ancient mind (has even called the corner stone of Western civilisation). It is quite remarkable the amount of attention that these works especially those of Homer have received by historians The authorship is variously attributed to an Ionian, possibly from Smyrna, who is probably a man, possibly a woman (Butler?) and maybe a group of authors either working together or in different periods, one of whom may also be. Hesiod has received less controversy it being accepted that he hailed from Boeotia and we are blessed with a some biographical information of his immediate family. The key “Homeric question” until recently concerned both the authorship and antiquity. These questions have been stretched to the limit resting uneasily on the variety of answers above at a date c. 750 but confused by the fact that the works are thought to lie at the end of a long oral tradition reaching back long before the end of the Mycenaean collapse. Which helps account for the commonly held attribution to c. 1000 which was generally accepted until quite recently (c1950, reassessed due to Linear B decipherment). The Homeric question now is concerned with what value these works might be for reconstructing history, particularly social history (Morris 1986).
The Nature of the Poems
The best way to approach Homer is to first understand the fundamental nature and purposes behind such a composition. The epics are possibly the first examples of Greek literature. It has been posited that the adoption of the Phoenician script by the Ionian Greeks was chiefly for the purpose of committing the oral epic to the written form (Powell 1995? not in BIB). The purveyors of this oral poetry are likely to have engaged gatherings of people, ostensibly, to entertain, but inevitably teaching the common myths, consciously and unconsciously including moral tales and transmitting beliefs and ideas about the material and the metaphysical worlds. In this way myth is thought to have an active structuring role both imposing and reflecting social mores and values. The Homeric works are works of literature, the termination, even fossilisation of a long tradition of story telling. How much of this tradition remains to tell us about the DA? Homer, it is clear, was consciously aware of the historicity of his stories. The narratives chiefly concern the leaders of men (and from the time of the “Mycenaean civilisation”. It is clear that Homer recalls, via oral transmission, knowledge of these times mainly due to remembrances of the material culture of that period: Bronze weapons, iron had been in common use for c. 250 years; tower shield which West (1988; 156) claims could only have derived from a time before the 13th century; boars’ tusk helmet of which we possess depictions and an example, have been found in Mycenaean contexts; the chariot exists in Homer without a clear knowledge of its use, especially the coup de’ grace massed chariot charge (Greenhalgh), the catalogue of ships and the phrase “Mycenae rich in gold” from a time when the city was relatively indigent are but a few examples. Morris suggests that archaising features are maintained for epic distancing. Homer had to make changes to do this. material culture boars’ tusk helmet, bronze weapons, and the use of the chariot, others were pure invention exaggerated wealth, monsters, talking rivers and horses, supermen. (Morris 1986; 89). Morris foregrounds the creativity of Homer in this process, perhaps too much. The Boars tusk helmet is likely to have been remembered, Mycenaean depictions have been found. The wealth was not exaggerated for the thirteenth century but only for the dark age which period the poetry is consciously contrasting. Mycenae was “rich in gold”. Is this really “pure invention”? Although these things may support a claim for reliability of oral transmission some of the material culture may have survived, treasured as heirlooms, in any event. Bronze was a commonly used material all through the DA and no great feat of memory would be required to recall that weapons had once been made of it. Perhaps the oral poet would have been best able to preserve the past when concerned with material objects, (one recalls mnemonic oratory device of place ) but to have maintained the sense of Mycenaean palace organisation would not have been so easy. Mycenae rich in gold may seem like poetic licence but manages to recall the wealth of Greece’s by-gone history. Two factors are clearly important with this assessment: exaggeration and formulae. Rhapsodes who sang their stories from place to place employed metre as a mnemonic device. Claims have been made for the reliability of verbatim transmission of the oral epic. The most prominent exponent being Milman Parry. Such claims have been criticised by Morris(1986). Claims that oral poetry in other cultures reproduces verbatim narrative are shown to be untrue. Morris uses Parry’s own words to undermine his belief in reliability of transmission. (Perhaps Morris exaggerates Parry’s claim? According to Finley(1964; 30) Parry witnessed a 60 year old illiterate Serbian bard who recited a story the size of the Odyssey over a three week period (1 week on, 1 off, 1 on, 2 hours morning and two afternoon), this was his own composition and not a traditional tale!). Morris concludes that the institutions and modes of thought to be found in Homer derive from the world