Perceiving the Past in the Early Hellenistic Period
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PERCEIVING THE PAST IN THE EARLY HELLENISTIC PERIOD THE USES OF THE PAST IN REMODELLING REALITY Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Manolis E. Pagkalos BA (Athens), MA (Leicester) School of Archaeology & Ancient History University of Leicester JULY 2018 Abstract Pagkalos, Manolis. Perceiving the Past in the Early Hellenistic Period: The Uses of the Past in Remodelling Reality. This thesis examines the use of the past as a medium for the articulation of claims of present political power during the early Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period marks an era of major changes both in the political and geographical landscapes. The polis, which remains the centre of political life, struggles between autonomy and dependence among the emerging political formations (Kingdoms and Koina). In the fluid political environment, the past presents an excellent opportunity: it can be used as a (re)confirmation of a certain identity, be it civic or collective, or can help to construct a new one. In either way, its potential is enormous. In the contemporary world, the connection between the use of the past and politics has been confirmed. However, this relationship was also clearly realised in the ancient world. Due to the workings of memory, the past has a central role in the political life of communities; memory and the use of the past are social and cultural forces, effectively altering the modes of representation and contemporary worldviews. And vice versa, any political decisions are seen in the light of civic or communal traditions – the cultural memory of each society. In the cases of Athens and Sparta, the opposition between contemporary realities and cultural memory is prolific and leads to unprecedented acts. In the absence of such a glorious past, the prolific historian Polybios constructs one for the Achaian League. Samos and Priene, without such hegemonic traditions but with a strong local presence, use the past for direct benefits. The examination of the data allows us to draw some conclusions concerning the agents behind the active manipulation of the past. Within a civic context, the potential of the past and its uses are largely understood by an active and ambitious elite with personal and state expediencies. The extent of their success partly depends on the realisation of the power they held. i Acknowledgements This thesis is the result of four years of research carried out at the School of Archaeology and Ancient History of the University of Leicester. The whole project was greatly supported both by the School and the Greek Archaeological Committee UK (GACUK). I would like to personally thank Mrs Matti Egon, Dr Zetta Theodoropoulou Polychroniadis, Professor Panos Arvanitakis and Professor Irene Lemos; without the financial support of the Committee, this would have been an impossible task. During this period of study, a number of people supported me in completing this dissertation. First and foremost, my thanks go to my main supervisor, Professor Graham Shipley for his invaluable guidance and thought-provoking comments that supported my attempt from the beginning. The final piece is surely improved by his feedback. I am also indebted to my second supervisor Dr Daniel Stewart for reading, supporting and promoting my work in every way possible. I offer my deepest thanks to both as they have helped me not only to express and expand on my ideas but grow as a person. Besides my supervisors, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Mary Harlow and Dr Jan Haywood for the comments and insights they provided while reading parts of my work. I am also grateful for the useful comments and advice from Professor Sophia Aneziri and Professor Selene Psoma. Last but not least, I am indebted to Professor Keith Rutter and Dr Simon Glenn for their guidance in numismatics and their comments on relevant research. Alongside them, several colleagues have assisted me through the years both with their advice and their presence. The postgraduate team of the department was there to help each other in good and bad times, and they deserve a big thank you – one way or another they have helped me to pull this through. On this note, I would like to particularly mention Dr Andrea Scarpato and Stephanos Apostolou, along with Dr Michaela Šenková, Dr Stelios Andreadakis, Jane Ainsworth, Nina Charami, Dr Crysta Kaczmarek, Dr Sergio Gonzalez Sanchez, Dr Muna Abdelhamed and Korakot Boonlop who were always present and offered their continuous support. I am lucky not only to know them as fellow researchers but to call them friends. I should also mention here Debbie and Nick Wright for opening their house, offering ii their help, and providing ample tours in the English countryside – much needed breaks from research. I would also wish to thank the Professional Services team of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History, and especially Adam Thuraisingam, for their tireless efforts and patience. Their support made the whole trip easier and much less complicated. On a more personal note, first of all comes my partner in life, Maria Lymperopoulou. Only with her continuous support and encouragement this thesis became a reality. She was always there, reading my drafts, discussing my ideas and offering constructive criticisms; she was first to support me and last to condemn me. Certainly, without the continuous support and care of my family everything would be much more difficult if not impossible. I cannot thank them enough for their concern and guidance; their comments proved to be invaluable even in subjects far from their expertise. To my parents, Manolis and Maria, Nassos and Georgia and my brothers Errikos and Alexandros, thank you for always supporting my efforts, even when I wavered. Next to them, my grandmothers Marika and Penelope and my uncle Nikos Stergiopoulos stand, with their tireless efforts and genuine interest in my studies. I am also indebted to Aris and Niki Liakoura for their direct support and thoughts. Finally, my thanks go to my friends, who by interest and support walked with me on this journey, even if great distance was put between us. Last but not least, they deserve nothing less than my full devotion. iii Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... vii Note on Dates ........................................................................................................................................ ix Note on Names and Translations .................................................................................................. ix Note on Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ x 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Research Questions and Project Objectives ................................................................. 6 1.2. Thesis Outline ....................................................................................................................... 13 1.3. Discussing the Primary Sources .................................................................................... 16 1.3.1. Some Observations on the Primary Material ................................................... 16 1.3.2. Early Hellenistic Athens ........................................................................................... 22 1.3.3. Early Hellenistic Sparta ............................................................................................ 23 1.3.4. Polybios and the Achaian League ......................................................................... 24 1.3.5. Samos and Priene ....................................................................................................... 25 2. Methodological and Theoretical Framework ................................................................... 26 2.1. Towards a Methodological Framework ..................................................................... 31 2.2. From Memory to Collective Memory ........................................................................... 33 2.3. Assmann’s Model of Cultural and Communicative Memory .............................. 37 2.4. There and Back Again: From Memory to Identity and Imaginaire .................. 39 2.5. Methodological Concerns and Limitations ................................................................ 42 2.6. Historical Tradition and the Mentality of Hegemony ........................................... 47 3. Early Hellenistic Athens: Tales of Memory and History ............................................... 53 3.1. Creating and Dissolving: The Use of the Past in Athenian Discourse ............. 55 3.1.1. Informing the Athenian Imaginaire: