An Introduction to Archaic Greece (c. 750-500 BC)

In the last episode on the general history of Ancient Greece, we saw that the so-called Dark Ages may not have been as bad as had previously been believed. In those rather mysterious centuries between 1100 and 750 BC, it's true that there was a general decline in the overall population, economic stagnation, and instability throughout much of the Greek mainland, but civilization didn't come to a halt. Gradually from the ashes of the great Mycenaean palaces and citadels, arose a new society where bronze was steadily being replaced with iron, hilltop strongholds and large towns were developing into little city-states with their own distinctive identities, and literacy was gradually returning as a new alphabet was adopted throughout much of the Greek-speaking world. The formative age of Greek civilization, known as the Archaic Period, had arrived. For most historians, the Archaic Period of Greek history refers to the years between the end of the Dark Ages, around 750 BC, to just before the Classical Era, about 500 BC. The latter date is often moved depending upon the scholar, with many marking the Greek victory over the Persians at Mycale in 479 BC as the official end of the Archaic Period and the start of the Classical Era. You'll find both dates, and even others, in many books on the history of Ancient Greece. The term Archaic essentially means and was used by art historians to describe this time frame because they thought that the style of art created during this period was rather stiff and stuffy-looking in comparison to the later, more natural and varied artwork of the Classical and Hellenistic Eras. The fall of Mycenaean civilization between 1200 and 1100 BC left a political vacuum in the Greek world that allowed for the development of small, independent settlements on the mainland. This autonomy was facilitated by Greece's rugged and mountainous terrain, which physically isolated most villages and towns, and made constant communication with other communities quite difficult. It's from these settlements, though, that the Greek city-state, or polis, emerged. Despite their relative isolation from one another, by the 9th century BC, the people of these settlements more or less shared a common culture, religion, and language. The 8th century BC saw a steady growth of the Greek population by about 2-3% a year. The reasons for this growth are debated. Some argue that improved farming techniques led to greater crop yields, which increased the food supply and enabled families to have more children. The relative isolation of many Greek settlements may have also been a contributing factor, as disease spread less rapidly and major wars or famines causing widespread death and destruction are thought to have been rather rare. It's likely that several factors played a role. Though many aspects of Greek society may have been improving, life for the average person was still extremely difficult. Writing around 700 BC, the famed Greek poet Hesiod described life in Eastern Greece, and highlighted how men and women had to work extremely hard to survive, let alone succeed. In perhaps his most famous poem, Works and Days, he tells us, For now is truly a race of iron, and men never rest from labour and sorrow by day, and from perishing at night. And the gods shall lay sore trouble upon them. But, notwithstanding, even these shall have some good mingled with their evils. Between us and excellence the immortals have put the sweat of our brow. For working you will be better loved by both gods and men, for they greatly dislike the idle. If your heart within you desires wealth, do these things and work with work upon work. Hesiod's most scathing commentary was directed at those who held power in his world, specifically the basileus. Plural for basileus, which then and throughout history meant king or high lord, the term was used by Hesiod to describe anyone with power, whether they were landowners, magistrates, or aristocrats who were socially above others within the community. In Works and Days, he describes them as corrupt and admonishes them to fear the god Zeus and divine justice. Basileus give this verdict no little thought, for immortals are ever present among men, and they see those who, with crooked verdicts, spurn divine retribution and grind down one another's lives. Upon this earth that nurtures many, Zeus can levy thirty thousand deathless guardians of mortal men, who keep a watchful eye over verdicts and cruel acts as they rove the whole earth clothed in mist. Justice is a maiden and a daughter of Zeus. The gods of Olympus respect her noble title, and whenever men mistreat her through false charges, she rushes to sit at the feet of Zeus, and she denounces the designs of men who are not just, so that the people pay for the reckless deeds and evil plans of Basileus whose slanted words twist her straight path. Keep her commands, O gift-devouring Basileus, and let verdicts be straight. Yes, lay your ways aside. He that wrongs another man wrongs, above all, himself, and evil schemes bring more harm on those who plot them. The eye of Zeus sees all, notices all. It sees this, too, if it wishes, and knows exactly what sort of host this polis is to justice. Unlike the Homeric epics, which by the Archaic Period recounted stories of heroes and events from long ago, Hesiod's works told about the present world in which he