in which he and his audiences lived (Morris p 82). Bards were inspired by the Muses but the “audiences judged the extent of his inspiration and the truth of the account” (e.g. Demodocus re: Phaecians in Morris; p89). Thus satisfaction of the audience may amount to collective representation. Although we might say that it is perfectly possible for a poem of extreme length to be remembered, word perfect, for generations, we must ask why should such a thing take place? Morris suggests that Il. and Od. were constantly changing poems until “fossilised” by writing them down.. The picture painted by the archaeological evidence we have for the dark age suggests that the knowledge, understanding and meaning of any Mycenaean institution was far gone. For the poems to have retained any meaning or entertainment value for a dark age audience the events, where they may have once hinged on a fuller understanding of any outdated institution would have to undergo constant revision if the poems were to have remained coherent. It is certainly the case that the oral tradition is fundamentally historical, in that the poems were consciously about the past. Thus formulaic parts may have been retained despite the fact that no one really understood their meaning. Thus it may have been possible that in the thirteenth century there was such a person as Hector but we can know nothing about him except that he was famous for breeding horses. The epithet, may indicate no more than that in Mycenaean times there was a high leader known as Agamemnon. The word anax was probably obsolete by Homer’s time and is very close to the Linear B wa-an-ka Wanax or wa-na-an-ka who lay at the head of Mycenaean. [pa2-se-re-u has been associated with Basileus etc. - association with metal ... significant? ... more later Palmer 1961; 101 ]. To this end we must reject exaggeration and all fanciful happenings, the deeds of heroes, the intercession of gods and supernatural beliefs. We might also venture to reject oriental additions and motifs. This would be easy if it could be decided which among these oriental narrative parallels had been remembered through the DA from Mycenaean times and which were added under the oriental influence of Homer’s experience. I refer to West’s “extensive thematic parallels”(1988; 170) between oriental texts and Greek traditional myth. Refuting the possibility of an earlier Mycenean borrowing which would have had to survive through the Dark Age, 500 years(750-1250) (his dates), West suggests that these were learned by Homer in the East and added to the poems:
- Mankind destroyed by God to relieve world of over population.
- Debate scene in which an angry hero raises his weapon but is restrained by two goddesses.
- A hero who asks his semi-divine mother to intercede with a higher god on his behalf ( and his mother laments his danger-courting behaviour)
- The goddess of love complaining to her parents Sky and Mrs Sky (sic) about her mistreatment at the hands of a mortal and receiving an unsympathetic response from her father.
- A goddess dressed up in finery made by the smith of the gods in preparation for an amorous encounter with a mortal
- The same smith who uses bellows and tongs to make precious metal and a house for the gods, is asked to make special weapons for a hero at the request of the heroes divine parent.
- Divine messenger who takes his staff in hand and puts shoes on his feet.
- The hero who, at hearing of the death of his companion, rages in the night ‘ like a lion deprived of its cubs’, and is visited by the companion who emerges from the underworld showing the hero the meaning of death.
These tales, then are thought to be fresh at the time of Homer, concerning as they do Achilles and Patroklus and Odysseus in the Odyssey - the younger generation of heroes, distinct from Ajax and Nestor. Where this might be significant to my thesis is how such grand visions of gods and heroes might be considered to be of largely eastern inspiration, offering Greeks an alternative world view in which the ordinary man is diminished in stature, prepared (not necessarily with intention) for the civilising polis. In this way, it could be argued, Homer is laying the ideological ground for the emerging aristocracy and centralisation. There are two distinct threads in Homer, one is fantastic, the other mundane. The mundane world is that inhabited by the ordinary everyday actions portrayed on a scale which was clearly understood by his audience, this provides the picture of Dark Age life. The fantastic world of Homer is of eastern invention and can be included with Trojan kingship, hero cults and other orientalising factors.
Aside from that, though, it is the common-place attitudes and interactions which Homer feels needs no explanation which may be the most fruitful sources for our question. The kind of activity, conduct and demeanour of the actors in the drama which may seem puzzling or incongruous. Homer is useful when describing the mundane and routine aspects of life with which we might be uncomfortable but which Homer feels needs no explanation to his own audience. If it were possible, as it might be, to excise the exaggeration and identify formulaic survivals what remains are the interrelations between the leaders and the led which will reflect the commonly held cultural logic of the time up to the mid eighth century BC.
