2015
Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden
Sanctuaries and the Power of Consumption
Networking and the Formation of Elites in the Archaic Western Mediterranean World
Proceedings of the International Conference in Innsbruck, 20th–23rd March 2012
Edited byErich Kistler, Birgit Öhlinger,
Martin Mohr and Matthias Hoernes
Kistler.indd Abs13 03.09.2015 15:13:49
Obsolete Perceptions? Frameworks of Intercultural Exchange in Ancient Narrative
Martin Mauersberg
Introduction
Since the erosion of the colonial model as the analytical framework for intercultural con-tacts in the Archaic Mediterranean (i. e. the perception of culturally superior ‘Greeks’ as dominating actors) research focuses on the description of the heterogeneous characteristics those interactions could develop1. Especially the archaeology of contact zones provides the material to paint a more nuanced picture, whereas written sources cannot further this new perspective in a decisive way. Even worse: They were already interpreted according to the colonial paradigm.
Still, ambiguous as they are, ancient perceptions remain an important pillar of our knowledge. By applying a “text-archaeological-approach”2 it is less my intention to discuss truth-values, but rather to trace the way statements concerning intercultural exchange func-tioned in their narrative context and how they organised this discursive field. Yet I want to point out that the answers to our questions concerning the ways intercultural exchange was carried out in the Archaic Mediterranean cannot be found in the remaining written sources. Therefore, we need the combined forces of textual, archaeological and not least anthropo-logical approaches. Consequently, my observations are restricted to highlighting their points of interest, but nevertheless they probably provide some toe-holds for modern recon-structions. To be precise: The discursive field examined in this essay concerns statements on the exchange between groups that are perceived as culturally different. Or, putting it in another way, how ‘Greeks’ imagined that objects were able to move between them and non-‘Greeks’ . Thus two different aspects are tackled: intercultural contacts and exchange.
The first issue played a huge role in ancient narratives, as it dealt with the fundamental question of collective identities. It may suffice to point out that the key topic of Herodotus’s
Histories was the rising antagonism between ‘West’ and ‘East’ that culminated in the Per-sian Wars. We have good reasons to consider these events as the starting point for an in-creased ‘Greek’ self-consciousness. Jonathan Hall labels this process as an “oppositional
self-definition” in dissociation from non-‘Greeks’ or ‘Barbarians’3. When regarding state-ments stemming from the Archaic Period we have to take into account that there was not a generalised and abstract ‘Greek’ – ‘Barbarian’ dichotomy. Instead we should expect more
1 See for instance Ulf 2009 and Malkin 2011. 2 This refers of course to Michel Foucault’s “L’archéologie du savoir”. 3 Hall 1997, 44–51; Hall 2002, 189–205.
M. Mauersberg
2
flexible and spatially limited identity constructs and consequently heterogeneous percep-tions of non-‘Greeks’4. Accordingly all of the seafaring groups depicted in the Homeric epics had positive and negative sides and there are no indications of fixed, essentialist attributions to one of these entities.
Exchange on the contrary was addressed according to its importance for a narrative. If it influenced or explained the doings of relevant characters, heroes or political entities we can count on more detailed reports concerning its functioning. But as it concerned the sphere of everyday life, this issue was rather underrepresented in written sources5.
The Homeric epics
“Strangers, who are you?”
The perception of (intercultural) exchange was principally twofold in the Archaic Period. There was an anarchic option, as for instance depicted in the stories of marauding adven-turers and piracy6, and there were more regulated forms of exchange that obeyed certain rules and/or customs as they built on mutual agreement. In the Homeric Hymn to the Py-thian Apollo the god asks Cretan seafarers “in winged words” for their intentions, thus summarizing this dichotomy,
“Who are you, sirs [xeinoi]? From where do you sail the watery ways? Are you on business [prēxis], or roaming at random over the sea as freebooters do, who gamble their lives abroad to bring trouble to other folk7?”
Either you roam “at random”, or you do it on purpose. And indeed, we expect some sort of
prefixed frameworks for regulated exchange, as there has to be the reliability that it worked out satisfactorily. If not, hardly anybody would have undertaken long and risky sea-voyages.
A helpful analytical tool for the description of exchange was used by Marshall Sahlins to describe “Stone age economics”: social distance. This was his key criterion to distinguish different forms of reciprocity8. According to Sahlins there is a direct correlation between the exchange partners’ social distance and the implementation of reciprocity, as the degree
of social control has a significant influence on it. The greater the social distance, the more reciprocity tends to become “negative” as the opportunity increases to overreach the other
side9. Thus we have to expect different frameworks in the case of transcultural exchange than in the case of intracultural exchange. We will see that already the ‘Greeks’ shared in a way Sahlins point concerning the problems of exchange in circumstances of extended (social) distance.
4 Cf. Giangiulio 2010, 13 f. 5 An exception was Hesiods Erga, but intercultural relations played hardly any role in his reflections; cf.
Morris 1986, 6 and Crielaard 2000, 57 f. 6 See also Crielaard 2000, 58 f. 7 H. Hom. Apollo 452–456 (transl. M. L. West). 8 Sahlins 1984, 190 f. 9 Sahlins 1984, 191–196.
Obsolete Perceptions?
3
Ian Morris’s dichotomisation of exchange in the Archaic Mediterranean is useful, too. There is exchange between “reciprocally dependent transactors” – gift exchange – and exchange between “transactors in a state of mutual independence” – trade10. Accordingly we can expect personal and impersonal frameworks for exchange. For Sahlins there is a direct correlation with social distance. The greater the social distance, the more impersonal an exchange gets, as there is a decrease in the quality of reciprocity.
These assumptions will be the starting point for the following analysis: Do the state-ments of Archaic and Classical authors discuss personal or impersonal frameworks for exchange and how were they imagined to function?
xenia
Xenia in the sense of a concept for hospitality and guest-friendship is one of the possible frameworks for contact and exchange to be found in written sources. For an illustration of its functioning the Polyphemus episode in the Odyssey is one of the best cases in the Homeric epics as it represents a reflection on hospitality itself (with the Phaiakians as direct counterpart)11. Out of curiosity Odysseus entered the Cyclops’s cave to find out whether he
would receive xenia12. Polyphemus uses exactly the same “winged words” as cited above to
question the intruders13. They responded with a plea for hospitality, “We come and touch
your knees in the hope that you give somehow a xeinēion or otherwise a gift [dōtinē], as it is customary [themis] towards xeinoi”14.