lived, and focused on the struggles of ordinary people and their lives in the emerging polis, or city-state. We generally define a polis as a geographical area comprising of a city and its adjacent territory that forms a single, self-governing political unit. In simpler terms, it was a city and the surrounding land, including small towns and villages, that supported it. This concept wasn't entirely new in Greece, as archaeologists and scholars of Hellenic studies believe that major Mycenaean palatial centers had been set up in a similar fashion centuries earlier. What distinguished the city-states of the Archaic Period from those of the Bronze Age was the type of government that many of them would ultimately adopt. The main or capital city, which was almost always the largest and best protected settlement, served as the focal point of the polis. In the Homeric epics, the word polis actually means town or city, but in Archaic Greece, it was much more than that, for it also included the surrounding territory and the people who lived and worked on that land. Thus, Athenians were not just those who lived in the city of Athens, but all of the free people who inhabited Attica's 140 villages and towns. It didn't matter if one lived on the Acropolis, just outside of Athens' city walls, or 26 miles away on the coasts of Marathon. Regardless of where he or she lived within Attica, that individual could call him or herself an Athenian. The size of a polis varied. Many consisted of a small town with one or two nearby villages, while some of the larger ones may have had 50 times that number. The way in which outlying settlements joined a polis also varied. In many instances, unification between a polis and a neighboring town was peaceful and often voluntary. Cultural and religious similarities, such as having the same patron deity, as well as issues of security, since there was strength in numbers, could facilitate the process of several settlements coalescing into a single polis. This was actually the case with both Corinth and Megara. On the flip side, violence was another method often used to coerce a village or town into joining a polis, such as when the Spartans forced the nearby village of Amiklei to formally unite with Sparta. Other regions had a completely different setup. Unlike Attica, nearby Veotia also comprised of numerous towns and villages, but they lacked political unity under one leading city. While the inhabitants of every town in Attica considered themselves to have been Athenians, the more independently minded Veotians, despite sharing many cultural similarities, primarily identified themselves by their immediate city. They were Thebans, Orchimenians, or Plataeans first, and Veotians second. The predominant form of government during the Archaic period was what the Greeks referred to as oligarchia, or oligarchy in English. In this system, power rested with a small number of individuals, primarily landholding aristocrats. These oligarchs wielded significant economic power, which translated into considerable political influence over their respective societies. Beneath them were magistrates who managed the administrative, military, judicial, and religious affairs of the polis. Over time, additional positions such as treasurer and head of public works were also established. Magistrates typically served for a specified term, which in city-states was just one year, after which the holder of said office couldn't hold it again until a specified period of time had passed. This allowed for both the officeholder's power to be curbed and also gave other members of the aristocracy an opportunity to hold important positions within the community. The most influential body in the typical polis was the council, which comprised of high-ranking aristocrats and former magistrates. Depending upon the specific laws of the polis, one's tenure in office here could vary. Some members served for multiple years while others for life. The council's primary responsibility was to draft the laws and policies for the polis. Most city-states also had an assembly comprised of freemen of the polis. The assembly was responsible for significant decisions such as those involving matters of war and peace, legislation, and the election of officials. It also served as a platform for citizens to deliberate and vote on various community issues. In ancient Greece, a citizen was often defined as one having a share in the public life of the polis. However, this didn't mean that all citizens were of equal status. In city-states where an oligarchy was more influential, the assembly's power was very constrained. Several city-states adopted a political structure whereby the power of most people was limited by allowing only free, property-holding men to take part in civic life, which excluded the polis' poorest members. However, towards the end of the archaic period, the tide in most city-states had turned to favor members of the polis' assembly. Membership in most assemblies extended to all free male citizens, regardless of their status, and its powers to make policies for the general welfare of the polis gradually increased to the point where the influence of the oligarchs in some city-states became minimal. There were exceptions to this trend. City-states such as Sparta, Corinth, and Argos held on to their oligarchic forms of government and in some cases even had kings. Sparta, for example, had