[thought for the day: Was Hesiod a disgruntled immigrant’s son who had difficulty joining in to the local way of life, complaining about the who were levelling wealth?? “I will propose that Hesiod’s unease in Works and Days was due in part to his personal material success in the face of a judicial system which sought to level and equalise landholding.” RT8 (upgrade).]
Homer as a Source.
With the collapse of Mycenaean civilisation the Dark Age is likely to have witnessed a variety of social formations due to regional isolation, and local idiosyncrasies due to peculiarities of individual relationships due to small group size. It is likely that Homer may be describing a variety of social forms. There can be no time in history in which the historical process is arrested. Any work of literature will reflect some of the social change that occurs and attempting to see the poems as portraying a unitary and undifferentiated social reality is invalid. Such difficulties underpin the work of Snodgrass (1974) in which he concludes that there is no historical Homeric society. Such a thing as an historical society may be rescued simply by suggesting that Homer describes a world in which there was no homogenous social practice. Indeed it can be suggested that, for the Dark Age, there could be no homogeneity . Homer lived in a time of social upheaval, the eighth century “...when the customs and norms of the late Dark Age were being ruptured and violated in the social metamorphosis which would resolve Dark Age society in to Archaic society” (Rihll 1992; 50). This time is particularly significant for the importation of oriental products and craftworkers (Burkert). So in this time of social transformation, what may we ask are the social factors in Homer which are growing and which are becoming suppressed. The emerging aristoi are challenged by Homer, they reject the old ways to assert their power. The orient provides the means (ideological) for the centre to increase its power and the material culture provides the means to express their wealth and demonstrate their power. Once we see Homer in the light of this context, and not as some wished for fossil of Mycenaean society, then we might be able to sort out what the social changes are. Much work has be done in the last ten years which has asked new questions of the source material, upsetting some cherished ideas. (Rihll, Halverson & Geddes). The assembly normally considered to part of the emerging polis was perhaps already common place but actually becoming relegated to local communities (partly self governing since the centre was unable to administer this being expensive and difficult with low literacy levels ). This assembly pushed underground by the growing trend to aristocratic centralisation was to re-emerge in the fifth century of Athens. But can in no way be admitted to the early formation of the polis on a priori grounds ( see page 15).
To understand the Dark Age we must also realise that the poems come at the end of this period and so, Homer as an informant is well removed from the object our study. It is not my task to apply Homer as an historical source per se but rather, in the role of anthropologist, to reconstruct the evolution social life which led to the world of Homer.
Traditional anthropological approaches which seek out an informant are restricted by the cultural biases of that individual and the choice of that individual by the group or by the anthropologist. The informant will often wish to portray the ideal of his/her society by offering a normative account of moral and legal structures which may fail to be observable in practice. This “authorised representation” (Bourdieu 1990) provides support to the maintenance and reinforcement of the social order. Homer certainly qualifies as providing an authorised representation in this way, supported by and supporting intersocial structures through Classical times to the modern day. The authority vested in him by c.2500 years of scholarly activity may have provoked an excess of value laden connotations wholly inappropriate to the Dark Age. Homer has accumulated so many associations (perhaps more than any other source for ancient history) which would disqualify his work for use as a balanced account of his contemporary life. As a monument, to borrow an analogy (Foucault 1972; 7), the poems display the accumulation of moss and verdigris which must be peeled away layer by layer to expose the bare stone beneath: Homer’s initial conception. This is only the first step as the Dark Age is further buried by the historical processes of the eight century. As an informant on the Dark Age, Homer provides more difficulties than otherwise. The difficulties with understanding practice are laid out by Bourdieu; “... the authorised spokesman to whom the anthropologist is first referred (men rather than women, respected middle-aged or old men rather than young or marginal men), offer a discourse in line with the view that the group wants to give and have of itself, emphasising (especially to an outsider) values (e.g. those of honour) rather than interests, rules rather than strategies, etc.” (ibid. , fn 13; p298). With Homer the impression is that the values and rules are being portrayed, but displayed in practice. The characters in the narrative act out ideal values of honour and so on, they apply rules of engagement but we also see the strategies and interests that are employed. This does not make the task easier as these practices are acted out in a fantastic and ideal world which could never exist. Homer provides a double bind, the interests and strategies are played out for us to see, but are played out using the ideal rules and values. Thus the real realm of interests and strategies are subsumed by Homer’s own idealisation. For Bourdieu the Logic of Practice may be understood by demonstrating that, for real people in the real world, it is the sum of their strategies which embody the labels with which anthropologists categorise them and that this picture is one which inevitably emphasises structure over agency. It has long been realised that within “all viable systems, there must be an area where the individual is free to make choices so as to manipulate the system to his advantage” (Leach 1962 in Bourdieu 1990; 133). However the degree to which the institutionalisation of social structures in which the avenues of social action are limited is not universally applied nor are cross cultural variations necessarily appreciated. These are dependant on cultural attitudes and structural mechanisms of both the object of study and the cultural milieu of the observer. In Bourdieu the potential area of agency is wrought large. What we may be witnessing in the Dark Age is a time when that degree of social stricture was low. But viewing it from a time, now, when social strictures on individual action are at their height, we have tended to over institutionalise Homer by reflecting upon our own or more familiar institutions. This may help explain pre-Finley scholars applying a feudal model to Homer and in turn Finley and others translating as king .
Social structure in Homer
So what scope do these poems have to reconstruct the social systems of the DA? The DA is dated approximately to about 1125- 750. Its terminus, then is contemporary with the emergence of writing, even defined by it. Proving that any analysis is aware of recent changes which may be contemporary with the poems it may be possible to use any references to relations between leaders and the led to help understand Homer’s recent past.
Reactions from scholars to the amount and nature of structural information are very different. Contrast the comments of Griffin with those of Vivante for example. “The Iliad takes a highly aristocratic view of human life, the common people being kept firmly in their place”. This suggests, he says, an aristocratic audience. (Griffin 1980; 15). Vivante reacts quite differently: “There is a hint of the existence of social classes but class distinctions are nowhere emphasised”… The heroes have their definitive say, but assemblies exist and the voice of the people makes itself felt” (Vivante 1984; 193) (e.g. Il 2.198 Vivante gives the usual example Thersites). Part of the problem lays in the manner and method of the reception of the Greek language and the social realities of the milieu of its reproduction. Greek words have been translated with the nearest common equivalent. Thus for and the nearest being king, noble, even Butlers’ “knight of Gerene” for Nestor summons up images of knights in shining armour, other in the fact that what is essentially entertainment has been read for its historical content. We might reflect on other parallels with stories of Arthur, the aggrandisement of social actors in an impoverished age, bright armour where little existed. It is clearly reflected in some translations that Homeric society has been conceived of as feudal. Other scholarly works reinforced this image in the early 20th century (Geddes 1984). This was commonly held, that Homeric society was “a loose feudalism of princes ruled by an overlord who ruled by undisputed divine right”(Nilsson (1933) in Geddes (1984)). It was against this body of assumptions that Finley wrote of in the works cited in the bibliography. His picture undermined the role of king as an absolute monarch but failed to address some of the problems associated with an aristocratic picture. The World of Odysseus became the commonly held picture, and was spawned in a variety of books (Andrewes 1975, Arnheim 1977, Arnott 1972, Cook 1961, Finley 1970, Murray 1980, Starr 1962 (full list in Geddes 1984)), which reflected the assumptions held by Finley. The most important of these is that the world Homer refers to is cleaved by a major social class division between aristos and laos with a monarch of some kind remaining at the head. “ The king with power was judge, lawgiver and commander, and there were accepted ceremonies, rituals, conventions and a code of honour by which nobles lived including table fellowship, gift exchange sacrifice to the gods and appropriate burial rites. But there was no bureaucratic apparatus, no formalised legal system or constitutional machinery. The power equilibrium was delicately balanced; tension between king and noble was chronic, struggles for power frequent ” (Finley 1981; 82). The problems with this statement are manifold. Any acceptable definition of king would normally include an individual receiving status via heredity over his nation and requiring some means of bureaucratic apparatus and constitution agreed or at least understood by those subject to it. Such a system fails to meet the requirements of a kingdom if struggles for power are frequent. In other words, if there is a successful challenge to the position of leader once per generation then the definition breaks down (how often is “frequent”?). Where are the nations that are so governed? “Nobles” is also a difficult term in that it assumes a belief in “high birth” at the very least, and connotes legitimation by a monarch. Finley has applied, deductively, an assumed picture of kingship to the particulars of his Homeric world. There comes a time, when applying deduction, when the time becomes ripe to abandon the model and replace it with a new one. Such is the faith held by Finley in his conception of Greek civilisation that he cannot imagine a balanced society where there is an absence of a bureaucratic constitutional machine. His view of the DA is rather imaginative, perhaps based as it is on a Victorian notion of “primitive” and “savage” societies from which Finley would wish do disassociate the Greeks as they represent what he calls archaic society. Finley’s efforts to separate Greeks from primitive society may also be witnessed in his rejection of any role for kinship groups or tribes in his Homeric society (Finley 1970; 84). Snodgrass(1980: 25-6) similarly denies a thorough role for an “apparatus of tribal survivals”, including phratry, tribe and genos, which, he says were invented as categories for the organisation of military affairs and minor religious observances by the emerging polis (Ferguson 1991; 175). But even if so, these were likely to have been based on surviving customary structures, subverted to assist further centralisation. These points of view may have been unfortunate as they may have robbed Finley and Snodgrass of a wealth of ethnographic analogy which would have enabled “Homeric society” to become more coherent. It was, perhaps Qviller(1980) who first coined the phrase “big-man” in relation to the Homeric . This immediately provided a viable alternative to Finley’s dis-functional monarchy. By reference to the poems (ibid.; 116) he points out the instability of leadership, characteristic of leadership in “primitive communities, in which stratification and significant structural and political differentiation are only incipient”(ibid.). He goes on. A big-man does not hold office but his power rests in his person and in what he can provide to the community. Prowess in war and display of wealth linked to a network of reciprocity enables him to call in favours. Wealth, in pre-monetary societies, is most effectively stored by giving and thus collecting obligations of lesser individuals, all of whom are part of a network. His interests are parallel with the interests of the group and this is demonstrated in public feasts. This is in some sense egalitarian since big-men must compete with each other for the attentions of the wider group and anyone who has sufficient surplus may set himself up as a big-man. According to Sahlins (1963; 291-2), in Melanesia, this is achieved by first allying himself with his immediate kin, increasing the number of his wives (in-laws involve the collection of economic favours), attracting widows (more women mean more pigs by providing fodder through horticulture) and orphans. Once a greater economic community has been established it enables the big-man to provide young single men with bride-wealth payments and thus to the inclusion of new families into the group of followers. The fund of power is sustained by generosity and pressure to maintain his renown requires giving to the wider population. This relationship clearly survives into the Classical period with the demands made by the people for the payment of liturgies (Gernet 1981; 285, Qviller 1981; 154/5) . The difference being that in a civilised society the people have to enforce these payments.
Specialised Words for Class
Recent efforts have challenged this view. Various works now deny the equation with “King” (Drews …, Halverson …, Rihll…), and the meaning and existence of “ an aristocratic society” is also challenged. ( e.g. Starr 1992; 7 “in the Homeric world there were heroes but no aristocrats”). It is clear that a general revision of the entire question of the social structures of the Homeric World and the Dark Age has now been undertaken. Geddes points out the lack of a specialised terminology for class divisions(from Calhoun 1934). The words that students of Greek are familiar with are not present in Homer. Words such as These are all of post Homeric origin and begs the question, if Calhoun’s thesis is incorrect then why should such words have been added to the Greek vocabulary after Homer? Words which do seem to reflect social distinctions are used in ways which indicate talents and personal traits of individuals (L+S ,p 781) , relatively. (e.g. Il II, 760 the best horses VII, 221 best leather worker… Il XVII, 102“”- is this a noble war cry? …). Demos andare also point out to but vaguer terms than would be suggested for the identification of a class ridden society. When Apollo rains arrows on the army (), Geddes asks if it is reasonable that Homer meant to suggest that Apollo only meant to kill the lower orders?? is a possible exception which may need a more specialised treatment than Geddes rather dismissive attitude. He offers as a modern comparison: that referring to people as “lady” or “gentleman” does not indicate a strict social division so why then should the use of in Homer? Halverson(1986) , in attacking the assumption that a state exists on Ithaka, asks what can the said to represent? 109 of them the suitors are refereed to as etc. In 1985 Halverson states “In the Odyssey there is no real class-tension, or even class-consciousness to be found in the story; second that kingship, in any real monarchical sense, does not exist and is therefore not an issue; and third, that the polis in the sense of a political state, hardly exists in the world of the Odyssey, which therefore lack any ’polis ideology’” (also Seaford below). The Od. is a defence of the oikos way of life. Rihll (1992 & 1986) builds on this picture also. The definable size of the social unit in Homer is no bigger than the oikos (1986). In terms of reference to the key conflict in the Iliad, Achilles is the traditionalist who resists Agamemnon who represents and up and coming leadership and emergent aristocracy(1992) which flies against the received view that Achilles is a kind of rebel attacking the traditional position of Agamemnon. It is Agamemnon who continually claims, perhaps falsely, that he is best among the Achaians (methinks he doth protest too much?). A then is the leader of an oikos(, perhaps the head of a kinship relationship?- though this is not made explicit in Homer, could it be one of his omissions of the obvious??) . However, Rihll leaves hanging the question, are all heads ? If Homeric society is based on kinship structure would he have thought to mention it? If this was commonly understood by the meaning of the word then surely no explanation would be necessary by Homer. If true, then we would have a wealth of ethnographic parallels from around the world with which Homeric or pre-Homeric society could be understood. An the Homeric can be more clearly translated as “patriarch”. Some interesting similarities emerge. The fundamental unit of Dahomean society, described by Diamond(1951), is the patrilineal, or extended family which consists of a man his wives, children, younger brothers and children occupying a family compound subsisting around its fields. A series of compounds makes a village. Property is held by the patriarch for the group. “At first sight ,the joint family head appears to be an autocrat. In actuality, however, he is the family’s symbol of solidarity.” (Diamond 1951; 16). The patriarch provides the link for the members of the compound to the ancestors and is revered. Such reverence is fundamentally self- respect to the group. The joint family head may eventually become worshipped as an ancestor himself. Perhaps the similarly became regarded as the founder hero. Land in Dahomey is inalienable (ibid.; 21) and indivisible in the next generation preventing the fragmentation of the extended family and the rise of atomistic nuclear families which are economically weak, vulnerable to expropriation by “higher powers”. Instead each founder became a culture hero and the size of the social unit is sustained. New Joint families may bud off, provided land is available, to the joy of the sub-clan. This will extend the network of families but no one joint family will prevail as no individual may head more than one family compound (ibid.; 18/19). Differences include polygamy and the enclosed compound which will involve psycho-structural differences in cultural logic unknown in most of the DA. The involves a more open system in which the heads may communicate agonistically.
At first glance there seem to be two or three types of social structure operating in Homer’s world. The closest we come to a true Kingship is at Ilium. Troy’s dynasty seems to have existed for six generations (Il 20, 215 ff). The Phaiakians also seem to possess a stable system, but one quite different from the Trojans, which may provide a clue as to how the emerging aristocracy were able to concentrate their power. Alkinoos is but one among twelve others. They cooperate equally in the gift giving to Odysseus (Od. VIII, 392), perhaps having abandoned, by agreement, wasteful competitive reciprocity. Perhaps Homer is providing the disorganised Odysseus with some examples of how best to control Ithaka? These foreigner systems are in stark contrast to the situation on Ithaka. An uncomplicated analysis of the aims of the suitors is not incompatible with the view that Odysseus may be closer to a big-man than to a king. So obviously transparent is this on reflection it begs the question: why has ever been translated as king in an Homeric context. Here, on Ithaka, there is no succession. Odysseus’ father has no power neither does his son. The suitors all of whom may be number 108 and are in competition with each other. They do not, however, seek leadership of a state since nothing of the kind exists there. Here the suitors have three aims. If Odysseus’ position is understood as king of Ithaka then the three aims of the suitors are contradictory. They aim to 1) That one Antinoos should rule in place of Odysseus (Od. XXII. 48 ff), That they should 2) divide up his estate ( and ) (Od. XVI. 384-6) and that 3) Penelope should return to her father and remarry one of the suitors. According to Halverson (1986) the estate of Odysseus is identical to the “state of Ithaka” and Odysseus’ provides for his position as “king”, he concludes, therefore, that no state exists on Ithaka as the aims of the suitors would be incompatible. However, the first aim, that Antinoos should rule must suggest that the position of ruler occupies an abstract position not related to the of Odysseus. Of course this could be argued to be a familiar form of kingship, one which transcends, like statehood, the physical objects from which it is constituted (The inheritance of royal property is merely an adjunct to the inheritance of the title). Whatever position of leadership is possessed by Odysseus goes beyond the physical, therefore. It is not beyond the bound of imagination that a king could exist without property provided that he possesses some form of bureaucracy. In the absence of any institutions, though, a title of this kind could not be maintained. The only way the aims of the suitors could be understood is that aim 2 is necessary to achieve aim 1. The property of Odysseus is the very means of his leadership. He has maintained his position by sharing out the surplus of his estate. He is aristos because he gives the most, becoming best by popular agreement not due to the fact of his wealth, though he might be the most wealthy on Ithaka, but because there are many who own him obligations. This is wealth beyond gold. His leadership relies on his generosity but does not exist in the sense of a perpetual state (Od. I,394-404) , neither Laertes nor Telemachos have any power. The suitors fear the possible rise of the people “from round about”, or from Pylos & Sparta (Od. II. 325-7) but in the absence of Odysseus, Telemachos is unable to call in the obligations that Odysseus has created among the other inhabitants of Ithaka… It has been suggested that aim 3 was dependant on aim 1 : that in some way Penelope guaranteed Odysseus’ position. It is unlikely that any form of matrilineal inheritance was present with what we know about later Greek society. It could be that Penelope’s dowry was sufficiently large and carried with it powerful links to her original to seriously reduce Odysseus’ position if one of the suitors could succeed in marriage. In any event her return to her own estate would ipso facto be an admission of her husband’s death. So achieving this aim of the suitors would serve to challenge Telemachos by reducing the network of obligations as it is clear that there is at least potential for a call to arms.