The different uses of the derivatives of ksēn-/ksěn- can be illustrated by this episode. Xeinion and xeinēion can be translated as ‘guest-gift’15. In a more general way, they denote something that is due to a xenos. Beate Wagner-Hasel’s distinction in natural (hospice, food and clothing)16 and material xeinia helps to understand the situation17. Adapted to the above cited case it becomes likely that Odysseus wanted to explore whether he would receive natural xeinia from the Cyclops18. And the xeinēion he asks for seems to be a material gift, since in the cases where undoubtedly natural gifts are meant the plural of xeinion is used19.
10 Morris 1986, 2. 11 Évelyne Scheid-Tissinier rates the Odyssey a “veritable manuel de l’hospitalité” (Scheid-Tissinier 1994,
143), as its narrative meanders through antithetical situations concerning the application of hospitality. Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 139 f.; see also Wagner-Hasel 2000, 84 f. 88 and Saïd 2011, 367–372. See Dougherty 2001, 122–142 for a different perspective on this contrasting juxtaposition as the two faces of ‘colonial’ contacts: Hostility and friendly reception.
12 Od. 9.229; Odysseus explains a few lines earlier (Od. 9.174–176) his motives to visit the Cyclops: to “probe the natives living over there. What are they – violent, savage, lawless? Or friendly to strangers [φιλόξεινοι], god-fearing men?” (transl. R. Fagles).
13 Od. 9.252–255. Neleus also investigates the identity of Telemachus with these phrases: Od. 3.71–74. 14 Od. 9.266–268. 15 Cf. Wagner-Hasel 2000, 81. 16 In these cases forms in plural are utilised: xeinēia: Od. 3.490; 4.33; xeinia: Il. 11.779; 18.387; Od. 5.91.
14.404. 15.188. 17 xeinēion: Il. 6.218. 10.269; Od. 8.388 f. 22.290 f. 24.273; xeinion: Od. 9.355 f. 20.296. See in more
detail, Wagner-Hasel 2000, 82–91. 18 See also Wagner-Hasel 2000, 84. 19 Yet there are cases where a decision which type of gift is meant is hardly possible: Od. 9.516. 19.185.
M. Mauersberg
4
xeinia 1: natural gifts and hospitality
Odysseus’s plea for a xeinēion is amplified by the gesture of suppliants, the touching of the knee (thus referring to another impersonal framework of admission), and by the indication that it is themis/customary towards xe(i)noi/strangers20. There is also a reference to the god’s orders,
“Respect the gods, my friend. We’re suppliants [hiketēs] – at your mercy! Zeus of the Strangers [Zeus Xeinios] guards all guests and suppliants: Strangers are sacred – Zeus will avenge their rights21!”
But the bitter lesson for Odysseus is that those customs do not apply universally,
“‘Stranger [xeinos],’ he grumbled back from his brutal heart, ‘you must be a fool,
stranger, or come from nowhere, telling me to fear the gods or avoid their wrath! We Cyclopes never blink at Zeus and Zeus’s shield of storm and thunder, or any other
blessed god – we’ve got more force by far. I’d never spare you in fear of Zeus’s
hatred, you or your comrades here, unless I had the urge22.”
Consequently, this episode can be classified as example of the anarchic option. Odysseus and his comrades are totally dependent on the goodwill of their host and their visit in the Cyclops’s cave turns out rather unsatisfactorily. How hospitality should work is exem-plified by Odysseus’s reception by the Phaiakians. The situation is similar: The hero ap-proaches first Nausicaa and later Arete, the daughter respectively the wife of king Alcinous, as suppliant and hospitality is granted to him before further enquiring his identity23. The same mechanism can be observed during the arrival of Telemachus at Pylos and Lacedae-mon and at the first encounter of Odysseus in disguise with Eumaeus24. So at least in theory hospitality – hospice, food and clothing, ergo natural xeinia – had to be applied regardless of the person and status of the xeinos/stranger25. Accordingly, this act granting hospitality can be classified as impersonal.
The deviations from this bid, the denial of natural xeinia by the Cyclops as well as the reception of the disguised Odysseus by Penelope’s suitors (most of the suitors gave the
alleged beggar some food but one of them, Antinous, chased him away) provide some in-sights into its functioning. The case of Polyphemus is simple: He is an outlaw in the truest sense of the word. Antinous, the villain, simply does not care about the rules of hospitality and the morality behind it (while exploiting it himself – the irony is quite obvious in this case!), even more so as it concerns only a beggar. The question of status here clearly be-comes an issue, whereas in the idealised case of the Phaiakians the naked and shipwrecked Odysseus is welcomed by Nausicaa. These antitheses reveal the awareness of a gap be-
20 Cf. Il. 11.779. Already the term dōtinē points to an obligation to give; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 14 f. 21 Od. 9.269–271 (transl. R. Fagles). 22 Od. 9.272–278 (transl. R. Fagles). 23 Od. 6.142. 6.179. 6.311 and 7.142. 24 Pylos: Od. 3.32–74; Lacedaemon: Od. 4.25–66; Eumaios: Od. 14.45–47; Cf. Scheid-Tissinier 1994,
136–143: Entertainment as the first act of hospitality. 25 See also Ulf 1990, 203.
Obsolete Perceptions?
5
tween the theoretical bid of hospitality and its observance in everyday life. Eumaeus, an exemplary host, states,
“It’s wrong, my friend, to send any stranger [xeinos] packing – even one who arrives in worse shape than you. Every stranger and beggar comes from Zeus and whatever scrap [dosis] they get from the likes of us, they’ll find it welcome26.”
Eumaeus makes completely clear why he accommodates the beggar, “[I]t’s my fear of
Zeus, the god of guests, and because I pity you”27. And there is also social pressure, as he exclaims,
“[A]nd just think of the praise and fame I’d win among mankind, now and for all
time to come, if first I took you under my roof, I treated you kindly as my guest [literally: ‘I gave xeinia’] then cut you down and robbed you of your life – how keen I’d be to say my prayers to Zeus28!”