two hereditary kings from two of its most respected families, the Aegeids and the Europontids. Despite this, their authority over Spartan society was overseen and constrained by a board of five magistrates, or ephors, whose job it was to make sure that each king ruled lawfully and in the interests of the Spartan state. If the kings were found to be lacking in any of their duties, the ephors could prosecute them. The two kings did retain considerable power when it came to warfare, and usually at least one of them led the main Spartan army into battle against their enemies. In Corinth, oligarchic rule was maintained by the powerful clan known as the Bacchias. Claiming descent from a legendary Corinthian basileus named Bacchus, they ruled over Corinth until 747 BC when their last king, Telestis, was killed by members of his own family. The 200 and so remaining of this so-called royal clan are said to have taken over the leadership of Corinth and were henceforth called, or known collectively as, the Bacchias. Not all of them may have been descendants of Bacchus, but they used this narrative to further legitimize their control over the government. To further maintain their hold over Corinth, they also only married other Bacchias. In 657 BC, the Bacchias were overthrown by the tyrant Cypselos. Several other smaller city-states had similar leading families claiming some lofty lineage, but just like Corinth, they were all eventually overthrown or displaced by rival oligarchs or tyrants. Between 725 and 650 BC, warfare between Greek city-states took on a different character, with battles being fought by heavily armed citizen-soldiers called opletai, or in English, hoplites. By 650 BC, the hoplites' main weapons were a long, heavy spear and a short sword. For defense, hoplites wore a metal, usually bronze helmet, a bronze breastplate, and shin and knee protectors. They also carried a new type of round, wooden shield covered with a thin sheet of bronze called a hoplon, from which we get the word, hoplite. About three feet in diameter, the hoplon was held by inserting the left arm through a central band and gripping a strap at the rim. This allowed the hoplite to fight shoulder to shoulder with half of their body protected by the next man's shield. The men were arranged into a tightly-packed formation called a phalanx, which was typically eight rows deep. The life of a hoplite was difficult, to say the least. On average, the hoplite's weapons, armor, and helmet altogether weighed about 70 pounds, and as battles were usually in the heat of summer, wearing and carrying all of this equipment was extremely uncomfortable. Since much of it was made of bronze, it was also very expensive. Men who were economically at the lower end of society couldn't become hoplites unless they were sponsored by those with the means to equip them. Hoplite battles were extremely brutal and bloody. A hoplite phalanx would charge together against their enemy as a wall of shields and spears, with each side attempting to pierce gaps into their opponent's formation. Men screamed in agony as their flesh was penetrated and torn to pieces by the enemy's spears. Blood splattered everywhere. The wounded who fell often cried out in pain as they were trampled to death by the advancing soldiers. This is actually a PG version of what likely occurred in a hoplite battle. If there was a bright side to hoplite warfare, it was that battles between hoplites were fairly brief and resulted in relatively few fatalities. Once a side broke ranks, they often fled the field of battle, and usually their opponents would not pursue them, so that ultimately, perhaps less than 15% of the hoplites in any given conflict suffered any fatal wounds. It's clear that one had to be extremely brave to fight and hold the line against their enemies in such a battle. Retreating and fleeing were viewed by many Greeks not only as personally disgraceful, but also as a betrayal of one's polis. Fighting alongside one's comrades in the service of one's polis was a great honor, as the Spartan poet, Tyrtaeus, tells us in his poems. This is the highest worth, the final human prize, and the fairest for a bold young man to win. It benefits the whole community and state, when with a firm stance in the foremost rank, a man bides steadfast with no thought of shameful flight, laying his life and stout heart on the line, and, standing by the next man, speaks encouragement. It is a noble thing for a good man to die, falling among the front ranks, fighting for his fatherland. After a battle ended, both sides came to claim and bury their dead. They would then leave for home to take care of their farms or work at their businesses until their polis needed them to fight again. As the overall lot of the people on the Greek mainland improved, the population in most city-states in Greece skyrocketed. Greece, though, is an extremely rocky and mountainous country, and so as the population grew, the amount of arable land that could be used for farming became even more scarce. This had the effect of further dividing the social and economic chasm between the aristocratic, land-holding oligarchs, and the rest of the people. The aristocrats didn't just control a lot of agricultural land, they controlled the best land. The years of the Archaic Period had also seen the improvement of farming techniques and technology in Greece, which resulted in higher yields and