Homer and the Polis - this is a topic which will require separate treatment.
According to Seaford the question as to the existence of the polis in Homer is divided (pros: Luce, Sakellariou, Scully, Hall. cons: Finley, Halverson, Gschnitzer, Posner in Seaford 1995, p 1 fn 4). His first example of what he calls the main constituents is “an assembly conducting public business”. This along with the other identifying factors, he claims, are rare and unimportant in the narratives.
Factors which are thought to characterise the , which are present in Homer. (Seaford 1994, 2)
• assembly conducting public business
• judicial authority
• urban centre with public buildings
• communal ritual
• patriotism
• sense of belonging to a polis
These factors are only significant to a determination of the existence of the polis in Homer if they are exclusive to the polis. Not all are. I take particular exception to the assumption that assemblies and the formation of the polis are synonymous. Which polies outside of Athens had assemblies? Assemblies are not normally thought of as something novel - in any event who says that these are necessarily a feature of the polis? We only had democracy in Athens in any event - and this was probably due to Kleisthenes having to appeal to the masses in order to secure his own power, suggesting that popular representation came very late. Was their emergence contemporary with centralisation? Is it possible that Seaford like other Classicists tends to attribute the best characteristics of civilisation to its defining qualities… But rather than assigning Classics to a kind of religion of civilisation perhaps we might just challenge this and one or two others of its assumptions. Public debate is not the preserve of civilisation. Indeed it is quite rare. Civilisation may be said to work best when some form of representation is present but in small scale societies representation is personal and assemblies of some kind are fairly common admitting the best speakers by public approval. - Germanic military democracy etc.- (Looking for some anthrolpological examples. ) Iceland. - Where men are able to influence leadership. Imagine Germans in their assembly stamping their feet for an unpopular call to war, cheering away their own lives? The smaller in scale a society is the more likely that individuals can at least influence what happens. The much used abused Thersites only attacked after repeated insults…soldiery are present due to their oaths, compulsion is subtle. The very fact that he spoke up indicates that such a thing was possible.
Factors in Homer suggested by Seaford which suggest the absence of the
• Little sign of Monarchy as a centralised system
• No succession rules
• No state apparatus, including territory
• No civic virtues - an outcast is = “without phratry, law & hearth” or brotherless, nefarious and homeless but not without a
• No public finance or magistracies (law as opposed to custom for enforcement)
• No formal duties, (taxes, military service), Nostalgia is for the and
My own suggestions for Factors which should belong to the DA.
- assemblies conduction ritual and social business. Agora.
- No leadership legitimation outside of personal utility to the group. Big men
- No publicly financed judicial, executive or military authority
- Sense of belonging to /with communal activities.
The village assembly of the DA provides the later polis with the model for a forum for public business - the “democracy” that survived through the DA in the demos from the Mycenaean institution of the damos provided the polis with a unique difference over the city states of the east- a model for political representation not guided by the absolute power of religion or king.