To sum up: Not entertaining a xeinos/stranger is an offence against moral and social con-ventions, bolstered by a metaphysical justification, i. e. the god’s will29. This recourse hap-pens not by chance. Economically inferiors cannot return benefactions, so the gods balance the account instead. Accordingly, it is bad karma to counteract30. Antinous’s action can
therefore be seen as athemistos, guided by hybris31. Next to this metaphysical approach to
justify the reception of strangers an ethical argument exists. Menelaus evokes the Golden Rule when he states that hospitality is a bid that one is glad to claim for oneself, being a xeinos/stranger32.
The act of granting natural xeinia follows conventions; it is therefore justified to deduce the existence of a concept of hospitality in the form of an (ideally) impersonal framework for the reception of strangers/xeinoi. Thus, when the notion xeinia in the sense of natural gifts occurs, we can assume that there is another semantic level pointing to this concept. When Odysseus tells his audience that he wanted to see if he would receive xeinia from the Cyclops this means ultimately that he wanted to examine if the Cyclopes would obey the customs of hospitality33.
26 Od. 14.56 f. 27 Od. 14.389 (transl. R. Fagles). 28 Od. 14.404–406. 29 See also Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 147 and Wagner-Hasel 2000, 84. 30 See already Mauss (1923/1924, 58 f.) on charity in his “Essai sur le don”. 31 Od. 17.363. 17.487. Cf. Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 146. And the pretended beggar can state, “But if beggars
have their gods and Furies too, let Antinous meet his death before he meets his bride!” (Od. 17.475 f.; transl. R. Fagles). The option of avenging gods is further explored by other suitors who advise Antinous that his act could have consequences, “Look, Antinous, that was a crime, to strike the luckless beggar!
Your fate is sealed if he’s some god from the blue. And the gods do take on the look of strangers drop-ping in from abroad disguised in every way as they roam and haunt our cities, watching over us – All our foul play, all our fair play too!” (Od. 17.483–487). Also in Od. 22.286–291 divine retaliation is evoked.
32 Od. 4.33 f. See Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 146. 33 According to this understanding, Odysseus’s plea for friendly reception confronted with the Cyclops
becomes very elaborated as he tries to appeal to different concepts of hospitality. If he would fail to get xeinia, even a material xeinion, the first backdoor is to ask for some other dōtinē/dōs that one owes
M. Mauersberg
6
xeinia 2: material gifts
Now we will look at cases where material gifts are granted, or in other words, when hospi-tality becomes the basis for exchange. It was already indicated which line had to be crossed to move from natural xeinia to material xeinia: the stranger had to reveal his identity. This becomes ironically quite evident in the Cyclops episode when Polyphemus asks for more wine, “‘More’ – he demanded a second bowl – ‘a hearty helping! And tell me your name now, quickly, so I can hand my guest a gift [xeinion] to warm his heart”34.
Mere basic hospitality could thus develop from an impersonal institution into a person-alised relationship through the donation of material xeinia. The main difference is that the host could choose to make this step, while hospitality per se was perceived as an obligation. The act of handing over a material xeinion can be regarded as the starting point for the reciprocity inherent in this personal bond, changing the status of a xeinos/stranger in the narrow sense to a xeinos/guest-friend.
This evolution of a xeinos’s status can be observed at Menelaus’s court when Telema-chus arrives, “Help yourselves to food, and welcome! Once you’ve dined we’ll ask you
who you are”35. Menelaus’s next sentence implies the development of his hospitality, “But
your parents’ blood is hardly lost in you. You must be born of kings, bred by the gods to
wield the royal sceptre.” In Menelaus’s eyes it is clear that he is not confronted with beg-gars or shipwrecked sailors: he shows class consciousness. Accordingly like the Phaiakian king Alkinous36 he gives precious gifts to his guest.
In the Homeric epics many passages can be found that tackle the giving of material xeinia. In the context of this essay it is important to point out that this exchange of gifts can also have a cross-cultural nature. There is, for instance, the example of Menelaus receiving gifts from Polybus in Egyptian Thebes and from Phaedimus, king of Sidon37. In the quasi-
strangers, using a more general term for ‘gift’ – evoking probably an even more universally felt duty of hospitality apart from the narrow concept of xeinia/hospitality (for slightly different semantic interpre-tations see Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 141). Finally, as a last resort, Odysseus applies for the suppliant’s
status. There is a nice parallelism in Od. 15.316, when Odysseus decides to go to his palace disguised as a beggar to see whether the suitors would give him a meal (deipnon) or not, thus again checking if they follow the rules of hospitality.
34 Od. 9.355 f. This guest-gift would only be a cynical one in the form of the promise that “Nobody” will
be eaten as the last one. See for a similar case Od. 20.296. 35 Od. 4.60–62 (transl. R. Fagles). See also his reception in Pylos: Od. 3.70 f. 36 A special case seems to be the Phaiakians’ idealized hospitality, because here Odysseus already
received gold, next to clothing (a natural xeinion), before he reveals his identity (Od. 8.390–395). He also addresses Laodamas, the son of Alkinous, as xeinos/guest-friend before receiving these xeinia (Od. 8.207–211). There are arguments to weaken this possible contradiction. First of all it is important for the narrative that Odysseus gives away his identity only later, when confronted with the stories of the Tro-jan War by the local aiodos – this theme of hiding his identity to reveal it at the right time occurs fre-quently in the Odyssey. The handing over of the gold could be regarded as part of an exaggerated depic-tion of the generous hospitality of the Phaiakians, thereby contrasting the Cyclops’s bad example.
Moreover, Odysseus was not that ‘strange’ to the Phaiakians anymore, as he excelled as athlete (thus proving not to be a merchantman!) and boasted about his acquaintance with heroes and goddesses. Hence he could be considered as a peer, suitable for xeinia. Cf. Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 148 and espe-cially von Reden 1995, 34 f. on the gradual change of Odysseus’s status.
37 Od. 4.128–132 and 617 f. Another example could be the alleged Cypriot xeinos of one of Odysseus’s
aliases – whether he was considered as ‘Greek’ is of course unclear (Od. 17.442 f.).