increased profits for the already wealthy land-holding class. Along with grain, the estates of many oligarchs produced large quantities of olive oil and wine. Unfortunately, the success of the large and wealthy landowners did not trickle down to the masses, most of whom were poor farmers. In fact, many scholars believe that it only made their situation much worse. During much of the Archaic Period, most farmers in Greece eked out a living working on small plots that they rented from wealthy landholders in return for a portion of the harvest. Others mortgaged what little property they had and paid their lenders a portion of their crops to pay off their debt. This system may have worked in years of plenty, but during poor harvests or droughts, many families lost their land because they were unable to fulfill their crop commitments to their landlords or creditors. Along with those tied to the land, there were many seasonal and contract workers who were given shelter, food, and even clothing in return for their labor on large farms and estates. It's extremely difficult to get exact numbers with regard to the demographics of Greece at the time, but scholars estimate that anywhere from 12 to 20% of those on the mainland belonged to the aristocratic, landholding, upper class. On the other end, about 20 to 30% could have been considered to have been poor or part of what we'd today call the lower class. Other than hoping for good harvests while farming, there was very little that they could do to improve their plight, though some did take up jobs as low-wage sailors and crewmen. While such positions may not have paid any more than farming, it at least allowed for some mobility and a chance to see the world beyond their respective polis. The rest of the people of the polis were what Aristotle in his book Politics called the middle, or those who were neither very rich nor very poor, a group who we'd today refer to as a sort of middle class. Compared to the lower classes and peasants, they had much greater opportunities for both economic and social advancement. The most entrepreneurial of the three broad classes, those in the middle often had family-run businesses in tanning, metal and woodworking, stone cutting, shipbuilding, and many other trades. Over time, some of the more successful at their craft acquired significant fortunes, with some even rivaling those of the old money aristocrats. However, the lack of economic opportunities and social mobility for the vast majority of middle and lower class citizens, along with overcrowding in most city-states, enticed many to pack up their belongings and seek their fortunes elsewhere. Beginning around 750 BC and continuing steadily for the next two centuries, countless Greeks left their mainland homes to emigrate to islands and coastal areas, not just throughout the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, but also reaching as far as the eastern shores of the Black Sea in present-day Georgia. For many, leaving the Greek mainland was the only way that they and their families could ever hope of attaining a plot of land of their own. In most cases, the eldest son inherited the father's land and all its assets. The other sons had to seek their older brother's permission to remain on the land, and any share they received was usually very small. Most Greek colonies were formed in the following way. A mother city, or metropolis, had to choose a site for a colony, as well as its founder or leader, known as an oikistos. The oikistos was not only in charge of the colony's organization and defense, but also for assigning plots of land to the new settlers and establishing its religious sanctuaries. If the colony ended up being successful, the oikistos would generally become the ruler of the new polis, and often its guardian hero after death. Those who settled in the colony automatically relinquished their citizenship from their mother city. Despite this, ties to the mother city remained extremely strong due to bonds of kinship and the continued practice of shared cultic rites, with many priests and priestesses also emigrating to the colony. Politically though, the colonies were independent, which starkly contrasted with the colonies of the European age of exploration some 2,000 years later. Such colonies in the Americas, Africa, and Asia were created explicitly for the benefit of, and were politically tied to, their respective mother countries. During the Archaic period, there were two main phases of colonization. The first was directed around southern Italy and parts of the western Mediterranean. Led by the city-states of Chalcis and Eritrea on Avia, traders from these two city-states set up a trading post as early as 775 BC on the island of Pitecusae, just 10 kilometers off the coast of Naples, Italy. Today known as Ischia, Pitecusae was chosen due to its proximity to the Italian mainland, where Greeks could trade with the peninsula's local population. It's still debated as to whether or not Pitecusae was just a trading outpost, or had the trappings of a full-fledged colony, but regardless, it was an extremely successful settlement and attracted people not only from Greece and the Aegean, but also Etruscans from Italy and even Phoenicians from the Levant. Some have estimated that by 700 BC, the island may have had between 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. Other nearby areas of southern Italy and