University of Cincinnati
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ SLAVERY AND DEPENDENT PERSONNEL IN THE LINEAR B ARCHIVES OF MAINLAND GREECE A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Classical Studies of the College of Arts and Sciences 2004 by Kalliopi Efkleidou B.A., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2001 Committee Chair: Jack L. Davis ABSTRACT SLAVERY AND DEPENDENT PERSONNEL IN THE LINEAR B ARCHIVES OF MAINLAND GREECE by Kalliopi Efkleidou This work focuses on the relations of dominance as they are demonstrated in the Linear B archives of Mainland Greece (Pylos, Tiryns, Mycenae, and Thebes) and discusses whether the social status of the “slave” can be ascribed to any social group or individual. The analysis of the Linear B tablets demonstrates that, among the lower-status people, a social group that has been generally treated by scholars as internally undifferentiated, there were differentiations in social status and levels of dependence. A set of conditions that have been recognized as being of central importance to the description of the “slave” status serve as the “unit of measurement”, by which the different statuses can be correlated to the slave status. Of great importance for this work is the examination of a group of people designated as do-e-ro(-a), who have traditionally been interpreted as “slaves.” This thesis, however, is not limited to these do-e-ro(-a), but takes into consideration the entire dependent and lower-status population in the tablets, distinguishes social groups of different levels of ranking and compares these groups both internally and against the criteria describing “slaves.” Finally, a further goal of the discussion concerns the extent to which the different palatial sites on mainland Greece were similarly socially structured. i ii FOREWORD This thesis would not be possible without to the generous help of a Louise Taft Semple Fellowship from the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, and a University Graduate Scholarship from the University of Cincinnati. I would like to extend my profound gratitude to my supervisors, Jack L. Davis, Peter van Minnen, and Lynne Schepartz. Jack followed my studies closely from the time I arrived in Cincinnati and offered me his academic guidance and experience while I was working on this thesis; but most importantly he stood by me morally and psychologically and encouraged me to continue. Peter offered me long hours of his time to discuss not only his constructive ideas on the topic, but also his very thorough corrections of my text. Finally, I would like to thank Lynne for her quick response in reading, correcting and discussing my thesis, as well as for discussing a topic that was planned for inclusion in this thesis, but never realized. I hope I will have the chance in the future to go back and work on this part too. A special thanks to my professor in Greece, Stelios Andreou, for the extensive and in-depth discussions that we have had every time I have met him and for offering me his insights on the topic. For the support that my fellow students offered me, for cheering me up, and telling me not to stop writing I would like to thank Evi Gorogianni, Lynne Kvapil, Jen Glaubius, Julie Hruby, Joanne Murphy, and Jody Gordon. I would never have even started this thesis, if I did not have the encouragement and support of my family in Greece, my mother Anastasia Efklides, my father Ioannis Efklides, and my sisters. Finally, I owe the greatest part of this thesis to Stamatis Chatzitoulousis, who suffered my anxieties and stress, encouraged me, discussed every part of it with me, and corrected all the text before anyone else saw it. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract______________________________________________________________________ i Foreword ___________________________________________________________________iii Table of Contents _____________________________________________________________ 1 List of Tables ________________________________________________________________ 7 List of Figures _______________________________________________________________ 8 Appendix 1. List of Figures _____________________________________________________ 9 Appendix 2. List of Tables _____________________________________________________ 10 Appendix 3. List of Tables _____________________________________________________ 12 Chapter 1 __________________________________________________________________ 13 Introduction ________________________________________________________________ 13 Chronological and Geographical Scope of the Present Study ____________________________ 17 Chronological Framework of the Study ______________________________________________________17 Geographical Framework of the Study _______________________________________________________20 Chapter 2 __________________________________________________________________ 24 Approaching and Defining Slavery______________________________________________ 24 Introduction ____________________________________________________________________ 25 Greco-Roman Antiquity___________________________________________________________ 26 Early Christian Writers ___________________________________________________________ 30 1 18th Century, the Enlightenment ____________________________________________________ 31 19th Century_____________________________________________________________________ 33 Antiquarianism _________________________________________________________________________33 Cultural Evolutionism ____________________________________________________________________34 Karl Marx _____________________________________________________________________________35 20th Century_____________________________________________________________________ 38 H.J. Nieboer ___________________________________________________________________________38 Marxist Tradition(s) _____________________________________________________________________39 Functionalism __________________________________________________________________________41 Post-Modernism ________________________________________________________________________43 A Working Hypothesis ____________________________________________________________ 45 Contextualizing Slavery ___________________________________________________________ 55 Chapter 3 __________________________________________________________________ 57 Linear B Tablets and Slavery __________________________________________________ 57 Chapter 4 __________________________________________________________________ 64 Methodology for the analysis of the Linear B tablets________________________________ 64 Principles of the Linear B Tablets Analysis ___________________________________________ 64 Database Analysis________________________________________________________________ 68 Chapter 5 __________________________________________________________________ 72 Analysis of the Linear B Tablets of Pylos _________________________________________ 72 Introduction ____________________________________________________________________ 72 Population Census _______________________________________________________________ 75 2 Individual do-e-ro(-a) and te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) _________________________________________________75 Groups of do-e-ro(-a) and te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a)__________________________________________________80 Individuals Other Than do-e-ro(-a) or te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ________________________________________81 Groups of People Other Than do-e-ro(-a) and te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) __________________________________82 Discussion _____________________________________________________________________________86 Onomastics _____________________________________________________________________ 88 The Names of the do-e-ro(-a) ______________________________________________________________91 The Names of the te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ________________________________________________________94 The Names of Individuals Other Than do-e-ro(-a) and te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ___________________________97 Ethnic Origin___________________________________________________________________ 100 Evidence from the Names ________________________________________________________________100 Do-e-ro(-a)_________________________________________________________________________100 Te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ___________________________________________________________________100 Individuals Other Than do-e-ro(-a) or te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) _____________________________________102 Groups of People Other Than do-e-ro(-a) or te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ________________________________103 Non-Onomastic Evidence ________________________________________________________________106 Do-e-ro(-a)_________________________________________________________________________107 Te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ___________________________________________________________________107 Individuals Other Than do-e-ro(-a) or te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) _____________________________________107 Groups of People Other Than do-e-ro(-a) or te-o-jo do-e-ro(-a) ________________________________108 Occupations____________________________________________________________________