Obsolete Perceptions?
7
totality of the cases they are settled in an elitist milieu38, thus the importance of the factor of status is quite evident39.
The reciprocity in this framework is more ‘balanced’ than in the case of the impersonal basic hospitality40. There are some clues in what way it was envisaged in the context of the Homeric epics, like the instances in which gifts are answered with counter-gifts41. Telema-chus describes the quality of a material gift that he wants to give to his guest-friend Mentes (who in reality is the goddess Athena), who promises a counter-gift at his return to Ithaka42,
“But come, stay longer, keen as you are to sail, so you can bathe and rest and lift
your spirits, then go back to your ship, delighted with a gift [dōron], a prize of honor, something rare and fine as a keepsake43 from myself. The kind of gift a host [φίλοι ξεῖνοι] will give a stranger [xeinos – in this case a translation with ‘guest-friend’ would be more suitable], friend to friend44.”
Another case is Odysseus’s false identity when confronted with his father Laërtes. He
claims to be Epēritos of Alybas45 in Sikania who had received Odysseus as a guest-friend with entertainment and material dōra46. Laërtes pities him,
“And as for the gifts [dōra] you showered on your guest, you gave them all for nothing. But if you’d found him alive, here in Ithaca, he would have replied in kind,
with gift for gift [δώροισιν ἀμειψάμενος], and entertained you warmly [ξενίῃ ἀγαθῇ – literally ‘good xeniē’47] before he sent you off. That’s the old custom [themis], when one has led the way48.”
But the most telling example is probably the fate of the suitor Ctesippus. Ctesippus made fun of the alleged beggar by giving him a xeinion in the form a cow’s hoof49. Later, this gift is returned by the cowherd, who exclaimed while killing him, “Love your mockery, do
you? [...] Take this spear, this guest-gift [xeinēion], for the cow’s hoof you once gave King
Odysseus begging in his house!”50 Accordingly, a xeinion creates an obligation to return it, or as Laërtes put it: Good xeniē is themis
51. Xeniē means guest-friendship as an institution-
38 One ironic exception is the xeinion of the suitor Ctesippus – see below. 39 See Ulf 1990, 202. 40 See Sahlins concept of “balanced reciprocity”. But here reciprocity becomes more balanced because of
a personalisation of the relationship, whereas Sahlins states that “[b]alanced reciprocity is less ‘per-sonal’ than generalised reciprocity” (Sahlins 1984, 194 f.). Again we can observe that his categorization according to social distance fails to fit this case.
41 Il. 6.218; Od. 21.35. 22.290. 24.314. 42 Od. 1.318. 43 Such gifts also serve as tokens to remember the received hospitality and the bonds woven by their
exchange. See Wagner-Hasel 2000, 105–112; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 58. 127; von Reden 1995, 27–37. 44 Od. 1.311–313 (transl. R. Fagles). 45 We have to leave open if this toponym was meant to denote a real place, or is as a play on words mean-
ing “Roamer-Town”. 46 Od. 24.266–279. 47 ‘Entertainment’ seems to be unsuitable as in this case we would expect a phrase with xeinia. 48 Od. 24.283–286 (transl. R. Fagles). 49 Od. 20.287–300. 50 Od. 22.285–291 (transl. R. Fagles). 51 Cf. Ulf 1990, 202 f. This reciprocity finds its correspondence even in the terminology. If we look at the
M. Mauersberg
8
alised, yet personalised relationship in an elitist context based on mutual hospitality and the exchange of material xeinia with an obligation to keep the balance52. Whether this func-tioned the same way in a cross-cultural context is a different question. There are no further indications in the epics whether the mentioned cases of intercultural gift exchange followed the same structures or not. But as these mostly brief references were designed in the same way and with the same wording as the intracultural cases, one could suspect that there was no difference envisaged.
For the subsequent pages it is important to note that ksēn-/ksěn-terms could be associ-ated with a form of philos or its derivates. A good example is the dōron that the Phaiakian Euryalus gives to Odysseus as reconciliation for an insult. The handing over is accompa-nied by the “winged”, probably formulaic words, “Farewell, stranger [xeinos], sir – if any remark of mine gave you offense, may stormwind snatch it up and sweep it off! [...]”53. And Odysseus answers, “And a warm farewell to you, too, my friend [philos]. May the gods grant you good fortune – may you never miss this sword, this gift you give with such salutes. You’ve made amends in full”54.
Odysseus is addressed as xeinos, more likely in the sense of ‘guest-friend’, as a xeinion is received. He responds with the term philos. This notion covers a wide semantic field. Principally it denotes a social bond (amongst others also relationships based on institution-alised frameworks such as marriage and xenia-relations). Combined with a ksēn-/ksěn-derivative it accentuated the personalised affection between the xenia-partners, thus delim-iting it from the impersonal ‘basic’ hospitality55. There is also the general term philotes for social bonds, often in the context of hospitality56, yet this is not just a synonym for xe-
nia/guest-friendship. They could overlap, but the term philotes focusses more on the aspect of the bond itself, meaning the appreciation of the other as a peer, whereas xenia highlights the functional side, as it points to the natural and material xeinia as the basis for this bond, and thus to its the reciprocal aspect57.
prēxis – trade
The Phaiakian Euryalus tries to provoke Odysseus to a fistfight with the following words,
“I never took you for someone skilled in games [athloi], the kind that real men play throughout the world. Not a chance. You’re some skipper of profiteers [prēktēres], roving the high seas in his scudding craft, reckoning up his fright [phortos] with a
terms used in the Odyssey in these contexts of inter-elite gift-giving connected with generous entertain-ment, we see that xeinion is hardly utilised. Instead we find more often dōron: Od. 1.312 and 316. 21.13. 24.273 with an explicit recourse to the status of a xeinos; furthermore: Od. 4.130. 4.589–592. 13.12. 15.51. 15.75. 15.113. 15.125. 15.537. 16.230. This word for ‘gift’ has a broad range of meanings from ‘offering to the gods’ to ‘bribe’, pointing to the subtext ‘giving with the intention of getting back’.
Cf. Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 9–15. 52 For a broader definition Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 158; see also Ulf 1990, 204 f. 53 Od. 8.408 f. (transl. R. Fagles). 54 Od. 8.413–415. 55 Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 122–129. 56 Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 162 f.; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 81. 124 f. 57 Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 133–135.
Obsolete Perceptions?
9
keen eye out for home-cargo [hodaia], grabbing the gold he can [kerdos – literally ‘gain’58]! You’re no athlete. I see that59.”
Firstly, we can assume that ‘trade’ in a narrow sense – i. e. the exchange of commodities as an undertaking in its own right in order to gain profit by the attribution of an intrinsic value to these goods – is considered and points to an impersonal framework for exchange. Sec-ondly, maritime trade is not mentioned as something extraordinary – it is addressed as a common occurrence60. Even the verb thamizō is used (here translated with ‘roving’), which implies repetitiveness. And thirdly, an antagonism between men, “skilled in athloi”, and
prēktēres is evoked, implying certain stereotypes, not least in form of ethical judgements. The achievement of a kerdos – a gain out of trade – did not seem to be very highly esteemed. As ‘Homer’ addressed an audience, we can assume that he referred to a feeling not unknown by his listeners, or to put it another way, that there had to be a predisposition that his lines were understandable as an insult.
What could have been the cause of such a negative perception? From a simple, practical point of view one could suggest that this episode was meant to reflect a cliché that mer-chants, being interested in their profit, would tend to overreach their trade partners. Trade could have the tendency to be unfair. This corresponds with Sahlins’s category of “negative
reciprocity”61. If there had been the perception of a fair-trade-problem, did it further the necessity of control mechanisms to make trade more reliable? Unfortunately, the statements from the Archaic provide hardly any hints.
There is also the possibility of an extensive, socio-economic reading. It could have been a conservative statement, defending a ‘traditional’ way of life – as displayed in the Homeric epics – against social change. The old elite system had to be marked off against the nou-
veau riche, consisting of merchants62. In Bourdieuian terms we could speak of the struggle of an elite being in possession of the social capital, displaying it for instance by agonal rites, and new holders of economic capital.
In correspondence with this socio-political upheaval, modern reconstructions stress the idea of a transition in the Archaic from inter-elite gift-giving to trade63. From a strictly textual point of view such a far reaching interpretation is hardly supportable because both frameworks for exchange – xenia and trade – were depicted side by side. The idea of a development is due to the underlying assumption that there must have been a progression from a primitive, highly symbolic inter-elite exchange to a more ‘rational’, interest-oriented trade in connection with the rise of the polis. Initially ‘chiefs’ were responsible for cross-
58 See von Reden 1995, 61–67 on the term kerdos in the Homeric epics. 59 Od. 8.159–164 (transl. R. Fagles). 60 There are also other enunciations in epic and lyric works concerning seafaring and more explicitly
maritime trade, also to non-‘Greek’ destinations (which are nonetheless sometimes a bit shady, like Temesē in Od. 1.179–184 to be located in southern Italy or Cyprus?), to support this view. See in gen-eral Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 65–82; Tandy 1997, 72–75 and Tandy 2004; Dougherty 2001, 102–121. Contra Crielaard 2000, 57 f. who sees the rare appearance of trade in the Homeric epics (compared to enunciations concerning gift-exchange) as a sign of the decrease of large-distant trade in early Iron Age.
61 Sahlins 195 f. 62 For instance Morris 1986, 6; cf. von Reden 1995, 58 f. 63 See for instance Tandy 1997 with the programmatic title “Warriors into Traders”, esp. 112–138; also
von Reden 1995, 16 f. Cf. the comments of Foxhall 1998, 300 and Reed 2003, 62 f.
M. Mauersberg
10
cultural contacts but they were subsequently replaced by the citizens. Nevertheless, we should be aware that a change in the socio-political structures does not automatically mean a change of the exchange mechanisms.
Perceptions in Classical times – A brief comparison
xenia – philia
In Herodotus’s Histories we find support for this last point. Fortunately he was very inter-ested in systems of alliances, thus providing us with some perceptions of the Classical period concerning the ‘international’ relations of the past. Herodotus described cases of inter-elite gift exchange that resulted in xenia-relations, which functioned grosso modo in the same manner as the examples described above64. There is one example where he is very precise: the bond of Xerxes and the noble Lydian Pythius65. The latter entertained (xenizō) the king and his army with greatest hospitality and even proposed to contribute money to the Persian king’s war. Xerxes learned that Pythius had already presented his father Do-rieus. Xerxes was very pleased and in return, in addition to a great amount of money, he made Pythius his xeinos
66. Hence there are entertainment, repeated gifts (over genera-tions67) and as consequence xenia. New in his descriptions is xenia between monocratic rulers and poleis
68. Greek poleis became a new player in this framework for relations which in such cases changed from an inter-individual relationship to an alliance between political entities, thus becoming an impersonal framework69.
Another interesting case is the pact between Croesus and the Spartans. Because of an oracle the king wanted to make an alliance (φίλους προσθέσθαι70) with the mightiest of the Hellenes, which seemed to be the Spartans. Thus he sent dōra to them and asked for an alliance (symmachia),
“Lacedaemonians, the god has declared that I should make the Greek my friend [philos]; now, therefore, since I learn that you are the leaders of, I invite you, as the oracle bids; I would like to be your friend [philos] and ally [symmachos], without deceit or guile71.”
64 For ‘international’ examples, see Amasis and Polykrates: Hdt. 2.182. 3.39 and 43; Amilkas and Terillos:
Hdt. 7.165; Xerxes and Pythius: Hdt. 7.28 f. Furthermore: Hdt. 1.35. 3.20 f. 3.139 f. (Cf. Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 66 f.).
65 Hdt. 7.27–29. 66 Hdt. 7.29. Incidentally Herodotus did not fail to portray Xerxes’s interpretation of xenia (7.39). Pythius
is addressed as doulos/slave and only his hospitality saved him from being executed. 67 This feature occurs already in the Homeric epics. In several instances we have statements, that there is a
xe(i)nos-relation through the fathers: Il. 6.215: ξεῖνος πατρώϊος; with similar wording: Od. 1.175 f. and 187; Od. 15.196 f.: ξεῖνοι ἐκ πατέρων.
68 Croesus: Hdt. 1.6.27 and 69; Xerxes: Hdt. 7.116. 8.120. In most of these examples also gifts (dōra) were given.
69 Cf. Wagner-Hasel 2000, 104. 70 Hdt. 1.53–56. 71 Hdt. 1.69 (transl. A. D. Godley).
Obsolete Perceptions?
11
The Spartans agreed and made the oath of xenia and symmachia. Herodotus also gave a reason for their acceptance. Croesus had already given them gold on a previous occasion for a statue of Apollon as gift (dōtinē), thus indicating that the Spartans felt obliged72.
We can see that Herodotus used several terms nearly synonymously when writing about their alliance: xenia, philia and the more technical term symmachia
73. There are nuances, however: Xenia indicated a bond based on mutual hospitality, whereas philia pointed to a degree of affection, meaning in these contexts an institutionalised relation. In both cases gifts are exchanged, creating obligations. One could suggest that xenia was perceived as a stronger bond than philia because it evoked the additional feature of mutual hospitality. So we could interpret that Croesus asked for philia, but the Spartans gave even xenia as he had already presented them in earlier times.
emporia – trade
Thucydides tells us regarding the development after the Trojan Wars and the emission of ‘colonies’,
“But as the power of Hellas grew, and the acquisition of wealth became more an object, the revenues of the states increasing, tyrannies were by their means estab-lished almost everywhere, – the old form of government being hereditary monarchy with definite prerogatives, – and Hellas began to fit out fleets and apply herself more closely to the sea74.”
In his ideas on the historical development of Greece the precondition for stable trade con-nections was the transition from anarchy, characterised for instance by piracy, to stable political units. The synchrony of marauding and trading in the depictions of Archaic times became principally a succession in the eyes of Thucydides with the effect that anarchic forms of contact were seen as an exception to the rule instead of being a variance in the undertaking of seafaring. Already in his perceptions we can observe the topic of a combi-nation of economic and socio-political change75.
In Classical Greece there is again the acknowledgment of the role of trade in everyday life paired with an ethical assessment. Reflections concerning this issue got even more explicit. Aristotle, for instance, displayed an ambivalent view on trade,
“And the importation of commodities that they do not happen to have in their own country and the export of their surplus products are things indispensable; for the state ought to engage in commerce [emporikos] for its own interest, but not for the interest of the foreigner. People that throw open their market [agora] to the world do so for the sake of revenue [prosodos], but a state that is not to take part in that sort of profit-making [pleonexía] need not possess a great commercial port [emporion]76 .”
And in Plato’s dialogue Laws the criticism was even fiercer,
72 Hdt. 1.69. 73 See also Wagner-Hasel 2000, 102–104. Other examples of philia-relations: Hdt. 2.152. 3.21 and 7.130. 74 Thuc. 1.13.1 (transl. R. Crawley). 75 See Thuc. 1.1–13. 76 Aristot. Pol. 1327a,26–32 (transl. H. Rackham).
M. Mauersberg
12
“For the sea is, in very truth, ‘a right briny and bitter neighbour,’ although there is sweetness in its proximity for the uses of daily life; for by filling the markets of the city with foreign merchandise [emporia] and retail trading, and breeding in men’s souls knavish and tricky ways, it renders the city faithless and loveless, not to itself only, but to the rest of the world as well77.”
As a conclusion one can state that sea trade was considered as both a necessity and a curse: It corrupts. The tendency to see trade as biased by the pursuit of gains is prevailing78.
Herodotus provides us with an interesting example of a situation that modern anthro-pologists would classify as ‘silent trade’. It is situated in a distant, quasi-utopian sphere, thus the question of the solution for the fair-trade-problem in a cross-cultural setting is tackled in a highly abstract way,
“Another story is told by the Carthaginians. There is a place in Libya, they say, where men live beyond the Pillars of Heracles; they come here and unload their cargo; then, having laid it in order along the beach, they go aboard their ships and light a smoking fire. The people of the country see the smoke, and, coming to the sea, they lay down gold to pay for the cargo, and withdraw from the wares. Then the Carthaginians disembark and examine the gold; if it seems to them a fair price for their cargo, they take it and go away; but if not, they go back aboard and wait, and the people come back and add more gold until the sailors are satisfied. In this trans-action, it is said, neither party defrauds the other: the Carthaginians do not touch the gold until it equals the value of their cargo, nor do the people touch the cargo until the sailors have taken the gold79.”
The ethical aspect of trade is most prominent as Herodotus describes a mode that explicitly enables a transaction to mutual satisfaction. Several problems for (cross-cultural) exchange are addressed. First, the transaction is accomplished without a word – the problem of under-standing is totally bypassed. Second, the place of trade – an emporion in its basic sense80 – seems to be fixed and agreed upon. And third, the transaction obeys an institutionalised sequence. In short, he sketches an idealised impersonal exchange framework. But to what extent does this passage display actual mechanisms of inter-cultural trade? First, the issue of multilingualism had to be solved to enable an agreement. Herodotus tells us, for instance, that Psamtik sent Egyptian children to the Ionians who settled in Egypt to learn Greek and became interpreters81. Second, we would indeed expect that places of trade are institutional-ised in order to guarantee seafaring merchants that there are sufficient commodities or ‘cur-rencies’ available on-site for exchange. One could argue that the notion emporion itself reveals a perception of (the necessity of) prefixed structures for exchange. And third, there must have been a certain degree of legal security to provide fair trading conditions.
77 Pl. Leg. 705a (transl. R. G. Bury). 78 Cf. Morris 1986, 6 f. 79 Hdt. 4.196 (transl. A. D. Godley). 80 Cf. Hansen 2006, 3–5. 81 Hdt. 2.154.
Obsolete Perceptions?
13
Two case studies: Egypt and Tartessus
There are two case studies for cross-cultural exchange in his Histories that provide us with some clues how Herodotus perceived the ways institutionalised trade frameworks could come into being and how they were warranted. Let us start with probably the most famous: Naucratis.
“Amasis became a philhellene, and besides other services which he did for some of the Greeks, he gave those who came to Egypt the city of Naucratis to live in; and to those who travelled to the country without wanting to settle there, he gave lands where they might set up altars and make holy places for their gods. Of these the greatest and most famous and most visited precinct is that which is called the Hel-lenion, founded jointly by the Ionian cities of Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Clazome-nae, the Dorian cities of Rhodes, Cnidus, Halicarnassus, and Phaselis, and one Aeo-lian city, Mytilene. It is to these that the precinct belongs, and these are the cities that furnish overseers [prostatēs] of the trading port [emporion]; if any other cities advance claims, they claim what does not belong to them. The Aeginetans made a precinct of their own, sacred to Zeus; and so did the Samians for Hera and the Mile-sians for Apollo82.”
We obtain the following picture: According to Herodotus, Naucratis has been the exclusive emporion in Egypt for a long time83. The well-meaning king Amasis – the notion philhellēn could even point to an alliance based on philia – provided and guaranteed the exclusiveness of this port-of-trade. This act is portrayed as an accord between the Pharaoh and several poleis. For the Greek partners this monopole was probably quite lucrative, which leads to the question why especially these poleis have obtained it. Herodotus mentions a pioneering contact between his predecessor Psamtik and Ionian and Karian mercenaries: Psamtik en-tertained a philia-relationship with them by giving them land and other benefactions84.
Two of Herodotus’s remarks have to be highlighted. The emporion had prostates. What assignment those functionaries exactly had is unknown, but they prove that measures were taken to provide a controlling instance. Additionally the Pharaoh gave the opportunity to “set up altars and make holy places for their gods” to “those who travelled to the country without wanting to settle there”. This raises the question whether this was just another well-meaning act or if Herodotus wanted to underline a connection between trade and the need for sanctuaries. This hypothesis could be connected with François de Polignac’s highlight-ing of the function of holy places as contact zones85. Could these holy places have been examples for “sanctuaires du territoire”/“sanctuaires de confins” – because Naucratis was the only legitimate point of contact/trade between Egypt and the outside world86 – and is it possible that they could also have served as frameworks for trade? An interesting analogy
82 Hdt. 2.178 (trans Godley 1920). 83 Hdt. 2.179. 84 Hdt. 2.152. 85 de Polignac 1995, 111–140. 86 Hdt. 2.179.
M. Mauersberg
14
would be the cleansing of the Temple of merchants in the New Testament87. This would point to a solution of the fair-trade-problem with a double strategy. Good relations with a local ruler are maintained on a personal basis, and on an impersonal level we have indica-tions for an institutionalised zone for trade, probably with a metaphysical recourse. In the face of the gods ethical behaviour could have been reinforced, even – or better especially? – in a transcultural setting.
The other case in the Histories is antiquity’s silvery El Dorado of the West: Tartessus88. In the context of his foundation story concerning Cyrene Herodotus describes the odyssey of the Samian Colaeus to this place,
“[T]hey then put out to sea from the island and would have sailed to Egypt, but an easterly wind drove them from their course, and did not abate until they had passed through the Pillars of Heracles and came providentially to Tartessus. Now this was at that time an untapped market [emporion]; hence, the Samians, of all the Greeks whom we know with certainty, brought back from it the greatest profit on their wares except Sostratus of Aegina, son of Laodamas89.”
At the time of the foundation of Cyrene Tartessus was not yet an exploited market; the Samian merchant profited of a sort of monopoly. Commodities, meant for the Egyptian market, gained an enormous profit in Tartessus. This trade connection was established by chance, but being blown off one’s course is an all too familiar topos used to explain why central characters came to distant shores to be taken seriously90. Elsewhere Tartessus is exclusively associated with the fate of the Ionian poleis Phocaea,
“Phocaeans were the earliest of the Greeks to make long sea-voyages, and it was they who discovered the Adriatic Sea, and Tyrrhenia, and Iberia, and Tartessus, not sailing in round freightships but in fifty-oared vessels. When they came to Tartessus they made friends [προσφιλέες ἐγένοντο] with the king of the Tartessians, whose name was Arganthonius; he ruled Tartessus for eighty years and lived a hundred and twenty. The Phocaeans won this man’s friendship to such a degree that he invited them to leave Ionia and settle in his country wherever they liked; and then, when he could not persuade them to, and learned from them how the Median power was in-creasing, he gave them money to build a wall around their city91.”
There are astonishing similarities with the case of Naucratis. There is another well-meaning king, this time linked with prosphileia to a single polis, who would even have provided land for a settlement (the reason for this well-meaning is not part of Herodotus’s report).
87 Mk 11.15–18. Mt 21.12 f. and Lc 19.45 f. with the similar exclamation, “It is written, ‘My house shall
be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers [σπήλαιον λῃστῶν].” Hence Jesus pursues the negative perception of trade. And in Jo 2.13–16, “Take these things out of here! Don’t make my Father’s house a marketplace [οἶκον ἐμπορίου]!” See generally concerning the re-evaluation of the role of sanctuaries, Ulf 2006, 22.
88 Tartessus’s fame for being a land full of silver is more explicit in later sources. Here, the connection of Tartessus and silver seems to be indicated via “Arganthonius”, its king’s name.
89 Hdt. 4.152 (transl. A. D. Godley). 90 Cf. Crielaard 2000, 57 f. 91 Hdt. 1.163 (transl. A. D. Godley).
Obsolete Perceptions?
15
And again the dominating actor was the local ruler. Hence still in the 5th century BC there is no feeling of a generalised Greek supremacy observable92. Additionally it is noteworthy that in Herodotus’s description there is no depreciation of the contact with the far west compared to the Egyptian one. There was no perception of a cultural decline from east to west. If there had been an actual involvement of Phocaeans in the Archaic Iberia, what was it like? In another passage of his work Herodotus describes the Phocaeans as merchants93. Did they earn the confidence of king Arganthonius as reliable traders? And why did Hero-dotus explicitly point out that they did not use round ships but Penteconters? Weren’t they not only merchants but fulfilled other purposes? One could indeed interpret his remark as a hint to think of them – analogous to the Egyptian case – as mercenaries. But this is of course sheer speculation.