Sicily were also colonized, with the most famous colony being Syracuse, which was founded in 733 BC by settlers from Corinth and Tenea. Other notable Greek colonies in the Mediterranean included Chirini in what's today Libya, and Massalia in southern France at the site of the modern city of Marseille. The second phase of Greek colonization during the Archaic period took place around 650 BC and focused on the areas of Thrace in the northern Aegean and the shores of the Black Sea, including Pontic Olbia in what's today southern Ukraine, and Sinope on the coast of northern Turkey. The successes and failures of Greek colonies varied significantly. Some, such as Syracuse, flourished and exerted dominance over their including the indigenous tribes of Sicily. However, other colonies struggled to establish themselves and frequently clashed with the local populations in their newly settled areas. This was more likely the further away the colony was from the Greek mainland, such as in the case of some of the settlements around the Black Sea. Overall though, Greek colonization was a net positive for Greek civilization because it connected not just disparate parts of the Greek-speaking world, but also trading partners from other cultures, states, and empires. Greeks on the mainland exported pottery, wine, and olive oil to various colonies, and in return they received much-needed goods such as wheat, important metals such as iron, timber, and other valued commodities. Despite the increased prosperity of many city-states and the success of several colonies, there were still many economic, social, and political problems within Greek society. Partly as a result of this, between the years 670-500 BC, the governments of a great number of city-states were seized illegally or overthrown by a tyrannos, or tyrant, who ruled as an absolute ruler or dictator. While today the word tyrant and the form of government known as a tyranny may have negative connotations, during the Archaic period, these were neutral terms. A tyrant could be kind or cruel, competent or incompetent. Many within their respective polis actually preferred them to the older, repressive oligarchies that had previously governed over them. Several tyrants, at least initially, had a lot of popular support, especially amongst the lower rungs of society. Interestingly, all of the known tyrants of the period came from aristocratic backgrounds. Tyrants often came to power by taking advantage of the factionalism and widespread corruption that plagued many of their respective city-states. A good number, perhaps the majority, rose to power through force, often with the support of fellow aristocrats who sought help against rivals and believed that they would fare better under a single ruler than amidst the competing oligarchic families and their conflicting interests. In some cases, opposing factions would compromise by granting power to an individual acceptable to all parties. Most tyrants though received their support from the masses, who were sick of the interests of their local oligarchs coming ahead of them. For this reason, many historians view the rise of tyrannies as a precursor to the more democratic systems of government that would soon emerge. The rule of tyrants in ancient Greece was short-lived. There's not one tyranny that lasted more than three generations, and most ended shortly after the death of the original tyrant. One reason for the rapid demise of tyranny is that since the system depended on just one man, a tyrant could easily be overthrown or assassinated, resulting in their government collapsing in an instant. Also, once the conditions that had given rise to the tyranny had passed, most city-states would either revert back to their older forms of government or come up with new ones, such as democracy. For the Greeks as a whole though, there was a much greater threat on the horizon. In the east, the balance of power had changed to favor relative newcomers on the international scene, the Persians. Since 550 BC, the Persians under their king, Cyrus the Great, had been expanding their new empire in all directions. By 546 BC, it had spread to the eastern Aegean, encompassing the Greek city-states of Ionia. By 510 BC, the Persians under Darius the Great had secured parts of Thrace and received earth and water, a symbol of submission, from the northern Greek kingdom of Macedonia. Most in the Greek city-states further south knew that it would only be a matter of time before the great king of Persia set his gaze on their lands, if he hadn't already. The Achaemenid Persian Empire of Darius the Great was the world's only superpower at that time, comprising of numerous nations and possessing seemingly unlimited resources in manpower and treasure. In contrast, the Greeks were a collection of small, frequently squabbling city-states. How would they confront the great existential threat from the east? We'll explore this topic, along with many other aspects of the archaic period of Greece, in future programs. Stay tuned and thanks for watching. Transcribed by https://otter.ai Check out the benefits to being a Patreon member and if you'd like to join, feel free to click the link in the video description. You can also follow History with Sai on Instagram, Facebook, and X, formerly known as Twitter, as well as continue to listen to special audio programs on the History with Sai podcast. Thanks again and stay safe.