Notes
• The assemblies were not legitimate or illegitimate but merely beyond the concern of the “leadership” whose interests went beyond the local to gift exchange relationships with those beyond the local level. (There are parallels here in Sahlins(1963) with the internal/external concerns of the big-men.) The assemblies were simply what the did in order to agree upon a course of concerted effort, to participate in celebrations and to generally engage with their fellows, exchanging information on husbandry. Participation in external activities was not the preserve of another group but simply what some did and others did not. In the Trobriand islands, the Kula ring in not joined in by all men, but an extra-mural activity with little special place in the internal dynamics of the social system. Where such activity may have been important in Greece for the formation of social differentiation is that material gains were the possible consequence of this activity. Such gains, in the absence of a monetary system, were less likely to result in secure wealth as the value exchange of luxury items was based on faith. Although money, too is based on faith it is more easily quantifiable and its abstract value provides a universal ruler for comparison of values. Avoiding equations such as (2 swords = 10 loaves, 10 loaves = 1 sheep, 1 sword = 5 sheep). External activities were undertaken by (acting externally??). Piracy is a word whose definition has been modified according to the social milieu, from a subsistence activity to a criminal activity. To avoid anachronism pirate might be better rendered viking? Links to “male sporting culture” which, in the absence of the state, is neither legitimate or illegitimate
• The assemblies of Homer, common to DA life were a feature of the village. The age of Homer is the age in which the aristocracies were about to emerge. Eighth century - LG pottery eastern imports etc. - who pays for this luxury? Does Seaford really think that the assemblies survived the 6th & 7th with the excesses at the time of Drakon (c. 620)? Perhaps the demos were inspired by the memory of the Homeric assembly to reinstate some form of representation? Aided of course by the popular Peisistratus, would he have know it.
An Homeric Bibliography
Bourdieu, P., 1990, The Logic of Practice, Polity Press. Cambridge.
Burkert W. 1992, The Orientalizing Revolution, Harvard University Press
Diamond, S. 1951, Dahomey: A Proto-State in West Africa.(Doctoral Dissertation Columbia Univ.) University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor Michegan.
Drews R, 1983, Basileus, Yale.
Finley M I, 1964, The World of Odysseus, Chatto and Windus.
Finley M I, 1970, Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages, London.
Finley M I,(1981a) 1957, “Homer and Mycenae: Property and Tenure.” in Historia Vol. 6, pp133ff
Finley 1981 b, Marriage, sale and Gift in the Homeric World, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, London, Chatto & Windus.
Finley M I, 1964, The World of Odysseus, Chatto and Windus
Finley 1981 c, Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages, Chatto and Windus.
Geddes, A. G. 1984, Who’s who in Homeric Society?, Classical Quarterly 34(I), pp 17-6.
Greenhalgh, 1972, Patriotism in the Homeric World, Historia 21, pp 528-37
Griffin, J. 1980, Homer, Oxford University Press
Halverson, J. 1985, Social Order in the Odyssey, Hermes Zeitschrift Für Klassische Philologie, 113, pp 129- 145
Halverson, J. 1986, The Succession Issue in the Odyssey, Greece & Rome, XXXIII, No. 2, Oct., pp 119-128.
Morris, I., 1986, The Use and Abuse of Homer, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 5: 1, 81-38.
Rihll, T. 1986, Kings and Commoners in Homeric Society, Liverpool Classical Monthly, Vol. 11; 6, pp 86-91.
Rihll, T. 1992, (1987), The Power of the Homeric , Homer 1987: Proceedings of the 3rd Liverpool Greenbank Colloquium, pp 39-50.
Rose, P. W., 1975, Class ambivalence in the Odyssey, in Historia 24, pp 129-49.
Sahlins M 1963, Poor man, Rich man, Big man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 5, pp 285-303.
Seaford, R. 1994, Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Snodgrass, 1974, An Historical Homeric Society?, JHS XCIV, pp 114ff.
Thomas C G, 1966, “The Roots of Homeric Kingship”, in Historia 15, pp 387-407.
Vivante, P.1984, Homer, Yale University Press
West, M. L. 1988, The Rise of the Greek Epic, Journal of Hellenic Studies, cviii, pp 151-172.
Wolff H. J. 1946, The Origin of Judicial :litigation among the Greeks, Traditio, 4: 31-87.
If i see you change your avatar again, I think I’m gonna puke.
It’s okay, bloke; I’m out of your league, anyway — so go ahead and purge yourself of any lingering hope. The bucket is to the left.
Well I suppose that its okay you love yourself so much as no one else shall.