Conclusion
These ancient perceptions of exchange reveal a preoccupation with its regulation. Exchange had to be embedded in socio-political structures to guarantee its functioning and reliability, what made things more complex94. First of all, both discussed exchange frameworks, guest-friendship and trade, could have either an impersonal or a personal face. The personalised xenia was based on a more fundamental obligation of hospitality, which – among other aspects – ensured its binding character. Where trade is concerned the sources emphasised more its personalised side, as the more ‘banal’ impersonal implementations fit hardly in narratives focussed on events. The two case studies consequently report connections based on individual bonds. They fit exactly into Marshall Sahlins’s description of “trade-partner-ships/trade-friendships”,
“[T]rade is an exclusive relation with a specific outside party. The traffic is cana-lized in parallel insulated transactions between particular pairs. Where trade is handled through partnerships, exactly who exchanges with whom is prescribed in advance: social relations, not prices, connect up ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’95.”
In such cases Sahlins speaks of “a social suppression of negative reciprocity”96. Hence ‘personalisation’ of intercultural contacts could become a basis for reliability. As a conse-quence, there is no ‘free-market’. Monopolies in the form of privileged access to regions or
92 See Ulf 2009, 95–101 for such cases of “zones of intense contact” with a dominating partner. 93 Hdt. 1.165. 94 Or, as Évelyne Scheid-Tissiner (1994, 65 f.) puts it, “On sait, en effet, que dans ce type de société,
l’économie ne constitue pas un domaine à part, existant pour lui-même, mais qu’elle est au contraire ‘intégrée’ aux institutions sociales, et qu’on ne peut percevoir et comprendre son fonctionnement qu’en la situant dans l’ensemble des faits sociaux.” See also von Reden 1995, 2 on the entanglement of “economic […] social, religious and even political concerns”.
95 Sahlins 1984, 298 f. 96 Sahlins 1994, 201, “Trade-partnerships, often developed along lines of classificatory or affinal kinship,
particularly incapsulate external economic transactions in solidary social relations. Status relations es-sentially internal are projected across community and tribal boundaries.”
M. Mauersberg
16
markets could be upheld via personal bonds97. One could also say that these cases represent a mixed form: Impersonal exchange was feasible within the general framework of a person-alised relation.
Yet there was a perception of trade as an impersonal endeavour. Merchantmen were “roving the high seas” and in addition the report of the Samian Colaeus’s fortune seems to indicate the possibility of exchanging commodities without prefixed personal bonds. So even if in the eyes of the Greek audience there was no social capital obtainable by such an undertaking, it worked. However, the evocation of the fair-trade-problem seems to suggest that there was not much trust in the merchants’ capabilities to adhere to the Golden Rule. And as the establishment of xenia-relations seemed to be the elite’s privilege there had to be other solutions, too. The silent trade reported by Herodotus is a utopian case of an im-personal framework where trade worked absolutely frictionless, but the Naucratis case provides us with some glimpses on possible ‘institutions’, both secular (a prostatēs) and metaphysical. Thus, the regulation of exchange went beyond a mere ‘technical’ sphere.
References
Crielaard 2000: J. P. Crielaard, Homeric and Mycenaean Long-Distance Contacts: Discrepancies in the Evidence, BABesch 75, 2000, 51–63.
de Polignac 1995: F. de Polignac, La naissance de la cité grecque (Paris 1995). Dougherty 2001: C. Dougherty, The Raft of Odysseus. The Ethnographic Imagination of Homer’s
Odyssey (Oxford 2001). Foxhall 1998: L. Foxhall, Cargoes of the Heart’s Desire. The Character of Trade in the Archaic
Mediterranean World, in: N. Fisher – H. van Wees (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London 1998) 295–309.
Giangiulio 2010: M. Giangiulio, Deconstructing Ethnicities: Multiple Identities in Archaic and Clas-sical Sicily, BABesch 85, 2010, 13–23.
Hall 1997: J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge 1997). Hall 2002: J. Hall, Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago 2002). Hansen 2006: M. H. Hansen, EMPORION. A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the
Archaic and Classical Periods, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas I (Leiden 2006) 1–39.
Malkin 2011: I. Malkin, A Small Greek World. Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford 2011).
Mauss 1923/1924: M. Mauss, Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaiques, Année Sociologique N. S. 1, 1923/1924, 30–186.
Morris 1986: I. Morris, Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece, Man 21, 1, 1986, 1–17. Reed 2003: C. M. Reed, Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge 2003). Sahlins 1984: M. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics (Bristol 1984). Saïd 2011: S. Saïd, Homer & The Odyssey (Oxford 2011). Scheid-Tissinier 1994: É. Scheid-Tissinier, Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pratiques
(Nancy 1994).
97 See also Morris 1986, 5 for this model of the establishment of guest-friendship relations to enable ex-
change. Cf. Reed 2003, 54–61, esp. 59 on the status of foreign traders in Classical Athens, “xenoi bound by interstate agreements”.
Obsolete Perceptions?
17
Tandy 1997: D. W. Tandy, Warriors into Traders. The Power of the Market in Early Greece (Berke-ley 1997).
Tandy 2004: D. W. Tandy, Trade and Commerce in Archilochos, Sappho, and Alkaios, in: R. Rollinger – Ch. Ulf (eds.), Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World. Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the As-syrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd–8th 2002, Melammu symposia 5 = Oriens et occidens 6 (Wiesbaden 2004) 183–194.
Ulf 1990: Ch. Ulf, Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung (Munich 1990).
Ulf 2006: Ch. Ulf, Anlässe und Formen von Festen mit überlokaler Reichweite in vor- und früh-archaischer Zeit. Wozu dient der Blick in ethnologisch-anthropologische Literatur?, in: K. Freitag – P. Funke – M. Haake (eds.), Kult – Politik – Ethnos. Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungs-feld von Kult und Politik. Kolloquium, Münster, 23.–24. November 2001, Historia Einzelschrif-ten 189 (Stuttgart 2006) 17–41.
Ulf 2009: Ch. Ulf, Rethinking Cultural Contacts, AncWestEast 8, 2009, 81–132. von Reden 1995: S. von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece (London 1995). Wagner-Hasel 2000: B. Wagner-Hasel, Der Stoff der Gaben. Kultur und Politik des Schenkens und
Tauschens im archaischen Griechenland (Frankfurt 2000).
